HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967 05-03 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELI?
WEDNESDAY* MAY 3, 1967
EDINA VILLAGE HALL
Members Present:x T. L. Todd, Chairman; Wm. Lewis, R. A. Huelster,
George Nugent, H. J. Heegle and D. J. Griswold
. Staff Presentr George C. }bite, Haren Sorensen
I. &Mroval. of April 5.1967 -commission Kinutes
Mr. Nugent moved that the April 5, 1967 Commission Minutes
be approved as written. Mr. Todd stated that the record so
show.
I i . ZONING i/ GSTS
Z-67-2 Shell Oil Co.
Avenue and Heritage give.
Fix. Hite presented his staff report in which
he rev ewed the provisions of the Edina ordinance applicable
to the proposed rezoning; the use and zoning of all surround-
ing lands, and the policies of the Village Planning Commission
and Council relating to the establishment of now commercial
uses. He recommended that the request be denied stating that
eche petition failed to conform to paragraph 2 of Section 9
of the ordinance; that the establishment of the proposed C-4
zoning on the property would be completely contrary to the
Village's policy on the location of new commercial uses= and
that the resulting land use, would be totally inconsistent
with the land use plans developed for this area in 1960,
which nearby property owners and residents have in good faith
depended upon and should be aide to rely on.
Mr. William Rosen. attorney representing the
petitioner, stated that he had discussed the proposed re-
zoning with Mr. Site prior to the Commission Meeting, but
that none of the items advanced by ire. Hite in his staff
report had been mentioned at the time of their conversation.
Mr. Rosen then reviewed Shell's need for a station in the
Edina area and said that it would be necessary for Shell to
seek a rezoning for that station in that no vacant C-4 sites
were available. Mr. Rosen reviewed the land uses adjacent
to established stations at 50th and Halifax, 51st and France,
Edina planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1967
-2-
54th and France and at 66th and Xerxes. He noted that in
many of these cases single family uses were located adjacent
to st;ationns. He said that the proposed gas station site on
Xerxes Avenue at heritage Drive was within the commercial
influence of Southdale Center.
Mr. Rosen noted that the proposed Xerxes Avenue
site would be 105 feet south of the Crosstown Highway, and
that apartment construction on surrounding properties would
screE:n the station from the view of single family areas. He
asked that the Planning Commission consider his petition
strictly on a planning basis and not be concerned about any
ordinance provisions that might need to be changed.
Fir. Lewis said that in many of the instances
sigh+ced by Mr. Rosen, the gas stations had been established on
site9 already zoned for commercial purposes which he said was
not the same situation as was proposed at Xerxes and heritage
Drive. Mr. Todd added that most of the homes built near the
stations sighted by Mr. loosen were built by people who had
ful: knowledge of the existence of the commercial zoning on
the nearby property. He said that the people who had developed
residential properties near the proposed Xerxes Avenue gas
station site did so with the understanding that all adjacent
anti surrounding properties dere zoned residential.
Mr. Huelster said that the Village had prepared
a, plan for the development of the properties within the area
1,etween the crosstown Highway and Southdale, and that he felt
4;hat the Village had an obligation to the people who have since
moved into that area to see that the pian was not changed with-
out good reason.
Mr. Todd asked Mr. Rosen if he did not agree
that the establishment of a commercial use on this property
could be construed as "spot zoning." Mr. Rosen said that he
did feel the establishment of the gas station would be adverse
to the use of surrounding properties.
Mai. Sam Schneider appeared and said that he owned
the three apartment buildings immediately to the south of the
proposed gas station site and that he was very much opposed to
the proposed rezoning. He said that before he built his build-
ings he carefully checked with the Village to determine whether
Edina Planning Commission Minutes
-3-
May 3, 1967
or not there was any existing commercial zoning in the area,
and also checked with Mr. o'Neill, the owner of the proposed
Shell site, to determine if any such commercial development
was contemplated. He said that Mr. O'Neill informed hits that
the property was zoned R-4 residential and that no change was
anticipated. He said that on the basis of these assurances
he proceeded with the construction of his three buildings.
