HomeMy WebLinkAbout19900402_regular30 1
HINOTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINLL CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY
APRIL 2, 1990
ROI;Lc6z;L Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor
Richards.
VOLUNTEXR RECOGNITION WEEK PROCLAIMED
Member Smith for adoption of the folloving proclamation:
VBEBEBS, volunteers have enriched the life of our community through their concern,
commitment, and generosity of spirit; and
WEEREAS, volunteers are a vital resource to provide for the well-being of our
community and its citizens; and
WEEREAS, volunteerism embodies a spirit of giving and spirit of growth; and
WEEEkUS, the City of Edina is proud of the efforts of our volunteers and wishes to
thank them for their dedicated service;
NOW, THEBeFORE, I, Frederick S. Richards, Mayor of Edina, MIinnesota, do hereby
proclaim the week of April 15 - 21, 1990, as:
ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 1990.
Motion of Member Kelly vas seconded by
PROCLAMATION - VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK
VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION REEK
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED
Member Rice to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented.
Motion was made by Member Smith and vas seconded by
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*lKlNUTES OF TEE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5 AND JOlXl! BRB/COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH
19. 1990 APPROVED Hotion vas made by Member Smith and vas seconded by Member
Rice to approve the Minutes of the Regular March 5 and Joint HRA/Council Meeting
of March 19, 1990.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED ON THE DESIGNATION OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND APPROVAL
OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PIAIUS ADOPTED
advised that notice of this hearing was published, and sent to the School Board,
to the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County, and also to property owners in
the proposed district although this is not a requirement.
consideration are:
Assistant City Manager Gordon Hughes
The three areas for
1. 44th Street and France Avenue
2.
3. 70th Street and Cahill Road
Valley View Road and Wooddale Avenue
The development program and tax increment financing plans, comprise the legal
documents which establish the districts.
establishment of T.I.F. Districts and the plans are conceptual and not final.
Establishment of T.I.F. Districts is the basis for estimating public costs and tax
increment revenues and a framework for deciding the location and the amount of
future public expenditures. Mr. Hughes stated that these plans rely ultimately on
market place decisions.
not constitute rezonings, amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, site plans,
or an authorization to acquire private property.
Plans are required prior to the
He noted that these development/redevelopment plans do
These are not the only plans,
302 4/2/90
property owners/developers may propose different plans for these districts and
public hearings would have to be held.
Fred Hoisington, of the Hoisington Group, a consulting planner who has prepared
land use plans for the site was introduced by Assistant Manager Hughes, also J.
Peter Meyers who has assisted the City as liaison with the business community.
Mr. Hoisington inquired about how much background should be presented to the
audience, with a reminder that a number of people had not seen the proposal.
Mayor Richards told Mr. Hoisington to go through the plans again to familiarize
everyone with what the development plans propose.
consultants like to look at the plans for the three areas in a planner's view.
Problems and needs of these areas are as follows:
Mr. Hoisington stated that
44th Street and France Avenue - The plan presented stressed a concept more
than a physical plan with a change in density of housing on the north side of 44th
Street, yet maintaining the character, ownership and architecture of the area.
The area closest to'44th has a lack of parking while buildings in back have a
surplus of spaces. Steep slopes pose a problem in developing parking in their
area. Rehabilitation of the are was-mentioned. Mr. Hoisington described a
redevelopment of the area south of Sunnyside Road which would include a retail
center of 15,000-20,000 sq. ft., and an office building of 8,000-10,000 sq. ft.
Wooddale Avenue and Vallev View - Streets are 61st, Kellogg, and Oaklawn.
Landmarks are a large multi-family building, day-care center/office building,
shopping center and gas station. Mr. Hoisington pointed out the dangers of the
area; risks for pedestrians, parking and circulation of traffic. Some unsightly
uses exist, while roads do not meet State Aid standards. The conceptual plan,
shows a possible expansion of the shopping center, clinic and drug store, with a
refocusing of that location to the east. The conceptual plan also shows some
restructuring and reorientation but retention of some business to reflect the
Comprehensive Plan which states these types of districts should be contracted to a
degree. A need was noted for Kellogg not to continue through to Valley View but a
separation between retail and residential could be designed by creating a
hammerhead cul-de-sac. Landscaping, with entry features, the widening of Wooddale
from 30' to 32'-36' with turn-lanes would be an attempt to create identity for the
area.
I
70th Street and Cahill Avenue - Streets in the area are West 70th Street,
Cahill Road and Amundson Avenue.
multi-family housing unit and Cahill Shopping Center.
'~O'S, has experienced some leasing difficulties because of the steep grade and
dis-jointed buildings. The conceptual plan is if one building could be built,
retailers could leverage off of each other. One approach for King's Court would
be upgrading and expansion plus the development of a single center with one
building. The plan could include possible vacation, addition of a cul-de-sac on
Amundson with the result being the retention of the industrial and redevelopment
of the center. One other idea is to eliminate the central building and link all
buildings together. One main problem with this link would be the 7' grade between
buildings. Rehabilitation of these buildings is another possibility via
low-interest loans.
Landmarks are the old Cahill School, a
Cahill Center, built in the
4/2/90 303
Assistant Manager Hughes spoke about the recommended action needed is to adopt the
resolution which approves the development plan and the tax increment financing
plans for each district.
Mayor Richards commented that the letters received, have been reproduced and
circulated to all of the Council Members.
for comments and concerns from the audience.
looking at this is in the belief that the window of opportunity exists to give the
City necessary tools to properly plan these commercial areas.
being decided upon tonight, only the creating of tax increment districts under
consideration, if the Council wishes.
He opened the Public Hearing and asked
He stated the reason we are again
There are no plans
Dr. Philip Sidell, 3920 Sunnyside Road; Mary Jo Aiken, 4548 France Av. S.; Jim
VanValkenburg, attorney representing the Edina Cleaners; Dr. Franklin Sidell, 3920
Sunnyside; Ruth Elwell, 4311 Eton Place; Bill Scholmak, attorney representing Mr.
Gold; Laura Plaetzer, 4058 Sunnyside Road; Walter Sandison, 4612 W. 58th St.; Bob
Roster, owner of Roster's Service & Rentals on Valley View Road & Kellogg; Eric
Kolsom 3924 44th St. W.; Lois Roen-Brickley, 6120 Kellogg all spoke in opposition
of the development of tax increment financing districts.
Oaklawn Av. spoke in favor of the creation of these districts.
Steve Soltau, 6100
One member of the audience asked if one vote would be taken for all districts or
votes taken individually.
on individually, The question was asked if both sides of France Avenue would be
involved. Assistant Manager Hughes answered that Minneapolis has been contacted
about their embarking on their own tax increment plan and said he hoped they could
later join efforts. Another questions was whether the lines on the proposal could
be expanded or contracted.
add a parcel to the district than delete it.
Mayor Richards commented that each area would be voted
Assistant Manager Hughes said it is more difficult to
Audience comments and concerns ranged from concern about property being taken,
concern over the nearly completed renovation of some properties, loss of business
because of relocation, different levels of parking lots, traffic problems, the
necessity of change, the concern for the maintaining of the unique charm and
architecture, safety, the upgrading of Valley View was an often heard comment,
landscaping would be desirable, and less population would be a plus.
Mayor Richards asked for questions or concerns from the Council or audience.
Member Kelly asked J. Peter Meyers if he would explain what he has done with this
proposal.
J. Peter Meyers, stated he has spent 6 weeks representing the City as a liaison
between the planner, involved parties and the City. Upon his recommendation, and
with his attendance, one-on-one private meetings were held for those who had
concerns or questions.
Member Kelly asked Mr. Meyers what his assessment was of the meeting held. Mr.
Meyers said there had been some lack of understanding, but with property owners
input, questions began to arise and answers were attempted. Some property owners
now represented directly, received answers from neighbors or via rumors and he
felt some of the apprehension was being represented at this meeting. He said his
job was to alleviate some of that apprehension by the meetings.
is not taking advantage of the property owners, but offering a tool that has been
He feels the City
304 4/2/90
. properly used by Edina in the past, with this being the opportunity to do that.
Member Kelly asked again whether we are trying to reconstruct a blighted area or
that we are meeting a social need for public good. Mr. Meyers said we are looking
to the future, no one knew what the effect of Southdale would be when it was being
developed either. Member Kelly expressed her thanks to Mr. Meyers for his work on
this project.
