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