HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-10-18_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 18, 1982
ROLLCALL-
I. ART CENTER SLIDE SHOW
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON ZONING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Reading of
Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall 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 roll-
call vote to pass.
A. Leo Evans Property - Generally located South of Vernon Ave., East of Olinger
Rd. and North of Merold Dr. (Part of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 32, T.
117, R. 21.
1. R -1 Residential District toiR -2 - First Reading
2. Evans Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Approval
B. Dewey Hill Third Addition - Lots l and 2, Outlots B, C and D. - R -1
Residential District to PRD -3 Residential District - Generally located
North of W. 78th St. and West of Cahill Rd.
III. AWARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES Tabulations and Recommendations by City Manager
A. Contract No. 82 -10 (Eng)
B. Concrete Slab for Braemar Park Picnic Shelter Footings
IV. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
A. Wine Licenses
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Traffic Safety Committee Meeting of 10/12/82
B. Appointment of Canvassing Board
C. Kings Court On -Sale Beer License
D. South Hennepin Human Services Council Comprehensive Study
E. Lions Cate Condominium Extension of Contract
F. Proposed Constitutional Amendments
G. Special Concerns of Mayor and Countil
H. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items
IV. ORDINANCES First Reading requires offering of Ordinance only. 3/5 favor-
able rollcall vote to pass Second Reading. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote
to pass if Second Reading should be waived.
A. Amendment to Ordinance No. 1353 - Licensing and Regulation of Physical
Culture Clubs, Saunas, Massage Parlors and Escort Services
V. RESOLUTIONS 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Sanitary Sewer House Connection No. HC -7 -Lot 10, Auditor's Subdivision
176 (4362 Vernon Ave.)
VI. FINANCE for �
A. Claims Paid.. Motion of _, seconded by , p�Y-
ment of the following Claims as per Pre -List: General Fund, $123,530.97;
Park Fund, $15,536.31; Art Center, $3,215.74; Swimming Pool, $1.02.62; Golf
Fund, $10,879.32; Arena, $2.617.71; Gun Range, $81.08; Water Fund, $8,304.31;
Sewer. Fund, $141,252.71; Liquor Fund, $3,773.84; Construction, $207,497.50;
Total, $516,890.81; and for confirmation of payment Of thee following
claims: General Fund, $123,313.52; Park, $440.69; Art Fund, $851.80;
Swimming Pool, $1,327.89; GOLF, $8,123.19; Arena, 6,093.79; .Gun Range,
$233.12; Water, $:30,857.68; Sewer Fund, $1,708.10; Liquor., $416,596.70;
Construction, $255,576.93; Total, $845,123.41
/ MARY LOU MATHISON
4501 C,RIM6S AV6. SO., MINN6APOLIS, MINN. 55424
15 October 1980.
To the Members of The City Council;
I see that some of you are running for
election /re- election. I try to ber a conscientious
voter so am listening and reading with care what
your platforms are. There is just one small nag-
ging lithe piece of business that sort of bothers
me. I wrote you a letter back in June about the
dog problem in our neighborhood. I appreciate the
prominence given my letter, both on your adgenda
(I would have been there, but I was out of town)
and on the front page of the Sun. I'm glad you
thought my, letter was "reasonable ".. I try to
be. Anyway, it sounded like a keen idea to distri-
bute reminders via the water meter readers. But,
alas, the water meters.,have been read, and I have
,yet to detect a reminder. I wouldn't keep harping
on the subject, but since my letter was referred to
in the Sun, many people called or cornered me in
R
M XKY LOU "A- MISOM
4501 GRIMES kVe. SO., MIMM APOLIS, MILAN. 55424
-2-
the supermarket to tell me that they enthusiastically
agreed with me. I didMt get one crank call fnot
even an extra pile if "dog do", to my knowledge).
Now I know I'm not alone in this! Some of my neigh-
bors even got together and presented me with a cer-
tificate and a plaque, "The 1980 Silver Scoop Award ".
They have formed a support group called KRYPE (Kindly
Restrain Your_,Pet, Inc.). You may be hearing from them.
I'm not sure; they're not as much of an activist as
I am. Anyway, the problem still exists. The same
dog runs loose all the time, the sneaky ones deposit
their calling cards in the night and I am wondering if
the "Reminder" is ever going to arrive. Hope it wasn't
just an empty promise!
Sincerely (again),
/" 5 �i2v. U,�, 1/iz.Li2e.u.G —cc�y. 7TH c�cc�1i,
qJ
iI��C�Ll a D�C� C�'�LQL� vn
r�
)ESE -N
ii •
yuH: FE FD
w M AYl
u Cb SAMARIT
IMETHODIS11
AF
W.Y URIVE > L -LI C,A
PC 40 ,�o I I
SIDE
ELEMENTARY u u�
SCHOOL
1 1 Rl� E: a LE I �72 7), ll Kul (M 497-1113-1,
U a � \ LU
N U 1A B E R 2-81-3 Leo M. Evans, R -1 Single Family Residence District
to R -2 Two Family Residence District
S -82 -3 Evans Subdivision.
LOCATION Generally located south of Vernon Avenue, east of Olinger Road
and north of Merold Drive.
REQUEST
EDINA PLANNH'\J'G DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 29, 1982
Z -81 -3 Leo M. Evans, R -1 Single Family Residence. District to R -2
. Two Family Residence District
S -82 -3 Evans Subdivision, Generally located south of Vernon Avenue
east of Olinger Road and north of Merold Drive.
REFER TO: September 1, 1982, minutes and attached revised preliminary plat.
The Commission continued this request from the September 1, 1982, meeting and
requested that the proponent prepare -a revised subdivision with seven R -2 lots
(all to abut Vernon) and fourteen single family lots. The proponent's eariler
plan illustrated thirteen R -2 lots and six single family lots.
The attached revised plan illustrates the proposed subdivision as suggested by
the Commission. According to the proponent's figures, the R -2 lots average
about 16, 600 square feet (lot 1, block 1, should .be ,20, 500 square feet rather
than 16,800 square fee$ . The single fpj�,ily lots average about 11,800 square.
feet.
The revised plan illustrates the northerly extension of Wycliffe Road to Vernon
Avenue as shown on the prior submittal. Wycliffe Court now terminates in a
cul de sac rather'than intersecting with Vernon. This revision is also consistent
with the Commission's suggestions.
City Staff and County Staff have reviewed the sight distance concerns at the
intersection of Wycliffe Road and Vernon. We have determined that the proposed
intersection meets minimum sight distance standards for both east and west bound
Vernon Avenue traffic. Hennepin County has submitted a letter to us noting
their acceptance of this intersection.
Recommendation
In our opinion, the proposed subdivision and rezoning are acceptable and are
consistent with the Commission's direction with the exception of lots 3, 4, and 8,
Block 2. We find that lot 8 fails to meet the minimum lot depth requirement of 120
feet (the average depth is about 100 feet) . Due to the shape of the lot4 and the
setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, it appears that it is impossible to
construct a double bungalow on this lot. According to our measurements, lot 3
does not meet the minimum lot area requirement of 15,000 square feet. It should
also be noted that several of the dimensions shown on the plan do not appear to .
scale accurately. Apparently some or these dimensions were not revised from the
old plan to the current plan. In most cases, we find that the new dimensions are
somewhat greater than the old dimensions and thus the lot sizes are actually some-
what larger than noted. The exceptions are some of the R -2 lots as mentioned
above which are somewhat smaller.
Community Development and Planning Commission
Leo Evans Staff Report
September 29, 1982
We have discussed the above noted concerns with the proponent. He has
proposed to relocate the most westerly cul de sac approximately 75 feet
easterly. Such a modification would appear to solve the lot area, depth,
and setback problems noted above. However, this modification causes the
creation of two neck lots. A revised drawing illustrating this modification
will be presented at Wednesday's meeting.
In our view, the only practical method of resolving the above noted problems
Is the elimination of one of the lots abutting the westerly cul de sac. With such
a modification, we would recommend rezoning and plat approval conditioned
upon;
1. Subdivision Dedication
-2. Developer's Agreement
MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Development and Planning Commission
.FROM: Gordon Hughes
.DATE: September 22, 1982
.SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Plan - Evans Property
The Commission will be considering the rezoning and subdivision request of
Leo Evans on September 29. As you know, this item was continued from the
September 1 meeting.
Mrs. Micki Gamer has submitted a request on behalf of some of the area's
residents, that the Commission consider an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan. This amendment would redesignate the Evans - property from Low Density,,
;Attached Residential to Single Family Residential. The reasons for this
proposed amendment are contained in the attached report from Mrs. Gamer...
Recommendation
.In our view, the existing designation of Low Density Attached Residential
reflects the proper use of this parcel. We do not believe the proposed
:amendment is desirable or necessary.
-The proposed use of the Evans property as_ directed by the Commission
conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. No change to the Plan is necessary
to effect the rezoning.
The Comprehensive Plan also indicates that "single family dwellings may also
be a compatible use in [Low Density Attached Areas] ". Therefore, in my
opinion, the Commission could require a single family subdivision of the
Evans property without an R -2 rezoning and still maintain consistency with
the Plan.
If the Commission wishes to consider the proposed amendment, it must by
State Law, schedule a public hearing. Such a hearing could be held on October 27.
GH /lde
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
.SEPTEMBER 1, 1982
Z -81 -3 Leo M. Evans, R -1 Single Family Residence District to
R -2 Two Family Residence District
S -82 -3 Evans Subdivision, Generally located south, of Vernon Avenue
east of Olinger Road and north of Merold Drive..
:REFER TO: Attached .subdivision; June 15 and July 6, 1981, City Council
minutes; May 27, 1981, Staff-Report
The Commission and Council considered a rezoning to PRD -2 for this
--property approximately one year ago. This proposed rezoning requested
.-,approval of a 36 unit townhouse development of the property. Although
the Commission recommended approval of this rezoning, the City Council
requested that the proponent reduce the project from 36 townhouse units
to 25 - 26 townhouse units.. The proponent did not respond with a
townhouse plan with the requested number of units,-and _ therefore, the
rezoning was continued indefinitely.
The proponent has now returned with a new rezoning and subdivision
request for the property. The proposed plat requests a 19 lot, subdivision
-of the property. Thirteen of the proposed lots would be zoned R -2 Two
Family Dwelling District and six lots would be zoned R -1 Single Family
- Dwelling District. The R -1 lots abut the existing single family lots on
Merold Drive.
The proposed R -2 lots range in area from 15,000 square feet to 21,000
square feet with average of 16,750 square feet. The single family lots
range from 10, 124 square feet to 13, 858 square feet with an average of
11,925 square feet. The single family lots approximate the area of abutting.
lots on Merold Drive.
The subdivision proposes the northerly extension of Wycliffe Road
to Vernon Avenue. Wycliffe Court would be extended westerly from Wycliffe
Road and would intersect Vernon Avenue across from Heather Lane. This
road plan, differs from that of the townhouse proposal which did not propose
the extension of Wycliffe Road.
Recommendation
-Staff recommended approval of the 36 unit townhouse plan last year.
In our view, the townhouse proposal represented a proper land use for the
site based upon its location and natural features. In our view, the preferred
plan continues to be the townhouse plan.
Community Development and Planning Commission
September 1, 1982, Staff Report
Page two .
The present plan conforms with the Comprehensive Plan which designates
.this property for low density attached residential uses which include
".two family dwellings, townhouses, and other multi - family developments
containing a maximum of four dwelling units per building." In addition,
:the proponent is responding to some of the criticism of the past townhouse
plan by platting single family lots adjoining existing single family dwellings
for buffering purposes.
Staff certainly cannot criticize the proposed lots sizes. The single family
lots are very compariable in size to adjoining lots on Merold Drive.
Likewise, the R -2 lots are similar to many R -2 lots in the City, e. g.
those on Berne Circle immediately west of the subject property.
From a traffic standpoint, Staff agrees with the extension of Wycliffe Road
to Vernon. I n the past, we have recommended that Wycliffe not be
extended if the subject property is developed with townhouse or apartment
uses in order to provide a proper separation between these uses and the
existing single family developments. Under the present plan, we can see no
-reason not to extend Wycliffe. It is obvious that the extension of Wycliffe was
contemplated when the properties to the south were platted.
Our only criticism with the roadway plan is the proposed offset intersection
of Wycliffe Court and Heather Lane. We believe that the plat should be
modified by either locating Wycliffe Court to the east or else cul de sacing
.Wycliffe Court in order to eliminate this offset.
With this modification, Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Subdivision dedication
2. Developer's Agreement
GH /Ide
LEO EVANS PP.D -2 ZONING REQUrST CONTINUED TO JULY b, 1901. Atllctavlts or wor:ice �
-.016 were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr.
15 _ $.Hughes presented the petition of Mr. Leo Evans for zoning change of. property gen
.erally located South of Vernon Ave. and East of Olinger Road from R =1 Residential
CD District to PRD -2 Planned Residential District and advised that the, staff and Com-
0 munity Development and Planning Commission had recommended approval, subject to
the following conditions and modifications: 1) Unit 3should be eliminated to
provide the required setback from the South property line; .2) Some guest parking
Q stalls should be provided on the site; and .3) Final zoning to be-conditioned on an.
