Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 1990, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Chairman G. Johnson, R. Hale, N. Faust, L. Johnson, H. McClelland, J. Palmer, V. Shaw, C. Ingwalson, D. Byron. D. Runyan, G. Workinger Craig Larsen, City Planner Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Hale moved to recommend approval of the August 1, 1990, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes with a change to the minutes from himself and Commissioner Shaw, so noted. Commissioner Byron seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS• * Amendment to Customary Home Occupations Section of Zoning Ordinance 825, Section 7.D. Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission at their previous meeting they denied a request for an increase in trip generations across the board from 10 trips per week to 20 trips per week. Since that time the proponents attorney, Mr. Mooty, has drafted an Ordinance amendment that would allow only a person with disabilities an increase in trip generations from 10 trips per week to 20 trips per week. Concluding, Mr. Larsen said it is the belief of the City Attorney that an Ordinance amendment could be challenged, legal counsel at this time is reviewing a newly adopted federal disability law, "Americans with Disabilities Act", the impact on this proposal, if any, is unknown. The proponent, Joyce Anderson, her attorney, David Mooty, interested neighbors and persons were present. Mr. Mooty, 6871 Zanbridge Road, explained the amendment proposed arises out of feelings perceived during the last Planning Commission meeting. He pointed out the amendment is limited to 1 those with disabilities. Continuing, Mr. Mooty said the government has adopted many laws that give preferential treatment to those with handicaps, accessible entrances, bathrooms, public transportation, etc. What we are asking for at this time is a opportunity for Dr. Anderson to pursue her livelihood, in the same manner that an able-bodied person is able to. It is also important to note that we are not only trying to protect Dr. Anderson's rights but also to protect the rights of her clients. Mr. Mooty said it is imperative that Dr. Anderson and other physically disabled persons take advantage of their particular skills and what they have to offer the community. He told the Commission to take away that opportunity would be unfair. Mr. Mooty asked the Commission to note the proposed ordinance would in reality, add at the most, an increase of two vehicle trips per day. Mr. Kurt Wheeley, 5609 Heather Lane, Edina told the Commission seven years ago he was able-bodied, uneducated, and worked in construction, making $30,000.00 per year. Continuing, Mr. Wheeley said he is now wheelchair bound, college educated, and makes only $19,000.00 per year. He added his college education is not a deterrent to his earning power but his disability is. He said it is very hard for disabled individuals to earn an adequate living. He pointed out that life is considerably more expensive for a disabled person who wishes to continue to live independently. He explained household chores that able-bodied individuals take for granted (i.e., mowing lawn, shoveling snow, raking leaves, etc) he has to hire people to do. He also said medical care is expensive. Concluding, Mr. Wheeley said he would hate to think that if he could work out of his home an increase of two automobiles trips per day would prevent him from earning an adequate living. Mr. Wheeley said he understands that persons with disabilities may seem to get preferential treatment, but stressed, they need this special treatment to function independently and contribute to society. He stated the added vehicle traffic would not hurt the community. Mike Patera, 7120 Glouchester Avenue, said in so far as the proposed amendment is concerned, it is his opinion that there is a two pronged consideration to be reviewed. One being psychologists added to the list of permitted home occupations. Continuing, Mr. Patera said if a psychologist is a permitted occupation it is against what is permitted by ordinance today. Mr. Patera informed the Commission he feels Dr. Anderson is running a medical office in a residential neighborhood. He told the Commission Dr. Anderson also has an office away from her home. He added another point this matter concerns is the Ordinance makes the residents of the neighborhood police their neighborhood. Mr. Patera pointed out that by including a medical office in a residential area a benefit to the entire neighborhood is not achieved, there is no public benefit, and is contrary to everything stated in print. He stated Dr. Anderson is the only one who will benefit from this. Mr. Patera noted that his window overlooks Dr. Andersons driveway and vehicle trips per day can be anywhere from zero to eight trips per 2 day. He said this in itself makes the number of trips per week a matter that must be policed by the neighborhood. He reiterated that allowing a medical office use in a residential area does not make sense, because a considerable increase in traffic takes place, and as mentioned before must be policed by the neighborhood. Other problems that could arise is if neighbors observe 21 trips per week but the occupant states only 18 trips occur. He questioned what happens if there would be violations, who would enforce the ordinance, and what would be the enforcement mechanism? Mr. Patera noted there are some persons who feel teenagers and large families, etc. create a large traffic flow, so why should neighbors of Dr. Anderson "hoot and holler" if one person chooses to run a business out of there home. Mr. Patera explained that teenagers, large families, are residential and live in the neighborhood and have a right, as does Dr. Anderson, to have friends and relatives visit. A business located in a single family neighborhood is an office use with traffic generated by non residents, who have no ties or commitments with the area. Mr. Patera concluded the touchiest portion of the proposed amendment is the definition of disabled. Continuing, Mr. Patera said he does not see this meeting as a disabled vs. non -disabled group. He said he sees this as Dr. Joyce Anderson trying to establish a business in a residential neighborhood. He suggested that the definition of a disabled person is too broad and vague. It presumes a person is disabled by means of a Dr.'s slip, with no reasoning involved. He said if someone cannot work full time, that should be noted on the Dr. slip, etc. He questioned again, who would keep track of this, who can be objective on this. Mr. Patera said Dr. Anderson noted she feels more comfortable in her home, even though her office is adapted to the needs of handicapped individuals. Mr. Patera pointed out these adaptions allow a person with disabilities to work within their community, outside their home. He questioned how could her home meet her needs better then her needs are met at her office, which is adapted for her use. He inquired if Dr. Anderson or any other home business that receives clients, would have to adapt their homes to meet the needs of the handicapped population, in the same way other businesses must comply. He asked if Dr. Anderson would have to have a parking space for handicapped individuals, wider doors for easy access, ramps, etc. He said nothing has been mentioned regarding this. He noted if a psychologist becomes an accepted business, what about auto repair, persons operating a kennel, mortuary, dance studio, hair dresser, bed and breakfast, etc., these are all activities that are prohibited by this ordinance. The list of occupations is endless and could have a negative impact on the residential character of this or any neighborhood in Edina. Mr. Wang, 6013, St. Johns, told the Commission he favors the amendment. He pointed out the nation has just passed a law that benefits disabled persons. He said it will cost the country 100's of millions of dollars to adapt facilities, etc. to enable the disabled to be independent. He added the amendment before you this 3 evening does not ask for any money. It just asks for the privilege of working in ones home to support oneself. He concluded he supports the amendment. w Mr. Bruce Wahl, 433 7th Street, Minneapolis, President of the United Handicapped Organization, pointed out a disability is something you must deal with every day. He said he works outside his home but over 2/3's of the persons with disabilities do not work, and if they could work out of their home it is possible many would participate in society by being a productive tax paying citizen. He concluded he would like to see the Commission support the proposed amendment. Mr. Granger, 5533 Vernon Avenue, said he feels this issue is "hogwash". Dr. Anderson should be able to office in her home. He said Dr. Anderson performs a service to the community, and the traffic generated is not as bad as some homes with teenagers. Ms. Bergstrom, 7101 Glouchester, asked the Commission to adopt a policy of kindness and approve the amendment. Elin Ohlsson, 5740 France Avenue, asked the Commission to support the proposed amendment, she told the Commission it is very important for persons with disabilities to work. She added it gives them self-esteem and allows persons to become a productive members of society. Harold Bagley, 7113 Glouchester, pointed out Dr. Anderson has worked out of her home in Edina for a number of years. During that time violations were never observed, traffic was never reported as a problem. He asked the Commission to support the proposed amendment and give Dr. Anderson a chance to be self sufficient. He added the Ordinance as written is too restrictive. Mr. Bagley pointed out automobile trips are a very difficult matter to police as has been mentioned before, and if this would be tossed out, the issue of disability would not have to be brought up. Mr. Don Storm, 5109 Grove, told the Commission he is a father of a 37 year old disabled daughter. He added he supports the proposed ordinance. He pointed out that as a Senator for the City of Edina he is in violation of the ordinance because of trips generated to his single family home in Edina. He added many persons come to his home with questions and concerns at all hours of the day and night. He asked that legislators be included in "Home Occupations" because if not, he now stands in violation. Commisioner Hale said he feels changing the Ordinance is not the way to handle this matter. He said he believes it opens the door for other reasons to change it, as was just mentioned. He told the Commission in his opinion, the findings of disabled individual is difficult, and would have to be handled individually, case by case. He explained a variance procedure, versus ordinance amendment, 4 would allow the Board to individually examine each case as it should be. Chairman G. Johnson said variances normally run with the property, so this could be a problem. Commissioner Hale suggested if a variance might not be the right term, maybe it could be handled with a special use type of permit. Commissioner McClelland said she feels a special use type of permit may be needed to deal with this issue fairly. Commissioner Palmer said he is impressed by a number of the things mentioned this evening. He said he believes that with so many rules and definitions sometimes issues can be solved by eliminating the rule, thereby, issues become easier to understand. Commissioner Palmer suggested that maybe the trip limit should be increased across the board, benefiting everyone. Continuing, Commissioner Palmer said admittedly the 10 car limit is restricting so maybe 20 cars would work for the majority. He added the Commission might have to consider eliminating the mention of trip generations in the ordinance altogether. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if a conditional use type of permit would work better than changing the ordinance. Mr. Larsen responded that typically a conditional use permit runs with the property, but maybe there could be a temporary use type of permit that could be reviewed and renewed periodically. Commissioner L. Johnson suggested that the City Attorney should draft a conditional use permit that would name a person, thereby, if ownership is changed the conditional use permit would be null and void, running with the occupancy of the property. Commissioner Palmer said he would like to avoid the City of Edina getting into the business of judging who is, or who is not disabled. If the limit on vehicle trips is raised for everyone the disabled issue is moot. Commissioner McClelland said she agreed in a sense with Commissioner Palmer. Chairman G. Johnson said he is of the opinion that the ordinance as drafted in the proposed form may be unconstitutional. Commisioner Ingwalson said he feels the City of Edina should do something to make it easier for handicapped individuals, who need to work in their home. He added he feels the issue of 20 trips per week is arbitrary, and if our goal is to help handicap individuals become self sufficient we are only going halfway if the ordinance is passed in this form. He questioned what would prevent someone from asking for an increase in trip generations if the proposed 20 does not meet their needs. Concluding, Commissioner Ingwalson said maybe this should be looked at individually and a decision made on an individual basis. 5 Chairman Johnson said he has problems with the whole Home Occupations Ordinance, and again, as he has said before, the ordinance as proposed does not solve the problem. Commissioner Palmer said he agrees, many issues can be impacted by this. Chairman Johnson said what must be voted on this evening is the 10 trips versus 20 trips and the disabled definition. A discussion ensued regarding the many different issues that could be raised regarding "Home Occupations" and its constitutionally. Mr. Larsen said the constitutional issue would be reviewed by the City Attorney. Chairman Johnson requested that in light of the newly adopted federal law, it may be prudent to have the City Attorney review that law and come to a conclusion if that law has any bearing on what is proposed this evening. Mr. Larsen agreed that this issue would have to be researched, on the whole, by Mr. Erickson. He added Mr. Erickson will also look into the suggestion of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Mooty, said he has no problem in increasing the trip generations from 10 trips per week to 20 trips per week across the board for everyone and would be happy to re -propose that. Commissioner Faust said she believes the 10 trips per week have served the City well. She added 20 trips per week would have a negative impact on a residential neighborhood. She said the Conditional Use Permit would be the best way to solve this. Commissioner L. Johnson said he would like to disassociate himself from the disabled portion of the proposed amendment. He added he does not want to "tinker" with the ordinance, and questioned if changing the ordinance is the right way. It opens a sort of "Pandora's box" on intent of business. He said a psychiatrist is a doctor who prescribes medicine, a psychologist does not, and questioned where the line is drawn on who is permitted to office out of their home. He said he understands the issue and believes it should be solved in Dr. Andersons favor but not by changing the ordinance. Chairman Johnson said he agrees, and the question of constitutionality will be studies before this gets to Council. Commissioner Byron said at the last meeting it was unanimously recommended to deny the proposed increase of trip generations from 10 trips per week to 20 trips per week. He said it is his understanding this decision was independent of any disability as it related to Dr. Anderson. The other item considered was if a psychologist was a permitted use under Home Occupations, and if it fit under the heading of a rabbi or minister or is it under medical T or dental. Mr. Byron said in any event the Commission felt if the intention was to address disability a satisfactory solution was not found. Continuing, Mr. Byron said we were asked to express our view as a planning manner, independent of disability and to decide if the standard of 10, admittedly restrictive, was reasonable. At that time the Commission felt 10 trips was a good standard. Commissioner Byron said his understanding of this meeting is tieing the 20 trips per to a disability situation. Concluding Commission Byron said he is still not comfortable or satisfied that the Commission has found the right formula that deals with a disability and home occupations. He pointed out it seems we are now trying to add this to the ordinance, but that ordinance has a pattern that has been set and followed and works. Continuing, Commission Byron said he desires the right answer, he is unsure of how to proceed correctly. Commissioner Byron told the Commission that he feels at some point in time a disabled person who is a mechanic may also wish to operate a business out of their home, and will this person have to come before us and request an amendment to the ordinance. He said we must look for the appropriate mix between home occupations and the disabled issue. Commissioner Byron indicated he does not believe the ordinance before us this evening is the right answer, maybe a conditional use permit is. He stated he feels the Commission should continue to work hard to find the correct answer. D. Blake, 7132 Glouchester, told the Commission Dr. Anderson told him she would occasionally see patients, her home was burglarized, my home was burglarized, and in his opinion the street has become her waiting room. Mr. Benson, 5300 Benton Avenue said he feels sorry for a person with traffic problems and invited the residents on Glouchester to sit outside his home, and observe the traffic on his street. He added at one time when he first moved into the neighborhood, Benton Avenue was a dirt road. He concluded he would very happily change places with the residents on Glouchester who oppose Dr. Anderson's request to continue working out of her home. Ms. Judy Norbeck 6620 West Shore Drive, told the Commission they would be surprised at the number of persons now illegally operating a home occupation out of their home. Commissioner McClelland told the Commissioner the City of Minneapolis has an Ordinance that addresses this issue and suggested that maybe the City check with other cities and see how they handle this. A discussion ensued regarding the proposed ordinance and what other cities may do regarding this issue. Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend to council that the restriction placed on vehicle trips as outlined in the Zoning 7 Ordinance, Home Occupations, be eliminated due to difficulty in enforcement. The motion was not seconded. Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend that the restriction placed on vehicle trips as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, Home Occupations, be increased from 10 trips per week to 20 trips per week. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote: Commissioner Hale: nay Commissioner Faust: nay Commissioner L. Johnson: nay Commisioner McClelland: aye Commissioner Palmer: aye Commissioner Shaw: abstain . Commissioner Ingwalson: nay Commissioner Byron: nay Chairman G. Johnson: aye Motion failed, 5-3, with one recorded abstention. Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend denial of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner L. Johnson asked that after the vote, staff be directed to draft a special use permit that addresses only this instance, this house, Commissioner Faust seconded the motion. After a brief discussion on how the motion should be worded Commissioner L. Johnson withdrew his motion. Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend denial of the proposed ordinance as drafted. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote: Commissioner Hale: aye Commissioner Faust: aye Commissioner L. Johnson: aye Commissioner Palmer: aye Commissioner McClelland: aye Commissioner Shaw: aye Commissioner Ingwalson: aye Commissioner Byron: aye Chairman Johnson: aye Motion carried, 9-0. Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend that staff, along with the City Attorney, be directed to prepare an ordinance, that would permit a person with disabilities to engage in home occupations on a broader basis then they are now permitted, this would be implemented on a conditional use permit basis. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. 8 Commissioner Hale: aye Commissioner Faust: aye Commissioner L. Johnson: aye Commissioner McClelland: aye Commissioner Palmer: aye Commissioner Shaw: aye Commissioner Ingwalson: aye Commissioner Byron: aye Chairman Johnson: aye Motion carried, 9-0. III. NEW BUSINESS: 5-90-5 Preliminary Plat Approval Belfry Addition Lot 56, Morningside 4243 Grimes Avenue Mr. Larsen presented his staff report noting the subject property is a developed single family lot measuring 100 feet by 200 feet with a area of 20,000 square feet. The proposed subdivision would create one, new lot. Each of the resulting lots would measure 50 feet by 200 feet and contain 10,000 square feet of area. Mr. Larsen explained the proposed lot width of 50 feet is less than the 75 minimum lot width required by the Zoning Ordinance. Thus, a 25 foot lot width variance is required for each lot. Mr. Larsen pointed out there are 113 single family lots in the 500 foot neighborhood surrounding the subject property. The median lot width is 50 feet, the median depth is 200 feet and the median lot area is 10,000 square feet. The dimensions and area of the proposed lots are the same as in the 500 foot neighborhood. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said the subject property is part of the Morningside plat. Lots in this original plat were 100 feet wide. However, most have since been subdivided into 50 foot wide lots. Within the 500 neighborhood only 11 of the 113 lots remain undivided 100 foot wide lots. Most of the lots were subdivided prior to annexation of Morningside by Edina in 1966. Since annexation two lots have been subdivided, one in 1972 and one in 1978. In 1984 the City Council denied proposed subdivision on this E block of Grimes Avenue. Concluding, Mr. Larsen said a 50 foot wide lot is typical in most of the Morningside neighborhood. The dimensions and size of the proposed lots are identical to the median average of the 500 foot neighborhood. Eighty-seven of the 113 lots in the neighborhood are 50 feet wide. Staff recommends approval of the Subdivision and lot width variance conditioned on: * Final Plat Approval * Subdivision Dedication The proponent, Mr. Belfry and his surveyor Randy Stern were present. Interested neighbors were present. Mr. Belfry told the Commission he has owned and inhabited this home for 12 years. He asked the neighbors present to accept his apology for not informing them in person regarding his request. He explained he has been very busy with a sick relative. Continuing, Mr. Belfry noted, in his opinion, the construction of an additional single family home would not create a negative impact on traffic or on the neighborhood. He pointed out he owns one home out of the neighborhood of 113 homes and the proposed new house would be an improvement and value enhancement for the entire neighborhood, not only him. He indicated he is aware that a number of persons in the neighborhood do not favor his proposal and asked the Commission to come to a favorable conclusion regarding his request to subdivide. Mr. Randy Stern told the Commission he believes the numbers regarding this subdivision speak for themselves. He pointed out the newly created lot meets the average lot size of this neighborhood and asked the Commission to note that previous subdivisions have occurred within this neighborhood, one being immediately next door and across the street. Neighbors who spoke in opposition to the proposal presented by Mr. Belfry, and their opinions are noted as follows: * Mr. Bob Christianson, 4247 Grimes Avenue, observed that even though the proposed subdivision meets the average lot size in the neighborhood seven lots on this block alone are over 100 feet in width, so in reality, the proposed lot is out of character with the immediate neighborhood. * Ms. Helen Burke, 4246 Grimes Avenue, told the Commission Mr. Belfry is a good neighbor, who keeps his yard up, but noted there are many large lots within this block, three next door, three directly across the street, that are larger than 10 the average of the neighborhood, thus the character and symmetry of this block would be negatively impacted if development were allowed. Ms. Burke also noted the trees, and hedges that would have to be removed to accommodate construction of a new house. * Ms. Annette Christianson, 4247 Grimes Avenue, told the Commission she moved out of an inner city neighborhood, and looked for over a year and a half to find a neighborhood they could be comfortable in, with wonderful character. They found that neighborhood in Morningside. She said they never would have purchased their present home if they knew a subdivision would occur right next door. She pointed out new construction of a house would require a variance, and result in a feeling of crowding. Ms. Christianson said she believes the lots were developed to remain large. She cautioned against setting a precedent that would affect the whole neighborhood. She asked the Commission to note the number of signatures appearing on a petition opposing the proposed subdivision. *Mr. Scheme, 4234 Grimes Avenue, told the Commission he was encouraged by their denial of a subdivision in 1984 on Grimes Avenue. He pointed out the neighborhood is stable and a trend to subdivide may start if approval is granted. *Ms. Missen, 4242 Grimes reported she has lived in her house for 42 years and it is her investment in the future. She said at the present she looks at a beautiful lawn and asked the Commission to deny the request to subdivide. *John Kalanchik, 4114 Morningside Road, asked the Commission to note this neighborhood is established, if subdivision were approved the character of the neighborhood would be compromised, a precedent would be set and a monetary gain for one person would be realized. *Mr. Greg Silris, 4246 Grimes, questioned if a person can do what they want with their property even if the majority of persons in the neighborhood are hurt by the subdivision? *Mr. Clarence Velgersdyk, 4238 Grimes, said the 1984 subdivision denial should be upheld again, any subdivision would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He pointed out the loss of open space, increased density, precedent setting, and violation of neighborhood character and symmetry. Commissioner McClelland told the Commission that while she can 11 foresee a potential problem resulting from the previously granted subdivisions within the immediate area, her belief is that if this subdivision request were to be approved, control would be completely lost in this neighborhood which would result in a total violation of the present character and symmetry. She concluded in all good faith she cannot support the request to subdivide this parcel of property. Commissioner Palmer told the Commission he agrees with Commissioner McClellands observations, adding that while the proposed lot meets the neighborhood standards, it is important to note that the immediate area, and this immediate block of Grimes, contain a large number of lots 100 feet in width. He pointed out this one block is unique within the Morningside area and preservation of this uniqueness should be carefully reviewed. He added the neighborhood character in this instance, may not have been established by the 500 foot rule of thumb, but by this particular 4200 block of Grimes. Mr. Palmer concluded that he cannot support the subdivision request. Commisioner Hale supported Commissioner McClelland's and Commissioner Palmer's opinion and added another point that should be considered is the setting of an unwanted precedent. Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend denial of the preliminary plat. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. S-90-6 Preliminary Plat Approval Farrell's Parkwood Knolls James and Linda Farrell 5700 Blake Road Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property is a developed single family lot containing an area of 95,700 square feet, or 2.2 acres. The existing dwelling is located in the central portion of the lot. Mr. Larsen pointed out before them this evening is a revision to the plan previously submitted. The revised plan depicts two lots instead of the proposed three lots. Mr. Larsen concluded staff would recommend preliminary approval subject to: 1. Final Plat Approval 2. Recorded 100 foot conservation easement 12 3. Subdivision Dedication 4. Utility connection charges Mr. and Mrs. Farrell were present and their surveyor Randy Stern was present. Interested residents were also present. Commissioner Hale questioned if the driveway for the existing house would stay. Mr. Larsen responded that the driveway for the existing house cuts across the property line for the proposed new lot. Staff would assume that a modification would occur resulting in a small portion of the driveway being shared and then breaking off, continuing to the new proposed house site. This could be realized with a driveway easement. Mr. Larsen said staff would support this easement because it is important keep the number of curb cuts on Blake Road to a minimum. This shared drive approach would also reduce disruption to the terrain. Commissioner L. Johnson asked if the Engineering Department has reviewed the utility services. Mr. Larsen answered that the Engineering Department has reviewed the water services. He added the Engineering Department is recommending a minor change to the sanitary sewer and how it is handled to Blake Road, thereby avoiding any disruption to the new street. The Engineering Department believes this would be easy to accomplish. Commissioner L. Johnson questioned if the existing house is connected to city services. Mr. Larsen acknowledged that the house at the present time has a well and is served only by a well. Mr. Larsen said it is expected if redevelopment would be approved that the existing house connect to City services. Mr. Larsen indicated they would be able to keep their well and connect to public services. Commissioner L. Johnson said disruption to this site would be vast and the impact to the topographical features would be extreme due to utility connections, steep terrains, needed fill, retaining walls, and new house and garage pads, etc. Continuing, Commissioner L. Johnson said many conditions such as a driveway easement have to be met to make this subdivision work. Commissioner L. Johnson said maybe approval is a bit premature. Commissioner McClelland said in visiting the site she found that the houses along South Knoll are all one story ranch style homes. They are also long sprawling homes with large frontages. She suggested that the proponents might possibly consider dividing the property the other way. The lots would be at least 128 feet wide and would not be substandard by much, only a couple feet. She cautioned if not divided carefully there could be a setup for dividing the newly created lot in the future, and that is something the Commission should be aware could happen. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland said what has been presented doesn't seem to fit the topography as well as it might. 13 Mr. Tom Wurst, 6205 South Knoll, said he has been working with Mr. Farrell regarding his potential subdivision. He explained his house is setback the same distance from South Knoll Drive as Mr. Farrell. Mr. Wurst explained that Mr. Farrell, with his revision from three lots to two lots accommodated his concerns over the three lot subdivision. He added his concerns were to preserve the wooded slopes and the topography of the area. Mr. Wurst told the Commission when looking out of his front window if three lots were approved he believes he would be looking at the rear or side of new houses. Mr. Wurst indicated he also spoke with a realtor who said if another house were to build across the street his property values would decrease. Continuing, Mr. Wurst said Mr. Farrell has been very easy to work with and he appreciates his revisions to the plan from three lots to two lots. Commissioner McClelland clarified for Mr. Wurst that she has a concern that if the two lot subdivision were approved in the future the property owners of the larger lot could petition for subdivision. Commissioner Palmer said he commends Mr. Farrell for working with the neighbors, adding he feels the Commission should not be hesitant to approve this request because in the future the newly created lot could be subdivided. Commissioner Hale asked if a conservation easement could be attached to the new lot thereby preventing future subdivision. Mr. Larsen said that is a possibility and sends a message indicating you feel it is important to protect this area. Commissioner L. Johnson questioned if they considered dividing the property north -south. Mr. Farrell said that was considered but eliminated because of the impact to South Knoll, also he felt if the house were to be faced toward Blake more opposition would occur. Commissioner L. Johnson said his concern is with the proposed Lot 3, now I guess Lot 2, the reduced width, retaining walls, 15% drive slope, fil, etc. He said this property could be subdivided north south with minimal problems. Mr. Farrell said couldn't the lot lines just be moved to get the appropriate width. He pointed out the steepest slope is where the driveway is at present. Mr. Larsen said a number of different configurations were looked at and staff felt what is proposed is workable. He added the variance request is not unrealistic and the elimination of the north lot is desirable. Commissioner Palmer said he is pleased that the north lot was eliminated and favors the subdivision as amended. He added he believes a shared driveway is favorable because in his opinion as few curb cuts on Blake Road or any road is better. Commissioner 14 Palmer also said he likes the idea presented by Commission Hale regarding a conservation easement for Lot 3. Commissioner McClelland said her concern is with the size of Lot 1 and its potential future development. She said she either feels this whole area should be platted at one time, with three, or place a conservation easement on Lot 1. Commissioner McClelland said maybe this item should be continued to allow the proponents time to reconfigure the lots so minimal disturbance would occur. Mr. Farrell said he wanted to work with the residents in the area and also wanted to carefully create a desirable lot. He added he plans on building a new house on the lot Commissioner Palmer said what the Commission has to vote on is what is presented, which is a subdivision creating one new lot. Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Farrell if he is agreeable to a conservation easement being placed on the new lot. Mr. Farrell questioned if a conservation easement would prohibit him from changing his driveway or adding a garage. Mr. Larsen clarified that if a conservation easement is placed on this lot you would have to come before the Commission with a request to reconfigure your driveway, etc. Mr. Farrell asked if this would restrict himself or a future owner from doing what they want with their property. He said he would favor the easement if it wouldn't prevent them of anyone else from doing simple changes to this lot. Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Farrell if he has spoken with neighbors to the south. Mr. Farrell said he has not spoken to all neighbors but the property owners of the doubles have no problem with what is proposed. Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend preliminary plat approval subject to staff conditions and the further conditions that a conservation easement be placed on Lot 1 and that a common driveway be used to enter/exit the property. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. C�Q-t ��" J ie Hoogenakker, IF S etary 15