Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19940418_regular219 IfIXUTES OF TJ3J3 REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITP HALL APRIL 18, 1994 R0LLCAI.I. Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith by Member Kelly to approve the Council Consent Agenda items as Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. Smith and Mayor and was seconded presented. ARBOR DAY PROCLAIMED was unanimously adopted by motion of Member Paulus and seconded by Member Kelly: ARBOR DAY April 29, 1994 Mayor Richards presented the following proclamation which WHEREAS, in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees, and UHEXWAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed vith the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska, and WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world, and WEJBEAS, trees are a most valuable resource, purifying our air, helping conserve our soil and energy, serving as a recreational setting, providing a habitat for wildlife of all kinds, and enriching our lives in other important ways; and WHEREAS, disease, insects and pollution have damaged and continue to threaten our trees, creating the need for tree care and tree planting programs and fostering greater public concern for the future of our urban forest; and WHEREAS, Edina is proud of the beautiful shade'trees which grace our homes and public places; and WHEREAS, Edina has been recognized for the past seven years as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation and desires to continue the planting of trees for its future, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Frederick S. Richards, Mayor of Edina, do hereby proclaim April 29, 1994, to be Arbor Day and call upon the spirited and foresighted citizens of Edina to plant trees now for our pleasure and that of future generations. DATED this 29th day of April, 1994. *MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 4. 1994 APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of April 4, 1994. Motion carried on rollcall vote; five ayes. PRELIMINARY REZONING - PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, PCD-4 AND SINGLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT. R-1 TO PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT, PRD-4 FOR 4101 WEST SOW STREET. 5014. 5016 AND 5024 HALIFAX AVENUE CONTINUED TO MAY 16. 1994 Presentation bv Planner Planner Larsen recalled that on March 21, 1994, the Council considered and continued the proposed rezoning from Planned Commercial District, PCD-4 and Single Dwelling Unit District, R-1 to Planned Residence District, PRD-4 for 4101 West 50th Street, 5014, 5016 and 5024 Halifax Avenue. At that meeting the Council directed the proponent and staff to address several issues including building size, exterior design, lot coverage, area traffic impact, on-site circulation and the legal grounds for granting variances. The proponent has returned with a revised plan that varies from the previous proposal in three significant ways. First, the building has been reduced from 28 4/18/94 220 units to 26 units. length by 25 feet (from 260 feet to 235 feet). Third, the exterior elevation and facade design has been reworked. the building setback and lot coverage variances being requested. has been reduced from 35.3 percent to 31.9 percent, requiring a lot coverage variance of 1.9%. Also, the redesign of the building roof line results in a slight increase in height to 39 feet. The building continues to provide the required setback on the north, west and south side. A building setback variance of 19 feet is requested for the Halifax Avenue side where at the closest point a 20 foot setback is provided (Zoning Ordinance requires minimum setback equal to building height) . Second, the building has been reduced in overall north/south The redesign results in a reduction in size of Lot coverage At the previous meeting, there was a request to compare the height of the proposed building to other existing condominium/apartment buildings in the immediate vicinity. The comparison indicated the following dimensions: Elevation at Grade Building - Footprint Proposed Building: 39 feet 68 x 235 feet The Lanterns: 47 feet 67 x 272 feet White Oaks 38 feet 85 x 106 feet Regency 39 feet 90 x 170 feet By memorandum dated April 15, 1994, the City Engineer addressed four issues: area traffic, the public alley, curb cuts and grading. Concerning area traffic impact, Engineer Hoffman indicated that the average daily traffic on different segments of Halifax Avenue in 1988 before/after the diversion when compared to recent counts in 1994 were very similar. development would result in no significant changes in traffic. Halifax Avenue is an issue, it is separate from the proposed development. As to the public alley from Indianola Avenue to Halifax Avenue, the primary users are the residents of the nine unit apartment building to the west of the subject property and the single family dwelling. If the easterly portion of the alley is to be vacated as part of this development, then all of the alley should be vacated because it would serve no public purpose and the westerly portion of the alley should revert to private use and maintenance. In the opinion of staff, the new If traffic on The revised plan eliminates the curb cut on West 50th Street and moves the surface parking to the southerly side of the building, which is a positive solution. Staff is aware that the Lund's driveway area is heavily used but, as now proposed, the driveway for the new building is situated far enough away so that vehicle stacking should not be an issue. starting at 50th/Halifax then southerly to a point where the last old driveway curb cut would be removed. southbound traffic. The only curb cut would be on Halifax Avenue. The revised plan should be approved with a curb line modification