HomeMy WebLinkAbout19920803_regular194
KRilDTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TBE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HAXL
I AUGUST 3, 1992
ROILCU Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor
Richards.
CONSENT AGENDA 1"EMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded
by Member Smith to approve and adopt the Consent Agenda items as presented.
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*MImJ!rES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 1992. BPPROVED Motion was made by
Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith to approve the Council Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of July 20, 1992, as presented.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
ORDIJUNCE NO. 1 - CODIFICATION OF THE GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY: ADOPTING A
NEW CITY CODE: RETAIJ!?ING CERTAIN ORDINBNCES AND REPEAIJXG CERTAIN ORDIHBHCES;
ADOPTED ON SECOND READING
July 20, 1992, the Council had continued the matter of Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 1 - Codification of the General Ordinances of the City; Adopting a
New City Code; Retaining Certain Ordinances and Repealing Certain Ordinances.
While testimony on the draft code has been given at previous hearings, a request
had been made to allow additional comments on the draft Code from residents who
had not been in attendance at the previous hearings.
additional testimony was heard from the Council Members.
Public Comment
Lee Ildstad, 5317 Windsor Avenue, spoke in opposition to draft Section 1045 -
Parking and Storage of Recreational Vehicles.. He said that he does not store any
recreational equipment outside on his premises. He believed that the proposed
ordinance that would prevent the family from playing and staying together is
wrong.
want to have fun with their family should have that opportunity. He said he
would not object if his neighbor parked an RV or trailer on his property - since
it is his business and his property - as he did not feel an RV was unsightly.
concluded by strongly urging the Council to reconsider adoption of the proposed
ordinance.
Mayor Richards recalled that at the meeting of
No objection to allowing
I
Mr. Ildstad said he strongly believed that people who live in Edina and
He
Charles Hanson, 4360 Brookside Court, spoke in support of the proposed Section
1045.
allow things or to disallow things, and if not disallowed they are permitted.
Mr. Hanson made reference to a recent Edina Sun-Current article that talked about
Sam Thorpe, who, in his estimation, was the father of Edina. Edina is unique and
special and "so much better" because Sam Thorpe had the foresight (in 1922) to
impose restrictions and covenants. People moved into Edina because of those
restrictions that have resulted in making Edina the quality community that it is.
He also made reference to Orange County which prohibits the parking of motor
homes. Mr. Hanson said he was concerned that RVs would be permitted to be parked
in the community and felt they should be restricted.
He wondered if the public realized that the function of the Council is to
DonVogtman, 6309 France Avenue South, spoke in opposition to draft Section 1045.
He raised two issues: 1) Would securing a variance to park a camper on his
property make it less objectionable to his neighbors, and 2) If not, the variance
process would only be a potential revenue source. He alluded to objectionable
activities (two brothels and two police stake-outs) which have occurred within
8/3/92 .. 195
his neighborhood over the years and said there are some severely misplaced
priorities when an ordinance is proposed that would restrict parking and storage
of RVs.
to continue their healthful, happy pursuits with the freedoms intended under the
U.S. Constitution.
He asked the Council to re-examine their position and to allow residents
Walter Sandison, 5300 Vernon Avenue, spoke to draft Section 1045 and stated that
if you can afford an RV, you can afford a place to store it off-premises.
felt they are visually offensive and urged the Council to pass the proposed
ordinance.
He
Marjorie Frich, 6032 Oaklawn, stated that requiring off-premises storage of their
RV would be a hardship, both financially and convenience-wise.
ordinance would infringe on their rights as property owners.
neighbors need to be considerate of each other and this proposed ordinance is not
right.
The proposed
She added that
Mayor Richards responded that it would be wonderful if we could live in a world
that did not require restrictions. As an example, he read from a copy of a
letter he had received that was addressed to one resident and was signed by
neighboring residents which listed various behavior of the resident's family.
The letter concluded that the neighbors have reached the limits of their
tolerance for this disrespectful, offensive, possibly illegal and potentially
dangerous behavior.
disposal to return the neighborhood to the pleasant place it once was. Mayor
Richards said while this may not be germane to the RV issue it emphasizes that we
are not able to live with one another without regulations.
what had been pointed out at previous hearings - draft Section 1045 does not say
that if you cannot comply with the restrictions you must get rid of your RV. It
provides for a variance procedure that will deal with those cases in a fair and
equitable manner.
In the future they intended to use every means at their
He also reiterated
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Richards called for comment and
reflection by the Council and final action on the ordinance to adopt the Code.
Council Comment/Action
Mayor Richards directed his comments to draft Section 1045, summarized as
follows.
some ways is less restrictive. It is designed to maintain and enhance the
community and to preserve neighborhood property values.
who may be affected as follows: 1) those who would already be in compliance, 2)
those who would willingly comply, 3) those who would need to apply for a
variance, and 4) those who do not want any regulation whatsoever. He clarified
that the variance process was designed not to be a revenue generating device. It
would enable those who may need a variance to be treated fairly and uniformly and
would give their neighbors an opportunity to be heard which now is precluded.
Moreover, draft Section 1045 is proposed not to go into effect until January 1,
1994, which would give ample time in which to deal with those requesting
variances. Those who want no restrictions have little or no faith in government
and its regulations, whether impacting them or not, and regardless of the
benefits the entire community might gain from reasonable regulations promulgated
for the public good.
indicated the folly of that argument.
He stated that he felt it is better than the existing ordinance and in
He categorized residents
Mayor Richards said the previous remarks made by Mr. Hanson
Continuing, Mayor Richards said that there is one other group who has persuaded
him to modify his position taken earlier - those who expressed a viewpoint that
they have taken some action based on the current ordinance.
made that in some of those cases they should be grandfathered in and be allowed
to maintain the status quo. Factors to be considered: 1) there is no barrier or
An argument could be
8/3/92 196
impediment to a proper sight line along the street right-of way; 2) there is
little or no reasonable objection from affected neighbors, particularly where a
RV visually impacts the owner or lessee more than it does neighbors, 3) the RV is
used on a continuous basis as a passenger vehicle or business use vehicle (i.e.
manufacturer's representative), 4) proper notice would be given to neighbors who
would then have an opportunity to voice their views so that a reasoned decision
could be made. Mayor Richards said that, in his opinion, a variance would be
based upon physical characteristics of the property whereas a grandfathering
would be predicated upon facts developed in a hearing.
I
Mayor Richards concluded by urging the Council to adopt the entire City of Edina
Code as drafted except that for Section 1045 the existing language be left in
place. Further, that if the Council concurs, staff be directed to come back by
the second meeting in September with a set of guidelines as the basis upon which
to determine whether or not certain situations should be.grandfathered in if the
requirements in the proposed Section 1045 were to be adopted that would come into
effect January 1, 1994.
Member Rice comments are summarized as follows. He said that there has been much
discussion and testimony on the subject of parking and storage of RVs. In
response to the question of who is behind this and why - he said he is one, for
the reason that he believes that outside storage has begun to get out of hand in
Edina; not only RVs, boats or campergbut all outside storage. If the City does
not tighten and enforce the ordinances on outside storage, property values will
suffer and the City's mission statement goal of "maintaining Edina as a premier
community" will become unachievable.
prove his position. He also quoted the following from the Amraisal of Real-
Estate. 10th Edition (the definitive book on real estate valuation) "The value of
owner-occupied property is based primarily on the expected future advantages,
amenities and pleasures of ownership and occupancy. Those expected future
advantages are generally a reflection of past experiences projected into the
future." What does that mean for Edina? People buy here, have lived here and
buy another house, and when they think of Edina they think of all the amenities -
police, fire, public works, parks and excellent schools.
community, with a strong majority of households without children, just passed a
$38 Million bond referendum. That is projecting into the future - is talking
about amenities, about a certain quality, a certain attitude, a certain property
value - one of the reasons the referendum passed.
He cited two experiences with residents to
He noted that this
Member Rice said he has concluded that stronger code language, education, and
enforcement on outside storage will help maintain and strengthen neighborhoods
and property values and is part of his responsibility as a member of the Council.
Member Rice concluded by saying he would support new language - as to exactly
what that new language should be he was unsure. He said his present thinking on
the issue of outside storage has been shaped by observations and comments from
citizens and Council Members over the past months. He noted that "storage" is
mentioned in four sections of the new Code - 705, 1035, 1045 and 1070 and does
not apply to RVs exclusively.
by someone looking at outside storage in the driveway, why would property values
not also be affected by storage in the side or rear yard.
while touring the City recently he observed several RVs that were particularly
well-screened and concluded those would not be a problem for anybody.
believed that a front yard setback should not be violated with an RV or any
Member Rice said if property values are affected
He mentioned that
He still
obstruction, except that the City does not regulate shrubbery or trees unless it
was a case of public safety.
Continuing, Member Rice said the question was raised about how the City would
police the 'seven consecutive day' rule. He felt that with public cooperation,
good intentions, good City staff and a good variance procedure it can work,
8/3/92 197
although there may be problems.
had said they used their vehicles in conjunction with their jobs and had asked if
that would be prohibited. The suggestion was made that the City should provide a
storage lot - although interesting it is not realistic - there probably is no
land and the City probably should not take on the responsibility and liability.
Member Rice mentioned that a very small percentage of the approximately 18,000
housing units would be affected and special circumstances for various lots could
be handled by the variance procedure as proposed. Care must be taken, however,
in neighborhoods with smaller lots because most would probably be able to show
hardships although outside storage in those areas can be particularly deleterious
because of the scale. The affect of a 40 foot vehicle is different from an 18
foot vehicle, so the process, if approved, must be sensitive to that. Because of
the transitory nature of outside storage, the problem in certain neighborhoods
may correct itself over a period of time.
He said he had concern for some residents who
I
Member Rice concluded by saying that Mayor Richards' compromise seems to cover
what has concerned him the most - that being residents who have been in
compliance and with the adoption of the proposed Section 1045 would not be.
Relative to comments that have been made during the debate on this issue, Member
Rice said several were particularly troubling to him.
Council Members are against family values or have special interests are
ludicrous.
referendum.
storage of RVs went to referendum it would pass 30 to 1.
not intimidated by threats made about suing Council Members.
said someone at the last meeting talked about a "country club attitude" which
probably was directed towards him.
cost a total of $3500 - whereas the RV owned by that individual likely cost
$50,000.
Allegations that some
Others have commented that the voters will remember and they demand a
Member Rice submitted that if the issue of restricting parking and
Further, he said he was
Lastly, Member Rice
He countered that his country club membership
Member Smith mentioned that two weeks ago he said that he would support proposed
Section 1045 and that he still did.
the use of the back yard as a permitted storage place for these vehicles in
certain settings and that concern remains.
staff review that is being requested.
the ordinance, if adopted, would probably need modification as particular cases
are considered for variances. He said Mayor Richards' suggestion of looking at
grandfathering in those RV owners who had relied on the existing ordinance makes
sense, although he felt the existing ordinance is more restrictive than the
proposed Section 1045.
position of Mayor Richards and suggested the guidelines include consideration of
the storage footprint.
At that meeting he said he had concern for
He hoped that would be part of the
Member Smith reiterated that he thought
Member Smith concluded by saying he would support the
Member Paulus noted that there have been meetings since last April on the RV
issue and the rest of the proposed Code and notices have been included in several
publications. For those who have been following the RV issue her comments would
not be surprising. Member Paulus said she was not in favor or the proposed
motion because it is too "watered down", i.e. almost everyone who oms some type
of recreational vehicle would come before the variance board. Although she
concured with Member Rice that the City is becoming cluttered, she felt the City
cannot mandate where it is appropriate to store any of these things.
come so far from the 1920s when a structured community could be developed, and
when covenants are up they cannot be legally renewed.
such things in the front yard as swing sets or growing sweet corn, which to some
can be as much an eyesore as a camper. Member Paulus added that she could not
mandate which of the four sides of a house is less offensive for storing an RV
vehicle because some neighbor will find it offense whichever side is used.and
that will be a difficult decision for members of the variance board. It will
We have
The City does not regulate
198 8/3/92
-
create grey areas for those people who have the land and will give too much power
to the variance board or to neighbors who will attempt to direct where RVs should
be stored.
enough lot area.
an ordinance which would provide for a certain percentage of lot coverage which
can either be covered by rttoys't or house.
Member Kelly commented that she believed the Council's job is to protect the
health, welfare, and safety of the community and she would have difficulty in
justifying what she feels is a nuisance ordinance unless it is germane to those
three areas.
people treat their neighbors.
neighbors, e.g. think about the fact that maybe their RV or swingset is
offensive, but government cannot make that happen.
she felt the Council has done a good job over the last year in reviewing and
revising ordinances in the Code that deal with protecting the health, welfare and
safety of the community. In conclusion, Member Kelly said she could support
Mayor Richards's proposal regarding grandfathering because, as stated at the last
meeting, she was willing to leave the existing ordinance regulating parking and
storage of recreational vehicles in place.
The real problem is that people today have too many "toys" and not
I In conclusion, Member Paulus said she would be willing to look
.
Over the years she has concluded that no one can regulate how
She hoped that people would be sensitive to their
Member Kelly observed that
Member Kelly then offered Second Reading and moved adoption of Ordinance No. 1 as
follows, with direction to staff to codify the existing language of Ordinance No.
1031-81 into Code Section 1045 - Parking and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment,
and to bring back to Council on October 5, 1992, procedures and basis for a set
of proposed guidelines that would allov current RV owners to be grandfathered in
under the existing ordinance requirements:
ORDINANCE NO. 1
AN ORDINANCE CODIPPING THE GENERAL ORDINANCES
OF TBE CITY OF EDINA, MNNESOTA; ADOPTING A NEW CITY CODE:
RETAINING CERTAIN ORDINANCES; AND
REPEMJNG CERTAIN ORDINANCES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, l4I"ESOTA ORDAIJ!TS:
and permanent nature of the City of Edina, Minnesota, including provisions not
heretofore adopted, are hereby codified into the Edina 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 Minnesota Statutes, 1990, Section 415.02
and 415.021.
the law of the City of Edina.
and is sometimes referred to herein and in the Edina 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 continued in force by reference in the Code, are hereby
repealed; provided, that, in construing the provisions of this ordinance, the
folloving 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:
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
I (a) Any ordinance promising or guaranteeing 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.
(b) Any ordinance appropriating funds, levying or imposing taxes, or
8/3/92 199
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, without 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
through 164-44.
The following ordinances granting or amending franchises in the City
of Edina:
Ordinance No. 245-A1
Ordinance No. 1116
Ordinance No. 1120
Any ordinance 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.
Sec. 4. Effec; of Reveal: 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. No offense committed and no liability, penalty or forfeiture, either
civil or criminal, incurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance, shall
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 which was
previously repealed by any ordinance repealed by this ordinance. Licenses and
permits issued by the City in accordance with 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 which they were issued.
the date on which 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 would be issued, or the holder of a license
would be regulated.
subject to the provisions of the Edina City Code under which a permit for the
same purpose would 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 which 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. Amendments or
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. Reference or citation to the Code shall be deemed to mean and include
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 repeal of any ordinance under the preceding Section
From and after
Permits and permittees nov existing shall likewise be
Sec. 5. Subsequent Ordinances. Ordinances passed after the effective date
Ordinances of limited or special application,
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
200 8/3/92
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 clrcumstances other than those as to vbich 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.
Code.
Publication and Distribution.
“Official Copy,” shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk and shall
be available for all persons desiring to examine the Code. A substantial
quantity of the Code shall be printed or othervise 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.
Sec. 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
Sec. 8. Part of Code. This ordinance shall be, and is, a part of the
Sec. 9. A copy of the Code, marked
Sec, 10. Effective Date. This ordinance and the Edina City Code shall be
ATTEST : 75J& Hayor SA;&
%A%. City Clerk 6LL r-
Motion for Second Reading and adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member
Smith. Member Paulus asked if, on October 5, 1992, the Council would be
considering adopting a new ordinance regarding parking and storage of RVs.
Richards clarified that a yes vote on the motion on the floor would in effect
adopt the Edina City Code as presented except that the existing language and
requirements of Ordinance No. 1031-A1 will stay in effect until the Council takes
action to change it on that date or a subsequent date.
Mayor
Rollcall :
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Ordinance adopted.
*HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PARKING LOT EXPANSION FOR CROSSVIEW
LUTHERAN CHURCH (6634 MCCAULEY TRAIL) CONTINUED TO 8/17/92 Motion was made by
Member Kelly and vas seconded by Member Smith to continue the hearing on the
Conditional Use Permit for parking lot expansion for Crossviev Lutheran Church,
6634 McCauley Trail, to August 17, 1992.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
*HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 17. 1992, SET FOR PRELIHINARY PLAT APPROVAL - HARK
DWUIST ADDITION <LOT 11. AUDITOR’S SUBDIVISION NO. 3251 Motion was made by
Member Kelly and vas seconded by Member Smith setting a hearing date of
August 17, 1992, €or preliminary plat approval for the Hark Dahlquist Addition,
Lot 11, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 325.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS VOICED CONCERNING BLBRE ROAD STREET IHPROVEKE3T NO. BA-298
Dr. Sohrab Shahabi, 5315 Blake Road, presented the concerns of property owners on
Blake Road who had signed and previously submitted a petition dated July 10,
1992, asking the Council to consider their request in opposition to adding
parking on the east side of Blake Road from Pine Grove Road to Scrivner Road.
