Laserfiche WebLink
42 <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 />* <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 />Way. <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 />' <br />Mr. James Hirsh, <br />Mayor Van Vallcenburg referred to a letter from <br />In response to a question <br />She added that <br />..