Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19800519_regularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINR CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL MAY 19, 1980 Answering rollcall were mernbers Bredesen, Courtney, Richards , Schmidt, and Nayor Van Valkenburg. Present 'also were Mrs.-Virginia Shaw and Mr. William Lord of the Park Department, Mrs. Betty Carver of the Human Relations Commission, Nrs. Alison Fuhr of the Traffic Safety Committee and Mrs. Helen McClelland of the Community Development and Planning Commission. RESPECT FOR LAW WEEK PROCLAMATION ISSUED. ing Proclamation: PROCLAMATION * WHEREAS, crime and its effect upon the lives and property of our citizens continue undiminished, despite efforts by government, citizens' organizations and many individuals ; and WHEREAS,. the problem of crime touch and affect all segments of our society, undermining and eroding the noral and economic strength of our communities and their citizens; and WHEREAS, there is still a reluctance on the part of many citizens to involve them- selves in actions to insure the protection, rights and well being of their fellow citizens ; and WHEREAS, Optimist clubs and their members continue to sponsor and support programs aimed at combatting crime and disrespect for law through year-round effort; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, James Van Valkenburg, Mayor of the City of . Edina, do proclaim the week of May 26, 1980 and ask that all citizens of the City of Edina join with*the Optimists in carry- ing the message of respect for law to other citizens, and by example, exercise responsible citizenship. MINUTES of May 5, 1980, were approved as presented by motion of Councilwoman Schmidt, seconded by Councilman Courtney. Mayor Van Valkenburg issued the follow- RESPECT FOR LAW WEEK - Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Mct ion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED ON A-176 and L-20. by the Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. been given, Public hearings were conducted and action taken as hereinafter recorded. Affidavits of Notice were presented Due notice having A. CONSTRUCTIOX OF STREET II!i?ROVEMENT NO. P-A-176 IN THE FOLLOWING: W. 56th Street from Dale Ave. to Hansen Road Mr. Hoffman recalled that this hearing had been called as the result of action taken at the Council Meeting of April 21, 1980, so that notices could be sent to abut- ting property owners as well as to residents living in an expanded area who are also considered to*be benefited by the bitumhous surfacing of the street and is con- sidered to be important in terms of public safety and quick access in emergency situations. be assessed against 41 lots at an estimated cost of $192.64 per assessable lot, with the WestchesterApartments proposed to be assessed at an estimated cost of $288.96. In response to a question of Mrs. Wm. McFadzean, 5600 Dale Ave., Xr. Hoffman recalled that consideration had been given to vacating the road in 1974, but that it is now used by over 300 cars per day as well as by emergency vehicles. Mrs. McFadzean said that she thought the street should be widened if, in fact, it is to be improved. Mr. Robert Sly, 5217 W. 56th St., was assured by Mr. Hoffman that he is aware of the sub-soil condition and that the sub-soil will replaced wherever necessary. Mr. Arthur P. Bein, Jr., 5216 W. 56th St., was told by Mr. Hoffman that he does not believe that vibrations from the railroad have caused break-up of the road. .Mr. Stanley E. Bourassa, 5605 Dale Ave., said that the are already too high. ments being heard, Councilman Richard's motion authorizing the improvement was seconded by Councilman Courtney and unanimously carried. ing Improvements 'later in Minutes.) B. Total estimated construction cost was given at $8,187.29, proposed to * railroad should also be assessed for the improvement and objected that his taxes No further com- (See Resolution Order- He suggested that the street be vacated. CONSTRUCTION OF ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. P-L-20 IN THE FOLLOWING: ' Light to be loc'ated on the lot line between 5817 and 5821 East View Lane Mr. Hoffman recalled that this hearing had been continued fromathe Council Meet- ings of March 3 and April 21, 1980, because affected property owners had been out of town. was proposed to be assessed against four assessable lots at an estimated cost of $163.87 per assessable lot. Mr. Hoffman said that: he will contact neighbors to find out what type of lights they desired before the He recalled that the total estimated construction cost of $655.49 No objections were heard. improvement is tion and moved BE IT RESOLVED has. heretofore of each parcel improvements : installed .* Councilman Richards then offered the following resoh- its adoption: P3SGI.JTION ORDERING IMPROVEM3NTS NOS. A-176 AND L-20 by the Council of the City of Edina, Ninnesota, that this Council caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners within the area proposed to be assessed on the following propose& 1. CONSTRUCTION OF BITUKCNOUS SURFACING ItPROVEElENT NO. P-A-176 IN THE FOLLONING: 2. CONSTRUCTION OF ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IBEROVEMENT NO. P-L-20 IN THE W. 56th Street from Dale Ave. to Hansen Road FOLLOWING : Light to be located on the lot line between 5817 and 5821 East View Lane and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed w5th the COR- . struction of said improvements, including all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for con- struction and maintenance of such improvements; that said improvements are hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as follows: , Improvement No. 1 Above BITUMINOUS SURFACING IMPROVEMENT NO. A-176 Improvement No. 2 Above ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING I>lPROVEMENT. L-20 and the area to be specially assessed for Improvement No. A-176 therefor shall include Lots 1 thru 6, Block 3, Melody Knolls 6th Addition; Parcel 2100, 1700, and 110, Section 33, Tomship 117, Range 21;'Lots 1 thru 5, Block 1, Melody Knolls 6th Addition; Lots 1 thru 3, Block 4, Melody Knolls 3rd Addition; Lots 1 thru 3, Block 1, Melody Knolls 3rd Addition; Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, Melody Knolls 3rd Addition; Lots 1 thru 4, Block 1, Nelody Knolls 7th Addition; Lots 1 thru 4, Block 1, .tlelody Knolls 5th Addition; Lot 1, Block 1, Melody Knolls 4th Addition; Lot 1, Donatelle's Terrace; Lot 1, Block 1, Hermvl Terrace; Lots 4 thru 12, Richmond Hills 3rd'Addition; and the area to be specially assessed for Improvement No. L-20 therefor shall include Lots 7 and 8, Block 1 and Lots 8 and 9 Block 2, Edina Ridge. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Rollcall : Fays: None Resolution adopted. - Ayes : Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg Courtney. EI!IN-4 PLACE GRANTED PRELDlINARY PLAT APPROVAL. sented by Clerk, approved as to form znd ordered placed on file. Mr. Hi:ghes pre- sented Edina Place for preliminary plat approval, advising that this plat is located generally South of IJ. 70th St., West of T.H. 100 and East of Metro Blvd. He explaed that the subject property is presently zoned 0-2 Office District and that Lot 1 would be developed as an office arid that Outlot A, which measures approximately 2% acres would be reserved for development in combination with mplatted property to the South. would not create a piece of landlocked property and advised that the Community Development and Planning Commission and the staff had recommended approval condi- tioned on receipt of a subdivision dedication, the delineation of a 20 foot wide utility easement along the Westerly line of. the plat and receipt of an executed developer's agreement. No' objections being heard, Councilman Courtney offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: Affidavits of Notice yere pre- Mr. Hughes assured the Nayor that this plat RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELINJXARY PLAT FOR EDINA PLACE BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Couiicil that that certain plat known as Edina Place, platted by United Properties and presented for preliminary plat approval at the Regular Council Neeting of May 19, 1980, be and is hereby grated prelinin- ary plat approval, conditioned upon receipt of a subdivision dedication, the delineation of a 20 foot wide utility easement along the Westerly line of the pht and the receipt of an executed developer's agreement. XotLon for adoption of the resolution vas seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. I Roll call : Ayes: Rredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg Nays:' None Resolution adopted. \. DEWEY HILL I11 ADDITION CONTINUED TO JLWE 2, 1980. tfr. Hughes recalled that the request to rezone DeweyHill I11 Addition from R-1 Residevrtial District to PHI-3 Plamed Residential District had been continued from April 21, 1980, so that the staff could prepare Findings, Decisions and Reasons relative to the proposed rezoning and have them ready for the Council's rcviev and its action at this meef5- ing. Mr. Nitcliel I. Kirshhaum, the attorney representing Glasgow Drive Homeown- t CITY OF EDINA 1. In the Matter of the Petition of' LAUKKA AND ASSOCIATES IKC. for a 8 Rezoning of Land Described as Outlot E, Dewey Hill Second Addition (2-79-12). FINDINGS, DECISIONS, AND FSASONS The above entitled matter was heard before the City Council, City of Edina, on February 25, 1980, April 21, 1980, and May 19, 1980. Mr. Lawrence LauXka, President of Laukka and Associates ("Proponent") was present and was also represented by Mr. Peter Jarvis'of Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, and Gardner Inc. Some adjoining landowners were present. Also Mr. Mitchel Rirshbaum, was present at the April 21 meeting as an attorney representing Glasgow Drive Homeonwers Association. Also Mr. Brian Anderson was present at the February 25 and April 21 meeting representing Mr. Earl Wilson and West Suburban Builders, Inc. The City Council, having heard and reviewed all of the facts and arguments presented by the Froponent, City Staff, property owners residing in the vicinity of the land effected by the petition for rezoning and their representatives, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponent, City Staff, and surrounding property owners aDd their representatives, and being fully advised, after d.ue consideration, hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Proponent, on December 21, 1979, submitted a petition (Case' No. 2-79-12) to rezone a 13.3 acre tract of land in southwest Edina described as Outlot B, Dewey Hill Second Addition ("Subject Property"). This petition (hereinafter referred to as the "PRD Rezoning") requested the rezoning of the Subject Property from R-1 (Single EMmily Dwelling District) to PRD-3 (Planned . Residential District-3). In accordance with ordinance requirements, the Proponent submitted preliminary plans for the Subject Property which delineated five condominium buildings containing a total of 123 dwelling units. 2. The Edina Community Development and Planning Commission ("Commission") reviewed the preliminary developnent plans at its January '30, 1980, meeting. The Commission, after reviewing the proposed plans and receiving testimony'from surrounding property owners considered continuing the PRD Rezoning for one month. kr ' .? However, the Proponent explained that such a continuance would result in the loss of weather conditions necessary to conduct certain earthmoving work on the Subject Property. Therefore, at the Proponent's request, the Commission * recommended denial of the PRD Rezoning so that the Proponent could proceed to the City Council in hope of receiving approvals which would allow earthmoving work before the loss of suitable weather conditions. 3. On February 25, 1980, the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the PRD Rezoning. The City Council received testimony from the Proponent that the PRD Rezoning represented the third and final phase of an overall plan €or the Proponent's property and that the overall density of the Proponent's property conformed with the Southwest Edina Plan (the "Plan"). The Proponent also presented preliminary plans illustrating the proposed development of the Subject Property and testified as to the effect of the PRD Rezoning on surrounding properties. Certain property owners residing in.the vicinity of the Subject Property testified that the PRD Rezoning did not conform with the Plan in that the density requested by the PRD Rezoning exceeded that delineated by the Plan for the Subject Property. Surrounding property owners also testified that the . 