Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 06-27 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Ring, and Virginia Shaw STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Linda Elsen, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Johnson, David Runyan, Del John Bailey, Phil Sked, Len Mr. Bailey moved for approval of the minutes and Mrs. Shaw seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: S-84-9 Valley View Heights 2nd Addition Generally located: South of Valley View Road and East of Tracy Avenue Mr. Hughes told the Commission the applicant's request for a four lot subdivision and rezoning to R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District for the subject property was scheduled for the Commission's May 30, 1984, agenda. However, the applicant withdrew his request prior to the meeting due, in part, to Staff's recommendation that the rezoning to R-2 should be denied. The applicant has now returned with a proposal to subdivide the property into five, R-1 lots. The proposed lots range in area from 12,200 square feet to 21,100 square feet. The dimensions of the lots comply with Ordinance requirements. Lots 1 through 4 of the subdivision are arranged around a small cul de sac from Valley View Road. The fifth lot fronts on Valley View. Mr. Hughes noted that the May 30, 1984, Staff Report contains Staff's analysis of this property and our reasons for recommending its use for single dwelling unit buildings. The applicant has responded with a reasonable proposal for the development of the property that is in keeping with Staff's recommendation. Although the proposed cul de sac adds somewhat to the City on-going maintenance obligations, it does reduce the number of driveways which access directly onto Valley View Road and may provide a more desirable orientation of dwellings. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the subdivision conditioned upon: . V 1.) Subdivision dedication. 2.) Relocation of the existing storm sewer at the developer's expense. 3.) Developer's Agreement. Mr. Paul Kingbay, developer, was present. Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the subdivision conditioned upon Staff's recommendations. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. III. NEW BUSINESS: S-84-10 Replat of Lot 70, Morningside Generally located: 4231 Grimes Avenue Mr. Hughes reported the subject property measures 100 feet in width by nearly 200 feet in depth and is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. An existing dwelling is located on the northerly portion of the lot. The applicant requests a subdivision of the property whereby two lots measuring 50 feet in width would be created. The northerly lot would be retained for the existing dwelling and the southerly lot would a new building site. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet and, therefore, 25 foot lot width variances are also requested. In that these variances are requested as part of the platting process, the Commission and City Council, rather than the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, ago empowered to act on them. The applicant also proposes to remove a greenhouse attached to the existing dwelling in order to comply with the side yard setback requirement from the new lot line. The subject property is part of the Morningside plat which, together with Crocker & Crowell's First Addition and Grimes Homestead, comprises a large portion of the former Village of Morningside. Although nearly all lots within these plats originally measured 100 feet in width, most have been further subdivided to provide more than one building site. Of the 200+ lots originally composing these subdivisions, only about 30 lots remain unsubdivided. (About 20 other lots have been subdivided but retain lot widths of about 100 feet.) Although a precise count has not been made, most such pre-existing lots have been subdivided into 50 foot wide lots as now proposed for the subject property. Almost all such divisions occurred prior to annexation of Morningside by Edina. Mr. Hughes illustrated on a graphic the lots fronting on Grimes Avenue between 42nd Street and Morningside Road, of which 12 lots measure 100 feet in width, 14 lots measure 50 feet in width, two lots measure 65 feet in width, and one lot measures 70 feet in width. The three lots immediately south of the subject property measure 100 feet in width. The eight lots north of the subject property measure 50 feet in width. Mr. Hughes noted that in Staff's view the proposed subdivision represents the norm rather than the exception in this neighborhood. The dwelling on the property was apparently positioned to allow a further subdivision of the property and can be easily modified to comply with the setback requirements. We can identify no characteristics associated with this property that distinguish it from other lots that have been similarly subdivided by both Morningside and Edina. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following policies affecting this request: Allow further subdivisions of developed single family lots only if the neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved. Maintain existing single family lot and building minimums. However, establish a secondary single family zoning classification that allows for reduced minimum lot and building requirements based on neighborhood charac- teristics. Allow redevelopment of parcels in small lot areas of the City according to neighborhood standards. Mr. Hughes concluded that the character and symmetry of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected by the subdivision and the standards maintained by other properties will be preserved. Therefore, he recommended approval of the subdivision and variance conditioned on subdivision dedication. Nancy Hanchett, 4232 Grimes Avenue S., wondered when the subdivisions in the area took place. Mr. Hughes informed her that most of the subdivisions occured prior to the houses that were located on them. Jack Eickhoff, 4234 Grimes Avenue S., stated he did not intend to subdivide his property. He expressed concerns of the appearance of the new house in an established neighborhood saying that there were two smaller lots in the neighborhood with new homes on them for sale and the owners are having a difficult time selling them. Mr. Eickhoff wondered what would become of the trees on the lot. John Peterson, 4239 Grimes Avenue S., was opposed to the division also. He commented that the people next to the proposed proposed division were on vacation. Len Lampert, the proponent, spoke. He stated that he presently lived on a large lot and appreciated open space and also had concern for the house appearance. Clarence Velgersdyk, 4238 Grimes Avenue S., wondered if Mr. Lampert would need to obtain an easement from the Schultz property. He believed that the neighborhood was under constant attack. The possibility of this subdivision along with the elementary school closing would cause property values to drop. This subdivision could cause a snowball of other subdivisions in the neighborhood. Mr. Lampert stated that sharing a driveway was certainly an attractive idea, however, it was something that had not been discussed fully as of yet. He commented that he would attempt to save the maple trees located on the lot. The three elm trees would probably be removed and other landscaping such as evergreens planted. Mrs. McClelland stated that the right to subdivide had been granted to others in the neighborhood under the grandfather clause. She believed that the Commission could not legally deny another party the right to subdivide. Mr. Velgerdyk argued that the subdivision was for a financial gain only. He believed that the owner should sell the lot as a whole. Mr. Bailey agreed with Mrs. McClelland although he sympathized with the neighbors. He believed a new home would not fit into the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Velgerdyk stated that this subdivision should be treated differently than the old subdivisions because of the existing modern-day homes. Mrs. McClelland moved for approval of the subdivision conditioned upon Staff's recommendations and Mr. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor with the exception of Mr. Bailey. The motion carried. S-84-11 Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Taft Addition Generally located: South of Blake Road and North of Scriver Road Mr. Hughes reported that the subject property measures 68,772 square feet in area and is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. An existing dwelling is located on the southerly portion of the property. The applicant requests a subdivision of the property into two lots. The southerly lot would measure 33,417 square feet in area and would be retained for the existing home. The northerly lot would measure 35,355 square feet and would be a new building site. Mr. Hughes noted the proposed lots far exceeds ordinance minimums as well as other lot sizes recently approved in the vicinity. The new lot should provide an excellent building site and Staff sees no reason why the subdivision should not be approved. Therefore, approval is recommended subject to 1. Subdivision dedication; and, 2. Increase in the width of the drainage and utility easement along the west property line from five feet to ten feet. Mr. James Brook, proponent, was present. Mr. Bailey moved for approval subject to Staff's recommendations and Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. Final Development Plan Approval 5108 Edina Industrial Blvd. Mr. Hughes noted that the subject property is improved with First Southdale's detached banking facility whch has been closed for several months. The applicant proposes to remove the drive -up canopy and other appurtenant equipment and construct a one-story 10,247 square foot addition to the existing 2,669 square foot building. Surface parking would be provided on the site to support the proposed use for office purposes. The subject property was rezoned from 0-1, Office District to POD -1, Planned Office District in connection with the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance in March, 1984. The new Ordinance requires that significant additions to buildings so rezoned are subject to the final development plan approval process before the Commission and Council. Mr. Hughes reported that the proposed expansion conforms with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of parking quantity, setbacks, lot coverage and so forth. The proposed building materials are the same as the existing building. The applicant proposes to preserve the existing curb cuts on Metro Boulevard and Edina Industrial Boulevard. Presumably, the easterly curb cut on Edina Industrial Boulevard is one way in bound and the westerly curb cut is one way out bound. He recommended approval of the final development plans subject to 1. Signing of the Edina Industrial Boulevard driveways to designate one way traffic movements. 2. Modification of the Metro Boulevard curb cut to align with the proposed parking layout. Mr. Runyan suggested that the parking spaces be angled in order to point the one-way traffic out correctly. Mr. Bill Traiser, the proponent, was present and noted that the parking spaces were presently pointed that way. Discussion ensued regarding the congested traffic during rush hours and the locations of the curb cuts. It was agreed that proposed plan was most suitable along with Staff's recommen- dations. Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the final development plan subject to the conditions stated in the staff report. Mr. Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor. Mr. Gordon Johnson obstained. The motion carried. LD -84-12 Lot 1, Block 1, Clagramar Fourth Addition Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent has a pool located too close to the lot line. He and his neighbor are proposing the transfer of a parcel of properpty to allow for the required pool setbacks. Approval is recommended. Mr. Runyan moved for approval and Mr. Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Johnson moved for adjournment and Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor; the meeting was adjourned'at 8:40 p.m. 4Lin a D. Eisen Secretary