This would allow for improved roadway geometrics for The final issue is that recent legislation setting standards regarding storm water that leaves the site may require some slight modification to the grading plan, subject to Minnehaha Creek Watershed approval. Lastly, Planner Larsen mentioned a memorandum dated April 15, 1994, from City Attorney Gilligan which addressed the subject of criteria for the granting of variances from the requirements of the Zoning Code, defined "undue hardship" and how the criteria should be applied in individual cases. If preliminary rezoning is granted, staff would recommend it be conditioned on the following: 1) Final rezoning, 2) Replatting of the property, 3) Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, 4) Amendment of the 50th and France Plan (redesignating to the service station site only), 5) Vacation of alley, and 6) Minnehaha Creek 4/18/94 221 Watershed District permit. Presentation bv Developer Mark Haymaker, Haymaker Construction, Inc., told Council they have been working on revising the development plan in response to the neighborhood residents whose main concerns were that the building was not residential looking, ingress/egress impact on traffic, and not enough details to indicate the character of the project. He said he believed that the revised plan was more in keeping with the residential aspects of the neighborhood. This has been accomplished through the use of multiple gables, roof lines, bay windows, and by attention to the architecture in terms of surrounding homes to preserve the character of the Halifax neighborhood. Mr. Haymaker observed that traffic concerns were addressed by eliminating the north curb cut on West 50th Street as well as moving the surface parking to one condensed area with ingress/egress on the south portion of the property. addition, the matter of massiveness has been addressed by reducing the overall length of the building by 25 feet and by reducing the number of units. conclusion, Mr. Haymaker said the revised plan would serve as a buffer between the residential area and the commercial properties and is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In In Public Comment Penny Van Kampen, 5117 Halifax Avenue, said her concerns were whether there would be a sidewalk up to 50th Street and that the traffic flow and congestion around Lund's would cause drivers to use Halifax Avenue as a detour. On a positive note, she said the building looks much better than the original plan. Robert Larsen, 5037 Indianola Avenue, said he was not at the last meeting but had a concern about the safety of pedestrians from Indianola and Halifax who cross at the curve to go to Lund's grocery store. With the additional in/out traffic to the proposed development he inferred that the residents of the neighborhood would request a STOP sign in that area because of the new driveway. Richard Stone, 5028 Juanita Avenue, said he was concerned that the proposed building would appear much taller from the residential area to the southwest because the grade slopes down 12 feet from 50th Street. for the project, clarified that according to the engineer's survey of the site the grade difference is four to five feet. Vernon Avenue and Washburn Avenue there are no buildings over two stories high that front on 50th Street. feet higher than the grade level of the one and a half story homes in the area because it would appear as a wall and adversely affect those residences. John Nissen, architect Mr. Stone observed that between He said he was opposed to a building that would be 40 Hans Kuhlmann, 5104 Halifax Avenue, commented that in talking with neighbors no one was opposed to multi-family use of the property. Comprehensive Plan showed four to six units on each lot which would equate to a total of 20 to 24 units. He asked the Council to keep in mind the money spent on the redevelopment of the 5Oth/France area, the compatibility of the architecture with the neighborhood, and the height of the proposed building. He also questioned if hardship has been proved to grant the variances. He noted that the Jerone Smith, 5100 Halifax Avenue, expressed concerns about demonstrated hardship relating to the variances, length of building, parking lot and loss of green space, and the number of proposed units. He asked the Council take into consideration the investment made in Edina by the property owners in the neighborhood. Sharon Maetzold, 5114 Halifax Avenue, asked for clarification of where guests 222 41 18/94 would enter the building and the new location of the driveway. explained that there is no proposed dropoff in front of the building and guests would walk around to the front to enter the building. ingress/egress has been moved further to the south to reduce conflict with the Mr. Haymaker He noted that the . Lund’s driveway. Ms. Maetzold commended the developer for the improved design. Andy Castellano, 5108 Gorgas Avenue, commented that he felt progress has been made by the new plan in that the building has been shortened. He said he was concerned about the overall height of the development and asked if there will be regrading on the site because he noted a difference of eight feet on the plan from the existing grade in back of the service station. Mr. Castellano added that he also was concerned about the length of the building because the lot coverage allowance was still being exceeded. building design and moving the parking to the south were improvements. He said he felt the revised Scott Borene, 5117 Halifax Avenue, said he did not have a problem with a multi- unit building on the site and that the revised design is a step in the right direction. community historically and that the “village” feel should be preserved. He questioned the exterior treatment, i.e. percentage of brick versus stucco and the greens treatment/screening for the parking lot area. frequent pedestrian going to the commercial area and was concerned how pedestrians would safely get across without going up to the traffic signal. He asked about the estimated number of vehicles going in/out from the development plus visitors. In summary, Mr. Borene said he felt progress has been made with the revised plan for this last significant site in the 50th/France area but that he would like to see more details. He emphasized that the SOth/France area is the focus of the Edina Mr. Borene said he is a I John Crist, 5324 Halifax Avenue, commented that the existing large trees in the area are a part of the neighborhood aesthetics. He asked the City to encourage and assist the developer to preserve the large trees, i.e. if there is a trade-off between setback/height variance versus preserving the trees, he would tend to favor increasing the setback variance rather than disturbing the land or trees. Further, the City should consider allowing heavy equipment on the street during construction to minimize damage to the root structure of the trees. also suggested that an arborist be consulted before the landscaping and building plans are set in place. He Michael DuMond, 5032 Halifax Avenue, observed that the revised plan is aesthetically more pleasing than the previous design. still a very large building next to a residential area and is not a transition building from commercial to residential because it is the same size as an office building and would be an imposing structure. However, he said it is Roberta Costellano, 4854 France Avenue, said the height of the proposed building is a continued concern for her but that she was more pleased with the revised design. Penny Van Rampen, 5117 Halifax Avenue, interjected that she felt the developer should not be the one to gain at the cost of the neighborhood. smaller buildings on the site would not be as obtrusive. were in the neighborhood first should be entitled to have a say in what is built and in her opinion the proposed building is too big. Response bv Developer In response to the concerns and questions raised, developer Mark Haymaker made the following comments: Building exterior - building will be 75% brick with stucco in-fill peaks between the main bays. Sidewalk - project will have sidewalk around it and will be pedestrian friendly. Further, that two She said the people who Building height - building 4/18/94 r. . 223 height will be down scale in relation to the one and a half story homes in the neighborhood when compared to The Lanterns building at 50 feet from the sidewalk. Building to curb - building will be approximately 45 feet back from curb, twice the distance of the Clancy building setback, with sidewalk and green space. Parking lot - parking lot will be asphalt with extensive landscaping, site will not be visible to Halifax Avenue residents because of the lay of the land. ExistinP; Trees/Green area - 70% of the existing mature trees will be preserved, green area is increased. Comurehensive Plan - the land use as planned by the Council in 1974 is still an acceptable land use today. In conclusion, Mr. Haymaker said the project will be in keeping with the residential area, will benefit the City of Edina, will benefit the people who currently live in Edina and have called about the units. Council Comment/Action Member Rice said that the revised plan has come a long way since the previous meeting and made the following observations: answered. If the project is approved, concerns about landscaping and various details would be answered through specific, detailed site plans and a development agreement. did not feel it related to the proposal. reiterated that in his judgement the multi-unit building would not materially impact the area’s traffic. a percentage of that is due to the architectural design on which there is a general concurrence that it is better than the previous design. on 50th Street is the same or less than the small apartment building to the west but the northeast corner of the proposed building seems a little close to the intersection. Although not a proportional transition as to height, the building is an appropriate land use in transition from the residential to commercial at SOth/France. to 16 units recommended in 1974 for the three residential lots did not take into account the additional square footage for the service station property or the proposed vacated alley as part of this development. little excessive, the number of units do not necessarily equate to massiveness. Questions as to sidewalk have been He concurred that the curve at 5lst/Halifax is dangerous but that he Regarding traffic concerns raised, he Although the building height is proposed at 39 feet, Building setback Concerning density as indicated by the Comprehensive Plan, the 14 While the building size is a Member Rice concluded by saying he felt the revised plan is vastly superior than the previous plan, that eliminating the curb cut on 50th Street is a good idea, and the visitor parking on the south side is where it belongs. process is lengthy, it is a process that works. meeting between the developer and the neighborhood would have provided a closer look at the plan and answers to the questions raised. has been made, Member Rice said he felt the building is still slightly too large and that he would like to see more detail for the plan. Although the He suggested that another Although great progress Member Paulus commented that she felt the developer has taken seriously the task of responding to the direction of the Council. questioned if reducing it another fraction would make it appear smaller and said that may not be feasible. details, but whether the proposed land use and the general concept of the development is appropriate. like to protect the rights of the neighborhood homeowners, she also has an obligation to protect the rights of all citizens, known and unknown. the consideration the demographics and type of population in Edina, this is a high demand use of land. but also for future generations. preliminary rezoning so that the developer can work out the details of the proposed development. As to building size, she The issue for the Council at this hearing is not the Member Paulus concluded that as much as she would Taking into Long range planning is not only for the people here now She encouraged the Council to support Member Smith said he agreed with the comments made by Member Rice. proposed building is well sited but would like to see more work done on the He said the 4/18/94 224 parking lot on the south to provide more green area. Also, he would like to see the building reduced to two stories as he did not feel three stories were suited for that location. Mayor Richards stated he was not persuaded that 26 units is the right number and he would not support that. He agreed it may not be the number of units but the size of the units. As to land use, he felt the proposed use is appropriate and was envisioned since the mid-70's in the Comprehensive Plan. everyone's comments concerning elevations and grades as it pertains to massiveness, in order to understand the impact he would like to see something more site specific, i.e. detailed differentials in grades and elevations with Lund's, The Lanterns, properties to the south and west, trees, and how that all fits in. brick, mortar, stucco or wood or dictate other architectural details. After hearing Fortunately, government cannot tell a developer how much should be Mayor Richards said he would urge the developer to come back with preferably a three-dimensional plan so that the Council can understand the full impact and spacial relationship of the project to the adjacent houses and suggested that the matter be continued to a future meeting. Member Kelly commented that the proposed land use is proper and, conceptually, she was in agreement with the project as there is a need for this type of housing in that area. reducing its length the units would be smaller than what she envisioned. concurred with Mayor Richards that the spacial relationship is difficult to understand and she too would like to see a two or three dimensional drawing or model of the project. Regarding building length, she said her concern was that by She Mayor Richards said the apparent consensus is to not grant first reading at this time but to continue the matter to have the developer address the issues raised. Mr. Haymaker interjected that at the last meeting he looked for clear direction from the Council and subsequently has done a lot of work on the plan, but no one is willing to commit to what should be built there. the matter before the Council is preliminary rezoning, i.e. proper land use, not the architectural details of the building. Mayor Richards clarified that no one on the Council has questioned the proposed land use. What the Council is saying is that this is a major land use and they are trying to get the best possible development for this site. He reminded the Council that Tracy Eichorn-Hicks stated that he was an attorney working with Haymaker Construction on the proposed development. concerns that have been raised by Council, what Mr. Haymaker is talking about is the difficulty in determining just what the Council is asking for. acknowledged that because the Council Members are not architects and planners it is difficult to tell the developer what will be acceptable and concurred that this matter be tabled for several weeks. After listening closely to the He Member Paulus made a motion to,continue the public hearing on preliminary rezoning from Planned Commercial District, PCD-4, and Single Dwelling Unit District, R-1 to Planned Residence District, PRD-4, for 4101 West 50th Street, 5014, 5017 and 5024 Halifax Avenue to May 16, 1996. Member Kelly. Motion was seconded by Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. PINAT.. DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR PART OF LOT 18. BLOCK 1. EDINA -CHANGE CENTER THIRD ADDITION (7171 OHMS LANE) approved and ordered placed on file. Affidavits of Notice were presented, 4/18/94 225 Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen presented the request for final development plan approval for part of Lot 18, Block 1, Edina Interchange Center Third Addition, located at 7171 Ohms Lane. He said that the subject property is developed with a two story office building with a total gross floor area of 31,000 square feet. Total site area is approximately 117,000 square feet. The proposed final development plan would permit a two story, 7,000 square foot addition to the existing building. The proposed addition would provide general office space for the sole tenant, Honeywell. number of spaces and to provide the required handicapped parking spaces. The existing loading dock would also be reconstructed. for the addition would be glass front consistent with the existing building. The plan calls for revisions to the parking lot to increase the Design and building material The proposed addition would require two variances. First, is a building to parking setback variance adjacent to the addition. On the east side of the addition the setback would be three to four feet where ten feet is required. Providing the required building to parking setback would require moving the entire parking lot closer to the creek which is not desirable. stall parking quantity variance is requested. spaces and 176 spaces are proposed. Second, a three Zoning ordinance would require 179 The existing site complies with ordinance standards for landscaping. alterations proposed to increase the amount of parking will result in the relocation of some existing stock. in a site plan which exceeds ordinance standards. Site Additional material will be added resulting At its meeting of March 30, 1994, the Planning Commission considered the proposal and voted unanimously to recommend Final Development Plan approval including the requested variances for parking quantity and parking to building setback. Presentation bv ProDonent Jerry Kavan, stated that he was representing the building owner, Slosorg Company, Omaha, Nebraska, and introduced Crowler Miller, Honeywell Regional Project Manager. Mr. Kavan said they had nothing to add to Planner Larsen's presentation but were present to answer any questions. Council Comment/Action Member Rice introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PORHO"ELL, INC. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that the Final Development Plan for Honeywell, Inc., 7171 Ohms Lane, presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of April 18, 1994, be and is hereby approved. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 1994-5 - TO PROVIDE NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR PHYSICAL CULTURE AND HEALTH SERVICES AND CLUBS AND INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING MASSAGE. ADOPTED ON SECOND READING Assistant Manager Hughes recalled that on April 4, 1994, the Council granted First Reading to Ordinance No. 1994-5 - An Ordinance To Provide New Requirements for Physical Culture and Health Services and Clubs and Individuals Performing Massage. At that time Helen Bair appeared and requested the Council to make additional changes to the ordinance. She stated she wished to contract with an independent massage therapist who would provide massage at Ms. Blair's nail salon at 7600 Parklawn Avenue. Under the current code, such an independent contractor would have to obtain a business license which can be issued only in 226 4/18/94 the Regional Medical District. request prior to Second Reading. Assistant Manager Hughes advised that the ordinance has been amended to allow independent contractor relationships. However, in order to safeguard the spirit and intent of the Code two new provisions have been added. rooms where massage is performed may not have an exclusive entrance to the outside or to a public lobby. In addition, all fees derived from massage must be received by and accounted for by the proprietor of the principal business. The Council directed staff to consider the First, the room or The existing massage ordinance prohibits the performance of massage at any place other than a business premises. staff believes that it is appropriate to allow an individual to receive a massage inhisher home. As amended, the ordinance would allow such massages but only by persons possessing an individual massage license. Given the large number of senior residents, The Council raised two other issues thae have not been included - a variance procedure and hours of operation. where a physical condition of a piece of property makes i.t difficult or impossible to comply with an ordinance. and staff would not recommend such a provision. operation apply only to a business which is licensed under the massage ordinance and does not apply to businesses which offer massages as an accessory use. Variances are typically limited to situations However, this is a licensing ordinance Under the ordinance, hours of . Mayor Richards called for public comment on the ordinance as amended. William Basill, 5045 Windsor Avenue, said that he and his daughter, Helen Bair, agreed with the ordinance as proposed. Member Smith moved Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance No.' 1994-5 as follows : ORDINANCE NO. 1994-5 AN ORDINANCE AMENT)ING SECTION 13400F THE CITY CODE TO PROVIDE NE3J REQUIREMENTS FOR PHYSICAL CULTURE AND HEALW SERVICES AND CLUBS AND INDIVIDUBLS PERFORMING MASSAGE THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF EDIN4 ORDAINS: is amended to read as follows: Section 1. "Subd. 3. Certain Businesses Exempt. A. The preceding provisions of this Subsection notwithstanding, no business license shall be required for a business establishment which offers massage as an accessory use if it meets all of the following criteria as evidenced by affidavits and other documents submitted to and in form and substance reasonably acceptable to the Clerk: The principal business shall not be a massage parlor, sauna The annual gross revenue of the business from performing massage Subd. 3 of Subsection 1340.02 of Section 1340 of the City Code 1. parlor, or escort service. 2. is less than 25% of the total annual gross revenue of the business as shown by financial statements or certifications of the kind specified in.paragraph J. of Subd. 1 of Subsection 1340.04. 3. All individuals performing massage in connection vith the business are duly licensed in accordance with Subsection 1340.03. 4. The room or rooms where massage is performed shall not have an exclusive entrance from or exit to the exterior of the building in which the principal business is located or to a public concourse or public lobby. performed by a licensed individual at the residence of the person receiving the massage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, massage may be "I 4/18/94 227 5. shall be received by and accounted for by the proprietor of the principal business. 