1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1958 - 1974
12/24/2013 8:09:06 AM
12/23/2013 11:48:38 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
MINUTES OF THE REGULARMEETING OF THE <br />EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL HELD AT VILL&E, HALL ON <br />JUNE 4, 1973 <br />Members answering rollcall were Councilmen Courtney, Johnson, Sliaw and Mayor <br />Bredesen, <br />MINUTES of May 7, 1973, were approved as submitted by motion of Councilman Shaw <br />seconded by Councilman Johnson and carried. <br />KARL KRAHL PROPERTY ZONING CONTINUED TO JULY 2, 1973. Mayor Bredesen noted <br />that the public hearing on the rezoning of the Karl Krahl property from R-1 <br />Residential District to PRD-3 Planned Residential District had been placed on the <br />agenda to be continued indefinitely for the Planning Commission report as was , <br />Q1 <br />required by law, inasmuch as Mr. Krahl had not submitted his new plans to the <br />Planning Commission in accordance with the decision at the Council Meeting of <br />May 7, 1973. <br />owners' Association was told by Mayor Bredesen for the record that tbe matter <br />could not be legally before the Council at this meeting. <br />that the reference on the agenda is for information only as a reminder that the <br />matter is not yet resolved and that the last action of Council was to refer <br />the matter to the Planning Commission. <br />by ordinance and by stacute, the Council cannot act until they receive a Plan- <br />ning Commission report or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of referral. <br />Mr. Pieczentkowski referred to the Environmental Quality Commission meeting <br />of March 5, 1973, saying that at that meeting the information requested by the <br />Environmental Quality Commission was not presented by the developer and that, <br />therefore, the Environmental Quality Commission had denied the proposal. He <br />recalled that at the CouhCiJ Weting oE,M&rch,5, 1973, the developer agreed <br />to a sixty day delay which would enable him to present a new proposal for this <br />property. Mr. Pieczentkowski stated that it had been ascertained and assured <br />that any new plan would have to go back to the Planning Commission and to the <br />Environmental Quality Commission before return to the Council and that the <br />matter had been continued to May 7. <br />and that, inasmuch as the sixty day period has expired, it is in order that <br />this proposal be voted on tonight. <br />ordinance, the sixty days date from the date of referral and that there was no <br />referral made at any time prior to May 7, 1973. Mr. Erickson referred to the <br />state statute which says that if there is a proposed amendment to the Zoning <br />Ordinan6e and it is referred to the Planning Commission, then the Planning . <br />Commission has sixty days in which to act upon it, and specifically states <br />that the Council cannot act upon it until it has received the report and <br />until sixty days have elapsed. <br />to that statute but imposes a slightly greater 8uty tfmewise upon the Planning <br />Commission. <br />the Council and that whichever plan comes back from the Planning Commission is <br />the plan on which the hearing will be held. <br />would have to be set after the expiration of the sixty days or after the <br />report had been received and that new notices would be sent out.. <br />date could be set on July 2, 1973, for the second meeting in July. Mr. <br />Pieczentkowski requested that the hearing be set for the first meeting in October <br />if there is a new plan submitted. Mr. Ericlcson said that the time limit est- <br />ablished by ordinance is that the Cquncil, upon receiving the Planning Commission <br />report (or upon'receiving no report) at its next meeting sets a hearing <br />date which shall not be later than sixty days after the meeting at which the <br />hearing date is set. <br />sixty days, there is no point in waiting until October for a hearing. <br />matter was then continued to the first meeting in July by motion of Councilman <br />Johnson, seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried. Mrs. Carolyn Dencker, 6104 <br />Arctic Way, was told by Mr. Luce that the racquet club advertised for the Edina <br />Vest apartment-complex had been in violation of Village Ordinance and that <br />action had been taken to close the club to the public. Mrs. Dencker was <br />assured that the present Council would not anticipate any change in the Western <br />Mr. Marshall Pieczentkowski, President of the Viking Hills Home- <br />Mr. EricEson advised <br />This action set up a situation where, <br />. <br />He added that ninety-one days have elapsed <br />Mr, Erickson explained that, by statute and . <br />He added that the Village ordinance conforms <br />Mr. Erickson reiterated his opinion that no plan is now before <br />He added that a new hearing date <br />The hearing <br />It was brought out that if no plan is received within <br />The <br />.Edina Plan to permit any commercial development. <br />FJELD .WAYEN:-STREET NANE CHANGE TO "FIELD WAY" GRANTED FIRST READING. Affidavits <br />of Notice were presented by clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on <br />file. Mr. Luce presented a petition signed by four property owners requesting <br />the street name, "Fjeld Wayen" be changed to "Field Way". Note was taken of <br />a letter from Mrs. E. C. Maeder, Jr. ob'jecting to the'change. Mrs. Phyllis <br />Locke, 6601 Fjeld Wayen, said that property owners had gotten together and <br />decided that the name should be changed.' No other comments being heard, Council- <br />man Johnson offered the following ordinance for First Reading:
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.