HomeMy WebLinkAbout19840618_regular.. ..
MINUTES .
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
JUNE 18, 1984
Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Richards, Turner and Mayor Courtney.
RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE FOR T. LEA TODD ADOPTED.
Resolution of Condolence for T. Lea Todd which was unamiously adopted by the Council:
.Mayor Courtney read the following
RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE
WHERAS, T. Lea Todd was a long time resident of the City, having brought his -
family to Edina in 1937; and
WHEREAS, he was held in high esteem by all who knew him for his many civic interests
and his selfless and timeless efforts in serving his community; and
WHEREAS, he served on the Planning Commission for a total of twenty years and was
Chairman for ten years, during Edina's greatest period of growth from 1943 to 1968;
and
WHEREAS, he was elected as President of the Village Council and served a two year
term from January 1, 1944 through December 31, 1945; and
WHEREAS, he was a strong proponent for the establishment of the first Edina Munici-
pal Liquor Store with the proceeds thereof to be used for the development of parks
and streets in a rapidly developing community, and
WHEREAS, he was a charter member of the Edina Taxpayers Association which was -- organized in 1951;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City
passing of
on June 11, 1984, at the age of eighty-eight years,
to his wife, Minerva, and to his children and their
. T. LEA TODD
Council does hereby mourn the
and extends its condolences
families ;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution be entered into the Minutes Book of
the Edina City Council and that a copy be presented to his family.
MINUTES of the Regular Council Meeting of June 4, 1984, and of'the Special Meeting
of June 7, 1984, were approved as submitted by motion of Member Turner, seconded
by Member Richards.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING ON W. 44TH STREET IMPROVEMENT CONCLUDED; RESOLUTION ADOPTED AUTHOR-
IZING IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-262. Engineer Hoffman recalled that at the meeting of ,.___..
May 21, 1984, the Council had continued the public hearing on proposed improvement
of W. 44th Street to this meeting to allow staff to prepare a proposal which
would address the concerns of the W. 44th Street residents as voiced at that
meeting.
Street on a block by block.basis, noting the years in which re-construction is
proposed for the various segments. He stated that the project includes: a) structure
replacement at Minnehaha Creek, b) concrete curb and gutter installation, c) concrete
sidewalk (north side), and d) new bituminous surfacing. Mr. Hoffman recalled that
issues of concern were: 1) street width, 2) parking restrictions, 3) structure
location on Minnehaha Creek, 4) traffic volumes/speed, and 5) funding of the project.
He then reviewed the possible alternatives: I) 36 feet wide (standard used by City),
with parking allowed on South side and funding-through gas tax monies with standard
assessment to adjacent property owners; 11) 32 feet wide, with no parking allowed
and funding through gas tax monies with standard assessment; 111) 28 feet wide
(subject to State Aid approval on traffic), with no parking allowed and funding
through gas tax monies with standard assessment; and IV) no build. As directed
by Council, Mr. Hoffman advised that staff has been working on Alternative I11
and believes it may be possible to obtain State Aid funding but pointed out that
state approval is dependent upon documentation that the traffic on W. 44th Street
does not exceed 3,000 trips per day. A consultant has been brought in to verify,
traffic counts and to prepare supporting data.
an exception to the normal collector street policy for several reasons.
right of way is only 50 feet wide instead of the normal 60 feet and the homes
are sited closer to the street than normal. Mr. Hoffman advised that he had met
with three of the properties owners who would be affected the most and that the
28 foot width had been measured out so that they could see how it would affect
their homes. With regard to the structure at Minnehaha Creek, it can be placed . '
to align with the street so it will not impact the back yard of the Bonn home.
The structure would have sidewalk on the north side and a viewing area on the
south side, with screening at the viewing area to protect the Maxeimer's privacy.
Mr. Hoffman noted that letters had been received from S, R. Maxeiner, Jr.,
5L01 W. 44th Street, and David and Adele Hersey, 4412 Grimes Avenue So., copies
of which have been given to the Council. Jim Welna, 5139 W. 44th Street, stated
that'the residents on W. 44th Street continue to object to the proposed improve-
ment, but that if the Council authorizes the project, Alternative 111 (28 foot
I
Mr. Hoffman reviewed the average current.:width in feet.of West 44th
He added that W. 44th Street is
The I
". -.
6/18/ 84
-~
-- 72
width) would be acceptable to them.
has been an increase of traffic on W. 44th Street due to maintenance work on T.H. 100
and if traffic counts were taken during this time, that fact should be noted.
Mr. Hoffman responded that the consultant is looking at traffic counts over the last
10 years, also is looking at possible future development in the area, and will be using
Metropolitan Council statistics as to traffic projections per household, etc., in
writing his report to be submitted to the State. Member Bredesen asked Mr. Hoffman
to review how staff concluded that the proposed improvement was a high priority
project. Engineer Hoffman explained that staff reviews the collector street system
in the City as to which streets are in need of repair or structure repair. The
bridge on 14. 44th Street over Minnehaha Creek is one of two remaining in the City
that did not meet current standards, which precipitated the W.244th Street project.
Also considered, is the fact that gas tax funds can be expended for improvement of a
state aid street. Those funds cannot be used for other types of improvements such
as watermains, storm sewers, or sanitary sewers. Walter Schultz, 4390 Collidge Av.,
asked that if the project is ordered, that the City staff meet with the residents in
the area to discuss the structural appearance of the bridge.
Edenbrook Lane, stated she hoped the Council would consider the safety factor
especially as it concerns the width of the bridge as she feels the present width is
inadequate when meeting a MTC bus or school bus.
pointed out that there is a variance procedure that could be used if the State
does not approve the 28 foot width for gas tax funding. He also voiced concern
that many trees would be lost if a width of 32 feet or 36 feet were authorized.
14r. Coyne asked if the bridge could just be repaired, to which Mr. Hoffman responded
that if the Council's decision was Alternative IV no build, repairs would likely be
made to the bridge structure but that in staff's view 20 feet is too narrow and
therefore, it is recommended that the structure be re-constructed to at least 28 feet gn width. He noted that the railroad bridge is 28 feet wide at present, but if it
failed to pass the annual inspection at a future date it would have to be rebuilt to
standards now set by.State +Statute. Cathy Steim, 4520 W. 44th Street, stated that it
is her understanding that W. 50th Street will be improved next year and also that
parts of T.H. 100 and W. 36% Street will be closed for construction of the W. 36th
Street interchange, and asked that the W. 44th Street improvement be constructed after
those projects are completed to allow the traffic pattern on W. 44th Street to return
to normal. Kelsey Smith, 4801 W. 44th Street, asked whether the MN&S Railroad had
any plans for their bridge. Mr. Hoffman stated that railroad companies in past years
have not built any of their structures on their own.
deficient, the replacement has been a State/Federal funded process. , Engineer Hoffman
reminded the Council that the cost estimate presented at the meeting of May 21, 1984,
was for a particular type of structure and that staff has not spent time on developing
new estimated for alternative widths, depending on Council's action. If any action
is taken to approve the project, it should be as preliminary to staff bringing back
that the State Aid costs would be revised.. After discussion as to how to proceed,
Member Bredesen stated that he believed that the project is necessary, -that work needs
to be done on the bridge and that in response to concerns of the residents the street
should be kept as narrow as possible, but that he was concerned about having no parking
allowed an W. 44th Street. No further.comments being heard from the public, Member
Bredesen moved approval of Alternative 111, 28 feet wide (subject to State Aid approval
on traffic), with no parking allowed and funding through gas tax funds and standard
assessment. Motion was seconded by Member Turner. Member Richards asked if the . : -
intention would be to start the hearing process over if the State did not approve
the 28 foot width for funding by gas tax funds, or if the hearing would be continued
until-a response is received from the State. Member Bredesen stated that the motion.
was made on.the assumption that State..funding would be approved. .Discussion followed
on whether or not the public hearing should be continued.
positive action be taken to authorize the project at the 28 foot width and that if
the State then says no, to start the process over again.
that he felt it important that if the project is not approved by the State, that then
notice be given to the affected property owners for public hearing on-other alter-
natives. Member Bredesen stated he would withdraw the motion and Member Turner
withdrew the second.
He noted that during the past two weeks there
. '
!
I ---..-
8
Roselyn Sayre, 5013
Dennis Coyne, 4601 W. 44th Street,
I When structures have become
- final cost figures. He indicated that the proposed assessment would be the same but
Mr. Smith suggested that
Member Bredesen commented
I Member Bredesen thereupon offered the following resolution and
: moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-262
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:
I. CONSTRUCTION OF PERMANENT STREET SURFACING WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, SIDEWALK
AND BRIDGE UPLACEMENT IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-262 IN THE FOLLOWING:
West 44th Street from Brookside Terrace to T.H. 100
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 adivsed of
the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the construction of said
6/18/84
73
improvement as described in the published notice of said hearing, except that with
the roadway shall be 28 feet wide, including all proceedings which may be necessary
in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for con-
struction and maintenance of such improvement; that said improvement is hereby
designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as PERMANENT
STREET SURFACING WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-262 and the area to be specially assessed for a portion of the
cost of the proposed improvement shall include Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Arden Park
3rd Add'n; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 4, Arden Park 3rd Add'n; Lots 7, 8 and 17,
Aud. Sub'd. No. 176; and Lots 10 and 11, Thielen's Brookside Add'n.
Motion for adoption of the Resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
Member Bredesen then offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON
* S.A.P. 120-140-01 (WEST 44TH STREET) FROM BROOKSIDE TERRACE TO T.H. 100
IN THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the City of Edina has planned the improvement of MSAS 140 (West 44th Street)
from Brookside Terrace to T.H. 100, and
WHEREAS, the City of Edina will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the improve-
ment of the street, and
WHEREAS, this improvement does not provide adequate width for parking on both sides
of the street, approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid
project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions, and
WHEREAS, the extent of these restrictions that would be necessary prerequisite to
the approval of this construction as a Municipal State Aid project in' the City of
Edina has been determined;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City of Edina shall ban the parking
of motor vehicles on both sides of MSAS 140.(West 44th Street) at -all times.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR GUSTAFSON REPLAT OF LOT 5 , BLOCK 1, INDIAN HILLS NOT
GRANTED BASED ON FINDINGS, DECISION AND REASONS. Planner Hughes recalled that the
public hearing on preliminary plat approval for the Gustafson Replat of Lot 5,
Block 1, Indian Hills, had been continued from the Council Meeting of May 21, 1984.
It involves the subdivision of an existing developed single family lot into two
new building sites. The Council requested staff to prepare written Findings of
Fact, Decision and Reasons for the subdivision. Mr. Hughes stated the report has
been prepared for 'Council review and pointed out in the. Findings new testimony
submitted for the first time. No. 11 - Reports on the study done by the D.N.R.
concerning the ordinary high water mark of the lake which was estimated to-be-
875.8.Mean Sea Level, and also that based upon this elevation, the small pond on:
the southerly portion of the project was indeed part of Arrowhead Lake. No. 14 -
Reports on the area of the southerly lot that would be buildable if a..100 foot
conservation restriction abutting the lake were imposed as well as applying the
required front street setback from Indian Hills Road. Staff's computation was
that it would result in a buildable area of only approximately 675 square feet.
Mr. Hughes advised that the Findings conclude that the proposed subdivision should
be denied for the reasons as stated therein. He noted that included in the Council
packet was a copy of a letter from Jeff Gustafson, the proponent, requesting with-
drawal of the application for the subdivision of Lot 5, Block 1, Indian Hills. It
is the opinion of the staff that the matter should be.heard by Council. A note
which was hand delivered prior to the meeting again verified that Mr. Gustafson
had withdrawn from the plat, but that the owner of the property, Howard Bergerud,
wishes to continue with the subdivision and would be retaining separate legal
counsel.
the Findings , Decision and Reasons.
the applicant, was present or if he had made any request that the matter be
continued. Greg Gustafson, representing Jeff Gustafson, stated he was told that
the applicant preferred that it be postponed, that the applicant changed his
attorney this afternoon, and that neither the applicant or the attorney could
attend the meeting.
are no longer involved in the proposed subdivision. Attorney Erickson opined that
he knows of no reason why the Council should not act if it wishes to do so, and if
the application for subdivision has been reinstated as the most recent letter
requests, then it is appropriate for the Council to come to a decision.
ions being heard, Member Turner moved denial of the proposed subdivision of Lot 5,
Block 1, Indian Hills, based on the Findings, Decision and Reasons prepared by staff.
Motion'for denial of the subdivision was seconded by Member Bredesen.
Richards suggested that the Findings also state that Hbward Bergerud, the applicant,
appears to have known that he was the applicant of record, that he made no appear-
Mr. Hughes reiterated staff's recommendation that Council act to adopt
Member Richards .asked .if Howard Bergerud,
Greg Gustafson stated that he and his brother, Jeff Gustafson,
No object-
Member
ance and that he had not requested, either himself or through his attorney, that
this matter be continued, and no additional testimony or facts were presented.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS DECISION UPHELD;. LOT CQVERAGE VARIANCE RENIED FOB .--
4609 MOORLAND AVENUE.
to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hughes presented the appeal of Carol and
Robert Bossman with regard to a decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments on
May 3, 1984, involving a single family residence located at 4609 Moorland Avenue.
The request was for a 1.7 percent lot coverage variance to allow the construction of
a substantial addition to the existing house.
2,000 square feet of living area not including the basement and the addition will
contain approximately 1,800 square feet of living space.
of 9,950. square feet with a permitted lot coverage of 25 percent or 2,488 square feet.
The existing structure covers an area of 1,709 square feet or 17.2 percent of the lot.
The addition (including the garage) covers 947 square feet addition area for a total
coverage of 2,656 square feet or 26.7 percent.
is requested to permit 168 square feet of additional coverage. Mr. Hughes noted that
the neighborhood contains many similar conforming lots with dwellings of similar size
and age.
variances., There have been some lot coverage variances in the Country Club District.
However, those variances involved 50 to 60 foot wide non-conforming lots.
Zoning Ordinance is designed to eliminate most of the variances on substandard lots,
and would not have required variances if they were built or added to at .the present
time. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the proposed lot coverage was reduced in response
to the staff's suggestion prior to the Board of Appeals meeting, but the proponent
feels it cannot be reduced further in order to comply with the ordinance requirement.
When the request for lot coverage variance was heard by the Board on May 3, 1984, it
was the decision of the Board that the proponent did not meet the requirements of
the findings necessary for a variance and therefore denied the request.
Bossman, 4609 Moorland Avenue, advised that the planned addition to his house does
meet all standards and code with the exception of the lot coverage, and that the
request is for a 1.7 percent variance. Mr. Bossman presented a comparision of the
proposed lot coverage for the addition with lot coverage of homes in the immediate
vicinity.
the style and materials of the dwelling. A petition was also submitted signed by
surrounding property owners stating they did not object to the variance, and many
of the neighbors had appeared before the Board in support of the variance. He noted
that the neighbor at 4607 Moorland Avenue commented that they wanted a larger garage
than the proposed one.
large homes on small lots and were 1920-30 standard lots. Because of this, variances
have been given and he called attention to a variance granted in 1982 at 4614 Wooddale
Avenue for a one percent lot coverage for a lot very similar to the subject property.
He explained that they had been working on the proposed addition for the last four
years and had very carefully planned the addition to meet their family's increased
space needs.
but any further reduction would radically alter the design criteria. He concluded
that there was a built-in variance given in the code, it was given for houses under
9,000 square feet, there was hardship that was recognized, it applies to the east
Country Club area and that he found it incredible that that same hardship is any
different from this one.
Attorney Erickson then reviewed the statutory definition of undue hardship as it
applies to granting a variance. .
Zoning Ordinance Council had specifically discussed the 25% lot coverage and had
agreed that it was an appropriate percent, that in essence it was a guideline for
density and open space in the R-1 District. She stated that none of the evidence
presented in support of the variance persuaded her to look any differently at the
25 percent number and could not support the variance request. Member Bredesen corn-
mented that he felt the Country Club area is unique, but that probably no one would
again build houses of that size on lots of that size.
comments of Member Turner as to percent of lot coverage and was concerned about sub-
sequent requests if this variance was granted.
by Member Richards to move adoption of the following resolution:
Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as
I The existing dwelling has approximately
The subject lot has an area
A 1.7 percent lot coverage variance
Staff did not find in the immediate vicinity any history of lot coverage
The new
-
Robert
I . He stated that the proposed addition has been carefully designed to match
Mr. Bossman pointed out that the Country Club District has
The plans had been revised to reduce the lot coverage as much as possible
Mr. Bossman asked for Council's support af-.the-variance, '-
Member Turner recalled that in redrafting the
, '
' I- He stated he supported the
Member Turner's motion was seconded
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby concludes that the procedural
requirements of Ordinance No. 825- have been met ,- and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the decision by the Board of
to deny the variance request for Lot 5, Block 11, Country
Section (4609 Moorland Avenue) is upheld and the variance
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adqpted.
Appeals and Adjustments
Club District - Brown
should not be granted.
I
CITY OF EDINA I
I
. In the Matter of the Application of !
JEFFREY GUSTAFSON for a Subdivision of
Land Entitled GUSTAFSON REPLAT OF LOT 5,
BLOCK 1, INDIAN HILLS (S-84-3)
FINDINGS,
AND
DECISIONS,
REASONS .- . ..
The above entitled matter was heard before the City
Council, City of Edina, on May 7, 1984, May 21, 1984, and June
18, 1984. Jeffrey Gustafson ("Proponent") was present. Gregory
Gustafson, attorney for the Proponent, was present at all
hearings. The City Council, having heard and reviewed all of the
facts and arguments presented by the Proponent, his repre-
sentative, Ci-ty staff, and property owners in the vicinity of the
subject subdivision and their representatives, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponent, his
representatives, City staff, and property owners and their
representatives, and being fully advised, after due consi-
deration, hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT --
1. The Proponent, on February 17, 1984, submitted an
application for subdivision of a 141,700 square foot parcel of
land located west of Indian Hills Road and east of Mohawk Trail
extended. This tract of land (the "Subject Property") is a
platted lot, described as Lot 5, Block 1, Indian Hills, which was
platted in 1948. An existing single dwelling unit building is
located in the north central portion of the Subject Property.
The Subject Property adjoins and extends into Arrowhead Lake.
According to City records, the Subject Property is owned by
Howard Bergerud.
2. The subdivision, as submitted with the application
for, subdivision on February 17, 1984, delineated three, R-1, I
single dwelling unit lots. On February 22, 1984, prior to any c
official consideration of the proposal, the Proponent submitted a
modified subdivision (the "Proposed Subdivision) delineating only
two R-1 lots. Lot 1 of the Proposed Subdivision m'easured 91,600' -- -..- -
I
square feet and Lot 2 measured 50,100 square feet. These
measurements included portions of the Subject Property located
within Arrowhead Lake. The Proponent indicated that if the -I
Proposed Subdivision were approved, the existing dwelling located
on the 'Subject Property would be demolished and two new dwellings
would be constructed.
. --
.- - - .- .. .
.-
3. The Edina Community Development and Planning
Commission (the "Commission") reviewed the Proposed Subdivision
at its February 29, 1984, meeting. Several property owners
residing in the vicinity of the Subject Property were present and
spoke in opposition to the Proposed Subdivision'citing issues
. concerning density, terrain, decreased property values, neighbor-
hood stability and conformance with the City of Edina
I
Comprehensive Plan. The Proponent's representative described the
Proposed Subdivision and requested approval noting that a similar
subdivision had recently been approved for the adjoining lot to
the south. The Commission recommended denial of the Proposed
Subdivision.
4. On March 23, 1984, the Proponent submitted a plan
showing a relocation of the comrllon lot line between Lots 1 and 2
of.the Proposed Subdivision. The effect of the relocation was to
increase the area of Lot 2 from 50,100 square feet to 67,700
square feet and decrease the area of Lot 1 from.91,600 square
feet to 74,000 square feet.
.-. . , . .
5. On May 7, 1984, the Edina City Council conducted a
public hearing and received the report and recommendation Of the
Commission regarding the Proposed Subdivision. The Council also
reviewed the revised Proposed Subdivision as submitted on March
23, 1984. Pursuant to applicable ordinances, notice of the May
7th, meeting was given by mailed notice to owners of property
within 200 feet of the Subject Property. At said hearing,
surrounding property owners and their representatives testified
in opposition to the Proposed Subdivision. Among the issues
submitted in their testimony were:
A. the character and symmetry of the neighborhood would
be adversely impacted;
Bo the need for the consistency of decision making,
recognizing early intentions of the original plats, and
guidelines for evaluating subdivisions;
C. the need for positive support from adjoining
landowners for subdivisions;
D. the steep terrain of the Subject Property limits the
potential for subdivision;
E. an undesirable precedent would be established which
would lead to other subdivisions; and
F. protective covenants are- .in existence through 1988
which restrict the subdivision of lots in Indian Hills.
The Proponent testified in support of the Proposed
Subdivision noting that the proposed lots are very large and the' .- . .- -
distance between the proposed dwellings would be 100 feet,
thereby preserving the spaciousness of the neighborhood. The
Proponent also noted that the City recently approved a
subdivision of the adjoining lot (Lot 3, Block 1, Indian Hills)
which was very similar to the Proposed Subdivision as to size,
shape and location. The Proponent opined that it would be unfair
i
to now deny the Proposed Subdivision. The City Council,
thereupon, continued the hearing to May 21, 1984, and, requested
City staff to analyze existing lot in the vicinity of the
Subject Property, review setbacks of existing dwellings from
Arrowhead Lake, and clarify the reasons cited by the Commission
sizes
I
in recommending denial. The Council also noted that areas
located within the bed of Arrowhead Lake should be excluded from
lot size computations as such areas do not contribute to the
perceived size of the lot.
6. On May 21, 1984, the City Council again conducted a
public hearing concerning the Proposed Subdivision. City staff
reported that- an analysis of lot sizes in the area had been
undertaken and presented the results of that analysis to the City
Council.
An updated survey of the Subdect Property was also
!
presented by the Proponent that verified the area of the lots in
the Proposed Subdivision exclusive of areas within Arrowhead I Lake. Said survey also verified the location of the shoreline of
Arrowhead Lake as it related to the Subject Property. City, staff' -- "-- '
also presented exhibits showing the approximate setback of other
existing dwellings from Arrowhead Lake. A summary of the reasons
cited by the Commission in recommending denial of the Proposed
Subdivison was also given. Several surrounding property owners
appeared at the hearing and again testified in opposition to the
Proposed Subdivision. Two individuals appeared and testified in
support of the Proposed Subdivision. The Proponent appeared and
testified in support of the Proposed Subdivision noting that the
proposed lots were comparable in size to other lots in the arear
. the proposed lots were buildable, adequate setbacks from
Arrowhead Lake would be provided, and that the City should treat
this case in a fair and equal way consistent with' the recently
approved subdivision of the adjoining lot.
I
The City Council also reviewed the effect of the grant of
a conservation restriction or perpetual easement covering a 100
foot wide strip of land adjoining Arrowhead Lake as required by
Edina Ordinance No.. 801, the Platting Ordinance.
7. The area of Lot 1 of the revised Proposed Subdivision
as determined by the Proponent's surveyor is 38,700 square feet
and the area of Lot 2 is 34,500 square feet excluding that
por.tion of the proposed lots located-wi.thin the bed of Arrowhead 'I
Lake, as determined by the Proponent's surveyor.
8. Edina Ordinance No, 825, the "Zoning Ordinance"
imposes the following minimum standards for single dwelling- unit- -. -9 -.
lots:
Minimum Lot Area - 9,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width - 75 feet
Minimum Lot Depth - 120 feet
The dimensions and areas of Lots 1 and 2 of the revised
Proposed Subdivision comply with the above standards,
- The Zoning Ordinance defines "lot area" as follows:
"The area within the lot lines exclusive of land located
below the ordinary high water elevation of lakes, Ponds
and streams,1t
9, Within a 1,000 foot radius of the Subject Property,
the average area of existing platted lots is approximately 40,500
square feet and the median area is approximately 34,500 square
feet. The average area of existing platted lots adjoining
Arrowhead Lake is approximately 42,000 square feet and the median
area is approximately 32,000 square feet. These measurements
exclude portions of lots located within the bed of Arrowhead
Lake, -.
8 10, Edina Ordinance No, 801, the "Platting Ordinance"
provides :
"Where any plat, replat or subdivision of land adjoins a
% natural lake, pond or stream, including streams which
flow only intermittently, a strip of land running along
all sides thereof which are contiguous to such lake, Pond
stream, which strip shall extend from a line 100 feet -or
upland from the lake or pond, as measured from the high
water mark, and 100 feet from the centerline of the
stream, and to and including the bed and water body of
such lake, pond, or stream, shall be either (i) dedicated
to the .-City for public use, or (ii) subjected to a
perpetual easement in favor of the City over and in said
land and the bed and water body of such lake, pond or
stream for the purpose of. protecting the hydraulic
efficiency and the natural character and beauty of such
lake, pond or stream."
Arrowhead Lake is a natural lake within the meaning of
the foregoing Ordinance.
The City has accepted grants of Conservation Restrictions
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 84.64, in lieu of a
perpetual easement as required by the Platting Ordinance. The
construction of improvements within. areas subject to a
Conservation Restriction is prohibited.
11. The Minnesota Department of Natural gesources
("D.N.R. 'I) conducted an Ordinary High Water Level investigation. .-_ . *.- -
f.or Arrowhead Lake on June 1, 1984. The purpose of this
investigation was to determine the ordinary high water mark of
the lake as referred to in the Platting Ordinance and to
determine if a small inlet which adjoins the Subject Property on
the south is part of Arrowhead Lake or if it is a separate and
distinct water body. Based upon its investigation, the D.N.R.
estimated the Ordinary High Water Level of Arrowhead Lake to be
875.8 Mean Sea Level (M.S.L.) and determined that, based upon
this elevation, the small inlet was part of Arrowhead Lake and
not a separate and distinct water body.
-
12. The present elevation of Arrowhead Lake as
determined by the Proponent's surveyor is 873 M.S.L.
13. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the front street
setback for new buildings must be consistent with the established
average setback observed by existing buildings in the area. City
staff has determined that the required front street setback for
new buidings constructed on Lots 1 and 2 of the Proposed
Subdivision is 82 feet.
14. If a Conservation Restriction were granted to the
City as required by the Platting Ordinance and if the required
front street setback of 82 feet and a required side yard setback
of 10 feet were provided, the buildable area of Lot 2 of 'the
*.
Proposed Subdivision would be approximately 675 square feet. The I
dimensions of this buildable area are approximately 13, feet by 50.
feet.
._. .,_ .
15. Lot 3, Block 1, Indian Hills adjoins the Subject
Property to the southwest. A subdivision of this property
entitled Indian Hills Peterson Addition (the “Peterson Addition”)
was approved by the City Council on February 6, 1984. According
to the Proponent’s surveyor, the Peterson Addition created two
lots measuring 45,800 square feet and 22,200 square feet in area.
The larger lot was retained for an existing dwelling on the
property and the smaller lot was intended for a new homesite.
The topography of the new homesite is nearly level. The existing
dwelling on the larger lot was constructed prior to,the provision
of the Platting Ordinance requiring the dedication of a 100 foot
strip of land adjoining the lake and, therefore, this dwelling is
located within the area normally subject to a Conservation
Restriction or perpetual easement. City Staff has determined
that the buildable area of the new lot in Peterson Addition is
approximately 4,600 square feet based upon-a required front
street setback of 65 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet and a
100 foot wide Cpnservation Restriction adjoining the lake. The
dimensions of this buildable area are approximately 58 feet by 75
feet. I -.
16. On March 5, 1979, the City Council denied a proposed
two lot subdivision of Lot 2, McCauley Heights First Addition
which is locate1 in the southeast quadrant of Indian Hills Road
and Arrowhead Pass. This lot is located approximately 1,000 feet-
westerly of the Subject Property and measures approximately
54,500 square feet in area. On May 16, 1977, the City Council
denied a proposed two-lot subdivision of 'Lot 2, Block 1, McCauley
Heights 4th Addition which is located east of McCauley Trail and
south of McCauley Circle and adjoins Arrowhead Lake. This
property measured approximately 37,000 square feet in area.
__
- 17. The Platting Ordinance states that the City Council,
in approving plats shall consider, among other things, the
suitability of plats from the standpoint of community planning.
18. The Edina Comprehesive Plan adopted by the City
Council on December 12, 1981, states the following general
policies :
Allow further subdivision of developed single family lots
only if neighborhood character and symmetry are
preserved.
Require increased minimum lot sizes for single family and
two family dwelling lots on steep slopes.
I
-.- .-
Require the dedication of or the grant of a scenic and
open space easement over all land adjacent to an 100 feet
upland of naturally occuring lakes and ponds . in
-.
conjunction with the subdivision or development of
property. .- ..-
19. The Comprehensive Plan states the following policies
concerning subdivisions in southwest Edina where the Subject
. Property is located:
Require
maintain
symmetry
Utilize
that all subdivisions of larger developed lots
a desirable spacing of dwellings to ensure the
and character of the area.
topography and vegetation characteristics as a
basis for determining suitable lot sizes.
20. The Zoning Ordinance provides for variances from the
requirements of the Ordinance, but only upon finding, among other
required to
circumstances unique to his property which were not created by
findings, that the "plight of the petitioner is due
' the petitioner."
21. Lot 2 of the Proposed Subdivision exhibits slopes
exceeding 25%.
22. Prior to the public hearing on June 18, 1984, all
the City Council individually inspected the Subject
surrounding neighborhood.
-.
23. Proponent, at the Council meeting of May 7 and May
21, 1984, agreed to such extensions of time as may be necessary. ._ .. ..
for Council to act on the Proposed Subdivision.
THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, the City
Council does hereby make the following:
Decision: I
The application for the Proposed Subdivision entitled
Gustafson Replat of Lot 5, Block 1, Indian Hills is hereby
denied.
The above decision is made for the following:
Reasons :
A. The Proposed Subdivision is contrary to the policies
of the Comprehensive Plan concerning the further subdivision of
large, developed lots. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan
can, even must, be considered in deciding whether, or not to
approve subdivisions.
B. Property owners in the vicinity of- the Subject
Property should have the right to rely upon the filed plat
entitled Indian Hills and should rightly presume that any
modification or replatting of said plat will be suitable . and
-.
compatible with surrounding properties and that the
and character of the Indian Hills area will be preserved.
spaciousness
.&- . -.
~ ci- .-_ --
C. The small inlet adjoin,ing the southerly portion Of
the Subject Property is part of Arrowhead, Lake. The grant of a
.I Conservation Restriction over that portion' of the Subject
..
::
Property adjacent to and 100 feet upland from the entire
shoreline of Arrowhead Lake should be required if the Subject
Property is subdivided. The grant of such a Conservation
Restriction is required by the Platting Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan.
-
t
D. Lot 2 of the Proposed Subdivision would contain a
buildable area of only approximately 675 square, with dimensions
of approximately 13 feet by 50 feet, due to the required front
street setback,required side yard setback and the location of the
required Conservation Restriction. This buildable area is not
* .- i
large enough to accommodate a new single dwelling unit building
without the grant of substantial variances from setback
requirements or permission to encroach into the Conservation
: Restriction area. The need for variances is created only by
Petitioner's own request for approval of the Proposed
1
I Subdivision, and therefore, does not meet the criteria
established by the Zoning Ordinance for the granting of
variances; but approval of the proposed Subdivision would be- --
implied approval of the variances.
. .-
E. Although the lots in the 'Proposed Subdivision are
similar in area to some lots in the vicinity, other factors,
including setback requirements I the requirement for a Conser-
vation Restriction, and the presence of steep slopes, impose
severe limitations to the development of Lot 2 of the Proposed
Subdivision which thereby make the construction of a dwelling On
this lot unfeasible without the grant of variances, which
variances would adversely impact the character and symmetry of
the neighborhood..
F. The Subject Property is not unusually or uncharacter-
istically large compared to other lots in the vicinity. Within a
1,000 foot radius of the Subject Property, over one-third of the
lots inventoried exceed one acre in area and several exceed one
and one-half acres. The spaciousness afforded by the Subject
Property adds more than an insignificant value to its use as one
homesite, for which use it is now, and can be, used.
G. Therefore, approval of the Proposed Subdivision could
establish a precedent encouraging the replatting of lots with
similar facts and circumstances which would adversely alter the I
character and symmetry of the neighborhood contrary to the
'.
f
z
'policies of the Comprehensive Plan. I '
H. Some 'of the facts associated with the Subject. - .- -.
Property are shared by Peterson Addition to the south. In
retrospect, these facts perhaps should have led to a'denial of
the Peterson Addition. However, the Peterson Addition differed
from the Proposed Subdivision in two significant ways. First, an
adequate and feasible building site existed on the new lot in the
Peterson Addition ' without the apparent need for encroachments
into the required front street setback or the area normally
subject to a Conservation Restriction. Second, the new homesite
was characterized by level topography. Even if a denial of the
Peterson Addition would have been appropriate, failure to so deny
should not now require the City to approve the Proposed
Subdivision which conflicts with the Comprehensive 'Plan and City
*
Ordinances.
c
I
6/18/84
a
FIRST EADING GRANTED FOR R-2 DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT (ORDINANCE NO. 825-A4) ,
FOR INDIAN HILLS 2ND ADDITION; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED. Affidavits of Notice were
presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hughes
presented the petition for rezoning of Indian Hills 2nd Addition, generally located
west of Gleason Road and south of McCauley Trail West.
measures 4.5 acres in area and is zoned R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District.
property is now part of the Crossview Lutheran Church site which encompasses about
14 acres.
for subdivision of the property into ten lots and the rezoning of the lots to R-2
Double Dwelling Unit District.
noted that the major constraint to the development of the site is the location of
the wetland located along the southerly portion of the property.
been classified by the Department of Natural Resources as a "public water".
such, the filling or alteration of this wetland is restricted.and subject to the
grant-of a permit from the D.N.R.
formally reviewed by the D.N.R., it appears to comply with the grading plan and
grading permit issued by the D.N.R. several years ago. Thus, the proposed develop-
ment appears feasible from the wetland standpoint. Mr. Hughes advised that the
subject property is presently designated "quasi-public" by the Comprehensive Plan
and if the rezoning request is considered, the Plan should be formally amended
to designate this property as "low density attached".
as other properties which presently front on McCauley Trail.
also show a preliminary layout of a future parking lot on the property which will
be retained by the Church.
to approval as part of the subdivison, it is apparently shown to indicate that the
Church is satisfied with the potential which remains on their site for expansion.
It should be noted that parking lot expansions as well as building expansions
require the grant of conditional use permits.
Planning Commission at its meeting of May 30, 1984.
that time the suggestion by staff that the subdivision be reduced from nine lots
which front on McCauley Trail to seven lots. Lot 10 was originally shown along
Commission also reviewed a proposal that was submitted the night of the meeting
which was a compromise to reduce the nine lots to eight lots providing lot widths
of 100 feet which complies with the Zoning Ordinance but is somewhat less than
double lots north of the Crosstown Highway in the Gleason Court Addition and
others that front on McCauley Trail. The Commission concluded that the plat
should encompass seven lots and agreed with staff's recommendation that Lot 10
should be eliminated by extending the lot lines for the seven lots to the south
property line. In essence, each owner would own part of the wetland and therefore
Lot 10 would not be subject to further subdivision or tax forfeiture. The Com-
mission also agreed with the recommendation that Crossview Lutheran Church should
dedicate the westerly 34 feet of the church property for public road purposes to
serve the Naas property which lies south of the church building.
the Naas property has an access problem for future development.
strip of land adjoining the west side of the church property connects.the Naas
property to McCauley Trail.
Robert Naas, staff's concern was that the property could be conveyed to others.
Although future public road access to the Naas property could come from Post Lane
to the west, the topography in the area would make such a road extremely steep.
The Commission also recommended that the church now be required to connect to
sanitary sewer. The City ordinance requires hookup within two years of-sewer
availability.
rezoning and the 7-lot subdivision of the site, subject to these-conditions:
1) subdivision dedication, 2) developer's agreement which includes the extention
of sanitary sewer to the site, 3) conservation restriction covering the wetland
area, 4) grant of easement to facilitate storm sewer.extentions, 5) grant of a
D.N.R. permit, and 6) petition to install permanent street surfacing and curb and
gutter on McCauley Trail West abutting the R-2 lots. Engineer Hoffman pointed
out that the developer's agreement would also require construction of a lift
station. Charles Sedgwick, 6124 Abbott Avenue, stated he is chairman of the
Building Committee for Cross View Lutheran Church.
had been prepared for the Council regarding conditions to be imposed by the City
in connection with the proposed rezoning and subdivision.
connection to sewer extension.- The Church requests that the sewer connection
be required at the time of the church facilities expansion.
requests a compromise of eight lots in the proposed plat. Item #3 - 34 feet of
westerly Cross View property for street right-of-way - The Church suggests that
when the Nass property-is platted, they should deed a fifty foot strip along their
north border to the Church as compensation. As an alternate, the Church would
accept.a 34 foot strip of the east side of the Naas property, again abutting the
Church property.
The subject property
The
The request before the Community Development and.Planning Commission was
The new lots would front on McCauley Trail. He
That wetland has
As
Although a specific permit request has not been
That designation is the same
The proponent's plans
Although this parking lot is not now proposed or subject
The subdivision was reviewed by the
The Commission considered at
. the southerly portion of the site and was not intended to be buildable. The
In staff's view,
A 16 foot wide
Although there is other property in the area owned by
Mr. Hughes advised that the Commission recommended approval of the
He reviewed a letter which
Item #l - Church
Item #2 - The Church
All costs of developing a road should be born by the developer.
6/18/84
The Church should be permitted to have access from this road and should be granted
a variance in setback and permitted parking up to the road right-of-way.
Nadasdy, Pastor of Cross View Lutheran Church, briefly explained that the Church
has been planning to the year 1990 with regard to ministeries of the Church.
major programs are planned: 1) Pre-school and Day Care Center and 2) Christian
Family Life Center.as their effort to the community.
sees the rezoning of the subject property as the major contingency for sale of
the land to provide funds for the Church's planned expansion. -He voiced concern
of the time span required for the public road. Mr. Hughes responded that con-
struction of a public road would depend on development of the Naas property and
that the City would not promote such development by constructing the road.
Nadasdy also pointed out that the Church would benefit financially if 8 lots are
approved for the Plat. Discussion then followed on the issue of future access to
the Naas property and the staff recommendation that the westerly 34 feet of the -
church property should be subject to a public road easement. Member Richards asked
for an explanation of the recommendation. Mr. Hughes responded that when property
is proposed for subdivision that as part of the planning process an attempt is made
to lay the groundwork for proper:access to other undeveloped properties for public
road purposes, and that from a planning standpoint this was viewed as the best way
to access the Naas property.
states that when considering a proposed plat it must be looked at from the point of
view of community planning, i.e. does it further community planning.
is providing access roads in locations that seem best suited and acquiring them at
an opportune time. Member Turner suggested that the rezoning be approved and that
the negotiating between the Church and Mr. Nass could continue.
commented that these are private negotiations and that the City should not be involved.
Member Bredesen pointed out that if an agreement cannot be reached, the City still
has the ability to acquire right.of-way for public road purposes by eminent domain.
Mr. Sedgwickstated that it was important to get the rezoning because of timing
for the project and asked for a compromise of 8 lots for the plat. Calvin Kuhlman,
member of Cross View Church, asked that the Council act on the petition for rezoning
and platting and that the issue of the road easement be temporarily deferred.
Bredesen submitted that the negotiation for the road easement be worked out by the
parties involved on their own time frame and that the project be al-lowed to progress
without approval of the recommendation that there be a dedication to the City for a
follows :
Dean
Two
He affirmed that the Church
I Pastor
Attorney Erickson pointed out that the ordinance
Another aspect -
Member Richards
Member
I - roadway. Member Bredesen then offered Ordinance No. 825-A4 for First Reading as
ORDINANCE NO. 825-A4
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 825)
BY ADDING TO THE DOUBLE DTJELLING UNIT DISTRICT (R-2)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1.
"The extent of the Double Dwelling Unit District (R-2) is enlarged by the
addition of the following property:
Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding : 2
the f ollotiing thereto :
That part of Lot 24, Block 1, The Timbers lying East of a line described
as follows;
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 24, thence on an assumed
bearing of South 80 degrees 20 minutes 48 seconds East, along the North
line of said Lot 24, a distance of 702.47 feet to the point of beginning
of the line to be described; thence South 9 degrees 39 minutes 12 seconds
West a distance of 140.00 feet; thence South 22 degrees 20 minutes 50 seconds
East a distance of 167 feet to the South line of said Lot 24 and there
terminating. .
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and
publication.
Member Bredesen offered the following resolution and moved its adoption for preliminary
approva1:of a seven lot-plat, subject to conditions as recommended by.staff/Planning
Commission, subject-.to the Church connecting to the sanitary sewer within two years
from availability, except that the recommendation for a public..road easement- of the
westerly 34 feet of the Church property be not ratified by Council:
__- I RESOLUTION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF
INDIAN HILLS 2ND ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain
plat entitled "Indian Hills 2nd Addition", platted by Gustafson and Associates, a
Minnesota Corporation, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of
June 18, 1984, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
CI, *-, v I
6/18/84
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED FOR SOUTHDALE LIBRARY AND SERVICE CENTER (PARKING
LOT EXPANSION).
and ordered placed on file.
County Southdale Library, located at 7001 York Avenue, for a Conditional Use Permit
to allow expansion of their off-street parking facility.
County proposes to undertake a renovation of portions of the building to accommodate
new municipal court facilities which will occupy that portion now used for admin-
istrative and technical services.
courtrooms and staff offices. The proposed renovation will be completely internal
and will not result in expansion of the building's floor area.
requires 10 parking spaces plus one space per 300 square feet for library uses and
one space per 200 square for offices and courtrooms. Staff has reviewed the plans
2nd has calculated a parking requirement of 360 spaces. The present parking lot
provides 360 spaces, therefore, no additional spaces need be constructed in connect-
ion with the renovation to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hughes advised
that the applicant has conducted additional studies and has concluded that more
parking is desirable and therefore, proposes to expand portions of the parking lot
southerly and easterly to provide approximately 70 additional spaces. Setbacks
for the expanded lot would be 10 feet from the south property line and 24 feet from
the east line (Xerxes Avenue). The subject property is zoned R-1 Single Family
Dwelling Unit District. Civic institutions are considered a conditional use in
the R-1 District. Therefore, according to the Zoning Ordinance, a Conditional Use
Permit is required prior to any such use being increased in floor area or any
accessory parking lot being expanded. In this case, the parking lot expansion
requires a Conditional Use Permit.
conducted to justify the parking needs of the facility and would encourage the
applicant to provide a comfort margin of parking for the proposed new' use.
proposed parking expansions complies with all other requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance concerning setbacks and other dimensions and the lot will be adequately
screened by substantial landscaping.
the Ordinance have been met and staff would recommend approval of the permit.
