HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 04-05 Planning Commission PacketsA G E N D A
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Meeting, Wedesday, April 5, 1978, 7:30 P.M.
Edina City Hall Council Chambers
1. Revised Planned Residential District Zoning Ordinance.
2. Z-78-1 Madsen Property. R-1 to PRD -3. North of Dewey Hill
Road and W. W. Lewis Park and West of Cahill Road.
3. Z-77-8 Roger Findell. R-1 and R-3 to PRD -3. Final Plan
and Approval. Located west of Cahill, north and south of
Amundson Avenue extended.
S-76-25 Findell 2nd Addition.
4. S-78-9 Dewey Hill 2nd Addition. Generally located north of
West 78th Street, west of Braemar Park and south
of Dewey Hill Road. 50 R-1 lots.
Adjournment.
t
MEMORANDUM
April 4, 1978
TO: Community Development and Planning Commission
FROM: Gordon Hughes
SUBJECT: April 5, 1978, Community Development and Planning
Commission Agenda Items
The Commission will recall that on March 29, 1978, a special
meeting was scheduled for April 5, 1978, to consider the rezoning request of
Lanvesco, Inc. from R-1 to PRD -3 and the subdivision request of Laukka and
Assoc. for Dewey Hill Second Addition. This meeting was scheduled to follow
the April 3, 1978, Council meeting at which time a hearing was conducted regarding
Amundson Avenue and Delaney Boulevard.
On April 3, 1978, the City Council abandoned the proposed
improvements to Amundson Avenue, but authorized the construction of Delaney
Boulevard. Therefore, the Lanvesco proposal will gain access from Cahill Road
and the Amundson Avenue right-of-way need not be retained on this property.
In that Delaney Boulevard was authorized, Dewey Hill Second Addition
can gain access to this street as was proposed by Laukka and Associates.
The Commission will recall that overall plan approval for the
Findell development (located north of Braemar Oaks apartments) was granted by
the Commission on March 1, 1978. In that this development is proposed to be
served by Amundson Avenue, we have placed this item on the April 5, 1978, agenda
for further review. We recommend that the Findell plan approval be reaffirmed but
with a cul-de-sac installed at the westerly terminus of Amundson Avenue.
Prior to consideration of the Lanvesco proposal, the Commission
should act on the revised Planned Residential District ordinance as this will
have a bearing on the density of the Lanvesco proposal.
GH:k
LOr\4.-`ATION
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 arar.tment proposal.
M A P
!m -"k
WInfirr Wamliniz oieputrtznt vilin r of Ord -ins
PLANNING COMISSION
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 11.7° acre parcel located north of
William Wardwell Leais Par:: and south of Braemar Oaks Apartments. The
proponents are requesting a rezoning to PRD -3 to facilitate the construe-
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 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. 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.
CLU: nr
%
PQ
t -42
IL
7 4z=03 0' t
%
-N
I
Z-78-1 Madsen Property. R-1 Single Family District to Planned
�+j Residential District PRD -3. Generally located north of Dewey
1,4— nb Hill Road and north of W. W. Lewis Park, and west of Cahill Rd.
PC.., 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 11 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 Sill 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.
' 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
Edina for the exemplary manner in which the team
gratitude of the citizenry of
redit the team has brought to the commun-
has conducted itself and for the great c
ity; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that appropriate copies 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 budget tweeting 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.
IMPROVE`fENTS NOS. P -C-124. P -BA -226 P -BA -227 ABANDONED; LAND ACQUISITION ONLY
AUTHORIZED FOR P -C-126. Mr. Hyde recalled that public hearings on the following
improvements had been continued from August 1, 1977, so that the City Attorney
could determine if Grading and Graveling Improvement No. P -C-126 can be reduced to
oad right-of-way and whether the cost of the
land acquisition for possible future r
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 L`:PROVE`IENT 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:
Amundson Avenue from Cahill Road to Dewey Hill Road
C. GRADING AND GRAVELING I?IPROVEMENT NO. P -C-126 IN THE FOLLOWING:
Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill Road to W. 78th Street
D. PCR`IANENT 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 d
right-of-way for.lmprovement Y -C-126 and that the cost of Che land acquisition
ment. If the road
may be assessed its a part of tite cost of the later road improve
is actually constructed at a future date. a further public heariouidng ill be required
for the later road improvement. Mr. Erickson clarified that,
acquire e road,
propertyty
tlmaylbe dirsposedand ide Of ift,noguently tat longer neededhfor anyis not publicto be purposeil[. the
. r,
,.
