Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 07-05 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINIVIrES OF ThE RECUKAR MEEIING OV, Tfin EDINA PLANTM.10 CONWISSTON 11EI'M WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1972 EDINA VILTAt,;E HALL Members Present: W. W. Letv-'.a, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, D, C. Sheman, C. E. Johnson, 0. V. Johnson, and D. It. Rurryan. Staff Present: G. Luce, R. Dunn, H. San -d, and L., 5&1e. AVLovql of the J%uu,� 7,_19M Plmtning Camnininsion Minutes. Mr. Hughes moved the Planning Comiission minutes of June 7, 1972, be approved as submitted. Mr. C. Johnson see-onded the inotion. All voted eye. Motion carried,, 11. Ifff-DUYISIONS : LD -72-10 BaisBu'--WinstS'oathTias t corner of Barrie Road and Street. TAjt 5. Black 4. Southdale Acree, Mr. Luce explained the proponent vishes to divide off a sliver of land five feet wide along Barrie Road at meat 66th Street for tax vjid mortgage purposes, as, although it was origivally reLairied by Dayton Development Company for road purpoi;es, it is of no value to tic existing property (Lot 5). 111_e clarified the five foot "Io-," would obviously be vjbuildable,, Follow, -ng b Lef dis-cussion., Mr. Riaziy= vitavzd that the requested division be approved anti Mr. Co Johrn=, seconded the motion. All voted eye. Motiou carried. III. 3P -72-.-j.5 Ev4mswood 11 Addition Mr. Luce staZed tae requested s-,abdivisiovt oma a before the Planning Cozamission in April, 1971,, at which time it was deni4:d bec.jjjsa t1he storm and assnitary sewer servicou were not availab`.a and would be -SAfeasible to instvIl at this location only. He Indicated the sittation has not chnng,,Pad, ootid the staff would therefore recommend it be conv'Lnued indefinitely s the siewerproblem.► is resolved, or denied. Mr. Dulln explakne(i ,'.n more det..111 1,11e -,-2f incitall ing the sanitary and atl-orm savers.. lie clarifted ra compl-,�te r.,-aym s,;.wer System is required in the area and added Chat iratil the area becomes more developed and that system is instailed, -.t would be nixt to impossVO-le to do anyt'ihi-ng -A-;�Oet the draw -nage problem in the proposed sabaivisiorio vollGvng fu - than &-'sciission, HCv Fughes zr-,nYyen the 1'ec;9aes tee" subdivision be denied, and 115'r,. C, Jvhrson seconded th-t rjeti on. zL-,.j v-otnd aye. Motion carrif-& IV. REZONI CS Z-72-1 mission -2- July 5, 1972 District. Air, Luce indicated that the First Edina National Bank proposes to trade a piece of property (the Parberry Estate on 44th Street) with the Village of Edina to acquire the hold library site". Several residents of the Wooddale neighborhood opposing that trade lost a court case against the Village; the decision of the judge was that the property should be used for the bank, but that a 25 foot buffer strip should be maintained between the single family residential area and the comercial district. Air. Luce stated the Village Council and the bank have agreed to retain a 50 foot buffer st=rip. Mr. Luce explained the proposal is to vacate Library Lazne, move the drive-in tellers to the carnes of ilest 49 1/2 Street anal Halifax, rezone the old library site ti3 Automobile 'marking, District, retaining the 50 foot buffer strip, and provide additional comssaerci.al zoning across Library Mane to permit further expansion. He explained a coumercial road preciously proposed to surround the bank was eliminated, as the Planning Department felt that the single family neighborhood would not benefit from 24 hosir traffic; the banlr would have a greater parking area., and the Village would not ba. faced with a possible comercia.l zoning expansion on the west side of the old lib=rary site. Considerable discussion was held concerning the traffic flow which would result from the implementation of the plana proposers. Mr. Warren Iiinze, president of the bank, spoke in favor of the proposal and the traffic flow through the project, particularly the drive-in tellers. Mr. Alm, with the First Bank system of Minneapolis, agreed. Mr. Hughes suggested a traffic study be conducted, as there were varying beliefs whether or not the traffic flow would be increased. Mr. Wallin D. Bynel.l, 4915 Maple Aoad, felt a wall should be built to protect the residents of Happe Road from disturbances such as trespassers, littering, etc He further requested the property ow-aers receive a complete property mock—up. Mr. Luce responded'that the bank will be required to .submit a plan for upg°wading and lmadscaping the sroparty, including the buffer strip, which must be :approved by rhe Village,: Followl-ug considex male discussion, Mr. Runyan mia ved the rszordl.ng be ,approved, provided the t-raffic agreemant between thea bark all -A the Village of Edina be solidified including all th>a conditions o$ that agreement, and that the bank develop in general conformance with the erincept plan dated 6-16-722 Also, a copy of the landscape proposal for that buffer strip, wher, It is complete, should be forwarded to Cho residents along Maple Read for their information. Fir. C. Johnsons seconded the: motion. All vl,:)t:ed aye, except Air. Hughey- Motion. Caarried- 7-72-2 Air. Lowe stated that the proponen vigt'8 3 to reson;s a lot in Warden Acres$ which is 165 ft,et (15 feet of which =«a3 gained by a division of Lot 29) by 1 feet, to R-2 t.3 construct ria duplexes on the PrOPtrty; one in the front and one J Edina Planning Qymmissior� -3- July 5, 1972 in the rear. The proponent feels R-2 zoning would be the highest and best use for h im it• because of the 1a of the land and tae fart that the land t e propert y, ar ar y .7 is heavily wooded and should allow a more flexible. use of the land. Mir. Wee stated there have recently been several requests for replats in this area (Mittel and Austiti replats),, and apparently it is ready fcar Mort: intense development. 114r. Luce staatad the staff would reccmmend any rezoning for the property should be contingent on aa. 25 foot easement on the rear portion of the property for street and utility purposes In answer to Mr. C. Johnson, Mr. Luce replied that a 25 foot easement would also be required from Lots :39 and 40, Mr. Fred Hoisington of Brauer and Associates, Inc., representing Mr. Lisle, gave a slide presentation emphasizing the great aanount of vegetation in the area and showing some of the buildings in the neighborhood, including t:he duplex that Mr. Lisle presently owns,, itmediately to the east of the property in question. Following further discussion regarding the affect this rezoning might have on the other lots it Vie area, Piro Sherman moved that the rezoning be approved if a 25 foot easement is provided along the rear of the lot. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye, Motion carried, V. OTHER BUSINESS: 1., Resolution to City of Minnetonka. Following brief disatwsion, it was decided to table the resolution to the City of Minnetonka indefinitely. 2. Flood Platt Zonittn 0rdi+iatnce. Air. Luce stated that the Enviranm�sntal Quality commission had reviewed the Flood Plain Ordinance and s=ant. the Council a memorandum requesting clarification of the language because the -y objected to the word "unduly". Iia ra-,iswer to air. Hughes, Mr. Luce explained that the Nine Mile Creek and MU.nneha$ia. Creak wntersshed districts are preparing a map of the flood plain.-Follmii.ng, brief discussion, Mr. C. Johnson moved that the flood plain Ordinance be approved,, Air. Runyan; seconded the motion. All voted aye. Notion cerr led. 3. Mr. Luce atxplained haat this ordVaancse was designed to eccompUsh two things; first, it restricts developers fx•,am petitioning for rezoning to only Once per year, aLd secondly, it allows a greater number of people to appeal detisions Made by the Board of Appeal+. Discussion was held with the Commission snowing favorable response to the ordinance propcsad. Fir,: Hughes moved the ordivaace be approved. Mr. C. Johnson. saconded the motion. AIX voted aye. Motion. curried. Vill FRELIMIN&XY RE° 1 Robe Comercial District:, Mr. Luee announced ;)ILJor to the meeting that the Robert Hansen preliminary review was remwred from the agendas as requested by %ir o. Hansen. VII. Adjourat tat. Respectfully € ubmitted, Leslie Sale, Acting Secret: t -I AGENDA Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, August 2 1972 Edina Village Hall 700 P.M. AU7.,oval of the ju5,.1972Plannine romission. Minues. 11. LOT DIVISIONS: LD -72-11 HeriLa e ofJLdinj c. Generally located at the south - est corner of tha C:.-osqtown Highway and Xernes Avenue, III,, SUBDIVISIONS; SP -72-15 Evanswood 11 Addition. North of Evanswood Uine and I west o.�. Blake Ronik, SP -72-16 Mirror Lake Plat No. 20 Generally located south of nterlachen Boulevard and east of Blake Road,, SP -72-17 Ll TMe A.io, Generally located south of Vernon Avenue and west of Arctic Way (Karl Krahl property), IV, REZONINGS: Z-72-3 Karl Krahl. Generally located south of Vernon Avenue and west of Arctic Way. R-1 Residential District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. V. PRE-LIMINLRY REVIEW: Robert B. Ran. N,)rtheast corner of County Read 18 and the Crosstown Highway. R-1 Single RAmily Residence Distri,z_t to Planned 'Commerciel District. V1 OTHTRIR BUSINESS Letter from Cuyler Adams Regarding Setbacks in thee. La—mUl District. qu!r�nen . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEI;T'ING OF THE EDINA PLANNING CO"QtISSION' HELD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1912 EDINA V-TLLACE HALL Members Present: S. P. Hughes, Chai.twan Pro Temp, D,; T. Runyan, C. E, Johnson, and G„ V. Johnson,: Staff' Presents G. Luce, R. Dunn, and L,, Nye. I,, Atproval of the�July 5� 1972, Planning Commission Minutes. Mr„ G, Johnson moved the Planning Commission InIAULes dated July 5, 1972, be approved as submitted:: Mr. Runyan seconded the moti.one, All voted aye. Motion carried. II. LOT DIVISIONS: LD -72-11 Heritage of Edina, Inc. Generall.rµlocated at the sou corner of the Crosstown Iiihway and.Xerxes Avenue. P S,.29. T�, 28„ R.24. Mr. Luce indicated the location of the property, and explained the staff has had difficulty in determining exactly where the existing lot lines are and if an additional division is warranted, as the properties are unplatted parcels and variances have been granted., He stated the staff would recommend the requested division be denied and a subdivision of the total site be required He noted that when variances were last granted, it was recommended to the developer that the property be platted and indicated to him that this would eventually be required. In response to the Planning Commission, Mr. Luce: explained the site originally consisted of three narrow, east -west parcels, which were later realigned to create two north -south parcels as they presently exist; a third lot, to be located between the existing two parcels is being requested. Because variances have been granted for these properties, a review must be made to insure kt►at land will not be subtracted from the parcels as they existed when those variances were granted. In addition, platting the property will provide the legal dedication of parts of the Crosstown highway and Xerxes Avenue, presently only easements, and will permit a reasonable review by the Village Planning and Engineering; Departments and by Hennepin County. Following further discussion, Mr„ G:, Johnson moved Che requested division be denied and the owner be informed the property should `ye subdivided. Mr,.. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carr.?e& III SUBDIVISIONS: SP=72-15 Evanswood_IIn. _Additio_North o£ Evanswood Lane and west of ]slake Road.- - -� Mr. Luce recalled the proposed si.x- lot subdivision was denied by the Commission on several occasions because of drainage and sewer prnblcm3, as, of the six lots, four are usually inundated. However, until. an area wide sewer syster,7 ran be installed, the staff rec(rm ands that lots 1 and 2 of block 2 and lots 3 and 4 of block 1 be deleted from the plat and labelled an outlot. The two lots on Blake Road (lots i and 2 of block 1) are accessible to all, the necessary utilities, are buildable and could be sold and developed,, He clarified the plat approved would have three lots; lots 1 and 2., block 1, and Outlot A.. Edina Planning ommissio:a -21- Au ;us t 2, 1972 Mrs; Dunn stated there are no in 1: ake Road Lit that point, but service can be extended €:o rots t and `?