Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />VILLAGE <br />AT 7:OO <br />43 <br />1 <br />12/22/58 OF THE REGULAR MEETfNG OF THE EDI" <br />COUNCIL, HELD MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1958, <br />P.M.7 AT THE EDINA VILLAGE HALL <br />Members answering Rollcall were Bank, Dickson, Kohler, Tupa and Bredesen. <br />MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED. <br />of December 8, 1958 be amended as follows: That the "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE <br />ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF $300,000 TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES B", as <br />recorded on Pages 39 and 40 of Minute Book No. 22, be amended to show Paragraph <br />4 as reading "The bonds of said series shall be forthwith prepared for execution <br />under the direction of the Village clerk and executed on behalf of the Village by <br />the manual signature of the Mayor---", was seconded by Dickson and carried. <br />Dickson then moved that the Minutes of November 24, 1958 be approved as submitted <br />and that the amended Minutes of the Meeting of December 8, 1958 be approved. <br />Motion seconded by Bank and carried. <br />Bank's motion, that Minutes of the Regular Meeting <br />"HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS" AMENDMENT TO REGIONAL SHOPPING DISTRICT SECTION OF ZONING <br />ORDINANCE - CONTINUATION OF DECEMBER 8TH PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Robert crabb of <br />Southdale Realty Company reviewed for the Council and the audience the Company's <br />reasons for requesting change in "setback" and "height" provisions of the <br />ordinance--that the change in the "setback" provision will allow the placing of <br />a building closer to France Avenue than is now permitted; and that the requested <br />change in 'the. 4-'heighttf provision would, of course, provide for taller buildings <br />than are now permitted (present ordinance provides a 70-f oot masimum, whereas <br />change would provide for 109-foot maximum height). <br />the change in the setback provision will not affect the setback from Valley View <br />Road. He stated that the request for relief from the "height" provision had been <br />made pursuant to experience with the medical building, which showed that con- <br />struction of this type of building less than six stories high would not be <br />economically sound--but that the Company is willing to delay this part of its <br />request until further studies have been made on the matter of structural <br />economics insofar as office buildings are concerned. Messrs. J.C. Armstrong, <br />6624 Southdale Road, and Warren A. Sturm, 6713 Southdale Road, led a delegation <br />of about twenty Southdale residents protesting the "height" change. They stated <br />that although they knew the property was zoned "Regional Shopping District" when <br />they purchased their residential properties, most of them believed the maximum <br />height was 40 feet; that they feel their properties will be devaluated if the <br />proposed change is effected; that the view from their residences will be <br />impaired by the construction of "skyscrapers". <br />making no objection to the proposed "s&tback" change. <br />the "control" provision of the ordinance be changed, to provide that "written <br />consent of 3/4 of the owners of property located within 500 feet" be required <br />for construction higher than 40 feet. <br />original ordinance was written the Company owned both the Regional Shopping <br />District and the residential property for blocks around; that, should the <br />ordinance be changed now, provision could still be circumvented by division <br />of ownership into "subsidiary" companies. Trustee Bank suggested that the <br />height limitation be placed at 75 feet, which would permit the erection of a <br />six-story building without further discussion before the Council, but Messrs. <br />Armstrong and Sturm were adamant in their protest against any change in the <br />height provision. They stated they would be willing and happy to discuss the <br />matter with the Company at such time as survey might show construction of less <br />than six stories to be impractical. <br />contain the clause contained in the original ordinance, proh5biting lie9ng <br />quarters above the office buildings. <br />moving that Council dispense with second reading and adopt Ordinance as sub- <br />mitted: <br />ORDINANCE NO. 261-39 <br />Mr. Crabb pointed out that <br />They expressed themselves as <br />Delegation requested that <br />It was pointed out that at the time the <br />They also asked that the proposed amendment <br />Tupa offered the following Ordinance, <br />AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE HEIGHT OF <br />BUILDING IN THE REGIONAL SHOPPING <br />DISTRICT, AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE <br />OF THE VILLAGE <br />THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: <br />Section 1. Subparagraph (b) of paragraph 3 of Section 8 (Regional Shopping <br />Distrmdinance No. 261 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Village, as-,amended, is <br />hereby .amended to read as follows: <br />No building shall be erected to a height <br />greater than 40 feet above the average surrounding ground level, except that a <br />building may be erected to a height no greater than 70 feet if the following <br />conditions are observed: <br />"(b) Heiqht of Buildinqs. <br />(1) That for each foot of height above the average surrounding ground <br />level, one foot of street set-back is provided. <br />That the building or portion of the building greater than 40 feet <br />in height is not less than 250 feet from the centerline of any <br />public street dividing the building site from an area zoned either <br />Open Development District or Multiple Residence District. <br />(2)