1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1958 - 1974
12/24/2013 8:09:06 AM
12/23/2013 11:48:40 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
KCNUTES OF THE REGULAR NEETING OF T€E * <br />EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL HELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON <br />JUNE 18, 1973 <br />Members answering rollcall were Councilmen Courtney, Johnson, Shaw, Van Valken- <br />burg and Flagor Bredesen. <br />IENTJTES of May 21 and June 4, 1973, were approved as submitted by motion of <br />Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried. <br />ORDINANCE NO. 811-A34 ADOPTED ON SECOND READING. Mr, Luce presented Ordinance <br />No. 811-A34 for Second Reading, adoption of which would.provide for zoning of <br />the Joseph E. Erickson property on the Northwest corner of France at W. 66th <br />Street from C-3 Commercial District to PRD-5 Planned Residential District. <br />Mr. Erickson said that it is his opinion that the Council can rezone the pro- <br />perty as it sees fit and responded to questions vhich had been raised at.the <br />meeting of May 21, 1973 as follows: <br />1. Mr. Erickson said that he believes that the pond on the property in question <br />is public waters and that activity in the pond will require a permit from the . <br />Department of Natural Resources. <br />requirement of such a permit would prevent the Council from rezoning the pro- <br />perty if .it .thought it was in the best interest of the Village to do so.. <br />2. <br />Kelber v. the City of St. Louis Park are not pertinent to this case inasmuch as <br />the case differs substantially from the rezoning petition now before the Council. <br />He said that it is his opinion that the Council has the power to deny or grant <br />the rezoning and whatever action is taken will be upheld in a court of law. <br />3. Nr. Erickson said that, because one of the purposes of Section 5, para- <br />graph 1 of Ordinance No. 811 is to protect natural amenities a<d provide large <br />expanses of open space, then it appears to be entirely 1ogical.to allow water <br />acreage to be included in the site for density purposes in this.case. <br />4. Mr. Erickson said that the Village could not assure development as a con- <br />dominium inasmuch as the Ninnesota Condominium Act authorizes property sub- <br />mitted to the Act to be removed from the Act with the concurrence of al.1 owners <br />and the consent of the holders of all liens. He said that even if the pro- <br />perty becomes and remains a condominium, the Village cannot insure that there <br />will be no tenants in the building. <br />5. Mr. Erickson said that he does not believe that this is spot zoning inas- <br />much as the property is not an island as such but is on the edge of a com- <br />mercial and office district and creates staging of development from these . districts to a residential district. <br />No further discussion being heard, Councilman Shak? said that he would approve <br />the proposal only because he believes that this use would generate less traffic <br />than if the property remained C-3 Commercial District. <br />following ordinance <br />ORDINANCE NO. 811-A34 <br />He added that he did not believe that the <br />Mr. Erickson said that he believes that the implications of the case of <br />He then. offered the <br />and moved its adoption: <br />AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 811 <br />BY ADDING TO THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PRD-5) <br />THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF EDINA, NINNESOTA, ORDAINS: <br />is enlarged by adding the following. thereto: <br />enlarged by the addition of the following property: <br />Section 1. <br />"The extent of the Planned Residential District (Sub-District PRD-5) is <br />That part of Outlot 2, Southdale Office Park, according to the plat <br />thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of <br />Titles , Hennepin County, 'flinnesota, described as follows: Commenc- <br />Vesterly of the Southeast corner of said Outlot 2; thence North <br />along a line drawn 301.61 feet West of and parallel with the East <br />line of said Outlot 2 a distance of 40 feet; thence Southeasterly - <br />to a point on the South line of said Outlot 2 a distance of 271.61 <br />feet Ilest of the Southeast corner of said Outlot 2; $hence Vest to- <br />the point of beginning; which is in subdistrict PRD-5." <br />Sec. 2. <br />Paragraph 4 of Section 5 of Ordinance No. 811 of the Village <br />e ing at a point on the South line of said Outlot 2, 301.61 feet <br />This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its pass- <br />age and publication. <br />Notion for adoption of the ordinance .was seconded by Councilman Van Vallcenburg <br />and on rollcall there were four ayes with Councilman Johnson voting ttnaycc and <br />the ordinance was adopted. <br />consistently opposed to buildings of this height, he cannot go along with those <br />that this is the best use. <br />Councilman Courtney said that, while he has been <br />vho believe that Daytons should donate and that he believes <br />i ATTEST: <br />8Ld<k/ <br />Village Cleric d <br />. <br />.: I <br />. , '.- .. ._
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.