HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 06-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE UEGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING = MISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1971
EDINA VILLAGE HALL
Members Present: Mr. W. W. Lewis, Chairman, Mr. R. A. Huelster, Mr. S. P. Hughes,
Mr. C. E. Johnson, Mr. D. T. Runyan, Mr. D. C. Sherman, Mr. J.
S. Hoyt.
Staff Present: G. Luce, R. Dunn, and L. Nye.
I. Agroval of the April 72 1971. Planning Commission Minutes.
Mr. C. Johnson moved that the April 7, 1971, Planning Commission minutes
be approved as submitted. Mr. Huelster seconded the motion. All Voted Aye.
Motion Carried.
11. SOUTHWEST EDINA PLAN.
Mr. Luce recalled that, as requested by Council, a meeting was held on
May 24, 1971, with the property owners, developers, and residents, a report of
which has been submitted. He noted that the Council will hold another public
hearing on an amended Southwest Edina Plan on June 21, 1971.
Mr. Luce stated that the changes in the plan pursuant to the meeting that
was held concerned only the controversial area between Cahill Road and the Dewey
Hill Road extensions; namely, that all areas of 6 and 12 units per acre will be
developer] only in accordance with the PRD ordinance requirements, that access will
be allowed onto Cahill Road, and that the area between the four acre pond on Mr.
Madsen's property and the Dewey Hill Road extension will be six units per acre,
six units per acre credit to be applied to another part of the property. He added
that consideration was also given the parkland and the southern ponding area, as
the residents and developers would not agree as to the amount of credit to be
allowed for the parkland dedication,,
Mr. Frank Dean stated that he would agree with the written report of
the May 24, 1971, meeting, and added that the committee of six who appeared at the
meeting were neither elected nor was a vote taken as to what should be presented.
tie stated that four of six agreed to 12 units per acre credit, if that is the only
way the park and pond land will be donated.- He noted that the majority of residents
are ,opposed to the concept of 12 units per acre with 12 units per arse credit,
adding that they generally felt that no credit should be permitted for the park or
ponding area. He stated that as a result of the decision made on the credit of
12 units per acre for the parkland, the organization functions in the future will
be up to committee members other than himself or Mr. Bill Howard.
In reply to several comments, Mr. Lewis stated that any Planning Commission
recommendation would require a wtiften agreement on the part of the developers to
dedicate the parkland and ponding areas. X . Harvey Hansen stated that the property
owners as a group are firm on giving, the park and ponding areas, based on 12 units
per acre credit, however, if less credit is to be received, the park and ponding
areas will not be dedicated.
Mr. Hughes asked the ownership of the properties and the percentage or
number of acres being dedicated per owner. In reply, Mr. Findell stated that his
Edina Planning Commission -2- June 2, 1971
total piece is about 10 acres, almost four of which will be parkland, Mr. Hansen
stated that their property is about 9 1/3 acres, almost four of which will be
given, Mr. Cardarelle stated that approximately three acres will be donated, plus
an easement of about two acres will be provided at the back of the three single
family lots west of the road for a pond, making a total of about 5 out of 20
acres. It was noted that Mr. Madsen is dedicating about 10 acres of ponding and
park land out of a total site of 34 acres, and Mr. Ca.rdarelle stated that the total
Dale piece is about 25 acres, three or four of which will be donated. Mr. Hughes
observed that roughly 253 of the total land will be dedicated for park purposes.
Mr. Luce stated that administrative policy for park dedication in residential
subdivisions is only about 5% of the area. He clarified that the zoning permitted
will be PRD -3, or 12 units per acre on the total site, however, upon dedication,
the remaining buildable areas would be higher. He added that PRD -3 has a four
story maximum height limitation.
In reply to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Luce clarified that access would be such
that someone in the parking lot could go either to Dewey Hill Road or to Cahill
Road, but it would be nearly impossible for someone to P°short-cut" through the
development. He stated that PRD zoning could not be granted if a roadway is
proposed through the development, as through traffic should be made as difficult
as possible.
In reply to Mr. Robert Clark of 7701 Glasgow Drive, who questioned the
alignment of the southern most portion of the Dewey Hill Road extension, Mr. Luce
stated the additional right-of-way for the roadway would serve as a buffer between
the multiple and single :family residences and that this buffer would be more .
desirable than a road which would divide the multiple district, causing congestion
on that short strip of road with a 90° turn. In reply to Mr. Runyan, Mr. Dunn
stated that a semaphore could possibly be placed at the intersection of the Dewey
Hill Road extension and "Old Highway 5" if the traffic warrants it. He added that
at the present time permission has been received from the highway department to
drop the speed limit on "Old Ilighway 5" from 50 mph to 35 mph from Cahill Road
west.
In reply to Mr. Sherman, Mr. Luce stated that the three single family
lots proposed in the Smisek Addition are not included in the Southwest Edina Plan
as proposed, and that they would tend to somewhat straighten the alignment of the
road, if used for road purposes rather than single family lots.
Mr. C� Johnson moved that the Southwest Edina Plan be approved, amended
as follows: 1. that all multiple development be accomplished via Planned Residential
District zoning only; 2. that apartment access be allowed onto Cahill Road providing
that through traffic be made as difficult as possible; 3. that the area between
the four acre pond on Mr, Madsen's property and the Dewey Hill Road extension be
planneds6 units per acre with the 6 units per acre credit allowed on other portions
of Mr. Madsen's property. Mre Hughes seconded the motion. All Voted Aye* Motion
Carried,
IIS. REZONINGS:
Z-71-6 Folke R. Victorsen. R-1 to PRD -2.
Mr. Keith Waters of Brauer and Associates stated that although they have
met with the neighborhood representatives, the proposal as previously presented has
not been changed.
Edina Planning Corrris:sion -3- June 2, 1971
Mr, James Larkin, representing various homeowners groups, stated that
they retained Mr. Carl Dale, a planner, to analyze the proposal, the final report
of which has been submitted to the Planning Commission.
A film was presented by John Peterson and John Ashby which gave a brief
history and illustrated the existing condition of the site,
Mr. Carl Dale stated that the proposal is not in accordance with the
Western Edina Plano He stated that the severe topography is of great concern
and with slides, he illustrated various developments in the metropolitan area which
demonstrate the possible "disasterous results" of this type of development. He
stated that dead-end streets should not exceed 500 feet in length because of the
possibility of people being trapped on the site with only one access point will
exist, and the extreme slopes will create a problem for the emergency vehicles and
residents of the development. Mr. Dale indicated that the large concentration of
people on the site should require that some type of recreation facilities are
provided.
Mr, Dale noted that the Western Edina Plan calls for the preservation
whenever possible of this type of site, and the Metropolitan Open Space Plan
states that areas with slopes of over 10% should not be built upon but should
be preserved in addition to the normal parks, playgrounds, etc. He stated that
"in his judgement the plan submitted by Mr. Victorsen is good urban design and is
an interesting approach to the problems", however, land of this type should not be
developed at all. He stated that the residents agreed that if development must
occur they would like to see large single family lots on the south side and some
law density multiple dwellings on the north side of the hill. Mr. Dale stated
that the plan that was submitted to Mr. Victorsen consisted of seven large single
family rots on the south side and some low density multiple dwellings on the north
side of the hill, Mr. Dale added that the plan that was submitted to Mr. Victorsen
consisted of seven large single family lots to the south and 12 townhouses on the
north side; he noted that all of the alternatives considered involved the concept
of keeping the density low on the south side and increasing it on the north. He
stated that it is his feeling that to develop the site as strictly single family
homes would be the same as for a road to serve townhouses or apartments. He
stated that he would recommend keeping the density as low as possible at the end
of the dead-end streets, keeping the street system minimal, and concentrating the
permitted units on the north side of the site, which has better access and presents
the least likelihood of disturbing the natural features of the hill. Mr. Dale
stated that this plan, which the most people seemed to agree with, was not acceptable
to Mr. Victorsen.
Mr. Earl C. Sharpe, 6600 Gleason Road, representative of the Cherokee
Hills Improvement Association, Mrs, Orrin M. Haugen, 6612 Indian Hills Road, repre-
sentative of the Arrowhead Lake Improvement Association, and Dr. Harold Richmond,
6624 Mohawk 'trail, representative of the Indian Hills Association, stated their
opposition to the project as proposed by Mr. Victorsen.
Miss Jean Findorff, 6812 Pluite Drive, presented a petition of 400
signatures "from all parts of Edina" opposing the development of the site, and
stated that economics can no longer be the only concern in development. Mr.
Edina Planning Commission -4-- June 2, 1971
Don Brauer of Brauer and Associates responded that in his opinion the proposal is
good ecological and good urban design. He stated that the ecology of the hill
has already been destroyed by the single family development around it, and added
that the single family lots as proposed by the people would have to cost at least
$40,000 per lot. Mr. Brauer stated that the plan as proposed by the people would
destroy exactly the same percentage of the site as they have intended to develop,
and clarified that the destruction of the site will not be due to the building
area, but rather to the lots, as most of the potential erosion is from the road
and the necessary excavation for server and water.
Mr, Lewis stated that his feelings are no action should be taken on the
request as long as the residents and Mr. Victorsen are so far apart. Mr. Hughes
moved that the rezoning request be continued until the developers and the residents
involved can reach a compromise and present it to the Planning Commission. Mr.
Huelster seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. notion Carried.
IV, LOT DIVISIONS:
LD -71-8 Roland E. and Alice Schulz._ 425 Jackson Avenue. Lot 14,
Block 14, West Minneapolis Heights Addition.
Mr, Luce stated that the requested lot division is the result of a law
suit settlement through the courts. He stated that the request is to divide off
two feet of Lot 14 and add it to Lot 15, as the eaves of the Lund°s house overhang
the Schulz property about 1.5 feet. He noted that the purchase of this two feet
by the Lund°s will place the Lund house entirely on property owned by them. He
added that the staff recommends approval of the request, as the courts have
decided that this would be a reasonable settlements
Mr. Huelster moved that the requested division of Lot 14, Block 14, West
Minneapolis Heights be approved, and Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted
Aye, Motion Carried.
LD -71-9
Mr, Luce stated that the lot is presently 100 feet wide, and the request
is to divide the lot in half. He noted that many of the lots in the area have
been divided to create two 50 foot lots, however, most of the lots that have been
divided have maintained a reasonable side yard between the structures. He stated
that in this case, the northern most portion of the property will have only a
three foot side yard. Mr. Luce stated that the staff would recommend denial of
the request, as the ordinance does not permit 50 foot lots and several variances
would be required.
Mr. Harry Rasmussen, the builder, stated that the house he will build will
be no larger than 28 feet wide and, if necessary, will have a seven foot side yard
between the houses. He added that the garage will be in the front, and noted that
the lots are about 200 feet deep,,
Following further discussion, Mr. Huelster moved that the requested lot
division be approved, as many lots in the area have been divided in the past, subject
to the approval of the necessary variances by the Edina Board of Appealso Mro
Sherman seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
Edina Planning Commission -5- June 2, 1971
V,Q SUBDIVISIONS:
SF -70-13 Nine Mile North.
Mr. Luce recalled that the property is being platted to permit the
construction of the Penney's warehouse at that location. He noted that the final
plat is identical to that presented for preliminary approval. Mr. Luce stated
that the staff would recommend approval of the plat, subject to the dedication of
100 feet on the east side of the creek and provided a performance bond of $4,000
is presented for landscaping.
Mr. Hughes moved that the final plat entitled "Nine Mile North" be approved,
contingent upon the dedication of 100 feet on the east side of Nine Mile Creek, and
subject to the presentation of a performance bond for $4,000. Mr. C. Johnson
seconded the motiono All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
SP -71-1 Brinwood Estates.
Mr. Luce stated that the plat has been changed from the preliminary plat
to include 60 foot roads, as requested by the staff, rather than 50 foot roads,
as previously proposed. Mr. Luce noted that the staff recommends approval subject
to the required signature of the developer's agreement and the parkland dedication
requirements being completed.
Mr. Huelster moved that the plat entitled "Brinwoods Estates" be granted
final approval subject to the completion of the developer's agreement and the park-
land dedication requirements. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye.
Motion Carried,
SP -71-8 Edina Interchange Center Renlat.
Mr. Luce stated that the property.is located north of the south village
limits, south of Edina Interchange Blvd., and west of Highway 100. He stated that
the request is to replat the property to sell parcels of €n different size than
originally intended. He indicated that the staff recommends preliminary approval
of the plat, however, Lot 3 should be changed in such a manner as to allow access
to Lot 5 by an easement, rather than by a separately platted lot. He clarified
that the easement would be shown as a portion of Lots 2.and 4.
Mr. Sherman moved that the replat of Edina Interchange Center be granted
preliminary approval, subject to the elimination of Lot 3, the access to Lot 5
to be shown by an easement. Mr. Huelster seconded the mot6on. All Voted Aye.
Motion Carried,
SP -71-7 Nine Mile Village.
Mr, Luce indicated that the property in question is the townhouse
development south of West 62nd Street, north of the Crosstown Highway, and just
east of Mud Lake. He stated that the staff would recommend approval of the
preliminary plat provided the Village Attorney receives the dedicating language
prior to the request for final approval of the plat.
Following further discussion, Mro C. Johnson moved that the plat entitled
"Nine Mile Village" be granted preliminary approval, subject to the receipt of the
dedicating language prior to final plat approval. Mr. Huelster seconded
the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
Edina Planning Gc maission -6•- June 2, 1971
VT. PLAN REVIEW:
1. Po ler, Cardarelle, Inc. Smisek Pro en rty� K2--70-14)
Mr. James Cooperman, architect for the project, stated that the request
is for concept approval of the proposal. lie reviewed the plan, which has been
previously presented, and noted that they are proposing a total. of 237 units,
all located on the east side of Dewey Hill Road, in three buildings connected by
an indoor recreational facility. He stated that each building will be three
stories with 79 units, and is shaped to conserve the natural terrain .as much as
possible. Mr. Cooperman stated that l.4 parking spaces will be provided under-
ground, with .5 spaces provided on the surface. He stated that approximately
38,500 square feet of ground floor will be covered in the total site; the recrea-
tional facility (indoor) will be 4,600 square feet, with an additional 600,000
square feet of open recreational facilities.
Mr. Cooperman stated that the building plan and the building elevation
will vary„ as there are projections at every two units, and the third floor roof
of this projection will go up over the existing flat roof. He added that the
building will be brick with redwood siding.
Mr. Runyan and Mr. Sherman questioned the proposed location of the three
single family lots in relation to the Southwest Edina Place, and Mr. Lake agreed
that the lots would constitute a violation of the Southwest Edina Plan. In reply
to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Cardarelle stated that the land north of the three single
family lots will be dedicated.
Mr. Rose stated that the one -bedroom units (800 square feet) will rent
for $225, the two-bedroom units (1,100 square feet) will be $300, and the three-
bedroom units (1,450 square feet) will rent for $390„ He noted that the garage
will not be included in the rental price.
Mr. Hughes asked if density credit for the three one acre lots which will
be owned by the Smisek's is planned, and Yds. Cardarelle answered that the credit
has been included in the proposal, and that'the entire property will be zoned PRIG -3,
however, an agreement will be made with the Smiseks; prohibiting the construction
of additional units on the lots~. Mr. Luce stated that the staff has not yet had
the opportunity to review the request in detail, therefore concept approval is
premature at this point.
The Planning Commission generally agreed that they would look with favor
upon the project as presented, with the exception of the three one acre lots as
proposed. No action was taken.
2, International Tennis. Plan Approval. (Planned Industrial
District)..
Mr. Loren Galpin of Piidwest Planning and Research, anet Mr. Nelson of
Design Planning Associates were present to represent Indoor Tennis International.
Mr. Galpin recalled that the property is :coned Planned Industrial District
and is located off of Bush Lake Road by the cOl-de-sac near the Thiele Engineering
Edina Planning Commission -7- June 2, 1971
building. He stated that the site is 3022 acres, the lot coverage is 34.9%,, the
square footage of the building will be 49,080 square feet, and 60 parking stalls
will be provided, with extensive landscaping and burming to create a screening
effect. He stated that the structure will contain 8 tennis courts, a small
99pro shop", and a two-story clubhouse facility.
Mr. Dave Nelson, the associate architect, stated that the building will
be a rigid frame, industrial type structures and added that the materials for the
exterior are either natural stone or concrete break -off block, the basic colors will
be in the earth tones, and the treatment of the back of the building, which is not
exposed to any other area except the industrial park and the railroad, will be
exposed, fluted metal panels, not stone and concrete.
Mr. Galpiu stated that the hours will be 8:00 A.M, to 11:00 P.M., and no
major tournaments which will attract large amounts of spectators will be promoted.
He added that the building will be called the Edina Raquet Club.
Mr. Luce stated that the request is for approval of the overall develop-
ment plans, and added that no variances will be necessary. He indicated that the
staff would recommend approval, subject to a bond for $22,000 for landscaping,
and provided that no signs are allowed for advertising of the retail use.
Mr. Huelster moved that the Indoor Tennis International Overall Develop-
ment Plan be approved, subject to the required bond for $22,000 for landscaping,
and contingent upon no signs being allowed,, Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion.
All Voted Aye,, Motion Carried,,
3, Data Investment Co=gga, NineMil Vil1aige. Overall Dev tov-
ment Plan Agvroval.
Mr. Luce recalled that the property is the former William J. Olson
property located south of West 62nd Street and east of Hud lake. He rotated that
all of the overall development plans are in order, however, they are proposing
one type of three story unit, which is not allowed in PED -2 zoning. Iie noted
that a variance would be required to permit the three story unit, however, the
staff would recommend approval of the variance as the unit tends to "break up"
the elevation of the development and adds to the character of the townhouses.
Mro Harold Dokmo, representing Data Investment Company and Nine Mile
Village, stated that the two primary reasons that the three story units have been
included in the plans is that they are trying to create an attractive development
with aesthetic appeal and the unit is required because the lana has a very high
water table, thus preventing a conventional type building and excavating for
basements on the site. Mr. Dokmo stated that there will not be more than one
three story building per each six unit complex, and added that they are building
six -unit clusters to total not more than 99 units.
Mro Runyan agreed that the difference in elevation does help the project
aesthetically. Mr. Lewis stated that it would be against the integrity of the
Planning Commission to go against the agreement made with the neighbors, and added
that the people in the area should be contacted �6--i the builder.. Mr. Luce clarified
that the former oximer, .Mr. Olson, and the village had an agreement as to how this
property would be developed, which did not lucludca a three story unit.
Edina Planning Coimissicn -8- June 2, 1971
In reply to Mr. Runyan, Mr. Dokvio stated that the exterior of the units
will be cedar and brick, that each cluster will be a different shade of gray and
brown, and that the garage and front doors will be painted a brilliant shade to
compliment the natural tones of the structures. Mr. Dokmo stated that the units
will be for sale only and will Nell for $50,000 to $65,000.
Mr. Luce stated that they have proposed to subdivide small portions of
the property at a time when it is discovered which portions will sell. He added
that the bonding for landscaping will occur at that time.
Following further discussion, Mr. C. Johnson moved that the Nine Mile
Village Overall Development Plan be approved, subject to the .elimination of -the
three story unit from the proposal. Mr. Huelster seconded the. motion. All doted
Aye, Motion Carried.
Vil l ORDINANCES:
I Amendment to the Planned Industrial District to add "tennis
courts" to the list of permitted uses.
In accordance with the approval of the Indoor Tennis International Overall
Development Plan, Mr, Hughes moved that the Planned Industrial District ordinance
be amended to permit "tennis courts". Mr. Huelster seconded the motion. All Voted
Aye, Motion Carried.
2. Amendment to parking requirements for apartment type structures
in Multiple Residence Districts,
Mr. Luce recalled that at the May Planning Commission meeting, an
ordinance requiring 1. 1/2 enclosed and 112 exposed parking spaces per unit for
apartment type structures in both the Planned Residential District and the Multiple
Residence Districts was approved, He stated that the Council approved the
amendment to the Planned Residential Districts, but denied the sane amendment to
the R-3, R-4, and R-5 Multiple Residence Districts. Mr, Luce stated that the staff
recommends the review of the Multiple Residence District amendment be postponed
until the completion of ,a comprehensive study of apartment structures in Edina is
completed by the staff.
Mr, Harold Posnick, President of Builtwell Construction Co., presented a
survey made by the Minnesota Apartment Association, which includes the existing
number of garages per building and the number of garages that are rented. In
reply to Mr. Posnick, the Planning Commission generally agreed that bus service
and the number of vacancies per building would affect the need for parking spaces,
and therefore the survey: They agreed that the proposed amendment be returned
to the Coutacil with thein recommendation that it be approved.
Mr. Bill Rose suggested that the number of parking spaces required could
be figured by a ratio of parking spaces to apartment mix; for example, one space
only would be required for one bedroom units, hooever, additional spaces would be
required for larger units.
Following further discussion, -the Planning Commission agreed to continue
the consideration of the Multiple residence District ordinance amendment to the
July Planning Cc=ission agenda.
Edina Planning Commission -9- June 2, 1971
3. Parkins requirements for convalescent homes and nursing homes.
Mr. Luce stated that the proposed ordinance was continued from the May
meeting, at which time the Planning Commission requested review of the final
ordinance in written form. He noted that the amendment requires one parking
apace per employee and company vehicle, and one space for each four patients.
Following further discussion, Mfr. Huelster moved that the proposed
ordinance amendment to establish parking requirements for nursing and convalescent
homes be approved, and Fx, Runyan seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion
Carried
4.
Mr, Luce stated that this ordinance amendment was continued from the
May meeting, and stated that it has not been changed since presented at that
time. He noted that the amendment will insure that landscaping will remain for
a period of too years or be replaced.
Mr. Hughes moved that the proposed ordinance amendment be approved, and
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
S. Amendment to.prohibit massa se, ors in Commercial Districts.
Mr, Luce recalled that the proposed ordinance amendment was referred
from the Council, who passed an emergency ordinance at their last meeting to
prohibit massage parlors.
Mr. Runyan moved that the proposed ordinance amendment deleting massage
parlors from the list of permitted uses in the Commercial District be approved,
and Mr. Huelsteyr seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
6. Pro osed Ordinance for parkins .setback. in commercial zones.
Mr. Luce stated that the Commercial District ordinance presently requires
no landscaping or setbacks from any boundaries. :Ie stated that the amendment
would prohibit parking in a 20 foot front yard setback, a portion of which would
be required green space and landscaping, to encourage ai fA rout road" type of
constructiono
Following further discussion, Mr. Ruelster moved that the ordinance
amendment to require a twenty foot front yard setback, that no parking be permitted
in that setback, and that 'nhe five feet of the setback nearest the street be
restricted for planting and green space be approved. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the
motion. All Voted Aye. notion Carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynnas C. Nye, Secretary