HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 02-25 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, David Runyan,
Leonard Ring, John Palmer, John Skagerberg,
Helen McClelland
Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Mary McDonald,
Len Fernelius
STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Joyce Repya, Secretary
I. Approval of the Minutes: December 30, 1981
James Bentley moved approval of the minutes from the December 30,
1980 meeting. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the
motion carried.
Mr. Dick Blevens with the Richfield Planning Commission proposed a
joint meeting of the Richfield Planning Commission and the Edina Planning
Commission for inspections of the Comprehensive Plans from both cities
and discussions of some joint concerns. Mr. Blevens pointed out that some
of the concerns of the Richfield Planning Commission with regard to Edina's
Comprehensive Plan include the flooding problem on 66th Street and Xerxes;
traffic on 76th Street; and capacity problems with the Richfield interceptor
for the sanitary sewer in the 76th Street vicinity.
The Commission discussed Mr. Blevens proposal, agreed that a meeting
might be a good idea, and noted that they would take his proposal under
consideration.
Bill Lewis introduced the three new members of the Planning Commission:
Mr. Leonard Ring, Mr. John Palmer and Mr. John Skagerberg.
11. Old Business:
LD -80-15 Lot 3, Block 2, Parkwood Knolls. Generally located east
of Larada Lane and south of Willow Woods Road.
Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that this item was heard 2 months
ago. The request was to divide a small portion of •Lot 3, Block 2, Parkwood
Knolls and join that small parcel with Lot 1, Block 3, Brinwood Estates which
fronts on Willow Wood Road. The intent would be to develop this property
with some private recreational facilities that would be to the benefit of the
homeowner at Lot 1, Block 3, Brinwood Estates.
Community Development and Planning Commission
February 25, 1981
Page 2
Mr. Hughes reviewed the proposed plans and pointed out that since
this item was last heard, Staff had sent a letter to the surrounding property
owners explaining the proposal.
Mr. Hughes presented a letter received by the Planning Department
from the easterly adjacent property owner, Mrs. Beatrice G. Dvorak.
In her letter, Mrs. Dvorak expressed concern about the platform tennis
court possibly causing a visual obstruction, and questioned its desirability
in a residential district.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that he spoke with Mr. Fink, the purchaser of
the property and was advised that the proposal for the platform tennis court
and underground pool are tentative, but are representative of the ultimate
use for the property.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed plan. Mr. Hughes pointed
out that the recreational facilities could be built where they are proposed
by the present owner of the property. The approval is needed for the
division, not the development of the site.
John Palmer moved approval of the lot division. Leonard Ring seconded
the motion. James Bentley, Leonard Ring, John Palmer, John Skagerberg and
Helen McClelland voted aye. David Runyan voted nay. The motion carried.
Ill. New Business:
5-81-1 Oak Pond of lnterlachen. Generally located north of Evans -
wood Lane and west of Blake Road.
Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that ,the subject property has been
considered for development several times in the past. He pointed out that
about 6 years ago this property was acquired with the intent of developing
just one home site on it. At that time, it appeared before the Planning
Commission for approval of a Registered Land Survey (which was approved)
to create just one lot on this parcel. When that 1 lot was created, a couple
of easements were imposed on the property. The first one -was a scenic
easement which was dedicated 100 feet upland from a small pond. Since
only one dwelling was to be developed on the property, more than 100 feet
was actually dedicated at that time. Secondly, concern has always been
expressed concerning the low area on the north end of Evanswood Lane
as it related to a single family dwelling to the south. The property owner
dedicated a storm water ponding easement on the end of Evanswood Lane,
allowing 1 driveway to cross it, however the intent was that the elevation
of the rest should remain unchanged.
Mr. Hughes explained that new individuals have acgaired the subject
and are requesting approval of a 12 single family lot subdivision. The plans
include an extension of Evanswood Lane to the north with a double cul-de-sac.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the request would also entail permission from the
City to release the storm water ponding area 'easement on the north end of
Evanswood Lane and replace it with a storm water pond on a portion of 2
single family lots. That pond would then overflow down an existing easement
between the two lots to Blake Road.
