Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969 06-04 Planning Commission PacketsCe :T r-- x'314STW REPORT June 4, 1969 12 F,'iUa-m 31cn. R -I La 11-5 Distri-1_s. SE Cormer Muld Ln'r1e. to: EnCIA.0sed Map. Mr. G-Isen and for -Sm Construction Co. propose to build ti-,rec 26 stcryy apa--t-mc-nt towers just vorth of the Cress Twjn 11ii",4clay' n -ad soutli of ex4--t-ing West '2nd Street. The complex is to consist t:�F- 545 with an overall den .sty of 37.2 units per acre. Thay prop a, ;urther, to dndicate some 16.44 acres to the Village fo-r pa: k an4 recreal--loral purpose3, 7 ncreo south of the Cross T(n#n and 9.44 acrze3 contiguous to t:he proposed 1-Iud Lake Project. The pro-,:)osal, is to re-,-,onc the remaining 14.66 acres to R-5. Lead us c in the area consists of %Tacant land to the T3outn' 'uce%- a"16 Sin -g -le fLmlly hom�-q are being bu.-T-It not-th of We--:-- 62nd A 18-4 acre parl- Fnd recrcational facil-ity is proposed t-:) tile of the site. All nurrounding property is zoned R-1. A request for 11-3, R-5 and PC -2(4) zoning on the site to east (Johnson -Burton.) was denied in early 1968. The Cemmission huIs si-aee indicnted th---- It would consider P. to--wthouse proposal IXI-st-,'ict zanit-ig, 4 units per acre) for that 25 acix. site. I have - been approachad recently by Flemtom about just such c propooal. he !Vrld undo cons i,erat4.on is ex-tremely All but zi 3-Malrt l poion of it is beilow the C64, elevation. The Nine Yd Ie Creek 7^7 titer"S'Fi"3C4 23,card has recommended that no basement or living quar"Cars o - an.- structure should be bu"It balm,7 On -is ele-,Tation. Varirmens, of course, 'Fat il-I also lbcnecassm-y. The sti:ucture�" in a'! ca,cs, be at least thciix heigh� from all property liac-0. -ures, are consideralbly closer than 240 feet '30 er-I C-truct bi;ildinfj he ,,,,ht) Lo taxa south line of the site. Tn�� szuer problem is sti-IL". wita us, 'out a decision can be this p-,:,ob."Letit b!�Lag n n-$ The rccm-;-,Y.eads of t -e request for th�-'- 1. Till': proposed structutras are sobstantialdly o-ut of :`l-lcxnctar '-,;ith thea da- I zon-in- and Line low density -%and o va-.Um-c,", su , � I gge3ts that Ctc nc". neecss-1-Y for M 4:1'i- - Ve77 ii gh nccor'.Ur-.P to oux- Policy '" U I C 46, V. / 1 l 1 �Vd A14V pIzo.)Ecr bou 4 1 IC 1 M16m 400 :�,.�.�;��. .tri!► I t SAMARI IETHODI CZLOUNTRY SIDE ELEMENTARY SCHO i R•3 VEN��� �i�� 62 ND ST Joa4dSo� ;CQUNTRY--::; s`��6ar� • :PARK•' • PC • Z (go ReQ�S I>Qwtgv Fq o,� � ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OS ' • , ".. CREEK VALI SRP ®� -•r BAPTIST t• EDINA PLANNING COMHISSIM STAFF REPORT June 4, 1969 Z-69-11.1 j. A. Danans & Son. C-2 to Planned Industrial District, for Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 3, Grend View Heights. refer to: Enclosed Hap. The site in question is located on Brookside Avenue north of Eden hvenue. The property was previously zoned Light Industrial District, said district having recently been eliminated from the zoning ordinance becauue of obsolescence. lx the time of reclassification, the property was zoned C-2, the reasa.zi-s- Tie-in- that the building was then vacant and properties to the rtor-lla, south and v7cst were already C-2. ProGably more consideration should have been given to the building 4tc_e'jf apd -;i-s setting, at the time of reclassification. The building iv, w.ithout cuestion, of an industrial character. It is not easily adaptable to C-1--nZiercial -Ussge. Furthermore, it is considerably lower in elevation than surrounding conmercial properties and for this reason, has no co-mmercial or-'cutanlor.. it :bouts on Brookside Awenue and the M N & S 'Railroad across from -,:,hichl is located the Village Public Works Building. That area east of the tracks is zoned Planned industrial District. If rezoned, the building is proposed to be used for equipment storage. The staff has indicated to the owner that if granted rezoning, all Planned industrial District performance requirements must be met. Recomm-nndation: Grant the rezoning for the follctiing reasons: 1. Said remoning is a logical extension of existing 0 Planned Industrial District zoning to the east. C. 2. The setting torkicb to suggest that industrial usage is more appropriate than c ercial. 3. Umisting C-2 zoning impairs the usability of the site in question. Excavating—Road Building—Contractors . Draglines—Clam shells—Backhoes. Front End Loaders—Dump Trucks . 5106 BROOKSIDE AVENUE o MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55436 Telephone 929-2695 NEW LOCATION 7175 Cahill Road, Minneapolis (Edina) Minnesota 55435 Area Code 612-941-1553 May 14, 1969 Director of Planning Village of Edina Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Sir: Attached is our request for rezoning 5106 Brookside Avenue along with our check in the amount of $ 50.00. It is general knowledge that for many years we have occupied this property as our garage, storage and office, but have now vacated. Some time ago the Village rezoned all property in this area and it so happened our property was zoned "C-2", apparently pending a better use. While we were using it the use was non -conforming. The present property zoning is such that after six months we have not found a tenant or buyer that would conform to the present zoning. Being on a dead-end street there is no commercial traffic and the only traffic by this property will be generated by the occupant. The land has no shopping center frontage and faces the railroad track and the rear of all other buildings in the area, so there is no commercial inducement. Our only rental prospects and buyer prospects are those who would come under Planned Industrial Zoning and this property is too valuable to stand vacant and it must be occupied to support the real estate taxes, which amounted to $4,220.33 in 1968 and $4,636.62 in 1969. Incidentally we presently have pending a sale for the property for $278,500.00 and the buyer is Mr. Ralph G . Pugh, the recent president of Arrow Tank, Inc. who are in need of inside storage, shop, etc. Thank you for this consideration. Very truly yours, J. A. DANENS, & SON, INC, Marion G. Danens MGD:kc r°:31i` Ln t .AXt Danens & Son, Inc Auld -ess 7175 Cahill Road S:.atus of 0-44 "er X L,,iy_r Location: Lot 7-8-9-10 c'.: _ Three Grandview Heights May,_ 14 ,_ 1969 941-1553 5106 Brookside Avenue C-2 _ P[t'_r,t i:t one a: C-2 Commercial Planned Industrial District _—No one is interested in this property_for commercial use. ,;• _ it is . property of high value if it can be put _to groper use. 3. Real _estate taxes require income that can „only be obtainedby changing the zoning. J. A. DANENS SON, INC. rec`_viu by: ce: a_50.00� i:cw paid: �i Date Planning, Ccntidssiaa Action . i :5 14 1 3 i 2 l 1� " —r-° i-: a _�.,�.