Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 04-07 Planning Commission Meetin Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1971 EDINA VILLAGE HALL Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, R. A. Huelster, S. P. Hughes, C. E. Johnson, D. T. Runyan, D. C. Sherman, and J. S. Hoyt, Jr. Staff Present: Greg Luce, Gary West, Robert Dunn, and Lynnae Nye. I. SOUTHWEST EDINA PLAN Mr. Luce reviewed the boundaries of the plan area, and indicated that the Southwest Edina Plan recommended by the Planning Commission was rejected by the Village Council on January 18, 1971, at which time greatest concern was' expressed regarding the area bounded by Cahill "Road on the east and Dewey Hill Road on the west. Mr. Luce indicated that the Planning staff presently recommends that the controversial area be given a density of 12+ units per acre, adding that the present plan also calls for a 19 acre park just to the west of the Dewey Hill Road extensions and north of the existing Dewey Hill Road, which would require dedication on the part of the property owners. He explained that the density that would have been permitted on this area at 12 units per acre would then be constructed on the remaining portion of the lot (east of the extended road), thus creating a density of t012+0' units pdr acre. The 19 -acre park would serve as a buffer area between the multiple development and the existing single family homes. He further indicated that the only access permitted to the multiple residential areas would be from Dewey Hill Road extended and not from Cahill Road, thus preventing the industrial traffic from filtering through the multiple areas and.into the single family district. A gentleman representing the Osvar Grant property indicated that they are definitely opposed to any residential zoning on the property along Cahill Road, as they have been assessed for the road as a heavy-duty industrial road and do not feel residential zoning would be an adequate return on their investment. In reply to a question by Mr. Jim Jundt, Mr. Luce clarified that the refers to the fact that the density on the east side of the Dewey Hill Road extensions would be higher than 12 units per acre due to the credit for the park dedication. He indicated that state statutes and the village ordinance provide the means for the Village to require dedication of the land. He added that the land would be subject to the approval of the Park Board, which has unofficially accepted the land, and must be dedicated to the Village free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. He noted that the development of the parkland would be paid for by the Village and would not be required by the developer or the property owner. Mr. Luce indicated that the total population in the area at full development under the proposed plan would be approximately 5,600 people, or a population gain of 4,000 people, which has increased significantly from earlier estimates due to the deletion of the industry west of Cahill Road. In reply to Mr,, Bill Howard, Mr. Luce observed that the number of apartment buildings in the multiple areas depends on the developers plans for the land, adding that the propea:tics are large enough to be developed under the Planned Residential Edina ?laming Cc mission -2- April 7, 1971 District ordinance, which requires approval by the :.'fanning Commission and the Village Council of complete -overall development plans, including topography, vegetation, the location of the structures, etc. In reply to several residents, Mr. Hughes stated that the Village does not have any choice regarding increasing the populat'ion of Edina, adding that the choice is to try to determine to the extent possible what types of build:angs the people are going to live in. He indicated that the present plan was developed when members of the Planning Cosmos ssion and Council and the planner held an on-site inspec- tion of the plan area, following the rejection of the plan by the Council. In reply to Mr. Robert Burns of 5320 Dewey Hill Road, Mr. West clarified that the maximum height of the ?RD structures would be four stories. Mr. Burns stated that the residents (reel that the multiple dwellings will reduce considerably the value of the existing singla family homes, and that the plan in general will cause a .substantial increase in population, particularly of "trnansient apartment dwellers", and traffic, and will be an increased burden on the school systera and the fire and police services. Following further disetmsion, Mr. Hughes moved that the proposed Southuest Edina Plan be approved, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. 