Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />OF THE RGGULllR MEETING OF THE <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL <br />JANUARY 4, 1982 <br />I <br />Answering rollcall were members Bredesen, Rj-chadds,"Schmidt, Turner and Mayor <br />Courtney . <br />COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION DISCUSSED. Mr . Dirk DeVries and Ms. Earbara <br />Senness werepresent from the Metropolitan Council to react informally to the <br />City's Comprehensive Plan implementation as requested by Council at its meeting <br />of December.21, 1981. <br />something which might impact the metropolitan system, the matter should be refer- <br />red to the Metropolitan Council. He said that the Xetropolitan CounCil has..ten <br />dags in which to review the matter to see if any impact exists and to respond to <br />the City. Mr. DeVries explained further that there is an additional 60 days iE <br />the Metropolitan Council believes that the matter under consideration might have <br />an environmental impact which would concern a neighboring municipality, and <br />the: time period could extend up to ninety days if the proposal should, in reality, <br />have an impact on other metropolitan areas. <br />should come from the City and that the Plan should be a "living document", and <br />that the Metropolitan Council will not try to police any changes and would not <br />try to dictate to any municipality, In response to Member Richards' statement <br />that the City Council believes that implementation should be accomplished locally, <br />Mr. DeVries agreed, but emphasized that regional concerns such as sewer systems, <br />the airport and freeways will be considered from time to time and will be aired <br />at public hearings. <br />said that the City could put more into its plan than the Land Planning Act calls <br />for. Ms. Senness added that the Land PI-anning Act calls for 1) describing regu- <br />latory controls which influence the Plan; 2) a capital improvements program; and <br />3) Council implementation. She assured Council Yhat they would be involved in <br />any decision on any matter of significance to the City and that the City could <br />instigate its own changes. No .formaL action was taken. <br />Mr. DeVries explained if the City thinks it is doing <br />He clarified that the initiative <br />In response to a question of Member Turner, Mr. DeVries <br />ORDINANCE NO. 81.1-A157 ADOPTED ON SECOND READIHG. Member Turner offered Ordin- <br />ance No. 8114157 for Second Reading and moved its adoption as follows: -. ORDINANCE NO. 811-A157 <br />AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 811) <br />BY ADDING A PUNNED OFFICE DISTRICT AND BY <br />PROHIBITING ADDITIONAL SUBDISTRICTS 0-1 AYD 0-2 <br />TiiE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDIHA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS : <br />amended to read as follows: <br />trict is hereby established and shall further be divided into sub-districts <br />designated as Districts 0-1, 0-2 and POD-1 and POD-2, as shown on the official <br />zoning map of the City and by the amendments hereafter made to this paragraph." <br />hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph 4 as follows: <br />Section 1. Paragraph 1 of Section 8 (Office Building District) is hereby <br />"Sec..l. Bouadaries of Office Building District. The Office Building Dis- <br />Sec. 2. Section 8 (Office Euilding District) of Ordinance No. 811 is <br />"4. Planned Office District (POD) I' <br />(a) Purpose of Planned Offze District. The purpose of this section <br />is to provide a procedure that insures the orderly development of buildings and <br />uses permitted in the Office Building District which will be complementary to <br />and compatible with existing high quality office buildings; to enhance the <br />compatibility of uses permitted in the Office Building District with the pre- <br />dominantly residential character of the City of Edina; to insure to the owners <br />and occupants of uses permitted in the Office Building District the benefit of <br />an exemplary planned development; and to enable the Planned Office District <br />to make its fair contribution to the general health, safety and welfare of the <br />City of Edina. <br />into sub-districts designated as POD-1 and POD-2. <br />approximate the requiremenrs of the 0-1 and 0-2 sub-districts respectively. <br />shall be the same as those allowed in the Offlce Suilding Eistricts as provided <br />for by this Section. <br />TIie following mininum restrictions shall apply to all buildings that may be <br />erected, converted, or structurally altered in the POD: <br />(b) Sub-districts. The Planned Office District shall 3e divided <br />The sub-districts will <br />(c) Uses. Principal and accessory uses allowed within the POD <br />(d) Restrictions on Uses Permitted within the Planned Office District. <br />(I) Restrictions relating to off-street parking, storage, off- <br />.- street loading, and trash and garbage inrinerators shall be Lhe <br />same as tile restrictions imposed up.on the Office Building Dis- <br />trict by this Sect.ion.