Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19851118_regular32 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL NOVEMBER 18, 1985 Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and Mayor Courtney. NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PRESENTS CHECK TO CITY. &Is. Aileen Kulak, President of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, presented a check in the amount of $7,500 to the City and explained that this represents the participation of the Nine Mile Creek TJatershed District in the development of Bredesen Park. Mayor Courtney extended thanks on behalf of the Council Members and the City for the contribution. EMPLOYEE COLLEEN PAULUS COMMENDED. Mr. Rosland introduced Colleen Paulus, Assistant Sanitarian, advising that she has been employed by the City since 1979. He explained that her chief responsibility is the inspection of the City's restaurants and that she has developed a slide presentation for food handlers and a complaint assignment chart for monitoring the restaurants. Mr. Rosland commended Mrs. Paulus for her excellent work and presented her with a silver pen bearing the Edina Logo. for her dedication and effort. I Members of the Council also expressed their appreciation MINUTES of the October 21 and November 4, 1985 Regular Meetings and Special Meet- ings of October 21, November 4 and November 12, 1985 were approved as submitted by motion of Member Turner, seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BARBARA FEILER CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 2, 1985; FINDINGS, REASONS AND DECISION TO BE PREPARED. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. Planner Craig Larsen presented the request for pre- liminary plat approval for Lot 23 and the north 103.5 feet of Lot 22, Block 1, Edina Highlands noting that the subject property is located on the northerly end of the Duncraig Road cul-de-sac. Directly east of the property is the Villa Way apartment complex and to the north, west and south are developed single family lots. The property contains approximately 73,000 square feet and is developed with a single family dwelling. the northwesterly corner of Lot 23, directly north of the existing house on Lot 22. The easterly three-quarters of Lot 23 is characterized by steep slopes. Mr. Larsen advised that the proponent has submitted a proposal to subdivide the property in order to create one new buildable lot. 31,500 square feet and the lot remaining for the existing dwelling would contain 41,400 square feet, which would include the northerly 103.5 feet of Lot 22. The new'lot would meet or exceed the minimum standards for lots established in the Zoning Ordinance. not meet the minimum frontage or lot widths standards of the Ordinance. The lot would have a frontage of approximately 10 feet on the street where 30 feet is re- quired. The Ordinance also requires that lots provide a minimum width of 75 feet at a point 50 feet from the front property line. The lot for the existing dwell- ing would have a width of 22 feet. for lot width and frontage on a public street to help define neck lots. lot remaining for the existing dwelling would be a neck lot. a graphic illustrating the original conceptual development plan for the Edina Highlands subdivision. is shown near where the proponents propose the dwelling on the new lot. record or reason could be found why the the north part of Lot 22 was transferred to Lot 23. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan contains several policies regarding the subdivision of lots in developed neighborhoods: 1) allow further subdivisions of developed single family lots only if neighborhood char- acter and symmetry are preserved, and 2) prohibit "neck Lot" subdivisions whereby access to public streets is gained through narrow strips of land adjacent to other lots. Staff believes that the location of the existing dwelling creates . the illusion of subdivision potential for the property. have been constructed where originally contemplated the illusion of subdivision potential would not exist. able location, the lot does presently comply with Ordinance standards. posed subdivision would create a substandard lot which would damage the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. exceptionally large, its small frontage prevents the division of the property into two conforming lots. to the ability to subdivide. Further, staff can find no evidence that this transfer was approved by the City. The proposed plat was considered by the Community Development and Planning Commission at its meeting of October 30, 1985 and recommended denial for the reasons set out in the staff report: 1) the sub- I The existing dwelling is located in the notch .in The new lot would contain approximately : However, the lot remaining for the existing dwelling would The new Zoning Ordinance established standards The Mr. Larsen shozed The building site contemplated for the subject property No If the dwelling would Although the existing dwelling is in an undesire- The pro- Mr. Larsen submitted that although the lot is The additional property from Lot 22 does not contribute 11/18/85 33 division would create a neck lot contrary to policies contained in the Compre- hensive Plan, 2) the subdivision would create a substandard lot, and 3) the subdivision would disturb the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. Mr. Larsen commented that the proponent, Barbara Feiler, was not present. No public comment was heard. matters like this is to authorize staEf to prepare Findings of Fact for Council's review in making a decision. Member Bredesen then moved that the staff be directed to prepare Findings, Reasons and Decision for review by the Council at its meeting of December 2, 1985. Mr. Erickson advised that the usual procedure in Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR DEVELOPERS CONSTRUCTION INC. (6224 INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD). Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. Mr. Larsen presented the request for preliminary plat approval for Developers Construction, Inc. Addition, advising that the subject property is generally located north of Interlachen Boulevard and east of Blake Road. It measures approximately 205 feet in width and 156 feet in depth and contains 31,300 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 Single Dwelling District, and is developed with two single dwelling units. only one dwelling per lot in the R-1 zone the property is non-conforming. The subject hroperty is bounded on the east and north by Interlachen Country Club. Single family dwelling are located to the immediate west and to the southeast across Interlachen Boulevard. Mirror Lake is located directly to the south. Mr. Larsen stated that the proponents have submitted a preliminary plat which would create two buildable lots following the demolition of the existing dwell- ings. Lot 1 would be 105 feet in width and would contain 14,000 square feet. Lot 2 would measure 100 feet in width and contain 17,300 square feet. Both new lots would conform to Ordinance requirements. Outlot A which was detached from the subject property by Interlachen Boulevard. The mazjority of the outlot is located within the lakebed of Mirror Lake. existing dwellings are connected to sanitary sewer which runs through the Inter- lachen Club property to the north. public water but are served by a private well. The right of way for Interlachen Boulevard, adjacent to the subject property, is provided by an easement which is narrower than necessary for the existing roadway. The proposed plat would dedicate the required 66 foot wide right of way. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the right of way must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. posed subdivision would eliminate the existing non-conforming condition and would provide two conforming lots. boring single family properties. north and northwest and the proposed lot sizes are similar to lots in that neighborhood. plat at its meeting of October 20, 1985 and recommended preliminary approval conditioned on: 1) execution of a developer's agreement for the installation . of*public water service to the properties, 2) subdivision dedication, and 3) approval by Hennepin County of the proposed right of way. also discussed and recommended that one curb cut serve both properties. Mr. Larsen informed the Council that the proponent has met with Hennepin County and they have given preliminary approval on the location of the one curb cut. No comment being heard, Member Turner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to the conditions in the staff report as outlined and the one curb cut: Since the Zoning Ordinance allows Also included in the plat is The However, the units are not connected to The pro- The site is relatively isolated from neigh- It would seem to relate most to lots to the The Community Development and Planning Commission considered the The Commission RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL Ln fL: m FOR DEVELOPERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "Developers Construction, Inc. Addition", platted by Developers Construction, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and presented.at the regular meeting of the City Council of November 18, 1985, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney I Resolution adopted. BID AWARDED FOR FOUR WHEEL DRIVE ARTICULATED LOADER. tabulation of bids for one four wheel drive articulated loader, showing Ziegler, Inc. at $109,990.00 for Bid C (total cost bid) with guaranteed repurchase of $66,500.00/5 years for a net bid of $42,290.00 and showing Case Power & Equip- ment at $81,213.00 for Bid C (total cost bid) with guaranteed repurchase of $58,500.00/5 years for a net bid of $23,213.00. Equipment was incomplete and therefore was not considered. Mr. Rosland added that staff has reviewed the bids and would recommend award of bid to Ziegler, Inc. for the reasons outlined in the staff memorandum of November 15, 1985, which Mr. Rosland presented The bid submitted by Minneapolis 11/18/85 pointed out that Case did not meet specifications on these items: cab mount, quick coupler, steering, hydraulic system and alternator. Scheduled mainte- nance costs were quoted at $2,821.98 for Caterpillar (Ziegler) vs. $5,817.50 for Case. 5720 Susan Avenue, and Kevin Harrison, 4008 Grimes Avenue, an employee of Case. Both commented that they felt the specifications were written for one type of loader. dealers could have met the specifications but chose not to submit total cost bids. at total cost bid of $102,490.00 (net bid of $42,490.00) based on the reasons submitted by staff recommending purchase of the Caterpillar 950B Loader. Speaking in support of award of bid to Case were Gary Marshall, In response, Mr. Hoffman pointed out that several other equipment Following discussion, Member Turner moved award of bid to Ziegler, Inc. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Turner, Courtney Nays: Richards Motion carried. BID AWARDED FOR N"ICAL SYSTEMS FOR BRAEMAR CLUB HOUSE. Mr. Rosland recalled that award of bids for the mechanical systems and the electrical work at Braemar Golf Course Club House had been continued from the last meeting. bids for plumbing, heating, ventilating, air conditioning and temperature control systems were presented showing Bowler Company, Inc. at $164,036, Hoov-Aire, Inc. at $173,343, All American Mechanical, Inc. at $186,265, General Sheetmetal at $178,505 and Vogt Heating at $185,543. Member Turner for award of bid for mechanical systems to recommended low bidder, Bowler Company, Inc. at $164,036. Tabulation of Motion of Member Richards was seconded by Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. Mr. Rosland reported that after reviewing the bids submitted for the electrical work it is recommended that all bids be rejected. seconded by Member Turner to reject all bids submitted for the electrical work. Motion of Member Richards was Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. BID AWARDED FOR COMPUTER/PRINTER REPLACEMENT SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLE MANAGEMENT. Mr. Rosland presented tabulation of bids for replacement of the computer and printer system for vehicle management Public Works showing On-Line Computers (IBM-PC AT) at $6,075.00, On-Line Computers (Compag Deskpro 286) at $6,400.00 and Moore Business Systems at $6,863.00. Motion of Member Bredesen was seconded by Member Turner for award of bid to recommended low bidder, . On-Line Computers (IBM-PC AT) at $6,075.00. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1985, APPROVED. Mr. Hoffman summarized the action taken by the Traffic Safety Committee on November 12, 1985, regarding traffic concerns on Gleason Road, south of Valley View Road, which item was continued from the previous meeting. Reports showed that since January 1, 1983, there have been eight accidents north of Valley View Road and four south of Valley View Road. Traffic counts show that Gleason Road is a collector roadway and a license plate survey identified greater than 50% of traffic being from the Edina area. Reports of speed surveys and a selected enforcement project for Gleason Road south of Valley View Road showed that of the 29 citations issued, 21 violators were found to live within one mile of the intersection. the major problem and it was speculated that familiarity with the roadway might cause the majority of violations committed by local residents. Three options were suggested to correct the speed and safety concerns: 1) rigorous speed speed enforcement, 2) signs and warning devices including centerline barrier, and 3) redesign and re-engineering of the curved portion of the roadway. Regarding the request for a 3-way "STOP" at the intersection of Gleason Road and Scotia Drive, Mr. Hoffman pointed out that the motion to recommend approval failed on a vote of 2-2. The Committee is reluctant to install unwarranted "STOP" signs to, control speed and it was felt that "STOP" signs on steeply graaed.roadways can in and of themselves become hazardous. It was felt that the only possible warrant for a "STOP" sign might be the warrant of "special circumstances." Robert Miller, 6905 Gleason Road; Bill Hunchis, 7008 Gleason Road and Robert Remund, 6825 Gleason Road. sign was Don Ohlson, 7004 Gleason Road. of sidewalks and the roadway's narrow width presents a hazard to pedestrians, especially school children. The main concern identified was vehicles out of control due to speed. Mr. Hoffman commented. that XnDot could be requested to conduct a speed study to see if the speed limit should be lowered, and that a letter to the neighborhood residents regarding these concerns may make them aware of the speeding.problem. The Committee identified the downhill geometrics as being Speaking in favor of installation of a "STOP" sign were Speaking in opposition to installation of a "STOP" It was also pointed out that the lack Ifember Kelly commented that she has been 11/18/85 .1 . .. 