HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 05-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Bill Lewis, David Runyan, Helen McClelland, John
Bailey, Phil Sked, Virginia Shaw, Len Ring, John Palmer
and John Skagerberg
STAFF PRESENT:
Gordon Hughes, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner
Harold Sand, Assistant Planner
Linda Elsen, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 2, 1984
Mr. Palmer moved for approval to the minutes noting upon
Staff's suggestion the addition that Gordon Johnson abstained
regarding LD -84-8; Lot 4, Block 1, The Habitat. Mr. Skagerberg
seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried. The
minutes were approved.
II NEW BUSINESS:
S-84-7 Indian Hills 2nd Addition.
z-84-1 R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to
R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District
Mr. Hughes reported that the subject property measures
4.5 acres in area and is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit
District. The property is now part of the Crossview Lutheran
Church site which encompasses about 14 acres. The proponent
requests the subdivision of the property into ten lots and the
rezoning of the lots to R-2, Double Dwelling Unit District. Nine
of these lots would face McCauley Trail. The tenth is landlocked
and presumably unbuildable. The nine proposed lots ranee in area
from 15,050 square feet to 19,976 square feet. Staff finds four
of the nine lots slightly below the 90 foot minimum lot width
requirement and the other five exactly 90 feet.
Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that a major
constraint to the development of this property is the presence of
a wetland. This wetland has been classified as a "public water"
by the State, and therefore, filling or alteration of this
wetland is restricted and subject to the grant of a permit from
the Deparment of Natural Resources. The proposed development
will necessitate additional filling and it appears that the
grading plan which has been submitted can be accomplished within
the D.N.R.'s parameters. The proposed development appears
feasible from a wetland's standpoint.
The subject property is presently designated "quasi -
public" by the Comprehensive Plan in that it is part of a church
site. If the project is approved, the Plan should be amended to
designate this property as "low density attached". Other
properties which front on McCauley Trail are presently designated
low density. Staff believes such a amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan is logical and recommends the rezoning to R-2.
However, Mr. Hughes stated some modifications to the
subdivision are in order. Staff suggests the elimination of at
least one lot which would increase the average lot width
requirements to an average of 100 feet. The wetland on the site
precludes full utilization of the depth of these lots and, thus,
an adequate lot width is even more important. If the subdivision
included only seven R-2 lots, the average width would be about
115 feet and would better accommodate the type of double
bungelows built in this area.
Lot 10 of the proposed subdivision is unbuildable due to
lack of access and the presence of the wetland. He recommended
that Lot 10 be eliminated and its area incorporated into the
remaining lots.
Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission and those in
attendance that a conditional use permit would be required for
future expansion of any type on the property remaining in church
ownership. Also, the church property is, in essence, part of
this subdivision and, therefore, should be subject to normal
platting requirements. The church building is not now connected
to sanitary sewer. Such a sewer will be extended to serve the R-
2 lots. Plat approval should be conditioned upon connection to
this sewer.
South of the church building is large tract of land
containing one dwelling. This property will likely be developed
in future years. Staff recommends the westerly 34 feet of the
church property be subject to a public road easement which when
combined with a 16 foot strip of land adjoining the west side of
the church property would create a feasible street right of way
for future use.
Based on Staff's proposed modifications, approval was
recommended with the following conditions:
1. Subdivision dedication.
2. Developer's Agreement which includes the extension of
sanitary sewer mains and the extension of a storm sewer.
3. Conservation Restriction covering the wetland area.
During the course of construction, a snow fence erected to
delineate the limits of grading is recommended.
4. Grant of easements to facilitate storm sewer
extensions.
5. Grant of a D.N.R. permit.
6. Petition to install permanent street surfacing and
curb and gutter on McCauley Trail West abutting the R-2 lots.
Mr. Jeff Gustafson and Mr. Greg Gustafson, proponents,
presented a revised subdivision proposal which illustrated eight
lots and the division of the unbuildable Lot 10 of the previous
proposal plus a small triangular piece of land as an outlot.
They assured the Commission that they were request no variances
on these parcels.
Mrs. McClelland wondered if the proposed plans should be
submitted to the Watershed District for review before the
Planning Commission. Mr. Hughes explained that the wetland was
classified as public water instead of a floodplain and,
therefore, would be under the jurisdiction of the D.N.R. not the
Watershed. Greg Gustafson stated that D.N.R. required them to
approach the Planning Commission first.
Mrs. McClelland was concerned that the doubles would be
too,much structure for the lots because of their setback
requirements.
Greg Gustafson stated that doubles were the most
practical proposal for the property. Fill would be necessary in
order to comply with the setback requirements. The doubles would
be smaller than the neighboring doubles in order to be level with
the Crosstown Highway for appearance purposes. He noted that in
response to Staff's recommendation for road access on the
westerly side of the property, the Church would have to be
consulted.
Frank Matthews, 6400 Timber Ridge, expressed his approval
of the development subject to the larger width recommendation.
He pointed out a drainage problem on the easterly end of the
proposed subdivision.
Jeff Gustafson reported that in consulting the D.N.R. a
ponding system has been recommended. He used visual aids to
illustrate where three ponds with controlled gates would be
located for the water which eventually drains into Arrowhead
Lake. The ponding would encourage wildlife habitat.
Greg Gustafson addressed the lift station and sewer
connection issue stating that the funds received from the sale of
the proposed lots was intended for church expansion to the east.
Plans for the installation of a lift station had already been
discussed.
Woody Cater, 6316 Post Lane, stated that his objection
was not in regards to the development, instead he objected to the
90 or 100 foot lot width. He believed that there was a setback
problem and commented that he would like to see homes similar in
quality to Ron Clark's development on Gleason Court. Greg
Gustafson said although the homes they were proposing to
construct were to be smaller; they would not be of lesser,
quality. The sale of eight lots was necessary in order to cover
the large cost of soil correction in order to make the homes fit
within the setback requirements.
Mrs. McClelland supported only six or seven lots and Mr.
Lewis agreed.
Mr. Palmer agreed with Staff's recommendation of seven
lots. He moved for approval subject to all of Staff's
recommendations and Mrs. Shaw seconded the motion. All were in
favor; Mrs. McClellend obstained. The motion carried.
S-84-8 Blake Woods. Generally located east of Dearborn
Street and north Belmore Lane.
Mr. Hughes indicated that the subject property measures
52,500 square feet in area and is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit
District. The property is composed of three, existing R-1 lots
which each measure 100 feet by 175 feet. These lots front on the
unimproved northerly extension of Dearborn Street. The
unimproved Spruce Road right of way adjoins the northerly
boundary of the property.
The proponent requests a replatting of the existing three
lots into four new lots which would be arranged around a new cul
de sac on Dearborn. This cul de sac would be located opposite
the westerly extension of Dearborn Street as proposed by the plat
of Miller Addition which was approved by the Comission on May 2,
1984. If the proposed cul de sacs were constructed as shown the
northerly 100+ feet of the Dearborn right of way, as well as the
Spruce Road right of way, could be vacated and incorporated into
the proposed lots. The applicant also proposes to vacate the
alley adjoining the east boundary of the property and likewise
incorporate it into the proposed lots.
Mr. Hughes reported that the proposed replatting depends
on access to Miller Addition which relied upon the acquisition of
right of way across lots on the Westside of Dearborn which were
not owned by Millers. The City Council considered Miller
Addition on May 21, 1984 and continued it until June 4, in order
to consider the relationship between Miller Addition and the
subject subdivision.
Staff believes that if thiaiaccess is acquired, the
proposed plat of Blake Woods, including the proposed right of way
vacations, represents a reasonable replatting of the property and
should be approved and that Miller Addition and Blake Woods
represent the best approach from a planning standpoint.
However, if access to the Miller addition is not
acquired, some modifications to Blake Woods are needed. The
existing access to Miller's property via Dearborn Street and
Spruce Road must be preserved and therefore, no right of way
should be vacated. If the City decides to improve Dearborn and
Spruce to provide access for Miller, Staff believes that no cul
de sac should be platted in Blake Woods, and instead the subject
property should simply be replatted into four rectangular lots
which front on Dearborn.
He also mentioned as an alternative, access to Miller's
from Harrison Avenue, to the West, was a possibility. If
accomplished, Blake Woods could be replatted as now proposed
which the cul de sac relocated somewhat westerly.
The sanitary sewer is not readily available to this
property. A main will have to be extended from either the
westerly boundary of the Miller property to the west or from
Arthur Street to the east. The extension from the west appears
most feasible, but it again would require an easement from the
lots west of Dearborn.
Mr. Hughes reiterates its support from the proposed
replat subject to the resolution of the access issues described
above. If approved, Staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Subdivision Dedication.
2. Developer's Agreement which includes the extension of
sanitary sewer and the looping of water mains.
3. Vacation of the rights of way as shown on the plat.
4. Submission of grading plan for the lots prior to
preliminary approval by the Council.
5. A minor redesign of the proposed cul de sac to reduce
its radius.
Mr. Runyan asked if the cul de sac was allowed enough
room for firetrucks to manuver. Mr. Hughes stated that it was a
fairly standard size cul de sac. Mr. Runyan approved of the plan
as well as Mrs. Shaw.
Mrs. McClelland moved for approval subject to Staff's
recommendations and Mr. Sked seconded the motion. All were in
favor. The motion carried.
C-84-1 Southdale Library & Service Center.
Expansion of Off -Street Parking Facility.
7001 York Avenue
Mr. Hughes noted that Hennepin County proposed to
undertake a removation of portion of Southdale Library to
accommodate new munipal court facilities. These facilities will
occupy that portion of the library now used for offices for
Library Administrative and Technical Services which will
apparently be relocated to Ridgedale Library. The municipal
court facility will include three court rooms and staff offices.
The proposed renovation will be complete internal and will not
result in the expansion of the building's floor area.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, 10 parking spaces plus
one space per 300 square feet are required for library uses and
one space per 200 square feet is required for offices and
courtrooms. Based upon our review of the plan, we calculate a
parking requirement of 360 spaces. The present parking lot
provides 360 spaces. Therefore, no additional spaces need be
constructed in connection with the renovation to comply with the
Zoning Ordinance. However, the applicant has conducted
additional studies and proposes to expand portions of the parking
lot southerly and easterly to provide approximately 70 additional
spaces.
The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit
District. Civic institutions such as this, are considered a
conditional use in R-1 District and a conditional use permit is
required in order to enlarge the parking area.
Mr. Hughes stated that Staff believes that the applicant
has conducted detailed studies to justify the parking needs of
the facility and recommended approval.
Francis Bulbulian, architect for the applicant, presented
detailed plans and was available to answer questions.
Mrs. McClelland moved for approval and Mr. Skagerberg
seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
LD -84-9 Baglien
Lot 4, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition
Mr. Hughes explained the applicant requests a party -wall
division of an existing two-family dwelling. Individual
utilities are provided. Approval is recommended.
Mr. Skagerberg recommended approval and Mr. Sked seconded
the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
LD -84-10 Grinnell/Walser
Lot 30, Colonial Grove 2nd Addn.
East of Brookview and south of 56th Street.
v
Mr. Hughes stated the applicant, who resides at 5615
Brookview, proposes to acquire a three foot wide strip of
property from his neighbor to the south to facilitate
construction of an adddition which will conform with setback
requirements. The lot and dwelling to the south will continue to
conform with zoning requirements. Approval is recommended.
Mr. Sked moved for approval and Mrs. McClelland seconded
the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
LD -84-11 Hepp
Lot 11, Block 5, Parkwood Knolls
Mr. Hughes reported that the proponent is requesting the
division of Lot 11, Block 5, Parkwood Knolls for the purpose of
conveying a portion of his lot to the owner of Lot 12. A portion
of the swimming pool and dog kennel on Lot 12 was apparently
constructed across the common lot line with Lot 11 several years
ago. The proposed division represents the resolution of an
adverse possession claim by the owner of Lot 12. Setback
requirements for the home on Lot 11 continue to be met after the
division.
The proposed division appears to remedy the encroachment
problem caused by the swimming pool and, therefore, Staff
recommends approval. It should be noted that the Ordinances
require a 20 foot setback for the dog kennel. The proposed
division provides a 6 foot setback. Thus, if total compliance
with all Ordinances is desired, the relocation of the kennel may
be desirable.
Mrs. McClelland moved for approval and Mr. Sked seconded
the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
GRANDVIEW AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Mr. Craig Larsen presented the proposed Grandview Area
Redevelopment Plan and the Grandview Redevelopment Project Number
One to the Commission. Together the Plan and Project serve as
the basis for the establishment of a Tax Increment Financing
Project for the Grandview Area.
In order to meet the statutory requirements for the
v
establishment of a new tax increment district two separate
documents are needed. First the Redevelopment plan describes
existing conditions, documents problems in the area and
recommends certain redevelopment activities to correct problems
and achieve goals and objectives established for the area.
Second the Redevelopment Project serves as the finance plan for
redevelopment activities. It estimates the public cost of the
project, the method of financing the cost, and the tax increment
expected to repay the tax increment bonds.
Mr. Larsen summarized the Redevelopment Plan by
describing existing problems in the Plan Area. The Plan points
out a substantial quantity of substandard buildings, non-
conforming buildings and land uses, obsolete uses, and under
utilized properties. The arrangement of public parking, and the
inadequate amount of parking in the commercial core of the area
are also identified in the Plan. In addition traffic and
circulation problems set forth in the "Grandview Area Traffic
Study," prepared by BRW, Inc. are incorporated into the Plan.
Based upon these problems the Redevelopment Plan concludes that
certain redevelopment activities are warranted. Among the goals
and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan are:
1. Promote development and redevelopment in a manner
consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. To improve the efficiency of the street and roadway
system through the implementation of the road improvements
recommended in the "Grandview Area Traffic Study."
3. To promote the secure additional public parking in
the area.
4. To promote and secure the redevelopment of parcels
with substandard and non -conforming buildings to more clearly
define land uses and provide a more efficient utilization of
properties.
The Redevelopment Plan also emphsizes improving the
aesthetics and definition of the area through increased
buffering, especially landscaping.
Mr. Larsen reported that the Redevelopment Project No. 1
anticipates a total public redevelopment cost of approximately
$4,500,000. This cost would be paid by the issuance of General
obligation Tax Increment bonds and through special assessments
against benefitting properties. The bonds would be amoritized
over 25 years.
The public costs include the roadway improvements to
Vernon Avenue and the construction of 400 stall, four level
parking ramp on the site now housing City storage facilities.
Expected private redevelopment includes the redevelopment of the
Biltmore Motel with condominiums, increased retail and office
space near the Jerry's complex, redevelopment of three single-
family houses on Summit Avenue with eight townhouse units, and
the redevelopment of the area containing the Biltmore Bowl, Jerry
Leonards and a small office building with the additional offices.
Later phases of the project would concentrate redevelopment
activities in the industrial area south of Eden Avenue.
The Redevelopment is proposed to be undertaken in two or
more phases. Phase I of the project would involve the following
public costs:
1. Demolition of existing City storage buildings and the
construction of a two level parking ramp (approximately
200 spaces).
2. Road improvements to the area referred to as Issue
Area 1 in the Traffic Study, i.e. the Sherwood, Eden,
Vernon intersection and Link Road.
3. Construction of a major new intersection serving
Jerrys, 1st Bank and Union 76, including access to the
parking ramp.
Mr. Larsen indicated that the total public cost of the
Phase I project would be approximately $2,556,000. Twenty -
percent of the cost is proposed to be specially assessed leaving
a cost of $2,150,000 for which bonds would be sold. The bond
issue would be amortized over a period of 25 years with the tax
increment provided by redevelopment and a general inflation
increment on the 51 parcels in the district.
He explained that in order to proceed with the
Redevelopment Plan and Project it is necessary that the H.R.A.
adopt the Plan and Project and that the Commission and City
Council approve the Plan and Project.
Mrs. McClelland expressed concerns regarding the
intersection at Link Road. Discussion ensued as to the roadways
and the possible dollar amount of work to be done.
Mr. Runyan moved for approval of the concept of the
proposed Grandview Redevelopment Plan and Grandview Redevelopment
Project Number One. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. All were in
favor; the motion carried.
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS BY, AND RESOLUTIONS OF,
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF EDINA
MINNESOTA, RELATIVE TO AND APPROVING
GRANDVIEW AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND GRANDVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
DATED MAY 30, 1984
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
Edina, Minnesota (the "Authority"), has prepared a redevelopment
plan for the Grandview area of Edina Minnesota entitled "The
Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan" dated May 30, 1984, (the
"Plan"), for a project to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan and
designated as Grandview Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Plan and Project was duly transmitted by the
Authority to the Community Development and Planning Commission of
the City of Edina, Minnesota, (the "Planning Commission") being
duly designated and acting official planning agency of the Edina,
for its study and with a request for its written opinion thereon;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission does hereby
resolve, find and determine:
1. That the Plan provides an outline for the development
and redevelopment of the area within the Project, is sufficiently
complete to indicate the relationship of the Plan to the
objectives of the City of Edina as to appropriate land uses
within the Project and to indicate the general land uses and
general standards of development or redevelopment within the
Project, and that the Plan and Project conform to the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
2. That the Commission
Project and recommends approval
Authority and the City Council.
approves of the Plan and The
and adoption thereof by the