Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-18_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JULY 18, 1983 ROLLCALL EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION - Robert Hughes I. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, Flood Plain Permits, Plats, Appeals from Administrative or Board of Appeals and Adjustment decisions require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Preliminary Plat Approval 1. Zuppkewood - Generally located south of Evanswood Lane and west of Blake Road ..2. Smaby Replat of Lot 5, Garden Park - Generally located north of Grove Street and West of MNS Railroad B. Target Stores /Yorktown - Deed Restriction .(Continued from 6/20/83) C. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to Permit Indoor Soccer Arenas as a Principal Use in the Planned Industrial District D. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Permit Assessory Apartments in the R -1 Single Family Dwelling District and Request of Jon DeMars Victorsen for Conditional Use Permit II. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of 7/12/83 B. Chapter 259 - Allows Off -sale Liquor Stores to Offer Samples of Wine and Cordials - Permits the sale of Non - intoxicating and Intoxicating Liquor on State Primary and General Election Days C. Legislative /Council Continental Breakfast - Friday, July 29, 7:30 a.m. D. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council E. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items 1. AMM Legislative Policy Study Committees IV. ORDINANCES First Reading requires offering of Ordinance only. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if Second Reading should be waived. A. First Reading 1. Ordinance No. 175 - Establishing Penalty Provisions in a Single Ordinance 2. Ordinance No. 116 - Imposing a Moratorium on Certain Uses in the R -1 Single Family Dwelling District Edina City Council July 18, 1983 Page Two VI'. FINANCE A. Claims Paid: Motion of , seconded by for payment of the following Claims as per Pre -List: General Fund $86,011.23; Park Fund $19,195.44; Art Center $10,561.83; Swimming Pool $4,906.72; Golf Course $11,302.79; Recreation Center $6,368.69; Gun Range $394.37; Water Fund $21,704.20; Sewer Fund $4,673.48;-Liquor Fund $125,678.82; Construction $76,715.83; Total $367,513.40 LOCATION M � J G AR�EiV y' PR R K o ,:•_ t' MAP SUBDIVISION N U M B E R S -83 -7 Smaby Replat of Lot 5, Garden Park L O C A T 10 N Generally located north of Grove Street and west of M.N.S. Railroad REQUEST EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT j, S -83 -7 Smaby Replat of Lot 5, Garden Park. Generally located north of Grove Street and West of M.N.S. Railroad. i rr Refer to : Attached preliminary plat Mr. Larsen reported the subject property measrues approximately 22 acres in area and is zoned R -1 Single Family Dwelling District. The property includes a portion of vacated Garden Avenue. It abuts the M.N.S. Railroad on the east and Garden Park on the north. The proponent is requesting a five lot subdivison of the property.. All lots would remain R -1. Lots 1 through 4 measure 80 feet by 160 feet (12, 800 square feet in area). Lot 5, which abuts the M.N.S. Railroad, measures 124 feet by 160 feet. The easterly 50 feet of Lot 5 is encubered by an easement for the N.S.P. power lines. He explained that the proposed subdivision designates the northerly 78± feet of the property as an outlot. The proponent suggests that this outlot be dedicated to the City to satisfy the plat's dedication requirement. As noted earlier, this outlot adjoins Garden Park. Several properties south of Grove Street have been replatted in recent years in a manner similar to the proponent's request; Warden Acres Peterson Replat (directly south of the subject property) was subdivided into six lots ranging in size from 10, 140 square feet to 16, 815 square feet. Warden Acres Austin Replat (southwest of the subject property) ranged from 10,200 square feet to 12,000 squre feet. Mr. - Larsen noted that -Staff believes that the proponent's request represents a logi- cal and expected subdivision of the subject property. Lot.: sizes are consistent with other lot sizes in the vicinity, especially the recent replats to the south. The request is also consistent with past City denials of R -2 rezonings of similar lots to the south. It should be noted that the existing power line easement significantly reduces the buildable area of Lot 5. A dwelling located on this lot will be limited to an overall . length of 55 - 60 feet. The purchaser of this lot must recognize the limited potential of this lot. Mr. Larsen recommended approval of the requested subdivision conditioned upon the dedication of Outlot A as a subdivision dedication. Mrs. McClelland moved for approval of the subdivision subject to Staff's conditions and Del Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 29, 1983 S-83-7. Smaby. Replat of. Lot 5 Garden Park. Generally located north of Grove Street and West of M.N.S. Railroad Refer to: Attached preliminary plat The subject property measures approximately 2.21 acres in area and is zoned R -1 Single Family Dwelling District. The property includes a portion of vacated Garden Avenue. It abuts the M.N.S. Railroad on the east and Garden Park on the North. The proponent is requesting a five lot subdivision of the property. All lots would remain R -1. Lots 1 through 4 measure 80 feet by 160 feet (12,800 square feet in area). Lot 5, which abuts the M.N.S. Railroad, measures 124 feet by 160 feet. The easterly 50 feet of Lot 5 is encumbered by an easement for the N.S.P. power lines. The proposed subdivision designates the northerly 78 ± feet of the property as an outlot. The proponent suggests that this outlot be dedicated to the City to satisfy the plat's dedication requirement. As noted earlier, this outlot adjoins Garden Park. Several properties south of Grove Street have been replatted in recent years in a manner similar to the proponent's request. Warden Acres Peterson Replat (directly south of the subject property) was subdivided into six lots ranging in size from 10, 140 square feet to 16, 815 square feet. Warden Acres Austin Replat (southwest of the subject property) ranged from 10,200 square feet to 12,000 square feet. Recommendation Staff believes that the proponent's request represents a logical and expected subdivision of the subject property. Lot sizes are consistent with other lot sizes in the vicinity, expecially the recent replats to the south. The request is also consistent with past City denials of R -2 rezonings of similar lots to the south. It should be noted that the existing power line easement significantly reduces the buildable area of Lot 5. A dwelling located on this lot will be limited to an overall length of 55 - 60 feet. The purchaser of this lot must recognize the limited potential of this lot. Staff recommends approval of the requested subdivision conditioned upon the dedication of Outlot A as a subdivision dedication. .97.T- .1 � :nv r .7,!A/ IV.:!b II•P i L0f 6 4- si,, At' pie .40 J 'fA.i 7 4L 1: 94".7" L9re.97 3.85 90 C,8.0? le -N'9.77 . ..... IrLO r it 0 ck: 4 t PC.-Y. 30 -U kil 3) Cc 13.5 57 91 •.47 91 .07 06.20 90,v75 f4 --N3 NCO �-913.27 of or. 7. 907.90 4 Z e9l .35 911, 55 4-913.15 R4 -1 W, N as 921.15 1 -_do' 19" 919.03 C"Ps.43 •-0,9.4e : 20.r 33178 110_7 8 BIG-& Z7. 00_, 9,9.86 -9)9.98 920.0 w ze IEAST , I s � s .fOAsizis Die; V7 , f • . 1V e . I 42 026. 75 t 971.10 art.47J , Y , 4?9.3Z , 2 7 Ft. Road t I GROV E Easement EA 5 T 5TREET vv p eg Doc. No. 4 73738 &0 dlv A p. cc nh�r I { j (za Q IN 4v (j ts) tC r• I -. U Lj 466.70 L4,1 South' Vne 6;, Lot 6 vi ts) tC r• I -. U Lj To: Gordon L. Hughes and members of the Planning Commission Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 From: The neighbors of 4544 France Avenue South Dear Mr. Hughes: The purpose of this, letter is: to reemphasize some of the objections stated at the last planning commission meeting conderning the re- zoning of the residence at 4544 France Avenue for multiple dwelling. 1. The argument that: 'it was once rented for mulitple use should not be vplid. Mrs. Eva Hartman rented space during a housing shortage emergency. She was also living alone with no husband9 no children, no pets and no cars. 2. The lot in question and the adjacent one at 4548 are approxi- mately 45 feet shorter than any other lots in the immediate two black area. They are entirely too small to support . added density. 3. Parking is a current problem in the area and the owner has only a two car garage with three cars of his own. 4. The lots are very narrow -- approximately 45 feet wide. The Victorsen house is 92" from their neighbors. The lot is so narrow that the previous renters knocked down their fence turning the car around and damaged the adjacent gate and fence. Many of the residents.have chosen to turn around. They are afraid to hack out because the houses are so very close. Both houses have been hit. We strongly encourage you to reject this petition for the rezoning of 4544 France Avenue for any form of multiple dwelling resulting in increased density. Thank you. G Mary Jo Aiken Name Address Phone Number Fh '-'L 5 17-6 , -7 11-1 (-(H) „ e . e. , / i C( Name !Address Phone Number /'J)JN/LJ i-zg Ll a7 lt(ekt,- 17 01 ; L gas -za- ^ p i Name _Address Phone Number � L 47b q71 Al� ✓� v�� Q--�.S sow_ - �j22,ylti ct M-41 �: . �y 1` �� ✓ IZZ -Sy5 1 .. i IC-� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND 'PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 29, 1983 Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Permit Indoor Soccer Arenas as a Principal Use in the Planned Industrial District Refer to: Attached Letter The proponents are pursuing the leasing of a building at 7225 Washington Avenue for use as an indoor soccer arena. This building is zoned P.I.D. Staff has advised the.proponents that such a use is not presently permitted in the Planned Industrial District. The proponents have, : therefore, requested that the City amend its Zoning Ordinance to permit the proposed arena. The attached letter explains the contemplated use of the building. In addition to a soccer facility, the letter states that a facility for hockey (presumably ice hockey) will be provided during the summer. The letter also notes that some limited retail sales, refreshment stands and amusement machines would also be desirable in connection with this use. The proponents stress that the proposed use is designed for participants, not spectators. Thus, very limited bleacher seating would be provided. Recommendation ?he Zoning Ordinance presently permits several athletic and health related uses in the Planned Industrial District: Handball Courts Tennis Clubs Roller Skating Arenas Aerobic Dance Studios In fact, the building at- 7225 Washington Avenue was previously used as a roller skating arena. In Staff's view, the rationale for allowing handball, tennis, and aerobic dance in the P.I.D. focused on the need for athletic oriented facilities in close proximity to our daytime office and industrial population. Although this rationale apparently did not support approval of the roller skating arena in 1974, we believe that it nevertheless, should continue to form our basis for allowina additional athletic uses in the P.I.D. Vie are concerned that the proposed use does not follow this rationale and thus should be denied. Our reasons are as follows: Frist, although the use is athletic oriented, it cannot be argued, in our view, that it serves the daytime, working propulation of the City. �- Community Development and Planning Commission June 29, 1983 Staff Report Page two Second, notwithstanding the statements of the proponents, the proposed use seems particularly adaptable to the enjoyment by spectators. Although the present intent is to direct activities toward participants, we are concerned that the spectator interest will grow with resulting parking problems and so forth. Third, the desire to provide amusement machines and related retail uses is not only. contrary to past City decisions, but it also exemplifies an interest in attracting a concentration of individuals to the facility for a variet of that are commercially oriented. Y p ur o p ses Fourth, the proposed facility seems particularly adaptable to other short- term uses. The roller skating arena, for example, requested permits to conduct public dances in their facility. We believe the proposed use is prone . to similar requests. Lastly, some of the concerns recently expressed when denying Dairy Queen restaurant directly north of 7225 Washington Avenueeappear request for the in this case, e.g. pedestrian /traffic conflicts. g ppear to be relevant Z' I M M E R M A N ATTORNEYS •AT-LAW CHARLES S ZIMMERMAN / PA WILLIAM J MAUZY / PA PARREL A CAPLAN BARRY G REED • M A U Z Y C A P L A N June 14, 1983 Mr. Gordon Hughes City Hall of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Indoor Soccer Facility - Zoning Ordinance Amendment Dear Mr. Hughes: • A N D R E E D FIFTH FLOOR ATRIUM LUMBER EXCHANGE BUILDING TEN SOUTH FIFTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55402 612 / 341 • 0400 Please be advised that I represent a group of individuals who are negotiating to lease or purchase the premises at 7225 Washington Avenue in Edina. They are planning to use the facility.to run an indoor soccer arena, which would be used as a participation facility for indoor soccer and indoor hockey (during the summer season). The facility will be geared towards participation by families and young people, and will include facilities for light refreshments, and a "pro" shop for sports equipment for soccer and indoor hockey. 'Ihe playing surface will be artificial turf for the spring /summer /fall soccer seasons, and concrete for summer hockey. There will be parking for approximately 80 vehicles. This is a non - spectator oriented use, although we anticipate that there will be the family spectator support that one typically gets with youth sports. In addition, we anticipate some small tournaments being staged, which might create a slightly larger spectator base on a few annual occasions. We intend to have some very limited bleacher - type seating at the facility for spectator use, and for participants to watch other games while awaiting their own. We would, therefore, like to request amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to include indoor soccer, indoor hockey, related retail sales, sales of light refreshments, and use of amusement machines (video games etc.), if these are necessary. We would like to have an opportunity to meet with the Planning Commission on June 29, 1983 and thereafter to meet with the City Council as soon as feasible. Thank you for your assistance and kind attention to the above. Very truly yours, ZIPM RMAN MAUZY CAPLAN AND REED Barry G. Re , Esq. FTe��*J NUMBER Z -83 -5 Victorsen L O C A T 10 N Generally located west of France and north of 46th Street extended. 