The Community Development and Planning Commission at its meeting of May 30, 1984,
recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Member Turner offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form
Planner Hughes presented the request of the Hennepin
He advised that Hennepin
The municipal court facility will include three
The Zoning Ordinance
Staff believes that adequate studies have been
The
All findings required by Section 4D of
No objections being heard,
RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the procedural requirements of Ordinance No:825 have been met, and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Findings as required by Ordinance No. 825
have been satisfied;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby grants a Condi-
tional Use Permit to Hennepin County Southdale Library and Service Center, at
7000-7009 York Avenue, for a seventy space expansion of the surface parking lot
according to plans submitted.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen..
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
H.R.A./COUNCIL JOINT MEETING CONVENED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON GRANDVIEW AREA
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN.
Attorney Erickson advised that State Statute requies that a public hearing be
conducted by the Council on the Grandview Area Redevelopment- Plan, Redevelop-
ment Project and Tax Increment Plan. Member Richards' motion was seconded by
Member Bredesen to convene a joint meeting of the H.R.A. and the Council to hear
the Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan, Redevelopment Project and Tax Increment
Financing Plan.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
Affidavit of Publication in the Edina Sun on May 30, 1984, was presented by Clerk,
approved as to form and ordered placed on file. .
the proposed Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan and the Grandview Redevelopment
Project No.. 1, advising that together the Plan and Project serve as the basis for
the establishment of a tax increment financing project for the Grandview Area.
The area is 'generally bounded by T.H. 100 on the easterly side, Vernon Avenue on
the northerly and westerly sides, and Edenmoor Avenue on the southerly side.
Redevelopment Plan and Project were considered by the Community Development and
Planning Commission at its May 30, 1984, meeting and the Commission recommended
adoption by the H.R.A. and the Council. Mr. Larsen advised that in order to meet
the statutory requirements for the establishment of a tax increment district two
documents are needed. First, the Redevelopment Plan which describes existing
conditions, documents problems in the area, and recommends certain
activities to correct problems and achieve goals and objectives established for
the area. Second, the Redevelopment Project which serves as the finance plan for
redevelopment activities.
cf financing the cost, and the tax increment expected to repay the tax increment
bonds. Mr. Larsen pointed out that Section I1 of the Plan describes existing
Planner Craig Larsen presented
The
It estimates the public cost of the project, the method
6/18/84 ~
problems in the Plan Area including a substantial quantity of substandard build-
ings, non-conforming buildings and land uses, obsolete uses, and under utilized
properties.
ing in the commercial core of the area are also identified.
and circulation problems set forth in the "Grandview Area Traffic Study'', prepared
by BRW, Inc., are incorporated into the Plan. Based upon these problems, the Plan
concludes that certain redevelopment activities are warranted. Among the goals and
objectives set forth in the Plan are: 1) To promote development and redevelopment
in a manner consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, 2) To
improve the efficiency of the street system through implement of the road improve-
ments recommended in the "Grandview Area Traffic Study", 3) To promote and secure
additional public parking in the area, and 4) To promote and secure the develop-
ment of parcels with substandard and non-conforming buildings to more clearly define-
land uses and provide a more efficient utilization.
improving the aesthetics and definition of the area through increased buffering,
especially landscaping. Mr. Larsen advised that the Redevelopment Project No. 1
anticipates a total public redevelopment cost of approximately $4,500,000.
will be paid by the issuance of General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds and through
special assessments against benefitting properties.
over 25 years. Public costs include the roadway improvements to Vernon Avenue and
the construction of a 400-stall, four level parking ramp on the site now housing
storage facilities for the City. Expected private redevelopment includes redevelop-
ment of the Biltmore Motel site with condominiums, increased retail and office space
near Jerry's complex, redevelopment of three single family houses with eight town-
house units, and redevelopment of the area containing the Biltmore Bowl, Jerry
Leonards and a small office building with additional office space. A later redevelop-
ment would involve the railroad property and the industrial area south of Eden Avenue.
Mr. Larsen explained that the Plan is proposed to be undertaken in two or more
phases. Phase I of the project would involve the following public costs: 1) Demo- ___-
lition of existing City storage buildings and construction of a two level parking
ramp (approximately 200 spaces) with the ground floor reserved for City storage,
2) Road improvements referred to as Issue Area 1 in the Traffic Study, i.e. the
Sherwood, Eden, Vernon intersection and Link Road, and 3) Construction of a major
new intersection serving Jerrys, First Bank and Union 76, including access to the
parking ramp.
It is proposed that 20% of the cost be specially assessed, leaving $2,150,000 for
which bonds would be sold.
25 years with the tax increment provided by redevelopment and a general inflation
increment on the 51 parcels in the District.
the involvement of-private redevelopment in the area, the amortization period,
the inflation factor, hearings on improvement projects to be assessed to property
owners in the district, funding for the City's storage facility and why the Plan and
Project are proposed at this time. No objections being heard, Commissioner kL6hards
gntroduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
The arrangement of public parking and the inadequate amount of park-
In addition, traffic
I The Plan also emphasizes
This cost
The bonds would be amortized
I. The total public cost of the Phase I project would be $2,556,000.
The bond issue would be amoritized over a period of
The Council.and staff then discussed
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE GRANDVIEU AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN,
GRANDVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TO BE UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT
THERETO AND THE GRANDVIEW TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN;
APPROVING THE GRANDVIEW AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND GRANDVIEW
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TO BE UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT THERETO,
THE GRANDVIEW TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN AND THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE GRANDVIEW TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT, AND
REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Edina, Minnesota (the "HRA") , as follows :
1. It has been proposed that the HRA approve a redevelopment plan, as defined
in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.421, subdivision 15, to be designated as the
Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan"), and a redevelop-
ment project to be undertaken pursuant thereto, as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.421, subdivision 13, to be designated as Grandview Redevelopment
Project No. 1 (.the "Project"), and that in order to finance the public redevelop-
ment costs to be incurred by the HRA in connection with the Redevelopment Plan and
Project, it has been further proposed that the HRA approve a tax increment financ-
ing plan, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, to be
designated as Grandview Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Financing Plan") which
establishes a tax increment financing district, as defined in Ninnesota Statutes,
Section 273.73, subdivision 9, to be designated as Grandview Tax Increment Fi-
nancing District (the "District").
2. The Redevelopment Plan, the Project, the Financing Plan and the District are
described in the attached documents entitled "Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan"
and "Grandview Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be Undertaken Pursuant to the Grand-
view Area Redevelopment Plan and Grandview Tax Increment Financing Plan of the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Edina, Minnesota," and
the Redevelopment Plan, the Project, the Financing Plan and the District as so
described are hereby approved, and the Executive Director of the HRA and the
.
I
6/18/84
m
Kr
Qo
c) m 5
attorney for the HRA are hereby authorized and directed to proceed with the im-
plementation of the Redevelopment Plan, the Project, the Financing Plan and the
District.
3. The Redevelopment Plan and the Project were transmitted to the Community De-
velopment and Planning Commission (the "Commission") for its review and opinion.
The Commission reviewed the Redevelopment Plan and Project on May 30, 1984, and
adopted a resolution recomnending adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and Pro-
ject.
4. The Redevelopment Plan, the Project, the Financing Plan and the District,
together with the written opinion of the Commission, have been presented to the
pur ant -0 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.521 and the Financing Plan pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.521 and the Financing Plan pursuant to Minne-
sota Statutes, Section 273.74, and subdivision 3.
-=iyfor a public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan and the Project I
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Commissioner Turner.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
Member Richards then offered the following resolution and moved its. adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANDVIEW AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
GRANDVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TO BE UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT
!THERETO AND THE GRANDVIEW TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE
GRANDVIEW TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT, MAKING FINDINGS AND
REQUESTING CERTIFICATION OF THE GRANDVIEW TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT
. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota as follows:
1.. This Council has received the written opinion of the City Planning Commis-
sion as to the Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan (the Redevelopment Plan) and
Grandview Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the Project) and Grandview Tax Incre-
ment Financing Plan (the Tax Increment Financing Plan) for Grandview Tax Incre-
ment District (the District), and on June 18, 1984, held a public hearing on
the same after notice of the public hearing was published in the Edina Sun,
the official newspaper of the City, on the 30th day of May, 1984. All persons
desiring to be heard were heard.
2.
scope of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.421, subdivision 13. The Project will
contribute to the public health, safety and welfare.
3. This Council finds that the District is a redevelopment district within the
scope of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, subdivision 10, as seventy percent
(70%) of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utili-
ties or other improvements and at least twenty percent (20%) of the buildings
in the District contain defects in structural elements or a combination of
deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire
protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of internal parti-
tions or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total
s4-gnificance to justify substantial renovation or clearance, and at least- an
additional thirty percent (30%) of the buildings in the District require
substantial renovation or clearance in order to remove such existing conditions
as inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships,
overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, .obsolete
buildings not suitable for inprovement or conversion.
4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.521, it is hereby found that:
(A) The land located within the Project area would not be made available
for redevelopment without financial aid sought;
(B) The Redevelopment Plan for the redevelopment area within the City in-
cluded therein will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of such areas by private
enterprise; and
of the City as a whole.
5. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, subdivision 3, it is hereby
found that:
(A)
utes,. Section 273.73, subdivision 10.
(B) The proposed development in the opinion of this Council would not occur
solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and
therefor the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary.
I
This Council finds that the Project is a redevelopment project within the
(C) The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the general plan for the development
I
The District is a redevelopment district as defined in Minnesota Stat-
6/18/84
.._
-.. 80
(C)
(D)
The Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the devel-
opment of the City as a whole.
The Tax Increment Financing Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent
with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development of the District by
private enterprise.
The City elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minne-
sota Statutes, Section 273.76, subdivision 3, clause (a).
6.
thorities in the County of Hennepin establish a tax increment financing district
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74 for the premises in the City de-
scribed in the Tax Increment Financing Plan.
(E)
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to request that the appropriate au-
._
Attest:
%&.uJL=%!! L2z.L.L
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
Member Bredesen's motion was seconded by Member Turner to adjourn the Joint Meeting of
the Council and the H.R.A.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
REPORT GIIEN ON METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION:
introduced William Barbeau, advising that he represents six southwestern municipal-
ities, including Edina, on the Metropolitan Council's Parks and Open Space Commission.
Mr. Barbeau stated that he has met with the Park and Recreation Board of the cities
represented and is now appearing before the councils for input on regional issues
and how the Commission might impact local government. He noted that the regional
parks are under utilized and that because of the amount of money that has been
expended the Commission is trying to get feedback as to why they are not being used.
The Commission is currently going through a policy revision plan and will be looking at
a number of issues and will be conducting public hearings for formal reaction from
councils and park and recreation boards. Mr. Barbeau then reviewed some of the major
issues: :special nses,.operations. andmaintenance funding, charging of fees, status of
local open space and Council's involvement, level of municipal participation and
control in regional open space. Member Richards asked thatxesources on these issues
be coordinated through the Edina Park Board for discussion so that feedback could be
provided. No fonhal action was taken.. -
Mr. Kojetin
I
-1 - --. _- -
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF 6/12/84 REVIEWED; APPROVED IN PART.
explained that with regard to the Traffic Safety Committee's recommendation for
signalization of the intersection of Vernon Avenue and Blake Road that it.is proposed
to hold a public hearing on the issue during September, 1984.
mendation for support of the upgrade of West 66th Street at Xerxes Avenue, he advised
that some of the commercial developments, notably the Carlson Company, disagreed with
the Hennepin County plan and had independent engineers draw up an alternative for
review by Hennepin County, Richfield and Edina. The Committee reviewed the revised
plan and discussed its impact.
and of main concern to Edina is the safety of West 66th Street at Xerxes Avenue and
entrylegress to the Perkins Restaurant.
plan provided that: 1) through and left turn movements at Xerxes Avenue be prohibited,
and 2) entry to Perkins be maintained from both eastbound and westbound traffic.
Member Richards suggested that action be deferred on the issue of West 66th Street
until an agreement is reached by all affected commercial developments.
Bredesen's motion was seconded by Member Turner toLapprove the following recommendation
of the Traffic Safety Committee:
1) Signalization of Vernon Avenue at Tracy Avenue based on the existence of warrants;
that action be deferred on Item A-1 (Upgrade of West 66th Street at Xerxes Avenue)
to allow agreement by all affected commercial developments;
and to accept Section C of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of June 12, 1984.
Mr. Hoffman
Regarding the recom-
Most of the changes occur within the City of Richfield
. The Committee recommended support for the
Member
I
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
HEARING DATE SET FOR VACATION OF WETLAND EASEMENT.
Bredesen offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
As recommended by staff, Nember
RESOLUTION CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON
VACATION OF WETLAND EASEMENT
LOT 6, BLOCK 1, THE HABITAT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
as follows:
1.
wetland purposes should be considered for vacation, in accordance with the provisions
of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 412.851 and 160.29:
It is hereby found and determined that the following described easement for
6 I18 I84
That part of the wetland easement over Lot 6, Block 1, The Habitat, lying
Southeasterly of a line drawn at right angles to the Northeasterly line,
from a point on the Northeasterly line, a distance of 85.00 feet Northwesterly
of the most Easterly corner of said Lot 6.
This Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the form of notice 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) public and conspicious
places within the City, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851, Such
notice shall be in substantially the following form: (Official Publication)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON VACATION OF EASEMENT FOR WETLAND
ON PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, THE HABITAT
IN THE CITY OF EDINA I
HENNEPIN COUNTY , MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 W. 50th Street on
July16, 1984 at 7 p.m., for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the
proposed vacation of the following wetland easement:
That part of the wetland easement over Lot 6, Block 1, The Habitat,
lying Southeasterly of a line drawn at right angles to the Northeasterly
line, from a point on the Northeasterly line, a distance of 85.00 feet
Northwesterly of the most Easterly corner of said Lot 6.
All persons who desire to be heard with respect to the question of whether or
not the above proposed easement vacation is in the public interest and should
be made shall be heard at said time and place.
the extent to which such proposed easement vacation affects existing easements
within the area of the proposed vacation and the extent to which the vacation
affects the authority 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 or under the area of the proposed vacation,
to continue maintaining the same or to enter upon such easement area or portion
thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove or otherwise attend thereto, . for the purpose of specifying, in any such vacation resolution, the extent to
which any or all of any such easements, and such authority to maintain, and to
enter upon the area of the proposed vacation, shall continue.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
The Council shall consider
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Richards.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
EDINA FOUNDATION APPOINTMENT TO FILL DIRECTOR WYATT'S TERM DISCUSSED.
Courtney advised that John Skagerberg had been recommended for appointment to the
Edina Foundation Board of Directors to fill the unexpired term of Richard Wyatt.
Following discussion it was agreed to delay action on the appointment so that a
larger pool of names could be considered. No formal action was taken.
Mayor
FEASIBILITY REPORT 84-3 APPROVED; HEARING DATE SET FOR JULY 2, 1984 FOR P-L-26
AND CASCADE LANE BERMING. Engineer Hoffman presented Feasibility Report 84-3
for Ornamental Street Lighting for Ashcroft Lane and West 63rd Street and the
Cascade Lane Berming, advising that the improvements have been investigated and it
has been determined that they are feasible and would be in the best interest and
toward the orderly development of the City.
offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
As recommended, Member
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. P-L-26
AND CASCADE LANE BERMING
1. The City Engineer, having submitted to the Council a preliminary report as to
the feasibility of the proposed improvements described in- the form of Notice of
6/18/84
- -. 82
Hearing set forth below, and as to the estimated cost of such improvements, said
report is hereby approved and directed to be placed on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
2. This Council shall meet on Monday, July 2, 1984, at 7:OO p.m. in the Edina
City Hall, to consider in public hearing the views of all persons interested in
said improvements.
3.
place and purpose of said meeting to be publishedin the official newspaper once
a week for two successive weeks, the second of which publication is to be not
less than three days from the date of said meeting, and to mail notice to all
affected properties in substantially the following form:
The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time,
.
(Official Publication)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. P-L-26
CASCADE LANE BERMING
The Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall on Monday, July 2, 1984,
at 7:OO P.M. to consider the following proposed improvements to be constructed
under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The approximate
cost of said improvements are estimated by the City as set forth below:
ESTIMATED COST
Ornamental Street Lighting Improvement No. P-L-26 -$ 850.00
Cascade Lane Berming 1,975.84
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed improvements
included Lot 19, Blk 2, Lot 8, Blk 3, Valley View Ridge Addition; Lot 1, Blk 4,
Lot 3, Blk 3, Valley View Ridge 2nd Addition for Ornamental Street Lighting
and Lots 2, 3, 4 Cascade Falls for the berming project.
Ashcorft Lane and W. 63rd Street
Marcella 14. Daehn
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Richards.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPBENT OF SHORELAND AREAS DISCUSSED. Attorney Erickson
'recalled that the Council had discussed and shown concern at the public hearing
of the Gustafson Replat in Indian Hills regarding development of land within shore-
land setbacklareas.
that the City did not have a shoreland ordinance yet relating to the protection
of those areas within 100 feet upland of naturally occurring lakes, ponds and
streams, pending completion of survey work by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
subdivision of land.
protection easement has not been obtained because the requirement was instituted
after the plat of the property.
occur within the 100 foot area.
purpose of adopting a new ordinance or amend an existing ordinance as to whether
~ it is advisable to require a dedication or grant of such protected area, not only
in connection with a plat, but in connection with development of the property
without platting.
order to protect the planning process and health, safety and welfare of the citizens
of Edina, the Council may consider it desirable to adopt an interim ordinance
prohibiting construction of new improvements and expansion of existing improvements
on lands adjoining lakes, ponds and streams. Member Richards suggested that it .
may be preferable for staff to prepare a draft ordinance for dedication or grant
of such protected area in connection with development of property with or without
platting, rather than to impose a moratorium. Following further discussion,
Member Richards moved that the Planning staff be directed to prepare a draft
ordinance relating to the protection of the 100 foot areas adjoining shoreland
for consideration by the Council at its meeting on July 16, 1984.
seconded by Member Turner.
When the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted it was pointed out
At present such protection is obtained only in connection with the
There are some properties in the City where the 100 foot
Therefore, development of those properties could
Council may wish to authorize a study for the
Mr. Erickson added that if such a study is desired, then in
Motion was _.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 1040 (WEEDS AND TALL GRASSES) DISCUSSED. Mr. Rosland pre-
sented proposed Ordinance No. 1040 advising that the draft ordinance would put
into one ordinance the prior proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 1211 and Ordi-
nance No. 1031, relating to weeds and tall grasses, which were discussed by the
Council on May 21, 1984. Mr. Erickson explained that Section 4 (Notice, Abate-
ment and Assessment) sets out in more detail the process to be followed in removing
. 6/18/84
83
weeds as permitted by Ordinance No. 1213.
in the height of grass before it is a nuisance, i.e., it is yet 12 inches or one
foot.
rank vegetation and establish a clearer procedure for removing weeds and tall
grasses when a property owner refuses or fails to do so. Discussion followed as
to the need for the proposed ordinance, the exclusion of City owned open space
and to whether this would solve the repeated violations which have been reported.
It was suggested that enforcement should be on a complaint only basis and that
Section 1 should be revised to reflect that policy. Mr. Erickson reiterated that
Section 4 setting out the procedure for enforcement was the main thrust of the
ordinance.
after the suggested changes have been made.
The ordinance does not make any change
The main purpose of the proposed ordinance is to better define weeds and
It was informally agreed to again consider the proposed ordinance
No formal action was taken.
COUNCIL MINUTES OF 4/4/83 AMENDED AS TO PLAT ENTITLED "COLONIAL COURT". Mr. Rosland
advised that on April 4, 1983, the Council had granted final plat approval for
"Westridge Estates", platted by Donald R. and Shirley Berg. The plat has now been
brought in for signatures and the name appearing on the mylar is "Colonial Court".
Staff would recommend that the minutes be amended to reflect this change of plat
name. Member Turner's motion was seconded by Member Richards to amend the minutes
of April 4, 1983, with reference to the plat resolution to read:
"BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that
certain plat entitled "Colonial Court", platted by Donald R. and Shirley Ann
Berg, husband and wife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council
of April 4, 1983, be and is hereby granted final plat approval, subject to payment
of a subdivision dedication fee of $8,000.00 and execution of a Developer's
Agreement. 'I
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
TREE REPLACEMENT POLICY REVIEWED. .Member Bredesen asked what the City's current
policy is on tree replacement. Mr. Rosland explained that the City has been
doing a random planting of.trees in the community to replace some of the trees
that have been lost through Dutch elm disease or by storm damage. He noted that
with the amount budgeted for tree replacement the City has been able to replace
approximately 50 trees each year. No action was taken.
REPORT GIVEN ON MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION. Member Richards referred to a
written report he had given to the Council on the activities of the Municipal
Legislative Commission (MLC) comprising 15 suburban municipalities which was
formed during the last year. He noted that the majorthrust of this lobbying
group focused on taxes during the 1984 Minnesota legislative session.
it is perceived that the City has received value for its financial contribution
to date.
in the MLC. No action was taken. ,
On balance,
Member Richards recommended that the City continue with its involvement
INSURANCE RENEWALS/1984 APPROVED. Mr. Rosland recalled that when the insurance
policies werexenewed last June, .it..was dndicated that the City would stay with
those agents. 'With the exception of the property coverage, the rates (per unit)
have remained the same with the increase in premiums refelcting only increases in
estimated payroll and/or sales. It is recommended that the Council renew insurance
coverage witi the following companies for 1984/85 :
General Liability Home $ 35,153(29,880) $ 37,437
Coverage Company 1983-84 1984-85
Worker Compensation Home 99,768 105 , 454
Liquor Liability Home 6,512 6 , 935
Auto Liability and Home
Property (buildings and Sayre & Toso 9 , 796 15,550
14 , 064 (11 , 954) .14 , 064 (13 , 000)
Auto Physical
contents) and Business
Interruption, Transit
and Voting Machines
Boiler Machinery Hartford Boiler 4,540 (Aug. renewal)
Money and Securities Home 1,298 1 , 382
Mobile Equipment: Home 2,096 2,225
Umbrella St. Paul Surplus 6 , 000 6,500
Ambulance Attendants Northbrook 900 900
Member Richards moved approval of the insurance renewals for 1984-85 as presented,
commenting that next year would be the last year of the three year renewal period
and that Council should then review the three year renewal policy.
seconded by Member Bredesen.
Motion was
Ayes:. Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
6/18/84
84
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 9, 1984.
Council meet in special session to review a staff report on capital improvements.
It was informally agreed to set Monday, July 9, 1984, at 7 p.m. as the special
meeting date.
Mr. Rosland suggested that
MANAGER’S VACATION NOTED.
first week in July, 1984, and that Mark Bernhardson, Assistant City Manager
would act in his behalf during that week.
Mr. Rosland advised that he would be on vacation the
No action was taken.
CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING REGARDING LAWSUIT CALLED.
of:a potential lawsuit against the City he would recommend that the Council meet
in closed session immediately upon adjournment to consider strategy.
Richards moved that the Council convene in closed session immediately upon adjourn-
ment to discussion the litigation.
Mr. Rosland advised that because
Member
Motion was seconded by Member Bredesen
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Motion’carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 171-A16 (TO ADD A CERTAIN FEE NUMBER) ADOPTED; SECOND READING WAIVED.
Mr. Rosland presented Ordinance No. 171-A16 advising that the amendment would add
a fee number to Schedule A to identify the fee for a ventilation work permit and
would recommended adoption.
with waiver of Second Reading as follows:
Member Turner moved adoption of Ordinance No. 171-A16
0RDINANCE.NO. 171-AJ-6
AN ORDINANCE AIENDING ORDINANCE NO. 171
TO ADD A CERTAIN FEE NUMBER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Schedule A to Ordinance No. 171 is hereby amended by addition of
Fee No. 15d-5a to read as follows:
ORD. SEC. FEE NO.
433 6(d) Ventilation work permit 3. Domestic type kitchen or -- NO. NO.’ -
bathroom exhaust system
Each system when vented
individually in single
or multiple dwellings $16.00 15d-5
Each additional system 5.00 15d-5a
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Bredesen.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Ordinance adopted. -- ATTEST :
-3% u
City Clerk
CLAIMS PAID.
of the following claims as per Pre-List dated 6/14/84: General Fund $165,371.62,
Park Fund $22,809.03, Art Center $3,679.53, Swimming Pool Fund $54,608.90, Golf
Course Fund $13,269.92, Recreation Center Fund $4,238.38, Gun Range Fund $247.09,
Waterwork Fund $22,833.64, Sewer Rental Fund $6,530.68, Liquor Dispensary Fund
of the following Claims dated 5/31/84: General Fund $106,664.11, Park Fund $3,102.80, ..
Art Center $269.83, Swimming Pool Fund $1,189.16, Golf Course Fund $5,319.03,
Recreation Center Fund $4,783.80, Gun Range Fund $80.03, Waterwork Fund $1,894.74,
Sewer Rental Fund $310.16, Liquor Dispensary Fund $257,347.09, Total $380.960.75.
Motion of Member Turner was seconded by Member Bredesen, for payment
I
~ $112,033.91, Construction Fund $45,782.48, Total $451,405.18,--=and for confirmation I
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried. I There being no further business, Mayor Courtney declared the meeting adjourned
at 11:OO p.m.
--
City Clerk