Laserfiche WebLink
.- 124 - <br />MINUTES - <br />OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL <br />JULY 19, 1982 <br />Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner and Mayor . <br />Courtney. <br />EDINA SCHOOL DISTRICT REFERENDUM DISCUSSED. Dr. Ralph Lieber, Superintendent of <br />Schools, advised that an Edina School District referendum will be held on Tuesday, <br />October 5, 1982,. for approval of a six mill increase in revenue and that he was <br />present to inform Council and answer any questions about the referendum. -He <br />stated he was seeking individual skpport of Council Members as leaders in the <br />community. Dr. Lieber presented graphics showing projected income and expenses <br />for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years, with income relatively stable because <br />declining enrollment is so severe that it more than offsets the growth in assessed <br />property valuation, while expenses continue to increase because of two factors: <br />1) inflation, and 2) rise in unit cost. A projected as of June 30, <br />1984, in excess of $1,600,000 which presents.the Board of Education with two <br />choices: 1) continue to make major cu.ts and severe curtailments in programs and * <br />services, or 2) increase revenue. Dr. Lieber advised that the Board, after <br />careful study and analysis has chosen to increase revenue. He reported that cuts <br />of over $1,000,000 had been made before the start of the 1982-83 school year; and <br />that space in the schools that have been closed is being rented which offsets <br />expenses for the Edina Community Center now located in the Edina East High School <br />building. Dr. Lieber indicated further that if the referendum did not pass that ' <br />further severe cuts would have to be made in addition to those already in effect. . <br />Member Richards suggested that the matter of the School District Referendum be <br />placed on the Council Agenda for September 13, 1982, for discussion after getting <br />feedback from people in the community and so that individual viewpoints could be <br />presented as the date of the referendum approaches. <br />would be placed on that agenda as suggested.. No formal action was taken. <br />I <br />. <br />Manager Rosland stated it <br />ORDINANCES NO. 811-A165 AND NO. <br />R-1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO PRD-3 AND HRD, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT'AND <br />811-A166 GRANTED FIRST R$ADING; MARSHALL EVERSON <br />. <br />HERITAGE PRESERVATION DISTRICT. <br />Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. <br />this site measures 2.11 acres in area; is Zone R-1 Single Family Dwelling District; <br />and 'is bordered by 70th Street on the'north, Cahill Road on.the east, and Village <br />Driye on the south. <br />old St. Patrick's Church is located on the easterly port3on of the site and is now . <br />vacant. <br />Preservation'Board and that the April 27 staff report for the Board recommended <br />that this site and the existing structure should be rezoned to Heritage Preser- <br />vation District (HPD). Mr. Hughes explained that HPD is an "overlay" district, <br />i.e. it does not alter the basic land use zoning district of the site but rather <br />imposes additional restrictions to protect its unique historical, architectural, <br />and/or cultural characteristics. <br />vation Board would then be required for alterations which could affect the special <br />qualities of the building or site. <br />proponent has petitioned for a rezoning of the basic underlying zoning classifi- <br />cation to PRD-3 Planned Residential District <br />illustrating a 22 unit condominium building two stories in height. The existing <br />structure would be preserved and possibly retro-fitted as an "amenity building" <br />for the project. Mr. Hughes advised that the proposed condominium complies with <br />setback requirements and other ordinance provisions; that one and one half under- <br />building garage stalls per unit and .75 exposed stalls are provided; and that <br />plans submitted illustrate a close match of the architectural style of the con- <br />dominium to the existing building. From a density standpoint, the proposed <br />development represents approxiinately 10 1/2 units per acre which is consistant <br />with the 6-12 unit per acre range specified by the Comprehensive Plan. <br />out that the proposed density is somewhat higher than other recent developments <br />in the area Which were evaluated in light of the density reduction formula. <br />formula would yield an allowed density of 8 1/2 units peraacre or a total of <br />18 units for the site. <br />the preservation of the existing structure on the site. Mr. Hughes noted that <br />HPD zoning would definitely cause some imposition as to further development of <br />the site and it was felt that a bonus of this sort, particularly for preserving <br />the existing building and for designing a condominium with architecture compatible <br />to the existing building, was reasonable. <br />Commission has recommended that the property be rezoned to HPD regardless of the <br />final disposition of the rezoning to PRD-3, and also recommended that it be <br />rezoned to PPa-3 with the following conditions: <br />Affadavits of Notice were presented by Acting <br />Mr. Hughes advised that <br />Cahill Elementary School adjoins the site on the west. The <br />He stated that the site .has been studied extensively by the Heritage <br />If zoned HPD,.permits from the Heritage Preser- <br />In connection with the rezoning to HPD, the <br />Preliminary plans have been submitted <br />He pointed : <br />This <br />The additional density requested represents a bonus for <br />The Community Development and Planning