Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL <br />' JULY 7, 1980. <br />Answering rollcall were members Bredesen , Courtney , Richards , Schmidt and Mayor <br />Van Valkenburg. Also present were Mmes. Leslie Turner and Betty Carver of the <br />Human Relations Commission and Helen McClelland of the Community Development and <br />Planning Commission. <br />99 <br />MINUTES of June 16, 1980, were approved as submitted by motion of Councilwoman <br />Schmidt , seconded by Councilman Courtney. <br />Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg <br />Nays: None <br />Motion carried. <br />DEWEY HILL 111 ADDITION PRD-3 ZONING ORDINANCE GRANTED FIRST READING ON' 3-2 VOTE. <br />Mr . Hughes recalled that the hearing on the".PRD-3 zoning request :for. Dewey Hill <br />111 had been continued from June 2, i980, and that supplementary Findings of Fact <br />and Reasons had been distributed to the proponent and to neighbors for their <br />review. A copy of said Findings of Fact 2nd Reasons are hereto attached and made <br />a part of these Minutes. Mr. Larry Laukka, the developer, said that he had met on <br />three different occasions with neighbors since the last Meeting in an attempt to <br />work out their differences. Mr. Peter Jarvis , representing the developer, pre- <br />sented overlays showing the site as presently graded and as the project will appear <br />after final grading and landscaping with conifers in the 8 to 12 foot range, shade <br />trees, ornamental trees andshrubs. Reference was made to the fact that Mr. Laukka <br />had reduced the length of the Northerly building by 25 feet, reduced the height of <br />. the Northerly building from 3 to 2 stories and reduced the total number of units <br />from 123 to 114. Mr. Mitchell Kirchbaum, attorney representing Glasgow Drive <br />residents, said that Mr. Laukka is evading the issue, inasmuch as the real issue <br />is whether or not approval should be granted in the first place, <br />the purpose of this meeting is to analyze the-application <br />the Southwest Edina Plan, and to see if the Findings of Fact and Reasons support <br />the Reasons for the rezoning. He pointed out that the Findings of .Fact and Reasons <br />presented at tonight's meeting are called "supplementary" Findings which means that <br />they must be read <br />already been submitted. <br />address the major issue of density, that the Finding which states that the proposed <br />rezoning will not substantially reduce the value of surrounding properties is "pure <br />speculation", that a multiple residence building cannot be "sympathetic in design" <br />to single family dwellings, that lower density may not be "as profitable" rather than <br />"economically unlikely", and that, single family uses to the North and East are not <br />compatible with the proposed development. Mr. Hirchbaum submitted that the South" <br />west Edina Plan is beir.g completely ignored in allowing the proposed density, that <br />the Findings do not support the Reasons and that the Reasons do not support the <br />conclusion that the development should be authorized. Mrs. Dominick Sciola, <br />7705 Glasgow Drive, objected that in no case has approval been given by Council <br />allowing a higher density than that called for in the Southwest Edina Plan. In <br />response to Mrs. Sciola's statement that the neighbors were in favor of the devel- <br />oper's offer to eliminate the most Northerly building and make two single family <br />lots at the end of Glasgow Drive, Mr. Laukka said that he had been groping for a <br />satisfactory compromise, but that that solution would not be economically feasible. <br />Mr. Brian Anderson, representing West Suburban Builders, said that Mr. Laukka <br />had never addressed the concerns of residents on,the West side of the proposed <br />development and that they still believe that the density is too great, even if the <br />Northerly building should be replaced by two single family dwellings. He said <br />that evidence has been submitted to the Council showing an "adverse impact" on <br />the property values of single family lots on Shaughnessy Road and reminded <br />Council that there is no berm.between properties on the.West and the parking lot <br />and that all traffic will be using Shaughnessy Road. <br />of Councilman Courtney, Mr. Laukka said that, while firm plans had not been <br />drawn, landscaping on the West side of the site would be the same quality and <br />have the same result as landscaping on the East side. <br />Council that rezocing for the three story market rate apartment building at <br />51st and France Ave. was in a residential area also, with setbacks of less than <br />75 feet to the West and 40 feet to the South. Councilwoman Schmidt expressed <br />. her concern that, in allowing the proposed development to be constructed, the <br />Council is inviting other developers also to construct buildings of greater <br />density than permitted under City ordinances. <br />Mayor, Mr. Erickson said that in approving this proposal, the City would, in <br />effect , be amending the Southwest Edina Plan to a higher density and that the <br />only restriction on the Council's discretion as to density is the 12 units per <br />cu 0 ffl -3 a .a <br />He suggested that . <br />in terms of density, <br />in conjunction with the Findings of Fact and Reasons that have <br />He objected that the FiFdings of Fact acd Reasons do not <br />' <br />In response to a question <br />Mr. Jarvis reminded <br />In response to a question of the