HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969 06-04 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesMINUTES OF THE K,,GIJL.A-R MEETING OF
TUE EDINA PIXTUING COT-43ISSION HELD
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1969
EDIVA VILLAGE HzA.LL
W. W. Lewis, Chairman; David Grimuold, George Nugent, Sam
Hughes, Robert Huelster and Cliff Johnson
st��_,UC prz,centt Fred Foisington, Karen Sorensen
1. Approval of M-av 7 1969 Cm. mission Minutes
Mr. Griswold moved that the Ma -,r11, 1969 Cmmission Minutes be approved
as submitted. -Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. Motion Carried.
ZG1111ING UOUBSTS
Z6�9-12 William Olsen. R-1 Residential District to R-5 M!jltjple District.
N.W. Corner Cross ToTm and Tracy Avenue. Also Plat.
Mr. Hoisington reported tial: Mr. Olsen and Bor-Son Construction
Co. propooe to build three 26 story apartulent toners just north of the
Cross rorv�-a Ifighway and soutbof existing West. 62nd Street.. The proponent
has askled earlier in the day that the matter be defc!rred.
No act -ion taken.
2--69-3.0 0. Fobartc Co. R-1 Raside-ntiol District' to Multi Ile and Off ice
`rstricf-. W._7 nd Street. (See Hinutes 4--3-68; 5-1-68; 5-7-68)
Corp. 11-3 'Multiple District to 11-4 lfultiDle District.
Tract A, -R.L.S. 3.1149. (See Yiiilutes 5--7-69).
Mr. [Toisington reported because both of these sites are
Uncer coils ijeratic 11 by the School District, t1lat the requestG be deferred
until the July Ile a_lsc not that the School Board wili- b-. making
a final dncllsicn %,,,-_Ft'hin Lha next t-,7..,) to thr--e weeks.
1
NO
7-1 Rcisidertial D'_s rict to 'Office Buildirg.
Dist t 01 c7l)i Corne. c' . 51st Struet-. and, France Aveme.
that the Comais3ion conducted
-rz
s t1h 3 rzquest, At that time, tb.e
I %.C:_.. 4 -,a clbl C,__..>c ij,3. _uix t!'� `e.,hare commarcial and off -i ze
0 (_.j
CGi to l" FS ."evelop-
of
U. 27 k -.....:a.Tbf 2 was cGnLiaucd to this
3 COM -2). scion H-L,01C -2- June 4, 1969
Mr. Iloisinpton also noterl thaC the City of Min:ieapolis has
.atfc pm,jed: ram:: that E:hey intend to have R-2 or less density south of 'Test
51st Street.
Mr. Hughes sf:sited that the diagonal would mace a good place
to stop the cM12*.crcial and office development.
An, Edina Realty representative asked the Commission if they
, culd feel better if they knew that R-2 would he built on the remaining
6 late in Lhe block.
Mr. Ruelster .stated. that if the: balance of the block would bE!
1-2, ire x+auld be more inclined to go along with the office; but is afraid
of juin ing the barrier (the diagonal) .
zip'. pres�-ntzilo the Commission two alternate plans
-F-or the devalop:t,ent between W. 51st and W. 52rid along France, south of the
diegonal. Plan T i.n6ir-atcd office development ,n the first four lots south
of t`ti.e diagonal 4,xA.i multiple on the remaining southerly six lots. Plan 11
_dice-Aled r:,.,u1 :l.pyc from W. 51st to W. 52nd Street. He indicated that
eitlha ' prcipos„.j rc:»ald he acceptable.
Pir:. Nugent noted that. Plan 11 is the better of the two plans
aa! :' c. fit in with the. Cosn:-ii Dsion ° s thinking.
r.r. Ii glic.c. again stated that cer,"wercial development should be
st-o 7pped 3'?C!'_'th of the diagonal.
Edina ttealty, , stat�id that he felt that an office
13 iZ?' C'f9?3.ld !. e a� ;prop riate on the 3'i . because 'here ;could be very
liF `_le traffic a tc. 7 P.M. aid if an apartrr,2,nt complex was to be bu•Llt
t:%^r , t:: a -f .e a7 e3 3.d be increased and :. ould go on all. day and late into
the evening.
After fa:ruler diseus:aion, :iia. Griswold no:r€gid that the C'ormission
e.Co.v thc; reyt :et for .hc_, folloly .ng reasons:
the 0-1 zcnkanr would violate the 50th and
'.j.F:?3 by Er to nLi{. n- Ti.E3ie cial type development
out?'t of E'70st 51st Streei:.
iir7.;atin- of 0-1 :-,o' ing'. °''cu -4(> bz contrary to the
Minneap.- lis Comprehensive Plan which calls for
t--1 and R --R south of W. 51st Street on
:iic° u:E 'd � ti !. 't l F•''3 .L:d Aqe. Motion Carried.
j -I i J. A. Danens 6 Son. C-2 Cormercial District to Vlae.red
' distTiel District.- Brookside Avenue.
Mr. Hoisington stated that the site in questi.cu is loceted on
t3:z�so?cs: ds'
Avziaui no th of Eden Avenue. The ;property was previously 2;oned
L:iF,h-4. lad --atrial District, said district was recently eliminated from the
sc min; orciiyiance }-,-use of obsolescence. At the time of reclassification,
the p-roparty uas zoned C-2 because the building was vacant and properties
to the north, South xnd west we:e already C--2. The building is of an
..ndustrial chcarac-er. It is not easily adaptable to commercial usage. It
is loser in elevation than surrounding commercial properties and has no
comm=ercial orientation. it .fronts on Brookside Avenue and the Minneepolis,
Northfield and Southern Railway. The area east of the tracks is zoned
Planned Industrial District. 1'f the property is rezoned, the building :is
proposed to be used for equipment storage. If zoning is granted, all.
Planned Industrial District performance requirements must be met. 'i'hae
staff recommends rpproval of the zoning.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Commission recommend approval of
the requested rezoning for the folloiaing reasons:
1. Said rezoning is m logical extension of existing
Planned Industrial District zoning to the east.
2. The setting tends to suggest that industrial usage
Is More appropriate than coninercial.
3. Existing C-2 zoning impairs the usability of the
site in question.
IR->. Ilvel.ster secon6edl the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
Z -6 I9-13 Ir -i serg._ R-1 Residential District to P--5 Multiple District,
^:gid Auto Parkinoz D{str .ct. E'dcn Avenue. (See Minutes 5-7-69).
The property is located eeat of highway 100, south of Eden
:avenue a::d wiest of W- Ilson Roar-. P. -e total site area is 259,646 squire
re 4 .s the i:alla°s :Intent to retain the present building, lease out
spaca Grad acid approximately 21,720 square fec t. of land for
prrkiag. This area, 60 feet at the rns,: and 20 feet at the east end of
the stri..i,5.ture, -Le proposed to be zoned A-ut(raob:il. Parking District. The
rF_Cjtz?�i" .fo.—,: zile r iiiaindc-r of the Site is '; .5 and it. J..0 proposed to build
orze l.4 sk:o7y apartment ba-.Idi ig --ontaining 260 units.
Fx. lbs:, Ce ricy Associates- presented draw-?Lngs of the proposed
bu l:�iz_ sk c�,ii_g R -s location ore f1he pxo_aerty, ingress and egress and
.-its fc-7 the axisti g building as well as the proposed
i}wri. iit
building Mr. David Ella n€ated that the existing building would
C ^:. '{?''i.Y fit.:4."} 3x' FJ`_th :l o propoized a:rpartmenL building as it
t. ._ :Cn.. ..__..__ :.,.j! t._.ia canto za se -,vice fl oci ity for the apartment
olh t a rest au -rant and dry clear!in¢
l.5" -h--,o uses -wrould be parIi:1L.�..ed in the
D =t= "�i(`fs i1 =it 't: -ese users; 7,,-e c normally within
'.n, a:L accesso— buil i - tie also noted that
t,heoe -ices would be if t",E ed— U :ly for the tenants of the apartment
Mr. Gri!jwol.d stated that the Ccir—taission recently raceived
_. -pr o-ni 10- bhIs site and looked with favor upon it at that. ti;,pe, but it
{ar n iouF, stay to sewer and cater and at brat time there was no mention of
C -:i uses. Ile, acted that he was enthusiastic about the multiple development
macs stated that it will be well developed and developed properly with
CeaMCf y ASa3oc13tes Worl:irlg With the H alla's. He stated that he was in
favor of 11-5 on the entire site.
