HomeMy WebLinkAbout19570225_19570308_edina_village_council_adjournedi L 3/8/57
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED PORTION OF THE
FEBRUAljY 25, 1957 MEETING OF THE EDINA
VILLAGE COUNCIL, HELD FRIDAY, MARCH 8,
1957, AT 7:30 P.M., AT WOODDALE SCHOOL.
ROLLCALL was answered by Bank, Fronk, Tupa and Bredesen.
PUBLIC HEARING ON INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING: Clerk submitted Affidavit of Fubli-
cation in Edina-Morningside Courier February 28 and March 7; Affidavit of Posting
on Official Bulletin Boards February 26, and Affidavit of Mailing, of "Notice of
Public Hearing on Edina Zoning Ordinance Amendment Creating Industrial Park
District". Affidavits were approved as to form and ordered placed on file.
Pursuant to this Notice of Hearing, Mayor Bredesen called Public Hearing on the
matter of a zoning ordinance amendment, which would createaan industrial Park
of the area composed of the B.B.Nelson and Bernard W. LaBeau farms and J.A.
Danens Son, Inc., acreage, located between Normandale and Cahill Roads and
between W.70th Street and the South Village Limits.
500 persons was present for this Hearing.
An audience of about
PROPONENTS :
Mr. Roy H. Peterson, petitioner for rezoning, outlined the exact location of the
proposed Industrial Park, explaining that it is the plan to plot the land for
industrial purposes before any of it is sold off; that deed restrictions will be
established as to setback, plantings, noise nuisances, smoke nuisances, odor
nuisances, etc.; that a Commission will be established to make sure of control
of these matters and to pass upon applications for permits for this site. He
stated that the tax base will be substantially improved by an industrial park
because the industrial park will provide revenue without requiring expenditures
for schools.
toward still larger budgets, stating that tax rates will continue to increase
unless something other than residential revenue is obtained.
to substantiate his statement that this property, if used for residential
development, will contribute much less net revenue than if used for industrial
purposes.
Mr. R.W. Law, Consultant to the Village Planning Commission and designer of the
proposed Industrial Park, stated that at no time Bas he ever presented any plan
or plat to the Village which he did not believe was in the best interests of the
Village.
costs; that people must realize that they must decide on three alternatives -
(1) a low level of public services; (2) a high tax rate; (3) revenue from other .
than residential taxes--this last statement being a quote from the Walter'Elucher
Report. He advocated creating the Industrial Park in the interest of stabilizing
the tax base.
He cited the recent increases in the school budget, the trend
He quoted figures
Figures quoted are on file at the Village Hall.
He stated that school costs are about three times village government
I
*. *
OPPONENTS :
Mr. James Hennessy, 6126 Naomi Drive, in referring to a pre,vious hearing on this
project, and subsequent action by the Planning Commission, stated, "This is the
same old girl, and we havent even bought her a new dress".
"Gardner Report", filed by Carl L. Gardner and Associates and Thorshov and Cerny,
Inc.,Associated Planners, filed December 5, 1956, and the "Supplementary Gardner
Report", filed March 1, 1957, recommending denial of the petition. Mr. Hennessy
stated that Edina's present tax situation has remained favorable because of the
caliber of building, without industrial development. Citing the Gardner Report
as to the dubious labor market for this development, he feels that the argument
for "revenue without expenditure" is as "immoral as it is fallacious' because
we cannot expect to have workers living in $35,000 houses, and there will have to
be a mass housing development adjacent to the project.
denial of the petition, and serious consideration by the Planning Commission and
Council of a blaster Plan.
persons who will benefit by introducing industry to Edina are the individuals
developing the land".
He quoted from the
Mr. Hennessy advocated
Mr. Hennessy stated that, in his opinion, "the only I
Fr. Jack Morrill, President of the Brookview Heights Community Council, stated that
the Community Council felt that two questions should be answered by
people of the Village, rather than only tho& adjscent to the project now under
consideration-- (1) Do we need industry in Edina?
Ifhat, accordingly, it was decided that a petition should be presented to all areas
to sample public opinion; that, as a result of this cross-section effort on the
part of the people conducting the poll, 9776 of the residents called upon were
opposed to granting an^ petition for industrial rezoning in Edina.
of the
(2) Do we want industry in Edina?
He then presented
petition, signed by some 2900 residents, asking for the rejection of any rezoning
petition.
F.2 I r' Y
3/8/57
14r. Georqe %!eatherbee, 5137 Headow Ridge, presented photographs taken from the
Brook Hollow Industrial Park, which has been cited as the pattern for this proposed
development, explaining that Brook Hollotv encompasses some 1200 acres of land,
against the 223 acres proposed for Edina; that Brook Hollow was constructed on
flood lands which could not be used for other purposes.
would bermost difficult for the Council to keep control of the type of industry to
be introduced, and that there would be no,tax reduction, and asked "!'!hy should ne
risk any devaluation of our homes i?or an industrial development?"
He stated that he feels it
Mr. Peter Burgess, speaking for the Edina Civic and Improvement Association, cited
the Association's resolution of protest forwarded to the Council earlier, and
stated that one reason for the Association's disapproval is that deterioration of
the whole area around the proposed industrial section just cannot be avoided. He
stated that the Ordinance lists only about five categories of industry which
cannot go into this area; that it does not establish good control. h. Burgess
stated he "strongly urges that the representative committee insist in preserving
the present character of the Village".
I
Ec. Stewart, 5108 Danens Drive, stated that factories cannot be supported nor
manned by laborers living in $18,000 homes and that, therefore, the houses built
in Edina to house these laborers would be cheaper homes, thus contributing less
per unit in taxes.
of unsightly conditions which develop in an industrial district, asking who is to
supervise these conditions.
He also took issue with Mr. Peterson's statements as to control
REBUTTAL- PROPONENTS :
lJr. Law refuted the Gardner recommendations as to adverse commuting distance and
travel time between this section of Edina and the main labor pool of the Twin
City area, and increased volume-of 'truck traffic north-south through the center
of the Village. He outlined the interstate system of highways proposed for the
metropolitan area, stating that from the standpoint of truck traffic it will be
easier to go out from the fletropolitan area in any direction on this interstate
system than it will to take the Beltline; that actually it will be cheaper in time
and gasoline to take any route other than the Beltline--which will mean definite
relief for Normandale Road.
industrial development a "Park", and fdr. Law stated that this name is given
because industrial developments are now planned in a 'parklike' manner, with
established setbacks, plantings, buffer strips and so on.
he explained that noise nuisance decreased in proportion to the square of the
distance from the source; that adequate setbacks could control this matter.
As to enforcement of control, 1k. Law explained that restrictive covenants are
a legal entity and can be enforced through the courts.
One of the proponents had objected to calling the
As to noise nuisances,
filr. Brad Morrison, 4805 Upper Terrace, stated he feels that industry will
stabilize the over-all tax base, die%her or not it actually reduces the taxes;
that, with imaginative planning, an industrial park could be a thing of prestige
for the Village of Edina; that it could be made bore attractive than a development
of homes.
I4r. Huber, 64th and Parnell, stated he €eels that more planning has gone into this
development than into many a residential area; that something must be done about
the tax situation; that labor for the area can be recruited from Bloomington.
REBUTTAL-OPPONENTS :
3.k. Frank J. Yiarner, 5100 Richmond Circ1e;expressed himself as being definitely
against an industrial area in Edina, the finest residential area in the Metropolitan
district.
and railroad traf{ic into Edina; that he can see no reason for industry, execpt to
satisfy the whims of several who are working for a profit. He asked that time and
attention be devoted to a !.laster Plan for the Village.
He stated he feels that industry will bring a large amount of both truck
h. Hugh Jtlcf.Iillan, representing Christ Presbyterian Church, objected to Industrial
Park on grounds that the Church had located on 70th and Normandale for the purpose
of serving a residential community.
f?ns. E.H. Vinson, 5101 Halifax Ave., told the Council that opening this area to
industry will bring requests for the same rezoning all along the l.lN&S Railway;
that the matters of sanitary sewer and water services must be very seriously
considered before industry is allowed.
I
Ifir. Y!.';!. Orfield, 4512 Laguna Drive, asked, "HOVI many inspectors does the Village
have to supervise the restrictions laid down for this development"?
3/8/57
Mr. Clark, 5120 Danens Drive, asked ‘Where do we go from here?“
his understanding that Mr. Law has recommended rezoning of the area as far North as
VJ.7Oth Street, at the Beltline; and I&. Law replied this recommendation is for
rezoning to within 200 Ft. of W.70th Street. Mr. Clark expressed himself as not
wanting industry in the Village.
He stated that it is
Someone from the audience asked, ‘‘Why did this matter come up again, when everyone
thought it was dead’?“ Mr. Hyde reviewed for the audience the proceedings to date,
including the original petition, consideration by the Planning Commission, referral
by the Commission to the Council for Public Hearing, without recommendation by the
Commission, Public Hearing of June 18th and referral back to the Commission for
firm recommendation, employment of Carl Gardner and Associates, Planning Commission Is
recent action recommending rezoning.
MASTER PLAN. liVith reference to the questions of this evening with regard to
preparation of a Master Plan, Manager Hyde explained that the Village now has over-
all sewer and water plans, that the Park Board Plan was adopted last month, that the
School Board now knows kwhere it wishes to locate‘its schools; that the Village has
been working with tbe State and County on an over-all street plan--this last being
contingent upon State and.County plans; that, before any real master plan can be
made there must be a policy on land useage.
At this time Mayor Bredesen called for a five-minute receBs, in order that the Council
might have a discussion of the points presented.
reconvened with all four members present.
After five minutes the meeting was
Mayor Bredesen then read the following: - General Statement -
for rezoning.
Planning Commission in trying to arrive at a decision that would be most beneficial
to the Village as a whole.
“We do not feel that a referendum on the question is wise or justified since
voters in areas far removed from area concerned would not have the same interest as
those who live right around the area in question.
“The Planning Commission has recommended favorable action on the request to
rezone.
an open forum on the question.
for or against, nor had it made a decision either way.
and the reasons therefor.
decision could be expressed clearly and fully--we prepared in advance two statements,
one favorable and one rejecting the proposed change, leaving final decision as to
which one to read until after hearing your views through this meeting tonight.
feel that we are familiar with all of the arguments for and against and wanted to
make our final decision in accord with the preponderance of opinion as expressed here
nowtt .
”Your Village Council has spent much time and effort in considering this request
\:‘e have employed professional planning engineers to assist us and the
* The Counci1,has called this meeting to allow the proponents and the opponents
The Council, prior to this meeting has not acted either
?Ye appreciate your attendance here tonight and are ready to present our decision,
Since we came here with an open mind--and in order that our
We
And then read the following - Rejection of Proposed Rezoning -
sincere in their feeling that this project is for the good of the Village.
basic reasoning is that it would provide the best end use for this area and that
eventually it would serve to broaden the tax base and thereby reduce kthe taxes we
all pay on our homes.
would prefer to keep Edina a residential community and are willing to pay the taxes
necessary to keep it that way.
“Man arguments have been advanced as to valuations and effects on the tax base
but it is difficult to truly evaluate’khese since they are and can only be estimates
based on indefinite development going perhaps far into the future.
do not agree on a number of the points involved.
“Because your council feels that there are too many uncertainties involved in
this proposed industrial park and because it appears that the majority of the residents
are opposed to it the Council is rejecting the petition to rezone for the purpose
requested.
in turning down this request we are not definitely closing the door to any and every
such request.
consider it on its over-all merits.
Southeast corner, that might not lend themselves to any other type of development
and we are anxious that Village policy be kept fluid enough to enable us to use all
“Ke believe that the petitioners for an Industrial Park Development in Edina are
Their
“The opponents to rezoning for an industrial park just as sincerely feel’ that they
The expert opinions
“In taking this action the Council would like to go on record to the effect that
If a developer can come in with a complete plan, we would seriously
There are areas in Edina, particularly the
. of our land beneficially.“
3/8/57
And Fronk moved that Council deny petition for rezoning, in line with statement
heretofore read. L'iotion seconded by Bank and carried.
Someone from the audience inquired as to
of the public opinion against industrial
Village by-laws, a section prohibiting zoning from ever coming into
the Village. Llr. Cindhorst stated that is not legally possible; and,
once again, Mr. Bredesen reminded the
the Village, now occupied by gravel pits,/and brick plants, may be suitable only
for industrial development and that thi% Council does not wish to project any
prohibition of industrial rezonins; that it feels each reauest should be considered
Council, noting the preponderance
cannot adopt, as a part of the
the Southeast portion of
-- I on its individual merit. I
Mayor Bredesen then announced the Hearing on -Rezoning to Industrial Park closed. '
AYJARD OF BIDS TAKEN !$ARCH 8 - BACYAOE: Manager Hyde presented Tabulation of Bids
taken this morning on a Backhoe, there being two bids on a "Henry Super C-10-HI'--
that of Astleford Equipment Co. at $2,654.00 and that of Bement-Cahill Equipment
Co., at $2,562.00, and one bid, by Bement-Chill, on an "Ottawa 11' Deep Digger",
at $3,492.00. Irk. Hyde recommended award of contract to Bement-Cahill at $2,662.00,
inasmuch as this amount is under the budgetary appropriation for this equipment.
Trustee Bank inquired as to whether the smaller machine is capable of doing all
the work set forth for it to do, and Mr. Hyde replied that it can do the frost-
boil work and the light work, but that it cannot do the watermain break and deep
work--that the Village must still employ outside equipment for this latter crork,
Upon question, Finance Director Dalen stated the Village spends in the neighborhood
of $1,000 a year for equipment for the deep work; and Mr. Hyde explained that
for watermain breaks it is not always possible to secure outside equipment as
soon as we want it; that repair of breaks has been delayed for this reason.
Bank then stated that, taking the above facts into consideration, he believes it
is to the best interests of the Village to buy equipment which will serve all the
purposes intended for it, and he moved that contract be awarded to Bement-Cahill
for the Ottawa machine at $3,492.00. Motion seconded by Fronk and carried.
MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION CONTRACT--VILLAGE-SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17. Attorney
YJkdhorst stated he feels that the Council be sure that its insurance policies
are revised according to contract, before this contract is signed; that the
matter of premiums may possibly be a consideration here.
Village Manager for investigation.
-
I:atter referred to
CARL 1.1. HANSEN'S FINAL PLAT OF PARIWOOD KNOLLS VI ADDITION was presented, carrying
Planning Commission's approval, subject to engineering check, agreement on park
dedication, and disposal of storm sewer matters to satisfaction of Village.
Hyde reported that Ik. Hansen is agreeable to a dedication for park; and, after
some discussion, Fronk moved that Final Plat of Parkwood Knolls VI Addition be
approved, subject to the provisions set forth by the Planning Commission and
written dedication €or parks.
b.
Motion seconded by Bank and carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SCUTHDALE IV ADDITION was discussed at some length.
reported that this plat shows 1;'.GGth Street closed, and lots across its present
location.
Council intends to keep faith with its constituents by declining to close If.66th
Street. (See Minutes of 4/25/55 and 4/29/55, Pages 173 and 185, Book 18).
I.'s. Hyde
Hyde was directed to inform developer and Planning Commission that
I &PLAT OF LOTS 3, 4 AND PARTS OF LOTS 1, 2 AND 5, GARDEN PARK, has Planning
Commission's March 6th recommendation for approval, subject to confirmation from
State Highway Department as to Highway #169 relocation--this being a Preliminary
Plat by E??. E.J. Lynch.
recommendation, was seconded by Bank and carried.
Tupa's motion, that Council concur in Commission's
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "REPLAT OF LOT 7, BLOCK 1, CODE'S HIGHVIEW PARK" was approved
in acoordance with Planning Commission's Idarch 6th recommendation, by motion
Bank, seconded by Fronk and carried.
REZONING REQUESTS,
recommendations, as hereinafter set forth, on petitions filed for rezoning, liotion
seconded by Fronk and carried:
Bank's motion, that Council accept Planning Commission's March 6
1 - REQUEST OF S.B. STENSON AND H.A. BING FOR COXERCIAL REZONING OF LOTS 11
12,13,14 AhD 15, BLOCK 21, FAIRFAX ADDITION - Recommendation: To concur
in Gardner's recommendation that requests be denied.
2 - REQUEST OF S.L. STRAND, J.L. SHULDHIESS AND S. KOLD FOR COXfERCIAL
REZONING Ai 4405, 4409 AND 4417 VALLEY VIE!': ROAD, - Recommendation: To
concur in Gardner's recommendation for denial.
3/8/57
3 - REQUEST OF RESOP REALTORS, INC., FOR COMMERCIAL REZONING OF PART OF
VACATED STREETCAR RIGHT-OF-WAY ON BROOKSIDE AVENUE JUST NORTH OF MOTOR
STREET - Recommendation:
denial.
To concur in Gardner's recommendation for
4 - REQUESTS IN VICINITY OF GRANDVIEW SHOPPING AREA TO REZONE TO COJt4ivERICAL
LOTS 1,2,3, BLOCK 1, GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS; LOTS 8,9,10 AND 11, BROOKSIDE
ADDITION, AND LOT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 7 - Recommendation: To
reconsider requests and withhold action pending further requests, if any.
6 A REQUEST OF MINNEAPOLIS HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION TO REZONE TO COMRIUNITY ' STORE LOTS 3,4,5,6,9,10,11 AND 12, BLOCK 4, TINGDALE BROS. BROOKSIDE ADDN.
Recommendation: To hold in abeyance any recommendation, pending further
requests. (Note: Council has rejected this, after Public Hearing)
6 - REQUEST OF E. 0. SWANSON TO REZONE TO COMMERCIAL LOTS .15 AND 16, BLOCK 1,
BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS ADDITION. - Recommendation: To concur in Gardner's
recommendation for denial.
7 - REQUEST OF W.J. BOLDUC TO REZONE TO COb"ITY STORE LOTS 18 AND 19,
BLOCK 1, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS ADDITION. - Recommendation: To concur in
Gardner's recommendation for denial.
88 - REQUEST FOR REZONING TO COIw%'ERCIAL THAT PROPERTY ON HIGHKAY NO. 169 AND
SOUTH OF K.53RD ST. - Recommendation: To concur in Gardner's recommend-
ation for denial.
CONDEMNATION OF EASEMENTS FOR SANITARY SEI!IER IMPROVEMENT NO. C-1.
told the Council he will be prepared at the next meeting to ask Council to condemn
Trunk Sewer No. C-1 easements which have not yet been signed.
Engineer Zikan
I4INUTES OF JEETING OF FEBRUARY 25
seconded by Fronk and carried.
were approved as submitted, by motion Tupa,
CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT.
1957, in the following amounts:
Tupa moved for Payment of Claims as per Pre List dated March 8,
General Fund =---- $6 , 446.75 Liquor Fund ----- $42,129.72
Construction Fund- 22,725.57 SeweT Rental ---- 66.19
!',kiter Fund ----- 1,069 a 18 Poor Fund ---- 36.36
Park Fund ----- 4 , 462.81 Improvement Funds 200.00
TOTAL $77,136.57
PETITIONS FOR IMPROVEIvlENTS:
all streets in LaBuena Vista were filed.
accepted without guaranty of work's being done in 1957, was seconded by Tupa and
carried .
Petitions for Sanitary Sewer and for Yfatermain for
honk's motion, that petitions be
AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR DIVISION OF COSTS-STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. E-2
(COUNTY PROJECT NO. 5612) - FRANCE AVENUE BETWEEN W.54TH ST. AND 1/10 MI. SO. OF
Manager Hyde presented agreement, received from Hennepin County, on . W.62ND ST.
division of costs for this project; setting forth Engineer's Estimate as
$28OY900.15--the Village to pay County ktotal cost of concrete curb, concrete
gutter, concrete driveway entrances to private property, and all appurtenances
required for future installation of traffic signals or street lighting system,
and all costs for outer l$ feet of concrete payement which will be considered
as concrete gutter; the County to pay 2/3 and the Village to pay 1/3 the cost
of the bridge; and the remainder of the cost to be shared equally by Village and
County.
agreement on behalf of the Village, was seconded by Fronk and carried. Fik. Tupa
inquired as to whether County understands that work is not to be done until under-
ground utilities are in the street$ and,Mr. Hyde replied in the affirmative.
Motion by Bank, that proper officials be authorized to enter into this
RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE CO!V~~ISSION'S ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF BUS SERVICE from present
terminus at 60th and Wooddale, on Kooddale to Valley View Road, then on Valley View
Road to Concord Avenue and returning on Concord Avenue to W.60th St. and on W.60th
St. to Wooddale Avenue, was reported. Order dated February 26, 1957.
PUBLIC HEARIXG ON ASSESSMENT FOR STORM SEWER IIvIPROVEMENT NO. 29 was continued
from March 11 to April 8, at 7:30 P.M., by motion Fronk, seconded by Bank and
carried.
There being no further business to come before this meeting, Tupa moved for
adjournment. Motion seconded by adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
Village Clerk