Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19830711_regularf MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE JULY 11, 1983 --EDINA CITY COUNCIL EIELD AT CITY HALL Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner and Mayor Courtney. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of June 20, 1983, were approved as submitted by motion of Member Turner, seconded by Member Schmidt. Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. DONALD KLINGELHOETS COKMENDED. Mr. Rosland commended Mr. Donald Klingelhoets for his service to the City of Edina, working for the City in 1970 as a parkkeeper. superintendent of the Braemar Golf Course. in the area of repair and maintenance of all golf course equipment has proven to be a valuable asset to the City. silver pen bearing the Edina Logo. ciation for his steadfast service to the City. He pointed out that Mr. Klingelhoets began In 1978 he was promoted to assistant Mr. Rosland mentioned that his knowledge Mr. Rosland presented Mr. Klingelhoets with a Members of the Council expressed their appre- PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED ON COMANCHE COURT IMPROVEMENT NO. P-L-24. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Acting Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. as hereinafter set forth: A. ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT P-L-24 IN THE FOLLOWING: Mr. Rosland presented total estimated construction cost for Improvement No. P-L-24 at $433.12, proposed to be assessed on a per assessable lot basis at an estimated cost of $53.89 per assessable lot. is being proposed as a result of a petition. will pay the monthly electric charge after installation and Northern States Power will maintain the system. assessments levied in 1983, with the initial installment due in 1984. Bredesen offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: Pursuant to due notice given, public hearing was conducted and action taken Between 7142 Valley View Road and 7005 Comanche Court Mr. Hoffman stated that this project He further explained that the City Construction will be accomplished in 1983, with Member RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT ORNAMElNTAL STREET LIGHTING L-24 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement : 1. ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT L-24 IN THE FOLLOTJINGi and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the construction of said improvement including all proceedings which may be ’ necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for construction and maintenance of such improvement; that said improve- ment is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as : ORNAMENTAL STREET’ LIGHTING II&ROVEMENT No. L-24 and the area to be specially assessed therefore shall include Lot 3 thru 6, Block 1; Lots 12 thru 15, Block 1, Iroquois Hills 3rd Addition. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Between 7142 Valley View Road and 7005 Comanche Court Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. NORMANDALE BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL GRANTED. Mr. Hughes recalled that Council had requested staff to prepare Findings, Decisions, and Reasons for preliminary plat approval of Normandale Bluff on June 6, and that the matter had been continued from the June 20 meeting at the request of the . proponent. Mr. Louis Oberhauser, attorney for Mr. Wallace, the property owner, .asked the City Council to consider a simple lot division of Lot 7, whereby the northerly 25 feet would be attached to Lot 6, and the southerly 25 feet would be attached to Lot 8. lot and a 150 foot lot without the expense of replatting. Wallace was willing to grant the City a deed restriction on the southerly 150 foot lot limiting it to only one single family dwelling. and his client felt that the 150 foot southerly lot had considerable value and that it is yery unlikely economically that Mr. Wallace would want to restructure the house to acquire an additional building sit:. He concluded that their proposal was a good compromise in that 1) it recognized that City Council only wanted two building sites there and 2) it allowed Mr. Wallace to preserve a sizeable lot which He noted that such a procedure would result in a 75 foot wide ’ He added that Mr. Mr. Oberhauser explained that he I I CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Application of Duncan B. Wallace and Karen K. Wallace for a Subdivision of Land Entitled Normandale Bluff (S-83- 1) REASONS FINDINGS, DECISIONS, and The above entitled matter was heard before the City Council, City of Edina, on April 18, May 16, and June 6, 1983. Duncan B. Wallace and Karen K. Wallace (nProponentsll) were present. Proponents was present on June 6, 1983. reviewed all of the fact and arguements presented by the Proponents, their representative, City staff, and property owners in the vicinity of the subject subdivision, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by Louis Oberhauser, attorney for the The City Council, having heard and the Proponent, his representative, City staff, located west of Rolf Avenue and south of West fully advised, after due FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Proponents, subdivision (the' "Three consideration, hereby on January 12, 1983, Lot S u bd i v i si o nit) fir a and property owners, and being makes the following : submitted an application for 30,375 square foot tract of land 64th Street. This tract of land (the "Subject Property") is composed of four and one half lots described as Lots 6, 7,. 8, 9 and the north 1/2 of Lot 10, Block 10, Normandale Second Addjtion. The property was platted in 1917. An existing single family dwelling is located on the central portion of the Subject Property and occupies part of Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 10, Normandale Second Addition. I - 3; 2. The proposed "Three Lot Subdivision" delineated three, R-1 single family dwelling lots which. were described as Parcel A, Parcel B and Parcel C. (the middle lot) .measured 14,850 square feet and 110 feet in width and would serve as the lot for the existing dwelling. Parcel A (the North lot) measured 8,100 square feet in area and 60 feet in width. Parcel B Parcel C (the South lot) measured 7,425 square feet in area and 55 feet in width. The Three Lot Subdivision would have. . created two,. new buildable lots. 3. The Edina Community Development and Plann-ing Commission (the "Commission") r @ 9- Normandale Bluff June 20, 1983 Page two listed the Three Lot Subdivision on its agenda for February 9, 1983. the matter was not considered at the Proponents' request. The Commission considered the Three Lot Subdivision at its March 2, 1983, meeting. The However, Commission reviewed the report of the Planning Department and heard the comments of the Proponents and surrounding property owners who attended the meeting. Commission thereupon continued the Three Lot Subdivision without taking action at the Proponents' request. The 4. The Commission again considered the Three Lot Subdivision on March 30, 1983. Prior to this meeting, the Proponents submitted a revision to their request whereby Parcel C would be increased from 55 feet in width to 62 feet in width. The Proponents also proposed the removal of a deck from the south side of the existing dwelling in order to provide room for the increased width of Parcel C. In response to questioning from the Commission members, the Proponents agreed to eliminate Parcel A from consideration and thereby requested approval of a subdivision containing two lots which would measure 62 feet in width and 163 feet in width. The Commission adopted a resolution recommending denial'of this request (the "Two Lot Subdivision"). 5. On April 18, 1983, the Edina City Council conducted a public hearing and received the report and recommendation of the Commission regarding the Two Lot- Subdivision. Pursuant to applicable ordinances, notice of the meeting was given by mailed notice to owners of property within 200 feet of the Subject Property. At said hearing, eight property owners residing in the vicinity of the Subject Property testified in opposition of the Two Lot Subdivision. Among the issues submitted by the surrounding property owners in their testimony were : I A. The spaciousness and openness of the neighborhood would be adversely effected. B. Drainage problems would result from the construction of a dwelling on Parcel C. Y ' Nbrmandale Bluff June 20, 1983 Page three C. An undesirable precedent would be established which would lead to the further subdivision of lots in the area; thereby, further reducing the openness I and spaciousness of the neighborhood. D. No evidence had been submitted supporting the Proponents! request to vary from the City's lot width and area requirements. x At the Proponents' request, the City Council,:. thereupon, referred the matter back to the Commission in order that the Proponents could submit a revised subdivision plan for the Subject Property. 