Loading...
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.