HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 05-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1991, 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, G. Johnson, R. Hale, D. Byron, N.
Faust, L. Johnson, H. McClelland, D. Runyan,
J. Palmer, V. Shaw, C, Ingwalson
MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Workinger
STAFF PRESENT: C. Larsen, City Planner
F. Hoffman, City Engineer
J. Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. NEW BUSINESS:
C-91-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ST. PATRICKS CHURCH
6820 ST. PATRICK LANE
REQUEST: BUILDING EXPANSION
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission St. Patricks Church has applied
for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new entry -drop off on
the north side of the existing church and several small additions
to the office classroom wing of the church. In addition new
driveways will be constructed from Valley View Road to serve the
new entry.
The proposed additions will not add to the seating capacity of the
church and will not add to parking demand. Parking is proposed to
remain a it is today.
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note the only significant public
issue is how storm water from the site is presently handled.
Currently roof drainage is collected in a single 12 inch pipe which
discharges on the surface in the south central portion of the site
and runs down a steep ravine into the rear yard of homes on Scotia
Drive. Staff has asked the church to re -direct this run off
directly into the storm sewer system. The church has agreed to
connect the on-site system to the catch basin in the cul-de-sac of
St. Patricks Lane. The City's Engineering Department has approved
this solution. Mr. Larsen added in addition when the church is re -
roofed in the near future much of the run-off will be directed
north to existing storm sewers.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the Conditional
Use Permit. The additions will not create additional traffic or
1
parking demands. The existing storm water problem will be
corrected. Mr. Larsen said approval should be conditioned on the
connection of on-site storm water pipe to public storm sewer
systems in St. Patricks Lane.
Mr. Tideman, was present representing St. Patricks Church.
Commissioner McClelland questioned Mr. Hoffman when the church
completes the roof will the drainage solution submitted depicting
the storm water running into the storm sewer on Valley View Road be
sufficient. Mr. Hoffman explained the proposed drainage system
for the site is two -fold, it will eliminate water from running off
down the hill onto single family homes by connecting with the storm
sewer on St. Patricks Lane, and the new system after the re -roofing
will connect with the storm sewer system on Valley View Road. This
solution would work for the proposed additions and re -roofing.
Commissioner McClelland asked church representatives if they
entertained the idea of "skimming" in the parking areas. Mr.
Tideman said they have not considered that option.
Commissioner Shaw questioned the time frame on the re -roofing of
the church. Mr. Tideman said plans are to re -roof church in late
fall.
Chairman Johnson observed that the proposal depicts two new curb
cuts in close proximity to Valley View Road, and questioned if this
creates a traffic problem. Mr. Larsen responded on the staff level
the proposed curb cuts were not viewed as a potential traffic
problem. Mr. Larsen went on to add that in his opinion more curb
cuts would assist with orderly traffic flow.
A discussion ensued on the proposed curb cut and direction of
traffic flow.
Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend Conditional Use Permit
approval. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion adding approval is
subject to staff conditions. Commissioner McClelland questioned if
the Commission would accept the extra addition of requiring the
church to add "skimmers" to their parking areas. Commissioner L.
Johnson said this issue will be heard by the Watershed District and
that is their jurisdiction. All voted aye; motion carried.
5-91-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL RATELLE HILL
ADDITION, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, INDIAN HILLS
DR. & MRS. ALEX RATELLE
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6621 Mohawk Trail
Mr. Larsen presented his staff report asking the Commission to note
the subject property is a developed single family lot containing an
area of approximately 4.1 acres. The property is a thru-lot with
frontage on Mohawk Trail and Dakota Trail. The existing home is
located in the southerly portion of the site with access to Mohawk
Trail.
Mr. Larsen added the proposed subdivision would result in the
creation of three, new buildable lots. The existing house would
remain as it is today.
Mr. Larsen explained the proposed subdivision requests one variance
from the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. The variance is
for lot width for the lot with the existing dwelling. The 9 foot
variance is caused by the way the lot is developed as well as the
absolute width of the property along Mohawk Trail. Lot width is
measured 50 feet back from the street in the area where most
building pads are located. That is not the case here where the
house is set back about 200 feet. At this point the lot width is
approximately 250 feet. The requested 9 foot variance is small and
allows for the provision of the maximum lot width on Lot 2. The
variance is justified since it results in an improved plat.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the terrain of lots 3 and 4 is severe, but
not unlike other lots in the vicinity. The large size, especially
lot width will allow the flexibility to deal with the steep
topography of the lots during development. The proposed building
pads will remove only modest numbers of existing trees.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends preliminary approval subject
to:
1. Final Plat Approval
2. Developers Agreement to Extend Sanitary Sewer
3. Subdivision Dedication and Utility Connection
Changes.
The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Ratelle, Mr. Mike Gair, McCombs Frank
Roos Associates, and interested neighbors were present.
Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen the size of the building
pads depicted on the preliminary plat. Mr. Larsen responded the
pads are 35 X 115.
Commissioner Runyan mentioned that on lot 4, 12 trees would be lost
for the building pad and questioned if that calculation included
the driveway. Mr. Larsen responded that tree loss is only
calculated for the building pad.
Commissioner Ingwalson questioned the grades of the slopes that
exist on a few lots farther down Dakota Trail. He said they have
tremendous banks with retaining walls and asked how they compare in
�3
grade to the proposed lots. Mr. Larsen responded that he did not
calculate the grades of those lots but said in his opinion the
topography is more severe then the lots proposed. Mr. Larsen said
to compare steepness, Lot 3 of this proposal is the steepest,,and
compares in grade to the new lot in the Brennan Addition.
Commissioner Runyan interjected in studying grade as a frame of
reference, a site with a 30% grade is maintainable. A lawn mower
can be used to mow the grass, anything steeper would be harder to
maintain and would usually be planted with different vegetation.
Commissioner L. Johnson asked if the proponent is restricted to
building a house where the pads are now depicted. Mr. Larsen said
nothing in our regulations binds them to the footprints or pads
represented on the proposed plat. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said any
construction would be subject to our normal setbacks. Commissioner
L. Johnson asked if the average front yard setback in the
neighborhood is 80 feet. He added it appears to him the average
setback for the neighborhood is larger than what has been
represented on the plat. Commissioner McClelland concurred with
Commissioner L. Johnson's observation. Mr. Larsen responded that
staff has not calculated setbacks for the area. Commissioner
McClelland said she feels setbacks are very critical because if the
Commission approves lots and we don't know the setbacks some of
these lots may require variances. Mr. Larsen said there may be
variance situations and if so, the City can exercise control.
Commissioner McClelland questioned the bituminous driveway and
added it seems to wrap around the hill. She added it appears to
her that a turn -a -round could be constructed which would equal out
the proposed lots. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland added she
feels uneasy, with this proposal and the next proposal, because in
both cases within the 500 foot "neighborhood" perimeter there are
very large lots and very small lots. Both proposals are asking for
variances, which is an issue, if the Commission would recall the
Farrell proposal, that as a body we have been divided in our
opinions. Commissioner McClelland said the question for both
proposals may be "what is actually the neighborhood" and the
"neighborhood" may not include smaller lots down the way.
Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion this proposal may be
developed with too many lots. The Dakota Trail and Mohawk Trail
street scapes are entirely different.
Mr. Gair explained to Commissioner McClelland that this driveway
serves the Ratelle home and actually serves two garages. The
garages are on two levels, upper and lower.
Mr. Gair introduced Dr. and Mrs. Ratelle, their son Jimmy, and Dr.
Ratelle's brother Herman. Continuing, Mr. Gair told the
Commission the Ratelles want to remain on the property. All
meetings regarding this proposal have occurred on the site and it
is the intention of the Ratelles to oversee future development.
Mr. Gair added this property is very precious to the Ratelle's who
N
have resided on the property for 30 years. In response to setbacks
Mr. Gair said they have calculated setbacks for the area and
arrived at an average of 90 feet. He said it was difficult to
calculate averages because of the varying front yard setbacks
within the area. He said if it is the desire of the Commission to
maintain a 90 foot front yard setback that is fine.
Mr. Thorpe, 6620 Mohawk Trail said regarding Lot 2, he would like
to be ensured that as many trees as possible will remain. Mr. Gair
told Mr. Thorpe the plan for Lot 2 is to place the house easterly
of the grove of evergreens which will ensure conservation of the
grove. He said they have considered bringing the access in from
the high point, common line, which would also protect the trees.
Mr. Gair stated this evergreen buffer is a desirable feature on the
site. Mr. Gair said a scenic or conservation easement could be
requested that would also ensure protection. The setbacks required
by code would also ensure tree retention.
Mr. Sam Wetterland, 6609 Dakota Trail, told the Commission he
believes this property is divided by a natural glacial ridge which
runs down the middle of the property. In essence this
topographical feature has created the development of two separate
neighborhoods. The Dakota Trail neighborhood is comprised of homes
on larger lots, is an older development, with a ruff terrain. The
street Dakota Trail itself is quite windy because of the terrain
and dense vegetation with limited visibility. All these factors
are reasons why properties on Dakota Trail are larger. Averaging
properties within 500 feet does not make sense. He concluded in
his opinion the lots that access Dakota Trail should be evaluated
at Dakota Trail standards and the lots that access Mohawk Trail
should be evaluated on Mohawk Trail standards. He stated Lots 3 &
4 should be combined to create one new lot, which would create 3
lots, instead of the proposed 4 lots. Mr. Wetterland reminded the
Commission many properties within the area have restrictive
covenants that prevent subdivision.
Mr. Meli 6601 Dakota Trail, said the crux of the issue is that
there are two distinct neighborhoods, the Dakota neighborhood and
the Mohawk neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are so different
that averages do not pertain. Mr. Meli said he is sympathetic to
the Ratelle's request to subdivide, adding in his opinion only one
lot should be created on Dakota Trail.
Esther Felson, 6801 Dakota Trail told the Commission she has two
small children and feels two new curb cuts on Dakota Trail will
create a safety issue. She agreed with Mr. Wetterland's
observation that Dakota Trail is very steep and windy and a hazard
will be created with two new curb cuts. Ms. Felson pointed out
during the winder there is considerable ice build up on Dakota
which make it very slick.
Mr. Richards, 6804 Dakota Trail echoed Mr. Wetterland, pointing out
5
the setbacks on Dakota Trail are very different from the setbacks
on Mohawk Trail. Mr. Richards also noted there are very large
retaining walls on some of the properties along Dakota Trail which
have reduced exit visibility, one property has been on the market
for some time indicating retaining walls of such magnitude may not
be desirable. Continuing, Mr. Richards said because of the
terrain, limited visibility, street safety, etc. these lots must be
developed with sensitivity and safety as a concern. He concluded
that he would like to see one lot on Dakota Trail.
Chairman Johnson asked the developer if the Ratelle property has
protective covenants. Mr. Gair responded that the Ratelle property
is not encumbered with protective covenants. They have expired.
Mr. Larsen said state law limits covenants to a period of 30 years,
they do not immediately renew for 10 years as stated in those
documents. Specifically, the City approved a subdivision, a
neighboring resident brought suit, it went on to the supreme court,
the supreme court ruled the covenants do not exist. Mr. Larsen
concluded that covenants do not apply in this instance.
A resident at 6613 Dakota Trail, told the Commission his main
concern is the inadequate setbacks in relationship to the houses on
Dakota Trail. He added he would also like to see.a more formal
conservation easement with regards to maintaining existing
vegetation for Lot 2.
Commission Palmer said he is impressed with the argument that there
is a difference in character between the two streets. Dakota Trail
is comprised of larger lots, while Mohawk has smaller lots.
Commissioner Palmer asked the proponent's if they also feel the
character of Dakota and Mohawk are different. Mr. Gair agreed that
the lots on the east side (Dakota) are larger then the lots on the
west (Mohawk). With graphics Mr. Gair pointed out the streetscapes
and lot sizes for both Dakota and Mohawk. Commissioner Ingwalson
said he also has a concern with the 500 foot perimeter
"neighborhood" and said we may be including too many lots.
Commissioner Palmer reminded the Commission the 500 foot perimeter
is just a guideline.
Commissioner J. Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if approval is granted,
and the process is completed, and the builder comes into City Hall
to obtain a permit, what then happens? Mr. Larsen said when a
builder comes into City Hall to apply for a building permit a set
of plans is required. The Building Department has the Planning
Department review the plans for the new home. The Planning
Department checks the plan to ensure that all setbacks depicted on
the plan meet zoning ordinance requirements. Commissioner L.
Johnson questioned how we arrive at the front yard setback. Mr.
Larsen said front yard setbacks are calculated by the average of
houses on the same side of the street or the house on either side
of the new proposed house.
0
Commissioner McClelland told the Commission she has a problem with
the proposal and the fact that the variance request for lot width
is very large, 9 feet. She pointed out the topography of this site
is extreme, massing comes into play with a proposal such as this,
and in her opinion Lot 3 is too steep. She said the subdivision
appears awkward and stressed she is unsure, if approved, that the
new houses could meet the front yard setbacks on Dakota Trail, and
maybe even Mohawk Trail. She added she agrees with comments she
has heard this evening that there are two different streetscapes,
two difference neighborhoods. She concluded she believes creating
one lot on Dakota Trail makes the good planning sense, and as
presented she cannot support this proposal.
Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Gair if they ever considered developing
one lot instead of two lots, Lot 3 & 4 with an entrance on Mohawk
Trail. Mr. Gair said that was discussed.
Commissioner Palmer said if it is the desire of the Commission to
approve this proposal the Commission should ensure that there is a
formal conservation easement for Lot 2 to preserve the trees.
A discussion ensued between Commission members regarding setbacks
for the proposal and if houses could be placed on the sites and
meet the required front yard setbacks.
Commissioner McClelland read the setbacks along Mohawk Trail noting
they are respectively; 2301, 801, 2051, 1301, which is an average
of 161 feet. This is the setback for Mohawk Trail. Commissioner
McClelland pointed out a 80 foot setback is depicted on the
preliminary plat.
Chairman Johnson questioned if any Commission Members actually
walked the site, adding he believes it would benefit both the
Commission and the proponents if the site was actually walked. He
added, and this is just his opinion, that this item should be held
over until June 26, 1991, allowing the Commission time to walk the
site.
Dr. Ratelle told the Commission he has lived in the community for
40 years, he applauds the concerns of neighbors for safety,
reporting he raised 6 children on this site. He respectively asked
the Commission to hold the meeting over for 30 days to appreciate
the terrain and walk the property. Dr. Ratelle also extended an
invitation to the neighbors to walk the site. This will help both
the neighbors and the Commission envision the development proposed.
Chairman Johnson asked commission members if they would care to
table the matter for 30 days. He added if this is their desire, he
would like to see planning staff coordinate with Dr. Ratelle two
times when the site could be visited.
7
Commissioner Palmer moved to table this item until June 26, 1991,
allowing Commission Members and neighbors time to walk the site.
Commissioner Faust seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
Commissioner Faust asked that Mr. Gair at the meeting of June 26,
1991, supply the Commission with front yard setbacks for both
Dakota and Mohawk.
5-91-4 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, VENTANA JYLAND
ADDITION, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, MUIR WOODS,
JYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 7000 VALLEY VIEW ROAD
Mr. Larsen presented his staff report noting the subject property
is a developed single family lot approximately 4.4 acres in size.
The existing house is located in the west -central portion of the
lot. The proposed subdivision suggests removing the existing home,
constructing a new public street cul-de-sac which would serve a
five lot subdivision. All of the new home sites would have access
to the new street. The five lots range in size from 27,396 square
feet to 38,514 square feet in area.
Mr. Larsen concluded because of the severe topography construction
of the new street will cause significant impacts on the existing
conditions. While staff would prefer to limit street grades to no
more than 7% some compromise may be warranted to save existing
vegetation and to reduce cut and fill operations necessary to
construct the road. Mr. Larsen added if the questions of the
impact of the road can be adequately addressed by the proponents,
staff would recommend preliminary approval subject to:
1. Final Plat Approval
2. Developers Agreement Covering All Public Improvements
3. Subdivision Dedication
Richard Carlson, Jyland, Inc., Mr. Mike Gair, of McComb Frank Roos
were present to answer Commission questions. Mr. Whitney Peyton,
property owner was present. Interested neighbors were present.
Chairman Johnson questioned Mr. Larsen on other
City with a similar grade as the proposed road.
out Warren Avenue the street staff requested
drive is at a 10% grade. He added that The
streets that have a grade in excess of 12%.
8
streets within the
Mr. Larsen pointed
the Commission to
Timbers has some
Mr. Carlson explained to the Commission Jyland, Inc. in working
with the property owners have developed a proposal they feel is
sensitive to the neighborhood of Indian Hills. Mr. Carlson said
the market value of the proposed lots will be in the 300 thousand
dollar range. Continuing, Mr. Carlson told the Commission it is
their belief that only one access off of Valley View Road best
serves the proposal. This approach creates a neighborhood feel for
the new property owners. Mr. Carlson informed Commission Members
that Dr. Peper property, owner of the large piece of property west
of the proposed site, has indicated at this time, that he wishes to
retain'his parcel as one piece. Concluding Mr. Carlson told the
Commission the proposal as presented has been developed with
sensitivity to the site. It has been their foremost concern to
retain as many trees as possible and maintain the character of
Indian Hills.
Mr. Gair informed the Commission the subdivision site is 4.4 acres.
The site's terrain consists of steep slopes with a knoll. The
property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Peyton wish to retain the high
elevation to construct a new home. The four new proposed lots will
be developed with houses with rear walkouts. Mr. Gair explained
that the development staff worked very closely with the Peytons to
develop a project that retained the maximum amount of vegetation,
while creating a neighborhood for the future home owners. Mr. Gair
said he understands staff and Commission concern over the road
grade, but added development staff felt the presented proposal is
the best choice out of the three scenarios created for this
property. Continuing, Mr. Gair explained that development staff
created three scenarios for this site. One scenario had four sites
with frontage on Valley View Road with an interior lot. The other
scenario is similar to what is proposed this evening, except the
cul-de-sac is shortened. Mr. Gair pointed out that the
southwestern swale flows toward Valley View Road. The northern
edge will have a 12 inch pipe with catch basin that will drain into
the storm system.
Mr. Reber, 6916 Dakota Trail, told the Commission he has a number
of concerns. The first being the undeveloped large lot owned by
Dr. Peper and its potential for future development. Continuing,
Mr. Reber said another point of concern is the potential for
immense retaining walls in this area. He pointed out he wouldn't
want to see retaining walls constructed similar to the retaining
walls located at 6800 Dakota Trail. He asked the Commission to
ensure that retaining walls, where needed, are constructed with
adequate materials.
Mr. Wood, resident of the neighborhood, told Commission Members he
does not want to see a development similar to Wally Irwins
development across the road. He also indicated he has a concern
with drainage. He asked the Commission to ensure that drainage on
the site is adequate.
E
Mr. Daniel Spiegel, 7104 Valley View Road, told the Commission on
May 11, 1991, he received a letter from the developers informing
him of the request to subdivide. He attended a neighborhood
meeting on May 16, 1991, sponsored by the developers. Mr. Spiegel
said he has a grave concern with the damage that will befall the
environment as a result of this subdivision. He pointed out the
terrain of the site is very steep and comprised of dense vegetation
with mature trees. He added to the south and west of the site,
near Braemar, are wetlands where animals dwell. Mr. Spiegel
pointed out that this parcel also contains a deer trail and many
other smaller animals will be displaced as a result of development.
He noted in walking the site with Mr. Carlson at least 55% of the
vegetation will be destroyed. This destruction will impact the
animals and the character of the area, and could also create
drainage problems. Mr. Spiegel concluded that any development
allowed within this area must be sensitive to the character of Muir
Woods, which is an area of dense vegetation and larger lots. He
noted averages and medians do not really tell what is going on
within this neighborhood, you have to take the time to really look
at it, which he believes Commission Members have done. The homes
on the north side of Valley View are very different than the homes
in close proximity to the proposed site.
Mary Carey 6908 Dakota Trail, observed that Indian Hills and Muir
Woods are very unique area within the City of Edina. She asked the
Commission to consider the question on "how much development is too
much, and at what point does development ruin a neighborhood". She
concluded that this could be the point.
An unidentified women residing on Comanche Court told the
Commission she loves the woods and animals and the uniqueness of
the neighborhood. She explained that that is the reason she chose
to live in the area. She said she believes the Commission when
considering this proposal should only consider the lots within the
Muir Woods plat and not the smaller lots farther away. She
concluded that maintaining the character of the wooded areas of
Indian Hills is very important and this proposal would result in a
negative impact for the area.
Commissioner L. Johnson said in viewing the plans he observed
limits of site disturbance and questioned Mr. Carlson on this.
Mr. Carlson in response to concerns raised by residents, and
Commissioner Johnson's question on site disturbance, with graphics
explained the amount of vegetation that would be disturbed and
removed as a result of this proposal. He pointed out with the
presented proposal 45% of the vegetation will be retained. Mr.
Carlson in addressing the question of the retaining walls said they
will be constructed with boulders and placed behind the 50 foot
right-of-way. Continuing Mr. Carlson said he will do his best to
ensure that vegetation within the drip line is saved. He added the
40 foot strip conservation easement along Valley View Road will
10
create a buffer that in the summer will make it almost impossible
for passers-by to see the new houses. In referring to building
pads he responded the topography will naturally afford the best
site development. Mr. Carlson asked the Commission to note if
their plan is approved construction of the new homes will begin in
the fall. The new development will also have protective covenants,
mostly regarding architectural controls. In response to the
question of the Peper property Mr. Carlson said that issue is out
of his control. He concluded that by their calculations the
proposed curb cut on Valley View Road has the best site lines, and
will generate 48 vehicle trips per day, which will not be a problem
for Valley View Road. Mr. Carlson said with sensitivity during
development the animals that live on the site will remain. The
deer will return.
Mr. Gair in response to Mr. Woods concern regarding drainage
informed the Commission that construction of the road and houses
and the connecting with the storm sewer correction system will
actually improve drainage on the site. He concluded the low spots
on the site will be maintained as low spots for drainage, they are
called in Engineering terms "dry ponds".
Commissioner L. Johnson asked when the new road is constructed is
there a specific house plan, and will the entire top of the knob be
graded as part of initial construction. Commissioner L. Johnson
said it appears to him that the garage elevation for this house is
driving the slope of the street. He said he is uncomfortable with
this because maintenance of this type of road may be a burden to
the City. He pointed out if the elevation of the garage is dropped
the street elevation could be dropped. Commissioner L. Johnson
said the grades should be matched. Concluding Commissioner L.
Johnson said he views this proposal and layout as good, but the
roadway should be reduced to an acceptable grade.
Mr. Carlson responded saying lowering the grade of the garage would
create a garage with an unacceptable level for the Peytons.
Commissioner Johnson said the garage should be able to be dropped
to keep the road at a decent level. Mr. Carlson said extra trees
will have to be removed to accomplish this. Mr. Carlson said in
maintaining the elevation at -935, less trees would be destroyed and
drainage will naturally occur. Mr. Peyton responded that his
driveway now is at 30% and he is looking forward to a road with a
10% grade.
A brief discussion ensued regarding elevations.
Commissioner Ingwalson asked Mr. Hoffman how the City feels
regarding the 10% grade of the proposed road, and maintenance of
the road. Mr. Hoffman explained that it does not cost the City
more money to maintain a road at this grade. Mr. Hoffman said
roads with a grade such as the one proposed get plowed first, but
the City would rather not see roads constructed this steep if given
11
the choice. Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Hoffman if the City
has had problems with the roads in the Timbers plat. Mr. Hoffman
said he has not been made aware of any problems. He concluded that
a road with this grade is a priority for the City. Commissioner
Ingwalson also noted that be believes the conservation easement
along Valley View Road is very desirable. Mr. Larsen agreed that
the conservation easement is a benefit to the proposal.
Commissioner Hale asked the developers if they ever considered
combining lots 22 and 28. Mr. Carlson responded that that was
never considered.
Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion this proposal is not
much different from the Ratelle proposal just heard and continued.
Both proposals are in close proximity to each other and the impact
on the character of Muir Woods if approved would be substantial.
Commissioner McClelland said she believes this site has been
proposed to be developed with too many lots. She told the
Commission she has a problem in granting subdivision approval when
the proposed subdivision requires a variance. She pointed out a
lot depth variance is required on Lot 17 that is quite substantial,
15 feet. She added she also has a serious concern with potential
development to the Peper property, and in her opinion that issue
has not been adequately addressed. Continuing, Commissioner
McClelland said as presently depicted, she envisions very large
houses with little to virtually non existence yards, a very steep
road and destruction of too may trees and dense vegetation. She
concluded as presented, she cannot support this proposal. She said
she can envision three lots and questions if houses can even be
constructed that meet setback requirements.
Mr. Perkins, 6909 Dakota Trail, said at present our ordinance takes
into account properties that are not impacted by this proposal. He
believes this subdivision should be considered by the lots within
the Muir Woods Addition not the Wally Irwin Lots across the street,
or the Moccasin Lane lots. He pointed out lot sizes would be
larger if fewer lots were added in calculating the median.
Concluding Mr. Perkins recommended that the conservation easement
be made a formal part of the motion if the Commission recommends
approval.
Mr. Carlson asked the Commission to note that all proposed lots,
except for Lot 17 meet and exceed all City requirements as
stipulated by Subdivision Ordinance 804.
Commissioner McClelland said she feels this issue should be held
over for 30 days allowing the proponent time to answer questions
regarding setbacks and the potential development of the Peper
property. Commissioner Faust said she agrees, adding the variance
required on Lot 17 is too large.
Commissioner McClelland moved to hold the meeting over until June
12
26, 1991. Commissioner Shaw seconded the motion.
Commissioner Ingwalson said in his opinion the
presented is good and reasonable. He added he is w
on the proposal this evening, but also agrees that I
a very precious neighborhood, but if other me
commission need more time to reflect on the proposa
over is fine with him. Commissioner Palmer said he x
adequate facts and good input from staff, the develof
residents, but would be willing to reflect on the is:
longer.
