HomeMy WebLinkAbout19680805_regularL
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
YdNDAY, AUGUST 5, 1968
EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL EIELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON c
i. c
Members answering rollcall were Councilmen Courtney, Shaw and VanValkenburg who
served as Mayor Pro Tem.
MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of July 15, 1968, were approved as submitted by
motion of Councilman Courtney, seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried.
.+
SPECIAL ASSESSkNT kINGS CONDUCTED ON VARIOUS IMPROVEkNTS . 'Affidavits of
Publication in the Edina Sun on July 18 and of Mailing on,July 19, 1968, were
presented by Clerk, approved as to' form and ordered placed on file. Pursuant
to due notice given, Public Hearings were conducted and action was taken by the
Council as hereinafter recorded:
1. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 250 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (West 77th
Street from Parklawn Avenue to 230' east of Computer Avenue.)
Tabulation of Assessment showing total construction cost of $26,600.21, proposed
to be assessed against 17 connections at a cost of $1,564.72 per connection.
improvement having been authorized on 100% petition, no estimated cost was made.
No persons appeared to register objections and none had been received prior thereto.
(See resolution Ordering Assessment later in minutes.)
2. SANITARY SEWER NO. 258 AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. 219 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
HEARINGS CONTINUED TO AUGUST 19.
#158). Mr. Hyde presented Tabulation of Assessment for Sanitary Sewer No. 258
showing total construction cost of $31,451.19, proposed to be assessed against
31 assessable lots at a proposed assessment of $1,014.55 as against estimated
assessment of $1,450.89 per assessable lot.
main Improvement No. 219 was presented by Mr. Hyde showing total construction
cost at $27,149.81, proposed to be assessed at $936.20 against 29 assessable
lots as against estimated assessment of $993.53 per assessable lot. Mr. Hyde
noted that a letter had been received from Mr. Bert Nygaard, attorney representing
Mr. and Mrs. Mathew McPherson, 5817 Olinger Road, indicating that the McPhersons
are requesting a fererment on two sewer and water connections until such time,
if ever, they would plat their property for the purpose of sale or construction
of an additional dwelling. Mr. Hite noted that the property in question has a
frontage along Olinger Blvd. of 200 feet which would be adequate for a second
home site and for that reason it is recommended that the property be assessed
for two assessments.
granted or a deed restriction could be placed on the property under which it
would be agreed not to subdivide at a future date. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Mac-
*See Pherson or Mr. Nygaard being present, Councilman Shaw's*motion that the assess-
mx. .merit hearing for Watermain 219 and Sanitary sewer 258 be continued to August 19
in 8- in order that the Village Manager could ascertain the wishes of the McPhersons
19-68 was seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried.
min- 3. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 260 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (West 62nd
Utes Street from Tracy Avenue to 400 feet west.)
Assessment showing total construction cost at $12,201.52, proposed to be assessed
against five assessable connections at $2,440.30.
ordered on 100% petition, no estimated assessment was given.
presented at the hearing and none had been received prior thereto.
lution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes .)
4. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 252 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (On an easement
line from Warren Avenue to Mildred Avenue; Mildred Avenue from south line of Lot 9,
Block 9, Normandale 2nd Addition to 130 feet north).
of Assessment showing total construction cost at $9,516.06, proposed to be assessed
against four assessable lots at a proposed assessment of $2,379.01 per lot as
against estimated assessment of $2,160.05.
assessment and no objections had been received prior thereto.
Ordering Assessment later in Minutes.)
5 .
from West 65th Street to West 66th Street; West 66th Street from Josephine Avenue
to Wilryan Avenue; Wjilryan Avenue from West 65th Street to West 66th Street),
Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at $27,295.76,
proposed to be assessed against 33 assessable connections at $827.14 per connection
against estimated assessment of $950.70 per connection.
protest the assessment and no objections had been received prior thereto.
Resolution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes).
6. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 256 WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. 217 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
LEVIED.
Hills Addition to 843 feet $ south; on an easement line 25 feet south of the south
line of Interlachen Hills Addition from 245.5 feet west of the center line of Lincoln
I
Mr. Hyde presented
The
(Olinger Road from Olinger Blvd. to County Road
Tabulation of Assessment for Water-
I Mr. Hyde pointed out that a five year deferment could be
.
Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of
The improvement having been
(See Reso-
No objections were
Mr. Hyde presented Analysis
No persons appeared to object to the
(See Resolution
(Josephine Avenue WATERMAIN IEPROVEMENT NO. 210 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED.
Mr.
No persons appeared to
(See
(Sanitary Sewer 256 located in Lincoln Drive from north line of Interlachen
8/5 /68
, - . - _. -
m
T'y m 0 V u
Drive to Lincoln Drive. W.M. 217 locatBd in Lincoln Drive from the north Line
of Interlachen Hills Addition to* 843 feet plus or minus south on an easement
line near Interlachen Hills Addition from Lincoln Drive to County Road #18jq
The above hearings involving the. same property, Assessment Hearings were con-
ducted concurrently. Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment of Sanitary
-Sewer No. 256 showing total construction cost at $21,747.67, proposed to be
assessed against one assessable lot as against estimated assessment of $21,476.95.
Analysis of Assespuent for Watermain Improvement No.. 217 was presented showing
total construction cost at $23,709.56 proposed to be assessed against one ass-
essable lot as against estimated assessment of $20,639.57. Mr. Hyde presented
a letter from Mr. Wallace B. Kenneth, owner of th.e property, stating that he
believes that his total. assessment should.be about $24,000 for both sewer and
water and contending that his property east of Interlachen Hills 1st Addition
'should not be assessed.
this property serves as a lateral. Mr. Kenneth's letter also stated that Mr.
Carl Hansen, owner of the property to the north should be assessed for part of
these improvements, Mr.,Hite advised that it is recommended that Mr. Hansen's
land will be assessed when that land is developed and it is necessary to extend
the system.
essment later in Minutes.)
7. SANITARY SEWER NO. 263 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (Kemrich Drive from
Shannon Drive to 1200 feet east; Lanham Lane from Kemrich Drive to 250 feet
north; Antrim Road from Kemrich Drive to 165 feet north).
Analysis of Assessment for Sanitary Sewer No. 263 stating that this improve-
ment was originated by 100% petition.
at $22,754.58 proposed to be assessed against 22 assessable lots at $1,034.30
per lot.
(See Resolution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes).
It was pointed out that the line running alongside
No further discussion was heard. (See Resolution Ordering Ass-
Mr. Hyde presented
Analysis showed total construction cost
No objections were presented and none had been received prior thereto.
8. WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. 224 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (Kemrich Drive
from Shannon Drive to east line of Kemrich.Knolls; Antrim Road from Kemrich
Drive to north line of Kemrich Knolls; Lanham Lane from Kemrich Drive to north
line of Kemrich Knolls),
total construction cost at $13,267.55 proposed to be assessed against 22 ass-
essable lots at $603.07.
being initiated upon 100% petition.
been received prior thereto.
Minutes).
9. WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. 220 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (Brookside
Avenue from center of Lot 9, Block 3, Grandview Heights Addition to north side
of County Road 8158 at Interlachen Blvd. Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Ass-
essment showing total construction cost at $5,521.15, proposed to be assessed
against one parcel at $5,521.15 as against estimated assessment of $11,540.34.
No-objections were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Reso-
lution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes.)
10. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 264 AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. 225
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED. (Sanitary Sewer 264 is located on the South side
of West 78th Street from Cahill Road west 572' then south 350' to Village .
Limits then west 613'; Watermain 225 is located as follows:- West 78th Street
from Cahill Road to Tract "D", .Nine.Mile West Addition; Tract trD*' Nine Mile
West Addition from West: 78th Street to 350 feeti south; on an easement line
from Tract "D" Nine Mile West Addition west 613 feet).
to be assessed for Sanitary Sewer 264 and fQr Watermain 225 being the same,
haerings on the two improvements were conducted concurrently.
sented Analysis of Assessment for Sanitary Sewer 264 showing total construction
cost at $11,068.22 proposed-to be assessed at either $0.024843 per square foot
or $7.167 per front foot against 1,544.39,assessable front footage or against
445,488 assessable square feet. Estimated assessment was given at.$0.0105 per
square foot.
cost at $5,154.16 proposed to bq-assessed at either $0.01157 per square.feet or
,at $3.3375 per front foot against either 1,544.39 assessable front footage or
against 445.488 assessable square feet.
$0.00465. Mr. Hite advised that a letter had been received from Industrial
Gasket requesting assessment- on a square foot basis.
assessment on a square foot basis because the total cost which was shared by
Edina and Bloomington was itself shared on an area basis rather than on a front-
age basis.
a 1,inear foot basis,
assessmentinasmuch as the area is zoned industrial, and the benefit is directly
related to the area of the land owned. Coun-
cilman Courtney's motion approving assessment.for SS264 and WM 225 on a square
foot basis was seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried.
ing Assessment later in Minutes),
Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing
No estimated assessment was made, the improvement
No objections were offered and none had
(See Resolution Ordering Assessment later in I
The- property proposed
Mr. Hyde pre-
Analysis of Asqessment for Watermain 225 showed total construction
Estimated assessment was presented at
The s.taff also recommends
Mr. Antonio Beynardi advised that he would prefer the assessment on
Mr. Hite advis.ed that he would recommend the square foot
No further questions were raised.
(See Resolution Order-
8/5/68
11. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 253 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (Waterman
Avenue from Arthur Street to Waterman Circle).
Assessment showing total construction cost at $6,029.15 proposed to be assessed
against 4 assessable lots at a cost of $1,464.59 as against proposed assessment
of $1,507.28 per lot.
been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Ordering Assessment later in Min-
Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of
No objections were heard from the f.loor and none had
. utes,)
12. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO.. BA-103 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (Woodcrest
Drive from W. 56th Street to Woodland Road;. Park Place from W.-56th Street to
Woodcrest Drive.). Mr. Xyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total
construction cost at $26,738.91, proposed to be assessed either agatnst 39
assessable lots at $685.61 per lot or on a basis of $7.84 per assessable foot.
Estimated assessment was presented at $896.69 per lot or $10.26 per assessable
foot. Mr. Hite advised that the developer has requested a per lot assessment.
No further comments'were heard, whereupon Councilman Shawls motion approving
the assessment on a per lot basis was s'econded by Councilman Courtney and Carried.
(See Resolution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes)..
13, STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT 110 ASSESSMENT HEARING CONTINUED TO AUGUST 19.
(W. 56th Street from Brookview Avenue to Minnehaha Creek).
entered the meet'ing at this point.
preside. Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction
cost of $27,539.73, proposed to be assessed at $0.01306 against 2,108.612 ass-
essable feet as against estimated assessment of~$0.018 per square foot.
Hyde advised that questions had arisen about the assessment of property on
Wooddale Avenue which had been assessed previously for another storm sewer and
noted that the assessment now under consideration is for the rear of these lots,
. whereas the former assessment was for the front yard areas. He indicated that
the assessment rate on the two storm sewers was approximately the same.
Earl Sharpe advised that he represents Frontier Development Corporation, devel-
opers of Colonial Grove VI Addition.. He stated that it was his understanding
that credit was to have been given for a previously installed drainage system
in the southerly portion of Colonial Grove VI Additionr
the storm sewer had been originally proposed on,this basis, but that it had
been determined at the final improvement hearing that this low area was spec-
ially benefitted by storm water to warrant this area to be assessed equally
with owners of higher properties in the drainage district. Mr. Hyde pointed
out that residents in the southerly area of Colonial Grove VI Addition could
not get out of the.area during a heavy rain unless this storm sewer had been.
installed, inasmuch as this land was subject to flooding by Minnehaha Creek.
Mayor Bredesen noted that there is a question of benefit, not only of contri-
bution, in arriving at an equitable storm sewer assessment. Mr. William Mc-
Rostie,,attorney representing Frontier Development Corporation, requested that
the hearing be continued in order that he could familiarize himself with de-
tails of the improvements, whereupon Councilman Straw's motion that the hearing
be continued to August 19, 1968, was seconded by Councilman Courtney and
carried.
14. STORM SEWER NO. 106 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (On easement line from
Parnell Avenue cul-de-sac across Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Normandale Wicklund
Replat to Virginia Avenue; thence to pond). Mr.rHyde presented Analysis of
Assessment showing total construction cost at $4,655.71, proposed to be ass-
essed against 168,569 assessable square feet at $0.02607 per square foot
against estimated assessment of $0.029 per assessable square foot.
sons appeared to offer protests and none had been received prior thereto.
XSee Resolution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes.)
15, STORM SEWER NO. 108 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (Xerxes Avenue from
easement line to West 69th Street; West.69th Street
Mayor Bredesen
Councilman VanValkenburg continued to
Mr,
Mr.
Mr. Hite noted that
No per-
from Xerxes Avenue west
f
-
c
105 feet.+).
struction-cost proposed to be assessed at $25,945.77 with additional cost of
$7,647.33 to be paid by.the City of Richfield.
at $0.04609 per square feet as against estimated assessment of $0.05936 per sq.
ft. No persons were present to offer objections and none had beenreceived
prior thereto.
16. STORM SEWER NO. 112 SEECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED. (On easement line between
Lots 28 and 29, Block 1, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition from Halifax Avenue
to 230 feet east). Stating that this improvement was ordered upon 100% petition,
Mr. Hyde presented total construction cost at $3,290.01 propose8 to be assessed
against 85,980 square feet at a cost of $0.03826 per assessable square foot.
No protests were presented and none had been received prior thereto.
17, STORM SEWER NO. 103 ASSESSMENT HEARING CONTINUED. (Northwest Corner of
Edina, West Minneapolis Heights).
-at $221.447.11, proposed to be assessed against 4,213.135 square feet in the
General Assessment District at $0.03883 per square foot against the Special
Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total con-
Proposed assessment was given B (See Resolution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes)..
Mr. Hyde presented total construction cost
8/5 /68 c
M. rcT V u
.
Benefit Area (Valuation Basis) at $57,877.00, as against estiniated'assessment
of $0.045 per square foot.
has been under consideration 6y Council for some time is being proposed for
this storm sewer which would assess properties which have been specially bene-
fit ed at a higher rate. Mr. Hite showed a map of the drainage district which
indicated the outside boundary pfoposed to be assessed, as well as the three
various categories which have been established to reflect the various degrees
of benefit.
the greatest amount of benefit in th&t they have been relieved from damage to
structures on the property.
from damage other than to structures, such as land erosion.
assigned to areas which had water standing in the middle of the block and'
would normally affect more than one piece of property.
established by a joint effort of the Engineering and Assessing Departments
All valuations have been made
on an individual basis.
$580, Categorf 2 by $240 and Category 3 by $120. Mr. Hite also advised that
"pluses" have been assigned to certain properties for extra benefits such as
lot filling, and that it is these "pluses" which seem to disturb some property
owners more than the various categories: Letters objecting to the proposed
assessment were received from Megsrs. Howard E. Moore, 316 Blake Road, Robert
P. Anthony, 301 Griffit Street, Richard J. Olson, 305 Griffit Street, Mr. and
Mrs. H, N. Amdahl, 309 Griffit Street, Frank J. Gollon, 308 Blake Road, George
0. Falkenborg, 313 Griffit Street,'and Mr. and Mrs. Lelund Kosell, 306 Blake
Road, Mr. Anthony requested information as to which categories properties in
the area bounded by Blake Road, Belmore Lane, Griffit Street and Spruce Place
are in. Mr. Hit@ advised that 301, 309, and 313 Griffit Street and 316 Blake
Road were in Category 1 and that 305 Griffit Street, 304, 306, and 308 Blake
Road were in Category 3. "Pluses" have been assigned to 309 and 313 Griffit
Street and to 308 and 316 Blake Road. Mr. Anthony advised that Council had
stated at the improvement'hearing that the storm sewer was installed so that
the streets in the area could be paved and that the disposition of storm water
is the respmsibility of everyone in the drainage area. He advised that'it is
discriminatory to assess some properties at a higher rate than others, partic-
ularly since this method of assessment had not been proposed at the improvement
hearing.
beenproposGd on an equal basis, the cost would become $0.0504 per square foot.
Mayor Pro Tern VanValkenburg noted that storm sewers had'always been assessed
at a uniform rate in the past but that it is now considered that the proposed
method of'assessment is more equitable. Mr. Ronald C. Toenges; 505 Blake
Road, stated that he believes that this method of assessment has much merit,
and that the special benefits are quite conservative. Mr. Walter Gustafson,
representing Mr. Johan Otterlei, stated that Mr. Otterlei's property was in
Category 3. He pointed out that Mr. Otterlei had given a drainage easement to
the Village to alleviate standing water and now when there'is a severe storm
the water backs up sixty feet into his back yard; and requested that this ass-
essment be reviewed. Mr. Herbert Davis, representing Dr. f). E. Hogan, 6204 Bel-
more Lane, questioned whether Lot 2, IJflhoit's Addition was contained in the le-
gal publication, Mr. Davis noted that the mailed notiee gave the cost proposed
to be asseksed at $0.0385 rather than the cost of $0.03883 as presented in the
Analysis of Assessment. Mr. Hite advised Mr. Davis that 36,000 square feet of
Dr. Hogan's prbperty was within the storm sewer district and that he would
check this figure later with Mr. Davis. Mr. Hyde recommended that Council
make an inspection of the properties in question and that the hearing be con-
tinued. Mr. Leonard Parnell, 314 John Street, requested that a correction be
made in the mailed notice with reference to Lot 8, Block 5, Mendelssohn Addit-
ion, In reply to a question of Mr. Parnell, Mr. Hite indicated the categories of
properties in Block 5 Hendelssohn Addition.
that his property also be inspected, noting that they had granted an easement
for the holding pond in his yard,
to his property since it is too shallow. He requested that an appointment be
made, so that he can be at home when Council visits his property.
esen noted that Councilmen probably are not as able to make a proper judgment
as the qualified observers who have already looked at the properties.
Anthony and Amdel both requested that their properties be checked, They pro-
tested that the new storm sewer assessment policy was adopted after this &orm
sewer was approved and that no indication was made at the hearing-that this
type of assessment might be made.
sewer hearings the owners of the high properties in the storm sewer'district
always object to paying for storm sewers to solve problems of the owners of
Mr. Hyde noted that the new assessment policy which
1 Properties included in Categary I are considered to have received
Properties in Category 2 have received protection
Category 3 was
Valuations have been
-before and after the improvement was installed.
Category 1 is considered to have been benefited by
Iti reply to a question, Mr, Hite advised that if the assessment had
The owner of 6221 Maloney requested
He advised that the pond is now detrimental
Mayor Bred-
Messrs.
Mr, Hite pointed out that at all storm
8/5/68 s
lower areas. Mr. Robert Cunningham, 6305 Maloney Avenue, noted that he particu-
larly remembered this discussion witfi reference to six lots which were so badly
flooded that they were not even'on the tax roll&. MAyor Bredesen's. motion that
Council inspect the 56 lots to which special benefits have been assigned and that
new notices be sent out advising property owners of the new hearing date was sec-
onded by Councilman Courtney and carried.
18. STORM SEMER NO. 95 ASSESSMENT HEARING CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 9. (Tyler Court).
Mr. Hyde presented Tabulation of Assessment showint total construction cost at
$47,224.63, proposed to be assessed at $0.03643 per square foot against 956,040
s&are feet plus the Cemetery and Special Benefit Area which is proposed to be
assessed at $1,100 per lot.
foot.
backed to the low area between Tyler Court backed to the low area between Tyler
Court and Arthur Street and were in danger of having to be vacated because of
high water. These three properties have been placed in the specially benefited
district as has another property at Tyler Court and Maloney which had been fre-
quently flooded out before the project was installed.
Court, advised that he did not'own his property at the time of the improvement
hearing and had been told that his assessment would be about $430 rather than
the $1,100 now proposed to be assessed. He objected to the assessment on the
grounds that the assessment should be hade on a square foot basis and also be-
cause the storm sewer is not functioning properly.
Village is not cutting weeds and the'ponding area is unsightly.
that Mr. Fryer purchased the property of Mr. Rouzer, who had advised'Counci1
that he could not occupy hi5 home bekause of-the water in the basement.
to a question of,Mr. Fryer, Mayor Bredesen advised that a qualified appraiser
would have to make a determination as to the value of the property since the
storm sewer has been installed. Mayor Bredesen's motion that this-hearing be
continued to September 9, so that Council can inspect the property in question
was seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried. Council was also aGked to inspect
605 Waterman Circle and 6601 Maloney'AvenGe where Mr. R. Douglas MacDonald ad-
vised that he can float a canoe in his yard since the installation of the storm
sewer.
B Estimated assessment had been $0.0281 per square
Mr. Hite advised that the homes which are on the east side of Tyler Court
Elr. David Fryer, 505 Tyler
He also stated that the
Mr. Hite noted
In reply
'
19. STREET IMPROVEMENT'BA-94 ASSESSMENT HEARING CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 9.
(Northwest Corner of Edina - X&st~ Minneapolis Heights).
Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at $390,338.33 pro-
posed to be assessed as follows:
'assessable foot and $6.16 per assessable foot €or curb and gutter only. Alley
Assessment was given at $150.00 per lot for Lots 1 thru 5,'Block 7, Mendelssohn
Addition and $9.47 per assessable foot for other abutting properties. Estimated
assessment was given at $11.74 per'asseksable foot for blacktop, curb and gutter
and $5.74 per assessable foot for curb and gutter only.
this improvement is higher than the estimate, and that Village Officials are
still attempting to persuade the City of Hopkins to participate i
cost of the project. If Hopkins should pakticipate, the actual as,essment i
would be reduced to about $11.74 which was the estimated assessment. - further stated that if Hopkins does pay the $25,000 requested by the Village,
- this amount would be &edited against the assessed cost of'the improvement.
U Mr. Hyde presented
Blacktop, curb and gutter at $12.60 per
Mr. Hyde noted that
sharing ghe
Mr. Hyde
Mr. E, M. Carroll, 6221 Maloney Avenue, complained about the grade of the street,
stating that this has caused water to drain on to his property;
Davis, attorney representing Dr. D. E. Hogan, 6204 Belmore Lane, protested the
assessment for Lot 2, Wilhoit's Addition. He was advised by Mr. Hyde that Dr.
Hogan was assessed for one-third of the long side of his property along the'
alley in accordance with the policy of the Village for assessing corner lots,
Mr. Hyde also noted that the properties on the west side do not enter their
property from the alley.
assessments because they front on Grove Place, but that Lots 4 and 5 must use
the alley and should be aharged on the same-basis ad Dr. Hogan. Xn unident-
ified gentleman in the audience was'advised that the cost of sealcoat was
included in the assesment since the sealcoat is a necessary part of curb and
gutter installation.
thinks that the Engineering Department'have done a good job in spite of all the
problems causkd by poor work of the contractor.
Fpproach has cracked and that the curb and gutter in front of his house is in
poor condition.
and that the,main contractor (Bury and Carlson) will be responsible to see that
this is done.
September 9 in order that this improvement can be included in the Council's
inspection.
Mr. Herbert
Mayor Bredesen noted that Lots 1 and 3 hhe $150
An unidentified gentlemin in the audience stated that he
He noted that his driveway
Mr. Drake advised that the driveway approach will be replaced
Mayor Bredesen then moved that this hearing be continued to
-1
8/5/68 I 175
Councilman Courtney then o'ffered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF
SANITARY SEP7ER IMPROVEMENTS 205, 252, 253, 256, 260, 263,264,
I*JATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS 210, 217, 220, 224, 225, STORM SEWER. IMPROVE- IUNTS 106, 108, 112 AND STREET IMPROVEIGNT NO. BA-103 ,* I
The Village has given notice of hearings as required by law on the proposed
BE IT RESOLVED by the Village Council of the Village of Edina, Minnesota:
1.
assessment rolls fok the improvements hereinafter referred to, and at such hearings
held on August 5, 1968,chas considered all oral and written objections presented
against the levy of sucb assessments: - *
2. Subject to amendments*made in Paragraph 3, each of the assessments as set
forth in the assessment rolls on file in the office of the Village Clerk for the
following improvements: Sanitary Sewer Improvements 250; 252, 253, 256, 260, 263,
264, Watermain Improvements 210, 217, 220,~224, 225, Storm Sewer Improvements 106,
108, 112, and Street Improvement BA-103 does not exceed the local benefits conferred - by said improvements upon.the.lot, tract or parcel of land so assessed, and all of
said assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments on
account of said respective improvements to be spread against the benefited lots,
parcels and tracts of land described therein.
3.
assessed on a square foot basis; Sanitary Sewer No. 264 to be assessed on a square
foot basis; Street Improvement No. BA-103 to be assessed on a per lot basis.
4. The assessments for all improvements except SS263 and FIM224 shall be payable
in ten equal installments, the first of said installments, together with interest
at the rate of 5% per annum on the entire assessment from the date hereof to Dec-
ember'31, 1969, to be payable with the general taxes for the year 1968.
5. The assessments for SS263 and WM224 shall be payable in three equal install-
ments, the first of said installments, together with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum on the entire-assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1969, to
be payable with the general taxes for the year 1968.
6. The Village Clerk shall forthwith prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a
copy of this resolution and a certified duplicate of said assessments, with each
then unpaid installment and interest set forth separately, to be extended on the
tax lists of the County in accordance with thi.5 resolution.
7. The Clerk shall also mail notice of any special assessments which may be payable - by a county, by a political subdivision or by the owner of any right of fay, as
required by Minnesota.Statutes, Section 429.061, Subdivision 4, and if any such
assessment is not paid in a single installment, the Village Treasurer shall arrange
for collection thereof in installments, as set forth in said section,
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Shaw and on
.
-
Said assessments are hereby to be assessed as follows: Natermain 225 to be
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. Affidavits of Publication in
the Edina Sun on July 25 and August 1, and of Mailing on July 26, 1968, which affi-
davits were approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Pursuant to due notice
given, Publii: Hearings were conducted and action taken as hereinafter set forth:
A. CONSTRUCTION OF PEPUENT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER IN THE
FOLLOWING :
Mr. Hyde presented estimated cost at $18,656.46, proposed to be assessed against
1043.74 assessable feet at an estimated cost'of $17.87 per assessable foot.
advised that a petition has been received for this improvement and that a portion
of the property proposed to be assessed includes B portion of &e stre@t:in'the - cicy
of Bloonlington which is owned by ghe developer. Mr. George Connor, attorney for
Industrial Gasket, advised that his client had purchased the land from the Nine Mile
Creek Corporation and tliat there had been agreement at the time of purchase that
roads leading into Bloomington would not be assessed against the Industrial Gasket
property which has access to its property from Highway #5. In reply to the request
of Mr-. Connor that the hearing be continued until the owner of Industrial Gasket
Company returns to town, Mr.. Hyde noted that there is considerable urgency to auth-
orize this improvement because of the construction of a new building'on the cul-de-
sac, In reply to a questio_n of Mayor Pro Tem VanValkenburg, Attorney Schwartzbauer
indicated that there should be no problem if the method of assessment is not fully
determined at this time. Noting that this is a question which should be determined
at the Assessment Hearing, Mayor Bredesen's motion authorizing the street improve-
ment was seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried. (See Resolution Ordering
Improvement later in Ninutes .)
B . CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOIa7ING: Sumit
Avenue from Interlachen Blvd. to County Road #l58. p- 774
Cecelia Circle from West 78th Street to cul-de-sac
Mr. Hyde
I
I
8/5/68
OF WATERMAIN AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING: Summit Avenue
Blvd. to County Road #158.
I. The two above improvements affecting the same properties, hearings were conducted
simultaneously. Mr. Hyde presented estimated construction cost for sanitary sewer at
$6,729.46, proposed to be assessed against four assessable lots at $1,682.36 per lot.
Estimated cost of the watermkn was presented at ,$5,497.76, proposed to be assessed
against the same four lots at $1,374.44 per lot. Mr. Hyde advised that petition? have
been received for these improvements and that there is some urgency in the matter
since the well of Mrs. Charlie Johnson, 5020 Summit Avenue, is no longer functioning.
A letter was also received from Mr. Wm. J. Keefer, owner of Lots 1 and 2, Block 4,
Grandview Heights I1 Addition, opposing the improvements.
ning Commission has suggested that this property might be suitable for multiple dwell-
ingsor an office building.
that block have been approached to sell, but that one party'stymies the sale as a
parcel.
that the high cost has made the improvements prohibitive.
provements were petitioned in 1945 but were turned 8own by Council at that time.
suggested that the Village now has the responsibility of subsidizing part of the
cost. Mayor Bredesen advised that the General Fund cannot assume any part of this
expense and added that it would be regretable if Mrs. Johnson has to sell her hope.
Mr. Hite noted that the one individual in the block has killed interest in developing
the property for uses other thah R-1 Residential-District over the years. Following
some discussion, Mr. Hite suggested the possibility of installing a long water service
line from Interlachen Blvd., but warned that the water might not be as fresh as could
be desired. He suggested that Mrs. Johnson's son-in-law come to the Village Hall to
try to work*out details.
September 9, 1968, was then seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried. Councilman
Shaw then offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT BA-132
BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina Village Council that this Councilheretofor caused notice
of hearing to be duly publisheh and mailed to owners of each parcel within the area
proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement:
CONSTRUCTION OF PERMANENT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER IN Cecelia
Circle from West 78tfi S$reet to cul-de-sac and at the hearing held at the time and
place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all,
persons interested and being fully advised of the pertinent facts does hereby deter-
mine to proceed with the construction ?ft said improvement including all proceedings
which may be necessary in eminent domainifor the acquisition of necessary easements
and-rights for construction and maintenance of such improvement; that said improvement
is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as
STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-132; and the area to be specially assessed therefor shall
include L6t 1, Block 2 and Lot 3, Block 1, Nine Mile West First Addition.
Mr. Hyde noted that Plan-
I Mrs. Johnson's son-in-law advised that property owners on
He advised that two property owners were in favor of the improvements but
He advised that these im-
He
Councilman Shaw's motion that the hearing be continued until
I.
Motion for adoption
rollcall there were
ATTEST,:
of the resolution was seconded by Councilman,Churtney and on
four ayes and no nays
--8L h ALU-Q-4
Village Clerk
WILLIAM F. SHARPE R-2 ZONING GRANTED FOR LOTS 28 AND 29, IJARDEN ACRES.
of William F. Sharpe for R-2 zoning for Lots 28 and 29, Warden Acres, was presented
to Council for Second Reading, which reading had been continued from the meeting.
of July 15, 1968, in order that .- the legal publication could be corrected. Affidavit
of Publication in the Edina Sun on July 18, 1968, was then presented by Clerk, approved
as to form and ordered placed on file: Mr. Steven Lyle advised that he is building
th& douljle bungalow with Mr. Sfiarpe and urged that the zoning be granted.
appeared to protest the rezoning, whereupon Councilman Shaw offered Ordinance No.
261-164 for Second Reading and moved its adoption as follows:
The petition
No'persons
'ORDINANCE NO. 261-164
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 261
ESTABLISHING AN ADDITIONAL R-2
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT
(ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA
THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
-(Multiple Residence District) of Ordinance 261 of revised ordinances of the Village
of Edina, is hereby amended by adding the following sub-paragraph:
District R-2
"(44)
Acres
Section 1. Paragraph 1, Multiple Residence District Boundaries of Section 4
The West 71 feet of Lot 28 and the East 125 feer of Lot 29, Warden
c
8/5/68
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage and publication according to law.
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Councilman Courtney
and on rollcall there were four ayes and no nays and the, ordinance was
adopted.
. ATTEST:
C-3 DISTRICT AMENDMENTS GRANTED FIRST READING. Affidavits of Publication on
July 25, 1968, in the Edina Sun was presented by Clerk, approved as to form
and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hoisington presented Ordinance No. 261-167
for First Reading, noting that the wording is much the same as the recently
adopted R-5 Ordinance No. 261-156. He noted that at present there is no
height restriction except by setback and that this ordinance was being-pre-
sented because of concern about the height of buildings in the Southdale
area. Mrs, Diane Greensweig, representing the Southdale Residents Assoc-
iation, advised that she favored the ordinance as a step in the right: dir-
ection, but does not think it goes far enough. No further comments being
heard, Councilman Shaw offered Ordinance No. 261-167 for First Reading as
recommended by Planning Commission as follows:
ORDINANCE NO , 261-167
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AS TO SETBACK AND YARD REQUIREMENTS
IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Subparagraph C of Paragraph 8 of Section 9 (Commercial
District) of Ordinance No. 261 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Village is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"C. Setbacks and Yards:
(a) The minimum building setback from any Commercial District
Boundary or public street shall be as set forth herein or the average height
of the building, whichever is greater:
District Front Interior Side Side Street Rear -
Cy1 - 35 - - 15 25 25
C-2 35 25 25 - 25
C-3 50 50 50 50 *
c-4 45 25 45 25.
B
All Planned
Commercial
Districts 50 50 50 50
(All measured in feet)
(b) Exceptions :
(1) In the C-3 and PC-3 Districts any structure 5 or 6
stories in height shall be no closer to any R-1 District properties, except
those utilized for non-residential purposes, than two times the average
height of the building. For a 7 or 8-story structure, the.setback shall be
no less than three times the building height and f0r.a structure 9 or more
stories in height, the setback shall be no less than four times the building
height from any R-1 District properties, except those utilized for non-resi-
dential purposes.
In Districts C-1, C-2, and C-3, when more than 25% of
the frontage on the side of a street between intersections is occupied by
structures having setbacks from street right-of-ways of greater or lesser
amounts than hereinafter required, the average setback of all existing
buildings between the intersections shall be maintained by all new or relo-
cated structures.
such an established average setback different from that required hereinafter
and -there are existing buildings on.one side only, the front setback of said
new building need be no greater than that of the next adjoining existing
building.
an established average setback and there are existing buildings on both sides
of the said new building, the front setback shall not be required to be greater
than that which would be established by connecting a straight line between the
nearest front corners of the adjoining existing buildings.
(2)
In the event a building is to be built where there is
In a case where the building is to be built where there is such
I
I 815 1 68
(3) Interior side and rear yard requirements apply only when the
side or rear lot line is a Commercial District Boundary.
ments may be reduced by one-half if rear yard abuts the rear yard of the next
adjoining property and if rear wall contains no windows or doors.
In the C-2 and PC-2 Districts, a building whose length is equal
to or exceeds three times its average height if such height is 3 stories or more-
shall be no closer to R-l District properties, except those utilized for non-
residential purposes, or to public rights-of-way than 2 times its average height."
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon
Rear yard require-
(4)
Sec. 2.
its passage and publication.
OFFICE BUILDING DISTRICT ORDINANCE GRANTED FIRST READING. Affidavit of Public-
ation in the Edina Sun on July 25, 1968, was presented by Clerk, approved as
to form and ordered placed on file,
261-166 for,First Reading as recommended by Planning Commission.
creates a new district which would allow construction of office buildings up to
four stories in height and has the same wording as to.height as the R-5 Ordin-
ance No, 261-156.
place for each 200 square feet of floor area, increasing the required parking
places from the requirements in the present Office Building District. No-ob-
jections were heard, whereupon Councilman Courtney offered Ordinance 261-166
for First Reading as follows:
Mr. Hoisington presented Ordinance No.
This ordinance
Mr. Hoisington noted that this ordinance calls for one parking
- dRDINANCE NO. 261-166
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE VILLAGE AS TO W&ULATIONS ON USES AND
BUILDINGS APPLICABLE IN THE OFFICE BUILDING DISTRICT
THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1.
No. 261 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Village, as amended, is further amended to
read as follows:
Boundaries of Office Building District. The Office Building District is
hereby established and shall further be divided into subdistricts designated as
District 0-1 and 0-2.
following lands:
Subdistrict 0-1:
Paragraph 1 of Section 8 (Office Building District) of Ordinance
"1.
The boundaries of each subdistrict shall include-the
All lands now
legal descriptions thereof contained in the existing Ordinance No. 261,
as amended by Ordinances No. 261-139, 261-146, 261-157, and 261-158.
in the Office Building District, in accordance with the
Subdistrict 0 - 2 :
See. 2. Subparagraphs (a) through (e) of Paragraph 3 of said Section 8 of
Ordinance No. 261, as amended, are hereby further amended to read as follows:
"3. Restrictions on Uses Permitted Within the Office Building District.
The following minimum restrictions shall apply to all buildings that may be
erected, converted or structurally altered in Office Building Districts:
shall not exceed 0.5 times the lot area.
-
"(a) Floor Area Ratio.
"(b)
"(c)
"(d) Building Setbacks. In the 0-1 and 0-2 subdistricts, the minimum build-
The gross floor area of all buildings on a lot
Lot Coverage,
Building Height.
Not more than 30%-of the lot area shall be occupied by
buildi'ngs. -
Building,height in the 0-1 subdistrict shall be lim-
ited to four stories.
ing setback from any side or rear property line shall be no less than 20 feet
(25 feetif abutting a public street) or the average height of the building,
whichever is greater.
line shall be 35 feet or the average height of the building, whichever is greater.
In the 0-2 subdistrict any structure 5 or 6 stories in height shall be no closer
to any R-1 District properties, -except those utilized for non-residential pur-
poses, than two times the average height of the building. For a 7 or 8 story
structure, the setback shall be no less than three times the building height
and for a structure 9 or more stories in height, the setback shall be no less
than four times the building height from any R-1 District properties, except
those utilized for non-resideqtial purposes, Where a front yard faces an R-1
Residential District across a street, the setback from that street shall be
not less than 50 feet,
Commercial District or a Planned Industrial District, the front and side yard
setbacks shall not be less than those prescribed for the major planned district,
Ire) Off-street Parking. Off-street parking facilities accessory to uses
allowed in the Office Building District shall be provided in accordance with
the following requirements and regulations:
The minimum building setback from any front property
When the Office Building District is an integral part of either a Planned
8/5/68 /J
..
(1) Location. The required number of off-street parking spaces shall be
located on the same property occupied by the principal use or on another ad-'
jacent lot or parcel under the control of the owner of property occupied by
the principal use. For the purpose of this section such "control" may be
derived from ownership in fee simple or a lease or easement for a period of
not less than.25 years. Parking shall be provided on the building lot or
within 200 feet thereof; provided, such parking space is not separated €rom
the bui.lding site by a public street right-of-way.
(2) Design and Construction. Off-street parking areas shall be so
designed that vehicles can be parked in a convenient and orderly fashion.
Parking areas shall be surfaced and maintained with a hard, all-weather,
durable, dust-free surfacing material and shall be properzy drained. Each
parking space shall be clearly outlined or otherwise marked and shall have a
minimum width of 8-1/2 feet and a length of-19 feet exclusive of aisles and
maneuvering space. Clear aisle widths shall be at least 12 feet for 45 degree
parking, 18 feetufor 60 degree parking and 24 feet for.90 degree parking. .Traf-
fic moving from one part of a parking lot to another shall be capable of doing
so without using.a public street.
All open off-street parking areas shall be effectively screened by a
wall or fence of acceptable design, or by a compact hedge along all sides
which adjoin or are dicectly across the street from property in a residential
zone.
more than 6 feet high and shall. be maintained in good condition. The wall or
fence shall not be used for advertising purposes. All lighting used to illumi-
nate off-street parking areas shall be so arranged as to de€lect the light away
from adjacent properties in residential use.
required front yard setback; such area being defined as that located immediately
in front of the structure between its side walls to the required depth from the
street line, In both districts, parking shall be located no closer than ten
feet to any side or rear lot line nor closer than five feet to any building.
Offices:
Vedical and Dental Offices:
Private Club or Lodge:.
Such wall, fence or hedge shall be not less than 4 feet high and not
In the 0-1 and 0-2 subdistricts, no parking facilities shall occupy any
(3) Number of Spaces Required.
1 space for each 200 square feet -or floor area.
6 spaces for each doctor or dentist.
1 space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area
devoted to office use or 1 space for each 3 seats in
.the largest place of assembly, whichever is greater-.
Accessory Uses:
upon its passage and publication.
8 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area."
Sec, 3, This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately
VALLEY VIEW ROAD VACATION CONTINUED,
legal discription used in the notices of public hearing was incorrect, Councilman
Courtney's motion continuing the hearing until September 9, 1968, was seconded
by Councilman Shaw and carried.
Upon being advised by Mr. Hyde that the
W. 69% STREET VACATION CONTINUED TO JANUARY 2 0. 1969, Affidavits of Notice were
presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hite
advised that W. 69th, located- just west of France Avenue between the Metropoli-
tan Life Building and the Hoben Building was platted but never opened. The.
petition to vacate the street was submitted by France Avenue Development Corpora-
tion because additional parking space is needed by the adjacent properties.
Robert Rainey, representing the Hennepin County Library Board, reviewed plans
of the Board to use the three acres to the west which were donated to Hennepin
County for a Regional Library and advised that they feel that this street is
necessary for access to the proposed library. In reply to a question of Mayor
Pro Tern VanValkenburg, Dr, Rainey advised that the Board should be entering
into conversation with the architect before September 15, 1968.
that there is a reversionary clause which states that if the library building
is not constructed as of April, 1971, that the property would revert to Dayton
Development. Mr, Hite advised that the suggestion of Mr. John Abbott of Dayton
Development that parking facilities in this block should be shared should be
explored further. Mr. David Wyatt of Hoben Properties asked who would maintain
the street and pointed out that from a standpoint of safety, the street should
be vacated. Mr. Hite advised that if this is merely an access to a private
parking area, there is some question about having it as a public street; how-.
ever, if the street is the only access to properties which do not have public
street access, then the street should be maintained.
Mr. Hite, Councilman Courtney's motion that the hearing be continued to the
second meeting in January, 1969, (January 20) was seconded by Councilman Shaw
and carried.
Dr.
He also advised
Upon recommendation of
8/5/68
W. 65TH STREET TO BE CLOSED BETWEEN T.H. 100 AND SHERWOOD AVENUE. Affidavits of
Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file.'
Mr. Hyde presented a petition signed by owners of ten properties requesting
that W. 65th Street be vacated between T.H. 100 and Sherwood Avenue in order to
prevent traffic from using W. 65th Street as a short cut to T.H. 100. Mr. Hite
advised that he would recommend that the street not be vacated, but merely
closed, because this area will be needed for right-of-way when T.H. 100 is up-
graded.
Telephone Company had requested easements if the street is vacated. Mr. Allen
Johnson, 6525 Sherwood Avenue, and Mr. -Morriq Rasmussen, 6433 Parnell Avenue,
advised that they favor closing the street. Mr. Rasmussen also urged closing
I?, 65th Street between Ryan and Parnell Avenues.
vacation will be proposed at the time Virginia Avenue is opened to W. 66th St.
Mr. Hyde inquired if traffic at W..66th Street and T,H. 100 would be compounded
if W. 65th Street were closed, Mr. Hite advised that this action should be
better from a traffic safety point of view because it would eliminate the left
turns.at W. 65th Street. Councilman Courtney's motion that W. 65th Street
be closed, rather than vacated, beeween T.H. 100 and Sherwood Avenue was then
seconded by Councilman Shaw and the ndion unanimously carried.
left the meeting at this time.)
He also noted that Northern States Power Company and Northwestern Bell
Mr. Hite advised that this
(Mayor Bredesen
BX-3 AWARD OF BID CONTINUED. Upon recommendation of Mr. Hyde, Councilman Shaw's
motion that the award of bid for BR-3 be continued once more to August 19,. 1968,
was seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried.
BA-132 BID AWARDED. Mr. Hyde presented tabulation of two bids taken in response
to Advertisement for Bids in the Edina Sun and the Construction Bulletin on July
18 and 25, 1968.
bidder at $15,370.00 and Black Top Service Company high bidder at $16,778.00.
Engineer's estimate was given at $15,495.40.
to recommended lob bidder, Bury and Carlson, Inc., was seconded by.Councilman
Courtney and carried.
Tabulation for Proposal A showed Bury and Carlson, Inc., low
Councilman Shaw's motion for award
AWARD OF BID CONTINUED FOR A-167, A-168, and A-169. Mr. Hyde presented tabu-
lation of two.bids received in response to Advertisement for Bids in the Edina
Sun and Construction Bulletin on 18 and 25 of July, 1968. Tabulation for alley
improvements A-167, A-168, and A-169 (Proposal B) showed Victor Carlson & Sons,
Inc., low bidder at $24,575.90 and Arnold Beckman, Inc., high bidder at $25,058.95.
Engineer's estimate was presented at $24,536.00,
inasmuch as bituminous surfaced alleys are difficult and expensive .to maintain,
bids had been taken on concrete surfacing. Mr.. Hyde advised that he feels that
a portion of this additional cost could be paid from General Funds, whereupon
Councilman Courtney's motion continuing award of bid until August 19, 1968, was
seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried.
I Mr. Hyde pointed out that
MORNINGSIDE AREA SIDEWALK AND CURB REPLACEMENT BID AWARDED. (ST. S. 111) Mr.
Hyde presented tabulation of three bids received informally for replacement of
sidewalk and curb in the Morningside Area in connection with Storm Sewer Im-.
provement 111,
Arnold Beckman, Inc., second low bidder at $2,104.80 and Victor Carlson & Sons,
Inc., high bidder at $2,469.40.
Councilman Shaw's motion awarding contract to recommended low bidder, Paul A.
Tabulation showed low bidder, Paul A. Hedquist at $2,060.00,
Engineer's estimate was given at $2,148.50.
. Hedquist, was seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried.
TRACY AVENUE TRAFFIC PROBLEM CONTINUED TO AUGUST 19.
attention to a petition requesting effective enforcement of the posted speed
limit of thirty miles per hour on Tracy Avenue between Countrysidef4khool on
the north and the Countryside Park on the south. The. petition also requested
proper street lighting and safety zones for pedestrians for crossing Tracy at
Countryside Park and at school bus stops. Mr. Hyde noted that this matter has
been checked by the Police Department and will b,e on the August 8 agenda of
the Traffic Safety Committee, and recommended that the matter be continued until
after that meeting.
conttol, Councilman Courtney's motion to continue the matter until August 19,
1968, was seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried.
M.-AND JAY TRUCKING TOLD TO CEASE OPERATIONS BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 1968. Mr. Hyde
advised Council that the Pederson Dairy on County Road 18 south of Maloney.Ave.
is now the site of a trucking operation by M. & Jay Trucking in violation of.
a deed restriction and the Zoning Ordinance limiting operations at that site.
to a dairy store only,
the attorney of M. & Jay Trucking requesting permission to continue. operations
Mr. Hyde called Council's
Following some discussion on the need for additional speed
Mr. Hyde advised that a letter has been received from
8/5/68
until November 1, 1968.
that the Village would not be prejudiced by granting the company permission
to continue operations as requested, Councilman Shaw's motion that the M. &
Jay Trucking Company be advised that they must have relocated their operations
from the Pederson Dairy property on or before November 5, 1968, was seconded
by Councilman Courtney and carried.
Upon the advice of Village Attorney Schwartzbauer
ORNAMENTAL LIGHTING REQUESTED FOR HILLSIDE COURT, HILLSIDE CIRCLE AND THE
HEIGHTS PARK.
street lights in Hillside Court, Hillside Circle and Heights Park.
that he has advised Mr. C. H. Immel, circulator of the petition, that he would
expect that Council will make a decision on the method of financing such in-
stallations in sufficient time to permit the installation of ornamental street
lights in this area within the next year and that he would keep Mr. Immel ad-
vised of progress in'this matter.
Mr. Hite advised that a petition had been received for ornamental
He stated
HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE TO BE.RE"f4BERED. Upon being advised by the Clerk that
the Human Rights Ordinance was given a number already assigned to a previously
adopted ordinance, Councilman Shaw offered the following resolution and moved
its adoption: '
RESOLUTION.RENUMBERING HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE L
WHEREAS, the Human Rights Ordinance of the Village of Edina has been
WHEREAS, "Ordinance No. 4" has been assigned to a previously adopted
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Human Rights Ordinance be and is
heretofore known as "Ordinance No. 4," and
ordinance ;
hereby renumbered "Ordinance No. 5" and shall be henceforth known as €'Ordinance
No. 5." .
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconde
on rollcall there were three ayes and
an Courtney and
ATTEST :
NORTHERN STATES POWER RATE INCREASE NOTED. Mr. Hyde advised Council that a
letter had been received from Northern States Power stating that it will be
necessary to increase its rates in order to meet increased costs and provide
a reasonable return on its utility property.
submitted are identical to those being filed with the City of Minneapolis,
except that the Minneapolis rates also include an additional 1.5% surcharge.
Councilman Shaw noted that the rates are average as compared with the overall
national rates. No action was taken.
EDEN PRAIRIE SANITARY SEWER AGREEMENT APPROVED.
Prairie Sanitary Sewer Agreement, advising that it has been signed by officials
of the Village of Eden Prairie and after consultation with the Mayor, approval
was given to commence construction of the improvements involved.
Courtney then offered the following resolution authorizing execution of the
agreement and moved its adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina Village Council that the Mahor and Village Manager
are hereby authorized to enter into the cost sharing Agreement with the Village
of Eden Prairie for construction of Watermain 228, Sanitary Sewer 266, Storm
Motion for adoption of the resolutio
rollcall there were three ayes and n
The electric rate schedules
Mr. Hyde presented the Eden
Councilman
RESOLUTION
ATTEST :
MORNINGSIDE STORM SERER COST SHARING AGREEMENT APPROVED.
Council th'at he would recommend that the Village remove the $80,000 maximum
limit set for Edina's share of the Minneapolis Storm Sewer to which Storm
Sewer 111 connects, with the understanding that Minneapolis will charge a
Mr. Hyde advised
8/5/68
fair amount of back dl1 to the street improvement, rather t..an to the Storm
Sewer.
adopt ion :
BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina Village Council hereby releases the monetary re-
striction of $80,000 stipulated in the "Agreement between the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, the Village of Edina, Minnesota, and the City of Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for Division of Cost for Design and Construction of a Storm Drain
on Certain Minneapolis Streets Lying Generally Southwesterly.of Lake Calhoun,'f
it being understood that a reasonable quantity of the back fill should be
charged to the,street paving rather than to the storm sewer work.
Councilman Courtney then offered the following lesolution and moved its
RESOLUTION
I/ JOYCE'S BAKERY LICENSE EXTENDED TO JANUARY 1, 1969, Mr. Hyde advised Council
that the Village Sanitarian has reported that Joyce's Bakery has complied with
most of the directives set forth and has now.taken bids on a hand washing sink
and ventilating system.
motion extending the Food Establishment License of Joyce's Bakery to January 1,
1968, was seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried.
EDINA BUSINESS DISTRICT HEARING DATE SET FOR SEPTEMBER 16, 1968. Mr. Hite ad-
vised Council that the detailed proposals are now sufficiently formulated to
set hearing date for September 16 for the public parking aspects and the re-
developmant of the Library site for the Edina Business District plans.
recommended that a meeting be held with the residents of Maple Road in order
to discuss the Library site development.
hearing date for September 16, 1968, was then seconded by Councilman Courtney
and carried.
Upon recommendation of Mr. Hyde, Councilman Shawls
He
Councilman Shawls motion setting
RILLARNEY SHORES GRANTED FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. Mr. Hyde advised Council that on
June 3, 1968, Council had granted final plat approval to Krllarney Shores, sub-
ject to the resolution of a right-of-way problem in connection with Lot 1,
Block 1, Mr. Hite advised that a deed restriction in favor of the Village has
now been executed and recommended that final plat now be approved uncondition-
ally,
dop tion :
BE IT RESOLFD by the Village Council of the Village of Edina, Minnesota, that
that certain plat entitled "Killarney Shores," platted by Evereth G. Thernell
and Alice M. Thernell, husband and wife, and presented at the meeting of the
Edina Village Council of August 5, 1968, be and is hereby approved.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was
on rollcall there were three ayes and no n
Councilman Shaw then offered the following resolution and moved its a-
RESOLUTION
ATTEST:
LIBRARY PURCHASES APPROVED.
and the Council, Mr, Hite advised that as of July 24 the monies donated to the
Edina Library Fund totaled approximately $32,000 and recommended that a decision
be reached concerning the use of these funds so that suggested items could be
on hand at the time the Library opens. Mr. Hite noted that the contract awarded
for the construction of the building included some of the items mentioned in
the memorandum, He stated that because of the possible County involvement with
this structure, in addition to the fact that there is some discussion about the
use of monies donated for capital improvements, it is thought that it might be
appropriate to use some of that money for items whi'ch would not normally be in
a library collection, such as recordings or art.
working with groups who are interested and knowledgable in art and in record
collection and suggested that a fund could be established for purchase of items
Referring to a memorandum sent to Mayor Bredesen
Mr. Hite advised that he is
s U u
8/5/68 \
of this type. Councilman Shaw's motion commending Mr. Hite for his efforts
on behalf of the Library, authorizing the purchase-of-items outlined in the
memorandum and for utilization of the money donated to pay for them was
seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried.
MODEL OF LIBRARY SCUISTURE TO BE VIEWED. Mr. Hyde advised Council that he
will set up a time and place where the sc+ture Committee and Councilmen and
their wives could view the model of-the Library sculpture for approval.
HANSEN AVENUE WELL SITE EASEMENT TO BE TRADED FORLAND ADJACENT TO BENTON
AVENUE BRIDGE. Mr. Hite advised Council that Mr. B. W. Thompson, 5908 Hansen
Road, has requested that the Village grant him an easement for driveway access
across the south ten feet of Lot 3, Block 1, Theo. Nelson's Addition, which is
owned by the Village. Mr, Hite indicated also that the Village is in need of
a strip of land owned by Mr. Thompson lying west of the Hansen Avenue well
site and adjacent to the Benton Avenue Bridge, and that Mr. Thompson has offered
to convey a Quit Claim Deed to the Village for that property in exchange for a
driveway easement over the Village property. Councilman Shaw then offered the
following resolution and moved its adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina Village Council that the Village will grant to
Mr. Burton W. Thompson an easement for driveway purposes over the east: seventy
feet (70') of the south ten feet (10') of Lot 2, Block 1, Theo. Nelson's Add-
ition, and an easement for landscaping purposes (planting trees and shrubs) over
that part of the south ten feet (10') of Lot 2, Block 1, Theo. Nelson's Addit-
ion lying westerly of the easterly seventy feet of said lot 2 in exchange for
a Quit Claim Deed in favor of the Village for that part of Lot 33, Warden
Acres, lying east of the Minneapolis, Northgield and Southern Railroad right-
of-way and north of a line drawn parallel to-and ten feet (10') northerly of
the westerly extension of the south line of Lot 2, Block 1, Theo. Nelson's
Addition. -
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councj.lman Courtney and
RE SOLUTION
on rollcall there were three ayes an
ATTEST: I
COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR SEPTEMBER 9, 1968, by motion of Councilman Courtney,
seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried because Labor Day falls on the regular
Council Meeting day.
ELECTION JUDGES CONFIRMED.
Of€icials, stating that the list is not quite complete.
then moved approval with authority to Clerk to make such additional appointments
and replacements as are necessary to staff the polls.
Councilman Shaw and carried.
PRECINCT NO. 1 - Wooddale School - Mmes. Marjorie Rossiter, Chairman, Marjorie
McCall, Jane Hawthorne; Alternates: Margaret Pengelly and Mabel Brehm
PRECINCT NO. 2 - Village Hall - Mmes. Marion. Bailey, Chairman,'Frances Sonnen-
-berg, Helen Hall, Dorothea Obermeyer, Mary Jane Bolmgren, Dorothy Schmidt;
Alternates, Dorothy Stockdale, Delores Peterson
PRECINCT NO. 3 - Southview Junior High School - Mmes. Audrey Berglund, Chairman,
Ruth Volk, Betty Tripp, RuthZipoy, Marcia Parker; Alternates, Constance Ryan,
Sylvia Loheyde
PRECINCT NO. 4 - Concord Elementary School - Mmes. Yvonne Ford, Chairman, Josie
Korthof, Helen Orrbon, Virginia Dash, Dorothy Nonnweiler, Florence Bahneman;
Alternates, Martha McLaughlin, Jan Getten
PRECINCT NO. 5 - Cahill Elementary School - Mmes. Lorraine Hasselquist, Chair-
man, Eleanor .Thornton, Joan Robb, Geneva Smith, Ann Taggatz, Marion Lyons; .
PRECINCT NO, 6 - Shepherd of the Hills Church - Mmes. Dorothy Richardson,
Chairman, Even Jensen, Alice Swanson, Jane Fleet, Helen O'Brien; Alternates,
Helen O'Brien and Muriel Clauson
PRECXNCT NO. 7 - Adella Stewart, Chairman, Myrle Kiichli, Henrietta Bartlett,
Margaret Borsch, Mary Manning; Alternates, Mary Bartz and Elizabeth Mathews
PRECINCT NO. 8 - Cornelia Elementary School - Mmes. Muriel Thomsen, Chairman,
Adele Olson, Marion Thompson, Mary Kane, Catherine Kovar, Dune Dreher; Alternates,
Patricia Ann Harmor, Agnes DePasquale
PRECINCT NO. 9 - Morningside Municipal Building - Mmes. Shirley Dibble, Chairman,
Clerk presented the following Roster of Election
Councilman CoGrtney
Motion seconded by
. Alternates: Lucille Borchers, Virginia Morris
Elizabeth Anderl, Edith Dudley; Alice Rose, Marge Brothers; Alternates, Jean-
ette Lushine and Veida Bohl
8/5/68
FRANCES RUSS SUIT FILED. Mr. Hyde advised Council that a suit had been
filed by Mrs. Frances Ruqs against the Village of Edina, James Hensley, Fairview
Hospital Association, Dr. C. V. Rockwell, Fairview-Southdale Women's Auxiliary,
Donald Weigniller and Mrs. Jerry Herman. The Village Attorney and the insurance
company have been advised of this action. Mr. Schwartzbauer stated that he is
meeting with a representative of the insurance company to discuss the matter.
BIDS TO BE TAKEN FOR STREET LIGHT~NG S~ANDARDS WITH ORNAMENTAL MERCUI~Y VAPOR
LUMINAIRES.
foUbwing resolution approving taking bids for street lighting standards with
ornamental mercury vapor luminaires and moved its adoption:
Upon the recommendation of Mr. Hite, Councilman Shaw offered the
RESOLUTIOW APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIF1Ci)TIONS
FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND
DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
.T
FOR ORNAMENTAL MERCURY V APOR LUMINAIRES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL, VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA:
1. The plans and sRecifications for khe proposed improvements set forth in
the following Advertisement for Bids form, heretofore prepared by the Village
Engineer and now on file in the office of the Village Clerk are hereby approved.
2. The Clerk shall cause to be published in the Edina Sun and Construction
Bulletin the following notice for bids for improvements:
(Official Publication)
EDINA, MI"3 SOTA
STREET LIGHTING STANDARDS
BIDS CLOSE AUGUST 23, 1968
WITH
ORNAMENTAL MERCURY VAPOR LUMINAIRES
IMPROVEMENT NO. L-5
SEALED BIDS will be received and opened in the Council Chambers in the Edina
Village Hall, 4801 W. 50th Street., at 11:OO a.m., Friday, August 23, 1968, -
and the Edina,Village Council will meet at 7:OO p.m., Monday, September 9,
to consider said bids for the furnishing and installation of seventy-sne (71)
Street Lighting Standards with Ornamental Mercury Vapor Luminaires.
Work must be done as described in plans and Specifications on file in the
office of the Village Clerk. Plans and specifications are available for a
deposit of $25.00 (by check).
plans and specifications with a bona fide bid. No bids will be considered
unless sealed and accompanied by cash deposit, bid bond or certified check
payable to the Village Clerk in the amount of at least ten (10) percent of
amount of base bid.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL.
Said deposit to be returned upon return of the
The Council reserves the right to reject any or all bids. *
Florence B . Hallberg
Village Clerk
Motion for adoption of the resolution was
on rollcall there were three ayes and no n
ATTEST:
STORM SEWER P-116 HEARING DATE SET.
Courtney offered the following resolution setting hearing date for public hear-
ing for Storm Sewer P-116 and moved its adoption:
Upon the advice of Mr. Hite, Councilman
RESOJUTION- PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON .
STORM SEImR NO. P-116
1.
as to .the feasibility of the proposed storm sewer described in -the .form of
Notice of Hearing set forth below, and as .to the estimated cost of such im-
provements, said report is hereby approved and directed to be placed on file
in the office of the Village CJerk. -
2. This Council shall meet on Monday, August 19, 1968, at 7:OO porn., to con-
sider in public hearing the views of all persons interested in said improvements.
3. The Clerk is hereby au.thorized and directed to cause notice of ,the time,
place, and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper
once a week for two successive weeks, the second of which publication is to
be not less than three days from the date of said meeting, and to mail notice
to all affected propoeties in substantially the following form:
The Village Engineer, having submitted to the Council a preliminary report
I
. (Official Publicztion)
VILLAGE OF EDINA
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
STORM SEWER NO. P-116
EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL will meet at the Edina Village Hall on Monday, August
19, 1968, at 7:OO p.m., to consider the following proposed improvement to be
8/5/68
constructed under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
The approximate cost of said improvement is estimated by the Village as set
forth below:
CONSTRUCTION OF STORM SEWER AND APPURTENANCES
IN THE FOLLOWING:
On an Easement Line between Lots 1 and 2,
Block l., and Lots lU and 2, Block 2,
Gleason's 4th Addition from the South
line of Addition North to Nine Mile Creek
ESTIMATED COST
$6 , 854.37
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed. storm sewer
listed above includes.Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2,
Gleason's 4th Addition; and L0.t 1, Block 1, G,leason's 1st Add ition.. ,
,I Florence B. Hallberg
Yillage Clerk
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Shaw and
on rollcall there were three ayes and no
ATTEST :
ORDINANCE NO. 181A CONTINUED TO AUGUST 19.
Pro Tem VanValkenburg that Mayor Bredesen wanted to be present for consideration
of Ordinance No. 181A, Councilman Shaw's motion continuing First Reading for
Ordinance No. 181A until August 19 was seconded by Councilman Courtney and
carried.
Uponbeing advised by Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 61C GRANTED FIRST READING.
by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file.
ented the fifth draft.of Sign Ordinance 61C; advising that it had been discussed
particularly with advertising companies and gas station owners. Mr. Hoisington
advised that this is considered a,fairly reasonable ordinance by the staff and
that it has been recommended by the Planning Commission with the exception of
Section 5 which indicates where non-assessory free standing signs may be located.
Planning Commission has expressed opposition for location of any billboards
yithin the Village limits. Mr. Robert Naegele, representing Naegele Advertising
Company, noted that any ordinance which excludes any one industry is not "fairly
reasonable." He urged that billboards be permitted in commercial and industrial
areas and that each sign be considered on an individual basis.
presented drawings of signs which his company proposes to install.
Pearson, 4500 Gilford Drive, Foted that this ordinance is too restrictive and
that it would make it impossible for a small business which depends upon this
type of advertising to operate profitably. He stated that more than one ped-
estal should be permitted for gas stations. Mr. Hite advised that probably
more attention has been given to gas stations than to any other type of business
with regard to this ordinance. Mr. Hite advised that concern about gas station
signing was expressed not so much by the gas station operators themselves, as
by the companies whose products are sold by these gas stations. Mr. Hit'e noted
that many signs in the area of 50th and France are non-conforming signs which
would not have to be removed. Discussion ensued as to the total elimination of
Section 5. Councilman Shaw advised that his concern on Section 5 is the poss-
ibility of this being used as asprecedent in other locations. Following con-
siderable discussion, Councilman Courtney offered Ordinance No. 61G for First
Reading with the provision that it be reviewed by the Village Attorney before
Second Reading with special attention to whether the existence of Section 5
might create an unfavorable precedent for other areas of the Village.
Affidavits of Notice were presented
Mr. Hoisington pre-
Mr. Naegele
Mr. Gordon
i
ORDINANCE NO. 61-C
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING AND PROVIDING
FOR THE LICENSING OF SIGNS:
REPEALING ORDINANCES NOS. 61A,
61A-1 AND 61B
TNE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
protect and promote the general welfare, health, safety and order within the
Village of Edina through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial
series of standards, regulations and procedures governing the erection, use and/or
display of devices, signs or symbols serving as a visual communicative media to
SECTION 1. Purpose and Intent. The.purpose of this Ordinance is to
8/5/68 I
persons situated within or upon public rights-of-way or properties.
reasonable degree of freedom of choice, an opportunity for effective commun-
ication, and a sense of concern for the visual amenities on the part of those
designing, displaying or otherwise utilizing needed communicative media of the
types regulated by this Ordinance; while at the same time, assuring that the
public is not endangered, annoyed or distracted by the unsafe, disorderly,
indiscriminate or unnecessary use of such communicative facilities.
SECTION 2. Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances. Ordinance Nos. 6U, 6lA-1
and 61B and the following provisions of the Zoning Ordinance referred to signs:
(a) Section 7. Regional Medical District: Paragraph 3, subparagraph (f)
(b) Section 9, Commercial District: Paragraph 5. C-4 District (a) (1)
The provisions of this'ordinance are intended to encourage creativity, a
I (. ...advertising devices.. .) : Paragrph 6. Subparagraph C (f) (3) (ee)
Building Permits; Paragraph 10, Subparagraph (a) Screening, (...except
business signs.. .)
(h) Signs.
(c) Section 10. Planned Industrial District; Paragraph 6, Subparagraph
and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances conflicting with the provisions
of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
lrAccessory SignKc means a sign relating in its subject matter to the
SECTION 3. Definitions.
:(a)
premises on which it is located, or to products, accommodations, services or
activities on the premises on which it is located.
being made of a parcel of land.
inance.
or in numeric form.
the name of a neighborhood, a residential subdivision, a multiple residential
complex consisting of three or more structures, a shopping center or area, an
industrial area, an office complex consisting of three or more structures or
any combination of the above that could be termed an area.
"Banners. or Pennants" mean attention getting devices which resemble
flags and are of a non-permanent paper, cloth, or plastic-like consistency.
"Bench Sign" means a sign which is affixed to a bench at a bus stop.
"Church Directional Sign" means a sign which bears the add ress and/or
"Canopy and Marquee" means a rooflike structure projecting over the
"District" refers to a specific zoning district as defined in the Zoning
!'Freetstanding Sign" means a sign which is placed in the ground and not
"Governmental Sign" means a sign which is erected by a governmental unit
"Illuminated SignxD means any. sign which is illuminated by an artificial.
"Institutional Signt1 means any sign or bulletin board which identifies
(b) llAccessory Use" means a use which is subordinate to the principal use
Accessory uses are defined in the.Zoning Ord-
(c)
(d)
"Address Sign" means postal identification numbers only-whether written
"Area Identification Sign" means a free standing sign which identifies
(e)
(f)
(g)
name of a church and directional arrows pointing to a church location.
(h) entrance to a theater, store, etc.
(i)
Ordinance. .
(j) affixed to any part of any structure.
(k)
for the purpose of directing or guiding traffic.
(1)
light source.
(9)
the name and other characteristics of a public or private institution on the
site where the sign is located.
(n) "Motion Sign" means any sign which revolves, rotates or has any moving
parts. - (0) "Nameplate or Identification Sign" means a sign which bears the name
and/or address of the occupants of the building.
(p) "Non-Accessory Sign" means a sign other than an accessory sign.
(9) "Non-conforming Sign" means a sign which lawfully existed prior to the
adoption of this ordinance but does not conform to the newly enacted requirements
of this ordinance.
cation to another which is not permanently attached to the ground or any structure.
public property more than twelve inches.
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
(v)
"Portable Sign" means a sign so-designed as to be movable from one 107
"Projecting Sign" means any sign, all or any part of which extends over
"Permanent Sign" is any sign which is not a temporary sign.
"Raf Signr1 means any sign erected upon or projecting above the roof line
"Sign" means any letter, word or symbol, device, poster, picture, statuary,
of a structure to which it is affixed.
reading matter or representation in the nature of an advertisement, announcement,
message, or visual communication whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or
constructed, which is displayed outdoors for informational or communicative pur-
poses.
8/5/68
{ 18.7
(w) "Sign Area" means that area within the marginal lines of the surface
which bears the advertisement, or in the case of messages, figures, or symbols
attached directly to any part of a building, that area which is included in
the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe the message, figure
or symbol displayed thereon,
standing sign refers to a single facing.
or more streets.
such frontages.
limited period of time.
'Section 4, and Section 6 (e) (2), and pennants, banner, paper and other similar
type signs.
'iz)
property by the owner of such property for the purpose of guiding vehicular
and' pedestrian traffic.
The stipulated maximum sign area for a free
(x). "Street Frontage" refers -to the proximity of a parcel of land to one
An interior lot has one street frontage and a-corner lot two
(y) "Temproary Sign" means a sign which is erected or displayed for a
Such temporary signs shall include those listed in
"Traffic Directional Sign" means a sign which is erected on private
Such sign bears no advertising information.
I
(zz) "Wall Sign" m'eans any sign which is affixed to a wall of any building.
3
' SECTION 4. General Provisions Applicable to all Districts.
(a) Non-accessory free standing signs are prohibited in a11 districts
except in areas specifically defined and in the ordinance for this purpose.
Non-accessory wall signs shall be permitted only in the C-2, (2-3, PC-2 and
PC-3 Commercial Districts according to the requirements set forth for those
dis tr'ic t s .
that they shall be safe and substantial, provided that nothing in this Ord-
inance shall be interpeted as authorizing the erection or construction of
any sign not now permissible un'der the zoning or building ordinance of the
Village.
(c)
matter.
(d) of light shall be permitted except one giving public service information such
as time, date, temperature, weather, or similar information, The Village
Building Inspector in granting permits for illuminated signs shall specify
the hours during which the same may be kept lighted when necessary to prevent
the creation of a nuisance.
source.
(e)
placed within 'any street r,ight-of-way or upon any public easement. ' (f)
highway regulatory or warning sign, or of any traffic sign or signal, or of
any crossroad or crosswalk, will be issued only if:
(b) All signs shall be constructed in such a manner and of such material
No sign shall contain any indecent or offensive picture or written
No illuminated sign which changes in either color or in intensity
All illuminated signs shall have a shielded light
" No sign other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporzily
A permit for a sign to be located within 50 feet of any street or
(1)' The sign will not interfere with the ability of drivers and
pedestrians to see any street or highway sign, or any traffic sign
or signal, or any crossroad or crosswalk, and
(2) The sign will not distract drivers nor offer any confusion to
any street or highway sign, or any traffic sign or signal.
Roof signs are prohibited in all-districts.
Banners, pennants and whirling devices or any such sign resembling the
aame are prohibited from use within the Village except when used as an integral
part of the design of a building or when used in conjunction with grand openings,
(the initial commencement of business). In the case of grand openings, banners
and pennants shall be allowed for the week or part thereof of said grand opening.
On the Monday following such opening, all such displays shall be removed.
by a person or group promoting a political issue or a political candidate may
beplaced in any district subject to the requirements of that district. Such
sign may be posted for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days and shall be
removed within seven (7) days following the date of the election.
One temporary identification sign may be installed upon a construction - site in any district denoting the name of the architect, engineer and contractor,
provided such sign does not exceed eighty (80) square feet in area.
Temporary real estate signs may be erected for the purpose of selling
or promoting a residential project of 10 or more dwelling units or any non-
residential project provided:
B
- *
(g)
(h)
(i) Campaign signs posted by a bonafide candidate for political office or
(j)
(k)
(1) such signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area,
(2) only one such sign shall be permitted per street frontage upon
which the property abuts,
(3) such signs shall be removed when the project is 80% completed,
(4) such signs shall be located no closer than one hundred (100) feet
to any pre-existing residence.
Temprmry signs for the purpose of selling or leasinq individual lots
such signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet for residential
' sold, or leased, and
(1)
or buildings shall be permitted, provided:
(1)
i I88
8/5/68
property and twenty-four (24) square feet for non-residential property,
(2)
the property abuts,
(3)
lease or sale.
only one such sign is permitted per street frontage upon which
such sign shall be removed within seven (7) days following the
(m) Any free standing sign within tiqenty-five (25) feet of any intersection
of street right-of-way lines and/or driveway entrances shall have a minimum
vertical clearance of ten (10) feet above the centerline of the’pavement.
sign shall not exceed twice the permitted area of a single face sign.
(n)
(0)
(p)
(4) District.
(r)
Projec ting wall signs shall be permitted only in the C-‘2 Commercial District
“provided the total sign area does not exceed ten (10) square feet per facing.
The total sign area of any multi-faced free standing or brojectinp wall
Traffic directional signs shall not exceed six C6) square feet in area.
Motion signs are prohibited in all districts.
No portable signs shall be permitted except address signs in the R-1
No free standing projecting sign shall be permitted in any district.
(s)
(t)
(u)
(v)
One address sign shall be required per building in all districts.
Bench signs shall be permitted only at bus stops but shall not be
ChGrch directional signs shall be prmitted in all districts provided the
Canopies and marquees shall be consideced to be an integral p’art of the
permitted in residential districts,
total area of such signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet per facing.
structure to which they are accessory. Signs may be attached to a canopy or
marquee but such structures shall not be considered as part of the wall area
and thus shall not warrant additional sign area.
Qfsible from outside of said building shall be exempt from the provisions of
this ordinance and shall not require permits or fees.
(w) Signs which are located on the interior of a building and are not
SECTION 5. Special Regulations. Temporary Nonaccessory Free Standing Signs.
Nonaccessory signs shall be prmitted on a temporary basis on the following
described property subject to all of the requirements herein set forth: “The
West.120 feet of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24 except the north 1320 feet
thereof .I1
(a) Maximum Height: Twenty (20) feet.
(b) Maximum Sign Area: Three hundred (300) squa’re feet per facing and
not to exceed two facings. Double faced signs shall be attached back to back. .
(c) Minimum Distance Between Signs: Five hundred (500) feet. *
(d) Minimkm Setback from Street Right-of-way Lines: Twenty-five (25) feet.
(e) Distance From Street Intersections: Not closer than five hundred (500)
feet to the intersection of two or more streets or highways, such distance be-
ing measured from the intersection of street or highway centelines.
Not closer than five hundred (500) feet to any residential structure, any pub-
licly owned land, or any other use or structure permitted in any residential
district. When any structure is built in a residential district within five
hundred (500) feet of a temporary non-accessory sign, such sign shall be immed-
iately removed upon occupancy of such structure. Furthermore, such temporary
non-accessory sign shall be removed when the parcel occupied by such sign is
rezoned from its present R-1 Residential District classification and when eitk
of the following conditions exist:
(1) A building pmit is issued €or construction on the site upon which
the sign stands, or . (2) A building permit.is issued for construction on a lot abutting
France Avenue which is immediately adjacent to the lot upon which the
sign stands.
In addition to those signs permitted in
(f) Proximity to Uses Permitted in Residential Districts and New Construction:
.
SECTION 6. District Regulations.
all districts, the following signs are permitted in each specific district and
shall be regulated as to size, location and character according to the require-
mats herein set forth:
(a) R-1 and R-2 Residential Districts
(1) ‘Nameplate Signs: One sign for each dwelling unit, not greater than
two (2) square feet in area, indicating theme and/or address of the
occupant.
(2) Institutional and Recreational Signs: One sign or bulletin board
per speet frontahe for a church, a public institutional use, or a
recreational use in the R-1 District. Such sign or bulletin board
shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in area nor shall it be
placed closer than ten (10) feet to any street right-of-way line.
(3) Area Identification Sipns: One sign per development not to exceed
twenty-four (24) square feet in area.
(4) Temporary signs: Refer to Section 4.
8/5/68
(5) Maximum Height of Free-standing Signs: Six (6) feet.
(1) Identification Signs: One identification sign or symbol per
building not greater than six (6) square feet in area, provided,
such sign is attached flat against a wall of the building.
(2) Area Identification Signs: One area identification sign per
development, providing such sign does not exceed twenty-four (24)
square feet in area, and further provided, such sign is placed no
closer than’ten (10) feet to any street right-of-way line.
(3) Institutional Signs: One sign per str eet frontage identify-
ing an institutional complex within a multiple residential district
(convalescent, nursing, rest or boarding care homes). Such sign
shall not exceed twenty-four (24) .square feet in area nor shall it
be placed closer than ten (10) feet to any street right-of-way line.
(4) Accessory Use Signs: Signs identifying uses accessory to a
multiple residential development shall not be visible from the out-
side of the building.
(5) Temporary signs: Refer to Section 4.
(6) Maximum Height of Free-Standing Signs: Six (6) feet.
(7) Traffic Directional Signs: Refer to Section 4 (0).
(1) Identification Signs: One identification sign per street
frontage depicting the name of the lot, rates, and type of operation.
Such signs shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in area.
(2) Traffic Directional Signs: Refer to Section 4 (0).
(3) Maximum Height of Free-Standing Signs: Twenty (20) feet.
(d) Commercial Districts C-1, C-2, C-3, PC-1, PC-2, and PC-3
(1) l7all Signs: The total area of all wall signs affixed to a
building wall shall’not exceed fifteen per cent (15%) of the total
area of that wall.
(2) Free Standing Signs: One free-standing sign for each building
per street frontage.
building having one street frontage shall not exceed eighty (80)
square feet in Commercial District C-1, C-2, PC-1 and PC-2, nor ’
shall it exceed one hundred (100) square feet in Commercial District
C-3 and PC-3, Where a building has two or more street frontages,
only one free-standing sign of the above size shall be permitted.
Each permitted free-standing sign in excess‘of one shall be no greater
in area than one-half the area of the first sign. The maximum height
of free-standing signs shall be twenty (20) feet in the C-1, C-2, - PC-1 and PC-2 Districts and twenty-five (25) feet in the C-3 and PC-3
Districts.
(3) Area Identification Signs: One sign per development not to
exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area.
(4) Temporary Signs: Refer to Section 4.
(5) Traffic Difectional Signs: Refer to Section 4 (0).
(6) Excqtions: Offices and medical and dental clinics in a
commercial district shall comply with Section 5 (f) “Regional
Medical and Office Building Districts.”
(1) Wall Signs: The total area of all wall signs affixed to a
building wall shall not exceed twenty per cent (20%) of the total
area of that wall.
(2) Free-Standing Signs: One (1) free-standing sign per principal
building per street frontage.
sign for a building having orie street frontage shall not exceed
eighty (80) square feet. ”Where a building has tm or more street
frontages, only one free-standing sign of the above size shall be
permitted.
have a sign area not to exceed fifty (50) square feet. The maximum
height of free-standing signs shall be twenty (20) feet. Temporary
product sale, stamp and game signs may occupy the remainder of that
area not utilized for the permanent brand sign, provided the total
area of all permanent and temporary signs does not exceed eighty (80)
square feet for one sign and fifty (50) square feet for each sign in
excess of one.
(3) ’Pump Signs: Lettering or symbols which are an integral part of
the design of a gasoline pump shall be permitted.
(b) Multiple Residential Districts R-3, R-4 and R-5
(c) Automobile Parking District.
The total area of a free-standing sign for a
(e) Commercial District C-4
The total area of a free standing
Each permitted free-standing sign in excess of one shall
.
8/5/68
(4)' Traffic Directional Signs:
(5) Temporary Signs: Refer to Section 4.
(6) Restroom Signs: Signs indicating the location of restrooms and
containing no advertising information shall be permitted as needed.
(I) Identification Signs: One sign per street frontage, provided such
fiefer to Section 4 (0).
(f) Regional Medical and Office Building Districts
signs do not exceed thirty-six (36) square feet in area.
closer than ten (10) feet to any street right-of-way line.
No sign shall be placed
.. (2)' Accessory Use Signs: One identification wall sign per accessory
use attached to the facing of the building at the ground floor level,
The area of such sign shall not exceed fifteen per cent (15%) of the
ground floor wall facing of the accessory use.
(3) Area Identification Signs:
ceed thirty-six (36) square feet in area.
(4) Maximum Height of Free-Standing Signs: Six (6) feet.
(5) Temporary Signs: Refer to Section 4.
(6) Traffic Directional Signs: Refer to Section 4 (0).
Planned Industrial District and Light Industrial District
(1) Identification Signs: One identification sign per building, not
to exceed eighty (80) square feet in area. One (1) additional wall
identification sign for each tenant having a private entry to a
multi-tenant building: such signs being displayed at or near the
tenant's entrance, and not to exceed ten per cent (10%) of the area
of the wall to which it is-affixed. No sign shall be placed closer
than fen (10) feet to any street right-of-way line.
'(2) Area Identification Signs: One sign per development not to
exceed eighty (80) square feet in-area:
(3) Temporary Signs: Refer to Section 4.
(4) Maximum Height of Free-Standing Signs: Twenty (20) feet.
(5) Traffic Directional Signs: Refer to Section 4 (0) ,
One sign per development, not to ex-
(g)
I
i \
* '
SECTION 7 .
(a) Permits: Before a sign may be displayed in the Village of Edina, the
Administration and. Enforcement,
owner or occupant of the premises on which the sign is located, or the owner or
installer of such sign, shall file application with the Village Building In-
spector for permission to display such sign.
existing, new, relocated, modified or redesigned signs except those specifically
exempt under this Section.
The applicant shall submit with the application a-complete description of the
sign and a sketch showing its size, location, manner-of construction and such
other hforiation as shall be necessary to inform the Village Building Inspector
of the kina, size, material, constkction and location of 'the sign.
cant shall also submit at the time of application the applidation fee as may
be required under this Section of the Ordinance.
mit has not been installed within three (3) months after the date of issuance
of said permit, the permit shall become null and void.
Fees:' For any sign for which a permit is required, except signs dis-
played or caused to be displayed by any governmental unit, pjblic school dis-
trict or church, the payment of an initial application fee of $10.00 shall be
required for the purpose of defraying the cost of examining and processing
the application for permit and the cost of inspecting the installation and
maintenance of such signs.
under the provisions of this Ordinance, the permitee shall acquire from the
Village Building Inspector a tag which shall be conspicuously attached to
the lower left front surface of the sign.. Such tag shall indicate the number
of the sign permit and the date of issuance.
quired and application fees paid for all non-emempt signs existing at the time
of adoption of this Ordinance.
(d) Exemptions: The exemptions permitted by this Section shall apply
only to the requirement of a permit and shall not be construed as relieving
the installer 'of the sign, or the owner of the property upon which the sign
is located, from conforming with the other provisions of this Ordinance, No
permit is required under this Section for the following signs:
(1)
percent (30%) of the window area.
(2)
(3)
-
Permits must be acquired for all
The appli- .
If a sign authorized by per-
(b)
(c) Sign Identification Tag: For any sign for which a permit is required
Permits and tags must be ac-
A window sign placed within a building and not exceeding thirty
Signs having an area of six (6) square feet' or less,
Signs' erected by a governmental unit or public school district.
8/5/68 3
u3
(4) Temporary signs as listed in Section 4; Paragraphs (i), (j),
(5)
(k) and (1) and Section 6; Paragraph (e), subparagraph (2).
its use and date of erection when cut or built into the walls of the building
and constructed of bronze, brass, stone or marble.
Signs whichze completely within a building and are not visible
from the outside of said building.
(e) Violations and Fines: If the Village Building Inspector or his
' deputy shall find that any sign regulated by this Ordinance is unsafe, in-
secure, or is a menance to the public; or has been constructed or erected
without a permit first being granted to the installer of said
the owner of the property upon which said sign has been erected, or is im-
properly
Ordinance, he shall give written notice of such violation to the owner or
permittee thereof, If the permitee or owner fails to remove or alter the
sign so as to comply with the provisions set forth in this Ordinance within
ten (10) days'folfowing receipt of said notice, such signs may be removed
by the Village Building Inspector or his deputy, the cost incident thereto
being levied as a special assessment against.the property upon which the sign
is located. *
Any person, organization, corporation or their representatives found in viol-
ation of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction, a
fine of not more than $100.00 shall be imposed for each day the violation
remains in existence. All signs are subject to such penalty .for viplation of
the requirements of the distric t
they may not be required by Ordinance to pay a fee or acqufre a permit.
(f)
his application, proof of self-insurance or that public liability insurance
has been procured for any death or personal injury accruable to such sign,
in the amount of not less than $100.,000 for each person and $300,000 for
each incident, and for.damage to property arising from any incident in the
amount of not less than. $50,000.
To provide for a reasonable interpretation of the provisions
of this Ordinance, a permit applicant who wishes to appeal a ruling of inter-
pretation by the Village Building Inspector or his deputy may file a notice of
appeals with the Village Clerk and request a hearing before the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
The Board shall have the power and duty of hearing and deciding, subject to
appeals to the Village Council, appeals or requests in the following cases:
requirement, decision, or determination made by the administrative officer in
the enforcement of this Ordinance.
(2) Requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Ordinance
in instances where their strict enforcement would cause an undue hardship.
Before the Board shall grant a variance it is the responsibility of the
appellant to prove:
1.
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property
or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the
same vicinity and zoning district;
2.
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone; but which is denied to the property in question;
3.
hardship; and
4.
the public welfare or injurio~s
vicinity or zone in which the property is located.
Memorial signs or tablets containing the name of the building,
(6)
sign or to
maintained, orris in violation of any other provisions of this I
within which they are located even though
Insurance: The owner of any projecting sign shall furnish, with
(g) Appeals:
(1') Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order,
That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the
That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
That the strict- application o€ €he ordinance would constitute unnecessary
That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to
to the property or improvements in such
SECTION 8. Non-Conforming Signs.
(a) Any non-conforming temporary or portable sign existing at the time
of adoption of this Ordinance shall be made to comply with the requirements
set forth herein or shall be removed within sixty (60) days dter the adoption
of this Ordinance.
adoption of this Ordinance shall be allowed to continue in use, but shall not
be in rebuilt, altered other than to change the message, orlelocated without
being brought into compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance. lifter
a non-conforming sign has been removed, it shall not be replaced by another
non-conforming sign.
Whenever a non-conforming permanent sign use has been discontinued
for a period of there (3) months, such use shall not thereafter be continued
unless in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
(b) Non-conforming permanent signs lawfully existing at the time of
(c)
$92 f
8/5/68 I
SECTION 9. Severance Clause. If any Section, clause or provision or porrion
thereof of this Ordinance shall be found to be invalid or unconstitutional by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect any othef
section, clause, provision or portion thereof of this Ordinance.
Mr. Hite advised that particular credit should go to Mr. Hoisington who has done
exceptional work in drafting a difficult ordinance.
GUN CONTROL BIU REQUEST RECEIVED.
Gregor that Council adopt a Gun Control Bill was received by Council.
was taken.
LIQUOR REPORT as of June 30, 1968, was presented by Mr. Dalen, reviewed and
ordered placed on file by motion of Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman
Courtney and carried.
Request of Minneapolis Alderman Robert Mac-
No action
CLAIMS PAID.
for payment of the following claims as per Pre-List:
Construction Fund, $3,487.55; Park, Park Corstruction, Swim Pool, Golf Course
. and Arena, $11,564.29; Water Fund, $3,659.76; Liquor Fund, $70,472.45; Sewer
Rental Fund, $3,830.04; Poor Fund, $272.26; Total, $107,088.06; and for con-
firmation of payment of the following claims;
struction Fund ($5,000.00); Parks, Swim Pool, Park Cpnstruction, Golf Course
and Arena, $3,533.69; Water Fund, $2,749.00; Liquor Fund, $4,754.56; Sewer
Rental Fund, $208.32, Total, $18,361.87.
Motion by Councilman Shaw was seconded by Councilman Courtney
General Fund, $13,801.71;
General Fund, $12,116.30; Con-
Zn€ollmal tliscussion of the newly adopted Stom Sewer Policy ensued.
The asenda having been covered, Councilman Courtney's motion for adjournment
was seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried. Adjournment at 11:25 p.m.