Loading...
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