Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19811221_regualr304 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL DECEMBER 21, 1981 Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner and Nayor Courtney . MINUTES of December 7, 1981, were approved as submitted by motion of Member Bredesen, seconded by Idember Schmidt. Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: Kone Motion carried. . the Crosstown Highway had been granted preliminary plat approval and First Read- ing of the Zoning Ordinance amendment on November 16, 1981, and that, since that time, the developer has met with neighbors to try to come to a satisfactory agreement about this R-2 development. Mr. David Kirscht, architect for the dev-- eloper, said that he had met with neighbors to discuss landscaping of the site and showed a sketch of proposed landscaping. Mr. Kirscht agreed not to remc've any trees which presently serve as a buffer between the single dwellings and agreed also to plant evergreen and deciduous trees. Mr. Tom McNamee, repres- . ing the Viking Hills Homeowners Association, said that neighbors were ~ concerned about the proposed homes on the West side of the project but are mostly concerned about the screening which now appears to be adequate. No fbr- ther comments being heard, Member Bredesen offered the following resolution ad moved its adoption, subject to payment by the developer of a $20,000 subdivision dedication fee and the execution of a developer's agreement: BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that that certain plat known as Halek 6th Addition, platted by James M, Halek and Ronald E. Clark, and pre- sented at the Edina City Council Meeting of December 21, 1981, be and is hdrgby granted final plat approval. Bbtioo for adoptioli of the resolution was seconded by MenSer =chards. . RESOLUTION I Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Resolution adopted. Member Bredesen thereupon offered Ordinance No. 811-A156 for Second Reading follows : ORDINANCE NO. 811-A156 AN ORDINANCE BENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 811) BY REZONING' PROPERTY FROM R-1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-2 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: $: . Section 1. "The extent of the R-2 Myltiple Residential District is enlarged by the Paragraph 1 of Section 4 of Ordinance No. 811 of the City. r. hereby amended by adding the following thereto: addition of the following property: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE 1/4 of SI? Elk) and the NortIweSt Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (Md 1/4 of NE 1/4) of Section Six (6),, Township 116,.Range 21, described as follows: Beginning on a point in the West line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE 1/4 of NW 1/4) distant 814.5 feet North of the Southwest comer of .1/4); thence running East and a deflection angle to the right of 92O 20' a distance of 676.3 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of' said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE 1/4 of NIJ 1/4) a distance of 366 feet to a point which is 283.9 feet South of the North line of said Section Six (6); the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence running East on a deflection angle to the right of 92O 20' a distance of 1317.5 feet more,or less to the center line of the Town Road, also known as Gleason Road as now laid out and travelled; thence Northeasterly along said center line a distance of 384.7 feet more or less to its intersection with the North line of said Section Six (6); thence lest along said North line a distance of 1426.3 feet more or less to a point which is distant 678.6 feet East of the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE 1/4 of NW 1/4); thence South parallel with the West line of said Northeast Quarter of the North- west Quarter (NE 1/4 of NW 1/4) 283.9 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies Eortherly of the following described line: r _. said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE 1/4 of NJ . . - 12/2 1/81 305 Quart e: Beginning t th Ea coiner of Sect-m -~ ~ tx (6), Townshi1 Range 21, thence North '00 degrees 09 minutes 27 seconds East alor East line of said Section Six (6) a distance of 1807.59 feet; thc 0 degrees 48 minutes 33 seconds West a distance of 1070.37 feet; North 81 degrees 13 minutes 33 seconds West a distance of 1031.15 thence North 12 degrees 36 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of thence South 77 degrees 23 minutes 10 seconds East a distance of feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be describec North 77 degrees 23 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 180.30 thence along a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 687. (delta angle..30 degrees 18 minutes 2'3 seconds, tangent distance 1 feet) a distance of 363.89 feet; thence South 72 degrees 18 minut seconds West al'ong tangent.to last described curve a distance of feet; thence along a tangential curve to the right with a radius feet (delta angle 22 degrees 43 minutes, tangent distance 168.72 distance of 333.02 feet; thence North 84 degrees 10 minutes 27 se West a distance of 600.0 feet and there terminating. Said last d course is not tangent to last described curve. Excepting therefromtheTJesterly 150 feet thereof, as measured at angles to the West line thereof. which is in Sub-District R-2". See. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon and publication. Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Bredes Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Ordinance adopted. ATTEST : 16, the :e North lence Eeet; 90.0 feet; 10.0 ?et; 5 feet j.31 ; 27 t5.43 thence 893.93 !et) a mds mibed t .ght :s passage 1 1. City Clerk DEWEY HILL THIRD ADDITION PRD-3 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONING EXTEND1 YEAR. Mr. Hughes recalled that Dewey Hill Third Addition was rezoI Planned Residential.District approximately one year ago, with plan: the construction of five buildings containing 114 dwelling units fc generally located North of W. 78th Street and West of Cahill Road. that Laukka and Associates, owners of the property, have requested extension of the rezoning because of lack of financing, and the prc of the economy have' made construction impossible within the time 1: Mr. Larry Laukka explained that after the zoning had been approved, a considerable sum of money on the project in grading and working ( had opened a sales office. He said that he had pre-sold the projec two people but that he had put a hold on the project when financini ficult. Mr. Robert Clark, 7701 Glasgow Drive, representing the G1: Homeowners' Association, said that the grading of the pond was dont zoning hearings and that these expenses were done at Mr. Laukka's c Clark objected also that the only buffer between Glasgow Drive pro1 new development was some evergreens and asked that additional buffc "decent size" cul-de-sac be installed. Mr. Laukka said that the CI provement will require extensive re-grading and that any work that advance will have to be re-done. He suggested that he would donatc Glasgow Drive residents want to petition to have the cul-de-sac COI said that it would be counter productive to do the work piecemeal said that he had arranged to have the City enlarge the cul-de-sac t evergreen trees. Following considerable discussion, Member Bredesc accepting the recommendations of the Community Development and PlaI sion for the extension of the PRD-3 zoning for one year was second< Richards. Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney I Nays : Schmidt Motion carried. FOR ONE i to PRD-3 %?proved for property Se advised two year ?nt state itations. le had spent %wings and to twenty- lecame dif- pw Drive lefore final I risk. Mr. rties and the ing and a -de-sac im- 5 done in the land if tructed, but Mr. Rosland 3 plant the 's motion ing Commis- by Member 1 PLANNED OFFICE DISTRICT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 811-A157 GRANTED FIRST Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form i placed on file. Mr. Hughes presented Ordinance No. 811-A157, notir an ordinance would provide a method of insuring the compatibility i office buildings and would discourage rezonings of a speculative n: response to a question of Member Richards, Mr. Hughes explained th: Planned Residential Ordinance, the City could require that anyone I zoning could be required to go. to Planned Residential District zon . EADING. 3 ordered that such 3 quality of 3re. In , under the luesting R-2 g- 306 1212 1/81 Member Richards suggested that moxe information should be available to the City when the property is in a transitional zone. member Turner offered the following ordinance for First Reading: No further comments being heard, ORDINANCE NO. 8 11-A15 7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINAKCE (NO. 811) RY'ADDING A PLANNED OFFICE DISTRICT AND BY PROHIBITING ADDITIONAL SUBDISTRICTS 0-1 AND 0-2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Paragraph 1 of Section 8 (Office Building District) is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 1. "Sec. 1. Boundaries of Office Building District. The Office Building Dis- I trict is hereby established and shall further be divided into sub-districts designated as Districts 0-1, 0-2 and POD-1 and POD-2, as shown on the official zoning map of the City and by the amendments hereafter made to' this paragraph." Sec. 2. Section 8 (Office Building District) of Ordinance No. 811 is . hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph-4 as follows : "4. Planned Office District (POD) (a) Purpose of Planned Office District. The purpose of this section is to provide a procedure that insures the orderly development of buildings and uses permitted in the Office Building District which will be complementary to and compatible with existing high quality office buildings ; to enhance the compatibility of uses permitted in the Office Building District with the pre- dominantly residential character of the City of Edina; to insure to the owners aad occupants of uses permitted in the Office Building District the benefit of an exemplary planned development; and to enable the Planned Office District to make its fair contribution to the general health, safety and welfare of the City of Edina. into sub-districts designated as POD-1 and POD-2. approximate the requirements of the 0-1 and 0-2 sub-districts respectively. (c) Uses. Principal and accessory uses allowed within the POD shall be the same as those allowed in the Office Building Districts as provided for by this Section, The following minimum restrictions shall apply to all buildings that may be erected, converted, or structurally altered in the POD: (b) Sub-districts. The Planned Office District shall be divided The sub-districts will (d) Restrictions on Uses Permitted within the Planned Office District. D (1) Restrictions relating to off-street parking, storage, off- street loading, and trash and garbage incinerators shall be the same as the restrictions imposed upon the Office Building Dis- trict of this Section. Floor Area Ratio. tract zoned POD shall not exceed .5 times the lot area. Lot Coverage. be occupied by buildings. shall be limited to four stories. sub-district shall be governed by the setback requirements contained in the POD. minimum building setback from the right of way of any public road or street shall be 35 feet or the building height, which- ever is greater. boundary (which does not abut a public road or street) shall be 20 feet dr the building height, whichever is greater. In the POD-2 subdistrict, any structure-5 or 6 stories in height: shall be no closer to any R-1 District boundary, except those R-1 Districts which are utilized (as of the date of construc- tion of the POD building) for non-residential purposes, than two height, the setback shall be no less than three times the building height. For a structure of 9 or more stories in height, the setback shall be no less than four times the build- ing height from any R-l District boundary, except those R-1 Districts which are utilized (as of the date of construction of the POD building) for non-residential purposes. When an R-l Residential District is across a street from a POD, the setback from the street right of way shall be not less than 50 feet. When the Planned Office District is an integral part of either a Planned Commercial District or a Planned Industrial District, setbacks from the right of way of public streets and roads shall not be less than that prescribed for the major planned district. Procedure for Planned Office District Zoning and Subsequent (2) (3) (4) Building Height. Building height in the POD-1 sub-district The Gross Floor Area of all buildings on the Not more than 30% of the tract zoned POD shall Building height in the POD-2 . (5) Building Setbacks. In the POD-1 and POD-2 sub-districts, the The minimum building setback from the POD .. times the building height. For a structure 7 or 8 stories in . - (e) Development. 12/21/81 of all public roadways located within 100 feet of the of the tract. (d) The location, general exterior dimensions , approximate I area, and height of all proposed structures. (e) The location arrangement, and number of automobile par1 and truck loading facilities. 307 J dis- novided mer or shall scale of )llowing .scribed ther natural tion. Lled widths mimter gross floor ing stalls I 45 days m and substance acceptable to the Planning Department, the PI ment will review the application and Prel forward said application and Plan with a ment, to the Community Development and Planning Commiss Commission shall thereupon review the application, the Development Plan and the report of the Planning Depar same to the City Council with its recommendation. (4) Council Action. The City Council shall conduct a pub shall review the application, the Preliminary Develop report of the Planning Department, and the recommenda Community Development and Planning Commission. An af of 4/5ths of the Council shall be required to grant p If preliminary approval of the rezoning is granted, t petitioner may prepare a Final Development Plan for f the Community Development and Planning Commission an (5) Final Development Plan. The Final Development Plan to the Community Development and Planning Commissio the information and data delineated on the Prelimin Plan and, in addition, the following data and information (a) Elevation drawings of all proposed structures description of the proposed exterior building (b) The locations, .dimensions, and designs of all entrances and exits , driveway intersections areas, loading areas, maneuvering areas and sidewal A landscape plan and landscape schedule sho and location of existing plant materials t all new proposed plant materials. A general overall grading plan indicating A preliminary layout and design of all pro sanitary sewers, drainage facilities and s with existing and proposed easements therefore. Any other information required, ,in the op Director, to insure compliance with the r (6) Final Approval. The Community Development and (c) (d) (e) - direction and destination of surface drainage. (f) II herein or other applicable City ordinances. shall feport favorably upon the Final Develop that: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) The proposed development conforms to The proposed development is consistent hensive Plan. The proposed development will not be d rounding the tract of land proposed The proposed development will not res use. The proposed development will not res ges tion or traffic hazards. tion, and other applicable City ordin accept or deny the findings of the Co ning Commission and thereby approve o opment Plan. constitute final. rezoning and the pu Approval of the Final 308 1212 11 8 1 amendment affecting the zoning change shall be authorized. Filing. ning Department. Subdivision of Land. the Planned Office District which is not platted into lots and blocks at that time of the transfer shall be platted pursuant to and in accordance with Edina Ordinance No. 801 . Development. 5- (a) The approved Final Development Plan shall be filed in the Plan- Any land transferred from any zoning district to The Development of the Planned Office District shall be done and accomplished in full compliance with the approved Final Development Plans and other applicable City ordinances. Applications for build- ing permits shall be reviewed by the Planning Director to determine if they conform to the provisions of this ordinance and the approved Final Development Plans. the building permit application shall be submitted to the City Building Official for processing. Revisions or changes. Minor changes in the location and placement of buildings as shown on approved Final Development Plans may be authorized by the Planning Director where unforeseen circumstances dictate such a change. Other changes which affect the overall design of the development shall be referred to the Community Development and Planning Commission for review and recommendation of the Council, after which the City Council shall hold a public hearing, shall review the changes and recommendations, and such other information as it deems necessary or desirable, and shall decide to either approve or deny the changes to the Final Development Plans. The approval of such changes to the Final Development Plans shall require an affirma- tion vote by a majority of the City Council. I Upon approval by the Planning Director, (b) Sec. 3 Section 8 (Office Building District) of Ordinance No. 811 is hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph 5 as follows: "5. Prohibition of Additional Sob-districts 0-1 and 0-2. No property shall be transferreci to sub-districts 0-1 and 0-2 from and after January 1, 1982. However those properties presently within sub-districts 0-1 and 0-2 shall remain subject to the provisions applicable to the 0-1 or 0-2 sub- district in which it is located as provided in this ordinance. 