Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULARMEETING OF THE <br />EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL HELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON <br />MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1970 <br />E . <br />Members answering rollcall were Councilmen Courtney, Johnson, Shaw, VanValken- <br />burg and 'Mayor Bredesen. <br />MINUTES of November 17 and December 1, 1969, were approved as submitted by <br />motion of Councilman Johnson, seconded by Councilman VanValkenburg and carried. <br />WILLIAM J. OLSEN ZONING REQUEST CONTINUED TO JANUARY 19, 1970. Affidavits of <br />Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. <br />Mr. Hoisington recalled that a hearing had been conducted on November 3, 1969, <br />but because the incorrect legal description had been used in legal notices, <br />this new hearing is being conducted. <br />been considered in an attempt to arrive at a proper decision on the use of Mr. <br />William'J. Olsen's property which is located South of W. 62nd Street, West of <br />Countryside Park and North of the Crosstown Highway. These four alternatives <br />are: 1) Acquisition of the total 'olse'n tract; <br />acres, leaving the remainder R-1 Residential District; 3) Acquisition of the <br />eight acres and reduce the density over the remainder of the tract (a new <br />agreement); <br />the eight acres and town house development of the remainder of the tract, <br />figuring give units per gross acre of the total. <br />Place, advised that he was speaking for property owners in the absence of <br />their attorney, Mr. Schumacher, who was unable to attend this meeting. <br />submitted a petition signed by over 1,100 residents opposing any zoning other <br />than R-1 for the property in question. <br />that this petition is an unrealistic hope from the standpoint of construction <br />and that he would like an opportunity to discuss a solution which had just <br />come to his attention with the attorney representing the property owners. <br />Mayor Bredesen noted that he believed that this suggestion would resolve the <br />matter to the satisfaction of the majority of residents concerned. Mayor <br />Bredesen made reference to an article in the paper which suggested that <br />anticipated HUD funds would be withheld from any suburban development which <br />would provide for large single family lots as opposed to higher density devel- <br />opment. Mr. Bunker said that Mr. Schumacher has advised that all zoning <br />cases are individual cases and that it is hoped that this case can be consid- <br />ered on its own merits. <br />of Minnesota which indicated that the funds which Edina would receive from <br />He recalled that four alternatives had <br />2) Acquisition of the eight <br />4) Pursue the present agreement with acquisition or dedication of <br />Mr. Donald Bunker, 5841 Jeff <br />He <br />Mayor Bredesen said that he believes I <br />He quoted from a brochure issued by the University <br />I \= HUD for Planned Residential zoning would not be anywhere near the added <br />the additional density. Mr. John K. Yarger, 6020 Arbour Avenue, asked why \! bc.' his wife had received no reply to two letters which she had written to the <br />Council requesting a reply to a number of questions. <br />that Mr. Hyde is working on a reply to the letters but that this letter is not <br />reading because of the fact that Mr. Hyde has been ill. <br />discussion, Councilman Shawls motion that the hearing be continued to January <br />19, 1970, in order that Mayor Bredesen, Mr. Schwartzbauer, Mr. Schumacher <br />and Mr. Bunker could meet and discuss the new idea which had come to the <br />Mayor's attention was seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried. Mr. Bunker <br />tlien requested that information be made available at that meeting as to the <br />elevation of Mud Lake, since it has been rumored that the normal elevation of <br />the lake would be higher than a number of basements. <br />t L' 3 expenditures that would be expected from this type of development because of -' <br />y' ,.)" Mayor Bredesen replied <br />\.!a <br />Following considerable <br />ORDINANCE NO. 261-197 GRANTED FIRST READING. Mr. Hoisington recalled to <br />Council that the request of Mr. David Thomas for R-4 zoning for Lots 1 and <br />2, Block 1, Elmwood Terrace, and Lot 1, Block 1, Elmwood Terrace 2nd Addition, <br />located south of 5412 France Avenue,had been continued so that Mr. Thomas <br />could provide more information as to his site plans. <br />he had plans for twelve units on two 'floors with one unit on the lower level <br />and that the building would be one foot lower than the building at 5412 <br />France Avenue. <br />erected, drainage would be a problerp. Mr. James McClung, 5429 Halifax Lane, <br />pointed out that it was not only the height of the building that neighbors <br />opposed, but also the high density p-roposed in view of R-1 zoning on three <br />sides of the property. He pointed out that the original apartment at 5412 <br />France Avenue was intended to serve as a buffer between the commercial area <br />at 54th and France and the existing R-1 dwellings. Mr. Douglas Reite, 5421 <br />Halifax Lane, was assured that screening would be provided so that lights <br />from cars parking/$A &g !%g@%f the building would not bother Halifax Lane <br />residents. Mr. Ralph H. Goebel, 5417 Halifax Lane, was advised that the pro- <br />I- Mr. Thomas advised that <br />It was pointed out that no matter what type of building was