Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 11-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER'S MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, William Lewis; Lee Johnson, John Bailey, Helen McClelland, Gordon Johnson, David Runyan, John Palmer, Virginia Shaw and Geoff Workinger MEMBERS ABSENT: Jane Paulus and Del Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Runyan moved for approval of the November 2, 1988 Community Development and Planning Commission Minutes. Commissioner Palmer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. C-88-3 Conditional Use Permit Good Samaritan United Methodist Church 5730 Grove Street Mr. Larsen presented his staff report noting the church has presented a plan which is well designed and well sited. Adequate on-site parking is provided and parking will be well screened. He expressed concern over the proposed Tracy Avenue access/driveway. The church does have access from three streets. The only benefit seems to be the ability to construct a sign on Tracy Avenue. Mr. Larsen concluded that he doesn't believe removing a home and constructing a long drive way will benefit the neighborhood. If the access to Tracy were eliminated he said he would recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to a Proof of Parking Agreement requiring a review of on site parking demand prior to the addition of the 38 additional seats in the sanctuary. Representatives for the church, Mrs. NAas, Minister Gordon Minehart, Mr. Strachota, architect, Carlson Mjorud Architecture Ltd., and interested neighbors were present. Mrs. Naas spoke to the Commission on how important it is for the church to achieve visibility from Tracy Avenue. She explained that Tracy Avenue is a major through -a -fare within the City and an identification sign on Tracy Avenue for the church is needed. She pointed out the church buildings are hidden within the topography and dense vegetation of the area. Mrs. Naas said a main reason for the proposal of a new road off Tracy Avenue is to gain the needed visibility and an easier identifying address for persons who are non -parishioners. Gordon Minehart, minister for the church submitted to the Commission a report and pointed out three concerns felt by the church which are listed in the report from a book Twelve Keys to an Effective Church, by Kennon L. Callahan. The three concerns are as follows: "l. Can the church site be easily seen from major traffic arteries? 2. How many people in fact see the church site each day? 3. How many people see the church site in a given week?" Mr. Minehart reiterated Mrs. Naas's statements on how important it is for the church to achieve visibility. He asked the Commission to note that if the proposed road access from Tracy Avenue is approved the area would be beautifully landscaped. Mr. Strachota, architect for the project explained with graphics the proposed additions and the proposed road. Residents of the area spoke favorably of aspects in the proposal but expressed concern regarding the proposed road. Mr. Whitmore, 5712 Tracy Avenue pointed out if the road is approved impacted residents would experience a loss of privacy and a possible decrease in their property values. Mr. Whitmore said construction of the proposed road, though narrow, would adversely impact the topography and vegetation of the area. William Hamglen voiced a concern regarding vehicle speed on Tracy Avenue and the possibility of a potential safety hazard developing if another curb cut is allowed. Wayne Fridlund, 5712 Grove Street, told the Commission he resides on the property next to the proposed road, and his family also owns the vacant lot next to the proposed road. He explained if approved, his privacy would be lost by a road running along the width of his rear yard. He added all rear yards, if road approval is granted, would be accessible to vehicular disturbances. Mr. Fridlund added that there have been instances where youths have "partied" in the parking area for the church and another access would make the site appealing for youths to occasionally use the parking area as a meeting place. Mr. Larry Fisher, 5705 Wycliffe Road and Audrey Clay, 5716 Wycliffe Road, told the Commission they whole -heartily agree with the proposed requests from the church. They said the church needs the visibility which can be achieved by a Tracy Avenue address and access. They asked the Commission to approve this request. It was pointed out by Mr. Fridlund that the proposed road does not impact the residents on Wycliffe Road. Commissioner Runyan said he understands the churches need for visibility and asked Mr. Larsen to clarify his reasons for opposing this request. Mr. Larsen said he sympathizes with the church's need for visibility but does not see a community gain when a single family home is removed and a long drive -way is constructed. In a sense the neighborhood would be fragmented if a road's construction results in the razing of a single family home and the opening up of rear yards this road. Commissioner Palmer said he agrees with Mr. Larsen's observations that to add an additional curb cut on Tracy Avenue and to raze a single family home to gain visibility for the church does not make good planning sense. Commissioner Palmer questioned how long the church has owned the property where the house is located. Mrs. Naas said the church has owned the site for two months. The Commission asked Mr. Larsen for clarification on if an identification sign could be erected on the recently purchased property on Tracy Avenue even if a road was not constructed. Mr. Larsen responded that the property in questions is not contiguous to the church proper and therefore a sign could not be erected. The property could be sold or used as rental property for the church. Mr. Larsen pointed out there is a City right of way between the church proper and the recently purchased property. Commissioner L. Johnson pointed out the construction of the proposed road would require a large amount of fill and the grove of trees would have to be eliminated. Mr. Strachota said that is a