{L8[qC7°�1�\`8sN2346T.�� -�` .- —,0i9,—._3. -�� `•f 1��nJ � (1 f �i1�D�JJ} til ✓1fo n•rot�°5-i',�1"3..&.,+_ _ a \ty I jI ` o0 -r7v= :I1I I � . ,1B6--GG5— �l4 j s 5ff fj 2�9 �f -- .1 3 0 50 8 9 10 3 •s0 �. - -_4 _ o�t9 "r1 T1, , 5` e—✓J6 c\.e %l- 3 JB 4 7 30 17 9 r „43 6 IA 2 y 7 14 4 .10 5 6 2 3 5 3 Pt2 6 % lul 25 21 7 24 o 23 24 5 20- 3 23 CD , 22 M 20 >m 21 8 17 4 a. 27 6 3 N89 16 A 7 4 TG z 1619 66 5 17 14 718 C 18 17 12 13: i4 7 f5 14---- i020 ST IA Ck 04 ia `2 / n W Q O.,Koper!s - D�ry 0 '11L EDIN,, STAFF REPORT June 4, 1969 k;-69-13 HlIla L,_ur, pry_ZE2pcrtVR- 1 to R-5 and Automobile Parking Districts. Rsfer to: Enclosed Map. The property in question is located east of lughway 100, sotit-li of Eden Avenue and west of Willson Road. The total site area is 259,646 square feet. It is now occupied by the Halla building -ohich occupies but 10,000 square feet (50 x 200) of the site. The area under the building is already zoned c-1 Commercial. it is the Halla's intent '-.o retain the present building, out corejercial space and add some 21,720 square feet of land I arlking. TIA -'s area, 60 feet at th,-- rear and 20 feet at the e,:,.st Pnrl of tile structure, is that proposed to be zoned Au mobile ,parlking District so that the building can function in a commercial T11-11MMOr withovt an extension of the existing commercial zoning. The zeaing request for tic remainder of t7he site is R!-5 and it is PI-OPOSed to build one 14 story apartment build"Lng containing 240 units. The Site is surrounded by R-1 properties with Edina Country C]_ub to the east, the Vi_llage Hall to the north and Highway 100 to the west. Across 11ighWaY 100 is our Lady of Grace Catholic Chui7ch School.. Righway 100 is proposed to be upgraded to freeway design and an iaterchange IS pronosed ait 'M` fWanue and West 50th Street. The Grandvinw shoppinSr area is inmediately northwa-st of the site in q u e s ti 0 -.1 The property it -self has ti inherent problems which suggest a need Zor setback variances. First, it is lonc, and triangular in shape making tile south end of the site unusable. it also has a soils problerm which requires that the structure set closer to Willson IR oa d l t'j-&c7 the ordin s rainimun, setback equ=al M auce pe-mits (ordinance require to building haight). it tyould appear= that said variance would be U st i f e d . The probje- as I see it, Is the relationship betweell the -I ar me t s e Cud tic ap t n- tricture _I I)tj, its pa but 40 fcet fre-M the m,-imercial parkin�; area nn,W 11 -LI; 10 VIOUld set driw,�- A variance would also be t.jqo uses wou-1-d shara a C01ML, It '%y -0- -,Iship t c� __ g-li, his reiatj.(�r -i . -morator`vm on a -pa" C -Z' R- 5 zoning and a ry -mlch La 1. MFCY�` C, r, v•' r� the SE ape6 �}'ters jo, Y. CGUld d if f icult be Staff - particularly enthused aboutW. the cimmere' al buiijing rcmainin, as such. it could serve P.icely a3 a community center Eor C> the cczeplex and if this were done, the density of development could be incrensed. if, on the other hand, the commercial building did rama:`Ln C.1,11d t7no --CdeS4gn21 and integrated architecturally with the rapartment com,-iex, it could serve a very useful function by providing neig'IbcThood an"Manrcial service to �:he apartment-reGidento. T'he staff would therefore recommend one of two coursas of actilaa: (1) that the whole parcel be rezoned R-5 including the C -I prsperty, or (2) that the property be rezoned in accord with the request subject to ti-je folj.oiqirc, conditions: (a) that the existing coxer-Jal building be redesigned to corform as close as possibly to the arcilitecture of tk`ae apartment structure; (b) that access to and pa -l -k -Ing, for the tuo bu-ildipgs be separated; (c) that the area b3tween T,ses be adeqjjc,-ejy ".andscaped and buffered; aind W that the rate o, con;n; 7crsion of he existing building to other C-1 uses be ff-,overned b -y a-jailr.'ble par'Llzirig, (not a!l 80 required spaces call be provided initially becis use some is proposed to occupy vacated Edea Avenue). Irl'o as such for the falloving, reaeo'!,-3.1 R-5 'Or this site because it -- viii i). "Sand be willpi2enis ncar-dwi.M-l", by tit-, high activity center to �Jja_ no: th-west (Gran:Iviow I I. 2. Sajd -,oni-;,g (Re--5� will not be detrimicatal to adjacent properties since they are all of an open space or non- char act-:`r Hall, Hwy. 100. Edi_aa Country Club and Our 1-ndir Of Grace School) . 3. T'hi's' site 1-i1eeta the cr-i-teriL, �ror high density re3ie,eig-tii:` as'.A. he Foliev Guide- tab'lshec! 4n - 1 4 EDINA PIANNINC CGMSSION STAFF REPORT .Tune 4, 1969 R2P:.R at�af Loa c, BIoG.c 8. LaBuena gists Addition. E.:;closed you -will find the necessary background information relative to this case. I, you will recall, the staff and Planning Commission recommended approval of the replay: of this lot in 1968 Into two 13,500 square foot lots, and subsequently, the Council denied this:; request. We are now being sued since the ordinance requirements dere mel: by the proponents,. Mst Suburban Builders, in all respects. Since the Planning CaDmission did not submit a formal written recommendation to the Council as required by ordinance, the proponents are requesting new consideration. The problem is, should we again recommend appro7Q or the division, involved as we are in the law suit, or should we concur with the Council's findings in a united effort to win the case. It would appear that only the Council can answer this question for us.' Our legal advisors have been asked to evaluate the situation to determine what our chancres of winning are. This information should be available by June 4. I would, hewever, recommend that we table the issue until the Council has had an opportunity to reevaluate its stand in light of t sic forthcoming legal assessment of the situation. FILH J July 8, 1968 To the Edina Village Council: I, Frank E. Schiel, reside at 6813 Hillside Lane, Edina, Minnesota. I will be unable to attend the Council meeting July 15, 1968. Therefore I'm presenting my viewpoint regarding the proposed splitting of Lot 6, Block 8, La Buena Vista Addition, Village of Edina, in this letter as well as joining the other residents of this area by signing a petition on this matter which is to be presented to the Council on July 15, 1968. My residence is on the lot adjacent (north side) to Lot 6, Block 8. It is our expectation that sometime a home will be built on that lot, and that it will be of comparable size and value to those in our area. Consistent with this thinking, I completed a substantial addition to my home, December 1967. In preparation for the addition, I applied for a variance to accommodate this construction. One of the reasons it was approved by the Planning Commission was that there would still be ample room on Lot 6, Block 8 to construct a home that would probably be located on the southwest corner of that lot and face diagonally to the intersection similar to its counterpart (Fisher's residence) on Limerick Lane and Brook Drive. The idea was to maintain a basic continuity for. the area. It seems to me, the proposal for splitting Lot 6, Block 8 defeats this purpose and could conceivably have an adverse effect on real estate values nearby. I, therefore, respectfully recommend the Council not approve the proposal. Frank E. Schiel 6805 Hillside Lane Edina, Minnesota 55435 July 12, 1968 Edina Village Council Village Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota Attention• Mayor Arthur C. Br.edesen, Jr. Re: Proposal to Split Lot 6, Block 8, LaBuena Vista Addition Gentlemen: Since I will be out of town and unable to attend the July 15 Council Meeting, I want to voice my objection to the proposed lot splitting of Lot 4, Block 8, LaBuena Vista Addition. My home at 6805 Hillside Lane is located three lots north of the lot in question, so I am vitally interested in the out- come of these proceedings. We purchased our home almost nine years ago in the hope and expectation that the LaBuena Vista Addition, as platted, would develop into a fine residential neighborhood. As you can see by driving around, our area now consists of fine homes and large, well landscaped lots. We are proud of the way our neighborhood has developed and feel that nothing should be done which would upset its overall design and harmony. Thus, it comes as quite a shock to us to find that a speculative builder plans to split the one remaining vacant lot on our block and in the process create two smaller triangular shaped lots. We see no reason to allow such action. It can have nothing but a detrimental effect on our neighborhood. We believe the size of the lots in our area should not be changed; that the area, as originally planned and platted, was well con- ceived and has developed into a fine neighborhood. It should be allowed to remain that way and my wife and I earnestly seek your support to deny the proposed lot splitting. Very truly yours, FEP:MS 'LL 6805 Hillside Lane Edina, Minnesota �j j r R" x. j S .. o• 1 ^R 4 P• l��-.Z•yy �'_ f• Y ^51 `2" p ,..17 fl "1�^ , 1 tq"v'i �p �9 pw :�i Sy"' , T ._" `1 4 •�{� L'..•....r.:.�i.i...::at�o....d�..^.°.y'..a'.'dv.r..4..;!y...aCiv...a.'v'.i.A«:.aia�.fi.p.:.iw� C�..d.:..:d• �..r._ ���, b, :�♦1 �., ......q nr, a .: wsa ! TMf'^.iYW N'1 =. w.�.� C_..;.-, +�. A.1 +�<. wA$ /'�:'177 8 .�..... •.u+... ' :.... .moi as .rrr+�'w `- _ ^. - np ..� wd aJ i • Q .S.VQ pu �!S.i i w. pi -i �. Y tt"% aJ'�%..✓ �.� ._"v. ✓� . ... �. ,r9•.�. �� ya..+.�.wc ....�..+4TCir Y..���utt ;J eJf'._.�vl 4g t .l.a.vi;� w vtc.aW°3 U�anV6,G1�^£1 b C �L't��F e3� 2iT2A v,_ r. � � - • ¢¢. r` aq y qq,, s v e a ..�. G ::it �.'.�. mD-1cor, Ii.'.._a �w 4i V+7 L.°�.J b a .s G 14 . a.. } c� M y. a�i.i:VO ^ ... t .:.-. .�..c sd.%. L. �yfiv� Via` Z,i,L:t u:. t Afia are not rrl..c-. :U:ad lc.1 9..=x t' v f� d f to =---il notices for 'a' I �J .'.:Ad, i- ?a� C: I b Lhc a�iYZtor' Oi co n:C%m w�'ia`a�.ise fi.a i.�iiwn? IJL in L' -;o °p3 s�.• w '\` 13 .:.vwa..zt'.£3.r � 4 .. •T uaTicd t&twt ha 0--zaiA" iA'e a ✓ f ii 6 -rcn lots : w e .•. n �,fw a i.— F that t:i. ----Itc b-- rv�e rad b ----I,. to L�+- 1...I ....ar 6i:.i......+..1wJv..�„i .'• �iiw.d uLrVii✓.rY Vh2t this action mi ;ht tic t kaa at tn'3 ��,SJiit.'. he--r- 141 Of A, il T_ G by Cie-171-., ,' to fror C, Ln 'C?lnt ;r�� �XOCA the C, au-� notLn- t". Z i d •.,".::("J �pint np?rov C'2.-.t CAZ:. CD that noticez could n t to ro­aors Of iz -1,1 j)ar_-j oj,­n­d� by from r cc n- L".a plaL. o-'?O!Ation hZ2 n, Vpaz� i ou� t '..31 t3.0:'• in�o two L c L2 t tile feet of r a jotcd ., S'-'Unra Tv zh -Y nnd -d 9X�o -fccz of lo;-- rron A'o-- Z-1 orJAnn-a-0 rccu'IrL ,in 3 i�'nd 1c, 15jeC 7 t..,t3Al O;� .:Inn 'Cn req �dlcd n­�­)rc-,Inl- 1-Ind r 0, C U.7 Z r, ; & WI:'zid ba b;;ilt cori_-�ai:n thlat 11 ­' ­`4 �i' Int would inza t'40 bnf_"t of ;-'ho OG ZIOL-- to � 'e ctrect cl fc�_- C"1,2 Louc�" On C1, --d nlrcaY c­ .0 lz -P'5inzC.-:a out thrt , �zrLyv C-Va-. thou-Bina e Wns told L"he ?0-r-nit W'13 Lie prc, - _,O_t, �rjy of t, UL! L""t on a rrov,21, only one house Cc t""'zt 'onlcss th _'?_ ,,ja; -Aocd tj z 1-a had inopcctid the ?roPcztY in quort'o jc*�,r'30'1 ad on 0,-it of chnrac,Lar to bUll" •"3�1023 ert ni2a- lots. 4.r. Rob ac Lalievez that it would be &_ have the s-7,- zince other hou�:��s iA t"'O nrci -a lets Ad M12"et 1-7-11son. otated t1ant since tho divie- to wc a";torncy Tor le—r. 16 2 y Cour,^il would be nn a_)itrai-y n-;t nnd his a:j requirerzanto, daninl b lla-a Attorney e,�,,-Cozad the atLer to Court- Vi I C 1CM!_- (I t a!, a tha a. -Ort %;inich6ever action Cou-,a4l c',100a to L,_ Co- U G:© lid urt a L?-tazmination was made. FIC -_-,.nttcr if a rcn-lonalb-1 L,_-v�a reason ,a i th Proved Plat, tae' S, build in ralia--IcO On A" n?? On' . 1! - r­zsrs Dbzrt and AI he plat will be mn_ t1alt t sp:�jza jr, ,­;-qopition to Lane, 61,1240 b1O,_% Of lHio live in tha y :2ntractor for ':r. WilZOIN Eich8r6 U'AtLnCY, CO 6- Pla" T�" he proposes to build- He noted that bemuse of of tile houces it u-ould ba iz�practicn' ' ftnnn- t% on the PrOPerty* -a discussion ensued a3 to underground wate ider able CiAlly o con.strict only one hour, of t!.Le lioucas and another possible division VLAch would provide =re nzon then moved that ?I f n" -or the northerly lot- COu"Cilnaar' Joh be (jericd for tha folle-,A-CS reaeons: 1) The lOtD rcOultirr Lhe A ilghborhood• 2) It eces 1-10" A ,at cut jut of chnrncter with the ne --a twat could be built ontha proposed lots. Could m4i"ta" thet c%isting houses in th.3 ir,-,=-_diat8 vicinit) y. 3) A similar requc3t lot. 4people 0_0uld 1-.--ve the (:cnjad in the past for an adjat. acen would bea dctrimcnt.il effect on rely on a filed P1 to tho east bcctiusa of the way the proposed houses would have to T :3 econded by Counran', cil' Vnnvnikenburg and on rolleall there ware.ive S the Plat approval was denied. yc3 and no nays and V­ IJ IZI 'r �o Z Ctrl -.l (oZ 7 s f I rq CV-% •V l� l� 12 °12 12 T,�d S.oz 107.7.7 3ai-- --'T �® — �, ©I N 9.58 15 4z. 9S 4,96 1_7 b� _ ._ _.s 2 1"E3 T R- "" EE."T ' 9 -1T 147.3 1.37 - to Boo 3 Gallo r- 7. 0 10• �aoo �• moo. 63•5 7 0 .� (0508 13 00 0 i /'1 , �1 M 4 N O Ao `36331 .14 24. SOO a 505 � �.�'� �c � �' � t.���. 7.7, p• �ti � � /Z;; 171-73 4 lei 0 16 M 45 60.87 hJV ;°? 58729W X8'•o7Q � 17 � !30 �' � LAND 80 007 02.37 k� s. Ik12�• _ 47/.6 2/0 s.07'29�' �130 1 -� - 16 15 I' 1,4 13 � I2 "�y 11 438 n o ...• 33` `?3 s 1 29'W a- 13 m o -- --- o _ �_ ze Bo Par, TrJcT A 16 0 �O ^SB,'`Z 7313' 1P. ape o' N0. 24'9 o /o =, 5.sa `' Na�•z4. STREET w.8!'S! 51'w. 441.31 ti i S8, 29'IY o 14��A\�60.8/ 80 s \�..\p� D Ot' ^ti SIH 15 8 +I 7 e 6 ."� 4 i. zob GR6VE.. 63.: h2. so. a92 80 s8�r9'w j •, 7 , �. O z o ° d '• 114'0 95 ` 93 9f 5 , 95 i6 .92 ° Wcst `^ ^ ° o N. A9gs3E. N iei,3a McPhers4l n " N ''i r8 e°° 2 3 4 N 5 v 6 N o 7' _ _ % �. Ar 7 4.91 95 5 g5 2.5 95 1 e �= z I• N h. p . 4 Ii 3 r. ccs 5-69-1(J qo p2 54.84 90 90 90 Yo sty V, - - _ o _ 4Z West 4 eat 0 I Nip 2 ^� 3 NI 4 NI 5 iol.48 145 33r ja ° _ o _I o w 218 e a o4.4 ? o o 90 0 o85 n.si f3'E. o � 'P � �••� - - X45 � Vi ,.,, � N � •[ "1.9 0W '4s 1 ZZ.')' .p OUT lot 2 D Al. J. O-stma17 eta% ,!w1i SB.7 150 ��-- - Z45 r 50�' Nw �69• 1;t• l07.! 1 101.61 ° A M .o�•;,j. --•_Jo- o>l3V . 1 1°0 Zb �\\6`15 S�Q1�6 0 e S o2 OH 0«61 ,;. •1 R 5 t <- .. ! 2 " '� ''v• O oti . 51 61.8 46 79 .7o.ob Jett• 000� �50 1e"•ip9a 4.0949 4 e� - I d:1 °t410 • e P o c eh �% 131J9 9.b8.'*Iy1.1346/�97 opC ' t2eI N Ac89'syE. �,jly ,o j1, ° � n ;a° 7/.0 �•. ,,C$/9ei eXal N 17 n--h\� Z}v 1 a �O y 0.� `A �','� p�'bgy 19ti./{ e - ob i6 W yf 6 cA� 5 Ati 3 fids �4 v>, ' a .•�0 sa,� �oq�J r_,.,�s ,�� �q, s,��. 11 �.�b .1}�:�1 ~ N 4Yg '1' •bw,�• 1 y. '�"�! q� So(. .�• ^'L: �•.o�� ~e o quo Jt� Zo 4c. 9 15 �a ? l,i� c> S1t51'y ,bq�12 Its 10 NG 60 qI. ` •� �.L. 3 ' M i p.,�i�'Sd_ a` J ..� D '67.i`v � � :�iL� .a'�.vL Q.o.+� 4. j y. goe Sy'3a d / \�9� io�Y \ �,s05 {� p Ir 1a f4'j4 cY �'6 g. bE'� 9 ''r. 'a-' 1- A9 YZ 6` 4- s v ' - r, p 621- ... V4 S T R E E Vp W.D. fo 77 !�. 33'I33 ,. abet :+�-•- 600) �► �G ¢ V o ' � 5 Eas! i ae al h 4 ti NG Rohner ° i - ,., 1 �Ir e o 964c. ¢ Q :� �� : OLINGER < 1 ~� L I fjct j 675 Blanche Code, elel Ly R '/1a.a 141- 7 I wiz F I ST a e`.�,ti3 t 497,41C. LI .09 '. N.6 S9tJorrA x Iii 133 471.13 r 34 1145 4a�.4 loo 45 b OUTLOT I QQ .•.»e I y n4 ?6S9' �',, fit/ `•' {�•. ip,'�; 61 ct i � eav"ee'an"r. .,. S7• O `41' M tl 4 I A �s -ritRCs G S-69-12 mim ^ v 14 .� 12 wo i• e3 132 0 !39.31 ° o - - . •-,-yrI 25 . s' 1219 '1d13b9 45.9 Z 4 �r. w t2 4Il4 3 1219. 1"lPgpart ofLo!12 5944,DZ86M0 Torrerr5 -35 243,11 hlall to Cl!">v 66 40 4 4 r f^17 1358 1358 2 REPL�T OFj BLOCK 9.,8-..-. ^`^ .5.5 NORM4Noa.E O T 7. N o2202rz1935 2 5 n 5 ` U r CIA C, a a 11.1 ^22 o1r1, 08 17? O ' 12 i r,'s 60 O *4 or 7477t? - rr� Z441G 90° +"2.15 12215 �0 d !2; 13 ,.,'02.1? - _ �• - 4 1f\ N REpLAT OF LOT I .° sq, px '" j ;io •yQNr? o BLOCK 13, o.�' oh' NORMpNDALE�-, HUGER $► n r> r +I a 24445 �' t2c!5 122.15 0 !22 2' ^' °� °' �.1 4S W "4430 ;_ V g,i� g`vI 7�j 6111 5� , Q r' 244.45 0, o. J{ N r•1 c, c1, CI O M® I ( i 'v' rl `11 r 2 3 2 i Bo, 1 i a1 24;.64 Z44.o4—fi9.r 314 TID ` o -Wal-Don Bldrs.:21 Z Cry, 0 10 cP3c- 4 24483 r„ q✓ ^wLT, dt+, 15, 21�, 4 42 rr, DoiE145.02 x¢5.021aO. t' c, C"r — - -- -- ZQ 3fi1. U n Q-. O r2'6r %s 245.21' 589•s9'h W. 65Th ST. j .._o c,,R 4h 24 5. 31 245.3!1; 4.1 v 1 .r r 1 PJ r.� (w.l it �. O Z 2- 13 LAN Z18._- 0 2 2 Z45-0 L11 112 11 317 Z I Z Q .r.,-• Ui �+ � • fl +'13 , :SBS N89°t2'35"E of 1,+q 1 g 245.88 r22.ra I 1?2. 4 NORMAND+L E ADD.- W 4 4b.07 o� 4,P12 Z49 o7 MILLER LAT 123.12 2 123.13 CIS 0 c,,R 4h 12 c, 4.1 Ll 9 r.� 12,,,3 Z 13 LAN 112 11 �O 9 , I ,y, • 1 , of 1,+q 1 Vol � !F ° • Jfos ��, 17540, % * 90.55 N % ,� OB 6• ,'F n 0 0 !� - 9•b�o , MCI .4+ Y 15'oo- _ o �a'110 � $. 4 :41010.67 ..71m M 26 RISC ? iJ 8.�\/) 7�y 29 36 Moot o6Q°%i a_ M w•� 289.0_=59.� qao'. 0.6 0 331 �.rl155.59 1la:jryf � rm�• .g3'51E o -25 It zsol rn o h o ` • 2` � � • N893118 3055"f i' �• 5 .n 1 I i1f 11 iL:50.3z t / / n \ ~ i 586b5'W, ✓�� s' RIO jjo�;l a- 1 P:0 ND2190 �- _zzz.s 1 I 228.0 --7�i� w �, r # 542.0 669. �%pART Of LOT 31 66 9.5 nolo l m w \(/962 Aerl0/ P N 38 1011 23I k,4 IN 4 666.25 1. : 668. 5 39 667.625 off` 22 Niy Ln40 �-t�_ S-6 7.0 • 667.0 BLAYLVOOD ADDITION i I 665.15 41 20 v port of Lot 42,, 664.5 /40 do io iso N 120.47 89$o43`W60 ' ADD.o� N ~ I* N 19 N BR,MWNSWOOD N^ = 2140 o N �l 279.54 KI ~ 664.0 140 o _W150. Z �111�1'FIPI1,914 2/v ,� N89'55'23N �o120.o 219-54 N216.4 � 3 E Q 213.65\ o IS 9°51'56"E o o' 011, .. W �* 7,21,10 ``^ R. 0. �iet�3148.90.. � �r 115.13 44.34 �3SSe 140 .D o bo' Oo East 3 2/3.26 • _ ' W .. �p�� J \M2 -v�o. a �WESTWOOD COURT 0 '^140 �Z [=46.025 ;° � �d959111`4 M ° o� * 790.04 70.80'• 9. oo West c6 Z /a=93.36' - R::d.�7/87 9/ ?... o. 210 .TUd.96 R1200 i � 00 -� o �r 4 N O 3 O Q O EVANSW000 LANE ' Q r` 1 1 2 140 w s2o East66o.8G M W 20 236.25 140.85 45 7,21.10 h 3 J R 20.0 c �hti 6591 187.901,74 8�s 5 M, o WESTW00 ��tivy� j• i� �c�e90 1 104 /15.13 '' 4923 �� 00 46 00 47 �. R z o V. 6 7 �o N �"! 269.21 361.14 33 , 3030 ��yb inn 250 208.31 ' Q%O4 f-- 4 qo "� \o \ 4X'14 �!s ,yh ^ , �o dab `1'Gr�Po.94 \�9iZ X03.2/ 61 t usT I .v 4r a X20 M •_..•..,, — �- OO 33 S-69-15 �`pb• (� �o�Qs $CHOENANG R.L.S1�''J"� ; jT) As -)mo .� I i .� �� � y 33 J _ ;3 S.� 0 S �� �5 � t `,o 98 -9 slit(. -00 �g �8 0ale 0 ''� / t .� Z_' �� r p �- �, �; a. �,.� S _. �! _ J� � !'S�� r O �O P HITALYZES OF THE, RECp IAA MEETING OF TUE EDINA PLANNING CCMMISSIQN HELL) WEDNESDAY, JMNE 4, 1969 EDINA VILLAGE HAIL s?e,.bcrs PresenU W. W. Lewis, Chairman; David Griswold, George Nugent, Saar Hu hes, Robert Huelster and Cliff Johnson Staff Present; Fred Hoisington, wren Sorensen 1. of ML�y 7,_1969 Commission Minutes Mr. Griswold moved that the May 7, 1969 Commission Minutes be approved as subudtted. Mr. Hushes seconded the motion. Motion Carried. Zi. ZQ�4ING REQUESTS Z-69-12 Willi;um Olsen. R-1 Residential District to R-5 Mul i2le District. _ N.W. Corner Cross Tcvm and Tracy Avenue. Also Plat. Yr. Hoisington reported that Mr. Olsen and Bor--Son Cod,struction Co. propose to build three 26 story apartment towers just north of the Cross Town Highway and south of a::fisting West 62nd Street. The proponent has asked earlier in the clay that the matter be deferred. No act3or taR:.en. Z-69-10 0. Roberts Co R-1 Residential District to Multi le -and -Office District. N. 72nd Street. (See Diinutes 4-3-68; 5-1--68; 5-7-68) --69-8 Rauenhora t_Co3_P.