Member Rice mentioned about previously heard comments regarding 44th and some to
Valley View & Wooddale.
opposition at 70th & Cahill than at 44th and at Valley & Wooddale, and asked Mr.
Meyers if he felt the same.
Mayor Richards answered the question about the necessity of establishing this tax
increment financing area, stating we need not do anything, and could let matters
resolve themselves which would be an easier course, but he does not believe this
is the right course.
advantage that others have experienced and continue to experience with tax
increment financing districts.
legislators of Edina for the mis-handling of tax increment money, and being
compared to Minneapolis. He stated that Edina has not and will not go that route.
We are fiscally responsible in Edina and will remain so. Mayor Richards predicted
some residents will come before the Council at a later date asking for help with
public improvements and public monies and Council is proposing they do them all
themselves. Again, we could do nothing, and miss the opportunity to create a
situation to work with the private sector in trying to improve these areas. In
answer to comments, about putting in a lot of money with no pay-back, Mayor
Richards explained the City would not spend money unless we can be assured it can
be captured in the tax increment financing district.
comment heard regarding the ability to use these vehicles for financing of public
improvements but not to give a subsidy to the private sector, Mayor Richards said
if money is available it could pay for the public improvements, if not, those
public improvements are not done.
spending is not accurate.
properties, philosophically, he would not support any private property being
taken.
enable the private sector and remaining viable areas able to compete with other
areas throughout the metropolitan area.
At the last hearing, Mr. Rice said he felt there was less
Mr. Meyers concurred.
The do-nothing course would deprive property owners of an
Mayor Richards mentioned the bashing by
I In explanation to another
The statement that we are engaged in deficit
Another comment heard about taking residential/private
He offered his support in the creation of these districts which would
Member Rice questioned a troubling comment that was heard regarding whether the
free market process is inhibited if these districts are adopted.
Assistant Manager Hughes answered that by adopting the plan, some properties or
certain buyers could become undesirable or might chill a sale. On the other side,
the presence of a property in a district tends to attract buyers rather than chill
the buyers. Member Rice asked in which district was this the case. Mr. Hughes
stated that at 50th & France, three homes south of the Peoples Plus station are
included in the plan and were shown for multi-family housing, that housing has
never occurred, yet sales on those houses have been brisk. Member Rice questioned
about another comment regarding the expansion of a business and if the
establishment of this district would be a detriment to this. Manager Hughes
answered no, the plan shows an opportunity for expansion, and would add some
credence of expanding the business rather than opposing a negative on it.
could vary property by property, retail opportunities could be enhanced rather
than be reduced.
This
4/2/90 305
Member Smith took exception to the comment that this establishment of a tax
increment district idea was dreamed up in response to folks in St. Paul. He
explained this issue was discussed last spring and may have forced us to adopt a
schedule, and identify things that we could maintain such as viable retail areas.
The intent was not to control what could be or could not be done with buildings in
the area. Looking at the plans, we are shown the planner's view. Maintaining the
vitality of the buildings and homes is the City's job. He stated he saw little
wrong at 44th but would like to facilitate some fix-up of the area.
could be assured is to capture increments of tax between a certain date and a
future date. This would not be developed by the City, nor would homes be
purchased, this would be done by a developer with an interest in your property.
Correspondence has been received regarding the Valley View area. Some property
owners in that area have ideas of what they would like to see done.
commented that he does not want things to be razed, but is interested in options
we have to invest in improving the area.
a planner's view. The owner of the property has begun doing some improvements,
without asking for public money. He said his hope would be that the City would
have the money for the property owner when he would be ready to improve the area,
street wise, etc. The charm of these areas must be maintained, but somehow the
City needs to be ready when the area needs help.
question about trust of the Council to maintain the same posture, Member Smith
stated it depends on the Council that you elect having your same views.
encouraged the audience to attend Council meetings, write letters to the Council
with their views, and to attend Planning Commission meetings when these issues are
being decided upon.
One way this
Member Smith
In the 70th & Cahill area, we have seen
In answer to an audience
He
Member Jane Paulus stated the job of the City Council is to represent the whole
City in long range planning, not only for today but for years in the future.
her perception of what has been expressed is mainly a 'me' point of view is
difficult to address one-on-one. Residential areas in Edina that seem to be
appreciating the greatest in home value are those that have a neighborhood
identity.
seem to be bringing prime dollars back today into those areas.
these three areas hit those points very well.
Member Kelly asked what were the four options. She said she has a difficult time
with tax increment financing, she believes the private sector should be the
risk-taker in a market driven economy yet she had a concern a few years ago about
the 44th & France area when Minneapolis was doing improvements on their side.
Member Kelly commented that she is pleased with improvements she sees happening.
She still hears comments about the beautiful way the 50th & France project turned
out. During the time of the improvements with 50th & France the economic climate
was different and she does not feel 44th & France has the same characteristics.
The Valley View & Wooddale area has two problems, the gas station and traffic.
The Cahill development has been before the Council before, and said she is looking
for some public assistance there to make it happen.
hard decision but felt she must vote against the proposal.
What
People moving into those areas want a small area they can walk to, and
Member Paulus said
Member Kelly said this is a
Member Rice asked if there was a timeline on these projects.
commented that the duration of the Wooddale & Valley View district and the 70th &
Cahill district would be a maximum of 10 years from the day of its establishment
or at most 8 years of increments. 44th & France could last a maximum of 25 years.
Member Rice questioned if the vote taken tonight would be to establish these
districts. Manager Hughes stated yes. Member Rice asked it at any time in the
Manager Hughes
306 4/2/90
- next few years more planning could be initiated with no effective date. Member
Hughes commented that there is a four-year, knock-out provision, which means if a
parcel is not benefitted by a public project or through tax increment financing
within four years of establishment, that parcel drops out of the district.
later, for instance in the fifth year, it could then come in to the district but
just for three more years, until the conclusion of the district.
If
Member Rice commented that he agreed with many comments heard, but did not agree
with the taking of property. He believed the planner working with the City has
responded well by that the plans are too aggressive. He said if he were drawing
the lines or putting in uses, he would do them differently. He commented he has
heard conflicting comments such as,, save my business even though it is unsightly,
and donlt touch this facility, it generates 2,000 cars per week, and then donlt do
anything that will increase traffic.
establishment of these districts, as it gives the City an option. There are no
mandates to do anything at any time, but the opportunity and option to work with
the single family and property owners in these areas. One interesting comment was
made that this would be a catalyst to spur more examination of these areas and
establishing cooperation between private and public sector.
futures of these areas must be seen. Member Rice stated he would vote in favor of
these proposals.
He stated he is in favor of the
Some visions for the
Member Smith inquired about when the 50th & France development was done, how were
the people and property owners within that tax increment district involved. Mayor
Richards stated that in 1970-72, one of the strongest groups was the 50th & France
Business Association which still meets on a regular basis. The Vernon Avenue area
has a group that meets on a regular basis with continuous involvement also.
Assistant Manager Hughes commented that a steering committee was and still is
working as an interface with the City. The committee is typically made up of
tenants and landlords and is currently meeting with him on a monthly basis on a
prospective project this year.
hearing form the 50th & France Association, and what impact they have had.
Manager Hughes stated they had participated very closely in the initial project
and with the present project are guiding our architect more than staff in terms of
the urban design elements that are being pursued.
Member Kelly asked if members of the 50th & France Business Owners Association was
comprised of members of the Minneapolis side too.
Association does have Minneapolis members and that the Edina side is in a tax
increment district while the Minneapolis side is not. The improvements for the
Minneapolis side were financed through special assessment as opposed to tax
increment financing. Member Kelly asked that perhaps the association does more
than work with tax increment issues.
Member Rice inquired if property owners would feel like they were in a quandry if
these districts were established, and would an orderly timetable be developed.
Manager Hughes stated that it varies from district to district. The 44th & France
district is similar to 50th & France and recommendation would be to encourage that
area to adopt and establish an association that can be worked with - to bound
ideas off of and be a sounding board.
meant to be months or years. Manager Hughes commented months would be needed to
get something like that started. 70th & Cahill is a much less cohesive area and
one property owner is instrumental with what will happen in that district. Valley
View & Wooddale is more in the middle, with two key owners in that district. An
Member Smith questioned the type of input he was
Manager Hughes said the
Manager Hughes commented yes.
Member Rice asked if this timetable was
4/2/90 307
association would also be beneficial in that area.
after creating the districts, it would be the decision of the Council how
aggressive or reactive they would like to be in promoting the districts.