< 14r,, Hughes asked if easements across lots 1 and 2 are needed to service the back portion of the property when it is further subdivided, and Mr. Dunn answered this will be known by the time the final plat is submitted so they can be required at; a later date. lie further explained and reviewed the difficulty of installing sanitary seiner service to the rear lots. Following brief discussion, Mr. C. Johnson moved approval be granted the platting of lots 1 and 2, block 1, including the extension of Evanswood Lane, as originally proposed in the preliminary plat presented; approval is subject to the approval of the Engineering Department. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion, All voted ay--. Motioat carried. SP -e72-16 Mirror Lake Plat No. 2,, _General Boulevard and east of Blake Road Mr:, Luce stated the proposed one -lot, one -block plat is 92,000 square feet, and abuts Blake Road and Mirror Lake:; A signed easement for scenic and open space and flood plain purposes along Mirror Lake will be required, and an easement for utility purposes must be extended across the proposed plat', Ile rioted he is assuming the existing barn and shed will be removed. Following brief discussion during which the Commission questioned the unusual shape of the lot and the length of the proposed drive, Mr. G. Johnson moved the preliminary plat be approved provided the easements required are received, Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. SP -72-17 AND Z-72-3 Karl Krahl._ R-1 Residential District to PRD -3 PLanned Residential District, Mr. Luce explained a request for subdivision and rezoning to PRD -3 has been received for the Karl Krahl property to peanait a 52 uaait townhouse development on the 7.75 acre site (6;,7 units per acre). He noted that although this does not seem unreasonable, the elimination of one unit would reduce the density to that comparable with the maximum townhouse units per acre (6.6) granted in the Village of Edina,, Mr. Luce stated that although the initial fees were paid, the graphics received were not adequate for either a subdivision or rezoning review so the staff would suggest these requests be continued and the developer be instructed to submit the required information. Mr. Krahl stated he does not want to spend the tins or money necessary for application if this proposal will be denied as several others for this property have been, He requested some indication that this type of development will be approved if the requested materia:ts are submitted, Mr„ Lkic:e replied the Planning Commission has indicated they would prefer this type of development and approximate number of units on this site. Several residents discussed the open space a<onwai.ttee and the possibility of Edina purchasing certain properties for ;open space pu'e-poses. They noted this land is a natural prairie and houses a rare oa•-k grave .;end recommended the request for development of this site be denied because the land may be purchased by the Village, , -, o , �- 2 .19 7 2- Edina Planning -W"U > or, if it is not to be piirdhased, a gj.,on-ld b- iv,li only whc-n dietailed plau,3 are submitted, Mr<. Luce agreed bas b�enoiet'.c, dllair,-! to purchaGe oper, space sill -'es ;-_n Edina, however, ro money is have ':._ be obtained from a bond issue, Re. ex.p_'airied aye denif-d just to see if the Village might purchase the Mr,, Robert Kasbohm of the Ediiia Homer.'4m.crs OaD�_itiort stated the time table of the open space committee is to present Gomethiug to time Village in "less than some 100 days"; he noted that in that organizaticii If people, Mr,, Krah3i.`s hill, of 19 sites, is ranked 5th or 6th,, Mr, Kasbohm suggep,-_­' that rather:: thall go to any further expense in that .","00 day interim, Xr,, Krah! :3h:>UIC: aait tuitil the people in the Village decide whether they wan14. to put up the ',lic."ke"Y' -.3 purchase the property� Follawi,ng considerable dlscus:Fior,, Krahl the m4ttnr be continued to the following meeting,, by which time he will submit al i the deLafled plans requi-ced,, Mr. G. Johnson moved the preliminary plat cf E',, 11'apatio be continued to the September 6, 1972, Planning Commission meeting. 