1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1958 - 1974
12/24/2013 8:08:51 AM
12/23/2013 11:45:41 AM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
k 3 M <br />6/24/63 ( 825 <br />.J <br />1 accordance with the request this will probably be a litigated matter. <br />Mr, Brill answered affirmatively, citing the recent Supreme Court decision on <br />the Olson case as his reason for believing as he does. <br />Hasselquist pointed out that there is a difference, here, however; that the tract <br />here under consideration is in an "Office Building District" and Judge Weeks <br />ruled in the Pearce case that "Office Building" zoning is not commercial <br />zon ing . <br />Company has never asked for anything bu$ filling station zoning on this tract-- <br />that it accepted Office Building zoning to get the plat accepted. <br />the East-West street (Industrial Blvd.) will be heavily trayeled when industry <br />in the area is developed, and that a filling station site at the location <br />recommended by the Commission would mean that home owners wauld have to cross <br />this street to get to this station; that the objection registered by Mr. Carl <br />Struck, Hibiscus Avenue, a few meetgngs ago is not valid because these people <br />are some 2,000 feet from the site. <br />asked if it is not the intent to use this road primarily for industrial traffic; <br />and explanation was then made by Mr. Hite of the general traffic pattern in the <br />entire development, and the Planning Commission's recommendation that the <br />residential section be completely separated from the other zones in the develop- <br />ment , with the "tie" north-south rdad allowed only at developer's insistence. <br />Mr. Hite added that if it is impossible to prohibit filling stations next to <br />residential properties all municipalities are in a difficult possit.ion. <br />told Council it has been the intent to maintain Highway 100 in residential <br />character. <br />developed he would feel there could be some valid objection; that there area <br />ten acres for multiple residences directly to the north of the site and these <br />people are entitled to have their cars serviced. <br />generally believed that the detrimental influences of filling stations do not <br />extend beyond two houses adjacent thereto; the developer is willing to reduce <br />valuation of abutting lots if this becomes necessary. <br />Saying that there has been much talk about values, real estate sales, etc. , <br />Mr, Hite explained that the matter of zoning becomes much more involved than this; <br />that the Commission is attempting to make Edina a fine place in which to live, <br />and is concerned about the people who are going to live in the Village just as <br />much as about those who are trying to sell lots. <br />language of the Court in the Olson case says that these things cannot be taken <br />into account; that this is pure esthetics. <br />Attorney Hasselquist inquired of petftioners as to whether an attempt <br />has been made to convince oil companies to put filling station on the site <br />had been made; that the oil companies will not do this because of the <br />inaccessibility of'that site to the homes. <br />Pure Oil Company's original idea was not to locate its station south of No. 494, <br />and Mr. Stow replied that it was not, Mr, Brill stated that if the oil company <br />would just as soon take the property recommended by the Commissioner petitioner <br />would just as soon sell it to them. Mr. Hyde's next question was as to whether <br />the elevation of the north property does not make it more desirable. <br />answered that elevation is the same for both tracts, and Mr. Hite added that <br />the south site is behind the interchange and cannot be seen. <br />Planning Commission's* recommendation on zoning, added that since there is a <br />question of legal right he moves to defer action on this petition until we get <br />legal advice from the Village Attorney. Motion seconded by MacMillan and carried, <br />Mr, Brill asked that continued hearing be scheduled for July 8, and was informed <br />that hearing will again come before the Council on that date if there is a quorum; <br />that, otherwise, it will be scheduled for July 22. <br />that the oil company representative be asked to be present at Hearing, and Mr. <br />Brill agreed to do so. Mr. Stow stated the proposed station will not be on <br />Highway LOO--that there are two service roads and a 125-foot boulevard between <br />the station and the highway. Mr. Hite explained that all property between the <br />North-South r'tierr road and the highway right-of-way is being considered for <br />filling station site. <br />Mr. Don Anderson of Rauenhorst Construction Company, developers of the <br />industrial property on the East side of Highway 100, expressed his surprise at <br />the feeder road from the residential section into the industrial section of the <br />Nelson Farm Development; added Mr. Hite has explained Rauenhorst's position <br />when he stated that this Company will ask for the same zoning on their property <br />as is permitted across the Highway on the Nelson Farm, <br />Village Attoraey <br />Mr. E.C. Stow, President of Stow Development Company, told Council the <br />He added that <br />Asking how much traffic is expected on "Industrial Blvd. '' , Mr. VanValkenburg <br />He <br />Mr. Stow reported that if the residential area had already been <br />Mr. Brill reported it is <br />Mr. Brill reported the <br />, recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Brill answered that such attempt <br />1 <br />Village E4anager Hyde inquired if <br />Nr. Stow <br />Trustee Rixe , stating he, personally, would be disinclined to oppose the <br />Mr. Hasselquist suggested
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.