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