HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-31 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularA G E N D A
MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1990, AT 7:30 A.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
January 3, 1990
II. OLD BUSINESS:
Z-90-1 Ron Clark Construction Inc., R-1, Single Dwelling
& Unit District to PRD -3, Planned Residential District.
Generally located south of West 70th Street and west
of Cahill Road.
S-90-1 Preliminary Plat Approval for Ridgewood Addition.
Ron Clark Construction Inc. Generally located
south of West 70th Street and west of Cahill Road
(Cahill School Site).
III. NEW BUSINESS:
Z-90-2 Waters and Bonner, R-1,•Single Dwelling Unit
& District to R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District.
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Smisek Addition
LD -90-2 Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Smisek Addition
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Single Family
Residential to Low Density Attached Residential
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1990, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Gordon Johnson, Nan Faust, Robert Hale, Lee
Johnson, John Bailey, David Runyan, John Palmer, Geof
Workinger, Virginia Shaw, Helen McClelland
MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Ingwalson
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner Runyan moved for approval of the January 3, 1990 Edina
Community Development and Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Workinger
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
Z-90-1 Ron Clark Construction Inc., R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District
to PRD -3, Planned Residential District. Generally located south
& of West 70th Street and west of Cahill Road.
S-90-1 Preliminary Plat Approval for Ridgewood Addition. Ron Clark
Construction Inc. Generally located south of West 70th Street
and west of Cahill Road.
Mr. Larsen began his presentation by clarifying for the Commission the notice
process for Planning Commission Meetings. Mr. Larsen explained at the present
time the notice requirement for single family subdivision requires the proponent
to notify single family property owners within 500 feet of the proposed
subdivision. This notification does not include owners of townhouses or
condominiums. Mr. Larsen noted that that is something staff, the Commission,
and Council Members may want to review. Mr. Larsen said before this requirement
no mailing notification for the Planning Commission hearing was required. State
Statute requires that notification be mailed to property owners within 200 feet
10 days before the Council meets to hear the proposal. Mr. Larsen pointed out
the City of Edina exceeds State Statute requirements.
Continuing, Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission that at its last meeting the
Commission voted to recommend amending the Comprehensive Plan from Quasi Public
to Medium Density Residential for the westerly portion of the proposed townhouse
development. The easterly portion of the proposed townhouse site is currently
shown as Medium Density Residential. The Commission also voted to accept the
recommendation of the Heritage Preservation Board to remove the Heritage
Preservation zoning on the old St. Patrick's church site. The Commission
continued the townhouse rezoning proposal and the proposed preliminary plat.
Mr. Larsen reported to the Commission the proponents have returned with a
revised plan in response to their criticisms. The plan continues to illustrate
13 single family lots and 25 townhouse units. However, changes in the location
of the townhouse buildings and the location and alignment of the road have
produced significant changes in the planned development.
Mr. Larsen concluded that Commission criticism of the townhouse development
focused on the transition from the westerly most building to the single family
lots. The revised plan improves this transition in three ways. First, the
building has been moved to the east approximately 25 feet. This was
accomplished by combining the three and four unit buildings on the east end of
the site into one seven unit building. Second, the westerly building is moved
down the hill providing an eight -ten foot grade separation from the single
family lot to the west. Third, the site plan proposes a dense planting of
evergreen trees to screen the different uses. Other elements of the development
remain the same as in the initial proposal. At 5.8 units per acre this would be
the lowest density multifamily development along Cahill Road.
Mr. Larsen explained that moving the townhouses to the east also benefits the
single family lots, especially lot 9. Lot nine now has a minimum depth of 150
feet. This shift along with the realignment of the street has eliminated all
variances, except those associated with lot 7. Lot 7 remains essentially the
same as in the initial proposal. Variances are requested from the minimum
street frontage requirement, the minimum lot width and lot width to perimeter
ratio are requested. Although lot 7 is a neck lot by definition, development of
the lot will not result in a poor relationship between this home and the homes
developed on adjacent lots. That is, it will not result in a home built in the
back yard of another home. The lot will be similar to some of the more
desirable lots in the southern portion of Dewey Hill 2nd Addition. With the
elimination of all other variances the improvements to lots 8 and 9, staff would
recommend the variances requested for lot 7. The layout and variances are
caused by the topography of the site.
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note the recommended conditions to
Preliminary Approval:
1. Final Rezoning Approval
2. Final Plat Approval
3. Parkland Dedication - Cash in lieu of land
4. Developer's Agreement
5. Landscaping Bond
6. Investigation of the feasibility of developing a "pocket" historical
park at the corner of 70th and Cahill
The proponent, Mr. Ron Clark, Nancy Horn, Mike Gair, Mr. Clark's associates, and
interested neighbors were present.
Chairman G. Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if he believes there will be room for a
pocket park on the proposed site. Mr. Larsen said under consideration at the
present time is the possibility of locating the pocket park on the east side of
the street. He added renovation is taking place at King's Court and the
property owner has expressed interest in locating the park at this site.
Mr. Smithson, 5608 West 70th Street, questioned who has the authority to remove
the historic overlay district that exists on the Cahill site at the present.
Chairman, G. Johnson said the City Council has that authority. He added the
Historical Society and Heritage Preservation Board along with the Planning
Commission have recommended to the Council removal of the Heritage Preservation
Overlay District recommending in its place a "pocket park" and/or some form of
commemorative kiosk. Mr. Larsen said in Edina there are two groups who study
historic matters, (Historical Society and Heritage Preservation). Both Boards
have studied the proposal and have come to the conclusion that the site is what
is relevant, therefore they suggested the "pocket park". Commissioner L.
Johnson said he has a copy of the Heritage Preservation Board Minutes and their
recommendation. Chairman G. Johnson asked that Mr. Nyberg's motion be read into
the minutes: HPB, Meeting, Tuesday, November 28, 1989. "Gary Nyberg then moved
to recommend to the Council that the church building be removed from the site
and a pocket park commemorating the historic Cahill Settlement be developed, the
park should incorporate the footings from the original 1884 church and be a part
of the developer's parkland dedication, Mrs. Wilder seconded the motion. Mr.
Palmer said the "pocket park" is something that the Commission can only express
ideas on and that the park idea should be investigated as part of the final
approval process. Commissioner L. Johnson asked if that motion would eliminate,
at least from the Heritage Preservation Board's point of view locating the
"pocket park" on the east side of Cahill. Mr. Larsen clarified that the City
Council, Heritage Preservation Board and the Historical Society have met on this
proposal and noted that the structure is not the original structure, therefore,
the area of the settlement is what is important. Mr. Larsen said it is his
understanding that the footings should be incorporated into the "pocket park"
where ever it is located. Chairman G. Johnson clarified for Commission Members
and public, staff's recommendations for preliminary approval of this proposal:
1) final plat approval 2) parkland dedication, 3) developers agreement, 5)
landscape plan review and inspection fee 6) investigation of a "pocket park"
pursuant to the recommendation of the Heritage Preservation Board.
Mr. Gair representing Mr. Clark asked Members of the Commission to note the
changes made to the previously submitted proposal. He pointed out the entire
townhouse development has been shifted to the east and the buildings have been
reoriented. This shift locates the townhomes down the hill and eliminates the
retaining walls. The exterior of the proposed townhouses would be brick and
stucco. Mr. Gair pointed out the density of the proposed townhouses is below
the density of townhouses in the immediate area.
Mr. Robert Morris, representing Mr. Clark went through for the Commission the
history of the traffic analysis that occurred on the site. He pointed out that
the ADT (Average Daily Trips) for the school total 1176. The proposed
development would have an ADT of 353 trips. Mr. Morris added that the proposed
land use change to a residential development would not have a negative impact on
traffic volume.
Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Morris if he studied anything other than
traffic counts. Mr. Morris said he suggested a review of the driveway
placements. Mr. Hoffman concurred that the driveway situation on West 70th
should be reviewed and told the Commission he has spoke to representatives from
Mr. Clark about re -locating one of the driveways. Commissioner Faust said she
does not agree with the figures for traffic volume as it pertains to single
family homes. She asked Mr. Hoffman if he would concur with their numbers. Mr.
Hoffman said by his calculations the ADT would be 400 for residential land use,
he noted they have calculated an ADT of 353. Commissioner Shaw said the
topography is very difficult at the sight line where the driveway is located on
West 70th Street, and asked what is a good sight line distance. Mr. Morris said
that would depend on the speed of the vehicles. Mr. Hoffman said a good sight
line distance for that intersection would be 350 feet.
Mr. Smithson told the Commission he polled a majority of property owners in the
area and asked the Commission to note that they object to the high density
aspect of this proposal. Mr. Smithson submitted a petition opposing the
proposed development. Mr. Smithson added residents of the area want to see all
single family homes constructed and if that is unrealistic, on the east end they
would like to see developed low density residences similar to double bungalows.
He pointed out they do not want to see more townhouses. Single family homes
will protect residential property values while townhomes will have a negative
impact on their value. Continuing, Mr. Smithson said they want more of a
buffer and more landscaping.
Ms. Aksoy, 5600 West 70th Street told the Commission that it is her
understanding that Mr. Fynlayson wants to keep the church.
Ms. Hersey, 5501 Highpointe told the Commission that she counted cars on Cahill
and 70th Street. She added that on January 17, 1990 she counted 108 cars
between 1:10-1:20 p.m. and 232 cars between 1:45-2:30 p.m. Mr. Miles Hersey,
5501 Highpointe told the Commission he does not want to look at townhouse roof
lines, he added he would like to have a better buffer than the one at present.
He said Mr. Clark promised more plantings than the present lilac bushes. He
also pointed out he was told by Mr. Clark that the site the church is on has
historical significance and it would remain that way. Mr. Hersey reiterated
that he doesn't want to look at more townhomes, he wants a park, like the park
at 50th and Wooddale.
Mr. Burley, 7109 Lanham Lane told the Commission he has a concern with traffic
and the speed at which vehicles travel down West 70th Street. He said traffic
is a problem on West 70th Street and a high density development would just add
to the problem.
Mr. Ted Stein, 5524 West 70th Street told the Commission he wants the land
either left as it is, or developed into single family residences.
Mr. Burley, asked Mr. Larsen if the property has to be developed. Mr. Larsen
said the property is private and the City can only control how it is developed
or it has to buy it. Mr. Larsen added the City has no funds to acquire such a
large piece of property.
Commissioner Bailey said he wants to see the property developed as total single
family residential. He added if that is not possible, to at least consider
double bungalows on the east portion of the property.
Mr. Smithson asked if there could be protective covenants that would ensure that
if approved, the proposed townhouses and private homes would be owner occupied.
He also asked if there could be aesthetic restrictions put on the project. Mr.
Larsen said the City does not require the properties to be owner occupied. He
said the City would assume, because of the price of the units, that they would
be owner occupied. Mr. Larsen added the City does not control aesthetics, but
has control over the size and shape of the lots, entrance, exits, grading, water
control etc. for single family lots. The townhouse portion of the development
must be built exactly as approved by the Commission and City Council. This
includes building size, location, exterior materials and landscaping. Mr. Clark
indicated the price per unit would be between 245-300 thousand and would be
owner occupied. After the townhouse units are occupied to a certain percentage,
-control of the project is turned over to the association for their control.
Commissioner Shaw asked Mr. Clark what his answer is to the question raised by
Mr. Hersey on the church. Mr. Clark said at the time he constructed the
Highpointe project the site was historically protected and at that time the
property was not for sale by Mr. Iverson.
Commissioner Runyan expressed confusion on what the neighbors in the area want
to see at this location. He asked if area residents want a park only where the
townhouses are proposed, or do they want something less dense than what has been
proposed. He noted that in his opinion area residents would be very favorable
to the single family home project. He added single family homes would be more
attractive to look at than the school building.
Mr. Gair, pointed out that on the Comprehensive Land Use Map shows the property
has been designated as medium density.