6. On April 27, 1983, the Commission again reviewed a proposal for the subdivision of the Subject Property. a revised plan which again proposed a three lot subdivision of the Subject Property Prior to this meeting, the Proponents submitted (the "Revised Three Lot Subdivision") . The Revised Three Lot Subdivision differed from the original proposal in that all lots measured 75 feet in width and 10,125 square feet in area. Also, the proposed common lot line between Parcels B and C coincided with the existing lot line between lots 8 and 9, Block 10, Normandale Second Addition. Therefore, no new subdivision was required for Parcel C. Parcels A and C as buildable lots, the existing dwelling on the Subject Property was proposed to be substantially remodeled to reduce its overall !ffl$h from approximately 84 feet to 58 feet. The Commission recommended approval of the Revised Three Lot I In order to establish Y Subdivision with two conditions: reduced in length and 2.) subdivision dedication. entire house must be reduced in length prior to construction on Parcel C. 1.) the garage for the existing dwelling must be It was also understood that the 7. On May 16, 1983, the Edina City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the Revised Three Lot Subdivision. The report and recommendation of the Commission was received. Surrounding property owners appeared and testified that the Revised Three Lot Subdivision should be denied. Among the issues submitted were: A. A private engineering consultant's statement that construction of additional CI Normandale Bluff * June 20, 1983 Page four I buildings on the Subject Property may contribute to a surface water drainage problem for an existing dwelling on Mildred Avenue. B. The revised Three Lot Subdivision did not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. C. Although the proposed lots met the minimum standards of the Edina Ordinance No. 811, the Zoning Ordinance, the lots did not conform to the lot sizes generally found in the area. The City Council, thereupon, referred the matter back to the Commission and requested that the Commission consider a two lot rather than a three lot subdivision of the Subject Property. 8. On June 1, 1983, the Commission again reviewed a proposal for the subdivision of the Subject Property. Prior to this meeting, the Proponents submitted a revised plan which illustrated a two lot subdivision of the Subject Property (the "Revised lot (i.e. Parcel A) measuring 75 feet in width and located north of the existing dwel Z ___ . Two Lot Subdivision"). The Revised Two Lot Subdivision proposed one new builda The garage for the existing dwelling was proposed to be remodeled as with the Revised - Three Lot Subdivision, in order to establish Parcel A as a buildable Iot. A motion was -offered to recommend approval of the Revised Two Lot Subdivision conditioned upon 1.) remodeling of the garage and 2.) subdivision dedication. The motion failed. No other motions were offered. 9. On June 6, 1983, the City Council conducted a publ'ic hearing regarding the Revised Two Lot Subdivision. The Proponents clarified that the entire Subject Property was proposed to be platted into two lots: Parcel A (the new lot north of the existing dwelling) would measure 75 feet by 135 feet. Parcel B (the baIance of the property including the existing dwelling) would measure 150 feet by 135 feet. Members of the City Council expressed concern that approval of the Revised Two Lot Subdivision may inevitably lead to a request to approve a plat similar to the Revised Three Lot Subdivision. The Proponents were asked if they would assure I e - Normandale Bluff June 20, 1983 Page five that approval of a plat similar to the Revised Three Lot Subdivision would not be requested in the future. The Proponents stated that they were unwilling to provide such assurances. 10. Edina Ordinance No. 81 1 (the "Zoning Ordinance") establishes the following minimum standards for single family dwellings lots: Minimum Lot Area 9,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width 75 feet Minimum Lot Depth 120 feet The dimensions and areas of Parcel A and Parcel B of the Revised Two Lot Subdivision comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The existing dwelling located on Parcel B would comply with all setback and lot coverage standards imposed by the Zoning Ordinance if the garage were remodeled and shortened in length as proposed. 11. Parcel C of the Revised Three Lot Subdivision likewise complies with the lot I dimensions and area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. dwelling on Parcel B would require substantial remodeling in order to shorten its length to avoid encroaching into Parcel C. of the existing dwelling from the north lot line of Parcel C would not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. of 10 feet plus 1/2 foot for each foot the building exceeds 15 feet in height. estimates that a minimum setback of 13 feet is required. proposed to maintain a 10 foot setback after remodeling. However, the existing Even if remodeled as proposed, the setback The Zoning Ordinance requires minimum setback City staff The existing dwelling is 12. The Edina Comprehensive Plan states the following policy: Allow further subdivisions of developed single family lots only if neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved. 13. The Subject Property has been held in common ownership and used as one dwelling site for many years, since at least 1930. located on the Subject Property without consideration for the development of The existing dwelling was centrally additiona I homesites . Normandale Bluff June 20, 1983 Paae six i. c I 4 14. Edina Ordinance No. 801, (the "Platting Ordinance") states that the Council, in approving plats shall consider, among other things, the suitability of plats from the standpoint of community planning. 15. The area in the vicinity of the Subject Property exhibits a diversity of single family dwelling lot sizes. Although most of Normandale Second Addition was orginally platted into 50 foot wide lots, many lots have been combined so as to comply or more closely comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 16. The Subject Property abuts Normandale Park. Within the plat of Normandale Second Addition, lots have been combined so as to provide building sites in close proximity to the park which-are larger than those farther away from the park. Excluding the Subject Property, the average width of all building sites abutting i Normandale Park is 103 feet. 17. Edina Ordinance No. .801, the Platting Ordinance, states that 'I . . . in every plat, replat, or subdivision of land . . .a reasonable portion of such land shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner or owners to the general public as open space for parks, playgrounds, public open space, or storm water holding areas or ponds, or, at the option of the City, the tract owner or owners sharl contribute to fhe- City an amount of cash equal to the fair market value of the undeveJoped land otherwise required to be so set aside and dedicated." 18. The City of Edina Subdivision Dedication Guidelines state that "if in conjunc- tion with the subdivision, platting or re-platting of land and additional lots or development intensities are created, then a public dedication shall be required and shall be based upon the land area encompassed within the additional lot(s), value attributive to such lots or value attributive to increased development intensities." The Guidelines further state that I1a land dedication and public access to such a dedication may be required when property is adjacent to an existing park or public open space and the addition beneficially expands the park or public open space." I c -+ Normandale Bluff June 20, 1983 Page seven 19. Since 1976, approximately 62 subdivisions were approved and required to make a subdivision dedication in accordance with Edina Ordinance No. 801. Ten such subdivisions satisfied their subdivision dedication obligations by way of the contribution of land to the City of Edina. The average percentage of the area encompassed within the subdivision which was so dedicated to the City was approximately 24 percent. obligations by way of land contribution as well as a cash contribution. subdivisions contributed approximately 21 percent of their land plus three to four percent of the undeveloped land value in cash. Two subdivisions satisifed their subdivision dedication Both 20. Based upon a population of approximately 46,000 people, the City of Edina provides approximately one acre of parkland per 38 people. of persons per household in Edina according to the 1980 Census is 2.55. Thus a demand for approximately 3,050 square feet of parkland will be created by the construction of a dwelling on Parcel A of the Revised Two Lot Subdivision in order to maintain the existing parkland/population ratio in Edina. The mean number 21. The southerly part of the Subject Property is characterized by slopes - exceeding 20 percent. The Comprehensive Plan states as a policy: - "Require increased minimum lot sizes for single famiJy and. two family dwelling lots on steep slopes." 