Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 09-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, Clifford E. Johnson, Gordon V. Johnson, Mary McDonald, Richard E. Kremer, and Helen McClelland Staff Present: Gordon L. Hughes, City Planner, Robert Dunn, City Engineer and Karen Sorensen, Secretary I. Approval of September 7, 1977 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Gordon Johnson moved for approval of the September 7, 1977 Planning Commission Minutes. Mr. Clifford Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. II. OLD BUSINESS Subdivision Phillip Smaby. Woodbury Park Second Addition. 5-77-16 and Generally located east of France Avenue and South of Rezoning West 55th Street. R-1 Single Family Residence District Z-77-15 to R-2 Two Family Residence District (continued from, 9-7-77) Mr. G. Hughes noted that the Commission had given concept approval for the proposed zoning and subdivision at the September 7, 1977 Commission meeting but requested that the proponent bring in formal plans of the site before giving final approval. He noted that such plans had been submitted which indicate that Lots 2, 3, & 4 are proposed for R-2 development and Lots 1 and 5 are proposed for R-1 development. Mr. G. Hughes also noted that the southern 20 feet of the plat is part of the alley which is proposed to be vacated. He also pointed out that the line between Lots 4 and 5 had been realigned as per the Commission's directions to the proponent. He also noted that Council action on the alley vacation had not taken place because of the concern of the immediate neighbors about the diseased elm trees and the collection of debris in the alley. Mr. Hughes noted that the City Forester had been marking the diseased trees and the proponent had agreed to remove them as well as the debris before the vacation of the alley takes place. Frank Reese, representing the pro- ponent stated that the work should be completed within a week or ten days. Mr. Charles Paulis stated that he felt that Lot 4 was ideal for R-1 and that R-2 should not be considered for this lot. Janie Paulis stated that when she walked down France Avenue she noted that there were four duplex homes for rent. She also stated that Lot 4 would be ideal for R-1 development. Chairman Lewis stated that the property would be good for either R-1 or R-2. After some additional discussion, Mr. Sam Hughes moved for approval of the subdivision and rezoning for the following reasons: Edina Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 28, 1977 1. The requested R-2 rezoning for lots 2, 3 and 4 are appropriate due to the site's proximity to France Avenue, a cemetery, and other R-2 developments. 2. Access to all lots from the proposed cul-de-sac street is desirable to avoid direct access to France Avenue. 3. Lot sizes are generally consistent with surrounding properties. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the low density residential character of surrounding properties. as well as the following modifications and conditions.: 1. An acceptable developer's agreement. 2. Parkland dedication. 3. Two curb cuts at France Avenue be closed and a berm constructed along France Avenue, and 4. The vacation of the alley on the southern portion of the site. Mrs. McDonald seconded the :notion. Upon voting,: Gordon.Johnson abstained; Mrs. McClelland voted Nay; Mr. C. Johnson, Mr. S. Hughes, Mr. Kremer, Chairman Lewis and Mrs. McDonald voted Aye. Motion Carried. Subdivision Subdivision of Lot 29, Rolling Green. Generally S-77-19 located southwest of Annaway Drive and southeast of Bywood West. (continued from 9-7-77) Mr. G. Hughes stated that this matter had been continued from the previous meeting because the subdivision signs had not been erected. He noted that the plan presented at the September 7, 1977 meeting indicated that the new lot would have 39,000 square feet and the remaining lot with the existing house would have 61,000 square feet. However, since the last meeting, the lot line had been realigned and the proposal now showed that the newly created lot had approximately 29,000 square feet. Mr. Hughes noted that this lot was somewhat small in comparison with surrounding properties. He asked the proponent if the line could be moved to increase the square footage and also to give the new lot a more defined rear lot line. Mr. S. Hughes noted that the proposed lot is not consistent with other lots in the area. He asked that the proponent prepare a revised subdivision proposal. After some additional discussion, Mr. G. Johnson moved that the Commission table this request until the November meeting. Mr. Clifford Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Edina Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 28, 1977 Subdivision Jeam Addition. Garth O. Holmes. Generally located S-77-20 south of West 63rd Street and west of Warren Avenue. (continued from 9-7-77) Mr. G. Hughes reported that this subdivision had been continued from the September 7, 1977 meeting because the subdivision signs had not been erected. Mr. Hughes also noted that since the previous meeting, another difficulty had arisen with the development of this property. He explained that the proponent was unable to acquire a parcel of property from the County which was essential to the property's development. Therefore, Staff recommended continuing the subdivision indefinitely. Mrs. McDonald moved that the Commission continue this subdivision indefinitely. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. III. Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan Review Mr. Gordon Hughes stated that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina was to hold a hearing on the Southeast Edina Plan, but according to statute, the plan must first be presented to the Planning Commission for their review and comment. After the Commission forwards its comments, the H.R.A. could proceed with its hearing and send its findings to the City Council for review and public hearing. Mr. G. Hughes indicated that the boundaries of the plan had been altered somewhat in that the H.R.A. had opted to reduce the area and the tax increment financing district. Mr. Hughes explained that the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan provides a tool through the tax increment financing process, for implementing-Edina's low and moderate income and elderly housing requirements. He noted that there was not a final financing plan to review at this time, but this will soon be available for review. The Planning Commission should note that the revised Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan indicates lower densities than that of the South Edina Plan. Because of the lower density, traffic generation will be somewhat alleviated on France Avenue. The Staff advised that the Planning Commission recommend the implementation of the revised Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan, and concur with and adopt the findings and conclusions of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan as follows: 1. The development of the Plan Area as proposed by this plan relates to definite local objectives as to appropriate land uses in the area. 2. The land being acquired is vacant or is used for low utility purposes. 3. The land being acquired may be developed at costs reasonably related to the public purposes to be served without major residential clearance activities. 4. The uses to be made of the property pursuant to the plan are consistent with emphasis on housing for low and moderate income families. Edina Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 28, 1977 5. The land in the project area would not be available for developm?nt pursuant to the plan without financial aid to be sought pursuant to the plan. 6. The plan affords a maximum opportunity, consistent with sound needs of the locality as a whole, for development by private enterprise. 7. The plan conforms to the general plan of the municipality for develop- ment of the locality as a whole. 8. There is a shortage of low and moderate income housing in Edina. 9. Such shortage is inimical to the safety, health, morals, and welfare of the community. Mr. Greg Luce, Professional Management Services, Inc., Mankato, Mn., representing Ryan Construction Co., indicated that this developer is interested in constructing low and moderate income housing in the Southeast Edina area. He reviewed the concepts contained in the South Edina Plan, the Edina Housing Assistance Plan, and the DMJM study. He explained that the original redevelopment plan included the area along France Avenue, however, the Council requested that a smaller area be considered at this time. Mr. Luce also noted that the City of Richfield is supporting this development as they realize they will generate some school age children which will be beneficial to the school system. Mr. Luce explained to the Commission some of the financial aspects of the redevelopment plan such as the tax increment plan and how this plan affects the City. This development will be made with no state aid and no community develop- ment funds. Mr. Kremer noted that the property would be sold for less than market value to developers in order to get the type of development that is wanted in the area. He also stated that he had spent time reviewing this plan and it is a concept that will work, but because the size has been cut down, he was finding it difficult to adjust from the first proposal to the second proposal and would like to see how the numbers worked out to the smaller area. He would accept the land use and would encourage and support the concept but wanted clarification -of the finance plan. Mr. Luce noted that the purpose of the Planning Commission review is in regard to land use review. Zoning will come later and proposed developments will have to come before the Commission. Mr. Kremer suggested that a special meeting be called to review the re- development plan in more detail. He noted the Commission could move to approve the plan in concept, but should have more time to study it. Mr. Luce noted that the H.R.A. cannot proceed without some concept approval from the Commission. Edina Planning Commission Minutes Page S September 28, 1977 After considerable discussion, Mr. Sam Hughes moved that the Commission approve the concept with the reservation that the facts be studied further. Following further discussion regarding the plan, Mr. Kremer suggested that the Planning Commission table the matter for ten days and have Mr. Luce return with revised maps and financial plans for further study. Chairman Lewis noted that the Commission does not have an obligation to be concerned about the financing of the project. Mr. Gordon Hughes inquired if the Commission could approve a resolution which would specify those items of the plan with which the Planning Commission agrees so that the H.R.A. could have some idea of their feelings. It was the general opinion of the Commission that they would and could not approve the resolution in any form until they had'had an opportunity to review the matter further. After considerable discussion about the tax increment plan and how the revised plan would affect the general area, Mr. Sam Hughes offered the following motion: The Planning Commission approves in concept the land use portion of the plan, but due to the shortness of time to study the details, thereof, the Planning Commission was unable to make any comments on the balance of the plan. Mr. Cliff Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. IV. Adjournment Mr. Gordon Johnson moved for adjournment. Mr. Clifford Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. R�esspp ctfully submitted, Karen Sorensen, Secretary MINUTES OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 RE: SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW Mr. Gordon Hughes stated that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina was to hold a hearing on the Southeast Edina Plan, but according to statute, the plan must first be presented to the Planning Commission for their review and comment. After the Commission forwards its comments, the H.R.A. could proceed with its hearing and send its findings to the City Council for review and public hearing. Mr. G. Hughes indicated that the boundaries of the plan had been altered somewhat in that the H.R.A. had opted to reduce the area and the tax incrertLent financing district. Mr. Hughes explained that the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan provides a tool through the tax increment financing process, for implementing Edina's low and moderate income and elderly housing requirements. He noted that there was not a final financing plan to review at this time, but this will soon be available for review. The Planning Commission should note that the revised Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan indicates lower densities than that of the South Edina Plan. Because of the lower density, traffic generation will be somewhat alleviated on France Avenue. The Staff advised that the Planning Commission recommend the implementation of the revised Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan, and concur with and adopt the findings and conlcusions of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan as follows: 1. The development of the Plan Area as proposed by this plan relates to definite local objectives as to appropriate land uses in the area. 2. The land being acquired is vacant or is used for low utility purposes. 3. The land being acquired may be developed at costs reasonably related to the public purposes to be served without major residential clearance activities. 9. The uses to be made of the property pursuant to the plan are consistent with emphasis on housing for low and moderate income families. 5. The land in the project area would not be available for development pursuant to the plan without financial aid to be sought pursuant to the plan. 6. The plan affords a maximum opportunity, consistent with sound needs of the locality as a whole, for development by private enterprise. 7. The plan conforms to the general plan of the municipality for develop- ment of the locality as a whole. 8. There is a shortage of low and moderate income housing in Edina. 9. Such shortage is inimical to the safety, health, morals, and welfare of the community. Edina Planning Commission Minutes Re: Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan Page -2- Mr. Greg Luce, Professional Management Services, Inc., Mankato, Mn., representing Ryan Construction Co., indicated that this developer is interested in constructing low and moderate income rousing in the Southeast Edina area. He reviewed the concepts contained in the South Edina Plan, the Edina Housing Assistance Plan, and the DMJM study. He explained that the original redevelopment plan included the area along France Avenue, however, the Council requested that a smaller area be considered at this time. Mr. Luce also noted that the City of Richfield is supporting this development as they realize they will generate some school age children which will be beneficial to the school system. Mr. Luce explained to the Commission some of the financial aspects of the redevelopment plan such as the tax increment plan and how this plan affects the City. This development will be made with no state aid and no community develop- ment funds. Mr. Kremer noted that the property would be sold for less than market value to developers in order to get the type of development that is wanted in the area. He also stated that he had spent time reviewing this plan and it is a concept that will work, but because the size has been cut down, he was finding it difficult to adjust from the first proposal to the second proposal and would like to see how the numbers worked out to the smaller area. He would accept the land use and would encourage and support the concept but wanted clarification -of the finance plan. Mr. Luce noted that the purpose of the Planning Commission review is in regard to land use review. Zoning will come later and proposed developments will have to come before the Commission. Mr. Kremer suggested that a special meeting be called to review the re- development plan in more detail. He noted the Commission could move to approve the plan in concept, but should have more time to study it. Mr. Luce noted that the H.R.A. cannot proceed without some concept approval from the Commission. After considerable discussion, Mr. Sam Hughes moved that the Commission approve the concept with the reservation that the facts be studied further. Following further discussion regarding the plan, Mr. Kremer suggested that the Planning Commission table the matter for ten days and have Mr. Luce return with revised maps and financial plans for further study. Chairman Lewis noted that the Commission does not have an obligation to be concerned about the financing of the project. Mr. Gordon Hughes inquired if the Commission could approve a resolution which would specify those items of the plan with which the Planning Commission agrees so that the H.R.A. could have some idea of their feelings. It was the general opinion of the Commission that they would and could not approve the resolution in any form until they had had an opportunity to review the matter further. Edina Planning Commission Minutes Re: Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan Page -3- After considerable discussion about the tax increment plan and how the revised plan would affect the general area, Mr. Sam Hughes offered the following motion: The Planning Commission approves in concept the land use portion of the plan, but due to the shortness of time to study the details, thereof, the Planning Commission was unable to *!lake any comments on the balance of the plan. Mr. Cliff Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried. Respectfully submi ted, Karen Sorensen, Secretary