Laserfiche WebLink
10/27/58 <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA <br />AT 7:OO P.M., AT THE EDINA VILLAGE HALL <br />VILLAGE COUNCIL, HELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1958 <br />Members answering Rollcall were Bank, Dickson, Kohler and Tupa. <br />Bank presided in Mayor Bredesen's absence. <br />Mayor Pro Tem <br />MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of October 13, 1958, were approved as submitted, <br />by motion Dickson, seconded by Kohler and carried. <br />PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REZONING FROM OPEN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO COMMUNITY <br />STORE DISTRICT - FOR EXTENSION OF BILTMORE MOTOR HOTEL. Affidavits of Publication <br />and Posting--publication being in Edina-Morningside Courier on October 9 and 16-- <br />of "Notice-of-Hearing" were submitted by Clerk; approved as to form and ordered <br />placed on file; and, pursuant to said Notice, Hearing was conducted on the petition <br />of Biltmore Motor Hotel Corp. for the Rezoning to Community Store District of a <br />portion of Govt. Lot 7, Sec. 28, Twp. 117, R. 21. This property abuts U.S. Hwy. <br />No. 169-212 on the West and is located to the South and Southwest of the present <br />Biltmore Motor Hotel site. The purpose of the petition is to allow the extension <br />of the present motel. Mr. Harry Gustafson, representing the petitioners, presented <br />the plan of construction for the motel extension--52 additional units, with a small <br />restaurant, and an elevated swimming pool (which, Mr. Gustafson stated, may or may <br />not be built). He stated that the main reason for asking for rezoning at this <br />time is to give owners an opportunity to work with the State Highway Department <br />in alighnment of State Highway No. 169. At a question as to possible vacation <br />of W.53rd Street, Mr. Gustafson stated that on this plan 53rd Street would be <br />one of the entrances to the motel, inasmuch as it is between the present motel <br />and the future extension. Also asked as to how close the motel would come to <br />53rd Street, Mr. Gustafson replied that plans are not definite, but that it will <br />probably be between 100 and 150 feet from the street. <br />Mr. H.R. Reinhardt, 5240 Richwood Drive, inquired as to whether the rezoning <br />to Commercial can limit the land use to extension of motel only; and, if not, <br />wheCher the Council can rezone for specific land use. Attorney Hasselquist <br />replied that Community Store zoning does not limit the use to motel extension; <br />that it is not usual to rezone for one specific land use. At this time Mr. <br />Gustafson told audience that petitioners will be glad to enter into an agreement <br />with theallillage limiting the use of the land. <br />HIGHLANDS, AND WINDSOR AVENUE areas, on both this petition and the next rezoninq <br />petition to be heard this eveninq, reminded Council that it should have a reason <br />for rezoning any given area--either a change in access roads (where it has become <br />apparent that no residential development could possibly be had) or the development <br />of a need in the community. He skated the people he represents object to these <br />petitions because they.see absolutG$y no community need for the motel extension <br />or the office building; that the rezoning and the resultant buildings will further <br />complicate a bad traffic situation which now exists at the intersection o€ Hwy. <br />#169-Sherwood Ave.-Eden Ave. <br />getting into and out of these areas, they are areas of beautiful homes, well <br />kept up; that residents pay high taxes and high special assessments; that the <br />burden of proof of community need for these enterprises is on the petitioners; <br />and that Council should delay action either until such proof is presented or <br />until a master plan is completed, presented to the people and approved by a <br />ma j ority . <br />to both Biltmore and Overholtapetitions, being from Richmond Hills, Edina Highlands <br />and Windsor Avenue areas. <br />areas will continue to be kept up, while commercial areas tend to deteriorate <br />within five to ten years. <br />awkward position because they must look down on the property proposed for rezoning <br />and consequently must feel very strongly against the rezoning. Mrs. H.M. Paulson, <br />5328 Windsor Avenue reiterated Mr. Beale's sentiments, stating they can no longer <br />live in their residence if these petitions are honored. <br />comerkial enterprises. <br />Nbr. Floyd Pearson, 5256 Richwood Drive, objected on grounds of traffic <br />involvement near new park site. <br />Mr. L.W. Samuelson, Jr. 5204 Richwood Drive, and representing Pearson Bros., <br />owners of three acres immediately adjacent to the proposed Biltmore extension, <br />obj ec t ed . <br />Mr. R.K. Frank, 5244 Edenmoor Street, asked that Council try to get onto Sherwood Avenue at any time of day, before making a decision. He stated that <br />people traveling Highway No. 169 are not aware of Sherwood Avenue; that it is <br />already very difficult to enter or exit and that these new enterprises will <br />make a bad matter worse. <br />using the school buses. <br />Mr. D.F. Pratt, stating he is speaking for the RICHWOOD, EDENMOOR, EDINA <br />, <br />He stated that, in spite of the difficulty of <br />Mr. JOE. Larson, 5244 Richwood Drive, presented three petitions in protest <br />His argument against rezoning was that the residential <br />Mr. Dorr Eeale, 5225 Duncraig Road, stated that Duncraig residents are in an <br />44r. Francis McGuire, 5333 Vernon, protested to being entirely surrounded by <br />Mrs. Jane Ildstad, 5317 VJindsor Avenue, talked of the hazard to children <br />Harry GuStafSOn told audience that petitioners are as interested as