6. All individuals performing massage in connection with the business shall be employees of the principal business or shall be independent contractors or agents who perform massage pursuant to a written agreement with the owner of the principal business." All fees or other consideration derived from performing massage B. maintain a business premises within the City and who performs massage solely at the residence of the person receiving the massage. individuals, however, shall possess a valid individual license pursuant to Subsection 1340.03 and shall not employ any individuals in connection with the practice of massage." Section 2. "Subd. 5 Location of Services. No person shall perform a massage for a fee or other consideration at any place other than (i) a physical culture and health service, physical culture or health club, reducing salon, sauna parlor, or massage parlor that has been duly licensed pursuant to Subd. 2 of Subsection 1340.02, (ii) a business which is exempt from a business license pursuant to Subd. 3 of Subsection 1340.02, or (iii) the residence of the person receiving a massage." Section 3. by adding a new Subd. 7 as follows: "Subd. 7 No Services Allowed by Sexually Oriented Businesses. No person shall perform a massage for a fee or other consideration in connection with a Sexually Oriented Business as defined by Subsection 850.03 of this Code." Section 4. "Massage. The rubbing, pressing, stroking, kneading, tapping, rolling, pounding, vibrating, or stimulating the superficial parts of the human body with hands or any instrument by a person who is not duly licensed by the State to practice medicine, surgery, osteopathy, chiropractic, physical therapy or podiatry. Sauna Parlor. the provision of a room or rooms used by the public for bathing, relaxing, or reducing purposes utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning, relaxing or reducing agent." Section 5. No business license shall be required for an individual who does not Such Subdivision 5 of Subsection 1340.14 of Section 1340 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Subsection 1340.14 of Section 1340 of the City Code is amended Subsection 1340.01 of Section 1340 of the City Code is amended by providing a new definition for the following terms: An establishment or business the principal use of which is This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Motion for-adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Rice. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Ordinance adopted. *BID AWARDED FOR MOTORIZED SAND RAKE - BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly for award of bid for a motorized sand rake for Braemar Golf Course to recommended low bidder, Cushman Motors, at $7,948.10. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR AERIAL PHOTO WYLARS FOR CITP and was seconded by Member Kelly for award of bid for aerial photo mylars for Motion was made by Member Smith 4/15/94 228 City to Horizons, Inc. at $5,859.63, through Hennepin County Contract. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. WAKEOVER CONTRACT AWARDED FOR POLICEIPIRE COMPUTERIZED DISPATCHING AND RECORDS SYSTEM Motion vas made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly for award of takeover contract for Police and Fire computerized dispatching and records system to =-PSI, Inc. at $47,025.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR ROOF REPAIR FOR NORHANDALE Pm HOUSE Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly for award of bid for roof repair to Normandale pump house to recommended low bidder, Hunerberg Construction Company, at $8,099.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. Motion was made by Member TRAFFIC SAFE!CY STAFF REPORT OF 04/05/94 APPROVED Hotion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to approve the following actions as recommended in Section A of the Traffic Safety Staff Report of April 5, 1994: 1) Move "Dead End" sign on Lincoln Drive south of Malibu Drive northward to a more visible location; 2) Install north and southbound 30 EIPH signs on Normandale Road at Iakeviev Drive and refer the request for southbound 30 EIPH sign on Xerxes Avenue at West 58th Street to Hennepin County; Police Department to address the speed issue on Cornelia Drive near Cornelia School and the requestor be contacted and encouraged to initiate an educational effort through the school administration or P.T.O. and consider a neighborhood petition for sidewalks on the east side of Cornelia Drive; 3) and to acknowledge Sections B and C of the report as presented. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. POLICY RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSED CONCERNING UTILITY RJCIDElOTS AFFECTING PRIVA!L'E PROPERTIES: RECOMMENDATION NOT ADOPTED Ceil Smith, Assistant to City Manager, recalled that a report was presented to the Council at its March 7, 1994, meeting concerning the City's insurance coverage for sewer/water backup. the questions raised by the Council staff has arranged for presentations by the City's insurer, the City's insurance consultant and staff. In response to ReDresentatives of CitV's Insurer Dennis Crosby, Underwriting Officer at The St. Paul Companies, spoke to the liability coverage carried by the City regarding sewer backup. liability coverage is third party coverage because the application of coverage arises from the filing of a claim by a "third party". The liability coverage carried by the City of Edina is comprehensive and standard for city insurance requirements. the occurrence has to be the result of: He explained that Sewer backup claims made by third parties are covered, however, 1. 2. The backup is a result of negligence by the City. The backup of sewage from any sewage facility or sanitary sewer that the City owns, operates or maintains, and In the case of the losses in question (West 70th Street/Wooddale) the backup was in the sanitary sewer owned and maintained by the City, but the backup was not due to the negligence of the City. It occurred because of the rapid change in temperature from mild weather to extremely cold within several hours of time. This caused the frost line to move or shift resulting in a water pipe burst. City had placed the pipes deep enough in the ground to meet state requirements and followed a regular schedule of maintenance on the sanitary sewer system. I The 4/18/94 229 After looking at the marketplace, Mr. Crosby said there are no insurance products available to municipalities for property damage to others resulting from sewer backup in the absence of liability. prohibitive as it is estimated that in Edina there is $2.5 billion in homeowner's assessed value. Wayne Bugasch, Liability Claims Supervisor for The St. Paul Companies, spoke to the mechanics of how the company responds to a claim. case, the incident occurred, residents reported loss to the City, the City was aware of the situation, and the City sent claims to The St. Paul Companies. Mr. Bugasch explained that they set up claims files immediately and contacted all the people they were aware of that had a problem. At the same time The St. Paul Companies started its investigation in two directions: 1) questioned the customers that had a loss as to what it was the City did that was negligent, and 2) went to the City and investigated what the City may have done that was wrong. The cost of such a policy would be It would not be feasible to price such an exposure. In the recent sewer backup Concerning legal liability, he pointed out that the City has to be negligent, i.e. has to have done something wrong or have breached some duty. federal, state, county, municipal governments state a pipe has to buried at a certain depth and if the City did bury the pipe at that depth in the manner they were told, then according to law the City is not negligent. Mr. Bugasch explained that their investigation showed that the City did their job and did not alter that in any way. claims indicating that the City was not negligent and the claims were denied. If the Letters were then sent to the individuals who had filed William Homeyer, Harris Homeyer Agency, stated that, as insurance consultant for the City, he also had investigated whether there is any company offering property damage from sewer backup in the absence of liability that the City could buy and had found no one that would offer such coverage. possibly manuscript a policy for such coverage but the cost would be prohibitive because of the catastrophic nature of the exposure. Mr. Homeyer added that the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), which is the largest insurer of public bodies in the state, does not offer coverage of this type, only liability as a result of negligence. LMC's approach to claims under their general liability coverage is identical, i.e. if the sewer lines are laid to code they deny the claim. One company said they could I Mr. Homeyer advised Council that a survey of markets offering sewer backup coverage under homeowner's policies indicated that coverage is inclusive with a number of companies. limits. Other companies offered coverage for varying charges and Presentation by Staff Engineer Hoffman presented a staff proposal for sewer/water backup as follows, subject to the insurance company's input on the program: 1. 2. Program would pay up to $1,000.00 for clean up of property after each properly identified incident. occurred in the homeowner's sewer line to the street.) verify the incident to the City's risk management personnel who would review the data on the claim. property owner would seek payment from homeowner's policy first and be denied or not fully compensated. insurance carrier prior to implementation. (No coverage provided where a sewer backup Utility staff would Before the City would pay the claim, the Program would be coordinated with City's Program would be funded by the water and sewer fund. is estimated to be $15,000 to $30,000 annually, requiring a one-half to one percent increase in utility rates to cover the program. Cost of the program 4/18/94 23 Public Comment Mayor Richards asked that adopt a policy that would backup incidents. public comment be focused on whether the City should pay for clean up of property related to sewer/water John Nibe, 4525 West 70th Street, said the City should pay for clean up. Council it cost over $2,000 to clean up and sanitize their basement. there should have been a structural analysis or engineering report done on the sewer pipe to support the determination that City was not negligent. He told He said Nancy Connell, 4417 West 70th Street, commented that the subject pipe has broken before in the summer and questioned if that too was an "act of God". Gayle Anderson, 7000 Wooddale Avenue, recalled that the 1985 Legislature provided that sewer backup coverage of $5,000 could be added to homeowner policies. questioned why this would pertain to homeowner policies and not to liability policies for municipalities. Mr. Homeyer clarified that the 1985 legislation pertained to property damage under homeowner policies. the City provides general liability coverage which does not cover damage to property of homeowners in Edina. of difference between responsibility and liability. She The insurance carried by Ms. Anderson said she felt there was not a lot Virginia Schaefer, 4521 Andover Road, said that the City should change its policy and consider the proposed program so that other residents will not be put in the same situation. Kevin Haglin, 4308 West 70th Street, commented that it seemed counter-productive that the company who has to pay the claims is the one who decides whether the City is at fault or not. $1,000 would be a joke as he has a $5,700 clean-up bill which he cannot pay. Mr. Haglin said he would like to see the City hire a third party independent engineer to do the investigation if the insurance company will not. He told Council the proposed program to pay up to Ruby Boss, 6901 West Shore Drive, said the City water/sewer worker was very courteous and helpful to her the morning after the sewer backup in February and had suggested several firms who could help in the cleanup after her insurance company said they could not be responsible. The City employee had said that if her homeowners insurance did not cover this she should file a claim with the City because the City has always felt responsible for helping people when there is a sewer backup. Ms. Boss added that the City employee had told her that when these things incur they always reverse the flow and she wondered if that was what caused her sewer to back up. Mark Ettinger, 7007 West Shore Drive, said he was not contacted by The St. Paul Companies except to receive am immediate letter of denial that the incident was an "act of God". He said he took issue with determination and would be in favor of an independent assessment as to what really happened. would be very difficult for the City to make an unlimited judgement for everyone, the City should do something on a set timeline to help out the residents. Further, although it Marisue Nibe, 4525 West 70th Street, asked if there was a written report on the condition of the watermain when it was dug up by City employees. Hoffman responded that he met with City sewer/water workers the next morning who reported what they had found upon excavation. experienced workers who have examined breaks over many years. After an unbiased discussion of the facts and findings, the matter was reported to The St. Paul Companies. Engineer He noted that these are Ralph Boss, 6901 West Shore Drive, said it would seem to be to the City's benefit 4/18/94 231 to institute a small utility charge that would cover this kind of situation. He questioned that the watermain break was due to frost heave because breaks have occurred in the summer too. Under these circumstances the City should provide financial assistance to those homeowners who suffered sewer backup by establishing a maximum for clean up. Council Comment/Action Member Paulus said it would be difficult to get a general opinion from the public on the issue because those responding would be those who had experienced this type of incident. concept but on the incident. residents of Edina when considering the responsibility of the City when things like this happen. Further, that government cannot be responsible for everything and if the homeowners had taken the steps to be properly insured they could have recovered some of the expense. The response at this meeting did not focus on the policy She said she had a duty to represent all the Member Paulus then made a motion as follows: 1) to authorize a program that would pay up to $1,000.00 for clean-up of property after each properly identified incident, 2) payment to be made only if the property owner was denied or not fully compensated under homeowner's policy, 3) program to be coordinated with City's insurance carrier, 4) program to be funded by a one percent increase in utility rates, and 5) program to be retroactive to February 14, 1994. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Member Rice commented that although he understood the intent he would not support the motion in its present form. He asked if, for example, the utility bill for Fairview Hospital would go up one percent. residents who were affected, he said he did not have the right information to make a decision at this time. this particular case or that it was a matter of integrity of City staff or that of the City's insurer. However, in unusual incidents of this type it would make sense to have another opinion. He said he was surprised to learn that this type of coverage is available to homeowners for a very nominal additional charge and suggested that homeowners be so advised in the About Town magazine. Although sympathetic with the Further, he did not feel the City was negligent in Mayor Richards stated that he would not support the motion because he felt the City had a system that had stood the test of time. He felt the proposed program would penalize those residents who have obtained this type of insurance coverage and would reward those who have not been diligent in insuring against this type of damage. Mayor Richards then called for vote on the motion. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus Nays: Rice, Smith, Richards Motion failed. Mayor Richards suggested that homeowners be encouraged, by articles in the Current and About Town, to review their policies and take appropriate steps to be sure they are covered for this type of incident . COUNCIL ADVISED OF SWSCC COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM MEETING ON MAY 4. 1994 Rosland told Council that the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission has scheduled a Communications Program for 6:OO P.M. Wednesday evening, May 4, 1994, at Eden Prairie City Hall. Various speakers will present updates on the Commission, the new technologies and recently enacted Federal laws. West, will talk about convergence of telecommunications and cable television and its application to the working environment. Manager Ron James, President of U.S. CLAIMS PAID Member Kelly made a motion to approve payment of the following 4/18/94 232 claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated April 13, 1994, and consisting of 30 pages: General Fund $157,635.91, Communication $1,784.92, Working Capital $10,528.01, Art Center $6,018.18, Swimming Pool $178.27, Golf Course $21,187.30, Ice Arena $9,283.63, Gun Range $1,009.28, Edinborough/Centennial Iakes $20,012.06, Utility Fund $40,891.94, Storm Sewer $14,705.64, Recycling $39,839.29, Liquor Fund $53,249.48, Construction Fund $51.12. TOTAL $376,375.04; and for confirmation of payment of claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated April 11, 1994, and consisting of 18 pages: General Fund $104,538.78, Art Center $182.00, Swimming Pool $109.92, Golf Course $931.53, Ice Arena $242.97, Gun Range $115.85, Edinboraugh/Centennial Iakes $106.54, Utility Fund $534.16, Liquor Fund $235,361.68, TOTAL $342,123.43. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. I Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the meeting adjourned at 10~14 P.M. . .