HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 09-24 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1975
EDINA CITY HALL
Members Present: Mr. W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, Chairman
Pro Tem, Mrs. M. McDonald, R. E. Kremer, F. S. Dean,
and D. T. Runyan.
Staff Present: Greg Luce, City Planner; Robert Dunn, City Engineer;
and Lynnae Nye, Secretary.
I. Approval of the September 3, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes.
A motion to approve the September 3, 1975, Planning Commission
minutes as written and submitted was made by Mr. Hughes and seconded
by Mr. Run; -an. All voted aye. Motion carried.
II. LOT DIVISIONS:
LD -75-5 Jeffrey P. Gustafson/G. W. Pearson. Outlots B and C,
Gleason Fifth Addition, and Lot 3, Block 1, Gleason
Fifth Addition. Generally located south of Vernon
Avenue and west of Gleason Road. Continued from
7-2-75, 7-30-75, and 9-3-75.
Mr. Luce stated the requested lot divisions and combinations
involving two outlots and two lots in Gleason Fifth Addition were
dibc:ussed a� 1-31v= July 2, July 30, and September 3 Plane'_:;
meetings. He recalled that Outlot C is proposed to be divided; the
easterly portion would be combined with lot 2 so an existing tennis
court could be added to the owner's lot, and the westerly portion would
be combined with lot 3. A 10 foot strip of equal square footage is
proposed to be divided from the west side of lot 3 and added to Outlot
B. Outlot B of Gleason Fifth Addition and Outlot B of Viking Hills
4th Addition, presently under separate ownership, are expected to be
combined eventually and rezoned to R-2. He stated his primary concern
is still that the addition of 10 feet from lot 3 to Outlot B would
provide the minimum square footage needed to create an extremely
undesirable single family lot, and a request could then be made to have
Outlot B declared buildable.
Mr. Luce recalled the proponent's request was continued from the
July 30 and September 3 Planning Commission meetings pending the
outcome of arbitration to determine the owner of Outlot B, Viking
Hills 4th Addition. However, because the arbitrator has still not
made a decision and has taken the matter under advisement until
additional information is supplied by one of the attorneys involved,
he would now recommend the proponent's request be approved with the
notation that Outlot B will remain an unbuildable outlot in the future
Mr. Greg Gustafson, representing the proponents, stated that
because "we are not a party to that law suit, the result will not
immediately affect us. We can only deal with the land we control."
He stated the west 10 feet of lot 3 is crucial to the future divisions
and rezonings along Vernon Avenue, and the owner of lot 3 is now
willing to exchange that westerly 10 feet for part of Outlot C.
I
9-24-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2
After discussion, Mrs. McDonald moved the requested lot
divisions and combinations be approved, with the specificnotation
that Outlot B will continue to be unbuildable in the future because
it will remain an outlot and because it would not have adequate depth
for a single family lot. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
LD -75-10 City of Edina for Donald C. Brower. Generally
located at 5709 Warden Avenue. Part of Lot 9, Warden
Acres.
Mr. Dunn (the City Engineer) explained the proponent's house, the
last house on the south side of Warden Avenue, presently has a single
car attached garage which is 5 feet from the side lot line. The
Tracy Avenue sanitary sewer lift station, which has a considerable
front yard setback with a driveway from Warden Avenue, is located on
the property directly west. Pursuant to discussions held several
years ago, the City Council at the proponent's request recently
authorized the sale of a 10'_X 65' strip of excess land to be added
to the proponent's lot so he can convert the existing single car
garage into a double car garage and still maintain the required side
yard setback. Approval was recommended in that the division will
improve the proponent's situation and will not affect the use of the
city property. He clarified the strip of land to be conveyed is only
65 f p - P r_ deems because there is a sanitary sewer easement 10 feet on
either side of a line that is 75 feet back from the front lot line;
the 65 foot strip would run to the edge of that sanitary sewer easement.
. After brief discussion, a motion to approve the division as
requested was made by Mr. Runyan and seconded by Mr. Dean. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
III. SUBDIVISIONS:
S-75-17 Londonderry Replat. Generally located north of Fabri-
Te and east of Lincoln Drive.
Mr. Luce recalled the property in question was zoned PRD -2 in
1971 for a 40 unit townhouse project, which is under construction. He
explained the proposed replat would eliminate four units and slightly
modify the shape of several units to be constructed along the creek.
He recommended approval of the replat inasmuch as the density would
be reduced, the project would be less crowded, and the distance between
the structures and Nine Mile Creek would be increased by the minor
unit design modification, thereby improving the overall project.
Mr. Luce noted the proponent has indicated that if additional
adjacent land can be acquired in the future, he may request rezoning
for another four units to replace those units eliminated by the proposed
replat. The Planning Commission generally agreed that that request
would have to be reviewed on its own merits.
After brief discussion, Mr. Hughes moved the "Londonderry Replat"
be approved as recommended. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion. All voted
aye except Mr. Kremer, who abstained from the discussion and vote.
Motion carried.
le
wo
9-24-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Western Edina Plan Amendment for former "Roushar Square"
Property, generally located south of Fabri-Tek and north
of the Edina West condominiums, east of County Road 18.
Mr. Luce recalled the plat of "Roushar Square" and the zoning
for that project were rescinded on August 18, 1975, by the City
Council at the request of the Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation,
the former owner and developer, and the First Wisconsin National
Bank, the mortgage holder. Mr. Luce stated the Western Edina Plan
divides the property in question diagonally and indicates the land
use may be either planned industrial or multiple residential. He
recalled that in the past there was considerable discussion regarding
which land use would be more appropriate, however, when the Roushar
Square project was approved and the land zoned and platted, the
Planning Commission and Council decided the best land use would be
multiple residential. Mr. Luce stated that since then many people
have purchased homes in the vicinity, specifically in the Edina West
condominium development, with a dependence and reliance on that
decision to use the land for multiple residential. Because the plat
and project have now been abandoned and the zoning has essentially
reverted to R-1 as a result of the Council's action, the staff feels
the Western Edina Plan should be officially amended to reflect the
decision that the land use should be multiple residential and not
planned industrial. He suggested a public hearing be held'`' -,at the
next Planning Commission meeting to consider a Western Edina Plan
amendment to that effect, thus discouraging any future requests to
establish a planned industrial district.
After brief discussion, Mr. Dean moved a public hearing be
held at the 10-29-75 Planning Commission meeting on a Western Edina
Plan amendment identifying the potential land use for the property
in question as multiple residential only. Mr. Kremer seconded the
motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
2. Heritage Preservation Ordinances.
Mr. Luce presented a proposed ordinance which would create a
heritage preservation district, determine the procedure for establish-
ment of that district, and regulate work and repairs within the district.
Also presented was an ordinance which would establish a Heritage
Preservation Board under the Planning Commission and define its
powers and activities. Both ordinances were reviewed and discussed.
In regard to the ordinance which would create a heritage preservation
district, Mr. Hughes felt it should not apply to the interior of a
structure; all generally agreed. In regard to the ordinance which
would establish a Heritage Preservation Board, Mr. Hughes felt the
Hennepin County library should not be designated as the repository
for any documents involved, and that a member of the Hennepin County
Historical Society should not be a member of the board. Mr. Kremer
suggested the Pllnning Commission could act as the Historical
Preservation Board instead of appointing another board and further
complicating local government. After lengthy discussion, all generally
agreed the repository for documents should be within a city -owned
9-24-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4
structure, and that although one member of the board shall be a
member of the Hennepin County Historical Society, that person should
be a resident of Edina.
After additional discussion, Mr.. Runyan moved the ordinance
amending Ordinance No. 802 establishing a Heritage Preservation
Board under the Planning Commission and defining its powers and
activities should be approved with the recommendation that: 1. the
repository for documents shall be located within a city -owned
structure rather than at the Hennepin County Library; and 2. that
the member of the Hennepin County Historical Society appointed by
them to serve on the Heritage Preservation Board should be a
resident of Edina. Mr. Dean seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
Mr. Kremer moved the ordinance amending the zoning ordinance
(No. 811) by adding a heritage preservation district, determining
the procedure for establishment of the district, and regulating work
and requiring repairs within that district should be approved with
the recommendation that the ordinance not be applicable to the
interior appearance of structures but should apply only to the
exterior, including the grounds, landscaping, etc. Mr. Dean seconded
the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. ADJOURNMENT.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary
M