Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 03-31 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1982, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Gordon Johnson, David Runyan, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, John Palmer, Leonard Ring, John Skagerberg, Len Fernelius MEMBERS ABSENT: James Bentley STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City- Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Joyce Repya, Planning Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Gordon Johnson moved for approval of the minutes from the February 24, 1982, meeting. Leonard Ring seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: LD -82-3 Lot 10, Block 7, Braemar Hills 9th Addition. Generally located west of Gleason Road and north of W. 78th Street. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that this item had been continued ,rorii February 24, 1982. Tlie problem with Lh'ls division was the very small rear yard area provided for one of the dwelling units. An existing swimming pool in the rear yard of the property prohibits a division whereby both units are afforded similar rear yard areas. The proponent has agreed to relocate the division line to abut the most northwesterly edge of the pool. This results in the most equitable division of the property without subdividing the pool itself which is not desired by the proponent. Mr. Hughes explained that Staff believes the revised division is the best that can be accomplished under our lot division format.' The proponent notes that cross easements and maintenance agreements will be placed -.of record which will allow joint use of the rear yard areas by both tenants. This, should alleviate the concerns associated with this division. Mr. Hughes pointed out that there are more appropriate methods to divide this property. First, the property could be replatted in a townhouse fashion whereby the "common areas" are designated as an outlot which would be jointly owned by both residents. Secondly, a condominium could be created which would result in each resident owning an individual interest in the common areas. Staff is reluctant to recommend these methods at this time due to their expense. It is believed that the proposed lot division as revised should be adequate and Staff would thus recommend approval. Community Development and Planning Commission March 31, 1982 Page 2 Gordan Johnson asked if the Commission should require a copy of the cross easements and proof of filing prior- to approving the division. Mr. Hughes stated that it would be good to have them on record. The City is somewhat reluctant to get involved in private easements because they can be changed without the City's consent. However, iF the proponent is trusted, it gives the City some measure of protection. Mr. Hughes added that the proponent is anxious to proceed with the lot division and would probably be glad to return the easements to us if that was made a condition for approval. Gordon Johnson then suggested that a clause be added whereby the City must be notified if any changes are made in the cross easements at any time. John Palmer asked whether the City could control the content of the cross easements, Mr. Hughes explained that the City could not control the easements per se. However, we could insure that there are cross easements and a joint use of all of the property. Perhaps we could require that if that element of their agreement changes Staff would want to review it. Len Fernelius stated that he felt the City should not get involved in private agreements. Gordon Johnson stated that Mr. Fernelius might have a point, however he pointed out that unless the City is notified that the private agreement is going to be modified, then why have one in the first place. Gordon Hughes stated that the intent of the Ordinance in subdivisions such as this is 'that there will be relatively equal sized properties created for each unit. The City is always concerned whenever a disproportionate division is proposed. Gordon Johnson moved for approval of the lot division with the following conditions: 1. That the cross easements be placed of record. 2. That the City be provided with a copy of the recorded documents. 3. That the document contain language that if the easements are to be withdrawn or modified, the City will be notified. John Palmer seconded the motion. John Skagerberg, Leonard Rina, Mary McDonald, Helen McClelland, Del Johnson, David Runyan, Gordon Johnson and John Palmer voted aye. Len Fernelius voted nay; the motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: An Amendment to the C-1 Section of the Zoning Ordinance to Permit Amusement Machines. Mr. Hughes explained to the Commission that the Zoning Ordinance presently permits "amusement and recreation establishments such as commer- cial bowling alleys, pool halls, swimming pools, and skating rinks" in the • Community Development and Planning Commission March 31, 1982 Page 3 C-2 and C-3 Commercial Districts. Based on this ordinance, the City has limited amusement machines such as pin ball machines and video games to establishments in the C-2 and C-3 zones. On March 15, 1982, the City Council received a letter from the owner of a restaurant in one of the C-1 zones. Apparently, this restaurant was erroneously granted licenses for amusement machines several years ago. Upon discovering this error, Staff informed the owner that the licenses would not be renewed after their expiration. In response to the owner's concerns, the City Council asked the Commission to recommend and report on the desirability of permitting amusement machines in the C-1 district. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the C-1 districts include the 44th and France, Valley View and Wooddale, and Cahill and 70th shopping districts. The 50th and France commercial area and the Grandview area are zoned C-2. The Southdale area is generally zoned C-3. Mr. Hughes further explained that from a land use and zoning perspective, Staff can see no reason for the C-1 district to be distinguished from the C-2 and C-3 districts regarding amusement machines. Staff however, does believe that amusement "arcades" should be limited'to the C-3 zones. Therefore, the following changes to the Zoning Ordinance are recommended. 1) "Amusement Machine" should be defined as follows: A machine or electronic contrivance, including "pinball" machines, mechanical minature pool tables, bowling machines, shuffle boards, electric rifle or gun ranges, minature mechanical and electronic devices and games or amusements patterned after baseball, basketball, hockey and similar games and like devices, machines or games which may be played solely for amusement and not as a ga►r.`31ing device and which devices or games are played by the insertion of a coin or coins or at a fee fixed and charged by the establishment in which such devices or machines are located, and which contain automatic payoff devices for the return of money, coins, merchandise, checks, tokens or any other thing or item of value; provided, however, that such machine may be equipped to permit a free play or game; the term does not include coin-operated music machines. 2) "Amusement Arcade" should be defined as follows: An establishment devoted principally to the operation of amusement machines, or any establishment or portion thereof containing seven or more amusement machines. 3) "Amusement Machines" should be an allowed accessory use in the C-1 and C-2 districts. 4) The allowed principal use in the C-2 district relating to amusement establishments should be revised as follows: "Amusement and recreation establishments including, but not limited to commercial bowling alleys, pool halls, swimming pools, and skating rinks, but excluding amusement arcades." Community Development and Planning Commission March 31, 1982 Page 4 . 5) The following principal use should be added to the C-3 district: "Amusement Arcades" In addition to the above changes to the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Hughes stated that the City will probably adopt licensing provisions which will limit the number of amusement machines per establishment. Responding to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Hughes explained that presently there is only one arcade located in the C-2 district; the Biltmore Bowl has 13 machines. With the limitation of arcades to only the C-3 zones, the Biltmore Bowl would be treated as a non -conforming use. They could continue to exist, however could not add any more machines. Gordon Johnson asked if there was any record of a policing problem with kids congregating at machines. Mr. Hughes explained that Staff had worked very closely with the Police Department in developing the proposed draft for the Amendment. The Police Department's experience has been that they prefer to limit the machines as much as possible. They agree with limiting the arcade type establishment to the C-3 zone, and have sug- gested limiting the number of machines allowed as an accessory use in the C-1 and C-2 zones to six. Helen McClelland stated that she felt this issue is basically a Council matter, adding that there are many questions raised with respect to licensing. Will there be an age limit for users of the machines? Will there be a specific time set aside for use of the machines (not before 3:00 p.m.)? Mr. Hughes explained that there is a licensing ordinance on the books right now for machines such as this that has that sort of language in it. He added that Staff would suggest that changes to that licensing section be considered at the same time as the amendment to the zoning ordinance. How- ever, the intent is not to tighten up the licensing requirements, and the police are not overly concerned about the age and hour issue which has not been raised to the Council. Ms. McClelland stated that the amendment will open the issue up by allowing up to 6 machines in an establishment. She stressed concern about how the establishments will be controlled. Responding to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Hughes said that Rigotto's Pizza at Wooddale and Valley View is requesting the amendment to the ordinance. They have several machines which have erroneously been licensed for several years. Mr. Hughes explained to the Commission that the Planning Staff is attempting to stay away from a licensing approach (leaving that to the Police Department), and consider this item strictly from a land use and zoning approach. Staff could no distinguish why the amusement machines should be allowed in C-2, but not in C-1 from the planning and use standpoint. Mr. Hughes then advised the Commission that if they felt the machines were inappropriate for the C-1 zone, then that recommendation should be made to Council. Community Development and Planning Comiilission March 31, 1982 Page 5 Discussion ensued among the Commission with regard to the use of the term "accessory use". John Skagerberg stated that the machines are so costly and bring in such a large amount of money that more than one machine would serve more than an accessory function. Helen McClelland agreed with Mr. Skagerberg stating that it could reach the point where the selling of pizza could become accessory to the machines. She added that this is a community question that is beyond the Planning Commission's expertice, and should be handled by the City Council. Mary McDonald stated that she felt the amendment was a band-aid solution to the issue of amusement machines, noting concern that many problems could arise in the future. Gordon Johnson stated that he had no trouble with the differentiation of zones, but felt that the C-1 district should be limited to only one machine and the C-2 and C-3 zones remain unlimited. Following a brief discussion, John Skagerberg moved to recommend a maximum of one machine in the C-1 zone, up to 6 machines in the C-2 zone and an unlimited number of machines in the C-3 zone. Leonard Fernelius seconded the motion. Gordon Johnson, David Runyan, Del Johnson, John Palmer, Leonard Ring, John Skagerberg and Len Fernelius voted aye. Helen McClelland and Mary McDonald voted nay; the motion carried. Mrs. McClelland explained that she voted nay because feels that this is a community question, and the Council should deal with the licensing issue before the zoning issue is considered. LD -81-17 Lot 7, Block 1, The Habitat, Generally located north of Vernon Avenue and east of Lincoln Drive. Gordon Johnson stated that he would abstain from participating on this issue. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the proponent is requesting a party wall division for a recently completed two family dwelling. Separate utilities are provided and Staff would recommend approval. Mary McDonald moved for approval of the lot division. John Palmer seconded the motion. All voted aye with the exception of Gordon Johnson who abstained; the motion carried. LD -82-4 Parts of Block 23, Mendelssohn, Generally located north of Waterman Avenue and west of Interlachen Country Club. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the proponent, Interlachen Country Club, presently owns Parcels B and D. Portions of the Club's Community Development and Planning Commission March 31, 1982 Page 6 tennis courts are located on Parcel D. Mr. Frank Turinia owns Parcels A and C. Mr. Turinia's house is located on Parcel A and fronts on Waterman Avenue. Apparently, Mr. Turinia's garage was inadvertently constructed on Parcel B some years ago. In order to resolve this problem, the Club proposes to convey Parcel B to Mr. Turinia and Mr. Turinia will convey Parcel C to the Club. Mr. Hughes stated that the proposed land exchange appears to be a good solution to the problem. As a result of this exchange, however, two problems are created relative to the Zoning Ordinance. These .problems are caused by the ordinance's 50 foot setback requirement for all paved and fenced areas which are accessory to recreational facilities. The first problem is associated with the tennis courts on Parcel D. These courts presently comply with the 50 foot setback requirement. However, they will not maintain a 50 foot setback from the new westerly lot line of the Club following the land exchange. Secondly, Parcel C measures 84 feet by 90 feet. Therefore, this parcel is totaly encumbered by the ordinance's set- back requirements. Relative to the first problem, Mr. Turinia's house is not moving closer to the tennis courts, only hi-; lot line. Therefore, the intent of the ordin- ance is obviously being met. However, this intent could be violated by a future addition to the dwelling. Therefore, Staff would recommend that a subdivision variance be granted allowing the proposed division with the condition that no additional living space can be constructed on Parcel B within 50 feet of the existing tennis courts. With reference to the second problem, Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Club is not now proposing a specific use for Parcel C. He added that Parcel C cannot be improved with any structures including paved and fenced areas and thus is basically limited to landscaping and other passive uses. The Commission and Council may wish to' require a Conservation Restriction to. insure such passive uses. Mr. Hughes conc!uded by noting that Staff would recommend approval of the lot division and subdivision variance. John Palmer stated that he felt the solution proposed by Staff was a good one and moved for approval of the lot division and subdivision variance with the suggested condition. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Z-82-2 M.H. Haymaker. R-1 Single Family Residence District to PRD --3 Planned Residential District. Generally located in the Southwest quadrant of Summit Avenue and I nter- lachen Boulevard. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that although the proponent had not yet arrived, he would proceed with this item. He then explained that the subject property measures approximately one half acre in area and is zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling District. This property is presently developed with one single family dwelling. The property 0 Community Development and Planning Commission March 31, 1982 Page 7 abuts single family dwellings to the south and west. Across the street to the east is a service station which is presently being remodeled into an oil change and lubrication service. Across the street to the north is a 17 unit apartment building. Mr. Hughes said that the proponent is requesting a rezoning to PRD -3 to facilitate the construction of a five unit townhouse project. The existing single family dwelling would be removed. Each unit would include two tuck under garage stalls. Three visitor stalls would also be provided on the site. All access would come from Summit Avenue which is presently one way south- bound. The proposed project would require several variances from the Zoning Ordinance. The PRD section requires 35 foot setbacks for buildings from allproperty lines. Thirty foot setbacks from Summit and Interlachen and 25 foot and 15 foot setbacks from the south and west property lines respec- tively are proposed. In addition, a variance from the 10 foot parking and drive aisle setback requirement along the south property line would be required. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan designates this site, the lots immediately to the south, and the service station to the east for mixed uses. The Plan envisions the vacation of Summit Avenue and the redevelopment of the previously mentioned parcels with an office/multiple residential or commercial/multiple residential use. The recent approvals for converting the service station to an oil change establishment with other retail uses apparently precludes the realization of this objective. Therefore, it must be determined whether the proponent's plans represent a reasonable alternative to the original objective. Staff believes that the proposed rezoning responds to the intent of the Comprehensive Pian of providing medium density residential housing in close proximity to the City's commercial districts. Staff believes that the mass of the proposed buildings is generally consistent with the surroundings and appears to fit confortably on the site. Staff also believes that the building setback variances are warranted in that they approximate the single family dwelling setbacks in the area. Mr. Hughes explained that Staff would recommend some relatively minor modifications to the preliminary plans. First, the setback of the driveway on the south side should be increased to at least five feet to permit proper landscaping. Secondly, the grade on the east and north sides should be increased to lower the perceived heights of the structures. At present, they appear somewhat out of scale with surrounding building heights. With these modifications, Staff would recommend preliminary rezoning approval. It is understood that final approval will be conditioned on an acceptable overall development plan and a subdivision. The Commission raised questions regarding the elevation of the buildings and the proposed grading of the site. Mr. Hughes stated that he assumed that the elevation of the lot will be decreased substantially. No grades are required at this stage. Community Development and Planning Commission March 31, 1982 Page 8 Len Fernelius stated that there appeared to be slot of building on a small site; adding that he would prefer to see 4 units on the site instead of 5. Marvin Huiras, 5025 Hankerson Avenue asked if the site were regraded, whether a retaining wall would be constsructed along the west property line to protect the rear yards for the people on Hankerson. Chairman Lewis stated that questions like that cannot be answered without the presence of the proponent. Mr. Hughes advised the neighbors that this stage of the rezoning does not call for detailed plans of the development. Those are required at a later stage of the planning process. Helen McClelland stated that she felt there were too many unanswered questions that the proponent should answer to proceed with this item. She then moved for continuance for one month. Gordon Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. IV. NEXT MEETING ©ATE: April 28, 1982 V. ADJOURNMENT: 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C Joyce G. Repya, Planning Secretary