Laserfiche WebLink
240 f <br />11/7/66 <br />J. A. DANENS 6 SON PROPERTY GRANTED REZONING TO PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Mr. Hite <br />presented Ordinance No. 261 -127 for zoning-change from Single Family Dwelling <br />District R -1, R -3 Multiple Residence District and Office Building District to <br />Planned Industrial District for property on Cahill Road which is bounded by Northern <br />States Power property to the east and Northwestern Bell Telephone Company property <br />to the north. Second Reading had been withheld pending platting of the property <br />and the resulting new legal description. Mayor Bredesen expressed disapproval of <br />the appearance of the present Danens building and questioned the fact that it had <br />been built before Second Reading of this Ordinance. Mr. Hite stated that inasmuch <br />as Second Reading had been withheld only pending receipt of the new legal description <br />and plans had been approved by the Planning Commission, it had been felt that a <br />building permit could be issued. Mr. Hite suggested that-the Minutes reflect concern <br />about the appearance of the first building and prompting Mr. Danens to proceed with <br />the second stage of the project. No further comments were heard, whereupon Trustee <br />VanValkenburg offered Ordinance No. 261 -127 for Second Reading and moved its adoption <br />as follows: " <br />ORDINANCE NO. 261 -127 <br />AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 261 <br />(ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA <br />" FOR REZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT, <br />R -3 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT AND <br />OFFICE BUILDING DISTRICT TO <br />PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT <br />THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: <br />Section 1. Paragraph 2, "Boundaries of Planned Industrial District," of Section 10, <br />(Planned Industrial District) of Ordinance 261 of revised ordinances of the Village of <br />Edina, as "amended, is hereby further amended by adding after subparagraph (n) of said <br />paragraph 2, the following subparagraph: <br />"(o) Registered Land Survey No. 1193 <br />" Tracts B and C" <br />Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately after <br />its passage and publication. <br />Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded,,Iq Trustee Tupa and on Rollcall <br />there were five ayes and no nays and the ordina e� as adopte <br />ATTEST: <br />ti Mayor <br />Village Clerk <br />STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 90 ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (Indian Hills Pass from Gleason <br />Road to 200 Southwest; Gleason Road from Indian Hills Pass to plus or minus 300 feet <br />North of Valley View Road; Balder Lane from Gleason Road to Scandia Road; Scandia <br />Road from Creek Valley Road to Nordic Drive from Creek Valley Road to plus or minus <br />850' South; Creek Valley Road from Scandia Road to Nine Mile Creek) Clerk presented <br />Affidavits of Publication in the Edina - Morningside Courier on October 13, 1966, and <br />of Mailing on October 14, 1966, which affidavits were approved as to form and ordered <br />placed on file. Pursuant to due notice given, Public Hearing was conducted and <br />action taken by the Council as hereinafter recorded. Tabulation of Assessment was <br />presented by Mr. Hyde who gave total construction cost at $112,852.83 proposed to <br />be, assessed against 2,745,811 assessable square feet at $0.0411 as against estimated <br />assessable cost of $0.04156. Mr. Richard Mahoney, 6716 Rosemary Lane, inquired if <br />the assessment rate is being levied equally against all properties. Upon Mr. Hyde's <br />reply in the affirmative, Mr. Mahoney presented a written statement setting forth <br />the reasons for his objections to the assessment as proposed. Written statement- was <br />also submitted by Mr. and Mrs. D. C. Elliott, 6501 Cherokee Trail, and signed by <br />Mr. and Mrs. Carl Z. Immel, Mrs. and Mr. Thomas C. Carrier and Mr. and Mrs. Donald G. <br />Kimball. These statements set forth the following objections to the proposed assessment: <br />1) That the improvement was installed primarily so that Valley Estates could be <br />improved and developed and as such no "public purpose" was served. 2) Valley Estates <br />should not have been developed since the area should have been retained as a park or <br />reserve area. 3) Amount of assessment exceeds any possible benefit. 4) No benefit <br />to any of the higher properties. 5) Village maintains streets as'an expense to the <br />Village as a whole, therefore more orderly run -off of water is not a valid reason for <br />a storm sewer assessment. 6) Village Storm Sewer Assessment Policy not applicable <br />in this improvement. The owner of Lot 1, Block 10, Indian Hills requested a <br />re- evaluation of the drainage district based on the fact that there is'now a road on <br />his lot that was not there when the assessment area was established. He was.assured <br />by Mayor Bredesen that this would be checked. Mr. Jack Hanson, 6712 Rosemary Lane; <br />Mr. Winston Wallin, 6720 Rosemary Lane; Mr. Thomas Ashley, 6728 Rosemary Lane and <br />Mr. Donald Kimball, 6505 Cherokee Trail, all spoke in endorsement of statements of <br />Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Elliott. Mayor Bredesen pointed out that although the Village <br />maintains street repairs out of General Funds, property owners in most areas have <br />paid for storm sewers and he would not think it appropriate to charge them again <br />for repairing damage which had been caused because no storm sewer had been installed. <br />