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