1980-1990 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. that the final steps of the Edina Comprehensive Plan for 1980-1990 have been . approved by the Metropolitan Council which has found the Plan to be consistent in all respects, including the sewer flow about which there was some question previously. In response to a question of Member Turner, Mr. Hughes said thet the City has not followed the Bfetropolitan Council's suggestions on the Capital Improvements program recommendations , but that he would now recommend that . these recommendations be followed. Member Turner said that she would like to see the Capital Improvement plans laid out by budget time. In response to Kember Turner's question about monitoring and implementing the plan, Mr. Hughes said that the staff would try to prioritize implementation itens and prepare a flow chart for Council's consideration at a future meeting. Membez Richards. expressed concern that if the implementation and enforcement procedures are. not spelled out, the Metropolitan Council might try to establish its own procede.. ures. Mayor Courtney suggested that the Plan be approved at this time and that implementation be discussed on January 4, 1982, at which time Mr. Dirk DeVries could be invited to the meeting to respond to Council's questions.. Member Turner suggested that the human services element be added to the Plan. Member Bredesen said that many things could change before the Plan is implemented and that the Plan should be reviewed annually. accept the premises upon which the Plan is built. sion, Member Schmidt offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: Mr. Hughes recalled . - - He said that he does not Following lengthy discus- RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the Comprehensive Plan for 1980- 1990 for the City of Edina be and is hereby approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Mr. Dirk DeVries of the Metropolitan Council be invited to attend the Council Meeting of January 4, 1982, at which time imple- mentation of the Plan should be discussed. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall : Ayes: Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays : Bredesen, Richards Resolution adopted. LOT 6, BLOCK 8, JAMES A. ROBERTS ESTATE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS DECISION UPHELD. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to 12/21/81 309 form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hughes advised Council that 1 .. Waltdr ' Kretschmer has appealed the decisionSsof the Board of Appeals and A h justments which denied his request for a 3% lot coverage variance for his property which- is located at 5232 Maddox Lane (Lot 6, Block 8, James A. Roberts Estate). explained that the variance was requested to permit 297 square feet of addi- tional lot coverage, by adding a 12' x 28' addition to the garage for storage. Mr. Hughes explained that this would give the property a coverage of 28%, whdreby neighbors rarely had more than 20% lot coverage. He added that a let- ter had been received from Mr. Kretschmer, reducing the size of the requested addition and also showed Council a plan indicating the items that need to be stored in the addition. Mr. Ching Johnson, representing Mr. Kretschmer, said that the addition is necessary because Mr. Kretschmer is unable to move the items to be stored because of his health and age. Mention was also made to a petition signed by seven neighbors who indicated that they had no objection to the addition. In response to a question of the Council, Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Kretschmer is a consultant for his previous employer and that eight foot high shrubs surround his property, so that neighbors cannot see the addition. Mr. Douglas Thompson, 5316 Maddox Lane, said that Council should adhere to -its regulations and that an "eighteen wheeler" pulling in to the driveway once a month indicates a business on the premises. motion denying the appeal was then seconded by Member Schmidt. He Member Bredesen's 4 Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Motion carried. ICE SURFACING MACHINE BID AWARDED. ice surfacing machine showing Frank J. Zamboni & Company, Inc., the lone bidder At $33,208.00. Nr. Rosland also recommended keeping the old machine in case of an emergency. award to Frank J. Zamboni & Company, Inc., at $33,208.00. Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Burner, Courtney Nays: None Motion carried. Mr. Rosland presented a tabulation for an Member Richards' motion was then seconded by Member Turner for GOLF COURSE TRUCK BID AWARDED. for a Chevrolet low bidder at $9,383.00; Johnson & Sons, $9,441.00 and Ethridge Pondiac, Cadillac at $9,511.00. Bredesen for award to recommended low bidder, Iten Chewolet. I-. Mr. Rosland presented tabulation of three bids ton heavy duty 4-wheel drive pickup for the Golf Course showing Iten Member Turner's motion was seconded by Member I Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Motion carried. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 15, 1981, REVIEWED. Member Bredesen's motion was seconded by Member Turner, accepting Sections B and C of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes and approving the following: of removal of the NO PARKING ANYTIME signs on the East side of Gleason Road in the 7400 block; 2) of Southview Lane between the Community Center and Southview Junior High until May 1, 1982, during which period the following information should be assembled and presented for the purpose of a permanent recommendation: 1) Approval Rescinding of parking restrictions on the South side School 1. Neighborhood input ; 2. 3. Cornunity Center off-street parking plan consistent with anticipated needs ; Statement of Community Center occupancy at the May 1, 1982, date. 3) Valley View Road and Concord Ave. to dksplay a cautionary "Flashing amber" dur- ing-the school crossing time periods; 4) Denial of a request for a three-way stop at the intersection of.Kellogg Ave. and Gilfard Drive, with the rekommenda- tionthat the request and the Traffic Safety Committee information on the sub- ject be fo.rwarded to the Edina Park Board, with the recommendation to consider rescheduling of commercial softball games and the consideration of an alternate park entrance. Ayes: Nays: None Motion carried. Approval of repair of a pedestrian crossing light at the intersection of Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney ART CENTER COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS CONFIRMED; TERMS OF OFFICE SET. AS recom- mended by the Mayor, Member Schmidt's motion was seconded,by Member Bredesen, confirming the appointments of Mmes. Betty Paugh and Sandra Clark to the Edina Art Center Committee and establishing terms of office for all members to run until the following dates: 310 121 21/81 1982 - Mrs. Harriet Bach 1983 - Mmes. Carol Beimel, Donna Skagerberg, Shirley Taylor and Mr. Art Dickey 1984 - Mmes. Betty Catter, Phyllis Haywa, Phyllis Kenaston and Mr. Lowell 1985 - Mmes Betty Paugh and Sandra Clark and Mr. James Van Valkenburg McCar thy * ' Ayes : Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Motion carried. SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAX SERVICES COUNCIL ADDITIONAL FUNDING APPROVED FOR 1982. . Mr. Rosland advised that, in order to cope with its reduction of funds from. Hennepin County, the South Hennepin Human Services Council has requested addi- tional funds from the four participating cities and has requested $5,000 from the City of Edina to meet its 1982 budget. Mr. Rosland recommended that money budgeted in 1981 for the Peoplemaking worshop, along with other unspent budgeted funds in the total amount of $2,750.00 be given to South Hennepin, along with providing a two year audit of their books as an in-kind service. Mr. Rosland said that this recommendation had been approved by Mr. Dalen, as well as members of the Human Relations Commission, and that the total expenditure of funds would be $2,750.00, thus saving the City $2,250.00. expenditure of money at this time and also questioned the authority of the Council to reallocate these funds. No further discussion appearing, Member ScPmidt's motion authorizing the additional funds and audit as recommended by Mr, Rosland, was seconded by Member Turner. I Member Bredesen questioned the Ayes : Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays : Bredesen Motion carried. RE-NAMING OF I?. 72ND STREET REJECTED. Mr. Rosland recalled that the request to re-name W. 72nd Street had been continued from the Council Meeting of December 7,. 1981, and advised that the staff has recommended that no change be made. Member Bredesen's motion was then seconded by Member Schmidt, rejecting the name change. Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Motion carried. YEAR END MEETING DATE SET. ion setting December 30, 1981, at 4:30 p.m. in the Conference Room for the year end Special Meeting date was seconded by Member Richards. Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Motion carried. As recommended by Mr. Rosland, Member Bredesen's met- COUNTY ROAD 18 SOUND BARRIERS CONTINUED TO JANUARY 18, 1982. Mr. Rosland advised Council of a request to install sound barriers on County Road 18 in the vicinity of the Interlachen Hills Apartments. amber Turner, continuing the matter to January 18, 1982, so that neighbors could be notified. Member Richards' motion was seconded by Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Motion carried - BRAEMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. (LIONSGATE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT) PROMISSORY NOTE INTEREST EXTENDED. following resolution and moved its adoption: BE IT RESOLVZD that the Edina City Council does hereby extend for one year the payment of accrued interest due and payable to the City of Edina on .December 31, 1981, as provided in the Promissory Note from Bsaemar Associates, a MinnesDta Corporation, dated January 9, 1981. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. As recommended by Mr. Rosland, Member Bredesen offered the RESOLUTION I Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Xesolution adopted. WAGER'S RECOMMENDATION UPHELD IN DISCIPLINAKY ACTION. Member Richards read the "Report and Recommendation of Review Panel to the City Council" which report per- tained to the disciplinary hearing of Lowell D. Holman, as follows: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF REVIEV PANEL TO THE CITY COUNCIL The members of the Review Panel, having been charged with the responsibility to review the entire official record in the above-referenced matter, including trans- -, .. .. I AMENDMENT TO SOUTHEAST EDlNA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN [ p Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan - Land Use Plan The Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan - Land Use Plan designates that portion of the plan area lying west of York Avenue and south of West 76th Street as "Proposed Transitional Developmentti. The Land Use Plan is hereby amended to change the designation of this area to "Mixed Use". Mixed Use is defined as the joint and integrated development of residential and non-residential land uses on a single tract of land. Within the South- east Edina Redevelopment Plan area, Mixed Use developments would have the following objectives : To encourage the provision of residences affordable to low and moderate income families and individuals. Special attention should be given to home ownership opportunities for such families and individuals. To encourage the mixing of residences affordable to low and moderate income persons with market rate residences in order to promote maximum social and economic interspersion. To provide business and professional office uses in close proximity to residential uses in order to encourage employment opportunities for residents of the Mixed Use development and thereby reduce the need for job related commuting which contributes to traffic congestion in southeast Edina. To enoucrage the provision of retail facilities for the use by residents and employees of the Mixed Use development and the surrounding area in order to reduce inter-area and intra-area travel for shopping purposes. To provide for public park and open space facilities for the use by the general public and residents and employees of the Mixed Use development. To encourage the provision of mass transit opportunities for residents and employees of the Mixed Use development. The portion of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan area lying west of York Avenue and south of West 76th Street measures about 25 acres in area. A Mixed vse development in this area is anticipated to include the following basic components: 11 2) 31 4) Approximately 600 apartment units. Such units will 'be offered for sale as condominiums. It is anticipated that at least one half of these units will be offered to low and moderate income families and individuals. Approximately 500,000 square feet of office and retail floor area. A public park offering a variety of recreational and cultural activities for the general Use development. public as well as residents and employees of the Mixed Parking facilities for use by members of the general public utilizing the public park facilities and other facilities provided by the Mixed Use development. -. Amendment to the SE Edina Redevelopment Plan Page 2 The Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan - Land. Use Plan designates that portion of the plan area lying east of York Avenue and south of West 76th Street as !!Proposed Subsidized Family Housing". The Land Use Plan is hereby amended to change the designation of this area to "Office Uses". Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan - Property Disposition Policy Plan amended to include a disposition pian for that area designated as Mixed Use development in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan - Land Use PIan. This 'disposition plan will provide for a land lease from the H.R.A. to the developer of a Mixed Use development. It is anticipated that such a land lease will among other provisions : . The Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan - Property Disposition Policy is hereby 1) Cover the footprint of residential buildings, with possibly additional land around the adjoining the-buildings. Be a net, net lease; i.e. the developer will pay all taxes, assessments, insurance, and other related land costs. Obligate the'developer to create a condominium and sell not less than haif of the residential units to low and moderate income persons as defined by the H.R.A. Provide, in cooperation with a non-profit corporation, a method to try and assure the future sale and re-sale of residential units to low and moderate income persons. Possibly allow the condominium owners to purchase the leased land at a future date. on the leased land will become the property of the H.R.A. Require rent, which could be nominal, for the leased land, and may include a proportionate share of the cost of maintaining public parks and other public facilities. 2) 3) 41 5) If the right of purchase is not exercised, all improvements 6) .. , . "i ; .. 'I. . J. OW. SEC. PURPOSE OF AMOUNT FEE NO. NO. NO. FEE/ CHARGE Gross - Net $15.00 per mo, $.88 per 100 - -- From 4,001 to and including 7,000 cubic feet From 7,001 cubic feet and over cubic feet cubic feet Apartment Buildings with $74.25 plus $67.50 plus 37b more than four dwelling $13.75 for each $12.50 for each units unit over four, unit over four, or 96 cents per or 88. cents per hundred cu. ft. hundred cu ft. of water used of water used during the during the quarter, which- quarter, which- ever is greater ever is greater $16.50 per mo. $.98 per 100 Commercial and industrial $18.56 per . $16.88 per 37c buildings, including schools water meter or water meter or and churches approved sewage approved sewage metering device metering device on premises, or on premises, or 96 cents per hundred cu . ft . hundred cu . f t . of water used of water used during the quar- during the quar- ter , whichever ter , whichever . is greater is greater Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon 88 cents per its passage and publication. Member Richards asked that notices be sent to all residents explaining that. adoption of this ordinance was made necessary by increased Metropolitan Sewer Board rates. MORNINGSIDE AREA WATER ?UTE INCREASE DISCUSSED. that the City of Minneapolis has increased its water rates and that it would be necessary to make increases in the Morningside area water rates because of their use of Minneapolis water, Member Richards' motion setting the Special Meeting of December 30 for First Reading of the ordinance was seconded by Member Turner. Being advised by Mr. Rosland Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Motion carried. EDINA SUN DESIGNATED OFFICIAL PUBLICATION FOR 1982. following resolution designating the Edina Sun as the Official Publication for the City. Member Richards offered the RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby designate the Edina Sun as the Official Publication for the City of Edina for the year 1982. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Schmidt. Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Resolution adopted. HALEK'S 6TH ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS AUTHORIZED ON 100% PETITIONS. reported that petitions for improvements consisting of Watermain, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer and Graveling had been received in his office on December 3, 1981, and presented estimates as follows: For Watermain Improvement No. P-WM-346, $50,073.30; for Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. P-SS-361, $39,753.57; for Storm Sewer Improvement No. P-ST.S-169, $22,356.46 and for Graveling Improvement No. P-C-137, $29,337.78. entire cost against the developer. Councilman Bredesen thereupon offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: Mr. Hoffman Said petition also requested the Council to assess the RESOLUTION ORDERING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. WM-346, SANITARY SEWER SS-361, STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. ST.S-169 AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. C-137 UPON PETITION THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: 1. the Council to construct sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer and graveling improvements in Halek's 6th Addition and that the Developer now owns all pro- perty which will abut and be assessed for the improvements and that the petition has been signed by the developer. The making of said improvement in accordance with said petition is hereby ordered pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031 (3), It is hereby found and determined that a petition has been filed requesting (Session Laws of 1961, 313 314 12/ 2 1/8 1 Chapter 525, Section 2). Said improvements are hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as TJATERiiIN IMPROVEMENT NO. WM-346, SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-361, STORM SEUER IMPROVEMENT NO. ST.S-169 and GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. C-137. The entire cost of said improvements is herdby ordered to be assessed against the properties in said Halek's 6th Addition where said improvements are to be located. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Schmidt. + Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Resolution adopted. 1980-81 PLANNING PSSISTANCE 'GRANT FUNDS REQUESTED FROM METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. AS recommended by Mr. Hughes, Member Schmidt offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REQUESTING 1980-81 LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT FUNDS FROII THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.851- 473.872, requires that the City of Edina prepare and submit a comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and the City of Edina entered into a contract numbered 7834 and dated March 3, 1978, for Local Planning Assistance Grants for 1976-77 which was subsequently amended on June 29, 1979, in the amount of $15,775.00 to assist the City of Edina in carrying out the required planning; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has allocated $6,914.00 to the City of Edina in additional grant funds for 1980-81; -. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Edina requests the additional 1980-81 grant funds and authorizes the City Manager to execute the Agreement Amendment to the above-referenced contract on behalf of the City of Edina. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen. Rollcall: . Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Resolution adopted. I COMMUNICATIONS/DISPACH SERVICES' CONMITTEE MEMBERS APPOINTED. recalled that Council had taken action opposing implementation of the Communica- tions/Dispatch Services at this time, and recommended appointment of City repre- sentatives to the Committee. lution and moved its aaoption:. : Mr . Rosland Member Schmidt thereupon offered the following reso- RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Edina has reviewed and analyzed the draft report on Com- munications/Dispatch Services prepared by the Hennepin County staff; and WHEREAS, the draft report recommends that the"'Hennepin County Board of Com- missioners should establish a policy that emergency communications and dispatch is most appropriately a County function and responsibility. "; and WHEREAS, the County draft report suggests that cities providing their own com- munications/dispatch service should be taxed for the County provided system in addition to the costs of providing their own system; NOW, TdEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Coundil of the City of Edina as fol- lows : Frederick Richards and City Manager Kenneth E. Rosland to participate on a coin- mittee to represent the City's interest in this matter. The City Council of the City of Edina takes great exception to ' the draft County report and requests the committee established in Section 1 to prepare and present a Majority Report representing the 76 percent of the County's population serviced by cities providing their own communications/dispatch service. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner, . Section 1, The City Council of the City of Edina appoints Council Member .Seation 2. . I Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Resolution adopted. COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR 1982-83 APPROVED. Mr. Rosland called CouncilKs attention to the 1982-1983 Conununity Health Service agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Edina, indicating that the City*s subsidy will be $86,405 for 1982 and 1983. Mr. Rosland emphasized that, if the County does not County subsidy is reduced, but if that is the case, the contract will no longer be binding and negotiations will be made with the City of Bloomington. Schmidt thereupon offered the following resolution.and moved its adoption: I receive full funding, the City's share will be reduced by whatever percent the . Member VERBATIM OF DISCIPLINARY HEARING . December 21, 1981 Richards - Our recommendation is as follows: The members of the Review Panel, having been charged with the responsibilities to review the entire official record of the above referenced matter, including transcripts and exhibits and hzving heard the arguments of Counsel of both the City and except as modified as this Panel's recommendation contained in the subsequent paragraph, which is No. 5 in our report. That paragraph No. 5 reads as follows: In making this report and recommendation, the Panel recommends to the City Manager that in connection with any subsequent promotional opportunities for which Mr. Holman may apply, and or by which he may be eligible, the discipline imposed as the result of the City's disciplinary proceedings should not be used against Mr. Holman in connection with his application and/or consideration for such promotional position. In-connec- tion with any such promofional opportunities, Mr. Holman's qualifications should be based upon his capability and employment record to perform the duties in the best interest of the public for the position sought and/or under consideration. That report is dated December 21, 1981, and signed by the Mayor and Council Members Turner and Richards. And so we have a motion before the Council to con- sider, I would move the adoption of that report and recommendation. Mayoc - Do I hear a second? Turner - Second. Mayor - You have heard the motion. of the three members of the Council. and I think we should have rollcall on this. Richards - You'might want to ask for a rollcall. Courtney - Inaudible Clerk - Rollcall? Mayor - Yes Clerk - Mrs. Schmidt