HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-09-12 Park Board Packet® EDIINA PARK. BOARD 'SETING
TUESDAY, SEP=BER 12, 1978
8: 00 Piet
EDINA CITY HALL
AC,ENDA
I. Approval of Special Park Board Ifeeting rsnutes of
AuE,ust 28, 1978
II. Carl Hansen Property
III. Planning; Requests
S-78-10
S-78-15
IV. Recreation Report
V. Golf Course Tournament and Irrigation System
Subdivision No. ��� —�5
SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT
.gyp; Planning Commission
Park Board
Environmental Quality Com-nission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBDIVISION NAME:
LAND SIZE: 24 Ae-r'r
•
� -1
O
zonTing
vsubcl��,,-
o o � e
a o n
DEWEY MILL CONDOMINIUMS
REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-15 and Z-78-9
LOCATION:_SW quadrant of Cahill IZd. & Dewey
Hill Rd.
NORTH
HE'QUFST: Rezoning request R-1 Sin le
t
Family to PRD -3 Planned Residential District;
Subdivision.
yjllAfle lj,nnniTr�ylsL r ttt�rt �'i�ISi3� olf C11'11a
COMmuNITY DEVELOPMENT
0 STAFF REPORT
September 6, 1978
S-78-15 Dewey Hill Condominiums. Generally located at the southwest
and quadrant of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road. (Overall Develop -
Z -78-9 ment Plan and Subdivision.)
Refer to: attached Overall Development Plan and Proposed
Subdivision, August 2, 1978,.staff report.
On August 2, 1978, the Commission granted preliminary approval.for a
159 -unit development located in the southwest quadrant of Dewey Hill
Road and Cahill Road. Preliminary approval for the development was also
granted by the City Council on August 2, 1978.
The proponent has now returned with the overall development plan for the
site and is requesting final approval for rezoning to PRD -3. The proponent
has also submitted a preliminary subdivision for the site. This sub-
division delineates one lot for the development site and two outlots lo-
cated west of Delany Boulevard.
Recommendation: Staff finds that the materials submitted are satisfactory
Tor overall development plan approval. Staff noted on August 2, 1978,
that adequate site distance must be established at the Cahill/Dewey Hill
Road intersection. The grading plan proposes to provide this site dis-
tance. Staff also suggested that the parking lot northeast of building 3
should be modified slightly. Staff and the proponents have reviewed this
area and find that the original plan is more suitable due to parking
requirements and area constraints.
It should be noted that the City has received a petition from several
adjacent residents to vacate that portion of Delaney Boulevard located
within the subject development. This petition will be heard by the
Council on September 18, 1978. If this secti::n of Delaney Boulevard is
vacated, it will obviously require a re -design of the proposed development.
Nevertheless, staff would recoimiiend final rezoning approval•at this
time with the understanding that if a portion of Delaney Boulevard were va-
cated, the proponents would have to return to the Commission with a modi-
fied plan.
Staff recommends final rezoning conditioned upon final platting of the
property.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision with the following
conditions:
• 1. An executed developer's agreement.
2. Receipt of a subdivision dedication.
3. Granting of various utility and water storage easements in conjunction
with final platting.
GLII: nr
B-30-78
C0N.I1UN I TY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
August 2, 1973
Z-713-9 Gittleman Corporation. R-1 Single Family District
to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Generally
located at the southwest quadrant of Cahill Road
and Dewey Hi 11 Road.
Refer to: attached graphics.
The subject property is a 211 acre tract of land located in the
southwest quadrant of Dawey Hill Road and Cahill Road. Host of
the site is characterized by rolling topography with the exception
of the westerly portion of the site which exhibits slopes of
25%-30%. Storm water retention ponds which are part of the South-
west Edi -a Storm,,iater Ponding system are located aiong the
northerly and %..esterly site boundaries. The Delaney Boulevard
right of way also traverses the extreme westerly portion -of the
site.
.
The subject property has a rather interesting history of rezoning
requests. In 1973, preliminary approval was granted for a 276,
unit (i.e. 12 units per acre.) multiple residential deve.lopment
proposed by Condor- Corporation. This proposal included three
and four story elements. This proposal was withdrawn by the
developers following preliminary approval by the Council.
In 1975, a proposal entitled Lowry Hill was consiccred. This
proposal also included 276 units, but in two 5 story buildings.
The Planning Commission and Council denied the proposal based
upon a*3 story height limitation implieJ by the Southwest Edina
Plan. (This height limitation is now stated in the Plan.) A
lawsuit followed this denial in which the Court affirmed the
City's actions.
The present rezoning request to PRD -3 proposes three condominium
buildings containing a total of -159 units or approximately 7 units
per acre. All buildings are three stories in height and contain
underground garages. The required number of surface parking
spaces have been provided in close proximity to the proposed
buildings and are located such that they are well -screened from
adjacent properties . Access to the development would .be from
De%-.cy Hill Road and from Delaney Boulevard. The proposed
0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEIiT STAFF UPORT page 2
Z-78-9
August 2, 1978
buildings have been located on the most developable portion of
the site and much of the steep topography in the southwestern
quadrant has been retained. The small wetland on the southern
portion of the site has also been retained and is proposed to
be improved.
Recommendation: Staff believes that the proponents have done an
exceptional job of responding to many of the objections and con-
cerns of the City and neighborhood regarding previous proposals
for this property:
1)
The total number of units has been reduced from
276 to 159. The proposed dcns.•.ty of 7 units per
acre i s below the (lens i t i es pre•l i mi nari I approved
for two other multiple residential developments
in Southwest Edina.
2)
Building Leight has been reduced from five stories
to three stories in conformance with the Southwest
•
Edina Plan.
3)
The proposed buildings have been located primarily
on the eastern portion of the site to provide a
buffer for single family homes to the west.
4)
Surface parking has been located away from the
ponding areas and is well hidden from properties
to the west.
5)
The access road to Dewey Hill Road is located as
far as possible from single family residences and
•
maintains an adequate distr•n,�e from the Cahill Road/
Dewey Hill Road intersection. The access road to
Delaney Road is located as far south as possible to
eliminate the possibility of headlights shining into
homes on Coventry 1 -lay, to avoid encroachment into
ponding areas, and .to provide adequate sight distance
for Delaney Boulevard. The internal roadway system
is also designed to discourage through traffic.
6)
The steep slopes located on the southwesterly portion
of the site are preserved and should provide an
excellent buffer. '
C0HHU,'l I TY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT page 3
Z- 78-g
August 2, 1978
7) The internal roa&.-iay system is designed to facilitate
the future inclusion of the five acre parcel %;,hich
fronts on Cahill Road and is not controlled by the
proponents.
Eased upon these factors, staff recommends preliminary approval
of the proposal. Staff suggests that the follu.-aing items should
be considered in the preparation of the final plans for the
project:
1) Adequate. sight distancc must be maintained at the
intersection of Cahill Road -Inc] Dewey Hill Road.
Sight distance is presently a problem at this
intersection.
^_) The surface parking lot northeast of building 3 should
be modified slightly to further facilitate the
future incorporation, if warranted, of the easterly
parcel not owned by the proponent.
3) Signage for the development must be in conformance
with the sign ordinance.
4) Final zoning is contingent upon the final plotting
of the property.
CLH:jt
7-2.8-78
I
Subdivision No. l C-'f/C)
SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT
Planning Commission
Park Board
Environmental Quality Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBDIVISION NAME: I/I(" Tal
LAND SIZE : �-LAND VALUE: Gc J
(By: Dater )
The developer of this subdivision has been required to
ElA. grant an easement over part of the land
B. dedicate % of the land
C. donate $ as a fee in lied of land
As a result of applying ;he following policy:
A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of
land dedicated)
f' 1:1
— 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.
