Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 15,2007 <br /> exempt properties, the permit process and the proposed surcharges had been clarified and that staff <br /> recommended Council adopt the ordinance as revised. The Council requested that irrigation be <br /> defined during their discussion of the proposed amendment. Staff proposed an acceptable definition <br /> for inclusion in the proposed ordinance. <br /> Member Bennett made a motion granting second reading to Ordinance No. 2007-07 Amending <br /> Subsection 1115.02 of the City Code regarding an irrigation ban including the irrigation definition <br /> and directing staff to have the City's Arborist and the Garden Council prepare written suggestions <br /> that may be distributed to citizens as necessary. Member Swenson seconded the motion. <br /> Rollcall: <br /> Ayes: Bennett,Masica,Swenson,Hovland <br /> Motion carried. <br /> FIRST READING GRANTED TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-08 AMENDING SECTION 850 OF THE <br /> CITY CODE REGARDING SETBACKS AND BUILDING HEIGHT Affidavits of publication were <br /> presented and placed on file. <br /> Planning Director Teague gave a presentation using graphics outlining results of the study done on <br /> "massing" by a Council appointed task force. He noted the City's current code contained a lot <br /> coverage requirement which increased setback for higher buildings, thusly limiting to a degree, <br /> building size. Mr. Teague said the proposed amendment would change building height and building <br /> elevation. It would enact a sliding side-yard setback requirement and would eliminate the ability of <br /> bay windows extending into setbacks. Mr. Teague then reviewed thirteen recently-approved house <br /> plans within the City and applied the proposed ordinance amendment's requirements. He noted that <br /> in nine instances changes would be necessary to comply with the new requirements. The Council <br /> discussed the methodology of measuring height, the possibility of using some form of floor area ratio, <br /> the impact on neighborhoods of numerous renovations and demolitions/reconstructions, impact on <br /> walkout lots under the proposed amendments, how changes in elevations would affect <br /> administration of the requirements and how architectural integrity affected outcomes. <br /> Public Comment <br /> Pam Starkey,5331 Oaklawn Avenue, spoke in support of the proposed amendment. <br /> Jim Grotz, 5513 Park Place, suggested revisions be made before adoption due to impact of height <br /> limit. <br /> Steve Timmer,5348 Oaklawn Avenue, spoke in support of the proposed amendment. <br /> Scott Busyn,5018 Arden Avenue, expressed concern over impact on walkout homes. <br /> Scott Card, 5517 Dever Drive, suggested that maintaining architectural integrity would be more <br /> important than setting specific limits. <br /> Lori Grotz,5513 Park Place, expressed concern over potential impact on walk-out lots. <br /> Craig Ostrem,5837 Ewing Avenue, supported the proposed amendment. <br /> Tom Fletcher,5133 Halifax Avenue, stated architects should be required. <br /> Lon Oberpriller,4517 Rutledge Avenue,expressed concern with amendment as written. <br /> Page 2 <br />