HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 03-31 Planning commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1976
EDINA CITY HALL
Members Present: S. P. Hughes, Chairman Pro Tem, C. E. Johnson, F. S. Dean,
Mary McDonald, Helen McClelland, and R. E. Kremer.
Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Environmental Planner, Harold Sand, Planning
Assistant, Robert Dunn, City Engineer, and Lynnae Nye, Secretary.
I. Approval of the February 25, 1976, Planning Commission Minutes.
Mr. Dean moved the February 25, 1976, Planning Commission Minutes be
approved as written and submitted. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
II. SUBDIVISIONS:
S-76-2 Buchanan Addition. Generally located south of Dewey Hill Road, east
of the Schuster property, and west of Delaney Boulevard and Cahill
Road.
Mr. G. Hughes stated Mr. Lyle Buchanan is requesting to subdivide the Ed
Lindquist property into 14 single family lots ranging in size from 11,700 square feet
to 27,000 square feet. The average lot size would be about 15,000 square feet,
similar to existing single family residential development in the vicinity. Two
portions of the property are proposed to be dedicated to the City of Edina; an outlot
along the southernmost boundary has been included in the Southwest Edina storm
sewer system as a ponding area, and a strip along the east lot line would provide
right of way for future Delaney Boulevard. Approval was recommended because the
subdivision is consistent with the Southwest Edina Land'Use Plan and the storm sewer
plan for this area, and the lot sizes are consistent with the single family lots in
the area. Mr. Hughes suggested that that approval be contingent on:
1. identification on the plat of the southernmost part of Outlot A as
"Park";
2. identification on the plat of that portion of Outlot A along the east
property line as "Delaney Boulevard and
3. the addition of an easement adjacent to lots 5 and 11 for utility
purposes.
Mr. Lyle Buchanan, the developer, and Mr. Frank Cardarelle, the surveyor,
were present.
Mr. Dunn noted the staff report prepared by Greg Luce, the City Planner,
suggests the proposed 60 foot street down the center of the property be shown instead
as a 50 foot street. He recommended, however, that the street be 60 feet wide, as
originally drawn, to keep the houses further apart and to provide a 15 foot boulevard
in case sidewalks are requested in the future.
In reply to Mr. Dean, Mr. Cardarelle explained the road will be located to
the west of the center of the property because some of the high ground in that area
will be used as fill in the lower areas to the east. Mr. Cardarelle agreed to
relabel the areas dedicated for parkland and Delaney Boulevard and to show utility
easements along lots 5 and 11. He indicated that whether the street is 50 feet or
March 31, 1976, Planning Commission Minutes, page 2
60 feet wide is inconsequential. In reply to Mr. Sam Hughes, Mr. Cardarelle stated
that lot 6 would be only 11,700 square feet because Mr. Lindquist (the land owner)
wants his house and several large trees to the north to be located on the same lot
(lot 7).
,.Mr. Dean moved the subdivision be approved as presented with the three con-
tingencies listed by the staff and with the additional comment that every effort be
made to move the south lot line of lot 6 as far south as possible so lots 6 and 7
will more closely conform to the other lot sizes. Mr. Dean clarified the garage
near the southeast corner of the site must be removed; the dedicated area north of its
existing location should be labelled "Delaney Boulevard" and the dedicated area
south and west should be labelled "Park In reply to Sam Hughes, Mr. G. Hughes
clarified the portion to be labelled as park exceeds the 5% minimum parkland dedication
requirement. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
5-76-3 Bri-Mar Company Registered Land Survey. Generally located north of
W. 51st Street, south of W. 50th Street, and east of Halifax Avenue.
Mr. G. Hughes explained the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority has
proposed a registered land survey of the Lunds grocery store and parking lot property
to facilitate a land exchange (the former Union Oil site for part of Lunds parking
lot (Tracts A and B)) between the H.R.A. and Bri-Mar Company. In the future Tract A
would be combined with Dr. Allen K. Larsen's property to the east and built upon,
Tract B would be city -owned parking to support its liquor store, and Tract C would
remain in its present ownership. Approval was recommended because the proposed
registered land survey would be consistent with the 50th and France Commercial Area
Redevelopment Plan.
Mr. C. Johnson moved the proposed registered land survey be approved, and Mr.
Kremer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
III. REZONINGS:
Z-76-2 Mark Nelson. Nelson Smith and Associates. 4536 France Avenue South.
R-1 Sinqle Family Residence District to C-2 Commercial District.
Mr. Sand explained that Nelson Smith Associates is requesting that a 50' by
200' lot at 4536 France Avenue South be rezoned from R-1 Single Family Residence
District to C-2 Commercial District. He reviewed the surrounding zoning and land
use, and indicated that houses on the subject lot and the lot immediately north have
been used for commercial/office purposes for several years. Mr. Sand presented a
site plan and explained the building, parking, and landscaping improvements to be
made to accommodate the Nelson Smith interior design studio and furniture sales
office, presently located at 50th and France. He stated the staff ,feels there is a
need for a transition from the commercial zoning to the north at 44th Street to the
residential zoning to the south and that office zoning would be more appropriate
than commercial zoning. He recommended the property be rezoned from R-1 to 0-1 OBD
because: 1. the use is a logical extension and transition from the existing commercial
area to the residential area; 2. the structure isnot now being used for single family
purposes; and 3. the present R-1 zoning is inappropriate. Further, the rezoning
should be contingent on: 1. amendment of the zoning request from C-2 to 0-1 OBD;
2. elimination of the easternmost parking space and landscaping of that area; 3.
submittal of a registered land survey or plat to simplify the property description;
4. installation of blacktop and permanent curb in the front parking area; and 5. that
a variance for reconstruction of a nonconforming structure be accomplished.
March 31, 1976, Planning Commission Minutes, page 3
Mr. Greg Gustafson, attorney representing Mark Nelson of Nelson Smith
Associates, explained that C-2 zoning was requested because that ordinance
specifically references interior design shops. However, they would have no objection
to the staff's recommendation to rezone the land to 0-1 OBD if the Nelson Smith
interior design business is considered to be a permitted use and is definitely
allowed to relocate and continue to operate as it presently does on 50th and France.
Mr. Mark Nelson stated the design business is such that it is a retail business,
although the biggest share is done on a consultation or appointment only basis.
Mr. Hughes was concerned that any rezoning of the property would lead to
continued expansion of the commercial/office area along France Avenue. Mr. Kremer
suggested the land be rezoned to 0-1 and a variance sought as C-2 zoning would allow
any permitted C-1 or C-2 use, not all of which would be acceptable in that particular
location.
Mr. Gustafson stated Nelson Smith Associates is purchasing the building for
their present business, described in a letter from Mr. Nelson attached to the staff
report. The present business definitely conforms to the C-2 ordinance, but 0-1
zoning would be accepted with the City's assurance that this particular use would be
allowed.
In reply to Mrs. McClelland, Mr. Nelson explained the proposed improvements
(retaining walls, blacktopping, landscaping, etc.) in detail.
Lengthy discussion followed regarding the staff report, prepared by Greg Luce
the City Planner, C-2 versus 0-1 zoning, and whether a variance could be granted
for a nonconforming use, as noted in the fifth contingency listed in the staff report.
Mr. Gustafson felt a variance goes to the nonconforming structure and not necessarily
to the use, but if the Nelson Smith design studio is an acceptable 0-1 use, then
0-1 zoning would be acceptable to them.
Based on the staff report prepared by Greg Luce, which requires that a
variance for reconstruction for a nonconforming use be accomplished, Mr. Dean moved
the following recommendation be approved: "that the request for rezoning (to 0-1) be
approved for the following reasons: 1. the use is a logical extension and transition
from the existing commercial area to the residential area; 2. the structure is not
now being used for single family purposes; and 3. the present zoning is inappropriate:
Approval should be contingent on: 1.Amentment of the zoning request from C-2 to 0-1;
2. elimination of the easternmost parking space and landscaping of that area; 3. that
a registered land survey or plat be submitted to simplify the property description;
4. that blacktop and permanent curb be installed in the front parking area; and
5. that a variance for reconstruction of a nonconforming use be accomplished." Mr.
C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Ordinance No. 811 -A --(Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Permit Certain
Additions to Nonconforming Single Family Dwellings).
Mr. Sand stated the current zoning ordinance requires that a variance be
obtained for a nonconforming structure if an addition, conforming or nonconforming,
is desired; in most cases approval of a variance is practically automatic if the
proposed addition would conform to current ordinances. The variance process, however,
costs $50 and often causes undue construction delays. The proposed ordinance
amendment would allow additions to nonconforming single family homes without a
March 31, 1976, Planning Commission Minutes, page 4
variance if the addition will conform to the current codes and if the dwelling will
not exceed the maximum lot coverage requirement. A variance would still be
required if the proposed addition will be nonconforming or if the dwelling would
exceed the maximum allowed lot coverage.
Mr. Kremer moved the proposed zoning ordinance amendment permitting certain
additions to nonconforming single family dwellings be approved as presented. Mr.
C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
2. Ordinance No. 801 -All (Relative to Subdivision Financing Agreements to
Delete the Requirement to Record an Agreement to Pay Special Assessments,
to Specify the Kind of Letter of Credit that will be Accepted, and to
Require Written Agreements on Escrow Deposits).
. Mr. Sand explained the proposed subdivision ordinance amendment would allow
developers to submit securities other than performance bonds, and identifies how
other securities shall be submitted. He noted the ordinance amendment reflects the
City's current policy and procedures.
A motion approving the proposed ordinance amendment relative to subdivision
financing agreements was made by Mr. C. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Kremer. All
voted aye. Motion carried.
3. Hennepin County Transportation Report.
Mr. Hughes referenced a memo from Fran Hoffman, Assistant City Engineer for
Traffic and Transportation, reviewing the final draft report of the Hennepin County
Transportation System Study. Mr. Hoffman explained in his memo that "the study
addressed transportation issues with major emphasis on existing and future roadway
systems which have county (metropolitan) significance". He recommended: 1. that
the City retain control over W. 50th Street, proposed in the study to be changed
(from France Avenue to Highway 100) from City to County jurisdiction; and 2. that
Lincoln Drive north of Nine Mile Creek be excluded from a proposed "recommended year
2000 roadway network" since the City Council has resolved that that roadway will
not extend north of the creek. Mr. Hoffman concluded the draft report "appears to
be a reasonable set of guidelines, in concept, for the County to follow as the
recommendations relate to the City of Edina".
Discussion followed regarding the final draft report and Mr. Hoffman's
comments. Mr. Dunn indicated that Hennepin County has asked that the Planning
Commission make.a recommendation to the City Council and that the Council transmit
a resolution accpeting the report with their comments and concerns, if any. Mrs.
McClelland reported the draft report is not final, and it must eventually be resub-
mitted to the City in final form.
Mrs. McDonald moved that the Planning Commission recommend the Council
accept the Hennepin County Transportation System Study draft, with Mr. Hoffman's
comments. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye except Mr. Kremer, who
feels "it is a serious mistake not to run Lincoln Drive through to the north". Motion
carried.
4. Southdale Presentation by U of M Architecture Students.
Mr. Sand explained that during winter quarter six teams of third and fourth
year architecture students from the University of Minnesota reviewed the development
W
I
March 31, 1976, Planning Commission Minutes, page 5
and growth of the Southdale commercial neighborhood, analyzed its problems, and
attempted to foresee its future development in response to social, transportation
and other changes in society. Each student then did an individual design project.
Each of the teams presented its final conclusions and future development
proposal as well as examples of individual design projects. Each was briefly
discussed.
V. ADJOURNMENT at 9:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynnae C. Nye, Secretary