1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1975 - 1989
12/24/2013 8:09:35 AM
12/23/2013 11:53:32 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 <br />OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL <br />SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 <br />Answering rollcall were Member Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner and Mayor Courtney. <br />CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED. Motion was made by Member Richards and seconded by <br />Member Turner to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented. <br />Rollcall : <br />Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney <br />Motion carried. <br />*MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 15. 1988 APPROVED. <br />Member Richards and seconded by Member Turner to approve the minutes of the <br />Regular Meeting of August 15, 1988. <br />Motion was made by <br />Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. <br />APPEAL FROM BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION HEARD: VARIANCE GRANTED. Affidavits of <br />Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. Planner <br />Craig Larsen presented the appeal of James and Linda M. Masica, 6817 Valley View <br />Road, from the decision of the Board of Appeals on August 18, 1988 to deny a 28 <br />foot front yard setback variance. <br />existing dwelling to construct a new home on the site. The matter was heard by <br />the Board of Appeals on two separate occasions. In March, 1988 the request was <br />for a 22 foot setback from Valley View Road where normally a 50 foot setback is <br />,required. <br />offered the proponents the opportunity to redesign and resubmit an alternate plan. <br />At its meeting of August 18, 1988 the Board considered a proposed modified <br />dwelling with a setback of 34 feet, 16 feet short of what is required. <br />existing house has a setback of 34 feet and the proponents are asking approval to <br />continue the existing setback. <br />shape of the lot there was enough room on the site to build a house of adequate <br />size and still observe the required 50 foot setback and voted to deny the <br />variance. <br />Valkenburg, representing the proponents, stated that the present request is to <br />build the new house with the existing 34 foot setback from Valley View Road. <br />noted that the 50 foot setback requirement is an average of the two neighboring <br />lots. On one side the house is set back some 30 feet, on the other side the <br />setback is approximately 74 feet. The proponents feel that a hardship exists as <br />the topography as it abuts Valley View Road is unbuildable, is fully wooded, with <br />difficult terrain. <br />major to change. <br />forward as can be to utilize the lot. <br />neighboring lots that are closer to the street. <br />Board of Appeals decision be overruled and that the variance be granted. <br />Turner asked how many feet of buildable area there is on the lot. <br />stated there is approximately 8,000 square feet if you took into consideration all <br />the area within the required minimum setbacks. James Masica, proponent, stated <br />that the setback requirement would require that out of a 3/4 acre lot there would <br />be very little usable backyard. <br />View Road making the house invisible during the summer because of the woods. <br />indicated that he did not wish to remove any of the vegetation. <br />stated that it is an unusual shaped lot, hilly and that the driveway presents a <br />problem. Member Kelly <br />moved that the decision of the Board of Appeals be overruled and that the 16 foot <br />front yard setback variance be granted for the property at 6817 Valley View Road. <br />Motion was seconded by Member Smith. <br />The proponents are pursing a plan to remove the <br />The Board indicated that they would not approve such a variance and CU m <br />I m <br />The <br />The Board decided that because of the size and m a <br />That decision has been appealed by the proponents. James Van <br />He <br />The hill with regard to a driveway is a problem and will be <br />The lot is an unusual shape and the plan is to get as far <br />It was noted that there are many <br />The proponents request that the <br />Member <br />u <br />Planner Larsen <br />He said there is a steep grade up from Valley <br />He <br />Member Kelly <br />She said that she felt what is proposed is a fine idea. <br />Ro 1 lcall : <br />Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Courtney <br />Nays: Turner <br />Variance granted. <br />*LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR PART OF LOTS 2 AND 3. CASSIN'S OUTLOTS (FAIRVIEW <br />SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL). <br />Turner to adopt the following resolution: <br />WHEREAS, the following described tracts of land constitute various separate <br />parcels : <br />Motion was made by Member Richards and seconded by Member <br />RESOLUTION <br />Parcel A: <br />That part of Lots 2 and 3, Cassin's Outlots according to the recorded plat <br />thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of West 65th Street, <br />southerly of County Road No. 62, westerly of the west line of Lot 1, Block 1, <br />SOUTHDBLE ACRES, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, <br />Minnesota, and easterly of France Avenue South <br />and <br />Parcel B: <br />That part of Parcel 1, 2 and 3 as described in Certificate of Title number <br />608806 lying within highway easement Doc. No. 576247 described as a 25 foot <br />strip and a 50 foot strip adjoining a 125 foot parallel line described in <br />said easement , which lies southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.