. .. .
<br />11. PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT FROM OPEN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR tract of land
<br />North of T.H. 169 and County Road 18. Mr. Hite presented a review ofthe previous
<br />Meeting at which the matter was originally considered. Council had requested
<br />petitioner, Fabri-Tek, Inc., to consider making restrictions on the property which
<br />would prevent future division of the tract or from placing buildings on certain
<br />.portions of the tract.
<br />of the proposed tract and site and offered the following proposals:
<br />is to be covered by a declaration, in the form of a deed restriction, which will
<br />insure that the zoned parcel will always be treated as one parcel and not be leased
<br />or conveyed or in any other way encumbered without leasing or mortgaging the whole.
<br />It also applies that the East 250 feet of ,the South one-half of the tract shall
<br />contain no structures whatsoever, in addition to granting to the Village a flowage
<br />easement around the Creek course. Mr. Hite explained that the area in which the
<br />Village is granted a flowage easement is to be under the complete control of the
<br />Village, to be used for whatever purposes it may desire, such as a park.
<br />stated that .it would be more desireable to have the Creek area deeded directly to
<br />the Village rather than merely gaining easement over it. Mr. FitzGerald said the
<br />only drawback to deeding the Creek area to the Village was that if the proposed
<br />roadway to the Northeast corner of the property does not go through, Fabri-Tek
<br />would be faced with holding a land-locked lot.
<br />of a road could be easily worked out, thereby making the deeding of the Creek land
<br />possible. Mr. F. Hutchinson, 5940 Walnut Drive, presented two petitions opposing
<br />the rezoning signed by 26 residents of Parkwood Knolls and 40 residents of Walnut
<br />specifically against the Fabri-Tek proposal, but against the apparent initiation
<br />of spot zoning. Mr. Hyde and Mayor Bredhsen replied that for years the Planning
<br />Commission had been attempting to develop some sort of overall plan for the
<br />County Road 18 area, but that every approach had been met with defeat from
<br />neighboring property owners who desired only residential development.
<br />the property just will not support residential development, and the Village cannot
<br />morally fix such a narrow use upon that land, they were informed.
<br />further discussion, Mr. Tupa offered Ordinance No. 261-104, and moved its adoption,
<br />with publication and final effect to be withheld until petitioner formally transmits
<br />to the Village the title and deed restrictions heretofore agreed upon. (See
<br />Ordinance No. 261-104 later in Minutes. )
<br />111.. ..LOT DEPTH VARIANCE OF LOT 24-K 1, CODE'S HIGHVIEW PARK CONTINUED.
<br />Petitioner Ralph Kiichli and opponent Norman Densmore, 5805 Bernard Place,
<br />presented their respective arguments on the matter.
<br />although it was apparent the house line on Bernard Place would be disrupted by
<br />such a variance, the owners of the subject property werehot a party to establishing
<br />the building pattern in the neighborhood, and are being dense4 use of their property
<br />by this delay before the Council.
<br />still in probate and by further delay, the Mayor said, the owners were being denied
<br />the right to use ofthe property as they desired, and that the Council had an
<br />obligation to them as well as to Hr. Densmore. Mr. Rixe moved'that'the matter be
<br />continued for two weeks, to December 21, with the following statement: Two weeks
<br />ago I made the suggestion that we continue this to see if there could be a
<br />reasonable meeting of the minds without the Council being involved.
<br />today we are right back where we were and I don't feel a reasonable attempt has
<br />been made to resolve this, and at some point I personally feel the Council has to
<br />weigh all the facts there are. 'There are some precedents for divisions like this
<br />in the immediate area, and in the hope that another continuance of two weeks would
<br />develop something I would be in favor of continuing for two weeks, at which time
<br />we can reasonably assume that there is no alternative by granting the variance.
<br />VanValkenburg seconded, and the motion was carried.
<br />AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 261
<br />BY REZONING PROPERTY FROM C-3 COWERCIAL
<br />Mr. FitzGerald, attorney for petitioner, presented a sketch
<br />The property
<br />B Mr. Hite
<br />Mr. Hite stated that the assurances
<br />Hutchinson also read to the Council a prepared statement against the
<br />Nr. Baskerville of Walnut Drive added that the opposition was not
<br />There being no
<br />Elayor Bredesen stated that
<br />Mr. Kiichli was purchasing the lot whiLe it was
<br />It seems
<br />ORDINANCE NO. 261-105
<br />TO OFFICE BUILDING DISTRICT
<br />THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
<br />Section 1. Paragraph 1, llBoundaries of Office Building District ,I1
<br />Section 10, "Office Building District ,I1 Ordinance No. 261 of revised ordinances
<br />of the Village of Edina, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the
<br />following subparagraph:
<br />"(0) That part of the South one half of Section 30, Township 28,
<br />Range 24, described as follows:
<br />Hest and 415 feet North of the Southeast corner of Section 30,
<br />Township 28, Range 24, thence North parallel to the East line of
<br />said Section distant 135 feet, thence at an angle North 44 degrees
<br />56 minutes West distant 70.71 feet, thence West parallel to the
<br />South line of said Section 30 a distance of 105.5 feet, thence
<br />South parallel to the East line of said Section 30 distant 185 feet,
<br />thence East 155 feet to the point of beginningO1'
<br />Beginning at a point 65 feet