Q acceptable overall development plan and final platting. He explained that the
subject property abuts developed single family lots on the South and Hawke's Lake
on the East, with single dwellings across Vernon Ave. to the North and two - family.
-dwellings across Olinger Road to the [Jest. •Mr. Hughes pointed out that the pro-
perty was designated as low - density attached residential use in the Western Edina
-Plan and that the draft Comprehensive Plan also designates the property for low
density attached residential use. COLIlcil was advised that preliminary plans
call for a 36 unit town douse development for the property which would be served
by a private road with two entrances on Vernon Ave. Mr. Hughes added that the
overall density of four units per acre approximates the density of single family
densities in general, with most of the lots abutting to the South measuring approxi-
mately 11,000 square feet in area (which equals about four units per acre) and that
other multi - family developments in the vacinity have considerably higher densities.
Mr. Roger D. Clemente, representing the developer, suggested that, since there are
five members on the council and only three members were present at this meeting,
no vote should be taken at this time. 'Mr. Erickson opined that Council should
hear evidence at this time but that the hearing could be continued to the next
meeting and a vote taken at that time. Mr. Clemente read a letter dated June 15,
198.1, for the.record which proposed the following modification to the Community
Development and Planning Commission's recommendations: 1) that the property be
designated PRD -1, rather than FRD -2 -which action would insure the neighbors that
there would be densities in the 4 unit per acre range rather than the 6 unit per
acre figure potentially allowable in a PRD -2 District; 2) that a median setback of
80 feet and a minimum distance of 70 feet from to wn homes to the South property
line be established which would provide a median setback of 50 feet and a mini -
mum distance of 70 feet from town homes to the South property line in that portion
of the property running from the East line of. the Wegner property to Hawkes Lake;
3). that a well - planted and bermed buffer zone of 30 to 40 foot depth would be
planted along this section to the South property line in accordance with wishes of
residents; and 4) that, :where there had been seven units shown in the first 275
feet of the property East of the Wegner property, the number of dwellings would be
cut to six in order to reduce the general impact of housing along the South pro -
perty line; and 5) that it be understood that the total count of 36 dwelling units
not be changed. Reference was also made to a statement submitted by neighbors set-
ting forth conditions agreed upon at a June 3rd meeting between residents and the
proponent, the request that the density of the project be reduced by eleven units,
and concerti that once the project is Started, it must be curipleted. A letter
objecting to the proposed moaning fre,:t Xr. and Mrs. Earl W. Carson was also noted.
Also objecting to Clio proposal were Messrs. Jahn Cochran, 5313 ;
i
6/15/111
160.,
neighborhood and slid that this. would be the only are;' .in the City in which there
was no buffer between single famtly and mul.tiple residence properttes. Mr. and
Mrs. Demils Wegner, 5705 01[na-,ur. Road, urged th.it tile! project be denied stcnce
they would have seven families looking over their back yard. They suggested that
the• proposed buffer should be continued and that the SO foot setback should be
continued to Olinger l:d. Mr. We };nc�r suggef ted that a single building condominium
might be more acceptable. Mr. Clemence said that there has been contusion about the
setback distance from the Year property line along Mcrold Drive and that only one
corner of the property which would be reduced to 45 feet, and agreed that the
length of the buffer would be no problem. lie explained that the town houses will
sell for a minimum of $15,',000 cacti, and said that reducing the plans to 25 units
would be less than if the land was developed with single family homes. Mr. Cle-
mence added that all of the property along llawkes Lake are not buildable lots.
He emphasized also that there will be further modifications to the plan and that
it is designed to retain existing vegetation and to recognize the old right -of -way
of Highway 169. Mr. Clemence also said that there has been no experience of dif-
ficulty in selling town houses. No further discussion being held, Member Schmidt
moved that the hearing be continued to July 6, 1931, and asked that Council be
furnished with drawings which would indicate the proposed grade of the development
both from Merold Drive and from Vernon Avenue. Motion was seconded by Member
Turner.
Ayes: Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Nays: None
Motion carried.
In response to a request from the audience, the Mayor asked that notices of the
continued hearing be sent to property owners.
j
-1
LEO EVANS PRD -2 ZONING REOUEST CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 14, 1981. Mr.. Hughes pre -
sented the request of Mr. Leo Evans for zoning change, which petition had been
continued from the Council Meeting of June 15, 1981, so that the developer could
respond to concerns expressed at that time. Mr. Roger D. Clemente, representing
• C
the developer, showed drawings of the proposal as originally proposed, along with
new graphics showing newly proposed plans which, he said, responded to the con-
cerns of the residents. Mr. Clemence said that the proposal still has the capacity
'
for modification. He reviewed the proposed elevation at Vernon Ave., Merold Dr.
and Wycliffe Road and pointed out that the road will not extend into single family
areas. Mrs. Ronald Gamer, 5816 Merold Drive, spoke in behalf of property owners
In the area, and said that it is a false premise that a reduction in density to
25 units is below what could be platted on the property. She said that neighbors
spoke to a local architect, Howard Golta, who did a study of this parcel of land f
four years ago. She showed two plats containing 20 and 21 lots on the property.
'
Mrs. Gamer spoke of residents' concern that they do not yet know who the
builder will be and concern also that a builder might make changes in the prelim-
inary plans "that are better made before voting on the First Reading, rather than
later ". Mrs. Gamer also expressed her concern about the accuracy of the Environ-
mental Quality and Planning Commission Minutes of May 27, 1981, in which it was
stated.that as many :s 4.8 single family lots per acre could not be platted on
this property and said that the density in the surrounding area is about 3 to
3.2 units per acre. She objected also that the Minutes pointed out that PRD -2
rezoning was compatible with the Western Edina Plan, "when, in fact, this area is
designed for low density (four units per acre maximum)" with PRD-2 allowing
7/6/81 ..
• i
1s:�
for six units per acre and four story units xi)iich she considered totallyiinconsis-
tent with the low density designation and with the surrounding neighborhood
density and building heights. M ;s. Gamer also requested that, if the project
is approved, a landscaping bond be posted for the entire buffer area along the
South property line before any construction is started and also that the entire
South buffer zone landscaping be put in, if and when the - construction begins.
Council's attention was also called to a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Earl Carson,
5908 Merold Drive, objecting to the project. Mr. Alexander Sherbanenko, 5812
Merold Drive, read from the Western Edina Land Use Plan and said, that in con -
formance with the Plan, the density should be reduced by eleven.units. The Mayor
read a memorandum from Mr. Hughes, stating that the Density Clarification Policy
should not affect the density for this property. Speaking in opposition to the
project were Mrs. Diane Wegner, 5705 Olinger Road, who objected that her 513 foot
2
lot would be bordered by twelve dwelling units. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Spaeth, 5900 -
i'
Merold Drive, were particularly concerned that the property would not sell and
that the townhouse developments are an "unknown" as to how they will be accepted.
It was pointed out by neighbors that the subject property is an integral part of
the neighborhood and a continuation of existing back yards. Mrs. Gamer requested
that the hearing be continued to find out 1) if there is a market for townhouses;
2) whether a builder has been retained; 3) the quality of work done by the builder;
4) how densities deviate from the Western Edina Plan; and 5) how the development
could more closely conform to the surrounding area. It was suggested that Council
study the plan further in light of the changes made since the last meeting. Mr.
Q
Clemence spoke of his original request for PRD -1 zoning and said that the PRD -2
zoning had been suggested by the City staff because no variances would.be required.
--�
He asked that the record show that Mr. Goltz said he believes that the plan pre-
sented tonight is better than the plan presented by the Planning Commission. Mr.
Clemence said that questions of the builder and the marketability of the project
Q
are items that can be addressed at a later time. Mr. Dennis Wegner, 5705 Olinger
.
Road, asked that the 80 foot buffer be continued all around the property and
spoke of his concern about retaining natural vegetation in the area. Member Brede-
i
sen expressed his concern about the tentativeness of the development and the fact
that there is no other development in this area which could be used as an example
i
of the way the final development would appear. Mr. Erickson clarified that a
concept cannot change once it has been approved, but that there is nothing in the
City ordinances which describe the quality that will be put in a building or how
I
large that building might be. Member Richards spoke about the various types of
development along Vernon Ave. and said that he could support 25 or 26 townhouses
but that he would not support 36 townhouses. Other suggestions of the Council
were the possibility of double bungalows or single family houses backing up to
the existing single family homes, with multiple units on the Vernon Ave. end of
the property. Meamber Turner said that she agrees with the Western Edina Plan
but that she thought a clustering of housing would preserve more open space.
As recommended by the Mayor, Member Richards, moved that the hearing be continued
to September 14, 1981, to give Mr. Clemence an opportunity to work with Mr. Evans
'
to provide additional plans for the site.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
:
Nays: None
Motion carried.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MAY 27, 1981
Z -81 -3 Leo Evans, R -1 to PRD -2, Generally located south of Vernon
Avenue and east of Olinger Road
REFER TO: Attached graphics
The subject property measures approximately nine acres in area and is zoned
R -1 Single Family Dwelling District. The property abuts developed single family
lots on the south and Hawke's Lake on the east. Across Vernon Avenue to the
north are single dwellings and across Olinger to the west are two- family dwellings.
The subject property was designated as low- density attached residential in the
Western Edina Plan. Such areas, according to the plan, were to be allowed four
units per acre. The draft Comprehensive Plan also designates the property for
low density attached residential. According to the Comprehensive Plan, such
areas are capable of supporting 6 units per acre. However, it is noted that
specific densities will be based on surrounding single family densities. The Plan
.also notes that such developments should contain no more than four dwelling units
per building.
The proponent has submitted preliminary plans and is requesting a rezoning to
PRD -2. The preliminary plans illustrate a 36 unit townhouse development for the
subject property. This development would be served by a private road from
Vernon Avenue. This road would have two entrances on Vernon which is a
County Road. Hennepin County has tentatively approved these curb cuts.
The preliminary plans do not propose the northerly extension of Wycliffe Road
to serve the subject property.
Recommendation
Staff believes that the proposed development concept conforms with the Western
Edina Plan as well as the draft Comprehensive -Plan. We also believe that the
objectives of the Planned Residential District of the Zoning Ordinance have bee_ n
met.
The proposed development represents, in essence, a cluster single family dev-
elopment. The overall density of four units per acre approximates single family
densities in general and, in particular, approximates the density of single family
lots abutting the property. Most of these lots measure approximately 11,000
square feet in area which equals about four units per acre. Other multi-
family developments in the vicinity exhibit higher densities. Blake Ridgi: Town-
houses, for example, represents about 71 units per acre and the condominium
buildings north of Blake Ridge (i.e. Whitehall et. al.) represent about 15 units.
per acre.
..,.?May 27, 1981
Page 2
Staff believes that the proposed plans provide a proper relationship between
townhouse units. and surrounding single family dwellings. Large yard areas
are provided which should ensure proper spacing between units. In addition,
the development plan is very "open" and thus should not appear crowded to
surrounding properties.
Staff recommends preliminary rezoning approval in that:
1. _ The development conforms to the Western Edina Plan and draft Compre-
hensive Plan.
.2. The proposed density is compatible with surrounding uses.
Approval is recommended with.the following conditions and modifications:
.1. Unit 3 should be eliminated to provide the required setback from the
south property line.
2. Some guest parking stalls should be provided on the site.
3. Final zoning is conditioned on an acceptable overall development plan and
final platting.
i
i
l
• MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HELD ON WEDNESDAY AND PLANNING COMMISSION
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL HAMBE� 1982
, AT 7 :30 P.M•
MEMBERS PRESENT: C RS.
hairman Bill Lewis, Cordon Johnson
Helen McClelland Del Johnson,
John Palmer, John Ska McDonald, Leonard
STAFF PRESENT: Berber Ring,
g and Len Fernelius
Cordon Hughes, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, Director of P
Linda Eisen, Plannin ubiic Works /Engineer
" g Secretary
I• APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Community Develo
Del Johnson moved sent and Plannin
seconded Pproval of the June 30ission Minutes - June 30
the motion. All voted aye; the 1982, 198ll
motion carried�nutes. Helen McClelland
Board of Appeals and
Adjustments - June 18, 1981 Jul
Mary McDonald moved for Y 16• 1981 and
seconded the the a July 28, 1981.
motion. All a Pproval of these 1981 minutes and Len Fernelius
yes; the motion carried.
II• OLD BUSINESS:
2 -81-3 Leo tit. Evans
S R -1 Singe Family and Residence Distric
R-2 Two Family Residence District. t to
S -82-3 Evans Subdivision
east of Olin er • Generally located south of Vernon
9 Road and north of Merold Drive. Avenue,
Cordon Hughes reminded the C
had considered a P o«+ssion that the
ment a RD -2 rezoning and a Commission. and the Council
pproximately one year a o. Pproval of a 36 unit townhouse develo -
that the proponent reduce g At that time
the project to 25 _ the City Cotardl recommended p
Since 26 townhouse units.
that time, the ro
19 lot subdivision of the
P ponent has returned
Dwellin propert with a new request that
g District and six lots �YOY °f the lots would be R-
Districts. Those uld be zoned R- 2 Two Family
to 21, 000 s proposed R -2 lots ran 1 Single Famil p
from 1p quare feet with avers ge in area from Y welling
124 square feet to 13, 8ag s °f 16, 750 square feet15' Th square fee#
feet. quare feet with an The R -1 lots range
average of 11, 925 square
The subdivision also
Vernon Avenue, proposes a norther)
Road and Wycliffe Court would be ext dedswesterlW
would intersect Vernon ycliffe Road to
Avenue across from Y from Wycliffe
Staff recommended a Heather Lane,
they felt it represented aproval of the 36 townhouse
°P�nion, continues to be the townhouse plan last year because
use. The preferred plan, in their
From the traffic stand Plan•
Road to Vernon, point, Staff agrees with the extension of W
offset intersection he only criticism with the roadwa
Wycliffe Court and Y plan is the Ycliffe
Heather Lane. Staff believesothat
1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 1, 1982, MEETING
PAGE TWO
the plat should be modified by either locating Wycliffe Court to the east
or else cul de sating Wycliffe Court in order to eliminate this offset.
Mr. Hughes then introduced the architect working on the proposed plan,
Mr. Roger Clemence. He brought forth a colored map and indicated to the
Commission the areas which would be R -1 lots and R -2 lots.
He explained that the owner preferred the doubles as opposed to townhouses
because he would rather sell the lots individually as opposed to selling the
entire unit. He pointed out that by having the six single family dwellings the
proposed plan blended in with the surrounding neighborhood. He also commented
that the plan followed the Hennepin County Highway Department's standards
regarding Wycliff Court and the point at which it reached Vernon Avenue.
Gordon Johnson expressed his concerns of having the intersection of Wycliffe
Road and Vernon Avenue too close to the decline of the hill on Vernon Avenue.
He felt that at the 40 mph speed limit on Vernon, it would not 31low enough time
to notice Wycliffe road traffic. Also the Wycliffe Road traffic would not have
proper vision of on- coming cars due to the hill. Mr. Johnson called upon Fran
Hoffman for the City's opinion, and Mr. Hoffman felt there was no hazard, but
suggested that perhaps the area should be rechecked. Mr. Clemence assured
the Commission that the intersection had been well thought out and that it was
safe. Discussion ensued on this point. It was suggested by Helen McClelland
that a one way system might be appropriate.
Bill Lewis interrupted the discussion to point out that the density should
be the first concern and once the Commission has reached a decision regarding the
density that they move on to the traffic problem.
Mr. Clemence informed the Commssion of the proposed 32 units, 6 Single Family
lots and 26 double bunglows. He expressed that he felt they were compatible
with the surrounding dwellings. He gave two reasons for their decision of the
proposed balance of single and doubles: 1.) The combination would give the
neighborhood an impact of less density and 2.) He and the owner both felt that
some two - family dwelling lots would probably sell as single family dwelling lots
instead.
The Commission questioned if the land would be sold as one tract and
Mr. Clemence clarified that it would be sold on a lot by lot basis. He explained
that the owner of the parcel lived in California and although he was anxious to
sell, he would prefer to sell in lots rather than the whole parcel.
Mickey Gamer, 5916 Merold Drive, addressed the Commission on behalf of
herself and her surrounding neighbors. She referred to a memorandum that
had been circulated to each of the Commissioners prior to the start of the
meeting and went on the elaborate on it.
She reported that the neighbors generally felt that 13 double bunglows were
way too many and that they were "crammed in ". They questioner] why the double
bunglows were necessary. There should really only be double bunglows along
Vernon Avenue, if need be. Mrs. Gamer reminded the Commission that this was an
extension of the neighborhood. She stressed the point that across from Vernon,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 1, 1982, MEETING
PAGE THREE
were all single family dwellings. She pointed out that the precedent set in
other neighborhoods is that of the doubles only lining Vernon Avenue and
behind that were all single family dwellings as on Berne Circle, Schaefer Road,
View Lane and Killarney Lane. Mrs. Gamer stated that the Leo Evan's proposal
was completely reversed in the sense that it used single family dwellings as a
buffer for the two - family dwellings. The neighbors were also opposed to
Wycliffe Road going straight through and creating a thoroughfare. They
suggested that it curve westerly with only one exit near Heather Lane to
discourage unnecessary traffic.
In closing, Mickey Gamer described their neighborhood as "open feeling"
.when driving through it and emphasized their opinion of the crammed in feeling
under the proposed plan.
Del Johnson questioned Mrs. Gamer if she and the neighbors felt the Wycliffe
Road would become a main road? The neighbors thought it would and by curving
the road, people would have to go out of their way unless they actually had a
purpose for being on that road. It was asked if the neighbors would agree to
having doubles located on Vernon? The subject was discussed and Tom Spaeth,
5900 Merold Drive, argued the point that it was unnecessary to have so many
doubles located as in -che proposed plan. He added that most would compromise
and agree with doubi!es on Vernon Avenue. Discussion ensued as to how, many
units could /should fit on the parcel and the sizes of those lots.- Bill Lewis added
.that on the west end of Vernon were all townhouses, condominiums, etc.
John Winston, 5709 Hawkes- Drive; explained that he was a neighbor from the
other side of the lake and he too showed the same concerns as those of
Mrs. Gamer and the immediate neighbors.
Dennis Wegner, 5705 Olinger Road, stated that he felt he had a special
interest for his property abutted the lots in the proposed plan designated
for two - family dwellings which also faced Vernon Avenue. He was strongly
opposed to this. .
Mr. Clemence informed everyone that their plan was guided by the City
Comprehensive Plan.. It included a mixture of dwellings. He suggested the
possibility to change the two - family dwellings to singles except for those
located on Vernon and would still come up with the same number of units,
This was something he would be willing to bring back to Mr. Evans, the owner,
for consideration.
Discussion progressed and it was expressed that the minimum lot size would
be larger than 9,000 - more in the area of 11,500 square feet, once again-within
the City's Guide Plan. It is' possible that the owner may agree to this revision.
The point of traffic congestion was mentioned and the discussion went further
as to if it were possible to have the same number of units if they were single
family dwellings
Mr. Clemence commented that he personally felt there should be other than
single family dwellings on the parcel because he thought there would then be
less buildings to "footprint up" the territory and therefore, also better upkeep.
He would've liked to have seen a park area located in the center.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMIS
SEPTEMBER 1, 1982, MEETING SION
PAGE FOUR
Upon discussion, Len Fernelius moved that the proposal
guidelines set up so that if interested,` the owner could return with.
p P Helen McClelland seconded the motion. p posal be tabled and
ro osal, an updated
Helen McClelland then. moved that the following be se
A proposed compromise of 28 units total; 14 doubles and 14 sin
doubles all abutting ernon, t up for guidelines.
g A cul de sac would be located ong the �westerly
e
end of Wycliffe Court, and Wycliffe Road would intersect Vernon
Avenue at
a more westerly point.
John Palmer seconded the motion. All ayes; the motion
. Larry .Fischer, 5705 Wycliffe Road; expressed carried. .
neighbors in the possibility of Wycliffe Road extending for himself and his
Avenue. He feared the g all the way to Vernon
Possibilities it would create for greater traffic to and
from Good Samaritain Church and Country Side Elementary Schools
located just a short way down the road, also for the highspeeds
obtain on a well traveled road. Y ols which were
forcing . He felt the road was extremely curved, therefore,
g poor vision. He suggested that this could encourage
into a secluded neighborhood. increased traffic
c
Len Fernelius questioned the reasonin
-- - through -- Fran -- Hoffman explained that it was prefers -Road- going all the way
of a cul de sac, d over another alternative
Gordon Johnson was interested in a response to Helen
guidelines. Roger Clemence agreed to present it to Mr. Evan lelland's proposal
Mr. Sherbanenko, 58.12 Merold Drive, stated that he felt Mr. •
unjust because he had been instructed to set up a meeiing with th
and failed to do so. Clemence was
e neighbors
Dennis Wegner offered his, strong opposition to the
may possibly be placed next to his home, fact, that twin homes
house renters and become run down. He indicated that they could probably
John Winston agreed by stating this would tend to
John- Palmer explained to the audience that t change_ the neighborhood.
a plan they can only advise on them. he Commission can not create
up guidelines as a possible route for the epropon nts to say that can set
Bill Lewis called for those in favor of Helen McCle( land's motion
guidelines. All ayes; the motion carried.. of the
Ill. NEW BUSINESS
Z -82 -5 Johnson Building Company.
PRD -3 Planned. Residential DistRrictS'Generally 'lwelling to
located 4600
France Avenue.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 1, 1982, MEETING
PAGE FIVE
Mr. Hughes stated the subject property measures 1.14 acres in area and
Is zoned R -1 Single Family Dwelling District. The property is improved with a
single family dwelling and various accessory buildings. Immediately south of the
property are two relatively new two family dwellings. To the west are single
family dwellings which front on Meadow Road. To the north are three single family
dwellings and to the north of these dwellings are two single family homes which
were rezoned several years ago for office uses. North of these homes is a
service station.
Mr. Hughes reported that the proponent is requesting a rezoning to PRD -3
Planned Residential District. The preliminary plan illustrates a thirteen unit town-
house development with access to the project being by way of a private drive on
the northerly portion of the site. Staff noted the units will be composed of two
stories above a tuck -under garage.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density attached
residential. The proponent submits that-the subject property is in fact
included in a "high density" area on the land use graphic and thus the requested
density is appropriate.
The purpose of the preliminary development plan for a PRD rezoning is to
evaluate the general style of development and its density. While Staff concurred
with the proposed townhouse use it disagreed with the proposed density.
Based upon analysis, Staff recommends denial of the request based upon
non- conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff would generally support
a rezoning to PRD -2 rather than PRD -3.
Mike Klein, of Johnson Building Co. expressed that the townhouses were
non - rentals and were traditional in style fitting in with the rest of the neighbor-
hood as opposed to modern. He felt they fell into the medium density description.
Rolland Thompson, 4545 Meadow Road, spoke on behalf of the surrounding
neighbors. Mr. Thompson's home abuts the subject property. He explained that.
the neighbors felt the R -2 zoning was more realistic. He described the water
drainage problem that many of the neighbors feared they would experience due
to the black top for drive, garages and buildings. They felt this would leave no
place for the water to drain except down the hill and into their yards.
They.expressed their concern of traffic in'this high density situation. Mr.
Thompson commented that the drive is right on the property line of the neighbors
and those people would have to put up with constant traffic of the townhouse
owners coming and going.
The neighbors suggested a center driveway and six or seven double bunglows
surrounding. This would allow for enough yard to handle drainage.
Mr. Thompson expressed concern of the townhouses being too high. They
would seem to "tower" above the neighbors.
0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 1, 1982, MEETING
PAGE SIX
Mike Klein assured the people that the drainage problem would be
handled. He also noted that the townhouses were only two stories high and
that the garages would- be "tucked under" and below the street level.
Mr. Palmer moved denial of the proposal for the reasons stated in the
staff report. Mr. Fernelius seconded the motion: All were ayes; the motion
carried.
IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting, was adjourned at 9:25.
Community Development and Planning Commission
September 29, 1982 Meeting
Page three
Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that upon the continuance of this
request the proponent had returned with revised plans placing seven R -2 lots
(all abuting Vernon) and fourteen single family lots as suggested at the September 1
meeting. According to the proponent's figures, the R -2 lots average about 16,600
square feet and the single family lots average about 11,800.
The revised plan, he explained, includes a northerly extension of Wycliffe
Road to Vernon Avenue as shown on the prior submittal. Wycliffe Court now
terminated in a cul de sac rather than intersecting with Vernon.
Mr. Hughes stated that City Staff and County Staff reviewed the sight
distance concerns at the intersection of Wycliffe Road and Vernon and determined
that the proposed intersection meets the minimum sight distance standards for
both east and west bound Vernon Avenue traffic.
Staff recommended that the proposed subdivision and rezoning be accepted
with the following exceptions of lots 3, 4 and 8, Block 2. Mr. Hughes explained
that lot 8 failed to meet the minimum lot depth requirements of 120 feet. Due to
the shape of lot 4 and the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, it
"appeared that it would be impossible to construct a double bungalow on this
lot. According to the Staff's measurements, lot 3 r±id not meet the minimum lot
area requirment of 15,000 square feet. He noted that several of the dimensions
shown on the plan did not appear to scale accurately. In most cases it was found
that the new dimensions are somewhat greater than the old and thus the lot sizes
are actually somewhat larger than noted.
Mr. Hughes noted that this problem had been brought to the proponent's
attention and he had proposed to relocate the most westerly cul de sac approximately
75 feet easterly. Although such a modification appears to solve the lot area, depth
and setback problems it causes the creation of two neck lots. Therefore, Staff
suggested the elimination of one of the westerly cul de sac lots and with such a
modification would recommend rezoning and plat approval conditioned upor,
1. Subdivision Dedication; and 2. Developer's Agreement.
Mr. Roger Clemence noted that the proposed lots were above Ordinance minimum.
He pointed out that it was difficult to determine just what officially labeled a lot
a "neck" lot.
Discussion ensued regarding the neck lots. It was brought out that a portion
of Mr. Dennis Wegner's land was included in the proposed plans. Land swaping was
mentioned along with lot line adjustments. The question of the legality of neck
lots was also discussed.