Mr. Griswold said that he did not feel that the
site was a good site for the proposed use. He said that he
agreed with W. Rosen that the planning Commission should be
concerned primarily about planning, but that he felt that from
strictly a planning point of view the proposed use was entirely
inappropriate.
Mr. Griswold moved that the 7Planninq f ommi.ss, ion
recommend to the Village Council that the rggaest of Shell. Oil
C m n for C-4 zonin on the northwest corner of Heritage Drive
and Xerxes avenue be denied. Mr. his_ econded the motion.
Notion carried unanimousl
Z-67-3 Johnson Eros. R-1 Residential District to R-+4
Street and T.H. 100. (See Minutes 4-5--67'
Mr. Site presented his staff report outlining
the history of the zoning and land use planning in the area
of the petitioner's property and the existence of a sanitary
sewer capacity problem. He recommended that action on the
proposal be deferred until a new analysis of the sewer capacity
situation had been completed. He said that this analysis would
not be completed for about a year.
Mr. Nordbloom, architect for the petitioner,
and Mr. Frederick Johnson, owner of the property, both stated
that the property had been purchased with the thought that it
could be developed for multiple family residences. Mr.
Nordbloom suggested that perhaps the number of proposed units
could be reduced by 25;6 to meet the sewer capacity problem.
Pair. Johnson suggested that perhaps the sanitary sewer pipes
could be enlarged sufficiently to handle the additional sewage
floe. Mr. Johnson further stated that they were not inter-
ested in developing the property for any other purpose and
Edina planning Commission Minutes
-4-
May 3, 1967
that the Village would be much better off from a tax stand-
point with apartment development.
Mr. Huelster moved 'aat further consideration
of the r uest be deferred until such time as the sewer
ca cit roblem was settled. Mr. Bee le seconded the motion.
Mr. Griswold said that his primary concern was
that. the petitioner°s property was not combined for planning
purposes with the other vacant parcels in the area. He said
that he would be much more receptive to the idea if someone
could present an overall development plan for all of the area
in question.
Mr. Todd called for a vote on the matter.
�Ir. Huelster ° s motion carried unanimously
Z-67-4 jgdwest Federal Savin s and Loan. R -1 -Residential
istrict to Office Buildin District. West 66th
Street and Xerxes Avenue.
Mr. Hite presented his staff report and commented
that he had suggested to the petitioners that they consider
establishing their proposed use on the site in question be-
cause he felt that it represented an excellent solution to
what had been for many years a difficult land use problem.
He noted that the site was the triangle bordered by blest 66th
Street on the south, Xerxes Avenue on the east, and York
Avenue on the northwest. He said the property encompassed
approximately one acre of land.
it was noted that the petitioners had secured
the services of Barton -Fischman Associates, traffic consultants,
for the preparation of their plan. Mr. Hite said that the
Hennepin County Highway Department had granted preliminary
approval to the proposed traffic pattern. SFr. Foster Dunwoodie,
representing the petitioner, said that they anticipated that
approximately 60 vehicles would use the drive-in window per
day and that about 40 people would park their car and go inside
the building to transact their business.
Edina Planning Commission Minutes
-5-
May 3. 1967
Mr. Lewis moved that the Planning Commission
recommend to the Village Council that the rectuest for
Office RuildiRS District zonincr on the -West 66th Street
and Xerxes Avenue triangle be a roved. Mr. Ruelster
seconded the Motion. Many of the Commission members indi-
cated that they felt the proposal to be a good solution to
the problem. Air. Griswold stated that he would have pre-
ferred to see the property used as a park but that if this
was not possible. he would be happy to see the property
used for the proposed purpose. Metion carried unanimow_ ugly;,
Z-67-6 Edina Plaza Corp. R-1 Residential District to
Planned Industrial District. West 78th Street.
Air. Bernardi presented his request for Planned
Industrial District zoning on three land parcels situated
south of West 78th Street along the Edina border. This
property is included in the Southwest Edina Plan Study and
was recommended to be used for Planned industrial use. Mr.
Hite commented that Mr. Bernardi had not as yet submitted
the information about the proposal required by the Ordinance.
He also advised that Mr. Bernardi has started rezoning pro-
ceedings on the Bloomington property immediately to the south.
He suggested that there should be some agreement between the
two communities about zoning control and advised that
Bloomington's industrial district does not prohibit outside
storage. Mr. Bernardi said that he was agreeable to place
covenants on the Bloomington property which would prohibit
outside storage.
Mr. Levis moved to aces t the r2gRest for stud
,and a fieldSinspection. Mr. Beeale seconded the motion.
M .MA
Carrier.
Ill. Loll, D1V'TS IONS
.. S. J. Schneider. 6d %o & 3,g Bloc 1
,.. ...�.
Hormandale Addition
The lots proposed for division are located on
Virginia Avenue between West 62nd Street and Nest 63rd Street.
`our of the lots in the block have been divided into the east
and west halves and are approximately 120° by 121°. Air.
Schneider now proposes to divide the gest halves of Lots 2
and 3 into three lots 80' by 1201. This type of division is
not typical of the area.
Edina Planning Commission Minutes My 3, 1967
-6-
Mr. Lewis suggested that the Commission
inspect the property.
Mr. Griswold moved that the Commission accept
the pLopgsed 12ro rt division for stufty and,,-in9R2ct the
p.r22!Erty-prior to the June meeting. Lewis second
2. E. P. Eike. 5717 T.H. 169. Lot 1, Kohlrid a Addn.
Mr. Hite presented Mr. &tike's proposal to
divide Lot 1, Kohlridge Addition into two parcels, each
75 feet by 224 feet. The area is served with sewer and water
and no variances are required. The lot to the west is a
large lot and has a single house on it. The Eike house
presently is located in the center of the lot and the plan
is to build a new foundation and move the existing house
onto one of the proposed lots and construct a home on the
second new lot.
Mr. Lew moved that the r est be accepted
for study and a field insuection. Mr. Griswold seconded
the motion. All Voted &e. Notion Carried..
3V. SUBDIVISIONS
SP -66-12 Sioux Trail IV Addition.
Mr. lite reported tha
completed the grading of Cutlot l a
He suggested that until the work is
action on the final plat. He added
would be issued until P¢xrr. Ruz4 c has
quired.
No action taken.
Mr. Ruzic had not
requested by the Village.
completed, there be no
that no building permits
completed the work re -
SP --67-5 Scenic View 7 and 11
Mr. Hite reported that this plat meets all
ordinance requirements and recommended that it be approved
subject to a review or street names and an acceptance by
Clinger Road property myners who have lots adjacent to the
proposed streets.
Edina Planning C:ormnission Minutes
-.7-
May 3, 1967
Mr. Nucient moved that the glat be given final
p.pproval subject to the conditions listed bX Mr. Mite. Mr.
Be le seconded the motion. All. Noted A e. Motion Carried
SP -67-7 Kemrich Knolls
Mr. Hite suggested some changes with regard
to the road patterns between the M.P. Johnson plat and
Fjeldheim 11 Addition. Mr. Kemp and ire. Smith, developers
of the plat, were agreeable to the changes.
Mr. lHiuelster moved that the plat be received
SP -67-8 Cherokee Hills.VX Addition.
This five lot prat is located along Cherokee
Trail. Sesser and water is available to the plat and it
meets all Ordinance requiirements.
Mr. Lewis moved, , at the orelimi ry p a - he
Apn!2!zed Nr.. -Huelster seconded. All Voted
�AVe. Motion
carried.
SP -67-9 Gleason 111 Addition
This seven lot plat is located along the north
,vide of T.H. 169 near Gleason Road. Three of the lots have
access from Aspen Road. The four lots along T.H. 169 recently
received R-2 zoning and the Hoard of Appeals granted lot area
variances on two of the lots. The plat meets all ordinance
requirements.
. Ruelster icacsved that thep1St be�a ap roe„ owed
..� ...
as a preliminar glat. Mr. Bee le seconded the motion.
All Noted Ave. Motion Carried.
SP -67-10 lndianhead Crest 11 Addition
Mr. Messenger's property is located on Valley
View between Cheyenne Circle and Dakota Trail. The property
will be served by seiner and water. The two proposed parcels
exceed the minimum requirements for platting.
Bee le maed that the plat be a roved as
a AreljMj:LWU-% plat. Mr. Huelster seconded the motion. All
Voted Aare. Motion on Carried.
Edina Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1967
M8 -
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1• Commercial Dev_elo,nentb T.H. #169 and
Olin, cue; Road.
A special meeting was set for May 24, 1367
at 7:00 P.M. to discuss this item.
Adjournment at 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Sorensen, secretary
Z-67-2
EDflNA FILANNI�ING (7091'11ISSION'
STAFF REPOART
May 3, 1967
Shell Of! Co. Residentiat District R-4 to Commercial District C-4.
Northwest cornar of Xerxes Avenue and Her itaw v Eli' Ixe.
Refer to: Petition dated March 30, 067.
Location and Zoning Map
Minutes of April 5, 1967
The petitioner's property is a part of a 31 acre parcel zoned for muitiple
residential use in :960. The 1960 Council action also included the
application of the same zoning classification to the properties west
and south of this 31 acre site. Since 060, multiple residence structures
have been constructed upon these adjacent sites. The properties to the
east of tho petitioner's site (across Xerxes Avo.) are zoned and
developed as two family residences. Tho Gross Town Highway is situated
adjacent and to the north of ?he 31 acre parcak
Properties north of the Cross Town Highway oro zoned and developed as
single family residencos. The poli tionaris portion of the 31 acre
parses Is situated in the no7thwast corner & Xerxes Avenue and Heritage
Drive; has an area of 24,750 square feet; a Xcrxas Avenue frontage of
165 feet; and, a Heritage Drive frontage of 150 feet. The northerly
line of the proposed C-4 zone is 105 feet south of the Cross Town
right-of-way.
Residences containing 5 or more dwelling units are tho only permitt6d
principal use in the existing R-4 District. The dwelling unit density
roquirements in tho R-4 District would pernit an apartment building
containing 8 - IC units to be constructed on the petitioner's site.
Automobile service stations, automobile car wash establishments and
drive-in restaurants are the permitted principai uses in the proposed
C-4 Commarcla! District.
Viii age records contain no reference to earlier rezoning requests for
this property although Mr. O'Neill, the fee owner, has appeared at one
or twD Conmission and Cowncl; meetings and coiroented that he was of the
opinion that the R-4 zoning was unrealistic.
Paragraph 2. Reou-Iraments for- the Es-ablishment of Commercial Districts,
of Section 9, Commercial Di strict of the Edina Zoning Ordinance (No. 261)
states:
"�a) No propoply will be zoned Commorcial District unless it K
either W more than two acres in aroa, or (2) contiguous on a side Wt
Kno or street frontage to an ostair lishsd Commorcial District when
such contiguous line or frontage coast itruss not less than 25% of the
total length of the pori Brie ter of such property or (3) contiguous on not
Wss than 75% of the total length oT tho perimeter of such
Site I I
I age 2
propert} to an existing Conif:erclal District, Office Building
District, lndustr€al District or Planned Industrial District,
or any combination thereof."
The petitioner's proposal dozes not comply with this requirement. All
adjacent properties aro zoned residential and the site area is 0.57
acre. Subparagraph (b) of that sarne paragraph states:
"(b) When the proposed Commercial District is (1) more than
two acres in area and is contiguous on less than 75% of the total
length of its perimetor -to an existing CrmrRerclal District, or
(2) five or more ac,,., -as in area, it shall be zoned as a Planned
Coirimarcial District under paragraph 6 of this section."
Paragraph 6. Planned Ccfiml.ercial Districts defines such a district
as follows: _
"A Planned ComTercial District is a pre -planned development of
business estabaishments usuaily characterized by central
management, integrated architectural design o` buildings, joint or
common use of parking and other similar facilities and a harmonious
selection and efficient distribution of business types. Any
Commercial District established by the enactment of an ordinance
amendment under this paragraph shall thereafter be referred to as a
Planned Cormrercial District, PC -1, PC -2, or PC --3, depending on the
actual district uses and standards allowed and each such district
shall be subject to the provisions of this paragraph relating to
Planned C(Yrmorcial Districts as well as to tt;P requirements of this
seal -ion relating to Districts C-1, C-2 or C-3, as the case may be.
A Pianned Commercial District wherein C-•4 uses are authorized in
addition to other uses shall be referred to as a Planned Commercial
District PC -1(4), PC -2(4) or PC -3(4), as the case may be."
These paragraphs are merely the Ordinance implementations of the Village's
poI€c€es with respect to the establ€shrr:ent of commerc€aI uses. These
policies are generally outlined in the "Purpose`" paragraph (1) of Section 9.
With specific reference to the Shell Oil petition or any other request
similar to it, the Village policy is simply that such uses be established
only in locations which are contiguous to existing compatible uses or be
established in conjunction with a planned, integrated comurorcial development.
The establishment of a single C-4 use on 1/2 acre parcel in a purely
residential area would seem to be in direct contradiction to this policy.
The petroleum industry itseif seems to expouse this same policy. A booklet
(entitled, "The Place Of The. Service Station In The CoiTtmunity", published
by the American Petroleum Institute in 1957 states as one of the zoning
policies of the Marketing Division of that organization:
"Modern service stations should be penT € tted in areas which
a I I oar the esstab I € shment of any othor rota i 6 bus € ness and
under they same conditions."
Simi
Page 3
May 3, 8967
The stafement goes on to say that this zoning policy means:
,,*rhe po!icy provides that service stations be permitted
in areas which allow other retail business. It does not
propose that they be permitted to locate in purely
residential areas where no other business is permitted
J.
to operate.
While thare m',,ght bh some question about the concept that service stations
are no d I f f orent than any other reta I k bus i ness, there i s no d I sag reem--nt
wi-i-h -the "not in pure Iy rosid-anflai area" argument.
Recovrnondaticjn: Recornmond to Vitlage Council, that the requested
es t ab B i shrpent of a C-4 zone on the norlffiwest corner of Heritage
Drive and Xerxes Avenue be denied. The petition fails to conform
to Paragraph 2 of Section 9; the estaWshment of the proposed C-4
zoning on the property would be completely contrary to the Village's
policy on the location of new Ccaffnercial uses; and the resulting
Band use wou;d be totally Inconsistent with the land use plans
developed for this ar-ja in 1960 which nearby property owners and
residents have in good faith depended upon and should be able to
rely on.
gch
LAW OFFICES
-,AICIRSKY & ROSEN
ROBERT A. DWORSKY
WILLIAM S. ROSEN
PAUL H. RAVICH
OTIS F. HILBERT '
March 30, 1967
George Hite, City Manager
Villi ge of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota
400 MiNNESG" a BU,-O,NG
SAINT PAUL, MIN?.ESOT= 55101
TELEPHONE 227-7.
Re: Shell Oil Company Application to Rezone
the S. 195' of the N. 462' of the E. 183'
of the N.E.1/4 of the N.W.1/4 of S. 29,
T. 28, R. 24, from R--4 to C-4.
My File No. 2481
Dear Mr. Hite:
Enclosed herewith are seven copies of the application by Shell Oil
Company to rezone the above described real property from R-4 to
C-4. Also enclosed is our Check No. 2916 in the amount of $50.0
made payable to the Village of Edina, Minnesota, in payment of ti -
filing fee.
Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, it is my understanding
that this will be placed upon the Edina Planning Commission agenda
for hearing before the Planning Commission on Wednesday, April 5
Please confirm to me in writing that this matter will be on the age
for hearing at that time.
I will submit the plot plan, plans and specifications for the build:. -.g
and pictures of the proposed building before the Planning Commission
meeting. I would like to meet with you before the meeting also. I
would appreciate it if you would telephone me and advise me at wLit
time you will be able to meet with me on next Monday or Tuesday.
Yours very truly,
�-
ph
enclosures
I,
{
�{
I,
' � �
���
I ��F' ,
`I
j �,
= � �'
f'
,1
��
��
EDINA PLANNING CC Ml SSION
STAFF REPORT
May 3, 1967
Z-67-3 Johnson Brothers. Residential District R -I to Residential District -
R -4. Holt Nursery,property. 7200 S. Normandale Road.
Refer to: Commission minutes of April 5, 1967.
Location and Zoning Map.
Proposed site and building plans.
This 14J acre parcel is situated adjacent to the west side of T.N. 100
about midway between W. 70th Street and Metro Blvd. It has a T.H. 100
frontage of 956.34 feet and a depth of 672.31 feet. The major portion
of the site has, In recent years, been occupied by the Holt Nursery.
Most of the site is marshy and is situated below the 826 foot Nine Mile
Creek flood plain elevation. The Creek traverses the property from the
northwest to the southeast over a distance of about 1150 feet. The
underlying soils are suprisingly good with the peat being only 2 to 5
feet deep. The outer table is, of course, quite high.
The property is zoned R-1 as are all adjacent properties. The only
permitted principal uses In that District are single family homes, public
facilities, churches and private golf courses. Until December, 1965,
when the R-1 District was estabiished by the Council, the Village's
single family district (Open Development District) also permitted nursing
homes by special permit. Such a permit was granted in 1964 to the
Evangelical Free Church for a 72 bed nursing home on property north of the
parcel now under consideration. The home was never constructed, although
the Church still owns the land. Nursing homes are now only permitted as
principal uses in multiple residence districts and there is some question
as to whether the special permit granted to the Church In 1964 is still
valid.
Land use plans prepared by the Commission in 1964 as part of the Edina
Interchange Canter considerations, projected office and industrial
development on all lands south of Nine Mile Creak with single family or
two family development to the north. The 200 foot aide flood plain
zone along the Creek alignment was to serve as the transition between
the two areas. This land use pattern resulted in part from a desire to
provide expansion space for the attractive office and industrial
development moving up frau the south; in part because it was not felt
appropriate to intermingle residential and non-residential developments;
and, finally because of capacity limitation on the area's sanitary sewer
system.
-
_:
- w,
-
- - - _ -
Johnson Bros.
Page 2
May 3, 1967
The requested R-4 zoning of the Q acre tract would permit the
establishment of anywhere from 220 to 320 dwelling units, depending
on the location o! the parking and whether the roadways are public
or private. The Johnson Brothers proposal contains .312 units. The actual
land area that gill be available for development is also somewhat in
doubt because of a proposed highway taking along T.N. 100 (now scheduled
at 85 feet) and the flood plain requirement.
in 1962, the Commission recommended that a requost for multiple residence
zoning to permit 148 torn house units to be constructed on this same
site be denied. The file record of that deliberation is not as complete
as it should be, but the minutes seem to indicate a concern about the
great number of apartments being proposed and built In Edina.
Mr. Nordb i oom, architect for the petitioners, has commented that the
present alignment of the Creek through tits property would make it
difficult to develop the property for either office of industrial uso.
a read ignm:nt of the Creek might overcome this problem!.
