Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 06-61 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES HELD JUNE 1, 1977, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL I. Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, R. E. Kremer, C. Johnson, G. Johnson, D. T. Runyan, M. McDonald, and H. McClelland. Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Planning Director, and Nancy Rust, Secretary.. II. Approval of the April 19, 1977, and May 11, 1977, Planning Commission Minutes. Mrs. McClelland wished to correct the second sentence of paragraph 3, page 3 of the May 11, 1977, Planning Commission minutes to read that if it is true that Malibu Drive has a grading problem, then to leave two cul-de-sacs on Lincoln Drive will not be in conformance with the Western Edina Circulation Plan. Mrs. McDonald moved for approval of the April 19, 1977, and May 11, 1977, Planning Commission minutes as corrected. Mrs. McClelland seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. Old Business: 1. Lot Division E B and J. C. Haedecke. Lot 18, Block 6, LaBuena LD -77-7 Vista. 5524 West 70th Street. (Continued from 3-30-77). Mr. G. Hughes explained the proponent is requesting permission to divide the south 80 feet from his present lot to create a new buildable lot. He recalled the Planning Commission had heard this request at their March 30, 1977, meeting and had continued it to the June 1, 1977, meeting to allow Mr. Haedecke to submit additional information. Since that time, building plans for the house to be constructed.on the new lot have been received from the proponent. Mr. G. Hughes recalled -that staff had also advised the proponent to submit a site plan and survey of the property showing the location of the proposed house and the proposed division line; to date, however, these drawings have not been received. The proponent was present and indicated that he was not aware that additional drawings were to be brought in, and, in regard to the $300 parkland dedication fee, the proponent noted he had previously dedicated two large pieces of property for park purposes because of previous subdivision requests. The proponent further said if the Planning Commission had any questions as to the feasibility of the division, he would like to meet with staff and solve these questions. Therefore, he asked the request be continued to the July 6, 1977, Planning Commission meeting. In regard to setbacks, the proponent felt the two lots would have adequate front setbacks and they would be similar to many homes on Tracy Avenue and Hillside Lane. Mr. G. Johnson said the Commission should have the staff standpoint on the compared setbacks of Tracy and Hillside with those proposed as well as further information from the proponent regarding the location of the existing and proposed dwellings on the lots and the division line. Mr. Tom Warfel, 6920 Hillside Lane, was present and indicated his objection by saying the proposed lot division was not in character with the remaining neighbor- hood. Mr. S. Hughes moved to continue the request until the proponent has met with staff to resolve differences and to allow the commission an opportunity to compare the setbacks of both Tracy and Hillside with the proposed setbacks of the two lots. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 6-1-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2 2. Rezoning Colonial Church of Edina. Generally located south of Z-77-9 Olinger Boulevard and west of Tracy Avenue. PRD -1 Subdivision Planned Residential District to PRD -1 Planned Residential S-77-6 & Flood District (Plan Change). (continued from 3-30-77) Plain Permit FP -6 Mr. Hughes recalled that on March 30, 1977, thg Planning Commission had reviewed the preliminary rezoning and subdivision plans for the Colonial Church site located at Olinger Boulevard and west of Countryside Park and Fire Station. At that time, he said, staff had recommended preliminary approval of the requests for PRD -1 zoning and subdivision and for a flood plain permit. Approval, however, was contingent on the following: A. The final development plans include: 1. An improved site plan identifying and clarifying proposed grades and dimen- sions. 2. Delineastion of future parking to accommodate future seating. 3. An improved landscaping plan illustrating landscape materials in an appro- priate quantity and scale for the site and buildings, surface treatment of the entire parcel, and screening of parking and loading areas. B. The rezoning is contingent upon completion of the final plat and the flood plain permit. C. Submission of an approved Developer's Agreement and parkland dedication prior to approval of the final plat. Mr. G. Hughes recalled that on April 18, 1977, the City Council reviewed the proposed plans.for Colonial Church and, following considerable discussion, agreed that the church was, in fact, a proper use for that particular site. The City Council did, however, advise the church to revise their plans with regard to the proposed parking lot, the height of the berm surrounding the parking lot, to final the landscaping plan in detail, and to meet with neighborhood groups in order to check into the advisability of increasing the height of the berm surrounding the parking lot. Mr. Hughes said that, in staff's opinion, the plans submitted by the proponent do meet all ordinance requirements for final overall development plans; therefore, staff would recommend approval of the requested rezoning, subdivision, and flood plain permit with the same stipulations:As stated in the March 30, 1977, staff report. Mr. Larry Laukka of the Building Committee for the Colonial Church of Edina said they have worked with the residents in the Tracy -Olinger area and are, at this standpoint, asking to proceed with final plan approval to allow them to begin construction. He indicated they had revised the screening and landscaping plans And have presented these plans to the residents. Most importantly, he believed they attempted to accomodate berm and screening processes to accomplish what they could on that site in terms of screening the parking lot from residents' view. Mr. Jack Herbst, 5824 Olinger Boulevard, said the Colonial Church had ori- ginally had communication problems with the residents. However, communication 6-1-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3 is now very good and the residents are satisfied as far as screening and berming are concerned. He said, however, there were still traffic problems due to the park -and height problems bf the church. He felt if a one-way street were created, as well as no parking along Olinger Boulevard up to the park, that the traffic problem would be partially solved. In response to Mr. Herbst and Mr. Burt Larson, Mr. Laukke said the church was placed in this location as the result of three years of study because it was considered the most appropriate site, with both noise and site area taken into account. Mr. Dick Hammel, of Hammel -Green -Abrahamson noted they had determined that other sites dial not comply with the basic off-street parking. He further noted that with the proposed plan, the parking would be adequately screened from residents and the outside lighting would be indirect in the parking area. Mr. Herbst was concerned about the church height and indicated that it was the equivalent of an 11 -story building. Mr. Laukka said the height was not out of character with the area and the substantial portion of the church would be only two stories. In response to Mrs. McDonald, Mr. Laukka said they had met with Ken Rosland, the Park and Recreation Director, Bob Dunn, the City Engineer, and Planning staff regarding the parkland dedication and the parking lot expansion into the property dedicated to the City. He said Mr. Rosland had indicated that he was going to recommend at the June Park Board meeting that Colonial Church be allowed to expand the parking lot immediately, in view of future parking needs, unto the parkland dedicated to the City. This would relieve some parking pressure on Olinger Boulevard. Mr. J. Evenrud, 5820 Olinger Boulevard, felt no parking on Olinger Boulevard would be an adequate solution to the traffic problem but that the church would be too tall. Mrs. McClelland indicated the proposed church was greater than that allowed in the R-1 zone. Mr. G. Hughes clarified that the proponent was requesting a PRD -1 zoning rather than a R-1 zoning. Following lengthy discussion, Mr. Runyan moved for final approval of the proposed subdivision, rezoning, and flood plain permit requests for the reasons as stated in the staff report and also recommended their be an effort made between the church and the Park Department to expand future parking unto City property. Mr. C. Johnson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. 3. Declaration of Buildable Lot - Outlot 1, Iroquois Hills 4th Addition. Generally located south and west of Valley View Road and east of County Road 18. (continued from 4-19-77) Mr. G. Hughes indicated the proponent has asked for additional time to .pursue other plans. He has, therefore asked the request be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Kremer moved the request for declaration of a buildable lot be tabled in- definitely. Mr. S. Hughes seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. 4. Subdivision Wallace B. Kenneth. Generally located east of Lincoln S-77-2 and Drive and west of Malibu Drive extended. R-4 Multiple Rezoning Family Residential District and R-1 Single Family Resi- Z-77-4 and dential District to R-4 and R-2 Multiple Family Resi- Flood Plain dential Districts and R-1 Single Family Residential Dis- Permit trict. Revised subdivision and -rezoning. 6-1-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4 Mr. G. Hughes recalled that on the April 19, 1977, Planning Commission meet- ing, the proposed request for subdivision, rezoning and flood plain permit by Wallace Kenneth was continued to their June 1, 1977, meeting. A special meeting, however, was held on May 11, 1977, wherein the Commission recommended approval of the subdivision, rezoning, and flood plain permit which requests were sub- sequently given preliminary and final approvals by the City Council. 5. Ordinance Consolidating the Planning Commission and EQC. Mr. G. Hughes reported that two members of both the Planning Commission and the EQC, with a joint member of both, have worked as a committee in an attempt to draft an ordinance consolidating the Planning Commission and the EQC into a Community Development Commission. He said a drafted ordinance has been drawn up, heard by the City Council, and subsequently referred to both the EQC and Planning Commission for comments to be heard at their June 6, 1977, Council meeting. The EQC made minor wording changes at their April 25, 1977, meeting and the City Attorney has also reviewed the drafted ordinance and has returned it to the City. Mr. R. Johnson asked if the 12 -year Commission term began at the start of the Commission or if past years on the Planning Commission and EQC were included. Mr. G. Hughes said the intent was for the 12 -year period to begin at the start of the new commission. In response to Mrs. McClelland, Mr. G. Hughes said the meetings would be generally at the same time as the current Planning Commission meetings are held; however, the dates would be set up at the first meeting of the Community Develop- ment Commission. Mr. Kremer suggested the Commission title remain Planning Commission. In this way, the residents would recognize the Commission's function because of the familiar title. Following further discussion, Mr. S. Hughes moved to adopt the drafted ordinance with the consideration of the meeting date specification.ar_d the title change to Planning Commission. Mr. C. Johnson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. III. New Business: 1. Presentation by Metro Council of Metropolitan Systems Statement for City of Edina. Mr. G. Hughes explained that about a month ago the City received from the Metropolitan Council a preliminary systems statementwhich is the first step in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act mandated in 1976. He said there were various steps involved in the planning process as were included in the staff report. Mr. G. Hughes further said staff has been asked by the Metro- politan Council to review and forward any disagreements with the draft systems statement and the Metropolitan Council will review them and prepare a final Metropolitan Systems Statement which will•be forwarded to the City within approximately two months. He said if there were still disagreements with the final statement, a reconciliation procedure.is available. Mr. G. Hughes'noted there were three parts contained in the preliminary Systems Statement: 1. Population, employment, and housing projections. 2. Analysis of metropolitan facilities, i.e. transportation, airports, waste management, and open space. 3. Exclusions. 6-1-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 6 Mr. Dunn, City Engineer, said the sewer plan ..on't be changed by this Statement because. the plan was adopted by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 5-6 years ago and was agreed to by Metropolitan Council. Mr. Runyan moved for acceptance of the Systems Statement with the comments noted in the staff report. Mr. S. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 2. Sub(', --'vision -+illa VieTa Ac �'.t ; cn. :G^rl Z Joaeo Cc nn ,ny. Jen - S -77 iccatcc 0.1: the south end of Oxford Avenue and north of Villa View Apartments. Mr. Lewis indicated the proponent requested the proposed subdivision be continued to the July 6, 1977, meeting. The Commission generally agreed. No fur- ther action taken. 3.Lot Division 'Ronald Zamansky. Tracts A and B, R.L.S. No. 1278. LD -77-10 6600 Normandale Road. Mr. G. Hughes said the property in question was located in the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Highway 100. It is presently a registered land survey with two tracts, A and B. He further said the proponent is requesting permission to move the present division line between the two tracts of land 40 feet easterly to provide for an additional side yard area for the structure on Tract A. Staff recommended approval because the division would provide additional desirable side yard area for the structure on Tract A. Mr. C. Johnson moved for approval of the request for the reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. A. Subdivision James 11. i;iioon'o First Addition. Janes 11. �iilson. Gen - S -77-9 erally located south of W. 54th Street at Zenith Avenue. Mr. G. Hughes explained the general location of the proposed subdivision and recalled that approximately one year ago the Planning Commission reviewed a similar request for this property entitled "Erickson Addition." At that time, the Com- mission had recommended approval of the subdivision contingent upon dedication of the flood plain portion of the site. Following this Planning Commission meeting, Mr. G. Hughes said, the proponent withdrew his request due to a disagreement on the requested parkland dedication. Since that time, however, staff has had several meetings with the owner of the property and have.come to an agreement on the dedicatinn of the area known as Outlot 1 of the proposed subdivision, which outlot consists of a strip of land 100 feet upland on Minnehaha Creek. He further said Lot l of the subdivision would be used as a single family lot. Mr. G. Hughes said the proponent also requested the further vacation of the western half of Zenith Avenue from 120 feet south of West 54th Street to Minnehaha Creek. The western half of Zenith Avenue from 54th Street to 120 feet southerly had been vacated approximately one year ago. Mr. G. Hughes said staff recommended approval of the requested subdivision and petition for further street vacation of Zenith Avenue with the following con- ditions: 6-1-77 Planning Commissinn Minutes, page 5 Mr. G. Hughes clarified that there were no exclusions for Edina. Mr. G. Hughes said, in regard to part 1 of the staff report entitled "Population, Employment and Housing Projections", that shortly after the City received the draft Systems Statement, they,also received a revised population forecast for Edina. This forecast, to some degree, reduced the final population projection in Edina from 55,000 to 50,000 and, in terms of household units, a maximum of 20,400 units as compared to 22,150 as was noted in the Systems Statement; employment was essentially unchanged. Mr. G. Hughes said if the revised population, household and employment forecasts were formally adopted by the Metropolitan Council, they would be the basis for the compre- hencive plan submitted by the City. He said staff has no basis on which to disagree with the revised forecasts. In regard to the .metropolitan facilities, Mr. Hughes noted under highways that a half -diamond interchange was proposed for West 66th Street, and that plans submitted to the City by the Department of Transportation indicated that there will be no access on 66th Street. In regard to I-494, Mr. Hughes said staff believes that the section dealing with "timing of future improvements" of this area should consider the timing of the proposed access improvements at I-494 and France as access improvements in this area are extremely critical. In regard to transit, Mr. G. Hughes said intermodal transfer terminal in the area of 100 and 62 has been planned for the year 1990 and felt that the plans should be further solidified. Mr. G. Hughes said some time ago the City submitted comments to the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission regarding regional trails in Edina. The original trail was proposed along Minnehaha Creek through Edina; however, there was inadequate public ownership along this creek for trail purposes. He recommended the Metropolitan Parks and Open. Space Commission to take the lack of ownership into consideration when considering final plans. Mr. Terry Mills was present from the Metropolitan Council for any questions and said that in regard to transportation that the inclusion of a half -diamond interchange for 66th Street and Highway 100 was an error in the preliminary systems statement and agreed that access improvements for 494 and France were critical. Mr. Mills said in terms of transit and intermodal transfer terminal at 100 and 62, this was recommended by the MTC Commission. In regard to recreation open space, he said there was a public hearing at the end of March and the original proposed regional trail along Minnehaha Creek will be dropped because of lack of public ownership. In response to Mr. Runyan, Mr. Mills said the Metropolitan Council is only concerned with making the various communities aware of regional concerns, necessary land planning, and where various regional facilities are located and said they are not concerned with planning the community themselves. Regarding housing, Mr. Mills said that there was an allocation plan which specified the percentage of low and moderate income housing which should be planned for each community. Mr. Mills said the final systems statement must be.transmitted to the Metropolitan Council by July 1, 1977. In response to Mrs. McDonald, Mr. Mills said almost fully developed communities are more important to land planning for the low and moderate income people because facilities are more easily accessible in those areas rather than the rural areas. 6-1-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 8 Mr. G. Hughes recalled that approximately five years ago, the Planning Commission had reviewed a request for a three -lot subdivision of the same property. At that time, the Commission had advised the proponent to modify his request into two lots rather than three lots because of surrounding lot sizes. He said the' proponent has now returned with a two -lot subdivision request; Lot A of the sub- division, the location of the proponent's existing house, would be 33,541 square feet, and Lot B would measure 24,800 square feet. Mr. G. Hughes said the site is characterized by rather steep slopes and is heavily wooded. In addition, an existin outlot on the north end of the site, owned by the City, would be purchased by the proponent and added to Lot A. Mr. G. Hughes said it may be noted that past procedures for similar requests were for lot divisions; however, a preliminary plat is now required pursuant to new ordinance requirements as it is creating a new buildable lot. Mr. G. Hughes said staff recommended approval of the proposed subdivision in that: 1. The proponent has revised the subdivision as was previously requested by the Planning Commission. 2. Subject property will continue to be used as large single family lots. Approval is contingent on: 1. .Parkland dedication fees. 2. Acquisition of the existing outlot on the north end of the subject property from the City of Edina. 3. The proponent obtaining a tree cutting permit prior to construction on Lot B. Mr. Don Brauer, the architect, was present to answer questions and indicated he felt the request was an appropriate one. Mr. G. Johnson moved for approval of the subdivision request with the con- ditions and for the reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. C. Johnson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. 7. Lot Division Glen C. Swenson. Part of Lots 2 and 3, Block 8 LD -77-12 LaBuena Vista. 6808 Limerick Lane. Mr. G. Hughes explained the location of the request and recalled that some time ago the owner of Lot 3 requested a variance from the City to construct a garage closer to the minimum side yard setback as established in the zoning ordinance No. 811. He continued that at that time, staff had advised the owner of Lot 3 to meet with the owner of the adjacent lot (Lot 2) and prepare a lot division which would realign the lot line between lots 2 and 3 to allow a larger side yard setback for the proposed garage, thus eliminating the need for a variance. Mr. G. Hughes said the owners of Lots 2 and 3 have met and agreed upon the proposed lot division which would create an additional nine feet at the front of Lot 3 and an additional nine feet to the back of Lot 2. Staff recommended approval of the proposed lot division in that it will eliminate the necessity of a variance for the construction of the proposed garage. Mr. C. Johnson moved for approval of the proposed lot division for the reason stated by the staff. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 6-1-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 7 1. Dedication of Outlot l to the City of Edina. 2. -No fill, structures, or obstructions shall be placed below elevation 853 without the issuance of a special flood plain permit from the City and the approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Mr. G. Hughes further stated the house on Lot 1 would be located on the front part of the site and would line up with the others in the area and can be constructed with no flood plain encroachment. Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the proposed subdivision and petition for further street vacation with the conditions stated in the staff report. Mr. G. Johnson seconded.- All voted aye. Motion carried. 5. Lot Division Gregory D. Gustafson. Generally located south and LD -77-11 east of Vernon Avenue and west of Brookside Avenue (Jerry's Enterprises) Mr. G. Hughes showed the general location of the site and explained it was located between Jerry's hardware and grocery store. Mr. G. Hughes noted in the staff report that several months ago necessary parking, setback, and other variances were granted to allow a proposed multi -tenant commercial building. He said subsequently a building permit was granted and has since been extended pending construction delays due to financial reasons. Mr. G. Hughes said it has now become apparent that there are three mortgage -companies involved which require three distinct parcels for mortgage purposes. .He explained that the requested lot division proposed the consolidation of a number of lots that presently exist on the site. Mr. G. Hughes proceeded to show a graphic illustrating the present seven separate parcels and their consolidation into three parcels. He then said staff has discussed with the proponent the possibility of platting the property to simplify the legal description; however, according to the ordinance, despite the apparent complexity of the division, a lot division does qualify in this instance because no additional buildable lots are being created. Staff recommended approval of the requested lot division in that it is only a minor adjustment of the property lines and is consistent with the approved construction plans for the site. Approval, however, should be contingent on the attachment of Tract 3 to Tract B of Registered Land Survey No. 1393. Mr. Greg Gustafson was present and said the lot division would affect no other property owners other than the one concerned, Jerry's Enterprises, Inc He further said they applied for a lot division rathor than a plat because of financial reasons and lack of time. Mr. Kremer moved for approval of the proposed division for the reasons stated by the staff and with the contingency as stated in the staff report. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 6. Subdivision Russell R. Wilson Subdivision of Lot 6, Prospect Hills S-77-10 First Addition. Generally located west of Dublin Road and north of Kerry Road. 6-1-77 Planning Commission Minutes, Page 10 Mr. G. Hughes said the proponent had submitted preliminary conceptual plans and staff.had advised him to firm them up. He said staff, therefore, recommended this req>>estfor rezoning be tabled to allow the proponent additional time to complete his plans. Mr. S. Hughes moved to continue the request to the July 6, 1977, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. G. Johnson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. 11. Subdivision Rauenhorst Corporation. Normandale Park Addition. Tract S-77-13 and L R.L.S. No 1129. Generally located at the N.W. Rezoning Quadrant of W 76th Street and France Avenue. PID Z-77-12 Planned Industrial District to C-1 Commercial District. Mr. G. Hughes indicated the proponents are requesting to rezone a three - acre tract of land from Planned Industrial District to C-1 Commercial District. They are also requesting a subdivision of the property into three lots of 44,460, 46,840, and 47,590 square .feet. He said the proponents have also submitted a plan for a restaurant proposed for Lot 1, and have indicated that similar restaurant uses are contemplated for Lots 2 and 3. Mr. G. Hughes said the major concern is the impact of traffic from various land uses abutting France Avenue and other roadways. As a result of this concern, the proponents have prepared a traffic engineering -report. He said this report basically concludes that if an office building were constructed, as would be allowed under existing zoning, approximately 260 additional trips per hour would be generated between 4:00 and 5:00. This report also states restaurant use on the subject property would generate traffic primarily during the�off-peak hours. Mr. G. Hughes further said this study recommended and the proponents agreed that ac- cess will be via 76th Street rather than France Avenue. Also, the proponents have indicated their intent to dedicate a strip of land on the west side of France Avenue for the prupose of constructing a right -turn lane. Mr. G. Hughes said in reviewing the rezoning request, the traffic engineering report and supplementary material, staff made the following comments: 1. The South Edina Plan identifies this site for Planned Industrial uses. The subject property is presently zoned for Planned Industrial District. The DMJM report entitled 494/100 Southdale Corridor Stuy, which was referred to in the proponent's traffic engineering study, anticipated industrial use for the subject property. 2. The C-1 Commercial District zoning requested by the proponents provided no assurances that the subject property will, in fact, be used for restaurant purposes. Among the other uses allowed in the C-1 district are retail stores, medical and dental facilities, as well as offices. In terms of allowable uses, setbacks, landscaping, and so forth, the C-1 zone is much more permissive than the present PID classification. 3. The City's Engineering Department has -advised that when sanitary sewers were constructed in the southeast portion of the city, such were designed based upon the land uses anticipated in the South Edina Plan. The Engineering Department has further advised that there is inadequate sanitary sewer capa- city for restaurant uses in this area. 6-1-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 9 8. Subdivision Edina Interchange 4th Addition New England Mutual Life S-77-11 Insurance Company. Generally located west of Ohms Lane' and north and west of W. 74th Street. Mr. G. Hughes explained the property in question was located in the Edina Industrial Park on the west side of Ohms Lane. He said this particular tract of land is presently divided into 12 lots and the proponent is requesting'a consoli- dation of these lots into seven lots to facilitate their sale and development. There was no new zoning proposed for the site. Mr. G. Hughes said staff believed the consolidation met all zoning require- ments and, therefore, recommended approval of the subdivision contingent on the proponent capping all unused sewer systems at the property lines. He noted the pro- ponent should be aware that flood plain conditions exist on some lots abutting W. 73rd Street and any filling or development of such lots would require a permit from the City as well as permits from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. The ._proponent was present and indicated the reasons for thq lot consolida- tion was that the larger parcels would be more usable. Mr. S. Hughes moved for approval of the requested subdivision as stated in the staff report. Mr. C. Johnson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. 9. Subdivision Edina Interchange 5th Addition. New England Mutual Life S-77-12 Insurance Company. Generally located east of Cahill Road and south of Dewey Hill Road. Mr. G. Hughes explained the general location of the property in question and said the proponent is requesting to divide the present parcel into two; one being 3.23 acres and the second 2 acres in size. This request was heard at the May 19, 1977, Board of Appeals meeting for a 50 foot front setback from Cahill Road rather than the 75 foot setback normally required for industrial uses across the street from residential property. He said the Board of Appeals had continued this request until June 16, 1977, and advised the proponent to prepare revised site plans and investigate moving the division line between Lots 1 and 2 to provide additional square footage on Lot 2. The proponent has indicated, however, that he would still like the Edina Interchange 5th Addition preliminary plat to be heard by the Planning Commission and said he would work the Board of Appeals regarding the site plan. Mr. G. Hughes said staff recommended approval of the proposed subdivision in that it conforms with the ordinance requirements. He indicated approval should be contingent upon the parkland dedication of 5 percent of the raw land value. Mr. S. Hughes moved for approval of the requested subdivision for the reasons stated in the staff report contingent on the parkland dedication of 5. percent of the raw land value. Mr. C. Jghnson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. iG., a.C^.O: in ; jack OviCl:. Lot_- 3 •�11(� �� S [,uc'_tOr ( ^ Sub4iv'_�iOn 1VQ . t72. Z-77--11 GeneraJl%: '.ocaacJ at x:626 _ rc..rce G•rcnuc Scuth. R-1 to R-2. 6-1-77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 11 4. The proponent's traffic engineering study indicates the possibility of a 70,000 square foot office building on the subject property. Upon our review, we have determined that a 55,000 to 60,000 square foot office building is more likely in this location based upon lot coverage and parking requirements. It is important to note that this traffic engineering study also assumes the worst possible PID development and the best possible C-1 development when analyzing the traffic impact resulting from the site. Again, the requested C-1 zoning does not guarantee that the best possible C-1 use will, in fact, be implemented. 5. The DMJM study recommends that further development in the Southdale Corridor area be restricted to minimize strict development and sprawl. 6. Approval of the requested rezoning to C-1 would establish a precedence that would encourage further commercial development along France Avenue. Traffic impact resulting from such development would violate the concept contained in the South Edina Plan as well as the DMJM recommendations. Mr. Bob Worthington of Rauenhorst said this particular piece of property is part of the Industrial Park and has remained open space they purchased in 1963, and felt the proposed was an appropriate use. Mr. Peter Jarvis of Bather, Ringrose, and Wolsfeld presented a number of drawings explaining the landscaping and general plans for the site. He said the restaurant would be similar to a coffee shop and felt this was a good proposal in that a restaurant would help to service the multiple dwellings in the area as well as the many employees. He said the traffic engineering study estimated restaurant use would generate approximately 1200 trips per day which is slightly under the daily generations of office use. Regarding sanitary sewer capacities, Mr. Jarvis asked if a holding tank would be appropriate. Mr. Dunn, the City Engineer, said that -.could probably be worked out. In response to Mr. Runyan's concern over only one access point to the res- taurant, Mr. Jarvis said he felt the traffic would not be heavy enough to require a second access point. Mr. G. Hughes indicated concern that a rezoning to C-1 would minimize the restrictions the City had upon future development and, in response to Mr. G. Johnson, said that the Commission could consider the rezoning of only one lot at the present time rather than all three. Mr. Jarvis said he had explored the possibility of a PC -1 zoning; however, staff had indicated that a total land area of five acres was required for such a zoning. Mr. Kremer felt the restaurant use would be appropriate for the site and that other alternatives should be looked into such as either a special use permit for the.allowance of a restaurant only in the C-1 zone or allowing restaurants as a use in PID zones under certain circumstances. Mr. G. Johnson moved the requested rezoning and subdivision be continued for further study by the City Attorney as to the possibility of restricting the site to only restaurant use. Mr. S. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 6-1-77 Planning Cowduission Minutes, page 12 12. R-2 Lot Coverage Ordinance Amendment. . Mr. G. Hughes said that this ordinance amendment is regarding the lot coverage allowable in the R-2 two-family zone. He said there have been numerous cases where there has been a question raised as to the maximum allowed in this zone by both•the Building Department and residents of Edina. The current ordinance restricts the R-2 zone to 20 percent lot coverage. This'is the lowest required in any zone in the city, and the 25 percent lot coverage requested would be consistent with the R-1 single family zone.- Therefore, staff recommended approval of the R-2 lot coverage increase to 25 percent in that: 1. The adoption of the single family standard for the R-2 zone is desirable because it encourages the trend towrad owner -occupied units. 2. Adequate usable front and rear yard space will be preserved by the setback standards. 3. The -net usable lot area per dwelling unit will be similar, to the R-1 zone. The smaller lot area per dwelling unit will be compensated by fewer side yards (which have limited usefulness). 4. The garage standards in the R-2 zone have increased without'..commensurate in- creases in the lot coverage. 5. There are a large number of existing doubles with non -conforming lot size, nonconforming lot coverage or deficient garage capacity that will benefit from the proposed change. 'Mr. G. Johnson moved for approved of the R-2 lot coverage increase to 25 percent amendment to the ordinance. Mr. C. Johnson seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. Adjournment. Respectfully submitted, Nancy J. Rust, Secretary