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.