Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1972 02-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular
11 Z] A r t', 11-J!"70 ti. ""DINESDA72' 2- "!-('72 V]7 HALL 11-2-mbar's 'Presen't., W, W� 73, R, T? !y C,, E, Johnson, D, TO R 1111(lb"'o y an-, Zunyan, C, V. Johnsor, 11� L� L - I'M U Rl-� K. Erickson. Staff Present: G. -,-.uce and L, I. the > lary 5, 1972, aid Janvjazzv JL 20, 19L,=L�tAql�t& _ Minutes. A motion was made by M:% 1.11u hes aid seconded by Mr. Runyan to approve the Plim-ning Cammission minutes datcud January 5, 1972, and January 20, 1972, as, 3ubmitted. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried,, 11Election of Chairman and Chair -man PraTem,, The nominat'a-zi of MT ,.. ' F 1. - ewis for chairman by 1,11r, Co Johnsca w--,, seconded by Uughes. All Voted Aye,, Motio-n Carried, Mr, nominnated Mr. Hughes fo* C -'-,airman Prol"em, zq-nd Mr. C. Johnson :.ecun&!d the vqat.Lon,All Voted Payee Not -10-a Carried. !U— ?epolution of Appreciation for Robert A. Rune loter , Mr, Lewis read the Resolution of Appreciation for Rober,L. A. "luelster, as follo-ua: RESOLUTION OF A1"?TU'-"-1AT10N Mil"REAS, ROBEIRT A,-, 11-OMSTER was appointed a memilber of the Pla-nriing Cosumoss,oa 0--7 the Village of Edina on February 1, -1-966, and was thereafter ::c-a-ppointed, to the P:Lvin-ning CGI mission for a second term on r-p-bruary 1, 1909; and VMETZEAS, ROBERT A. MUTELLSTEER has tendered his resignation, from service cn. the PILYiniing Cariviission effective February 1, 1972-, and IMI I EREAS, ROBERT A. HUEMSTHR has glver,� genef-ousil-V of his" time, ability, and a27peLance to the deliberations of Ibbe P�annin,,,, Conuu-nissicn; NOW, MEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVIED t1iat � copy of "-his resolution be spread upon -he Mi-autes of the Edina Planning Ca.-nniission and the Edina Village Council and t I,.at a,III appropriate- copy of this reso."Luction be preseatx.d to ROBERT A. RUEUTHER, upon his resignation from the Planiiiul-," Co-im-tission. A motion to adept the resolutic.n was made by hrickcon. a-nd' seconded by C, Johnson,, Al'I Voted Aye,,, Mot-wPn Carried, 'LOT 11j"11VIS TONS.* LD -71-6 Glenn GNvbcqlz, North oi',,' Vallq��d between qpqn�X=Rq�j� r, 'Air . 1 r qII i d` ca" -c'! "2 ":-1- aod the snI Portioa of property Icente(l, di.r_:t;_J.y ;;OUatll ociJ:vad by Henne-An County. lie indicated the 7-eques,"_- i�-, d,_47 de LJt,2 acria�s) i-,ILG n 2 acre tract, in ace-ordance wi-c'_-h tlie Dist-rict zording ordiniir,ce, and a 1,572 acre tracf_-, %!7l1:,..c11 T.',71111 ullhuilrlaib'le- r. -til stich time in the futlur-a when it -will be camb.ined, wit'a the C',ouni:y property to che osoutih, nns the County has indicated they will sell this property concsi - dazation of the County Road 18 construct -?ori. When the owo prqperties are- ccrunbincd, the reraining 1.5712 acre parcel will be buildable under the existing PXD ^,oning code, Mr. Luce added the developer is w_-T�_ling to sign an agreement stating this property w;_11 be held and will not be used until such tiMe &S the County property is acquired to accomplish a two acre or 'aetter tract. The staff recommended approval of the requested division contingent on the landca-mer signing the agrvament mentioned, which is being prepared by the Village Attorney and will be ready prior to Council approval. A motion to approve the requested lot divipion was made by 111r. Runyan and seconded by I -fro Hughes. 110.1 Voted Aye, except Mr. G. johnson who abstained from the discussion and vote. Motion Carried, V, SUBDIVISTONS: SP -71-16 ZPrest Ige Second Add`tion. Bast of County Road 18 west of Nine Iii Le.Creel , and north of the. Crvsstown lliphwa•'. ?-ire, Luce located the property being subdivid.rad, noting the s?_,ry-runding laad use and zoning, proposed Lincoln Drive, and the location of Nine Miie Creek and the flood plain. Mr. Luce added that dedication of 100 feet on both sides of the creek is required by the subdivis'Lori ordinance, Lowever, aismost the entire portioa of this property east of the creek (Outlot A) is located within the flood plain, thus the present property owner has indicated he is willing to dedicate the entire outlot to the Village if possible,, I'lie staff recoanended final_ plat approval c,yatingant on the dedication of Outlot A if possib].e and the mini -m -um subdivision. requirement of 100 !Feet along both sides of Nine Mile Crcsk3 Following brief discussion, Mr. Runyan moved that final plat approval be granted subject to the dedf.cation of Outlot A, Mr. Glenn Nybeck, representing Prestige DPmelopment Corporation, Stated that they have "no objection to dedicating, the er,tiro outiot to the Village if t'iey can do so without having to spend $20,000 to t:iaRe this git". Ile explained t1lat the larger tract on the south is o€anied by 11:r. Dvorak from whom the property is being purchased under a contract for deed,, If 121-1. B,,roral: will agree to its dadication, the property will be ded' * cated, as they have no intended use for it. Nybeck requested the motion be made in the a_%ternative because they are willing to dedicate the 1--nd if they can do so, Mr,, Luce clarified the Village rights are to 100 feet on both sides of the creel:,, and the staff would recommend a ,;)proval contingent upon. thaL dedic&Aoia and preierably the dedication of 111 OIC O,Itlot 'A. Fcj,llowing additisnal discussion, Mr, rRuayar. wltlidraw his motion, and Teltr,, EAaksan moved the matter be tabled for further discus sion at the March Planning CoPmAssion meeting, at which tine additional information on the proposed dedication should ba availablc,, Mr. Runyan seconded the motiGn. All voted aye, except Mr, Johnson who abotnined from, the discussion and vote. Matim Carried. e 'd_La:c s'lc i%<tiYa i•'C1:" i3 �..«,.