The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1976-09-14 Park Board PacketCITY OF EDINA EDINA PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PARK. BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1976 7:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL AGENDA I., Approval of Minutes - Tuesday, August 10, 1976 II. Planning Request - S-76-20 111. Planning Request - S-76-21 IV.- Planning Request - LD -76-10 V. Planning Request - S-76-22 VI. Recreation Report VII. 1977 Budget VIII. Art Center IX. Bicentennial Ball - September 18, 1976 40 DORSEY, WINDHORST, HANNAF'ORD, WHITNEY 8, HALLADAY JO,N W WINDHORST ROBERT J STRUYK YENRY HALLADAY MICHAEL A OLSON HA.N.NAFORD LARRY W JOHNSON AR' --'.;R B WHITNEY THOMAS S. HAY PLSS%LL WLINDOUIST G. LARRY GRIFFITH DAb' R BRINK CRAIG A BECK H09A-E E HITCH DAVID L. MCCUSKEY VIRGI '. H HILL THOMAS O MOE 1 P05ERTV TARBOX JAMES H. OHAGAN ROSE'T J JOHNSON JOHN M. MASON MA+NASO 9 HASSELOUIST MICHAEL W WRIGHT PIT- P OJRSEY LARRY L. VICKREY G EOR=E P FLANNERY LOREN R. KNOTT CUR'S L ROY PHILLIP H MARTIN AR'.HUR E WEISBERG REESE C. JOHNSON DAN- E JOSEPH CHARLES J. HAUENSTEIN JA M -i 9VES SEY CHARLES A. GEER Wi'�L — A WHITLOCK JOHN C. ZWAKMAN ECwA.PO . SCH'NARTZBAUER JOHN R. WICKS 'NOMAS M BROWN EUGENE L. JOHNSON CCRNE'_I'JS D MAHONEY. JR. JOHN W WINDHORST. JR. WILL AM C BABCOCK MICHAEL PRICHARD THOMAS S EkICKSON WILLIAM R SOTH MIC -Ar E BRESS RICHARD G. SWANSON RAYMOND A REISTER FAITH L.OHMAN JOHN J TAYLOR DAVID A RANHEIM a ERNAPD G HEINZEN ROBERT J. SILVERMAN WILLIAM J. HEMPEL THOMAS R. MANTHEY JOHN S HIBBS W.I LIAM R. HIBBS P.09EP' 0 FLOTTEN PHILIP F. BOELTER JOHN D L EVINE WILLIAM B. PAYNE 2300 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55602 Mr. Warren C. Hyde Edina City Manager 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Warren: (612) 340-2600 CABLE: DOROW TELEX: 29-0605 TELEC0PIER:1612) 340-2868 1468 W -FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ST. PAUL,MINNESOTA SSIOI (612) 227-8017 115 THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55901 (507) 28 8 -3156 August 23, 1976 ROBERT A HEIBERG ROBERT L HOBBINS JOHN D KIRBY BARRY D GLAZER ROBERT A SCHWARTZBAUER PETER 5 HENDRIXSON DAVID N. FRONEK NICK R. HAY THOMAS W TINKHAM IRVING WEISER JON F TUTTLE STEPHEN E. GOTTSCHALK EMERY W BARTL£ THOMAS W ELKINS WILLIAM A JOHNSTONE KENNETH L CUTLER STEVEN K. CHAMPLIN DAVID M OUINLAN MICHAEL J. RADMER JAMES R. PIELEMEIER MICHAEL TRUCANO GARY M JOHNSON JOHN P VITRO THOMAS W FINN DON D. CARL SON JAY L SENNETT PAUL J. SCHEERER ROBERT G. BAYER DAN F. NICOL SUZANNE B. VANDYK KENNETH A IVERSON STUART R. HEMPHILL JAMES A FLADER J DAVID JACKSON DAVID L BOEHMEN W. CHARLES LANTZ WILLIAM E MARTIN DOUGLAS E RAY FRANK H. VOIGT STEVEN F. WOLGAMOT WILLIAM H. HIPPEE'JR . J. MARQUIS EASTWOOD ROBERT A BURNS EDWARD J. PLUIMER MICHEL A "FOND KENNETH W. ERICKSON ROGER J. MAGNUSON OWEN C. MARX J. ROBERT HIBBS JAMES E. BOWLUS JAY F. COOK STANLEY M. REIN OF COUNSEL CHARLES L POTUZNIK DONALD WEST VERLANE LENOORF WALDO F. MAROUART DENNIS P. BURATTI GEORGE E. ANDERSON GEORGEANN BECKER ROBERT L VANFOSSEN Re: Park Dedication Requirements in Connection with Platting The Minnesota Supr-,me Court recently decided the Bloomington case in which the City of Edina filed an amicus brief in the District Court. We did not, however, file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the