'N'r, CL, Jrshnscn seconded the motion,, All voted aye. Motion carried., Mr,, -G,, Johnson then moved the rezoning request from R-1 to PRD -3 also be continued to the September meeting due to the lack of adequat�. infoiiiation provided-, Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. AL, voted aye,. Moti,_)4, carried. V11 PRELIMINARY -REVIEW,. 1, Mr. Luce explained that althengh no nctii:on �_zj-j, �e wizens at this time, the proponent wants some guidance in terms of his proposze%i conmerr_ial—office development at the northeast corner of Roushar Road and the Crcss'C'own Highway,,,, lie generally described the surrounding properties and the existing traffic circulation pattern, noting that although Hennepin County infermed Edina that unde�. no conditions would a frontage road In this area along the Crosstown be allowed, �.he property has since been turned over to the State Highway Departman",, who indicated they may be receptive to a frontage road concept,, The Counc:_! rel%ently acknowledged their position and agreed,, Mr. Adrian Herbst, attorney foi, Mr,-, Robert_- Flan08rt­ "eXP,,'.aiued guidance it requested on two separate matters; iiamely,, the proposcd, irontagc! rot:6 Oetween Gleason and Roushar Roads along the CrossLown Highway, and pre-11=11.nZ5,-Y review of their proposed planned coromercial—oiTice developmeni-. Mr,, Herbst said they discussid wizh the Stat'- of the possible construction of the frontage road and were i" coild be buil'-. but the financial resources for its construction mtL-,;t covic s(Laep.tace other than the State. ihey therefore feel at this point Z':iat a gct--W e,--,1sts this road can be built to provide a reasonable `-'cr Ulastern Edina if funding can be found for it, He recallod, they v -A Ai_ki 01 EuTromdzng property owners and indicated Mr,, Clicrna, Mv,, Cc-& of Oli_swcon, Mr- Karl Krahl, and the Masonic Lodge have informed -A-zem t1lat.-, at they have no objection to the development of a frOntage -joad,,. Investments„ Who have an approved condominium project. Co 6be lccal�ed a,,.. the �uo�.zhwest corner of Gleason Road and the Crosstown, r�t one time, Joined in 44 peL."'t'-or to have. the County build Edina FLtnn,X'.rp, +k --pr-*: k;uien:: - 41 �"tu."-;ujr 2, 1.972 this road, however, tfiey are: nun; in to ;1(,, -,--(-yjr-,�ucnta1Lives of the appropviate singic, fm--iily rel: LdEnti'L'i 11ot any Commit- ment in favor or opposed to the road L:2cauvu t1ley wotul.,d *,,:c vie -,v sone airerftatiles,, Mr. Tom Stahl poirtted out the llausen sites and surrounding properties as the -y exist, and explained the trip ganerzttions from each site, lie indIcated development in Western Edina could generate aboLt 7,,800 traffic m4)vevc--ats per day, which would be alleviated if the frontage road were constrvcted,, Fie preo�nted a prop aced frontage road alignment (44 feet wise , 9 -ton capaci-'yand several alternative realignments for Vernon Avenue which would still utilize Lhe frontage road concept. Discussion was held regarding possible funding, tor. .,,he frontage road, and Mr. Herbst requested the Village apply for state aid, any differenca between the coats incurred and the amount received to be assessed against the benefited properties., Several members questioned whether "benefit:" could 0,e easi:iy determined, In reply to Mr,, Luce, Mr., Hansen stated thpt v.han he. talked to Viewcon they indicated they would discuss paying a share of the cost for the frontage road, but they want to look at the figures involved. Mr., Karl Krahl cla',rifter-1 he is in favor of the frontage road as long as it doesn't cost him anythiag,, Following considerable discussion, Mr. Dunn cL*i:ified that if the Commission is of the opinion the frontage road concept should be pursued further—, this should be reported to the Council,, who will order a feasibility report from the Engineering Department,, They., in turn, will come up with an estimate of cost and once this is accepted, a public hearing will be held at which time the proposal auid the expense would be presented,, Regarding the requested preliminary review of their, Proposed planned commercial -office development for Mr. Hansen's proper" -,Y, M-1, Herbst said that in 1967, a marlicet research study was done which advised that "his was a good location for a shopping center; about the same time, Edina bag;An formulating the Western Edina Plan and discussed a conwercial center at this particular location., Mr. Stahl presented several possible concepti '):or a neighbofiiood, commercial - office facility in relation to the building configura-Cions on the -11roposed develop- ments on surrounding properties,. a rv,---alignvient of V,,ruan Avs-nue, as the frontage road as pronosed,, He suited the site is 12 approT.:irsatel,y Z- 3 az res; a 100,000 square ,, foot shopping center is proposed (30,000 square fee"_- for a major food operation, and 15,000 square feet for a drug store) with a gross lua!,,ible area of 15,600 to 80,000 square feet, also including a restaurant and several -I ;appa%,al rmid specialty shops. Mrs. Carol Dann, representing, t -be clCJart Fcc;;h,11F- 4eighbarhood Association, stated they ate not in ftmor of a shoi.,ping ceater Many others present agreed,; Discussion was hald vega,�ding tht--:� t)-afff-- Lh--t wati.a ; generiitcd as a result` of the shoppiag center, cad Mr,, Staxl agxecd a prob.�c, wc-e wh--',c'.i 13 why they are the iirontag,� re>,J a, c� the trv:.�s Xal Mr,• Jatk Ziegler, 501.2 lvvnl-,-of 'she areo,i, noting that ia was pro-aived dui:"rig af that a shopping ceater F-,auld not:_ be; rvsid,.•.rt in favor of a fronta;e rood tG allse-viate tynujz, IE it. will result in a shopping corater and tra,."'Ific 'it. He stated the residents of the aret., agree thrf,- ot,aer permit the shoppers of Western Edina to sativfy their naeds, thj-., ce:izem has z,o meric and should be rejected, Edina FlaLaing August 2, 1972 Following considei:able discL_,r_,'tsn, need for a facility of this nature must be e.wzessed and thu road syetc.;, `uc considered in terms of what it can handle, Mr. C,, Johnson said tbk! PrOPCE,t'd is MULh more extensive than should be placed at th:& location, on _y because of the proximity to single family dwellings but because during the f;rc4,_i1a tioyt of the Western Edina Plan the people were assured a large shopping cente,- would net: be prordoted in Western Edina, Because of this and in view of the U ­;:a1 ic Rituaticm, he could not wholeheartedly endorse chis proposal- Mr,, Hughes reitc.-rated that duriag the discussions of the Western Edina Plan lie expressed his opposition to a shopping center at this location and his feelirgs have nat c.anged. No action was tak,-n,, Mr,, C-_ Johnson abstained "'ron the discussion and any action on this matter,, VI. OTHER BUSINESS., Letter from Gu+rier _Adams Regarding Setbe.cks in Single Fami Dis tricts Mr. Luce explainea that M.r, Aea:,,s, IE18 Edi ebrcnk. fl-lacc, has called attention to a possible ordinance change relating to the 3etback rcq%lirements for the single family district,, lie explained the existing requircoerms and demonstrated the problem involved where lots have a double frontage, as exists nt B-zowndale Avenue and Edgebrook Place., The existing ordinance allows certain r-eLached buildings to be located three to five feet from the rear or side lo€_ line; if this were permitted in this particular area, for example, structureg located in the"rear yard" of those lots on Browndale Avenue would be detrimental to those homes on Edgebrook Place., He noted that although it is the staff's feelir!:hese conceials are within both the text and intent of the ordinance, 11r, Adains has rt!qae,-red some clarification and perhaps an ordinance amendment,, Following brief dismission, Mr, G. Johnson mo-ved the 'Willage Attorney be instructed to review the present ord-j'nance and --1ariLty this condition with all amendment to be presented at a later meeting, 14r,, C, 1­ohnsoz4 seconded the motion, All voted aye. Motion carried. VII. ADJOURNMENT,, Reepectfully 5ubml.tted, LyrAaae Nye, Secretary