Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19950103_regularLIIEJ[TTES OF THE BEGULAR HEETIIi7G OF TBE EDR?A CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HAIL JANUARY 3, 1995 R0I;LCBLL Answering rollcall were Members Maetzold, Paulus, Smith, and Mayor Richards. OATHS OF OF'FICE TAKEN City Clerk Daehn to Glenn L. Smith and Dennis F. Maetzold, who both had been elected for four year terms to January 1, 1999. The oath of office for Council: Member was administered by APP0I"T OF MAYOR PRO-TEM Mayor Richards made a motion to appoint Member Kelly as Mayor Pro-Tem. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Ayes: Maetzold, Paulus, Smith, Richards Motion carried. COUNCIL CONS= AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED seconded by Member Paulus to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda items as presented. Rollcall : Ayes: Maetzold, Paulus, Smith, Richards Motion carried. Motion was made by Member Smith and vas *lIlXWlXS OF SPECIAL COolo%IL MEXTING OF NOVEMBER 29. 1994. APPROVED Motion vas made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Paulus to approve the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of November 29, 1994. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. PARTIAL RELEASE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTION RECONSIDERED AND APPROVED FOR LOT 4. BLOCK 1. HARK DALOMST ADDITION Presentation bv Planner Planner Larsen reminded Council that at its meeting of November 21, 1994, the Council took action to reconsider the request for partial release of the 100 foot conservation restriction on Lot 4, Block 1, Mark Dalquist Addition. The proposed release area is unchanged from the proposal considered by the Council on November . 7, 1994. He presented Findings, Decision and Reasons that would support granting the requested release, noting that the Findings have been updated to reference the subsequent meetings since initially presented on November 7, 1994; all other information therein remains essentially as presented on that date. Presentation bv Prouonent Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction, Inc., presented a graphic depicting the whole of the Mark Dalquist Addition. subject Lot 4 is 33,501 square feet and pointed out the buildable area of the lot remaining after the dedicated 100 foot conservation restriction from the pond. The conservation easement totals 21,500 square feet or 64 percent of the lot. Mr. Clark explained that he is requesting the release of 690 square feet which represents 3.2 percent of the conservation area. He elaborated that the first 25 feet of the conservation restriction is a natural condition easement and the next 75 feet is the scenic easement. That would remain untouched except for two bays, i.e. living room bay (10 foot projection) and minimal projection for dinette bay, and an ongrade patio and d&ks. Mr. Clark stated that these elements would not adversely affect the purpose of the conservation easement. He added that none of the other existing homes around the pond have been subjected to the 100 foot conservation requirement and is twice what the Department of Natural Resources requires which is a 50 foot easement. The roofed area of the house that would project into the conservation restriction is 185 square feet or less than one percent of the 21,500 square feet total conservation easement. - -J He reminded Council that the total area for 172 1/3/95 Public Comment Ed Glickman, 5217 Schaefer Road, stated he was opposed to the proposal, With reference to the DNR requirement of 50 feet, he quoted Zoning Ordinance 850.03, Subd.2, "Where this Section imposes greater restrictions than any other applicable statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, this Section shall control ...I*. certain requirements. hold over the DNR requirements. I The stated written purpose of the City of Edina is to expand and hold The 100 foot requirement is specifically stated to take For the record, Mr. Glickman said this hearing was defective procedurally - there was no notice of Mr. Smith's motion for reconsideration on November 21, 1994, and no opportunity to respond to that. may be defective because motions to reconsider exist only if they are specifically in the City's bylaws. Also, procedurally the motion to reconsider Mr. Glickman commented that this is the 15th time the neighbors have appeared regarding this subdivision, i.e. seven times before the Planning Commission when Mr. Clark called it a request for a variance. It was denied seven times, two times by unanimous vote and one time by a 5-0 vote on the Planning Commission when the Commission stated there should be three lots instead of the four lots. They have been here four times before when Mr. Clark was asking for vacation of the conservation easement and now Mr. Clark is asking for a partial release of the conservation easement. matter to rest one way or the other. Mr. Glickman said the time has come to put this Mr. Glickman then reiterated his arguments in opposition as stated in his letter of December 30, 1994, and which is on file in the City's records. Mr. Glickman concluded that the proposal must fail because it is flawed, inequitable, contrary to City policy and ordinances, open ended and without qualification or restrictions to provide guidance in future situations. John MacNeil, 5017 Schaefer Road, said the draft Findings, Decision and Reasons omitted an important element that occurred at the November 7, 1994, meeting, i.e. the presentation made by Commissioner Helen McClelland. Member Maetzold and Mayor Richards, who was absent, review the thoughts of that presentation. back repeatedly, he encouraged the Council to take a firm stand and to follow its existing rules and regulations as they have been applied to other residents. Mr. MacNeil said he.saw the proposal as greed and the rape of nature and asked that the release not be granted. He recommended that new While he admitted that it is this country's way to be able to come Patrick Mantyh, 6413 Interlachen Boulevard, said he was opposed to granting the release of the conservation restriction. After coming to meetings for four years on the subject property, and after denial of variances to himself and his neighbors, he felt there was a good side - the City is enforcing the laws in a fair and equitable manner. how they were going to get around City ordinances in the development of this property by building one home first, putting a road in within the 100 foot setback and then dividing the remaining land into the maximum number of lots they could. only two houses could be put on the property because of its configuration. Subsequently, the first home was built and four lots were finally approved. Throughout the entire process'Mr. Clark misconstrued the situation by saying he would have no problem building on the four lots. Mr. Mantyh said he had learned that Mr. Clark met a Council Member at a party who enco&aged.him to come before the Council again and they would look at granting a variance. different set of rules cannot be used for residents who have been denied a variance than for a seasoned developer because a 5,000 sq. ft. home could be built on the property. Mr. Mantyh said three years ago Mr. Dalquist told him In speaking with the City's Planner at that time, it was indicated that He argued that a No court of law would say that this is fair and 1/3/95 173 equitable. The bottom line is if Council can apply these standards only wants to increase his profit variances. this variance is granted there is no way the in future cases. Mr. Mantyh said Mr. Clark and that is not a reason for granting Nan Faust stated that she was member of the Planning Commission, that Mr. Clark is a well-respected quality builder in the community and she had no vested interested in the matter before the Council. As background, Ms. Faust said the majority of the Planning Commission members initially wanted the development to have three lots. Mr. Clark continued appearing before the Commission and the Commission finally approved four lots. Commissioners questioned Mr. Clark if he could build on the lots and his response was that any competent architect could figure out a way to build houses without going into the conservation easement. She said she was stunned to learn that two months later Mr. Clark was asking to build in the easement. whether the Council was paying attention to the Planning Commission. said it is not fair when individual homeowners do not receive variances in order to add on to an existing home when compared with a request for a variance from a developer of raw land who should better be able to work it out. She concluded that it is unconscionable to keep the neighbors coming back time and again for these hearings and hoped it would not continue. At that meeting the She questioned Ms. Faust Peggy Carlisle, 5013 Ridge Road, reiterated the neighbors' position to maintain the conservation easement as originally imposed. Mr. MacNeil interjected that he was concerned that the pond is overflowing, that the pond on the McGlynn property was filled in by Mr. Clark and that trees are dying around the edge of the pond since the City did some trenching work in the area. Council Comment/Action Mayor Richards commented that the norm was the 50 foot setback requirement for many years. of the City in imposing on this particular property onerous and unreasonable regulations that should not be enforced. undue what was done. to recognize that private property should be allowed to be developed in a reasonable fashion. unreasonable and therefore should be eliminated. support a motion to allow, on a case by case analysis, this particular encroachment of percentage and square footage on a precise footprint as set forth and presented, consistent with what he felt was the Council's position subsequent to final plat approval. Simply put, a mistake was made on the part of Mr. Clark and the part The City should acknowledge that and The norm is not for government to set the agenda but rather The imposition of a 100 foot restriction here is Mayor Richards said he would Member Paulus stated that she felt the standards should be applied equally for either a developer or an individual resident. The 50 foot conservation easement existed for a period of years and after much deliberation was changed to 100 foot because of concern over City wetlands and should stand. Commission is advisory, their recommendation came after many meetings of discussion and she would support the recommendation. could not identify a hardship in any of the comments made by staff or the developer. hardship as was stated cleirly when the subdivision was approved. there has not been any change in the circumstances and if approved the release would set a precedent for future developments. Member Paulus concluded that the 100 foot conservation restriction should remain. She implored the Council and residents to let all the emotion and individual comments go and to deal with the strict issue and the legal rights of both the developer and residents. Whatever the outcome, she asked that healing take place as she has been greatly bothered Although the Planning Member Paulus said she The developer can use and develop the land without unreasonable She added that 174 1/3/95 by all the anger and division shown during these many hearings. Member Maetzold commented that, although this is his first Council meeting, he has given much thought and concern to this issue by reviewing documents and minutes of meetings, viewing aerial photographs, meeting with interested parties and City staff, and touring the property. 1) the dwelling to be constructed should be consistent with size and scale of neighboring homes, and 2) the ecosystem should be protected. With regard to size and scale, the City has determined that the property should be subdivided into four parcels. Member Maetzold said that in his opinion the applicant has designed a dwelling for Lot 4 which is consistent with the size and scale of neighboring homes. The design, however, does require partial release of the conservation restriction and is necessary in order to construct a home on the parcel that would be compatible with adjacent homes. ecosystem, Member Maetzold said he has found no evidence that the partial release as requested would be detrimental to the ecosystem and therefore he would vote for the release if a motion were made. He said he had two primary concerns: With regard to the Member Smith made a motion to grant the partial release of the conservation restriction for the exact footprint that has been submitted and to adopt the Findings, Decision and Reasons as presented, attached and made a part of these minutes. Motion was seconded by Member Maetzold. Rollcall : Ayes: Maetzold, Smith, Richards Nays: Paulus Motion carried. *HE&UBTG DATE SET FOR PIABT"G HA'lTERS seconded by Member Paulus setting February 6, 1995, as hearing date for following planning matters: Hotion was made by Member Smith and was 1) Final Development Plan, 5113, U. 50th Street, CSM Investments. Generally 2) located vest of Highway 100 and south of Vernon Avenue. Final Development Plan, Valvoline Rapid Oil Change, 4530 France Avenue South. Generally located vest of France Avenue and south of Suxmyside Road. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR BITIJKIXOUS DISTRIBUTOR WITH HYDBOSTATIC DRIVE Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Paulus for award of bid for bihrminons oil distributor with hydrostatic drive to recommended lov bidder, Ruffridge Johnson, Inc., at $38,078.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. RESOLUTIOEI ADOPT33 SEZKING REPECLL OF DIKLER AMEND- Crrs 171.12 SUED. 6) Engineer Hoffman reminded Council that staff had been directed to develop a resolution supporting repeal of the Dimler Amendment which exempts a citation from a driver's record if the speeding offense is less than 10 ME'H above the 55 MPH limit set by Minnesota Statute 169.14. faster traffic speeds in residential neighborhoods. that if adopted the resolution should be sent to Edina's the state legislators. Staff believes this also causes Mayor Richards suggested Meniber Xaetzold moved adopt& of the follanlnrg resolution: VHEBEbS, M.S. 171.12, Subd. 6, the Dimler Amendment, exempts a citation from a driver's record if the speeding offense is less than 10 LIPH above the 55 MPH limit set by M.S. 169.14; and VHEBEbS, although the Dimler drpendment does not apply to local streets, It my promote an attitude that speeding is condoned on all streets and roaduays "vithin BEsO~IOl!l BEPEALTI?G DIHLRR -HEEIT a c Attachment to Council Minutes of 01/03/95 CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Application of Ron Clark Construction, Inc., to release a portion of a Conservation Restriction covering a portion of .Lot 4, FINDINGS, DECISION, AND Block 1, Mark Dalquist Addition REASONS The above entitled matter was heard before the Edina City Council on June 20, 1994, August 15, 1994, September 7, 1994, November 7, 1994, and January 3, 1995. Mr. Ron Clark, the President of Ron Clark Construction, Inc. ("Proponent") was present at all hearings. Mr. Tim Keane, attorney representing the Proponent, was present at the August hearing. Property owners in the vicinity of the request were also present at all hearings. The City Council having heard and reviewed all of the facts and arguments presented by the Proponent, his representative, property owners in the vicinity of the request and having heard and reviewed evidence and law adduced by the Proponent, his representative, City Staff, and property owners and being fully advised, after due consideration, hereby makes the following: 8 * FINDINGS OF FACT: I 1. The subject Conservation Restriction was required by the City pursuant to Section 810.13, Subd. 2. of the City Code, (the "Subdivision Ordinance"). The Conservation Restriction, dated May 14, 1 993, was placed of record with the Hennepin County Recorder as document number 61 6771 3. The Conservation Restriction was acquired by the City pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 84.64. 2. Section 81 0.1 3, Subd. 2. of the City Code provides as follows: Subd. 2 Lands Adjoining Lakes, Ponds or Streams. Where any plat or subdivision adjoins a natural lake, pond, or stream, including streams which flow only intermittently, a strip of land running along all sides which are contiguous to such lake, pond or stream, which strip shall extend from a line 100 feet upland from the lake or pond, as measured from the ordinary high water mark, and 100 feet from the centerline of the stream, shall be either (i) dedicated to the City for public use, or (ii) subjected to a pe[petual easement in favor of the City over and in said land and the bed and water body of such lake, pond or stream, for the purpose of protecting the hydraulic efficiency and the natural character 2 c and beauty of such lake, pond or stream. The Commission shall determine which of these options is more appropriate and shall recommend to the Council one of said options. In either case there shall also then be granted to the City the right of ingress and egress from the said strip of land with workers, equipment, and material. Also, where the easement is determined to be in the best interest of the City, said easement shall also provide that the owners of the areas as to which such easement is granted shall not make, do or place any fill, grading, improvement or development of any kind on or to such easement area, or raise the level of the easement area in any way, but all such right to fill, grade, improve and develop, and to raise the level of the easement area, shall be granted by said easement to the City. 3. The Conservation Restriction does not allow buildings or other structures within the area proposed to be released from the Conservation Restriction without "the express prior written approval" of the City. The Conservation Restriction provides that it may be released at any time or from time to time by the sole act of the City. 4. The subject properties have the following dimensions and area, measured pursuant to Section 850 of the City Code (the "Zoning Ordinance"). 3 c Lot 4 Lot Width 195 Feet Lot Depth 270 Feet Lot Area 33,501 S.F. 5. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front street setback of 30 feet. The buildable area between the front setback line and the Conservation Restriction line establishes the buildable depth for a lot. On Lot 4, the depth varies from approximately 25 feet on the westerly side to 60 feet on the easterly side of the lot. 6. The proponent, on May 18, 1994, submitted a request to release 50 feet of the Conservation Restriction affecting Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Mark Dalquist Addition. A public hearing date of June 20, 1994, was set for the City Council to consider the request. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Edina Sun-Current on June 1, and June 8, 1994. A mailed. notice of the public hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the property on June 9, 1994. Notice of the public hearing was posted at the three (3) official City bulletin boards on June IO, 1994. The Proponent was present at the hearing. Interested residents were also present at the hearing. The City Council, after hearing the testimony of the Proponent and residents, voted to deny the requested release. 4 I 7. The Proponent on .,~ly 3, 1994, su,mitted a new request to release lesser portions of the Conservation Restriction, this, time affecting only Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Mark Dalquist Addition. The proposed release. would remove the most upland 19 feet of the Conservation Restriction affecting Lot 4, and the most upland 23 feet of the Conservation Restriction affecting Lot 5. 8. On August 15, 1994, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the July 13 request to release portions of the Conservation Restriction. Notice of the hearing was published in the Edina Sun Current on July 27, 1994, and on August 3, 1994. Notice of the public hearing was also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. On July 28, 1994, notice of the public hearing was also posted at each of the three (3) official City bulletin boards. The . Proponent, and his attorney testified, using presentation boards, that the requested releases were necessary to construct homes that were consistent with the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. Several property owners in the vicinity of the subject property testified in opposition to the .requested releases. The property owners also submitted documents indicating their intent to challenge City approval of the requested release in District Court. The Proponent agreed after questions and comments by the Council, that the requested release was 5 in excess of the area necessary to construct dwellings in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The meeting was continued to September 7, 1994, and staff was ordered to prepare Findings and Reasons to support a decision to approve a partial release of the Conservation Restriction. 9. On September 7, 1994, the City Council again considered the request to release a portion of the Conservation Restriction. After receiving the draft Findings, Decision, and Reasons prepared by staff, and after hearing testimony by the Proponent and residents, continued the hearing to the November 7, 1994, City Council meeting. IO. On November 7, 1994, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider a request to release a portion of the Conservation Restriction affecting only Lot 4, Block 1 , Mark Dalquist Addition. The Proponent, using a presentation board, described a request which would release approximately 690 square feet of the total area subject to the Conservation Restriction. Property owners in the vicinity of the request were present and testified in opposition to the proposed release. The City Council, after hearing the testimony of the Proponent and residents, voted to deny the requested release. 6 1 1. At the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of November 21, 1994, Councilmember Smith, moved to reconsider the action taken at the November 7, 1994, Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Kelly and was passed four votes to one. 1 2. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") has established guidelines for building setbacks for various waterbodies. The recommended setback for the subject ponds is 50 feet for all buildings and structures. 13. The Environmental Protection Element of the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan contains the following objective and policies: Obiective: Protect and manage lakes, ponds and wetlands for storm water retention areas, wildlife areas, and amenity areas, and lessen impacts from nutrient and sediment input. Policies: Utilize waterbodies and man-made ponding areas for the retention and detention of storm water to reduce flooding potentials and stabilize lake and pond levels. Restrict encroachments below the ordinary high water marks of Type 3,4, and 7 5 wetlands. I Require the dedication of or the grant of a scenic and open space easement over all land adjacent to and 100 feet upland of naturally occurring lakes and ponds in conjunction with the subdivision or development of the property. Require the dedication of or the grant of a scenic easement over Type 3,4, and 5 wetlands in conjunction with the subdivision or dedication of property. Encourage owners of property riparian to lakes and ponds to maintain emergent aquatic vegetation and shoreline vegetation for filtering and wildlife benefits. 14. The City is authorized by the terms of the Conservation Restriction and Minnesota Statutes, Section 84.65, to release portions of the Conservation Restriction. The Conservation Restriction does not grant . to the City any right to use or improve the area subject to the Conservation Restriction or permit the public to use or improve the area subject to the Conservation Restriction. The City is only authorized to enter onto the area subject to the Conservation Restriction to enforce the terms of the Conservation Restriction. The release of the Conservation Restriction is not governed by the provision of Minnesota law dealing with the vacation of publicly owned easements and rights of way. The 8 release of the Conservation Restriction does not constitute a variance under the Subdivision Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance. THEREFORE, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the City Council does hereby make the following DECISION: The application for release of portions of the Conservation Restriction within the footprint area of the dwelling as legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto on Lot 4, Block 1, Mark Dalquist Addition is hereby granted. The decision is made for the following REASONS: A. The area subject to the Conservat,m Restriction following the'release is of a sufficient size and subject to the restrictions necessary to meet the objective of the Environmental Protection Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The 25 foot "Natural Condition" Conservation Restriction area will not be altered by the proposed release and will continue to provide wildlife habitat and filtering 9 c of storm water run off. The areas released from the Conservation Restriction have not been maintained in a natural condition, but have been maintained and mowed as open lawn/yard area by the previous property owner. B. The remaining area subject to the Conservation Restriction will provide for building setbacks from the pond which will exceed setbacks recommended by the DNR. C. The proposed release will not adversely impact the existing character and symmetry of. the neighborhood but promotes good planning and orderly development of the subject lots. The proposed release will allow the construction of a new dwelling that will be consistent with the size and scale of the existing dwellings in the neighborhood, which would not be possible without the proposed release. The present area subject to the Conservation Restriction provides a buildable area which is too shallow to design and build a functional dwelling which would be in keeping with the size and scale of existing dwellings in the neighborhood. 10 EXHIBIT A I PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR VRCATION OF CONSERVRTION EASEMENT That part of Lot 4, .Block 1, MARK DALOUISJ FIDDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 3 said Block 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degree 28 minutes 37 seconds Nest, along the west line of said Lot 3, a distance of 148.07 feet; thence North 77 degrees 07 minutes 51 seconds East 26.15 feet; thence South 53 degrees 44 minutes 46 seconds East 47.63 feet; thence South 71 degrees 33 minutes 54 seconds East 41.31 feet; thence on a bearing of East 46.93 feet; thence North 55 degrees 41 minutes 32 seconds East 74.03 feet; thence North 23 degrees 57 minutes 45 seconds East 35.84 feet; thence North 55 degrees IO minutes 32 seconds East 57.76 feet; thence North 74 degrees 51 minutes 09 seconds East 0.20 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue northeasterly alon thence North 61 degrees 00 minute 00 second Nest 7.07 feet; thence South 74 de 00 minute OD second West 6.00 feet; thence South rees 00 minute 00 second West 7.07 feet; thence second West 9.00 feet; thence North 61 degrees 00 minute 00 second West 4.24 feet; thence South 74 degrees 00 minute 00 second West 6.00 feet; thence North 61 degrees 00 minute 00 second West 6.36 feet; thence South 74 degrees 00 minute 00 second West 7.00 feet; thence South 29 degrees OD minute 00 second West 4.24 feet; thence North 61 degrees 00 minute 00 second Nest 4.24 feet; thence South 74 degrees 00 minute 00 second West 10.00 feet; thence South 29 de 00 minute 00 second West 4.24 feet; thence North rees 00 minute 00 second West 4.24 feet; 'thence 4 degrees 00 minute OD last described course 82.01 feet; thence North 16 degrees 0 1 minute DO second West 4.28 feet; 4 degrees 00 minute 00 second West 8.00 feet; thence South 29 degrees 00 minute. 00 second West 9.19 feet; thence South 16 degrees 00 minute DO second East 4.06 feet to the point of beginning. 1/3/95 175 reasodable limits"; and WHEREAS, the mixture of vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists on local streets contributes to potentially dangerous conflicts involving speeding vehicles and WJlElWS, a uniform enforcement and penalty pattern is more likely to improve compliance on all roadways including local streets: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Edina supports legislation to repeal the Dimler Amendment. by Mayor Richards. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded Rollcall : Ayes: Maetzold, Paulus, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. POLICY STA- FOR "RAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES ADOPTED that Council had directed staff to develop additional policy language as it relates to the process regarding traffic safety concerns. change would be in the last two sentences as follows: Engineer Hoffman reported The proposed language PROCESS: by the staff member you have contracted. you and gather the pertinent facts and help clearly define the problem and seek a solution. City Engineer, the Police Chief, and the Assistant City Manager. That group will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the matter. "The staff safety review recommendation vi11 be shared with you and if you disagree vith it or can bring forth additional facts, you can appear at the second Council meeting of the month and present your viewpoint. We suggest you alert any interested parties to attend the meeting with you. In all cases, the City Council is the final authority on traffic safety matters. of the same or similar request is at the discretion of the City Council. " Your traffic safety concern or request will be formalized That person will work with Those facts will be reviewed by the Any subsequent review Engineer Hoffman explained that the initial process was developed with the idea that staff would meet the day after the first Council meeting of the month. The revised policy would advise residents to appear at the second Council meeting of the month, would suggest that any interested parties be invited to attend, and that any subsequent further review would be at the discretion of the Council. Member Smith suggested that the wording be emphasized concerning additional facts to include "that have not been consideredqq. Member Smith made a motion to approve the revised policy language concernhg traffic safety concerns, subject to strengthening the wording concerning additional or new facts. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Ayes: Maetzold, Paulus, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *1994 CONTRACT WITH IAFF X1275 APPROVED seconded by Member Paulus for adoption of the folloring resolution: Motion vas made by Member Smith and was RESOUTTION APPROVIXG ARBITRATION AWARD FOR 1994 CONTRACT WITH IbFp #1275 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby approves the arbitration award of December 22, 1994, vith respect to the 1994 Contract between the City and the Internationalbsociation of Firefighters (IAFF) Local X1275, as presented; BE IT FURTEER RESOLVED that the Manager and Assistant City Manager are authorized to execute the 1994 Contract with IAFF Local #1275. Motion carried on rollcall vote, four ayes. 1/3/95 .. 176 *RESOLUTION dDoP!WD DESIGNATING DIRECTOR/ALTERNATE DIRECTOR OF SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORI!L'Y Motion was made by Member Smith and vas seconded by Member Paulus for adoption of the folloring resolution: RESOLUTION DESIGT!UTING DIRECTOR AND ALTERHATE DIRECTOR TO !SUBURBAN BATE AUTHORIlT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: John C. Uallin is hereby designated to serve as a Director of the Suburban Bate Authority, and Eric R. Anderson is hereby designated to serve as Alternate Director of the Suburban Bate Authority for the year 1995 and until their successors are appointed. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. *RESOLUTION ADOPTEI) DESIGNATING DIBECTOR/ALTERNATE DIRECTOR OF LOGIS Motion was made by Member Smith and vas seconded by Member Paulus for adoption of the following resolution: RESOUPTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO LOGIS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ed-, Minnesota as follows: John C. Uallin is hereby designated as a Director of TAIGIS and Kenneth E. Rosland is hereby designated as Alternate Director of LOGIS for the year 1995 and until their successors are appointed. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. *RESOUPTION ADOPTED DESIGNATING OFFICIAL II'EUSPAPm FOR 1995 Member Smith and uas seconded by Ifember Paula for adoption of the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the Edina Sun-Current be and is hereby designated as the Official Nevspaper for the City of Edina for the year 1995. Motion was made by RESO~ION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL "USPAPER Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. WIGHATORY RESOLUTION ADOPTED Motion vas made by Member Smith and vas seconded by Member Paulus for adoption of the following resolution: SIGNATORY RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the persons holding office as Mayor, Manager and Treasurer of the City of Edina, be, and they hereby are, authorized to act for this municipality in the transaction of any banking business with First Bank National Association, Americana State Bank of Ed-, Fidelity Bank, Norwest BankMinnesota NA, Richfield Bank and Trust Go. and National City Bank/Southdale Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank") from time to time and until written notice to any Bank to the contrary, to sign checks agalnst said accounts, which checks will be signed by the Mayor, Manager and City Treasurer. hereby authorized and directed to honor and pay any checks against such account if signed as above described, Whether or not said check is payable to the order of, or deposited to the credit of, any officer or officers of the City, including the signer or signers of the check. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. Each Bank is *FACSIKUX SIGNATURES RESOLUTION ADOPTED Motion vas made by Member Smith and vas seconded by Member Paula for adoption of the folloving resolution: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FACSMIL~' SIGT!UT'URES BY PUBLIC OFFICTATS RESOLVED that the use of facsbile signatures by the folloving named persons: FBBDKBICK S. RICHARDS - Hkyor KENNKl'E E. ROSIARD - City Manager JOHN Um - Treasurer on checks, drafts, warrants, warrant-checks, vouchers or other orders of public funds deposited in First Bank National Association, Americana State Bank of 1/3/95 177 Edina, Fidelity Bank, Norwest Bank Minnesota NA, Richfield Bank and Trust Co., and National City Bank/Southdale Office, be and hereby is approved, and that each of said persons may authorize said depository banlrs to honor any such instrument bearing his facsimile signature in such' form as he may designate and to charge the same to the account in said depository bank upon which drawn as fully as though it bore his manually written signature and that instruments so honored shall be wholly operative and binding in favor of said depository bank although such facsimile signature shall have been affixed without his authority. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. *RESOLUTION ADOPTED DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES FOR PUBLIC F"DS OF TBE CITP Motion vas made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Paulus for adoption of the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the First Bank National Association, Minneapolis, HI?, Americana State Bank of Edina, MI?, Fidelity Bank, Edina, HI?, Richfield Bank and Trust Co., and Norwest Bank Minnesota NA, Edina, MN, authorized to do banking business in Minnesota, be and hereby are designated as Official Depositories for the Public Funds of the City of Edina, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, until January 1. 1996. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES . Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. RESOLUTION ADOPTED DESIGNATING NATIONAL CITP BANK/SOuTBDBLF. AS OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY Member Maetzold disclosed that he is an officer of National City Bank/Southdale and that he would abstain from voting on the resolution to designate National City Bank/Southdale as a depository for public funds of the City. Director Wallin informed Council that there are five or six banking institutions in Edina. Currently, the City of Edina does business with three: First Bank, Americana Bank and National City Bank. The City's main account is with First Bank Edina as well as several savings accounts. Americana Bank and the National City Bank handles the payroll account, the deposit account and a small petty cash account for the golf course. The HRA accounts are with the Member Smith moved adoption of the folloving resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the National City Banh/Southdale Office, Edina, HI?, authorized to do banking business in Minnesota, be and hereby is designated as an Official Depository for the Public Funds of the City of Edina, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, until January 1, 1996. Paulus . RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORY Motion was seconded by Member Rollcall : Ayes: Paulus, Smith, Richards Abstaining: Maetzold Resolution adopted. *PETITION FOR STREXT LIGHTING AT DONCASTER WAY AND VEST 56TH STREET REFERRED TO Et?GI"G DEPARTMENT Member Paulus to refer the petition for street lighting at Doncaster Way and West 56th Street to the Engineering Department for processing. Motion was made by Member Smith and vas seconded by Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. CONCEJlN EXPRESSED REGARDING LITIGATION AGAINST POLICE DEPARTMENT Attorney Jim Schloner, 3109 Hennepin Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN, advised the Council that there is pending litigation against the Edina Police Department and that he had information concerning the individual making the allegations. that the case is being handled by the City's insurer, Mayor Richards suggested that Mr. Schloner leave his name with Assistant to Manager Smith who handles the Upon being advised 1/3/95 178 insurance matters for the City. CLAJHS PAID claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated December 28, 1994, and consisting of 15 pages: General Fund $30,625.70; Communication $7,108.79; Working Capital $2,267.29; Art Center $6,178.51; Golf Course $2,368.86; Edinborough/Centennial Takes $10,752.71; Utility Fund $298,310.24; Liquor Fund $27,500.70; TOTAL $385,112.80. Member Maetzold seconded the motion. Member Smith made a motion to approve payment of the following I Rollcall : Ayes: Maetzold, Paulus, Smith, Richards Motion carried. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. City Clerk %&-z/LI, &k