22. Prior to the public hearing on June 20, 1983, all members of the Edina City Council individually inspected the Subject Property and surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council does hereby make v the following : D EC IS ION The Revised Two Lot Subdivision entitled Normandale Bluff as presented to the City Council on June 6, 1983, is hereby approved subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions : Normandale Bluff June 20, 1983 Page eight . 7 Y ’.. 1. The garage for the existing dwelling located on the Subject Property must be remodeled to provide a five foot setback from the south lot line of Parcel A and to conform to all other ordinances of the City of Edina. 2. The south 15 feet of the Subject Property shall be dedicated to the City by Warranty Deed and free and clear of all encumbrances as a.subdivision dedication as required by the Edina Platting Ordinance. The above decision is made for the following: REASONS A. The Revised Two Lot Subdivision complies with the requirements of the Edina Zoning Ordinance. B. The Revised Two Lot Subdivision can be accomplished with a relatively minor and reasonable remodeling of the garage for the existing dwelling. C. The Revised Three Lot Subdivision is contrary to the existing character of the neighborhood whereby lot sizes increase with closer proximity to Normandale D. ApproLaI of the Revised Three Lot Subdivision would permit the construction of a dwelling on steep slopes. The Comprehensive Plan provides that steep slopes should require larger than minimum sized lots. The new Jot created by the Revised Two Lot Subdivision is located in an area of level topography. E. The Subject Property has been held in common ownership and used as one dwelling site for many years. The existing dwelling was located to take maximum advantage of the entire property and no consideration was given for the development of additional homesites. The Subject Property now complies with. the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of the Revised Three Lot Subdivision would cause the existing dwelling to be in conflict with the sideyard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance even after the substantial alteration of the dwelling as prop F. The area located south of the existing dwelling and described as Parcel C on the Revised Three Lot Subdivision provides reasonable yard area for accessory uses and adds more than an insignificant value to the existing homesite as a whole. * ~ I + Normandale Bluff June 20, 1983 Page nine Further, the use of this area for open space and yard area contributes to the openness and spaciousness of the neighborhood and conforms with the spirit I and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. G. The dedicagion of the southerly 15 feet of the Subject Property as a subdivision dedication is reasonable in that: i. The City is acting in-accordance with the Edina Platting Ordinance and the Edina Subdivision Dedication Guidelines ii. The dedication adjoins and beneficially expands Normandale Bluff iii. The dedication is consistent with other land dedications required of past subdivisions in terms of the percentage of land area within the plat which was dedicated to the City. iv. The dedica.lion directly relates to the needs of the inhabitants of a new dwelling on Parcel A. The dedication as required will help to maintain the present ratio of park acreage per household in Edina. v. The dedicationprotects that portion of the Subject Property which is characterized by steep slopes, consistent with the Cit'y's Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Petition to Request the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Expansion of a Parking Facility and Other Planned Expansion Projects by Grace Church of Edina ' FINDINGS, DECISIONS, AN D REASONS The ab&e entitled matter was heard before the City Council, City of Edina, on June 20, 1.983. Some petitioners were present. Representatives of Grace Church of Edina, 5300 France Avenue, Edina, (the "Church") were present. The City Council, having heard and reviewed all.of the facts and arguments pr.esented by the Petitioners, the Church, and City Staff,' and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Petitioners, the Church and the City Staff, and being fully advised after due consideration, hereby makes the following : FINDINGS 0.F FACT 1. On June 12, 1983, a petition requesting the preparation of an environmental assessment worksheet (the "Petition") was submitted to the City of Edina and was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (the "E. Q. B. 'I) . The Petition requested the preparation of an environmental assessment worksheet (the "E.A. W. I!) for work proposed or contemplated by the Church including the following (the 'IProject") : I. A. removal and. razing of seven single family dwellings B. corptruction of a new parking lot providing a total parking capacity of 620 veh'icles 8' C. construction of a retaining wall and ramp approach for a future parking ramp D. construktion of a new education wing E. expansion of the Church auditorium from 900 seats to 2,000 seats 2. On June 13, 1983, the E.Q.B. informed the City of Edina of its finding that the City of Ed;na was the Responsible Governmental Unit for the purpose of determining the need for an E.A.W. A notice of the Petition and the assignment of the City of Edina as the Responsible Governmental Unit was published in the E.Q.B. Monitor on June 20, 1983. I Page two I 3. The Petition complies with the requirements of 6 MCAR 3.026A and 3.026B as to the Petition's form and content. 4. As the Responsible Governmental Unit, the City of Edina is solely responsible for determining the need for an E.A.W. 5. The Petition cites the following in support of its claim that the Project has potential for significant environmental effects : A. The proposed parking lot, future parking ramp, and off site parking will increase automobile exhaust' emissions, traffic congestion and noise B. The future parking ramp will be visually obtmsfve and is not limited in height or mass by City Ordinances. C. The proposed parking lot will be a life safety hazard as evidenced by a pedestrian/vehicle accident on May 25, 1983, allegedly occuring in the Church parking lot. D. The loss of trees and vegetation caused by parking lot construction will alter E. Parking lot lighting causes night-time glare. F. Traffic generation and parking impacts resulting from other churches in the -z the ecolog ica I balance I vicinity should be considered "related actions" as defined by 6MCAR 3.022B60. 6. The preparation of an E.A.W. prior to the construction of a parking facility for 1000 or more vehicles is mandated by GMCAR 3.038N. The proposed expansion of the Church's parking facility provides space for approximately 340 additional vehicles. ,1 The one level parking structure which'the Church may construct in the future would contain space for 125 - 150 additional vehicles. .. Z. The Gross floor space of all expansions to the Church which are now proposed or contempiated for future construction is approximately 63,000 square feet. 8. No buildings or structures which have been revmoed or demolished from the Church's property are designated by the Minnesota Historical Society or the History and Architecture of Edina, Minnesota as historically or architecturally significant. I Page three h 5 3 9. St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church which is located at 5421 France Avenue is presently undertaking an expansion of its parking facilities. This expansion would provide parking facilities for approximately 50 additional vehicles. .lo. The only governmental decision required for the Project is the grant of a variance from the parking lot setback requirements of Edina Ordinance No. 811, the Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance mill nat create a new subdivided parcel of 1an.d. The Church has submitted plans illustrating a parking lot which contains space for 640 vehicles. which complies with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and does not require the grant of a variance. 