251
'
Hr. Erickson also opined that "should the Council authorize the land acquisition
portion of the project, and thereafter, in the process of acquiring the property
ae.c.lue I
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 tlee 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
f
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
O
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
U
Road; 3) The Cahill Road cul-de-sac should remain as part of the roadway system,
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 -
strueted 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
+
only the land acquisition be authorized for Improvement No. C-126 at this time.
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Burns of Dewev Hill Road both spoke in support of the South-
west Edina Plan and the road patterns proposed, contending that residents 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 corner 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 GRADISG AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. C-126
AS TO ACQUISITION OF LAND 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:
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 1. 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
1
9/12/77
252
a successful conclusion until abandoned, dismissed, or terminatedrbandthe
City
erk dor
the Court; that the City staff and Attorney and the M�yur.
all purchase
necessary ne es dune in eminentudcmainll Of . thataid saidroperty by improvement`isthereby
and purchase and, if necessary, by
designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as
GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. 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.
ved that there be no amendment to the Southwest Edina
Councilman Richards then mo
Plan at this time, but that the staff be instructed to advise all interested
South -
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 ASSESS.fE:�TLS LEVIED FOR VARIOUS I11PnOV1211zF,iS. 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 -n time to give
the thirty day notice now required by law. Hearings were then conducted as fol-
lows.
A.- STREET IMPROVEMIT N0. BA -202 IN THE FOLLOWING:
Dovre Drive from Parkwood Lane to Lincoln Drive .
Mr. Hyde presented Analvsis of Assessment showing total construction cost of
$100,987.65, proposed to be assessed against 617.61 assessable feet at $21.00 r
per foot (for Nine dile 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 :iinutes.)
B. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -206 IN THE FOLLOWING:
Parkwood Lane from Londonderry Road to Borth line of Parkwood Knolls 19th
Addition
Dovre Drive from East line of Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition to West lire of
Parkwood molls Addition
Field Way from East line of Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition Parkwood Lane
: Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction
tion 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
Asse,ssment later in Minutes.)
C. STREET I.'�ROVE`iLNT N0. BA -208 IN THE FOLLOWING:
line of M.P. Johnson's Prospect Hills 3rd Addition to
Lanham Lane from South
Fleetwood Drive
Mr. presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at
M. Hyde
assessed against 18 1/3 assessable lots at $1,236.48
$22,668-39, proposed to b
per lot, against estimated assessment of $1,407.95 per lot. No objections were r
heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Ordering Assess- E
went later in Minutes.)
D. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -212 IN THE FOLLOWING: GGG...
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. -
ions were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resoluttionn Order-
rde
ing Assessment later in Minutes.)
E. STREET IMPROVEML••NT N0. BA -215 IN THE FOLLOWING:
McCauley Terrace from McCauley :rail Last to cul-de-sac
Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at
$8,430.58. proposed to be assessed al;ainst 574.29 assessable feet at $14.68 per
No objections
foot against estimated assessment of $19.43 per assessable foot.
EDBNA
JH
4801 WEST 50TH STREET. EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424
January 9, 1978
Mr. John Caldwell
Orville Madsen Construction Co.
P. 0. Box 8
Industrial Road
Hudson, Wisconsin 54016
Re: Lanvesco Co. Development Proposal for Madsen Property in
Southwest Edina
Dear Mr. Caldwell:
Based upon your comments made at the January 4, 1978 Planning Commission meeting
regarding the above referenced matter, I have reviewed our files concerning the
past acquisitions by the City of Edina of Mr. Madsen's property.
Our files indicate that Mr. Madsen donated approximately 6 acres of property
in 1969 to the City of Edina. In 1975, the City of Edina purchased approximately
15 acres from Mr. Madsen for $120,000+.
It was my impression at the Planning Commission meeting that you implied that
the property under option by Landvesco should receive some "density or park-
land dedication considerations" in that Mr.. Madsen had, donated property to
the City for park land on past occasions. Enclosed please find a copy of the
October 20, 1975 City Council minutes as w. --ll as a memo of understanding between
the City and Mr. Madsen. Both of these documents indicate that the sale of
the Madsen property to the City included no contingencies or understandings
that would in any way benefit Mr. Madsen or any future developer of Mr. Madsen's
remaining property. It was further understood that when the remaining property
was developed, additional parkland would be dedicated in accordance with the
Southwest Edina Plan.
In that I was not directly involved in the acquisition of Mr. Madsen's property,
I may not be fully apprised of other conditions of this transaction. Please
advise if you have additional facts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
.,ad �7'_ c�54
Gordon L. Hughes
Director of Planning
GLH: ks
Encls.
cc: Bill Schatzl cin 6600 Fr. Ave. S.
Orville E. Madsen & Son, Inc., General Contractors
r.11e-,Nrn Hudson Industrial Park
Box 8, County Trunk F, Hudson,'Wisconsin 54016
:.,, Car vJ is ` Telephone (715) 386-8201 or (612) 436-5281
February 7, 1978
Mr. Gordon L. Hughes
Director of Planning
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Mr. Hughes:
Thank you for your letter dated January 9, 1978 which is a recap of
the purchase by the city of approximately 15 acres from Mr. Orville
Madsen. As you clearly point out that in 1975 there were no contin-
gencies or possible future benefits promised to Mr. Madsen when that
15 acres was purchased by the city considerably below the market value.
The land did have 7 buildable single family lots on the westerly
portion. Essentially, the sale price was at the market value of the
buildable land and the balance Mr. Madsen transferred without addi-
tional compensation as a gift.
However, the critical issue remains that prior to this action, Mr.
Madsen did make a "park land dedication or contibution" in 1969 of
approximately 6 acres of property out of his total tract. By virtue
of the fact that the city subsequent to this gift has enacted legisla-
tion requiring "park dedication lands", which at the time the gift
was made was not mandatory, does not erase the fact that Mr. Madsen
has already complied with this legislation of his own volition.
It seems to be unreasonable to penalize a person such as Mr. Madsen
who.was far sighted enough to recognize the need for a community to
preserve open space and voluntarily offered to dedicate open spaces
in 1969 before it was even required by law.
Furthermore, there appears to be a definite misconception of the under-
lined portion of the attached resolution when you stated "It was further
understood that when the remaining property was developed, additional
parkland would be dedicated in accordance with the Southwest Edina
Plan". You will note that Mr. Luce was not referring to the Madsen
�----- property but to some unnamed party to the north. Mr. Douglas T. Madsen,
Orville's son, and I both were the only ones discussing this matter
with the city and both of us are willing to present affidavits, if
necessary, stating that this was never promised verbally or otherwise
in any discussions with the city.
Rather, what actually occurred is that Mr. Luce unilaterally stated
that he would attempt to enforce this action. To the contrary, I
personally objected stating to Mr. Luce that there would be no way
Page 2
February 71 1975
the city could prevail in a course of action which required a second
park contribution on the remaining property.
Neither Doug or I wish to rule out the possibility that at some future
time we will recommend to his father or to a subsequent owner of this
property that to create an esthetically pleasing development, either
with or without Amundson Road becoming a reality, then we may wish to
cooperate and voluntarily make additional parkland available. However,
this would only be feasible if it dial not effectively preclude orderly
development of his property.
It appears that if the city were to allow the density to be set at
the 1975 agreed on level of 12 units per gross acre indicated in the
attached council proceedings, the site should yield about 120 units.
Or if the city were to view the current tract of land plus the 1969
public land dedication of 6 acres, then the site would yield at least
120 units even under the current density reduction formula. However,
if the city did not recognize the original 6 acre dedication and also
enforced this new reduction formula, it would in effect be a confisca-
tion of Mr. Madsen's property rights without due compensation.
In essence, what we are asking for is that the city be fair and reason-
able to Orville Madsen who has been more than fair with the city's
requests in the past. Should the city wish to put in Amundson Road
and have the western portion given to the city, then the 120 units of
multi -family luxury condominiums could be placed in a 5 or 6 story
structure on the easterly portion. However, if the city elects to
drop the Amundson Road plan, then perhaps the best development would
be similar to the Lanvesco concept with a strip of park land through
the center to connect the large park to the south with the existing
park land to the north.
JMC/fsd
Encl.
cc: Lanvesco Corp.
D. T. Madsen
Sincerely,
John M. Caldwell
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL S, 1978 at 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Wm. Lewis, Chairman, Mary McDonald, Leonard Fernelius, Del Johnson,
James Bentley, Richard Seaberg, Gordon Johnson, David Runyan.
Member Absent: Samuel Hughes.
Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning, Harold Sand, Assistant
Planner, Karen Sorensen, Secretary.
I. Revised Planned Residential District Zoning Ordinance
Mr.. Hughes reported that the revised ordinance had been sent to the Commission
for review at the March 29, 1978 meeting for consideration and a short report was
given at that March meeting. He noted that the real change in the ordinance
concerned the density computations. The City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance
and he has recommended some minor wording changes.
We have, in establishing the criteria, gone through many of the existing
apartment developments in Western Edina and put them through this formula to see how
that same apartment would come in for approval under this new ordinance. The essence
of the ordinance is that it is possible in the Western and Southwest Edina areas
to get back up to 12 units an acre through a system of density allowances. You can
gain a maximum of six bonus points and get back up to the 12, however, we find in
review, it is difficult to get up to the 12, as there are many variables and there
are checks and balances on one another. In order to get up to 12 units per acre,
the developer has to provide features of the development that we would find desirable
such as a more substantial building, a better looking building, more respect to the
topography on the site, etc.
Mr. Runyan asked.who would judge whether a building was good looking or not.
Mr. Hughes replied that our concern was that we don't want an individual to come in
and say.he has satisfied the criteria and want approval of the plan. We have put
language in the preface of the ordinance that says, "the only reason and the only
purpose for these criteria are to arrive at a density of the site". It does not
guarantee final plan approval, but it doesn't interfere with the spirit of the
Planned Unit Development concept. It is simply a means of ariiving_at a•densi.ty.
We have designated certain things in these density allowances that we think are desirable
from a'public standpoint, one being a Type I or II construction as opposed to wood
frame construction, and another would be the use of face brick or natural stone or
stucco as opposed to a wood construction on the exterior of the building.
Mr. Hughes also reported that the height limitation for PRD -3 has been
designated as three stories. In the past, we have said that PRD -2, 3 and 4 were all
four story limitations.
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
April 5, 1978
Mr. Stan Taube, President of Lanvesco, Corp. stated that his company is
involved in multi -family development and commended the staff and Commission for
consider=g: changing the ordinance which will enhance the quality of buildings
in Edina. He stated that he felt it is important to encourage and to have the developer
come.in with the attitude of being willing to consider the aesthetics and the
environment and improving the quality of the life of the people living in the
building and give credits for doing a good job..
Mr. Fernelius stated that
the Commission recommend approval
.Mr. Bentley seconded the motion.
II.
the ordinance was well drafted and he moved that
of the ordinance subject to the legal corrections.
All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
South, Southwest and Western Edina Plan Amendments
Mr. Hughes.reminded the Commission that one of the items also included with
the PRD Ordinance was an amendment to the South, Southwest and Western Edina Plans.
There are two amendments: one stated that in the Western and Southwest Edina Plans,
low rise apartments are defined as apartment buildings with three stories or less;
and the second part of the -plan amendment ties*in with the zoning ordinance by
deleting the past density reduction and density clarification plan adopted two years
ago.
Mr. Seaberg moved that the Commission recommend approval of the Plan
Amendments as recommended by the staff. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All
Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
III. Z-78-1 Madsen Property. R-1 to PRD -3. North of Dewey Hill Road and W.
W. Lewis Park and west of Cahill Road.
Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that they had considered the
Lanvesco proposal at its January meeting and at that time the matter was referred
to the City Council with the comments that some judgment had to be made on the
Amundson/Delaney Road question before. the Commission could consider the Lanvesco
proposal.. The Council did hold a public hearing on Amundson/.Delaney Road on April 3,
1978, and the result of that hearing was that the Delaney Road portion was authorized
for construction, however, the Amundson Avenue portion wasnot authorized. The intent
of the Council was that Delaney Road should be constructed bht not as a State Aid
Road, but rather as an accessible project , the purpose of which would be solely to
provide access to various developments that would lie along this roadway. Amundson
was not approved and, in my estimation, their direction was that the Lanvesco proposal
should gain access directly onto Cahill Road as was shown in their original plan and
also the_Findell request should also gain access to Cahill directly from the Amundson
Road right of way, which bisects the property.
Access would be from a 60 foot wide easement that was retained by
Mr. Madsen. We would now say that the_easement becomes�a permanent easement rather
than a temporary easement as was originally envisioned.
Lanvesco also proposed a ponding area to be constructed on the low,
poor soil areas on the site that are in the central portion of the property. They
have made some revisions to the plan. Mr. Bill Schatzlein, of Lanvesco, presented a
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
April 5, 1978
rough sketch of the new proposal. One change is that the westerly building has been
moved further to the east to create a larger setback from the single family homes
that back up to Lanham Lane. This scheme shows a 200 foot setback from the west
property line and the intent is to move the building easterly'a little bit further.
What we hoped to do is connect the two buildings with a one story recreation building.
It would have an indoor pool rather than having the outdoor pool as shown on the
first presentation. The 200 foot setback will be dedicated as park to connect with
Lewis Park to the South. We show the pond in its present location because it creates
a nice separation between the public park and our development and would discourage
people from travelling through. It can be accomplished.in a number of ways. The
traffic circulation has changed somewhat to provide access to the buildings. All of
our.,parking is underground under the buildings and we,have purposely created small
parking lots on the surface rather than any one large parking lot. They are
primarily for visitor parking. The number of units shown on the original scheme was
120 units and makes maximum use of the site in terms of the number -of units permitted,
which was 12 to the acre. We have a little over 11 acres so that is a flexible
number and will be developed along with the new ordinance which you just discussed.
Our objective is to develop somewhere around 100 units. If we are able to make use
of the credits which are advanced in the new ordinance, we will be able to get a few
more units and provide a quality development. We will work with the staff in order
to determine the exact number of units.
Gordon Johnson asked about the 60 foot easement and if it had gone
through the traffic safety and fire department for review.' Mr. Hughes reported that
this particular easement hasn't been reviewed as such by.the Fire Department as it
relates to this plan, however, when the Amundson Road question was considered last
Fall, the Public Safety and Fire Department did review response times and access to all
the properties along Cahill and Dewey Hill Roads which could be served by either
Amundson or Delaney. At that time, the Fire Department and Public Safety did not
point out to us any problems with this type of access arrangement. They, at that
time, recommended against Amundson/Delaney due to problems with their response time
in case of fire emergency. I assume that at that time they did not respond negatively
to this roadway, but responded negatively to Amundson/Delaney because of the
response question.
Gordon Johnson also asked how many acres were left between Cahill
Road and the east edge of the project. Mr. Hughes reported that it is calculated
at 3.7 acres and it has.the potential use for apartments_ as the Lanvesco parcel.
We have urged both owners to attempt a unified development,. and I still have hopes
that it will come about. There would be a much more unified development than each
one developing independently. Mr. Stan Taube stated that his company has pursued the
idea with the owner and we have not received a positive response as yet. We will
continue to pursue it, so if it is possible, we will do it.
Mr. Taube reported that this project is being constructed as a
condominium unit and the rules state that the tenants will not:be allowed to park
outside overnight. Campers and trailers will not be allowed. There will be
approximately 80 outside stalls and 150 enclosed stalls. Surface parking will only
be for visitors.
r
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
April 5, 1978
Gordon Johnson noted that the Southwest Plan should be amended to
vacate the right of way and show the easements. He asked if the matter should be
taken care of at this meeting. Mr. Hughes replied that it will have to be done, but
it was not necessary to do it at this time.
Mr. Steve Winnick, 7117 Lanham Lane, stated that there were several
residents at the meeting who represent the others in the neighborhood. We have met
on several occasions since January with the developer, as well as among ourselves,
to consider our position with respect to the Lanvesco proposal. When we were
negotiating to purchase our property, the builder suggested that we study the South-
west Edina Plan at the Planning Department. We were also told that the property
west of Amundson Road easement was earmarked for future park. -Mr. Winnick felt
that the Y shaped building proposed by Lanvesco would be like looking at a barracks.
It is'relatively close to us not just because of the 165 foot setback, but because
of the elevation. We will be looking either at the corner of the building or the
roof.
Mr. Larry Youngblood, 7205 Lanham Lane, reported that he had lived in
his house about three years. When.I bought my property, I was also directed to the
City about surrounding development. Ever since I've lived in the house, I have
assumed that there would be multiple dwelling on the proponent's property. There is
absolutely no question in my mind about the right of the property owner to develop
that property. The only question that I have had in my mind is a departure from what
we considered to be some fact. I congratulate Lanvesco for making the most of what
they have. We have met several times with Lanvesco and have discussed the closeness to
dwellings and they have taken some steps to move it further east. I am concerned
and I know there is'a strong concern about the access to the park. The only access
will be down the corridor and therefore, we should give every consideration to main-
taining as much corridor as possible.
Another resident stated that he went through the same procedure when
he purchased his home in 1974.. I had all the available information and decided to
build. I would like to see the buffer zone maintained. I would not be too happy
about the ponding because of insects. I would like the Commission to consider that
the buffer zone be maintained and that if the project is constructed that it be moved
as far east as.possible.
