Loading...
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