HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968 07-03 Planning Commission Packets? -i,Aly1Sl:L
W -na i Lo,.tiiic: Co?aruission Wednesday, July 3, 2468
8:00 P.M.
I, Approval of Jun( 5, 1968 4 om-1,aission il:tnutles.
Tl ,
ZONING RFt��1,.._LST ;
Z.-68-16 Sam Sc;i9eei.de_r. R-1 I.esidential._District to R--2 :'I ltiple
Res_deeatial Diot:rict. Jones Knolls_ Addition._ -
Z.- ? C`lterrekee Sales- T Ac.=?t_."s�Rt. ldenti_21 District t• k-4 Lultz
Res_ dents l District. N.E. Ou�drant (l_easo r. Rca(i and
Crosstown llis�hwall • _
Ill. SiJBDTVISIONS
SI,1-68--4 Andrews /xIdit:ion.
S---68-10 lazranar IVAccl:l.F_ i.o .-
Suh•:1:.`vision.
V.. 0' PETI )>U3I1II,SS
I. R-1. District Amendrent-_Side `i.ardis.
%, i�4i:E?..`'=JC?7C E`� �^ �......°.<l:l.[?F3,J'apt-i.fiL Y..hL1iCh.
Y-
io.?a? ...F r.cil.i �,ie3s in plan-ned
11177177 1�G ��p.9'. �+iy1��t�� �n L1�i•gl�lAAi iTT\��l.Jl�1^J['�Y\ i•'F,'Y i IIloll ij.'.ts
ON'
WEDNESDAY, JULY 3.
F--;iber s Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairiner_; Gaorge Nu era"-, Sal iau ghes, Charles
Clay, Cliff JohnGorz, A. Fl. Hiatt, David Griswold and
Robert Huelster
Staff Present: Fred Hoisington, eiaren Sorensen
I. A�)pYoJa l of June 5. 1963 Cori -mi cion MUnutos
Mr. Nugent moved to approve the June 5, 1963 Commission. Minutes as
submitted. Mr. Hiatt seconded the motion. 1?11 Votod Ayre. .'lotion
Carried.
II. Z0NI^J^v_EQLJ S S
68--16 Sam, Schneider. t<-1_F_esiden':ial Di.str-ic- to R--2 MultipJw� .
Residential DJ.stris:t. Jcnes Knolls fold Lion.
Hr. Iloisir.,ton ,reported' that -ire, is requesting
R-2 zfJi ,_ng which zoning ,.➢a 3 ii'-tiiG'i%'iiy i:{:C{ue stc-,a In SapteTmjier, , 196' by
Hw'nry T. L eter_son. It is Mr. '36',neide s intent to bvti Ld two double
bC?:e-alo:ws ou three -;-JaLt od lots On the no -Z -t41 Prairie head
just e.a.� ke Fl
east of )lao d. He uili have to th ` lot.:; to 2i?1�t?E
R-2 require-uieIZts. The res'4'lLa:lt 1.U -'L -s app ox:f.11iJ:f:e 8,000 ."-iqL'ilre
feet each i,,Thich is in oA' the of 15,000 square re4c.
Land use in the consists of development and
a Irma`;; 5tc'3Lion to the soot:': 2ci:oss _Fallen P'.Li'r-.e 3C'a!!' :iri,`,3E fard-l'y
u ty . 4 s and nr es 7
C tv'7:. l C;�Ii:t'_r2t t0 _llt. 5�.7YT.�'a gni "t7lCFi??t la hits �Di:t1 G> Li: E?F: t west. 1l.%
10--.:s ill Valley Par" x'id it6�^..71, -lust eas i, of i:he c, to -2'x1 question, are
s{3 )eq{?e: t to a deed restriction which limits Lilei b use i:0 single Tamil
6 ?elli ngs .
In November, -1965, the i'1aI's-ning Coimi-ission ree-oYCu?iE'nded
£.0+;:r<)r:3l 7t` VIA,-, Yv oTdi;13 i'3 i:i2E: "- su p-ior. that a.a.J. o Tthe7vacant l ndl
t .t a' r Ed 4•,_^... > .� ' .� T d _._,-�r f- srl t � be rezoned
?._i�.t��: �z7@ Y1Cs`i'LtZ :�tif' G+Y S.QC'.1 [ �.� .iii i�iJTM{� �,rJi1.�C3 t-!vc.ai�i.c�...._j
R-2. Tihe C=;,r:ncil--her). learn!a-j i ?z,i: an a.-iissul-ce£a.=ful a:'C.C:mpt had been -made
in 11.64 in .''Z. f.s : "_-J c i.C`urt: to lift th ` "i':'_` tricll- i.()4 5'3i? the .if)'ts in Valley
irazk Addition. Thc1 matter was then re, a :?"c'.^' b3C.1: the the, Fla.rn.in
Coir -mis=sion which recormil.suded denial on Y; c e ti ciS _:> `'at`'--iat aj.l or € vne of the
lots a-iong Eelen Prairie Y,,oad should be rezoned R-2. `ilic Coun(-..ill concurr'e:il
A:1 is firidin� since .:here a3'�rr;'{?c rnd to t• -c litt�lr: ;lope, of liftiT h uhc
S 1-o' .e family c:"Sts SC f :a :?` ._ oix Lhe rc oln,Llning 1011. 13.
Edina Planning Corrnisgi- on Minutes -2- July 3, 1968
The staff recormends that our plans reflect the area on
Eden Prairie Road between Kaymar. Drive and Blake Road as one to be used
for two family residences and that Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Jones Knolls
Addition be rezoned R-2 District in compliance therewith.
Mr. Hiatt moved that the Commission recommend approval of
the R-2 zoning_to the Council for the following reasons.
1. R-2 zoning in this location conforms in every
respect with the policies we have been following
in recent years. It is a transitional area whose
most appropriate use is a transitional use.
2. If we feel this to be art appropriate place for R-2
development, it would be unreasonable for us to deny
any but a unified proposal by all owners between Kaymar
Drive and Blake Road. Such perfect coordination and timing
may never be achieved in this instance.
3. Doubles will not be materially detrimental to other
properties in the area. In fact, I am of the opinion
that doubles in this location would be a substantial
improvement over the rather unattractive vacant land
situation now existing. It would offer the optimun, solution
to an as yet unsolved problem.
The lots along Eden Prairie Rcaed otill :Mand vacant
which indicates that the uses fog- which they are noir
zoned may not be the most appropriate.
Mr. Huelster seconded the motion.
fir. Griswold stated that he had read the reports and saw no
reason to- change his mind. Conditions 11ave not changed since we last
reccnmended denial of this sana rezoning.
Mr. Hiatt indicated that he hn6 voted against it last. time
but was now in favor of the rezoning since the land has not been developed
for R-1 uses.
Ch<:riman Lewis stated that we all agreed that the whole
ares; should b:. R-2 and I Neel that we are not going, to get nor can we
exl,- ec ct any coordinated development between 211 the owners on Eder Prairie
Road, in light of the de=ed restriction problem.
After sorra' further discussion, Chairman Lewis called for
a vote: All Voted :lye wi-0i t'he exception of Mr. Grisz:'7old who voted
Nay. Motion Carried.
R1a'.1niev3 Cormniss
Z-68--12 Cher
.tune meetin-.
the past six or
o:a this site ea
development in
to the cast and
built in the s
single family d
character of th
and recreations
It is the opini
not be compatib
proposed to sur
of the requeste
Min,%tes -3- July 3, 1968
Resiecnt'!al District to R-4 Multiple
District. N.B. Ouadrart of Gleason
. Hoisington reported that this matter was tabled at the
e noted that the Cox;mission had considered this area for
eight months. The proposal is for six apartment buildings
h three stories in height. The Village proposal for
he area calls for a large park and recreational facility
a school -park complex to the south. A church is to be
uthwest quadrant of Gleason Road and the Crosstown and
velopment Is occurring; to the north and west. The
area will be that of single fancily homes and institutional
uses, all of which are permitted R-1 District uses.
n of the staff that R-4 development in this location will
e with Village plans nota' with the uses that are currently
ound the site. The staff therefore reco=.ends denial
R-4 zoning.
til. Hiatt asked if the staff would consider az R-3
:development in he area.
TMi F.oisin ton replied that only R-1 or institutional
uses would be considered in light of present and proposed development
surrounding the site.
Mr. John C.:our'.t, attorney* reps~esCntiT Cherokee Sales,
stated that C'_.e okee: Sales :s the owner of the 1)s-cp Irty and is entitled
to the use of the property at its highast use so Long as it is used in
sonereasonable manner. `+."he land is for -multi-ples. We feel this
is a. good site or multiples, but not a good site for R -l..
11. Hughes stated that he fat the prcperr_y should be held
fo7- R-1 developi east. Ile stated that: he ;gad walked the property and felt
thatbecause of the Mud Lake development, the property should remain R-1.
Ili. Isu hes movel that the Cosi^,,is5%.gn den -7 the semuest for
ons e Staff Ree, -rt
1. '11ke proposed R-4 development will not be compatible
with existing and proposed develop-ments in the area.
2 There is no reason el.t��er eco- omica .ly or physically
which makes it p,rohi-itive todevel,op the land c the
�u, els for which it is no,ti zot ed.
Curr`'•i:7.C:. R-1 de-velopmi-Itt in the area in similar
viould indicate aha;-- this parcol. pan and should be
d yr -`Loped nor R-1 :uses.
Edina Planning Commission Minutes -4--
July 3, 1968
4. This rezoning would violate our policy adopted on
January 3, 1968, which states, "Single family
residential uses should preclude all other uses to be made
of vacant lands in Edina except in cases where land
development costs make such development prohibitive, where
environmental circumstances suggest a more appropriate use,
or where other uses should be encouraged to satisfy needs
for commercial services, a wider range of housing types,
or a strengthening of the Village's tax base through
diversification."
Mir. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. MotionCarried.
Ill. SUBDIVISIONS
SP --68-9 -Andrews Addition.
'Ellis property is located on the south side of Valley View
Road just west of Gleason Road., Mr. Andrews house sits on the proposed
easterly lot of the two lot subdivision. The westerly lot will need a
lot depth variance, but it meets the square footage and width requirements.
The staff reco�ixaends approval of the subdivision subject to granting
of a lo"_ depth variance.
'Mr. Fluelster moved _that the Commission recommend preliminary
approval of the subdivision sub'ect to Board of Appeals action on the
lot depth variance. Mr. Nugent :3eccndeci_ th, motion. All Voted Ikye.
Motion Carried.
Sv--68-10 C1as.ramar IV liddition.
Mr. floisinrton reported that this five lot plat is located
west of Arbour Avenue north of West. 62nd Street. 11iis outlot was not
to be divided for some time, but the developer has decided to divide it
sooner than expected. It meets all subdivision requirements and sewer
and cater are available.
Y-fr. Tvuj�,,ent moved that: the Commission aecet the plat for
further stud. rfr,. Griswold seconded the. motion. All Voted Aye.
Motion Carried. -- —
SP -68--11 St. Patrick's Subdivision
This subdivision is located south of St. Patrick's Lane,
ues,t of prospect Hills, and east of Braeo. r bills- Mr. Hoisington
raported that the -re is same question about the proposed alignment of
Gleeson Road and the design in general and asked that the Commission ask
Brauer and Associates to work with the st&—ff in working out a solution.
T -rk July 3 , 1968
LJ�ina Planniag Commission Minutes -5-
Mr. Nugent moved tbat the prelimiaary flat be submitted
to Bxauer and Associates for stuffy.mr. Hu;zhes- seconded the motion.
All Voted Aye. Moto on Carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
i. R --.I District Amendment - Side Yards
Mr. Hoisington explained ti <t this aniendiment held particular
significance f or lots 60 feet and less in -width and concerns side yard
require-ments for both houses and garages.
The staff anticipates many requests for house improvements
which would require variances from our current side yard requirements in
areas characterized by narrow 'Lots. Furthermore, there has been and
w -ill probably be a significant aunriber of side yard variances requested
for garages on principally, narro-a lots.
The staff recommendat-ion then is to require a five foot side
yard for all lots 60 feet or less in width. The current requirement calls
for a five foot side yard for a single story house and ;an additional 1/2
foot of side yard for each foot the house exceeds a height of 15 feet.
This requirement-- prohibits the addition of a second s':1 -7y to an existing
house on a 50 or 60 foot lot unless a variance can be acquired. The
Board of Appeals has granted such variances as a rule to allow house
improve,mant3 to be made.
Garage side yards are another question. We now require that
garages be no closer to side and -.-car property lines than five feet.
T'i.js would still be the case for attached Sarages. Detached garages; ora
tae- other hand, ge-nerally sit in the rear yard and consume valuable_
rear yard space:. The amendment, then, would permit rear yard detached
garages to be located three feet from the property line on lots of all
Jt-�k bU4 bit, code requirements for garages
si,zes. There is no difference L Idi I
sii-tingeit! er :11 --ce or Fifeet eet from the property 1ne.
iij-,att ironed ehat the proposed be recnaimen6ed to
tlic Coif micil for 21 a i-ovni. If -f. H'uelster seconded, tthe mVoted
odon, All Vd
L�y PI,
t i ca Ca r ri e e .
2.
The landscape plan w., -t'3 p%--asertte-j to Llfl(i COM-Missioin for their
evaluation. The Gliurch is Intevding to sc-i:�Cen the I,icru parking area to
Che '("Cnt 01 their propc-rty 11apler,, RWssian Olive,
Floweriiag Crab trees a -.,id Nannyborrv. rroperty oivi-iers to the west of
thproperty here evaluated Lhe pian abet have, accardng to the 'Church
rej)resentc.tive, o:--Ce.ed that _;s1,2 j)'Ikj.-_tijjgst suitable. The neighbor.,3
apparently pre--V'er the plax-itings to a fiance -vinich is required by ordinance.
When plantings ara cubstitut-ed for a fcrice, the Counci-I miust grant
Edi na Plannit-dg Commission ivdnaatcs -6-
july 3, 1968
Pitt. NyX-,ent moved that the Comnaissionaoaa:ove the stn,,g;ested
plantin�lan._ M_ r. Gxisxaold seconded t:he motion. All Voted Ave.
Motion Carried.
3. Private Recreational Facilities in Planned Industrial Districts.
A tennis club and Health Spa complex desires to settle in
the 'Edina Interchange Center. Mr. Bernardi has asked the Commission to
consider this possibility. The staff feels that there is some merit
in this request since the type of building; used for this purpose resembles
a warehouse facility. 'I"he Zoning Ordinance would have to be modified to
permit this type of use in a Planned Industrial District. This type of
use isould probably be used to a large e -x -tent by the people to work in
the Interchange Center. At the present time, we have no provision in the
ordinance for something of this nature. Mr. Bernardi has asked the
Conunission not to act until the Au8ust meeting so that plans can be
presented at that time. Mr. lioisingt"on asked that the Commission give some
thouthtto this possibility over the next month.
Mr. Griswold rioted that the type of building used for th:Fs
type of activity mould fit mato a Planned Industrial area. in answer
to a question by Mr. Hiatt, "Fr. Hoisington indicated that some outdoor
tennis courts would be proposed.
No action taken.
4. L1ornin,;side Zoning.
Mr. Y' oisa.-t:Fgt on reported that upon a?lnexatio-n , Morningside
came under our zoning, but the prope~-ties have never been: reclassified
to confoni to the Edina Zoning Grdinanze.
Mr. Roy Wesley and Mr. Bohai 010erg„ inquired if this
reclassification meent rezonir;. if i€: d'd, they were. not in favor or ter.
1`i,~.. Tloi.siugton replied that rezoning is proposed to srnre
extent, but the intent is merely the reclassification of the properties
to have the i conform a, closely as possible to the existing Edina Zoairg
Districts. lie then went- through Lill the tRoz-ningside classification;
arad explained horn they would be reclassified to conkorm, to the ordinance.
He noted that the -re were se%-,nral. problem areas to be considered.
Aa'.t,ar soma discussion wi0i tiee audience, Mr. Griswold_
moved t1_?2t the Coi-,LZii.ss"io r eL'oy,-tae d ;_he .3ti?.ff rE*clasef'.firation
to the Council. Mar. %IueisL k seconded the .motion. x.11 Voted Ave. ��
Edina Planning Cownission Minutes -7- July 3, 1968
5. R-3 District Amendment.
The Zoning Ordinance now states that in an R-3 Residential
District there can be no more than 10 units in one building. The
Commission should possibly consider a change which would increase this
number and yet retain the small building concept. Mr. Hoisington
stated that there is no magic in the number 10 and that we have had
frequent inquiries about variances in this regard.
Mr. Griswold stated that the Commission should take some
time to study the whole Multiple ordinance. There are some locations
where multiples Gould be built in i.,-1 areas if it is well done.
The Comrission agreed to meet at a future date to discuss
the multiple ordinance. Ado action taken.
6. Edwards-iPosnick Plan Approval.
Mr. Jim Hawkes, Midwest Plardng and Research, representing
Messrs. Edwards and Posnick presented a site plan for the Conor lssicr.` s
consideration. The proposal indicates 40 two bedroom units and 8 one
bedroom units on the property noir zoned R-•3 Distract. This is a greater
density than previously imposed on the property. n -le developer *would
lie to start this Fall.
Mr. Griswold stated that it looked like a significant
proposal and it would be nice to get started on it and the remainder of
the 15 acre site.
No action taken.
Mr. Lewis red a let -ter from Lea Todd thanking the members
of he Commission for the pasty held in his honor or. .rune 27, 1968.
Adjournment at 9:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Sorensen, Secretary
A G END A
Edina Planning Commission
Edina Village Hall
2. Approval of July 3, 1968 Commission Minutes.
Wednesday, August 7, 1968
8:00 P.M.
II. ZONING REQUESTS
Z-68-17 R. K. Strom. R-1 Residential District to R-3 Residential
District. Cahill Road and West 70th Street.
Z-68-18 Miles Construction Co. R-1 Residential District to R-4
Multiple Residential District. Olinger Road and
Vernon Avenue.
III. LOT DIVISIONS
1. Lot 10, Block 1. Hilldale. Gulbranson Division.
IV. SUBDIVISIONS
SP -68-11 St. Patrick's Addition.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
1. R-3 District Amendment.
2. 50th and France Plan.
3. S.W. Edina Prelininary Plat.
4. September Meeting Date - Sept. 4 or September 11.
EDINA PLANNING COMIKISSION
STAFF REPORT
August T, 1968
Z-68-18 I✓,iles Construction Co. Request for rezoning from R-1 to R-4, Lots
1 through 5, Block 1, McGary Addition.
Refer to: Enclosed map and composite report
Miles Construction is again making a request for multiple
zoning in the southwest quadrant of Vernon Avenue and Olinger Road. The site
comprises an area of some 113,000 square feet and would accommodate 56 units if
rezoned RI -4.
Land use in the area consists of a gasoline station and
apartments ( R-4) to the north across Vernon Avenue and single family development
to the south, east and west. There are but two single family dwellings to the
west of the site and west therefrom a3 15 acre tract which has been recommended
for rezoning by the Planning Commission to R-3. Four of the 15 acres were rezoned
some thane years ago and the owner, Mr. Posnick, intends to begin construction of
48 unfits yet this Fall.
The rezoning of the site in question was first considered
in early 1966. The proponents at that time dere requesting R-4 zoning and intended
to build one twenty unit building on the site. The Planning Commission and Council
approved the rezoning subject to the imposition of a deed restriction which *could
limit the number of units to 20. Publication was withheld pending the restriction
which was never filed. Consequently, the laud has remained in the R-1 classification.
The reason for the R-4 request was to ailou all 20 units in a single building.
Recommendations:
The question here to be answered is not whether this site
should be used for multiple development. Quite obviously, the Planning Commission
and Council are in favor of multiples on the site according to previous actions.
The real, question, then, is whether or not we are w111{ng to allow more than twenty
units to occupy the site and, if so, ghat type ofmultiple use should be permitted
In light of existing and proposed development in the area?
The staff is of the opinion that more than 20 units should be
permitted, however, there are many factors that need yet to be explored.
1. We have generally followed the practice of rezoning
for lora density multiple development in Western Edina
rather than high density development. The 15 acre Edwards
property jest west of this site has been recommended for R-3
rather than R-4 zoning. Furthermore, both the Planning
Commission and Council have indicated as preference for low
rasher than high density development on the site in question
at their earlier deliberations.
Staff Report
Miles Constr. Co.
Page 2
August 7, 1968
on the site and th+
for the following
R-3 zoning for the
f lh
2. We have generally encouraged a transition from
high to low density development through the use of
transitional toning. In this case. we have R-4 development
to the north across Vernon Avenue, R-3 development proposed
to the west and single family homes to the south and east.
Our policy of transitional zoning would suggest an R-3
development on the site in question. Furthermore, we mush
be concerned with a height and bulk transition between
existing R-4 and R-1 developments. We quite obviously
cannot carry out the transitional concept if we rezone
the land to permit one, massive four story, 56 unit building.
3. Ile must also be concerned with the possibility of
establishing a precedent which could result in R-4
requests for the property to the east across Olinger Road
and the Edwards property to the west. There are simply not
high density multiple areas. Ideally, high density develop-
ment should be located within reasonable proximity to
commercial facilities where possible. Without good commercial
service, low density multiple is more appropriate.
The staff is very much in favor of low density multiple zoning
>_refoae recommends that the R-4 high density request be denied
reasons and that the Commission instead reco=ond approval of
site in question:
1. R-4 development would not serve the required transitional
function between existing P.-1 and R-4 developments.
2. R-4 zoning would not be in keeping with the Commission's
recommendation for R-3 zoning on the Edwards property.
3. A precedent may be established which would result in
other R-4 requests in the same vicinity.
4. The Planting Commission, Council and staff have for
some time considered this site as one to be used for
lour density multiples.
S. The site is not adequately served by commercial
facilities which are a necessity for high density
development.
6. High density development would compromise the planning
principles we have generally followed in the recent past.
11
s
d
^TO
I
0
E
A �
pi�6
• _ _� .� �,,�,. 1 � cry '� f I ��, . y-
1:. e
J..
�' - - - • -
r.•� --�v, � r �"��°� yrs - ----- ..•.v.,�,;� -= v ��°- �, �! 'C � � t �, •�
vj
4-4
C l
� ' O •� �� � �'"; .. ''n.'„'- �... .rte=- �� I
rJ\ tib j 6 •.` / Z L
ov
tl � S�
� a ��r .,\ �� syr ' 1 � •�
iP
,
L
00
Z-66-3
MILLS CONSTRUCTION CO.
Single Family Dwelling District to R-3 or
R-4 Multiple Residence District.
T.H. 169 and Olinger Road
Mr. Fredlund reported that the Mills Construction Company and Mr. Sidney Rebers
have requested rezoning on Lots l through 5, McGary Addition, located in the
southwest quadrant of T.H. 169-212 and Olinger Road.
The request is to construct multiple dwellings on a site containing approximately
119,000 square feet. To the north of the property is Kaymar Drive and Eden
Prairie Road along with the associated commercial and multiple developments. To
the west of NcGary Addition are two single family homes and a triangular piece
of property presently zoned R-3 District.
Mr. Dale Pollak, Midwest Planning and Research, representing Mr. Rebers, indicated
that his firm had prepared two proposals for presentation. The first proposal
set forth an apartment development containing 30 units, 6 one bedroom units and
24 two bedro m units to be located in three buildings. This design presents a
two story ap earance towards the north, west and south and a 2-1/2 story interior
toward the Mer court, which is oriented toward Olinger Road.
The second plan proposes 24 units of town house apartments in five groupings. This
arrangement is similar to the apartment site having the same alignment. The three
easterly buildings would have an east/west orientation and the two westerly
buildings would have a northwesterly and southeasterly orientation. The buildings
would be more residential in design and the square footage is generous with
approximately 1000 square feet in the two bedroom units and 800 square feet in the
one bedroom units.
Mr. Fredlund noted that there were several other possibilities that could be
developed fo the property such as resubdivision, density zoning or a combination
of the two. He suggested that the matter be accepted for study.
Mr. Hiatt mo ed that the two proposals be accepted as preliminary suggestions for
study, that he Commission conduct a field inspection of the property in order to
gather more nformation before final action is taken. Mr. Shaw seconded the motion.
All Voted Av . Motion Carried.
The proponen requests R-4 zoning on Lots 1 through 5, McGary Addition, located in
the southwes quadrant of T.H. 169-212 and Olinger Road.
Mr. Fredlund
had submitte
containing 3
clusters. A
suggestions
terms on a d
reviewed the proposals submitted at the March meeting, the proponent
two preliminary plans for consideration; one for an apartment development
units, another for some 30 units of town house apartments in five
that time, the Commission accepted the two proposals as preliminary
or study and requested the planning staff and the proponent to come to
finite proposal.
