Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-15 Council Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JANUARY 15, 2002 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Housh, Hovland, Masica and Mayor Maetzold. Member Kelly entered the meeting at 7:15 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Masica and seconded by Member Housh approving the Council Consent Agenda as presented with the exception of Agenda Item IV.A. Health Department Replacement Vehicle and V.C. 2002-2003 Labor Agreement Local 49er's (Public Works), V.D. 2002-2003 Labor Agreement Local 320 (Animal Control and CSO's), and V.E. 2002-2003 Labor Agreement Local 320 (Police Dispatch) which were all continued to the February 5, 2002, meeting. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Masica, Maetzold Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 2002, APPROVED Motion made by Member Masica and seconded by Member Housh approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina City Council for January 2, 2002. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-10 APPROVING VACATION OF PORTION OF CIRCLE WEST ADJACENT TO 20 CIRCLE WEST Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Staff Presentation Engineer Houle explained the proponents had requested the vacation of a portion of the existing public street right-of-way of Circle West adjacent on the west of their property at 20 Circle West. Mr. Houle said this property was platted in 1939 and the right-of-way was dedicated because at that time the final design needed for Circle West was not known. Two previous vacations have been approved, one to the east in 1965 and one to the north in 1999. Mr. Houle reported that Time Warner and Reliant Energy both approved the request, but Excel and QWest granted conditional approval because of existing structures within the area. He added that City watermain and sanitary sewer exist within the proposed vacation. Mr. Houle recommended that the vacation be approved with the condition that all utility easements be retained for the property. Mr. Houle informed the Council that the City had received letters from Thomas J. Mahoney, 21 Circle West and Andrew and Michele Herring, 22 Circle West both opposing the vacation. Mr. Houle said he believed the Planning Department had received numerous calls objecting to the vacation. Page 1 Minutes/Edina City Council/Tanuary 15,2002 Member Masica noted that materials contained in her background packet had information on average lots in the neighborhood. She commented that there was a discrepancy between the data as reported by the surveyor and by Hennepin County and asked why this was so. Planner Larsen explained that the documents contained in the packet related to a subdivision request submitted by the Manoles in early 2001 that had been put on indefinite hold. He said staff could not determine whether that request would ever be reactivated. He noted there were discrepancies, but added the documentation should be considered a work in progress relative to lot sizes per Edina's code requirements. Member Hovland asked why staff recommended the vacation of public right-of-way; if any similar vacations have been approved; what if any legal ramifications would the vacation have on future subdivision; if the City has any fee interest in the underlying land that has been proposed to be vacated; and who determines the fee owner of the vacated property. Mr. Houle explained that in 1939 when the area was platted, a trolley line ran north of the proposed vacation area, so dedicating the area as right-of-way for a potential turnaround seemed reasonable. However, he has determined it would not be needed today. Mr. Houle reiterated that there had been two previous vacations of street right-of-way in 1965 to the east and in 1999 to the north. Attorney Gilligan explained that any future subdivision consideration would not be germane to the request before the Council. The question before the Council currently was whether or not the City had any need for the right-of-way. Mr. Gilligan added that the City on any property for which we have a dedicated easement hold no fee interest. He said that typically when easements for utilities or streets were vacated, the property went back to where it had originally been dedicated. Mayor Maetzold clarified that the proposed property most likely was already a part of 20 Circle West. Mr. Gilligan affirmed this assumption adding this determination would not be the City's, but most likely Hennepin County's. Member Housh asked for further clarification of who would receive the vacated land if the Council granted the proposed request. Mr. Gilligan reiterated that the final determination would be made at Hennepin County, but it appeared that the area currently requested to be vacated had been part of 20 Circle West in the 1939 plat. Member Housh asked for a clarification of why the right-of-way had not been previously vacated and expressed concern that the City not give away right-of-way it actually may need at a future date. Mr. Houle explained that in both 1939 and 1964 when the plats were approved the final cul de sac had not been determined, however, today it was evident that the street right-of-way was not needed. He pointed out this street had been reclaimed in 1996 and was at its optimal width for a residential street. Proponent Comment Jeremy Steiner, Miller, Steiner, Curtis, P.A., Hopkins, representing Elias and Mary Lou Manoles, proponents, stated he felt it important to focus on the issue before the Council. According to Mr. Steiner, that issue was whether or not the proposed vacation was appropriate under Edina ordinance and Minnesota Statute. Mr. Steiner acknowledged the objections of the neighbors, but pointed out the issue was right-of-way vacation and not a subdivision. He added that there was no subdivision application before the Council, only a Page 2 Minutes/Edina City CounciVlanuary 15,2002 request to vacate excess street right-of-way. Mr. Steiner said the Manoles' had submitted a subdivision application approximately one year ago, noting it had been withdrawn before reaching the City Council. He acknowledged the application was withdrawn because of neighbors' objections. Mr. Steiner said the Manoles' have no present intention of subdividing their property. He added the Manoles' decided not to go forward with that application, concluding the vacation request was not part of some grand scheme that would ultimately lead to the subdivision of their property. Instead the Manoles' felt it was appropriate to have the requested right-of-way vacated because the rest of the right-of-way around it has been vacated and the City has no use for the requested area. Mr. Steiner said he would like to speak to the five reasons for approving the vacation: 1. The requested vacation must be judged on its merits. The proposed vacation was a classic case of surplus right-of-way dedicated in 1939 and not used as a street since originally platted. 2. The area cannot be used for street primarily due to the 1999 vacation west of the Herring property. 3. After vacation the City will still have ample street right-of-way with 50 to 60 feet of right-of-way remaining. 4. The City Engineer recommended approval of the vacation and the City Attorney stated objections because of a potential subdivision request were not germane. 5. Fairness and uniformity since the City vacated the Herring property three years ago. Mr. Steiner said that under Minnesota State Law when property was platted and streets dedicated, as was done in the Hilldale Plat, it was very well established the dedication of the public street granted a permanent easement for road purposes to the City, but the adjoining property owners own the fee title for what would be underneath the easement. He noted that the Manoles' have owned the fee title and maintained the property for over thirty years and the only effect the vacation would have is that it would remove the right-of-way easement from the fee title. Continuing, Mr. Steiner pointed out that if in the future the Manoles' did apply for a subdivision of the property in question they would still need to come before the City Council for a variance and stated that the Council could deny the variance if the applicant could not prove hardship. Also, if a hardship for some future application could be proved, the Council acting at that time would have great latitude in placing conditions on any variance granted. Member Kelly asked how many square feet would be added to the Manoles' property by granting the vacation. Mr. Steiner replied 3,265 square feet would be added. Public Comment Andy Herring, 22 Circle West, noted that he had opposed the vacation and had expressed concern over future subdivision of the subject property in his January 10, 2002, letter. Mr. Herring said his second letter related to who owned the property and what rights he had as an abutting property owner. He acknowledged that the questions in his second letter had been addressed. However, he still expressed concern relating to the potential to subdivide the property. Mr. Herring stated that he and neighbors are strongly opposed to any future subdivision of the property and fear that the vacation would become an enabler to future subdivision. Page 3 Minutes/Edina City Council/Tanuary 15,2002 Motion by Member Masica and seconded by Member Housh to close the public hearing. Ayes: Housh, Hovland,Kelly, Masica, Maetzold Motion carried. Member Kelly noted that Andrew Herring, 22 Circle West, was his brother in law and asked the City Attorney if he should recuse himself from the discussion and vote, noting he did not have any financial interest in the property. Mr. Gilligan said Member Kelly did not need to remove himself. Member Housh noted it had been previously stated that the potential of a future subdivision was not germane to the current vacation request. However, he asked what the possibility would be for the property to be subdivided without any variances. Mr. Larsen answered that the property proposed for vacation would likely be part of a new lot. This would add 3200 square feet to the lot area but would not eliminate the need for a lot area variance. The other variance that would be affected would be that this would add approximately 15 feet to the measurable lot depth of a proposed new lot, and it may eliminate that lot depth variance, but the other variance needed would still remain. Member Housh asked if the nearness to the pond behind 20 Circle West were an issue requiring a variance. Mr. Larsen replied that would be an issue if a subdivision were proposed. The Council would then need to decide on the appropriate easement around the pond. Member Housh asked if notices would be sent to neighboring property owners if any of these questions were to come before the Council or Planning Commission. Mr. Larsen explained if a property were proposed for subdivision, the applicant would be required to erect a sign stating the property has been proposed for subdivision, ten days before the first Planning Commission meeting. Also at the same time, a notice from the subdivision proponent must be sent, stating the nature of the proposal and noting the Planning Commissions meeting date and time. Mr. Larsen said that ten days before a City Council hearing there would be a newspaper publication and mailing to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Member Kelly asked whether or not the Council should discuss charging for the property, since it seemed evident that approving the vacation was consistent with Edina codes and State law. Mr. Gilligan stated the City did not own the property, but had an easement for roadway purposes and cannot sell the easement. The City may charge a fee for the vacation application. Member Hovland stated he did not believe that vacating the right-of-way offered an advantage to any future request for subdivision. Personally he would not be inclined to disturb the character of the neighborhood. He agreed with Member Kelly that is was consistent with Edina codes, State law and previous vacation requests throughout the City. Member Masica introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-10 VACATING CIRCLE WEST PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 20 CIRCLE WEST Page 4 Minutes/Edina City Council/January 15,2002 WHEREAS, a motion of the City Council, on the 18th day of December, 2001,fixed a date for a public hearing on a proposed vacation of the portion of Circle West public right- of-way adjacent to 20 Circle West; and WHEREAS, two weeks published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the hearing was held on January 15, 2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the public that said public street right-of-way vacation be made; and WHEREAS, the Council considered the extent the vacation affects existing easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric, telephone or cable television poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes, mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation to continue maintaining the same, or to enter upon such easement area or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace,remove or otherwise attend thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following described Eden Circle public right-of- way easement is hereby vacated effective as of January 15, 2002: Circle West Vacation That part of Circle West as dedicated on the plat of Hilldale according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Easterly of the following described line: Beginning at the Westerly corner of Lot 1, Block 4, Hilldale, thence Northeasterly along a tangential curve, said tangent has an assumed bearing of North 42 degrees 35 minutes 06 seconds West, concave to the East having a radius of 160.00 feet, a distance of 134.06 feet and a central angle of 48 degrees 00 minutes 23 seconds to a point on the Northerly line of Circle West as platted in Hilldale; thence Southeasterly a distance of 36.05 feet more or less to a point along the Northerly line of Circle West according to the Recorded Plat of Hilldale, said point being the Southwest corner of Lot 6, Block 1, Meadowbrook Oaks according to the recorded plat thereof, situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence Southerly to the point of beginning and there terminating. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause a notice of completion of proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of the County Auditor, and filed with the County Recorder, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851. Passed and adopted this 151h day of January 2002. Member Hovland seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Kelly, Masica, Maetzold Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-11 APPROVING VACATION OF PORTION OF SPRUCE ROAD ADJACENT TO ARTHUR STREET AND RESOLUTION NO. 2002-12 APPROVING BLAKE HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Page 5 Minutes/Edina City Council/Tanuary 15,2002 Staff Presentations Mr. Larsen explained the subject property was located north of Belmore Lane, west of Griffit Street and east of Arthur Street extended, and consisted of four plus platted lots and a portion of platted right-of-way (unimproved) for Spruce Road that the proponent has requested to be vacated. The total area of the proposed replat would be 99,688 square feet or 2.28 acres. Currently there exists on the property a dwelling and three detached garages, which would be removed if the proposal moves forward. Mr. Larsen said the proposal would combine the existing lots with the vacated right-of-way and replat the property with five single dwelling lots. He stated the proposal assumed the extension of Arthur Street to serve the westerly two lots with the other lots being served by Griffit. Mr. Larsen continued stating the Edina Zoning Ordinance requires all lots to have a minimum of 30 feet of frontage on an improved public street. Arthur Street ends about 150 feet south of the subject property. Edina's Subdivision Ordinance requires that new lots meet the median average lot width, lot depth, and lot area of all signal dwelling lots within 500 feet of the property proposed for subdivision. Mr. Larsen reported the affected median averages for the 57 lots within the 500- foot area as: Lot Depth Lot Width Lot Area 175 feet 100 feet 14,000 square feet Mr. Larsen stated the following dimensions and areas for the proposed lots: Lot 1 175 feet 98 feet 17,962 square feet Lot 2 175 feet 98 feet 17,958 square feet Lot 3 175 feet 98 feet 17,522 square feet Lot 4 202 feet 120 feet 21,522 square feet Lot 5 175 feet 120 feet 22,197 square feet Lots 1, 2, and 3 each require a two-foot lot width variance. Mr. Larsen stated the proposed subdivision would incorporate 40 feet of right-of-way along the northerly side of the subject property (Spruce Road), as well as Arthur Street right-of-way north of the proposed new cul de sac, and also includes an alley between Arthur Street and Griffit. The proposed rights-of-way would not need to be vacated if the development were approved because all currently vacant property would have access to a public street. Mr. Larsen reported that the Planning Commission held the proposal over from its November meeting to allow the proponent the opportunity to speak with the adjacent property owner about the possibility of purchasing the subject site. The Planning Commission heard the proposal for the second time January 3, 2002, and recommended the preliminary plat approval for Blake Heights with the following conditions: 1. Final Plat Approval; 2. Subdivision Dedication (based on one new lot) 3. Developer's Agreement 4. Watershed District Permits Page 6 Minutes/Edina City CounciWf anuary 15,2002 5. Reservation of ten (10) feet of Arthur Street right-of-way for a future path to connect to existing path north of the subject property; 6. Vacation of portion of Spruce Road, Arthur Street and alley; and 7. Move Arthur Street cul de sac as far north as feasible. Member Kelly asked what hardship existed that a subdivision would be approved with variances. Mr. Larsen replied that the Subdivision Ordinance did not have the same hardship requirement as contained in the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that