Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 2002-078 Findings/Crestwood DevelopmentRESOLUTIION INO.2002-78 ADOPTION OF THE FINDI] OF THE MATTER CRESTWOOD L 6725 IRO( WHEREAS, the Edina Planning Com the proposed subdivision by Crestwood Dev, WHEREAS, the Edina City Council ha taken public comments relative to said propc 6725 Iroquois Circle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL` hereby adopts the following Findings of Fac proposed subdivision by Crestwood Develof CITY In the Matter of the Application of Crestwood Development, LLC for a Subdivision of 6725 Iroquois Circle, Hennepin County PID number 06 116 2134 0001 (S-02-3) The above -entitled matter was heard l' efc 20, 2002, September 3, 2002, and September 1;7, ("Proponent") was present. The City Co nd adduced by the Proponent, his representatives, ( owners and their representatives and being fi makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Proponent, on March 14, 2002, 4.08 -acre parcel of land located at 6' Property") is comprised of pars ( existing single dwelling unit uil Subject Property. According to Cit Property. After reviewing the app. determined the application to be it provide all the information require the City Code. The Proponent:: wz processed until all information 1 received. 2. The Proponent, on May 8, 20102, Subdivision Ordinance and the apI City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 1 t v c k (i111�1 DECISION, AND REASON APPLICATION OF -ILOPMENT, LLC IS CIRCLE on has recommended the City Council deny lent, LLC, 6725 Iroquois Circle; and med to the developer's presentation and ubdivision by Crestwood Development, LLC, that the City Council of Edina, Minnesota Conclusions of Law denying the application LLC, 6725 Iroquois Circle: DINA FINDINGS, DECISION, AND REASONS the City Council, City of Edina, on August )2. Tom Feehan of Crestwood Development having heard and reviewed the evidence y Staff, City Planning Commission, property y advised, after due consideration, hereby Submitted an application for subdivision of a Z5 Iroquois Circle. This tract of land ("Subject two lots in Auditor's Subdivision 196. An ing is located in the central portion of the records Aarbor Homes, Inc. owns the Subject cation submitted by the' Proponent, City Staff omplete. Specifically, t�e application did not by Section 810 ("Subdil ,ision Ordinance") of informed that the appIsion ication would not be quired by the Subdiv Ordinance was tted the information required by the i was placed on the agenda for the May (952) 927-8861 FAX (952) 826-0390 TDD (952) 826-0379 F 29, 2002, Planning Commission eeting. The Propone t, on May 28, 2002, submitted a letter requesting the application for subdivisior be removed from the Planning Commission agenda. The Proponent stated the d sire to meet with City Staff to address issues raised by i Staff's report to the Pl ` ing Commission. 3. The Proponent presented a revi ed E ite plan to City Staff at ameeting held on June 18, 2002. The revised site pla piesented to City Staff di�d not contain all the information required by the Su division Ordinance. The Proponent was advised that the application would not be placed on the Planning� Commission agenda until all ordinance required info ma ion was submitted. 4. The Proponent, on July 17, 2002 sut mitted the remaining information required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The application for subdivision was properly noticed and placed on the agenda for the my 31, 2002, Planning Conunission meeting. The application for subdivision (the "Proposed Subdivision..) delineated three, R- 1, Single Dwelling, Unit lots. Lot 1 f the Proposed Subdivision measured 48,854 square feet, Lot 2 measured 75,920 square feet and Lot 3 m asured 36,971 square feet. The Proposed Subdivision indicated the existing single dwelling unit building occupying Lot 2 would rerr Lain. 5. The Edina Planning Commissio re Viewed the Proposed S division at their July 31, 2002, meeting. The Prop nen made a full presenta 'on of the Proposed Subdivision. Several property wn rs in the vicinity of the roposed Subdivision spoke in opposition to the pr pos 1. The Planning Corn nission also received several pieces of written testimony opposing the proposal Concerns raised by neighbors included tree loss, i pa t of the proposed gra ing plan, height and amount of retaining walls required o develop the Subject Property, and potential damage to adjacent properties from increased storm water' runoff caused by the proposal. Also testifying in o po ition to the Proposed subdivision was Gary Gandrud, attorney; for an adjadent property owner. Mr. Gandrud referred the Planning Commission to his wri en correspondence and to ritten testimony of a forester and a commercial excavtio i contractor retained to ovaluate the Proposed Subdivision. Mr. Gandrud argu d that the Proposed Subdivision should be denied based upon considerations set forth in Section II of the Subdivision Ordinance. After receiving testimony of City Staff, the Proponent, his representatives, neighbors a d heir representatives, i and the Planning Commission voted 8 to 0 to recommend end to the City Couit that the Proposed Subdivision be denied. Pursuant o applicable City Ordinances, notice of an August 20, 2002, public hearing bef Dre the Edina City Council was published in the Edina Sun Current and ma ilec. to property owners within 500 feet of the Proposed Subdivision. 6. On August 20, 2002, the Edina City Council conducted a ublic hearing on the Proposed Subdivision and redeiv d the report and rec mmendation of the Planning Commission. The city Council and the Propo ent also received all written correspondence sub4tte to the Planning ommission and all correspondence received after the Planning Commission, meeting. The City Council heard testimony from the Proponent, his representative, neighbors and 2 their representative. Among is testimony were whether: A. The Proposed Subdivision neighborhood and thus i Subdivision Ordinance. B. The quantity of trees lost to Property and the surroundir C. Grading required to develol alter the character of the site D. Retaining walls 30 to 40 fe4 would be in keeping with tl would present a safety hazai E. The development would i. surrounding properties. THEREFORE, based on the foregoing following Decision: The application for Preliminary Plat Iroquois Circle by Crestwood Development, L The above decision is made for the follc Reasons: In determining the appropriateness relies on the guidance provided in its Subdiv: Section 11 of the Subdivision Ordinance sets e� discussed and conside*d in oral and written ot ld alter the character end symmetry of the ,ul d violate the purpose and intent of the ev elopment would be detrimental to the Subject n ighborhood. he new street and cul de s' c would significantly id the surrounding prope 'es. in height surrounding th proposed cul de sac c racter of the surround" g neighborhood and relse storm water runof#I that could threaten the City Council does hereby make the 3p oval for the Proposed' Subdivision of 6725 i 3 hereby denied. I ri a roposed new subdivison the City Council >n rdinance. ,th he following considera V ons the City Council may consider when reviewing proposed subdi isi " A.1. The suitability of the size and sh pe relative to the size and shape of lots in the r "B. The impact of the proposed plat) or on the environment, including but not lim naturally occurring lakes, ponds and trey sedimentation, susceptibility of site to fl oc site." "K. Whether the physical characteris 'cs topography, vegetation, susceptibility t e use as a natural recovery and ponding ea slopes with a grade of 18 percent or m re, the type of development or use proposed." M. Whether development within the � disturbance of more than 25 percent of containing slopes exceeding 18 percent." Having considered the elements of the o hearings before the Planning Commission an development is contrary to the Subdivision Orc the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision ;hborhood." bdivision, and the prdposed development, d to, topography, steslopes, vegetation, s, susceptibility of th site to erosion and g and water storage meds on and from the the property, including, without limitation, ,ion or siltation, susc tibility to flooding, r storm water, and po ntial disturbance of e such that the prope is not suitable for ,posed plat or subdiv sion will cause the e total area in such plat or subdivision nce in light of the facts ladduced at both the City Council, the Council concludes the -e for the following reaoons: A. The physical characteristics of the S susceptibility to erosion and siltatiu exceeding 18 percent make the Subject B. The size and shape of the lots in the I the immediate neighborhood. C. According to figures provided by subdivision will impact more than 25 percent. D. Development of the street and cul c Subdivision would be harmful to adiac4 during and after development. The require the removal of between 20,0 truckloads) and would require some r E. The Proposed Subdivision will be det surrounding neighborhood. F. According to the Proponent's Engineer, off, which could threaten surrounding pi Passed and adopted this 17`h day of September 200: ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting that the attached and foregoing Resolution w Regular Meeting of September 17, 2002, and as WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this Property including topography, vegetation, L the large amount of i slopes with a grade !rty unsuitable for additional development. ed Subdivision are not consistent with lots in Proponent, developm nt of the Proposed ,ent of areas containing slopes exceeding 18 i Ic necessary to serve J,ots in the Proposed roperties and may creat a safety hazard both opment of the street and cul de sac would 1 29,000 cubic yards of I soils, (1,200 to 1,500 g walls exceeding 30 feed in height. ntal to the character and symmetry of the development will incre�se storm water run - ties. I Mayor 'I 'I ITY CLERK aerk for the City of Edna do hereby certify y adopted by the Edin� City Council at its led in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. .y of �a , 20_. City Clerk