HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 02-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularKINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1984 AT 7:30 P.M.
AEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, John Palmer,
Leonard Ring, Virginia Shaw, John Skagerberg, Phil Sked.
STAFF PRESENT:
Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Jeri Marty, Acting Secretary
I. Approval of the February 1, 1984 Minutes:
Mr. Skagerberg moved for approval and Mr. Palmer seconded the motion.
All were in favor; the motion carried.
II. New Business:
S-84-4 Lot 3, Block 1, Muir Woods
Generally tocateT west o Valley View Road and west of
Mark Terrace Drive extended.
Mr. Larsen reported that the subject property measures 71,688 square
feet and is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling District. The property is
developed with a single family dwelling located slightly north of the center
of the lot.
The proponent is requesting a subdivision of the property to create
one new buildable lot on the southerly portion of the property. The new lot
would measure 29,428 square feet with about 90 feet of width at the required
setback line. The remaining developed lot would have 42,260 square feet with
a width of approximately 150 feet at the building line.
Mr. Larsen pointed out to the Commission Members that the subject
property, as well as others in the Muir Woods plat, is characterized by fairly
steep slopes and heavy woods. Further, he stated that the lots are large and
the houses are set back an average of 120 feet from Valley View Road. Also,
developments to the west�and east are characterized by similar terrain and
much smaller lots.
Although the proposed lot exceeds the Zoning Ordinance area minimums,
Mr. Larsen stated it would be slightly too narrow under the revised Zoning
Ordinance standard for lot width. The new Ordinance measures lot width at a
point 50 feet from the front lot line. The proposed lot would be 72 feet at
that point. Mr. Larsen explained that in order to correct this and to
maximize the lot area of the new lot, Staff would suggest that the new lot
line be adjusted 10 feet to the north along its entire distance. This would
result in a lot width of approximately 100 feet at the required setback.
Staff would recommend preliminary approval conditioned upon the aforementioned
-2 -
lot line adjustment and subdivision dedication.
Discussion followed regarding the position and access to the garage
and driveway. Mr. Larsen stated that the driveway access would likely have to
be changed. The proponent, Ed Sisam, 7100 Valley View Road, was present and
requested that the proposed lot line be moved along Valley View Road
suggicient distance to meet the new Ordinance, but be left unchanged at the
rear lot line. Mr. Skagerberg inquired as to whether or not the existing
driveway would be commonly used by both homeowners. The proponent responded
that it possibly would be, but not necessarily. Mr. Skagerberg clarified that
the easement may or may not grant an easement to the homeowners on the
northerly lot for the driveway. The proponent expressed that he would have no
objection to using a common driveway. Mr. Johnson voiced concern over the
fact that if a new driveway were to be put in, it would require more curb cuts
and cutting down of many trees.
Mr. Larsen concluded that the proponent's counter proposal by moving
the lot line would satisfy both the existing and the new Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
Mr. Palmer moved for approval of the lot subdivision, as modified by
the proponent, that the new lot line be adjusted 10 feet to the north along
its midpoint which would result in a lot width of approximately 100 feet at
the required setback. Mr. Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor;
motion carried.
S-84-3 Lot 5, Block 1, Indian Hills
Generally located west of Indian Hills Road and north
of Dakota Trail.
Mr. Larsen reported that the subject property measures 141,700 square
feet and is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling District. Approximately 25
percent of the property is contained within the normal elevation of Arrowhead
Lake. The property is developed with a single family dwelling located
slightly north of the center of the lot.
The proponent is requesting a subdivision of the property to create
one new buildable lot. It is the stated intent of the proponent to remove the
existing dwelling and to construct new dwellings on both of the lots resulting
from the subdivision. As proposed, Lot 1 would contain 91,600 square feet,
and Lot 2 would have 50,100 square feet, including the area lying in Arrowhead
Lake. Both lots, as proposed, would exceed the requirements of both the
existing and the revised Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission
of the subdivision recently completed for the property immediately south of
the subject site.
Mr. Larsen explained that Staff recommends approval of the
subdivision, but would like to see a more even division of the property.
Moving the lot line between Lots 1 and 2, 10 to 20 feet northerly, would be a
significant improvement. He further noted that the removal of the existing
dwelling will allow for greater flexibility in siting new homes which will
enable the new dwelling to better blend with the existing character of the
Indian Hills area. Mr. Larsen concluded that Staff would also recommend th
following conditions:
-3-
1. Subdivision dedication
2. Protective shoreline easement.
Mr. Connor Schmid, an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. John Weston
who reside at 6516 Indian Hills Road, was present. Mr. Schmid submitted a
petition bearing signatures of residents in the Indian Hills area who are in
opposition to the replatting of Lot 5, Block 1, Indian Hills. The concerns of
the Weston's were addressed by Mr. Schmid as follows:
a. What kind of homes will be placed on these smaller lots
which are subdivided?
b. Doubling of the density on the lot.
c. Property value decline of surrounding homes
d. The subdivision will substantially diminish the character
and symmetry of the Indian Hills neighborhood
Mr. Schmid stated that the argument of a precedent being set by the
recent subdivision of the Peterson Replat should be rejected. He stated that
that situation was one which was highly charged with emotion and was unique in
its particular situation and, therefore, was considered on its individual
merit.
