Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE <br />. EDINA CITY COUNCIL HETAD AT CITY HALL <br />NOVEEBER 15, 1976 <br />Answering rollcall were members Courtney, Richards, Schmidt and Shaw. Council- <br />man Courtney served as Mayor Pro Tem in the absence of Mayor Van Valkenburg. <br />\ <br />MINUTES of October 18, 1976, were approved as submitted by motion of Councilwoman <br />Schmidt, seconded by Councilman Shaw. <br />Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw -. N&: None <br />Motion carried. <br />SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 6, 1976. Affi- <br />davits of Notice were presented by Clerk, amroved as to form and ordered placed <br />I <br />on file. Mayor Pro Tem Courtney emphasized that the ordinance under consideration <br />is for general use for making future determinations and not specially written for <br />the proposed development at 51sr. and-Trance Ave. Mr. Luce explained that the pro- <br />posed ordinance was written after study of criteria for each of the other senior <br />citizen buildings in the city and that the Rainbow proposal would have to be modi- <br />fied in several areas to meet these criteria. He explained that the ordinance had <br />not been written for "re-use" purposes, but rather to meet restrictions throughout <br />new areas of the City. <br />show requirements of various other municipalities and a comparison of all other <br />senior citizen hoLsing developments in the City. <br />the Council, Mr. Luce explained that the ordinance calls for community facilities <br />xith a minimum net fluor area of 1250 square feet or 15 square feet for each <br />&Gelling unit, whichever is greater. <br />would include laundry rooms, meeting rooms, game rooms and other similar uses. <br />pointed out that Rainbow plans would have to be revised to meet this requireaent <br />as well as the requirement for one enclosed or exposed parking space for each <br />senior citizen dwelling unit, except where a building has an entrance located <br />vithin 500 feet of a bus stop, only one-half parkirg space is required per dwelling unit. Mr. William Phillips of The Lanterns requested that the following changes <br />be made to Section 12 of the proposed ordinance: 1) that the third paragraph of <br />Paragraph 13e deleted; 2) that "Liudry Rooms" be de1cte.d from th2 secoii.6 para- <br />graph of Paragraph 5 (B) and that the following be added: Space other than coni- <br />urunity facilities be p-rovided for laandry equipment; and Cortmunity facilities be <br />tin a floor not occupied by enclosed parking spaces; 3) that the foilowing be <br />added to Paragraph 6: "All parking spaces enclosed within structure will be oii <br />a floor below and separate from any dwelling space", "Parking spaces for us8 by <br />residents be so designated and made available to residents at no cost over <br />established rent. <br />served basis. <br />"Two separate automobile entrances (or exits as the case may be) be provided to <br />enclosed parking areas." <br />two entrances because,he said, the City cannot be more restrictive than the State <br />Bu.ilding Code. He added that neither can the City add Building Code requirements <br />to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Luce said that he would ask the City Attorney <br />?GZ;ccher it would be legal to require that garages be made available without <br />additional cost to occupants. Council generally agreed with Councilman Shaw that, <br />in view of the fact that the requirements are a sharp reduction from the R-3, <br />R-4 and R-5 requirements, any variance requests should be subinitted directly to <br />Council rather than to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Councilman Shaw <br />also requested that the ordinance call for 3/4 parking spaces per dwelling unit. <br />Councilman Richards suggested that the thrust of the ordinance should be directed <br />to the older developed areas of the City, rather than to the undeveloped areas. <br />Mr. Luce said that people might also want to develop senior citizen hous5-r,g in <br />undeveloped areas such as the 70th and Cahill area and in Southeast Edina. He. <br />expressed concern that buildings in the undeveloped areas night be forced to be <br />more compact tha3 would be desirable. Councilwoman Schmidt expressed hC=r concern <br />that a senior citizen building might later be sold for another use. <br />lengthy discussion , Councilman Richards * motion was seconded by Councilman Shaw <br />that the hearing be continued to December 6, 1976, and that the Planning Depart- <br />ment should incorporate the €&lowing revisions in a new draft of the ordinance: <br />1) that any proposed variances to the ordinance be submitted to the Council, <br />rather than to the Board of ApTeals and Adjustments; 2) that there shall be no <br />variances granted to Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the proposed ordinance; 3) that ' <br />should address itself to "re-use" as well as to "new use"; 5) that there should <br />be alternatives :IS to density requirements; 6) that there shou1.d be more area <br />within the building for social use; 7) that latindry space stia1.l not 5e incl.udcd <br />Bfr. Luce reviewed HUD criterfa and used the view-graph to <br />In response to a question of <br />He explained that these community facilities <br />He <br />Such parking spaces 3e available on a first come first <br />Such parking spaces may not be rented to non-residents.", and <br />a. <br />Mr. Luce questioned whether the City could require the <br />Following <br />. 3/4 parking spaces be required for each dwelling unit; 4) that the ordinance