11. REZONINGS: 2-71-6 Folke R. Victorsen. South of the Croostoz..m Highway and west of Gleason Road. R-1 to PRD -2. Mr. Luce stated that the staff recommends approval of the Victorsen plan based on the recommendation of the Western Edina Plan, which encourages cluster devel- opment to preserve natural veget-ation, topography, and natural areas, because the development will serve as a buf-2'er between the single family dwellings and the freeway, and, also, because thii is a difficult development site and the proposed project would be a suitable development for that location. Mrs, Luce added that several letters have been recei-,ied from the residents in the area requesting the Planning Commission deny the re.:oning request. 11r, 'Keith Waters of B"-auer and Associates, the architect for the project, reviewed the location of the site and indicated that there are four neighbors itmuediately to the south of the property, one neighbor who rmns the top of the hill (Dr. William Lewis), find the church who owns the remainder of the land to the north.- Mr. Waters stated that Mr. Victorsen has -a-;-ied to no avail to purchase a portion of the church property, adding that he is in the position of owning neither the bottam or top of the hill, but just the sides. lit. Waters stated that due to this the proponent is proposing a Planned Residential concept, whereby the living units are clustered and large areas of open space are retained unspoiled. Ile indicated that they are proposing 33 attached single family homes and 74 apartments, all. to be constructed at a luxury level of living. Mr. Waters noted that at this point they are not certain whether the single family homes will be rented or sold, but in either case, the plans for the building units will be the same. 11-_ added that if sold, they will be sold for $40,000 to $60,000, and if rented, will rent for $300 to $500, as will the apartment units, Mr. Waters stated that the underlying problm in developing the site is the automobile. He axplained that in ,this case the PRD development will involve fewer Edina Planning Commission April 7, 1971 roadways, w1hich will be narrow, private drives, and -will follow the existing road which serves as Dr. Lewis's driveway. He noted that they will not be maintained by the Village. Mr. Waters stated that they are proposing a two level underground parking garage at the bottom of the hill to solve the parking problem that could be created there; to handle the problem at the top of the hill, space has been allowed for cars at the bottom of the hill, and a hill—side elevator is proposed to take the people up the hill from the parking area. Mr. Waters indicated that they are able to maintain the character of this hill and rather large areas of open space, adding that the ridge line is relatively undisturbed. He stated that the open space on the east side of the hill surrounding the entrance to the Indian Hills area is undisturbed and will be retained as it is now, thus allowing a natural, forested drive into the Indian Hills area. Mr. Waters added that the west side of the slope from that point around to the lake will also be relatively undisturbed, and the lake front will be left as it is. Mr. Paul Pierre of Brauer and Associates, the landscape architect for the project, reviewed the project in relation to the objectives of the Western Edina Plan and the Planned Residential District ordinance. Mr. Waters presented a slope analysis of the site and discussed the loca— tion of the buildings in relation to the slope analysis, indicating that the units are built mainly on the areas that are flat enough to permit construction. He also presented a schematic of the apartments, and of the typical single family attached homes. He noted that the site will be left as closely as possible in its natural state, adding that no green lawns will be created, etc. Mr. Waters stated, in reply to the question of whether single family homes would be a better use on the site, that he did not believe so, as the proposed type of development will minimize the roadways, sidewalks, parking, etc. He stated that there are two enclosed heated parking spaces per apartment unit underneath the buildings, and added that the only visible cars on the site will be from 17 to 22 spaces, primarily for visitor parking. Mr. Waters clarified that, if the site were developed in detached single family housing, the streets would have to be wider, public, and publicly maintainedg long cul—desacs, as proposed, would have to be avoided, and the roadway would have to go around the hill and back, further destroying the character of the hill. The attached single family homes will be owned by.a Homeowners Association with restrictive covenants or they will be rented, in which case the ovc-:ership will be regained by Mr. Victorsen. Mr, Waters stated that the units will probably be finished in brick or a natural finished wood to retain them in as natural a character as possible. Regarding traffic, Mr. Waters stated that all of the traffic empties onto the frontage road and imme4l ately onto Gleason Road and the Crosstown Highway. He estimated that 230 to 260 people will be living on the site, and added that the average is about three people per unit in the attached single family homes, opposed to somewhat over four in detached single family homes. He stated that there will be more people on the site than if the site were subdivided into single family lots, but there will be a great deal fewer people going to the schools. He noted that they are trying to maintain the character of the hill, the residential character of the neighborhood, and some significant open spaces® In reply to Mr. Lewis, tiro Waters stated that the approximate unit density is 4.8, thus necessitating the request for PRD -2. In reply to several comeats from . Ed -_112a Planning Commission -4- April 7, 1971 from the residents present, Mr. Waters stated that there are no plans for docks or any type of waterfront development of Arradhead Lake. He stated that the nearest L attached single family home is over 200 feet from the lake and approximately 70 feet above the lake, adding that they may provide a gravel path, but there will be no further development of the lake area. In reply to several comments from Mr. Jack Dailey, the attorney represent- ing William Lewis, Mr. Luce noted that a letter from Dr. Lewis had been received requesting that the rezoning request be denied or that consideration of the request at least be continued until the next meeting, as he and several others interested in the proposal will not be able to attend. Mr. Victorsen stated that all of the people adjacent to the property and the three persons at the bend of the road closest to the site have been personally visited, adding that the only person they were unable to visit was Mr. Harry Murphy, who owns property directly to the south. He noted that Dr. Lewis had met with them at Brauer's before theplan was presented to discuss the concept and plan that is being proposed. In reply to Mr. Dailey, Mr. Waters stated that they have talked to the Village to some degree about the roads, and added that their feeling is that although they are "certainly doing some unusual things", it is with the intent of preserving the landscape. He clarified that although the road is about 24 feet wide, there will be no parking allowed on it and the village standards as far as grades, turnaround areas and turning radiuses will have to be met, Mr. Victorsen clarified that Mr. Lewis has an easement across the property for access to his house, the only stipula- tion being that a road be provi6ed at the same point where he presently enters his property,, Mr. Henry Buchwald of 6808 Margaret's Lane expressed his objections to the plans as outlined, indicating that he is opposed to the population density, to the proposed rental units, and the E,.partment structures. He added that the people on the lake are extremely concerned about the 200 or more families that will have lake- side privileges in relation to the 20 families that now have rights. Ile proposed that the lakeside property be deeded to the Arrowhead Lake Improvement Association. Mr. Victorsen answered that he would not be willing to deed the property to the Arrowhead Association but that he would deed it to the Village of Edina, Mr. Waters stated that if it could be legally arranged to prohibit the people who will live on the site from using the lake in any manner, they would be happy to pursue this by making it a notation in the Homeownerls Association agreement or the lease, adding that it is ',.*heir intention to keep the lakeshore in its unspoiled state. In reply to Dr. Christgau of 6500 Indian Hills Pass, Mr. Waters indicated that it is about 65 feet from the closest unit to the Christgau property line, adding that the units are also about 25 to 30 feet above the Christgau property and cannot be seen due to the retairiRg wall on that property. Mr. Lee C. Ko} b of 65C4 Indian Hills Pass was present and read a communica- tion freer, Mr. and Mrs. Harry A. Murphy, Jr., of 6508 Indian Hills Vass, who were unable to attend the meeting, which ineicated that they are apposed to the development due to the increased traffic and population, because the development will destroy the environment and the character of the neighborhood, and because it will detract from the value of the eanisting sin3lo family dwellings In the area. FolUvIng further discussion, Mr. Hughes moved that the Victorsen rezoning raquest be accepted for further study and continued to the 'Hay agenda. Mr. Huelster seconded the motion, All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Edina Planning Commission -5- April 7, 1.971 Z-71-7 Kremer Corporration. North of Fabri-Tek and east cif ,n Road 18 and Nine Mi-le-Gree.k. R -I to PRD -2. Mr. Luce indicated that the staff recommends approval of the proposed development and rezoning request based on the fact that it is provided for in the Western Edina Plan, that the plan in general encourages cluster development to preserve natural vegetation, topography, and water, and that it provides an excellent buffer between the industrial land to the west and the proposed single family residential district to the east, Mr. Kremer was presw:it and recalled the presentation made to the Planning Commission at the March 3, 1971, meeting. He indicated that since that meeting, they have met with the Park Board and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, adding that the largest problem they hzve encountered is the fact that although the project had been designed in accordance with the ordinance, an ordinance was amended three days before the plan was presented which changed the dedication requirement along the creek from 50 to 100 feet on both sides of the creek, He stated that the ftrk Board has recommended the proposal be approved as designed, however, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board did not approve it bayed on the rigid 100 foot dedication requirements. But since that tibia, the Board of MInagers has held an on-site inspection of the site and are now willing to reconsider this project based on the present design. 'Mr. Kremer stated that they are requesting approval of the concept &ad the rezoning as proposed, subject to the approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments, who must also consider the development in the form of a request for a variance from the 100 foot dedication requirement ori the east side of the creek, Mr. Dave Bennett, the architect, reviewed the concept as it was proposed at the March 3rd meeting, and clarified that in place of a row of single family homes along the eastern boundary of the property, they are proposing a strip of open space, He stated that the northern corner of the northern building is proposed to be 145 feet from the property line, and the south corner of the south building is about 30 feet, the average being 120 feet. He stated that the highest point of the site is the upper northern corner. Mr. Bennett recalled that the access to the site will be from the southwest corner, adding that no traffic will be permitted in the existing or proposed neighborhoods to the east and north, He recalled that they are ?roposing 40 townhouse (single family attached) units, all to be individually owned or rented, which they feel best uses the topographical features. Mr. Harvey Hanson was present and, referring to a letter received by the Planning Cammissioners, stated that he is opposed to the -proposed development for three reasons; aamely, he is opposed to. anything other than single family detached develop- ment east of Nine Mile C::eek, the project is contrary to the I,estern Edina Plan in that the Western Edina Plan stalls for at least one row (lot depth) of single family residence3 along the Parkwood Knolls property line, and, he feels the design aesthetica are questionable. Mr. Hanson presented a petition expressing opposition to the Kremer townhouse proposal in particular, and t3tated that the people are con- cerned about what will happen to the area immediately to the north of the Kremer property and questioned whether they would not also be entitled to a 50 foot variance of the dedication requirements. Mr. Bennett stated that under the ordinance for PRD -2 zoning, they could conceivably request 60 units on the site, however, the proposal is for the conditions that exist on the site and does not apply to the sites to the north. Edina Planning Commission -6p April 7, 1971 Afro Brill Mueller of 661.7 parkwood Road stated that he is opposed to the request, as the people who invested in the area in the firs` place did so for the qualities that are presently existing and if the qualities are now changed, the valuation, of their properties would also change. He added that he represents the position of the ''majority of the people in the ndfighbi;t:hoad" in stating his opposition,, to the rezoning of this property for this project or any other project which paves the way for additional multiple housing abich will, in the long run, be detrimental to the entire cotmunity. 011owing further discussion, Mr. Runyan moved that: the project be accepted for study and continued to a date following a ruling by the Nine Mile Creek Water- shed District Board of Managers, and the Board of Appeals ;and Adjustments, sand Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. III, LST D.�VISIONS: g71-5 T.E. Corporation. North �f Val lei, Vi eaa Road Y�etw�es� Count Mo. Luce indicated thct the property is split between Eden prairie mad Edina, noting that although a portion of the property is included in Eden Prairie, Edina has the zoning power for the area in question, which is zoned planned Industrial District. He stated that the request is to divide off one portion of the site, indicating that the staff recommends that the request: be denied due to the inadequate side yard (36 feet is required and they are proposing a 20 foot setback) and inadequate parkiAg space (the proposal is for 94 parking spaces, and approximately 130 spaces are required) . A no representative of the T.R.E. Co;poAation was present and no further discussion ensued, Hr. C. 3ohca€son moved that the requested lot division be denied,, and Mr, Sherman seconded the ,notion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. IXQ71--6 Glent-n G. Nybeetc Nort of Valley, View goad between Coaamtv RC 1B And W.ashin ton venue South of Be! Har industrial Acres . Mr. Luce stated that the staff would recamme:nd denial of the requested lot division for several reasons; first, an unbuildable lot would be created in the Planned Industrial District, second, a precedent would be set allowing a lot of less than 2acres in size in the Planned Industrial District, and third, the possi- bility exisys that if this lot is treated, the courts could force the Village to permit construction pit it, thus as requiring variances. He added that if thaw inter- change in the area is built, :additional land could be purchased to add to this lot and create a sufficient; tuc-acre site, I,1 ,, Nybeck was present and submitted that the southwest corner of the property has been taken for a reap by the county, :F'.n connection with the overall plana for a eliamemd interchange, and as a result it hay reduced the size of the original feir acre parcel to about; 3 1.12 acros. He +uadicated that the county has ''more or leas" purchased Ze property lying be cjen the south linea of the prolad erty and M "lcgp8 of the di oma rd interchzngom Vt. Nybe:ck atated that the: request:.•. at the prasynt timz is that tate nortt Orly two acre: vact, which has already been sold,, be aetablished as a eeparate parcel of lead, cnazaa though the remalming portion Edina of the prope which the ca this tract,'' Ip no confirmat Planning Cod legally diva. Commission -7- April 7, 1971 rtIy will be only 1.57 acres. He added that when the excess property unty owns but intends to sell back to the original owner is added to it will be sufficient in size for the Planned Industrial District. ly to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Luce indicated that the Village presently has of the County's plans. He clarified that the request is before the ion because a deed cannot be filed with the County until the lot is Mr.,Lewis clarified that the Planning Commission cannot approve the request for a lot dtv1sion because there is no assurance that the County will grant the owner the property to create a total of two acres on the remaining portion. Mr.I'Runyan mored that the requested lot division be denied based on the fact that the ',remaining portion of the property to be required would be strictly speculation, at this point. Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. LD -41-7 Dorn Builders. 57005704 and 5710-1714 Hanson Road. Luce explained that the requested lot division is necessary because galows are presently existing on one parcel of Nand, due to a drafting art of the surveyor. He stated that the staff recommends approval of ,s no variances or any further action is necessary. Mr. Hughes moved sled lot division AeWad-b Mr. C.,,Johnson seconded the motion. Motion Carried. cea. . two double bui error on the the request, that the requ All Voted Aye LD -71-4 Margaret M. Willes. 5540 Dundee Road. Mr. Luce reviewed the request, which had been continued from the March Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the Building Inspector has indicated the resulting lot will be a buildable lot and the Engineer has indicated that traffic and access will not be a problen.on'Yernon Avenue© He indicated that the staff would rOcommend approval of the request. ThelPlanning Commission expressed concern about the necessary access from , the lot to belereated on Vernon Avenue, and all generally agreed that the question should be considered by the Traffic Safety Committee before approval of the lot division is granted. in reply to Mr. C. Johnson, Mr., Luce pointed out that the house directly to the west presently exits onto Vernon Avenue. Mr.I',Hughes moved that the requested lot division be continued pending a decision by a he Traffic Safety Committee regarding the advisibility of access onto Vernon AV'enue. Mr. C, Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. IVa aU13bMSrals.0 Blakewood.. Mr.lXmce stated that the staff would recomnend that the proposed plat be accepted for further study, as the center of the area is presently filled with about 1 1/2 fleet of water, end it is obvious that storm drainage problems could result. Mr. 