The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-07-19_COUNCIL MEETINGROLLCALL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EDINA CITY COUNCIL JULY 19, 1982 I. DR. RALPH LEIBER - School District Election II. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON ZONING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice. Pre- sentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable roll - call vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, Flood Plain Permits, Plats, Appeals from Administrative or Board of Appeals and Adjustments decisions require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Zoning Change 1. Marshall Everson - R -1 Residential District to PRD -3 and HPD Planned Residential District and Heritage Preservation District - Generally located in Southwest quadrant of W. 70th St. and Cahill Road - Z -82 -4 (6/30/82) B. Zoning Change and Preliminary Plat Approval 1. Prime Development Corporation - Generally located in the Northeast quadrant of County Rd. 18 and W. 7th St. a. R -1 Residential District to POD -1 Planned Office District - Z -82 -4 (6/30/82) b. Prime Professional Center Addition - S -81 -13 (.6/30/82) C. Preliminary Plat Approval 1. Zamansky Addition - Generally located in the Southwest quadrant of W. 66th St- and T.H. 100 III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS A. Nuclear Weapons Freeze (The Reverend Andy Overman) IV. AWARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES Tabulations and Recommendations by City Manager. Action of Council by Motion. A. High Speed Copier V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Traffic Safety Minutes of July 15, 1982 B. 100% Petition - 6610/6620 Normandale Rd. 1. Authorize Improvement No. SS -365 2. Award of Bid C. Wine Licensing D. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council E. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items 1. Set Hearing Date for Special Assessments - 9/20/82 VI. FINANCE A. Claims Paid: Motion of , seconded by , for pay - ment of the following. Claims as per Pre -List: General Fund, $44,704.41; Park Fund, $256.17; Art Center, $5,425.99; Golf Course, $839.20; Recreation, $150.00; Water, $738.79; Sewer, $701.89; Liquor Fund, $130,088.60; Construction, $201,820.57; Total, $384.725.62 L 0C�n a 00C9 G -I9i N J CI I NUMBER Z -82 -4 Marshall Everson L O C A T 10 N 7000 Cahill Road REQUEST R -1 Single Family Residence District to PRD -3 and HPD Planned Residence District 3 and Heritage Preservation District 73 �- E D HNJA PLtpk 11\41Ii"\�'G ®E_ PAR1IVIENT x CAHILL ; a ELEM SCHOCJL WILLIA N1 *WAR DV/E LL-.:. :.',1. r ;: ' LEIYIS PARK :,•: -. a 3i V N J CI I NUMBER Z -82 -4 Marshall Everson L O C A T 10 N 7000 Cahill Road REQUEST R -1 Single Family Residence District to PRD -3 and HPD Planned Residence District 3 and Heritage Preservation District 73 �- E D HNJA PLtpk 11\41Ii"\�'G ®E_ PAR1IVIENT x COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 30, 1982 Z -82 -4 Marshall Everson. R -1 to PRD -3 and HPD. 7000 Cahill Rd. Generally located in the southwest quadrant of W. 70th St. and Cahill Rd. REFER TO: April 27, 1982, Heritage Preservation Board Staff Report and attached Preliminary Development Plans. The site measures 2.11 acres in area and is zone R -1 single family dwelling district. The old St. Patrick's Church' is located on the easterly portion of the site. This building is now vacant but was used in recent years for a private school operated by the proponent. The site is bordered by 70th Street on the north, Cahill Road on the east, and Village Drive on the south. Cahill Elementary School adjoins the site on the west. The site is characterized by level topography and contains many mature oak trees on the easterly portion of the site. This site has been studied extensively by the Heritage Preservation Board. The April 27th staff report for the Board was forwarded t) the Commission last month for study. Based upon the reasons stated in this report and other research, the Board has recommended that this site and the existing structure on the site should be rezoned to Heritage Preservation District (HPD:).. The Heritage Preservation District is an "overlay" district, i.e. it does not alter the basic "land use" zoning district of the site but rather imposes additional restrictions to protect its unique historical, architectural, and /or cultural charac- teristics. If zoned HPD, permits from the Heritage Preservation Board would then be required for alterations which could affect the special qualities of the building or site. In connection with the rezoning to HPD, the proponent is also requesting a change of the basic underlying zoning classifications. He has petitioned for a rezoning to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. In accordance with ordinance requirements, preliminary plans have been submitted. These plans illustrate a 22 unit condomin- ium building which would be two stories in height. The existing structure would be preserved and possibly retro- fitted as an "amenity building" for the project. . This building could serve as a recreation building and could possibly contain guest quarters for visitors. The proposed condominimum complies with setback requirements and other provisions of the ordinance. One and one half underbuilding garage stalls per unit and .75 exposed stalls are provided. Although elevation drawings are not required for preliminary approval , plans have been submitted which illustrate that the condominimum will closely match the architectural style of the existing building. From a density standpoint, the proposed development represents approximately 103, units per acre which is consistent with the 6 -12 unit per acre range specified by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed density is somewhat higher than other recent developments in the vicinity which were evaluated in light of the density reduction formula. This formula would .yield an allowed density of 83, units per acre or a total of 18 units for the site. The additional density which is requested represents a bonus for the preservation of the existing structure on the site. 'Community Development Z -82 -4 Marshall Everson June 30, 1982 Page 2 Recommendation and Planning Commission In our view, the proponent's effort to respond to the historic characteristics of the site is commendable. The existing building is preserved and the proposed condominium is carefully designed to respect the architectural style of the existing building. From the historic standpoint, the Heritage Preservation Board recommends that the subject property and building should be rezoned to Heritage Preservation District. This zoning should occur regardless of the final disposition of the rezoning to PRD -3. Although final drawings are not available at this time, the Board recommends approval of the preliminary zoning plans with the understanding that detailed drawings will be submitted for their review prior to final PRD -3 rezoning. The Board anticipates that the final drawings will be based upon the preliminary plans which indicate a building form and materials sympathetic to the existing building. Staff believes that the rezoning request to PRD -3 complies with the Comprehensive Plan and should be approved with the following conditions: 1) Final zoning is conditioned upon acceptable overall development plans and a final plat. J 2) An additional five foot right of way must be dedicated along Village Drive. J 3) Subdivision Dedication. The final issue concerns the allowed density on the site. In the proponent's opinion, the HPD rezoning impacts his use of the site for multi - family housing. It must be emphasized that both the existing building and the entire site are subject to HPD zoning. Therefore, the building cannot be removed from the site and preserved elsewhere. Likewise, uses cannot be made that adversely affect the historic, architectural and /or cultural qualities of the site or buidling. Although we are not experts in the legal issues concerning such zonings, it seems reasonable that the property owner should be rewarded for his efforts to preserve a significant aspect of Edina's history. The Heritage Preservation Board agrees. They note that if such a density bonus is-granted, a portion of this bonus should represent a reward for preserving the building and the remaining portion should be a reward for utilizing the remainder of the site in a sympathetic manner. A one unit per acre credit for each of these two aspects would result in the 1021 unit per acre density which is requested. It should also be emphasized that such a density is still below the 12 unit per acre maximum specified by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. ... , .�:... � . .. ... .. ... ., � k .,.. - - _. ___ .... _. ._. - -�-- y �� •�: �� , ,, • � � i r�,4 s "r5ti. ((kk _ � G':•'i " � .y,, �..+ .�L . • , i r. •i3x^ �4` 5lit� /fL /� .I' ,'f��' � /i' 1 .'i �r'•,Jkr' , � ''. . .!'w ^� ` ��. �1� J+ ) �; •lSw !� ' �; � t ..'i .�� .� , ,��.. +r• � �.�. � ! e i�r' X1;;7 +',if lI i�.,.� IMAGE ,� WEST 70TH STREET MIR oo Po ENTMIL .0011 0 lop 22 UNIT CONDOMINIUM 2 STORY BUILDING APAN C113 .� rB Z. L < Cap , .4 x Zia 1IJILL ir VILLAGE DRIVE 0 J ♦ ai 0 UJ CC z 0- 00 W -j cc Uj ui > > Ui Ui a I� Lu SirE PLAN N EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 2, 0 UJ z CL 00 U) -i cr- w u w > 0 > W 0 03 W a N w ELEVATIONS il oil[ 11 1 1 ol, i too 01 N EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 2, 0 UJ z CL 00 U) -i cr- w u w > 0 > W 0 03 W a N w ELEVATIONS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1982, AT 7:30 P.M. EDI NA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chariman Bill Lewis, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, John Skagerberg and James- Bentley MEMBERS ABSENT: Gordon Johnson, Len Fernelius, Mary McDonald, John Palmer and Leonard Ring STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Harold Sand, Assistant Planner Joyce Repya, Secretary 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Community Development and Planning Commission - June 2, 1982 James Bentley moved for approval of the minutes- from June 2, 1982. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye;, the motion carried. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - June 18, 1981, July 16, 1981 and July 28, 1981 Due to the lack of a motion, the minutes will be continued for approval until the July 28th meeting. II. OLD BUSINESS: Z -81 -8 Prime Development Corporation. R -1 to POD -1 Planned Office E District. 5 -81 -13 Prime Professional Center Addition. Generally located in the northeast quadrant of County Road 18 and West 7th Street. Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that the preliminary plans for this rezoning were reviewed and approved on June 2, 1982. The City Council granted development plans .and is requesting final rezoning approval. The overall develop- ment plans include elevation drawings, a final site plan, and preliminary utility layouts. A preliminary plat has also been submitted which illustrates a townhouse type subdivision of the site. At preliminary approval, the proponent asked that parking be required on a floor area basis. rather- than on a per doctor basis as required by the Zoning Ordinance.. Since that time, the proponent has advised Staff that they are now agreeable to providing parking on a per doctor basis and will thus regulate the tenancy of the buildings accordingly. Staff accepts the preliminary estimate of one doctor per 1,000 square feet for purposes of estimating parking demand. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Staff recommeded the following modifications to the overall development plans: 1. Rear elevations of the building should be illustrated. Staff expressed concern regarding the apprearance of the development from perimeter, streets at the time of preliminary approval. Community Development and Planning Commission June 30, 1982 Page 2 2. Central trash storage facilities should be illustrated. The ordinance requires complete enclosure of dumpsters. 3. All parking spaces should be delineated on the plans. 4. The plans illustrate required 35 foot setbacks from the streets. However, setbacks scale at 32± feet. This should be corrected. 5. Either separate sewer and water services should be provided. for each unit or one service. and one meter per buildin .should be provided. The plans appear to indicate one service per building that would then be individually metered for each unit. 6. Catch basins and storm sewer should be installed to drain the parking lot. The following modifications to the plat were suggested: 1. The individual lots should maintain a 35 foot setback from the frontage road. Twenty feet is shown. This modification is requested to prevent individual lot owners from -construction improvements-on their lotswhich violate setback requirements. 2. The plat illustrates two "expansion lots," Le. lots 35 and 36. These lots should be deleted and incorporated into their abutting lots if an expansion potential is desired. If they remain as shown, they could be developed with additional units which would not be desirable in Staffs view due to access, location and size problems. 3. Lot 37 should be an outlot. With these modifications, Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Final rezoning is conditioned on final platting. 2. Subdivision dedication. Outlot C should be dedicated to the City and should constitute a credit toward the overall dedication requirement. 3. A developer's agreement for sewer and .water mains on the site. Ease- ments must also be provided for these utilities. Mr. Hughes continued to explain that prior to the meeting the proponent submitted new plans that addressed most of the modifications suggested by Staff. The only outstanding item remaining on the zoning plans is -a rear elevation. Mr. Hughes suggested that the Commission proceed with approval for final zoning purposes with the. understanding that the rear elevations are provided prior to the Council hearing. From the platting standpoint, Mr. Hughes stated that all modifications suggested were addressed in the new plans. - - -: -- Responding- -to -a- question regarding which- Outlots- -would be dedicated., -Mr - -- - Hughes explained that Staff now suggests that only Outlot D on the new plan is dedicated. Community Development ancl Planning ommi I June 30, 1982 Page 3 Hugh Maynard, attorney for the proponent further explained that.his client has a purchase agreement to buy all the property, including that which is north and east of the frontage road. Mr. Lindbery, the seller has asked that he be given. an easement over what is now Outlot C. - Consequently, at closing, Prime Development will own fee title to Outlots B, C and D; - Mr. Lindbery will keep an easement for driveway purposes; and Outlots D and possibly Outlot B would be available for dedication to the City. Responding to an inquiry from Mr. Runyan regarding the placement of the mechanical systems, Ron Erickson, architect with Korsunsky, Krank and Erickson explained that each unit will have its own forced air furnace. No roof top equipment is planned because of the appearance of.the.buildings and the need to have access to all the roofs. He added that all gas and water meters will be placed in a landscaped area in front of the buildings. Following a brief discussion, Helen McClelland moved for approval subject to Staff's conditions. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. * EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD Staff Report April .27, 1982 Subject: Old St. Patrick's Church of Edina - 7000 Cahill Road The east 255.75 feet of the north 32 acres of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21, except roads. PIN: 08- 116 -21 -12 -0001 and 08- 116 -21 -12 -0002 I.. INTRODUCTION The Heritage Preservation Board received a request dated February 16, 1981, from Rev. Ambrose J. Mahon, Pastor of St. Patrick's Church of Edina, to consider zoning the Old St. Patrick's Church, 7000 Cahill Road a Heritage Preservation District. This request was supported by a number of residents and church members in attendance at the February 24, 1981, Heritage Preservation Board meeting. In addition, the Edina Historical Society supports the rezoning of the property because of the historical significance and association with the Cahill settlement. Mr. Marsh Everson, owner of the property requested that the Board defer consideration of this rezoning because his plans were indefinite and he did not wish to have additional restrictions placed upon the property at this time. Mr. Everson gave the Board verbal assurances that the former church structure will be maintained and will 'not be modified without con- sideration by the Heritage Preservation Board. The Heritage Preservation Board has deferred consideration of the rezoning and requested additional research and documentation of the history of the neighborhood and congregation. Mr. Everson recently submitted preliminary site plans for informal review that illustrate a 2 story, 24 unit multiple family residence on the site with the former church structure preserved. He has not provided a possible time framework for the plans. The Heritage Preservation Board scheduled a public hearing on April 27, 1982 to consider the rezoning after additional historical documentation and research material was submitted. On March 14, 1982 the St. Patrick's congregation celebrated its 125th anniversary. The occasion included a large display of church artifacts and historical documents. Foster Dunwiddie, chairman of the Heritage Pre- servation Board also presented a slide show and lecture about the history of the church and Cahill community. Edina Heritage Preservation Board Staff Report April 27, 1982 Page 2 11. CAHILL SETTLEMENT The Cahill community has its roots in the Irish immigrants who settled in the area around Nine Mile Creek during Minnesota Terri- torial times. The Irish emigration to the United States was spurred by a number of factors starting with the potato famines of 1845 and 1847. Other serious problems included overpopulation, heavy taxes, restrictive land laws and religious persecution:. Th'e.Irish immigrants typically settled in one or two. eastern states in a` staged migration pattern before arriving in Minnesota. Several concentrations of Irish settlers occurred in the southeastern portion -of the state ad- jacent to the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. The Minnesota territory was established in 1849. In 1850 the first census recorded only 6,077 white people in the entire territory and none in the area later incorporated as Edina. The treaties of Traverse des Sioux and Mendota were signed in 1851 opening the area west of the Mississippi for settlement. In 1854 a group headed. by.. Michael Ryan, Patrick Slaven and Thomas Fogarty settled in the area later incorporated as Richfield township. Other early settlers includ- ed John Duggan, Michael Gleeson, John Kyte, John McCabe, John Burke and Dennis McCauley. Richfield township was incorporated on the same day in 1858 that Minnesota became a State. Three principal community centers were established in the township including Richfield Mills, Edina Mills and Cahill Settlement. According to oral tradition, Cahill settlement was named after Father Thomas Cahill, an early missionary priest in the northwest. The first reference to "Cahill Settlement" is in the Catholic Al- manac of 1858 which records the catholic population of the St. Paul Diocese in 1857 at the death of Bishop Cretin. The catholic popula- tion numbered 50,000 located within 71 cities, towns and settlements within the Diocese. "of course not all of them were organized into parishes, many of them were missions or stations attended from other places; in all there were found 20 churches in better equipped com- munities." (Acta Et Dicta, Vol. 4, No. I, p. 50 published July 1915) Another reference in the Catholic Almanac of 1885 lists "Cahill - town" as a parish or mission of the St. Paul Diocese when Bishop Grace resigned in 1884. (Acts Et Dicta p. 59) Edina Heritage Preservation Board Staff Report April 27, 1982 Page 3 The Cahill settlement focused around the intersection of West 70th Street and Cahill Road. Independent School District No. 16 constructed the first Cahill 'School at the southeast corner of the intersection in 1864. St. Patricks Church of Edina was constructed at the southwest corner in 1884. Later, the Cahill Store or Cameron's store was constructed on the north side of West 70th Street and in 1934 the old Calvary of Cahill Luth- eran Church was constructed west of the store. After the incorporation of the Village of Edina in 1888, the official references to Cahill for St. Patricks Church have been discontinued. The 1899 account of the Diocese under Archbishop John Ireland includes Edina within Hennepin County. (Acta Et Dicta P. 68) However, the name Cahill continued in common use for many years. Father Martin Mahoney from Hopkins (1902 to 1913) drove his horse and buggy to his mission in Cahill. Father Rolwes from St. Stephens (1915 to 1920) recalled his mission responsibilities at Cahill. He took the Fourth Street streetcar downtown to catch the- Dan Patch train and got off at Cahill which was a station on the line. Cahill remained a rural community during the 1930's and 1940's when suburban development was occurring in notheast Edina. However, the rural character of Cahill gave way to suburbanization pressure during the 1950's and 1960's. The first Cahill School was moved to Frank Tupa Park to permit commercial development and the Cahill Store was razed to ac- comodate multiple family dwellings. The old calvary of Cahill Lutheran Church was constructed much later and does not have strong pioneer or historic association. Old St. Patrick's Church remains the last visual evidence of the Cahill Community. III. HISTORY OF THE CONGREGATION St. Patrick's Church, established in 1857, is the first church with- in the area later incorporated as the City of Edina. From that time, the church continued to serve the community and as late as 1937 was one of only two churches established and active in Edina. The church was founded by Irish immigrants shortly after they