Commissioner McClelland said that what has been
evening in essence will create a very dramatic char
She pointed out what has been proposed in actualit
of the density of Muir Woods. She pointed out if
the proposal the whole Valley View "loop" section
lots. She added originally that portion contained c
The proposed subdivision will add an additional fo
Mr. Peyton said he has worked with Dr. Peper and t
team to accomplish an excellent subdivision for t
added Dr. Peper supports this proposal and in spe;
Doctor they have recognized that his property, x
terrain could support at the most two new lots,
respectively asked if the Chairman would call the
added he feels he and his development team have wo
and long to come to this point. They would be wil
the road to a more acceptable grade and if possible
variance on Lot 17.
Commissioner Byron said we have had the luxury this
excellent public hearing before this body. He point
this point the hearing has been in process for over
said in his opinion he has been adequately informed
to make an educated decision. He added as a Commi:
remember Subdivision Ordinance 804 is a guideline f
and as a body we exercise our best judgement.
understands the opinion that the lots within the M
are large, but if we are justified in focusing lot
lots the proposal submitted may stand up well to
should be remembered that flexibility is important
educated decision. Each parcel should be considered
Mr. Byron told the Commission he supports the prop
caveat that the road grade be brought down to the 73
caveat that the 40 foot conservation easement be f
motion.
Commissioner Palmer reported he would be willing
proposal this evening.
Chairman Johnson reminded the Commission a motion
13
proposal as
Llling to vote
adian Hills is
anbers of the
L, carrying it
elieves he has
ment team, and
ue for a month
resented this
s to the area.
is a doubling
ne just views
ontains large
Ly eight lots.
ie development
lis site. He
king with the
cause of the
Mr. Peyton
question. He
-ked very hard
Ang to rework
eliminate the
evening of an
ed out that to
two hours. He
and is willing
sion we are to
or development
'.ontinuing, he
air Woods plat
size on those
:hat test. It
.n coming to an
on its merits.
Dsal, with the
level and the
olded into the
vote on the
on the floor
and has been seconded to table this issue until June 26, 1991.
Commissioner Johnson called the vote. Motion failed.
Commissioner Byron moved to recommend preliminary plat approval
subject to staff conditions and the additional conditions that the
proposed road grade be reduced to 7% and that the plat be recorded
with a 40 foot conservation easement along Valley View Road.
Commissioner L. Johnson seconded the motion.
Commissioner Faust asked if she could amend the motion to include
the condition that the variance be eliminated for Lot 17. Mr.
Peyton requested that at this time without further review it may be
impossible to eliminate a variance for Lot 17 and create a viable
site. Commissioner Ingwalson noted that a variance is considered
on its individual merits regarding hardship, there may be a
hardship on this lot resulting from constructing the proposed road
is the best place. He pointed out other subdivisions have been
approved with variances, so at this time he has no problem in
voting on a proposal that may or may not require a variance on one
lot.
Chairman Johnson said the condition in the motion of reducing the
road grade to 7% may not be desirable, because if we require a
reduction in the grade and the proponents in all good faith cannot
meet that requirement, we may be right back where we started from.
This offers the proponents flexibility if they come back with an
7 1/2 or 8 % grade.
Commissioner L. Johnson pointed out the proponents would consider
the Commission's recommendation on reduction in road grade and then
would go forward to the Council with their revision. If the
solution reached is not quite 7% the Council will decide on its
merits. Commissioner L. Johnson added the Commission is an
advisory Board, and the Council will make the final decision.
Commissioner Byron said he would not accept Commissioner Fausts
amendment regarding removal of the variance for Lot 17 as a
condition of approval.
Commissioner Faust moved to have her amendment accepted to the
motion. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. Chairman
Johnson called the question. Motion failed.
Chairman Johnson said at this point the Commission is back to the
original motion of approval made by Commissioner Byron.
Upon roll call vote, Ayes, Byron, L. Johnson, Palmer, Ingwalson, G.
Johnson Nays; McClelland, Faust, Hale, Shaw. Motion for approval
carried 5-4 vote.
II. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
14
15