HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 12-03 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COMAISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1975
EDINA CITY HALL
Members Present: S. P. Hughes, Chairman Pro Tem, R. E. Kremer, Mrs.
M. McDonald, D. T. Runyan, G. V. Johnson, C. E.
Johnson, and F. S. Dean.
Staff Present: G. Luce, City Planner, R. Dunn, City Engineer, H.
Sand, Planning Assistant, and L. Nye, Secretary.
I. Approval of the October 29, 1975, Planning Commission Minutes.
Approval of the October 29, 1975, Planning Commission minutes was
postponed to the next regular meeting.
II.: SUBDIVISIONS:
S-75-18 Yorktown Second Addition. Generally located south of
Hazelton Road and west of York Avenue.
Mr. Luce noted that Phase 1 of the three-, four-, five-, and
six -story York Plaza apartments has been constructed on the south part
of the property in question. Phase 2 construction is proposed to begin
immediately, and will be followed by Phase 3. A three -lot replat of
Lot 4, Block 6, Yorktown, has been requested in order to create separate
taxable parcels for each construction phase so there can be different
mortgage lenders. He stated that although this division was discouraged
by the staff in the past, the owner/developer has now requested and
paid for a building permit for Phase 2 and has become committed to the
new construction. Approval was recommended.
In reply to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Luce explained the present zoning is
R-4, Phase 1 was constructed on proposed lot 1, Phase 2 will be on lot 2,
and Phase 3 will be on lot 3. He added that no parkland dedication fee
is required because that obligation was met for all of the properties
in Yorktown when the land was originally subdivided for development.
Mr. G. Johnson and Mr. Hughes observed that lot 3 would be land-
locked and would not have direct access to any public street. Mr. Stephen
Timmer, representing Metram Properties and Yorktown Associates, stated
that a declaration of reciprocal easements between the lots would be
entered into for the recreation buildings and driveway. Mr. Timmer
stated "the buyer would purchase lot 1 and the existing buildings.
Metram Properties will remain the owner of lots 2 and 3; if and when
lot 2 is sold, Metram would retain ownership of access to lot 3. He
presented an earlier drawing of the proposed plat; Mr. Luce stated that
that drawing had been revised because the staff was opposed to the
recreation building becoming a separate lot. He clarified the prelim-
inary plat presented by the staff was accurate and was the proponent's
most recent submittal.
After considerable discussion regarding the lack of direct,
public access to lot 3 and the existing driveway layout, Mr. Luce
recommended the preliminary plat be approved but that the lot line
between proposed lots 2 and 3 be eliminated because there would be no
12-3-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2
public access to lot 3. He indicated the lot could probably be further
divided in the future if public access can be provided.
Mr. G. Johnson moved the preliminary plat of Yorktown 2nd Addition
be approved provided the lot line between proposed lots 2 and 3 is
eliminated, thus creating a two -lot replat. Mr. C. Johnson seconded
the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
S-75-19 Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. Generally located east
of Lincoln Drive and west ot Malibu Drive extended.
Mr. Luce stated the proponent, Mr. Wallace Kenneth, is requesting
to subdivide his property generally located at the north end of Lincoln
Drive into two single family lot: and three outlots. He noted the land
to the north, south, and west was zoned for multiple residential develop-
ment in about 1964, and the Western Edina Plan indicates the property
in question and some land to the east may be included in a corridor of
R-2 or PRD -2 development. A house was recently built for Mr. Kenneth
on one of the proposed single family lots, although the staff tried
to :discourage it.s construction because single family homes might not
be appropriate in this location in light of the existing and potential
multiple residential zoning on adjacent parcels. Mr. Luce clarified
that one dwelling is allowed on any parcel of land, but because another
house is proposed to be constructed the land must be subdivided. He
added that Mr. Kenneth was encouraged to contact Harvey or Carl Hansen,
owners of the unplatted property to the east, regarding their plans for
development of their adjacent land.
Mr. Luce stated he contacted Harvey Hansen because the road in
the Kenneth plat is proposed to originate at an unplatted portion of
the Hansen property. Mr. Hansen indicated a street may or,may not be
planned and built on their land in the location supposed by Mr. Kenneth,
and Mr. Kenneth has not contacted him.
In reply to Mr. Runyan, Mr. Luce noted the proposed lots are
minimal for that area and the proposed street and right of way widths
are less than that required. The outlots will probably be further
subdivided in the future.
Mr. Luce continued that when Mr. Kenneth requested approval of
the plat of "Interlachen Hills 2nd Addition" (still pending) to allow
the construction of a 40 unit apartment building and six double bungalows
in conformance with the present zoning, the Planning Commission asked
Mr. Kenneth to formulate an overall development plan for his property,
to consider a redesign of the proposed apartment building and double
bungalows, and to provide additional information including cross sections
and elevations. The City Council recently asked the Planning Commission
to review the Western Edina Plan, and has informed the Hansens that no
further development north of Parkwood Knolls will be allowed until an
overall plan has been completed and presented; that overall plan has
been recently undertaken by the Hansens. Mr. Luce also noted the
Grandview Cemetery court suit is still pending, so whether the cemetery
will or will not become parkland has not yet been determined; if it does
12-3-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3
become parkland, that would affect any future need for park space in
the Kenneth or Hansen properties.
Due to the cemetery question, the minimal lot dimensions and
substandard road and right of way widths and the unknown future road
locations in the Hansen property, Mr. Luce recommended the proposed
plat be deferred until Mr. Kenneth and the Hansens can prepare a
comprehensive development plan for the remainder of Parkwood Knolls
and the Kenneth property. He urged that Mr. Kenneth and Mr. Hansen
work together to coordinate their comprehensive plans to insure that
the road system and land use on both properties will relate and will be
in the best interests of both land owners as well as the City.
After brief discussion regarding the present zoning (R-1) and the -
elevation difference between County Road 18, Lincoln Drive, Mr. Kenneth's
house and the proposed cul-de-sac, Mr. Dean, "in light of the fact that
the land to the east, where the proposed road is shown to originate,
has not yet been planned or platted", moved the preliminary plat of
Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition be continued indefinitely to allow the
propertyowners involved to work together to prepare and coordinate
comprehensive development plans for their properties. Mr. Runyan
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion Carried.
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Amendment of Yorktown Deed Restrictions.
Mr. Luce recalled the property in question, Lot 4, Block 6,
Yorktown (generally located west of York Avenue and north and east of
the Yorktown park strip) was zoned R-4 in 1972 by George Ablah. A
deed restriction providing that all buildings on the lot containing
dwelling units shall be four stories in height was later attached to
the property to encourage Type 1 construction and to avoid the three-
story frame development typical along Gallagher and Parklawn Avenues.
Later, to further encourage a variety of heights, the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments granted the builder a variance to allow the construction
of three-, four -,five-, and six -story apartment buildings of Type 1
construction, in lieu of four-story buildings only. The first phase
of that development was constructed shortly thereafter, in conformance
with the approved variance.
Mr. Luce explained the fee owner of the land, Metram Properties
Company, is selling the existing apartment buildings and the part of
the lot upon which those buildings are located. The buyer, however,
has requested the deed restriction allowing only four-story buildings
be released or modified to allow the existing situation in order to
provide a clear and satisfactory title to the property. Mr. Luce
recommended the present deed restriction be released as requested,
provided a substitute restriction is drafted by Metram Properties to
provide development of the site in apartment buildings of Type 1
construction of three, four, five, and six stories.
After brief discussion, Mr. Runyan moved that Metram Properties
Company be allowed to modify the present deed restriction to require
development of the property in question in apartment buildings of Type 1
12-3-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4
construction of three, four, five, and six stories, as recommended by
the staff. Mr. Dean seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion
carried.
2. Western Edina Plan.
Mr. Luce stated the City Council has asked the Planning
Commission to review the Western Edina Land Use Plan in light of their
recent decision to eliminate the proposed front -age road from Vernon
Avenue to Gleason Road. He suggested that a review be undertaken but
that it be postponed until the Grandview Cemetery court decision is
available and until Wallace B. Kenneth and Carl and Harvey Hansen can
prepare a comprehensive plan for the Kenneth property along County Road
18 and the Hansens' land north of Parkwood Knolls.
After brief discussion, Mr. C. Johnson moved the Council be
informed the Planning Commission will review the Western Edina Plan,
as requested, but feels any review would be premature at this time and
should be postponed until a comprehensive plan of the Hansen and
Kenneth properties and the Grandview Cemetery court decision are
available. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion
carried.
3. December Meeting Date.
After brief discussion, Mr. G. Johnson moved the regularly
scheduled December 31st Planning Commission meeting be held instead on
Tuesday, December 30, 1975, at ,7:30 P.M.at the Edina City Hall. Mr.
Dean seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
4. C-1 and C-2 Commercial District Ordinance.Amendments.
Mr. Luce presented a list of the uses presently allowed in the
C-1 and C-2 commercial zones, and indicated those uses which could be
transferred from the C-2 classification to the C-1 classification. He
noted several uses (clothing stores, household furnishings, fixtures,
and accessory stores, paint and wallpaper stores, second-hand stores,
and sporting and camping goods stores) have been added as possible C-1
uses provided they do not exceed 2500 square feet of gross floor area.
Mr. G. Johnson indicated that to be consistent Item #38 (laundries)
should also be limited to a maximum of 2500 square feet, not 2400 square
feet as the ordinance is currently written.
Mr. Luce recalled Mr. Paul Dean's (no relation to Commissioner
Frank Dean) recent request (10-29-75) to amend the C-1 ordinance to
allow amusement establishments utilizing coin-operated vending machines
so he could operate a youth recreation center in the Wooddale/Valley
View commercial area. He explained the proposed use further and
clarified that if that type of use, not to exceed 2500 square feet, was
allowed in the C-1 district, larger recreation establishments such as
bowling alleys, skating rinks, swimming pools, etc. would remain on the
list of permitted uses in the C-2 districts and would still be prohibited
in C-1 areas.
12-3-75 Planning Commission Minutes, page 5
Mr. Neal Page (4504 W. 64th Street), spokesman for the Nancy
Lake Homeowners Association, agreed that there are several uses on the
C-2 list which would not be objectionable in C-1 areas. He requested,
however, that recreation centers utilizing coin operated vending
machines be removed from the list of proposed permissible uses because
"no matter how well supervised it may be inside, it could result in a
gathering spot for idlers on the outside who could only be controlled
by police intervention_ Scuffling, honking, hot -rodding, etc. would
be a by-product of this venture making it undesirable in the limited
commercial 'C-1' area." Mr. Jack Brown (5609 Woodcrest Drive) agreed,
adding that he feels "this kind of private.enterprise would be an
imposition on Edina and the neighborhood, it would be replete with
chemical problems and would be totally unconstructive, and it would
encourage delinquency." Mr. John Thi ll and Mr. Dennis L. Brown (6121
Virginia Avenue) agreed.
After further discussion, Mr. Kremer suggested the proposed
ordinance amendments be continued until they can be given further
publicity. All generally agreed to continue the proposed amendments
to the January 28, 1976 meeting to give the public more opportunity
to review the proposed ordinance changes. Mr. Lucre agreed to contact
the major commercial landowners and tenants, as well as the known
neighborhood and business organizations.
--See correction in 12-30-75 Planning Commission Minutes.
IV. ADJOURNMENT -at 8:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary