HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 04-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1975
EDINA CITY HALL
Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, D. T. Runyan, C. E. Johnson,
G. V. Johnson, F. S. Dean, M. McDonald, and R. E. Kremer.
Staff Present: G. Luce, City Planner, R. C. Dunn, City Engineer, and L. Nye, Secretary.
I. Approval of the March 26, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes.
A motion to approve the March 26, 1975, Planning Commission minutes as written
and submitted was made by Mr. C. Johnson and seconded by Mrs. McDonald. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
II. LOT DIVISIONS:
LD -75-2 Stanley Berglund and Carl Pohlad. Lot 41, Rolling Green (4808 Bywood
West) and Lot 1, Block 1, Beckstrom Addition (4810 Bywood West).
Mr. Luce recalled a similar lot division was approved in March,1974, to
adjust the side lot lines of both properties and improve the front yard space. That
division, however, proved unacceptable to one property owner so a revised lot division
has been requested. A slight adjustment of the lot lines would result, but both
lots would still exceed the city ordinance lot size and setback requirements. Mr.
Luce recommended approval because the division would not create an additional
buildable lot and it would relieve a hardship without having a deleterious affect on
surrounding properties.
After brief discussion, Mr. Hughes moved the requested lot division be approved,
and Mr. Kremer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
LD -75-3 Jeffrey Gustafson. Lot 1, Block 1, Gleason Fifth Addition. 6417-19
Vernon Avenue.
Mr. Luce explained the proponent is requesting to divide an existing double
bungalow down the party wall to allow separate ownership of each unit. He recommended
approval of the request, contingent on the separation of sewer and water facilities
if that separation has not already been accomplished.
Mr. Runyan moved the requested lot division be approved, provided the sewer
and water facilities are separated. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
III. SUBDIVISIONS:
S-75-3 Don Byerly Registered Land Survey. Generally located at 5204 Blake
Road, between Blake and Schaefer Roads and north of Evanswood Lane.
Mr. Luce recalled several past attempts were made to subdivide Outlot A,
Evanswood 2nd Addition, but all were refused due to the area's storm and sanitary
sewer system problems.
He stated the proposed registered land survey would combine the Evanswood 2nd
Addition outlot and lots 39, 40, and part of lot 41, Auditor's Subdivision No. 325,
and would resurvey the land to create two tracts. One tract (about 16,700 square
feet) would encompass the existing house at 5204 Blake Road; Mr. Byerly has proposed
to build one single family detached house on the remaining tract of land (about 6.3
acres). Mr. Luce recommended approval of the proposed registered land survey because
4-30-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2
the areah storm and sanitary sewer problems would be solved and because the large
lot platting would protect adjacent property owners who are concerned about future
development in the area. He noted approval should be granted provided: 1. the sewer
is extended from Evanswood Addition north along Blake Road to serve both Tracts A
and B as proposed; 2. the pond at the north end of Evanswood Lane is not filled or
disturbed so that it maintains its storm water holding capacity; and 3. a $3,750.00
cash donation (5% of the raw land value as determined by the City Assessor) is given
in lieu of a parkland dedication.
In reply to Mr. G. Johnson, Mr. Luce clarified the portion of Tract A on
Blake Road north of Tract B would be of sufficient width to be divided in the future
from Tract A. Several Planning Commissioners observed that although the resulting
lot would meet the minimum ordinance requirements, that division would be undesirable
because the lot would be narrower than the existing lots in the neighborhood. Mr. Dean
suggested Tract B retain an additional five feet along the north lot line.
Mr. Don Byerly, the proponent, stated "our intention is to build one house on
the 6.3 acres. We have a verbal agreement with Mr. Kelly (the present owner of
lots 39 and 40) that when he disposes of Tract B, we have right of first refusal. We
want to buy all of the land to prevent someone else from further platting it."
Following lengthy discussion regarding the ponding area, Evanswood Lane, the
history of the Blake/Schaefer area, possible future platting of the proposed
registered land survey, and the configuration and size of the proposed tracts of land,
Mr. Dean moved the requested registered land survey be approved as presented,
contingent on the items listed by the staff. Mr. Kremer seconded the motion.
Messrs. Dean, C. Johnson, Runyan and Kremer, and Mrs. McDonald voted aye. Messrs.
G. Johnson, Lewis, and Hughes voted nay. Motion carried 5-3.
S-75-4 Whiteman Additiona. Generally located between Blake Road and Mirror
Lake.
Mr. Luce stated a 13 lot subdivision is requested for the 10 acre site in
question. The proposed lot sizes would vary from 17,000 to 25,000 square feet,
although Mr. Whiteman`s lot and another lot with access on Mirror Lake would be
considerably larger (118,,000 square feet and 96,000 square feet). Mr. Luce noted
the proposed extension of W. Highwood Drive would allow further extension of that
road through the Leonard property to the south, and would provide a logical sub-
division for that property which Mr. Leonard may use in the future. He clarified
a temporary cul-de-sac would be constructed at the south lot line of the Whiteman
Addition.
Mr. Luce recalled the. Open Space Committee, in its January, 1975, report,
recommended the Leonard property and part of the Whiteman property be acquired by the
City for open space purposes;,the City Council, however, has not yet made a decision.
Mr. Luce recommended the proposed 13 lot subdivision be approved because that
approval would not affect th; acquisition of the property; the proposed use is
consistent with the Western Edina Land Use Plan, it is a logical, extension of
existing development; and the lot sizes are equal to or greater than the surrounding;
lot sizes and far exceed the minimum zoning ordinance requirements. Ile noted approval
of the subdivision should be contingent on: 1. provision of a sewer lift station for
R
4-30-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3
lots 6 and,7 as part of the developer's agreement 2. reassessment on a per lot
basis of the sanitary sewer assessment now levied against the north side of the
property; 3. widening of the proposed easement between lot 3 and lot 4 of block 1
to meet the engineering department requirements; 4. provision of a storm sewer ease-
ment along the north side of lot 7; 5. a contribution of $8,000 (5% of the raw
land value as determined by the City Assessor) to satisfy the parkland dedication
requirement; and 6. provision of a 100 foot easement for open space purposes along
the lakeshore of Mirror Lake.
Mr. Hughes moved the proposed 13 lot subdivision be approved for the reasons
stated by the staff, and with the five contingencies listed. Mr. G. Johnson seconded
the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Mr. Bob Worthington, Director of -Planning for Rauenhorst Corporation and
representing Jerry Rauenhorst, owner of the lot directly north, expressed concern
about a possible impact on the ingress and egress for the Rauenhorst property. He
explained that access to the Rauenhorst home is currently by way of an 18 foot
driveway easement on the Whiteman property along the north lot line from Blake Road.
Because they did not have an opportunity to review the proposed plat in detail, Mr.
Worthington requested the Planning Commission add to their approval the stipulation
that Mr. Whiteman and Mr. Rauenhorst meet and attempt to resolve this and any other
issues prior to the final platting. Mr. Luce responded that approval of the plat
would not relieve Mr. Whiteman of any obligation to allow Mr. Rauenhorst to pass over
his property, as the easement is not a public easement but is an agreement between
Mr. Whiteman and Mr. Rauenhorst. Mr. Worthington clarified that the desire at this
point is to perhaps negotiate for the purchase of that easement before the platting
is final.
After further discussion, Mr. Hughes moved the earlier motion for approval of
the "Whiteman Addition" be subject to a satisfactory solution to the easement problem
between Mr. Whiteman, the proponent, and Mr. Rauenhorst, owner of the property
directly north. Mr. Dean seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
S-74-13 Edina Green (Village Development Company). Generally located east
of County Road 18 and south of Malibu Drive.
AND
Z-74-11 Village Development Company (Edina Green). Generally located east
of Count Road 18 and south of Malibu Drive. R-1 Single Family
Residence District to R-2 and PID Planned Industrial District.
Mr. Luce recalled the Village Development Company's requests for subdivision
and rezoning have been continued by the Planning Commission several times, most
recently for an opportunity to review the background and recommendations of the
Western Edina Traffic Study. He reviewed briefly that the proposed development would
extend and cul-de-sac Malibu Drive to the south and west to serve five double
bungalow lots and 12 single family lots; the land west of Nine Mile Creek would be
used for an office building with access to Lincoln Drive, and the remaining 6.3
acres, primarily along the east side of the creek, would be donated to the City for
park purposes.
4-30-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4
Mr. Luce recalled the proponents had previously submitted a development plan
in conformance with the original traffic studies and recommendations; i.e., Lincoln
Drive would cross Nine Mile Creek and would be a north/south through street. While
that development plan was under consideration, the City Council approved the west-
ward extension of Dovre Drive to Lincoln Drive because the grade from Parkwood Lane
to Lincoln Drive was considered unfeasible, as a result of the detailed engineering
department study, and because construction of Lincoln Drive would have disrupted a
marshy area and the environmental planner felt the extension of Dovre was preferable
so as not to isolate a portion of the floodplain.
Mr. Luce concluded the only difference in impact between the original develop-
ment plans and the most current development plan, prepared in response to the
Council's decisions to cul-de-sac Lincoln Drive and extend Dovre Drive west, is
the route traffic originating from the south end of Malibu Drive must take.
Mr. Dick Kremer presented a memorandum (attached) to the Planning Commission,
dated April 30, 1975, and asked that it be made a part of the record. He reviewed
the contents of the memorandum, indicating that the proposed development plan should
be denied because it does not conform to the Western Edina Plan; it does not conform
to the Western Edina Circulation Plan ("prepared by an outside consultant with the
input of 15 interested citizens appointed by the Mayor"); the street access is
inadequate; and because proper procedures for vacating the Lincoln Drive right of
way as proposed in the requested subdivision have not been followed. Regarding the
Western Edina Land Use Plan, Mr. Kremer noted it "calls for Lincoln Drive to go
through, and this right of way was acquired from the former land owner; in fact,
the road was designed all the way up to Interlachen." He.added that "if we are
going to take these land use plans seriously and rely on them, they shouldbegiven
some respect and either officially changed or else followed." Regarding the task
force Western Edina Circulation Plan, Mr. Kremer stated the final recommendation of
the task force combined the Lincoln Drive creek crossing with the connection of
Parkwood Lane and Malibu Drive to Lincoln Drive on the north side of the creek. He
stated the Lincoln Drive crossing of Nine Mile Creek and the Parkwood Lane connection
(Alternate l of Issue Area 3) was an integral part of the Western Edina Circulation
Plan, and was approved by the task force, the City Council, the EQC, and the Traffic
Safety Committee. The Engineering Department then prepared a feasibility report and,
based on what they considered the easier engineering of the Dovre crossing, completely
abandoned this solution; "the staff had an all day session on this, recommended the
Dovre Drive crossing and the Lincoln Drive cul-de-sac at the creek directly to the
City Council, and the City Council approved it". Mr. Kremer stated that if the
proposed development plan were approved, Alternate 1 would be made impossible and
would be abandoned, the right of way already acquired would be vacated, and it would
forego the possibility of someday extending Lincoln Drive through to the north.
Mr. Dunn stated the Parkwood Lane connection to Lincoln Drive north of the
creek was abandoned in favor of the Dovre Drive extension because of the 10% grade,
because of the fact that it would have been constructed through a marsh area, and
because it would be necessary to extend Dovre Drive west in order to develop the
residential property west of Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition. It was decided the
Dovre Drive crossing would be more beneficial in that it would serve two purposes;
namely, egress for Parkwood Knolls and provision of a street to serve the Rauenhorst
residential property.
w
4-30-75 Edina Planning Commission Minutes, page 5
Lengthy discussion followed regarding the Western Edina Circulation Plan
recommendations, the Western Edina Traffic Study and its recommendations, the
feasibility of two creek crossings, the environmental impact of the Parkwood Lane
connection and Lincoln Drive crossings versus the Dovre Drive crossing, the
increasing traffic problem in Parkwood Knolls and the areas to the south, future
development of the Wallace Kenneth property to the north, and the process for
vacating a street right of way.
Mr. Kremer stated that "as far as any personal conflict of interest, I am
willing to abstain and say that any interest in property I have south of the area
in question would be benefited by Lincoln Drive not going through."
Mr. Jerry Peterson and Mr. Don Hess representing the Village Development
Company requested their development plan be accepted or rejected, as the issues
discussed could be brought forward and decided upon by the City Council at a public
hearing.
Following lengthy discussion, Mr. Runyan moved the subdivision and rezoning
be approved as presented; the motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. G. Johnson,
noting that he favors two creek crossings, moved the subdivision and rezoning
requests be denied. Mr. Kremer seconded the motion. Messrs. Dean and G. Johnson
voted aye; Messrs. C. Johnson, Lewis, Hughes and Runyan and Mrs. McDonald voted nay.
Mr. Kremer abstained. Motion failed 2-5 with one abstention. Noting that the Planning
Commission must rely on the opinions and recommendations of the engineering department
and that he would agree with Mr. Luce that the daily traffic to be generated from
this area would not constitute a major traffic problem, Mr. Runyan recalled his
earlier motion to accept the subdivision and rezoning. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion.
Messrs. Dean and G. Johnson voted nay. Messrs. C. Johnson, Lewis, Hughes, and Runyan
and Mrs. McDonald voted aye. Mr. Kremer abstained. Motion carried 5-2 with one
abstention.
S-75-5 Shadow Hill Center (Robert E. Hanson). Generally located at the
northeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and County Road 18.
AND
Z-75-1 Robert E. Hanson. (Shadow Hill Center) Generally located at the
northeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and County Road 18.
R-1 Single Family Residence District to PD2'and PCI(4) Planned
Commercial Districts.
Mr. Luce reviewed the surrounding zoning and recalled that on several occasions
in the past requests for commercial zoning for the properties in question were denied
by the Planning Commission or City Council. In addition, a request for commercial
zoning on this property was incorporated in the original Western Edina Plan and was
specifically denied by the City Council; the plan was redrafted, excluding the commercial
zoning and including instead a multiple residential land use for the property in
question, and was subsequently approved by the Council. Mr. Luce recalled the
proponents and staff have also periodically discussed this land use proposal, and
each time the staff recommended commercial zoning not be pursued and that the
comprehensive plan calling for multiple residential dwellings be followed. He noted
several developments have occurred in conformance with the Western Edina Plan, and
the adjacent areas have beenoccupiedwith a dependence on that plan.
4-30-75 Edina Planning Commission Minutes, page 6
Mr. Luce stated that the amount of traffic to be generate
development proposed would far exceed the amount of generation t
multiple residential development occurred in conformance with tr
The existing traffic system would therefore be greatly impacted,
development would mandate an upgraded traffic system, including
Lincoln Drive to Gleason Road, at public expense.
w
from the type of
be expected if
Western Edina Plan
and, in fact, this
frontage road from
Mr. Luce recommended denial of the requested rezoning for commercial/office
facilities for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is totally inconsistent with the Western'Edina Plan and was
identified as being inconsistent when that plan was approved.
2. Development of the proposed shopping center and office facilities would
have a deleterious affect on adjacent land uses, which developed with
confidence in the Western Edina Plan.
3. A transportation system does not now exist, nor have public funds been
ear -marked, to provide a transportation system which could accommodate the
volumes of traffic expected to be generated from this ',development.
Mr. Luce added that because the proposed land use is inappropriate for the site
in question, the property is precluded from being subdivided for ,such land use, and
thus the subdivision should also be denied.
Mr. Bert Whitbread, a resident of the Edina West condominium development,
submitted a petition signed by approximately 50 other Edina West ',residents opposed
to the requested rezoning plan.
Mr. Jim Christensen of Real Estate Research Corporation recalled the original
market study for commercial facilities on this site was done in 1969 and updated in
1972-73 and again in 1974. He presented slides and illustrated and described the
elements for determining potential for the development, the traffic analysis, the
population densities per acre as they relate to this site, the competing retail
locations, a projection for service areas, and a projection of the drawing area. He
stated the market study completed in 1974 concluded that there was now a potential
for between 110,000-130,000 square feet of retail space, with the major anchors being
a grocery store, a drug store, and a junior department store. The daily traffic
generation would be 10,000-12,500 vehicles per day, with a peak hour volume of
800-1,000 vehicles. He concluded that "with what looked like a very good opportunity
to provide retail services that were needed now in Edina on a site that would support
commercial development and which has some dubious qualities in terms of other types
of development, it was decided to proceed with the preliminary development plan."
Mr. Christensen continued, illustrating the existing topography and vegetation
of the east (south of Vernon Avenue) and west (north of Vernon Avenue) portions of
the site. He presented a concept layout for the west property, explaining that that
portion of the shopping center would include a detached family restaurant, a grocery
and drug store, and apparel stores. The majority of the parking would be in the
front, and screened loading docks would be on the north and northwest sides. Mr.
Christensen explained the east side of the Shadow Hill Center would be a convenience
center, containing a hardware store and other services, and would include two office
buildings on the southeast part of the site. He reviewed the drainage, grading, and
4-30-75 Edina Planning Commission Minutes, page 7
utility plans for both portions of the project, and showed the projected peak hour
traffic generation on Vernon Avenue and County Road 18 for the existing primary access
points as well as for the proposed transportation system, including the frontage road
from Lincoln Drive to Gleason Road. He presented several transportation solutions
and the type of traffic generation that would result, as well as alternative concept
plans responding to variations in the transportation system.
Several Planning Commission members observed that the proposed land use would
not conform with the Western Edina Plan, the property in question would not be
suitable for a commercial use, and the traffic would be excessive for that neighborhood.
After discussion, Mr. Dean moved the subdivision and rezoning be denied for the reasons
listed by the staff, with particular emphasis on the fact that the development proposal
does not agree with the Western Edina Plan. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
Z-74-12 Lowry Hill Enterprises, Inc. Generally located at the southwest
corner_ of Dewey Hill Road and Cahill Road. R-1 Single Family
Residence District to PRD -5 Planned Residential District.
Mr. Luce recalled the Planning Commission discussed the confidence of the
neighborhood in the Southwest Edina Plan, and weighed the benefits and negative
characteristics of five story versus three story buildings at their last meeting.
He recalled the rezoning request was continued, however, when motions to approve
and deny the development received tie votes.
Mr. Luce reviewed that the proponents are requesting rezoning to allow
construction of a five story multiple residential building, versus the three
story maximum building height allowed by the Southwest Edina Plan; while the density
and traffic generation would be identical for a three story or five story development,
the major difference would be in terms of the construction type, land coverage, and
building mass.
In reply to Mr. Dean, Mr. Dennis Madden, the real estate broker involved,
clarified that there would be a 5% difference in the amount of open land if a four
story rather than five story building were constructed; if a three story building
were built, there would be a ten percent difference in the amount of open space
preserved.
Mr. Bill Howard, 5808 Dewey Hill Road, presented petitions signed by about
60 neighborhood residents who are opposed to the five story project. He stated he
and his neighbors are concerned that, after working several years on the Southwest
Edina Plan and finally accepting that plan, "we are now being asked to change the
plan without being given what we feel are good reasons." He reiterated their major
concerns also include the question of precedence, the deterioration of their
environment and the use of their neighborhood. He concluded that "if you take
precedence and visual impact alone, we feel we are in an area where there is no reason
to deviate from the approved plan." Mr. Ed Norbut, 7312 Schey Drive, agreed the
neighborhood residents do not want a deviation from the Southwest Edina Plan.
Following further discussion, Mr. Dean moved the five story multiple
residential proposal be denied because it is not in conformance with the Southwest
Edina Plan agreement restricting the maximum height in the area to three stories,
and also because it is unacceptable to the residents. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion.
4-30-75 Edina Planning Commission Minutes, page 8
Messrs. Dean, G. Johnson, C. Johnson, Runyan, and Kremer and Mrs. McDonald voted aye.
Mr. Hughes, noting the development proposal was approved by the EQC, would be located
immediately adjacent to an industrial area, would provide a durable, fire resistent
type of construction, and would mean less land coverage and therefore more open
space, voted nay. Mr. Lewis abstained. Motion carried 6-1 with one abstention..
Z-75-2 Colonial Church of Edina. Generally located north of the Crosstown
Highway, south of Olinger Boulevard, east of Bredesen Park and Village
9, and west of Countryside Park and the Edina Fire Station on Tracy
Avenue. PRD -1 Planned Residential District to PRD -1 Planned Residential
District.
Mr. Luce noted the property in question is owned by Pemtom, and was rezoned to
PRD -1 in 1970 for 72 townhouse units.
He recalled that about one year ago, the staff and a committee from Colonial
Church discussed several alternative church relocation sites in Edina. The Pemtom
property was discussed at that time, and the staff recommended it not be pursued
because of its close proximity to the Village 9 townhouse development to the west and
the single family areas to the north; in addition, the residents of those adjacent
developments, as well as those residents involved in the original zoning process,
have relied on the townhouse zoning approved for this site. The church did, however,
acquire an option on the property and are now requesting a rezoning to modify the
existing zoning plan (townhouses) to allow a church.
Mr. Luce stated that although the architect has attempted to maintain a
"campus" quality to the development and is proposing large berms to screen the
parking lot, he is also concerned that the proposed institutional use, building, and
required parking lot, as well as the amount and type of traffic generated from this
use would be inconsistent with the residential neighborhood. In addition, the
proposal may degradate the topography and require excessive filling.
Mr. Luce stated the staff is therefore reluctant to recommend approval of
this land use, and feels that a townhouse or low density residential development
would be the most reasonable and beneficial use on the site. The church represen-
tatives have argued that a residential use is not appropriate because of the soil
conditions and the adjacent freeway.
Mr. Dave Griswold, chairman of the Colonial Church building committee,
stated that Richard Hamel, the architect, was engaged by the church about four years
ago when it became obvious that the church and its activities would outgrow its
present facility at 56th and Wooddale. He recalled the Colonial church acquired an
option on this site about a year ago, but let that option expire when they looked at
a site on Vernon and Olinger; it was decided, however, that that site would not be
adequate in terms of size. An option was again secured for the Tracy Avenue location,
as their first concern was in buying a site large enough to contain the church and
its activities without negatively impacting the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Griswold
pointed out the lake and freeway provide a wide buffer along the south lot line, a
150 foot setback is proposed to the west property line, a city park and fire station
are located immediately east, and the church would be buffered from the neighbors
to the north by a 15 foot berm.
4-30-75 Edina Planning Commission Minutes, page 9
Mr. Hamel, the architect, presented the site plan and cross sections
illustrating that the entire parking lot and much of the church building itself would
be hidden by the berm. He explained long drives from Olinger and Tracy will permit
access to the site without impacting the neighborhood.
In reply to Mrs. McDonald, Mr. Hamel indicated the required cut will be about
25 feet from the highest point of the hill on the northwest portion of the property;
the parking lot will be depressed into the hill, and the north wall of the parking
lot will be a retaining wall.
Mr. G. Johnson noted that when the extension of Blake Road is completed, much
of the traffic will use Olinger and Tracy rather than Gleason. He added that that
traffic, as well as the proposed church traffic, "will be an abuse the neighborhood
doesn't deserve". He reiterated that the residents of the townhouses to the west
and the houses to the north relied on the zoning plan for townhouses on this property.
Mr. Franz_Burris, 5832 Olinger Blvd., requested the matter be continued to the
next meeting to give the neighbors an opportunity to "put together our opposition".
Mr. Chris Binner, 5825 Jeff Place, agreed there would be a negative impact on the
neighborhood and the neighbors should have a chance to review it and formulate
their thoughts.
In reply to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Larry Lacha of the building committee indicated
the church people have not contacted the neighbors as yet because their option expires
in June, 1975, so their'intention was to get a concept approval and then get to the
neighborhood groups prior to the public hearing."
Following further discussion, Mr. Kremer moved the rezoning request be
approved. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. Messrs. C. Johnson, Lewis, Hughes,
Runyan, and Kremer and Mrs. McDonald voted aye. Mr. G. Johnson and Mr. Dean voted
nay. Motion carried 6-2.
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Allowing, Under Certain Circumstances,
Off-street Parking Requirements to be met by the Use of Public
Parking in the Commercial District.
Mr. Luce explained the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina is going
to acquire the parking lot behind the former Lund's store in connection with its
50th and France commercial area project, but the property owners are concerned that
in the future, when they decide to demolish and rebuild their buildings, the City
would be able to require that additional parking be provided. The proposed zoning
ordinance amendment assures the property owners that the City will not enforce that
section of the zoning ordinance if their property is purchased by the City or H.R.A.
for public parking purposes.
Following brief discussion, Mr. Hughes moved the zoning ordinance amendment
be approved as written and presented. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
VI. Adjournment. Respectfully submitted,
Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary
9 t /
MEMORANDUM
T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: R. E. KREMER
DATE: APRIL 30, 1975
RE: Z-74-11 & S-74-13
I would like to say that in my opinion this request should
be denied for the following reasons:
1) It does not conform to the Western Edina Land Use Plan.
2) It does not conform to the Western Edina Circulation
Plan
3) The street access to the site is inadequate.
,4) I question whether proper procedures for vacating
street 'ROW as proposed in this plat have been
followed.
BACKGROUND
Re: Reason 01, "It does not conform to the Western Edina Land Use
Plan."
This plan was prepared after hours and hours of staff
time and hearings involving many diverse groups. The
decision was made that Lincoln Drive should cross Nine
Mile Creek, right of way was ultimately'acquired. The
crossing at this location was approved by Nine Mile
Creek Watershed authority. (See plan)
Re: Reason #l, "It does not conform to the Western Edina Circulation
Plan."
This study, prepared by an outside consultant with
the input of fifteen interested citizens appointed by
the Mayor should be examined. The various problems,
many interrelated and overlapping, were for study pur-
poses divided into four Issue Areas. The Issue Area 2
and 3 each relate in part to the present rezoning
application.
See page 19 for "Issue Area 2" which is stated:
"where should additional access points berp ovided...."
See also on that page "Alternative 3: Construct a
connection between Parkwood Lane and Lincoln Drive to
the west".
See also sketches of Six Issue Area 2 Alternatives on
page 20, and then the final decision of the task force
in the last sentence on page 31: "The final decision
of the task force was to combine Alternative 2, Alter-
native 3, and Alternative 6."
See page 21 for Issue Area 3 which is stated: "Should
Lincoln Drive be connected on the north and south over
ilne Mile Creek and if so, should Malibu Drive be used
to make the connection".
See also on page 19 "Alternative 1: Construct Lincoln Drive
just north of Nine Mile Creek."
Then see sketch of this Alternative 1 on page 22 and the
final decision of the task force in the first sentence of
the last paragraph on page 32: "The evaluation of The
Alternatives within Issue Area 3 by the task force resulted
in the selection of Alternative l."
When all the issue areas had been studied and alternative
solutions determined they were combined in one sketch,
figure 14, as shown on page 35. Please note this final
sketch shows the creek crossing on Lincoln Drive. Please
note also as per the sketch on page 36, figure 15, this
also shows exactly the same crossing as figure 14.
Please also note as part of statement in Recommended
Circulation Plan on page 34, fifth paragraph: "the
connection between Parkwood Lane and Lincoln Drive north
of the Nine Mile Creek should be completed when Parkwood_
Lane is connected south and east to Londonderry".
It has been shown that the Lincoln Drive crossing of Nine
Mile Creek was thus an integral part of the Western Edina
Circulation Plan and the specific Alternative 1 of Issue
Area 3 was laVter recommended by:
The Traffic Safety Committee
(see minutes of 5/15/74)
recommends
3. That Alternative 1 in Issue Area 3 be adopted."
The Edina City Council
(see minutes of 6/3/74)
... "Issue Area 3 - Councilman Johnson's motion
for conte t a2 roval of Alternate 1 was seconded
by Councilman Schmidt and on roll call there were
five ayes and no nayes and motion carried."
The Environmental Quality Commission
(see minutes of 5/28/74 p. 2)
First sentence, last paragraph:
..."Mr. Hughes stated that the cons-ultants. task
force, and the traffic safety committee have a reed
that the creek will have to be crossed at least
once in order to facilitate better traffic flow
is this area, and have recommended a creek crossin
at Lincoln Drive Mr. Hughes recommended the creek
be crossed only once, and noted there would be no
serious problems with the Gree crossing proposed
at Lincoln Drive. ...Mrs. Scott moved that Alter-
native 1, Issue 3 (the creek crossing at Lincoln
Drive) be accepted in that one creek crossing
has been determined necessary and no serious envir-
onmental problems would be encountered at this
point She clarified that dust one creek crossing_
should be allowed. Mrs. Casselman seconded the
motion. A11 voted aye. Motion carried."_
1 a