two feet would most likely not be perceptible. The Subdivision Ordinance provides that if a variance results in an improved plat that met the hardship standard for the ordinance. Member Housh asked the status of the negotiations between the proponent and neighbors. Mr. Larsen said the proponent would address that issue. Mayor Maetzold asked how the 45-foot lot on Griffit came into being. Mr. Larsen said that during the time when no City review was required for lot splits this lot was split and a portion sold to the adjacent homeowner resulting in the 45-foot lot. Member Masica asked how the Planning Commission determined that subdivision dedication would be based on one new lot. Mr. Larsen answered that the City's requirement was to charge based upon increased density. Therefore, four lots currently exist and if the proposed plat were approved, five would exist, resulting in subdivision dedication for one new lot. Proponent Comment Eric Lind, REMAX, 26095 Campus Drive, Plymouth introduced his associate, Russ Halverson, 5312 Columbus Avenue, Minneapolis. Mr. Lind said that he has had several meetings with the neighbors and that he and Mr. Halverson were very committed to selling the subject property to the land trust. However, he urged the Council to not slow down the process of subdivision and vacation review. Mr. Lind explained he had a deadline of March 10 to reach an agreement. If the land sale was not accomplished Mr. Lind indicated his intention to proceed with the subdivision. Public Comment Bob Lundholm, Plymouth resident representing his mother Dorothy Lundholm, 309 Arthur Street. Mr. Lundholm gave the history of his parents' property at 309 Arthur Street and the neighborhood. He said the Lundholm Family Land Trust was attempting to purchase the property from the proponent. Mr. Lundholm acknowledged that the proponent purchased the property via sealed bid. Mr. Lundholm urged the Council to allow his family time to complete the purchase. He stated this was a very emotional issue for him since the property was adjacent to his family home. Mr. Lundholm expressed concern over the size and value of the proposed new homes stating they would irrevocably change the character of the neighborhood. He added he would hate to see the mature trees removed and the environment changed. Page 7 Minutes/Edina City Council/Tanuary 15,2002 Bob Anthony, 301 Griffit Street, said he was also speaking for Harold Youngdahl of 309 Griffit. Mr. Anthony expressed his concern about having three additional lots across the street. He objected to the increase in density and cutting of the trees. Harold Amdahl, 309 Griffit Street, stated he objected to three lots being approved where currently two and one half lots exist, especially with one of those houses facing the other way. Eric Lind, proponent, asked to clarify some confusion. He explained the proposed house on Griffit would all face the same frontage. Mr. Lind said he has worked diligently to develop the best plat. As the property currently exists, he can move forward with four new houses. He added that he obtained the property under a fair bid process and has tried to accommodate the neighbors incorporating various changes into the proposed plat. Mr. Lind added that he has not asked the City to assess the cost of new street, stating that possibly the developer would be willing to put in the road sharing the cost with only the other property owner with development potential. Mr. Lind said in his opinion, this plat would be the best use of the property. Karen Lundholm, 309 Arthur Street, stated that it seemed to her granting the requested vacation enables the subdivision. Ms. Lundholm suggested any decision be postponed until February 10, 2002 She added that currently there was a letter of intent for the sale, but no final agreement had been reached. Marlys Rechkemmer, 308 Arthur Street, asked if the Council approved the subdivision, to please position the future cul-de-sac to minimize tree loss. She added that most neighbors realize that something will happen to the land. Motion by Member Kelly and seconded by Member Hovland to close the public hearing. Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Kelly, Masica, Maetzold Motion carried. Member Masica commented that the land as it existed contained four buildable lots. She expressed concern that allowing four larger lots would encourage four much larger homes changing the character of the neighborhood even more than allowing a five-lot plat with smaller homes. Member Kelly stated he did not support the preliminary plat which he felt was not in line with the City's VISION 20/20. He added that the proposed plat departed from the original plat and any variances were not justified. Member Kelly saw no compelling reason to add a fifth lot, noting he did not necessarily oppose the requested vacation of right-of-way, but would oppose the plat. Member Hovland stated the subject property was part of a beautiful old neighborhood, but noted that over time things change. The developer seems to have acquired the subject property in a fair process. Member Hovland stated he felt the issue was whether the two- foot variances if granted would result in a better plat. He added that the Council relied on recommendations from their advisory boards and commissions and suggested that the Page 8 Minutes/Edina City Council/january 15,2002 Planning Commission's recommendation be accepted and the preliminary plat be granted as requested. Member Kelly expressed his disagreement on the issue of the variances. Member Housh acknowledged the difficulty of these issues. He said that was why the Council used advisory boards and commissions to also hear proposals. These boards often have a different perspective from the Council so he felt their recommendations should be listened to and accepted. Member Housh added that he felt five smaller lots would better blend with the neighborhood and stated his support of the proposed preliminary plat. Member Masica said she felt the lots on Griffit would be more in character with the neighborhood, and expressed some concern with the two lots on Arthur Street, but voiced overall intent to support the preliminary plat approval. Mayor Maetzold added his support of the preliminary plat, pointing out he believed that the proponent had a legal right to development his property. Member Hovland introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-12 APPROVING BLAKE HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled, "BLAKE HEIGHTS ADDITION", platted by T/C Builders, Inc., and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council on January 15, 2002 be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Passed and adopted by the Edina City Council this 15th day of January, 2002. Member Housh seconded the motion Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Masica, Maetzold Nay: Kelly Resolution adopted. Member Masica introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by Member Hovland: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-11 VACATING PORTIONS OF SPRUCE ROAD, ARTHUR STREET AND ALLEYWAY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, a motion of the City Council, on the 20th day of November 2001, fixed a date for a public hearing on a proposed vacation of public right-of-way of portions of Spruce Road, Arthur Street and an alleyway; and WHEREAS, two weeks published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the hearing was held on January 15, 2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the public that said vacation be made; and Page 9 Minutes/Edina City Council/Tanuary 15,2002 WHEREAS, the Council considered the extent the vacation affects existing easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric, telephone or cable television poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes, mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation to continue maintaining the same, or to enter upon such easement area or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace,remove or otherwise attend thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the public right-of-way easement is hereby vacated a portion of Spruce Street, Arthur Street and the alleyway with the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat of Blake Heights; and 2. The owner granting a right-of-way easement for a future cul-de-sac on Arthur Street 3. The legal description of the final area to be vacated shall be approved at the time the Blake Heights subdivision is granted final plat approval by the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause a notice of completion of proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of the County Auditor, and filed with the County Recorder, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851. Passed and adopted this 15th day of January,2002 Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Masica, Maetzold Nay: Kelly Resolution adopted. BID AWARD FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT REPLACEMENT VEHICLE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 5, 2002 Manager Hughes asked the bid award for the Health Department replacement vehicle be continued to February 5, 2002. Member Masica made a motion to continue the bid award for the Health Department replacement vehicle to February 5,2002. Member Housh seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Kelly, Masica, Maetzold Motion carried. BID AWARDED FOR HEIGHTS PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT Director Keprios explained bids were opened on January 10, 2002, for purchase and installation of playground equipment for Heights Park. Specifications called for new playground equipment, poured in place ADA accessible pathways to transfer stations, new ADA grade level containers and pea gravel safety surface. The playground equipment design and colors are the result of a committee's input. The project was budgeted under the 2001 Capital Improvement Plan at $100,000. The low bid came in $17,579.05 over budget because of more concrete and slightly more equipment than exists at the park today. Mr. Keprios noted the low bidder is a reputable contractor who has worked on City parks previously. Page 10 Minutes/Edina City Council/Tanuary 15, 2002 Member Masica made a motion for award of bid for Heights Park Playground Equipment to recommended low bidder, Arrigoni Brothers at $117,579.05. Member Hovland seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Kelly, Masica, Maetzold Motion carried. *BID AWARDED FOR WELL #2 DEVELOPMENT AND MOTOR REPLACEMENT (IMPROVEMENT NO. PW 02-2) Motion made by Member Masica and seconded by Member Housh for award of bid for well #2 development and motor replacement, Improvement No. PW 02-2 to recommended low bidder, Bergerson- Caswell, at $34,255.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. Mayor Maetzold turned the meeting temporarily over to Mayor pro-tem Kelly who led the discussion and vote on setting dates for the Board of Appeal and Equalization and Joint School Board/City Council meeting. APRIL 8, 2002, DATE SET FOR BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION Mr. Hughes explained the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting date must be set prior to February 15th of each year. The suggested date is April 8, 2002, at 5:00 P.M. Following a brief Council discussion, Member Hovland made a motion setting April 8,2002, at 5:00 P.M. for the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting. Member Masica seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Masica, Kelly Motion carried. FEBRUARY 25, 2002, SET FOR JOINT SCHOOL BOARD/CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mr. Hughes said the School District has requested a joint meeting with the City Council on Monday, February 25, 2002. Member Hovland made a motion approving February 25, 2002, for a Joint School Board/ City Council meeting. Member Masica seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Masica, Kelly Motion carried. Mayor Maetzold re-entered the Council Chambers. 2002-2003 LABOR AGREEMENT FOR LOCAL 49er's (PUBLIC WORKS) CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 5, 2002 Mr. Hughes asked the 2002-2003 Labor Agreement for Local 49er's for Public Works be continued to February 5, 2002. 2002-2003 LABOR AGREEMENT FOR LOCAL 320 (ANIMAL CONTROL AND CSO's) CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 5, 2002 Mr. Hughes asked the 2002-2003 Labor Agreement for Local 320 (Animal Control and CSO's) be continued to February 5, 2002. Page 11 Minutes/Edina City Council/Tanuary 15,2002 2002-2003 LABOR AGREEMENT FOR LOCAL 320 (POLICE DISPATCH) CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 5, 2002 Mr. Hughes asked the 2002-2003 Labor Agreement for Local 320 (Police Dispatch) be continued to February 5, 2002. *RESOLUTION NO. 2002-09 WATER UTILITY LABORATORY SERVICES AGREEMENT APPROVED Motion made by Member Masica and seconded by Member Housh approving the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 2002-09 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND THE CITY OF EDINA FOR WATER UTILITY LABORATORY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Edina is in need of access to laboratory services to support Edina public water utilities activities; and WHEREAS, the City of Bloomington can provide these services through a shared- cost arrangement that is financially supported by the Cities of Edina, Saint Louis Park and Bloomington; and WHEREAS, the Agreement shall cover the period of January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002, and shall be automatically renewed each year without notice, unless either of the parties agrees in writing to terminate the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the Edina City Council approves the Agreement and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Agreement and return a certified copy to the City of Bloomington. Adopted this 15th day of January 2002. Motion carried on rollcall vote -four ayes. LOCAL TRAFFIC TASK FORCE UPDATE PRESENTED Mr. Hughes explained the formation summary and function of the proposed Edina Local Traffic Task Force. The Task Force would meet for a six-month period and be comprised of seven to nine residents, have City staff for technical help and the aid of an outside facilitator. The purpose of the Task Force would be to analyze local traffic and institute a "toolbox" to creatively mitigate traffic issues such as speeds and volume. The Task Force will be coordinated by Mr. Houle and will be disbanded when its mission is completed. Member Housh made a motion accepting the Local Traffic Task Force update as presented. Member Masica seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Kelly, Masica, Maetzold Motion carried. *PETITION RECEIVED REQUESTING TEN FOOT CONCRETE BARRIER ALONG MCCAULEY TRAIL BETWEEN 6617 APACHE ROAD AND EDINA PROPERTY NORTH OF 6901 MCCAULEY TRAIL Motion made by Member Masica and seconded by Member Housh acknowledging receipt of the petition requesting a ten foot concrete barrier along McCauley Trail between 6617 Apache Road and Edina Property North of 6901 McCauley Trail and submission to the engineering department for feasibility. Motion carried on rollcall vote -four ayes. Page 12 Minutes/Edina City Council/Tanuary 15,2002 'PETITION RECEIVED REQUESTING TEN FOOT CONCRETE BARRIER ALONG MCCAULEY TRAIL SOUTH BETWEEN EDINA PROPERTY NORTH OF 6901 MCCAULEY TRAIL AND VALLEY VIEW ROAD Motion made by Member Masica and seconded by Member Housh acknowledging receipt of the petition requesting a ten foot concrete barrier along McCauley Trail South, between Edina Property North of 6901 McCauley Trail and Valley View Road and submission to the engineering department for feasibility. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS REGARDING WATER DAMAGE Mr. Houle stated that on Sunday, January 6, 2002, a major watermain broke at Interlachen Boulevard and Cooper Avenue. It was believed that twelve residences were affected. Damages were not structural but content-related. In most cases, damage was caused by the backup of the sanitary sewer system due to "surcharging' caused by the watermain break. St. Paul Companies, the City's insurance carrier, concluded the City was not negligent and denied claims related to property damage. Mr. Houle added the City's policy has been to rely on findings and coverages provided by our insurance carrier. The City does not maintain a "disaster relief fund" or a separate self- insurance program to provide assistance in such circumstances. Property owners must look to their private insurance policies for coverages and often the policies have limits or exclusions resulting in little or no coverage. Mr. Houle said that events of this nature were rare. He noted in February 1994, an almost identical event occurred in the vicinity of 7011' Street and Wooddale Avenue. At that time, the Council, after much discussion, decided not to provide relief apart from that offered by the City's insurance carrier. That policy remains in effect today. Mr. Houle indicated there were several reasons why watermains break: • Material Type a. Cast Iron versus Ductile Iron • Subgrade Type and Movement a. Frost b. Ground Water Levels • Pressure Differentials a. Within Pipe b. Outside Pipe (Atmospheric) Aftereffects of Watermain Breaks: 1. Typically Rise to Surface and Drain to Storm Sewer 2. Larger Events May "Blowout" Pavement and Subgrade 3. Drain to Sanitary Sewer - May Surcharge "Backup" System Department of Health Requires: 10 Feet Horizontal Separation 1.5 Feet Vertical Separation There are 200 miles of watermains in Edina. On average, Edina has 20 watermain breaks per year. Yearly watermain breaks within the metro area are as follows: Roseville 60 St. Louis Park 40 Page 13 Minutes/Edina City Council/Tanuary 15,2002 Bloomington 25 Woodbury 10 Edina 20 Member Masica inquired if work had been done in the area prior to the watermain break. Mr. Houle commented a rod-injected cleaning of the sewer system was done during the summer of 2001. Ms. Masica asked what the reason was for the watermain break. Mr. Houle said one reason could be that when the ground moves, cast iron pipe can shear. Ms. Masica asked the age of this specific main. Mr. Houle responded it was installed