Community Development and Planning Commission
February 25, 1981
Page 3
Upon meeting with the proponent, Mr. Hughes noted that Staff has
suggested that the proposed roadway intersection on Blake Road was more
advisable than adding more traffic to either Scriver Road or Evanswood Lane
which presently suffer from sight distance problems.
Mr. Hughes stated that even though much of the Blake -Schaefer area
property owners rejected the idea of further subdividing their properties,
some allowance should be made for a right-of-way easement whether it's
developed or not at this time to the western portion of the property.
Whenever, in the future, the property owners along Schaefer Road would
elect to subdivide, it would provide that needed outlet to traffic.
Based upon Staffs comments, Mr. Hughes noted that the proponent has
provided three tentative plans for the site:
1. A looping road connecting Evanswood Lane and back out to Blake Road
2. A cul-de-sac from Blake Road
3. A cul-de-sac from Evanswood Lane
Mr. Hughes also pointed out that Staff believes that a cul-de-sac should
occur only when it is absolutely necessary. If a road can continue all the
way through, it should.
Mr. Hughes concluded that Staff believes the use, density, and treatment
of sensitive features proposed by the developer are appropriate for the site
and neighborhood, however, Staff believes that the impact of the development
of the subject site on the development potential of the surrounding properties
should be considered at this time. Mr. Hughes concluded that Staff believes
that the following issues and problems must be addressed:
1. An overall storm water management plan, including an outlet for
proposed southerly pond.
2. Necessary minimum right-of-way width for proposed roads.
3. Sight distance problems along Blake Road.
4. Access for potential development west of subject site.
5. Finishedgrades as they relate to sanitary sewer and water systems.
Mr. Michael Halley, President of Halley Land Corporation advised the
Board that he had met with some of the neighbors in the surrounding area
to get an indication of their feelings and concerns regarding the proposed
subdivision. Adjustments were then made and because of it the first alter-
native with a double cul-de-sac off of Evanswood Lane proved to be the most
favorable. The neighbors indicated that they would rather not see a loop
type, through street on the site.
Mr. Nystrom, of 5225 Evanswood Lane advised the Commission that he
disagreed with Mr. Halley's impression of the neighbors feelings. He pointed
out that there is no consensus amongst the neighborhood of the plans which
they have never seen, and there has been no discussion about the plans.
Community Development and
February 25, 1981
Page 4
Planning Commission
Mr. Nystrom pointed out that he felt the most pressing issue involved
with the development of the subject site is the watershed problem. The site
is a low spot in the area where water collects from surrounding properties.
He indicated that he felt a watershed study should be provided to project
what will happen to the water that collects on the site once the land is
developed.
Dr. John Kyllo, of 5201 Schaefer Road voiced his opposition with the
proposed development of the subject site. He pointed out that property
owners in the Blake -Schaefer area purchased their property for the privacy
that was afforded them with the large lots. By developing the subject site
so intensly, the rights of the surrounding neighbors are being denied.
Mr. Carson, of 5209 Schaefer Road voiced concern about the lack of an
-outlet on to Schaefer Road in the event that a person would wish to subdivide
his property. He pointed out that the first alternative would totally shut off
the easterly portion of the lots on Schaefer Road, deeming them impossible
to redevelop.
Ms. Deborah Gearhart, of 5224 Blake Road voiced concern about the
ponding area on the subject site as it could possibly effect the water table
of their private well. She also pointed out the possibly dangerous situation
that could develop with the pond as it would be an attraction for small child-
ren. She asked if the water level of the pond would be kept constant or
whether a swamp -like situation would be developed with possible standing water.
Mr. Roy Jenson of 5124 Blake Road advised the Commission that he was
concerned about the density of the development on the subject property.
He pointed out that 6 of the proposed lots front on his property and would
ruin the privacy he has enjoyed up until now.
Dr. Franz Metzger of 5021 Schaefer Road agreed with Mr. Nystrom,
pointing out that the developer falsely noted the approval of the proposed
subdivision by the adjacent property owners. Dr. Metzger indicated that
he felt it was not right to propose such a high density development in
an area surrounded by large lots. He pointed out that the property owners
in the Blake -Schaefer area purchased their property for the privacy that
would be afforded them. He added that the old plan that proposed 1 dwelling
be built on the lot would be most desirable to him.
