Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-07-16_COUNCIL MEETING(Revised) AGENDA EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 1979 ROLLCALL MINUTES of June 18 and July 2, 1979, approved as submitted or corrected by motion of , seconded by I. REPORTS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators. heard. First Read- ing of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, Plats, Flood Plain Permits, Appeals from Administrative or Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decisions and Plan Amendments require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Release of Declaration of Restrictions - Fabri -Tek - Tracts A and B, R.L.S. No. 1145 (Generally located East of County Road 18 and South of Londonderry Drive) B. Subdivision and Zoning Change 1. The Habitat - R -1 Residential District to R -2 Residential District - Part of the Southwest Quarter, S. 31, T. 117, R. 21 (Generally located North of Vernon Ave. and West of Lincoln Drive - Z -79 -2 (6/27/79) 2. Don Berg Construction Co. - R -1 Residential District to PRD -2 Planned Residential District - Tract B, R.L.S. 519 (Generally located North . of the MN &S Railroad tracks) - Z -79 -3 (6/27/79) C. Zoning Change 1. Braemar Associates - R -1 Residential District,to 0 -1 Office District - Part of the East one - half of the Southwest Quarter, S. 8, T. 116, R. 21 - (Generally located North of W. 78th Street and West of Cahill Road) Z -79 -1 (6/27/79) D. Preliminary Plat Approval 1. Fairchild's Prospect Hills - Lot 1, Block 1, Prospect Hills 1st Addition (Generally located South of W. 70th Street and West of Antrim Road - S -79 -9 (6/27/79) II. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS A. Crosstown Highway Noise III. AWARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES A. Tracy Ave. Lift Station Repair B. Storm Sewer Pipe - William.Wardwell Lewis Park IV.' RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. School District Boundary Change B. Summer Bus Route C. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council D. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items Agenda July 16, 1979 Page Two V. COMMUNICATIONS A. Petitions 1. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain for 1) East Side of France Ave. between Parklawn Ave. and South City Limits and 2) W. 76th Street between France Ave. and 400' West of York Ave. - Set Hearing Date B. Mr. & Mrs. John S. Hale - Recreational Vehicle Ordinance VI. ORDINANCES First Reading requires offering of Ordinance only. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if Second Reading should be waived. A. Second Reading 1. Trapping Ordinance Nos. 1071 -A1 and 1222 -A2 B. First Reading 1. Liquor Ordinance Amendment VII. FINANCE A. 1979 Audit B. Claims Paid: Motion of seconded by for payment of the following Claims as per Pre -List dated July 16, 1979: General Fund, $237,712.32; Park Fund, $5;972.72; Art Center, $403.66; Park Con - struction, $41,720.00; Swimming Pool, $1,663.64; Golf Course, $64,947.33; Arena Center, $14,478,14; Gun Range, $562.83; Water Fund, $29,116.57; Sewer Fund, $103,001.04; Liquor Fund, $108,630.55; Construction Fund, $261,902.61; Total, $870,111.41 lJSGti 1979 Women's Public Links Committee MRS. CLYDE B. ROE Chairman 1133 Sibley Memorial Highway St. Paul, Minn. 55118 MS. DELLA M. BALLARD MRS. NANCY M. BOOZER MRS. EVELYN BOYLE MRS. JEANNE BROUTHERS MRS. MARY M. CAIN MRS. ARISTEA COLONNA MISS ARGYLE CRUMP MRS. EVELYN DENTON MRS. RAY O. FISCHER MRS. SHIRLEY FOPP MRS. JOHN GARRITY MRS. AUDREYA. GOODWORTH MRS. ROMA E. HOLSOMBACK MRS. MARIA L. JOHNSON MRS. BETTY LINNERT MRS. ANGELA M. MANUTAN MRS. ART MARSHALL, JR. MRS. ROBERT O. MARTIN MRS. NATALIE McBEE MRS. JEANE MILFORD MRS. GLADYS MOORHOUSE MISS SUSAN L. MORRISON MRS. BERTHA M. OGRIN MRS. ARTHUR K. PARIZEK MRS. WILLIAM REICHELT MRS. PAM ROTHFUSS MRS. MADALON D. SELF MRS. BARBARA E. SOLOMONSON MS. BETTY VOLZ United States Golf Association q! Golf I louse Far lills Ncwj,rscy 07931 (201) 234 -2300 Cable: Usgol f Mr. Robert Kojetin, Director of Parks & Recreation 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minn. 55424 Dear Bob: On behalf of the Women's Amateur Public Links Committee, I would like to thank you, Mayor VanValkenberg, Ken Rosland, the City Council and the Park Board for their generosity in allowing the United States Golf Association to conduct our Championship on Braemar Golf Course. The golf course is in magnificent condition, the local staff and committees could not have been better organized or more cooperative - definite factors in helping to produce what I consider our finest Championship ever. Please extend our thanks and gratitude to all the officials in the City of Edina. Best personal regards. Sincerely, Mrs, lyde B. Roe, Chairman Women's Public Links Committee FRANK D_ 'TATUM. JR. President EUGENE S, PULLIAM Vice- President WILL F NICHOLSON. JR. Vice- President JAMES R. HAND Secretary WILLIAM C. CAMPBELL Treasurer C. GRANT SPAETH General Counsel PJ. BOATWRIGHT. JR. Executive Director July 2, 1979 Mr. Robert Kojetin, Director of Parks & Recreation 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minn. 55424 Dear Bob: On behalf of the Women's Amateur Public Links Committee, I would like to thank you, Mayor VanValkenberg, Ken Rosland, the City Council and the Park Board for their generosity in allowing the United States Golf Association to conduct our Championship on Braemar Golf Course. The golf course is in magnificent condition, the local staff and committees could not have been better organized or more cooperative - definite factors in helping to produce what I consider our finest Championship ever. Please extend our thanks and gratitude to all the officials in the City of Edina. Best personal regards. Sincerely, Mrs, lyde B. Roe, Chairman Women's Public Links Committee r � f ' LAW OFFICES .---------- . - - - -- MOSS;- FLAH- ER -T -Y, CLARKSON & FLETCHER A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 2350 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET VERNE W. MOSS - - J. BRAINERD CLARKSON MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA SS402 PETER L.McCARTHY PATRICK F. FLAHERTY - J. MICHAEL HIRSCH. FREMONT C. FLETCHER - 16121 339-8551 MARGO S. STRUTHERS - JAMES VAN VALKENBURG ANN K. NEWHALL PAUL VAN VALKENBURG MICHAEL J. AHERN MICHAEL L. FLANAGAN MAHER J. WEINSTEIN WAYNE A. HERGOTT JAMES E. O'BRIEN June 25 1979 OF COUNSEL RICHARD S. 21EGLER / VAN VAL HORACE VAN VALKENBURG JOHN F. STONE. RALPH H. COMAFORD " _ EDWARD L. WINER - - � � -• � -" DAVID W. LEWIS- - - DAVID B. MORSE - - - - � � � .. '� HOMER A. CHILDS CHARLES A. PARSONS, JR. ' - MARK P. KOVA LCHUK L.GLENN FASSETT IIS30 -19751 ABBOTT L.FLETCHER (1916 -1974) Mr. Gordon Hughes City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, Minnesota Dear Gordon:... 55424 I appreciate your meeting with Mr. Hyatt and I regarding possible low and medium income housing on the Findell property on Cahill. I understand he has already met with Fred who indicates a lack of interest in approving such a plan. I believe we should be careful of public announce- ments indicating that we are not in favor of this because I do not want it getting back to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency or to HUD. I indicated to Mr. Hyatt that I thought he was better off to work with'Gordon and the Planning Commission and our Commission who is going to work with Gordon on the Mandatory Planning Act, and in particular the housing section. If you wish to talk to him that is your own business. However, I would be a little careful because he may be setting a trap although he indicates that.he is not interested' in litigation. We are trying to do some developing in that range and also have some requirements that must be met regarding the Metropolitan Council's Plans. What we ulti- mately decide will be decided. However, I do not want to have him indicate that we are being biased in the beginning before the decision has been made. Mr. Gordon Hughes -2- June 25, 1979 I indicated to him tha.t.I thought any decision or comment on my part would be improper and would be premature until some of the particulars had been followed. I suggested that he go before the Planning Commission to discuss this informally without architectural drawings, ',,,,Ock c ups and some of those items. He felt that by then he might have his answer as to whether or not HUD would finance him. He, of course, is looking for a right down to use development funds and I indicated that I did not know that they would only be used, there, and that they might be competing requests for those funds. I pass this on for your information. Yours truly, /ames Van Valkenburg JVV:jd IV -B DATE: July 13, 1979 TO: Ken Rosland, City Manager FROM: Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Intra -Edina Bus Operations In response to questions on the physical operations of introducing a local bus service, the following information is provided: A. The time frame to implement a fairly well planned program would be approximately six months. B. The previous program presented to the City Council had three routes, which would operate six days_ a week.for ten hours a day. If one would use only one circular route, the probable distance to complete the route would be be 14 -18 miles at a time of approximately one hour. C. After planning the route and time scheduling the following physical elements need review: 1. Personnel needed for only one vehicle would be at least one or two full -time Drivers and Program Director /Driver (emergency) if the vehicle were to be used on a full week schedule of five or six days for 8 to 12 hour days, The expected labor rate would be approximately $4.50 to $5.50 per hour.. 2. Insurance cost and Liability issues need attention if School District Buses are used. 3. Physical operation of the vehicle with down -time for re- quired maintenance and normal routine operation including gas, oil, and regular cleaning. D. If a experimental circular route were started and using either one Bus or the City Van approximately 50 hours per week the following cost could be expected: 1. School Bus: (includes labor if paid drivers) $750 - $800 per week (conservative estimate) 2. City Van: (includes labor if paid drivers) $600 - $700 per week (conservative estimate) E. The above four points A thru D present a brief sketch as to probable conditions for a very simple fixed route operation. However, the City has a serious problem with availability of gasoline. Currently, we are supplying approximately 2,000 gallons of gas this Summer to the School Buses for our Swimming Program. The School normally provides gas for these Buses, but are unable to obtain the additional gas this Summer. Also, we are on an allocation of 70% of our normal city con- sumption. As such, it is the opinion of the Public Works Department that any additional drain on our gasoline supplies could put the City in a difficult position when the Winter season arrives. F. If the City were to pursue the bus program, serious consideration should be given to the use of the City Van versus a School Bus (which) could be used as a reserve vehicle if the Van broke down). The School Intra -Edina Bus Operations Page 2 (Continued) Bus would use approximately 200 gallons per week versus 100 gallons per week for the Van, in the example cited in Paragraph "D ". NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION TO CHANGE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY State of Minnesota ) County of Hennepin ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that all the property owners on the Braemar Hills 7th, 8th; 9th and 10th Additions have filed their petition with the County Board of said County stating that -they are tl,- fee owners of parcels of land situated within the limits of the City of Ed 4!Fa4=nie-and within the boundaries of the Eden Prairie Independent School District #272 described as: BRAEMAR HILLS 7TH, 8TH, 9TH and 10TH ADDITIONS Petitioners request that a new school district boundary line be established as follows: That the boundaries of the Eden Prairie Independent School District #272 and the Edina Independent Scifool District #273 be altered by detaching Braemar Hills 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Additions from the Eden Prairie Independent School District #272 and annexing these lots to the Edina Independent School District #273. The granting of this petition will not reduce the size of the Eden Prairie School District to less than four (4) sections. AND THAT SAID PETITIONS will be heard at the regular meeting of the Board.of County Commissioners of Hennepin County on Tuesday, July 31, 1979, at 10:30 a.m., in the County Board room at the Government Center, in the City of Minneapolis, in said Hennepin County. BY'ORDER OF THE COUNTY BOARD WAYN iA. JOHNSON Cow ty Auditor �t mg a g4 VALLEY VIE* i:. STALBAN �1 • :JUNIOR IGM SCHOOL beli- lo o ►������■■l N Now OL F '�J'II1� D 1- od- .1111111110mF.Ir _: Firs' = •,;�� D AN GtVe 4; < I COURSES' -..,. - 9 RANG �" a a r � J i V A � \E B C D E Concord Terrace ................ F -4 Florence Lane .................. C -8 Indian Hills Pass B -5 Continental Drive ......... A -3, A -4 Fondell Drive ............. F -7, G -7 Indian Hills Road .... A -5, A -6, B -6 Coolidge Avenue ................ F -1 Forslin Drive D -4 Indian Pond Circle ............. B -5 tea IRE 1������� ■��■� �r- �'-_ !y iii . ;.I D AN GtVe 4; < I COURSES' -..,. - 9 RANG �" a a r � J i V A � \E B C D E Concord Terrace ................ F -4 Florence Lane .................. C -8 Indian Hills Pass B -5 Continental Drive ......... A -3, A -4 Fondell Drive ............. F -7, G -7 Indian Hills Road .... A -5, A -6, B -6 Coolidge Avenue ................ F -1 Forslin Drive D -4 Indian Pond Circle ............. B -5 ). W NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION TO CHANGE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY State of Minnesota ) County of Hennepin ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that all the property owners on the Braemar Hills 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Additions have filed their petition with the County Board of said County stating that they are the fee owners of parcels of land situated within the limits of the City of Eden Prairie and within the boundaries of the Eden Prairie Independent School District #272 described as: BRAEMAR HILLS 7TH, 8TH, 9TH and 10TH ADDITIONS Petitioners request that a new school district boundary line be established as follows: That the boundaries of the Eden Prairie Independent School District #272 and the Edina Independent Sc ftol District #273 be altered by detaching Braemar Hills 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Additions from the Eden Prairie Independent School District #272 and annexing these lots to the Edina Independent School District #273. The granting of this petition will not reduce the size of the Eden Prairie School District to less than four (4) sections. AND THAT SAID PETITIONS will be heard at the regular meeting of the Board.of County Commissioners of Hennepin County on Tuesday, July 31, 1979, at 10:30 a.m., in the County Board room at the Government Center, in the City of Minneapolis, in said Hennepin County. Dated: July 3, 1979 BY ORDER OF THE COUNTY BOARD WAYN� ;A. JOHNSON Coyr, �ty Auditor fmmlft��lwm m C L66HOUSC SOCCER COURSES FJEL�D "'ARCHERY.i lqklln VALLEY VIEW HIGH SCHOOL NNE m h4 9> Mum me pumb IFF m Ef 1�1111,n JEVANGELICA FREE CHURC TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: DATE: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE Mayor and City Council Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works Kenneth Rosland, City Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 July 12, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Install 200 Lineal Feet of 36" C.M.P. supplied by City of Edina in William Wardwell Lewis Park (Part of Storm Sewer - Job #1406) Quotation /Bids: Company 1. G.L. Contracting, Inc. 2. Matt Bullock Contracting Co., Inc. 3. -Amount o.f'Quote or Bid $1;700.00 $2,240.00 Department Recommendation: G.L. Contracting, Inc. $1,700.00 Public Works Signature Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is not Q within a ount budgeted for the purchase. N. Dalen finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: .ennet I :os a Citv 11anauer REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: July 12, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Labor and Appurtenances necessary to assist Sewer Department replace pumps_- at Tracy Lift Station Quotation /Bids: I Company 1. Horwitz Mechanical, Inc. 2. G. L. Contracting., Inc. 3. Amount-of"Quote or Bid $1,750.00 $2,324.00 Department Recommendation: Horwitz Mechanical, Inc. $1,750.00 ljr� Public Works Signature Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recoff0ended bid is �is not Q within t e amount budgeted for the purchase. . N. Dalen Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: E; nnet r :os I -ah d- - City Manager subdivision FAIRCHILD'S PROSPECT HILLS REQUEST NUMBER: LOCATION: REQUEST: 5 -79 -9 villn¢r vlanning denmriment village of edina COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT June 27, .1979 S -79 -9 Fairchild's Prospect Hills. Generally located south of West 70th .Street and west of Antrim Road. REFER TO: attached graphics The subject property is a 60,240 square foot single family lot (Lot 1, Prospect Hills). A single family dwelling is located on the central portion of the site and fronts on West 70th Street. The proponent is requesting a- subdivision of the subject property in order to create one new buildable lot.. This lot would measure 80 feet by 238 feet and 19,200 square feet in area. As proposed, a 41,040 square foot lot would be retained for the existing single family dwelling. Prospect Hills was originally platted in the late 1940's into 15 lots. These lots ranged in size from about 30,000 square feet to 42 acres. Most lots were 1 to 12 acres in size which is similar to the subject property. Since the original platting, Lots 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 15 of Prospect Hills have.been further subdivided and a subdivision of Lot 14 is pending before the City Council. These lot divisions are shown by dashed lines on the attached. graphic. The approximate areas of these new lots range from 18,000 square feet. to 30,000 square feet. Lot widths for these lots range from 100 feet to 150 feet. Recommendation: In our review of proposed subdivisions of Prospect Hills as well as other sub- divisions such as Rolling Green, staff has primarily been concerned with the preservation of the "large lot" character of these areas. Thus, we address the issue of the spacing and symmetry of dwellings in such areas rather than the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. In the past, we have supported sub- divisions of Prospect Hills lots that insured the generous spacing of dwellings, provided relatively spacious yard areas and did not detract from the symmetry and character of the area. Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is not consistent with these goals. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of the proposed subdivision for the following reasons: 1) It is apparent that the subject property was originally developed and intended as a single building site. This is evidenced by the central location of the existing dwelling, the location of drives and parking areas, and the location of terraces, landscaping, and a swimming pool. This swimming pool would not conform to required setbacks from the new lot line. Community Development and Planning Commission page 2 Staff Report Fairchild's Prospect Hills June 27, 1979 2) The proposed lot width would be 20 feet narrower than the narrowest lot in Prospect Hills. Therefore, a dwelling constructed on the new lot would appear crowded in relation to surrounding dwellings and would not be compatible with the overall character of Prospect Hills. 3) The approval of the proposed subdivision could establish a precedence leading to the creation of similarly narrow lots in the area which would further detract from the character of Prospect Hills. GLH:jkt 6/21/79 +'rx.-:.r.9f_•t.^1rA7. r� ]�.*'r::.ii:i;. ' `•S+�aa,y'sltiw;;� «.s�ii'.i..�;_ %..v.:_h_J:�,�. .,.,�, tb. s ...vtllJ.rsz: "}e'...'' "i::.`�.� ='..cC6:.�5,=�+s_ /.'::.Ca:A;e. .� -�— :- i.�iea:a_�:S.:f•._ .'k':.1mS1P�•Giifile•..:�,..;� 'cam I zs,9ao xxt=r. N I I :L I o � I\ I\ \ 240. o / C I � � `k aPv NI \ I �s I I r1Q I i I 1 / I _1__- 70c,�, F Z4 LOT I \ I I Loaf' 2 `_Q. F=T rc �il�r: ,�// 4 , 'SG:. 44 Acr <S /o. °J4 Acre 1 L I ,'o A 1/ r M Fcol I �o 25rj'p \ 36, 330 SQ.cT. NOS I i 60 li. i z Q 60 L -- �l�T CARDARELLE � ASSOCIATES. INC. L A N D S U R V E Y O R S 6440• Flyint Cloud Drive. Eden Prairie Minnesota. 35713 Pcone 611. 941.3010 Scale /'= 40'_. Rev,sionsDrawn E3 Date D_un _'LAje �, 7 • �'POs1�vv I e Job No. N7/Z-(3 –/ Book a IW /,,, 7p 7� JTKef. T S` Y w I $.Q4EM,.41P � F12G5F�� NiGtS ` I �� Aes✓EY N /.L Q1� r 5!'E LLYJ� KAP L E 6A L DF_.f>c k, T / ON LOT / , P6cT N /ttS 28, 600 5Q. F r. OWNE e – oE VE LOP,eR PERNA DE 7rE FA IR<fA4 /z-D 7000 A/`/ 7-R /M RDAO e O //VA, M / /V NE SOTA - -- 107 - 4283 PRESENTLY ZONED 2 - -1 60,4/4 SG?.FT. — /.3'9 A�•rs. Pl20ia0 QED �l�T CARDARELLE � ASSOCIATES. INC. L A N D S U R V E Y O R S 6440• Flyint Cloud Drive. Eden Prairie Minnesota. 35713 Pcone 611. 941.3010 Scale /'= 40'_. Rev,sionsDrawn E3 Date D_un _'LAje �, 7 II Job No. N7/Z-(3 –/ Book Page .. � N- a -• � .. .......a: �_.. ..'�•�'• .. .. ... .. _.. . _ ....,_. - - _. -_ ..... _._. .,_. d .. .. •_ .. .. ,. ._ _.. ... _... . -. .. _ _ , . R o � Q b. 7C .g' -'�- - --- --�- z� I all N a' NZ ' Ps 3 03 - d� '�.� CP JAI, 1 � 9 "eO4 •503.3 � pQ 38,0°0', q A el 40.93 N Z7 7 6'37.14 JAI, 1 PAT FREDRIKSEN 7001 DUBLIN ROAD EDINA, MINNESOTA 53433 y-Crz Z��./„°n°�°a��F � aiww�Ak- FLT- A-1 erep-� 04 17-f I PAGE 1 6F EDINA, MINNESOTA 22 JUNE 1979 WE, THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORS, DO HEREBY PETITION THE EDINA PLANNING COIZaSSION TO REFUSE THE REQUEST FOR SUB- DIVISION OF THE BERNADETTE FAIRCHILD LOT. NAME i C ADDRESS G✓ � r -- 0 ps"_ �i'�,•r�u�, -ice✓ � � 4--�✓ ` C1 /a- 4 l� le. Al' , A-1 /j/� �� Syr .p �% OV • .;� ��' l6F ' / / 'J �{ li i "— Al., Jz . j "— Al., Jz . PAGE 2 OF EDINA, MINNESOTA 22 JUNE 1979 WE, THE FOLWvTING NEIGHBORS, DO HEREBY PETITIO14 THE EDINA PLANNING COM•DUSSION TO REFUSE THE REQUEST FOR SUB — DIVISION OF THE BERNADETTE FAIRCHIID LOT. NAME C ADDRESS i n 4 V7/ od f i n C 7c I LL Z12 i `Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 8 wondered who owned tracts D and E, and Gordon Hughes replied that UMET, a real estate investment trust, owned both tracts. David Runyan asked Mr. Hughes how much of Tract B fell into the flood plain to which Mr. Hughes replied that roughly about 75 to 80 percent is in the flood plain. Gordon Hughes also indicated that in the future it may be attempted to develop a public corridor the length of Nine Mile Creek. He suggested that the Commission consider requiring a scenic easement over the property to protect it from development but would allow the corridor development. Mr. Reid again objected to the dedication of Tract B and stated that he felt their request was relatively.minor as they were not requesting subdivision, rezoning or anything major. Helen McClelland suggested the Commission do something about the tenancy without tampering with the section that prohibits the subdivision of the tract. Malcolm Reid responded that Fabri -Tek would be satisfied if they were allowed to permit two tenants for their building. David Runyan commented that he did not feel that would be a problem as that would not increase the parking area, the building size, or the number of people. Bill Lewis also felt they should be required to give a scenic easement 100 feet from the center line of the creek. Mr. Michelson responded that if they were required to grant an easement, Tracts D and E should be adjusted appropriately. Mary McDonald moved that the Commission approve only the release of the restriction to allow Fabri -Tek to have more than one tenant with the condition that a 100 foot corridor scenic easement be granted along the Nine Mile Creek. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. S -79 -9 Fairchild's Prospect Hills. Generally located south of West 70th Street and west of Antrim Road. Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property is a 60,240 square foot single family lot with a single family dwelling located on the .central portion of the site fronting.on West 70th Street. Mr. Hughes continued that the proponent is requesting a subdivision of the subject property in order to create one new buildable lot which would measure 80 feet by 238 feet and 19,200 square feet in area. He also noted that a 41,040 square foot lot would be retained for the existing single family dwelling. Gordon Hughes recalled that Prospect Hills was originally platted in the late 1940's into 15 lots which ranged in size from about 30,000 square feet to 41� acres. He indicated, however, that most lots were one to 1' acres in size which is similar to the subject property. Noting that since the original platting many of the Prospect Hills lots have been further subdivided, Gordon Hughes stated that the approximate area of these new lots range from 18.000 square feet to 30,000 square feet with widths that range from 100 to 150 feet. In the review of the proposed subdivision of Prospect Hills as =well as other subdivisions such as Rolling Green, staff has been primarily concerned with the preservation of the "large lot" character of these areas, and addressed the I Community Development and Planning Commission 'dune 27, 1979 page 9 issue of the spacing and symmetry of dwellings in such areas rather than the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. In the past, Mr. Hughes observed that staff supported subdivisions of Prospect Hills lots that insured the generous spacing of dwellings, provided relatively .spacious yard areas, and did not detract from the symmetry and character of the area. Staff believed that the proposed subdivision was not consistent with these goals, and therefore could not recommend approval of the subdivision for the following reasons: 1) It is apparent that the subject property was originally developed and intended as a single building site. This is evidenced by the central location of the existing dwelling, the location of drives and parking areas, and the location of terraces, landscaping, and a swimming pool. This swimming pool would not conform to required.setbacks from the new lot line. 2) The proposed lot width would be 20 feet narrower than the narrowest lot in Prospect Hills. Therefore, a dwelling constructed on the new lot would appear crowded in relation to surrounding dwellings and would not be compatible with the overall character of Prospect Hills. 3) The.approval of the proposed subdivision could establish a precedence leading to the creation of similarly narrow lots in the area which would further detract from the character of Prospect Hills. Mr. Hughes also submitted to the Commission a letter from Pat Fredricksen of 7001 Dublin Road who strongly objected to the subdivision. Bernadette Fairchild was present to answer the Commission's questions regarding the request. Bernadette Fairchild explained that she was requesting the sub- division because she had unclear title to her property. Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission to evaluate the case on the merits of its planning. Ralph Linvill of 7005 Antrim Road voiced his opposition to the subdivision as did Darrell Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive and Harold Hargrove of 5900 West 70th Street who felt the subdivision would set an undesirable precedent of many small lots. David Runyan felt that in terms of lot size this request was out of line with the area and therefore moved that the Commission deny the subdivision request based.on the reasons previously stated by staff. Helen McClelland seconded this motion. All voted aye; the request was denied. S -79 -10 Kiichli Addition. Generally located south of West 70th Street and west of Antrim Road. Gordon Hughes recommended that this item be continued for one month because the signs have not been erected for the sufficient amount of time. David Runyan moved that the item be continued for.one month. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the request was continued. T 00 EDINA EDINA CITY HALL 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 a Planning Department RHONE (612) 927 -8861 subdivision Application PLAT DESCRIPTION: TITLE: /2�~�% ��%c.( !�✓ o -vu`- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OWNER: NO. OF LOTS: ZONING: E EXISTING: PROPOSED: NAME: ADDRESS :L 7000 Zip PHONE: * 2,'3 SURVEYOR: NAME: ADDRESS: �c `><� �r�`f�"'% C ��-•✓ (/- /L«.ch,�� zip PHONE: 9Z11- S.' Case Na.: Fee Paid: �l0 „C}D � THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS SUBDIVISION REQUEST WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL UNTIL THE SUBDIVISION SIGNS HAVE BEEN ERECTED FOR NINE DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. Applicant's Signature Date: 13 If -7 LOCATION MAP zoning suba," ivits iori DON BERG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REQUEST NUMBER: Z -79 -3 LOCATION: REQUEST: R -1 Single Family to R -5 Multiple Family District yillase RlanninS delrlment village of edina COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT May 30, 1979 Z -79 -3 Don Berg Construction Company. R -1 Single Family and District to PRD -2 Planned Residential District. S -79 -6 Don Berg Construction Company. Generally located north of the Crosstown Highway and west of the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railway. REFER TO: May 2, 1979, staff report The Commission will recall that the subject rezoning and subdivision were considered at the May 2, 1979, meeting. At that time, the Commission recommended preliminary approval provided that the two proposed six -plex buildings be replaced with two four -plex buildings. Such a modification would bring the proposal into conformance with the Western Edina Plan which designates the site for low density attached residential housing at a density of 0 to 4 units per acre. The proponent was in agreement with this requested modification. The City Council reviewed the proposal at its May 21, 1979, meeting. The Council referred the proposal back to the Commission and requested that it consider the development of a maximum of four units on the subject property rather than eight units as requested. Such a development would result in a density of two units per acre. Staff met with Mr. Berg following the May 21, 1979, meeting. He stated his intent to pursue the plan as approved by the Commission, i.e. two four -unit buildings. Mr. Berg will probably present additional informa- tion at the May 30, 1979, meeting in support of his request. GLH:jkt 5/24/79 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT` May 2, 1979 Z -79 -3 Don Berg Construction Company. R -1 Single Family District and to PRD -2 Planned Residential District. S -79 -6 Generally located north of the Crosstown Highway and west of the M & N Railroad Tracks. REFER TO: attached graphics The subject property measures two acres in area and is bordered on the north by Valley View Road and on the south by the Crosstown Highway. West of the subject property is a developed single family lot and to the west of this lot is an undeveloped tract of land similar to the subject property. The Western Edina Plan recognized that the subject property as well as the two parcels to the west represented a transactional area between the Crosstown highway and single family homes to the north. Therefore, the Plan designated this area for "low density attached housing." According to the Plan, such areas could accomodate single family cluster housing, two family dwellings, townhouses and apartments at a density of 0 -4 units per acre. The subject property exhibits several constraints for development. First, the property abutts and is substantially lower than the Crosstown Highway. Thus, it is subject to relatively high noise levels. Secondly, the easterly half of the property is approximately 15 feet lower than Valley View Road. Thus, a conventional development with single family or two family dwellings fronting on Valley View Road would be difficult without extensive filling. Also, due to the dimensions of the property and its topography, it would be difficult to construct a cul -de -sac serving individual lots. The proponent is requesting a rezoning of the subject property to PRD-2 Planned Residential District. According to the proposed plans, two six - plex buildings would be constructed on the site. These buildings would be oriented in a north -south direction in order to lessen the impact of the Crosstown Highway as well as to reduce the exposure of the buildings to the single family homes to the north. Access to the development would be by way of a private drive from Valley View Road. Eight enclosed garage stalls and four exposed'stalls are provided for each building which is in conformance with ordinance requirements. The setbacks proposed for the buildings substantially exceed ordinance requirements. Recommendation: Staff believes that the proponent has proposed a development plan which Community Development Staff Report page 2 7. -79 -3 and S -79 -6 May 2, 1979 recognizes the constraints of the subject property. The proposed buildings are oriented so as to lessen the impacts of the Crosstown Highway. The proposed access to the development takes advantage of the site's topography and precludes the necessity for excessive filling. Several aspects of the proposed development lessen its impact to single family dwellings on the north side of Valley View Road. First, the north -south orientation of the buildings produces a less obtrusive visual impact as compared to other possible orientations. Secondly, design features of the proposed buildings including sloping roofs and conventional building materials are similar to and compatible with single family homes in the area. Thirdly, due to the topography of.the site, the buildings will be depressed from Valley View Road and will thus be less visible to dwellings to the north. Ideally, the subject property together with the two parcels to the west could best be developed as one planned residential development. However, in that the lot immediately to the west is already developed with a single family dwelling (which is in good condition) such a comprehensive develop- ment plan is difficult to require. Due to the low density nature of this area and adequate access, staff believes that each parcel could reasonably be developed independently. Staff would advise that according to the Western Edina Land Use Plan, the subject property should contain a maximum of four units per acre. The proposed plan requests six units per acre. Although the proposed plan maintains the low density character of the area and does not unduly crowd the site, the Commission should consider the possibility of requiring two four -plex buildings rather than two six -plex buildings. Staff recommends preliminary zoning approval and preliminary plat approval with the following conditions: 1) Final zoning is conditioned upon final platting. 2) Subdivision dedication. 3). An executed developers agreement 4) A grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District GLH:jkt 4/26/79 We oppose any rezoning of the property located north of the Crosstown Highway between the single dwelling at 6317 Valley View Rd. and the M & N R Railroad tracks.. �iD� lovv B � 237 x-3/6 ���� �l To The Edina 1'1unn.i.11L- Lolulil ission : We the undersigned, oppose any rezoning of the property located north of the Crosstoirn Ilighway between the single family ,ciwelliilf; at 6317 Valley View Rd. and the :'i d N railroad tracks for tale folloxring reasons: Tile size of the lots j.11 the general area of the property proposed for rezoning are from one -half acre to over an acre. Any cfianffe in the zoning that would allow for the construction of higher density Housing would alter the single family neighborhood concept of spacious yards. There is no necessity to, . consider multiple unit buildi.n3-s for this property when all other land alo-ag tile. Crosstown Highway between IIighiray 100 and Tracy Avenue has been utilized for single family homes. Three single family homes were recently constructed south of the crosstoim on land c(_Iually close to the highw0y. There is a single family .horn(: on a very large lot just west of the property proposed for rezoning. That house will decline in crarket value if sandwiched lie tween" hi .,,,-her clonsity rental property. In addition the properties north of Valley View Road would also r ecline in value because they ur:)uld overlook an expanse Of roof and parltiini areas that iultiple -unit buildings t ;ould necessitate. If there are ei,;h-t or twelve rental units constructed oil the aforementioned property, it would be necessary ir ' •T j; �.Ulii1117_� ;sioII May 25, 1 ` T, to cut (101,111 lntiny I:lov ti E =cr= to Baal ;e l ,1ay for the .larger buildin;;s UJI(1 extra The trees absorb SOU nd fro ;n the Crosstol -m Ili!lrway. They are far superior for nc,.ise absorption ljot}1 aesthetically and economically titan the barriers built along many of our area freeways. it has been SU,.;, ested that this propertyv because of the freeway noise, is riot suitable for single family homes. iJc; feel that tenants should not be subjected to any noise that► the property owners. If the land is suitable for tenants, then it is also su_i.taule for holilc owners. ile respectf,.11y request the I'lannin�; Colunlission to vote no on th,: rezoning proposal. Concerned Residents lie oppose r ezoniJ -1 „; &"'4 _ z 5.00 �C VicecG� 2`P . t,1�� A-A- 4� 3 Q 0 h�� 6 11 G c v lz-q. C--d 0 -f cr� �& 'L A, /// 7 is 9 '�- To Edina Planning Commission -2- May 25, 1979 to cut down many more trees to make way for the larger buildings and extra parking. The trees absorb sound from the Crosstown Highway. They are far superior for noise absorption both aesthetically and economically than the barriers built along many of our area freeways. It has been suggested that this property, because of the freeway noise, is not suitable for single family homes. We feel that tenants should not be subjected to any more noise than the property owners. If the land is suitable for tenants, then -it is also suitable for home owners. We respectfully request the Planning Commission to vote no on the rezoning proposal. Concerned Residents lie oppose rezoning: / b 2,13 636 -62L2_3 W6-�r c, � i.je Ol-)pOSC zi.i,ly of i :e proj)C:L•Ly located north of the %Crusstuv,,I-I EJ lienveen t1w sin6--10 -Cajaily --&�N—ai-lxad —dwe V:.—V-j.-e vr—Rd—and—the M R o- tracks: K� � SIB w MR 6, i C-- e- j ig A 157Z A lie oppose any rezoiiiji,,,,, of the proper of the Crosstoim highway between the dwelling at 6317 Valley View Rd. and tracks: ty located north single family the M & N Railroad Rd .iQt.c.� a �.ta�u �Ci�t,¢ -t�J (03/3 ��E�.oC� ��C�. c9��, 6229 �..� ^ k A/C �� C�<<2���e �� 4 A We oppose any rezoning of the prop -rty located north of the ^rosstown Highway between the single fa -illy dwelling at 6317 Valley View Rd, and the M & N Rail- road tracks: / L� % °U,,c��i�y�v �C • .e zf L-e-, - pl;fl� ZZ, %1a, coir�.�dh - Y/I a_&� Alp- ,;lkl" Gas 4Z 6-e Ago We oppose any rezoning of the property located north of the Crosstown Highway between the single family dwelling at 6317 Valley View,Rd. and the M & N Railroad tracks: . a�tj�� kLt ..moo/ S-7- X-t _ &611 &,tc/� A. &o/ -� 6 p v r 6 o oC( C, ;ZO-O Q dVl j o 2f � _ e We oppose any rezoning of the property located north of the Crosstown Highway between the single family dwelling at 6317 Valley View,Rd. and the M & N Railroad tracks: . a�tj�� kLt ..moo/ S-7- X-t _ &611 &,tc/� A. &o/ -� 6 p v r 6 o oC( C, ;ZO-O Q dVl j o 2f � Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 5 Z -79 -3 ..Don Berg Construction Company. R -1 Single Family and District to PRD-2 Planned Residential District. S -79 -6 Don Berg Construction Company. Generally located - - - - -- north -of -the Crosstown Highway and west of the Minneapolis, Northfield, and Southern Railway Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to recall that the subject rezoning and subdivision were considered at the May 2,.19.79, meeting at which time the Commission recommended preliminary approval provided that two proposed six -plex buildings be .replaced with two four -plex buildings. He observed that such a.modification would bring the proposal into conformance with the Western Edina Plan which designates the site for low density attached residential housing at a density of zero to.four units per acre. Mr. Hughes noted that the proponent was in agreement with this requested modification. The City Council then reviewed the proposal at its May 21, 1979, meeting. Mr. Hughes reported-that the Council referred the proposal back to the Commission and requested that it consider the development of a maximum of four units on the subject property rather than eight units as requested, which would result in a density of two units per acre. Staff met with Mr. Berg following the May 21, 1979, meeting. Gordon Hughes indicated that Mr. Berg wished to pursue the plan as approved by the Commission, i.e. two four -unit buildings. Therefore, Mr. Hughes introduced Mr. Berg to present additional information-in support of his request. Mr. Berg submitted that with 400 feet of land he felt he should be entitled to more than two units or two doubles on the site. He elaborated that he had bought the land with the intention of building on it and using it in the future after he retires from work. John A. Cattin of 6223 Westridge Boulevard presented a formal petition signed by 54 families or 92 individuals who are opposed to the development. Bill Lewis asked Gordon Hughes what the Western Edina Plan said for that particular site. Mr.. Hughes replied it showed zero to four units of low density attached housing. Mrs. Donald Berg stated they had lived in the neighborhood for 21 years, and certainly would like to build to bring the value of the neighborhood up, not down. She pointed out that if they were required to put single family homes on the site, more of the trees would be removed than with the present plan; also with one driveway to the development rather than several single family driveways, much of the traffic congestion on Valley View Road would be alleviated. Gordon Hughes reported to the Commission that the Council was not opposing this particular style of development, but rather had some question over the.total number of units to be constructed. Raymond E. O'Shaughnessy of 6308 Valley.View Road questioned the actual size of the site. It was confirmed that the site is actually two acres 'in size. Mr. O'Shaughnessy also brought out the issue of the density reduction plan which Mr. Hughes clarified was meant to reduce higher apartment densities, not necessarily small developments. Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 6 Mr. Berg pointed out that there was enough acreage on the site for four double bungalows, but his requested four -plex buildings would cover less area with the additional fact that the buildings would be built in such a fashion to look like one very deluxe large home. He also commented that he has had a sign erected for about ten years which reads "Townhouse Sites for Sale ". Len Fernelius moved approval of the proposal for two four -plex buildings on the site. David Runyan seconded that motion. Mr. Marion Van Someren of 6317 Valley View Road commented that as the owner of the single family home located on the west side of the site, he had no guarantees that the Bergs would not develop the property and then sell it. Richard Seaberg pointed out that at the previous Commission meeting it was discussed to move the buildings to the east. Mr. Berg suggested that he would apply for a variance to move both buildings to the east closer to the strip of undevelopable land owned by the City to create .a. 75 or 80 foot set- back from Mr. Van Someren's property. Gordon Hughes indicated that the suggestion was.feasible as the easement will probably always be retained by the City for drainage purposes. Len Fernelius amended his motion to include the study of the possible use of the easement for moving the buildings to the east,. further from Mr. Van Someren's property. David Runyan seconded that amendment to the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried to allow Mr. Berg to build two four -plex buildings on the site and further investigate the possibility of moving the buildings closer to the easement. III. New Business: Release of Declaration of Restrictions on Fabri -Tek, Registered Land Survey No. 1145. Gordon Hughes explained to the Commission that the subject property which measures about 30 acres, was rezoned to PID, Planned Industrial District in 1965. He indicated that at that time, the City Council and residents of.the area were concerned with the proximity of the industrial zoning to residential properties as well as the inability to control the future intensification of the property with other industrial development. Therefore, the City Council required that Fabri -Tek provide protective covenants in favor of the City which stated that the subject property would be considered as a single parcel and not be leased, conveyed, mortgaged, or otherwise encumbered except as a single parcel. He observed that these covenants precluded the subdivision of the subject property as well as the leasing of a portion of the building on the property. Gordon Hughes noted that Fabri -Tek was now requesting that the City release in entirity the covenants imposed upon their property in 1965 to allow the possibility of subdividing the subject property and /or leasing a portion of the building. Staff pointed out that the subject property is located in somewhat of a transitional area from a land use standpoint: to the east is the LOCATION MAC `6, zoning sulad.,,,ivision THE HABITAT REQUEST NUMBER: Z -79 -2 & S -79 -5 LOCATION: Generally located north of Vern Avenue and west of Lincoln Driv REQUEST: R -1 Single Family to R -2 Two Family District O 250 5X) 750 1000 Village plallnins rIeLMrtnie t viligge of edins COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT June 27, 1979 Z -79 -2 The Habitat. R -1 Single Family District to R -2 and Two Family District. S -79 -5 The Habitat. Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and west of Lincoln Drive. REFER TO: May 2, 1979, staff report and attached graphics The subject rezoning and subdivision was considered by the Commission on May 2, 1979. At that time, the proponent was asked to review his plans with the Department of Natural Resources due to the proposed encroachment into the wetlands on the site. Based upon discussions with the DNR, the proponent has submitted new plans which are attached. The revised plan varies from the original plan in several respects. First, Vernon Court West has been relocated to provide a better orientation with Vernon Avenue. Secondly, the four lots fronting on Roushar Road have been eliminated and all lots would be served by the new streets. Thirdly, the encroachment into the wetland on the site has been reduced. This wetland will continue to be used for a storm water ponding area. Recommendation: Staff believes that the proponent has responded very favorably to the concerns expressed on May 2, 1979. The relocation of Vernon Court West, the elimination of the lots fronting on Roushar Road, and the reduced wetland encroachment result in a much improved development plan. Of particular concern to staff is access to the vacant parcel located easterly of the subject property. If this parcel is ultimately developed for R -2 uses, staff believes that Vernon Court West should be extended to serve this parcel. If this parcel is developed for other types of multiple residences, a separate drive and curb cut may be appropriate. As an interim solution, staff suggests that an appropriate number of the proposed lots should be designated as an outlot to allow the future extension of Vernon Court West if warranted. The.Engineering Department has noted that the curve where Vernon Avenue joins Roushar Road has been a problem since this road was constructed. Staff recommends that right -of -way should be dedicated over the southeasterly portion of Lot 14 to allow the future re- alignment of this road. This dedication would have a maximum width of about 18 feet. According to our computations, staff submits that Lots 1 and 12 do not satisfy the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size specified by ordinance. Adjustments should be made to satisfy this requirement. Due to their Community Development and Planning Commission page 2 Staff Report Z -79 -2 and S -79 -5 - The Habitat June 27, 1979 shapes, Lots 1 and 14 will be extremely difficult to develop without variances. Appropriate adjustments should be made to reduce this problem. Due to the constraints of the wetland on the site, Lots 4, .6, and 8 will have to be de- veloped with fairly small dwellings as compared to.many double bungalows in the City. The developers of these lots must recognize this constraint. Several of the building footprints shown on the preliminary plat do not comply with ordinance requirements (e.g. setbacks).. Approval of this plat does not imply that variances will be granted for these dwellings. With the modifications noted above, staff recommends preliminary approval with the.following conditions: 1) final zoning is conditioned on final platting 2) an executed developer's agreement 3) subdivision dedication 4) a detailed storm sewer plan must be approved by the City and Nine Mile ..Creek Watershed District prior to final approval 5) an executed scenic and open space easement for the pond and surrounding area as shown on the proponent's plan 6) no driveway access to Roushar Road 7) a grading permit from the Watershed District 8) a permit from the DNR allowing alteration of the wetland GLH:jkt 6/22/79 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT May 2, 1979 Z -79 -2 The Habitat. R -1 Single Family District to R -2 Two Family District. and 5 -79 -5 The Habitat. Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and west of Lincoln Drive. REFER TO: attached graphics The subject property measures 7.75 acres in size and is located in the north- east quadrant of County Road 18 and the Crosstown Highway. The subject pro- perty is bordered on the south and west by Lincoln Drive.(referred to as Roushar Road on the attached graphics), on the north by Edina West Condominiums and the east by a vacant parcel which abutts Fountainwoods Apartments. Several rezoning requests have been considered for this property in past years. On two occasions, commercial zoning requests were denied for this property due to inconsistency with the Western Edina Plan. In 1976, a rezoning request to PRD -3 for the subject property and other properties in the area received pre- liminary approval from the Planning Commission and City Council. This plan proposed 90 patio home units, approximately 50 of which were located on the subject property. The proponent of the plan did not pursue the rezoning following preliminary approval. (A copy of this plan is attached for your reference.) The subject property is characterized by rolling topography on the easterly and westerly portions. A 12 acre wetland is located in the central portion of the site. This wetland has been classified as a "public water" by the Minnesota. Department of Natural Resources, and therefore permits will be required prior to its alteration. Due to its proximity to County Road 18 and the Crosstown Highway, the site is subjected to relatively high noise levels. The proponents are requesting a rezoning to R -2, Two Family Dwelling District as well as a sixteen lot subdivision for the site. As proposed, four lots would front on and have direct access to Lincoln Drive. Two common driveways each serving two of these lots would be provided in order to reduce the number of curb cuts on Lincoln Drive. The remainder of the lots would be served by two.short cul -de -sacs. The wetland in the central portion of the site would be excavated, altered.in shape, and utilized for storm water storage. Water- fowl nesting islands would be constructed in the pond, and a scenic easement would be provided around its perimeter. Recommendation: The subject plan proposes a number of desirable features. First, the density Community Development Staff Report page 2 Z -79 -2 and S -79 -5 May 2, 1979 of the project is about four units /acre which is in conformance with Council policy concerning residential density reduction. Secondly, the wetland on the site would be preserved to a much greater extent as compared to previous proposals and could be properly used for storm water ponding. The provision of nesting islands and the scenic easement will also lessen the impact of the wetland alteration.. The Minnesota DNR has agreed in concept to the proposed wetland alteration. Some features of the development are less desirable as compared to other possible developmental plans. First, the topography of the site would be better utilized by a plan calling for clustered housing. Secondly, the plan proposes four curb cuts on a curving roadway resulting in some sight distance problems. Thirdly, the four lots fronting on Lincoln Drive cannot be adequately buffered from freeway noise. Fourthly, the oblique intersection of Vernon Court West with Vernon Avenue produces difficult turning movements. Storm water drainage is a particular concern for the subject property as well as other properties in the area. In their review of past proposals in this area, the City and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District required that all storm water runoff from the subject property be diverted northerly to Nine Mile Creek rather than southerly to Arrowhead Lake. Due to the ponding area proposed by the present plan, this requirement may no longer be essential. In any event, storm sewer design must be studied thoroughly prior to development. Staff would recommend that the proponents prepare modifications to the plan that would 1) relocate Vernon Court West to lessen its oblique orientation with Vernon Avenue. Such a.reorientation should consider the extension of this road to serve the vacant property to the east which will probably be developed in the same manner as the subject property. (Staff agrees, however, that the intersection of this road with Vernon Avenue should be opposite the intersection of Vernon Court East with Vernon Avenue.) and 2) provide a better orientation of the four lots fronting on Lincoln Drive to lessen the impact of freeway noise. With these suggested modifications, staff recommends approval with the following conditions. Final zoning is conditioned upon: 1) final platting 2) an executed developer's agreement 3) subdivision dedication 4) a detailed storm sewer plan must be approved by the City and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District prior to final approval Community Development Staff Report page 3 Z-79-2 and S-79-5 May 2, 1979 5) an executed scenic and open space easement for the pond and surrounding areas shown in shading on the proponent's plan 6) a- "non - access" easement which would allow only two driveway curb cuts on Lincoln Drive 7) a grading permit from the Watershed District 8) a permit from the DNR allowing alteration of the wetland GLH: jkt 4/27/79 ............ . . . . . . . . . . . L I . P-cvF- i-opmFivr 0 A ` }. Jn ,.y \ ��, r• / ` : 1 ' 1.�• ' •��I <on. rcv�rn•.r J.i r•J R - 4 10 -4 $1 IN 7 3 Dr---'-CAC-R 0 14, 1 610�) FOX 12-*;'," VIA LI-)e VIN 74Z 3 g 0111A 1-1!PlIJ PU - 9 411- 55 7', A eta I .Ol 1, 71 AITS cn...T.OW M. p 0 R— z J ROA D ai :11,17 ✓117 7 .71 7 '�, 7 777- 77 72� i T =i 71 "T 1:7', -1 ! 7 June 26, 1979 M 64-:0 F I y i C i 0 U d. 7L" VO Eden Prairie, 1-11.-i-nnrota 55434 BE: PERNITT APPI K"TION 7'-6264 J- .. 1, -�, . 1) - Dear Mr. Car,dai--lle: The plans revised cn Junc 21, 1979 have been reviei-.,ed by the 1 Re!7ional D!,UE ard the concept rncets with , appro -val. Piease be advised tha'L,- of tl�e we' `n 1 1 be cer.nJitt-'ed is on tip,-1 e-astony poi•tion, 'l-cc ated 3 r:Lr,-i a r J- I y in lot number (03) - The extent of ifillins-, will be de'-er :-nined upon receiot of f-nal grading pl-ans, i•.,j.th reference to spco-ific elevations. If you have any questions, feel free to cont-act me. KL/ch cc: City of Edina Gordon Hughes Sincerely, Kent- Lokkesmoe Regional Hydrologist AN coum- or-morwu�irry SY A TE 0 rj- ",u L; File No. June 26, 1979 M 64-:0 F I y i C i 0 U d. 7L" VO Eden Prairie, 1-11.-i-nnrota 55434 BE: PERNITT APPI K"TION 7'-6264 J- .. 1, -�, . 1) - Dear Mr. Car,dai--lle: The plans revised cn Junc 21, 1979 have been reviei-.,ed by the 1 Re!7ional D!,UE ard the concept rncets with , appro -val. Piease be advised tha'L,- of tl�e we' `n 1 1 be cer.nJitt-'ed is on tip,-1 e-astony poi•tion, 'l-cc ated 3 r:Lr,-i a r J- I y in lot number (03) - The extent of ifillins-, will be de'-er :-nined upon receiot of f-nal grading pl-ans, i•.,j.th reference to spco-ific elevations. If you have any questions, feel free to cont-act me. KL/ch cc: City of Edina Gordon Hughes Sincerely, Kent- Lokkesmoe Regional Hydrologist AN coum- or-morwu�irry Z -79 -2 The Habitat. R -1 Single Family District to and. R -2 Two Family District S -79 -5 The Habitat. Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and west of .Lincoln Drive. Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property, measuring 7.75 acres in size and located in the northeast quadrant of County Road 18 and the Crosstown Highway, is bordered on the south and west by Lincoln Drive, on the north by Edina West Condominiums, and the east by a vacant parcel which abutts Fountainwoods Apartments. Mr. Hughes recalled that several rezoning requests have been considered for this property in past years, and on two occasions commercial zoning requests were denied for this property due to inconsistency with the Western Edina Plan. In 1976, a rezoning request to PRD-3 for the subject property and other properties in the area received preliminary approval from the Planning Commission and City Council, which Mr. Hughes noted proposed 90 patio home units, approximately 50 of which were located on the subject property. However, Gordon Hughes stated the proponent of the plan did not pursue the rezoning following preliminary approval. j Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 4 Gordon Hughes indicated that the subject property, characterized by rolling topography on the easterly and westerly portions, has a wetland located in the central portion of the site which has been classified as a "public water" by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and therefore will require permits prior to its alteration. Mr. Hughes also noted that due to its proximity to County Road 18 and the Crosstown Highway, the site is subjected to relatively high noise levels. Gordon Hughes explained to-the Commission that the proponents are requesting a rezoning to R -2 Two Family Dwelling District as well as a 16 lot subdivision for the site with four lots to front and have direct access to Lincoln Drive. He continued that two common driveways, each serving two of these lots, would be provided in order to reduce the number of curb cuts on Lincoln Drive, and the remainder of the lots would be served by two short cul -de -sacs. Mr. Hughes also informed the Commission that the wetland in the central portion of the site would be excavated, altered in shape, and utilized for storm water storage and that water fowl nesting islands would be constructed in the pond, and a scenic easement provided around its perimeter. He stated that he had met with John Dickson of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Kent Lokkesmoe, Regional Hydrologist, who saw a few problems with the plan in that the DNR wet- lands should not be filled for subdivision purposes. In recognizing the desirable features of the proposal, Gordon Hughes said the density of the project, about four units per acre, is in conform- ance with Council policy concerning residential density reduction; the wetland on the site would be preserved to a much greater extent as compared to previous proposals and could be properly used for storm_ water ponding; the provision of nesting islands and the scenic easement would lessen the impact of the wetland alteration. Some of the less desirable features Mr. Hughes noted were that. first the topography of the site would be better utilized by a plan calling for clustered housing; second that the four curb cuts the plan proposes would result in some sight distance problems; third, the four lots fronting on Lincoln Drive could not be adequately buffered from freeway noise; fourth, the oblique inter- section of Vernon Court West with Vernon Avenue would produce difficult turning movements. Staff recommended that the proponents prepare modifications to the plan that would relocate Vernon Court West to lessen its oblique orienta- tion with Vernon Avenue'and provide a better orientation of the four lots fronting on Lincoln Drive to lessen the impact of freeway noise. Finally, staff recommended the Commission continue the request for one month to enable the DNR to more closely examine the proposal and work with staff concerning the problems in the plan. Gordon Hughes introduced Frank Cardarelle, Rudy Trones, and Wally Irwin who were present to answer the Commission's questions regarding the proposal. Gordon Johnson requested an abstention on this matter due to a conflict of interest. Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 5 Frank Cardarelle showed the Commission the most recent proposal for the Habitat and noted that while they. needed plan approval from the Hennepin County Highway Department, the Department of Natural Resources, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, the Planning Commission and City Council, he felt that everyone was generally favorable toward the plan and preliminary concept approval should be granted. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the DNR did have some problems with the plan that would have to be worked out. Del Johnson asked how much power the DNR holds and if they would have the ultimate decision as to approval of the plan. Frank Cardarelle explained that he felt they were improving the natural habitat so subject to some changes, the preliminary concept should be approved. He added that if the natural habitat can be improved enough they would be allowed to do some filling. In response to David Runyan's question as to how far the dwellings would be from Lincoln Drive, Mr. Cardarelle responded they would be thirty feet from the property line to the building. Mr. Dever, Director of Edina West Condominiums, noted that Mr. Cardarelle had presented the plan request to the Edina West Condominium owners but only a handful of the 162 owners were present. However, he continued that those present found the proposal very desirable for the area and thought it was a definite improvement if approval is granted in something of the form of the present proposal. Bob Peterson of Edina West Condominiums was concerned with the problem of the intersection, and Mr. Cardarelle responded that the intersection could be changed and yet the same concept kept intact. Richard Seaberg moved the Commission continue the request for one month to work out more of the problems with the proposal. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye with Gordon Johnson abstaining. The motion to continue the request carried. Z-79-2 and S -79 -5 J� The Habitat. R -1 Single Family District to R -2 Two Family District. The Habitat. Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and west of Lincoln Drive. Gordon Johnson requested an abstention on this matter due to conflict of interest. Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to recall that this item had been continued from the May 2, 1979, meeting. He continued that the proponent was proposing sixteen R -2 lots for the area. however, at that time some concerns were brought out regarding the wetland on the site, and Mr. Hughes added that the proponent was to have additional discussions with the D \R. He stated that staff had not heard from the proponent or the DNR since that time. Frank Cardarelle was present with revised plans to submit to the Commission. Mr. Cardarelle briefly explained his revised plans to the Commission. Ile then requested the new plans be considered at the June 27, 1979, Planning Commission meeting. Gordon Hughes commented that just at first glance these plans seem to answer several of the concerns staff had regarding access on to Roushar Road. Del Johnson moved that the matter he continued for one month as the.proponents requested. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye with Gordon Johnson abstaining. The matter was continued to the June 27, 1979, meeting. d ' Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 3 z -79 -2 The Habitat. R -1 Single Family District to R -2 and Two Family District. S -79 -5 The Habitat. Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and west of Lincoln Drive. Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to recall that the subject rezoning and subdivision were considered by the Commission on May 2, 1979, at which time the proponent was asked to review the plans with the Department of Natural Resources due to the proposed encroachment into the wetlands on the site. He continued that based upon discussions with the DNR, the proponent has submitted new plans which have been sent to the Commission for their review. Mr. Hughes indicated that the revised plan varies from the original plan in several respects. First he noted that Vernon Court West has been relocated to provide a better orientation with Vernon Avenue. Second, the four lots fronting on Roushar Road have been eliminated and all lots would be served by the new streets. Third, Mr. Hughes continued the encroachment into the wetland on the site has been reduced. He also explained that this wetland would continue to be used for a storm water ponding area. Staff believed that the proponent responded very favorably to the concerns expressed at the May 2, 1979, meeting. Gordon Hughes observed that the relocation of Vernon Court West, the elimination of the lots fronting on Roushar Road, and the reduced wetland encroachment.result in a much improved plan. However, of particular concern to staff is access to the vacant parcel.located easterly of the subject property. If this parcel is ultimately developed for R -2 uses, staff felt that Vernon Court West should be extended to serve this parcel, but if this parcel is developed for other types of multiple residences, a separate drive and curb cut may be appropriate. As an interim solution, staff suggested that an appropriate number of the proposed lots should be designated as an outlot to -allow the future extension of Vernon Court West if warranted. The Engineering Department noted that the curve where Vernon Avenue joins Roushar Road.has been a problem since the road was constructed, and staff recommended that right -of -way should be dedicated over the southeasterly portion.of Lot 14 to allow the future re- alignment of this road. Gordon Hughes indicated that.this dedication would have a maximum width of about 18. feet. Staff also submitted that several lots do not satisfy the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size specified by ordinance and appropriate adjustments should be made to reduce the problem rather than seek a variance. Gordon Hughes also noted that.due to the wetland constraints of the site, several lots would .have to be developed with fairly small dwellings as compared to many double bungalows in the city. Staff clarified that approval of this plat would not imply that variances would be granted for the dwellings outlined by building footprints on the preliminary plat. Staff recommended preliminary approval of the plat with the following conditions: Community Development and Planning Commission June 27, 1979 page 4 1) final zoning is conditioned on final platting 2) an executed developer's agreement 3) subdivision dedication 4) a detailed storm sewer plan must be approved by the City, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and Hennepin County prior to final approval 5.) an executed scenic and open space easement for the pond and surrounding area as shown on-the proponent's plan 6) no driveway access to Roushar Road 7) a grading permit from the Watershed District 8) a permit from the DNR. allowing alteration of the wetland Gordon Hughes introduced Frank Cardarelle who was present to answer the Commission's questions on behalf of the proponents. Mr. Cardarelle stated-he did not think there were any great problems with the plan: he felt they could comply with all the conditions that staff recommended. He did note, however, that the property to the east is in foreclosure and at that time no one had control of the property. He also added that they had no intention of asking.for any variances, and all the buildings would be architecturally set out. In reply to Richard Seaberg's question of how much property was located to the east, Mr. Cardarelle stated there was 195 feet. Len Fernelius moved the Commission grant preliminary approval of the plan subject to the conditions which follow: 1) final zoning is conditioned upon final platting 2) an executed developer's agreement 3) subdivision dedication 4) a detailed storm sewer plan must be approved by the City, Nine Mile.Creek Watershed District, and Hennepin County prior to final approval 5) an executed scenic and open space easement for the pond and surrounding area as shown on the proponent's plan 6) no driveway access to Roushar Road' 7) a grading permit from the Watershed District 8) a permit from the DNR allowing alteration of the wetland Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.