Mr. Hughes noted that at present the City was involved in a law suit
regarding neck lots. The problem that the City has with neck lots, is that it
becomes a very easy way to subdivide a single family lot. This creates a nieghbor-
hood that looks like it is sprouting houses in the back yards and may also
cause public safety concerns.
Mr. Hughes went on to say that they have allowed some neck lots in the
past but have learned from these of the problems they present and therefoer,
now discourage them.
Community Development and Planning Commission
September 29, 1982 Meeting
Page four
The question was brought forth that if the land had not been surveyed,
how do we know the proposed measurements and plan are acceptable. Upon
discussion Mr. Hughes informed that the platting of land is a two step process.
There is a preliminary plat first that goes before the Planning Commission and
Council, if that is approved then a surveyor is employed and submits his findings
and measurements to the surveyors' office at Hennepin County and there it is
check for accuracy. Then it comes back again to City Council for final approval.
John Winston, 5709 Hawkes Drive, proposed a new concept of closing oft
Wycliffe Road and cul de sac or looping it and making some changes of doubles
to singles. He felt this would solve many of the problems mentioned that,evening.
Mr. Larry Fischer of 5705 Wycliffe Road, presented a signed petition to each
Commission member showing the neighbors' oppositions to the extension of
Wycliffe Road to Vernon Avenue. He eleborated with the following comments:
* It would open a secluded neighborhood to the rest of the world.
* It would develop into a short cut to the Good Samaritan Church which
is constantly busy.
* It would lessen property. values.
* There is no snow removal on that street and this would present
dangerous_driv_ing_ situations.
Mr. Fischer reminded the Commission of their unanimous vote in a prior
meeting to loop Wycliffe Road instead of extending it through to Vernon.
Del Johnson suggested that perhaps this was a self- serving request in the
respect that by extending Wycliffe Road, this would relieve some of the traffic
from other roads. Mr. Fischer argued that Tracy was better built for handling
such traffic.
Another neighbor stated that when they.selected their neighborhood to
live in, one of it's selling points was the secluded area and therefore, they paid
a substaintial amount for that seclusion.
Mr. Fischer reminded the Commission that this road would .be sharply
curved and not conducive to heavy traffic.
Mr. Clemence pointed out that the Commission had voted unanimously
on Wycliffe Road looping when it was considered in the Townhouse plans. He
explained that situation was for a different use. He also felt that a great part
of the traffic would stay on Tracy Avenue because he agreed that Tracy would
handle the traffic better.
Dennis Wegner , 5705 Olinger Road, spoke regarding the "bottle neck" lots.
His understanding of the 120 foot lot depth minimum was required to avoid houses
being too close together. He observed that by having a longer driveway the
homes would be built further back on the lot close to his lot line. Mr. Clemence's
statement that this would be a secluded lot, was inaccurate.
Community Dvelopment and Planning Commission
September 29, 1982 Meeting
Page five
He went on to say he saw no justification for double bunglows. This would
only guarantee blight. He' argued that homes built along Vernon would most likely
develop into rentals. He also stated that the lot adjacent to his lot was slated as
a double lot but was 16,200 square feet and was actually too small according to the
average double lot size. Itshould really be a single family lot.
Del Johnson questioned the reasoning of "blight" considering there were
so many beautiful homes along Vernon, both singles and doubles. Mr. Wegner
commented that there were too many doubles in a row and that we had to look at
the side of them.
Mr. Clemence suggested that perhaps doubles were not so terrible. They
would provide a good buffer and they .were surrounded by vegetation. A
compromise .was already made and Mr. Clemence encouraged a decision.
Helen McClelland agreed that a compromise had been offered and the
neighbors were still not satisfied. She moved to accept the proposal for R -2
based upon the amended plans and the preliminary plat conditions on a subdivision
dedication and a developer's agreement. Del Johnson seconded the motion. James
Bentley stated he would agree with the motion on the condition that one lot was
eliminated.
Mrs. McClelland explained that the corrections suggested by Staff were
already made. Del Johnson questioned the amount of avariances that would be
needed the way the lots were arranged. Gordon Hughes anticipated two of the
lots would need variances.
Sue Rasschaert, 5629 Wycliffe Road, recommended that Wycliffe Road enter on
to Vernon at Heather Lane. Roger Clemence pointed out that the City suggested
the extension of t.'ycliffe Road cf shown on his plans. He felt it was the
City's intention to extend it out onto Vernon without it curving all over.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Gene Rasschaert, 5629 Wycliffe Road, argued that Mr. Evans
did not want the property value for his homes to go down but would allow the homes
on Wycliffe to suffer due to the road extension. :
Mrs. Gamer answered Helen McClellend's comments by stating that to compromise
means two parties must start out with reasonable requests and then both compromise.
She felt that the Council had made recommendations that were not at all met and
wished that it be noted.
Roll call was taken for approval of Helen McClelland's motion. All voted
aye with the exception of Leonard Ring and James Bentley. The motion carried.
This will be considered before City Council on October 18, 1982.
IV. Adjournment
Helen McClelland moved for adjournment and James Bentley seconded the motion.
All ayes; the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda D. Elsen, Secretary
& ul) Lf- I Q(29 -' .',J L
i
� 00 f
N U ld BE R Z -79 -12 Laukka & Associates
L O C A T 1 N North of West 78th Street and West of Cahill Road
REQUEST Extension of YRD -3 rezoning
r
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 29, 1982
Dewey Hill Third Addition
Refer to: Attached letter from proponent December 2, 1981, Staff Report
The City Council granted a rezoning to PRD -3 for the subject property in
late 1980. The approved plans proposed the construction of a 114 unit
condominium project. This project has never commenced except for certain
site work.
In accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, the City Council granted a
one year extension of this rezoning in December of last year. The proponent is
now requesting another one year extension of the rezoning.
Staff recommends approval for the same reasons contained in the December 2, 1981,
Staff Report.
LA »UKKA n &�ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ksei�en�ia[ (/�uil�e�e � o(Ja�elop�r!
7101 YORK AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55435
(612) 831 -8433
September 21, 1982
Gordon Hughes
City Planner
City of Edina
4801 W. 50th
Edina, NN 55424
Dear Gordon:
My records indicate that the first rezoning extension for Dewey Hill Third
Addition expires on November 17, 1982.
Please consider this request for an additional one year rezoning extension
to November 17, 1983 at this time. I believe that it would be in everyone's
best interest to pursue the extension at the earliest possible date.
Sincerely yours,
C
Lawrence A. Laukka
LAL /bam
cc: Peter Pflaum
M
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DECEMBER 2, 19.81
Dewey Hill Third Addition.
Refer To: Attached Letter from Proponent
The Commission will recall that the subject property was rezoned to PRD -3
Planned Residential District approximately one year ago. The approved plans
proposed the construction of five buildings containing 114 dwelling units.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, the erection of a building must be com-
menced within one year following the rezoning. The Ordinance allows, however,
the ower to petition for an extension of this time. Attached is a letter
from the owner of the property, Laukka and Associates, requesting a two year
extension of the rezoning.
Recommendation
Staff believes that the attached letter adequately summarizes the good faith
efforts to utilize the rezoning. We believe that the requested extension of
the rezoning is reasonable given the complexity of the project in terms of
design, size.and ;expense. Staff recommends approval of the requested two
year extension.
LAUI:KA p& ASpSOCIACT�ES /,� INC. •
R1.4i1111 fia L. "J 7101 YORE: AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435
(612) 831 -8433
October 29, 1981
Board of Appeals $ Adjustments
City of Edina
Edina, Minnesota
Edina Planning Commission
4801 11. 50th Strl-et
Edina, NIn. 55424
Edina City Council
4801 IV. 50th Street
Edina, Mi S5424
Re: Dewey Hill•III
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Paragraph VII of Scction 12 of Ordinance No. 811, we hereby
petition the Board of Appeals U Adjustments, the Edina Planning Co�nission
and the Edina City Council for an extension of time in which to ce'vnence
the construction of the above referenced project for a period of two years
from the first anniversary date of the initial granting of the transfer of
the land occupying such project from one district to another and the
granting of the variances for the benefit of such project, which first
anniversary is November 17, 1981.
Laukka & Associates, Inc. has made a good - faith' attemht'.'to'-use':the -above
described transfer and variances within the one year time limitation.
Large suns of monies have been expended by the undersigned for the construc-
tion of a large pond on the site, the complete rough grading of the site,
preparation of final plans and specifications for all of the buildings on
the project, soil borings of the entire site and test footings driven for
the first building. The lack of financing, the present state of the
economy resulting in little or no constuer interest in new construction,
the design, size, expense-and type of the project has made it impossible
to erect the buildincys within the time limitation.
If additional facts are requested relating to this petition, please feel
free to inquire and we will assist you in every way possible.
LAU M F,, ASSOCIATES INC.
By Z;
�1. Ulsen, Asst. Secrotary
DEWEY HLL
Laukk3 b Associates br-
DEWEY HILL 3
OT', %TMET
:7i i f j .
I
..................
SITE DATA
TOTAL AREA 13.3
UNITS 49 'A' 1250S.F.
-'_'
16 'S' 1450 $. F.
43 'C"
1875 S. F..
14 *D" 2700 S. F.
I CARETAKER
TOTAL
DENSITY 9.2
PARKING 246 00
UNDERGROUND 187 \ \ _' /l
OFTEN 1 59
�` \� -- '' •'�/ I•. '•,I C� ;; v �� Ill•
F,
POND 830 V�
7
7jj
LOWER LEVEL 836
.`\ '',1 ��, �., ;,��1} FIRST FLOOR 846,
1:
/// rn
0
NORTH
A
Itz
M
�J
16 30 to
fL�l
-jj
z.
vl
L�e:
0 0;
LLJ
.J
r
I
III. New Business:
2.• Dewey Hill Third Addition - Extension of PRD -3 Rezoning
PGordon Hughes explained to the Commission that the City Council had granted
a rezoning to PRD -3 for the subject property in late 1980. The approved plans
proposed the construction of 114 unit condominium project. This project has never
commenced except for certain site work.
In accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, the City Council granted
a one year extension of this rezoning in December of last year. The proponent is
now requesting another one year extension of the rezoning.
The Staff recommends approval for the same reasons contained in the
December 2, 1981 Staff Report.
Upon the Commission's inquiry Mr. Dave Sommers of Laukka and Assoc.
expressed that there was a possibility of a new building concept, but it was at
such an early stage that they had nothing to present at this time.
Del Johnson moved for approval of the extension and James Bentley seconded
the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION
CITY OF EDINA
X1801 WEST 50th STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West
50th Street, on Monday, October 16, 1982, at 7:00 P.M. and will at said
time and place consider the following:
- Extension of PRD -3 rezoning of Dewey Hill Third Addition generally
located north of west 78th Street and west of Cahill Road.
• _Rezoning and Subdivision of Leo M. Evans, R -1 Single Family Residence
District to R -2 Two Family Residence District - Evans Subdivision generally
located south of. Vernon Avenue,. east of Olinger Road and north of Merold
Drive.
All recommendations and objections will be heard at said meeting.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
FLORENCE B. HALLBERG
City Clerk
• Please publish in the Edina Sun on Wednesday, October 6, 1982
• Please send four (4) Affidavits of Publication (2 per item)
TO: Mayor and City Council ,
FROM:' Bob Kojetin
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000
DATE: October 14, 1982
Material Description (General Specifications):
Alternate 2 of bid of 8/13/82 Construction of 50x3O' concrete slab with 42"
footings for Braemar Park Picnic Shelter
Quotations /Bids:
Company Amount of Quote or Bid
1. Jones & Ottenwel.ler, Inc. $ 7,219
4901 Minneapolis Ave., Mound 55364
2. Hamele Recreation Co., Inc. $ 7,860
P.O. Box 256
Hamel, MN 55340
3.
Department Recommendation:
Jones & Ottenwell Inc.. $7;2 ],8�
Department
Finance Director's Endorsement: "
The recommended bid is is not within the amount budgeted for the purchase.
N.
en, Finance Director
Cit�ana 's Endorsement:
concur % •lith the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve
the purchase.
2.* I recommend as an alternative:
woCITY OF
EDI NA
4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
Bob Ruhr
5508 W. 70th St.
Edina, MN 55435
U ,
F �-,?
„,
LII:
Bob Ruhr
5508 W. 70th St.
Edina, MN 55435
U ,
F �-,?
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
October 8, 1982
Dear Edina Resident:
In accordance with City Council policy, notice is hereby given that an
application has been received for an On -Sale Beer License for Kings
Court, 7001 Cahill Rd.-
The policy now in force provides for notification of all residents living
within 500 feet of a site at which beer is proposed to be served before
an On -Sale Beer License is originally issued, and again upon receipt of
the first renewal of the license.
At its.Regular Meeting of October 18, 1982, the Edina City Council will
consider this application. You are welcome to attend the meeting and
offer any comments you may have about the granting of such license.
Please feel free also to call the City Clerk at 927 -8861 with any quest-
ions you may have before the meeting.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
Florence B. Hallberg
City Clerk
A9 -/z F Z
rI'
October 5, 1982
Fredrick S. Richards
7225 Fleetwood Drive
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Dear Fred:
Over the past.few years we have seen a great deal
of effort, time and money go into educating our youth on the
use and abuse of drugs in our culture. In fact, Jim and I
felt strongly enough.about this to see that Dave Toma came
last year to speak not only to Edina's students but their
parents as well on the drug scene in this country and our
community. In the schools, Project Charlie at the
elementary level and chemical counselors at the secondary
level have served as valuable teaching and educating
resources. There are also several seminars and workshops
held annually to provide additional information on chemical
abuse. It would seem abundantly clear through all of this
that we are telling our children we are concerned over drug
use and its effect on people and their lives.
At this time there is pending before the City
Council a resolution that proposes Edina allow wine.to be
sold in Edina restaurants.
The owners of these restaurants feel that the .
chemical, alcohol, adds to the general dining experience by
creating a favorable ambience and by enhancing the culinary
presentation. It has also been suggested that, perhaps,
alcohol produces a more sophisticated dining aura.
I would suggest all of the above descriptive
verbiage adds up to one word ... money. There is money to
be made from the sale of wine, and I would suggest the Edina
restaurant owners want in on the cash flow. I would.suggest
further that these restaurant owners have little, if any,
concern about alcohol and driving, alcohol and kids and
alcoholism, generally.
I would respectfully ask, Fred, that you vote "No"
to wine in Edina restaurants. What kind of message do we
pass on to our children when, on the one hand, we spend
countless dollars trying to produce a drug -free youth and
then, on the other hand, claim that in order for us adults
w�
d'tr +pit 1l 'K :i. {11Char.ds
to vtl ioy a real "out" we must have our drug to create or
r.ntt,n <-< at, at-abience of genteel sophistication.
in reasoning that does not ring
It is a dichotomy ud e accordingly.
true and our children will so in. reasoning
Thank you, Fred, for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
ni
October 5, 1982
Fredrick S. Richards
7225 Fleetwood Drive
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Dear Fred:
Over the past few years we have seen a great deal
of effort, time and money go into educating our youth on the
use and abuse of drugs in our culture. In fact, Jim and I
felt strongly enough about this to see that Dave Toma came
last year to speak not only to Edina's students but their
parents as well on the drug scene in this country and our
community. In the schools, Project Charlie at the
elementary level and chemical counselors at the secondary
level have served as valuable teaching and educating
resources. There are also several seminars and workshops
held annually to provide additional information on chemical
abuse. It would seem abundantly clear through all of this
that we are telling our children we are concerned over drug
use and its effect on people and their lives.
At this time there is pending before the City
Council a resolution that proposes Edina allow wine to be
sold in Edina restaurants.
The owners of these restaurants feel that the
chemical, alcohol, adds to the general dining experience by
creating a favorable ambience and by enhancing the culinary
presentation. It has also been suggested that, perhaps,
alcohol produces a more sophisticated dining aura.
I would suggest all of the above descriptive
verbiage adds up to one word ... money. There is money to
be made from the sale of wine, and I would suggest the Edina
restaurant owners want in on the cash flow. I would suggest
further that these restaurant owners have little, if any,
concern about alcohol and driving, alcohol and kids and
alcoholism, generally.
I would respectfully ask, Fred, that you vote "No"
to wine in Edina restaurants. What kind of message do we
pass on to our children when, on the one hand, we spend
countless dollars trying to produce a drug -free youth and
then, on the other hand, claim that in order for us adults
i
1; CITY OF
EDINA
4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
812- 927 -8881
October 12, 1982
Ms. Florence Hallberg
Edina City Clerk
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Florence:
I received the enclosed correspondence at home.
Would you please make copies available to each of the
other council members and Ken Rosland. Thank you.
Cordially,
Frederick S. Ric ards
jmw
Enclosure
qP
r
Fredrick S. Richards
Page 2
to enjoy a meal "out" we must have our drug to create or
enhance an ambience of genteel sophistication.
It is a dichotomy in reasoning that does not ring
true and our children will so judge accordingly.
Thank you, Fred, for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
ni
Ze-� ee -Ozk�� ;�
A
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: ...Mayor and City Council
:_-FROM: Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager.
-DATE: October 18, 1982
...SUBJECT.: Wine Licensing
...In accordance with Council direction, -a :staff committee comprising representatives
of the Police Department, Health Department,, Planning Department and Administration
.-was formed to study the issue of wine licensing. This committee was charged with
- discovering and compiling all relevant facts concerning the - impact of wine licensing
on the City of Edina. The committee was:not charged with makina conclusions or
recommendations concerning the desirability of wine licensing and thus none are
>= contained in this report. Some - issues .concerning wine Licensing are more subjective
:.than statistical. In such cases, we have attempted. to provide you with analyses
- relying upon the expertise of our committee. For the sake of clarity, this report
-is presented in a question and answer format.
=Much of our report relies upon experiences of other cities. Unfortunately we
-- :could not locate a city exhibiting the -same liquor. /wine licensing characteristics
-as Edina. Therefore, we selected three- metropolitan area communities and one
-out -state community which were experienced in this area. These cities included
Bloomington, St . Louis Park, Golden Valley and Alexandria. References. made
in our report to survey data from other cities refer to. the information gathered
from the four above communities.
Attached to this report are copies of the following
1. Statute concerning on -sale wine licenses
2. Map of zones for restaurants
3. Statistical information from other cities
4. Application forms for wine licenses from other cities
1. Are there other cities in Minnesota with off -sale liquor stores and licensing
for on -sale wine only? i.e. no on -sale liquor.
We could not find any cities in Minnesota which share this situation. Twenty
- communities have municipal off -sale and on -sale liquor establishments as well
as wine only licenses. These cities also issue a limited number of club
licenses. Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate a city with exactly the
same licensing situation that Edina would have if wine licenses were allowed.
2. Where would wine licenses be allowed according to the State Statutes?
M.S. 340.11. Subd. (20) permits the issuance of wine licenses to any
restaurant having facilities for seating not fewer, than _25 guests. (Exhibit 1)
3. Does State law limit the number of wine licenses which the City may issue?
No.
Wine Licensing Memorandum
October 18, 1982 =
Page two
4. Where would wine licenses be allowed in Edina according to the Edina Zoning
Ordinances?
Restaurants are an allowed principal :use in C -1., C -2, and C -3 Commerical
.Districts and an allowed accessory use .in the Office Building District, Mixed
Development District, R -5 and PRD -5 Residential. Districts, and the Regional
Medical. District. Presumably, restaurants which comply with the previously
mentioned Statute and are located in the :above..zoning districts would be
eligible for wine licenses if no other;- restrictions were imposed.. (Exhibit 2).
S. What portion of a restaurant's business is wine sales?
-:;We informally compared two businesses - :which have restaurants in Edina
without wine and restaurants in other -- cities with wine. We found that wine
• made up 3 -80 of total sales. In a pizza parlour setting, wine made up about
,one --third of the - combined beer and - wine sales.
6. Do we presently have a licensing system -in place- to. handle wine licensing?
No. Our 3.2 beer .license requires only. -,a cursory prelicensing investigation
;and no on -going monitoring unless complaints are received. About three hours
:of staff time annually per establishment' -are spent on 3.2 beer - licensing. .
,. . cWhat additional. service :demands - will -.be .placed on Ahe City if wine licenses
are available?
Service demands can be broken down,.into these categories: prelicensing
-.investigation, monitoring and enforcement. Prelicensing investigation is one
of the more unpredicatable demands- for -service. The City will have to
-determine if a relatively low level investigation (similar to our 3.2 beer
investigations) is desirable.or.,if a more comprehensive approach similar:
to on -sale liquor licenses in other cities would be used. Three of the four
survey cities require the same procedure for wine as on sale liquor licenses.
In addition, one city licenses individual - handlers of the beverage as well.
We believe that a more comprehensive approach is appropriate which will
likely result in 35 -40 hours of staff time for prelicensing investigations per
establishment. However, based upon discussions with other cities, prelicensing
investigations may- take 80 hours of staff time in the case of an on -sale liquor
license.
On -going monitoring is essential to ensure compliance with licensing requirements
About 15 hours annually per establishment will be needed. Some cities have
indicated that more monitoring time may be required under certain circumstances.
Enforcement and calls for service for restaurant related incidents is likewise
difficult to predict. An average of 10 -12 calls per restaurant occur annually
at present according to our records. Based upon our survey, we do not
anticipate a significant increase in calls for service directly as a result of
wine licenses. However, such licenses -will likely increase restaurant business,
-especially during evening hours, which will indirectly increase calls for service.
An increase of 20 percent appears to be a. reasonable estimate. Thus,
approximately 12 -14 calls per establishment should be expected.
Wine Licensing Memorandum
October 18, 1982
Page three
8. What will these additional service demands cost?
Based upon the above estimates, -a preliminary investigation may be up.
to $1,600 per establishment, monitoring efforts may cost approximately $300
.annually per establishment and enforcement and calls for service may result
- -in an additional $150 annually per establishment.
-9. What .revenues can be directly generated to 7cover these costs?
Prelicensing investigation fees are limited by. State law to $500 for in -state
investigations and $10,000 for out -of -state investigations. In any event,
this fee cannot exceed the actual cost of the investigation.
State law permits a maximum licensing fee of $2,000 or one half of the fee
- charged for on -sale liquor licenses, which -.ever is less. If our existing club
- licenses are considered "on- sale ". licenses it may reduce the maximum fee
- .which could therefore, be charged_ for wine licenses. However, the State
Liquor Control Board states that- -club licenses are not on -sale liquor licenses
- -for purposes of extablishing a license fee.
, Indirect revenues from property-taxes are difficult to estimate. Presumably,
- -increased busir:�ss resulting from wine licenses may result in higher property
values which would in turn lessen the tax burden on other properties in the
-city. This effect is difficult to quantify at this time. Sales and income taxes
are the province of the State, .and-Ahus the City doesn't directly benefit.
'10. Will wine licensing cost the City money?
Other cities which were surveyed indicate that wine licensing was a break
even or losing process. It appears that in order for the City to break even,
it must charge the maximum license fee allowed by law, i.e. $2,000'. This
assumes a comprehensive effort of prelicensing investigations and monitoring.
It also assumes that nearly all investigations will be in- state.
11. Is additional parking required for restaurants which, serve wine?
Edina requires one parking space for every three seats plus one space
for every two employees in a restaurant. Survey cities require similar
parking ratios. These cities note. that. while restaurants with liquor are
characterized by an increased parking demand, restaurants serving wine
only do not experience increase parking demand. These cities note that
they do not require additional parking spaces for wine only restaurants.
12. Do other communities impose special zoning procedures for restaurants
serving wine?
Two of the metro cities require special use permits for any restaurant whether
or not they serve alcoholic beverages. These cities state that such a
permitting system is used to control neighborhood impacts and so forth..
13. How many existing restaurants -will apply for wine licenses.?
This question is very difficult to answer precisely. Seventeen restaurants
presently hold 3.2 beer licenses. In our estimation ten of these establishments
will definitely apply for wine licensing and the remaining seven probably will
Wine Licensing Memorandum
October 18, 1982
Page four
apply. In our opinion, five restaurants which do not presently hold 3.2
beer licenses will likely apply for wine licenses.
14. Will the availability of wine licenses result in "more restaurants being built?
Possibly. However, .in our view, such restaurants will likely locate
within existing commerical buildings due to the scarcity of vacant
commerical land. Although restaurants serving wine do not have greater
parking demands than other restaurants, any restaurant requires
significantly more parking per square footage than other retail uses. Thus,
restaurants which relocate or expand within existing buildings may be unable
to meet our parking requirements due to the inability to expand their
parking facility.
15. Will the availability of wine licenses encourage any new types of uses
such as hotels?
We don't believe so. In the view of a hotel developer that we interviewed,
a liquor license, not a wine license, is absolutely essential for the feasibility
of a hotel. In his opinion, the hotel industry would not view wine licensing
as a forerunner of liquor licensing and therefore, would discount the possibility
of later liquor licenses.
16. Are cities with wine licenses characterized by a higher incidence of
chemical. dependency?
We found this question impossible to answer for two reasons. First, we
could find not cities with wine licenses only. Secondly, data privacy laws
prevent obtaining statistical data concerning chemical dependency counseling.
17. Does wine licensing lead to liquor licensing?
It is difficult to speculate on whether wine
licenses would whet the desire
for liquor
licensing or
statisfy the present
desires of the restaurant industry.
Also, it is
difficult to
assume that a "good
experience" with wine licensing
could cause
voters to
support a split liquor
referendum. We could not find
any cities
which first
issued wine licenses
and later issued on -sale liquor
licenses.
The only concrete statement that can be made is that a special election.
would be required to issue on -sale liquor licenses.
r UUARV
All cities surveyed indicated that from public safety, planning and health
standpoints, restaurants with wine licenses are not significantly different
from restaurants with 3.2 beer or with no alcholic beverages whatsoever.
All cities indicate that on sale liquor licenses create much greater demands
on city services.
If the City decides that wine licenses should be available, it must address
several issues:
Wine Licensing Memorandum
October 18, 1982
Page five
* A licensing procedure must be implemented. Staff recommends
:initially that ' a comprehensive approach similar to the procedure
followed in other cities should be used.