District Court. The Supreme Court stated, in essence, that the Minnesota statute (Sec. 462.358, subd. 2) that authorized munici- palities to require dedication of land or payment of fees for various purposes is not, on its face, a taking of property without just compensation contrary to the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, and that the Bloomington City Code, implementing the state statute, is within the scope of the state statute and is not, on its face, a taking of property without just compensa- tion. The Bloomington Code is very similar to Edina's Code in that it provides for acquiring a flat percentage of the undeveloped land, or equivalent value, which percentage, their ordinance states, is "reasonable," and uses the undeveloped land value as the basis for determining the amount to be given in cash by a developer, with the undeveloped land value being deter- mined by the city assessor as of the date of approval of the final plat. The court, however, points out that the key language in the statute that makes it constitutional is that a "reasonable portion" only is required from a developer. It goes on to state that a " 'reasonable portion' is construed to mean that portion of land which the evidence reasonably establishes the municipality will need to acquire for the purposes stated as a result of approval of the subdivision. This is, of necessity, a facts -and -circumstances test, but it is the only kind of test that will consider the myriad of factors which may bear on a municipality's needs for certain kinds of facilities and the relationship of a particular subdivision to those needs." DORSEY,WINDHOi?ST,HANNAFORD,WHITNEY & HALLADAY Mr. Warren C. Hyde Page 2 August 23, 1976 The court goes on to say, therefore, that the language of the Bloomington ordinance, which requires, as a reasonable amount, 10% of un- developed land value, may or may not be reasonable as applied to any given circumstance. The plaintiff may yet, in further court proceedings, attack the constitutionality of the ordinance as applied to plaintiff's property. The court went on to say that the use of the city assessor and of the date of final plat approval are appropriate. Based on this statute, it would appear to me that some changes in Edina's ordinance would be appr:�priate. I have prepared and enclose sug- gested changes. You will note they consist only of deletion of the phrase "but not less than 5% thereof in area" and making final approval, not pre- liminary approval, as the time for valuation of the property. These changes would impose upon the City the necessity of deter- mining, in each case, what a "reasonable portion" would be of the specific property being platted. In some cases this will be zero (as it has in t''lle past), and in some cases it might be more than 5%. However, 5% can still be used as a f;eneral guideline. It will also mean that the valuation will have to be made at a later date in time, but this will, in most cases, result in an increase in value and,therefore, be beneficial to the City. I send you this information and the proposed ordinance for your review and comments. Also enclosed is a copy of the case itself, as reported. TSE%abc Enclosures cc: Mr. Greg J. Luce Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland Very truly yours, A Thomas S. Erickson CAHILL ELEM SCHO L ................. sub'division REQUEST NUMBER:. 5-76-22 LOCATION: NE Corner of Limerick Ln. and Brook Drive. REQUEST: Two lot single family subdivision. village planning deaortrnent V b=--,-- edit EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 8, 1976 S-76-22 Ryan's Addition. Generally located at the northeast corner of Limerick Lane and Brook Drive. Refer to: Attached area map showing surrounding lot sizes, letter - to the Planning staff, memorandum to the staff, commission, and council, and subdivision dedication report. The proponents are requesting to subdivide a LaBuena Vista Addition lot so that they may create two lots and an outlot adjacent to Nine Mile Creek which would be dedicated per the subdivision dedication report. The Planning Commission may recall that there have been five requests for subdivisions in the LaBuena Vista Addition and all of them have been denied, including one which the proponents appealed to the court. The court upheld Edina's refusal because the court felt the buyers in the LaBuena Vista Addition relied on the lot sizes in that area when purchasing their homes. Recommendation: The staff would recommend denial of the proposed subdivision for the following reasons: 1. The lot sizes would be inconsistent with other lots in the LaBuena Vista Addition. 2. Although there are similar lot sizes in a subdivision across the street, Limerick Lane provides an excellent dividing line between the LaBuena Vista Addition and the surrounding area. Within the LaBuena Vista Addition, there exists a symmetry of housing which would be changed by this subdivision. GL:ln 9/3/76 • 41 N38'i2'10'E v t f!;•s5a�:f r <<tlzzL 1 12 Q• s Wv i� — .s0.j4c :! �•;rj ,• o r •r• c? "flo cart a'. ~i.01 10 w =• ;5.95 _ +7i;� _ I•' rr o, S3.2i 14 15 LLJ 71 V 12 v a ..16i>i 6 �'-�JEas1 J b:•3z�E. � %� 1 � -� "� �' IG t aS _ iF IS..4 ✓ Q i? j c� •.,ti I� �� S• � �•j7:C� r sdl Vf -8 ;:`° 1� �_ �zastq, �!� n 7 �. �• 6D ,� 13 r 17 L.LJ �' _:•G��G^ �• `•r ' G - 7<..J2 ?l �' Amb r^` of r: L .i' ao / e v P'58 Si► ?a _ ;y_ !9 i.7.8 ,9 a•;3'z 7i 150 1 15 4 i -`1" ..-y, 1.5• ' .C1• �u 11\ 191.IS. J69•Eif 311.64 '.6iTr.o;`+'S � S �, :53.7 e �;• 60 v; -•CJ. 1 a o `n Tom" ��•' `=•. t I j 1 -- q�d "---- 6� ', � �'-:i4..�s�--' _14 t — _—f• �. � N='�'ai4�. � • -11J.35 o 0 2 4A/Q6 t;� 2 2 v im, 3.,tn � 3 `•��r x 9,. ` .m i`9r ; z,—, 4 .r •:� A • 16.9 .>. y {!��-t^'., ="� ,..: 3r•: o. ga. = 4 , (1 �: ( F •9 , iv o; O°y 9E=r5 Q T �17n°o 63 �o V 6�_y 3 ` 4 � r _`` � oo /'`, i ;�_:T" - - 5 jS1 a -o Z I 410 0 ^W qk `a oz�~ ✓S.riv` s6 asMe s. Y :27 �,b�4�t r{�~ 6 07b 1169' az EU /2]CG R tih�M\'•�� ' j� �... b 6 \ �vo�S7) J _,. ` f't r''•r• } "� � 6'.t.' �•` �.•,a., � ;� ,�', 7 0 �`• r•, 9� "�� Imo°; D" v Kl`3ie.,6�� d,o y�' �j F• 'ham j+/'\ v�3 j„ .� .6Dne 0 .5'. t •(•�-1.g4,5.a» °p eoi� 2 'OK r45,: :i.'_ 1Y� 1 �� l j�bn r S P6 i v.f 73 °' .`. .y'C.\1\,'�1 �'r,�, ri- f\OQ• I ��hOg/ J `D , 7" e 1 • /c-• 4 , r/(,�� ,� 'Nl�.� i! :.9 :. � t w r ti L)/T• an '� loo •` �1 9p ;j^\� `. \; p". 1- a�o:2rj/l�l y;5'Ge4.- \ ,� � _ •ti �,'.. .. 4 � I �. J' F� ,' e •�r�\- Sal , • = 7 •/�,�'•). 7 O U O ^ I N (3�.� .1° +_ �1• }-srt\ 3 \ �1.r`��• 3to��",aV+ (+�,✓V��+��'t rn � '` 1 "� ,b .".•m � j '!� ' ' i f„�J ,�-. . ARKs- �. 10 12 O J� I T o _' q 4`¢ I�s`s r,;,r • "5 r' c. o -4 p �, 0 q r Je✓ J %\��':•' / ]3�i 9}, Y> h �d i W b +�/•s �j ��C /Ory' j 14 13 ,e,l�F1C VIEW c, •' f .fJ' 8. v. n V� '•'.