Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 07-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 1987 AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS ATTENDING: Chairman William Lewis, John Bailey, Phil Sked, Helen McClelland, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson, David Runyan, Virginia Shaw and Lee Johnson MEMBERS ABSENT: John Palmer and Jane Paulus STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Mr. Del Johnson moved for approval of the May 27, 1987 Community Development and Planning Commission meeting minutes. Mr. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: S-87-7 Preliminary Plat for Rolling Green Parkway Addition by Charles D. Luther General Location: West of Rolling Green Parkway and south of Annaway Drive Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property is a developed single family lot containing 97,953 square feet, or 2.25 acres. The proponent has submitted a request to subdivide the property in order to create one new buildable lot. Mr. Larsen added the existing dwelling would be removed. Mr. Larsen pointed out the new lots would be 48,977 square feet and 48,976 square feet in area. Both lots would have in excess of 280 feet of street frontage. Lot 1, would be approximately 280 feet in depth and lot 2 approximately 310 feet. Both lots are approximately 210 feet wide at the required front yard setback line. Mr. Larsen, using graphics, pointed out lot sizes for nine lots which most directly relate to the subject property. The lots vary in size from 39,000 square feet to 75,200 square feet, with an average size of 50,500 square feet. Mr. Larsen noted the block containing the subject property originally contained six. lots. Presently there are nine lots in the block. While many divisions in the area occurred before houses were constructed, the Replat of Lot 30 and the Bush Replat were divisions of developed lots. Mr. Larsen told the Commission the subject property was proposed for subdivision in 1977. The major difference between that proposal and the current proposal is the status of the existing home. The 1977 proposal would have retained the home. As a consequence the new lot was significantly smaller than the new lot in the current proposal. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the following reasons: 1. The proposed lots are generally comparable in size with existing lots in the vicinity. 2. The proposed street frontage and lot width at the building line are in keeping with other lots in the vicinity. 3. With lots widths in excess of 200 feet at the building line it is possible to build even very large homes and still maintain large side yard setbacks. 4. The proposed subdivision will not adversely impact the character and symmetry of the area. The proponents Mr. and Mrs. Charles David Luther were present. Residents of the area were present. Mr. Luther told the Commission he concurred with staff's report. He added in his opinion the proposal to remove the existing home would be a great improvement for the area. Continuing, Mr. Luther said he felt the property is not undersized and the proposed subdivision is in keeping with the character of the Rolling Green neighborhood. Mr. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Luther if footprint(s) have been developed for the proposed site(s). Mr. Luther said one footprint has been developed. Mr. Gordon Johnson and Mrs. McClelland questioned why the proposed center lot line jogs toward the rear of the property. Mr. Luther replied that the reason for the jog is to create a more private backyard for the prospective property owner. Mr. Gordon Johnson said in his opinion this proposed line creates a neck lot. Mrs. McClelland suggested that the property in question be divided equally siting as an example the division of the lot across the street. Mr. Luther indicated he is willing to re -align the lot lines to create equal lots. Mr. Kip Knelman, 4812 Rolling Green Parkway, submitted to the Commission a petition in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Knelman then spoke in opposition to the proposal. His reasons are summarized as follows: 1. The Rolling Green area represents very unique characteristics, the foremost characteristic is significant lot size per dwelling. 2. Approving this proposal would set a precedent. 3. Approval of this proposal would reverse the precedent of denial set in 1977. 4. Concern over residents who reside in the area on over- size lots that may wish to subdivide if this is approved. (Mr. Knelman mentioned those who did not sign the petition opposing the subdivision may want in the future to divide their lots). 5. Approval of this proposal would favor developers. b. Want tradition to remain as is, a neighborhood of high character single family dwellings. 7. The majority of the residents are very much against any subdivision in the area. Mr. Raymond Clausen, 4820 Rolling Green Parkway said he strongly opposes any subdivision request, he said this proposal was denied in 1977 and it should be denied again. He pointed out the odd shape of the lot and feels subdividing this lot would create two terrible lots. Mrs. McClelland pointed out this proposal is very different from the previous proposal in 1977 adding it is very difficult to compare them. The previous subdivision if approved would have one lot with the total square footage of only 34,200 square feet. The proposed lots have in excess of 48,000 square feet. Mrs. Susan Knelman, 4812 Rolling Green Parkway stressed how important it is to residents of this neighborhood to maintain the characteristics of large lots per dwelling and large spacing between dwellings. She -stated she is very opposed to this proposal because it would set a precedent. Mrs. Knelman asked the Commission to note her property lies directly southeast of the property in question and her home maintains a 94 foot front yard setback. She added she would want any proposed dwelling in line with her home. Mrs. Knelman commented the majority of subdivisions that have occurred in the Rolling Green area happened extremely early (1950's) and oftentimes when original house construction was occurring. Mr. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if it would be possible to provide square footage for a majority of lots in the area. Mr. Larsen responded that it would be possible. Mr. Gordon Johnson said this information would help him make a educated decision regarding the proposal. Mr. K. Ellenberg of 4725 Annaway Drive stated he strongly opposes the proposal and feels profit is the reason for the proposed subdivision. He added it is not appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Arby Sumnstrom, representing Mr. and Mrs. Carl Pohlad of 4812 Bywood West stated Mr. and Mrs. Pohlad are very opposed to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Luther said he does not feel his request is unreasonable, he pointed out the lots, in his opinion are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Luther added he understood that each proposal brought before the Commission was looked at and considered individually. Mrs. Stephanie Keane, 4817 Bywood West said she purchased a home in the neighbhorhood that is a result of a subdivision and recommends denial of the proposal. She added the character of this neighborhood should be preserved. 0 A brief discussion ensued between Commission Members regarding tabling S-87-7 until more data has been complied by staff. Mr. Gordon Johnson moved to table S-87-7 requesting staff to prepare a comparison of lot sizes in the Rolling Green neighborhood, to prepare a memo listing subdivisions that have been approved or denied after the initial Rolling Green plat was finaled and the developer is to submit a revised plat adjusting the lot line to more equally divide the lot. Mr. Lee Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. LD -87-10 6506-6507 Gleason Court Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proponent is requesting a party wall division of an existing double bungalow. Separate utility connections are provided. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval. Mrs. McClelland moved to recommend approval. Mr. Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. 0 III• ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, I