Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 12-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1976 EDINA CITY HALL Members Present: W. W. Lewis, S. P. Hughes, G. V. Johnson, C. E. Johnson, D. T. Runyan, M. McDonald, and H. E. McClelland. Staff Present: Greg Luce, City Planner, and Lynnae Nye, Secretary. I. Approval of the October 27, 1976, Planning Commission Minutes. A motion to approve the October 27, 1976, Planning Commission minutes as written and submitted was made by Mr. G. Johnson and seconded by Mr. C. Johnson. All voted aye. Motion carried. _ II. NEW BUSINESS: 1. SUBDIVISION 5-76-26 Dayton Development Company Registered Land Survey. Generally located north of W. 69th Street, south of W. 66th Street, east of France Avenue and west of York Avenue (Southdale Center). Mr. Luce announced the Dayton Development Company request for a registered land survey of Southdale Center was postponed to the December 29, 1976, Planning Commission meeting. No action was taken. 2. LOT DIVISION Developer's Construction Inc. Generally located LD -76-12 south of Dewey Hill Road and east of Gleason Road. Lot 7, Block 1, Hyde Park 1st Addition. Mr. Luce explained the proponent is requesting to divide the northerly ten feet from Lot 7, Block 1, Hyde Park Addition and to add that strip of land to Lot 6, Block 1, Hyde Park lst Addition. Both lots 6 and 7 are presently buildable but undeveloped. Mr. Luce recommended the requested lot division be approved inasmuch as no additional buildable lots would be created and both resulting lots would be buildable. Mr. Loren Spande, the owner, indicated he presently owns both lots 6 and 7 and that if the requested division is approved, lot,6 would be 128 feet wide along Gleason Road and 78 feet wide across the rear of the lot. Mr. Runyan moved the requested lot division be approved as recommended. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 3. YEAR III COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - SUGGESTIONS FOR ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES. Mr. Luce referenced the Community Development Program citizen participation information mailed earlier and explained the City is required to solicit suggestions for the use of its anticipated Community Development funds for 1977. He noted the City Council will hold public hearings on December 20, 1976, and January 3, 1977. Mr. Luce recalled the activities funded in 1975 and 1976, briefly reviewed the types of activities which would be eligible for funding, and offered to forward to the City Council any comments the Planning Commission might have. The diseased tree replacement program funded in 1976 and the Lake Cornelia Park and Bredesen Park projects funded in 1975 were discussed in greater detail. The Parbury estate on 44th Street and the Miller property on West Shore Drive (the future Art Center) were also discussed. 12-1-76 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2 The Planning Commission generally agreed to continue this item for further study to the December 29, 1976, Planning Commission meeting. No further action was taken. 4. MANDATORY PLANNING ACT REQUIREMENTS. Mr. Luce noted that a Metropolitan Council representative would probably be attending the March, 1977, Planning Commission meeting to inform the staff and commissioners what work must be done in order to comply with the Mandatory Planning Act passed by the last state legislature. He explained there are three major elements, the land use plan, the public facilities plan, and the plan implementation program, all. of which must be compatible with the Metropolitan Council's plans. Brief discussion followed; no action was taken. III. ADJOURNMENT. Respectfully submitted, Lynnae Nye, Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1976 EDINA CITY HALL Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, S. P. Hughes, C. E. Johnson, R. E. Kremer, M. McDonald, and H. E. McClelland. Staff Present: G. Luce, City Planner, and L. Nye, Secretary. I. Approval of the December 1, 1976, Planning Commission Minutes. Mr. Hughes moved the December 1, 1976, Planning Commission minutes be approved as written and submitted. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. Old Business: 1. Subdivision Dayton Development Company Registered Land Survey. S-76-26� Generally located north of W. 69th Street, south of W. 66th Street, east of France Avenue and west of York Avenue (Southdale Center). Mr. Luce announced the proposed Dayton Development Company registered land survey would be continued to the February 2, 1977, Planning Commission meeting because additional information is needed which has not yet been submitted. No actionwastaken. 