Loading...
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