13 3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream.
04. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged
or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds.
r75. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his-
toric value.
n G.
B. Cash Required
1. In all other instances than above.
2.
•
L(-,;�CA%I['1ON MAP
VICTORSEN'S TIMBERS
REQUEST' NUMBER: 5-78-10
LOCATION: SE Corner of Crosstown and
Gleason Rd.
REQUEST: R-1. S n^1 e I'-iny�i 1 y Subdivision
W
O 250 5CR) 750 1000
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
September 6, 1978
S-78-10 Victorsen's Timbers. R-1 to Single Family Subdivision.
Generally located at the southeast corner of the Crosstown
Highway and Gleason Road.
REFER TO: attached subdivision.
The Commission will recall that this proposed subdivision was considered at
past meetings. At those times, a subdivision which gained access from Indian
Hills Pass and from Gleason Road was proposed. After reviewing this plan, the
Commission referred the request to the City Council with a tie vote (i.e. five
members recommended approval and five members denial).
Y
The Council reviewed the requested subdivision at several meetings and also
toured the site. On those occasions, the Council expressed concern regarding
the proposed roadway grades, the amount of disturbance to the hill, the
adequacy of public utilities, fire protection, and especially the public
safety aspects of the proposed roadway intersections with Indian Hills Pass
and Gleason Road. The Council thereupon referred the request back to the
Commission and asked the proponent to consider alternative subdivision
designs.
The proponents have submitted a revised subdivision plan which eliminates
the access to Indian Hills Pass and Gleason Road and instead proposes one
access at McCauley Trail. This access, of course, requires the concurrence
of Cross View Lutheran Church. The proponents as well as City staff are
presently negotiating with the Church for this access.
The revised roadway design, of course, answers many of the public safety and
access concerns associated with the previous subdivision. However, this
roadway is somewhat steeper than that previously proposed. The grades on
the northerly pori -ion of the roadway are up to twelve percent as compared to
eight percent grades on the roadway section from Indian Hills Pass as
previously proposed. Also, grading, retaining walls, and disturbance to
vegetation will be necessary to accomplish the proposed roadway as compared
to the previous roadway.
The proponents have also submitted, in outline form, Protective Covenants and
Restrictions regarding the development of the proposed lots. A copy of these
Covenants is attached.
E
Community Development Staff Report
so page 2
S-78-10
September 6, 1978
Recommendation:
Although staff has and continues to express concern about the use of the site
for single family purposes, we nevertheless believe that the proposed subdivision
is far superior to the previously submitted designs. ,fany of the public safety
concerns associated with previous proposals have been answered by the new
subdivision. If the Commission wishes to recommend approval, the following
conditions should be considered:
1) A scenic and open space easement 100 feet upland from Arrowhead
Lake should be required.
2) A grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District should
be required.
3) Approval of the proposed Erosion Control Plan.
® 4) Subdivision dedication.
5) An executed developer's agreement.
GLH: jt
9-1-78
Outline of Proposed Covenants and Restrictions Concerning
"THE TIMBERS" Subdivision
soEdina, Minnesota
1. Restricts development to single-family dwellings; provides for a minimum square
footage per dwelling; provides credit for walkout and second floors; gives no
credit for garages, porches, or similar structures.
2. Requires that the plans, specifications, exterior color scheme, plat plan, lot
topography, and finished ground elevations be approved by a Committee composed
of members of the Victorsen family and elected members of lot owners. Provides
for injunctive relief in the event of noncompliance.
3. Provides for a limitation in the percentage of a lot that may be developed and
the width of a home in regards to the lot.
4. Restricts the location of a dwelling, garage or porch as to the distance from the
street right-of-way and its location in re-zards to the depth of a lot.
S. Prohibits any trailer, basement, tent, shack, etc. being used as a residence,
temporarily or permanently.
6. Restricts certain activities including:
a. The removal of sod, soil, sand or gravel without the consent of the Committee;
b. Outside containers for storage or fuel or garbage, etc.;
c. Identification signs;
d. The height of fences or walls;
e. Horses, cows, sheep, etc. being kept on the premises;
f. Business or trade activity on premises;
g. Removal of trees. In this section a tree is defined as set forth in Ordinance
#823 of the City of Edina and applicable portions of that Ordinance will be
incorporated in the restrictive covenant. In addition, the covenant pro-
vides that development shall take place in such a manner that the maximum
number of trees shall be preserved. It further prohibits trees being cut
except those occupying the actual physical space in which a structure or
Q
Improvement is to be erected or developed. The home builder is to provide
the Committee with information of no other feasible or prudent alternative
to the cutting of trees than that which is being proposed. In addition,
the home builder is to propose replanting of trees being removed, if
feasible. It further provides that new trees shall be of a variety of
species and shall not utilize any species PresentlY
under a disease epi-
demic.
i-
demic. Further provisions provide that grading and contouring on the lot
shall take place in such a manner that the root zone aeration stability of
existing trees shall not be affected and provides existing trees with a
watering equal to one-half the crown area.
Preservation of trees is critical to the subdivision
interest. The Victorsens recognize the objective of
trees and woodlands for ecological, recreational and
benefit of existing and future residents of the area.
that the covenants are directed.
._a
E
0
both from a private and public
the City of Edina in preserving
aesthetic functions to the
It is to these objectives
bJ3 m
1 O4�j�- •O bo\ �� -_ _.gip----'
it
K
'�."j •\\ �3L' ;� /-�/�'/n/,/ /�- '�� i ., .l'.'• '�1 __�•��1 !1 r`'1! �`�IJ lfrl/ i
awl
.04
ef
"A
) ! 47
an 42
} t'
�
• •! _ . �_ �-- � _ l,`i�6��t. \ moi, �\t\��` • � t'� ,\ -!— //r•• \��
60
\ ` .-; \u \ m .\•. \� � .moo ,• � /' !/ � � r`
11'zQcl4 \ / /• I,\,il'/ q 71'?q
LN
\ • %rl
r \
• t 1 \ ♦ �ii Y i/iF
Ire, aim;vaa ,;goo*
40
0
Art Center. Fund
Statement of Income and Expense
City of Edina
Seven Months Ending July 31, 1978
1977
1978
Income:
Memberships
$3,625.00
$1,087.50
Registration Fees
$14,186.00
$15,014.17
Donations
-0-
$3,222.62
Merchandise Sales $2,455.61
$2,816.92
Less Cost of Merchandise
Sold $2,012.87
442.74
2,309.87
507.05
Firing Kiln
112.50
'483.61
Other
37.02
41.40
$18,403.26
$20,356.35
Operating Expenses:
Personal Services:
Administrative 6,926.68
7,447.28
Instructors 8,990.00
13,803.00
Maintenance 867.24
16,783.92
505.72
21,756.00
Services -
Layout and design
450.00
-0-
Dues and su:;scriptions
54.83
30.00
Advertising
94.45
61.20
Light and Power
827.38
1,155.73
Telephone
84.36
169.34
Rubbish Removal
91.90
148.82
Repairs
277.50
401.51
Sub - Contract
215.00
-0-
Printing
1,551.81
1,229.29
Fuel Oil
379.86-
911.40
Paint
425.84
1.50
Cleaning Supplies
335.33
48.91
Building Supplies
483.98
281.06
Office Expense
179.63
378.24
General Supplies
1,589.82
860.13
Audit
-0- .
100.00
Other
36.00
51.98
$23,861.59
_
$27,585.11
Net Loss Before Depreciation
($5,458.33)
($7,228.76)
Provision for Depreciation
539.38
629.30
Net Loss
$5,997.71
$7,858.06