HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 10-04 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular141'NUTSS OF TEE OF
'?TTE EDINA
11FIX WUNESDAY, OCT�XITR 4, 19-1172
EDINA VILLAGIE', HALL
Members Present 14,, W "(-wis,, Chairman, S., P;, Hug he , C'.. L. Johnson, D,., T. Runyay.,
D,. Cc Sherman, and GV,, Johnson.
Staff Present: G� Luce, R, Dunn, and 'L,. Nye,,
1&-prpyal
ofAi e September 6. 1.972. Plannirta Cormikission Minutes.
A riation was made by Mr. Hughes and seconded by Mr., C-, Johnson to approve t1he
September 6, 1972, Plennirg Cctraission minutes as submitted., All voted aye., Motion
carried.-.
'T
REZONINGS:
Z-72-4 man elson Enterprises. Inc. (Perkins Steak & Cake). and David. 'K,
Halla artA Donald E,,, Halla, East of B'Ughway 100 west of Willson Road,
And south of Eden Avenue, R-1 Single Family District to APD Auto--
mobile
.4r,, Luce noted the property presently used for parking directly in front of the
Halla Nursery building is the old rlght-of--way for Filen Avenue, and although it 1.3
now under the control of the State of Minnesota, it could at sometime be vacated and
owned by Mr., llalla,.
Mr,, Luce stated the staff views this property as being in an interim situation,
as he must assume the poor soiln and somewhat expensive building located on the site
would make it impossible to totally redevelop, and because the only cor"Iercial activity
shat could occur would be in the existing building cr where it i% ao-i located, since
the remainder of the property will be zoned Autmnobile Parking District and R-1.,, lie
then recommended the proposal, as presented at the Sepcember Planyting Commission
meeting, be approved with aome minor modifications; na-mely, that the rezoning include
only that land required to provide the par"King with proper setbacks from
Z'
Righi-,Tay 100. and 24 foot wide drive aisles, rat -her than the 22 foot wide aisles indicited-
Mr., Hughes asked the property va]'.ue, and ft Lite.- indicated that according
to the Village A-9sessor's records, the building value is. $100.000, the value of the
land under the building 15 $321,000, and the remaining ;.ane; value is about $20090'001
Mr., G. Johnson recall4d the discussion at the September PlanfLing COMM-iSSiOn
Tneating rrgarding de,s-elopment of the propert,' i as onc-, piaci-,,Mir,, Halls stated that in
r
orde�-o make the south tind rad' the: site bttildui�,Ie, 60 2-eet of piling.,i would be regaireJ..
Nx Lo-gan Johnson,,, representin.g Ferkin!,: end the Hollas, recalled that colored
renderingu were presented at the Sep tt?ribcr meeting,, and presen.'Led n rear elevation,
as req:tes*,:ed at that time H,-= explained thrat rhe ouildlxtg, which would be their head%-
-uar-tere. said "school" ae -well as the Perkius restaukrant and of ices, would be desigxied,
;:and Im"It"ScrZped wil"Ji £,'tom1 and the matzrial--. tu;ad by Pe king ia othv-r ares
reStMV7f!"A,X- _ He clarifte.d a i=Taall area in ths� 10ull,"ir�g will 6a utiliZed to teach
employt:es the proper mei--11'.,od?, o- preparing, var-i-ju-; "cods, an
Mr,. Halla indicated the Highway Departaii-;,,t fill.ing in a portion of
the property with dirt,. YvItiiJi :Li "ttp to 1-5 fee� righ'c i r it ad "he build:n;,", and When
this is completed, he will attempt to "dispose of the p,ropeerty' in some manner acceptable
Council, es th>- ,:O -tail use will be rei.,xived,,
C, .7o!,ziaon statt-d that, al,,,hough thi.3 1111-ing 1. somew,-iat compreas the ;,,ertt-
lond still tke-,,t sup!port aviy '"Mav-y stnAcutxes,
I J. Z, i
1,n) -l -awing con:3:iak��,,able dircussion, Mr,, 111unyan &�Lvx`":�& that if the -,,-.eq1:esi:42d
rezon.-.:q is approved, Vie building will, rtmtnir. a coiigaer(:JU,?-` ose, C0,2 property ,,-e.,o-.ied
to APD ccO,d be u&ed only for aistomobile parkimq or drive --in zallers, and the southern
port -lar, of the site will remairt R-1. Mr,, Hughes then moved tha re%on'Ang be apprvved
as request -ed.., with the modift:-ations nGted by staff, f1r. (,,, Johnaor. seconded the
motion- AA voted eye,, Motion carried,,
Ze--72-6
x -id
S11-1721-19
Tawas
Re,0
R-1 S1.
la),, Parcel
trio
Mr,- '.rice noted the proposed rezoning and sub; !Ivisiort rni, the Southwest Edina Fla-,
yaap, whi�:-h inidicates that because of the k-opogzaphy arf-,' aatural cover, this sit -e
6hould be used for low density toivnhouse you rpoaes,, llvr: property directly We3t Of th-116s
site has been purchased by the Village of for pr�,:�k pvinz:000es:, 11A,.ce brief Y
explaft-ed the request. indicating the proposed eox.tens-J.un -z)k Gleacion Road south from
'Ryde and noted that each large, "m&risiop type"budl-lding will contain six townhouac
units, He suggested., hrArever, that the reV.0T).1-Ig an ,,vbdivision requef-o:s, be continued
for oae month because of several questiou& regardin-, the topographic lines, Gleason
Road rvspeclb to the DMJM Study, and prop:�sect. di,6.ci,ss is with Hr , -1. Danert, owner of
he prcqierty directly to the east, regardinposelibility 2heSP-1
twv prtpert's'.en coul.6,
he Lac- para into one, deve.1upment,
*rht� 'C"omission agr�,-,ed =d decided, iia aidlt-i-ca, that a V!,tild trip uhvuld be
ache(luled to view tile properrr, in question- Mr. i_hchi movead the rezoning and
to the Novewber 1,j, 1972, ?16arnins C'unwAssianmeecing
at the 8taft's requeat., Mr,, Sherman seevndpd the mvriva�, A' -'I voted aye,. Nation
evxrier-
11? VOIBDIVI.SVINIS
S'i! 72-20 1 t
R�plat of r�wlptt_& Th rd iAdltiari-,nerally loc-ated all -
the ery", ef "isp Drive nuhrt.,
C& `ursQn
Hr, ljs.cci briefily ftxpla 'aej Stia Surro-wGIII-TIS propertica vad the location of Niue
Mile Q,00`,k kmd thaprop*.rty ,fin question., lie presented an pbotograph rand nctad
-hat X,-`yJluugh tile zraetk b -an bc-en in the cit rJuYAty,, thatt portion which flmivs
'U."ais proptay hao riot. been 3:f l4" �dth,--aglr this proi�arey- was t;hr,.-vm in moz-vt
pre'limivary graphics iroe a. bacl. za 5,964 w be t%r1,1-1, Iota, L -he Viat granted fine.
Approvnq (Clansar, Tbird AddiLlcn) iz 190 ICbe.11od -th-: portion an outlot;
iA W11(140 T11-qU001t. CALWt d-SfinitaiXy lie iwz, Lould only vrjr;vme the
Villap, 11
reqktired. an autlot bt shown !�i* the flnv of 'he creek chanytel could be changed
pursuant to an agir.'am-ent exAs"Bang at that times with the Wine. Mile Creek Watershed
iNotrict„ He explained that the original develovere described the entire area as a
"Total Use Flan% and that rerouting the creek arvui%d Outlat A was agreed to and is R
funda&mtal part of that "Total Use Plan",
COWMissioa -3— Octobe:: 4% 1972
Mr, Luce stated that if the divLE:iora, as requested is approved, a hcUse is
ra portion of the aite rcn,,&-,'ns art
t _13LI, ;Cted on tlle southerly lot, and thc north e
ouUot, the use and value of the creek, because it fim's through this property, vrould
be inconsistent with the remainder of Nine Mile Creek In that in most other areas a
100-200 toot strip along the creek has been dedicated for park and opei-& space preserva-
tion and protection purposea,, Because this dedication and park strip would not be
continued, and because of a logical commitment made iD 1967 that the creek through
this outlot would be relocated before the remainder of the area is platted and built
on,, Mr. Luce recommended denial of the request to divide Outlot A, Gleason Third Ade -al. -
into one lot and one outlot until such time as the creek is relocated so proper
setbacks from it can be maintained
Mz.- Harry Gustafson stated the replat is being requested because the South
half of the existing outlet hiss been sold for a single family residence, He stated
they '€hw.?e an admission from the Village of Edina that this property, together with a
22 acre piece required by the Village to the north for park purposes, is still to be
20% (.>f t,.-lat property can be 1'-.Uled for useable
considered as casae tract; conseque"I'll
purposes", He voted they "do not intend to dredge out the creek area, as wane parmittad
in 1966-67, but intend to fill Jt1st to the area alloqad at this tivie under the rules
and regulations", He added the "engineer from the Jjat=2rshed Diorrict is in full
accord" and said the property can be filled to within, a certain pol-at,.
Discussion followed regarding the existing creek location, the previous agree.-
ments made, the areas already filled and those areas proposed to be fille& Mr:, Dlce
reiterated he wcrald object to further platting this rrfyperty prior to the relocation
of the creek. as private developmel.ut would exist up to the creek ctianuel itself, and
1',; He
there would be no public land between the creek chanvto'l a10u
Fuad the build&blc
noted a replat would p-robably be favorably recommerded by the statf 4hell One creek is
relocateO and the old Village subdivision requirement (that 50 feet from the high
water mark of the cveehl cbannel be maintained for park and open space purpoaes bet,4;een
tile T"Lov of the creek and awy airgle family lot) ziet, mr;. Gustafson responded thvt i,,
tile Vil"ge wants the they F.herul.d coimdevon
Foilowivg coneiderable dlseui-sion veggrding the c,, -eek relceation and the
prapaced replat, ilx,� L-,ize stated, the replat will be aceeptable if the creck ia
inh1 4.
.nfor�-Ance with the plan approved in 1967- Mow Leib clarified that L
c0=11.Caic-1 czalnot and will not recommend or P-PPrOve the creek relocation,
fir. C, Yohnson moved the requested subdivit'.ii-Oa btt danied In couiot-m-aace -dil:h
atafVs rico mszadncim�, and, thait- ehs-- matter be to ton: Edi-aal
C'=n3if..ision for further vtud7: Uoa, All vu'l.ed
M�- 7 2 -6 Jef f)��ev K�> Oveus , 4223 Aldaia Dri 46- berme sida;
Mr,., Lune graphic iwhich i-ndif--Alteii tb,- -Ot,
Itit: in qVaw-'i'mr, have baan divided into t lotv, --ho�ne to than Evr,it ha" t: rem aia;d
s
ijav the h,ve bat�r� divi�l�.-d '.Malta tOt,:3 &PPIMOM,"
aioo J Cot lotz, arAd �hoos acr
-wi-&-. IM Rtnt:!2d the 100
1&,- 111to wo JO foot �,Otfs -is similex. "?-v in,,�S. p-,1*-8e1a1'C-&k ze t1le 771slining Cgiaminoion
At that 01.4en 't'Cq staf I& revso-uz-aded denf'ai") '041 raaiq,�,n�at vau appr�v-,-,iby 4:h-
Flazmiag Cuinlagi= cent :iDtVtQ a e a
. t an gpprf�,,fgj, by of Appeala of th 11 -cess
varian"a (lot wldt--h and side vard setb
to pprwj,,,t tt,d & the 30a
division rd of Pppca-'
4:00a Q lKag counissis'!
October 0,
however, denied the requoused variances. As o reccat 50 foot divisions have occurred
1" W" nrea, and because of Se reasqns Or ON& of the request by Che Board of
Appeali, the staff again recommended deninU
M.r. Owens, the present m;nn:, was pLevent auc stated Ezra are only three
100 foot lots UK on the block,
Discussion ensued regarding the division, the type of hcuse that could be
constructed ou the 50 foot lot proposed, the character of the eurrsunding neighborhead,
the land cost, the precedent already estarlished, aLd the neceesary setback due to
the slope of the loV W, Luce pointed out there ate nsvertially two single family
codes; one for lots greater than 60 Qet vide, apd Gne for lots less Wan 60 feet
wide, Lots greater than 60 feet wide are required xo maintain a ten foot side yard
setba& for living quarter&; this setback Q reducer: tc five feet for lots less than
60 feet wide.,
lu reply to Mr, 3hernan, Ma, huco itatted that if the entryway is removed frop.-P.
she existing single family re8idence, a side yard sctback variapce would not be
requircol a 25 foon lot width variance only would be rcquired, He briefly explained
the Nanning Conaission can reeommen6 subdivision vcyiances be granted by the Council,
when the division is approval,,
Yr- Hughes suggested the QowmissioL set a parameter on what the side yard set --
backs car be, and later moved the division and subdivision variaLce requested be
approved, provid& the eacryway is remoW from the str"sture on Lot 46, Moruingside,
and provided the Commission request review of We plans for thy: house to be
constAucted, The motion died for lack of a second, W foilooing further discussion,
14r, C,, 3ohnoon moved the Commissien deLy the division and variance and suggest the
owner rctur" for further coqsAeration whoa a buyer has been located and specific
plans for the iot can sae reviewed, The mcniou died for lack of a second,
Pollow&4 considerable discussion, Pr Hughes m(ned che requested lot divisioa
and 15 foot lot width varianc, be apprcvao provided the entrywry is removed from the
existing stractune and provided the structure to be builn iacluden a double gaiage
and maKtains a 7 i/2 foot We yard setRck op 00 sides of We lot, Mr, Q Johnson
seconv& the motion- All voted aye, axceyt do, Runjin and Mr- G, Johnson, Motion
carried,
LD -72-7 Ut Christ tare ReGroad Ckurch of Minneapolis. 4075 inglewood kvenue.-
Pert -cf-Ijan A. Wimered Lqnd SyKyRXjq,j57,
Mr. Wee recalled that ia june, 1977, )--hE stcf.1 racomme-itc'.ad denial of a request
to divide So murch nnd school Weared an tals property because variances would be
eq",}'? ..:d fur lack of church parking and iozdequate Jut size. kt thaL time, however.,
-.ha s.aff was uaawnra that rhoce variance, W been gronred by the Hoard of Appeals
in 1960 and extended in 1970. one to the hoard of Appeals action and because of a
99 y;Ai Pose which was obtained Q i% church nn the affiliatod WON Christian.
tchor_'_ praparzy for parking, ;hn riaQ recramanded nlh division be approved -
No cammcats being heard, Q C Jousson movec the division of the church and
school properties be apprcrad as reqvastec W. Huphes seconded the motion. All
voted aye. Motion carried
Octobon 4., 1972
W Y1 11 Carl N WCt asan 5200-0 Malibu Dr:: ve Lot 1, Block 1. Parkwond
Win. QN1 A SAWTV
T;,�4ca expo-ainad the request AL a propoacd simple division of an existing
double Ougalow, irhich is in cantonnanne with the cuden , for property ownership
purpo6zs, he Indicated this type of divisicn shouls be encouraged and recoumended
approvil Tn response to Mr, G. johnson, Mr Luce indicaLed the land tn the north is
zoned R-2 tut Is undeveloped, and the int; u: black to the south is zoned R-2,
Failcving brief discussien, a motion was made by Mr Sherman and seconded by
Mr. C. johnEon to appiove the Ovision of ths existing WON bungalow as requested,
All vocau qye. Motion carried,,
W 01HER BUSINESK,
Southern t tension of Deway Hill Road (Delaney Boulevard),
Mr, Luce recalled this matter was diccus6ed Ly Oe Comwfssion at their September
meeting, and the Engineering and Planning Deparwasts L"ve since determined the proposed
road could be coustructO az m7 location barween that shown in the Southwest Edina
Plan end that proposed anag the east property lime of Outio; 1, Reath Glen, as any
locacioR fuether east woult come into covAin with tho hill tine the curve on 78th
Street Q addition, it is the planni4g staff's poniWon ghat if the east property
line Ocrtion Is chuscn, a reduction W uuits per acre Cto a maximum of six) would WT
appropr_ate west of the road to conform = close Ls paosible to the Southwest Edina
Plan,
Ni , Luce presented an aeric! phage and discu;W Ur:,�.efly the thr-::e alltern.ativ�-
road locations suggested by Diversion Development QrproLion at the Setpember meeting,
aame3y, the alignment Indicated is the Scnhaos, Edmn Elan, the east property line
alter"ate, and a proposed aligV%ent furthuz easc tavar,,J Road, located entirely
on the property east of Ounlat A, Heank GLev-
Q, Lunp at ated that although the rafiic Otte !as not formally
consi6eynd this matter, he and Captain Menneln have reviewed it; it is their opinion
that any read location between tha propern, line b no Cahill Wad would be undesirable
from a wraffic stand.poinz due rQ the carv"Ou4n of 704 Sireet, the steelness of the
Aill, and the location of Acelia Drives youth & MY Street He 6dew tha! his
Apersevei iecammundation would be the wazo W4OW13 woos alignment,''
If-,4UL Fiatk Deia, 5m Dawey ail! Roaa, statod Ca "':'c "acccreing to We Sourhwest,
Edina Ms as it wes crigivally pzopusad, We road is co on the breaking poine hetween
deve17sae enr az 1,21 -,z-,itz "per ante on No east wAdu apd . ".;:g be farily homes on the wcst-
Amy anemDy to mave the road W a westerly direccion eid still give a lensity greater
then four urits per acre immediately t the eost would be upponed, as this would he
an to get M greauer densivy than au& have oc, a allowed and could set a
prece6ent icy development to 7he norch
My VW TauLe, rupizoss0%; WvanvcAkP;vo% OrporaVin, stated they are
noccurnro rhcu� noe jacarjoi .1 ine ya�o "ud no veL,iny that will be permitted ou
Te remainder of Guticr 1 %K4 Glcnto WaYeatep QU of th; two most Wgical
possibilities '. the "Pr OpAy line Alte-nam" is piolarwbLe to the Souchwest Edina
Plan route because it W the nunc Oireot Kcote 0a XcL Lnreat, there would be a minimal
intruNon an the existing punQ per mitnin, developmont along the pond so it could be
enjoyed by more people, and there uoula hv nA equitchle sharing of right-of-way by the
Edina ?fanning Comiuisr o—t
October 4, 11,17:2
abutting property owners. Mr:. Lewis reiterated that if the "property line alternate{P
,ace constructed, any development to the gest would be restrictF-,d to a low dansity:,
Mr,, Taube summarized they are requesting; the "property line alternate" be
constructed and that they he permitted to develop a "mice townhouse development west
of tho mad at a density we can all live with",
Considerable discussion followed during which several members of the Commission
indicated they would prefer the road alignment shown in the Southwest Edina Plan, as
it would involve minimal destruction of the existing trees and hill., would .approach
78th Street directly opposite Cecelia Drive,and wovId permit public enjoyment of the
pond area because development would not occur between the .road and the pond,. Mr. Lewis
clarified that for those reasons, it is the concensus rif the Planning Department
and Planning Commission that the road alignment approv--d as part of the Southwest Edina
Plan is the most favorable;, The Planning Commission agreed and no further action was
taken,,
2„ Proposed Ordinance Amendin the Zoriini:rdinance to Require a
Minimum Setback on . Throush Lots,,
Pursuant to the request of Mr., Cuyyler Adams cdisc:ussed by the Commission in
August, 1972, the staff presented a proposed ordinance amendment written by Tom
Erickson, the Village Attorney, which would require a 25 foot minimum "rear" yard
setback, for through lots, as defined in the zoning ordinance;,
Following brief discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Hughes and seconded by
Mr. Sherman to approve the ordinance amendment as presented All voted aye, notion
Carried.
3„ Plannink Commission representatives to the Meed Lake Committee,,
Mr, Cliff Johnson explained that he and Mr,, Lewis were ncminated, as
representatives of the Edina Er.vironmenta? Quality Coaiission, Park Board, and Planning
Commission, to a task force organized to update and rsunnarize the existing data
written about Mud Lake, a report of which is now being printed and will be availnulr:
soon, As a result, Mr. Ken Rosland, Director of Parks and Recreation, suggested a
committee be organized to develop and make some specific recoiir"endations to the
Council for immediate and long range plans for Muc Lak.e,, including cost estimates,,
Mr., Runyan and Mr. G. Johnson volunteered to work ori this committee as Planning
Commission input members if so chosen by the Counei.., Pio further action was taken
VI, Adjournment,
Respectfully submitted,
Lynnae C, Fye, Secretary
'4 -r -NOTES OF T13.RNECZU,4VY*, MNEEITIPC O
THE 1"T.11NA FLMIN- �tOMSSIV"'?F
�
HULO �,IEDNESDAYI, OCTCBF,,� 4. 19�Z2
ED VILLAGE ;sALL
Membero Present: W,., i;". Lewis, Cfiai�.k-man, S . il, fkgihes, C. L, johnson, D,. T- R-unyau,
D, ,, Sben-oan, atid G,, Vc Johuson,,
Staff Present-. G.. Luce, R,, Duhn, and L,-. Nyec
,3EoNra2. of the Serremher 63,. 9, 7 2- Flanning Ccrrm-A,�.sion Minures,
A motion was made by Mr dig ,F, -hes and seconded by Mr, 0, Johnson to approve the
September 6, 1972, Planning Comaission minutes as All vo-,ed aye, Motion
carried.
T1, REZONUSGS:
--a—
Z-72-4 Ujttst 'LiS;. Pftjl,Uns 3-`eak & Cake) . and David Yl-,
Hal.la and Donald Hal'a" E-ast C4Willson 'Roacd.-I
west oi
and Soutl-Lf Edea Avenue, R-1 Sinle Pain-!, .Y PT) Auto-
mobile
to Ato-
mobile Parking Dct
istri,)
Mr,, Luce rioted the pv.>pccty pzesently used for pa-ek-In.g dizvci:ly in front of the
Tialla Nursery building is the of rigbt--of-way for, Eden Avonue, and al--houghit is
row urder the control of the State of Miu-nesota, iz could at -;c,,.-fxeti-ne be vacated and
zA,;ned by, Xr,, Halla,,
Hz, I-Alce stated the staff tyiews this property as being in an interin, situat1on,,
as he must a.,3qurqe the poor S014.1,7 and somewhat expensive biai'Mi.ng located o -n the Site
would -x,ake It impossible to totally redevelop, and becr-o,-,,e the only corm.-erc-143- activity
:.iat ce.,uld occur woi.?Id be 1-a the building �r wlire i.t IF; now located, aiiice
the remainder of the property will he zoned, Au; omobi.le Parkin P I -Vi a i. r -1 c t,. .and R-- 1. � Ile
;:hen recommended the proposal, ns presented at the Septemb-aaPle-n-L'King Commission
meeting, be approved with samta minor modifications; uaricly, that the rfi7onirig includa
only !":hat !End tee-juired to provide the necesnary parkizg with proper setbac*ks from
fflfghvay -1.1)0, and 24 foot wide drive aisles,, rather tha(-i the 2"('- .foo; wide aisles indicnteJ-,
CC) -1 P,
Mr,. Hughes asked tvalue„ p-,-,,operty alue, auw
d it ate�:
s lair6ite
cad boat ac rd -La
`Lci, Lhe. Viliage Agseq.sor*s Veco-�:J&, the btailding value is the value of the
land under t.,,e building is $399,000, and the renaining llani value ks abo:-v�, $200,000
r;,, johnst;il recalled the di-,.:cussiofi at the Plai-wting Cmw�,Lsslon
meeting &-rvrelopmerit of the property as Onc� ZlTialvi rtaf-ctd that in
to -.1a ;e the oo-Uth end of site btilldable, V of would be requiret:
-
K ', 11cig"'ar. joh-a4;0U, and the Hallas, recalled that colornd
were pre .s,Pn:ad at tt-V:" wreting, ano presented a rear aie�?,atian,
at time, He t-A;.&rt"lle bLAIdtrig, 'bp-, C�ebe the-ir head-,
quarter,;s aitd NsclA.".-dl" as -we'..-L at.h6,i rerlk.ij.- zec-t-auran. ,�s.�iA would be designed -
colors -r, landscaped v - P71), -,'nd in. Other area,
re 8 tauA �.. Vn ._ a, He clai:ifte,-�, a b--- to teach
P:,-,-oper metliAo cr?,, [Vrid 'servlcer�'.
Hall'a indicated the DeparttyLxmt Is in a ,Ortion of
1
the preperc.T with dirt, whivh -'.- "up c, .15 Zc--et rigit bchi,.sd building", und uhen
i:tUs iC�-akpleted, he wrill att,-:npt to "dispose of tbit p)-operty in nome mnam,sc acceptal-,,Le
Edina i'lannitig Cmmissicu October 4, 1972
to the Pl:axPu i ng Commission and Council, a:s the retail Nursery use will be removed,
i4r,, C<, Johnson stated that although this filling will somewhat compress the neat, rh-R
land would still not support any heavy strucutres„
Following considerable discussion,, fir„ Runyan clarified that if the requested
rezoning is approved, the building will remain a commercial use, the property rezoned
to APD could be used only for automobile narking or drive-in tellers, and the aouthern
portion of the site will remain R-1. Mr. Hughes then moved the rezoning be approved
as requested, with the modifications noted by staff. Mr, C. Johnson seconded the
motion. All voted aye. Notion carried
2«72®6
and
SP -72-19
Relocation Realty (The Count Homes of Braemar Hills) Parcel 4026,
Section 8. Townshiv 115„ Rance 21. Generally located east of Braemar
Park and _south of Gleason Road. R-1 Sinale Family District to PRD -2
Mr,. Dace noted the proposed rezoning and sub6ivision on the Southwest Edina Plan
map, which indicates that because of the topography and. natural cover, this site
should be used for low density townhouse purposes. The property directly west of this
site has been purchased by the Village of Edina for park purposes. Mr. Luce briefly
explained the request, indicating the proposed extension of Gleason Road south from
Hyde park, and noted that each large, fmansion type`building will contain six townhouse:
units,, He suggested, however, that the rezoning anc subdivision requests be continued
for one month because of several questions regarding' the topographic lines, Gleason
Road with respect to the DMJM Study,, and proposed di.scv.ssions with Air. Dan.en, owner o;
the property directly to the east, regarding, a possibility these two properties could
be ince�rporated into one development;
The Commission agreed and decided, in addition, that a field trip should be
scheduled to view the property in question, , Mr. Hughes then moved the rezoning and
subdivision requests be continued to the November 1, 1972,, Planning Commission meeting
at the staffs request. Mr,, Sherman seconded the mcotiono All voted ayes Motion
carried.
111$ SUBDIVISIONS.-
SP 72 -20 32RAz t safOutlot A Gl.egoon Third Addi~ti,.)n„ Gener�Llky_located at
the eF d_ sax AspSau_ Wive north of Vevrion Avenue,,
Mr,, Luce briefly explained the surrounding properties and the location of Nd ne
Mile Creek and theproperty in question, He presentvd i�n aerial photograph and noted
that although the creek has been raloazited In �:he vi cirnit;y,, that porticm which f1m4s
through this property has not been relocated,-; Al.thvugl, this property was shurm in most
preliminary graphics from as far back. eras 1964 to be t:vv :iot:et, the plat granted fi.nal.
approval (Gleason Third Addition) in, 1961 instead 1. belled this portion an outlot=
at whose request cannot definitely bG 4eteua ned, bUt t:a could only assume the
Village required an outl.ot be sRawn so the flow of the creek channel. :could be changed
pursuant to an agreement existing at that time with the Hine Mile Creek Watershed
District,, He explained that the original developere dco ri.bed the entire area as a
'Total Use Plan', and that rerouting the creek arowd Outlot A was agreed to and Is a
fundamental part of that "Total Use Plan"c,
Edina Planniag COMMissio"! -11 Octcbc-,r 4, 1972
Luce stated that if the divisiort requected it,° --pproved, a house is
.cn9V,,3rted ou the southerly lot, and the portion of the site Tema .aa ars
the use wd value of the creek, because it flows through this property, would
be inconvistent with the remainder of Nine Mile Creek in that in Mo8t other areae a
11W-200 foot strip along the creek has been dedicated for park. and open space preserva,<,
tion and protectian purposes. Because this dedication and park strip would aot be
continued. and because of a logical cowmitiLen�: uade in 1967 that the creek through
this out would be relocated before the remainder of the area is platted and built
an, Luce recrrzweuded denial of the request to divide Outlot A, Gleason Third Addn..,
into one lot wid one outlot until such time as the creek is relocated so proper
setbacks from It can be maintained.,
Kc., 1111arry Gustafson stated the repUt is being requested because the soutin
half of the existing outlot has been sold for a single family residence, He stated
they `have an admission fraw the Village of Edina that this property, together with a
22 acre piece acquired by the Village to the north for park purposes, is still to be
considered as one tract; consequently, 20% of that property care be filled for useable
purpot,,es Fie nt)tkd they "dam not iixternd to dredge out Uhe. c!"ee6. aren, as was permit-i�
ii 1966-5f', but intend to 1"ill jusW to the, 6-rec, allayei i at thi.,? time under t-ne rules
and regulations".,.. He added the "engineer frrmi the Wat,,--rshed District is in fuli
accord" -ind said the property car be ft'lled to within a. certaka point.,
Dismssiar. followed regarding thra existing cI,eek. locution, the previoua afire e.-
rx-nits watie, the areas a1ready filled and those aroaa, proposed. to be filled,, Mr.. Lace
re,,iter,atad lie wcruld object to further platting this prpparty prior Po the relocation
of tile creek, as private development yvaald exIsi.- up to the creek channel itself,, and
;here qotUd be no public land between the creek cha.im;Al and the bu-1.1dable Ic-it. IN-.
noted a replat would probably be faverably by the staff when the crf.(,ult if-,
relocate,6 nrd the old Vill"ge ,,vab4l.v-19ion requiivm4ent (that 50 feet from the high
;.,jatar zsrk s.A the ez-eek channel be maivtainad �-or pnrk and opea space purposed between
the i iu4, iuf the creel-,- and chary oingle fmily lat) rrate. Mr.,, Gustafson responded that ili
thaa Village wants the propert7, they ahould condemn it; i
?!AlrrAng considarabl-ra d: .seurision regarding One creek -relocation and the
P 3
"Opoaad, replilt, Mr, 4L'Ice stated the rapla,C wili'l ba v�-�ceptablc if the creeio re!(Y-
r ata,: in, onovkfi.)ri.4ance 'Erith tbe -Plall approved in .1067,, "Al-, Lewis clarified that zha
cannot akid rAll not recutmi-and o - epponove tlii% creek rt4ocation,
"A -
C-, Jahuf4uv. WO-VQ�11 the requtsted subalvi".sicii, be deniad in conformauce w1th
t".'a aLild thar the Inatter be to the E4ina EuviroTmenta-t
C-MPSRsiou for Airther "study, kir" G,� JQIaAr,�,n ,�,.icond-ad the wotion�, U1 voted
T,1-724 Jeff -,? K, Oeeaaz, 7223 Mornina -AL.
-,pliic-hic-tt th, tn the urjuv'Ci i>,the
hp-va- he*,A elvided into 1,43.-i�r lctv tnr-.: i*Af.irzlh 1-4av,-a re -main -ed
-,Gfu t'C�Ot lnta�,. thoue the gt?:eet' t8Avc divieo"d In't-3
1-r-Irc" Lt;� 50 f -um- fkl, te Fle-nallng cuarkiosion last
tl pprov
-Fat tLwes, a. Ad by thl;
iff-bian *q"!"1 nkvel by 'Zo-a". d necesqv-ry
a&rvwlms tLot width &IA 9','Ie k -a permit ---Avislva� the 30'ard of Appez�.!"-&;
zKon V. �nlng 400"issla,
Ow6ber 4. 1.972
bowavw- !cKad 4 reqaoe,nd variances As no recnan 56 Too! divisions have Occurred
I" co� Irca, aud bycaw C of An reasurs isr KKK us the 7eq.wst h• y the Suard O_'
imppeWo the staff agaio recuLmeudea dcnl.�
fit Swevs Se prubcat oanar,as prese
vnt anc sinvac thare,
e ace only three
WC Wt icts lett Wa cue WeV
Discussion ansued regirding the division, the type of hcuse that could be
constructed on the 50 fact Lac propcsed, the character of the surrounding neighborhcud,
:.he WK cost, the precedent already smahlishad, and W, necersazy setback due to
:she slope of the W. Mi Luce pointed unc there are issentially two single family
West one for lots greater than 60 feet wide, and une Ar lots less than 60 feet
wide Lots greater than 60 feet wide are rejuired ro YAntain a ten foot side yard
setback for living quarms; this setuack is reduced to five feet for lots less than
60 fees wide,,
in caply to Mr Shermau, Mr, Lice Ecated that if the entryway ib removed Ow",
We evisting single family residence, a side yard setb,ck variance would not be
requiW; a 25 fooc lot width varia"ce ouly would be required. He brietly explained
the Planning Commission can roamnmend subdivision Wriances be granted by the Council,
when the division is approved,
Mr. Hughes suggested the CamwssioL sec a paiamscer an what the side yard set-
backs cvn be, and later moved the divisluE and subdivision varTaLce requested be
approW, provided the entryway is ,remove & from the structure in Lot 46, Moruingside,
and pivided the Commission request review of the plans for the house to be
LOnStMCOW The motion died for lack of a second, and 011oving further discussion.,
HrLI G 111(�ved the Cota-.irssion dozy the Wvioica W variance and suggest the
owDay return for further considecation Avy a btley Kas tee" located and specific
Ulens Ycr the lot can ne
>. ea The mQuion died fox lack of a second-
1411awina considerable discussion, Mr. Mughes moved rhe reqUebLad lot division
and 25 foot lot width variancp be approvet provided th, enLrywuy is removed from the
exiscirp Ftruccure and prcvW6 the structure to A built includes a ge
double arag
and mainza%5 a 7 1/2 foot side yard :se tAck on WL sties of the IU. Mr., 0. Johnson
seconceK the motion. All =Lud aye, excelt Ar, Runyon and Mr 6. Bnsou. Mation
carriec,
LB -72-7 Ist Chriaziau RefoxyK Q,W, of V IlS-
ji��glewood A en
partOf -Tract
Lklp
Ir QULO recalled that K Ane, 15A, the staff reccroealed dunigi of a request
7a 14%iee lie church and school located Ws rcopeooy because variances would be
�cquircc 2wr lack of church pnQAng and Inadequate 3vt Qke- At thaL Une, however,
We EWC Van Un=SrS Sat theSY Varian=z bad be grPited b7 the Bou of Appeals
in 109 and e%teaded A 1970. Due ry the Luau of fppesls action W because of a
A ,lea`, !wase which was AtAced �j Wn ryuren on cc? "QUAted Calvin Christian
School prouarty for pW,ng. SO Kai' ZYCOMMUN& !0� KAVISUP bL appCOVed,
It. commenta being heard, ,L: "'rnoA 1L106 LAC division A UL church and
school pinpertles hn approved an reovistW. Ar. Ai. az. sunundod the motion, All
Yoted aye MotivK zarrivi
-.ctober 4, 1"'72
'i 1" 1. Carl M H"_'na'an201&l-, 1.0 U Dr vt�Lot J_ Block 1. Parkwood
"n Addit'ou
_'.nulls 151,
lir I.,urwe tncplained the raquest a proijosed sil..upLe division of an existin,-1
.which is in zcj'ifoz7aance .!.th the cfxdc., for property (;�,'.rnership
puipo6eo., Lie indicated this type of divi.,3c should L(--, eucouraged an,] recx.rmended
appru,yal-, In response to 14r.. C_ Johason, Mr,. Luce:..m'�jcat ed tific land to the north is
zoned R-1 but is undeveloped, and the ent-_e ',lack ',:o south is zoned R-2,
Fo-Dowing brief discussion, a motion was made -'-y MY: , Sherman and seconded by
Mr,,, C Johnson to approve 14 ---he division of the existing, doulA,e bungalow as requestetal
All vo?..ed aye.., Motion carried,,
V� OVIER BUSINESS.,
I Southern Extension of liewey_l il: c,hc f9 lanev Boulevard)
Mr,, Luce recalled this matter was discussed by ;--be I-orrtT,4 ssion at their Septewber
meet"0-,-.n,,, are, the Engineeritig and Planning DepicLments have since determined the proposad
road could be constructed at any locat'.on T.,,,atween that shown in the Southwest- 'Edina
Plan taid, tbaL proposed along the east property lines of Outlot 1, Heath Gleii, as any
location further east would come into con-i-lic-t with the hill Ond the curve on 78th
Street, In addition, it is the planning utaff's poo�)ic�,on th-a-,_ if the cast property
Line location is chosen, a reduction oF units per acre (to a maximum of six) would be
appropriate west of the road 'zo confonii af,, r.,iose as pozisible to the Southwest Edina
?Ian,,
Mr,, Luce presented an aerial photo and discu. ae.d 'briefly the three alternative
road locations suggested by Dimension Devv.,lopi-,ient Cvrpvri7..tion aL the Setpember meeting"
-:iamely, the aligtiment indicated in the Southwest Edina Phan, the east property line
alternate:,, and a proposed alignment furthk.,r east to -ward 1aLi£l1. Road, located entirely
on the property east of Outlot A, llerth Gl'Crl.
14r, Dunn stated that alt -hough the Saietj* has not formally
conslde-ed this matter. he and '"aptain have revit-wed ic; it is their opirtion
that a-riy road location b,atweern the proper,:y line anmi Cahill R;-�ad wcu'L6 be undesirable
from at 1:raffic standpainL due to the cur'jac-ure of 78th Stneet, the steepnes:; of the
aa -s:' a of Ceceiia Oriv- out -6 of 7fitb Str,,.et_ Ti;, added that his
111 P, , .1 the locatiot. A, 1 1. �
persor8l tecomTvsfliation be -1the ruo;-"t
M . Friuik Dean, D,,rde-�y 1:11AU '4.tccclrdin& F -o :,:he Syouuhvest
'liii es it was orlgl. ially i.' -,h,:! coael -;' s ':o b -t the breaking, point between
leveiopner,R- tk-.12 unlu;3 :,n izaadly bo-Lltt_"s 0A1 -1-he We!Est_
Any, cat'' e*mpti' to Move the ro'd �T' a westir!, dl-ii(;cf..Jor, s"'-J"Ll }.Jve a drunsity greater
't.han fo%ur units per acre tc z�_-ket vculd b:-, oppose:d, ai i�'Jlis would be
an atts,,nipt to gat a dieusity than hiive, and could set a
'evelvpirenr '-,he north
for d
_e3 _G.j, :i3 3s 0rfated they moire
--oncEoj <-botzt v=ne the i.Jtiat be pi:;m., Itted an
zhie retr-,t.'.,x'er od Outl-t �eat'l C.`!.Cn two logical
i' t 1, C , t3: C_ p r G P 4 r f: v _i.,!3. e s' ,i f2s, '_e G he 'S c u t 11 -" Y e s' t E d I n a
1>1.an rowte because it to tlh;� "--o 6:;� there WOLld be a rainima'
intros'Arlon or, the exiscing Fn,% allong t, -,e pond sv it could be
enjoyed by more people, and there wr.t�16 an equituble sharing of right-of-way by the
"dina J-IIRTM-n�,, October 4, 1972
abutting property ow-ners Mr,- Lewis ri' -Iterate!d that- ii ;he "p.-operty lina LIteruatelf
,7i;!re c.ontA.ructed, any developmant to the west Would be restrietl.-d to a low
Mr, Taube summarized they are x-equestinip the '1-,.cparty line alti--)Mate" be
constructed and that they be permitted to develop « "hiLe townhouse development west
of the road at a density we can all i--fve with",
Considerable discussion followed during whicL several members of the COTIniiss-Ion
indicated they would prefer the road aligianent, shcwn i1i lite Southwest Edina Man, as
it would involve minimal destruction of the exisrinj- ti:ees ancS hill, would ;Lpproach
78th Street directly opposite Cecelia Drive, end �.jovld permit public enjoyment of the
pond are& because development would not occur between the road and the pond... Mr,, Lewis
clarified that for those reasons, it is the concensus of the Pl,nniiag Departmexit
and Planning Commission that the road alignment appcovo--d as part of the Southwest Edina
Plan is the most favorable, The Planning Commission agreed ape., no further action was
taken.,
2, ZE9
t)=oE�e,-L Ordinance AnendLing i�� ZSx R,-�RSi!�e a
Minimum Setback�on�Thxoegh Lqmasc
Pursuant to the request of Mr , Cuyler Mams c'iecu�ised by the Commission in
August, 1372, the staff presented a proposed ordinance amendmenc written by Tom
Erickson, the Village Attorney, which would requii~e -a .2,5 foot minimum "rear" yard
setback for through lots, as defined itx the zoning ordinance,
Following brief discussion, a motion was made by Mr, Hughes and seconded by
Air,, Sherman to approve the ordinance amendment as pret-,znteci, All voted aye,- Motion
Carried
PlagEi�nCcevnission rcoreser-tativet, to the Mud Lake Committee.
Mr;, Cliff Johnson explained that he and Mr, I&wis were -ncmivated, as
rcpreseritatives of the Edina Ervircnrjejjta' '(,,%;vi,-7sion, Park:, Board, and Plaratir-.p
Commission, to a task force organized to update and stumnarize the ezisting dat,-.
written about Mud Lake, a report of which is naw be sig
Z . pri-ated nnd will be availcible
eaonll As a result, Mr, Ken Rosland, Director of Pai:ks Recreation. zuggested a
committee be organized to develop and u-,ake- ao-.iie ipecilfic recowmendrations to the
Council for immediate and long range p axl,s for mud J,aLa, jnclzyi�iag cost estimatev
'.Iir,- Rtmyan and Mr� G, -Johnson volunteered te, worlt an tillj cornwittee as Fanning
Commission input members if so chosen by the Courxi.`k, No euro-l--cr !.action was takena.:
VI At: j, -?u rnmen L,,
I, .submi'r�'.ed,
-,.Z L-Apac ti(I "- -,Y
'�Tyc-, secrktary