MINUTES OF SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING
<br />HELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON
<br />MAY 17, 1972
<br />a:OO P.M.
<br />Members answering rollcall were Councilmen Courtney, Johnson, Shaw, Van Valken-
<br />burg and Mayor Bredesen.
<br />- OUTLOT 2, SOUTHDALE OFFICE PARK PRD-5 ZONING REQUEST DENIED. Mayor Bredesen
<br />recalled that the hearing for rezoning of Outlot.2, Southdale Office Park,
<br />from C-3 Commercial District to PRD-5 Residential District had been continued
<br />from May 1, 1972, so that the Council, staff and interested persons would
<br />have an opportunity to study the new plan.
<br />history of the request of Mr. Joseph Ericlcson for the zoning change, noting
<br />the restraints on the property which limit the building area to 10% of the
<br />as originally proposed, with a reduction of'157 units to'll floors and to
<br />eliminate the island in the pond.
<br />will be moved back 20 feet and that the proposed building is more than five
<br />times its height from the,nearest single family home and that the building
<br />will now be sixty-six feet from the Edina Realty property to the North. He
<br />also advised that the water level of the pond*will be controlled as before..
<br />Mr. Dahlgren compared the height of the proposed building with the Medical
<br />Building, Fairview-Southdale Hospital and the Edina Towers and said that com-
<br />mercial development of the property as presently zoned could generate 4,000
<br />cars per day, while the,proposed apartment building would generate approximately
<br />1,000 trips per day. Mr. Clay Snider, 6612 Vest Shore Drive, representing
<br />the Woodhill Association, expressed opposition to the proposed zoning change,
<br />stating that.the plans had not been changed essentially from the proposal
<br />whhh had been denied on February 28, 1972, and that the building is still -
<br />over size for the lot. Mr. Snider objected that there are no facilities in
<br />the area for street crossings for the residents who would be living in the
<br />apartment and contended that the building would still require'gross variances.
<br />He added that the zoning change would establish a precedent for other France
<br />Avenue properties and that the noise and air pollution caused by traffic
<br />would be objectionable to tenants. Mr. Snider referred to the D.M.J.M. Report,
<br />stating that it had recommended that the site be put to some use which would
<br />generate no more than 500 trips per day and that traffic should be controlled
<br />by zoning,
<br />of the potential growth of office buildings to the North of the property in
<br />above the .5 F.A.R. maximum for office buildings.
<br />Highway Department has advised that kt: will make improvements in the traffic
<br />signals at the intersection of France Avenue and W. 66th Street. Opposition
<br />to the proposal was expressed by Messrs. John Mortison, 6808 Southdale Road,
<br />Orlin Folwick, 6929 Cornelia Drive, W. D. Clinton, 6705 Cornelia Drive, who
<br />said that he spoke for five of his neighbors,-Mr. Rasmussen, a lady who lives
<br />on West Shore Drive and three other unidentified-persons in the audience.
<br />Villiam Scott, 6613 Southcrest Drive, said that the pond could not be filled
<br />in, since it was under the jurisdiction of the Nine Nile Creek Watershed
<br />District. Speaking in favor of the proposal were Mr. M. G. Skyberg, 4221
<br />Dunberry Lane, who expressed a desire to move into the proposed building, and
<br />Mr. E. J. Royce, 6808 Cornelia Drive, who said tlat his neighbors were not
<br />opposed to the project.
<br />company was interested in the level of the pond, since their building is
<br />already below the present pond level. Councilman Shaw referred to a study
<br />that he had made indicating that it would be economically feasible to con-
<br />struct a building with fewer units, but that he had discovered that he had
<br />not been given accurate information and his conclusions were no longer accur-
<br />ate. He added that newly calculated figures indicated that some reduction in
<br />the size of the building is still possible.
<br />Councilman Johnson's motion for denial of the PRD-5 zoning request was sec-
<br />onded by Councilman Shaw and on rollcall there were three ayes with Mayor
<br />Bredesen and Councilman Van Valkenburg voting "Nay" and the zoning change was
<br />the best use for the property in question and he hopes that residents don't
<br />regret their opposition.
<br />with the Mayor's sentiments at the meeting of February 28, 1972.
<br />?3HEXWOOD AVENUE PARKING RESTRICTIONS APPROVED. Councilman Courtney's motion
<br />was seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried confirming the action taken by
<br />the Traffic Safety Committee Meeting of May 16, 1972, that parking be prohib-
<br />ited between 8:OO a.m. and 4:OO p.m. on school days on Sherwood Avenue
<br />I Mr. Howard Dahlgren reviewed the .
<br />He advised that it is now proposed to construct the elongated building
<br />Mr. Dahlgren pointed out that the building
<br />I Mr. Luce recalled concern having been expressed over the magnitude
<br />He clarified that these buildings could expand by one-third and
<br />- that the proposed building would have a F.A.R. of .66 which is slightly
<br />He added that the County
<br />A representative from Modem Medicine said that his
<br />I Following considerable discussion,
<br />I Mayor Bredesen said that he believes that the proposed apartment is
<br />Councilman Shaw recalled that he had concurred