2/16/2016 12:51:51 PM
10/23/2014 12:46:00 PM
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
G C� <br />�� SEAL <br />r4 <br />October 30, 2011 OCT 31.2011 <br />Edina City Council <br />4801 West 50th Street <br />Edina, MN 55424 -1394 <br />Dear Honorable Mayor Hovland and Council Members: <br />We respectfully request that the City of Edina rescind its notice dated October 14, 2011 that <br />purportedly requires us. to remove approximately 30 trees along Valley View Road at our <br />expense. <br />We are very, very concerned about this, since removing the trees would destroy the sight and <br />sound barrier between our home and Valley View Road. It would also open up our side yard, <br />where neighborhood children play, to the dangers of the adjacent roadway. It will impose on us <br />an expense and, we believe, devalue our property. Finally, although "safety" is the reason stated <br />in the notice, according to the city's police department there have been no traffic incidents in this <br />area at least since 2007 and, according to the City Engineer before this Council last summer, no <br />traffic incidents in this area for over 10 years. <br />We would like to: <br />A) highlight three reasons that the notice should be rescinded; <br />B) note that the trees were first planted at the recommendation of the City; and, <br />C) offer two recommendations to improve safety at the intersection such that removing trees is <br />not necessary <br />The notice should be rescinded for the following three reasons: <br />1. There is no leizal basis for this action demanded in the City's letter <br />Due to our alarm at the notice, we felt we had to retain legal counsel. After a review, they have <br />determined that what the city is attempting to do has no legal basis. The trees are not there in <br />violation of any city code, statute, ordinance, or law. In fact, the notice letter makes no reference <br />to any legal basis for the City's demand to remove the trees at our expense <br />Counsel researched several sections of the City Code and concluded there is no violation. <br />First, City Codel050 addresses Maintenance of Vegetation. Subsection 1050.04 Subdivision 1 <br />Setback states "A restoration area or a planned landscape area must provide the following <br />minimum setbacks: Front Street or Side Street (as measured from the traveled portion of the <br />street) 20 feet... ". However, Subsection 1050.02 Definitions defines Restoration Area as "An <br />area where native grasses and forbs are being or have been intentionally re- established" and <br />defines Planned Landscape Area as "An area where ornamental grasses and groundcovers or <br />native grasses and forbs are planted pursuant to a plan ". The trees in question do not fit these <br />definitions. With respect to this issue we are currently in compliance with the City Code. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.