Z-66-3
Mills Constr. Co.
Page 2
Mr. Dale Pollak, Midwest Planning and Research, presented a plan showing a proposed
20 unit building to be located at the northerly end of the property along T.H. 169.
The site plan indicated a 7 unit garage on site as well as the required quest
parking. Thirteen stalls would be provided in the basement of the structure.
Mr. Gruen, architect for the proponent, stated that the units met the ordinance
requirements and that he felt this plan was a good use for the site.
Mr. Fredlund noted that the Commission could rezone only that portion of property
where the building would be located to R-4 and the rest of the property be left in
the R-1 classification. The other alternative would be to do as in the case at
Interlachen Blvd. and Hankerson Ave., that is, to require a dual restriction on
all 5 lots, tying them all to this project, and by limiting the number of units
to be built to twenty. Final publication of the ordinance could then be withheld
until the Commission and Council could review said restriction along with the
actual building plans at the time the proponent wishes to proceed with development.
After some discussion, Mr. Nugent moved to recommend approval of rezoning the
property to R-4 District with the appropriate deed restrictions and further, that
the final publication of the ordinance be retained until Planning Commission and
Council review the deed restrictions and final building plans at the time of
building permit application. Mr. Huelster seconded the motion. All Voted Aye
with the exception of Mr. Griswold who voted Nay. Motion Carried.
VILLAGE COUNCIL. APRIL 18, 1966
Mills Construction Company. Hearing Date set for rezoning property at T.H. 169 and
Olinger Road from Single Family Dwelling District to R-4 Multiple Residence District
was set for May 2.
VILLAGE COUNCIL. MAY 2, 1966
Affidavits of Mailing on April 21 and of Publication in the Edina -Morningside
Courier on April 21 were presented by Clerk, which affidavits were approved as to
form and ordered placed on file. Pursuant to due notice given, public hearing was
conducated on the request of Mills Construction Company to rezone Lot 1 through 5,
Block 1, McGary Addition from Single Family Dwelling District (R-1) to R-4
Multiple Residence District. This property is on the southwest quadrant of Olinger
Road and T.H. 169-212, bounded on the north by a 20 unit apartment building, on the
east by single family residences, on the south by large lots and single family
dwellings on the west by single family dwellings and the Edwards property which is
zoned R-3 Multiple Residence District. The petitioner proposes to construct an
apartment building which would contain twenty 1,200 square foot, two bedroom units.
Planning Commission has recommended approval providing the publication of the
ordinance be withheld until a deed restriction be received which would allow no
more than one building containing twenty dwelling units. Mr. James Hawks of
Midwest Planning showed a picture of the proposed building. He stated the back-
yard would be depressed with a fence and landscaping and residence parking would
be underground. A lady in the audience asked how far the pool will be located from
the south property line and was told that there will be 200 feet of lawn between
the pool and property line and that building rights on this property would be
waived by the proposed deed restriction. Mr. Norman Olmstead, 5804 Olinger Road,
asked where sewer and water would come from and was told by Mr. Hite that the
Z-66-3
Mills Constr. Co.
Page 3
sewer would be extended from the south and that water would come from the other
side of the highway. Mr. Edward Ripple, 4824 Olinger Road, asked what plans had
been made for the Mud Lake area to the south and indicated that he feared that the
proposed apartment building would set a precedent for other apartments in the area.
Mr. Hite replied that this project could not set a precedent because that had
already been done along T.H. 169-212, but that the property to the south would not
present the same problem. Mr. Hyde pointed out that the gasoline station and
apartments had been approved on T.H. 169-212 because the property had been zoned
commercial in 1930 and it had been feared that commercial buildings would be built.
A gentleman in the audience asked how far the apartment would be from 6017 Olinger
Road and was told that it would be about 160' which would be in lawn except for the
turn around. He was also informed that the driveway would be 35' away from the
lot line. Mrs. J. C. McGary questioned what affect the apartment would have on
traffic. She was told by Mr. Hite that the proposed extension of Olinger Road
along the lake which wi'l tie into Tracy Avenue at W. 62nd Street will add
substantially to traffic whether or not the apartment is Approved. He stated that
each apartment unit is estimated to generate 3-1/2 trips per day while private
dwellings gezarace six trips per day. A gentleman in the audience asked how
far west multiple residence zoning is anticipated. Mr. Hite replied that it would
probably terminate at Blake Road and might involve the extension of Blake Road
to Gleason Road. A letter of opposition to the proposed apartment building was
read by Mayor Bredesen from Mr. and Mrs. Earl Carson, 5908 Merold Drive. In
reply to a question from the audience, Mr. Hawks stated that because improvement
plans must be solved first, he did not anticipate that construction would begin
before next spring. Stating that Secdnd':Reading shonii==be=withheld pending
receipt of approveed plans and of the deed restriction as recommended by Planning
Commission, Trustee Van Valkenburg offered Ordinance No. 261-131 for First
'Reading as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 261-131
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 261
(ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA
ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL R-4 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT
THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Paragraph 1, Multiple Residence District Boundaries, of Section 4,
(Multiple Residence District) of Ordinance No. 261 of revised ordinances of the
Village of Edina, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following
subparagraph:
"District R-4:
(24) Lots One (1), Two (2), Three (3), Four (4), and Five (5), Block One (1),
McGary Addition." -
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and publication according to law.
Z-66-3
Mills Constr. Co.
Page -4
VILLAGE COUNCIL. JUNE 20 1966
Mr. Fredlund presented request of Miles Construction Company for vacation of
utility and drainage easements affecting property in Block 1, McGary Addition.
Mr. Fredlund stated that he had contacted Northern States Power and that they
had no objections to the vacation. Trustee Van Valkenburg then offered the
following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION VACATING EASEMENTS IN
BLOCK 1, MCGARY ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Village Council of the Village of Edina, Minnesota, that
utility and drainage easements affecting the west five feet of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4,
and the east five feet of Lot 5, all in Block 1, McGary Addition, as shown on the
plat accepted by the Village Council of Edina on the 13th day of October, 1959,
be and hereby are vacated.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Trustee Johnson and on
rollcall there were five ayes and no nays and the resolution was adopted.
Q
EDINA PLANNING CMUSSION
STAFF REPORT
August 7, 1968
Z-68-17 R. K. Strom. Request for rezoning from R-1 to R-3 on the West
75 feet of Parcels 2600 and 2700, South of
West 70th on Cahill.
Refer to: Enclosed map.
Mr. Strom is proposing to build a 16 unit townhouse
complex on 1.4 acres of land on Cahill Road just south of the St. Patrick
Church property. The problem at this point is that only the first 200 feet
from Cahill Road is currently zoned R-3. The westerly 75 feet of the site is
zoned R-1. It is his intent to build 12 units initially on the presently zoned
portion and then add four more units after the moritorium is lifted and the
westerly 75 feet is rezoned R-3. He would like some indication at this time as
to whether the Commission would be receptive to the extension of R-3 zoning to
coincide with his rear property line.
If you will recall, a zoning plan was adopted in
July, 1964, for that area around 70th and Cahill. That plan called for R-3
development along Cahill Road from 70th Street south to within 128 feet of
Amundson Avenue extended. All but the St. Pat's property was rezoned R-3 in
conformance with that plan.
Recommendations
It is not exactly clear why the zoning district
boundary was drawn in a manner which divides the properties as they now are.
Any individual acquiring these properties for R-3 use is confronted with the
purchase of 75 feet of R-1 property which cannot be used for R-1 purposes. The
staff therefore recommends approval of R-3 zoning as requested to include,
in addition, the westerly 75 feet of parcel 2500, which has the same problem, for
the following reasons:
1. The rezoning represents a logical extension
of existing R-3 zoning; along Cahill Road.
2. The R-3 request is substantially in conformance
with the principles of the zoning plan adopted
by the Commission in 1964.
3. The requested rez oning is necessary to the
proper development of the site in question.
4. Without the rezoning, a 75 foot strip of
unusable R-1 land will be created which will
make the whole site very difficult to sell and
develop.
f lh
ScNooi :il20,�,
W '70 T'4
PQ o P aSF
FvT'v2E
S -r �zs
Pr2d�
m�,\NhNL�
r N®R r
I zoo'
Z -Gs -11
RICAAan ST'ZOrA
kt-W N OS o o4
(2(.00) 3>0,,Q" ti