HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 01-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY JANUARY 29, 1986, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson,
Helen McClelland, Phil Sked. Jane Paulus,
John Palmer, John Skagerberg and David
Runyan
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Lewis , John Bailey and Virginia
Shaw
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 January 8,
1986 meeting minutes. Mrs. Jane Paulus seconded the motion.
All were in favor. The motion carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
LD -86-5 Ron Clark Construction
6516-6518 Gleason Court
Mr. Larsen told the Commission the proponent is
requesting a party wall division for an existing double
bungalow. Separate utility connections are provided.
Staff recommends approval.
Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for approval of the
division. Mr. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All
were in favor. The motion carried.
Ld-86-6 Country Club Builders
6441-6445 Vernon Avenue
Mr. Larsen said the proponents are requesting an party
wall division of an existing double bungalow. Separate
utility connections are provided.
Staff recommends approval.
r
Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the division.
Mr. Phil Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor. The
motion carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
5-86-1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
Lot 15, Prospect Hills
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that an eight
lot subdivision of the subject property was considered on
January 8, 1986, and rejected. The proponent, Rudy Trones,
has submitted a new preliminary plat illustrating six lots.
He added the revised plat increases the average lot
size from 20,800 square feet to 27,800 square feet. In the
original plat lots ranged from 16,650 square feet to 27,750
square feet in area. The range in the revised plat is from
22,125 square feet to 33,480 square feet in area.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the location and grade of the
proposed cul de sac remain the same as in the previous plan.
However, the grading plan adjacent to the road has changed
significantly. Building elevations for lot 1 and 5 have
been raised which reduces the cut into the hill adjacent to
the road. The maximum height of retaining walls along the
road has been reduced from 12 feet to 6 feet. Except for
grading and filling necessary to prepare individual building
pads most earth work is confined to the interior portions of
the plat adjacent to the road.
Mr. Larsen said the revised preliminary illustrates the
location of existing trees, and indicates which will be
saved and which will be removed. According to the surveyor
trees with a diameter of 8 inches or greater are shown. The
plan does not illustrate all of the existing trees on the
western portions of lots 2, 3, and 4. Of 267 trees
inventoried, 44 wouldbe removed due to construction of the
road and preparation of individual building sites.
The revised site plan illustrates lot 1 and 2 using
Dublin Road for access. The house on lot 1 could use the
cul de sac as an access point. Staff believes that access
from the cul de sac for lot 1 is more appropriate. Lot 2
does not have access to the cul de sac. C6nsequently, it
must use Dublin Road.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff continues to recommend the
following conditions for a plat approval.
1. Developers Agreement
2. Subdivision Dedication.
3. An approved erosion control plan during
the construction period.
4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim
Court.
The proponent Mr. Trones was present, with Mr. Krueger
of Krueger & Associates and Attorney Donald Smith,of
Thomsen, Nybeck, Johnson, Bonquet and Van Valkenburg, P.A.,
Residents of the area were also present.
Mr. Donald Smith pointed out to the Commission issues
that were discussed at the meeting of January 8, 1986 and
changes in the plat as a result of that meeting:
1. Density. Mr. Trones decreased the density
of the original plat by trimming the number of
lot sites to 6. The original plat depicts
8 lot sites.
2. Topography. The lots that require a significant
amount of grading and soil movement are lots
2 and 3. The remaining 4 lots require minimal
alteration. With the revised plat the impact of
tree loss will be minimal. Calculations indicate
that 900 - 950 of the total amount of trees on the
site will remain untouched.
3. Safety. The revised plat has two sites that will
access Dublin. However, Mr. Trones will abide by
the staff request that lot #1 access Antrim Court.
The future homeowner of Lot #2 will have sufficient
space to turn around and will enter Dublin front
first.
Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Trones tried very hard to
respond to the concerns of the Planning Commission, staff
and area residents. The number of lots has decreased,
resulting in an increase in individual lot size, the rolling
hills and vegetation of the area will be retained where
possible, Dublin will serve as assess to one lot instead of
the proposed two, and the revised plat complies with all
Zoning Ordinances. Mr. Smith submitted to the Planning
Commission a print-out of subdivisions in the general area
that were developed over the past several years.
Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Krueger the height of the
retaining walls on lots 2 and 3. Mr. Krueger said the
retaining walls will be six feet high.
Mr. Krueger informed the Commission a crew of workers
was at the site for 1 1/2 days tallying the amount of trees
over 8 inches that would be lost as a result of constructing
building pads for each lot. Their calculations found that
with careful planning the tree loss would be minimal. The
proposed location of the cul-de-sac would require the
removal of 7 trees.
Mr. Trones told the Commission he met with homeowners
of the area and discussed the issues that were brought to
his attention at the January 8, 1986 meeting. The
homeowners expressed concern about the alteration of the
natural environment of the area as a result of this
subdivision. Mr. Trones referred to his Braemar development
as an example of maintaining the natural beauty of the land.
Mr. Trones pointed out the new lot size averages 27,800
square feet. This increase in lot square footage makes
the proposed lot sizes larger than many of the lots in the
area. Mr. Trones assured the Commission it is important for
him to maintain the integrity of the area.
Mrs. Rhonda Bland, 7000 Kerry Road submitted a signed
petition to the Commission opposing the development of a 6
lot subdivision at 7012 Dublin Road.
Mrs. Bland asked the Commission to recall her
presentation of the January 8, 1986 Planning Commission
Meeting. Mrs. Bland stated her presentation this evening
would address the failings of the revised proposal:
Topography:
Mrs. Bland told the Commission that members of the
neighborhood do not feel the increased square footage of the
lots satisfy the standards setforth in Edina's Comprehensive
Plan. "It is the policy to utilize topography and
vegetation characteristics as a basis for determining
suitable lot sizes." Continuing Mrs. Bland stated this
subdivision is not a logical development of the land.
The wildlife would loose their natural habitat and the tree
loss would be greater than what Mr. Trones has indicated.
Mrs. Bland quoted the Edina Tree Ordinance #823 " A tree has
a diameter of greater than 6" when measured at a point of
four feet above ground level. The City Council hereby finds
it is necessary to maintain and protect the existing urban
forest in order to preserve wind break protection, abate
soil erosion and enhance the natural beauty of the City."
The elimination of trees, especially the many oaks in the
area is a high cost to pay for development. Mrs. Bland said
that no matter how well intentioned Mr. Trones is the
topography will be severely altered and its natural
environmental beauty lost forever. The removal of
vegetation and the alteration of the elevations on all six
lots present a potential for further erosion and soil
slippage. The development could aggravate an existing water
drainage problem.
2. Relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing
neighborhood.
Mrs. Bland indicated the development of 6 lots does not
blend with the character and symmerty of the neighborhood.
In general the area of Prospect Hills is comprised of small
homes on large lots. This ratio results with land being the
dominant element. It is felt that Mr. Trones will build
large homes on the proposed sites, resulting in unbalance.
The residents of Prospect Hills feel the proposed plat is
part of Prospect Hills and redevelopment of this area must
considered with that in mind. The character of the
neighborhood must be maintained.
3. Traffic Safety Factor
Mrs. Bland said the 2 proposed home sites that will
access Dublin Road could result in a grave safety problem.
Several mishaps have already occurred in this area. It is
felt that for safety reasons no home sites should access
Dublin Road.
• Mrs. Bland added if the density is reduced to three or
four homes sites many of the concerns of the residents
will vanish. Less need for excavation and fill will reduce
the extent of damage to the topography and the overall
development will be more compatible with Prospect Hills. If
all the home sites have access unto Antrim Terrace the
traffic safety -factor is less of a concern. Mrs. Bland
offered an alternative to this subdivision. She contacted
each homeowner with land adjacent to the proposed site, all
homeowners stated they would be interested in listening to a
proposal which would enable them to purchase part of the
land that is Lot 15. In addition, the subdivision
dedication could be in the form of land rather then cash.
The presence of unaltered plant communities and natural
wildlife habitats is a very limited resource in Edina.
Several residents have expressed their support for an
assessment that could offset the ongoing maintenance costs
of the City for maintaining this land. Mrs. Bland asked the
Planning Commission to maintain the integrity of Prospect
Hills. She recommended that Mr. Trones further amend the
plat so the neighborhood concerns are addressed.
Darrell Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive voiced his concern
regarding the density and lot size of the proposal. Mr.
Trones reminded him that the proposed lot sizes are larger
than many of the developed lots in the area. Allen VanBeek
of 7115 Antrim Road asked Mr. Trones if there is any form of
control which can be exercised to regulate what the new
homeowners place in their yards (ex. pools, tennis courts,
etc.). Mrs. Trones said the topography limits what could be
placed in yards. He anticipates that most yards would have
deck structures. Lot 6 and lot 1 are the only lots on
which he would anticipate the new homeowners putting in a
swimming pool or tennis court. Henry Langer of 7101 Antrim
Court expressed concern over possible water drainage
problems and traffic safety.
Mr. Smith said he understood the natural apprehension
of the neighbors regarding the change caused by this
proposed development, but cutting the number of lots to 3 or
4 is unfair. Mr. Smith stated the neighbors are demanding
substantially more square footage in lot size from Mr.
Trones than they themselves have on their own lots. Mr.
Smith told the Commission that Mr. Trones has a history of
fine developments in Edina. There is a risk that another
developer could develop the property with less care than Mr.
Trones would take. There is no question that this
development will alter the terrain, but the development of 3
or 4 homes will alter the terrain. Mr. Smith pointed out
that the homes Mr. Trones builds are quality homes and it is
very important to Mr. Trones to develop these lots with
minimal alteration. Mr. Smith added that Mr. Trones will
comply with the staff request that only 1 home access Dublin
which will lessen neighborhood traffic concerns. Mr. Smith
feels Mr. Trones has done everything he could to eliminate
the general concerns of the residents. By asking him to
increase lot size to 1 1/4 acres you are asking him to have
a far greater lot size then what the local community meets.
Mrs. Eckberg of 7020 Kerry Road commented that she has
been approached to subdivide her lot but has refused. The
uniqueness of the area is special to her and that is the
reason she moved into this area. She understands change
comes but would like change to be subtle, once change is
made is cannot be undone. Mr.Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road
submitted to the Commission an ariel photo of Prospect
Hills. Mr. Elasky is opposed to the revised plat. Mrs.
Langer of 7101 Antrim Court pointed out an acre of land is
viewed differently if it is flat then if it is rolling. Mr.
Robert Naegeli of 5912 Lee Valley Road is against the
density of the proposal. He feels his view will be changed
due to the fact that he is 40 feet below the proposed homes.
Mr. Runyan introduced himself as acting chairman in the
absence of Mr. Gordon Johnson.
Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Larsen if the Commission had
control of home placement on new lots. Mr. Larsen informed
Mr. Palmer the Commission has never exercised control of
where a home is placed on the lot. Controls are exercised
where a water body is involved placing a conservation
restriction 100 ft. along the shore line. Mr. Trones
proposed placing a conservation restriction along the west
I
and south side of the property. This would protect the
natural vegetation of the environment .
Mrs. Helen McClelland stated that after conferring with
the Engineering Department, she agreed that the sewer line
should connect to the invert on Antrim Court to provide
proper gravity drop. Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion
that the revised plat for 6 homes is too dense and still
caused extensive alteration to the site's topography. She
pointed out that if Mr. Trones wishes to promote country
living in Edina the prospective homeowners would expect
certain amenities, such as a back/side yards, for homes
priced at $500,000. In the present plat, lots 2 and 3 have
retaining walls and no yards; Lots 1 and 4 have extremely
limited yards. Such homeowners could quickly become unhappy
with the City and the Commission. Mrs. McClelland concluded
that she could support a plat for 5 homes around the cul-de-
sac if the topography were respected. Mr. Paulus stated
she felt the present homeowners would suffer a great loss as
a result of this subdivision. She further added that in her
opinion the development of 3 or 4 lots would be a reasonable
approach to this property. Understandably the homeowners
are concerned about the integrity of their neighborhood and
they do not want to see a development mistake made.
Mr. Palmer said he is inclined to think this project is
to dense. Mr. Skagerberg added he is not unhappy with the
revised 6 lot subdivision, but his concern is placement of
the proposed homes. He would like to see the homes blend
into the environment. Mr. Skagerberg commented it is
asking much of the developer to reduce the number of lots
too 3 or 4. Mr. Del Johnson said he leans toward a 5 lot
subdivision.
Mr. Smith said he felt the objectivity has been lost on
this matter. Mr. Smith said the Commission works under
rules. Mr. Smith pointed out that a 5 lot subdivision
increases the square lot footage to an average of 33,360.
The lots that abutt this area average in the 20's. Mrs.
McClelland said the rules she based her decision on are of
density and maintaining the integrity of the area. Mr.
Smith asked in the decision making process the Commission to
look for objective criteria. It was felt by Mr. Trones that
the 27,750 average square footage is reasonably consistent
for the area.
Mr. Trones asked for some direction from the Commission
in the development of this property.
Mr. Runyan said he would like to see this site
developed creatively. He added the site is very rolling
which will enable the profile of the homes to appear lower
and fit into the terrain without appearing as large as they
would on a flat surface. Mr. Runyan added he finds a problem
with site #2. He can envision the development of lots
1,3,4,5, and 6 but indicated he has a hard time with lot 2.
Mr. Trones agreed with Mr. Runyan that lot #2 is a difficult
lot to develop,
Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for denial of the
preliminary plat on the basis of density. Mrs. Jane Paulus
seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion
carried.
III. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Oki to