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