HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 01-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1980 AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Richard Seaberg, Len
Fernelius, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald,
Gordon Johnson
Members Absent: David Runyan
Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning; Craig Larsen, Planner;
Harold Sand, Planner; Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works
and Engineering; Deborah Schurman Strand, Secretary
I. Approval of the Minutes_
Helen McClelland moved that the Minutes of the January 2,
1980, Community Development and Planning Commission meeting by approved. Len
Fernelius seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved.
II. New Business:
Z-79-11 Edinborough Condominiums. (Lincoln Drive or Condor)
& R-1 Single Family to PRD -3 Planned Residential
S-80-4 District.
Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission that it had recommended
preliminary approval of the subject rezoning request to -PRD -3 Planned Residential
District on November 28, 1979. The preliminary approval was granted conditioned
upon the modification of the proposed plans in several respects: 1) the number
of units in the most easterly building must be reduced from 62 units to 50 units
thereby reducing the total number of units for the site from 162 to 150,
2) a,public road must be dedicated on the northern edge of the subject property
to avoid land locked lots 3) the most easterly building must be adjusted to
comply with setback requirements and provide a greater distance from Edina West
Condominiums. On December 17, 1979, the City Council granted preliminary
rezoning approval with these modifications.
Mr. Hughes explained that the proponents had returned with
overall development plans for the property and a preliminary plat and were
seeking final approvals. The plans responded to the modifications requested
by the Commission and Council. The most easterly building was reduced to 50
units and a 65 foot setback from the southerly property line was provided.
All required setbacks from other streets and property lines were provided,
and a 50 foot wide public street right of way was provided as requested.
The preliminary plat for the property requests a four lot
subdivision, with each of the three buildings on an individual lot. The fourth
lot would house recreational facilities which would be available to all three
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980
Page 2
buildings. Mr. Hughes noted that the recreational facilites were not shown
on the preliminary plans.
Staff believed that the proponents submitted an overall
development plan which responded the Commission's requests. Staff recommended
approval of the plans. Mr. Hughes noted that the landscape plan and schedule
delineating species and size and preliminary plans and profiles for utilities
and roadways were submitted before the meeting. Upon review staff found
utility plans acceptable and workable. The landscape plan was acceptable,
although the general size of the materials specified were minimal and staff
recommended size classes of the materials increased appropriately.
Staff recommended overall zoning and preliminary plat approval
with the conditions that:
1. final zoning be conditioned on approval of the final plat
2. an executed developer's agreement
3. subdivision dedication
4. a conservation restriction covering the undevelopable
portion of the floodplain on the property
5. a grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
(Engineers for the District fine the plans and proposed.
flood plain encroachment to be acceptable from a preliminary
standpoint.)
6. Water storage and flowage easement so that public drainage
from this area could be stored on the property.
Gordon Johnson asked staff the purpose of the four lots.
Mr. Hughes responded that if would be for staging and financing of the
development. Mr. Smuda, from Condor Corporation, informed the Commission
that this procedure was for financing purposes.
Len Fernelius moved approval subject to the conditions of
staff. Dick Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980
Page 3
Z-79-12 Dewey Hill III. R-1 Single Fimily to PRD -3
Planned Residential District. Generally located
north of 78th Street, east of Shaughnessy, and
west of Glasgow.
Mr. Hughes informed the C-mmission the subject property is
bordered on the south of 78th Street and on the west by Shaughnessy Road. The
proposal represents the third and final phase of the residential development of
the Shuster Property by Laukka and Associates.
Mr. Hughes explained that phase one of the Dewey Hill Addition
project, was approved by the City in early 1978. This phase consisted of. 26
single family lots served by an extension of Shannon Drive to the South. Dewey
Hill Second Addition, or phase two of the project, was also approved in 1978.
This phase consisted of 48 single family lots and was located south of phase one.
The proponent explained to the Commission and Council at the
time Dewey Hill Second Addition was approved, that in the future he would pursue
a condominium development of 125 to 150 units for the southerly extreme of the
property as a third phase of the development project. He asked that the
Commission and Council concur with this development concept. Although the
Commission and Council did not approve specific plans, they generally agreed
that such a condominium development would be a proper land use for the site.
The proponents are now submitting preliminary plans for a
123 unit condominium development on the subject property and requesting a rezoning
to PRD -3 Planned Residential District• A net density of 9.2 units per acre is
proposed for the subject property which measures 13.3 acres. Since the project
represents the third phase of the overall plan for the Schuster property which is
approximately 58 acres, the proponents submit an overall density of 3.4 units per
acre has been achieved. Therefore an overall density of 3.4 units per acre
would be achieved as compared to an earlier proposal for the Shuster Property
which was approved at approximately 5.7 units per acre.
Mr. Hughes elaborated on the subject property stating it was
characterized by moderately steep slopes on the east and west portions of the site.
A large wooded swamp comprises most of the central portion of the site. The
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources determined that the swamp was not a public
water requiring special permit for alteration.
The concept of the development is to orient the proposed
condominium buildings in a north south direction along the upland areas on the
easterly and westerly portions of the site. The lowland in the central portion of
the site would be excavated and developed as a pond and would be the primary
focus of the project. This pond would be separated from the Southwest Edina
L stormwater ponds in order to provide enhanced water quality to discourage algae
and aquatic vegetation.
The proposed condominium buildings would be three stories in
height as viewed from the east and west. Underbuilding parking with 187 stalls
would be provided. Also some dwelling units would be located on the same level
as the underbuilding parking on the pond side of the condominium buidlings.
Thus, as viewed from the central portion of the site. the buildings would be four
stories in height.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980
Page 4
The exterior of the proposed condominium buildings would be
designed to resemble townhouses in appearance. The buildings would "step
down" toward the pond by way of a system of outside decks. The roof line of the
building would be varied and sloping to approximate a townhouse appearance.
Staff believed the proponents submitted a plan which was in
conformance with past direction from the Commission and Council. Staff concurs
with the overall development concept of the Dewey Hill project whereby single family
development was located on the northerly two thirds of the site and multiple
residential was proposed for the southerly portion. This was appropriate because
this portion exhibits unstable soils, is exposed to higher noise levels, and
abuts a collector street thereby affording proper access. Staff thought the
proposed plans properly addressed the physical constraints of the site, created
an excellent amenity by way of the pond and proposed an innovative building
design which lessened the normal visual impact of condominium development.
conditions:
Staff recommended preliminary approval with the following
1. Final zoning is conditioned on final platting.
2. Final zoning is conditioned on acceptable overall development
plans including a landscaping plan which provides screening
along the easterly property line.
3. Adjustment of the property line between the City property
and the proponent's property west of the most northeasterly
builing which will allow a maximum spacing between this
building and the Glasgow Drive cul de sac.
4. Provision of a secondary access on Shaughnessy Road.
5. Provision of a suitable barrier on the Glasgow Drive cul de sac
that will allow only emergency vehicle access.
Peter Jarvis, from the firm B.R.W., represented the proponent
Laukka & Associates. Mr. Jarvis gave a brief outline of the past developments
within the Dewey Hill plan. In January of 1978 final plat approval was given for
the first phase, 182 acres, 26 lots with an average density of 1.4 units per
acre. All access was to Dewey Hill. Final plat approval was granted to Dewey
Hill II in the summer of 1978, at present about 50 percent of the lots are under
construction. All ponding areas were in place before and after the construction
of Dewey Hill I and II, as part of a large surface water city management program.
The pond discussed by Mr. Hughes would be created as part of the development.
The concept of multiple housing was developed very early and
brought before the Commission and Council with plans which conceptually outlined
the condominium units and ponding systems. The plan illustrated all utilities
which are already existing on 78th and in Shaughnessy Road. All drainage will
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980
Page 5
move back into the man made pond, with a drainage for overflow to a pond to
the north. Under the Commission and Council's verbal approval, specific
developmental plans are now ready for preliminary approval.
Units would be designed to appeal to a broad market with
square footage ranging from 1200 square feet to 2700 square feet, with a
financial range of $150,000 to $275,000. Mr. Jarvis elaborated on unit plans
and design, and explained the general layout of those plans. Each unit would
have direct access to parking with approximately two or more exposures per unit.
The building west of Glasgow or the Shaughnessy side is a three story elevation.
All access will come off 78th Street on the east or Shaughness to the west.
Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Jarvis whether it was possible to
build a service road parallel to 78th Street to avoid congestion on West 78th
Street. Mr. Jarvis explained that due to poor soil conditions it was impossible,
but felt that with adequate curb cuts the proposed traffic access would be
sufficient.
Peter Jarvis was asked to expound on the question of density.
Mr. Jarvis explained when Laukka and Associates, the developer for the project,
bought all of the property, the City had approved a density of 5.9 units per acre.
Mr. Laukka developed Dewey Hill I and II as single family residences at one half
the approved density. Comprehensively, the proponent felt that Dewey Hill III
should not be perceived as a unit by itself, out of context with the whole
property, but part of the entire development concept.
Mark Fuller, attorney representing homeowners on Glasgow
Drive submitted a petition from all of the homeowner on Glasgow Drive.
Mr. Fuller stated that the proposed development was not
consistent with the comprehensive development plan for southwest Edina. In his
understanding of the plan, single family dwellings dominated Shaughnessy and
Glasgow and the area density was proposed from 0 to 6 units per acre. He noted
in 1975 a density reduction plan stated that the density of any parcel or tract
of land could not be greater than the comprehensive plan governing that parcel.
It also called for a 10% reduction in density on all property within 200 feet
of single family dwellings. This would bring the density for the proposed site
to 5.4 units per acre. The developer was asking for 9.2 units per acre, i.e.
almost twice the recommended amount by the Southwest Edina Plan.
Mr. Fuller advised the Commission that surrounding neighbors
were not given any notice of the rezonings of Dewey Hill I and II. The
neighbors were not given adequate opportunity to state their opinions of the proposed
rezonings.
Mr. Fuller clarified in terms of density that the proponent
had based the present proposed density on a plan which was discontinued. Ile
felt the proponents should address the density problem by the Edina Southwest
Land Use Plan.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980
Page 6
Mr. Fuller continued to site eight issues the homeowners were
contending: 1. Visually, the proposed condominium would be unacceptable to
homeowners on Glasgow, since a rise on the eastern edge of the property would
house a building on the top of the rise. 2. Mr. Fuller noted there was not
an adequate buffer between Glasgow Drive and the units. 3. Homeowners were
concerned that pilings which would be part of the construction of the
condominiums would shake up foundations in their homes. 4. Safety in the area
was another concern. Major construction in an area of single family housing
where children lived could be dangerous. 5. The condominiums would significantly
cut down solar access to some buildings on Glasgow Drive. Mr. Fuller noted that
Robert Clark of Glasgow Drive was interested in using solar panels on his
house, but thought the units would significantly cut down access to the sun.
6. Traffic was a concern to the homeowners. The proposed units would increase
already heavy traffic on 78th Street. 7. The value of homes could go down with
the addition of a condominium in an area of single family housing. 8. Finally,
the overall design of the development failed to accomodate and preserve the
natural amenities of the area. Mr. Fuller added if the project was accepted
all thirteen acres would be man made, none of the area would be preserved.
Mr. Fuller directed the Commission's attention to a letter
written from the Department of Natural Resources, which stated that the
construction of a reflection pool or pond would have an adverse affect on
wildlife.
Len Fernelius asked Mr. Fuller whether the homeowners
association was opposed to any form of multiple housing in the area. Mr. Fuller
stated the association would not be opposed to housing where the density would
be 5.5 or less.
Dominic Soiola of 7705 Glasgow Drive stated his desire was for
a less dense project and felt the units were inappropriate in a single family area.
Mr. Sciola's other concern was traffic on 78th Street. He stated the City of
Bloomington was planning to construct 98 units in the area, and felt this added
proposal with the proponent's units would make 78th Street unbearable.
Bob Clark, homeowner on Glasgow, reiterated Mr. Fuller's
concern that the condominiums would block the sun and view of the area. Mr. Clark
submitted a letter from Anthony Newman which addressed the issue of high density.
Tom Lampert of 7734 Glasgow stated his concern rested with
the potential flooding that could concur. He said the back part of his property
was the creek line which drained the runoff, and due to last year's heavy
rains the run off spilled into his back yard. In addition to surface water,
he was concerned about potential sewer backup or storm sewer backup. He cited
a few occassions where sewer backup had run off into his property. Mr. Lampert
requested a careful study be made of the ramifications that construction would
have in the area and submitted to homeowners.
Gordon Brown, resident on 78th Street observed if a 30
foot high building was erected on a 844 foot elevation as was proposed, adequate
sun exposure would be severly limited on his property.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1.980
Page 7
Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Jarvis to respond to the homeowner's
concern regarding their exposure to the sun. Mr. Jarvis explained that early
on in the project the proponent was aware of solar energy concerns in the
neighborhood and addressed his plans to that concern. Architects studied the
affects of shading on the surrounding neighborhood and found no negative
impact on those homes (i.e. Glasgow residents).
Peter Jarvis commented on the resident's concern with drainage.
He explained that before the Glasgow development, a farm existed on the property.
Barr Engineering studied the area and observed since the land was no longer
farmed, was levels had increased 18 inches. Since the ponds were built that
figure decreased significantly. The Watershed District unanimously approved
the project in terns of all the grading and creation of the ponds. The
consultant from the Watershed District stated in his report that the development
would be an improvement in water management for southwest Edina. The proposed
pond would work as a drainage system for excess water in the area.
A general discussion ensued regarding the view of the units
from Glasgow Drive. Mr. Jarvis explained because of the grading and topography
each building would appear to be various stories, not one long building.
Judy Sciola stated the proposed condominium would not
enhance the area but would take away the wildlife of the area.
Jessee Cokee, horticulturist, expressed his disapproval of
the development since it would destroy all remaining natural wildlife.
Len Fernelius returned to the question of density. He
observed the density of the units were inappropriate to the surrounding developments,
and wondered whether the developer could eliminate one story, thereby reducing
the overall density. Mr. Jarvis responded that this kind of action could
subsequently kill the project. In the judgment of the proponent, and the City
Council, the site could easily withstand the number of units proposed. He noted
that looking at the units from the outside, i.e. from behind the units, it would
appear as a three story building. If the building were reduced to three stories,
there wouldn't be enough units to warrant construction. Mary McDonald asked
Mr. Jarvis whether the proponent had considered building single family homes on
the site. Mr. Jarvis stated the site was too wet, construction would be
extraordinarily difficult.
Mr. Jarvis addressed the height issue. He noted setbacks were
145 and 180 feet, the structure relative to existing grade was 30 feet high. In
terms of landscaping in the nieghborhood the proponent would be agreeable to
meet with surrounding neighbors to select landscaping materials they thought
would be appropriate. With the extensive setback and landscaping the units would
not have to be obtrusive.
Len Fernelius moved to continue the proposal for one month so
that the proponent could address the problems of density, visual mass of building
and traffic. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. Mr. Jarvis requested
permission to address the Commission prior to voting on the motion.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission x
January 30, 1980
Page 8
Mr. Jarvis noted that extensive study and effort had'been undertaken to formulate
a development plan for the site. He noted that he appreciated the concerns of
the surrounding property owners -and agreed to st-udy..modi:fications to the plans.
However, he explained that Laukka and Associates would continue to request the
same development concept and density. Be reiterated that this concept and
density was received favorably by the Commission and -.Council in March and April
of 1978, when Dewey Hill 2nd Addition was approved and a concept plan presented
for the balance of the site. He also explained that an integral.feature of.the
development was the pond proposed for the central portion of the site. He, -noted
that it would. be essential to construct this pond during the winter prior to
the spring thaw. He explained that if the project was continued for one month,
the.pond construction would not be feasible and the project would be delayed for
'a ,year_. Therefore, Mr. Jarvis asRed .that the,,Conmissinn -deny the, request, so
that they could emceed 1D the Ctuincil in hope of receiving �an appmimak, that old
enable commencement of theprojectthis year.
Mr. Jarvis apologized to the Commission for having to request
.denial of the project as,opposed to continuing it for one month, and indicated
that _he ;had never requested such an action. before.
Mr. Lewis called for a vote on. Mr. Fernelius's motion to centinue
the proposal.
Ayes: Richard Seaberg, Len Fernelius
Mayes: James Bentley, Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnson, .Del .iohnson, Helen McClelland,
Mary McDonald
The motion failed. Gordon Johnson therefore moved to. deriy`the project in order
for Mr. Jarvis and the proponent to go before the City Council, on schedule.
Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye;.the motion carried.
S-80-1 Lincoln Londonderry Business Park First Addition.
4760 Lincoln Drive.
Mr. Hughes informed the Commission the subject property was
presently zoned PID Planned Industrial District. The proponents recently received
a variance to allow development of the site. The proposed plat is submitted to
clarify and simplify existing legal descriptions.
Staff recommended approval conditioned upon receipt of a'five
foot sidewalk easement along Lincoln Drive.
Helen McClelland moved approval of the sub -division, Richard
Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion .carried_
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980
Page 9
5-80-2 Edina Interchange.Center 8th Addition.
Generally located West of Ohms and North of West 73rd
Street.
Mr. Hughes explained that the subject property was presently an
outlot on the northerly extreme of Ohms Lane. It was designated as an outlot by
the request of the City Council a few years ago in that there was a disagreement
on whether Ohms Lane should be extended on the northerly edge of the property to
serve NSP in this location. The property is presently zoned PID Planned
Industrial District. The proponents have submitted a building plan which conforms
to zoning and floodplain requirements and are thus requesting the proposed plat
to facilitate development.
The proponents are willing to dedicate the 60 foot wide easement
along the northerly portion of the property to be in accordance with Council
directions. They will dedicate this to the public for public road easement or
they will dedicate it to NSP as a private driveway easement.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed plat with the
following conditions and recommendations:
1. A conservation restriction covering the portion of the
floodplain area which cannot be developed or filled due
to City and Watershed District regulations.
2. The 60 foot driveway and utility easement shown on the plat
should be designated as an outlot and deeded to the City.
This outlot would allow the extension of Ohms Lane in the
future if warranted.
3. This road would only provide a secondary access to N.S.P.
whose primary access is from 70th Street.
4. This road may be of value from a traffic standpoint only if
the primary access of N.S.P. to 70th Street is removed.
Staff believes that it is very doubtful that the City
could insist on the removal of the 70th Street access.
5. This road could encourage N.S.P. traffic to be diverted to
west 74th Street and the 77th Street Interchange which
experiences peak hour congestion problems.
6. This road could encourage some industrial traffic to
shortcut through the N.S.P. property from Ohms Lane to
70th Street.
Gordon Johnson moved approval of the proposed plat with the
recommendations as stated by staff. Helen McClelland seconded the motion.
All voted aye; the motion carried.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980
Page 10
LD -80-3 Lot 12, Block 1, Holand's lst Addition.
Mr. Hughes informed the Commission the piece of property in
discussion had a long history and pointed out the following essential facts:
In November of 1966, the Planning Commission and City Council
approved a subdivision of lot 6, Prospect Hills 2nd Addition to create a second.
building site for the southerly portion of that lot. At that time, it was noted
in the City Council minutes that access to this new lot would come by way of a
17 foot wide strip of land over lot 12, Holand's lst Addition. The Planning
Commission and Council. approved the division on that basis. The proponent at
that time applied for and received a variance from the Board. of Appeals and
Adjustments to allow a 17 foot lot width, while our Ordinances at that time
required 75 feet at the street frontage. The variance was approved by the
Board of Appeals in December of 1966. Following the approval, neighbors on both
sides objected to the variance whereupon the City Council returned the matter
again to the Board of -Appeals. However, the Board neither reaffirmed or denied
the variance. The variance was conditioned upon replatting.
Mr. Hughes continued that this same request was heard before
the Planning Commission in 1973. At that time, the proponent who is still the
existing proponent, applied for a lot division to divide the easterly 17 feet
of lot 12 from the balance of lot 12. At that time, property owners in the
area testified before the Commission that protective covenants still goverened
the area which would prevent building of a dwelling on the south end of lot 6.
The Commission denied the lot division and noted the Commission was under no
obligation to approve that division at that time and felt that access could be
achieved to the south half of lot 6 more appropriately in other locations.
Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that Mr. Kline, the proponent,
was presently seeking approval of the lot division to create a new parcel, the
easterly 17 feet of lot 12. Mr. Kline indicated to staff that he was the fee
owner of the east 17 feet of lot 12, he was also the fee owner of lot 6 and
submitted that the protective covenants that would prevent a building of a
dwelling on lot 6 had expired. Staff agreed with those statements upon
research. Staff informed Mr. Kline that his fee ownership of the east 17 feet
would not allow him to bypass the subdivision and zoning ordinance requirements
of the City. The City would still require that the east 17 feet be formally
divided from lot 12 and also a variance secured for the 17 foot lot width.
Staff noted in this case, the Planning Commission and Council were able to hear
the variance request in that it was in conjunction with the subdivision of
property.
Mr. Hughes noted that in staff's opinion the issue was more
a legal issue than a planning one. Mr. Hughes stated that staff was opposed
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980
Page 11
to neck lot subdivisions of property since it involved a number of problems
including public safety access, long driveways, and the relationship of building
on the property. However, the issue at this time, he explained, was the actions
that were taken in 1966 by the Planning Commission and Council and what kind
of reliance was placed on those actions by the proponent. Staff submitted upon
extensive review and consultation with Thomas E.ickson, City Attorney, that
reliance had been placed on this division by the proponent. Mr. Hughes added
the Board of Appeals also granted a variance to allow this division. The
variance did lapse, however, because it was not used within a year of the granting
and the condition that the property be replatted was never complied with. However,
staff observed that based on the past approvals of the Council, the proponent
could expect that approvals of the same nature would be forthcoming. Staff
advised the Commission that based on its review the lot division and variance
should be granted.
Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that the easterly 17 feet
of lot 12 was designated on the plat for Holand's 1st Addition as the drainage
and utility easement. He noted that the City could restrict the uses of
easements which are in conflict with the purpose for which they were recieved.
In reviewing the easement, staff found that no public utilities were installed
in the easement and none are contemplated by the engineering department.
A review of construction plans for the area revealed that a water stub was
provided on Claredon Drive at the easement. The water line easement could
exist for one or two reasons, i.e. access for sewer service to a new house or
hooking the water main system from Claredon up to Tralee to prevent stagnant
water. Mr. Hughes continued that the City usually received utility and
drainage easement and frequently allowed property owners in the City to make
uses of such easement areas as long as they were consistent with the purpose.
He added that most driveways crossed such easements.
Mr. Hughes clarified that an unconditional approval should
not be granted for driveway construction over an easement. Any approval should
be conditioned upon submission and approval by the Engineering Department of
the grading and drainage plan for the building site and driveway area.
Mr. Don Campbell, representing Mr. Kline, answered questions,
for the proponent. Mr. Campbell stated the Kline's purchased lot 11, block 1,
Holand's 1st Addition, in 1967 at the same time they acquired the 17 foot
strip of land lying on the east side of lot 12. Mr. Campbell noted that the
proponents had to reimburse the owner of the property for the sewer and water
stub at a cost of $700.00. The following year, in 1968, Mr. Kline purchased
the south part of lot 6 from the person who lived on the north part of lot 6.
At the time of purchase, the south parcel of lot six was represented as a
buildable lot which was based on the approval of the lot division by the Council
in 1966. The property was encumbered by the prospective covenants, which
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980
Page 12
permitted only one single family dwelling per lot. This resulted in the
impediment of the development of the lot, until 1978 when the protective covenants
expired.
Mr. Campbell pointed out that lot 6 was approximately 306 feet
in width, lying east to west along the south line, the west line was 230 feet
decreasing to 180 feet. He added that Mr. Kline had a prospective buyer for the
lot. The plans from the prospective buyer were presented before the Commission.
Mr. Campbell felt the important aspect was that the proponent
relied on the representations of the south lot when he purchased it and on
the actions of the prior City Council. If the application would not be granted,
Mr. Campbell stated the proponent would suffer a serious hardship. He invested
money in the property, paid taxes on it and would have to continue to pay
taxes with no opportunity for future use.
Mr. Bill Lewis submitted a letter received by the Commission
written by Darrell H. Boyd stating his opinion regarding the proposed lot division
and variance.
A question arose in reference to the letter regarding the
covenants. Mr. Hughes explained that the protective covenants were enacted for
twenty years and had an automatic extension for ten years, in periods. Upon
consultation with Mr. E.ickson, Mr. Hughes understood that under Minnesota
Statues any restrictions that had been enacted after 1939 were automatically
terminated after 30 years. In Mr. Erickson's opinion, covenants did not apply
here.
Darrell H. Boyd, 7204 Claredon, pointed out on the overhead the
danger of water erosion, and what it could do to his swimming pool. He stated
the 17 foot property for the proposed driveway was approximately a 45 degree
grade, water erosion would overlap into his yard. He suggested that a new drive-
way could be built on Kline's 72 foot adjoining property, and would not have
consequences to neighbors. Mr. Boyd added that residents on Claredon had not
been notified or advised that a Council and Commission meeting would be discussing
the property when it was divided in 1966.
Dick Emmerich, neighbor of Mr. Kline, stated that 17 feet was
not an adequate width for a driveway. He added that his driveway was a steep
one, and was building a new garage to eliminate the driveway problem, the proposed
driveway would be narrow, very steep, no access for emergency vehicles, snow
removal would be a problem. Mr. Emmerich said that he talked to Mr. Klein about
alternate routes that would not affect the neighboring property which included
selling a portion of his own property in the northwest corner to make more room
for a road through Klein's property.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980
Page 13
Mr. Campbell responded to Mr. Emmerich's comments. He
explained that the proposed driveway was no longer than existing driveways, for
example lot six. In regards to the steepness of the grade, he noted that the
Engineering Department would have to approve the grading and drainage plan before
any work would begin.
Sis Boyd, resident of Glasgow, reiterated Mr. Emmerich's
point based on her experience with her own driveway. She stated that the proposed
driveway would be steep and difficult, if not impossible, to ascend.
Chris Krueger, resident of lot 13, stated his primary concern
was whether the property could be used without disturbing the lots next to the
driveway. He added that in talking with other residents of Claredon, he had
found them unfavorable to the proposal for fear that the area would be permanently
disturbed. Merry Krueger submitted a petition from the residents of Claredon
Drive. She was concerned that the driveway was a potential hazard to children
in the area. Mrs. Krueger contended that the residents weren't even able to
make their own driveways, which were considerably less in elevation. Her
second concern was erosion from the hill and how the drainage would affect her
property, i.e. her basement.
Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Campbell whether the proponent would
consider building a driveway on his own property, i.e. lot 11. Mr. Campbell
stated his client had not ruled it out, but wondered why building on lot 11
would be any safer or less steep, he felt the objections could be the same.
Helen McClelland clarified the basic issue, i.e. whether the
proponent.could have a variance for 17 feet.
Mr. Hughes explained that the ordinance require a mean lot width
of 75 feet. Therefore, the variance was requested for the 17 foot parcel.
Mr. Hughes added the Engineering Department made an anticipated grade with the
use of an air photo of the driveway, and found it would be a 13% grade. Fran
Hoffman stated that the driveway would have to have a retaining wall,.maximum width
7 feet.
Mrs. Kline explained to the Commission that to provide an
alternate access would mean taking down the family home to make room for a road.
She continued it was not a question of whether they were willing to talk about
an alternate roadway, but that it was not feasible, visually or financially.
Gordon Johnson moved to deny the lot division and variance.
James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion passed.
Mr. Campbell asked the Commission for a reason why the variance
and lot division was denied. Gordon Johnson responded it had been denied because
the requested variance was not warranted.
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980.
Page 14
Mr. Hughes reminded the proponent that he could appear at the
February 4, 1980, City Council meeting, notices had been sent out indicating
to surrounding neighbors of the meeting.
LD -80-1 Lots 1, 2 and 3, Brookside Heights
Mr. Hughes informed the Commission the subject property
is comprised of three vacant single family lots. Each lot is approximately
54 feet in width and 130 feet in depth. These lots do not conform to the
zoning ordinance which requires a minimum width of 75 feet and a minimum lot
area of 9000 square feet.
The proponent requested a lot division whereby the
westerly 21 feet of lot- 2 be combined with lot 3 and the easterly 33 of
lot 2 be combined with lot 1. Thus, two lots would be created which
would conform to the zoning ordinance.
Staff recommended approval of the lot division.
The Commission wondered whether there were any houses on
the lots. Mr. Hughes responded negatively.
Richard Seaberg moved approval of the lot division.
Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
LD -80-2 Lot 3, Block 7, Braemar Hills, 9th Addition
Mr. Hughes explained the subject proponents were requesting
a party wall division of a recently constructed two family dwelling on the
subject lot. Individual sewer and water connections were provided for each
dwelling unit. The unusual configuration of the proposed lot line was
suggested to accomodate a proposed swimming pool to be located in the rear
yard of Parcel A.
Staff supported the concept of the lot division, but was
concerned with the orientation of the dwelling unit on Parcel B to the proposed
lot line in the rear yard area. The deck of unit B abuts and overlooked the
rear yard area of unit A. Staff was concerned that this orientation could
result in incompatible uses between the two units, e.g. accessory buildings
directly below the deck, a lot line fence, etc.
Staff recommended approval of the lot division conditioned
upon a re -configuration of the rear yard lot line to provide.a greater set-
back from unit B.
Mr. Hughes noted that it could be difficult to realign
the lot line and that could be difficult while trying to build a s-wimmingpool.
Mr. Lindquist, representing Hal and Judy Turner, stated
that the proponents had entered into a purchase agreement to divide the
yard, and as part of the agreement, the owner of parcels A and B would
enter into a covenant. The covenant would guarantee that each would have
Edina Community Development and Planning Commission
January 30, 1980
Page 15
easement to the other's yard area. A further agreement would provide for
mutual architectural control so that neither owner could build any fence,
wall, or building on the property without the consent of the other. A
swimming pool was to be built in parcel A A retaining wall existed at the
top of the lot so that the pool could not be shaped in an angle. Thus,
Mr. Lindquist claimed, it would be impossible to locate the pool in any
other manner.
Gordon Johnson wondered whether this agreement would be
recorded. Mr. Lindquist said it would and the agreement would run with the
land. He added that a right of refusal would be implicit in case either
wanted to sell.
General discussion ensued regarding the use of the pool,
whether it would be built for a single family or commercial use. Mr. Hughes
informed the Commission that the owners had spoken with the Health Department
and wanted to license the pool as a commercial one.
Michael Boo, also representing the proponent, stated that
the retaining wall to the south of the property made it difficult to move
the pool. Len Fernelius suggested that the lot line be moved 10 feet over
to the east, so that the new line would run parallel with the original lot
Michael Boo agreed that would alleviate the problem.
Len Fernelius moved approval of the lot division with the
condition that the lot line be moved 10 feet to the east and parallel to the
original lot line. Mary McDonald seconded the motion. All voted aye; the
motion carried.
III.
Next Meeting
Date:
February 27, 1980, -at 7:30 p.m.
IV.
Adjournment:
11:15
p.m.