ar- rived in the Minnesota Territory. The settlers named their area after an early missionary Father Thomas Cahill and named their church after the patron Saint of Ireland. -- - - - - -- - - -- t: -Pat ricks--C hurch -is -located'- within - -tfie St� -Paul- Diocese whichwas consecrated on January 26, 1851. Right Reverend Joseph Cretin, the first Bishop of St. Paul, returned from France with 2 priests, 3 subdeacons and a clerk to establish the new Diocese. One of the subdeacons, John Fayolle was ordained by Bishop Cretin on May 29, 1851. Rev. Fayolle first said Edina Heritage Staff Report April 27, 1982 Page 4. Preservation Board mass in the homes of John Burke and John Duggan in 1854. In November, 1855, Father Fayolle was appointed resident pastor of St. Anthony of Padua Church from which he continued to serve the Cahill settlement as a mission. On March 25, 1857, land was donated by Michael Delaney, Patrick Slavin, Michael Ryan and Thomas Fogarty in the vicinity of the current in- tersection of Wooddale Ave. and West 70th Street to construct a small log church. This first St. Patricks Church apparently was also used as a school until replaced by the Cahill School in 1864. A small cemetery was established in. the area, however, this was later abondoned. Reverend John McDermott succeeded Father Fayolle as resident pastor at St. Anthony in April 1860. Father McDermott continued to serve the Cahill community as a mission of St. Anthony until 1866. During that time, in 1864, School District No. 16 constructed the Cahill School at the south- east corner of West 70th Street and Cahill Road. fhe early records in- dicate church services were transferred to the new school because it was more centrally located and the congregation was too large for the small log church. In 1866, Father McDermott started construction of the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Minneapolis, the forerunner of the Basilica of St. Mary. However before the church was completed, Father McDermott was transferred and on Nov. 12, 1866 Reverend Felix Tissot took charge of the completion of the church and the mission responsibilities. . Reverend James McGolrick was appointed the first resident pastor of The Immaculate Conception Church in the autumn of 1860 and continued to serve until 1889. Under the supervision of Father McGolrick, the first frame church of St. Patrick's was constructed in 1884. The new church was located at the southwest corner of Cahill Road and W. 70th. Street on a parcel of land .donated by Patrick Ryan. In addition to FatherMcGolrick there is a reference to Reverend Timothy Corbett serving the Cahill com- munity as a mission of Immaculate Conception Church. According to the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Hennepin County Registrar of Deeds the Church of St. Patrick of Edina was in- corporated on November 2, 1895. The parties to the incorporation includ- ed Right Reverend John Ireland, Bishop of St. Paul, Rev. Louis E. Caillet, Vicar General of the Diocese, Rev. Henry McGolrick, pastor of the parish of Edina and chaplain of the boy's orphanage and two lay members of the church, Patrick W. Ryan and Thomas Moriarty. Edina Heritage Preservation Board Staff Report April 27, 1982 Page 5 Father Martin Mahoney, the first resident pastor at the church of St. Mary's (now St. Joseph's) in Hopkins took charge in 1902 and also had a mission responsibility in Cahill until 1913. The St. Patricks Church was remodeled in 1906 and the original tall steeple was cut down because when the wind blew hard it shook the plaster down. In 1913, the mission responsibilities for Cahill were transferred to the Church of St. Stephen's in Minneapolis. There was quite a success- ion of priests including Rev. C.E. Hovorka, 1913; Rev. W.P. O'Reilley, 1914; Rev. George Rowles, 1915; Rev. James O'Hara, 1917; Rev. Thomas J. Shannahan, 1918; Rev. Peter Lang, 1920; Rev. J. Ellerbush, 1922; Rev. James H. Gaughan, 1924; Rev. Phillip Casey, 1925; Rev. William Murphy, 1926; Rev. R.E. Cogwin, 1929 and Rev. George E. Ryan 1930. In April 1924, the church was struck by lightning and destroyed by fire. The congregation collected $5,300 in insurance and in July of 1924 they decided to rebuild the church at a cost not to exceed $7,000. The 1924 Church was constructed under the supervison of Rev. Gaughan and can still be seen at 7000 Cahill. On January 15, 1933, St. Patricks Church was established as a parish in a rural district with a full time pastor. The following includes the resi- dent pastors until current times: Rev. T.P. Ryan, Rev. Leo P. Gleason, Rev. George E. Ryan, Rev. Joseph A. Kern, Rev. Bernard H. Murray, Rev. Louis W. Forrey, Rev. Vincent Yany, Rev. Francis Byrne and the present pastor Rev. Ambrose Mahon. In 1955, twenty -seven acres of land from the Dowd farm were pur- chased at the corner of Gleason Road and Valley View Rd. for the future construction of a church and school. The chapel and school were opened in 1961 and the east addition to the school was added in 1965. The new sanctuary of the church was constructed on the north side and dedicated June 22, 1980. The congregation recently celebrated it's 125th anniver$ary on March 14, 1982. The congregation moved from their church at 7000 Cahill Road in 1961 to their new location on Valley View Road. The old church was va- cant for some time and later was occupied by the Andahazy Ballet School,. then the La Pepiniere Montessori School. The old church is again vacant after the Montessori School moved into the Wooddale School in the fall of 1981. The St. Patricks Church sold the old church building to Floyd L. Russell and Antoine J. Poppelaars for the purchase price of $58,500 on January 23, 1968. The property is currently owned by Marshall Everson, owner of the Montessori School. r N, Edina Heritage Preservation Board Staff Report April 27, 1982 Page 6 IV. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION The History and Architecture of Edina Minnesota describes the old St. Patricks Church as a "utilitarian one -story structure set high on a base of molded concrete block. A band of horizontal clapboard siding resembeling a wainscot extends from the top of the foundation wall to the window sills. Walls above the band are white painted stucco." The building is a 40 by 60 foot wood frame structure with a gable roof. The east elevation is the front of the building and has a symme- trical facade. Large windows flank the elevated front entry and decor- ative half- timbering is located in the pediment above the windows. The small gable roof over the entry is original, however, a vestibule was added in 1968. The entry roof is supported by large timber braces that reflect the wall decoration. The wood trim is painted green. The north elevation contains four large windows regularly spaced and similar to the windows on the east elevation. The windows are double hung with 4 lights over 4 and the lower sash is slightly larger than the upper sash. The foundation is poured concrete below grade and has approximately five courses of rock -faced concrete block above grade. Basement windows are centered on the main floor windows. The foundation construction is typical of the 1924 period and there is no evidence of the original 1884 foundation. The 12/12 pitch gable roof is surfaced with green asphalt shingles. Each side of the roof contains two gabled attic ventilation dormers located between the eave and the peak of the roof. Early records indicate electricity was added to the church in 1935 and indoor plumbing was first installed in February, 1948. The interior of the church has been altered to convert the building to the Montessori School use. The church pews and other fixtures have been removed, a suspended ceiling was installed and the nave was divided into classrooms, however, the modifications have not obliterated the original church interior. The balcony has not been altered substantially and a large portion of the fabric of the interior is visible from the balcony. The old St. Patrick's Church is comfortably located on the site with an elevation approximately 6 to 7 feet above street grade. The structure maintains a 65 foot setback from West 70th Street and a 70 foot setback __._____ __ from_ Cahill-Road.— The_front__yard.,.contains__a_ circular. -driveway . w.ith_ac —_ cess to Cahill Road. Other yard areas are landscaped with grass and mature oaks located south of the building. Edina Heritage Staff Report April 27, 1982 Page 7 Preservation Board Recent inspection of the building indicates it is generally in good condition and well maintained. The shingle roof needs to be replaced and there is evidence of dry rot at the window sills. The owner has also indi- cated that there is water entering the basement on the west side. This is probably caused by improper grading of the yard. V. PLANNING AND ZONING FRAMEWORK The Old St. Patrick's Church site is two unplatted parcels composed of slightly more than two acres. The existing zoning _classification is R -1, Single Family Residence District which permits certain institutional uses but does not permit multiple family residences, commercial or business and pro- fessional office :uses. The 1981 Comprehensive Plan illustrates a potential land use designation of medium density residential with a density range of 6 -12 dwelling units per acre. The plan calls for new zoning performance standards for determination of permitted residential densities. The earlier Southwest Edina Plan also called for medium density residential land use on the site. This plan contained a density reduction formula that permitted approximately 15 -16 dwelling units on the site. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate a substantial change from existing land use and zoning around the Old St. Patrick's site. The area east of Cahill Rd. is zoned 'and developed with C -1 neighborhood commercial land uses. The area north of West 70th St. is zoned and developed with R -2 and R -3 multiple family residences. Immediately south of the Old St. Patrick's site is a newly constructed public street called Village Drive which serves a town- house and condominium project zoned PRD -3 and is currently being developed. The property on the west is the Cahill Public School, zoned R -1. The requested HPD, Heritage Preservation District zoning classification is an overlay zoning category that does not change the existing zoning or the potential land use of the site. The HPD zoning requires proper mainten- ance of the site and structure to prevent deterioration. The zoning also requires a permit from the Heritage Preservation Board for modification or destruction of the protected building. There are a number of options available to permit development and still preserve the building. These options can be discussed when the owner is prepared to develop the site. VI. CONCLUSION The City of Edina originally developed with two important community __— centers_-- the__Edina- Mills- and- Cahi.11..- -T_he -- visible- elements-of the-- Edina- Mills- are now gone and the site can only be identified with an interpretative display. Likewise, most of the elements of the Cahill community have been Edina Heritage Preservation Board Staff Report April 27, 1982 Page 8 moved or lost. However, Old St. Patrick's Church remains to provide a link with the past and perpetuate the memory of the Cahill settlement. The Old St. Patrick's Church appropriately reflects therural, Irish Catholic heritage of the Cahill community.The history of the church and community are closely bound together and and originated during early, settlement times. The church is not a significant example of a particular architectural style however the structure embodies the location, social and spiritual focus of the community. The church structure, if preserved, will provide a significant visual cornerstone of the heritage of Cahill and will be a source of community pride. The structure is suitably located at a prominent street intersection and positioned on the site in a comfortable, dignified manner that is appropriate for a Iandmark.The 1924 church is a significant structure in its own right as the earliest remaining, unaltered church in the city. However, the site is equally important because of the 1884 church and location in Cahill. VII. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review the proposed rezoning in terms of the attached Criteria for Evaluation of Heritage Significance. The property appears to qualify under section (a) in both the first and second sets of categories. If a recommendation for rezoning is desired; the Board should adopt the following findings of fact according to the attached Policy Statement No. 1: 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. (c) fair 4. (a) 5. (b) EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD _.. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE Approved April 8, 1976 The criteria applied to evaluate buildings, lands, areas or districts in the City for possible designation for heritage preservation are listed below. These criteria are intentionally worded in a subjective manner to provide for diversity of resources within the City. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts; sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or �b that are associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; or c that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or :uay be likely to yield, information important in pre- history or history. Certain properties shall not ordinarily be considered for designation for heritage preservation. They include cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings and properties primarily commemorative in nature. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: (a) a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinctuion or historical importance; or (b) a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or (c) a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life; or (d) a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or (e) a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or (f) a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance. Additionally, it should be recognized that many buildings, districts and sites not suitable for preservation designation are nonetheless important visual assets to the community. The Board understands the need to seek out and identify these assets so that future development and improvement efforts will be sensitive to all physical elements within the City. Thus, the Board should strive to explain the place of important monuments within the overall setting of the community. i EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD POLICY STATEMENT: NO. 1 Approved May 13, 1976 The Edina Heritage Preservation Board will consider properties proposed to be rezoned to Heritage Preservation District on the basis of the criteria contained herein. The Board will make the following findings of fact: 1. The physical nature of the buildings, lands, areas or districts to be rezoned the city. is important to the visual character of the city or the history of .� 2. -The physical significance of the buildings, lands, areas or districts to be rezoned could be destroyed or diminished by improper modifications, or mainte- nance and therefore regulation is necessary. 3. The overall condition of the buildings, lands, areas or districts is: (a) EXCELLENT means that there is no apparent need for routine maintenance work or repairs. (b) GOOD means that there is no apparent need for major repairs, but that the property is in need of routine work such as painting. (c) FAIR means that the property is in need of repairs other than routine maintenance work. (d) DETERIORATED means that the property is in need of extensive major repairs. 4. The criteria established by Ordinance No. 802 is satisfied because the buildings, lands, areas or districts: (a) exemplify or reflect the broad cultural, political, economic or, social history of the nation, state or community; or (b) are identified with historic personages or with important events in national, state or local history; or (c). embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, inherently valuable for a study of a period, style, method of construction, or of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. S. The buildings, lands, areas, or districts are: (a) listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (b) consistent with the Edina Criteria for Evaluation of Heritage Significance. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 811 -A164 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 811) BY ADDING TO THE PLANNED OFFICE DISTRICT 'THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Paragraph 1 of Section 8 of Ordinance No. 811 of the City is amended by adding the following thereto: "The extent of the Planned Office District (Sub- District POD -1) is enlarged by the addition of the following property: EXHIBIT A— That part of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 246, Files of Regis- trar of Titles, County of Hennepin, lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Tract A; thence on an assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 50 minutes 05 seconds East, along the Northerly line of said tract, a distance of 40.00 feet; thence Southeasterly a distance of 170.32 feet, along a non - tangential curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 229.06 feet and a central angle of 42 degrees 36 minutes 08 seconds, the chord of said curve is 166.42 feet in length and bears South 69 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds East; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 06 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 192.85 feet; thence Southeasterly a distance of 171.16 feet, along a tangential curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 170.00 feet and a central angle of 57 degrees 41 minutes 13 seconds, to the Southerly line of said Tract A and said line there terminating. Except that part of the above described property lying Westerly of the following described line: Com- mencing at the Northwest corner of said Tract A; thence on an assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 50 minutes 05 seconds East, along the Northerly line of said Tract A, a distance of 29.73 feet to the beginning of the line to be described; thence South 11-degrees 52 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of.2.82 feet; thence Southerly a distance of 145.83 feet, along a tangential curve concave to the East having a radius of 914.93 feet and a central angle of 9 degrees 07 min- utes 56 seconds, to the Southerly line of said Tract A, and said line there terminating. Also all of the following described tract: Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 246, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. Except that part which lies Westerly of a line hereinafter referred to as Line "A ". drawn parallel with and distant 40 feet Easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 117, Range 21, distant 33.02 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence run Easterly at an angle of 91 degrees 45 minutes 10 seconds (as measured from North.to East) with said West line for a distance of 247.08 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflect to the left -at an angle of 102 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for a distance of 18.29 feet; thence deflect to the left along a tangential curve having a radius of 954.93 feet (delta.angle of 17 degrees 28 minutes 06 seconds) for a distance of 291.14 feet; thence tangent to said curve for a distance of 67.86 feet; thence deflect to the right, along a tangential curve having a radius of 954.93 feet (delta angle of 17 degrees 20 minutes 01 seconds) for a distance of 288.89 feet and there ter- minating. Also except that part of said tract lying South of a line hereinafter referred to as Line "B" drawn parallel with and distant 40 feet North of the fol- lowing described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Northwest Ordinance No. 811 -A164 Page Two Quarter distant 33.02 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence run Easterly at an angle of 91 degrees 45 minutes 10 seconds (as measured from North to East) with said West line for a distance of 617.74 feet and there terminating. Also except that part of said tract lying East of a line hereinafter referred to as Line "C" drawn parallel with and distant 30 feet West of the following des- cribed line and its Southerly extension: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Northwest Quarter distant 33.02 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence run Easterly at an angle of 91 degrees 45 minutes 10 seconds (as measured from North to East) with said West line for a distance of 617.74 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 91 degrees 42 minutes 10 seconds for a distance of 410.38 feet; thence deflect to the left along a tangential curve having a radius of 200.0 feet (delta angle 89 degrees 17 minutes 20 seconds) for a distance of 311.68 feet and there terminating. Also except that part of said tract lying South- westerly of a curve having a radius of 35 feet, said curve being concave to the Northeast and tangent to said Line "A" and to said Line "B ". Also except that part of said tract lying Southeasterly of a curve having a radius of 110 feet, said curve being concave to the Northwest and tangent to said Line "B" and to said Line "C ". _ Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon.its passage and publication. First Reading: June 21, 1982 Second Reading: July 19, 1982 '—'ar- �- ter~-- �nF��- .r•�- o_�� _�- r-- �`� � Y GRAND i, y,E w I j PARK CEMETERY ER -A AN lav F- � .�. ,.,:' j . • F._ _--� is MALIBU PARK ar W I 1 Q 1 C I La' I 2 t � - P" R TRAIL -- _ 1 14 _ Lurj L11,11, U 171*1 Q LID � ��w� NUMBER Z -81 -8 Prime Development Corporation .S -81 -13 Prime Professional Center Addition LOCATION Generally located in the northeast quadrant of County Road 18 and West 7th Street R E 0 U E S T R -1 to POD -1 Planned Office District EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 30, 1982 Z -81 -8 Prime Development Corporation R -1 to POD -1, Planned & Office District. Overall Development Plans 5 -81 -13 Prime Professional Center Addition,, Preliminary Plat Generally located in the northeast quadrant of County Road 18 and West 7th Street. REFER TO: Overall Development Plans, Preliminary Plat, June 2, 1982 staff report Preliminary plans for this rezoning were reviewed and approved by the Com- mission on June 2, 1982. The City Council granted preliminary approval on June 21. The proponent has now returned with overall development plans and is requesting final rezoning approval. The overall development plans include elevation drawings, a final site plan, and preliminary utility layouts. A preliminary plat has also been submitted which illustrates a townhouse type subdivision of the site. At preliminary approval the proponent asked that parking be required on a floor area basis rather than on a per doctor basis as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Since that time, the proponent .has advised us that they are now agreeable to providing parking on a per doctor basis and will thus regulate the tenancy of the buildings accordingly. Again, Staff accepts the preliminary estimate of one doctor per 1,000 square feet for purposes of estimating parking demand. Recommendation Staff recommends the following modifications to the overall development plans: 1. Rear elevations of the buildings should be illustrated. Staff expressed concern regarding the appearance of the development from perimeter, streets at the time of preliminary approval. 2. Central trash storage facilities should be illustrated. The ordinance requires complete enclosure of dumpsters. 3. All parking spaces should be delineated on the plans. 4. The plans illustrate required 35 foot setbacks from streets. However, setbacks scale at 32± feet. This should be corrected. S. Either separate sewer and water services should be provided for each unit or one service and one meter per building should be provided. The plans appear to indicate one service per building that would then be individually metered for each unit. Z -81 -8 Prime Development Corp. S -81 -13 Prime Professional Center Addition June 30, 1982 Page 2 6. Catch basins and storm sewer should be installed to drain the parking- lot. The following modifications to the plat are suggested: 1. The individual lots should maintain a 35 foot setback from the frontage road. Twenty feet is shown. This modification is requested to prevent individual lot owners from constructing improvements on their lots which violate setback requirements. 2. The plat illustrates two "expansion lots ", i.e. lots 35 and 36. These lots should be deleted and incorporated into their abutting lots if an. expansion potential is desired. If they remain as shown, they could be developed with additional units which would not be desirable in our view due to access, location and size problems. 3. Lot 37 should be an outlot. With these modifications, we recommend approval with the following conditions:. 1. Final rezoning is conditioned on final platting. 2. . Subdivision dedication. Outlot C should be dedicated to the City and should constitute a credit toward the overall dedication requirement. 3. A developer's agreement for sewer and water mains on the site. Ease ments must also be provided for these utilities. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 2, 1982 Z -81 -8 Prime Development Corporation. R -1 to POD -1 Planned Office District. Generally located in the northeast quadrant of County Road No. 18 and West 7th Street REFER TO: Attached preliminary plans and September 30, 1981, staff report The subject property measures approximately 4.8 acres in area and is zoned R -1 Single Family Dwelling District. The property is completely -surrounded by public roadways: County Road 18 on the west, the frontage road on the north and east, and 7th Street on the south. To the north and across the street is Grandview Cemetery, to the east and across the street is Van Valken- burg Park which is undeveloped, and to the south and across the street is vacant land which is zoned office and multiple residential. A rezoning to 0-1 Office Building District was. considered for this property several months ago. The Commission recommended approval of this request . subject to the grant of an access easement to Van Valkenburg Park. Prior to action by the "Council, the proponent (Darrel Farr) withdrew the request. Subsequent to this request, the City adopted a Planned Office District section of the ordinance.. The new proponent, Prime Development Corporation, is requesting a rezoning to POD -1 Planned Office District. Preliminary development plans have been submitted in support of this request. These plans illustrate a townhouse style office project designed for medical tenants. All buildings will be one story in height. Thirty -four individual offices would be provided containing 40,750 square feet of floor area. Six parking spaces per doctor are required by the Zoning Ordinance. The proponent estimates that there will be approximately one doctor per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Thus, six parking spaces per 1,000 square feet are proposed. Access to the development will be similar to that proposed for the Farr office development. One curb cut will be located in the northwest corner and a second curb cut will be located on the east side of the site. The Planned Office District requires that the property be platted as a con- dition to final rezoning approval. The proponent states that a townhouse style subdivision will be submitted in conjunction with final rezoning plans. Staff assumes that this plat will include the sliver of land located north and east of the frontage road. Recommendation Staff believes that ..the proposed rezoning represents a proper use for this property. We also .believe that an excellent site plan has been prepared .:ommunity u Z -81 -8 Prime ;i June 2, 1982 Page 2 veiopment ana riai Development Corp. r, which should complement the recently completed office buildings on the west side of the interchange in Hopkins. The proposed development complies with the requirements of the Planned Office District in terms of height, setbacks, floor area ratio, and so forth. Staff believes the curb cuts are properly located to ensure adequate site distance. Staff has two concerns with the preliminary plans. The first concern is park- ing quantity. The proponent suggests a building occupancy of one doctor per 1,000 square feet of floor area. This occupancy is similar to the clinic which was recently opened in the building formerly occupied by Mr. Steak. This occupancy is likewise similar to standards contained in zoning literature. Our only concern is that this occupancy equates to 1.2 doctors per townhouse office which seems somewhat low. We wish to point out, however, that townhouse medical offices are a relatively new concept. Therefore, we have no basis for objecting to the proposed occupancy (which is consistent with other- medical uses in the City) . We wish to stress, however, that our ongoing parking requirement for this project will be based upon the actual number of doctors not on floor area, and, thus, the leasing of the units may be somewhat restricted. Our second concern is more appropriately addressed at final approval. The arrangement of the buildings on the site desirably sc.•eens the parking from surrounding properties. However, this results in the rear of the buildings being oriented toward the street. Staff will be particularly- concerned with the treatment of the -rear of these buildings in terms of building materials, landscaping, garbage storage, and so forth in our review of final plans. Staff recommends preliminary rezoning approval subject .to: 1) Final zoning is conditioned on acceptable overall development plans. 2) Final plat approval. An easement or fee ownership must be dedicated to allow access to Van Valkenburg Park. If fee ownership is dedicated, this should represent a credit toward the developer's subdivision dedi- cation requirement. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF! REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 1981 Z -81 -8 Darrel A. Farr Development Corp., R -1 Single Family Residence District to 0-1 Office District. Generally located in the Northeast quadrant of County Road 18 and West 7th Street. 5 -81 -13 Lincoln Office Center, generally described as part of Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 246 REFER TO: Attached Graphics The subject property measures approximately 4.8 acres in area and is zoned R -1 Single Family Dwelling District. The site is completely surrounded by public roadways: County Road 18 on the west, the frontage road on the north and east, and 7th Street on the south. To the north and across the street is Grandview Cemetery to the east and across the street. is Van Valk - enburg Park which is undeveloped, and to the south and across the street is vacant land which is zoned office and multiple ;-esidential. The proponent is requesting a rezoning to 0-1 Office Building District. The proponent has submitted preliminary development plans in support of this request. A four story office building containing approximately 63,000 square feet of floor area is proposed. This building. would be oriented on a north south bxis. Surface parking complies with ordinance requirements In-terms of quantity and location. Access to the project is by way of two curb cuts to the frontage; one on the north side and one on the east side. These curb cuts appear to be properly located from a site distance and safety standpoint. In addition to the site plan, landscape plans, elevation drawings, and floor plans have been submitted. All such plans appear to comply with ordinance requirements. • In' conjunction with the rezoning, the proponent is also requesting a subdivision approval. This subdivision is composed of one lot and one outlot. The outlot comprises a sliver of property located to the north and east of the frontage road. Recommendation Staff believes that the proponents have prepared an excellent plan for the development of the site. The use conforms to the draft Comprehensive Plan which designated mixed uses for this site. As noted above, the proposed building and parking comply with ordinance requirements and access to the site appears to be well located. We recommend rezoning to 0-1 conditioned upon final plat approval. Final plat approval should be conditioned on Sub- division Dedication. We recommend that the outlot located north and east of the frontage road should be accepted for Subdivision Dedication. r' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF! REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 1981 Z -81 -8 Darrel A. Farr Development Corp., R -1 Single Family Residence District to 0-1 Office District. Generally located in the Northeast quadrant of County Road 18 and West 7th Street. 