Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 12-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, David Runyan, James Bentley, Helen McClelland, John Skagerberg, John Palmer and Leonard Ring MEMBERS ABSENT: Leonard Fernelius, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson and Mary McDonald STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Joyce Repya, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Helen McClelland moved for approval of the minutes from the December 2, 1981 meeting. Leonard Ring seconded the motion. All voted aye; -the motion carried. I1. .OLD BUSINESS Z-81-5 Community Development Corporation. Amendment to overall development plan for SR -5 Senior Citizen Residence. Generally located north of Parklawn Avenue and west of York Avenue. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that they had reviewed the subject project on several occasions during the past year. This project, as it was approved by the Commission and Council, proposed a 98 unit residence for the elderly. On December 2, 1981, Mr. Hughes had reported to the Commission that the project was recycled into the 1982 HUD fiscal year and thus the feasibility of the project was questionable. As a result of the recycling, HUD has required a relatively small reduction in the unit sizes. Therefore, the proponent has submitted new plans which illustrate an approximate 30 square foot reduction per unit. The new unit sizes continue to meet our zoning requirements. In addition, Mr. Hughes explained that due to financial hardship of the project, the proponent is requesting an increase in the total number of units from 98 to 100. This increase likewise conforms to our Ordinance. Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that although the proposed changes are relatively minor, Staff felt that the Commission and Council should formally consider a plan amendment. Staff would recommend approval of these changes. Responding to an inquiry from the Commission regarding the sizes of the units, Ms. Diane Nelson from Community Development Corporation explained that the unit sizes have decreased from 585 square feet to approximately 540 square feet. Following a general discussion, David Runyan moved approval of the plan amendment. John Palmer seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Community Development and Planning Commission December 30, 1981 Page 2 S-81-12 Marthe Woods Hill Addition. Generally located north of West S 78th Street and east of Gleason Road. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that the subject subdivision was considered by the Commission at the September 30, 1981, meeting. A five lot single family dwelling subdivision was proposed for the 1.8 acre parcel. Lot 1 of the subdivision would be retained for the existing dwelling on the site. Mr. Hughes explained that the major problem associated with this sub- division is the need for right of way for Marth Court. Staff noted that this right of way was deficient primarily in the vicinity of Lots 3 and 4 of the sub- division. In that area, a 33 foot wide right of way had been dedicated previously for Marth Court. However, this right of way is separated from the subject property by a five foot strip.of private property. Thus, not only the five foot strip, but also an additional 10 foot wide strip east of the existing right of way would have to be acquired in order to provide a minimum 50 foot right of way. The owner of these strips, Mr. Evanson, appeared at the September 30th meeting and objected to the plat and required right of way. The Commission continued the subdivision and asked that the proponent attempt to resolve the right of way issue. Mr.. Hughes stated that he had spoken to the proponent on several occasions since the September 30th meeting. Apparently, there had been attem t$ -to negotiate a right of •way acquisition for this subdivision. Those attempts had not been successful. As a result, the proponent is requesting that the subdivision be referred to the Council for a decision on using the City's power of eminent domain to acquire the right of way. Mr. Hughes indicated that the condemnation issue can only be resolved by the Council. Thus, he suggested that the matter be referred to Council with the following conditions: 1. The proponent must enter into a Developer's Agreement and petition the Council for curb and gutter, permanent street surfacing, sanitary sewer, and watermain (all to be located in the Marth Court right of way) . This work must be authorized by the City Council prior to or concurrent with final plat approval. 2. The 33 foot wide right of way for Marth Court located in the proximity of Lots 3 and 4 of the proposed subdivision as discussed previously must be acquired prior to final plat approval. This right of way must include the five foot strip presently separating the subject property from Marth Court. 3. The proponent must dedicate a two foot wide strip of right of way along the east line of the subject property in order• to increase the Marth Court right of way to 50 feet. (note - additional riaght of way for the cul de sac must also be provided) . 4. Lot line easements for sewer and water must be dedicated as needed. 5. A proposed grading plan must be submitted. 