Laserfiche WebLink
2/17/64 <br />1411WTES OF THE REGULAR HEETING OF THE EDINA <br />AT 7:OO P.52, a AT THE EDINA VILLAGE HALL <br />VILLAGE CQUI!lCIL, HELD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1964, ,. <br />Rollcall was answered by i4acMillan, Rixe , Tupa , VanValkenburg and Bredesen , <br />HEARING 014 PETITIO14 FOR REZONING OF SOUTHWEST CORNER VALLEY VIEW ROAD AND illOODDALE <br />AVENUE AGAIN CONTINUED, <br />Public Hearing on Petition for Rezoning from Community Store District to R-5 PIultiple <br />Residence District; this Hearing having been continued to this date €or opinion by <br />the Village Attorney on the matter of the petitioners' right to construct an apart- <br />ment building in the Community Store District, without public hearing. 14r. Edward <br />Schwartzbauer of the firm of Dorsey , Owen, Marquart, Windhorst E West, representing <br />Ifr, 14aynard Hasselquist, Village Attorney, reported that the plans as presened do not <br />meet the restrictions of either Community Store or R-5 1.iultiple Residence District <br />completely; that the height of the building exceeds maximum height of 40 feet <br />permitted in Community Store District, and that the allowable floor area ratio of <br />1.2 for R-5 ;4ultiple Residence District is exceededr <br />Village Council is perfectly justified in insisting on compliance with the terms of <br />either Community Store or R-5 Hultiple Residence District. <br />Mr. Carl Knutson opened discussion, with statement that owners of neighboring <br />properties are vigorously opposed because they feel the apartment building at this <br />location will seriously devaluate their properties; and, during discussion Council <br />heard many of Febnuary 3rd Hearing's arguments reiterated, relative to size, <br />traffic, noise nuisances which would be created by this building, <br />At a question from the Mayor, proponen&s said they would be agreeable to <br />reducing the height of the proposed apartment to 40 feet if it is mandatory--that <br />the penthouses have actually been added to the building mainly €or the purpose of <br />breaking the "box" <br />As to the floor area ratio permitted under R-5 Multiple Residence, blr. Hite <br />explained that the difference between that building area permitted and that <br />required for this building would be some 22,000 square feet; at which one of the <br />proponents told Council he feels that by doing some additional excavating, by <br />eliminating the penthouses, and by parking forty cars outside the building rather <br />than providing for complete inside parking the proponents could comply with <br />the requirements. <br />a public hearing, told Council his question hadn't been answered, <br />question had been, "Is a building of this type allowed within the present <br />restrictions of the Community Store District?" Mr. Schwartzbauer answered he <br />believes an apartment building, generally, would be considered one of the permitted <br />uses under the Community Store District, providing all the other provisions of <br />this particular District are met. <br />said the Council could eigher (1) grant a special permit OP (2) rezone--but that <br />public hearings were necessary for either, <br />saying he believes that proponents and neighbors should get together for an <br />informal discussion, He added that because of the expense involved in drawing <br />plans, etc., he would like to hear comments from the audience as to objections <br />other than height of building and floor area ratio which might be sufficient cause <br />to prohibit issuance of a building permit, adding that proponents can do what the <br />ordinance requires, but they believe that what they now propose is much more <br />worthwhile and will do a great deal more €or the neighborhood than what is actually <br />required. <br />opinion of the proponents. <br />Hearing on petition for rezoning be continued to blarch 2nd. <br />i4acl4illan and carried. <br />Mayor Bredesen called €or Continuation of February 3rd <br />He added he believes the <br />line at the top of the building. <br />Nr. Green, attorney for the proponents, who had questioned the necessity of <br />He said his <br />As to this particular building, 1.Ir. Schwartzbauer <br />Mr. Green then asked that Council continue Hearing for an additional two weeks, <br />He added he is not saying this as a threat but simply as the honest <br />Some further general discussion was had, and VanValkenburg moved that Public <br />Motion seconded by <br />COUJCIL APPROVES REZONING FRON R-4 NULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO R-3 i4ULTIPLE <br />dULT1PLE RESIDENCE, . <br />of "Notice of Public Hearing on Petition €or Rezoning"--which affidavits were approved <br />as to form and ordered placed on file, and, pursuant to due notice given, Public <br />Hearing was conducted on the petition of DEVCO CORPORATION of Columbus Ohio, for <br />Rezoning and Variances from Zoning Ordinance Requirements as follows: <br />DISTRICT of Lot One, Block Three, Southdale Acres Addition, <br />be allowed for Lot One, Block Three, to allow a 28-foot setback from Barrie Road. <br />(Requirement is for 35-fOOt setback) , <br />be allov?ed for Lot One, Block Three, to permit a lot density of 3,530 Square Feet <br />per unit. (Requirement is a minimum of 3,900 square feet per unit) <br />DISTRICT of certain part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Southdale Acres (as contained in <br />public notice) <br />for part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, to permit: <br />RESIDEdCE DISTRICT IN SOUTHDALE ACRES, BUT DELAYS ACTION 014 REZONII\TG TO R-5 <br />Clerk presented Affidavits of Publication, Posting and i4ailing <br />1. <br />2, <br />The Rezoning from R-4 Multiple Residence District to K-3 IlULTIPLE RESIDENCE <br />A variance from Setback Requirements of R-3 HULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT <br />3, A variance from Density Requirements of R-3 PIULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT <br />4. The Rezoning from R-4 Iqultiple Residence District to R-5 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE <br />5, A variance from Setback Requirements of R-5 EGJLTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT