Laserfiche WebLink
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 />land. <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 />question. <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 />denied. <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 />Mrs. <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