HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970 11-04 Planning Commission PacketsMINUTES OF THE REGULAR ?E✓E'TING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COT-fflLSSICN HELD
WEDNESDAY, NOVENMER 4, 1970
EDINA VILUGE HALL
Members Present: W. W. Lewis, Chairman, R. A. Huelster, S. P. Hughes, C. E. Johnson,
G. V. Johnson, D. T. Runyan, D. C. Sherman.
Staff Present: Gary West, Bob Dunn, and Lynnae DeJarlais.
I. REZONINGS:
Z-70-11 Davis & Associates. Southwest uadrant of West 70th Street, and
Highway 100. R-1 Residential District. 0-1 Office Buil.din,
District. and Planned industrial District to 0-2 Office Building
District.
Mr. West indicated that the properties in question are located in the southwest
quadrant of West 70th Street along Highway 100. It was recalled that Mr. Bill Larson
of Midwest Planning and Research was present at the September, 1970, Planninf;
Commission meeting with an introductory proposal for the area. Mr. West noted that
Davis & Associates are now requesting approval of a request :dor rezonin=g from R-1
Residential District, 0-1 Office Building District, and Planned Industrial District_
to 0-2 Office Building District, and have more detailed development plans at this
time. He added that they have come up with a scheme that they feel is the beast way
to accomplish the routing of traffic out of the office building complex onto Highway
100 and West 70th Street, which is the biggest concern at the present time.
In reply to Mr. Lewis, Mr. West indicated that the rezoning request from R--1 to 0-2
Office Building District for the property owned by the Edina Evangelical Frees Church
was withdrawn earlier that day. He added that it was his understanding that the
withdrawl is permanent, and that the church has decided to stay in its present location.
Mr. Howard Dahlgren of Midwest Planning and Research was prevent and recalled that the
properties in question total 47.2 acres, for which Davis & Associates is requesting
0-2 Office Building District zoning to allow for a planned office development. He
indicated that the entire 47.2 acres is owned by a single corporation which is a
partnership of the Davis firm and Toni Bernardi.
Mr. Dahlgren stated that a great deal depends on the question of appropriate access,
and noted that they have been working with the Highway Department, the Nine ;Tile Creek
Watershed District, various neighborhood groups, and the Edina Evangelical lace Church
for over a year on the proposal. He stated that the basic proposal with respect to the
highway is to run a service road along the west side of Highway 100 at the sruthery
portion. of the site, carrying it across to the west side of the church property (al: the
same time realigning the creek) and out to West 70th Street. He stated that the problem
is to try to have a minimal impact on the residential areas to the north, west, and
also to the east. fie indicated that, at the intersection of Highway 100 and West 70th
Street, they propose to run the: road down in such a manner as to direct the traffic
toward the commercial districts and away from the residential area, thus permitting a
small cul-de-sac to be built on the former right-of-way of 70th Street, which would
then serve as access for the homes to the north by creating separate circulation patterns
from the residential areas to the north and west.
Edina Planning Commission -2-- November 4, 1970
Mr, Dahlgren stated that in looking at the church development: potential, the church
can be expanded according to their present expansion plans, but the parking area which
was planned on the west side of the building will be lost. Ile indicated however that
that parking area is lost not as a result of the curve in the proposed road but as a
result of buying the right-of-way on the west side for the purpose of the service road.
Mr. Dahlgren indicated that they are not requesting approval of any site planks but are
asking for the Planning Commission's concurrence with the proposed use of the land,
which would be for office buildings. Mr. Dahlgren stated that they are requesting 0-2
Office Building zoning instead of 0-1 because if they can build higher, they will be
able to achieve more in open space "courtyard" development. He indicated that the
pedestrian areas that they will be able to achieve will add real quality to the area.
Mr. Dahlgren stated that they have been working for over a year with the Metro U.S.
Corporation, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, the Highway Department, and the
neighborhood residents, and have come up with a proposal which is agreeable to everyone,
He indicated that they have written permission from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
giving them approval to realign the creek and create a small ponding area, and added that
they intend to digs pay for, and landscape the area, which will be of great aesthetic
value to the vicinity. He further indicated that they are budgeted and have the money
to spend $1,750,000 over a three year period for utilities, streets, grading, digging
and landscaping of the pond (which will be completed before any buildings are built),
etc. Mr. Dahlgren stated that there has been excellent cooperation from everyone
involved, including the neighbors, and added that they have taken a close loot; at how
the heights of the buildings will relate to the surrounding area.
Mr. Runyan indicated that he would concur with many of the points that Mr. Dahlgren
has made as far as the use of the land and the open space, but he added that the main
problem is the saturation of the area with automobile traffic. Air. Dahlgren agreed
and indicated that one reason that the problem is so serious is because all of the
traffic is being handled by crossings which were suet up as an interum solution only
when the industrial park was first designed in 1961. Ile added that the situation will
be alleviated to a large extent after three things occur: 1. when the 77th Street
interchange in constructed, the capacity to handle traffic movements will be ten times
greater than it is now as a grade crossing; 2. when the interchange at 70th Street is
constructed, which is programmed for 1973; and 3. the ultimate construction of a third
interchange on Highway 494, just west of the Sun Newspapers. He added that in all
probability there may not be any development begun in the area until the 70th Street
interchange is completed. He indicated that because there will be no large traffic
generators in any of the other quadrants, there will be minimal traffic generated at
the intersection.
Mr. Hughes asked what the population will be in the ultimate office development, and
Mr. Dahlgren replied that it would be in the vicinity of 4600. Concern was expressed
regarding the effect of the ultimate traffic generated by the development in the
southwest Edina residential areas.
Mr. Warren Hyde, Village Manager, stated that a meeting was recently held with the land
owners on both the east and west sides of Highwa,� 100, and with the Highway Dr.partnaent,
but indicated that as yet there has been no commitment as to when the interchange at
Edina Kanning Cormitiss-l'on 4, 1.970
77th Street will be built, lie addled that the ii-lighway D2partment has indicatcd that
they cannot do anything untilthe Villa',Ie b,as
submitted a plan for the frontage roads
and the service drives frcm 70th Street south. Mr. Illyde indicated that the original
concept was that the frontage road, service drives, and the ramp itself woule be
closer to Highway 100 on the west than shown on the Davis & Associates plan. He
indicated that the Evangelical church was planned with the service road and the rarap
on the east side, but added that now because of the changes in the federal standards,
the frontage road, service drives, and ramp must be located further to the west. Mr.
Hyde recalled that this concept also stated that no business traffic would be brought
from the south onto 70th Street. Ile added that it is difficult to see how t1le Village
can keep this promise, and stated that the problem must somehow be solved so that the
77th Street interchange can be constructed. Mr. Hyde added that there has been no
discussion at all as to who is going to pay for possible changes to 70th Street. Mr.
Dahlgren, in reply to this, stated that the state is paying for the service road as a
means of access, but added that he does not know to what extent it will pay for the
branch from it or the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Lewis indicated that the Planning Commission is willing
ing to go along with the use
of the land but added that they have serious reservations on the traffic problem. Mr.
Hughes moved that the office building land use concept be approved (not the actual 0-2
Office Building District rezoning request), subject to the successful solution of the
traffic pattern problems. Mr. Huelster seconded the motion, aa -,d clarified that the
traffic problem must be solved before the Planning Coa.aission will make a definite
approval of the 0-2 Office Building rezoning. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
Mr. Richard Olson of the Edina Evangelical Free Church was present and empressed
concern regarding notification of the church of ::he hizghway department's plans for
the frontage road and its affect on the church property.
Z-70-13 Rembrandt of Edina, lnc. Herita
e Rembrandt Corp. 3200.Heritage
Drive,, R-4 Residential District to ?-5 Residential. District.
14r,, West stated that land use in the area consists of Heritage Manor (zoned R-5) to the
west, vacant land (zoned R-4) to the east, apartment development to the south and the
Crosstown Highway immediately to the north. He indicated that Rawbrandtt of Edina
received R-4 zoning on the site to build a rctirement home, and added that since that
time they have decided to build a fifth story on the tcqof the structure, which is
presently under construction. He noted that to do this, they would require R:--5 zoning
and a number of variances similar to those grante6 for t'he R-4 structure.
Mr, West indicated that the Staff would recomn1and app�E-oval of the rezcaing, subject to
the approval of the necessary variances by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments before
the fi=nal approval of the <rezoning is granted. Ile stated that the request is for zoning
to allow Rembrandt of Edina to build an. additional floor with one large unit consisting
of 4 bedrooms, and five ana-bedroom units similar to those in the remainder of the
building. They base their request on the requests they have received for larger units
and more living space from elderly coupic-s.
Mr., Lewis asked if there Ea ill be any parkirg probJetiis created, and Mr. West stated that
X"
he did not keel there would be because elderly p�cple do not gancrate mur`a traffic. He
added that all of the park:n.- spaces are outside, cont: iiicent we 111-'�e petrl,iiig provid, Zur
Heritage lianor, and noted -hat thare are 38 spaces far 94 units.
Edina Planning CommissiDn -4-- November 4, 1970
Mr. West indicated that the engineering firm responsible for the construction of the
building has assured the Village that the structure being built is capable of
supporting the additional fifth floor.
Mr. Dick Mochinski of Rembrandt Constructors was present and stated that they have
explored the additional parking area. He stated however that since the building has been
under construction, they have used half of the existing parking belonging to Heritage
Manor, which has only been half full since construction began in August. Ile added that
they feel from past experience that additional spaces are not needed., and noted that;
they have not had any problem at the Manor. Mr. Mochinski indicated that they have added
one space per unit because they expect some car ownership with the addition of the
larger units, but added that the greater part of the traffic is generated by visitors.
Mr. Runyan asked why the building will not have its own parking drive, instead of being
serviced through the adjacent Manor parking lot. Mr. Mochinski replied that the struc-
tures are under the same ownership, and added that by using a common drive they feel
they can preserve more open space.
Mr. Sherman asked how the extent of the municipal need for the additional six units
satisfies the extent of the variances that will be necessary to approve the additional
floor. Mr. Mochinski stated that the demand they have received for larger and additional
units has brought about the request. Mr. Huelster asked if the variances that will be
necessary would replace the existing variances, and Mr. West replied that they are
actually the same variances, however they will be granted for an R-5 district instead of
for an R-4 district.
Mr. Huelster moved that the rezoning be approved subject to thegranting of the
necessary variances by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Mr. C. Johnson seconded the
motion. Mr. W. Lewis, Mr. R. Huelster, Mr. C. Johnson, Mr. D. Sherman, and Mr. G.
Johnson voted Aye. Mr. D. Runyan and Mr. S. Hughes voted Nay. Motion Carried.
Z-70-14 Poppler, Cardarelle, Inc. Smisek Property. R-1 Residential District
to Planned Industrial District and PRD -3.
Mr. West indicated that the parcel in question is included in the Southwest Edina Plan
area, and is located north of West 78th Street and west of and abutting Cahill Road. He
added that the proposed southerly extension of Dewey Hill Road runs through the western
portion of the parcel.
Mr. West stated that the Planning Commission preliminarily approved the proposed plat
for this addition in May, 1970, with the exclusion of the northerly residential lot
subject to the approval of the plat by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. IIe
added that the proponents were requested at that time to postpone final plans and plat-
ting until such time as the Southwest Edina Plan is final.
Mr. West indicated that the Planned Industrial area on the preliminary plans corresponds
with the proposed PID area on the recommended Southwest Edina Plan. Ile added that the
requested 12 units per acre residential development is the minimum that Mr. Cardarelle
feels is economically feasible.
Edina Planning Commission -5- November 4, '.370
Mr. Frank Cardarelle was present and stated that the rezoning request is for Planning
Commission deliberation on the final approval of the Southwest Edina Flan. Ile stated
that the property totals 20 acres, and added that there are three single family resi-
dences in the southwest corner of the property that they do not control, but which are
retained by the original property owners. Mr. Cardarelle indicated that the request
is for approximately 10 to 12 units per acre (120 units), with a three story maximum
in height. fie added that PRD -3 would be an appropriate use for the land and would
allow them to carry out their preliminary plans.
In reply to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Cardarelle stated that the lesser density is the only
difference between PRD -2 and the requested zoning.
Mr. Huelster moved that the proposed request be accepted for study. Mr. C. Johnson
seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
Z-70-15 E. G. Thernell. Lot 1, Block 1, Killarney Shores Addition. R-1
Residential District to R-2 Residential District.
Mr. West indicated that the lot in question is Lot 1, Block 1, Killarney Shores Addition,
and added that it is generally located just south of Vernon Avenue and east of Gleason
Road„ He indicated that although this particular tract of land was platted only a
short time ago, Mr. Thernell recently requested the division of 6 feet from Lot 2 and
the addition of it to Lot 1, and also the division of 6 feet from each of Lots 3, 4, 5,
6, and 7, each successive 6 feet being added to the previous lot. He added that the
reason was to replace land taken from Lot 1 for street purposes.
Mr. West indicated that the rezoning of Lot 1 to R--2 Residential District was withheld
in 1968 pending a determination of the roadway taking, but added that the R-2 zoning
can be granted as this has since been resolved and Lot 1 is now of sufficient size.
Mr. Lewis asked what the other lots in the tract will be zoned and Mr. West indicated
that they are zoned R-1. He further indicated that there are 10 lots zoned R-2 along
the north side of Vernon. Avenue and 7 others along the south side of the street, four
of which are just east of the lot herein question and which are in Killarney Shores.
Mr. Hughes moved that the requested R-2 zoning for Lot 1, Block 1, Killarney Shores
Addition be approved, and Mr. Huelster seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion
Carried.
II. LOT DIVISIONS:
to Part of Lot 2, Block 1, McCauley Heights -Halla Replat.
Mr. West indicated that the lot in question is located in the Indian Hills area, and
stated that the request is to divide a portion from Lot 2 and add it to Lot 3, adding
to the rear and side yard of the home already existing on Lot 3. Mr. West stated that
there is a private drive servicing Lots 1 and 2 on the northern portion of Lot 2, and
added that there are perpetual easements for it. Mr. West clarified that this will not
create another buildable lot.
Edina Planning Commission --6-- Nove0E r 4, 1970
Mr. Huelster moved that the requested lot division be approved, and Mr. C. Johnson
seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
III. SUBDIVISIONS:
SF -70--11 Southdale York Addition.
Mr. West indicated that Dayton Development Company is requesting median cuts on Yuri:
Avenues of which the Traffic Safety Committee originally recommended denial. He stated
that the plat has since been considered by Council, who gave it preliminary :approval.
Mr. West stated that consideration of the finial plat of Southdale York Addition will
have to be postponed until such time as the Village has received the hardsihell and
linen copies of the plat and has had the opportunity to review them.
SF -70.10 Bel Mar Builders - tel 'far Industrial Acres
Mr. West indicated that the site in question is located between Washington Avenue and
County Road 18. He indicated that the request is for final plat approval and added
that preliminary approval was granted in July, 1970. fr.. Tom Tiegen of Bel Mar Builders
was present and stated that the reason for the delay in time between the granting of
preliminary approval and the ?request for final plat approval was becaus:a they wanted to
develop some kind of concept to be used on the site Wore they actually requested final
approval.,
Mr. Hughes moved that "Bel Mar industrial Acres" she granted f_'cnal appreval, and Mr.
Huelater seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
SF -SP -70-12 Dietrich's Brookside Court.
Mr. West indicated that the area in question is genexally located near Brookside Avenue
:and just north of Division Park. He stated that the purpose of the putting procedure
:is to eliminate a lengthy legal description, and added that Stour aapartmrant buildings
presently exist on the proposed lots, enabling therm to sell one lot plus one apartment
building.
Mr. West stated that the request is for both preliminary and final approval and
:indicated that the hardshell and linen copies of the plat have been checked and that
everything is satisfactory.
P1. Runyan moved that "Dietrich's Brookside Court" be ;ranted preliminary aQ final
._approval, and Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
S]P-70-13 Nine utile Forth.
Mr, West indicated that the property is located north of Fabr i -Tek, and is usually
referred to as the Cherna property. He stated that twhore is already a building under
construction on the westerly portion of the site, aaud ;,added that the request is to plat
the parcel into two lots, with one outlet cast of the creek, so that they can construct
another building to the east of the one prose htl.y under~ construction.
Edina Planning Commission -7- November 4, .,.970
Niro West indicated that he has several reser ations regarding I:he plat concerning the
amount of easement or dedicated parkland along the creek, the alignment of tee proposed
road because of the close proximity to the creel: and because of the questionable soil
conditions, the sanitary sewer easements, and the proposed building for Lot 2.
Mr. West stated that Rauenhorst is requesting preliminary and final approval of the
plat, but indicated that the Staff recommends that preliminary approval subject to the
satisfactory disposition of the problem areas be granted, or that consideration of the
request be postponed until the next Planning Commissioa meeting to see if some of the
problems can be worked out before then.
Mr. Ray Drake of Rauenhorst was present and indicate2 that he was not aware that there
were problems with the plat, and added that he was prepared to discuss the proposed
building for Lot 2. He stated however that regarding the street, Rauenhorst does not
feel that there is any problem in the proposed construction. He also indicated that
there was no problem in getting the sanitary se6ier in.. Regarding the creek, Mr. Drake
stated that the Village had originally asked for the dedication of 100 feet, and he
indicated that the plat shows the dedication of 120 feet.
Mr„ Drake stated that the proposed building conforms to all ordinance requirements regard-
ing parking, etc,,, but indicated that the northeast and southeast corners of the building
will encroach to 35 feet of the property line. lie added that the center of the building
will be approximately 100 feet from the property line. Mr. Drake noted that although
the grading for the new building has begun, he would like to know if there will be any
problems foreseen in the future when approval of the building plans is requested.
In response to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Hyde stated that the subdivisJL
ion regulations section of
the Flood Plain Ordinance received first reading at tha Council meeting of November 2, 1970.
In reply to Mr. C. Johnson, Mr. Drake replied that the proposed building will be a ware-
house, which will total 66,000 square feet, with a small amount of office space for
approximately 20 employees,
Mrs. Hughes moved that the "Nine Mile North" plat be granted preliminary approval, subject
to the solution of the indicated problems. Mr. Huelster seconded the motion. All
Voted Aye. Motion Carried.
IV. PREWIMINARY REVIEW:
1. Bel Mar Builders. Planned Industrial District Development Plans.
Mr,, West stated that the site in question is located between Washington Avenue and County
Road 18, and is presently zoned Planned Industrial Diatrict. He noted that the Planned
Industrial ')istrict Ordinance calls for review or all plans by the Planning Commission
and the Council, and indicated that Bel tsar Builders in asking for approval of their
development plans at this time.
Mr,. Tom Tie ;en of Bel 'Mar Builders was present sand stas:ed that the structure will ba a
single story warehouse and will be located on 4.1 acrd:;, or 180,000 square feet. He
indicated that the building area. is 16,540 square feet:; and added that the total_ building
coverage will be about 42% of the site. Referring; to a:he topography in the area, Fir.
Tiegen indicated that the difference in elevation from County Road 18 and Washington
Avenue is about 12 feet, lending; itself nicer to builclAng placnanent below Washington
Avenue, as the majarit7 of the building could be hiddan yet could still have exposure
Edina Planning Commission -8- November 4, ?.970
from County Road 18. Mr. Tiegen indicated that the parking requiremea-ts are a tot41
of 129.6 stalls, and stated that they are providing 133 stalls. I.e stated tI.at the
access is from Washington Avenue, and indicated that the loading Area could Le
practically concealed from that road.
Mr. Tiegen stated that they are recessing; the loading docks under the building roof,
which will create a covered loading dock and give easy access along the builc.ing and
will take away the loading door from the back of the building, eliminating tf.e
"dead -on" view of a loading door.
In reply to Mr. Hughes, Mr, Tiegen indicated that there will be an 18 foot bty clear-
ance (standard warehouse configurations), and added that it will. be a storage.: warehouse.
Ile further stated that they will be creating a very desirable looking building, adding
that the parking space and parked cars will be in the front of the building, hidden
from the road. He noted that 1/3 of the cars will be in the rear of the building and
along the sicles.
Mr. Sherman asked what the signing plan will be for the occupancy of the building, and
Mr. Tiegen replied that at this time they would anticipate a small sign over the door
on the plastered horizontal band along the top of the building for each individual tenant.
Mr. Runyan e?.,pressed concern about the maneuvering space available for the Trading trucks
if there are cars parked in the same area. Mr. Tiegen indicated that there Will be 40
feet or more;, which is ample room for the trucks to maneuver.
'fir. Hughes atsked what the required setback off of County Road 18 is, and Mr. Tiegen
replied that the required setback from County Road le is 75 feet, at, off of Washin ton
Avenue is 50 feet. He added however that the ordinance states that when a building is
located on wo street frontages, it is permitted to encroach half the distance on one of
the street frontages. He noted that they are enc2oaching on the Highway 18 side, but
only in the corner areas
In reply to fir. C. Johnson, Mr. Tiegen stated that all rooftop equimnet+t will be appro-
priately scxaaened and the building will be adequately aprinklered.