-, R--3 Multiple District to 11-4 Multiple District. Tract A, R.L.S. 1.129. (See Minutes 5--7-69) Mr. Hoisi-nbte . ,reported that because Loth of these sites are under consideration by the School District, that the requests be deferred until the July meeting. He also noted that the School Board will be making a final. decision within the next two to three weeks. No action taken. Z--69-9 Edina 1Pealty. R--1 Res.idcritial District to Office Buildirg District 0-1. S14 Corner old. 51st Street.: and France Avente. (See Minutes -5.-22--69) Yr. Heisington reported that the Commission conducted a snecla- _.,.'?tsi`it 9'.1 M,y 22 .:4'" 6i'i4."uss this request. A that time, the had as to where commcrcial and office iievelo -m nt f:ho. j_d ,..3top are, our policy of con taJJi..men. - of commercial develop - I4 ort in f'bc .`)'Gt i and i''"zaach sti ec^:. Tf f e matter was continued to thin me-ating. ,r?Ilissi orl Minutes -^2-- JLLn.c 4, 1'69 Yr. Roisington also noted that the City of iUiLneapold s has inforv,ed shim that they intend to have R-2 or less density south of West 51st Street. Mr. Hughes stated that the diagonal would make a good place to stop rhe commercial and office development. An Edina Realty representative asked the Comlaission if they would feel better if they knew that R--2 ;could be built on the remaining 6 lots in the block. Mr. Iluelster stated that if the balance of the block would be R--2, he would be wore inclined Lo go along with the office, but is afraid of jumping the barrier (the diagonal). Mr. Hoisington presenUto the Commission two alternate plans for the development between W. 51st and W. 52nd along France, south of the diagoraa,l. Flan I indicated office developmeut can the first four lots south of the diagonal .and multiple on the remaining southerly six lots. P.1 -an Il indicated multiple from W. 53.9t to W. 52nd Street. lie indicated that: either proposal would be acceptable. Mr. Nugent noted that Man II is the better of: the two plans and seejan to fit in tuith the CamRiseion's thinking. P,r. Hughes again stated that conanercial development should be stopped noMth of the dia yorial. Mr. l o,Ack, Edina Reeltyf, stated that he felt that an office buildisag o—ild be appropriate on the site because there would be verb? little traffic after 7 P.M. and if an apartment complex: was to be bu:'lt there,, traffic would be increased and would go on all day and "Late into the evening. After farther discussion, Mr. Griswold moved that the Cotmi.ss on den's the EG"quast for the following reasons: I. Crantinc, the 0-1 zoning E:-ould violate the 50th and France Plan by extending co a4erciaal type development u-out:h of Ernst 51st Street. 2.. Crp-nting of 0--1 zoning would be contrary to the Minneapolis CcxrnpLLehensive flan which calls for R-1 and R--2 development sou, --b of W. 51st Street on L1c: al. "L 'gide of. I l -an ce A:tFC111" .. } i :z. . uZhes s�'cor.Aed theroe:ivn. —1.1 o---'- d Motion Carried. A.t: A:1t;n s w_Son_._ C-7. Commercial ]District to `.'_tan s:ci indus%s-in' Lost.rict. Brook -aide Avenue. Fir. Hoisinc tan stated that the site in question is locnted on Brookside Avenue north of Eden Aver►ue. The property was previously zoned Light InOu,�3Crial District, said district was recently eliminated £ronn, --i-he zoning or ii.nMuce because of obsolescence. At the time of reclassification, the p operty w as zoned C--2 because the building was vacant and properties to the north, south and ;nest were already C-2. The building is of av industrial character. It is not easily adaptable to commercial usage. It is lower in elevation than surrounding commerciRl properties and has no co"mercial orientation. It frcnts on Brookside Avenue and the Minneapolis, Northfield nud Soutberrn Railway. The area east of the tracks is zoned planned Industrial District. If the property is rezoned, the building is proposed to be used for equipment storage. If zoning is granted, all. Planned industrial District performance requirements must be met. The staff reecwmends approval of the zoning. For. Hughes moved that the Commission recommend approval of the requested rezoning for the following reasons 1. Said rezoning is fa logical extension of existing Planned Industrial District zoning to the east. L. The setting tends to suggest that industrial usage is more appropriate than concaercial. 3. Existing C-2 zoning impairs the usability or the site in question.. 14A. I'luels ser seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Z--69.13 Halla u serer Wit• -1 Residential District to R-5 Multiple District. and Autos 'Llax•I.iijg Distry ct. Eden Avenue. (See Minutes 5-7-69). The property iG located east of IiigIrviwy 100, south of Eden Avenue west of baillson Road. The total site area is 253,646 square feet. It Is, the Valla°s intent to zetaLa the present building, lease out coramerci.al space and acid approximate-ly 21,720 square feet of land for parking. This area, 60 feet at the rear and 20 feet at the east end of the structure, is proposed to be zoned Automobile Parking District. The request for the remainder of the site is R-5 and it is proposed to build one 14 story apartment build-ing containing 240 units. Mr. lbs, C exney Associates, presented drawings of the proposed builAing shcu'jit its location on the proper. t , ingress and egress and the parking a-,: nn menta for the exist-iazg building as well as the proposed apartment building. Mr. David Halla noted that the existing buildini would got- zL &L:ce 14 f: --in'; to r .oyaic pie .'uh thL: proposed apart sesta~ building .as it wC1.`3 4-..0 Wv:i's.. .:S;iO a s6' -,Vii'.[' }: 3L".iitir for the �ipi�it:@t'nt b4_.il�di€ g. Succi. z" : &, b"oauty .?il )p, a restaurant and dry Cleatting .�L1Cgt.:.}_'od : f tfiase Lases ",could be permitted in the .:api.- et' that ?.hese uses were noxmally e1it'h3•:r En apd'r':atr-nt sarSsctul':e , ziG . J*Jo. c.. }.�4cs: �-astir. may b21i.kdlixg. Ila also noted that these :.rtes: :got ic'. Le t:; r,::.Y.='r.c_ if used only for thc: tenants of the ap�.:rtmer.t buttdA.ng . y ...'�_n ef. •: :I'f.'ti. c3 ^'j�'y !i?i:C ;.:F v0. Mr. ^r -.scold stated that the Com -mission n4cently aecez,led a prophsal for th;u este and looked with favor unorr it at, that tir..o., biO it was a icon,; way to sewer and water and at that time there F7as no mention of C-1 uses. lie noted that lie was enthusiastic about tire: mUtiple development and stated that it Bill be well developed and developed properly witi, Cerney Asscc# a tes working with the Ha? la ° s . He stated that he was ir, favor of n--5 ou the entire sf i:e . Ar. UuelsteT noted that: if Eden Avenue Is going to be bridged over T.H. 100, from. a convenience standpoint for the apartment dwellers, facilities would be very near with the Grandview area acro -:s T.H. 100. Mr. Hoisington noted that: if the existing Halla building were elimi.rtated or unad as a ccrer'auni.ty facility for the apartment building, more density could be realized. Mr. Griswold stated that he would agree wl h a higherbuilding because there are no single. _�.amily residents to object to a high tower building. Fe then suggested that the matter be tabled until next month with the though: that something be worked out in that connection. An apartment development in this area would be an asset to the Village. It is a -ood alder and it should happen. After some further discussion, Mr. Hughes unsaved that the Cowniss.ion recoimend that the :;hole parcel be rezoned R-5, including the C--1 property for the following reasons 1. P --S zoning is appropriate for this site because it is near to and will Moth complement and be complemented by the high activity curter to the n1orthuTest (Grandv-.era) . 2. :aid R75 senin.g will not be detrimental to adjacent properties since they are all of an open space or non -single family cha ncter (Vi.11auge Hall, Iftri. 100, Edina Country Club aaad Our Lady of grace School) . 3. This site meets the criteria for high density residential development as established in the Policy Guide. Rob. Joh.ason seconded the motion. All VQtcd Aye. Motion Carried. LOT DIVISIoN, 1. West Suburban Builders. LaBuena crista Addition. Mr. Hoisington reported that the lot under consideration is locatctd an the northeast corner of Brook Drive and Hillside Lane. Each lest centai_t,s abuse+ 3.3,500 square feet. Other lots in the area are 17,000, 18,0011 e;'nd 19,000 square: Ycot in area. he—,:sem_ has ,,;ten a great deal of objection :o this W .i?i 3'..:BLit? b -y hails?bo s in tbs arca, Th.e staff recotdiiended .r )ppfi`cV? y i_ lli`} it. 2:.??. i.- ;F_ n`_c our n..'."-'Zenti.J•n. is d cision Hulsis be i s;Qd' Z.,,_, a ...:�t�-'`?i:__„dc"i;.._��Ti .._�?.vt-:` [_`i y i'.:? Council�1.i:t T"'r' 4, 1969 Mr. Frank Porter, 6805 Hillside Lane stated that he spoke for 37 hoi;. ownsrs. He stated that a petition was circulated in the neigh- borhood in July, 1968 which was signed by the neighbors in opposition of the proposed divicion. Said petition was given to Council at the time of their deliberations. He stated that if this lot can be divided in this way, urban clutter would be created. He indicated that he strongly opposed the division. Mr. %Tante Schiel, 6813 Hillside Lane, im-aediate neighbor to the lot under consideration, .Mated that he completed a substantial addition to his hauae in December, 1967. In preparation for the addition, he applied for a variance to accomodate the construction. One of the reasons it was approved by the Board was that there would be ample roots on Loft 6, Block 8 to construct a :sone that: would probably be located on the southwest corner of the lot and face diagonally to the intersection of Limerick Lane and Brook Drive. Tete division of the 'lot is out of character and 37 families share this opinion. Air. tAidrew Miller, 6720 Hillside Lane stated that his lot is a bit larger than the lot under discussion and there are other lots the same size as his. If this division is approved, this will set a precedent in the area. Letters from Messrs. T. C. Hunter and R. J. Gibbish were submitted and :-toted by the Corm:ission.. These gentlemen opposed tate division of the property. After considerable discussion, it was determined that i.he Commission had not been made fully aware of the situation at the pre;►iouis meeti.n; regarding this issue. It was not then known that a similar .-equest had been denied _ r, 1960 dust a block *west of the sot: in question (Lot 3, Block. 4, LaBuera. Vista) . Dir. Huelster indicated that the circun3tances are very nearly the same as those for Log: 3, Block 4 and moved that the Coneii.ssion recommend denial of the proposed plat for the following reasons: 1. The lots resulting from the plat would be out of character wlrh the neighborhood because of their shape. 4. It does not appear that houses that: could be built on the proposcd lots could maintain the same sy .retry as existing houses in Lhe iI1aaed ate vicinity. 3. A similar. request has been denied in the: wast for a lot in ,:his sarae subdivision and the circumstances a; -e very nea:1y the same in t'ihe two cases. i. ':?eople should have tete right to :tel; on a filed plat. 5. There :=;v�ald ,-e a� detrimental effect or, the property to _he cast beca,_.cc of he way the pro.posz-d houses would ; le to be pi ced. s IN V? june 4, 1969 G. she divi-sion may establish an undesirable prc,cedent which would require that we gra::t of ie .` siriila?: requests in the area. i. 1.;: has not been the policy of the planning Commission to recommend ¢n favor WE the division of altt�ady platted lots where the resultant lots are substantially sicaller than others in the neighborhood. Mr. Griswold seconded the motion. Mr. Hoisington indicated that he would attest to the accuracy of all measurements shown on the plat and stated that grades are not ehown but would not be necessary since the plat involves such a small_ area. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. 117. 5UBDIWSIONS SP -59-10 McPherson Addition. This three lot plat is located south of Grove Street, gest of Olinger Road and east and .north of !':my Drive. There was a restriction on the property limiting it to one dwelling. The owners have now requested that the Council lift the restriction so that the property can be divided into three parcels. There are sufficient sewer and water connections for three tows. The plt. <t mects all ordinance requirements and the staff recommends approval. Mr. Huelster moved that the Co=ission recommend prelinin�try_ a ?_of the slat_Pip, Nugent seconded the motion. Motion Carried. SP -69-i2 ed Land vey. . _ :his is a three tract division of property in Southdale, the purpose: of which is to sell. Tracts A and C to Penny's. There is a possibility that there will be a rex.oniiig on Tract C to accommodate = auto service facility and gas purnips. The staff recoaarends approval of the registered :sand survey. Mr. Griswold moved that the Commission recammend approvals of the . _n0 ,os rly ed re land suea. _Mr. !`lucent seconded the mot .on. All iod:c+-: Ave Motion Czrried S' -•59--13 pial -Dori Builders 2nd hddi.tion. This four lot plat is located on the west side of Virg: ni.a. to.,enue and south cf W. 64th Street. Virginia Avenue is being built at the present Lime. The develop,-�z is proposing to divide three 1.20 foot lots into four 90 foot lots. The staff rec muendu preliminary approval subject to:a.�:� E_r�^-e.ome dJ.:� ,ii�i� �'��.%7.t}oD_SG the size _tJT $:�ii? lots.. I`°fY. It=s°d°°.._ Sl .., ...?° f.`cr ` < il. 5 CL Cox,ti:.._ ` !rte�}r %>. 3:t� i1 rJ%J.=; ©_ T -c? 11�er!` Ayr, 3 h the e,-:i:captigYI of`� L' : �3n� �, 1969a': �f-i4.ti.�7,m—) SP-6-',-J'4 I lakevrocd Addition. This preliminary plat is located crest of Blake Road just north of Broi,,m-snood Addition. Mr. Hoisington reported that the staff had asked the developer to take another look at the development since the original preliminary plat was not appropriate for the area. The revised plat calls for 17 lots which are approximately 90' by 140' in size. C'nairman Lewis and Mr. Hughes indicated that the lots were too small for the area and indicated that they would like to see larger lots. After some discussion, the Commission indicated that they perferred the elimination of one lot. PSr._RuSent moved that the. Commission recommend approval of the 1G lot,prel3minary plat subject to En�►3n� eering Department approvals. Mr. jot vson seconded the motion. Al.l Voted &e. Motion Carried. SP -69-15 Schoenin., Registered Land Survey. This two tract plat is located east of Blake Road and south of S. Knoll. Drive. This subdivision is being created because of R-2 zoning which occurred on the Schoening property last year. Tract B is the R-2 property. The plat meets all ordinance requirements and the staff recou-mends approval. Mr. iluelater moved that the Conanission recommend approval of the reg land saevey to the Council. -Ir. Hu%es seconded the motion. _ Al! Voted 7Eye. ?lotion Carried. Sig -69-5 xl"-cek View Heights Addition. Mr. Hoisington reported that this 43 lot plat locate; north of Valley View Junior High School, south of t:.a Cross Town, meets atll ordinance requirements as a final plat. Mr.. Griswold moved that the Commission rf:comend finnl aDprc.wal of the f?last. Mr. Nugent seconded the motion. Motion Caryied_ SF -69-6 Malibu iISI ,,�hts This :12 lope plat located east of County Road 18 and west of parkwood Knolls 4th Addit'an, meets all ordinance requirements. Mr. Hughes moved that the Gom-?:Lssion recommend final approval of_Lhe prat. Mr. Ruelster seconded the motion. Motion Carried. I13l.l.s Arrowhead Addition. I_. 3 13 .lot )IaM located east of Coun j 1ozad 18, West: of 3:rnquoi.y 'Trail, nc:Lh r+- i` TrTm." I and sou t;�-, Hills Road meets r �i ':Id - a11 —ref n?rica $L Cg!Y"E......a?•' it z final plat. 1° r t uelssLe-v mo—tted Oiat till:_' t.'i' rm F ssip—', recoYt'mend f ini„I %r?r. ohln___� _oxo secondled the cziot ici}a. All doted Aver_ Zinn Planning Ccrur.!ssion Minutcs -S- .lune 4, 1969 V. Ol"rIRR BUSINESS L. Automobile Parking District 1�endments. Par. Hoisington reported that this amendment was necessary in order to posit parking reaps ;n the AutMdDile Parking District. The suggested changes submitted to the Commission needed but one change and that is iia paragraph 4a. Structural Fetbacks. The sentence should read as follows: "No parking ramp may be built closer than 50 feet to any residential district boundary." Nx. Hughes moved that the proposed amendment be approved with the noted change. fir. Huelster seconded the motion. All doted Aye. Motion Carried. Aejounment at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Karen Sorensen, Secretary . A MIDTUTES OF TBE SPEC11U. IWETING OF IE EDINA. P?,-tajiNING COMMISSIOV HELI) THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1969 EDINA VILLAGE HALL M#=Zers Present: David Griswold, Chairman PTo Tem; GeosgC Nugeat, Robert ffittelster, Cliff Johnson. A. H. Hiatt and Sam Hughes. Sta. E Present: Fred Hoisington, i=zren Sorensen 1. Z014 7 -14G iI , UTES-J S Z-69-12 ee Minutes Chairman Pro Tem Griswold caned the meeting to order and indicated that he could not participate in the discussion because his office is involved with the design, of the buildings and turned the meeting over to Geon; a Nur;cnt. Mr. Hoisington reported that the request is for three 26 story toiwars nG-rt z of the Cross Town, south of existing U. 62nd Street and somewhat c.est of Tracy Avenue. ` lie request is for R--5 zoning on approximately 14 of 0 acres and also involves a preliminary plat. He then introduced Glen Sham of Saw --Son Crnstruction Co. He ;also noted that the plat consists of three lots plus one excepted parcel for the Cross Town Highway. °I_. Shaw introduced Air. Garnett Carlson, President of Car-Bor-Nee, which is aft-4"Aiated with Dor-Son Construction Co. Hr. Carlson briefly explained the relationship between Car-Bor- Nel and Bo --Son Construction Co. He stated that the developers realize that thele will be substantial questions about this property, its ultimate uses, and the developer hopes to give some of their thoughts to some of those questions. We would have preferred to meet informally with numbers of resident groupa or neighborhood ghborhood groups and wocala hope that this ;could be worked out before formal public, hearing. (�aastio s that will core uv will be the proper use for. the Property, traffic, effcct on schools, effect on overall master plana and lan6 use plan, numerous planning questions will come up. It was c-ur hope ^;ovAght to indicate our views on these questions. It is our hope to develope a lu xuky, high rise apartment development which would fir=d as its market the kind of perso-a who currently Presides in Edina, is perhaps over 50, ehose childr ii aa:a off at college or married, who doesn't need the physical spa r -e of 't -he I;i-nd of residence he has been owning and maf taining.,, and doesn't need the In&v`a care and exterior ne?aI_ntanar_ce and someone who spends time south in t1te -..�,?jTlter cnid at a Cabin in the su:s T:N"s:. This will be for Edina people `ddhu v7v.-at to F:helk' r Cil -n _.�t i3 sG ., church, etc. If x -,-7a could reach a Ettina Fla ir.; CozinissiLn fiiaLr:s -2- June 12, 1969 az agree-ment that that u1ni of housing is desirable, the next question will be where shall it be locatel. Unfortunately, multi -family types of housing -;e :located together. T s location, from our -view, is that this lecatlon Is Wt:irclEr prosper for this type of development as it is residential in character and An set -ting. Ralti--family housing such as this generally c,.ea€.es a big surpltt,9 in terms of ta::es it pays to the school system. at generates sew children to be educated. in our viers, no appraiser would say that t:hero is a great deal of economic obsolescence in the area proposed for our developne-sit. T.£ there is A great deal of caacern about this, we would be frilling to make avuilaLle , at our enponse, qualified appraisers that the di.linge coLad hire and counsel with, go into the neighborhood and make comments on a before and after basis. Mr. C; -w scn* introduced Mr. Bob Egge of Gri.sr old & Raura Architects to make some. specific cow-ent-s as to the concept, design, etc. of the project. .4r. Egve presented renderings of the proposed project indicating three tmaers clustered around the commons development. The upper fie floors w.L all be three bedroom units. Mr. Shaw sated tb at he would like to comment on the staff report. He stated that: the density would be 17.5 bather than 37.2 as noted in the report. He stated that the developer proposes to dedicate approximately 16.44 acres to the Village for park. purposes. The report: states that :3uzroun-ding property is zoned R-1, but it is not used as R-1 property, It is used basically as open? area. 11e realize that the property is low and that there will have to be a great deal of work dome to take out the muck and put in fill and bring it up to grade, We anticipate that the lowest level of Mite building €>ri.?l mect the 854 eleunit:ion. We consider this project a planned unit development. We ^re doing this project slowly and surely and in the best way* possible. Mr. Hughes asked about the ingress and egress of the project. Mr. Carlson stated that at the present time, egress and ingress will be from Gleason Road to the Cross Town. We mould be willing work work with staff on thAs question to see what would be the best. solution. Mr. Aoisingtcn noted that the stud Lake project now indicates some linkage to 5.1. 62nd Street. The street which goes in front of the proposed project is proposed to be a rustic arrive and only one way, and that way is west.. The road mould be quite an unsubstantial roar: for an apartment complex. I think the duellers would have to use Tracy to get into the project. If, however, the project was to be npprovad, acme changes :,Gu d have to be made In the proposed road system. SFr. Shaw indicated that they are flexible about the ingress a£td egress. Mr. Ruelster, a ked if the road is to be a natural, rustic road, �aauld three tu-,,,ar apartmen o L In with that concept. Mud Lake i3 being pushed through with an?e coecept and norg ve Leave another concept being pawhed on "Maj Lake. '-z. Hughes stated that: he 'v:a da'r.ed* if this is the concept we ibaat .far the araa. We had a siLni lar d3.acu Psion on the other apartment buildings on the Edx,=4.� property to the north and frankly, a_ : ... having trouble overcoming that:. F ti,tg planning; cczlrissic.a i`.* nutes3 -3- .itnm 1.2, 1969 Hr. Hiatt stated that our cdreept is strongly embedded to the point where ve don't want to change it, but 1 think this would be a rfmaarkably nice additic•c Le Edina. Mr. Vughes asked if mouses could be built an the property. !G. Carlcon stated it—hat it was their judgment that they could not. M7. lloisin ,tcn replied that: he brought that vas true at the moment. HCAevcr, It •will not sin true as land develops and as a shortage of land become more evident, all land is subject to score development. Itz. Johnsan as%ad if the sewer moaatorium had any effect on this project. pix. 110 -CAng.cri noted that if tche p"Jact is approved, it is to be cand rtioned moa.•i the snw4rs balmy put in. if the anvers are not placed, this project will not happen and the developer is aware of tkis fact. Mr. Hiatt: st:at:ed+that in fairness to those people, if we are not goring to considerthis project, why not tela thew what we would consider in the way, of t tor. Heizin ton replied that we have follow -ad a very r4lgorous policy thrcug€ out; V -stern Edina and particularly in this area of maintaining low dens?t:;es. You have been very reluct ant to grant any multiple rt:tonint s, inciudiz- the one you have. recommended in favor of to the north., which are oxt_ensions of existing multiple districts and appropriately so, i think. We asked you on one other occasion what you thought the appropriate use for the Johnson -Burton property might he and you indicated at that time that tonin houses or lmT dent sitics (E"t .nned Residential District) would ba: an appropriate use for: that site. I would think that that type of use,ge might also be appropriate fsar: this pa-,:ticulaar site. I . 1iiaGt stated that he was not opposed to this type of building, but: -noted it Isn't: in keeping 'sit h the nest of the neighborhood. Mr. Nugent st:atad that this project: would have s tremendous impact in the area because there would be a tremendous amount of people living in the three towers. There mLlst be a3 variety of other 'rousing types and de s-4 tries that could be developed on this area. Fie have fo3l.owad a rigorous policy of deny; -a, high density y ::ezoning in this area. He .stated that: he dirk not. think this project vas appropriate in this locat=ion. You can't n i sure Obis ETC."`Uelopl-ment in dollars and cents, one has to be a bit eiaotio;nes obout it as well as at.f:=pting to evaluate it only on its M:r. Ruelster moved that the Commission reco=end denial for the fo? i ,;a<.; a n rt masons e L. 7he pra poz!2 etrvct tires are substantially out o'' c ha :.'c?.t:e'.°5_`f;, C-.Tft Il the 11-1 zoning and the Imy densii.y l ,nd usage in the area. 2. The need. for substantial variances su gests that the usaFga is not appropriate for. this Site. June 12, 1959 'IS alta o.'Fexs none ol z1lp. attrilnutes necessary 41 fc;: lilgh d1ansity hansing rsccord:?.P." to our Policy 11 -lis vc-;ry high de-'Wity twlCtple r-Onccpt IS wubstantia-uy Galt cog chnracter with the Mud LA,:e plain Vnich was cc�;r�e 6 or 7 years ago -X-'d cal3-r for- a natural setcing. S. 111-14.0 R-5 propoaal irr-u'ld entme a tiulbs=!ntlal chm?ga In our aircul Gim, per for tha v.rem. H"r. Huzhes secona-2d the notion. All VaLed Aye vith the exception Messrs Giiswold and Man- who abatained groan VoLing. Motion Carried. Adjourrment at 3:15 11.141. RaspectftUly submitted, Karen Sorensen, Secretary