Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19881121_regular334 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE NOVEMBER 21, 1988 EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner and Mayor Courtney. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED. Member Kelly to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented. Motion was made by Member Turner and seconded by Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. I PRELIMINARY REZONING FROM R-2 DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT TO R-1 SINGLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT APPROVED FOR LOTS 1. 2 AND 3. INDIAN HILLS 3RD ADDITION. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. Craig Larsen presented the request for rezoning from R-2 Double Dwelling Unit District to R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Indian Hills 3rd Addition, located on McCauley Trail just west of Gleason Road. The subject property comprises three vacant double bungalow lots. The lots front on McCauley Trail and are the most easterly three lots in the Indian Hills 3rd Addition plat. Lots 1 through 7 of Indian Hills 3rd Addition are R-2 lots and Lots 8 through 16 are R-1 lots. The proponents have submitted a petition to rezone the three vacant lots from R-2 District back to R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District for the purpose of constructing three new single family homes on the property. 24,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet in area. feet in width. yard of each lot is covered by an easement for storm water ponding. exceed Zoning Ordinance requirements for single family lots. Properties to the immediate east and south of the subject lots are developed single family lots in the Timbers Addition. mixture of R-1 and R-2 properties. for the following reasons: 1) The lots exceed all Zoning Ordinance requirements 3) The Comprehensive Plan allows for the mixing of single family and double bungalow uses in areas designated as "low density attached" residential on the land use plan. The request was heard by the Community Development and Planning Commission on November 2, 1988 and the Commission recommended approval of the rezoning. Member Smith commented that he had a concern for building single family homes on those lots from the standpoint of highway noise and hoped those residents will not be before the Council in the future with some expectation that the City would be doing anything with regard to noise. questioned how the storm water easement and pond would affect the buildable area of the lots. Gustafson and Associates, were not present to address the question. 7400 Metro Boulevard, commented that he is a builder in Edina and explained that the driving factor is marketability. The double home concept has gone soft and that Gustafson has had trouble selling the existing doubles. doing is reducing his overall profit; however, the single family market is much stronger. By rezoning to R-1 District it will provide more room to work on the lots and he will be able to landscape better and possibly have larger berms on the front. 825-A29 for First Reading as follows: Planner There are existing doubles on lots 4 through 7. The lots range in size from approximately Each lot is approximately 110 Planner Larsen pointed out that substantial portions of the rear The lots all West and then south along McCauley Trail there exists a Staff would recommend approval of the rezoning . for R-1 lots, 2) The lots adjoin The Timbers plat which is all single family, and 1 Member Smith said he also Planner Larsen explained that representatives of the proponent, Wally Irwin, What he is actually No further comment being heard, Member Smith introduced the Ordinance No. ORDINBNCE NO. 825-A29 BN ORDINANCE AIENDING THE ZONING 0RDI"CE (NO. 825) BY REZONING PROPERTY FROM R-2 DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT TO R-1 SINGLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding the folloving thereto: Section 1. "The extent of the Single Dwelling Unit District (R-1) is enlarged by the addition of the following property: Lots 1, 2 and 3, INDIAN HILTS 3RD ADDITION. The extent of the Double,Dwelling Unit District (R-2) is reduced by removing the property described above from the R-2 District." Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Motion for First Reading of the Ordinance was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney First Reading granted. PRELIMINARY PLAT CONTINUED FOR IRWIN FIRST ADDITION. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. the request for preliminary plat approval for Irwin First Addition, located on Valley View Road between Moccasin Valley Road and Bror Road. The subject property is a developed single family lot containing an area of approximately 27,053 square feet. is a detached garage in the extreme north end of the property. would subdivide the property and create one new buildable lot. v Planner Larsen present The existing home is located in the central portion of the site and there The proposed plat The proponent 11/21/88 335 anticipates removing the existing structures. and approximately 140 feet deep. respectively. family lots. significantly in this area from extremely large lots to the immediate west to smaller lots to the east. For comparison purposes staff has chosen those lots in the immediate vicinity that do front on the easterly side of Valley View Road.. The proposed lots are generally similar to those lots fronting on Valley View Road in terms of lot width but are approximately one-half the depth of the lots to the south and are essentially mirror images of the two lots immediately to the east. Based on that staff would recommend preliminary approval of the proposed subdivision and does not feel that the proposed plat would impact negatively on the character of this section of Valley View Road. The proposed plat was heard by the Community Development and Planning Commission on November 2, 1988 and the Commission recommended preliminary approval, subject to 1) final plat approval, 2) subdivision dedication, and 3) utility connection charges if any apply. He noted that the proponent, Wally Irwin, was present to answer questions. John Klus, 7017 Valley View Road, said he was concerned about making two new curb cuts on the curve on Valley View Road as to traffic safety and also how the re-grading of the property would affect the run-off of storm water. Wally Irwin, proponent, said that he had made an concentrated effort to talk to neighborhood homeowners and that everyone he had contacted were in favor of the subdivision. As to traffic safety, he said he would be cutting down the hill and would remove some of the trees that serve as a blind when entering Valley View Road. Further, that it may be possible to have the two driveways side.by side. leave the wooded area in the rear as it is presently. The present driveway would be relocated so that the sight lines would be improved. The houses that he would put in would be in the $300,000/500,000 range, would be done nicely and would add to the neighborhood. Dan Webb, 6939 Moccasin Valley Road, said he had no objection but had a question about how the drainage of storm water from the subject property would affect his property. slope the front of the lot to the street and thereby would not increase storm water drainage to the rear. psychological question and that he was not persuaded that the City should continue to approve cutting up lots like this; that there are a lot of opportunities in the City to do this same thing. Dick Homberger, 6932 Moccasin Valley Road, said that he supported the proposal, that the existing house is an older house that would be expensive to remodel and that a new home would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mayor Courtney said that he has always been bothered by situations like this where the proposed subdivision meets all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and yet the proposal is not approved. Member Smith said that maybe the Council should consider revising the Ordinance with regard to proposals like this. Member Richards commented that we talk about the ability to use discretion and judgement if whatever is being proposed does not change the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. addressed this issue and have felt that the character and symmetry would not be changed. He said we should talk about whether our standard will be adequate enough for the Council to exercise judgement about how we look at these on a case by case basis and made reference to the controversy over the recent Rolling Green proposal. affordable housing stock for a variety of people and housing choices in the community. symmetry and other standards that we use are appropriate. In a case like this where it comes down to a judgement call based on those standards it is not all black and white; there is only one lot smaller than what is proposed. Also, this is a case of steep topography. special care where we have unusual topography, e.g. steep slopes, etc., and require larger lot sizes. message out that he is not in favor of cutting up the community further. has sensed a feeling of uncomfortableness in the last two years as lots continue to be cut up and that then becomes the standard. He said he did not understand how that can be the standard for the north part of the City and not the south. Jeffrey Gustafson, 6426 Timber Ridge, said he too would like to see the City set some guidelines for builders who want to buy large estates and carve them up. said he felt that as to guidelines, if you can eliminate an existing non-conforming structure and make conforming structures that, as a resident and developer, that should have some merzt. In this case there is existing an old farm house with a detached garage built on the lot line and that personally he felt that a subdivision with two new structures that would be conforming would add to the neighborhood. closer look at what is existing in cases like this and what is proposed to remain and what is to be removed. the subject property on the larger lot and concurred that the property as it exists is functionally obsolete. the property for approximately a year and have had a difficult time selling it. There have been several developers who have had the property under contract that have not been able to figure out how to reconfigure the existing building and make economic sense out of it. He said he concurred with the concept that the property be subdivided for construction of two new homes. Each new lot would be 95 feet wide Lot areas would be 13,700 and 13,335 feet, Both lots would exceed Zoning Ordinance requirements for single Planner Larsen explained that lot sizes and shapes vary He also said he plans to Mr. Irwin responded that he would Member Smith said that he felt this was a In this case staff and the Planning Commission have He pointed out that the other side of the issue is how do we address Member Turner observed that she thought our standards of character and In the Comprehensive Plan we speak about taking Member Smith responded that he would like to get the That he He He suggested that for the future the Council should take a Whitney Payton said he lives across the street from The family handling the estate has tried to sell He noted that Edina is a city 11/21/88 336 which has a substantial amount of demand for new construction and that the Council will continue to see this kind of environment happen in the City because the pure economics are driving it in that direction. He said he is in favor of what Mr. Irwin proposes to do with the property. Member Kelly said she was concerned about the traffic issue and also the storm water drainage, but was impressed by the fact that the neighbors are in support of the project. keeping with the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. She said that, basically, she was in agreement but that she would like to see some drawings regarding how the topography will be handled, how the water drainage will be handled and where the driveways will be located. Member Richards suggested, that in view of the number of questions that have been raised, that Mr. Irwin come back with a footprint on these two lots that would show how the houses could be sited, where the driveways would be, and how the drainage problems would be handled back to the north and to the east so that the Council could reflect on this. He suggested further that maybe our standards are not sufficient and that the Council might consider isolating neighborhoods to talk about quantifying before the fact rather than after the fact. hearing on preliminary plat approval for Irwin First Addition to the Council meeting of December 5, 1988 so that the proponent could respond to the questions that have been raised. That means they feel it is in I Member Richards then moved to continue the public Motion was seconded by Member Turner. Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. A discussion developed among the Council Members with regard to potential subdivision of large lots in the City and whether a charge should be given to the Community Development and Planning Commission to look at the issue. Member Kelly said that when we looked at this the last time the Council reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and looked at parcels that had potential for development. She said she felt the Planning Commission is uncomfortable concerning this issue and that there seems to be some controversy. She felt the process should begin by having the Planner. and the City Attorney give the Council some material on which to base their review and consideration and then that could be followed with an agenda for a joint meeting of the Council and the Planning Commission. response, Manager Rosland said that staff would be asked to develop various concepts regarding the issue as soon as possible and then the Council could consider holding a special meeting with the Planning Commission. FINAL PLAT APPROVED FOR PINEWOOD. Planner Larsen recalled that the Council granted preliminary approval on June 20, 1988 for Pinewood, generally located east of Vernon Avenue and west of Sherwood Road. single family lots with a new public street being developed on the northerly portion of the plat, just south of the Harvey Hansen office Building. conditions imposed at preliminary plat approval have been satisfied and the proponent is requesting final approval. Staff would recommend final plat approval, subject to a subdivision dedication based on a value of the one additional lot of $40,000. neighbor regarding storm water drainage. Planner Larsen explained that a developer's agreement has been signed which addresses that concern. comment being heard, Member Richards introduced the following resolution and moved approval, subject to a subdivision dedication fee of $3,200.00: RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PmOOD In The preliminary plat showed four new All Member Kelly recalled that there was some concern by a No further BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that that certain plat entitled "PINEWOOD", platted by Pinewood Partners of Edina, a Minnesota-general partnership, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of November 21, 1988, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Passing: Smith Resolution adopted. FINAL PLAT APPROVED FOR HED ADDITION. final plat approval for Hed Addition, generally located at the intersection of Iroquois Trail and West Trail. by the Council on August 15, 1988. The plat would create one new buildable lot and the existing house would remain. The proponents have satisfied conditions imposed at preliminary plat approval and staff would recommend final plat approval subject to a subdivision dedication based on a land value of $90,000 for the new lot. and moved approval, subject to a subdivision dedication-fee of $7,200.00: Planner Larsen presented the request for He recalled that preliminary approval was granted - No comment being heard, Member Turner introduced the following resolution RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR €ED ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "'HEI) ADDITION", platted-by Virgil C. Hed and Sharon D. Hed, his vife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of November 21, 1988 be and is hereby granted final plat approval. Motion was for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney 11/21/88 337 Motion carried. DEED RESTRICTION FOR 5200 WILLSON ROAD (TRACT B. R.L.S. 1501) RETAINED. Planner Larsen advised that a request has been received from The Lexington Company, owner of Edina Executive Plaza located at 5200 Willson Road, to release a deed restriction imposed on the property by the City Council in 1979. provisions of the restrictions are: 1) limit the property to only one building., 2) limit total square footage to 52,517 square feet, and 3) that no medical or dental offices are allowed. The new owners of the property would like to construct a new office building on the site immediately south of the existing four-story office building. The new building would contain approximately 10,000 square feet of floor area. footage on the site would increase to approximately 57,000 square feet. Planner Larsen referred to the Council Minutes of December 4, 1978 concerning the public hearing for the initial development of the property. Briefly, there was quite a bit of discussion about what was the most appropriate use of the property, whether it be a residential use or office use and what the intensity of the development should be. The then owner of the property entered into the deed restriction to allay concerns of the Council and nearby residents concerning the proposed office use, the size and height of the building, and the traffic generated by the use. In addition to lifting the deed restriction, the development proposed by The Lexington Company would require variances for parking quantity and parking setbacks. A proof of parking agreement would be impractical since there would not be space available to develop additional parking. Based on those facts, staff could identify no reasons for removing the existing deed restriction and would recommend that the restriction be left in place. Robert Goodpastor, representing The Lexington Company, addressed the Council. restriction in itself. Staff had advised them that until the Council welcomed consideration of releasing the deed restriction The Lexington Company would not be able to submit the full development plan. He said this was mentioned because they are not prepared to address all the issues that were raised by the City Planner. He said the deed restriction centered around the primary concern related to parking and that they have engaged Barton-Aschman, traffic consultant, whose task was to assess the current parking requirement of the existing structure in addition to analyzing the parking demand for the proposed 10,000 square foot addition. Zoning Ordinance at the time of initial development required five parking spaces per 1,000 square foot or approximately 235 parking spaces. the site now. He advised that Mr. Ryan, The Lexington Company, had conducted a parking survey over a two week period counting cars at three various times during the day. The results have been given to Barton-Aschman and they have concurred with the results that showed that the actual highest use was 2.81. said that the proposed addition's adjusted gross square footage is 9,150. Barton-Aschman's report suggested that a ratio of 3 per 1,000 would provide surplus parking to the site and would result in 168 cars. He said the proposed site plans showed 3.75 cars per 1,000 or .75 car per 1,000 more than the report which would calculate out to 211. parking stalls which exceed the recommendations of Barton-Aschman's report still falls short of the 235 that exist currently. What they see their proposal doing is essentially using an under-utilized parking area. Even considering the addition, they are falling short of what was originally perceived to be the number of cars that would be generated by this use, which they interpret the deed restrictions to have attempted to respond to. without the benefit of all the information, plans and the traffic report, it would be difficult for the Council to decide solely on the issue. He said their request is to simply give some direction to staff to pave the way for The Lexington Company to approach the Community Development and Planning Commission and then the Council with the full development plan. .Member Richards commented that if the proponent wanted to make a presentation to the Council that the Council is here to listen. He added that he did not see anything that suggests that what was done in the past should be undone. Planner Larsen clarified that he had suggested to the proponent that if the Council was not willing to consider releasing any or all of the deed restrictions on the property they should save their money and not go on further in preparing plans. recommendation of the Planning Department and resolve to leave the deed restriction in place. Motion was seconded by Member Turner. Mr. Ryan commented that they had spent money on the development plans and had not been aware of the deed restriction until they contacted the City staff. surprised that they would not have the opportunity to even present their case. Member Smith responded that whether or not they had made a formal presentation he would not be persuaded to lift the deed restriction. for vote on the motion. Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. The key If constructed as proposed, the total building square The parking quantity variance would be substantial. He said the request at this meeting was regarding the deed The existing building adjusted gross square footage is 46,912. The That is what exists on Mr. Goodpastor In summary, he said that the 211 proposed Mr. Goodpastor concluded that, Member Smith made a motion to confirm the He said that he was Mayor Courtney then called *BID AWARDED FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF EXECUTIVE COURSE BUILDING. Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Turner for award of bid for reconstruction Motion was made by 11/21/88 338 of th ... *-- Executive Course building t at $180,000. recommended low bidder, Palani Construction, Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *AWARD OF BID FOR PARK SHELTER BUILDINGS RESTROOMS RECONSTRUCTION TO HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY CONTINUED TO 12/05/88. Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Turner to continue award of bid for park shelter buildings restrooms reconstruction to handicap accessibility to the Council Meeting of December 5, 1988. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15. 1988 APPROVED. Member Turner moved approval of the following recommended action listed in Section A of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of November 15, 1988: 1) continued enforcement activity until the end of 1988, and that the neighborhood continue surveying the issue of sidewalk installation of Ridgeview Drive; 2) Rosemary Lane; 3) of St. John's Avenue; 4) To permanently place "NO PARKING EXCEPT SUNDAY, 8:30 AM - 12:30 PM" signs on the north side of Uest 50th Street, east of Edina Court to Maple Road and that St. Stephen's include notation in their church bulletin to instruct patrons to park as closely to curbline as possible; 5) Traffic Engineer that based on the results of speed and volume studies and the conclusion that the accident ratio was minimal that additional traffic control devices at the intersection of Interlachen Boulevard could not be justified, send the letter to the Council for their review and also forward a copy to the Edina School District; and to acknowledge Sections B and C of the Minutes. Motion for approval was seconded by Member Smith. To include Ridgeview Drive in the Traffic Enforcement Unit's schedule of To install "NO PARKING, 8 AM - 3 PM, SCHOOL DAYS" signs on both sides of To place "YIEZD" signs on Ashcroft Lane and Garrison Lane at the intersection That the Committee acknowledge receipt of the letter from the Hennepin County Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. Member Richards asked if citizens are being recruited to fill the vacancy on the Traffic Safety Committee. Engineer Hoffman said that notice has been placed in the Edina Sun-Current and that three individuals have been contacted. DRAFT PROGRAM FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - SOUTHDALE AREA REVIEWED; TRANSMITTAL TO RICHFIELD/EDINA SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND HENNEPIN COUNTY AUTHORIZED. Manager Rosland recalled that staff has discussed with the Council on several occasions the possibility of establishing a tax increment financing district for the purpose of financing public improvements in the Southdale and Galleria area. These improvements include the extension of the transit system northerly from Centennial Lakes and the upgrading of public streets adjoining Southdale and the Galleria. the City could create an Economic Development District. Districts are intended for primarily commercial areas and no findings of blight, blighting factors, or unusual soil conditions are required to be made as is the case for Redevelopment District such as those established for Hedberg/Edinborough, 50th/France and Grandview. area, staff does not believe the necessary findings could be made to create a Redevelopment District. that are created via the Economic Development District process may collect increments for only 8-10 years as opposed to 25 years as in the case of a Redevelopment District. Therefore, the capacity of Economic Development Districts to finance improvements is substantially less than Redevelopment Districts. advised that Attorney Jerry Gilligan and Assistant Manager Hughes have prepared a draft Development Program for the creation of an Economic Development District for that portion of the city located south of the Crosstown Highway and east of France Avenue. Within this area, it is suggested that a tax increment financing district be established for Southdale and the Galleria. Increments collected from the expansion of these two could then be used to finance eligible public improvements throughout the Economic Development District. increments, the City must approve the tax increment financing plan prior to the issuance of building permits for building expansions. Development Program must be reviewed by the Community Development and Planning Commission and acted upon by the City Council at a public hearing. Development Program must, however, be forwarded to affected school districts and Hennepin County as least thirty days prior to the hearing. Edina and Richfield School Districts are affected. Given the nature of the proposed district and the debate at the State level concerning tax increment financing, staff would suggest that the Council review the draft program prior to forwarding it to the school districts and the county for comment. Member Turner asked about the alternatives for accomplishing the goals, e.g. how do we finance building the transit system and the roadway modifications needed in the area. Also, why would other financing techniques that we have used before not work here and are there any other possibilities such as grants for financing the transit In order to establish a tax increment financing district for this area, Economic Development Due to the characteristics of the Southdale/Galleria Manager Rosland explained that tax increment districts He In order to capture such As to procedure, the The In this case, both the I ! I i I I I 11/21/88 339 system. right of way is already in place from the hospital through Centennial Lakes so no additional right of way is needed. this district could be used to acquire the necessary hardware such as buses. this district were not in place the City could use increments from the Hedberg/Edinborough combined districts to buy that necessary equipment and it still could operate outside of the Centennial Lakes project. through The Galleria and Southdale Center without those areas being within a district. tax increment districts to purchase that equipment. This would provide more financial capacity to acquire them with some growth that would occur in the Southdale/Galleria area. Board (RTB) money or state funds or another way to cash in on what other communities have gotten in the way of transit money that the City could get without going to a tax increment district. had applied earlier this year for Suburban Mobility Initiative with Urban Mass Transit which are Federal dollars to run a demonstration program here and were not successful. At the same time there is UMTA which has funded a demonstration project in general for the 1-494 Corridor. demonstration project has been completed there could be some spin off funding later from the same source to provide some money. turned down once, it is not sure if that funding exists again for this sort of project. Federal funds that perhaps could come down but it seems that everyone at this point is waiting to get through the demonstration project for the corridor in general before pursuing anything else. the transit system being part of the Centennial Lakes Phase I program. It is probably more of a Phase I1 program in terms of its operation, simply to get enough density in the area to warrant the system. that the proposed special legislation for the transit system could provide funds to cover the whole range of costs but essentially it is for maintenance and operation. what would be the pros and cons of using that tool versus tax increment to the area or to the City as a whole. available for the whole job; the statute as written would allow the moneys to be used both for capital costs and maintenance costs. that the cons in terms of that area is that the special legislation would be an extra tax on top of the real estate tax dollar. Tax increment would, of course, divert the taxes being paid already for this purpose so the special legislation would create an extra burden on those properties. it is adding more of the valuation of the City to the tax increment district. to the perimeter road improvements, he observed that the local share of those improvements, were it not for an economic district, would have to be special assessments. A couple of those roads, e.g. York Avenue and 66th Street, are part of the County system so a portion would be financed through the County process; the local share were it not for an economic district would be assessed back to the abutting property owners. With regard to State Aid moneys, West 69th Street is on the State Aid system and those funds could be used for that purpose. generally a local share regardless of the source that goes back as an assessment and that would be the case here. Member Turner asked if part of the costs would be for right of way. Manager Rosland said the City would have to push it if it feels that York Avenue should be put into proper shape. Some right of way would have to be acquired to make it work as the engineers think there would probably have to be a service road on each side. Member Richards asked if without this kind of detail would the City run the risk of receiving an easy answer from the school districts affected and the County that this is not a good idea. Assistant Manager Hughes replied that, typically, we have not received adverse comments from the school districts in the past; we have received some adverse comments from the County. Generally speaking, the County has little reason to support these kinds of things. Member Kelly recalled that the City made a commitment to neighbors on Valley View Road adjacent to the Southdale area about sound and asked if this would in any way affect that. boundary on the west would be France Avenue but that prior to adopting this the boundary could be expanded and the process could be used to fund that type of improvement. District, Assistant Manager Hughes said that the Council would have to approve the District at a public hearing; that hearing would have to held after the Community Development and Planning Commission had a chance to review and comment on the Plan. The hearing could not be any sooner than 30 days after a notice goes out to the school districts and to the County. If the Council wished to proceed and have notice sent to the school districts and the County it would be heard by the Planning Commission on November 30 and then it could not then be considered by the Council before the January 9 meeting. and approve the Development District which would have to precede any building permits issued for any of the developments out there in order to capture them. Member Richards asked if it would be possible to include dissemination of that information to all the businesses and major property owners in that area so that they would have the opportunity to look at it and comment on it prior to the public hearing. As to the transit system, Assistant Manager Hughes commented that all the The increments that could be collected from If You could go nor.th It would put more financial burden on the Centennial Lakes/Edinborough Member Turner then asked if there is any Rapid Transit Assistant Manager Hughes said that we It is possible that after that Because the City has been As to the RTB, ultimately their source of money may be some other He added that the we have never looked at Attorney Erickson commented Member Turner asked if that could be the tool for the whole job and Attorney Erickson said that yes, that is Assistant Manager Hughes said The part against would be that As There is Assistant Manager Hughes said that the district With regard to timing on establishing the Economic Development The Council would approve the Finance Plan Member Smith referred to the three existing tax increment 11/21/88 340 districts in the City and asked how many the City can handle. said that once the District is formed we probably would not be doing anything as far as spending dollars for several years as the transit system is more in Phase I1 of Centennial Lakes. might be able to accomplish with Centennial Lakes and, if it is going to be used as a possible alternative funding mechanism, that if the District is not established now we will lose the window all together and not even be able to consider it because of what will be done at Southdale. Member Richards then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby authorizes transmittal to the Richfield and Edina School Districts, to Hennepin County and to the major property owners within the proposed District, of the draft' Development Program for Development District No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 88-2 of the City; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff proceed for a public hearing on designation of the Development District and approval of a Tax Increment Financing Plan be held on Monday, January 9, 1989. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Smith. Rollcall : Ayes: Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Abstaining: Kelly Resolution adopted. Manager Rosland Member Richards commented that this is part of what we RESOLUTION BENEFITS STUDY TO BE DISCUSSED ON 12/5/88 AGENDA. Member Richards made a motion that the Benefits Study be discussed by the Council at the December 5, 1988 meeting. Motion was seconded by Member Turner. Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. LIQUOR STORES REPORT ACKNOWLEDGED. attention to the Liquor Stores Report which explored the question of whether the City should stay in the liquor store business. The report examined five aspects of the question and sets forth specific performance targets that the staff would aim toward if the City retains its off-sale liquor operations. Five aspects were looked at: 1) financial, 2) worth of the stores, 3) legal considerations of selling the stores, 4) social issues, and 5) programs to enhance the image of the stores. He said the bottom line is the recommendation that the City retain the liquor stores and implement the suggestions made in the report to achieve a net profit of ten percent. Manager Rosland then briefly reviewed the details of the report and explained that the recommendation is based upon these factors: a) The stores are worth more to the City as going businesses than as taxable property. That is to say the net worth of the stores substantially exceeds any proceeds that could be realized through sale at this time; b) All stores are profitable; none show losses; c) We are poised to substantially improve the usefulness of the LOGIS liquor management system, and d) Although the 50th Street store shows somewhat disappointing income, retaining an off-sale presence in the SOth/France area insures that competition will think twice before locating nearby. competition should occur, it could negatively impact sales at the Grandview Store instead of helping them. The Council Members commented that it was a good report and informally agreed with the recommendation. Manager Rosland directed the Council's If such No formal action was taken. PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED ON TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF GRANTEE - CABLE FRANCHISE: RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED APPROVING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR EXECUTION OF TRANSFER DOCUMENTS, APPROVING JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE SWSCC. APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS OF SWING. APPROVING SETTLEMENT WITH GRANTEE UNDER FRANCHISE ORDINANCE: AMENDMENT TO CATV RELIEF ORDINANCE NO. 1121 ADOPTED. Pursuant to due notice being given, a public hearing was held to consider amending the CATV Relief Ordinance No. 1121 by providing modifications of the ordinance in contemplation of the transfer of ownership of the company holding the City's cable communications franchise. Manager Rosland advised that Rogers Cablesystems, Inc. is selling all of its U.S. holdings and has requested the City to approve a transfer of ownership of Edina's cable system to KBL, Inc., a subsidiary of Houston Industries, Inc. As part of this transfer process, the City has been asked to take action on a number of matters involving the cable operator and operations for the five southwestern communities (the Cities). Those actions are summarized as follows: 1) Resolution extending time to comply with requirements to complete the transfer of the Franchise to Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. Obtaining final execution of the final documents required has taken longer than the prior approvals allowed. 