Loading...
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