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