2) review the transfer of stock of Rogers Communications, Inc. (the parent corporation of Franchisee) to KBL Cable, Inc. SWSCC will hold this hearing for all Cities and make a recommendation as to whether to allow the stock transfer. 3) Residential CATV Network. Approval is to be done by (i) adoption of a resolution approving the Stipulation of Settlement and Release and (ii) adoption of an Ordinance amending CATV Relief Ordinance No. 1121. Manager Rosland summarized the provisions of the Settlement as follows: (i) The Cities will be paid $3.5 million (U.S.) Edina's share is 25%. (ii) The Resolution authorizing a public hearing by SWSCC on November 30, 1988 to Resolution approving the SWING report relative to enhancement of the 4) Approval of settlement with Franchisee. 11/21/88 341 I c\I Lo Lo I a m I I annual franchis fee goes from 3% t 5% of gross revenues. (iii) Th Cities waive the right to purchase the CATV system prior-to the sale to KBL Cable, Inc. (iv) The Cities release the provision terminating the Relief Ordinance upon sale of the CATV System. (v) Waiver by Cities of cost of reimbursement in excess of amounts paid. (vi) Completion by Franchisee of enhancement of Residential Network per SWING Report, with Cities paying one-half up to $17,600.00. Settlement are: (a) 45 days. Adoption of Amendment to Performance Agreement by all Cities. stock transfer to KBL Cable, Inc. within 6 months (extendable by Franchisee or SWSCC for additional 6 months). Following discussion, actio? was taken by the Council on the various documents as follows. Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: Contingencies to Adoption of similar resolution approval by all Cities within (c) (b) Adoption of the CATV Relief Ordinance Amendment by all Cities. (d) Closing of RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE EXECUTION OF TRANSFER DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Edina, Minnesota ("City") has granted a cable television franchise (the "Franchise") to Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership ("RcmS") pursuant to the City's cable communications ordinance (the "Franchise Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. ("RCTSI") is the sole general partner of RcmS and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI"), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc. ("RCA") (collectively hereinafter referred to as "Rogers Companies") ; and WHEREAS, on or about July 11, 1988, the City, pursuant to Resolution approved the transfer of the franchise from RCMLP to RCTSI; and WHEREAS, the approval of the transfer considered in Resolution is conditioned on the filing by RCTSI of necessary documents in conformance with the requirements in Article XIV, Section 2, of the Franchise Ordinance; and WHEREAS, due to matters arising from the sale of RCA Cablesystems Holding Co., there is a need to extend the time for execution and filing of the documents required by the Resolution; and WHEREAS, RCTSI acknowledges that the Stipulation of Settlement and Release approved by the SWSCC and submitted for approval to its Member Cities shall be binding on RCMLP; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City hereby consents to the extension of time for filing documents required by Section A of Resolution as follows: That the Acceptance Agreement containing the requirements set forth in Article XIV, Section 2 of the Franchise Ordinance will be executed and filed with the City on or before March 1, 1989. Passed and adopted this 21st day of November, 1988, by the City of Edina. ATTEST : City Clerk Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Turner, Courtney Abstaining: Richards Resolution adopted. Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: RESOLIPTION APPROVING A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SOUTHGTEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION ON A PROPOSED TRBNSFER OF O'RNERSHIP RELATING TO THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE FOR THE CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina ("City") is the official governing body of the City; and, WHEREAS, the City, in association with the Cities of Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield ("Member Cities") formed the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCC"), a joint powers commission; and, WHEREAS, the City, in association with the other Member Cities, granted a Cable Communications Franchise ("Franchise") to Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. ("Rogers"); and, WJERJQU, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, Subdivision 5, authorized the City to delegate authority vested in it to grant, administer, and enforce the Franchise; and, WHEREAS, Article XIII, Section 3, of the Franchise authorizes the City to delegate from time to time certain rights or obligations under the Franchise to the SWSCC; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083 provides that a public hearing may be held in the event of a proposed transfer of ownership of the Franchise; and, WHEREAS, Rogers has proposed a transfer of ownership to KBL Cable, Inc. of the Grantee of the Franchise through the transfer of the controlling stock interest in an indirect parent corporation of the Grantee; and, 11/21/88 342 WHEREAS, the City, in cooperation with the other Member Cities, wishes to hold a joint public hearing to consider the proposed transfer of ownership pertaining to the Franchise; and, WEEREAS, the SVSCC through its Operating Committee has recommended to the City and the Member Cities that a joint public hearing relating to this proposed transfer of ownership be held on behalf of all Member Cities on November 30, 1988, before the SVSCC at the Edina City Hall beginning at 7:OO p.m.; and, WEEREAS, legal public notice of said public hearing shall be published inviting any interested person to discuss the legal, technical and financial qualifications and character of the proposed transferee; and, IJHERFU, this public hearing and legal notice shall be in satisfaction of all state and local public hearing requirements related to the proposed transfer of ownership. NOW, THEREFORE, in a regular meeting assembled of the City Council of the City of Ed-, the following was resolved: 1, Member Cities, to hold a joht public hearing on the proposed transfer of ownership of the Franchise on November 30, 1988. 2. Legal notice of this hearing will be published by the SUSCC pursuant to the requirements of state and local law. 3. All interested persons in the City who wish to attend or participate in the public hearing on the proposed transfer of ownership of the Franchise are asked to attend the joint public hearing on November 30, 1988. 4. The foregobg notice of public hearing and public hearing shall satisfy all state and local requirements pertaining to this proposed transfer of ownership of the Franchise. This Resolution is passed and adopted the 21st day of November, 1988. I The SUSCC is requested on behalf of the City, in cooperation with the other City Clerk Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Turner, Courtney Abstaining: Richards Resolution adopted. Member Kelly introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: RESOLUTION BPPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOUTBGJEST INSTITUTIONAL NETUORK GROUP ISWING) WHEREAS, during relief negotiations with Rogers Cablesystems, Inc. (Rogers), in 1985, the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SUSCC) agreed to temporarily relieve Rogers of their obligation to provide an institutional network tkough the Southwest suburbs for video, voice and data transmission, and WHEREAS, the relief of this obligation was hinged on the formation of a study group to evaluate the viability of such a network in the area: and VHEBEBS, the study group named the Southwest Institutional Network Group (SQING) was selected by the SUSCC and Rogers in the Spring of 1987 and began their study in August 1987; and WHEREAS, SUING after completion of their study has prepared Findings and made Recommendations to the SUSCC; and WHEREAS, the SUSCC at their meeting on September 7, 1988 approved the following recommendations to the Member Cities: 1) The requirement to build an I-net in the SU franchise area should be deferred for a minimum of five years or until such time as a sizeable base of institutional users is identified and secured to finance the capital expense without cable subscriber subsidy. 2) of the I-net should be at the Commission's discretion. 3) cost share between the SUSCC and the cable company of the $35,321 amount. The Commission, by contributing $17,660.50, is making sure the enhancement is begun prior to transfer of the system and completed shortly thereafter as the ordering of equipment allows. In order to recoup some of the cost in the future from the school districts, requests for channel time on the government and public access channel will be negotiated at a cost to the school districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby approves the recommendations of the SUSCC as herein set out and authorizes the contribution by SUSCC of $17,660.50. Future study of the telecommunications market and economic feasibility That the enhancement of the residential network be implemented in a 50% I AmST : -%A% w City Clerk Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Turner, Courtney 11/21/88 343 Abstaining: Richards Resolution adopted. Member Turner introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING A SETTLEW3NT WITH THE GRANTEE UNDER THE CITY'S CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE ORDINANCE REGARDING TBE EXTENSION OF THE TERM OF THE CATV RELIEF ORDINANCE, BASED UPON CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS THEREOF, TO A PROPOSED TRANSFEREE OF THE FRANCHISE FOR THE CITY'S CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina ("City") is the official governing body of City; and WHEREAS, City, in association with other cities, granted a Cable Communications Franchise tg Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. ("Grantee"); and WHEREAS, the City adopted the CATV Relief Ordinance No. 1121 in 1985 ("CATV Relief Ordinance"), providing for modifications of the requirements of the City's Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance ("Franchise"); and WHEREAS, in approximately August 1988, Rogers Communications, Inc. "(Rogers"), notified City and the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCC"), a joint powers commission comprised of this City and the cities of Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield ("Member Cities"), of the fact that Rogers intended to sell all interest and holdings in its U.S. cable systems to KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas corporation ("Proposed Transferee"); and WHEREAS, as part of Rogers' proposed sale of its U.S. cable systems, Rogers requested that the City extend the term of the CATV Relief Ordinance after the Closing; and WHEREAS, on behalf of this City and other Member Cities of the SWSCC, the SWSCC undertook an evaluation and study of the request of Rogers; and WHEREAS, after considerable study and negotiation, the SWSCC made a recommendation based upon the final offer of Rogers, which is included as Exhibit 1 to this Resolution as a Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Stipulation"); and WHEREAS, at a Commission meeting of the SWSCC on September 7, 1988, the SWSCC recommended that the City approve and accept the conditions under which an extension of the terms of the CATV Relief Ordinance would be made; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the recommendation of the SWSCC and the Stipulation and has determined that an extension of the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Stipulation, is reasonable and acceptable to the City; and WHEREAS, the City understands that Grantee and Rogers agree that the terms of the Stipulation shall not be effective unless the Proposed Transferee enters into a Guarantee Agreement on or before the time of Closing agreeing to guarantee Grantee's performance of the Franchise as amended, the Stipulation, the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, the Performance Agreement as amended, and compliance with the acceptance terms of the Franchise; and WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that the SWSCC has incurred substantial expense in evaluating this proposed settlement, as set forth in the Stipulation. also has incurred expense in this process. for the expenses incurred. undertaken by the SWSCC, the Grantee has paid monies towards such expenses incurred by SWSCC. The balance of such expenses of SWSCC and also the City will be paid from the funds paid pursuant to paragraph 7 be1ow;'and WHEREAS, the SWSCC has recommended that Rogers pay to it directly the proceeds of the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation and such monies be held by the SWSCC until the SWSCC is able to recommend the best use and distribution for on behalf of each of the Member Cities; and WEEREAS, the City has determined that the Stipulation with its attached Exhibits and Resolution, shall not be effective until the sale and transfer by Rogers to the Proposed Transferee is completed. The terms of this Resolution shall not be effective until Grantee and Rogers have complied in full with the Resolution and satisfied all of the requirements of this Resolution, the Stipulation, the acceptance of modifications to the Performance Agreement, and the amendment to the CATV Relief Ordinance, as well as having closed with the Proposed Transferee. NOW, TEEREFORE, in a regular meeting assembled of the City Council of the City of Edina, the following was resolved: Exhibit 1, is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to sign the same on behalf of the City. adoption of the CATV Relief Ordinance Amendment and Amendment to Performance Agreement, which are attached to the Stipulation, by the City, other Member Cities of the SWSCC and the SWSCC. Resolution is not approved by other Member Cities of the SWSCC within 45 days from the date of thLs Resolution. and Rogers shall have signed the Stipulation and the Proposed Transferee guarantees the performance of the Grantee and satisfies the transfer requirements of the Franchise. not be effective, unless Proposed Transferee enters into a guarantee agreement on or before the time of Closing of transfer of ownership from Rogers to Proposed The City Both the SWSCC and City must be paid The City acknowledges that as part of the process 1) That the Stipulation with its exhibits, which is attached hereto as 2) That the terms of this Resolution are contingent upon approval and 3) That the terms of this Resolution shall be null and void if a similar 4) That the terms of this Resolution shall be null and void unless Grantee 5) This Stipulation and all of its lhhibits shall be null and void and shall 11/21 /88 344 Transferee agreeing to guarantee Grantee's performance of the Franchise as amended, this Stipulation, the CATV Relief Ordinance as amended, and the Performance Agreement as amended, and unless the Proposed Transferee complies with the terms of Article XIV of the Franchise; and That if a Closing of the transfer by and between Rogers and the Proposed Transferee does not occur within six (6) months, the terms of this Resolution shall be null and void. Member Cities has given final approval to a similar resolution. period may be extended by either Grantee or SWSCC for an additional six (6) months without further consideration. and mailed to the last known address of each of the parties identified herein. The Closing shall also provide that the Proposed Transferee of the Franchise shall agree to be botmd by the terms in this Resolution and shall guarantee Grantee's performance of the Franchise, the CATV Relief Ordinance and Amendment to the CATV Relief Ordinance, the Stipulation and such other requirements as may be set forth in the resolution by the City approving the transfer to the Proposed Transferee. The SWSCC is hereby authorized to collect the sum of $3.5 Million (U.S.) in immediately available U.S. funds wired by Rogers to the SWSCC account, First Bank Mhneapolis, Account No. 602-3377-564 at the time of the Closing betveen Rogers and its Proposed Transferee. The sum so collected by the SWSCC may be deposited in the account of the SWSCC and invested in accordance with requirements applicable to municipalities. Within thirty (30) days after the $3.5 Million (U.S.) payment is deposited in the SWSCC account, the SWSCC shall accomplish the 6) The 6-month period commences when the last of the five The 6-month Notice of such extension must be done in writing I 7) folloving: (a) The SWSCC is authorized to reimburse itself for its costs and expenses in connection with the Stipulation and not previously paid for by the Grantee and Rogers. advance payment made by the Member Cities to the SWSCC for expenses of the SWSCC in connection with this Stipulation. pursuant to Section 2 of the Stipulation, if required, the Cities' portion of costs for the enhancement of the subscriber netvork as identified in the Stipulation. interest will be disbursed by the SWSCC in accordance with paragraph 8 below. 8) Cities, the SWSCC shall distribute the balance of the proceeds to the Member Cities in accordance with the folloving distribution formula and City shall be responsible for its own costs and expenses in connection with this Stipulation out of its portion of the distribution: PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTION* (b) The SWSCC will reimburse to each of the Member Cities an (c) The SWSCC will pay to Rogers or place the sum in escrow (d) The balance of the $3.5 Million (U.S.) together with accrued Unless otherwise specifically authorized by resolution of all the Member I Eden Prairie 20.0% $ 700,000 Edina 25.0 875,000 Hopkins 10.0 350 , 000 Minnetonka 24.5 857 , 500 Richfield 20.5 717 , 500 TOTAL 100.0% $3,500,000 *Based on an average of each city's proportion of the total subscriber revenues for the 7-year period of the Relief Agreement adjusted to reflect the fact that each city provides an equal contribution for a portion of the funding of the SWSCC. The SWSCC shall review cable-related needs of the Member Cities and shall make its recommendations on the uses of the $3.5 Million (U.S.) proceeds prior to the Closing between Grantee and the Proposed Transferee. The Member Cities shall have the opportunity for consideration and approval. recommendations shall not delay distribution of such balance to the Member Cities. Consideration of such This Resolution is passed and idopted ATTEST : the 21st day of November, - 1988. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Smith. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Turner, Courtney Abstaining: Richards Resolution adopted. Member Turner moved adoption Ordinance No. 1121-81 as follows, with waiver of Second Reading : ORDINANCE NO. 1121-81 AN ORDINANCE &KENDING CATV RELIEF ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 1121, PROVIDING MODIFICATIONS IN CONTEMPLATION OF A TRANSPER OF OrJNwsHIP OF THE CITY'S CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE AND PERMTTING CONTI"CE OF RELIEF TO THE TRANSFEREE OF THE FRANCHISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MNNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOILOWS: 11 /2 1/88 345 CU Ln Ln 72 a 5 Section 1. Short Title. Section 2. Background and Purpose. and holding in its U.S. cable systems to KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas corporation ("Proposed Transferee"). The transfer from Rogers to the Proposed Transferee shall be effectuated through the transfer of the controlling stock interest in RCA Cablesystems Holding Co., the parent corporation of the Grantee. previously granted relief to the Grantee under the Franchise by Ordinance known as the CATV Relief Ordinance. Rogers has requested relief from the Franchise to be extended after the Closing, irrespective of the requirement in the CATV Relief Ordinance that the CATV Relief Ordinance terminates upon transfer of ownership and control of Grantee of the Franchise to a new owner. request of Rogers and recommended extending certain portions of the CATV Relief Ordinance to a proposed new owner. with certain conditions by the Grantee and the acceptance of requirements including this Ordinance, by the Proposed Transferee of the Franchise. A Stipulation of Settlement with Rogers and Grantee, Exhibit A ("Stipulation") and a Resolution of Approval of Settlement, Exhibit B ("Resolution"), are attached. The Stipulation and Resolution provide a description of requirements and conditions and are made part of this Ordinance by reference. effective only if the Stipulation and Resolution are satisfied and Proposed Transferee agrees to be bound by the terms of this Ordinance as part of its acceptance of the transfer of the ownership of Grantee. Section 3. follows : This Ordinance shall be known as the "CATV Relief Ordinance Amendment." Rogers Communications, Inc. ("Rogers") has agreed to' sell all interests The City The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCC") has reviewed the This recommendation is based upon compliance This Ordinance will be That Section 4 of the Relief Ordinance is hereby amended to read as SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. Ordinance. Subdivision 2. the meanings given them: (1) "Franchise" means the Cable Communications Ordinance as now or hereafter amended. (2) "Local Programming Obligations" means, for the purpose of this ordinance, Grantee's obligations under the Franchise and the Offering for cablecast access, community access and local origination programming. Grantee, City and SWSCC providing a means for monitoring Grantee's financial condition, assuring an adequate level of local programming, and providing for certain other matters related to Grantee's requested relief, as amended. The definitions in the Franchise also apply to this In addition, the following words and phrases shall have (3) "Performance Agreement" means a contractual agreement between Section 4. That Section 5 of the CATV Relief Ordinance is amended to read as follows : SECTION 5. RELIEF GRANTED. While this Ordinance is in effect the obligations of Grantee are modified to the extent provided in this section. this Ordinance No. 1121-Al, the annual franchise fee shall be 3% of gross revenues. Commencing with the effective date of this Ordinance No. 1121-A1 the annual franchise fee is 5% of Gross Revenues. Such annual fee shall be paid to City in equal quarterly payments on or before the first day of each of the months of November, February, May and August next following the end of Grantee's fiscal year. Subdivision 2. reduce the required amount of the Letter of Credit below $50,000 if in its sole discretion it determines that a lesser amount is reasonable and adequate to protect the public. of the Letter of Credit to be increased or fully restored to the amount of $50,000. written notice has been given by the City. $300,000 performance bond required by the Franchise. The City Council may thereafter by resolution require that such bond, or a similar bond in a lesser amount, be provided by Grantee. within sixty days after written notice has been given by the City. least 1% of its annual Gross Revenues each fiscal year in fulfilling its Local Programming Obligations under the Franchise Local Programming Obligations under the Franchise for public, governmental, and educational access, but it shall not be obligated to expend more than that amount for such access. That amount shall not include any costs of operation, capital for access equipment replacement previously agreed to by the parties in Exhibit 2 to the Contract for Local Programming Facilities, which is Exhibit A to the Performance Agreement, which shows the equipment to be maintained and replaced, or administration not directly related to the provision of local programming. This expenditure shall be in complete satisfaction of Grantee's total Local Programming Obligations during the.period of this ordinance. That Section 6 of the Relief Ordinance is hereby amended to read as Subdivision 1. Franchise Fees - Percentage. Until the effective date of Letters of Credit. The City Council may by resolution It may thereafter, by resolution, require the amount Grantee shall comply with this requirement within sixty days after Subdivision 3. Performance Bond. The Grantee may dispense with the Grantee shall comply with this requirement Subdivision 4. Local Programming Obligations. Grantee shall expend at Section 5. follows : 11/21/88 346 SECTION 6. AUTOMATIC TERMNBTION OF RELIEF ORDINANCE PROVISIONS. The provisions of this ordinance, and the relief herein granted, shall cease to be effective, automatically, upon the occurrence of the earliest of any of the following events: Subdivision 1. March 1, 1991. Subdivision 2. Failure of the Grantee to restore or replace the full required amount of the Letter of Credit as provided in Article VIII, Section 4, paragraph H of the Franchise. either a Letter of Credit or bond within sixty days of written notice by the City, as provided in Section 5, Subdivisions 2 and 3 of this ordinance. term, condition or provision of this Relief Ordinance is invalid or unenforceable, as a result of any action taken by Grantee or anyone acting on Grantee's behalf seeking such determination. Subdivision 3. Failure of the Grantee to restore, replace or increase I Subdivision 4. A holding or determination by any court or agency that any Subdivision 5. Termination of the Franchise. Section 6. That Section 7 of the Relief Ordinance is amended to read as follows: SECTION 7. OTBER TERMINATIONS. This ordinance may also be terminated for cause, under the same procedures for termination as are contained in the Franchise, for the following reasons: including the Relief Ordinance as amended, except to the extent that Grantee's performance obligations are modified in this Ordinance. provisions of the Performance Agreement. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and adoption by City and upon (1) Publication of this Ordinance; (2) Ordinance similar to this Ordinance within 45 days of the adoption of this Ordinance; (3) Conformance by Grantee with all the terms and conditions of the Resolution, Exhibit B, and of the Stipulation, Exhibit A, and of the Amendment to the Performance Agreement, Exhibit DD to the Stipulation, mibit A. (4) (5) within one (1) year from the date hereof and notice thereof to the Member Cities of SWSCC. (6) required by Paragraph 5 of the Stipulation. Subdivision 1. All grounds for termination provided in the Franchise, Subdivision 2. Failure of the Grantee to comply vith any of the Section 7. Effective Date. satisfaction of all of the following conditions: Passage and adoption by each of the Member Cities of the SWSCC of an Acceptance by Grantee in conformance with Section 8 of this Ordinance: Closing of the transfer of ownership from Rogers to Proposed Transferee I Execution and delivery by Proposed Transferee of a guarantee agreement as Section 8. Guarantees. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with the provisions of Article XIV of the Franchise including delivery to the City of the acceptance, opinion of legal counsel, guarantees and other documents as required by said Article XIV. November, 1988. Acceptance of the Relief Ordinance as amended; Providing of Passed by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, this 21st day of &\ Mayor ATTEST : *&JG% k City Clerk Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Turner, Courtney Abstaining: Richards Ordinance adopted. RESOLUTION ADOPTED OPPOSING STATE FUNDING OF MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL COMBINED SEWER. Manager Rosland advised that the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) has requested that member cities approve a resolution opposing state funding of the Minneapolis and St. Paul combined sewer separation. has been very active in working with the MPCA and others to develop a method of funding combined sewer separation projects in the two core cities. Subsequently, the Legislature passed a bill providing for a loan and grant program which would enable St. Paul and Minneapolis to complete their sewer separations by 1996. The scheme settled on included a combination of federal grants, no interest state loans to be repaid beginning in 1996, state grants and self-help. hours of the last Legislature, two provisions were inserted in the appropriations bill which repealed the provisions requiring repayment of the loans. the repealer forgave the approximately $32 Million that was to be repaid by the two cities in 1996. Another factor is the abolition of the federal grant program. It now appears that the federal share will be reduced by approximately $49 Million from that expected when the funding plan was developed. The Legislature will have to face the problem in the upcoming session. two cities will ask the Legislature to make up the $49 Million in federal money Finance Director Wallin explained the the SRA In the waning In effect, The SRA Board anticipates that the 11/21/88 347 which will n t be forthcoming. The Board fe 1s it is patently unfair for the residents of the state to pay for the replacement and separation of sewers in the two cities as most cities have paid for their own separate storm and sanitary sewer systems. cities speak up. In addition to passing the resolution, elected officials should make sure that their state legislative delegation understands the problems. Member Turner noted that the AMM policy on this issue has been that if the state government continues to pursue the accelerated CSO program in the core cities that is also continue to provide funding to ensure that neither local property taxes nor metropolitan sanitary sewer costs are increased due to the accelerated build effort. The AMM Board has requested that it have the opportunity to review and comment on any proposed legislation for significant change in the financing for the separation project. requiring repayment of the $32 Million loan, Member Turner commented that the reason for the repealer was that there was a trade-off. projects that would have been paid for by state money, e.g. Como Park and River Road Project, were picked up by Minneapolis and St. Paul as the trade-off for forgiving the $32 Million loan. Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: RESOLUTION UJBREAS, the Suburban Rate Authority has assisted the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Legislature in formulating a program for funding combined sewer separation in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul; and 'RIIEREBS, such sewer separation is required by law and by contract, and is otherwise desirable; and UJBREAS, expected federal funding for the program has been cancelled and replacement funding must be identified; and WHlBEAS, most cities in the seven county metropolitan area have built separate sanitary and storm sewer systems, principally through local funding; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Edina, does by this resolution state that it is opposed to the spreading of the replacement funding upon the State Treasury, and that it believes the most equitable resolution is for the affected cities to themselves provide that funding. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Richards. Therefore, the SRA Board feels it is imperative that the member With regard to the legislation repealing the provisions Two regional park Following discussion on the proposed resolution, Rollc a1 1 : Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted . *1989 LABORATORY SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY APPROVED. Motion was made by Member Turner and seconded by Member Kelly for adoption of the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and Manager to execute Agreement No. 90137 between the County of Hennepin and the City of Edina, for the period of January 1, 1989 through December 31, 1989 for the purpose of providing Environmental Health Laboratory Services for Hennepin County. RESOLUTION Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. LETTER OF MARY LAYER REGARDING RAMP PARKING DISCUSSED. Manager Rosland referred to a letter addressed to the Council dated November 21, 1988 from Mary C. Layer, The Lanterns, requesting permission to obtain a parking permit which would allow parking in excess of the time limits posted in the ramps. Specifically, she and apparently other residents of The Lanterns wish to park their cars overnight in the 51st Street Ramp. to Ordinance No. 1232 only persons employed by businesses at 50th and France may purchase such stickers. permit has been discouraged due to the risk of vandalism or theft. not closed or gated at night and the City does not employ a security service for the ramps. to prepare an amendment to the ordinance. Staff would recommend against such an amendment due fo concerns about overnight parking. the Council that staff should respond to Ms. Layer and tell her that the Council has denied her request because 1) the City has always discouraged overnight parking in municipal ramps due to risk of vandalism, etc. and 2) the City is concerned that if overnight parking were granted individuals may ask for long term storage of vehicles which would conflict with the intended purpose of the ramps. COUNCIL LIAISON WITH BOARDS/COMMISSIONS DISCUSSED. Member Turner commented that with the new Council in January that the matter of Council liaison with boards and commissions would be reviewed. She reminded the Council that she is currently the elected representative on the South Hennepin Human Services Council Board. is a working board and specifically requires a member of the Council. Courtney also pointed out that the representative to the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission must be an elected official. Parking permits are available at 50th/France but according In addition, overnight parking by persons possessing a The ramps are If the Council wished to consider the request, it should direct staff It was informally agreed by That Mayor APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR COUNCIL MEMBER DISCUSSED. Member Turner commented that she has received calls rezardine the Council appointment to be made in January, 11/21/88 348 She suggested that the public be informed as to the process that will be followed. Member Richards commented that the process is open, but that the Council cannot formally deal with the appointment until the first meeting in January when there will be a vacancy. forth his thoughts on how to proceed so that this can be discussed by the Council at the December 5 meeting. COUNCIL PACKET BEING SENT TO COUNCIL MEMBER ELECT PAULUS. that a Council packet has been sent to Council Member Elect Jane Paulus and that we will continue to provide a packet to her until she takes office in January. said he had also invited her to attend the Council meetings. CLAIMS PAID. approve payment of the following claims as per pre-list dated 11/21/88: General Fund $329,452.96, Art Center $3,620.04, Capital Fund $12,434.50, Swimming Pool Fund $118.84, Golf Course Fund $12,278.08, Recreation Center Fund $143,118.26, Gun Range Fund $369.01, Edinborough Park $9,573.86, Utility Fund $9,376.69, Liquor Dispensary Fund $77,086.52, Construction Fund $59,690.43, Total $657,129.19 and for confirmation of payment of the following claims dated 10/31/88: General Fund $12,072,714.80, Art Center $957.70, Svimming Pool Fund $3,231.71, Golf Course Fund $13,360.44, Recreation Center Fund $7,782.19, Gun Range Fund $444.32, Edinborough Park $11,030.22, Utiliw Fund $43,452.77, Liquor Dispensary Fund $238,372.45, Total $12,391.346.60. He said he would circulate a memorandum to the Council setting d Manager Rosland advised He I Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Turner to Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Courtney declared the meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. , . -- City Clerk MXNUTES OF THE CLOSED MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL DECEMBER 5, 1988 Council Member Present: Kelly, Smith, Turner and Mayor Courtney Others Present: City Staff and City Attorney The Edina City Council held a closed meeting on Monday, December 5, 1988 at 6:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing possible litigation concerning the proposed Berenberg subdivision. Attorney Erickson explained the City's legal position on the proposed subdivision. He also advised that, considering the Council's concern with regard to requests for subdivision of large lots, a moratorium on platting and subdivision of lots in any Single Dwelling Unit District be considered by the Council so that the existing ordinances and controls regulating plats and subdivisions could be studied to determine whether or not they should be amended. taken and no other business was discussed by the Council. at 6:50 p.m. No formal action was The meeting adjourned +aucvc-3, Wk City Clerk