Laserfiche WebLink
2 /25 /63 <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE <br />EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL, HELD MONDAY, <br />FEBRUARY 25, 1963, AT 7:OO P.M., IN ' <br />THE EDINA VILLAGE HALL <br />"a' <br />? <br />Rollcall was answered by MacMillan, Tupa and VanValkenburg. <br />VanValkenburg presided in Mayor Bredesen's absence. <br />Mayor Pro Tem <br />MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of February 11, 1963, were approved as submitted, <br />by motion Tupa, seconded by MacMillan and carried. <br />ACTION TABLED BY COUNCIL ON WALLACE KENNETH PETITION FOR REZONING FROM OPEN <br />DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT--TRACT OF LAND LYING EAST <br />OF. COUNTY ROAD NO. 18, BETWEEN PEDERSON DAIRY AND NINE-MILE CREEK, <br />Affidavyts of Publication and Posting of "Notice of Hearing" , publication having <br />been in Edina-Morningside Courier February 14 and 21, 1963. <br />approved as to form and ordered placed on file; and, pursuant to said Notice, <br />Public Hearing was held on the petition of Mr. Wallace Kenneth for the Rezoning <br />from Open Development District to Multiple Residence District of certain properties <br />lying East of County Road No. 18; and between Pederson Dairy and Nine-Mile Creek,. <br />Planning Director Hite reviewed in detail the Kenneth proposal, explaining <br />the topography of the land proposed for rezoning of this 60-acre tract. <br />reported the Planning Commission is considering a substantial revision of the <br />present "Multiple Residence District" section of the Zoning Ordinance-which <br />will set standards for some five different types of "multiple residence" zoning; <br />and is recommending that this area be rezoned "R-3" (residences containing three <br />through ten dwelling units, at a density of approximately ten through twelve units <br />per acre) at its eastern boundary and as shown on the visual aids presented by <br />Mr. Hite, with the area toward County Road No. 18 being zoned "R-4" (residences <br />containing five or more dwelling units, at a density of approximately sixteen <br />through eighteen dwelling units per acre). In both recommended districts the <br />buildings would have a height of not more than two stories. <br />Commission recommends an "R-2" (double bungalow) zone between the Kenneth property <br />and the present Parkwood Knolls plat. Mr. Hite reported on the road pattem, <br />saying thalt: in no instance (except for possible extension of Interlachen Road <br />to County Road No. 18) would there be a link between single-family and multiple <br />residence zones, <br />the Kenneth plans but are not intended to be exact plans. <br />Planning Commission has asked for Council hearing on the matter in order to have <br />some criterion as to what to expect on additional proposals of this type, <br />Mr, George May, 6645 Parkwood Road, told Coun-cil he and his neighbors think <br />the development of the proposed "R-4" area abutting County Road No. 18 would be <br />a very good thing, but that they are not in accord with the "R-3" district as <br />proposed by Mr. Kenneth and to the East thereof; that they believe this would be <br />undesirable for Parkwood Road residents. He said he feels some consideration <br />should be given to development of a buffer strip so that single family homes will <br />not abut apartment buildings, and suggested a small park as such a buffer. Mr, <br />V.L, Oliver stated he feels the proposal extends too close to Parkwood Road and <br />will devalue property valtles and work a hardship on the Parkwood Road residents. <br />Petitioner Kenneth reported that same of the land he proposes to develop is <br />swamp, with 30 feet of peat; that County Road No. 18 will eventually be raised <br />slightly, which will require additional €ill; that the buildings must be piled- <br />that in working with Edina an attempt has been made to conform with the requiped <br />road pattern, and that every attempt has been made to set standards for a <br />development in which anyone would wish to live; that these will be first-class <br />apartments, with balconies, patios, concealed parking, five swimming pools; that <br />while no definite plans have been completed as yet, there will be a plan to set <br />aside certain properties for plantings; that, should any part of the 60 acres <br />be chopped up into buffer zones it would not be possible for anyone to develop <br />the property, considering soil problems, special assessments, etc, <br />Mr, May told Council Mr, Carl Hansen (developer of the Parkwood Knolls area) <br />feels that if apartments are put into the "R-3" area, he must put apartments and <br />duplexes in as a buffer to protect his own property. <br />Mr. Lou Crosby, 6644 Parkwood Road, stated it is the general reaction that a <br />buffer zone between the Parkwood Knolls area and the "R-4" area would be good, <br />particularly as this/iSlow area and could be preserved for wild life refuge, thus <br />enhancing the value of both Parkwood Knolls and the Kenneth property, <br />later in the meeting, he would suggest rezoning the Kenneth property R-P along <br />County Road 18, <br />Mr. Carl M, Hansen reported he feels just as the Parkwood Knolls neighbors <br />do; that if there is to be a 200 to 300-foot buffer between apartments and his <br />land, no harm is done--but that if apartments are built up to his line, he will <br />have to build apartments and doubles, too. <br />Clerk presented <br />Affidavits were <br />He <br />Mr. Hite stated the <br />He presented building plans which he stated are typical of <br />He added that the <br />He added, <br />with the Eastern portion rezoned R-2, rather than R-3,