Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19841106_canvassing_board_for_the_city_of_edina_electionis MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CANVASSING BOARD FOR THE CITY OF EDINA ELECTION HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1984 The meeting convened on Thursday, November 8, 1984, at 4:00 p.m, at the Edina City Hall. Findings of the appointed Canvassing Board were inspected and compared with the returns of the Election Judges. It was then moved, seconded and carried unanimously that the returns of the Election for the City of Edina, held November 6, 1984, be certified as follows, with C. Wayne Courtney elected as Mayor for a four year term of office, and with Peggy Kelly and Leslie C. Turner having received the highest number of votes elected as Council Members for a four year term of office: REPORT OF THE CANVASSING BOARD 1984 CITY ELECTION PRECINCT NO. MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS Four Year Term Four Year Term- C. Wayne Courtney John L. Senior, Jr. Peggy Kelly Leslie C. Turner 1 726 383 535 477 2 770 374 582 584 3 1171 507 925 948 4 1133 520 873 693 5 956 434 730 756 6 1097 412 873 880 7 1073 538 846 736 8 1269 732 834 944 0 9 970 436 727 694 ro 10 1050 510 835 701 v 11 1249 651 868 906 12 1106 492 790 826 13 838 451 670 463 14 1194 729 762 825 15 1465 559 1101 1158 16 1060 570 782 632 17 344 179 216 246 18 313 116 233 240 19 -962 ...455 746 646 TOTAL 18,746 9310447 13,928. 13,355 J (See Revision in Council Minutes of 12/17/84 CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Application of FINDINGS Folke R. and Veown M. Victorsen for DECISIONS, a Subdivision and a Variance for a AND Proposed Subdivision Entitled REASONS VICTORSEN'S VALLEY VIEW 2ND ADDITION The above entitled matter was heard before the City Council, City of.Edina on November 19, 1984, and December 3, 1984. Folke R. and Veown M. Victorsen ( "Proponents ") were present. Thomas H. Goodman, attorney for the Proponents, was present at all hearings. The City Council, having heard and reviewed all of the facts and arguments presented by the Proponents, their representative, City staff, and the property owners in the vicinity of the subject subdivision, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponent, and their representative, City staff, and property owners, and being fully advised, after due consideration, hereby makes the following: Findings of Fact 1. The Proponents, on October 19, 1984, submitted an application for subdivision (Case No. S- 84 -19) for the following described property (the "Subject Property" The South 104 feet of that part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 28, North Range 24, West of the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the point on the North line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 distant 658.5 feet East of the Northwest corner thereof, thence South a distance of 438 feet, thence East parallel with the North line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 a distance of 287.3 feet more or less to the West line of Peacedale Acres, thence North a distance of 438 feet., thence West to the point of beginning. This application (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Subdivision ") requested a subdivision of the Subject Property into two lots, Parcel A and Parcel B. Parcel A of the Proposed Subdivision also required a variance (the "Requested Variance ") to allow a lot width of 20 feet rather than 75 feet asr required by the Edina Ordinance N.O. 825, the Zoning Ordinance. Edina Ordinance No. 801, The Platting Ordinance, requires plats and subdivisions to comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Subject Property is presently composed of two parcels which roughly coincide with Parcels A and B of the Proposed Subdivision. The easterly of the existing parcels (the " Homesite") is presently improved with a single dwelling unit building. The westerly of the existing parcels (the "Landlocked Parcel ") is vacant and does not front on a public street. The Proposed Subdivision would divide the Subject Property such that a 20 foot wide strip of land would be transferred from the Homesite to the Landlocked Parcel so as to provide access to Brookview Avenue from the Landlocked Parcel. 3. The Edina Community Development and Planning Commission (the "Commission ") reviewed the Proposed Subdivision at its October 31, 1984, meeting. The Proponents were present and described the Proposed Subdivision. The Proponents testified that,they had owned the Landlocked Parcel since 1964 and had recently acquired the Homesite. They testified that they originally acquired the Landlocked Parcel for the purpose of constructing garages for an apartment building which they then owned which is located northerly of the Subject Property. They also testified that the Landlocked Parcel was created in L 0 1956 when Southdale Center, Inc. acquired the westerly portion of the Subject Property for utility purposes. Several property owners residing in the vicinity of the Subject Property appeared at the October 31, 1984, Commission meeting-and testified in opposition to the Proposed Subdivision noting concern that Parcel A may later be rezoned. The Commission recommended denial of the Proposed Subdivision and Requested Variance. 4. On November 19, 1984, the Edina City Council conducted a public hearing and received the report and recommendation of the Commission. Pursuant to applicable ordinances, notice of the public hearing was published, and notice of the public hearing was given by mailed notice to owners of property within 200 feet of the Subject Property. At said hearing, the Proponent's attorney urged the Council to approve the Proposed Subdivision and Requested Variance noting that: A. The City has approved subdivision which are similar to the'Proposed Subdivision in terms of lot shape and access. B. The Proponents are entitled to a reasonable use of the Landlocked Parcel which they have owned for many years and should be allowed to build a home on the property. C. The Proponents recently acquired in 1984, the Homesite believing that it could be used to solve the access problem of the Landlocked Parcel. r6 t• L1 D. The Proponents were unaware that the Landlocked Parcel was never officially divided from the Homesite when they acquired it in 1964. E. The Landlocked Parcel is suitable in terms of size for the construction of a single family home. F. The Proponents have no intention of rezoning the property to R -2, Double Dwelling Unit District. Surrounding property owners also testified at the public hearing noting the undesirable impact of the driveway access to Parcel A and objecting to the construction of a dwelling on Parcel A. The City Council, thereupon, continued the public hearing to December 3, 1984. 