11. GMCAR 3.041 exempts the following project the Environmental Review Program of the E.Q.B.: * Expansion of an existing institutional facility of less than 75,000 square feet of gross floor space in a city of second class. * Demolition or removal of buildings and related structures except those which are. historically or architecturally significant. * Construction of a new parking facility for less than 100 vehicles. * Individual land use variances including side yard and setback variances not resulting in any change in land use character or density. Therefore; based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council does hereby make the following: DECISION The Petition is hereby denied. The above decision is made for the following: REASONS: A. The Project does not meet or exceed any threshold mandating the preparation of an E.A.W. as specified by GMCAR 3.038. B. The Project when viewed in combination with related actions in the vicinity does not meet or exceed any threshold mandating the preparation of an E.A.W. as specified by GMCAR 3.038. . Page four P L 4 . C. The only governmental decision required for the Project is a variance. I The variance is a setback variance which does not result in a change in land use character or density. The Project is, therefore, exempt from environmental review according to GMCAR 3.041U. D. Individual elements of the Project are exempt from environmental review including the removal or demolition of buildings (6MCAR 3.041T) and the expansion of the Church building (6MCAR 3.0411). E. The type extent or reversibitity of the environmental effects caused by the Project are not unusual, significant or unexpected. F. Related actions in the vicinity of the Church and anticipated future elements of the Project do not cause any significant unexpected-effects on the environment:, 7/11/83 29 he could be in a posktion to sell for a maximum return. Avenue, raised the question as to why the proponent was not attending the meeting. He also commented that in his opinion a deed restriction was not a firm proposal, and also that finances should not play a part in the decision. Mr. Oberhauser noted that Mr. Wallace and his wife were out of town. John Eickman, 6408 Rolf Avenue voiced concern that Mr. 'Wallace had not been sensitive to the needs and desires of his neighbors, and he recommended that the deeding of 15 feet to the City for parkland appeared to be a natural extension of Mr. Wallace's lot and should not prove to be detrimental. previous replats in the area, to his knowledge, had ever required a dedication of parkland. Mr. Richards pointed out that the City's proposed Findings were exact- ly as Mr. Wallace's current proposal as far as creating two lots, one Buildable, and one with an existing structure on it. Mr. Richards noted, however, that the proponents suggestion may allow the creation of another lot in the future. Oberhauser indicated that with existing zoning and lot size requirements, the Council would' be free to make that change in the future. Mr. Bredesen stated that he didn't see any detriment that would come to Mr. .Wallace as a result of the subdivision dedication requirement outlined in the Findings. Mr. Oberhauser responded that a 150 foot wide lot is of substantially more value than the 135 foot wide lot which would result after dedicating 15 feet to the City. Mr. Oberhauser expressed that the City was not being fair with Mr. Wallace by asking him to give up some of his land to prevent him from obtaining what is permitted under Statutes and City Ordinances. Nr. Otjerhauser said that if the City had an obligation of giving Mr. Wallace two building sites on the 150 foot lot, then in his opinion, the City was asking Mr. Wallace to waive his legal rights to placate the neighbors who have opposed the issue. Member Turner offer.ed the follow- ing resolution and moyed its adoption: Robert Price,.6412 Rolf Mr. Oberhauser responded that none of the Mr. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL 'NORMANDALE BLUFF BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the Findings, Decisions, and Reasons as appended to these minutes are hereby adopted and that certain plat entitled, Normandale Bluff'' as presented by Duncan Wallace and Karen Wallace for prelimin- ary approval on July 11, 1983, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval subject to the following conditions: 11 1. The garage for the existing dwelling located on the Subject Property must be remodeled to provide a five foot setback from the south lot line of Parcel A and to conform to all other ordinances of the City of Edina. The south15 feet of the Subject Property shall be dedicated to the City by Warranty Deed and free and clear of all encumbrances as a subdivision dedication as required by the Edina Platting Ordinance. Motion for the adoption of the resolution was seconded by IMember Richards. 2. Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. Mr. Oberhauser asked if it would be agreeable with the Council if Mr. Wallace, in lieu of making a land dedication, made a cash dedication. The Mayor advised that the motion was made with the intention of 15 feet being dedicated to the City of Edina. to require a land dedication. Mr. Oberhauser then asked for a reconsideration of the vote. No motion for reconsideration was made. City Attorney Erickson made it clear that the motion was made PETITION REQUESTING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR GRACE CHURCH PROJECT DENIED; Mr. Hughes recalled that at the ;last meeting Council had requested staff to prepare Findings, Decisions and Reasons ;concerning the petition for an Environmental Assess- ment Worksheet (EAW) for the Grace Church project. had been prepared and that copie's had been distributed to the surrounding neighbors as well as to the Church, and that based on the draft Findings it was recommended that the petition be denied. Member Richards asked if Reason "F" in the document really needed to be included and stated he was concerned that Council would be taking a position as to whether or not future projects of the Church may or may not cause an impact on the community. "B" both infer that the Project in combination with related actions in the vicinity does nof exceed any of the mandatory categories that would trigger preparation of an EAW. Attorney Erickson added that the Environmental Quality Board regulations define a related action as two or more projects affecting the same geographical area that oecur on or about the same time, therefore, staff was required to look at the Grace Church Project in conjunctian with the activity of the other church on France Avenue-in the immediate area, and that the Reasons referred to have no bearing with the rights or interests of the Council relative to the future development of Grace Church. preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet by adoption of the Findings, Decision and Reasons. Motion for denia% of the Petition was seconded by Member Bredesen as appended to these Minutes. Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. He reported that the draft Findings Mr. Hughes explained that Reason "F" and Reason Member Richards then offered the motion to deny the Petition to request the 7/11/83 -._ %QACF, CHURCH VARIANCE GRANTED UPON APPEAL FROM BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTNENTS ~~ ____ - - -__ - - - - __ . - - __ ~ DECISION; MORATORIUM ON EXPANSION OF NON-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS DISCUSSED. Mr. Hughes recalled that Grace Church had proposed to expand its surface parking area along France Avenue to West 52nd Street, and had requested a 24 foot setback Zrom France Avenue and a 20 foot setback from West 52nd Street. He reminded the Council that the Zoning Ordinance requires that parking for religious institutions in the R-1 District maintains a 50 foot setback. variance request had been denied by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, whereupon Grace Church had appealed the decision to Council. Member Bredesen asked if there was any action Council could take, should they decide to grant the variance request, to prevent the Church from expanding the parking lot as well to the property line of the homes on Halifax Avenue. -Mr. Hughes respon- ded that Council would have to impose a special condition in connection with the variance. setback and the Church is proposing a setback of between 10 and 15 feet but that presumably they could go to 5 feet unless a special restriction was imposed. Attorney Erickson advised that it could be subject to the grant of a Conser- vation Restriction to the City of Edina over that area which is shown on the plan as landscaping along the westerly edge of the property. Member Schmidt thereupon moved approval of the petition for variance as requested by Grace Church for construction of the parking lot, subject to a Conservation Restriction to the City of Edina over that part which is shown on the plan as landscaping along the westerly edge of the property. Member Turner called for discussion on the motion and asked if the Church had responded to the neighbors’ request for more screening on the 52nd Street side of the parking lot. Paul Sentman, 5500 Parnell Avenue, spokesman for the Church, responded by presenting a graphic showing a landscaped island adjacent to the proposed driveway onto 52nd Street which would help screen the parking lot from the view of the occupants of the home at 52nd and Gorgas Avenue, advising that staff had approved the change in the parking lot plan. draft revision of the Zoning Ordinance being prepared by staff, Mrs. Turner asked that the term “parking facility” for the R-1 Distrkt be clarified. She added that it should be understood that should the revision restrict development of churches, that Grace Church would not be exempt from any action by Council. Member Richards stated that he would support the motion for the variance but did not want that support to be misconstrued as supporting the growth of Grace Church which is a great institution for the community, but which he felt has become regional in character and that the present Zoning Ordinance does not address these issues raised by the growth of religious institutions. Member Bredesen offered an amendment to the motion that the variance be granted conditioned on there being no additional parking created on the site, nor any additional expansion of the current facility or new facility construction until the draft Zoning Ordinance has been reviewed by Council. Member Schmidt . stated she could not support the amendment and that Council should vote on the motion now before them to grant the varzance, subject to the Conservation Restriction, and then a motion would be in order to impose a moratorium on church.building. After considerable discussion, Mr. Erickson suggested that if Council were ‘going to address the issue of church expansion in the R-1 District it should be on a broader scope than Grace Church and that a moratorium would not be appropriate if it dealt only with this specific project and site. He clarified that Council has-the right to impose moratoriums on areas within the City or on specific subjects for a period up to a year, extendable for an additional year; that the draft Zoning Ordinance is in process and it would be an appropriate time to haend those two discussions. Mr. Richards asked when the draft Zoning Ordinance would be ready for review: by Council. would be presented to the CommunitylDevelopment and Planning. Commission in SeptembeT and would then be on the Council agenda in October or November. Courtney then called for vote on the motion to approve the petition for variance, subject to the Conservation Restriction. The . He stated further that the ordinance presently requires a 5 foot In response to question of Member Turner regarding the restriction, Motion was seconded by Member Bredesen. With reference to the I W. Hughes responded that it Mayor I Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. Member Richards then moved that staff be directed to prepare for review at the July 18 meeting a draft of an interim ordinance which would impose a moratorium prohibiting the construction of new, or the expansion of existing non-profit institutions in the R-1 District, with the understanding that all such institutions would be sent notice to solicit their comments. Bredes en. Motion was seconded by Member Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Schmidt, Courtney Motion carried. t -e Member Turner then movedz-that the matter of traffic safety and on-street parking around Grace Church be*referred to the Traffic Safety Committee for their review- Motion was seconded by Member Bredesen. * Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. F.. 1~ f .? .: 7/11/83 d= ffl I\ c', m a 31 LOT 13, BLOCK 1, THE HABITAT, LOT DIVISION APPROVED. Mr. Hughes presented petition for division of Lot 13, Block 1, The Habitat, generally located north of Vernon Avenue and west of Lincoln Driye, in which the proponents requested party dwelling in the Habitat. Individual utility connections are provided. NO objections being heard, Member Schmidt offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein' called "Parcels") described as follows : wall division for an existing two family RESOLUTION Lot 13, Block 1, The Habitat; and That part of Lot 13, Block 1, The Habitat, according to recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line drawn from a point on the West line of said Lot 13, distant 46.03 feet South of the N.W. corner of said Lot 13, to a point on the East line of said Lot 13, distant 48.50 feet South of the N.E. corner of said Lot 13, as measured along said lot lines thereof; and That part of Lot 13, Block 1, .The Habitat, according to recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the West line of said Lot 13, distant 46.03 feet South of the N.W. corner of said Lot 13, to a point on the East line of said Lot 13, distant 48.50 feet South of the N.E. corner of said Lot 13, as measured along said lot lines thereof; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of,the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinance Nos, 801 and 811; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conyeyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 811 are hereby waiyed to allow said diyision and conveyance thereof as ~ separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provision thereof, and subject, howeyer, to the provision that no further suhdiyision belnade of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the perti- nent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen. Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. ' LOTS 15, 16 AND 17, BLOCK1, PARKWOOD KNOLLS 8TH ADDITION, LOT DIVISION APPROVED. Mr. Hughes presented the petition to divide Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 1, Parkwood Knolls 8th Addition generally located north of Vernon Avenue and east of Schaefer Road in which the proponents requested a party wall division of an existing two family dwelling.. Indiyi'dual sewer and water services are not provided for each of the dwelling units, therefore, new services must be installed or a variance obtained from the Building Construction Board of Appeals. involved in a previous lot division whereby portions of Lots 15 and 16 were combined with Lot17. As a result of this past division, some pre-existing Tot line easements. were poorly located. Staff recommended approval conditioned upon 1) installation of new sewer and water services or the grant of a variance from the Building Construction Board of Appeals and 2) vacation and rededication of lot line easements. following resolution and moved its adoption: This property was No objections being heard, Member Bredesen offered the RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into Description of' Northerly Parcel: That part of Lot 17 and that part of Lots 15 and 16 lying southeasterly of a line parallel with and 10 feet northwesterly of the southeasterly line of Lot 16 and the same extended and lying southwesterly of a line parallel with and 10 feet northeasterly of the line dividing Lot 15 and 17 and same extended, all in Block 1, PARKWOOD KNOLLS 8TH ADDITION, according to the map or plat on file in the office of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin and I State of Minnesota, which lies northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 17; thence on an assumed bearing of South 29 degrees 11 minutes East, along the westerly line of said Lot 17, a distance of 28.43 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 67 degrees 03 minutes 56 seconds East to the intersection with a line parallel and 10 feet northeasterly of the line dividing said Lots 15 and 17 and there terminating. land: Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 1, Parkwood Knolls 8th Addition; and separate parcels (herein called "Parcels") described as follows: 7/11/83 .._ Description of Southerly Parcel: of Lot 15 lying southwesterly'of a line parallel with and 10 feet northeasterly of a line dividing said Lots 15 and 17, all in Block 1, PARKWOOD KNOLLS, 8TH ADDITION, according to the map or plat on file in the office of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, which lies southerly of the following described line: commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 17, thence on an assumed bearing of South 29 degrees 11 minutes East, along the westerly line of said Lot 17, a distance of 28.43 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 67 degrees 03 minutes 56 seconds East to the intersection with a line parallel and 10 feet northeasterly of the line dividing said Lots 15 and 17 and there terminating, except that part of said Lot 17 which lies south- erly of a line drawn from a point on the southwesterly line of said . lot distant 28.0 feet northwesterly of the southwest corner of said lot, to a point on the southeasterly line of said lot distant 30.0 feet northeasterly of the southwest corner of said lot; That part of Lot 17 and that part -. 32 WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinance Nos. 801 and 811; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conyeyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approyed and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 811 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided.for by those ordinances. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Schmidt. Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. I LOT 2, BLOCK 1, OAK PONDS OF INTERLACHEN, LOT DIVISION APPROVED. Mr. Hughes presented the petition for division of Lot 2, Block 1, Oak Ponds of Interlachen, generally located west of Blake Road and north of Fox Meadow Lane. The proponents requested a division of the subject lot whereby its west half would he added to the adjacent lot to the west and its east half would be added to the adjacent lot to the east. be combined to create two lots. offered the following resolution and moved its adoption. Thus, three existing lots will No objections being heard, Member Bredesen PESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described property is at'present a single tract of land: Lot 2, Blockl, Oak Ponds of Interlachen; and WEEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels'') described as follows : All of Lot1 and all of Lot 2 except the easterly 44.85 feet thereof; all in Block 1, Oak Ponds of Interlachen; and All of Lot 3 and the easterly 44.85 feet. of Lot 2, all in Block 1, Oak Ponds of Interlachen; and WHEREAS, it has been tletermined that:compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinance Nos. 801' and 811; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 811 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provisions thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of EcIina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Schmidt. - Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. 1, 7 1111 83 w cn p. 0 m a 33 1984-85 COMMUNITY HEALTH SERUICES PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVED. Mr. Rosland presented the Community Health Services Preliminary Plan for 1984 - 1985 along with a projected budget for 1984. He indicated that the City of Edina will receive $86,405 in state subsidy for 1984 and 1985. He also noted that this budget represented a 3.5% increase over the 1983 anticipated expenditures, based on the reduced nursing contract which was negotiated in 1983. Advisory Committee reviewed the plan on June 22, 1983, and forwarded the plan to Council for approval. Member Turner asked for clarification on how the Community Health Service Preliminary Plan fit into the City of Edina's budget process. Sanitarian Velde responded that the City could revise the budget that they submit to the state at any point in time. ity Health Services Preliminary Plan as presented and offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina is the official governing body of the City of Edina and functions as the official Board of Health in the City of Edina; and, WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to promote, support and maintain the health of the entire community at the highest level; and, WHEREAS, The Community Health Services Act provides for subsidies in support of public health services on the local level throughout the State of Minnesota; and, WHEREAS, a special needs study has been made and a special public meeting held relative to the needs and priorities of the community for Community Health Services; and, WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Edina has reviewed the plan for the provision of public health services in the City of Edina and recommends its approval to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this self-same plan and finds it consistent with the needs and priorities of the community as determined by the Advisory Board of Health and as expressed by the citizens of Edina; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina that the' Community Health Services Plan for the City of Edina is approved and authorization is hereby given to submit an application for the Community Health Services Act subsidy. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. The Edina Health City Member Schmidt moved approval of the Commun- RESOLUTION I Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. 1983 POLICE ARBITRATION AWARD DISCUSSED. Mr. Rosland submitted a report explaining the contract arbitration award for the Police Department which was arbitkated on June 2, 1983. Results of the award were as follows: 1) 6% overall average wage increase for the year, which is split between $2230 top rate per month for the first six months and $2250 per month for the second six months, 2) the award increased monthly insurance contribution for family coverage from $100 to $120 per month. As an alternative to dental insurance, persons on single coverage were granted $10 a month in addition to the current single coverage for use to purchase additional insurances or other quali- fied pretax items, 3) also granted was an increase in the maximum accrual for vacation from 20 to 21 days. Mr. Rosland noted that staff is drawing up language to implement the award and they are also.making necessary adjustments to payroll records to incorporate these changes. within his authority as defined by previous Minnesota Supreme Court decisions and that there was no legal basis for challenging the award. the question as to how the City intended to make up for the additional expense that is incurred by this award fqom what was anticipated when the budget was developed. this possible problem and 2) the'city had also delayed the hiring of a police officer for approximately 7 months. explicit plan in writing showing how the City intended to make up the additional expenses, not only for 1983, but beyond. Member Bredesen also pointed out that he would not be in a position to support a similar increase for non-union employees without supporting reports and data as to where the money is coming from. Rosland responded that staff would be compiling such information. No formal action was taken. The staff felt that the arbitrator acted Member Bredesen posed Mr. Rosland responded that 1) money was set aside in contingencies for Member Bredesen requested seeing a more Mr. POLICE STATE TRAINING FUNDS AUTHORIZATION APPROVED. Mr. Rosland explained that a City official and Law Enforcement Officer need to be designated to request state funds for police training. It was expressed by Mr. Rosland that if the City were found to be eligible for these funds it would defray the present budget. Member Turner offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 626.86, monies are available through the State for police training costs; and WHEREAS, this program is administered by the Minnesota Police Officers Standards RESOLUTION 7/11/83 _--_ -- 34d Training Board; and, WHEREAS, the City of Edina may request funds from the State for police training costs; and, WHEREAS, in order to comply with State law (Laws of 1981, Chapter 341) and POST Board rules (WAR 13.038), the request must be signed by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and a City official designated by the governing body; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby approve application for Reimbursement for the Continuing Education of Peace Officers and designates Kenneth E. Rosland as City Manager and Craig G. Swanson, Chief of Police, to sign the fund request. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Schmidt. Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. SHHSC JOBS BILL FUNDING PROPOSAL APPROVED. Mr. Rosland indicated that the City of Edina had been approached by the South D- Hennepin Human Services Council (SHHSC) for support of their proposal for a fix and paint project. provide low cost home repairs and improvements to low and moderate income Edina households. participating communities on a competitive basis under the rules and regula- tions of the Community Development Block Grant Program. that he would like an attachment to the resolution stating that unemployed residents of the City of Edina be given hiring preference for the jobs created by this project. or reporting system might the City of Edina expect from this project to see exacfly how many Edina homes were painted, and how many jobs were provided for Edina citizens. sible for complying with the rules of the Community Development Program, therefore, the City maintains updated certificates and summaries of the activities. Member Schmidt commented that the Metropolitan Council was so impressed with the SHHSC HOME Project with its efficiency and the amount of work done for the dollars, that they highly recommended them to continue and fund it further. Member Bredesen felt that the City of Edina should be more insistent with SHHSC in trying to get Edina's share of the funds. in defense of the SHHSC in that they are the reason why the City of Edina gets funding, and.she :expressed that Edina was not getting funding from the County previously. She agreed, however, that Edina should be getting more funding, but she stated her appreciation for South Hennepin's efforts thus far. Mr. Rosland recommended that Council approve the jobs bill funding resolution and added that staff would then get in touch with the SHHSC to confirm how they went about funding this program. Member Turner offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: This project would hire 3 - 5 workers, and would The Hennepin County allocation is to be divided among Member Richards added Member Turner questioned what kind of an evaluation City Planner Hughes responded that the SHHSC is respon- Member Schmidt responded . RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Edina has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County establishing participation in the Urban Hennepin County Comm- unity Development Block Grant Program; and, WHEREAS, Urban Hennepin County is entitled to receive $1,051,000 from the 1983 Jobs Bill Additional Community Development Block Grant Appropriation; and, WHEREAS, the City has developed a proposal for the use, of -1983 Jobs Bill funds; and, WHEREAS, the proposal for use of 1983 Jobs'Bill funds has been developed consistent with the 1983 Jobs Bill Statement of Objectives and the Housing NOW, !THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Edina authorizes submittal of a request for funding for the following project: Fix and, Paint Project, Committee for consideration for inclusion in their funding recommendations to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners: .. . Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; to the Urban Hennepin County Ad Hoc Citizen Advisory BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City that unemployed residents of the City jobs created by this project. lotion for adoption of the resolution Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Resolution adopted. Council of the City of Edina requests c?f Edina be given hiring preference for was seconded by Nember Schnidt. Turner , Courtney METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 1983 POPULATION ESTIMATES DISCUSSED. Mr. Rosland informed Council of the 1983 Metropolitan Council Population Estimates and emphasized that Edina's population had dropped approximately- 800 citizens from that of the 1980 census. He indicated that the Metropolitan Council has been relatively accurate in their predictions. This population estimate will be sent to the State Department of Revenue to be used by their department to calculate amounts of aid local communities receive under the 1972 Fiscal Disparities Act and the 1983 Tax Law. No formal action was taken. ,. 1/11/83 35 _- MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT/CASCADE LANE UPDATE GIVEN. City Engineer Hoffman briefly updated the Council on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed d= m P (3 5 cn - District/Cascade Lane situation. Watershed District has chosen not to further look into the Browndale dam change. 2) The Minnesota Highway Department has stated that they would consider dredging under the Highway 100 bridge to try and improve flows there. District said that they would help take out the Cascade Lane device in the creek if we requested; however, he noted that there are some historical concerns regarding the cascade. 4) The Board directed their engineer to have the City engineering staff cross section the creek from Highway 100 North around the creek corner for a distance of approximately 400 - 500 feet, for the purpose of verifying the United States Geological Survey (USGS) data. If the City finds that data to be significantly different from our findings, the City may petition the Watershed District for further dredging. capacity from the point where it will damage buildings to a discharge where it will cause only minimal overbanking. a field study of the situation and will present a report to Council within approx- imately a month. No formal action was taken. He reviewed the following five items. 1) The 3) The Watershed 5) It is the policy of the Board to change the term of creek carrying Mr. Hoffman indicated that staff will be conducting HANDICAPPED FACILITIES AT POST OFFICE DISCUSSED. Mr. Rosland recalled that the Human Relations Commission (HRC) was concerned regarding the lack of handicapped parking facilities at the post office at 49% Street in Edina. The HRC has proposed to send a letter to our United States Senators and Representatives in Washington D.C. indicating their concern regarding the problem. Mr. Rosland pointed out that the City had forwarded two handicapped parking signs to the post office, and Chairperson of the HRC, Mrs. Gamer clarified that she had noticed the signs at the post office recently. Mrs. Gamer noted that the letter should also state that the building is inaccessable to handicapped persons. a motion to approve and authorize the HRC in sending a letter to our U.S. Senators and Representative. Ayes: Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Nayes: Bredesen Motion carried. Member Turner offered Member Schmidt seconded the motion. AMM COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE DISCUSSED. Member Turner discussed the importance of Council Members speaking out on issues of importance at the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities committee meetings to represent the City of Edina. Member Turner requested that consideration for membership on particular AMM committees be taken. participation and showing of interest would make a great impact, and he stated that staff would be making proposed recommendations to the Council and will present them at the next meeting. Mr. Rosland responded that the ENTRANCE FROM VALLEY VIEW ROAD TO EDINA SWIMMING POOL LETTER OF CONCERN DISCUSSED. Mayor Courtney informed Council of a letter of concern from former Mayor Van Valkenburg who was representing the Edina Art Center stating that the Advisory Board unani- mously passed a resolution at their meeting on June 15, pointing out the hazardous condition of the entrance from Valley View Road to the Edina Swimming Pool. The letter further stated concern of the problem created with vehicles exiting off the Crosstown at a greater speed than 30 m.p.h. and recommended that the plans for moving the entrance be under way promptly. Mr. Rosland responded that the project has been engineered and he remarked that if the City changed this entrance, they should also look at the redesigning of the parking lot so that the roadway does not go by the pickup area for the children at the swimming pool. will be taking this proposal to the Art Committee, and staff will submit a report on total dollars as to how the CYty might fund the project at the next Council meeting. The City Engineer 1. CITY MANAGER'S SECRETARY INTRODUCED. Mr. Rosland welcomed and introduced Mrs. Jeri Marty to the Council Members acknowled- ging her first trial assignment in taking Council minutes. in the City Clerk's absence, Mrs. Marty would serve as Acting City Clerk. He also indicated that ' REPORT GIVEN ON WATERMAN AVENUE ISSUE. Mr. Rosland recalled that a report had been given on the concerns of the Waterman Avenue residents at the June 6 Council meeting. He informed Council that plans had been made for the burning of the property at 6309 Waterman Avenue. specific date had been set for this burning, and the Edina Fire Department will be involved with the burning of the property. Coyne should be given credit in many respects in that he worked closely with the City Council in alleviating the problem with the 6309 Waterman Avenue property and the tenants that occupied it. No I' Mr. Rosland commented that Mr. MISCONDUCT AND NUISANCE PROBLEMS REPORT GIVEN. Mr. Rosland submitted a report to Council on misconduct and nuisance problems and what the appropriate police response and citizens alternatives might be. 7/11/83 A large number of complaints received by the Police Department involve public misconduct and nuisance violations, in which the police are frequently unable to resolve the problems as expected by the complaining citizens because of some of the following reasons: 1) If an officer is to take an enforcement action the officer must actually witness the violation being committed, 2) Anonymous and/or unidentified complaints, 3) Reluctant victim/witness who will not follow through, 4) Time and manpower limitations, 5) Typical police action, and 6) Insuring maximum effectiveness through citizen cooperation. The report also, listed options a person may want to consider in dealing with a nuisance problem. Also attached to the report were laws regarding drinking, littering, and noise pollution, for the Council's reference when called in reference to the above items. they have to get involved themselves and be willing to step in in order to stop some of these problems. ORDINANCE NO. 1331-A3 (TAXICAB DRIVER'S LICENSE AMENDMl3NT):SECOND READING WAIVED. Mr. Rosland recalled that Council had suggested an ordinance amendment be drafted to include the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City of Minneapolis for licensing of taxicab drivers. has been amended with these changes. Member Richards thereupon offered Ordinance No. 1331-A3 and moved its adoption with waiver of Second Reading as follows: I- Mr. Rosland concluded by stating that we must encourage citizens that Ordinance No. 1331 No further discussion being heard, ORDINANCE NO. 1331-A3 ADDING THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1331 BY AIRPORTS COMMISSION FOR ISSUANCE OF TAXICAB DRIVER LICENSE Section 1. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 1331 is hereby amended to read "Section 1. Taxicab Driver's License. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: as follows: No person shall drive a taxicab, nor permit an employee to drive a taxicab within the City without such driver having first obtained a taxicab driver's license pursuant to this ordinance, or a taxicab driver's license issued by the City of Richfield, the City of Bloomington, the City of Hopkins, the City of St. Louis Park, the City of Golden Valley, the City of Minneapolis, or the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airports-Commission; provided, that any driver licensed to operate in another municipality in this state may carry passengers from such municipality where licensed to any place or point within the City, and may freely enter and travel upon the streets and thoroughfares for that purpose, and may receive passengers for carriage to said municipality where so licensed, and in such case it shall not be deemed necessary for the driver of such vehicle to belicensed as herein required, but such driver shall not be permitted to solicit or pick up business on the streets of the City except when a return trip has been previously arranged, or to otherwise operate within the City without being licensed under the provisions of this ordinance. While within the corporate limits of the City, the driver of such vehicle from another municipality shall observe all the regulations and conditions of this ordinance and shall have with him the license certi- ficate for said vehicle and display the same to any person on demand." passage and publication. Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Bredesen. Section 2. This ordinance shall.be in full force and effect upon its Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Ordinance adopted. Mayor d ORDINANCE NO. 406-A4 (ADOPTING MN STATE BUILDING C0DE);SECOND READING WAIVED* Mr. Rosland indicated that the 1982 Uniform Building Code was adopted by the State Department of Administration by amending the i980 State Building Code. The proposed Ordinance No. 406-A4 reflects that amendment and brings the City of Edina into line with the State Code. No objections being heard, Member Schmidt thereupon offered Ordinance No. 406-A4 and moved its adoption with waiver of second reading as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 406-A4 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 406 TO ADOPT THE 1980 MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE I AS AMENDED BY REFERENCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That portion of the first paragraph of Section 1 of Ordinance I. 7/11/83 d- ol P (3 m a NO. incorporated herein by reference, as an ordinance of the City, the Minnesota State Building Code as promulgated by the Department of Administration of the State of Minnesota and made effective on September 9, 1980, and amended on March 1, 1983, which Code is hereinafter referred to as the MSBC. however, that no provisions of the MSBC, or documents referred to therein, which are not required by State law to be adopted by the City are adopted except the following which are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference: It as follows: 406 preceeding the colon is hereby amended to read as follows: 39 "Section 1. Minnesota State Building Code. There is adopted and Provided, Section 2. Section l(a) of Ordinance No. 406 is hereby amended to read "(a) Chapter 55 (Membrane Structures)" Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage and publication. Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Ordinance adopted. -k'% Ac@?ng City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 644 ADOPTED (AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING INSPECTION & CLEANING OF COMMER- CIAL COOKING VENTILATION SYSTEMS & REQUIRING A PERMIT); SECOND READING WAIVED. As recommended by Mr. Rosland, Member Schmidt offered Ordinance No. 644 and moved its adoption with waiver of second reading as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 644 COMMERCIAL COOKING VENTILATION SYSTEMS AND REQUIRING A PERMIT AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING INSPECTION AND CLEANING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Periodic Servicing. All commercial cooking ventilation systems, hoods, filters, grease removal devices and ducts shall be periodically serviced and cleaned prior to surfaces becoming heavily contaminated with combustible grease deposits. by the Fire Department as provided for in the Fire Code. Section 2. Inspections. Annual or more frequent inspections shall be made Section 3. Permits. (a) Any person cleaning a commercial cooking ventilation system, or its components, as referred to in Section 1 hereof, for the removal of combustible grease shall first obtain a permit from the Fire Department. Permits shall be obtained a minimum of five (5) days. prior to starting work. Upon completion of cleaning, the Fire Department shall be notified for inspection and approval of the work. The permit fee shall be as provided for in-City Ordinance No. 171. (b) (c) (d) Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage and publication. Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Bredesen Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Scwdt , Turner, Courtney Ordinance adopted. i AcFhg City Cierk ORDINANCE NO. 171-All ADOPTED (AMENDING SCHEDULE A TO ADD- THERETO THE FEE FOR - PERMIT TO CLEAN RESTAURANT VENTILATION SYSTEMS) : SEC~ RF$~~LNG wmn. As recommended by Mr. Rosland, Member Turner offered Ordinance No. 171-All and moved its adoption with waiver of second reading as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 171-All AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SCHEDULE A TO ORDINANCE NO. 171 TO ADD THERETO THE FEE FOR PERMIT TO CLEAN RESTAURANT VENTILATION SYSTEMS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: thereto the following : Section 1. Schedule A to Ordinance No. 171 is hereby amended by adding 7/11/83 -._ -.. 0 a? SEC. NO. NO. PURPOSE OF FEE/CHARGE 644 3(d) Permit fee for cleaning -- of AMOUNT FEE NO. $25.00 for each permit 50 - commercial cooking ventilation systems upon its passage and publication. Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Bredesen. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney Ordinance adopted. V CLAIMS PAID. payment of the following Claims as per Pre-List: Park Fund $44,207.18, Art Center $1,995.88, Swiming Pool $1,871.73, Golf Course $26,320.73, Arena $1,801.87, Gun Range $20.00, FTater Fund $17,000.28, Sewer Fund $152,759.27, Liquor Fund $6,397.08, Construction Fund $6,548.99, Total $355,357.22. Motion of Member Schmidt was seconded by Member Turner for General Fund $96,434.21, No further business appearing, Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m. I I .-. .