Loading...
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