Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 01-04Planning Commission PacketsAGENDA Edina Community Development and Planning Commission Wednesday, February 1, 1978,.at 7:30 P.M. Edina City Hall I. Approval of January 4, 1978 Commission Minutes II. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman III. OLD BUSINESS: Z-77-8 Roger Findell. R-1 and R-3 to PRD -3. Generally located west of Cahill, north and south of Amundson Avenue (extended). Final plan approval. Z-77-9 Colonial Church of Edina. Generally located south of Olinger Blvd. and west of Tracy Avenue. Plan amendment. 5-78-3 Killarney Shores 2nd Addition. Generally located north of the Crosstown and west of Gleason Road. Continued from January 4, 1978 meeting. Ordinance Retail Sales in Planned Industrial District. Amendment IV. NEW BUSINESS: Public Southwest Edina Plan Amendment. Area generally located Hearing west of County Road 18 and north and south of Valley View Road. S-78-4 Normandale Carr Replat. Generally located north of West 66th Street and east of Parnell Avenue. V. Adjournment so sui3ctivision Yorkdale Townhomes of Edina REQUEST NUMBER: S-77-22 LOCATION: N. of 76 & E. of York Ave. REQUEST: One lot plat for subsidized housing. yjiing� nlQ�min� cirt►�rtrnrnt vilingt �f ��itzu PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 4, ,1978 2-77-17 Ryan Addition. Final Development Plans, R-1 to PRD -3, and and Preliminary Plat. S-77-22 Refer to: attached overall development plans, preliminary plat, and November 2, 1977, staff report. On November 2, 1977, the Planning Commission granted preliminary zoning approval for the subject development. At that time, 80 townhouse units for low and moderate income families were proposed. Following pre- liminary approval by the Planning Commission and prior to review by the City Council, the proponent was able to include an additional one acre parcel into his development proposal. The effect of this addi- tional acre is to provide 10 additional townhouse units, thus bringing the total number of units to 90. The City Council reviewed and granted preliminary zoning approval for the revised 90 unit proposal. It should be noted that the original 80 unit proposal was designed in anti- cipation of including the one acre parcel. Thus, the locations, elevations, and design of the original 80 units remain unchanged. The proponents have also submitted a preliminary plat for the subject property. This plat proposed to dedicate easements along York Terrace and York Avenue as previously requested. Recommendation: The proponents have satisfied ordinance requirements regarding plans and specifications for final zoning approval including the sub- mission of an adequate landscape plan. The proponents have also deleted the northerly driveway on York Avenue as requested. Therefore, staff recommends final plan approval with the following conditions: 1. Completion of final platting of the subject property. 2. Completion of suitable agreements among the proponent, the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and the City of Edina regarding the property's development for low and moderate income family housing pursuant to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan. Staff recommends preliminary plat approval with the following conditions: 1. Parkland dedication per the attached report. GLH:nr 12-30-77 Subdivision No. --22 SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME: LAND SIZE: O LAND VALUE: 30y.D?1Z� AG` 3e 3a ) (By: �- Date The developer of this subdivision has been required to A. grant an easement over part of the land ElB. dedicate % of the land C. donate W5,0M.Co as a fee in lieu of land As a result of applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) 11 1'. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. II 2. If property is 6 acres or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. E3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. U 04. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. 5. If the property is a place of .significant natural, scenic or his- toric value. 6• n B. Cash Required 1. In all other instances than above. �2. rC A71Q1"�T zoning REQUEST NUMBER: Z-78-1 N. of Dewey Hill Rd. & W. W. LOCATION: Lewis Park, & W. of Cahill Rd. REQUEST: R-1 to PRD -3 and a 120 - unit apartment proposal. yjllr± r �►1^nre n'L the �rtrstyrt Fill -sr, of 4.4 inn W- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPQRT January 4, 1978 Z-78-1 Madsen Property (Cahill Road Condominiums) R-1 Single Family Residence to PRD -3 Planned Residential District Refer to: Attached graphics and Council minutes The subject property is an 11.78 acre parcel located north of William Wardwell Leais Park and south of Braemar Oaks Apartments. The proponents are requesting a rezoning to PRD -3 to facilitate the construc- tion of two 60 -unit condominium buildings. Each building is proposed to be three stories in height. The subject property presently does not have frontage on any public street. However, according to the Southwest Edina Plan (see attached graphic), Amundson Avenue is proposed to traverse the western portion of the property. The City has retained right-of-way across the property for this roadway. Pending the construction of Amundson Avenue (which may or may not. occur), access to the subject property is provided to Cahill R --ad by way of a 60 -foot wide temporary roadway easement. The Southwest Edina Plan also indicates that the section of the subject property lying west of Amundson Avenue should be dedicated for park purposes. This dedication would complete a "buffer strip" extending from Cahill School to Dewey Hill Road. Approximately two years ago, the City Council adopted a density reduction formula for multi -family dwellings in the "plan" areas of the city. According to the Southwest Edina Plan, the subject property is allowed a maximum of 12 units per acre. However, using the density reduction for- mula, staff has preliminarily determined that the subject property is allowed slightly over 6 units per acre, or about 60 units total. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the preliminary development plans in that: 1. The proposal does not conform to the Southwest Edina Plan in regard to Amundson Avenue and parklands lying west of Amundson Avenue. 2. The proposal does not conform to the report of the Open Space Commit- tee. 3. The proposal does not conform to the density reduction plan dated August 4, 1977. 4. The proposal indicates development on roadway easements for Amundson Avenue presently held by the City of Edina. GL11: nr 250 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 12, 1977 Answering rollcall were members Richards, Schmidt, Shaw and Courtney who served as Mayor Pro Tem in the absence of Mayor Van Valkenburg. MINUTES of August 15, 1977, were approved as submitted by motion of Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Motion carried. EDINA WOMEN'S SOFTBALL TEAM CONGRATULATED. Councilman Shaw offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS WHEREAS, during the 1977 Edina Adult Slo-Pitch Softball Season, sixteen young - ladies of an Edina Women's Softball Team, sponsored by Country Club Markets, under the able direction of Coach Larry Kallin, have continued to exemplify the highest goals of good sportsmanship and outstanding proficiency; and WHEREAS, the team efforts have been rewarded by winning the Edina Women's play- offs championship and by being the first Edina Women's Softball Team to win the AA Women's Recreational State Tournament; and WHEREAS, during this past softball season, these young ladies have represented Edina in the highest manner; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council that the outstanding accomplishments of the Country Club Markets Softball Team deserve the sincere gratitude of the citizenry of Edina for the exemplary manner in which the team has conducted itself and for the great credit the team has brought to the commun- ity; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that appropriate conies of this resolution be presented to Jennifer Aanestad, Marcy Amble, Patty Bergren, Gail Berkley, Sue Berstein, Jackie. Burger, Leigh Ann Clemmer, Kitty Cress, Kris Duryea, Sue Griebenow, Sue Huff, Christi Hulse, Finny Johnston, Karen Oelschlaeger, Susan Pudvan, Cassie Spokes, and to Coach Larry Kallin. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt and unanimously carried. 1978 CITY BUDGET PRESENTED. Mr. Hyde presented the 1978 Budget, reflecting a mil rate increase from 8.4 to 10.0. He advised that this mil rate is low in compari- son with other municipalities and listed the causes for the increase as a continued growth in population, additional miles of streets and sidewalks to be maintained, new public facilities requiring servicing and ever increasing costs for services and supplies. Councilman Richards' motion setting a special .budet meeting for September 15, 1977, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room was seconded by Councilman Shaw. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Motion carried. IHPROMfENTS NOS. P -C-124, P -BA -226, P -BA -227 ABANDONED; LAND ACQUISITION -0NLY AUTHORIZED FOR P -C-126. Mr. Hyde recalled that public hearings on the following improvements had been continued from August 1, 1977, so that rhe City Attorney could determine if Grading and Graveling Improvement No. P -C=126 can be reduced to land acquisition for possible future road right-of-way and whether the cost of the land acquisition can then be included in a future improvement project for the con- struction of the road. Public hearings were then conducted on the following improvements and action taken as hereinafter recorded. A. GRADING AND GRAVELING I1TI ROVEMENT NO. P -C-124 IN THE FOLLOWING: Amundson Avenue from Cahill Road to Dewey Hill Road B. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -226 IN THE FOLLOWING: Y Amundson Avenue from Cahill Road to Dewey Hill Road C. GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. P -C-126 IN THE FOLLOWING: Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill Road to W. 78th Street D. PLRMANENT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE CURB AND CUTTER IMPROVEMENT P -BA -227 City Attorney Erickson advised that the City has statutory authority to acquire such land as is reasonably needed, or may be reasonably needed for future road right-of-way for Improvement P -C-126 and that the cost of the land acquisition may be assessed as a part of the cost of the later road improvement. If the road is actually constructed' at a future date. a further public hearing will be required for the later road improvement. Mr. Erickson clarified that, should the City acquire the land and decide subsequently that the road is not to be built, the property may be disposed of if no longer needed for any public purpose. `l/1Z/11 251 Mr. Erickson also opined that "should the Council authorize the land acquisition portion of the project, and thereafter, in the process of acquiring the property by eminent domain, should that method become necessary, should the Council decide to abandon the project, it may do so, unilaterally, provided it does so prior to the expiration of the time for appeal from the award of the commissioners, and provided it has not theretofore taken possession of the property, and provided , further that the City itself has not filed an appeal from any commissioners' award. Should it dismiss subsequent to the initiation of the condemnation pro- ceedings, the City will, in any event, be liable for reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the landowner." Council's attention was also called to a memorandum from Mr. Gordon Hughes which concluded that 1) The concepts and design for Amundson/Delaney Road as contained in the Southwest Edina Plan and the County Road 18/Valley View Road Report continue to ` be valid; 2) Projected traffic volumes for Gleason Road without improvements to " the roadway system will be excessive and unacceptable;. 3) Construction of the proposed Amundson/Delaney system will alleviate anticipated excessive traffic volumes on Gleason Road; 4) Major residential development West of Cahill Road apparently will precede full development of the industrial area; traffic circu- lation patterns for such residential development will rely to a great extent on Amundson/Delaney Road; 5) The Cahill Road cul-de-sac is an essential element of the proposed roadway system; however, construction of the cul-de-sac may not be essential for several years. Mr. Hughes recommended that 1) The Southwest Edina Q Plan should not be amended and should retain the proposed roadway system; 2) Amundson/Delaney Road should be constructed as development pressures warrant and should be constructed in conjunction with residential development West of Cahill V Road; 3) The Cahill Road cul-de-sac should remain as part of the roadway system, Q but need not be implemented until warranted. Mr. Dunn said that he concurred with Q Mr. Hughes recommendations but clarified that the improvements could not be con- structed until construction of T.H. 100 is complete. He expressed concern that people inquiring about the area be told that the proposed road is a "plan" only and that the road may actually never be built. Mr. Hyde suggested that Improve- ments Nos. P -C-124, P -BA -226 and P -BA -227 be abandoned at this time and that i only the land acquisition be authorized for Improvement No. C-126 at this time. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Burns of Dewey Hill Road both spoke in support of the South- west Edina Plan and the road patterns proposed, contending that residento had pur- chased property in reliance on the Plan. Mrs. Burns recalled that the Plan had been stressed in the court case brought against the City for its denial for R-5 zoning proposed for the earner of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road. She suggested that residents on Lanham Lane and Fleetwood Drive opposed the construction 'of the proposed road only because it would spoil their view. An unidentified gentle- man who lives on Dewey Hill Road said -that Council should not only consider future property owners, but should also consider present property owners who bought their property in reliance on the Plan. Councilman Richards denied that he had ever advocated changing the Southwest Edina Plan. He spoke of his feeling that it is important to put people on notice that the road may never be built inasmuch as conditions are different now than in 1971 when the Plan was adopted.He said that he could not justify spending money on building a road which may only alleviate a small percentage of thru traffic. Councilman Shaw then moved that Improvements Nos. P -C-124, P -BA -226 and P -BA -227 be abandoned at this time. The motion was • seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Motion carried. Councilman Shaw offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. C-126 AS TO ACOUISITIOY OF LA::D ONLY BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement: CONSTRUCTION OF GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. P-126 IN THE FOLLOWING: i Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill Road to W. 78th Street and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts does hereby determine to proceed with the acquisi- tion of road right-of-way only at this time and that the City proceed to use every reasonable effort to procure the property described as follows: Outlot i, Heath Glen by negotiation and through purchase, if possible, and under the City's right of eminent domain, if necessary, and that the City staff and Attorney be instructed and directed to use every reasonable effort to procure the above property by negotiation and direct purchase, but, if not successful, to file the necessary petition in eminent domain to acquire such property and prosecute such action to 9/12/77 252 a successful conclusion until abandoned. dismissed, or terminated by the City or the Court; that the City staff and Attorney and the Mayor, Mina"ur and Clerk d 'o all things necessary to be done in the acquisition of said property by negotiation and purchase and, if necessary, by eminent domain. that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT N0. C-126 and the area proposed to be specially assessed therefor shall include areas sub- sequently determined by the City Council to be benefited by the construction of a road over and across the land to be acquired for such road pursuant to the fore- going resolution, which assessment may include the cost of the land acquisition and the cost of constructing the road. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Rollcall: Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Resolution adopted. Councilman Richards then moved that there be no amendment to the Southwest Edina Plan at this time, but that the staff be instructed to advise all interested property owners, prospective property owners and the general public that the South- west Edina Plan continues to include Amundson/Delaney Road, but that this road may or may not be constructed at a later date, and, further, that the Cahill Road cul-de-sac may not become a reality. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Resolution adopted. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED FOR VARIOUS IYfPROVF_iEN—J.S. Mr. Hyde recalled that Special Assessment Hearings for Street Improvements Nos. BA -202, BA -206, BA -208, BA -212, BA -215, BA -216 and Watermain Improvement No. WM-270 had been continued from August 15, 1977, because legal notices had not been published in time to give the thirty day notice now required by law. Hearings were then conducted as fol- lows A. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -202 IN THE FOLLOWING: Dovre Drive from Parkwood Lane to Lincoln Drive Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost of $100,987.65, proposed to be assessed against 617.61 assessable feet at $21.00 per foot (for Nine Mile North 2nd Addition only) and against 408 assessable build- ing sites at $215.73 per site, against estimated assessment of $25.00 per assess- able foot for Nine Mile North 2nd Addition and $260.00 per assessable building site. No objections were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes.) B. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -206 IN THE FOLLOWING: Parkwood Lane from Londonderry Road to North line of Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition Dovre Drive from East tine of Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition to West line of Parkwood Knolls Addition Field Way from East line of Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition to Parkwood Lane Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost of $39,945.24, proposed to be assessed against 36 assessable lots at $1,109.59 per lot, against estimated assessment of $1,517.12 per assessable lot. No objections were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Ordering Aspessment later in Minutes.) C. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -208 IN THE FOLLOWING: Lanham Lane from South line of M.P. Johnson's Prospect Hills 3rd Addition to Fleetwood Drive Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at $22,668.39, proposed to be assessed against 18 1/3 assessable lots at $1,236.48 per lot, against estimated assessment of $1,407.95 per lot. No objections were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Ordering Assess- ment later in Minutes.) D. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -212 IN THE FOLLOWING: Dale Avenue from W. 56th Street to W. 57th Street Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at $9,779.06, proposed to be assessed against 1,058.34 assessable feet at $9.24 per foot against estimated assessment of $21.48 per assessable foot. No object- ions were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Order- ing Assessment later in Minutes.) E. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -215 IN THE FOLLOWING: McCauley Terrace from McCauley Trail East to cul-de-sac Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at $8,430.58, proposed to be assessed against 574.29 assessable feet at $14.68 per foot against estimated assessment of $19.43 per assessable foot. No objections I . TI I IVtAP 7-- 47 IA" ol z N11 N NORTH subdivision REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-1 LOCATION:S- of Interlachen Blvd., N. of Parkwood Rd., W. of Schaefer$ & E. of REQUEST: Lincoln. 0 250 50) 750 1000 Approximately 50 R-1 lots. villmar Plaimins departici z,nt Villp-my. C of edi—na fi l5• r. R K P E N ;:7 7-- 47 IA" ol z N11 N NORTH subdivision REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-1 LOCATION:S- of Interlachen Blvd., N. of Parkwood Rd., W. of Schaefer$ & E. of REQUEST: Lincoln. 0 250 50) 750 1000 Approximately 50 R-1 lots. villmar Plaimins departici z,nt Villp-my. C of edi—na fi l5• r. R K P E N 7-- 47 IA" ol z N11 N NORTH subdivision REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-1 LOCATION:S- of Interlachen Blvd., N. of Parkwood Rd., W. of Schaefer$ & E. of REQUEST: Lincoln. 0 250 50) 750 1000 Approximately 50 R-1 lots. villmar Plaimins departici z,nt Villp-my. C of edi—na PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 4, 1978 S-78-1 Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. Refer to: attached graphic, exerpts from Western Edina Circulation Plan, Council minutes. The subject property is a 102 acre tract of land located in the northwestern part of the city. This property is the last remaining tract of vacant land remaining in this section of the city. The proponents have submitted a proposed development plan for the entire 102 acre parcel. However, only the southeastern 23 acres are proposed for immediate development. For procedural purposes, staff recommends that the development plans for the entire 102 acre tract be considered as a prelimi- nary plat. If this preliminary plat is approved, then the proponents would return with a final plat for only the 23 acre tract which would be called Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. The entire preliminary plat proposed 176 single family lots. These lots are generally in the 16,000-21,000 square foot range. These lots are generally similar in size to other Parkwood Knolls lots to the south and west of the subject property but considerably smaller than lots located to the east. ,Existing ponds and low areas on the subject property are proposed to be used as storm water holding ponds. of the 176 total lots, 47 lots are proposed for inclusion in Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. The preliminary plat proposed to extend several roads to serve the subject property. Among these are Willow Wood Road, Larada Road, Larada Lane, Ridge Road, Malibu Drive, and Interlachen Boulevard. In regard to Interlachen Boulevard, the plat does not propose to extend this road on a straight align- ment directly to County Road 18. Rather, a circuitous arrangement is proposed to discourage excessive through traffic. Traffic Considerations Traffic circulation is of primary concern in the northwestern section of the city. In 1974, a citizens' committee, the Western Edina Task Force, together with a traffic consulting firm,prepared the "Western Edina Circulation Plan." This committee analyzed existing traffic patterns and perceived traffic excesses in the western Edina area and the recommended various alter- natives to alleviate present and future traffic problems. The committee identified four "issue areas" in the western Edina area which required roadway improvements. The subject property is located in "issue area 4" of the com- mittee's plan. Planning Commission Staff Report Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition Page 2 January 4, 1978 Attached are exerpts from the Western Edina Circulation Plan which deal,with issue area 4. As shown, three general roadway alternatives were analyzed for issue area 4. The committee and its consultant recommended a plan whereby Malibu Drive was extended northerly to the County Road 18 interchange, Ridge Road was extended to serve the subject property as were Willow Wood Road and Larada Lane. The committee and the consultant also recommended the cul- de-sacing of Interlachen Boulevard. Following completion of the Western Edina Circulation Plan, the Council held numerous hearings regarding the plan's adoption. On July 1, 1974, the Council tabled consideration of circulation patterns for issue area 4 until a develop- ment proposal was submitted for the northwest Edina area. It was also stated that when such a plan was submitted, it should include some access to the north at the Maloney Avenue -County Road 18 interchange. Parkland Dedication As part of previous Parkwood Knolls subdivisions, the proponents and the City have entered into agreements whereby parkland dedication was deferred until the City determined the location of a park in northwestern Edina. Recently, the City acquired a large tract of land for parks north of the subject property. Therefore, the proponents are suggesting that the accrued parkland dedication from previous Parkwood Knolls subdivisions together with the parkland dedica- tion from the subject property be located adjacent to the recently acquired City property. Staff has computed that the accrued parkland dedication plus a 5 percent dedication for the subject property would total 6.8 acres. The proponents are proposing a 5.65 acre uedication. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat in that: 1. The proposal conforms with the Western Edina Land Use Plan. 2. The proposal conforms with the Western Edina Circulation Plan with the exception of the extension of Interlachen Boulevard. 3. Lot sizes are generally compatible with surrounding properties. 4. The proposed extensions of streets to serve the subject property are war- ranted and provide for the maximum dispersal of traffic generated from the subject property as well as existing developments. 5. Low areas are appropriately used as storm water holding areas. 6. Adequate access has been provided to Outlot B of Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. Planning Commission Staff Report Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition Page 3 January 4, 1977 7. Dedication of parkland adjacent to existing City property is desirable. In regard to Interlachen Boulevard, it again must be stated that the Western Edina Circulation Plan did not recommend extension of this street. However, it should be noted that the Western Edina Task Force considered only one possible alignment of Interlachen Boulevard extended; that alignment being the straight westerly extension of Interlachen Boulevard. The task force was thus concerned that such an extension would turn'Interlachen Boulevard into a higher traffic volume collection street. Staff believes, however, that the circuitous alignment proposed by the preliminary plat would discourage excessive through traffic and would improve the dispersal of traffic generated from the subject property. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions and modifications: 1. Malibu. Drive must be extended to the County Road 18 interchange immediately as part of final approval for Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. 2. The proposed parkland dedication for the entire preliminary plat must be made immediately. The Park Board should be advised that the proponents are indicating a dedication of 1.15 acres less than required. Thus, either an additional 1.15 acres should be dedicated or cash in lieu of such an acreage should be required. 3. _The name of Larada Lane should .be changed to avoid confusion with Larada Road. 4. The property lines of lots located west of Malibu Drive extended should be re -aligned slightly to correspond with the existing R-2 zoning of the southernmost lot. 5. In conjunction with the extension of Malibu Drive, a grading plan for the entire property should be prepared. :b. An executed developer's agreement which includes public improvements to Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition as well as Malibu Drive. GLH:nr 12-30-77 Subdivision No,..o— / — SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department k/1^11C n1SUBDIVISION NAME: r - y , LAND SIZE: o i(Z� LAND VALUE: (BY: Date: ) The developer of this subdivision has been required to A. grant an easement over part of the land B. dedicate % of the land C. donate $ as a fee in lieu of land As a result of -applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. 