Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 04-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular (2)s MINUTES OF THE REGULAR. MEETING CF THE EDINA COMMUNI`.PY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, APRIL, 30, 1980 AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Len Ferne lius, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, Richard Seaberg Members Absent: Del Johnson, David Runyan Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning; Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner; Fran Hoffman, City Engineer; Deborah Schurman Strand, Secretary I. Approval of the Minutes: Gordon Johnson moved to approve the minutes of April 2, 1980. Richard Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes stand as approved. II. New Business: S-80-9 Edina Place. Generally located south of West 70th Street and west cf Highway 160 and east of Metro Blvd. Gordon Hughes informed the Commission the subject property measured approximately eight acres in area and fronted on Metro Drive. The Property is presently unplatted and is zoned 0-2, Office District. Mr. Hughes stated the proponents were requesting a two lot sub- division of the subject property. Lot 1 would measure about 5� acres in area and would be developed as an office site. Outlot A, measuring about 2� acres, would be reserved for development in combination with unplatted property to the south. Staff recommended approval of the proposed subdivision with the following conditions: 1) subdivision dedication 2) delineation of a 20 foot wide utility easement along the westerly lire of the plot 3) an executed developer's agreement. Boyd Stofer representing United Properties explained his company wanted to build two office buildings on Lot 1. He noted that for finance purposes, it would be preferable to further subdivide lot 1. into two lots. Community Development and Planning Commission April 30, 1180 ' Page 2 Mr. Hughes expressed his concern over a further subdivision &E Tot 1 noting that the eastern lot would he land locked. The proponent suggested as a second alternative to make the eastern portion of Lot 1 an Outlot, which by definition would be undevelopable until platted. However, Mr. Erickson, City Attorney, informed Mr. Hughes at an earlier date that he did not recommend such an action. A general discussion ensued regarding the wisest course of . action for the city to take. dr. Hughes clarified that Outlot A to the south of Lot 1 would be joined to the unplatted property south of Outlot A in order to make another buildable lot in the future. Mr. Seaberg moved to approve the subdivision as originally proposed (i.e. Lot and and Outlot A) with the aforementioned staff conditions. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. Len Fernelius abstain. from voting. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -80-6 Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Carolane Addition Mr. Hughes informed the CoTmnission the proposed lot divisj,on' was requested to re -align the common lot line between the subvert lots. The division would allow the construction of an addition to the dwelling on Lot 2 that conformed with setback requirements, Mr. Hughes stated that staff recommended approval of the lot division. Len Fernelius moved approval of the lot division. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Historic Building Survey. Mr. Bill Scott introduced the Building Survey to the Commissioners and presented a slide show of historic buildings in Edina. After the slide presentation was completed Mr. Hughes explained the Historic Preservation Board's intention and approach to the Survey. The Survey is to serve as a document valuable to residents, students and the City. The second function of the survey will be as a basis for rezoning certain property to Heritage Preservation District. Since the Board functions as an aevisor to the Council and Commission, they will form recommendations and present them Community Development and Planning 'Commission April 30, 1980 Page 3 to the city government based on the survey. The Preservation Board is preparing _.a multiple resource nomination of the Country Club District for the National ?register. Mr. Hughes stressed the Survey should function as a planning document. Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hughes asked the Commission to express any questions.or concerns they had regarding the sections they received of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hughes noted the City Council reviewed the Plan at a previous meeting and stated the department was now required to send the Plan to adjacent communities prior to submission to the Council. The next step would be formal public herrings by the Commission,. whereby the Corzni.ssion would review the Plan and adopt it. The Council could then authorize the Plan to go to the ::Metropolitan Council who has 120 days to review and approve it, after which time the City Council reviews the Plan for final adoption. Mr. Hughes explained that all the sections of the Plan were finished except the Implementation Section. A general discussion ensued regarding different sections of the Plan, and other cities policies -regarding the Plan. tis. Hughes asked the Commissioners to jot down any comments or problems they had with the Plans to present to the Planning Department. III.- Next Meeting Date: May 28, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. IV. Adjournment: 7:00 p.m.