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