HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 09-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular,
s
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1987, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lee Johnson, John Bailey, Helen
McClelland, Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson,
David Runyan, Virginia Shaw and Jane
Paulus
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Lewis and John Palmer
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner Paulus moved for approval of the September 2,
1987 Community Development and Planning Commission Minutes.
Commissioner Shaw seconded the motion with the following
corrections. Page 4, paragraph 1, change very piece to every
piece. Page 4, paragraph 2, change warrants a variance to needs
a variance.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
5-37-8 Preliminary Plat Approval for Nob Hill,
Marnie Development, Inc.
General Location: South of Truest 66th Street and west of
Highway 100
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that the subject
proposal was continued to allow the proponents to respond to a
variety of Commission concerns and criticisms. The proponents
have returned with a revised plat. Mr. Larsen outlined a summary
of the changes. They are as follows:
1. The number of new, buildable lots has been reduced
from six to five. Average lot size has increased
from 25,165 square feet to 29,795 square feet. All
lots in the revised plat comply with Zoning
Ordinance standards.
2. Right of way for the proposed street extension has
been increased from 40 feet to 50 feet. However, the
road width continues to be less than the 28 foot City
requirement. The proposed road has been realigned
and the grade has been reduced. The realigned road-
way follows more closely the existing contours.
3. Extensive use of retaining_ walls continues to be
necessary. The developer has submitted plans and
specifications for review by the City Engineer.
1
Mr. Larsen pointed out the revised plan responds well to
staff criticisms of earlier proposals. The number and lay out of
lots is similar to that suggested by staff. The average size of
the proposed lots is nearly 34% larger than the average for the
Oak Ridge of Edina Plat. None of the lots as proposed require
variances. The plan represents the best development option for
the property. As with earlier proposals special attention must
be paid to the design, construction and inspection of the
proposed retaining walls.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the
proposed preliminary plat with the following changes and
conditions.
1. Street width should be increased to 28 feet.
2. A Developers agreement to'include detailed plans and
specifications for retaining walls.
3. An erosion control plan acceptable to Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District and the City Engineer.
4. Final Plat Approval.
5. Subdivision Dedication.
The proponents, Mr. Peter Marnie and Mr. Robert Engstrom
were present. Interested neighbors were also present.
Commissioner G. Johnson wondered if a fence or guard-rail
could be constructed to protect the lots on the west situated
below the proposed road from a vehicle driving over it's edge.
Mr. Larsen responded on this site staff does not feel a
guard-rail/fence would be needed, but could be added.
Commissioner G. Johnson asked the proponent what changes would
occur in the plans if the street width stipulated by staff was
developed versus the requested 24 foot width by the developer.
Mr. Engstrom said the proposed 24 foot road width will save some
large oak trees. Other than that the proposal would be
unchanged. Mr. Larsen said one reason for staff requesting a 28
foot road width is to accommodate on -street parking. He added
staff also want to maintain the community standard. Mr. Larsen
also noted certain areas within the City may require creativity
and flexibility in constructing a road and staff are willing to
consider different options. Mr. Larsen pointed out staff has a
concern with the retaining walls, especially the wall located
above the May property. Staff feel every effort must be made to
insure the adiacent property owner(s) that the retaining wall
will not wash down into their property. This pian for the
retaining wall must be verified by soil tests. Commissioner G.
Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if staff condition =2 addresses the
concern that retaining walls must meet the failure plane test.
Mr. Larsen responded that issue is covered under point 2 of the
Staff Report.
Eva May, 5023 Knob Hill Dirve, told the Commission she is
worried about vehicles possibly spinning off and sliding onto her
property. She also voiced a concern about snow removal. Mr.
Larsen said staff expects snow storage space on either side of
the road. Special precautions would also be taken by the plow.
Commissioner McClelland commented that the retaining wall
affecting the May property could be raised slightly to prevent
possible vehicle spin-off onto her property and give it more
protection.
The following residents expressed concern regarding the
proposed subdivision:
Ms. Eva May; 5023 Nob Bill Drive, Mr. Ed Curtiss, 5009 Nob
Hill Drive, Mr. and Mrs. Schultz, 5015 Nab Hill Drive, Ron
Oberpriller, 5000 Nob Hill Drive
Their concerns are as follows:
1) The steep grade of the property.
2) The narrowness of the proposed road.
3) Water run-off and sewer capacity.
4) What will happen to the existing cul de sac.
5) Increased traffic considerations.
Mr. Ron Zamansky, 5041 West 66th Street told the Commission
he reviewed the revised plans with BRW and is favorable to the
proposal as presented.
Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend preliminary plat
approval subject to staff conditions and that condition 1 of the
staff conditions be amended to read: the street shall be no less
than 24 feet and may be as wide as 28 feet, any lessening from
the standard 28 feet will be considered and approved only because
of the steep slopes of the area and to save existing vegetation.
The developer must work with staff in reaching the final road
measurement. Commissioner D. Johnson seconded the motion.
Commissioner McClelland informed the residents their
concerns will be addressed by staff and the engineering
department and many concerns are conditions for final approval of
this plat. These concerns are addressed in the Staff Report
dated September 30, 1987. Water run-off will be studied by the
City's engineering department and the development must also
obtain a permit from the Nine Mile Watershed District. All
conditions outlined in the staff report, and the modification of
point one must be met by the developer in order to obtain final
plat approval.
Commissioner G. Johnson commented that he would encourage
staff to find an agreeable solution for both the property owners
and the City regarding the existing cul de sac. Mr. Larsen
said staff intends to speak with impacted neighbors, soliciting
their input regarding the cul de sac.
Mr. Ron Oberpriller, 5000 Nob Hill Drive asked the
Commission to include in the motion the following points:
1. landscaping must be approved by the impacted
property owners.
2. Approval by the neighbors regarding the existing
cul de sac.
Commissioner McClelland said the landscaping issue will be
addressed when the final road width is agreed upon. Mr. Larsen
added the Ordinance requirements for subdivision of single family
lots do not require the proponent to submit a landscaping plan.
The Ordinance also does not address the issue regarding the cul
de sac because is not on the property in question. Commissioner
G. Johnson told the residents they will have to work with the
City Engineer, Fran Hoffman regarding the cul de sac.
Commissioner G. Johnson called for the vote. All were in
favor. The motion carried.
III. NEW BUSINESS
P-87-7
S-87-10
Ron Clark Construction
7038 and 7100 Cahill Road
Preliminary Plat Approval Cahill Townhouses
Mr. Larsen explained to the Commission the history of the
site adding that it's present zoning is PRD -3. Mr. Larsen added
Ron Clark Construction, Inc. submitted to staff preliminary
plans and after reviewing the staff report a revised site plan
was submitted. Mr. Larsen concluded the revised plan meets all
ordinance requirements. Staff recommends Final Development Plan
approval and Preliminary Plat approval subject to a Developers
Agreement, connection of public utilities, Final Plat Approval
and Subdivision Dedication.
Mr. Ron Clark, proponent and Mr. Don Senn, architect were
present.
Commissioner G. Johnson asked Mr. Clark how the water run
off would be controlled. Mr. Senn responded water run-off will
tie into the major storm sewer. He added the site now sheds
mostly toward the south. Mr. Larsen commented the storm sewer in
this area was constructed anticipating the development of this
piece of property. Mr. Senn added the Fire Marshal has given his
approval to the project.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the proposed access of
the site and if: the site deeds more than one access. The
Commission in reviewing the options agreed that the north entry
is the best approach to this project.
Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Clark the market range of
the development. Mr. Clark responded the units would be marketed
at $175,000 +.
Commissioner D. Johnson moved to recommend Final Development
Plan and Preliminary Plat approval of the revised site plan
subject to the staff conditions. Commissioner McClelland
seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried.
LD -87-14 David and Merle Janis Kieper
7013 Dublin Road
7017 Dublin Road
Generally
Located: West of Antrim Road and north of Dublin
Road
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property
consists of two parcels each developed with a single family
dwelling unit.
The proponent desires to add a sliver of property from the
east parcel to the west parcel. The sliver is a triangular piece
which is 12.10 feet wide at its widest part.
Mr. Larsen pointed out under the current.conditions, a
recent addition to the dwelling on the west parcel maintains a
non -conforming setback. This is a result of a surveyors error.
After the proposed lot division, both parcels will be conforming.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Lee Johnson moved to recommend approval.
Commissioner John Bailey seconded the motion. All were in
favor. The motion carried.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
0
C]
culin Hoogenakk4r, Secretary