2. Year III Community Development Program - Suggestions for Eligible Activities. In order to comply with HUD regulations, Mr. Luce resubmitted a list of eligible activities which could be financed with Community Development funds. He clarified in reply to Mr. Hughes that the actual removal or replacement of diseased trees could not be done with Community Development funds, but acquisition of new trees is considered an eligible activity. Discussion followed as to whether removal of trees on certain private property, especially property owned by low income persons, would be an eligible activity; Mr. Hughes suggested that if it is eligible, the City Council should be requested to allocate Community Development funds for that activity. Mr. Kremer moved the Planning Commission direct the staff to investigate the possibility of using Community Development funds to finance a diseased tree replace- ment program for certain private properties, and, if that activity is determined to be an eligible Community Development activity, the City Council should be requested to consider funding such an activity. Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 111. New Business: 1. Lot Division Ellen V. Ritzman, Allan F. Johndreau, and Audrey 0. LD -76-13 Johndreau. Lot ; Block 2, Stow's Edgemoor Addition. Generally located at 7019-21 Lynmar Lane. Mr. Luce stated a double bungalow presently exists on the lot in question, and a three -car garage is located near the south lot line. The vacant lot to the north i.s also owned by the proponents. 12-29-76 Planning Commission Minutes, page 2 Mr. Luce stated the proponents are requesting to divide the existing double bungalow down the common wall so each side may be homesteaded. Although this type of division has been approved in the past, the previous divisions involved newer double bungalows with two parking spaces per unit, typically located on each side of the building. Mr. Luce clarified that if this particular division were approved, the garage spaces would be located entirely on the south lot. However, because both occupants are related and the primary purpose of the request is to allow each unit to be homesteaded, it could be anticipated that the building might eventually be returned to one ownership and the property recombined and sold, or an easement could be granted for access to and use of the garage in the event the properties are not recombined and'only one unit is sold. Approval of the requested division was therefore recommended, inasmuch as potential solutions to the garage question do exist should a problem arise in the future. Mr. Johndreau, one of the proponents, explained the division is requested solely for homesteading purposes, and they recognize that in the event part of the building were to be sold, the sale would hinge on a similar occupancy arrangement or an easement for joint use of the garage. Discussion followed. The Planning Commission generally agreed the proponents might encounter serious legal problems at a future date, and creating a lot with a dwelling unit with no garage space could result in an undesirable parking nuisance on Lynmar Lane if the property were sold and no easement was executed to allow joint use of the existing garage. Mr. Hughes moved the division be denied in view of the future negative complications that could arise if either of the proposed properties were sold. Mr. Kremer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mrs. McDonald suggested the lot division might be considered more favorably if the proponents build a garage in the rear yard of the north half of the property, or if a garage were constructed on the vacant land to the north. All generally agreed. No further action was taken. 2. Lot Division Marianne M. Turnquist, Harvey Hansen Realtors. Lot 29, LD -76--11 Mendelssohn Heights. Generally located at 604 Blake Road. Mr. Luce recalled a subdivision of the lot in question was recently denied by the Planning Commission and City Council. The proponents, however, discovered since then that a portion of the property was sold several years ago to the owner of Lot 8, Block 2, Mendelssohn Heights (directly north of the lot in question), but because that division was never approved by the City Council, the deeds could not be recorded or the taxes split. Mr. Luce explained the proponents are now requesting that that lot division be approved to clear the title and tax status of the property.. He recommended the division be approved inasmuch as no additional buildable lots would be created, and no additional traffic would be generated onto Blake Road as a result. After brief discussion about whether the vacated portion of Waterman Avenue (west of Blake Read) would ever be re -opened, Mrs. McDonald moved the lot division-, be approved as recommended. Mr. Kremer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 3. Lot Divisions Interlachen Investments Inc. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1,. LD -76-15 Edenmoor. Generally located at 5244 Eden Circle. LD -76-16 12-29-76 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3 Mr. Luce announced that representatives of Interlachen Investments, Inc., requested the proposed lot divisions be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. No action was taken. 4. Update on Local Planning Process under Mandatory Land Planning Act. Mr. Luce stated that as a result of recent communications with the Metropolitan Council regarding the local planning process in connection with the Mandatory Planning Act, the staff is formulating a five year program of the city's planning activities; that program should be ready for presentation at the February or March Planning Commission meetings. IV. Adjournment. Respectfully submitted, Lynnae Nye, Secretary Ln