HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 02-27 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1980, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
Members Present: Bill Lewis, Chairman; Len Fernelius, Del Johnson,
Helen McClelland, Gordon Johnson
Members Absent: Jim Bentley, Mary McDonald, David Runyan, Richard Seaberg
Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning; Craig Larsen,
Comprehensive Planner; Harold Sand, Assistant Planner,
Deborah Schurman Strand, Secretary
I. Approval of the Minutes
Del Johnson moved approval of the January 30, 1980 Community
Development and Planning Commission minutes. Gordon Johnson seconded the
motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
II. New Business:
S-80-6 Atwood Station Second Addition. Lot 2, Block 1,
Atwood Station Subdivision.
Gordon Hughes informed the Commission the subject property
is presently zoned PID Planned Industrial District and is comprised of Lot
2, Block 1, Atwood Station Subdivision and a parcel of unplatted property.
He added that Lot 2, Block 1, Atwood Station Subdivision fronts on West
78th Street and has no access to Cahill Road, while the unplatted parcel is a
corner lot and encompasses all of the frontage on Cahill Road of the subject
property.
Due to excessive grades, access to West 78th Street from
Lot 2, Block 1, Atwood Station would be difficult, therefore the owner of this
lot and the owner of the unplatted parcel have agreed on a land exchange to
allow proper access. The proposed plat will facilitate this land exchange.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed subdivision in
that it allows proper access to the easterly lot, provides a more logical
lot shape and setbacks for the westerly lot, and clarifies existing legal
descriptions. Staff did not recommend a subdivision dedication since no
Community Development and Planning Commission
February 27, 1980
Page 2
additional lots or development was created.
Curt Woodhouse, representing Tramill Krow, stated he
had not brought preliminary plans for the Commission to review but explained
the basic plan was for a service center building or an office warehouse
building. He reiterated staff's view that access of 78th Street would be
very steep but with the addition of half frontage on Cahill, would make the
property less unconforming as a whole.
Mr. Hughes told the Commission that a variance should also
be granted since the proposed lot comprising the previously unplatted parcel
and existing building would not meet the minimum lot size of the ordinance.
Gordon Johnson moved approval of the subdivision.
Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Helen McClelland moved approval of a lot size variance for
the southwest corner lot. Len Fernelius seconded the motion. All voted aye;
the motion carried.
LD -80-4 Lot 1, Block 1, Southdale Second Addition and
Lot 5, Block 1, Southdale 4th Addition
Mr. Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission that a year and
one half ago, the City approved a lot division to re -orient the lot line between
the subject lots. Mr. Hughes explained the presently requested lot division
would re -adjust the common lot line by seven feet. Setback requirements
continue to be met.
Staff recommended approval of the lot division.
Mr. Hughes added the proponent requested the lot division
for landscaping purposes.
Del Johnson moved approval of the lot division. Len Fernelius
seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
LD -80-5 Lot 3, The Pines
Mr. Hughes informed the Commission the proponent resides at
3917 West 60th Street on Lot 4, Block 1, Halifax Avenue Addition. The lot
is located westerly of but not contiguous to the property proposed for division,
i.e. Lot 3, The Pines.
Community Development and Planning Commission
February 27, 1980
Page 3
Mr. Hughes explained that the proponent has used a portion
of the rear yard area of Lot 3, The Pines for gardening purposes for the
past several years, with the owner's"permission. The proponent now desires
to purchase the area for continued use of gardening. The proposed lot division
is requested to facilitate this transaction.
Staff recommended the proposed division. However, staff
recommends that a conservation restriction should be imposed upon the new
parcel which would prohibit the use of the parcel for anything but open space
and gardening purposes. The Proponents agreed to grant such a restriction
with the understanding that a five foot high chain link fence could be
installed around the property and a tool and garden shed not exceeding 100
square feet in floor area could be constructed on the parcel. Staff had no
objections to these items.
Mr. Hughes explained that Lot 3 would be considered a
new lot but would be protected from being built on with the condition of a
conservation restriction. A question arose as to why the proponent did not
request an outlot for the property. Mr. Hughes noted the property would be
protected by ordinance but was an expensive process.
Del Johnson and Gordon Johnson both wondered why the
proponent did not lease the property from the owner. Mr. Hughes noted that
staff had asked the same question of the proponent, the proponent found
owning the land more acceptable.
A general discussion ensued concerning land use when the
proponent was no longer gardening, and setting an undesirable precedence.
Len Fernelius moved to deny the requested lot division.
Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion passed.
The Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
was sent to the Commission for their review and comments previous to the
meeting. Craig Larsen briefly outlined the contents of the Housing Chapter
for the Commission. Mr. Larsen explained the report was written to satisfy
state law and was broken into three sections, 1. general housing, 2. policy
section, and 3. implementation.
1. The general housing section addressed present housing
stock and condition of the stock, housing unit projections and housing needs
in Edina. Mr. Larsen submitted a chart to indicate housing need in Edina.
2. The policy section acts as a guide to City decisions
for a ten year period. This section focused on maintenance of existing housing
Community Development and Planning Commission
February 27, 1980
Page 4
•
minimum goals for assisted housing in Edina and modest cost housing.
3. Implementation of goals dealt with market rate
housing, maintenance and improvement programs for existing housing stock,
rental programs that would utilize existing stock, and new construction for,
assisted housing.
Mr. Larsen explained to the Commission the government
was not asking for a guarantee of units to be built,'but rather a plan
designed to provide opportunities for assisted housing.
A general discussion followed regarding market rate renting,
and differentiating between elderly and family housing. Gordon Johnson
questioned whether there was any other area besides southeastern Edina which
was suitable. Mr. Larsen agreed that the area would be suitable and added if
market rental housing existed or became established, the City could steer
away from concentrating low income housing in one section'of town. The
Commission discussed among themselves other possibilities in the area for
low income housing, and the general consensus was that southeast Edina
seemed a viable area to provide housing.
Helen McClelland noted the City was allowing an increased
density in northeast Edina by subdividing lots.
The Commission's main comment to the City Council was to
endorse building in southeast Edina.
Floodplain Management Ordinance. Gordon Hughes introduced
a revised floodplain ordinance and explained that it must be adopted and enforced
by May 1, 1980. He noted that the ordinance was a form of zoning ordinance
so had to be approved by the Commission.
Mr. Hughes stated the revised ordinance was similar to the
present ordinance and clarified past ordinance problems. The new ordinance
would not significantly alter the present flood plan.
Gordon Johnson moved approval of the floodplain ordinance.
Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Harold Sand distributed a survey, Historic Buildings of
Edina Minnesota, written for the Historic Preservation Board, prepared by
Setter, Leach & Lindstrom, Inc. and asked the Commission to review it.
Community Development and Planning Commission
February 27, 1980
Page 5
The Historic Preservation Board intends to adopt the survey as a planning
document. Mr. Sand noted the Board had received a grant from the federal
and state government for publication of a condensed version of the survey.
Mr. Sand asked that the Commission review the survey and discuss it at
the next Planning Commission meeting, April 2, 1980.
III. Next Meeting Date: April 2, 1980 at 7:30 p.m.
IV. Adjournment: 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully(` Submitted, �/
weyd'h Y6&0 Ltiil , YT3 td
Deborah Schurman Strand, Secretary