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 ,,