Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 07-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1975 EDINA CITY HALL Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, R. E. Kremer, M. McDonald, D. T. Runyan, C. E. Johnson, and G. V. Johnson. Staff Present: Greg Luce, City Planner, R. C. Dunn, City Engineer, and Lynnae Nye, Secretary. I. Approval of the July 2, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes. A motion to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated July 2, 1975, as written was made by Mr. Hughes and seconded by Mr. C. Johnson. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. LOT DIVISIONS: LD -75-5 Jeffrey P. Gustafson/G. W. Pearson. Outlots B and C, Gleason Fifth Addition and Lot 3, Block 1, Gleason Fifth Addition. Generally located south of Vernon Avenue and west of Gleason Road. Continued from 7-2-75. Mr. Luce stated the requested lot divisions and combinations involving two outlots and two lots in Gleason Fifth Addition were discussed at the July 2, 1975, Planning Commission meeting. He recalled that Outlot C is proposed to be divided; the easterly portion would be combined with lot 2 and the westerly portion would be combined with lot 3. In addition, a ten foot strip of land is proposed to be divided from the west side of lot 3 and added to Outlot B. Denial was recommended because the addition of that 10 feet -to Outlot B would provide the minimum square footage for an extremely undesirable single family lot, and a request could then be made to have it declared buildable. Mr. Luce noted that although Outlot B of Gleason Fifth Addition and Outlot B of Viking Hills 4th Addition are expected to be combined eventually and rezoned to R-2, the outlots are presently under separate ownership and that combination cannot be guaranteed at this time. He added that since the 7-2-75 meeting, Mr. Glen Nybeck, attorney for Mr. Harliev Helle, informed him that an arbitration hearing is scheduled for August 25th to determine the ownership of Outlot B, Viking Hills 4th Addition, because there is a question regarding the number of lots Mr. Helle purchased from Mr. Krahl. Mr. Nybeck also indicated that Mr. Helle is not necessarily opposed to the long range concept, but he cannot negotiate with Mr. Gustafson until after the hearing on August 25th. Mr. Luce stated that until the combination of those outlots can be consummated, presumably after August 25th, he would continue to recommend denial. Mr. Jeff Gustafson, the proponent, further explained the arbitration matter between Mr. Helle and Mr. Krahl, but added that in -his opinion the ownership of Outlot B, Viking Hills 4th Addition, and the possible combination of that outlot with Outlot B of Gleason Fifth Addition is totally irrelevant. He explained that when he sold Lot 3, he retained an option to keep the west 10 feet, and although the owner is presently willing to relinquish that 10 foot strip onto.Outlot B, he may not be willing to do so in the future. Mr. Gustafson stated that if his request is approved, Outlot C "would be taken off the books and would become taxable land". The West 10 feet of lot 3 and Outlot A would be added to Outlot B, "taking both of those outlots off the books because they would become one single family lot". When an agreement with Mr. Helle can be reached, R-2 zoning would be requested for lot 11 of Viking Hills 4th Addition as well as for the combined outlots. He felt that if 7-30-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2 the divisions are not approved, "we would lose our right to be in a better bargaining position because we would own only Outlot B, which isn't buildable, and Mr. Helle would own Lot 11, which is buildable". After further discussion, Mr. Hughes moved the requested lot divisions and combinations be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting after the scheduled August 25th arbitration hearing so the owner of Outlot B, Viking dills 4th Addition, and Mr. Gustafson can meet and hopefully consummate the proposed land trades. Mr. Kremer seconded the motion. All voted aye except Mr. G. Johnson, who abstained. Motion carried. LD -75-6 Roy W. Tompkins (Prestige Realty). Lots 11 and 12, Griffis' Subdivision of Block 18, Mendelssohn. 529 Arthur Street. Mr. Luce explained the owner of the home on approximately Lot 8, Griffis' Subdivision of Block 18, Mendelssohn, owns lots 7-12 of that addition. A request has been made to divide lot 11, presently a 50 foot wide lot, and lot 12, presently a 90 foot wide lot (70 foot lot plus 20 feet of vacated street right of way), to create a 65 foot lot and a 75 foot lot. He recommended approval because the request would not create an additional buildable lot but would merely adjust the present lot lines to provide better side yard setbacks and improved building sites. He noted the present sewer and water facilities are adequate. After brief discussion, Mrs. McDonald moved the requested division of lots 11 and 12, Griffis' Subdivision of Block 18, Mendelssohn be approved as presented. Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. LD -75-7 Calvin K. Katter. Lot 1, Block 1, Vic Adams Addition. 3945 West 49th Street. and Z-75-6 Calvin K. Katter. The West 8 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Vic Adams Addition. 3945 West 49th Street. Mr. Luce explained the proponent's request to divide the west 8 feet from an existing 97 foot wide single family lot; that 8 foot strip would then be rezoned and added to an adjacent 75 foot wide R-2 lot to allow better access to the rear yard. Assuming the requested division and rezoning are approved, the resulting single family lot would be 89 feet wide, and the existing house would maintain a 10 foot side yard setback. The resulting R-2 lot would be 83 feet wide, and the existing double bungalow would be 12.7 feet from the side lot line. Mr. Luce recommended approval of the simple lot division and rezoning because the division would expand the R-2 lot, the more intensive use, and would provide reasonable side yard setbacks from both of the existing structures. Mr. Calvin Katter, the proponent and owner of the existing double bungalow, pointed out that at the present time his side yard setback is only 4.7 feet, and he cannot reach his back yard without trespassing. After brief discussion, Mrs. McDonald moved the requested lot division and rezoning be approved, and Mr. Kremer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 7-30-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3 IV. . SUBDIVISIONS: 5-75-15 Brown's Addition of Edina. 6621 Waterman Avenue. Mr. Luce explained the proponent's request to subdivide the property in question into three single family lots. A single family home presently exists on one lot, which would be 43,500 square feet. Lots 2 and 3 would be 77' X 162' (12,623 square feet). The lots in the neighborhood vary in size but are approximately 11,000 square feet. Mr. Luce recommended approval of the requested three -lot subdivision, subject to receipt of a 5% cash parkland dedication in the amount of $1400.00. Discussion was held regarding that part of lot 1 (100' X 154') south of lots 2 and 3. Mr. Luce indicated that that land would serve as additional yard area for the Brown residence, which is setback considerably from Waterman Avenue. He noted also that that portion of lot 1 could eventually become a buildable lot if the properties to the south or east were developed and public access was made available. A motion approving the preliminary plat of Brown's Addition of Edina, contin- gent on receipt of a 5% cash parkland dedication in the amount of $1400, was made by Mr. G. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Runyan. All voted aye. Motion carried. S-75-16 Braemar Hills 8th Addition. Generally located north of W. 78th Street and east of Gleason Road. Mr. Luce stated the property in the proposed subdivision, presently block 6 of Braemar Hills 7th Addition, is the only undeveloped lot remaining in the "Hills of Braemar" townhouse development. The proponents are requesting to move that building site to the east side of the private road for mortgage purposes and to allow more open space between the structures. If constructed as originally platted, the units on block 6 would be crowded between those on blocks 5 and 7 and would be built on an extremely high bluff, visible from Gleason Road. Noting the parkland dedication requirement has already been met and no additional grading will be necessary, Mr. Luce recommended the requested subdivision be approved because no additional buildable lots would be created and the overall site layout would be improved. After brief discussion, Mr. Hughes moved the preliminary plat of Braemar Hills 8th Addition be approved as presented. Mr. Kremer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Modification of Densities in Comprehensive Plans. Continued from 7-2-75. Mr. Luce recalled the Council's desire to reduce multi -family densities in comprehensively planned areas of Edina and the discussion held in that regard at the 7-2-75 Planning Commission meeting. He presented a formula prepared in response to that discussion whereby reductions in density would occur according to certain measurable site characteristics, such as greater than 6% slopes, the distance from an accessible freeway interchange, the amount of land below an established high water mark, or land located within or in proximity to a flood plain or certain wetlands. For comparison purposes, Mr. Luce presented a chart illustrating the effect of the proposed "clarification" of allowable densities on three properties in Western Edina and one in Southwest Edina. He noted this formula would not affect land which is already zoned. 7-30-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4 Discussion followed. Mr. Hughes suggested the present density ranges be reduced so the low end of that range becomes the maximum density allowed on properties within a comprehensively planned area. Mr. G. Johnson suggested the proposed formula apply only to undeveloped properties in the Southwest or Western Edina Plan areas, as it has been generally accepted that properties in the South Edina Plan area will be developed at higher densities, hopefully with buildings of Type 1 construction. It was generally agreed that reducing densities "across the board to 'x' units per acre" would not be a reasonable solution and would be arbitrary. Mr. G. Johnson moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the staff's proposal for reducing allowable multi -family densities, but that the density clarification should be applicable only to land located within the Western Edina Plan and Southwest Edina Plan areas. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 2. Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance by Adding a Minimum Building Size to the Commercial Districts. Mr. Luce presented a proposed zoning ordinance amendment in response to a growing building trend which would add a minimum building size requirement of 1,000 square feet to the C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 Commercial Districts. The ordinance wuld effectively eliminate the small, drive -up, kiosk -type buildings, such as a Fotomat, which reduce the number of available parking stalls and cause congestion in parking lots. After brief discussion, Mr. G. Johnson moved the proposed zoning ordinance amendment be approved as presented, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. A11 voted aye. Motion carried. 3. Pursuant to a complaint from Mr. G. Johnson, Mr. Luce indicated he would contact Dayton's regarding the outdoor storage of salt and other materials at their Southdale gas station. After discussion, Mr. Hughes moved that the regular October Planning Commission meeting be held instead on September 24, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. at the Edina City Hall. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Moton carried. VI. ADJOURNMENT. Respectfully submitted, Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary