Loading...
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 _