<br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
<br />EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL, HELD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1965, AT
<br />EDINA VILLAGE HALL
<br />Answering Rollcall were Members MacMillan, Rixe, Tupa, and VanValkenburg; Bredesen
<br />being absent, VanValkenburg served as Ivlayor Pro Tem,
<br />MINUTES of January 18, 1965, were approved with the following amendments, by
<br />Motion of Tupa, seconded by 14acMillan and carried:
<br />Officer" means the Public Health Sanitarian of the Village or his deputy.
<br />The cost of transportation incurred or expended by the Enforcing Officer for
<br />mileage shall be paid at the legal mileage rate.
<br />1. Ordinance No. 15lA-4, (Page 30 of this Minutes Book). "Enforcing
<br />2. Ordinance No. 125lA-4, Section 7 (a) (page 31 of this Minutes Book).
<br />PUBLIC, HEARING ON OPEN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR CONVALESCENT HOME CONTINUED
<br />Courier on January 7 and 14, 1965, and Affidavits of Posting and Mailing to
<br />affected property owners on January 5, 1965, of notice of Publjc'Hearing.
<br />Affidavits were approved as to form and ordered placed on file,
<br />President of the Brookview Heights Community Council, presented a letter to the
<br />Council in which his group protested the approval of this permit.
<br />of permits from the State or County Health Department, Tupa moved that application
<br />for Special Permit be continued indefinately and that notices again be sent obt
<br />when it is reconsidered.
<br />unanimously .
<br />Clerk presented Affidavit of Publication in the-Fdina-Morningside
<br />Mr. Richard F. Foster,
<br />In the absence
<br />MacMillan seconded the motion and the motion carried
<br />COUNCIL DENIES PETITION TO REZONE LOT 3, BLOCK 1, CLIFTON TERRACE ADDITION. Clerk
<br />presented Affidavit of Publication in the Edina-Morningside Courier on January 21
<br />and 28, 1965, Affidavit of Posting on three Village bulletin boards on January 19,
<br />1965, and Affidavit of Mailing to affected property owners on January 19, 196% of
<br />the Notice of Public Hearing.
<br />placed on file.
<br />J, H. Bach to rezone Lot 3, Block 1, Clifton Terrace Addition from Open Development
<br />District to R-2 Multiple Residence District.
<br />other multiple units in the area, as well as single family dwellings, explaining
<br />that in 1962 and 1964 Mr. Bach had requested R-3 zoning. Planning Commission on
<br />both instances recommended that the request be denied and had suggested at the
<br />1962 meeting that a proper zoning might be R-2.
<br />Commission recommended approval; however, there is a petition asking that the
<br />property be retained in the R-1 zone, signed by 23 of the residents on Brookview
<br />parked on the street it is difficult to exit to Valley View from Brookview and
<br />the same is true in driving at W. 64th St. and Valley View Road.
<br />there have also been problems with more children in the neighborhood, because
<br />of multiple dwellings.
<br />years ago, he understood that it would be permissible to build a double bungalow
<br />One house would face Brookview Avenue and the other would face W. 64th St., so
<br />he did not feel that parking would be any problem, particularly considering the
<br />fact that Brookview is a street of standard width.
<br />certain categories to be R-2, especially at interchanges, and Mr. Vogt and
<br />Mr. Bach were perhaps lead to believe that they had a double bungalow lot.
<br />the time of the rezoning nothing could be found in the minutes.
<br />years ago, the general consensus of opinion was that this particular lot would.
<br />not be zoned for anything except single family dwellings.
<br />Mr. Hite quoted the Minutes of May 2, 1962, in part, "The Cornmission told
<br />Mr, Bach that they had assured the residents on Brookview Avenue that nothing
<br />lager than a double bungalow would be built on the property."
<br />Mr, Lester Hughes, 6237 Brookview Avenue, spoke against the rezoning,
<br />indicating that when he purchased his property in 1961, the Planning Commission
<br />assured him that, to the best of their knowledge, there would be no multiple
<br />in keeping with the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
<br />were three ayes and one nay, as follows:
<br />VanValkenburg, aye, and the rezoning was denied.
<br />Affidavits were approved as to form and ordered
<br />Pursuant to said Notice, Public Hearing was held on petition of
<br />Mr. Hite showed a map indicating
<br />Mr. Hite stated that the Planning
<br />Mr. James Otto, 6324 Brookview Avenue, stated that when additional cars were
<br />He stated that
<br />Mr. J. H. Bach, the petitioner, stated that when he )purchased the-Lot several
<br />Mr. Hite had indicated that this would be zoned foy, double bungalows.
<br />Mr. Hite stated that the Planning Commission had considered all lots in
<br />Mr. Tupa stated that when the entire improvement was discussed several
<br />It was moved by Rixe, 'seconded by MacMillan that the rezoning be approved
<br />On Rollcall there
<br />MacMillan, aye; Rixe, aye; Tupa, nas;