Laserfiche WebLink
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