Mr. Ruelster noted that if Eden Avenue is going to be
bridged over T.H. 100, from as convenience standpoint for the apartment
dwellers, compierci.al facilities t:ould be v=ery near: with the Grandview area
across T.H. 100.
Mr. Hoisington. noted that if the existing Halla building were
elt-nir~ated or raed as a coc,.munity facility for the apartment building, more
density could be realized. Mr. Griswold stated that he would agree with a
higher building because there are no single family residents to object to
a high tower building. lie then suggested that the matter be tabled Lentil
next rao-:th with: the theugh: that something be corked out in that connection.
i'n aapartme-e . development in this area would be an asset to the Village.
It is as sood idea and it should happen.
M -ter fsc=e further discussion, Mir. Hughes moved that the
C=isoion recovnen.d that the whole parcel be rezoned R-5, including the
C-1 property for the following reasons
1. K-5 zoning is appropriate for this site because :.t is
near to and will both complement and be complemented
by the high activity center to the northwest (Grandview).
?. Said k--5 zoning TY? -1.1 not be detrimental to adjacent
prcperti.es since they Eire all of ars open space or
non -single Laa:aily character (Village Hall, Hwy. 100,
Edina Country Club and Our Lady of Grace School).
3. This site meets the criteria for high density
residential development as established in the
Ecl.icy Guide.
. Johnson seconded the m>tion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
y :I. LOT DIV IS`:GN
? , !,lost Suburban sunders. La Buena Flistaa Addition.
Mr. Poisi.ngton repeated that the last under consideration is
located on the r,c;rthea=sk cori3er of Brook Drive° and hillside Lane. Each
Ia. c.:.:utaizs aia*yut 13,500 3gnare fee.. Other lots in the area are 17 ,000,
'-.9i :.t .) ,.':T= 1`• E�?ia�: 5..�'�; �: -.? '`;'4. i- ,.. tZ. :1a"P .`xry[i£-'re has been ._. crent deal of
HK,,'is IQi, by : e i,-''tbor_3 ; i i.. c area. The sluff recormiended
4`.. x.....e,a e to cur attention. .i decision must. be 3t. the .r
a 3l'c f-CCiinC35
in G?r'i:.a.r.gm
i'vr it Puz-ter, 6805 Hills:' do Lane stated that 1e spo'ke
1'o:;:ec,.=n^rs. ki:. s� `e:d haat z pr-tition was circalat:e�l :.o the A4:�g't-
1 f: cci :gin .::',' y , 1.96B F hl ch war, signed by the neighbors -.'ai oppositica of
tha pro :::sed Oivis .or. Said pati.tiox: was g-:A.ven to Council at the time of
E.r,ei?- cd liberation. Pe started that if th .n lot can be divided in this gray,
Urban c.luttar tould be cren ted. lie indicated that he strongly opposed the
division.
Mr. Frark Schiel, 68.3 Hillpide Lame, irmediate neighbor
to Uhe lot :cinder oc-aGid rat.i.on, stated that he covpleted a substantial
.�1-lit'ion to r3is r:_�;I,a in L'acr_Ia c.r, 1957. In preparation for the addition,
;tea applied for a to acco=.nodate. the construction. One of the
T: -,nacns it vas a pro ,2e. by the Board was that there would be ample room on
L)o': 6, ?.ice?-, 3 tc co stxua. a home that would probably be located on the
sc sthw�:;,t cor:ier cf thz :lot amd face diagonally to the intersection of
Lirv:�r:.c�, lea 1n and E-roo`: Drive. Th- division. of the lot is out of chaTacter
r cl
37 z :il'1es si- re 'O iv opinion.
Mr. Anrl rew Miller, 6720 Hillside Lane stated that his lot
•is:- bit 1 i` er than -hte lot under discussi.cn and there are other lots the
i; ne 4:5 hi--. l f i:his di€'i cAGn is an pro ,{e.i, this will set a pre(:edent
i t1la i':e"z.
L„atte.rs fx-an 14nssrs. T. C. Hunter and R. J. Gibbish dere
ec:i�: itt d
and nou.xi :Py t1ho G3..wission. These gentlemen opposed the
def 4 alis {'`.' ori to discussion, it was determined that f:he
":O1: l'e,= 'sP Cis fully Lw re of the situation at: the previous
i ' ?11Cy _: yi 3'. ✓ 't F this isstSz�.. wz3 loot: then known that a 'sim-ilaw request
1160 just ._ block west of the. lot in, question (Lot 3,
Mr. Huelster indicated that the circumstances are very nearly
Lan .,a ,,, az ° for l,ot: 3, Block and -1110 -,d thc.t the Co mission recommend
pint fc-e type follo;',Ang, -reasons:
1. The i!)n resul-U—ng from the Plat 4,Yo �.ld be out of
clan:, -gazer the ane!gk1' o?-hoad because of their shape.
Yt doc�-; i , i:.P ' th .` "douses thatcould be built
oa the pz-o oscd lets could maintain the same sywiietry
€3s2 g°=; .i ,=,a e ixn t1he it edi ate vicinity.
has bc,-�n, denied in the oast fo`_'- a lot
:.P AFF iE' x;Zifed vis Gln and the circwrstances are very
in ttla t, --lo cases.
>.. 0, ;.:a tke z ,,:Ja: tv •oaly on a filed 1).L i:t.
,;70-ff-c: sn the property to
"tic: ;guy the proposed houses t;ould
. The division may estvb17 sL an undesire�-:b? e
precedent which would require that we gva.n t;. c)Lhe:-
�imiltr requests ir. the area.
7. It has tzot been the policy of the 1'Icnaing Commission
to recowiend in favor of the division of already
-.Slatted lots where the resultant lots are substantially
smaller than others in the neighborhood.
Mr. Gtiswald Seconded the motion. Xr. Hoisington indicated
that be �rjou:?.c attest to the accuracy of all measurements choTwn on the
Mat and- red drat grades are not shown but would not be necessary since
tlia pint :Involves such a small. .area. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
I`•i, SUBDXV S7OT-1G
McPhorv.on Addition.
This three lot plat is Located nouth of Grove Street, west
of Clft.ger oce. and east and north of my Drive. There was a restriction
cu 1. le p opezi:y limiting it to one duelling. The owners have now :requested
th,:x e h�z Council lift the restriction so that the property can be divided
into threo parcels. There cite sufficient sewer and water connections
air thr� c loss:. The plat m-_ets all ordinanco, requirements and the staff
fir. Nue? st<_r moved that the Corraission reCooLmend nreliminary
roaa'thcVnlat. Mr yi,t„eat�sraco-aded the motion. Motion Carried.
w....,.. _ _,.
Scut:hftle Rcr tered Land Surva._.
` n s is a three tract divi.iic:t of property in Southdale,
th pur'14r'se of which is to sell Tracts A a:ad C to Pennys. There is it
tha : 'there will ba <a on Tract C to accom- iodate an
4� .0 e -X- ice f8cil.ity arsd gas p -,Amps. :he- sta: f rcc:axa;ends approval of the
mo'vrcd that the �:4?T'14:�B1OI1 �_'LaC73S1^aie$2d aipj��o'�r'1�
lar.6 3 •J_' .'�i i.'iugent seconded the mot-lon .
SP-.69'-1.3t�Y�?..4_^•�.:"in Fi`viS. Cl F? "c`. 2nd 1:Gild U:icn.
L':_,.F_ frot:r/llot pa;_- :.a 4.cc �,.t�d .jai taxa est; tside of Vir :inia
�:d
P."{.'ii: C. Cf. b',. U":'i:.o:i e'
?, Sf:rt. '. �` .'.T l`. r; erLu being ei3"g lJ �.ilt: at the
is i."ro ianT , i c L :�«C' f`h�Ge 1.
?: 20 'root lots
1nt3 i; ? .. w:i%¢ h'S of:s'T:. « nYue.._'.7 f:inaary .3p}� Val. subject
h,sige of the lots. -Mr. Hatelstex
SF.Af 7 -i-:s ria
All Vp-{ qui S � ir- f�?� 4�: �xi.��, '�g �.�� �:f ...
TIiis p feliminary plat in lo�:ated vest of Blake Road just
O+= 1%a01.yns-,-ood Addition. :'sir. Holoin ton xeported that the staff had
ch c ^evalcl,ler <-o take another look at Zbe development since the
:. nZII Prel_:*-miry plat was not as propr?att2 for the area. The revised
P =Acells for ? lots which are approx-Imately 90' by 140' in size.
Ch aia.mnn T,c: is and fir. UU hes indicated that the lots were
tclo small for the area e c indimnted that Lhey would like to see larger
h. tL:. After scmc, dig ;cussion, the Commission indicated that they perferred
the i.limsina-,t:.r�r of one let.
Pyr. l`'ugent move6 that the Ccrmiuission recommend approlral of
the 16 �o�r�li�i:_Ia��nlFI atLb jeect to Engineering Bepertment apvrovals.
se.-rxrde3 the -action. All Motion Carried.
SP_•6`_ 15 Scho-ninrr Rcgistered Land Su:-aey.
This talo tract plat is Incased Past of Blake Road and south
or S. :ail". a3ri-ve. This subdivision is being created because of R-•2
,'_zaal: �• w :;cit ��ccurred on the Schoening property last year. Tract B is
1%o. plat meeto all ordinance requirements and the staff
�I;pr-- va.
Yr. Rcavlst:er_moved that_tl:e Commission recorme:nd appa•oval
0!, �_ r .s � : ,'.0 !a -,i;1 sv vey to the Council. Mr. llu&hes seconded the
..�.. "'iL il. »,..4..._. -•ad A `i� Sly'-'.�C. `:.'igl kr"-J d .L yV.t'� ,-
Mr. reported that this 43 lot plat located north
:Z Vallety ' ld�;a Junior :li 1. School, south of the Cross Town, meets till
r.:q-uirr_n*-,ntr, as a fin -a1 pl.,--.t.
`"w Cr�iswol' me e� ! LhaNc'. the !omwissicn rz;cc:l:: send fintil
F, ran .v7� of ta,e:_'' =.t.: _ Mr. Nup-e at: seennded the rlotj o',t. Moticn Carried.
12 lo'-- -plat iocated rams of Count -j Road 18 and ?<'es i of
1`:iE:}ts all. or:"_nanc requiremants•
1'`�d ti 3 r oved '-hat the Com nissioia r`�co,,,Taand final App. oval
c+Tf
thc,, i••o En•1 .jon. ',Kotion .on ayrried,j .
^.(-cfI ,"1 ;`s., of County o. -d 18, west of
-)f dulls Road mes-t s
:-d?s_._...?i:C
..,.�.tn.......:.-�i'l_ed. �..�._...�..f.�r�.,.:..tr..''`SitA :? CiY !'t;C`itI'^,eid final
.'....,.,...__..._.John..son �..c���.r.,,...._"...ti1,�fil+�'3F �£`d�a.� All Voted ��.
>;,: n s4 won �'114css es -��` Junco 4, 1469
1.
Automobile Parhin z District Amendments.
Mr. ►io_isingtcn rap•arted that this amendment was necessary
an ordax to palmic- par' -Man xEm, s in the Automobile Parking District.
Me su ge: te,t chtanfres aubmitted to the Camzissio � needed but one change
pend that is in parz-,,yrvph 4a. Stxuctural Setbacks. The sentence ohould
read as "N,) pnrk ng ramp uay be built closer than 50 feet
t.:o an -7 reu dent al disC.Lsct bou>.z;iary."
M. -I. Hughes rroged that the proposed amendment be approved
T�ith MI-- P.ot:ed eha:zge. Mr. ;:z:eister seconded the motion. A3.1 Voted
z , e F Notion Cr rri.ed.
:int at 9, . P.�r.
Respectfully submitted,
Kay -.,n Sorensen, Secretarg