Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 07-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1986, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Lewis, Jane Paulus, John Palmer, John Skagerberg, Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Phil Sked and John Bailey MEMBERS ABSENT: David Runyan and Virginia Shaw STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Palmer moved for approval of the June 5, 1986 Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting Minutes. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. Mr. Palmer moved for approval of the July 30, 1986 Community Development and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: Z-86-2 and S-86-4 Namron Corporation, R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -4 Planned Residence District Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission the subject request was continued at the last meeting to allow the proponent time to respond to Commission criticism on density, parking/traffic, and site development issues. The proponent has submitted revised plans in response to the Commission's comments. Mr. Larsen explained the revised site plan illustrates 135 units, or a reduction of 15 units from the original plan. The density is reduced from 21.9 units per acre to 19.8 units per acre. This compares to 18 at Villa Way and 24 at Interlachen Court. Mr. Larsen pointed out the revised plan illustrates 169 covered parking spaces and 101 surface spaces. The spaces provided conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirement of 1.25 covered spaces per unit and .75 surface spaces. In response to comments by Commissioners the plan suggest eliminating 33 of the surface spaces. Eliminating the spaces would help save existing site vegetation. The developer would agree to provide a proof of parking agreement to insure the spaces would be added should a parking shortage develop. Mr. Larsen added Hennepin County has reviewed the project and proposed curb cuts. The revised site plan has the approval of County staff. Mr. Larsen continued building setbacks provided in the revised site plan exceed Ordinance requirements. Building design and materials remain the same as the original proposal. The original proposal contained only one and two bedroom units. The revised plan included 12 three bedroom units. The developer has supplied sections to show the relationship of the proposed building to surrounding properties. Mr. Larsen concluded the revised site plan responds well to Staffs criticisms of the original plan. Density has been reduced, setbacks have been increased and more of the existing vegetation is saved. Staff recommends preliminary rezoning approval and preliminary plat approval conditioned as follows: 1. Acceptable Final Development Plans. 2. Final Plat Approval. 3. Subdivision Dedication. 4. Developers Agreement. 5. Proof of Parking Agreement. Mr. Norman Bjornnes, proponent, Mr. Nick Palaia, Architect and residents of the area were present. Mr. Bjornnes thanked the Commission for their previous recommendations and informed them he felt compliance has been achieved. He agreed with the Commission's concern on traffic adding traffic is also his concern. He reminded the Commission his project is marketed for the empty nester's, who as group, tend to make less trips during peak traffic hours. Mr. Bjornnes told the Commission his company has retained a forester. The forester will work with them to keep tree loss at a minimum. He pointed out with the help of a forester they will be able to transplant removed trees to untouched areas on the site. Mr. Bjornnes said the proposed project will have minimal visual impact on the neighborhood and will retain privacy for future tenants. Mr. Palaia told the Commission Hennepin County has reviewed the proposed ingress/egress location, and have concluded the proposed location is best suited for this site, offering superior site lines. Mr. Palaia added Hennepin County does not feel traffic will be an issue at this site. Mr. Palaia pointed out changes in the plan noting the reduction of units, improvements in visitor parking, and the developer's concern for maintaining the natural vegetation of the site. Mrs. McClelland wondered if the proposed drive lanes would be wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles (i.e fire trucks). Mr. Bjornnes responded that all lanes meet the safety requirements of the Edina Fire Department. The following residents expressed their opposition to the proposal submitted by Namron Corporation. Dr. R. Benjamin of 5205 Duncraig Road, N. Senescall, 5325 Ayrshire Boulevard, Lawrence Wood, 5253 Lochloy Drive, Norman Groth, 5300 Ayrshire Boulevard, W. J. Mahoney, 5309 Ayrshire Boulevard, Dr. B. Wright, 5229 Duncraig Road, Charles Donnelly, 5205 Lochloy Drive, Earl Halvorsen, 5233 Lochloy Drive, Herman Jolosky, 5281 Lochloy, and Richard Mortensen, 5328 Windsor Avenue. There concerns are as follows: 1. The major concern expressed by the residents of the area is traffic safety. a.) Ayrshire Boulevard and Vernon Avenue at the present time, with present traffic flows, is a dangerous and hard to navigate intersection. With the addition of the proposed 135 unit apartment complex traffic flows would increase at an already potentially dangerous intersection. b.) Speed Limit. Residents feel the speed limit on Vernon Avenue is too high. They would like to see a reduction in the speed limit from 40 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour. c.) Traffic Signal. For safety, residents recommend a traffic signal on Ayrshire Boulevard and Vernon Avenue. 2. The preservation of neighborhood character and atmosphere would be compromised with the addition of an apartment complex. 3. Environment. The change in topography, loss of vegetation and wildlife would be felt by all residents. A discussion ensued between the Commission, proponent's and residents regarding the above mentioned concerns. The Commission felt Namron Incorporated responded appropriately to their recommendations and have developed a plan that complies with Edina's Zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission recognized the concerns of the residents focusing their attention on possible solutions to the traffic issue. Mr. Del Johnson suggested when possible, residents take alternate routes to enter/exit the Highlands. Mrs. McClelland proposed cutting vegetation back 5- 10 feet on Ayrshire Boulevard to improve the site lines for the Ayrshire/Vernon intersection. Mr. Skagerberg and Mr. Palmer recommended that the City Engineer and the Edina City Council look into the possibility of erecting a traffic signal at the Ayrshire/Vernon intersection. Mr. Bjornnes said he has no objection to a traffic light at that intersection adding it would benefit the perspective tenants of his proposed complex. Mrs. Paulus told the residents the Commission is sympathetic to their concerns. She said Edina has a Comprehensive Plan that is a guideline for City Planner's, staff and officials. The Land Use Element has designated this area as an area for high density. She pointed out all undeveloped land within the City has a zoning of R-1. The R-1 zoning enables the City to exercise control over undeveloped areas Mrs. McClelland moved for rezoning and preliminary plat approval subject to staff conditions with the following recommendations: 1. Trim an area of greenspace on Ayrshire Boulevard to improve the site lines to enter Vernon Avenue. 2. Request that traffic counts be taken by Hennepin County at S the Ayrshire Boulevard/Vernon Avenue intersection. 3. Recommend if warranted that a traffic signal be erected at the Ayrshire Boulevard/Vernon Avenue intersection or a re- alignment of the road to better improve the site lines. 4. Reduction of the speed limit along Vernon Avenue from 40 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. III. NEW BUSINESS: LD -86-12 Lots 9 and 10, Block 3, Interlachen Heights Mr. Larsen told the Commission the lot division request involves two vacant lots in the recently approved subdivision of Interlachen Heights. The lots front on the Green Farm Court cul de sac. Mr. Larsen explained there are two purposes for the lot division request. First, it was discovered that the adjacent property owner adjacent to Lot 10 had installed a fence which encroached by 7.5 feet on Lot 10, and part of Lot 9. Parcel A, from Lot 9, and Parcel B from Lot 10 are to be deeded to the adjacent property to settle the adverse possession claim. Second, Parcel B is to be transferred to Lot 10 from Lot 9. Mr. Larsen concluded both lots will continue to exceed ordinance standards. Due to the existing topography Parcel B relates better to Lot 10 than to Lot 9. Staff recommends approval. Mrs. McClelland moved for approval. Mrs. Paulus seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted,