Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19901203_regular255 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEXTING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITP HALL DECEHBER 3, 1990 R0I;LCBI;L Answering rollcall were Members Paulus, Kelly, Rice, Smith and Mayor Richards. I CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Member Paulus to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented. Motion vas made by Member Kelly and vas seconded by Rollcall : Motion carried. . Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING RECONVEXlED: TESTIXONP SOLICITED: COZPTIEmED TO 12/17/90 Mayor Richards advised that this was a reconvened meeting of the Truth in Taxation hearing to solicit public comment on the proposed property tax increase in the 1991 Budget for the City of Edina. not be formally adopted until the close of the hearing process and that additional testimony will be heard at the regular Council Meeting of December 17. He stated that the proposed 1991 Budget will Mayor Richards reiterated that the budget process began earlier in the year when the Council established guidelines for budget assumptions. Staff then estimated expenditures and revenues for 1991 and the Council accepted a proposed 1991 Budget totaling $13,577,622 for purposes of holding the Truth in Taxation hearings as mandated by state statute. He observed that approximately 77% of the proposed budget would be raised by real estate taxes, with the balance coming from various fees and charges. increase by 4.2% over 1989, resulting in a 3.9% increase in real estate taxes. Mayor Richards then called for comments from the audience. Richards declared the hearing adjourned to December 17, 1990, at 7 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING CONCLUDED ON REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR FARRELLS Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Larsen recalled that the request for preliminary plat approval for Farrells Parkwood Knolls - Tract A, R.L.S. 1286 (5700 Blake Rd) was first heard on November 19, 1990. Blake Road and south of South Knoll Drive. continued the hearing and requested further information relative to specifics of the new lots proposed in the plat: 1) Footprint and design of house proposed for Lot 2, 2) Location of proposed driveways, 3) Landscaping or vegetation plan, 4) Setbacks for homes on Lots 2 and 3, and 5) Location of conservation easements on Lots 1 and 3. Expenditures for 1991 for delivery of services are estimated to Hearing none, Mayor PARKWOOD KN0TJ.S - TRACT A. R.L.S. 1286 (5700 BIAKE RD): NO ACTION TAKEN I Planner The request is for a three lot subdivision on the west side of At the November 19 meeting the Council In response the proponents have submitted a revised site plan and an outline of their proposed development restrictions illustrating the following: Lot 1 - The existing house has driveway access to Blake Road. The revised plan suggests abandoning the Blake access and construction of a new garage served by a driveway from South Knoll Drive. The driveway curves to avoid larger trees on the site. There is no conservation easement suggested for Lot 1. Lot 2 - A.one story walkout rambler style home is illustrated. Proposed restrictions suggest a setback from South Knoll of not less than 120 feet and would require a variance. The driveway for Lot 2 would also come off of South Knoll Drive. Lot 3 - Remains essentially unchanged. A 100 foot conservation easement adjacent to the pond is illustrated. 256 12/3/90 If the revised proposal meets with Council approval, staff would recommend that preliminary approval be conditioned on: 1) Developers Agreement, 2) Restrictive Covenants Agreement, and 3) Granting of lot width variances for Lots 1 and 3 as required by the Subdivision Ordinance at final plat approval. Presentation for Prouonent James Van Valkenburg, representing the proponents, stated that they have attempted to respond to the questions raised by the Council and are back to request preliminary plat approval. two driveways coming in from South Knoll not over 12 feet wide. driveway 1ocation.may change to preserve the large tree in the center of the property. He reiterated that all of the proposed lots are substantially larger than the neighborhood medi-an of 20,000 square feet, i.e. Lot 1 at 32,300 square feet, Lot 2 at 26,700 square feet and Lot 3 at 36,700 square feet. He explained that the revised site plan illustrates For Lot 1 the As now proposed, the proponents are requesting a lot width variance of four feet on Lot 1. feet for the reason that the home will be sited back in on the lot. The ordinance requirement as to lot width is aimed at the width of a lot at the place of construction. The building pad for Lot 2 would take advantage of the two hills on the property. As to Lot 3 where the Farrells intend to build, a 100 foot conservation easement adjacent to the pond will be provided. then introduced Mr. Kennedy, builder for the Farrells. On Lot 3 they are asking for a lot width variance from 130 feet to 108 Mr. Van Valkenburg Using photographs Mr. Kennedy pointed out and explained that footprints for the houses proposed were placed so as to preserve the large trees on all of the lots. He said that the garage on Lot 2 could be turned somewhat, that the house would have a hip roof which would nestle in on the lot and would have 2100 square feet on the first floor. For the Farrells' new house on Lot 3, the large oak tree closest to the house could probably be saved if the deck could overhang the - conservation easement. Mr. Van Valkenburg then spoke to the proposed restrictions that would be placed on the lots: 1) one level house with maximun height of 20 feet, 2) 120 foot setback from South Knoll Drive, 3) house no larger than 2,500 square feet excluding garage, 4) potentially two curb cuts on South Knoll Drive, one on Blake Road, and 5) open space and conservation easements over entire lots (no removal of trees except less that 3" diameter or dead or diseased except for building footprint, with 100 foot conservation easement on Lot 3, and 6) architectural committee. Public Comment Thomas Wurst, 6205 South Knoll Drive, said it was his understanding from presentations made at the last meeting that the Council had held in abeyance the concept of a three lot subdivision. their position. three lots. failure to conform with the developed lots on the south side of South Knoll Drive. In particular, they feel that if the three.lots are developed a substantial number of trees will be removed and that the natural slopes will be disturbed. Mr. Wurst stated that Lot 3 is acceptable to them but they feel that the proposed Lots 1 and 2 should remain as they are at the present time. He said that he and his wife have not changed They would go along with two lots but object to the proposed They are still concerned as to the aesthetics, economic impact and Max Bowler, 6112 Kaymar Drive, stated that the proposal would change the character of the neighborhood. Although the large trees will be preserved, the smaller vegetation will have to come out. Further, that the three lot subdivision as illustrated gives the feeling of being crowded. Carol Mahony, 6216 Schaefer Circle, commented that she was. opposed to three lots being developed on the subject property. 12/3/90 257 Council Comment Mayor Richards recalled that at the last meeting the Council had deferred action and had concurred that they would consider a three lot subdivision if the two property owners, Farrells and Wursts, were able to get together on a specific plan for development of three homes on three lots. What is before the Council is a staff report and Planning Commission recommendation and a proposal by the proponents that is not subservient by the adjacent property owner. asked for clarification of the Council's options. Member Rice Attorney Erickson explained the process as follows. After hearing and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Council must act to either grant preliminary approval with or without conditions or give preliminary and final approval at one hearing with or without conditions. If conditions are imposed at preliminary approval they must be met before final. approval is granted. Council may also deny the subdivision on the theory that it does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance because variances are required. granted, the proponents must show an undue hardship.which is,defined as something other than economic and which is based upon circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner.' The In order for variances to be Member Rice raised the question as to what proposal the Planning Commission saw and upon which they based their recommendation for denial. explained that initially the preliminary plat submitted showed three lots with Lots 1 and 2 oriented east to west. same. plat was submitted that showed the northerly portion of the property as one lot for the existing house with Lot 3 unchanged which the Planning Commission voted to approve. Following that, the proponents decided not to proceed to the Council but instead returned to the Planning Commission with a revised three lot subdivision. The northerly portion of the proposed plat was then divided east/west to allow a greater setback from South Knoll Drive. denial of that three lot subdivision. Planner Larsen Throughout the process Lot 3 has remained the Just prior to the meeting of the Planning Commission a revised preliminary The Planning Commission recommended Member Paulus observed that one issue would be the variances that Lot 2 would require. granted could set an unusual precedent. No hardship is indicated until the property would be subdivided and if Member Smith commented that as he looked at the neighborhood on South Knoll Drive on a square foot basis, the proposed lots would fit in there with the exception of the Wurst's lot. However, the topograph goes from one extreme to the other. He suggested that the proposal be sent back for revision so that no variances would be necessary. Mayor Richards submitted that good planning would suggest that three lots not be approved taking into account the physicial characteristics, the existing home and the fact that this appears to be economically driven. reaffirming the Planning Commission recommendation. He said he would support Member Rice said he would like to see this go back to the Planning Commission because there has been four plans presented for this property. do conform in size to all but the Wurst property and is an unique piece of property, he said he was concerned about the Lot 2 variances. Although the lots Member Rice moved that this be referred back to the Planning Commission with the proposal as now presented or any revision the proponents may wish to present and then bring it back to the Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation on on Tuesday, January 22, 1991. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Ayes: Rice, Smith Nays: Kelly, Paulus, Richards Motion failed. 2 518 12/3/90 Mayor Richards moved that the matter be continued to the meeting of December 17, 1990. I Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Kelly, Richards Nays: Paulus, Rice, Smith Motion failed. Member Smith made a motion to grant the four foot lot width variance for Lot 1. Motion failed for lack of second.. No further action by the Council being offered, Mayor Richards stated that the matter would sit until the proponent requests that the Council take action on the preliminary plat. LOT DIVISIOH APPROVED FOR 5109 =ST 50TH STReET PROPWTP (REGIS CORPORATION/SOO LINE RAIIXOADl for adoption of the following resolution: VBEBEBS, the following described tracts of land constitute various separate parcels : Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Paulus RESOLUTION Parcel A Lots 1 and the East 90 feet of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Block 2, "GRANDVIEW EEIGHTS" Lots 3 to 7 inclusive, Block 8, "TINGDALE BROS' BROOKSIDE" That part of Hopkins Road, vacated, lying between lines drawn across it from the Southeast comer of Lot 7, Block 8, "TINGDALE BROS' BROOKSIDE", to the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 2, "GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS" and from the Southwest comer of Lot 5 in said Block 8 to the Northwest comer of the East 90 feet of Lot 22, in said Block 2, according to the recorded plats thereof. Parcel B All of Lot 1 and Lot 2 except that part of said Lot 2 lying Northerly of the folloving described line: Beginning at a point on the East line of Lot 2 distant 20 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof; thence running Southwesterly to a point on the West line of said Lot 2 distant 40 feet South of the Northwest comer thereof, Block 8 "TINGDLE BROS' BROOKSIDE", according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County (Hennepin County). Parcel C That part of Hopkins Road, vacated, and that part of Government Lot Five (S), Section Twenty Eight (289, Township One Hundred Seventeen (117) North, Range Twenty One (21) West and that part of Lots 20, 21, and 22, Block 2, GRAND VIEW HEIGHTS described as follows: I Begwing at the southwest comer of Lot 5, Block 8, TINGDD BROS' BROOKSIDE; thence South 23 degrees 48 minutes 29 seconds West, assumed bearing, a distance of 66.27 feet to the northwest corner of the East 90 feet of Lot 22, Block 2, GRANDVIEW HEIGHTS; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along the west line of the east 90 feet of said Lots 20, 21 and 22, Block 2, a distance of 177.68 feet to the south line of said Lot 20, Block 2; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West along the south line of said Lot 20, Block 2, a distance of 2.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds East, parallel with said west line of the East 90 feet of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Block 2, a distance of 376.34 feet; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 28.12 feet to the vest line of Block 8, TINGSDALE BROS' BROOKSIDE; thence South 00 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds Uest along said west line of Block 8, a distance of 137.90 feet to the point of beginning, according to the recorded plats thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. I TJHEBEBS, the owners of the above tracts of land desire to subdivide said tracts into the folloving aescribed new and separate parcel: All of Parcels A, B and C as described above 12/3/90 259 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 vith the purposes of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinances Nos. 804 and 825; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS BEREBY 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 waived for any other purpose or as to any other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance vith the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. Resolution adopted on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR FERTILIZER FOR BRATHAR GOLF COURSE Kelly and vas seconded by Member Paulus for award of bid for fertilizer for Braemar Golf Course to recommended low bidder, Precision Turf, at $9,114.56. Motion was made by Member Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR GOLF CARTS Member Paulus for award of bid for six golf carts to recommended low bidder, E Z Go Upper Midwest, at $12,700.00. Motion vas made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES FOR EHTEEWRISE FUNDS PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED Finance Director John Wallin presented the Executive Summary Income and Expense Reports for the nine months ended September 30, 1990, for all the City's Enterprise Funds. Member Smith asked if the amounts listed for depreciation are included in the City's budget. Director Wallin explained that depreciation is purely an accounting matter. Because these funds are set up as enterprise funds, as part of the annual audit procedure the auditors require us to account for depreciation. He explained that the income before depreciation figure for each fund actually reflects the operating cash position. Discussion followed on the issue of whether the City should actually "bank" funds for depreciation, with no formal action taken. It was the consensus of the Council that a summary of the balance sheets for the enterprise funds be provided for the next quarterly report. APPEAL OF ROW EDBMM ReGARDING MASSAGE LICENSE CONSIDERED: APPLICANT TO RE-SUBMIT APPLICATION Mayor Richards pointed out that the appeal of Ronald Edblom concerns his application to practice massage at the Edina Country Club. some of the Council are members of the Edina Country Club, he asked if anyone felt they had a conflict of interest in considering this matter. Mayor Richards and Members Rice and Smith each stated that they did not consider the fact that they are members to be a conflict. \ Because Della V. Boutrous, Adams & Cesario, P.A., stated that she was representing Ronald Edblom in the appeal of the massage license denial. She stated that on October 17, 1990, her client was advised that his application for an individual massage license had been denied because of falsification of information on the application. Further, that background investigation revealed information contrary to that indicated on the application; specifically that Mr. Edblom had answered llno It to a question regarding conviction of a criminal offense other than a traffic offense. Ms. Boutrous explained that the conviction stemmed from an incident when her client was 19 years old. entered that the allegation against him would be continued and then dismissed if he complied with the terms of the sentence and probation. assumption, he felt he had answered the question on the application truthfully. At the time he understood that once a plea was Based on that 260 12/3/90 Ms. Boutrous submitted that her client is deserving of a license of this type as he is committed to being a responsible, competent massage therapist. certificates of training, esalen therapeutic massage and sports technician massage. responses from his clients have been positive. Council reverse the denial for an individual massage license for Mr. Edblom. I He holds two . He has taken out liability insurance to protect his clients and Ms. Boutrous asked that the Mayor Richards asked what the options were for Council action. said the Council could either refer the matter back to staff for conclusion of the investigation and its recommendation on the merits, or allow the applicant to .re-submit a corrected application and the investigation proceed to its conclusion. Attorney Erickson Following discussion and questions directed to the applicant, Member Kelly made a motion that the applicant be allowed to re-submit an application for an individual massage license and that the investigation proceed. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. REQUEST TO AJXOU RESIDENTIAL PARKING IN 50TH & FRANCE ~CIPAL PARKING RAMPS CONSIDERED: POIXCY UNCHANGED had been received from Mary C. Layer, resident at the Lanterns Condominiums on 51st Street, requesting that she and presumably other residents be issued a parking permit to park in the 51st Street municipal parking ramp. previously considered by the City Council on November 21, 1988. At that meeting the Council denied the request based upon the following reasons: 1) The City discourages overnight parking in municipal ramps due to risk of vandalism, etc., and 2) Concern 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. and denial is recommended. It was the consensus of the Council that the previous policy remain unchanged and that staff draft a lettex to Ms. Layer advising her that the policy remains the same. Manager Rosland informed the Council that a letter Ms. Layer's request was In staff's opinion, the concerns expressed two years ago remain valid PROPOSED SETTUBENT OF 1991 POLICE TEAMSTERS CONTRACT TENTATIVELY APPROVED Manager Rosland informed the Council that the following economic issues have been tentatively agreed upon for the 1991 Teamsters Contract: 1) Wages for 1991 - 4% increase, and 2) Employer's insurance contribution - $210.00/month. These increases are consistent with the budgeted amounts proposed in the 1991 Budget currently under consideration. Staff would recommend tentative approval. Member Paulus made a motion for tentative approval of the staff recommendations regarding the 1991 Teamsters Contract relating to vages and employer's insurance contribution, subject to final adoption of the 1991 Budget for the City of Edina. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. . Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *PROPOSAL OF METRO RELATIONS. INC. TO MONITOR HWCC CONTINUED TO 12/17/90 Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Paulus to continue consideration of the proposal of Metro Relations, Inc. to monitor the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to December 17, 1990. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. S;pEBR EETD COUNCIL 'I3ETING SET FOR 12/27/90 was seconded by Member Paulus setting December 27, 1990, at 4:30 p.m. as the Year End Council Meeting date. Motion vas made by Member Kelly and 12/3/90 261 Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *ANNUAL COUNCIL DINNER MEETING WITH ADVISORY BOARDS SET FOR 3/12/91 . made by Member Kelly and vas seconded by Member Paulus that the 1991 Annual Council Dinner Meeting with advisory boards/commissions be held on Tuesday, March 12, 1991, at 6:OO p.m. at Braemar Clubhouse. COUNCIL WORK SESSION ON HOUSGG SCHEDULED FOR 1/12/91 two possible dates, Saturday, January 5 or Saturday, January 12 for the Council It was the consensus of the Council that the meeting be held on Saturday, January 12 from 8:OO a.m. to noon at Arneson Acres Park. Mayor Richards submitted proposed agenda items and asked that the Council Members advise him or the Manager of any additional issues prior to the meeting.' Motion was Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. Manager Rosland suggested ' Work Session on Housing. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES REPORTED and issues were discussed: 1. Letter of Alison D. Fuhr addressed to Governor-Elect Carlson regarding potential appointment. Mayor Richards said he was unclear as to whether she was seeking City support for a specific position and that he would follow up on this. South Hennepin Human Services Council - Member Smith reported that the planning committee is coming forth with a plan to obtain a grant to fund and replace First Call For Help. the participating cities and would be a direct provision of services. suggested that the concept be presented to the SHHSC Board and then to the cities for approval before further action. Also, the board will meet with the city managers on December 6, 1990, to consider the reorganization of'SHHSC to respond to the needs of the city managers and Hennepin County regarding human services. School Board Strategic Planning Ouarterly ReDort - Member Paulus reported that all the strategic planning objectives of the School Board are being met and are moving forward. reference. Council/School Board Meeting - Member Kelly suggested that the Council meet with the School Board to discuss mutually the impact of School and City budgets on residents. The following intergovernmental activities . 2. The proposal would still require $25,000 from He has 3. The report will be on file with the City Manager for 4. KLC ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE DINNER SCHEDULED FOR 1/30/91 Council that the MLC Annual Legislative Dinner has been tentatively set for Wednesday, January 30, 1991 at the Decathlon Club. Reservations can be made through his office. Manager Rosland reminded the MLC LEGISLATIVE BREAKFAST SCHEDULED FOR 12/5/90 Council that the MLC Legislative Breakfast is scheduled for December 5, 1990 at 7:30 a.m. Members who can attend. Manager Rosland reminded the Reservations are due by December 4 and will be made for those Council EDINA FOUNDATION'S CONTRIBUTION TO FUTURES COMMISSION NOTED advised that he had received a letter from the Chairman of The Edina Foundation Board complimenting the Futures Commission on their excellent report. The Foundation had also enclosed their contribution of $5,000.00 towards the Futures Commission project. Mayor Richards I 'CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Paulus to approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated 12/03/90 and consisting of 21 pages: General Fund $95,613.56, C.D.B.G. $6,724.00, Commmications $2,458.29, Art Center $84,405.64, Capital Fund $784.70, Golf Course Fund $25,385.67, Recreation Center Fund $3,337.64, Edinborough Park 262 12/3/90 $10,439.63, Utility Fund $232,831.97, Storm Sever Utility $1,864.00, L5quor Dispensary Fund $5,907.47, Construction Fund $45,060.63, Total $514,813.20. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. I There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the meeting adjourned at 10:47 p.m. 3?-%uk City Clerk