Laserfiche WebLink
. .. . <br />12/7/64 <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 />Drive. <br />rezoning. <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 />- <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 />Economically, <br />There being no <br />. <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