Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-31 Planning Commission Minutes Regular S-02-3 Crestwood Development 6725 Iroquois Circle 3-Lot Subdivision Mr. Larsen informed the Commission they viewed previous materials pertaining to the proposed subdivision some time ago and since that time the proponents have slightly revised the plan. The revised plan is before you this evening. Mr. Larsen told Commission Members the proponents are proposing to subdivide a 4.08-acre single dwelling lot site into three lots. Mr. Larsen explained that presently the proponents are renovating the existing house, which will remain on proposed Lot 2, with Lots 1 and 3 vacant for redevelopment. Mr. Larsen pointed out although the revised plan tries to reduce the impact of development on adjacent properties, it still would dramatically impact the character of the existing neighborhood. The change would be most dramatic in the area surrounding the new cul de sac, and the proposed driveway serving Lot-1. Concluding, Mr. Larsen stated staff recommends denial of the proposed 3-lot subdivision. The proponent, Mr. Tom Feehan, and Mr. Stephen Albrecht P.E., with Bolton & Menk, Inc. were present to respond to questions. Mr. Feehan addressed the Commission informing them the plan before them this evening is revised eliminating variances that were present in the previous plan. Mr. Feehan told the Commission the subject site is a beautiful wooded/ridge 4+-acre site. Continuing, Mr. Feehan said the existing house will remain and at present is being renovated. He told the Commission when he first viewed the site he believed 6 building sites would meet ordinance requirements but after careful consideration he settled on 3 sites. Mr. Feehan said in his opinion the 3 sites maintain the character of the neighborhood by reducing impact to the topography and existing vegetation. With graphics Mr. Feehan pointed out to the Commission examples of similar properties in Indian Hills developed with steep roads and retaining walls. Mr. Feehan explained the majority of the subject site will be preserved and the proposed road/cul de sac meets City Code. Continuing, Mr. Feehan said in approaching redevelopment of this site the first thing that needed to be addressed was the existing driveway into the site. He stated the existing driveway is in need of repair with an extreme slope at roughly 25%. He explained his goal is to provide a manageable driveway slope (10%) with engineered retaining walls surrounded by plantings. Mr. Feehan said the visual impact would blend well with the existing surroundings. With regard to the cul de sac Mr. Feehan explained it has been reduced and readjusted to address the concerns of immediate neighbors. He said a 10’ buffer will be retained along the perimeter of the site to provide screening for the neighbors. Mr. Feehan added concerns have been expressed from near neighbors regarding water run-off and all drainage concerns will be addressed and eliminated with our engineering team and the City’s. Concluding, Mr. Feehan said he is working very hard to maintain the character and symmetry of the site and is willing to work with neighbors and staff to create the best possible development. Mr. Feehan introduced to the Commission Mr. Stephen Albrecht, engineer with Bolton & Menk, Inc. Mr. Albrecht informed the Commission the cul de sac has been reduced to a minimum radius reducing water run-off. He explained a structural engineer would certify the retaining walls and the walls would be tied back into the hill. Mr. Albrecht stated the tallest walls are fully on the property and because they are completely on the property creativity can be implemented in their construction. Mr. Albrecht noted the driveway will remain in the same place but would be regraded and tipped to drain away from neighboring properties. A drainage pond will not be implemented on this site but rate control will be achieved through the construction of “rain gardens” that will slow down run-off and improve drainage. Mr. Albrecht noted the site already has utilities and impact to the topography will be minimized in every way possible. Concluding, Mr. Albrecht said it is the goal of the developer to create a project that fits into the existing wooded neighborhood with minimal disruption. Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Larsen with regard to previous variances (1st submission) why no variances are now required. He admitted he is confused by the eliminatation of variances. Mr. Larsen explained when reviewing the proposal as it relates to lot width the mid-point of where to measure that width was at question. At this time the correct point has been established and it was found no variances are required, movement of the cul de sac also help in that respect. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen when measurements were taken were they taken from the larger cul de sac radius. Mr. Larsen responded setbacks are measured from where the right of way meets the property. Staff usually states setbacks are measured from the property line. A brief discussion ensued with regard to “rain gardens” as a source to contain water run off and how they function during the different Minnesota seasons (especially winter). Commissioner Runyan asked the engineer if they have settled on the type of materials that will be used in the retaining walls. Mr. Albrecht said at this time he believes Minnesota River boulder block will be used and the walls will be constructed in step-up tiers. Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Albrecht if the proposed retaining walls will have to be tied back every 6 to 8 feet. Mr. Albrecht responded that would depend on the height of the walls and the load behind the walls. He stated at this time he is unsure of the tie back measurement adding it will vary depending on the location of the walls etc. Chairman Johnson opened the floor to the audience. Mr. Gary Gandrud, Faegre & Benson, representing Dr. McQuarrie, 6625 Mohawk Trail, introduced himself to the Commission and informed the Commission his client opposes redevelopment of this site. Mr. Gandrud asked the Commission to note the topography of the site and the thick woods would be forever impacted if this proposal were allowed to move forward. Mr. Gandrud pointed out a ridge runs through this property and abutting properties which dictates the large lot sizes. Mr. Gandrud pointed out this neighborhood is not a flat neighborhood and the amount of earth moved, and removed, and the heights of the proposed retaining walls have a negative impact not only to the subject site but also to the entire Indian Hills neighborhood. Mr. Gandrud stated the spirit and intent of the ordinance is not met with this proposal. Mr. Gandrud referred to Section 810.11 of the subdivision code with regard to overall environmental impact, maintaining existing neighborhoods, preservation of existing topography, impact on health, safety, and general welfare, relationship of proposed lots to existing streets including ingress/egress of such lots, suitability of street grades in relation to grades of lots on the City’s water, storm, and sanitary sewer systems, adequacy of access by police, fire and ambulance, the suitability of the site for the type of development proposed observing the impact of the proposed subdivision would destroy the character of the neighborhood that was created by the Dakota Trail and Mohawk Trail properties. Concluding, Mr. Gandrud reiterated this application’s nonconformity with the Edina subdivision ordinance is unacceptable and urged the Commission to recommend its denial. The proposal would negatively impact Dr. McQuarries property with retaining walls as close as 12 feet from the McQuarrie property line. The retaining walls will create a situation that may cause damage and death to trees on the McQuarrie property. Mr. Bounk, 6801 Iroquois Circle, told the Commission for the past year some type of project has been going on regarding this property. He added after the subject site was sold to the proponent he decided to renovate the existing house and since that time trucks have been going up and down the driveway in support of the ongoing renovations. Mr. Bounk stated his property has suffered dramatically since the property was sold. He told the Commission his mailbox was hit, mud/sand/dirt is always on his driveway, and just recently his property suffered a mudslide as a result of lax silt fencing. Mr. Bounk pointed out if he is having water run-off problems now, (and never had them before) what will happen to his property if two more homes are constructed on the subject site. Mr. Bounk implored the Commission to deny the proposal as submitted. Mr. Reinke, 6808 Iroquois Circle, told the Commission he opposes the proposal as submitted. He said he believes more trees will be lost than indicated and Lots 1 and 3 will be narrow and will not relate well to the other lots within this neighborhood. Mr. Olsen, 6805 Iroquois Circle, informed the Commission he has lived in Edina for many years and has resided in his current home for 7 years. Mr. Olsen said one of the reasons he has always enjoyed about living in Edina is that it has so many unique residential neighborhoods, and he is concerned if this proposal goes forward the unique quality of Indian Hills will be lost. He pointed out Indian Hills is developed with large lots to accommodate the steep terrains and waterbodies of the area. Mr. Olsen said if this property is allowed to be subdivided other large lots in Indian Hills could follow suit, and Indian Hills will be dramatically changed if that is permitted to happen. Mr. Olsen asked the Commission to deny the proposal as submitted. Mrs. Bounk, 6801 Iroquois Circle, echoed her husband and presented to the Commission photos of her property taken after the mudslide occurred. Mrs. Bounk acknowledged the proponent had the site cleaned and cleared of the mud, but she still has concerns this could happen again. She asked the Commission to deny the request. Adequate drainage is a concern with this type of topography. Commissioner Lonsbury asked if snow removal has been addressed. Mr. Larsen said at this stage during the preliminary process snow removal hasn’t been addressed but the 35’ cul de sac should accommodate excess snow. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen if reducing the cul de sac radius and moving it to the east eliminated the variances. Mr. Larsen responded to a certain degree that is correct. Moving the cul de sac farther east is what helped. Setbacks are measured from the property line. Commissioner Swenson asked if the right of way stays the same aren’t the front setbacks measured the same way. Mr. Larsen answered that is correct explaining moving and reconfiguring the cul de sac slightly made the difference in the lot width measurements. Mr. Feehan addressed the Commission and explained he is very sorry about the water run-off problems experienced by Mr. and Mrs. Bounk and assured the Commission he will be vigilant in the future to ensure proper silt fencing etc. is implemented on the subject site. Mr. Feehan said he made sure a crew cleaned and cleared the Bounk site after the mudslide and acknowledged Mr. and Mrs. Bounk had every right to be upset. In response to the concerns expressed by Mr. Gandrud Mr. Feehan said he firmly believes he did not ignore the intent of the ordinance or manipulate it in any way. He pointed out 6 sites could have been developed on this site per code requirements and 3 are proposed, reiterating in his opinion the spirit and intent of the ordinance have been met. Concluding, Mr. Feehan said every effort would be made to ensure minimal tree loss and minimal disruption to the site and surrounding properties. Mr. Albrecht told the Commission with regard to water run-off the reduction of hard surface in the cul de sac would reduce water run-off and the proposed “rain gardens” work similar to nurp ponds and catch basins. Responding to the earlier comments regarding the operation of “rain gardens” during winter months Mr. Albrecht pointed out nurp ponds freeze over during winter months and they are used as a common approach to water run off issues. Mr. Albrecht stated in his opinion as an engineer the proposed “rain gardens” work best for this site. Commissioner Lonsbury asked Mr. Albrecht if he believes the McQuarrie property might experience tree loss as a result of construction of retaining walls so close to their property line. Mr. Albrecht responded it is difficult to say for certain what could occur but we believe pulling back the retaining walls and cul de sac from the common property line will eliminate any tree loss. Mr. Albrecht added it is our hope the “no touch” strip along that common property line will create a safe buffer area for both property owners. Commissioner Lonsbury asked Mr. Albrecht if the proposed retaining wall tiebacks would tie into the McQuarrie property. Mr. Albrecht responded, as he understands the ordinance all construction issues must be accommodated on the subject site; adjoining properties cannot be compromised as a result of this proposal. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen if a 60’ right of way is large for Edina. Mr. Larsen said 60’ is the standard right of way width in Edina. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen who decides on the size of the right of way. Mr. Larsen said the City Engineering Department along with the City Council dictates the size of the right of way. Commissioner Swenson stated she couldn’t support the request as submitted. Commissioner McClelland said when she visited the site she viewed so many trees with tags on them noting if the tagged trees have to be removed the subject site will be raped of vegetation. Mr. Albrecht interjected and explained to Commissioner McClelland to comply with ordinance requirements all trees over a certain circumference must be identified. The tagged trees she observed in no way represent trees that will be lost as a result of this subdivision. Commissioner McClelland commented she also found the site full of mud, hard to navigate, adding even if every tree tagged will not be lost a majority will, and the site will be forever altered in a negative way. Concluding, Commissioner McClelland said she believes tieing back the retaining walls will impact the McQuarrie property and in all good conscience she cannot support the proposal. She reiterated in her opinion this is a rape of the land. Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend denial of the proposed three lot subdivision siting as reasons for denial the extreme tree loss as a result of constructing the retaining walls, new street, cul de sac and building pads, grading of the site will alter the ridge and topography significantly, the proposed development is also detrimental to the character and symmetry of the surrounding neighborhood, and the location of the existing house and the decision by the proponent to retain it make for an unbalanced division of the property. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to deny carried.