Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-26 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularA G E N.D A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 261 1991, 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 29, 1991 II. OLD BUSINESS: S-91-2 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, RATELLE HILL ADDITION LOT 51 BLOCK 1, INDIAN HILLS DR. AND MRS. ALEX RATELLE REOUEST: CREATE THREE NEW BUILDABLE LOTS III. NEW BUSINESS: S-91-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, SEVER ADDITION PART OF TRACT B, RLS 1278 6600 NORMANDALE ROAD REOUEST: CREATE THREE NEW BUILDABLE LOTS LD -91-4 RON AND SALLY KING LOTS 1,2, AND 2, BLOCK 2, SMISEK ADDITION' 7600 DELANEY BOULEVARD IV. OTHER BUSINESS: *VARIOUS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS V. NEXT MEETING DATE: JULY 31, 1991 VI. ADJOURNMENT: 7 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1991, 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair G. Johnson, Hale, Faust, McClelland, Palmer, Shaw, Workinger, Ingwalson, Byron MEMBERS ABSENT: Runyan, L. Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Ingwalson moved approval of the May 29, 1991, minutes. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: 5-91-2 Preliminary Plat Approval Ratelle Hill Addition Lot 5, Block 1, Indian Hills The proponents, Dr. and Mrs. Ratelle, were present along with their son, and Dr. Ratelle's brother, Herman Ratelle. Mr. Mike Gair was also present of McCombs, Roos representing the Ratelle's. Mr. Larsen reminded commission members that at the last meeting this item was tabled to allow commission members time to walk the site with Dr. Ratelle. Continuing, Mr. Larsen introduced Mr. Gair, of McCombs, Roos to members of the commission informing them Mr. Gair is present this evening to address your questions and concerns. Mr. Gair presented to the commission photos and graphics of the neighborhood. He told the commission at the last meeting four areas of concerns were indicated; steep slopes, front yard setbacks, neighborhood character and symmetry, and safety. Mr. Gair said he will address each issue separately beginning with front yard setbacks. With graphics Mr. Gair pointed out house placement along Dakota Trail and Mohawk Trail and concluded by their calculations the average front yard setback is 70 feet. Mr. Gair pointed out that 1 the plat as presented depicts front yard setbacks at 80 feet. Addressing slopes, Mr. Gair with graphics, identified the slopes within the neighborhood. Mr. Gair pointed out within the neighborhood slopes range from 0% slopes to slopes of 71%. Mr. Gair asked the commission to note the Ratelle property is comprised of slopes ranging from 20% to 25% on the south and on the tighter northern edge slopes range between 30%-35%. Continuing, Mr. Gair explained in his opinion the "neighborhood" of Indian Hills is very diverse. The lots platted along Indian Head Lake and Arrow Head Lake, are quite substantial. Other lots within the "neighborhood", Cherokee Hills, and towards the highway are rather modest in size. Mr. Gair pointed out the character and symmetry of the "neighborhood" has been established to a great extent by the large lots encircling the two lakes and the smaller platted lots. Mr. Gair noted the Ratelle property is centered in the middle of these neighborhoods. Mr. Gair addressed the safety issue concerning site lines. He reported the "stopping" distance determined by the Department of Highways is 200 feet. He asked the Commission to note all lots exceed the 200 foot established guideline. Mr. Gair concluded by adding the proposal is a four acre site seeking approval to subdivide it into four lots. The configuration of this proposal is two lots fronting on Mohawk Trail, and two lots fronting on Dakota Trail. This proposal requires a variance for the existing Ratelle home site. The north to south dimension of this site is 365. This proposal requires a lot width variance for the existing property of 9 feet. The width of the lot at the building pad is roughly 230 feet. Chairman Johnson pointed out to Mr. Gair that traditionally rectangular pad sites are depicted on plats, and he observed that the proposed plat indicates the depth of the houses are 35 feet. Continuing, Chairman Johnson said he believes the houses may be constructed deeper than what is depicted. He pointed out retaining wall height will increase if the footprint of a proposed house is deeper then 35 feet. Chairman Johnson questioned if the Ratelle's would entertain the option of allowing the City some type of design control regarding placement, size, etc., of the proposed new homes. Chairman Johnson said design control would ensure that the right house design is chosen for the lot. Mr. Gair said the proposed lots vary in contour dictating that each lot would have to be individually developed. He said in studying the site, house construction would either be a forward walkout or a three level split arrangement. Mr. Gair said in his opinion the future homeowner would want to acquire an architect who would design a home that would take advantage of the topography of the lot. the 35 foot depth on the building pad was chosen because it E suits the lots. Dr. Ratelle interjected that he is willing to work with the future homeowners of the proposed lots on house design and is willing to share the responsibility of design review with the City. Mr. Ratelle asked the Commission to note that it is very important to his family that the proposed lots be developed with sensitivity. Commissioner McClelland reported that she has a concern with road grade. She noted properties within the immediate neighborhood with road grades similar to the grades of the proposal appear to have much larger front yard setbacks allowing longer driveways to work with those grades. Commissioner McClelland said she believes there are really two neighborhoods in this proposal. One neighborhood could be considered the island between Mohawk Trail and Dakota Trail, and the one separated by the high ridge running down the middle. To the east is the Dakota neighborhood, and to the west is the more traditional Mohawk neighborhood. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland said her concern is with the Dakota side. She pointed out Dakota is comprised of large lots, with long driveways, and dense vegetation, virtually hiding the houses on Dakota Trail from view. Commissioner McClelland said in order to accommodate the slopes of the proposed new lots on Dakota Trail it appears that the driveways will have to angle across the site. This driveway placement will result in a considerable loss of vegetation, which is out of character for the Dakota Trail side. Commissioner McClelland pointed out that on Mohawk Trail the lots have less vegetation with a more traditional setting. Concluding Commissioner McClelland said she has problems with the proposal as presented, and cannot support it. A variance is required, there are road grade problems, the topography is forced, and there will be considerable tree loss, which is the character of Indian Hills. Commissioner McClelland noted in her opinion Ordinance 801 has not served the Commission well. The character of Indian Hills will be lost if subdivision continues to happen. Herman Ratelle, 6717 Arrowhead Pass, located immediately north of the site, in response to commission comments, said he purchased his lot a number of years ago. He added his lot is quite substantial in size. Mr. Ratelle explained that he understands the desire of the commission to preserve the neighborhood but pointed out the commission and council have approved subdivisions within this neighborhood for a number of years, one right across the street from his property. Mr. Ratelle pointed out that the character of the neighborhood would not be violated by this subdivision. He asked the commission to note that the proposed lots are an acre in size and comply with the size requirements of the neighborhood. He concluded he would have a hard time understanding the reasons for denying this request when it complies with all requirements and subdivision has occurred within the Indian Hills neighborhood. 3 Commissioner McClelland explained that she is not opposed to subdivision on this site, but believes there should be only two lots, one lot on Dakota Trail and one lot on Mohawk Trail. Commissioner McClelland said there is a natural geographical division along the ridge that runs down the center of the Ratelle property and in her opinion if the Ratelle's want to retain a large piece of property for themselves it doesn't make sense to create another lot on Mohawk Trail that is forced. Commissioner McClelland concluded that she supports the creation of one new lot on Dakota Trail which would be a total of two lots on this site. Commissioner Byron asked Mr. Larsen how one arrives at the minimum front yard setback for Lots 2,3,4. Mr. Larsen said the property owner has two options, the first would be to calculate the front yard setback of the houses on either side of the lot in question, the other option would be to average the front yard setback of all homes on the block on the same side of the street as the lot in question. Commissioner Palmer asked what is the calculation for the front yard setback for the new lots. Mr. Gair responded that an 70 foot front yard setback is required, the proposed plat depicts an 80 foot front yard setback. Commissioner Shaw questioned if that is the median or average. Mr. Larsen responded with respect to setbacks it is the mean average. The proponent in this instance can choose between 180 feet(adjoining houses) or 70 feet (average of the block) for their front yard setback. Mr. Larsen added that technically setbacks are not at issue this evening. Commissioner McClelland said if subdivision is granted we already are allowing them to develop and tree loss will be the result. Mr. Larsen responded that to clarify any questions regarding Ordinance 801 when calculating lot size one refers to the median lot average, which in reality, does not lower the standards for new lots it actually increases the standards for new lots. Mr. Gair said he would agree with statements from the Commission that there are different streetscapes on Dakota Trail and Mohawk Trail. He said the Ratelle's have indicated that on Dakota Trail they are willing to place a conservation easement along the street. This easement would conserve vegetation. Mr. Gair added the ideal development on Dakota Trail would be to pull the homes back into the lot, thus saving as much vegetation as possible. The following residents spoke on the proposal. Sam Wetterland, 6609 Dakota Trail, Mary Gaspert, 1 Overholt Pass, Gregg & Esther Felsen, 6801 Dakota Trail, Mr. Richard Meli, 6601 Dakota Trail, Mr. Paul Genn, 6613 Dakota Trail, Mr. Spiegel, 7104 Valley View Road, Steve Richards, 6804 Dakota Trail. Recorded below are concerns expressed by the above recorded residents of the neighborhood. * The neighborhood is not as large as presented in the proposal. Many small lots are included, which skew 4 calculations. * Precedent setting; if development is allowed other large lots within the neighborhood could fall prey to developers. * The character of Indian Hills with known for dense vegetation and many trees would be compromised by this proposal. * The environmental impact on the vegetation, wetlands and wild life would be negative. * There are two different neighborhoods and two different streetscapes. One on Dakota Trail, and the other on Mohawk Trail. * Safety is an issue, Dakota Trail is a very windy road. * Retaining walls are a concern, properties within the area with large retaining walls are not aesthetically pleasing and are not marketable. * The topography of Indian Hills is very steep which indicates that development should be minimal. If development is approved only one lot should be recommended on Dakota Trail, not the proposed two lots. * If approval is granted a formal conservation easement should be recorded on Dakota Trail as indicated by the Ratelle's. Commissioner Faust questioned if the commission were to approve the two lots on Dakota Trail, could it be recommended that there be only one curb cut on Dakota. Chairman Johnson said he recalls that when Commission members visited the site, they indicated driveway placement could be in the middle of the lot branching out to both lots with another option of the driveway starting for both lots at the north end, with driveways tucked behind the conservation easement, and the entrance on Dakota coming out near the Tambornio site. Both options would result in only one curb cut on Dakota Trail. Commissioner Faust said she felt the second option that would require a easement across one lot would probably not be possible. The central driveway may be the better alternative. Commissioner Palmer said it appears that a majority of the commission is in agreement with the Ratelle's and their expressed willingness to enter into shared design control with the city. Mr. Palmer suggested that design control could also include driveway placement. Commissioner Palmer pointed out this neighborhood is very diverse and unusual, and much depends on where a house is sited. Continuing, Mr. Palmer added another point we may need to indicate in a motion is that we recommend an 80 foot conservation easement along the Dakota Trail. Commissioner McClelland said even if the commission recommends placement of a conservation easement along Dakota Trail many trees will be removed for the driveway. Commissioner Palmer agreed that that would occur. Chairman Johnson said with sensitive driveway placement the topography of the site, and the elevation of the site could hide the driveway. 5 Chairman Johnson asked commission members for their comments on Lot 2. (Mohawk Trail) Commissioner Palmer informed the commission he does not have a problem with Lot 2. Continuing Commissioner Palmer said he recognizes that there could be one problem with Lot 2 that would have to do with front yard setbacks. He questioned if the commission approves the development of this lot us it buildable because it may require a substantial front yard setback? Commissioner Palmer added in looking at Lot 2, if one develops it with sensitivity a house could be placed along the ridge that would be quite acceptable. Commissioner Palmer also noted that requiring a variance provides the City with control in house placement. is Chairman Johnson asked the commission if this proposal could be discussed and voted on in two pieces, one being the Mohawk Trail side and the other being the Dakota Trail side. The commission was in agreement. Commissioner Ingwalson explained that he does not have a problem with the new lot on Mohawk Trail. He pointed out setbacks may be a concern but the topography of the site and the dense vegetation of the site will lessen any impact. Commissioner Palmer asked Chairman Johnson if he recommends subsidiary votes. Chairman Johnson said that may be needed. Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion Lot 2 is forced. Commissioner Byron added he supports approval of Lot 2. Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend approval of Lot 2. Commissioner Byron seconded the motion. Commissioner Ingwalson questioned if the commission should add a conservation easement to Lot 2. Commissioner Palmer recommended that placement of a conservation easement along Mohawk Trail be attached to his motion for approval. Commissioner Byron seconded Commissioner Palmer's addition of placement of a conservation easement. Commissioner Hale told members of the commission he objects to this procedure. He added redesigning a subdivision is the wrong approach. He pointed out a subdivision has been presented to us and we should either vote it up or down. Commissioner Palmer responded in theory that is correct, but since this is such a complex issue the developer may need to know reasons why we have voted it up or down, and if voted down, a recommendation on what could be done to correct it. Commissioner Byron pointed out the commission is an advisory board to the council, and regardless of how we handle this process, the proponent has the right to go before the council with his existing C: proposal. Commissioner Byron noted that what the council decides, is what will be. Commissioner Byron added that the process is helped when we are informative in what is behind our vote. Commissioner Hale said he supports the concept of two lots on Mohawk Trail with the addition of a conservation easement, but not the proposal. Upon roll call vote: Commissioner's Workinger: Aye Faust: Nay Hale Nay McClelland Nay Palmer Aye Shaw Aye Ingwalson Aye Byron Aye Johnson Aye Commissioner Palmers motion was approved 6-3. Mohawk issue only. Chairman Johnson recommended that the commission address Dakota Trail. Commissioner McClelland said she cannot support two lots on Dakota Trail. She added it will destroy the character and symmetry of Indian Hills, the loss of the trees will be substantial, the site has extreme slopes, the lots are forced, and the quadrupling of lots, is destruction for this neighborhood. Commissioner Ingwalson commented that in the past he has not had a problem with variances if he believes the variances do not negatively impact the neighborhood, and he supports the creation of one new lot on Mohawk Trail. Continuing, Commissioner Ingwalson said in his opinion it would be detrimental to the neighborhood to have two lots on Dakota Trail, the streetscapes of Dakota and Mohawk Trail are very different. Commissioner Palmer said he agrees that two lots are excessive on Dakota Trail. Commissioner Hale moved to recommend denial of creating two new lots fronting on Dakota Trail. Commissioner Ingwalson seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote: Commissioner's Workinger Nay Faust Nay Hale Aye McClelland Aye Palmer Aye Shaw Nay Ingwalson Aye Byron Aye 7 Johnson Aye Motion to deny the creation of two new lots fronting on Dakota Trail carried by a 6-3 vote. Commissioner Palmer recommended approval of the subdivision request provided the following conditions are met: the city and the developer share design control, a conservation easement be placed along the streetscapes; 80 feet on Dakota Trail and 20 feet on Mohawk Trail, and that there is only one lot fronting on Dakota Trail. Commissioner Byron asked that it be clarified that the commission is recommending the creation of two new lots, not three as proposed. Commissioner Ingwalson seconded the motion with the addition of Commissioner Byron's clarification. Commissioner Workinger said in his opinion it would be appropriate for the Commission to vote the question on this proposal in it's entirety, as presented by the proponent, which is the creation of three new lots, with the total site containing four lots. This would avoid confusion. Commissioner Palmer agreed to withdraw his motion from the table at this time. Commissioner Ingwalson withdrew his second. Commissioner Workinger moved to recommend approval of the subdivision as presented by Dr. and Mrs. Ratelle, subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote: Commissioner's Workinger Aye Faust Nay Hale Nay McClelland Nay Palmer Nay Shaw Aye Ingwalson Nay Byron Nay Johnson Nay Motion failed. 7-2. Commissioner Palmer requested that his previous motion be put on the table for vote: Commissioner Hale questioned if the commission is approving lot lines as shown on the plat, and if that is the case he has a problem with it. Commissioner Palmer said we are not approving the lot lines as depicted on Dakota Trail because we are recommending approval of only one lot on Dakota Trail. Mr. Larsen said as he understands the motion the middle lot line creating the two lots fronting on Dakota Trail would be eliminated. 8 Chairman Johnson said that is correct. If the commission is recommending only one lot on Dakota Trail there would be no need for the middle lot line. Upon roll call vote: Commissioner's Workinger Aye Faust Aye Hale Aye McClelland Nay Palmer Aye Shaw Aye Ingwalson Aye Byron Aye Johnson Aye Motion carried. 8-1 vote. Chairman Johnson told the proponent there may be some confusion because of the voting that has occurred this evening. Chairman Johnson clarified the issue explaining the Commission voted to deny the proposal as submitted by Dr. and Mrs. Ratelle. The Commission voted to approve a revision of the presented plat that depicts two lots on Mohawk Trail and one lot on Dakota Trail, subject to conditions. III. NEW BUSINESS: 5-91-3 Preliminary Plat Approval Sever Addition 6600 Normandale Road Mr. Larsen presented his staff report asking the Commission to note the subject property is a developed single family lot at the southwest corner of 66th Street and Normandale Road. Total lot area is 41,135 square feet. The existing dwelling is located on the southerly portion of the property fronting on Normandale Road but with access from 66th Street. The proposed subdivision would create two new buildable lots. Both new lots would orient to 66th Street. Garage access for the existing home would be reoriented to Normandale Road. Mr. Larsen pointed out the proposed development will not require any significant cut and fill operation or result in significant tree loss. The property has access to public utilities. Mr. Larsen concluded as proposed a total of five variances are 0 required. Lots 1 and 2 (the new lots) require lot depth and lot area variances. Lot 3 requires a lot width variance. If one of the new lots were eliminated and the width for Lot 3 were increased all variances would be eliminated. Mr. Larsen said he could support approval of a two lot subdivision with the width of Lot 3 increased to approximately 100 feet. Conditions recommended: 1. Final Plat Approval. 2. Subdivision Dedication and Utility Connection Charges. Mr. Greg Frazee, builder, Mr. and Mrs. Sever were present to answer any questions. Interested neighbors were present. Mr. Frazee told the Commission the Sever's have resided in the home for a number of years and at this time it is there wish to subdivide their property. Using graphics Mr. Frazee explained the proposal to the Commission. Mr. Simonson, (south of subject site) 6610 Normandale Road, told members of the Commission the site lines along Normandale Road are limited and additional traffic flow along that stretch of Normandale may create safety problems. Continuing, Mr. Simonson asked the Commission to note that the proposed driveway will be constructed along side his property line and he objects to this placement. Mr. Simonson indicated that in his opinion the "neighborhood" in this instance is the Nob Hill neighborhood. He pointed out the smaller lots across the street, Josephine, Tingdale, etc. should not really be included as part of the "neighborhood", this inclusion could adversely impact property values. Concluding, Mr. Simonson told the Commission he supports the creation of one new lot, not the creation of two new lots. Mr. Kevin Reiss, 5012 Nob Hill, informed the Commission he represents nine neighbors within the immediate neighborhood who oppose the proposed subdivision. Continuing, Mr. Reiss said after studying the proposal he supports the creation of one new lot, not the proposed two lot subdivision as submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Sever. Mr. Reiss pointed out to the Commission the excessive variances required for this proposal. He said the proposal, as presented for two lots, requires 5 variances, which as stated is excessive. He pointed out 66th Street is a transitional line dividing the modest housing north of 66th Street from custom housing south of 66th Street. The creation of two additional lots would change the character of the neighborhood south of 66th Street. He concluded by asking the Commission to support the staff recommendation for the creation of one new lot. Mr. Frazee pointed out that the driveway situation Mr. Simonson referred to is actually a new driveway being constructed next to Mr. Simonson's garage. He pointed out Mr. Simonson will not be 10 able to see the drive from his living area. Mr. Frazee concluded in relation to property values, the new homes will be marketed in the $400-$500 thousand price range. Mrs. Sever addressed the Commission informing them they wish to maintain influence over the style and price of homes that would be constructed on the proposed lots. She pointed out they will remain on the property and it is their hope that the new homes be developed with sensitivity to the neighborhood. She told the Commission she believes the proposal would be a plus for the neighborhood, and Edina. She concluded by saying in all honesty that she cannot understand the concern over site lines on Normandale Road. She stated Normandale Road has not been a problem for them to access and the City approved their curb cut after the County took a portion of their property for Highway 100. Commissioner McClelland told the Commission in her opinion there is a problem with new subdivision ordinance No. 804. She added, and again this is her opinion, that the new ordinance seems to distort neighborhoods, the median and average lot size seem to be perplexing when calculating neighborhoods. She pointed out the "neighborhood" in this case even includes houses on the other side of Highway 100. She noted that the last four or five subdivision proposals seem to have demonstrated a weakness with this ordinance. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland said she does not fault staff for the problems with the new ordinance but questioned if the ordinance should be reconsidered. Commissioner McClelland pointed out this proposal needs five variances which is extreme for a new development. Commissioner McClelland concluded that she cannot support the proposal as presented but agrees with staff that the creation of one new lot is appropriate for the site. Mr. Larsen explained that selecting the median lot size within the ordinance actually benefits a proposal when there is a large variation in lot sizes within a neighborhood. Commissioner Palmer said he agrees with staff's recommendation and moved to recommend approval of creating one new lot subject to staff conditions and to recommend denial of the proposal as presented, which depicts the creation of two new lots. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. Ayes; Hale, Faust, McClelland, Palmer, Shaw, Ingwalson, Byron, Workinger, Johnson, ; motion carried. * Various Zoning Ordinance Amendments Mr. Larsen presented three amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; the first is how we interpret setbacks for living space in and above an accessory structure, an example being space above an existing 11