-a y�� 12 Sl CL 13 _•/ 00 �j!4bi w n I 4 14 j� i�� n c roman . S� i I � .n: 3'i `• N.rM .n • ,cam ani.. ,8 ^f, •n Cc�� •,• �:!. `1.`,Sr ��, iQ �� -SECOND ADO: � o �,c ,� � ^ �•'` � � `s/ '''9 1 :2_ �w.��q '`�i i/ his �' o . po •'1! ,5 fr al'1 (J� �:� M't51 .. � �� Y"t'-- -1- - —�.r.- �Il , 'Or //�°• '"x"• "21.25 •Alii M'':' 1-i'c» 7 �' �� Si � Y Cj iMn II J .rt{��Jq• --_ _ H ',f ' Crros 2nd 2662.3/Res. �,;,.•�; ADDITION ; :r. Gre Luce Planning Director City of Edina 4801 :Nest 50th St. Edina, I: innecota 55424 Dear 1r. Luce, 6813 Limerick Lane Edina, l..inn• 55435 August 31, 197,6 Re: Subdivision Lot 4, Block La Buena Vista The subdivision of our property into an additional buildablr, lot is of utmost importance to us. The newly forned lot, (Lot.2 on survey) is com-oarable in size to the lots facing on Brook. Drive. Lot 2 has 116 front feet and contains 12,200 sq. feet. Hell above the Jdina mini rerun of 9000 sq. f t . Facing lots on Brook Drive, Otto' s 2nd Addition have front footerEes of: Lot 4 - 121, Lot 3 - 85, Lot 2 - 105. _quare foota-e '_S also comparable to Otto's 2nd and 3rd addition.. 11e intend to dedicate the land east of the sewer lire to the center of Eine I:,ile Creek (Gutlot A on surTre--) to the City of Edina. This is 6300 sq. feet or. 1, of the total property. Our neighbors have no objection to this subdiv cion, in fact, mangy, of then realize and appreciate that the new lot will be better maintained when a house is built on it. iJTe will appreciate your ?-)ositive recommendation to the Edina Planni= Corlmission and to the Edina City Council in favor of this subdivision. Thanh you for ;your consideration. Sincerely, I:rs. john Ryan August 26, 1976 To: Greg Luce, Planning Director; City of Edina Memberc. of the Edina Planning Commission Members of the Edina City Council From: John E . and Pary A . 1-0yan 6813 L.imeric'c Zane Edina, T,.innesota 55435 941-4648 Petition: Sub -division oL- Lot 4, Block 9, La Buena Vista The purposed sub -division would: 1. Increase property value (therefore improve owners investment) 2. Improve maintenance of lawn and landscaping to enhance quality and beauty of neighborhood. 3. Add quality taxable property to Edina tax roles. Subdivision No. S ` -1G —.;t SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME: LAND SIZE: ABY: cid, CoA) LAND VALUE: Date: 5% _ $ The developer of this subdivision has been required to ❑ A. grant an easement over part of the land B. dedicate 7 % of the land EIC. 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. EJ 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. )43. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. []4. If property is necessary for storm water holding and will be dredged or otherwise improved and will be a scenic place. ❑ 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or historic value. ❑ 6. B. Cash Required [� 1. In all other instances than above. ❑ 2. MAP lot division REQUEST NUMBER: LD -76-10 LOCATION: N. of Benton, W. of MN&S Railroad Tracks. REQUEST: Two lot single family divi- sion. village Idn" Umc t villmcte of cling 0 EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 8, 1976 LD -76-10 Joe Songstad. 5420 Benton Avenue. Lots 29 and 30, Warden Acres. Refer to: attached survey and graphic The proponent is requesting to subdivide their existing ownership, which is lot 30 and a portion of lot 29, Warden Acres. The Warden Acres lots were originally 150 feet wide, but most every lot has been divided into two 75 foot wide lots running almost 300 feet deep. Attached also is a graphic which was drawn several years ago which showed that in the future a possible Oak Drive extension could be created to service the rear portions of these properties. Part of that Oak Drive has already been dedicated and other land owners have indicated a willingness to make that dedication when their properties are subdivided. Thus, it seems possible that Oak Drive will someday be extended. The proponents are requesting to subdivid.e the property into two lots; one lot would be 80 feet wide and the other lot would be 86 feet wide. Recommendation: The staff would recommend approval of the proposed division contingent on the dedication by easement of a 25 foot strip of land along the north side of Lot 30 for public road purposes. GL:ln 9-3-76 • C 5. a76 • ice' .: h�l�� :�s c�� ,-�_'`>G'N� O ,�,C.��J, �� t�-3%/ •�.��' ;EX`S-; 2 �TOF�'Y G` r� I hereby certify that thiE is a true and correct representation of a survey of the bounda ies of Lot 30, except 'the East 5S.48 feet .thereof, WARDEN ACREE, Hennepin County,; Minnesota and of the location of all buildings thereon, and all visibleen- croachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by irie this day of%�,�r �.. , 197 Rober:t B. r,eredi TI r.: .-:.inn. L e j TO: Subdivision No. L.D — 76 —ID SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME. LAs �� +3o wovJe-P Ac-�-es LAND SIZE: LAND VALUE: 0 < (By: f Date: 5% = $ y t)L) The developer of this subdivision has been required to [] A. grant an easement over part of the land El B. dedicate f of the land KC. 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. 03. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 4. If property is necessary for storm water holding and will be dredged or otherwise improved and will be a scenic place. 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or historic value. FE -2 B. Cash Required K1. In all other instances than above. n 2. 11 I• KJ MAS r [LMORE LANE a s '- - z NTERLACH E WA ERMAN YE ►- �z; �yA ujArccr a ' - MTERLACNEN BLVD'--'---�— Qp � i 1� • .�7;fi�1�� 'i HAROLD WOODSSc n ,• a I I n o m zs5ubdivision REQUEST NUIMBER : S-76-21 LOCATION: W. of Blake Rd., S. of Men- delssohn Ln.,N. of Interlachen Blvd. REQUEST: Two lot single family sub- division. vil r+t�e Manning ftRc=nt vium,,r e of etlm EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 8, 1976 '(�" S-76-21 �o 1 y d west of Blake Road, south of Mendelssohn Lane, and north of Interlachen Boulevard. Refer to: attached site plan and survey. subdivide into two lots The proponents are requesting to / a site on the outside radius of Blake Road near the intersection of Waterman and Blake. I have asked the traffic engineer to study this site for safety and accessibility. In his opinion most of the frontage of the street is hidden from traffic movement from one or the other direction. When heading south on Blake Avenue, the hill on Blake obstructs the southern portion of the access onto Blake. When driving north on Blake, the curve obstructs the northern portion of the access onto Blake. Further, the traffic engineer is extremely