Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 02-01 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA Edina Community Development and Planning Commission Wednesday, February 1, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. Edina City Hall I. Approval of January 4, 1978 Commission Minutes II. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman III. OLD BUSINESS: Z-77-8 Roger Findell. R-1 and R-3 to PRD -3. Generally located west of Cahill, north and south of Amundson Avenue (extended). Final plan approval. Z-77-9 Colonial Church of Edina. Generally located south of Olinger Blvd. and west of Tracy Avenue. Plan amendment. 5-78-3 Killarney Shores 2nd Addition. Generally located north of the Crosstown and west of Gleason Road. Continued from January 4, 1978 meeting. Ordinance Retail Sales in Planned Industrial District. Amendment IV. NEW BUSINESS: Public Southwest Edina Plan Amendment. Area generally located Hearing west of County Road 18 and north and south of Valley View Road. S-78-4 Normandale Carr Replat. Generally located north of West 66th Street and east of Parnell Avenue. V. Adjournment r-FIN �Wi CAHILL � ELEM SCHW i •ul'i i � i i n 'we 4! - zoning FINAL PLAN APPROVAL Roger Findell REQUEST NUMBER Z-77-8 LOCATION: W. of -Cahill, north and south of Amundson Ave. Extended REQUEST: Final Plan Approval village planning departmeet village of edina STAFF REPORT February 1, 1978 Z-77-8 Roger Findell. R-1 and R-3 to PRD -3. Final plan approval. Refer to: Attached overall development plans; Findell's 2nd Addition. Several months ago, the Planning Commission and City Council granted preliminary zoning approval to PRD -3 for the subject property. At that time, a 40 unit apartment building located on the southerly portion of the site and 38 town- house units located on the northerly portion of the site were approved. The proponent has now returned with final development plans which are in accordance with the preliminary approval. It should be noted that the subject property has already received final subdivision approval. Recommendation: The plans as submitted comply with ordinance requirements for final plan approval with the exception of floor plans for the townhouse units. The proponent has agreed to submit such plans prior to the Planning Commission meeting. It should be noted that the northerly portion of the subject property has been identified as an outlot in the approved plat entitled Findell's 2nd Addition. This area was identified as an outlot in that it was thougYt that this area could be developed in conjunction with lands to the east. Therefore, staff recommends final development plan approval only for that portion of the development located on Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2 of Findell's 2nd Addition. Final zoning approval for that portion of the development located on Outlot A should be continued until this outlot is platted. The compatibility of this portion of development with lands to the east should be considered at that time. Staff recommends final plan approval for Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, provided that the following modifications to the final plans are made: 1) a storm sewer plan must be included. 2) the amount of landscaping must be increased, particularly in the vicinity of the parking lots. Also, disturbed areas must be revegetated with ground cover. 3) the parking areas in the townhouse portion of the site must be realigned. 4) lastly, an executed developer's agreement will be required prior to final approval by the Council GLH:ks 1/27/78 RDARELLE 81 ASSOCIATES, INC. \ID SURVEYORS 6i2U S:•; . feet ITH denotes iron monument set Bearings shown on assumed basis 9 15 i i I DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS '). DOC. NO. ' s_ f c p o BEING S FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING LOT LINES V (UTLOT A ' "' - ANC i; FEFT ;y WIDTH AND ADJOINING STREET LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. u: f,-; m 0 n '2 Li; , 713 e —.. _ji C OUTLOT B 0 -AVENUE-=- ., N Q FAAL��j 14 IX .... ...... j OLM' FR eLVO. Ni ORIOL IC o -PARK. a �'%S� C TATION - - - 0 _-' i -JT I. ••.•• • • II g I EDINA WEST SENT R SCHOOL VALL "'"EY SAPTIS HIGH SCIST COLONIAL CHURCH OF EDINA REQUEST NUMBER: Z-77-9 LOCATION: S. of Olinger Blvd., west of Tracy REQUEST:, Plan Amendment y jjls� nJa,mit� clennriment rte ville of reline STAFF REPORT February 1, 1978 Z-77-9 Colonial Church of -Edina. Plan Amendment. Refer to: Attached Plan. Several months ago, the Planning Commission and City Council granted a final zoning approval to PRD -1 to facilitate the construction of the Colonial Church on Olinger Boulevard. This Church is now under construction. Colonial Church is now requesting an amendment to their final development plans to allow the construction of a berm on the southeasterly portion of the site. This berm would serve the dual purpose of providing screening from the Crosstown Highway as well as a disposal site for excess fill located on the property. Recommendation: The Planning and Engineering Departments have reviewed the plan amendment and find no problems associated with the requested berm. The existing wooded area located west of the Fire Station would be preserved and adequate drainage swales provided. Staff thus recommends approval of the plan amendment with the following conditions: GLH:ks 1/26/78 1) Adequate temporary erosion control measures must be implemented including the construction of a hay bale dike to prevent sediments from entering the pond on the site. 2) The berm must be adequately vegetated with ground cover in the same manner as the berm located on the north end of the site. I �----i .BRE S.EN. • "'- ;.�_,� PAR -K.= ' B•/KF ' i"RA sv 1 b I*V I *0 Y3 REQUEST NUMBER 5-78-3 LOCATION: N. of Xtovn & W, of Gleason REQUEST: Two R-1 lots. NORTH 0 150 5CK) 7.50 1000 .11,L••r Irj:rnni���� ,1.•S,•rrLlri.•�li � �Iln:..r �r[ �.jir_� .` 1 A STAFF REPORT February 1, 1978 S-78-3 Killarney Shores 2nd Addition. Refer to: January 4, 1978 Staff Report On January 4, 1978, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject two lot subdivision. At that time, the Commission continued the subdivision to the February 1, 1978, meeting to allow Hennepin County sufficient opportunity to review the plat in that it abuts a County Road (i.e. Gleason Road). Staff has met with staff members of Hennepin County regarding the plat. The County has indicated that if the plat were approved, they would grant permits for driveway curb cuts for both lots. The County recommends that 1) such curb cuts should be located at the northerly extreme of Lot 1 and at the southerly extreme of Lot 2, 2) driveways should intersect Gleason Road at an angle of not less than 60 degrees and 3) such driveways must include a "turn around" to prevent cars from backing onto Gleason Road. The County and staff are very concerned about potential traffic hazards resulting from the construction of dwellings on the proposed lots due to the configuration of and allowable speeds on Gleason Road. Based upon the allowable speed limit, a desirable sight distance for oncoming traffic for Lot 1 is 440 feet and for Lot 2, 530 feet. Due to the configuration of Gleason Road, however, sight distances of about 260 feet for Lot 1 and 320 feet for Lot 2 are possible which is significantly below the accepted standard. The very steep topography of the lots (i.e. about 25%) compounds this problem. In regard to topography, staff is very concerned about the grading and resultant loss of vegetation necessary for the construction of dwellings on the proposed lots. In addition, the Commission may recall that about two years ago, the rear yard of one of the lots on Arctic Way slumped seriously. Due to steepness of the lots to the west of the proposed subdivision, a similar occurrence could be very serious for dwellings located on the proposed lots. Recommendation: Following additional review and meetings with Hennepin County, staff is very concerned with the potential traffic hazards created by the lots. Staff is also very concerned with the grading and potential hazards associated with the development of these lots. In summary, the proposed lots are characterized by extremely severe limitations to development. From another standpoint, however, the Commission should be reminded that a preliminary plat was approved in 1968 which showed the subject site divided into three lots. Thus, the proponent was given some assurances that such a division would be favorably accepted. Killarney Shores 2nd Staff Report Page 2 February 1, 1978 If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision, the following conditions should be required: 1) driveway curb cuts must be placed at the northerly extreme of Lot 1 and at the southerly extreme of Lot 2. 2) driveways must intersect Gleason Road at an angle of not less than 60 degrees. 3) driveways must include a "turn around". 4) an approved grading plan, soil erosion control plan with the required bond, and a tree cutting permit. 5) s u bdivision dedication in accordance with the attached report. 6) Provision for adequate storm water drainage in the ditch located at the base of the hill on the Gleason Road right-of-way. GLH:ks 1/27/78 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 4, 1978 S-78-3 Killarney Shores 2nd.Addition. Refer to: Attached graphics The proponent is requesting a two -lot subdivision of Outlot B of Kil- larney Shores. Each of the two newly created lots would measure over 19,000 square feet and would gain access to Gleason Road. Killarney Shores was platted in 1968. The preliminary plat which was submitted at that time showed three single family lots located on the subject property. However, these three lots were deleted and designated as "Outlot L" at the time of final plat ap- proval. Staff has been unable to ascertain the reason, if any, for the designation of this area as an outlot at the time of final approval .in 1968. Due to the very steep grades of the subject property together with the configuration and traffic volumes of Gleason Road (which is a county road), staff is concerned with potential traffic hazards associ- ated with dwellings in this location. Recommendation: In that Hennepin County controls all curb cuts and access from Gleason Road, staff recommends that the proposed subdivision .be continued for one month to allow the County to review the plans and determine if the driveway curb cuts to serve these lots will be allowed. UH: nr 12-29-77 oL � SEir-- -- �- �---- z9 z�/ , • , CUP LN LN IN \ \ � �,� V i i y Y' / � . � r r r A ` I ♦ I f ♦ .7 lJ f�►�.! G� �i i i : f'� / STAFF REPORT February 1, 1978 Ordinance Amendment: Temporary Retail Sales in Planned Industrial Districts Refer to: Proposed ordinance amendment and Ordinance No. 811-A60 Approximately three years ago, the City adopted an amendment (811-A60) to the zoning ordinance which allows temporary retail sales in Planned Industrial District zones. Such sales may 1) be held by special permit only, 2) last only three days, and 3) be held only twice yearly. In addition, goods may not be shipped to the industrial site for such sales. This ordinance amendment first was adopted on a trial basis and must be renewed yearly which has been done for the past two years. Recommendation: Since the adoption of the amendment, staff has not received any negative comments regarding the temporary retail sales. Staff suspects, however, that in several cases goods have been transported to the industrial areas expressly for temporary sales. This is not in conformance with the stated intent of the ordinance. Staff recommends that the attached ordinance amendment be adopted which would make the ordinance allowing temporary sales in Planned Industrial District zones a permanent ordinance which would not need annual renewal. Staff also suggests that owners of warehouse space in Planned Industrial District zones should be cautioned that goods cannot be shipped to such areas expressly for the purpose of holding a temporary sale and that continuation of such a practice could result in the repeal of the ordinance allowing retail sales. GLH:ks 1/26/78 ORDINANCE NO. 811 - A - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (No. 811) TO DELETE THE EXPIRATION DATE AND TO CONTINUE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THE AMENDMENT THERETO MADE IN ORDINANCE NO. 811-A60 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Subparagraph (c) of Paragraph 3 of Section 10 of Ordinance No. 811 (Temporary Retail Sales) is hereby amended by deleting sentence (9) in its entirety and said ordinance shall be and continue in full force and effect without expiration date. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. ORDINWICE 'NO. 81.1-A60 AN OR INA XE A'. `:L`n1 II.TG THE ZONINIG ORDIN'MUCE (i10. 311) BY ADDIiia TE11?'X;,A1PY RETAIL SALES AS A P 81,11-ITTED USE IN TIAs PLAA14ED ('NDUjV1'\.1 L DISTRICT �+ ME CITY COUECIL ov TIin CITY OF mi -m, mIYIr' str-ty, OILWAI`.I,: Section I. Paragraph 3 of Section 10 (Planned Industrial District) of Ordinance No. 811 Is hereby aizend--,d by adding a new subparagraph (c), as (_J follows: (c) Ter:Fora_=:.-� R:e"a t1 Sales. (y) A per; i t way be grated by the City :tanager, or his delegate, upon applicatJon of lessees oi: ow-ners of -:.e=slsas within a Planned Industrial Distract fog tcaporary and li..raa_t:ed retail and public sales of prod- ucts warehoused or run :f2:ctured on said premi.scs. (2) Hot more than t«;o per, -CLS raw-ty be Issued to any one person, fi.rn, affiliate, o.. suE,sidia— Ty in a calendar year, a«).si there must be at: least sixty (60) days bet=.gee.:., penrd,t; sale dates. (3) No pe�;It shall be for a pe -Iod of more than, three (3) days. (Y) A'n application must be filed with tb::- City Cleric not less than forty-five (45) d.ys prior to the first sale d.te for which the permit Is requested, rusE_- be -ol,nsd 11M by tEi? cwn,,;" if L'saje by c lessee, and .`-.'-hall be accompanied by a fee of $300, Vhich shall rnr_ be reftin able if Ouch permit Is iefused. 11e, fee fer E`ibsequent iiC`7CLits, after an o"r glnal approval, shall be $200 per pex-mit.. 0' Fac tors to be consid.2:�•e3 by the City "':An:ager, or his delegate, before gran-i:i gag such E permit sh-al.lbe as followa: .' a. Effect: en nor -mal a-atomobile and truck grab fic in tae District; b. CIrhet:her an au -no -w -al demar- will, be created for off- street parking; c. j :3=v3?!;1 the Prem -_sea havt ad:m4.?ate fs:re pto:toc ion and access and egress fir O. public dui _411 Sucia >03e; d. Other pendln; or Isoued foto the specific iiae .' requested; e. Metha:is of t..rt Z: i c, slafet,", a. d Jitter; 176 0 0H. 811-L60 f. Prior sales conducted by said c.pplirant and xethods pro- posed to alleviate problc-Ls created c_u°,li ;g s::id prior sale, if any; ` g. Percentage of space occupied that V l? .ba .:used for said sale; -} h. Methods of zd1v,- t'.sivE% and ara4 appealed to, to the end that large numbers of people toll! not - be empected i. Pa orto of Police _.�.ad x i. -e D�!4- patmomts as to su t:abll-ity of pre -.Asea and the Lined : or public s fcztyr per:;c-ac.el. (fl) Pio toC3Lr3 :c�.y L� ^>4� � tC ii'� e^LZ'< �� P.tiiG.^.;Leiif 7:or. said sale. It is t'he it':.5. ent't or. to permit~4p reono qualifying as nbove to have �. .j l3_:' tR?:1 52,1`3 '%Tits eut: tba �':1'per-se of 's GFjl]Tr�v'S1:? t. to a- otl er se-LuL .�U pointe, V bUt not to C: ee meV,2-. aj 'ra':1L _;l aaaj� LSu in this DJ_:t:: *2t. J.) YE'2?f'SL£'L�.an iI ,,rzmtory audit, €.pot check, cr variftca`Gi o_1 o1; gc-oC .^ for 5c -1e. shall a.,2 fur- nialred to 1.:12 P:aiv:­s wi_-hi.. a.c:n .:( fl) days L. _,ts. c.he sale, �e^.ud .CsZ -&Doe's sold t,-ithin ten (10) days after the sale. ° i s ca ;nrmi t sh-n i •t sno r (r, .�.�+p_ ikon z"or. said �. b� rr � 'a ro_rz as re- quired by the ljnm cig,_.r, orvi shall be in. g _'r"tea ay.d bmiy be tra-2z" CzX C' e:to anoti --v daij Or Cic3y."i by t,ilc �,.:. my i...:..sTz:�..�.� 1°3. .c.: prior to the schcem e3. trays. by the City Counc-.l, sha-IL. expire 31, :!975. Sec. 2. This o.'t3 ?$ :szL`„ .gut."..'.;;�1 )a 4:=.-1 force and e.ffc.ct u,:*4u, it o paasaga and pi b"Li,:a yi oa. _- First aiding: Leenrnber 2, 1974 Second -ding: Uaivad Published in the Edina Sun on Daceroser 5, 1974. A V7 E VA,: WS'nwdl . PLOR-M CE B. Ht.LUEZIS F City Clark LOCATION MAP IR00 OIS IL a \ J CI C E (-HE E CCLE W '1 a i a I� > - r ' X I � Ar it NO 39 t i a 0 \ � 1r1• JI�'.ti.. ®RA I i I � -i •. hl l r.• j B A L PARK ; COMPLEX, j:�, SOUTHWEST EDINA PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST NUMBER: Public Hearing LOCATION: W. of Co. R. 18 and N. and S of Valley View Road REQUEST: illama :Hanning department village of edina STAFF REPORT February 1, 1978 Southwest Edina Plan Amendment Refer to: Attached graphics On November 30, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed and subsequently approved a request for a rezoning from PID (Planned Industrial District) to 0-1 (Office District) for a parcel of property located at Washington Avenue and Valley View Road. This rezoning was requested to allow the construction of a detached banking facility. On November 30, 1977, the Planning Commission also recommended that the Southwest Edina Plan should be amended to designate an area abutting the County Road 18/Valley View Road as office uses. The Plan presently identifies this area as Planned Industrial District. According to State Statutes, the Planning Commission must now hold a public hearing on such a plan amendment. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the plan amendment for a variety of reasons. First, offices are presently an allowable use in Planned Industrial zones. However, standards regarding lot area and buildings for offices differ between the Planned Industrial District and the Office District. For comparison purposes, the following ordinance requirements for these districts follow: Office (0-1) PID Min. Lot Size None 2 acres Building Height 4 stories 3 stories Lot Coverage 30% 30% F.A.R. .5 None Street Setbacks Same as PID in 50' from street PID areas 75' from freeway Min. Building Size None 10,000 sq. ft. for single tenant 15,000 for multi - tenant Principal uses Office Offices Financial Inst. Manufacturing Post Office Warehousing Private Clubs Scientific Research Handball Courts Handball Courts Tennis Clubs Roller Rinks Accessory Uses 40,000 sq. ft. bldgs. None permit 10% of floor area for commercial M Staff Report Southwest Edina Plan Amendment Page 2 February 1, 1978 Second, due to the taking of lands by the County for highway purposes, many of the parcels remaining in the vicinity of Washington Avenue and Valley View Road are below the two acre minimum lot size required in PID zones. Thus, variances would be required for the construction of buildings on such lots if zoned PID. However, such variances would not be required for office zones. Third, Valley View Road/County Road 18 interchange is appropriate for office uses. Such office uses have been allowed in other similar locations in the City. In summary, staff believes that the development which would occur if the subject area were zoned Office (0-1) would be no more intense or adverse as compared to developments presently allowed in PID zones. This is due to the fact that offices are an allowable use in PID zones. In addition, the need for variances to waive the 2 acre minimum lot size regirement in PID zones may establish an unfavorable precedent for other areas where PID zoning is appropriate. GLH:ks 1/27/78 ! rel •. . �r J j J 1+ i < J J li ,° J• t I�(( )//J. / / /� J1 � 1" 1 - � .. .fit t !JJ _ 1 _ ....1..--_` , .. «- t /����� —_"_. •• � it rr- •rr `'� � • o r ' s E ' J� � � .- .. , 10 IL �.; ---• r< L "__ice Nw9• a _ .� .!1 LQ' \ _�� ' + � 1baiMi n;cF Cor. �� ` -,rT_ ' i L i _ U '_O .. • ( on. ce UJ w C at -0 } C :5 vc <\ '-. of t f� _ �..i(r . f - [• \� * �, . O N < d ' S } 1)>r U2 � •`1 `•r v M e • .. �. -. / .�' _.s W '•`-\ , r� f 'i f� / ` ' '~_ �I - �4nd�r4••vd4'' ; p ,y4nY to ., ��,-�� L� _::::u:i_� � .. _ ..�,`�•�-: LOCATION MAP NMI IM MIN 0 MINE -m® • subdivision Normandale-Carr Replat REQUEST 'NUMBER: S-78-4 LOCATION: North of W. 66th Street and East of Parnell Avenue REQUEST: 4 lot Subdivision village of edins- village planning doartment STAFF REPORT February 1, 1978 S-78-4 Normandale Carr Replat. Located north of W. 66th Street and east of Parnell Avenue. Refer to: Attached May 2, 1973 Planning Commission Minutes, Normandale - Bessesen Replat dated 1973, and proposed plat and Parkland Dedication report. In 1973, the Commission reviewed a four lot subdivision (i.e. Normandale Bessesen Replat) of the subject property. At that time, the Commission approved the requested subdivision provided that the proponent revise the subdivision by moving the west line of Lots 3 and 4 further west and the south line of Lot 1 further south. Following this meeting, the proposal was dropped and the subdivision never received final approval. A new subdivision (i.e. Normandale-Carr Replat) has now been submitted which is very similar to the plat proposed in 1973. In conformance with the Planning Commission's past request, the west line of Lots 3 and 4 has been moved westerly by about 10 feet and the south line of Lot 1 has been moved southerly by about 20 feet. Recommendation: Staff believes that the realignment of the lot lines provides improved building sites in comparison with the previous plat. However, staff suggests that due to potential setback problems, the west line of Lot 4 should be moved an additional -10 feet westerly and the south line of Lot 1 should be moved an additional 10 feet southerly. With the above modifications, staff recommends plat approval with the following conditions: 1) Subdivision dedication in accordance with the attached report. 2) Utility easements must be provided over Lot 3 for existing services to the structure on Lot 2. These services may have to be relocated. 3) A drainage easement may be necessary over the swale on Lot 1. Edina Planning Co=ivs:ion -3- May 2, 1973 S-73-6 east d A -venue, and va3t 2X -7 -LIS :t66th Street). 66th 11r. Luce noted the property location end present the pro posed four lot subdivision. He noted additional land was obtained i:hen 77.yan and Parnell Avenues were vacated to 66th Street. One house exists on the prolcrzty, The Pl.--ming Ca=iissien generally agread the prem arty s`iould be more evenly a divided, and follazeing dliscusaion, 11r. Hughes moved the -6-yodivi.3ion be Epproved if the proponent agreces to revise the preliminary plat by nYrLac; tie cast line of 01 Lots 3 -md 4 (p::oposed) further wast and the south line ol -Lot :1 (proposed) further south. If the propcnent do -ea not agrea to make the ch-an.g.2s sec-a-sted, the subelivision 4;1 0> as orifi-1nally drawn shou.ld be returned to the Planning Cosmission for further study. Mr. G. John -son ceconded the motion. All voted aye. ,Motion carxied. V, REWNINGS: Z-72-6 Rolocation 1119tltv. (`'he Coirat?_T Hs--rkns O: Brtzzlln-e Hills). Gone -rally lonated cast of Brnammr pk cmd C-cuth of Gleasqq-n Road. Parcels 40 26. 4031, end 3825.. Sactl.ca. 8. _Rzmr�--_ 21 R-1 Sin-qle Fcmily rLiZoidence District -�o P;'a-2 PI-r-i-Ined Residential District. Mr. Luca noted the developer has purchased the DornenS property directly cast since Chis requast was last reviLr;ed. The present proposal includes 1.44 units in 24 'ice an,cion sty -le" structures on 27.92 acres (5.16 units per cc -.e). A land trade would b, i iuvolvzd in that One developer would give 1.91 acres to Brae=r Park in excu .1 tlann,i for .8) acre of park property in another a -tea. �1r© Luce stated concept a -tal da,7elopmantla -pns nust include approva'. co-ild be granted at this band hoever. fji jj and the exclianga of deeds .? detaile. enginen­zing, graphics, a subdivisio-n, In reply to Mr. G. Jehnson, Mr. IA,.ce explained that Gleason Road will connect to 78th Street, probably at Marth Road. Mr. Dale Crezera,., repreGunting the o-wmer and deveioper, pointed out the "good" ..::gad "Dad" soil areas, and ineicatcd e►bout 60-652 o:-* the total site, including roada, i1ll remain green space. Ea atatedapprov is no,. req, , ted at this time, al u2r. only an:- c.-= =-t-s or reco=endaticno the,, -Planning Ccc-. - i ca raight have, zni 4. 0 Mr. Lc -w -_*X and Mr. lxlvghcc ru:!Zested the ecnaity be redr-cad from 5 to 4 usnits per acr,!. Mr. IE.ihermm- and Mr, Rnmyzaineticated they wa=e more con.cerned kith the build in;719 and a-chitcacture. &OV --d discusa-lion., the Plann-ing Cc -,fission generally agreed -:hey ware "impressed" vrlth the general ccneept and des -411a. No further action was tak,,-a. Z-73-5 Dn-rrel Aa ?nrr Corp rntf�on. 'IeT�c-7,Asly located scuth tj Ca --n":7 Eir'--d 13, 1,,-_( RIct-litlence DILOtrict to -r- 3 .....%1 .7-6 Mr. Luca rccalled -lint a 12 unit par acre multiplo residential plrn W -as presenti:1 for tj,m3 p-2opaTty last Uac�niber which ralced qu,"!stionP regarding it.3 appro- priate .'.,md use. Although tha EiLaff then presented a plait amendment for industrial } :� rY✓�� e�!P`s�c.� rf Nniill.nr. nf' Lof ✓�•. C'�oc� /f�, 1�/ein»nda/Q•' RCN ----�. J."�. `V t j, vil Ni f a Yndl 45 of •-�/'�f ixt�,u:c�/ of Nir!h line o!IN Nim _ N^/i� •:�a,�.. o i J 1 • !! I�n,Z OY /HAT C -; o I tis �iANC SEMc w7" LQ �, l F/ul r Cl CIL 49 f a LG'l!/moi � — � •• t • ir, _ :-;r --+ tz•-^rte � � cr..--•��r ►. ear:--� _�.. , . cr f9• • ._... . - '-a �r 21,,.;1. 6 .r 'i = 7-i. ' �� • i 24414 s'r 12r1s .12 s o '6o dyJ v2 1:213 d io ,,,• 25 111 a1 - s ,stc LA7 F,5T4 T 13 1 _• I�.h��N s.^• '� A-7�j �IBLO ?ooC G - d - / '7,�/Fj 4NErj e� g9 12217OA IS ° 1 ' 9+ 6 o Sv '• � ^: =s w24 o .•ADD,? •iLd t220 S 69•2 244 144.44 �160 4 14 !il S2Sf, m 10 ?0359-IN{{83 2{4.83 93 14463 PcPt.AT'Of LOT 4. ry $ Wh DON 1 BLOCK 13.2 - 4 4 - P �, IBWLD( _t(4 9 o 11 0 1 1, i - jl4yT ADD d 1[a[ rn` N 160 �80 1 NORMANp6LE�_ 245.02 245.02 1123. 12. if ". 385.20 , 2 2 ne,r 2+ttr + 506.2 I 1 z524,:^ N o 0 24502 v olf qz - 'YO0 QN ADO. : S �, 5 `4,. r to 254 14 •) . r27{a t� N 245.21 245.21 N. 245.21 '240 - l� .....„ o W. 65 thr fared 6 •rr-6 �/ $T !at• ... 12 ,,•. '6 � pOs w 232 17 C1( 9.7�OS.a .� W �J 1.`.-' w P.IiF 6J' -. I 230 :i':l ,py 734 16 .ul I w N e 6 2x530 ` 245 So QO 1^e .? : It�t. `�Q`1 'ZB2S..�f'', 1 J• � 0 la r qY I 2•s 2eat911� o: 2 f297105 2p o rZ1 \ 3 72' 250 2O J r O f led7+rf.E 5\ • fard 2 -i7 -L9 J ° o!%f 3 �N.o `. 4e i\ pK� 245.49 �6a� 13 LANE <1.d 6-(3' 9) Z 2s ] 2 - �0 e° � (aJ 4-18-69) 2 s , 4 ..1 �.. z�v o • sc So Iy,T: ` 50 t s I t5 1„t7 a W 3170- g 5'� ��}.4u � ... � °u � I pi ''^'•I -�I ;.. 1Clr, N �1-M Na93I'35-tN '2S f r zs123 :.�cX' _ 357.02 - •^I N; o P� _ w' ,� 2 585 41� 1 :,.•� F I ' s PART NORMANlE AOD- ' o,33f. 2407 f ....1.S'aS2TF°G_ 9__�N-�[ .ZO1w,'tf•,iS2,„t4'oS6)- o7asba1nnVti•ao l f5a)�•ssc. m iasa2iIi5 l•'�l;�.5g,sN ,rw3 aw,,rs. F Pn,IIRsT .So_;jSr_c� 35.cmN - F 903,tr >4 b Lok, 7h.6o c2 aaa�-�=c_ 30 �> MILLER EPLOO5 'D 419 1 s*f;t0 ?4 23.13i - 2447 _, ���[23 109 z 4'71 JV' 30im. VrlQino 3034 59ss� 3 8i �-D-: .O. +. T_- _�..`.. $,yC 7 392 O - 1�%44146. 5n_16 IS:1 J .�. �2 jQ it°._ \S': . �25. Q{. 'n19 � 4"t ca5,•'j; E ••' `y \t� 'rR%% \5 �!� r C17G3) r%p.. 22s r5o 3951'- 1yti<f;9 20,6 �'�.� Q I � Apo r S a',b 1y5F y9683b60 EJ c.yc. I o a�\4 Q 's rT x _ S.k3 :+ 30 2 q h0. � , { gyp% °c I \ CC�� tt OS o yy ,G0 ty5-11- A �5 \b�i i A Sq�.J= ors. I( -r1 r^i i) _ Its ��p•1S , s' ah\\3• I Fye 5• J R ,�3 ser sto ° ;S o/l2 4 `7r a Vl 291.x: 305 715 _ .• n 0 2 v 154.41 *^/'� s s •�14 -moo S'1� ` -O �y� 4 at\ �� ;r +' fi 6~ 1-iy P A R K 0 -°i,.. 3 t' 1,IlCOLo [ ��� :• _,�; S~ 20 4 275 tsa_6 ' ao N�G 1g m o 3 � `; � 16 +SO• ••`� 305 o' \O�' f. s Is y 6 �o B �� Sy' 1 o 305 x~.60 J N89'315 F r ',°~��yo t' s "• ` 'L�\8 •SU _�, �M S \ j :.A_"•� ] ' N. NP. SENSO � ADDO^� t186� � {`l 3 lib 26 4 f 1•\�� �� 9.5643 :} ;•. I 2 IV- Nb)'53.301}r�®.'L14Ldp q i•� 1b40�fr,?\i" "h\ 7 .T21� •, 305 305 la \� o �•5 - tyi •asr "c1'.t,,.� 9°• 2ooe9�{pQ. 'P _tge.t+,_ ��°�� a \\ �`',a'1• as I .��..y ,`J ° 's•:. iALLARD MAIs! ,5 o'r 1 Qty P � s89t34'30 F Im IpjjpE 6 1% ' t 6; y\\ a %4 f t ? •2 r at. 2c0 '00 �` 13�5,�'i'SP�Scf j9 B^f ' 2 vP ( ,;�5,n�dS `1ro�ozP F4 24 clI 14,4 Is �E, 2 4 �, o 7 s r :y..y.9• ,g:J`j A,0 g q KCO`VD ADD(1`IO 5N-05 2 r 6o s•°' �'S:: r] •°st 55.4 t! 2[0 s -+soy, ipo fi > 4 18+ -o 2 9J t 97 90,; �n7's/'[ ] 1 12� 11 :.. 10 ^_' ` 9 /f Ss•o 4\ 00 . 23 h-6.5t•'� E •=� ' i1 AYrON eCO U _% y� 'r,. ittl. _ .t .1= s fi o� " 3 '° f` 7 ��•16���''i]i;":o: 7Tj,rr i 'rs 'o'is °Igs'sr s z •^ 24 :�..� d80'4T3e= a 252.82 t.i� i f . '' I CBS-] "7'_ q e .M 2 s ^•o loo: S JW 22 er 2 36�a f2S?1!CAR: 1Y70'4CQl1R7 co {3DL ^ 33;.93. `'^ 7-• I 1 as [ 50 - s Ni rt eln r )7 rc. '3; dS5"'S1' `130 ' 3 21 .'^.ra '^ ' SECOND /�I%0 3 ft7.1+'t _ _ 4 5 _ �1•'+'.' •'��'�t � 1 • h 12 • V �' < r I s r 1,^ too g loo 45 I gs� �l^ fi:_30g .;1 1-' 0 Ila :5 rs (o ep. <S.,4':9'Ob' 1i_.: 12 iOi� 20 . t cr`'? �• 13 v • " to ii ro-I;...o /' �� 7:6 f•1- ..l • 6 1 4 X. ,• - SS °r st9 p fi\0bw J 'ig•$y:x,�_ 'S1•L°C'6 ar o [yb, O . o S o �. [eT.'-.._�•��p ro i2_ s ' /,; _" Q a .6.13 I :. l �'• J(� s-7:/ °- _..} r- S :,�`' s s 1RlLJc• d° - r �V i )•1/8 q8 -n 10 .ri 'NOf\tirlf r•.11`IDA�Ec 1 °s c,. Z _ \ e,,; 0.4 ;0( O� _ 5. .4 . °H . �'.,° 14 r 1... •. - EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY,FEBRUARY 1, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, David Runyan, Mary McDonald, James Bentley, Leonard Fernelius, Richard Seaberg Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson Member Excused Sam Hughes Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning, Harold Sand, Assistant Planner, Karen Sorensen, Secretary I. Approval of January 4, 1978 Commission Minutes Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the January 4, 1978 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. II. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman Mr. Gordon Johnson moved to nominate Mr. Lewis as Chairman for the ensuing year. Mr. Seaberg seconded the motion. Mr. Runyan moved to nominate Mary McDonald as Vice Chairman for the ensuing year. Mr. Seaberg seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. III. OLD BUSI'NTESS Z-77-8 Roger Findell. R-1 and R-3 to PRD -3. Generally located west of Cahill, north and south of Amundson Avenue extended. Final plan approval. Mr. Hughes reported that the subject property is located west of Cahill and north and south of Amundson Avenue. Some time ago, the property did receive final plat approval on two lots and two outlots. Outlot B was dedicated to the City. The proposal did receive preliminary zoning approval to PRD -3 for 78 units; 40 of which would be located in an apartment building south of Amundson Avenue and the remaining 38 units are to be townhouse units located on Lot 1, Block 1 and on Outlot A. The proponent bas now returned with final overall development plans. It is in accordance with the preliminary approval granted several months ago. The staff report recommends final approval only for that portion on Lot 1, Block 1, Lot 1, Block 2, Findell's 2nd Addition and exclude Outlot A because development of it will depend on development to the east. Mr. Hughes reported that the City Attorney, however, advised granting final approval of the entire parcel as the outlot would have to be platted into a lot and block at a later date. When such a platting is requested, we would take into account the compatibility of that parcel with the parcels lying to the east and the adequacy of access to that parcel. We would recommend final overall development plan approval with the following modifications to the final plan: 1. a storm sewer plan must be included. 2. the amount of landscaping must be increased, particularly in the vicinity of the parking lots. Also disturbed areas must be revegetated with ground cover. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 4, 1978 Z-77-8 Roger Findell (Con't.) 3. the parking areas in the townhouse portion of the site must be realigned. 4. Lastly, an executed developer's agreement will be required prior to final approval by the Council. Mr. Gordon Johnson stated that this plan is part of the Amundson Avenue problem and where do we stand on that? Mr. Hughes reported that on January 4, 1978, the Lanvesco proposal had been considered and the Planning Commission referred it to the Council, which set a hearing date of March 6 to consider the Lanvesco proposal and Amundson Avenue. We would expect that Amundson will play a big part in this development. Mr. Cooperman, architect for the project, stated that the plan would not be changed much if the road were to go in or not. In response to a question from Mr. Runyan, Mr. Findell stated that he hoped to begin construction of the apartment building in the Spring. Mr. Hughes also reported that there is a density reduction involved with this project. Preliminary rezoning was approved several months ago after the density reduction plan was adopted by the Council. According to the density reduction plan, 56 units were allowable on this site, However, 78 units were requested and 78 were approved by the Commission and Council. After some additional discussion, Mr. Runyan moved that the Commission approve the final plan subject to the staff recommendations. Mr. Seaberg seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Z-77-9 Colonial Church of Edina. Generally located south of Olinger Blvd. and west of Tracy Avenue. Plan Amendment. Mr. Hughes reported that the Planning Commission and City Council, several months ago, granted a final zoning approval to PRD -1 to facilitate the construction of the Colonial Church on Olinger Blvd. The Church is now under construction. The Colonial Church is now requesting an amendment to their final development plan to allow the construction of a berm on the southeasterly portion of the site. The berm would serve the dual purpose of providing screening from the Crosstown Highway as well as a disposal site for excess fill located on the property. The staff recommends approval of the plan change subject to the following conditions: 1. Adequate temporary erosion control measures must be implemented including the construction of a hay bale dike to prevent sediments from entering the pond on the site. 2. The berm must be adequately vegetated with ground cover in the same manner as the berm located on the north end of the site. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 4, 1978 Z-77-9 Colonial Church of Edina (Con't.) Mr. Larry Laukka, representing the Church, noted that the berm is to be used for permanent storage of soil and excess material from the site The Church needs to move 30,000 yards of dirt off the site, and a berm seems to be the answer. The grades at the berm will be 5 to 1 and the majority of the trees will remain. After some additional discussion, Mr. Fernelius moved that the Commission recommend approval of the plan amendment subject to the staff recommendations. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. S-78-3 Killarney Shores 2nd Addition. Generally located north of the Crosstown and west of Gleason Road. Con't. from Jan. 4, 1978. Mr. Hughes reported that this proposal was held over from the January 4 meeting. At that time, the Commission continued the subdivision to the February 1 meeting to allow Hennepin County sufficient opportunity to review the plat as it abuts a county road, Gleason Road. The proponent is requesting a two lot subdivision of Outlot B, Killarney Shores. Each of the two newly created lots would measure over 19,000 square feet and would gain access to Gleason Road. City Staff has met with the County and the County has indicated that if the plat is approved, they would grant permits for driveway curb cuts for both lots. The County recommends that (1) such curb cuts should be located at the northerly extreme of Lot 1 and the southerly extreme of Lot 2; (2) driveways should intersect Gleason Road at an angle of not less than 60 degrees; and (3) such driveways must include a turn around to prevent cars from backing onto Gleason Road. The County and City are concerned about potential traffic hazards resulting from the construction of dwellings on the proposed lots due to the configuration of and allowable speeds on Gleason Road. Based upon the allowable speed limit, a desirable sight distance for oncoming traffic for Lot l is 440 feet and for Lot 2, 5.30 feet. Due to the configuration. of Gleason Road, sight distances of about 260 feet for Lot 1 and 320 feet for Lot 2 are possible, which is below the accepted standard. The steep topography of the lots compounds the problem. Staff is concerned with the grading and potential hazards associated with the development of these lots. The proposed lots are characterized by extremely severe limitations to development. However, the Commission is reminded that a preliminary plat was approved in 1968 which showed the subject site divided into three lots. Thus, the proponent was given some assurances that such a division would be favorably accepted. If approval is recommended, the following conditions are required: 1. driveway curb cuts must be placed at the northerly extreme of Lot 1 and at -the southerly extreme of Lot 2. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 4, 1978 5-78-3 Killarney Shores 2nd Addition. (Con't.) 2. driveways must intersect Gleason Road at an angle of not less than 60 degrees. 3. driveways must included a "turn around". 4. an approved grading plan, soil erosion control plan with the required bond, and a tree cutting permit. 5. subdivision dedication. 6. provision for adequate storm water drainage in the ditch located at the base of the hill on Gleason Rd. right-of-way. Mr. Hughes reported that the speed limit on Gleason Road at this point is 40 MPH and it has been advised that the speed limit be reduced to 30 MPH at this point, however, that may be. difficult. Mr. Thernell, the developer of the two lots stated that he proposes two 2.story houses and is agreeable with the driveway restrictions. He also noted that the front setback would probably be 50 to 60 feet. After additional discussion regarding the curb cuts, traffic speeds and visual problems, Mr. Runyan moved that the Commission recommend approval of the subdivision with the six conditions as stated in the staff report. It is important that the driveway cuts be monitored to see that they get as close to the back of the property as possible. Mr. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Ordinance Retail Sales in Planned Industrial District Amendment Mr. Hughes reported that approximately three years ago, the City adopted an amendment to the zoning ordinance which allows temporary retail sales in Planned Industrial District zones. Such sales may (1) be held by special permit only, (2) last only three days, and (3) be held only twice yearly. Goods may not be shipped to the industrial site for such sales. This ordinance amendment was first adopted on a trial basis and must be renewed yearly. Staff recommends that the ordinance amendment be adopted as a permanent ordinance which would not need annual renewal. Staff has not received any negative comments regarding the temporary retail sales. However, staff suspects that goods have been transported to the industrial area expressly for temporary sales. This is not in conformance with the intent of the ordinance. Staff suggests that owners of warehouse space in the Planned Industrial District zones should be cautioned that goods cannot be shipped to such areas expressly for the purpose of holding a temporary sale and that continuation of such a'practice could result in the repeal of the ordinance allowing such sales. Mr. Gordon Johnson moved that the Commission recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Mr. Fernelius seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 4, 1978 IV. NEW BUSINESS Public Southwest Edina Plan Amendment. Area generally located west of Hearing County Road 18 and north and south of Valley View Road. Mr. Hughes reported that on November 30, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed and subsequently approved a request for rezoning from Planned Industrial District to Office District (0-1) for a parcel of property located at Washington .Avenue and Valley View Road. On that same date, the Planning Commission also recommended that the Southwest Edina Plan should be amended to designate an area abutting the County Road 18/Valley View Road as office uses. The Plan presently identifies this area as Planned Industrial District. According to State Statutes, the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing prior to that held by the City Council. Staff recommends approval of the plan amendment. Offices are presently an allowable use in Planned Industrial zones. There is no minimum lot size for offices and there is a two acre minimum for planned industrial uses. Due to the taking of lands by the County for highway purposes, many of the remaining parcels in the vicinity of Washington Avenue and Valley View Road are below the two acre minimum lot size recuired in the Planned Industrial District zone. Variances would be required for the construction of buildings on such lots if zoned Planned Industrial District. However, variances would not be required for office zones. The Valley View/County Road 18 interchange is appropriate for office uses. Office uses have been allowed in other similar locations in the City. Staff believes that the development which would occur if the subject area were zoned office would be no more intense or adverse as compared to developments presently allowed in Planned Industrial District zones. Offices are an allowable use in Planned Industrial District zones. The need for variances to waive the two acre minimum lot size in Planned Industrial District zones may establish an unfavorable precedent for other areas where Planned Industrial District zoning is appropriate. Mr. Flynn, 7141 Valley View Road inquired if the Valley View Road extension was involved in this proposal. Mr. Hughes replied that the Plan still showed the extension of the roadway, but it had not occurred. It is still pending in front of the Council. But consideration of the roadway is not a concern of this particular proposal. Mr. Fernelius moved that the Commission recommend approval of the Southwest Edina Plan Amendment in accordance with the staff report. Mr. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. S-78-4 Normandale Carr Replat. Generally located north of West 66th Street and east of Parnell Avenue Mr. Hughes noted that the City has a requirement of posting signs to notify the public and adjacent property owners of pending subdivisions. The proponent had not erected the signs as required. From the staff's point of view, it is unfair to other individuals who have erected signs in accordance with the ordinance and it is unfair to consider the request at this time. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 4, 1978 Z-78-4 Normandale Carr Replat. (Con't.) Mr. Hughes recommended that the subdivision request be continued until March 1, 1978. Mr. Fernelius moved to continue the subdivision request because of the sign regulations. Mr. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. V. Mr. Gordon Johnson moved for adjournment at 9:00 P.M. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted Aye. Motion Carried. Respectfully submitted, tWOJ-L2ixJ Karen Sorensen, Secretary