HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 04-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular41
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Lewis, John Bailey,
Helen McClelland, Del Johnson, John
Skagerberg, John Palmer, Jane Paulus,
Virginia Shaw and David Runyan.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phil Sked and Gordon Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the April 2, 1986
Community Development and Planning Commission Minutes. Mr.
Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor. The
motion carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
Z-86-1 Robert Hansen
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that the
subject proposal was continued at the Commissions April 2,
1986 meeting to allow Mr. Hansen and Mr. Daryl an
opportunity to prepare a revised site plan. Mr. Larsen
stated at this time he has not received a revised plan. He
added Mr. Hansen, proponent and Mr. Daryl, Architect are
present this evening to submit their proposal.
Mr. Daryl told the Commission he and Mr. Hansen had
reviewed their requests with careful consideration. He
informed the Commission the requested setback from the cul
de sac has been accomplished. He said the request by the
Commission for maintaining the 35 foot front yard setback
from the right-of-way would result in a large cut, which
would necessitate high retaining walls and little back
yard/patio space for the future tenants. He added such a
large cut would disturb the permanency of the hill. Mr.
Daryl asked the Commission to reconsider their position on
the front yard setback and allow the requested 30 foot
setback from the curb to remain.
Mr. Daryl pointed out that in maintaining the 35 foot
rear yard setback the site is in compliance except for a
small point where the setback is decreased to 29 feet.
w.
Mr. Daryl stressed that he and Mr. Hansen wish to comply
with the Commission's recommendations but find they are
unable to do so and retain marketable housing. Mr. Daryl
explained the amenities of the proposed units to the
Commission.
Mr. Runyan asked Mr. Daryl if different design sites
incorporating use of the hill were considered for building
placement. Mr. Daryl responded that different design sites
were considered, but any change in building placement would
increase the number of steps for each unit. He added their
goal is for a minimal number of steps.
Mrs. McClelland indicated she does not support the
revised plat. She added this is an unplatted piece of
property and feels that granting a variance request of 60%
to 70% is excessive. She suggested the developers look
again at constructing buildings that comply with the City's
zoning requirements and better fit this site.
Mr. Hansen told the Commission the road was constructed
by the City of Edina. Construction of the road resulted in
a 50 foot right-of-way. He added the Mayor and City
Council realized if this piece of property were to be
developed it would require a certain number of variances.
Mr. Hansen said the impact of this project is minimal due to
the highway directly across from it.
Mr. Larsen clarified for the Commission the road was
constructed as a result of a petition by Mr. Hansen. He
pointed out it was constructed to take as little land as
possible from Mr. Hansen's property. Mr. Larsen added the
Council recognized at the time of granting the petition
that this would be a difficult site to develop. At that
time no site plans were reviewed by Council. Mr. Larsen
said the topography of this site may not warrant a back
yard/patio for all the units.
Mr. Palmer expressed agreement with Mrs. McClelland.
Mr. Palmer moved to deny the request for preliminary
plat. Mrs. Paulus seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The motion carried.
S-86-2 Dahle Replat of Warden Acres
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the City Council at
its April 21, 1986 meeting referred the subject proposal
back to the them for further study. Specifically, the
I
Council asked that the Commission discuss lot sizes along
the east -west extension of Oak Lane.
The proposed preliminary plat contains lots 72.8 wide,
or 2.2 feet less than the 75 feet required by the Ordinance.
Assuming that existing property lines on the Benton Avenue
lots would be reflected in a replat, most of the new lots
would also measure 72.8 feet in width. However, if the
entire south frontage is replatted at one time:it would be
possible to plat 8, conforming 75 foot lots. The total
frontage on the new Oak Lane would be 602 feet.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the north street frontage is
somewhat different. Unless properties are combined the
minimum lot size cannot be achieved. The only.way to
provide the minimum lot width would be to combine the
subject property with all or a portion of the property to
the immediate west. This property is an outlot created by
Warden Acres Austin 2nd Replat. It measures 160 feet in
width along the Oak Lane right of way. If combined four
lots with 75 feet or more of frontage would result.
Mr. Larsen concluded that staff recommends the
following:
1. That the one new buildable lot be approved at 72.8
feet in width. We can see no reasonable alternative -
to this.
2. That the proposal for 2 outlots at 72.8 feet be modified
to show only one outlot for the entire southerly one-
half of the subject property.
3. That all new lots fronting on Oak Lane provide the 75
foot minimum lot width.
Mr. Dahle, the proponent and concerned neighbors
were present.
Mr. Lewis was presented with a signed petition from
neighbors opposing the proposed subdivision and a letter
from Evans Meineke.
In reference to the letter submitted by Mr. Meinke
which stated the City Council made a decision that the
frontage width of lots developed in this area be
approximately 90' feet, Mr. Larsen said he could not recall
the Council or Commission stipulating a 90' foot lot
requirement for this area. Mr Larsen pointed out this is a
neighborhood in transition containing old and new homes.
Mr. Larsen said a 145 foot lot is more out of character with
the neighborhood than the proposed two lots of 72.8 feet.
Mr. Runyan asked if there is a schedule for the
completion of Oak Lane. Mr. Larsen said that at this time
there is no schedule for completion of the road. Completion
of the road will happen when affected property owners
petition for it's completion.
Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion that the
neighborhood has been upgraded and suggested leaving the lot
at 145 feet. She said she is very uneasy at granting a
request for substandard lots. Mr. Larsen pointed out that
lots sizes on Grove feet are 80 feet.
Mr. Palmer asked the dimensions of the lots directly
across from the proposed subdivision. Mr. Larsen said the
Smaby Replat which includes the lots on Grove Street
consist of 80 foot lots. The corner lot adjacent to the
railroad tracks is substantially larger due to the easement
for the power line. Mr. Runyan pointed out the proposed
lots are narrower than the ones on Grove Street but appear
deeper. He asked if the square footage of the proposed lots
were comparable to the ones in the neighborhood. Mr.
Skagerberg calculated lots in the area measure from 12,800
square feet, to 9,800 square feet. The proposed two lots
measure just under 10,000 square feet.
Mrs. McClelland moved to retain one lot fronting Grove
Street and one outlot. Mr. Del Johnson seconded the motion.
Mr. Palmer stated he supports staff's position on this
matter and is in agreement with the development of one new
buildable lot. He added he would like to see one outlot
instead of the proposed two. Mr. Skagerberg expressed
agreement with Mr. Palmer.
The following neighbors spoke in opposition to the
proposed subdivision; E. Meineke of 5417 Grove Street, Mr.
Breitenbucher of 5424 Grove Street, Richard Andron, 5808
Garden Avenue , Dan Hergotz, 5804 Garden Avenue, Greg Tripp,
5809 Garden Avenue,
Their reasons are as follows:
1) They would like to see a continuation of
the upgrading of their neighborhood. It
is felt approval of this subdivision would
be detrimental to that process.
2) The proposed lots do not comply with Edina's
Zoning Ordinance of new lots which are to
average 75 feet in width.
r
3) Existing lots that are less than 75 feet in
width are two blocks away on Benton Avenue. These
lots are not visible to Grove and Garden Avenues
due to thick vegetation and a pond.
Mr. Dahle, proponent, of Dahle construction stated that
the proposed subdivision conforms to the neighborhood as it
is today. The south side of Grove Street and Benton Avenue
consist of older homes and this is the location of the
proposed subdivision. He said he proposes to upgrade the
existing home and plans to construct a very nice home on the
remaining lot in character with the neighborhood. He added
he feels if the lot remains at 145 feet in width it will be
out of character with a neighborhood that generally
consists of lots ranging from 75 feet to 80 feet.
Mr. Ernie Hallgren of 5809 Johnson Drive stated he
could not understand how it could be assumed that a home
built on a 73 foot lot would be considered substandard to a
home built on a 80 foot lot.
Mr. Lewis called for a roll call vote on Mrs.
McClelland's motion and Mr. Del Johnson's second:
Jane Paulus
Aye
John Palmer
Nay
John Skagerberg
Nay
David Runyan
Nay
William Lewis
Nay
Del Johnson
Aye
Helen McClelland
Aye
John Bailey
Aye
Virginia Shaw
Nay
The motion failed.
Mr. Palmer moved for preliminary approval of two
buildable lots (one new lot), one outlot and subject to
staff conditions. Mr. Skagerberg seconded the motion. Upon
roll call vote:
Jane Paulus
Nay
John Palmer
Aye
John Skagerberg
Aye
David Runyan
Aye
William Lewis
Aye
Del Johnson
Nay
Helen McClelland
Nay
John Bailey
Nay
Virginia Shaw
Aye
The motion carried.
III. NEW BUSINESS:
S-86-3
M
Valley View Heights 3rd Addition
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property
was recently platted as Valley View Heights 2nd Addition.
The Plat received final approval on November 19, 1984.
Since that time it has been discovered that a small portion
of Hennepin County right-of-way was erroneously included in
the plat. Because the plat has been recorded it is
necessary to replat the property to correct the error.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the southerly boundary line
adjustment required by the County results in the loss of
between 3 and 6 feet of lot depth. He added all of the lots
continue to comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Larsen concluded that staff considers this to be a
technical correction. The lots are nearly identical to the
previous plat and he recommends approval.
Mr. Skagerberg moved for preliminary plat approval.
Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All were in favor. The,
motion carried.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission this is a public
hearing on Edina's Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out no persons
were present to comment or object to revisions of the Plan. Mr. Larsen
said the Comprehensive Plan continues to be a very helpful document
and noted most changes to the Plan were statistical.
Mr. Palmer moved for adoption of Edina's Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion
carried.
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,