Manager Hughes stated that
Mayor Richards commented the issue of aggressive or reactive promoting of the area
bears discussing.
improvements. The initiative has come from the private sector with building
expansion, etc.
have been instituted, that the initiative had been taken by the City.
be done, but would fly in the face of the City, in that if the private sector does
not want to do it, then the City shouldn't propose it.
projects, and if a deadline is put on it, it might create an artificial
stimulation that may or may not be warranted by the area that is under discussion.
Member Rice inquired whether it would be the City's policy to encourage these
areas to be in constant communication with City staff, that these plans and uses
are not in concrete, but are here to help. Mayor Richards concurred that we are
here to discuss any proposals that the private sector may come up with.
The City has not been proactive in trying to promote types of
He referred to the four previous tax increment districts that
This could
The City is not creating
Member Kelly asked in establishing these districts, if the City must have a plan
in order to approve a district, and how much flexibility can we have with the
plan.
detailed plans or land uses that are set forth in the development program. Goals
and objectives need to be stated about the City's intentions, but no details need
to be done.
Attorney Gilligan explained that under the statute there is no need for
Member Smith asked if it is typical in a plan to go into the detail that has been
done for these proposed district.
plans come about because there is a development that will occur, so it is known,
as opposed to not knowing what is going to happen.
districts allow for much more flexibility and are proposed plans, but do not
commit the City to the specific land use.
of the plan, we do not have "little boxes" of future development.
line has been drawn around a neighborhood or an area and that identifies the
district.
information staff has used to determine what the size the district should be.
Attorney Gilligan stated that many of these
The proposals for the
Member Smith said in his understanding
In the plan a
The plan does not spell out this or that happening, but is background
Mayor Richards asked the pleasure of the Council.
Member Rice made a motion for the adoption of the following resolution as it
relates to the establishment of a tax increment district for the 44th Street and
France Avenue area:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 90-1, 90-2
CERTIFICATIOEI OF THE TAX IN- FINANCING
AND 90-3 MAKING FINDINGS AND REQUESTING
DISTRICTS 90-1, 90-2, AND 90-3.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, MIinnesota, as
1. On April 2, 1990, this Council held a public hearing on the designation of
follows :
Development District No. 2 (the "Development District") and the adoption of the
Development Program for Development District N0.2 (the "Program") and on the
adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing
308 4/2/90
I Districts 90-1, 90-2, and 90-3 (the "Tax Increment Districts"), after notice of
public hearing was published in the official newspaper of the City not less than
10 days prior to the date of the hearing.
planning department on the designation of the Development District. All persons
desiring to be heard at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their
views.
2. Copies of the Program and the Tax Increment Financing Plans have been
presented to this Council and are ordered placed on file with the City Clerk. The
forms of the Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans are hereby approved and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Development District and establishment of the Tax Increment Financing Districts
are hereby approved.
4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 3, it is
hereby found for the reasons set forth in the Program and Tax Increment Financing
Plans that :
A. Tax Increment Financing Districts 90-2 and 90-3 are each in "economic
development district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
subdivision 12.
B. Tax Increment Financing District 90-1 is a "redevelopment district" as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10.
C. The proposed development outlined in the Program in the opinion of this
Council would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
forseeable future and therefor the use of tax increment financing is deemed
necessary,
development of the City as a whole in that it aids in the development of the
property in the Development District in a manner that alleviates deficiencies in
the Development District as set forth in the Program.
E. The Tax Increment Financing Plans will afford maxirmun opportunity
consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development of the
area included in the Development District by private enterprise in that it
alleviates deficiencies in the Development District as set forth in the Program.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 3, clause (a).
appropriate officials of Hennepin County to establish the Tax Increment Districts
for the premises in the City described in the Tax Increment Financ
c
The City has consulted with its
3. The Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans and the designation of the
D. The Tax Increment Financing Plans conform to the general plan for the
F. The City elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in
5. The City Manager is authorized and directed to request that the
Passed by the Council this 2nd day of Apri
J
Mayor
Attest: -??d%a%4-
Citv Clerk ., The motion was seconded by Member Paulus, and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Nays: Kelly
Motion carried.
0 Member Smith made a motion for the adoption of the following resolution as it
relates to the establishment of a tax increment district for the Wooddale Avenue
4/2/90 309
and Valley View Road area.
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The Motion was seconded by Member Rice, and upon vote
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Nays: Kelly
Motion carried.
i 'I
Member Smith made a motion for the adoption of the following resolution as it
relates to establishment of a tax increment district for the 70th Street & Cahill
Road area.
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
The motion was seconded by Member Rice, and upon vote being taken
*FINAL DEVEMPMEWT PIAN FOR 7101-13 AHUNDSON
vas made by Member Smith and seconded by Member Rice to continue the final
development plan for 7101-13 Amundson Avenue, George Kosmides, generally located
at southeast corner of Cahill Rd and Amundson Av until April 16, 1990.
CONTINUED TO 4/16/90 Motion
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
REOUEST FOR RELEASE OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS DENIED - SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER
ADDITION
Addition. In March 1986, Council approved a final plat at the intersection of
52nd Street and Minnehaha Boulevard.
off the rear portion of two lots that were fronting on Minnehaha Blvd.
condition of that approval was the imposition of private restrictive covenants
that would be imposed prior to the release of building permits on the two lots.
Those covenants were never signed or recorded, consequently staff has refused to
issue building permits for the two lots.
Gislason, one of the two parties of the original plat, requesting the Council
remove restrictions as a condition of the building permits.
structured as a private covenant, seven nearby property owners were given the
standing to enforce the provision of the covenants. The neighbors were notified
of the request and the hearing before the Council.
Covenants, Section 1, paragraphs A-H set forth design criteria for the houses to
be built upon the lots and the intent at the time of those provision was to insure
that the design materials and the scale of the new homes would be similar to those
existing in the neighborhood.
Mr. Robert Gislason, 5205 Minnehaha Blvd., lawyer and 40 year Edina resident,
submitted a letter to Council asking that the special building restrictions be
removed.
his neighbors, the only difficulty with this was the lot length with it only being
119' where the code calls for 120'. Lots in the area are generally 60' wide, with
the proposed lots being 76' and 78' wide, 25% sq. ft. greater than what is
required.
Dr. Steiner did appear in 1986, before the Council as he wanted to sell his home
and move to Montana. When Dr. Steiner approached Mr. Gislason, with a long list
of covenants and restrictions, he did not agree with the covenants and would not
sign them. Mr. Gislason believed the covenants to be onerous, and for all
practical purposes these lots seem unmarketable with the covenants in place.
The nine covenants in question are:
Planner Craig Larsen gave background of the Harriet Park Steiner
That plat created two new lots by breaking
A
Council/Staff received a letter from Mr.
The restrictions were
Specifically within the
He stated that when he was asked to join in making the subdivision by
This is choice land and should be subdivided and put on the tax roles.
A. No more than one family dwelling on each lot
310 4/2/90
B. Houses shall face and front on West 52nd St.
C., Houses shall have a 40' rear setback and no house shall be within 40' of
the rear boundary of the lot
Houses shall not exceed 11/2 story in height and shall be not more than
25' at the highest point
Roof pitch shall be 6/12 or greater
more than 2' above the center line of W. 52nd. St., and follow Edina
Ordinances
combination of such.
not exceed 12"
D.
E.
F. Garages shall be attached, with two stalls; garage floor shall be not
G. Materials for exterior shall be brick, shakes, lap siding or a
The width of exposed shakes and lap siding shall
H. North faces of houses shall be less than 100% glass such that the front
Mr. Gislason passed-out copies of two Supreme Court Landmark Cases, June 1, 1962,
No 38,420, T. Joseph Olsen v. City of Minneapolis and May 1, 1959, No. 37,609,
State Ex. Re;. Melville Foster and Another v. City of Minneapolis and Another. In
The Foster case dealt with a municipal corporation that may not condition
restricted uses of property upon the consent of private individuals such as the
owners of adjoining property. In that case, 2/3 of the adjacent property owners
tried to stop something. The Olsen case dealt with the building of a underlying
motive in denying plaintiff the permit, was its conclusion that the operation of
the filling station would violate the neighborhood concept which is sought to
insure. These are choice lots in a nice neighborhood. Mr. Gislason stated he has
not tried to market this land, but has been approached by people who had gotten
his name from City Hall. He stated he felt these lots should be put on the tax
roles the same as all the adjoining land, and felt that the restrictions were
unfair and unlawful.
Member Paulus asked, when these ordinances were established in 1986, was the legal
opinion that these could stand.
attached of February 3, 1986, stating these lots were sub-standard, because they
were not deep enough and needed a variance.
neighbors were advised of a problem. A meeting was held February 3, 1986, with
the neighbors, City staff and Mr. Steiner. At that point it came before Council
as an agreed upon instance where the parties said fine, these conditions are
acceptable, accept and approve the plat with these conditions imposed. At that
time no research or opinions were given and no dispute was heard.
plat approval was subject to the obtaining of the recorded conditions, and appears
by the time of the final plat approval, these had not been signed and the plat was
approved subject to them not issuing building permits.
there, it was just deferred, the way the minutes read. There were no opinions
given at that time on the validity of the restrictions,.
he is familiar with the restrictions cited, restrictive uses may not be
conditioned on the consent of adjoining property owners.
case Mr. Gislason spoke about and agreed that you can not deny a requested
activity within the ordinance that is solely based upon the objections of
neighbors. This case was not based on neighborhood approval nor based on
aesthetics, it was a consent arrangement that came before the Council.
Paulus asked if her understanding is that this arrangement as originally drawn up,
could stand in a court of law.
problems with the restrictions as framed.
Council, there was no dispute at the time. He believed what happened was that the
Council imposed these restrictions, based upon a statement that everything was
, walls of the houses shall not be all glass
Attorney Erickson referred to the minutes
Within the variance process, the
The initial
The same consent was
Attorney Erickson stated
He referred to the Olsen
Member
Attorney Erickson said there may well be some
The legal issue did not come from the
4/2/90 311
fine. Whether the Council would have acted and approved the plat, had there been
a dispute was another point. The plat was approved based upon the statement that
these conditions would be imposed.
would become null and void if these conditions were not met. Mr. Erickson stated
this would be an argument if these conditions were withdrawn and the approval was
given on the presumption that these conditions were going to be there, therefore
the plat should not have been approved and it may be revoked.
whether the City Ordinance presently states that no future single family homes in
Edina can be built with only a single car garage and couldn't be grandfathered in
for a one car garage.
Member Paulus inquired if a person building a home meets all ordinances, would
these plans be reviewed by the Planning Department.
the restrictions that are before the Council are a private matter and the City is
not party to those. If there was a disagreement, the seven parties would have to
enforce the covenants. Member Paulus asked, if at the time this was discussed
back in 1986, were all parties part of the discussion at that time.
Larsen said two parties proposed the plat and all dealings were with Dr. Steiner
with no staff contact with the Gislasons. The City was led to believe that there
was an agreement on the proposal. Member Paulus asked whether Mr. Gislason was
aware of or present at discussions going on about this. Mr. Gislason stated he
was not present, and had no information that discussions were taking place. His
first knowledge of a problem was when he was asked to sign a document concerning
these restrictions and he refused to do so.
this happened.
Mr. Larsen at that time and asked if he had had a problem with the original
agreement that was drafted. Mr. Gislason stated he explained his position to Dr.
Steiner and left it up to him and said again that he would not sign it. This has
come up now because there is a purchaser that ..is interested in one of the lots.
Mancel Mitchell, 5137 Juanita spoke for himself and his neighbor Maria Beal, 5136
Indianola; Rita Lehnert, speaking for her mother, Mary, 5209 Minnehaha Boulevard;
Carolyn Wenger, 5212 Halifax; spoke in opposition to the lifting of the
restrictive covenants.
Member Paulus questioned whether the plat
Member Paulus asked
Planner Larsen stated there must be a two-car garage.
Planner Larsen stated that
Planner
Member Paulus inquired about when
He said 2-3 years ago. Member Paulus asked if he had spoken to
Doug Grabham, 5201 Minnehaha, offered an apology for his bringing up the matter to
begin with. He said he had a vested interest as he pays the taxes on the empty
lots.
Comments heard from the aforementioned residents ranged from the belief being that
anyone interested in building in the area would keep to the spirit and flavor of
the neighborhood and could easily build within these covenants, residents were in
the belief that the City was a part to the process of the drawing up of the
covenants, if the Council chooses to lift these covenants the suggestion was heard
that the whole plat process should be reexamined.
Mayor Richards asked for concerns or questions from the Council.
Member Paulus commented that if these covenants are removed, it should go back for
variance review. The intent was that the subdivision was granted with the
covenants riding with it. She asked for a clarification from the Planning
Department regarding her interpretation of this so that the proponents are aware
that it will go back through the process.
312 4/2/90
I . Member Rice asked for clarification on the process. Could anyone buy these lots,
come in and build on them without a plat being filed. Attorney Erickson said he
had not read the statute lately but believed that a court order would have to be
acquired to cancel the plat that has already been filed.
Member Kelly asked what it would take to get a court order and would it be very
expensive. Attorney Erickson stated it all depends upon how hard Mr. Gislason
fights, it could be expensive depending upon how difficult a task it is on the
defense side. There would have to be some arguments of misrepresentations that
led the City to do what they did and after these were proven to be such, we should
have the opportunity to revoke. Member Kelly said in her understanding that if
these covenants are lifted, this is the process that would have to be done.
Attorney Erickson said no, it is a choice.
Member Rice said if these covenants are rescinded, then we are contingent upon
someone else doing something to get control back over the process.
recalled the action was an approval of a certain action predicated upon certain
events occurring. If one action is removed, the burden is upon the Council. At
that time staff was instructed not to issue a building permit until those
covenants were filed. If the covenants are removed, the position seems that the
staff is free to issue the building permit.
view then the action stands.
Mayor Richards
If we do noe agree with that point of
Member Paulus commented that if you want to see how ridiculous the covenants are,
speak to the people who live in the Country Club area.
lot, say these are the house plans that they are going to build on the lot, but
they are not legally tied in to those plans, once the lot is purchased. There is
no safeguard because staff has seen the plans to say to the neighborhood they have
a guarantee that the house will fit in when it goes up.
Someone can purchase a
Member Kelly said her understanding was that these covenants were between the
people involved and the process.
difference of opinion regarding whether a variance should be granted. Before
getting to the merits of granting or not granting a variance, a consensus was
presented to the Council by the then affected property owners, putting the
restrictions on the property.
platted or replatted.
Member Rice asked if on that basis the Council assumed this was the case. Mayor
Richards said he does not know how he would have thought on the variance, but when
everyone was in agreement, he did not consider this onerous or would in any way to
diminish the market value of the property. Character and symmetry of the
neighborhood is always examined to see if development is consistent with
regulations.
what was being proposed was what the end result would be.
way he voted in 1986, and planned to vote the same on the proposal.
Member Paulus asked Mayor Richards if he had any problem with legal issues on this
issue standing. Mayor Richards said he did not use the word legally, but knew
where he stood in voting with what is right or wrong. Member Paulus again said
that she had no problem with this, but if it stands, she felt that the City would
be legally challenged.
of a possible suit against the City.
Mayor Richards commented that the Council had a
There was no objection to the property being
Mayor Richards said the way he saw the situation was to assure that
He stated that is the
Mayor Richards stated he would not change his mind because
4/2/90 315
subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent
ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may
be provided for by those ordinances.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 1990.
RESOLUTION
WEEREAS, the following described tracts of land constitute various separate
parcels :
Ut 3, Block 1, ENGLEHARDT'S ADDITION, and
Ut 1, Block 1, FARMER'S SECOND ADDITION
FJHEBEhs, the owners of the above tracts of land desire to subdivide said tracts
into the following described new and separate parcels (herein called "Parcels"):
Ut 3, Block 1, ENGLEHARDT'S ADDITION, except the south 5 feet, and
Lot 1, Block 1, FARHER'S SECOND ADDITION, and the south 5 feet of Lot 3,
Block 1, ENGIXHARDT'S ADDITION; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance vith the Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations of the City of Edina vi11 create an unnecessary hardship and said
Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the
Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinances
Nos. 804 and 825;
NOW, THEBEFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is
hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 804 and
Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof
as separate tracts of land but are not vaived for any other purpose or as to any
other provision thereof, and subject, hovever, to the provision that no further
subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance vith the pertinent
ordinances of the City of Edina or vith the prior approval of this Council as may
be provided for by those ordinances.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 1990.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
DECISION OF BOARD OF APPEBLS OVERTUJUED: SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE GRANTeD - 4420
VANDERVORK AV
decision by the Edina Board of Appeals to deny a 1.5 foot sideyard setback
variance for case B-90-9, 4420 Vandervork Av. The Board met March 15, 1990, to
review the subject variance. At issue is a sideyard setback which is a typical
situation which we have in the City, where as the building gets taller, the
sideyard setback requirement is increased by 1 1/2' on both sides of the house.
The Board of Appeals heard this request, reviewed testimony from the proponent and
decided to deny the request.
to answer any questions.
Mayor Richards asked the proponent to speak.
Associate Planner Phil Dommer gave background on the appeal of the
He said the proponent was present with her designer
Mayor Richards called for questions from the audience.
Star Marie Anderson-Atwater, a 10 year resident at 4420 Vandervork Av., stated
that in March, Planner Dommer told her that a home in her neighborhood had a
variance when it was built and her home will resemble this home when her addition
is completed. Ms. Anderson-Atwater added there are 7 houses on her block, 4
316 4/2/90
I - two-story and 3 one-story. She said her neighbors have no objection to the plans,
after examining them.
the Anderson-Atwater home and the neighbor on the other side has only one window,
a bathroom window. She said she has two children and needs room and it would be
more expensive to put the addition in 1 1/2 ft.
One neighbor adjoining has one window on the side facing
Mayor Richards opened up the meeting for comments on why this variance should not
be granted.
Member Kelly asked if any neighbors were in the audience that would speak to this
issue. She noted she has driven around the area and commented that this is a
unique area in that the back yard is a wetland, across the street is a park and it
is east west facing so no blocking light out with 2 story houses next to the one
story houses. She said she wished she could hear the neighbors state they have no
objection to this addition, but after her examining of the area she stated she
could allow this variance to be granted.
Member Paulus asked of Planner Dommer whether we got any comments at the time the
original variance was heard.
no comments heard, either at the hearing or by letter.
Associate Planner Dommer commented that there were
Member Smith asked Planner Dommer if these neighbors have ever signed off.
Planner Dommer said no, that it is not required that neighbors sign, their
opportunity to make their feelings heard is at the hearing, and they received a
notice about that.
agreement with the proponent's statement that the neighbors do not object.
Planner Dommer stated he did not know this for sure.
Ms. Anderson-Atwater commented that one neighbor's son who does painting and
wallpapering and wants to do the work.
neighbors were all right with this addition.
City can do is send notices and give people the opportunity to participate.
Member Smith stated the Council does not know what the residents think and
expressed concern.
Member Smith inquired if there is a way of indicating
Member Smith wanted more evidence that the
Mayor Richards stated that all the
Mayor Richards called for the pleasure of the Council.
Member Kelly made a motion to allow the variance to be granted and that the
decision of the Board of Appeals for the sideyard setback at 4420 Vandemork Av be
overturned.
wished the minutes to read that no neighbors were present at the variance meeting
and at the public hearing April 2, 1990, nor was there any public comment noted.
Member Kelly said if that was to be included that it should be noted that at the
Board of Appeals meeting the vote was a 2 to 2 vote which failed because the lack
of maj ority .
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
A second to the motion was made by Member Smith. Member Paulus
W3EARING DATE OF 4/16/90 SET FOR PLANNING MATTERS
and vas seconded by Member Rice setting April 16, 1990, as hearing date for the
following planning matters:
1) Final Rezoning - R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD-2, Ron Clark
Construction
Motion was made by Member Smith
4/2/90 313
Member Rice said what he is hearing is that everyone wants to maintain character
and symmetry, maintain the neighborhood, etc. If this stands and someone who
wishes to build on this property must follow the covenants, would the City be in a
position to allow this to happen or not. Attorney Erickson said, no, the time it
was set up, it was established that surrounding neighbors were the enforcing
entities.
building permit, but if they don't comply with these, the neighbors could say they
did not comply with them and must.
neighbors to take the action to stop or go ahead with-building.
Mayor Richards stated there are a number of choices but the three that surface
are :
permit should be issued until these restrictions are placed of record which in
effect carries forward those conditions as set forth.
restrictions altogether.
that the related issue be addressed whether or not the City should take action to
unwind the approval of the replat and the filing of that replat and to go back and
address the fact of a variance being necessary to develop the lots that have been
created out of the replat. Or take the action that this does not need to be done,
but that the replat be filed and then in effect the City's staff should issue a
building permit upon compliance with all building requirements for detached single
family residence rezoning.
continuance if additional information is needed.
If they comply with their building code, they are entitled to a
Member Rice stated that it would be up to the
1. Affirm the action taken by a previous Council saying that no building
2. Accept the current proponent's request to remove and release those
If that is the decision of the Council, then suggest
3. Do not deal with it, and refer it back to the Planning Commission or for
Member Smith stated that the proponent could go back and negotiate with the
property owners that is affected by this agreement that goes with the land by
virtue of the platting, and try to get modifications that are deemed necessary and
bring that revision back to Council and then go forth and enforce their
restriction.
stated he felt things should be as they are, and that Mr. Gislason should try to
work with the neighbors, if they at that time want to revise it then do it. Mr.
Smith said he would vote to let it stand.
If neighbors wanted to modify this plan they may. Member Smith
Member Smith made a motion to deny the request to remove the restrictive covenants
from the South Harriet Park Steiner Addition, and a second to the motion was given
by Member Paulus.
Member Rice stated he would support the motion, however, if Mr. Gislason came back
in the future and said he was able to negotiate all but one item on the list, and
no one is responsive to that, he might have a different attitude about it.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
* TAT DIVISIONS APPROVED FOR 7021 WEXFORD RD AND 7028 AND 7100 DOWN ROAD: AND FOR
6124 AND 6128 EWING AV SO Motion vas made by Member Smith and vas seconded by
Member Rice for adoption of the following resolutions:
IIEEWAS, the following described tracts of land constitute various separate
parcels :
RESOLUTION
Lot 12, PROSPECT HII;IS, and
314 4/2/90
Lot 2, Block 1, GKLFFITH ADDITION, and
Lot 1, Block 1, SCHEP'S PBBK VIEW 2ND ADDITION
WEEREAS, the owners of the above tracts of land desire to subdivide said tracts
into the following described new and separate parcels (herein called "Parcels"):
Lot 12, PROSPECT HIIILS, except that part of Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS lying
southeasterly of a line running from a point in the easterly line of Wexford
Road distant 67.26 feet southerly measured along said easterly line, from the
southwesterly corner of Lot 13 said PROSPECT HIIILS, to a point in the
northeasterly line of said Lot 13, distant 50.00 feet northwesterly, measured
along said northeasterly line, from the southeasterly comer of said Lot 13
and lying westerly of a line drawn from a point on the above described line
distant 97.08 feet northeasterly along said line from the easterly line of
Wexford Road to a point on the south line of said Lot 12 distant 139.81 feet
easterly along said south line from the most westerly comer of said Lot 12.
Subject to easements of record, if any; and
I-
Lot 2, Block 1, GRIFPITH ADDITION, and that part of Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS
lying southeasterly of a line running from a point in the easterly line of
Wexford Road distant 67.26 feet southerly measured along said easterly line,
from the southwesterly corner of Lot 13 said PROSPECT HILTS, to a point in
the northeasterly line of said Lot 13, distant 50.00 feet northwesterly,
measured along said northeasterly line, from the southeasterly corner of said
Lot 13 and lying westerly of a line dram from a point on the above described
line distant 97.08 feet northeasterly along said line from the easterly line
of Uexford Road to a point on the south line of said Lot 12 distant 139.81
feet easterly along said south line from the most westerly comer of said Lot
12.
thereof. Subject to easements of record, if any; and
Lot 1, Block 1, SCHEY'S PARK VIEW 2ND ADDITION, and the east 54.03 feet, as
measured at right angles to the east line, of the following described
property: That part of Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS lying southeasterly of a line
running from a point in the easterly line of Wexford Road distant 67.26 feet
southerly, measured along said easterly line, from the southwesterly comer
of Lot 13 said PROSPECT HILLS, to a point in the northeasterly line of said
Lot 13, distant 50.00 feet northwesterly, measured along said northeasterly
line, from the southeasterly comer of said Lot 13 and lying westerly of a
line drawn from a point on the above described line distant 97.08 feet
northeasterly along said line from the easterly line of Wexford Road to a
point on the south line of said Lot 12 distant 139.81 feet easterly along
said south line from the most westerly corner of said Lot 12. Subject to
easements of record, if any.
a Except the east 54.03 feet as measured at right angles to the east line
WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said
Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the
Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinances
Nos. 804 and 825;
NOW, THEaEpORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is
hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 804 and
Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said divzsion and conveyance thereof
as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any
other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further
4/2/90 317
2) Final Plat Approval - Highcroft Addition, Ron Clark Construction
3) Preliminary Rezoning Approval - PCD-4 Planned Commercial District to PCD-2
Planned Commercial District - Walgreen’s by Semper Holdings - 4916 France Avenue
South
4) Preliminary Plat Approval of R-2 Double Dwelling Unit District to PRD-2,
Planned Residential District - Schaefer Development
5) Final Development Plan - Opus Corporation - Western National Mutual Insurance
5350 W. 78th St., 5309 Industrial Boulevard - Building Expansion
6) Final Development Plan for 6969 France Av. S. - Gabbert and Beck Building
Expansion
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 902-A7 (TO DELETE TERMINATION PROVISION FOR ON-SALE
WINE LICENSES) GRANTED
Ordinance 902-A1. Council adopted the wine licensing ordinance on April 1, 1985,
which allowed sales of wine only in qualifying restaurants. Sec. 43 of the
ordinance provided for automatic termination of all previously issued licenses and
also stated that no licenses shall be issued after July 1, 1990. There are three
options that the Council may wish to consider:
Manager Rosland gave background information about the wine
1. Extend the sunset provision to a future date.
2. Repeal the sunset provision as stated in Sec. 43.
3. Take no action and hold a public hearing on the sunset provision.
Staff has no objections to wine licensing, it has gone well as a general rule,
with getting paperwork done the only problem and not with wine as a public
nuisance problem.
Member Kelly introduced Ordinance No. 902-A7 for First Reading as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 902-A7
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 902-A1
TO DELETE AUTOMATIC TELWINATION PROVISION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Sec. 43 of Ordinance No. 902-Al is hereby repealed in its
entirety.
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
passage and publication.
A second to the motion was made by Member Smith.
Member Smith asked Attorney Erickson what the effect would be with the elimination
of the sunset provision. Attorney Erickson stated that at any time the ordinance
could be amended, deleted or cancelled. Member Smith asked if this would condemn
anyone’s right to sell wine.
not considered a property right so are not subject to claims for taking them away.
Mayor Richards opened up the meeting for questions.
objections were heard.
Attorney Erickson stated that liquor licenses were
No comments were heard or
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
CONCERN OF RESIDENT REGARDING WALNUT RIDGE PARK CONTINUED TO 4/16/90
Rosland explained that the resident at Walnut Ridge Park is away on vacation
unable to attend a Council meeting until 4/16/90.
Manager I
318 4/2/90
I' DISCUSSION HELD ON PRIVATE PARKING LOTS AT FAIRVIEW SOUTHDBLE HOSPITAL AND
SOUTHDALE MEDICAL CLINIC At the March 5, 1990, meeting, staff had presented
information on existing Edina ordinances that would apply to regulation of private
parking lots.
staff bring back further information for discussion regarding additional action
the City could consider.
Following that discussion, it was a consensus of the Council that
Planner Larsen reviewed the following information in his memo of April 2, 1990.
the City of Minneapolis requires a license for all parking lots containing 10 or
more parking spaces. All parking lots are subject to design standards and are
reviewed by the Department of Public Works.
charging for parking, are subject to further requirements, including signage and
stacking spaces.
Council. Key elements of the ordinance relating to Commercial Lots are:
Commercial parking lots, those
All parking lot licenses are granted by the Minneapolis City
EDINA ORDINANCE
Edina requires no ordinance
A, Yes
B. Yes
C. Yes
D. Yes
No Ordinance Requirement
(Note: Stacking spaces were required
for review by City Engineer
No Requirements
No Ongoing or Periodic
inspections required.
MINNEAPOLIS ORDINANCE
1. Licenses required for all parking
lots containing 10 or more spaces - Free Parking: License for initial
application only - Commercial lots: Yearly license
required, Fee between $100-$300
2. Performance Requirements:
All Parking Lots:
A. Hard surface required
B. Setbacks required
C. Landscaping & screening required
D. Design and layout subject to
approval of City Engineer
3. Stacking spaces at entrance
1 space for self-serve ticket vendor
and 3 or 4 for attended lots
A. Name &phone # of licensee
B. Hours of operation
C. Rates, including minimum rate and
maximum rate for 12 and 24 hours.
D. Size of signs defined in Ordinance
necessary by Department of Licenses.
4. Sign Requirements
5. Inspections. Authorized as deemed
Manager Rosland stated that staff had met with the Cambridge Group to make it safe
parking. The stance took by the staff is that Cambridge, in theory, has the right
to do what they want with their property. The responsibility of the City is to
protect public safety. Staff has met with them on a number of occasions, the City
engineers have reviewed it, Hennepin County, because of 77th Street, has reviewed
it also. The engineering and fire staff has been monitoring the lot, with regard
to stacking on the public streets and emergency vehicles.
he had personally visited the lot which was approximately 50-60% full. He exited
on 66th Street but noted about 35 cars parked in the Southdale area, obviously
parked there for Southdale Medical which is a safety concern.
Manager Rosland noted
Mayor Richards opened the discussion to the public.
opposition to paid parking that the owner of the Southdale Medical Building have
imp 1 emente d :
The following spoke in
4/2/90 319
Sarah FOSS, Richfield resident; Gordon Hendrickson, 5708 Upton Ave. So.; Paul
Belvedeere, DDS, tenant in the Southdale Medical Building; Doneta Hoffman, 5825
St. John's Av.; Leanne Tillman, 8370 Red Rock Road, Eden Prairie; Robert Thorp, a
resident of Edina; Dr. William Wright, 6621 Sally Drive, retired pediatrician; Dr.
Doug Lambert, DDS, 6205 Hansen Road; Paul Mullin, owner of Foto-Lab in Southdale
Medical Building; Gary Bolmgren, resident of Richfield; and Glenn Hendrickson.
Objections and concerns voiced included: paying for parking at both the hospital
and medical building, access for emergency vehicles, concern for non-ambulatory
patients, building safety, lack of communication between building owners and *
tenants, permanent completion of the lot, no means of dropping-off/picking-up of
people, fear of patient and/or doctor egress. Safety for patients choosing to
park in the Southdale Center lot and crossing 66th Street to the Medical Building
was expressed by several persons as well as safety of pedestrians entering the
building from the lot.
Mayor Richards asked what has been done about access to the building for emergency
vehicles in the public right-of-way.
been examined by the Police and Fire Departments, i.e., curbs, etc., as to
adequate access.
exactly that, and will be changed when weather allows construction. One lady has
been hit on the Southdale Center perimeter road coming from the medical building.
As the parking lot is now, no one can be dropped off at the front door, however,
if you drive in and stay less than 15 minutes there is no charge.
Manager Rosland explained that the area had
Two areas previously mentioned as temporary drive-overs are
Planner Larsen summarized the differences between Edina's ordinance requirements
and the Minneapolis Ordinance.
from choosing to charge for parking, no communities were found that prohibit
charging.
impositions for Edina if the City were to adopt an ordinance to preclude someone
from charging for parking on private property.
Ordinances must be related to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
This charge or no-charge would have to be tied to the existence of a health or
safety factor.
be some reason to impose an ordinance restriction.
found between the ordinance and the activity being governed.
Licensing requirements do not preclude someone
Mayor Richards asked the City Attorney if there would be legal
Attorney Erickson stated that City
If charging begins and it becomes more of a safety risk, there may
Some nexus would have to be
Member Paulus asked, if the City were to establish an ordinance regulating parking
lots after the fact, could we require those standards then to be met. Attorney
Erickson commented that Edina has fought that issue with building codes, where a
new building code is adopted, and existing buildings must comply. This has been
won on a health-safety issue, i.e., sprinkler in a basement so firefighters don't
get caught in smoky areas. This could possibly be done if it is a health-safety
feature, otherwise it could be a non-conforming use grandfathered in,.
Member Smith asked whether crossing of 66th Street by pedestrians could be
characterized as a life-saving issue.
actual use of the lot, by virtue of charging, may make it a safety factor. Member
Smith asked whether the City can regulate a drop-off access.
said yes, if it were in the public street where it might back-up traffic and
result in people getting hurt.
regulation and the health-safety feature it entails. Member Smith asked it is is
necessary in every building to have a public-free access to an automobile without
charge.
Attorney Erickson stated no, rather the
Attorney Erickson
This may well have the connection between
Attorney Erickson said no, not without charge but Edina's code requires
4/2/90 320
. all buildings to have access to public streets. Member Paulus asked if that could
be an ordinance requirement.
health-safety factor to it. Just because the lot does not have free access it
does not necessarily indicate a safety feature. It could be stated that people
could not be dropped off in the public streets, or areas that otherwise would be
posted for no-parking or no-stopping. If there was parking on the street, it
would be difficult to stop and unload someone. It it were a non-stop, non-park
area, it could be said you cannot unload people in those types of zones, and it
could be posted as such.
Attorney Erickson said again only if it has a
Member Paulus commented that this is private property and that the issue as to
charging is their decision. She again stated concern over the stacking of cars in
the lot, the crossovers and the traffic flow as being the biggest health-safety
hazards that need correcting.
parking must have cash upon exiting.
Signage should state that people using the lot for
Member Smith stated he recently doctored at another facility with a family member
that had paid parking, and did not like it. However, it was part of the facility,
and was out of his control. There is no regulation that states you cannot charge
for parking. Also,
that.the building owners should have given the tenants more notice on the
implementation of paid parking. If the concern is safety, this is an item that
can be addressed by the Council, but an ordinance cannot be designed saying
someone cannot charge for parking.
Member Kelly asked whether this would be brought back as a draft ordinance, or
whether this would be open for discussion again.
the safety issue, the need for a charge for licensing, and said a lot of employee
time had been spent on this issue and the City should be reimbursed.
He felt there could be better access for emergency vehicles.
She stressed the importance of
Member Rice suggested that an ordinance be pursued.
acted fast and the City had no ordinance permitting or not allowing paid parking
or licensing to happen.
would certainly have been more than 24 hours to consider its approval. He
mentioned other paid parking facilities in the area; however they all have a
pick-up/drop-off access.
The marketplace will tell Cambridge if their decision-was good or bad. The tenants
are upset and have communicated that to the owner.
the owners will rethink their position on paid parking.
concern, but staff feels it is a safe access even though it looks awkward. There
is a feeling that not everything needs to be regulated but if there are going to
be commercial parking lots in the City, there must be some control over them,
i.e., a process and reimbursement for the process.
Cambridge came into Edina,
He stated if we were starting with a vacant lot, there
Member Rice said he felt the situation will improve.
If many leave the building,
Safety is the major
Mayor Richards in summation said that safety seems to be the biggest concern, and
along with that, regulations about how we would license and inspect, and how we
would see parking lots function. Whether to charge or not to charge should not e
the issue focused on.
health-safety issues also have been discussed.
draft an ordinance that would address the issues raised to be brought to Council
on May 7, 1990, to which the Council concurred. He also suggested that Gambridge
be notified of the meeting. Member Smith suggested that Cambridge be notified of
the concern for clear access to the front door for drop-off/pick-up.
Access questions have been raised, emergency and
Mayor Richards asked that staff
I
4/2/90 32 1
Dr. Belvedeere asked if he could submit a video tape that he has made of the
parking lot entrance which might help to make a decision.
that any information which might help in the decision-making process, should be
submitted to City staff.
Mayor Richards said
BID AWARDED FOR TOW !CRUCK WITH RECOVERY UNIT Public Works Director Francis
Hoffman explained this request was continued from the March 5, 1990, meeting. He
noted the attachments in the packet and that the funds come from Central Services
which means other departments benefit from this purchase also. Questions brought
up about this truck were how often it was used, whether just for towing and not
serving or what.
$3,000-$4,000 annually.
Departments.
He explained that towing costs the City approximately
This includes Public Works, and the Police and Fire
During a really cold winter this could be up to $2,000 more per
year. Director Hoffman commented that this
but over 15 years it appears this would pay
a budgeted item.
Member Kelly made a motion to award the bid
tow truck from "win City's Wrecker Sales in
the motion was given by Member Rice.
appears to be an expensive vehicle,
for itself. Member Kelly said this is
to purchase the Challenger Model 5601
the amount of $69,940.00. A second to
Member Paulus stated this is an awesome amount of money to pay for one tow truck,
is still grateful that she questioned the cost.
this is not even the cream of the crop vehicle and is very standard.
Works Department did not request specifications for a super rig.
Member Smith asked if there was a possibility of sharing this with another suburb.
Director Hoffman said the service could be offered and they could use it.
Police and Fire have mutual aid, and the possibility could be looked into it.
told that Bloomington has two huge super trucks, completely out of Edina's league.
Member Rice stated that 3 or 4 staff people said that we need this truck, and he
concurs with them.
Rollcall :
Director Hoffman commented that
The Public
The
He
I
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Nays: Smith
Motion carried.
*BID AWARDED FOR SAND. ROCK. BITCrWINOUS MA-. CONCRETE Motion was made by
Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for award of bids to recommended low
bidders as follows: Sand (delivered) to Prior Iake Aggregate at $3.03 per ton;
Buckshot (delivered) to Model Stone at $8.35 per ton; Limestone Class I1
(delivered) to Edward lkaemer & Sons for $5.30 per ton; Seal Coat Chips
(delivered) to Dresser Trap Rock for $13.25 per ton; Plant AsDhalt #2331 (picked
up) to Commercial Asphalt for $16.20 per ton; AsDhalt 2331 Fine (picked up to
Midwest Asphalt at $19.10 per ton; AsDhalt #2341 (picked up) to Midvest Asphalt at
$19.20 per ton; Asphalt Winter Mh (picked up) to Midwest Asphalt for $39.00 per
ton; Concrete (delivered) to Model Stone for $44.00 cu. yd.; Cut-Back AsDhalt
(delivered) to Koch Refining at .708 per gallon.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR ONE REVERSIBLE SNOW PLOW AND VING
Smith and vas seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for one reversible snow
plow and wing to recommended low bidder, LaHaas Manufacturing ti Sales at
$10,558.00.
Motion was made by Member
322 4/2/90
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR ONE 1990 FORD F-800 LIFT TRUCK WITH AN AERIAL BUCKET Motion vas
made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for one 1990
Ford P-800 lift truck with an aerial bucket to recommended low bidder, Road
Machinery & Supply at $67,108.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
II;
*BID AWARDED FOR PARKING LOT RECONSTRUCTION AT BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE Motion vas
made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for parking
lot reconstruction at the Braemar Golf Course to recommended low bidder Alber
Construction, at $168,951.20.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR BRAEMAR SOCCER FIEI;D RENOVATION Motion was made by Member Smith
and was seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for the renovation of the Braemar
Soccer Field to recommended low bidder, Perkins Landscape, at $9,789.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
1-494 EIS IJPDAW GI"
done so far on the 1-494 EIS.
alternatives for 1-494.
between TH 100 and old County Road 18.
Hennepin County, consultant and staff from other cities to develop and reduce the
number of alternatives in each area that should be studied in detail.
Richards extended thanks to Director Hoffman and Member Paulus for monitoring this
process.
periodic updates. No action required.
Engineer Francis Hoffman gave an update of what has been
Information and evaluating is being done on
The first area of review is immediately south of Edina
City staff is working with the Mn/DOT,
Mayor I The Mayor asked Director Hoffman to report back to Council again with
VACANCY NOTED ON RECYCLING COMMISSION Mayor Richards noted that a vacancy exists
on the Recycling Commission as Ken Joyce is unable to accept appointment that was
done March 5, 1990, to fill the partial term to 2/1/91. The Mayor explained he
has one name submitted to him, and if the Council has names of interested people
to submit those to him.
by the April16, 1990, meeting. In addition, it was noted by the Mayor that there
is also a vacancy on the Board of Appeals.
His intention is to appoint someone to fill this vacancy
REPORT GIVEN ON DOG LICENSING PROCESS - C0NTI"ED TO APRIL 16, 1990 =GULAR
COUNCIL MEETING
Council meeting had been received from Chief Craig Swanson regarding the Edina
process on dog licensing.
consensus of the Members, this item will be on the April 16, 1990, agenda.
Mayor Richards commented the information requested at a previous
The Mayor opened up discussion on the process. By
PROPOSED 1990 PROJECTED STORM WATER IKPROVIHEXTS AUTHORIZATION TO BID CONTINUED TO
APRIL 16. 1990. REGUIAR COUNCIL MEETING
proposed stormwater projects to be constructed during 1990 to be funded from the
stormwater utility as follows:
Section I: W. 76th St. & Parklawn, Edina Lake Park $ 9,040.00
Section 11: Edina Manor-Grimes & Halifax Avenues
South of W. 58th St. 56,492.00
Section IIA: Edina Manor-Grimes & Halifax Avenues
from MH CB #4 to MH #5 17 , 902.00
Section 111: Sunnyside Av. & Browndale Av. to Creek 97 , 885 -50
Section IV: W. 64th St between Xerxes and Pond 37,795.00
Director Hoffman gave background and
4/2/90 323
Section V. Yorktown Park Strip from Adams Hill Pond 105.016.00
TOTAL $324,130.50
Director Hoffman said some neighbors in the Halifax/Grimes area are under the
belief that those projects will cause problems for them. Mayor Richards said
those projects would be open for discussion on April 16, 1990, when bids are
awarded.
flooding problems during the 1987 storm.
had the bad flooding was just north of 58th & Woodcrest.
