HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 03-26MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1975
EDINA CITY HALL
Members Present: C. E. Johnson, Temporary Chairman,
M. McDonald, R. E. Kremer, and F.
Staff Present: G. Luce, City Planner, and L. Nye,
G. V. Johnson, D. T. Runyan,
S. Dean.
Secretary.
Mr. G. Johnson moved that Mr. C. Johnson be elected temporary Planning Commission
0.
chairman inasmuch as the regular chairman and chairman pro tem were absent. Mrs.
McDonald seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. C. Johnson
called the meeting to order.
I. Approval of the February 26, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes.
A motion to approve the February 26, 1975, Planning Commission minutes as
written was made by Mr. Runyan and seconded by Mr. G. Johnson. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
II. SUBDIVISIONS:
S-75-2 Rembrandt Manor. Generally located at the southwest corner of
Xerxes Avenue and the Crosstown Highway.
Mr. Luce recalled a similar three -lot subdivision received preliminary plat
approval in 1973 but was never completed. Because a nursing home on one of the
proposed lots was recently sold, subdivision is again requested to properly split
the taxes and accurately define and easily describe each parcel. Mr. Luce
recommended approval of the requested subdivision, contingent on a fee in lieu
of parkland in the amount of $18,600, for the following reasons:
1. This plat was originally a requirement of an approved variance;
2. The lots have been surveyed and a building built on each lot in
conformance with the proposed plat; and
3. The plat will clarify ownership and right-of-way in the area.
After brief discussion, Mr. Runyan moved the proposed three -.lot subdivision
be approved for the reasons outlined by the staff, provided a fee of $18,600 is
donated in lieu of parkland to satisfy the 5% parkland dedication requirement.
Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
5-74-13 Edina Property. Village Development Co. Generally located east
of County Road 18 and south of Malibu Drive.
III. REZONINGS:
Z-74-11 Village Development Co. - Edina Property. Generally located
south of Malibu Drive and east of County Road 18. R-1 Single
Family Residence District to PID Planned Industrial District
and R-2 Multiple Residence District.
3-26-75 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
Mr. Luce recalled the requested rezoning and subdivision were reviewed
at the October and November 1974 Planning Commission meetings and postponed pending
a City Council decision on the Western Edina traffic and ingress and egress
questions. He noted the park and planned industrial areas are unchanged in the
present submittal, but the single family and double bungalow areas have been
revised pursuant to an earlier Planning Commission and staff recommendation; the
number of single family lots was reduced from 15 to 12, thereby increasing the
average lot size to about 14,500 square feet, and the street patterns were modified
to conform with the Western Edina Traffic Study approved by the Edina City Council
in December, 1974. He clarified that Lincoln Drive and Malibu Drive will be
cul -de -sated inasmuch as the Council has determined in the Western Edina Traffic
Study that Lincoln Drive need not be a through street because western access roads
will be constructed at the north end of Malibu Drive and at Dover Drive.
Mr. Luce reviewed the Western Edina Land Use Plan and indicated the
proposed land uses conform to that plan and create a transition between the County
Road 18 industrial uses and Parkwood Knolls 4th Addition and, other single family
residential areas to the east. Mr. Luce recommended approval of the preliminary
plat and rezoning, contingent on dedication of the 6.2 acre park via the subdivision,
because: 1. The land useage conforms to the Western Edina Land Use Plan; 2. The
traffic patterns conform to the Western Edina Traffic Study, approved by the City
Council in December, 1974; and 3. The lots sizes have been increased and are now
of adequate size to cause a reasonable transition between Parkwood Knolls 4th
Addition and the industrial and freeway uses along County Road 18. Mr. Luce noted
the southern cul-de-sac and short road leading to that cul-de-sac could be reduced
from a 60 foot right of way and radius to a 50 foot street right of way and cul-de-
sac radius.
Mr. Kremer doubted whether the Western Edina Plan has been properly
amended to reflect the road changes approved in the Western Edina Traffic Study;
he stated that if the Western Edina Land Use Plan has not been amended, the street
pattern in the proposed development violates that plan by dead -ending Lincoln
Drive. Mr. Luce responded that a feasibility study was done and public hearings
on the Western Edina Traffic Study were held before the City Council. It was
generally assumed that this traffic study superseded the traffic plan shown
schematically on the Western Edina Land Use Plan. Mr. Kremer charged that the
proposed road changes and the traffic study were "handled entirely at the staff
level, without any Planning Commission involvement or even the courtesy of a notice
of the meeting or a copy of the minutes. It might be well for the Planning
Commission to see how that was done, since it appears a meeting of the staff was
called where they decided what to do and did it." He suggested the Planning
Commission receive copies of the Council minutes "to at least know the background
of it if we are going to approve projects totally in conflict with the comprehensive
plan." He added he personally does not think the proposed plan is a good develop-
ment plan, and he feels that Lincoln Drive should be a through street. He felt
the grade at the proposed Dover Drive crossing would be too steep, and questioned
who will pay for that road and creek crossing. Mr. Kremer added that "there
shouldn't be any more development in this area.until there is an exit from western
Edina to County Road 18." Mr. G. Johnson agreed that approval of the proposed
development would compound the View Lane/Schaefer Road traffic problem, and
suggested the request be continued to the next -meeting.
3-26-75 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
Mr. Victor Oliver, 6620 Parkwood Road, and Mr. William Dorsey, 6624
Parkwood Road, stated they are not concerned about the traffic problems but want
protection to the west of Parkwood Knolls 4th Addition. Mr. Oliver clarified
he thinks the concept is good, but the proposed single family lots are still too
small and should be made the same size as the lots in Parkwood Knolls 4th Addition.
Following additional discussion regarding the existing topography and
vegetation, the present and proposed street patterns, and the improved lot sizes,
a motion to continue the requested rezoning to the April 30th Planning Commission
meeting was made by Mr. G. Johnson and seconded by Mrs. McDonald. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
Mr. G. Johnson then made a motion to continue the requested subdivision to
the April 30th Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion.
All voted aye. Motion carried. The Planning Commission instructed the staff
to provide a copy of the Western Edina Traffic Study as approved by the City
Council, and copies of the minutes or other information which identifies the
review of that plan and how it was approved.
IV`. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Open Space Report.
Mr. Luce recalled a field trip for the Planning Commission, City Council,
Park Board, and EQC was held on March 1, 1975, to review the nine open space sites
proposed to be acquired via subdivision dedication, life estate, or outright
purchase for recreation or protection open space. He stated the Park Board has
indicated they cannot afford to develop those parklands presently in their
possession, and acquisition of additional land would only make improvements to the
existing parkland more difficult unless the capital improvements budget were to
be comparably increased. Mrs. McDonald, the. Planning Commission liaison to the
Park Board, clarified the Park Board is planning a slide presentation for the
Council regarding their capital improvements program and will include their
position and recommendations on the open space report in that presentation.
Mr. Luce reviewed the location and proposed method of acquisition of each
of the nine open space sites and commented as follows:
-- The Hedberg Property (Parcel No. 5) should be included because it is
shown on the South Edina Plan as parkland and is proposed to be acquired via
subdivision dedication.
-- Acquisition of the Rutledge Park House (Parcel No. 14) by life estate
should be a Park Board responsibility and not necessarily part of an open space
acquisition plan.
-- The Moore Property on Mirror Lake (Parcel No. 18), proposed to be
purchased for recreational open space, should be excluded because it is quite narrow
and is adjacent to the water and single family homes; it is, therefore, of question-
able value as active parkland. Site No. 21, a proposed active parkland area to be
located on the Carl Hansen propezty north of Parkwood Knolls, would be an excellent
replacement for Parcel No. 18 in the Open Space Report, and could be acquired by
subdivision dedication.
)�-
3-26-75 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
-- Because only 20 percent of the floodplain can be filled and developed,
80 percent of the Wallace Kenneth Property - south of Lincoln Drive (Parcel No. 22)
will remain as open space and probably be dedicated to the City whether or not it
is included in the open space report.
-- The Garden Park - to Grove Street and railroad tracks site (Parcel
No. 28) is a logical extension of an existing park.
-- Because the Moore Property on Melody Lake (Parcel No. 29) is too small
and too isolated, it would not be enjoyed by many as protection or recreational
open space, but would be more beneficial to the city as single family lots.
-- The Karl Krahl Hill site (Parcel No. 33), proposed to be purchased for
protection open space, should be excluded because it could be developed and still
retain much of its natural character. Inasmuch as the City is being sued for
multiple residential zoning on this site, acquisition of this land is probably a
question at this time.
-- The McCauley Trail South property (Parcel No. 37)should be excluded
because the land is low and swampy, and would not be appropriate for active
recreation open space; inclusion of this site appears to be an attempt to try to
locate and identify an open space site in this part of Edina. Most recreation
needs could, however, be met in the large backyards in the area, at Braemar Park,
or at the school facilities.
-- The Cahill School site (Parcel No. 42) is the open space buffer provided
in the Southwest Edina Plan and should therefore be acquired to further accomplish
that overall land use system.
Following discussion, Mr. Runyan noted the staff's excellent evaluation
and moved the recommendation for each proposed open space site be accepted by the
Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Kremer seconded the
motion, noting that some of the other sites originally considered by the Open Space
Committee might be worth acquiring in the future, if only in terms of reducing the
overall density. All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. ADJOURNMENT.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary