HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 05-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular (2)MINUTES 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.
Faust, L. Johnson, H. McClelland,
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
Byron, N.
D. Runyan,
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 movE
approval. Commissioner Hale
subject to staff conditions.
the Commission would accept
church to add "skimmers" to
Johnson said this issue will
that is their jurisdiction.
d to recommend Conditional Use Permit
seconded the motion adding approval is
Commissioner McClelland questioned if
the extra addition of requiring the
their parking areas. Commissioner L.
be heard by the Watershed District and
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
2
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
4
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.
C:
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, MOIR 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 streets within the
City with a similar grade as the proposed road. Mr. Larsen pointed
out Warren Avenue the street staff requested the Commission to
drive is at a 10% grade. He added that The Timbers has some
streets that have a grade in excess of 12%.
8
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.
9
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 proposal as
presented is good and reasonable. He added he is willing to vote
on the proposal this evening, but also agrees that Indian Hills is
a very precious neighborhood, but if other members of the
commission need more time to reflect on the proposal, carrying it
over is fine with him. Commissioner Palmer said he believes he has
adequate facts and good input from staff, the development team, and
residents, but would be willing to reflect on the issue for a month
longer.
Commissioner McClelland said that what has been presented this
evening in essence will create a very dramatic change to the area.
She pointed out what has been proposed in actuality is a doubling
of the density of Muir Woods. She pointed out if one just views
the proposal the whole Valley View "loop" section contains large
lots. She added originally that portion contained only eight lots.
The proposed subdivision will add an additional four.
Mr. Peyton said he has worked with Dr. Peper and the development
team to accomplish an excellent subdivision for this site. He
added Dr. Peper supports this proposal and in speaking with the
Doctor they have recognized that his property, because of the
terrain could support at the most two new lots. Mr. Peyton
respectively asked if the Chairman would call the question. He
added he feels he and his development team have worked very hard
and long to come to this point. They would be willing to rework
the road to a more acceptable grade and if possible eliminate the
variance on Lot 17.
Commissioner Byron said we have had the luxury this evening of an
excellent public hearing before this body. He pointed out that to
this point the hearing has been in process for over two hours. He
said in his opinion he has been adequately informed and is willing
to make an educated decision. He added as a Commission we are to
remember Subdivision Ordinance 804 is a guideline for development
and as a body we exercise our best judgement. Continuing, he
understands the opinion that the lots within the Muir Woods plat
are large, but if we are justified in focusing lot size on those
lots the proposal submitted may stand up well to that test. It
should be remembered that flexibility is important in coming to an
educated decision. Each parcel should be considered on its merits.
Mr. Byron told the Commission he supports the proposal, with the
caveat that the road grade be brought down to the 7% level and the
caveat that the 40 foot conservation easement be folded into the
motion.
Commissioner Palmer reported he would be willing to vote on the
proposal this evening.
Chairman Johnson reminded the Commission a motion is on the floor
13
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. AWOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
14
15
MINUTES 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. a
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
C1
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
7
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.
w
ie Hoogenakker, Se6retary
15