HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 01-08 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular11
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY JANUARY 8, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Lewis, Del Johnson, Helen
McClelland, Virginia Shaw, John Bailey,
Jane Paulus, John Palmer, John Skagerberg
and David Runyan
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the December 4,
1985 Community Development and Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes. Mr. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were
in favor. The motion carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
S-86-1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property
measures approximately 4 acres in size, and is zoned R-1,
Single Dwelling District. The property is developed with a
single dwelling located slightly northeast of center.
Mr. Larsen explained that the proponent has submitted a
request for an 8 lot subdivision of the property. The
existing dwelling would be removed. The proposed lots range
in size from 17,170 to 27,750 square feet with an average
size of 20,800 square feet. Two of the lots would front on
Dublin, two on Antrim with the remaining four served by a
new cul-de-sac off Antrim Court.
Mr. Larsen added the subject property is part of the
Prospect Hills area which contains some of the largest lots
in the City. Over the years a number of subdivisions of
these large lots have occurred. The most notable being
Danens Meadows, directly east of the subject property, for
which a 10 lot subdivision was approved in 1980. Also
developed by Mr. Trones, lots in Danens Meadows average
approximately 20,600 square feet in area.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the proposed plat illustrates
the vacation of excess right of way along the west side of
Antrim Court. This excess right of way is a result of a
i
realignment of Antrim Court which occurred as a result of
the Danens Meadow Plat.
Mr. Larsen told the Commission construction of the
cul-de-sac that will serve the proposed subdivision will
require a substantial cut into the existing hill. Retaining
walls up to 12 feet tall will be required along sections of
the new road. Lots 1,2,4 and 5 will require considerable
fill to provide adequate building pads at and an elevation
high enough to be served by existing sanitary sewers.
During the period of construction there will be the
potential for considerable soil erosion if adequate erosion
control steps are not taken.
Mr. Larsen summarized staffs findings:
1. Lots in the proposed subdivision are very similar to
the lots in Danens Meadows. The use of Antrim Court as the
access point to the subdivision is preferable to using
Dublin Road. The proposed road provides acceptable spacing
to the intersection, a less severe road grade, and possibly
the loss of fewer trees.
2. The 20,800 square foot average of the proposed lots is
nearly identical to the 20,600 square foot size in Danens
Meadows.
The right of way along the frontage of lot 8 is excess
and could be vacated. The right of way along lots 3 and 7
should be only partially vacated in order to maintain an
adequate boulevard.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends Preliminary Plat
approval with the following conditions.
1. Developers Agreement
2. Subdivision Dedication
3. An erosion control plan to insure against
undue erosion during the construction
period.
4. Vacation of excess right of way along
Antrim Court.
The proponent Mr. Rudy Trones, Ron Krueger and Peter
Knable of Krueger and Associates and interested neighbors
were present.
Mr. Trones addressed the Commission informing them he
proposes to build homes that are comparable to the homes
r
previously built in Danens Meadow. All the proposed homes
would be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Trones stated he understands the concerns of the
neighbors regarding the amount of ground to be moved,
elevations of the terrain and the amount of vegetation that
may be disturbed as a result of this proposal. Mr. Trones
assured the Commission and neighbors that where possible the
terrain would remain in its natural state.
Mr. Skagerberg asked Mr. Trones if he had an erosion
control plan that would address the erosion issue after the
proposed homes were completed. Mr. Trones said that all
sites would be sodded which would help control erosion. He
also added he felt the drainage problem would lessen due to
grading, in addition, he would encourage buyers to maintain
their yards in the natural condition.
Mrs. Rhonda Bland spokesperson for concerned neighbors
of the area submitted to the Commission a signed petition
opposing the proposed subdivision and development at 7012
Dublin Road.
Mrs. Bland addressed the Commission explaining the
concerns and reasons for neighborhood opposition to the
proposed development. She stated three main reasons for
opposing the proposed development: 1) topography 2)
relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing
neighborhood and 3) traffic safety factor.
1) Topography:
Mrs. Bland told the Commission the neighborhood is
comprised of a rolling topography, steep slopes, and
woodlands (many of the woodlands are oak). This area offers
a rich habitat for wildlife. Mrs. Bland noted that because
of the fully developed status of Edina the presence of
unaltered plant communities and natural wildlife habitats
are very limited. She explained that to date the development
and subdivision in the area has been compatible with the
overall topography of the neighborhood and has not greatly
changed the character of the land. Mrs. Bland told the
Commission that according to Edina's Comprehensive Plan; "It
is the policy to utilize topography and vegetation
characteristics as a basis for determining suitable lot
size." She added that it is the firm belief of many members
of the neighborhood that this policy was disregarded in the
proposed subdivision. It is felt that according to the
submitted plat, natural high elevations would be reduced and
lowlands would be raised, this would severely alter or
eliminate the present topography of the area. She
indicated that the neighbors understand the pressures to
subdivide and develop lots in Edina. They believe the goals
of the land use element are to provide for the orderly and
logical development and re -development of lands and maintain
an attractive living environment while preserving the high
quality residential character of Edina. Mrs. Bland asked
Mr. Trones to amend his proposal so that the natural
topography of the area remains unaltered.
2. Relationship of the proposed subdivision to the
existing neighborhood.
Continuing, Mrs. Bland stated it is understood that
the policy of Edina is to allow further subdivision for the
purpose of developing single family lots only if
neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved. It is
felt that the proposed subdivision would detract from the
character of the Prospect Hills neighborhood. Mrs. Bland
said the proposed lot sizes relate to Danens Meadows (a
transitional area between the smaller lots bordered on the
east by Shannon Drive and the very large lots to the west of
Prospect Hills) and not to Prospect Hills which have a large
average lot size. Mrs. Bland quoted an October 31, 1979
staff report which read: "The Danens Meadow project
provided a logical transition between these two diverse
areas." Mrs. Bland further added the provision of adequate
transitions between dissimilarly platted lands is one of the
most historic objectives of land use planning. Because the
proposed lot sizes relate to Danens Meadows it does not make
them acceptable to the neighborhood of Prospect Hills. Mrs.
Bland told the Commission that she was aware that the lot
measurements of the proposed subdivision fall within the
stipulations of the Edina Zoning ordinance, but the proposed
subdivision is not sympathetic to prevailing neighborhood
standards. Mrs. Bland quoted the Edina Comprehensive Land
Use Plan: "Currently, Edina's Zoning Ordinance contains a
single set of standards for each residential district that
applies throughout the City. Existing standards work well
in the City's's newer neighborhoods, but they present
problems in older neighborhoods which were developed under
less restrictive standards. In order to assure that
recevelopment will occur in a manner sympathetic to
prevailing neighborhood standards, uniform guidelines for
redevelopment should be developed for sub -areas of the
City." The character and stability of the City's
neighborhoods depend on the standards imposed for each
individual area.
3. Traffic Safety Factor.
Mrs. Bland pointed out to the Commission that Prospect
Hills has only two points of access into the area, 70th and
Antrim Road in the north and Shannon Road in the south.
This roadway serves not only those who live in the
neighborhood but also those to the east on the newer part of
Shannon and those in the south in the Dewey Hills area.
1.
The road curves and winds and has a steep grade. In the
summer road conditions are at their best, but are still a
safety hazard, in the winter these conditions are
compounded. Since there are no sidewalks all pedestrian
traffic is on the street. Mrs. Bland said from a traffic
safety point of view the proposed subdivision would result
in an increase of traffic flow. This fact would be
compounded with 2 of the proposed homes accessing on
Dublin. This in Mrs. Blands opinion would increase the
possibility for potential accidents. Mrs. Bland recommended
that Mr. Trones amend his proposal in view of the above
mentioned concerns.
Mr. Daryl Boyd of 72014 Shannon Drive asked the
Commission to examine the proposed subdivision in relation
to the large lots of Prospect Hills and not the smaller lots
of Danens Meadows.
Mr. Ron Krueger explained to the Commission that Mr.
Trones completed a development with similar topography on
St. Albans Addition. At that time an extensive amount of
time and care with minimal altering of the natural
environment was taken in the placement of each home. Mr.
Trones has the same intentions for the proposed development.
All areas with natural contours will stay the same. Each
proposed home will be designed to fit in the lot with
minimal lot alteration.
Mr. Roy Olson of 5920 Lee Valley Road stated he is not
opposed to this development, but expressed surprise on the
number of proposed homes. Mr. Olsons concern is a possible
drainage problem that could have a detrimental effect to his
property. He expressed that he would like some assurance
that the proposed subdivision would not add a drainage
problem for him. Mr. Olson added that traffic is a problem.
Mr. Peter Knable clarified the problem of drainage,
adding that by his calculations the post development rates
of runoff would be less than what occur at the present time.
He said they do not expect any additional downstream
problems from storm runoffs.
Mr. David Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road submitted to
the Commission snapshots of the area in question. Mr.
Elasky expressed his opposition to the proposed development.
Mrs. Helen McClelland stated her displeasure with the
proposed subdivision. She felt the development of 8 lots
would result in an absolute mutilitation of the topography.
She pointed out very few trees would be left if this
proposal was approved, which could result in numerous
erosion problems. Mrs. McClelland added the grading and
fill this proposal would need would severely alter the
.1
environmental beauty of this area. She stressed traffic
considerations are a grave concern, pointing out that the 2
proposed homes accessing Dublin could be a real safety
problem. Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion that 5 homes
would be a realistic amount to develop. A development of 5
homes would respect the areas topography. Mrs. McClelland
stated she would not consider the development of 8 homes on
this location.
Mr. Palmer stated he opposes the development of this
property for the reasons Mrs. Bland previously mentioned.
He added that he views this open area as a transition point
between the large lots of Prospect Hills and the smaller
lots of Danens Meadows. Mr. Palmer felt the rolling hills
and woodlands added a uniqueness to Edina and is a special
resource. Mr. Palmer concluded that he would like to see the
area developed with special care.
Mr. John Bailey agreed with the feelings of Mr. Palmer
and asked Mr. Trones if he had looked into the possibility
of developing this site with fewer lots.
Responding to Mr. Baileys question Mr. Trones stated at
the present time only 8 lots were looked at for development
at this site. In reference to Mrs. McClellands comments Mr.
Trones stressed he did not feel the site would be mutilated
by this development adding the existing terrain would remain
generally the same. Mr. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
commented that he believes Mr. Trones can preserve the
natural integrity of this site .
Mr. John Palmer moved for denial of the
subdivision based on the density of the proposal, taking
into consideration the special topography of the area and
viewing this area as a transitional point between the larger
lots of Prospect Hills and the smaller lots of Danens
Meadows. Mrs. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All
were in favor. The motion carried.
P-86-1 Hoyt Development
5555 West 78th Street
Mr. Larsen told the Commission the subject property
measures approximately 5 acres in size and is zoned Planned
Industrial District, PID. Until recently the property was
developed with a small industrial building. The Commission
may recall that a redevelopment of the property for office -
warehouse use was approved in July and by the City Council
in August, 1985. The previously approved plan has been
abandoned and a new design has been submitted.
Mr. Larsen pointed out that the new proposal calls for
a office -warehouse building containing 73,557 square feet of
gross floor area, which is slightly greater than the 72,390
square feet in the old plan. A building set back variance
was granted for the previous plan. The new plan would
require no building set back variance. The new plan also
complies with Ordinance requirements for Floor Area, and
building coverage.
Mr. Larsen added the new plan provides parking for 208
cars compared to 209 spaces in the previous plan. Both
plans comply with Ordinance parking quantity requirements.
However, both plans require parking setback variances. The
location and magnitude of the requested variances for the
new plan are similar to those granted to the earlier plan.
Parking is set back less than the required 20 feet along
most of the northerly property line. The required 10 foot
building to parking/drive aisle set back is not provided
along the westerly portion of the south building wall.
The landscaping plan illustrates the retention of
existing landscaping along the northerly property line.
Retention of this existing material will be difficult due to
the extensive grading proposed in this area.
The primary exterior materials will be brick with clay
tile used as an accent. The rear of the building will be
decorative concrete block. All materials comply with the
Ordinance.
Mr. Larsen concluded the proposed plan conforms much
more closely to Ordinance requirements than did the
previously approved plan. The requested parking set back
variances will have little or no visual impact due to the
large grade change near the property line. Staff recommends
approval of the Final -Development Plan subject to the
following condition:
1. Staff approval of a revised landscaping
plan and schedule.
Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for approval of the Final
Development Plan. Mr. John Palmer seconded the motion. All
were in favor. the motion carried.
LD -86-1 Roy Lauring
6008-6012 Berne Circle
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the request is a
party wall division of an existing double bungalow.
Separate utility connections are provided.
Staff recommends approval.
Mr. Del Johnson moved for approval of the division.
Mr. John Bailey seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The motion carried.
LD -86-2 Miguel and Marta Fiol
6000-6004 Berne Circle
Mr. Larsen told the Commission a party wall division of
an existing double bungalow is requested. Separate utility
connections are provided.
Staff recommends approval.
Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for approval of the
division. Mr. John Palmer seconded the motion. All were in
favor. The motion carried.
LD -86-3 Victor Kreuziger
6.705 and 6709 Cheyenne Trail
Mr Larsen informed the Commission the owner of 6705
Cheyenne Trail is proposing a lot division in order to buy a
triangular piece of property from the adjacent property at
6709 Cheyenne Trail. The proponent has stated that the
additional property will be used for landscaping.
Mr. Larsen concluded both lots would continue to meet
set back and lot size requirements following the division.
There is a substantial grade separation between the two
homes. The property to be transferred does seem to relate
better to the home at 6705 Cheyenne. Following the division
the home at 6709 Cheyenne would maintain a 57 foot set back
form the new property line.
Staff recommends approval.
Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the lot division.
Mrs. Jane Paulus seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The motion carried.
LD -86-4 Ron Clark Construction Company
6519-21 Gleason Court
Mr. Larsen introduced to the Commission a request for a
party wall division for 6519-21 Gleason Court by Ron Clark
Construction Company (LD -86-4). Mr. Larsen stated staff
recommends approval.
Mr. John Skagerberg moved.for approval of the division.
Mrs. Virgina Shaw seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted;