<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 />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