HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularA G E N D A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1990, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
March 28, 1990
II. OLD BUSINESS:
Z-90-1 Highcroft Townhomes, Ron Clark Construction
Cahill Road and West 70th Street
III. NEW BUSINESS:
S-90-3 Preliminary Plat Approval for subdivision of Lot 5,
Block 1, Muir Woods. J. A. Cunningham, 7120 Valley View
Road.
LD -90-5 Paul Curran and Patricia Curran
4209 Country Club Road
Lots 11-13, Block 14
Country Club District Fairway
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1990, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, G. Johnson, Faust, Hale, L. Johnson, Byron,
Workinger, McClelland, Runyan, Palmer, G. Johnson,
Ingwalson
MEMBERS ABSENT: V. Shaw
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner Runyan moved for approval of the March 28, 1990; Planning
Commission Minutes. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Motion carried. Chairman Johnson asked the secretary to note in the minutes of
March 28, 1990, that he abstained on the vote on the Tax Increment Districts,
44th and France and Valley View and Wooddale. He voted on the West 70th and
Cahill Road Tax Increment District.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
Z-90-1 Ron Clark Construction, Inc.
Rezoning, R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District, to PRD -2,
Planned Residence District.
General
Location: West 70th Street and Cahill Road
Mr. Larsen reported to the Commission the City Council, at its April 16, 1990,
meeting, referred the subject proposal back to the Commission. The proposal
remains the same as the one recommended for approval by the Commission on March
28, 1990.
Mr. Larsen explained since the last Commission meeting three conceptual plans
have been designed to commemorate the history of the Cahill settlement.
Mr. Larsen concluded that staff recommends the Commission reaffirm its March 28,
1990, motion approving the Final Rezoning for the development.
The proponent, Mr. Ron Clark, his representatives, Nancy Horn and Mike Gair were
present. Interested neighbors were present.
Chairman G. Johnson questioned if the Commission is to act on just the townhouse
portion of the plan. Mr. Larsen said that is correct.
1
Mr. Larsen told the Commission the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) met
regarding Mr. Clark's proposal and focused their discussion on the proposed
location of the historical marker. Mr. Larsen reported that the HPB recommended
that the historical marker be constructed on the north east corner of the site,
which is 70th and Cahill. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note that the HPB
indicated a preference for Plan B.
Mr. Gair introduced to the Commission design plans for the three proposed
locations for the commemorative park and marker. He briefly explained that each
location indicates that the commemorative area/marker will be built into the
berm. Plan A, as it is depicted, proposes a crescent shaped retaining wall
built into the berm. A hedge will center on top of the berm, with a boulder
retaining wall, including a planter, and a wall consisting of the concrete
blocks from the church foundation. Mr. Gair added, the wall will house five
plaques which will highlight the Cahill Settlement. Continuing, Mr. Gair said,
Plan B, has a hedge row as an accent to the upper level and a boulder wall, with
a planting bed on top of a low wall with a ledge for seating. He pointed out
this plan incorporates a obelisk shaped structure, constructed of the foundation
blocks from the church. This structure would contain plaques commemorating the
history of the Cahill Settlement and the peak would be similar to the peak of
the original church steeple. Mr. Gair explained to the Commission the final
plan, Plan C, also has a crescent shaped design, as in Plan A, but would be
outlined by a hedge row along the top and sides, followed by a retaining wall,
incorporating the foundation from the church. Plaques would be attached to this
wall and at the base of the display wall, a planter is proposed and a final low
wall which would provide seating. Concluding, Mr. Gair said the HPB as Mr.
Larsen has indicated expressed favor for Plan B.
Mr. Mike Gair continued his presentation focusing on the townhouse proposal,
asking the Commission to note the change that has been made to the plans
concerning the most westerly located four unit townhouse cluster on the site.
Continuing, Mr. Gair said the change is a reduction in height of the most
southerly located townhouse unit from two story's to one story. Mr. Gair went
on to explain that the proposed landscaping on the site has been corrected, and
increased, and will be implemented with flexibility, allowing the neighbors on
West 70th Street input on vegetation placement.
Chairman G. Johnson questioned why they chose to reduce the height of the
townhouse farthest away from West 70th Street. Mr. Gair explained that the
setback from West 70th Street to the nearest westerly townhouse unit is 90 feet
and with adequate landscaping they felt the impact to the properties across the
street would be reduced. Continuing, Mr. Clark explained that the terrain in
that area makes it impossible to reduce the height of those buildings to become
walkouts. As the terrain changes it became possible to reduce the height of the
end townhouse creating a walkout unit. Mr. Clark noted there is not a feasible
way to create walkout situations for the other three townhouse units.
Commissioner Faust said in her opinion the massiveness of the footprints of the
townhouses is a problem. She added the numbers may seem to work on paper, but
in reality, it may appear to crowded.
Commissioner Ingwalson asked Mr. Larsen to clarify for him how the proposed
flexibility in landscaping would occur. He added he wants to make sure an
adequate amount of landscaping is implemented on this site.
0)
Mr. Larsen explained that for Planned Residence Districts the City requires a
landscaping bond and a detailed landscaping plan that must be submitted at final
approval and implemented during construction. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said Mr.
Clark is submitting the required plan and in implementing the approved plan he
will add additional landscaping materials from the input of neighbors. The
developer may not reduce the amount of landscaping material or its size. Mr.
Gair clarified that the landscaping plan would be implemented and added to.
Commissioner Ingwalson asked who would make the determination on the plantings.
Mr. Clark said that would be his responsibility.
Commissioner McClelland asked how the Parkland Dedication would be handled,
would Mr. Clark finance construction of the park and pay a parkland dedication
fee. Mr. Larsen said at this time, that is what is recommended. Commissioner
McClelland commented that she feels the peak of the commemorate obelisk is to
high. She also expressed concern that teens may vandalize it. Commissioner
McClelland asked if the Park Department would have input on the proposed
commemorate area and it's maintenance. Mr. Larsen said the Park Department will
review Mr. Clark's plans.
Mr. Ralph Lindell, 7017 Antrim Road told the Commission he feels the site is too
dense, he added he wants to see the area maintain it's open, airy feeling. He
pointed out the continuity of Cahill Road will change because of this
development.
Mr. Scheerer, 5224 West 70th Street, told the Commission that reducing the
height of one unit will have no impact on the property owners along West 70th
Street.
Linda Smithson, 5608 West 70th Street, told the Commission she believes the
issue before them this evening is density. Continuing, she pointed out
regardless of the numbers, the proposal in reality will be too tight. She
submitted to the Commission a signed petition with 182 names opposing the
proposal.
Mr. Hellund, 5720 McGuire Road, told the Board the area where Mr. Clark proposes
to develop has been used as an neighborhood access to Lewis Park. Continuing,
Mr. Hellund said the density of the townhouses is out of character for the
neighborhood. Mr. Hellund suggested that Mr. Clark plant more deciduous trees.
Mr. Quigley, 5804 West 70th Street told the Commission in his opinion, that he
agrees with Mrs. Smithson, density is the issue and the resulting lack of
greenspace if the development is approved as presented.
Commissioner Runyan told the Commission, in his opinion, he does not consider
that this proposal is too dense. He commented that much discussion has centered
around the proposed commemorative area, and in his opinion, this area is for
foot traffic and for the enjoyment of residents in the neighborhood. He added
he believes very few people will drive to that location and want to park and
view the commemorate kiosk. Commissioner Runyan pointed out that with Planned
Residence Districts, Staff, Commission, and Council all have more control over
what is developed, especially regarding landscaping. Single Family Unit
Districts do not require any review for landscaping. Continuing, he added Mr.
Clarks suggestion to work with the neighbors in the placement of landscaping is
t -I
a plus that staff can ensure is properly implemented. Continuing, Commissioner
Runyan said guest parking for the townhouses should be in their driveways,
adding he would rather see more greenspace instead of asphalt. Concluding, Mr.
Runyan said in his opinion, single family homes should never be a buffer for a
commercial area.
Commissioner Palmer said he agrees with Commissioner Runyan's observations. He
noted that in his opinion single family homes are not an appropriate land use
developed right up to a commercial area.
Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion, the density of the townhouse
portion is still too high and should be lower. She said scaling down just one
unit, just doesn't do it. She added she feels the developer did not adequately
address the council's suggestions and concerns. She pointed out every piece of
land in Edina does not have to be developed to the maximum density. She
concluded, as she has indicated before, that she cannot support the proposal as
presented.
Commissioner Workinger told the Commission the developer has made good changes
to the landscaping plan, but added in his opinion the density is out of
character with the neighborhood.
Commissioner L. Johnson told the Commission that he did a rough draft layout of
the townhouse portion of the site if it were to be developed with single family
homes. He said he concluded that between 10-15 single family homes could be
developed in this area versus the proposed 21 townhouse units. Continuing,
Commissioner L. Johnson said double dwelling units could be developed at 18
units in this area. Concluding Commissioner L. Johnson said massing may not be
as severe as what is believed. He acknowledged that the proponent has not gone
very far in addressing the concerns expressed by the Council, but that is their
choice.
Commissioner Ingwalson explained that he has voted for this project and on the
whole, feels it is good for Edina. Commissioner Ingwalson did express concern
that the Council's issues were not adequately addressed. He added he supports
what is presented but wants to make sure landscaping is adequately addressed,
implemented, and that placement of landscaping materials is done with
sensitivity to the concerns of the neighbors.
Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend Final Rezoning Approval subject to staff
conditions. Commissioner Runyan seconded the motion. Ayes, Runyan, Palmer, •
Byron, L. Johnson, Ingwalson, G. Johnson. Nays, Faust, Hale, McClelland,
Workinger. Motion carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS•
S-90-3 Preliminary Plat Approval for Subdivision of Lot 5, Block 1,
Muir Woods.
J. A. Cunningham, 7120 Valley View Road
4
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission Lot S, Block 1, Muir Woods is a developed
single family lot with an area of 81,703 square feet. The proposed subdivision
would create one, additional new lot. The resulting two lots would have areas
of 40,073 square feet and 41,630 square feet.
Mr. Larsen explained the "neighborhood" as defined by City Ordinance No. 804
includes 27 developed single family lots.
Mr. Larsen told the Commission the City Subdivision Ordinance (No. 804) sets the
neighborhood median lot area, width, and depth as minimum standards for proposed
new lots. Both lots in the proposed subdivision exceed the neighborhood
requirements. In addition both lots exceed the minimum lot area to perimeter
ratio of 0.1.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the proposed subdivision is essentially identical to a
subdivision given preliminary approval by the Commission and Council in 1987.
The proponents did not return for final approval within the required one year
period. Thus the proposal was automatically denied.
Mr. Larsen concluded the proposed subdivision meets or exceeds requirements of
the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. No variances are required. The proposal
is essentially the same as one previously approved. The only difference being
that the new proposal would not save the existing dwelling. Staff recommends
approval subject to:
1. Final plat approval.
2. Subdivision Dedication.
3. Utility connection charges.
The proponent, Ms. Cunningham was present.
Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Larsen why staff approved the plan as presented
regarding the driveway placement.
Mr. Larsen said some of the issues staff took into consideration were the steep
slopes, which is typical of Muir Woods developments, and that there are more
homes and curb cuts on the other side of Valley View as it loops, then on the
side where there is -park property.
Commissioner L. Johnson said he does not want to see any disturbance to the
vegetation on this site. He asked Mr. Larsen if he felt there would be some
disturbance of vegetation as a result of this subdivision. Mr. Larsen said with
all developments there will be some disturbance and in this case it will occur
on the park side.
Commissioner McClelland asked Ms. Cunningham if the old house would be torn
down. Ms. Cunningham, said at this time she has not considered this. Mr.
Larsen explained what was submitted to staff was the original proposal for
subdivision, and on the previous proposal, the house was earmarked to be raised.
Commissioner L. Johnson said in his opinion the house should be raised and the
driveway constructed to serve both properties, with minimal slope and vegetation
disturbance. Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Larsen who would ensure that the
9
driveway is properly constructed. Mr. Larsen said the engineering department
would review the driveway placement.
Commissioner L. Johnson said he does not want to see this site developed
without the steep slopes protected, in the form of a scenic easement, and with
one common driveway. Commissioner Palmer added that he agreed with Commissioner
L. Johnson's suggestion, indicating he is in favor of some sort of slope
easement or scenic easement. Commissioner L. Johnson said he would like to see
a slope or scenic easement on both sides of the property.
Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Larsen if the property is subdividable again
due to its size. Mr. Larsen said that is possible because of the size of the
two lots, but it is not desirable, due to the steep slopes.
Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend approval subject to the staff conditions
and the additional recommendation that an scenic slope conservation easement be
implemented to protect the steep, wooded slopes on the property, which would
protect lots 1 and 2.
A brief discussion ensued with the Commission discussing if there should be a
number (30 ft around the perimeter of the site) chosen for the slope easement.
Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend preliminary plat approval subject to
the staff conditions, and the recommendations that the outlot on the site remain
an outlot, and that a scenic easement for Lots 1 and 2 be implemented to protect
the wooded slopes and vegetation on the east and west edges of the lot, it is
further recommended that this is open to intent and staff is aware of the intent
of this motion. Commissioner Palmer seconded the motion. Ayes; Hale, Faust,
Byron, Ingwalson, Runyan, Workinger, Palmer, L. Johnson, G. Johnson. Abstained;
McClelland. Motion carried.
