<br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF ?HE
<br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL ON
<br />MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1974
<br />llembers answering rollcall were Council Members Courtney, Johnson, Schmidt
<br />and Mayor Van Valkenburg.
<br />.MINUTES of January 7, 1974, were approved as submitted by motion of Councilman
<br />Courtney, seconded by Councilman Johnson and carried.
<br />PETITION TO DENY OR PERMIT PETITION FOR REZONING KARL KRAHL PROPERTY DENIED.
<br />Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered
<br />placed on file.
<br />the Edina West Company for approval of a petition for a zoning hearing for
<br />the Karl Krahl property, located South of Vernon Avenue and West of Arctic
<br />the Planning Commussion under Ordinance No, 811-A28, there must be a change
<br />of conditions or other new evidence affecting the parcel of land. He added
<br />that if the Council finds such change at this hearing, it would then allow
<br />a petition for rezoning to be filed with the Planning Department, which
<br />would then go through the regular rezoning routine and the matter would once
<br />again come before the Council. Mr. Marshall Pieczentkowski, 6535 Polar
<br />Circle, said that he was representing the Viking Hills Homeowners Association,
<br />as well as the Walnut Tamarac Association. He questioned the right of Mr.
<br />Gittleman to file another petition for the rezoning of the Krahl property,
<br />inasmuch as Hennepin County records indicate that the property is.owned by
<br />Ellen W. Garrison and V. McKenzie. He submitted further that a renewal of
<br />the request for rezoning to PRD-3 Residential District, even at lesser limits
<br />than the current. proposal,. does not constitute a change of conditions or other
<br />evidence. In response to Mr. Gittleman's contention that the purchase agree-
<br />ment which he has signed gives him an ownership interest in the property, Mr.
<br />Erickson said that Mr. Gittleman has standing for this meeting, but would not
<br />have standing to sign a petition for rezoning.
<br />fact that preliminary plat approval had been granted for twenty single family
<br />residential lots constituted a "change in circumstances".
<br />site data sheet for the property in questkon which indicated the net amount
<br />of undisturbed,areas under the residential proposal would be only 39.8%, and
<br />63.9% under his proposal for high quality condominiums. He emphasized that
<br />the presemation of the hill under his proposal would be reason enough to
<br />conduct a new zoning hearing, and requested that the matter be referred to
<br />the Planning Commission for hearing so that he could work with residents in
<br />the neighborhood and satisfy the greatest number of people.
<br />6805 Point Drive, said that he is the President of the Homeowners! Coalition
<br />and urged that Counqil determine that no change of conditions exists in the
<br />property. Others appearing in protest to granting the petition and c9ncur-
<br />ring with the remarks'of Mr. Pieczentkowski, were Mr. Jack Ziegler, 6012
<br />Tamarac Ave., representing Nest Edina Homeowner's Assn., Dr. Glen Lewis, 6328
<br />Gleason Road, representing the Indian Hills Homeowners Association, and Mr,
<br />Larry,Horion, 6148 Arctic Play,
<br />Mr. Wm. B. BOSCOW, 6142 Arctic Way, recommending that Council grant the Plan-
<br />ning Commission permission to hear Mr. Gittleman's proposal at this time,
<br />even though the waiting period has not expired.
<br />from the audience, Mr. Luce said that Mr. Krahl's single fimily development
<br />plat, as approved by the Council, included cut and fill for the road. Council- - woman Schmidt brought out that the single family plat had been referred to
<br />the Environmental Quality Commission and that the Commission had felt that
<br />the plat was not ideal, but was within acceptable limits.
<br />the Commission had wondered why no residents of the area had appeared at that
<br />meeting- Councilmen Johnson and Courtney said that they did not believe
<br />that allowing a new rezoning petition to be filed can be justified under
<br />Ordinance No. 811-A28 because that ordinance requixes that a change of condi-
<br />tions or new evidence be presented and because the only evidence presented
<br />has'been that the property might be developed for single family residence
<br />purposes under the present zoning, with a resulting impact on the Broperty
<br />greater than a Planned Multiple Development, which knowledge the Council has
<br />always had and considered at the time the previous application for rezoning
<br />was denied. Fallowing considerable discussion, Councilman Johnson's motion
<br />that no petition for rezoning be allowed to be filed was seconded by Council-
<br />man Courtney and on the rollcall there were four ayes and no nays and the
<br />request of Mr. Gittleman to allow a new petition foL rezoning to be filed was
<br />denied because no change of conditions or new evidence was present.
<br />Mr. Luce presented the petition of Mr. Melvin Gittleman of
<br />Mr. Erickson clarified that in order €or the petition to be filed with
<br />Mr. Gittleman said that the
<br />He presented a
<br />Mr. James Hirsh,
<br />Mayor Van Vallcenburg referred to a letter from
<br />In response to a question
<br />She added that