Agenda - Council - 05/28/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case//7: Request to Rezone Property. from R41 Residential, B-1 Business and B-2 Business to R43U Multi Family Residential; Case of Edina Development, Inc. Community Development Director Frolik stated that on December 11, 2001, the City Council denied a request ~?om Edina Development to rezone the property located in the northwest comer of Alpine Drive and Highway 47 to Multiple Residential. to allow for a high-density townhouse development. The Applicant has submitted a new rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment request along with a sketch plan reflecting a medium density residential development. The rezoning would allow the applicant to build a townhouse development of up to 7 units per acre. Edina Development has entered into a purchase agreement with property owners Herman and Judi Danholz and Ken and Sharon Niles. Edina Development is requesting to rezone approximately 25 acres from R-1 Residential, B-1 Business, and B-2 Business to R-3U Multi- Family Residential. Property to the north is zoned R-1 Residential, to the south the zoning is B-I, Business and R-I Single Family. To the east and west, the properties are zoned B-1 and B-2 Business. The rezoning would allow the applicant to construct a townhome development. The applicant has submitted a general development plan for the subject property that is proposing to construct 112 townhome units. It was noted that the number of units may change as the proposed project goes through the subdivision and site plan review processes· The City Council adopted the March 2001 Comprehensive Plan on December 18, 2001. The 2001 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area being designated for Places to Shop and, therefore, a comprehensive plan amendment will also be required. At their January 3, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the request to rezone the subject property to R3-U. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the request. Councilmember Hendriksen inquired as to what the requirement was to approve the request. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the Council would need to adopt findings of fact and then introduce the ordinance and then adopt the ordinance on a 3/5% vote atSer the Met Council approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mayor Gamec reviewed findings 8 through 11. Councilmember Zimmerman felt that the development would change the essential character of the area. Consensus of the Council was to delete finding #9. Councilmember Flendriksen stated that the findings are asking if the existing roads can handle the plat and there is no possibility of an access to T.H. #47 and there are no roads to the west of the proposed development so they are limited to 153fd Avenue to the south and they don't typically place them within 300 f~et ~?om a major intersection. He did not feel that one access to the development was adequate. Mayor Gamec replied that the findings pertain to existing road structures not roads within the development. City Council/January 22, 2002 Page 15 of 25 -271 -