Laserfiche WebLink
11/3/69 <br />5905 Sun Road, Gordon Johnson, 5837 Jeff Place and an unidentified gentleman <br />complained about the proposed rezoning, stating that they bought their homes <br />in Edina counting on the continued development of nice single family homes in <br />the Village. <br />for private dwellings since pilings must be installed for foundations as well <br />as for roads and that this expense would make the land prohibitive in cost for <br />single family dwelling use. Mayor Bredesen recalled that the Village has been <br />courts in those cases had said that propertymust be zoned for the highest and <br />best use. In reply to questions of Mr. A. M. Purcell, 6105 Olinger Blvd., and <br />Mr.*L. S. Kendall,, 5916 Sun Road, Mr. Hyde said that the Mud Lake development <br />started as a part of the flood control plan along Nine Mile Creek and that the <br />property which Mr. Olsen will give to the Village is absolutely necessary if <br />there is to be a park. Mr. Lloyd Lee, 5920 Olinger Blvd., questioned use of <br />the term "neighborhood park", stating that this will be as much a "Village <br />park" as Braemar Park and the Municipal Pool. Mr. Samuel S. Thorpe 111, 5808 <br />IJ. 61st Street, questioned the fact.that 120 units would be permitted on this <br />site and said that this is a higher density than permitted in Bloomington.. . <br />Mr. Thomas a Thompson, 5833 Jeff Place, was told that Mr. Olsen was asking <br />$250,000 for the twenty-five acres and that a quarter million dollars would be <br />saved by granting the zoning under consideration. Mayor Bredesen added that <br />with land values in the Village raising 16% per year since 1965, he is trying <br />to help to reduce the- cost of living in the Village. Mr. Nilliam McFadzean, <br />6100 Arbour Lane, questioned what effect the proposed town houses would have <br />on traffic in the area and complained particularly about the speed of traffic <br />on Tracy Avenue at the present time. He said that he would rather pay higher <br />taxes so that the advantages of the quiet suburban community could be maintained. <br />Considerable discussion ensued as to traffic patterns in the area, with Mr. <br />Hoisington pointing out that additional traffic brought in by the proposed <br />town houses would cause no particular problem since traffic would spread in <br />many directions. Mr. Craig Rothgeb, 5824 W. 61st Street, protested the pro- <br />posed rezoning, stating that Council is proposing to rezone the property <br />without even being sure that there will actually be a park. He criticized the <br />efficiency of the entire Village park system. <br />called attention to the fact. that the proper legal description of the property <br />under consideration had not been used in the Notices of Hearing and recommended <br />that- a new hearing be set so that any rezoning would be valid. Mayor Bredesen <br />said that he had been aware of this discrepancy but that the hearing had been <br />conducted so that those in the audience need not return if they did not wish. <br />Councilman VanValkenburg's motion setting new hearing date for November 17, <br />1969, was then seconded by Councilman Johnson and carried. <br />Mr. Hoisington pointed out that this land is undevelopable <br />. taken to court in somewhat comparable situations and has lost cases since the <br />I <br />At this point the Village Attorney <br />6 <br />*/.,v <br />' r,trc'. <br />HALu PROPERTY RE-ZONING DENIED AT SECOND READING. NEW HEARING DATE MAY BE SET. <br />Mr. Hoisington presented Ordinance No. 261-190 for Second Reading,.noting <br />that this hearing had been continued from October 6, 1969, in order that Council <br />would have an opportunity to consider the Village ordinance pertaining to height <br />of buildings. Mr. Hoisington advised that Planning Commission had recommended <br />that no change be made in the present height ordinance under which height of <br />buildings is controlled by setbacks. <br />by Mr. Hoisington that variances would be necessary in order to build:.anything <br />over eight stories and that the Hallas have indicated an interested in <br />constructing a building considerably taller. <br />the time Council considered an amendment to the zoning ordinance in which no <br />height limitation was placed on R-5 Multiple Residence Distriot buildings, the <br />ordinance was approved in principle with reservations because there was no. <br />particular problem at that time. <br />the ordinance is now being applied to a particular situation and feels that <br />buildings of unlimited height, even though there is adequate open space, would <br />well effect the symmetry of the building in Edina. <br />Councilman Johnson, Mr. Hoisington said that town houses would not be appropri- <br />ate on this location. <br />the United States are moving toward more apartment buildings, but that while <br />he would not object to the number of people living in the building, he would <br />think that a fourteen story building would be undesirable. Mr. Ernest Ibs, <br />representing the Halla's architects, explained that the site has a peculiar <br />underground disposition which limits the type of construction. <br />a standard design-: can be used if the building is concentrated on high ground <br />without using the low area of the property, <br />of the Planning Cormnission Special Meeting of October 15 and noted that he <br />would vote for the R-5 zoning but that he does not want a fourteen story build- <br />ing on the site. <br />granted by the Board of Appeals 'andi-~dj~~~me'fitso--. <br />that the property F70Uld not be a paying proposition to anyone unless they <br />could put up the type of building proposed. <br />Councilman VanValkenburg was advised <br />Councilman Johnson said that at <br />He added that he now has .reservations because <br />In reply to a question of <br />Councilman Courtney said that suburban areas throughout <br />He noted that <br />Mr. Courtney quoted from minutes <br />It was pointed out that any variances would have to be <br />Mr. Selmer Halla said <br />Following considerable discussion,