Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-27 Planning Commission Minutes Regular (2)Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, March 27, 2002 Mr. Larsen addressed the Commission and informed them the proponent; Mr. Dean Carlson is proposing to subdivide two developed single dwelling lots containing an area of 139,000 square feet or 3.19 acres into 5 lots. Mr. Larsen told the Commission the existing homes would be removed and a new public street would serve the 5 lots. Mr. Larsen told the Commission the lots in the proposed subdivision meets or exceeds ordinance standards for lot width, lot depth, and lot area. Staff recommends Preliminary Plat approval subject to: Subdivision Dedication, Developer’s Agreement, Watershed District permits and Final Plat Approval. The proponent, Mr. Dean Carlson and Mr. Brian Johnson, of MFR were present to respond to questions. Mr. Carlson addressed the Commission informing them he has been working on this project for a number of months resulting in the proposal before them this evening. He explained the goal of the proposal is to create new lots that are sensitive to the natural terrain and existing vegetation of the area. Mr. Carlson reported over the past few months he also attended meetings with City staff to ensure that the final product would be in complete compliance with City Ordinances. Continuing, Mr. Carlson told the Commission last Wednesday (March 20th) a neighborhood meeting was held to better communicate the proposal to neighbors. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen if he believes emergency vehicle access would be a problem. Mr. Larsen said the fire department believes the proposed plan would serve the new home sites well. Mr. Larsen said at the present time the fire department would have a difficult time providing emergency needs to the subject sites and reducing the grade as indicated provides better access. Commissioner Runyan asked the grade of lots 4 & 5. Mr. Johnson responded the grade is 3 to 1 at its steepest. Commissioner McClelland commented on her visit to the subject site she observed a number of trees with red tags on them adding she hopes the tagged trees are not diseased. Mr. Johnson said as part of the subdivision requirements all trees larger than 6” in diameter must be identified and tagged. Commissioner McClelland noted an elevation point of 906 at the proposed cul de sac and asked what the elevation is at the street level. Mr. Johnson responded at street level the elevation is 888 with a landing area at a 2% grade. Mr. John Elliott, 5904 Lee Valley Road asked the Commission to deny the proposal presented to them this evening. He said in his opinion the proposed 5-lot subdivision is too dense. Mr. Cronin, 7308 Claredon Drive, told the Commission he has a concern with proposed lot #2. He said in his opinion lot 2 circumvents the ordinance. Mr. Cronin echoed Mr. Elliott’s comment that a 5-lot subdivision is too dense. Mr. Cronin suggested a 3-lot subdivision. Ms. Fevold, 7208 Shannon Drive, told the Commission she is worried about erosion and water run-off problems that could occur as a result of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Tappen, 7306 Claredon Drive, told the Commission he has a number of concerns and one is tree loss. He stated at all costs he wants as many trees saved as possible. Continuing, Mr. Tappen said another concern is drainage, and the construction of retaining walls. He pointed out Claredon Drive is at a lower elevation and with added hard surface and retaining walls it is very possible the properties on Claredon could be negatively impacted by water run-off as a result of this subdivision. Mr. Danhert, 7318 Claredon Drive told the Commission his concern is the tree loss and the complex retaining walls needed to develop this site. Mr. Miller, 7305 Claredon Drive, told the Commission he acknowledges the proposed project is complicated adding in his opinion the project is too dense. He stated he is also concerned with the height of the proposed retaining walls. He explained to the Commission he resides in an adjacent lot (off Claredon Drive) and is concerned for the safety of his children. Mr. Johnson interjected and explained the natural water flow of the subject site is to the south and that will not be changed. He stated he believes after full development the water run-off would remain the same or could actually lessen. Mr. Johnson explained the rear of the proposed new lots would continue to drain south while the front of the proposed homes and driveways would drain to the cul de sac and down to Lee Valley Road and the catch basin. Commissioner Lonsbury said he understands how proposed Lots 1 and 2 would drain and asked Mr. Johnson if he could “walk” the Commission through how proposed Lot 3 would drain. With graphics Mr. Johnson pointed out how the rear yard of Lot 3 would drain to the south and how the front yard area would drain toward the cul de sac and continue down to Lee Valley Road. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Carlson if he has a sense of the size of homes that could be constructed on the new lots. Mr. Carlson said all homes will be custom built homes and the indication the development team has been given is that the footprints of the homes will be in the 2400 + square foot range. Continuing, Mr. Carlson said the current profile of interested buyers indicate they desire a smaller home that offers one level living, with walkout. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Carlson what he anticipates the lots will sell for. Mr. Carlson said he believes the lots will be in the 400 + thousand dollar range. Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Carlson if any builder could build on the proposed lots. Mr. Carlson reiterated the homes will be custom built and the lot owner will choose the builder. Chairman Johnson commented one lot appears to be accessed by a cross easement and questioned why access for that lot isn’t from Shannon Drive. Mr. Johnson explained that lot could be accessed from Shannon Drive but access from Shannon Drive would disturb more vegetation. The entrance point for all proposed lots is off Lee Valley Road. Mr. Larsen interjected and told the Commission cross easements similar to the one indicated on the proposed plat are very common in the City of Edina. Continuing Mr. Larsen explained the proposed layouts of the new lots all have access off a cul de sac off Lee Valley Road. The proposed cul de sac access reduces impact to the area. Mr. Larsen acknowledged some of the proposed lots could also be accessed off Shannon Drive but two curb cuts and roadways would result in more disruption. Commissioner Swenson pointed out Lot 1, if platted as indicated will always need the cross easement driveway for access. Mr. Larsen said that is correct unless in the future they reorient access off Shannon Drive. Mr. Tappen interjected and told the Commission he has a concern that this subdivision is a “first” for the developer and reiterated he has a concern with drainage issues, and impact to the topography. Mr. Larsen responded the City studies and reviews all developments equally whether it is a developer’s first development or 100th all subdivisions are considered with the same criteria in mind. Continuing, Mr. Larsen explained when a proposal receives preliminary approval the proponent enters into a Developer’s agreement with the City. This Agreement covers all street, water and sewer improvements including drainage. All conditions stipulated by the City’s different departments, Planning, Building, Engineering, Public Safety, etc. must be met. The City requires a security bond and/or letter of credit for security for the improvements to the property. Commissioner Swenson said she is concerned with the retaining walls that will be needed for this development, especially on Lot 5. Mr. Carlson responded the existing lots were developed in the1950’s with design flaws, and presently the access roads for the subject sites are inadequate. Continuing, Mr. Carlson said the proposal “shores up” the driveway creating better and safer access. Mr. Carlson acknowledged the need for retaining walls adding this proposal also cleans up the ridge. Chairman Johnson said he is worried about building size adding it has been his experience in the past that new homes usually are constructed to the max which necessitates the need to remove more vegetation and move more earth. Mr. Carlson responded he understands the concerns expressed and explained all building pad sites are custom. Custom homes allow the consumer the ability to design a home that meets their needs. Mr. Carlson said to date most people that have expressed interest in the proposal have indicated a building footprint in the 2400 square foot range. He said the interest so far has been from empty nesters that desire one level living and are in a sense “down sizing”. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Carlson if he has any idea on cost per square foot. Mr. Carlson said he believes in today’s market the price is between 200 and 300 dollars per square foot. Commissioner Swenson asked if any of the building pads depicted would require variances. Mr. Larsen said the pads indicated on the plat could be even larger, and in viewing the footprints depicted on the plans no variances are required. Commissioner Lonsbury noted the plans indicate 14-foot high retaining walls and told Mr. Johnson he is having a difficult time visualizing 14-foot walls. Mr. Johnson explained at this time we visualize boulder walls constructed in tiers (2 to 3 tiers) to achieve the 14-foot height. Ms. Dorothy Lillestrand, 7104 Down Road informed the Commission she has lived in the area for a number of years and remembers years ago Rudy Tronnes tried to subdivide a larger lot in this neighborhood into 8 lots site. Ms. Lillestrand further told the Commission Mr. Tronnes only received approval for 5 lots. Ms. Lillestrand suggested reducing the amount of home sites to better suit the neighborhood. Concluding, Ms. Lillestrand told the Commission in her opinion the corner lot along Shannon Drive will be negatively impacted because it will be surrounded by roads. Mr. Cronin asked the Commission who is responsible for the maintenance of the retaining walls. Chairman Johnson responded there are numerous lots in the City that contain retaining walls of various types and heights and responsibility for maintenance etc. falls to the property owners. Chairman Johnson stated retaining walls “are not the City’s problem”. Commissioner Runyan observed when completely developed tree loss will occur and asked Mr. Carlson if he proposes any new landscaping. Commissioner Runyan suggested a landscaping plan, especially to buffer the property at 7202 Shannon Drive. Mr. Carlson said the engineers have studied the site to ensure minimal tree loss and acknowledged tree loss will occur. Mr. Carlson said he is not adverse to provide more landscaping. Concluding, Mr. Carlson pointed out a portion of the proposal provides for a 25 foot “no touch” buffer along Lots 1, 2, and 3. Commissioner McClelland stated she is very uncomfortable with the proposal before her this evening. Commissioner McClelland said tree loss will be significant and the height and amount of retaining walls are unacceptable. Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion if the proposal proceeds as indicated the property owner at 7202 Shannon Drive will be completely isolated. She said in her opinion accessing the subject site from Lee Valley Road is un-safe. Concluding, Commissioner McClelland she can support no more than 4 lots, with one lot served from Shannon Drive. Commissioner Swenson echoed the comments from Commissioner McClelland adding she is also uncomfortable with access for Lot 1. Commissioner Swenson said in her opinion the lot lines appear to be forced and 5 lots are too many. Commissioner Runyan commented with slopes at 3 to 1 the site can be developed with a positive outcome at 5, but there will be impact and significant tree loss. Mr. Carlson acknowledged the retaining walls are high, but they are tiered. Continuing, Mr. Carlson pointed out if the lots are reduced to 4 impact will be virtually the same because of the road and cul de sac. Mr. Carlson said if access were off Shannon Drive there would be greater tree loss. Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Carlson if the existing bituminous could be used. Mr. Carlson said the proposed road and cul de sac are wider than the existing driveway. Commissioner McClelland reiterated in her opinion too much damage would be done to the environment if this subdivision were approved as presented. Commissioner Lonsbury said he could agree with the point made by Mr. Carlson that a 4-lot plat is as invasive as a 5 lot plat, but Commissioner Lonsbury said he believes more work can be done on this site to reduce impact. Commissioner Workinger said in viewing this proposal his initial reaction is if it “looks like a neck lot, it is a neck lot” adding he could only support access to Lot 1 off Shannon Drive. Continuing, Commissioner Workinger said in his opinion if this parcel is to be developed a lot of work needs to be done to ready the building pads, adding there will be much disruption. Commissioner Workinger stated because of the topography of the subject site that he also doesn’t see any way around the retaining walls, which in his opinion are extreme. Concluding, Commissioner Workinger said this proposal affects the character and symmetry of the neighborhood and he cannot support the proposal as presented. Mr. Carlson interjected and said in response to comments regarding 7202 Shannon Drive that he is very willing to buffer that lot with additional landscaping. He informed the Commission that property owner, Mr. Elsing is out of the country at this time but has knowledge of this proposal. Mr. Carlson said Mr. Elsing would be in town when the Council considers this proposal. Commiss ioner McClelland reiterated she couldn’t support the proposal as presented. She explained she is very worried about the retaining walls and is unhappy with the layout of Lot 5. Concluding, Commissioner McClelland said she would like to see a reduction in lots. Mr. Carlson told the Commission he understands their concerns and pointed out the proposal meets and exceeds all requirements stipulated by the Ordinance. Chairman Johnson acknowledged the proposed plat does meet city requirements, but there are other issues such as character and symmetry. Chairman Johnson told Mr. Carlson from the comments from the Commissioners he is unsure if there is total support for the proposal and asked Mr. Carlson if he would consider tabling the proposal allowing him time to digest the concerns expressed by the Commission and neighbors (i.e. retaining walls, loss of vegetation, density). Mr. Carlson responded he would like the Commission to act on the proposal as submitted. Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend denial of the preliminary plat. Commission McClelland seconded the motion. Ayes; Lonsbury, Swenson, McClelland, Workinger Bergman, Johnson. Nay, Runyan. Motion to deny carried 6-1.