<br />AT- I 7: 30
<br />Invocation was given'by
<br />Xembers answering ROUCE&L were Bredese;, Danens, Fro&, Tupa and Erickson.
<br />Ihutes bf the ReGlar M'eeting oP August 8; 1955, were approved as submitted, by
<br />motion Danens, seconded by Fro& and carried.
<br />Pursuant to 8rA.DVBITISEMENT FOR BDS-SUEBY SBEB AND WATERMA3N,'I published in
<br />Edha-Morningside_Coqxi.er. and~"~onstrmction..Bul=letin AugF.zlst 11- and-18, 1955, Rayor
<br />Erickson called-for sealed bids on nine projects.
<br />Publication of said Advertisement, which were approved as to form and oraered
<br />placed on file; and Fronk moved for referral of bids to Village Engineer for
<br />public opening in his office, tabulation and report. Motion seconded by Danens
<br />and carried.
<br />Pfqyor Erickson'then announced th& Council would conduct 6ON'"UATTON OF JULY 25
<br />STORE DISZtRICT z1311S 3,. 4, 5, 6, 9. 10, ll and 12, Block 4, TINC;DBEE BROS. BROOKSIDE. Redewing. $0~. the. audience the .former .Hearing, Mayor .Erickson asked %hat arguments
<br />be brief. P'Ir. Harlan Strong, representative for the Home Builders Association (the
<br />petitioner' stated that; to quiet questions raised by. the opponents as to possible
<br />future use,of the proposed office building, the Association has had restrLctions
<br />prepared which would lhi% the use of the building to its presently proposed useage.
<br />He stated %hat the Association is proud of its proposed building ana feels that it
<br />idll be a distinct asset to the VUage. EIr. Austin Norton, representing the
<br />home owners in the area opposing the rezoning, said that the property owners have
<br />some $950,000 invested in their homes, bringing the Village @17,000 in tkes per
<br />year; that most of these homes are in the $35,000 to $50,000. bracket and are
<br />especially vulnerable to property depreciation by encroachment of a commercial. *
<br />area; that proposed construction will decrease property values in area by an
<br />estitwted lo$, thus ko a large exbent offseting ahy tax hcrease"to be obtained
<br />from the proposed building. 21 addition to the above, Hr. Norton butlined the
<br />follotJing objections to the proposed rezoning:
<br />In 1952, the owhers of property in the area--concerned wtth the then
<br />considered over-all zoning in the area--sought and obtained what they
<br />took to be assurance that they need not fear any encroachment of
<br />commercial zoning in this area.
<br />2. Additional commercial. traffic bill double the present traffic ioad into
<br />and out of this area (Edinbrook) - (a) creaking a fire protection problem
<br />by the possible crowding and crampingoof" the few entrances to the area;
<br />and (b) complicating the already acute school transportation problem.
<br />Mr. Norton-stated that, with regard to commercia3 rezomring, mahy citizens in this
<br />Village have heard the statements, "This is it. This is the buffer. This is where
<br />ire &op. We won't let it go any farther." He cited the matter of the rezoning of
<br />the Wallace property on 50th .+d Halifax as an example; stating that restrictions
<br />have-finally been secured which cannot be revoked without consent of neighboring
<br />property otvners.
<br />'natural buffer' between coyoperciaf.'and residential areas.
<br />arguments Mr. NQrton stated that the owners he represents have agreed that the
<br />solution to the problem must+be constructive--not merely obstructive; that they
<br />have secured a commitment fromtwo reputable home bujlders to purchase the property
<br />(providing it is available at a reasonable pri'ke) and to build thereon four homes 3
<br />$he coeined value-of which will be comparable to the value of the proposed office
<br />building, to within some ten or fifteen thousand dollars; thus generating good will
<br />instead of ill will. Other objections entered were, briefly, as follows:
<br />Mrs. J,M,Kellogg,500~ Edinbrook Lane - There are some fifteen to seven9een homes
<br />vitally.affected by the present proposition, which, if allowed, TJ~U only invite
<br />other requests.
<br />from heavy -traffic.
<br />Hwy.100 on East, Hw.16.9 on South, Railroad Tracks on West and Greek on East--
<br />children are cpnfined to area and do play in.the streets. hcrease in traffic
<br />tmuld be hazardous to them.
<br />5b. Soelberg, 305 &!+9th St. - Feels that Association has not shopped far
<br />enough$ for a suitable location--there are some three acres for sale farther south
<br />in a commercially zoned tract. Mr. DueZlman, 4908 E. Sunnyslope Rd. - On behalf of Sunnyslope Association wants
<br />to add.protest on Association to aq rezoning of area North of 50th Street; they
<br />feel that it yill increase traffic on PL5Oth St., as well as in bmeaate area.
<br />I&. Peter D. Burgess,4800 E. Sunnysloje Rd., First Vice President of Edina Ci6c
<br />and Improvement. Association, _- Association-wishes to pote_ct civic hprovemenk in
<br />Clerk presented Affidavits of
<br />(See Minutes of later in Meethg, for award).
<br />PUBLIC HEPRING ON PXXE'ION TO REZONE FROM OFBN DEvELQpm DISmm TO COTNUNJTY
<br />He named W.5Oth St. and the Railroad Tracks as constituting a
<br />In concluding his
<br />M2.E.L. Werner,4845 Mestbrook Lane - Has three children he wants to ,keep protected
<br />Mr. R.N.Benham, 4$01 kwtbrook-bne - Because of boundaries of Edinbrook area--
<br />Commercial zoning is a blight which creeps, lot by lot, into residential.