2. If property is 6 acres or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. 3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 4. If property is necessary for storm water holing or will be dredged or -otherwise improved -for storm water holding areas or ponds. 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his- toric value. 6. B. Cash Required 1. In all other instances than above. �2. .rrr`..w{ as .>_r.r - { 0. :-.s t.!• _ _ 14 i y.� .. ii F'p'• Cir ` ` f -� t -i Z It � � '� �: � �.. _._ ter' ;r^:. ,� • �2 ? s -� I 1_ �+[•r.twD T rf «4ics.--i.s r r e 177. !NTERLACHEN COUNTRY --1. 'ate ,9 AAir W614LAN04- � �F-r� PARK rL LLJ —551 iT re f .��` �3 it`;,_- _c . i.i .St•,•i R•6. .:�--1 /\' :r _ '�j{��." { �({ � _ �L _ �4.\\Y.•�� �-+r..�__�. + k•V � Yf IV' •aL tiL C L _ y_ `-+•� \` Y ��'.` �. _ _ - -_ —"-J�-.....'ice v',._ 1�., � VY __ r `SK: •r _ rim ` I i-`�..'.- `�.� !.. -. � .+JL alias a. _`1. — t •y I - " V-7 , V' \ r1� � r �.I - 3`"``'�' ,.y "'. r -.,_ S ,.. l '\J _ • . /f/ j • � "�.�: " \\ DARK . •� • • � f j r r t_.. rw` _ -_ _�' r ^4s� - - r G ,ir '' (.I �+ ^'_j r -- rA •�r1►u {: 1 6 AKK- Jo -� L .: n � O !;RANO t _ j v.Ew � �. i .. PARR W Tf4 CEMETERY t r+ ' W ERVAN VE owl t \/ t ' , W _ i HAROLD WOODS u TRAIL Y W Issue Area 4 The traffic issue within Area 4 is how should Interlachen Blvd. and Ridge Road relate the street system that will service the Issue Area and relate to the proposed interchange at County Road 18. The alternative street plans to resolve the issue include (Figure 12): ,. Alternative 1: extend Interlachen Blvd. to County Road 18 and to develop the street system with connections to Interlachen, Malibu, Ridge Road, Larada Lane and pillow Wood. Alternative 2: cu.l-de-sac Interlachen Blvd. and develop the street system with connections to the same streets as in Alternative 1. Alternative 3: cul-de-sac Interlachen Blvd. and Ridge Road and develop the street system with connection to the same sheets as in Alternutive l except "iuge Road. The full development of the single family. residential land in the Issue Area is expected to generate an additional 3900.trips per day. The street system developed for the Issue Area will have to support these trips. If Interlachen were open to County Road 18, it is estimated that 40% of the additional trips or 1560 vehicles per day would travel to the east. 23 I ISSUE AREA 4 Alternative 1 Strengths Alternative 1 Weaknesses • maximum residential accessibility. transforming a local street, Interlachen, in • best emergency vehicle access. to a collector. negative traffic volume and land use impact on homes along Interlachen. Alternative 2 Stren the Alternative 2 weaknesses increases residential accessibility. . increases emergency vehicle access. good local/collector street relationship. ni6C1i1c tIYE 3 St engths Alter na ave v :+_:c.i�ilt^sT2s minimum increase in resi- dential accessibility to the east.. negative traffic volume impact to the south and east. The evaluation of 'the above alternatives led to the selection of Alternative 2 as best meeting the evaluation criteria. 33 WIS VAP I`. Pr*f n"T-11 Vf` -T vi rNI W; AND F --10t :-D ?%1T1* ' -Al 1 0 W; J,--CU14A "A�pukLf . '.LNY:> X.1 PILQUWL6, C) , -1/ INTER, -AC HEV 9 L% ID cr 4 oil C' C) CUL-DE-SAC L 9 K7, CLOS -ROA-O' ..--- RIGHT ----RIGFff TURN ADD C ILLAC UNK�- ct L-� I CUL-DE-SAC CA T= © La C31 . FIGURE 14 RECOMMENDED C. RiCULATION PLAN OF TASK FORCE MAJORITY VACATE %KE Mirror ?7 rE Tale 1.,r1.pl IS FM t,,-TitD` F-O;TPLANNING 4 R'lAWD5E_S ANO '; inti' -D "T f;' SCALED WHERE ACCL i,[L 'e..GASUrt�MitN7S ciQUtRED iTj- is�0 E E..a a.1.9 1 1 11JERIACHEw P1 i Qovv CUL-DE-SAC Mirror L akB E s a cr 1. 1l e ®o r= U , l _ L_ CUL�DSAC :Dt 13 J 0:) �C s W 1 ✓^1 z .Ct/VIVIIVILIVv1...E.J CIRCULATION PLAN OF CONSULTANT ND SLIGHT MINORII OF TASK FORCE MINUTES OF TILE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL ON MONDAY JULY 1, 1974 ' Answering rollcall were Council members Courtney, Johnson, Schmidt, Shaw and j Mayor Van Valkenburg. MINUTES of June 3, 1974, were approved as presented by motion of Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried. ISSUE AREA 2 CONTINUED• ISSUE AREA 4 OF WESTERN EDINA TRAFFIC TASK FORCE TABLED UNTIL FbaTLI_ PLITTL'D. 1 i Issue Area 4 - Mr. Dunn recalled that at the meeting of June 3, 1974, Issue Area 4 had been continued to this meeting to give residents 'an opportunity to study the matter further. Mr. Jack Liebenberg, 5112 Ridge Road, said that he repre- sented twenty-four property owners on Ridge Road and Interiachen Blvd., and that his group does not feel that decisions made on any of the other Issue Areas in Western Edina have any impact or effect on Issue Area 4. He said that he had talked with Messrs. Carl and Harvey Hansen, the major property owners of the undeveloped property in the area, and that they had no definite plans or plats to submit for final development at the present time and that it might be several years before they are ready to do so. As requested by Mr. Liebenberg, Councilman Johnson's motion was then seconded by Councilman Courtney to table ;.. consideration of the traffic circulation pattern for Issue Area 4, with the Q understanding that when and if Mr. Hansen comes in with overall development 00 plans for the property that he owns, that the plat should include some access _ p to the North at the•Maloney Avenue interchange. On rollcall there were five Gz3 w ayes and no nays and the motion was carried. Area 2 - Mr. Dunn recalled that at the meeting of June 3, 1974, the City Issue Attorney had been directed to render an opinion as to whether the City could legally construct a road connecting Walnut Drive and Londonderry Road as pro- posed in Alternative l and as to whether the City could legally build a road across existing park land to connect Londonderry Drive with Gleason Road as proposed in Alternative 5. Mr. Erickson had also been requested to determine whether or not a road has already been established from Walnut Drive to London- derry Road over and across Nine Mile Creek. Mr. -Erickson summarized his opinion on the road between Walnut Drive and Londonderry Road by stating that if the { Council believes that it is now in the best interest of the City to open the 1 road, it should not do so without first obtaining a deciatory judgment that the road exists or that the property across Nine Mile Creek was conveyed to the City free of any implied restriction that it be used for park purposes. He said that if the Council believes the road should not now be opened, it is recommended that no action now be taken either to vacate or abandon the road and that the City can best retain its future options relative to this'connect- ion by taking no such action at this time. Mr. Erickson summarized his opinion as to whether or not the City could build a road across existing park land to connect Londonderry Drive with Gleason Road by saying that it would t appear that the City cannot legally construct that portion of the road which would run through the park unless approval would be granted by the Secretary of HUD and unless the deed from the Minnesota Conference of the United Church of Christ, whereby a part of the road area was conveyed to Edina, could be changed to allow such use. In reply to questions of Mr. Lloyd Cherne, 5704 View Lane, Mr. Erickson listed the following three conditions under which the conversion of HUD lands could be used for public roads: 1. The conversion is essential to the orderly development and growth of the area involved; 2. The conversion is in accord with the comprehensively planned development of the urban area; and 3. The open -space land is being or will be replaced without cost to the Federal Government by other open space land or at least equal fair market value at the time of conversion and of nearly as feasible equivalent usefulness and location. Mr. Erickson clarified that a more serious problem was that the land between �_. j Londonderry Road and the HUD parcels had been dedicated for park purposes by the Minnesota Conference of the United Church of Christ, which property the City has uo authority under the law to divert. Mr. Cherne suggested that the property could be deeded back to the church and then use condemnation through eminent domain for the road. Mr. Erickson told Mr. Cherne that specific legislative authority would be necessary for such action. Mr._ Cherne then suggested that if the land could be given back to the church, the road built and assessed against the church, that the church would be probably '.'more than glad" to; give the pro- perty back to the City for ;oad purposes. He -also suggested that the City could do an environmental study to satisfy -NEPA and that the Council could declare a moratorium on any additional building in the area. Mr. Cherne added that this 182 7/1/74 i road woule be needed for a collector road if Carl Hansen is to continue to develop ' his property. Mr. William D. Stickel, 5900 Tamarac Lana., said. that his property j abuts the park and reminded Council that on June 3, 1974, 871% of the home owners had j indicated that they would not want the road through the park. Councilman Johnson then moved, based on the attorney's opinion, that Alternative 1, the construction of a road connecting Walnut Drive and Londonderry Road, be tabled. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt and on rollcall there were five ayes and no nays and the motion carried. Mr. Hyde then recalled that the Park Board and the Envir- onmental Quality Commission had both recommended against Alternative 5 under which the City would build a road across existing park land to connect Londonderry Drive with Gleason Road. Councilman Courtney's motion was then seconded by Councilman Johnson that Alternative 5 of Issue Area 2 be tabled for further study. On roll- ;p j call there were five ayes and no nays and the motion carried. Council's attention) was then called to a letter signed by the owners of seven properties requesting placement of STOP signs at the intersection of Continental Drive and Stauder Circle and at the blind corner across from 6508 Stauder Circle. Dr. Lloyd Pear- son, 5700 View Lane, requested specific action for Issue Area 2. He said that it would soon be three years since neighbors presented their petition for traffic relief and that before long there would be 4,500 trips per day at the intersection of View Lane and Schaefer Road. He objected that the trial blockade at Schaefer Road and South Knoll Drive which were supposed to permit right turns only going South on Schaefer Road had been improperly placed so that drivers could go around the blockade. He also contended that the blockades were not left up long enough to obtain sufficient information on traffic patterns. With the aid of the view - graph, Dr. Pearson made the following suggestions: 1. Installation of the blockade at Londonderry Road and Stauder Circle should be on the East side of the intersection to permit access to the park but prevent access to the East. 2. Installation of the blockade at Schaefer Road and South Knoll Drive should be moved to the middle of the -block of Schaefer Road between South Knoll Drive and Stauder Circle. 3. Reinstall the blockade at South Knoll Drive and View Lane. Following considerable discussion, Councilman Courtney amended his motion to the effect that the suggestions of Dr. Pearson also be referred to the Traffic Safety Committee -and that Mr. Wolsfeld work with the Committee. The motion also called for continuing the matter to July 15, 1974. Councilman Courtney's amended motion was seconded by Councilman Johnson and on rollcall there were five ayes and no nays and the motion carried. Mr. Wolsfeld suggested that the blockades -be set up one at a time to obtain the effect of each individual blockade. Mr. Erickson, said that he would have an opinion before the next Traffic Safety Committee Meet- ing as to the legality of closing the streets. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT ST.S-139 APPROVED. Mr. Dunn recalled that at the meeting of June 3, 1974, Storm Sewer Improvement ST.S-139 proposed to be constructed in Gleason Road from Dewey Hill Road to approximately 900 feet South of the South line of Hyde Park Drive had been continued to work out details with the developers of Hyde Park 2nd Addition. He said that the details had not been completely final- ized as yet but recommended approval in view of the fact that no objections were heard at this meeting. Councilman Johnson thereupon offered the following resolu- tion and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING STORM SEXIER IMPROVEMENT ST.S-139 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement: 1. CONSTRUCTION OF CITY STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. ST.S-139 IN THE FOLLOWING: .Gleason Road from Dewey Hill Road to approximately 900 feet South of the South line of Hyde Park Drive and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts does hereby determine to proceed with the construe- F tion.of said improvement as described in Notice of Public Hearing and including all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for construction and maintenance of such improve- ment; that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. ST.S-139; and the area to be specially assessed therefor shall include all lots and tracts of land within the following described boundaries: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Outlot "D" Hyde Park Addition; thence Sly and SEly along the West line of Gleason Road to the most Nly corner of Outlot "C" Hyde Park Addition; thence Sally •r- SNMEY GLOTTER i ASSOCIATES NCORPORATED Architects Engnerss O PTamers . 1021 LaSalle Avenue Mimendks mmOsota 55403 16121332 1401 i December 29, 1977 I Mr. Gordon Hughes Director of Planning 1 City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition Dear Mr. Hughes: I understand there will be a hearing concerning the above referenced proposed addition on January 4, 1978. Unfortunately, I will be out of town and unable to attend; so I am writing you expressing my opposition to a portion of the proposed addition and asking that my opposition be recorded in the minutes of that meeting. Specifically I am opposed to the extension of Ridge Road into the new addition. The plat submitted by Mr. Hansen does not indicate Ridge Road extended and I understand from your planner, Mr. Harold Sand that your department. has initiated this modification to Mr. t Hansen's submittal. Mr. Sand enumerated many planning principles why the extension of Ridge Road should be made and in my mind pushed aside reasons that it should not be made. If Ridge Road were opened it would increase traffic considerably on j a road that is too narrow for any increased traffic load. Traffic speeds would naturally increase and this concerns me greatly as a father. The next obvious solution in the eyes of your planners would rbe to widen the road. Now insensitive, to asthetically destroy the charm and character of a country road and enviornmentally harm the ! area by taking out the beautiful trees and scrubs that now line the ` road. I ask you to reconsider this recommendation by your department in light of safety, asthetics, enviornment, cost and the wishes of the residences of Ridge Road. There are other segments of the project I wish to comment on but brevity prevents me from doing so in this letter. I hope to have a I� chance to comment in future meetings on this subject. I Sincerely, W.R. Nordgren, AI , Residence: 5016 Ridge Road s WRN/bw cc: Jack Liehenherg 1,OCA"'T"ON subdivision REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-2 — LOCATION: S. of W. 66th & W. of M4 100 REQUEST: Two R-1 lots, NORTH 600, O 250 5(X) 750 1000 ,V P I I= Villnge plalln;nz drortinent e of efli PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 4, 1978 S-78-2 Loegering Property. Refer to: Attached graphics The proponent is requesting a two lot subdivision of a 60,000 square foot parcel of property located on 66th Street west of Highway 100. An existing house is located on Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. Lot 2, which measures 40,200 square feet, would gain access to 66th Street by way of a 30 foot wide neck lot. The subject property is surrounded by several other large parcels which range in size from 60,000 square feet to 130,500 square feet. Nearly all of these parcels are developed with one single family dwelling. Due to the configuration of these lots, staff believes that it would be undesirable to further develop each lot independently. Thus, in past years, staff has encouraged property owners in this area to develop their property in a unified manner. Several conceptual plans are attached which were used in past years to illustrate some developmental alternatives to property owners. Recommendation: Staff is very concerned with the undesirable precedent which would be established by allowing a neck lot as proposed by the subject subdivision. Staff believes that if such a division were allowed, it is very possible that the remaining properties in this area would also propose similar subdivisions of the rear portions of their lots which would gain access via neck lots. We have also received numerous requests from other areas of the City (e.g. Grove Street - Benton Street area) for similar neck lot subdivisions. Staff has several concerns regarding neck lots. First, such lots can create a public safety problem due to the potential inability of emergency vehicles to reach structures located on such lots. Unusually long driveways which may be underdesigned and/or poorly maintained cause such problems. Also, a home security problem can arise in that structures on such lots are often not visible from public roads. Secondly, neck lot subdivisions result in a rather piecemeal approach to the overall planning and development of an area. The creation of such lots can also prohibit the orderly and logical development of surrounding properties. Planning Commission Staff Report Loegering Property Page 2 January 4, 1978 Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested subdivision in that: 1) approval of the subdivision would establish an undesirable precedent regarding neck lots. 2) the proposed subdivision is unsuitable from the standpoint of community planning based upon the above stated reasons. 3) access to Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision is inadequate. GLH:ks 12/28/77 Subdivision No - !J /CJ� 4 SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT 70: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME: ,.CQ� r' Y lQ ) olod 1 V 15` 6 v v L LAND SIZE: 46)060sfS�" = 3 C[G Z �CT� LAND VALUE : —+fir UG O • (By Date: �! ) The developer. of this subdivision has been required to i I A. grant an easement over, part of the land B. dedicate of the land C, donate $ as a fee in lieu of land As a result of applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) n 1'. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. II 2. If property is 6 scrt::s or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. 03. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. j—j4. If property is necessary for storm water holing or will be dredged Uor otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. j"-'7 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his- toric value. 6. B. B. Cash Required I. In all other instances than above. i.- 2 ..10`'Jr7 Loc-9erir�c Dwr��r - Oedelowe�-' Edihcr �"Iir�r�eSofcc. s�4-35 LEGAL DEC e1PT/o^/ That part of Government Lot 3 in Section 4, Township 116., Mange 21, described as fello.,,•s :.- Beginning at a point 30 feet South of the 'North line and 717^71 feet :'lest of the East line of said Government Lot- 3, thence Jest parallel with the North line of said Government Lot 3 a distance of 150 ,feet; thence South earal:t with the East line of said Lot 3 a distance of 400 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of Government Lot 3 a distance of 150 feet; thence North *parallel with the Last lire of said Lot a distance of 400 feet to the point of beginning. LoGATI owl �" IA P C..RD��RLLE L A N D 6440 Flying Cloud Drive. Eden Prairie c°4 ASSOCIATES, INC. S U R V E Y O R S Minnesota, 55343 Phone 612-941-3030 Scale Revisions Drawn By Date Date G_= 'G /? /977 Dr'n ' ''_ G:;'u G Job No.< . — — Book Page ..10`'Jr7 Loc-9erir�c Dwr��r - Oedelowe�-' Edihcr �"Iir�r�eSofcc. s�4-35 LEGAL DEC e1PT/o^/ That part of Government Lot 3 in Section 4, Township 116., Mange 21, described as fello.,,•s :.- Beginning at a point 30 feet South of the 'North line and 717^71 feet :'lest of the East line of said Government Lot- 3, thence Jest parallel with the North line of said Government Lot 3 a distance of 150 ,feet; thence South earal:t with the East line of said Lot 3 a distance of 400 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of Government Lot 3 a distance of 150 feet; thence North *parallel with the Last lire of said Lot a distance of 400 feet to the point of beginning. LoGATI owl �" IA P No�TH APEL HSL GA110NAL cya 4ULLry �T�RMEsr SSVIEw ---- ERAN CliURCH -..-BRE. FS E N. PA PARK.' C '.1. - • �'�-_ - subdivision REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-3 LOCATION: N. of Xtown & W. of Gleason REQUEST: Two R-1 lots. Ylun,jr I?-pimit►g depi- rtmr•n( Vilingr. of riling PLANNING COMMISSION. STAFF REPORT January 4, 1978 S-78-3 Killarney Shores 2nd Addition. Refer to: Attached graphics The proponent is requesting a two -lot subdivision of Outlot B of Kil- larney Shores. Each of the two newly created lots would measure over 19,000 square feet and would gain access to Gleason Road. Killarney Shores was platted in 1968. The preliminary plat which was submitted at that time showed three single family lots located on the subject -property. However, these three lots were deleted and designated as "Outlot L" at the time of final plat ap- proval. Staff has been unable to ascertain the reason, if any, for the designation of this area as an outlot at the time of final approval in 1968. Due to the very steep grades of the subject property together with the configuration and traffic volumes of Gleason Road (which is a county road), staff is concerned with potential traffic hazards associ- ated with dwellings in this location. Recommendation: In that Hennepin County controls all curb cuts and access from Gleason Road, staff recommends that the proposed subdivision be continued for one month to allow the County to review the plans and determine if the driveway curb cuts to serve these lots will be allowed. GLH:nr 12-29-77 _ J-06ATION 'MAP IN s., I: 1 ,9 AD VIK NG = HIL1I S , s 2 �'• •� —WAY = t'—'=�. :o �;;_ 00 ' A DITION `si OUTIOT i � Mw+l4t E � y' , 6 � r t ,� G(� t � �n y�� ^ �('I• 'ADD. .v - ,( .ef�• Gf • +0f l3a N Si!•E9ld i . M 1/4 6o• See 6.. .• - - j . W PL Cor, - -. .. .. i t 19,..' 57 50. FT. m i /ZO. oo f ceFr \0 1 1 ' NORT , Subdivision No.�"5 SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission ParkBoard Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME:76 LAND SIZE: LAND VALUE:Z,DlJ / (By: Date: The developer of this subdivision has been required to " A. grant an easement over part of the land EB. dedicate of the land C. donate $ ('L,t/�C� as a fee in lieu of land As a result of applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. 2. If property is 6 acrv-s or will be combined with future dedications IIso that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. . E 3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 4. If property is necessary for storm water holing or will be dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his toric value. 6. B. Cash Required 1. In all other instances than above. j'1 2. EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, Clifford Johnson, Mary McDonald, Richard Kremer, Helen McClelland, David Runyan Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning, Harold Sand, Assistant Planner, Fran Hoffman, Assistant City Engineer, Karen Sorensen, Secretary I. Approval of the November 30, 1977 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Kremer moved for approval of the November 30, 1977 Planning Commission Minutes. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. II. OLD BUSINESS Z-77-17 Ryan Construction Co. R-1 Single Family District to and Planned Residential District PRD -3 S-77-22 Yorkdale Townhomes of Edina. Generally located east of York Avenue, west of Xerxes Avenue, north of W. 76th Street and south of W. 74th Street extended. Mr. Hughes reported that the Commission granted preliminary zoning approval for this development on November 2, 1977. At that time, 80 townhouse units for low and moderate income families were proposed. Following that approval but prior to Council review, the proponent was able to include an additional one acre parcel into his proposal. This additional acre is to provide 10 additional townhouse units, bringing the total number of units to 90. The Council granted preliminary zoning approval for the revised 90 unit proposal. He noted that the original 80 unit proposal was designed in anticipation of the inclusion of the one acre parcel. The locations, elevations and design of the original 80 units remain unchanged. The proponents have submitted a preliminary plat for the property. The plat proposes to dedicate easements along York Terrace and York Avenue as requested. The proponents have satisfied ordinance requirements regarding plans and specifications for final zoning approval including the submission of a landscape plan. The staff recommends final plan approval with the following conditions: 1) Completion of final platting of the subject property. 2) Completion of suitable agreements among the proponent, the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority, the City of Edina regarding the property's development for low and moderate income family housing pursuant to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan. Commission Minutes Page 2 January 4, 1978 Staff also recommends, preliminary plat approval with the following conditions: 1) Parkland dedication. 2) Easements for sidewalks and snow removal storage. Mr. Runyan inquired about the basic material for the buildings. Mr. Al Shackman developer, stated that the construction would be wood and some masonry. There was some discussion regarding the location of the laundry facilities, the trash containers and outside lighting. The Commission generally felt that it would be more desirable to have the laundry facilities within each building and the trash containers closer to the buildings. Mr. Runyan moved that the Commission recommend approval of the final zoning plans subject to the staff recommendations. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Mr. Runyan moved that the Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to parkland dedication and easements for sidewalks and snow storage. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. III. NEW BUSINESS: Z-78-1 Madsen Property. R-1 Single Family District to Planned Residential District PRD -3. Generally located north of Dewey Hill Road and north of W. W. Lewis Park, and west of Cahill Rd. Mr. G. Hughes reported that the proponents are requesting PRD -3 zoning on a landlocked parcel of land 11.78 acres in size located north of Lewis Park and south of Braemar Oaks Apartments to facilitate the construction of two 60 unit condominium buildings each three stories in height. The subject property does not have frontage on any public street. According to the Southwest Edina Plan, Amundson Avenue is proposed to 'traverse the western portion of the property. The City has retained right-of-way across the property for this roadway. Access to the subject property is provided to Cahill Road by way of a 60 foot wide temporary roadway easement. The Southwest Edina Plan also indicates that the section of the subject property lying west of Amundson Avenue should be dedicated for park purposes. It would complete a buffer strip extending from Cahill School to Dewey Hill Road. Mr. Hughes reported that according to the density reduction plan adopted by the Council on August 4, 1975, the subject property is allowed about 60 units total. Commission Minutes Page 3 January 4, 1978 Staff recommended denial of the request because: 1) The proposal does not conform to the Southwest Edina Plan in regard to Amundson Avenue and parklands lying west of Amundson Avenue. 2) The proposal does not conform to the report of the Open Space Committee. 3) The proposal does not conform to the density reduction plan dated August 4, 1977. 4) The proposal indicates development on roadway easements for Amundson Avenue presently held by the City of Edina. Mr. Hughes noted that if the devlopment were approved, it would preclude Amundson Avenue from going through. Mr. Stan Taube, Lanvesco Corp., Ron Erickson, architect for the project and Bill Schatzein appeared before the Commission. Mr. Taube stated that he was aware of the problems with Amundson Avenue and he felt that the area could be developed better without the extension of Amundson Road. He noted that this development will appeal to the mature couple whose family has gone. Mr. Ron Erickson, architect for the project, explained how the buildings would be built on the property and stated that the exterior of the building would be multi faceted. He also noted that Cahill Road would be the major entrance into the project. The parking will be broken into several segments so that there will not be a big expanse of pavement. There will be underground parking in each of the buildings. He also noted that there will be no variances needed for the construction of this project. Mr. Runyan wondered how the Commission could approve a plan that is proposed where a road is anticipated. It seems that this is something that should be determined and worked out with the Engineering Department. Mr. Johnson noted that the proposal will cut the parkland area in two. Chairman Lewis stated that he felt that the Commission could not make a determination on the proposal until a decision is made regarding Amundson Road. After considerable discussion, Mr. Kremer suggested that the Commission table the proposal and set a hearing date to review the Southwest Edina Plan with respect to Amundson Avenue going through or not and the Council should hold that hearing. When that matter is settled, then we can take the matter up again. He also noted that the density questions should not be relaxed. Mr. Clarence Lahecka, 5812 Dewey Hill Road stated that the points made by the staff should be considered and the matter returned to the City Council for action on Amundson Avenue. Mr. Hughes read the Council Minutes of September 12, 1977, regarding Amundson Avenue, which read in part that the Southwest Edina Plan should not be amended and should retain the proposed roadway system, but that this system may or may not be built depending on future circumstances. Commission Minutes Page 4 January 4, 1978 Mr. Larry Youngblood, 7205 Lanham Lane, stated that most of the residents of the area became aware of the project in the last week. He stated that he is in agreement with sending the matter to the Council to have the Amundson Avenue matter settled. Mr. Jim Caldwell, representing Mr. Madsen stated that Mr. Madsen gave approximately 10 acres of his property for the Lewis Park and asked the City to provide him with a temporary easement for roadway so that he would be able to get into his property. The City has asked Mr. Madsen to donate additional property on the west side of proposed Amundson Avenue for park purposes. He stated that he has advised Mr. Madsen against this unless the City is willing to give some compensation for the property. Mr. Madsen is desirous of divesting himself of his properties, but wishes to do it in the most economical manner. After additional discussion, Mr. Kremer moved that the Commission forward this matter to the Council with the comment that we feel that they should make a decision in fairness to the land owner on Amundson Avenue and we cannot make a decision on the zoning until the decision on Amundson Avenue is made. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. S-78-1 Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. Generally located south of Interlachen Blvd., north of Parkwood Road, west of Schaefer Road and east of Lincoln Drive. Mr. Hughes reported that about three years ago, the Council was involved in the development of western Edina and specifically with the traffic patterns for the area. The Council requested that developers of the area submit overall development plans so that a determination could be made. Mr. Carl Hansen is now submitting an overall development plan of his vacant lands in the northwest area. The subject property is a 102 acre tract of land and is the last remaining tract of vacant land in this section of the City. The proponents have submitted a proposed development plan for the entire 102 acre tract. Only the southeastern 23 acres are proposed for immddiate development. The staff recommends that the development plans for the entire 102 acre tract be considered as a preliminary plat. If this preliminary plat is approved, Mr. Hansen will return with a final plat for the 23 acre tract. The entire plat proposes 176 single family lots, 47 of which are proposed for inclusion in Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. The preliminary plat proposes to extend several roads to serve the subject property such as Willow Wood Road, Larada Road and Larada Lane, Ridge Road, Malibu Drive and Interlachen Blvd. The plat does not propose to extend Interlachen on a straight alignment directly to County Road 18, but a circuitous arrangement is proposed to discourage excessive through traffic. In 1974, a citizen's committee, The Western Edina Task Force, together with a consulting firm prepared a traffic circulation plan after analyzing existing traffic patterns and perceived traffic excesses in the western Edina area. The committee identified four "issue areas" and the subject property is located in "issue area 4" of the committee's plan. The committee and the consultant recommended a plan whereby Malibu Drive was extended northerly to the County Road 18 interchange, Ridge Road was extended Commission Minutes Page 5 January 4, 1978 to serve the subject property as were Willow Wood Road and Larada Lane. They also recommended the cul-de-sacing of Interlachen Blvd. The Council held numerous hearings regarding the adoption of the plan. On July 1, 1974, the Council tabled consideration of circulation patterns for issue area 4 until a development proposal was submitted for the northwest Edina area. It was stated that when such a plan was submitted, it should include some access to the north at the Maloney Avenue -County Road 18 interchange. The proponent is suggesting that the park area be at the north end of the property adjacent to the recently acquired City property. Staff has computed that the accrued parkland dedication plus a 5 per cent dedication for the subject property would total 6.8 acres. The proponents are proposing a 5.65 acre dedication. reasons: The staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the following 1) The proposal conforms with the Western Edina Land Use Plan. 2) The proposal conforms with the Western Edina Circulation Plan with the exception of the extension of Interlachen Blvd. 3) Lot sizes are generally compatible with surrounding properties. 4) The proposed extensions of streets to serve the subject property are warranted and provide for the maximum dispersal of traffic generated from the subject property as well as existing developments. 5) Low areas are appropriately used as storm water holding areas. 6) Adequate access has been provided to Outlot B of Interlachen IIIlls 3rd Addn. 7) Dedication of parkland adjacent to existing City property is desirable. Approval is recommended with the following conditions and modifications: 1) Malibu Drive must be extended to the County Road 18 interchange immediately as part of final approval for Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. 2) The proposed parkland dedication for the entire preliminary plat must be made immediately. The Park Board should be advised that the proponents are indicating a dedication of 1.15 acres less than required. Thus, either an additional 1.15 acres should be dedicated or cash in lieu of such an acreage should be required. 3) The name of Larada Lane should be changed to avoid confusion with Larada Road. 4) The property lines of lots located west of Malibu Drive extended should be realigned slightly to correspond with the existing R-2 zoning of the southernmost lot. 5) In conjunction with the extension of Malibu Drive, a grading plan for the entire property should be prepared. 6) An executed developer's agreement which includes public improvements to Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition as well as Malibu Drive. Mr. Stephen Pistner, 5109 Ridge Road stated that he bought his house because it was on what resembled a country lane and he would like to keep it that way and not have it extended. Commission Minutes Page 6 January 4, 1978 Mr. Jack Liebenberg, 5112 Ridge Road, architect and planner, stated that we are talking about extending Ridge Road into an area that have many exits, such as Willow Wood Rd., Stauder and several others. The first plan did not show an extension of Ridge Road, but I -was told that a new plan might show the extension of Ridge Road. Two years ago, we came before the Council andthe .Council voted not to extend Ridge Road. Should Ridge Road be extended, it would cause a traffic problem and then Ridge Road as it now exists would have to be widened. If widened, there will be problems as the houses on the east side will be flooded because they are lower than Ridge Road. Harvey Hansen was asked for his opinion of the Ridge Road extension. Mr. Hansen replied that he could live with it either way, it made no difference to him whether or not the road was extended. A letter was received from Mr. W. R. Nordgren, 5016 Ridge Road, who was not able to attend the meeting, stating his views in opposition to the opening of Ridge Road to the south. Mr. Fran Hoffman, Assistant City Engineer answered questions of the residents in the audience. He explained that there was, considerably more traffic in the Interlachen Blvd. - Blake Road area because of construction on County Road 18 and as soon as the last segment was completed, the traffic would be lessened and probably only those who lived in the area would be travelling the roadways.` The staff had determined that it would not be wise to put Interlachen straight through, but to curve it around and out to tie in with Malibu and County Road 18. If there was to be no connection to County Road 18, the traffic would travel south and there would be considerably more congestion in the area than at present. Mrs. McClelland stated that members of the Commission and others have sat with the traffic problem since the beginning in 1971. I live in the Parkwood Knolls area and I would like to commend Mr. Hansen because this is a good, overall general road pattern. I feel that with three roads going to the north, Larada Lane and Larada Road and Malibu Drive and Interlachen going across, I personally do not see any objection to stopping Ridge Road at the edge of Ridge Road. This road pattern is a much better one than the one the consultant came up with two or three years ago. These three roads will eliminate a race track through the area. Mr. Kremer stated that he served on the task force and spent many hours to solve the problem. I agree with Helen that this is a good, general plan and with all the various considerations in general, everybody will be better off with a number of entrances and exits that can be utilized gather than have one or two. This is a good plan and we could eliminate the Ridge Road connection if we keep everything else and still have a satisfactory plan. Chairman Lewis asked Harvey Hansen how long it will take to develop this entire parcel. Mr. Hansen replied that they would develop 10 to 15 lots on a finished basis in a year, so it will be awhile before there is full development. Commission Minutes Page 7 January 4, 1978 After considerable discussion regarding Ridge Road, Mrs. McDonald moved that the Commission recommend preliminary plat approval deleting the Ridge Road extension, but including the other conditions and modifications stated by the staff. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. S-78-2 Loegering Subdivision. Generally located south of W. 66th Street and west of T.H. 100 Mr. Hughes reported that the two lot subdivision of a 60,000 square foot parcel of property located on 66th Street west of Highway 100. An existing house is located on Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. Lot 2, which measures 40,200 square feet, would gain access to 66th Street by way of a 30 foot wide neck lot. The property is surrounded by several other large parcels which range in size from 60,000 square feet to 130,500 square feet. Nearly all of•these parcels are developed with one single family dwelling. Due to the configuration of these lots, staff believes that it would be undesirable to further develop each lot independently. Staff in the past has encouraged property owners in this area to develop their property in a unified manner. The staff is concerned with the undesirable precedent which would be established by allowing a neck lot as proposed. If such a division were allowed, it is very possible that the remaining properties in this area would also propose similar subdivisions of the rear portions of their lots which would gain access via neck lots. Mr. Hughes noted that there are several concerns regarding neck lots. Such lots can create a public safety problem due to the potential inablility of emergency vehicles to reach structures located on such lots. There can also be a security problem. Neck lots result in a piecemeal approach to the overall planning and development of an area. The creation of such lots can also prohibit the orderly and logical development of surrounding properties. reasons: Staff recommends denial of the requested subdivision for the following 1) Approval of the subdivision would establish an undesirable precedent regarding neck lots. 2) The proposed subdivision is unsuitable from the standpoint of community planning based upon the above stated reasons. 3) Access to Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision is inadequate. Mr. Loegering stated that he had lived in the area for 27 years and is now interested in dividing his property as he intends to sell his property eventually. He also noted that the neighbors had been unable to agree on an equitable division of the properties. There had been several approaches to the division, but agree- ment could not be reached. Ile stated that he felt there would be adequate access to the lot off the long driveway. He stated that there are many neck lots within the City which seemed to cause no problems. Commission Minutes Page -8 January 4, 1978 Mr. John Baumgartner, 5109 W. 66th Street, adjacent to Mr. Loegering stated that he felt the proposal was ill conceived and there seems to be a serious elevation problem and a retaining wall may be needed along the easterly portion of the driveway. The roadway would be right by the patio. The rear portion of the lots is sort of a wildlife preserve. He stated that he;'was against the subdivision. Mr. Frank Lang, 6616 Kenney Place and Mr. Holland, Tingdale Avenue expressed their objections to the proposal because of the access and that the division should not be done on a piecemeal basis. Mr. Ron Zamansky, stated that he was opposed to the proposal also. Mr. Loegering's son stated that the present house is too small for the size of the property and that seemed to be the problem with the sale of the property. After considerable discussion, Mrs. McClelland stated that the neighbors should understand that there are several things to be considered. The man who has the property does have the right to request that he develop his property totally. I would like to correct the image that the Commission does not go out seeking subdivisions to increase its tax base, these things come to the attention of the Commission by the property owner. The Planning Commission tries to advance ideas for an area or a given area and if both sides can keep this in mind, because the majority of the neighbors do not wish to further develop their property at this particular time, I move to deny this particular subdivision for the reasons contained in the staff report. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. 5-78-3 Killarney Shores 2nd Addition. Generally located north of the Crosstown and west of Gleason Road. The proponent is requesting a two lot subdivision of Outlot B of Killarney Shores 2nd Addition. Each of the newly created lots would measure over 19,000 square feet and would gain access to Gleason Road. Killarney Shores was platted in 1968 and at the time the preliminary plat was submitted, the subject area showed three single family lots. These three lots were deleted and designated as an outlot at the time of final plat approval. Due to the steep grades of the subject property, together with the configuration and traffic volumes of Gleason Road, staff is concerned with the potential traffic hazards in this location. Staff is recommending that the proposed subdivision be continued for one month to allow the County to review the plans. However, after the staff report was written, the County contacted the staff and indicated that they would probably grant two access points, but would like to have some say as to where they would be. At this point, it is thought that they would be at the northerly and southerly ends of the plat. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the proposed division subject to parkland dedication and curb cuts being worked out by the County. Commission•Minutes Page 9 January 4, 1978 After some discussion, Mr. Johnson moved that the Commission table the matter for one month so that the County could determine where the curb cuts would be. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. IV. Adjournment at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted,. i Karen Sorensen, Secretary AGENDA Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, January 49 1978, at 7:30 p.m. Edina City Hall I. Approval of the November 30, 1977, Planning Commission Minutes II. OLD BUSINESS: Z-77-17 Ryan Construction Co. R-1 Single Family District to and Planned Residential District PRD -3 S-77-22 Yorkdale Townhomes of Edina. Generally located east of York Avenue, west of Xerxes Avenue, north of W. 76th St. and south of W. 74th St. extended. III. NEW BUSINESS: Z-78-1 Madsen Property. R-1 Single Family District to Planned Residential District PRD -3. Generally located north of Dewey Hill Road and north of W. I.J. Lewis Park, and west of Cahill ',Road. S-78-1 Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. Generally located south' of Interlachen Blvd., north of Parkwood Road, west of Schaefer Rd. and east of Lincoln Drive. S-78-2 Loegering Subdivision. Generally located south of W. 66th Street and west of T.H. 100. S-78-3 Killarney Shores 2nd Addition. Generally located north of the Crosstown and west of Gleason Road. IV. Adjournment.