Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 08-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, John Skagerberg, Len Ring, Helen McClelland, Del Johnson, Dave Runyan, John Bailey and Virginia Shaw MEMBERS ABSENT: Gordon Johnson, Phil Sked and John Palmer STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Linda Elsen, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: June 27, 1984 Mrs. McClelland moved for approval of the minutes and Mr. Ring seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. The minutes were approved. II. NEW BUSINESS: S-84-12 Kidd Addition Generally located: South of 62nd Street and East of Valley View Road. Mr. Gordon Hughes described the subject property as measuring 28,252 square feet in area and zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The property fronts on West 62nd Street to the north and also enjoys access to Valley View Road to the south. This latter access is possible due to an unusual jog in the right of way for Valley View Road. The proponent requests a subdivision of the property into two lots which each would measure about 14,000 square feet in area. Lot 1 would be retained for the existing dwelling and Lot 2 would be a new building site. Mr. Hughes explained the southerly portion of the subject property is shown for low density attached residential uses by the Comprehensive Plan. All properties fronting on Valley View Road in this area are used for low density attached uses. Adjoining the property to the southeast is a four unit building and adjoining the property to the west is a three unit building, both of which front on Valley View Road. Easterly of the subject property are two, R-1 lots which are developed with modest dwellings fronting West 62nd Street. -2 - (The dwelling immediately east of the subJ'ect property is in a poor state of repair.) The westerly of the two lots measures about 95 feet in width by 338 feet in depth and the easterly lot measures 126 feet by 338 feet. Neither of these lots, however, enjoys access to Valley View Road. At Staff's urging, the proponent has pursued the possibility of the joint development with the two lots to the east. Apparently these efforts have not been successful. Mr. Hughes commented that although the proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as to lot size, frontage and access, Staff is concerned with the unusual relationship of the new lot to surrounding properties. The unusual relationship is principally caused by the lot's frontage on the jog in Valley View Road right of way. If this jog were not present, the proposed lot would not have frontage on a street and a division would not be possible. If the jog were vacated, it appears that the property would revert to a lot west of Valley View Road. Therefore, a vacation would not solve the frontage problem unless the proponent acquired the vacated property from the owner to the west. Approval of the proposed subdivision will limit the develo-nent potential of the large R-1 lots to the east. As noted earlier, the subject property provides the only potential access to Valley View Road. If this access is lost, a rezoning for low density attached uses for these properties is questionable. Also, the subject property and the two lots to the east could be replatted into R-1 lots which would be served by a new cul de sac from West 62nd Street. (This plan would required the demolition of at least one existing dwelling.) If the subjecty property were excluded from such a replat, the new cul de sac could not be "double loaded" with lots and, thus, may not be feasible. The issue in this case is clear, Mr. Hughes stated: should a subdivision be approved which technically complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, but does so due to an unusual arrangement of public right of way; or should the proponent be required to delay his subdivision plans and pursue a joint development with adjoining owners even though such a joint development may be premature? As noted earlier, such a joint development has been pursued without apparent success. The latter approach is most desirable from a planning standpoint. However, if the requested subdivision is approved,.. Staff believes the new lot should be rezoned to R-2 Double Dwelling Unit District. An R-2 use in this location would conform with the Comprehensive Plan and would be more logical use as compared to a single family dwelling. Staff assumes that the northerly line of the new lot could be located slightly to provide the required 15,000 square foot minimum area for R-2 -3 - lots. However, a variance from the 90 foot lot width minimum would be needed. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Kidd, the proponents, were present. Mr. Skagerberg wondered if a single dwelling unit would require any variances. It was noted that it would not. Dr. Byron Armstrong, 4119 W. 62nd Street, explained that he owned the property located on the east side of the proponent's. The subject lot could not accomodate a multi -family dwelling unit by itself. He indicated that alternatives were possible. Mrs. McClelland suggested that proposal be continued for one month in order to allow the neighbors to explore those alternatives and reach a solution. Mr. Kidd stated that various meetings had been conducted with surrounding neighbors and a decision could not be reached. He believed a continuance would not change things. Mrs. McClelland moved to continue the proposal for one month in order to allow the neighbors to work with Staff at reaching a solution. Mr. Bailey agreed with Mr. Kidd and pointed out that a subdivision into two R-1 lots meet all zoning requirements. He also commented that approval of a subdivision would still allow further discussions regarding development for that property. Mr. Del Johnson noted that a one-month delay may motivate the neighbors to reach an agreement. Dr. Armstrong alleged that the proponents had never spoken with him. Mr. Kidd reported that Mr. Jack Rice, Rice Company Real Estate, had organized meetings with the various neighbors while exploring possibilities of construction and ownership of an apartment building on this site and the two parcels to the east. Mr. Hughes read excerpts from a letter to Dr. Armstrong, Robert Kidd, Douglas Yarwood and John Yarwood from Mr. Rice which stated that efforts had been made to reach an agreement. Mr. Rice decided for economic reasons not to pursue acquisition of the various properties any further. Mr. Kidd also noted that he had been contacted by other contractors without resolution to the situation. Mr. Runyan asked what Mr. Kidd intended to do with the single family lots. Mr. Kidd, a carpenter by trade, planned to build on them. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion for a continuance for one month. Roll call was taken. Those in favor: John Skagerberg, Viringina Shaw, Helen McClelland, and Del Johnson. Those opposed: David Runyan, John Bailey, Len Ring and Bill Lewis. Motion failed. -4- . Dr. 4 - Dr. Armstrong suggested a possibility of selling off the back of the three lots together. He indicated that one month could be enough time to arrive at a resolution. Upon discussion, Mr. Skagerberg moved for approval of the subdivision. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Roll call was taken. Those in favor: John Skagerberg, Len Ring, Bill Lewis, David Runyan and John Bailey. Those opposed: Del Johnson, Helen McClelland and Virginia Shaw. The motion carried. The preli- minary plat of the subdivision was approved. S-84-13 Dennis Miller Addition Generally located north of Grove Street and east of Johnson Drive. Mr. Hughes noted that the subject property measures 40,339 square feet in area and is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. An existing dwelling is located on the easterly portion of the property. The property adjoins Garden Park on its north and west boundaries. The proponent requests a subdivision of the property into two lots. Lot 2 would measure 90 feet by 160 feet and would be retained for the existing dwelling. Lot 1 would measure 80 feet by lbO feet and would constitute a new buildable lot. The north,,eh Iy 77 feet of the lot is described as an outlot and is proposed to be dedicated to the City as a subdivision dedication which would add to the area of Garden Park. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that a similar subdivision for the adjoining property to the east had been approved recently. The proposed lot comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and are consistent with other lot sizes in the neighborhood. Approval is recommended subject to the dedication of Outlot A to the City. Mr. Jack Lynch, Westwood Planning, was present to answer questions. Mrs. McClelland moved for approval subject to the dedication of Outlot A and Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. LD -84-13 Lot 1 & 2, Block 1, Heather Hill Generally located: East of Heather Lane and north of Vernon Avenue. Mr. Hughes stated the proponent requests a lot division whereby a 2,727 square foot parcel would be transferred from Lot 2 to Lot 1. Setbacks of existing structures would continue to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Approval was recommended. -5 - Mrs. McClelland moved for approval and Mr. Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. LD -84-14 Victorsen. Lot 19, Block 1, The Timbers. Generally located: West of Gleason Road and south of Timber Ridge. The proponents request a division whereby a small portion of Lot 18 will be added to Lot 19. Setback requirements continue to be met by all structures. Approval was recommended. Mr. Runyan moved for approval and Mr. Ring seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. LD -84-15 Lot 26, Block 3, Dewey Hill Second Addition. Generally located: South of Long Brake Trail and east of Stonewood Court. The proponents are two adjacent lot owners requesting to each acquire one-half of an adjacent vacant lot. The proposed division benefically expands the area of each lot. Approval is recommended. Mrs. McClelland moved for approval and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion. carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. McClelland moved for adjournment and Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All were in favor; the meeting was adjourned. Li a Elsen, Secretary