'Co Johnson imoved that the preliminary plat be accepted for- further study. Mre rushes seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Edina Plimning Commission -8- April 7, 1971 SIS -71-5 Doug ani to�r1W coxa Csk kI :�. rdro Luce indicated that the: proposed plat is the same site in southwest Edina just west of Cahill Road that is proposed to be rezoned from R-1 to multiple residence dwellings. Ile explained that the plat is proposed as two blocks, with one lot per block. He sorted that the staff would recommend approval, subject to the necessary street aligment modifications and that Lot 1 be dedicated free and clear to the Village for park purposes. The Planning Commission generally agreed that all determinations in the Southwest Edina Plan area should be contingent on final approval of the Southwest Edina Plana Following further discussion, Plro Sherman moved that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the dedication of the parkland west of Dewey Hill Road extended, and that the alignment of Dewey Hill Road extended be corrected as necessary. Pira C. Johnson seconded the motion. All 'Doted A.yeo Motion Carried. SP -71-6 Braemar Hills 5th Addition, (St. Pat's Addition -1968) Mro Luce indicated that the parcel is generally located north of Braemar Pare:, and added that prel.tminary approval was granted several years ago as a portion of St. :Pat's Addition. He stated that the staff would recommend approval of the final plat entitled BOBraemar Hilla 5th Arldition`1 as no changes have been made from the original proposal. Mr. Hughes moved that the plat be Granted final approval. and Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All Voted Aye, Motion Carried, SF -70-3 Smx�_sek Addition. Following a brief discussion, the Smisek Addition pleat was referred to the staff and continued indefinitely until such time as the Southuest Edina Play is approved. V, PRELIMINARY REVIEW: to Hennepin Co.arty South Area Reference i�ibrarv. Mr. Luce indicated that the site in question is located just southeast of Southdale on the corner of York and West 70th Street. He stated that the request is for a :2!ibrary at this locations which would require a change in the Southeavt Edina Plata Study to Per -nit a library use in that location. He noted that at this point no commitment has been made as e°o the use of the remaining portion of the property Ohich was purchased by the County, and stated that the Planning Commission should be informed of the plans for the entire property before approval of the amend- ment to Ue plan is granted. Piro Seneca Seaman, the Henncpft County architect, recalled that the County has been trying to acquire land in the; €,rea for three or four years for a reference library, tend added that folicying negotiations with Fred Hoisirgton as to a possible loc&t1Gnt a fast settlement 811009d the purchase of this property by the County. He indicated that a feasibility steady taken for the county determined that a net 5.8 acre site waa required. Edina Planning C r ission m9— April 7, 1971 The County board felt that a 00service type office" building should also be included in the vicinity of the regional library, as it could easily be converted to a library use at some time in the future if the "service type office ce building`s was not suitable in that location. Mr. James Stadeburg of Hodne Stadeburg, the architect, stated that they are proposing about 50,000 to 60,000 square feet of enclosed space on the site of about 5 1/2 acres. Mr. Tom Neilson stated that, as the regional libraries are developed in the county, they have been considering placing acme decentralized service functio-as more immediately accessible to the population, adding that this facility has not reached the sane "germination stage" that the library has, but they are basically talking about functions such as County* Information Referral Services, Automobile License Registration and Driver's License renewals, welfare information referral, birth and death certificates, marriage licenses, registrar of deeds, property tax, etc. He stated that they are talking basically about an office function and can assure the Village that this building will be used only for those purposes or for library purpose;, In reply to Mar. Hughe€., Mr. -He ' ilson stated that the traffic and traffic patterns will be minimal and will be entirely compatible with the library services, hours, and the parking provided,, Mr. Neilson clarified that the total acreage necessary has been purchased and has been provided. VI1 OTHER BUSINESS: 1. 1. Edina Senior Hitzh_School Parkin$ Lot,, Mr. West stated that the request is for permission to present a plan for a future parking lot north of the Edina High School to be constructed when Highway 100 is expanded, as it will take most of the existing faculty parking area. He stated that under the existing single family residence ordinance, parking areas are permitted for educational institutions in the single family district. Ma:. Don Pryor, Director of Business Affairs for the district, stated that the highway expansion will eliminate 156 parking spaces, adding that the parking lot that is proposed will supply only 90 spaces. Ile stated that the plan alleviates any distress of the immediate neighbors, as a buffer zone has been left and a fence is planned. Mr. Clark Engler, the architect, indicated that the parking lot will be located at Southview :bane and Normandale Road on the north side of the high school. He stated that the lot will be 15 feet from the property line, and a fence is planned to be located in the center of that area. Following further discussion regarding the proposed location of the parking lot, Mr. 'Iest indicated that no action by the Planning Commission is necessary, as the request is for information purposes only. No action taken. 2. Ordinance No. 811—AIO Planned Residential District Amendment, Mr. Luce stated that the PRD ordinance presently reads two enclosed parking spaces per unit, and the proposed ordinance would reduce this to one enclosed and one exposed parking space per unit for apartment type 3tlydctures i -a the Planned Residen— tial District© In reply to Mr. Lewis, Mr. West indicated that the proposed ordinance would relax this restr-iction to encourage the use of the PRD o.tdinance in places where apartments ;ould be best suited for the site. 'He added ,also that the Village • Edina Planning Commission _10- April 7s 1971 Attorney has advised against the use of restrictive covenants, as used when R-4 zdning is granted and the site is restricted to a certain definite number of units, as in R-3, because the restrictions could possibly be defeated in court and are only good for 30 years. Mro West stated that under the PRD ordinance, the plans are revieved and the site is restricted to a certain number of units by the development plans that are approved, He indicated that the developers request the R-4 zoning with R-3 restrictions rather than the PRD zoning because they feel it is too'expensive.to construct two enclosed parking spaces per unit in an apartment type structure, Ile clarified that the change in the ordinance would affect only apartment type buildings; townhouse type structures would still be required to provide two enclosed spaces per unit, Mr, Hughes stated that if the ordinance requirement were changed to require one enclosed parking space and one exposed parking space for apartment type structures, the amount of asphalt will be greatly increased on the sites. He indicated than he would be more in favor of a change that would require one and one-half enclosed and one-half exposed parking spaces. Following further discussion, the Planning Commission approved an ordinance amendment to the Planned Residential District that would require one and one-iaalf enclosed parking spaces and one-half texposed parking spaces instead of the two enclosed parking spaces presently required for apartment type structures; and also, an amendiment to the R-3, R-4, and R-5 districts changing the parking requirement from one enclosed and one exposed to one and one-half enclosed and one- half exposed, in conformance with the PRD ordinance. 3, Ordinance No, 811 -Ail - Commercial District Amendment Mr, Luce stated that the purpose of this amendment would be to delete any residential uses from the commercial zone, as the existing ordinance allows residences in the C-1 District and discusses hotels and motels. He added that the amendment would prohibit the remodeling of a hotel or motel into residential living units, Following a brief discussion, the Planning Commission generally approved an ordinance amendment deleting all residential uses from the commercial district. VII. Adjournment, Respectfully submitted, Lynnae Nye, Secretary AGENDA Edina Planning Commission Edina Village Hall Wednesday, May 5, 1971 7:30 Approval of the March 3, 1971, Planning CoMnission Minutes IIs Southwest Edina Plan - Status Report. Lot Division.- .M� LD -71-4 npr Agret M. Willes. 5540 Dundee Road. IV. Z-71-6 Vidor_.sen.R-1 to PR -D-2. Z-71-7 Kreiiier CaUjration . R-3 to PRD -2. Z-71-4 J ti E 1_ ricl;sora. C-3 to PRD -5. V. 2rdiijancqq: 1. Planned Industrial District - kmeadment to adt, courts" to list of perimitted uses. 2. Ordinance requiring a bond, letter of credit, or certified clieck for landscaping,. 3, Parking Requirepl&,lp homes. �:,z for convalef-scerjt homes and nursing 4. Trechouse and Pla-lrlk,ouse restrictions. Vi. Other Business: . .......... Smisek Property. Plan Review, (Z -7C-14)' 2. (Lav,—tcR_ Nudson Pro -- -I'— . Dayton's Gasoline Facility in Southdale Shopping Center parking lot. (Planned Commercial District) 3. j!xde lark Rev-zev. 4. SOuttleast Edina Plan i)a-zend HenneC OUntY South Library. — pin 5. I+ tern .,diva p.lay.1 -ndme�nCOukLY Road Read AlUFrcntage