Loading...
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