Commissioner McClelland said she realizes that the plan has been revised but in
her opinion it is too dense. She added she will not support development of a
neck lot. Commissioner McClelland said residents have many valid concerns and
in that area of Edina there is no shortage of townhomes. She pointed out that
area of Edina is saturated with high density developments and it is not fair to
the single family property owners in the area. Commissioner McClelland said
that she can not in good conscious support the proposed development as
presented. She indicated that every piece of property in Edina does not have to
be developed. She told the neighbors in the area that there have been instances
in the recent past where property owners in the immediate area have gotten
together to purchase property to protect it from development. Commissioner
Faust and Commissioner Bailey said they concur with Commissioner McClellands
comments.
Mr. Smithson, said Mr. Clark builds very beautiful single family homes and would
like to see him build more single family homes. He asked the Commission if Mr.
Clark develops single family homes to look favorably at variances that may be
needed.
Commissioner Johnson said he has a number of concerns his first being the site
distances which are unresolved and would have an impact on how the development
is laid out and graded. The retaining wall on Village Drive is bowing, and it
is still a new wall, that wall should be removed and the site should be sloped
at something less than 3 to 1. Secondly, he is in favor of the neck lot. He
pointed out that lot will probably be the most desirable lot in the proposed
plat. Commissioner L. Johnson said he does have a problem with lot 13 and upon
approval the Commission could say lot 13 would have to face 70th Street or face
east and have it's entrance on West 70th Street. A front yard facing rear yards
of other homes does not make sense. He added if the easement to lot 13 would be
allowed the driveway would be 250 foot driveway. Commissioner L. Johnson noted
that he has no problem with 13 lots, adding the single family aspect of the
proposal is very positive. Third, Commissioner L. Johnson said he would like to
see some sort of a slope easement at the erosion control fence point that would
be recordable. He added in a sense it would be a conservation easement, with no
grading or clearing of vegetation allowed in that area. Forth, townhouses would
be an acceptable land use if they would be constructed with 4 units, maximum, or
a smaller variation. Commissioner L. Johnson pointed out that the roof line
mass would probably be the same as single family homes. Commissioner L. Johnson
said he has a concern with the easterly portion of the property in that the
mature oak trees should be preserved. He added maintaining the oak trees and
siting the buildings to save them would create an open space feeling and would
give the area it's needed green space and park like atmosphere. Mr. Clark said
the retaining wall that is bowing was constructed by Mr. Findell. Mr. Clark
said if the retaining wall was removed and the grade reduced the townhouses
would be more exposed. Commissioner L. Johnson said the retaining walls on the
northwest corner of the townhouse site have about 18 feet of rotted retaining
walls and it could affect the water flow. Mr. Hoffman agreed that that
situation may result in too much water and he has spoken to Mr. Clarks people on
this situation. Mr. Hoffman said the wall is a concern and he is intending to
notify Mr. Findell regarding the wall. He added the wall could be washed away
and the Engineering Department is aware of that possibility.
Commissioner Shaw said she believes in buffering single family dwellings from
commercial with low or medium density residential, adding, the whole project
being single family doesn't make sense when the City has tried so hard to buffer
single family homes from commercial with this buffering of low to medium density
residential. Commissioner Shaw said maybe staff should consider more green
space for the area instead of the recommended cash in lieu of land. Chairman G.
Johnson said the City then would be responsible for maintaining the park like
area and would be an expense for the City that they may not be budgeted for.
Commissioner Shaw suggested that maybe the townhouse association could maintain
the park. Commissioner L. Johnson suggested that if Mr. Clark reduces the
density on the townhouse portion of the project and adds adequate landscaping a
park like atmosphere could be achieved.
Commissioner Workinger said he has not objection to the single family proposal
except for the development of lot 13 in regards to its easement. He also added
he really doesn't like the proposed neck lot but in regards to this proposal lot
13 is the one that causes the biggest concern. Commissioner Workinger added
with respect to the easterly portion, the townhouses, he feels the character and
symmetry of the neighborhood should be respected. He added he is bothered by
the density of the townhouse proposal, especially the middle portion.
Commissioner Workinger said regardless of the land size for the townhouse
proposal he feels a closeness and tightness with the layout of that aspect of
the project. Continuing, Commissioner Workinger said staff should work with Mr.
Clark to lessen the density of the project.
Commissioner McClelland moved to table the meeting until the meeting of February
28, 1990 allowing Mr. Clark time to respond to the issues raised at this
meeting. Commissioner Shaw seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion
carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
Z-90-2 R-1, Single Family to R-2, Double Dwelling Unit
District. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Smisek Addition
S '
LD -90-2 Lot line adjustment between Lots 1 and 2 and 2 and 3,
Block 2, Smisek Addition
Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Single Family Residential to Low Density Attached
Residential
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property comprises three single
family lots platted in 1971 in connection with the development of the Windwoods
Condominium building. Two of the lots are vacant. The third, the middle lot,
has a single family home which was moved to the site in 1971. Development of
the Windwoods Condominiums eliminated public street frontage for the lots. The
lots were landlocked until the construction of Delaney Boulevard in 1979-1980.
The lots are bounded on three sides by City owned open space/ponding areas. All
uses east of the property are multi -family residential developments.
Mr. Larsen explained the proponents, Waters and Bonner, have petitioned to
rezone the three lots from R-1 to R-2 to allow the development of three double
bungalows. This action also requires amending the Comprehensive Plan from
Single Family Residential to Low Density Attached Residential. The Zoning
Ordinance requires R-2 lots to be at least 90 feet wide with a lot area of at
least 15,000 square feet. All of the lots exceed the minimum requirements for
R-2 lots. The lots are approximately 120 feet wide and contain 15,948, 17,560,
and 17,030, square feet respectively.
Mr. Larsen told the Commission in addition to the rezoning the proponents are
requesting a lot division affecting the two common lot lines. The proposed lot
line changes are illustrated on the site plan.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, the rezoning from R-1 to R-2, and the proposed lot division. The
primary orientation of the lots is to the condominiums on the east side of
Delaney Boulevard. The lots are isolated from the single family homes in Dewey
Hill by the park ponding area to the west. These relationships and the relative
isolation of the lots reduces their desirability for single family home sites.
The R-2 use represents the best use of the land.
The proponent, Mr. Bonner was present.
Commissioner Hale told the Commission he is in favor of the lots maintaining
their present R-1 status. Commissioner Hale added that he would like the site
to be developed with three single family homes versus the proposed three
doubles.
Commissioner Workinger questioned Mr. Bonner on the slope of the property. Mr.
Bonner explained that the sites are beautifully sloped to accommodate natural
walk out lots. He said in his opinion the development of doubles provides the
buffer between the high density condominiums and the single family homes across
the pond. Commissioner Faust agreed with Mr. Bonner, adding that is what the
City traditionally has tried to provide, a gradual transition between high
density residential and single family residential, and in her opinion this
proposal makes good planning sense.
Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Bonner if the proposed doubles would be
homestead property or rental. Mr. Bonner said the doubles would be owner
occupied.
Commissioner Runyan said he believes the proposal as presented is a wonderful
developmental solution for these lots. He added he is familiar with the work of
Waters and Bonner and has found that they construct quality residences.
Mr. Krueger, of Edina Realty, told the Commission he is very excited about this
proposal, adding he has clients that are Edina residents who are ready to sell
their single family homes, and are looking for newly constructed doubles within
the City. He said this proposal fits the needs of many of Edina's empty
nesters.
Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Bonner if he has established a price for the
doubles and square footage. Mr. Bonner said an exact price has not been
established, but will probably be in the upper 200's range. He said the square
footage will be approximately 2700 total, and the architectural flavor would be
a Cape Code.
Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend Preliminary Rezoning approval, lot
division approval and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner L.
Johnson seconded the motion. Ayes; Workinger, Faust, Bailey, L. Johnson, Shaw,
Palmer, Runyan, G. Johnson. Nays; Hale, McClelland. Motion carried.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
The Commission asked Mr. Larsen to look into the possibility of including in the
mailing list required by the proponent for subdivision of single family lots
townhome and condominium owners.
V. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Cvr4e Hoogenakker, Secre ry
y� f