Laserfiche WebLink
5/21/73 <br />Hirsh, 6805 Point Drive, said that the Council would go beyond its authority <br />in changing a comprehensive zoning plan and that the proposed building vould <br />be "spot zoningtt which the Minnesota Supreme Court has declared illegal. He <br />referred also to the case of Kleber. vs; .the..Cit%. of :St. .Lo.uis. Park in Gzhich the <br />Supreme Court upheld the denial of a zoning change on Narch 12, 1971, based on <br />additional increasingly high density, inaaequate roads, traffic problems and <br />that "Piecemeal zoning The Vill- <br />age Attorney was asked to research the law case mentioned and report-his find- <br />ings to the Council. .Mr. Arthur Nelson, 6628 Brittany Road, suggested that, in <br />view of the increased population pressures, it might be necessary to amend the <br />zoning ordinances. He then read portions of the State lJater Law and said that <br />under Section 105.85 the pond on the site under consideration would be consid- <br />ered public waters. Nr. Nelson then read a letter to Elrs. Allison Fuhr from <br />Eugene R. Gere, Director of Division of Waters, Soil & Minerals of the State <br />of Blinnesota Department of Natural Resourceqin which.Mr. Gere opined that <br />therefore, subject to the provisions of liinnesota Statutes Chapter 105f' and <br />that "any proposed alteration of the course, current or cross section of this <br />body of water must be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources for <br />appropriate review and action" as set forth in the statutes. <br />issue with the Mayor's statement that this was primarily a man-made pond, stat- <br />ing that the pond appears in a picture taken on Nay 11, 1951. Nr. Murray Laub, <br />6613. Cornelia Drive; <br />'+getlands" and that, under environmental law today, "wetlands are considered <br />public waters. <br />ment of the Hospital opposing the proposal. Dr. Richard Simmons, 4800 Dun- <br />berry Lanspresented a petition signed by 27 members of the hospital medical <br />staff, requesting that Counci1'"declare a -0ratorium on the immediate develop- <br />ment of building on France Avenue from 66th Street to 78th Street until an overall <br />plan is developed that will include the effect of Yorlctown, the Edina East <br />Development and Highway Planning." The question was raised as to whether the <br />zoning should be based on the total "buildable" area of land (not including the <br />pond acreage) or upon the overall dimensions of the property. Mr. Leo Walch, <br />Scott said that the traffic counts used by the proponents on traffic conditions <br />in the area did not reflect counts at seasonal peaks. Following considerable <br />discussion, Councilman Johnson moved that the zoning be denied, based on the <br />fact that he believed that the development would cause a substantial increase <br />in traffic and that he believed that the density provisions of the zoning laws <br />should be interpreted in the context of buildable area which, in this case, <br />would permit only 69 units. Councilman <br />Shaw then recalled that he had voted against'the first two proposals for this <br />property in view of the variances which would have been necessary and that he <br />had, at those meetings, expressed his feats that something less desirable might <br />be constructed on the site. He added that the Village has always used the total <br />land area in determining the size of a buildable lot. <br />from Councilman Van Valkenburg, Mr. Eriqkson said that the letter from Mr. Gere <br />to Mrs. Fuhr was new evidence and that the Village had been of the opinion that <br />the pond was not public waters. He said that there have been analogies to these <br />cases such as private restrictions on subdivisions and the Village is asked many <br />times to approve an action by a landowner which is contrary to private restrict- <br />ions but yet within the Zoning Ordinances and beneficial to the Village. Mr. <br />Ericlcson added that in those cases he has opined that the Council should look <br />only to its ordinances and to its Village interests and that the impact of the <br />private restrictions are for the landowner and the parties entitled to enforce <br />those restrictions. Mr. Erickson said that he believes that much the same situ- <br />ation exists in this case, where the State has control over that water (so they <br />claim) and if, in fact, it does have that control, it would be another govern- <br />mental body that must be'dealt with. It would not be binding upon the Council <br />as to whether or not it is approved by the State, and that the same questions <br />would have to be asked by Council as to whether or not the proposal conforms <br />with Village ordinances and is beneficial to the Village. Councilman Shaw's <br />motion granting concept approval of the proposal and First Reading of the <br />following ordinance was seconded by Councilman Van Valkenburg, with the under- <br />standing that the matter be reviewed by the Village Attorney after researching <br />the statutes and the Xlebcr- vs. the City of St. Louis Park.case: <br />AN ORDINANCE &ENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE,(NO. 811) <br />might wear down the character of the area.cc <br />"this pond constitutes public waters, is of a beneficial public purpose, and is, <br />Mrs. Fuhr took <br />said that he had been told that the area was formerly <br />Mr. Vernon Knutson of Fairview Southdale Hospital read a state- <br />6917 Cornelia Drive, also spoke in opposition to the proposal. Nrs. Virginia . <br />I <br />The motion died for lack of a second. <br />In reply to a question <br />ORDINANCE NO. 811GA34 <br />,. <br />.. <br />I. <br />i <br />BY ADDING TO THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (PRD-5) <br />THE VILUGE COUNCIL OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: <br />is enlarged by adding the following thereto: <br />Section 1. Paragraph 4 of Section 5 of Ordinance No. 811 of the Village