Laserfiche WebLink
2/1/65 39 <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 />INDEFINATELY. <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 />Avenue. <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 />there. <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 />dwellings. <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 />At <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;