HomeMy WebLinkAbout19920601_regular132
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ED= CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HAIL
JUNE 1, 1992
R0ILCAT.L Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, and Mayor
Richards.
would commence as soon as Member Smith arrived and that the other Agenda items
would be discussed and acted upon in the interim.
Mayor Richards advised the Council that the public hearing on the Code
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - DR. RAYMOND P. !3lWL!H
RESOLU!I!ION OF APPRECIATION
VHEBEBS, Dr. Raymond P. Smyth has served Edina School District No. 273 and the
Edina community as Superintendent of Schools since 1986; and
VHEBEBS, he has been in education for 36 years, 35 of which have been in Edina,
and he has served as Social Studies Teacher, Principal and Director of
EduCatiOMl Services; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Sxayth serves on many boards, including The Edina Foundation, Edina
Chamber of Commerce, Association of Metropolitan School Districts, Minnesota
Suburban Branch of the NMCP, and the ABC Foundation Honorary Board; and
WHEREAS, he has led the District in its emphasis on ethical values and quality
schools, in its aggressive long-range strategic planning, in its lobbying for
improved education funding through the Legislature and in the successful passage
of the $38 million bond referendum for school building renewal; and
rmEBEBs, through his outstanding leadership and sincere dedication in promoting
the Edina Public Schools, Dr. Smyth has demonstrated total commitment to the
community; and
WHEREAS, the Edina Public Schools, under his guidance, have contributed
significantly to the quality of life in our City and have gained national
recognition for excellence.
NOW, TEEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council, the City staff and
the residents of Edina hereby express their thanks and appreciation to
for his dedicated service in helping make the City of Edina an outstanding
community in which to learn, work and live.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Tuesday, June 2, 1992, be declared RAYMOND P. SHY"H
DAY.
ADOPTED this 1st day of June, 1992.
I
DR. RAXHOND P. SHYTH
CONSEN" AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded
by Member Rice to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda items as
presented.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Motion carried.
*MINUTES OF TBE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 4. 1992. APPROVED Motion vas made by
Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Rice to approve the Council Minutes of
the regular meeting of my 4, 1992.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
l?UBLIC HEARING HELD: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMEMT NO. S-56 ORDERED CI'HlXLE?.?
Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file.
Presentation bv EnPineer
Engineer Hoffman reported that this public hearing is a result of a petition from
residents on Thielen Avenue requesting repair of the sidewalk.
would like to see a tree replacement program also.
be constructed of concrete, four feet wide, and would be constructed in late
1992.
Some individuals
The sidewalk is proposed to
The cost of the project would be funded by special assessment. The
6/1/92 133
project is estimated at a cost of $16,770.98 which is $4.89 per square foot plus
$243.00 per lot for a tree.
City inspector for repair/replacement and the installation of one tree per lot to
help reforest the front yardfioulevard.
ranged from $243.00 to $1,710.00 per lot to be spread over ten years.
would recommend approval of the project.
Each property has been evaluated separately by the
The estimated costs for the repairs
Staff
Public Comment
John Erdall, 4378 Thielen Avenue, said that only one of his five sections of
sidewalk needs repair. He asked if it is mandatory to put a tree on his
property. In response, Engineer Hoffman said that the planting of a tree would
be optional and that staff would inspect his sidewalk to determine the need for
repair.
Doug Farmer, 4368 Thielen Avenue, commented that he was not one of the signers of
the petition for the sidewalk because he believed that his whole sidewalk does
not need replacing.
he felt the existing 42 inch width was adequate.
tree, which he has maintained, has caused some of the sidewalk damage and that he
was concerned about damage to the tree during reconstruction of the sidewalk.
Engineer Hoffman explained that four feet is the width recommended by staff. The
City has built sidewalk around trees with good success by narrowing the width.
No further comment or objection was heard on the proposed sidewalk project.
He also questioned the proposed width of four feet and said
He mentioned that a large elm
Member Kelly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
BE IT BESOLVED by the Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council
heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of
each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed
improvement :
and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the
Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully
advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the
construction of said improvement, including all proceedings which may be
necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights
for construction and maintenance of such improvement; that said improvement is
hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as:
and the area to be specially assessed therefor shall include:
Lots 1 thra 20, Thielen's Brookside Addition.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Rice.
RESOLUTION ORDERING SIDEWAIX IMPROVEMENT NO. S-56
SIDEWAJX IMPROB NO. S-56
SIDEVAIX IMPROVEMENT NO. S-56
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Motion carried.
*LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOT 7. BLOCK 1. BERTELSON ADDITION (7408-10 OAKIAWN
AVENUE)
adoption of the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land:
WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels") described as follows:
Motion was made by Member Kelly and was.seconded by Member Rice for
~SOLUTIOr4
Lot 7, Block 1, BERTELSEN ADDITION, and
PARCEL A:
That part of Lot 7, Block 1, BERTELSEN ADDITION, City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota lying west of a line drawn from a point on the north line
of said Lot 7 distant 28.72 feet east of the northwest corner thereof, as
measured along said north line, to a point on the south line of said Lot 7
6/1/92 134 distant 89.41 feet east of the southwest corner thereof.
PARCEL B:
That part of Lot 7, Block 1, BERTELSEN ADDITION, City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota lying east of a line drawn from a point on the north line
of said Lot 7 distant 28.72 feet east of the northwest comer thereof, as
measured along said north line, to a point on the south line of said Lot 7
distant 89.41 feet east of the southwest corner thereof. I
WHEREAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Ordinance No. 801 and it
has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations
of the City will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate
tracts of land do not interfere with the purpose of the Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinance Nos. 825 and 804;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of the second above described Parcels as
separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of
Ordinance Nos. 825 and 804 are hereby waived to allow said division and
conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land, but only to the extent permitted
under Ordinance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 825 and subject to the limitations set
out in Ordinance No. 825, and said Ordinances are not waived for any other
purpose or as to any other provisions thereof, and further subject, however, to
the provision that no further 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 1st day of June, 1992.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOT 39. BLOCK 1. OSCAR ROBERTS ADDITION (7206-08
BRISTOL CIRCLE1 Motion was made by Member Kelly and vas seconded by Member Rice
for adoption of the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land:
WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels") described as follows:
RESOLUTIO~ .
Lot 39, Block 1, OSCAR ROBERTS FIRST ADDITION
PARCEL A:
That part of Lot 39, Block 1, OSCAR ROBERTS FIRST ADDITION, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, lying northwesterly of the following described line:
Beginning at the most southwesterly comer of said Lot 39; thence
North 51 degrees 46 minutes 04 seconds East 90.12 feet; thence North 60
degrees 08 minutes 27 seconds East 80.00 feet; thence North 39 degrees 48
minutes 48 seconds East 55.61 feet to the northeasterly line of said Lot
39. The northwest line of said Lot 39 is assumed to have a bearing of
North 50 degrees 09 minutes 11 seconds East.
PARCEL B:
That part of Lot 39, Block 1, OSCAR ROBERTS FIRST ADDITION, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, lying southeasterly of the following described line:
Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of said Lot 39; thence
North 51 degrees 46 minutes 04 seconds East 90.12 feet; thence North 60
degrees 08 minutes 27 seconds East 80.00 feet: thence North 39 degrees 48
minutes 48 seconds East 55.61 feet to the northeasterly line of said Lot
39. The northwest line of said Lot 39 is assumed to have a bearing of
North 50 degrees 09 minutes 11 seconds East.
WHEREAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Ordinance No. 801 and it
has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations
of the City will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate
tracts of land do not interfere with the purpose of the Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinance Nos. 825 and 804;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of the second above described Parcels as
I
6/1/92 135
separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of
Ordinance Nos. 825 and 804 are hereby waived to allow said division and
conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land, but only to the extent
permitted under Ordinance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 825 and subject to the
limitations set out in Ordinance No. 825, and said Ordinances are not waived for
any other purpose or as to any other provisions thereof, and further subject,
however, to the provision that no further 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 1st day of June, 1992.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR MT 24. BLOCK 1. INTEXIACHEN HILTS THIRD ADDITION
15536-38 MALIBU DRIVE)
Member Rice for adoption of the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land:
Lot 24, Block 1, INTERLACHEN HILLS THIRD ADDITION
WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels") described as follows:
Motion vas made by Member Kelly and was seconded by
RESOLUTION
NORTHERLY PARCEL:
That part of Lot 24, Block 1, INTERLACHEN HILLS THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, which lies northeasterly of the following described
line: Beginning at a point on the northwesterly line of said Lot 24 a
distance of 45.07 feet northeasterly from the southwest corner of said Lot
24; thence southeasterly to a point on the southeasterly line of said Lot
24 a distance of 49.22 feet northeasterly from the southeast corner of said
Lot 24 and said line there terminating.
SOUTHERLY PARCEL:
That part of Lot 24, Block 1, INTERLACHEN HILLS THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, which lies southwesterly of the following described
line: Beginning at a point on the northwesterly line of said Lot 24 a
distance of 45.07 feet northeasterly from the southwest corner of said Lot
24; thence southeasterly to a point on the southeasterly line of said Lot
24 a distance of 49.22 feet northeasterly from the southeast corner of said
Lot 24 and said line there terminating.
WHEREAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Ordinance No. 801 and it
has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations
of the City will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate
tracts of land do not interfere with the purpose of the Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinance Nos. 825 and 804;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of the second above described Parcels as
separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of
Ordinance Nos. 825 and 804 are hereby waived to allow said division and
conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land, but only to the extent permitted
under Ordinance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 825 and subject to the limitations set
out in Ordinance No. 825, and said Ordinances are not waived for any other
purpose or as to any other provisions thereof, and further subject, however, to
the provision that no further 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.
&OPTED this 1st day of June, 1992.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*HEARING DATES SET FOR VARIOUS PT..A"ING MATTEXS
and was seconded by Member Rice setting June 15,
following Planning matters:
Motion was made by Member Kelly
1992, as hearing date for the
6/1/92 136
1.
2.
and
3.
4.
Final Rezoning - E-1, Single Dyellbg mnit District to PCI)-1, Planned
Commercial District - 3916-3918 West 44th Street
Final Development Plan - McDonalds Restaurant - 3220 Southdale Circle
setting July 6, 1992, as hearing date for the following Planning matters:
Prelhinary Plat Approval - Hark Dahlquist Addition - Tmt 11, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 325.
Tract E, BLS No. 1050 - Normandale Golf Area I
a.
b.
c. Prelbbary Plat Approval.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Quasi-Public to Public and Office
Preliminary Rezoning E-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to POD-2,
Planned Office District
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
CONCERNS OVER DRAINAGE - RESIDENT RUTH K. PLOTNICKY Ruth K. Plotnicky, 5525
Kellogg Avenue, presented photographs and explained that she needs Council's help
to get corrective action on a recurring drainage problem, due to the flow of
rainwater directed into her property from the adjoining lot at 5521 Kellogg
Avenue.
been installed which conducts rainwater directly into her yard and that her
property cannot hold their drainage without harmful results. Ms. Plotnicky
mentioned that she has talked to City staff with no result. That a problem
exists has been verified by 1) a building inspector, 2) the City Engineer, and 3)
a waterproofing and cement contractor. She concluded by stating that the Council
has a responsibility to act on her request because: 1) professionals have
concurred that there is a problem, 2) the City has a nuisance ordnance, 3) ne
City also has an ordinance requiring a 5 foot setback and 4) this a service for
which she pays taxes.
Attorney Gilligan said he had spoken with Ms. Plotnicky several weeks ago and
advised her that the City ordinances do not deal with rainwater runoff.
a matter between two property owners under common law theories of trespass from
one property to the other.
causes damage, that would constitute a civil action. Ms. Plotnicky argued that
the law defines a nuisance as a use of property or a course of conduct that
interferes with the legal rights of others by causing annoyance or inconvenience
which would apply to her situation.
.
She told that a large extension to the downspout at 5521 Kellogg has
This is
If water is diverted onto another's property and
Member Paulus asked how long the spout has been in this position and if Ms.
Plotnicky has experienced water in her home.
been there about a month and confirmed that she has not had water in her house.
Member Kelly asked if Ms. Plotnicky has talked with her neighbor about the
problem or if it could be mediated. Ms. Plotnicky said she had not spoken to the
neighbor and that at a previous time when mediation services were mentioned she
agreed but the other party did not.
Mayor Richards commented that this is not a public issue but a dispute between
two property owners and that public money could not be used for a private matter.
He encouraged Ms. Plotnicky to talk with her neighbor and to attempt a mutual
resolution.
Council as this is private matter.
Ms. Plotnicky said the spout has
It was the consensus of the Council that no action be taken by the
*BID AWARDED FOR IMPROVEMEJW NOS. SS-382 AND STS-218 - SANITARY SEFlEB REPBIB AND
STORM SEWER (BLBKE ROAD. Pl3E GROVE ROAD TO INTERUCJIEN BOULEZARD] Motion vas
made bylfember Kelly and vas seconded by Hember Rice for award of bid for
Sanitary Sever hprovement No. SS-382 and Storm Sever Improvement No. STS-218
(Blake Road from Pine Grove Road to Interlachen Boulevard) to recommended low-
bidder, Penn Contracting, Inc. at $81,835.15.
I
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
6/1/92
*BID AWARDED FOR BRIDGE REPAIR (IMPROVEMENT NO. BR-11
Kelly and vas seconded by Member Rice for award of bid
at Benton Avenue, Improvement No. BR-1. to recommended
Contractors, Inc., at $45,039.68.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
1
Motion was made by Member
for concrete bridge repair
low-bidder, Progressive
*BID AWARDED FOR INSERT PLAQUES - CAHILL SE- M0"T Motion vas made by
Member Kelly and vas seconded by Member Rice for avard of bid for insert plaques
for the Cahill Settlement Monument to recommended low bidder, James & Co., at
$12,002.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*COUNCIL APPROVES RENEWAL OF CITY'S PROPERTY INSURANCE
Kelly and was seconded by Member Rice to approve renewal of the City's property
insurance with Hartford Insurance Company.
Motion vas made by Member
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*CLUB ON SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICEZPSES APPROVED Motion was made by Member
Kelly and was seconded by Member Rice approving issuance of Club On Sale and
Sunday liquor licenses for the Edina Country Club and Interlachen Country Club.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
JANICE BUTH APPOINTED TO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
appointment of Janice Buth to the Human Relations Commission to fill the
unexpired term of Richard Preis who recently resigned.
motion for consent of the Mayor's appointment of Janice Buth to the Human
Relations Commission for an unexpired term to February 1, 1995.
seconded by Member Rice.
Mayor Richards recommended'
Member Kelly made a
Motion was
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Motion carried.
PJ3RMIT RECEIVED FROM U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE EXPANSION
Manager Rosland pointed out that the permit has been received from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for construction of nine additional holes at the Braemar Golf
Course. The permit is conditioned on the following: 1) that the City will
develop a management plan for the oak savanna hillsides, and 2) that the City
agrees to file a Covenant of Dedication for the remaining wetland area ,
identified as Parcel C, along the south property line of Braemar Park for
conservancy use. Staff would recommend that the permit be signed by the
appropriate parties.
accepted and signed, there is no obligation to authorize the project.
consensus of the Council that, because this has been a lengthy process, the
project would not proceed until the Council has given it a final review.
Manager Rosland mentioned that even though the permit is
It was the
Member Kelly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ed-, Minnesota, that it
hereby approves the Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 89-1389-12 issued to the
City of Edina for construction of nine additional holes at Braemar Golf Course as
presented;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is hereby directed and authorized to sign
the permit on behalf of the City.
Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
RESOLUTION
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Resolution adopted.
37
PUBLIC HJMRING: FIRST ReADING GRANTED OF ORDINANCE NO. 1 (CODIFYING THE GENWAL
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY: ADOPTING A NEX CITY CODE: RETAINING CERTAIN ORDINANCES;
AND REPEALING CERTAIN ORDINANCES Affidavits of Notice were presented,
13 6/1/92
(Member Smith entered at this point in the approved and ordered placed on file. 8
meeting. )
Mayor Richards opened the fifth public hearing on the draft Edina City Code by
explaining that during the past six months the Council has reviewed the draft
code and held a series of public hearings to gain input from citizens prior to
the adoption of the code.
were identified for further testimony and discussion.
pieces of correspondence have been received from citizens offering their views;
some have been specific in nature and some have been general. All letters have
been duplicated and made available to all members of the Council.
Certain sections of the Code remain controversial and
Likewise, a number of
Mayor Richards explained that to adopt the new Edina City Code there must be a
First Reading and then a Second Reading and adoption at a subsequent Council
Meeting.
and effect.
on specific sections and indicated that, after testimony and discussion, First
Reading on each section would be sought as. then drafted, modified or revised.
After publication of the adopting ordinance the code would be in force
Mayor Richards then opened the public hearing for further testimony
DRAFT SECTION 215 - GAMBLING
Assistant Manager Hughes pointed out that draft Section 215, as now modified,
includes the following provisions:
Lawful gambling would be allowed: - Only in the R-1 District except lots used for residential purposes.
Eligible properties include schools, churches, City properties and country
clubs.
Permit required to be issued by City Manager: -
1. Two permits per organization in each calendar year.
2. Permit valid for three consecutive days. I - - Exemptions: State Lottery, raffles if value of prizes awarded in a
Prizes/payoff for winning chances must be awarded at the permitted event.
calendar year do not exceed $750 per year, certain bingo conducted in a
nursing home or senior citizen project, sale or redemption of chances
through the U.S. Mail.
'In response to questions by the Council Members, Assistant Manager Hughes said
that if one could identify an organization associated with a school or church
that organization would be entitled to a permit. He added that most forms of
lawful gambling require licensing by the state or issuing of an exemption by the
state.
organizations that are licensed by the state.
the City cannot distinguish among the various forms of lawful gambling, except
that the City may prohibit paddlewheels.
and churches to conduct lawful gambling while prohibiting other types of
organizations from conducting lawful gambling.
The City may not require a license or permit to conduct gambling by
Attorney Gilligan explained that
Also, the City may not permit schools
Public Comment
Steve Cook, 6820 Oaklawn Avenue, asked about the fee structure for licensing.
Assistant Manager Hughes said the permit fee has not been set but would be
nominal. Mr. Cook questioned why the current draft has no reference to the use
of funds acquired from the sale of pull-tabs in another suburb by an Edina
Organization.
effect that any athletic organization sponsored by the City could not use funds
Mayor Richards clarified that there is currently a policy in
obtained in that manner.
Maged Daoud, 6617 Paiute Pass, said he would
on the draft ordinance to help him decide if
allowed.
like more information made available
gambling should or should not be
6/1/92 139
Pat O'Connor, 6421 Indian Hills Road, asked if the Manager would have discretion
to issue or deny a permit other than for reasons set forth in the ordinance,
Attorney Gilligan said if the applicant met all the conditions and requirements
of the ordinance the Manager would have to issue the permit.
Milt Farnham, 6945 Cornelia Drive, observed that children must be 18 years old to
smoke, drink, or gamble, yet school organizations can conduct gambling. He said
that .disturbed him greatly for the example it would set for children.
Council Comment/Action
Member Paulus asked if the City would have any control over door-to-door sales of
raffle tickets.
raffle met the statutory exemption (prizes not exceeding $750 per year) the City
would have no control over door-to-door sales.
Attorney Gilligan opined that if the organization holding the
Member Kelly noted that Council had received numerous letters from residents
taking issue with the initial draft of the ordinance which proposed to prohibit
all lawful gambling;
them of these changes.
She said she hoped there would be some publicity to apprise
Mayor Richards commented that he would support the ordinance as now drafted
because it validates the raising of monies by people in the community for
legitimate purposes, although he is not a strong proponent of lawful gambling.
Further, that he strongly believed people should get involved in raising funds
for activities they benefit from through participation.
Member Rice stated that as now drafted it would effectively prohibit pull-tabs
from commercial establishments in Edina and he would support that. He said he
felt, contrary to comments of one resident, that good ethical values can be
taught through school and church activities that include positive fund-raisers
such as school carnivals for which parents give thousands of hours of time for a
common goal.
Member Smith suggested that the Council consider adding to Subsection 215.02 the
phrase, "or the gambling activity is exempt under Subsection 215.05".
recalled that about a year ago an application was submitted for approval of a
raffle premises permit. The Council felt that was not a good process because
there was no information about the organization, what the funds would be used for
and how much was to be raised. He added that, historically, the schools have had,
fund raisers, e.g. carnivals, raffles, etc. and he would support the ordinance.
He
Member Smith then offered Section 215 - Gambling, for First Reading as presented
and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Kelly.
Motion was seconded by Member
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards.
First Reading granted.
SECTION 460 - SIGNS
Assistant Manager Hughes stated that staff proposes the following change to draft
Section 460:
Subsection 460.07 proposes that the phase out of non-conforming temporary
signs be extended to three years from the date of adoption. Staff believes
this will provide ample opportunity for phasing out temporary leasing signs
which would be made unlawful by the adoption of Section 460.
Assistant Manager Hughes answered Member Rice by saying that "For Sale" signs are
now permitted to be 32 square feet.
6/1/92 140
Public Comment
Kent Warden, Executive Director, Greater Minneapolis Building Owners and Managers
Association (BOMA) reported that after attending the April 6, 1992, public
hearing, the Association had submitted proposed changes for temporary leasing
signs as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Size limit of 16 square feet for leasing signs with an exception of 32
square feet when directed to traffic on a major highway (posted 55 mph).
Buildings with more than one frontage be permitted signs on both frontages.
Signs may be double faced to be visible from either direction.
Signs must be maintained in good condition and promptly removed when
building is leased.
The current provision for incorporating the leasing message into the
permanent signage should be retained as an alternative to temporary signs.
He understood that at a subsequent Council work session these proposals were not
adopted into the current draft of Section 460.
Mr. Warden advised that he had toured Edina and took photos of signs in the City
for the BOMA's suburban issues committee.
the specifics the City is trying to address and would recommend adding a height
limitation and a setback provision. The committee believed if temporary signs
are banned there will be a proliferation of identification signs.
appreciated that non-conforming temporary signs can be phased out over a three
year period of time.
They are now more sensitive to some of
BOMA
In response to Member Paulus, Mr. Warden said very few commercial buildings are
100 percent leased; overall occupancy is 75 percent.
leasing signs when full occupancy is attained would be desirable and a good
business policy.
that the leasing signs would in effect be permanent because of the occupancy
rate. Mr. Warden said with what BOMA has proposed the leasing signs would be
smaller and would be maintained.
Jerry Sand, BOMA suburban issues committee member and officer with Northco, said
the larger retail areas would not be affected by the phase-out of temporary
signs, but for smaller retail, office and warehouse properties it would be
detrimental because many of these are owned by individuals.
current depressed economic climate, its effect on trying to find building
tenants, and the importance of for lease signs. They are concerned about
visibility if the leasing information is incorporated within a monument sign.
would also be a financial hardship if leasing information is mandated to be part
of a permanent sign.
recommendations of BOMA.
Bill Gerst, Staff Vice President for Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors
(MAAR) representing approximately 5,000 area realtors, said they agree with the
recommendations from BOMA. The group believes that leasing signs should not be
treated differently than for sale signs.
Removal of temporary
Member Paulus said the Council had discussed and was concerned I
He emphasized the
It
He concluded by saying that he would support the
Council Comment/Action
Member Rice said he was persuaded after meeting with representatives of BOMA and
MAAR that the building owners and managers would make a strong attempt to achieve
goals that have been set out.
leasing signs to 16 square feet with 32 square feet on major highways, the 10
foot height limit and that the monument sign option be retained.
He would support BOMA's recommendation to limit
Member Smith commented that if the BOMA recommendations were adopted there would
need to be monitoring and questioned where the funds would come from to support
that. He said he would not favor a system that would require monitoring.
Further, that he had hoped the industry itself would set some standards.
6 I i 192
141 Member Kelly said she was not convinced that a building with two frontages should
be permitted two signs, otherwise, she agreed with Member Rice's comments.
Member Paulus commented that Edina is primarily a,residential community and even
though we need to support the commercial property in the City many residential
areas are impacted by leasing signs. She added that considerable dollars have
been used to beautify Southdale, Centennial Lakes and Edinborough and that she
believed self-monitoring of leasing signs would not be effective in reducing
their negative affect.
. I
Mayor Richards then offered Section 460 - Signs, for First Beading as drafted and
on file in the office of the City Clerk, with the following modifications prior
to Second Reading:
1)
feet for limited access highways, 2)
painted to conform with existing building materials, 3)
feet, 4) Setback of ten feet, 5) One sign only per property (can be double
faced), 6) Retain inducement to incorporate the leasing information into
permanent monument sign, and 6) Council review of Section 460 one year from
adoption. Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Limit size of leasing signs to 16 square feet with the exception of 32 square
Height limitation of ten
All signs must be properly maintained and
Member Paulus interjected that a favorable vote should clearly portray the
message that the commercial building industry must use self-monitoring to clean
up the leasing signs in the City. Assistant Manager Hughes observed that most of
the existing temporary leasing signs in the City would be non-conforming.
asked if the sense of the motion was that there also be an amortization period
for the signs that exist today.
He
Member Paulus moved to amend the motion to allow 90 days from adoption of Section
460 to bring non-conforming leasing signs into compliance.
by Member Rice.
Motion was seconded
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Nays: Smith
Motion carried.
Mayor Richards then called for vote on the motion as amended.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Nays: Smith
First Reading granted.
SECTION 1045 - PARKING AND STORAGE OF VEHICLES Assistant Manager Hughes pointed
out that, as now modified, draft Section 1045 includes the following provisions:
1) Separate definitions have been established for recreational vehicles (RVs)
2)
3)
4)
and all terrain vehicles (ATVs).
Pick-ups with toppers are not included within the definition of RVs.
Commercial usage vehicles and inoperable vehicles must be stored within a
garage or building.
Outdoor storage of RVs or all terrain vehicles: -
- -
No more than two vehicles per lot, not more than one of which may be a
RV .
Vehicle must be owned or leased by the occupant of the lot where stored.
Vehicle must be stored in side yard, but not closer than 5 feet to side
lot line, or rear yard, but not closer than 25 feet to rear lot line.
No storage allowed in front or side street setback.,
adjoining lot.
- - Vehicle must be stored closer to owner's house than to buildable area on
Cars, pickups, vans and similar vehicles may be parked in driveway but no
closer than 15 feet to the street or five feet to side lot line. 5)
The variance system would be as follows:
6/1/92 142
1. Manager established commission.
2.
3. Commission may attach conditions to variances such as screening.
4.
5.
Commission hears requests to park vehicles in locations not permitted
by Code.
Commission action may be appealed to Council.
Residents within 200 feet of variance request notified of hearing. I
Staff would suggest an effective date of January 1, 1994 for Section 1045.
Assistant Manager Hughes advised that during the two-week period of May 18-28,
1992, a wind-shield survey was conducted to inventory RVs, trailers, and boats in
the Single and Double Dwelling Zoning Districts in the City. Only those vehicles
visible from the street were included. Vehicles were categorized as being parked
either in the front yard or the side/rear yard.
surveyed were as follows:
Results of the 14,000+ lots
Self propelled RVs 46 10%
Towed RVs 56 12%
Boats on trailers 152 32%
Other (canoes, utility trailers) - 218 46%. .
Total 472 100%
Storage: Front Yard
Side/Rear Yard
236 50%
236 50%
A summary of the location of self propelled RVs, towed RVs and boats on trailers
by quadrants of the City showed that 53% (135) of vehicles or boats observed were
parked in the front yard; 47% (119) of vehicles or boats observed were parked in
the side or rear yard.
Member Rice asked how a commercial vehicle could be identified. Assistant
Manager Hughes said it would be difficult to judge a vehicle if it merely had a
sign on it, but if the vehicle had racks with plumbing pipe for example, the use
would be obvious.
Member Smith asked about storing a commercial vehicle on a driveway when the
owner takes a vacation.
ordinance is now written, storage of a commercial vehicle on a driveway during a
vacation period would not be allowed.
Assistant Manager Hughes explained that, as the
Mayor Richards interjected that it is not the intent of the ordinance to
eliminate these types of vehicles but only to regulate them.
of a commission to handle individual concerns would help with the regulating.
The establishment
Public Comment:
Laverna Pearce, 6921 Hillcrest Lane, spoke to their letter to Council with
concerns about parking their camper pickup truck in their driveway and ability
for their out-of-town son and family to visit with their large van.
Cindy Daoud, 6617 Paiute Pass, stated she believes that the proposed ordinance
would create a hardship for residents and is too restrictive.
creating a commission to review variances would be extremely ponderous'.
Further, that
Gary Bartolett, 7421 Gleason Road, noted that he owns one of the non-complying
vehicles and that, although a hard surface may not be required, it is essential
for parking a large motor home.
neighbors when variances are sought.
He also questioned giving veto power to
Gene Franchett, 5913 Chowen Avenue, commented that he owns a pop-up camper which
he parks inhis driveway during the summer months as his sideyard has no access
6/1/92
143
and if the ordinance is passed it will be illegal for him to continue doing so.
He has heard no negative comment from neighbors about parking the camper on his
driveway. He urged the Council to not eliminate the provision to allow parking
recreational vehicles on driveways.
Clarence Flynn, 6808 Hillside Lane, indicated he stores his 25 foot boat away in
the winter, but during the summer he parks it on the driveway for mobility.
Because his house in built in the side of a hill there is no way he could park it
in the sideyard.
Rebecca Milanese, 6404 Wilryan Avenue, informed Council that many driveways in
her area are closer to the lot line than five feet. She wondered if the whole
neighborhood would need a variance.
Charles White, 6016 Tracy Avenue, asked if the proposed ordinance meant that a RV
could not be parked in the driveway for loading or unloading purposes and asked
for a definition of 'stored'.
constructed right up to the property line and that the proposed five foot
sideyard setback for RVs would be in conflict.
He mentioned that driveways are permitted to be
Russ Nelson, 7117 West Shore Drive, asked if there.were any provisions for
loading and unloading his RV on the driveway. Also, if he obtained a variance
for parking, would it transfer if he traded-in the vehicle for one of the same
size.
Milt Farnham, 6945 Cornelia Drive, commented that he uses his motor home
constantly and having to store it off-premises would be very inconvenient as it
takes 48 hours to just start up the refrigerator.
Walt Sandison, 4612 W. 58th Street, asked why three percent of the population
should be allowed to set policy for the remaining 97 percent.
Wayne Alexander, 7028 Sally Lane, commented tliat every two years he has to obtain
a DNR license to operate his boat on any public waterway and must get a'trailer
license from the State of Minnesota to haul it on any public street, yet he under
the proposed ordinance he could not park the licensed boat/trailer on his
driveway.
Maged Daoud, 6617 Paiute Pass, submitted that felt his quality of life was being
attacked and that although he does not presently own a RV that is his dream. He
said he has not heard any good reason to change the ordinance and the changes
would be a burden on Edina residents. He asked that before the ordinance is
adopted more RV owners be allowed input into the decision.
Ann Charn, 6113 Tingdale Avenue, asked what regulations would apply to those
vehicles that under the ordinance could not be stored on-premises. She said
their RV is stored in Anoka and it could take up to a week to ready it for a
trip, depending on their schedule and the length of the trip.
William B. Dean, 5204 Benton Avenue, agreed that it takes several days to prepare
a vehicle for a trip.
impossible in either the side yard of rear yard because of lot size.
who it is that is driving the proposed restrictions and why.
He explained that on his street RV storage would be
He asked
Bill Anderson, 6233 Virginia Avenue, said he concurred with the comments made by
Mr. Daoud. He said his family has had wonderful experiences over the years with
a small travel trailer and that he is looking forward to owning a motor home when
retired. Also, that he owns a boat that he brings home occasionally so that.his
family can go fishing in metropolitan lakes or in southern Minnesota. He ,
concluded that there are bigger and better things to worry about in the City. 144
Lenny Levin, 5909 Chowen Avenue, mentioned that about 16 years ago he moved to
this state and searched for a home in Edina that would accommodate his motor
home. At that time the City required that it must be stored behind the house
line. He then spent $5,000 to install a concrete driveway for this purpose. He
said that people work hard to realize their dreams of owning RVs and boats (some
of which are very expensive), and that he would like to continue storing his
vehicle on his property.
regimented in size and few have two-car garages.
I
He also mentioned that the lots in his area are
Council Comment/Action
Member Paulus said that after spending considerable time touring Edina she had
concluded that the storage of RVs is more offensive in the side yard or rear yard
and she would prefer seeing them stored on the driveway as long as sight lines
are not affected, e.g. the ability to see around a vehicle that is parked on a
neighbor's driveway when backing out of a driveway.
would be numerous requests for variances because RVs seem to be concentrated in
areas of the City where there are no alleys to access back yards.
the question of what is driving this proposed ordinance, Member Paulvs said the
issue of storing RVs was raised by residents who do not own RVs and do not like
the looks.of them.
for the whole City and on the evidence presented, not on the number of people
that attend Council hearings. Further, that enforcement would be extremely
difficult.
Further, she felt there
In response to
She added that her decision would be based on what is good
Member Rice said he felt a reasonable parking limit should be considered for
loading/unloading RVs. Member Rice indicated that he felt that the existing
Board of Appeals could handle the requests for variances. Assistant Manager
Hughes reminded Council that the Board of Appeals is a rotating board and the
same individuals would not be in attendance at all the meetings.
suggested that Board members be asked if they would be interested on serving on
the variance commission to alleviate rotation of members and thereby maintain
consistency in their decisions when a hardship in complying with the ordinance
requirements is identified. Member Smith said he could not understand the logic
that would allow an individual to store a RV in the front yard when the City has
restrictions on fences in the front yard.
process to deal with non-permitted uses and to resolve cases that become an issue
between neighbors.
Member Smith
He emphasized that there has to be a
Member offered Section 1045 - Parking and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment for
First Beading as drafted and on file in the office of the City Clerk, with the
following modifications prior to Second Reading:
1)
seven days for loading or unloading.
2)
Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
motion.
Vehicles shall not be parked on a temporary basis on a driveway for more than
Requests for a variance shall be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mayor Richards called for discussion on the
Member Kelly observed that the Council is obliged to protect all the citizens and
to find a compromise between RV owners and non-owners.
process is a good way to achieve that.
reasonable period of time to prepare the vehicle for a trip or for visitors to
park their vehicles.
Member Rice said he was troubled that residents moved to Edina with the
understanding that they could park their RVs on their property and now that could
change.
variance process would mitigate any unusual circumstances.
The variance commission
She added that she felt a week is a
He said he would support the ordinance as proposed and would hope the
6/1/92 145
Maged Daoud, 6617 Paiute Pass, suggested that all RV owners in Edina be notified
of the proposed ordinance.
Gary Bartolett, 7421 Gleason Road, argued that sight line problems are the same
whether it is a RV blocking a view or a tree.
out because they can be moved.
He believed RVs are being singled
Bill Coppage, 6732 Rosemary Lane, suggested the following revisions: 1) remove
the word llparkingll from the ordinance and deal only with llstoragetl, 2) have the .
ordinance requirements apply only to certain seasons of the year, and 3) consider
providing a public parking area for RVs.
In summary, Mayor Richards said the issue is how to try to create a living
environment that we think is better than what we see elsewhere. This is a
difficult decision and the Council Members will try to represent all the citizens
and will give serious thought to the comments that have been made.
Richards then called for vote on the motion.
Mayor
Ayes: Kelly, Rice, Smith, Richards
Nays: Paulus
First Reading granted.
Mayor Richards then called for comments on the following draft Code Chapters and
Sections therein:
Chapter 1.
Chapter 2.
Chapter 3.
Chapter 4.
Chapter 5.
Chapter 6.
Chapter 7.
Chapter 8.
Chapter 9.
Chapter 10.
Chapter 11.
Chapter 12.
Chapter 13.
Chapter 14.
General Code Provisions and Administration
Public Dances, Lawful Gambling and Amusement Devices (except
Animals
Building Construction and Signs (except Section 460)
Civil Defense and Emergencies
Fire Protection
Health
Land Use, Platting and Zoning (except Section 850)
Liquor
Misdemeanors and Nuisances (except Section 1045)
Public Utilities
Streets and Parks
Trades and Occupations
Traffic and Vehicles
Section 215)
No public comment was heard on the draft Code Chapters and Sections as listed.
Member Kelly then offered First Reading of Chapters 1 through 14 of the Edina
City Code as presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk, except for
Section 215, Section 460 and Section 1045 given First Reading earlier, subject to
Second Reading and adoption on July 20, 1992.
Smith.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
First Reading granted.
Motion was seconded by Member
Member Paulus then offered First Reading of Section 850 - Lsnd Use, Platting and
Zoning as presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
seconded by Member Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
First Reading granted.
Motion was
Member Smith introduced Ordinance No. 1 for First Reading as follows, subject to
Second Reading and adoption on July 20, 1992:
ORDINANCE NO. 1
AN ORDINANCE CODIFYING THE GENERAL ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA; ADOPTING A NEW CITY CODE;
6 11/92 146 REmG CERTAIN ORDINANCES; AND
BEPEBYNG CER!CAIN ORDINANCES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDIEIB, M"ESO!U ORDAINS:
and permanent nature of the City of Edina, Minnesota, including provisions not
heretofore adopted, are hereby codified into the Ed- City Code, consisting of
Chapters 1, through 14, together with all tables, maps, indices and charts made a
part of such Chapters, are hereby adopted and declared to constitute a single,
original and comprehensive codification of the ordinances of the City.
codification is done by the authority of Mhnesota Statutes, 1990, Section 415.02
and 415.021.
the law of the City of Edina.
and is sometimes referred to herein and in the Ed- City Code as "this Code" or
"the Code."
and parts of ordinances of a general or permanent nature passed, adopted and
approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance and not included in the
Code or recognized and contiwed in force by reference in the Code, are hereby
repealed; provided, that, in construing the provisions of this ordinance, the
following ordinances shall not be deemed to be repealed but are hereby retained
and preserved and shall continue in full force and effect even though not
included in the Code and notwithstanding adoption of the Edina City Code:
I Section 1. Codification: Authoritv: Evidence. The ordinances of a general
This
This codification is hereby declared to be prima facie evidence of
Sec. 2. Title. The codification may be cited as the "Edina City Code,"
Sec. 3. Repeal of Prior Ordinances: Retained Ordinances. All ordinances
Any ordinance promising or branteeing the payment of money by the
City, or authorizing the issuance of any bonds of the City or any
evidence of the City's indebtedness, or authorizing any contract or
obligation entered into or assumed by the City.
Any ordinance appropriating funds, levying or imposing taxes, or
relating to an annual budget.
Any ordinance relating to salaries of city officers and employees or
to compensation or pay plans or classification plans for City
officers or employees.
Any ordinance annexing territory to, or detaching territory from, the
City, or extending or contracting the boundaries of the City,
including, vithout limitation, Ordinances No. 15 and 15-1.
Any ordinance authorizing, providing for or otherwise relating to any
public improvement or the acquisition by the City of any property or
property right.
Any ordinance making or levying assessments for public improvements.
Any ordinance approving any special law applicable to the City.
Any ordinance making a street name change, including, without
limitation, Ordinances No 164, 164-1, through 164-20 and 164-22
The following ordinances granting or amending franchises in the City
of Edina:
Ordinance No. 245-81
Ordinance No. 1116
Ordinance No. 1120
Any ord-ce imposing or amending a moratorium which moratorium is
still in effect as of the effective date of this ordinance.
Ordinance No. 112, as amended, creating the staggered terms for
council members, and the four year terms for council members,
including the Mayor.
I
through 164-44.
Sec. 4. Effect of Repeal: Licenses and Permits. The repeal of any
ordinance by the preceding Section shall not affect or impair any act done or
right vested or accrued or any proceeding, suit or prosecution, all of which
shall remain in full force and effect as if such repealed ordinance had remained
in force.
civil or criminal, incurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance, shall
No offense committed and no liability, penalty or forfeiture, either
6/1/92
9 147
be discharged or affected by the repeal or alteration of any ordinance by this
ordinance or the Code.
shall not be construed to revive any ordinance or part of an ordinance vhich vas
previously repealed by any ordinance repealed by this ordinance. Licenses and
permits issued by the City in accordance vith ordinance then applicable shall not
be deemed revoked by the repeal of such ordinances, but shall continue, unless
suspended or revoked, for the period for vhich they vere issued.
the date on vhich the Edina City Code becomes effective, every existing license
and licensee shall be subject to the provisions of the Edina City Code under
which a license for the same purpose vould be issued, or the holder of a license
vdd be regulated.
subject to the provisions of the Edina City Code under which a permit for the
same purpose tmuld be issued, or the holder of such permit would be regulated.
of this ordinance shall be passed as amendments or additions to the Code unless
they are of limited or special application, or are otherwise deemed not to be a
part of the Code in vhich event such ordinances shall be retained by the City
Clerk but separate from the Code.
or otherwise deemed not to be a part of the Code, nevertheless shall be
enforceable as other ordinances which are a part of the Code.
additions to the Code shall be a part of the Code from and after their effective
date and shall be incorporated into the Code in the manner provided in Section 6
hereof.
all amendments and additions then a part of the Code.
it may be kept up to date regularly by the insertion of revised or additional
pages.
pages after the adoption of any amending or additional ordinance so as to keep
the Code up to date at all times.
subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase of the Code is, for any reason, held to
be invalid or unenforceable as to any person or circumstance, the application of
such section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase to
persons or circumstances other than those as to vhich it shall be held invalid or
unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and all other provisions of the
Code, in all other respects, shall be and remain valid and enforceable.
Sec. 8. Part of Code. This ordinance shall be, and is, a part of the
Code.
Sec. 9. Publication and Distribution. A copy of the Code, marked
"Official Copy," shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk and shall
be available for.al1 persons desiring to examine the Code. A substantial
quantity of the Code shall be printed or otherwise reproduced for general
distribution to the public. Copies of the Code, or any portion thereof, shall be
available to any person upon payment of such copying or other reproduction
charges as have been established by the Council.
in full force, and shall take effect, from and after the adoption and publication
of this ordinance .
Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
The repeal of any ordinance under the preceding Section
From and after
Permits and permittees now existing shall likewise be
Sec. 5. Subsequent Ordinances. Ordinances passed after the effective date
Ordinances of limited or special application,
Amendments or
Reference or citation to the Code shall be deemed to mean and include
Sec. 6. Revisions. The Code has been prepared in loose-leaf form so that
The City Clerk or City Attorney shall prepare revised and additional
Sec. 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
Sec. 10. Effective Date. This ordinance and the Edina City Code shall be
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
First Reading granted.
Member Paulus asked that the Minutes state that a "nay" vote on one section of
the Code reflects the vote on that specific section only.
*CLARE PAID Motion was made by Member Kelly and vas seconded by Member Rice to
approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register
dated Hay 28, 1992, and consisting of 23 pages: General Fund $220,806.69; Cable
6/1/92
$317.20; Uorking Capital Fund $17,238.55; Art Center $5,769.96; Capital Fund
$664.76; Pool $41,743.89; Golf Course $23,621.04; Arena $2,280.74; Gun Range
$11.14; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes $8,419.58; Utilities $263,259.54; Storm
Sewer $297.00; Liquor Dispensary $37,176.07; Construction Fund $25,379.58;
TOW $646,985.74.
lil.8
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared
the meeting adjourned at 11:OO P.M.
-=a&d%/ 6L&
City Clerk