in approximately 1959. Mr. Houle noted another reason for a main breaking was atmospheric pressure differentials, which could have an impact. Member Masica asked if this main was on a replacement schedule. Mr. Houle said replacement was done on an'as needed' basis. Member Housh asked if the break was caused by something the City did. Mr. Houle said the foreman on the site removed twigs and roots from the line. Mr. Housh asked if it was typical that water backs out of the sewer like a fountain. Mr. Houle answered that water has tremendous force when it was under pressure. Member Hovland questioned what could be done to prevent this from happening. Mr. Houle responded that without replacing the whole system with ductile iron or PVC pipe and following set standards, mishaps cannot be prevented. It would be extremely difficult to predict a break from an engineering standpoint. Mr. Hovland asked if a law exists that the City was liable for this type of mishap. Attorney Gilligan responded it would be a negligence standard not a strict liability standard. Correspondence was received from Lee Ann Gustafson, One Cooper Avenue and Sydney G. Schultz and Karen Wermager, Three Cooper Avenue. Resident comments Lee Ann Gustafson, One Cooper Avenue presented pictures of her lower level and commented: 1) lower level filled with 2-3 inches of sandy, wet residue, 2) anything touched by the blackwater had to be destroyed, 3) what assurance do residents have that watermain was properly repaired a few years ago, 4) questioned whether an independent party examined the area since St. Paul Companies took one day to make their ruling, 5) weather had nothing to do with this occurrence, 6) asked City to think outside insurance box, 7) asked for tax relief and compensation, 8) will house still be assessed at the same rate, 9) how desirable would home be to prospective buyer, and 10) moral integrity and ethics come into play with this occurrence and a fair and equitable solution must be found. Sydney Schultz and Karen Wermager, Three Cooper Avenue, presented pictures and commented, 1) initially only concerned with saving house, 2) became aware of the difference between strict liability and negligence at this meeting, 3) does not know how to pay for the work that has been done on lower level, and 4) sought help from the City. Carl Gulbronson, Five Cooper Avenue, stated in September 2000, there was a blockage in the sewer line on Cooper Avenue approximately 182 feet from Interlachen Boulevard. Several homes' sewers drained into his basement at that time. It was explained to him that it was an 'overflow" and was covered by his insurance company. His house was an 1899 farmhouse Page 14 Minutes/Edina City CounciVlanuary 15,2002 with a dirt floor and the water soaked six feet into the earth. The City paid to put a concrete floor in the basement and he installed check valves to prevent a sewer backup. This time the valves worked but the force of the break allowed water to cascade out of standpipes like fountains in his basement. He asked the City to dilute the backup residue both on the street and in the ponds. Mr. Gulbronson stated one line in his insurance policy stated he has no coverage for sewer backup. Mr. Gulbronson said he believed other causes of the break exist: 1) defective parts, 2) improper repairs/maintenance, and 3) improper street repairs. He suggested an outside source examine watermain repairs/maintenance. He believed the City to be negligent in not getting the watermain turned off for one hour and fifteen minutes. Terrie Rose, 5001 Interlachen Bluff, said their 2,000 square foot lower level was in the same condition as the Cooper Avenue residents. Ms. Rose, stated that traffic has increased on Interlachen Boulevard and when cars hit that section of road, the road rumbles. She questioned the County's liability in maintenance on the road. Ms. Rose asked why no one from the City contacted them with information of what to do when the watermain break occurred. Tom Wesley, 5633 Interlachen Circle, an 18 1/2 year resident, gave background of other watermain breaks in the area and commented they were all within a few blocks and downhill. After Lisa Petterson of St. Paul Companies met with the City, he received a call from her denying negligence by the City. His home experienced $15,000 - $20,000 worth of damage with the break. He noted he has a lift station on his property. Mr. Wesley asked the City to take a hard look at the road because he believed the road has been compromised. Lee Ann Gustafson added if a watermain broke in a residents' front yard, the City would repair the damage with sod, etc. so why would the same process not apply to a watermain break. Mr. Gulbronson inquired whether a homeowner could install a well and septic system rather than being on City water and sewer. Mr. Houle commented the Wastewater Commission and the Metropolitan Council's position was to reduce the number of wells and septic systems not increase them. Kris Bauleke, 5636 Interlachen Circle, asked, 1) could this happen again, 2) would she need to get a plumber in, and 3) should she increase her insurance coverage. Mayor Maetzold responded to the best of anyones knowledge, these breaks occur randomly. Carole Stenden, Metropolitan Life, representing one resident, asked, 1) if replacement of this watermain was scheduled, and, 2) were there other mains in the City as old as this one. Mr. Houle said he did not have that information available at this time but he could bring it to the next Council meeting. Member Kelly asked if Met Life would be acquiring an expert to examine the main, etc. Ms. Stenden said that would be a decision from the subrogation department of Met Life. Member Housh inquired what the process would be if a resident wanted to bring suit attempting to prove negligence. Attorney Gilligan said just because the claim was denied, residents can continue to pursue coverage for the losses. Page 15 Minutes/Edina City Council/ianuary 15,2002 Bill Homeyer, Harris Homeyer Insurance, indicated he had spoken to Lisa Petterson, the adjustor for St. Paul Companies, who said the break was routine with no negligence. The proper procedure would be to sue the City; the St. Paul Companies would defend the City and when decision was made if the City was at fault, payment would be made. Mr. Hovland asked if insurance existed that would cover the City for disasters such as the watermain break. Mr. Homeyer said the League of Minnesota Cities had an endorsement available covering $10,000 for each building per year, irrespective of negligence on the City's part, with a few exclusions. He stated he was unaware of any carriers writing stand-alone policies. Mr. Housh suggested information regarding sewer backup insurance coverage could be included in with water bills and the City could buy the coverage for the residents if they chose to be in a buying pool. Mr. Homeyer said he believes most residents have been offered this coverage when their homeowner's policies were written. Mayor Maetzold said after listening to residents whose homes were severely damaged when the watermain broke, he felt the Council should direct staff to look into the possibility of providing aid. Sympathetic to the residents, the Council's consensus was to direct staff to research the possibility of helping homeowners in some way. Staff would report back to the Council with recommendations at the February 5, 2002, meeting. 2002 ASSESSMENT AND VALUE INCREASES PREVIEW PRESENTED Assessor Petersburg presented a preview of the 2002 assessment value increases as follows: SALES ANALYSIS: • All sales that take place from October 1 through September 30 each year were analyzed • For 2002 assessment, 610 sales transacted and were analyzed • Analysis indicated a median ratio of 83% (2001 EMV compared to sale price) • County standard is 95% • After adjusting values for the 2002 assessment, projected median ratio was 94.9% (2002 proposed EMV compared to sale price) SALES TRANSACTED AFTER SEPTEMBER 30, 2001: • 88 sales have transacted between September 3011,and December 31, 2001 • Sales will be part of analysis for the 2003 assessment • Comparing projected 2002 EMV to these sale prices gave an indicated median ratio of 92.7% OBSERVATIONS: • Median sale price was up 11.5% in Minnesota (12/18/01 Star Tribune) • Last several years, due to inventory starved springs,bidding wars occurred • Buyers market now due to better inventory • Market beginning to normalize AREAS OF CONCERN: • Eleven Districts will realize increases of 20% or more CLOSER LOOK AT ONE DISTRICT OF CONCERN: Page 16 Minutes/Edina City Council/January 15,2002 • District 23: 85 parcels with an average increase of 53.4% • Ten properties purchased for land acquisition/demolition PROS: • Moving towards better equalization of market values • Still able to apply limited market value (taxable value) CONS: • Market value increase in these districts are greater than the City average • Limited market value has inherent inequities Mr. Hughes noted even though values increase, no new additional taxes have been created. These increases merely re-balance the playing field. No Council action was taken. ORDINANCE NO. 2002-01 - CHANGING WATER RATES FOR PORTION OF EDINA SERVED BY CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS WATER Mr. Hughes explained at the December 18, 2001, Council meeting, all utility related fees with the exception of the water charge for the portion of Edina served by Minneapolis water were approved. The City of Minneapolis has notified the City of Edina that the charge for Minneapolis water would increase 9.5% from the 2001 rate. The water rates for portion of Edina served by City of Minneapolis water for the year 2002 will be $2.08/100 cubic feet. Member Kelly introduced the following Ordinance No. 2002-1 changing water rates for portion of Edina served by City of Minneapolis water and moved its approval including waiver of second reading: SCHEDULE 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2002-1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. The following described fees of Schedule A to Code Section 185 are amended to read as follows: SECTION SUBSEC. PURPOSE OF AMOUNT FEE NO. FEE/CHARGE 1100 1100.03.Subd 2 Water Service 1. No change 243 2. $2.08/100 cubic feet for Morningside area and for east side of Beard Av. From W 54th St. to Fuller St. and both sides of Abbott Pl. from W 54th St. to Beard Av. Section 2. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be January 15, 2002. Attest City Clerk Mayor Page 17 Minutes/Edina City Counci anuary 15,2002 Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Kelly, Masica, Maetzold Motion carried. MLC 2002 SESSION LEGISLATIVE UPDATE PRESENTED Mr. Hughes briefly explained the impact on the City with Governor Ventura's potential "big fix" for the states budget deficit. 'CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS PAID Member Masica made a motion and Member Housh seconded the motion approving payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated January 3, 2002, and consisting of 27pages: General Fund $300,663.59; Communications Fund $522.85; Working Capital Fund $4,012.23; Construction Fund $2,107.00; Art Center Fund $1,907.86; Golf Dome Fund $2,709.38; Aquatic Center Fund $798.00; Golf Course Fund $11,554.72; Ice Arena Fund $1,294.90; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Fund $3,660.59 Liquor Fund $182,020.19; Utility Fund $4,486.49; Storm Sewer Fund $950.00; TOTAL $516,687.80 and for approval of payment of claims dated January 10, 2002 and consisting of 27 pages: General Fund $618,092.31; Communications Fund $4,528.58; Working Capital Fund $36,420.36; Art Center Fund $4,089.99; Golf Dome Fund $559.49; Golf Course Fund $19,234.35; Ice Arena Fund $1,931.38; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes $5,460.84; Liquor Fund $85,352.55; Utility Fund $25,669.64; Storm Sewer Fund $1,274.84; Recycling Fund $29,618.50; Payroll Fund $450,000.00; TOTAL: $1,282,232.83. Motion carried on rollcall vote -four ayes. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Maetzold declared the meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M. � � f / 4A, City Clerk Page 18