LD -90-5 Paul Curran and Patricia Curran
4209 County Club Road
Lots 11-13, Block 14
Country Club District Fairway
Request: A proposal to divide the middle lot of three 50 foot wide
platted lots currently held in common ownership. The
resulting.parcels will measure 80 feet and 70 feet wide
respectively.
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property currently is comprised
of three 50' X 135' platted lots. The single family home known as 4209 Country
Club Road is built on the most westerly lot (Lot 13) and a portion of the middle
lot (lot 12). The remaining portion of lot 12 is occupied by the driveway for
the home. Lot 11, the easterly lot, has on it an old tennis court.
Mr. Larsen explained that on March 15, 1990, the proponents sought lot width and
lot area variances from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments in order to build a
new home in place of the tennis court on Lot 11. The Board of Appeals reviewed
the request and heard testimony from neighbors. At the Board of Appeals Meeting
11
the Board noted that they were not comfortable with a constructing a home on a
50 foot lot. The Board suggested that the proponent seek ways of increasing the
width and area of the lot.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the current request proposes that the easterly 20 feet of
Lot 12 be combined with Lot 11. The result is a 70' X 136' parcel with an area
of 9,400 square feet. The remaining parcel on which the existing home will
remain will include the westerly 30' of Lot 12 and all of Lot 13. The parcel
will measure 80' X 135' with an area of 10,800 square feet.
Continuing, Mr. Larsen reported that along Country Club Road between Wooddale
and Bruce five other homes face Country Club Road besides the parcels in
question. The widths of these lots are as follows: 100', 70', 80', 100', and
97'. North of the subject property the lots on Drexel and Casco are 50' and 60'
wide lots.
Mr. Larsen concluded that the lot division as proposed creates two parcels
similar in size and character to those in the area. Staff recommends approval
of the request with the following conditions:
1. Maintenance of a two car garage with the existing house and driveway
easements as necessary.
2. Lot width variance approval for the easterly parcel.
The proponent, Mr. Curran was present.
Chairman G. Johnson explained to the Board that he, Helen McClelland, and Geof
Workinger were members present at the Board of Appeals Meeting that asked the
Currans to work with Mrs. Vennum to create a lot that is compatible in size with
the lots in the immediate neighborhood.
Mr. Curran told the Commission at the request of the Board he worked with Mrs.
Vennum and came up with the present solution he hopes will be favorable to the
Commission. He added it is proposed that Mrs. Vennum's tuck-under/below grade
garage will be filled in, the present driveway removed and a new two car
detached garage constructed in the rear of the property. Mr. Curran said the
driveways for the Vennum property and the proposed property will be located on
the east side.
Commissioner Ingwalson asked Mr. Larsen to clarify for him the need for the
variance if the lot division is approved. Mr. Larsen explained that if the
proposed lot division is approved this evening, a lot width variance will still
be needed because of our Zoning Ordinance. Our Zoning Ordinance requires that
all lots have a minimum lot width of 75 feet. Mr. Larsen said he can understand
confusion, because a majority of lots within the Country Club area are below the
75 foot lot width requirement. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said if approved, the
Currans would be applying for a five foot lot width variance. Mr. Larsen
pointed out this process also affords staff and board members control over what
is constructed.
Commissioner McClelland commented that the plan as
followed the boards suggestion to increase the lot
proposal, which was to develop on a 50 foot lot.
7
it has been presented
size from the previous
Commissioner McClelland added
this proposal works much better, and in her opinion, the Vennum property will be
improved with the tuck under garage filled in. She added at times that garage
has had water run-off problems.
Commissioner Hale asked if the proposed new house would have a two car garage
constructed in the rear. Mr. Curran answered that is correct, the new lot will
have the garage constructed in the rear.
Commissioner L. Johnson said he wants to make sure each property is developed
with a separate garage, separate driveway and that Mr. Vennum's tuck under
garage is eliminated. Mr. Larsen said that issue could also be solved by the
variance board when the variance request is heard.
Chairman G. Johnson suggested that if this proposal is approved, the lot width
variance should be heard by the Board that heard this issue previously.
Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend approval of the lot division subject
to staff conditions and the further recommendation that Tract A be developed
with a separate two car garage located in the rear, with a separate driveway and
that the present tuck under garage be eliminated and properly filled, and Tract
B be developed with a separate two car garage and separate driveway.
Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. Ayes; Hale, Faust, L. Johnson,
McClelland, Runyan, Palmer, Ingwalson, Byron, G. Johnson. Nays; Workinger.
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
N t W�j
WA... • r
E:3