35 m a I concerned about the safety of the children who must use Gleason Road to walk to school because of the lack of sidewalks and that she felt the letters would help. He clarified that in this case it would include, serious accident, high speed and restricted view. should do more study on the problem and then bring a recommendation to the Council. help. Mayor Courtney said he thought the Traffic Safety Committee should do more study on the problem and then bring a recommendation back to the Council. Member Bredesen said he felt the Council should resolve this now and that the Member Bredesen then made a motion which was seconded by Member Kelly to approve the following recommended action as listed in Section A of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of November 12, 1985: 1) That "YIELD RIGHT OF WAY" signs be installed controlling northbound and that 3-way "STOP" signs be installed at the intersection of Gleason Road and Scotia Drive based on the warrant of "Special Circumstances", and to acknow- ledge Section C of the Minutes. motion because he felt the "STOP" sign would cause a greater problem but that Fe felt the" letter should be sent out and then wait to see what happens until next Spring. to make the neighbors aware of the problem, that the "STOP" sign not be installed until in the Spring, that we ask MnDot to conduct a study to get the speed limit lowered and that she would support moving up the construction of the sidewalks for Gleason Road in the Capital Improvement Program which now are scheduled for 1994. Member Bredesen then amended his motion to reflect Member Turner's comments and the amended motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Chief Swanson was asked to explain the warrant of "Special Circumstances." Mayor Courtney said he thought the Traffic Safety Committee STOP" sign should be tried. 11 southbound traffic on Kellogg Avenue, Member Richards said he could not support the Member Turner indicated she supported the letter going out now Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Turner, Courtney Nays : Richards Motion carried. 1986 HOLIDAY SCHEDULE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES APPROVED. Mr. Rosland presented a proposed schedule of 1986 holidays for City employees. He pointed that the inclusion of the observance of Martin Luther King's birthdate on the third Monday in January is a Federal/State mandated holiday and that in order to avoid an increase in the number of days that City Hall is closed, staff is proposing that the Gooa Friday holiday be dropped from the schedule and that the number of holidays remain at 11. Member Bredesen's motion was seconded by Member Turner approving the following schedule of holidays for 1986: New Year's Day (January 1) Veterans' Day (November 11) Martin Luther King Day (January 20) Thanksgiving Day (November 27) President ' s Day (February 17) Day after Thanksgiving Day (November 28) Memorial Day (May 26, 1986 Christmas Eve (December 24 - 1/2 day) Independence Day (July 4) Christmas Day (December 25) Labor Day (September 1) New Year's Eve (December 31 - 1/2 day) Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. CITY HALL SPACE STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT PRESENTED. Bob Schoening, Chairman of the City Hall Space Study Committee, expressed the thanks of the committee to the staff for their input in the Study. He then presented the Council with copies of the Study and then reviewed the outline of the Study which covered the following items: -I. Analysis of Existing City Hall Facility, 11. Estimation of Value of Existing City Hall Facility, 111. Alternative Sites for New City Hall Facility, and 1V.-Summary of Recommendations and Conclusions. The recommendations were: 1) Hire a professional space planner to analyze the floor layout, integration of departments, storage and filing needs, etc., 2) Upon receiving space planner's recommendations, an estimate of expense to make the desired improvements (includ- ing an addition to the building) should be completed, 3) The use of modern tech- nology systems (i.e. record storage and microfilm, etc.) should be considered to reduce on site storage requirements, 4) A study should be conducted to analyze the vacation of Eden Avenue, and 5) The most viable alternative for relocation . would be the Grandview Area. If the costs to improve and update the existing facility are greater than anticipated and the decision is made to vacate Eden Avenue, then the potential cost to relocate would be significantly reduced. this event, a further analysis of the cost of the relocation to the Grandview area should be undertaken. did not analyze the Public Works facility although the Committee did tour the facility and there are parts that need some improvement. thanked the members of the Committee consisting of David Sherman, Bark Foster, June Schmidt and Kathy Christensen for their input. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Courtney thanked the members of the Committee for their work on the Space Study. Following some discussion, Member Richards suggested that in regard to the specific recommendations in the Study that the Council should act on them after allowing time to study and review them. Member Richards then made a motion that this matter be placed on the Council Agenda for December 16, 1985. In Mr. Schoening concluded by commenting that the Study He identified and 11/18/85 36 Motion was seconded by Member Bredesen who stated that he hoped that by that. date the Council would information from the space planners as to their recommendations with estimated costs and timeframes, etc. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney 1 Motion carried. HEARING DATE SET OF MAY 12, 1986 SET FOR BOARD OF REVIEW. As recommended by staff, Member Turner's motion was seconded by Member Kelly setting May 12, 1986 at 5:OO p.m. as the hearing date for the Board of Review. D Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. 1985 COUNCIL WORK PLAN PRESENTED. Mr. Rosland recalled that during the course of its Strategic Planning process, the City Council identified three key issues requiring study during 1986 and requested the staff to produce a work plan providing a program for addressing these issues. has been drafted for the Council's review and suggested the matter be placed on the Council Agenda for December 2, 1985 for discussion. It was informally agreed that the Council would discuss the work plan on December 2, 1985. ADVISORY BOARD/COMMISSION ATTENDANCE DISCUSSED. Mr. Rosland advised that on several recent occasions some of the advisory boards and commissions have been unable to operate because there was no quorum in attendance. provides for the automatic removal of members of boards and commissions who fail to attend three consecutive meetings or who fail to attend any four meetings a year. Following some discussion, Member Richards made a motion to include Ordinance No. 162 when sending out the letters to board/commission members prior to the expiration of their terms as a reminder of the attendance requirement and to also give this information to new candidates. Motion was seconded by Member Bredesen. He added that the work plan Ordinance No. 162 Mr. Rosland asked for the Council's direction regarding this problem. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. SPECIAL MEETING ON ACCESSORY USES SCHEDULED. Mr. Rosland reminded the Council Members of the Special Council Meeting scheduled for December 9, 1985 at 7 p.m. to discuss and study accessory uses regulated by ordinance. informational meeting open to the public and will be posted as such. This will be an MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT PROPOSED REVISED RULES DISCUSSED. Mr. Rosland advised the Council that the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will hold a public hearing on Thursday, November 21, 1985, on proposed revised rules for the District and that Mr. Hoffman, City Engineer, will be attending. Mr. Hoffman explained that the Board is currently preparing a Water- shed Management Plan as required by Laws of Minnesota 1982, Chapter 509.and anticipates that it will be completed during 1985. Municipalities will then be required under Chapter 509 to prepare a municipal water management plan in conformity with the District's Plan. requirements of the District's rules which are met by the municipal plan shall be deemed satisfied upon a showing of compliance with the municipal plan. In such cases, individual site-by-site permits for developments in areas covered by a municipal plan will not be required for those matters where the municipal plan satisfies these rules. Mr. Rosland said if the Council had any input re- garding the proposed revised rules that they should contact Mr. Hoffman prior to the hearing date. No action was taken. Where such a municipal plan is adopted the INFORMATION ON HOW NEW FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT LAW AFFECTS CITY REQUESTED. Member Kelly asked that the Council be given information on how the new Fair Labor Standards Act law affects the City. visions of the law and their effect on the City will be summarized for the Council. Mr. Rosland responded that the pro-. LETTER REGARDING INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD NOTED. article in the Edina Sun-Current regarding Danny Berenberg's concerns for children's safety on Interlachen Boulevard and asked if the City is going to look into the matter. with the County engineers and has reiterated the City's position about improving the roadway. the past and that we are still looking for funds to construct pathways, walkways, and improvements to the roadway that would improve the safety for pedestrians. The County engineers are responding to the Board of Commissioners on this issue and staff is waiting for their answer. Member Kelly referred to an Mr. Hoffman responded that staff has been in contact He stated that he and Mr. Berenberg have met with the County in No action was taken. RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE ADOPTED FOR KATHERINE SEHLIN. the following resolution of condolence on the recent death of Katherine Sehlin and moved its adopeon: Member Kelly introduced 11/18/85 37 RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE KATHERINE SEHLEN WHEREAS, Katherine Sehlin was a long time resident of the City of Edina and was active in civic and community affairs, and WHEREAS, Katherine Sehlin served on the Youth Commission that was instrumental in the establishment of Edina High School, and WHEREAS, Katherine Sehlin served as a member of the Human Relations Commission for seven years, and . WHEREAS, Katherine Sehlin was greatly concerned for the quality of life of the aged, and WHEREAS, Katherine Sehlin was appointed and served on the Governor's Council on Aging, and WHEREAS, Katherine Sehlin represented the State of Minnesota at the White House Conference on Aging in 1983, and WHEREAS, Katherine Sehlin was active on various Senior Citizens Boards in the metropolitan area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby extends its heartfelt sympathy to the family of during this time of bereavement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be entered into the pages of the Minutes Book of the City of Edina and that a copy be presented to her family . Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. KATHERINE A. SEHLIN Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. STATUS OF BRUTGER DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONED. several telephone inquiries about. the status of the Brutger Development on Cahill Road. Mr. Rosland responded that staff has heard nothing from Brutger and that an attempt will be made to ascertain what their plans for construction are. No action was taken. Member Kelly stated that she had received HOMART DEVELOPMENT SETTLEMENT DISCUSSED. Member Turner asked if the Council Members would get a final report on the settlement with Homart Development. Mr. Rosland said that the minutes of the Special Meeting held on November 13, 1985, would be on the next agenda for Council approval and would reElect the final settlement of the lawsuit. No action was taken. AMM STUDY OF METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE REVIEW PROCESS DISCUSSED. Member Turner reminded the Council that the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) will be studying the Metropolitan Significance Review process which is conducted by the Metropolitan Council for proposed developments that will affect the metro area because they have had some concerns about the process in general. if the Council wants to be part of the AWl study, especially after the City's recent experience with the Homart Development. Member Richards said he felt the Council should offer it's comments on the process and suggested it be discussed at the next meeting. She asked EDINBOROUGH "GROUNDBREAKING" RECEPTION NOTED. Mayor Courtney stated that he was very pleasedwith the Edinborough "Groundbreaking" reception held on November 15. Member Richards commented that the developers have had 2,000 serious inquiries over the weekend regarding the housing element of the project. No action was taken. MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 20. Mr. Rosland said that the Municipal Legislative Commission is scheduled to meet on November 20, 1985, and that he and Member Richards will be attending to represent Edina. EDINA SUN-CURRENT CENTERFOLD DISCUSSED. a cost estimate of $700 for printing of an "Edina Centerfold" in the Edina Sun- Current and that he has discussed with the Edina Rotary their sponsoring of the first two issues. future issues. The first issue is scheduled for February, 1986. Mr. Rosland said the regular Edina Newsletter would still be sent in January with the homestead application mailing and that if the centerfold is well received we might consider discontinuing the newsletter in the future. Mr. Rosland reported that he has received . It is hoped that other organizations will volunteer to sponsor No action was taken. PETITION FOR ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHT REFERRED TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. being advised that a petition has been received for installation of an ornamental street light at the intersection of Chowen Avenue and Chowen Curve, Member Richard's motion was seconded by Member Bredesen to accept the petition and to refer it to the Engineering Department for processing. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. Upon 11/18/85 1986 LABORATORY SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY APPROVED. Mr. Rosland explained that Hennepin County will be contracting with the Minneapolis Health Department and the City of Edina for laboratory service in 1986. occurred because the City could not handle the increased volume of food samples which were submitted for analysis last summer. This contract is $6,500.00 less than the 1985 contract and will primarily provide residential well water testing services for County residents. Staff would recommend approval of the contract for 1986 with the belief that the reduced laboratory service demand is in the best interest of the City of Edina. Member Turner then introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into Contract No. 60107 with the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, whereby the County, through its Community Health Department, agrees to make payments to the City of Edina for analytical and microbiological laboratory support services, for the term from January I, 1986 through December 31, 1986, not to exceed $3,500.00. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen. This change He pointed out that the contract with Hennepin County will be for a total cost not to exceed $3,500.00 for 1986. \ I RESOLUTION Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION OF ACCEPTANCE/THANKS ADOPTED FOR GIFT OF LAND BY JESSIE BONN. Mr. Rosland recommended that a resolution of acceptance and thanks be adopted for the gift of land by Mrs. Jessie Bonn. following resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, Mrs. Jessie D. Bonn has offered to give to the City of Edina a portion of her property; and WHEREAS, acceptance of this gift is in the best interest of Edina and will further the general welfare of its citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City of Edina accepts the generous gift of land from Mrs. Jessie D. Bonn described as follows: Member Richards then introduced the RESOLUTION OF ACCEPTANCE AND THANKS OF GIFT I That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of IDYLWOOD THIRD ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence on an assumed bearing of East, along the north line of IDYLWOOD SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, a distance of 187.10,feet to the west line of CARSON' HILL; thence North 0 degrees 21minutes 55 seconds East, along said west line, a distance of 224.03 feet; thence North 89 degrees 02 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 57.66 feet; thence South 0 degrees 57 minutes 48 seconds West, a distance of 62.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 02 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 26.00 feet; thence North 10 degrees 02 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 72.00 feet; thence North 82 degrees 02 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 90.14 feet to the east line of said IDYLWOOD THIRD ADDITION; thence South 0 degrees 28 minutes 05 seconds West, along said east line, a distance of 246.84 feet to the point of beginning. .. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Council, on behalf of all the citizens of Edina hereby express its sincere thanks to Mrs. Jessie D. Bonn. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen. Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. CLAIMS PAID. of the following claims dated 11/18/85: General Fund $365,809.02, Art Center $2,409.92, Swimming Pool Fund $86.75, Golf Course Fund $118,737.54, Recreation Center Fund $1,809.99, Gun Range Fund $339.36, Utility Fund $383,423.46, Liquor Dispensary Fund $77,665.66, Construction Fund $189,999.17, Total $1,140,361.87; and for confirmation of the following claims dated 10/31/85: General Fund $134,950.23, Park Department $186.63, Art Center $500.07, Swimming Pool Fund $3,469.96, Golf Course Fund $7,278.74, Recreation Center Fund $6,067.39, Gun Range Fund $421.67, Utility Fund $24,857.00, Liquor Dispensary Fund $223,423.43, Total $401,155.12. Motion of Member Turner was seconded by Member Kelly for payment Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Courtney declared the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. City Clerk Council Meeting 12-2-85 CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Application of FINDINGS, Lot 23 and the north 103.5 feet AND of Lot 22, Edina Highlands (S-85-10) REASONS Barbara Feiler for a Subdivision of DECISIONS, The above entitled matter was heard before the City Council on November 18, and December 2, 1985. Barbara Feiler ("Proponent") was not present. The City Council, having heard and reviewed all of the facts and arguments presented by the Proponent, City staff and property owners in the vicinity o€ the subject subdivision, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponent, City staff, and property owners, and being fully advised, after due consideration, hereby makes the following: c FINDINGS OF FACT -- 1. The Proponent, on September 24, 1985, submitted an application for subdivision (the "Proposed Subdivision") of a 66,450 square foot parcel of land located at the northeasterly end of the cul-de-sac in Duncraig Road. This tract 'of land (the "Subject Property") is platted property (Platted in 1946), and is described as Lot 23, Block 1, Edina Highlands, and the northerly 103.5 feet of Lot 22, Block 1, Edina Highlands. An existing single dwelling unit building is located in the north central portion of the Subject Property. According to City records the Subject Property is owned by Barbara Feiler. I 2. The Proposed Subdivision delineated two, R-1, single dwelling unit lots. Lot 1 of the Proposed Subdivision, the lot which would include the existing dwelling unit building, measured 35,698 square feet and Lot 2, the proposed new building site, measured 30,625 square feet. These measurements are approximate since a boundary survey by a registered land surveyor was not submitted with the'application for subdivision. 3. The E'dina Commuhity Development and Planning Commission (the "Commission") reviewed the Proposed Subdivision at its October 30, -1985 meeting. Several property owners from the vicinity of the Subject Property were present, and two of the residents spoke in opposition to the Proposed Subdivision citing issues of compatibility with adjacent lots, terrain, decreased property value, the character of the neighborhood, and existing deed restrictions applicable to lots in the Edina Highlands plat. The Proponent submitted that the new dwelling unit would be built in the woods and would be screened by dense vegetation from surrounding properties. The Commission-voted to recommend denial of the Proposed Subdivision for the ' following reasons: - The Proposed Subdivision would create a neck lot contrary to policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan . - The Proposed Subdivision would create a substandard I lot. - The Proposed Subdivision would disturb the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. 4. Edina Ordinance No. 825,( the "Zoning Ordinance") imposes the following minimum standards for single dwelling unit lots: Minimum Lot Area - 9,000 Square feet Minimum Lot Width - 75 feet Minimum Lot Depth - 120 feet The Zoning Ordinance defines "Lot Width" as follows: "The horizontal distance between side lot lines measured at right angles to the line establishing the lot depth at a point 50 feet from the front lot line." The Zoning Ordinance defines "Lot depth" as follows : - - "The horizontal distance between the midpoint of the front lot line and the midpoint of the rear lot line." Lot 2, the new lot, of the Proposed Subdivisi.on would comply with the above standards. Lot 1, the lot for the existing dwelling, would not comply with the standard for lot width. Lot 1 would provide a lot width of approximately 22 'feet. I 5. The Zoning Ordinance defines "Lot" as follows: "The basic development unit for purposes of this ordinance. A lot may consist of one parcel or two or more adjoining parcels under single ownership or control, and used for a principal use and accessory uses allowed by this ordinance. A lot, except lots in a townhouse plat, must have at least 30 feet frontage on a street other than a limited access freeway." Lot 1, the lot for the existing dwelling, would have a frontage on the street of approximately 12 feet. 6. Edina ordinance NO. 801, ( 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. 7. The Edina Comprehensive 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 the neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved. Prohibit "neck lott1 subdivisions whereby access to l public streets is gained through narrow strips of land c I adjacent to other lots. - Require increased minimum lot sizes for single family and two family dwelling lots with steep slopes, 8. The Zoning Ordinance provides for variances from the requirements of the Ordinance, but only upon finding, among other required findings, that the "plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to his property which were not created by the petitioner, ... and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance." 9. The subject property exhibits areas with slopes exceeding 30 percent. 10. Divisions of property must receive approval by resolution of the City Council. There exists no record indicating the approval of the addition of the northerly 103.5 feet of Lot 22 to Lot 23 of Edina Highlands. THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council does hereby make the following: Decision : The application for the Proposed Subdivision by Barbara Feiler of Lot 23 and the northerly 103.5 feet of Lot 22, Edina Highlands is hereby denied. The above decision is made for the following: Reasons : A. The Proposed Subdivision is contrary to policies of the Comprehensive Plan concerning the further subdivision of lots within developed single family neighborhoods. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan 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 recorded plat entitled Edina Highlands and should rightly presume that any modification or replatting of said plat will be compatible with surrounding properties and that the spaciousness and character of the Edina Highlands neighborhood will be preserved. C. Lot 1, the lot for the existing dwelling, would require a variance for lot width and would require a variance from the requirement that lots have a frontage of at least 30 feet on a street. The need for variances' is solely created by the Petitioner's request for approval of the Proposed 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. I D. Although the lots in the Proposed Subdivision are similar in size to some lots in the vicinity, other factors, including the unusual shape of the lots, the presence of steep slopes, and the location of the existing dwelling prevent development of Lot 2 without adversly impairing the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. E. The addition of the northerly 103.5 feet of Lot 22, Edina Highlands to the Subject Property does not materially add to the ability to subdivide-the Subject Property since it presently serves as a visual rear yard for two existing dwelling unit buildings, and should not be considered part I of the Subject Property since the division adding this property to lot 23 was not approved by the City. E'. Approval of the Proposed Subdivision could establish a precedent encouraging the replatting of other large lots with similar facts and circumstances which would adversely alter the character and symmetry of the neighborhood contrary to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.