8 Rezoning would adversely affect their properties due to several factors including inzdequate buffering, *increased traffic, visual impacts, loss of natural amenities, and loss of solar access. After reviewing this testimony the City Council pursuant to Edina Ordinance No. 821 granted a permit to the Proponent to excavate for a pond on the Subject Property in accordance with submitted grading plans. return to the Commission to allow further consideration of the PRD Rezoning. This permit was granted with the understanding that the Proponent would 4. On April 2, 1980, the Commission again considered the PRD Rezoning. The Commission reviewed revised plans presented by the Proponent which illustrated changes in the height and arrangement of the proposed condominium buildings - -2- The Commission also received-testimony from the surrounding property owners . regarding the adverse effects of the PRD Rezoning on their properties. Commission thereupon recommended preliminary approval of the PRD Rezoning subject to the City receiving an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the The conformance of the PRD Rezoning with the Plan. 5. On April 21, 1980, the City Council conducted a again considered the PRD Rezoning. The City Council reviewed recommendation of the Commission, received the opinion of the public hearing and the report and City Attorney, and received testimony from the Proponent and surrounding property owners. City Council ordered City Staff to prepare Findings of Fact regarding the PRD Rezoning for consideration by the City Council on May 19, 1980. thereupon continued the public hearing to May 19, 1980. The The City Council 6. The Southwest Edina Plan was adopted by the Edina Planning Commission on June 2, 1971, and by the Edina Village Council on June 21, 1971. The Subject Property is within the area encompassed by the Plan. 7. The Plan was designed around three stated objectives: First, the' protection and preservation of natural features. Second, the maintenance of residential integrity and creation of additional living environments. Third, the creation of a balance between men, land use, and environment. The Plan advocated a "modular land use" concept whereby topographical features provide the focus of self contained units which are separated by parks, green belts, open water, or topographical variations. Such "modular units" were to be imaginative, take advantage of topography, and blend with natural features. The Plan advocated the preservation of the natural environment by -3- * -* clustering and providing a diversity of housing types. 8. The Plan also stated that perhaps single family dwellings should not dominate, but rather a mixtye of housing types should be provided to offer a diversity ofhousing options. 9. The Plan stated that areas delineated as low density attached housing ("mixed housing residential") have an allowed density range of 0-6 dwelling units per acre and can accomodate, single family cluster housing, two family dwellings, townhouses, and apartments. 10. A concept map accompanied the Plan which portrayed the relationships of land uses discussed in the narrative of the Plan. This map, however, depicted land uses in a general and schematic manner and did not constitute a zoning map. 11. The Subject Property is part of a larger tract of land (hereafter referred to as the "Schuster Farm") which is or was controlled by the Proponent. For development purposes, 'the Proponent divided the tract into three distinct phases. The first two phases (hereinafter referred to as Dewey Hill I and Dewey Hill 11) were subdivided and developed by the Proponent during 1977-1979 as single family detached dwelling lots. Hill I and 11. No rezoning was needed for the development of Dewey 12. The concept map accompanying the Plan depicted the Subject Property and that area now developed as Dewey Hill I1 as "mixed housing residential, 0-6 dwelling units/acre". for portions of Dewey Hill I1 and the Subject Property which abutted existing This map also illustrated single family dwelling uses single family uses. 13. In 1974, the Edina City Council granted final rezoning approval to PRD (Planned Residential District-2) for the Schuster Farm pursuant to a petition submitted by the owner previous to the Proponent. plan' approved in conjunction with the 1974 rezoning illustrated 335 dwelling units including 42 single family dwelling units The overall development (or a density of about -4- . 2,ldwellings per acre) for that area now included in Dewey Hill I and 291 apartment units '(or a density of 6 dwellings per acre) for that area now included in Dewey Hill I1 and the Subject Property. Two single family lots were also shown on the Subject Property at the end of Glascow Drive. This density was based upon the total area of the Schuster Farm which included approximately 14 acres which were proposed to be dedicated (and subsequently were in fact dedicated to the City for storm water ponding areas. The 1974 PRD-2 rezoning was never utilized and therefore lapsed pursuant to Edina Ordinance No. 811. 14. In 1974, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Plan entitled "Clarification of Allowed Multi-Family Densities in the South, Southwest, and Western Edina Plan Areas." allowed densities up to 50% for future multi family projects. This amendment provided criteria for reducing 15. In 1977 and early 1978, the Proponent received subdivision approval. for Dewey Hili I, (i.e. phase 1). This subdivisTon, as approved, contained 26 single family dwelling lots. When Dewey Hill I was considered by the City Council in 1974, develop 50 - -F- single family homes on Dewey Hill I1 and 100-150 condominium units on the Subject Property. The Proponent noted at that time, however, that the Proponent presented a conceptual plan which showed an intent to specific plans had not been formulated for the Subject Property. 16. In mid-1978, the Proponent received subdivision approval for Dewey Hill I1 (i.e. phase 2). This subdivision, as approved, contained 48 single family dwelling lots. At that time, the Proponent again presented conceptual plans for the Subject Property which schematically illustrated 125-150 condominium units oriented around a Although the Proponent did not seek development of the Subject Property ponding area on the Subject Property. specific approvals or rezonings for the at that time, he did ask the Commission and -5- Council to recognize his overall planning objectives and his intent to substantially reduce the residential density of the Schuster Farm as compared with the previously approved plans. to grant, specific approvals or rezonings for the Subject Property at that time, Although the Commission and Council did not grant, or commit they did respond positively to the Proponent's planning approach to the Schuster Farm including the anticipated use of the Subject Property. 17. The Subject Property abuts and has direct access to West 78th Street which is an improved, full width four lane urban collector street. The PRD Rezoning would contribute approximately 805-1100 vehicle trips per day to West 78th Street. All necessary utilities are located in West 78th Street and available for use by the proposed development of the Subject Property. 18. Lands located south of West 78th in the vicinity of the Subject Property are generally developed with'industrial uses. Land uses on the east, north, and west sides of the Subject Property include single family dwellings, two family dwellings, public open space, and vacant lands. I .. 19. The Subject Property is characterized by a large wooded swamp exhibiting unstable soils in the central portion of the site and moderate to steep slopes on the east and west sides. Resources has determined that the wooded swamp is not a public water body. The Minnesota Department of Natural 20. Preliminary plans submitted by the Proponent in support of the PRD rezoning illustrated five buildings containing 123 condominium units which were to be located on the east and west sides of the Subject Property. buildings would orient toward a reflecting pond to be developed in the central These proposed f portion of the site. Setbacks of the proposed buildings from the east-property boundary would range from 150 feet to'225 feet. Setbacks from the west property boundary would range from 130 feet to 210 feet. three stories in height as viewed from the east and the west extremes of The proposed buildings would be the -6- Subject Property and four stories as viewed from the central portion of the . Subject Property. 21. Plans requirements of the submitted in support of the PRD Rezoning comply with the . PRD-3 zone as defined in Edina Ordinance Number 811, the "Zoning Ordinance". 22. Testimony was received from certain surrounding property owners as to adverse effects which would be caused by the PRD Rezoning including loss of solar access, loss of proper buffering between dissimilar land uses, potential damage caused by the sinking of pilings, loss of open space, traffic impacts, and increased potential for flooding. The Proponent submitted testimony in response to the above noted testimony \ in order to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors. Therefore, based upon the foregoing Findings, the City Council does hereby make the following DECISION : The Petition by the Proponents to Rezone the Subject Property from R-l Single Family Dwelling District to PRD-3 Planned Residential District is 1 hereby granted preliminary approval. the above decision is made for the following REASONS : A. The PRD Rezoning conforms with the Southwest Edina Plan's objectives to create alternate housing types and preserve natural features by the clustering -7- of housing. .B. The Subject Property is delineated.as Mixed Housirig Residential which, according to the Plan, can accomodate land uses such as that proposed by the PRD Rezoning. the planned residential section of the Zoning Ordinance. The development plan is innovative as promoted by the Plan and C. The Proponent controlled and developed all of that property here- tofore described as the Schuster Farm. Although the Proponent did not rezone the entire Schuster Farm pursuant to the Planned Residential District Section of the Zoning Ordinance, he nevertheless undertook planning studies and actions for thg purpose of preparing an overall plan for the Schuster Farm. The Proponent on past occasions advised the Commission plans based on his plann'ing studies. development of the Schuster Farm in a speculation and unwarrznted transfers being fostered by the PRD Rezoning. and 'City Council of his future development Also, the Proponent has undertaken the prompt and logical manner. Therefore , of density and development rights are not D. In 1974, a rezoning approval was granted to allow 291 multi-family dwellings and 44 single family dwellings for a total of 335 dwellings on the Schuster Farm. If the PRD Rezoning is approved, 74 single family dwellings and 123 multi family dwellings for a total of 197 dwellings would be allowed on the Schuster Farm. The result is that the overall density has been reduced by 41% as compared to prior approvals. spirit and intent of the 1975 Plan amendment entitled "Clarification of Allowed Therefore, the Proponent has conformed to the Multi-Family Densities in the South, Southwest, and Western Edina Plan Areas." E. The Subject Property and that area now included in Dewey Hill I1 are schematical1.y designated on the graphic accompanying the Plan as Mixed Houshc~ Residential 0-6 dwellings/acre. This portion of the Schuster Farm. measures approximately 39% acres. of about 4.3 dwelling units per acre will be constructed on this area. If the PRD Rezoning is approved, a density This -8- density approximates single family dwelling densities as prescribed by the Plan (i.e. 0-4 dwellings per acre). Therefore, approval of the PKD Rezoning will not result in an unusual or unexpected density for the Plan area or the Schuster Farm. F. The Plan schematically illustrates single family uses for portions of ehe Subject Property abutting existing single family dwellings. The Plan .. intended that such existing dwellings should be buffered from higher density uses. The PRD Rezoning satisfactorily provides this buffering through extra- ordinary building setbacks from single family uses. It can reasonably be anticipated that additional buffering will be provided through landscaping and other screening which will adequately protect existing single family dwellings. has been demonstrated that existing topography will effectively screen .the In addition, it proposed condominium from most existing single family dwellings. G. The PRD Rezoning will not adversely or unusually affect surrounding properties by causing loss of solar access, adverse alteration of drainage patterns, reduction of the level of service of West 78th Street, or damage from 8 soil stabilization work necessary to implement the project. H. The Subject Property is a proper site for the development of multiple residential housing in that it abuts and has access to an urban collector roadway, soil conditions and topography encourage a clustering of housing and such a use represents a proper transition from industrial uses to the south. * I. The development of multiple residential housing provides desired and needed diversity of housing types in the City. -9- .. 5/19/80 er's Association, reviewed his reactions to certain sections of the ;indings , Decisioiis and reasons mentioning Sections 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, and stcited that, in his opinion, the facts did not lead to the decisioa stated. Mr. Kirs'nbaum also rexerred to a case in the City of Ibchester idlich, he said, was dis tinpisliable from this rezoning inasmuch as , in his 'opinion, there is no proven need For additional housing in Edina, the density is not compatible with the surrounding properties , and the proposed zoning is "spot zoning". lk. Kirshbaum concluded that, in his opinion, a correct reading of the Findings would result in a denial of the zoning application. Councilman Richards asked Mr. Robert Clark, 7701 Glasgow Drive, if he participated in a discussion in 1977 relative to'changj-ng the concept of.Indian Meadows to the development presently under discussion. Clark responded that, while he had received no notification of the hearings prior to 1977, lir. Schuster had given neighbors a drawing of the proposed high density apartments proposed to be built across the pond from his property. Clark added that neighbors had no objection to that particular plan, inasmuch as they considered that the project would be adequately buffered. Mr. Clark also advised that he had not been aware of the fact that Mr. Laukka had intended to build single family homes and change the road patterns in Dewey Hill I and 11. response to further questions of Councilman Richards, Mr. Hughes said that the rSouthwest Edina Plan had designated the area now known as Dewey Hill 111 to be mixed density which could accommodate single family homes, two family dwellings, townhouses or apartments. Councilman Richards said that he believed that the Findings are accurate and that what is being proposed for the site does make sense in view of the topography, the physical characteristics of the site and from the standpoint of surrounding properties. Councilwoman Schmidt asked that the follow- ing comments be made a part of the records: this rezoning to pass, we are allowing a density of 9.2 units per acre to be placed in the middle of single family R-1 development. is that we are setting a precedent to allow high density in every-Edina neigh- borhood. planning for the future redevelopment and development in Edha. make on this parcel will set the stage for the decisions of the future. No neighborhood in Edina will be safe from this type of high density. Second, I believe that we would be also setting a precedent that would undermine the planned residential development concept. We are asked to look at the proponent's pro- perty as one development , or two parcels at the least, to deterinine the density of this particular imdeveloped Fortion. !be whole idea behind 2 PRD is to allow proper disclosure of plans to all parties affected. This means to get, the plans out in the open where everyone concerned can express their concern. How does the plan affect the surroundings, etc.? Well, this property was not developed this way. The homeowners were not notified because the developer had chosen to proceed under a different set of rules. By now spreading the density over sev- eral parcels, we are, in effect, allowing a PRD after the fact. In the Euture, any developer who has not made up hfs mind about his plans, or does not care to reveal them, can proceed tn like manner, picking and chosing among our various development concepts to his advantage.'' Note was also made of the objection to the proposed development by the attorney for Mr. Earl. Wilson, umer of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Shaughnessy First Addition. Erickson to respond to Mr. Kirshbaum's comments relative to the Rochester case. He also said that he thinks that the proposed rezoning is appropriate and agreed with Mr. Richards' comments that Mr. Hughes should extend the Findings, Decisions and Reasons to deal more definitely with this particular parcel, rather than with all three Dewey Hill developments. ation of the hearing would give the Council an opportunity to study further the remarks of Councilwoman Schmidt. Councilman Courtney then moved that the'hearing be continued to June 2, 1980, so that Mr. Hughes could consider the remarks made by both Mr. Richards and Mrs. Schmidt relative to the Findings and so that the City Attorney could respond to Mr. Kirshbaum's comments. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman. Schmidt . Mr. Mr. In "First, I believe that if we allow What this says to me I believe one of the greatest challenges facing Edina is in the orderly The decisions ve The Mayor said that he would like Mr. Mayor Van Valkenburg also said that a continu- Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg Nays: Eone tlotibn carried .-. ORIIINAliCE NO. 811-A138 ADOPTED ON SECOND READING. - Ordinance No. 81bA138. for Second Reading and moved its adoption as follows : Councilwoman Schmidt offered .. ORDINANCE NO. 8 11-Al38 AN OIIDXNANCE ANENDING THE ZONING OKDINMTCE (NO. 811) TO CHANGE THE PRINCIPAL USES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDIIW, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: trict) af Ordinance NQ. 811 is hereby amended by adding a new Ilne 50, as follows: ALLOLTD IN COMNFXCIAL DISTRICT C- 1 Section 1. Subparagraph (a) of Paragraph 4 of Section 9 (Commercial Dis- 5/ 19/ 80 "50. 5cc. 2. Aerobic dance studios withcut exercising equipment, gymnasium equipment, or swimming pools" This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage . and publication. Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Councilman Bredesen. Rollcall : Ayes : Nays: None Ordinance adopted. Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt , Van I -- COM"ITY DEVELOPMENT BONUS FUNDS APPLICATION CONTINUED TO JUNE 2, 1980. recommended- by Mr. Hughes, Councilman Courtney's motion was seconded by Council- As woman Schmidt, continuing the public hearing on Community Development Bonus Funds Application to June 2, 1980. Ayes : Nays: None Not ion carried. Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg FOOL DECKING VARIANCE REQUEST WITHDRAWN. Mr. Rosland advised Council that the - public hearing on the appeal from the Building Board of Appeals decision in regard to pool decking at 6453 West Shore Drive had been removed from the Agenda, inasmuch as it has been determined that the proposed decking is permitted under - the Uniform Building Code. No formal action was taken. AElUNDSON AVENUE IN FINDELL'S 2ND ADDITION VACATION APPROVED CONDITIONALLY. Affida- vits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Nr. Hughes presented the petition of Hr. Roger Findell and Crossroads Dev- elopment Corporation €or the vacation of hundson Ave. in Findell's 2nd Addition, advising that Crossroads' Development's plans for development are based on the asscmption thzt the street vacation is approved. Nr. Hughes recommended that the vacation be approved, efr'ective upon final approval of the final plans of Cross- roads Development and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 811-A136. The possibility .was raised of vacating all of Amundson Road for possible use as a buffer between the industrial and residential districts. Councilman Courtney then offered the . following resolution and moved its adoption, with the condition that the resolu- tion not be filed until Ordinance No. 811-A136 has been granted Second Reading or until approval has been granted for ehe final plans of Crossroads Development: l*~EJXEAS, a resolution of the City Council, adopted the 21st day of April, 1980, fixed a date for .a public hearing on a proposed vacation of Arnundson Avenue within the plat of Findell's 2nd Addition; and ITREREAS, two weeks' published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the hearing was held on. the 19th day of May, 1980, at which time all persons desiring ' - RESOLUTION VACATING PORTION OF AMUNDSON AVENUE to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; *ad WEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City 2nd of the public that said street vacation be made; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the extent to which the vacation affects existing easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes, mains and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation, to con- tinue maintaining the sane, or to enter upon such easement area or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereto; NO?, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council'of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Hinnesota, that the following described portion of Amundson Avenue be and is hereby vacated effective upon the adoption of Ordinance No. 811-A136 and after approval has been granted for the final plans of Crossroads Development: Amundson Avenue within the plat of Findell's 2nd Addition and that the Clerk is authorized and directed to cause a Notice of Completion of Proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of the County Auditor and filed wZth the Register of Deeds, in accordance with Ninnesota Statutes, Sect2on 412.851 after the above described conditions have been met, Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. I. - . ~ Rollcall : Nays: None Res6.lution adopted. . Ayes : Bredesen, Courtney, Kichards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg 51 19 / i :O 45 c\I 0 6-) -3 d: U -- LRASlJTNG ORDINANCE AND DOG CONTROL IN PARKS DISCUSSED. called to a letger from Nr. Murray J. Lartb, 6613 Cornelia Dr., objccting that the City is not enforcing either the leashirk ordinance or the ordinance which re- stricts dogs from City parks. that dogs are not allowed in the park is so obscure that no one can see it. Laub's letter also pointed out that walkers and joggers take their dogs with them and make no effort to remove the dog's private lawns, and requested that publicity be given to &he problem and that fines for violation of the ordinances be made more severe so that dog owners would be more apt to conform to the ordinances. Mr. Rosland referred to Ordinance No. 311- All which states that each person having custody or control of a.dog must remove any feces left by the dog on either public or private property. Mr. Rosland said that he would have C.S.O. officers hand out copies of the ordinances to violators and that he will write to Mr. Laub to explain that the City will do its best to see that the ordinances are enforced. Council's attention was He objected that the sign fn Cornelia Park saying Hr. feces, either from park property or from No formal action was taken. CONTRACT PAINTING OF PARK AND RECFZATION DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS BID AWARDED. Mr. Rosland presented tabulation of three quotations for painting various. Park and Recreation Department buildings. Tabulation showed J & P Company between $7.00 and $12.00 per hour, Dean & Associates at $12.00 per hour and Messler, Inc., between $12.01 and $25.00 per hour. Motion of Councilman Courtney was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt for award to recommended low bidder, J & P Co. at s.7.00 to $12.00 per hour Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. TRAFFIC PAID BID AWARDED. Mr. Rosland presented tabulation of two bids for 600 .. gallons of yel4ow traffic paint and 150 gallons of white traffic paint. tion showed Vogel Paint &-TzTax Co., low bidder at $4,402.50 and Marwin Division, Inc., at $5,946.00. Councilman Courtney's motton for award to Vogel Paint & Wax, recommended low bidder, for $4,402.50, was seconded by Councilman Richards. Tabula- Ayes : Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt , Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. . PCILICE PRC)%ESSIONAL ilK8liI~' JNSUXAXZE PGLICY i3ID AWWiSi). Xr. Xosland preseatecl tabulation of three bids showing Police Chief Association (American Centennial) at $9,950 for $500,000 per insured, Drake 'Insurance Co. at $8,709 for $100,000/300,000/ 300,000, and Jefferscn Irrsurance at $7,978 for $100,000/300,000/300,000 with $1,000 deductible or $9,493 for $250,000/500,000/500,000 with $1,000 deductible. Bernhardson recommended award to Police Chief Association (American Centennial) in accordance with the recommendation of Nr. Fred Gedelman, insurance consultant for the City, advising that American Centennial provides higher limits and broader cov- erage which is considered important, Police Chief Association (American Centennial) as recomiiended for $9,950 for * $500,000 per insured was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Mr. Councilman Courtney's motion for award to Ayes : Nays: None Motion carried. Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg TRAFFIC SAFETY CONMITTJfE MINUTES OF MAY 14, 1980, ACCEPTED. Councilman Courtney's motion accepting the Traffic Safety Committee Hnutes of May 14, 1980, was sec- onded by Councilman Richards. Ayes : Bredesen, Courtney, Richards , Schmidt, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. SCHOOL LIFE SAFETY DISCUSSED. Mr. Rosland advised Council that the School Dist- rict and the City hme reached a satisfactory agreement for work to be done on' Edina East Upper Division so that the building can be rented to Minneapolis Luth- eran High School. Discussion ensued as to whether all requirements of the City are absolutely necessary. tween the City and the School District be accepiled as it pertains to Edina East Upper 'Dibision. Ayes : Bredesen, Courtney Richards, Schmidt ,. Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. Coutxcilman Courtney then zoved that the agreement be- &tion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. I LOT 1 , BLOCK 1 , AND OUTLOT A, LOWE 1ST ADDITION EASEMENT VACATION HEARING -- DATE SET. As recommended by ,Mr. Hoffman, Councilman Richards offered the following .- , '76 5/ 19/80 resolution and moved its adoption: KESOLUTION CATaLING PUBLIC HEARING * ON VACATION OF EASEtENTS FOR UTILITY PUEPOSES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Ilinne- sota, as follows : It is hereby found and determined after receipt of the petition of owners of land affected thereby that the following described easement for utility pur-r poses should be considered for vacation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 412.851 and.160.29: That portion of vacated Valley View Road, formerly Hennepin County Road 39 located in the North 1/2 of Section 7, Township 116, Range 21, and 66 feet in width, lying betrieen the Southerly extension of the East line of Wash- ington Ave. and the West righ.t-of-way line of Hennepin County Road No. 18 2. %is Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the form of notice included in paragraph 3 hereof for the purpose of holding a public hearing on whether such vacation shall be made in the interest of the public. 3. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, place and purpose of said hearing to be published once a week for two weeks, in the Edina Sun, being the official newspaper of the City, the first publication at least 14 days prior to the date of such hearing and to post such notice, at least 14 days prior to the date of such hearing, in at least three (3) public and conspicuous places within the City, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851. notice shall be in substantially the following form: (Official Pub li cation) CITY OF EDINA 4801 I?. 50TH STREET EDINA, IJDTNESOTA 55424 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON EASEMENT VACATION IN THE CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA -. I 1. I Such NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801N. 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota, on Monday, July 7, 1980, at 7:OO o'clock p.m. for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the proposed. vacation of utility easements described as follows : u Thst portion of vacated Valley View Road, formerly Hennepin County Road 39 locaced in the North 1/2 of Section 7, Township 116, Range 21, and 66 feet in widtii, iying between zhe Southerly exteasion of the Est line 02 Washiag- ton Ave. and- the West right-of-way line of Hennepin County Road No. 18- All persons who desire to be heard with respect to the question of whether or not the above proposed easement vacation is in the public interest and should be made shall- be heard at said time and place. to which such proposed easement vacation affects existing easements within the area of the proposed vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any perscjn, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling 'electric or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes, IIiakzs 2nd hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation, to continue maintaining the same or to repair, replace, remove, or othenJise attend thereto, for the purpose of specifying, in any such vacation resolution, the extent to which any or all of any such easements, and such authority to maintain, and to enter upon the area of the proposed vacation shall continue. BY OXDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. The Council shall consider the extent .. Florence B. Hallberg City Clerk Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Bredesen. . Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Resolution adopted. ATELETIC ASSOCIATIONS ROLE WITH CITY DISCUSSED. Discussion was had with Park . Board members , Hrs. Virginia Shaw and Xr. William Lord, and with Mr. Robert Kojetin with regard to insurance policies which should be carried by the vari- ous athletic associations which would 1) carry legal defenseand liability insur- vlce for directors and officers of each athietic association, 2) provide legal defense liability insurance for officers and directors of each association, 3) nane the City of Edina as additional insured on all association policies since City staff'and facilities are involved. association hmish a statement of grievance procedures was also discussed, as' well as the participation of non-residents in Edina park progrms. Following considerable discussion, Councilman Richards moved that insurance pol5cies Ss indicated above for all on-going athletic associations be submitted to Lhe City The requirement that each athletic 5/ 19/80 c\I 0 0 3 a a by June 2, 1980, that any athletic association wishing to use City facilities must file its gr'evance procedure wick the City before they commence their next year's ectivities, that those associafions with an on-going program must submit a draf: of their grievance proceedings by July 7, 1.980, and further, that each associ- . ation .advise Mr. Kojetin of the times of their meetings so that they can be posted in the Park Department. "he motion also stipulated that the question of resi- dency be reEerred back to the Par.k Board for development of a stated policy. Not- ion was seconded by Councilman Courtney. Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg I I Nays: None Mot ion carried. Council's attention was then.called to a letter from Mr. Larry Laukka in which he indicated that the Hockey Noms would dedicate' $7,500 toward the cost of plexiglass for Braemar Pavillion if the City would pay the balance of $12,000. Mr. Kojetin said that he would investigate the use of both plexiglass and chain link fencing and report back to the Council. No formal action was taken. ATTORNEY -GENERAL' s OPINION ON INDEMKIFICATION OF HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION MEMBERS ACCEPTED. Council's attention was called to a letter from the Attorney General in which he opined that members of the Edina Human Relations Commission are officers or employees pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5466.071(1) (Supp. 1979) and, because EHRC members can be considered to be "officers" wlthin the meaning of 5 466.07, the City Council of Edina can defend and indemni'fy them within the \provisions of Minn. Stat. 8 466.01-.15 (Supp. 1979) .". Councilwoman Schmidt's motion accepting the Attorney General's opinion relative to indemnification for Human Relations Corrmrission members was seconded by Councilman Richards. 'I . - Ayes : Bredesen , Courtney Richards , Schmidt , Van. Valkenburg Mot ion carried . . Nays: None SPRINKLING ORDINANCE DISCUSSED. to be a need for an ordinance covering emergency sprinkling bans, Councilman Rich- ards' motion authorizing the City Attorney to draft the necessary ordinance was Being advised byithe Hayor that there appears . seconded by Councilman Bredesen. Ayzs : Bredesen, Courtney, Richards , Schmidt , Van Valkenburg Mot Torr carried. Nays: None I ORDINANCES AND PROCEDURES REVIEW COMMITTEE SUGGESTED BY MAYOR. kenburg spoke of his concern that some City practices might: add unnecessarily to the cost of housing in the City. builders, contractors, developers and others who might serve on a committee to review procedures presently required by the City to see if some simplifications might be in order. ted for the next Council Meeting. Mayor Van Val- He suggested that Council consider names of The Mayor requested that names for this committee be submit- NO formal action was taken. INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND REQUEST DISCUSSED. Mayor Van Valkenburg referred to the request of Cherne Industries for the City to sell industrial revenue bonds. Pfr. Rosland said that-he and Xr. Dalen would meet wlth Mr. Mahoney to-.discuss the matter. No formal action was taken. 1981 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES LEGISLATIVE POLICIES TO BE STUDIED. Councilman Courtney referred to the 1981 proposed League of Xinnesota Cities Legislative Pol- icies and suggested that Council advise him or Mr. Rosland of any concerns so that they can speak to the proposed policies at the League Conference. The Mayor asked all members to review the proposed policies so that they can be discussed at the next Council Meeting. No formal action was taken. NEW REVENUE SHARING FORMULA NOTED. Mr. Rosland . referred to a new Revenue Sharing *formula which has been adopted and noted that the City's funds have been cut by $111,000. No action was taken. MANAGER'S ABSENCE NOTED. between May 27 and- Jiine 1, 1980. HOME IEPROVEPENT GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION AFP'I3OVED. Mr. Hughes advised that approximately $33,264 is available for providing home improvement grants to low income homeowners and assured Council that. speci.al eflorts would be made to advise neighborhoods identified by the Housing Commission Report as having problems that these funds'are available. Nr. Hughes clarified that $2,162 of the funds would be available to cover staff time necessary to administer the program. Court'ney theretlpon offered the foliowing resolution and moved its adoption : Mr. Rosland advised Cour,cil that he will be out of town No action was taken. Councilman 51 19i 80 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZI'JG APPLICATION FOR NHFA HOUSING REHABILITATION GJUNT FUNDS 78 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, State of Minnesota: has been auth- orized to undertake a program to Frovide grarts of funds to property owners for the purpose of housing rehabilitation; and WHEREAS, the City of Edina has developed an application as an Administering Entity for the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Home Improvement Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Edina has demonstrated the ability to perform the required activities of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Home Improvement Grant Program; NOT?, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Edina is hereby authorized to make application to the Elinnesota Housing Finance Agency for a grant of funds pursuant to the Home Improvement Grant Program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Edina is hereby authorized as an entity to be charged with the administration of funds made available through the Minne- sota Housing Finance Agency Home Improvement Grant Program, in the City of Edina. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. I Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Re solution adopted . HTJMSA RELATIONS COE.IISSION/COUNCIL MEETING DATE DISCUSSED. Mrs . Betty Carver, Chairman of the Human Relations Commission, was advised that the June 11, 1980, date selected by the Commission for a joint meeting with the City Council was not convenient and asked that a new date be set. .No formal action was taken. DAYTON HUDSON FOUNDATION OFFER OF FUNDS NOTED. letter from Dayton Hudson Foundation seeking applicants for funds for "specific projects, general operations, or capital rarely supports endowment programs. the Presidents of advisory boards and commissions asking if they have any requests which would be applicable under the Dayton Hudson Foundation guidelines. formal action was taken. Mayor Van Valkenburg referred to a and noting that the Foundation Mr. Rosland said that he has sent notices to No CABLE TV LOBBYIST LIST PRESENTED. first report of Czble TV lobbyists as required by the Cable Lobbyists Disclos- ure Plan which was adopted by the .City Council. CLAIMS PAID. Motion of Councilman Richards was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt for payment of the following claims as per Pre-List: General Fund, $169,000.35; Park Fund, $18,215.79; Art Center, $8,882.34; Park Construction, $6,223.42; Park Sinking, $6,887.50; Swimming Pool, $1,155.87; Golf Course, $14,306.68; Recreation Center, $6,177.47; Gun Range, $29.76; Water Fund, $11,671.37; Sewer Fund, $95,645.59; Liquor Fund, $208,726.97; Construction, $60,362.82; IBR Fund, $64,188.00; Total, $671,473.93; and for confirmation of paymsnt of the following claims: General Fund, $44,840.38; Art .Center, $27.40; Golf Center, $850.60; Arena, $126.44; Gun Range, $22.09, Water Fund, $461.77; Liquor Fund, $108,303.10; Total, $154,631.78. Mr. Rosland presented the Council with the " No action was taken. . Ayes : Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidz. Van Valkenburg Nays : __ Eone Hotion carried. - No further business appearing, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ment at 9:35 p.m. Adjourn- ..