good point and the site would have to be restored with vegetation. Commissioner L. Johnson said the proposal is very well done but he would have difficulty in recommending approval of the access to Tracy Avenue. Commissioner Bailey agreed and said in a sense the City would be creating a "neck" entrance into the site. Commissioner G. Johnson explained that he also supports aspects of the proposal but cannot support the proposed road. It would divide a block and create another curb cut on Tracy Avenue. Commissioner G. Johnson pointed out that a single family home generates between 6-10 trips per day and the church would generate many more trips per day. He added he understands their need for visibility but cannot think of a solution to meet that need. Commissioner G. Johnson asked Mrs. Naas if the Commission supports the staff recommendation of eliminating the proposed road would the church continue with the plans for the addition. Mrs. Naas replied that the church would continue with their plans for expansion. Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend approval as stated in the staff report. Commissioner Bailey seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. S-88-13 Preliminary Plat Approval for Edina Highlands 2nd Addition, Steven Utne Mr. Larsen presented his staff report reminding the Commission that in September of this year a similar plat was presented for the subject property. At that time the Planning Commission recommended denial. The new plat under consideration at this time increases the new lot area by 1,215 square feet over the previous version. The frontage of the new buildable lot is also increased by 10 feet. Mr. Larsen pointed out the Edina Highlands is characterized by a variety of lot sizes and lot dimensions. Lot sizes range between approximately 12,300 square feet to over 73,000 square feet. Generally the frontage of lots in the plat is 90 feet or greater. Mr. Larsen explained the proponent has pointed out several original lots less than 90 feet. These include Lot 23 and Lot 32 of Block 1 and Lots 9 and 10 of Block 4. Lots 9 and 10 are similar in size and shape to the proposed plat. In 1964 a similar proposal was presented which received Preliminary Approval but was never brought in for Final Approval. That proposal is identical to the current proposal. Mr. Larsen concluded in the staffs opinion, the adjustments made to the plat to increase the size have brought it within an acceptable range relative to the surrounding neighborhood. Still of concern, however, is the impact a new dwelling will have on the topography and slope of the property. Staff therefore recommends approval contingent on: 1. Approved drainage plan. 2. Approved grading plan. 3. Final plat approval. $. Subdivision Dedication The proponent, Mr. Utne, his attorney, Mr. Naserio, and interested neighbors were present. Commissioner Bailey excused himself from the meeting. Commissioner McClelland pointed out that the neighborhood known as Edina Highlands was marketed in the early 1950's and since that time there have been no subdivisions in the area. Mr. Naserio with the aid of graphics pointed out to the Commission the property in question. He explained the proposed building pad would be 2,000 square feet. He said it is his belief that the proposed new lots do not violate the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. He added they fall within an acceptable size range, with a number of lots smaller and larger in the area. Commissioner L. Johnson questioned Mr. Naserio if the proposed house would be constructed with a double garage. Mr. Naserio replied that it would be constructed with a double garage. Commissioner G. Johnson excused himself from the meeting. Residents who spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision were Mike Bowlin, 5207 Duncaster Way, H. Brown, 3801 West 50th Street. Mr. Bowlin and Mr. Brown pointed out to the Commission that there are a number of concerns that should be addressed. They are as follows, 1) possible drainage problems that could occur if another house is placed on the property. 2) the proposed subdivision would violate the topography of the area. 3) the character and symmetry of the neighborhood would be compromised if another house is placed on the property. 4) a precedent would be set in the area if subdivision is allowed, land in Edina has become increasingly expensive, therefore, subdivision of properties could get out of hand. 5) this area contains private deed restrictions. Mr. Naserio told the Commission Mr. Utne has lived in Edina for 38 years and is a good neighbor. Mr. Naserio added Mr. Utne has no intention of violating the neighborhood. He informed the Commission during the heavy storm of 1987 Mr. Unte's property had no flooding problems. A discussion ensued with the Commission in agreement that this subdivision request violates community planning. Commissioner Palmer said in viewing the property another house placed on the site would violate the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. Frontage in this area is a very important factor that must be considered when making an educated decision. Commissioner L. Johnson agreed with Commissioner Palmer's observation that adequate frontage is an important determining factor in this neighborhood. Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend denial of the proposed subdivision. Commissioner Palmer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. III. OTHER BUSINESS: Southdale Area Economic Development District Mr. Larsen explained to the Commission that the City Council would like their comments on the Southdale Area Economic Development District. A discussion ensued with the Commission passing to the Council the following comment. "Any improvements in the district, road or otherwise, should be assessed to the benefiting merchants or paid for with state aide. On the other hand, tax increment financing for the transit spine of this district is acceptable to the Planning Commission because it is an area wide benefit." IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.