Mr. Taube stated that if the Commission approved the project, he
would pledge to.them and to.the residents that at each step of the design we would
continue to meet with the residents and prior to presenting anything to the Commission
.we would get the residents' input. The residents have worked with us in the spirit
of constructive comments and we.want to continue to work that way. We are only asking
concept approval.
After additional discussion about possible density reduction, the
present base density, the ponding area and the possibility of acquiring the easterly
property, Mr. Seaberg stated that he would like to encourage Lanvesco to work
diligently to acquire the easterly property and to work with the residents in the
area. Mr. Taube stated that he acknowledged both those requests and he would do
just that.
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
April 5,1978
Mr. Seaberg then moved that the Commission recommend concept
approval for rezoning with the condition that the developer exert efforts to add
the property to the east and to continue to work with the neighbors on Lanham Lane
and that the Southwest Edina Plan be amended for development of the property.
Mr. Fernelius seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
IV. Z-77-8 Roger Findell. R-1 and R-3 to PRD -3. Final Plan Approval.
Located west of Cahill, north and south of Amundson Ave. Ext.
Z-76-25 Findell 2nd Addition.
Mr. Hughes reported that the Findell development was granted overall
development plan approval by the Commission on March 1, 1978, and recommended that
the plan approval be reaffirmed but that the Amundson right .of way be retained and
that a cul-de-sac be installed at the westerly terminus of Amundson Avenue. The
City would not object if the cul-de-sac overlapped onto the park property. Mr. Hughes
-recommended final approval with some conditions:
1. a storm sewer plan included for the site.
2. the amount of landscaping must be increased, particularly
in the vicinity of the parking lots. Also, disturbed
areas -must be revegetated with ground cover.
3. the parking areas in the.townhouse portion of the site
must be realigned.
4. an executed developer's agreement entered into.
5. the construction of the public roadway.
After some discussion, Mr. Gordon Johnson moved that the Commission
recommend final plan approval subject to the conditions noted by the staff. Del
Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
V. S-78-9 Dewey Hill 2nd Addition. Generally located north of West 78th
Street, west of Braemar Park and south of Dewey Hi11'Road.
50 R-1 lots.
Mr. Hughes reported that this subdivision was given concept approval
on March 29, 1978. Since the Delaney/Amundson question has been settled, we must now
give formal platting approval for the 50 lot plat. The plat should be modified as
follows:
1. Outlot A should be placed at the southern edge of Lot 16,
Block 1, rather than at the northern edge of Lot 1, Block 2.
2. The proposed roadway in the northwestern section of the
subdivision should be modified to increase the radius of
curvature.
3. The proposed roadway should be moved northerly at the point
where it intersects Braemar 9th Addition in order to provide
a more suitable lot arrangement in that subdivision.
4. The property south of the subject property (i.e. the
remainder of Tract D), in control of the proponent should be
included in the proposed subdivision and identified as an
outlot. In addition,_the easterly one-half of Shaughnessy
Road (which is presently a half street) should be dedicated
at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
April 5, 1978
Mr. Peter Jarvis, representing Laukka and Associates stated that
he is requesting formal plat approval. He stated that there should not be any
problem with the platting of Outlot A or any of the other conditions, however, in
terms of platting the entire property, if the developer were to develop the southern
portion of the site as condominium or multi family property in two years, we would
want to take advantage of Shaughnessy Road, if possible, as I think it makes for
better traffic circulation than 78th Street. The concern is that if a significant
amount of time goes by and we develop the right of way and the street is put in,
partially assessed to Laukka and Assoc., and single family lots develop on the west
side, and the -single family dwellers demand -that there should be no egress from any
of our multi family area on to Shaughnessy Road.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that in the original Indian Meadows plan
approved by the Commission a couple of years ago, there was some access for town
house developments out onto Shaughnessy Road and down to 78th Street.
Chairman Lewis inquired if the Southwest Edina plan indicated multi
dwelling on the proponent's property. Mr. Hughes replied that some areas show six
units an acre and others show four units an acre.
Chairman Lewis suggested that the Southwest Edina Plan could be
amended to include this property as higher density.
Gordon Johnson moved that the Commission_ grant preliminary plat
approval subject to the conditions in the staff report andRthe approval include the
Planning.Commission's intent and understanding that appropriate densities be granted
to the southern one-third of the property that borders on to, West 78th Street
and request that the City Council grant the same memorandum of understanding as to the
future use -of the southern one-third. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. All Voted
Aye. Motion Carried.
VI. Adjournment. at 9:00 P.M.
Re�s{p/e/ctfully submitted, Y\�iC,r'�C1
Karen Sorensen, Secretary