<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 />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 />In response to a question
<br />Mr. Jarvis reminded
<br />In response to a question of the