<br />OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
<br />D EDINA CITY' COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL tf
<br />* OCTOBER 1, 1979 ? ' *.f
<br />I .I
<br />Answering rollcall were members Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt and Mayor
<br />Van Valkenburg. Present also were Ifmes. Leslie Turner of the Human Relations
<br />Comnission and Helen EfcClelland of the Community Development and Planning Comais-
<br />s ion.
<br />XINUTES of the Budget Neetings of September 13, 17, 19 and 25, and of the Regular
<br />leeting of Septeaber 17, 1979, were approved as submitted by motion of Council-
<br />woman Schmidt ,' seconded by Councilman Courtney.
<br />I Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
<br />Nays: Ecne
<br />Motion carried.
<br />KIICEILI ADDITION PRELIMINUY PLAT CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 16, 197 9. Affidavits of
<br />Xotice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file.
<br />Mr. Hughes presented Kiichli Addition for preliminary plat approval, advising
<br />that the proponent is requesting approval of two 76 foot by 180 foot single
<br />fzrnily iots for property generally located North of W. 62nd Street and West of
<br />Tracy Ave.
<br />whereby the Easterly 32 feet oE Lot 1 and Lbt 2, Block '1, Countryside Addition,
<br />vas approvsd and now constitutes the subject property.
<br />in 1970 the proponent requested an Zdentical subdivision to that now ,.proposed and
<br />that the Planning Commission had recomended approval before it had been dis-
<br />covered that deed restrictions had been imposed which stated that only one house
<br />could be built on each Countryside Addition lot.
<br />Council had tzbled the subdivision until expiration' of the deed restrictions but
<br />~ * advised that these restrictions have now expired. Mr. Hughes said that the sub-
<br />~ ject property represents a transition between lots to ths West with 75 foot front-
<br />, .ages and lots to the East with frontages of approximately 120 feet and said that
<br />the proposed lots would approximate the size of lots to the Vest.
<br />that if the proposed subdivision is not approved, the alternative would +be a lot
<br />measuring 152 feet by 180 feet and P70uld be larger (especially in width) than
<br />other Lets in the area. The Hayor referred to a petition siped by omers of
<br />tvaqty-three 2rope.rti~s +ich petit ion stated that sjgners had no objection eo
<br />;the issuasce of a Building Permit for constructiozl of a home on the East 76 feet
<br />of Lot 2, Block 1, 'Countiyside Addition. Mr. Charles Davis, 5700 Olinger Road,
<br />asked that the hearing could be continued so that he could study the proposal
<br />further. He safd that be does not object to one house on the property but is
<br />concerned about two houses being built. Nr. Kiichli, the proponent, said tha?
<br />he would hzve no strong objection if the heariilg is continued but that he would
<br />like to get the matter settled. No further discussion being heard, Councilmn
<br />Richards' motioa was seconded by CocncSwoman Sc!lmicit, contkuing the hearing
<br />mtil October 15, l.979.
<br />Nr. Hughes recalled. that in 1968 the Council had approved' a division
<br />Fie recalled further that
<br />He recalled that in 1970; the
<br />He explained
<br />Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
<br />' Nays :-' Eone
<br />Notion carried. !*.
<br />KLODT'S ADbITION TO EDINA ZONIZJG AruP FINAL PLAT COMlINUED TO OCTOBER 15, 1979.
<br />Mr. Hughes presented Ordinance Nn. 811~2~130 for Second Beadkg and Klodt 's,'Acldi-
<br />tion to Edina+fi'or final plat approval, recalling that tliis property is located
<br />South of IC- 75th St, md East of York Av2. and that the propcrrent is ded'icatkg
<br />a 50 foot ope7 spz& easeasnt to the City and that a berm a-d landscaping'will be .
<br />prokicied to screen the parking lot froiil the residential area to the East. Comcil-
<br />man Richards' motion for approval or' the plat and of 0~1 Office District zoning
<br />was secondez by Councilman Courtney. Comcilnan %chards said that he believed
<br />that, in zdditiozl to the 50 foot easemsnt, the developer should make a subdiv'i-
<br />sion dedication of $3G,OOO to the CLty.
<br />to the cash dedication, saying that he has already given up 15..47% of his land
<br />for the 50 foot easement.
<br />the new plat %?as to clarify the legal description and was not required by
<br />had bee3 assessed.against his property and referred to other property foy xhich
<br />he had also been assessed.
<br />of the plat and zoning was wirhdrawn.
<br />the hearing be zontiilued until October 15, 1979, so that tke staff would have an
<br />opportunity to check the assessment roles regarding Xr. K3.odt's statement that
<br />he had already Seen heavily' assessed. Notion seconded by Councilman Courtney.
<br />Mr. Paul RloZt, the developer, objectsd
<br />Mr. Hughes concurred with Mr. Uodt's statemenf,that
<br />Xr. Klodt also contended that the entire cost of street impr,puenents
<br />Pollowing some discussion, the motion for approval
<br />Councilvoiuaii Schmidt then moved 'that
<br />Ayes : Srebesm, Courtney , Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkmburg \--- ley~: None
<br />Xot ion carried.
<br />r ..