Planning Commission - 07/13/1981 , •s
AGENDA
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
Monday, July 13, 1981
7:30 PM, City Hall
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath,
Matthew Levitt, Grant -Sutliff, Viriginia
Gartner, Hakon Torjesen, Robert Hallett
STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 22, 1981 MINUTES
III. APPROVAL OF JUNE 29, 1981 MINUTES
IV. MEMBERS REPORTS
V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BASSWOOD D2 REVISIONS, by E.J. Schneider Co. Request for
approval of a revised site development plan for Basswood D2
of The Preserve PUD 70-04. The plan includes 2 buildings
and 48 units. Located north of Basswood Townhouses and
south of Basswood Road. A public meeting.
B. TIMBER CREEK, by B-T Land Co. Request for PUD Development stage
approval , rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 and R1-13.5 and prelim-
inary platting of 94 single family lots, 120 townhouses, and
108 quadraminiums with__possible variances. __Located north of Duck.
Lake Trail and south of 62nd St. A continued public hearing.
C. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, By Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Re-
quest for approval of a PUD, rezoning from Rural and I=2 Park
to I-5 Park with setback variances, preliminary plat, and an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Located south of Co. Rd.
67 and west of St. John's Woods. A continued public hearing.
D. EDENVALE 14TH, by Equitable Life Assurance Society of the US
and Equitable Life Mortgage and Realty Investors. Request
for revised PUD Development stage approval , rezoning from
R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 for approximately 15 of the 24 acres, and
preliminary plat approval of 30 single family lots and 56
duplex lots with possible variances. Located NW_of_ Ed_env_al a Blvd. ,
SE of railroad, and north and west of Woodhill Trail . A contin-
ued public hearing.
E. WOODLAWN HEIGHTS, by Lyman Lumber. Request for PUD Concept
approval , possible variances, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5
and RM 6.5, preliminary plat approval , and finding of no
significant impact. Located in the southwest corner of Town-
line Road and Duck Lake Road. A public hearing.
r �
Agenda-July 13, 1981 page 2
VI. OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PLANNER'S REPORT
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
approved
Monday, July 13, 1981 7:30 PM, City Hall
fe
COMMISSION MEMBER
S PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman Liz Retterath,
Matthew Levitt, Grant Sutliff, Hakon
Torjesen, Robert Hallett
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Virginia Gartner
STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Retterath moved to approve the agenda excluding the June 22, 1981
minutes. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 6-0.
II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 22, 1981 MINUTES
The minutes will be approved July 27, 1981.
III. APPROVAL OF JUNE 29, 1981 MINUTES
-P, 2 10th para. , change spelling of delt to 'dealt'
#2 of the PC recommendations should read 'R1-22 zone be upgraded'
to d 22 acre zone and allowed only in the transition areas according
to the Comprehensive Guide Plans. '
P. 3 #5, 2nd line should read 'that he study 25 acres as a possible flexible
PUD size.
MOTION
Torjesen moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Retterath
seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. (Hallett abstained)
IV. MEMBERS REPORTS
None
V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BASSWOOD D2 REVISIONS, by E.J. Schneider Co. Request for
approval of a revised site. -development plan for Basswood D2
of The Preserve PUD 70-04. The plan includes 2 buildings
and 48 units. Located north of Basswood Townhouses and south
of Basswood Road. A public meeting.
The Planner stated that this was a site plan amendment review of a development
plan from 4 buildings to 2 buildings because of site problems. He then stated
that Mr. Duke Schneider gave a presentation at the July 29, 1981 meeting and
held neighborhood meetings and Mr. Schneider submitted letters of approval . He
also stated that residents have been notified of this meeting, and that Mr. Schneider
was present for questions and comments.
Bearman asked if anyone was present with questions or comments. None were raised.
MOTION
Retterath moved to approve the design change, dated 6/24/81, for the Basswood D2
revised site within The Preserve as presented by S.J. Schneider Co. Torjesen
seconded, motion carried 6-0.
.approved
Planning Commission Minutes -2- July I3, 1981
B. TIMBER CREEK, by B-T Land Co. Request for PUD Development
stage approval , rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 and R1-13.5
and preliminary platting of 94 single family lots, 120 town-
houses, and 108 quadraminiums with lot line and private
street. Located N of Duck Lake Trail and south of 62nd St.
A continued public hearing.
The Planner stated that this was a continued public hearing from June 22, 1981,
and that Mr. Jack Lynch, BRW, and Mr. Rick Murray, of B-T Land are present to
review the changes.
Lynch reviewed the concept plan that was approved 2 year ago, the plan that was
reviewed on June 22 and the problems with it, the revised plan and stated that
the cul-de-sac has been revised, there is now 2 access points to the housing,
guest parking is provided, and reviewed the phases of construction.
The Planner reviewed the recommendations made in the June 19, 1981 staff report,
and stated that the need for a retaining wall has been eliminated, that the units
conform with the Shoreland Management Act, and that Planning Staff recommends
approval.
Torjesen asked what the density of phase IV was and if the road in phase IV was to
be a public road. Lynch replied the density is 53 acres with 120 units, and that
the road in phase IV will be public.
Levitt asked the type of buildings to be constructed in phase IV. Lynch replied
there will be four (4) four-plexes and the rest will be eight-plexes.
Levitt stated that he was concerned with the status of the upgrading of Townline
Road. The Planner stated that Hennepin County would be upgrading the road, and
if-they do not, it should be put on Eden Prairie and Minnetonka's capital improve-
ment program.
Levitt asked what Townline Road will be upgraded to. The Planner replied a City
collector road with two lanes.
Levitt stated that he felt that Townline Road is not adequate to handle the traffic.
Levitt then asked the timing of the project. Murray replied 32 to 4 years away.
Levitt asked if development will be according to phases. The Planner replied yes.
Retterath asked the Planner to explain the term 'possible variances' . The Planner
did.
Sutliff asked the outcome of the Scoping Report meeting held on June 9. The Planner
replied that the City Council adopted a resolution relating to the information to
be studied and stated that a consultant from Hennepin County will include the recom-
mendation from the resolution in the study.
Levitt asked that the changes be highlighted. The Planner stated that the cul-de-sac
has been eliminated with the road continuing, open spaces have been added, stated
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 13, 1981
that the area that was included in the petition that was submitted last year is
now included as open space, the consolidation from single family lots to multiple,
and the open space dedication.
Levitt asked if this conforms to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The Planner
replied yes.
Paul Choiniere, 15819 No. Eden Drive, was concerned with the dedication, feels
there 1,is too much7density in area, and_stated that he would like the money__.__
to go to the parks rather than a bikeway.
Levitt asked if the park north of Purgatory Creek is active. The Planner replied
no, and that the cash park fee will not develop that park and stated that the
Park and Recreation Department will decide what the money will be used for.
Bearman asked if there is- a possibility of developers coming in for development
of phase IV before phase II. Murray replied that phase I & II will be developed
first, and stated that phase IV will probably be developed before phase III because
of the economy.
MOTION
Retterath moved to close the public hearing on Timber Creek. Sutliff seconded,
motion carried 6-0,
MOTION 2
Retterath moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD Development
Stage approval and rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and RM 6.5 as outlined in the
plan dated 7/10/81 and the 'staff report of June 18, 1981 adding that the Council
seriously consider making construction of phase IV subject to construction of an
improved Townline Road to a City Collector road. Hallett seconded.
DISCUSSION
Levitt moved to amend the motion to add #14 to the recommendations of the staff
report to read: Phase IV not be built until Townline Road is upgraded to a
collector road. Retterath agreed.
Bearman asked that the Hennepin County DOT letter dated 6/12/81 and the letter
from B-T Land dated 7/9/81 be added. Retterath agreed.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 3
Retterath moved to recommend to the City Council zpproval of the preliminary plat
dated 7/10/81 as per the staff report of June 18, 1981 with the same additions
as Motion 2. -Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0:
C. WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Request
for approval of a PUD, rezoning from Rural and I-2 Park to I-5
• Park with setback variances, preliminary plat, and an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. Located south of Co. Rd. 67 and west of St.
John's Woods. A continued public hearing.
Levitt stated that he woglq not be participating in this project discussion.
fhe Planner stated that the item has been continued from June 8, 1981, there is a
new topographic model , revised plans, stated that he has met with John Shardlow
.pproved
Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 13, 1981
representing Franklin National Bank and the proponents, but that nothing has been
worked out regarding access for the Bank's property. He then stated that Mr.
Michael Niemeyer, of HGA, was present to give a presentation. He also stated that
staff does not recommend approval .
Neimeyer stated that at the meeting that the road connection was discussed, ADI
has resisted the connection because of the cost. He then reviewed the surrounding
land owners, suggestions for alternatvies for the Bank's access; having access off
of Birch Island Road, or having the road adjacent to the railroad.
The Planner stated that the City has worked with Bury-Carlson (bank property) for
approximately 10 years and stated that they were aware of the access problems. He
stated that access along the railroad tracks would be poor. He also stated that
since the project is not in a form for recommendations, and the nature of the changes ,
there was no staff report.
Retterath asked about the landscaping for the model . Jan Heinig, landscape architect
for HGA, reviewed"the landscaping. Niemeyer stated that because of the complexity
of the t000§raphy of the site, they chose not to put landscaping on the model .
Heinig stated that they are trying to save i '§ many trees as possible.
Torjesen stated that there were many concerns raised on June 8, and thanked the
proponent for addressing them, but stated that he felt that the access problem
should be decided.
Torjesen asked if a representative from Franklin National Bank was present. Mr.
SJohn Shardlow was-and submitted a letter dated June 9, 1981.
Susie Hummel , 6362 St. John's Drive, was concerned about the traffic.
John Hummel., 6362 St. John's Drive, stated that he would like to see the trees
and hill saved.
MOTION 1
Torjesen moved to close the public hearing on Westwood Industrial Park. Retterath
seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Levitt abstained.
MOTION 2
Torjesen moved to commend the developer and staff but further stated that since
no adequate access is provided for the land locked parcel lying SW and since
there is no further room for negotiation from the proponent, recommended denial .
Retterath seconded.
Scott Anderson, ADI, then stated that they would negotiate.
DISCUSSION
Retterath asked if Franklin National Bank is willing to negotiate. John Shardlow
stated that he was unable to answer but stated that they agree with City Staffs
recommendations.
Torjesen moved to amend the motion deferring the project to August 10, 1981.
Retterath seconded. -
The Planner stated that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City
Council .
i
.approved
Pl.anning Commission Minutes -5- July 13, 1981
Retterath withdrew her second on the amended motion because the public hearing
had already been closed, but retained the original motion.
Amended motion failed for lack of a second. Original motion carried, 4-1-1. Hallett
voted no and Levitt abstained.
D. EDENVALE 14TH ADDITION, by Equitable Life Assurance Society
of the US and Equitable Life Mortgage and Realty Investors.
Request for revised PUD Development stage approval , rezoning
from R1-13.5 to RM 6.5 for approximately 15 of the 24 acres,
and preliminary plat approval of 30 single family lots and 56
duplex lots with variances. Located NW of Edenvale Blvd. , SE
of railroad, and north and west of Woodhill Trail . A continued
public hearing.
The Planner stated that this is a continued public hearing because the proponent
felt that changes could be made. He stated Mr. Dick Krier of Westwood Planning &
Eng. was present to give the presentation.
Krier reviewed the overall Edenvale land use plan that was approved in 1972,
reviewed the surrounding land uses, site plan, access, density, buffering, and
utilities.
The Planner stated that many changes that were requested in the June 18, 1981
staff report were met and stated that Hipp's Construction Co. built similar duplexes
east of County Road 4. He also stated that he felt that additional types of units
could be added, and stated his concern that the lot sizes would only allow one type
of unit to be built on that particular lot. He also stated that much more concern
has been made regarding Kurtz Lane and feels that the neighborhood connection would
be good. He stated that many letters and a petition have been submitted about
the connection, which would be delt with in the feasibiltiy study if one were to be
required. The Planner suggested a limited sidewalk system connecting Edenvale
Blvd. to Valley View Road be put in which would then connect with the City path sys-
tem. He stated that the Park and Recreation Commission should look at the totlot,
and further stated that Planning Staff-recommends approval .
Levitt asked what is being planned to the north and east of the site. Krier replied
townhouses and stated that the 1972 PUD boundary is the boundary f6r the site. He
further stated that the only variation to the 1972 PUD is Edenvale 11th Addition.
Bearman asked if Edenvale and Equitable are two different firms, and if so, what
happens to the --;commitments, made by Edenvale that have not yet been fulfilled. The
Planner replied one of the commitments not fulfilled is the sidewalk system along Edenvale
Boulevard.
Bearman then asked who is obligated to do this. The Planner replied, by the proponents
requesting each development.
Krier stated that the time element is a problem because of the change of ownership,
but that all .commitments- will be met.
David Miller, 6800 Woodhill Trail , stated that he was concerned with the density,
felt that it should all be single family lots, and asked who would pay for the
sidewalk. The Planner replied the developer.
f 1
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 13, 1981
• C.O: Thompson, 6559 Kurtz Lane, stated that he felt that Kurtz Lane could not handle
the traffic.
A.R. Hirt, 6533 Kurtz Lane, was concerned with the width of Kurtz Lane, and stated
his opposition to the request.
Bearman asked if the 1970 Guide Plan showed the roads connecting. The Planner
replies yes.
Steve Cherne, 6931 Raven Court, stated that he opposed the connection of Kurtz Lane,
and stated his concern for the water supply. The Planner stated that the water
plant expansion was expected to be completed now but it was not, and further stated
that when it is completed, there will be twice the amount of water then now and there
should be no problem.
Cherne asked the extimated growth for the City. The Planner replied that it could
be 8-10% higher in population next year.
Caralyne Fairchild, 6840 Woodhill Trail , felt that the site should be developed as
single family and stated her opposition to the sidewalk.
Addie Swenson, 15540 Kurtz Lane, submitted a petition and asked that it be made part
of the minutes. .1
Dennis Dartt, 15537 Park Terrace Drive, asked 'if this property has been approved.
The Planner explained that the original PUD was approved for 6units/acre in concept,
in 1977 the proponent came to the City for single family lots, and now the proponent
wants duplexes because of the economy.
Dartt asked if the duplexes will be owned or rental . Krier replied owner occupants
Dartt then expressed his concern that traffic will increase greatly if Kurtz Lane
is connected and stated that he felt that visibility at Co. Rd. 4 and Kurtz Lane is
poor.
Julie Jacobs, 6527 Kurtz Lane expressed her concern for traffic on Kurtz Lane.
Fred Curtis, 6500 Kurtz Lane agreed with Ms. Jacobs.
Bearman stated that a:-feasibility study will determine the traffic problem.
Peter Zavoral , 6540 Kurtz Lane asked if residents would be able to attend if this
proposal went before the Board of Appeals. The Planner replied yes, and stated
that it will also be a public hearing before the City Council , and that they will
be renotified.
David Miller, 6800 Woodhill Trail , asked who makes the final decision. Bearman
replied the City Council .
Bruce Perkins, 15633 Park Terrace Drive, stated that he felt that traffic will
increase greatly on Kurtz Lane, and stated his concern for noise pollution, etc.
• Retterath asked the time frame for a feasibility study. The Planner replied
30-90 days.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 13, 1981
Ed Yarborough, 6513 Kurtz Lane asked who would be assessed for Kurtz Lane's connec-
tion. The Planner replied that the City Engineering Department would decide.
Teri Strand, 6754 Woodhill , asked what will happen to the area that has been
graded for the trail. The Planner replied that that is up to the Edenvale HOA
to decide.
Jack Steinmetz, 6435 Kurtz Lane, asked if taxes will go up because of the develop-
ment. The Planner replied that the commercial and industrial development will
contribute more than the residents.
Peter Izmirian, 6540 Kurtz Lane, asked when this would be before the City Council .
Bearman replied that th& residents will be renotified.
Krier stated that the proponent is willing to have a cul-de-sac rather than con-
necting Kurtz Lane. 1.
Hallett asked the cost of the duplexes. Krier replied that they are selling for
$55,000/$65,000 per unit and $110,000/$130,000 per duplex.
Hallett asked if staff is recommending more types of units than 3. The Planner
replied yes.
Mr. Thompson, 6559 Kurtz Lane, stated his opposition to the connection of Kurtz
Lane.
Hallett stated that he felt that 2 access points would be sufficient rather than 3.
MOTION
Levitt .moved to close the publi:c hearing on Edenvale 14th Addition. Retterath
seconded, motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2
Hallett moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
dated 7/1/81 as per the staff report of June 18, 1981 with the addition of more
designs for the duplex lots and that Kurtz Lane not be connected. Retterath
seconded.
DISCUSSION
Levitt stated that he felt that duplexes are not suitable in this area and further
stated that he felt that there was inadequate buffering provided.
Bearman stated that he would like to see Kurtz Lane connected.
Motion failed, 1-5. Bearman stated he voted no because Kurtz Lane would not be
connected, Levitt stated he voted no because he felt duplexes should not be in
this area.
E. WOODLAWN HEIGHTS, by Lyman Lumber. Request for PUD Concept
approval , variances, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and
RM 6.5, preliminary plat approval , and finding of no significant
. impact. Located in the southwest corner of Townline Road and
Duck Lake Road. A public hearing.
The Planner reviewed the request and stated that Mr. Dick McCombs of McCombs-
Knutson was present to give a presentation.
approved
Planning Commission Minutes �8, July 13, 1981
McCombs reviewed the proposal and stated thay concur with the staff report.
THe Planner reviewed the staff report dated July 10, 1981.
Levitt asked what the City receives from the density transfer. The Planner
stated that the City gets parkland, middle imcome housing and cash park fee.
Levitt stated that he felt that there was massive grading to be done.
Bearman asked who owns the land. The Planner replied the State does because it
is under a tax forfeiture.
Bearman then asked how the City obtains the property. The Planner replied that
if the owner does not pay the taxes the State allows them a one year grace period,
and if after that time they have not paid their taxes, the land would go up for
public auction.
McCombs stated that his attorney told him that Lyman Lumber had a 50-50 chance of
retreiving the land. Mr. Jim Hurt, of Lyman Lumber, stated that he felt that they
could win the claim.
Levitt asked if the land is buildable. McCombs replied that there could be up to
120-150 single family lots on the property.
Hallett asked if they do not get the density transfer, how many Single family lots
would there be. The Planner replied 150 single family homes or 150 quadraminiums.
Sutliff asked if Duck Lake Road becoming a public collector road requires redesign.
The Planner replied yes.
Levitt asked if there would be a traffic problem if the quadraminiums were built
first since there is one access from Townline for the internal road system. The
Planner replied no.
Sutliff asked if the offset of the roads creates a problem for Minnetonka. The
Planner replied no.
Sutliff asked if the 20 acre parcel is land locked. The Planner replied yes.
Kenneth Schulke, 17071 Creekridge Trail , Mtka. , asked if Eden Prairie works with
Minnetonka and asked if the quads are being built on Townline Road. McCombs
replied that there will be a 6' berm separating the quads from the road. The
Planner replied that the City of Minnetonka is notified.
Schulke felt that Townline Road could not be able to handle the traffic, and
stated that he does not like quadraminiums. He then asked if this will increase
the density of the land and if the quadraminiums will be owned or rental . Bearman
replied the density is the same. McCombs replied that the quads will be owned.
Bearman asked the price range. McCombs replied $75,000 - $115,000.
• George Kissinger, 6601 Barberry Lane, submitted a letter dated July 9, 1981 and
stated that he felt that saving the trees is important.
Unapproved
Planning Commissions Minutes -9- July 13, 1981
DonaTd Jacobson, 6345 Duck Lake Road, asked how many units there will be and if
Lyman Lumber will be selling the lots. McCombs replied 96 quads and 54 single
family lots. and that Lyman Lumber will prepare and sell the lots.
Lynwood Francico, 17400 West 66th St. , stated that he felt that the property could
be used better, wants to save the trees, and felt that 20 acres should be retained.
Charles Gould, 6285 Duck Lake Road, stated that he moved to the area because in
1975 the land was proposed as a wildlife sanctuary. He felt that middle income
homes will make the crime rate go up. Heialso stated that he felt there would
be traffic problems and stated that he was opposed.
James Bast, 17440 West 66th St. , stated that he wouTd like to see the road connect
with the parkland in Sunset Trails and also stated that he was opposed.
Bearman stated that the final plan might not look like the current one.
Hallett asked the developer to explain what their attorney said. McCombs replied
that the plan has changed, stated the proponent is willing to work with staff,
and also stated that he went to the site and found mostly :bogelders and elm
trees.
MOTION 1
Hallett moved to close the public hearing on Woodlawn Heights. Retterath seconded,
motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2
Retterath moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD Concept
as per the July 10, 1981 staff report and including the suggestions of Mr.
Kissinger's letter of July 9, 1981. Torjesen seconded.
DISCUSSION
moved to amend the motion adding that particular attention be put on
the ingress and egress on Townline Road. Retterath agreed.
Sutliff stated that he felt that more traffic will go south rather than on Townline
Road.
Hallett stated that he felt that if no one lives on Townline Road, the road will
not be upgraded as quickly as if people lived there.
Motion carried 5-1. Sutliff voted no.
V. OLD BUSINESS
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
a VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
The Planner reviewed the upcoming projects for the July 27, 1981 meeting.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Retterath moved to adjourn the meeting at 1:20 AM. Sutliff seconded, motion
carried 6-0.
Page 1
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, • ARE OPPOSED TO MAKING KURTZ LANE A MAIN
ACCESS ROAD TO THE NEW PROPOSED EDENVALE DEVELOPMENT,
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO .
a
,6 3-
-,Z3-9-1 �
-zs.X/ �GinT= Zip 4
City �(
V P-
r � "S
�c Z� ' 1 ✓`'�l—j/toCa
�
1
j 3_�l
r • _
6- �� �3
Page 2
i
WE, THE UNDERSiGNED, ARE OPPOSED TO MAKING KURTZ LANE A MAIN
ACCESS ROAD TO THE NEW PROPOSED EDENVALE DEVELOPMENT,
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO .
L U�
67 LAI 4-0-
323 ZLtf Z-h?�
ao -Y-&-ho�o
a �s_
f �
6S3/a r ' t3X aA/6
`t 4i Svc
it r � 73 -3-56
_ ��.c.k.
Al
3Y 31Z,G
Page 3
•
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ' ARE OPPOSED TO MAKING KURTZ LANE A MAIN
ACCESS ROAD TO THE NEW PROPOSED EDENVALE DEVELOPMENT.
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO .
55 � 1 -/ /
0-6 2/ rs,L4 3 A'� L b y-30.
' 8i �55�2�- 7�� �Y . j3,V-3o77 6 7
7 4 l s R . '3-/ 3 0 q
l� 8l /ri-6 33 Agr ,�aOft-
'y.
Page 1
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF EDENVALE 14TH
ADDITION FROM R1-13,5/ ' (multiple family)
To1R116�5 FPPROXIMATELY 15 OF THE 24 ACRES ,
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO .
<< <<
it 6-56 Zt
may►
I df;//. -"
'I'tix
r �j�77 !l u 1112- 4viv e- 917
z o -f -
L o-,
1 �l C- 4-4
y. Page 2
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF EDENVALE 14TH
(sin le) ' mu iple family)
ADDITION FROM R1-13 , 5/To ' M 6. 5/FOR APPROXIMATELY 15 OF THE 24 ACRES .
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO .
rz
3 '
.. erA A 1 �:3 -35'0
1L. gaz/S6
c'3 q -3 /
Lj
• l l � lQ� S 1 `mow• fr
y
$� 1117-
All r
!� �!
/5 51t f� 93
7�-g iA�
.. 3
4� 1s�6 . 6W ;"7-;?,0 7
73 r-3v �b
• r
N
Page 3
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF EDENVALE 14TH
`single) mu iple family)
ADDITION FROM R1-13. 5/To •RM 6. 5/FOR APPROXIMATELY 15 OF THE 24 ACRES .
DATE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO .
Ql z _