Laserfiche WebLink
3/18/74 <br />than Ordinance 811-A28, Mr. Erickson said that Ordinance 811-A28 is an amend- <br />ment which is a part of the total ordinance and that the notice was proper for <br />the purpose of this Hearing. Mr. Erickson recalled that.this meeting is the <br />result of Mr. Krahl's saying that he was going to cut down the'trees and the <br />sole purpose of the original meeting and this Hearing is to try to arrive at <br />some way to prevent that. <br />nition of a state of facts that required more prompt action than had origin- <br />ally been contemplated. He said that if this Hearing had not been moved up, <br />the trees would already be cut down and-that the trees are the great concern <br />of all parties. <br />stopped cutting his trees. Mr. Gittleman was told by Mr. Erickson that his <br />only pxesentation should be as it affeqts the land and its surrounding area. <br />' Erickson rec-alled that the Frontage Road and the cul-de-sac at Vernon Avenue <br />and Walnut Drive were not mentioned previously when.the hill was studied and <br />could be considered, a "change of condition". <br />cul-de-sac on Vernon Avenue or a road on the Sauth side of the hill would be <br />inconsisteqt with his proposal. <br />feet would have to be removed from the top of the hill for single family devel- <br />opment. Mr. Gittleman then submitted a petition for change of zoning which he <br />said was signed by himself and by Mr. Krahl to, demonstrate that he is before <br />Council "with standiqg an4 in good faith to proceed on this property if we can <br />keep things in status quo". <br />mitted to the Planning Commission rather than to Council. <br />advised Council previously that a petition to rezone must be by the owner or <br />owners of the property and that if Mr. Krahl is an owner of the property, he <br />will have to prove the fact at the time he offers the petition for rezoning. <br />He further recalled giving his opinion to Mr, Gittleman that even though Mr. <br />Gittlemanbad a purchase agreement, he was not an owner for purposes. of rezon- <br />ing. Mr. Erickson said that Mr. Krahl must show his interest in the property <br />to the Planner at the time that the petition is submitted if it is allowed by <br />the Council. Mr. Hyde added that at the January 21, 1974, meeting, the trees <br />were still there and that the real new evidence is that some of the trees have <br />been cut down. Mk. James Hirsch, 6805 Point Drive, President of the Homeowners' <br />Association, sazd that he had not heard anything at this meeting but a "specula- <br />tive*' change of condition. Following considerable discussion, Councilman Shaw <br />said that he believes that the cutting of the trees, the apparent consent of <br />Hennepin County to have a frontage road along the Crosstown Highway from Gleason <br />Road to Vernon Avenue across the South side of the hill, and the potential cons- <br />tructipn of a cul-de-sac on Vernon Avenue West of Walnut Drive are sufficient new <br />evidence to-permit the request for rezoning to be heard within the one year <br />period after the July, 1973, denial of the zoning application. He-then moved that <br />the Petition to Rehear tFie Petition for Rezoning Kag1:XrahL Pr6perty wifhin one year be <br />approved. <br />damage to the trees and of the damage to the land which would be caused by single <br />family development and on rollcall there were three ayes and no nays and the <br />motion was carried. <br />now petition the Planning Department for rezoning. <br />He clarified that this meeting is merely the recog- <br />Mr. Krahl' said that it was at the request of the City that he <br />D Mr. <br />Mr. Gittleman said that neither a <br />He also mentioned that approximately forty <br />Mr. Erickson said that the petition should be sub- <br />He recalled having <br />I . <br />The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt on the bases of the <br />City Attorney Erickson then clarified that the owners may <br />GRANDVIEW LIQUOR STORE; REMODELING CONTINUED. <br />man Shaw's motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt and carried that award of <br />bids for the Grandview Liquor Store jcemodeling be continued to April 1, 1974.' <br />MIRROR LAKES PLAT #2 CONTINUED TO NEXT MEETING. <br />that necessary easements have not as yet been signed, Councilwoman Schmidt's mot- <br />ion was seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried continuing final plat approval of <br />Mirror Lakes Plat #2 to April 1, 1974. <br />As recommended by Mr, Dalen, Council- <br />Upon being advised by Mr. Luce <br />TRAFFIC SAFETY COHMITTEE MINUTES @PROVED; BICYCU PATH SIGNING REFERRED TO <br />CITIZENS" SAFETY COMMITTEE. <br />Committee Minutes of Febr'uary 27, 1974, had been continued from the Council Meet- <br />ing Of March 4, 1974, so that actfbnsrtaken=b$ the Citizens' Safety Committee <br /> available. Mr. Dunn said that bicycle safety had been discussed at that <br />meeting but that there had been no discussion on.bicycle paths and suggested the <br />possibility of referring the question of bicycle paths to that committee. It was <br />informally'agreed to find out if the Citizens' Safety Committee is in a position <br />to take on the question of bicycle paths. Qouncilwoman Schmidt's motion was then <br />seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried approving the Traffic Safety Committee <br />Minutes of Eeb~aky 27 and March 12, 1974. <br />. Mr. Dunn recalled that the approval of Traffic Safety <br />'I <br />MINNESOTA DEP-NT OF HIGHVAYS UTILITY' RELOCATION AGREEMENT CONTINUED. <br />recogmended by Mr. Hyde, Councilman Shaw's motion was seconded by Councilwoman <br />Schmidt and carried continuing the Utility Relocation Agreement with'the Minnesota <br />Department of Highways to April 1, 1974. <br />As <br />t