Schmidt - Aye Singer - Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, is this matter open for discussion? Mayor - I don't think it's necessary at this time, Mr. Singer. your arguments. The people have all read the testimony. all fairness -- to go above fairness -- would you have any objections. Mr. Zwakman? Zwakman - IUo. No objections. He's had his short remarks before, but I think this time he means it. Mayor - (laughter) tory sense at all. Go ahead, Mr. Singer. Singer - Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My remarks will be short. Let me first state that I guess1 view my appearance here and my rights to make some comments as a matter of right - not as a matter of gratuity by the Council, and I don't mean by that to offend you, but I think that this matter was set up in a procedure by which three members of this Council would make a recornendation and I would reserve the right to comment on.the recommendation only after I saw it and this is my only opportunity to do so and so I think my right to comment on the recommendation is a matter of right. that in connection with the deliberations conducted by the three members of the Council that, based on information that has come to my attention, I object to the manner in which that was done. Member - and again without any reflections on the Council Member - Council Member Bredesen participated in that discussion and decision and it is my understanding from my view of what was to take place that it was not appropriate for him to participate in that discussion. testimony to a three member panel. have been influenced by remarks of Councilman Bredesen I have never had the . opportunity to appear before him and to the extent he was a part of the deliberation process because as you are well aware, at least any of the Council Members at this time can still change their mind or submit a minority report. I feel that that procedure was inappropriate and I wanted the record to reflect it. I am not going to re-state iny arguments stated in the past other than to say that by way of an over-view summary so that the record indicates that I 'haven't waived any of them - that I feel.that the procedure employed in the handling of this matter is. in violation of the policies and procedures of the City of Edina and I think the recommendations of the review panel are not supported by the evidence primarily because they are not in keeping with the past disciplinary actions of the City - that no useful purpose is accomplished by the proposed discipline that the employee considering the acts involved and the punishment to which he has already been subjective - subjected more than adequately punished the employee and that such punishment has a negative effect, rather than a positive effect on the I This is our recommendation - a recommendation If you ask to participate in this hearing We have heard To be, I suppose, in I understand Mr. Singer's remarks are to be short Not in a deroga- I don't mean to laugh at that, Mr. Singer. I Council is correct. I want your minutes to clearly reflect It is my understanding that a fourth Council We appeared and presented I argued to 8 three member panel to the extent that that panel may . I Disciplinary Hearing Verbatim December 21, 1981 Page Two .. .. remainder of the employees of the City. marks for the record. Mayor - Thank you very much. Zwakmn - No, Mr. Mayor, other than that I think the report and recommendation of the Review Panel is totally justified on the evidence, and I strongly urge that the full Council adopt it. Mayor - Any comment up here? Bredesen - Pes, I'd like to make a comment in regards to Nr. Singer's comments that somehow I shouldn't have a right to attend a public meeting that t75tsdedicated towards discussing this. participate in the decision making by the panel at that point in terms of their recommendation to the Council. Had you been here, you would have known better, I think, what went on at that parti- cular meeting. Mayor - Anyone else want to speak on this? If not, rollcall: I just wanted to make those brief re- Do you want to say anything, Nr. Zwakman? I can't understand the logic in that and I did not So I think you're in error in that as well. So just for the public record as well, I submit those comments. Clerk - lfrs. Schmidt? Schmidt - Aye. Clerk - Mayor Courtney? . Mayor - Aye. Clerk - Mr. Richards? . Richards - Aye. Clerk - Mrs. Turner? Turner - Aye. Clerk - lfr. Bredesen? Bredesen- Aye. Mayor - Well, I see that it ,s moved to t..at affect. * / City Clerk . 12/2 1/81 315 FESOLUTI ON BE.IT JXESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the Mayor and City Manager be and are hereby authorized and directed to enter into 1982-1983 Community Health Service Agreement with Hennepin County. Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Resolution adopted. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL HEALTH BOARD MEMBERSHIP NONINATION CONTINUED. Being ' advised by the Mayor of a vacancy on the Metropolitan Council Health Board for District 11, it was informally decided to continue any recommendation until I the next meeting. CLAIMS PAID. ment of the following Claims as per Pre-List: General Fund, $158,805.24; Park Fund, $12,107.77; Edina Art Center, $5,723.62; Park Construction, $34.80; Pool, $240.00; Golf Course, $2,456.78; Recreation Fund, $1,148.33; Gun Range, $785.39; Water Fund, $313.74; Sewer Fund, $638.16; Liquor Fund, $191,127.94; Construction, $83,741.67; I.B.R. #2, $4.60; Total, $464,128.04. Motion of Member Turner was seconded by Member Bredesen for pay- Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Motion carried. STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND RECOMMENDED TRANSFERS APPROVED. As 2 recommended by Mr. Dalen, Member Turner's motion approving "Statement of Esti- mated Expenditures and Recommended Transfers for Year Ending December 31, 1981" was seconded by Member Schmidt. Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nays: None Motion carried. No further business appearing, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. Adjournment at 9 :45 p .m. / City Clerk $Lb &,