5. The Subject Property measures 104 feet by 287.3 feet and is unplatted. The Subject Property was a single parcel of property until 1956 when Southdale Center, Inc. acquired the following portion of the Subject Property which has been referred to as the Landlocked Parcel. is Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 28, Range 24, thence east 658.5 feet, thence south 334 feet to the point of beginning, thence south 104 feet, thence east 130 feet, thence north to a point 140 feet east from the point of beginning, thence west 140 feet to the point of beginning. No record exists that the Edina City Council approved the subdivision of the Subject Property, which resulted from the 1956 property acquisition by Southdale Center, Inc. as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358. 6. The Zoning Ordinance which was in effect in 1956 provided that lots in the R -1, Single Family Residence 1 i District required at least 75 feet of frontage on a public street. The Landlocked Parcel had no such frontage and, therefore, did not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when it was acquired by Southdale Center, Inc. 7. Edina Ordinance No. 825, the Zoning Ordinance, imposes the following minimum standards for single dwelling unit lots: Minimum Lot Area 9,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 75 ft. Minimum Lot Depth 120 ft. Minimum Frontage 30 ft. The Zoning` Ordinance defines "lot width" as follows: Lot - Width: The horizontal distance between side lot lines measured at right angles to the line establishing the lot depth at a point of 50 feet from the front lot line. The width of Parcel A according to the above definition is 20 feet. The frontage of Parcel A is also 20 feet. Therefore, Parcel A does not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Orinance although the Proposed Subdivision could be modified to increase the frontage to 29 feet which more closely complies with the frontage requirement. Parcel B complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. The Edina Comprehensive Plan states the following policy: VY �' Prohibit "neck lot" subdivisions whereby access to public streets is gained through narrow strips of land adjacent to other lots. Parcel A is such a neck lot. 9. The Zoning Ordinance defines "lot" as follows: Lot: The basic development unit for purposes of this Ordinance., A lot may consist of one parcel or two or more adjoining parcels under single ownership or control, and used for a principal use and accessory uses allowed by this Ordinance. A lot, except lots in a townhouse plat, must have at least 30 feet frontage on a street other than a limited access freeway. The Homesite and the Landlocked Parcel are adjoining parcels which are now under single ownership and, together, now form one lot within the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance. 10. The lot located southerly of the Subject Property measures 114 feet by 330 feet. The lot across the street to the east measures 115 feet by an average depth of about 205 feet. One single dwelling unit building is located on each of these lots. 11. The Zoning Ordinance (Section 4, A.6) provides that a variance shall not be issued unless a finding is made that the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause an undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and that the grant of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. As defined in the Zoning Ordinance, "Undue hardship" means that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by the Ordinance, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property which were not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the Ordinance. This definition is from Minnesota Statuate, Section 462.357. 12. Edina Ordinance No. 801, the Platting Ordinance, states that the City Council in approving plats shall consider, among other things, the suitability of plats from the standpoint of community planning. 13. Prior to the public hearing on December 3, 1984, all members of the City Council individually inspected the Subject Property and surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, based upon the foregoing Findings, the City Council does hereby make the following DECISION; The Proponent's Application for Subdivision and Variance is hereby denied. The above Decision is made for the following REASONS: A. The Proposed Subdivision is contrary to the policy of the Comprehensive Plan concerning neck lots. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan as implemented by the Zoning Ordinance, must be considered in deciding whether or not to approve variances from the Comprehensive Plan and to the Zoning Ordinance. B. Parcel A of the Proposed Subdivision does not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The standards of the Zoning Ordinance define not only the minimum size but also the minimally acceptable geometry of lots. Such requirements are imposed to prevent lots which are undesirable in shape, accessibility and orientation. Parcel A of the Proposed Subdivision is not a minimal deviation from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and would result in the type of lot which is expressly discouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. C. The grant of a variance relies upon the affirmation of the findings contained in the Zoning Ordinance, particularly the existence of an undue hardship which was not created by the Proponents. The facts, in this case, lead to the conclusion that any hardship that may exist is self created for the following reasons: 1.) The Proponents acquired the Landlocked Parcel for uses accessory to an adjoining property then in their ownership. Its use for such accessory purposes would have, in essence, solved the Landlocked Parcel's access problem. The Proponents elected not to use the Landlocked Parcel for the intended purpose, and later, sold the adjoining property exclusive of the Landlocked Parcel. Thus, the Proponents could have made a reasonable accessory use of the Landlocked Parcel or could have sold it with the adjoining parcel for other accessory use purposes. 2.) The creation of the Landlocked Parcel by virtue of its 1956 acquisition by Southdale Center, Inc. was not approved by the-City Council. The Landlocked Parcel did-not comply with the frontage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in effect in 1956. When the Proponents acquired the Landlocked Parcel they should have known that the Landlocked Parcel had not been approved by the City and was not buildable because of lack of'frontage. D. The findings required for a variance also provide that economic considerations do not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use of.the property exists. The Subject Property is a lot comprising'two adjoining parcels under common ownership. This lot complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and can be used for principal and accessory uses permitted by the "Zoning Ordinance. In this context, the Landlocked Parcel adds more than an insignificant value to the Homesite. Although this lot is larger than required, it is not unusually large in size and is similar to other lots in the immediate vicinity. The City of Edina is not now obliged to subdivide the lot to create a new lot which does not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.