�.E.C3sF. _- !''f�i3:ft3$>y7 L, 1972 SF -71-1.8 Pl a a N r . tii oZ Volley v e-wr road be-tween C'ountx Rc�r: � a f3 �rxc� �J<a',Iai.rr �o:� A�xense� Air. Luce indicated the site lata ut:ivba and noted Lhis property was forr�aerly known as the T,R„E. site, he stated T.R.P. Corperatic-n proposed to build four buildings, but the oumership has since changed and the present mmers are now considering only the iniad al ,construction of one building, although the property will probably be further subdivided in the future to conform to the remaining construction plans. 11ey are thus requesting final plat approval for the two lot plate tiro Luce i adicat:ed there are no engineering or platting constraints and all prior objections expressed by the Co;gmissian ha%e been resolved. Mr. C. Johnson moved final plat ,approval be recommended by the Coranission, and Air. Erickson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. SP -72-1 Edina Westland. Northeast corner of Count ►�iZZUaCi_18 and the Crosstown Hifihur�� -- - Air,, Luce indicated the proposed l lot preliminary plat involves the G.G.C. Company property, who has proposed a multiple use on the 13,,566 acre site. Planning Commission approval for multiple dwellings was granted at 12 units per acre according to the -Western Edina flan and the Planned ?residential District (PRI -3) ordinance; thus, they would be allowed 164 units. The Engineering Depart- ment has questioned the drainage in the southwest corner of the lot, and prior to final plat approval, a developers agreement will be signed indicating exactly how any such problem will be solved. Also, the Park Department has indicated that because there are no parks adjoining the area., there would be no purpose in acquiring 5% of the land, therefore, the; fee in lieu of parkland dedication (5Z of the raw land value -$11,250} should be required, in accordance with the subdivision ordinance regu+.atioa:sr. The staff rec(34-r:mended approval of the preliminary plat as presented. Air. Hughes moved the preliminary plat entitled .,dina Westland" be .approved subject: to the approval of the Engineering Department amid the Planning Commission re'commerdation should be made requiring the fee in lieu of parkland dedication. Mr. Sherman seconded the motion, All Voted !eye,, Motion Carried. SP -72-2 Melod Knolls 7t'...- Addition, Southeast corner of West Street and Bernard Place.,, Mr. Luce presented the :Location of the site and ind-icated the existing and proposed lots. Ile noted the proponent wishes to raze an existing older structGra on the Property, complete c+on8truction of a house on the property, -aid construct tao additional single family hones. The subdivision would result in four b2iq ldable lots, Air. Luce* stated the average lot: safe is 12m000 square feet, the L)t:s vary in sire from 10,732 square feet to 12,707 square feet, a -ad they are similar in size and shape to the surrounding lots. No varritinces will. be necessi- tated as all the lots are well over conformance with tha minimum requirements, Following additio-aal discussion, Mr. Lance indicated the Park Department has rwquer,terd fees in lie v, of parkland dedication, in the =ount sof $500. Mr. Sherman moved the preltirin ry plat a titlad "Molody I nolle 7th Addition" be approved for the rcascm s stated in the February ?, 1972, staff report. Mr. C. Johnson :seconded the mot:_t_cn,, All Voted Ay_, Motion Carried. S$'-i1�3 `�r�rlGt+�wn. -- Soutlaea :._�o Per of France Avenue and West 70th _Street., Edina piny.-nln; t iiY:[: '? M2 117 Tile Planning CoIl"sd'-sn-lon gL'nel--40 ", ii}?X �fi to L)Lastp6na discuss -ion U1 the Yorkeoi,m preliminary plat unt _1 the yorictown (Georgie .1" Ab131-1) razoni :rig; proposal is considered later on t ize agenda (Z -711-20Y. f-20) ., VI, ItEZOIINGS: 7,-71-4 : ose I��i�i: , Erickson. Northwest comer of [lest 66th Street and France Avenue. C-3 Ccgnmereiail District to PRD --S Planned Rcsidenti_al Districh- ---� Mr„ Luce recndled the Erickson rezoning has been considered and approved by the Comnission, Board of appeals, and Traffic Safety Committee, and was heard and returned by the Council to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Ile recalled the staff" earlier recommended approval of the project and continues to do so in view of the DMJM (Daniel, Hann, Johnson, and Mendenhall) report and the Traffic Safety Committee recommendation (September 28, 1971) that the proposed use would lover the congestion in terms of both pedestrian and automobile trips. He added there have been €sevea-a1 presentations made by both the developers and the residents in the area and requested that additional presentations not be made unless new information can be obtained,, or unless a recap is requested by the Planning; Commission. Pira Arthur Nelson, Vl: ce-Chairman of the Woodhill Neighborhood t;ssociation, reviewed generally the recsons they are opposing the project, as follows: 1. increased trz..fic ;at 66th and France; 2. access to the property is at right angles from France avenue only; 3, the area is a coms•,iercial and service district; 4, the site is "much too small" for the project proposed ("gros°sf9 variances were raquested); 5. 9°this is a precedent setting decision because this is not the only vacant piece of property on Franc: Avenue that is zoned commercial09; 6. "the developers themselves indicate the ideal develop -meat of this property would be a madical building or an 80,000 square foot office building, both of which wQuid genarate less traffic thane the proposal; 7. the proposal represents no particular tm`t benefit to the Village of Edina; and 8. the results of the petitions circu- lated indicate that over 95% of the people are opposed., Mrs. Bo 1.7. Scott, 6613 Southcrest Drive, then detailed the eight points raised by Mr. Nalson, requasting L.iea Ccrtmi.ssion deny the rezoning in the face of incomplete answers and the sir gges�tions from the D:i.Iri and other reports Mr. Howard Dahlgren of Midwest Planning and Research indicated that the Daniel, Mann,:. Johnson, and Mendenhall report made two specific reconmaendations to lessen the traffic difficulties that occur in the Southdaa .e area of Edina, as f �) +,lows : 1. to reduce the intensity of de-valopme t in the area; and 2. by thn =atpl.icaati.on of suss transit. Mr:. Dahlgren indicted that by changing the -ronainy from camierciaal to -the tra-'Cic volmr.es per hour and the peek hour r ar-?ods arc reduced. Alsc,< they are doing a mase trarnas'Jtt system for the sn2tropo itawa arca and ars; working to put a lime izcto this area to offer some relic:::° Hr,, Rab,art K asbohin, Chairman oY the Edina iaomeawners Coalition,, stated that on .:arivaary 31, 1972, <,he Cval.f.tion Board ,of Dircetor s voted unanimiou ly to aupport t hcy Wcodhi ll N(_:.•s nhborhocd' A s lGciations decisiGn N:o ;appose the Erickson project_, iIT. Hu ga e'^ acrtre:d hn ebtilieves ,',-he pr.aj yt f.s too much brallding for t1ie land, c7ie traffic is ci4fi,a,ult :at best, tt vs in-nacipatible with the sarroatnding b' -a_ ldings and a praceder.r c ou."W be css fi .fa. -1 high rise rm-oltiple buildings on ancc7, v11cant Zane; he would be in ``'aver of deuyiag the raquezt at this time. Edina P.%.mn- 2 2"a y 'l i41e�iy 2 y 1 } 7 ! ?lir c,• 'R,, Erickson it:8`--ea_d the reci4°ction of the :i.,ssI7,,! ins �1'.)Ir, 1:0 three poiaa':s 1- the eX'iSt-inf"' U.73C' Zieland could be pi -t ;--o I:.icttor the current zonirign 2. the traffic situa :iorig 3534 3� the.ssV..e of real estate Znaxc's. Reha.rding tai"t:'4s, Mrn it, Erickson otated the «jartmen.t building would ccsstribute substantially mora than at c{31?i tedCie'at. 43sE?n 14e{larding thy: tappropria"er-eas of use, he indicated there is no cluesti.on that the p::op,.* .ty is Presently usable, zs the Commission cannot dictate that no developra(-:�ra _ accurlie noted that the discussion is rcducad to what is leas tt offeaasive in ter^s of traffic, Firm Luce stated the staffcs reco=i 3ndation of approval of the concept and rezoning (December 1, 1971, staff report) was based it part on preliminary in -forma- tion received from the Dil- iM report, which indicates that a reduction of the commer- cial eases is important in that it would encourage off peak hour trips and would in fact be as reduction of .rips generated from that use. Ile stated therefore it is basically for traffic reasons 'vhe staff feels the project represents an appropriate use, however, in addition, the pedestrian traffic acros:e the inter- section would be much higher if the development were a commercial use than if it were a residential use, Mr. Runyan stated he would like to see the pond preserved as much as possible and that under some other dnvelopme;int a good pare; of the lake could be filled in, with blacktop used to handle the increased parkir..g area required if the use Is office or commercial rather than residential. Ile added that the problems wili exist whether the use it cc-mercia7 , office, or residential but he feels that reduction of the peak hour traffic is of prime ir:porta.nce, sire Runyan moved the concept and rezoning be approved as presented© i'r„ Sherman seconded the motion: Mr., Nelson stated lie does not feel the proponenL&have s' --.,died any alternatives, and suggested that a convalescent horne might be a easible alternative and that access could be provided to West 65th Street by. G s.�. easau ent between the Edina Realty building and the office build -Ing 'to the rr- ab H -e. Luce responded that - access to 65th Street has been disco.sced but is 1,;cr possbl:olc. A motion to appz•ove the project: having been ma dle and secondad, the ac to was taken. All voted aye, except Mr., Lewis and Mr. ilughes, who voted nay. Mntioa Caar •iz& Z--71-15 iopo bourn of vernoan Avenue and west aalsric toT�I�3 Planned Rcsicien Because Mr,, Rudolph Dainte of L an&ark Developnent Corporation had not Jet ai^srived, the Planning Ccmmissior, agreed to Conti ue the mat -ter to a later time an tie agenda,, Z-71-17 Built.vell. C nstruct. o. Ca, Sotaf h at; b'€gena and west of Ola Road,,�Rpi t2a siert•' ^l l�i� trig � �;�rS R�s� �t4a? �xnle Rr��:�-dc.n�:i District to PPP' I Mannpd Residcrtial Dist-rict,, 11r,, Luce reMvirswed the cocat:ion of thn propezrt:y mad recalled the de velopnent consists of two Geparate pairs.cls; Once :isryry a triangula" piece consisting of approXi- mat:ely four rams presently :$rik d fps%: 4%3 f.ultip j.c:: ° s its, : a':gad the other p:nre:el 3,-1 r7o1rnd3 that triangular pies t.� .-as east an l and is zoned R-1<, HL, rcca' 1e -d :3e sf aff has c_cntinvc4aly enccoura gran the Iwo yp1. c.es of property be co-+laietad --nd l,W,•.; 10;7 ;1 as •--a sin*-Ilc zite to obtG^in ^: batl;er prr jv---,t: than could ba obtained a;i atop a: a4te parcals, T%, Luce recalled at thesiSEHoi,3�<,� r.ne�,� W!tinR � F e G� rna v JLSuiodfl had instructed the Eoina Comf:.Iss-!ol 1) a 2. :972 developer to open the site �.nd reduce the total lot crr..ie_� a?- 17 The proponents are presently requosting 94 unilts (7,5 units per acre) , and the Major changer, in the proposal P -re the reduction in the number of units, the reduction of 'black - topped area, and the change In location of units opening a greater g-_-Cen space area, particularly along the eastern property line. He added 52% of the land will be open. Mr. Lnce stated that 7.5 to-wr-house units pen, acre is certainly the maximum niunber of townhouse units that should be constricted on any site. lie stated lie would recommend the most appropriate way to handle this density on this site is to require a landscape plan, done in lilKeriess to Mud Lake, and a detailed topography of the site, prior to final approval. 11r. Harold Posnick of Builtwell Construction presented a model to illustrate the proposed project, Mr,, Janes Cooperman, architect, presented the existing topography and vegetation. Mr. Robert Chance of 5804 Olinger. Road, stated that although tk6 plan presented is an improvement, there are still too many units on the. cast side of the site. lie indicated lqr�, Posi-iick said that even if concept approval was given, styrie adjustments cculd be worked out. Mr. Chance requested that if concept approval As granted, the minutes should reflect that sort of cooperation ben-icen himself, his neighbors, and the developer shoiilet he taken into considera- tion to make sure the development is one they can live with as well as the people '040 move in"', Mr,, Robert Kasbohm, referring to the April,, 1970, censers, stated that of 13,300 total residential units in Edina, 10,958 are single family units (82%), and about 2,300 (18%) are multiple family units. Of the total population, about 4,,900 (12%) residents reside in the 2,300 multiple family units. About 39,000 residents live in single Baily units (88% of the total population),, Mr. Kasbohm- added in chronological or&ir the potential change based <n building permits granted since that tine, on rezonings approved by the Commission in the recent past, and on rezo-aings still panding. He reviewed there were 2,343 multiple "wily units i -a Edina as of April 1, 1970; through January, 1972, building permits granted raises the total multiple fm-nily units in Ediva -�,o 3,729. Including other proposals that have beer approved but have not as yet received building permits or those that are still pending before the Commission or Council, the potential total number of multip!.e family snits increases to 6,1211 The possible multiple family units according to the Westera Edina Plan, less those included previously, brings the total potential multiple unit count to 7,120, the Southwest Edina Plan raises that to 8,5016 total units, and the Southeast Edina Plan increases that t.)--i-al to about 10,00 or 11,900 total potantial m-ultiple fmnily waits at this timec, A,,.aarca.ng mo these potential figures, 51-504% of 4 -.he residential units in Edina W11.11 bn sktgle family, the papulation of which (3.3 to 3�5 people per single family unit) would be 40t500 to 42,500 people (about 67% of the total populatiol,), Tae 10,600 to 11,900 ma-zzim= potential multiple units will represent about 46-49,'.' c2- the residential units, representing, more importantly, abcxtt 25,000 pn,'�ple 11",ing in those units, The potentla.l developmeiit., on the 400 residential acres r--,iring ars Edina, repreo(-nit-ing �" W , ibatit 4% of the entice Village, con-ld reach 8,300 to 9t60,0 additioral tau*;'*tip'!',- tip'!�,- unf'tLi,, �=r a total. an 4% of the nntire of 17,000 Zo 20,000 people- In terms Of total PoPULItion, kir:, in"'dcated that 213,000 :_lehll-ts will "_Ive Ln singla family homes, while of 'Alo i -z nfjlltir)IflU113Y units will be 71usf* slightE, T'Ir, Fasb'c-'r:vl they �rn 0,,at this numba:: -Fii"'bruz'ry 2, lcc72 of multipxe? units 7s <'±.;'.iZ3 t'iIr,7 do --col that ,.,h:I? .this i_yp'a oy. phenomenon is considered, a def"::t.a:(? change In the character- of klina is Presented; more important y, that 4bxhen it comes to elections, etc., , the %vterests of two Unds of people living in these units :strar:s to seeing a. chole different:. balance". Mr. Runyan clarified Mr. Kasbohm's figures indicating that 9,600 multiple units might be developed on 400 acres, .and questioned whether that average (204- u;Iits per acre) is accurate. Mr. Ka f3bohm responded that this is a. Potential until something is released which wocald give them a more specific indication, adding that "right now there is no buster figure as far as they are concerned.". In response to Mr. Lewis, lir, Kasbohrl replied that his figures include single family units versus all types of units other than single f&mily. Mr. C. Johnson observed that many townhouses, double bungalows, and apart- ments are owned just as a single family home is owned. Mr. Ka,sbohan agreed but added he does not feel there would be more than a 10% adjustment in his figures. Mr, C. Johnson observed further that Mr. Kasbohm's figures would indicate an w.?erage of 20+ units per acre (potential) in .4'/1' of the entire Village, however, no townhouse development has been approved at 20 units per acre. Mr© Kasbohm continue=d that of the total potential multiple family units, most Pre concentrated in the P'arklawn area, in the County Road 18 --crosstown _ Highway area, ':.n the area west of Cahill Road and south of 70th Street, and ir. the Southdale area., Mr,, Erickson asked Mir, Kasbolue "what: negative inferences do you draw from the premise that there are two sets of adults who have a different perspective on living?" lfro Kasbohm replied that just because the numbers he has presented over- whelm him and the people he has talked to, they do not come to any conclusion but they feel this represents a significant change,, Mr. Erickson rephrased his question and Mr. Kasboiam replied that one t-hing that concerns him and other single family homeowners is that there will be a sufficient number of adults in the multiple family units who do not have the same concern For the village or the neighborhood, and will be less inclined taryard su,tih amenities as schools and parks and recreation than people who live in siagl.e family houses. Regarding the specific proposal under consideration, Mr. Sherman stated that although the site plan presented is better than the previous plan, there is still need for improvement, as the hard cover (45% proposed) is excessive and sa density of greater than six units per acre is too high for a townhouse project.. Mr. Runyan asked what the difference in high and low elevations on the site is and Mr. Cooperman replied that it i..s about 50 feet. Mr. Hughes stated thea: this property will be a verb' desirable location. because it overlooks Meed Lake; he added that'fie would agree that- the site is still too congested and the hard cover is excessive. Mr. Funyan indicated a gre4.ter buffer should be provided between the eastern property line and the nearest as it abuts an R-1 di.strict to the east, Mr. Posnic.c indicated some adjusting; can be done. Mr. Posnick preser, :ed figures comparing the open space required under the ex::.sting zoning and w h;-tt proposes -d, indicating the present plaii allows 278,000 S(Atare feet of opap. opnca,, Ile clarified that they are request n; one unit Per a{:::Le more tha^an wot.ld ba. al'1 .,3we;"; under the ezi.Sr,.ing zoe1Z.nS, or. PRD --1 wad R--3. t,o ^ loAng, ? 4%.� S: 'ii` i s'Ia, �'::' a Luce that if "!+)a)roval i r, granted, the: Commission f.nr.e ?ri ?$. P'e i ui.3.y be approving the concept of 94 tcx shouse s Edina PInnning Commission February 2, 7.972 an the site (about~ 7 5 units per acv.) Following tha" approval, addi9.tional detailed research would be done to p -.resent the final develorment plans. Mr. Hughes indicated he would be in favor of a density equivalent: to that allowed on the R-3 portion (tib units) and four itnits per acre on the remaining; R-1 portion. Mr„ Erickson moved that concept approval be granted, the number of units not to exceed and perhaps :gess than 94, with major emphasis on the landscape and greenery to be provided. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. Messrs. Erickson, and Runyan voted aye. Messrs, G. Johnson, C. Johnson, Lewis, Hughes, and Sherman voted nay. The notion was denied% Following additional discussion, Mre, Hughes moved the concept be approved, the density to be figured orti the basis of the present R-3 zoning and four units per acre on the remaining property (presently zoned R-1), subject to the landscape and topography qualifications expressed by staff. Mr. Luce clarified that this would be 7 units per acre or. 86 total units. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Z-71-15 Landmark Deyelo mens, C.aoration. South of Vernon Avenue and west of Arctic -td -a-1. RR1 Residential Distr�ict to PTZD-3 Planned Residential District,. - - - - Mr. Luce recapped that the Commission has viewed several different proposals on this site ranging from 10 to 12 units per acre, frcei all townhouses to a multiple development. He stated that the staff feels the first proposal presented was the best at 12 units per acre, with several townhouses and an unusual but very interest- ing multiple structure. He recalled the Commission and staff has consistently recommended that the devleoper cause a transition by constructing townhouses between the proposed multiple structures and the single family homes, and secondly, that he reduce the site coverage. Ile indicated the developer will be presenting two revised playas basically taking; these considerations into account. Airy, Rudolph Dante, of Landmark Development Corporation, presented two proposals for the property, One proposal included the conventional apartment development on the site (three stories, underground parking, with the same type of workmanship and elevations previously discussed). This plan would include about 19% lot cc:rccrage, and various amenities would be provided. The second proposal included a 78 unit multiple building of a conventional nature with 15 townhouses on the west side of the site. Because of the additional road, the total ground coverage w4xo ld be increased to about 257. Both developments are 12 units per acre. In response to lir. Runyan, Mr. Dante replied that it is about 120 feet to the eastern property line from the closest structure, and about 70 feet to the western property line. Mr. Dante stated they have attempted to maintain the natural environment existing on the hill. Mr. Runyan asked the length of the apartment structure, and Mr. Uri Curiskis, the architect, stated the entire development would be 430 feet i�dong Vernon Avenue, M'r, Dante stated they are attempting to respond to the objections of the community, moving i -he totmhov_ses to the west side of the site and retaining aa. large buffer between ween the single f mily homes and the nearest structure. Ilya indicated both 4:cn.capt.s ar.e rental u nits, 144. Hughes :inAdiccted the Western Edina Plan proposes z density on the property in_ gLeestien of 5 to 12 units per acre, and in dais opinion the density on a site of Ediri Planning f fJ'f X13 E3 :LC}r) nh"1^3f! 2, 1972 this nature should be kept to a mi "ITM m , iMr. Dante replied that as soon as land is given, a potential for a ?atgt ber of .nits;, a land o,viaeL will proje=ct his prop— erty on the market: at the higher number of Ynnits, fie stated that From the cost of the property, development cannot occur at less than 12 units per acre. Mr. Michael Danyl.ux of Arctic Way stated that the plans presented are a great improvement over the previous plans, however. he would agree the density is too high. Mr. Dante responded vith a graphic illustrating the possibility of singe family development on the property and indicating tha Waount of cut and fill that would be required. Several residents responded that ''good neighbors' and gingle family dwellings would be most desirable. Following considerable discussion, Mr. Sherman moved the request at 12 units per icre be denied. The Planning Commission agreed the proposed use should be some combination of multiples or tcwnhouses but suggested a density from 5 to 8 unit3 per acre. Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All doted Aye, Motion Carried, -71--20 Geor.&e 3ID Ablah. (Yorktaun). Southeast corner of hest 70t_h Srr� eet attd France Avenue. R-1 Residential District to R-3, R-4 and R-5 IIhiltirle Residence Districts, C-3 and C-4_Cornmerc Distrk tsQ and 0-1 Office Building Districts. Mr. Luce presented the site location on the zoning map, indicated the surr unding zoning and land use, and presented the Southeast Edina Plan map for: the irea involved. He generally explained the D:Mi.TM (Daniel, Mann, Johnson, ;and Mendenhall) report, noting that preliminary information indicates the trip gene ations in this area strould be reduced by about 1/3 of that proposed in the Southeast Edina P3rxan„ The Yorktown proposal is an attempt to respond to those re co endations. al Mr. Luce recalled that a special Planning Commission meetin.g was hold January 20,, 1972, and briefly reviewed the general staff and commission concerns, thelarge parcel agreement and. the PUD agreement,, and the staff's goals regarding this development, lie indicated Richfic>ld would prefer that 70th Street not be a major arterial between York and Xerxes Avenues, and is interested in the park ars=,awhich will abut the Richfield Adams Frill Parks, Richfield has requested thei Planning Commission be permitted to review the proposal, Mr. Luce stated the eveloper proposes to channel the width of 70th Street frost York to Xerxes Aven e, thereby discouraging the use of 70th Street east and allowing it to avry ce only the library and the left turn movement into Yorktown, Iir. Luce a:tplained and reeeamnended several general requirements, limitations, arad ite-by--site restrictions that should be imposed oaa the properties, as included in t e February 2, :972 ( revised) staff report ,> the dee M.11 eel t.h In reply to Mr., Hughas, Mr. Luce stated the Park Department: will maintain ,rk stripy, Regarding the plat., Mr, Luce stated that the pa.rklan.d must be ,, the developer must enter into a dei*elopwrs agreement:, mid recordable eas - must be provided,, 'Ir. giobart Wiarthi nlgt-a n, iuchfle�.d Cis:3 Pi.,unne r expressed RichfieldO,4,4 co ncei.—n ; rn-gabd to the project;, F,s f,'A!L;-s: I. West 70th Strae,:� 2i. LWLR :WLRBd :1;.a3: at; a j4Aat maet:ir.,g naith Ediiira represen- tatives when Richfield was developing a lard use plza n to i.nplemen.t their 7whrunry 2, TOM oalz ""n�, sac of ,,.;ipsjow noncnyns VOR vast Wh Sorzat, '-'�i'zilf? Ajocted W tbe pyaouzed da7elopment A 7001 Street tc a A= iaua arzonAl raadwoy from York to Penn Wnne (nn indicated in W-,-. Plaa), as Richfield dovaloped basically as a residential comauniny and would unconazer certain difUculties in attempting Lo accoamsWe a four Ane arterial through Richfield, 2. Parkland. Hr. Varthington indicated that the parkland has not been fully discussed and the feelings of the Richfield AN and Recreation Director are not yet clear. It was requnstnd that he be given the opportunity to comment an the point of interface between the Richfield and Edina parkinnds, and thn function to which the Edina park would ba put, 3,. The land use impact, The early predictions of the Southeast Edina Plan were that this area would be developed in high intensity office strnetures, Mr, Uorthington stated this was reflected Q the Richfield Comprehensive Plan, and it We. V Lheir intent to create a buffer between the high intensity commercial or oVics developments and the residential areas lying beyond Washbz-n Avenue in AWN!& through the crention of some compatible uransitionxi =Ne, He added Chat with the Yorktown plsn, Richfield seas o9me opportunity to crento a buNer and trnnsitioa througli the developmen; proposed on the Edina side of the bordeHe indicated the RAMON Planning Ummission would like to review this plan further and offer sane cemmunt, and requestad Lha t zmky '?'Ekoncienda Lion from the Edina Planriing Qxrmission to the CuumAl be contingent an some comment from Kchfieid. Mr. Luce stated he has discassad with the Tillngl Attu=ey Lhe reStACKOW; indiented in the Tabrunzy 2, 1972 (Faviond) staff report, it was agreed they are reasannble and could W acccapliehed by rastrietive covonants. He stated h';9 would rsconnand approval at the rezaningsv a6ding that he A pleased the trip gaaeration has been reduccdt, aa imaich as it has been from that projected by the soqtthey aTe st east Edin;a Q= MY, Ablah ated willing to 'Place cavenants on the propirtieo and the buyers are King so iwforme& MY, Lewis q"eslianne the outcome of discussions regarding medium income apartmanto in the project, aW Mr. AM stated that ha met with the people inter- cosed and gave them the it proAnan rental ranges proposed, and it Q his thinking that a great mnny of the u.itizs in nha R-3 zone will fit into the character and prien rZage they would like to 22e. rJacnwho waa in attendance at that =Wng, Wizated that nithqugh Mro Ablah is not willing to go into the kind of f1jaral programs his proul, zin"Laks arc necessary to provide zha-type of housing they var za, he in willing to talk with envelopers who are intzrasted in law gnd iico-me bourNg When q=Uvnni about Okadensiziec of tie raoidnatial lots, Mr. StINO they are Inv will ba decided by the renricAons imposed 01 sha 7wring ardinsmen, HG uoted cradle is being zezuivad Wr the park strip Ta am(Wii rgd for anping thare could be approximately 1,200 uni&,; MIT !V it weF AdName thu high rice areas, ndjaacnt to cauld '�)n- nova! 40 nnits por narz-.-, .:hcV.:-C3n2d be Qnae 20+ n1ftS per nore, and th,� RA Qens could in abnrl in -15 union pnr earn. Rr. Ablah ngrand the IMr. tat gher Weved that the razagn ud j�nci. nqabe o pplicatiac of the rvurrictions indicated in nh3 Fabruavy 2, 1972 (revised) 'a 72 stags 1:oport and sub-'ect ;:t0101r--'-,t 7ro:7! lHr. C"'ohn.son seconded the Wt *,,, All Voted Aye, s.ot.'Car-ried, motion to approve the pre `.imine -17 plat entitled YorktGTm, in accordance W, sae rezonings approved and the restrictions roq-osed, was made by Mr. Runyan and econded by Mr. G. Jobuson. All Voted Aye, YlaLion Carried. V1I®I OTHER BUSINESS: .1 2-2 Zoi,4�u� 3rdinaijc ae pi�� Eun _iaou) �� _4L ;, JE _2 _A 11r, Luce referred to a letter dated januaz-j 20, 1972, from Mr. Edward Scliwartzbauer, Vice President of the Edina ABC Foundation, requesting an amend - meat to the list of permitted uses in the R-2 zoning ordinance. The &-oendment requasted would allow a non-profft organization, such as the ABC Foundation, to acquLre and use a double bungalow for raridentill T)urpones for a group of people evan O-iough alterations would be madt,, to connect the separate units together.' The requested additional use wauld reach "residenices owned or leased by non-profit or-aii2ations and uses as residences in connection with charitable, educational, or rligious purposes and compatible in size =6 oljti�ard appearance with resi- dancas normally located in an R--? zones', Mr. Luce clarified the proposed amend- ment is requested primarily to provide a location for facilities succh as the L13'_ Foundv.'.ion, Ile suggested alter.-;:atives shculdl be considered to execute the proposed use if it is determined to 'be desirable., as he would find it difficult: to recommend approval of a braacl ordinance change such as that requested. Ile suggasted further that a practical way of allowing for such uses, it if is the comminity's desire. would be to once again adop', au, ordinance allowing for candLIt:'Lonal use peimits, If allowed, the permit could be revoked at a later date if the traffic gener8ted is fou?id to be substantial or the use allowed is unde 3i?. -able or detrimental in way Zay.. Anotl_,,,,r solution might be to amend the ord.4ance in such a way that 1C.hc,., uses are listed as "permitted" and '®conditional". 11'r., Sebwartzbauer statad the .43,C Foundation would prefer to S(L'e a ZOniT',? ordinanceLmendment allowing th�� 1';Ianning and Counci, 11 the power of recarimending, an amendinient to airy zone, to perniit 'ih s useHe stated a practical difficulty invol'ured in getting a conditional vL�,c pe-nait is that in most cares the pe-rmit Is to apply to a vacant piece of land in the situation where an riun�nr is w-0.1ing to take a contingent purcliase ap-reement;, Ile stated that it would seen, that the practical difficulties or" t:-ying to present to a seller a contingent puzahase agreement are probab."L`y so difficult that: Lhe rThole project may be He noted they hope to lalvmdh the propram in tive fall of 1972 Mr_ Sahwartsbauer questioned uvhathec runythLag positive would be accomplished by rtainc,tating Conditalanal use peimdts `cx this particular projecl. In his opinio-,a Chs v,'Pa of use is ca�mpal:ibla with the uses in the IR" 2 district arid llvavefcra it would be must� 'feasible to amend the ordinance to allcv,dais type c'» use in any R-2 district,,, He also eisagreed o�r' the idea that a condition&l, usnzqei-mit car. be granted in as form, in P: 'CO rf V 211 40 -sa V.L -a, Mr, '.'L _,3. 1'imha"' the ! bL,;: tho rp, Znn-InF, to pv.-rchase ZV e-, ".sins thay mighc have ::'L3? I J. '7- Ila adder" C'"uld; i -.n :fit? w-'AliPith -n to the to 1W In respense to Mr, Shernia-1., 31,z-, LIchwart7baurar state�d Lh.r.t the a6ulte ;-11 the "family" are. riot legal. gr-ardiai---s but are ressiderit directors responsible for enforcing certain restrictions and Lurfews. I Ky. Erickson suggested that since the concept is generally acceptable to 1� the Planning Commission and the question is only a matter of execution, th.e staff, at*torney, and proponent should be instructed to work out the legal details. The Comission agreed. No action taken. VIII. Adjournment. Respectfully Submitted, Lynnae Nye, Secretary [A "ObTvawy 2, 1112 Z-71-20 Georga J. Ablah, Southeast corner K Test M0 Street and Frnnc�� Avenue South, R-4, and R-5 ThMple Residence Districts:, 0-1 Office Building Districz, and M mid C-4 Commercial pistricta, Refer to: Attached praliminary plat, site plart, A short recap of the gencral concerns for the over,�iij. as, oa the January 20, 3972, staff report 1'.... as follcyr-. A. Large parcel agreemant o B, PUD Agreamew Q MIs complete major diversified center limit automobile attraction 3. eneDurage transit 4. promace diversity of houaing K acquire green space anA Parke 6. limit curb cuts 7. consider Richfield's goals and pinn,; in addition 00 these generalized concerns, staU has now prepared more specific reco-,miendations so that approval caqld be granted at this meeting, Gcncral Requirements. Idmitacions, and Restrictions., A. Buildiag permit4 contingent an Planning Department review of the site pina for each nite, and if it Q Vatermined by the Plannfn% Deparnaent thet confoxmity with the acrachad restrictions is lacking,, that site shall he reviawc�<! p.,L1,1-yi_�_i.-X..s is. ion, B. The developer may use the prvpased parkInK for density credit if it adjoins residential uses, however, the (ieveloper must enter int,) a developer's agreement to conntract this park if he uses the credit from it. C. This total site cannot, using projections, generate more Oinv, 36,809 trip ends, calculated by using the most current comparablas or standard traffic charm - D,, No CuLs, infringements into the scenic casements, signs, noxage. 0Z "isPlays in the scenic easements may be f-,tlier than", thai- ahnwn an ...he attached graphic without the specific approval f the Village of Edina. Area identification and traffic signs are excluded from this liminti=t H, Men space pavements (20 Net an France and York Avenues; 15 feet an West 70th Streac auf Melton) must be bermed and planted wic) trees at a rawsuaablc caliper. F Ail PrMsals nuat conOrn to Ordinances Mu. 211 (MuQug) and 451 (signs) - -_ . Pizzo is .... Site -by -Site Analysis, Limitations aid LOL 1. Block 1 Frod1ose d (2P ig, - c-[; R'cstric to , 4 A. The site pla" ..g:.bt ..ssc°6.ade SQ F;rod-..e:$+L`d Es2gn<.ign .-ai'}tlsfape schedule, and proposed vwnar�, II, Lot 2. Block I Proposed �use, Baa knfawrl Proposed zoning: C--3 Rustrict:aan r A, Extremely low traffic generator V Green space Lyc3:ie;leno must be bermed ans planted, a. No displays are to be a.3.+,.'s7i<Tej an top of the building or a'al atructure or on the lot itselF, D %o t _)a.._ I>:Ry k J. Proposed =e: utAvaluval Proposed zoning; 0-3 Rest:rl ctior. a .'!_. 1`:o 13<3s°OC;'.5"..g or .dr i.veY,f" ys d4E?i"ir>e... n the Wilding ng .tn d park if the -dtoposed use is c:cmpat:d.F le with walk-.,_~ .:i ar in~ i; Lot 4.. Block E Pro 10s& use: M ;_il"a:;.if_l:i're sales Proposed zoning: C-3 £i,; iii:.? Curb cuts within 100 feet of the p;.`xOstrip;,, I3,, Or7a1_ture sales certainly cannot b2 considered d ctS,'it7<+e°:ible to v.3ld':"^in. "raid_l.c thus ier('.3?ng, pl-x1i?._S.Fng, and reasu1t',!ble . aLdiFit.& from the park are required, C, int _5 LL� Islock" p .o os .i use: music d.k . dZ`;S_lent 3aleST oo)`.3. d E'RPu9,.C.m sales, les etc, Proposed zoning: C-3 A.kSthere will ba aevcra_csF?in l%;one 1LlRi€gg E_``I:_Gr:!o?' t".'.:"'.'c.tmen , signsivocans other .... tc n n. idCs_'<..tlons must be compact iblu and harmonious, 3, ,::.1,:'.e pl.z°:nmust lacinde nay iia r.a' _,.,& sigungo alongFraace Avenuu, either Lunneclad to the building or Arco -standing, 4,, us A. Right turn ingress mad egrcEs an Ycrh Avenue as shown on the attached graphic must be moved 100 test nurth so as to allow a greater weoviug distauce to Welton, B. Green spaco eas(--ents must be benaed to the maximum degrel possible and plantings of areasonable caliper must be planted on the berms, C. No signage allowed un York Avenue ocher chan trakfic directional, j,e,, in, out, A sign such as "right turn to Target" should not be considered traffic directional, D. 50 foot driveway and parking setback from the building sides and fran&' H. No exterior storage anywhere on Lhe site except those specifically approved at the thne of xexaniag and that all exterior storage approved at that time must be on this 50 foot strip (Christmas tree sales, garden supply sales, ZYM Yo No accessory buildings or uses, 0e , gas stations, V The parking lot musL hava permanent parkiag barricrs with landscaping on the end of the parking barrier rows,-., H, Site plan review should incltde extarior elevations V all our sides aad signage, All loading docks must be totally enwlosedp Jo Berming and planting must separate Me store from the park area., Q Ingress e: a4 eg3.'e3s for walking purposes from Me park strito the proposed Target store must be provided, 1., No curb cuts within 150 ieet of thn parkstrip except service drives, ivI 0, S" Lot 1, Block 3 Proposed use: 4v traffic guncrating office Proposed zoaing: 0-1 Office Building District Restrictions: & K&R, 1000 uo A, B, Perking nust be separatca Vram the adjcining parksCrile? by berming and p1nnUngs, Q Buildin3elevations must be providej with the site plans. D I., Lot 2, Block 3 Proposed use: multiple ienidentiz! Willow Propu5ud zoning: X-5 V-- 2-2-72 vvyY Apo= A. hUninum height of A wvories B, Maximum Oight of is stories., =eraga of 150 D. Maximum total Ot Covaragn of 60L B. Siva plans must include all elevations - &I Q;Q,,Rjock 3 Proposed ;AT Multiple residential dwallim Woposed zoning: a-5 Rastrictions; Ac Ilir.ir.uni ;,if 6 storie-s. B. Maximum height of 15 stories. C,, '311aximum [)!.-itlding coverage of 15%, D�, lfa-xi-rmmi te.-?zal lot coverage of 60%: V Site plans must include all elevations., W Proposed use: MAO, Proposed zoning: D-1 Restrictioss: & Site plan revic" including elevations an! BI 5 Proposed usei multiple residential dwelling:3 Proposed zoning: R-3 Restrictlows: K R-3 density only, B. Two srozy buildings only (maNimum flexibility should be allv=! an the height ns in many cases the developer can build a much nicer development using a mix of NeQhts, buc undnr no condition should more than 10% of the buildings be is story framo.) C. Encourage rezoning to PRD -3 to allow greater flaxibility', D. Site plans must include all elevntiwas, Propused use4 unkaaAi Proposed zoning: C-3 Restrictions.* A, No curb -,ats on ioyk Avenue, and curb wos to t -hat on site plan OQ7�" Lcw traf:ic, C. Use Would be that which encourcyns long Stays rachor than a quick trip use. Lot — Block 17 A-1 z Z 70, i: - Proposed Usul rhaotm propusej zMa": W. Restrictions: lk u thnvc�e A ac,struzwod an this Aws, 0 wonS he uppro-, pria, to h2vc inlyess and cqrnsA '.�'%%rk 711, an altyrnotSvi us2 is VrapzsP4,shouY be given as U) whethen rho yequrswd curb cut on Nark is appropriate. 'i le Si x' should have a Mado at opeynliun �0 that On traMc does nut conSAL uith we i. ..rt traffic, i.e., differam peak Murs, etc, c The elevatiurs munt he submittud with the site plans, il " Lot 3. Block 6 Proposed que: buMque shups or 1pstauzyM' Proposed 3aniag; G-3 Reemetions: Signage must he harmoniouF, Elevarleve mznt be sebmincd with We site plann. No r paking or drivevays benwean the pnih and proposed buildini if the user is Ather buwiquaa or a if restzurant, it Munt be of Loa c,-..nd ordering typz- E, Anybody with ma and Harbary Monagan in dumoutming Sidewalk SOMM QQUq Me park strip?)? F it variety sturas, Ae builaing jo-selan should br flenib& enough &Q rha--'-,: --at jv the More 3 Masin atanion aq, as G He virb cuts wjehiu 150 feet A the park - 11 c. Frupsned =w multiple propowed cluing; Restrictions: A :;tory only. (Duce agala, up HOW IV f3axible and SKUH, anCoUrago the deVajopay Q--, -4,) sc, that a W&LUM Of KUSM.-; Cypes may ba VUCUMPUSM, houax4r, }axOnn of 10% three r=7 Honey wbould be allownd, rac 0AY Z done !a nonanctim, winh a YAque h Un ZOVOK2zo WE 6A Mvyjn"-" C ElovoKuys Smst 6w Subrinod Ani 040 An plans, Proposed une: O�q r:orn ow raFnawry= propuced zoning, A'IC curi) 01thin 150 Feet A too parknorip. B, if usn is aumpaMbIn W& On pnWevip, parking aad drKaways should be prWhiced Qon being locatue batweea the Wilding and the parkmrlp,. C, if uver is a drug mure, all signs (aNteriar, Sce-staiding, ,,)r ,iindf1'4) rjn..t be submic_ed to the Planning Ccandasioa for approval,, Ti; Elevationa must be 3uhmitted fur roview of site plans,; B of 2� Block 7 Proposed use: grocery store rropoaed zoningt C-3 A, Any &gvage un Franze Avanue msV be approveby the MUMN,' Commission,, E. Parking Icts must We paxmnnenc packing barriers, with landscaping an the end of the parking barrier rows., C, Pai:kt-,,ay -.-T.ust ba buffered from W parking aud driveways, D,, '.'Loading &-ockn must be cumplenely enclosed, F, , Lot 3. Block 7 FrOpQsed use: UnkqOwn Proposed zoning: C-3 Restrictions: A, Vory low UaMc B, Parking munn be buffered Ham the parkstrim C, Elevations must be submiMa Oth oitc pla=; D. N N W Q N Y X i 11 J )X L W 70TH ST - C T.X.— n.–aq.rlm.... u.a u• 1 :r –r–--------- –c-3 ---5 --- j - -- .urcs c a ' I c e • :aa I I II i 192I' AUtf_a 1 T as _ L i I 6 �z�oar f 711 4 a ��am Ea oa .A.r I �zo nc�¢s � ea,ea.i]i v-sr, � ERiCKS N DARK aw R�j 2 0 �FwEs __ I 5 if 4 i aIL �I 1 ,,,• yqrktownsoutheast edina RKTOWN INVESTMENT CO INC ::�v at nq Q� wafsteld inc ��_