Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 02-26 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Phil Sked, John Bailey, Virginia Shaw, Jane Paulus, John Palmer, John Skagerberg and David Runyan. MEMBERS ABSENT: William Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the January 29, 1986 Community Development and Planning Commission Minutes. Mrs. McClelland requested a revision in the minutes. The revision reads: 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 still to dense and will cause 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 yard 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 home owners 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. Mrs. Jane Paulus seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the January 2, 1986 Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting Minutes. Mr. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: S-86-1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones Lot 15, Prospect Hills. r• ' Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that a proposal for a six lot subdivision of the subject property was denied by the Commission at its January 29, 1986 meeting. Mr. Trones has resubmitted with a request for a five lot subdivision of this 4.05 acre parcel. Mr. Larsen added the Commission should be advised that the proponent has appealed the Commissions January 29, 1986 decision. The City Council has set a March 3, 1986 hearing date on the 6 lot preliminary plat. However, the Council will be informed of any action taken by the Commission at the February 26th meeting. Mr. Larsen explained the revised preliminary plat illustrates 5 lots ranging from 23,000 sq. ft. to 46,800 sq. ft. in area. The average lot size has been increased from 27,800 square feet to 32,800 square feet. Lot 1 would access on Dublin Road at approximately the same point as the existing driveway. The remaining four lots would be served by a new cul de sac off of Antrim Court. Mr. Larsen pointed out the curb cut off Antrim and the alignment of the cul de sac remain similar to previous plans. However, the newest proposal reduces the length of the road by approximately 20 feet. This results in increased rear yards on lots 2 and 3. The revised preliminary plat proposes a 30 foot conservation easement along the westerly and southerly property lines. No structures or land alteration would be allowed in the easement area. Mr. Larsen concluded that any recommendation for preliminary plat approval should be conditioned on the following: 1. Developers' Agreement 2. Subdivision Dedication 3. An erosion control plan during the construction period 4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court Mr. Larsen suggested the Commission consider increasing the conservation easement from 30 feet to 50 feet. The proponent Mr. Trones, Randy Stern and Robert Hoff were present. Interested neighbors were also in attendance. Mr. Trones submitted to the Commission a signed petition from members of the neighborhood supporting the 5 lot subdivision. Mr. Trones clarified for the Commission his reasons for going before the City Council on March 3, 1986 and before the Planning Commission this evening. He told the Commission he met with interested neighbors the week of February 3, 1986. At that meeting Mr. Trones suggested a third proposal. This proposal was for a 5 lot subdivision, 1 lot less than the 6 lot subdivision he appealed to the Council. There were 8 - 10 neighbors in attendance at that meeting. During the discussion Mr. Trones made changes in the plat. Lot 1 was changed from a walk -out lot. This change would keep the terrain at its natural elevation, and two 5 foot retaining walls constructed of boulders would be put in at this point. Mr. Trones said he told the neighbors he was willing to go before the Planning Commission with the new 5 lot subdivision proposal if he had neighborhood support. Mr. Trones said at that meeting all but 1 person supported the 5 lot subdivision. Mr. Trones felt the 6 lot proposal was adequate but will abide by the 5 lot subdivision if approved. Mr. Trones pointed out to the Commission the majority of names on his petition adjoin the property and are most affected by this proposal. Mr. Trones said the subject property is similar in topography with the existing neighborhood. He added he tried very carefully to consider the feelings of the neighbors but said he understood that not all needs will be met. He told the Commission he initiated 3 neighborhood meetings and made an honest effort to find out what the neighbors want. Mr. Trones stated he finds no problem with the increase in the conservation easement requested by staff, and stressed again he wants to maintain the integrity and environment of this neighborhood. Mr. Trones indicated homes build on the proposed lots would have a square footage of around 2,500 sq. ft. on the main floor. This would vary with the individual buyer, but in speaking with prospective buyers there is an indication to build approximately this size. Mrs. Bland spokesperson for the Prospect Hills Homeowners Association presented to the Commission a signed petition by neighbors opposing the 5 lot subdivision and an aerial photo of the area for their viewing. Mrs. Bland began her presentation by informing the Commission that 52 names appear on the petition, which is an increase from the previous submitted petitions. Continuing Mrs. Bland stated they are at a point where the lot sizes as defined in square feet are immaterial. Mrs. Bland quoted Edina's Comprehensive Land Use Plan " Topography and vegetation characteristics are to be utilized as a basis for determining suitable lot sizes". Mrs. Bland added the location and grade of the new cul-de-sac road to serve the proposed subdivision requires a substantial cut into the existing hill. The woods, slopes and gullies of the land in question provide severe developmental limitations. Mrs. Bland told the Commission at this point the neighborhood has been developed without greatly altering the natural terrain. It is felt the proposed 5 lot subdivision will not be sensitive to the topography. Mrs. Bland stated there was some confusion regarding lot #1 on the proposed plat. She indicated she was led to believe lot #1 would be a walk -out lot which would require a 16 foot cut. She questioned why the staff report was silent on this issue and the issue of the increased height of the retaining walls on lot #2. Mrs. Bland commented she mentioned these emissions to Mr. Larsen, who responded he felt these issues would be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. It was clarified for Mrs. Bland that lot #1 would be a partial walk -out. Mrs. Bland told the Commission the proposed cul-de-sac has some changes . The elevation at the west end is 955 feet and slopes to 948 feet where it enters Antrim Court. This change will benefit the new homeowners but in Mrs. Blands opinion could cause hardship for the homeowners in Danens Meadows. The most affected property owners at 7101 and 7105 Antrim Court have already experienced water damage and soil slippage, if this proposal is approved there is bound to be problems. Mrs. Bland suggested that Mr. Trones pay for any adjustment needed in landscaping to prevent this from occurring. Mrs. Bland expressed her concern regarding the traffic safety issue. She said the access of lot #1 unto Dublin Road has the potential to become a safety hazard. The topography of lot #1, the fact there is a road on three sides and because there is no easy place for the driveway to go make this lot a forced lot. This road access should be eliminated. Mrs. Bland thanked Mr. Trones for the addition of the conservation easement but added she felt a 30 foot easement was too small. Mrs. Bland said she would like to see a 50 foot easement on the south and a 60 foot easement on the west. Mrs. Bland took issue with the fact that Mr. Trones appealed the decision of the Commission's denial of the 6 lot subdivision to the Council and this evening was before the Commission with a 5 lot proposal. She felt this did not ring true. This was not what the policy writers intended. Mr. Larsen responded to some of the issues brought up by Mrs. Bland: 1. Mr. Larsen commented that Mrs. Bland quoted Edina's Comprehensive Plan many times. He said he realized that policies were open to varying interpretations. He continued by stating that policies must be applied in a reasonable manner. Mr. Larsen said the reason he has not used the Plan thus far is because in his judgement he felt Mr. Trones proposal was not in conflict with the Plan. 2. Mr. Larsen said the reason he did not mention the retaining walls in his February 26, 1986 Staff Report is because retaining walls have been a part of each plat ranging from 4 feet to 12 feet high. The omission was intentional. 3. Mr. Larsen added he remembers speaking to Mrs. Bland regarding lot #1 and told her he felt lot #1 would not be a walk -out. Mr. Larsen then spoke to Mr. Trones who informed him as a result of the neighborhood meeting the decision was to leave the hill and the terrain as is, which would eliminate a walk -out on lot #1. Mrs. Bland played a video tape of the area. The tape was made by Dr. Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road, who spoke in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Trones reminded Mrs. Bland she was present at the neighborhood meeting where it was decided lot #1 would not be a walk -out. Mr. Trones told the Commission he felt the video portrayed a biased and distorted look at the area. He said there can be no comparison made between the proposed subdivision and the subdivision he completed in Danens Meadows. Danens Meadows is what the name suggests, a • meadow. The Danens Meadows site did not have many trees and where trees were found they were preserved as much as possible. Mr. Trones stressed that he does not rape the land. He added he is concerned about the trees, and does not intend to go into this project and level trees. Mr. Trones reminded the Commission of the work he did at Braemar Oaks where many trees were saved. He pointed out how they worked to save trees on Antrim Court with the construction of retaining walls. Mr. Trones referred to his slide presentation which show that many homes in the area are set into the hill and have numerous retaining walls. Mr. Trones said he felt the issue has become an emotional issue, adding he tried very hard to present this proposal in an intelligent, reasonable and respectable way. Mr. Robert Hoff and Mr. Trones delivered a slide presentation illustrating homes and the general area. Mr. Runyan commented that in a sense he felt Mr. Trones hurt his case by presenting too much information. All Mr. Trones was required to do was to plat the sites and show how the street would work . Mr. Runyan said that a great deal of time was spent talking about if a home is a walk -out, if it a rambler, does it have a retaining wall, etc. This is all speculation because the proposed homes will have to fit the site. Mr. Runyan said this plan is quite an improvement over the last presented plan, adding many of the issues that troubled him have been cleaned up with this plat. Much confusion has resulted because of the home footprints placed on this plat. Mr. Runyan took measurements of the homes footprints on the presented plat and found the lot coverage ranged from 7% to 10% . Mr. Runyan said he does not understand why at the previous meetings the neighbors mentioned lot size as a very important issue but at this meeting it was suggested by Mrs. Bland that lot size was now immaterial. Mr. Runyan concluded that the plan presented this evening is a vast improvement over the two previous pians. He said the retaining wall issue cannot be addressed until it is decided where to place the home and what style it will be. He said believes the rolling terrain and ample vegetation will make the whole project much less visible than it would be on a flat parcel of land. He pointed out it is obvious when you build on a hill that some of the site will be disturbed and it is unreasonable to think it would not be. The terrain and vegetation will help the visual appearance of the site. Mr. Runyan noted that Mr. Trones is a reputable builder and he feels this project is a much ,, better project. r\ -', n'. rv-�-- U! Mr. Palmer seconded the thought of Mr. Runyan and said in terms of the Comprehensive Plan entioned thus far the Plan sets standards and principals that are very important to Edina, such as topography as a measure of lot size, desirable spacing, intelligent development , sensitivity to the environment. These issues are all true, but in a particular case they come down to a matter of judgement. Mr. Palmer stated that in his judgement this plan is at a state where it is much improved and fits those concerns addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. He added this proposal does not do violence to the environment or to this very special part of Edina. Mr. Palmer moved to approve the preliminary pl C subject to staff conditions in the staff report d subject to the further condition that the conversation easements shown on the south and west side of the plat be increased from 30 feet to 50 feet. Mr. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon Johnson opened the floor for discussion. Mr. Skagerberg commented he felt the 30 foot conservation easement was adequate, but will accept the 50 foot easement. Mrs. McClelland stated she felt this proposal was a improvement. She added from the beginning she was able to see 5 lots on this site. Mrs. McClelland said she still had three items that bothered her and would like the Commission to consider them. r 1. The entrance unto Dublin is a concern but, one she can live with. 2. The retaining wall that appears on lot #2 is a problem. She would like to see that retaining wall eliminated. 3. Mrs. McClelland said she would like to see a change in the motion regarding the conservation easement. She proposed 50 feet on the southside and because of the severe slope found on the west side she would like a 85 foot easement. She indicated she would also like to see 35 feet on the north and east sides. A discussion ensued between Mrs. McClelland and Mr. Trones on the placement of homes on the lots. Mr. Skagerberg commented the reason he would not agree with the easements Mrs. McClelland proposed is because he believes the future homeowner should have some control of what they do on their property. Mr. Runyan reminded the Commission they are loosing site of their task. The location of the homes on the site and the location of retaining walls is not their job. He added the Commission is to look at a piece of property, how it is to be divided and whether the traffic enters and exits appropriately. The design of the homes should not enter into it. He feels they are off -base if they try to tell a developer where to put a retaining wall etc. Mrs. McClelland said she is concerned with erosion and the topography of the area, and this is why she does not agree with the retaining wall and would like to eliminate the retaining wall on this site. Mrs. McClelland withdrew her request for a change in the conservation easement. Concerned neighbors expressed their views of the proposed subdivision: Mr. Langer of 7101 Antrim Court said he is worried about possible water damage to his property and concerned with the traffic issue. Mr. Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive commented he felt the site was to dense and questioned if the proposed homes would have adequate spacing. Mr. Elliot of 5904 Lee Valley road said he has lived in the neighborhood for a number of years and has seen neighbors subdivide off part of their property. He would like this to stop, he feels the neighborhood is too dense. Dr. Van Beek of 7115 Antrim Court commended on the fact that Mr. Trones is respected as a builder but added he would like to see the site developed with 4 lots. Mrs. Jungels of 7108 Antrim Court expressed concern over the possibility of inadequate water pressure. She added she also shares the concern of her neighbors regarding the traffic safety issue. Mrs. Jungels said in speaking with Mr. Trones about the proposed property she and her husband were told if the property were developed it would be developed with 3 lots. Mr. Robert Naegeli of 5912 Lee Valley Circle echoed the concerns of his neighbors and recommended the site to be developed with 3 lots. Mr. Ralph Linvill of 7005 Antrim Road commended Mr. Trones on the 5 lot subdivision but expressed worry about the icy conditions that occur in the winter. He wondered if it was a possible to re -locate the driveway. Mrs. Naegeli of 5912 Lee Valley Road said she would like to see the site developed with 4 lots. No further comment being heard, Mr. Johnson reminded the Commission that a motion had been made and seconded. Mrs. Paulus asked to make a comment. She told the residents she is torn and understands their needs. She appreciates all the work the members of the neighborhood have gone to. She added the land in this area has already been divided and it is impossible to go back in time. She feels this plat has come far and Mr. Trones has worked with the neighbors to try to fill their needs. She said she finds no problems in granting Mr. Trones's 5 lot subdivision request subject to the above mentioned conditions. Mr. Johnson called for a roll call vote: Jane Paulus Aye John Palmer Aye John Skagerberg Aye David Runyan Aye Gordon Johnson Abstain Del Johnson Aye Helen McClelland Abstains Dublin Road access and she would conservation easement. Mrs. McC. lots. Phil Sked Aye John Bailey Aye Virginia Shaw Aye The motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: 'or the reasons of the like too see a larger elland agrees with 5 The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, t ,,