6. Subdivision Dedication Community Development and Planning Commission December 30, 1981 Page 3 Mr. James Van Valkenburg, attorney for the proponent advised the Commission that the proponent has attempted to reach an agreement with Mr. Evanson regarding the roadway situation, but has been unsuccessful. Referring to a letter Mr. Evanson wrote Mr. Van Valkenburg (copies of which were sent to the Commission) , Mr. Van Valkenburg stated that the neighbor's concerns regarding the additional assessments are not under the control of the developer, rather a City matter. He added that it would not be fair to expect the proponent to keep this parcel undeveloped in order to main- tain the view and open space for the neighbors. Addressing a concern of Ms. McClelland's at the September 30th meeting, Mr. Van Valkenburg explained to the Commission that all of the lots in the proposed subdivision are comparable to the lots in surrounding developments, and that none of the lots are smaller. Mr. Byron Zotaley, the proponent explained to the Commission that he does not own the property, but rather the owner of the property is his cousin who has retired to Flordia. Mr. Zotaley, being the lawyer in the family has been representing his cousin in this issue. He noted that at this point he felt it advisable to seek the services of Mr. Van Valkenburg as the development was becoming somewhat technical. Mr. Zotaley added that presently, tenants are residing in the home on the site. Mr. Jeff Longtin, 5828 West 78th Street explained to the Commission that his dispute with the proposed development lies in the increased assessments which he will have to pay for improvements that will benefit the development, not himself. He added that perhpas the developer could absorb the assessment costs since the improvements will benefit him alone. Mr. Roger Evanson, 7717 Marth Court noted his agreement with Mr. - Longtin's concerns regarding the possible assessments the development would incur. He added that a year ago he offered the property necessary for the right of way if the proponent would absorb the improvement costs. Mr. Evanson pointed out that he is still willing to sit .down with the developer to come up with a mutual ag reement . With regard to the assignment of assessments due from surrounding properties, Mr. Hughes explained that the City Council conducts a project hearing where they determine to what extent various properties in the area are benefited by the improvements. The assessments are not cut and dried. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that Warren Hanson, owner of the property to the northeast of the subject parcel has advised Staff that he does not oppose the development nor does he support it. He would like to remain neutral. John Palmer stated that the issues being raised are financial in nature and not within the realm of the Planning Commission. He then stated that the assessment issues should be handled by the City Council and moved for approval of the development subject to Staff's conditions. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Community' Development and Planning Commission December 30, 1981 Page 4 111. NEW BUSINESS: LD -81-18 Lots 3 and 4, Block 5, Glenview Addition. Generally located south of 50th Street and east of Arden Avenue. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the proposed division will convey a small triangular parcel from the rear yard of Lot 3 to the rear of Lot 4. This division is requested to allow construcion of an accessory building in the rear yard of Lot 4. He added that Staff would recommend approval. Helen McClelland moved approval of the lot division. John Palmer seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -81-19 Lot 4, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition. Generally located west of Gleason Road and north of West 78th Street. Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that the proposed division is requested to divide a recently completed two family dwelling. Individual utility connectors have been provided. Mr. Hughes added that Staff would recommend approval. Helen McClelland moved approval of the lot division. Leonard Ring seconded the motin. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -81-20 Lot 5, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition. Generally located west of Gleason Road and orth of West 78th Street. Mr. Hughes explained that the proposed division is requested to divide an existing two family dwelling. Individual utility connectors have been provided. Mr. Hughes added that Staff would recommend approval. Helen McClelland moved approval of the lot division. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -81-21 Lot 5, Block 1, Indianhead Crest. Generally located west of Cheyenne Trail and north of Valley View Road. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the proponent is requesting a lot division which enlarges his lot by the addition of a triangular parcel from the lot to the couth. This lot division provides a more logical front yard for the proponent's dwelling. Mr. Hughes added that Staff would recommend approval. John Palmer moved approval of the lot division. Leonard Ring seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: V. ADJOURNMENT: 8:00 P.M. January 27, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ep Joyce G. Repya, Secretary