<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 />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 />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