Mr. Hughes moved that the Bel Mar Builders PID Development Plans be accepted for study
and Mr,, Ruelster seconded the motion. All gored Aye. Motion Carried.
2. Grant W. Anderson. Seven Lssociates. R-1 Residential Districtlo
a Multiple Residence District„
Mr. West indicated that the property in question is located north of Valley View Jr.
Iligh. which vas recently platted as Creek View heights Addition for single family
dwellings. fe stated that Mr. Anderson has requested preliminary review of the
ezoning requiest so that he migiat: be able to hear the feeling of the Planning Commission
on the requested proposal to rezone this fox multiple dwellings.
Mr. West stated that the Staff would ..eco-aaend that the request not be considered, as the
area was just. recently platted for s1.nc-se faxmll.y dwellings; multiple dwallings would not
be appropriate as the area is presently landlocked by Rpt and Valley Flier? Jr. High, and
a road servicing Multiple dwellings b:�z -1. not re=.. aappro�r,iate through t;hc surrounding areas.
Edina P14.�:,ni.ng Co;;a:nission ..9.• t;.,v_.,;bFz 4, .3970
Mr. Grant. Anr4erso , representit:g Sever, As3C.^.1an_,_s in tits: request, w:a;:; P,:' 1SC?'nt 12?i
stated that the subdivision involved totals 7 12 acres, and :ia made ter of 4 lots. He
indicated that the school district has cor _r�enred condemnation proceed) -M s ag::.inst the
property but added that they have failed to proceed with any amount r.,f diliprrce. Mr.
Anderson staged at this point that he does not kncra whysther the school district will
proceed with this or not. Mr. Anderson stated that it is the opinion of the o"niers
of the property that the higIaent and best use of the property would be a plar.ned
multiple residence district, as it is of adequate size and, while the lots i.r. the lower
part of the area would remain single family d%relli.ngs, the to::s or the higher ground
would be ideal for an apartment complex or to-unhouse development.
Mrs Runyan stated that the two prints of access proposed to the property would seem
to be very minimal based on the amount of acreage involved.
Mrs Lewis stated that the Planning Commission has considered the property several
times and that they think they have the pr-ObItuns; re,,3olved to the catisfactior, of
everyone Ht: added that he personally votild not. consider changing the zoning;.
Mr. Hughes stated thhait" the request Would not be compatible with the surrounding areas,
as it is entirely zingle family homer and school area.
Fir. Anderson stated that 6°court decisions all vary clearly say that the use cf the land
could not be denied for its highest and best Tice unlasa there is ust:I.fiable reason",
and added that in their opinion the area could have adequate access.
Mrs Harold Evharts, representing the Edina School District in the raaotcer, was present and
stated that in his opinion the school district Is the owner of the lots in aiestion
which Saven kasociates and Mr. Andernon sack to have rtizoned. Mr. Exnars htatad that
the school d .strictr authorized the condemnation of t:herse lands in may, 1969, which was
shortly thereafter commenced. He indicated nrit: f.he hf aring was held and t:hs petition
was granted by the district court in July, 1969, Ms. ;:warts added that ^he k.oters
soundly rejected a proposal for authoris-ation for bonds for construction of c new high
school ir. May, 1970, but that in October„ 1.991, this aeathori ration fol- acquisition
of the site and for constructioa of a new hlg r school uas s.dopt:ed by v:ha Ile
stated that he': feels that Mr. .knderson somewhiA dis': cr,^.ad the picture acs frlr as th
position of the school district.
Mr. Evarts stated that it is the intention of the school district to ,!c ahea6, and added
that there is no discussion whatsoever to d_lemies the properties that are Involved, in
the xoni-o.g request.
After further discussion, 14r, Anderson indicated that: 'ie would withdraw t1le request for
the present time, and added, that a formal. applicatior. :'=or the re_xuafaag will le filed at
a later dates.
3o Edina Evangelical Free Church. R-1 to 0-2 Office BuildinListrict.
qtr. West indicated that the rewoxaing reques>-_ "rom R-1 ':o 0-2 Office I3;si.:lding District for
the property o -Eared by the Edina Evangelical g.ee Church teas w:? thdra na earlier that i y.
He added that it was his underotanding that the withdrawl is permc.nent:, and that the
church has decided to stay in i .; present l.oc:ytion.
Vo Adjmtrnmew-,, R.e_;pectlu:lly :subaa:it:_ed
ly:.arae sDeJarlai3, Secretary