<br />OF TIIE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
<br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
<br />MAY 18, 1981
<br />Answering rollcall were members Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner and Mayor
<br />OAK POND OF INTERLACHEN GRANTED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL.
<br />that Oak Pond of Interlachen was considered at the meeting of May 4, 1981, and
<br />at that time Council asked the proponent to consider reducing the number of
<br />lots in the twelve lot subdivision plan then presented, one of the lots being
<br />served off the end of Evanswood Lane. It also made allowances for the con-
<br />struction of a cul-de-sac at the end of Evanswood and a storm water ponding
<br />area along the rear portion of Lots 10 and 11.
<br />revised 11 lot plat has been submitted which proposes that the cul-de-sac at
<br />the terminus of Evanswood would not be constructed; the previous Lot 12 has
<br />been eliminated and Lots 10 and 11 (now renumbered.Lots 8 and 9 have been elong-
<br />rear yards of Lots 10 and 11 has been deleted from the plan and the low area
<br />on the end of Evanswood would be maintained as an inundation area. Mr. Francis
<br />Hagen, Westwood Planning and Engineering Company, advised that the revised plan
<br />would consist of 11 lots with an average lot size of 20,170 square feet with
<br />the only access being off Blake Road.
<br />high water line of the pond on the northerly portion of the parcel and a .
<br />100 foot setback will be maintained for any buildings; that the plan now
<br />presented is in response to the suggestions of the Council and to comments
<br />from the neighborhood, and that disruption to the existing neighborhood has been
<br />minimized. Mr. Dean Bailey, landscape architect with Areteka, Inc., presented
<br />landscape plans which feature an entry island into the development, a low berm
<br />to provide a buffer and to afford the planting of trees and shrubs along the
<br />north edge of the new road and retentionof existing oak trees.
<br />5124 South Blake Road, speaking for the people represented by the petition pre-
<br />viously presented, stated they do not consider the 11 lot proposal to be signi-
<br />ficantly different'aesthetically from the previous proposal.
<br />that the distance between houses would be minimal and that he personally would
<br />favor a 9 or 10 lot approach. Mr. Loren Spande, building contractor, indicates
<br />the clients he has waiting to build in this subdivision have no opposition as to
<br />lot sizes. Mr. Robert McCollum, attorney representing Brian Gensmer of 5216
<br />Blake Road South, referred to three letters sent to Council members and requested
<br />they be part of the record, the last of which included letters from various real
<br />estate peophilho gave their opinions with respect to the effect this develop-
<br />ment would have on Mr. Gensmer's property. He argued that the proposal as now
<br />presented disproportionately burdens Ifr. Gensmer's property, expecially the '.
<br />proximity of the roadway to his house and property line, in that it will cause
<br />a diminution of value of his property. Dr.Franz Metzger, 5021 Schaefer Road,
<br />asked that Council postpone action until the neighborhood had a chance to
<br />examine the revised plat being submitted. The question of adequate drainage
<br />for surface water was raised by Mr. William Gearhard, 5224 Blake Road. Mr. James
<br />Nystrom, 5225 Evanswood Lane and Mr. Gary Gray, 5221 Evanswood Lane, stated
<br />that if a storm sewer pipe will be installed to provide adequate drainage and
<br />the area is ieft in a natural state they would have no objections to the plan
<br />presented. Mr. Brian Gensmer reiterated that the development plan would.greatly
<br />devaluate his property. Mr. Alvin >IcQuinn, 4900 Bywood Nest, indicated he is
<br />interested in buying a lot and building a home in this development an2 would like
<br />to see it approved. Mr. Nick Strenglis, 5228 Evanswood Lane, stated he would
<br />prefer a 10 lot plan, but if adequate drainage will be provided out to Blake
<br />Rgad, he would support approval of the 11 lot plat submitted. .
<br />Reavill, 5224 Evanswood Lane, stated he has been impressed with the way the
<br />Planning Commission and Council have been concerneibwith the interests of the
<br />neighborhood, and that he feels a reasonable compromise has been reached and
<br />would urge the Council approve the new plat.
<br />Road, observed that a transition zone would be desirable, especially for the
<br />residents on the north and west side of the proposed development. Mr. Victor
<br />Bloomfield, 5217 Schaefer Road, felt a transition zone should be provided and
<br />that animal life and vegetation would be severely harmed with the plan proposed.
<br />Mr. Nichael Halley, proponent, recalled that in January, 1981, when the design
<br />stage was begun, the initial objective was to create.approximately 15 lots
<br />that had an average size of one-third acre or approximately 15,000 square feet
<br />which were targeted toward an affordable home package of aiproximately $250,000
<br />similar to other homes prelevant in the area. He pointed out that even though-
<br />the proposed lot size vascly exceeded City ordinance requirements, many of the.
<br />surrounding neighbors favored larger and fewer lots. Accordingly, the plat . a
<br />has been reduced several times and they are now presenting a compromise plat -
<br />He further observed-
<br />Mr.. Hughes recalled
<br />I Mr. Hughes stated that a
<br />In- addition, the ponding area which was originally proposed for the -
<br />He indicated that they had surveyed the
<br />Mr. Roy Jenson,
<br />He expressed concern
<br />Mr. Richard
<br />I . Mr. John Kyllo, 5201 Schaefer
<br />'of 11 lots, the average size being 20,000 square feet.