HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 04-26 Planning Commission PacketsAGENDA
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1978 at 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. Approval of March 1,. 1978, March 29, 1978 and April S, 1978 Minutes
II. OLD BUSINESS
---S-78-10 Victorsen`s Timbers. Generally located at the southeast
corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road.
S-78-8 Lyon Replat of Mendelssohn. John Street. Generally located
---south of Belmore Lane at John Street.
III. NEW BUSINESS
LD -78-1 Lot Division. Lot 23, Block 1, Oscar Roberts 1st Addition.
Generally located south of 72nd Street, east of Oaklawn,
west of France and north of Parklawn.
LD -78-2 Lot Division. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Parkwood Knolls 17th Addn.
Generally located west of Londonderry Road, south of Field
Way and east of Lincoln Drive.
Ordinance Disco in Roller Rinks in Planned Industrial District.
Amendment
IV. Adjournment.
t nCATlON
VICTORSEN'S TIMBERS
REQUEST NUMBER: _
5-78-10
LOCATION: SE Corner of Crosstown and
Gleason Rd.
REQUEST: R-1 Sinele vaWily Subdivision .
Linc running dcuartmint viu t►t dins
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
April 26, 1978
S-78-10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast corner
of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road.
Refer to: Attached text, March 29, 1978 Staff Report
The Commission will recall that the subject subdivision was continued
from the March 29,.1978 meeting to allow the Commissioners ample opportunity to
view the site and study the requested subdivision. This subdivision proposes
24 single family lots which would be served by a cul-de-sac from Gleason Road
and a cul-de-sac from Indian Hills Road.
The subject property has a rather lengthy and complicated history of
development proposals which have included single family developments, townhouse
developments, apartment and single family combinations, and apartment developments.
In 1974, the City Council did grant preliminary approval to a proposed rezoning
to PRD -3 which would have allowed 74 multiple residential units on the northerly
portion of the site and 21 single family lots on the southerly portion of the
site. However, when final plans for this proposed development were submitted,
the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed development would damage
the hill to a much greater extent than had been anticipated at the time of pre-
liminary approval. The Planning Commission, thereupon, directed the proponent
to eliminate the single family portion of the proposed development and increase
the size of the apartment at the base of the hill on the northern portion of
the site.
In an attempt to resolve the matter, the proponent in 1975, submitted
four development alternatives for the site. Alternative A proposed 33 single
family lots with access from.Gleason Road. Alternative B proposed a 74 unit
apartment at the base of the hill and 20 single family lots on the southern
portion o.f the site. .As proposed, all single family lots would gain access from
Gleason Road. Alternative B (1) was the proposal which received preliminary
approval from the City Council. This alternative was very similar to alternative
B, but with the single family lots gaining access from Indian Hills Road rather
than Gleason Road. Alternative C proposed a single miltiple residence building
containing 140 units located at the base of the hill. The proposed multiple
residence consisted of 3, 4 and 5 story elements.
Following considerable study, the City Council granted final zoning
approval for alternative C. A condition of this approval was that the property
be platted and the portion of the property not utilized by the apartment be
dedicated to -the City. However, the property was not platted and the dedication
not made.
Victorsen's Timbers
Page 2
April 26, 1978
The staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council concluded in
1975, that a multiple residence constructed on the northern extreme of the site
was the best and most desirable development. Staff is firmly convinced that
this use continues to be the most desirable use -of- the land from the environmental,
public safety and public service standpoint.
However, the proponent and his representative have made several points
that are difficult to dispute. First, the property is zoned R-1 single family
dwelling district and second, most of the property is designated for single
family use in the Western Edina Plan. Furthermore, staff is aware that the
proponent can prove several other points such as: (1) there. are existing cul-de-sacs
in the City which are longer than those in the.proposed subdivision, e.g. Duncraig
Road, Loncoln Drive, Malibu Drive and others; (2) there are existing roads in
the City which have similar grades to those on the proposed subdivision,.e.g.
Braeburn Circle, Shawnee Circle, Overholt Pass, and others, (3) much of the
Indian Hills area was and is vegetated with similar types and quantities of trees
as the subject property.
Staff submits, however, that in very few instances are all of the
aforementioned circumstances exhibited on one particular tract of land. For
example, a long cul-de-sac on a relatively level grade and straight alignment
may not present an adverse situation. Similarly, a steep roadway with a southern
exposure and alternate means of access may not be highly undesirable. Also, the
development of a heavily wooded area with very large lots may not be extremely
devastating. However, the aforementioned situations cannot be reasonably compared
to the subject proposal which has long, steep, curvilinear cul-de-sacs,
substantial roadway cuts, and conventionally sized lots.
One developed area of the City most.closely exhibits the same
topographical and vegetative characteristics as the subject property. This is
the Muir Woods area which is located between Dakota Trail and Mohawk Trail south
of Indian Hills Road. This area is developed with extremely large, single
family lots (i.e. approximately 111 to 4 acres) Perhaps a similar type of develop-
ment should be considered for the subject property.
Recommendation: It is extremely disconcerting for staff to acknowledge a departure
from the multiple residence plan which was agreed upon in 1975 after many years
of deliberation. Staffcontinuesto maintain that such a development is the
best possible use for the site. However, based upon the aforementioned
-circumstances, it appears that a single family concept for the site deserves
consideration.
Staff notes, however, the following undesirable features and problems
associated with the proposed subdivision and soil erosion plan:
1) the intersection of the northerly cul -de -.sac with
Gleason Road is much too close to the intersection of
McCauley Trail with Gleason Road (approximately 60').
Victorsen's Timbers
- -Page 3
April 26, 1978
2) access to the existing residence on Indian Hills Road
appears to be nearly impossible following roadway
construction
3) extraordinary measures will be -necessary to provide sewer
service to Lots 13, 14, 15, 16,- and 17.
�}) due to the elevation of the subject property in comparison
to City water reservoirs, extraordinary measures may be
necessary to ensure adequate water pressure for portions of
-the subdivision
5) staff cannot adequately determine the various elements of the
soil erosion plan without profiles for the proposed roads.
Such profiles should also be provided to ascertain the extent
of necessary cuts and fills and resultant loss of vegetation.
6) Staff believes that the location and size of the proposed
de -silting basins are inadequate based upon comments from
the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District.
7) access to 19 single family lots by way of a 1400 foot long
curvinlinear cul-de-sac having grades of up to 12% is highly
undesirable.
Staff recommends that.a modified subdivision should be prepared which
includes the following features:
1) extremely large lots (perhaps only one-half the
presently requested number of lots should be proposed).
N c \.zr\
2) access to the 6oTM+,&rLy portion of the site from McCauley
Trail rather than Gleason Road.
3) resolution of the access problem for.the existing residence
on Indian Hills Road.
-4) the termination of the southerly cul-de-sac approximately
400 feet easterly of its -present terminus.
GLH:ks
4/24/78
U Jr
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ■ LAND SURVEYORS ■ SITE PLANNERS
April 19, 1978
City of Edina
Staff & Planning Commission
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Subject: Folke R. Victorsen
The Timbers
Ordinance No. 817 Information
Gentlemen:
The following information along with the working drawings are
submitted -as the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the subject
proposed development. The measures to be taken, as outlined in this
Plan, will serve to minimize the harmful effects of soil erosion and
sedimentation both during the construction stage of the development and
after the construction is completed.
1. Time Schedule
It will take approximately four months from the date of City
approval of the proposal for the preparation of final plans
and the completion of the construction of the utilities and
streets. If the City were to approve the proposal at this
time, we expect the utilities and streets would be completed.
by August 31, 1978. The houses will be constructed by individual
builders and the completion time for the house construction
will depend upon the sale of the lots. Ue--antica.pW'_
hou•s.e ;cons tructi.on.: w- 11....be comp.l eted°, . y_ tk1e fa _1: of
2. Vicinity Map
The attached vicinity map shows the relationship of
to its general surroundings. This site covers apprc
19 acres. Existing development in the area is predominantly
year round single family homes. There are presently two
existing homes within the boundaries of the proposed develop-
ment which will be incorporated into the development.
12805 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 5593700
22 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 TELEPHONE (612) 897-8029
SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING DIVISION, MARSHALL, MINNESOTA 56258 TELEPHONE (507) 532-5820
City of Edina
April 19, 1978
'Page Two
3. Veaetative Cover
The site is heavily wooded with approximately 22 trees (over 6"
diameter at 4 feet above the ground).per acre. The higher ground
is covered with hardwoods such as oak, maple, and elm. The lower
slopes have birch and aspen interspersed with the aforementioned
trees• UndVrbrMJh VVYVrs t`11n cntlrc JitV• ;;11 design techniques
utilized in the development will serve to maximize the amount of
trees and other vegetative cover preserved. These techniques
include:
A) Use of timber retaining walls and sodded slopes to minimize_
the area needed for road grading.
B) Placing utilities within the grading limits of the roadway
wherever possible.
C) Choosing alignments that will minimize tree loss if it is
necessary to locate utilities outside of roadway grading
limits.
D) Restoring any areas disturbed as per (c) above to a
condition compatible with the surrounding landscape.
E) Having each house architecturally designed to fit the
existing topography and thereby minimizing grading and
tree loss.
F) Using retaining walls and crushed rock to protect the
.stability, root zone aeration, and watering area of trees
near the limits of grading.
G) Use of any other methods which during the design process
it becomes evident are necessary to minimize tree loss.
With the use of the above techniques, the area disrupted by the roadway
and building sites will be approximately 15% of the total area. This means
that approximately 60 to 65 trees will be removed and crown cover will be
reduced approximately 15% to 20%.
4. Erosion Control
As shown on the plan, we will have adequate straw dams set up to
intercept soil wash during the construction period. On the south
cul-de-sac, the curve at the east side of the development will
be superelevated and an earth berm constructed around the outside
to prevent water which is running down the hill from leaving the
roadway and running onto Gleason Road. Runoff from the ten year
storm on the 12% slope will have a velocity of approximately 5.3
feet per second. This will exert a pressure of approximately 27
lbs/feet2 or a force of 10 lbs on hay bales in the roadway.
Staking of the -hay bales will prevent them from washing down the
slope. Also, an insurmountable type curb will be constructed
to keep the water in -the roadway.
prnnvwl on recycled paper
• -City of Edina
April 19, 1978
Page Three
The grading will take approximately one to two weeks. During
this time, soil erosion control measures will progress along
with each new area exposed. A natural depression at the
proposed entry from Indian Hills Pass will serve as_a sediment
basin during construction. T►lis depression is approximately_
50 feet long by 10 feet wide by 3 feet deep. It will provide
a detention time of about 10 minutes for runoff from the ten
year storm. There is no existing outlet for the depression.
Any accumulation of water of sufficient quantity to fill the
depression currently overflows the depression and flows onto
Indian Hills Pass to an existing storm sewer system. This
will continue to be the case during construction. The detention
time in the depression will allow for settling of sediments
which may get past the straw dams. The permanent storm sewer
system for the south cul-de-sac will consist of catch basins
at the proposed entrance from Indian Hills Pass and at the end
of the cul-de-sac. The catch basins at the proposed entrance
will connect to the existing storm sewer system which empties
into a semi -marsh area off of Creek Valley Road. The semi -
marsh area drains to Nine Mile Creek. There is an existing
sedimentation pond at the outlet of the storm sewer system.
The water entering the catch basin at the end of the south
cul-de-sac will be discharged to Arrowhead Lake via storm
sewer pipe. This pipe will be designed to cause a hydraulic
jump to occur inside of the pipe at the base of the grade
bank. This will dissipate much of the water's energy. A
surge basin and rip rap will be placed at the outlet of the
pipe.
The north area of the proposed development currently drains to
a semi -marsh grassland south of the County Road 62 frontage
road. From there it drains to Arrowhead Lake. This will
continue to be the pattern during and after construction.
Straw dams will be used for erosion control and a temporary
sedimentation pond will be constructed near the base of the
fill at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. This pond will
hold approximately one tenth acre-foot of water. Water entering
the pond will be detained about one-half hour. It will then
overflow to the semi -marsh grassland. The water leaving the
end of the culde-sac will flow overland to the semi -marsh
_grassland. The permanent storm sewer on the -north cul-de-sac
will consist of catch basins at the proposed entrance from
Gleason Pond. There is no existing storm sewer system for
these catch basins to connect to. Therefore, the water entering
these catch basins will drain to the semi -marsh grassland.
Current inflow into this grassland consists of runoff from
Gleason Road, County Road 62, the County Road 62 frontage
road, and the church parking lot adjacent to the grassland.
Upon completion of grading and utilities, all areas of potential
erosion will be sodded as soon as possible.
City of Edina
• . - •,
April 19, 1978
• Page Four
5. Existing Soil Types
WHM:jI
Enclosure
2445
We are attaching a copy of the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation
District data for this area.
Sincerely,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
4K A. x
William H. McCombs, P.E.
pant, -d on recycled piper
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
March 29, 1978
S-78-10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast
corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road.
Refer to:- Preliminary plat, attached past staff reports
and minutes
On November 2, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed.and
subsequently recommended denial of a 25 lot single family subdivision of
the subject property. The proponent did not appeal this recommendation
to the City Council.
The proponent has now submitted a new single family subdivision
for consideration by the Commission. This subdivision is essentially
identical to that reviewed by the Commission on November 2, 1977, but
does show some minor revisions.. IFirst, the curvature of the proposed
access road from Indian Hills Road has beenmodified slightly. Second,
one lot has been deleted from the subdivision. Third, a 160,000 square
foot outlot designated on the November 2, 1977, proposal has now been
designated as a lot.
The proposed subdivision continues to exhibit the same
limitations as the subdivision submitted on November 2, 1977: Street
grades of 8%, 10% and 12% are proposed for the street system; an
extensive system of retaining walls is proposed to stablize road cuts;
and significant removal of vegetation appears necessary to facilitate
development of the site.
The proponent has also submitted an erosion control plan for
the site.
Recommendation: Due to the history of the site'and the great amount of work
that the proponent has undertaken in an effort to prepare a feasible
development plan, staff believes that it'would be hasty to submit a
recommendation:at this time. Therefore, staff recommends that the
proposed subdivision be continued until April 26, 1978, and a thorough
review by staff and the Commission of the subdivision's.effects on
topography, vegetation, public utilities and public safety should be
undertaken in the interim.
GH:ks
3/23/78
F V
LOCATION MAP"-
lot division
OSCAR ROBERTS 1st ADDITION
Lot 23, Block 1
REQUEST NUMBER: LD -78-1
LOCATION: S. of 72nd, E of Oaklawn, W of
France and N of Parklawn
REQUEST: Division along party wall
village dannina department village of edina
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
April 26, 1978
LD -78-1 Lot Division. Lot 23 „ Block 1, Oscar Roberts lst Addition.
Generally located south of 72nd Street, east of Oaklawn,
west of France and north of Parklawn.
Refer to: Attached graphic
The proponent is requesting a lot division along the
party wall of an existing two family dwelling located at
7305 and 7307 Glouchester Avenue. Staff recommends approval
of the requested lot division.
GLH:ks
t
� oa
a J
a �
_p B_ISCAYNE_ BLVD t =
Ocut
U
O. o�
J•
AL'NG..t
lot (uvision
PARKWOOD KNOLLS 17th ADDITION
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2
REQUEST NUMBER: LD -78-2
LOCATION: W• of Londonderry Rd., S. of
Field ay an . o .
REQUEST: Realignment of lot line
yiiiwr:e manning depmriment village of edins
C
iml
4
4
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
April 26, 1978
LD -78-2 Lot Division. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Parkwood Knolls 17th Addition.
Generally located west of Londonderry Road, south of Field Way
and east of Lincoln Drive.
Refer to: Attached Graphic
The proponents are requesting a simple lot division to realign
the lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Parkwood Knolls 17th Addition.
Both of these lots are presently developed with single family dwellings.
Staff recommends approval of the lot division in that adequate setbacks
for both dwellings are maintained.
GLH:ks
4/10/78
IOCATION MAP
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
1
u
9AAENAR
BALL"PARK ;? v
COMPLEX,>j:' �
..{ WILD FLOWER
SANCTUARY
BRAE MA R
REQUEST NUMBER: Ordinance
LOCATION: Valley View Rd. & Washington Av
REQUEST: "Di sr•o" inPTT)
village otannins department villgge of edLm
PLANNING COMMISSION
_- -_ STAFF ---REPORT
April 26, 1978
Ordinance Amendment Disco in Roller Rinks in -Planned Industrial District
Refer to: Attached letter
The owners of Saints Valley View Roller'Skating Center are requesting
an amendment to the Planned Industrial District. -sec -tion of the Zoning Ordinance
to allow "disco" dances at their facility at Valley View Road and Washington
-Avenue. The attached letter explains.thei:r--rationale_for this request.
- --The principaluses presently -allowed -in the PID zone include
-`manufacturing and related uses, scientific research and investigation, offices,
warehousing, handball courts, tennis clubs, __and roller skating arenas. In
-- ,addition, roller skating arenas must meet--certain-location and size requirements
according to ordinance 811-A56 (attached). Dance halls are not permitted in
PID zones but, in staff's opinion, would be allowed in C-2 commercial zones.
Recommendation: Staff has asked the Police Department to review and comment on
the subject request. The Chief of Police, Lieutenants, and Sergeants have
all responded to this request. Nearly all of these officers have indicated
that the Saints Valley View Roller Skating Center has an excellent record of
supervision and recommended that the requestbeapproved.
Although the record of this establishment is excellent, staff believes
that the requested ordinance amendment must be evaluated in light of the total
Planned Industrial District and all lands so zoned. Approving the amendment
based only upon the nature of the requesting establishment would be tantamount
to granting a special use permit which has not been deemed desirable on past
occasions.
_At present, the PID zone allows certain principal uses which are not
traditionally associated with industrial areas, i.e. handball courts, tennis
clubs, and roller skating arenas. Staff is concerned that additional uses
which are essentially commercial in nature would weaken the integrity of the
PID zones and in effect transform them into quasi -commercial areas.
The primary question which must be -answered, therefore, is where should the
line be drawn in regard to 'non -industrial' uses in the PID zone?" Presently,
the "non -industrial" uses which are allowed are sports oriented activities.
The requested dance hall would, in staff's opinion, be socially oriented (hopefully).
Therefore, staff believes that such uses are.more appropriately located in
commercial zones and would thus recommend against the requested ordinance
amendment.
GLH:ks
4/21/78
Saints
-- - - Roller Skating Centers
1018 PIONEER BLDG. • SAINT PAUL, MINN. 55101. 612/224-3369
April 11, 1978
Mr. Gordon Hughes
City Planning Commission
City of Edina
4801 W. 50th St.
Edina, MN
- Dear -Mr. Hughes:
As President of Saints Valley View Roller Skating Center, I am
-_- - ------requesting approval of your City to hold teenage "disco" dances
at our center.
It is my understanding we would have to seek a modification to
Zoning Ordinance 811 to allow us to hold dances in our present
facility. 1 would like to attend the Planning Commissions
meeting on April 26, 1978 to answer any questions the Commission
might have.
Our request for permission to hold dances is based on the fol -lowing:
(1) The current 'in' thing with teenagers and young adults
is "disco" sound and lights.
(2) We have demonstrated our ability to maintain strong
disciplinary controls with the teenagers thru a well planned
and enforced approach.
(3) "Disco" would be used both with dancing and roller skating,
which will remain our major business.
(4) The same regulations which are currently in effect would
apply:
(a) Only teenagers for dancing.
(b) Absoluately no alcholic beverages.
WEST ST PAUL 0 MAPLEWOOD 0 ROSEDALE 0 BLOOMINGTON 0 EDINA 0 DULUTH 0 THUNDER BAY 0- WINNIPEG
- - fl
Roller Skating Centers
1018 PIONEER BLDG. • SAINF PAUL, MINN. 55101 • 612/224 336y
Page 2
(c) No smoking under 18.
(d) Dress code, which excludes: cut offs, shorts, bare
midriffs, obscene "T" shirts or unsightly clothes.
(e) Conduct code - requiring that all customers behave
as ladies and gentlemen.
(f) Open door - parents are always in for a free
cup of coffee.
(g) Supervision :
(1) Staff manager is on duty at all times.
2) Additional employees as required. Minimum
of 1 additional person per 50 customers.
(3) Uniformed off duty policemen at all dancing
sessions to serve as a deterrent to any
disciplinary problems.
(h) Hours never to exceed 12:00 PM for dancing.
(i) All outside garments must be checked.
We are requesting this approval to:
(1) Stay abreast of the entertainment market for the young, to
which we are committed and have gained experience and expertise.