Those who were present and spoke in opposition to the proposed
subdivision were: Donald Buck, 6509 Indian Hills Road, Orrin Haugen,.6612
Indian Hills Road, Mr. J. Robert Gardner, 6620 Indian Hills Road, John
Peterson, 9873 Aquilla Road, Bloomington (represented Mr. and Mrs. Gordon
Peterson, 6517 Indian Hills Road). Items of concern in the Indian Hills area -
addressed were density, decreased foliage, stability of the neighborhood,
decreased property values, the steep terrain of the proposed subdivision would
not lend itself to additional building sites, difficulty in keeping the weed
growth down, and the destroyed feeling of isolation.
Mr. Richard M. Smith, 6600 Mohawk Trail, a builder, developer and land
planner was present and stated that by permitting wholesale development and
lots splits, Indian Hills could be turned into "just another community". He
asked for the Commission's careful consideration of this subdivision as the
result would have a great affect on the future of the Indian Hills area.
Mr..Greg Gustafson, 7723 Gleason Road, brother of the proponent who is
an attorney, was present and outlined items of mention to the Commission. He
discussed the background of the Gustafson family saying that they were not
intending to detract from the value of the Indian Hills area. He stated that
his brother and wife would reside in the home located on the northerly lot,
and his brother, Jeff, would build and sell the home to be located on the
southerly lot. He also stated that Jeff is known as a very reputable builder
in Edina having built many homes in excess of $300,000.
Donna Hipps, 6604 Dakota Trail, made reference to the fact that when
she purchased her home in 1958 a restrictive covenant was signed stating there
-4 -
would never be more lots in Indian Hills as long as the covenant was in
effect. She stated another contingency of the restrictive covenant was that no
one would sell off more than 10% of their lot. She stated her concern that
the proposed subdivision were to be passed, a future precedent would certai.
be set.
Mr. Palmer, noted he recently observed the proposed subdivision site
and felt that it would be a detriment to the neighborhood to have two homes on
the proposed site especially in relation to the difference in the terrain, the
lake and the woods on that particular lot.
Mrs. Shaw asked for clarification of how binding a restrictive
covenant was. Planner, Craig Larsen, explained that this is a private matter
between homeowners.
Mr. Skagerberg addressed the audience as to what their general opinion
was for subdividing any lots in the Indian Hills area. The general opinion
was negative, and it was stated that the residents who bought property in the
Indian Hills area wanted to continue enjoying it for their original intentions
of purchase. Mr. Palmer, however, felt that each situation should be dealt
with individually.
No further discussion being heard, Mr. Palmer made a motion to deny
the request for subdivision of Lot 5, Block 1, Indian Hills. Mrs. McClelland
seconded the motion. All were in favor; motion carried.
LD -84-3 Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Warden Acres Peterson Replat
Genera ly locatec-south of Grove Street and west o�
Garden Avenue.
Mr. Larsen explained that the subject parcels are two vacant lots in
the recent Peterson Replat of Warden Acres. He noted that the request is for
a 14 foot lot line adjustment between Lots 2 and 3 of Block 1. The frontage
of Lot 2 would be reduced from 91 feet to 77 feet, and Lot 3 would be
increased from 82 feet to 96 feet of frontage. The proponent has requested
the division to allow more freedom in siting a dwelling on Lot 3, since a
front yard setback of 30 feet will be required from both Garden Avenue and Oak
Lane.
It was stated that the recommendation from Staff was to approve the
aforementioned lot line adjustment, and since Lot 3 is, or will be, a corner
lot, it should be the larger lot. Both lots continue to meet all Ordinance
standards and remain of comparable size with surrounding lots.
No discussion being heard, Mr: Sked moved for approval of the request
for a 14 foot lot line adjustment between Lots 2 and 3 of Block 1, Warden
Acres Peterson Replat. Mr. Ring seconded the motion. All were in favor;
motion carried.
III. Traffic Study of Grandview Area
City Engineer, Hoffman submitted to the Commmission members the
preliminary Grandview Area Traffic Study. Mr. Hoffman gave an informational
review of the study with discussion that followed by the Commission members
-5 -
IV. Adjournment
Mrs. McClelland moved for adjournament and Mr. Palmer seconded the
motion. All were in favor; the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Jeri. Mar