4544 France Avenue REQUEST R -1 Single Family District to R -2 Two Family District EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT NT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 18, 1983 TO: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager FROM: Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner SUBJECT: Z -83 -5 Jon DeMars Victorsen, R -1 Single Family District to R -1 Two Family District, 4544 France Avenue. Generally located west of France Avenue and north of 46th Street extended. The subject rezoning request was considered by the Planning Commission at its June 1, and June 29 meetings. At its June 29 meeting the Commission voted to recommend that a Conditional Use Permit system be adopted and that the subject property receive a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory apartment. Attached to the June 29 Staff report are Staff recommended Standards for Conditional Use Permits for accessory apartments. The Commission recommended the following changes to the standards: First, that 750 square foot floor limit be stricken; second, that the Customary Home Occupations section be eliminated and replaced with a provision requiring Planning Commission and City Council review of existing or proposed home occupations. Additionally, any home occupatior. proposed following the granting of a Conditional Use Permit would require Planning Commission and City Council approval. The Commission also wished to clarify the areas within the R -1 Single Family District where properties would be eligible to apply for this Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit would only apply to Single Family properties along France Avenue between the Crosstown Highway and the northerly border of the City, and only to properties facing France Avenue. All eligible properties must be shown on the Comprehensive Plan as suitable. for low density attached residential. As you are aware, the City does not currently have a procedure for Conditional Use Permits in place. Accordingly, if the Council decides that a Conditional Use Permit system is warranted, the process as well as standards must be adopted. Staff has developed a Conditional Use Permit process in the draft for a new Zoning Ordinance. This process could be implemented prior to the adoption of a new Zoning Ordinance. The process proposed would be similar to the _process used for a Planned Residential District (PRD) rezoning. Plans, including site plan, floor plans, elevations and landscaping plan would be required from each applicant. CL /lde Z -83 -5 Jon DeMars Victorsen, R -1 Single Family District to R -2 Two Family Disirict, 4544 France Avenue. Generally located west of France and north of 46th Street extended. Craig Larsen reminded the Commission that this rezoning request was continued. from the June 1, 1983, meeting to allow the Staff time to examine alternatives and to draft standards that address the addition of accessory apartments to single family dwellings. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan contains policies that envision the redevelopment or retrofitting of existing single family dwellings along France Avenue for two family use. Since the existing housing stock along France Avenue is generally in good condition and most lots are smaller than the ordinance standard for R -2 Two Family Dwellings, it is unlikely that there will be a demand to redevelop under the standards for R -2 dwellings. Staff feels that there will be a demand for conversion of existing dwellings resulting in an additional unit which is below ordinance standards for a two family dwelling: There are several alternatives available to address requests for accessory apartments. We could leave the ordinance and district standards unchanged and demand that all provisions of the R -2 Two Family District be met; we could require that properties be rezoned to R -2 and grant variances on a case by case basis; . accessory apartments could be allowed as a right in a new zoning district; or a Conditional Use Permit system could be adopted to address accessory apartments. Mr. Larsen described the following: �) Permitted Use by Ri ht 0 This method would allow the addition of an accessory apartment in certain residential zones without any special review by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Use by right could apply to any or all residential district, but would. limit our ability to specifically control the location of conversion requests. Additional control could be gained through a site review plan by Staff. Rezoning and Variance The addition of accessory apartments could require a rezoning to R-2 and the granting of variances on case by c basis. The Comprehensive Plan envisions specific uniform standards for conversions. The Commission and City Council would consider the rezoning request, but would not necessarily consider the specific site plan and physical design of the structure. Conditional Use Permit Mr. Larsen reported that under a Conditional Use Permit system, each application would be reviewed by the Commission and. the City Council and evaluated according to certain established standards. This system could control the location of conversions and would provide a uniform_ set_of_standar-ds designed speci ically for accessory aprartment conversions. Acces o y- apartments could be allowed by Conditional Use Permits in the R -1 or R -2 districts. Page two Mr. ' Larsen 'recommended adopting a Conditional Use Permit system should the Commission determine that the concept of accessory apartments is desirable. The Conditional Use Permit provides for a more thorough review by the Commission and City Council. It also provides a mechanism that would specifically address requests to add an accessory apartment. Staff would also recommend that accessory apartments be permitted in the R -1 Zone and only in areas designated by the Comprenensive Plan as suitable for Low Density Attached Residential dwellings. Mr. Larsen then reviewed the following list of drafted standards for a Conditional Use Permit system: Purpose and Intent It is the finding of the Edina City Council that certain single dwelling unit buildings located in areas designated for Low density Attached dwelling unit by the Compre- hensive Plan may be suitable for the addition of an accessory dwelling unit provided, that the single dwelling unit building remains compatible with neighborhing properties. Land Use Plan Compatibility a. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an accessory dwelling unit unless the property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan as suitable for low density attached dwelling units. Location of Unit b. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be detached or separated from the principal dwelling unit building. Floor Area C. The minimum useable floor area for an accessory dwelling unit shall be 400 square feet and the maximum useable floor area shall be 750 square feet. In no case shall an accessory dwelling unit contain more than two (2) bedrooms, or contain more than 40% of the total floor area of single dwelling unit building. Off Street Parkin d. In addition to the Off - street parking requirements for the principal unit, every accessory dwelling unit must provide on the site at least one completely enclosed parking space. Number of Accessory Apartments Per Lot e. No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted per "lot. Exterior Appearance f. The additon of an accessory dwelling unit to or within an existing single dwelling unit shall be accomplished in a manner which does not alter the single-family character of the dwelling. Exterior stairways are permitted only in the rear, and, then only if completely enclosed. Page three Customary Home Occupations Customary Home Occupations otherwise permitted by this Section shall not be Permitted within single dwelling unit buildings which receive a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to this paragraph. Definition of Accessory Dwellinq Unit An additional dwelling unit located within a single dwelling unit building in the R -1 District which is subordinante in size and function to the principal dwelling unit and permitted only by a Conditional Use Permit. - -Mr. Victorsen and Mr. Jim Van Valkenberg, his attorney, were present. Helen McClelland wondered what was the reason for a maximum usable floor area. She calculated that there were quite a few homes in Edina larger than the suggested floor area and suggested that the permit limit floor area to 400 of the proposal unit. Mr. Larsen explained that the France Avenue corridor was the consideration when the guildelines were created. This was just a safety step to keep the intensity of the use down. Mrs. McClelland was concerned with the required extra car stall. She felt thi -s would present a problem for some. She commented that there were many homes with tuck under garages and wondered if that would be included in the 750 square feet -of usable floor area. Mr. Larsen noted that it was not included. Mr. John Palmer questioned if the France Avenue corridor was the only .location in which these permits would apply because it is low density attached. Mr. Larsen explained that there were other areas in the City which were duplex /double bungalow developments. Most of these are developed as duplexes, but accessory apartment would only apply .to : France Avenue. Mary McDonald asked if the subject property could fit an additional garage on its lot. Mr. Larsen noted that it would crowd the lot and could create lot coverage problems. She wondered if there was room to turn around in the driveway. Mr. Larsen demonstrated possible garage locations on the overhead viewer. Mrs. McDonald asked what the plan was for the homes on France Avenue. Mr. Larsen stated that the approach of the Comprehensive Plan was that they all could .be suitable with a few exceptions. Mrs. McDonald suggested that this plan would present a more well kept neighborhood. Mr. Victorsen summarized the different uses along France Avenue. He presented building plans. Mr. Van Valkenberg noted that this was in line with the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that the neighbors were possibly concerned with a change in the building and assured that there were no external . modifications with an exception of a slight change in the.roof. They were uncertain how a third garage would fit. Mr. Victorsen commented that an additional apartment in the basement would be too much for the propety. He explained the. remodeling plans.: for the stairway and roof. He clairfied that Mrs. Aiken's petition stated that the Victorsen house was 92 inches from her home and measurements showed it was 92 inches from the lot line. Page four Mr. Johnson asked if the 'proponent's intent was to live there or was it a commerical venture. Mr. Victorsen answer that they were living there and planned on continuing to do so. Mrs. McClelland mentioned some neighbor's concerns about cars and wondered why there were three cars. Mr. Victorsen explained that each he and his wife had a car and they owned and additional "collector" car. Mr. Rolland Thompson, 4545 Meadow Road, commented that the Aikens were out of town and therefore, he was representing the neighbors. He pointed out that Mr. Churc was an elderly gentlemen and had signed both the opposing petition and the petition of approval. His opinion should be disregarded. He listed the following concerns:. * The proposed density was too much for this location. * The back yard would consist of all blacktop. * -There was a concern -that the property would result in complete rental. * Cars presently parked on the street are located where the pedestrians should be able to walk. * The subject property is narrowarer than any other duplexes on the block and also less feet in depth. * The neighbors generally feel that the density would create too much building and blacktop. Mr. Van 'Valkenberg expressed their desire to have green area, but was not sure what would be necessary if a third garage was required. He noted that no one could promise what period of time they would live in a house, but he felt it _importatnt to encourage people of Mr. Victorsen's age group to move into the City and not to make it more difficult for them. Mr. Thompson added that in the past nine years that he has lived behind this location, it was rented a good portion of the time. He reported problems of littering caused by these renters. Mr. Palmer stated that they would have better upkeep if the owner was present. This appeared to create a more acceptable stable situation. Mrs. McClelland questioned the possibility of roomers. Mr. Larsen noted that he could have up to two roomers. He explained that there was a fine line between the rental of room and the creation of a new .living unit. The City cannot disallow someone from placing a stove, refrigerator and sink in the basement, but private access to the unit distinguishes as a separate dwelling unit. Mrs. McClelland pointed out that the proposed use would invite opportunity for investment property which could turn over very rapidly without any guarantee that the owner would live there. Mr. Thompson confirmed that this was generally the neighbors' concern. Mr. Johnson could not understand the motivation or economics on the part of the Victorsens. Mr. Victorsen explained that it would help mortgage payments. His intention was not to increase its value and then sell. Mrs. McClelland asked if it could be written into the Conditional Use Permit that the owner must reside in the principal residence to avoid an investment type situation. Mr. Larsen said that some communities that have adopted conditional use systems have required owner occupancy or relative occupancy, however, Staff questions the legality of this requirement. These communities have not yet been challenged. Mr. Palmer and Mr. Lewis felt the owners could not be forced to reside Page five in these houses. Mrs. McClelland disagreed. Mr. David Runyan commented that the subject area was not made up of single family residential, and therefore, forcing single family units in the area was not necessarily within the character of the neighborhood. Mrs. McClelland was uneasy with the fact that the subject 'lot was 45 feet shorter and 5 feet narrower than the, majority of the other lots -in the area. Mr. Palmer agreed but felt the situation was there and had to be dealt with. Mrs. McClelland felt that this was not a desired situation for a landmark case and suggested that the room possibility be discussed. Mr. Palmer expressed his opinion that Mr. Victorsen was a-- forthright proponent and did not wish to see him encourage to accept "roomers ". Mrs. McClelland answered that this was allowed in the Code. Mrs. McClelland wanted to apply the discussion to the City as a whole instead of the France Avenue corridor. Mr. Larsen explained that the R -1 to R -2 proposal was the first consideration of the Commission. The Commission generally agreed that the Conditional Use Permit was the more preferred option. Mr. Johnson questioned what the proponent thought of the suggestion to require the owner to live in the home. Although Mr. Victorsen intends to stay. at the proposed location, Mr. Van Valkenberg pointed out that no other home wner in the vicinity would be required to live there. Even though it may be the intent of the owner, unforeseen conditions may prohibit this at a future date. Discussion ensued. Mr. Runyan moved to accept the subject property for use as a duplex under a Conditional Use Permit instead of a rezoning to R -2 Two Family Dwelling District. Mr. Victorsen withdrew the proposal of R -1 Single Family Dwelling to R -2 Double Family Dwelling, upon discussion. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. Helen McClelland asked for clarification regarding the 750 square feet limit and Customary Home Occupations stated within the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Larsen explained that the intent of the Staff was to limit the Conditional Use applicants' home occupations because they were renting. This would ease some of the parking problems. David Runyan felt that the 750 square footage issue was arbitrary. Mr. Larsen recommended it state 750 square feet minimum or 40 % maximum to allow for the larger homes. It was suggested that the Customary Home Occupations remain as stated in the R -1 Single Family Zone. Mr. Palmer questioned if someone applied for a Conditonal Use Permit and fit all the requirements, would the City have an obligation to grant the permit? Mr. Larsen reported that the City attorney believed the City would be obligated. Could additional requirements be imposed in special cases? Mr. Larsen felt that any requirements should be listed before hand. Mr. Larsen presented the alternative that if an owner wished to establish a home occupation, it would trigger a re- review of the Conditional Use Permit. Mrs. McClelland and Mr. Palmer agreed with this. Page six Mr. Larsen explained that the drafted Conditional Use Permit was requiring an additional garage stall for the residence. Mr. Thompson felt that the original intentions of the proposal were completely reversed. He wondered if all these changes could be made at this meeting. Mrs. McClelland explained that the Conditional Use Permit was being discussed for the R -1 District only, not the R -2. She personally preferred it that way. Mr. Victorsen stated that a large tree would have to be removed in order to add an additional car stall. He noted that he was presently parking their third car in the driveway now. Mrs. McClelland said that Mr. Victorsen would need to apply for a variance to preserve the tree anId stay with two car stalls. -Mr. Larsen commented that instead of a required stall, a car pad could.be required. Mrs. McClelland felt that they should require an additional garage instead of a pad to avoid unsightly car ports. She felt that Board of Appeals and Adjustments could handle each case on an individual basis if necessary. Mr. Palmer agreed. Mr. Runyan removed his prior motion, and Mrs. McC1elland moved to accept the Conditional Use Permits in the R -1 Zone only for accessory apartments with the revised changes to limit accessory apaprtments to .40% of the floor area of the building and the condition that an owner wishing to establish a home occupation would be subject to a review of his Conditional Use Permit. John Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor, except for Del Johnson. Mr. Runyan moved for the approval of the widthdrawl of Mr.. Victorsen's proposal for rezoning and for approval of the granting of a Conditional Use Permit with the intent of the Commission that.the proposal fit the standards just adopted. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor, with the exception of Del Johnson and Helen McClelland. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 29, 1983 Z -83 -5 Jon DeMars Victorsen, R -1 Single Family District to R -2 Two Family District, 4544 France Avenue. Generally located west of France and north of 46th Street extended. Refer to: Attached June 1, 1983, Staff Report The subject rezoning request was continued from June 1, 1983, meeting to allow the Staff time to examine alternatives and to draft standards that address the addition of accessory apartments to single family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan contains policies that invisions the redevelopment or retrofitting of existing single family dwellings along France Avenue for two family use. Since the existing housing stock along France Avenue is generally in good condition and most lots are smaller than the ordinance standard for R -2 two family dwellings, it is unlikely that there will be a demand to redevelop under the standards for R -2 dwellings. Staff feels, however, that there will be a demand for conversion of existing dwellings resulting in an additional unit which is below the ordinance standards for a two family dwelling. There are several alternatives available to address requests for accessory apartments. We could leave the ordinance district and standards unchanged and demand that all provisions of the R -2 two family district be met; we could require that properties be rezoned to R -2 and grant variances on a case by case basis; accessory apartments could be allowed as a right in a new zoning district; or a Conditional Use Permit system could be adopted to address accessory apartments. A brief description of the last three approaches follows. Permitted Use By Right This method would allow the addition of an accessory apartment in. certain residential zones without any special review by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Use by right could apply to any or all residentia'1 districts, but would limit our ability to specifically control the location of conversion requests. Additional control could be gained through a site review plan by Staff. Rezoning and Variance The addition of accessory apartments could require a rezoning to R -2 and the granting of variances on case by case basis. The Comprehensive Plan envisioned this approach. The major drawback of this approach is that there would be no specific uniform standards for conversions. The Commission and City Council would consider the rezoning request, but would not necessarily consider the specific site plan and physical design of the structure. Community Development and Planning Commission June 29, 1983 Page two. - Conditional Use Permit Under a Conditional Use Permit system each application would be reviewed . by the Commission and the City Council and evaluated according to certain established standards. This system could control the location of conversions and would provide a uniform set of standards designed specifically for accessory apartment conversions. Accessory apartments could be allowed by Conditional Use Permits in the R -1 or R -2 districts. Recommendation Should the Commission determine that the concept of accessory apartments is desirable Staff would recommend adopting a Conditional Use Permit system. The Special Use Permit provides for a more thorough review by the Commission and City Council. It also provides a mechanism that would specifically address requests to add an accessory apartment. Staff would also recommend that accessory apartments be permitted in the R -1 zone only in areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan as suitable for Low Density Attached Residential dwellings. Attached is a draft of standards Staff has prepared for a Conditional Use Permit system. Standards for accessory dwelling units within single family dwelling unit buildings. Purpose and Intent It is the finding of the Edina City Council that certain single dwelling unit buildings located in areas designated for Low density Attached dwelling unit by the Compre- hensive Plan may be suitable for the addition of an accessory dwelling unit provided that the single dwelling unit building remains compatible with neighborhing properties. Land Use Plan Compatibility a. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an accessory dwelling unit unless the property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan as suitable for Jow density attached dwelling units. Location of Unit b. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be detached or separated from the principal dwelling unit building. Floor Area c. The minimum useable floor area for an accessory dwelling unit shall be 400 square feet and the maximum useable floor area shall be 750 square feet. In no case shall an accessory dwelling unit contain more than two (2) bedrooms, or contain more than 40% of the total floor area of single dwelling unit building. Off Street Parking d. In addition to the Off - street parking requirements for the principal unit, every accessory dwelling unit must provide on the site at least one completely .enclosed parking space. Number of Accessory Apartments Per Lot e. No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted per lot. Exterior Appearance f. -The additon of an accessory dweJling unit to or within an existing single dwelling unit shall be accomplished i.n a manner which does not alter the single family character of the dwelling. Exterior stairways are permitted only in the rear, and, then only if completely enclosed. Customary Home Occupations Customary Home. Occupations otherwise permitted by this Section shall not be permitted within:.single dwelling unit buildings which receive a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to this paragraph. Definition of Accessory Dwelling Unit An additional dwelling unit located within a single dwelling unit building in the R -1 District which is subordinante in size and function to the principal dwelling unit and permitted only by a. Conditional Use Permit. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 1, 1983 Z -83 -5 Jon DeMars Victorsen, R -1 Single Family District to R -2 Two Family District, 4544 France Avenue. Generally located west of France and north of 46th Street extended. Refer to: Attached Graphics The subject property measures 7,200 square feet in area (45' x 160') and is zoned R -1, single family dwelling district. The property is improved with a single family dwelling. The property was located within the Village of Morningside prior to its annexation to Edina. Morningside allowed single family dwellings to be converted into duplexes for a period following World War II. Such conversions were allowed without requiring a formal rezoning. During this time, the subject dwelling was converted to a duplex through the creation of a separate second story unit which was accessed by an exterior stairway. The stairs within the house were abandoned. Following the annexation of Morningside, Edina apparently viewed the duplex as a lawfully existing non - conforming use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The property enjoyed this non - conforming status as a duplex until 1978, at which time the property was sold and the building remained vacant for over one year. Under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance, non - conforming uses cannot be re- established if discontinued for one year or more. In 1978, a new owner of the property re- established a duplex (in fact, a third dwelling unit was created in the basement) . The City issued an Order to discontinue the property's use as a duplex. The owner complied with this order. The present owner of the property is now requesting a rezoning to R -2, two family dwelling district. His stated desire is to re- establish lawfully the use of the building as a duplex. He cites conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the historic use of the property as a duplex as the reasons for the request. Recommendation: The rezoning of the subject property to R -2, conforms with the Comprehensive Plan graphic which illustrates "low density attached" uses on lots fronting on France Avenue. The Plan likewise :states the following policies: - Consider the redevelopment or retrofitting of single family dwellings to multi - family uses if located in areas designated as low density attached residential. Such redevelopment or retrofitting should require rezoning and upgrading of dwellings and properties to multi - family standards. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING CONINIlSSION June 1, 1983, Nleeting Page two Allow redevelopment or retrofitting of existing dwellings fronting on France Avenue for low density attached residential uses. Require rezoning for all such re -uses. The present Zoning Ordinance is not very adaptable to the concept of retro- fitting a dwelling as proposed. The following summarizes the requirements of the Ordinance compared with the proposal: Required Proposed Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. 7,200 sq. ft. Garage. 4 stalls 2 stalls Side Yard 10+ feet 5 feet Floor Area 950 sq. ft. foi- 780 s q. ft. two bedroom Garage Setback 5 ft. 1 ft. Building Construction some substandard elements In our opinion, this project should be viewed as a single family dwelling with an accessory apartment unit rather than as a duplex. Although a rezoning to R -2 should be required, we don't believe that the Ordinance standards for traditional R -2 buildings should be imposed in such cases. We expect that other similar requests will follow, especially on lots abutting France Avenue. In order to provide guidelines for design, construction, and other aspects of such buildings, we would suggest that this item be continued until June 29, in order for Staff to draft standards for your consideration. The proponent has agreed to the continuance. i i I i V��� Gf IUKGf-� 9-540 �f�NG� �V S I I 1601- I I I - I- 1 I i X K U r'. SuNKC�� KIT��iLrJ r�I�lirJL -� art -�r� NEIGHBORHOOD •PETITION We, the 'undersigned, do hearby approve of the proposal made by Jon R. DeMars Victorsen to rezone the property at 4544 France Avenue South,'Edina from a R -1 zoning to a R -2 zoning. We realize that this property will used as a duplex and not as a triplex. Date Name Address �IZoI �� ..� c�.r. S��`�� 453 � �n a ►t�c� r�y e � I Respectfully submitted, _.Yon R. DeMa rs Victorsen Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Permit Indoor Soccer Arenas as a Principal Use in the Planned Industrial District. Mr. Larsen stated that the proponents are pursuing the leasing of a building at 7225 Washington Avenue for use as an indoor soccer arena. This building is zoned P.I.D. Staff has advised the proponents that such a use is not presently permitted in the Planned Industrial District. The` proponents have, therefore, requested that the City amend its Zoning Ordinance to permit the proposed arena. .A letter from theproponent explains the contemplated use of the building. In addition to a soccer facility, the letter states that a facility for hockey (presumably ice hockey) will be provided during the summer. The letter also notes that some limited retail sales, refreshment stands and amusement machines would also be desireable in connection with this use. The proponents stress that the proposed use is designed for participants, not spectators. Thus, very limited bleacher seating would be provided. Mr. Larsen stated that the Zoning Ordinance presently permits several atheletic and health related uses in the Planned Industrial District: Handball Courts Tennis Clubs Roller Skating Arenas Aerobic Dance Studios The building at 7225 Washington Avenue was previously used as a roller skating arena. Mr. Larsen felt the rationale for allowing handball, tennis, and aerobic dance in the P.I.D. focused on the need for athletic oriented facilities in close proximity . to our daytime office and industrial pupulation. Although this rationale apparently did not support approval of the roller skating arena in 1974, it nevertheless, should continue to form our basis for allowing additional athletic uses in the P.I.D. Staff is concerned that theproposed use does not follow this rationale and thus should be denied . for the following reasons: First, although the use is athletic oriented, it cannot be argued, in Staff's view, that it serves the daytime, working population of the City. Second, notwithstanding the statements of the proponents, the proposed use seeems particularly adaptable to the enjoyment by spectators. Although the present intent is to direct activities toward participants, we are concerned that the specator interest will grow with resulting parking problems and so forth. Third, the desire to provide amusement machines and related retail uses is not only contrary to past City decisions, but it also exemplifies and interest in attracting a concentration of individuals to the facility for a variety of purposes that are commercially oriented. Fourth, the proposed facility seems particularly adaptable to other short term uses. Mr. Larsen closed in saying some of the concerns recently expressed when denying the request for the Dairy Queen restaurant directly north of 7225 Washington Avenue appear to be relevant in this case. Page two Mr. Barry Reed and Mr. Paul Skelly were present. Mr. Reed informed the Commission that the retail use was optional. This was an aspect that they could do without if necessary. The retail use would be specialized soccer equipment. He explained that it generallywould consist of 25 kids ata time. There would be few spectators, mostly participants. He noted that many, families car pool, and that this was not a desirable setting for kids to "hang out" in. The 80 parking spaces would be adequate. Mr. Reed informed the Commission that there would be some clinics which would ~ include coaches and referees. They would be installing a good sprinkler system. The soccer accomodations would be of the best materials. John Bailey wondered if there were any of these facilities location in the Metropolitan area. Mr. Reed noted that there was one in Bloomington operating in a closed school. Mr. Reed explained that they had been looking for sometime now for a building without pillars and this one in Edina was exactly what they had been hoping for. They were willing to meet any possible City requirements. David Runyan saw no reason why a soccer arena would be worse than a roller skating arena. Mr. Larsen noted that within this commerical district, it should be directed to daytime workers. . Mrs. McClelland noted that there was already the traffic problem in that area. Mr. Reed guaranteed that they were overrating the attraction. He felt that there would not be any considerable amount of traffic involved. Regarding possible tournaments at this location, Mr. Reed guaranteed that they would work with the Fire Marshall to meet whatever codes necessary. Mr. Palmer commented that he did not see a great amount of difference compared with other uses. Mrs. McClelland suggested they create a club to limit it to only members. Mr. Runyan felt that would not make a difference. Mr. Palmer moved for approval of the amendment without the allowance of amusement machines and John Bailey seconded the motion. All were in favor;. the motin carried. July 5, 1983 TO: AMM Member City Officials FROM: Vern Peterson, Executive Director SUBJECT: AADY POLICY STUDY r0XMITTEES 1ISSi1E.S, SUBJECT AREAS The Board of Directors will be appointing Legislative Policy Study Committees to begin the process of developing legislative policy for the 1985 -1986 Legislative Biennium. In addition to the longer range activities for 1985 -1986, these committees will also deal with some immediate issues and concerns which will be addressed in the 1934 Legislative Session or in the near future by the Metropolitan Council and Commissions. Names of these committees and a general description of subject area are contained herein. The Board would like to have a clear indication of all persons who are willing and able to give of their time and energy to serve on one of these committees. The Board :•could also welcome any suggestions for spPcific issues or concern_; to be studied by the committee This is your opportunity to become more directly involved in the formation of the AF:M's legislative policies. Please indicate on the .enclosed form your willingness to serve and your committee choice. This bulletin is being sent to May Council members, and Managers /Administrators. if there are other city employees from your city who you would like to have serve on an committee, please submit those .names also. In a seperate and previous mailing, present AM14 committee members have been given the opportunity to remain on the committees. If you have already responded, please disregard this mailing. 1. Metropolitan Agencies Committee Considers legislative issues and non - legislative issues related to the 1.1t.ropolitan Council and Metropolitan Commissions. The Con,nittee also looks at the strrcture and interrelationships of the Council and Commissions and the relationship bet;�eein th ^se regional entities and .local units of government. The Committee also re vie,•Is ar!end�:.entS to the Metropolitan Development Guide Chapters and any ne:;, chapters c'ev:_-�loped. Iii Past years, the Committee has developed policy on land use planning, metropolitan significance, amendment procedures for comprehensive plans, and administrative Procedures of the Council. 2. Pun_icipal Revenues Committee Considers any matter concerning revenues, taxes, and city expenditures. Irtclt.tcled are state aid formulas, state aid dollars, levy .Zimits, propei-ttl tax assessmeni:s, tax increment financing, fiscal disparities, and re- devclop;r ant funding rrtethods. The 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227 -5600 -2- Cnmmittee will be looking very carefully at the effects of the state aid formula, levy limit modifications, and other pertinent issues as they develop. 3. !lousing Committee Concerns itself with all .issues related to housing including subsidized housing, affordable housing, and activities of the Metropolitan HRA. The Committee also reviews all amendmento to the Metropolitan Co'uncil's Housing Guide Chapter with particular emphasis on the so- called "i:al:r share formula" for low and moderate income housing allocation and Policy 39 implications. 4. General Legislative Committee Examines issues which have impact on metropolitan area cities outside the scope of other AIE4 committees. In the past, this Committee developed policy on shade tree disease control, municipal self insurance, municipal consolidation, pensions, watershed districts, Veterans,' Preference, PELRA Amendments, etc. 5. Transportation Committee Concerns itself with major issues related to transportation and .transit at the metropolitan, state and federal level. The ten (10) elected city officials who serve on the Transportation Advisory Board and the eight (8) city staff officials appointed by the AIM to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee are automatic members of the Transportation Co.::mittee. The A;•1'1 Board voted on June 8th. to alloy, other city officials to also serve on the Alf' Transportation Committee. Again, please indicate on the enclosed form your desire to serve, the committee you wish to serve on, and /or any issues which you think should be studied. Please return to the Al1M office by July 25, 1983. If you have questions, please contact either Roger Peterson or Vern Peterson at the AM,11 office (227 -5600) . Thank you. ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES (Please return by July 25th.) NAMES PREFERRED MAILING ADDRESS (ci ty) PREFERRED TELEPHONE CONTACT NUMBER CITY POSITION CITY (street) PLEASE INDICATE COMMITTEE CHOICE Municipal Revenues Metropolitan Agencies Housing General Legislation Transportation SUGGESTED ISSUES TO BE STUDIED PLEASE RETURN TO: Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 183 University Ave., East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Attn: Carol Williams (zip code) I N AW II "Touching the Twin Cities for Jesus" Pastor Alan J. Walker Cathedral of Praise Ministries LETTER OF PROTEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA Dear Mr. Huqhes: The Board of Directors of Cathedral of Praise in Edina hereby responds.to and opposes the proposed ordinance imposing a moratorium on certain uses in the R -1 Single Family Dwelling District. � I �,/_ . k 1; L - Representing the 1000 attending members of the two year old Christian church, we believe that the pro- posed ordinance discriminates against organizations that provide significant civic and community_ support. This ordinance will impose a severe hardship on our church because of our current active search for pro- perty and facilities in Edina. We have outgrown the Highlands School and have been working with a developer to relocate. We desire to remain in Edina as a church community. Our plans are to purchase and begin a building program this year. This pro- posed moratorium would greatly affect our future plans. We appreciate the freedom of the opportunity to express this opinion and hopefully expect no such ordinance to be passed. Thank you. CATHEDRAL OF PRAISE 4 L Alan J. Walker President 5505 Doncaster Way Edina, Minnesota 55456 (612) 927 -4041 T ,f 3:�:A -� NOTICE On July 18, 1983, the Edina City Council will consider the attached ordinance which imposes a moratorium on certain uses in the R -1 Single Family Dwelling District. This moratorium would prohibit the construction of new, or the expansion of existing churches, schools, golf course buildings, liabraries as well as all their accessory uses within the R -1 Zone until a revised zoning ordinance is adopted which regulates their uses. Although this moratorium is scheduled for a one year duration, it is likely that it will be lifted prior to the end of one year. The City Council asked, that we advise all institutions which potentially would be affected by this moratorium in order to solicit your comments and observations. You are welcome to attend the Council's meeting on July 18, 1983, at 7:00 P.M. (Edina City Hall Council Chambers) or you may direct your comments to my attention. Please do not hesitate to call me if you havequestions concerning this matter. GLH /Ide WSincer yoron L. Hughes City Planner ORDINANCE NO. 116 PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF NEW IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ON LAND IN THE R -1 ZONING DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS,-AND USES ACCESSORY THERETO AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN PUBLIC PARKS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section. 1. Purpose. The Edina Comprehensive Plan ( "The Plan ") was adopted by the Edina :City Council.on December. 21 :," 1981 and approved by the Metropolitan Council on'October 8, 1981, all pursuant to Minnesota Statue Sections 473.851 through 473.872 ( "The Metropolitan Land Planning Act ") . Edina is now conducting studies for the purpose of considering adoption of official controls, including a zoning ordinance and a subdivision ordinance° -��' The zoning ordinance being considered will regulate and control, among , other things, the size and impact on neighboring property of non - residential improvements in the R -1 Zoning District, as established by the existing zoning ordinance of Edina. However, while the new ordinances are being considered, such improvements are continuing, and may continue, to be constructed and to expand and increase in size Therefore, in order to protect the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Edina, it is necessary and desirable to impose the following moratorium. Section 2. Moratorium. From the effective date of this ordinance and for a period of one year from the effective date of this ordinance, subject to earlier termination or extension by the Edina City Council, the Edina City Council and the Edina City Staff shall not 1.) accept, or continue to process, any new plat or subdivision, 2.) accept any applications for, or issue any building permits, 3.) accept any applications for or continue to process any variances from any existing platting, subdivision or building ordinances of the City or., 4.) allow the construction of any new or the expansion of any existing parking facilities,, which will or may result in the construction of new improvements or the expansion of existing improvements, on any land in the R -1 Zoning District, including, without limitations, any increase in the percentage of building coverage,: ;hard surface coverage, floor area or height of such existing improvements, except, :however, for single family detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto and improvements within public parks. First Reading: Second Reading: Published in the Edina Sun on ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor