The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1978 03-29 Planning Commission PacketsIV. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Revised Planned Residential District Zoning Ordinance. 2. South, Southwest and Western Edina Plan Amendments. 3. Parkland Dedication Policy V. Adjournment. AGENDA Edina Community Development and Planning Commission Wednesday, March 29, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. Edina City Hall I. Approval of March 1, 1978 Commission Minutes II. OLD BUSINESS S-78-5 Crosstown Hills. 5 lots generally located south of Vernon Avenue, north of the Crosstown, west of Lincoln Drive. Z-78-3 Brian Gensmer. R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple District. 6813 Indian Hills Road. McCauley Heights 3rd Addition. Generally located'on southeast corner of County Road 18 and Indian Hills Road. (referred back by Council) III. NEW BUSINESS S-78-10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Z-78-4 The Northland Co. Regional Medical District to Office Building District. Southdale Acres. Generally located east of Drew Avenue, west of Barrie Road between W. 65th & 66th Streets. Z-78-5 Edina Baptist Church. R-2 Multiple District to R-1 Single Family District. South Harriet Park 2nd Addition. 5234-5242 France Avenue. Generally located west of France and north of W. 54th Street.. Z-78-6 Lantto Bldg. & Development. R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple District. Warden Acres." Generally located north of Benton Avenue and west of the MN&S Railroad tracks. S-78-6 Gross/Fraser - Prospect Hills. Generally located south of Tupa Drive cul-de-sac and north and west of Kerry Road cul-de-sac. S-78-7 Nine Mile West Third Addn. Garron Corp. Generally located south of W. 78th St., east of Cecilia Circle and west of MN&S Railroad tracks. S-78-8 Lyon Replat of Mendelssohn. St. Johns Street. Generally located south of Belmore Lane at St. Johns Street. S-78-9 Dewey Hill 2nd Addition. Generally located north of W. 78th Street, west of Braemar Park and south of Dewey Hill Road. IV. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Revised Planned Residential District Zoning Ordinance. 2. South, Southwest and Western Edina Plan Amendments. 3. Parkland Dedication Policy V. Adjournment. -41 zonin,,j subdiv 1s ion r. cardarelle - Crosstown Hills REQUEST NUMBER: Z-78-2 and S-78-5 LOCATION: S. of Vernon Ave.; N. of the Crosstown; vest 31 Einculn Drive REQUEST: Five R-1 lots to R-2 ville�� nlnmtiing tleL,r�r[tg�nt ti'ltasr of 4 -(lin -a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 S-78-5 Crosstown Hills. 5 lots generally located south of Vernon Avenue, north of the Crosstown, west of Lincoln Drive. Refer to: Attached graphic The Commission will recall that the proponents request for rezoning from R-1 to R-2 was approved on March 1, 1978. However, the Commission continued the proponents subdivision request to March 29, 1978 in order to investigate alternative subdivision designs. Staff and the proponent have reviewed various designs for the subdivision including (1) the relocation of the proposed roadway to the southerly extreme of the property, (2) relocation of the roadway northeasterly such that all lots would gain access onto this road rather than onto Vernon Avenue and (3) slight modifications of the subdivision as submitted. Alternative one appears somewhat undesirable in that (1) lots located on the southerly portion of the site would be oriented toward the Crosstown Highway rather than away from it, and (2) the proposed roadway would take on the appearance of a through street to Gleason Road which is not in conformance with past decisions of the Council. Alternative two has many desirable features but would involve a very complicated land trade which does not appear possible at this time. I Therefore, staff would recommend an approval of a slightly moRflel version of the proposed subdivision with some conditions. These modifications and conditions include: ow Lne 'it curves northerly at its western en to provide a more suitable intersection with Vernon Avenue. f 3. An easement for a clndthatcthisthuledetsac (whioeh would beway must be provided. on Lot 2, temporary) would influence the setback of a dwelling. Block 2. It is recommended that this lot be either combined with as an outlot until the road is extended easterly or Lot 1, Block 2, with the understanding that such a lot could be further subdivided upon extension of the roadway. ludes 4. A developer's agreement must be executed which the cinctructinoton ofnly the construction of the roadway, but also berms or other suitable noise abatement measures on the south edge of the site. r Subdivision No. 5-76 ^� SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME: COOSS`��h LAND SIZE: ��,5'�OTsZ•6aC 50"¢ lOk LAND VALUE: SS�%JU (BY= Date: 3 ' The developer of this subdivision has been required to A. grant an easement over part of the land ElB. dedicate Z% $ of the land 54 C. donate $ as a fee in lieu of land 60 As a result of -applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density.or intensity may be used for the first 51 of land dedicated) 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. 2. If property is 6 acres or will be combined with future dedications IIso that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. 3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 4. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his- toric value. M6. B. Cash Required El1. In all other instances than above. 0 2. 0 J I nCATiON MAP =1 MC CAUL _y TRAIL WEST %1 CROSSVIEW r LUTHERAN C'•URCH t I r 1 -4 f. R IAOtA•.• p L RCL[ ,•- t \ P r + I ►• Q INS, �• ,1' MI W � � zoning Brian Gensner REQUEST NUMBER: Z-78-3 LOCATION: 6813 Indian Hills Road. SE corner County Rd. 18 and Indian Hills Rd. REQUEST: R-1 to R-2 village rlanning t rorlMee>nt __ village o� s PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 Z-78-3 Brian Gensmer. R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple District. 6813 Indian Hills Road. McCauley Heights 3rd Addition. Generally located on southeast corner of County Road 18 and Indian Hills Road. Refer to: Attached graphic The Commission will recall that this proposed rezoning from R-1 to R-2 was considered at the March 1,.1978 meeting. At that time, the Commission recommended approval of the requested rezoning provided that the proponent enter into an agreement which would specify that one unit of a double bungalow constructed on the site.must face Indian Hills Road and one unit must face McCauley Trail. It was felt that a double bungalow constructed in this manner would be more compatible with single family dwellings located easterly of the subject property. At the March 1, 1978, meeting, the proponent agreed to enter into such an agreement. On March 20, 1978, the City Council considered the requested rezoning. At that time, the proponent indicated he was no longer in favor of the proposed agreement and requested that the Council approve the rezoning with no contingencies. The Council thereupon referred the requested rezoning back to the Commission and instructed the proponent to discuss the requirement for the agreement with the Commission. The Council indicated that they do not disagree with the Commission's recommendation. However, in that the proponent now objects to the restrictive agreement for the lot, the Council requested that the Commission again review the matter. GH:ks 3/21/78 r L � IF•. r 1 y ` !p��?•r 3G`a �� s,'rJ 61 ��, llY.2/,\t`+. i,7 ILOT 5 SO '9 AD'i i + ?�,.�'S•�,61 `=G�� t'siisE to. 1 r of ` v.�OrQ• / hyo uc'T�5 t;'c ,91� � �/ �b�r . i• er 1, - `'" \24i F�. 1 -'-•�sT� Y6 '~t- � � l98• 4G� �� (,e 4 �y, �•i y- ;ky �•5; rya t M !OS n � • NO C� SL.T. A Y •yy ` 7• i� s_ '� F_ o p . .r L '�'� yi % '-, e:.`y% a ya< 1, - t•. y �� ' • S � 356 � � 3/ 2:.>; i- r �. 7 , • 6 J y � V . �. 't y, 665 •�, MCCAULEz-T, 3 F v t 69 E 2-.\ v 1'� r �4 q,`'� • p h a1 , ,r�,d o - r ; �• g1j � c, 7 % —-,ys•'tSJ�Stj Y ,, IOi �')3'0.•ts9J`�97 •\ '- t.9G r. - Q HEIGHTS "- s�s•o2 sv, 3�.Z8••: i6 �'> `5 09 47H a !, dsoy - •c. I., ADD, .r 0 SBSOjE Iv a ti ' yC'gG �.=Q,�\ �� .53720.. 19.23 _• na .°per "�, rp g2N\^ 567015 r h ✓ �?j��,,,i•!:•, v •' tea.}?\ o O 1 _LU � 'S' � 170• _ a 1 A �0 4p ? e� 1or� (°% !✓? • .. F �' � fi .rte n \ s.Q; t ipC �, 6�H ytd McCAULEY�rlEIGHTS 3R0'� Pp0 0 ' 2 f baa N81't 6'� • 3 :" ss Yee-r5 t�/b• �t CL !� TWO `. ' v •� � iq � W 'g «11".CG:UI t 0 O . 1 . E G!1'DILI yea j� qo <L C !- l•%�_- f1 /. �,t '� Y �'�l�L_T�j i�, ✓�S'V'3_G 4iD � c w,;j `11vC • ''� r ^ '• r' i`ci \�- i t't� P�� `.o�'' 1Y: 0 t� Sc J[ �� J ate Oi �' ti•\ MeV �r '•,`! . ,�i�!/P, sz)� `ti �\� ' � 1 6 � W �` gib. I Q• 'v � %b J 'e iT5 b�., + :)•3� �e ! 2 7: t�I t e D + ,sem 0f r �acw F6 a� ,+• JJ r / 7\� , t .,,.5•�. Aj�'��i a �� j� �S/ �. ?F� ` Yl.�i' O t o �oY aCT ^G',., ;s \' ;; r �G vV, ��F. J Port of 6E Jfr;.it _,f° .r ISt.IH �� :+�� F %` 1 O Lot 16 M ��4� K �J y "� Aud. Subd. n. No. 196 Of i Paro_ - I- :.94 Cf, Lot 8 A- - w3• �` w / �.' i I�Y.1 la�i i • ' a�`4 .1'` Q} .11'7,; / ��7 ,n _ :.� W VI 1 _ er •tel/ `' � � 1 •�`, ` �I y 77.4. O•�Q I� ��• ,• 'It�.,_..f•LLT: - ty� .' \.i •i d ISI r+ai'414:'E { \5u•ISYC c ` Ir, � 3;;.OG o•fi4 :,';✓. � �' }� � `'`' `�4 � -�25?.101 s �~ SCRIP- � l 'S TAX COk'kor e %.I A M "FS AND mPill 1111111 1 1 m bil � VICTORSEN'S TIMBERS REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-10 LOCATION: SE Corner of Crosstown and Gleason Rd. REQUEST: R-] Single Family S ub�vi ion Yill2sei� tact► 1! ti 4`nt pillage of edins PLANNING. COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 S-78-10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at -the southeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Refer to: Preliminary plat, attached past staff reports and minutes On November 2, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed and subsequently recommended denial of a 25 lot single family subdivision of the subject property. The proponent did not appeal this recommendation to the City Council. The proponent has now submitted a new single family subdivision for consideration by the Commission. This subdivision is essentially identical to that reviewed by the Commission on November 2, 1977, but does show some minor revisions. First, the curvature of the proposed access road from Indian Hills Road has been modified slightly. Second, one lot has been deleted from the subdivision. Third, a 160,000 square foot outlot designated on the November 2, 1977, proposal has now been designated as a lot. The proposed subdivision continues to exhibit the same limitations as the subdivision submitted on November 2, 1977: Street grades of 8%, 10% and 12% are proposed for the street system; an extensive system of retaining walls is proposed to stablize road cuts; and significant removal of vegetation appears necessary to facilitate development of the site. The proponent has also submitted an erosion control plan for the site. Recommendation: Due to the history of the site and the great amount of work that the proponent has undertaken in an effort to prepare a -feasible development plan, staff believes that it would be hasty to submit a recommendation at this time. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed subdivision be continued until April 26, 1978, and a thorough review by staff and the Commission of the subdivision's effects on topography, vegetation, public utilities and public safety should be _undertaken in the interim. GH:ks 3/23/78 GL:ln t , 11/21/74 EDINA PLAiIIIItIG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 26, 1974 2-74-4 Folke Victorsen. (The Timbers) Generally located at the southwest corner of Gleason Road and the Crosstown Highway. Refer to: Final Development Plan Booklet Request: R-1 Single Family Residence District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. The concept approval for the Victorsen's 74 unit apartment building and 21 single family bodes has been granted by the City Council. The developer then submitted the final development plans, from which the staff was better able to determine the necessary grading and utility needs for the site. It was found during the review session of those final development plans that a substantial loss of vegetation would be incurred by either grading, utilities, the retaining wall, or by the necessary utility provision. At that meeting there was a concensus of opinion from the Fire Department, who for fire access and the desire to have a concrete building, felt a five story building on the north side would be more desirable. The staff enviror.;ment?list is extremely concerned about the grading and loss of vegetation, and he, too, wholeheartedly encouraged this staff member to rethink his earlier negative recommendation regarding that five story building. The Engineering Department, in their comments, detailed the amount of grading and vegetation loss that would be incurred should the single family homes be allowed to develop. Further, it was the Engineering Department's opinion that the grade on Tim3erview Road was entirely too steep. Recommendation: I still retain my earlier opinion that this proposal is a and development aspects. They are, however, compromise of the environment both conDronised to too great of a degree. The staff therefore recommends that the earlier submitted request for five story apartment buildings be approved, however, at a lower density than the 12 units Der acre reouested. It would be the staff's suggestion that we allow: eight units per acre and thai the building Mass `:e almost immediately on the north lot line of -L.-e :�roaerty, thus minimizing the cutting; into the hill. If variances are needed for that location, it would further be our recommendation that they be granted as part of the P'D renuest. It would be understood that this development would be the final development for the entire site and that the rest of the land ren3:n open. The hest vossible solution to ensuringits preservation would he that this total site, exclu§ive of the nin:num needed for the building; and construction, be dedicated to Ec'.ina as parkland, and that a life estate or some otter instru-- nent be negotiated or the one acre property at the top of the hill. H, _ 1 i •Q ot- ONOd NVIdNI dD cr'1 p x PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 2, 1977 S-77-24 The Timbers (Folke Victorsen) Generally located at the southwest corner of Gleason Road and the Crosstown Highway. Refer to: Preliminary Plat, November 26, 1974 Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes, May 28, 1975 Planning Commission Minutes, February 24, 1975, March 17, 1975, April 7, 1975 and June 2, 1975 City Council Minutes The Planning Commission will recall that various development proposals for the subject property were studied intensively three years ago. At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed proposals for (1) a single family development, (2) a development which included a 74 unit apartment building at the base; of the steep hill on the site together with 21 single family lots on the side of the hill, and (3) a 140 unit apartment building located at the base of the hill. Following considerable study, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a rezoning to PRD-5.for a 140 unit apart - meet located at the 'base of the hill. This recommendation was based upon the severe damage to the slopes and vegetation, the unacceptable street grades, and public safety problems resulting from the proposed single family develop- ment of the site. The City Council, after several hearings on the matter, agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation and granted rezoning to PRD -5. The proponent is now requesting a single family subdivision of the subject property. Twenty five single family lots are proposed for the site which have access by way of two long cul-de-sacs from Gleason Road and Indian Hills Pass. This proposed subdivision is very similar to that reviewed by the Planning Commission three years ago. Recommendation: Staff believes that the subject property has been one of the most thoroughly reviewed parcels of property in the City. Three years ago, several development proposals were studied carefully and numerous hearings conducted to determine the best use of the property. At that time, the Planning Commission and City Council concluded that a single family develop- ment in this location was undesirable due to environmental and public safety. concerns. Staff believes that the facts and circumstances associated with this property have not changed since it was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council thzee years ago. Staff thus recommends denial of the proposed sub- division. GH:ks 10/25/77 Subdivision S-77-24 Mr. G. Hughes r for the subject proper (a) a single family de apartment building tog apartment building. F recommended approval o the hill based upon se' street grades and publ family development of length and agreed with rezoning. The Tim'.ers. Folke Victorson. Generally located at the S.E. corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. ported that three years ago various development proposals y were studied by the Planning Commission and the Council: elopment, (b) a development which included a 74 unit ther with 21 single family lots, and (c) a 140 unit llowing considerable study, the Planning Commission a PRD --5 zoning for a 140 unit apartment at the base of ere damage to the slopes and vegetation, the unacceptable c. safety problems resulting from the proposed single he site. The City Council studied the matter at great the Planning Commission's recommendation and granted the The proponent is now requesting a single family subdivision of the subject property. Twenty-five single family lots are now proposed for the site. Mr. Hughes reported that the proposal is similar to that reviewed by the Planning Commission three years ago. Mr. Hughes noted that this property is one of the most thoroughly studied parcels in the City. Three years ago the Planning Commission and City Council concluded that a single family development in this location was undesirable due to environmental and public safety concerns. Staff feels that the facts and Circumstances have not changed and recommends denial of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Victorson, the proponent, stated that he could not get financing for the 140 unit building.. He explained that he was coming back to the Planning Commission because he does not want to carry the property any longer. He noted that this proposal is essentially the same as the concept approval from the Planning Commission anCity Council three years ago. There is heavy timber on the northerly end -of t e property. The street grades on the streets are 7, 9 and 12% He also pointed o t that Rayburn Circle has a 13.5% grade; .arren Avenue, 12%, and Shawnee Circle, 14 . He explained that the street has a 24 foot hard surface with a 36 foot right -o -way. Mr. Harry Murph , Jr., stated that he did not agree with the submitted plan. Dr. Glenn Lewis, Jr., 328 Gleason Road stated that all the units should be put in one spot. The ill should not be disturbed. After some additional discussion, Mrs. McClelland moved to deny the proposed subdivisionsubject to the staff report. Mr. S. Hughes seconded the motion. Mr. Kremer stated that there are street grades compararable to these in the City. This subdivision could work and he would support the concept. Edina Planning Commis ion Page 9 November 2, 1977 Upon voting, a1 voted Aye with the exception of Mr. Kremer, who voted Nay. Motion Carried. Luca resented the request of ORDiNA:'CF N0. B11 -ASS GR.C..ED [ECO:ID RE.tD2(•C. Yr P -Folicto[>:cn toe i'ir-5 zoning for the Southwest corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road for Second Reading. tubjcet to t e following coating - Highway Y encies: I. That an increase is the arlint of shrubbery cn the South side of the building and an increase in the number of deciduous trees on the North side of the build • - Ing be included in the landscape plzn; 2. That a snow fence be constructed on the perimeter of the area so that accl- dental destruction of vc:.tation will not occur; 1 3. That the proponent deaicate Outlot A for pack purposes, 11 Mr. Orrin );.Ugen, 6612 Indian iiills-Road, said that he recalled that Council bad • opprovci four stories of apartment units and two levels of parkin, al:o c grade at the meetin.- of April 7. 1975. I.r. Luce recalled that the original proposal :or six stories of apartments over two le -;,Is of parking had been reduced to five stories (and 140 enactment units) over two levels of parking. :Ir. 1?aucen objected dues not conform to the Western Edina Plan and said that the fact that the proposalsented the size of the site to to over twenty acres, that lir. Victomisrepre res, reflects a "lack of candor on the part of the rather than ]d.S actual ac developer". 11a suP.gested that the density be reduced to seven units per acre wSieh Mr. i wind Permntthat he130 lhadts tpurpusclyo be t>aiszaPresenteditile rsize Sofdhis ap:opertt he y resented tHe the Imp I 1�. 6/2/75 said that he hod just compared his original survey with a recent survey and four that he had lost a consideraolc amount of land wilen Gleason road was =evcd to c: Rest at the tlr..e the Crosstown High -jay ems constructed. Nr. Ric hams recalled that at the tine First Rcading had been granted, hr. Luce had been directed to sea if the building could be lowered by one story by the eli=ination of some P3: Simination of one level of Parking would mean ng spaces. Nr. Luce said that el that an additional number of off-struec spaces would. be required .and that that would be highly undesirable. He recalled that a few years ago a study made by t City had indicated that two stalls were required for each apartment unit, but: requirement had now been reduced so that 1.25 encloseo and 0.75 outside stalls for eah apartmion of unit. Councilman Richards then questic::. are now recommended encdadfratf park land as well as cash, and was to the precedence of requiring red that this was not normally required. Co uncilr_an Courtney :the Plan ing Co Ordinance No. 811-A55 for Second Reading as recon. ended by the Piaraing Commis:: subject to approval of the plat, and moved its adoption as follows: ORDINANCE NO. S11 -A55 AN ORDINANCE AIIC::DiNG T;IE 2CN7`:G O:2DINSNCE (NO. 811)- : BY ADDTNG TO THF PlA::`:FD RDS'-D2%IT1L DISVIIC_ T (P::D-5) - THE CITY COUNCIL OF I`.'.5 CITY OF iDl�-1.. f:1. 0tDAIN5: Section 1. Paragraph 4 of Section 5 of Ordinance No. 811 of the City 1s enlarged by adding the following thereto: trice (Sub -District P", D-5) ;s "The extent of the Planned Residential Dis ( CD enlarged by the addition of the following property: Lots 18, 19 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 196• commencing ac the North - 03 east corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian Hills, thence North 5 degrees, OS minutes Fast 131 feet to the actual point of beginning, thence North _ ft] 34 degrees, 13 minutes, W 101 35/100 feet, thence North 0 degrees, 13 minutes, 30 seconds Ease 114 2/10 feet, thence North 65 degrees, 45 minutes. 30 eeconds Fast 141 7/10 feet, thence South 34 degrees. 41 minutes, 30 sect:.. East 168 151100 feet, thence South 5 degrees, 39 minutes, East 100 feet, thence South 84 degrees, 06 minutes West 173 7/10 feet to the beginning. 'o. 196 except corr_encing at the No. Lots 18 and 19, Auditor's Subdivisionnnfian Hills, thence North 5 degrees Block 1, Indian Northeast corner of Lot 7. thence North 05 minutes East 131 feet to the actual Point of beginning, 34 degrees, 13 minutes West 101 35/100 feet, thence torch 0 degrees, 13 minutes, 30 seconds East 114 2/10 feet, thence Notch 65 degrees, 45 minute d 30 seconds East 141 7/10 feet, thence South 34 degrees. 41 minutes. 30 seconds East 163 15/160 feet, thence South 5 degrees, 39 minutes East ICC ' feet, thence South 84 degrees, 06 minutes West 178 7/10 feet to beginning. ' Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, except highway. Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, except that part lying, Easterly and Southerly of the following described line: eomencing at Ehe Northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian bills, thence North 5 degrees, 05 minute!; East 131 feet, thence Norch 34 degrees, 13 minutes, West 101 35/100 feet, thence Notch 0 degrc-cs, 3 -minutes 30 seconds East 114 2/10 feet• thence North 65 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds Ease to the West line of Lot 18 ind there terminating. Lot A. Indian Hills, except that part of said I.ot A lying Easterly of a straight line from the most Northerly corner of said lot to z point in the Southeasterly line thereof distant twenty-five (25) feet Souti:vcstcrly fro the most Fasterly.corner of said Lot A. accordin5 to the plat of Indian Hills on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said county and state (which is in Sub -District PRD -5)." See. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. on Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Councilman Shaw and hlsol j - tall there vete four ayes with Councilman Richards voting "':aY��• belief that Mr. Victerscn's proposal is too dense,.: r this artic_lar tract of iland, and the ordinance was adopted. i ( ATTEST: / Ya Y lel/ �j �wIL o City Clerk T II . � filaurrs Or THF. RI:CL'1.AR :'1:ETING OF 71": EDINA CITY COUNCIL IIGD ATCITY HALL 0:1 ArRIL 7, 1975 Answerins rollcall were members Richards, Shaw, Schmidt and thyur Van Valkenburg. K1\VTES of Frhrvary 24 , ..,rch 3 and March 10, 1915, were 3PproveJ As submitted by motion o[ Councilwon.tn Sch.idc. seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried. OR111:_ANC_F._NO. _811-.•55 CR\::T%1 FTF 7 SFADI':r: FnLKE VICTOi:<st Luco recall. chat L.I. prupaaals of lir.. Folko Yi�tor>an tot tis rk i 3 6.alls and Prcllainary a;• royal of the proposed developccnt o[ TI:e Timbers on property ^,crcrally located on the Southwest Corder I of Gleason Road and tl+eCrossro•.•n liifh'.:ay had been continued from l4trch 17, 1975, to see if there was ary chance of a_quiring additional land trop the Cross 1'ie•.+ Lutheran Church. Mayor Van t'alkcaburg advised that he had attended a ceetiny with thr. Ilyde and e price asked b and th representatives thechurch to atbe unchurchhe ecoonic for ehis developncntl.adMayoriVan he ed Co„ittee had also tele that the price for Valkenburg said that the Open Space the property was out of line. mayor Van Valkenburg said 013E he opposed ti:e Idea of R-1 development for the property in question because he believed that such development would cause the ultinate destruction of the hill and because of the safety factors involved. He said that he would favor approval o.` the proposed 140 unit apartme"t on the North side of the hill which proposal he consilered an improvement over the original proposal for a combination of single faai'-y d�ell- Ings and an apartrent building. In response to suggestion of Council_an Rich - t Ards that the building contain one, rather han two, floors of parking sa as to [r] reduce the height of the building, Mr. Luce said that this could be studied at the time of final devclopnent Consideration, but that it is importa::t that there are adequate parkin;; facilities on ti:e site. Councilman Richards also raised the question of the 5 cash dedication and the dedication of 15 acres for park- land as had been reco ��ended by the Park Board. Mr. Luce said that this is Yhc Boning hearing only and that the parkland dedication would be considered at the time the subdivision of the property is submitted to Council. Mr. Ericson inary hat added that this hearing is Peruprelim ordinance, consider the rdetails oval loiathe nd tbuild- -, the planning Cntc�ission gust, ravel. Councilman Richacds . Ing when the proposal is ssb=icced for final app 1 objected that ti:e proposal exceeds seven units per acre when the cenorehensive plan calls for no more than four units per acre. He added that there seeps to be confusion as to the c::act size of the property. City .%ttorney Erickson pointed out that a boundary survey would ba submitted at tete tine the proposal Is brought back for final approval. Cocncilwe=ar. ScF^idt said that the Planner. should murk to prevent any possible traffic problems in the area .and to see that ' the building fits into the hill as closely as possible. Follovin; considerable discussion, Council; -.an Shaw moved preliminary approval and offerc” Ordinance ::o. 311 -ASS for First Readin,^„ with the understanding that the building be can. -.tract••.. as for to the North as possible, that cash and parkland dedication be made in conformance with ordinance requirements, and further, with the.understanding that no further constructioORDLn be per itted o A55 the property: All ORDINA%CE T9ESD11:G TIL Z1:ING ORD I- ':CE (NO. 811) BY ,kDDI%t: ,0 :11F. PLA%SLD 3`:Si_1E::T:AL D?ST°:CT (PRD -5) AHC CITY COUNCIL OF Tile CIlY OF F:Dt::A, ':I:� :i.5:i:n. O-i�..i::5: - Section I. Paragrzph 4 of Se^cion 5 of Ordinance So. 811 of the City is enlarged by adding the following thereto: The extent of the Planned Residential District (Sub -District PRD -5) is enlarged by the addition of the fo:lowing property: Lots 18, 19 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, th 5 degrencinges, at the sones--:- corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian H411s, thence ::meth 5 degrees, OS minutes East 131 feet to the actual Point of beginning, thence RCrth 34 degrees, 1. minutes, N 101 35/100 feet, thence Korth 0 dc3rees. 13 minutes, 30 seconds �_•) East 114 2/10 feet, thence Korth b5 decrees, 45 minutes, 30 seconds East 141 7/20 fact, thence South 34 degrees. 41 minutes, 30 seronds East 168 15%:- minuses, East 100 feet. thence South 84 feet, thence South 5 degrees, 39 mi degrees, 06 minutes Hest 173.7/10 feet to the beginning. Lots 18 and 19, A.iditor's Subdivision ::o. 196, except tor-...:encing at the ::on u . east corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian Hills. thence North 5 degrees 03 rin— East 131 feet to the actual point of bcgirning, thence North. 34 devrees, 13 minutes gest 101 35/100 feet, thence ::orth 0 del.rees, 13 =inures, 30 seconds East 114 2/10 feet, thence North 65 degrees. 45 mir.uces. 30 seconds East 141 7/10 feet, thence Suuth 34 d••c.rces, 41 minutes. 30 sceords Ease 168 Z3st 103 South5/100 feet, 84 degrees,t06nce minuteshVest`178[s. 7/109fectt minutes feet, thence beginning. Lot 20. Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, except "Allways rly Lot 71, Auditor's Sub3lvlsinn "0. 196. cacePt that Partatytl•g rautc Sarthcastand Southerly of the Collauiul; .Ir.:crih.d line: c0+an;ncin1 05 minutes corner of Lot 7, Block 1, lydian 11111s, thencr North 5 JC,.rces, East 134 feet, tlj.•ucc North 34 degrees, lJ mfnute3. Fest 101 35/100 feet, thence Furth 0 dc,rces. 3 nloutes 30 seconds East 114 2110 reset, thence. Horth 65 del.rees, 45 minutes. 30 seconds East to the West line of Lot 18 and there ternin•Itiny. Enstcrly of a Lot A. Indian lulls, except that part of said Lot A lysing straight line Errn the most Northerly cerncr of said lot to a Pint in the Southeasterly line thereof distant twenty-five (2S)[cce Southwesterly from the post Easterly corner of said Lot A, according to the plat Of Indian Hills on file on,1 of record /n the uifiee of the Registrar of Occ•J3 in and ,or said county and state (Which is in Sub-D1sLriC PkA-5) Notion was seconded by counrilwteran Schmidt tlandonrolIcAll e motion carrledthere were Lewes ree yes With Counellnan Ki.hards vutlog "::3Y' Ise 6328 nd thankedatheYCouncliltfor theirvmany1hourslofadeliberation asonallo tomprnm- i i • filaurrs Or THF. RI:CL'1.AR :'1:ETING OF 71": EDINA CITY COUNCIL IIGD ATCITY HALL 0:1 ArRIL 7, 1975 Answerins rollcall were members Richards, Shaw, Schmidt and thyur Van Valkenburg. K1\VTES of Frhrvary 24 , ..,rch 3 and March 10, 1915, were 3PproveJ As submitted by motion o[ Councilwon.tn Sch.idc. seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried. OR111:_ANC_F._NO. _811-.•55 CR\::T%1 FTF 7 SFADI':r: FnLKE VICTOi:<st Luco recall. chat L.I. prupaaals of lir.. Folko Yi�tor>an tot tis rk i 3 6.alls and Prcllainary a;• royal of the proposed developccnt o[ TI:e Timbers on property ^,crcrally located on the Southwest Corder I of Gleason Road and tl+eCrossro•.•n liifh'.:ay had been continued from l4trch 17, 1975, to see if there was ary chance of a_quiring additional land trop the Cross 1'ie•.+ Lutheran Church. Mayor Van t'alkcaburg advised that he had attended a ceetiny with thr. Ilyde and e price asked b and th representatives thechurch to atbe unchurchhe ecoonic for ehis developncntl.adMayoriVan he ed Co„ittee had also tele that the price for Valkenburg said that the Open Space the property was out of line. mayor Van Valkenburg said 013E he opposed ti:e Idea of R-1 development for the property in question because he believed that such development would cause the ultinate destruction of the hill and because of the safety factors involved. He said that he would favor approval o.` the proposed 140 unit apartme"t on the North side of the hill which proposal he consilered an improvement over the original proposal for a combination of single faai'-y d�ell- Ings and an apartrent building. In response to suggestion of Council_an Rich - t Ards that the building contain one, rather han two, floors of parking sa as to [r] reduce the height of the building, Mr. Luce said that this could be studied at the time of final devclopnent Consideration, but that it is importa::t that there are adequate parkin;; facilities on ti:e site. Councilman Richards also raised the question of the 5 cash dedication and the dedication of 15 acres for park- land as had been reco ��ended by the Park Board. Mr. Luce said that this is Yhc Boning hearing only and that the parkland dedication would be considered at the time the subdivision of the property is submitted to Council. Mr. Ericson inary hat added that this hearing is Peruprelim ordinance, consider the rdetails oval loiathe nd tbuild- -, the planning Cntc�ission gust, ravel. Councilman Richacds . Ing when the proposal is ssb=icced for final app 1 objected that ti:e proposal exceeds seven units per acre when the cenorehensive plan calls for no more than four units per acre. He added that there seeps to be confusion as to the c::act size of the property. City .%ttorney Erickson pointed out that a boundary survey would ba submitted at tete tine the proposal Is brought back for final approval. Cocncilwe=ar. ScF^idt said that the Planner. should murk to prevent any possible traffic problems in the area .and to see that ' the building fits into the hill as closely as possible. Follovin; considerable discussion, Council; -.an Shaw moved preliminary approval and offerc” Ordinance ::o. 311 -ASS for First Readin,^„ with the understanding that the building be can. -.tract••.. as for to the North as possible, that cash and parkland dedication be made in conformance with ordinance requirements, and further, with the.understanding that no further constructioORDLn be per itted o A55 the property: All ORDINA%CE T9ESD11:G TIL Z1:ING ORD I- ':CE (NO. 811) BY ,kDDI%t: ,0 :11F. PLA%SLD 3`:Si_1E::T:AL D?ST°:CT (PRD -5) AHC CITY COUNCIL OF Tile CIlY OF F:Dt::A, ':I:� :i.5:i:n. O-i�..i::5: - Section I. Paragrzph 4 of Se^cion 5 of Ordinance So. 811 of the City is enlarged by adding the following thereto: The extent of the Planned Residential District (Sub -District PRD -5) is enlarged by the addition of the fo:lowing property: Lots 18, 19 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, th 5 degrencinges, at the sones--:- corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian H411s, thence ::meth 5 degrees, OS minutes East 131 feet to the actual Point of beginning, thence RCrth 34 degrees, 1. minutes, N 101 35/100 feet, thence Korth 0 dc3rees. 13 minutes, 30 seconds �_•) East 114 2/10 feet, thence Korth b5 decrees, 45 minutes, 30 seconds East 141 7/20 fact, thence South 34 degrees. 41 minutes, 30 seronds East 168 15%:- minuses, East 100 feet. thence South 84 feet, thence South 5 degrees, 39 mi degrees, 06 minutes Hest 173.7/10 feet to the beginning. Lots 18 and 19, A.iditor's Subdivision ::o. 196, except tor-...:encing at the ::on u . east corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian Hills. thence North 5 degrees 03 rin— East 131 feet to the actual point of bcgirning, thence North. 34 devrees, 13 minutes gest 101 35/100 feet, thence ::orth 0 del.rees, 13 =inures, 30 seconds East 114 2/10 feet, thence North 65 degrees. 45 mir.uces. 30 seconds East 141 7/10 feet, thence Suuth 34 d••c.rces, 41 minutes. 30 sceords Ease 168 Z3st 103 South5/100 feet, 84 degrees,t06nce minuteshVest`178[s. 7/109fectt minutes feet, thence beginning. Lot 20. Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, except "Allways rly Lot 71, Auditor's Sub3lvlsinn "0. 196. cacePt that Partatytl•g rautc Sarthcastand Southerly of the Collauiul; .Ir.:crih.d line: c0+an;ncin1 05 minutes corner of Lot 7, Block 1, lydian 11111s, thencr North 5 JC,.rces, East 134 feet, tlj.•ucc North 34 degrees, lJ mfnute3. Fest 101 35/100 feet, thence Furth 0 dc,rces. 3 nloutes 30 seconds East 114 2110 reset, thence. Horth 65 del.rees, 45 minutes. 30 seconds East to the West line of Lot 18 and there ternin•Itiny. Enstcrly of a Lot A. Indian lulls, except that part of said Lot A lysing straight line Errn the most Northerly cerncr of said lot to a Pint in the Southeasterly line thereof distant twenty-five (2S)[cce Southwesterly from the post Easterly corner of said Lot A, according to the plat Of Indian Hills on file on,1 of record /n the uifiee of the Registrar of Occ•J3 in and ,or said county and state (Which is in Sub-D1sLriC PkA-5) Notion was seconded by counrilwteran Schmidt tlandonrolIcAll e motion carrledthere were Lewes ree yes With Counellnan Ki.hards vutlog "::3Y' Ise 6328 nd thankedatheYCouncliltfor theirvmany1hourslofadeliberation asonallo tomprnm- PliP.1.TC i'rt.RT"G (�': rgCpn-"r) 7.n\T'.0 Cel\?:CF. r( OIKE VTCT(IRSF'.) CONTTNI+E9 TO APRTT. 7. Mr. Luce recalled tiie Vi torsvn matter was continued fro, the March 3, 1975, Council meeting so the developer could seek other development alternatives. He explained four concepts which have since been submitted: Concept Scheme A four of which would be developed in the future Involves 33 single family lots, V• 3/17/75 in connection with the church pro,)erty; Concept Scheme 11(1), which prevtously received concept anproval fro^ t1e.: Planning• Commission and Council. includes a 74 unit apartcent building and 20 single family lots with access from Indian hills Road; Concept Scheme B is similar to Concept Scheme B(l) except that it includes the four future single fa -lily lots to be developed in cen- lY nection with the church property and has access to the other 20 single ffor lots from Gleason Road, rather than Indian Hills Road; Concept Scheie C for a 140 unit apartment buildibr, proposed a concept at 7 units per acre similar to a concept at E+f units per acre recently approved by the E M and Planning Commission but held over by the Council on xarch 3. Mr. Luce outlined the 1 major advantages and disadvantages of each proposal. He noted that schemes A, B, and B(1) would result in extreme grades caused by the development of a road to service the single family lots, a subsequent safety hazard due to those extreme grades, and degradation of the vegetation and topography of the site, whereas Scheme C would preserve almost the total hill and minimize the site impact of both the building, height and parking lot. Mr. Victorsen and for. Dick Larson, the architect, detailed the various plans with graphics showing the advantages of each concept alternative. The alternative developnent proposals were discussed at length. Mr. Arnold Schaefer, representing the Cross View Lutheran Church, felt "there is a better way", and announced that a meeting with Xavor Van Valkenburg, the staff. and church members has been scheduled for March 22, 1975. Mr. Victorsen noted that independent CD appraisals of the church property were made a year ago, and lie feels that the church has had ample time to propose any suggestions. Mayor Van Valkenburg 00 suggested the meeting with the church be held as scheduled so as to have the Wentire set of facts. Mr. Orrin Haugen, 6612 Indian Hills Road, questioned w the rezoning procedure to date and the,alleged acreage, and maintained that 4.7 or 4.8 units per acre would be more appropriate than the 7 units per acre proposed in Concept C. Mr. Erickson replied the rezoning process is being_, followed correctly and appropriately, and an accurate boundary survey is prior to final developnent plan approval. Councilman Richards agreed requiredlan is yet tSchaefer that "a better po come, inasmuch as three plans with Mr.and other difficulties as stated are undesirable from the standpoint of grades by Mr. Luce, and the fourth plan, which Mr. Victorsen Sugr•ests is Che hest plan for the City, is far greater in densitv than the comprehensive plan pro osed ' for this area would allow". Councilman Shaw indicated he would prefer the ! proposal of 140 units, which concentrates the dwelling and dwelling units in one location and provides the greatest amount of open space and preservation of the vegetation and tonography. ars. Alison Fulir, 6609 Brittany Road, and De. Roger ChristP•au, 6500 Indian Hills Pass, agreed with Councilman Shaw. Following additional discussion, Councilman Shaw moved that the alternative approved for a 140 unit multiple residential structure (Concept Scheme C) PP by the Council. councilman Courtney seconded the motion. Mr. Victorsen commented that "the church has had plenty of time to determine the useoi their property". 'tr. Schaeter remarked "that, under tile circumstances, the Mayor and City Manager could work getter with the church". Mr. Victorsen then agreed to postpone a decision on the rezoning; until the next Council Meeting - Councilman Shaw moved to continue the matter until April 7, 1975. Councilman Courtney seconded the motion. Notion carried. t f \ t • POLKF ViCTOR_SF`i PPD -S 7(1`1`0 Rr(1Ji_ST F(�R_"T!!F. TIM Fn., COSTl :z1CD TO-?!�FCII 1_7, 19117Yr`1 Affidavits of :.ocice were pr_sa•ncad by L'lock, approved as to form anordered placed on file. Mr. 1.ucC presented the pat -tion of `!r. Folke Victorsen foe zon- Ing change fro-' R-1 Resiucntial District to FGD -5 Residential District and concept approval for "The Tiaimrs" located generally on the Southwest corner of Gleason Road and the Crosstown High- ay. lie recalled that the last time Council had considered zor.i-Ig for this property, concept plan approval had been granted for a number of apartment units at the base of the hill with some single family developcent on the upper p•irtion of the hill. Mr. Luce rtcallel that cxtrcoe neighborhood opposition }ad developed, that the Environmental Quality Cam-NISSian • 54 2/e4l75 had felt that the fill that woull have to be placed in the valleys amid be extreme. and thatDepartment the Fire Dartment had felt that the grades would be too steep for its emergency vehicle s.Mr. Luce added that, in reviewing fill -11 dcvclepc-enc Plans, the "n, whiie not actua.ly d=hying the plan. had encouraged Mr. Vict Planning Cor.,misst orsen to try to develop the site. in a differ.en[ manner. lir. Luce said that the Planning Commission had ackrowlcd.tcd that the lots on the lake were extremely and chat, in as Ring that the property be given up, had recog- valuable property valuathat higher overall density would nave to be pert:itt" on the site. :ir. Luce sizedthen presorted Mr. Victorsen's revised plan and a graphic of the site of approximately twenty acres which showed a four, five and six >--tory building containing 160 units VI th the mass of the building fitting into a ravine so that the top of the building would net extend above the height of the hill, and with eight per acre. Council was reminded that the .stern Edina ?lam calls fcr four units per acre. Hz. " Folke Viccorsen, 6440 Indian pills Pass, said that this is the first time he has ' bad the approval of the Environmental Quality Co.rnission and of tine Planning Coc- mission. lie introduced his architect, Mr. Larson, who showed a model of the pro- posed developr..eat and responded to questions from the audience on the amenitiesof the development. Mr. Larson said chat it is anticipated that ti:e apartments will be occupied by older residents and that the building would only be visible from the Crosstown !highway and that, even there, it would be substantially screened by trees that are growing at the edge of the site. Objecting to the proposal on the grounds that it is a substantial departure from the four units per acre recom- mended in the !?estern Edina Plan, that it would bring too many cars into n school area, that it is not in character with the neighborhood and that the hill should wrence Cold, 6610 Gleason Road, Messrs. Bernard remain as open space were Dr. La Gunderson, 6405 Indian Pond Circle, Gerald Ekberg, 6513 Navaho Trail, Kent Calhoun, 6617 Gleason Road, F. S. !:ebster, 6409 McCauley Circle, Dick Seaberg. President of the Viking Dills Association and Mrs. Ann Carrier. 6409 Indian Pond Circle. They contended that the building really has the elevation of an eight story structure. Mr. Haugen submitted a petition which he said contained 163 signatures Zconcept approval and the zoning change of the property, based primarily on "the height and population density of the proposed structure". 7n response to a question of Mayor Van Valkenburg, Mr. Erickson said that the PRD Ordinance does require a certain amount of open space and requires that it be controlled by scenic casements, parkland dedications or a homeowners' association ownership, but that the property in question does meet all ordinance requirements. In reply to a question of Mr. Darrell Boyd, 7204 Shannon Drive, Mr. Luce said that, assuming the proposal is approved, the City would probably request Mr. Viccorsen to provide access from McCauley Trail to Gleason Road. ;!r. Victorsen told Mrs. Ann Overholt that he had approached the church twice to buy some of their land and had not been able to reach an agreement with them. lir. Victorsen said that it would not be economically fusible to follow the suggestion of Dr. Glen Lewis, 61^_8 Gleason Road, economically the plan be changed to eliminate the fifth and sixth floors, reducing the building to four stories of living space. Mr. Luce recalled that s'udies show that sin ;le fewer trips per day are generated from multiple family units than from family developmr_nt. Reference was made to a letter from Mr. and firs. Harty Murphy, Jr., 6506 Indian Hills Road, supporting 11r. Victorsen's proposal. In response to a question of Mayor Van Valkenburg, Mr. Rosland said that the sLte under discussion is not on the final list of land recor..erded by the Open Space Committee because there is a park already across the street. Mayor Van Val':enburg said that, while he recognized the rationale of the Planning Comassion trade-off of eight units Per acre for tip preservation of the hill, he was concerned that cocnenda[ion of the l:estern Edina Plan. eight units was a greac•increase over the re he believed that Mr. Victorsen had subcitted many Councilman Courtney said that he yczz hs and that he could never please 621 the neighbors. He recalled that we plans for this property over ten tine : n ;estern Edina Fla., was accepted.'it was "plat." only and that, while_ he had never before voted in favor of a high rise apartment, he believed that Mr..Victorst-n had a right to develop his property. He then moved that the concept be accepted as recommended by the Planning Cuanission. Councilwoman Schmidt said that she believed that, because_ land development has such an impact on the quality of [heir lives, the citizens of an arca should have voice in these decisions. Councilman Richards suggested that the density be a ° a voice to 41*es S units ger acre with three livable stories and one story of park- • Ing. Councilman Shaw indicated that he would accept four to six units per acre along the line of the Manning Commission recommendation. Councilman Courtr.ey'e' motion died for file lack of a second. Councilwoman Schmidt's motion was then seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried, that the matter be continued to M.rrch 17, 1 1975, to bee if lir. Victorsen can bring a new proposal with a lesser density to the Council. lir. Victursen told Council chat hie could not come out financially with the reduction proposed in the size of the build].ne. t .. A" .. S-75-14 Victorsen's Timberview Addition. Generally located- at the southwest corner of the Crosstown.Highway and Gleason Road 1� Mr. Luce noted Mr. Victorsen, the property owner. and developer, is noar requesting approval of both a subdivision and the final development plans for rezoning. He explained the four lot subdivision includes an exception parcel (Dr. Glenn Lewis' lot at the top of the hill), a lot on Indian Hills Road (Mr. Victorsen's house), a lot for the apartment building itself, and an outlot (the remainder of the hill - which would be dedicated to the City for open space purposes). Mr. Luce presented a statistical data sheet and the final development plans for the proposed apartment building. He recalled that after lengthy discussion at the April 7, 1975, Council meeting, the Council granted concept approval for a 140 unit, five story apartment building of Type l construction. Mr. Luce stated the final development plans and the subdivision conform to that concept, and he would therefore recommend approval contingent on the following: 1. that the landscape plan include an increase in the amount of shrubbery on the south side of the building and the number of deciduous trees on the north side of the building; 2. that a snow fence be constructed AND Z-74-7 Folke Victorsen. Generally located at the southwest corner of the Crosstoim Hig1vaay and Gleason Road. R-1 Single Family Residence District to PRD -5 Planned Residential District. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL. on the perimeter of the area to be disturbed so that accidental destruction of vegetation will not occur during construction; and 3. that outlot A be dedicated to the City of Edina for open space purposes. Mr. Luce stated that Mr. Victorsen has agreed to those contingencies. Mr. Kremer asked whether provision has been made for access to the Lewis house on the top of the hill. Mr. Luce explained a private driveway easement crosses the property and approval of the subdivision and dedication of the outlot will not affect the status of that private easement. In reply to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Larsen, the architect, stated that the unit sizes will range from 900 square feet for the one bedroom units to 1500 square feet for the two bedroom and den units. The rents will range from $350/month for the one bedroom units to $650-700/month for the three bedroom units. Mr. Lee Huetmaker, 6429 Margaret's Lane, representing the Arrowhead Lake Association, stated he has concluded that an apartment building is probably the best use for the site but that the size of the property and the taxes warrant an 80-100 unit building rather than a 140 unit building. Further, the proposed building is seven stories exposed, five stories of living units over two garage levels, and the Council specifically approved a five story building, not a seven story building. Mr. Luce responded that the Council was in favor of Type 1 construction and approved a five story building above a two story garage. Mr. Arnold Schaefer of Cross. View Lutheran Church stated he, too, was at the City Council meeting, and his recollection is also that a five story building was approved, not a seven story building. Mr. Luce stated the questions of land use, density, traffic, height, etc. were discussed by the 'Council and approved as part of the concept approval. Following additional discussion, a motion to approve the subdivision and final development plans for the Timberview project was made by Mr. G. Johnson and seconded by Mr. C. Johnson. All voted.aye. Motion carried. M U 874.16 Wrtciri^-tlr. G.*..rnllv Jr -.ted -r^ the routlivent • c AND (ruzonlur) c., 1.74.7 rolIct Wct,rci (7):n Ti(+-h-rn). C-nrrallv nt t).o coinwr (,% r... , , :7 '..:n tv, Hr. Luce recalled tt;;t, in Jure, 1974, tlq ntaff 1,Ad recommended approval of rolke VIctcr:ien1s TS-t:!on;nz r-1,j-nT to MD -3 to allow a Threa ntcs-vt 74 unit arartment building on the wirzft sidn of tare hill and 21 zinrle fzmily lots an tha south side. The concept I,rot^ntcd at that tine arpeared to lie a [rod connromise to the. many development requests and opinions cxDresned over 1.h2 pant 3.4 years, and the Planning Co.".issivn and City Cc-.incil C3:1.:In.juently r—,;intel concznt arnval. Uhmi final development p1tais, inc.',.d--*n ;,.fin.11 r.radinp. plans. wt -r3 stihnittert by 'Ir. Victornon and subsnqueptiv revic-.;,:d b*.r st:-`f ns -hers of thx var-'ous citv departm!nts, it isas felt a five store concrete building an the north side of the hill, as earlier proposed, would have a rove positiva ervzct on all city functions than would the -.narrn?nt buIldinr./:dr.r.l,, family concert ;.--nmVeol. The rn:,.inaerling D-2partnent h.%n reiterated they feel the street and lot slon2s :.uld be very steep, and connented that either a lift station vwj)d have to he ::-ovidcd or a sewral pir3 would Lave to ba cut throui!h the hill. The V-jhlic safety feel The rora crad3 u-juld be too st•:ep to assure nornal ent:r.--.e%cy nervicx to any r.ortion of the develtinnent. Both the engineering and yeahilc safety 4--artnentE agree the road siirvir,- the sir.r.-In f--nily residences (Timbnrview Lane; wo•illd pre3ent some &-ifetv nrohleas at the entrance onto Indian flills Pans due to the grade and co: -re and Leccuf;o the rentiired street surface was allox:id to I- na- rc.wc� in tlit- concept arprnvL-1 tc reduce tiro envimn.-tental Impact. At the concept nta;:R!j awn -coal tits rer^i-7itndlcd becanno the pr.incral sertn�d to be a reasonzihlu, feasible co:-n-onise; the final develcifirtnt plans. hrwpver, reveal,-:: exactly hoit di!ficult it .:oull be to actually construct the project as TrMo3cd and approved in cmic-cat, and ind-i2ated clearly the considerable envirctntacuLal disturbance which would result. Mr. Luce recalled the carlittr proposal by Mr. Victorsen included a five story apartment bulldlnj orn the north -lcpe of the hill at 12 unity per acre, lie noted that although the staff w -U16 rr--fcr the all-riultinle consent, the dannity would be Urmcc2ptable fvuri an point of view. He reconrenzied .-nst2ad that variances be granted a!'Iowini, construction of a llseri^s of s�zller f;v!! story buildings, perhaps tiro or ;1!121, as close to th:: north lot line as -,ocsililc to ellin"Inate any i•,p-ct on the C L'.1,1!r side othe hill and iiurthcr reduce :he cv;trall environnantal Bea, -3-3 Vhis solution could retain a -crentindcus anvint of open space, the davelcner shruld ':,2 rc,,uired to dadicite that open rnaZ2 to the City of Edina to cnnLr--- its and disnisn anv demand for future fkvejon-nent. He noted a life estate or so -,.a other ieral arrar.j=,ent should be regotiAtad -with 3r. and firs. Glenn Lewis, who o -..-n the existing here at the top of the hill (6328 Gleason Road) so the total site can eventually he city-crned. fir. Luce presented a letter dated lfnvcaier 25, 1974, fron. D. Jerry Ekberg. 6513 Navaho Trail, which expressed several roints of concern of 1'anrr-.)-,:,m::tel-r 20 very interested it the Chcrclzcc hill arca" regard anp, the nrr."!;ad entrance of Tl-'!crvicw E!2na "a, a na-titularly noint an Indian Hills Pass". He added that nest of, th2 cn=--,nts recei"ol Y:rm beer in connezt;on -with the single fanily part of the dc%3lop,rt-ant and not the nultiple fanily portion. Hr. roll:o Victornen clarified his curlier py-posal. presented as an R rttory • apartrent buildir�, was 5 str:--;c3 ahove ground with 3 levels of underground rar!-ing. He stated "if it is felt that that proposal Is the wzv to Fro, we would like to have It before the CcA:ncii at th2ir next neetinir", fir. Victorsen stated the final developrient plans r1tow "no ch.,j--o 'afz-_n concept cncent approved in the n,:,2,cr of lots or units or Pnvth.Inf-, c!her tl:-n the --,:;Pmach to 'Elie r -,ad: the City KngineQr didn't like the 13% ginnee Init just raid 'ithat can you do'." No stated "this in thn sectind tine I have ronp to a �.ro:it expense to try to work this hill out", and note.- he feels he should be cocipensated in --c.-.e way for those costs, perhaps by an Increased density. Considerable discussion, followed rer!ardirg the mad grades and interroction, the church proner.y. etc. "r. 17.-invan, recalling: the r-rlier five Atov.* Multinle project %.,is -1a noncilith th:.t in r-calc had no relation to the rest of the area-,, stated he 111,&I that an npat-tnent tujldir!! on t!je. rorth WP of the bill was the I;e:;t to3titloii it it c -in be kept at a reasonable scale aml dennitv". Hr. C. Jchnnoa Mr. Jerry Mcberp., 6513 Pavalto Trail, felt that "that hill, fton the mt tand- point of puttir,,. single r::zidznccss an the nout", Side. is .,,r.uallv an unbuildai,le kind of site, end t:;a-.* r,; -ad, I.i", 13: gra.las aal.ova li:dian 1,; 11-- Pass, voxad b:!' -nd a L.-., -_,%r<!'. Mr. Ea:bzr_ Mr. ?:,,,I *13blbo-�;,. (5521 Va-ralto ;4"Wid Fifrig (6533 Novohn Tr:;z.1), and Fir. Ron Yeter%1_11 j (6529 Ua. zho TrIii.) w -.ha prc;=;cd Pro , ect zn1i WIProcned tzin-nr-i alcrAt the grades and F.rading, site:" Zer szhool Ch.lt:7:a, a. -.d Z,,fe rna-rnaMli erd - enrr- I (n:no Ifills r., Fancy vehicle Zr :�:cr V11 LO ev'sticned fir. Victorseals 1'e_-cn,)M;c I:.:,- Bernie Gundlzrzon (G -OS lr.:_;an Pord Ci"rcl*.*) and Dr. Glenn Lewis a!;on Foal) indicated they would newil-cric a well-denigued In -scale apartti,n*. develo,7n.-nz at ,I r-.,asox ic d,anit:1 On the north --i,!c of the bill, leaving the rest ok tj:3 hili ante-.-chcd. Hr. Lace rioted this 1:^2 is opposed to the sinr .le fanily dc"lcp;-.ent on the south sada of the hill. Hr. R-mynn rxvpi ta* -.,m-,,n:nt= "propene a solution which ut!l*-cs the site at a rax1mv.-i vj C unite p,-= ?::-a P7.3 t'. --It honeiul--y can cap;..rate the I.vildinr rast: into tin nVCt1,;:1j with Z.1 col'Irction, allowed ro thu builldin;.a cota h.:i nsvcd nort1wrly nit !Ao pronerty to th" "c"f1ht' Also, if znt all !, tllc ro"I v;:jt C.,. -.o Trail rat' it than racanon Road. The 1*jl,.:,c, Ot two hill I'a ac,;uircd b. ditJica:lu-- and -'P/ 0 life ent,itn rr (,"a cith-:r [cr p:,r? .•nd open ni,aco TCircs Pollan :n fvr0..:v -!n=.:dPI the rticit. claoiryi,r. the 11-24i,inirg. Cc,sikniou'r Az:(1r:I We n"t ccanti%ute a ca'Icert afi;.roval hu,* "j:s the di'v.1141.,jr to r,ft.-jr-t W. --d on thun-i 1:aranct,:3- All Vvtcid A70 - )notion C,Irrb!d„ VOCATION MAP The Northland Co. zoning REQUEST NUMBER: Z-78-4 LOCATION: E. of Drew,W. of Barrie Rd. between W. 65th & 66th Streets REQUEST: Regional Medical District to Office Building District village glannitg__do§_rtment voliARe of edina PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 Z-78-4 The Northland Company. Regional Medical District to Office Building District. Southdale Acres. Generally located east of Drew Avenue, west of Barrie Road between W. 65 and 66th Streets Refer to: Attached graphic The proponents are requesting a rezoning from Regional Medical District (RMD) to Office Building District (0-1) for a 4 acre tract of vacant land located north of 66th Street and east of France Avenue. The site is bordered on the west by professional offices which are zoned RDM, on the east by developed office zones (0-1), and on the north by multiple residences (R-4). The proponents desire to construct a four story office building on the subject property. Although not required to do so for rezoning purposes, the proponents have submitted a preliminary site plan for this development. The Regional Medical District and the Office District have very similar requirements and standards according to the zoning ordinance. The following is a comparison of the pertinent uses and standards imposed upon these districts: Principal Uses Accessory Uses Floor Area Ratio Building Height Parking Requirement Setbacks Lot Coverage RMD Hospitals Prof. Offices Scientific Labs Commercial Uses may occupy 20% of floor area for large bldgs. 1 3 stories Same Same No Maximum 0-1 Offices Financial Inst. Post Offices Private Clubs Handball Courts Fewer Commercial Uses allowd and may occupy 10% of floor area for large buildings .5 4 stories Same Same 30% The Northland Company Page 2 March 29, 1978 In general, the Office Building District allows more principal uses and an increased building height as compared to the RMD. However, the RMD allows a more intense development than the Office District. Recommendation: Although staff presently has some concerns regarding the design of the proposed building on the subject property, we nevertheless believe that the requested rezoning to 0-1 is appropriate and is recommended based upon the following reasons: 1. the subject property is adjacent to and would be a continuation of office development north of 66th St. 2. the rezoning from RMD to 0-1 is a "lateral" rezoning in that a significant change in the intensity or type of development would not result. 3. the present vacancy status of existing medical buildings in this area indicate that an alternate use is appropriate. Approval is recommended with the following conditions: 1. the subject property, together with an adjacent 0-1 parcel which would be incorporated into the proposed office development must be platted to clarify confusing and questionable legal descriptions which now exist. Lastly, it should be noted that approval of the requested rezoning does not automatically grant approval to the particular office building which has been proposed. GH:ks 3/22/78 w .,p. Y` sv i..,- ?, t.r 1 +a jt F ..; n,ri s A } `I ''r r ' , �`, J,. 2a45�38r�es .' ♦ , �- x t �� w r car ti-FRIkIVE o /E�iIE�E -[ .�r, Z A S9:- , . +w - - _- ___ ,� �No°38'39 W 349.99 .234, 3 �♦ , R - ,g666 t _ Oo !_ Q� p ��": fp �7'i y� of 1 (...Qcy\ - ri rrs . 11 �• �awt1'x4`O~16' 1 LS6`� 1!s' v LA .L W x . b J 1. /�tom� w . � '_ o. 4 r ' t;.ao� litv 1. _ iLi7't A. ,. �, a p o v. J♦ a ` '� b� y Y� .: r, , I ♦Po 1.,�, t Q <. �.SFt 1 ``'' `��,y"Y ♦1I-�'i`� o V. k # w s �^ mss; P�'w� 4� x'�y Icn O S' .-iY a-' 1 P"g �5, .��S'��I.i�� .! �i r{ s k;-. , : y; � . t * , O f� . � s T ! .,•...i x'�. - r �`,._ 1 . .,, v tl^ 3� -yj. }.... 's t.'v 1 7 > •C�'^ n,t:, y',_WO '�-D r , s .h ` r _ T •^� ' �d5 So°0O34 E 4d- t3 .�, j p r _ , '` , '' #,- � l w .. .. c : -4 � z � A� -0. --lo � �,.• �` � � Jam' � � �`-, t � { 4 (1IjAR `r +�5IV i' ^h C .n .ice`' •� !+ A k ., _ w `i ^v No•0034 370 i9.' 1 ?� y��y1 . �oDoc:Na: 70536 o 00 `i. qr 'A -<--i r" F to d a�,i as . ;0 _ -, .. a#. - r . ° F 'I 165y ;� !4a z, �.-t30 3� ^ , Eye r� { y " �,. ' r z�IMi b "N 1".N y yr O;N ^i " '�.,a ♦ t + t . '� 1. of ° . ;rh °' Ay c ,� > oIU PART Q� LOT 3�t ' " ; t F i �. .?� g - :,'ten - t'+_�'� s 'r - �' c r`` `°i 3 r " - t ,.F�y.. ( j of 1:- 1 t ; L1. 1. Tj 1O, - .4 E ;0 wrta. 1031 ib NOo00341. rY a F i Iw1. k 58' .? 5 S: 11 = :. w /YO 00 3 4 ,. s x t e x+ ti a r :. + 1 1 ,. fir{ "+ _� y r £ .3 "! V' _t "' 4 ,, r k.T 4 a1. -'j, r } I I t 5&A�r rz t iNJo 'I I. c! .� 34. ,! t . -1. ' 4 �1 ..� a 1 n Rfa ,r 4 �! ,1 - _ � 1` °� :�^ Cyt'\ 1 Z3I * * x *t { � il „' I- IQ `a. t re' 11 a. £.� F ,11 r.. 5g p'i 13oS7' . p� .na 531 ,a.11" 3�I ,JO.� ' 1 1 oq.` CdSSfR 5 QGffaiS a a ca b' '+�'° '�°, - Iq r ? o PART OF LOT 4 a. .,: o E '!♦' �h f da v x ' __ NO°00'3 C' Vif A D� a ��1.. ' r + 4 0 D }'- ,w 786.69 ., ire ar as r�� i=, o - = �: .. 1. C 14C9I ti `� ` 15111 ij3.61 :? i�� '1. r w'' pdrT`."of l o} Z kk- zt W t.. m �„ s tis . '�� $GUTNDAeE'°CRSS 'v oe `o 'Do D' Q �•� 6� 313.0 ~50' CSB'"E V w �' y F ! : ^, y' oop• ' � w .1 1 11 O . 3 .1 N�0039 DIY't .•�. ..�. . r^ , ': SIf 303.63 l_ 284.77 yn ' `4331h '. 138.67 a 588:4 59`0o3se 21t'& .vQ firo� -. _ NO°10'14 w - R4Afl--- z.`,. �2 - 294.2 }: 294 2 t v 1 - -"� F_ o r+ 1 V> a 1 1- ,,, O 1 � � •F - - �, '' t, c - , .//•; 50o1?3E 27t.78 660.53 ,{r $o'oJ'Z3 £' . i- 65 - .. N .. .1m 219. �o 10 tN 9 03 238 zo 1. __ _ _ . ., ,s. �1.. x. _. ...t ,, �, N• ! PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March'29, 1978 Z-78-5 Edina Baptist Church. R-2 Multiple District to R-1 Single Family District. Lots 8,10,11, B1k.1,South Harriet Park 2nd Addition. 5234-5242 France Avenue. Generally located west of France Avenue and north of West 54th Street. Refer to: Attached graphic The Edina Baptist Church is requesting a rezoning from R-2 Two Family Dwelling District to R-1 Single Family Dwelling District for Lots 8, 10, and 11, Block 1, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition. This rezoning would facilitate a proposed expansion program for the Church. At present, lot 8 is owned by the Church and is used for parking. Multiple dwellings are located on both lot 10 and lot 11 which have been purchased by the Church. A single family residence is located. on lot 9 upon which the Church holds a life estate. The Church proposes to remove the existing multiple residence on lot 11 and construct an addition to the Church structure. The multiple residence on lot 10 will be retained at present and used for staff housing purposes. Presumably, after the exercise of the life estate on lot 9, further expansion would occur and the dwelling on lot 10 would be removed. The Church has indicated that this removal would occur in any event in 3 - 5 years. Due to the proposed Church expansion, additional parking will .be required. In order to meet this requirement, the Church proposes to convert an existing green space area west of the Church into a parking area. Recommendation: Staff believes. that the requested rezoning is appropriate and necessary in order to bring the Church into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff, however, would caution the Church that the multiple dwelling which would temporarily remain on lot 10 must only be used for Church related purposes and cannot be used as separate rented units which is not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Also, staff recommends that the Church be obligated to remove the dwelling located on lot 10 at the same time as they exercise the life estate for the dwelling on lot 9. GH:ks 3/21/78 '.h � � .II':a �:.�' y ';� ��il� �. ` ��`r .- � � X,r rS Yy�, .•� � _ � _�''� !•y�.��.Y+t« ��4yS"`�'�> � � �a. a-�K,e.- e�z _:'ay :.s �f%- 'f'k��.��''M1'..:� Y may, l .Y.Y all "M-41 4r. "1•y ��.))■ V""+*i`i. t'a7"'rS F r i .tea 1 x r, ., $ s .4, • r t:r `�X., v S 'mow A. + .. "�` � k � h� � , R � c"f �- 3Q ��, Tp -• �- N,. �� 7- 1 an ��' ail.} P� .� •A _ R � J, } t�s`� � � �=•4 1"' -r��D :r w;. �� t "S� a�r.`#•:� �'' d -w 1�l'1� ti Y{ � .. � � T• a 'Y15. .wF� r.A-rte {, -�* •,.�-�;'xLT's"'`°�. "i�j�°;:yt Y �� Db� s raa 6 . ( oxr 36 3a x` 5 "+ S'tl �, .roAt+ .a._ .-••Y -t s S.��,jj -�'k' h �. 4 e••vt� 1� -'a:_L ? t ,4+,t ..�a � � -} �-w�-.ti0 3G �•'a! �;-� � fy'' r�,.� 1:.,{ �,�:}. .._.s�.af,,F � •f-* ��x�•' '„^�"',t�,�r � „�„r`�ed" {: i s .r+ � k sAti� � v •• � 1 '.c 3-t �' � M �. y„ > "*+ D � A . x y„+N�e^ �.e P "w t1 s s Wr . r 3 ?7i, d .y ; � ,� "� :9.^•,�' :�.q-- R^y�j �i-3 � � ::�D` '`b - a_i. '�'''�•.Y� '4�� V � ,i, rt� A4j R,��Z.G2 �1 - �'�''7 '�•e �`i � 1' � � D x :- a'�r;...a�,'w`'Y% �'+=. Y ��v •+o�: .t-��J � � l V :�E• 1 't;� s -. � c rix cam' S+1, sr ,,1`r '�`� � •K..^ x'.-r��r�'�:� �'�L�°* w.;-'�-'� ��+� �•� t'f •� s ''� r � 'rte ..d •},A ��S's A, t�, � �:x- ,�.ax�.` ?.,,r ✓�7 req 2~+c t t A� io t. �, a 2 � k :n ••v' ' ,� :. L � + r ._ Y.� a s.�. +. � a Y f r k+• � �Y � �� - ! -Y r awy° 4 --t" '�- -,.. � ��1F le�,,,� .. £ 3,y:;�� r �� r� F �'w�� W`,: k`�� _ r �:., TD &"' n'✓ ems" � �r �+ ''�. .'�'" rt'' r'r-+*.5 '� "' qa -.�.-r '3i.�.. 1 r 'ia Vr.r`r t t } •:� - � �,. :�; c #• ��,.:. { _ .a.� ,�� r� ,, Y �_ �' jE �s }�t45 a � t :� u 'i# ��xt �F"` �. t�3''c� ` �._ E �a�- Y.+..✓ ti ... s x.. .; , Y r. �y�.�-,.- rte- ,,, _„��„ .4'. 1x .fe it .s$*s r :< � '� _: � rR , £ ;- �L - r "7 '��.�r�e�• � <a..�,'S"r' or ,Y `�y c*�j 2iti' "+`''7,.� �,� �� N�74 � � -•e �,; n�•Sj r' � '_:. 'c� _,� .�,c v-�,d arc.' } tz H AR� .32 'R'?'� p.1 .,�+,^• t to '', 'b i f. w �,,, � : -Vi .'=, a �7• �., c+- ..-. Mf.i' d' i^'S`;,•M n1.3t;r�i �J ti • � f a.i kit �/:5 '� 5g 5 F .. �M1 , L ^ ..-} t �wT•` -gr'�� zzl 77 SS, 'Ib y� tel- r .•x 5: � s�?� �.�' ,r„ �t�e%r �' iV :" �` �.i � l aZ"o� �a,e. r 3 � r t i� '"� ��,` •iYlh'' 1+6C• �M � F ,k z Bb � y � Y � �4 � .oih �� ra ''r t �,t ��" .�%t � F �g?!� �� p .e' w ..,-�•+,t^, ^^"'T'`.`'•�•'-w-. t s� T.•.. `t '-'� a"+r-YR ti 'c �sl` f y� g.-4 1;,. S Mf 'YS- .S:0 iY xab a? R n•t. �. - .sem +a, .y.cii ss {•_i d„ t M '-q €��.. <l�5 4+• 'i0 t„'`' ,;,,.:,.. �L.'�'1 n -.. zj �-y�a' c'•, =C. j AA . £` ' t. : r q. :t '�` r2`' "r- " .uF• ��d. �.} R £h ti; +..- r �,a•, O ti ay '� oz c� � •+ --, «.� �k:_ ...:, Zrl. ta+. •.fr�a- �Yfv '` sra�r'T+�'� ��K .y ,,,� r>i •' '+� r:+ � � +.t' .+.e-, ?-- r: 'n •S�t �At� '4'3.�3d O _ ��" 20 '^' T 'i� 'R9 Y'.,q.:'F � r•+ ,r, -.+t'� n, - R> yi-F'4.r�." '�' - j � �'d� i� � ;:., 5 '�y�r✓.� t •.., M��,� a�^•t g Y ,� � �� d�+'. .v� �.�+q'e � �' i� •-a,`'�D •� - r _x� >..r � �'� o ,.�-,�=`�a s z -, j� ",n r :� ,c .. a. � k� + ,. _ t."\.<��+c d v ^a'``R'# v-5� a :- s.�° ^,c^'"•�^' 'yl _ a•- Ol'�s..� ,. 1 cS"y l.M Y 7C'' - 'r I Y i _ � s •'Z r ve hi s aye}, 3...x` F., r4.� ,M�.+{ y .-,f+rK 4 s 2e r`rt i '•{. �` ni:+ R r�""• > N ` ': a► + "a' �'''' �'."t .c L Y t't�„G "X• 1 ��t g�awr -c�„�a �,. ,St �' A *,e•.y,: Zl- vt., x %` �f� -'+.. t s i`°��"u'`.� f�,�r�,{+�G x+r ♦�a�.iy�f •rye 'c�`i : .r, ,'r .z.i... ... j,r� � y., A' _st �' � _-r'" R Y ¢ r--�• r �f - � ai# �, � A'� : �4 q u �,S.0 {W.��I' Y /�� pp� .n • � �� _xs d,.r& .,•.+ ^ tiv.� ;ter .r T�Shit .1�.'� r'�ir1��r('eiG Sj! Vu se.+ � •[„-..4 f' `�' Y t �e� � L- �. ...,.,� r •�. n+ 4y, 1 `:,r s �,r+j :r*`. ,k, is 4r"+•,..a 'i .�.�,, .+L. r•. `.l ac t-�t�' r Y7 i ; at J.c e \. ,�. } 9-a-, t.p "`+,� !a .,.yam. a .t eS .E Sr dt. w -,�,, a ti: , r+ r• a -+t s, v u. +u. � Y n� r ,«7^'z '""' ° %!' � :+.. � �v � i•„� "?.. �s r �'t,3' t Z � L -. �. w,;... t �y. .i� L; L I'� �✓�C� L A ,r, .'^i"!' G � .r' f f r v., • _ .c i % .rC.�c. ra- Z r• �"`t. r'Z"x' '"tir- r 4< - .a S Y' c b� s • w*. 1.� y ..>ti"r +i” -L. ,:,r„ tk Lr'v-+ Y /5tf i t„ £� y' i., c.. `�' t m ? •. 'a.ss r a''p •*f. ;. yw `7' 2 'i• .. t f7 t .Y •"+e < 'n l 7 t t - T" r-' �. i' ^.+'.,�, . r Y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 Z-78-6 Lantto Bldg. & Development. R-1 Single Family Development to R-2 Multiple District. Warden Acres. Generally located soot of Benton Avenue and west of the M.N. & S Railroad Tracks Refer to: Attached survey, graphics, June 5, 1968 Staff Report The proponent is requesting a rezoning from R-1 Single Family Dwelling District to R-2 Two Family Dwelling District for a 32,931 square foot tract of land located south of Benton Avenue and immediately west of the MN & S Railway. The subject property has two features which limit its use and also reduce its desirability for single family usage. First, the property is bordered along its easterly boundary by the MN & S railroad tracks. Second, NSP holds an easement for its power lines across the easterly 50 feet of the subject property. Buildings cannot encroach onto the easement area. In 1968, the lot immediately north of and across Benton Avenue from the subject property was rezoned to R-2. At that time, the Planning Commission and Council determined that due to the "adverse influences" on the site resulting from the NSP power lines and easements as well as the railway, an R-2 zoning would be appropriate. Recommendation: Staff recommendsapproval of the requested rezoning in that: 1. due to the characteristics of the lot, R-2 zoning is appropriate. 2. other lots located north of the subject property and experiencing similar site characteristics have been appropriately rezoned to R-2 in the past. GH:ks 3/21/78 EDINA PUL14NING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 5, 1968 Z-68-14 Iwai. F. Sbarpe. Request for rezoning from 11-1 Residential District to f-2 Residential District on portions of Lots 28 and 29,.Warden Acres. effeL to: Enclosed map. Mr. Sharpe proposes to build a double bungalm7 on the north side of Benton Avenue immediately west: of the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railroad. The parcel in question is 196 feet wide and 299 feet deep comprising an area of 58,604 square feet. A site Plan has been submitted showing the house facing west, with an 80 foot setback frau the crest: property line and a 60 foot setback from Benton Avenue. The rear yard will be 70 feet in depth extending from the house to the westerly line of the railroad, the easterly 50 feet of which is an NSP easement. All lana surrounding the site is zoned R-1 Residential District. There is a house south of Benton Avenue across from the site and another to the west on Lot 30. The owner of the house to the west, tshich by the tray is an older structure, is the current ou-ner of the parcel in question. As previously stated, the railroad line and 14SP easement abut the east suede of this rarcel and a large steel power structure is located on tha_ easement near the southeast.- corner of the site. Trees separate the house on Lot -10 from the site in question and it is the intent of the current otnier to retain the westerly 25 feet of Lot 29 so that he can relocate his drive without damaging said trees. Reco7riendation: It would appear that lir. Sharpe's proposal would of=fer a good solution for this site which has long ref=rained vacant. 14iil.e we :lo have nnn.y houses in the Vil? a`e backin-g to this same M N & S Railroad lire, the fact thet- this site has remained vacant is probably attributable to the existence of the rail line and the PSP power structure. These are obvious negative factors for 2-1 development. The staff has been approached in the past by a prospective buyer of all of Lots 28, 29 and 30,-41hose intent it was to ;.ercove the old house and redivide the parcel into six smaller lots, three of which would 'pack to the railroad line. Til'U3, of course, taould have been permitted, but would have directly exposed several nore people to the adveise influences of the railroad and poi*rar line .than would the proposal currently before us. The interested partyat that titre never sub=mitted a formal subdivision requeat. Staff Report W. F. Sharpe Page -2 June 5, 1963 As it currently stands (196 feet of frontage), the site could be divided into two sir_gl.e family lots, the westerly lot having some 80 feet of frcnta a and the easterly lot 116 feet of frontage (to account for the 50 foot NS? easement) each of cmich would be 2S9 feet deep. The easterly lot uould, no doubt, be highly urdesirable r j�, f... 1 rear Til �+ � is in favor of Mr. SC3arpe's ,.or s._s_r:_� �il,� purposes. 4 sta.� request for is -2 zoning and recd=ends its approval for the following reasons : 1. While the site can be used for a iugle family purposes, the proposed R--2 use with a westerly orientation seems to be much more appropriate in light of existing adverse influences to the east. 2. The site will be adequately buffered by trees to the west and open space to the youth,north and east and thus will not adversely infiuenca sr.rrounding properties. 3. The density of development will be the same as if the site were developed for R-1_ uses. 4. The rezoning of this property for R-2 uses conforris to our policy of Honing properties in simila::ly crit -?cal areas for uses e hich iinprove their developnenL, potential and where it is reasonably obvious that environmental circumstances suggest a more appropriate use. f1h 1,C)CATION A t ST PATRICI :ATHOLIC Si IT UU IR �r� Z COURTS-;� MAP *LIN Gross/Fraser - Prospect Hills REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-6 LOCATION S. of Tuna Dr., N & W Kerry Rd. REQUEST: Creation of one new buildable lot Y111aze h�,vtuage of cd' t a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 S-78-6 Gross/Fraser Property. Generally located south of Tupa Drive cul-de-sac and north and west of Kerry Road cul-de-sac. Refer to: Attached Graphic The owners of lots 7 and 8, Prospect Hills lst Addition are proposing a rather complicated replat which would result in the creation of one new buildable lot. Lot 7 and lot 8 are very large lots which measure 92,469 square feet and 87,827 square feet respectively. As proposed, the northwesterly portions of lots 7 and 8 would be divided such that a new 30,784 square foot lot"would be created. A portion of lot 7 would also be added to lot 4 of Scott Berg Addition such that this lot would increase in size from 15,040 square feet to 23,605 square feet. Similarly, the westerly portion of lot 8 would be divided and combined with lots 1 through 4 of Braemar Hills 5th Addition such that each of these lots would be increased from approximately 16,500 square feet to approximately 21,000 square feet. Following the aforementioned divisions, the size of lot 7 would be 62,912 square feet and lot 8 would be 58,560 square feet. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision in that 1. the new lot has proper access and is compatible with lot sizes in the area. 2. the sizes of other existing lots in Braemar Hills 5th Addition and Scott Berg Addition are desirably increased. Approval is recommended with the -following conditions: CH: ks 3/22/78 1. all lots which are directly affected by an addition or subtraction of lot area must be included in their entirety in the replat. 2. subdivision dedication according to the attached report. Due to the unique circumstances surrounding this division, staff recommends that this dedication should be based only upon the land area presently encompassed in lots 7 and 8, i.e. 180,296 square feet. Subdivision No. 5-78 -ib) SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME: LAND SIZE: 11,Iaf -I LAND VALUE ems/ ej XI ) (By : Date: The developer of this subdivision has been required to A. grant an easement over part of the land r[ B. dedicate of the land C. donate $ /O SO as a fee in lieu of land As a result of -applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. 2. If property is 6 acres or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. j --r3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or -stream. 4. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged Uor otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. S. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his toric value. M6 B. Cash Required II1. In all other instances than above. 2. J I.00ATION MAP NINE MILE WEST THIRD ADDITION REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-7 LOCATION: S. of W. 78th St., E. of Cecilia Cir., W. of MN& S Railway REQUEST: Combination of two lots into one village Rjanning deg rtment village of edins PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 S-78-7 Nine Mile West Third Addition. Garron Corp. Generally located south of W. 78th Street, east of Cecilia Circle and west of the M.N. & S Railroad Tracks Refer to: Attached graphic The proponents are requesting a replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Nine Mile West lst Addition and Lot 1, Block 9, Edina Interchange Center. The proposed replat would (1) combine Lot 2, Block 2, Nine Mile West and Lot 1, Block 9, Edina Interchange Center into a single lot and (2) realign the existing lot line between Lots land 2, Nine Mile West. The subject property is zoned Planned Industrial District. According to the zoning ordinance, Planned Industrial District lots which are larger than three acres are allowed a greater lot coverage than those less than three acres. Through the aforementioned lot line realignment and lot combination, the proponents would be able to enjoy the increased lot coverage benefit for both lots of the proposed subdivision. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision in that: 1. the proposal conforms with the subdivision ordinance. 2. the combination of Lot 1, Block 9, Edina Interchange. Center with another lot is desirable in that Lot 1, Block 9 does not have access at present and cannot be served with sewer and water. NOTE: In that no additional lot is created by this subdivision, staff recommends that parkland dedication not be required. GH:ks 3/21/78 Part of (700) Z 3, CA c: 4 10 6 N 4 4, 6 I: ;;'1` IV F -S 1,011 .6 -A EE N. 41 E*V 11 ly I. st, Z* Af IL E WES7* PND ADDITION 'z:z 1$2,250 -J,3 61 4— STATE -*w Y.- - ovvv-ft." j MILE • LOCATION MAP -'7'-':::>EL1MJNARY L A N 0 6440 Flyint Claud Drive, Eden Ptairie W Scale Date F—Q- J o b No. Book —, "-.:" 4 I � D 1 n i CAU Si r OD S o R A , A T �•� - rQ dR•ze to 93 jnF i • , ~11.11 r nCA'r'uON MAP LYON REPLAT OF MENDELSSOHN REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-8 LOCATION: -S. of Belmore Lane at St. Johns REQUEST: vii-Igi a planning-dmarimcni village of edin M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 S-78-8 Lyon Replat of Mendelssohn Staff and the proponent request that this proposed subdivision be continued for one month. GH: ks 3/21/78 LOCATION MAP DEWEY HILL 2nd ADDN REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-9 LOCATION : N. Of W. 78th, W. of Braemar P . REQUEST: 50 lot singlp family - subdivision village Planning depmrtment village of edina PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 S-787-9 Dewey Hill 2nd Addition. Generally located north of W. 78th Street, west of Braemar Park and south of Dewey Hill Road. Refer to: Attached graphic The proponents are requesting a 50 lot single family subdivision of a tract of land located west of the proposed Delaney Blvd. and north of W. 78th Street. The Commission may recall that the proponents recently platted Dewey Hill Addition which is located immediately northerly of the subject property and abuts Dewey Hill Road. The lot sizes of the proposed subdivision range from 13,400 square feet to 35.,400 square feet. These lot sizes are similar to those located in surrounding subdivisions. The eastern portion of the subject property is characterized by rolling topography (i.e. 12-18%) and is bordered on the south by City owned storm sewer ponding areas. The western portion of the site is quite steep (i.e. up to 35%) and is wooded. Of primary concern at this time is the proposed traffic circulation plan for the subdivision. An east/west through street is proposed which would tie into Stonewood Court in Braemar Hills 9th Addition on the western edge of the proposed subdivision and ultimately Gleason Road. (The Commission may recall that an outlot was reserved in Braemar Hills 9th Addn for this roadway connection). On the.eastern edge of the subdivision, the proposed through street would intersect Delaney Boulevard. On April 3, 1978, the City Council will conduct a public hearing regarding the construction of Amundson Avenue and Delaney Boulevard. In the event that Delaney Blvd. is not authorized, staff would then advise the proponents that access would have to be provided to 78th Street from the proposed subdivision. Recommendation: Staff believes that the proposed road alignment is desirable in that (1) it takes full advantage of the topography of the site, (2) provides two adequate means of access to the subdivision and (3) separates the single family subdivision from a potential multiple residence development to the south which would be served by 78th Street. Staff also believes that the proposed arrangement of the lots respects the topography and vegetation of the site, particularly in the southwestern section of the subject property. Dewey Hill 2nd Addition Staff Report Page 2 March 29, 1978 Due to the timing of the hearing on Delaney Blvd., staff believes that it would be somewhat premature to recommend formal plat approval. However, staff would 'encourage the Commission to grant a "concept" approval for the subdivision which could be transmitted to Council on April 3, 1978, and which could have a bearing on the resolution of the Delaney Blvd. question. In the event that Delaney Blvd. is authorized, staff would recommend that the proponent return to the Commission for plat.approval. Such a plat should be modified as follows: 1. Outlot A should be placed at the southern edge of Lot 16, Block 1, rather than at the northern edge of Lot 1, Block 2. 2. the proposed roadway in the northwestern section of the subdivision should be modified to increase the radius of curvature. 3. the proposed roadway should be moved northerly at the point where it intersects Braemar Hills 9th Addition in order to provide a more suitable lot arrangement in that subdivision. -4. the property south of the subject property (i.e. the remainder of Tract D) in control of the proponent should be included in the proposed subdivision and identified as an outlot. In addition, the easterly one-half of Shaughnessy Road (which is presently a half street) should be dedicated at that time. GH: ks 3/23/78 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 Amendment to South, Southwest and Western Edina Plans Based upon the proposed revisions to the Planned Residential District ordinance and also past litigation regarding building height in west and southwest Edina, the following plan amendments are recommended: GH:ks 3/23/78 The Western Edina Land Use Plan and the Southwest Edina Plan are hereby amended to define "low rise apartments" as apartment buildings having three stories or less.. The Western Edina Land Use Plan, the Southwest Edina Plan, and the South Edina Plan are hereby amended to delete the "Clarification of Allowed Multi -Family Densities in the South, Southwest, and Western Edina Plan Areas" as adopted on May 3, 1976. ORDINANCE 811 A - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 811) BY AMENDING THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND ADOPTING A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FORMULA The City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota Ordains: Section 1. Section 5 (Planned Residential District) of Ordinance No. 811 (The Zoning Ordinance) is hereby amended to read: 1. Purpose. The City of Edina hereby finds the following: (a) the planned development concept is a desirable means of encouraging creativity, imagination, variation, and flexibility in the development of residential areas. (b) In the adoption of the South, Southwest, and Western Edina Plans (the "Plans") and the Zoning Ordinance, a range of densities for residential development was indicated and further it was not intended that all residential developments would be developed with the maximum density noted in the Plans. (c) The development at the maximum density of all residential areas would (i) detract from the low density residential character of the City (ii) contribute to identified traffic problems in the City (iii) create increasing environmental problems and demands upon wetlands, woodlands, steep slopes, and other resources and that such problems and demands have the effect of despoiling, polluting, eliminating or altering such resources, which if preserved and main- tained constitute important physical, aesthetic, and economic assets for existing and future residents. PRD Page 2 (iv) unduly increase the demand on all public services including the parkland recreation facilities, potable water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, streets, police and fire protection facilities 2.. Objectives. The objectives of this ordinance are: (a) to establish a procedure for calculating the maximum allowable density for planned residential developments. (b) to provide and maintain a proper relationship, between new residential developments and the existing low density residential character of the.City. (c) to promote, preserve, and enhance the natural resources and site amenities within residential areas. (d) to promote and encourage high quality residential develop- ments with respect to building and site design, construction, and building materials. (e) to provide adequate open space within residential projects and regulate residential densities to prevent overcrowding of sites. (f) to encourage a variety of living environments, housing opportunities and a suitable mixture of housing types. 3. Subdistricts. The Planned Residential District shall be divided into subdistricts designated as PRD -1, PRD -2, PRD -3, PRD -4 and PRD -5. PRD -1 is proposed to closely approximate single family developments in terms of the total number of dwelling units. PRD -2 is proposed to only slightly exceed single family development densities. PRD -3, PRD -4, and PRD -5, subdistricts approximate townhouse and apartment densities. 4. Requirements for the Establishment of Planned Residential Districts. Before a petition or application for Planned Residential District PRD Page 3 zoning may be acted upon, the following conditions must be met: (a) The planned development site shall be not less than ten acres for PRD -1 zoning, nor less than five acres for PRD -2 zoning, nor less than one acre for PRD -3, PRD -4 and PRD -5. (b) The planned development site shall be under the control of one owner or group of owners and shall be capable of being planned and developed as one integral unit. (c) Open space shall be set aside or dedicated as provided in spc ion 8, paragraph llof this Ordinance. The minimum amount of open space per dwelling unit to be so set aside shall be as follows for each district: 1) PRD -1: 2000 square feet PRD -2: 1500 square feet PRD -3: 400 square feet PRD -4: 400 square feet PRD -5: 400 square feet 5. Applicability. All applications or petitions for rezoning from any district to a multiple family residence district that allows more than two dwelling units in each building shall be acted upon in the manner as provided for in this Ordinance with the exception of Senior Citizen Residences which shall be acted upon in the manner as provided for in Section 12, Senior Citizen Residence District. 6. Boundaries of Planned Residential District. The boundaries of the Planned Residential District shall include the lands as shown on the official zoning map of the City and by amendments hereafter made to this paragraph. 7. Specific Uses Permitted in Planned Residential District. (a) Principal uses in all Planned Residential Districts: PRD Page 4 1) All of the Principal Uses permitted in the Single Family Dwelling District. 2) Two family dwellings 3) Townhouses, apartments, and other similar housing types 4) Senior Citizen Residences conforming to the provisions of Section 12 of this ordinance (b) Additional Principal Uses in PRD -3, PRD -4, and PRD -5 1) Child day care centers 2) Convalescent, nursing, rest and boarding care homes (c) Accessory Uses 1) Subordinate uses which are clearly and customarily incident to the principal uses, such as driveways, parking areas and garages. 2) Recreational facilities, including swimming pools, as permitted in paragraph 2 of Section 3 of this Ordinance. The use of recreational facilities is restricted to use by the owners or occupants of the principal use and their guest. 3) In PRD -5 districts only: shops, restaurants, offices and club or lodge rooms solely for use by non-profit organizations provided that all of these accessory uses are accessible only from the interior of the building and have no advertising or display relative thereto which is visible from the outside of the building. Not more than 10 per cent of the gross floor area of a building may be devoted to these accessory uses. PRD Page 5 8. Allowable Number of Dwelling Units. A. The number of dwelling units within the site shall not exceed the site area as measured in acres multipled by PRD -1 PRD -2 PRD -3 PRD -4 PRD -5 the sum of the base density and the density allowances according to the schedules contained in this section. The site area shall be based on the horizontal measurements of all land contained within the site and situated above the normal high water mark of any natural lake, pond or stream.and'shall not include -existing or proposed public street rights of way. 4 6 6 12 18 density allowance None None 6 6 6 B. Schedule of Density Allowances 1) site preservation and development charachertistics to be credited with an allowance of 0.5 dwelling units per acre per category: a.,., site plans that preserve natural slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more and sites that do not contain natural slopes of 18 percent or more. b.--' site plans that preserve all designated flood plains in a natural condition and sites that do not contain designated flood plain. c. development proposals with all required enclosed parking stalls contained within or completely under PRD Page 6 the principal structure or otherwise completely underground. d. site plans that preserve a 100 foot wide undisturbed open space (with the exception of trails) from all natural lakes, ponds, or type 3, 4, or 5 wetlands as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife circular No. 39 and sites that do not contain natural lakes, ponds or type 3, 4, or 5 wetlands, lakes, or ponds. e. development proposals with a total hard surface coverage, including all buildings, driveways, parking areas, walkways, patios, porches and all similar man made site elements that do not exceed 25 percent of the site area herein defined. f. development proposals with a total lot coverage of all principal and accessory structures that does not exceed 10 per cent of the site area herein defined for the purpose of this paragraph,.lot coverage does not include exposed walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots and outdoor recreational areas. 2) site preservation and development characteristics to be credited with an allowance of 1.0 dwelling units per acre per category: a. site plans that provide a 200 foot or larger spacing from the property line of any platted or fully developed R-1 single family residential property to the closest point of any principal or accessory multiple family structure or any parking area on the multiple dwelling site. PRD Page 7 b. development proposals designed to conform to all specifications for Type I or Type II construction as defined in the 1973 edition of the Uniform Building Code. c. development proposals where in all principal and accessory structures utilize exterior surfacing materials of face brick, natural stone, stucco or'any combination thereof which is utilized on a minimum of 90 percent of the architectural elevation excluding windows and doors. Architectural elevations include roof surfaces and mechanical equipment. C. the density allowance criteria contained herein are established for the purpose of calculating the maximum number of dwelling units that will be considered for rezoning requests to the planned residential district. The purpose of the density allowance is to encourage and promote quality development compatible with the goals and objectives of this ordinance. The density allowance criteria is not intended to be a design review criteria and satisfaction of the criteria does not guarantee or imply approval of a rezoning request. 9. Requirements on Setbacks, Yards, Heights and Site Development a) Maximum height of structures 1) PRD -1: Two stories for single family and two family dwellings and three stories for all other structures. 2) PRD -2 and PRD -3: Three stories. 3) PRD -4: Four stories 4) PRD -S: No maximum. Height shall be determined by setback required. PRD Page 8 b) Setbacks 1) Setbacks from public streets and from Planned Residential District boundaries for all residential structures, structures accessory to residential structures, all recreational facilities accessory to residential structures and child day care centers shall be 35 feet or the height of the structure, whichever is greater. 2) Setbacks from public streets for all exposed parking areas accessory to residential structures and child day care centers shall be 35 feet. Setbacks from interior and rear Planned Residential District boundaries and from residential buildings for exposed driveways and parking areas shall be 10 feet. 3) Setbacks from public streets and from the Planned Residential District Boundaries for all other uses permitted in the Planned Residential District shall be required in accordance with paragraph 4 of Section 3 of this Ordinance. c) Minimum number of parking spaces required 1) All single family dwellings, two family dwellings, and townshouses: two enclosed spaces per dwelling unit. 2) All apartment buildings: one and one-quarter completely enclosed parking spaces and three quarters exposed parking space for each dwelling unit. 3) Child day care centers: one on-site parking space for each employee and teacher. 4) Convalescent, nursing, rest and boarding care homes: one on-site parking space for each employee, one for each company motor vehicle, one for every four patients or occupants based on the maximum capacity of the building, PRD Page 9 and if such maximum capacity is not evenly devisable by four, one space for the remainder. 10. Building and Parking Design and Construction The satisfaction of the minimum standards contained within this section does not imply compliance with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and, is not deemed to constitute acceptance and approval of rezoning plans. The standards shall not abrogate any regulations or restrictions imposed by the Uniform Building Code or any city ordinances. (a) Design Responsibility. A building permit for a multiple residence building containing more than 2 dwelling units shall not be issued unless the applicant's building plans, including the site plan, are certified by an architect registered in the State of Minnesota, stated that the design of the building and site has been prepared under his direct supervision. Any building of Type I or Type II constuction, as provided in the Uniform Building Code incorpoarted by reference by Ordinance No. 401, shall have its electrical, mechanical and structural systems designed by registered engineers. Provisions of this paragraph shall in no way prohibit the preparation of the site plan by a professional site planner. (b) Floor Area. The minimum floor area of any efficiency dwelling unit shall be not less than 500 net square feet, that of a one bedroom dwelling unit shall be not less than 750 net square feet, and that of a two bedroom dwelling unit shall be not less than 950 net square feet. Units containing three or more bedrooms shall have an additiona1150 net square feet of floor area for each bedroom in excess of two bedrooms. PRD Page 10 For purposes of measurement, the net floor area of a dwelling unit shall mean that area within a building used as a single dwelling unit, and shall be measured from the inside of outside walls to the center of partitions bounding the dwelling unit being measured, but shall not include public stairways, public entries, public foyers, public balconies, or unenclosed public porches, separate utility rooms, furnace areas or rooms, storage areas not within the apartment, or garages. (c) Efficiency Dwelling Units. No more than 10% of the dwelling units in any one building shall be efficiency dwelling units. (d) Below Grade Dwelling Units. No dwelling unit or any part thereof shall be built at an elevation lower than the elevation of the ground at the building site with the exception of basements and cellars in single family dwellings, two family dwellings and townhouses. (e) Closets and Bulk Storage, The following minimum amounts of closet* and bulk storage shall be provided for each dwelling unit: 1) One -Bedroom Unit. 10 lineal feet of closet space and 80 cu. ft. of bulk storage. 2). Two -Bedroom Unit. 24 lineal feet of closet space and 100 cu. ft. of bulk storage. 3) Three or More Bedrooms. For each bedroom in excess of two in any one dwelling unit, an additional 10 lineal feet of closet space and 50 cu. ft. of bulk storage volume shall be required. *Only closet space having a minimum clear finish to finish depth of 2'0" shall be considered in determining the lineal feet of closet provided. PRD Page 11 (f) Sound. Party and corridor partitions and floor systems shall be of a type rated by a laboratory regularly engaged in sound testing as capable of accomplishing an average sound transmission loss (using a 9 frequency test) of not less than 50 decibels. Door systems between corridors and dwelling units shall be of solid core construction and include gaskets and closure plates. Room relationships, hallway designs, door and window placements and plumbing and ventilating installations shall be such that they assist in the control of sound transmission from unit to unit. (g) Projecting Air Conditioning and Heating Units. Air conditioning or heating units projecting through exterior walls or windows shall be so located and designed that they neither unnecessarily generate or transmit sound nor disrupt the architectural amenities of the building. Units projecting more than 4 inches beyond the exterior finish of a building wall shall be permitted only with the written consent of the building inspector, which shall be given when building structural systems prevent compliance. (h) Trash and Garbage Incinerators; Storage. There shall be no exterior storage of trash or garbage except in an accessory building completely enclosed by walls and roof. (i) Elevators. Any multiple residence building of three stories or more shall be equipped with at least one public elevator. (j) Exteriors of accessory buildings shall have the same exterior finish as the main structure. PRD Page 12 (k) Parking Areas. Exposed parking areas and driveways shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust free surfacing material and shall be properly drained and landscaped, and shall be maintained in a sightly and well -kept condition. Each parking space shall have a minimum width of 8-1/2 feet and a minimum depth of 19 feet exclusive of aisles and maneuvering space. All parking areas containing more than six spaces which adjoing either a public street or residentially zoned property shall have a solid wall or fence of not less than three feet nor more than four and one-half feet in height along such adjoining line. Such fences or walls shall be so designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the lot. A screen planting may be substituted for the required wall or fence. Guest parking stalls shall be easily accessible to or from the main entry of the multiple residence dwelling. No street parking shall be permitted. 11. Open Space Requirements. Open space, tree cover, recreational area, scenic vista and other authorized open space shall be either set aside as common land for the sole benefit, use and enjoyment of present and future lot or home owners within the development and their guests, or shall be dedicated to the Village as park land for the use of the general public, or shall be subjected to perpetual scenic and open space easement in favor of the City. The Planning Commission shall determine which of these options is more appropriate and shall recommend to the City Council one of the following procedures: `Isiv PRD Page 13 (a) The open space land shall be conveyed by the tract owner or owners to a home owner's association or other similar non- profit organization so that fee simple title shall be vested in such organization, provided that suitable arrangements have been made for maintenance of said land and any buildings thereon, and provided further, than an open space easement for said land shall be conveyed to the City to assure that open space land shall remain open or (b) The open space land shall be dedicated to the general public for park or recreational purposes by the tract owner or owners. Where this option is determined to be in the best interest of the City, the owner shall not be compelled to improve the natural condition of said open space lands. (c) The City shall be conveyed a perpetual scenic and open space easement in and to the open space land for the purpose of assuring the retention of the open space as open space and scenic surroundings. Where this option is determined to be in the best interest of the City, the owner shall be compelled to maintain the open space in compliance with the ordinances of the City then and thereafter enacted. Such easement shall also establish enforcement procedures and allow the City to perform obligations of the owner, collect its costs from the owner, and charge such costs against the open space land and adjoining property of the owner and collect such costs as an assessment. Such easement shall not grant any right to'use the open space as public park, nor any right to the City or the public to make improvements on or physical use of the open space. PRD Page 14 12. Procedure for Planned Residential District Zoning and Subsequent Development. (a) Application. A petition or application for rezoning from any district to Planned Residential District shall be filed as provided in paragraph 5 of Section 12 of this ordinance, upon forms made available for that purpose, by the owner or owners of the entire land area to be so zoned. (b) Data Required. Every application shall be accompanied by maps and drawings, drawn to scale, showing the following information: (1) Existing topography, existing tree cover, water bodies and other natural amenities; the location of existing streets and buildings; surrounding land use; and any other pertinent information felt to be necessary to the evaluation of the proposal; and (2) Preliminary site plans drawn to a scale of not less than finch = 50' for the proposed development showing the location of proposed structures and streets, common open areas, proposed final grades and all dimensions, and other information necessary to determine the allowable number of dwelling units as provided for in paragrah.8, Section 5 ofthis ordinance. (c) Review. Within 45 days, the Planning Department shall review the application and submit it to the City Planning Commission. The application shall thereafter be acted upon in accordance with paragraph 5 of Section 12 of this ordinance, except as herein otherwise provided. PRD Page 15 (d) Council Action. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing and shall grant preliminary approval or disapproval of the rezoning. If preliminary approval is granted, the owners or developers of the property may prepare an overall development plan for final approval by the Planning Commission and Council. (e) Overall Development Plan. An Overall Development Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission within one year after preliminary approval is granted. One year shall mean a period of 365 consecutive days commencing on the date following the date preliminary approval was granted. (1) A detailed site plan showing all proposed streets, structures, parking areas, utility easements, common open areas, recreational facilities, and a landscape schedule. (2) A boundary survey and legal description of the entire tract covered by the application, prepared by a registered land surveyor. (3) A preliminary layout of all proposed watermains, sanitary sewers, and storm drainage facilities together with profiles for all street roadways. (4) A general overall grading plan indicating final grades and direction and destination of surface drainage. (5) Elevation drawings of all proposed structures except detached single family dwellings. (6) Copies of all proposed protective covenants, agreements and provisions which govern the use and maintenance of common open area. PRD Page 16 (7) The owner's or deve-oper's contemplated development schedule. (f) Final Approval. The Planning Commission shall report favorably upon the Overall Development Plan only upon finding that: (1) The proposed development will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the Planned Residential District. (2) The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive development plan for the City. (3) The overall design fully accommodates and preserves the natural amenities of the Planned Residential District area. (4) The proposed development provides a proper relationship and quality between natural features, common open space, and living space. The Council may accept or deny the findings of the Planning Commission and thereby approve or disapprove of the Overall Development Plan. If the Overall Development Plan is approved, the rezoning shall be granted final approval. (g) Filing. The approved Overall Development Plan shall be filed in the Planning Department. (h) Revisions and/or Changes in the Overall Development Plan. (1) Minor changes in the location and placement of buildings may be authorized by the City Planning Department where unforeseen circumstances such as engineering requirements dictate such change. (2) Changes in structural types, in the shape and arrangement of lots and blocks, in the allocation of open space, and all other changes which affect the overall design of the project shall be referred to the Planning Commission for PRD Page 17 report and recommendation, after which the City Council shall hold a public hearing and shall decide to either approve or deny the changes in the Overall Development Plan. If such changes are authorized, the owners or developers shall submit a revised plan showing the authorized changes. GH:ks 3/23/78 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 Subdivision Dedication Policy Attached is a proposed policy which establishes City practices regarding the dedication of cost on lands for public purposes in conjunction with subdivisions. The Council has referred this proposed policy to the Commission and Park Board for comments. GH: ks 3/22/78 DRAFT CITY OF EDINA SUBDIVISION DEDICATION POLICY A. Finding of Requirement for Subdivision Dedication. 1. A public dedication shall be required in conjunction with the subdivision or platting of previously unplatted land. The public dedication shall be based upon the total land area encompassed within the subdivision. 2. In cases of the replatting or re -subdivision of previously platted land and: a) no additional lots or development intensities are created, then a public dedication shall not be required. b) additional lots or development intensities are created and a reasonable public dedication was not made in conjunction with the previous subdivision of the property, then a public dedication shall be required and based upon the total land area encompased within the replat. c) additional lots or development intensities are created and a reasonable public dedication was made in conjunction with the previous subdivision of the property, then a public dedication shall be required but shall be based only upon the land area encompassed within the additional lot(s). B. Determination of Requirement of Land or Cash in Lieu of Land 1. A land dedication shall be required when: a) property is adjacent to an existing park or public open space and the addition beneficially expands the park or public open space. b) property available for dedication is at least 6 acres in area or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. C) property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. d) property is a natural storm water holding area, a flood- plain, or is needed for storm water holding area and can be dredged or otherwise improved for that purpose. e) the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or historic value. 2. Cash will be required in all other instances than above. DRAFT City of Edina Subdivision Dedication Policy Page 2 January 20, 1978 C. Determination of Reasonable Amount of Public Dedication. 1. If it is determined that a land dedication shall be required and no public dedication was made as part of a previous subdivision and a) the land to be dedicated is adjacent to an existing park, open space, or public property which would be beneficially expanded by the dedication, then 5% of the land area encompassed with the subdivision shall be deemed a reasonable public dedication. b) the land to be dedicated is adjacent to a natural lake, pond, or stream, then a strip of land 100 feet in width is measured upland from the high water mark of a lake or pond or from the center line of a stream shall be deemed a reasonable public dedication. c) the land to be dedicated is a floodplain as defined by Ordinance No. 815; then the dedication of that portion of the floodplain determined to be undevelopable according to Ordinance No. 815 and according to the rules and regulations of the appropriate watershed district shall be deemed a reasonable dedication. d) the land to be dedicated is a natural storm water holding area or is determined to be essential and can be developed as such for the storage of storm water runoff, then a finding will be made to determine 1) the portion of such an area which benefits solely the storm water disposal needs of the property to be subdivided, -and 2) the portion of such an area which benefits the storm water disposal needs of the general public. If it is determined that the portion which benefits the general public is in excess of 5% of the land area encompassed within the subdivision, then the dedication of the storm water holding areas shall be deemed a reasonable public de4icat om. e) the land to be "dedicated is a place of significant and/or unique natural, scenic, or historic value and such an area is at least 5% of the total land area encompassed within the subdivision, such a public dedication shall be deemed reasonable. 2. If it is determined that a cash dedication shall be required and no previous public dedication has been made, a cash dedication of 5% of the value of all land encompassed within the subdivision shall be deemed reasonable. The value of land shall be determined as specified in Ordinance No. 801. DRAFT City of Edina Subdivision Dedication Policy Page 3 January 20, 1978 C. Determination of Reasonable Amount of Public Dedication (Con't.): 3. If it is determined that public dedication was made previously in accordance with the above guidelines, then the previous public dedication shall be deemed reasonable and no further dedication shall be required. 4. If it is determined that a public dedication was made previously but was not in accordance with the above guidelines, then such a previous dedication shall receive credit but an additional public dedication will be required so as to bring the total dedication into conformance with the above guidelines. 5. If it is determined that a public dedication was made previously in accordance with the above guidelines, but additional lot(s) are proposed to be created, a public dedication of 5% of the area or value of land encompassed within such additional lot(s) shall be deemed reasonable. GLH:ks 1/20178 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Wm. Lewis, Chairman, Mary McDonald, Del Johnson, James Bentley, Richard Seaberg, Gordon Johnson, Leonard Fernelius, and David Runyan Member Absent: Samuel Hughes Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning, Harold Sand, Assistant Planner, Karen Sorensen, Secretary I. Approval of March 1, 1978 Commission Minutes Mr. Hughes noted that the March 1, 1978 Minutes were not yet ready and suggested that the action be taken on the Minutes at the April meeting. Chairman Lewis and the Commission members concurred. II. OLD BUSINESS S-78-5 Crosstown Hills. 5 lots generally located south of Vernon Avenue. north of the Crosstown, west of Lincoln Drive. Mr. Gordon Hughes presented the property location and displayed the preliminary plat. He noted that the proponents requested rezoning from R-1 to R-2 and the request was approved by the Commission on March 1, 1978. The Commission continued the proponents subdivision request to March 29 in order to investigate alternate subdivision designs. Various designs have been reviewed for the subdivision including the relocation of the proposed roadway to the southerly extreme of the property and relocation of the roadway northeasterly so that lots would gain access onto this road rather than onto Vernon as well as slight modifications on -the subdivision. Mr. Hughes reported that the first alternative is somewhat undesirable because the lots located on the southerly portion of the site would be facing toward the Crosstown rather than away from it and the porposed roadway could take on the appearance of a through street to Gleason which is not in conformance with past Council directives. The second alternative would involve a complicated land trade which may not be possible at this time. The City Attorney has indicated that a land trade would be possible since the Krahl Hill site has been purchased by the City rather than dedicated so we would have the latitude to do it, but it might be somewhat difficult because of the complexity of the ownerships involved. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 29, 1978 Mr. Hughes therefore recommended approval of a slightly modified version of the original requested subdivision with some conditions and modifications: 1. the proposed roadway right of way must be 60 feet in width and a dedicated roadway. 2. the proposed roadway must be realigned slightly so that it curves northerly at its western end to provide a more io suitable intersection with Vernon Avenue. 3. a temporary cul de sac easement at the eastern end of the cul de sac Since thetemporary must be provided. roadway would influence the setback of a dwelling on Lot 2, Block 2, it is recommended that this lot either be designated as an outlot l o r combined with Lot 1, . y until the road is extended easter Block 2, with the understanding that such a lot could be further subdivided upon extension of the roadway. 4. a developer's agreement must be executed which includes not only the construction of the roadway, but also the construction of berms and landscaping as noise abatement measures on the south edge of the site. 5. drainage plans for the site must be.reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. 6. subdivision dedication. 7. suitable easements must be prepared and submitted which ensure a common driveway access to Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 from Vernon Avenue. Mr. Hughes reported that Mr. Robert Hanson, a property owner to the east of the proponent's property was in the audience and he wished to address the Commission. Mr. Robert Hanson expressed concern about the safety factor of turning from Vernon Avenue onto the proposed street and suggested that the new road be realigned in some way so that it wasn't such a sharp turn. He also, expressed concern that people might think the new roadway was an extension of Gleason Road. Mr. Hanson also felt that the new proposed roadway would inhibit the development of his property because he felt he would be cut off in some way. He agreed that there needed to be some land trade in order for him to develop his property. - Mr. Cardarelle stated that there should be no difficulty with the proposed road and the cul de sac if Mr. Hanson would allow the cul de sac to be built on his property. Mr. Runyan questioned Mr.Hanson about the development of his property and the design of the lots. Mr. Hanson replied that he might be limited in the number of units in this particular area, but he felt that something could be done satisfactorily. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 29, 1978 After some additional discussion, Mr. Fernelius moved that the Commission recommend approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions and modifications of the staff report.as well as a correction of "France Avenue" to "Vernon Avenue" in the staff report. Mr. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Tom.Schneider, Viking Hills Homeowners Association President, stated that his concern was that the proposed road did not become a throughway to Gleason Road. He also stated that it would be preferable to have all of this property developed at the same time. Chairman Lewis called for a vote on the matter. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Z-78-3, Brian Gensmer. R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple District. 6813 Indian Hills Road. McCauley Heights 3rd Addition. Generally located on southeast corner of County Road.18 and Indian Hills Road. Chairman Lewis noted that he had received a petition from the surrounding neighbors objecting to the erection of a double bungalow on the subject property. Mr. Hughes commented that this proposed rezoning was heard by the Commission on March 1, 1978. At that time, the Commission recommended approval of the requested rezoning provided the proponent enter into an agreement which would specify that one unit of a double bungalow constructed on the site must face Indian Hills Road and one unit must face McCauley Trail. At the March 1, 1978 meeting, the proponent agreed to enter into such an agreement. On March 20, 1978, the Council considered the request, and at that time the proponent stated that he was not in favor of an agreement.that would have one unit accessing onto -Indian Hills Road and one onto McCauley Trail and requested the Council to grant the zoning without any conditions of that type. The Council then referred the request back to the Commission and asked the proponents to come before the Commission and discuss the requirement for the agreement with the Commission. The Council indicated that they do not disagree with the Commission's recommendation, however, since the proponent objects to the restrictive agreement for the lot, the Council requested that the Commission again review the request. Mr. Brian Gensmer reported that his brother, Scott, has accepted the condition imposed by the Commission at the March 1 meeting as he felt it would be acceptable to his family. The condition is not acceptable because it is felt that the building should face onto Indian Hills Road. There is a safety factor involved facing one unit onto McCauley. He presented some photos to the Commission and stated that there was a blind entrance because of a hill. Mr. Wayne Gensmer stated that he had spoken to Dr. Gifford, whose property adjoins the proposed R-2 site, feels that if both units face Indian Hills Road, the properties to the east will be devalued. He stated that he disagreed with Dr. Gifford. There are several other double bungalows in the area. Mr. Gensmer stated that his firm completes their sites with landscaping and draped and carpeted the homes for the tenants. He also stated that there are no restrictions on the doubles along Vernon Avenue and most of those have two street frontages as does the subject property. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 29, 1978 Mr. Fernelius asked if the Gensmer's could work out a variation of the house that is across the street. Mr. Gensmer, Sr. stated that they have not seen the plan for that particular house. Mr. Runyan noted that a creative person could place a house properly on the property. Mr. Hughes reported that staff's original recommendation was that we.:would prefer not to see it face onto McCauley from the safety standpoint as McCauley is a fairly heavily travelled roadway, more so than Indian Hills Road. Our preference would be to face the dwelling onto Indian Hills Road. The compromise was to have one unit fact out onto McCauley and one on Indian Hills Rd. which seemed reasonable to staff. Dr. Gifford commented that he will not see the proposed double from his front window, but he will each time he passes it and will be reminded that it would be in contrast with the single family dwelling character of Indian Hills Road. This would also be true of those living on Margarets Lane. As far as the traffic problem on McCauley Trail is concerned, it is not as busy as Vernon Avenue. He also stated that as far as the traffic aspect of both drive- ways coming out on McCauley Trail is concerned, it would not be a problem. If one looks at the adjacent corner lots further down on Samuel Road and Sioux Trail, these corner lots are abutting McCauley Trail and they are not double bungalows, they are single family dwellings and are in -character with the rest of the street. So the corner lots on McCauley Trail are not ipso facto double bungalow lots. He realized that the Gensmer's would not build a shabby structure nor rent to shabby people who would create a mess, however there are doubles in the.area that are not kept up. There is one in the immediate neighborhood that was completed last August, but there is no landscaping and there are pallets leading up to the front door. We can only judge from what we have seen. It is the idea of rental property on Indian Hslls Road which is a well landscaped area and a well kept area and we want to keep it that way. The compromise of one unit facing Indian Hills Road would,be in character with the rest of the street. We would prefer that it face McCauley Trail entirely and that would give Indian Hills Road continued single family dwelling character. Dr. Glen Smith, stated that he lived next door to Dr. Gifford, and -that he had recently purchased his house and at the time the lot in question was zoned R-1. He stared that maintaining it as R-1 is logical. Dr. Buchwald, 6808 Margarets Lane, stated that he fully agreed with what had been said at least in terms of having a compromise. When we moved in nine years ago, we were assured that this whole area was to be single family dwellings and all this has been whittled away a little at a time. We do believe that this has affected property values. The lot across the street which had the opportunity to split, did split. This did preserve at least some semblence of not having a tenament type approach. The lot further along on Margarets Lane could not split under any circumstances, they had to open onto Margarets Lane. The subject lot is not on a hill and I disagree that it is unsafe to open up onto McCauley Trail and also that the other areas that have had the opportunity to split have done so and I think it is a good thing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 _. March 29, 1978 _ Mr. Fernelius stated that he had heard nothing new since the March 1 meeting and noted that he was concerned a month ago as well as now about the opinions of the people who were petitioning against the proposal. At that time, we thought we were dealing in good faith with your representative. He then stated that he felt that the action of March 1 should hold and no further action need be taken. After some additional discussion, Mr. Seaberg moved to approve the rezoning from R-1 to R-2 without the restrictions. Mr. Bentley seconded the motion. The motion was defeated. Mrs. McDonald moved that the Commission recommend R-2 zoning and continue the restriction of one unit facing McCauley Trail and one unit facing Indian Hills Road. Mr. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye with the exception of Messrs. Seaberg and Bentley who voted nay. Motion Carried. III. NEW BUSINESS: S-78-10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeart.corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Mr. Hughes presented the property location and displayed the preliminary plat. He noted that on Novemer 2, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed and subsequantly recommended denial of a 25 lot single family subdivision of the subject property. The proponent did not appeal this recommendation to the City Council. The proponent has now submitted a new single family subdivision for consideration. This subdivision is similar to the November, 1977 presentation. There are some revisions, however, The curvature of the proposed access road from Indian Hills A= has been modified slightly, and.one lot has been deleted. A 160,000 square foot outlot designated on the November, 1977 proposal has been designated as a lot. This subdivision shows some of the same difficulties as the November proposal; grades of the roadways are quite steep, approximately 8%, 10% and 12% in some locations. There is a need for a rather extensive system of retaining walls along the roadway to retain the soils in this area. We are concerned also about the loss of vegetation on the site and the severe amount of grading that would be necessary to accomplish development of the site. The developer's have also submitted a soil erosion control plan. Since the Community Development and Planning Commission is quite new and hasn't reviewed any of the past requests that have been submitted on this property, Mr. Hughes recommended that we hear the testimony and facts presented by the proponents and then the Commission take these things under advisement and have an opportunity to walk over the site and review these items during the next month and discuss it again on April 26. Mr. Hughes introduced Mr. Robert Hoffman, attorney for Mr. Victorsen. Mr. Hoffman stated that Mr. Shindell was from McCoombs and Knutson, an engineering and site planning firm and Linda Fischer from the Hoffman firm who worked primarily on researching ordinance evaluation on this project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 29, 1978 He reported that in the early '70's, the Victorsen's proposed - several different types of development for this parcel to the City of Edina. Edina acted on two of those; one was a combination multiple dwelling and single family subdivision in 1974. That particular plan had a roadway substantially similar to the one on the southern portion of the proposed plat. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council granted concept approval. Later on, the Victorsen's modified their proposal and requested a rezoning to PRD. At that particular time, the roadway on the southern portion of the plat was eliminated and a multiple dwelling was located on the northern portion of the plat. Prior to that modification, the proposal with single family dwellings and the longer roadway and some smaller multiple family went through quite an evaluation process. Both the Commission and the Council granted concept approval. The concept approval included a roadway that had grades not too dissimilar from that being proposed now and a width that is very close to what is seen today. In addition, an environmental assessment was made of the proposed project and it covered the surface water, vegetation, fauna and soil erosion. In the findings as to surface water with the long roadway there would be some increase in surface water, but it would be minimum. As to vegetation, there would be some temporary disruption of vegetation, but that would be of a temporary nature except for the portion that would be left for roadway or the portion that would be the house or where the multiple dwelling may sit. As to fauna, the finding was that the fauna disruption could be accommodated as the construction proceeded and would not be a material impact. As to soil erosion, the finding was the potential soil erosion could be controlled on the sites. These findings were presented to the City and had some impact on both the Commission and Council granting concept approval. The findings went before the environmental quality council of the State of Minnesota, which is now the Environmental Quality Board. That body reviewed the environmental issues and the concern and that body found that it was not of major environmental significance and did not require any environmental impact statement. Subsequent to that, the Victorsen's modified their plan and eliminated the single family portion on the southern portion and asked for a rezoning. That rezoning came back before the Commission and Council and was granted in 1975. The property was rezoned to PRD -5. No construction has proceeded pursuant to that rezoning and the Edina ordinances provide that if construction doesn't proceed within a certain amount of time, the zoning lapses. It is our opinion that the PRD -5 zoning has now lapsed. This property is now zoned R-1 for single family residences. The Victorsen's came back in November, 1977 and presented a single family proposed plat. That plat was not approved by the Commission and the minutes read that it was not approved because the single family development was undesirable due to environmental and public safety concerns. Mr. Hoffman reported that there were some changes in the plat presented at this meeting. The roadway has less curve, is less steep and there art• no significant environmental concerns. The cul de sac is more level than it was before. What remains is a 36 foot roadway. If the City desires to have a 50 foot right of way, we can accommodate that right of way. The City, when it gave concept approval to the prior plat, requested that the roadway be reduced in order to minimize disruption of vegetation. We think that was a reasonable request, the landowner has accommodated that and we are prepared to come back with a 50 foot roadway. The Victorsen's have also prepared a soil erosion plan for review. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7March 29, 29, 1978 Mr. Hoffman went on to state that the Planning Commission should now consider this revised plat and to consider it in light of its ordinances. Evaluate the plat according to your ordinances and consider the -fact that the City has already approved in concept in the past the southern roadway. There was an extensive environmental assessment with this type of roadway in all the environmental matters and that was presented to the City prior to the concept approval. The Environmental Quality Board reviewed the same issue and found no environmentalissues. Parkland dedication is something the City can determine. Everyone has their own preference as to how this property'should be developed, but the Victorsens's are requesting R-1 development. Mr. Fernelius stated that the staff recommends that the matter be held over until April 26 to give the new members of the Commission an opportunity to review the matter. He asked Mr. Hughes if the staff intended, during this next month, to work with Mr. Hoffman in finding these items that are undefined right now and get some direction on it. Mr. Hoffman stated that their position is very simple, if the Commission again would find that the subdivision would not be approved because it is undesirable due to environmental and public safety concerns, then we would take it to the City Council. Dr. Glenn Lewis asked Mr. Victorsen if Lot 12 was to remain a single lot and Mr. Victorsen replied that it was to remain a single lot. Dr. Lewis stated that he was much affected by this development. The solution seemed to be the apartment and that is no longer to be considered so we are back before the Commission because of economic reasons and back to the problem of developing a road. The road still has steep grades and will present the same type of problems as before. Mr. Chris Kongsore, 6512 Indian Hills Road, stated that he built his house two years ago and has a steep way to his house. He expressed his concern about the grades of this proposed subdivision. When the house was built, we were informed that there would be an apartment building on the site and we were satisfied that this is what the development would be and built our house. Mr. Gunderson stated that Indian Hills Road is the main artery into Indian Hills and he felt that there was a serious safety concern because the proposed road coming from the plat is quite sharp, at least a 180 degree turn and he felt it would be a very dangerous intersection. He stated that he did not object to homes being built on the hill, but he did object to the grade of the proposed road, and the sharp turn onto Indian Hills Road. Dr. R. Christgau, Indian Hills Pass, stated that Indian. Hills is a.wide :-.curve,: but the radius of the new -road shown that�it_is very tight. Approximately six new lots are contiguous to his lot and he felt that the density is to high. He felt that the development would adversely affect his lot. Mrs. Kongsore stated that she felt that this particular area did not belong to Indian Hills because the plat does not follow the image of Indian Hills. Dr. T. Carrier, Indian Pond Circle, expressed his concern about the road angle and grade at its junction with Indian Hills iW and the amount of traffic that will be generated by the proposed road. He also felt that it was F_ Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 March 29, 1978 impractical to think about a roadway of 36 feet with no parking on the street. Where would company park, as most people do not have enough room in their driveways for all guests to park. Overflow parking would be on Indian Hills Road. He felt that the 50 foot roadway would be much better. He stated also that he has difficulty coming up Indian Bills Reid and Indian Pond Circle and he nosted that he felt there would be quite a bit of difficulty navigating the proposed roadway in the winter. Mr. Fernelius moved that the Commission hold this item over to April 26, 1978. Mr. Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted Aye. Motion Carried. Z-78-4 The Northland Co. Regional Medical District to Office Building District. Southdale Acres. Generally located east of Drew Avenue west of Barrie Road between W. 65th and 66th Streets. Mr. Hughes presented the property location and noted that the parcel is presently zoned Regional Medical District. The site is bordered on the west by professional offices which are zoned Regional Medical District, on the east by developed office zones 0-1 and on the north by multiple residences R-4. The proponents desire to construct a four story office building on the subject property. and to rezone the property to Office Building District. Upon comparison of the Regional Medical District and the Office Building District, staff finds that the Office Building District does allow a few more principal uses than the Regional Medical District, but the Regional Medical District tends to allow a more intense use than the Office Building District. The staff recommends approval of the reazoning for the following reasons: 1. the subject property is adjacent to and would be a continuation of office development north of 66th St. 2. the rezoning from Regional Medical District to 0-1 is a "lateral" rezoning in that a significant change in the intensity or type of development would not result. 3. the present vacancy status of existing medical buildings in this area indicate that an alternate use is appropriate. Approval is recommended with the following conditions: 1. the subject property, together with an adjacent 0-1 parcel which would be incorporated into the proposed office develop- ment must be platted to clarify confusing and questionable legal descriptions which now exist. Mr. Hughes reported that the proponents have submitted a preliminary site plan for the development and he cautioned the proponent that approval of the requested rezoning does not automatically grant approval to the particular office building which has been proposed. Mr. Ken Stensby, representing United Properties Division of Northland Co., which is the applicant for the proposed rezoning. He then gave a brief background of his company. He presented slides of the area to be rezoned as well as aerial photos of the area and surrounding properties. Planning Commission Minutes - Page 9 --- March 29, 1978 The total parcel contains 203,000 square feet of land area. There are two different parcels involved, the major part of the property is 175,000 square feet which is being purchased from Dayton --Hudson Properties and the corner parcel contains about 28,000 square feet which is being acquired from Twin City Federal. The proposed development contemplates a four story, brick office building approximately 80,000 square feet of gross area. The floor area ratio for Office Building District is .5 which means a structure of over 100,000 square feet could be constructed. The total parking shown on the plan provides 438 stalls and of that, 45 stalls will be reserved for Twin City Federal. The balance is 393 stalls. He also noted that the building is proposed to be of brick and textured material and approximately 31% glass. After some additional discussion, Mrs. McDonald moved that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed zoning subject to the conditions. noted in the staff report. Mr. Fernelius seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Z-78-5 Edina Baptist Church. R-2 Multiple ResidenceDistrict to R-1 Single Family District. South Harriet Park 2nd Addition. 5234- 5242 France Ave. Generally located west of France and north of W. 54th Street. Mr. Hughes reported that the Edina Baptist Church is requesting a rezoning from R-2 District to R-1 Single Family District for Lots 8, 10 and 11, Block 1, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition. The rezoning would facilitate a proposed expansion program for the Church. Lot 8 is presently owned by the Church and is used for parking. Multiple dwellings are located on Lots 10 and 11, which have been purchased by the Church. A single family residence is located on Lot 9. The Church proposes to remove the existing multiple residence on Lot 11 and construct an addition to the Church structure. The multiple residence on Lot 10 will be used for staff housing. After the exercise of the life estate on Lot 9, further expansion would occur and the dwelling on Lot 10 removed. This removal would occur within 3 to 5 years. Because of the Church expansion, additional parking will be required. The Church proposes to convert an existing green space area west of the Church into a parking area. Mr. Paul Sentman, stated that the three lots in question are 8, 10 and 11. Plans are to raze the double bungalow closes to the Church for immediate church expansion. He also stated that the Church will raze the other two buildings and the area used either for further expansion or parking. Mr. Hughes stated that the staff believes that the requested rezoning is appropriate, however, staff would caution the Church that the multiple dwelling which would temporarily remain on Lot 10 must only be used for Church related pruposes and cannot be used as separate rented units which is not in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Staff also recommends that the Church be obligated to remove the dwelling on Lot 10 at the same time they exercise the life estate for the dwelling on Lot 9. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 March 29, 1978 Mr. Gordon Johnson moved that the Commission recommend approval of the requested rezoning subject to the restrictions and recommendations in the staff report. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Z-78-6 Lantto Bldg. & Development. R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Multiple District. Warden Acres. Generally located south of Benton Avenue and west of the MN&S Railroad tracks. Mr. Hughes reported that the proponent is requesting rezoning from R-1 Single Family Dwelling District to R-2 Multiple Dwelling District on a 32,931 square foot tract of land south of Benton Avenue and west of the MN&S Railroad tracks. Approximately 10 years ago, the Commission and Council did grant the rezoning to R-2 for the property immediately across the street. The subject property has two features which limit its use and also reduces its desirablility for single family use. First, the property is bordered along its easterly boundary by the MN& S Railroad tracks. Second, NSP holds an easement for its power lines across the easterly. 50 feet of the subject property. Buildings cannot encroach onto the easement area. At the time the lot across the street was rezoned to R-2, the Commission and Council determined that due to the adverse influences on the site, R-2 zoning would be appropriate. The subject lot has the same set of circumstances as the lot across the street as well as others further north of this property and staff would recommend that the request to rezone to R-2 be approved for the following reasons: 1. due to the characteristics of the lot, R-2 zoning is appropriate. 2. other lots located north of the subject property and experiencing similar site characteristics have been appropriately rezoned to R-2 in the past. Mr. Hughes presented a sketch of the house that is proposed to be built on the site that would-be butted all the way up to the easement line. After some additional discussion, Mr. Fernelius moved that the Commission recommend approval of the requested rezoning subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. Mr. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. S-78-6 Gross/Fraser - Prospect Hills. Generally located south of Tupa Drive cul-de-sac and north and west of Kerry Rd. cul-de-sac. Mr. Hughes presented the property location and displayed the preliminary plat. He stated that the owners of Lots 7 and 8, Prospect Hills 1st Addition are proposing a replat which would result in the creation of one new buildable lot. Lots 7 and 8 are very large lots which measure 92,469 square feet and 87,827 square feet respectively. The northwesterly portion of Lot 7 and 8 would be divided so that a new 30,784 square foot lot would be created. A portion c Lot 7 would also be added to Lot 4 of Scott Berg Addition'so that this lot would increase in size from'15,040 square feet to 23,605 square feet. The westerly Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 March 29, .1978 portion of Lot 8 would be divided and combined with Lot 1 through 4, Braemar Hills 5th Addition so that each of these lots would be increased from approximately 16,500 square feet to approximately 21,000 square feet. After the., divisions, the size of Lot 7 would be 62,912 square feet and Lot 8 would be 58,560 square feet. Staff would recommend approval of the subdivision for the following reasons: 1. the new lot has proper access and is compatible with lot sizes in the area. 2. the sizes of other existing lots in Braemar Hills 5th Addition and Scott Berg Addition are desirably increased. Approval is recommended with the following conditions: 1. all lots which are directly affected by'an addition or subtraction of lot area must be included in their entirety in the replat. 2. subdivision dedication. Staff recommends that this dedication should be based only on the land area presently encompassed in Lots 7 and 8. Mr. Bentley moved that the Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report. Mr. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. S-78-7 Nine Mile West Third Addition. Garron Corp. Generally located south of W. 78th Street, east of Cecilia Circle and west of the MN&S Railroad. Mr. Hughes reported that the proponents are requesting a replat of Lot 1 and 2, Block 2, Nine Mile West 1st Addition and Lot 1, Block 9, Edina Interchange Center. The property is presently divided into three lots and the proposed replat would combine Lot 2, Block 2, Nine Mile West and Lot 1, Block 9, Edina Interchange Center into a single lot and would realign the existing lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Nine Mile West. The subject property is zoned Planned Industrial District.. According to the zoning ordinance, Planned Industrial District lots which are larger than three acres are allowed a greater lot coverage than those less than three acres. Through the lot line realignment and lot combination, the proponents would be able to enjoy the increased lot coverage benefit for both lots of the proposed subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision for the following reasons: 1. the proposal conforms with the subdivision ordinance. 2. the combination of Lot 1, Block 9, Edina Interchange Center with another lot is desirable in that Lot 1, Blk. 9, does not have access at present and cannot be served with sewer and water. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 March 29, 197$ Mr. Runyan moved that the Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to. the conditions noted in the staff report. Mr. Bentley seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. S-78-8* Lyon Replat of Mendelssohn. John Street.Generally located south of Belmore Lane at John Street. Mr. Hughes reported that the,proponent requested that this proposed subdivision be continued for one month.. No action taken. S-78-9 Dewey Hill 2nd Addition. Generally located north of W. 78th Street, west of Braemar Park and south of Dewey Hill Road Mr. Hughes reported that the proponents are requesting a 50 lot single family subdivision of a tract of land located west of the proposed Delaney Blvd. and north of W. 78th Street. This property is located immediately south of the recently platted Dewey Hill Addition. Mr. Hughes noted that of primary concern is the proposed traffic circulation plan for the subdivision. An east/west through street is proposed which would tie into Stonewood Court in Braemar Hills 9th ,Addition on the western edge of the proposed subdivision and ultimately Gleason Rd. On the eastern edge of the subdivision, the proposed through street would intersect Delaney Blvd. On April 3, 1978, the City Council will conduct a public hearing regarding the construction of Amundson Avenue and Delaney Blvd. In the event Delaney Blvd. is not authorized, staff would then advise the proponents that access would have to be provided to 78th Street from the proposed subdivision. Staff believes that the proposed road alignment is desirable because it takes full advantage of the topography of the site; provides two adequate means of access to the subdivision; and separates the single family subdivision from a potential multiple residence development to the south which would be served by 78th Street. Mr. Hughes also reported that it would be somewhat premature to recommend formal plat approval, however, the Commission is encouraged to grant concept approval for the subdivision which could be transmitted to the Council and which could have a bearing on the resolution on the Delaney Blvd. question. If Delaney Blvd. is authorized, staff would recommend that the proponent return to the Commission for plat approval. Such a plat should be modified as follows: 1. Outlot A should be placed at the southern edge of Lot 16, Blk. 1, rather than at the northern edge of Lot 1, Blk. 2 2. The proposed roadway in the northwestern section of the subdivision should be modified to increase the radius of curvature. 3. The proposed roadway should`be moved, northerly at the point where it intersects Braemar Hills 9th Addition in order to provide a more suitable lot arrangement in that subdivision Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 March 29, 1978 4. the.property south of the subject property (i.e. the remainder of Tract D) in control of the proponent should be included in the proposed subdivision and identified as an outlot. In addition, the easterly one-half of Shaughnessy Road (which is presently a half street) should be dedicated at that time. Mr. Hughes also noted that Shaughnessy Road should be dedicated and sewer and water installed. Mr. Peter Jarvis reviewed the development of the property. The previous plan for the property had approximately 335 dwelling units on it and we went through a replanning exercise last Fall and took a substantially different look at it from a number of standpoints, not only mixture of housing, but also circulation to Dewey Hill, circulation back to W. 78th and trying to reflect and respond to the. Southwest Edina Plan as far as Delaney is concerned. Then the opportunity opened up to have a connection through a single family subdivision, Braemar Hills 9th, immediately to the west. The replatting we have done shows 26 lots in the upper 1/3 and we are requesting preliminary approval at this time for 50 lots in the middle 1/3 of the property. The southerly 1/3 may be a year or more away from development and we are planning 100-120 multi family units to 100% orient to W. 78th Street so that there will be north/south through traffic if Delaney is built. We see a couple of clusters on either side of what would be an expanded ponding area. The overall number of units comes down from the original 335 to 170 to 190 units. Our request is to submit this and request preliminary plat approval for the 50 lots subject to Delaney Blvd. being approved by the Council, with the understanding that if that was thrown out in the next month or two from the Southwest Edina Plan, we start all over again with the Commission because we would clearly have to use W. 78th Street as a primary access to the single family area and would probably continue to use this street as the secondary access to that area and we would have a cul de.sac in the plateau area rather than going out to Delaney. After some additional discussion regarding the plat and densities on the property, Mr. Runyan moved that the Commission recommend concept approval subject to Delaney Blvd. being approved by Council. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. IV. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Revised Planned Residential District Zoning Ordinance. 2. South, Southwest and Western Edina Plans. Mr. Hughes presented the proposed amendment to the Planned Residential District to the Commission. He noted that the Commission had discussed these changes briefly at an earlier meeting. He noted that the new section was Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 March 29, 1978 on page 5. Other changes have occurred, but they are just 4 tightening up of sections. There are some wording changes suggested by the City Attorney and those changes will be made. The proposal is a two step one; first of alll,to amend the three plans in the City. In the Western Edina Land Use Plain and the Southwest Edina Plan we define low rise apartment buildings having thice stories or lass.. We also plan to rephrase the present density reduction planithat is;now in effect with this Planned Residential District Ordinance. Therefore, the Western Edina Land Use Plan, the Southwest Edina Plan and the South Edina�Plan will be amended to delete the "Clarification of Allowed Multi -Family Dens t�es in the South$ Southwest and Western Edina Plan Areas" as adopted on May 3� 1976. We have turned the whole density reduction'iplan arpund. A4 it presently stands, we start out in Western Edina and Southwe$t Edina'iat 12 units an acre and then through a system of debits we can reduce',this to1p6 units!an acre through slopes, proximity of property to single familyiareas, etlandso etc. No regard is given to any site planning or building considerations y the developer that would make his development more compatible with the area., We 4ave tur#ed this into an incentive program and we start out with a base density of 6units an acre and we have a program where we add on up to 6 units an acteito get )ack to 12. In the present density reduction plan, we say that if a certain percen age of the site has slopes over 18% or over, we reduce density 50% fgrithat potion. In the new ordinance, if we preserve slopes of 18% or over, a credit of a ialf dwelling unit per acre is granted. There are other credits for site preservation and development characteristics. We must keep in mind, however$ that the original intent of the Council was density reduction, and I think if everything came back up to 12, we wouldn't be conforming to their request. Mr. Hughes reported that this proposed ordinance should get back to Council as quickly as possible so that a hearing date can be set for April 17. The Council had requested that the Commission hold a special. meeting sometime between March 23 and April 17 to consider the Lanvesco prOppsal. After some additional discussion, Mr. Runyan moved that the hearing on the Planned Residential Ordinance and the Plan Amendments be continued until April 5, 1978, as well as discussion on the Lanvesco proposal. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. 3. Parkland Dedication Policy. Mr. Hughes reported that the Council had referred :this matter back to the Planning Commission and Park Board for review. Hel,noted that there was only one change that had been made and that was that dedication of park property' should be based on the new lots. He recommended that the Commission recommend approval of the correction and return the Policy to Council for action. 21r. Seaberg moved that the Commission forward to the Council the Parkland Dedication Policy with the change noted. Mr. Be�tley seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. V. Adjournment at 10:50 P.M. Respe tfully s btnitted, Karen Sorensen Secretary