Loading...
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,