Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 12-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1981, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnson, David Runyan, James Bentley, Del Johnson, Leonard Fernelius, Mary McDonald, Helen McClelland, John Palmer, Leonard Ring and John Skagerberg MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Joyce Repya, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mary McDonald moved approval of the minutes from the October 28, 1981, meeting. Leonard Fernelius seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: Z-81-5 Community Development Corporation. Senior Citizen Housing Generally located west of York Avenue and north of Parklawn Avenue extended. Status Report Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the Edina Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority has finally entered into a purchase agreement with Hedberg for the sale of 4 acres of his property. However, we had missed the end of September fiscal year of HUD, consequently there are some unknown interest rates and allowed rents. Representatives from Edina Community Lutheran Church have reported that optimistically, if the HRA buys the land, gives it to them at no cost, pays for utility costs, and assumes any parkland dedication that the City may charge, they will still be $350,000 - 500,000 short. They may request that the City make up the difference. Mr. Hughes added that it is questionable whether the City has the money, or whether it would be legal for the City to make up the difference if we had the money. At present, the project is in a somewhat tenuous position. Responding to a question whether other churches could get involved as a sponsor with Edina Community Lutheran, Mr. Hughes explained that the Section 202 program is somewhat unique in that the sponsor is limited as to the amount of money he can put into the project. Mr. Hughes added that approximately $10,000 is the limit a sponsor can contribute to a Section 202 project, the rest of the money must come from some outside source, city writedowns, etc. However, it is possible for a council 'of churches or several churches to apply together. General discussion ensued regarding the proposed project. No action was taken. Community Development and Planning Commission December 2, 1981 Page 2 Z-81-8 Harry Lindbery. R-1 Single Family Dwelling District to 0-1 Office Building District. Generally located in the Northeast quadrant of County Road 18 and W. 7th Street. (formerly Darrel A. Farr Development Corp.) Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that they had considered a rezoning request to 0-1 Office Building District by Darrel A. Farr on two recent occasions. The Commission recommended approval of this request based upon plans submitted by Darrel A. Farr. The City Council considered this request at their November 16, 1981, meeting. However, prior to the hearing, attorneys for Mr. Lindbery, the property owner informed the City that Mr. Farr was no longer a party to the development. Mr. Lindbery, nevertheless, desired to gain approval of the rezoning to 0-1, but advised the Council that he had no specific plans for the development of the property. The Council thereupon referred the request back to the Commission and noted that they preferred the submission of specific plans prior to approving such a rezoning. Specific development plans have not been submitted for Commission review. Mr. Hughes then explained that Mr. Lindbery is now requesting an indefinite continuance of this item. III. NEW BUSINESS: Z-79-12 Dewey Hill Third Addition. Generally located north of W. 78th Street and west of Cahill Road. Laukka and Assoc- iates requesting an extension of PRD -3 rezoning. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that the subject property was rezoned to PRD -3 Planned Residential District approximately one year ago. The approved plans proposed the construction of five buildings containing 114 dwelling units. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the erection of a building must be commenced within one year following the rezoning. The Ordinance allows, however, the owner to petition for an extension of time. Due to constraints imposed upon the development by the present economy, the owner of the property, Laukka and Associates is requesting a two year extension of the rezoning. Mr. Hughes pointed out Staff's belief that Mr. Laukka has exercised good faith efforts to utilize the rezoning. Staff further believed that the requested extension of the rezoning is reasonable given the complexity of the project in terms of design, size and expense. Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that Staff recommended approval of the requested two year extension. Helen McClelland asked whether the City had ever granted a two year extension for" a rezoning. Mr. Hughes stated that the lapse provision in the ordinance is rarely enforced in this day and age due to the economics of the projects. There are presently several properties in the City, notably in the Industrial zone that have been zoned Industrial for years. Staff still con- siders them to be zoned Industrial and has not enforced the lapse provision. Mr. Laukka is requesting the extension because the large amount of contro- versy that surrounded the project, and because he felt it would be safe to avoid any misunderstandings. Crmmunity Development and Planning Commission December 2, 1981 Page 3 Ms. McClelland stated that she did not have an objection to the two year extension, however, she was concerned about possibly setting a prece- dence unliss it has been done previously. She added that the ordinance states one year and she would be happier with the one year extension. If after one year, Mr. Laukka wanted a second years extension, he could at that time, request an additional extension. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the one year versus the two year extension. Mr. Larry Laukka stated that he requested a two year extension because the ordinance provided for that amount of time. He added that a one year extension would be just fine. He added that he hopes to have the pro- ject started within the one year. Gordon Johnson moved for approval of the one year extension of the PRD -3 Planned Residential District rezoning. John Palmer seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No. 811 - POD Planned Office District Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that presently, the Zoning Ordin- ance provides "planned" subdistricts for residential, commercial and industrial developments. Such subdistricts essentially require that site plans, elevation drawings, landscape plans, etc., be submitted and approved in conjunction with the rezoning process. The developer is then limited to the plans presented and cannot alter the plans without City approval. For several years, Staff has noted the desirability of adopting a "planned" subdistrict for office developments. Such subdistricts would provide a method of ensuring the compatibility and quality of office buildings and would discourage rezonings of a speculative nature: Mr. Hughes added that prccedurally, a POD rezoning would be acted upon much like a Planned Residential District rezoning, and would alleviate the need for petitioning the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for variances regarding such things as floor area ratio and setbacks. Mr. Hughes then recommended approval of the amendment. General discussion ensued regarding the draft amendment, afterwhich David Runyan moved for acceptance. Len Fernelius seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 30, 1981 V. ADJOURNMENT: 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, t C.e��,�. 1iep�frx_J Joyce G. Repya, Secretary