Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19920720_regular175 l4IIWlZS EDIHB CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE .JULY 20, 1992 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, and Mayor Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to approve and adopt the Consent Agenda items as presented with the exception of the removal of items 1II.D. - CDBG Year XVIII Subrecipient Agreement and V.A. - 50th & France Skylight Canopy. . Ro 1 lc a1 1 : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF TBE REGULAR MEETING OF .JULY 6. 1992. APPROVED Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to approve the Council Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 6, 1992, as presented. Motion was made by Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. PUBLIC TEARING ON SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 1 (CODIFYING THE GENERAL ORDINANCES OF TBE CITY: ADOPTING A NJ3W CITY CODE: RETAINING CERTAIN ORDINANCES; AND REPEALING CERTAIN ORDINANCES) CONTINUED TO AUGUST 3. 1992 Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Mayor Richards recalled that the Council had granted First Reading on June 1, 1992, of Ordinance No. 1 (Codifying the General Ordinances of the City; Adopting a New City Code; Retaining Certain Ordinances; and Repealing Certain Ordinances) following four prior public hearings and testimony on certain controversial sections of the Code. will be considered by the Council at this meeting following additional testimony. Since First Reading several modifications have been made, incorporated and delivered to the Council. and given to the Council Members. As publicized, Second Reading and adoption of the Code Code comments submitted to the City have been copied I DRAFT SECTION 460 - SIGNS Assistant Manager Hughes pointed out that the main change in Section 460 deals with temporary For Sale or F.or Lease signs. The proposed draft now provides: - Temporary "For Sale" or "For Lease" signs would be permitted. - Maximum size allowed would be 16 square feet; may be increased to 32 square feet if sign were oriented toward a 55 MPH highway. - Maximum height of freestanding signs would be 10 feet. - All sign surfaces and legs must be painted and maintained. - Permanent sign area may be increased by 20% in lieu of temporary sign. - 20 foot setback from the curb, rather than 10 feet from property line. - Non-conforming temporary signs must be removed within 90 days of adoption of Code. Public Comment Kent Warden, Executive Director, Greater Minneapolis Building Owners and Managers Assbciation, stated that a copy of draft Section 460 as modified had been reviewed, circulated within the membership and was found to be satisfactory. SECTION 1045 - PARKING AND STORAGE OF VEHICLES Assistant Manager Hughes said changes in the Section 1045 are mainly of where RVs, boats, etc., can be parked on a temporary basis. On a permanent basis, it provides for outdoor storage of RVs, ATVs, snowmobiles, utility trailers, off- road vehicles as follows: I 7/20 192 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 five feet to side lot line, or rear yard but not closer than 25 feet to rear lot line. Vehicles must be parked closer to owner's house than to buildable area on adjoining lot. Vehicles may be parked in driveway for seven days or less for loading/ unloading or to accommodate visitors. street and five feet from side lot line. Effective date of January 1, 1994, for prohibition of front yard storage. I No storage would be allowed in the front or side street setback. Vehicles must be 15 feet from The variance system would be the same except: - - - Board may attach conditions to variance, e.g., screening, etc. - - Zoning Board of Appeals would hear variance requests to park vehicles in non-permitted locations. Residents within 200 feet of request would be notified of the hearing. Board action may be appealed to Council. Variance may be transferred to another vehicle provided that the vehicle is not longer, wider, taller or older than the vehicle for which the variance was granted. Public Comment Janet Lehet, 5216 Benton Avenue, said their pickup camper is also used as a second vehicle during the summer months and asked if the seven day limit would apply. Assistant Manager Hughes clarified that the intent of draft Section 1045 was to prohibit temporary parking for more than seven continuous days. As now drafted, the vehicle would be in compliance if moved in and out of the driveway. Thomas Olson, 4709 Valley View Road, asked for clarification on the variance process and also suggested the City consider a system whereby a permit would be issued after visual inspection that would allow residents to store their recreational equipment as allowed under the current ordinance. explained that if a variance were granted it would allow a resident to park their equipment in a location other than as provided by the ordinance. procedure, neighbors within 200 feet of the property seeking the variance would be notified of the hearing when the variance request would be considered by the Board of Appeals. Maged Daoud, 6617 Paiute Pass, objected to the ordinance as drafted because he felt it was too restrictive and referenced a recent court decision in San Diego, CA, in favor of residents who opposed an ordinance on storage of RVs. that the City would be taking away his property rights under the 5th Amendment and that he and other residents intended to sue the Council Members and the City if the ordinance was adopted. They would also work to defeat the Council Members who are up for re-election. I Mayor Richards As to He alleged Gary Allen Bartolett, 7421 Gleason Road, submitted that the ordinance would be unenforceable unless the police staked out each house. understand how parking a vehicle in his driveway would have any affect on anyone else. Edina an orderly community, the type of environment that some people feel Edina stands for. Gary Bartolett, 7421 Gleason Road, presented a petition signed by Edina residents who are opposed to the ordinance that would limit their right to park or store recreational vehicles on driveways. He commented that an orderly community that He said he did not Mayor Richards responded that the intent of the ordinance was to make 7120192 177 is obtained in an unconstitutional manner is not the law of the land. He said if the ordinance is passed he would bring a class action lawsuit against the City and the Council to contest it. Cindy Daoud, 6617 Paiute Pass, said she felt many of the objections to recreational vehicles could be handled by the existing ordinance if it had been enforced. She also asked if a commission had ever acted on any permit applications under the current ordinance. commission had been set up and that several variances have been granted under the existing ordinance. In response, Manager Rosland said a I, Conrad Stordahl, 6300 Virginia Avenue, told the Council he had done a random, independent study of 100 homes, with or without recreational vehicles. Comments made to him objecting to the proposed ordinance included: Edina is becoming a sterile, plastic community with a "county club" attitude; the ordinance would be a real hardship for young people and senior citizens; many residents cannot get their RVs in the side or rear yard; limiting guests with RVs to seven days is unfair; many RV owners are citizens who have built this community. He asked for compassion on those who have been residents for a long time. Frank Pollitt, 6412 Limerick Lane, said that the present ordinance is already restrictive and to make it more so would be a hardship for a lot of people. Jerry Ekegren, 7016 Lynmar Lane, said he currently has a variance for storage of his vehicle and wondered if it would be more difficult to get a variance under the proposed ordinance. Doris Lee, 4705 Valley View Road, said it would be a hardship to store their motor home off their premises because of her husband's health problems. Fred Raiche, 6409 Rolf Avenue, said he was syinpathetic about the calls the Council has received objecting to RVs as he had been a council member for another community. make the existing ordinance more restrictive but the proposal was defeated. advised the Council to not enact an ordinance that would only be problematic. He recalled that a number of years ago the Council had attempted to He Wallace Lilja, 6933 Moccasin Valley Road, said had lived in Edina for 40 years, has seen junker cars and stored RVs which could be considered aesthetic pollution. Council would pass it. He said he considered the proposed ordinance reasonable and hoped the Glen Miller, 5120 W. 60th Street, commented that he had saved for several years and had just been able to buy a boat in May. a tuck-under garage and he cannot get his boat in the rear yard; also, he could not afford the cost to put it in storage. existing ordinance in place. He said his house is on a hill with He urged the Council to leave the Greg Carlin, 6901 Hillcrest Lane, objected to the proposed ordinance and commented that it would mean more driveway and hard-surfaced pads in rear yards which would be permanent, versus an RV which could be moved, and could be aesthetically offensive also. Terry Nali, 5305 Interlachen Boulevard, observed that 75% of the lots in Edina could not comply with the proposed five foot sideyard setback and 25 foot setback from the rear lot line for RVs. Bill Wright, 4813 W. 59th Street, asked if his van would be considered an RV and could not be parked in his driveway. He suggested that, if the intent is to beautify Edina and rid it of eyesores, the priority is wrong to pick out RVs as 178 7120192 there are hundreds of cars that parked outside constantly. SECTION 1000. SUBSECTION 1000.10 - NOISY ASSEMBLY Assistant Manager Hughes said the Police Department had requested a new subsection be added prohibiting noisy assemblies (e.g. loud parties) between 1O:OO P.M. and 7:OO A.M., which would give them another tool to address those situations. I SECTION 1035, SUBSECTION 1035.03. Subd. 3. - WASTEWATER Assistant Manager Hughes explained that Subsection 1035.03 was revised to clarify that rainwater or snow melt is not wastewater within the meaning of the Code. This would be in line with Council's decision concerning what they considered to be private property drainage issues. Walter Lehrke, 6120 Crescent Drive, commented that the issue of wastewater came up when a neighbor decided to divert roof rainwater onto his property. that he disagreed with the definition of wastewater which excluded rainwater. felt that the ordinance should be written to address the problem of rainwater which is diverted onto a neighbor's property. situation with his neighbor is a private issue and not a public issue under the ordinance, e.g. affecting health, safety and welfare of all the citizens. He stated He Mayor Richards explained that the Maged Daoud, 6617 Paiute Pass, said he felt the City should regulate discharge of rainwater because it could affect health and safety whereas RVs do not. COMMENT ON CITY CODE CHAPTERS Mayor Richards noted that code comments received since the June 6, 1992, Council meeting had been included in the Council packet. public comment on each Section contained in each of the Chapters 1 through 14 of the draft Edina City Code. Mayor Richards then asked for Gary Bartolett, 7421 Gleason Road, commented that Schedule A mentioned in Section 185 - Fees and Charges, had not been included in the public copy of the Code and he felt the Council should vote on what those fees and charges should be. Mayor Richards responded that every year during the budget process the Council reviews and approves every fee and charge imposed by ordinance. that he could pick up a copy of the current Schedule A from the City Clerk. He advised Mr. Bartolett Maged Doaud, 6617 Paiute Pass, said he concurred with the comment made by Mr. Bartolett and that the schedule should have been included for public review. No further public comment was heard. hearing closed. Mayor Richards then declared the public Council Comment/Action Member Rice referred to Section 460 - Signs, and said he felt that extending the period from 90 days to 120 days for removal of non-conforming temporary signs would be more reasonable. Mayor Richards commented that many hours and resources have been expended within the last year to codify, revise and update the existing ordinances to reflect current circumstances. For the most part the Code as drafted has accomplished that. He observed that draft Section 1045 (Parking and Storage of RVs) has generated the most controversy and discussion. Code regulations attempt to preserve the single biggest asset of all residents - our home. intent to support Section 1045 because the effective date of the ordinance is January 1, 1994. before the Board of Appeals to request a variance from the requirements. Further, Mayor Richards said he could concur with the suggestion of 120 days for compliance concerning temporary signs (Section 460 - Signs). Lastly, regarding I He said it is his This would allow sufficient time for compliance or appearance 7120192 179 Subsection 1035.03, Subd. 3 (Wastewater), he felt the issue should remain in the private sector and not be regulated by public law. Member Kelly reiterated that the recodification process has been a long and careful process with the hope of creating a healthy and safe environment for the community. It has not been an easy process because of the many phone calls received by the Council. tenderly and walk humbly to best serve the whole community. What has been done, although not pleasing all, she considered fair and thoughtful. 460 (Signs), 120 days for compliance would be reasonable. On draft Section 1045 (Parking and Storage of RVs), Member Kelly emphasized that it would not prohibit RVs but would try to regulate them to make an environment agreeable to all. The issue of safety was raised but she was not totally convinced that safety is an issue. She concluded that RVs are part of the present times and that regardless of what action the Council takes it will not please everybody. she would support the existing ordinance regulating RVs, not draft Section 1045, and asked that RV owners be considerate of their neighbors. Section 1000.10 (Noisy Assembly) and Section 1035.03 (Wastewater) Member Kelly said she would support both sections as drafted. She said she has felt an obligation to act justly, love Regarding Section I Member Kelly said Regarding draft Member Rice observed that the focus of the whole codification process has been to maintain Edina as a premier community, as stated in the City's Mission Statement. He stated he would support adoption of the entire Code as drafted, except to change draft Section 460 (Signs) to allow 120 days for compliance of non- conforming temporary signs. RVs) he said he would support Mayor Richard's comments. was still troubled by the fact that the City would be changing the rules for residents who have been able to park RVs in their driveway for years. the 18-month period for compliance should give adequate time to test this and give residents the chance to look at other options, including seeking a variance. He mentioned that more and more the Council is being asked to mediate neighborhood disputes - people don't talk to each other or seem to know each other. has been well thought out, and the staff has done a very commendable job in helping the Council with it. Although there may be flaws in it, those will certainly come to the Council's attention. Second Reading of the Code. Relative to Section 1045 (Parking and Storage of He reiterated that he However, The City Code will not solve that problem but goes as far as it can go, He concluded that he would support Member Paulus observedthat while there is a full audience this evening, many times when important decisions are made few residents are in attendance. She welcomed residents to attend all Council meetings to make their concerns known. If that is not possible, they must have confidence in their elected officials to set policy and make judgement calls. Member Paulus said numbers attending a meeting do not sway her vote, she is elected at large and votes accordingly. also represents people who work or own businesses in Edina or shop or drive through the City. issue" items. that many times never have to be addressed except on an individual case basis. In reference to Section 460 (Signs) Member Paulus said she felt 90 days is adequate for compliance of non-conforming signs. As to Section 1045 (Parking and Storage of RVs) she said she became concerned with trying to determine what part- of a person's property is the most valuable, e.g. front, side or back yard. Many residents have made large financial investments in family rooms that extend out of the back of the home and are used more than most living rooms, and now they may be looking at a RV in a neighbor's back yard. The problem would not be resolved by tucking the vehicle around the side or back of a home, or by building a mammoth garage to store the vehicle. The issue is whether or not RVs should be allowed to be in the City at all. come full circle, not because she had been threatened about not being re-elected, She Issues are complex and cannot be viewed as microscopic or "one Codification is a process to make sense of many laws on the books For that reason Member Paulus said she has 180 7120192 or lawsuits, but because in her best judgement the issue is not where RVs are stored but the right of ownership. as it exists.now. felt this was not an issue, it concerns being a good neighbor. saying that she is always open to listening to residents' opinions but to be hostile and threatening closes her objectivity. important for them to realize that she is speaking for them as well as the thousands of people who never come before the Council because they elected her to also represent them. She said she would vote to keep the ordinance Regarding Section 1035.03 (Wastewater) Member Paulus said she She concluded by To the audience she said it is Member Smith's comments were addressed mainly to the audience and are summarized. He questioned how government would operate if it responded to people who threatened to sue elected representatives who might disagree with their opinion. He chastised those who had told people they would have to get rid of their RVs if the proposed ordinance was passed and also said people should read the ordinance themselves rather than listening to someone who could incite them. Member Smith pointed out that the ordinance does not say you must get rid of your RV or have to run a driveway up a slope - it does say if you have a problem come to City Hall and see about getting a variance if necessary. The draft ordinance provides for fairness much more so than the existing ordinance as the Council received letters and phone calls from residents who objected to RVs being parked in the front yard. are affected on both sides can respond. to give up some rights - what has happened to the 'respect your neighbors rights'? ordinance and would be just fine. being parked in the back yard as that may also be objectionable; it also may mean more variances. ordinances as presented but would try to seek some modification relative to the parking of RVs in the back yard. he would not support an extension beyond 90 days for compliance. The government we all want is one who has a process where people who We live in a society where we all have He felt that most RV owners would figure out how to comply with the Member Smith said he was concerned about RVs He concluded by saying he intended to support the draft Regarding Section 460 (Signs) Member Smith said Council comments being concluded, Mayor Richards noted that testimony had been heard from over 16 people and the five Council Members with various views. In his judgement the Council acts best after reflection and contemplation and, because this has been an emotional issue, he suggested that action on Ordinance No. 1 be held over to August 3, 1992, not for the purpose of taking additional public testimony but to enable the Council to reflect on comments made. Member Smith made a motion to continue the matter of Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 1 to August 3, 1992. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Rice, Smith, Richards Nay: Paulus Motion carried. REQUEST FOR PRE-Y PLAT APPROVAL FOR HARK DAHLOMST ADDITION (LOT 11, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 325) REPERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation bv Planner Associate Planner Kris Aaker informed Council that the property proposed for subdivision is located south of Interlachen Boulevard, west of Schaefer Road and west of Ridge Road. about four acres consist of two ponding areas. Currently, there is a new single family home under construction in the southwesterly corner of the property. The applicant has submitted a subdivision request that would create four additional buildable lots to be accessed by the extension and improvement of the right-of- way for Harold Woods Lane. The parcel is approximately 10.5 acres in area, of which The fifth lot (Lot 1) is served by a driveway off of 7/23/92 181 Schaefer Road. An analysis of the 500 foot neighborhood as required by the subdivision ordinance yields 60 lots. area of the neighborhood of 33,325 square feet, both on a net and gross basis, and meet or exceed the median neighborhood lot width of 150 feet. meet or exceed lot depths requirements; however, Lots 3, 4, and 5 do not meet the lot depth requirement when pond area is excluded. Discussion regarding lot depth at the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1992, resulted in a request by the applicant for ordinance interpretation by the City Attorney. July 15, 1992, from the City Attorney opined that ponds or water areas on a lot should not be excluded in determining lot depth. If it is accepted by the Council that lot depth includes ponding areas, no lot depth variances would be required. All lots within the proposed subdivision exceed the median lot Lots 1 and 2 A letter dated The subdivision ordinance requires the implementation of a 100 foot conservation easement around all wetlands. required 100 foot easement, right-of-way width and front street setback creates unreasonable restraints and undue hardship. In regard to proposed house placement, the proponents are requesting a variance to reduce the conservation easement to 50 feet. The proponents believe that the combination of the Information provided by the the south pond is under DNR telephone conversation with revealed that the DNR would pond and minimum 30-35 foot acknowledged that the local Department of Natural Resources (DNR) indicated that jurisdiction; however, the north pond is not. Staff Ceil Strauss, Edina area hydrologist with the DNR, suggest no less than a 50 foot setback from the south setback from the north pond. However, Ms. Strauss government authority can be more restrictive than the state standards. Ms. Strauss also indicated that the flood elevations of the ponds are 940.7 feet. of the proposed homes will be at an elevation of 942 feet. pond, there are two shorelines illustrated on the site plan. contends that the north pond shoreline was altered sometime after 1940 as the result of a pumping system installed by the Schaefers. has been designed using the original shoreline of the north pond. asks that the developer acknowledge the original north pond shoreline for setback ' purposes. dispute the configuration of the south shoreline of the north pond. The applicant has indicated that all basement elevations Regarding the north The developer The proposed subdivision The applicant Staff has found no evidence in City files that would confirm or Upon review and consideration of the five lot subdivision request, the Planning Commission voted 7 to 1 for denial. Comments made by the Commissioners indicated that the proponents' request for variance was greater than would be acceptable to the Commission. Presentation bv ProDonent Mark Dahlquist, 5012 Schaefer Road, said he and his wife have lived in the area for 32 years and purchased the subject 10.5 acres 18 years ago. personal interest in the land, he has formed a partnership for its development, e.g. Mr. and Mrs. Dahlquist, Ron Clark Construction, Inc., and David and Patty Schall who are building the house on the southwest corner of the property. Shortly before the Dahlquists acquired the property, a sanitary sewer line was constructed to serve the homes on the east side of Ridge Road. line bisects the property, it imposes constraints on the layout of lots in the proposed subdivision. Mr. Dahlquist noted that some of the neighbors and Planning Commission members were concerned because the Schall house is being constructed before subdivision approval. This was done for several reasons: 1) There is no connection between the Schall's lot (Lot 1) and the proposed four lots to the north; Lot 1 has its Because of their Because the sewer 18 3 L own driveway off of Schaefer Road and sewer. 2) The Schalls wished to move for moneys.to pay real estate taxes. 7120192 its own utilities except for sanitary in prior to Christmas. 3) There was a need 4) The new house met ordinance requirements because it is on- a legal buildable lot. Mike Gair stated he was a land planner representing the development partnership. He presented graphics illustrating the proposed subdivision and pointed out that the proposed lots meet and exceed ordinance requirements as to lot area, lot width and lot depth. Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be served by a cul-de-sac off Harold Woods Lane. through the property and City watermain was also installed to accommodate future home sites. Mr. Gair pointed out the historic south shoreline of the north pond, noting that presently there is a finger of wetland that extends down into the property along that alignment. Commission, the staff background report indicated that lot depth variances would be required for Lots 3, 4 and 5. Attorney, lot depth does not appear to be an issue, nor was it in the developers thinking when the lots were laid out. There is an existing sanitary sewer line running east-west The distance between the two ponds is approximately 360 feet. When the proposed subdivision was considered by the Planning Following receipt of the opinion of the City Mr. Gair stated that there still remains the request for a 50 foot variance from the 100 foot conservation easement requirement. The purpose behind that request is that, although the properties are large in size, the consideration of the 50 foot right-of-way and the 30 foot front street setback in tandem with the 100 foot conservation easement for both ponds leaves areas available for building pads of depths less than what would appear appropriate to the neighborhood character and symmetry, market, and homeowners' desires. However, since reviewing the proposal with the Planning Commission they have taken a second look and have an alternate to propose to the Council. be 55 feet, with 15 feet for a deck or patio, giving a building depth of 75 feet. Considering the required front street setback of 30 feet and a potential building depth of 75 feet, the most southern Lots 2 and 5 would require only a 25 foot conservation easement variance. the ordinary high water elevation. variance is requested. complicated for Lot 3 because of the alteration through time of the historic shoreline. from the more recent developed finger of wetland or, in effect, no closer than 100 feet from the historic shoreline. Mr. Gair concluded by noting that the 100 year flood elevation is at 940 feet and that they are proposing no buildings or grading that would encroach on the 100 year floodplain. opening would be at an elevation of 942 feet to protect the properties from any damage as a result of surface water that would collect in the ponds. The house depth would probably Accordingly, the setback would be 75 feet from On the northeasterly Lot 4 the same 25 foot However, in the northwest corner it becomes more The request would be that no structure would be closer than 30 feet As proposed, the homes would be constructed so that the lowest Public Comment Margie Sampsell, speaking for her mother Evelyn Young at 5016 Schaefer Road, noted that water is piped down Schaefer Road into the south pond. the water level in the pond is very high so that approximately 10-15 feet of her mother's yard is flooded. Ted Pier, 5021 Ridge Road, said the neighborhood does have concerns about the proposed subdivision: 1) 100 foot setback from the conservation easement - no hardship has been demonstrated for a variance from this requirement, 2) The creation of the "historical" south shoreline of the north pond - an aerial photo taken during the drought year of 1979 shows the wetland finger which has existed for a long time. conclusion would be that there is a small number of properties that could be As a result If aerial photos for the past 50 years were reviewed the 7 12019 2 183 developed. As proposed, the houses would cover 100% of the ponds. On behalf of the neighborhood, he asked the subdivision for the reason that it fails to comply with City which should be enforced. the available land above Council to deny the the ordinances of the Leonard Lindborg, 5101 Ridge Road, commented that lot sizes have not been presented fairly as they are less when you exclude the pond areas. He reiterated the concern of the neighbors about the variances and the actual buildable portion of the lots. In response to comments about the shoreline of the north pond, Mr. Dahlquist explained that when the Schaefers owned the property they were mainly concerned about keeping water in the south pond which was adjacent to their home. install an elaborate pumping system to the north pond and dredged out the "finger" to accommodate the system. in measuring the conservation easement from the natural shoreline. clarified that the only variance being sought is from the 100 foot conservation easement affecting the four northern lots, e.g. 25 foot variance for Lots 2, 4 and 5 and a 30 foot variance for Lot 3 which would place the building no closer than 100 feet to the historic boundary floodplain. Proposed lot sizes remain the same as were presented to the Planning Commission and the net lot area of all the lots exceeds the neighborhood median of 33,325 square feet. They did Mr. Dahlquist said that they were justified Mr. Gair Mike Dunn, 5117 Schaefer Road, noted that he is living in the Schaefer home, and commented that the driveway to the Schall home under construction comes very close to the edge of the south pond. Patrick Manthy, 6413 Interlachen Boulevard, said that about a year ago he applied for a 10 foot variance from the required front street setback which was denied by the Planning Commission for the reason that no hardship was demonstrated. hardship has been identified for the proposed subdivision and following some two and a half hours of testimony before the Planning Commission the request was denied by a 7-1 vote. finding should be made by the Council. No Unless new evidence is presented, Mr. Manthy said the same Dee Dahlquist, 5012 Schaefer Road, interjected that there has been some misunderstanding about the requested variance. conservation easement of 75 feet from the pond instead of 100 feet for three lots and 100 feet from the natural boundary of the north pond. filling in gradually with silt and eventually will be filled in by nature. She then read a letter dated July 15, 1992, from Howard Weiner, 5224 Schaefer Road, in support of the proposed subdivision. They are asking for a The "finger" has been David Schall offered the following comments: 1) The issue of the wetland finger should be based on what was created by nature versus what was created by man. 2) The proposed houses would be built above the DNR flood elevation of 940.7. 3) The proposed lots meet the neighborhood median and the houses proposed to be built would cover less than 8% of the available land, excluding the ponds. 4) Two exceptionally large houses in the neighborhood probably do not relate to the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. 5) The City recently granted a 50 foot conservation easement variance for the Wooddale Lakes subdivision. 6) The DNR has said that a 35 foot setback from the north pond and a 50 foot setback from the south pond would not harm the ecology, damage the land or risk flood damage. 7) The hardship for the property is financial - one lot versus five lots that are buildable. Member Paulus interjected that her understanding was that a variance could not be granted based on financial hardship. correct. Attorney Gilligan answered that was 184 -' 7120192 Peggy Carlisle, 5013 Ridge Road, commented that there is a great amount of runoff . that drains into the ponds. be pumped from the ponds. this should be taken into consideration. Edward Glickman, 5217 Schaefer Road, told the Council that the small pond in his backyard gets runoff from Fox Meadow Lane and has flooded his yard three times this year. Had he attended that hearing he would have objected to granting a variance. Every dumpster of dirt brought in to a building site represents water in someone else's backyard which should be taken into account. During the 100 year rainstorm in 1987 water had to Because there have been subsequent heavy rainfalls I Further, he believed a variance was granted for that subdivision. Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction, Inc., addressed the hardship issue as not being financial but rather a site planning and land development hardship. explained that the existing sewer line dictates the road placement. calculate the 50 foot road width and the 30 foot front setback, even though you meet all the ordinance requirements, you simply do not have a building pad that is appropriate for the homes that most people would want. area, it is difficult piece of land because it is restricted on the north-south dimensions. tightness because the road has to stay in the same location. Mr. Clark concluded by noting that the Planning Commission based their decision on a different set of circumstances, e.g. they were being asked to approve two variances which has now been modified by eliminating the lot depth variance and reducing the conservation easement variance to 25 feet. He When you Although large in Decreasing the number of lots does not help the front to back Council Comment/Action Member Paulus asked if the 100 foot conservation easement was to protect the homes or to also protect the waters. conservation easement is required to protect both the homes and the waters. Member Paulus also asked if the existing sewer line could be considered a hardship that would be sustained by the courts. Attorney Gilligan replied that under the ordinance that would be a circumstance unique to the particular site. Whether that would stand up in a court of law is difficult to say. Richards asked who was assessed for the sewer line when it was put in. Mr. Dahlquist said he believed that the property owners on Ridge Road paid for that sewer line. Planner Aaker responded that the Mayor Member Rice said he did not intend to take any action on the proposed subdivision at this meeting for the following reasons: 1) Because he takes the recommendations of the Planning Commission seriously he would like to have them deal with the same set of facts that the Council deals with. There has been a substantial change in the set of facts that were presented to the Planning Commission from what has been presented to the Council. The opinion of the City Attorney regarding the determination of lot depth was contrary to what the Planning Commission apparently considered for lot depth. 2) Member Rice raised the following questions in regard to the proposed subdivision, noting that he did not expect answers at this time: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) What do the regulatory agencies use to determine the outline of a water body - what is a reasonable number of years to consider? WouLd the Schall house under construction have needed any variances if it were included? Do the two exceptionally large homes fit character and symmetry of the neighborhood? What is the stated hardship to support a variance? Can the existing sewer line be changed, and if so, what would be the cost? 7/20/92 185 Member Rice suggested that the Council refer the request for subdivision back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation based on the new facts that have been presented. Member Kelly said she concurred that the Planning Commission did not have the same set of facts in making their recommendation. Member Rice then made a motion to refer the request for preliminary plat approval for the Hark Dahlquist Addition (Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision No. 325) back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration based on the new facts presented. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards. Motion carried. SPECIAL USE PERWITTED ON OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION EASEMENT - LOT 5. BLOCK 1. OAK PONDS OF INTWLACHW (6204 FOX MEADOW LANE) Presentation bv Planner Planner Kris Aaker recalled that at the meeting of June 15, 1992, the Council had continued the request by the property owner at 6204 Fox Meadow Lane to place a play structure in the open space/conservation in the rear yard. The matter was continued at the request of the property owner for decision by the full Council. The proponent, Paul McCormick, has now returned to seek Council approval of the request. written formal approval by the City. Rainbow play system made of wood timbers and canvas. require no footings and can be moved. Placement of any structure within the easement area would require The proposed structure is a 12 x 28 foot Structures of this type Presentation by Proponent Paul McCormick, 6204 Fox Meadow Lane, referred to the letter dated July 13, 1992, from Bengt and Ann Nilsson, his neighbors at 5200 Blake Road, in which they stated they would not object to the placement of the play system as long as it would not encroach on their 75 foot "use easement'#. Council Comment/Action Mayor Richards called for public comment on the request to place a play system in the open space/conservation easement at 6024 Fox Meadow Lane. objection was heard. No comment or Member Kelly introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby permits the use of the open space/conservation easement over the rear yard of Lot 5, Block 1, OAK PONDS OF INTERLACHEN (6204 Fox Meadow Lane) for placement of a play structure ; BE IT PUBTHEB RESOLVED that the permitted use be limited to that of the present owners of the property. RESOLUTION Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards (Member Rice was temporarily absent for the vote.) Resolution adopted . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONTINUED TO AUGUST 3. 1992. (CROSSVIEW LUTHERAN CHURCH - 6634 MCCAULEY TRAIL) PARKING LOT EXPANSION Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation bv Planner Associate Planner Aaker informed Council that Crossview Lutheran Church, located south of McCauley Trail and west of Timber Trail, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for expansion of their existing parking lot. Their preliminary plan estimated that parking would be enlarged to 198 spaces, 48 186 7120192 spaces greater than the ordinance requires for enlarging the sanctuary seating from 300 to 450 seats. expansion only. expansion of the education wing in about one year. the church's master plan reviewed and approved by the City in 1984. berm will screen the area and additional landscaping and an irrigation system will be installed around the perimeter of the site. The requested Conditional Use Permit is for parking lot The church has indicated it will be returning to propose This plan is consistent with An existing At its meeting of July 1, 1992, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to approval of a final grading plan by the City Engineer, with special consideration to the south side of the site. concerns of the Planning Commission and City Engineer. reduction in grade change in the new driveway area from 14 percent and a reduction in berm area around the new driveway to provide for adequate clearview. It also illustrates that, after striping, a total of 225 spaces will be provided, more than the approximately 200 that was anticipated on the preliminary submission and would exceed the number required by the ordinance. Ron Krueger and Associates have submitted a plan to address the The plan illustrates a Presentation bv Proponent Pastor Dean Nadasdy, Crossview Lutheran Church, observed that the church has been blessed with an average growth of 70 people per year for the last 10 years and projects to have 1500 parishioners by the year 2000. adequately serve their parishioners is needed. He said that a third service will be added soon and they need to solve the parking crunch. are in to cover the costs of the parking expansion, as well as loan approval. Parking spaces to Pledged contributions Public Comment Noah Hurley, 6322 Timber Trail, explained he is one of five residents on the Timber Trail cul-de-sac, some of which are present. would devalue the residential property in the area. than a good-neighbor, e.g. has not cut weeds. church's need for additional parking, the plans are incomplete. been made about a system to take care of the berm, and there is concern that wild animals would be diverted into the residential area. Also, there is the question of a fence between his property and the church property. There is at least one potential accident per month at the church's existing driveway to Timber Trail. I Expansion of the parking lot The church has been less Although he can understand the Promises have Catherine Hapka, 6323 Timber Trail, said she has two small children and was greatly concerned about increasing traffic in the area. The proposal would put the church's second driveway directly across from her driveway. She reiterated that there are frequent accidents at this location and some could be avoided if the weeds were cut. into a parking lot and it would have to affect adjacent property values. A secondary concern is that visually she would look directly Greig Safaya, 6323 Timber Trail, commented that there are a number of small children in the area and their.safety is a great concern. Charles Sedgwick, 6517 Ryan Avenue, and Crossview Church Building Committee Chair, pointed out that the plan presented is required by City ordinance which requires religious institutions to have parking spaces equal in number to one- third of the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, plus spaces for other church facilities which are used concurrently with the largest space of assembly. total lot area is five acres, the eastern half of which is rough and wooded and does harbor some wildlife. has a severe pitch of 2:l and the redesign would be 1:3 which should be easier to maintain. willing to work with neighbors on landscaping. I This space was set aside on the church's master plan. The The existing four foot berm screening Timber Trail A landscape plan has been submitted to the City and the church is Mr. Sedgwick said the ordinance 7/20/ 92 187 requires a four foot fence solution for the neighbors is attempting to be a good north parking lot entrance the berm would be cut back saying that eight families plans. above the level of parked cars, which may not be a unless placed on top of the berm. neighbor with a good, irrigated landscaping plan. The will be widened to handle more cars on the turn and for a better site line. Mr. Sedgwick concluded by in the area were all visited and showed the church's He said Crossview Council Comment/Action Mayor Richards asked if the church had considered encouraging parishioners to use the northerly exits from the parking lot so as to stay away from the homes near the south entrance or to sign the south entrance as "enter only". Mr. Sedgewick responded that they plan to widen the northern entrance and to cut back the berm to provide better sight lines. Further, he said the church is not aware of any accidents reported at that intersection. Member Smith observed that people dribble into church but they all exit at once. He said he concurred with the comments of Mayor Richards. his tenure on the Council there have been five church expansions and three of 1 those have not been good neighbors. information as to the landscaping (size of trees, etc.) and further plans for handling the traffic . ; He said that during He said he would like more detailed Member Smith made a motion to continue the request by Crossview Lutheran Church for a Conditional Use Permit for parking lot expansion to August 3, 1992, so that the concerns raised could be addressed. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. YEAR XVIII CDBG SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT APPROVED this item to be removed from the Consent Agenda in order to discuss how to inform the residents that the XVIII Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects include $40,000 available for rehabilitation of private property. It was suggested that information be published in the next issue of About Town magazine and also be included in the packets for realtors. Member Kelly said she had asked Member Paulus then made a motion for adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Edina has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1992 (Year XVIII) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program and the City is a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Manager to execute Subrecipient Agreement, County Contract Number A09482, on behalf of the City. ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 1992. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards *LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOT 8. BLOCK 1. SIOUX TRAIL 4TH ADDITION (6921-23 MC CAULEY TRAIL1 Kelly for adoption of the following resolution, subject to recording the waiver Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member agreement granted by service requirement: 7/20/92 the Building Board of Appeals from the separate water RESOLUTION VHEREBS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: WEEREAS, the owner has requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels") described as follov: Parcel A: That: part of Lot 8, Block 1, SIOUX TBBIL 4TH ADDITION, lying north of a line drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 8, distant 50.20 feetnorth of the southwest corner thereof, to a point on the east line of said Lot 8, distant 53.57 feet north of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. Parcel B: That part of Lot 8, Block 1, SIOUX TRBn 4TH ADDITION, lying south of a line dram from a point on the vest line of said Lot 8, distant 50.20 feetnorth of the southwest corner thereof, to a point on the east line of said Lot 8, distant 53.57 feet north of the southeast corner thereof and there terminating. Lot 8, Block I, SIOUX TRBIL 4TH ADDITION, and VBEBEBS, 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 of Edina 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 Ordinnnce 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 allov said division and conveyance thereof as separate tract 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, 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 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 50TH & PRANCE SKYLIGHT CANOPY Assistant Manager Hughes explained that the skylight canopy would be located on the north side of W. 50th Street, along the east and north sides of Bellesons. The authorization for final plan preparation and bid solicitation was done May 6, 1991. The project construction has been delayed because the north wall on which the canopy would sit ended up a total new building. building adjustments prior to the installation of the canopy. The project would be assessed against the private parties involved and the general 50th & France area according to the agreement. recommended that the bid be awarded subject to receipt of signed agreements with adjoining property owners. The private properties adjacent still must make some Assistant Manager Hughes stated that staff Motion was made by Member Kelly and vas seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for the 50th & France Skylight Canopy to C.F. Haglin & Sons Co, at $117,700.00. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *BID AWARDED FOR REPAIR OF VARIOUS RAMPS Motion vas made by Member Smith and vas seconded by Member Kelly for award of bid for ramp repair (middle ramp behind Tvin City Federal between W. 50th St. 6: U. 49 1/2 Street), (traffic topping on the south ramp by Lunds, Lunds level), (behind Jerry's Food Stores located south of Vernon and west of the So0 Line railroad tracks), to recommended low bidder, Progressive Contractors, Inc., at $45,825.00. 7/2O/ 92 189 Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR CONCRETE SIDEWAIK ON THIELEN AVENUE Smith and vas seconded by Member Kelly for award of bid for concrete sidewalk on Motion was made by Member Thielen Avenue to recommended low bidder, Gunderson Brothers Company, Inc., at $13,043.75. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. TRAPPIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MI"TES OF JULY 14. 1992. APPROVED briefly reviewed the discussion that occurred at the Traffic meeting on July 14, 1992. Cement Contractors Engineer Hoffman Safety Committee Member Kelly made a motion to approve the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of July 14, 1992, with no requests for action in Section A and to acknowledge Sections B and C of the Minutes. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. PARK BOARD ReCOMMENDATION APPROVED FOR BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE NINE HOLE EXPANSION Manager Rosland recalled that at the Park Board meeting of April 26, 1988, the Board moved to recommend approval of the Braemar Golf Course expansion and the Council subsequently approved the expansion. a permit from the U.S. Corps of Engineers. At its meeting of July 14, 1992, the Park Board again revisited the proposal and reaffirmed its previous recommendation for the nine hole expansion. In the interim the City applied for Manager Rosland pointed out that the demand at Braemar has grown from 500 patron card holders in 1980 to 2125 in 1992, with more individuals interested in golf. Braemar maintains 1680 individual handicaps, more than that of any single golf course in the country. increasing demand. examined carefully and a complete summary was presented to Council. that the proposed expansion has been well planned, the environment has been respected, and a permit has been issued by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to allow construction to begin. The nine hole expansion will help to alleviate the Manager Rosland said the financial projections have been He concluded Member Smith said he had heard some comments that Edina was providing golf for the metropolitan area. Edina residents, yet have a difficult time getting a start time. Roger Harrold, 5044 W. 60th Street, President of the Braemar Golf Association, with this project. proj ect. Manager Rosland answered that patron card holders are all . spoke to his letter of July 15, 1992, giving compelling reasons to move forward He said the Association is in full support of the expansion Maren Lilja, 6933 Moccasin Valley Road, said she feels the City has done a lousy job of informing the public about the proposed expansion, other than to golfers. She explained that she has walked the grounds often over the past three years and the first she knew of the proposed expansion was when the surveyor's stakes appeared. Ms. Lilja said her husband attempted to acquire a copy of the new golf course plan and was told it was difficult to get. the expansion plan was publicized through the golf course pro-shop. that there are people in Edina who do not golf who have concerns about the proposal. questioned why when the Environmental Protection Agency objected to this expansion the Corps of Engineers approved the plan. the City cares more about economics and recreation than the environment. Tass Von Schmidt-Pauli, 6817 St. Patrick's Lane, pointed out that it has been six They were further told that She stated She voiced concern over the over-development of the area and Ms. Lilja emphasized that 190 7120192 long years of hard work to get to this point for the proposed expansion. he felt the City has had great foresight in planning the expansion and that the environmental issue has been addressed. He said there has been an increased demand by the growing senior citizen population and the new nine will facilitate that demand. golfers. Wallace Lilja, 6617 Moccasin Valley Road, asked for a copy of the proposed expansion plan and reiterated the concerns expressed by his wife. He said I It would also allow for golf on tournament days by non-tournament Mayor Richards commented that there has been no attempt to conceal information about the proposed expansion. As to criticism about destroying wetlands, he said the City is foremost in preserving wetlands, e.g, purchasing 500 acres at Braemar, preserving the corridor strip along Nine-Mile Creek, preserving land along Minnehaha Creek and the holding ponds around Southdale, etc. expansion will preserve wetlands, serve as holding ponds, be a habitat for animals and will maximize the use of the land in a park setting. reasons Mayor Richards said he would support the project going forward. The proposed For those Member Rice indicated he felt the City has gone an extra mile with environmental concerns. His vote for expansion would not be economic but would be based on encouraging more of a recreational experience by providing the opportunity to participate at Braemar. still be a walking path along the southerly border of the area. Member Rice said his understanding is that there will Member Paulus interjected that although this will benefit senior citizens, the youth that are the golfers of tomorrow need to be given an opportunity to play too and support the expansion tomorrow. Member Smith observed that the majority of the work, including public hearings, was done prior to 1988 and articles were published in the Sun Newmaper. What has happened since 1988 has been the ongoing debate with the Corps of Engineers which was published in the Star Tribune. Member Smith made a motion for final approval of the Braemar Golf Course Nine Hole Expansion as presented and as recommended by the Edina Park Board. was seconded by Member Rice. Motion Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. APPO~ HADE TO COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES BOARD recommended reappointment of Glenn Smith (Council representative), and Jean Rydell (Park Board representative) on the Community Education Sewices Board for a one year term from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993. Mayor Richards Motion was made by Member Paulus for consent of the Mayor's reappointment of Glenn Smith as Council representative and Jean Rydell as Park Board representative to the Community Education Services Board for a one year term to June 30, 1993. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *PETITION FOR STORM SEWER BE17JEEN 5701 AND 5723 FRANCE AV. S. REFERRED TO ENGINEERING Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to refer the petition for storm sewer between 5701 and 5723 France Avenue South to the Engineering Department for processing. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. 7/20/92 191: *PETITION REGARDING STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-298 (BT.AKE ROAD) REFERRED TO ENGINEERING refer the petition regarding Street Improvement No. Ba-298 (Blake Road) to the Engineering Department for recommendation. Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. NINE MILE CREEK WA-HED DISTRICT BOARD APPOINTMENT MADE Manager Rosland explained that he had contacted Helen McClelland regarding her interest in reappointment to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board, whose term expires September 29, 1992. Ms. McClelland indicated she was interested in being considered for reappointment. Member Rice introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: tJEIwEAs, the term of Helen McClelland on the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board will end on September 29, 1992; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby recommends and nominates Helen McClelland to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for re-appointment to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board and urges the Commissioners to approve the re-appointment. by Member Smith. RESOLUTION Motion was seconded Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. *CLAIMS PAID approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated July 16, 1992, and consisting of 26 pages: General Fund $1,973,983.29; CDBG $2,531.62; Cable $103.17; Working Capital Fund $34,066.36; Art Center $4,899.03; Pool $5,718.06; Golf Course $38,149.56; Arena $2,505.63; Gun Range $1,622.15; Edinborough Park/Centennial Lakes $17,361.27; Utilities $57,042.70; Storm Sewer $57,824.45; Liquor $156,259.24; Construction Fund $616.50; IMP Bond Redemption $397,966.53; TOTAL $2,750,649.56; and for confirmation of payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated July 16, 1992, and consisting of 12 pages; General Fund $101,668.05; Pool $160.00; Liquor. $208,317.88; Golf Course $89.65; TOTAL $310,235.58. Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the meeting adjourned at 12:45 P.M. City Clerk