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,