Member Kelly asked whether' the Grimes/Halifax area was the area with
Director Hoffman said no, the area that
Member Rice moved to authorize bids for the projects as presented with the
exception of Sections I1 and IIA and moved adoption of the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PUNS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AN'D
DIRECTING ADVERTISEHE" FOR BIDS
FOB STORM SEvea IWXOVEMENTS NOS. STS-199, STS-200,
STS-201, STS-202 6r STS-203
BE IT RESOLVED BY TEE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA:
1. The plans and specifications for the proposed improvements set forth in the
following Advertisement for Bids form, heretofore prepared by the City Engineer,
and now on file in the office of the City Clerk are hereby approved.
2.
Bulletin the following notice of bids for improvements:
The Clerk shall cause to be published in the Edina Sun and Construction
(Official Publication)
CITY OF EDIHh
4801W. 50th Street
EDIHB, I!II"ESOTA 55424
HENIUEPIN COUNTY, lIl"ES0TA
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
STORH SJmm
CONTRACT 90-6 (ENGl
mOv"T NOS. STS-199. STS-200. STS-201.
STS-202 & STS-203
BIDS CMSE APRIL 12, 1990
Bids will be received and opened in the Council Chambers in Edina City Hall, 4801
West 50th Street at 11:OO A.M., Thursday, April 12, 1990. The Edina City Council
will meet at 7:OO P.H., Monday, April 16, 1990, to consider said bids. The
following are approximate major quantities:
1
1 , 855
11
1 , 646
' 238
1 , 490
458
1,326
EA
LF
EA
LF
LF
SY
TONS
TONS
storm water Lift Station
Catch Basins
16" D.I.P. Force Main
6" D.I.P. Force Main
Sod
&/DOT 2341 Bituminous
C1. SA Gravel
12"-27" RCP
Bids shall be in a sealed envelope with a statement thereon showing the work
covered by the bid.
4801 West 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota, 55424, and may be mailed or submitted
personally to the City Engineer.
through the mail or by personal submission, after the time set for receiving them
may be returned unopened.
Bids should be addressed to the City Engineer, City of Edina,
Bids received by the City Engineer, either
324 4/2/90
. Workmust be done as described in plans and specifications on file in the office
of the City Clerk.
(by check) at the Ed* City Hall Engineering Department.
returned upon return of plans and specifications vith a bona fide bid. No bids
will be considered unless sealed and accompanied by bid bond or certified check
payable to the City of Edina in the amount of at least ten (10) percent of all
bids. All plans mailed, enclose separate check for $5.00 payable to the City of
Edina for postage and handling.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITP COUNCIL.
Plans and specifications are available for a deposit of S2S.00
Said deposit to be
Marcella H. Daehn
City Clerk
A second to the motion was made by Member Smith.
are storm sewer projects requested that are not being proposed at this time.
Director Hoffman said staff is now working on the largest project which is the
Rolling Green area.
proposed projects so they could respond to questions from residents.
Mayor Richards asked if there
Mayor Richards said the Council should be made aware of any
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
OPENINGS ON THE MWCC GENERBL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOMNBTION NOTED
brought the attention to the Council of the need for nominations to the MWCC
General Advisory Committee of elected officials to the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission and stated that applications would be welcome until mid-April.
Mayor Richards
I aSSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES NOMINATIONS TO THE BOBRD OF DIRECTORS
WD FOR WY 16. 1990 ANNUAL MEETING
had any interest in being nominated for the Board of Directors for the AMM, and to
contact these organizations directly.
Mayor Richards asked if Council Members
LETTER RECEIVED FROM RESIDENT MARY A" MACLENNAN DISCUSSED Member Paulus shared
that she had received a letter from Mary Ann MacLennan stating her concerns
regarding variances and what is happening in the Country Club District as far as
lot sizes, historical places and zoning.
Planning Department phone her and discuss her concerns.
Manager Rosland said he would ask the
PHONE CONVWSdTION HELD BE!l"EEN SARAH JONES OF TEE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MAYOR
RICHARDS REGARDING TAX IN- FINANCING IN CONNECTION WITH THE REFERENDlM
Mayor Richards gave background that there was correspondence in the summer of
1989, about the School Board adopting a resolution requesting the Edina City
Council to rebate the excess tax increment revenue resulting from the 1988
referendum for the fiscal year 1989-90 and annually thereafter.
Mayor Richards told Sarah Jones to submit additional information. Mayor Richards
has received a letter from James Hamann, the Director of Business Services for the
School District, asking the request be added to the agenda of April 16, 1990.
Subsequently,
LETTERS RECEIVED FROM ELECTED OPPICIALS RELATIVE TO PENDING LEGISLATION Mayor
Richards stated he had heard from all three of the legislators, Senator Storm, and
Representatives Pauly and Forsythe, noting their position on the tax increment
financing bills and the pay equity issues on comparable worth. Mayor Richards
added he would supply copies to all Council Members plus staff, and it should be
noted that they have responded and acknowledged our positions.
4/2/90 325
DECISION HADE BY COUNTY ON COHPOSTING TO BE DISCUSSED APRIL 16. 1990
Rosland noted that Hennepin County had made a decision on composting.
be discussed further on April 16, 1990, when Council meets jointly with the
Recycling Commission at 6:OO P.M.
Manager
This will I
STATE LEGISLAT[JRE (SENATE) ATTEMPTS TO PASS BILL TEAT EDIHlL UOUTD LOSE $210.000 IN
GAS TAX MONEY Manager Rosland stated the Senate is attempting to pass a bill that
would mean Edina would lose $210,000 in gas tax money.
Edina to be a big City, and named a few other cities, but Edina has been the focus
as they feel Edina is not a participator.
the AMM and MLC regarding this proposed legislation. They are working hard to
remove this from the bill.
the various bodies we support financially that lobby on behalf of equity and
fairness and make sure they clearly understand our position.
aware of the situation and be asked to lobby against the adoption of that
legislation.
contacted him this morning and said they would defend the City.
that the legislative delegation be advised about this.
JOINT MEETING TO BE HELD APRIL 16. 1990. WITH RECYCLING COJWISSION A joint
meeting of the Recycling Commission and the Council will be held at 6:OO P.M.
preceding the regular Council meeting April 26, 1990.
He said they consider
Manager Rosland said he had spoken to
Mayor Richards suggested that letters be written to
They must be made
Manager Rosland commented that two out of the three organizations
It was agreed
CLOSED MEETING CBI;LED TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS BFTW ADJOURNMENT
Rosland said there would be a closed meeting that by law must be approved by the
Council, after the adjournment of this meeting to discuss labor negotiations with
three unions. Motion was made by Member Smith to hold a closed meeting following
the adjournment of the regular Council Meeting to discuss labor negotiations.
second to the motion was made by Member Kelly.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
Manager
A
CLAIMS PAID
approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register
dated 4/2/90 and consisting of 25 pages: General Fund $191,458.21, Communications
$6,122.13, Art Center $7,180.76, Capital Fund $1;149.00, Golf Course Fund
$32,206.97, Recreation Center Fund $8,385.54, Edinborough Park $8,609.16, Utility
Fund $249,023.35, Liquor Dispensary Fund $7,076.66, Construction Fund $1,197.75,
TOTAL $512,409.53 and for confirmation of payment of the folloving claims as shown
in detail on the Check Register dated 2/28/90 and consisting of 18 pages General
Fund $364,012.68, Art Center $1,354.50, Svimming Pool Fund $289.99, Golf Course
Fund $14,792.15, Recreation Center Fund $15,269.03, Gun Range Fund $604.44,
Edinborough Park $14,454.20, Utility Fund $20,007.41, Storm Sever Utility $476.61,
Liquor Dispensary Fund $219,974.74, TOTAL $651,235.75.
Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
There being no further business on the Coun
meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
r Richards declared the
Acting City Clerk