HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 09-08 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1976
EDINA CITY HALL
Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, D. T. Runyan, C. E.
Johnson, G. V. Johnson, H. E. McClelland, Mary McDonald, and
R. E. Kremer.
Staff Present: Greg Luce, City Planner, Robert C. Dunn, City Engineer, and
Lynnae Nye, Secretary.
I. Approval of the July 28, 1976, Planning Commission Minutes.
Mr. Hughes moved the July 28, 1976, Planning Commission minutes be
approved as written, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
II. LOT DIVISIONS:
LD -76-9 Gilbert H Feig 5901-07 Killarnye Lane. Lot 26, Block 2,
Killarney Shores.
Mr. Luce stated the proponent is requesting to divide the property in
question down the common wall of a double bungalow presently.under construction on
the lot to allow separate ownership of each unit. Noting that several other double
bungalows in the City have been divided in this manner, Mr. Luce recommended approval
of the requested division contingent upon payment of an additional sewer and water
connection charge in the amount of $1,645.45.
Mrs. McDonald moved the proposed division be approved contingent upon
payment of an additional sewer and water connection charge in the amount of
$1,645.45. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
LD -76-10 Joe Songstad 5420 Benton Avenue. Lots 29 and 30, Warden Acres.
Mr. Luce noted that most of the original Warden Acres lots have been
replatted, and right of way was dedicated last year in connection with the Warden
Acres-Austin,Replat for the possible future extension of Oak Lane along the rear of
the property in question and adjacent lots to the north and west. The proponent
presently owns Lot 30 and the West 20 feet of Lot 29. He is requesting to redivide -
that -land into two single family lots; one lot would be 80'.X 299' and the other lot
would be 85.98' X 299'. A house presently exists on the smaller proposed lot.
Approval was recommended contingent on: 1. the dedication of a 25 foot
strip along the north boundary of the entire property for public road purposes; and
2. payment of a parkland dedication fee in the amount of $600.00.
Mr. Songstad, the proponent, was present.
Mr. Kremer moved the requested lot division be approved provided the
proponent dedicates a 25 foot strip of land along the rear lot line for a possible
future road and $600 to satisfy his parkland dedication obligation for the additional
lot being created. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion
carried.
III. SUBDIVISIONS:
9-8-76 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2
S-76-17 Indian Hills Arrowhead 2nd Addition. Generally located south of
Indian Hills Road, north of Pawnee Road, and east of McCauley
Trail. (continued from 7-28-76).
Mr. Luce recalled this request was continued from the July 28, 1976 Planning
Commission meeting because the requisite subdivision sign showing the anticipated
public hearing dates hadnotbeen posted on the property. That sign has, however,
been posted since the last meeting.
Mr. Luce explained the proposed plat would create two single family lots
of 15,000 square feet each and one outlot of 16,000 square feet; the outlot would-be
dedicated to the City for parkland purposes and would provide access to the outlot
directly west, which is included in the City's open .space acquisition program. Mr.
Luce noted that the lots in this area vary from 13,200 square feet to 54,000 square
feet, but most are similar in square footage to the lots proposed. He recommended
the proposed subdivision be approved with the following conditions:
1. That a developer's agreement including a connection charge for water
and sewer and the extension of storm sewer be submitted and approved
by the Engineering Department;
2. That the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approve the filling
necessary to develop these lots; and
3. That a deed for Outlot A be submitted for park purposes.
Mr. Luce reported that the Environmental Quality Commission also recommended
this subdivision be approved.
After discussion regarding the proposed parkland dedication and drainage
and grading plans, Mr. Runyan moved the subdivision be approved with the three
conditions listed by the staff. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted
aye. Motion carried. '
S-76-20 Dahlquist Addition Replat. Generally located east of Valley View
Road, north of Mark Terrace Drive, at the end of Bror Road.
Mr. Luce stated the proponents are requesting to redivide the existing two -
lot plat into four single family lots ranging in size from 18,300 square feet to
51,720 square feet. There is an existing house on proposed lot 4. Mr. Luce noted
that other lots in this area range from 15,752 square feet to 28,751 square feet,
for a mean lot size of about 20,500 square feet. He recommended approval of the
proposed subdivision provided the future "Forest Glen Road" is changed to "Bror
Road" and contingent upon payment of the requisite parkland dedication fee ($3,500)
in lieu of a land donation.
Mr. Hughes moved the proposed four lot subdivision be approved as recommended
by the staff, contingent on the road name change and receipt of the parkland
dedication fee. Mr. Kremer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
S-76-21 Scot Lewis Addition. Generally located west of Blake Road, south
of Mendelssohn Lane and north of Interlachen Boulevard. ,
Mr. Luce stated the proponents are requesting to divide the property in
question into two single family lots. He noted the site is on a small pond and has 9
7-28-76 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3
access to Blake Road at the intersection of Interlachen Boulevard and Blake Road
near the Blake Road hill and curve. He presented graphics illustrating the street
patterns, the requisite 100 foot setback from the pond, the Blake Road right of way
and minimum 30 foot front setback, and the actual buildable lot area.
Mr. Luce recommended the requested subdivision be denied because:
1. Access onto Blake Road is dangerous because of the hill and curve,
and visibility is extremely limited.
2. Because of the dangerous condition at the intersection, the number of
automobile trips from driveways should be limited. If there is only
one house on the .property, the potential number of traffic conflicts
would be reduced in half.
3. The developable portion of this property is extremely limited by the
pond, the requisite setbacks, and the considerable grade. Because the
developable portion is not extremely large, the property would not be
under -developed if it were developed as one lot.
Mr. Harvey Hansen, the real estate broker, stated the property, minus the
pond, is about 64,500 square feet and is large enough to warrant two building sites.
He agreed there is a traffic problem but felt it could be resolved. Referencing
some comments written at a staff level by Fran Hoffman, the Assistant City Engineer,
Mr. Hansen stated that Mr. Hoffman has indicated the site should be developed with
only one driveway, with turn -around room so vehicles could enter the street without
backing onto it. He also indicated the visibility problem to the north would be
resolved if the driveway were raised.
Mr. Luce noted that Mr. Hoffman's written note was done informally and that
he and Mr. Hoffman later discussed it in greater detail; Mr. Hoffman explained how.
solutions might be accomplished but recommended that the subdivision not be allowed.
In reply to Mrs. Eloyse Walcher, 6401 Mendelssohn Lane, Mr. Hanson stated
the driveway entrance should and could occur on the southerly 30 feet of the lot,
the driveway will have only one access onto Blake Road, and it should be raised and
designed with a turn -around.. Mr. Keith Kennedy, 6409 Mendelssohn Lane, pointed out
that one of the biggest traffic problems in the area is the Interlachen Country Club
service road, which carries more than the average residential amount of traffic
and frequently becomes congested. Mrs. Walcher noted that the site has been
unsightly for at least ten years and she "would like to see it cleaned up and some-
thing nice put in there". Mrs. Adam Zatarga, 6324 Waterman Avenue, did not feel
the site was large enough for two houses.
After additional discussion, Mr. Kremer moved the requested subdivision be
continued to the next Planning Commission meeting for further study. He asked that
a written staff report from Fran Hoffman, the Traffic Engineer, be prepared and
submitted prior to that meeting. Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
S=76-22 Ryan's Addition Generally located at the northeast corner of
Limerick Lane and Brook Drive.
Mr. Luce noted the property in question is a large lot adjacent to Nine Mile
Creek at the southeast corner of the LaBuena Vista Addition which is similar in size
7-28-76 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4
to the existing lots in that subdivision. The proponent is proposing to dedicate 100
feet along Nine Mile Creek for park purposes and to divide the remainder of the property
into two single family lots. The easterly lot would be 12,200 square feet, and the
corner lot would be 18,360 square feet. Mr. Luce recommended denial of the requested
subdivision because:
1. The lot sizes would be inconsistent with other lots in the LaBuena Vista
Addition, and the interior lot would be only 117 feet deep. The subdivision
regulations require a minimum lot depth of 120 feet.
2. There have been five requests for further subdivision in the LaBuena
Vista Addition, and all of them have been denied by the Planning Commission and/or
City Council; one was appealed to the court, which upheld the City's decision and
found that people who purchased lots in that subdivision had reason to assume that
the lot sizes in that area would not be changed.
3. Although there are similar lot sizes in the subdivision directly across
Brook Drive, Limerick Lane provides an excellent dividing line between LaBuena
Vista Addition and the surrounding area. A symmetry of lot sizes and houses
presently exists within the LaBuena Vista Addition which would be altered by this
subdivision.
Mary Ryan, the proponent, stated that because her yard is so large she is
unable to properly maintain the back yard, which is actually the front view of the
people across the street on Brook Drive. Mrs. Ryan indicated she would sell her
present house on the corner and would have a new house built on the lot to be
created adjacent to Nine Mile Creek. She stated that although she has contacted
all of the residents in the vicinity and has had the land posted for subdivision
since August 26th, she has not received any verbal or written objections. Mrs. Ryan
stated that if the proposed subdivision is approved, 17 percent of the land would
be dedicated and another taxable parcel would be created. The visual effect of the
proposed subdivision would be very consistent with the houses and lots across
Brook Drive and the view along Limerick Lane will not be changed. She noted that
few other lots in the LaBuena Vista Addition could be divided in a similar manner
because the present house locations would not allow sufficient setbacks.
Mr.'Luce recalled several past lot division requests in the LaBuena Vista
Addition, and stated that approval of this request would be inconsistent with past
actions of the Planning Commission and City Council and would establish a precedent
for other corner lots in this addition. Mr. Hughes agreed that the Planning Commission
has an obligation to continue the policy opposing lot divisions'in the LaBuena Vista
Addition.
Mr. C. Johnson stated the Environmental Quality Commission also recommended
the proposed subdivision be denied to prevent development along the creek.
Mr. Kremer did not feel that approval of this request would establish an
undesirable precedent for all of LaBuena Vista Addition because the houses and lot
sizes directly across Brook Drive are nearly identical to the proposed lot layout.
He moved the requested subdivision be approved. 'Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion.
Upon roll call Mr. Kremer and Mrs. McDonald voted aye; Messrs. Runyan, C. Johnson,
Lewis and Hughes and Mrs. McClelland voted nay. Mr. G. Johnson abstained. The
motion failed 2-5-1.
72-8-76 Planning Commission Minutes, page 5
Mr. Hughes moved the requested subdivision be denied for the reasons stated
by the staff, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. Messrs. Runyan, C. Johnson,
Lewis and Hughes and H. E. McClelland voted aye. Mr. Kremer and Mrs. McDonald voted
nay. Mr. G. Johnson abstained. Motion carried 5-2 with one abstention.
IV. REZONINGS:
Z-76-12 City of Edina. Part of West Shore Drive in Lake Edina 3rd
Addition. R-1 Single Family Residence District to R-2 Multiple
Residence District. (Formerly Z-75-4)
Mr. Luce recalled the City of Edina acquired property several years.ago for
the 77th Street interchange on Highway 100. Part of that land was transferred to the
State Highway Department for construction of that interchange; the remainder, how-
ever, was retained by the City with the intent that it would eventually be subdivided
and sold as single family or double bungalow lots.
Due to the street curve, there is a small triangular piece of land presently
zoned R-1 which is adjacent to an existing, privately owned R-2 lot on West Shore
Drive. The City of Edina is proposing to rezone and trade that small piece of land
for a portion of the existing R-2 lot which will be located on the other side of
the future road extension. No additional buildable R-2 lots would be created.
Mr. Luce recommended the requested rezoning to R-2 be approved so that the
remaining triangular piece of land can be added to the adjacent, privately -owned
R-2 lot on West Shore Drive.
After brief discussion regarding the desirability of single family lots in
this area, Mr. Hughes moved the requested rezoning to R-2 be approved. Mr. Kremer
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Subdivision and zoning sign ordinance amendments.
Mr. Luce recalled that in order to eliminate some of the administrative
problems and'to make all of the signs uniform, the Planning Department had prepared
an ordinance amendment which would make the city responsible for installing signs
on properties proposed to be subdivided or rezoned. The City Manager, however, is
opposed to the City participating in the construction and erection of the signs and
suggested instead that the present ordinance be clarified. He noted also that the
City has no obligation under the present ordinance other than the requirement, and if
an error is make, it is the fault of the developer or sign erector, not the City.
Mr. Luce recommended this ordinance amendment be continued to the next meeting for
further study, noting that the present ordinance could be rewritten to make the
sign design consistent and to more closely regulate the erection dates, etc. All
generally agreed.
2. Parkland dedication ordinance amendment.
Mr. Luce stated the proposed ordinance amendment would require that the
requisite parkland dedication fees be calculated at the time of final platting instead
of at the time of preliminary platting. Noting that a similar ordinance in Bloomington
7-28-76 Planning Commission Minutes, page 6
was found by the court to be constitutional, he recommended the proposed amendment
be approved as written by the City Attorney.
After brief discussion, Mr. Kremer moved that the proposed parkland
dedication ordinance amendment be approved. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
3. Ordinance amendment providing for senior citizen housing.
Mr. Luce announced the proposed ordinance amendment had not yet been
completed, and requested it be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting.
He noted the ordinance will establish setback, parking, and other requirements for
apartment buildings constructed for the elderly. No action was taken.
4. Ordinance amendment restricting one dwelling to a lot or plot in the
R-1 and R-2 Residential District.
Mr. Luce explained that although the present ordinance allowsonlyone
building per lot or plot in a residential district, most developments in the multiple'
residential district have more than one building per lot. The ordinance should be
amended to clarify that only one building is allowed per lot or plot in the R-1 and
R-2 residential districts.
After brief discussion regarding the definition of "building" versus
"dwelling", Mr. G. Johnson moved the ordinance amendment restricting one dwelling
to a lot or plot be approved as presented for both the R-1 (single family) and
R-2 (double bungalow) residential zoning districts. Mr. Hughes seconded the motion.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
5. Ordinance amendment raising fees for rezonings and subdivisions.
Mr. Luce presented a proposed ordinance amendment considerably increasing
the fees for both rezonings and subdivisions as a result of increased mailing,
unprofessional staff, and other costs and reduced revenue due to the 6% levy
limitation. He-. presented a comparison between the existing and proposed fees and
the fees charged in other suburban communities.
Discussion followed. Referencing the staff report, Mr. Luce noted that the
proposed $100 fee for installing signs on properties to be subdivided or rezoned should
be eliminated since the ordinance will not be adopted as originally anticipated. He
clarified the proposed ordinance amendment would establish the Planning Department
fees as follows:
Platting Fees (for subdivisions): $150 + $5 per'lot
Lot division fee: $50
Simple lot division fee: $20
Fee for rezoning to R-2: $200
Fee for rezoning to other zoning districts: $350
Mr. Runyan made a motion approving the proposed ordinance amendment
establishing a revised Planning Department fee schedule, as outlined by the staff.
Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
VI. ADJOURNMENT.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynnae Nye, Secretary