HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 07-06 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1988, AT 7:30 A.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland,
Lee Johnson, David Runyan, Virginia Shaw, Del Johnson
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Lewis, John Palmer, Jane Paulus, John Bailey,
Geoff Workinger
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner McClelland moved for approval of the June 1, 1988, Community
Development and Planning Commission Minutes. Commissioner D. Johnson seconded
the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
S-88-6 Preliminary Plat Approval for Oak Ponds
of Interlachen 2nd Addition for Michael
Halley Homes
General West of Blake Road and West of Fox Meadow Lane
Location: extended
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property comprises two large
lots which front on Schaefer Road. Each lot is about 2 1/2 acres in size.
Mr. Larsen explained the proposed preliminary plat proposes to develop the
rear portion of the two lots. The proposal would create three, new single
family lots. The lots would contain 26,000, 22,000 and 31,500 square feet
respectively. The lots would be served by the westerly extension of Fox Meadow
Lane. The proposed lots meet or exceed Zoning Ordinance requirements for single
family lots.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the new lots are shown as lots 2, 3 and 4 on the
attached preliminary plat. Lots 2 and 3 occupy relatively high ground. Lot 4
falls off to the south. Because of the shape of the lot, the house on lot 4
will be 10 to 20 feet below the homes on lots 2 and 3. There is an existing
small pond southwest of lot 3 and 4. There is also a pond on the lot
immediately north of the subject property. During last years July storm, these
pond areas flooded a large area and had to be pumped down since they have no
outlet. Staff has requested a storm water analysis of the proposed development.
Mr. Larsen concluded development of the rear portion of the large lots in
the Blake, Schaefer area has long been expected. Some development has occurred,
most recently to the property immediately east of the subject property. The
lots in the proposed plat are slightly larger than those in the original Oak
Ponds subdivision and also larger than those in the Taft addition on the west
end of Scriver Road. The proposed development does allow for future development
to the north by continuing the right of way to the northerly property line.
This has been a requirement placed on other developments in the area. The
proposed building pad on lot 4 is of some concern to staff. The shape of the
lot forces the pad location much further back than that of the adjoining
properties. It would be better if this lot were developed closer to the street
and at a higher elevation.
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note staff has not received a storm
water analysis for the development.
Conditions to Preliminary Plat Approval should be:
1. Final Plat Approval
2. Developers Agreement
3. Subdivision Dedication
The proponent, Mr. Michael Halley was present.
Mr. Halley explained to the Commission he sees no difficulty in adjusting
the proposed house on lot 4 to accommodate the impacted property owner, adding
it would work better from a development standpoint if the house could be
positioned to the rear of the property as proposed. He said the impacted
property owner may wish to consider a 35 foot conservation easement along the
adjoining lot line as an alternative to moving the house on Lot 4 forward. This
would afford him the privacy that may be lost if the house is positioned as
proposed.
Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Halley and City Staff what will be done
with the existing cul de sac on Fox Meadow Lane when the road is extended. Mr.
Larsen replied it would be staff's recommendation that the existing cul de sac
be removed.
Commissioner G. Johnson asked Mr. Halley if he contacted Mr. Dinwiddie,
5225 Schaefer Road (property directly south of the proposal) regarding this
proposal to discuss the possibility of Mr. Dinwiddie adding a rear portion of
his property to this development. Mr. Halley told the Commission he contacted
Mr. Dinwiddie and they did not reach an understanding regarding Mr. Dinwiddie's
property. Mr. Larsen added he has met with Mr. Dinwiddie and discussed possible
options but did not reach any concrete conclusion.
Commissioner McClelland explained to the Commission the problems the
watershed district has had with the ponds, siting last years flood as an example
of possible future flooding problems for homes if the subdivision is approved as
presented. She added she felt a 3 lot subdivision is too dense for this site.
She pointed out that the topography of the land and the ponds are factors that
should be seriously considered when reviewing this proposal. Commissioner
McClelland added in her opinion a 2 lot subdivision works better on this site.
Commissioner G. Johnson asked Mr. Larsen what would the average lot size be
for the 3 proposed lots. Mr. Larsen indicated the average would be around
25,000 square feet.
Mr. Ulrich, 6221 Fox Meadow Lane told the Commission he has a concern
regarding Lot 4. He explained if the proposed house is constructed as
indicated, it will be in his rear yard. He recommended that the proposed house
be resituated on the property more toward the front. Mr. Ulrich said Mr.
Halley's proposal of a 35 foot conservation easement which would run along the
joint property line has merit. He added another concern is the existing cul de
sac. He agreed with staff's recommendation of removal of the existing cul de
sac.
Commissioner McClelland pointed out there is more flexibility regarding
appropriate land use in siting two homes on this site. She added the property
owner at 6221 Fox Meadow Lane would not have to worry about a house being placed
in his rear yard if the site were to be developed with 2 houses. Commissioner
McClelland said she cannot support the location of the proposed house on Lot 4
as it is indicated on the preliminary plat. Commissioner L. Johnson suggested
that the proposed 3 houses be more balanced off the cul de sac at the setback
line. He indicated he favors a 2 lot subdivision or a balance of house
placements on the 3 lots and a re -arrangement of the lot lines to accommodate
the balance. Mr. Halley asked the Commission to note that the proposed
subdivision meets all Zoning Ordinance standards. He added if he balances the 3
proposed houses on the front setback line many trees would have to be removed.
Commissioner G. Johnson asked Mr. Halley if he would be agreeable to
approaching Mr. Dinwiddie again to see if somehow his property could be
incorporated into this proposal. Mr. Halley told Commissioner G. Johnson he
would make an effort to speak with Mr. Dinwiddie.
The discussion continued with the Commission expressing concern about the
submitted proposal. Their reasons centered around the design and development of
Lot 4 and the topography of the site, including potential ponding problems.
Commissioner L. Johnson explained to Mr. Halley that he would like to see the
preliminary plat revised to accommodate their concerns. He added if a balance
of the 3 lots is submitted he would like to see a pad on each site indicating
the front yard setback line. Commissioner L. Johnson noted it is not a
requirement to indicate building pads on a preliminary plat but in this case it
will help the Commission arrive at a educated decision. Commissioner McClelland
requested that Mr. Halley also indicate the houses on the two adjoining lots on
Fox Meadow Lane on the revised plat.
Mr. Halley requested continuing item S-88-6 until July 27, 1988 to allow
more time to re -design the plat to reflect the Commissions concerns regarding
the topography and Lot 4.
Commissioner Runyan moved to continue item S-88-6 until the July 27, 1988
Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. All
were in favor. Motion carried.
S-88-7 Preliminary Plat Approval,
Berenberg First Addition.
Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Hilldale
General Location: North of Interlachen Boulevard and west of
Oxford Avenue
Mr. Larsen told the Commission the subject property measures approximately
61,009 square feet in area and is developed with a single family dwelling. The
lot area includes an NSP easement covering the easterly 50 feet of the lot. The
easement area is approximately 20,250 square feet.
Mr. Larsen explained the preliminary plat proposes to create one, new
buildable lot. The new lot would contain 46,609 square feet including the NSP
easement. Excluding the easement, the lot would contain 26,359 square feet.
The lot would have 76 feet of frontage on Interlachen Boulevard including the 50
foot easement. The proposed driveway would encroach on the easement, but the
new building pad would not encroach. The preliminary plat proposes to retain
the existing dwelling in its present location. The plat proposes a lot 102 feet
wide with 120 feet of depth with an area of 14,400 square feet.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the property is characterized by severe topography.
Ground elevation falls from 940 feet near Interlachen Boulevard to 890 feet at
the northerly boundary of the property. The proposed building pad is
approximately 30 feet below street grade. Development of the new lot will
require extensive cut and fill activity. Soil engineering would be required to
insure protection of the house and pond from retaining wall collapse or erosion
of the steep slopes.
Mr. Larsen added currently storm water enters the northerly portions of the
property from the east and drains to the pond north of the property. The
preliminary plat proposes an easement for drainage and utilities. The
engineering department would like to enlarge the easement area.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff believes, for several reasons, the proposed
subdivision does not represent sound community planning. Mr. Larsen summarized
the reasons as follows:
Lot size. The subject property is part of the Hilldale Addition. Lots
in the Hilldale Addition are quite large. A typical lot on Circle East or
Circle West is about 160 feet wide. The four lots immediately west of the
property are 125 or 130 feet in width. Lots is the proposed subdivision would
be 102 and 76 feet in width. It appears the reason this lot was made wider in
the original plat was to account for the NSP easement, and, possibly, because of
the severe topography of the lot. These physical constraints continue to exist
today.
Character and Symmetry. The Comprehensive Plan states "Allow further
subdivision of developed single family lots only if neighborhood character and
symmetry are preserved." The NSP easement forces the new house to be located in
the rear yard of the existing dwelling. Although the new lot will meet minimum
Zoning Ordinance size requirements, it will appear to be a neck lot when
developed, which will have a negative impact on the existing character and
symmetry of the neighborhood.
Site Development. The Comprehensive Plan states, "Require increased
minimum lot sizes for single family and two family dwelling lots on steep
slopes." The property contains very steep slopes which require substantial
alteration for development. The existence of these slopes seems a logical
reason why the lot was platted as a larger lot than some adjacent lots in the
original Hilldale Addition.
Based on the preceding reasons staff recommends denial of the preliminary
plat.
Representatives for the proponent, Mr. Mike Black, James R. Hill and
Associates and Gary Gandrud, Attorney, 8400 Normandale Boulevard were present.
Mr. Black told the Commission he felt the staff's position was very
subjective. He pointed out the home is being developed by and for the owner,
Danny Berenberg. He added the result of the division would be 1 lot of 46,609
square feet, which is very much in keeping with the size of lots of the area.
Using graphics he pointed out the lot as it compares with other lots in the
area. He noted from the curb on Interlachen Boulevard the proposed house would
not be visible. Mr. Black said the construction of a house on the proposed new
lot would not violate City setbacks and would comply with the City's Zoning
Ordinance.
Commissioner Runyan pointed out the grade of the driveway as it approaches
the proposed home would be relatively steep. Mr. Black indicated it would be
graded to a 9% slope. Commissioner McClelland pointed out the proposed house
would be positioned in the rear yard of the existing house on a site that has a
very steep grade. She also said the Planning Commission has been very reluctant
to approve "neck lots", and cannot remember when approval for a neck lot was
granted. Mr. Gandrud said the width of the property off Interlachen is so
great that the question of "neck lot" may not apply here. Commissioner G.
Johnson asked Mr. Black if the proponent had given any thought to opening up
Orchard Lane. Mr. Black responded the proponent did give that idea some thought
but it was never pursued.
Mr. Gandrud told the Commission the proponent wishes to maintain his
residence in the City of Edina. He added Mr. Berenberg wants to remain in the
immediate area which is why he has chose to construct a home on his property.
Mr. Gandrud pointed out the lot would be subdivided according to the City's
ordinance standards. Mr. Gandrud reported at one time Mr. Berenberg considered
a 4 lot subdivision for his property but decided on the proposal presented this
evening. Commissioner McClelland indicated she would find it extremely
difficult to consider a 4 lot subdivision for this parcel of land. Mr. Gandrud
approached the Commission with a preliminary plat indicating a proposal for a 4
lot subdivision for the lot in question. Mr. Black said Mr. Berenberg
considered many options for this site, one being the possibility of removal of
the existing house and redevelopment of the site into 4 buildable single family
lots.
Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Gandrud if Mr. Berenberg has developed a
design for the proposed house. Mr. Gandrud said Mr. Berenberg has a design in
mind but has not developed the design through to its completion. This will be
done when Mr. Berenberg is assured that the subdivision request is approved.
Commissioner McClelland told the Commission she felt more thought must be
given to this proposal. She added in her opinion the proponent has a number of
options to pursue, one being the possibility of developing the proposed house
off Orchard Lane, another would be removal of the existing house and the
development of a new house in a different location. Mr. Gandrud told
Commissioner McClelland in his opinion all options have been considered and they
are two. Either approve the plan presented or consider a 4 lot subdivision
which also meets the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Commissioner D. Johnson moved for denial of the proposal. Commissioner
McClelland seconded the motion.
Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Larsen what is staff's position on denial
of the proposal. Mr. Larsen said findings for denial may be based on the
character and symmetry of the neighborhood being violated, the severe
topography, the NSP easement and the development of a "neck lot".
Commissioner G. Johnson suggested continuing this item until July 27, 1988
to give the Commission Members time to walk the site, to allow the proponent
time to speak with neighbors and to allow the proponent time to consider the
option of developing the house off Orchard Lane.
Commissioner D. Johnson withdrew his motion commenting even with further
study he may be unable to support the request for subdivision.
Commissioner D. Johnson moved to continue item S-88-7 until the July 27,
1988 Community Development and Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner
McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried.
LD -88-7 Helen Vincent
5037 William Avenue
Lots 15, 16 and 17
Block 2, Brookside Heights
General Location: Northeast corner of William Avenue and West 51st Street
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property is comprised of 3
individually platted lots measuring 50 X 136.5 feet each. The proponent desires
to divide lot 16, the middle lot adding 25 feet each to lot 15 and 17. The
result will be two 75 foot and 136.5 foot lots.
An existing garage will be removed and a new garage will be constructed in
a conforming location on the northerly parcel.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the resulting lots each measure over 10, 000 square
feet in area and meet all other ordinance requirements. A similar division
occurred on the block in 1983.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the division as
presented.
Commissioner McClelland moved for approval of the lot division request.
Commissioner D. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion
carried.
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
*Amendment to Building Code to require completion of exterior work
within one year.
A discussion ensued with the Commission in agreement that it is a very good
idea to have an amendment to require completion of exterior work within one year
is a good idea.
Commissioner D. Johnson moved for approval of the amendment. Commissioner
Shaw seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion carried.
*Zoning Amendment for Mixed Development District.
Commissioner Shaw excused herself.
Mr. Peter Jarvis, BRW, Inc. was present.
A lengthy discussion ensued with the Commission expressing agreement to a
"step by step" approval process and by raising the following concerns and
recommendations:
Building height, a limit on the height of new buildings may need to be
implemented.
A question was raised whether ramps should be considered when calculating
lot coverage.
It was suggested that parcels 50 acres in size should be subjected to a
traffic plan as the phases proceed to be developed. This would insure if
problems occur regarding the traffic flow etc., remedies could be incorporated
to assure that the system works efficiently.
It was noted that a change was made in the Ordinance Section F. #3. The
setbacks have been changed for the MD -4 and MD -5 district. The Commission
recommends that the setbacks remain as originally stated.
Commissioner L. Johnson moved for approval of an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance subject to the following recommendations:
Parcels 50 acres in size or greater shoudl be subjected to a traffic plan
as the phases proceed to be developed.
The setbacks remain as originally stated in Section F. #3 for the MD -4 and
MD -5 district.
Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion
carried.
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.