Loading...
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;