1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1975 - 1989
12/24/2013 8:09:11 AM
12/23/2013 11:49:34 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 REGULAR MEETING <br />OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL <br />HELD ON MAY 3, 1976, AT CITY HALL <br />Answering rollcall were members Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw and Mayor Van <br />Valkenburg. <br />MINUTES of April 19, 1976, were approved as submitted by motion of Councilman <br />Courtney, seconded by Councilman Shaw. <br />Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg <br />Nays: None <br />Motion carried. <br />SAFETY COUNCIL AWARD NOTED. Mr. Hyde advised Council that the City of Edina had <br />been designated the only city in Minnesota to receive the 1975 Award of Honor in <br />traffic safety education, enforcement an'd engineering. <br />sented at a meeting on May 20, 1976, which will be attended by Mr. Ray O'Connell, <br />Acting Police Chief Merfeld and Mr. Hoffman. <br />extendqd to the Edina Citizens Safety Committee and to the departments involved. <br />The award will be pre- <br />Council's congratulations were <br />I <br />COHPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT GIVEN FINAL APPROVAL. <br />sented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. <br />Affidavits of Notice were pre- <br />Mr. Luce recalled' <br />that, following preliminary approval by the Council, the Comprehensive Plan <br />Amendment had been approved by the Metropolitan Council and is now before the City <br />Council for final approval. Mr. Luce reviewed the clarification of allowed multi- <br />family densities in the South, Southwest and Western Edina Plan Areas which pro- I <br />vided that all multi-family developments with more than two units per structure <br />shall be zoned Planned Residential District, rather than R-3, R-4, or R-5, that <br />the density of any parcel or tract of land shall be no greater than identified <br />by the comprehensive plan governing that tract or parcel and explained that <br />maximum allowed density governing any tract or parcel of land in each Plan area <br />shall be reduced cumulatively (up to 50%) by certain identified percentages and <br />certain identified situations. Mr. John Hedberg, representing Hedberg & Sons <br />Company, protested that the Planning Commission had recommended that the South <br />Edina Plan be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He referred to a <br />letter dated August 28, 1975 which he had sent to the Council and to the Planning <br />Commission. <br />different than other vacant properties in Edina and, therefore, the proposed <br />reduction of allowed multi-family densities should not apply to the south Edina <br />Plan, and particularly to the Southeast area for the following reasons: 1) that <br />there are no environmental concerns in the area; <br />are controlled by reference to traffic trip generation criteria and that the South <br />Edina Plan sets forth a commuter trail between W. 70th and W. 76th Streets which <br />is set up as a possible strip for transit facilities in the area to handle the <br />traffic which may be generated from existing commercial developments and future <br />non-residential and residential development in that area; 3) that sanitary <br />sewer, water and storm sewer lines were sized to accomodate the density and uses <br />which are permitted under the South Edina Plan; and 4) that there is considerable <br />open space and park land in the area. In reply to a-questi.cm of Mr. liedberg, Mr. <br />Eyde pointed out.that the location of the parks will be determined as the area <br />develops. <br />were cut back upon Mr. Hedberg's request and added that if the size of the utility <br />pipes were reduced, the cost reduction would be minimal. Mr. Melvin Gettleman <br />was told that the-reduction-Zn density would not apply to Krahl Hill. Mrs. Alison <br />Fuhr, 6609 Brittany Road, objected that any structure should be constructed on an <br />18% slope. Mr. Robert Hanson, owner of property on the Crosstown Highway and <br />Gleason Road, was told that the Plan amendment would not; reduce his presently pro- <br />posed density. Mr. Marsh Everson, 6710 Cahill Road, said that he had purchased <br />four acres of land on Cahill Road on the basis of its R-3 zoning. Following <br />lengthy discussion, Councilman Shaw offered the following resolution approving the <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION <br />This letter had pointed out that Southeast Edina is considerably . <br />2) that land use and density <br />Mr. Dunn pointed out that some of the utilities proposed for the area <br />APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT <br />BE IT RESOLVED that the Comprehensive Plan for the South, Southwest and Western <br />Edina Plan areas be amended as follows: <br />1. <br />zoned Planned Residential District rather than R-3, R-4 or R-5. <br />2. <br />by the comprehensive plan governing that tract or parcel. <br />3. The maximum allowed density governing any tract or parcel of land in the <br />South, Southwest, and Western Edina Plan areas shall be reduced cumulatively (up <br />to 50%) by the following identified percentages if the following identified <br />situations are applicable: <br />All multi-family developments with more than two units per structure shall be <br />The density of any parcel or tract of land shall be no greater than identified
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.