They believe there is sufficient parking space available on their properties
making parking on the east side of the street unnecessary and impractical. They
-1 8/3/92 201 ,.
also believe the expansion will jeopardize the survival of mature trees, will
undermine the appearance of their properties, and will increase speeds of
vehicles making that portion of the road unsafe.
In response, Engineer Hoffman said no change in the roadway width has been
proposed since the project was approved by the Council on March 2, 1992. The City
forester and surveyors have reviewed this portion of the project and have made
some minor shifts in response to the concerns raised.
proposed to be removed; however, several large trees are close to the roadway and
the sidewalk will be adjusted so that they will survive.
Engineer Hoffman said that, since Blake Road was improved south of the current
project three years ago, the State now allows parking on a 32 foot roadway
whereas they did not previously.
staff and the Council could restrict the parking if it so desired.
There are no large trees
Regarding parking,
Not allowing parking was never an issue for
Dr. Shahabi reiterated their objection to allowing parking on the east side of
Blake Road for the short distance along their properties.
responded that the Council has noted their concerns.
Mayor Richards
*BID AWARDED FOR STREET IMPR0V"T BA-298. BLAKE ROAD
Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for Street Improvement
No. BA-298 (Blake Road) to recommended low bidder, C.S. McCrossan Construction,
at $428,428.45.
Motion was made by Member
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR LABORATORY STERILIZER
seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a laboratory sterilizer to
recommended low bidder, Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., at $5,652.99.
Motion was made by Member Kelly and was
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
1992-93 WORK. PLAN PROPOSAL APPROVED FOR SOUTH JlENNEPIN REGIONAL PLANNMG AGENCY
Nancy Atchison, Chair of the Human Relations Commission, reported that the
Commission has reviewed and approved the 1992-93 Work Plan Proposal and Budget
for South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency (SHeRPA).
presented for Council review and approval. She noted that Jeanne Massey,
Director of SHePRA, and John Lonsbury and Tom Oye of the Human Relations
Commission were present.
components of the 1992-93 Work Plan.
The Proposal is now being
A short video was shown which highlighted the
Mrs. Atchison said that the Work Plan is exactly what the Board of Directors
(City.Managers) and the Advisory Commission had ordered in January at their
planning meeting. It asks for two major research projects for the four
communities: 1) Study of Demographic, Economic and Social Trends, and 2) Study of
Trends in the Delivery and Provision of Human Services. The proposed 1993 Budget
will be a part of the Human Relation's proposed 1993 budget but was included with
the Work Plan Proposal to provide a perspective of the costs for each city to
accomplish the research projects.
Mayor Richards asked if Hennepin County had given any feedback on the proposal.
Mrs. Atchison said the Hennepin County staff has complimented them on the model
and think it will work well.
Proposal and felt the four cities are now on the right track which is reflected
in the proposed budget.
Bloomington and officing in the Edina Community Center.
Manager Rosland said he is pleased with the
He informed Council that SHePRA will soon be moving from
Member Smith, Council representative on the Advisory Commission, commented that
he would support the proposal and felt it reflective of the Council's direction.
Member Rice said while he has been critical in the past he felt this was a
bargain and is grateful for the attempts being made to stop the overlapping of
202 8/3/92
' services.
Member Smith made a motion to approve the 1992-1993 Work Plan Proposal of the
South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency. I Motion was seconded by Member Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
APP0I"T HADE TO ART CENTER COMMITTEE Motion was made by Member Smith for
consent of the Mayor's appointment of Heather Randall King to the Brt Center
Committee for an unexpired term to 2/1/94. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*RESOLUTION ADOPTED APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR PRIMARY ELECTION Motion was
made by Member Kelly and vas seconded by Member Smith for adoption of the
following resolution:
BE IT aESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the following election judges be
appointed for the Primary Election September 15, 1992;
BE IT FlJBTHEa RESOLVED that the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized to make
any substitutions or additions as may be deemed necessary: Precinct lA Eugenie
Williams, Chair, Lois Hallquist, Dorothy Capetz, Virginia Vonhof, Arlene Friday,
Shirley DeLeo, Carol Ladner; Precinct 1B Ardis Dorsey, Chair, Susam Corson,
Catherine Murphy, Jean Liudahl, Erthel Johnson, Eileen Schaefer, Madelyn Grief;
Precinct 2 Marjorie Ruedy, Chair, Pauline Carroll, Joan Flumerfelt, Kathleen
Tierney, Suzanne Hirsch, Haryann Haemig, Carol Bucklin; Precinct 3 Linda Smith,
Chair, Patricia Dill, Deidre Hedrick, Margaret Hagerty, Patricia Schwartz,
Sherrill Estensen, Bra Ingvalson; Precinct 4 Rachel Schoening, Chair, Marion
Cracraft, Lois Loomis, Elizabeth Genovese, Shirley Renslow, Jean Hubers, Marianne
Schoenecker; Precinct 5 Rosemary McGlynn, Chair, Barbara Martin, Mildred Karr,
Mary E. Ryan, Margaret Williams, Anne Francis, Marie Goblirsch; Precinct 6 Jane
Bains, Chair, Catherine Svanson, Mary Cleveland, Eleanor Westerberg, Barbara
Herbers, Jean Flaaten, Susan Zwakman; Precinct 7 Helen Peterson, Chair,
Kathleen Engquist, Eunice Overby, Ellen Nein, Gertrude Snoeyenbos, DeLores Paul,
Janet Kanofsky; Precinct 8 Jane Moran, Chair, Myra Hykes, Jeanne Sedoff, Ordell
O'Neill, Catherine Tobin, Kathleen Bradford, Lee Strang; Precinct 9 Aileen
Konhauser, Chair, Annette Horton, Co-Chair, Colleen Crew, Florence Boughton,
Patricia Monson, Jacqueline Lindskoog, Barbara Butler; Precinct 10 Barbara
Erlandson, Chair, Jeanine Westling, Ruth Haggerty, Helen Connell, Mary Shoquist,
Sharon Hed, Marguerite Ratelle; Precinct 11 Betty Pollitt, Chair, Karen
Vickman, Rita Acker, Carol Melichar, Huza Habeck, Delphine Duff, Mary Ann Kubin;
Precinct 12 Ardis Vexler, Chair, Carol Hite, Marlys Hittner, Shirley Bjerken,
Mary Scholz, Sue Kracum, D'Arcy Secord; Precinct 13 Doris Peterson, Chair,
Annadell Quantrell, Patricia Robbins, Anne Matula, Rebecca Larson, Kathleen
Eansing, Audrey Sherman; Precinct 14 Mary Jane Platt, Chair, Joyce Hanson,
Esther Olson, Eva Bryan, Patricia Bartlett, Donna Brastad, Louise Carlson;
Precinct 15 Katherine Luikens, Chair, Jean Hare, Sharon Soderlund, Joann Buie,
Marjorie Johllson, Carol Hanson, Carolyn Klus; Precinct 16 Mary McDonald, Chair,
Donna Montgomery, Patricia Halvorsen, Doris Blake, Katherine Larson, Marlys
Chase, Bonnie Bjerken; Precinct 17 Lorna Livingston, Chair, Jean McDermid,
Louise Jackson, Marie Bachman, Betty Lou Petersen, Theresa Brown, Shirley
Breitman; Precinct 18 Jean Erdall, Chair, Myrtle Grette, Selma Shelton,
Patricia MacCornack, Virginia Stem, JoAnne Streed, Harriet Walsh; Precinct 19
Patricia Olander, Chair, Anita Delegard, Lynn Westphal, Harriet Koch, Charlotte
Burns, Ze-lma Gray, Doris Clegg.
RESOLUTION
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
*PETITION FROM PARKWOOD KNOLIS RESIDEZITS ON SIGNAGE AND SAFETY ISSUES REFERRED TO
"RAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE1 Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by
5/3/92
'' 203
Member Smith to refer a petition received from residents of Parhood B;nolls
regarding signage and safety issues to the Traffic Safety Committee for
recommendation.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
*CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith to
approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register
dated July 29, 1992, and consisting of 23 pages: General Fund $197,111.80; Cable
$1,190.66; Working Capital Fund $5,657.64; Art Center $14,060.49; Pool $7,977.10;
Golf Course $17,221.23; Arena $8,052.96; Gun Range $2,770.24; Edinborough
Park/Centennial Lakes $12,506.21; Utilities $283,530.42; Storm Sewer $6,264.02;
Liquor Dispensary $13,007.33; Construction Fund $9,090.24; IMP Bond Redemption .#2
$24,517.46; TOTAL $602,957.80.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared
the meeting adjourned at 8:55 P.M.
7R& 3,
City Clerk