1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1958 - 1974
10/14/2014 11:20:49 AM
12/23/2013 11:48:54 AM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
1N <br />4/15/74. <br />one year, feeling; :that the matter deserved more consideration. He spoke of <br />his appreciation that Mr. Krahl was willing to delay removal of the tree <br />cover on his property until after this hearing. Councilman Shaw reiterated <br />that he had no preconceived.opinion before this hearing. In response to a <br />question of Mr. C. J. Bodine' 6141 Arctic Way, Mr. Gittleman agreed that fewer <br />housing units would cause less change in the character of the hill, but that <br />economics dictated the number of units proposed for the site. In response_ <br />to a question of Mr. Roy The_rnell, 6139 Arctic Way, Mr. Gittleman identified <br />the"high point" of the hill. Mr. L. A. Demee, 6116 Arctic Way, pointed out <br />that people who would be buying lots in Mr. Krahl's plat would be planting <br />trees to replace some of the trees that were removed. Mr. Darrell Stark, 5924 <br />Walnut Drive and Mr. E. H. Crow, 6113 Arctic Way, also spoke in opposition to <br />the proposal. Speaking in favor of Mr. Gittleman's proposal were Mr. Karl F. <br />Diessner, 6300 South Knoll Drive, Mr. George Sedgwick, 5809 Schaefer Road and <br />a resident of Scriver Road who all indicated that they would like to live in <br />such a development when they sell their present homes in Edina. Mrs. Virginia <br />Scott, 6613 Southcrest Drive, recalled the apartment that Council had already <br />approved at 66th and France Ave, Councilman Johnson said that he is not con- <br />vinced that either Mr. Krahl's single family plat or Mr. Gittleman's proposal <br />is best and that there should be some better plan for the property: He <br />recalled that in July, 1973, Council had turned down a PRD rezoning for the <br />following reasons 1) the density was too great; 2) traffic problems in the <br />jv area would be aggrevated; 3) land coverage is too great for such a unique <br />Q site. Councilman Johnson said that he believes that the first two reasons are <br />t�0 still as applicable at this time as last July and then moved that the petition <br />for PRD -3 zoning be denied:. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. In <br />response to a question of Councilman Courtney, City Attorney Erickson clarified <br />W that the property would remain R-1-and recalled that Mr. Krahl's plat has <br />received preliminary approval. On r6l1da l:, -.' the e 'were• four.- ayes�-w th 'Conricil- <br />�i �i�o <br />man 'Q9uxfney�vptiag- t1Aay?1 and 7the.:aoniiig kegiidst: i a :n� n 'FiAhr <br />.ddplored,that� the hitll,won for single family dwellings and urged that <br />the property be purchased under the Protective Open Space Plan so that the <br />hill could be saved. Mayor Van Valkenburg clarified that grades for the site and <br />plans for tree removal must be approved by the City. Mr. Krahl protested that <br />the Tree Ordinance would be retroactive as far as his plat is concerned and said <br />that if he had not been held up for this hearing, the trees would have.already <br />been cut down. An unidentified lady in the audience objected that they had been- <br />unable to sell their property because people were unsure as to what would be <br />going into the open space. Mr. Pieczentkowski was told by Mr. Erickson that <br />the zoning of the property could not be brought to hearing again for one year <br />after the date of a denial. <br />ORDINANCE'NO. 811 -A51 GRANTED FIRST READING. Affidavits of Notice were pre- <br />sented by Clerk,`approved as to .form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Luce pre- <br />sented the petition of Lewis Engineering Company for Planned Industrial Disfr! <br />Zoning for Lot 1, Block 1, Edenmoor Addition, located at 5229 Eden Avenue. He <br />advised that this property, if rezoned as recommended by the Planning Commission, <br />would be zoned in conformity of adacent properties. No objections being heard, <br />Councilman Johnson offered Ordinance No. 811 -A51 for First Reading as follows: <br />ORDINANCE NO. 811 -A51 <br />AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (N0. 811) <br />BY ADDING TO THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT <br />THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: <br />Section 1. Paragraph 2 of Section 10 of Ordinance 811 of the City,is <br />amended by adding the following thereto: <br />- "The extent of the Planned Industrial District is enlarged by the addi- <br />tion of the following property: <br />Lot 1, Block 1, Edenmoor Addition." <br />Sec. 2 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its <br />passage and publication. <br />METRAM PROPERTIES REZONING CONTINUED TO MAY 20, 1974. Affidavits of Notice were <br />presented -by.-Clerk-, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Luce <br />presented the request of Metram Properties for zoning change from R -1 Single <br />Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District for property located <br />South of W. 70th Street, East of Nine Mile Creek and Adjacent to the T.H.. *400 ' <br />West Frontage Road.- Mr :.Luce advised that the proposal of a 60 unit multiple <br />bdilding with less than 12 units per acre is proposed to be constructed and that <br />a 100 foot setback - from'N ne'Mile Creek'-,be made, to providd.9. 50 foot dedication <br />along the creek -and a 50 foot.drainage easement. Mayor Van Valkenburg questioned <br />the setback along the creek and was told by Mr. Luce that the property immediately <br />across the street also has a similar situation. Mr. James Merrell, 5024 W. 70th <br />b e <br />Street, requested that the road be moved further South, stating that all of the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.