Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970 10-07 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGUIAR MELTG 01' THE EDINA PLAUNING COf-TISSTOIN HELD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1970 EDINA VILLAGE HALL Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman; Gordon V. Johnson, John S. Royt, Clifford E. Johnson, Samuel F. Hughes, David T. Runyan and David C. Sherman. Staff Present: Fred Hoisington, Gary West, Bob Dunn, and Lynnae DeJarlais. In ZONING REQUESTS Z-70-11 Davis & Associates. Southwest quadrant of West 70th Street and Highway 100. R-1 Residential District, 0-1 Offiee Building District, and Planned industrial District to 0-2 Office Building District. Due to the lateness of the hour following consideration of the Southwest Edina Plan and the Planned Residential District ordinance amendment, the request by Davis & Associates for rezoning of the southwest quadrant of West 70th Street and Highway 100 to 0-2 Office Building District was postponed to the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 1970, at 7:30 P.M. 1I. LQ_ DIVISIONS, 1. Albert Anderson. West 65th Street and Sherwood Avenue. Lots I and 2, Block 17, Normandale Addition. Mr. Hoisington stated that the request is to divide the south 40 feet from Lot 1 and add it to the northerly 40 feet & Lot 2, creating two 81 foot lots with an 80 foot lot between the two. He .indicated that he was concerned about granting this type of lot division when there is an established pattern in an area. He pointed out that, in this case, the other lots in the area are variable sizes, but the lots on that specific block are generally very wide. Mr. Heisington indicated that the Staff recanmends denial of the requested lot division, even though there are lots to the north that are generally 80 feat wide. Mr. Anderson was present aid stated that originally all of the lots were laid out for small farms. He indicated that this idea doesn't hold true anymore, as most of the lots in the area have been split in the center. Mr. Anderson pointed out that after Highway 100 is widened, the lots in question will be only 1/2 block from the highway boulevard, noreby reducing the value of the lots because of their close proximity to the highway. He stated that a 122 foot lot that close to the highway is no longer a valuable lot. Mr. Hughcs moved that the lot division be denied, and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. L11 Voted Aye. Motion Ca7ried. E6ina Planning Commission -2- October 7, 1970 2. Bernard Spencer. 6605 I-,oc3uoJs Irail. Lot 12, B`.ock S. Indian Hills Addition. Mr. Hoisington indicated that this is a simple lot division located on Iroquois Trail, and stated that the request is to divide 15 feet from Lot 13 and add it to Lot 129 He pointed out that the request meets the restrictions presently covering the lots, and added that beenuse it Js, a simple d_ vision and does not create an additional buildable loll-, the Staff would recommend approval. Mr. C. Johnson moved that the requested lot division be approved, and Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. Al! Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Ili. -SUBDIVISIONS SF -70-4 Iroquois Hill.-. Fifth Addition - 'r. Hoisington indicated that the request is for 91 --nal approval and indicated that the site in question is located along Cc,my Road 18, just north of Braemar Park. He indicated that the Staff �Tould i-ecrnmr.end final approval. Mr. Hughes moved that Iroquois 11 -ills Fifth Addition be approved, and Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. SP -70-11 Southdale York Addition. Mr. Hoisington stated that i.*.he request is for preliminary approval of a plat generally located east of Yurl-. Avenue and Southda-le Shopping Center, west of Xer%es Avenue, south of West 66th ls"%'rect and -north of Ule3t 69th Street. He stated that the request is to divide this z;S5.ta Into two lots and one large outlot totally with access from a private street, and rioted that although there are drainage problems on the sire, can be re -solved q,-;i,1-,- (Basily. He indicated that the Staff recommends preliminary approvzil- Mr. fluphas asked what Dayton Development Company is planning to do on the site, turd Mr. Heisington, stat*edl ictat: --'.t is prese-nuly .orad 'C-3 and added that at the present time they intard to 'bu!'16. tx,7* restaurants cia the site. Ar. Hughes e-xpre:-3sed concern t,-iat there T--'ght E.Ire,4-,dy be too ruanly restaurants in he area, especially i3 they a-Ze the qrici- servllce cnrry-out type 0restaurants. Mr. Jack Rice of Da';7ton Company va& pres:ant nnd I - i s3tated that at this time he ca-anot say what thE,, nE-me,3- o' 6: le restaurzats w-111 be, possIbly Li,-,Ih fast foods, but added that they will be th,-2 sit --do Ly-,�c! but not a. drive-in Ir"ype of Mr. Runy;in that Ycxk Add:U-1-oa be 7 -1 -anted 1)1:slimiiLary F Mr. Johnson All Voted Aye. Motior, Carried Edina Planning Commission J October T', 1970 SP -68-11 Braemar Hills Fourth Add-ttion. St. '.7'atrick's. Add motion) Mr. Hoisington recalled that the site in question is the St. Patrick's property, which received preliminary plat approval in 1968. He indicated that although nothing has happened to date, Roy Peterson has recently been able to come up with a proposal for the area. Mr. Hoisington stated that it is in total conformance with the preliminary plat previously approved with only minor modifications. He stated that the Staff would reconmiend final approval. Mr. C. Johnson moved that thn Braemar Hills Fourth Addition plat receive final approval, and Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. IV. OTHER BUSINESS 1. SOUTINIEST EDINA PIANI. Mr. Hoisington stated that at this point the Planning Conumission has not yet made a decision on the plan,. He added that the proposed plan represents a Staff recomtriendation, not a Planning Commission recomimend a tif 011. Mr. Hoisington stated that the purpose of the neeting is to hold an official public hearing on the Sovthwest Edina Plan, to get the Planning Commission response on the proposed plan, and to hopefully adopt a Southwest Edina Plan. Mr. Hoisington briefly eirplained that the Staff recormienda t ion is a general, conceptual plan and does not dep_i.ct specific bova'daries. He added that if a rezoning is requested, we should have a plan upon which to base cur rezoning. Mr. Hoisington explained the proposed plan and noted that the single family detached areas would include a ddensif_-y of 0-4 units per acre, the low density mixed residential areas (sir.ale3, dcub.yes, townhouses, apartments) would include 0-6 units per acre, and the medium density multiple residential transitional areas (in the areas along the new roads west of Cahill Road) -,:ould include 6-17 units Der ecce. He :.ndiceted 2:11al. th(,3 ,area from Cahill Road wast 1/4 rile has been preliminarily platted by the ViUlage, defining the roadways, in conjunction with the people who own lands in the a -.:ea. Ile indicated that the northern ponding area has already been acquired by the Village through outright dedication. Ile stated that we are Zrying to create a certain fley-ibility of design because we want to crea'te a good place to liiye ia all areas. He indicated J that we want tc create good environments its al.' at cases, Erd added that strip davelop- - ar 0,�,,-.ha propos,,ad plan inval-ves a r 1-6 of any 11tind will not do this,, Ile stntel a principle of" clusl-er developme2�t, uThereby Ij�:avortieis a_ -,7c --lusterend together so t h simply re -moved,, hat the n:ecs, hills, draitinge areas, aai-i 1),-� saviad instead of _qqi added that it also invol�,es a modular layid uca ?)E�M:ez-n, based on the drainar,,e C� districts, wherever it is aleasible to carry ouf, th:'.s Pr14nciP2(:--,. Ile indicated that Edina Planning Commission --4- October 7, 1970 we are also talking about green strips which sepat�-.ate 3.•^?tcI uses, preserve necess-cr and preservaLle open spaces which may have some functional purpose ill the :Future. PIr. Louis Polries of 7101 Fleetwood Drive, representative of the Southwest Edina home Dcnzers Association, presented to the Planning Commission;. approximately 92 petitions in opposition to the proposed plan. fie stated that the people object to the plan mainly from the standpoint that it degrades Edina and stakes away their entire concept of Edina. He also e-,tnressed concerti regarding the caliber of any apartment development, the increased traffic, and the increased crime rate resulting from the proposed 935 apartment units. Mr. Frank Dean of 5716 Dewey Hill Road, a Committee member, indicated that the majority of time during the Coiaur±itt:ee meetings *las unduly focused on the ;selection of the school site., which was partially the responsibility of those who are residents of the area. IIe addeis that the drwuin.g of the proposed plan was present at the Committee meetings, and indi::swcd that the residents on the Committee did not fully recognize the amount of the densities even if it wereexplic- itly mentioned to them, perhaps because of their preoccupation with the school site. Aar. Hoisington agreed that there was no discussion on the densities before the snd of the last meeting because of the preoccupation with the selection of the school site. Mr. Dean continued that the area of major opposition is regarding the area between Cahill Road and the Dewey Hill Road extensions. In reply to a cormrent from Its. Robert R. 011naa n of 7008 Lanham Lane, Mr. Hoisington stated that the benefi<�s to Edina of this: type of p1aa are not just from a tax standpoint. He indicated that the lands near, West 78th Si:reet should be saved, and (added that a cluster type developmen=t would definitely be beneficial to Edina. He stated that the present playa calls for do -ab? es in a swa np in one area, and strips development along a major street, like France Avent-e, creating a nice place for a buffer, but not creating a nice place to live. He indicated that the creation of better places in which to live in the Village everywhere, whether multiple, single family, or whatever, is surely a benefit to the Village as a whale. He stated that we are talking about aesthetics, envirorr_ient, and also the tax baoc. Mr,, Darrell H. Loyd of 7204 Shannon Drive asked for an example eahe:re the proposed type of multiple development; has in .fact been done, and Mr. Hoisington replied it: is very difficult in Edina to find a development of this type to compare with this proposal because the majority of the buildings in Edina are stripped along street; and are stuck in those arrows that are not desirable because people don't want them in areas where they make geod places to live. Mr. R:=,nyari clarified that. a buffer strip is a transitional space between two different type; of areas. He uta3ted that industr-y ,and single family areas usually do not n est and( stated that the madit« e density transitional area in this case tends to be a separation because the life style of ars apartment dweller is by nature different thin that of a si.Eao .c f—ci- iy home owner. Ha indicated that most people seem to be bothz ed. by the fo<nr si;ory aspacL and stated that his personal opinion would be that titc buffer st:rils co sld be of a lower: density, but added that a buffer: is desirable and that it car be benciici33. to zhe area without necessarily being a four story m iumum apartment.ea. Edina Planning Covmiissicn -3- Octcber 7, 1970 I-fr. Hoisington, in reply to a comi'i.,.ent by Mr. E. T. Rine of 7016 Lanham Lane, stated that there are add-f.ficral p»lice and fire, calls to areas with higher densities, probably because of the greater building bulk and more people in a smaller area. He indicated, hGwever, that the fact that there are -very few children in apartment developments far and away offsets any additional police and fire protection. Mr. Jim Boatwright of 570A, Kemrich Drive stated that the caliber of homes north of Dewey Hill Road will be reduced if multiple family dwellings are built west of Cahill Road. He also poi-ated out that an apartment development will be "terrible aesthetics" becausc.. it will be very close to the high caliber single family homes. Ile stated that if apirtments and industrial buildings are built west of Ca�iill Road, "it will be opportunism on the part of tile Village and the land owners". In reply to Mr. Sherman, Mr. HC14 SjT.1crton stated that the area , proposed to be medium density :mined residential dwellings totals about 55 acres, including everything from West 70th Street south to West 78th Street. Mr. Hughes stated that ir,, his opinion PRD -2 (si-x units per acre) would be favorable in the area north of Dewey Hill Road,, with a maximum density of 12 units per acre, limited to two storios, south of Dewey Hill Road. He added that there are people in Edina who uvant to stay in the Village but don't want the responsibility of maiataining single family homes. Mr. Shenaaa moved that consideration of the Southwest Edina Plan be deferred to a later me,ating pending consideration of the Plarned Residential District ordinance amendment aid its potential application to the Southwest Edina ?Ian. Following further discu3sion, Mr. Shermar amended his motion to defer the consideration of the Southwest Edina Plan following consideration of the Planned Residential District ordinance amendment during the r)resent meeting. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Following the approval of the Planned Residential District ordinance amendment by the Plann-Ing Commission, Mr. Lewis asked the residents what: their feeling would be if the presently proposed niedium, density mixed residential district north of Dewey Hill Road is limited to PRD -2 (0-6 units per acre). Mr. Jim Jundt ztated that the residents also oppose the {Industrial area west of Cahill Road, and asked ,fhy the entire area west of Cahill Road and north of Dewey Hill Road could not be lii;ilted to 6 units per acre. He utated that whet -her apartments are 6 unito per acre or 17 units per acre, they have the same life style and will have no concern for the surrounding areas and no interest in the Village. All of the residents generally agreed that multiple densities of 0-16 units per aeras would not be acceptable to than, in any area north of Dewey Hill Road. Mr. Hoisf.ngtorsuggested that 'i -.he residents form a committee of adequate representation of -.nterests to prepare an plan for precentotion to the Planning Corn.Ass­ 'on. A special_ 1,meetilng date was set for October 23, 1970 at 7:30 P.M. Z'.1'cr consideration of a plan proposad by a COMTI�4Z-ae chooca by the residents. Edina Planning 0 Cammissi_cn -.6- Oztobar 7, 1970 2. :'_fanned Residential District Ord4nomce �an�bient. Mr. Hoisin.-ton stated that the ne,,a amendment would be an extension or an expansion of the present Planned Residential District ordinance. He observed that the density limitation as the ordi 'nznce exists is 4 units per gross acre. He stated that the original amendment presented suggested the creation of one additional Planned Residential District and that the plans in all cases be keyed to that, but the attorneys told the Village that we would have to put thess plans in the Zoning Ordinance, so instead we are proposing several Planned Residential Districts. Mr. Hoisington indicated that the only differences are: 1. t"ie addi- tional districts included (PP.D-2 at 6 units per gross acre, PRD -3 at 12 units per gross acre, PRD -4 at 18 units per gross acre, and PRD -5 at 24 units per gross acre), and 2. because of the greater densities, there will be somewhat less open space per unit. He stated that in the PRD -2 district, the density is somewhat higher, therefore the open space per unit is somewhat lower. From there, the open space requirements are the same as in the R-3, R 4, nnd R-5 districts, except that the PIRD-5 distr`.ct will be somewhat higher than the existing R-5 district. He stated that we are trying to regulate the setbacks, for example, to the exterior streets rather than the setbacks between buildings so ?eople can cluster their buildings in a manner that isn't now perm-itted. He C> indicated that there is more flexibility in terms of setback, although height is still ' limited. Mr. Hoisington stated that the Staff would recommend approval as submitted. Mr. Hughes moved that the Planned Residential District ordinance amendment be approved, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. 3. Subdivision_Re&ulations Amendment. r _ Mr. Hoisington stated that the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has tentatively approved the subdivision regulations amendment, pf-_,nding the approval of the flood plain maps which the Village has not yet received. He indicated that in order to adopt Section 12 (Flood Plain Regulations) into the Zoning Ordinance, the Village must have the maps, but added that these maps are not necessary for the adoption of the subdivision regulations amendment requiring dedications or easements along the Creek in all cases. He noted that it would also require that a reasonable portion of land be set aside in plat3 of 20 lots or more for th(i creation of private open space and parks. Mr. Hoisin-gton stated that the Staff strongly recommends that: the subdivision regulations ordinance amendment be approved and that the entire Section 12 amend-ment be approved when the Village has received the necessary Flood ?lain maps. Mr. Runyan expressed concern regarding the use of the word "reasonable". 'Ar,. Hoisington ssated that so far the Village has n©t run into any problems in this i.-espect. Mr. llu,,Yhea moved that the subdi-vision regulat-lous amendment be approved and 141.. Shovmvn seco-aded the motion. All Voted 2.1711 e. 'I"10tion Carried. VC, Adj our-m­�'ient. Respec'tfully submitted, L-7nnae D_-Jarlaft, Secretary