concerned that some cars may attempt to back onto Blake Road and cause serious traffic congestion and accidents. The site now exists as a single lot and has not caused significant problems as it is inhabited by a person who does limited driving. The typical single family dwelling in Edina generates 13 trips per day, which if applied to this parcel would cause 26 traffic interruptions in this critical area per day. Recommendation: The staff would recommend denial of the proposed subdivision for the following reasons: 1. The access onto Blake Road is limited and dangerous. 2. Because of the dangerous condition of this intersection, the number of auto- mobile movements from driveways should be limited. 3. The site is located on a small pond adjacent to a busy street and after the setbacks are applied to the two proposed lots, very little buildable space remains. A single lot on this site could easily be developed without under - using the site. GL: In 9/3/76 40 LANE ToNN�s /? y ,I..., 1FjRs — ! (, '400 . loo i 'Iveo, 130 :40 d a r AV E. _ s _ 1 0 2515 p 588'�3Wp �8° `��3 watO rao 30 �^ 115 �59�i5 130 200 PART OF o> If 142 �1s 141.43 ''o^ q` �. cp e�.ocic 21',', �._ N r �q r J0, 2 p J, N ° — ASCENSION _ r 2 o o c^`♦ x.165 �" 2 30^ °Y OVpyr, � r i48 144 21 a. n Block I p '`' �; F,� /r'1} 80.10Ls_�6I15� 5 0 2 c T to Q _ 3 �O OG_J, 2 �•.'6° .�' , i 50 t-- a) N ADDITION Y. a g 5 �( v✓ n 2 80 J,.: 4Q` ,,G'=� yi° 'IZ Zi �p.jrn Q]� rL 130 00 4 ° 141.29 !Ol4g °.. ko qd Cw II C 148 p•,�. �- 4 56 rt I�.. �� s r, .t {�)., �%1 I�.588'S!•F < T.mr•, IL! / z X �o' oI d9 01 w. W_ Lu T p -D •., I�� Q�•--Hti� A L 2 Z O 11 i IOL v.� ✓j 1 ! O r 5 ��s�s LANE ^e9o9'34'A : Z lU -161 ��,p�f`,S A 8 400.46 •-6y .'4,; I--TU3— 81 30 n a w°� (n `">"I+o• is.72g5.5 116.5 100 r,.,•'e�� ! r� I�.04I=� qi leo ._ I,.,%+ r- 3 O I „L ... ,., o "',,, '^ � 2 c j� c r• alb. � f Qv{•Q.c0 to Village � rFiled 2-24-55 •\t 1 — 4 0 a4'10-;100 10y:n68"5 .MII5v I ; N9oCr th InA 90 . .. cY ()o 9 75-7—IIO IOQ ,,, Ci j ;4,��` � i a, tr �o. I o v ` o. N E 5. Posit o ®p .+ .# 3R 2 c, �°•, r 2 r01 Pri:e'SScodo(8 :1' + o :. °��'` �Q,,---i_-1,5— ; �. 11.MdRRO sz`_ ; co5ur%,!.ci.9o2C ✓C-'�.`.�� \ a it i,;Ad a'��' --__ — ._' o, c0 Sur, ayt'rIE: .,\n 91/lr ! — 00 IIQ -- 100 I o Neruetssohr N 110 -1r-40 r -.:0 -fir o �AKE01 �J4Cry o180 4\q\.95 qIo7.�_``F_yn_ I I6:r��,ti r�J ',♦ (i1y /�/�i<^(`j�'. 3°.�s`,,_o^'tJ•1.5, j C ° s,• s ' -,-I' m'r•�e�16 .., Im cTl `o,Y� rk IIo 5 `�4 oW, J',.1s vO 4 `,E00i40O - y9'� fO\ O R . ^' v(, CP. e N j Y . y L _ ]rd.Nr c J ' �► 9 t')o":.0p♦ ;77�rV�..�I. Q;o /,{A5o,. 'i.�_t,,n�_�/�, • ^,:r.�•`.. ia. f ,�If i`'^y J�. r1 �I?:,�Yy;.1l .mc cS �'� rW bYIJ+69,{c� /4�- 4F IY y�f r� . . 'I��le\f: i EI.C96i,\�+`"p1.1k;fiv tI. 1O. F�- A. 6rviWAYINE "° 0(4 5 LSI N 6 �I••.- Zoo J',iJoseph F.9o.' 6 YI✓,i5•c j h}ie1,3F:pb 4.9 4 9F .. N: " 00wtp i7f��o/ �ftoro, 5cr 5 ERRIMVCC., P 154 94 00�h 165 ! 3` °l<. `� 1i: o- " ( al 4; �%_ _I°b.a'` 346,40 2v-'.ar vo •:q9. •: _ ' � 2iC.)S tort ar 4SC0 • Q _ _ 0 --- 330 \\ Y ,'low _3}-• 5._l-'- ---- 330 --.. , j`, 88 RQA `S, -k . _.._ .. 33G �y,— RO D, �4•JF, '(r 2113.68 Res 26:;5 ,Meriu.'1S50i1i1n s 'Jo �i eo AIA °�r,1 / co CD CX Co s ca CD tA VNI I /� / / •4 //. // / i� 'm to 1 n^ cc ell / ! - rlo, lo + l/ r CD co CA YJ / / / / / , / / / � } �'♦ .�': l.•_r...�•.�\�—" � azo I � -=-1 de 14-/n5;,� '/ j _ A 41.24 - Znl.00`� 3L E je '/r If flu rP 7 Subdivision No. S 74 ^ P-1 SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME:AME. S LAND SIZE: �S_Qa LAJ Are k LAND VALUE: (By: Date: 5% = $. � 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. X3_ If property abuts a. natural lake, pond, or stream. [] 4. If property is necessary for storm water holding and will be dredged or otherwise improved and will be a scenic place. ❑ 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or historic value. a• B. Cash Required ❑ 1. In all other instances than above. ❑ 2. is 10 00 MIN Wit; 'a il f I RCLJI DLrV E � C•n={")',.r ?. t 77'Y A� t .• �� 1i•i•Y a. 9RAEMAR '. yr:'• ° _ ).:}.•�•`1 `f BALLPARKtnupt 'aC tea' '�' & ;, is 1-ji I REQUEST NUMBER: S-76-20 LOCATION: E. of Valley View Rd., N. of Mark Terrace Dr. at end of Bror Rd. REQUEST: Two large single family lots divided to four. village j unrtlvi1 Aar of eclin-4 Z& ST. PATRIC�il I RCLJI DLrV E � C•n={")',.r ?. t 77'Y A� t .• �� 1i•i•Y a. 9RAEMAR '. yr:'• ° _ ).:}.•�•`1 `f BALLPARKtnupt 'aC tea' '�' & ;, is 1-ji I REQUEST NUMBER: S-76-20 LOCATION: E. of Valley View Rd., N. of Mark Terrace Dr. at end of Bror Rd. REQUEST: Two large single family lots divided to four. village j unrtlvi1 Aar of eclin-4 EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 8, 1976 S-76-20 Dahlquist Addition Replat. Generally located east of Valley View Road, north of Mark Terrace Drive, at the end of Bror Road. Refer to: attached survey. The proponents are requesting to subdivide two very large lots in the Dahlquist Addition (which are now under one ownership) into four single family lots. The proposed lot sizes would vary from 18,310 square feet to 51,720 square feet. The mean lot size would be approximately 20,500 square feet. The lots in the surrounding area range from 12,752 square feet to 28,781 square feet. There are also two lots which are about 200,000 square feet, one of which is now being subdivided (Braemar's Homestead Addition). The mean lot size in the neighborhood is approximately 16,500 square feet. The Engineering Department has indicated that services can be made available, and they have no objections. I have asked the Assessing Department to complete the subdivision dedication report, wh+e-h m-carry;-i7&--no-t--a-t-t-ae-ked-. The staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision contingent on the 5% cash parkland dedication and a developer's agreement satisfactory to the Engineering Department. GL: In 9/3/76 to to 1p �O 1� N1.1 lb t- oo; In t'e' m 30 0 224 Inv. 891. 72 N 1. WARM L \1 -Ibc Q -- 77 ro n n s men 910 0 ej0, 09 - 0 ac w 10 -0 N 9? i Ci lb .1? 1 to BericAmork Ro til lea \20.7 //Ouse V 0 0 914 on 912 en 910 A, 1100 0.0 Subdivision No. SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME: t LAND SIZE: j a2 o,-`� o 5% _ $ �& () ,�) 5 - 76 -;z o LAND VALUE: Date: i" ) 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) F11. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. U 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. 113. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. [] 4. If property is necessary for storm water holding and will be dredged or otherwise improved and will be a scenic place. E] 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or historic value. E)6. B. Cash Required X1. In all other instances than above. ❑ 2.