Mr. Fran Hagen of Westwood Engineering and Planning advised the
Commission that a watershed study had been conducted and he pointed out
that under the fully developed conditions in the whole 82 acre drainage area,
the relocated holding basin would be sufficient. There would be no problems
with flooding, and it is not meant to be a pond in which there would be water
at all times. The depth of water to be proposed, even under the 100 year
storm, would be only three feet in the holding area.
In response to an inquiry regarding the size of the subject property,
the proponent advised the Commission that the site is approximately 6 acres.
The average lot size is 19,000 square feet using the 1st alternative plan;
with the 2nd alternative, the lots are approximately 17,000 square feet; and
with alternative 3, the lots are approximately 17,500 square feet. All three
of the alternatives provide for 12 lots.
Community Development
February 25, 1981
Page 5
and Planning Commission
Responding to an inquiry regarding the size of the existing lots that
surround the subject property on Evanswood Lane and Tract B on Blake
Road, the Commission was advised that Tract B in the northwest quarter of
the subject site is approximately 16,720 square feet; Lots 1 and 2 on ' Evans -
wood Lane measure approximately 18,700 square feet.
Discussion ensued regarding the ponding on the site. Fran Hoffman,
City Engineer explained that the pond on the southern half of the site
would run through a pipe or a Swale down to Blake Road, alleviating the
problem of standing water.
In response to the comments from the audience, David Runyan stated
that he felt it was unreasonable to assume that a 5+ acre piece of land would
not be developed due to the great value of the land.
Dr. Metzger asked to whom the land was considered of value, and noted
that it is valuable to the neighbors for its natural openness.
Bill Lewis pointed out that even though the surrounding lots are large,
that doesn't mean they will remain that way forever. Mr. Lewis further noted
that the City has ordinances that state that a person has a right to develop
his property. The required minimum size for a lot is 9,000 square feet, and
the Commission makes the decision if the requested development is appropriate,
taking into consideration the surrounding area too.
David Runyan explained that the purpose of the Commission is to view
proposals for development and vote on their merit or lack of merit; not to
push or not push a plan. The Commission listens to opinions from those
affected for a proposal and then reacts to it accordingly.
Mr. Elmer Salovitch of 5125 Schaefer Road asked if the taxes from
the subject property goes to Edina or to Hopkins. Gordon Hughes explained
that 104/$1.00 goes to the City of Edina; 55G/$1.00 goes to the school district;
and 354/$1.00 goes to the County.
Helen McClelland pointed out that she would like to see the previous
plans for the site along with the 3 alternative plans, and moved to continue
this item for one month. James Bentley seconded the motion. (John Palmer
added that he would also like to see Staff's evaluation of the water study.)
All voted aye; the motion carried.
S-81-2 One Corporate Center Phase 4. Generally located east of
Ohms Lane and north of 74th Street.
Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the proponent is requesting
approval of a plat that would create one lot of 5.4 acres. The proposed
plat would clarify the legal description presently zoned 0-2 Office District.
The proponents have indicated their intent would be to develop a six -story
office building similar to the 3 buildings they have recently constructed in
the vicinity. Mr. Hughes added that Staff would recommend approval of
the plat.
Helen McClelland moved approval of the plat. Leonard Ring seconded
the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Community Development and Planning Commission
February 25, 1981
Page 6
LD -81-1 Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, Valley View Terrace. Generally
located north of 61st Street and west of Wooddale Avenue.
Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that the proponent is requesting
a lot division to adjust the common lot line between the subject parcels.
The new lot line would bring an existing fence completely within the boundries
of Lot 9.
Mr. Hughes indicated that the proposed lot division does not change the
relationship of the subject lot or the existing structures and recommended
approval of the lot division.
John Palmer moved approval of the lot division. James Bentley seconded
the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
LD -81-2 Lot 8, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition. Generally
located east of Tanglewood Court and south of Gleason Road.
Mr. Hughes explained to the Commission that the proponent is requesting
a party wall division of an existing double bungalow. Separate sewer and
water connections have been provided. He added that Staff recommends
approval of the division.
James Bentley moved approval of the lot division. Leonard Ring seconded
the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
IV. Next Meeting .Date: April 1, 1981, at 7:30 p.m.
V. Adjournment: 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce G. Repya, Secretary