5 -81 -13 Lincoln Office Center, generally described as part of Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 246 REFER TO: Attached Graphics The subject property measures approximately 4.8 acres in area and is zoned R -1 Single Family Dwelling District. The site is completely surrounded by public roadways: County Road 18 on the west, the frontage road on the north and east, and 7th Street on the south. To the north and across the street is Grandview Cemetery to the east and across the street. is Van Valk - enburg Park which is undeveloped, and to the south and across the street is vacant land which is zoned office and multiple ;-esidential. The proponent is requesting a rezoning to 0-1 Office Building District. The proponent has submitted preliminary development plans in support of this request. A four story office building containing approximately 63,000 square feet of floor area is proposed. This building. would be oriented on a north south bxis. Surface parking complies with ordinance requirements In-terms of quantity and location. Access to the project is by way of two curb cuts to the frontage; one on the north side and one on the east side. These curb cuts appear to be properly located from a site distance and safety standpoint. In addition to the site plan, landscape plans, elevation drawings, and floor plans have been submitted. All such plans appear to comply with ordinance requirements. • In' conjunction with the rezoning, the proponent is also requesting a subdivision approval. This subdivision is composed of one lot and one outlot. The outlot comprises a sliver of property located to the north and east of the frontage road. Recommendation Staff believes that the proponents have prepared an excellent plan for the development of the site. The use conforms to the draft Comprehensive Plan which designated mixed uses for this site. As noted above, the proposed building and parking comply with ordinance requirements and access to the site appears to be well located. We recommend rezoning to 0-1 conditioned upon final plat approval. Final plat approval should be conditioned on Sub- division Dedication. We recommend that the outlot located north and east of the frontage road should be accepted for Subdivision Dedication. w t• r r 4 1 PRIME PROFESSIONAL CENTER EDINA , MINNESOTA SITE AND ZONING DATA mm: tin "ml” aluls (alm:� el area warm Wit: n/wma area mnelar flit Ia/: na,ns W. n. 1..4131 KI[s) wueis rw: • b.ra so.' -Ti:aW m aW Ilws slll W rmla aa.e.: Snr nws un uo aYlww lar mmuel: - In w sin iau rwmmla tel mud: ' IIILI! a, sin wma WIla1M Illl.(� aw,( IOn Ka mmn a• n• laaml a• a• Lai a• - a• ■v )i• a• MrtIK rtmlxe: w !• in. v.a ry1 OOI�oVI., rartli rglae: "--Is IrtM1 ••1 m ov".sl n1 leap W. n, Yn) (laam{s f wiltYRe vraf) • KORSUNSKY KRANK ERICKSON Yy� ARCNITEC TS. INC. „.•._•.,,„ „_„w„ „• PRIME PROFESSIONAL CENTER al• arur all.onn »o cacao .nY eamlw ................... X07 �i�muusr...w.. .swr wv ln.now.v an.we EDINA, MINNESOTA •.. - -- s• 11'11 ✓� ._ - 1 1 111 ! • cT t.,.� - oFR0Ni34GEA e e . _R0AB —�a� ��• 11111'.• 11 - �, / r'- \ 1 1 101111\ 1,1 e4r 111. • � � 11 � ' ' ' - "---A1 DPARKI OSTALL F `I\ , \I lyl l� 1 11 1\V 11 \ It 1 1 11`1`1 11`1`1 'Eal %%% 1 111111\ �"IJ�1��1� 1 `\ 11; X111`\ ` (a4 `\ ``� -.�� i i .• • l•w�� s.lr•n tm \.•reYMrmn .. 1 •tvn rnrv, r.r ms •uw a sncvlanu w wl..m n r a ` o� ��• - - 11 J o , —w-aW- —I- ma rra. w D— w msw, .o I.r I .l • aa. -Islt m rv[ulor 1 I [ ---- u— •-- mr- - +— aisrl•c ..r[rl. tGH[P utt• r•t sw4 o rK p•q o tl^l lDr•. • 11 ` - • fl �i��) �.�wOOlm trgrm 1M - - d !1 ��•= —> /wsOtm IrItY Slw 6 CDr•71.ty - _ Y [ 1 1 `, • � -' "' - ^ 0 :: � rr[wt. ro -o n r[n mlry mo. . 9ATNRE • SEPOO UIST. INC. �•• A - " u! mm WPM .'M 1. lstl . C ri'L ^b *rtsounar v MO.- un.vaw mnmu ul snr n Y uwoa +n 7th STREET 1 ••^+•. ~LUwn.l lv .ary .ml ern•,u al.ar sa•ua 1 I v ua urn�.c wnrrgs .uvr ce«kuc .v:. ■ •c.us re s ru... •t +n.ein..a Yr w r�ewcu wio- .�o-r u xur�w. n .0 \. N 1• . ttkt• 1'. t0' KORSUNSKY KRANK ERICKSON _ M �... ^,• ,�.•,� .� •_. (� .•q .. a.r..uo • wwDUO • ... _• .�• „• ITE IPLAN ARCHITECTS. INC. PRIME PROFESS IONAL CENTER UTILTY PL AN )o YCO EDINA, MINNESOTA GRADIG PAN rou to la w `” �"" s mt- -• _ �' PLANT MATERIAL u. W.. t q 10r «nt0l 011( I is W 11- .111 P'.. $1— 0— I$ L.— p . G W. C.— 1-1 uti p- .1 rr .1-1.1. 1. c-- 1. 1. KORSUNSKY KRANK ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. PRIME PROFESSIONAL CENTER EDINA, MINNESOTA LANDSCAPE PLAN . ruuv •• - l - REAR Imbo he. !rick ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION KORSUNSKY KRANK ERICKSON ARCHITECTS. INC - a.a...rp...a.u.ama PRIM PROFESSIONAL CENTER ImMA. MRMSOTA FLOOR PLANS /ELEVATIONS OFFICE C 1.300 SF 1.000 8F 2000 8F A 0�41 -Oft*. oft$ offte •xr• 2 v ez.r hb/ -Owe 4,11W 0A •Toyer, a- J T—.: y amci e r r PLAN ELEVATION KRANK ECRO-KSON CH. TS, INC. ARCHITECTS. PRIME PROFESSIONAL CENTER I Ll I ,*��SIJNSKY IA EDINA• MINNESOTA ? - KRANK ECRO-KSON CH. TS, INC. ARCHITECTS. PRIME PROFESSIONAL CENTER I Ll I ,*��SIJNSKY IA EDINA• MINNESOTA Ian c S G Z �1 44700 ...... 222a 192.85 • • ai ail S LINCOLN S ,� s� 0 S �F a n n T T a> T T S 1 2 S 4 6 I 6 7 B 7 O� O TO 2 0 . 69 3 9 10 3 P i � I 166.61 WEST . -.771-1 H W V> li a I R 1)v z I J I _ � 0 v STREET ? I I wfl1.IM.. Mt .NIf i' �ZFwy J y � a I R 1)v z I J I _ � 0 v STREET ? I I wfl1.IM.. Mt .NIf .•rte.. N O.f f...� rf• •1. rr. M w.W. •a �• M ate... r� wfr•. •f C. 40 O.P. • .n. r. N wNw . . a.o.a ...• rw N M 4v I.00) .m Iw. r/N t.w�M a U e Z u~i 7 O: W . m e W Q N W R Fi, O W u a u J J _ i a. a 6 = W W W i 1 C W j d O Cc a W W i C � 6. C 111. NEW BUSINESS: Z -82 -4 Marshall Everson. R -1 to PRD -3 and HPD, Planned Residential District and Heritage Preservation District. 7000 Cahill'Road. Generally located in the southwest quadrant of W. 70th Street and Cahill Road. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that the site measures 2.11 acres in area and is zoned R -1 Single Family Dwelling District. The Old St. Patrick's Church is located on the easterly portion of the site. This building is now vacant, but was used in recent years for a private school operated by the proponent. The site is bordered by 70th Street on the north, Cahill Road on the east and Village Drive on the south. Cahill Elementary School adjoins the site on the west. The site is characterized by level topography and contains. many mature oak trees on the easterly portion of the site.- This site has been studied extensively by the Heritage Preservation Board. Based upon the reasons stated in.the.Board's April 27th staff report to the Commission, and the other research, the Board has recommended that this site and the existing structure on the site should be rezoned to Heritage Preservation District (HPD) . Mr. Hughes explained that the Heritage Preservation District is 'an "overlay" district, i.e. it does not alter the basic land use zoning district of the site, but rather imposes additional restrictions to protect its unique historical, arch- itectural, and /or cultural characteristics. If zoned HPD, permits from the Heritage Preservation Board would then be required for alterations which could affect the building or site. In connection with the rezoning to HPD, the proponent is "also requesting • change in the basic underlying zoning classifications. He haspetitionedfor • rezoning to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. In accordance with ordinance requirements, preliminary plans have been submitted. These plans illustrate a Community Development and Planning Commission June 30, 1982 Page 4 22 unit condominium building which would be two stories in height. The existing structure would be preserved and retro - fitted as an amenity building and could possibly contain guest quarters for visitors. The proposed condominium complies with setback requirements and other provisions of the ordinance. One and one half under building garage stalls per unit and .75 exposed stalls are provided. Although elevation drawings are not required for preliminary approval, plans have been submitted which illustrate that the condominium will closely match the architectural style of the existing building. Mr. Hughes observed. that from a density standpoint, the proposed development represents approximately 101 units per acre. which is consistent with the 6 - 12 unit per acre range specified by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed density is somewhat higher than other recent developments in the vicinity which were evaluated in light of the density. reduction formula. This formula would yield an allowed density of 81 units per acre or a total of 18 units for the site. The additional density which is requested represents a bonus for the preservation of the existing structure on the site.: Mr. Hughes pointed out that Staff Believes the proponent's effort to respond to the historic characteristics of the site is commendable. The existing building is preserved and the proposed condominium is carefully designed to respect the architectural style of the existing building. Mr. Hughes reported that. the Heritage Preservation Board recommended that the subject property and building should be rezoned to Heritage Preservation District. This zoning should occur regardless of the final disposition of the rezoning to PRD -3. Although final. drawings are not available at this time, the Board recommended approval of the preliminary zoning plans with the under= standing that detailed drawings will be submitted for their review prior to final PRD -3 rezoning. The Board anticipated that the final drawings will be based upon the preliminary plans which indicate. a building form and materials sympath- etic to the existing building. Mr. Hughes pointed out that Satff believes that the rezoning to PRD -3 complies with the Comprehensive Plan and should be approved with the following conditions: 1. Final zoning is conditioned upon acceptable overall development plans and a final plat. 2. An- additional five foot right of way must be dedicated along Village Drive... 3. Subdivision Dedication. Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that the final issue concerns the allowed density on the site. The Heritage Preservation Board noted that if a density bonus is granted, a portion of this bonus should represent a reward for preserving the building and the remaining portion should be a reward for utilizing the remainder of the site in a sympathetic manner-. A one unit per __acr_e_credit_for-each.of these two -aspects-would- result--in'the 10}- unit - per -acre -- density which is requested. It should also be emphasized that. such a .density is still below the 12 unit per acre maximum specified by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Community Development and Planning Commission June 30, 1982 Page 5 Responding to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Hughes explained that the rationale behind the condition requiring an additional five foot right of way along Village Drive comes from the fact that Village Drive is a 40 foot right of way which is less than normally,_ required. Consequently, the space from the right of way to the curb is only 5 feet and has a 4 to 5 foot retaining wall. Staff would like an extra 5 feet dedicated for utility purposes, potential sidewalk or snow storage area. Helen McClelland asked for clarification of Staffs opinion that the building H can not be removed from the site and preserved elsewhere. Mr. Hughes explained that the building on that site is important. The building off of the site is not as important. Whether the City would ultimately concede to relocating the building is difficult to speculate, but Staff recommends that both the building and the site be considered together. Mr. Tom Martinson, a member of the Heritage Preservation Board explained to the Commission that the Heritage Preservation Board has been asked by the community and church to stress the preservation of the building. Preservation is generally an exterior issue. Mr. Martinson pointed out that Mr. Everson, the owner of the property has been very cooperative with the Board. While the Board does not involve itself with zoning issues, they. felt that Mr. Everson should be given a premium from the density standpoint for all the work he has gone through regarding preserving the site. Under normal' circumstances, the site could offer about 8 units per acre. The Board felt that there should be an informal play between 8 and a maximum of 12 units per acre; 1 for saving the site; and 1 for trying to deal with the issues of imagery. Discussion ensued regarding the possibilities and procedures of moving the building from the site. Question was raised as to whether there would be any further developmental rights on the site if the building were removed. Harold Sand explained that the City's ordinance provides a hearing process for Heritage Preservation permits to make any kind of alterations to the building. If the developer would choose to raise the building, the Heritage Preservation Board would consider the request within 60 days. The Board could reject the permit, afterwhich the developer could appeal the decision to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. That decision could be further appealed to the City Council. Ultimately, the Council would make a decision. If they determined that the building should not be torn down, then it would not be torn down. Regarding the issue of further developmental rights, Mr. Hughes- explained that the zoning on this property would be governed by an overall development plan. That plan, which would show 'a 22,- :unit building and an amenity, building would have to be amended to allow for any changes. Mrs. Donna Skagerberg, representing. the Historical Society advised the Commission that the Society has been very impressed with the cooperation they have received from Mr. Everson in the efforts to preserve a very important historical_ site in Edina. She then_ briefly_explained_the historical--significance- the site, pointing out that it is the only building left in the Cahill District which is one of the two districts that were the beginnings of Edina in the 1850's. Community Development and Planning Commission June 30, 1982 Page 6 Helen McClelland then moved for approval of the Heritage Preservation District rezoning. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Mr. McClelland also moved for approval of the PRD -3 Planned Residential District rezoning for the reasons stated by Staff and subject to Staffs conditions. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. 4� 61 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 30, 1982 S -82 -2 Zamansky Addition. Generally located in the southwest quadrant of West 66th Street and T.H. 100. REFER TO: June 2, 1982, Staff report and attached Preliminary Plat The Commission reviewed and approved a proposed lot division for the subject property at the June 2 meeting. This division was considered by the Council on June 7, 1982. The Council continued the matter and expres- sed concern that the parcel being acquired by Mr. Zamansky could be con- sidered buildable in the future, eventhough street frontage was not provided. To resolve this concern, Mr. Zamansky has agreed to plat this parcel as an outlot. Such outlots are not developable until further platted into lots and blocks. Recommendation Staff recommends approval. w ` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 2, 1982 LD -82 -5 Part of Registered Land Survey No. 1278 and part of unplatted property generally located in the south- ' west quadrant of West 66th Street and T.H. 100. REFER TO:. Attached survey The property proposed for division is a large single family lot owned by Mrs. Strand which fronts on the west frontage road of T.H. 100. The proponent, Mr. Zamansky, resides immediately to the north of this lot at 5041 W. 66th Street which is legally described as Tract A and the west 40 feet of Tract B, Registered Land Survey 1278. Mr. Zamansky desires to acquire the westerly 150 feet of Mrs. Strand's lot (parcel A on the survey) to add to his lot. No new buildable lot will be created by this lot division. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this lot division conditioned on a revision of the legal descriptions of the new parcels. It is imperative that Parcel A be formally combined with Mr. Zamansky's lot in order to prevent a landlocked parcel. Therefore, Mr. Zamansky's new description should be: Tract A and the West 40 feet of Tract B, all in Registered. Land Survey No. 1278, and the West 150.00 feet of the South 200.0 feet of the North 430.00 feet of the West 567.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Sec. 4, T. 116, R. 21. Mrs. Strand's new description should be: That part of the South 200.00 feet of the North 430.00 feet of the West 567.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Sec. 4, T. 116, R. 21, lying westerly of the West right -of -way line of State Highway No. 100, except the West. 150.00 feet thereof. e• • WEST 66TH STREET 1 0 sue: 1 0 E: r OThe West 150.00 1 �y feet of t- feet of tte North 43- f� T -usAiy 116. ranee :1. ec c 1 1 t6ereoi. .... . _.. 1 . 1 � 1 � 1 1 I I ~ . Q I • I I r S -82 -2 Zamansky Addition. Generally located in the southwest quadrant of.West 66th Street and T.H. 100. Mr. Hughes advised the Commission that they had reviewed and approved a proposed lot division for the subject property at the June 2, meeting. This division was considered by the Council on June 7, 1982. The Council contin- ued the matter and expressed concern that the parcel being acquired by Mr. Zamansky could be considered buildable in the future, eventhough street frontage was not provided. To resolve this concern, Mr. Zamansky has agreed to plat this parcel as an outlot. Such outlots are not developable until further platted into lots and blocks. Mr. Hughes concluded by noting that Staff recommends approval of the plat. Following a brief discussion, John Skagerberg moved approval of the plat. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. LD -82 -6 Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Cleveland's Subdivision, Parkside Replat. Mr. Hughes explained that the proponents are requesting a simple lot division whereby the south 10 feet of Lot 1 is transferred to Lot 2. Setback requirements continue to be met and Staff recommends approval. David Runyan moved for approval. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IPA EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: July 19, 1982 Material Description (General Specifications): High Speed Copier Quotations /Bids: Company 1. (See Attached Sheet) 2. 3. jy-- 'A Amount of Ouote or Bid Department Recommendation: Recommend award to IBM as lowest esponsible bidder. M �W 'gnatur Department Finance Director's Endorsement- The recommended bid is is not within the P amount budget for the urchase. _ 9 v. n. uaien, ri.nance uirector City M aer's. Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Base Price Less Trade -In IBM (Series III /Model 60) $33,015 Xerox 44,841 (8200) Kodak 59,308 (150 -CF) HIGH SPEED COPIER Bid Tabulation 60 months Financed $40,786.20 54,553.00 63,420.00 Financed Plus Financed Plus Service Costs/ Service Costs/ 5 Years 7 Years $78,406 $94,246 87,613 101,533 93,630 106,350 It (Official Publication) CITY OF EDINA 4801 W. 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ..:HIGH SPEED PHOTOCOPIER BIDS CLOSE JULY 15, 1982 Sealed bids will be received and opened in the Council Chambers, Edina City Hall, 4801 W. 50th Street at 11:00 A.M. on Thursday, July 15, 1982, and the Edina City Council will meet at 7:00 P.M., Monday, July 19, 1982, at the City Hall to consider bids being for the following but not limited to: High Speed Photocopier With Sorter and Finisher Bids shall be in a seated envelope with a statement thereon showing the items covered by the bid. Bids should be addressed to the City Clerk, City of Edina, 4801 W. 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424, and may be mailed or submitted personally to the City Clerk. Bids received by the City Clerk, either through the mail or by personal submission, after the time set for receiving them may be returned unopened. Bids must be in conformance with specifications which are available at the Edina City Hall. No bids will be considered unless sealed and accompanied by cash deposit, bid bond or certified check payable to the City of Edina in the amount of at least ten (10) percent of amount of net bid. The City Council reserves the right to reject any or all bids or any part of any bid, and will accept the bid that is deemed to be in the best interest of the City. BY THE ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL. Florence B. Hallberg City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun on June 30, 1982. Please send us two Affidavits of Publication. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Vernon Avenue between Highway 100 and Gleason Road is County Road 158, and Gleason Road between Vernon Avenue and Crosstown Highway 62 is also County Road 158; and WHEREAS, citizens adjacent to and in nearby residential areas are concerned about the speed of traffic on Vernon Avenue /Gleason Road (C.S.A.H. 158); and WHEREAS, the above said citizens have appeared before the Edina Traffic Safety Committee and the Edina City Council with their concerns; and WHEREAS, the current speed limit on C.S..A.H. 158 is 40 MPH on the majority of the route; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council requests that Hennepin County reduce the speed limit on C.S.A.H. 158 from 40 MPH to 30 MPH. Adopted this 19th day of July, 1982. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF ACTING CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and Acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of July 19, 1982 and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 20th day of July, 1982. Acting City Clerk t REQUEST FOR PURC!1ASE e. TO: Mayor and City Council ' FROM: Francis J. Hoffman, City Engineer VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager r SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: July 16, 1982 Material Description (General Specifications): Sanitary Sewer Extension to serve 6610 and 6620 Normandale Road Quotations /Bids: Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Kirkwold Construction Co. $ 9,635.48 2. G. L. Contracting, Inc. $12,392.70 3. Richfield Plumbing No Bid Department Recommendation: Kirkwold Construction Company $ 9,635.48 Public Works - Engineering Sign t e Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is ✓ is not within the amount budget for the purchase. J. N. Dalen, Financo Director City M an_er's Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an.alternative: Kenneth R stand, City 11 eager ESTIMATE OF COST CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. P -SS -365 LOCATION: Sewer Extension for 6610 and 6620-Normandale Road HEARING DATE: July 19, 1982 ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $12,092.4 (Includes Engineering, Clerical & Interest NUMBER OF ASSESSABLE LOTS: 2 ESTIMATED COST PER ASSESSABLE LOT: $6,048.24 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LOT BLOCK ADDITION W. 445 ft. of E. 567 ft. of S. 200 ft. of N. 430 ft. of Government Lot 3 Ex. Highway (Parcel 1020) W. 750 ft. of E. 867 ft. of S. 150 ft. of N. 580 ft. of Government Lot 3 except Highway (Parcel 2010) PINS NUMBER 04- 116- 21 -31 -34 04- 116- 21 -31 -30 NIT QUANTITY MATERIAL PRICE TOTAL 240 L.F. 8" V.C.P. 0 -8' Depth 18.8 L.F. 8" V.C.P. 0 -8' Depth 3 Each, Std. 0 -8' Manholes 0.5 V.F. Extra Manhole Wall 1 Each, 8" x 4" V.C.P. Wye 1 Each, 4" V.C.P. 1/8 Bend 1 Each, 4" V.C.P. Stub out of Manhole 1 Each, Manhole Tap 500 S.Y. Cultured Sod.including 4" of Black Dirt $ 16.00 $ 3,840.00 $ 18.00 $ 338.40 $ 975.00 $ 1,925.00 $ 75.00 $ 37.50 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 29.00 $ 20.00 $ 10.00 $ 50.00 $ 10.00 $ 50.00 3.00 15.00 .dkl Page 2 of 2 Pages Estimateof Cost City of Edina, Minnesota Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. P -SS -365 UNIT QUANTITY MATERIAL PRICE TOTAL 1 Each, Hook Up Sewer Service #6620 Normandale Lump Sum 1 Each, Pump.and Fill Cesspool.& Septic Tank with Sand #6620 Normandale Lump-Sum Prepared By Checked By ` SUB -TOTAL : ADD 10% ENGINEERING & 2% CLERICAL : ADD 10.5% CAPITALIZED INTEREST : ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION : �W Francis. J. Hoffman, Director of Public rks a d ity Engineer $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 9,770.90 $ 1,172.51 $ 10,943.41 $ 1,149.06 $ 12,092.47 . Lail r - -111 11,11 111111 1UP league of minnesota cities July 12, 1982 L E A G U E R E G I 0 N'A L M E E T I N G S TO: _All Member Officials (c /o City Clerk) This letter is to alert you to the 1982 series of regional meetings sponsored by the League, so that you will be able to make arrangements to attend. . The traditional fall regional meetings of the League of Minnesota Cities will begin about a month earlier this year to enable officials to apply the knowledge gained at the meetings to their tax levy budgeting process. The experiment was suggested by many local officials in the southern part of Minnesota where the fall meetings usually concluded in early October, thus making it difficult to apply the knowledge gained to their current year's budget process. 1982 meetings will be held in 13 outstate cities and one metro community beginning August 17 at Karlstad and concluding at Maplewood on September 16. Afternoon sessions will be held at each site from 2:30 - 5.:00 p.m. for clerks and finance officers and other officials interested in the administration of their cities. An on -site demonstration of computer utilities billing and word - processing will be featured at these afternoon sessions. The traditional "dutch treat" dinner will be at 6:30 p.m. followed by the identification and discussion of legislative issues and League legislative policies, and the usual question and answer session, with participation by legislators, candidates and members of several state agencies and the League staff. You are encouraged to attend the meeting with candidates from your district. (See attached sheet for date and location.) Nearer the date of your regional meeting your city will receive an official invitation and dinner reservation card from the host mayor in your area.- It is important that you make a reservation with the host mayor. (OVER) 1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (61 2] 227 -5600 League Member Cities - Regional Meetings Page two July 12, 1982 Should your city be unable to attend the particular meeting to which it is invited, please feel free to attend another nearby meeting; and let the.host city know you are coming. A large representation from your city will insure a lively and profitable discussion. I will look forward to seeing you there. J rer.ely, Donald A. Slater Executive Director DAS:MCA:rmm Enclosures..- Schedule of Regional Meetings Agenda Distribution of Cities league of minnesota cities 1982 AGENDA LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES REGIONAL MEETINGS Afternoon Program* Thomas Thelen, Field Representative, presiding. 2:30 - 4:30 p.m. (with coffee break): Presentation on and demonstration of the Small City (microcomputer) Management Information System (for utility billing, budget /accounting). 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.: Round table discussion on items and problems of mutual interest. Evening Program 5:30 - 6:30 p.m.: Social Hour (optional, check with host city as to whether a social hour will occur). 7:30 - 7:30 p.m.: Evening Meeting a) League building completion report. b) Update on the city -state financial relationship. c) Explanation of the League.of Minnesota Cities Legislative Action Program, including the policy development process and legislative district activities. d) Answers to questions about local problems of general interest by a League attorney and other League staff. 9:30 p.m.: Adjourn. NOTE: Copies of the most frequently requested League publications will be available. A different afternoon program will be given at the Maplewood regional meeting to be held in cooperation with the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. 1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 (61 2) 227 -5600 : unr league of minnesota cities 1982 REGIONAL MEETING SCHEDULE Date Site Contact Tuesday, August 17 Karlstad, Tri- County Wayne Ruud High School City Clerk- Treasurer Karlstad, MN 56732 218/436 -2178 Wednesday, August 18 Oklee, Municipal Jackie Carriere Center City Clerk- Treasurer Oklee, MN 56742 218/796 -5183 Thursday, August 19 Detroit Lakes Wayne Lance Holiday Inn City Clerk- Treasurer 1025 Rossevelt Ave. Box 647 Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 218/847 -5658 Tuesday, August 24 Cass Lake Lawrence Pound American Legion Armory City Clerk P.O. Box 96 Cass Lake, MN 56633 218/335 -2238 Wednesday, August 25 Virginia, Miner's Mayor Jalmer T. Johnson Memorial Building 619 North 14th St. on 9th Avenue and Virginia, MN 55792 7th Street 218/741 -3890 Thursday, August 26 Sandstone William Jokela Jr. /Sr. High School City Administrator Sandstone, MN 55072 612/245 -2151 Tuesday, August 31 Sartell Susan J. Patton Riverview Restaurant City Clerk- Treasurer and Lounge P.O. Box 140 18 Riverside Ave. Sartell, MN 56377 612/253 -2171 (OVER) 1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612)227-5600 1982 REGIONAL MEETING SCHEDULE - PAGE TWO Date Site Contact Wednesday, September 1 Hutchinson, Crow Gary D. Plotz River Country Club City Administrator 37 Washington Ave. W. Hutchinson, MN 55350 612/587 -5151 Thursday, September 2 Morris Edward R. Larson Sunwood Inn City Manager 609 Oregon Avenue Morris, MN 56267 612/589 -3141 Tuesday, September 7 Rushford, Countryside Gordon Hateli Supperclub and Motel, City Clerk U.S. 16 Rushford, MN 55971 507/864 -2444 Wednesday, September 8 Sleepy Eye Edwin V. Treml Orchard Inn City Clerk 108 Main St. W. Sleepy Eye, MN 56085 507/794 -3731 Thursday, September 9 Tracy, American James C. Hurm Legion Club, Hwy. 14 City Administrator Tracy, MN 56175 507/629 -3460 Wednesday, September 15 Redwing Dean Massett St. James Hotel City Council Admr. Red Wing, MN 55066 612/388 -6734 Thursday, September 16 *Maplewood Barry Evans Holiday Inn,.I -694 City Manager and White Bear Ave. 1380 Frost Ave. Maplewood, MN 55109 612/770 -4500 *held in cooperation with the Association,of Metropolitan Municipalities. L r 401 mi [1UP league of minnesota cities July 12, 1982 TO: Candidates, Legislators, Local Government Officials FROM: Duke Addicks, League Legislative Counsel RE: Distribution of Cities for 1982 Regional Meetings The following is a list of counties, the cities within which have been invited to attend the regional meetings indicated. Because legislative districts often cross county boundaries, legislators and candidates may wish to check with their cities to determine which meeting their cities will attend. If a particular meeting is at a time or location inconvenient to a city, that city may attend another nearby meeting on another date. Karlstad Tuesday, August 17 Kittson Lake of the Woods Marshall Roseau Cass Lake Tuesday, August 24 Beltrami Cass Crow Wing Hubbard Koochiching Oklee Wednesday, August 18 Clearwater Mahnomen Norman Pennington Polk Red Lake Virginia Wednesday, August 25 Cook Lake Itasca St. Louis (OVER) Detroit Lakes Thursday, August 19 Becker Clay Ottertail Wadena Wilkin Sandstone Thursday, August 26 Aitken Carlton Chisago Isanti Kanabec Pine 1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 (61 2) 227 -5600 July 12, 1982 Page 2 Sartell Tuesday, August 31 Benton Mille Lacs Morrison Sherburne Stearns Rushford Tuesday, September 7 Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Steele Winona Waseca Hutchinson Wednesday, September 1 Kandiyohi McLeod Mecker Renville Sibley Wright Sleepy Eye Wednesday, September 8 Blue Earth Brown Cottonwood Faribault LeSueur Martin Nicollet Watonwan Redwing Wednesday, September 15 Goodhue Rice Wabasha M6rris Thursday, September 2 Big Stone Chippewa Douglas Grant Lac Qui Parle Pope Stevens Swift Traverse Todd Tracy Thursday, September 9 Jackson Lincoln Lyon Murray Nobles Pipestone Redwood Rock Yellow Medicine Maplewood* Thursday, September 16 Anoka Carver Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Scott Washington * Held in cooperation with the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities DA:glb RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL "PRIMB.PROFESSIONAL CENTER" BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that that certain plat entitled "Professional Center ", platted by Prime Development Corporation, and pre- sented at the regular Meeting of the City Council of July 19, 1982, be and is hereby granted Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, subject to the grant= ing of a deed for Outlot C to the City., payment of a subdivision dedication fee of $22,000 and execution of a Developer's Agreement and easements for storm sewer and water mains on the site. ADOPTED this 19th day of July, 1982. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk in and for the City:of.Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution entitled Resolution Granting Pre=_ liminary and Final Plat Approval for "Prime Professional Center ", adopted by the Edina City;Council at its Regular Meeting of July 19, 1982, and that all conditions required by the Council have been met. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 11th day of May, 1983. City Clerk