The tai; situation i s confusing. Assuming the taxable value of apartments
to be ;15,000 per unit and the taxable value of industrial or office
deveaopment to be $6 per square fool- of site area, an acre of apartments
(20) would have a value of $.300,000 and an acre of office or industrial
would have a va l uL of $264,000. The industrial or office development
:would have a lower cost of service, but tha apartments would add to
the Village population which is becoming an increasingly important
consideration as mora and more State and f=ederal aids and tax returns
are being distributed on a population basis.
The sanitary sewer situation Is of extreme importance. A thorough
analysis of our trunk sewer systems in 1963 indicated that the predicted
flow in the large trunk seater located w€thin this property would exceed
its capacity by 25% when the areas contributing to the pipe are fully
developed. A new analysis of this situation will be made as soon as a
decision Is imade on the proposed Mud lake fnva l opiment, and when the land
rases along County Road 18 are more certain. Because the 15 acre parcel
now under consideration is only a part of an 30 acre area, all of which
might well ba developed for apartments, the consideration of the sever
system's capacity to assume this added load is of extreme importance.
Recommendation: The uncertainties relative to the ability of the
sewer system to serve the proposed apartirtent area, leave
no choice but to recommend that multiple residence zoning
of the petitioner's 15 acre tract, or any other large tract
in this area, be de y erred until a new analysis of the sewer
situation has been completed. This wil! be at least a year
from now. t n the meantime, any proposal to develop this
pvopenty for office or industrial use should be favorable
considered.
gch
i..
�
I
�
i
I
�
i
{
1
I
i
I
i�'
�
III
C
BILI
f
��
'I�'
(,
i
u
�.
I
a
Ali
li
'
i
i�
i;
ii
I1
' I
� � L
�
ail
i;
,�
,f
1
i j,:.
i
�
'� I
li
'�I
�I
a
��
i
� i i
�
{
i�
, ±�
�I
�
��
��
1
�I
�
�`�
'�
�
I
�
'�
�
�
�
',
II�
�
I �'
I,
�'
,i
f
� �
' �
�I
�I
I�,
i
�
�',
I,
SII
i
�'I
��!
�,
I 11'
L �
I
I
�
1
t
114
I
� I
i
�
���
li
'il
�'
�I
�.
��
�i
e
��I
j�
i�
��
;3
{{
� I
Z-67-4
gch
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
May 3, 1967
Midwest Federal. R -I Residential District
West 66th Street and Xerxes Avenue.
Office Buildinq District.
The petitioner's property is the island formed by Xerxes Avenue, West
66th Street and York Avenue. It has an area of approximately one
acro. The existing R-1 zoning Is not in force because the Village
has considered single family development to be an appropriate use of
the property, but rather, because the shape, size, and relationship
of they site to its surrounding road system has made it difficult
to determine gust what use would be appropriate under these conditions.
All surrounding land areas are zoned cortrcial.
The two closest existing uses are
a gas station to the east and a restaurant to the south.
A portion of anis site (the westerly 1%3) was involved in the Pearce
vs. Edina zoning case. The District Court ruled and the State Supreme
Court affirmed that the Village should permit any commercial use of
of that site which would not Interfere with the flow of traffic on
surrounding streets.
The petitioner proposes to have the property zoned Office Building
District and then to construct upon It a branch office of their
organization. This facility would be similar to Midwest Branch offices
recently constructed at Southtown and in Golden Valley.
The petitioner expects customer traffic at the new facility to be about
40 people per day who will park their car and walk into the office
and another 60 who will use the drive -up window. The plan provides
for 6 employee parking stalls, 18 customer stalls, and a drive -up
window waiting space that will accommodate 7.0 cars.
The design of the stre:cture is such that it has no distinguishable
"frons-" or "back" :which is an important consideration on the
proposed site.
The traffic pattern on the site was developed by Barton Ashman Associates
who originally designed the overall Southdaie area road pattern.
Recchmmendation: This seems to be an ideal solution for a most difficult
problem. Approval Is recommended subject only to Hennepin
County Highway Departmentapproval of -the driveway locations.