* If a- comprehensive approach is used, wine-licensing may be a
.=break -even process for the City.
* The City must decide if new zoning procedures, such as special
use permits, should be implemented for restaurants with wine.
* Some ordinances may have to. be changed regarding.ourclub licenses
-in order to charge. a suitable license fee for wine licenses.
KR /lde
K
Z
f'
~i
tt
.— f
399 INTOXICATING LIQUORS
EK
=
. "on- sale licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor at retail in addition to
tfl� number now permitted by law ?" If a majority of voters voting on the ques.
tlion at such election vote in the affirmative, the governing body may issue "on•
sale" licenses in such number as shall be determined by the referendum.
Subd. 19. Reissuance of licenses, certain cities. The governing body of any
chy in which real property or the buildings thereon have been taken for a publie
purpose by negotiation or eminent domain proceedings, and such property was
actually and lawfully used for the sale of intoxicating liquors immediately prior
to such taking, and in which city there is any territory in which sales of intoxi.
. eating liquors have been prohibited by city charter, or law of this state, is herehv
authorized and empowered, by a majority vote of the governing body therefor,
.in addition to the number of licenses issued in such prohibited territory, to reis.
sue such license at any location, including hotels, in said city, which location
-shall be subject to all limitations, now prescribed by any law of this state. Pro.
vided further that any change of location due to a taking after July 1, 1972, must
be accomplished by July 1, 1976, but all licenses issued, renewed, reissued,
- transferred, relocated pursuant to this section or any other similar provision of
stale law; may continue to be renewed, reissued, transferred or relocated punu-
am to the terms thereof.
Subd..'70. On -sale wine licenses. (a) "On -sale wine licenses" shall mean
lE tenses authorizing the sale of wine not exceeding 14 percent alcohol by
volume, for consumption on the licensed premises only, in conjunction with the
.sate of food.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision "restaurant" shall mean an estahlish-
ttnent, under the control of a single proprietor or manager, having appropriate
facilities for serving meals, and where, in consideration of payment thercior.
meals are regularly served at tables to the general public, and which employ% an
adequate staff to provide the usual and suitable service to its guests.
(c) Any municipality which maintains a municipal liquor store or any munt.
cipality or county authorized to issue "on- sale" licenses for the sale of intotl•
eating liquor may issue on -sale wine licenses to any restaurant having facilities
for seating not fewer than 25 guests at one time. The licenses shall be in dddl-
ttion to the number of on -sale licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor altliho-
rized by the intoxicating liquors act. The fee for on -sale wine licenses stl:tll tic
set by the issuing authority, but shall not exceed one -half of the license fire
charged by the issuing authority for an on -sale license, or $2,000, whichc%cr +•
Tess. Licenses issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not be effective until
approved by the commissioner. The licenses shall authorize the sale of Nine Al
herein provided on all days of the week unless the issuing authority restrict% the
Ecense's authorization to the sale of wine on all days other than. Sunday.
History: 6x1934 c 46 s 5; 1935 c 303; 1937 c 227, 1937 c 387, 1937 c 47-N•
E0937 c 74 s 1; 1939 c 154; 1941 c 4; 1941 c 34; 1941 c 359; 1941 c 485: 1 V4 i
501 s 1; 1943 c 599; 1945 c 8 s 1; 1945 c 162 s 1; 1945 c 227 s 1; 1945 c 24.7 r I
1945 c 417 s 1; 1945 c 482 s 1; 1947 c 223 s 1; 1947 c 528 s 1; 1949 c 626 s
1951 c 250 s 1; 1953 c 86 s 1; 1953 c 356 s 1; 1953 c 442 s 1; 1953 c 610 s 1 !'� t
c 695 s 1,2; 1955 c 820 s 38,39; 1957 c 387, 388; 1957 c 725 s 1; 1959 c 5411 = ��
1961 c 269 s 1; 1965 c 138 s 2; 1965 c 330 s 1; 1965 c 581 s 2; 1967 c 19 s 5 • I %Ns
c 697 s 1; 1969 c g s 76; 1969 c 1127 s 1 -5; 1969 c 1148 s 53,54; 1971 c 2 ^t r 1•
1973 c 123 art 4 s 1,2; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973c179s1; 1973c664s4: IV,44
268 s 1,2; 1974 c 283 s 1; 1975 c 334 s 1; 1975 c 345 s 14- 1976 c 5 s II: IV" f
56 s 1; 1977 c 89 s 14; 1977 c 217 s 1; 1977 c 239 s 1; 1978 c 607 s 1. 1 978 c
1;1979 c 305 s 3; 1979 c 325 s 1; 1980 c 509 s 62; 1980 c 581 s 1 (3200-25)
T►O•tE: As to charter amendments conceming sale of liquor. see section 110.121.
CITY OF EDINA
hennepin county
minnesota
OW m GOV ,e
0
o
o
O
=
„
s
Y
o
O Q
�
"• «.
3
S
co •[
O
Y
r[air LL��
h:Liii$i.
n1.
e
e
8 AT
a_
1M
Q
0
PRINCIPAL USE AREAS
ACCESSORY USE AREAS
SURVEY SUMMARY
Y
I..
d
.b
ti-
'p
C
•O
O
Cl
X
Q
co
C3
N
Q
1.
How many licenses are issued?
A. On -sale liquor (private or
1
33
13
17
16
municipal)
B. Wine only
4
1
0
4
2+
C. 3.2 beer
20
32
10
6
17
D. Club
4
6
2
3
3+
2.
Number of police calls per licensed
establishment (12 -month period) on- site?
A. On -sale
61
35
N/A
26
40+
B. Wine
6
N/A
N/A
15
10+
C. 3.2 beer
42
3
N/A
9
18
D. Restaurants w/o wine licenses
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
3.
Cost per license?
A. On -sale
N/A $8,500
$6,250
$5,400
$6,716.66
B. Wine
250
1,750
2,000
5,400
2,350.00
C. 3.2 beer
250
600
450
?
433.33
D. Club
250
200
300
200
237.50
4.
Extent of pre - license investigation (man- hours)
(full
background
vs. record
checks only)?
A. On -sale
Background investigations. Average:
35 -40
hours
B. Wine
Background investigations. Average:
35 -40
hours
C. 3.2 beer
Limited background prevailing - community
differences.
Survey Summary
Page '2
S. Cost and extent of ongoing inspection and supervision?
A. On -sale
Inspections vary by community from a. complaint basis to 25 hours per year.
B. Wine
Inspections similar to on -sale, ranging from complaint basis to 14 hours
per year.
C. 3.2 beer
Inspections similar to on -sale, ranging from complaint basis to
approximately 2 hours per year.
Wine On Sale - $1,750.00 per year
- Investigating Fee - $500.00 Deposit
Surety Bond - $5,000.00
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
APPLICATION FOR ON SALE
WINE LICENSE
PART I - General Information
Application No.
Receipt No.
Date Received
BY
Directions: This form must be filled out in duplicate with typewriter or by printing in ink.
If the application is by a natural person, by such person; if by a corporation, by an officer,
-- thereof; if by a partnership, by one of the partners; if by an unincorporated association, by
the manager or managing officer thereof.
1. Name of applicant (name of individual, partnership, corporation or association):
2. - Business Name
Bloomington
Business Address Phone
IF BUSINESS IS TO BE CONDUCTED UNDER A DESIGNATION, NAME OR STYLE
OTHER THAN FULL INDIVIDUAL NAME OF THE APPLICANT, ATTACH 2 COPIES
OF THE TRADE NAME CERTIFICATE, AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 333, MINN-
ESOTA STATUTES, CERTIFIED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
3. Type of applicant:
Natural Person (Individual) Partnership
Corporation Association or Other
4.(a). If applicant is a natural person (individual), state full name, residence and business address and
telephone numbers.
Full Name
Residence Address
Phone
Business Address Phone
(b). The full name, residence address and telephone number of the agent in charge of the individual
owner's premises at such time as the owner is absent.
Full Name
Residence Address Phone
Part I - .General Information (On Sale Wine)
(c). The full name, residence address and telephone number of the assistant manager, food manager and
beverage manager.
Full Name
Position
Residence Address Phone
Full Name
Position
Residence Address Phone
Full Name
Position
Residence Address
P', one
(A Part II - Personal History form must be filled out and attached
for each of the individuals in 4a, 4b,
& 4c.)
5.(a). If the applicant is a:partnership,. state full names, residence
and business addresses, telephone numbers,
and interest of each member of the partnership.
1. Full Name
Interest
%
Residence Address
Phone
Business Address
Phone
2. Full Name
Interest
%
Residence Address
Phone
Business Address
Phone
3. Full Name
Interest
%
Residence Address
Phone
Business Address
Phone
-2-
Part I -,General Information (On Sale Wine)
4. Full. Name Interest 96
Residence Address Phone
Business Address Phone
(b). The managing partner will be:
Name Phone
Address
(c). The full name, residence address and telephone number of the assistant manager, food manager,
beverage manager, and any other individual with management responsibilities of the partnership's
premises to be licensed:
Full Name
Residence Address
Phone
Full Name Phone
Residence Address
Full Name Phone
Residence Address
(A Part II - Personal History. form must be filled out and attached for each of the individuals listed in
5a, 5b and 50
IF THE APPLICATION IS FOR A PARTNERSHIP, ATTACH TWO COPIES OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREE-
MENT AND TWO COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TRADE NAME UNDER PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER
333, MINNESOTA STATUTES, CERTIFIED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
6.(a). If the applicant is a corporation or association, give the name of corporation or association, Bloomington
address and phone number, and home office address and phone number.
Name State of Incorporation or Association
Bloomington Address Phone
Wreetj fArea U000 & Numbe?)
Home Office Address Phone
tee ea Gode & Number)
Home Office
(City) (State) (Zip Code)
-3-
Part I - General Information (On Sale Wine)
(b). The full names, residence addresses and telephone numbers of all officers of said. corporation or association.
President
Phone
(Area Code & Number)
Residence Address
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
Vice President
Phone
(Area Code & Number)
Residence Address
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
Secretary
Phone
(Area Code & Number)
Residence Address
. (Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
Treasurer
Residence Address
Phone
Area Code & Number)
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
(c). The full names, residence addresses and telephone numbers of all persons who singly or together with their
spouse and his or her parents, brothers, sisters or children, own or control an interest in said corporation
or association in excess of five percent.
Full Name Interest %
Residence Address Phone
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code) Area Code & Number)
Full Name Interest
Residence Address Phone
Street (City) (State) ip a (Area Code & Ni m er
Full Name Interest
Residence Address Phone
(Street) (City) (State) (zip o e (Area Gode & NUMberl
o�
Full Name Interest %
Residence Address Phone
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Co del Area Code & Number
(If additional space is necessary, attach additional sheet.)
(d). The full name, residence addresses and telephone numbers of the manager, assistant manager, food manager,
beverage manager, and any other individual with management responsibilities for the corporation's or
association's premises to be licensed.
Full Name Phone
(Area Code & Number)
Residence Address
(Street) (City) I (State) (Zip Code)
-4-
Part I - General Information (On Sale Wine)
Full Name
Phone
(Area Code & Number)
Residence Address
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
Full Name Phone
Residence Address
(Street)
Full Name
(City)
(Area Code & Number)
(State) (Zip Code)
Phone
(Area Code & Number)
Residence Address
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
Full Name Phone
(Area Code & Number)
Residence Address
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
(A Part II - Personal History form must be filled out and attached for individuals listed in 6b, 6c and 6d.)
ATTACH:
1) Two copies of the Certificate of Incorporation,
2) Two copies of Articles of Incorporation or Association Agreement,
3) Two copies of By- Laws to the application,
4) Foreign corporations shall attach two copies of Certificate of Authority, as described in
M.S.A. Chapter 303.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED BY ALL APPLICANTS:
7. State the exact legal description of the premises to be licensed. (Applicant must also submit a plot plan
showing dimensions, location of buildings, street access, parking facilities, and the locations of and distances
to the closest point of a church structure or the closest point on a lot occupied by a public school.)
8. How are the premises zoned under the Bloomington zoning ordinance?
-5-
Pert I - -General Information (On Sale Wine)
9. State full names, residences and business addresses and telephone numbers of the owner or owners of the
building wherein the licensed business will be located, if the owner is other than the applicant.
10.
11.
Full Name
Phone
(Area Code & Number)
Residence Address
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
Business Address
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
Full Name
Phone
(Area Code & Number) -
Phone
(Area Code & Number)
Residence Address
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
Business Address Phone
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code) (Area Code & Number)
Where the building is owned by other than applicant, state in summary the conditions of lease arrangement,
such as, term of lease, monthly rental, renewal privileges, etc. (Two copies of the lease shall be attached.)
If the building is owned by the individual applicant, partnership, corporation or association, state:
(a) Date purchased
(b) Name and address of person purchased from
(c) Purchase price
Amount of down payment
(d) Who currently holds the mortgage - Name and Address
(e) Amount of contract for deed
(f) Who currently holds contract for deed - Name and Address
(g) Term of mortgage
(h) Term of contract for deed
(i) Rate of interest on mortgage
Part I - ,General Information (On Sale Wine)
0) Rate of interest on contract for deed
(k) State. the monthly payment at which the mortgage andlor contract for deed is being liquidated _
(1) Are the payments on the mortgage and /or contract for deed up to date?
12.(a). State the total cost of assets acquired to start this business including the business premises, if purchased,
fixtures, furniture, equipment, merchandise for resale, cash for working capital, prepaid insurance and any
other assets. (If acquired from predecessor, attach purchase agreement).
12.(b). Of the above cost of assets acquired, state the amount that is provided by the person(s) investing in
this business.
13. Give full names, addresses, telephone numbers of all persons, other than the applicant, who have any
financial interest in the business, buildings, premises, fixtures, furniture, or stock in trade. State the
nature of the interest amount thereof, and the terms for payment or other reimbursement. (This shall
include, but not be limited to, any lessees, lessors, mortgagors, lendors, lien holders, trustees, trustors
and persons who have co- signed notes or otherwise loaned, pledged, or extended security for any
indebtedness of the applicant.)
Full Name Phone
Address
Nature of Interest, etc.
Full Name Phone
Address
Nature of Interest, etc.
-7-
Part I . General Information (On Sale Wine)
Full Name Phone
Address
Nature of Interest, etc.
Full Name Phone
Address
Nature of Interest, etc. _
IF THIS APPLICATION IS FOR PREMISES EITHER PLANNED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION
OR UNDERGOING SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION, THE APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED
BY A SET OF PRELIMINARY PLANS SHOWING THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PREMISES TO
BE LICENSED. IF THE PLANS OR DESIGN ARE ON FILE WITH THE MANAGER OF THE
BUILDING AND INSPECTION DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NO ADDITIONAL PLANS NEED BE FILED WITH THIS APPLICATION.
14. State the floor number, general area, and all rooms where wine is to be sold and consumed. (Applicant
shall attach a floor plan showing dimensions and indicating number of persons intended to be served in
the said rooms.)
15. What permits required by the Federal government have been applied for or issued for the premises?
In what name were these applied for or issued and what is the nature of the permit?
16. What permits or licenses required by the State of Minnesota have been applied for or issued for the
premises? In what name were these applied for or issued and what is the nature of the permit or license?
.g.
Part l - General Information (On Sale Wine)
17. Are any real estate taxes, personal property taxes, special assessments, . or other financial claims of the
City of Bloomington delinquent or unpaid for the premises to be licensed? Yes No
If yes, give details..
18.(a). Is the premises located within 1000 ,feet of any public school? Yes No
(b). Is the premises located within 1000 feet of any church? Yes No
(No on- sale wine license shall be granted to any restaurant for premises located within 1,000 feet of
a public school or of any church. In the case of a school, the distance is to be measured in a straight
line from the parcel or lot upon which the business to be licensed is located to the nearest point of
the parcel or lot upon which the school is located.
In the case of a church, the distance shall be measured in the same manner as above set forth, except
it is to be measured to the nearest point of the church building. However, in the case of restaurants
located in shopping centers, the distance shall be measured from the main entrance of the business to
be licensed.)
19. If. the premises is a restaurant, is there a. minimum floor area of 1,200 square feet for dining, open to
the general public and provisions for seating a minimum of 50 persons at one time? Yes No
`20. Is there a bar on the premises? Is there a counter where food is served?
21. Names, residence addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers of three persons, residents of
Hennepin County, of good moral character, not related to the applicant or financially interested in
the premises or business, who may be referred to as to the applicant's character.
Full Name Phone
(Area Code & Number)
.Residence Address
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
Business Address Phone
(Area Code & -Number)
Full Name Phone
(Area Code & Number)
Residence Address
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code
Business Address Phone
Area Coe & umber
-9-
:Part ,I - General Information (On Sale Wine)
Full Name
Phone
(Area Code & Number)
Residence Address
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip Code)
Business Address
Phone
(Area Code & Number)
ANY FALSIFICATION OF ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WILL RESULT IN DENIAL
OF THE APPLICATION.
A Financial Statement of net worth and a short autobiography must accompany this application for all persons
who are required to complete a Part II Personal Information form. (Exception : Manager, Assistant Manager,
Food Manager, and Beverage Manager, provided these individuals are not partners, officers of corporation or do
not. hold an interest in excess of five percent.)
Subscribed and sworn to before me a Notary Public
on this day of 19_
(Notary Signature)
-10-
(Signature of Applicant)
Commission expires on
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
IN SUPPORT OF AN
APPLICATION FOR ON SALE WINE LICENSE
PART 1 1 - Personal Information
Directions: This form must be filled out in duplicate with typewriter or by printing in ink by the sole owner, by
each partner, by each officer, or director, by each manager, proprietor or other person with manage-
ment responsibilities for the premises, by each person who by combined ownership or control has an
interest in a corporation or association in excess of 5 %.
Date:
TRUE NAME: First u e (Maiden) (Last)
RESIDENCE ADDRESS: (Street, City, State) PHONE NUMBER: (Area Code)
BUSINESS NAME:
BUSINESS ADDRESS: (Street, City, State) PHONE NUMBER: (Area Code)
PLACE OF BIRTH: (City, County, State) DATE OF BIRTH: (Month, Day, Year)
HEIGHT: WEIGHT: COLOR OF HAIR: COLOR OF EYES:
U.. S. CITIZEN? Yes Naturalized? Yes If yes, give date and place:
No No
MARITAL STATUS: Married Single Divorced
If married, true name, place and date of birth, and residence address of spouse:
TRUE NAME: (First) Fu i e (Maiden) (Last)
PLACE OF BIRTH: (City, County, ate DATE OF BIRTH: (Month, Day, ear
RESIDENCE ADDRESS: Street, City, State
Personal Information - Part II (On Sale Wine)
If you have ever used or. been known by a name or names other than the true name given above, list such name(s)
and information concerning dates and places used.
. -,Are you a registered voter? Yes No
If yes, where are you registered?
.Is your spouse a- registered voter? Yes No
:If yes, where is spouse registered?
1. ;Address(es) at which you -have .:lived -during preceding ten years. (Begin with present-or last address and work
:.back.)
-NO. AND STREET CITY AND STATE
DATES
2. - Addresses) at which your spouse has lived during -preceding ten years. (Begin. with present or last address -and
work back.)
NO. AND STREET
CITY AND STATE
DATES
3. Kind, name and location of every business or occupation you have been engaged in during preceding ten years.
(Begin with present or last occupation and work back.)
BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE DATES
-2-
Personal Information - Part 11 (On Sale Wine)
4. Kind, name and location of every business or occupation your spouse has been engaged in during the preceding
.ten years. (Begin with present or last one first and work back.)
BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE DATES
5. .Names and addresses of your employers and partners, if any, for the preceding ten years. (Begin with present
vor- last one first and work back.)
NAMES:
-EMPLOYERS OR PARTNERS STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE DATES
6. Names and addresses of your spouse's employers and partners, if any, for the preceding ten- years. (Begin with
present or last one first and work back.)
°'-NAMES: "EMPLOYERS OR -PARTNERS STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE DATES
7. Have you, your spouse, parent, brother, sister, or child of either of yot ever been convicted of any felony,
crime or violation of any ordinance, other than traffic? Yes No If yes, give information as
to the time, place and offense for which convictions were had.
8. Have you, your spouse, or a parent, brother, sister or child of either of you, ever been engaged as an employee
or in operating a saloon, hotel, restaurant, cafe, tavern or other business of a .similar nature? Yes No
If yes, give information as to the time, place and length of time.
9. Have you been in military service? Yes No If yes, was discharge(s) ever other than honorable?
Yes No (Copies of discharge papers may be required.)
-3-
Personal Information - Part 'II (On Sale Wine)
10. 'Narhes, residence addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers. of each person who is engaged in
- Minnesota in the business of selling, manufacturing or distributing intoxicating liquor and who is nearer
of kin to you or your spouse than second cousin, whether of the whole or half blood, computed by the
rules of civil law, or who is a brother -in -law or sister -in -law of you or your spouse.
1. Full Name
_Residence Address
Business Address
Relationship
Phone
-Phone
2. Full Name Relationship
- Residence Address
Phone
:Business Address Phone
3. Full Name
Residence Address
_-::Business Address
Relationship
Phone
Phone
11. Are you a manufacturer or wholesaler of = intoxicating liquor or ,interested directly or indirectly in the owner-
=ship or operation .of any such business? Yes No
12. Are you directly or indirectly - interested in other establishments in the City of Bloomington to which a
license of the same kind has been issued? (Refer to City Code, Section 13.29 Subdivision 10 for definition
of "interest" .) Yes No If yes, list names, addresses, and interest.
13. Are you the spouse of a person who would be ineligible for..a license? (Refer to City Code, Section 13.29
for persons ineligible for license.) Yes No
14. What is the amount of investment that you will have in the business, building, premises, fixtures, furniture,
stock in trade, etc.? State the source of such money. (You must be prepared to furnish proof of the
source of such money.)
15. Have you had any interest in any previous intoxicating liquor license that was revoked, suspended or not
renewed? Yes No If yes, explain in detail.
16. Have you ever individually, or with others, made .application for an intoxicating liquor license and had such
application denied? Yes No If yes, state circumstances.
-4-
Persona( Information Part 11 (On Sale Wine)
17. List the names, residences, and business addresses of three residents of Hennepin County, of good moral
character, not related to the applicant or financially interested in the premises or business, who may be
referred to as to the applicant's character.
Name -Residence _Address
Business Address Phone
Name Residence Address
.Business Address Phone
=Name
=Business Address
-Residence ,Address
Phone
ANY FALSIFICATION OF ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WILL RESULT IN DENIAL
OF THE APPLICATION.
-A Financial Statement of net worth rand a short .: autobiography must accompany this application for all per�.:ans who
are required to complete a Part It Personal Information form. (Exception - Manager, Assistant Manager, Food
. Manager, and Beverage Manager, .provided these individuals are not partners, officers of corporation or do not hold
an interest in excess of five.percent.)
Subscribed and sworn to before me a Notary Public
on this day of 19
(Notary Signature
-5-
X
(Signature of App icant
Commission expires on
Personal Information - Part 11 (On Sale Wine)
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
2215 West Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
=POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION DECLARATION
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED THAT ALL APPLICANTS - INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP OR CORPORATION, AND
:INCLUDING PERSONS WHO -OWN OR CONTROL IN EXCESS OF FIVE PERCENT (5%) INTEREST, EXCEPT IN THE CASE
OF OFF -SALE, ALL PERSONS WHO OWN OR CONTROL ANY INTEREST, AND THE MANAGER OF THE. ESTABLISHMENT
TO SUBMIT IN DUPLICATE A NOTARIZED POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION DECLARATION FORM OF CONTRIBUTIONS,
VALUED IN EXCESS OF $50.00, WHICH THEY HAVE MADE FOR BLOOMINGTON MUNICIPAL CAMPAIGN OR POLITICAL
.PURPOSES, THE PERSON TO. WHOM THE CONTRIBUTION WAS MADE, AND THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION FOR WHOM
-=INTENDED.
'A) FOR RENEWAL APPLICATIONS LIST POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS MADE SINCE THE
- LICENSE WAS RENEWED LAST JULY 1.
0) FOR A NEW APPLICATION LIST - -POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS MADE DURING PAST
-FIVE (5) YEARS.
"1. -HAVE YOU MADE ANY -CONTRIBUTIONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE? YES. NO
2. IF YES STATE:
PERSON TO WHOM
-..NATURE OR AMOUNT CONTRIBUTION WAS ,MADE
I TYPE OR PRINT FULL NAME BELOW (Last, Middle, First)
STATE
COUNTY
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
'- PERSON OR ORGANIZATION
...FOR WHOM INTENDED
SIGNATURE
DAY OF 19
NOTARY PUBLIC
-6-
Date of Application
Expiration Date
Fee: $9.00
AnnH Klemm
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
LICENSE SECTION
2215 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431
_LIQUOR SALES AND SERVING
LICENSE APPLICATION
For Office Use Only
License Number
Last
Pirst Full Middle Name
Maiden Name
Telephone
Street Address
Date of Employment
Employer
City, State, Zip Code .
-B-irth Date
Height
Weight
Color Hair
Color Eyes
Have you ever been convicted ot
any crime of r t an a traffic oftensef es Q No. I yes ,explain
Have you been licensed to sell or serve liquor in Bloomington within the last two years? Q Yes a No. If "yes ", give license number
If "no ",.complete. PERSONAL INFORMATION below.
PERSONAL INFORMATION
.U.S. Citizen Status:
Yes a No If naturalized, date and place
Driver's License Number
Last Place of Employment
List your Residence Addresses for
the past 5 years:
Street.Address
city, State, Zip Code
Street Address
City, State, Zip Uode
Street Address
y' Zip
LIST TWO RESIDENTS OF HENNEPIN COUNTY THAT HAVE KNOWN YOU FOR TWO YEARS, AND THAT WILL VOUCH FOR YOUR SOBRIETY,
HONESTY, AND GENERAL GOOD CHARACTER:
I hereby understand and agree that:
1. Information revealed by an applicant for an occupational license in the City of Bloomington will be used by the City in accordance with Federal and
State laws regarding privacy of criminal records,
2 A criminal conviction will not bar an applicant from obtaining a license with the City of Bloomington unless such conviction is directly related to
the occupation for which the license is sought, according to Minnesota Statutes S364.03:
3. However, failure to reveal a criminal conviction will be considered falsification of the application_ and may be used as grounds for dental of the
application,
I DECLARE THAT THE INFORMATION I HAVE PROVIDED ON THIS APPLICATION IS TRUTHFUL, AND I AUTHORIZE THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
TO INVESTIGATE THE INFORMATION AND CONTACT THE PERSONS NAMED ON THE APPLICATION.
ignature o pplicant
Subscribed and sworn to before me a Notary Public
on this day of 19 Commission expires on
(Notary Public)
FOR LICENSE EXAMINER OR DESIGNATED EMPLOYEE ONLY
Recommend Approval Recommend Denial By
J
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Florence Hallberg, City Clerk
Subject: Appointment of Canvassing Board - General /City Election
Date: October 15, 1982
Will you please approve the appointment of the following to the Canvas-
sing Board which will serve at the City /General Election of November 2,
1982:
Mark Bernhardson
Hilding Dahl
Glenn Harmon
Jerry Hines
Ralph Hines
Harry Melin
Sam Mobley
Howard Norback
Millard Ott
Alvin Woods
-D
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: EDINA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
SUBJECT: GENERAL C0144ENTS ON SHHSC COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1982
In the course of the Edina Human Relations Commission's review of the Comprehensive
Study, we formed some general subjective opinions and developed some feelings that
we would like to share with you informally.
The fact that some service areas are discussed here and others are not does not
mean that any one area is more or less important than any other; only that we
verbalized general feelings about the ones that will be .mentioned.
Chemical Dependency
Area of primary concern but there are now many services available addressing
this need.
/Family Violence
✓ An area where more service is needed - of immediate concern.
i Community Education
✓/ Has expanded and seems to adequately meet needs of the community.
Personal Public Health
Could publicize services in this area more. Q� �
'--� P
Senior Iss66s
General priorities were: a) information and referral including outreach;
b) transportation; and c) affordable health services.
/ Information and Referral
Vital that this area is well developed and available so people with needs
can find the correct source of help.
Coordination
Extremely important to avoid costly duplication of services and to assure that
all areas of need are met or at least considered. Z Q-0 ea
MG:md _
� ems-
� -D
MEMORANDUM
TO:" MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: EDINA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
SUBJECT: REPORT ON SHHSC STUDY OF HUMAN SERVICE NEEDS.IN SO. HENNEPIN
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1982 -
Human Relations Commission Report to the Edina City Council on the Comprehensive
Study of Human Service Needs in South Hennepin:
I. Recommendations
A. Develop a Human Service Element to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
B. The Comprehensive Study and other appropriate input should be the basis
for this element.
II. Background
A. Task Assignment - In. September of 1981 the City Council requested the
HRC to review the results and recommendations of the Comprehensive Study
of Human Service Needs in South Hennepin and report back to the Council.
B. Methodology - Assigned specific service areas of the Study to Individual
commission members in order to accomplish the following goals:
1) Identify Edina recommendations.
2) Review these recommendations.
3) Prioritize the recommendations relating to the City by designating
them high, medium, or low with a desireable category reserved for
recommendations of general value but difficult to rate. (In addition
to what the HRC has done, recommendations to the churches and schools
have been extracted and compiled in individual documents and
presented to these respective groups.)
III. Prioritization of each service area of the Comprehensive Study is attached.
IV. General Findings
A. Recurring throughout this Study was evidence of the need for coordination
of services.
B. Information and referral are recognized as vital in meeting human needs,
specifically First Call for Help and South Hennepin Information and
Referral.
C. Self help and support groups should be given space, encouragement and
publicity.
Mayor and Council
Page 2
D. Many recommendations contain needs that are presently being addressed.
E. The lack of shelters and halfway houses in the South Hennepin area is
mentioned frequently throughout the Study.
NIEL/4N® MARKETING, INC.
FOOD IMPORTERS Y BROKER SALES AGENTS
SUITE 124B — 7615 METRO BOULEVARD
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435
TELEPHONE: 612 - 831 -1755
October 6, 1982
Mr.. Kenneth E. Rosland
City Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street.
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Ken:
I am writing to you on behalf of Braemar Associates, Inc., the
real estate development company jointly owned by myself, J.M.
Barron and Harold G. Haglund. I am asking you to make a for-
mal request of the Edina City Council, that they defer for one
additional year, the initial interest and principal payments
which are scheduled to become due and payable on December 31,
1982, on our purchase of the former Orin B. Johnston property
from the City of Edina. This action would essentially be the
same as was requested and approved by the Council one year
ago, and is made by us due to the continued unfavorable econ-
omic conditions which are so negatively effecting all new
residential construction and development.
It is our hope that market conditions will improve within
the next few months, making it possible for us to proceed
with the initial stages of construction on the LIONSGATE
CONDOMINIUM project which we have planned and approved for
this property during the next twelve months.
Sincerely,
E. . Ni and, resident
Braemar Associates, Inc.
EAN:de
cc: J. Dalen
J.M. Barron
H.G. Haglund
Four Constitutional
Amendments ®n November Ball ®t
When proposed amendments to the state constitution
are included on a general ballot, a non -vote has the
same effect as a "no" vote. Lack of familiarity with a pro-
posed amendment can result in voter inaction, and an
Amendment One --
APPEALS COURT:
PERMITTING ESTABLISHMENT
YES ❑ "Shall the Minnesota Constitution
be amended to allow the creation of
NO ❑ a court of appals ?"
This amendment would allow the creation of a state
court of appeals. At present, the state Supreme Court is
the only avenue of appeal for decisions by lower courts.
Under this proposed amendment, the state legislature
would determine the number. of judges, the court's
organization, and provide for review of its decisions by
the Supreme Court.
judges of the appeals court could serve as temporary
judges of the Supreme Court, a function now performed
by district court judges. Appeals court judges could not
hold any other state or federal office, and the act would
provide standards for impeachment of appeals court
judges.
If the amendment is approved, the following provi-
sions will become law: 1) An appeals court would be
created with six judges initially appointed by January 1,
1983, and an additional six by 1984. Thereafter, judges
will be elected for terms of six years. 2) Beginning in
1987, the number of judges on the court will be varied
with the number of appeals. By 1984, one seat on the
court will be designated for each congressional district,
additional seats not restricted as to residence. 3) The
number of associate judges on the Supreme Court would
be reduced from eight to six.
A majority of the League's Directors endorse this
amendment, as it is expected to relieve congestion in the
appeals process. At present, the Supreme Court handles
almost 1400 cases annually, when the chief justice feels
a maximum of 250 cases per year can be given full and
proper attention. The appeals court would handle the
routine 'cases now heard by the Supreme Court, which
otherwise sound amendment fails. With this in mind, the
League presents these capsule summaries of each of the
constitutional amendments that will be on the
November 2 ballot.
would then have more time for cases of major import or
constitutionality.
Amendment Two — HIGHWAY BONDS:
REMOVING CEf'iTAIN RESTRICTIONS
YES ❑ "Shall the Minnesota Constitution
be amended to remove restrictions
NO ❑ on the interest rate for and the
amount of trunk highway bonds?"
C
This amendment appeared on the 1980 ballot and was
defeated. It would remove the present 5% annual in-
terest rate ceiling on bonds for trunk highways, and
would remove the $150 million limit on bonds issued
and unpaid. The 5% limit has been in the constitution
since 1920 and has been a serious impediment to the
sale of bonds the past three years.
The limit on outstanding highway bond debt was $75
million when the highway article was adopted in 1920.
When it was revised in 1956, the amount changed to
$150 million. At the present time, highway bonds
outstanding total about $55 million, and about 3% of the
highway fund is used for debt service.
Amendment Three —
PARIMUTUEL BETTING: PERMITTING
LEGISLATIVE AUTHOnIZATION
YES ❑ "Shall the Minnesota Constitution
be amended to permit the legislature
NO ❑ to authorize on -track parimutuel
betting on horse racing in a manner
prescribed by law ?"
This amendment would allow the legislature to
authorize on -track parimutuel betting on horse races,
and to prescribe the manner of such betting. The League
has not taken a position on this amendment. The ques-
(Continued on page 21)
MINNESOTA CITIES
Constitutional Amendments
(Continued from page 8)
tion of parimutuel betting has been around for years, but
it has never been on the ballot before.
Amendment Four
RAILROAD IMPROVEMENT:
PROVIDING BONDING AUTHORITY
YES ❑ "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be
amended to provide for state bonding
NO ❑ authority for the improvement and
TaTitation of railroad facilities ?"
This amend nt would per the stale to issue bonds
for financing improvements and rehabilitation of railroad
trackage and rights -of -way, up to a ceiling of $200
million for bonds issued and unpaid. No interest ceiling
is imposed on the bonds issued under this amendment.
Political subdivisions of the state would also be allowed
to embark on railroad upgrading by issuing bonds in the
same manner, to the extent authorized by law.
The League's Directors are unanimous in support of
this proposed amendment. It would place the rail
transportation sector on the same bonding basis as
highways and aeronautics.
Urban Policy
(Continued from page 9)
tion and collaboration between the public and private
sector on urban matters. This is likely to be an economic
necessity for both sectors. Over time, it will also change
our system of governance substantially.
Urban policy ought to focus on the capacity'of our
public and private institutions to function in a post-
industrial age and to respond to foreseeable conditions.
As of now, that capacity is limited at every level; among
the states it is very uneven. We have an opportunity for
some truly creative federalism; to think through needed
adjustments in jurisdiction, organization, decision pro-
cesses, personnel and budget systems, etc., which are
needed to plan, set finance priorities, build and deliver
urban goods and services, and to manage and resolve ur-
ban and intergovernmental conflicts. There is no federal
system for developing and managing urban policy, for
making "partnership" among the levels of government
more than a slogan. Within the states, it is timely to reex-
amine tax structures, metropolitan governance, fiscal
management and accountability and management
systems. At the national level, neither the executive nor
Congress has a reliable means of devising urban .policy
or even of estimating the urban consequences of other
actions.
October, 1982
LkL---
{,! N' 3Z� Ir �� ��� ��: T t!•- �,j y Y D 1 es
to M z' V%mve means
you get lower
conz-buctan bids.
GRADING, DRAINAGE.
ACCR1 GATE BASE, BITU�11-
NOUS SURFACING . — BIDS
CLOSE MAY' 11
Chaska, Minn.
ADVERTISEMENT FOR
BIDS --- Scaled bids will be
received until 10:00 A.M., Tues-
day May 11 1982 by Greg Man -
ggolti, Executive Secretary. Carver
County Courthouse, 600 East
Fourth Street, Box 15, Chaska,
Minnesota 55318, for the Con.
struction of Grading, Drainage,
Aggregate Basc. Bituminous Sur -
factnx and Ag �regaic Shouldering
on ( =.P 8). -�4 GRPP located
between CSAH y17 and T.H. 101
north of Chaska.
Principal items include: Com-
mon Excavation 97,261 cu. yds.;
Sub grade Excavation 13,511 cu.
vdx." 8' x 10' precast box culvert
90 In. ft.• Aggregate Base Placed,
Cl. 5 7,40 cu. yds.; Bituminous
Surface 7,341 tons.
All proposals must be submit-
ted on forms nbtainable from the
Carver County Highway Engi-
neer's Office at the Carver
County Courthouse, 600 East
Fourth Street, Box 6, Chaska,
Minnesota 55318. Requests for
plans and proposals must be
accompanied. by a twenty ($20.00)
dollar do osn.
. I_hc Carver County Board of
Commissioners reserves the right
to reject any or all bids.
Donald C.
W isniew<_ki
Carver Co. E.ngr.
4- 16 —A -23 -4.30
Contractors and suppliers in Minnesota rely on Construction
Bulletin every week to give them the latest bidding information.
Engineers, architects, and project owners take advantage of
this audience by advertising their projects. They know they get
better, lower bids for construction, equipment and supplies
when they put Construction Bulletin to work.
It can work for you, too. Just a letter or a call can give you the
most comprehensive construction audience in the Upper Mid-
west, and lower your costs.
COr-JSTt= 1UCTIOIV
BULLETIN
8441 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 180
Golden Valloy, MN 55426
(612) 546 -1811
21
TO: Mayor Courtney October 13, 1982
Councilmembers Bredesen, Schmidt, and Richards
FROM: Leslie Turner
RE: Edinamite
It has been suggested that the Council offer its services
as a group - posted, of course, to comply with the open meeting
law - as an item for the Edinamite Services Silent Auction.
I think it's a great idea: fun for us and hopefully appealing
to those who want to bid'.
Some ideas generated so far include:
1) give a party - councilmembers could serve and clean up
2) give a day of home clean -up - raking leaves, storm windows, etc.
3) give a paddle tennis party - using the court at Braemar
4) have some kind of event in the new dome - a touch football
game and supper
5) give a skating party at Braemar - serve hot chocolate and
donuts
I'm sure you can come up with better ideas. Please think
it over and let me know Monday night.