Laserfiche WebLink
8/3/70 169 <br />in said section. <br />Hotion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman VanValkenburg <br />and on rollcall there were four ayes and no nays and the resolution was adopted. <br />P.C.H. COMPANY ZONING REQUEST REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION. Affidavits of <br />Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as t-o form and ordered placed on file. <br />Mr, Hoisington presented the request of P.C.H. Company for R-3 and R-4 Multiple <br />Residence District zoning for the Sime property located West of Walnut Drive <br />and North of Vernon Avenue, with dedication of'0utlot A to the Village for the <br />protection of the creek. <br />that some revisions are being recommended so that the zoning will conform to <br />the Uestern Edina Plan. Mr. Hoisington added that a new type zoning district <br />is being developed which will fit the concept of the Western Edina Plan, <br />under which 300 units would be permitted on the Vestern portion of the P.C.H. <br />' Company property. Mr. Hosmer Brown, attorney for P.C.H. Company, pointed out <br />serious building problems for the property inasmuch as the North one-half is <br />swamp and does not lend itself to construction. He added that if the buildings <br />are limited to four stories, it would be necessary to build in the swampy <br />area. He said that P.C.H. Company is only asking for some way to fit 320 <br />units on this plat of land which will meet the density requirement of twelve <br />units per acre. Mr. Thomas Stalil, architect for the P.C.H. Company, presented <br />various site plans that have ' been considered and noted that when this proposal <br />vas originally presenfed to the Planning Cominission, the Western Edina Plan <br />had not been adopted. He noted that plans have again been modified and now <br />call for two six story buildings with parking both outside and underground <br />and keeping an area of open ground as a buffer between single family residen- <br />tial propeties. Mr. Roland Davis of Walnut Drive, questioned the density of <br />the proposed development, stating that it does not conform with the Nestern <br />Edina Plan. Mr. John P, Ziegler, 6012 Tamarac Drive, said that it had been <br />no secret that the land had not been zoned for multiple residence district or <br />that the property was swampy before it was purchased by P.C.H. Company and <br />pointed out that the feelings of the residents in the area had not been taken <br />into account. Mr. Raymond H. Rice, 5914 Tamarac Lane, recalled that Council <br />had denied the request for townhouses in the Parbury property on W. 45th Street <br />and that this proposed development is no more appropriate than townhouses <br />were in that area. <br />situations. <br />compromise, but certainly did not want R-5 zoning or six story apartments. <br />Hoisington said that Planning Commission had long ago recommended denial of <br />R-5 zoning for the area. <br />that he does not live in the affected area, urged.that no-more than four <br />stories be permitted. <br />to build higher buildings in order to gain more open space with greenery and <br />recreational areas. 14r. Vincent Nelson, 6020 Walnut Drive, said that he <br />believes that the proposed zoning would improve the value of his property. <br />Mr. VanValkenburg suggested that the matter should be continued until the new <br />zoning ordinance could be studied. <br />believe that this plan is in keeping with the Western Edina Plan and that <br />approval of such a concept might create a precident. He said that if the <br />developers come in with a plan in keeping with the Uestern Edina Plan, Council <br />would look favorably upon it but that since this plan is at variance with the <br />Vestern Edina Plan he believes that it should not be approved. He then moved <br />that the matter be sent back to the Planning Commission, which motion was <br />seconded by Councilman VanValkenburg and carried. <br />Mr. Hoisington reviewed the request in detail and said <br />Mayor Bredesen said that there is no comparison in the two <br />Mr. N. K. Lowry, 6512 Aspen Road, said that he would be willing to <br />Mr. <br />An unidentified gentleman in-the audience who said <br />Mayor Bredesen said that it mighk 'be more advantagious <br />Councilman Johnson stated that he does not <br />ORDINANCE NO. 261-205 GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL: PUBLICATION TO BE KCTHHELD. l$r. <br />Hoisington presented Ordinance No. 261-205 for Second Reading, noting that the <br />overall plan of Pemtom, Inc., still needed to be finalized. He.recommended <br />that Council grant Second Reading of the ordinance but that publication be <br />withheld pending submission of final deed restrictions, finalization of.the <br />plan itself and developer's agreements which could not be worked out until I <br />Pemtom was assured of the requested zoning. <br />Ordinance No. 261-205 for Second Reading subject to withholding- of publication <br />until all of the requirements mentioned above have been finalized and includ- <br />ing Councilman Shaw's amendment to the motion that no more than the seventy- <br />two units permitted at First Reading be allowed and moved its adoption; Mr. <br />Hyde briefly called attention to a'report by the Village Engineer regarding <br />necessary utility improvements in and around the Pemtom site. <br />Councilman-Johnson then otfered <br />ORDINANCE NO. 261-205 <br />AN ORDINANCE AMENaING THE ZONING ORDINANCE <br />OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA BY ESTABLISHING <br />ADDITIONAL PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT <br />THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: <br />Section 1. Paragraph 4, Boundaries of Planned Residential District