Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 03-03 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular14ININES OF TETE REGULAR MEEETINC OF THE EDI.NA PLANNING =IMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1971 EDINA VILLAGE HALL Members Present: Mr. W. W. Lewis, Chairman, Mr. R. A. Huelster, Mr. D. C. Sherman, Mr. C. E. Johnsen, and Mr. G. V. Johnson. Staff Present: Gary West, Bob Dunn and Lynnae DeJarlais. I. ARprroval of the February 3, 1971. Planning Commission Minutes. Mr. C. Johnson moved that the February 3, 1971, Planning Commission Minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. D. Sherman seconded the motion. All doted Aye. Motion Carried. II. LOT DI'n, SIGNS : LD -71-2 Paul Larson-HarNy jinker. 5708-5710 Blake Road. Lot 10. Block 1, Parkwood knolls 8th Addition. Mr. West indicated that the request is for permission to divide the lot in question in half for homestead purposes, noting that a double! bungalow presently exists on the lot. He stated that it has generally been the policy of the Planning Commission and the Staff to permit this type of division and therefore recommends approval. Mr. Iiuelster moved that the requested lot division be approved, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. LD -71-3 James E. Hanson. 4444 Garrison Lane. Parcel 8403 of Section 30, Township 284 Rar a 24. Mr. West stated that the lot in question is located on the corner of Garrison Lane and Wooddale Avenue, north of the Crosstown Highway, and added that a house presently exists near the lot line on the east side of the lot. lie indicated that the request is to divide the lot in half, thereby creating two 67.5 foot wide lots, which is smaller, than the minimum lot width of 75 feet now required. Ile further indicated that the Lots would be approximately 8,920 square feet each, which is, again, below the minimum lot size requirement of. 9,000 square feet. Mr. West stated that the staff would recommend denial of the request, as the lots in the surrounding area are generally 75 feet, the minimum lot size, and because the lot in question is located on a corner, thereby reducing the amount of usable area because of added setback require- ments. Mr. Hanson stated that the neighbors in the area would all like to see a house built because the other hall: of the lot is vacant. Ile added that there is another lot in the area which is below the minimt;m lot size requirements. In reply to Mr. Iluelster, Mr. Hanson stated that the house to be constructed would face on Garrison Lane, as does the: existing house. Mr. Iiuelster moved that the requeE�,ted lot division be approv�ld, subject to the Board of Appeals approval of the necessc:ry variances. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Edina Planning Commission -2- 'PIarch 3, 1971 LD -71-4 Mgr caret M. Willes. 5440 Dundee Road. Lot: 7, Block 2, Mirror Lanes Meadow -Wood 2nd Addition to Edina Highlands_. Mr. West indicated that a house presently occupies the front portion of the lot in question, which slopes up toward Vernon Avenue. Ile stated that the division is being requested because Mrs. Willes cannot maintain the entire lot, and presently has a fence along the line of the proposed division. Mr. West indicated that the request is to divide off the rear portion of the lot and create another buildable lot, 120 feet wide. He observed that although the lot would meet the minimum lot area requirements, the east side would be about 40 to 50 feet short of meeting the minimum 120 foot lot depth requirement. He further indicated that the necessary access to Vernon Avenue would be questionable, as there is only one other house in the area with access to Vernon Avenue. Mr. West stated that despite the possible difficulties in development of the lot to be created, the staff recommends approval. Mr. Sherman indicated that he was not in favor of further properties having access to Vernon Avenue, and moved that the request be deferred to the April 7, 1971, Planning Commission meeting to permit further study of the lot division. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. III. SUBDIVISIONS: SF -70-14 Cherokee Hills 7th Addition. Mr. West indicated that Cherokee Hills 7th Addition is a three lot plat located in the Indian Hills area, and added that it has received preliminary approval from the Planning Commisaion and Council and has been acceptable to all departments. Mr. Huelster moved that the plat entitled Cherokee Hills 7th Addu.tion be granted final approval, and Nx. C. .Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. SP -71-1 Brinwoods Estates. Mr. Wert indicated that the parcel in question is located north of Vernon Avenue, west of Schaeffer Road. Ile stated that several problems have been encountered regarding the proposed plat; for Example, they are providing 50 foot road widths only, and drainage problems have been encountered due to a hole in Lot 4, which would make the lot practically unbuildab-e. He added that it is a 16 lot plat, the minimum lot size being 179500 square feet and the maximum lot size being 27,000 square feet. Mr. '-Varvey Hanson was present and expressed concern regarding; the alignment of Willow - wood Road. Mr. Dick Knutson repl'.ed ghat the road alignment as shown is acceptable to Carl Hanson, as he requested only that it be placed 140 feet from his south property line. Regarding the drainage problem on Lot 4, Mr. Knutson stated that they cannot see any problem with the lot, add.ng that they would fill the lot approximately two feet and there woisld be a slight drainage swail that would d-zair, across Lots 1 and 2 to the north and off onto the street. Mr. G. Johnson moved that Brinwoods Estates be accepted as a preliminary plat subject to the resolution of the noted problems before final approval. Mr. Huelster seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. motion Carried. Edina Planning Commission -3- March 3, 1971 SF -69-18 Wilson Registered Land Survey. (Anderson R.L.S.) Mr. West indicated that the proposed registered land survey is a two -lot plat which is located on Vernon Avenue and Olinger Road. lie noted that the proposed registered land survey was originally rejected due to the size of Tract B, however it was since then replatted to the necessary 110 feet, as requested by the Planning Commission, and was granted preliminary approval in October, 1969. Mr.. West stated that it has been granted preliminary approval from the Planning Commission and the Village Council and is presently acceptable to all departments. In reply to Mr. Lewis, Mr. West indicated that the remainder of the lot is vacant at the present time, and added that there is a possibility that it may be platted at some time in the future. He indicated that the remaining 75 foot strip has been proposed as a road access for the rear portion of the property. In reply to Mr. Huelster, Mr. West clarified that Tract B is comparable to the lots to the north in size, and added that a house presently exists on the tract. Mr. Huelster moved that the registered land survey be granted final approval, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. IV. SOUTHWEST EDINA PLAN Mr. West suggested that a joint on-site inspection of the Southwest Edina Plan area be held with the Planning Cormission and the Village Council to hopefully devise some concensus of what should be developed in the area. Regarding the Olson -Hanson request for rezoning in the plan area, he indicated that the request has been referred back to the Planning Commission from the Council, adding that the ordinance reads that if a request, which originated at the Council and was referred back to the Planning Commission, has not been acted upon in 60 days by the Planning Commission the Council may thea take action on the request. Mr. West suggested that any action on rezoning requests in the Southwest Edina Plan area be postponed until the April_ 79 1071, Planning Commission agenda, following a joint meeting with the Council. The Planning Commission generally agreed. No action taken. V. REZONINGSa Z-70-14 Poppler, Cardarelle, Inc. Smisek Property. R-1 to -R-4. Mr. Wert indicated that the plat (Smisek Addition) provides for three single family lots in the southwest corner of the property, which Poppler, Cardarelle, Inc. was unable to purchase. lie added that Outlot A would be dedicated to the Village, and Block 2 would be one large, undivided block, which could possibly be divided at a later date. Mr. West stated that, per his suggestion, Poppler, Cardarelle, Inc. is requesting only approval of the two -block plat at this time, action on the rezoning of the prop- erty to be postponed. Mr. Cardarelle was present and clarified that the total area is 20 acres, however, three one -acre lots in the southwest corner will remain single family for the Smiseks. Edina Planning Commission -4- March 3, 1971 He recalled that the original plan called for planned industrial zoning west of Cahill Road, with 133 multiple units (approximately 12 units per acre) west therefrom, and three single family lots. He indicated that the plan was later revised to eliminate the industrial district and called for 3 story buildings with a total of 240 to 250 units. Mr. Cardarelle further indicated that he would prefer three story structures with 12 units per acre overall, access being from either Cahill Road or the proposed Dewey Hill Road extended, or both. Mr. Huelster moved that the preliminary plat entitled "Smisek Additiont° be approved, and that the request for rezoning be continued. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Z-70-19 Olson -Hanson. "7200 Cahill Road" R-1 and R-2 to R-4. As per staff's suggestion, the Olson -Hanson request for rezoning from R-1 and R-2 to R-4 at 7200 Cahill Road was continued to the April 7, 1971, agenda, if so requested. Z-70-20 Karl Krahl. N. of the Crosstown Highway and S. of Vernon Avenue. R-1 to R-4 with R3 density. Mr. West indicated that the property is located.north of the Crosstown highway and south of Vernon Avenue, and is a very large, wooded hill in the .laestern Edina Plan area. Ile recalled that at a previous meeting, the Planning Commission had expressed concern regarding the type of structure proposed (one large building on the top of the hill). Ile indicated that Mr. Kral -1 is now proposing; a slightly different plan calling for five buildings in an attempt to scatter the buildings on the site and save more of the top of the hill, and a townhouse concept with underground community garages. Mr. West stated that the staff would recommend that the proposal be accepted for further study. Mr. Krahl clarified that the proposal is for two-story buildings with underground garages, and added that he personally would prefer the first plan proposed. Mr. Sherman moved that the proposal be accepted for study, and Mr. Huelster seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Z-70-21 Edina Masonic Lod e. N. of the Crosstown highway and W. of Gleason Road. R-1 to 0-1 Office Suilding__District. Mr. West recalled that at the February 3, 1971, Planning Commission meeting, concept approval of the Edina Masonic Lodge proposal was granted, and an attorney's opinion on whether office zoning of the property would constitute a precedent setting action and on what would be considered the principle use of the structure was requested. Mr. West summarized a letter from the Village Attorney, dated February 24, 1971, stating that a precedent would indeed be established, and additional office or commercial developments would be encouraged for the property to the west. Mr. West indicated that there are two major problems at the present time; namely, parking and access. He indicated that the: parking problem waits a determination by the lodge of what thein building program is going to be so the staff can determine the proportion for each proposed use. Ile further indicated that the solution to the frontage road Edina Planning Co, ission - D- March 3, 1971 problem along County Road 18 is presently being stymied by an apparent impass between Hennepin County and Mr.. Robert Hanson, which he stated he does not feel. the Planning Commission or the Village should become involved in. Mr. West stated that the staff would recommend that action on the rezoning of the prop- erty be delayed until a determination of the mix between lodging and office use and a determination of the access problem is resolved. Mr. Stahl was present and agreed that the access road is a critical problem. He indi- cated that the lodge functions will have governing control over the structure and will utilize 50% or more of the building, and added that the parking spaces are necessary on the site. He presented several. variations of building locations to accommodate the structure and the required parking;. Mr. Stahl stated that the proposed use of the build- ing is the only use that does apply to the proposed type of structure of a lodge function supported solely by the rental space. Ile added that as far as setting a precedent is concerned, they have tried to follow the Western Edina Plan which seems to indicate the proposed type of use (0-1 Office Building District). Mr. Iiegman, the Chairman of the Board for the Masonic Lodge, stated that it is the principle of the lodge that the lcde not be tax exempt, and that they are not requesting to be tax exempted Following further discussion,, the Planning Commission generally agreed that no action could be taken on the request by the Edina Masonic Lodge for rezoning from R-1 to 0-1 Office Building District until such time as a decision regarding the frontage road is reached. Mr. Dunn later indicated that the use of the site depends entirely upon whether or not the frontage road can be built on the County right-of-way, which has been requested, but first approval must be received from the County, the State, and the Bureau of Public Roads. No action taken. 7-71-6 Folke R. Victorsen. S. of the Crosstown Highway and W. of Gleason Road. R-1 bo PED -2. Mr. West indicated that the request is for rezoning of the site in question from R-1 to PRD -2, with the exception of a single family home on the top of the hill which is owned by Dr. William Lewis, to construct approximately 74 apartment units and 31-38 townhouse units, the townhouses to be clustered in approximately 5 clusters and serviced by a narrow private drive. He stated that the apartment buildings would be on the northern portion of the site, two of which would be located on the flat portion of the site wear the frontage road, and the other buildings would be located further up the hill and would be serviced by a side -hill elevator. Mr. Victorsen was present and introduced Mr. Keith Waters, an architect, and Jim Knops, a landscape architect, from Brauer and Associates, who have been *corking on the site and proposa-. Mr. Knops described the site, indicating that: it is approximately 22 acres and completely covered with mature trees, -and adeed that the highest point of the hill is about 145 feet higher than Gleason Road. Ile indicated that the only feasible access possibility to the site would be from the frontage road, then following the existing driveway, as the slope is too steep at all other pcintfs. He pointed out that it is a combination of the buildable areas, the accessibility, and the desire to save the character of the site as much as possible that have determined the location of the buildings on the site. Edina Planning Commission -6- March 3, 1971 Mr. Waters indicated that the proposal calls for 75 apartment units, which would all operate off the lower roadways. Ie added that there are 34 attached family homes along the southern border of the site that would all operate off the upper roadways. He indicated that the parking posed a serious problem as two enclosed parking spaces per unit are required, but he added that a two-level underground parking system has been developed that will allow all of the parking to be underneath the units with the exception of visitor parking in front of the: units. Mr. Waters indicated that they have talked with Dr. Lewis, and have tried to maintain his privacy on the site, adding that they have maintained a buffer of trees from all areas„ He noted that all the roadways could be privates He indicated that the townhouse units would be in the $40,000 to $60,000 range for sale and, if rented, would rent for $300 .1c $500. He stated that no decision has been made regarding the sale or rental of the units. In reply to Mr,, Sherman, Mr. Waters stated that the single family attached. dwellings, which are not yet designed, would definitely be over 1500 square feet. He explained that the apartment mix proposed would be 20% one -bedroom, 40% two-bedroom and 40% two- bedroom with a den and would rent specifically to older tenants. Mr. Jack Dailey, the attorney for Dr. Lewis, was present and questioned the necessity of the proposal and the heavy concentration of multiple units at the foothill. Mr. West, in reply to Mr. Dailey, indicated that the Western Edina Plan will have to be amended, as it presently calls for PRD -1 zoning on a portion of the site, excluding the property owned by Dr. Lewis. He added that the Plan could be amended at the time the zoning were granted. Mr. C. Johnson moved that the proposal be accepted for study. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Z-71-7 Kremer Corporation. N. of Fabri-Tek and S. of the Rauenhorst Propertyeast of County Road 18. R-1 to PRD -2. Mr. Fred Hoisington of Brauer and Associates recalled that at the February meeting preliminary plans were presented for review and indicated that they have pursued a proposal calling for 40 attached single family residences. He presented a model of the developed site, and clarified that the total acreage involved in the rezoning request is 10, the zoning to begin at the creek and include all of that land between the creek and the east property line. He further indicated that it meets the Western Edina Plan requirements in every respect including density. Mr. Hoisington noted that they had encountered several problems; namely, to route Lincoln Drive away from the slope on the site, or they would end up filling into the creek, second was the creek itself and the requirement to dedicate 100 feet along the creek on both sides for park purposes, third, the sanitary sewer which runs through the center of the site, and four'th,Carl Hanson and the side slope on the east that comes up to Mr. Hansoncs property, Mr. Dave Bennett of Myers and Bennett presented slides to illustrate the exis-ting sur- roundings and natural features and to clarify tFiat the distance from the nearest house to the north is about 1,100 feet, and from the nearest housing to the east is about Edina Planning Commission -7- March 3, 1971 1,000 feet. He indicated that the eastern boundary is proposed to be open space instead of single family homes as shown on the Western Edina Plan. He clarified that the perimeters of the site are the sewer, the trees along the eastern edge, and the creek on the western edge. lie indicated that they are proposing 40 total units on the 10 acre site, with a total open land area of about 4 1/2 acres. Mrs Bennett stated that the proposed creek crossing for the access to the site was selected because as an entry experience this would use the site best in terms of the people who live there and the impression of the characteristic of the site upon entry., and secondly, because it will allow the alternative of connecting with the possible future road which will extend along the south boundary of the site, or, should that road not be developed, the access road could.'be turned eastward and follow the south boundary of the -site connecting with Lincoln Drive and with the frontage road to be built in the future, thus assuring a successful access to the development from the south. He added that all of the housing is single family individually owned attached housing. Mr. Bennett stated that _along the eastern boundary, the development will follow the natural ,ridge line and provide a rather large open space between the east boundary of the construction and the eastern bounc.ary of the site. Mr, Bennett indicated that they hove developed two unit types, the up -hill and the down -hill units, both of which are designed to respond to the topography of the site and to the older buying market, those people without children who are looking for comparable housing without the necessary maintenance responsibilities of a detached single family home. He generally described the units, and stated that all of the units will be two or three bedroom units, and all will have a full basement and a two -car enclosed garage. In reply to Mr. Huelster, Mr. Bennett stated that the units will be approximately $40,000. Mrs, West clarified that at the Council meeting of March 1, 1971, the Council amended the platting ordinance that required at that time a 50 foot dedication along both sides of the creek to read 100 feet upland from the creek. Mr. West indicated that the townhouses on the western boundary are approximately 60 feet from the creek, and added that an amendment to the subdivision ordinance would provide for variances to the ordinance. Mr. Bennett stated that the closest building to the eastern boundary is about 50 feet, the farthest structure is about 145 feet, and the average is about 120 feet. Mr. Oliver of 6620 Parkwood Road stated that although the development looks nice, it will be creating a precedent for all of that property to the north if it is approved. In reply to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Harvey Hanson pointed out that the Western Edina Plan does call for one strip of detached single family residences along the eastern property line. In reply to this, Mr. Hoisington indicated that one of the problems that would be encountered in developing that area single family is to damage the hill as well as the trees that exist there, adding that it would be much more preferable to develop a plan as proposed, with the townhouse units built :nto the sy%de of the hill and an open space along the eastern boundary. Edina Planning Cor.imission. _g.. March 3, 1971 Mr. Huelster stated that he could definitely see the purpose of the 100 foot dedication requirement along the creek when the development will be commercial or a warehouse, but with a development of this type, he would be completely in favor of a variance In answer to a gentleman from the audience, Mr. Lewis replied that this type of develop- ment makes an excellent buffer between the industrial development west of the creek and the single family homes to the: east. The gentleman replied that he felt that the basic character of the Packwood Knolls area and the area to be developed directly to the east of the site would be drastically changed. Mr. West indicated that the staff would recomend preliminary approval of the zoning subject to approval of the necessary 50 foot dedication variance by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Mr. Harvey Hanson stated that wher. the Western Edina Plan was origianl.ly considered, Fabri-Tek was already existing to the west of the creek, so it was generally agreed that industrial development shoulr, necessarily continue along County Road 18, He indicated that the Kremer Corporation proposal is not the type of development the property owners would favor Qn their boundaries, adding that they are sure that this same type of development will continue to the north on the east side of the creek. Following further discussion, Mr. G. Johnson moved that the request be accepted for study, and Mr, Sherman seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. VIo OTHER BUSINESS: to John Bureau. Black and DeAmendment of permitted uses in Office Building District. - - - Mr. West indicated that the request is the result of efforts to locate a regional office for the Black and Decker Company, adding that the particular site in question is a portion of the Oscar Roberts Property, which is proposed to be rezoned Office Building District. Mr. West indicated that the request: is for an amendment to the Office Building District to permit a type of combination sales and rental office, not now permitted. *Ire West clarified that approximately 213 of the building will be warehouse use, however, a display area for the sale of tools and a repair shop for the items is also planned. Mr. West stated that he was basically concerned with the noise that will be generated as a result of the repair of the tools, which is not an appropriate use in the Office Building; District, adding that this would be more appro- priate in the Planned Industrial District, excluding the retail sales area. As per the staff recommendation, Mr. Iiuelster moved that the requested ordinance amendment be denied, for the following; reasons: 1. The retail sales of hand power tools is not an appropriate use in the Office Building District and could tend to foster an undesirable precedent. 2. The repair: and testing of :noise producing; power tools is not an appropriate principle use in an Office Building Dis"rict. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Edina Planning Commission -9-w March 3, 1971 2. Don Goetzman. Prestige Development Corporation. Amendment of permitted uses In Planned :industrial District. Mr. West stated that the request for permission to locate a "bridge parlor" in the Planned Industrial District had been referred from the Board of Appeals, adding that the Board felt that the problem of a possible ordinance amendment was not within their realm of duty. Mr. West indicated that the proposed "bridge parlor" would involve bridge games in the evening, with the possibility of bridge lessons being conducted during the daytime. He stated that he has several reservations regarding the proposal; namely, a "bridge parlor01 could be an illegal operation, and the site in question does not have sufficient parking space, as woulc. be required for a "bridge parlor". He clarified that he has received an unofficial opinion from the Attorney General's office that a "bridge parlor0° is "on the verge" of being illegal, and noted that the Village Attorney has indicated that the Attorney General's opinion should be requested before permitting the proposed operation, or the.Village may be giving tacit approval of an illegal action. He further indicated that a minimum of two spaces per bridge table (100 spaces in this case) should be required for this type of operation, noting that only 78 spaces are presently available. He stated that the staff would recommend denial of the request. Mr. Huelster moved that the request be denied for the following reasons: 1. A "bridge parlor80 is not an appropriate use in the Planned Industrial District. 2, The site in question cannot provide adequate parking space for the traffic that would be generated by this use:. 3. It would appear that there may be some question as to the legality of the operation of a bridge club in the manner proposed and the amendment permitting that use in the PID district could be giving tacit approval of an illegal act. An Attorney General's opinion should be requested before approval is given. Mr, C. Johnson seconded the motion.. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.. 3. Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to Provide for variances to the ordinance. Mr. West stated that the Village Attorney, in a letter to the Village Manager, indicated that the state statute allows for variances in the subdivision ordinance regulations if provided by ordinance, and recommended that the Village should develop a variance procedure for the subdivision ordinance. Mr. West clarified that the requests would be considered by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, and would involve hardship due to physical surroundings, shape of topographical conditions, unique conditions not generally applicable to another property, hardship caused by disordinance and not by any persons presently having interest in the land, and, when granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental t� the public welfare, or to other lard in the neighborhood of the land in question. Edina Planning Commission -10- Perch 3, 1971 Following discussion, Mr,, C. Johnson moved that an amendment to the subdivision ordinance ;re approved and Mr. Ilue].ster- seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Mot a Carried. 4. Robert E. Hanson. NE corner of the Crosstown Highway and Countv Road 19. Official Plan Mat). Mr. West recalled that at the February Planning Commission meeting, approval was granted to the concept of a detached frontage road along County Road 18, the approx- imate configuration of which is shown on the Western Edina Plan map. Ile stated hat since that time, the Village Council has received a letter from Lundquist and Velum, representing Fabri-Tek, requesting: postponement of any final decision until such time as they would have the opportunity tc discuss the proposal with the Planning Commis ion and the Council, noting that the Council referred the matter back to the Plannin Commission. Mr. Dick Fitzgerald of Lundquist end `Tenum was present and stated that ra.bri-Tek is opposed to the idea of a detached frontage road and is in favor of the concept o an attached frontage road. Mr. I:itzCerald stated that when Iiabri-Tek originally re eived site plan approval, a portion of the property was rezoned Planned Industrial Dis rict and a strip of land along the creek was dedicated to the Village for park purpos s. Ile added that the two small tracts of land remaining were not zoned at that time. le indicated that when the site was planned, there was no certainty as to what would be the access and if there would be a diamond interchange west of the site, but their had felt that there would be an attached frontage road, as the County had expended a consider- able amount of money condemning lend -n order to get the area in which to build the frontage road. Ile stated that the building, the parking lots, and all otter imp ove- ments were constructed with the idea in mind that the driveway into the site wou d be from a frontage road, and if now there is no frontage road in front and the ecce s will be by detached road, they will be forced either to build a long driveway fr the northern boundary into the parking lot, or access to the rear will have to be at ained. He noted that more important is the cost, as the frontage road would be built by County funds and there would be no cost to the abutting properties, but if the detached concept is approved, the cost of the road will have to be borne by the Village of Edina, who will in turn pass it on to the abutting land owners. ?sir.. FitzUerald indicated that although they are the largest abutting land owner, it will be detaimental to Fabri-Tek, all the detached frontage road as proposed does not give access to the two small parcels in the north and east corner of the property, and finally, it involves a considerab e taking of their property, as they own land on both sides of the road. Mr. Brauer stated that he feels that I<abri-Tek will one day have to pay some ad cost for the improvement of the frontage road or give up some land for utility lie clarified that the original request was to direct to the Village Engineer to study of tie situation to determine the best route and then adopt the best road official map Mr. Iluelster moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that tha Engineering Department be directed to study the matter of the County, 'Road 18 frog road so that a proper decision car be made. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. Voted Aye. Motion Carried. tional sements. ake a n the stage All Edina Planning Commission -11- 5. Amendment of the,. Multiple Residence District to Incineration of Trash and Garba&e. March 3, 1971 Mr. West stated that during the reagent codification of the ordinances, it was discovered that multiple resicences of less than five units were permitted to burn trash in an exterior container, which is not permitted under another ordinance. Following discussion, Mr. Huelster Moved that the multiple residence district or inance amendment be approved, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. lotion Carried. 6. a North Mr. West recalled that at the Council meeting of March 1, 1971, the app oval of the Nine Mile North plat was rescinded because it was determined that more parka g spaces would be required for the proposed structure on Lot 2 than could be provi ed on the site. As a condition of granting setback and lot coverage variances, the Bo rd of Appeals has required Rauenhorst to dedicate a 200 foot strip of land along the c eek for park purposes and to incorporate an additional 20 feet of land into the plat so that additional parking spaces could be provided and the land could not be easiI divided off at a later date. Mr. West indicated that the request is for approval of the Nine Mile North plat,�with the addition of a 20 foot strip which was purchased along the southern boundary f Lot 2. Mr. G. Johnson moved that the revised plat of Nine Mile North be granted prelimi approval, and Mr. Ruelster seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. 7. Deed Restrictions in the Multiple Residence: District. Mr. West presented for consideration by the Planning; Commission a lette the Village Attorney in which he expressed concern regarding the past practice o requiring deed restrictions in rezoning; for example, a property is granted R-4 with deed restrictions required restricting that property to a definite number o Mr. West indicated that the Village Attorney is concerned in that the restrictia only valid for 30 years and the Village may be overstepping its police powers, a suggested that the basic need for the deed restrictions be eliminated by amendin, Planned Residential District ordinance parking requirements by requiring apartmel buildings to provide one enclosed and one exposed parking space (townhouses will required to provide 2 enclosed spaces). Mr. West explained that because two enclosed parking spaces are required for ap type buildings in the PRD zone, developers avoid the PRD zoning and request R--4 with R-3 density deed restrictions instead. It was generally agreed that an amendment should be drafted to this effect to be by the Planning Commission at a later date. No action taken. VII. Adjournment. Respectfully submitted, Lynnae DeJarlais, Secre f rom ping units. are has the type t idered