(2) Assure us of economical stability. Presently we are very
seasonal with slow summers and it is difficult to earn an adequate
return on investment in our short season.
In closing, I would like to state:
(1) As a father of five daughters, I have a great appreciation
for any support I can gain from society and I feel our centers
provide this type of support.
WEST ST PAUL 0 MAPLEWOOD 0 ROSEDALE 0 BLOOMINGTON 0 EDINA 0 DULUTH 0 THUNDER BAY 0 WINNIPEG
0 0Saints
Roller Skating Centers
1018 PIONEER BLDG. + SAINT PAUL.MINN. 55101 • 6121224v369
Page 3
(2) With an investment in excess of $500,000, we can not
possibly pay our operational costs by appealing to small
number of "toughs". We must appeal to a large number of
good children to succeed and maintain our current standards,
of which we are very proud.
I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience
about my request to attend the Commission meeting. Or I would
be happy to discuss my request with you or your designated
representative in further detail.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Peter D. Boo
President
PDB/gb
C' U 01 ar
WEST ST. PAUL • MAPLEWOOD • ROSEDALE • BLOOMINGTON • EDINA • DULUTH • THUNDER BAY • WINNIPEG
ORDINANCE N0. 811-A55
AN ORD! N-Ae1r.E: Alf"MIMING TIM, ZONING ORA f?�,4%CF - (NO- _ E1.1)
BY ADD r Z t:OL Eh SKATING ARF?IAS AS A PE?tMiTTED USE
IN TU PI". NED INDUSTR Al, DISTRICT (PID) MiA
F�,:?L'4LPH,REQUl:t3EM.E4TS THEREFOR
THE .CI'T'Y COUNCIL OF THE C117 OP KOM, MI.MSESO'TA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Subparagraph (a) of parag--aph 3 -of Section 1.0 (Planner!
Innust.rial F,istr.ic ) of Ordinence No. 811 is hereby amended by adding thereto
an additional peru fitted principa1 use as €oll.ot,s:
"(7) Roller. ;kntjn&-reras, provided tbat.:
2. A ?t=:ast one enLxince c1rtve-,,!2y to the site Proposed for
st.ca use is wit! In 3,1,0 ±eet of the center 7iLc of a street
o:119 _h is r'-'tn; slf- cd as a waJofi arterial streC 2t;
b. At least one boor Lary of the site proposed -for, such use
adjni7,s a ConimM,rcl.al Mstr'.ct or a ZII� ct� �:e3 t3Yi$]Ci.1l.
- Ais: sot, oi' is ,.•ithin 350 :eet of the bcun.dar•y of full-
acses5 freeway inverchange
c. Not ;iPo'e thc:n onf:r-third of ti1L .average daily autolrGl)ile
tr-a.= 'i,c - hLc4 _'I's anticipated frons the propos.-gid use will.
be jonerated Ciao; jv_C .tbe samm ! hovr?-, or j, -It s of hcui s,
2S '--bei, L's!�c;:A�►3 f traff`c pen'',s vhich then e-ist an the
r-c+ll.eer.ot_ 0treets .)r ru jc;r a.rr.eriol streets to be
L2seJ b7 f.t:2 Eivrc.irf)bl1e trafl'_.c to be generatt::l by tiie
pf orosed- use.; and
[i. T£3(' gross f`jlea " anaa of the l-vilding fcr the t)r nc1.$)a1 use
do? y riot exceed 25,000 scivas e feet.
life der �:'t�iz 2t'i_on
as to wacher a street is cleasilie.d a. Maj -)r
arterial srr:,:,�. or a co lector st.rcc.t, stzr.Ij- he made as of t.ha date
a vuildin. p'rn.?t is granted for the erecttion, structural alteratio;a,
or of a buildiv: on the _J-i:opos'od site for ruck us2."
Secy. 2. Suop:.r,sr.' pfi (d) of paragrasb 6 of Section 1-0 (1'tannad
ndus t:r-.1al Di.s::r,:lw._) c.f arcllr:a *ce No. 81.1 is h?, ebklr amended by ac;fln.g t.:i.ereto
the f of l owing:
:t(;3 io'le- :;wa::re G_Te-ass. 0:= off-s'_reet narking sFace fo::• each
Z' _,ea a:itain the bt'.Viettn-,,tt
Sec. 3. This or..d €tance shall_ be in fc°il force and effect upo-1 its
passage vnd pvblica.ti_on�
First heading; August 1.9, 1974
Second RLadinn: &ep cailer 9, 1974
PublLt;hcd in i:ttc EdLra -cut, an SL•ptember 12. 1974.
d�.�^. (signed) JAW.?,S VAN t�� I..►?t7Tt1€
Enyo r
(signed) 'Y10Rktj'E a5 HAj.Lag,:�C
City Clerk
176-56
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1978 at 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Wm. Lewis, Chairman; Mary McDonald, Richard Seaberg, Del Johnson,
Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, David Runyan and James
Bentley (arrived 8:10 P.M.)
Members Absent: Sam Hughes and Len Fernelius
Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning, Harold Sand, Assistant
Planner, Fran Hoffman, City Engineer and Karen Sorensen, Secretary
I. ADDroval of March 1, 1978, March 29, 1978 and April 5, 1978 Minutes
Mr. Seaberg moved for approval of the March 1, 1978, March 29, 1978 and
April 5, 1978 Community Development and Planning Commission Minutes as submitted.
Mr. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS
S-78-10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast corner of
the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road.
Mr. Hughes noted that this matter was continued from the March 29, 1978 Meeting
to allow the Commissioners an opportunity to review and study the requested subdivision.
The subdivision proposes 24 single family lots which would be served by a cul de sac
from Gleason Road and a cul de sac from Indian Hills Road. This subdivision is
approximately 19 acres in size and has two existing residences, one on Indian Hills
Road and the other at the top of the hill.
This particular tract of land has a rather long history of development pro-
posals on it. The City Council, approximately three years ago, did grant preliminary
approval to a proposed rezoning to PRD -3, which would have allowed 74 multiple
residential units on the northerly portion of the site and 21 single family lots on the
southerly portion of the site. When final plans for that proposed development were
submitted to the Planning Commission for zoning purposes, it was determined that the
amount of cutting and filling and removal of vegetation on the hill was much greater
than had been anticipated at the time of preliminary approval. At that point, the
Planning Commission did recommend to the owner that he delete the single family
portion of the proposed development and increase the size of the multiple building on
the northerly portion of the site. In 1975, the proponent did submit four alternate
plans for development of the site. The first was a complete single family plan for
the site which proposed all access of of Gleason Road and no access from Indian Hills
Road. The second alternative proposed a 74 unit apartment at the base of the hill
and 20 single family lots on the southern portion of the site. Another option was
a 74 unit building at the base of the hill, but with the single family lots gaining -
access from Indian Hills Road. This is the plan that received preliminary approval
from the Council for rezoning to PRD -3. Another plan, which was proposed, was a 140
unit apartment building located at the northerly portion of the site and included
no single family development. After numerous hearings before the Commission and
Council, this was the concept plan that was accepted and received both first and
second reading from the Council. The approval was contingent upon the platting of
the property and the dedication of the remainder of the site for park purposes for
Community Development Minutes
Page 2
April 26, 1978
the City. That platting did not occur and neither did the parkland dedication.
The Staff, Commission and Council concluded in 1975 that a multiple residence
on the northern extreme of the site was the most desirable development that could
occur on the site from an environmental standpoint, public safety standpoint and also
from a public service standpoint. We are still convinced that that would be the best
development of the site. At the last meeting, however, the proponents made several
points that are difficule to dispute. First of all, the site is zoned R-1, Single
Family Dwelling District, and it is shown on the Western Edina Plan as single family
use. There are several other points as well: there are cul de sacs presently
existing in the City which are longer than those proposed in the subdivision
including Duncraig Road, Lincoln Drive and others; there are existing roads in the
City which have similar grades to those proposed, such as Braeburn Circle, Shawnee
Circle, Overholt Pass and others; and much of the Indian Hills area was vegetated in
a manner quite similar to this site.
The Staff also submits that there are very few pieces of property in the
City, and especially in this area of the City, that exhibit all of these problems.
One developed area of the City which closely resembles the same topographical and
vegetative characteristics is Muir Woods, which is located between Dakota Trail and
Mohawk Trail south of Indian Hills Road. This area was developed with extremely
large lots. We have reviewed"in more detail the single family plan that was submitted
at the last meeing and we do wish to point out several problems which we see in
them:
1. the intersection of the northerly cul-de-sac with Gleason Road
is much too close to the intersection of McCauley Trail with
Gleason Road (approximately 60').
2. access to the existing residence on Indian Hills Road appears to
be nearly impossible following roadway construction.
3. extraordinary measures will be necessary to provide sewer service
to Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
4. due to the elevation of the subject property in comparison to City
water reservoirs, extraordinary measures may be necessary to ensure
adequate water pressure for portions of the subdivision.
5. staff cannot adequately determine the various elements of the soil
erosion plan without profiles for the proposed roads. Such profiles
should also be provided to ascertain the extent of necessary cuts and
fills and resultant loss of vegetation.
6. staff believes that the location and size of the proposed de -silting
basins are inadequate based upon comments from the Hennepin Soil and
Water Conservation District.
7. access to 19 single family lots by way of a 1400 foot long curvinlinear
cul-de-sac having grades of up to 12% is highly undesirable.
Community Development Minutes
Page 3
April 26, 1978
Staff recommends that a modified subdivision should be prepared which includes
the following features:
1. extremely large lots (perhaps only one-half the presently requested
number of lots should be proposed).
2. access to the northerly portion of the site from McCauley Trail
rather than Gleason Road.
3. resolution of the access problem for the existing residence on
Indian Hills Road.
4. the termination of the southerly cul-de-sac approximately 400 feet
easterly of its present terminus.
Mr.,Hughes introduced Mr. Richard Keenan, attorney for the Folke Victorsen's.
Mr. Keenan noted that when a conflict of interest arose at the March 29 meeting,
Mr. Victorsen and his attorney decided that rather than allow the possibility of any
distraction from the Commission as to the merits of this proposal, they would
substitute attorneys for this proceeding and that is why he is now representing
the Victorsen's.
Mr. Keenan noted that when he first started reviewing the Commission's record,
he was impressed by o..e of the first entries that appeared in the file. It appeared
in the 1971 staff report and says, this is a magnificant piece of property with
very interesting possibilities for development". He noted that he and the Victorsen's
were hopeful to make some progress tonight.
As indicated by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Keenan noted, there was a development proposal
as far back as 1971. The Victorsen's have owned the subject property since 1955.
The 1971 proposal showed mixed housing and there was considerable resident objection
the the proposal. There was alot of testimony given at that time in opposition to
that proposal. The planner hired by the proponents filed a report with the Commission
which indicates that, in his opinion, the optimum use of the property was to leave
it in its natural state. That would require that either the surrounding residents
purchase the property for its parklike purposes or that the City acquire it. The
second preference was a development for single family units. The staff has indicated
that there were a number of alternative projects. Mr. Keenan then reviewed the 1974
proposal with the Commission. In 1975, after several alternatives were considered,
the Planning Commission and the Council reviewed and approved a proposal which would
have had 140 units at the northerly end of the property. He pointed out that there
is excellent visibility at the Indian Hills Road juncture with the proposed road.
The plan before the Commission involves an application for subdivision with 24
single family lots. That proposal is consistent with the present zoning of that piece
of property. It is also consistent with the Western Edina Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. We are confident that it is in compliance with all of the applicable ordinances
of the City. He urged the Commission to take into consideration the concern, frustration,
energy and the expenses the Victorsen's have incurred in getting this project into
its present form.
Community Development Minutes
Page 4
April 26, 1978
Mr. Keenan did not agree that there was a safety factor with the intersection
of the northerly cul de sac with Gleason Road. He felt that there was good
visibility at that point. He noted that one concern of the staff dealt with measures
to provide sewer service to five lots. Mr. Keenan noted that it has been reviewed
carefully from an engineering standpoint and basically, the engineers brought two
alternate proposals to the City; one being individual pumps in the houses to be
developed on those particular lots and the second, was one small lift station. The
City Engineering Department indicated a preference for the lift station. The
proponent's engineer discussed the water proposals with the City to see if their
proposals were reasonable. The water service would come from a tank approximately a
block away from the subdivision. With an 8 inch pipe going up and a 6 inch pipe
coming down, there is no problem with the water service, and this has been confirmed
by the City Engineer.
Another concern was the submission of profiles of the roads in order to
determine the various elements of the soil erosion. Mr. Keenan felt that he was
confident that with the information that has already been submitted in terms of the
working drawings and the erosion and sedimentation control plans show all the
information that could be obtained from profiles. The erosion and soil sedimentation
control plan has been submitted to the staff and reviewed by the staff of the Hennepin
County Conservation District. We could comply fully with the requests set forth in
the Hennepin County analysis, because we think they don't represent any problems.
The Hennepin County analysis raises three questions relative to this proposal.
They might want to see an additional siltation pond in the area on the west side
of Lot 15.
The last concern dealt with the length of the cul de sac. Mr. Keenan pointed
our that the staff had indicated that there were longer, -cul de sacs in the City and
the proponent does not feel that this is a problem.
Mr. Keenan then indicated that the Fire Department had been consulted about
the width of the proposed southerly cul de sac. According to the letter received from
Mr. Buresh, the Fire Department indicated that the width of the roadway was not a
difficult problem, but there would be no parking on the street.
Chairman Lewis asked how people would be kept from parking on the street.
Mr. Keenan stated that in reviewing the best layout for that particular road, we
looked at two things, how to minimize the disruption of the vegetation and the number
of trees to be taken. The recommendation at that point was to do a 36 foot right-of-
way which is practical and safe and will minimize tree taking and vegetation
disruption. We have also done a layout which shows a 50 foot right-of-way. We are
vitally concerned with saving a number of trees and vegetation, basically from an
environmental and aesthetic standpoint. We have tried to ask the experts and based
on what they have told us, we feel that it is practical to have the 36 foot right-of-
way.
From an environmental standpoint, every precaution has been taken to maximize
the desirable features that now exist on the hill.
Community Development Minutes
Page 5
April 26, 1978
Mr. Keenan noted that the staff report contained four recommendations; the
first suggested changing the lot sizes. The lots as proposed are large and substantial
and in compliance with the Edina Zoning Ordinance and they are consistent with lots in
the area. It will be expensive to develop. We think that to realistically develop
the property is to have a reasonable number of lots and 24 are proposed. He felt
that to limit the number of lots in this proposal to 12 would be unreasonable and
would constitute a taking of the Victorsen property without compensation.
The second recommendation set forth in the staff report suggests that access
to the northerly portion of the site be through McCauley Trail rather than Gleason
Road. The property north is owned by the Church and not to Mr. Victorsen, so he
does not have that option available to him. The Gleason access is a reasonable one.
The third item, access to the Victorsen residence will not be a difficulty.
The fourt item, the termination of the southerly cul de sac approximately 400 feet
easterly of its present terminus would result in the probable loss of use of the
westerly end of the development.
We think that this is a magnificant piece of property. The people who buy it
will love the hill and the trees and we will take whatever steps are necessary to
preserve the present beauty that is there. The architects who design the houses will
have a chance to participate in the creation of some of the most exciting housing
that will take place. It is proper and reasonable for this Planning Commission to
approve this proposal. The project does have unique characteristics. All questions
have been fully considered and have been satisfactorily met. The subdivision that we
are proposing does meet the Zoning Ordinance and it does meet the comprehensive
plan and it meets all applicable ordinances of the City.
Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Hughes why there could be no parking on a 24 foot
wide road and Mr. Hughes replied that ordinarily parking would be allowed along one
side of a 24 foot wide road, but based on the Public Safety Director's comments that
because of the steepness of the grade and the curve of the road, we would then
recommend against parking on the street.
Mr. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer, stated that his department has looked at the
property to see how it was developable. We agree with Mr. Buresh's comments that
the proposed road is an absolute minimal situation. It is possible to have a 24 foot
wide street, if there is a large gathering, we do not have the answer to the parking
problem. There is confusion in the discussion about street right of ways. We think
the proposed street should be wider than 36 feet, we prefer the 50 foot right of way.
There is a combination of difficulties that make this proposal more difficult than
others. It is not totally impossible, but difficult. There has been some discussion
with the church to the north on McCauley for access at that point, but the church did
not feel that it was a reasonable thing. However, we still feelthat it is a safer
option to go out onto McCauley than Gleason Road. We do prefer the one lift station
over five individual pumps, but the problem is that someone will have to maintain it,
which could be a long range expense to the City. We looked at minimal problems with
the proponents and we still feel that there are some problems. We understand the
problems and the solutions are not easy.
Mr. Hughes noted that the consultant hired by the neighbors to review the
effects of the townhouse and combination and different developments for the site in
1971 recommended that the property either be permanent open space or developed as
Community Development Minutes
Page 6
April 26, 1978
single family. The consultant did say that if the property were to be developed
as single family, there should be only 10 or 12 conventional lots. The second
point that needs clarification is the reason for the denial of the preliminary
approval of the PRD -3 zoning in 1975, was not the multiple family at the base of
the hill, but rather because of the single family encroachment on the hill. A
point that should be made is that it is very difficult. to take different elements
of different plans out of context and say one element was acceptable at one time
and not now acceptable and vice versa. In 1975, we were looking at an overall
compromise plan for the site. We feel there is a real need for cross sections and
profiles for the road on this site. We are having some difficulty understanding the
plan that has been arrived at, the erosion control plan that was arrived at and the
figures of 15% vegetation removal on the site unless cross sections have been prepared.
A resident inquired about a cul de sac entering the area from the west onto
the subject property. Mr. Hughes said that one plan did show the roadway at one time,
in the northwest corner, but it is property not owned by Mr. Victorsen and it was
shown only as a future plan that could occur.
A representative from the engineering firm representing Mr. Victorsen stated
that all of the homes built in the area would be architecturally designed homes to
fit the area. He presented a sketch showing the possible locations of homes. He
also stated that ther- is no way we can get the amount of vegetation removal down to
a certain percent until we start to develop the property. He stated that there will
have to be retaining walls in certain areas.
Mr. Runyan inquired about the size of the lots in the plat. Mr. Keenan state
that the smallest lot was 13,400 square feet and.the largest lot is 40,000 square feet.
There are 10 lots in the 13,400 square foot to 16,000 square foot area; 5 lots that are
16,000 to 19,000 square feet; 1 lot at 31,100 square feet; 4 lots that are 20,000 to
32,400 square feet; 1 lot is 35,000 square feet; 1 lot is 47,300 square feet and one
lot is 160,000 square feet in area.
Mr. Seaberg said that R-1 is not unique and the property was zoned to PRD -5
at one time and that was not unreasonable. The long cul-de-sac was discussed and
they exist in other places in Edina and because they exist today in other places in
Edina doesn't mean the Commission should accept another long cul-de-sac. He stated
steep grades were discussed and again, they exist in Edina but does that mean today,
looking at this plan, that a combination of long cul-de-sacs and steep grades should
beaccepted again?
Mr. Bob Perkins, Dakota Trail, stated that he was speaking as an interested
property owner and also as President of the Indian Hills Association. We feel that
Mr. Victorsen has a right to develop his property as anyone does, and we don't object
to his proposal to develop it as a single family project, but we do feel that it has
a very significant impact on the Indian Hills area. Our chief concern is the safety
and welfare of the people who are travelling that area. We see some significant
problems. There is a 180 degree turn into that hill right in the middle of Indian
Hills Pass and we think it represents a significant safety problem. He stated that
he had not heard anything that gives him any comfort as to the real safety factors of
that particular intersection. The high density seems to compound the problems. If
people cannot get into their homes in the wintertime, where will they park. We would
like to see some further study of the traffic problem as it relates to the Indian
Hills Pass area and wonder if there isn't some way that the entire development could
be accessed out onto McCauley or connected out another way so there will be no more
traffic on an already busy residential street.
Community Development Minutes
Page 7
April 26, 1978
Dr. Glenn Lewis, stated that he is very concerned about the erosion, loss
of vegetation as well as the size and location of Lot 12 in the northwest corner
on the steep slope of the hill. He stated that he worries about the size of that
lot and wondered why there was a change from November when it was shown as an outlot.
He stated that he is concerned that the lot may be developed for an apartment site.
He stated that he would much prefer that Lot 12 remain as an outlot.
Mr. Harry Murphy, Indian Hills Road, stated that all of us in the area know
that Indian Hills Pass is a very difficult road in the winter and there are numerous
times when there is a traffic tie up coming up the hill from Gleason Road to the
connection of Indian Hills Road. Many of us have to park our cars in the street
because of the steep grades to our homes. He asked where the additional land would
come from with a 50 foot right of way. Mr. Keenan replied that it would be on the
south side. He also inquired about the berming situation. The engineer for the
Victorsen project stated that while the grading was being done, the property could
be bermed at that time.
Mr. Hughes stated that the staff did review the schematic showing how the homes
are to be located on the lots and we are not sure if they are exact locations, but we
did run into some setback problems on Lots 13 and 6 in the subdivision based on
the homes that were shown on those lots and if the road right of way is to go to 50
feet rather than 36 feet, and would be placed entirely on the southerly side, it is
possible that we will have other setback problems on the southern side.
Mr. Runyan asked what is the genesis for bouncing back and forth from R-1
to apartment buildings.
Mr. Victorsen stated that what actually took place was the fact that we were
delayed so long that financing was not available. If we had gotten permission quickly,
for the multiple unit in '72, '73 and '74, we would have been able to get the
financing. We took a tremendous beating because the financing fell apart in '75,
'76 and '77. We are still not able to get financing.
Mr. Runyan stated that one of the things we seem to be discussing is the
access off McCauley and it certainly doesn't seem feasible if Mr. Victorsen doesn't
own that property and the Church won't sellit to him. It isn't valid to discuss it
at this point.
Chairman Lewis inquired about the Church's attitude about giving an entrance
off McCauley. Mr. Victorsen stated that the City Manager and Mayor went out to talk
to the Church about this very thing. We had made them two offers on their property
and we couldn't work it out, so the Mayor and Manager talked to the Church and found
out that it wasn't possible. Chairman Lewis asked what the Church was going to do
with the property. Mr. Victorsen stated that he did not know, but he did know that
he could not have access through it.
Mr. Hughes stated that the option we have is to suggest the concept of
condemnation for roadway in that area if it would be in the public interest. Chairman
Lewis stated that he thought it would be in the public interest. Mr. Victorsen
stated that when he was working with the soil and erosion people, he was told that
the Church would not be able to build in that property, however, if the Church does
come in with a development, perhaps the Commission could require them to give us
access and we could close off the other roadway.
Community Development Minutes
Page 8
April 26, 1978
Mrs. McClelland stated that she would like to comment on this proposal. She
stated that she would like to echo Commissioner Seaberg's comments and that she feels
that a plan is just that, it is a plan and there is nothing exclusive about R-1.
The fact that the property has been owned since 1955 - we have seen an awful lot of
changes in the City since 1955 and in fact, a great deal of this environmental
concern that we now have,'nas arisen in the la t-L960's and she feels that Edina has
tried to keep up with the impact or the spirit of most of these new ideas about
floodlands and wetlands and grades and preserving the topography. We have two pro-
posals here and one is a proposal that involves alot of environmental damage to a
very steep slope versus a problem that has also arisen recently and that is the
traffic on Gleason Road. This proposal has been studied and studies through its
various forms through the 1970's and it was decided that perhaps one of the best
uses from an environmental point of view was to cluster or to put some kind of
multiple housing at the base of the hill, but that will aggrevate a traffic problem
which has arisen on Gleason Road due to some other factors in the City and perhaps
an interchange that was not built at 494, so volumes are probably ahead of yearly
estimates for Gleason. She stated that she does not like to go back to an R-1
exclusively. She would not like to, necessarily, on the basis of a plan, throw out
all concepts of multiple housing. Perhaps PRD -5 was going too far in the other
direction. We have had some changes since that zoning was given, but again, if the
environmental factors were strong enough to preserve the hill and it seems like a
great number of changes are being made. Perhaps small clusters of townhouses or
something that might be financed more easily, coulO still be considered for the
bottom portion of that hill. She said she would not like to find herself limited to
only considering R-1 on the basis that it was once R-1 and has reverted to an R-1.
Mrs. McDonald expressed concern about doing something at the absolute
minimum in a quality development. We should think about parking bays or making the
roadway larger.
Mr. Runayn stated that there is a steep hill and it is heavily wooded and he
felt that homes would be designed, probably, although they may not be by professionals,
but they will not wipe the hill clean and put houses in. You just can't do that in
this type of a project. North Oaks has a very nice system of reviewing houses when
they are to be built on a particular piece of property and that house is checked
out to make sure how many trees are removed and what kind .and what style of the
house, color and everything has to be submitted and approved before the house can
be built. Can something similar be done here where there was a body that would have
to review every building that is to be built in a development like this, should it
go ahead.
Mr. Victorsen stated that he is going to have control over the design and
placement of the houses. Mr. Keenan stated that the Victorsen's have a bested
interest in the property and will control the restrictions on the property. They will
see to it that the homes are appropriately designed and built. The people who buy
these lots will buy them because they love the hill, the trees, the view and they
will have an opportunity for an exciting design. This is not a standard subdivision,
it is an unusual situation. This hill has some unique factors. We are convinced
that these factors have been dealt with. This is the optimal proposal for this
piece of property.
Community Development Minutes
Page 9
April 26, 1978
Dr. Lewis stated that he would like to have Mr. Victorsen explain why Lot 12
has been changed from an outlot. Mr. Victorsen responded that he is considering building
one house and selling four acres to someone else. There is only one area on Lot 12
that is buildable. Dr. Lewis said he would feel better if part of the lot was an
outlot.
Mrs. Kongsore, 6512 Indian Hills Road, stated she could see houses on the
top of the hill and she felt that this talk is a fairy tale. There is no sidewalk
and the school children walk in the road and it is so narrow that there would be a
safety problem. She stated that she could not understand why there has to be so
many lots, the lots should be larger. The area is so beautiful and land is
precious.
Mr. Runyan responded by saying that the hill is not going to be denuded. He
didn't feel that the hill would be ripped clean.
Mr. Seaberg stated that he felt that he would be more inclined to see PRD -5
on the property than what has been presented this evening. He said that he cannot,
in good conscience go along and accept this proposal as it now stands based on its
history and the struggle that has gone on up to this point. Based on that, he moved
that the Commission deny the R-1 Single Family subdivision that is before us.
Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. Ayes: Seaberg, McClelland, Bentley; Nays:
D. Johnson, McDonald, G. Johnson, Runyan, Lewis. Motion Lost.
Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Hughes about the size of lots in the surrounding
area. Mr. Hughes, by way of a graphic, pointed out the lot sizes in the general
vicinity. The lots ranged in size from 30,000 square feet up to three and four acres.
Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Victorsen if he would be willing to go along with a
50 foot wide street and remove two or three lots. Mr. Victorsen responded by
saying that if the Commission were to come to himwith a definite proposal and say
that there be a 50 foot street and remove two or three lots on each side, I'd go
along with it. If the Commission wants him to remove one lot on each side of the
street, he'd go along with it, but he wanted a definite proposal and if it is to be
a 50 foot street, he wanted Mr. Murphy to say it would be perfectly all right to be
15 feet from his lot. We went to the narrow street because of Mr. Murphy's
objections.
Mr. Runyan stated that we could be arbitrary and say take one off either side
of the road, maybe that it right and maybe it isn't. He stated that he wouldn't
care to make a snap decision on that basis. A person who understands topography
should lay it out and it should be reviewed with planning and if you drop only one
lot, you drop only one. If you have to drop three to make it all a bit bigger, then
maybe it is three. He stated that he senses that if the lot sizes are larger and
there is a wider road, then the vote would be more favorable.
Mr. Murphy stated that he would be very upset about a 15 foot area between
his lot and the road itself. He would prefer to see the road go up into Lot 13 and
get the road away from his lot. He would prefer 30 feet between his property and
the road.
Community Development Minutes
Page 10
April 26, 1978
Mr. Gordon Johnson stated that looking at it from the point of view of having
been seven years with this project, the reaction he has is that he would like to
see the 50 foot roadway with 30 feet paved, parking permitted on one side and he
would like to see the average lot size brought up a little higher. In order to make
all of that work, it seems that Gordon Hughes and the proponents should, in the next
30 days, see if they can resolve these differences and get back on the agenda
May 31 and see if we can make a decision and get moving with this subdivision.
Mr. Runyan stated that the lots toward the freeway is probably less critical
in their size than the size of the houses up on the hill that are facing the bulk of
Indian Hills. At one time we were willing to accept a multiple unit there, which
was very dense. He would feel less of a problem with smaller lots on the north side
and the larger ones on the balance of the hill.
Dr. Lewis stated that as long as we have waited this long, a month or two
more would be better. He would feel much better if there was an actual drawing of
what the changes are before we see any action. He and others would like to review
new plans.
Mr. Keenan stated that it is costly to keep redoing the proposals. It would
be better to let us rake the changes and take them before the Council. Any residents
who have concerns can express them at that time.
Gordon Johnson moved that the Commission grant concept approval subject to tb
right-of-way going to 50 feet with 30 feet of paved blacktop, parking on one side
and the elimination of tow lots on the southerly portion of the project and if that
can be worked out in 30 days, we will put it back on the agenda the 31st of May.
Del Johnson seconded the motion. All Vote Aye with the exception of Mrs. McClelland
who voted Nay. Motion Carried.
S-78-8 Lyon Replat of Mendelssohn. John Street. Generally located south
of Belmore Lane at John Street.
This matter is to be held over until the May meeting.
III. NEW BUSINESS
LD -78-1 Lot Division. Lot 23, Block 1, Oscar Roberts Ist Addition. Generally
located south of 72nd Street, east of Oaklawn, west of France and
north of Parklawn.
Mr. Hughes reported that this is a simple lot division along the party wall
of an existing two family dwelling located at 7305 and 7307 Glouchester Avenue. The
staff recommends approval of the lot division.
Gordon Johnson moved that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed
lot division. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
Community Development Minutes
Page 11
April 26, 1978
LD -78-2 Lot Division. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Parkwood Knolls 17th Addition.
Generally located west of Londonderry Road, south of Field Way
and east of Lincoln Drive.
Mr. Hughes reported that this property is located on the corner of Londonderry
and Field Way. This is a simple lot division to realign the lot line between Lots
1 and 2, Block 2, Parkwood Knolls 17th Addition. Both of these lots are presently
developed with single family dwellings. Staff recommends approval of the division
in that adequate setbacks for both dwellings are maintained.
Mr. Hughes reported that this was a division made by Hennepin County a few
years ago without City approval. Mrs. McDonald moved that the Commission recommend
approval of the proposed lot division. Mr. Seaberg seconded the motion. All Voted
Aye. Motion Carried.
Ordinance Disco in Roller Rinks in Planned Industrial District
Amendment
The owners of the Saints Valley View Roller Skating Center are requesting
an amendment to the Planned Industrial District section of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow "disco" dances at their facility at Valley View Road and Washington Avenue.
Mr. Hughes reported that the principal uses presently allowed in the Planned
Industrial District zone include manufacturing and related uses, scientific research
and investigation, offices, warehousing, handball courts, tennis clubs and roller
skating arenas. Roller skating arenas must meet certain location and size require-
ments. Dance halls are not permitted in Planned Industrial District zones, but
would be allowed in C-2 Commercial zones.
Staff has asked the Police Department to review and comment on the request.
Nearly all of the officers have indicated that the Skating Center has an excellent
record of supervision and recommended that the request be approved.
Staff believes that the requested ordinance amendment must be evaluated in
light of the total Planned Industrial District and all lands so zoned. Approving
the amendment based only on the nature of the requesting establishment would be
tantamount to granting a special use permit which has not been deemed desirable on
past occasions.
The Planned Industrial District zone allows certain principal uses which are
not traditionally associated with industrial areas. Staff is concerned that additional
uses which are essentially commercial in nature would weaken the integrity of the
Planned Industrial District zones. The requested dance hall would be socially
oriented, therefore, staff believes that such uses are more appropriately located
in commercial zones and would recommend against the requested ordinance amendment.
Messrs. Jordon, Cook and Dunbrasky appeared on behalf of the Roller Rink.
They reported that there would be dancing two nights a week. There would only be
soft drinks served and it would be run just like the roller skating. It would be
an extension of what is now being done. We have been a good addition to the
community.
Community Development Minutes
Page 12
April 26, 1978
In response to a question from one of the Commissioners, Mr. Hughes said
that if the Commission would approve this use, it would probably be an accessory
use to a roller skating rink rather than a principal use.
Mrs. McDonald stated that we know that the proponents have managed the
roller rink well. We have had a good report from the Police Department and from
personal experience, I know that it does serve a certain age group very well in
our community for places to go. Her concern would be to open it up to someone else
coming in with whom we don't feel so comfortable.
The proponents stated that they now serve the pre -teen group and do not
serve the high school age, the teen ager. We are serving all ages, but not serving
the high schoolers as much. Anyone who has been drinking is not allowed in the
building. The establishment is well run. A uniformed police officer will be on duty
on the dancing nights. Dancing will be offered to groups as opposed to roller skating.
After some additional discussion as to how to handle this matter on a
permanent or temporary basis and by what ordinance means, Mr. Gordon Johnson stated
that he would like them to have the opportunity to try it, and perhaps we could put
it as an accessory use with a time condition after observation by the Police Depart-
ment. It has to be done in such a way that we can't be faced next month with something
other than a Planned Industrial District area coming in wanting the same thing. He
said he wanted to basically make it exclusive.
Mrs. McClelland asked the proponents how they would check the ages of the
individuals who come to the roller rink. How will you keep a college aged person
out if you limit it to teen agers and advertise it that way, you may be able to
eliminate those persons who want a dance hall per se. Your traffic and your youth
are coming there in the evening or week ends. The proponents replied that the
easiest way was to check the high school identification card.
Mr. Bentley moved that the Commission transmit to the Council that this use
might be appropriate on a trial basis and that the matter be referred to the City
Attorney to see what could be worked out as temporary activity until it is decided
it should be made a permanent part of the ordinance. Mrs. McDonald seconded the
motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
IV. Adjournment at 10:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
*&z,4d
Karen Sorensen, Secretary
5/9/78