HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 11-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE' REGU11JAR KEE-rT1111, 0'F
I
TUE EDINA Flui'�NNING 001iMISSI014
11-FELD T-HURSDAY, NOWRBET1 1, 1.973
LDINA VILLAGE HA14L
Members Present: W. 'U. Lewis, Chaix-,,,iap, S. P° Hi.kghes,, D,, T. Runyan, G. V. Johnson,
C,, E. Johnson, and F. S. Dean.
Staff Present: G,, Luce, R,, Dunn, and L. Nye.
o-',._ he She . ttm�_ 26, 1973 Planning Co-mmission Minutes.
A motion to approve the September 26, 1973, Planning Commiission minutes as
submitted was made by Mr. Hughes and seconded by Mr. C., Johnson,, All voted aye. Motion
cam.ied.
IIS LOT DIVISIONS:
LD -73---13 Roger A. Peterson,, 7505-7507 West Shore Drive. L2L,4,
Lake ldina ffEAciciyHon.
Mr. Luce noted a double bunga].(7.4 exists. on the lot in question, zoned Rc--2, and
division da,. -m the party wall is requested, Approval was Pacomotendcd and the property
I
owner reminded a re--ent Village ordinance requires each half of a double bungalowt
have separate sewer and water servicas when divided down the party wall. 7
A motion to approve the requested lot division was made by Mr,, Hughes and
seconded by Mr,, Rairyan, All voted aye. Motion carrier"I.
LD�-73-14 Gloria E,, Korn. li913 AU2si2.Lane., Lot_jBlock 3, Lake Edina Addition
H I
r° Luce czplained a reques-116- has been made to divide the east 1.5 feet from the
lot at 4913 Lane ansa add it to the lot at 4`309 Aspasia Lane. No variance,.;
would be required sad :ipproval was moon-Eftended.
Mr. Ar,6hur Jolifs, representing the proporen-t., indicated a fence follows the
proposed division line,
Rv° G,, Johnson moved the reque&tkod lot division be appxvvad, and 14r. C, Johnson
seconded the Tootiono All vot-ed aye, Mcyclon car-.oied,
LD -73-15 Robert B,, Klein. 7302 Claredon Drivec. Lot 12, Block I., Holland's
14r,, Luce recalled thlat in 1961 Ithe easterly c()zjj,,7_,r of j!ot 5, Prospect Hills, was
dig,-ided from that lot and deed,,ad to lot -,jire,7tj-,r east° In 3.966 the owner of Lot 6,
Pr,ovpect Hills, reciuested an.eL 1,z:cejv&.. ;:I lot djvlsion ciividingthat lot into two
bulld&ble' lots, access to the nox-i-1-1 portion `j' -c -alae Drive and access to the
south .o-v&Uon propo3ed to be via the cast 17 feet c:" LQLt 12, Block I., Holland's lst
Addition fron Clarclon Drive-., The pvesent reque'.-riC is ",o divide the east 17 feet ftwi
I,, Block 12., Holland's Ist Addllticn and add it to south portion of Lot 6.
Prospcc,e. hiII3, to legally p-novide access -Co -that lo -l-, by Council action in 11966.
V/
C
Lu e x- c--nnentc.,81 {Si t d
e re-, e, _d lo- iison he continued
unti-I rax c re-nular -Fleating so foullsig
i1 be , al
lowed; seve-nal
fect--id by deed restr��'.c%-
neighhf_'�t,s indicated t'ha lot Creat -ed in is , af
7 h
tion -s. t. iich they iaT�v alt-1:emPt to an'torce ,.ivilly to �ibi` c0hctructiO-11 0' f a ouse on
the lot,
Edina Planning Com -mission
I- Noveriber 1, 1973
Following brief discussion, Mr, Hughes moved -the lo -'1- division request be
delayel until the next regu-lar meeting, November 28- 1973Iffo objectiars being heard,
Mr. Dean seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried,,
IIIo SUBDIVISIONS:
S-73-11 Gabbert G Beck, Inc. registered land survey. Generallv located between
h
W, Go Yo
tzx� �Oih i =ne Aive"U, �s,
Hr. Luce explained the proposed registered land survey would survey all of the
buildings in the area in question, except the car wash and Ford establishments, into
more rational, taxable units. lie noted the staff has no objections, modifications, or
conditions and recommended approval.
Mr. C. Johnson moved the requested registered land survey be approved as
submitted, zind 14r. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted wje. Hction carried.
S-73-12 ? -
,2yton Hudson Prop2�rti�s, Inc. -zegistered land. survay. Generally
'ro-ER t E east of
Locate soOh of --W. 69-RTStreet, north ot
Malley V i �ewRo�Sd .
?4r,. Luce explained the adjustment of existip,-- pjop!Bri--y2114-acs is requested so the
health spa and an office bui.-,-d.tng press -ntly locatcd OD two of the three proposed tracts
can purchase more land for additional 'third t3 -a -t will eventually be
developed, preferably as an office building: Approval was rece-minended as the resulting/
additional parking would be an obvious benefit to tho neieifbo-rbood- L/
lir. 1,tunyan moved the proposed registered land swur-vey be approved as submitted -
and the Traffic Safety Committee requested to co-isid--,r r-cnoving part of the adjacent
on-ctreet parking because ad�Utional parking space be made available. Mr. Co
Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. motic-n carried.
S-73-13 Oakwood Ponds 1st Addition for Edina Project). Generally
Ch Street " ii;j or.ii-T
f,�,naemarPwrk,' ana7es�-
Mr. Luce recalled the lleo-ndominia;is for Edjy)&',1 projec-' planned for this site has
received preiiminary and final plan .approval for ?,,RD -2 zoning� A final platting is now
requested; approval was recommended provided a developer �s agreement is accomplished
with 'Che Engineering DeparLuaent and provided the a-py>,-,o-
pr;a-'c,3 deeds and cash balance are
receival to satisfy the 5% parkland dedication raqui--oemert-,
In z,aply -to Mr. Dean, Mr, Dunn stated t1he )rc7�nnt p-7oposal for Gleason Road i
that ii- will be constructed by the Village oi-- 76t'3i Sty:aet and the cost arse 3S
propor*ionately 'to all of the benefited ,,.)rqper-,-ty
,j-,,_ Bob, Cialk of L 7701 Glasgoi,. r Drive asked walking paths could be
C4X-1st1VuCZc(! ;,eon t'he nopth prc�pery line. to Brzcj?
Lc-,irtis stated the trade
Cif paz'klar-d --a coajunc"LL
orwit'-01-`' ----cj ew:L s 'rifle FarC, Bo xx
o 7e a
I --ng
yeav agoo mro Lucc added rra,e-nk vubl,c s
e 1vC eo) E.r-a
not in favor of
pa:eh-ways -LibrovgX-33 dr -IodesCle S"ugz'rent-ed Mr� Cisrz present a 'actit."
'to -Village COU-ilcil If h- wlshcs to thCi .fl. :Z'L .3 dJ ! of ccmnuter pat -hs in-hiis
Mr,; C,, Johnson ruoved the plat presented be api,)rOved I'TiLh ti -'e contingencies noted
by the staff, and Hughes seconded -the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Edina Planning Com -mission -3- Ncven�e-o 1, 1973
S-73-10 Ebene%er SuIiety 1st Addition,, Ge-norillyloca.I:ed on the west side of
YC Avenue Detween W. Tf—th
MMO
Z-73-16 Ebenezer Socie-t� et al. Generally located wast of York Avenue between
_7_4t_h_ar_.J' 76th §_tFe_e• s. R-). SingleFami Resider . Str.; ct to
'R-5 MultipResides
lotial istrict.
Hr. Luce recalled the developers were told to request- FIM -E zoning rather than
R-5 to allow the Village greater control so that any development on the land would be
in accordance with the project approved when the land was zoned. Because the developers
felt the timetable for PRD -5 zoning would be tco constrained end wish to request R®5
zoning, no drawings were submitted for PRD -5 review or approval, Er. Luce cautioned
that if -this property is zoned R45, it would be the only high rise site, without any
controls such as those that exist for the Erickson site, zoned PRD -5, C for the high
rise sites in Yorktown which are encumbered by Y3PIctoinn restrictions. VI
As directed at the last Planning Commissi<)n meating, Mr. Luce no -Led he requested
a de tennination from Tom Er-Eckson, the Village At-torney, as to whether the auxiliary
uses proposed would be allowed under PRD -5 zoning. The ,' )ro-�ionentls architect was then
;n:F62,,m,ed Hr. Erickson indicated that when rezorak.ig to PTI -j-5 is approved by the Planning
Cormission and Cauncil, appri)val of the project at "th.,:1.t time constitutes approval of any
variances Sucluded; however,, any variancos included in an ?,.-5 zoning request are not
approved at the titne of rezo-.iing but must be appvoved by the Board. of Appeals and
Adjustments. Mr, Luce re--o-mnertded denial of the IR -5 rzques-�': in view of those facts
and added the developers should be encouraged to PRJ1-5 zoning, as this type of
low traffic generating development is good for southo..ast Edina. but other projects
allowed uxider R-5 zoning cou':,.cl have gzeve consc.qaen-__,s,
Mr,, Thompson of Ubenenar Society stated t1lat "after diectission at the last meeting,
we left feeling PRD -S would suit o1wr purposes if theL. vises could he made part
of the approval at the time of rezoning. Our financing, ha4ever, is such that if soil
-tests are satisfactory and zoning is approved, pxPchasc of this property is to be
constm-ated or. December 20th., We decided we could r. der submit all of the things needed
for P.RD-5 zoning approval and still meet our financing deadlines". He stated he did
not feel more detailed design work could be begua untilthay k -row the proposed density,
park.ing ratio, and auxiliary uses would be allowed in order to meet the economics
required,
Mr. Luce responded thc,a Septerp-ber 26, 1.973, Planning Covir
mission minutes state the
requested Tr=ber of units, ni.a-ver questioned by the Commtssion, and the -motion includes
a general concensus reg;uding a reasond�ale parki-,-ig In addition, the proponents
C,
were informed of the Village Attorney's opinion that- if tine ,.)roject approved by the
Comission and Council .;ncluiles the wxciliary usea othz::� amenities planned, that
approval constitures it Variance at the t5me of -to '?RD -5.
,
it'I L. Robert Engstrom, one. of thE2 property s,,rmmarized after, considerable,
discussion that -ehey "a -e+ lc.)klng for an approval of; tl,clr concept so they can -then
takc and put form c`_nd mass and .zhape to it for Flan-mlig Coixnaission :Oeviewt,, 11r.
!;.Ice -'Vaiterated fiat referii,il;as to the. p:noponentio concerns of parking, density,
P -ad 'amonities were;-m-ade in the 9-26-7"i P-lannink, CorLI.nvion -minutec' or 11-1-73 staff
sport; both adcq�uately thle :Facq- tbat t'ha Criim2i'Ssio-n E-md staff generally are
in favor of the use, Which would be a low traffic ge%erating rise and desirable in south-
eant Edina. The Planning Cos isssion generally a, rezd but felt it would be inappropriate
Edina Plannirg Commission -4, November 1, 1973
to go on record at this time with any specific appro7als re 'gaiding the project. Mr.
HugLes then moved t:he requested plat be coati nv.,ed peadizrr a?plieation fora rezoning to
PRD -5 for the reasons discussed, and Mr. Dean seconded the motiono All voted aye.
Motion carried.
Mr. G. Johnson moved the requested rezoning also be postpored indefinitely,
pending application for rezoning to PRD -5. Mr, Hughes seconded the motion. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Informal Hearing;: �E_ A�, Nialand and H. G. Haglun6. Generally located
at the nortillUest corneroF W. VF-c—h 7treeT and Cahilload. Rezonina
center.
Mr. Luce noted a detailed staff rniport or reconffaandation was not written because
an informal hearing only was requested in order t -o obtain a reaction from the Commission
regarding the proposal and possible futlai-e rezoning request. He briefly reviewed the
materials submitted by the developers and the staff report, and noted that when the
Southwest Edina Plan was being discussed he indicated a land use other than multiple
residential might be reasonable on this site if p-roper-ly bit,-:fered because of the adjaceryt
indiLtstrial uses to the east and so-ath,, He questioned, however, whether additional
commercial facil.�ties, if needed, mient not be more irop-ropriately located adjacent to
existing com-erciial uses in Edina or Bloomington,
Mr,, Lewis questioned the need for additional commercial. development because oi-
-,%.e proximity of the .existint; center at 70th and -Cahill, Mr. Dear, agreed and added he
has received a great deal of negative reaction from 'tare people in the neighborhood. V
MrApt Haglund, one of the proponerits, state the proposed facility could be an
extension of the neighbor7hood area and an asset, as the existing center at 70th and
Cahill will not be adequate to servc the density presently under development and planned
in this area, The site is 6,,08 acres; 3.81 acres wo-ald be eammercial with the remaining
land developed as multiple residential at a densisy somewhat less than the 12 units
per acre allowed, A 100 foot setback toward the Wirehrood A'partments and 50 foot
setback along the wast property line are planned. D-awings indicating the general
neale, project layout, and e%tensive landscaping and buffering proposed were presented.
Hr. Haglund clarified the center would include a hig1l quality grocery and drug store.
14r,, Lewis read a letter from Mr. Michael 3uck represe-
nting Reaction Inc. indicating
their objection to any rezoning from resIdential '_-o oovemeinalal because of the Southwest
Edina Plan history-, -traffic congestion, and exist.ing co-,=eraial facilities, fir. Luce
C�
noted Reaction Inc., was begim in order to oppose, thi :
Edina Plabn7ZLn g Cor ssion -51:. No -r -o ober 1, 1973
20 idinneso,ta Planning Association Confer -once,
Mrs Luce indicated the Village of Edina will gay the registration fee for any
Plannirg Commission ine-rter wishing to attend the annual MPA Conference the enc? of
November. fie explained briefly the Minnesota Planning Associeci.on i -s a Planning
Comis:sion oriented association that began in about 1960 but stopped mec`sing in 1968
following the adoption of neva, planning legislation. '±'tie association is ctu^rer:tly
being revitalized because of the new and proposed environmental legislation
3. Notification Procacdures Discussed,
Mr. Luce volmteered to prepare several alternative preceduras in an attempt to
insu�� that all interested citizens are made aware of development proposals in thair�z
neighborhocA,, preferably at the Planning Commission level, to be considered at the
next regular meeting.
No fLu- har action take -a.
IV. Adjournmeaat
Rospec tful :y submitted,
Tjynnae Ilya., Secretary