HomeMy WebLinkAbout19800407_regularl-
D
cu 0 cn -2 d:
Q:
I
23 MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
APRIL 7, 1980
Answering rollcall were members Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt and Mayor
Van Valkenburg. Present also were Mmes. Leslie Turner of the Human Relations Corn-.
mission and Helen McClelland of the Community Development and Planning Conniission. -
BCLNUTES of March 17, 1980, were approved as submitted by motion of Councilman
Courtney, seconded by Councilman Bredesen.
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
lfo tion carried.
EDINA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS HONORED ON 25TH ANNIVERSARY. The Xayor read the fol-
lowing Resolution of Congratulations in honor of the 25th anniversary of the Edina
League of Women Voters:
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS
TO.
EDINA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
I)
WHEREAS, the League of Women Voters was founded nationally in 1920 as an outgrowth
cf the Suffrage Movement in the United.States; and
lJHEREAS, the Edina League of Women Voters was organized twenty-five years ago
with an original membership of twenty ladies in the Morningside Unit of the' Minne-
apolis League; and
WHEREAS, throughout the years, the Edina League of Women Voters has educated hun-
dreds of its own members and thousands of residents of the community through the
publication of The Edina Close-Up, by participating in studies and by serving on
numerous citizen committees, working increasingly for the improvement of all
levels of government; and
WHEREAS, over the past years, members of the Edina League of Women Voters have
demonstrated their interest in civic affairs by serving as observers at meetings
of the City Council, the Community Development and Planning Commission, the Park
Board, the Human Relations Commission, the Energy Commission, the Housing Needs
Committee, the Minnehaha and Nine Mile Creek Watershed Districts and the Board of
Education; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edina has greatly depended upon' members of the Edina League
of Women Voters for their cooperation in encouraging a large voter turnout by '
registering voters, serving as Election Judges and reporters at the various poll-
ing places on election nights, and by assisting when the City revised its Election
Card File; and
WHEREAS, the Edina League of Women Voters have enthusiastically conducted Candi-
dates' Meetings before each election;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Edina City Council does hereby commend
on the occasion of its twenty-fifth year in the City of Edina and does most sin-
cerely express its appreciation for the many services which its members have per-
formed for the betterment of all levels of government.
The resolution was unanimously adopted.
THE EDINA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
ANGELA BARNES COMMENDED FOR GYMNASTICS ACHIEVEEENTS.
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS
TO
ANGELA BARNES
Mayor'Van Valkenburg read
the following resolution of congratulations and moved its adoption:
WHEREAS, as a member of the Edina West Girls' Gymnastics Team, Angela Barnes, for
the second consecutive year, distinguished herself as a contestant in the Efinne-
sota Girls' Gymnastics Tournament; and
WHEREAS, competing in the 1980 Minnesota Girls' Gymnastics Tournament, Angie '
Barnes placed first on the uneven parallel bars, first on the balance beam and won
the All-Around Competition, receiving the highest indivual total score ever accumu-
lated in the history of the Minnesota. Girls' Gymnastics Tournament;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, that a
Resolution of Congratulations be adopted and that this Resolution be spread upon
the pages of the Minutes Book of the Edina City Council; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an appropriate copy of this Resolution be presented to
for her outstanding success and to Assistant Coach Burt Selsback, Coach Kit Stout-
enburgh, Athletic Director Sarah Lykken, and to Principal James.J. Cabalka on
behalf of the Edina citizenry as a whole.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was carried unanimously.
I
ANGELA BARNES
. 24
BRIAN MEEKER CONGRATULATED POR GYMNASTICS ACHIEVEMENTS.
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS
TO
BRIAN MACDONALD MEEKER
Mayor Van Valkenburg . I
, offered the following resolution and inoved its adoption: '
WHEREAS, as a member of the Edina East Upper Division Gymnastics Team and training
under Coach Bob ffeocherl, Brian Macdonald Meeker developed his expertise as a
gymnast, being named the Minnesota All-Around Gymnastics Champion in 1978; and
wHEREp;s, through his continued practice and dedication to achievement of high
gymnastics standards under the able coaching of University of tfinnesota Coach
Fred Rothlisberger, Brian Meeker has continued to excel in the field of gym-
nastics, placing eighth nationally in the N.C.A.A. National Gymnastics Tournament
held April 4 and 5, 1980, in Lincoln, Nebraska, with a score of 109.35, making
him eligible to participate in the National U.S.G.F. Meet in Columbus, Ohio, on
April 25, 1980; and
TJHEREAS,'it is by completely in this Meet that fourteen members of the United
States National Team are chosen, with the top seven contestants being-appointed
NOIJ, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that members of the Edina City Council, in
behalf of the citizenry as a whole, do hereby extend their sincere congratula-
tions to'
and do express their very best wishes for his every success in the forthcoming.
U.S.G.F. Neet;. and
BE IT FTURTBER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be spread upon the pages
of the Minutes Book of the Edina City Council and that an appropriate-copy be
presented to Brian Meeker in recognition of his outstanding success as a gym-
nast, and to Coaches Bob Hoecherl and Fred Rothlisberger.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was carried unanimously.
STREET IhROVEMENT NO. P-A-176 CONTINUED TO APRIL 21, 1980.
were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Ros-. land presented total estimated construction cost at $8,187.29, proposed to be
assessed against three assessable lots at an estimated cost of $500.00 per lot. >,He
explained that this is a 20 foot wide collector road next to the m&S ICailroad
tracks and that it is proposed that the work be done by City crews with the balance
of the cost coming from General Fcnds. 11.- resrJcnse to Councilszn ?Lchrds' co;lc.e~;il that a portion ofdthe cost should not be paid from General Funds, Mr. Hoffman said
that the City spends almost that amount annually for repair and maintenance of the existing road. Mrs- Joseph Forrer, 5612 Dale he., said that she understood that
the road was not a legal road and that it h2.d been blocked off at one time to which
statement Mr. Hoffman replied that he would never propose blocking the road because
of the use it is given. Following discussion, Councilman Richards' motion was sec-
onded by Councilroan Courtney, that the hearing be continued until April 21, 1980, and that new notices be sent out to a larger assessment district, including the
Westchester Apartments.
'
I -
to the- United States Olympic Team; P-
BRIAN MACDONALD MEEKER
Affidavits of Xotice
I. .
Ayes:
Nays: None t
Motion carried.
Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
CROSSROADS DEYELOPMENT GRANTED PRELININAH APPROVAL; ORDINANCE NO. 811-A136 GRANTED
FIRST READING. Council was reminded that the hearing on the request of Crossroads . Development for change of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, Findell Second Addition,
from R-1 Residential District to PRD-3 Planned Residential District had been con-
tinued from the Council Meeting of March 17, 1980, so that copies of &. Hyatt's
letter and of the Findings, Decisions and Reasons could be circulated to neighbors
and to Mr. Hyatt's attorney for their responses.
that copies of a memorandum from him and Mr. Hughes to Mr. Zosland had also been sent
to neighbors and to the developer. Mr. Steve Winnick, Chairman of the Lewis Park
Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed development stating
that occupants will not feel welcome in th'is type of housing project and suggested
also chat the City should not give all of its remaining Community Development Funds
Mr. Winnick referred to proposed legislation under which 2/3 of
all apartment units must be rented to families with children and pointed out that:
existing in-place units could be made available with Section 8 Rental Assistance Pro-
grams.
additional Federg funds and that this is not a burden that taxpayers should be
forced to assume.
types of housing and that, with virtually no vacancies in the City,'it would be
necessary to displace senior citizens to make room for other housing.
1500 units of rental housing in Edina have been lost and that available housing is
dwindling.
available, with no municipal participation required.
lfr. Erickson also advised Council
I . to one developer.
He mentioned also that the City should not act in anticipation of receipt of
Mr. Hyatt said that there is room in Edina for a variety of '
-.
He added that
Mr. Hyatt said that bonus funds total.ing' $500,000 have just been made
In response to a question of .
..
4/7/80
25
cu
-3
IQ
a
the Hayor, Mr . Erickson said that , should preliminary approval be gr inted , the City
would enter into a written agreement with the developer as to the dollar amount of
participation by the City and that the City would require that the size and
amenities of the market rate units be as discussed with the developel, that there
be a 60/40 social mix, adequate transportation and a residential mix to include
those working in the City. He clarified also that it would be necessary to obtain
a parking variance from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and a utility connect-
ion variance from the Board of Building Appeals. Mr. Erickson said that if the
Cotlncil wishes, it could proceed if the developer would make a commitment at this
meeting as to his agreement to that process, both as to the variances and to
entering into written agreements before the City is obligated to proceed with any
final approval; but that final approval and rezoning be made subject to the fol-
lowing conditions: 1) Edina entering into a legal agreement with Crossroads Dev-
elopment as to the amount of contribution by Edina, the source of funds for that
contribution and the timing of payment of that contribution; 2) The total contribu-
tions of Edina must come from Community Development Block Grants. Mr. Erickson
said that the transportation agreement would present enforcement problems which
would involve monitoring by the City and expressed his concern about enforcement
beyond a certain statutory time period and also about whether future owners would
be subject to the same enforcement remedies. He clarified that this would be in
the form of an agreement with the developer which the City would impose in connect-
ion with its contribution, with the consideration for the agreement by the part of
the developer being the moneys granted and rezoning given by the City. Mr. Erick-
ning in favor of the City. In response to a question of Mr. Winnick, Mr. Erick-
son explained that final plans would include the location of the buildings, the
location of the garages, and the location, size and amenities of the units. He
added that the final Planned Residential Development Plan must also be reviewed by
the Community Development and Planning Commission before it comes back to the
Council. Councilman Bredesen said that he would not favor a variance as to the
number of parking spaces required for the market rate units and added that he
believed that with over 100 additional garage stalls now proposed, revised plans
should be presented. Mr. Hyatt said that the only difference would be in the two
buildings on the side of the property toward Cahill Road, inasmuch as other gar-
ages would be constructed under the buildings. Council was advised that the Zon-
ing Ordinance does not differentiate between rental or owner occupied units as
far as the number of required garages is concerned. Mayor Van Valkenburg pointed
out that the matter cannot be f.inally resolved until the financih situation is
settled. Following considerable discussion, Councilman Courtney moved that the
development be granted preliminary approval, and that Ordinance No. 811-A136 be
granted First Reading subject to the following conditions:
1)
amount of contribution by Edina, the source of funds for that contribution and
the timing of payment of that contribution, and the total contribution must come
from Community Development Block Grants;
2) Obtaining a written Development Agreement from Crossroads Development for the
project, including the size of and amenities in the market rate units;
3) That the final PRD plans also show the size of and amenities in the market
rate units, the location of all covered parking, and be approved by the Commu-
nity Development and Planning Commission and by the Council; -
4)
ferences to be given to Edina employees and residents, 60/40 social mix and trans-
portation, and incorporating the other provisions of the memorandum from the City
staff to the Council dated March 26, 1980;
5)
connection variance desired by Crossroads Development , and delivering written,
recordable agreements acceptable to Edina relative to the variances;
6) These conditions to be expressly agreed to by Crossroads Development, with
conditions to be worked out and fulfilled prior to final approval of the PN)
plans and r2zoning by the Council:
.son opined that this would be an agreement, but in the form of a restriction run-
Edina entering into a written agreement with Crossroads Development as to the
Obtaining a written, recordable agreement acceptable to Edina as to the pre-
Crossroads Development obtaining the covered parking variance and utility
ORDINANCE NO. 811-A136
kv. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 811)
BY ADDING TO THE PLANNED XESIDENTIAL EISTRICT (PRD-3)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Paragraph 5 of Ordinance No. 811 of the City is enlarged by
adding the following thereto :
enlarged by' the addition of the following property :
"The extent of the Planned Residential District (Sub-District PRD-3) is
Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, Findell Second Addition (which is in Sub-
District PRD-3).
Sec. 2.
and publication.
Motioii was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt , who said that, although the developer
had made many concessions, there are still many unanswered questions.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage
Councilman
4/7/80
%chards expressed his concern that this is not a correct approach and that all
alternatives for subsidized housing have nat been investigated.
failure to support the motion would be based on the fact that the proponcnt's
changes do not satisfactorily respond to the concerns and reasons previously ex-
pressed by the Council for denial of this project.
that his motion fbr approval was based on, and the reasons for it are that the
proponents' agreements relative to social mix, the compatability of construction
and transportation adequately respond to Council's main concerns about the devel-
opment, and also that, although the City does not have a formulated housing -
policy, the policy is far enough along to allow that kind of agreement to match
up with the policies when they are adopted; and further that, with the changes
and agreements proposed, the location for the proposed development is suitable.
He said that his
Councilman Courtney clarified
-
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: Richards
Motion carried.
The Xayor said that there is still much work to be done on this matter and com-
mended the staff, the proponents and the neighbors for all of their efforts.
LOT 12, BLOCK 1, HOLANDS 1ST ADDITION LOT DIVISION AND VARIANCE DENIED. Mr.
Hughes recalled that the hearing on the division and variance for Lot 12; Block 1,
Holands 1st Addition, generally located North of Claredon Drive, had been conti-
nued from the Council Meeting of March 17, 1980, so that neighbors could discus
further the purchase of the property and so that Mr. Darrell Boyd would be in town
and could speak to the issue. Mr. J. E. Brill, Jr., attorney representing the pro-
ponents, advised that neighbors had tendered an offer for the property, that the
Kleins had made a counter offer, but that they are still quite far apart as to
price. Mr. Brill advised Council of a letter from a man who agreed to plow the
proposed driveway for a reasonable fee and that he would push the snow up the hill.
Be showed photographs of other lots which he said had driveways longer than the
driveway under discussion and also said that these drives had grades in excess of
the grade the meins are proposing to construct. Mr. Brill said that it would be
an "arbitrary decision" on the part of the Council to deny the lot division at
this point, and that the variance should not be denied because of the lapse of
the one year limitation, but rather that there should be new reasons upon which
denial would be based at this time. Note was made of a letter from Mr. and Mrs.
Marvin Bump, 5712 Dewey Hill Road, supporting the lot division. Mr. Darrell Boyd,
7204 Shannon Drive, reiterated neighbors' concerns as to problems of water erosion,
the cuttizlg in of a Griveway which wouid require steep retainiiig walls, arrd safety
hazards which would result in a dangerous situation.
. not believe that denial of the lot division and variance would be a financial hard-
ship, inasmuch as Mr. Klein entered into a Contract for Deed in July, 1968, which
date was seven months after the variance request had expired, and also after the
building covenants had ken extended for an additional ten years. Mr. Boyd fur-
ther advised that one of the conditions of the counter offer was that the entire
lot would not be for sale, with the Western 72 feet of Lot 6 to be reserved by the
Kleins. Nayor Van Valkenburg said that, as he viewed the chronological history of
the site and studied the Findings of Fact, he did not believe that the lot divi-
sion or the variance should be approved. Councilman Richards said that he did not
think that the pictures presented by Mr. Brill were pertinent, inasmuch as most
displayed an access probl'em of direct access to an abutting street, rather thaa a
solution to a land-locked piece of property.
the Findings of Fact, Decisions and Reasons be accepted and that the lot division
and the variance be denied.
Councilman Courtney said that he believed that the only reason the neighbors op-
posed the lot division was that they did not want a house built on the site in
question.
that wodd be necessary on the driveway and was told by Mr. Klein that the wall
would be eight feet high for only a short distance and that a lot of other walls
around the City are similar. Mr. Klein also said that'the Valley View Road lot
pictured and which was questioned by Councilman Richards was a real neck lot with
a driveway of about 220 feet extending behind other properties.
construct a retaining fence, rather than use the wall, if Council so desired.
.
I Mr. Boyd said that he does
Councilman Richards then moved that -
The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt.
Councilwoman Schmidt said that she was concerned about the steep walls
I He also agreed to
Rollcall :
Ayes: Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays : Zredesen, Courtney
Motion carried.
LAWA LASE IN PARKWJOD KNOLLS 14TH ADDITION STREET NAME CHANGE TO "KELSEY TER-
RACE" APPROVEC. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form
aad ordered placed cn file. Being advised by Mr. Hughes that the adjacent pro-
perty obmers had signed the petition requesting the street nane change of Larada
Lane in Parkwood Knolls 14th Addition to "Kelsey Terrace", Councilman Courtney
I' . . , ..
CITY OF EDINA
In the Matter of the Application of
Robert B. Klein for a Lot Division of Lot 12,
Block 1, Holand's 1st Addition and a Petition
for Variance by Robert B. Kiein for lot wzdth
for the East 17 feet of Lot 12, Holand's 1st
Addition.
FINDINGS,
DECISIONS,
AND
REASONS
The above entitled matters were heard before the City Council, * . *-
City of Edina, on February 4, 1980, March 3, 1980, and March 17, 1980.
Robert B. Klein ("PropoRent") was present at all hearings and was
represented by Donald Campbell, Attorney at Law, on February 4, 1980.
The City Council, having heard and reviewed all of the facts and
arguments presented by the Proponent, his representative, City Staff,
and property owners residing in the vicinity of the land affected by
the application for lot division and petition for variance, and having
heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponent, his
representative, City Staff, and surrounding property owners, an6 being
fully advised, after due consideration hereby makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The Proponent, on January 11, 1980, submitted an application
(Case No. LD-80-3) for lot division to subdivide Lot 12, Block 1, Holand's
1st Addition ("Subject Property"). This application (hereinafter referred
to as the "Lot Division") requested a subdivision of the Subject Property
into two parcels, being the east 17 feet of Lot 12, Block 1, Holand's
1st Addition (hereinafter referred to as "Part of Lot 12") and Lot 12,
Block 1, Holand's 1st Addition except the east 17 feet thereof.
Proponent also submitted a petition requesting a variance (hereinafter
referred to as the "Variance Request") to allow a lot width for Part
The
,
. .. ' i
of Lot 12 of '17 feet rather than 75 feet as required by Edina Ordinance
No. 811, the Zoning Ordinance.
2. On January 30, 1980-, the Edina Community Development
and Planning Commission ("Commission") considered the Lot Division and
Variance Request. The Commission received the report and recommendation
of City Staff and reviewed the history of public actions pertaining
to the Subject Property and other properties in its vicinity. The
Commission was advised that Part of Lot 12 would be utilized for drive-
way purposes to gain access to and provide public street frontage for a
4 -- *. 0-
single family dwelling to be constructed on part of Lot 6, Block 3,
Pxospect Hills 2nd Addition (hereinafter referred to as "Building Site")
which parcel is located north of the Subject Property.
testified that he owned the SuildFng Site and Part of Lot 12 and mcquestcd
approvals of the Lot Division and Variance Request to allow the construction
of a single family dwelling on.the Building Site.
residing in the vicinity of the Subject Property and. Building Site testified
The Proponent
Property owners
. that the proposed use of the Building Site and Part of Lot 12 would
increase the danger of water erosion which would adversely affect surrounding
properties, the driveway proposed for Part of Lot 12 would be excessively
steep and result in severe cuts into existing topography, thus requiring
extensive retaining walls, the grade and location of the proposed driveway
would present a public safety hazard, Part of Lot 12 is too narrow for
driveway construction, locations other than Part of Lot 12 are available
for driveway construction, property owners had not been properly
notified when the Building Site was subdivided in 1966, and protective
covenants restricted construction of a dwelling on the Building Site.
-2-
After reviewing the report and recommendation of City staff and testimony
of the Proponent and surrounding property owners, the Commission recommended
denial of the Lot Division and Variance Request.
3- On February 4, 1980, the City Council considered the Lot
Division and Variance Request at a public hearing.
received the report and recommendation of the Commission.
The City Council
The City Council
also received testimony from the Proponent and surrounding property owners.
The City Council thereupon continued the public hearing to March 3, 1980,
to allow City staff opportunity to review drainage concerns, to allow the
-* .- *
City Council to inspect the Subject Property, to obtain additional
information on the history of the Building Site and Part of Ldz 12, and to
allow the Traffic Safety Committee opportunity to comment on the proposed
driveway location.
4. On March 3, 1980, the City again.conducted a piblic hearing
on the Lot Division and Variance Request. The Proponent presented plans
for a single family dwelling on the Building Site and grading and drainage
'information for the proposed driveway on Part of Lot 12. The City Council
received the report of the Traffic Safety Committee, and a further history
of the Building Site and Part of Lot 12. The City Council thereupon
ordered City staff to prepare Findings of Fact regarding the Lot Division
and.Variance Request and continued the public hearing to March 17, 1980.
5. On December 6, 1965, HoLand's 1st Addition was platted. The
easterly 17 feet of the Subject Property was shown as subject to a drainage
and utility easement.
6. On December 20, 1965, the City of Edina adopted Ordinance
No. 261-116 which provided that variances lapse one year after approval
if not used or extended by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
-3-
7. On November 2, 1966, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of a subdivision of Lot 6, Block 3, Prospect Hills 2nd Addition and
thereby recommended approval of fhe creation of a new parcel which is the
present Building Site. On November 7, 1966, the City Council approved the
subdivision of Lot 6, Block 3, Prospect Hills 2nd Addition and thereby
created a new parcel of property which is the present Building Site. The
Planning Commission and City Council noted that access to the Building Site,
which did not have frontage on a public street, would be provided across
the easterly 17 feet of Lot 12, Block 1, Holand's Addition, i.e. Part of
4 -. *. a-
Lot 12,
8. On December 15, 1966, the Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments
granted a variance requested by the then owner of Part of Lot 12 to allow a
lot frontage of 17 feet for Part of Lot 12. The Board of Appeals granted
this variance conditioned upon the replatting of Part of Lot 12 and the
Building Site into one lot.
9. On December 29, 1966, the City Council referred the variance
for lot frontage back to the Board of Appeals (notwithstanding the fact that
the Board had already granted the variance) because surrounding property owners
objected to the variance and claimed they had not been notified of the
December 15, 1966, Board of Appeals meeting. City records indicate notice
was given to adjoining owners pursuant to ordinance procedures.
due to changing ownership then occuring, it is possible that the complaining
However,
. neighbors never did, in fact, receive notice. The Board of Appeals re-
considered the variance on January 19: 1967, and March 16, 1967, but neither
reaffirmed nor rescinded 2ts earlier approval of the variance.
10. On June 27, 1967, the Proponent entered into a purchase
. -4-
1
agreement for Part of Lot 12. On December 12, 1967, the proponent acquired
title to Part of Lot 12.
11, Subsequent to the granting of the variance for lot frontage
for Part of Lot 12, no actions were taken to use the variance and the
condition imposed by the Board of Appeals (replatting Part of Lot 12
and the Building Site into one lot) was not commenced. No petitions were
filed requesting an extension of the variance. Therefore, pursuant to the
' Edina Zoning Ordinance, the variance lapsed and became null and void on
December 15, 1967, (i.e. one year after its granting.)
J-- .- :-
12. On July 17, 1968, the Proponent entered into a Contract for
c
Deed for the acquisition of the Building Site.
13. On October 10, 1973, the Proponent applied for a lot division
(identical to the present Lot Division) to divide Part of Lot 12 from the
balance of Lot 12.
recommended denial to the requested lot division.
request a hearing by the City Council.
On November 28, 1973, the Planning Commission
The Proponent did not
14. On May 23, 1974, the Proponent acquired title to the Building
Site.
15. Part of Lot 12 is bordered on its east and west sides by
developed single family lots. The single family dwelling to the east was
constructed pursuant to a building permit issued on August 23, 1967. The
dwelling to the west was constructed pursuant to a building permit issued
on May 6, 1968.
considered and approved prior to construction of dwellings east and west
of Part of Lot 12.
The lot division and variance applied for in 1966 was
-5-
1 r.
.b *
1
I
1
I
16. Testimony has been given that restrictive covenants were .x I
It
imposed in 1948 on Prospect Hills 2nd Addition, including Lot 6, Block
3 thereof, that remained in effect until January 1, 1968; and at which time
were automatically extended until January 1, 1978. Said restrictive
covenants provide that all lots, including Lot 6, Block 3, Prospect Hills
2nd Addition, may be developed with only one detached single family dwelling,
Therefore, said restrictiire covenants prohibited construction of a single
family dwelling on the Building Site until at least January 1, 1968,
-
and ultimately, as a result of the automatic extension of ten years,
/.d .. :-
until January 1, 1978.
_.
..
..
I
17. The Proponent has submitted plans delineating a proposed *
single family dwelling for the Building Site which would be served by a
driveway from Claredon Drive across Part of Lot 13. The progosed drive~ay
measures 260 feet in length and has an average grade of approximately 10%. ..
Due to the grading and cutting-necessary to construct the proposed drive-
way coupled with the 17 foot width of Part'of Lot 12, retaining walls 1
having a maximum height of 10 feet would be required on the West side t
I
and a maximum height of 4 feet on the East side of the proposed driveway
for the first 150 feet of its length. I
18. Edina Ordinance No. 811, the Zoning Ordinance requires that
"lots" or "plots" must have frontage on a public street, . The City.of
Edina has determined that, under its ordinance, only lots and plots are
buildable.
or plot as contained in the Zoning Ordinance'are not buildable.
Parcels of property which do not meet the definition of a lot
The
Building Site (i.e. part of Lot 6, Black 3, Prospect Hills 2nd Addition) is
not a lot or plot because it does not have frontage on a public street.
I:
-6-
.. - 3 ..
19. The Proponent owns and resides at Lot 11, Block 1, Holand's
Addition.
Proponent's existing home site. '
The Building Site is adjacent to and contiguous with the
Therefore, based upon the foregoing Findings, the City Council
does hereby make the following
DECISION:
The Proponent's Application for a Lot Division and Petition for
Variance is hereby denied.
The above Decision is made for the following
+ -- F
REZSONS :
A. The Building Site and Part of Lot 12 in combination represents
a neck lot whereby access from a public street to a dwelling is gained
throush a narrow strip of land.
for neck lot subdivisions in the past because
of emergency vehicles to properly access the property, due to steep grades,
underdesign, poor maintenance, and unusual length of driveways, 2) home
The City of Edina has denied similar requests
1)cofthe potential inability
security problems can result in that dwellings are often not visible from
public roads, 3) neck lot subdivisions detract from and impede proper overall
planning and development of an area, and -.4)the orderly and logical place-
ment of dwellings in a neighborhood are undesirably altered.
and VarianceRequest would result in a development which would exhibit many
The Lot Division
of the above problems and would therefore be undesirable from the standpoint
of community planning.
B. In 1966, the owners of the Subject Property and the Building
Site clearly recognized that variances and other City actions were
necessary to establish a buildable lot. The Building Site is not a lot
or plot as defined by the Edina Zoning Ordinance due to the lack of frontage
-7-
on a public street and is therefore not buildable.
granted for Part of Lot 12 in 1966 to allow its use for driveway access
to the Building Site and satisfy 'the public street frontage requirement
of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the variance was not used, neither a
driveway nor a dwelling was constructed, and the condition of replatting
the Building Site and Part of Lot 12 into one lot was never commenced.
A variance was
Therefore,i.,the variance lapsed one year after its granting and is now null
and void.
*4-- , . .-
C. The division of the Building Site and variance for Part of
, Lot12 were applied for in 1966. The variance was granted on December 15,
1966. The owners of the Building Site and Part of Lot 12 were presumably
aware or had constructive knowledge of the restrictive covenants which
precluded the construction of a dwelling on the Building Site until at
least January 1, 1968 and possibly until January 1, 1978. Similarly, the
owners were presukably aware or should have known that the the variance
granted on December 15, 1966, would lapse and become null and void on
December 15, 1967. Therefore, the owners of the Building Site and Part of
Lot 12 speculated that certain actions would be taken to allow use of the
variance prior to its expiration. .
D. The present Proponent entered into a purchase agreement for
the acquisition of Part of Lot 12 on June 27, 1967, or while the December
15, 1966 Variance remained in effect. However, the Proponent undertook no
actions to satisfy the replatting condition imposed by the Board of Appeals
and did not request a time extension of the variance.
enter into a contract for deed for the Building Site until July 17, 1968.
This date was after the variance lapsed and after restrictive covenants
The Proponent did not
-8- .
previously prohibiting development on the Building Site were extended
until January 1, 1978. The Proponent acquired Part of Lot 12 and the
Building Site knowing that furthgr actions, including approvals of a new
variance and at least a lot division, were required from the City in order
to create a buildable lot.
imposed on the Building Site required modification or their expiration
in order to allow development. Therefore, the Proponent speculated that
Also the Proponent knew restrictive covenants
future actions would be taken to allow development of' the Building Site. --
' <. ;-
E. Lapse of variances one year after their granting because
of non-use is a valid and 'logical exercise of the City's police power,
Such a provision is proper in that 1) the City is reasonably assured
that the applicant will actually use the variance and thereby discourage
speculation and 2) the City is assured that variances will not take
effect at a time so distantin the future that facts, circumstances, and
conditions cause the variance to be unwarranted and unreasonable.
3.)- In this case, land speculation is being promoted in that
the Proponent acquired Part of Lot 12 and the Building Site in a piece-
meal fashion and was not the applicant for past variances which were
granted. The Proponent speculated that actions would ensue at a later
date which would create a buildable lot out of his disjointed land
purchases.
2) In this case, the facts, circumstances, and conditions have
changed since the grant of the prior variance which now makes its use
. unwarranted and unreasonable. Subsequent to the 1966 variance, single
family dwellings have been constructed on both sides of Part of Lot 12
-9-
which wouid
and dwelling due to the potential for erosion and runoff, severe
... be adversely affected by the construction of a driveway
. alteration of surrounding topography, and the loss of symmetry, spacing,
and privacy of existing dwellings.
F. Any hardships which may be created by denial of the Lot
Division and Variance Request must be considered to be self created. The
Proponent was or should have been knowledgeable that Part of Lot 12 and
. the Building Site did not constitute a buildable lot when they were -. .'
acquired. <. :-
G.
with the Building Site.
reasonable use of the Building Site for uses accessory to his existing
The Proponent's existing homesite is adjacent to and contiguous
Therefore, the Proponent can continue to make a
single family dwelling.
41 7/80
..
' 27
offered the following Ordinance for First Reading, with waiver of Sccond Read-
ing and moved its adoption: ... STREST NAME CHANGE OIltDINANCE 13
THE CITY COU?XIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Larada Lane in Parkwood Knolls 14th Addition is hereby
renamed "Kelsey Terrace".
Sec. 2. *This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on April 16, 1980,
apon its 'publication.
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Councilman Bredesen.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards,
Nays: None
Ordinance adopted.
ATTEST :
#L 5.
City Clerk
STREET AND EASEMENT VACATION HEARING DATE SET IN PARKWOOD KNOLLS 15TH ADDITION.
As recommended by Mr. Hoffman, Councilman Courtney offered the following resolu-
tion and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON
STREET AND UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
VACATIONS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minne-
sota, as follows:
1.
land affected thereby
utility and drainage purposes should be considered for vacation, in accordance
with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 412.851 and 160.29:
Vacation of all that part of Cougar Trail as platted in Parkwood Knolls
15th Addition; and
Vacation of a drainage and utility easement located in the South 10 feet
of Lot 1, Block 2, and the North 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 3, all in Parkwood
Knolls 15th Addition.
It is hereby found and determined after receipt of petition of the owner of
that the following described street and easement for
.
2,
included in paragraph 3 hereof for the purpose of holding a public hearing on
whether such vacation shall be made in the interest of the public.
3. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, place
and purpose of said hearing to be published once a week for two weeks, in the
Edina Sun, being the official newspaper of the City, the first publication at
least 14 days prior to the date of such hearing and to post such notice, at
least 14 days prior to the date of such hearing, in at least three (3)
and conspicuous places within the City, as provided in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 412.851.
This Council shall meeiz at the time and place specified in the form of notice
public
Such notice shall be in substantially the following form:
(Official Publication)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, NINNESOTA 55424
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
ON STREET VACATION AND
ON VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin
County,
day, April 21, 1980, at 7:OO p.m. o'clock for the purpose of holding public hear-
ings on street and easement vacations described as follows:
Vacation of all that part of Cougar Trail as platted in Parkwood Knolls 15th
Addition; and
Vacation of a drainage and utility easement located in the South 10 feet of
Lot 1, Block 2, and the North 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 3, all in Parkwood
Knolls 15th Addition.
Minnesota, will meet at the-Edina City Hall, 4801 W. 50th Street, on Mon-
All persons who desire to be heard with respect to the question of whether or
not the above street vacation and drainage and utility easement vacation are in
the public interest and should be made shall be heard at said time and place.
The Counci; shall consider the extent to which such proposed street vacation and
drainage and utility easement vacation affects existing easements within the area
of the proposed vacations and the extent to which the vacations affect the auth-
ority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric
or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes, mains and
hydrants on OX under the areas of the proposed vacations, tc continue maintaining
the same or to enter upon mch street or easement areas or portions thereof
4/7/80
28 vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereco, for
the purpose of specifying in any such vacation rcsolutions, the extent to which
any or all of any such easements, and such authority to maintain, and to enter
upon the areas of the proposed vacations, shall continue.
-BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL. t
Florence B. Hallberg
City Clerk
Hotion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Resolution ado pied.
FLOOD PLAIN ORDINAXCE' HOS. 801-A19 AND 816 GRANTED FIRST READING.
Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file.
Mr. Hughes presented Ordinance Nos. 801-A19 and 816, explaining that he had
already responded to a group of residents who had come to the meeting for informa-
tion. Mr. Hughes explained that, by State Statute, the City must update its
Flood Plain Ordinances so that the City can continue its eligibility in the Flood
Insurance Program. Mr. Hughes advised that the proposed ordinances differ from
the existing ordinances in that 1) The Flood Plain for lfinnehaha Creek has been
revised; 2) Specifications have been included for flood-proofing; 3) Flood
Plain Permits can be handled administratively, whereas under the old ordinance,
they must be acted upon by the Council and the Community Development and Plan-
ning Commission; and 4) The flood plains around Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina
have been designated. He explained also that if a structure is located within
the flood plain and is sold or remodeled using federally backed loans, flood
insurance is mandatory. Mr. Hughes advised Mr. Fred Krause, 4317 Theilen Ave.,
that work on the Minnetonka Dam will be done next fall inasmuch as it is too
wet to do that work in the winter. No further discussion being heard, Council-
man Courtney offered the following ordinance for First Reading as follows:
Affidavits of
ORDINANCE NO. 816
A ZONING ORDINANCE DESIGNATING FLOOD PLAINS IN AND ABOUT
REGULATING THE USE AND DEVELOPHENT THEREOF
AND OF THE BEDS AND WATERS OF SAID MINNEHAHA
AND REPWING OIWINANCE NO. 815
MINNEHAHA CREEK AND NINE MILE CREEK,
CREEK AND NINE MILE CREEK, PRESCRIBING A PENGTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1.
referred to shall be "The Flood Plain Management Zoning Ordinance."
Sec. '2. Statutory Authorization. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to .
'Ihe authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 104 and 462.
Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby found and declared that lands
yithin flood plains, as hereafter defined, in the City of Edina, in their natural
state, are a valuable land resource; that development within any such flood
plain must be regulated on the basis of and with full consideration of the impact
on the whole of that flaod plain and on the watercourses and waterbodies in that
flood plain; that such lands are or may be subject to loss or impairment of
value and pnysical degradation through uncoordinated and unplanned development;
that such lands are necessary and desirable to avoid rapid runoff of surface
waters, to prevent polluting materials from being carried directly into the water-
course or waterbody, to preserve adequate ground water infiltration, to protect
surface and ground water supplies, to minimize the possibility of periodic
flooding resulting in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards,
disruption of governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for pro-
jects to contain, store and control runoff, and impairment of the tax'base, all
of which adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. It is, therefore,
the purpose of this ordinance to guide and regulate the orderly development of
such lands to insure maintenance and preservation, in their natural state, of
needed and desirable natural water storage areas , and watercourses and water-
bodies and their shorelines and adjacent vegetation and topography and to mini-
mize the possibility of, and pollution and losses resulting from, runoff and
flooding, all thereby to promote and protect the public health, safety and wel-
fare.
Sec. 4. Defiiiitions. Unless specifically defined below or in Sec. 13 of
Ordnance No. 811 (the Zoning Ordinance of Edina), which definitions, to the
esteiit applicable, are hereby incorporated herein and declared to be a part of ,
this ordinance, the words and phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted
so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as to
give this ordinance its most reasonable application.
Title. The short form title by which this ordinance may be
.a
Board - The Board oE Appeals and Adjustments of the City of Edina.
4/7/80
29 Channel - a natural or artificial depression of perceptible extent, with defin-
ite beds and banks to confine and conduct, either continuously or periodically,
the water in the respective creeks of Minnehaha Creek and Nine Mile Creek.
City - the City of Edina
Commissioner - The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources of the
Council - The City Council of the City
Equal Degree of Encroachment - a method of determining the location of en-
croachment lines so that the hydraulic capacity of flood plain lands on each side
of a stream are reduced by an equal amount when calculating the increases in
flood stages due to flood plain encroachments.
inundation of the areas adjacent to the channel or adjacent to waterbodies in the
flood plain. .
or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood.
to properties and structures subject to flooding primarily for the reduction or
elimination of flood damage.
built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used with or without a permanent
foundation when connected to the required utilities. It does not include recreat-
ional vehicles or travel trailers. The term includes, but it is not limited to,
the definition of "mobile home" as set forth in federal regulations governing the
Mobile Home Safety and Construction Standards Program (24 CFR 3282.7(a)).
or more mobile home lots for rent or sale.
ment, levee, road, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel recti-
fication, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, deposit,
clearing of trees or vegetation, structure or matter in, along, across, or pro-
jecting, in whole or in part, into any flood plain.
Reach - a hydraulic engineering term to describe longitudinal segments of a
stream or river influenced by a natural or man-made obstruction.
Regional Flood - a flood which is representative of large floods known to have
occurred generally in the State.of Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what
can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100-year
recurrence interval.
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - a point not less than one foot above
the elevation of the flood plain, plus any increases in flood heights attribu-
table to encroachments on the flood plain; the elevation to which uses regulated
by this 'ordinance are required to be elevated or floodproofed.
any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined
together in some definite manner, whether of a temporary or permanent character.
Zoning Map; Interpretation.
(a) Lands Subject to Ordinance.
w.ithin the jurisdiction of the City and shown on the Official Flood Plain Zoning
Map (hereinafter called the "Map") as being located within the boundaries of the
flood plain.
which, reduced in size, is appended to this ordinance, is hereby adopted by refer-
ence and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The Map shall be on file in the
office of the City Planning Department and shall be open to inspection by the
public during normal business hours of the City.
Mile Creek Watershed District Plan and Management Profile , the Flood Insurance
Study dated November, 1979', prepared for the City by the Federal Insurance Ad-
ministration (hereinafter called the "FIS") , the Flood Boundary and Floodway
Maps attached thereto as Exhibit 2, and the Flood Insurance Rate Maps referred to
therein, all of which are on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
(c) The boundaries of the flood plain shall be determined by
scaling distances on the Map. In the event that interpretation is needed as to
the exact location of the boundaries of the flood plain as shown on the Map, as
for example where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and
actual field conditions, the Board shall make the necessary interpretation based
on elevations on the Official Flood Plain Zone Profile (hereinafter called the
"'Flood Profile"). The Flood Profile, a copy of which, reduced in size, is appended
to this ordinance, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be part of this
ordinance. The Flood Profile shall be on file in the office of the City Plahning
Department and shall be open to tnspection by the public during normal business
hours of the City.
State of Minnesota.
Flood or Flooding - a temporary rise in stream flow or stage that results in
Flood Plain - the areas adjoining a watercourse or waterb'ody which have been
Floodproofing - a combination of structural provisions, changes or adjustments
Mobile Home - a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is
Mobile Home Park - a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two
Obstruction - any storage of material or equipment, dam, wall, wharf, embank-
Structure - anything that is built or constructed, an edifice of building of
.
. Sec. 5. Lands Subject to Ordinance; Establishment of Official Flood Plain
This ordinance shall apply to all lands
(b) Establishment of Official Flood Plain Zoning Map. The Map, a copy of
The Map is based upon the Nine
Interpretation.
The elevation shown on the Flood Profile at any given geo-
, 4/7/80
-- . 30
graphical location corresponds to the elevation at such geographical location as
shown on either the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Management Profile or the
flood profiles attached as Exhibit 1 to the FIS, whichever is the more restrict-
ive.
Sec. 6. Flood Plain Uses; Permits and Standards.
(a) Existing Land Use. No land use shall be changed, .nor shall any
I obstruction be changed in its use or be constructed, erected, added to,
altered, placed or done, if such use or obstruction is wholly or partly in the
flood plain except in full compliance with all applicable ordinances of the City,
and unless a special permit is first obtained pursuant to this ordinance. With-
out limiting the generality of the foregoing, land use shall be deemed to have
changed when any utilities are installed in, or any road or structure is placed
on, the land.
special permit shall be issued for any use or obstruction to be placed in the
flood plain unless the following provisions are complied with:
A strip of land running along all sides of the channel of Nine
Mile Creek or Minnehaha Creek, as the case may be, contiguous to
the land for which the special permit is being considered, and
extending from a line not less than 100 feet upland from the
centerline of the channel of Nine Mile Creek or Minnehaha Creek,
as the case may be, to and including the bed of the channel,
shall be either (i) dedicated to the City for public use, or (ii)
subjected to a perpetual easement, and conservation restriction
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 84.64 and 84.65, in favor
of the City for the purpose of retaining that area predominately
in its natural and open condition and for the purpose of widening,
deepening, sloping, improving or protecting the beds and banks of
the creek and the flood plain.
which of these options is more appropriate. In either case there
shall also then be granted to the City the right of ingress to
and egress from said strip of land with men, equipment and mater-
ial. Where the easement and conservation restriction are deter-
mined to be in the best interest of the City, said easement and con-
servation restriction shall also provide that the owners of the
area as to which such easement and conservation restriction are
graQted shall zlot make, do or place any obstructim or structrrre
of kny kind on" or in such easement area or raise the level of the
easement area in any way, but all such right to obstruct and place
structures on and to raise the level of the easement area shall
be granted by said easement and conservation restriction to the
City. Such dedication or easement and conservation restriction
need not be given if previously given to the City pursuant to
0rdinance.No. 801 of the City.
No special permit shall be issued for any obstruction or use
which, acting alone or in combination with existing or anticipated
future uses or obstructions, will or may unduly decrease the
capacity of the channel of the creeks, or waterbodies in the flood
plain or the flood plain itself, or the capacity of any drainage
ditch, facility, area or system, or the channel of any tributary
to the.creeks or waterbodies, or unduly result in danger to
persons or property. Consideration of the effects of a proposed
obstruction or use shall be based on the reasonable assumption
that there will be an equal degree of encroachment on both sides
of the creek for the full reach of the proposed use.
of this paragraph, any obstruction or use which, acting alcne or
in combination with existing or anticipated future uses or
obstructions causes, in the reach of the watercourse in which the
obstruction or use is placed, or in any other reach of the water-
course, an increase in flood plain elevation of more than one-half
foot over and above the elevation of the flood plain as shown on
th-e Flood Profile; shall be deemed prima facie, to unduly increase
flood heights and to unduly decrease the capacity of the channel
or flood plain.
No special permit shall be issued which will or may result in the
placing of any obstruction which restricts the right of public -I
',passage and use of the beds, banks and water of Minnehaha Creek '
.or Nine Mile Creek, except that special permits may be issued for
obstructions approved by the'lfinnehaha 'Creek Watershed Districf -.
as to Ninnehaha Creek, and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District,
as to the Nine Mile Creek, and used for flood plain management, *in
which case adequate prbvision shall be'mafe for portaging and'
passage of watercraft.
I (b) Standards and Conditions for Issuance of Special Permits. No
(I)
The City Planner shall determine
B - .-
(2)
For purposes
I
(3)
--
.*
4/ 7/80
(4)
(5)
- .4
(7)
31
No special permit shall be issued for any obstruction or use which,
acting alone or in combination with existing or anticipated future
uses or obstructions, will or may adversely affect land or water
areas essential to the protection. of surface and grounr! water
supplies.
No special permit shall be issued which will or may result in an
obstruction or use incompatible with preservation of natural land
forms, vegetation, marshes, wet areas, and waterbodies within the
flood plain which are a principal factor in the maintenance of
constant rates of water flow in Nine Mile Creek or Minnehaha Creek
throughout the year.
'No special permit shall be issued which will or may result in the
placing of an obstruction on, or development of, land or water
areas essential'to temporary withholding of -rapid .~ runoff of sur-
face water contributing to downstream flooding or of land and water
areas essential for providing ground water infiltration, and which
construction or development will or may decrease the capacity of
such areas to.withhold such surface waters or to provide such
ground water infiltration.
No special permit shall be issued for any fill unless shown to have
some beneficial purpose, and the amount thereof must not exceed
that necessary to achieve the intended purpose, as demonstrated
by a plan submitted by the owner showing the uses to which the
filled land will be put, .the kind of fill, and the final dirnen-
sions of the proposed fill or other materials. Such fill shall
be protected against erosion by rip-rap, vegetative cover, or
bulkheading, as and to the extent required by the special permit.
No special permit shall be issued for garbage or waste disposal
sites or systems.
No special permit shall be issued for mobile homes or mobile
home parks.
No special permit shall be issued for any obstruction unless
such obstruction shall be (i) designed and adequately anchored
to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement, (ii) con-
structed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood
damage, (iii) constructed by methods and practices that minimize
flood damage.
No special permit shall be issued fer new or replacement water
supply systems or sanitary sewage systems unless such systems
are designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into such systems. Sanitary sewage systems must be
designed to minimize or eliminate discharges from such systems
into flood waters. Onsite waste disposal systems must be located
to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during
flooding.
No special permit shall be issued unless the proposed use or
obstruction has received the approval of all governmental bodies
having jurisdiction over such use or obstruction, including the
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District or the Minnehaha Creek Water-
shed District, as the case may be, if said approval is requested
by the City or required by the statutes, ordinances, rules or
regulations adopted by such governmental bodies or applicable to
such governmental bodies and to such use or obstruction. The .
City, however, may act on a special permit without such approval
if only requested by the City and not otherwise required.
No special permit shall be issued unless the proposed u=
obstruction conforms to the land use plans and planning object-
ives of the City for the area in which the use of obstruction is
to be made or placed.
.
OK
.(c> Utilities, Railroad Tracks, Streets and Bridges. Public utility
facilities, roads, railroad tracks and bridges within the flood plain shall be
designed to minimize increases in flood elevations and shall be compatible
with the flood plain development plans of the City and of the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District or the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as the case may be.
Adjustments of Regulatory Flood Protection Elevations and Flood
Plain Elevations. In connection with any proposed development of, or proposed
placing of an obstruction in, the flood plain, if the regulatory flood protection
elevations .and flood plain elevations then being used reflect proposed measures
for flood control., including water retention areas, then such elevations shall
not be effective or used in issuing a special permit until such measures are
constructed and'operative, unless the proposed measures will increase flood
height,s, in which event, the regulatory fiood protection elevations and flood
plain elevations used in issuing a special permit shall reflect the anticipated
increases.
(d)
32
Sec. 7. Additional Restrictions. In addition to the requirements set out
in Sec. 6 of this ordinance, no special permit shall be issued for any use or
obstruction in the flood plain unless the following provisions are met:
floor,'or first floor if there is no basement, is above the regulatory flood
protection elevation.
foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area
and shall extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the limits
of any structure or building erected thereon. Where existing streets or util-
ities are at elevations which make compliance with the foregoing two sentences
impractical, or in other special circumstances, a variance request may be made
to the Board and the Board may authorize other techniques for protection of the
structure in accordance with the floodproofing regulations made a part of the
Minnesota State Building Codevas adopted by the City; provided, however, that
all residential structures shall be constructed so that the basement floor, or
first floor if there is no basement, is above the regulatory flood protection
elevation; provided, further, that any nonresidential structure with a basement
floor, or first floor if there is no basement, not elevated above the regulatory
flood protection elevation must be floodproofed to FP-1 or Fp-2 classification
in accordance with the floodproofing regulations made a part of the lfinnesota
State Building Code as adopted by the City.
the City to be unsuitable for'subdivision by reason of flooding, inadequate
(a)' Structures. Structures shall be constructed so that the basement
The finished ground elevation shall be no more than one
t
(b) Subdivisions. No land shall be subdivided Iqhich is determined-by
-
drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities.
flood plain shall contain a building site at or above the regulatory flood
protection elevation.
facilities that comply with the provisions of this and other applicable ordin-
ances of the City.
division and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below
the regulatory flood protection elevation.
All lots within the
- All subdivisions shall have water and sewage disposal
All subdivisions.-shall have road access both to the sub-
. (c) Development in Flood Plain. Applicants for special permits to
develop in the flood plain shall provide (i) the information required by
Section 8(c) of this brdinance, and (ii) evidence that all necessary permits
have been received from those governmental agencies from which approval is
required by federal and state law, including, without limitation, section 404
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1344.
Acc.cssory lznd uses, such is yards and parking lots,
may be at elevations lower than the'regulatory flood protection elevation if
a,special permit is first granted pursuant to this ordinance; provided, however,
that any special permit granted for any such use which would (2) involve premises
which would be inundated by the regional f1ood"to heights greater than two feet
or would be subject to flood velocities greater than four feet per second in the
event of regional flood; and (ii) enta.il use of such premises by employees or
the general public, shalI be conditioned upon the installation on such premises
of a flood warning system capable of providing adequate evacuation time in the
event of a regional flood.
flooding may be bouyant, flammable, explosive, or could be injurious to human,'
animal or plant life is prohibited.
and Variances; Recommendation of Watershed Districts; Certificates of Zoning
Compliance.
this ordinance.
.
I (dj Other 'u'aes.
. (e) Storage. Any storage or processing of materials that in time of
. See. 8. Administration; Application for and Issuance of Special Permits *
(a) Administration.. The Cify Planner shall administer and enforce
(b) Special Permit and Variance Required; Grounds for Variances. .A .-
special permit or variance shall be applied for and obtained pursuant hereto
prior to the construction, erection, addition, alteration, or change of use
of any obstruction wholly or partly in a flood plain, and prior to the change
of use of any land, which use is wholly or partly in a flood plain. Variances
may be granted only where strict enforcement of the 1iteral.provisions of this
ordinance will cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the in:.
dividual property under consideration and only when the action allolied by such
variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance.
. , I *
c1.
(c) Application for Special Permit and Variance. Applications for I.
special permits and variances under this ordinance shall be made by the owner
-or owners of the land in duplicate to the City Planner on forms furnished by
. the City and shall be accompanied initially by such of the following infprmation,
.and additional information, data and plans, as is deemed necessary by the City
Planner for. determining compliance with this ordinance, and for determining the
.effects of the proposed activity on the creek, marshes, wet areas and waterbodies
in the flood plain, and the suitability of the particiular site for the propoged
improvement, use, obstruction or variance: *.
4/7/80
33
cu 0 cn -3 a a
Plans, including a survey by a Minnesota registered land surveyor, in
duplicate, drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions,
and elevation of the lot or plot, existing and proposed obstructions,
the relationship of the lot or plot and existing and proposed ob-
structions to the location of the channel, marshes, wet areas and
waterbodies, surface water drainage plans and floodproofing measures,
A valley cross-section showing the channel of the stream, elevation
of land areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross-sectional
areas to be occupied by the proposed development, high water informa-
tion, all drainage areas, all land forms and adjacent marshes, wet
tareas and waterbodies.
Plans (surface view) including a survey by a Minnesota registered
land surveyor, showing elevations or contours of the ground, pert-
inent obstruction elevations , size,. location and spatial arrangement
of all proposed and existing obstructions on the site, location and
elevations of streets, water supply and sanitary facilities, photo-
graphs showing existing land uses and vegetation upstream and
downstream, and soil types.
Profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line
of the stream.
Specifications for building construction and materials, floodproofing,
filling, dredging, grading, channel improvement, storage of materials,
water supply (including withdrawal and discharge of ground and sur-
face water) , and sanitary facilities.
Description of the water quality if other than a municipal water
system is used, maximum yearly withdrawal of ground waters, and the
impact on the receiving creek, marsh, wet area or waterbody of dis-
charged surface and ground water.
Statement of the private and public benefits anticipated from the
proposed activity, the alternatives to the proposed activity, the
effect of the proposed activity on the capacity of the flood plain
and on flood heights, the adverse effect, if any, on the flood plain,
and the creek, marshes, wet areas and waterbodies in the flood plain,
which cannot be avoided if the special permit or variance be granted.
When filing the application, the applicant shall pay a nonrefundable
fee of $25 for a special permit request
request.
and of $10 for a variance
Submission of Application.
For a Special Permit.
application for a special permit, fee and initial information
Within 45 days after receipt of the
-_ requested, the City- Planne; shall review the application and
submit it to the City Engineer, and to the Nine Nile Creek
Watershed District or the.Minnehaha IJatershed District, which-
ever district is appropriate.
For a Variance.
tion for a variance, fee and initial information requested,
the City Planner shall review the application and submit it
to the City Engineer, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
or the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, whichever district
is appropriate, and, with his report, to the Board.
Within 45 days after receipt of the applica-
Issuance of Special Permit. Following receipt of the report
and recommendation of the City Engineer, and upon making a finding that the'
standards, conditions and restrictions for issuance of the special permit have
been satisfied and cornpried with, the City Planner shall issue the special permit.
(f)
mce upon approval of the application therefor by the Board or the Council upon
any appeal of a decision of the Board.
Districts. The City Planner, Board or Council may, at any time and relative to
any application, use or obstruction, transmit the information received by him or
it to the appropriate Watershed District for advice, recommendations or techni-
csl assistance-as to the hydrological effect or general impact of any such appli-
cation, use, or obstruction, on the flood plain, flood heights, flood velocities,
or as to the seriousness of flood damage to the use, the adequacy of plans for
protection, compliance with Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this ordinance, or other
technical matters. The City Planner, Board or Council may withhold his or its
decision on granting or allowing any special permit, variance, use or obstruction
until such advice, recommendations or assiseance are received.
or project pursuant to a special permit or variance granted pursuant to this
ordinance, and prior to the use or occupancy of the land or obstruction permitted
by the special permit or variance-, a Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be
issued therefor by the City Planner stating that the use of the land or obstruc-
tion conforms to the requirements of this ordinance.
Issuance of Variance. The City Planner shall issue the vari-
(g) Recommendation of and Technical Assistance from Watershed
' (h) Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Upon completion of any work
Prior to issuance of such
.- . 34
Certificate, the applicant therefor shall wbmit a certification by a registered
professional engineer, architect or land surveyor,- as appropriate, that the per'-
mitted obstructions, including, but not limited to, finished-fill and building
floor elevations, floodproofing, or other flood protection measures," have been
completed in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and in compliance
with the information given to the City in connection with the application for
the special permit or variance.
Duties, Hearings by and Appeals to Council.
(a)
(1) Powers and Duties.
.r Sec. 9. Board of Appeals and Adjustments; Building Official; Powers and-
Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, require-
ment, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer
in the enforcement of this ordinance, and all requests for variances
in connection with this Ordinance, in the same manner as it hears
and decides appeals and requests for variances under paragraph 6
of Sec. 14 of Ordinance No. 811, except as otherwise herein pro-
vided.
of the City Planner, together with the application for a variance
and initial information requested by the City Planner, the Board
shall hear and decide upon such application in the same manner as
it hears and decides upon variances under paragraph 6 of Sec. 14
of Ordinance No. 811, except (i) that no variance shall have the
effect of permitting a residential structure to be at a lower
elevation than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the
individual property under consideration, (ii) that no variance shall
have the effect of permitting a nonresidential structure to be at
a lower elevation than the regulatory flood protection elevation
for the individual property under consideration unless such struc-
ture is floodproofed to FP-1 or FP-2 classification in accordance
with the floodproofing regulations made a part of the Minnesota
State Building Code as adopted by the City, and (iii) in deciding
on any variance the Board shall also consider the policies and pur-
poses of this ordinance and all of the standards and conditions set
, out in paragraph (b) ,of Sec. 6 of this ordinance and the degree
of conformity with such standards and conditions that will result
if the varianke be granted.
Procedure for Appeals.
made and shall be heard and acted upon by the Council in accordance
with paragraph 6 of Sec. 14 of Ordinance No. 811.
The Board shall hear and decide all appeals I
. (2) Procedure for Variances. After receipt by the Board of the report
.
.
I - ** *-
(3) Appeals to the Board shall be made and
. acted upon by the Board, and, if appealed.such appeal shall be
. -\I
(b) Records of Elevation. The Building Official of the City shall
maintain a record of tl-ie eLevaMon i.of -the basement lfloor, or f irst::f loor .-if there
is no basement, of all new structures or additions to existing structures in the
flood plain. The Building Official shall also maintain a record of the elevations
to which structures or additions to structures are floodproofed.
(c) Conditions Attached to Special Permits and Variances. The City
Planner may attach such *conditions to the granting of special permits, and the
Bdard, and the Council on appeal, may attach such conditions to the granting of
variance, as the City Planner, Council or Board deems necessary to fulfill the'
purposes of , and insurance compliance with, this ordinance.
warded to Commissioner and Watershed Districts.
mailed notice to the Commissioner of each hearing for a special permit or vari-
ance, together with a copy of the application for the special permit or variance,
not less than 10 days before the date of hearing. Also, a copy of each specikl
permit or variance issued or granted shall be forwarded to the Commissioner and
to the secretary of the appropriate Watershed District within ten (10) days aftFr
issuance or granting thereof.
year after the issuance or grant oE a special permit or variance, the owner or'
occupant shall not have commenced the work authorized by such special permit or
vqiance, then the special permit or variance shall become null and void unless
a petition for extension of time in which to commence such work has been granted.
Such petition to extend time shall be in writing and filed with the City
Planner more than twenty (20) days before the expiration of one year from the
date the original special permit or variance was issued or granted, shall state
-facts showing a good-faith attempt to use the special permit or variance, and
shall state'the .additional time requested to commence such work.
if it relates to a variance, shall be presented to the Board for hearing and' .
decision, and appeal to the Council, in the same manner as the origihal requekt
for variance.
decided by the City Planner in the same manner as the original petition for a
(d) Notice of Hearing Given to Commissioner; Permits and Variances For-
The City Planner shall give
.
(e) Lapse of Variance or Special Permit by Nonuser. If within one
Such petition,
If the petition relates to a special'permit, it shall be heard and
4/7/80
35
special permit.
In determining under this paragraph whether the petitioner has made a
good-faith attempt to commence such work, the City Planner, Board or Council may
consider such factors as the design, size, expense and type of the proposed work.
Nonconforming Obstructions and Uses; Lapse; Destruction.
An obstruction :or the use of an obstruction or premises, which was
Sec.' 10.
(a)
(32
(4)
lawful before adoption of this ordinance but which is not in conformity with the
provisions of this ordinance, may be continued subject to the following condi-
tions :
(1) No such obstruction or use shall be expanded, changed,
enlarged or altered in any way without complying in all
respects, with this ordinance, including, but not limited to,
the obtaining of all required special permits and variances.
The cumulative cost of all expansions and alterations of, and
additions to, any such obstruction during the life of such
obstruction shall not exceed fifty percent of the assessed
value of such obstruction for real estate tax purposes at the
time of the adoption of this ordinance, unless the effect of
such expansions, alterations and additions is to convert such
obstruction into a conforming use or substantially reduce
potential flood damage to such obstruction.
If such use of such obstruction or such premises is discon-
tinued for twelve consecutive months, any subsequent use of
the obstruction or premises shall comply, in all respects, I
with this ordinance, including but not limited to, the
obtaining of all required special permits and variances.
If any nonconforming obstruction is destroyed or damaged by
any means, including floods, to the extent that the cost of
repairing or restoring such destruction or damage would be
fifty percent or more, as estimated by the City Council or some
official designated by it, of the cost of re-erecting a new
obstruction of like kind and quality and of the same physical
dimensions and.location, then it shall not be reconstructed
except in *fG.l'.'compliance, in. all respects , with the provisions
of this"urdiGa&e, including , but not liid?ted, to the
obtaining of all required special permits and variances.
Sec. 11. Right of Passage. It shall be unlawful for any person, with-
out a special perm t obtained pursuant to this ordinance, to place any obstruc-
tion in Minnehaha Creek or Nine Mile Creek or to obstruct, in any way, the pass-
age of watercraft or to interfere, in any way, with the use by the public of the
beds, banks, waters or channels of said creeks, except obstructions placed by the
appropriate Watershed District and used for flood plain management, in which case
adequate provision shall be made for portaging and passage of watercraft.
Sec. 12. Removal of Obstruction.
(a) Natural Obstructions.
entry upon lands in the flood plain, including those adjoining Minnehaha Creek
and Nine Mile Creek, for the purpose of ingress and egress to the flood plain,
and the beds, banks and waters of the creeks and waterbodies therein to remove
any natural obstructions such as, but not limited to, trees, debris, litter and
silt.
The City shall have the right of reasonable
(b) Artificial Obstructions. .Any artificial obstruction of the beds,
banks, waters or channels of Minnehaha Creek or Nine Mile Creek or in the flood
plain made subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance and not made pur-
suant to a special permit or variance granted pursuant hereto shall be removed
by the owner of the adjoining land within ten (10) days after mailing to such
owner of a demand so to do by the City Planner.
refuse to remove the obstruction within said time, or if the owner cannot be found
or determined, the City may remove such obstruction and the cost thereof shall
be paid by the owner on demand, or may be assessed against the land, and collected
in the same manner as prescribed by law for levying and collecting special assess-
ments for municipal imDrovements.
If the owner shall fail or
Sec, 13. Misdemeanor; Public Nuisance; Penalty. Any person who violates
any provision of this ordinance or fails to comply with any of its terms or
requirements shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more
'than $500 or Lmprisoned for not more than 90 days, or both, and in addition shall
pay all costs of prosecution and expenses involved in the case. Each day such
violation continues shall be considered a separate offense.
Every obstruction or use placed or maintained in the flood plain in
violation of this ordinance is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and creat-
ion thereof may be enjoined and the maintenance thereof abated by appropriate
judicial action.
lawful action as is necessary to prevent, remedy or remove any 'violation.
Nothing herein contained shall' prevent the City from taking such other .
_.. . . , . ..
4/7/CO
36
Sec. 14. Amendments.
(a) The boundaries of the flood plain as shown on the Map and the flood
plain elevations on the Flood Profile may be changed by amendment to this
ordinance, and such change, when made, shall. be shown on the Map and on the Flood
Profile. If it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Council that any eleva-.
tion is in error, the elevation will be corrected by the Council by amendment to
this ordinance.
All amendments shall be submitted to the Board of Managers of the
Nine lile Creek Watershed District and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
and the Commissioner, and shall be approved by the Commissioner prior to adoption.
Sec. 15. Interpretation. In interpreting and applying the provisions
of this ordinance, they shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the
promotion of the public health, safety, prosperity and general welfare. It is
not the intention of this ordinance to interfere with, abrogate or annul any
covenant or other agreement between parties, nor the provisions of Ordinance Nos,
801 or 811 or any other ordinance of'the City; provided, however, where this
ordinance imposes a greater restriction upon the use or improvement of any
premises than those imposed or required by other statutes, ordinances, rules,
regulations or permits of'the City, State, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District or
Nine ale Creek Watershed District, or by covenants or agreements, the provisions
of this ordinance shall govern.
sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be
invalid or unenforceable, as to any person.or circumstance, the application of
such section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase to persons or
circumstances other than those as to which it shall be held invalid or unenforce-
able, shall not be affected thereby, and all provisions hereof, in all other
respects, shall remain valid and enforceable.
imply that areas outside the flood plain or land uses or obstructions permitted
within the flood plain will be free from flooding or flood damages.
shall not create liability on the part of the City or any official or employee
thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or
hereunder.
(b)
Sec. 16. Partial Invalidity. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
Sec. 17. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. This ordinance does not -
This ordinance
..any City action taken or administration, Board or Council decision lawfully made
I Sec. 18. Repealer. Ordinance No. 815 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Sec. 19. This ordinance .. . shall be effective immediately upon its passage
1. . and publ&tion.
Councilman Courtney then offered the following ordinance for First Reading:
*, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 801 TO
CORRECT A SECTION DESIGNATION AND TO REQUIRE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
ZONING ORDINANCE AND TO REQUIRE THE DESIGNATION
AND SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN
ORDINANCE NO. 801-A19
i
OF FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION ON CERTAIN PLATS, REPLATS,
TEZ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
5-n Ordinace No. 801-A14, is hereby changed to Section (f).
Section (g) , as follows:
Flood Plain Management Zoning Ordinance (No. 816) of the City, which ordinance
is hereby incorporated herein by reference."
Section (h), as follows:
containing more than 50 lots or 5 acres shall show thereon the elevation of the
Flood Plain.
age and publication and, when effective, shall be filed with the office of the
Rzgister of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Section 1. Section (3) of Section 3 of Ordinance No. 801, as lettered
Sec. 2. There is hereby added to Section 3 of ,Ordinance No. 801 a new -
"(g) Every plat, replat, or subdivision of land shall comply with the
Sec. 3. There is hereby added to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 801 a new
"(h) Every plat, replat, or subdivision of land within the Flood Plain
I Sec. 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon'its pass-
BRIDGE REPLACEHENT AND REEIABILITATION PRIORITIES APPROVED. Affidavits of Notice
were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. -i
Rosland recalled that, in order to obtain funding for replacement and rehabilita-
tion of bridges located in the City, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing.
No objections being heard, Councilman Richards offered the following resolution
and moved its adoption as recommended by the City tfanager.
WS OLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Gouncii does hereby prioritize the following-
list of bridges recommended for replacement and/or rehabilitation with funding
as suggested:
Improvement No: L-19 be and is hereby abandoned.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman
Rollcall:. .
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Resolution adopted.
37
Bridge
44th Street Bridge over Ninnehaha Creek 1.
Funding
State Aid Funds
2.
3. Vernon Avenue over Nine Mile Creek
4. Browndale'Ave. over Minnehaha Creek ' None at this point
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt.
3 Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Eden Avenue unde; M.N.&S. Railroad Bridge. State Aid & Bridge Fund
State Aid & Bridge Fund
Rollcall :
Nays: None
Resdution adopted.
HEARING DATES SET FOR VARIOUS PLANNING MATTERS. As recommended by Mr. Hughes,
Councilman Richards' motion was seconded by Councilman Courtney, setting April
21, 1980, as hearing date for the following Planning matters:
. .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 1.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decision for variance at 7302 Claredon Dr.;
Findell & Clark Addition - Preliminary Plat Approval and Zoning change from
R-1 Residential District to R-3 Multiple Residential District for property
generally located South of W. 70th St. and Id. of Cahill Road;
Dewey Hill 111 Addition - R-1 Residential District to PRD-3 Planned Resi-
dential District for property generally located North of W. 78th St. and
West of Glasgow Drive. (In response to a request from Mr. Mitchel I. Kirsh-
baum, attorney for Glasgow Drive homeowners that the hearing be continued to
a later date, Mr. Larrys.Laukka said that he would prefer. that. the hearing be
set for April 21, 1980.)
Parkwood Knolls Cougar Trail Addition - Preliminary Plat Approval and R-1
Residential District zoning request to R-2 Multiple Residential District for
property generally located East of Malibu Drive and North of Telemark Trail;
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Exercising and Reducing Salons in C-1
Commercial District. -
.
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT L-19 ABANDONED.
receipt of a petition signed by owners of fourteen properties on the 4700 and
4800 blocks of Upper Terrace requesting that the City cancel Street Lighting
Improvement No. L-19, Councilnan Courtney offered the folloving resolution an2
moved its adoption:
Being advised by Mr. Rosland of the
RESOLUTION
ABANDONING STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. L-19
WHEREAS, a petition bearing the signatures of fifteen residents propcsed to be
assessed for Street Lighting Improvement No. L-19 has been received requesting
the City to cancel said improvement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that Street Lighting,
Schmidt.
of bids received GOLF CART BATTERIES BID AWARDED. Mr. Rosland presented tabulation
for batteries for golf carts showing A.A. Battery Company loa bidder for 180
batteries at $49.43 each, Exide Battery Sales for 180 batteries at $52.18 each
*and Cushman Motor Company for 180 batteries at $54.00 each.' As recommended by
the City Manager, Councilman Richards; motian for award to A.A. Battery Company
for a total of $8,897.40 for 180 batteries was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt
Ayes: 'Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
SAND, BITUMINOUS MATERIAL, ROCK, WATER TREATMENT MATERIALS BID AWARDED. Mr. Ros-
land presented tabulation of bids for sand, rock, bituminous material and water
treatment chemicals as follows: Concrete Sand (delivered) - Northwestern Aggre-
gates, Inc., at $2.89, J. L. Shiely Co. at $4.85, Fischer Sand and Aggregate at
$3.10, W. G. Pearson, Inc. at $3.90, Ed Kraemer & Sons, Inc. at $4.25 and Wm.
Mueller & Sons, Inc. at $4.10;
Inc., at $5.84, W. G. Pearson, Inc., at $7.80; Gravel Base (delivered) - Midwest
Asphalt Gorp. at $3.60, Northwestern Aggregates, Inc., at $3.84, Fischer Sand
& Aggregate, $3.80, W. G. Pearson, Inc. at $4.20, IJm. Mueller & Sons, Inc. at
$4.20; Limestone FA5 (delivered) - Bryan Rock Products, Inc. at $4.10, '
J. L. Shiely Co. at $4.38 and Ed Kraerner & Sons, Inc. at $4.75; Seal-Coat Che
(delivered) J. L. Shiely Co, at $11.22, Bryan Dresser Trap Rock, Inc. at $11.35,
Buck Shot (delivered) - Northwestern Aggregates,
4/7/30
.- . 35
Cut-Back Asphalt (delivered) - Koch Asphalt at $0.7660 per gallon, Ashland Petro-
leum at $0.7665 per gallon; Ready Mix Bituminus (picked up)_- Bury d Carlson at
$16.45, Midwest Asphalt Corp. at $16.75 anci Wm, Mueller & Sons, Inc. at $20.00;
HydroF1ucsilicic.Aci.d - Van Rogers & Waters at $8.54, Hawkins Chemical at $8.20,
Jones Chemicals, Inc. at $8.415; Liquid Chlorine - Van Rogers & Waters, $15.96,
Hawkins Chemicals, Inc., at $18.25 and Jones Chemicals, Inc. at $17.90. Council-
woman Schmidt's motion for award to recommended low bidder in all cases, with the
bid for Hydro Fluosilicic Acid and Liquid Chlorine being awarded as a tied bide
to Van Rogers-& Waters based on a total cost of $24.50, was seconded by Council-
man Courtney.
-Nays: None
Ayes:
Motion carried.
Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
MINNEHAHA CREEK NEED CUTTING CONTRACT APPROVED.
tion of two bids for cutting of aquatic vegetation in the Edina Mill Pond in late
June and in August.
Weed Cutter, Inc., at $6,000.00. Mr. Rosland recalled that the staff had been
working with neighbors living on that area of the creek.
from Mr. Peter F. Pierce, 4801 Sunnyside Road confirming a telephone conversa-
tion with Mr. Rosland in which it was agreed that, subject to Council confirmation,
the City of Edina would contract with Mr. Tom Gertz to cut the weeds, cost of
. which would be shared with the Watershed District.paying $2,500.00, and the City
splitting the difference with the immediate residents on the creek for a total
cost to the City of $1,450.00. As recommended by Mr. Rosland, Councilman Court-
ney's motion was seconded by Councilman Bredesen, authorizing the City's expendi-
ture of $1,450.00 as its share of cutting theweeds.
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Abstaining: Richards
Motion carried.
Mr. Rosland presented a tab.ula-
. ,
Tabulation showed Thomas Gertz at $5,400.00 and Aquatic
He referred to* a.letter
SCHOOL LIFE SAFETY CONTINUED TO MAY 19, 1980. As recommended by Mr. Rosland,
Councilsiroman~-Schmidt's motion was seconded by Councilman Richards, c0ntinuing.tl-k
matter of School Life Safety until Xay 19, 1980. I Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
NO-FAULT GRIEVANCE PROCESS CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. As recommended by Mr. Rosland,
Councilwoman Schmidt's motion was seconded by Councilman Richards, continuing the
matter of No-Fault Grievance Process indefinitely.
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
HEALTH OFFICER DISCUSSION CONTINUED. As recommended by Mr. Rosland, Councilman
Richardsf motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt, continuing discussion of
the Health Officer until April 21, 1980.
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Hotion carried.
50TH AND FRANCE PROFESSIONAL AREA PARKING PERMITS CONTINUED.
Mr. Rosland, Councilman Bredesen's motion was seconded by Councilman Courtney,
continuing the matter of 50th and France Professional.Area Parking Permits unti1
April 21, 1980.
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
As recommended by
SWIMMING POOL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REFERRED TO CITY ATTORNEY;
Mr. Rosland, Councilman Courtney's motion was seconded by Councilman Bredesen,
referring an amendment to the Swimming Pool Ordinance to the City Attorney.
As recommended by
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
STREET INPROVEEIENT NO. BA-242 DISCUSSED.
to calls that they had received from residents of the Brookside Coadominiuins who,
were concerned that Street Improvement No. BA-242 was terminating at Brookside'r ~1
Court. Mr. Hoffman said that he had received calls also in this regard and had
explained the City's position to residents.
Councilmen Bredesen and Courtney referred
No formal action was taken.
39
I
(u 0 m -3
d: a
SKATING RlNR CLOSINGS DISCUSSED. Councilman Bredesen referred to telephone calls'
that he had received from residents who were concerned about the proposed closing
of skating rinks next year.
the rinks proposed to be closed and that only the hockey rinks may be closed,
leaving the skating rinks to be maintained by City crews,
taken.
Mr. Rosland clarified that Highlands is not one of
No formal action was
FIRE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION DISCUSSED. In response to a question of the Mayor,
Itk. Rosland advised that a Fire Department presentation would be made at the
April 21, 1980, Council Meeting. No formal action was taken.
HUMAN RELATIONS/COUNCIL MEETING DATE TO BE SET.
Mayor, Mrs. Leslie Turner, Chairman of the Human Relations Commission, said that
In response to a question.of the
the Commission would appreciate meeting with 'the Council the latter part of
May or early June to discuss programs of special interest to the Commission.
formal action was taken.
COUNCIL/PARK BOARD JOINT MEETING DATE TO BE SET.. As requested by the Mayor,
Rosland said that he would set up a meeting between the Council and the Park
Board in the near future. No action was taken.
No
Mr .
FUTUW USE OF WOODDALE SCHOOL DISCUSSED. The Mayor advised that he had received
a note from the Edina Historical Society requesting that, if Wooddale School is
closed, the building be retained as a community facility for civic organizations
and that it include museum space for the Society. The Society also agreed to
pay as much as $4,000.00 toward that particular project. Councilman Bredesen
suggested that the School District officials be approached with the suggestion
that they lease the building to the City for $1.00 per year for this purpose.
He also inquired about the status of the Wooddale School playground after the
school is closed.
East Upper Division is being considered for a possible community education center,
Mr. Rosland recalled that the Bicentennial Commission had discussed uses for the
school at the time they finally close, and suggested that this is the time to
investigate alternatives further. Mr. Rosland said that he would talk to Dr.
Lieber about the formation of a committee to study the overall picture.
formal action was taken.
In response to Councilwoman Schmidt's comment that Edina
No
DEWEY HILL 111 REZONING INTERVIEWS DISCUSSED.
Mayor, City Attorney Erickson said that.he would prefer that members of the
Council not grant interviews to the news media relative to the Dewey Hill I11
In response to a question of the
rezoning.
MEETING REPORTS NOTED.
by Police Chief Craig Swanson who had attended a Spring Institute for Police
Chiefs and from the City Clerk who had attended the Minnesota Clerks and Finance
Officers Association Meeting. No action was taken.
No formal action was taken.
The Mayor expressed appreciation for reports submitted
BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS DISCUSSED. As recommended by the Mayor,
Councilwoman Schmidt's motion for appointment of Mrs. Galene Erickson as a mem-
ber of South Hennepin Human Services for a two year term of office to run until
February 1, 1982, was seconded by Councilman Courtney.
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
The Mayor also reminded the Council that he still needs their recommendations
for other appointments.
STATE BONDING BILL DISCUSSED.
Rosland has been in touch with Edina's legislators regarding the bonding bill
which is under consideration in the State Legislature. There was general con-
census that the sale of municipal bonds shoxld not be under the direction of the
State Attorney General. The Mayor said that if any members of the Council had
any particular concerns on the Bill, they should convey them to Mr. Rosland.
No formal action was taken.
FAIRVIEW-BURNSVILLE PROPOSED HOSPITAL DISCUSSED. Following discussion as to
whether the. Council should endorse construction of the proposed Fairview-Burns-
ville Hospital, the Mayor asked Councilman Bredesen to draft a resolution on
the subject for Council's consideration. Councilman Richards kuggested that
perhaps a public hearing could be held regarding the subject.
was taken.
Mayor Van Valkenburg advised Council that Mr.
.-
No formal action
4/7/80
CABLE TV RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED. As recommended by Mr. Rosland, Councilman Courtney
offered the following resolutions and moved their adoption:
RESOLUTION REGARDING LOBBYIST POLICY
WHEREAS, the City of Edina, in conjunction with others, is seeking to develop the
approval of a cable communications system within the City through a Joint Franch-
izing Process; and
WHEREAS, it is the concern of this City Council that in this process all persons
who may have an interest in a particular cable company that is an applicant for
a franchise conduct any communications with regard to this matter to the City
Council as a whole and not to individual members of the City Council; and
VHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of all
of those participating in the franchising process that all communications be
public to avoid any sort of misunderstanding and unwarranted accusations that
would otherwise develop either against the City or any of its Council Hembers
or representatives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a policy must be adopted that will
be consistently followed by its Council Members and with the understanding that
Council Members of other communities will likewise adhere to a similar policy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL as follows:
1.
regarding any matter of the cable communication system shall be directed to the
City Council as a whole and not to an individual member. It is not intended by
this that communications by a constituent acting in a private capacity as a con-
stituent will be prohibited;
2.
request from each applicant or potential applicant of the Cable Communications
System, that it provide a list designating each person who will be the official
spezkers or representatives on behalf of such applicant or potential applicant,
and further, that the Southwest Commission shall provide to the City Council from
time to time, a report advising it of the names of any such official speakers or
representatives;
3.
man of the Southwest Cable Commission and to the Clerk of each of the cities that
may be forming the same cable'communications system;
4.
rhI$ resolution to each*.a?pliczzt or potential applicant of a cable communication
system for this City; and
5.
continuing until an ordinance granting a franchise for a cable communications
system is adopted.
It is the policy of the Mayor and City Council that all communications
It is requested that the Chairman of the Southwest Cable Commission will
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded by the City Clerk to the Chair-
The Southwest Cable Commission is hereby authorized to distribute a copy of *a
This Resolution will be effective beginning with the day of its passage and
RESOLUTION EXTENDING DEADLINE DATE FOR FILING
"OFFICIAL APPLICATION FOREIS" FOR SWPLYING CABLE
COMHUNICATIONS SERVICE THROUGH A JOINT SYSTEM
TO THE CITIES OF EDEN PRAIRIE, EDINA, HOPKINS,
MINNETONKA AND RICHFIELD
WHEREAS, the Edina City Council adopted an Invitation for Applications on February
25, 1980, establishing a deadline date of May 16, 1980, for filing "Official Appli-
cation Forms for Supplying Cable Communications Service"; and
IJHEREAS, the Southwest Suburban CATV Study Commission (Commission), a joint
powers body working on behalf of its member cities in the franchising process,
has determined that the tasks involved in developing applications are complex
and time-consuming; and
SJHEREAS, the Commission seeks the best possible applications for cable service
for communities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina that
the deadline for filing "Official Application Forms for Supplying Cable Communi-
cations Service" is hereby extended from May 16, 1980, to June 16, 1980, which =
resolution shall be effective only after similar actions are taken by the four
other cities involved in this franchising endeavor.
Motion for adoption of the foregoing resolutions was seconded by Councilwoman
Schmidt.
Rollcall :
Ayes : Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Resolutions adopted.
..
- I'
BIDS TO BE TAKEN FOR VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS. As recommended by Mr. Hof€man, Council-
woman Schmidt offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
*-
4/7/80
4%
KESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND
FOR SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEJ%NTS NOS. SS-354 , SS-355
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. ST .S-163
WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS NOS.. WM-338, WM-339
GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. C-131
AND PIPE SLIPLINING IMPROVEMENT NO. PL-1
BE IT RESOLmD BY THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL:
1. The plans and specifications for the proposed improvements set forth in the
following Advertisement for Bids form, heretofore prepared by the City Engineer
and now on file in the office of the City Clerk are hereby approved.
2.
letin the following notice of bids for improvements:
The Clerk shall cuase to be published in the Edina Sun and Construction Bul-
(Official Publication)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
SEALED BIDS will be received and opened in the City Council Chambers in the
Edina City Hall, 4801 W. 50th Street at 11:OO a.m., Friday, April 18, 1980, and
the Edina City Council will meet at 7:OO p.m., Monday, April 21, 1980, to con-
sider said bids for Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer, Pipe Relining and
Graveling. The following are approximate quantities of the major items:
' 677 LIF, 8" Sanitary Sewer
1067 L/F, 6" D.I.P. Watermain
6 Each, Standard Manholes
2 Each, Standard Hydrants
103 L/F, 12 and 15" R.C.P.
2302 Tons,' Class 2 Gravel
1135 L/F, 7" HDPE Liner for Sliplining F & I
'Bids shall be in a sealed envelope with a statement thereon showing the work
cqvered by the bid.
4801 W. 50th St. , Edina, Minnesota 55424, and may be mailed or submitted person-
ally.to the City Engineer.
the mail or by personal submission, after the time set for receiving them may be
returned unopened.
Work must be done as described in plans and specificarions on file in the office
of the City Clerk.
$25.00 (by check).
specifications with a bona fide bid.
and accompanied by bid bond or certified check payable to the City Clerk in the
amount of at least ten (10) percent of amount of base bid. The City Council
reserves the right to reject any or all bids.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
Bids shoilld be addressed to the City Engineer, City of Edina,
Bids received by the City Engineer, either through
Plans and specifications are available for a deposit of
Said deposit to be returned upon return of the plans and.
No bids will be considered unless sealed
Florence B. Hallberg
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Richards.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Motion carried,
F.A.U. FUNDING REQUESTED FOR 1-494 FRANCE AVE. INTERCHANGE. As recommended by
Blr. Rosland and in conformance with concerns of the Council, Councilman Courtney
offered the following resolution seeking Federal Aid Urban Funds for the 1-494
and France Ave. Interchange, and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING APPROVAL OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY
F.A.U. PROJECT SUSIIITTALS FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY
OF EDINA FOR 1980 THROUGH 1983
(County Project 7927; CSAH 17 (France Avenue at 1-494 Interchange)
NHEmAS, the City Council of the City of Edina is the official governing body of
the City of,Edina; and
WHEREAS, the City Council encourages and.participates with improvements to obtain
transportation facilities in the metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation submittals for P.A.U.
projects during the time period from 1981 to 1983 include projects within the
City of Edina; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina concurs with the subject: F.A.U.
4/7/80
42
project submittals by Hennepin County within the City of Edina's boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined those projects as being warranted and
desirable for improvement through the Federal Aid Urban Program within the time
period of 1981 through 1983.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the Transportation
Advisory Board, the Metropolitan Council and other boards and commissions associ-
ated therewith are hereby advised that the City of Edina supports approval of the
Hennepin County F.A.U. project submittals for projects within the City of Edina
for the time period 1951 through 1983.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Resolution adopted.
LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 1, GUNNAR JOHNSON'S SECOND RE-ARRANGEMIENT, ROLLING GREEN, LOT
DIVISION RESCINDED. . Nr. Hughes advised Council that the property owner of Lots 5
and 6, Block 1, Gunnar Johnson's Second Re-arrangement, Rolling Green, had
requested that' the division of his property be rescinded.
resolution adopted September 8, 1975, approving the division, had never been
reco.rded and that subsequently Lot 5 has been sold.
Councilwoman Schmidt offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the resolution adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regul-
lar Meeting of September 8, 1975 granting approval for the division of Lots 5 and
6, Block I, Gunnar Johnson's Second Re-Arrangement, Rolling Green, which resolu-
tion was never placed of record, be and is hereby rescinded as requested by the
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilinan Richards.
He clarified that the
No objections being heard,
. property owner.
. Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Resolution adopted-
CLAIMS PAID.
fortpayment of the following claims as per Pre-List:
Pzrk Fad, $2,384.63; Art Fnd, $234.65, Park Construction, $10,782.66; Swimming,
$40.00; Golf Fund, $244.39; Arena, $2,499.63; Water Fund, $1,111.51; Sewer Fund,
$95,772.81; Liquor Fund, $108,388.55; Construction, $801.55; Total, $267,379.04;
and for confirmation of payment of the following Claims:
Park Fund, $212.10; Art Center, $50.71; Golf Center, $1,256.90; Arena, 8512.70
Gun Range, $15.13; Water Fund, $173.06; Sewer Fund, $749.50; Liquor Fund,
$92,701.93; Total, $125,921.55.
Motion of Councilman Courtney was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt
General Fund, $45,118.66; .
General Fund, $30,249.52;
Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None
Motion carried.
Council's agenda having been covered, Councilman Courtney's motion for adjournment
was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Adjournment at 9:25 p.m.
=/LudAb.L City Clerk 0