Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-16_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16, 2010 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Adoption of the Consent Agenda is made by the Commissioners as to HRA items and by the Council Members as to Council items. All agenda items marked with an asterisk ( *) in bold print are Consent Agenda items and are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless a Commissioner or Council Member so requests it. In such cases the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the Agenda. EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF HRA - Regular Meeting of November 1, 2010 II. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL EVENTION WORKS 2010 PROCLAMATION * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of November 1, 2010, Work Session of November 1, 2010 and Canvass of November 2, 2010 Election Results II. PUBLIC HEARINGS During "Public Hearings," the Mayor will ask for public testimony after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to testify on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your testimony is relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Mayor may modify times, as deemed necessary. Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit testimony to the matter under consideration. In order to maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. A. PUBLIC HEARING NEIGHBORHOOD STREET RECONSTRUCTION: Ridge Road Improvements: No. BA -384 — Resolution No. 2010 -115 (Affirmative roll call vote of four Council Members to approve) B. PUBLIC HEARING: New Intoxicating Liquor License — Cucina Del Barrio, 5236 France Avenue (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve) e Agenda/Edina City Council November 16, 2010 \ Page 2 C. PUBLIC HEARING: Temporary Intoxicating Liquor License, Church of St. Patrick — Edina, 6820 St. Patrick Lane (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve) D. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2010 -17 Amending Section 850, Non - Conforming Buildings and Uses and Additions To Or Replacement of Homes With A First Floor Elevation Over One Foot Above the Existing Homes First Floor Elevation (First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only. Second Reading: Favorable rollcall vote of three Council Members to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Affirmative rollcall vote of four Council Members to pass.) E. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2010 -18 Amending Section 850, Concerning Administration and Procedures and Establishing a Planned Unit District (First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only. Second Reading: Favorable rollcall vote of three Council Members to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Affirmative rollcall vote of four Council Members to pass.) F. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2010 -19 Amending Section 850, Concerning Driveway Widths (First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only. Second Reading: Favorable rollcall vote of three Council Members to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Affirmative rollcall vote of four Council Members to pass.) III. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve except where noted) A. Adoption of 2011 -2015 Capital Improvement Program B Agreement 50th & France Commercial Area Trial Valet Parking November 17- December 31St * C. Ordinance No. 2010 -16 Amending Chapter 7 of the Edina City Code Concerning Body Art Establishments (First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only. Second Reading: Favorable rollcall vote of three Council Members to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Affirmative rollcall vote of four Council Members to pass.) D. Consider Mayor's Expense Reimbursement * E. Reappointment of Members to Boards, Committees & Commissions * F. Resolution No. 2010 -114 Approving Deferral Of Special Assessments G. Resolution No. 2010 -88 Accepting Various Donations (Affirmative vote of four Council Members to approve) * H. 2011 Council Meeting Dates and Holidays * I. Traffic Safety Report Of November 3, 2010 IV. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the City Council will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Council or which aren't Agenda/Edina City Council November 16, 2010 Page 3 slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Mayor may limit the number of speaks on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Mayor or Council to respond to their comments tonight. Instead the Council might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. V. FINANCE * A. CONFIRMATION OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Asper, Pre -List dated November 4, 2010, TOTAL $559,501.66; Pre -List dated November 11, 2010, TOTAL $861,922.48 and Credit Card Transactions Dated 9/28/10 — 10/25/10, TOTAL $7,068.59 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Correspondence VII. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS VIII. MANAGER'S COMMENTS IX. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952- 927 - 886172 hours in advance of the meeting. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS Tues Nov 16 Work Session — Budget & Zoning Ordinance Amendments 4:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues Nov 16 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tues Nov 23 Study Session —to be determined 7:30 A.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Thur Nov 25 THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY OBSERVED —City Hall Closed Fri Nov 26 DAY AFTER THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Tues Dec 7 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tues Dec 21 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Fri Dec 24 CHRISTMAS HOLDIAY OBSERVED —City Hall Closed Fri Dec 31 NEW YEAR'S HOLIDAY OBSERVED —City Hall Closed Tues Tues Jan 4 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Mon Jan 17 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED —City Hall Closed Tues Jan 18 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tues Jan 25 Study Session —to be determined 11:30 A.M. COMMUNITY ROOM MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT CITY HALL NOVEMBER 1, 2010 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson and Chair Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Brindle for approval of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Consent Agenda as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2010, APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Brindle approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority for October 19, 2010. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -03 ADOPTED APPOINTING SCOTT NEAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Motion by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Brindle adopting Resolution No. 2010 -03 appointing Scott Neal, the Executive Director of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -04 ADOPTED AUTHORIZING REDEMPTION OF SERIES 2002 BONDS Motion by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Brindle adopting Resolution No. 2010 -04 authorizing the redemption of the Series 2002 bonds issued to finance the construction of the City Hall and Police Facilities. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. There being no further business on the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Agenda, Chair Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ceil Smith, Executive Director 61 A PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, over half a million Americans will die this year from alcohol, tobacco and other drug- related causes; and WHEREAS,. every person in the State of Minnesota is affected by alcohol, tobacco and other drug abuse; and WHEREAS, the human and economic costs associated with alcohol use is an estimated $4.5 billion, which amounts to more than $900 per person in Minnesota; and WHEREAS, each year smoking costs Minnesota $1.98 billion in health care costs, which amounts to $393 per person in the State; and WHEREAS, prevention and treatment efforts have made major gains in reversing the trend toward more and more alcohol, tobacco and other drug use in our communities; and WHEREAS, alcohol, tobacco and other drug use are major factors in fires, drowning, rape and other crimes, school failure, child abuse, injury, disease, violence and lost productivity; and WHEREAS,' fetal alcohol spectrum disorders are the leading cause of mental retardation in the United States, yet these disorders are 100 percent preventable; and WHEREAS, business, government, law enforcement,.schools, religious institutions, service organizations, neighborhoods, youth, senior citizens, and other individuals are encouraged to demonstrate their commitment to help reduce and prevent alcohol, tobacco and other drug abuse by wearing and /or displaying the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Red Ribbon during the Prevention Works! Campaign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the weeks of November 22 through December 30, 2010, be declared the PREVENTION WORKS! CAMPAIGN throughout the City of Edina. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council Members of the City of Edina support the activities of PREVENTION WORKS! CAMPAIGN and the work of the local substance abuse coalition, Edina Chemical Health Partners, and encourage the citizens of Edina,to participate in the PREVENTION WORKS! CAMPAIGN activities and other alcohol and drug abuse prevention efforts year round. James B. Hovland, Mayor MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL NOVEMBER 1, 2010 7:10 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle approving the Council consent agenda. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. INTERNATIONAL JOURNALISTS PRESENTATION Lonni Skrentner, School Board Member and League of Women Voters Member, explained the congressionally sponsored Open World Program brought Moldovan journalists from the former Soviet area to the Untied States to learn of grass roots democracy. She explained the Edina League of Women Voters were the host of these Open World journalists and advised of their schedule. Olesea Fortuna described where Moldavia was located, economic conditions, and its form of government. *MINUTES APPROVED — REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2010, AND WORK SESSION OF OCTOBER 19, 2010 Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle approving the minutes of the regular meeting of October 19, 2010, and work session of October 19, 2010. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. *AWARD OF BID — TANDEM AXLE TRUCK FOR PUBLIC WORKS Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle awarding the bid for tandem axle truck for Public Works to the recommended low bidder, Astleford International Trucks at $80,496.10. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. *AWARD OF BID — TRUCK DUMP BODY AND SNOW PLOW EQUIPMENT FOR TANDEM AXLE TRUCK FOR PUBLIC WORKS Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle awarding the bid for truck dump body and snow plow equipment for tandem axle truck for Public Works to the recommended low bidder, Towmaster Equipment, Inc. at $96,852.26. Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes. *AWARD OF BID — ONE -TON TRUCK FOR UTILITY DEPARTMENT IN PUBLIC WORKS Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle awarding the bid for one -ton truck for Utility Department in Public Works to the recommended low bidder, Midway Ford Commercial Fleet and Government Sales at $28,984.49. Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes. *AWARD OF BID — TRUCK BODY FOR 1 -TON TRUCK FOR UTILITY DEPARTMENT IN PUBLIC WORKS Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle awarding the bid for truck body for 1 -ton truck for Utility Department in Public Works to the recommended low bidder, ABM Equipment & Supply at $33,801.36. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2011 -2015 PRESENTED Assistant Finance Director Roggeman presented the 2011 -2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mr. Roggeman explained the CIP prioritized the City's capital spending decisions for the next five years. Page 1 Minutes /Edina City Council /November 1. 2010 The City Council noted 2011 CIP projects would be included in the 2011 Operating Budget, and years 2012 to 2015 were a general guide and subject to revision. At the request of the City Council, Mr. Roggeman, Public Works Director /City Engineer Houle, Communications Director Bennerotte, and Edinborough Park Manager Ann Kattreh described anticipated CIP projects and funding sources. Mr. Houle stated that if the Minnesota State Aid Funds were allowed to accumulate until they equaled three times the annual apportionment from the state those funds would be re- distributed to other agencies. He stated that Edina therefore always has projects in the CIP that utilize those funds. It was also noted that Edina's three liquor stores netted about $1 million annually. *RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -112 ADOPTED — AUTHORIZING FACSIMILE SIGNATURES Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle to adopt Resolution No. 2010 -112, authorizing use of facsimile signatures by public officials. Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes. *RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -113 ADOPTED — AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle to adopt Resolution No. 2010 -113, authorizing investment agreement. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. *HEARING DATE SET (NOVEMBER 16. 2010) — FOR PLANNING ITEMS — AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE: 1. NON - CONFORMING USE /ALTERNATE SETBACK STANDARDS: 2. DRIVEWAY WIDTH: AND, 3. ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES AND ESTABLISHING A PUD DISTRICT Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle setting public hearing date of November 16, 2010, for planning items: amendments to Zoning Ordinance: 1. non - conforming use /alternate setback standards; 2. driveway width; and, 3. administration and procedures and establishing a PUD district. Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -87 ADOPTED — ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained that in order to comply with State Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2010 -87, accepting various donations. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Diana Hedges, 5135 Motor Street, Art Center Director, invited all to the Thursday, Taste of Creativity, 4:30- 7:30 p.m., at the Art Center. *CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR WEST 70TH STREET APPROVED Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle to authorize the Interim City Manager to approve the proposal for construction services for West 70`h Street from TH -100 to France Avenue. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. COMMUNITY COMMENT No one appeared to comment. *CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS PAID Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle approving payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated October 21, 2010, and consisting of 26 pages: General Fund $363,530.83; CDBG Fund $46.00; Communications Fund $7,974.44; Police Special Revenue $583.96; City Hall Debt Service $900.00; Working Capital Fund Page 2 Minutes /Edina City Council /November 1. 2010 $9,437.71; Equipment Replacement Fund $4,435.71; Art Center Fund $3,214.80; Golf Dome Fund $439.13; Aquatic Center Fund $98.32; Golf Course Fund $24,897.69; Ice Arena Fund $153,455.03; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund $10,385.06; Liquor Fund $191,765.68; Utility Fund $52,795.26; Storm Sewer Fund $518.08; Recycling Fund $37,683.00; PSTF Agency Fund $14,967.11; Payroll Fund $3,219.59; TOTAL $880.347.00 and for approval of payment of claims dated October 28, 2010, and consisting of 30 pages: General Fund $253,968.93; Communications Fund $622.79; Working Capital Fund $440,590.01; Equipment Replacement Fund $59,181.21; Construction Fund $364.65; Art Center Fund $6,743.88; Golf Dome Fund $1,038.68; Aquatic Center Fund $4,080.20; Golf Course Fund $7,901.41; Ice Arena Fund $1,837.72; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund $31,162.31; Liquor Fund $133,957.19; Utility Fund $113,481.09; Storm Sewer Fund $116,480.72; Recycling Fund $41.02; PSTF Agency Fund $1,962.32; TOTAL $1.173.414.13. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications Director Minutes approved by Edina City Council, November 16, 2010. James B. Hovland, Mayor Video Copy of the November 1, 2010, meeting available. Page 3 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL NOVEMBER 1, 2010 5:08 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Staff attending the meeting included: Ceil Smith, Interim City Manager; Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Marketing Director; Sherry Engelman, Community Health Administrator; Wayne Houle, City Engineer /Director of Public Works; Jeff Long, Police Chief; John Keprios, Park & Recreation Director; Steve Kirchman, Chief Building Official; Eric Roggeman, Assistant Finance Director; Marty Scheerer, Fire Chief; Matt Sisterman, I.T. Director; Cary Teague; Planning Director; and John Wallin, Finance Director. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the 2011 Operating Budget. Finance Director Wallin summarized the budget process to date. In June, the Council directed staff to prepare a budget based on a levy of Edina's maximum state - allowed basic levy, plus a special levy for unallotted Market Value Homestead Credit. The budget was not to include any new programs, and it was assumed that additional cuts beyond those made in 2009 and 2010 would not be necessary. In September, the Council approved a preliminary levy representing an increase of 2.3 percent over the 2010 levy. Since then, the debt for the City Hall construction was refinanced, so the Finance Department has proposed a budget that would result in a levy increase of 1.15 percent. The City has the flexibility of levying up to 2.3 percent if salary costs were increased as the result of labor contracts yet to be settled or if the Council would like to add any new or increased programs. Director Wallin said several groups have asked for additional funding since the budget work session in June. The Council was asked to consider allocating an additional $40,000 for the Energy & Environment Commission, $10,000 more for the Public Art Committee, $10,000 to participate in a regional economic development agency and $2,500 more for the Edina Historical Society. Mayor Hovland asked the Council to consider increasing the City Council's budget to attend conferences and other continuing education events. Consensus was not to increase the City Council's budget. Members suggested the vacant Assistant City Manager position be left open the first quarter of 2011, resulting in a savings that could fund the requests from the Public Art Committee, Historical Society and regional economic development agency. Council Member Brindle pointed out that the Edina Resource Center was not given its full funding request in the human services budget, which could negatively impact the center's 1.5 FTE staffing level. The Edina Resource Center requested $38,316. The Human Rights & Relations Commission allocated $37,000 in its human services budget, the same amount funded in 2010. However, the Commission reconsidered the request at its meeting Sept. 28, voting to give the Resource Center the full amount of its request. Council members were asked to fund the additional $1,316, but the consensus was that the human services budget of $81,000 should remain at that amount. The Human Rights & Relations Commission was charged with reallocating funds within that amount to allow for the full funding request of the Edina Resource Center. The Council reviewed several sections of the proposed budget, including Mayor and Council, Administration, Planning, Finance, Election, Assessing, Legal and Court Services, Commissions and Special Projects, Public Works, Public Safety and Park and Recreation. Council Member Housh asked if the City should continue to fund its membership in Metro Cities. Mayor Hovland said he thought the membership was still important for the City of be part of transportation - related decisions. Council Member Bennett suggested the Park & Recreation Department reconsider the $9 per person user fee charged to athletic associations of priority field use. Staff was asked what the result of a 0 percent levy increase would mean for the City. Assistant Finance Director Roggeman said that about $300,000 would need to be cut from the General Fund, likely resulting in staff reductions. With less staff, Public Works Director Houle said residents could expect a delay in snowplowing. Fire Chief Scheerer said one ambulance would be cut from EMS service. Council members indicated their desire to proceed with the budget as planned, without additional cuts. Director Wallin said the Finance Department would like to discuss the budget and the Edinborough and Centennial Lakes parks investment fund at the Council's next work session. The Finance Department was working to separate the Edinborough and Centennial Lakes parks accounts and would like direction from the Council about how to most equitably split the investment fund. There being no further business, Mayor Hovland adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Marketing Director Minutes approved by Edina City Council, November 16, 2010 James B. Hovland, Mayor MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2010 AT 5:00 P.M. Mayor Pro Tern Housh called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Swenson and Mayor Pro Tern Housh. Absent was Mayor Hovland. Clerk Mangen noted six candidates filed for office of Council Member in City of Edina. Ms. Mangen said 25,463 people cast ballots at the November 2, 2010 Municipal Election. She reported the two candidates receiving the most votes were Joni Bennett and Josh Sprague. The Council reviewed the results from the November 2, 2010, City Election. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle to accept the Abstract of Canvass as follows: ABSTRACT OF VOTES CAST IN THE PRECINCTS OF THE CITY OF EDINA STATE OF MINNESOTA AT THE STATE GENERAL ELECTION FOR THE CITY OF EDINA ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2010 The Edina City Council inspected and compared the summary statements certified by the Election Judges with the General Election Returns for the City of Edina Election held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010. We as the legally constituted municipal canvassing board, certify that we have herein specified the names of the persons receiving votes for the office of Council member of the City of Edina at the State General Election held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010. The votes cast were certified as follows: with Joni Bennett and Josh Sprague elected to terms as Council Members for four year terms commencing January 4, 2011. GENERAL ELECTION RETURNS 2010 CITY ELECTION Pct. No Azar Bennett Brown Fronek Kehr Sprague Write -ins Overvotes Undervotes Pct Total 1A 80 477 353 324 76 396 20 0 892 2618 1B 132 488 555 566 82 388 7 0 804 3022 2 87 489 251 273 60 354 9 0 721 2244 3 69 630 703 591 55 437 12 1 0 829 3326 4 63 863 301 294 29 499 10 0 743 2802 5 173 609 570 560 81 519 7 2 761 3282 6 93 652 352 490 70 557 15 2 729 2960 7 52 447 235 348 45 341 5 2 647 2122 8 79 531 503 496 43 387 13 2 686 2740 9 68 538 395 433 45 377 8 0 578 2442 10 96 476 481 477 43 345 3 1 2 721 2644 11 107 586 486 621 71 417 12 4 824 3128 12 64 334 299 255 36 343 8 0 407 1746 13 59 282 192 135 71 268 6 4 633 1650 14 90 594 306 325 59 507 9 2 954 2846 15 90 578 524 486 75 433 7 0 795 2988 16 84 449 304 282 49 431 10 0 611 2220 17 92 660 220 238 109 380 8 4 1157 2868 18 82 463 222 141 80 281 5 0 686 1960 19 48 273 183 220 31 229 8 2 324 1318 Totals 1708 10419 7435 7555 1210 7889 182 26 14502 50926 Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Swenson, Housh Motion carried Mayor Pro Tern Housh declared the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Y 1 oe l�,�Rese REPORPRECOMMEN DATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No: II. A. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE1- ® Action Public Works Director/ F-1 Discussion City Engineer Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: Public Hearing Neighborhood Street Reconstruction: Ridge Road Improvements: BA -384, Resolution No. 2010 -115 ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council determines the project to be necessary, cost - effective, and feasible, Council shall adopt Resolution No. 2010 -115 accepting the feasibility study and approving Ridge Road Improvement, Improvement No. BA -384, authorize plans and specifications to be completed and bids taken. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: This project was reinitiated by residents of Ridge Road. Staff and consultant have met with the residents at two informational meetings and numerous times in the field. The proposed design includes reconstructing the existing roadway including adding new colored concrete curbs, major improvements to the storm water system and minor improvements to the water and sanitary sewer systems. Staff is recommending a unique style curb for this project. We feel that the curb will provide the means to channelize surface water into a storm sewer system, while providing the individuality of the adjoining properties. Staff does not recommend that this style curb be incorporated as a choice on more standard roadway corridors within Edina. The overall project cost is estimated at $768,000, which includes City owned utility repairs. Funding for the roadway cost will be from special assessment of 100% of the roadway cost. All City owned utility repairs will be funded from the respective utility funds. The Feasibility Study is included in this Council packet. The public hearing notice and list of labels are included in this report as is all resident correspondence. r Staff has analyzed the project and feels that the project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2010 -115 Feasibility Study — BA -384 Certification of Mailing Public Hearing Notice Resident Correspondence G: \Engineering \Improvements \BA384 Ridge Road (formerly A-1 99)\PRELIM DESIGNTEASIBILITY (All Pre- Designs)\PUBLIC HEARINGS \Item IIA Public Hearing Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Ridge Road Improvements BA384 Resolution No 2010 - 115.docx RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -115 ORDERING IMPROVEMENT FOR RIDGE ROAD STREET AND UTILITY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -384 City of Edina WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council, adopted the 19th day of October, 2010, fixed a date for a council hearing on Improvement No. BA -384, the proposed improvement of Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction; and WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 16th day of November, 2010, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible to update aging infrastructure and address several issues including drainage problems, sanitary sewer problems and water main improvements and upgrades. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered. 3. The city engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 4. The city council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds. Dated: November 16, 2010 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City, of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of November 16, 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20 City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com City Clerk 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 -826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 v • w�l A,rte FEASIBILITY STUDY — BA -384 o e }tA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT /� CITY OF EDINA v .a RIDGE ROAD STREET AND UTILITY RECONSTRUCTION November 16, 2010 LOCATION: The project area includes Ridge Road (Green Farms Road to Interlachen Boulevard). The drawing below is a detailed project location map of the Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction. INITIATION & ISSUES: This project was reinitiated by the property owners along Ridge Road between Green Farms Road and Interlachen Boulevard. This project was originally scheduled to be part of the 2005 road reconstruction project that included Schaefer Road. After an open house meeting in November 2004, Ridge Road property owners opposed the 2005 project. The property owners presented a letter to the City Council on December 21, 2004. This letter was signed by almost all of the property owners living along this segment of Ridge Road. In the letter the property owners requested that no concrete curb and gutter be installed along Ridge Road. The letter went on to request no assessments be levied against Ridge Road property owners for the reconstruction of Ridge Road. In April of 2005 the Council removed Ridge Road from the 2005 project. In January 2010 the City received a letter from the Ridge Road property owners requesting that the condition of Ridge Road's pavement be improved, which prompted the City to resume the preparation of this feasibility study. Included in the Appendix of this study are the invitations, attendance rosters, presentations, and minutes from the neighborhood meetings held on September 22, 2010, and October 27, 2010. Feasibility Study Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction November 16, 2010 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS: Streets Ridge Road is unique. As its name implies, Ridge Road north of 5200 Ridge Road (please refer to Drawing No. 1 in this study's Appendix for the location of this address) parallells and is just east of, and below, a north -south ridge line that in some areas has an elevation in excess of 1,000 feet. Because this segment of Ridge Road was built into the side of the ridge, it was built narrower than a typical City street and without concrete curb and gutter. By building this segment of Ridge Road this way it better accommodates usable driveway slopes to homes built along the east side of the road with signifacantly lower garage floor elevations than those homes built along the west side of the road. Ridge Road north of 5200 Ridge Road was constructed in the 1960's and early 1970's. It varies in width between 18 and 21 feet. Because it is narrow, it was built into the side of a ridge without concrete curb and gutter, and has varied boulevard treatments that are in many locations immediately adjacent to the edge of its pavement, Ridge Road north of 5200 Ridge Road has a unique sense of place best described as a "country lane." Ridge Road south of 5200 Ridge Road turns to the west and climbs the ridge. As it turns and climbs the ridge the garage floors on the west and east sides of the road share more similar elevations. This fact allows the road south of 5200 Ridge Road to be wider and still accommodate usable driveway slopes. Ridge Road South of 5200 Ridge Road was constructed in the early 1980's with surmountable concrete curb and gutter at a consistent width of 26 feet. The surmountable concrete curb and gutter is in satisfactory condition. Because it is wider and has surmountable concrete curb and gutter Ridge Road south of 5200 Ridge Road has a sense of place best described as a typical City street. Figure 1 demonstrates the difference between Ridge Road north and south of 5200 Ridge Road. Ridge Road North of 5200 Ridge Road — "Country Lane" Figure 1 Ridge Road South of 5200 Ridge Road — Typical City Street While the pavement condition varies along the entire length of Ridge Road, it is in generally poor condition. Patches, overlays, and sections of alligator cracking are present at random locations throughout the project area. As part of this study and past explorations done in 2004, a total of 7 soil borings were taken along Ridge Road. Those borings show that on average there is 6 inches of bituminous pavement over 10 inches of aggregate base. Feasibility Study Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction November 16, 2010 'age 3 The borings reported that ground water is present in Ridge Road's subgrade soils north of about 5012 Ridge Road and between about 5109 and 5120 Ridge Road as well as between about 5209 to 5215 Ridge Road. Several property owners in these areas reported that they operate a sump pump. The presence of these pumps further confirms that ground water is present in these areas. The ground water likely causes the visible pavement distresses in Ridge Road at these locations despite Ridge Road's existing pavement section. Figure 2 shows some of these distresses. Pavement Distresses at 5120 Ridge Road Figure 2 Pavement Distresses at 5215 Ridge Road Figure No. 3 shows that Ridge Road's tee style intersection with Interlachen Boulevard is sloped both south to north and west to east. y ,tea Ridge Road Looking South from Interlachen Boulevard Looking West Interlachen Boulevard from Ridge Road Figure 3 - Ridge Road at Interlachen Boulevard No storm sewer trunk pipe or inlets service this intersection. Property owners have stated that ice builds up on Ridge Road near the intersection making it difficult for northbound Ridge Road drivers to stop their cars at Interlachen Boulevard. Feasibility Study Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction November 16, 2010 Page 4 Driveway pavements that feature decorative concrete textures and brick paver blocks are present along Ridge Road. Numerous private retaining walls and decorative landscaping features are located in the City -owned boulevard. Figure 4 shows some of these features. .i Figure 4 - Retaining Walls and Decorative Landscaping Features at 5008 Ridge Road Public Utilities South of 5200 Ridge Road the public utilities were constructed in the early 1980's. North of 5200 Ridge Road the public utilities were constructed in the 1960's and early 1970's. The project area is located in the legal boundary of the Nine Mile Creek watershed. An 8 -inch and 9 -inch diameter trunk sanitary sewer pipe serve this segment of Ridge Road. Due to significant ground elevation differences between the west and east sides of Ridge Road, properties along the east side of Ridge Road north of 5201 Ridge Road are served by trunk sanitary sewer trunk pipes traversing the backyards. The balance of the properties are served by trunk sanitary sewer pipes located near the center of Ridge Road. At the time of this study's publication, closed- circuit television inspections of the trunk sanitary sewer pipes are incomplete. However, there are no recorded blockages of trunk sanitary sewer pipes. Trunk water main and service pipes in the project area are in satisfactory condition based on the age and material of the pipes. There are no recorded water main or service breaks in the neighborhood. Fire hydrants serving Ridge Road are not City standard hydrants. Storm water runoff from properties west of Ridge Road used to flow across Ridge Road to the properties east of Ridge Road and ultimately into the ponds north and south of Harold Woods Lane because of the significant ground elevation differences between the west and east sides of Ridge Road north of 5200 Ridge � r OW. .i Figure 4 - Retaining Walls and Decorative Landscaping Features at 5008 Ridge Road Public Utilities South of 5200 Ridge Road the public utilities were constructed in the early 1980's. North of 5200 Ridge Road the public utilities were constructed in the 1960's and early 1970's. The project area is located in the legal boundary of the Nine Mile Creek watershed. An 8 -inch and 9 -inch diameter trunk sanitary sewer pipe serve this segment of Ridge Road. Due to significant ground elevation differences between the west and east sides of Ridge Road, properties along the east side of Ridge Road north of 5201 Ridge Road are served by trunk sanitary sewer trunk pipes traversing the backyards. The balance of the properties are served by trunk sanitary sewer pipes located near the center of Ridge Road. At the time of this study's publication, closed- circuit television inspections of the trunk sanitary sewer pipes are incomplete. However, there are no recorded blockages of trunk sanitary sewer pipes. Trunk water main and service pipes in the project area are in satisfactory condition based on the age and material of the pipes. There are no recorded water main or service breaks in the neighborhood. Fire hydrants serving Ridge Road are not City standard hydrants. Storm water runoff from properties west of Ridge Road used to flow across Ridge Road to the properties east of Ridge Road and ultimately into the ponds north and south of Harold Woods Lane because of the significant ground elevation differences between the west and east sides of Ridge Road north of 5200 Ridge Feasibility Study Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction November 16, 2010 'age 5 Road. Drawing No. 1 shows these ponds. The affect of these ground elevations on the path of the storm water runoff was aggravated by the lack of trunk storm sewer pipes and inlets along Ridge Road. During the 1980's trunk storm sewer pipe was added to Ridge Road only in the immediate vicinity 5200, 5201, and 5205 Ridge Road. Simultaneously, surmountable concrete curb and gutter was installed south of 5200 Ridge Road. The trunk storm sewer pipe was not extended north towards Interlachen Boulevard. Thus storm water runoff travels 2 to 3 times further overland than the recommended maximum distance of 500 feet before entering an inlet. Over the years individual property owners north of 5200 Ridge Road along the east side of Ridge Road have built at their own expense their own berm -based systems in or near the City right -of -way to divert storm water runoff from the west side of Ridge Road away from their properties. Figure 5 depicts a portion of those berm -based systems. This diverted storm water runoff flows either north or south along the edges of Ridge Road to either Interlachen Boulevard or the storm sewer inlets in the vicinity 5200, 5201 and 5205 Ridge Road. Figure 5 - Berm -based Systems at 5021 and 5025 Ridge Road Because of these berm -based systems, except during large storm events, storm water runoff no longer flows to the ponds north and south of Harold Woods Lane. Instead it flows to Mirror Lake or Nine Mile Creek via Interlachen Boulevard and storm sewer inlets in the vicinity 5200, 5201 and 5205 Ridge Road respectively. Property owners surrounding the north pond have stated that both the amounts, and quality of, the water in the pond is declining. Subgrade soils in the project area are generally clay with some silty sand. Eleven property owners reported that they operate sump pumps. The sump pumps convey ground water away from the homes on these properties. Pumps operating on the west side of Ridge Road generally discharge into side and backyards or to Ridge Road itself. Discharges into side or back -yards then either seep back towards the home generating the discharge or towards a home on neighboring property. Discharges onto Ridge Road tend to pool along the edge of the street. Pumps operating on the east side of Ridge Road generally Feasibility Study Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction November 16, 2010 Page 6 discharge into backyards and safely flow over land into existing low areas or ponds along their easterly property lines. The existing trunk storm sewer pipe network, berm -based systems, surmountable concrete curb and gutter, and longitudinal street slopes convey storm water runoff from Ridge Road. Private Utilities Providers of privately owned gas, electric, telephone, and cable television utilities all have infrastructure in the neighborhood. These utilities are either overhead on poles or buried underground both within and outside of the street right -of -way (ROW). North and south of 5200 Ridge Road the gas main trunk and service pipes are made of steel and plastic respectively. Ten property owners reported that they operate either an underground pet containment, lawn irrigation, or driveway pavement heating system within Ridge Road's boulevards. Residential Roadway Lighting Ornamental street lights and cobra head style street lights mounted on the wooden power poles exist south and north of 5200 Ridge Road respectively. The street lights are located at Ridge.Road's intersection with Green Farms Road and Interlachen Boulevard. Few street lights are scattered in- between these intersections. Property owners north of 5200 Ridge Road have stated that there are not enough street lights north of 5200 Ridge Road. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: Reconstruction will primarily improve Ridge Road's deteriorated street pavement. This primary improvement will include installing drain tile pipe at select locations in the street's subgrade soils. This drain tile pipe will collect ground water that is damaging the pavement. It will also include reconstructing Ridge Road's street pavement section. Reconstruction will extend existing trunk storm pipes to collect storm water runoff sooner than it is today. Wherever possible, reconstruction will install a sump pump drain tile pipe connected to the trunk storm sewer pipes. The sump pump drain tile pipe will allow property owners to discharge their sump pumps into storm sewer trunk pipes rather than onto the ground surface or Ridge Road. Minor repairs would be made to the trunk sanitary sewer and water main pipes. Boulevard tree removal is not part of this project. Streets Property owners along Ridge Road requested the City consider reconstructing Ridge Road while maintaining its sense of place as a "country lane" north of 5200 Ridge Road. On September 22, the City hosted an informational meeting to brainstorm with Ridge Road property owners ways to possibly reconstruct this particular segment while maintaining a sense of place as a "country lane ". At the conclusion of the meeting, staff directed SEH to draft three roadway reconstruction ideas favored by _ property owners into a few schematic level reconstruction designs. All of the designs would include the reconstruction of the street's pavement. Staff also directed SEH to prepare an estimate of the cost to be assessed to property owners. r' Feasibility Study Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction November 16, 2010 'age 7 One roadway reconstruction idea favored by the property owners is the installation of a concrete bulkhead curb made of colored concrete north of 5200 Ridge Road. Drawing No. 3 shows what a colored concrete bulkhead curb might look like installed along this particular segment of Ridge Road. Due to this particular segment of Ridge Road's unique sense of place as a "country lane" City staff requests that the Council consider allowing this colored bulkhead curb without its concrete gutter pan; even though it does not comply with the City's standard concrete curb and gutter configuration. While the colored concrete bulkhead curb idea does not offer all of the benefits of the City's standard curb and gutter configuration, City staff believes it' offers a reasonable compromise between functionality .and aesthetics that best fits this particular unique "country lane." On October 27, the City hosted a second informational meeting for property owners to meet with members of the project team and review the designs and estimate of the cost to be assessed to property owners. The meeting included a brief presentation and discussion among the property owners and project design team. At the conclusion of the meeting staff asked property owners for a recommendation of which schematic level design to include in the feasibility study. Property owners north of 5200 Ridge Road recommended inclusion of the colored concrete bulkhead curb and trench drain reconstruction ideas. Because no property owners south of 5200 Ridge Road were present at the meeting, City staff chose to include in this study the reconstruction idea that allows the existing surmountable concrete curb and gutter to remain in place. The project will remove the deteriorated panels of the existing surmountable concrete curb and gutter and replace them with new panels of surmountable concrete curb and gutter. Reconstruction will feature methods will.that cause minimal boulevard disruption. Such methods will allow the preservation of each property owner's individual boulevard landscape treatments that define their sense of place as a "country lane." Reconstruction will include a new bituminous surface. In order to preserve individual boulevard landscape treatments, Ridge Road will be reconstructed to approximately its existing width or slightly narrower. Because of the thick existing pavement section, wherever possible the existing pavement structure will be recycled and reincorporated into the proposed street section as a layer of aggregate base course. Where wet, unstable subgrade soils are encountered during construction, the soils will be excavated and removed from the site. Geotextile fabric will be installed in the bottom of the excavation and covered with a layer of clean sand backfill. Perforated drain tiles will be installed in the sand to carry away ground water that seeps under Ridge Road. Property owners have stated that ice builds up on Ridge Road at Interlachen Boulevard making it difficult for northbound Ridge Road drivers to stop at the stop sign at Interlachen Boulevard. If the Council accepts this study and orders the preparation of bidding documents, an investigation will be made into a solution to this icing problem. Feasibility Study Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction November 16, 2010 Page 8 Public Utilities Reconstruction will repair the trunk sanitary sewer pipes that have either tree roots intruding into the pipe or the pipe itself has sagged or cracked. Soon to be completed closed circuit televsion inspections will provide the exact locations, if any, of these repairs. Wherever possible, the repairs will be completed using open cut repair methods. In sensitive locations, repairs will be completed using trenchless repair methods. If repairs are. needed along the trunk sanitary sewer pipe traversing,the backyards along the east side of Ridge Road north of 5201 Ridge Road, those repairs would likely feature trenchless repair methods done during winter months to minimize damage to private property. Because the trunk water main pipe and service pipes in the project area are in satisfactory condition, reconstruction will only replace all of the existing fire hydrants with new City standard hydrants. While property owners report their own berm -based systems in or near the City right -of -way successfully divert storm water runoff from the west side of Ridge Road away from their properties, reconstruction offers the opportunity to extend trunk storm sewer trunk pipe to collect storm water runoff sooner than it is collected today. A trunk storm sewer pipe extension can reintroduce some of the storm water runoff from the west side of Ridge Road back into the pond north of Harold Woods Lane that has been cut -off by the berm -based systems. Accomplishing, this reintroduction involves installing a trunk storm sewer pipe between Ridge Road and the shore at the southwest corner of the north pond as shown by Drawing No. 1. Reintroducing storm water runoff back into this pond could improve its water quality by introducing more water to the pond on a more frequent basis. Because the ponds north and'south of Harold Woods Lane are connected by a trunk storm sewer pipe beneath Harold Woods Lane, the water quality of the south pond could also improve. Hydraulic modeling reports the additional storm water runoff will not flood the, homes on the properties around either north or south pond. Storm water runoff collection will occur sooner by deploying trench drains across driveway ends at critical locations and installing a colored concrete bulkhead curb north of 5200 Ridge Road to contain storm water runoff at the edge of Ridge Road until it reaches new inlets. A driveway end location is critical if it contributes, or takes away, a large amount of storm water runoff along Ridge Road. Drawing No. 2 shows how the trench drains can be added to critical driveway ends.. Drawing No. 3 shows the proposed colored concrete bulkhead curb with a typical storm sewer inlet .installation. Two storm water runoff treatment manholes will be installed in the project. These special manholes remove most of the sandy sediment and floatable debris from storm water runoff before it enters a pipe leading to a pond or creek. Reconstruction will address ground water flow issues by installing a sump pump drain tile- pipe along Ridge Road's westerly boulevard. The City will encourage property owners at their own expense to connect their sump pump discharge service pipes to the sump pump drain tile pipe. Such a connection will prevent Feasibility Study Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction November 16, 2010 'age 9 their sump pumps from discharging back into their yards or onto Ridge Road. A sump pump drain tile pipe is not proposed along the east side of Ridge Road because today property owner sump pump discharges flow safely over land into low areas or ponds along their easterly property lines. Private � Utilities CenterPoint Energy reports they will take advantage of street reconstruction in the project area to upgrade all of their steel gas main trunk and service pipes`to plastic pipe. These pipes are located north of 5200. Ridge. Road. The City would coordinate this upgrade with CenterPoint Energy prior to the start of street reconstruction. The City will repair any damage to. privately -owned heated driveway, pet containment, and lawn irrigation utilities caused by reconstruction activities. Residential Roadway Lighting During the 'September 22 informational meeting, property owners requested the City to investigate the cost of burying ,the overhead power lines north of 5200 Ridge Road. Xcel Energy reported this work would cost at least $8,200 per benefitting property owner. The property owners would need to coordinate this work with Xcel Energy. If the property owners decide not to pay for Xcel Energy to bury the overhead power lines and eliminate the wooden poles, then the City can have discussions with Xcel Energy about adding cobra -style street lights to a few more existing wooden power poles north of 5200 Ridge Road. Additional street lighting is not being considered south of 5200 Ridge Road. RIGHT -OF -WAY: Adequate right -of -way exists to reconstruct Ridge Road. EASEMENTS: An easement is needed from the property owner at 5021 Ridge Road to install the trunk storm sewer pipe shown in Drawing No. 1.6etween Ridge Road and the shore at the southwest corner of the pond north of Harold Woods Lane. During October 2010, the City met on -site to begin discussions with the property owner regarding the feasibility of, this trunk storm sewer pipe. Further discussions are tabled. until after, the Council decides whether or not to accept this study and order the preparation of bidding documents. If the Council does accept this . study and orders the preparation of bidding documents, easement discussions with the property owner.at 5021 Ridge Road would need to quickly resume. Because pipe installation would likely use trenchless methods. Machines needed to execute a trenchless installation would likely operate from the pond -end of the proposed pipe. The route for the machines to access this to the pond -end of the pipe is likely first an existing utility easement between 6404 and 6501 Harold Woods Lane then second across the surface of the pond north of Harold Woods Lane. This route is only available during winter months when the pond north of Harold Woods Lane is frozen. If the Council were to award a contract to reconstruct Ridge Road during summer 2011, this trunk storm sewer pipe and it's manhole in Ridge Road would need to already be complete and ready to accept storm water runoff from trunk storm sewer pipe installed in Ridge Road during summer 2011. Therefore the Feasibility Study Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction November 16, 2010 Page 10 construction of the trunk storm -sewer pipe shown in Drawing No. 1 likely needs to be,completed during winter 2010/2011. If an easement is not successfully negotiated with the property owner at 5021 Ridge Road, the trunk storm sewer pipe, extension proposed along} Ridge Road would be redirected to drain to the existing :trunk storm sewer pipe in the immediate vicinity of 5200, 5201, and 5205 Ridge Road. PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is:$768,000 (2011 Dollars). The estimated project cost.is summarized in the Table 1. Table 1 Summary of Total Estimated Project Cost ITEM ' COST - CIT Y RESIDENTS Sanitary Sewer $25,300 Water Main $36,500 Storm Sewer $443,000 Street Reconstruction $263,200 Sub - total . $504,800 $263,200 Total $768,000 ' Cost to be assessed to residents 2 Costs are given in 2011 Dollars The j6tal,.estim ated cost includes indirect costs for engineering and clerical and finance costs from start of construction to final assessment hearing. ASSESSMENTS: At the September 22 informational meeting, property owners suggested the creation of two assessment areas along Ridge Road. These two areas would reflect the fact that addresses greater than 5200 already had surmountable concrete curb and gutter along the edge of Ridge Road. City staff agreed with this suggestion Drawing No. 1 shows these two assessment areas called A and B. An estimated special 'assessment rate of approximately $9,800 (2011 Dollars) per residential equivalent unit (REU) is proposed to be levied against the property owners in Area A. An estimated special assessment rate. of approximately $11`1000 (2011 Dollars) per residential equivalent unit (REU) is proposed to be levied against the property owners in Area B. There are 24.67 REU's in the project area. Properties that abut the project but their addresses are not included in the project will be either not assessed due to past assessments or assessed at either 1/3 or 2/3 of the estimated rate. Drawing 1 in the Appendix of this study summarizes the application of these estimated assessment rate. FEASIBILITY: The improvements are necessary, cost - effective, and feasible from an engineering stand point. Feasibility Study Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction November 16, 2010 `age 11 PROJECT SCHEDULE: The estimated schedule shown in Table 2 is feasible from an Engineering stand point. Table 2 Project Schedule Event Date Public Improvement Hearing November 16, 2010 Bid Opening February 2011 Award Contract March 2011 Begin Construction May 2011 Complete Construction Fall 2011 Final Assessment Hearing Fall 2012 1 APPENDIX Drawing No. 1 Assessment Summary Drawing No. 2 Typical Trench Drain Installation (Looking South from 5020 Ridge Road) Drawing No. 3 Typical Colored Concrete Bulkhead Curb and Catch Basin (Looking North from 5025 Ridge Road) ➢ Certification Page ➢ Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 1 Invitation dated September 1, 2010 ➢ Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 1 Attendance Roster dated September 22, 2010 ➢ Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 1 Presentation dated September 22, 2010 ➢ Minutes from Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 1 ➢ Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 2 Invitation dated October 5, 2010 ➢ Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 2 Revised Invitation dated October 13, 2010 ➢ Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 2 Attendance Roster dated October 27, 2010 ➢ Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 2 Presentation dated October 27, 2010 ➢ Minutes from Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 2 ➢ Preliminary Assessment Roll Z W 4930 4931 6600 W 4931 6520 51 4928 (g 4929 6424 4909 6416 2 6408 6400 UJ 0 LL PARK TER INTERLACHEN BLVD 0 5001 E 5030 5a5 5029 6547 6401 6519 6501 E w 0 0 a" o 0 0 0 Sa o6 a� 0 �N 0 0 0 0 0 Mug t� SE 5009 E413 6 <79 6405 5004 5004 5013 sozl as E4U4 5025 5012 HAROLD WOODS LN 5101 6501 5016 5109 6405 am 5201 5204 5200 5200 5210 Legend 5212 Existing Ponds 5210 5209 5 Proposed Trunk Storm Sewer Pipe 5215 Area A- 1 REU Estimated $9,800 5216 Z J Assessment (2011 Dollars) 00 5214 5L 11 5215 0 52 Area B - 1 REU Estimated $11,000 Assessment (2011 Dollars) 6 9 GREEN FARMS CT J Area B - 113 REU Estimated $3,700 5218 9 521 Assessment (2011 Dollars) 5219 Not Assessed 5223 5.24 00 522 Project Limits 5222 5227 5231 5228 0 0 5304 5305 6404 6400 5226 5227 Ridge Road Project. Drawing Assessment EDINA 113694 Street Reconstruction No. I„' No. BA -384 Print Date: Summary 1 Edina, Minnesota 11/02/2010 am 0 4 tCA5 50; 5036 Z 10 8 J 09 W U) 5`42 J W 5013 Y 2 5046 c,V17 5016 5021 ICELSEy 506D CGS 5100 E619 5025 5104 510.8 f APPLE LN ; L i 5112 c 5116 0 0 5200 E w 0 0 a" o 0 0 0 Sa o6 a� 0 �N 0 0 0 0 0 Mug t� SE 5009 E413 6 <79 6405 5004 5004 5013 sozl as E4U4 5025 5012 HAROLD WOODS LN 5101 6501 5016 5109 6405 am 5201 5204 5200 5200 5210 Legend 5212 Existing Ponds 5210 5209 5 Proposed Trunk Storm Sewer Pipe 5215 Area A- 1 REU Estimated $9,800 5216 Z J Assessment (2011 Dollars) 00 5214 5L 11 5215 0 52 Area B - 1 REU Estimated $11,000 Assessment (2011 Dollars) 6 9 GREEN FARMS CT J Area B - 113 REU Estimated $3,700 5218 9 521 Assessment (2011 Dollars) 5219 Not Assessed 5223 5.24 00 522 Project Limits 5222 5227 5231 5228 0 0 5304 5305 6404 6400 5226 5227 Ridge Road Project. Drawing Assessment EDINA 113694 Street Reconstruction No. I„' No. BA -384 Print Date: Summary 1 Edina, Minnesota 11/02/2010 am P: \AE \E \EdY , \4Prel \Foes Rcpod \Appendp \Drawing No.2 Typical Trench Drain Installation. dqn STAMPED CONCRETE APRON WITH CURB RADIUS lv,mio STAMPED CONCRETE APRON WITH DEPRESSED CURB RIDGE ROAD STREET AND FILE NO. EDINA 1""' DRAWING E NO. RECONSTRUCTION TYPICAL TRENCH DRAIN INSTALLATION �e NO. E NO. BA -384 DATE (LOOKING SOUTH FROM 5020 RIDGE RD) ~� EDINA. MINNESOTA 1V410 FEASIBILITY STUDY - BA -384 RIDGE ROAD STREET AND UTILITY RECONSTRUCTION SEH No. EDINA 113694 November 16, 2010 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota Date: Lic. No.: 24628 Reviewed by: —« — 11DO I Date Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200 Minnetonka, MN 55343 -9301 952.912.2600 Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction C 1.1 V of Edina Date: September 1, 2010 To: Property Owners of Ridge Road Edina, Minnesota From: City of Edina and Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Reference: What: Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 1 When: Wednesday, September 22,2010; 7:00 -9:00 p.m. Where: Edina Public Works Facility 7450 Metro Boulevard The City has hired the consulting engineering firm of Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to assist with the feasibility to rehabilitate Ridge Road. This reconstruction could take place during the summer of 2011. The City of Edina and SEH, Inc. would like to invite you to an information meeting as listed above. On September 3 a drill rig will collect samples of the foundation soils beneath Ridge Road needed for design work. The City completed some sampling 5 years ago. The samples collected today will supplement the older samples. Staff from SEH have already begun walking Ridge Road to gather information such as photographs and measurements. At the September 22 informational meeting we will be brainstorming with you on ways to improve the roadway while maintaining the roadway character that exists today. We anticipate that this will be a good ,hange of ideas between all parties attending. After this meeting, SEH will implement these ideas into design. A second informational meeting will then be held to share the estimated costs of the design(s). Additionally, you are also invited to an open house for all 2011 and 2012 roadway projects, which will be held on Monday, September 20, at 7:00 p.m. at Edina Public Works, 7450 Metro Boulevard. This open house will cover the basics of roadway reconstruction in the City, but will not address the specifics of any of the projects. You can learn more about roadway reconstruction in the City at hftp://www.citvofedina.com/Departments/L5-17a Construction Projects future.htm. The anticipated schedule for this project is: Open House for all 2011 & 2012 Projects .................September 20, 2010 7:00 p.m. Informational Meeting No. 1 ............ ......................September 22, 2010 7:00 pm Informational Meeting No. 2 .......... .......................October (date to be determined) Public Hearing ............................ .......................December / January Construction ............................. .........................Summer of 2011 What to bring to the informational meeting: Ideas, concerns, information on the neighborhood that you feel are important to the project. Information on lawn irrigation or pet fences along the roadway; this will help in reducing survey costs. We look forward to seeing you at the Informational Meeting. Wayne D. Houle, PE Paul J. Pasko III, PE Director of Public Works / City Engineer Project Manager City of Edina SEH Inc. 12- 826 -0443 952 - 912 -2611 4ahouleAci.edina.mmus p asko _sehinc.com City Hall 952 - 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952 - 826 -0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY 952 -826 -0379 weoGHBORHOOD 'NFORnnaT'oNaL.mEETrNG SEH ATTENDANCE ROSTER Re: Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction Edina, MN Project Manager: Paul Pasko III, PE Date of Meeting: September 22, 2010 Time of Meeting: 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. Location of Meeting: Edina Public Works Facility SEH No.: EDINA 113694 14.00 Name Address Telephone e-mail Lawn Pet Sump Irrigation Containment Pumps S stem System � �57 , i �02 /% 2�� � D � � 3b6 �a S - �,mldozc.(�w�C�he es o O Yes P No O Yes A No cf- Z_ 0 Yes O No 0 Yes O No 19,Yes O No ,3.3 ' �� � /� � 9 Yes O No 0 Yes Ja No 0 Yes JO No O Yes 0 Yes 0 Yes 13 No 0 N 0 N Yes ; Yes 0 Yes s`�� q3� 0177- ea@ ao 1, GOZ-1 0 No 0 No XNo c`✓, ��P W Yes 0 Yes OYes W�l�[•fYL r7GZo� ' �5a �,3?l � 1 ( wi, Li V, e( O No l to C3 No pip 031 � I (� � � � O Yes 9-90 0 Yes 1:3-IQb 0 Yes .0-wo S� � � 7a O v� [ �S` !s� l• �zrG vo 13 Yes O Yes C3 Yes 13 No [3 No 0 N O Yes C3 Yes O Yes O No O No C3 No P:\AE\F, Edina \113694 \4Pre1\Mtgs\9 2210\Attendance Roster.docx 1 4 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL SEH ATTENDANCE ROSTER Re: Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction Edina, MN Project Manager: Paul Pasko III, PE Date of Meeting: September 22, 2010 Time of Meeting: 7:00 — 9:00 pm. Location of Meeting: Edina Public Works Facility SEH No.: EDINA 113694 14.00 Name Address Telephone e-mail Lawn Pet Sump Irrigation Containment Pumps System System !SZ 2 &m eo , 0vK F Yes O No O Yes gNo R Yes O No SL Yes O Yes 0 Yes �fJ-�j �5� dl �5`a -135 �� `fi'�.er 9rns•► CUB O No St No allo %� c1 � d� C�(,�TIG-�lr�J �f6� ��-C'0 1 Yes 0 Yes RI, Yes S0i3 �{ix�E ✓S�Z 0 No No O No O Yes O , Yes oNes U-11 l�lj �l � � �/ �� � -�3� � f �' Lf.t/' c , titer JEI-No PE No O No 0 Yes 0 Yes O Yes 0 No 0 No 0 No O Yes O Yes 13 Yes 0 No 0 No O No O Yes 0 Yes O Yes 0 No O No O No 0 Yes 0 Yes 0 Yes O No 0 No 0 No 0 Yes 0 Yes 0 Yes 0 No 0 No O No P:\, E \Edina \113694 \4Prel\Mtgs\9 22 10\Attendance Roster.docx City of Edina & SEH September 22, 2010 Neighborhood Informational Meeting Reconstruction of Ridge Road r� !A CITY OF EDINA Goals of Tonight's Meeting • Brainstorm ways to improve the Ridge Road while maintaining the roadway's character that exists today • Achieve a good exchange of ideas between all parties attending tonight • At the meeting's conclusion, direct SEH to implement top ideas into 2 distinct design options • Collect information on lawn irrigation or pet fences along the roadway 3 -WH CITY OF EDINA __TTT Project Limit »W e` ��CITY OF EDINA Agenda •Introductions -Existing Conditions -City's Ideas for Improving Ridge Road -Your Ideas for Improving Ridge Road •Idea Discussion Review Exercise -Next Steps 2 -W H %A CITY OF EDINA Agenda •Introductions -Existing Conditions -City's Ideas for Improving Ridge Road -Your Ideas for Improving Ridge Road -Next Steps 4 -PJP3 L111 Recap of Existing Concerns CITY OF EDINA As We Understand Them •Storm water runoff causing erosion • Residents on easterly side experience surface flooding during storm events • Deteriorated roadway /band -aid solutions (potholes, bumps, loose gravel and pavement chunks resulting pedestrian and vehicular hazards and property damage) • Narrow road (not uniform and at some point a "country lane ") • Impact to major trees, boulders and retaining walls and inconvenience 6 -PJP3 Steps 2 -W H %A CITY OF EDINA Agenda •Introductions -Existing Conditions -City's Ideas for Improving Ridge Road -Your Ideas for Improving Ridge Road -Next Steps 4 -PJP3 L111 Recap of Existing Concerns CITY OF EDINA As We Understand Them •Storm water runoff causing erosion • Residents on easterly side experience surface flooding during storm events • Deteriorated roadway /band -aid solutions (potholes, bumps, loose gravel and pavement chunks resulting pedestrian and vehicular hazards and property damage) • Narrow road (not uniform and at some point a "country lane ") • Impact to major trees, boulders and retaining walls and inconvenience 6 -PJP3 CITY OF EDINA Agenda •Introductions -Existing Conditions -City's Ideas for Improving Ridge Road -Your Ideas for Improving Ridge Road •Next Steps b4 4tu 7 -PJP3 Attributes 0* clrY of EoINA of a Country Lane • roadway defined by walls, hedges, fences vegetation near edge of roadway • natural materials (stone, brick, wood) rusticity of character gently curving road • spatial play between street and dwellings ii 9-VA CITY Or EDINA Improvement Edge Treatment L�) Neighborhood inspiration Idea — Split stone edge concept :; CITY OF EOINA Improvement Ideas Ed eTreatment T � � 4Y .ii. ' ♦ T � +'`5f. ��i 2 X Y Neighborhood Inspiration Idea — Exposed aggregate edge concept 15 -VA :* CITY OF EOINA Improvement Ideas Rain Garden Cross Section 18 -VA' CITY OF EDINA Agenda •Introductions -Existing Conditions •City's Ideas for Improving Ridge Road -Your Ideas for Improving Ridge Road -Next Steps 19 -VA C)-A CITY OF EDINA Agenda -Introductions -Existing Conditions -City's Ideas for Improving Ridge Road -Your Ideas for Improving Ridge Road -idea Review Exercise -Next Steps 21 -VA 'q CITY OF EDINA Agenda •Introductions •Existing Conditions ' -City's Ideas for Improving Ridge Road 'Your Ideas for Improving Ridge Road -Idea Review Exercise -Next Steps 23 -W H C); CITY OF EDINA Please share your ideas 20 -VA CITY OF EDINA Agenda Idea Review and Discussion Idea Preference Exercise 22 -VA 9s CITY Or rDIDIA Tentative Schedule • Informational Meeting No. 2 — October Public Hearing - December / January (sooner if possible) Construction - Summer of 2011 24 -WH M0 CITY OF EDINA Thank you 25 -WH SEH MEETING MINUTES Re: Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction Edina, MN Project Manager: Paul J. Pasko III, PE SEH No.: EDINA 103694 ' 4100 Attendees: See attached attendance roster Wayne Houle — City of Edina Jesse Struve — City of Edina Veronica Anderson - SEH Paul Pasko - SEH Date of Meeting: 9/22/10 Time of Meeting: 7:00 pm Location of Meeting: City of Edina Public Works Department The following items w,e`re discussed at the above referenced meeting: The basis for this meeting was the following items. A. Power Point presentation. B. A scale plot of an aerial photo of Ridge Road including public utilities and right -of -way and property lines. The edges of Ridge Road were also shown. The edges are based on topographic surveying completed by City staff. C. A plot of 2 typical cross sections through Ridge Road at 5109 and 5120 Ridge Road. D. A packet of color photos of each driveway along Ridge Road arranged by descending property address. E. A packet of color photos of the centerline of Ridge Road taken from a variety of locations along Ridge Road. II. We divided the discussion reported in these minutes into the 6 main parts of the presentation. Those parts are Introductions, Existing Conditions, City's Ideas for Improving Ridge Road, Property Owner's Ideas for Improving Ridge Road, Ideas Discussion Review Exercise between Project Team Members and Property Owners, and Next Steps. A. Introductions , 1. Houle presented Power Point slides (slides) 1 — 3. B. Existing Conditions 1. Pasko presented slides 4 — 6. a. Slide 6 (1) Pasko explained that the list on this slide was taken from the following sources. (a) Presentation made by City staff on 11/15/04 at the Neighborhood Informational Meeting (b) Comment cards from the 11/15/04 Neighborhood Informational Meeting (c) 12/8/04 Ridge Road Construction Homeowners Resolution (d) Letters and emails sent to the City Council by property owners during 1/10 and 2/10 (e) City staff's recommendation dated 2/16/10 to the Mayor and Council (2) Pasko went on to explain that the City understood that the property owners need their road fixed, but don't want that to happen without the City and Ridge Road residents diligently working to arrive at the following conclusions. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343 -9302 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 1 952.912.2600 1 800.734.6757 1 952.912.2601 fax Meeting Minutes Page 2 (a) the best result for Ridge Road (b) Maintain Ridge Road's aesthetic integrity (c) Maintain Ridge Road's current width (d) Reconstruct Ridge Road while incurring as little expense as possible to the property owners C. City's Ideas for Improving Ridge Road 1. Pasko presented slide 7 a. Pasko explained. that (1) as a consulting Civil Engineer he works in a lot of Metro area communities and was impressed with the individual ingenuity Ridge Road property owners showed in dealing with their own storm water runoff issues. (2) via slides 8 - 18 Anderson would present the City's ideas to improve the "edges" of Ridge Road. Property owner ingenuity inspired some of the City's ideas. (3) using slides 8 -18 we want to try to try to arrive at the "sum" of both your and the City's ideas tonight to provide you and the City with the "best" Ridge Road. 2. Anderson presented slides 8 - 18 (1) Slide 8 (a) Anderson explained to the property owners that the photos in this slide are not options. Instead we are showing them to the property owners to give them a sense of "form" regarding what usually causes a "Sense of Place." Go on to say that indeed many of the conditions shown in these photos cannot grow in our climate. D. Property Owner's Ideas for Improving Ridge Road 1. Anderson moderated slides 19 and 20 a.. Install trench drains across the bottom of all of the driveways along the west side of Ridge Road b. Make Ridge Road a 1 -way northbound street. C. A curbed edge treatment might not allow enough room for parking along the east side of Ridge Road. d. Ridge Road property owners, remain opposed to the installation of City- standard B618 curb and gutter. e. Install a "hardened" swale at the edges of Ridge Road such that it remains within the existing paved limits of Ridge Road. f. Whatever edge treatment is installed along Ridge Road, please keep it very simple and easy to maintain with respect to snow removal, parking, and boulevard maintenance. g. Consider the soon to arrive increases in property taxes when designing that part of the reconstruction project which the property owners will have to pay for via special assessments. (1) Property owners especially do not want to "erase" Ridge Road's existing preferred boulevards and pay for their replacement with an undesirable boulevard. b. Keep the reconstruction limits within Ridge Road's existing pavement width. i. Overlay Ridge Road and install edge,treatments tailored to meet the needs of each property while still collecting storm water runoff. j. Ridge Road has a. lot of shade trees along it. Those trees preclude the melting of ice from the driving surface during the winter time. E. Ideas Discussion Review Exercise between Project Team Members and Property Owners 1. Anderson moderated slides 21 - 22. a. Property owners brought up the following general discussion topics. (1) How much does it cost to bury the overhead power lines along Ridge Road? Meeting Minutes Page 3 (2) Property owner at 5204 Ridge Road stated that while the pavement south of 5200 Ridge Road is in poor condition, the concrete curb and gutter is in good condition. (3) Will our mailboxes be disturbed during reconstruction? City staff said they likely would need to be temporarily removed, salvaged, and reinstalled at the end of the project. During that time, a temporary bank of mailboxes would be installed for property owner use during reconstruction operations. (4) How much disruption to the operation of my home office should I expect during reconstruction activities? (5) Will trunk sanitary sewer and water main pipes be replaced during reconstruction activities? b. After the conclusion of the discussion listed in item II.E. La of these minutes, Anderson listed the following 9 edge of Ridge Road improvement ideas. This list is a result of the Ideas Discussion Review Exercise. (1) Individual edge treatments (2) Granite /cobble edge treatment (3) Colored concrete edge treatment (4) Stone /granite edge treatment (5) Split stone edge treatment (6) Granite/brick edge treatment (7) Belgian blocks edge treatment (8) Exposed aggregate edge treatment (9) Rain garden edge treatment C. Anderson then asked the property owners to vote for their favored edge treatment. Based on those votes, the following are the preferred edge treatments. (1) Individual edge treatments (2) Colored concrete edge treatment (3) Belgian blocks edge treatment F. Next Steps 1. Houle moderated slides 23 — 25. 2. City staff directed SEH to prepare the following a. Schematic level street reconstruction designs taking into account the preferred edge treatments in item II.E.1.c. of these minutes. b. An estimate of the total project cost for each design. C. An estimate of the cost to be assessed to each property owner based on each design. SEH believes that this document accurately reflects the business transacted during the meeting. If any attendee believes that there are any inconsistencies, omissions or errors in the minutes, they should notify the writer at once. Unless objections are raised within seven (7) days, we will consider this account accurate and acceptable to all. If there are errors contained in this document, or if relevant information has been omitted, please contact Paul J. Pasko III, PE at 952.912.2611. c: p:\ae \e \edina \l 13694 \4pre1\mtgs\9 22 10 \09 22 10 mntes.dom Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction of Edina Date: October 5, 2010 To: Property Owners of Ridge Road Edina, Minnesota From: City of Edina and Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Reference: What: Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 2 When: Wednesday, October 13, 2010; 7:00 -9:00 p.m. Where: Edina Public Works Facility 7450 Metro Boulevard At the conclusion of Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 1 on September 22, City staff directed SEH to prepare the following: • Schematic level street reconstruction designs reflecting your input as well as the City's input. • An estimate of the total project cost for each design. • An estimate of the cost to be assessed to you based on each design. This work is near completion; therefore you are cordially invited to meet with members of the project -&dam on October 13 to review the designs. The format for Meeting No. 2 will include a brief asentation that will begin at 7 p.m., followed by an informal discussion. If consensus is reached at the conclusion of this meeting for one of the schematic level designs, the following tasks will be completed: • On October 19, recommend to the City Council that they conduct a public hearing for this project on November 16. • Direct SEH to complete the feasibility study of this project for presentation to Council on November 16. If Council accepts the feasibility study the next step would be preparation of bidding documents. We look forward to seeing you at the Informational Meeting on October 13. Wayne D. Houle, PE Paul J. Pasko III, PE Director of Public Works / City Engineer Project Manager City of Edina SEH Inc. 952.826.0443 952.912.2611 whouleA- ci.edina.mn.us ppasko(cD-sehinc.com City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction Date: October 13, 2010 City Of Edina To: Property Owners of Ridge Road Edina, Minnesota From: City of Edina and Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Cancelled: What: Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 2 When: Wednesday, October 13, 2010; 7 :00 -9:00 p.m. Where: Edina Public Works Facility .7450 Metro Boulevard Rescheduled: What: Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 2 When: Wednesday, October 27, 2010; 7:00 -9:00 p.m. Where: Edina Public Works Facility 7450 Metro Boulevard Please recall that at Meeting No. 2 you will meet with members of the project team to review the following: • Schematic level street reconstruction designs reflecting your input as well as the City's input from Meeting No. 1. • An estimate of the total project cost for each design. • An estimate of the cost to be assessed to you based on each design. If consensus is reached at the conclusion of Meeting No. 2 for one of the schematic level designs, City staff will direct SEH to complete the feasibility study of this project for presentation to the City Council at a Public Improvement Hearing on November 16. During the past few days, enough Ridge Road property owners told us that they could not attend the subject meeting on October 13 to jeopardize the accurate measurement of consensus. Therefore City staff has rescheduled Meeting No. 2 for October 27. Because State Statute dictates the amount and type of advertising needed in advance of a Public Improvement Hearing, City staff will still recommend to the City Council at their October 19 meeting that the Council schedule a Public Improvement Hearing for this project on November 16. If necessary, the Council can continue the Hearing to a date later than November 16. We apologize for any inconvenience this rescheduled meeting may cause you. Wayne D. Houle, PE Paul J. Pasko III, PE Director of Public Works / City Engineer Project Manager r.ity of Edina SEH Inc. X2.826.0443 952.912.2611 whoule(- ci.edina.mn.us ppaskoa- sehinc.com City Hall 952 - 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952 - 826 -0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY 952 -826 -0379 -A NEIGHBORHOOD i' ATTE:NDANCE ROSTER Re: Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction Edina, MN Project Manager: Paul Pasko III, PE Date of Meeting: October 27, 2010 Time of Meeting: 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. Location of Meeting: Edina Public Works Facility SEH No.: EDINA 113694 14.00 Name Address Telephone e-mail Lawn Pet Sump f Irrigation Containment Pumps .S l 3S X41 CWt �k h L Omcct 5k AA System System Yes O Yes es � ti � 1 O No FNo O No &S-q-7 �el(acli� W e t� e "`P C�mc��t..�e Yes O No Yes 13 No ' Yes O No WZ �- (2 � (� 3� � -S�17 l ��w,�naoz��Cav� Cu s'1-. h�� Yes O No O Yes No O Yes O No SPL rJ 9117 �," l Q II-� ����i�J 1 010�I not (� �e�� 1a � _ tIl b I Yes O No Q Yes O No O Yes O No i 12-+ n C6v_fW_r- O Yes 'QNo Cl Yes 014 T5.,Yes f o C_i 4V41j �S C� "o Cl O Yes O Yes O Yes C3 No CJ No 13 No O Yes O Yes Cl Yes O No O No O No O Yes Cl Yes O Yes O No O No O No O Yes O Yes O Yes O No O No O No P:\AE\E\Edina \113694 \4Prel\Mtgs \10 27 1 0\Attendance Roster.docx NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETING- NOW 2 SEH N N '4 f r' f 1; i n .0 ��.s' i. . Re: Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction Project Manager. Paul Pasko III, PE Date of Meeting: October 27, 2010 Time of Meeting: 7:00 — 9:00 pan. Location of Meeting: Edina Public Works Facility SEH No.: EDINA 113694 14.00 Name Address Telephone a -mail � }awn Alt) Pet Sump j,j �� %�2-i3� 7L/j;G,�. y ekY�sr G� C/f��S�Mir rigation s em Containment System Pumps . u ,P ,� J,o�s ,.;�,.,sd �„s r+ • uh Yes O Yes O Yes ��n �"'��( SOoZ o��. ✓ a -q3S- -Sam �,, p,i, o msn ..COQ 0 No M No JN No / 952 CC- 1'(�IGyG /� CG�1 91 Yes O Yes 0 Yes /ktlL- W /Cy��N J013 (DGL O No 23 Na O No 0 Yes Cl Yes O Yes 0 No 0 No D No 0 Yes O Yes 0 Yes 0 No O No O No 0 Yes. 0 Yes 0 Yes 0 No O No 0 No O Yes O Yes O Yes 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 Yes O Yes 0 Yes 0 No O No 0 No 0 Yes 0 Yes O Yes C3 No 0 N C3 No .O Yes O Yes O Yes O No Cl No 0 No P:\AE\E\Edina \113694 \4Pre1\Mtgs \10 27 10\Attendance Roster.docx _;�k N,EIGHBORHOGD INFORMATIONAL -MEETING N-0, 2 SEH ATTENDANCE ROSTER Re: Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction Edina, UN Project Manager: Paul Pasko III, PE Date of Meeting: October 27, 2010 Time of Meeting: 7:00 -- 9:00 p.m. Location of Meeting: Edina Public Works Facility SEH No.: EDINA 113694 14.00 • 4 Name Address Telephone e-mail Lawn Pet Sump Irrigation Containment Pumps System y S stem O Yes [7 Yes Yes ✓ -A-AI AO Aa-CQZ %Z!b 60 �� ���-�� CE✓�,�77°���bo � �-No 2F No 17 No t• ti �S Z -- C`lf�4 �! �r -R�7-� s w �. O Yes O Yes AYes s� // IV�1,� -- a f ti� �,r7-' �u .- ANo ;PJ No O No �'r► -. / hse -- �"D t° D` cQw f2f �,_ _ a. ,rS (� j C <C) -� y sa.� , 046- O Yes g No O Yes Pf No D Yes "No O Yes O Yes O Yes 0 N 0 N 0 N O Yes O Yes O Yes 0 N 0 N 0 N O Yes O Yes 0 Yes O No O No O No O Yes O Yes O Yes D No O No O No O Yes O Yes O Yes O No O No O No O Yes O Yes O Yes D No O No O No P:\AE\E\Edina \113694 \4Prel\Mtgs \10 27 1 0\Attendance Roster.docx City of Edina & SEH October 27, 2010 Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 2 Reconstruction of Ridge Road 1 -WH ANCITY of EOINA Goals of Tonight's Meeting • Review the schematic level designs • Measure consensus for the designs K1WIF T 0 C)W CITY OF EOINA Agenda -introductions -Review of Schematic Level Designs -Informal Discussion -Recommendation -Next Steps 2 -WH OnCITY OF EOINA Agenda .Introductions -Review of Schematic Level Designs -informal Discussion ' •Recommendation � , -Next Steps 4 -W H so CITY OF EDINA Trench Drain Installation 9-VA I U: CITY OF EDINA Trench Drain Installation Option 2: Stamped Concrete Apron with Depressed Curb 11 -VA : CITY OF EDINA : Favored Improvement Idea Edge Treatment r Idea — Bulkhead curb edge concept 8 -VA LIU c17V of Eol -dA Trench Drain Installation 3i `F Option 1: Stamped Concrete Apron with Curb Radius 10-VA III CITY OF EDINA avored Improvement Idea South Ridge Road - I Existing Curb to Remain In Place 13 -PP :� CITY OF EDINA Favored Improvement i . Idea 5117 Ridge Road - North Driveway Entrance I. 15 -PP Favored Improvement A clry OF EDINa Idea i ^el 5109 Ridge Road - North Driveway Entrance 17 -PP `: CITY OF EDINA Favored Improvement .1. — Idea +wj� sue•. f 5117 Ridge Road - South Driveway Entrance 14 -PP Favored Improvement ®a CITY OF FOINA Idea 5109 Ridge Road - South clue Driveway Entrance qi- 16 -P P as CITY OF FOIHA p Favored Im rovement `W Idea z 5101 Ridge Road —North Y" W Driveway Entrance 19 -PP :: Favored Improvement CITY OF EDINA - II Idea b` 5025 Ridge Road — North Driveway Entrance 21 -PP Favored Improvement �M CITY OF Ff.�i`lA p as .,, kz: . Idea 5013 Ridge Road - Driveway Entrance gg i -� 23 -PP oo Favored Improvement r' CITY OF F.DINA .. y Idea L„yr 5025 Ridge Road — South Driveway Entrance 20 -PP Favored Improvement :f CITY OF FDINA Idea yi. 5021 Ridge Road - N• Driveway Entrance 22 -PP UB - Favored Improvement �� CITY OF FOINA • ;w Idea 5009 Ridge Road — Boulevard Area 24 -PP ! CITY OF EOINA : Favored Improvement Idea W °4c �' of W ri,"T - M 5009 Ridge Road - ' "1' Driveway Entrance 25 -PP Favored Improvement �� CITY OF EDINA Idea 65471nterlachen Blvd 1� r - 27 -PP Favored Improvement No' or fOINA Idea I 5008 Ridge Road - Driveway Entrance »� a r 29 -PP Favored Improvement `� CITY OF EDINA r, Idea 5 $� 65191nterlachen Blvd 26 -PP C30 n ITV OF FOMA Knee Wall Detail ju W s+z.. N+vwnrC K, t A.k'1/Ci t.c.r�'IT �u scasw•+ ,:as raa;�s 30 -PP liTV OF EM Favored Improvement rovement �. H Idea ;1 's Ea,k EY-+ 5012 Ridge Road - -# Driveway Entrance ni. 31 -PP :Favored Improvement � CITY OF EOINA p Idea, '..I. r x 5020 Ridge Road - a. •(�„J� Driveway Entrance 3 p \ h ' 33 -PP Favored Improvement :� CITY OF EOINa r <. Idea 5108 Ridge Road �r Driveway Entrance' krr a� 35 -PP Favored Improvement �� CITY OF EOINA . • Idea 5016 Ridge Road - n+l Driveway Entrance dc- r,; 32 -PP :� CITY Of EOINA Favored Improvement Idea 5100 Ridge Road - E�'` Driveway Entrance r� 34-PP :S clTV or Enwa p Favored Improvement Idea .r! 5108 Ridge Road - Driveway Entrance . :.. 36 -PP Favored Improvement � CITY OF EDINA Idea �fT 5112 Ridge Road - + Driveway Entrance 37 -PP Ur CITY OF EDINA Assessments ■�1._aI- L1IJL-1JU R L__iL Residential J Equivalency Units (AEU's) are separated into two - different areas Area A: 7 REU's Area B: 16 2/3 REU's 41 -PP ! Favored Improvement : CITY OF EOIN9 Idea x -� E4 5116 Ridge Road - Driveway Entrance 38 -PP :: CITY OF EDINA Estimated Project Costs Area B Item Edge Treatment Option 8618 Concrete Bulkhead Granite Bulkhead Storm Sewer $398,500 $379,500 $398,500 Streets $186,300 $194,900 $385,200 Blue: Assessed Costs Red: City Costs 42 -PP Estimated Assessment 31111111 CITY OF EDINA Cost per REU Edge Assessment Area Treatment B Option B Option $9,800 8618 $11,200 Remain in Place Concrete Remain 8618 Bulkhead $11,700 $11,200 Granite Concrete Bulkhead $23,100 Bulkhead 43 -PP Estimated Assessment CITY OF EDINA Cost per REU Edge Treatment Assessment Area A B Option Existing Curb to $9,800 N/A Concrete Remain in Place Remain 8618 8618 $11,400 $11,200 In Place Concrete Storm Bulkhead $11,800 $11,700 $100,700 Granite Bulkhead $22,000 $23,100 $79,500 45 -PP UrCITY OF EDINA What if..... Overhead Power Lines Were Buried: Xcel Energy will Charge Benefitting Properties(') Estimated Cost per House Main Line Along Street _ $80,000 + 14 homes = $5,700 per House Service Lines = $1,000 perHouselzl Service Connection = $1,500 per House(') Total = $8,200 per House 0)Cost could increase based on potential charges from Comcast to bury the cable TV line, Estimated charges are $40,000. (2)Exact amount will depend on the length of the service line. OIA private electrician must connect the new service line to the house. 47 -PP CITY OF EDINA Estimated Project Costs Area A Blue: Assessed Costs Red: City Costs 44 -PP :0 CITY OF EDINA What if..... Add Stamped Concrete Aprons on all Driveways in Area B: Additional Cost = $16,800 Increase in Assessment = $1,000 per REU 46 -PP M CITY Of FOINA Agenda fi •Introductions -Review of Schematic Level Designs -informal Discussion -Recommendation -Next Steps 48 -VA Edge Treatment Option Existing Item Curb to Concrete Granite Remain 8618 Bulkhead Bulkhead In Place Storm $63,500 $100,700 $93,500 $100,700 Sewer Streets $68,300 $79,500 $82,700 $154,300 Blue: Assessed Costs Red: City Costs 44 -PP :0 CITY OF EDINA What if..... Add Stamped Concrete Aprons on all Driveways in Area B: Additional Cost = $16,800 Increase in Assessment = $1,000 per REU 46 -PP M CITY Of FOINA Agenda fi •Introductions -Review of Schematic Level Designs -informal Discussion -Recommendation -Next Steps 48 -VA OA Of CITY OF EOINA Agenda -introductions -Review of Schematic Level Designs -Informal Discussion -Recommendation -Next Steps 49 -VA �a CITY OF EOINA Project Schedule Anticipated Schedule Open House Meeting .........................Sept. 20, 2010 Informational Meeting #1 .................Sept. 22, 2010 Informational Meeting 92 .................Oct. 27, 2010 Feasibility Report/Public Hearing ..........Nov. 16, 2010 51 -WH :o CITY OF F.OINA Agenda -introductions -Review of Schematic Level Designs -informal Discussion -Recommendation -Next Steps 50 -W H NA CITY OF F.OINA Thank You! 52 -WH %i SEH MEETING MINUTES Re: Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction, Edina, MN Project Manager: SEH No.: Paul J. Pasko III, PE EDINA 103694 94.00 Attendees: See attached attendance roster Wayne Houle — City of Edina Jesse Struve —.City of Edina Veronica Anderson - SEH Paul Pasko - SEH Date of Meeting: 10/27/10 Time of Meeting: 7:00 pm Location of Meeting: City of Edina Public Works Department The following items were discussed at the above referenced meeting: I. The basis for this meeting was the following items. A. Power Point presentation. 1. A paper copy of the presentation is attached to these minutes. B. A plot of Ridge Road's schematic level improvements with an aerial photo in the background attached to these minutes. C. A plot of Ridge Road's schematic level improvements without an aerial photo in the background attached to these minutes. II. We divided the discussion reported in these minutes into the 5 main parts of the presentation. Those parts are Introductions, Review of Schematic Level Designs, Informal Discussion, Recommendation, and Next Steps. A. Introductions 1. Houle presented Power Point slides (slides) 1 — 4. B. Review of Schematic Level Designs 1. Anderson presented slides 5 — 12. a. Slide 5 (1) Anderson told attendees that Meeting No. 1 attendees made it clear to the City they did not want B618 curb and gutter, However, we needed to study its feasibility along Ridge Road because it is the City standard street edge treatment. b. Slides 6 — 8 (1) Anderson reminded attendees that Meeting No. 1 attendees chose the edge treatments shown in these slides as favored improvement ideas for Ridge Road. C. Slide 9 (1) Anderson explained this rendering featuring a proposed concrete driveway apron stamped to resemble Belgian blocks with a trench drain embedded within it. (a) Install this apron only at driveways where runoff from the driveway creates an adverse impact. (b) The trench drains needs installation in the concrete to keep it fixed in place over time. If it were installed in bituminous pavement it could loosen over time. (2) Property owners asked why the trench drain cannot be located in the street? Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343 -9302 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 1 952.912.2600 1 800.734.6757 1 952.912.2601 fax *' , Meeting Minutes Page 2 (a) Anderson said it could. But because the drain needs concrete encasement for proper installation, a drain installation in the street causes the installation of a concrete gutter in the street in front of the driveway. (i) Property owners agreed the best installation is probably in the driveway end rather than in the street. (3) Pasko presented the sample of the trench drain construction and possible color. (a) Property owners expressed concern over the durability of the product under private snow plow loadings. (i) Pasko explained that (1) the product is developed for application at airports to function under-the type of heavy wheel loading found at airports. (2) the most likely damage caused by, private snow plowing is chipping of the surface of the drain. However, because the coloration exists uniformly throughout the body of the drain the chips will not be noticeable. d. Slides 10 — 12 (1) Anderson explained these slides are specific locations along Ridge Road adjusted to show the application of the edge treatments shown slides 6 — 8. 2. Pasko took attendees on 'a tour of Ridge, Road via the photographs in slides 13 — 40. a. The purpose of slides 13 — 40 is to show in detail at how SEH applied the edge treatments shown slides 6 — 8 to Ridge Road (1) The photographs in slides 13 — 40 are rendered with a magic marker to show the application of the colored concrete bulkhead edge treatment (a) A B618 concrete curb and gutter edge treatment is similar. b. Pasko explained that the road foundation soils likely allow the City to include individual edge treatments because the soil will likely hold its bank at the construction limits for a period of time after the excavation is made to accommodate the proposed street section. c. Pasko marked where a particular slide was by referring to the plot of Ridge Road's schematic level improvements hung on the wall of the meeting room. d. Slide 13 (1) No attendees were from addresses between and including 5200 and 5215 e. Slide 15 (1) Property owner at 5117 asked that the City not install the catch basin shown in this slide. f. Slide 18 (1) Property owner at 5101 wanted assurance that the boulevard grass shown being disturbed would be restored by the project. g. Slide 19 (1) Property owner at 5101 wanted assurance that their concrete driveway end would be removed to a logical point (the nearest expansion or contraction joint) and replaced with concrete that would match the remaining concrete as close as possible. h. Slide 21 (1) Property owner at 5025 wanted clarification that the colored concrete bulkhead would have height to it. It would not be a 0 height curb across the front of their driveway. (a) Pasko clarified the curb would be about'' /2 as high as the concrete end collar restraining their brick paver driveway. L Slide 21 :l A Meeting Minutes Page 3 (1) Pasko explained that the proposed catch basin shown beyond the north property line of 5025 is the top of a proposed storm sewer trunk pipe that may send runoff east down the hill to north.,pond (a) Property owners at 5021 are considering an easement that could allow for the installation of this pipe........ (i) no decisions have yet been made regarding the installation of this trunk storm sewer pipe (ii) the pipe would allow runoff from 2.5 acres of land adjacent to Ridge Road to once again reach North Pond. Today it is cut off and flows to either Mirror Lake or Nine Mile Creek near TH 169. (iii) The runoff might improve the water quality: of North Pond. Slides 26 and 27 (1) Property owners asked the City to investigate a solution to the occurrence of ice across Ridge Road's driving surface at its intersection with Interlachen Boulevard. (a) The City said they would look into this matter during final design. (i) One idea might be to flatten Ridge Road's longitudinal slope near Interlachen Boulevard to introduce a "landing" at this intersection. (1) Draining storm water runoff from this landing might be difficult. There is no existing storm sewer near the intersection of Ridge Road and Interlachen Boulevard. k. Slide 27 (1) Property owner at 6547 wanted clarification if the existing B618 curb and gutter at the southwest corner of Ridge Road and Interlachen Boulevard would be removed and replaced with colored concrete bulkhead curb? (a) City clarified that it would not be removed unless it needed removal and replacement to deal with the icing issue discussed in minutes item II.B.I J 1. Slide 35 (1) Adjacent property owners told City staff 5108's driveway is heated in the winter. m. Slide 37 (1) Property owner at 5112 is concerned about the impact street reconstruction will have on the boulevard trees across the front of their property. (a) City staff said they could work around the trees and protect them. (b) Property owner said the trees are already distressed and some are rotted on the inside. (i) Property owner said they may remove some of these trees before reconstruction might start. (ii) If the Council orders the preparation of bidding documents, the City said they will visit on -site with this property owner to further discuss their concerns about their trees. n. Pasko presented slides 41 — 47 dealing with possible assessed costs. C. Informal Discussion 1. Anderson moderated slide 48 a. Property owners asked if additional street lights be added to Ridge Road? (1) City clarified that these lights would be "cobra" arm style lights installed on Xcel Energy poles. (a) Slide 47 discussed the possibility of Ridge Road prcperty owners approaching Xcel Energy to bury the overhead trunk power cables and remove the poles. (i) Ridge Road property owners will consider whether or not they want to bury the power cables. Then consider the impact of that choice against the need for more street lights mounted on those poles. „ rc . Meeting Minutes Page 4 b. Can Ridge Road be made l -way for only northbound traffic? (1) City staff pointed out it could be done. However, this change would likely involve adjacent neighborhoods and could take quite a while to complete. D. Recommendation 1. Anderson moderated slide 48 a. Slide 45 (1) Property owners present at the meeting from Assessment Area B.(see slide 41 for the limits of Assessment Area B) recommend the City complete the feasibility study reporting the deployment of colored concrete bulkhead edge treatment at an estimated assessed cost of $11,700 per REU. (2) No property owners representing Assessment Area A (see slide 41 for the limits of Assessment Area A) attended the meeting. (a) Attendees recollected that the property owner at 5204 Ridge Road attended Neighborhood Meeting No. 1 on 9/22/10. (i) =At Meeting 146. 1 the property owner at 5204 Ridge Road favored reconstructing Ridge Road in Assessment Area A such that the existing concrete curb, and gutter would remain in place. (ii) Complete the feasibility study reporting the existing concrete curb and gutter will remain in place at an estimated assessed cost of $9,800 per REU. E. Next Steps 1. Houle moderated slides 50 — 52. SEH believes that this document accurately reflects the business transacted during the meeting. If any attendee believes that there are any inconsistencies, omissions or errors in the minutes, they should notify the writer at once. Unless objections are raised within seven (7) days, we will consider this account accurate and acceptable to all. If there are errors contained in this document, or if relevant information has been omitted, please contact Paul J. Pasko III, PE at 952.912.2611. c: p:\ae\e\edina\113694\4prel\mtgs\1027 10\1027 10 mntes.docx SEH oe N City of Edina Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-384 Preliminary Assessment Roll_ 111412010 Revisions: P:% EIEIEdina \113694WPreMssessmemUPrel Assessmenbdu Page 1 of 1 Estimated Total PID Taxpayers Name STREET ADDRESS Tax Payer Address Taxpayer Ci St ZIP Assessment Rate 3011721420035 MARY J HERMAN 5008 RIDGE RD 5008 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420025 DEAN J DOVOLIS & ANNA H DOVOLIS 5009 RIDGE RD 5009 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420030 JULIE A ROWE & JOHN C ROWE 5012 RIDGE RD 5012 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420026 PAUL DAVID WIGGIN /FAM TRUST & CAROLYNN C WIGGIN /FAM TRUST 5013 RIDGE RD 5013 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420004 JAMES B GIBSON & CELESTE J GIBSON 5016 RIDGE RD 5016 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420005 PATRICIA M ADAMS & DANIEL C ADAMS 5020 RIDGE RD 5020 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420031 TED R PIER & ELIZABETH A ROBINSON 5021 RIDGE RD 5021 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420013 MARY C CARLSEN & CHARLES W CARLSEN 5025 RIDGE RD 5025 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420006 MARGARET F SCHOLZ / REV TRUST 5100 RIDGE RD 5753 WAYZATA BLVD ST LOUIS PARK MN $11,000 3011721420023 MOLLIE B MARINOVICH & JOHN P MARINOVICH 5101 RIDGE RD 5825 VERNON LA EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420007 JULIE L GALVIN & JOHN M GALVIN 5108 RIDGE RD 5108 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420024 KAI MAY YUEN -TERRY & JOSEPH M TERRY 5109 RIDGE RD 5109 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420010 PERRY WITKIN & CINDY WITKIN 5112 RIDGE RD 5112 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420009 ANNE S CHARITY & ANNE RUTLEDGE 5116 RIDGE RD 5116 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420047 SALVADOR MENDOZA & MIA E MENDOZA 5117 RIDGE RD 5117 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420048 SALVADOR MENDOZA & MIA E MENDOZA 5125 RIDGE RD 5117 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721420044 JOSEPH J MCERLANE & FLORENCE M MCERLANE 5120 RIDGE RD 5120 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $11,000 3011721430030 IDIANE K BOHLIG & CHARLES E BOHLIG 5200 RIDGE RD 5200 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $9,800 3011721430037 PEGGY P GAARD & MICHAEL B GAARD 5201 RIDGE RD 5201 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $9,800 3011721430031 PATRICK S MINER & AMY L MINER 5204 RIDGE RD 5204 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $9,800 3011721430038 NICK C KENNEDY & LISA KENNEDY 5205 RIDGE RD 5205 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $9,800 3011721430032 TODD M VUCENICH & STACY A VUCENICH 5208 RIDGE RD 5208 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $9,800 3011721430039 PRISCILLA J WALLACE & JOHN P WALLACE 5209 RIDGE RD 5209 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $9,800 3011721430040 DEBORAH KAY FALLON 5215 RIDGE RD 5215 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 $9,800 3011721420028 IMARY JO T SANDERSON & JEFF SANDERSON 6519 INTERLACHEN BLVD 16519 INTERLACHEN BLVD EDINA MN 55436 $3,700 3011721420034 IWILLIAM J EMPTAGE & LESLYE S EMPTAGE 6547 INTERLACHEN BLVD 16547 INTERLACHEN BLVD EDINA MN 55436 $3,700 Page 1 of 1 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING NOTICE I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified acting City Clerk of the City of Edina, Minnesota, hereby certify that on the following date November 3, 2010, acting on behalf of said City, I deposited in the United States mail copies of the attached Notice of Public Hearing for Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction, BA -384 (Exhibit A), enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage thereon duly prepaid, addressed to the persons at the addresses as shown on the mailing list (Exhibit B), attached to the original hereof, which list is on file in my office, said persons being those appearing on the records of the County Auditor as owners of the property listed opposite their respective names, as of a date 12 days prior to the date of the hearing; and that I also sent said notice to the following corporations at the indicated addresses whose property is exempt from taxation and is therefore not carried on the records of said County Auditor. NAME ADDRESS rQ L�WITNESS my hand and the seal of said City this s� day of Q",h-y-jcu-A-/ , 20_LO . Edina City Clerk City of Edina November 3, 2010 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS RIDGE ROAD STREET AND UTILITY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -384 The Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall on Tuesday, November 16, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. to consider the public hearing on neighborhood roadway improvements for the Ridge Road Street and Utility Improvements. This hearing is being conducted under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. This hearing has been called as a recommendation from staff. The proposed project would be constructed in the summer of 2011 with the assessment hearing occurring in the fall of 2012. The estimated project cost is $768,000. The cost of the project will be funded by special assessment. The assessments can be divided over a ten -year period with interest accumulating on the unpaid balance. The area proposed to be assessed by the proposed improvements includes all properties between and including: 5200 to 5215 Ridge Road These properties are proposed to be assessed at approximately $9,800 per residential equivalent unit. 5008 to 5125 Ridge Road, 6519 and 6547 Interlachen Boulevard These properties are proposed to be assessed at approximately $11,700 per residential equivalent unit. Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is listed to you is among those properties which are considered to be benefited by the improvement. The City Council can authorize the proposed project immediately upon the close of the hearing. City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 Address Results 3011721420004 JAMES B GIBSON CELESTE J GIBSON 5016 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721420007 JULIE L GALVIN JOHN M GALVIN 5108 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721420013 MARY C CARLSEN. CHARLES W CARLSEN 5025 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721420025 DEAN J DOVOLIS ANNA H DOVOLIS 5009 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721420030 JULIE A ROWE JOHN C ROWE 5012 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721420035 MARY J HERMAN 5008 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721420048 SALVADOR MENDOZA MIA E MENDOZA 5117 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721420005 PATRICIA M ADAMS DANIEL C ADAMS 5020 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721420009 ANNE S CHARITY ANNE RUTLEDGE 5116 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721420023 MOLLIE B MARINOVICH JOHN P MARINOVICH 5825 VERNON LA EDINA MN 55436 3011721420026 PAUL DAVID WIGGIN /FAM TRUST CAROLYNN C WIGGIN /FAM TRUST 5013 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 I i 3011721420031 TED R PIER ELIZABETH A ROBINSON 5021 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721420044 JOSEPH 3 MCERLANE I FLORENCE M MCERLANE 5120 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 i 3011721430030 DIANE K BOHLIG CHARLES E BOHLIG 5200 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721430032 3011721430037 TODD M VUCENICH PEGGY P GAARD STACY A VUCENICH MICHAEL B GAARD 5208 RIDGE RD 5201 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 EDINA MN 55436 3011721430039 3011721430040 PRISCILLA J WALLACE DEBORAH KAY FALLON JOHN P WALLACE I 5215 RIDGE RD 5209 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 EDINA MN 55436 i I _ _ I I I II I I I I http:// gis. logis. org/ edina /logismapAgMai�ingLabelsIE7 .asp Page 1 of 1 3011721420006 MARGARET F SCHOLZ / REV TRUST 5753 WAYZATA BLVD ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 i 3011721420010 PERRY WITKIN CINDY WITKIN 5112 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721420024 KAI MAY YUEN -TERRY JOSEPH M TERRY 5109 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 I i� 3011721420028 MARY JO T SANDERSON JEFF SANDERSON 6519INTERLACHEN BLVD i EDINA MN 55436 I 3011721420034 WILLIAM J EMPTAGE LESLYE S EMPTAGE 6547INTERLACHEN BLVD EDINA MN 55436 I _ I/ I i 3011721420047 SALVADOR MENDOZA I MIA E MENDOZA' 5117 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721430031 PATRICK S MINEA AMY L MINEA 5204 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 3011721430038 NICK C KENNEDY LISA KENNEDY 5205 RIDGE RD EDINA MN 55436 11/3/2010 Wayne Houle From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:48 PM Cc: Susan Howl; Wayne Houle Subject: FW: Ridge Road Re- construction Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Marketing Director 952 - 833 -9520 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 4 - JBennerotteCcaci.edina.mmus I www.CitvofEdina.com ?''� ,1,•{ ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Perry Witkin [mailto :Perry@stat- technologies.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:37 PM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Subject: Ridge Road Re- construction Please forward this email to Mayor Hovland and City Council, November 3, 2010 Dear Mayor Hovland, and City Council Members, I am a resident of Ridge Road (5112 Ridge Road) and for the past several years have been patiently waiting for the city to respond to repairing our street. As you may be aware, it has not always been the smoothest process of communication between some of the homeowners and the City. yet I do actually believe that throughout it all, the city was doing its best to fulfill a difficult job of pleasing residents while managing its budget and attempting to create a uniformed appearance and maintenance plan for the city. Perhaps some of the difficulty is that Ridge Road is unique in its design and appearance, and everyone living on the street is very attached to its wonderful feel of being a "quiet country road" in the midst of busy suburbia. It is always difficult to manage a project when the City's goals are easy to define(uniformity, cost control, maintenance control, etc), while there may be 20 + homeowners all of whom may have individual goals of their own. I attended a meeting between the homeowners of Ridge Road and City Engineer, Wayne Houle on October 27th and I just wanted to truly compliment Mr. Houle on how he conducted the meeting, how he has listened to, and really grasped the desires of the homeowners, and how he was able to fully demonstrate an executable plan for the re- construction of our street which I believe was met with unanimous approval of those in attendance. Design, water control, minimization of property damage during construction, maintaining cosmetic individuality for homeowners, and cost. Regardless of the difficulties getting us to this "place" I applaud Mr. Houle and his department, and certainly request that the City accept the recommendations which will be presented for the reconstruction of Ridge Road. I would hope that this process could serve as an example to the City and other neighborhoods who will undergo construction projects in the future. I think that they homeowners on Ridge Road feel truly engaged (although not initially welcomed), but now not only approve what is to be done but embrace it. Right now it feels good to be a homeowner on Ridge Road, and to live in Edina! I should hope that this is What the City Council is trying to accomplish with all their projects. Sincerely, Perry Witkin owe U. • j��IRe68 Ty // REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No II. B. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk ® Action F-1 Discussion 11 Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: New Intoxicating Liquor License — Cucina Del Barrio, 5236 France Avenue ACTION REQUESTED: Approve a new On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Sunday On -Sale Liquor License to Barrio 50`h LLC dba as Cucina Del Barrio, for the period beginning November 16, 2010 and ending March 31, 2011. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Barrio 50`h LLC dba as Cucina Del Barrio at 5036 France Avenue South has applied for new on -sale intoxicating and Sunday Sale liquor licenses. They have filed the necessary paperwork and paid the applicable fees for the licenses. Edina Code requires a public hearing before the issuance of a new liquor license. The proper notification has been published in the Edina Sun Current. The Administration Department has reviewed the submittals and finds that they comply with code requirements. The Health Department is satisfied with the applicant's plan for storage and service. The Planning Department has reviewed the application and finds that it complies with code requirements. The Police Department has completed their investigation. Attached is Sgt. Mendel's memo stating the findings of the Police Department's background investigation. The licenses are placed on the agenda for consideration by the Council. ATTACHMENT: Sgt. Nate Mendel Background Investigation Summary BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION SUIV MARV ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR ON-SALE WINE LICENSE Establishment.: CLIClna del Barrio License: On -Sale Intoxicating & On Sale "Special Sunday Sales" On 08/17/10, Barrio 50th, LLC made application to the City of Edina for an On -Sale Intoxicating & On Sale "Special Sunday Sales" liquor license. The required alcohol awareness training has not been completed yet. Barrio 50th, I..,LC is .planning on operating a restaurant at 5036 France Ave. in Edina, MN. Barrio 50th is a Limited L.,iability Company (LLC) in. the State of Minnesota. The Minnesota Secretary of State reports they are in good standing. Owners /Maiiagei_s /Membez -s Cucina del Barrio: Ryan Willitun Burnet Minneapolis, MN Timothy Jon Rooney Minneapolis, MN Thomas Mark Barnard Golden Valley, MN Vincent. Joseph Flynn Sunfish Lake, MN Brad Forrest England Edina, MN "The owners /managers /members have been investigated. All but one individual were found to have no criminal records. Checks were made on each individual with the following agencies: NCIC MINCIS Hennepin County Minnesota Secretary of State Minnesota Statewide Supervision System Minnesota Liquor Control Board Personal, business and bank references were contacted and responded positively. From the information gathered during the course of the investigation, I found nothing to prevent Barrio 50th, LLC from obtaining an On -Sale Intoxicating & On Sale "Special Sunday Sales" license. I would support a positive recommendation from the Police Department in regard to the issuance of this license. Sgt. Nate Mendel ## 117 M •ry v • REPORURECOMMEN DATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item ILC From: Jeff Long Chief of Police ® Action F] Discussion Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: Temporary Intoxicatingliquor License, Church of St. Patrick ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the Temporary Intoxicating Liquor License for the Church of St. Patricks event titled "Evening for a Brighter Tomorrow ". INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The Church of St. Patrick has applied for a Temporary. Intoxicating Liquor License for their "Evening for a Brighter Tomorrow" event. The event will be held in the two, on -site, social halls and the adjoining kitchen on December 4, 2010 from 6:00 PM to Midnight. The applicants are eligible for the Liquor License and have submitted plans to meet the special requirements for a Temporary License under City Code. In addition, they have gone beyond these requirements by not allowing anyone under 21 years old to serve alcohol. Minnesota state law only mandates servers to be 18 years old. The Church of St. Patrick has hired Edina Police Officers to provide security for this event. ATTACHMENTS: N/A ANA, ow a Cn N'�v �y �� REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. II.D. Item No. II.E. Item No. II.F. From: Cary Teague ® Action Planning Director Discussion Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2010 -17 Amending Section 850, Non - Conforming Buildings and Uses and Additions To Or Replacement of Homes With A First Floor Elevation Over One Foot Above the Existing Homes First Floor Elevation. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2010 -18 Amending Section 850, Concerning Administration and Procedures and Establishing a Planned Unit District. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2010 -19 Amending Section 850, Concerning Driveway Widths. ACTION REQUESTED: First reading of the attached Ordinance amendnents. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The City Council is asked to hold public hearings and give first reading of three Ordinance Amendments recommended by the Planning Commission as part of their work on the Zoning Ordinance Update. The three amendments are as follows: 1. Non - Conforming Use /Alternative Setback Standard Ordinance; 2. Administration and Procedures and establishing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District; and 3. Driveway Width; The attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 29, 2010 provides a summary of each of the proposed Ordinance amendments. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinances Planning Commission staff reports. Minutes w9tN��l� e PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague September 29, 2010 2009.0004.10 Director of Planning (Zoning Ordinance Amendments) INFORMATION /BACKGROUND Before the Planning Commission are.three Zoning Ordinance Amendments that have been studied by the Commission over the past year as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. The three amendments are as follows: 1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District; 2. Non - Conforming Use /Alternative Setback Standard Ordinance; and 3. Driveway Width. In addition to the attached background information on each of the three topics; the following provides some additional information and summary of each ordinance. Planned.Unit Development (PUD) The attached ordinance proposing a PUD is the result of numerous meetings and discussions held .by the Planning Commission. (See attached information and minutes from, previous meetings and work sessions.) The Commission is. now asked to consider how the ordinance would fit into the overall Zoning Ordinance. The attached ordinance amendment is for Section 850.04, which is the entire Section of the ordinance regarding administration and procedures'for`variances and appeals, rezoning, transfer to planned districts (final development plans) and conditional use permits. The major change to the section of the code would be the creation of a PUD zoning district. As previously discussed, there are two primary benefits to a PUD: 1. It would allow the City of Edina more control over proposed new development. The current tools or review mechanisms are variances and rezoning, and placing conditions on the rezoning or variance. A concern is that once the City has approved a rezoning, a property owner has a right to develop under the rules of that new zoning classification. Certain conditions placed on rezoning may be difficult to enforce if plans change. Under a PUD, the specific use proposed becomes the zoning of the property, and specific conditions placed on it are enforceable. 2. It would allow flexibility in certain development standards in exchange for greater standards and control over development. Promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm water management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses. These items can be required within a PUD, and may not be required in a standard site plan review. In each instance for a request for PUD rezoning, the decision to rezone would be a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. A summary of the suggested changes within the Ordinance Amendment is listed below. Please note that in addition to the PUD related amendments, there are some procedural amendments suggested as well. 1. Adds language regarding the 60 /120 -day rule. (The State Statute regarding when cities must take action on applications.) Existing code language regarding timing of applications is removed. 2. The variance section is amended to comply with the City's existing variance procedure practice. That includes the staff appeal of variances attached to other applications. No change to the status of the Zoning Board of Appeals at this time. 3. Eliminates the "transfer to planned district" which is where the Final Development Plan procedure is currently found. The change is to a traditional site plan review, which is what a Final Development Plan really is. Also, one rezoning procedure would be established rather than repeating the same procedures for different zoning districts, as is the currently reads. These changes would make the code easier to navigate. 4. Adds sketch plan review as previously recommended. N 5. Amends submittal requirements. 6. Establishes the PUD District as previously recommended. 7. Suggests new CUP standards as recommended by the City Attorney. 8. Eliminates temporary CUP's which are not legal. Non - Conforming Use /Alternative Setback Standard Ordinance A recent Minnesota Supreme Court- ruling has rejected a 20 year old ruling regarding the meaning of "undue hardship" in regard to review of variances. In light of this ruling, many.Cities, including Edina, are considering the attached Ordinance. Amendment to allow expansion of non - conforming structures to match existing non- conforming setbacks, rather than grant variances, which has typically been the standard in Edina before this ruling. The previous ruling of "undue hardship" meant that cities could determine if the ordinance prevented a "reasonable use "of property. Cities had some discretion to determine if a use requiring a variance was reasonable. The new ruling holds that a variance cannot be approved unless the ordinance prevents all reasonable use of the property. Therefore, if a homeowner wanted to build an addition to their home that did not meet all ordinance requirements, a variance would not be possible, as he /she would already have reasonable use of the property, a single - family home. This is a major change in the criteria for granting a variance. Edina's Variance Histo In drafting the ordinance, staff researched variances that have been granted in the past. See attached reports dated September 1 and 29, regarding recent variance history. The September 1, 2010 report points out that over the past three plus years, 154 single - family home residential variance requests were made. Nearly half of those were for expansions to homes that had non-, conforming setbacks. Expansions to these structures to match the existing non- conforming setback are typically approved. The September 29, 2010 report was requested by the Planning Commission at the "open house" on September 15. It examines the size of structures within non- conforming setbacks. The results of the report are the basis for the 200 square foot maximum encroachment suggested. Additionally, the City of Edina recently amended the ordinance regarding first floor height for new homes after a tear down. This was to address the massing issue. Since then, six variances have been granted to.allow a taller first floor elevation than the one -foot that is required. In each instance, the request was due a ground water or flood plain issue. In those instances it is best to elevate the new home to get it out an.area with a high waterjable o.r -flood plain. The Planning Commission has recommended that this issue be addressed by Conditional Use Permit. Language has been added to the ordinance accordingly. In summary the proposed ordinance would: Allow building, additions into existing non - conforming setbacks up to a maximum of the 200 square feet on each existing level of the home, or up to the existing, square of -the existing home, whichever is less. This only applies to properties zoned R -1 and R -2. 2. Require a Conditional Use Permit for additions, repairs, replacement and restoration to, single dwelling unit buildings with a first floor elevation of .more than one -foot above the existing dwelling unit building. This also only applies to properties zoned R -1 and R -2. Driveway Width There has been conflict with the City's code requirement for a 12 -foot minimum driveway width, and the character of the Country Club District. The average driveway width in the Country Club District is 9.73 feet. Variances are often necessary, and have been granted to allow a lesser driveway width to access garages behind single- family homes on 50-foot wide lots. The ZOUC agreed to a final draft recommendation to not require a minimum driveway width in the R -1 Zoning District. Acceptable materials for driveways will include pervious pavers. Attached ris a "draft" ordinance amendment that would institute those recommendations. The Planning; Commission has reconsidered this issue over the past few meetings, and was considering establishing a maximum driveway width. (See attached minutes and background information.) Based.on the discussion and questions that came up at the September 15 open house, staff is recommending that the previously proposed maximum driveway width of 30 feet or the width of a garage be removed from the proposed ordinance at this time. Concerns raised at the open house included: if a maximum width is established, how would driveway turn - arounds be regulated; how would lots with multiple garages be regulated; should driveways be included in lot coverage; should paved parking areas be Ll considered in driveway width; should there be an impervious surface requirement; what is the definition of a driveway; and would a maximum width requirement create non - conforming driveways? Currently, there is no maximum driveway width requirement for residential driveways in the City of Edina. Staff is not aware of any complaints or issues in the past regarding this regulation. Staffis concerned about establishing a requirement that would .create non - conforming uses, and create,a demand for variances. If a maximum width requirement is desired, the issues.raised could be further studied as part of other amendments currently being worked on, including impervious surface and lot coverage requirements. In summary the proposed ordinance would: 1. Eliminate the minimum driveway width requirement in the R -1 and R -2 Zoning ` Districts. 2. Allows pervious pavers as an acceptable driveway material. Recommendation /Conclusion Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinances subject to any additions or amendments recommended by the Commission. 5 ORDINANCE. 2010 -17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND'USES AND ADDITIONS TO OR REPLACEMENT OF HOMES WITH A FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION OVER ONE FOOT ABOVE: THE EXISTING, HOMES FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1.. Section $50.07 Subd. 20. A. is repealed: 7 It shall net he rer�l " ith any ether RORGnnfOFFninn use• ' rl �: L11f' T'[l T7�T�f :!*T.Kff>fiZ:FT�:tIf:RTT.E . '1:T.T�'>ZT.T.I Me e Section 2. Section 850.07 Subd. 20.13 is amended to read: B. Nonconforming Buildings. 1. Alterations, Additions and Enlargements. a. A nonconforming building; .other than. a single dwelling unit building, shall not be added to or enlarged, in any manner, or subjected to an alteration involving fifty percent (50 %) or more of the gross floor area of the building, or fifty percent (50 %) or more of the exterior wall area of the building, unless such non - conforming building, including all additions, alterations and enlargements, shall conform to all of the restrictions of the district in which it is located. The percentage of the gross floor area or exterior wall area Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX subjected to an alteration shall be the aggregate percentage for any consecutive three (3) year period. b. dwelling unit building shall not be to an a 11011 GOAfGFMing single added to eF enlaFged in any or subjeGted FnanneF, alterratinns shall nnnfnrm to the setbaGk and height restrintinns of the diStriot in Whinh it is nssted- and unless GUGh nen GOnfGFFn*ng single dwelling unit building, inGluding all s„nh additions, enlargements WhiGh at is IGGated. and alteFatinns shall b. Alternate setbacks. An addition to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, or an addition to a structure accessory to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, may be constructed within the existing nonconforming setback, which is the shortest distance from the applicable lot line to the existing - structure, subject to the following limitations) i. the addition shall not exceed the existing square footage encroachment into the nonconforming ;setback or two hundred (200) square feet,, whichever is less; and ii. the addition may only be used on the same floor as the existing encroachment into the nonconforming setback. 2. Nonconformities Repairs, Maintenanne and Remodeling NGn- raenfGFMing buildings Fnay be repaiFed, maintained and remedeled to n Went and in Fnanner ,�ihioh does not violate the rrn�vacn ..�Qrrc�atcnrarru--rrra-rrTarn� ... . . Except as provided in Section 850.21, any nonconformity, including the lawful us_ e or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this Chapter, may be 'continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration_ , maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, except as specifically provided in this Chapter, unless; a. the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one (1) year; or Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —X Added text — XXXX b. any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or othe peril to the extent of greater than fifty percent (50% its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within one hundred eighty (180) days of when the property is damaged. In these cases, the Hof Edina may impose reasonable conditions upon building permit in order to mitigate any newly creal impact on adjacent property. Any subsequent use occupancy of the land or premises shall be a� conformina use or occur)ancv. . Section 3. Section 850.11 (R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District) Subd. 2. Conditional Uses; is amended to add the following: Additions to or replacement of single dwelling unit buildings with first floor elevation of more than one (1) foot above the existing fir: floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit building. Such addition o or replacements of single dwelling unit buildings must meet one or more of the first three (3) conditions listed below, and always m condition four 141 F— The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to elevate the lowest habitable level of the dwell ni g to an elevation of two (2) feet above the Federal Emergency, Management Agency_(FEMA) flood plain elevation; or Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —X X M" MITMr. . - - . - - - - MINIM - Section 3. Section 850.11 (R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District) Subd. 2. Conditional Uses; is amended to add the following: Additions to or replacement of single dwelling unit buildings with first floor elevation of more than one (1) foot above the existing fir: floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit building. Such addition o or replacements of single dwelling unit buildings must meet one or more of the first three (3) conditions listed below, and always m condition four 141 F— The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to elevate the lowest habitable level of the dwell ni g to an elevation of two (2) feet above the Federal Emergency, Management Agency_(FEMA) flood plain elevation; or Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —X X The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent I ecessary to reasonably protect the dwelling from ground water intrusion. Existing and potential ground water elevat shall be determined in accordance with accepted hydrolog land hydraulic engineering practices. Determinations shall undertaken by a licensed design professional who shall. document that the technical methods used reflect currentli accepted engineering practice. Studies, analyses and computations shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allot i it review and approval; or Lou 3. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to allow the new building to meet State Building_ Code, City of Edina Code, or other statutory requirements; an 4 An increase in first floor elevation will only be permitted if the new structure or addition fits the character of the 'neighborhood. Section 4. Section 850.1.1 Subd. 7. H. is hereby amended as follows: H. Additions to or replacement of, ,'single f "v,i'y rwellillg dwelling unit buil g and buildings containing two dwelling units. For additions, alterations and changes to, or rebuilds of,existing single family dweiiangs dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwellings, the first floor elevation may not. be more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation. If a split level dwelling is torn down and a. new home is built, the new first floor or entry level elevatiom may not be more than one foot above the front entry elevation of the home that was torn down. Subj to Section 850.11 Subd. 2. I. the first floor elevation may be increased more than one (1) foot. T� he provisions of this paragraph shall apply to all single family aw4i n dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two dwelling units including units in the flood plain overlay district. Any deviation.from�:the requirements of this paragraph shall require a variance. Section S. Section 850.12 (R -2, Double Dwelling Unit District) is amended to add the following: Subd. 3. Conditional Use Additions to or,replacement of single dwelling unit buildings and buildings containing two (2) dwelling units with a first floor elevatio of more than one (1) foot above the existing first floor elevates ion of the existina dwelling unit buildinq. Such additions to or, Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXX-X Added text — X XXX X replacements of single or two dwelling unit buildings must meet one or more of the first three_(3) conditions listed below, and always meet condition four (4) 1. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to elevate the lowest habitable level of the dwelling to an elevation of two (2) feet above the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain elevation; or 2. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to reasonably protect the dwelling from ground water intrusion. Existing and potential ground water elevations shall be determined in accordance with accepted hydrologic and hydraulic engineering practices. Determinations shall be undertaken by a licensed design professional who shall document that the technical methods used reflect currently accepted engineering practice. Studies, analyses and computations shall be submitted in sufficient_ detail to allow thorough review and approval; or 3. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to allow the new building to meet State Building Code, City of Edina Code, or other statutory requirements; and 4. An increase in first floor elevation will only be permitted if the new structure or addition fits the character of the neighborhood. Section 6. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: , Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2010. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX Alternate Setbacks % A 444 1 T 10#4 i (MA'%) AV IJ 6R:VE EXISTING HOUSE o \ A n N` P y �f r rr r SET' 4 AC K_.o q' , .x Alternate Setbacks momft- -COMF000146 5FTRaCk ORDINANCE NO. 2010 -18 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES AND ESTABLISHING A PUD DISTRICT The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.04 is amended to, read: 850.04 Administration and Procedures for Variances and Appeals, Rezoning, Site Plan Review, I TranSfeF tG Planned DiStFiGts and Conditional Use Permits. Subd. 1 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99, applications shall be approved or denied within sixty (60) days from the date of its,, official and complete submission unless extended by the Citi pursuant to statute or a time waiver is granted by the applica Subd. 4 2 Variances and Appeals. A. Zoning Board of Appeals. There is. continued a separate Zoning Board of .Appeals of the City. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the board of appeals and adjustments created pursuant to M.S. 462.354, Subd. 2. All members of the Commission, from time to time, shall be members, and the other members shall be six residents of the City appointed for a term of three years by the Mayor`with the consent of a majority.of the members of the Council. For hearings; the Board shall consist, at a maximum, of any five members, but three members,shall constitute a quorum for conducting such hearings and making decisions. However, at least one Commission member shall be in attendance at each Board. meeting, and shall be deemed to be the representative of the Commission for purposes of review and report by the Commission as required by M.S. 462.354, Subd.. 2. The Board shall make no decision until the Commission, or a representative of it, has had reasonable opportunity, not to exceed 60 days, to review and report to the Board concerning the decision. All members shall serve without compensation. Members may resign voluntarily or be removed by a majority vote of the Council or pursuant to Section 180 of this Code. That Commission member in attendance at a Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX meeting who has the then longest continuous service on the Commission shall be the Chair for that meeting. The Board shall adopt such bylaws as shall be necessary or.desirable for conduct of its business. Staff services shall,be provided by the Planning Department. Board members who discontinue legal residency in the City, shall be automatically removed from office effective as of the date of such discontinuance. Vacancies shall be filed pursuant to Subsection 180.03 of-this Code. B. Powers and Duties of Board. The Board shall have the power and duty of hearing and deciding, subject to appeal to the Council, the following matters: 1. Requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Section; 2. Appeals in which it is alleged, that. there is an error in any order, "requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative offices in the interpretation or enforcement of this Section; 3. Requests for variances from the literal, provisions of Section 1046 of this Code; 4. Requests for'modifications from the requirements of Section 815 of this Code; and ' 5. If a variance request is part of another land use application; ~including but not limited to a conditional use permit, rezoning and preliminary or final site plan, the decision by the Zoning !Board of Appeals is automatically appealed to the City Council The City Council would then take, official action on the, applications including the variance. If a variance request is—mma_de, along with a certificate of appropriateness for the Heritage 1Preservation Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals decision is not automatically appealed j— C. Petitions for Variances. The, owner or owners of land to which the variance relates may file a p"etition fora variance with the Planning Department. The petition shall be made on forms provided by th6 Planning Department and shall be accompanied by the fee set forth in Section 185 of this Code. The petition shall be accompanied by plans and drawings to scale which clearly illustrate, to the satisfaction of the Planner, the improvements to be made if the variance is granted. The Planner may require the petitioner to submit a certificate by a registered professional land surveyor verifying the location of all buildings, setbacks and building coverage, and certifying 2 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX other facts that in the opinion of the Planner are. necessary for evaluation of the petition. D. Appeals of Administrative Decisions. A person who deems himself or herself aggrieved by an alleged error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made'by an administrative officer in the interpretation and enforcement of this Section, may appeal to the Board by filing a written appeal with the Planning Department within thirty (30) days after the date of such order, requirement, decision or determination. The appeal shall fully state the order to be appealed and the relevant facts of the matter. E. Hearing and Decision by the Board; Notice. rd �Iftvtf I M-0 - - - - .. -- - 711W. rMIT.TrMI= a 3 - - C -2. Notice of variance hearings shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to the person who filed the petition for variance and to each owner of property situated wholly or partially within two hundred (200) feet of the property to which the variance relates insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can be reasonably determined by the Clerk from records maintained by the Assessor. 23.A notice of hearing for appeals of administrative decisions shall be published in the official newspaper of the City not less than ten (10) days before the hearing. A notice shall also be mailed to the appellant. 34. No new notice need be given for any hearing which is continued by the Board to a specified future date. F. Findings for Variances. The Board shall not grant a.petition fora variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be `put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —X X variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the.property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not'constitute an undue hardship if. reasonable use for. the petitioner's. property exists under the terms,of this Section. A favorable yote'by the Board shall be deemed to include a favorable finding on.each of the foregoing matters even if not specifically set out. in the approval resolution or the minutes of the Board meeting.. G. Appeals from Decisions of the Board. 1. The following individuals may appeal a decision of the Board: a. any petitioner for a ,variance; b. any owner to whom notice of the variance hearing is required to be mailed pursuant to this Section; c. the appellant in the case of an appeal of an administrative decision; d. any person who deems.to be aggrieved by the Board's decision on the appeal of an administrative decision; and e. any administrative officer of the City; 2. An appeal from a decision of the Board shall be filed with the Clerk no later than ten (10) days, after the decision by the Board. If not,so filed, the right of appeal shall -be deemed waived, and the decision of the Board shall be final. H. Hearing and Decision by Council. The Council shall hear and decide all appeals from the decisions of the Board, and variances associated with other land use applications. The n appeal shall be heard not later than sixty (60) days.-after the date the appeal is filed. The Council shall follow the same, procedures as to notices,. hearings, findings for variances and decisions that the Board is required to follow relative to the subject matter of the appeal pursuant to this Section. A favorable vote by the Council shall be deemed to include a favorable finding, on each of the required findings even if not specifically set out in the approval resolution or the minutes of the Council meeting. I. Conditions on Variance Approvals. In granting a variance, the Board, or the Council on appeal, may impose conditions to ensure compliance with the purpose and intent of this Code and to protect adjacent properties. 4 Existing text. - XXXX Stricken text — Added text -Xxxx J. Form of Action Taken and Record. The Board, or the Council on appeal, shall maintain a record of its proceedings which shall include, the minutes of its meetings and final order concerning the variance petition or appeal of administrative decision. If a variance is granted, the petitioner, atthe petitioner's expense, shall duly record the final order in the proper office to give constructive notice. A verified copy of such.order, with the recording data,.shall be delivered to-the Planner. The Board, or the Council on appeal, may require such order to be recorded and such verified copy to be delivered to the Planner before the variance shall be effective. K. Lapse of Variance by Non - User; Extension of Time. 1. If, within one (1) year after the date of the meeting of the Board, or the Council on appeal, at which the'variance was granted, the owner or occupant of the affected land shall.not have obtained a`,building permit, if one is required, and commenced the work or improvement described in such petition, the variance shall become null and void. unless a petition for extension of time in which to commence the proposed work or improvement has been granted. 2. A petition for extension shall be in writing and filed with the Clerk within such one_(1) year period. The petition for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to use the variance and shall state the additional time requested to begin the proposed work or improvement. The petition shall be presented to the Board for hearing, findings and decision in the same manner as then required by this Section 850 for an original petition for variance. The Board may grant an extension of the variance for up to one (1) year upon finding that a good faith attempt to use the variance has been made, that there. is a reasonable expectation that the variance will be used during the extension, that speculation will thereby 'not be fostered, and that the facts and circumstances under which the original variance was granted are not materially changed. L. Denial. No application for a variance which has been denied in whole or in part shall be resubmitted within twelve (12) months of the date of the order of denial, except that a new application may be permitted to the same denying board, if new evidence or a change of. circumstances warrant it. Subd. 3 Transfer- to Planned Distiricts. ,Site Plan Review,. •_ _ ■ - M Mi aTIMM11r. Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — X Added text —XXXX Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX CTIMMr. Mr. rwrm Mm 0 SIM IIPI=-N 01 a- I mr7nm - \ rlwp - - - \ \ M IT"- _ IM I I MY Y I _ MIN m ■ - ■ � ■ ■ ' ■ ■ 11 - NXIMMM 3. - - Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish a formal site plan !review procedure and provide regulations pertaining to ensure compliance with the with site design standards imposed by Sections 460 and 850 of the City Code. {B. Approval Required. Without first obtaining site plan approval it shall be, lunlawful to do any of the - following: 1. Construct a new building or add on to an existing building that would (result in an increase in gross floor area of all buildings on the lot by more than ten percent 2. Move a building to any lot within the City; 3. Expand or change the use of a building or parcel of land or modify a !building, accessory structure or site or land feature in any manner which results in a different intensity of use, including the requirement for additional parking; 4. Grade or take other actions to prepare a site for development, except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan; and 5. Remove earth, soils, gravel or other natural material from or place the same on a site, except in conformance with a permit or am approved plan. C Exceptions. exempt cited 't le, the fllowi shall be from the foregoing within of this Chapter: 1. Construction or alteration of a single - family or two - family residential Ibuilding or accessory building; 2. Enlargement of a building by less than ten percent (10 %) of its gross floor area, provided that there is no variance involved and also provided that the Planner has conducted an administrative review pursuant to Section 850 of this Ordinance; and 3. Changes in the leasable space of a multi- tenant building where the change_ does not intensify the use, require additional parking, or it Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX result in an inability to maintain required performance standards as specified in Section 850 of this Ordinance. D. Neighborhood Meeting. Applicants are encouraged to hold a neighborhood meeting with nearby residents and landowners prior to filing of a formal site plan application. E. Sketch Plan: 1. Prior to the formulation of a Site Plan, applicants are encouraged to' (present a sketch plan to the Planner prior to filing of a formal - application. The plan shall be conceptual but shall be drawn to scale with topography of a contour interval not greater than two (2) feet and may include the following: a. the proposed site with reference to existing development, topography, and drainage conditions on adjacent properties, at Ileast to within two hundred (200) feet; ,b. natural features; c. general location of existing and proposed structures including signs; I . tentative access, circulation and street arrangements, both public and _private; e. amenities to be provided such as recreational areas, open space, walkways, landscaping, etc; f. _ general_ location of parking areas; g. _proposed public sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage; (h. a statement showing the proposed density of the project with the method of calculating said density also shown; and I. additional information that demonstrates the nature, intent, or benefit of the proposed development. 2. The Planner shall refer the sketch plan to the Planning Commission and City Council for discussion, review, and informal comment. Any opinions or comments provided to the applicant by the Planner, 8 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX Planning Commission, and City Council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request., There shall be no official application made for a sketch plan. It is an Informal review and comment by Planning Commission and City Council.. F. Procedure. ,1.. Filing of Request. Request for site plan approval, as provided within this Title, shall be filed with the Planner on an official application form. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee as established �by City Council resolution. Such application shall also be - - accompanied by detailed written and graphic materials, the number and size as prescribed by the Planner, fully explaining the proposed change, development, or use. The request shall be considered as being officially submitted and complete when the applicant has - 'complied with all specified information requirements. In cases where an application is judged to be incomplete, the Planner shall notify the applicant, in writing, within fifteen (15) days of the date of submission. 2. Proof of Ownership or Authorization. The applicant shall supply !proof of title and the legal description of the property for which the site plan approval is requested, consisting of an abstract of title and as applicable supply documented authorization from the owner(s) of the property in question to proceed with the requested site plan application, 3. Technical Reports. The Planner shall instruct the appropriate staff, persons to prepare technical reports where appropriate, and provide general assistance in conducting an evaluation of the request. 4. Additional Information. City staff shall have the authority to request additional information from the applicant concerning operational ,factors or to retain expert assistance with the consent and at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. Said iinformation is to be declared necessary to evaluate the request and to establish performance conditions in relation to all pertinent sections of this Title. Failure on the part of the applicant to supply all necessary supportive information may be grounds for denial of the request. 5. Meeting with the Planner and Staff. The applicant or a representative thereof shall meet with the Planner and City staff in order to present 9 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text -X Added text —XXXX !information and answer questions concerning the proposed requests, 6. Commission Review and Hearing. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the site plan. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official (newspaper of the City at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the (hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property, situated wholly or partly within one thousand (1,000) feet of the tract to which the petition relates insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the Clerk from records maintained by the Assessor or from other appropriate (records. After reviewing the report of the Planner and hearing the ;oral or written views of all interested persons, the Commission shall ,make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date and send its recommendation to the Council. No new notice need be 'given for hearings, which are continued by the Commission to a specified future date. The Commission shall recommend approval by the Council upon finding that the proposed development meets the standards of Section 850 of City Code: 7. Council Hearing and Decision. The Council shall conduct a public !hearing on the site plan in the same manner as the Commission above: G. Standards. In evaluating a site plan, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider its compliance with the following: 1. Consistency with the elements and objectives of the City's development guides, including the Comprehensive Plan and Water (Resources Management Plan; and 2. Consistency with this_ Ordinance. !H. Information Required. The information required for all site plan applications consist of the following items, and shall be submitted ,unless waived by the Planner. 1. Site boundaries, buildings, structures and other improvements shall be identified on -site with a current certificate of survey, prepared and signed by a Minnesota licensed land surveyor, depicting the following: 10 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX a_ scale of plan (engineering scale only_, at one inch equals fifty feet (1" = 50') or less.). Ib. north point indication; c. existing boundaries with lot dimension and area; d. existing site improvements; e. all encroachments; If. easements of record; g. legal description of the property_; and ponds, lakes, springs, rivers or other waterways bordering on or, running through the subject property F - 2. A site plan utilizing a copy of the current certetecate base for the site in question, depicting the followinc a. name and address of developer /owner;. b. name and address of architect/designer; c. date of plan preparation d. dates and description of all revisions; e. name of project or development; and ,f. all proposed improvements, including i. required and proposed setbacks; ii. location, setback and dimensions of all prop] -7and structures;, survey as buildin ii. location of all adjacent buildings located within one hund (100) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property in question: . location, number, dimensions, and setbacks of - 'parking spaces and drive aisles; 11 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — X Added text — XXXX de tj_ ix �v� location, number, and dimensions of proposed loading spaces; vi. location, width, and setbacks of all curb cuts and driveways; Yii.vehicular circulation; viii. sidewalks, walkways, trails; ix. cation and type of all proposed lighting, including details of al proposed fixtures, x. location of recreation and service areas; xi. location of rooftop equipment and proposed screening., Mi.�provisions for storage and disposal of waste, garbage,.and irecyclables, including details for screening exterior trashlrecvclina enclosures; and xii location, sizing, and type of water and sewer system mains Wand proposed service connections. 3�Gradinglstormwater drainage plan, utilizing a copy of the current certificate of survey as a base for the site in question, prepared and I by a Minnesota licensed engineer, depicting the followings 'a. existing contours at two (2) foot intervals (may be prepared by a Minnesota licensed surveyor); b_ proposed grade elevations at two (2) foot maximum intervalsj . c.�drainage plan, including the configuration of drainage areas a,nd calculations; d. storm sewer, catch basins, invert elevations, type of castings, and ~itwe of materials e.�spot elevations (may be prepared surveyor);; f. proposed driveway_grades; a Minnesota lic 12 Existing-text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX g. surface water ponding and treatment areas; and h. erosion control measures. Landscaping plan in accordance with Section 850.10. Landscape plan must use a copy of the current certificate ofr survey as a base [For the site in question, depicting the following; a_ planting schedule (table) containing; �i. symbols;_ Ki. quantities; iii. common names; iv. botanical names; u. sizes of plant materiali root specification (bare root, balled and burla ootted,etc.); and vi, i. special planting instructions. location, type and size of all existing significant trees to be removed or preserved; planting detail (show all species to scale at normal mature crows diameter or spread for local hardiness zone); d. typical sections with details of fences, tie walls,_planter boxes, t� �lots,_picnic areas, berms and the like; e typical sections with details of landscape islands, planter beds, and foundation plantings with identification of materials used; note indicating how disturbed soil areas will be restored thro the use of sodding, seeding, or other techniques; delineation of both sodded and seeded areas with res areas in square feet; h. coverage plan for underground irrigation system, if any_;, 13 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX i. where landscape or manmade materials are used to provide screening from adjacent and neighboring properties, a cross I section shall be provided showing the perspective of the site from the neighboring_property at the property line elevation; and j. other existing or proposed conditions which could be expected t — .affect landscaping Other plans and information as required by the Planner including, abut not limited to a. architectural elevations of all principal and accessory buildings ,(type, color, and materials used in all external surfaces)_;r— b. "typical" floor plan and "typical" room plan drawn to scale with summary of square footage for each use or activity_; c. fire protection plan; d ,type, location and size (area and height) of all signs to be erecter upon the property in question; e• ,vicinity map showing the subject property in reference to nearby 'hiahways or maior street intersections, and. f, lighting plan. I. Plan Modifications. Minor changes may be authorized by the Planneri Proposed changes to the approved site plan affecting structural types; building coverage, mass, intensity or height, allocation of open space sand all other changes which affect the overall design of the property shall be acted on, reviewed and processed by the Commission and Council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed the site (plan, J. Existing Approved Final Development Plan. All existing approved Fina Development Plans as of (date of ordinance approval.) are now deeme to be approved site plans!. KK Lapse of Approved Final Development Site Plan,,by Non -User; Extension of Time. 14 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX 1. If a building' permit has not been obtained, and if erection or alteration of a building, as.described in the application for final devolo meat site plan, has not begun within two.(2) years after final dove'^""'' en si a plan approval, the approval shall be null and. void unless a petition for extension of time in which to commence the proposed work or improvements has been granted. 2. A petition for extension shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk within such two (2) year period. The petition shall state reasons showing why a building permit has not been obtained, or why erection or alterations have�.not commenced, and shall state the additionaf time requested 6'begin the proposed work.or improvement. The petition shall be presented to the Council for hearing and decision in the same manner as then required for an original application. The Council may grant an extension of up to one (1) year upon finding °that: a. there is a reasonable expectation that the proposed work or improvement will commence during the extension; and b: the facts which were the basis for approving the final development plan have not materially changed. No more than one (1) extension shall be granted. Subd. 2 4 Rezoning. A. Initiation of.RezoningProcess. 1. A petition for rezoning may be initiated by the owner of land proposed for rez the Council or the Commission. 2. A' pet ition by an owner shall be on forms provided by the Planner, shall be submitted with plans, data and information required by this Section, and such other information that the Planner believes necessary for evaluation of the petition. The petition shall be accompanied by the fee set,forth in Section 185 of this Code. B. Sign. The petitioner for rezoning shall erect, or cause to be erected, at least one (1) sign 'per street frontage on the land described in the petition. The sign or signs shall be of a design approved by the Planner, shall be thirty-six (36) inches by sixty (60) inches in size,. shall,have letters. at least four (4) inches. high using Helvetica medium typeface or other letter style approved by the Planner, shall be constructed of sturdy material, shall be 15 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX neatly lettered, and shall be easily viewable from, and readable by persons on, the adjoining street. The sign or signs shall contain the following information: "This property proposed for rezoning by: (Name of Petitioner or Applicant) (Telephone Number of Petitioner or Applicant) For information contact Edina Planning Department: Telephone No. 952 - 927 - 8861" The petition shall,not be deerned filed and the Commission shall not be FeqUiFed to hold any hearings on the petition until the sign has b The sign shall be kept in good repair and shall be maintained in place until a final decision on the petition has been made by the Council, and shall be removed by the petitioner within five (5) days after the final decision. The failure of any petitioner to comply fully with the provisions of this paragraph relating to the sign shall not prevent the Commission and Council from acting on the petition nor invalidate any rezoning granted by the Council. If the signs are not kept in good repair or removed as required, then the signs shall be deemed a nuisance and may be abated by the City by proceedings under M.S. 429, or any other then applicable provisions of this Code or State Law, and the cost of abatement, including administrative expenses and attorneys' fees, may be levied as a special assessment against the property upon which the sign is located. C. Procedure for Rezoning to Planned Residential Du trio+ Regional Medinel De trim Planned Offine Dictrint Planned Gemmernial D*6triot and Planned Preliminary 1DevelepmeRt Rezoning and Site Plan. The petition for rezoning shall include a preliminary DeyelepmepA site plan with the required data and information in Section 850.04 Subd. 3. above. shown the following data and - - - -- - 16 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX of the perimeteF Of the II tree+ and alleys leGated within 100 feet 16 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX G . The Innwtion general evterioF dimensions and height of all buildings i OF numbeF of dwelling units �S+ e. 2 mh oilier infnrrr+afin_n a is n the opinion of the DI' nner to evvL„+te the 06tition' to'detcrmino nonsi tenGy with the 2. Commission Review and Hearing. Within 45 days afte Upon receipt by the Planner of the petition, fee and all other,required information,, in form and substance acceptable to the Planner, the Planner will review the petition, preliminary Develepment si a plan and the other information provided by the petitioner, and forward a report to the Commission. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the petition and preliminary elopment s e plan. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to'each owner of property situated wholly or partly within one thousand (:1,000) feet of the tract to which the petition relates insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the Clerk from records maintained by the Assessor or from other appropriate records. After reviewing the report of the Planner and hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the Commission shall make its decision at the.same meeting or at a specified future date and send its recommendation, to the Council. No new notice need be given for hearings, which are continued by the Commission to a specified future date. 3. Council Hearings and Decision; Preliminary Zoning Approval. -Upon request of the Planner, Manager or petitioner, and after review and recommendation by the Commission, the Council shall conduct a public hearing regarding the petition and preliminary Develepmentii plan. The he Finn c hall he held not later than Gail dais 'after the date of the F-PGOmmendatibn by the . A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official 17 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX newspaper of the City at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated wholly or partly within one thousand (1,000) feet of the tract to which the petition relates insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the Clerk from records maintained by the Assessor or from other appropriate records. After hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the Council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date. No new notice need be given for hearings, which are continued by the Council to a specified future date. An affirmative vote of three -fifths of all members of the Council shall be required to grant preliminary rezoning approval. Provided, however, a rezoning from any residential zoning district to any nonresidential zoning district shall require an affirmative vote of four -fifths of all members of the Council. If preliminary rezoning approval is granted, the petitioner may prepare a final Development site plan. In granting preliminary rezoning approval, the Council may make modifications to the preliminary Development site plan and may impose conditions on its approval. The petitioner shall include the modifications, and comply with the conditions, in the final Development site plan, or at another time and by other documents, as the Council may require or as shall be appropriate." 4. Final Development Site Plan. The final Development site plan shall include all required information and data delineated on the preliminary Development site plan and, in addition, the following +nfor^^�n- required data and information in Section 850.04 Subd. 3. above. 18 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX - - - - V-, - eA F7 5. Final Development Rezoning and Site Plan; Commission Review and Hearing. The Final Development Plan shall he in form ands bstanno of Final Development old The Planner shall forward a report to the Commission. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the Final Development Dlan rezoning and site plan. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated wholly or partly within one thousand (1,000) feet of the tract to which the petition relates insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the Clerk from records maintained by the Assessor or from other appropriate records. After reviewing the report of the Planner and hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the Commission shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date and send its recommendation to the Council. No new notice need be given for hearings, which are continued by the Commission to a specified future date. The Commission shall may recommend approval by the Council based upon but not limited to the following factors: finding that the PFOpesed development- a. is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; b. is consistent with the preliminary Development site plan as approved and modified by the Council and contains the Council imposed conditions to the extent the conditions can be complied with by the final Development site plan; c. will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract; d. will not result in an overly intensive land use; 19 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX e. will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards; f. conforms to the provisions of this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code; and g. provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features. A recommendation of approval by the Commission shall be deemed to include a favorable finding on each of the foregoing matters even if not specifically set out in the approval resolution or the minutes of the Commission meeting. 6. Council Hearing and Decision; Final Rezoning. Within 60 d-ays after the FeGOMmendatien an the FiRal Development Plan by the GempAi i The Council shall conduct a public hearing on the final Develo PUP rezoning and site plan in the same manner and with the same notices as required for preliminary rezoning approval. After hearing the oral and written views of all interested persons, the Council may accept or reject the findings of the Commission and thereby approve or disapprove the final Development rezoning and site plan. An affirmative vote of three -fifths of all members of the Council shall be required to grant final rezoning approval. Provided, however, a rezoning from any residential zoning district to any nonresidential zoning district shall require an affirmative vote of four -fifths of all members of the Council. appFGval and not done and fulfilled by the Final DeVelopment must be fulfilled and met to the saticfanfinn of the Planner hefere the Plan shall Icn nonstitute final rezeninn of the tram innluded in the plans, and I the publiGation of the eFdananGe amendment e#erating the Ghange shall theFeby be allthOFmzed, but no publiGation shall be dene unto! any FnedifiGations and Genditions made by the GeunGil have been Fnet and fulfilled to the satmsfaGtien of the PlanneF. a 7. da; �n�and at the same time .mac. final Feze��{� ^' .`7 20 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —X Added text —XXXX 7. Filing. The approved final Development site plan shall be filed in the Planning Department. 8. Development. The development of the tract shall be done and accomplished in full compliance with the approved final Development site plan, as modified by, and with the conditions made by, the Council, and in full compliance with this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code. Applications for building permits shall be reviewed by the Planning Department prior to issuance of such permits to determine if they conform to the provisions of this Section, the approved final Development site plan, as modified by, and with the conditions made by, the Council, and other applicable provisions of this Code. 9. Changes to Approved Final Develepment Site Plan. Minor changes in the location and placement of buildings or other improvements due to UnfOFe - - - istanGes may be authorized by the Planner. Proposed changes to the approved final Development site plan affecting structural types, building coverage, mass, intensity or height, allocation of open space and all other changes which affect the overall design of the property shall be acted on, reviewed and processed by the Commission and Council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed the final Development site plan, except that a three - fifths favorable vote of the Council shall be required to authorize the proposed change. 10. Lapse of Approved Final Develepmen+ Site Plan by Non -User; Extension of Time. a. If a building permit has not been obtained, and if erection or alteration of a building, as described in the application for final site development plan, has not begun within two (2) years after final development plan approval, the approval shall be null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to commence the proposed work or improvements has been granted. b. A petition for extension shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk within such two (2) year period. The petition shall state reasons showing why a building permit has not been obtained, or why erection or alterations have not commenced, and shall state the additional time requested to begin the proposed work or improvement. The petition shall be presented to the Council for hearing and decision in the same manner as then required for an 21 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX original application. The Council may grant an extension of up to one (1) year upon finding that: i. there is a reasonable expectation that the proposed work or improvement will commence during the extension; and ii. the facts which were the basis for approving the final development plan have not materially changed. No more than one (1) extension shall be granted. — — — Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —X Added text — XXXX 22 - - - -I - — y — ■ ■ ■ 01 ■ _ ■ ■ M" r.7TzM31.Wd — — — Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —X Added text — XXXX 22 M LE ■- _ - - - ■ - - -W Mal 11M.4 - - - - - IN - • - 000.0 - - - - - - IN I -f - - - - - - - - • - 11 w.r - - - - - - - - M LE ■- _ - - - -W Mal 11M.4 • - ■- - - - - - IN I -f - - - - - - - - WMIN 7.2MMIN11.7-CE" M3 - - - - - - mm. K m - - • - - Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX 9F ar, shall be appFepAaW. ■ ■ _ - ■ ■ - - OR - ■ - 1 I fp.lqo.p-qljLm - •� MEM IM NO■ - - - Mm lee-, - - - ■ - - - - - - - Mw \ - - trwr OWN- - - ■ ' NO ■ ■ _ - ■ ■ - - OR •� MEM IM NO■ - - - Mm lee-, - - - ■ - am I on'.% MWIT= - 24 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text —XXXX nntine niz ho given for hearings, whinh are fi nnnn, Reid by the appFGVaI by the COURGOI upon finoing that the PFOposed development F-TIRWRIERT-WOROMM M_ �._SUMTI G. will not be .detrirrKental'to prnnerties surrounding the trant•_ d. erill not result in r.n overly land use• o wmil not result in URd ue tr.+ffin nonnectinn i+r tMffin hazardo• - - - "MIS. 1p If JIM ■ - ■ ■ ■ - ■ Cl T T- Ml ■ 25 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — X X ■- - - - design featuFes ,,.....,w...,...,...,.. of all _ - - ■ - - ' swum Rd IGGations, design featuFes ,,.....,w...,...,...,.. of all _ - - ■ - - ' swum Rd PFOpered F-7 wl -- _ - din; j leGataone, ef all IGGations, design featuFes ,,.....,w...,...,...,.. of all ---- . -, streets, G. the dn Rd PFOpered din; j leGataone, ef all existing and sidewalks, togetheF with d. IGGatian of all existing, andffeliminwy.ayeut and design of all dimensions and IGGations of all existing SeWeFS, togetheF with 26 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX D. Procedure for Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is tom provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The F purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: rovide for the establishment of PUD (planned un evelopment) zoning districts in appropriate setti nd situations to create or maintain a developmei Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text -XXXX 27 ■_ N aw ' - I PC, 11 irR MINE" Irm ITM r - - - - LIU mar - D. Procedure for Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is tom provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The F purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: rovide for the establishment of PUD (planned un evelopment) zoning districts in appropriate setti nd situations to create or maintain a developmei Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text -XXXX 27 ■_ N aw - Irm ITM r - - - - LIU mar - TM jr jr. MMAVAMFO D. Procedure for Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is tom provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The F purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: rovide for the establishment of PUD (planned un evelopment) zoning districts in appropriate setti nd situations to create or maintain a developmei Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text -XXXX 27 ■_ N aw - Irm ITM r - - - - LIU - - TM jr jr. D. Procedure for Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is tom provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The F purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: rovide for the establishment of PUD (planned un evelopment) zoning districts in appropriate setti nd situations to create or maintain a developmei Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text -XXXX 27 pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive `Plan; r b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics? ieconomic viability_, and general welfare of the City;` c. provide for variations to the strict application of the lanc 7:7use regulations in order to improve site design and' operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may, `include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and p (height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods,_parks or other sensitive uses;, . d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible_ with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space scenic views, and screening.;. g, allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing.; and L ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions --�between differing land uses(- 2. ApplicabilitylCriteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, �I conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined 28 Existing -text - XXXX -- - Stricken text = XY Added text —XXXX in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially,' allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they, would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R -1, R -2 Viand PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD-- b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with thi ,following; i. where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the IPUD include all the land uses so designated orb such combination of the designated uses as the CI Iity Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; the City may use incentives to encourage the ,construction of projects which are consistent wit the City's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density and floor area ratio requirements for developments providing affordable housing. Incentives may be approved by the City only after the developer and City havc entered into an agreement to ensure that the low for moderate cost units remain available toJ persons of low or moderate income for a specific ;period of time; iii. any PUD which involves a single land use type o — housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ,ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan., iv. permitted densities may be specifically stated in Lithe appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with them ;Comprehensive Plan; and the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered 29 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent ,described in #1 aboveg 3. Procedures ; Pre - Application Conference. Prior to filing of an application for PUD, the applicant must arrange for and attend a conference with City staff. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of the proposal the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to,, he provisions of this Title before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other, data Pre - Application Sketch Plan Review. Prior to filing of a PUD, the applicant is encouraged to submit a sketch`) plan of the project to the City Planner per Section 85r 0 Subd. 3.E. The submittal should include a statement providing justification for the PUD, including but not limited to the intended utilization of the items listed in the Purpose and Intent, and Criteria above. c. Planning Commission and City Council Review. The Planner shall refer the sketch plan to the Planning Commission and City Council for discussion, review, Viand informal comment. Any opinions or comments` provided to the applicant by the Planner, Planning Commission, and City Council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding (decision on the request. There shall be no official application made for a sketch plan. It is an informal review and comment by planning_ commission and City, y Council. d. Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary, Rezoning. Preliminary development plan submissions may depict and outline the proposed implementation of he sketch plan for the PUD. The preliminary, development Plan submissions shall include, but not be limited to, the submission requirements stipulated in 30 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX Section 850.04. Subd. 3. Preliminary rezoning process is stipulated in Section 850.04 Subd. 4.C; e. Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning. After approval of the preliminary development plan, the,`_ applicant may apply for a final development plan and final rezoning approval for all or a portion of the PUD. The final development plan submissions shall include, but not be limited to, the submission requirements, stipulated in Section 850.04 Subd. 3. Final rezoning Orocess is stipulated in Section 850.04. Subd. 4.0 (Final rezoning to PUD becomes official upon adoption of an ordinance rezoning the property. ■ _ ■ E - - - _ - RMIMOOMMAN - - - - - Be- OW Im Oa IN py aTaTa -- - ' - - - - - - _ Wool E 31 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX OW Im Oa IN py 31 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX _ MR _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ LLLRjZ _ - - - - ORO 1 I --T -I- I a .1—IN WON FVMMIMMII 6-:E. Restriction on Rezoning After Denial of Petition. After the Council has denied a petition for rezoning, the owner of the tract to which the petition related may not file a new petition for a period of one year following the date of such denial for transferring the same tract, or any part, to the same district or subdistrict (if the district has been divided into subdistricts) to which such transfer was previously denied. Provided, however, that such petition may be filed if so directed by the Council on a three -fifths favorable 32 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX - - - - LLLRjZ _ - - - - WON FVMMIMMII 6-:E. Restriction on Rezoning After Denial of Petition. After the Council has denied a petition for rezoning, the owner of the tract to which the petition related may not file a new petition for a period of one year following the date of such denial for transferring the same tract, or any part, to the same district or subdistrict (if the district has been divided into subdistricts) to which such transfer was previously denied. Provided, however, that such petition may be filed if so directed by the Council on a three -fifths favorable 32 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX vote of all members of the Council after presentation to the Council of evidence of a change of facts or circumstances affecting the tract. F. Text Amendments. 1. A petition for a text amendment may be initiated by the owner of affected land, the Council or the Commission. A petition by an owner shall be on forms provided by the Planner and such other !information that the Planner believes necessary for evaluation of the petition. 185 petition of s Coldbee accompanied by the fee set forth in Section 2. Commission Review and Hearing. Upon receipt of the petition, fee and all other required information, in form and substance, acceptable to the Planner, the Planner will review the petition, and the other information provided by the petitioner, and forward a report to the Commission. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the petition. A notice of the date, time,, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official !newspaper of the City at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the !hearing. After reviewing the report of the Planner and hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the Commission shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date and send its recommendation to the Council. No new notice need be given for hearings, which are continued by the Commission to a specified future date, 3. Council Hearings and Decision. After review and recommendation Iby the Commission, the Council shall conduct a public hearing !regarding the proposed text amendment. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. After hearing the oral or written views of all, !interested persons, the Council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date. No new notice need be given for hearings, which are continued by the Council to a specified future date. An affirmative vote of three -fifths of all members of the Council shall be required to approve a text amendment, by Non if a building (of ene 06 FequiFed) has H. Lapse of Rezoning not been obtaoned, and if the -lJseF. peRnit eFeGtnGn or alteFation of a building as de6GFibed 33 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX Subd. 5 Conditional Use Permits. A. Initiation of Conditional Use Permit. An application for a conditional use permit may be initiated by the owner or owners of the lot or building in question. The application shall be on forms provided by the Planner and shall be submitted with required plans, data and information, and such other information as, in the opinion of the Planner, is necessary for evaluation of the application. The application shall be accompanied by the fee set forth in Section 185 of this Code. B. Sign. All provisions and requirements in this Subsection relating to erection of a sign in connection with a rezoning of property shall apply to the applicant for a conditional use permit, and the applicant shall comply with all such provisions and requirements, except that the sign shall state that a conditional use permit is proposed for the property instead of rezoning. C. Application Data. 1. If the conditional use permit is requested to allow a principal or accessory use that requires the construction of a new building or accessory use facilities, or additions or enlargements to an existing building or accessory use facilities, the application shall be drawn to a scale acceptable to the Planner, and be accompanied by plans containing the following data and information: a. elevation drawings of all new buildings or accessory use facilities, or additions and enlargements to existing buildings or accessory use 34 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX _ - - - - - _ 000- WN MW Subd. 5 Conditional Use Permits. A. Initiation of Conditional Use Permit. An application for a conditional use permit may be initiated by the owner or owners of the lot or building in question. The application shall be on forms provided by the Planner and shall be submitted with required plans, data and information, and such other information as, in the opinion of the Planner, is necessary for evaluation of the application. The application shall be accompanied by the fee set forth in Section 185 of this Code. B. Sign. All provisions and requirements in this Subsection relating to erection of a sign in connection with a rezoning of property shall apply to the applicant for a conditional use permit, and the applicant shall comply with all such provisions and requirements, except that the sign shall state that a conditional use permit is proposed for the property instead of rezoning. C. Application Data. 1. If the conditional use permit is requested to allow a principal or accessory use that requires the construction of a new building or accessory use facilities, or additions or enlargements to an existing building or accessory use facilities, the application shall be drawn to a scale acceptable to the Planner, and be accompanied by plans containing the following data and information: a. elevation drawings of all new buildings or accessory use facilities, or additions and enlargements to existing buildings or accessory use 34 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX facilities, including a description of existing and proposed exterior building materials; b. the location, dimensions and other pertinent information as to all proposed and existing buildings, structures and other improvements, streets, alleys, driveways, parking areas, loading areas and sidewalks; c. a landscape plan and schedule in accordance with Subsection 850.1. 0; d. a floor plan showing the location, arrangement and floor area of existing and proposed uses; and e. any other information required, in the opinion of the Planner, to evaluate the application, to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and to ensure compliance with the requirements contained in this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code. 2. If the conditional use permit is requested to allow a principal or accessory use that does not require construction of a new building or accessory use facilities, or additions or enlargements to an existing building or accessory use facilities, the application shall be accompanied by plans showing: a. the location, arrangement and floor area of existing and proposed uses; b. the location, dimensions and other pertinent information as to all buildings, structures, streets, alleys, driveways, parking areas, loading areas, sidewalks and landscaping; and c. any other information required, in the opinion of the Planner, to evaluate the application, determine consistency, with the Comprehensive Plan, and ensure compliance with the requirements contained in this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code. D. Commission Review and Hearing. Within forty -five (45) days after receipt by the Planner of the application, fee and all other required information, in form and substance acceptable to the Planner, the Planner will review the application and the other information provided by the petitioner, and forward a report to the Commission. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the application. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated wholly or partly within one thousand (1,000) feet of the tract 35 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX to which the petition relates insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the Clerk from records maintained by the Assessor or from other appropriate records. After reviewing the report of the Planner and hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the Commission shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date and send its recommendation to the Council. No new notice need be given for hearings, which are continued by the Commission to a specified future date. E. City Council Hearing and Decision. Upon request of the Planner, Manager or applicant, and after review and recommendation by the Commission, the Council shall conduct a public hearing regarding the application. The hearing shall be held not later than sixty (60) days after the date of the recommendation by the Commission. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated wholly or partly within one thousand (1,000) feet of the tract to which the application relates insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the Clerk from records maintained by the Assessor. After hearing the oral and written views of all interested persons, the Council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date. No new notice need be given for hearings which are continued to a specified future date. The Council shall not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use: welfare; 1. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; 2. Will not Gaurse URdue tFa#iG hazar4s, r.ORgeStiOn OF paFking sheFta ; Will generate traffic within the capabilities of the streets serving the property; 3. VVOII not-be to the us& and enjeymeRt, OF der.Fease the value, of 3. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX 4. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; 5 6-. Conforms to the applicable. restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this Section; and 61 7: Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Approval of a conditional use permit requires a three -fifths favorable vote of all members of the Council. A favorable vote by the Council shall be. deemed to include a favorable finding on each of the foregoing matters °even if not specifically set out in the approval resolution or the minutes of the Council meeting. F. Conditions and Restrictions. The Commission may recommend that the Council impose, and the Council with or without such recommendation may impose, conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance, operation or duration of the use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and adjacent properties, to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code, and to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary to secure compliance with any conditions "imposed. No use shall be established or maintained, and no building or other permit for establishing or maintaining such use shall be granted, until the applicant has met and fulfilled all conditions imposed by the Council to the satisfaction of the Planner. G. Expansions of Conditional Uses. No use allowed by conditional use permit, or any building or structure accessory thereto, shall -be increased in gross floor area or height, nor shall any off - street parking facilities accessory to the building or structure be enlarged in surface area to accommodate additional automobiles,'without first obtaining, in each instance, a conditional use. permit. H. Restriction on_Resubmission After Denial. No application for a conditional use permit which has been denied_ by the Council shall be resubmitted for a period of one year following the date of the denial by the Council. Provided, however, that the application may be resubmitted if so directed by the Council on. a three -fifths favorable vote of all members of the Council after 37 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text —XXXX presentation to the Council of evidence of a change of facts or circumstances affecting the proposed use or tract on which it is to be located. Lapse of Conditional Use Permit by Non -User, Extension of Time. 1. If no use allowed by the conditional use permit has begun within two (2) years from the granting of the conditional use permit, the conditional use permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time has been granted. 2. A petition for extension shall be in writing and filed with the Clerk within two (2) years from the granting of the conditional use permit. The petition for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to use the conditional use permit and shall state the additional time requested to begin the use. The petition shall be presented to the Council for hearing and decision in the same manner as then required for an original application. The Council may grant an extension of the conditional use permit for up to one (1) year upon finding that: a. a good faith attempt to use the conditional use permit has been made; b. there is a reasonable expectation that the conditional use permit will be used during the extension; and c. the facts which were the basis for the findings under which the original conditional use permit was granted have not materially changed. No more than one (1) extension shall be granted. For purposes of this paragraph, a use shall be deemed begun when all work described in the original application, or information provided, has been completed and has received final City approvals and the use is operating for the purposes described in the original application. J.' Filing of Conditional Use Permit. If a conditional use permit is granted, the applicant, at the applicant's expense, shall duly file or record the permit in the proper office to give constructive notice of it. A verified copy of the permit, with the recording data on it, shall be delivered to the Planner. The Council may require that the permit be so recorded or filed, and the verified copy delivered to the Planner, before the permit shall become effective. 38 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX -- - -, -- . °: - - -i- - -• -�- - -�..- .tea:.... L�....�.,al..r,ir r�e.irlenno Thn b. the spedfir. home Gupation. p.Fepe§ed by the f nFIGluding toe ;mdlivwdul s other th' n the meidentc of the home evnenter) to ho e the- n, mbeF of days per week the �'mmf= GGGUP tion wall ep 39 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX - - b. the spedfir. home Gupation. p.Fepe§ed by the f nFIGluding toe ;mdlivwdul s other th' n the meidentc of the home evnenter) to ho e the- n, mbeF of days per week the �'mmf= GGGUP tion wall ep 39 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX the the dwelling unit der.,GFabed on the and IN!, WINNOW a. that appliGant GGGUPY long as permit, to be All then only so as rUGh apploGant phySuGally unable employed full tome outside of the appliGant's FeSidence; the the dwelling unit der.,GFabed on the and IN!, WINNOW a. that appliGant GGGUPY long as permit, to be then only so as rUGh apploGant phySuGally the the dwelling unit der.,GFabed on the and a. that appliGant GGGUPY long as permit, to be then only so as rUGh apploGant phySuGally unable employed full tome outside of the appliGant's FeSidence; 40 Existing text.- XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX _ - i - _ Subd. 6 Fees and Charges. A. Petitions and Applications. Each petition or application filed with or submitted to the, City pursuant to this Section shall not be deemed filed or submitted, and the City shall have no duty to process it, to act on it or respond to it, unless and until there is paid to the City the applicable fee for such petition or 41 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX MOM= 1 ■ Subd. 6 Fees and Charges. A. Petitions and Applications. Each petition or application filed with or submitted to the, City pursuant to this Section shall not be deemed filed or submitted, and the City shall have no duty to process it, to act on it or respond to it, unless and until there is paid to the City the applicable fee for such petition or 41 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX application, as then required. by Section 185 of this Code. This paragraph shall not apply to petitions or applications filed or submitted by the Council, the Commission or any'City official in its official capacity. B. Administrative. Expenses and Attorneys' Fees. Each petitioner and applicant, by'filing or submitting a petition or application, shall have agreed to pay all administrative expenses and attorneys' fees; with interest and costs as provided, incurred by the City in connection with or as a result of reviewing and acting on such petition or application. If more than one (1) person signs a petition or application, all such signers. shall be jointly and severally liable for such expenses and. fees, with interest a'nd costs as provided. The expenses and fees to be paid to the City pursuant: to this paragraph shall be payable upon demand made by the City, and if. not paid within five (5) days after such demand, shall bear interest from the date of demand until paid.at a rate equal to the lesser of the highest, interest rate allowed by law or two ,(2) percentage points in excess of the reference rate. The petitioners and applicants shall also pay all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred.by the City in collecting the expenses, fees and interest, with interest on the. costs of, collection from the dates incurred until paid, at the same interest rate as is payable on the expenses and fees. For purposes,.of this paragraph,, reference rate shall mean the rate publicly announced from time to time by First Edina National Bank, or any successor,. as.its_reference rate, and if, the bank, or its successor,: ceases publicly announcing its reference rate reference rate shall mean the interest rate charged from time to time by the bank on 90 -day unsecured business loans to its most creditworthy customers. Subd. 7 Mailed Notice. Whenever this Section requires or permits mailed notice to property owners, the failure to give mailed notice, or defects in the notice, shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a good faith attempt to comply with the applicable notice requirements was made. Any appropriate records may be used by the person responsible for mailing the notice to determine names and addresses Of owners. Subd. 8 Evidence.of. Ownership. If, in connection with any petition or application; the Planner requests evidence of ownership of the property to which the petition or application relates, the petitioner or applicant shall obtain, at the petitioner's or applicant's expense, and deliver to the Planner, a title opinion from an attorney acceptable to the Planner, or other evidence of such ownership acceptable to 42 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX the Planner, in each case addressed to the City. Also, if so requested by the Planner, the petitioner or applicant shall obtain a written consent to the petition or application by all owners of such property as shown by the title opinion or other evidence of ownership and, if the request is made, the City shall have no duty to process, or to act on or respond to, such petition or application until such consents are delivered to the Planner. Subd. 9 Violation, Penalty, Remedies. A. Misdemeanor. Any owner or lessee of an entire building or property in or upon which a violation has been committed or shall exist, or any owner or lessee of that part of the building or property in or upon which a violation has been committed or shall exist, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties and remedies provided in Subsection 100.09 of this Code. 13. Givil Penalty. Any suGh persen who, afteF being sewed with aR 9rdeF tO remove any SUGh violation, shall fail tG GGMPIY With the erdeF WithiA ten days B. G Violation of Conditions in Conditional Use Permits. If any person violates any condition or restriction imposed by the Council in connection with the grant or issuance of a conditional use permit, the City, in addition to other remedies available to it as provided in this Subdivision, may revoke the permit and all rights attributable to such permit. Revocation shall be done in the following manner: The Manager or Planner shall notify the owner and occupant of the property to which such permit exists insofar as the names and addresses of such owner and occupant can reasonably be determined by the Clerk from records maintained by the Assessor, of the violation and request removal within a stated period, but not less than five (5) days. 2. If the violation is not removed within the stated period, the Manager or Planner shall submit a report on the matter to the Council and request a hearing. 3. The Council, upon receipt of the report, shall set a hearing date, and notice shall be given to the owner and occupant at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. 43 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text —XXXX 4. After receiving the oral and written views of all interested persons, the Council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date. 5. If the hearing is continued to a specified future date, no new notice need be given. If such permit is revoked by the Council, all use, activity and rights allowed by and attributable to such permit shall immediately cease. Section 2. Subsection 850.09 is amended to add the following: 850.09 Districts. For the purposes of this Section, the City shall be divided into the following zoning districts: Single Dwelling Unit District (R -1) Double Dwelling Unit District (R -2) Planned Residence District (PRD and PSR) Mixed Development District (MDD) Planned Office District (POD) Planned Commercial District (PCD) Planned Industrial District (PID) Regional Medical District (RMD) Automobile Parking District (APD) Heritage Preservation Overlay District (HPD) Floodplain Overlay District (FD) Planned Unit Development District (PUD) Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: 44 Existing text - XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text — XXXX ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2010. City Clerk Existing text - XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX 45 ORDINANCE NO. 2010 -19 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING DRIVEWAYS The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.08 Subd. 55 is amended to read: F. Construction. Off - street parking spaces and circulation areas shall be surfaced and maintained with an hark all- weather, durable and dust -free surfacing material. seof bituminous asphalt, OF GenGFete installed GVeF a well Except for residential uses in the R -1 District and R -2 District, each parking space shall be clearly delineated by lines painted on or imbedded in the surface of the parking area. Section 2. Subsection 850.08 Subd. 6.D.1 is amended to read: D. Driveway Design. Driveway Width. a. In all zoning districts except R -1 and R -2. (back of curb to back of curb): b. There are no minimum driveway widths in the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —X Added text — XXXX Maximum Minimum One-way 20' 12' Two-way 30' 24' b. There are no minimum driveway widths in the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —X Added text — XXXX Section 3. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 2010. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX fi ��•11�� O e J: ay PLANNING ,COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda_# Kris Aaker Se, pternber 1, 2010 Assistant Planner Information .& Background In late June of 2010, the Minnesota State Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding variances that limit their application.. The ruling affects all cities and municipalities within the State of Minnesota and as a result, the City of Edina's authority to grant variances has been significantly impacted. In the past the city had wider authority in granting variances. The ruling severely hinders the city's ability to allow exceptions to the zoning ordinance and no longer allows the city to have flexibility in granting variances as it did in the past. An applicant had to demonstrate that there were practical difficulties in complying with an ordinance and that the proposed use was reasonable. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the language of State Statute 462.357, a city does not have the authority to grant a variance unless an applicant can- show that their property cannot be put to any reasonable use without the benefit of a, variance. On August 5, 2010, the Edina City Council held joint. work session with the Planning Commission and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals to address the State Supreme Court Ruling and how it may affect building projects within the city. Residential and commercial building plan impacts were discussed. It was suggested that.a review of variances granted over the last three years .be conducted to perhaps identify patterns that would assist in potentially amending city ordinances. Common patterns in variance approvals could help address situations that may become part of a zoning ordinance change. This report primarily focuses on residential variance patterns that have developed-over time. The objective is to perhaps consider alternate setback standards based upon common variances granted in the past. Commercial projects and signage would be addressed as separate issues from considering residential alternative setback standards. Types of Variances Requested The City reviews anywhere from 60 — 90+ variance applications per year with some applications'requesting multiple variances. The most common variances granted are for single family residential property and are usually requested for front yard,, side yard, side yard given height and side street setback. To a lesser extent variances are granted for rear yard setback, water body setback, driveway 2007 - present Residential variances approved 176 total 154 residential *Continuation of an existing nonconforming setback condition * *garage expasion 1 -2 Front yard ESideYardEE�Ej Side Street Height /side yard Rear yard *5.25 ft new home * .2.5 ft *8.2 ft 4 ft 1st fl conf *5.75 ft *11.49 ft **2 ft 3.5 ft 2.5ft *1stfl **9.2 ft *28.65 ft * *2 ft 2 ft 5 ft 1st fl conf 3 ft pool *7 ft *1.2 ft 21.66 ft SS /FY 3.1 ft 1st fl conf *9.6 ft *2.1 ft *.3 ft 2 ft 1.1 ft 1st fl conf *20 ft for 2nd floor 7.4 ft Oft garage to living 6ft 1.2 ft *1st fl 7.3 ft 5.65 ft *.66 ft 10.9 ft SS /FY 1 ft IN above garage *5.2 ft 6 ft *4 ft *33.1 ft new home 8.25 ft 9.9 ft 7.5 ft *4.04ft *5ft 1ft *1stfl *1ft 2.5 ft * *2 ft *4 ft 2.9 *1st fl 37.7 ft vacant lot /nh * *1.3 ft *.7 ft 4.5 ft *45.5 ft new home * *.8 ft * *10.7 ft 2 ft *18 ft 5ft *5ft 3.65 ft *12.8 ft *1.3 ft *10ft 3.55 ft 2 f 3 f *21 ft 1.5 ft 49.3 ft vacant lot /nh *2.9 ft 10 ft 1.75 ft 4.5 ft new home *5.95 ft *40.3 ft 3.75 ft *1st fl 4.78 ft 3.7 ft *17.8 ft 3.6 *1st fl 4.7 ft *2.1 ft * *6.7 ft 1.66 *1st fl 7.14 ft 1.09 ft *8.7 ft 6.3 ft 2.09 ft 1.4 ft *.167 33.2 ft *.9 ft 1.2 ft * *3ft *6.22 ft *2 ft 24.3 ft *.79 ft *11.75 ft *1.3 ft 2007- present day *Continuation of an existing nonconforming condition Driveway width Air conditioner location Fence Water body Lot coverage 12 ft 1.42 ft side yard variance 219 sq ft Oft height 4 -8 2 8 ft 4.3 ft 3.5 ft 18sgft *2 ft height 7 ft *37.4 ft for deck ft 85 sq ft 2 ft height.6 -8 :add 5 t 5 ft 2 ft height 6 -8 2.42 ft 2 ft height 6-8 lift .5 ft 2 ft height 6 -8 *27.5 ft 5 ft 2 ft height 6 -8 *5 ft 2 ft *6 ft 1.75 ft *4 ft *26 ft Total:? Total: 10- Total: 8 Total-.2 Total: 3 DRAFT ' DRAFT DRAFT ORDINANCE 2010 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING IV HE ORMG ERDINANCE CONCERNING The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Section 850.07 Subd. 20 B is hereby amended as follows: B. Non- Conforming Buildings. Alterations, Additions and Enlargements. a, a non - conforming building, other than a single dwelling unitor building, shall not be added to or enlarged, in y subjected to an alteration involving or 50 percent o� more of the gross floor area of the building, exterior wall area of the building, unless such non- conforming building, including all additions, alterations and enlargements, shall conform to all of the restrictions of the district in which it is located. The percentage of the gross floor area or exterior wall area or any consecutive three - shall be the aggregate percentage year period. , , b. Alternate setbacks. The minimum required setback of a single family detached dwelling or a structure accessory to a single family detached dwelling that has a legally nonconforming setback shall be either the existing setback or the setback as otherwise specified in this Chapter whichever is less. 2. Repairs, Maintenance and Remodeling. Mal e _ ;Except is provided in Section 850.2 1),— 'any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional contro lunder this chapter, may be continued, including through relp not I restoration, maintenance, or imp 'including expansion, except as specifically provided in this chapter, lunless: (A) The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued fo period of more than one year; or (B) Any nonconforming use is destroyed boy fire or other peril to the extent of greater than fifty ercent (50 /o) of its market value, and no building permit has been Applied for within one hundred eighty (180) days of when the property is damaged. In this case, the city of Edina may impose easonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate a ny newly created impact on adjacent property. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming uE r occupan old Section 2. Section 850.12 Subd. 7. H. is hereby amended as follows: H. Additions to or rebuilt single- family dwellings and buildings containing two dwelling units. For additions, alterations and changes to, or rebuilds of existing single - family dwellings and buildings containing two dwellings, the first floor elevation may not be more than one foot above the existing first m floor elevation. If a split level dwelling is torn down and a new'hoe is built, the new first floor 0 r entry level elevation may not be more than one foot above the front entry elevation of the home that was torn down. The first floor elevation may be raised up to a maximum of four feet, only if it is necessary to elevate a new home a minimum of two feet above a Federal 'Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain elevation or above . ground water elevation as determined by a. licensed geo- science engineer. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to all single - family homes and buildings containing two dwelling units including units in the flood plain zoning district. Any deviation from the requirements of this paragraph shall require a variance. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK James B. Hovland, Mayor I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk 2010. w9t�lr�l• how e E 0 18 6 PLANNING STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date City Council Kris Aaker September 7; 2010 Work Session Assistant Planner Information & Background In late June of 2010, the Minnesota State Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding variances that limit their application. At their September 1, 2010 meeting the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee met in part to discuss a Nonconforming Use Ordinance addressing alternate setback standards. The Nonconforming Use Ordinance is an option under consideration to address the impact of the State Supreme Court decision. Part of the meeting discussion included the possibility of amending the front yard /side street setback requirement that has been the basis for a number of variance requests. Testimony at the meeting suggested that the ordinance requiring a deeper front yard setback given conditions adjacent to the subject property are unreasonable and unworkable for many properties in Edina. The zoning ordinance requires that any addition, new home or tear down /rebuild, maintain the average front yard setback of the homes on either side. It also requires that a corner lot match the front yard setbacks of the adjacent homes if both homes have their front yard facing the subject property's front and side streets. There were two issues brought up at the September 1St meeting; the effect of matching the average setback on an interior lot and how the "matching" front yard rule impacts corner lots. It was suggested that staff compile front yard setback requests to get a better picture of the type of requests that are approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, (a sample of front yard setback variances with findings are attached for . reference). It should be noted that the ordinance addressing front yard setback was recently amended in April of 2010 with few permits issued, so it is difficult to gauge the impact of the amendment. The change may have possibly eliminated the need for some of the variances that had been granted in the past. Concerns expressed at the Zoning Ordinance meeting included the opinion that recent front yard setback changes have limited flexibility in house placement and that the changes have negatively impacted opportunities on properties. It was mentioned that the change will be problematic for building on vacant lots still remaining in the undeveloped portions of Parkwood Knolls 26 and 27th Additions. The front yard requirement along both the front and. side streets for corner lots if there are homes fronting both streets has not changed as part of the April amendment to the front yard setback ordinance and has been in place for many years. It was through the variance process that special cases have been heard. Review of the attached sample of front yard setback variance approvals and findings in support of them indicate that there are unique and specific circumstances that supported each request. Front yard setback variances have always been one of the more challenging variances to achieve, so the few that have been granted were due to conditions specific to the property. Short of a standard minimum setback requirement from all front and side streets, it would be difficult to craft an ordinance that would address many of the curved and unique shaped lots, street layouts and corner lot situations within the city. The current draft proposing a Nonconforming Use Ordinance does not specifically address front yard or side street setback requirements. It would however allow a home addition to match an existing nonconforming front yard setback. The Nonconforming Use Ordinance would eliminate some front yard and side street setback variances given existing conditions on the site. The Nonconforming Use Ordinance would not address new construction on a vacant lot or teardown rebuild situation. As stated previously, the front yard setback ordinance was recently amended in April of 2010, with few applications for permits to appreciate the impact of the rule change. Conclusion Review of front yard setback variances recently granted reveal that some were requested and granted due to preexisting nonconforming situations that matched or continued a nonconforming front yard setback in a proposed project. A Nonconforming Use Ordinance could eliminate the need for variances in many instances and allow for continued improvement and upgrading of residential properties. The Nonconforming Use ordinance would not apply to a teardown rebuild or new construction on a vacant lot. 2 RESOLUTION NO. B -10 -25 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No. 850 AT 6509 Shawnee Circle, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Todd and Melissa Zettler has requested a 15.45-foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a Construct a new single family home. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 1 Block 3 Overholt Hills Georgia Addition Hennepin County Minnesota 1.03 City Code Section 850.11 requires a 45 45 foot front yard setback variance. 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 30 -foot setback. This requires a variance of 15.45 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On July 1, 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: a. The existence of the non - conforming location of the previous home. b. The previous home conformed to the ordinances at the time it was constructed with surrounding development and rule changes causing the property to become non - conforming. c. The proposed new home will be farther from the front lot line than the previous home that occupied the site. d. The home to the east dictating front yard setback was built with a deeper front yard setback affecting the ability to located a home on the subject property. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance would not impact the neighbors and would be similar to previous conditions. The variance would provide a reasonable building pad area that would have no visual encroachment on the streetscape. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, July 1, 2011, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension and the addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated May 10, 2010. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina,- Minnesota, on Thursday July 1, 2010. . d ichael fflc /t®ede .Chairperson ATTEST: Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for. adoption; Hornig Seconded by: Davidson Voted in favor of: Hornig, Davidson, Schroeder, Flicek Voted against:0 Abstained: Absent: Scherer Resolution adopted. July 1., 2,010 hereby certify that the foregoing is 'a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of.,Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on July 1, 2010. Jackie Hoogenakker, Planning Secretary a M Tu Up. 6 A d. Aw LF .arc', � � ,la Jim R RESOLUTION NO. B -10 -24 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No. 85® AT- 6229 Belrnore Lane, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, - Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. l 1.01 Craig and Sarah Bennett has requested an 11 75 -foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for an addition to the rear of the home . 1.02 The property is 1egally described as follows: Lot 8 and the East 54 feet of Lots 1 and 2 including adjacent' /z of vacated alley also including West ' /z of vacated alley adjoining Lot 3 Block 11 Mendelssohn Hennepin County Minnesota 1.03 City Code Section 850.11 requires a frontward setback of 49.55 -feet 1.04 The applicant is proposing a-37.8-foot setback. This requires a variance of 11.75 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462..354 Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On July 1, 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present, information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that Q) the property in question.cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an'undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: a. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the average front yard setback of adjacent homes. b. The homes along the block were built with deeper front yard setbacks, affecting the opportunity for the subject property to expand. c. The setback variance is minor given that it would allow the addition to match the existing non- conforming front yard setback.:. d. It would be reasonable to allow the proposed improvements given the constraints imposed by required setback and it would allow the property to maintain a preexisting condition. e. The intent of the ordinance is to preserve the common front yard area and streetscape: The addition will enhance the streetscape and will not negatively impact the common front-yard area. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this, approval, July 1, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension and is subject to the plans presented dated June 15, 2010. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, July 1 2010. AUchad S Chairperson ATTEST: Jackie Hoogenakker, .Secretary Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion -for adoption:. Hornig Seconded by: Flicek Voted in favor of: Hornig,.Flicek, Schroeder, Davidson Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Scherer Resolution adopted July 1,,,2010 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by . the Zoning 'Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on July 1, 2010. Jackie Hoogeriakker; Planning Secretary LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 7� � J RESOLUTION NO. 03 -10 -13 City of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No. 350 AT 4243 Scott Terrace Edina MIN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina,. Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Betsy Wray has requested a 24.3 foot front yard setback variance t tandem from arathe e city code to/for a add living space to the house and build car 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: the North Half of Lot 15, MORNINGSIDE according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subject to anV and all easements of record. 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.,Subd. 6 require a 91 -foot front yard setback. '66.7-foot front yard setback. This requires a 1.04 The applicant is proposing a �_. variance. of 24.3 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On May 20 - 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS on for a 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall tSection a petitild cause variance unless It finds that the strict enforcement of this undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's Cproperty exists under the terms of this Section. City Hail 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 \v\vw.cityofedina.com 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 -826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause -undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The house as it exists today is'nonconforming-regarding'required front yard setback. 2. The proposal maintains the bungalow character of the home by keeping the dimensions appropriate not only for the additions to the home but for the_ neighborhood. 3. The design as proposed preserves the large Sugar Maple and Oak trees. 4. The recent change to the Zoning Ordinance establishing,f ront yard setback. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The Morningside neighborhood is unique with different and varying front yard setbacks. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, May 20, 2011, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, _ v. Ma 2010. Chairperso ATTEST: ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Carpenter Seconded by: Adiyia Voted in favor of: Carpenter, Adiyia, Brown Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Winder, Birdman Resolution adopted. May 20 „2010 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on May 20, 2010. a ie Hoogenakker, ning Secretary Certificate of Survey Prepared (or: Gary Hittle I I I Q'ra 1 i qi / Em �-- - -- 39.7 ((news) • , - - _ ' 40 (plot) _': •mot b9 fne:of LoW5 l \� i O O 12 Sunni• I«I+l� l . y _ lira 7 s O ', (� ---- - - --- -- - - - --"- rr,�� •� O �. .` --- -F---/ 81. % Q`4c -- ----`� - ----- -- 86.8 --- "� ` NV9 57'17' E 20(} 200 \�7 /Exla !ng !hereby certify that this certificate of survey was prepared by me SCHOBORC or under my direct supervision and. that I am o duly Registered ' LA D SERVICES Land Surveyor nder the laws of the State of Minnesota. JNC. - Paul B. Scho65t/g 76J- :972 -9221 11997 0. Rd. 13 SE C/ unry SchoborgLanox— Delano, MN 55J2B Date: / =!, ZO� _ tiegislrat1on Na, 14700 NIV .v I -- \11 `(,n t° ' J'ag Ceaend .. 0 � ® Found Iron Monument m o—o-- Fence v Ui 4i 200 (plat)'.' �, t ha t I 200 17 (comp) 'Reference Benchmark -' -- Top Nut of Hydrant at W. aide Scott Tarrace house V•�1"3` - , _ of near ,44230 Ele— 900.46 (per city do(a) �rR1 ''�7 i' w l B Ctpoge b 41 ! a -- - - -- - 872 + -- \ �' •W/ 1-- 1.0 Oescriation fsuaolled by client) TFe North Half of Lot 16, ldORNINa5l0& accord ling to the -' 24 °Sv r' - • recorded plat lhcrnof, Hennepin 1 pCounty, Minnesota. Subject to \ `, •� i �� any and all easements of record. ' - -5. /in9 of N Yj of Lot X15 Z (comp.) use f .ti I D e'oq Bearings bused an assumed datum. Jab Number. 7121. Book o s; 72 56 Survey Dote; 2- 12 -10. 2 -17 -]0 SCALE Orawln Name; hitlle.dwq to 20. 40 Drown by. IfLB - Revisions: I luali 20 fool . Page 1 of 1 LOGISMap Output Page -- r___ />t 74OTT.'Qri'liPntVR 9/2/2010 r a y9ZrA,l O� 0 N 0 RESOLIJTIOG� :NO. 5 -10 -06 Clty Of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Edina Zoning Ordinance No. 850 AT 5623 Concord Avenue, Edina; MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City, of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Kimberly Hahneman /Bob Macey has requested a. 18.8 foot side /front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a construct a mud room, kitchen and family room-on the main level and a guest bedroom on the second floor. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: The South 80.35 feet, of the.North 353.35 feet of the West 145 feet of the South 3/4 of the-Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter Section 19 Township 28 Range 24, Hennepin County,' Minnesota (i 1.03 City Code Section 850.11. Subd. 6 require a 35 foot setback. 1.04' . The applicant is proposing a 17'.2 foot setback. This requires a variance of 17.8 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City,Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1-:06 :On April 8, 2010' the Zoning; Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The. applicant was provided tha opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which.are incorporated,by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of.said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances . unique to the petitioner's property which were not created _ by the petitioner and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential City Hall 952- 927 -8861 480.1 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952 - 826 -0390 . EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY 952 - 826 -0379 character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations. alone_ --- Wnot�o� Utut"n- undue-.-- 4a -rdship -i-f - reasmn fie petitin���'s property exists under.the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: . 1. The location of the existing home relative to the required setbacks. 2. The limited expansion opportunities given.the required setback from Woodland Road. 3. The buildable area of the property allowed by current ordinance prohibits a logical .expansion of the existing floor plan and eliminates any opportunity for a mud room adjacent to the garage. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The addition would be farther from the south lot line -than the existing side wall of the garage on the subject property. 2. The addition would be a reasonable expansion given required setbacks. 3. The addition would have no impact along Woodland Road or Concord Avenue. ' and would not be discernable 4. The addition would appear seamless from the current horse: Section 4.. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this.variance or approved a time extension. r Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday Chair a son p ATTEST: ie Hoogenakker, S etary, Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Davidson Seconded by: Flicek Voted in favor of: Davidson, Flicek, Hornig, Fischer Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: _ Resolution adopted. April 8,2010 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of.a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of.Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on April 8, 2010. a i Hoogenakker, S etary, Edina Zoning board of Appeals (19-0.349 19/2-8/24. N.-T. A. t 1_.-i E:T!? SONI DUSIG N' BI-111-1) _ ca VANC X00 S. Iwy: No..101 Minnetonka MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 401 137 ; - �SLTRVEY FOR: M. A. PE TE ON ' DESIGN 1L11L� 2009 DRAFTED: October 30, 2009 SURVEYED: October 29, . REMISED: December 17, 2009 to show addition and proposed grading• REVISED: December 23,,2009 to, show different addition and proposed grading. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The South 50.35 feet of the North 353.35 feet of the West sbi fZS, °f�thnge South34of. the 24, Iiennepm County Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of. Section 19, P Minnesota, LIMITATIONS & NOTES: lines of the above legal description. The scope 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary what ou own, which is a legal matter. Please .check of our services does not include determining y to the legal description. with your records or cons el� of records such as easernen counsel, s, if that you wt9'sh make sure that it is correct, and that any matt shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing. P old deemed important. t ffiark the comers of the property. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying topography 4. Showing elevations on the site at selected locationsnchma give SOovid d� on this Use that -)f the site. The elevations shown relate only to the h . P other jenchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining °vations for use on this site. STANDARD Sy1V�0I.S CONVENTIONS: State. License Number 9235; set, unless Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with lastic -Plug bearing otherwise noted. Approved Grading Drainage Plar required prior t altering any grac and /or drainag I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct- supervision and that I am a licensed professional es Engineer and Professional Surveyor under the laws of the state of I o � E & P S No 9235 am s.H. Parker P. I I =�FENCING -_ --------------------------- 892.1 q892.7 - - - / - - Ben chm ark.° l I� Top of iron monumer % 892.5 X896. 892.1 ;X593.4 LEGEND • .5 -. - -�- - - - -t Found 1/2 °0.4 X895.1 West of ca-m- p d Denotes exis li f postrton 3 72 - %895.2 Denotes proposed spot elevation N ;' X893.8 rn +� � I X891.1 891.2 n LOGISMap Output Page Page I of I - -_ r�i nn • 1T_..__ __1 T/l/- TOkMfr» iii %C'TIC-i Rr l�'11 Pt,i�TP Q/� /x(11(1 O e 74 o RESOLUTION NO.13-09 -31 City Of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No. 850 AT 1-71257 th Street !Nest, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Eric Swanson has requested a 6.22 foot front.yard setback variance from the city code to /for a garage addition 1.02_ The property 'is legally, described as follows: Lot 8, Block 2, Brookline 2nd Addition Hennepin County 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd. 6 requires maintaining the established average setback of all structures on one side of the street between intersections or not extend out farther than if a line'is extended across the subiect property from the closest points of the homes on either side. 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 29.6 foot setback. This requires a variance of 6.22 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances. 1.06 On December 17. 2009, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board* considered all of the hearing testimony and -the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS \ 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that'the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said, variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created City all 952- 927 -8861 y FAX 952 - 826 -0390 4801 WEST 50TH STREET TTY 952 -826 -0379 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394. www.cityofedina.com by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essentiak`. character of the property or, its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if, reasonable use for.the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the average front yard setback along the block. 2. The homes along the block were built with deeper front yard setbacks, affecting the.opportunity for the subject property to expand. 3.. The setback variance is minor given that it would allow the new garage to match -the existing nonconforming front yard setback. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. It would be reasonable to allow the proposed. improvements given the constraints imposed by required setback and it would allow the property to conform to the minimum two car garage requirement. 2 The intent of the ordinance is to preserve. the common front yard area and streetscape. The additions will enhance the streetscape and will not negatively impact the common front yard area. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is- subject to the following. . conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, December 17, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. Subject to the plans presented dated October 28, 2009. 9 Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of.the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, December' 17 2009. Chairper n ATTEST: r�.j P Oieoogenakker, Se etary Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: 11, l�oi`a�d'� Voted against: (� Abstained: Absent: 0 Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on .December 17, 2009. 0 e Hoogenakker, Pla ng Secretary LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 . . ,r --I- Kn nXl4Z )-PR CliPntVP 919,19010 b \1_ O o.M1�1zroN`':� n City of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A ARIANC8 TO Edina Z ®nens>s ®rdinande iV ®. 850 AT 5200 60th Street Westg Edina. MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota,, as- follows:. Section 1 BACKGROUND. 1.01 Thomas.A. O'Connell has requested a 40 3 foot front yard setback se tovariance ex nandf the , the city code to /for.a add a small addition to the front,of the h p 'kitchen. 1 Codes H'ighyiew 1.02 The property legally. described as follows;. Lot 1`2 Block 1, Park front 1.03 City Code Section 850.11 requires the propene north alone both 60rdStreet setbacks of both the homestoth� west and to West and Code Avenue 1.04 The applicant is proposing A 29.7 foot front yard setback. This requires a . variance of ,40.3 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and Cncesde Section 850'.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to gran Appeals held a public hearing on this 1:06' On November 5, 2009, the Zoning .Board of App p application. The applicant was provided.the opportunity to present information,. The board, considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2'. 'STANDARDS on for a 2.01. S'eCtiOn 85,0.04:5ubd.1.F. states that the Board shall not pwoluiid cause variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section undue hardship because of circumstances unique:to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping-with the spirit nt cannon be put Section. "Undue hardship means that (i) the property in question to a reasonable use as allowed: by this Section; (ii') the. plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to-the ipetitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone City, Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MIMA.'MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com 952 - 927 -8866 FAX 952- 826 -0390 TTY 952 -826 -0379 shall not•constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's exists under the -terms of this Section. property - Section 3. FINDINGS ` 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the. following circumstances that are unique to this, property: 1. The existence of the nonconforming location of the subject home. _ 2. The home conformed to the ordinance at the time it was constructed with surrounding development and rule changes causing the property to be nonconforming. 3. The addition will be located at the same nonconforming setback as the existing side wall to Code Avenue but cannot be accomplished without the benefit of a variance. 3.02 The variance would meet the intenfiof the ordinance since: 1. The variance would not impact the neighbor to the north, would be similar to existing conditions and would not alter spacing to Code Avenue.. 2. The-variance would provide a-small 80 square foot addition in an area of the property that would - have no visual encroachment on the streetscape. Section 4. ZONING BOARD.OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the-above findings. Approval is subject to the following . conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, November 5, 2009, unless the city has issued a -building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time. extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated September 18, 2009. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursda Adopted by th e November 5, 009. Chai(ger� ATTEST: ACTION ON THis RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Scherer Seconded by: Davidson Voted in favor of: Vasaly, Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0. Absent: Schroeder and Hornig Resolution adopted November 5, 2009 . copy of a resolution adopted by hereby certify that the foregoing eal f th'e City of Edina,rM Minnesota, at a duly authorized the Zoning Board of, App meeting held on November 5, 2009. C ie oogenak e,. an g Secretary l .GISMap Output Page Page 1 of I Page 1 of 1 LOGISMap Output Page -- - -_.., I - TC T-%-" 0/7/7() 1 () G RESOLUTION NO. B-09 43 Qtv of Edina -RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No. 850 6112 Pox Meadow Lane, Edina, MN BE IT iRESOLVED by the Zoning,Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. ; 1.01 Aaura,& Mark Masuda has requested a 33.2 foot front yard setback,variance from the city code to/for a garage and bedroom addition. -11.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1.., Whiteman,Addition, Hennepin County, MN.' 1.03 'City Code Section 850.1 I.Subd. 7 requires in an established neighborhood the setback is the average -of the existing building s bh That side of the block. between intersections. 1.04 The applicant is proposing 39 foot front yard setback variance: 'This ,requires --.a varia nce.of 33.2 feet. 1.05' Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning* Board of Appeals to grant variances, 1.06 On August 20, 2009, the Zoning -Board of Appeals held a public -hea"ring on this application. The "applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circum stances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property i ' n question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is d . ue to circumstances unique to the petitioner's, property w ' hich were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, Will, not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone, shall not ,_-) ,constitute an undue hardship 11 reasonable use for + property exists-under the terms of this - Section. 71- 952-927-8861 C ' ity Hall FAX 952-826-0390 4801 WEST 50TH STREET TTY 952-826-0379 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.cityofedina.com c' r� Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The location of the existing building relative to the required setbacks. 2.. The topography of the lot limits expansion opportunities. 3. The buildable area of the property allowed by current ordinance prohibits a logical expansion of the existing multi -level floor plan. s 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The addition would maintain the same distance from the home north of the subject property. 2. The addition would be a reasonable expansion given required setbacks. 3. The addition would appear seamless and would not be discernable from the current home. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described .variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the* date of this approval, August 20, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance.or approved a time extension. 2. The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated August 4, 2009. J Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on ThursdaV� p March 6, 2008. Chairperson ATTEST: n oogenakker, Secretary E a Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON,THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Forrest Seconded by Winder Voted in favor of: Forrest, Winder, Birdman and Grabiel Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Adiyia Resolution adopted. August 20, 2009 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution ado t d by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a y meeting held, on ,August 20, 2009. A pHoogen.akker, Plan g S tary LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 City of Edina RESOLUTION NO. E- 09 -04- RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE T® Edina Zoning Ordinance #850 AT 5700 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, SARI BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as- follows: Section 1... BACKGROUND. . 1.01 Steven Elie has requested a 10 foot and 21 foot side /front street setback variance from the city code to /for a add a 2" -story and a new attached garage . 1.02. The property is legally described as follows: Lot 3 Block 2 Stocke and Hanson's Concord Terrace. 1.03 City Code Section 850A I..Subd.7 requires a 35 and 25 foot front/side street Setback. 1.04 The applicant is; proposing a 14,footand 25 foot setback. . This requires a variance of 10 and 21 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and,City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On May 7, 2009 , the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are, . incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue, hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said. variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this - Section: "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put City Ball 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com 952- 927 -8861 FAX 952 -826 -0390 TTY 952- 826 -0379 to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is �._ due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created. by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use.for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The original home placement and required setbacks. 2. The home was built well within the current required setbacks limiting logical expansion of the existing structure. 3. The addition will encroach into the front yard setback by equal or less amounts than existing portions of the building, with all other portions of the proposed addition conforming to the ordinance requirements. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variances would allow the additions to match existing conditions or improve upon them and would not compound impact of the nonconforming structure. 2. The variances would maintain the existing nonconforming setbacks that have historically been enjoyed and been in place since the home was constructed and in the case of the new garage, the setbacks will actually improve. 3. The variances would not interfere with sight lines or negatively impact the character along Wooddale Avenue or Woodland Road. Section 4.. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, May 7, 2010 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Adopted by the Zoning Board. of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, - May 7, 2009. Chairperson ATTEST: �.•- - - - Edina Zoning Board of pp ACTION.ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption; -vll�p (\ Seconded by: SC, \Q-Q- ' Voted in favor of:Y�SO� Voted against: Abstained: (7j Absent: \/U Q \y t n� Resolution adopted. �i �, 20 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of. Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota „at a duly on meeting held on May 7, 2009. retary Page I of 1 LOGISMap Output Page N O ' v N�bRPOPA RESOLUTION NO. B -08°56 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO "'Edina Zoning Ordinance No. 850 ,AT 6020 Kaymmar Drive. Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED bythe•Zoning.Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Mary and Rick Bredice has requested a 4.78 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a Kitchen Addition 1.02 The property is legally described 'as follows' Lot 5, Block 3, Valley Park, Hennepin County, MN 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd. 6 requires that any addition to a home ( maintain the average front yard setback alone the block between intersections or match the front yard setbacks of neighbors on either side. 1.04 The applicant is proposing 33 foot front yard. setback . This requires a variance of 4.78 feet. 1.05 , Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On Thursday, September 18, 2008, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information:. The board considered. all of the. hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance'unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause .undue hardship because of. circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its.surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section: .. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. A functional addition to the existing kitchen cannot be accomplished without a front yard setback variance given the existing floor plan and fireplace chimney location. 2.: The addition is a minor point intrusion into the front yard, centered on the house and would have little or no impact on the two adjacent properties. 3. The size, (smaller) and shape of the lot, (rectangular), are not similar or consistent with properties on the north side of the block. The subject property. is similar to properties on the south side of Kaymar Drive that provide minimal setback to the street. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variance would not significantly reduce spacing to the street.. 2. The variance would not change the character of the property or the neighborhood in general. 3. The variance would be consistent with and will actually be farther away from the street than setbacks provided by two other homes with.in.the neighborhood. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the-above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, September 18, 2009, unless the city-has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. { pted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City, of Edina, Minnesota, on °Thursday, .. _ 2008. Cha rp rson ATTEST: o' Ja ie Hoogena ker, cretary Edina o Board of,Appeals' `ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for ado Lion: 11 Seconded by: Voted in favor of:,' Voted again �j Abstained' Absent: t Resolution adop d. j s °1 f hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and. correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of-Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on (2�D� \S , 20,08. ac 'e Hoogenakker, nn Secretary l LOGISMap Output Page Page I of 1 RESOLUTION NO. B -08 -48 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No, 850 AT 5130 France Avenue South, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Steve Dresler has requested a 4.5 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a construct a new home 1.02 The pro perty,_is legally described. as follows: The north 62 feet of the East ' /Z of Lot 46, except the West 165 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172, Hennepin County, MN 1.03 City Code Section 850.11. Subd'7' requires that the new home meets the established average front yard setback 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 40.9 foot setback : This requires a variance of 4.5 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On October 16, 2008, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution 1. Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition fora variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this 4 . f < Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use, as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the, petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner.; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or.its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's . property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause -undue hardship. because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The uneven and inconsistent streetscape along the west side of the subject block. 2. The orientation, spacing: and grade relationship of the adjacent structure north of the subject property. 3. The limited opportunity to transition between a multi- family building to the north, France Avenue to the east and the single family home located south of the property. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent, of the ordinance since:. 1. The variance would preserve the variation in setback'along the block. 2. The variance would not disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent front yard pattern, because there appears to be no consistency with regard to front yard setback. 3. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property near multi - family and nonresidential uses. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, October 16, 2008, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed -as per the submitted plan dated September:2008. .f Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday. Octobe 6, 2008. Chairperson ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion fog adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: Voted against: i Abstained: Absent: o �� Resolution. adopted. �® I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of ADD eals of the City of Edina, Minnesota,,at a duly authorized Meeting held on ,2008. I AND,0 oogenakker, Pla ing Secretary LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 - - - --- - --- . —I- ,.T_ nininnin O e c fNroRPORPT� u . 1880 RESOLUTION NO. 5.08 =37 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance 850 AT 5020 Oak Send Lane, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 _Patricia and George Maas has requested a 49.3 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a construct a new single dwelling 1.02 The property is legally described.as follows: Lot 6 Block 1 Mirror Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota 6 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd. 7 requires: Established Average Setback When more than 25 percent of the frontage on one side of a street between intersections is occupied by buildings having front street setbacks of more or less than 30 feet the average setback of such existing buildings shall be maintained by all new or relocated buildings or structures or additions thereto on the same side of that street and between said intersections. If a building or structure or addition thereto is to be built or located where there is an established average setback and there are existing buildings uildings on only one side of the built or relocated building or structure or addition thereto the front street setback of said new or relocated building or structure or addition thereto need be no greater than that of the nearest adjoining principal building If a building or structure or addition thereto is to be built or relocated where there is an established average setback, and there are existing buildings on both sides of the new or relocated building or structure or addition thereto the front setback need be no greater than that which would be established by connecting a line parallel with the front lot line connecting the most forward portion of the adjacent principal building on each side. 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 61.4 foot front yard setback . This requires a variance of 49.3 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On July 10, 2008 , the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present "information. The board considered ail of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd..1.F. states that the. Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the. strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. F.Y Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the. following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The required average front yard setback is inconsistent with the, streetscape along the west side of the. block. 2. The lack of any reasonable relationship between the subject lot and the adjacent home to the south. 3. The drainage.easen?ent along.the.back one third of the Jot affecting_ how the property can be developed. 4. The setback required from the cul -de -sac portion of the street. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variance would be similar to existing conditions to the north and along the west side of street.. 2. The variance would promote the goal of maintaining a consistent front yard pattern. 3. The variance would maintain and enhance the residential character of the property and the neighborhood: Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The..Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, July 10, 2008, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. ATTEST: ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Scherer Seconded by: Vasaly . n, Hornig and Schroeder Voted in favor of: Scherer, Vasaly, Davidso Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: 0 Resolution adopted: July 10, 2008 I hereby certify,that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on July 10, 2008. c e Hoogenakker, PI nin Secretary Page I of I LOGISMap Output Page • At ® t� Cl) • _ 1886 - RESOLUTION NO.. B -08 724 . RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 850.07 AT 4121 Vilest 50th Street, Edina: WIN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Greg T. Oothoudt has requested' a 208 square foot variance from the city code to /for a porch addition 1.02 The property is legally described 'as follows: The westerly 60 feet of Lot 2, and all of Lot 3, Block 1, Stevens' Ist Addition to Minneapolis 1.03 City Code Section 850.07, Subd. 6, O. requires to allow porch area beyond the 80 square foot allowed 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 288 square foot porch . This requires a variance of 208 square feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, andz City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant-variances 1.06 On Thursday May 15, 2008 the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided. the opportunity.to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS. 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition fora variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be out to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii)-the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The existence of the legal nonconforming front yard setback. 2. The addition will allow for improvement of existing conditions on site without negatively impacting the intent of the zoning ordinance. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the.ordinance since: 1. Adequate spacing would be maintained from the street. The setbacks are meant to insure comfortable distances between structures and the street. The variance would sustain proper setback while allowing for a reasonable improvement. 2. The variance would enhance the residential character of the property od. and neighborho Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of-Appeals approves the 'above-described variance-, , subject to.the above findings, Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.' This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, May 15, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed as per submitted plan on April 18, 2008. 9 .Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on May 15i ., . 2008: Rodney Hardy Chairperson TTEST: a ie Hoogenakker, nin oard Secretary ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Winder Seconded by' Hardy Voted in favor of: Winder, Hardy, Forrest Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Lonsbury, Nelson Resolution adopted. May 15, 2008 .I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized -meeting held on May 15, 2008. ie Hoogenakker, Zon Bo rd jS rre ary As CD m IBB13 � o RESOLUTION NO. 5- 08 -1.5 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 850.11 AT 5400 Park Place, Edina. MN. BE IT,RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals, of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 David and JoAnne Alkire has requested a 18 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a addition above the first floor of the home. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 1 Block 7 South Harriet Park. 1.03 City Code Section 850.11. Subd. 7, A. requires a front yard setback of 35.8, feet to match adiacent property setback 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 1.7 .8 foot front yard setback. This requires a variance of 18 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On April 10, 2008 , the Zoning -Board of- Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered *all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution 1 Section 2. STANDARDS for a 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shot this rant. npwo'uild cause variance unless �t Ends that the strict enforcement undue•hardship because of circumstances unique �ith the spirit and intent of thisr� and that the grant of said variance �s in keepEng pin question cannot be put Section. "Undue hardship„ means1hat (i) the property to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created the essentl�l b the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if.granted, will not considerations ons alone character of the property y nomic cons or its surroundings. Eco shall .not constitute an undue hardshSection able use for the petitioners property exists under the terms of this Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The size, configuration and .corner location of h lot. h ability add setback bisects the home and is a hardship hindering on to the home. The front yard setback will not be compromised given the rather small. additions proposed to the second floor. 2. The proposed additions will be consistent with the dimensions and look of the existing home and will not alter the footprint: 3. The additions are minimal in scale, however, allow for a tremendous improvement to the interior spaces of the property. 3:02 The variance would meetthe intent of the ordinance since: 1 The variance would be similar to existing cond it�onsB ondoe would not interrupt the front yard patterned established along ot disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent 2. The variance would n front setback pattern: i ntain the residential character of the property 3. The variance would ma and the neighborhood. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: April 1. This variance will expire one year from the date f t i approval, project. ll, ril p _ 10, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit covered by this variance or approved a time extension. as per the submitted plan dated April 2. The addition shall -be constructed 2, 2008. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota,-on Thursday, A ril 17, 2008... ; f Chairperson ATTEST:. oogenakker, Secre ary ina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Seconded- by: l�t Voted.in favor of: Voted against: Abstained: Absent:. Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted d by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the -City of Edina, Minnesota, at a y author meeting held on �l , 2008. ViHoogenak(ker, Pla ing cretary Page 1 of 1 LOGISMap Output Page .-.■ rnr T- 0_!'+1:. - +A T. 0/7/7n] 0 Cl) va t� 1989 RESOLUTION NO. B -08 -13 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 850.11 AT 6929 Valley View �_. Road — aka 6919 Moccasin Valley, rail, Edina, MN. BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Richwood Custom Builders has requested a. 45.5 foot front yard setback variance from the city,code to /fora new home. 1.02' The property is legally described as follows: Lot 2 Moccasin Valley, 1.03 City Code Section 850.11. Subd. 7, A. requires a front yard setback of 108 feet to match adjacent property setback 1.04 The applicant is proposing _a 62.5 foot front yard setback. This requires a variance of 45.5 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section. 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1:06- On April 10, 2008 .,_the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present. infor. ation.� The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a. reasonable use. as allowed by this Section; (ii).the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS . 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following . circumstances that are unique to this property.: 1. The existence of the nonconforming north side wall of the current home location. 2. The home was. located closer to the street intersection and north lot line serving as a buffer to the home adjacent to the east. 3. The proposed home location will preserve a legal nonconforming setback. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of,the ordinance since: 1. The variance would be similar to existing conditions. 2. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval, is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, April 10, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed -as per the submitted plan dated March 19, 2008. C airperson ATTEST: 0 c e Hoogenakker, Se tarV Edina Zonin�Boardo! Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Fischer. Seconded by: Hornig Voted in favor of: Fischer, Hornig, Davidson and Staunton Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: 0 Resolution adopted. April 10, 2008 I hereby certify that" the foregoing is a true'and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on April 10, 2008. acki oogenakker, S retary. LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 -- _� r �r.TC�r r 11ZTQTIRR.! lianttTP 90000 c `NbRPOPA�f'9 0. ease RESOLUTION NO. B -08 °03 RESOLUTION 'APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 850.11 AT 6605 Mohawk Trail, BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND: 1.01* Paul and Julie Donnay has requested a .25.65 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for construction of anew house 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Gearen VIII 1.03 City Codel Section '850.11: Subd. 7. requires that the front setback be no greater than that which would be established by connecting a line parallel with the front lot line connecting the most forward portion of the adiacent principal building on each side 1.04 The applicant is proposing a.5.0 foot front.yard setback . This requires a variance of 25.65 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On April 17, 2008 the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided, the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution , STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds th at the strict enforcement of this. Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in, keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section;.(ii) the plight of the petitioner is due. to circumstances unique to the petitioners property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, Will not. alter the essential . character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's' property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship. because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The uneven and inconsistent streetscape along the east side of the block. 2. The orientation, spacing, and grade relationship of the two adjacent homes north and south of the subject property. 3. The slopes along the back two thirds of the lot a ffecting how the property could be graded causing the potential for higher/more retaining walls and tree removal. 4. The, variance would be similar to existing conditions across the street. 5. The variance would not disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent front yard pattern; neither-adjacent,homes face Mohawk Trail. 6. The variance would maintain the residential character of the* property' and the neighborhood and reduce impact on the natural slope and existing trees located on the property. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. Disturbance in the Conservation Restriction. area will be limited to allow a 12 foot wide driveway 2. The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated April 2, 2008. 3. This variance will expire on April 17, 2009 unless the City has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved. a time extension. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, April 17, 2008 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. Approval is subject to the materials submitted on April 17, 2008. l ti - Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday,_ A ril 17 2008. Chairperson ATTEST: ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: by: 1i•� ��� ��� Voted in favor of, Voted against: Abstained: q) Absent: Resolution adopted. I hereby, certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on �� \�1 , 2008. e . oogenakker, Plarn° Sedcetary 11 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 is f- p � •[y{ httn• / /vic lnaic nra/T.(iiTTS ArrTMS /ims ?ServiceName =ed LOGISMaD OVSDE &ClientVe... 9/2/2010 y91�,r� o� e ri V 4� 3y ^'nmro� -�° c PLANNING STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date City Council Kris Aaker September 7, 2010 Work Session Assistant Planner Information & Background In late June of 2010, the Minnesota State Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding variances that limit their application. At their September 1, 2010 meeting the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee met in part to discuss a Nonconforming Use Ordinance addressing alternate setback standards. The Nonconforming Use Ordinance is an option under consideration to,address the impact of the State Supreme Court decision. Part of the meeting discussion included the, possibility of amending the front yard /side street setback requirement that has been the basis for a number of variance requests.. Testimony at the meeting suggested that.the ordinance requiring a deeper'front yard setback given conditions adjacent to the subject property are unreasonable and unworkable for many properties in Edina. The zoning ordinance requires that any addition, new home or tear down /rebuild, maintain the average front yard setback of the homes on either side. It also requires that a corner lot match the front yard setbacks of the adjacent homes if both homes have their front yard facing the subject property's front and side streets. There were. two issues brought up at the September 1st meeting; the effect.of matching the average setback on an interior lot and how the "matching" front yard rule impacts corner lots. It was suggested that staff compile front yard setback requests to get a better picture of the type of requests that are approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, (a sample of front yard setback variances with findings are, attached for reference). It should be noted that the -ordinance addressing front yard setback was recently amended in April of 2010 with few permits issued, so it is difficult to gauge the impact of the amendment. The change may have possibly eliminated the need for some of the variances that had been granted in the past. Concerns expressed at the Zoning Ordinance meeting included the opinion that recent front yard setback changes have limited flexibility in house placement and that the changes have negatively impacted opportunities on properties. It was mentioned that the change will be problematic for building on vacant lots still remain_ ing in the undeveloped portions of Parkwood Knolls 26 and 27th Additions. /r } The front yard requirement along both the front and side streets for corner'lots if there are homes fronting both streets has not changed as part of the April amendment to the front yard setback ordinance and has been in place for many years. It was through the variance process that special cases have been heard. Review of the attached sample of front yard setback variance approvals, and findings in support of them indicate that there are unique and specific circumstances that supported each request. Front yard setback variances have . always been one of the more challenging variances to achieve, so the few that have been granted were due to conditions specific to the property. Short of a standard minimum setback requirement from all front and side streets, it would be difficult to craft an ordinance that would address many of the curved and unique shaped lots, street layouts and corner lot situations within the city. The current draft proposing a Nonconforming Use Ordinance does not specifically address front.yard or side street setback requirements. It would however allow a home addition to match an existing nonconforming front yard. setback. The.Nonconforming Use Ordinance would eliminate some front yard and side street setback variances given existing conditions on the site. The Nonconforming Use Ordinance would not address new construction on a vacant lot or teardown rebuild situation. As stated previously, the front yard setback ordinance was 'recently amended in April of 2010, with few applications for permits to appreciate the impact of the rule change. Conclusion Review of front yard setback variances recently granted reveal that some were requested and granted due to preexisting nonconforming situations that matched or continued a nonconforming frontyard setback in a proposed project.. A Nonconforming Use Ordinance could eliminate the need for variances in many instances and allow for continued improvement and upgrading of residential properties. The Nonconforming Use ordinance would not apply to a teardown rebuild or new construction on a vacant lot. _ 2 RESOLUTION NO. B -10 -25 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No. 850 AT 6509 Shawnee Circle, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED bythe Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Todd and Melissa Zettler has requested a 15.45 -foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a Construct a new single family home. 1.02 1 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 3, Overholt Hills Georgia Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota 1.03 City Code Section 850.11 requires a 45.45 -foot front yard setback variance. 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 30 -foot setback. This requires a variance of 15.45 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On July 1, 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application.. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential .character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's k property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: a. The existence of the non - conforming location of the previous home. b. The previous home conformed to the ordinances at the time it was constructed . with surrounding development and rule changes causing the property to become non - conforming. c. The proposed new home will be farther from the front lot line than the previous home that occupied the site. d. The home to the east dictating front yard setback was built with a deeper front yard setback affecting the ability to located a home on the subject property. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: a. The variance would not.impact the neighbors and would be similar to previous conditions. The variance would provide a reasonable building pad area that would have no visual encroachment on the streetscape. . Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to,the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, July 1, 2011., .unless the city has issued a. building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension and the addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated May 10, 2010. Adopted by the.Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, July 1, 2010. , Ichgel iz®edet Chairperson. ATTEST: Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Hornig . Seconded by: Davidson Voted in favor of: Hornig, Davidson, Schroeder, Flicek Voted against: 0 Abstained: Absent: Scherer Resolution adopted. July 1, 2010 I he certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on July 1, 2010. Jackie Hoogenakker, Planning Secretary m r _ i. _ �a 43 M1j Cr NIV � t$M r • - . � I ` \r ..j�am,t ; I I ;r 1~r r _ i. _ �a 43 M1j Cr NIV � t$M r • - . � I ` \r ..j�am,t ; I I RESOLUTION NO. B -10 -24 RESOLUTION APPROVING* A VARIANCE TO Zonirtg Ordinance No. 650 AT 6229 Bellmore Lane, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Craig and Sarah'Bennett has requested an 11.75 -foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for an addition to the rear of the home . 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 8, and the East 54 feet of Lots 1 and 2 including adjacent' /2 of vacated alley, also including West Y2 of vacated alley adjoining Lot 3, Block 11, Mendelssohn, Hennepin County, Minnesota 1.03 City Code Section 850.11 requires a front yard setback of 49.55 -feet 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 37.8 -foot setback. This requires a variance of 11.75 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354 Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On July 1, 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held.'a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the. spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: a. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the average front yard setback of adjacent homes. b. The homes along the block were built with deeper front yard setbacks, affecting the opportunity for the subject property to expand. c. The setback variance is minor given that it would allow the addition to match the existing non - conforming front yard setback. d. It would be reasonable to allow the proposed improvements given the constraints imposed by required setback and it would allow the property to maintain a preexisting condition. e. The intent of the ordinance is to preserve the common front yard area and streetscape. The addition will enhance the streetscape and will. not negatively impact the common front yard area. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, July 1, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project, covered by this variance or approved a time extension and is subject to the plans presented dated June ,15, 2010. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday; July1, 2010. S zd" Chairperson ATTEST: Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary Edina Zoning Board. of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for'adoption: Hornig Seconded by: Flicek Voted in favor of: Hornig, Flicek, Schroeder, Davidson Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Scherer. Resolution adopted July 1, 2010 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on July 1, 2010. Jackie Hoogenakker, Planning Secretary 0 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS—ArcIMS/iins?ServiceNamd=ed LOGISMap OVSDE &ClientVe... 9/2/2010 O e oae RESOLUTION NO. B- 10 -13 City of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No. 850 AT 4243 Scott Terrace, Edina, MN „ BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as.follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Betsy Wray has requested a 24.3 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a add living space to the house and build two car tandem garage 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: the North Half of Lot 15, MORNINGSIDE according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota Subiect to any and all easements of record. 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd. 6 require a -91 -foot front yard setback. 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 66.7 -foot front yard setback. This requires a - variance of 24.3 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On May 20; 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board ',considered all of the hearing-testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section .2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition fora variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause' undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in, keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question,cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by-the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. City Hall 952- 927 -8861 FAX 952 -826 -0390 4801 \NEST 501 H STREET I J_Y 952- 826 -037.9 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 ww\N.cltyofedina.com N Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because' of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The house as it exists today is nonconforming regarding required front yard setback. 2. The, proposal maintains the bungalow character of the home by keeping the dimensions appropriate not only for the additions to the home but for the neighborhood. 3.. The design as proposed preserves the large Sugar Maple and Oak trees. 4.. The recent change to t'he'Zon.ing Ordinance establishing front yard setback. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The Morningside neighborhood is unique with different and varying front yard setbacks. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above-described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval'is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, May 20, 2011, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension.. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, Mav ZO, 2010. Chairperso ATTEST: enakkervSecta_ry Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Carpenter Seconded by: Adiyia Voted in favor of: Carpenter, Adiyia, Broom Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Winder, Birdman Resolution adopted. May 20, 2010 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on May 20, 2010. C5a ie Hoogenakker, P 12(W ing Secretary Certificate of Survey Prepared for. Gary l -little I I fax I y} I q I Q Ee eI� a; ° 1 1a� I a� •tl °9, I � x. rag House I l hereby certify that this certificate of survey was prepared by me Job Number. 7121 r SCHOBORG or under my direct supervision and that / am o duly Registered Book o e: 7215U LAI ID SERVICES Land Surve�W—, nder the laws of the State of Minnesota. Sure Dole: 2 -1 -10 — L Drowln Name; it[tedw INC. Revisions: Paul D. Scho g 763- •972 -3271 11997 Co. Pd. 13 SE nnw.SchoblrrgLond.rom Delon., MN 55378 Do le: %3�i?_ I'(eglslrallon No, 14700 C� �rgu,°^1f• -,� { ✓hl ���; V l/ 1 I lQ� f 1 Lacelc • Found Mon Monument 0 o Fence },! I Q) oil Top Nut of Hydrant al W. aide Scol( of terrace near house '4230 Elea.= 908.46 (per city dotal _ ly tr i m ?� Exn tblg m v; N 14W ° QV O 11 3F�'onk O f 200 (plot) .. W Ui e a - - -- 39.71((nes.) 2 200.11,.(comp.) L 40 (plat) I 1 of Bne 1.001511- .0015 _ Aka �1 4 I IN <. • �) 0 12" Sv r I°rty' �' — __ i 81-7 - -- -- - --- - --- N - -- - -- 11 912. 0 '\ , - - -- 87.2 --------- , V- ,� ( '-•' / - `111,24 "5u�r%r' '1 I � late STrMar/ep �•' �� ------------ n ! ,0 1 :C -S. line of N Yj .f Lot `15 --� j NV995717'E r J 7 U \ A• -I I f 20 COMP. J i L 21111 IN I � x. rag House I l hereby certify that this certificate of survey was prepared by me Job Number. 7121 r SCHOBORG or under my direct supervision and that / am o duly Registered Book o e: 7215U LAI ID SERVICES Land Surve�W—, nder the laws of the State of Minnesota. Sure Dole: 2 -1 -10 — L Drowln Name; it[tedw INC. Revisions: Paul D. Scho g 763- •972 -3271 11997 Co. Pd. 13 SE nnw.SchoblrrgLond.rom Delon., MN 55378 Do le: %3�i?_ I'(eglslrallon No, 14700 C� �rgu,°^1f• -,� { ✓hl ���; V l/ 1 I lQ� f 1 Lacelc • Found Mon Monument 0 o Fence },! Referenca Benchmark: _ Top Nut of Hydrant al W. aide Scol( / of terrace near house '4230 Elea.= 908.46 (per city dotal tr (sunaJJsd 1 +_ 1.0 Qesc lalion ,by d lent) nr. North Half of Lot 15, 14W MORNINGSIO$ according to the O recorded plot thoroof, Hennepin County Mbinesalo. Subject to iN dnr and 0 easements of record. 2 l^e•�'Qr D �"Oyf Beorings4 based an assumed datum. SCALE ]Ir a to 20 •I0 t to � ttti 1 Inch 2U teoL 1,kv 1� i tA' ems• • r �' 1 � 'a- ',1r � -- � fir t ?' �, �' _ .o■ � , �. ..,tom, 1� 5 � �{� .. - - ::►,3� 1i`t,� .ti its ww . b JA ...:r -� i� ' 11 [[ 4 . i r '"`v t '�r.r�� ►fie- �� - - .� 6.-� a4Y � 1► -a ice. 'l � � cw 9�TA., '�rl O{ e h to RESOLUTION NO. B -10 -06 C1ty Of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Edina Zoning Ordinance No. 850 AT 5623 Concord Avenue, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning .Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Kimberly Hahneman /Bob Macey has requested a 18.8 foot side /front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a construct a mud room, kitchen and family'room on the main level and a quest bedroom on the second floor. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: The South 80.35 feet of the North 353.35 feet of the West 145 feet of the South 3/ of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 19 Township 28 Range 24 Hennepin County Minnesota 1..03 City Code Section 850.11. Subd. 6 require a 35 foot setback. .1.04., The applicant is proposing a 17.2 foot setback. This requires a variance of 17.8 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On April 8, 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that 'the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential City Hall •952 -927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952- 826 -0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 wwwcityofedina.corn TTY 952- 826 -0379 character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone _ shall n th an- undue-hardskrip -if- reason ble use_for-the petit wer's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3.' FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The location of the existing home relative to the required setbacks. 2. The limited expansion opportunities given the required setback from Woodland Road. 3. The buildable area of the property allowed by current ordinance prohibits a logical expansion of the existing floor plan and eliminates any opportunity for a mud room adjacent to the garage. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The addition would be farther from the south lot line than the existing side wall of the garage on the subject property. 2. The addition would be a reasonable expansion given required setbacks. 3. The addition would have no impact along Woodland Road or Concord Avenue. 4. The addition would appear seamless and would not be discernable from the current home. Section 4.. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, f ° Chairpe son ATTEST: ie Hoogenakker, S etary, Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Davidson Seconded by: Flicek Voted in favor of: Davidson, Flicek, Hornig, Fischer. Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Resolution adopted. April 8, 2010 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on April 8, 2010. 0 i Hoogenakker, S etary, Edina Zoning board of Appeals x'190349 19/2-8/24 -NT. A. t'i_, -I FRSQINd DES1(--tN B11- 111-1) ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING.- CO. 100 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax(952)4011375 - RVEY FOR: A. PETERSON DESIGN BUILD - SU SURVEYED, October 29, 2009 DRAFTED: October 30, 2009 REVISED: December 17, 2009 to show addition and proposed grading. REVISED: December 23, 2009 to show different addition and proposed grading. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The South 50:35 feet of the North 353.35 feet of the Nest 145 feet of the South 3/4 of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 25,, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LIMITATIONS & NOTES: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the .above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements. we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one, other feature shown on the map. when determining other tvations for use on this site. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " 0 " Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235; set, unless otherwise noted. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota: (�Mxnao CH Pr'rlLn - (nos H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 Approved Grading; Drainage Plan required prior to altering any grad( and /or drainage SILT FENCING IS REQUIRED -- 892.1 - --- - - - - - - - 692.7- - - - - -- / - - Ben chm crk: Top of iron monij LEGEND 892.5 xsss.z 892.1 `X893.4 X+89.5 Denotes existing contour line Rte° , 1 Found 112° 0.4 xgg5.0 r West of campd Denotes proposed spot elevation N i�� - - - - -- -372 X893,8 Xass.z Denotes proposed contour line o Xas1.1 891.2 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMS /ims ?ServiceName =ed LOGISMap_OVSDE &ClientVe... 9/2/2010 r'` w9ZziA.1�I �O RESOLUTION NO.S -09 -31 City of -Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No. 850 AT $71257 th Street West, Edina, MN. BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. - BACKGROUND. 1.01 Eric Swanson has requested a 6.22 foot front Vard setback variance from the city, code to /for a garage addition 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 2, Brookline 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd. 6 requires maintaining the established average setback of all structures on one side of the street between intersections or not extend out farther than if a line is extended across the subiect Property from the closest points of the homes.on either side 1.04 The applicant is proposing.a 29.6 foot.setback. This requires a variance of 6.22 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Gode Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances. . 1.06 . On December, 17, 2009, the Zoning. Board of Appeals held a'public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states.that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the-strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances -unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created City Fiala 952- 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952 - 826 -0390 EDINA, MINNESbTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.c0M TTY 952 - 826 -0379 by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circurn- stances that are unique to this property: 1. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the average front yard setback along the block. 2. The homes along the block were built with deeper front yard setbacks, affecting the opportunity for the subject property to expand. 3. The setback variance is minor given that it would allow the new garage to match the existing nonconforming front yard setback. 3.02 The variance would meet the'intent.of the ordinance since: 1. It would be reasonable to allow the proposed. improvements given the constraints imposed by required setback and it would allow the property to conform to the minimum two car garage requirement. 2. The intentbf the ordinance is to, preserve the common front yard area and streetscape. The additions will enhance the streetscape and will not negatively impact the common front yard ,area. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning.Board of Appeals approves the above-'described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this;.approval, December 17, 2010, unless the'city has issued a building perm' ermit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. Subject to the plans presented dated October 23; 2009. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, December 17 2009. 711rD n ATTEST: e Hoogenakker, SeAetary Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: F}CCQS$ Seconded by: Fav6r,\4\ Voted in favor of: F CiQSA, Voted against: (> Abstained: (� Absent: _0 Resolution adopted. - I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, *at a duly authorized meeting held on December 17, 2009. �ti_ a a. '� mi . n - = _ - tom' 't t � •�•• le a•d •I j k- I _ ! � AR, ' - _ y ,7 ®s �. O �eee City of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Edina Zoning Ordinance No. 650 AT 5200 601h Street West, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Thomas A. O'Connell has requested a 40.3 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a add a small addition to the front of the house to expand the kitchen. 1..02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 12 Block 1, Codes Highview Park 1.03 City Code Section 850.11. requires the property to respect the front yard setbacks of both the homes to the west and to the north along both 60 Street West and Code Avenue 1.04 The applicant is proposing A 29.7 foot front yard setback. This requires a variance of 40.3 feet: 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On November 5, 2009, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided.the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section'850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds.that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed .by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityoi'edina.coni 952- 927 -8861 TAX 952 -826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The existence of the nonconforming location of the subject home. 2. The home conformed to the ordinance at the time it was constructed with surrounding development and rule changes causing the property to be nonconforming. 3'. The addition will be located at the same nonconforming setback as the existing side wall to Code Avenue but cannot be accomplished without the benefit of a variance. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variance would not impact the neighbor to the north, would be similar to existing conditions and would not alter spacing to Code Avenue. 2. The variance would provide a small 80 square foot addition in an area of the property that would. have no visual encroachment on the streetscape. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings.. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, November 5, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time'extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated September 18, 2009. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, November 5, 2009. Chad ATTEST: J ding Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Scherer Seconded by: Davidson. Voted in favor of: Vasaly Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Schroeder -and Hornig Resolution adopted , November 5, 2009 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on November 5, 2009. c ie oogenak er, an g Secretary ,GISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http://Qis.logis.orR/LOGIS ArcIMS /ims ?ServiceName =ed LOGISMap_OVSDE &ClientVe... 9/2/2010 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 httn: / /2is.loiais.orWLOGIS ArcIMS/ ims? ServiceName= ed_LOGISMap_OVSDE &ClientVe... 9/2/2010 2 Ai, e 0 ,eea CityV of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING�.A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No. 850 AT 6112 Fox Meadow Lane, Edina,. MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Laura & Mark Masuda has requested a 33.2 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a garage-and bedroom addition. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Whiteman Addition,, Hennepin County, MN. 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd. 7 requires in an established neighborhood the setback is the average of the existing buildings on that side of the block between intersections. 1.04 The applicant is proposing 39 foot front yard setback variance. This requires a variance of 312 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On August 20, 2009, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this, application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this - Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA', 554241394 www.cityofedina.com 952- 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952- 826 -0379 I Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The location of the existing building relative to the required setbacks: 2. The topography of the lot limits expansion opportunities. 3. The buildable area of the property allowed by current ordinance prohibits a logical expansion of the existing multi -level floor plan. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The addition would maintain the same distance. from the home north of the subject property. 2. The addition would be a reasonable expansion given required setbacks. 3. The addition would appear seamless and would not be discernable from the current home. Section 4.. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the above findings.,Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, August 20, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. be as the submitted plan dated 2. The addition must constructed per August 4, 2009. I r C. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, March 6, 2008, m4o Chairperson ATTEST: o oogenakker, Secretary E a Zoning Board of Appeals ` ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION; Motion for adoption:. Forrest Seconded by: Winder Voted in favor of: Forrest, Winder, Birdman and Grabiel Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Adiyia Resolution adopted. August 20, 2009 -1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on August 20, 2009. Hoogenakker, Plan g S tary LOGISMap Output Page �N - _ s ,,11/ Page 1 of I http:// gis. logis. org /LOGIS_ArcIMS /ims ?ServiceName =ed LOGISMap_OVSDE &ClientVe... 9/2/2010 A. O ar 7 �Y p e bBB RESOLUTION NO. 13309 -04- City of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Edina Zoning Ordinance #350 AT 5700 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Steven Elie has requested a 10 foot and 21 foot side /front street setback variance from the city code to /for a add a 2 nil -story and a new attached garage 1.02 The.property is legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 2, Stocke and Hanson's Concord Terrace. 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd.7 requires a 35 and 25 foot front/side street Setback. 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 14 foot and 25 foot setback . This requires a variance of 10 and 21 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code- Section 850.04 authorizes the. Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On May 7, 2009 , the Zoning Board of_Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1:F, states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put City Hall 952- 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952- 826 -0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY 952 -826 -0379 to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The original home placement and required setbacks. 2. The home was built well within the current required setbacks limiting logical expansion of the existing structure. 3. The addition will encroach into the front yard setback by equal or less amounts than existing portions of the building, with all other portions of.the proposed addition conforming to the ordinance requirements. 3.02 . The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variances would allow the additions to match existing conditions or improve upon them and would not compound impact of the nonconforming structure. 2. The variances would maintain the existing nonconforming setbacks. that have historically been enjoyed and been in place since the home was constructed and in the case of the new garage, the setbacks will actually improve. 3. The variances would not interfere with sight lines or negatively impact the character along Wooddale Avenue or Woodland Road. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, May 7, 2010 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, M ay 7, 2009. �N , AA9 4 Chairperson ATTEST: oogenakker, Sec7ary Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption:--w\)1&6(-"\ Seconded by: StWP -f Voted in favor of: CQYN61-0-n S6m cef S -\mo?-&'i Voted against: (f� Abstained: 0 Absent: VD �pi N Resolution adopted. M .20 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on May 7, 2009.. Secretary LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http:// gis. logis. orgI LOGIS_ AreIMS Iims ?ServiceName= ed_LOGISMap_OV SDE &ClientVe... 9/2/2010 RESOLUTION NO. . B -08 -56 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO . Edina Zoning Ordinance No. 850 AT 6020 Kaymar Drive, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Mary and Rick Bredice has requested a 4.78 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a Kitchen Addition 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 5, Block 3, Valley Park Hennepin County MN 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd. 6 requires that any addition to a home maintain the average front yard setback along the block between intersections or match the front yard setbacks of the neighbors on either side 1.04 The applicant is proposing 33 foot front yard setback . This requires a variance of, 4.78 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On Thursday, September 18, 2008, the Zoning Board of Appeals held.a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance. unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would ' undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and . that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. A functional addition to the existing kitchen cannot be accomplished with a front yard setback variance given the existing floor plan and fireplace chimney location. 2. The addition is a minor point intrusion into the front yard, centered on the house and would have little or no impact on the two adjacent properties. 3. The size, (smaller) and shape of the lot, (rectangular), are not similar or consistent with properties on the north side of the block. The subject property is similar to properties on the south side of Kaymar Drive that provide minimal setback to the street. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variance would not significantly reduce spacing to the street. 2. The variance would not change the character of the property or the . K neighborhood in general. 3. The variance would be consistent with and will actually be farther away from the street than setbacks provided by two other homes within the neighborhood. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance.will expire one year from the date of this approval, September 18, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. i f _ Aqppteq by the 2oning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina,, Minnesota, on Thursday, 2008. Cha'rp�rson ATTEST: Ja ie Hoogena key, cretary Edina Aning Board of Appeals' ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION:. Motion for ado tion: 2Q; : Seconded by: ; Voted'.in`favor of: Voted against:�j. Abstained. .,Absent: ►� � } Resolution,adopfid 01 I hereby'certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted.by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on 0 , 2008. SAM ac 'e Hoogenakker, nn. Secretary 1 " LOGISMap Output Page S6 Page 1 of 1 http: / /gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMS /ims ?ServiceName =ed LOGISMap OVSDE &ClientVe... 9/2/2010 RMT N RESOLUTION NO. B -08°48 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance Noe 850 AT 5130 France Avenue South, Edina, IAN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Steve Dresler has requested a 4.5 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a construct a new home 1.02. The property is legally described as follows: The north 62 feet of the East V2 of Lot 46, except the West 165 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172, Hennepin County, MN 1.03 City Code Section 850.11. Subd 7 requires that the new home meets the established average front yard setback 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 40.9 foot setback . This requires a variance of 4.5 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On October 16. 2008 , the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall'not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would caus.e undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with, the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner.; and (iii) the variance, if granted, Will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of,the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The uneven and inconsistent streetscape along the west side of the subject block. 2. The orientation, spacing and grade relationship of the adjacent structure north of the subject property. 3. The limited opportunity to transition between a multi - family building to the north, France Avenue to the east and the single family home located south of the property. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since :. 1. The variance would preserve the variation in setback along the block. 2. The variance would not disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent front yard pattern, because there appears to be no consistency with regard ,to front yard setback. 3. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property near multi- family and nonresidential uses. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, October 16, 2008, unless. the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed as per the submiifted plan dated September 2008. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday. OctobevI6, 2008. -Chairperson ATTEST: 0 Hoogenakker, Secreta din ing Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Nt\s Motion-for adoption: Seconded by: kAZ;%T%OW GtOW Voted in favor of: s �d ear Voted against: Abstained:CD Absent: % Resolution adopted. e I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of AD eals of the City of Edina, Minnesota,,at a duly authorized . meeting held on a ; 2008. OQVPm oo`g�enakker, Pla ing Secretary LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http:// gis. logis. org/ LOGIS_ ArcIMS Iims ?ServiceName= ed_LOGISMap_OV SDE &ClientVe... 9/2/2010 r , O RESOLUTION NO. B -08 -37 RESOLUTION. APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning.Ordinance 850 AT 5020 Oak Bernd Lane, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Patricia and George Maas has requested a 49.3 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a construct anew single dwelling 1.02 The property is legally described. as follows: Lot 6, Block 1, Mirror Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd`. 7 requires: Established Average Setback. When more than 25. percent of the frontage on one side of a street between intersections is occupied by buildings having front street setbacks of more or less than 30 feet, the average setback of such existing buildings shall be maintained by all new or relocated buildings or structures or additions thereto on the same side of that street and between said intersections. If a building _or structure or,addition thereto is to be built or located where there is an established average setback and there are existing buildings on only one side of the built or relocated building or structure or addition thereto, the front street setback of said new or relocated building or structure or addition thereto need be no greater than that of the nearest adjoining principal building. If a building or structure or addition thereto is to be built or relocated where there is an established average setback and there are existing buildings on both sides of the new or relocated building or structure or addition thereto the front setback need be no greater than that which would be established by connecting a line parallel with the front lot line connecting the most forward portion of the.adjacent principal building on each side 1.04 The applicant is proposing . a 61.4 foot front yard setback . This requires a variance of 49:3 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant'variances 1.06 On July 10, 2008 , the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for, a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii)-the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which. were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The required average front yard setback is inconsistent with the streetscape along the west side of the block. 2. The lack of any reasonable relationship between the subject lot and the adjacent home to the south. 3, The. drainage. easement along. the..back one third. of the.lot affecting how the property can be developed. 4. The setback required from the cul -de -sac portion of the street. 3.02 1 The variance would meet the intent of the-ordinance since: 1. The variance would be similar to existing conditions to the north and along the west side of street. .. 2. The variance would promote the goal of maintaining a consistent front yard pattern. 3. The variance would maintain and enhance the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board'of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of.this approval, July 10, 2008, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, _ July 10, 2008. Michael Schroeder Chairperson ATTEST: Hoogenakker, Secreftry ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: ina Zoning Board of Appeals Motion for adoption: Scherer Seconded by: Vasaly Voted in favor of: Scherer, Vasaly, Davidson, Hornig and Schroeder Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: 0 Resolution adopted: July 10, 2008 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized . meeting held on July 10, 2008. LK 'W' j'j' LID) MN 'W'Wkker, PIE�5'�.Secretar�- I LW70 9 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http:// gis. logis. org /LOGIS_ArcIMS /ims ?ServiceName =ed LOGISMap_OVSDE &ClientVe... 9/2/2010 O t� O �cORPO' 1888 (/ RESOLUTION NO. B -08 °24 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 850.07 AT 4121 West 50" Street, Edina, MN BE IT 'RESOLVED by the.Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Ediria, Minnesota, as follows: Section. 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Greg T. Oothoudt has requested a 208 square foot variance from the city code to /for a porch addition 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: The westerly 60 feet of Lot 2, and all of Lot 3, Block 1, Stevens' Est Addition to Minneapolis 1.03 City Code Section 850.07, Subd. 6, O. requires to allow porch area beyond the 80 square foot allowed 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 288 square foot porch . This requires a variance of ' 208 square feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On Thursday, May 15, 2008 , the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause. undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by.the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause'undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The existence of the legal nonconforming front yard setback. 2. The addition will allow for improvement of existing conditions on site without negatively impacting the intent of the zoning ordinance. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. Adequate spacing would be maintained from the street. The setbacks are meant to insure comfortable distances between structures and the street. The variance would sustain proper setback while allowing for a reasonable improvement. 2. The variance would enhance the residential character of the property and neighborhood. I Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, May 15, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed as per submitted plan on April 18, 2008. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on May 15 , 2008. Rodney Hardy Chairperson ATTEST: Ca ee Hoogenakker, nin oard Secretary ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Winder Seconded by: Hardy Voted in favor of: Winder, Hardy, Forrest Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Lonsbury, Nelson Resolution adopted. May 15, 2008 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on May 15, 2008. rcre Hoogenakker, Zon Bo rd ry i' t ��1�8BB RESOLUTION NO. 13-08 -15 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 850.11. AT 5400 Park Place, Edina, MN. BE IT,RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND.. 1.01 David and JoAnne Alkire has requested a 18 foot front yard setback variance. from the city code to /for a addition above the first floor of the home. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 7, South Harriet Park. 1.03 City Code Section 850.11. Subd. 7, A. requires a front yard setback of 35.8 feet-to match adjacent property setback 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 17.5 foot front yard setback. This requires a variance of 18 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354; Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850:04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On April 10, 2008 , the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff, report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue °hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall.not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable.use for the petitioner`s property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1: The size, configuration and corner location of the lot. The required setback bisects the home and is a hardship - hindering the ability to add on to the home. The front yard setback will not be compromised given. the rather small additions proposed to the second floor. 2. The proposed additions will be consistent with the dimensions and look of the existing home and will not alter the footprint. 3'1 The additions are minimal in scale, however, allow for a tremendous improvement to the interior spaces of the property. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variance would be similar to existing conditions and would not interrupt the front yard patterned established along Brookview. 2. The variance would not disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent front setback pattern. 3. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is'subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, April 10., 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated April 2, 2008. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, A ril 17, 2008. Chairperson ATTEST: ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption': C Seconded by: VJ Voted in favor of: Voted against: Abstained: Absent: q) _ 0 Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the-City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on 2008. ilk D i Hoogenakker, Pla ing cretary LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http: / /gis.logis.org /LOGIS ArcIMS /ims ?ServiceName =ed LOGISMap_OVSDE &ClientVe... 9/2/2010 y 4 rZ A _ RESOLUTION NO. 13-08 -13 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 850.11 AT 6929 Valley View Road — aka 6919 Moccasin Valley Trail, Edina, MN. BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Richwood Custom Builders has requested a 45.5 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a new home. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 2, Moccasin Valley, 1.03 City Code Section 850.11. Subd. 7, A. requires a front yard setback of 108 feet to match adjacent property setback 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 62.5 foot front yard setback. This requires a variance of 45.5 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On April 10, 2008 , the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to'present-information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are 11 incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS. 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use -as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship- because of -,the following . circumstances that are unique to'this property: 1. The existence of the nonconforming north side wall of the current home location. 2: The home was located closer to the street intersection and north lot line serving as a buffer to the home adjacent to the east. 3. The proposed home location will preserve a legal nonconforming setback. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variance would be similar to existing conditions. 2. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. , Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject -to the above findings. Approval is subject to the fallowing conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, April 10, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. �. 2. The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated March 19, 2008. Adopted by the Zoning, Board of Appeals'of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, April 10, 2008: Chairperson ATTEST:' t , c e' Hoogenakker, Se tary Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Fischer Seconded by: Hornig Voted in favor of: Fischer, Hornig, Davidson and Staunton Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: 0 Resolution adopted. Apri1.10, 2008 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of .a resolution adopted. by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on April 10, 2008. acki oogenakker, S retary _ � •4 tam -,sue s� �- Tom+^- �• K I . � __ � _ �.. •.1 '� - -' . of i 1Fk� y .Y• •`� �/ DSO � !��! _.'��_ l 1 LIAML t o� 0 �roxn't ,aee RESOLUTION NO. B -08-03 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 850.11 AT 6605 Mohawk Trail, Edina, :SAN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND.. 1.01 Paul and Julie Donna y has requested a 25.65 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for construction of a new house 1:02 The property is legally described. as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Gearen Hill 1.03 'City Code Section 850.11, Subd: 7. requires that the front setback be no greater than that which would be established by connecting a line parallel with the front lot line connecting the, most forward portion of the adjacent principal building on each -;,4 1.04. The applicant is proposing a 50 foot front yard setback . This requires a variance of 25.65 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On April 17, 2008' , the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report,. which are incorporated by reference into this resolution li o� 0 �roxn't ,aee RESOLUTION NO. B -08-03 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 850.11 AT 6605 Mohawk Trail, Edina, :SAN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND.. 1.01 Paul and Julie Donna y has requested a 25.65 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for construction of a new house 1:02 The property is legally described. as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Gearen Hill 1.03 'City Code Section 850.11, Subd: 7. requires that the front setback be no greater than that which would be established by connecting a line parallel with the front lot line connecting the, most forward portion of the adjacent principal building on each -;,4 1.04. The applicant is proposing a 50 foot front yard setback . This requires a variance of 25.65 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On April 17, 2008' , the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report,. which are incorporated by reference into this resolution f ^_ Section 2. STANDARDS 2.0.1 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner. is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance,. if. granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The uneven and inconsistent streetscape along the east side of the block. 2. The orientation, spacing, and grade relationship of the two adjacent homes north and south of the subject property. 3. The slopes along the back two thirds of the lot affecting how the property could be graded causing the potential for higher /more retaining walls and tree removal. 4. The variance would be similar to existing conditions across the street. 5. The variance would not disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent front yard pattern; neither adjacent homes face Mohawk Trail. 6. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood and reduce impact on the natural slope and existing trees located on the property. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. Disturbance in the Conservation Restriction area will be limited to allow a 12 foot wide driveway 2. The-addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated April 2, 2008. 3. This variance will expire on April 17, 2009 unless the City has issued a building permit.for the project covered .by this variance or approved a time extension. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, April 17, 2008 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. Approval is subject to the materials submitted on April 17, 2008. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, ADril 17 2008. Chairperson ATTEST: enakker, Secretary NinNi]46ning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: -,AMC-" Seconded by: Voted in favor of! Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Resolution adopted. n, gc)c)� I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by ,the Zoning_ Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting hel&on 2008. LOGISMap Output Page Page I of 1 http: / /gis.logis.orgILOGIS AreDAS /ions ?ServiceName =ed LOGISMap_OVSDE &ChentVe... 9/2/2010 .rr�1 O� e '�ttnlnwn^j Originator Kris Aaker Assistant Pllanner PLANNING STAFF REPORT. Meeting Date Planning Commission September 29, 20110 Zoning Ordinance Work Session Dnfforrnatlon &s Background At their September 15, 2010 meeting, the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee met in part to discuss a Nonconforming Use Ordinance addressing alternate setback standards. The Nonconforming Use Ordinance is an option under consideration to address the impact of the State Supreme Court Decision limiting the city's ability to approve variance requests. Part of the discussion at the meeting included the possibility of amending the setback ordinance as it relates to existing nonconforming situations perhaps with a limit or a cap on additional encroachment. The Commission expressed concern regarding the consideration of a "blanket ordinance" that would- allow seemingly unlimited- additional encroachment into the setback area with few checks and balances. A limit to encroachment would be addressed to some extent through the amount of allowable lot coverage, however, coverage would not address the potential to construct a long/ solid wall within setback that could be perceived as imposing and having a negative impact on a neighboring home. It was suggested that staff compile and evaluate past variance requests that were approved given nonconforming setback conditions, (a sample of variances with findings are attached for reference). The amount of existing and proposed nonconforming floor area was measured within the overlapping required setback. The Commission had expressed interest in understanding the average amount of existing versus proposed floor area that has been approved through the variance process. Review of pervious nonconforming variance requests reveals that the range of existing nonconforming setback encroachment is a far wider spectrum of floor area than the amount requested for an addition. The existing areas of encroachment vary between 13.5 - 1,100 square feet of structure area overlapping the setback. This would include all setback encroachments: front, side- street, side yard, rear yard and water body setback.'The variances approved for first floor additions to nonconforming homes varied between G - 545 square foot additions, (the 545 sq ft addition was to an existing home that was mostly nonconforming). The average addition into the setback area consisted of approximately 120 square feet, although there were a number of additions within the 210 -240 square foot range. Many additions were 40 square feet or less which was expected given that many proposed encroachments were just minor intrusions into'a setback area. The average percentage increase in encroachment is approximat.ely.42 %,-.so the additions would increase the`existing encroachment in most cases by a little less than one Half of the existing' amount. Many of the smaller additions, or minor point intrusions, had a higher percentage of increased encroachment. For example, a relatively minor 27 square foot addition increased the amount of encroachment by 82 %. A relatively large, 402 square foot addition for example Basing potential additions in the setback area on a set percentage of increased encroachment may not be the most sensible way to measure /evaluate additions within the required setback. Second floor variances were a bit of a challenge to evaluate since there were multiple designs to a variety of existing housing types. Some of the two story homes had additions that exactly matched nonconforming conditions, other - - p:rojects had conforming first floors and nonconforming second floors or were 1 '/2 story homes remodeled into 2 story homes, were conforming or nonconforming ramblers with. a nonconforming second floor proposed. The second floor additions generally had greater areas of encroachment than first floor additions. Second floor additions varied between 52 — 655 square feet. The average second floor encroachment into the setback area is approximately 254 square feet or about a 77% increase in encroachment. Second floor additions tended to be larger encroachments into the required setback area than the approved first floor additions. The amount of encroachinent was larger in most cases because height along the side yard requires greater setback. It is anticipated that the existing zoning ordinance requiring 6 inches of. setback for each additional 12 inches of height over 15 feet will continue to address second floor additions regardless of existing nonconforming conditions. The exiting height provision will continue to limit rambler and 1 '/z story conversions into full. two story homes. There is less opportunity to add second floor area given the side yard setback/height requirement and given most additions.can no longer benefit through the variance process. - -: The current draft of the Nonconforming Use Ordinance proposes -a 200 square foot cap on additions within the setback. Given variances that have been approved .in the past it would seem that the 200 square foot maximum requirement for additional encroachment is reasonable. The 200 square foot cap would allow for many of the minor point intrusion improvements into setback areas that have generally been approved by the'Zoning Board in the past. Conc Fusion Review of nonconforming setback variances reveals a range of encroachment with many additions only minor overlaps into the setback area. The Nonconforming Use Ordinance. proposes a 200 square -foot maximum increase in encroachment into a setback area. Given past variance approvals, it would appear that a.200 square foot limit would be a balanced and reasonable approach. 2 LOGISMap Output Page Page Iof1 RESOLUTION ION NO. ® °10 °24 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE T® ZoB li j lP ! anca Hoo 850 AT 8229 Bellmori Lane. Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of'Ediria, Minnesota, as follows: Section I BACKGROUND. 1.01 Craig and Sarah Bennett lies requested an 11.75-foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for an addition to the p&w the home . 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 8 ' and the East 54 feet of Lots 1 and 2 including adiacent' /2 of vacated alley, also including West 9/z of vacated alley adjoining Lot 3 Block 11 Mendelssohn Hennepin County Minnesota �. 1.03 City Code Section 850.11 requires a front yard setback of 49.55 -feet 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 37.8 -foot setback. This requires a variance.of 11.75 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354 Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On July 1. 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was hearing testimony staff port, which information. are The board considered all of th e 9 testimony and the incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2'.01 Section 850.04.SubdJ .F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioners property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioners property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's P � property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3.. FINDINGS - - 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the followin circumstances that are unique to this P rop e rty: 9 a. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the average front yard setback of adjacent homes. b. The homes along the block were built with deeper front yard setbacks, affecting the opportunity for the subject properly to expand. c. The setback variance is minor given that it would allow the addition to match the existing non- conforming front yard setback. d. It would be reasonable to allow the proposed improvements given the constraints imposed by required setback and it would allow the property to preexisting condition. maintain a e. The intent of the ordinance is to preserve the common front yard area and streetscape. The addition will enhance the streetscape and will not negatively. impact the common front yard area. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the above fi di gs. Approval is subject ubbect to the followiiariance, conditions: n9 1 • , This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval July' 1, 2010, .unless the city has issued a building project covered b- this variance or a Permit for the is subject to ,the pans presented dated June 15, 2010. erasion and 1.' 1 Ado fed b the Zoning :Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, P y July 1 2010. , Chairperson ATTEST: Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION OWTHIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Hornig Seconded by: Flicek Voted in favor of: Hornig, Flicek, Schroeder, Davidson Voted. against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent; Scherer Resolution adopted July 1 2010 hereb ' certify that the foregoing is .a true and correct copy of a redSOlutauthor authorized adopted by y eels of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a . y the Zoning Board of App meeting held on. July 1, 2010: Jackie Hoogenakker, Planning Secretary 4 L r jjjV n e Page 5 ,.1, " Page 1 of 1 L®GISMaP Output Page oil 2255 DOS W ELL A V EP SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA&; T:(6121331-0567 F:1612137&' ✓x.111 n.�1�G.a1 GIIVG 6229 Beftore Road Edina, MN a rATROw+oaxuuEa 2009.0[ Slte/Roof Plan, Basement O1 IV AA. APp— ByAg=r Al LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 2 SIDE STREET SETBACK VARIANCE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A TWO STORY HOME 105 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO MAIN FLOOR 248 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING MAIN FLOOR ENCRAOCHMENT 35% INCREASE IN MAIN FLOOR ENCROACHMENT 52 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO SECOND FLOOR 132 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING SECOND FLOOR ENCRAOCHMENT 40% INCREASE IN SECOND FLOOR ENCROACHMENT ° PED: 07023241130112 y ? 4500 42nd St @A/ � ?-4_ Edela, MN 35413 Pr operty Assessing City of Edina '�'S ?I +007 4005 . 7 OOOS 005 Id007 1010 118DO 4011 4006 41M5 4004 LOgmcf 4009 B ODOB II 4012 b009 4013 4002 4667 4016 Highlighted Foatury 0TT 1010 4012 4001} 4010 4012 4074 0011 4016 4075 4010 49tf 4012 Hvuse Hambar Labels =4017 �D 17 73 0017 Street Home LSbels I aofs 0011 Opts d014 4015 a1d 8016 4019 46M 40M CI Limltc �✓ Ty Ij 1,17 I 0016 dots 1020 17 4020 Cl vue 8016 4099 4020 CDf1 4022 019 4021 dOIY A 'Al Loh. Kom.. 4011 0021 4022 1020 4021 0023 Lakes C 402Y �024 4027 4025 4024 Perks a Parcels 4101 4100 s < 4fOf 4100 4011 24 4705 4104 14 4103 4102 4106 - -_ - -- 4102 4fo2 4108 41 12 4112 411] 41fJ 14 4118 N66 1117 0116 4117 4120 47tS 4121 4121 4121 4124 I I450214502 of OdOI JO 4724 7081704 7001214 1254218 C2624 I 1 ���--- I 4}DO 4-- 22004"1 1200 07 4200 21 N7 43 7 4305 ,301 421/4217 4215 4213 4205 420 MM T4113 47096707 �2 JMy 4205 4171 1109 421f 4211 4206 4209 4200 42pB _ 4704 070fi 4212 4 4215 4216 4212 420E 4216 �` 4219 4220 4216 8717 4212 4217 1210 220 4215 GZfS 4212 4210 412] 4224 6117 4216 224 S4234 4217 1114 4117 4228 4219 4219 4216 226 4221 4274 4228 4271 4I7Z 12 dZ23 4272 < 42n 1227 OT20 ST 270 x225 C225 4121 4272 _4 232 4227 4221 44224 0p Zp s 4229 134 1121 4216 24 6230 4273 4171 4m 4 4136 4237 4232 4231 74 4236 4275 427 1277 4237 4238 42]7 42M e235 1134 ® 24 [278 4271 4N0 4211 4210 421 4236 0139 1170 �«•++['ti1 ��.i:i �ccscrm I 24 4212 4247 4142 4243 4742 <740� .e.� SIDE STREET SETBACK VARIANCE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A TWO STORY HOME 105 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO MAIN FLOOR 248 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING MAIN FLOOR ENCRAOCHMENT 35% INCREASE IN MAIN FLOOR ENCROACHMENT 52 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO SECOND FLOOR 132 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING SECOND FLOOR ENCRAOCHMENT 40% INCREASE IN SECOND FLOOR ENCROACHMENT ° PED: 07023241130112 y ? 4500 42nd St @A/ � ?-4_ Edela, MN 35413 Pr operty Assessing .,_ .I-,, LOGISMap Output Page Page I of I -. - � .(.YC -�• _ fir '•4- , Y -_- � / y`( t ' s. i�'�'� V s -__ RESOLUTION NOe (- 0 -22 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ance.Noo 850 AT 4500 A2"d Sto°eet @ttlest IE�Iina bN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: ;Section 'Ia BACKGROUND. Q 7 foot side street/front yard setback 1.01 Scott and Jolynn Gamble has requested a ,� variance from the city code to /fora add an addition of a mud room, kitchen room bedroom and bath. 2 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 3 William Scott's Addition 1.0 p .I- lennepin County Minnesota 1.03 City Code Section 850.11 requires 35.2 foot from setback. 04 The applicant is proposing a setback of 26.5 feet. This requires a variance of 8_7 1. p feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes; Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and d city Code Section 850.04 authorizes�the Zoning Board of Appeals t gran 010,'the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this 1.06 On July 1, 2 application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2 not grant on for a Section 850.04.Subd.1:F. states that the Board n of this Sect onpvuoiui ld cause variance unless it finds that the strict enforcem undue hardship because of circumstances Unique to spirit pandi intent of property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with Section. "Undue hardship„ means that (i) the pnropetheipl ghtsof the petitioner put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; ( ) due to circumstances unique to the petitioner' rwill not alter h the iessential created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, siderations along character of the property or its surroundings. Economic con shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's 2.01 STANDARDS property exists under the .terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The location of the existing home relative to the required setbacks. 2. The limited`exparsion opportunities "given the required setback from Monterey Avenue. 3. The buildable area of the property allowed by current ordinance prohibits a logical expansion of the existing floor plan and eliminates any opportunity for a reasonable expansion.. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The addition would be farther from the east lot line than the existing side wall of the garage on the subject property. 2.. The addition would be a reasonable expansion given the required setbacks. 3. The addition would have no.impact'along West 42nd Street or Monterey Avenue. 4. The. addition would appear seamless and would not be discernable from the current home. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The honing Board, of Appeals approves the,a.bove- described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, July 1, 20100, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated June 14, 2010. r � , I I _ 4186 MONTEREY � F . < I LOT 3, Wiu ApPrO s s �C i�C �d COUNTY, Ih1 Plan required prior W radar ex I altering i and/or drcilnG04 A TITLE WEST. I 1 IN •- EXISTING • �� . rte-: m+ - r• ` P. SET CAP D9 GARAGE = ` : ' ci - I f FOUND IRON PIPE 808 }' ' •� 3 P/ GFE= 67 d :. % ee s� u 0- 5) B b'V I zo 'WALKS TO BE f I WIMO SI/� '��1•['1 U' - _ REMOVED — � 9 i.�V�1Sd�aJ i F1REP[7 U \ erti BULIP TH I f 0 r 11! I P` I b• ` 33.9 � �' - ° I' °� ' �• � ^yy i Q I Ui b ^9~ I 0 PROPO.r.�fD 1 1 2 26.E ate- D f N STORY ADDITI* b ^^ I I I .4 \ WAP I b ^bY t+ ��� /9!E ^ SCREEN / \� x no.I I LOT P UNIT IzTO z � AC F_ o n Q 8 PORCH (TO BE HOUS REMOVED) `y Wo I a in 1 / EXISTING HOUSE 1 IMNEY� GARM C) / Lil I SORE _ / FFE89.91 a ^ ^b 24.5 I ~ I TOTN O Z OTIiE o CV �.0 I x - o ^° 1MNDOW I P 0 0 4 O DRIVM N e ^9 I . (TYP•) N AC F 0 ^ I CON1 01 �_ I \ b ^y.. a ^e6 ^b I RETE V) J l ' $I 4-4 b/ �1 4 ^ey .1y SST CAP X44109 IN -� o ^° / X 7 LOT _ — — 70.00 Cf EXII N3-0- 0, a ^ey • TOP NUT HYDRANT EXI ^66 b SET CAP 4109 IN ^b° N ELE (NGVD29). PR( FOUND IRON PIPE 0.13 SOUTH OF ^er o ^e TO CALCULATED POSITION e, b S T W E S T e 42ND b ,x ex x ,Qi x11`6 e1 ^x ® e ^e x e ^b a ^e. G� cn o H / \ GEm bRe Residence E. I HA1�1SEI�, AIWA s Addition / renovations a : 4501 Zenith Avenue South a ? 2 4500 42 "d Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 -- Edina, Minnesota, 55416 612.328.0851 eric@ejftansen.com i -- x P E. J. HA SEN, A$ 4501 Zenith Avenue South Nlinneafolis, Ivfinnesota 55410 612 - 323.0831 eeica jkansea�caaa� i i c o g a Ggirp-ble Residence . ` cv 9 Addition / Renovations an. N "o < .3 a_ �� �� _ 2 4500 42nd Street o ® �'s ; � -3 Edina, Minnesota, 55416 E. J. HA SEN, A$ 4501 Zenith Avenue South Nlinneafolis, Ivfinnesota 55410 612 - 323.0831 eeica jkansea�caaa� i i 't7' = — — a � � N 4 i G.9mbRe Residence n A Addition I Renovations 4 "d S 4501 Zenith Avenue South " =_ E 4500 42 " Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 z " Minnesota, 55416 6 612.328.0881 eric@ejhansen.cam 4 i I. G.9mbRe Residence n A Addition I Renovations 4 "d S 4501 Zenith Avenue South " =_ E 4500 42 " Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 z " Minnesota, 55416 6 612.328.0881 eric@ejhansen.cam i IIi , i Ai V�z 10 vv,5 I ` , I k � i o �� 33,x. "• � ' G bR�e Residence E. HA1�ISENN flu A ; e 4501 Zenith Avenue Sout e e Addition I ��110���1��5 Minneapolis, Minnesota 554 t a e' 4500 42'n Street 6fl2.323.ID�oI eTicQa Jkamen -cam o ® Him Edina, Minnesota, 5 5416 w (T \V; y GE!D1 ble Residence Addition / renovations 450042 d Street 2, F _ Edina, Minnesota, 55416 E. J. HANSEN, AIA 4501 Zenith Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 612.328.00'1 eric@ejkansen.com r LOGISTNUP Output Page y ��li 4101 4131 4406 4141 4410 ,1412 4112 4106 1416 4420 16714 s7W 4105 4161 4121 4113 4t07 <508 4 14 0 1 4108 I 4106 I 4104 I 4102 I 4100 city of Edina 4000 4031 <sob 4005 > F 0410 V07 4612 "it 4111 1416 1212 12/7 4418 4048 0052 4418 : 4D58 4501 4060 0052 4503 0064 45a5 4051 4053 0055 4507 4511 0601 0600 property [rl}, Page 1 of 2 Lergnd Highlighted Fesh+n 1401244 Number Labels Street Name Labsis N Chy Llmfls ,,, I Creaks Lake Names Lakes Parks Purccls ASSessing — o 450, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE ONE CAR GARAGE/ 2 CAR TANDEM ADDITION 27 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ENCROACHMENT 33 SQ 820/0 INCREASE IN ENCROACHMENT PID:0702824440010 4501 Grimes 01ve Edina, MN 55424 property [rl}, Page 1 of 2 Lergnd Highlighted Fesh+n 1401244 Number Labels Street Name Labsis N Chy Llmfls ,,, I Creaks Lake Names Lakes Parks Purccls ASSessing A,r . o V .3y �eea City of Ediha RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARBANC E TO Zoolin_ Orrdiungna -e P20 350 AT 4501 Gromi es AvGnus South BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Pa_I Mero has requested a 1.2 -foot side yard setback variance from the city code. to /for a gara le ex ansion 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: The vest % of Lot 20 Auditors Subdivision No. 161 Hennepin County 1.03 City Code Section 350.11. requires a 5 -foot side yard setback. 1.04 . The applicant is. proposing A 3.3 foot setback.-This requires a variance of 1.2- feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section. 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On July 1, 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing -testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 350.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a. variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique t® the Petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) i the property p p rty in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property :which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the roe . property rty or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone City HaH 4801 WEST 50TH STREET 952- 927 -8861 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.co FAX 952- 826 -0390 m TTY 952- 826 -0379 shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists finder the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The location of the existing garage at an angle to the side lot line. 2. The addition would comply with the minimum two car garage requirement. 3. The addition will allow a seamless expansion of the home. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The addition would match the existing exterior and would be in- keeping with the look of the home and surrounding neighborhood. 2. The improvements would follow the existing wall lines and architecture of the home and should have no impact on sight lines. 3. The addition would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by the required setback and proximity of -tide existing side wall of the garage. I . Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, July 1, 2011, unless the city has issued a building permit for the pro1ect covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. At the applicant's expense the applicant is to engage an arboristlforester to provide a baseline report on the condition of the neighbor s tree on property located at 4419 Grimes Avenue, Edina, MN 's expense an arborist/forester is to provide both the applicant and 3. At the applicant property owner of ex Grimes Avenue periodic reports on the status of the tree; and a final report one year after construction has been completed. Adopted.'by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Gity of dire, Minnesota, on Thiarsda 1 2010. ----y. Chai rson ATTEST: 0 doge akker, Secr �yE Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Schroeder Seconded by: Hornig Voted in favor of: Schroeder, Hornig, Flicek Voted against: Davidson Abstained: ,0 Absent: Scherer Resolution adopted. July 1; 2010 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of -a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, .Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on July 1, 2010 CWlp oogenakker, P nin cretary pw--T V-1 -3kl!Sc-. a._ f tip/. c- F :!'ageIofl - f� A lnf%l (1 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of i 890.0)( Existing, Elevation (890.OTW Top of Wall Elevation Boulder Wall Fence BENCHMARK: E #1140 Top Nut Hydrant located ® West Side of SCALE: Grimes Ave, by House 4508. Elevation = 898.87 - y�'�o 9������ik gUO 3c90Q X 6" I � L ` j 899.5 • I � - power Pole 50.46x Anne ®s; I N 9 °.21, ° 45 UN CONCRETE °' 9 X898.8 WALL 6 M a1 8.3 898 597�$g�`_�g rn �89 9��y �gB910 20.3 :22.0 96 96 9 T 9 0 c8 1 S Cn � �aiC, $9°�" $gg rO pj 6' �o FLAGSTONE �i N .%'/}RAi2� AQOI7�+l.P 5g5.9N� X 894.2 89 .6X ® / ��. �� WALL (RRQPOSED) - - -q5.7_ _ _ _ - - - SAN MH - - 9:0 � ' S.S - - - 71.6 - CO T P= 899.12 - - - - 46.2 0.9 �i 2 - ®' I S K M / m 89�°d, � X 894.2 � � W FLAGSTONE WAL F- m CD 4) AND STEPS j�4501 2 AODITIO Q cD x a9 •3 0 E Es99 a d M C oPaS�D) m f r r (fi F ® )( 899.1 91� ._ - r i8.0 � L0 892,9 g9g 0.9 15.0 w e® ° U CD x °0 V) 9 I 5`� 8g Bw' FLAGSTONE X 9 1.0 ® DECK Ib 9 `g92,2k < 90.6 cy- q� tiv T 14.2/ ' 893.7 X X U 01 X898.7 �rnC' e9g'9$. gb. , 98 89 8 b8 5 8� 889. 8890 �, $9 593.5 WALL ro .TIMBER X ' � , 898.5 >t 8 8.289 .6X .r 815:.r+ewn 0) 897.9 C - 31.1 $g$5� - � ; , 1 •- .r f., •4,iyw ,. q!.� .. ' �tl r .rl .. - � �'I - ,y., , ' - `r Y_+� ,4..: t ., .. i, ••.y.. „ -1 L f 1 .Y 1 d r 1. - �7 ♦. , r { J y}:r { IJ 42.r n. 1 .4 r. w•rr:LV� - C: �.. •�• "Q-4 r -yr.. l �), ! {C{ In �, 4 yy l•'fia+ tl:. +rY C j,4' :. �i. +� - - }I' td .' ?'~v5 .j};:jl :;u, k f• „��" 6�}tp J�:% {'K' ' >.$„L' J..+ ky+ ,:.: .:.t 1. - t. >Yl� r_ •• .. :6K` ,.G .4 rdja. ,� .n:RZ��"� �•'i ,�,aih ;tag�i•,L, �. r t; 7 -. - :'Y• r Lr r��H:: y1 ��r _ � I. 7 f1Ri. .'SC2 �,t •, . • . " • • ... _';.. �. fedj{ it ;Y ;„�.`i?�'Jr 1 `2� r �„y �, y�l f+ r4 t . '' } .. , Y: .t y, '" >."r 1 e 4 a ryL t - ' {�?2't} ;f rrEy;, L - ti< . ri (+� iM•'k! k „ t.,,;,1 �rm "� (i' r' ( � rt + ` -v� •, `fF.a •1;,•,, fir, �, )� }•1 °` ` '� s. rI,. • +t' - • i�si �1.�1.•c dA�:,h. rf ril -t :.t,`..17t..�:`�:• ,1. ���.�IE, •r j a1 . 5 , f r, , �i.•7, J _ 4 • ', t:W ,�:t .. : ! 'r ✓ry 4' d, .+sT ; :i. ' "A: 9;.1 i i %J` ' n U �1.: a �} phi f�' i y.Y, ^ �•�J{• 1• y.. 2 �1,.�5 '�':•Y'yyl: ^,-4 . ••%��f � "� j� ' �1. f• .iif ��Jf iri IT` Y' _ -. i:l: �' q'• �• t: � l I j.y,'.� 1L � V 4- aoj, , � - fi.,lt + `5 5! f s•• _ ' H ,J•. a 1 t ��Cl': 't �. �r p i '� A \� r 'i ,.y' ,F.L' �R••�r, �1utiY� yt�..e �4., „2 , S D�'L7S•• ai�r� rii: •.Y �`r.• r.Ce��~ �, r ii.., �:� t � .t'. rl _ _ �• { 4 Vf- Ig7''3 't•.n ._bh1r�. K '�:.!_Ff :...• t<•r •n/ rr.,y "r:. r i. ,�r•`t ,:�" _ '�. � iP :, fy. r_ $�' _'. i.I,n � !:SN A..-_�I , K 'i;L ii r.•i}' •.�\ lJ t --r � r. r r r 1 .r �, 1 �I.4 .x' '•I"fEi '�i,ApT Y� �.yi; l F r1}r 1 . u�'.. � I , � : r i `N5 t, C!`Fr. a> n !,: r , +tl� `a' ::,, :• t r �1,. sis•�?; i. - 1. z i'�F�pt+ .1 ;• A. ra�.r.. e) a }','.r �17,-1��,•.911�5(`C Ji;' 's #'`J"d ;. i. ji, {a 7?'`f�?} + � " i`4 �l{ 1 t' r i ('• fl rr•Lrl_ 1 i- '�, 1.4 g M�4M,1"r '• 1•r �� y 1r r. M1 .,r..- € Kti t. l:, : v.•i ..' q •, t - 1 �` 'kt � '^R; -t *►�1 ' LNA; [j; +^ - ne ,ic of - �, -.:. t t",�'; 1 _. .. - ,.. -. I , ,j r.:. `� _ ;r.,.:r i 1 ^) '�Y , 1�'�i'n'!'1' -•_ =rte}` � Y 1 . r r j4 r+ dr Ivrrr L - r f a� i. J /r.�,,: Fr Irsl r .14, 1 t�: •+ f Id ��rirrJ.i'.,'�'. :LJ^ v. {.�IY7. ?,it.l'ia' ,h.�,. .'L',: 'fGi.�'t{gFq1 {(�r��{�• � lr' i 1. �v^1 i ,yy. .Z' L��E•r t 9, ,:.4r- .r. �'' �����y,,•r •.1,g: S•^ !1' f�. t _f a:. {., .i, t .�; I� .,r �t`•,i r "i. {1 -, rF.i. J�:t���L:. .'4$I�- {[ ;yt:,.r.. .{.::. y: .r i •;ai.h•Nr.:.i•:L:�71' :1.� ., .ems`'•,,j. _ :�, Cyr .•.'�aif, 1 /ts{. t 'i�r.'�'�: 1, 1- ..,a; . 1, !�1 '1 rA,T, "•Fi - 'il ii �'+{�' ^ "t ;Y i`.'��i I .4. 41•r.^ • ��. ;' L ,:><rr '. G k J;.� y : _ , ,'d :1 L ' �3. •4-a(. �. :. rJ i y "v': ''� % - �I,' i I •:1��•r �' r,i1 -_ '�F'i F - .��;4.;a��r r� /' .. __ � R � .3:�'' 'i" "'2�:•X �I za :i� ,�r, "!ii: �� 'Y;Sr:I•`}• t5'�t+i'`; i'j'•,�.i ri:'�: Y - ' - I�_ L•..„ �' �ricY:d}. =, ,`i •y,'at•;:"; ,. t,.-r: z�hww :��uyT;.kgvi • yv!•g; �'. ,- +••- �r-- •r. -►YT ,; ,..rh, '{ { q wF3 7 , S !•.- -,jy i;,q _ ,..,= r�riLal - ••,�,- s •l ;yr.•i• F, ri'?'!','fiiA <:rr ,5.. rr:• J •sir. r A r y �• ..JS <. �r'2 .S die.. `'fl� rr �.,. ��i 11 4• Yni ��.M;rl'>',r a7i rj. ° b r' v•• df t�; . r- .. - P, vii I: " r :` i�Y- r �• r -.4 11 1 ,. �, V'ru '.. t. _ , r + - ty�. ' r- f t +{!5{. >••.«�, x,11 h)1,F t } - s .. , '�. ... ..f, ' .•2,r.': _ !I , ^q a tl j,. G�9 't jjj�11 , .�k "ii ,}. r'�u 'r+'r •11:+'ci.�.':;.+'rr t y.t' It- •k,s cZ�, =' :.w .1.� °� r " 'r7 4 P. :;.i'. du. {r -,, f . 1' * g. ' �" ;• ,.. -:;�. +�,na�.s"cy.�r4 'FW: �fy�, t"'y ��,� - � j _ Y � ., :.L � -1 - •-'I a ! +� % i Sht t "fiAS'•� .. � .L =1 _ n t,r } ii' T. 1• tr, 4 !k y.�y. 1t- Y t!P: `p slr: •r:+t'u yui'-• -:r ' ,kd r �'t ?H.r -ri`r Y`4. y - - .. r w. I y :! >e:1 . :4 • t "k1} {Li �S 'i <I i;4ff hr•ti'i D:, Ar i d i ti. .',Y: ?••` {y1 6'r 1L r r r • } Q�t•te ' r' ... �� to 1 W r . C' f '� . 1 � r -� r,r: �� � L ,•f:. ., - :• r; �" •.. d' t•ir '1'. »t y •?* : z c 1 °r�'iB "tl�:nE "�'li'gt. r' j'!,x ,k4 Sfr "" . t G I r'ts w a�' ..:i ± r t � � �, a .+. L r � � l l�' r �{„ rl t• _'�i;?�r'!•s .a � !y J' I •S r. kr - _ 1 K,r . , °F r•,, .Inn. .'Ir r'. t'�f^ +� I+ r. - s 1•FA ..�tl F� r:r �,fZ yi +tn: 14r j'' r ''�'• r � . • - 1 :: {' :u;.'l:.h,'- Y 4 n 1 - i � ,'• I;.tt `Yr{' S I 1T`t ' r rL" • r r i•; r sl F � (, J': .: , M �'., ..y .: r1t • a is y �. I � rr i ::lil• x , � d r' i Wr - m -F+•' i 1 a.+ tr tt ' a ra r„- t r T 1 A f 1 a .h .. ' . i.jM -S rn, r t -' l ., 7t` 2 i ri•t 1 '. h,u 1 t: 1 , r trw Ar, , t art ttl <, i •tf-a 4 r. �: i' , 1•r .'n`lgyli ( , I i r. t -'4 a :..�',?i' :' ;::p;'� .:i : �:,: • ,. ,yi.:n, i. . ^Y;' i ; j k rl.. ,J' ; k ' =i,� - . .. r. ,'r; }. f,+ .tii'. ' P `' Ir!` t w 1 L[ 4 # '' i . S _'{r:b;,"•. I . -�' ..1'v ^.,�:r, �.fY�; � ;:._ - k• :�h. , 'r�„L�.[ :,;.k� � :}'- ,Hr i.. _•r; :i +. ,.I�:•.�'iq. , :t•. .. :•,{••;t.1: .. '•n .r i,::•Hj£•.HM1•..'r` Jr i�i.+_.'1 , _ t -•r. • •,rµin •.�,. rJ, •ya :, ti � ���J,.1. '.ril'i tl"aw' •I ;i,�9: :: • :�Ytrt .ti. f't..,_ '7'. :7'7•. .f , {:,ir• Nfti F l'-J•r• cr. ...� ir _/ .. .,J'r ..ii.+ .�K::' - ,�?i <r:..,'r; •"'2 1, »y•3 5.4 Y7k H -L' .t .... "l' , •)y' i 1!iI �l- �.si':' -..: �t,�+... 7. rr r . J, .�r f.�:a,- :... .0 .. ' • .' .... lc. , r... :ki• �':.r: �.tig•.N lq ..Ci. -.1,. ..F +ice:`', �'r."n. �.''.�R -., .. stir _ _ ••'hy. '• �'J i�l K. _.tl 9 ,�-a �.` 1i•_rc%r,t. J • •.. .. '1e rY 7 • f' :l•f l ,r:.i. ., t..l�.. �. �- 1 f�,�,,,�i�IF;,..•l�i .. .aR(' ._ .... -..�. •. •�.'. -.. - x'•� ,. r. -4 V X55 ..fix,• _r�• .'ry rl 'ir• i;$� tee- -,.t. ? 'Id,, ..ir..,.,,.:4:.si "iu:: {,f f `Cih.... , ,h r I w »,I`.. f'!•., 'fa4 ,x' „t: ..i q, ,.v'r •�Lt ..�'. ..I. •.5`l:h:rr.`. ,1' /4 }.I;Y..' "lr.: ffi's ,4j � , ... . �: r ..? ='.4r • * g :,�i:v � "'- + •'1 .- �i) +�•., .,r lr.,.,. �;� -' ,.... �, r. r I.. -fir �.. ...• ... u... .. .I:•n . ... :!4 4i. w);.. - h 1 i TI:•. 1 rK .:� I'I.. I.M. }4,11. ,o 1. ,n y° .� q�.. 4 _ IF ' t t tit= tM...;, ,.,,e let '".:iriWnlF"�F•m f � � _.• Mxp�lMf��M olt �i�wwn�'m.ott4r.�ww�:i� �tG'NW1F �'� 1 •1',�IIM �p1�'tnMi� VIA n11�4•'���,;, �Oq�pyN/RR ...e aM� a• rw ' � .nm,ensam.a� F.,u. i v+ lam" j� 4 1rl ar MiIW� YWa•�et, r Vii'' pr.q,wM WYMII�MR *v - `ai11U� a,':�My1��•M T j�''•n'- w �y �"`°" . , ,it, ..•w.,,.� � � yam► f 1 :' • ! �,rw��.rw�n�.�l� "�� �,� r �' ` ' � r ar' 'ia 4y q���g. *' e W i,•1. �'w�r.��"rr'w+ •'a = .d''a'��11 _JI�l!'VliRfl,C r.. MIl4!l w.d` jgr i j +�°�Ma�11ruN ni Iwo'. l';7 �� ~'�ti 11y �j1NY+i•FYt' ��.. ' At, �IVIF•C° '1 't "• . �'� r1�it rM'A�pwri .� q�.. 4 _ IF ' t t tit= tM...;, ,.,,e let '".:iriWnlF"�F•m f � � _.• Mxp�lMf��M olt �i�wwn�'m.ott4r.�ww�:i� �tG'NW1F �'� 1 •1',�IIM �p1�'tnMi� VIA n11�4•'���,;, �Oq�pyN/RR ...e aM� a• rw ' � .nm,ensam.a� F.,u. i v+ lam" j� 4 1rl ar MiIW� YWa•�et, r Vii'' pr.q,wM WYMII�MR *v - `ai11U� a,':�My1��•M T j�''•n'- w �y �"`°" . , ,it, ..•w.,,.� � � yam► f 1 :' • ! �,rw��.rw�n�.�l� "�� �,� r �' ` ' � r ar' 'ia 4y q���g. *' e W i,•1. �'w�r.��"rr'w+ •'a = .d''a'��11 _JI�l!'VliRfl,C r.. MIl4!l w.d` jgr i j +�°�Ma�11ruN ni Iwo'. l';7 �� ~'�ti 11y LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 2 City of Edina 4911 Legend 4400 n9ts 2 — Highlighted Feahus 7 4910 4913 .uses. h n 4919 4914 4919 4920 — HOlrss Number Cabals Street Name Labels / City Limlts 1✓ Creeks 607N ST W Laps Names CLakes 5000 5007 5000 a Parks 4407 � � Parcels �» 5002 5003 5002 A n� 5004 SOS 5004 sots 5007 SDO/ SDU $005 i Jrg SBti spite 5009 / / 5009 f 1 1 5077 5010 np 1+ 100001DAFl.00 a, 5010 5013 $012 5929 5623 \ 1 5027 5021 'N �. 5012 Sots 5014 3105 SO1s 5015 5017 5015 5021 3107 501/ 5019 5071 5022 5020 5021 5020 S1M 3026 a50Z7 5022 T slit Avg 5025 STU Mile 5034 5027 5020 5032 5035 5175 STT71q 5030 5710 St" 5035 $112 5131 5729 Alcc- ¢awr.Anr :ml-t l:l:' PL]tY e 1 33m 2 STORY ADDITION /SETBACK FROM THE CREEK 545 SQUARE FOOT 1ST FLOOR ADDITION INTO SETBACK 990 SQUARE FEET OF 1ST FLOOR EXISTING ENCROACHMENT 55% INCREASE IN ENCROACHMENT ON MAIN FLOOR 340 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO 2ND FLOOR 861 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING 2ND FLOOR ENCRAOCHMENT 40% INCREASE IN SECOND FLOOR ENCROACHMENT PID: 1802824420091 R . ,a 5019 Wooddale La �' s (n 4 f Edina, MN 55424 TM` ti 1t.m+ Property Assessing RESUL U o uUum U%We n ` RESOLUTION APBROVWG A VARIANCE TO Zona�� O�do�a��e a ® AT 50119 ooddals Lace Edina. MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. - BACKGROUND. 1.01 Jim and Cir dy Mur h has requested a.26 -foot setback var ince f om the cit y. code tolfor a allow a livin s ace ex ansion to be closer to 1.02 The property 1s legally described as follows: Lot 21, CountN Club District Wooddale Section Hennepin Co., MN 1.03 City Code Section 850.11. Su_bd 7 requires a minimum setback of 50 -feet from the ordinary high water elevation. 1.04 The applicant is proposing A 24 -foot setback. This requires a variance of 26 feet. 05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and city ode Section 1 Appeals to grant 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of App On June 17 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this 1.06 opportunity to present information. application. The applicant was provided the opp The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report; which are incorporated by reference into this resolution . Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 ton for a Section 550.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petii iild cause variance unless it finds that the strict enforce -meat of this Section undue hardship because of circumstances untheos hetpando tent of this and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with p Section. "Undue hardship„ means that (i) the property iplight of the petitioner put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; () which were not Greeted due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, nwil�noco�tsiderations alone character of the property or its surroundings. shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this . Sect City Hall eoni \A /r(Z ' SnTH STREET ­­,w ritvnfedina.com 952 - 927 -886" FAX 952- 826 -039, TTY 952- 826 -037 13 Section 3. FINDINGS .3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue -hardship because of the fol'lowing circumstances that. are Unique. to this. property: 1. The location of the existing living space less than 50-feet to the creek. 2.1 The addition would allow- continuance Of pre-existing setback conditions alleviating the hardship caused by a change in the ordinances. 3. The addition will allow a reasonable use given current setback requirements from the creek. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The addition would, match the existing exterior and would be in-keeping with the look of the home and surrounding nd.ing neighborhood. Spacing between the subject home and the home to the west W'061d not be reduced. 2. The improvements would ' follow th.e'existing wall lines and architecture of the home and should have no impact on sight lines. 3. The addition would alleviate the hardship imposed by the required setback and proximity of the existing creek to the home. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above-described.varia'nce, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, June 17, 2011, unless the city ha's issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. k _._ 0 ,,rri of AooealS of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursda ATTEST: v Hoogen.akker,� Secr ry E a Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION:' Motion for adoption: Birdman Seconded by: Winder Voted in favor of: Birdman, Winder, Grabiel, For, rest and Adiyia Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: 0 Resolution adopted June 17, 2010. hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, �Iiinnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on June 17, 2010. o �Aa e . Appeals gut-" .'-' -Y ` a t *.:rya TA � •1 —•iw `� .+i}�� � �; ..� 1 F- _ *f L AA ___ - -_ .t . � Page 1 of 1 LOGISMaP Output Page 4 i BENCHMARK TR SAN,MH ELEV = 67G. SN0 EXISTING HOUSE 115021 — ITE INFORMATION )T SIZE: 26,400 SF _LOWABLE LOT COVERAGE SF: 25 %= 6.150 SF URRENT EXISTING FOOTPRINT: 1.815 SF IOPOSED- PORCH: 135 SF IOPOSED ADDITION FOOTPRINT= 905 SF )TAL HOUSE (EXISTING 8 ADDITION) )OTPRINT�= (1,615 +135 +985) : 2,935 SF IT COVERAGE (PROPOSED FOOTPRINT = 12"/, IRRENT NON CONFORMING SF: 990 SF OPOSED'ADDITIONAL - IN CONFORMING SF: 545SF PROX. PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE TAL WITH TERRACE-(1050) SF. 15 +1050 = 3905124600= 15% n _ F � n m _ N m N CL r Q - X L V) n U) O(: , N P7 U) P�� N 100 YEAR FLOOD \V €LEV = -871.0 - N co 'ir P`♦ \ = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. O^ [ �s;L� X(99BD) a PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION - ix 9) �Lt^t - DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE c�� 6 - YY'j7, is`♦ . . CON: _ = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG .may `��.. - OHL OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE c> 'DI ID r NG, GFE' = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION aAn J ` -C NFO ING TFE - TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION ,,may � t� ``♦ LFE LOVEST FLOOR ELEVATION Z - 1� ♦ , -; I c� C'O Cp O HARDCOVER G`.��m w p. �rR ad. ♦` r, EXISTING - �av S W POSE \`\ - HOUSE _ -1015 SF/ 7.07 OF LOT AREA va EL , G9T(FFORMING' W s LEGAL DESCRIPTION- - W Q W PRDJECTPIVSE . sp- LOT 21, COUNTRY CLUB DISTRI CT r--'I J scREnIanc WOODDALE SECTION, HENNEPIN CO., MN. I--- �'- V) Q DESIGN ♦,. Q W IC \ ` Q, PROJECT NOMBE H / . •.` ' _ 10-028 :'[�• =,�': ADDRESS - 5019 WOOODALE LANE Q �'- - ♦-•d - PID1116- 028 -24 -42 -0091 ♦..'. YQMny 20. 2010 LOT AREA = 26400 SF/ 0.60 AC ~ ~ - \\: X 25% = 6600 SF STRUCTURE W �>>- 3 B' �pc a r ` HARDCOVER ALLOWED - SURVEY LINE (, O Z __'____�- ___366T33�B-- -NL'/r a " SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER .o a' 'TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION - _ VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND �~ 9 .ELEVATIONS WITH HOUSE PLANS AIM 4 MINNEHAHA .CREEK SETBACKS SHOWN ARE .MINIMUMS AND ARE SUBJECT TO BUILDING HEIGHT ' VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY - ���' RB,JRL z 6s a V) O 9_ U %;1 SITE ®IAGRRiIId LL S .2 ni SITE ,oU -ni O� _ r U) n N F � n UJ Z N X M N_ -x m LL o N r N � N g N W m Q'NF U � •� 7 � � Z ti a� 6i w v b � W � O PROJEGt PIUL6E 6CHEM1ITC GESIGN PRGJEG(NUM6E0. w is66E on�E: May oRnwH er: N 0 N Q LOGISMap Output Page City of Edina �' sae u3s ;c:6 stzs s4ze 5 37 ><29 5433 5432 5633 $at 5437 5472 5420 5w'7 5436 5437 536 5437 5436 1428 , 5_77 5132 'ut 5440 6ST14 S'7 W 5571 X509 5501 5500 5501 SSOD $501 5500 ssnr 5501 5505 5'A' 5505 5504 5505 5504 5506 5504 5505 5509 5508 5509 5508 5509 5508 5509 5508 5509 0 5573 5512 5513 5512 5517 5512 5508 5509 5513 SSr7 SSti 55f7 SSr6 5517 5576 5513 SSTI 55p9 5521 5526 a3 5521 5510 5521 5520 a 5513 $$17 SSr6 5515 5525 552,; Sas 5524 5525 5521 5521 579 5528 5529 We 1526 5528 5527 5576 5517 5533 $532 5173 5572 5533 5332 5533 5524 72 5537 5536 5637 5536 5577 5536 5537 Sul 5526 74 5525 I1 S60e 5607 5600 S60I 56D3 1 76 5601 5605 5625 5669 5601 5605 5604 5607 6t2ffi�N cr 1,Z 5601 5608 5611 5608 5605 W 5615 56:0 56-16 M-7 56f2 5615 5605 62 5612 5609 9 N 29 30 27 5616 N 5610 5615 N zs 28 ss f0 � 5664 5616 5617 5621 f7 23 O 4? 5660 5620 66 z N 0 1fi 5626 5629 3 5656 qZ 2f 5632 f2 5704 ua��.. -.wus cm.�RK��:aursns 2S 5665 5645 0 rya31 r 5 SIDE STREET SETRACKFOR A GARAGE ADDITION 7 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO SETBACK 36 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING ENCROACHMENT ZOD /o INCREASE IN SETBACK PID:19 0282412 0147 ri 5536 Park P1 ? _ Edina, [�r14 55424 Pra,perty I A,ssassing I Rage I of 2 Legond Hishlightzd Foatura Housa Numkor Ln bals Strovt roome Lob,, is 1 City omits !',' Crzrks Late 0.amas Lotes Porla ❑ Parcels RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Z ®c� °soy ®rdlunance NO- B59 AD of Edina, BE IT RESOI -OFD by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. � d Niia Liebl has requestedoa 7 -foot side sa�e setback from 1.01 David an expand the city code tolfor a 1.02 The property is legally described as follows'. Lot 10 Block 14 "South Harriet Park Hennepin Count " � Henne in Count M� Code Sectio1.03 City n 8- 1.03 a 20 -foot side street setbaclt is proposing a 13.3 -foot setback from 56th St West: This requires a 1.04 The applicant p variance of 6_7,.feet. tatutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12,.and grant variances Code Section 1.05 Minnesota S Appeals to 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of A 7 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this 1.06 On June 1 opportunity to present information. application. The appiicaht was provided the oPP and the staff report, which are The board considered all of the hearing testimony incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 50.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a 2.01 Section 8 e and variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement to this petitioners property undue hardship because of circumstances unique with the spirit and intent of this that the grant of said variance is in keeping e property in question cannot be put Section. Undue hardship„ means that (i) petitioner is „ this Section; (ii) the plight oft e to a reasonable use as allowed by Secti property which were not created due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's ranted, will not alter the essential by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if g pro erty, or its surroundings. Economic consideraetitio alone* character of p p shall not constitute an undue hardship Section i able use for the p propery exists under the terms of this 952 - 927 -BBE FAX 952 826 -03 TTY 952 - 826 -03 city HaH rnm Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: a: The nonconforming placement of the home and the existence of other homes and structures are built under different ordinances. with similar setbacks to the .street. b. The home was built prior to current side street setback requirements. c. The addition is a' minor expainsion.that cannot be .accomplished without the benefit of a variance. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: i a. The variance would be similar to surrounding conditions with the garage opening spaced the same as existing. b. The variance does not alter the character of the neighborhood; instead would be consistent with•existing setback conditions. The home is oriented'towards 56th St. Vilest with the garage front facing the side street. The 56th Street West facing portion of the house is closer to the street, functioning as the front yard and it is a reasonable addition given existing fagade street orientations. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION.' _ 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to, the following conditions: '1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, June 17, 2010 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. of the City of- Edina, Minnesota, on Thu by the Zoning B,oerd of Appeals rsda Adopted June 17 2010. /1 ATTEST: ac ie ogenakker, ecr N dine Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Birdman Seconded by: Winder in favor of: Brid�an,ll�finder, Forrest, Adiyia and Grabill Voted . !toted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: 0 Resolution adopted June 17, 2010. adopted by is a true and correct copy of a resolution that the foregoing authorized I hereby certify s of the City of Edina, Nlinne.ota, at a duly the Zoning Board of Appeal meeting held on June 17, 2010. 0HooQj__enakker, nn ecretary r � � 11 �w •� � .Y�,, r � J T Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1 LOGISMap Output Page "ER "ERT I j_' I CATE OF SURVEY RMF . 1 �. I� 1 i ,r. "�J. .� t / v� i i`di �i '.i_ OF FWD j 479 r ( '�` '. C k 1 - MWO. MM 00 " E'i:A { me �V D M A DIIn v I4 rmmrn I ALM Mmvr -v m ate 4002 ST ME 20 P x1mv IM . o RAT /k A®may L. ku#'Th. L.U.S. No. Russell J. KuHh. L.L.S. V Fdwaa;7 % 5 nor 1 F r®ved Gradingand 131 olDrainage Plan I� required prior to.�L altering any grades �° -' and /or drainage SCALE BBB FE DATE —!-moo cp ® _.. IRON MONIMEW WT A1 ftW16 'o s P 6 a I e .8 0 6 I .I I 1 �J r cj o.d 9a U. QQ LOOISMap Output Page 6206 6'04 62J0 BAIDSR � 6205 6201 6109 6526 I f 652 6601 6606 66:V tm■) 6606 Ha�ers r.�Ac JS -:p 4�1.':'.CIzS CS ]]5 _i ..ate, ��� � J ' d - PropertY Page I of 2 1 c SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE 6 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO SETBACK 14 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING ENCROACHMENT 420/0 INCREASE IN ENCROACHMENT �.G11G�114 ®�38 5521 5cand'sa Rd �cd�rtia, MN 55439 6imll Asses- -lnCg. Al t� (r 0 n /I A P) 01 f1 City of Edam Lcgund -- Hlghli2ht2d Featum House Humber Labcic E505 Stro t Nome L91ici6 6505 650 / !� city Limits craehs tohe Names 6509 Lohes 6509 6509 Per1:s parcels 6513 6513 6512 Q Z E617 6517 6516 6521 6520 6525 6525 6524 6605 6600 5601 6605 6E09 6601 1 c SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE 6 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO SETBACK 14 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING ENCROACHMENT 420/0 INCREASE IN ENCROACHMENT �.G11G�114 ®�38 5521 5cand'sa Rd �cd�rtia, MN 55439 6imll Asses- -lnCg. Al t� (r 0 n /I A P) 01 f1 RESOLUTION NO. B- 110 -07 City Of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance Edo. 850 AT 6521 Scandia Road, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City,of. Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Judy and Richard Krzyzek has requested a .6 foot side yard setback variance from the city code to /for a expand-the existing attached garage and convert some of the existing garage area into a mud room and pantry. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 6, Slock 2, Valley Estates, Hennepin, County, Minnesota . 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd. 6 requires a minimum 5 -foot side yard setback. 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 4.6 -foot setback. This - requires a variance of .6 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code-Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On Thursday, April 8, 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship„ means that (i) the property in- question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue •hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's City Hall 952 -927 -8861 -4801 WEST 50TH STREET PAY 4r)_a -)r_n-�on he terms of this Section. _ property -. - - -. exists under f . ) - - -- - -- Section 3 - -- FINDINGS enforcement would cause undue hardship because of.the following 3.01 Strict unique to this property. circumstances that are eat an angle to the side lot line. era 1. The location of the existing tge minimum two car garage 2. The addition would comply with requirement. 3. The addition will allow a seamless expansion of the home. 3.02 The variance �n�ould meet the intent of the ordinance since: exterior and would be in- keeping 1. The addition would match the existing neighborhood. or with the look of the home and surrounding twall lines and architecture 2. The improvements would follow the ct on i sight lines. m osed 3. The addition would be a reasonable of the home and should have no imp C f the existing side wall of to he use given the hardship P by the required setback and proximity garage. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. nce eels approves the above- described vane , 4.01 The Zoning Board of App royal is subject to the following. subject to the above findings. APP conditions: the from ear royal, date of this app 1. This variance will expire one y permit for the April 8, 2011, unless the ciiaynce r building ad time extension. project covered by this variance Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday ATTEST: ACTION ON.THIS 'RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Hornig Seconded by: Flicek Voted in favor of: Hornig, Flicek,, Davidson, Fischer, Voted against: ,O Abstained: 0 Absent: Resolution adopted. April 8, 2010 . hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held, on April 8, 2010. B ac Hoogenakker, Plan g Secretary i \ �j 676.7 I top lamdabnn 675.7 O a • .gm c floor u 673.4 - ;7.5!_3 'lp - 1�-- --30.2 875.7 675.0 1 r' - m maple 6' r %589 °16'15 "E spdc °�db` n 75.0 I -- 136.33 bn° 874.4 Endo pe bc+ I. B72A 872.4 - _ 873.:9 1 nscr Lltlllty - 1 P35eTenC i 872.4 \g5.0 674.0 lc+s rss[ d Lro �•�76. \ [ i 880:1 - \\ - 1 ' O�- ash IB•: -8I .894.3 •. 67 1:1 N 875.9 �I ., .. ..�i [" 87543 I 1st flax• 1 .. i 7.0 �rsvng PLnrr rte.: •. ? -\ eT ; a � 32.0 t •cnrrt o \1 �l -' - -•- n� [n door sNgx - 872.9 6! pruPosa Q U �.- -.Patio D n 0.4. E � I OJ - ; 1 / enry N ro* o i a 871.7 r !1 4.0 -od-0 ``` . I'6' 1 b -h 9't- ______ e. °a V•:c n W I . N �• a "i ya a "e lino, • op8 �o ete� dri �e j' w B7-a6 U[mapic4 871.9 p 72.9 v eV y.•Ac - '0' 24.4 Q jl.O_ •P \ \ ; I 6 Z 876.49 O Ir Uiam !rM ler cr d 1�= � -,or [ � 3s�oo ,. [ Snrnor he ' os ; N 85 °4T2o" W 673.6 - P 5OLD1N6 5c 1zACrs I . 8 fe nn a?5T1N� HARDco71 M CALCIJ 70N9 strop - 2363 sq.fi oP La -ocr; I. House aria 0 tout % -d 0650/ - 1BB108 Po; -t![ $ Deck. - 328 sg -1� I � ,,'6505 - 30.6' %tal Ylardcov --f = 2711 lq -i' t�65D9 - 30.6' .� ap E e 5.4 Area of Lot - 12741 sq.ft e o/ /iardcovsr =21.35 x6513 - 215.7 6517 - 28.2'. ! N Perc -nt>g I x6521 -35.6' - �� PP.OPOSID YAP.DCOVV CA 4T1ON5 I ; 6525 - 35.2' ' tr - /douse area - 2262 Sq.rZ I #6605 - 32.5' N Z Deck s' - 23G -.1. R -150 sq. ft- 1 e65y.ft I #6609 - 28.7 96613 - 30.5' Patlq'Entry - 2665q. Rear Porch - 252 sq-ft i ot:! = 307.1 Adobbon - .296.5q.ft I ,Avenge = 30.T Total Hardcover = 3164 5q. ft I - I. 35.2 . \ Area of Lot - 1 274 / 54 R I Percdr`age of Hardcover =25.09, . 1 i I Y ESTATES, ' G, Block 2 VALLEY A p,ot , Hennepin County, esorz. : -'ha pdy oaennr�[1s G` m era firm pL-ts of [e =1d e[ tn,,,otion pros"•' -ad by cE nt w mpr"•^GiL:n of n :auvaY d fhe =ale h-[rbY cam' Ihel ttu- G n Wa end d� od V.nd end the L-�Crrn of e0 bu➢d;CS and p tho nh,. Q Y. (re1[I `^' onnnsimmts, c,,r.ravad by us this 4th day ri WNW iF SCHRADER- sCMF LOGISMap Quiput Page 5673 5675 E1 m m RaL san Property �g S a City of Edina p;�r3° 1tn SIDE STREE SETBACK VARIANCE 210 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO SETSCAK 679 SQUARE 3p° o INCREASE IN ENCROACHMENT fNENS RID:ggb2324240008 5623 concord Ave Ed'¢rsa, 1,4EN 55424 �I r3 A. l ; r .. Page 1 of 2 Legend Hlphllghtad Festum Hcusc Numtrzr Lobala Stmt Name L°has city Llmtts f Croats Whes ElPenc� ElPcroals RESOLUTION NIOo B -10 -06 City of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Edina Zoning Ordinance No 850 AT 5523 Concord Avenue Edina MBA BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City. of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Kimberly Hahneman /Bob Macey has requested a 18.8 foot side/front vard setback variance from the city code to /for a construct a mud room kitchen and family room on the main level and a quest bedroom on the second floor' 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: The South 80.35 feet of the forth 353 :35 feet of the West 145 feet of the South 3/ of the Southeast Quarter of.the Northwest Quarter Section 19 Township 28 Range 24 Hennepin Count Minnesota 1.03 City Code Section 850.11. Subd. 6 require a 35 foot.sefbaek. 1.04. The applicant is proposing a 17.2 foot setback. This requires a variance of 17.8 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals'to grant variances 1.06 On April 8. 2010, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information: The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shell not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as ailla,wed by this Section; (ii) tlio iighf of the petitioner is dLfe to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential City Hall 4P �_Q 79 9QC7 ti he property or its surroundings. Economic considerations o,G'_ character oft . p P fzeasonable -u r-the --p h ait-ni t- coPstit��t� a� ur��?e h� dsi�ip -i property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3,01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unigde to this property: e location .of the existing home relative to the required d setbacks. I 1. Th opportunities given the required 2. The limited expansion Woodland Road. allowed by current ordinance 3. The buildable area of the property ion of the e prohibits a logical expansxistti�e floor g ian and eliminates any opportunity for a mud room adjacent to g 3.02 The variance would meet'the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The addition would be farther from.the south lot line than the existing side wall of the garage on the subject property. 2. The addition would be a reasonable expansion given required setbacks. 3. The addition would have no impact along Woodland Road or Concord Avenue. amless and would not be discernable 4. The addition would appear se from the current.home. Section 4 4.01 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, unless the city has issuede building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved 1 MV i -, Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday J - - -- .0-8 a -09 0 Chairpe ,son ATTEST: C7%R&ieH�6ogenakker, S etar}r; Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Davidson Seconded by:. Flicek Voted in favor of: Davidson, Flicek, Hornig, Fischer Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Resolution adopted. April 8, 2010 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on.April 8, 2010. 0 i Hoogenakker, S eta , Edina Zoning board of Appeals 1 I -- uc;-/ /�•rlmc7rK. J i The North line of the South 80..35 feet of ' Top of iron monume ' - - - - - - - North 35.3.35 feet of the S 3/4. of the SE 892.5 7-LOW Opening 897.9 ' X0ss.2 ,' of the NW 1/4 of 19- 26 -24. Per the mor, ,092.1 `\X893.4 0s7x ��++ B o na �• i found in the plat of Paul Wind Christopher B9B.5 S. 8.9 3 Jam® E X�B•5 X896.5 X887.1 XBa7.9 - -1 001 Found I /2° 0.4 )C895.0 8gg 4 of COMP Id. 094.4 897.3 898.8 8871 Found 112° 0. position gy=p 2% 8 o�X896.I/ 5.8886. 09G. /U!V of comp d. o.iC896. 89 . �':. / . K695.9 899. p� Pos c - ,372 894:7 i X ! c - - - - -- - -- 895.0 ®95.9 ' 894.4 �. X083.0 3Z�s5a -- oo nce47O 0as.0 895. y 28.6 / X 96:8---- - -, - -- 892.9 I 894. 891F-G(7rage 1 :891.2 095 3 Stoo 134.3 095 i' iD of door -. _ � 20.`0. � a. 3 - - - -- X095.0 89 �ti X894.9 \ � i 894. 09 '� ?I O B9 9 895.1 Propgse Addition m X894s ®� i6 .4sh 095.5 Q 1 O Ib B 94.4' , - _ _ X 893.tt loor 891.1 - zt 894. 89 . Eo 8 6 a (, 890.3 894.5 90.2 391.6 093. 894. 6 O 8. 2.0 X ta 85.1 X894.4 i i The South line La k ve �. 12.0 � � � � � x894.0 � _ North 353.35 �1 pry `� i of the NW 'V a Goriorete N i ! 893.5 i � found in the A i c � 889.9 � U9'50 sa � as ° ----- 36.1 - - 20.6• �o 59 c X889.0 I �rConCrete Curb X094.3 r _ ' a S ruCe nr:12� �1 -- c ®` 1 808.0 I 2" Tree_ 99.9 ��• x91.8 91.9 :-Wood Fence 99. a 09 �etainin Wa11891. ` X X 009.5 as . ae9 as . 0s . s . Retaining Wall 889.2 f. - Concrete Curb 080.5 I. ° +�JC880 9 888.8 n _ -tr - 098 °7, - 8083 - i/ n 1► "/ Jl ! X808.0' Woodland Road / vv X080.7 21'-0 Atr . Q I I e I I 1 I - I � - 1 o ' 1 1 II I I l II L_J ., ...I ...' CD I I II I I I II I I 1 I � x I I I o f I \ 1 I o o II om= I I 4 Bonn MAIId LEVEL FLOOR PL6JJ Oumxs writ -r --e v '.... r w i1 !LM -EVATI 0 P) 01PoEST ELEVATION ITT i Page 1 of 2 LOGISMap Output Page property City of Edina CHlghllghtad E© 0 "d Feature • House Rumtar �Cxls S".t Ram. Lctelc 55 5605 561! P/ city Limit. Creehs 57 1 5615 ❑ Lai.. hlamos JI Lakes 51 / 5620 Parka Pnrs0ls Silt' 5t W 5624 99 - - - --� 5628 97 / y \ 24 24 24 74 2. l !!! 5636 yt 7708 7704 3100 5626 I / 3617 3803 36x2 7674 3800 i 3712 3608 5644 5W0 57TH ST W 5701 5700 5701 4006 5701 5700 5705 5705 5704 5,764 5705 nj= EAM pR 5709 5708 5701 24 5709'^ 4"'R A09 zm JDOf J00S $711 5712 b 57 t2 4 5717 5717 C a 5717 5716 m 5716 5717 $717 5115 57 21 5720 5721 $720 5720 5711 5720 Srta 5725 5124 5724 5725 5:25 5724 5726 5729 0 La .G .;•A<:dSCaf GS1�•.:Q:ti RG]% FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE 1 STORY [ROME /1 STORY ADDITION INTO SETBACK 74 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ENCROACHMENT 74 SQUARE SE IN SETBACK % INCREA 4F FID: 2® ®282423 ®®77 �" • �.� +� 3712 5 7th 8t W '� • • 1' Edina, gH 55410 �{ 1 J r g . 1P ��71no�h� property RESOLUTION N ®eB -09'31 City of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No 850 AT 12 57" Street West, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Eric Swanson has requested a 6.22 foot front yard setback variance from the city code to /for a garage addition 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 2 Brookline 2"d Addition, Hennepin County 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd. 6 requires rnaintaininq the established average setback of all structures on one side of the street between intersections .or not extend out farther than if a line is extended across the subject property from the closest points of the homes on either side 1.04. The applicant is proposing a 29.6 foot setback. This requires a variance of 6.22 feet.' 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances. 1.06 On December 17 2009, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 8'50.04.Subd.1..1=. states that the'Board shall not grant a.petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in. keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section: "Undue hardship ". means -that (i) the property in question cannot-be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created City HaII es��g�T��s� y . &Ani to /CCT CrYrU Crorr b y the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the ess ons, alone character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerati shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3,01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the average front yard setback along the block. 2. The homes along the block were built with deeper front yard setbacks, affecting the opportunity for the subject property to expand. 3. The setback variance is minor given that it would allow the new garage to match the existing nonconforming front yard setback. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since:. 1. It would be reasonable to allow the proposed improvements given the aints imposed by required setback and it would allow the property to constr conform to the minimum two car garage requirement. 2. The intent of the ordinance is to preserve the common front yard area end -streetscap,e. The additions will enhance the streetscape and will not negatively impact the common front yard. area.. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: . 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, December 17, 2010, unless the city, has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance ®cptober 28, 2.009. 2. Subject to the plans presented date N Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of,the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday December 17 2009. a . Chairper n ATTEST: 3 AieHoogenakker, Se etary Edina Zoning Board:of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Tesrl� Seconded by: l ®ma6t Voted in favor of: , %r6 f% 9 N dP��`, cagn � V% Voted against: �. eA Abstained: . Absent: Resolution adopted. 12 In hereby certify that the foregoing is a'true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on December 17, 2009. e Hoogenakker, Pla 'ng,Secretary I, Page 1 of 1 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 -i • - - - -- - _ _`_-- �A-ST =- ._.7_.8_0 _- ' - - -J� `,gig — — — — — - DETAIL 374 59• Ft. Proposed Addition �6g?��_ _- -' - - -- - - - -_ +�° — New Lot Cover 17.07% ;_._ -37D ___ - - -__ � iP row . El 890.0 SURVEY IS SUBJECT T 10.1 - -a74 -�-- TITLE OR EASEMENT II` c Ell o° - 10 -6-`—_ Imo; Yom+ VERIFY ALL DIMENSION R seL .. 55-_ ELEVATIONS WITH HOL t}02 FE SETBACK ' LINES SHOVE � �. POOL DECK. 6g. I� 9 .6 _ _ — — P7 g9 / SUBJECT T 0 BLDG W 9; °9? VERIFY ALL SE TBACk +b — — — N e5 0 6 23.7 POOL t� _ – T 9, 45.2 LFE =889.3 15.8 EXISTING Z LL _ �J�894 _ HOUSE o 6g i -(, t\N II^ X3600 / �' 3 n x „� PBB7.1 EXISTING n EXISTING �; �N j HOUSE 73708 TFE =B92 s°j_ 24.3 _ _ M1EMcl n3712 '' •_>,. FFE =897.3 1 _12:2 °- TFE =B95 31..8 – TFE =B97 b9�� • ;dn .� ( GFE =E94.55 y I 13.4 a T ^wO y9L 596 ?i - .. I °Seaa,< • 6go9 8�i66 a WALK a �4 - i J -iNE -SL..= 78.0 - �\ _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 0 20 140 60 49 °QQ �' _ - - ��e °,_ 9 LOT B. BLK 2, BR00' . �9 °p 2 N� EDGE ROAD ' 2ND ADDITIOIJ, HENN. SCALE IN FEET �� ADDRESS - 3712 W1 +9925 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. PID720- 028- 24 -23- X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION +659�� WEST 57TH STREET LOT AREA = 1054C DIRECT ION SURFACE DRAINAGE X 257. = 2635 Sf ' (ARK EXISTING HOUSE _ COH = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG � (13 5� OF LOT E OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE ( - BENCHI\ GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION ELEV TFE = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION ` LFE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION O ` 57' \ 46 Mx" "X34 �zxu STAID 59 . W/° :rTLYoX 70 vuF E NEW 12' MUDMUNDRY FI Pi Y g 'AGO HANDFRAMEFL00R J BENCH EXISTING ® s HOUSE 30' 34' NEW G RAGE EXISTING 22; III GARAGE 4 2 YY,,TLA "xso NEW exz / PORCH 4' �- C0hMNU0US7YLY1 /d AGAk4GEHEA°E7 J 11' , 13' 33' mOTHERWISE 18' O.H. 24' O.H. CTURER TO L HEIGHTS INGLY 1 FRONT ELEVATIPN y/ =U_ R1-�� THE GRILL MAY NC ACTUAL MAN' SPECIFI LEFT RIGHT LOGISMap Output Page Page I of 2 Property I Assessing RESOLUTION APPROVI VSO A VARIANCE TO Edina Zon-ln Oald 111coce �I ®. ��m AT � ®® � ®cn Sfret �e�4 Ero� �� 5 c� di Appeals of the City of Edina, BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Minnesota, as follows: - Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Thomas A. O`Coor a l a small ad( the city code tolf 1.02 ,1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 a 40.3 foot front ac hob se t variance ex and the ition to the front of he kitkit =en. is legally described as follows: Lot 12 Block 1, Codes Hiclhvievv The property g PP City Code Section 850.11. requires Lt-- h�,.,,AC to the' e�d Code Avenue The a licant is proposing A 29.7 foot T front and setback. pp 40 3 feet This requires a variance of _. Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 1 rant aCancesde Section Minnesota St Board of Appeals to g 850.04 authorizes the Zoning on this Board of Appeals held a public hearing On November 5 2009, the Zoning vided.the opportunity to present information. application. The a.pp licant was pro testimony and the staff report, which are The board considered all of the hearing incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS petition for a 'on 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall t of this Section would cause 2.01 variance property and variance unlees it finds that the strict enforc etitioner"s prop Y undue hardship because of circumstances unique With to Piet and intent of this that the grant of said variance is in keeping e property in question cannot be put '° means that (i) p p the plight of the petitioner is Section. "Undue hardship this Section, (ii) to a reasonable use as allowed by etitioner s property which were not created due to circumstances unique to the p er' and (iii) the variance, if gra�ited, wilnocoalter e �teQi1S lone by the petitioner; character of the property or its surroundings' Economic r_nv nS�_R7.6 -0 ,-1 shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The existence of the nonconforming location of the subject home. 2. The home conformed to the ordinance at the time it was constructed with surrounding development and rule changes causing_ the property to be nonconforming. 3. The addition will be located at the same nonconforming setback as the existing side wall to Code Avenue but cannot be accomplished without the benefit of a variance. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since:. 1. The variance would not impact the neighbor to the north, would be similar to existing conditions and would not alter spacing to Code Avenue. 2. The variance would provide a small 80 square foot addition in an area of the property that would, have no visual encroachment on the streetscape. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings: Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, November 5, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan, dated September 18, 2009. Minnesota, on Thursday' the City of Edina, Minn Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of 009. November 4 Chaijer on ATTEST' f Appeals tart' Edina Zoning Board 0 Edina Zoning i ck Hoogena r, Se kker, Se ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Scherer Seconded by: Davidson Voted in favor of. Vasaly Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Schroeder November Resolution adopted 5, 2009 correct copy of a resolution adopted by going is -a true and at a duly authorized 1 hereby certify that the fore s of the City of Edina, Minnesota,. the Zoning Board of Appeal meeting held on November 5, . 2009. g Secretary r, aOn ak Re oAer, an g Secretary Qr 410 r e 0 gena m V. �t CD F-t� Page 1 of 1 C)(;T. qap Output Page if i' N 89-59'20" E 1, I I 902 I ' \ BENCHM. TN HYD ELEV = 925.: STRUCTURE COVI EXISTING HOUSE = 1768 SI ' ROPOSED ADDITON = 90 SF EXIST & PROPOSE[ TOTAL = 1858 SF VERIFY ALL DIMEN AND ELEVATIONS %HOUSE PLANS �9 •Ji •� 5a 9 +� 6 x�a? EAST 103.0 5 ° 1 �. 9.8 — — 4 COH — • ° 34.3 ti 9x29.9 -�` o I ELEVATIONS (VERIf 29.0 ND N 4INE CONC CURB `* EXISTING N HOUSE1 D 2D 4D 60 so r I STREEET w #5200 - 11r 10.3 OFE =692.0 X 28.6 1I.-`0p+� -�aSa9 16.0 IN FEET `' *g9ti5 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. `� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: RFFE =900.8 = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION I o f E o< a9 3 q' 19.1 _ -29.7_ °° 4/ PROPOSEL AO�DITION EXISTING Q) 1*: 2 +9°,� = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE �`' 1! HOUSE #5204 O �Q) F'D, �i73�llI} l�- Y OHL 19.7 �. - fg'1� IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER R I I g949 I 4 4 I — V LOT AREA = 10767 SF/ 0.25 AC TFE LFE = TOP OF FOUNDATION IO + = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION TION =,�� VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY X25% = 2690 SF STRUCTURE HC i-- •�8`�2 'n I I I 1 I }1• I I 902 I ' \ BENCHM. TN HYD ELEV = 925.: STRUCTURE COVI EXISTING HOUSE = 1768 SI ' ROPOSED ADDITON = 90 SF EXIST & PROPOSE[ TOTAL = 1858 SF VERIFY ALL DIMEN AND ELEVATIONS %HOUSE PLANS �9 c 0 i it 5a 9 6 x�a? EAST 103.0 aa�" I MATCH EXISTING F ss ti o I ELEVATIONS (VERIf CONC CURB \\ 1 89-4 D 2D 4D 60 so r I STREEET w - --- — `-- ------- -- --- 1I.-`0p+� -�aSa9 SCALE IN FEET `' *g9ti5 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. `� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: X(998-0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EAST 103 FEET OF LOT 12, BLO( / CODES HIGHVIEW PARK, HENN. CO., = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE COH = CANTLEVERED OVERHANG ADDRESS - 5200 60TH STREET N OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE f SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER PID# 33- 117 -21 -32 -0018 GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION LOT AREA = 10767 SF/ 0.25 AC TFE LFE = TOP OF FOUNDATION IO + = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION TION =,�� VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY X25% = 2690 SF STRUCTURE HC c 0 i it t 16' F OB/10109 D nALWIAWWn r Andrews & Associates wluenur o7dm�mdD7� 0910 Iad. A —O m Blffllwml q MN- SSd39.1001 fllllm: 9SB.BN.7BW - 1 OmNL vvNmudvvimWm�Oovm ' ThIS d— It W ¢ M 07 Aednrn dk Auchr,.. Av &pLk .. a ov I. mkt19 9.htfil d ' v1dmW omen ml0n vvannt Nv ' innrmml'vn m b aL n b dnipi mdnl0.yul --.I, �mwmu:v..lanu, vmlk.oinmatme�:wn . NEWSTONEVENEE6 �I - _ •� tv'u' -�' PUK COnsuu%;uon - - NER•CONO ETE01BEWAV,A6TAIRG 4IG5 C�ehall Ofin WRIOITEIUfKED 51 ONE RETA07nG WALLS Eapn, MN. 55122 -2019 (612) 670.4420 PROPOSALL 3 INCREASE ICITCHEN @ LAUNDRY, ADD FRONT PORCH .. - ATHRRAC139 O'Connell Residence �. 5200 went 6001 Sla-L 2i&A nm. - �-- Revision 1 09/1W09 , P02 WIDNGS�B P!• IF- LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 "of 2 City of Edina 4905 Legdnd 24 •1 5502 F7 Highlighted Footum 4907 , $507 5500 House Number Lahele KFMRYE 24 11 sbvst Nome Lobele 4"s 55" 5505 % Clt, lJmi}s sse! creeks 190 9 / Lake Mmes O 24 ID10 5506 5507 5512 UA&S 4614 Per4s 4212 4810 4800 WON 07 EI Porcels 667H S7 {y 5600 5524 05 4817 1815{ 5605 5526 4817 5600 li02 5502 5004 C 5600 Mel 0671 sm 5604 SW7 5602 !1lID qp W066VF 7Eii 5605 Sf06 5606 5807 5606 5605 5604 5607 5600 677 5005 p � s M 5800 I 5608 5607 5606 5609 tt 5610 3 5810 5611 5610 5600 5606 5611 fi36 5617 L 24 $615 5617 5612 56i! 5610 56T7 5614 g 5614 5815 5674 5917 56u 5615 5516 y9 S6T9 5i17 5616 56TS 5614 5077 7l7UTlIVBYW Property SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE ONE STORY ADDITION TO GARAGE 40 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO SETBACK 94 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING ENCROACHMENT 42% INCREASE INTO SETBACK PID:1902824230020 4 • 4 .e G ' 5608 Dalrymple Rd �e Edina, MN 55424 Assessing 1 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO igni ®r�Iur�aruce #850 AT 580 ®aI � Ie 6�nd Edau�a �� - BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Scott Meisenheimer has requested a 3.3 foot side tin attached aaraae and dd from the city code to /for a remove and re laud the W; 1S) to the existing living space. legally described as follows.: Lot 14 Block 2 Golf Terrace 1.02 The property is g Y Heights First Addition Henne in County, MN .1.03 City Code Section 850.11. Su_ 6 requires a 10 foot side yard setback. ing s 6.7 foot side and setback. This requires a variance 1.04 The applicant is propos of 3_3 feet. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and d Cancesde Section 1.05 Minne Appeals t g 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of App . . Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this 1.06 On October 1 2009, the Zoning opportunity to present information. application. The applicant was provided the oPP and the staff report, which are The board considered all of the he esolut on incorporated by reference into this . Section 2. STANDARDS petition for a 2 p1 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the force_ment of this Sect Section would cause variance unless it finds that the strict e petitioner's property and undue hardship because of circumstances unique the° pint and intent of this that the grant of said variance is in keeping e property in question cannot be put Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) P (p) of the petitioner is to a reasonable use as. allowed by this Section; a the plight due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created etitioner; and (iii) the variance, if gran ted,will c not ons derations alone by the p s. Eco character of the property or its surrounding shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's section property exists under the terms of this 932- 427-88( FAX 952- 826 -03 I Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement Would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The location of the existing living space less than 10 feet tothe side lot line. 2. The addition would simply extend pre- existing conditions alleviating the hardship caused by a change in the ordinances. 3. The addition will allow a'reasonable use given existing conditions. 4. The addition would maintain the setback of an existing nonconforming side wall and would merely extend it by 12 feet. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The addition would match the existing exterior and would be in- keeping with the look of the home and surrounding 'neighborhood.. Spacing - between the subject home and the home to the south would not be reduced. 2. The improvements would follow the existing wall lines and architecture r= of the home and should have no impact on sight lines. 3. The addition would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by the required setback and proximity of the existing side walla Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject. to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval,. October 1, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan. . J Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thu_ rsday. October 1;2009. 4 Cha� person ° ATTEST: m oc�enakker, Secre Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Staunton Seconded by: Vasaly Voted. in favor of: Staunton, Vasaly, Hornig, Davidson, Fischer Voted. against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: 0 Resolution adopted. October 1, 2009 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on October 1, 2009. 0 J ck' Hoogenakker, PI in S cretary Page 1 of 1 Page I Of I r)r.TSNIap Output Page 7 r.PPrcvad Grading and — — — ;y.. ss aQy Drainage ri3n Mquired prior to Old—altering any grades. and /or drainage EXISTING .�w�,.. HOUSE SILT FENCING IS y„ — —E #5606 REQUIRED (E &P) g�o� `—' S 89 °32 sg�6, I 150.0 1.61 — - -% --- — — — — 95' g50 ' 'QQ ' — ' /•— _ _�W3W FENCE 09 G cQR 3 &P) asg5� ' X6== -76��� 4 - - - - - -- F.0 E�FC 22.4 —� -- 51.7 1 F - - - -- C (- 1 :' x GFE= 896.8X o g } pi- Y I 'IP � ° I° ss A/y71 GARAGE CDNC DRIVE 0 . 4 Z c �w ,4D0 /' /R /� I a 2..0 I_ cab g6, CID — I < — 24 (� n — — - -- — O g0�i' N lF� \ $ e g o EXISTING o 12.0 — — — °. HOUSE Y I a 3 Z IW °B.0 ° ��� #5608 z �. I Y.5 I o 1 nI Ttioo° FFE= 899.OX ti� I UO 5 b m ya e isg5' J 1 I 5gI I � i I 13 X 'n 5.. 5 I I = o 16g6' FFE =899.0 45.3 z o ° ' 1 —T89c6 v / '• I' / 0 pIG ;° 0 �/ ' t PLAYSET - -- c/ 0gap _ ' i •'• 28.5 �sg69 0/ '• E& ( P) CHAl1�LINK CENCEg64 .._ ^I g ........ 6g 1/ a ' 6• .. (E &P). I S 89 0321,30 Lc .150.0 - --- -55 O 1 I g 96'y 1 — — EXISTING Q HOUSE — — 45.3 1 BE 0 2O 40 60 EXISTING HC 05610 HOUSE = 1765 SF ` I EL PORCH 120 SF(REMOVE) TOTAL = 1885 SF (14.8 %) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 14, BLOCK 7-,2 -GOLF TERRACE SCALE IN FEET 0 "" = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. PROPOSED HC FIRST ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNT` X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION HOUSE = 1765 SF ADDITION = 528 ADDRESS 5608 DALRYMPLE ROAC (E &P) = EXISTING AND PROPOSED < ~' = DIRECTION SF TOTAL = 2293 SF (18.0 %) PID# 19- 028 -24 -23 -0020 SURFACE DRAINAGE = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE I LOT AREA = 12740 SF/ 0.29 A( Ui � /�u /tij „�,Y49 -” ,. ; /A� „r.,,,w��,�n.,,,m- y�,,,,,,•„ 4�➢'8,� �B�'�1;�'r�3i� � . 1 .aGihmrJ' tuolhsy+»�j tuao,P''� . �j 6unn� r -� •1LOrh�7J�� i.' r' r _ WI & >/4 t -r o„ '%i7_FORM •. /d'J'71' /' � i�,q r dcyvmE d cn /aria ��cry yF� rrai ir. �m 9 ' uaI /ouF run / /ry �an ra�e i �- (411 fs /1'r f4mem,/ u�L,rrm r -a d> !�nnnwrrrWwmm. /n........ do // —' - i)A Y��ff l7F�a'` i vL.,rry ✓ � /r,r; � fJr✓ r / „s r „r.Hrry I %!• •`.,• `. _:_ __ .—. � — _ - rr�rn,r I• JL.y /m,Gur /d,; (' _ � _._.. i. /,lJ.,,n ,, „, / /.r,.L:,y. / ✓.,.,, /.wylm„�r. dm,;iy. I �f �� _ :,•_q .e / /”, S'/ d �' –.. �. �._ �6dPf`• /y/,r�q. I A�%i. I Old - � !; 3' %Pew: �� I •a,' I 'r. nxr „qy. f I c mrrna /� /cairn(, orrwnn�m _ .(1• {;'ririrify `Jri �.r�Jr;'.ci'rC7/ !/lma a,rr; -..7r, rop,., / „I,;r,;/. ri61)d' �rrlr�nr /�(c• �/lo d'ri1O h4, '..luciiac..l�'C$7, ii /r'rrr�rke, 671 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 2 City of Edina ISM 9712 6717 6712 1 6717 6716 $ 672f ZJ �.ag0iid — Highlighted Feahln - :J 6717 6776 6717 6716 .` Hausa Number Labels 6721 6720 6725 i isea, ,.. Street Nome Labels 6721 6720 6TYf 6720 _! City Limits e87H St e✓ N Creaks 6801 EJ Lake Names sem w99 6801 6600 ry 6101 sBaB Lakes C g Parks 6804 6805 6806 8M1 $ % 6805 EJ Parcels 6805 006 6006 6809 - 5008 y � 6809 611109 4WD 11 g � 5572 6873 6812 0078 of N21 il/3 & }7 6816 SSOT ,� 6900 ; 68f7 6000 0904 5505 0820 605 �) 6535 x 8 24 6908 69P0 6901 + 5509 TJ \ l 6985 •.� `� 5118 6909 \ 5406 24 6912 5513 8509 34}0 1{ 6913 SNO 5402 54M r 5527 6D/6 511] +� `1j c1Art® LAr I ; SM 56°1 5411 6920 5726 5424 -1 5420 5418 5418 21 '� 5004 5600 5332 5578 552d 5508 5501 3508 5132 x 1 \ TJ 500 5416 \ 7atHAM IJ x SSdS SS/f 5�7 SO8 5539 5551 5100 24 x 5557 � 55101 7001 5557 SSSt /5527 5519 55 }5 5505 as 3015 s X15312 5565 5561 5523 VBTAI6'DR ll�cvr�M W6 Cmy.rtlCt:OGKGr AYS{11 C ]]Se SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE ONE STORY HOME /ONE STORY ADDITION 10 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO SETBACK 13.5 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING ENCROACHMENT 74% INCREASE IN ENCROACHMENT j - 3♦ PID:0511621440049 r a y f 6901 Limerick La Edina, MN 55439 _ *.t Gtl �•`� F Property Assessing RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zonis Ordina #850 AT 6� ®� Lir�ea°iclz bane Edina Mtn BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. setback variance from the city 1,01 David Swenson has requested and 3reatroom addition. code to /for a master bedroom described as follows: Lot 3 Block 1 Otto' s 2nd Addition 1.02 The property is legally Hennepin Co•. MN. 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd_6 requires A 10 foot side and setback . osin An 8.7 foot side and setback This requires a 1,04 The applicant is proposing (. variance of 1-3 feet. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12an vaCancesde Section 1.05 Mrnne Appeals to g 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of App this eats held a public hearing on 1.06 On October 1 2009 ,the Zoning Board of App opportunity to present information. application. The applicant was provided the opP and the staff report, which are The board considered all of the he testimony incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a 2.01 variance and var ranee unless it finds that the strict enforcement to the petitioner's w property ause undue hardship because of circumstances Frith the spirit and intent of this that the grant of said variance is in keeping e property q " ndue hardship" means that {i) ert in question cannot be put Section. U the plight of the petitioner is this Section; (ii) to a reasonable use as allowed by etSect is property which were not created due to circumstances unique to the. p ranted, will not alter the essential by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if g s Economic considerations alone character of the property or its surrounding petitioner's shall not constitute an undue ha of Secaonnable use for the property exists under the terms of thr 952- 07 -88( FAX 952 - 826 -03 Section 3.' FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The original home placement at an angle to the side lot line. 2. The home is non - conforming wand was built under different ordinance requirements, however was conforming at the time. 3. The addition will encroach in areas that are farther from the lot line than the existing structure. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variances would be s ' imilar to existing surround condi - tions. 2. The variances would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. 3. The variances would not interfere with sight lines. Section 4.. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning.Board of Appeals approves the above-described variance, subject to the above" findings. Approval is subject to the following, conditions: 1 This variance will expire* one year from the date of this approval, October 1, 2010, unless the city has issued a building permit for the. project covered by this Variance or approved a time extension. .,.2. The addition will be constructed .as per the submitted plan dated August 23, 2009.*. F F. Board of Appeals of the city of Edina,, Minnesota, on Thursdav Adopted by the Zonin Ort6ber 2009. Chair erson ATTEST: �,, ina Zoning Board of A ppeals ACTION ON THI S), RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Vasaly Seco, nded by: Staunton Voted in favor of: Vasaly, Staunton, Hornig, Davidson, Fischer Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: d. October 1, 2009 Resolution adopte f a resolution adopted by ,Y certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy 0 ata duly authorized I. hereby Board of Appeals of the City Of Edina, Minnesota, the Zon meeting held on October 1, 2009. Ing Secretary J*g cki opgenakker, nning Secretary Sul Ic 10, dw APT _,., .,pia : ��.'a Al r - i f t 4ISO rt , F . 'Iwo t. STRUCTURE HARDCOVER EXISTING SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER HOUSE = 1780 SF DECK 270 SF TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION � I �1� ALLWD DK -150 SF r 1ag99 /VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND TOTAL = 1900 SF/ 13:09 1` Y LEVATIONS WITH HOUSE-PLANS' PROPOSED I MATCH . EXIST FLOOR ELEVATIONS 4^ I D ADDITION = 935 SF�.�tea 0 �f R �/ E I (VERIFY) DECK = 300 SF I'� as $VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY ALL WD DK =150 SF �� is . EXIST & PROPOSED TOTAL 1 5 coNC C R9 eb, t�rlt ti 2865 SF (19.59') 4�ti ` ab3. \ \ c \Ate. ,•gip -- _� _— _ -\ p� \ � w t N e� fib• EXISTING 1 \ HOUSE i .. �• \ \ � a e i 1 , I #6833 WALK aa�. '1g ., I I + �• ., �i .!atA' ` F-' FFE =869.3 i / \ tJG -Fab yS LFE =860. �tp EXI.S'TING X Pb°A HOUSE 6p e\ y CL i / X GFE =867.9 ,#6901 • \ ab�1 �!' TFE= 666.3 6;S Sa \ 1 \ S I•F ,90 Iii ` t� i Aa� I Lf O - r� -•—^'' 3—�•2O - - -- .. — - -'-- BENCHMARK TN HYD ELEV.=, 869.1 \ ^ f /" O ��� °•` ,^ �! LOT COR IS 0.1 1�� Aa q / "� . \ I FT NORTH OF CL EXISTING �4' I NUT ON IM HOUSE ,6905 / 'e6$ eb \ \ I I l� QJ% ml ) \ 95h I ujI /. lu / 0 20 .40 60 N u. . / \ i lu _ SCALE IN EET 41" = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. I Fr_ni f1FC( RIPTICIItI 9 ��t /V�r. - •d --- r�- 1:. - 1 — ®� nc_ w.� 'ICV 'ron.5' 1 X- 3- -1� � I I I� I' a- e.�.r.c..• -r+� FT� �i I I � vaa f e I I .rr. F•°•° % _�_-- - '� --'� -r I � - - _ J ' vro .s e.�� +T.LLS+u.w 1 I •.n5..r..ps.a� - �_� - - -- - -- � lL�� V � r . G .. �IEST ELEV AY \O•-� - Swrr.uc:5�n. uc •c Ra°Y°�,ga M1iG�s.. - si+'TOa=� z. r�.aac:; c.,sT.uo o n�.m1. ¢al;nuc w.r. R.O�•ai � TJ. P° 35 vea I� i _ —. J J E.�sr. Fs�+. - F F.a•°- � Fjnr. I• I es .fm...s -� II _— �- - - -_ �F: fir+ wP.0 1.1 .i FiLO �T•^ �.LC:V•aT�OwJ E Ei ELECTRICAL LEGEND ', a tl -4 •iTm.a -T1.ac S�TG'Wvn_t � to � lTtl �ii'inum �o.°wm PNOJE. -( 110 '.•r ? d n.+a DATE 19AVIII 0"* GREET!'.. FdF Slr� - c _ — __ - _ - OP.c.c -.. - •0 `o.u..e ae� w . 1.K 1 J �'1 I I 1 •� .. . /f,rivn oars -.C' C7 �' ea 1 1�.: I .. JT a • .I I R )r ni a c��:� o«.�a,.n o I w.•.+ ' "� N I +M I ' -. f..¢- .....e .i 0 - i 'p 1 I ori.` _ l �. - ._� d / • �� � UC � .i 'J ' o�K I ® :ml 111 � -- .� 1 'tr 1 I I a•.,¢ s' s'' -c: t-e )n 3• g d gi 1 I L( t-1 7 I 'W I n T I 1 ��- it I •4 I m w ... II 1 :.Z 1� I In ,i - =: I� 1\ t4) I •dill ' wu aYV II .° L_-1 eroV,�'�� � yr .- � 40. I a I �'� °' _ - Ao�Cll �' ; -R.i S J � - � I I / e I' " I -�I � °� •. • i.a zc•e.cs r -• 7� TT v�T •m •y •� \ ..,. I el 1 .t % `I N- --•. -Ft' r ° i - -� $ \. I =_)� / I I I '� ( r ` SM I I o -_ -- a '� l� -�J-.) '.a ill '�; al 1. CIa � 1�'. ' ='ter.. �a �_� ,0 pq 1 •�' l � ur �� c.....ws � II[ , C 7 � I "_ 1 D ml' }'� _' 1 ; .7 el 1- '.' ?�- 1 C�t : "� I ''T�c°"°„ ",°.'_J°K�.. \ � - � • +E , •D "1 � -- -� -J � \n _ •� Iw�.���• -` - -- © --- ,tom- -- r ¢ _ tµ Sil I °w��+�°.. e.aa[ a.,d` ~ ."., n.. �c :>>� I� 1 _•� i•. "ta.,,.... �. ., _ R -�... I °. -__. ras . - J =Y u ^�1 I ®c Fee.w.•6°»T. � µ.,.¢° r... n� 1 G "' �+ . _'.= ,1.^ y - """• DIRp 'r .m. .c... nr�_ �f - - - ^�a•'°"a�. aevc.B,..Y I & s� L \iN 1 I I'1 r7-•. i� I ti 4�� QQ g -:.lo m .rw�° vsK�.T e.a,.... 9 0 00�I ' -Ilj 1. i �. : 0.S � "' :�' 1 t`M; cil.o_ I. -T T�Xv" venw:n a J.T.. � /' gr C) _o . , f - °_ • q (..n.c SrTn vrn+aT� i�rr( J -A I - � Y• ^ � F+cn veu. pr B �G4ea c. I '• � •. --. m - 6v°,, VF FT —V na.r,nn .1•Ta r- II a i \°a"' ` awa s,.e, w1s E . � _ _ °_ � _ -_- _ w: �r.•.,. mn i'; °• P�nsewlEasr .-. �l,.J utir+c." f�l_I>`a -� Va', ._.IV.•,Ten4 .M, Ts_NmcH I 'I - Re.,.e 1 _ _ —_ R ] W . 4'tiw. lenWn' b[L I __J+I ',.A v1rK ) \InCCac¢ C.+VW.•L :I�vr M..w. �xLL ICE. .. _ Y 11 Por. 7Faar � _ - oemr m..:raa.e M�pMSmte v..a sf. R � I) / � 1 CaiK. w w. Fvec) 'pnM e Y +at c pia.° �rtrt°m�r xp �• .T. 3 � �� F�e'�� R4acnra:�,uL.�.a m ....a ®� �m _ ¢.�smn..... � ta, na..a ^or �nwa.we.n.� I sc.ncr"v nef o... f.° a T•'� �I� anrp .,:a._va.m.°� um° .v v.aru t � •',1 • � � a...° P1o' a'.,¢,a. �.. .a �.w o..°.�a.avr�.a • e8:� .. M) _ �_�.\/t =L i-t_o �,rL. �� � - I/4 -� �.aa v �0,...w_�•.�, .am °"' °° ' PPOJECTNO.. to DATE: ..¢aa.� ..� aa. �.Y..�a.a. m ® m>eme ®•r�.. ¢.�° AW.o,: J r�i K+ GLEVA. - -5 V4•. I� -o Sld"o CI.EV/ -LTA ��r� 'c^'P�w•++°,w•� ®mrr LOGISMap output Page of Edina 4377 SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIA14CE 014E STORY HOME /ONE STORY ADDITION 32 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ONTO SETBACK 105 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING ENCROACHMENT 30% INCREASE IN ENCROACHMENT PF ®:3002824310014 4512 8aiianz P-d Edina, MN 55435 Page i of 2 LQ®cetd Highligll Fast -re House t4umbtr LObels Street W.M. "be7s `, City Limlts /�,` Creeks luk0 Nimes L.CRe6 O Ports Fnrccis d, p,=Gessi'119 S o Y ko, l„U_ f PropertY -- l„ nMn1(1 6617 6621 6616 _ 6625 4520 6679 6624 4524 6632 6637 pR 4501 45DS 4429 6716 6628 �D1B'V' 4A9 6712 4577 4517 6704 6636 4521 6709 I 4574 4528 6 709 G72D 6700 `4512 4508 6516 4504 � 6117 SSTD 6712 > 6713 6641 4528 4524 -. r� 6724 E717 6704 _ gA (JJ2l70 Cq 6728 6729 68DS 6708 4505 4507 6709 6801 soot DLIULY.H'AVc 6712 6773 6805 6804 6600 6005 6808 6009 6809 6709 677fi 6717 j4 6808 6808 6809 6878 4704 6es7 6721 61 4424 4.720 � 4712 4708 6877 6 676 6616 6677 �c U - 6801 Ji L9 6825 GBN 6816 6821 6e2D 4701 4705 6805 6625 6820 4425 4427 6629 6625 6829 6871 4717 47o' 6909 � 6821 4700 6824 5629 S 6872 6612 6817 6704 6 617 6672 6637 4706 6828 607 0 SETT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIA14CE 014E STORY HOME /ONE STORY ADDITION 32 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ONTO SETBACK 105 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING ENCROACHMENT 30% INCREASE IN ENCROACHMENT PF ®:3002824310014 4512 8aiianz P-d Edina, MN 55435 Page i of 2 LQ®cetd Highligll Fast -re House t4umbtr LObels Street W.M. "be7s `, City Limlts /�,` Creeks luk0 Nimes L.CRe6 O Ports Fnrccis d, p,=Gessi'119 S o Y ko, l„U_ f PropertY -- l„ nMn1(1 RESOLUTION NO. B =09 -15 City Of Ed1110 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoning Ordinance No 850 AT 4592 Balfanz Road, Edina, MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the* City'of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01- Jennifer O'Brien /Paul Bast r /Dan Nepp has`requested.a 3.67 foot side yard setback variance from the -city code to /for a garage and living space expansion. 1.02 -The property is legally described as follows: Ldt'12, Block 7, CRESTON HILLS Hennepin County Minnesota 1.03' City Code Section 850.11. Subd.6 requires a 10 foot side yard setback for living space. 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 6.4 foot side yard setback Variance. This requires a variance of 3.67 square feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision'12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant .variances 1'.06 On August 20, 2009, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section .850.04.Subd.l.F. states that the Board shall ,not,grant'a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said, variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section." "Undue hard_ ship" means_that (i).th'e p.rop,erty in.-question cannot-be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which Were, not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential citv 9-4.111 0 or its surroundings. Economic considerations etit ons alone character of the property shall not constitute an undue hardshp if reasnnable use o P property exists under the terms of this Section 3. FINDINGS ' t enforcement would cause undue .hardship because of the following 3.01 Strict circumstances that are unique to this Property: e with living space above at an 1, The location of the existing garage angle to the side lot line. 2. The addition would comly with the rninimu►�n two car gar -age p requirement-. garage space-with a minimal, 3. The addition will allow required interior ace into the setback area. 29 square foot encroachment of living space addition would maintain an existing none Info 9 chdeswall and 4. The . would reduce the setback insignificantly `by only mere r 3.02 Tire variance would meet the intent of the.ordinance since: 1. The addition would match the existing exterior and would be in- k ping ee in with the look of the home and sur e home to the east wo Id ng neighborhood. _ Spacing between the subject home and th i - not be reduced. 2. The improvements would follow the existing s hf fines and architecture of the home and should have no impus imposed it of the existing side wall of the 3. The addition would be a reasonable use given the hardship p by the required setback and proximity garage. Section ✓ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. Appeals approves the above - described variance, Board of 4.01 The Zoning pro is subject to the following subject to the above findings. App conditions: year from the date of this approval, 1 This variance will c -xpire one y permit for August 20, 2010, unless the Irian e or pprovebd�a time extension. the project covered by this va Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, August 20, 2009. Chairperson. ATTEST: J ogenakker, Secre ary ina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Birdman Seconded by: Forrest Voted in favor'of: Birdman, Forrest, Winder. Voted against: Grabiel Abstained: 0 Absent: Adiyia Resolution adopted. August 20, 2009 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a .duly authorized meeting held on August 20, 2009. . � - ie oogenakker, Pldnnin& Secretary Page 1 of 1 J 1 r -1• MA.� �. . moo- Page .' I C) Fl 21 ZV• A E RASE 04 )AI fA fA )ECK TO BE co ! Lc REMOVED -"`�\\ I '� ! I �t� / _ — _ \ \ \rr !'� / �`�� -- WOOD RET. WALL ifAK l� X79.1 3 ii - • `C :q SILT FEN.Ce \ �! ' — , ' �- PROPOSED ADDITION ;\ I J . -C)TTC) ��F WiI.D� r \' v' ��'' \ \ �� 2 D ....:.... v. SILT FENCE--, \ +, o/ _ 8 1 . :. WOOD `�` C�` \ It --'� /J �• ° FWISHED FLOOF' PEAK 1 12.4 DECK V - u,8,0. ?6 r— 894.7 I SILT FENCE DE ELE . - - - _ 4512 BALFANZ OAD /101 Y,n 1 -STORY TUCKONDER W4 I j FLGi R ;, �� w FOOTPRINT AREA - I -� :::: EXISTING BUILDING :n I `� o- °D 1,214 SQ. FT. I.. - r( FiNI -HEG FL +ii_y \ I Firli=:HE FL,-!'"P - BUILDING _ 101 - 0, �� STEPS - i - ELEv. =g. 7_ r l a `' E _ 44.4 ii ° 20.5 YS' 19.7 I• r:�1 },'` c. ,.00 , 14_8 _ -� N''• 11.9 �':• o — :::::::: A2 V, y� �6.1'I� _7 -•i r�-I r 7, i1 /l�,N (i J PROPOSED'_ : ADDITION Qp i IF`S Or_I; I �G r I\ I \ o —876— - I \ �� I�� ♦ .'f�' _ Jr : }f ° �1 col Q75.'1, o "�C,.4..STEPS Yr : V� I ♦ -r _ I 37Ir� I N —876• KISTING BUMP`011T J- ,874 — I •� � �a r° TO BE REMOVED - I` Vic' - A75•- — — I i - BITUMINOUS WOUND (n 4; M)AF'LE1 -IRBN— I / i� ' 874 -= O SILT FENCE 872 Fn 9 871— Q <6\ FOUND— —� —f � i� \ t' ;71.3 -1ROW �:'ti � � � � �� � ' I —871 tw' � � ~ :�i X369.5 SHUTOFF \) `�V 8-0,M0. 1 \ FOUND ry 8 IRON C6 � --- -h� r rl — 869 —�� �i = 3 3Y4 = 8V.5 o a— =35°63 5 RIM = _ _ yVr DN � R 557.03 bl O ��• �,T :,�:•: / �� Vic' \ rJ BITl1M 4 ? 1 � V J `_ D 7P GF NAIL � , �•i,, .per -. , tZ';k R -48 _ _ LOGISMap Output Page Page I of 2 Property I Assessing City of Edina 405 0601 4579 4535 4529 4519 4515 451-1 4501 560 5601 5800 5601 5600 LB�ala — Highlighted Feature �n 5606 5605 5625 - - HDUSe Number Labels sGDa 5609 �n � street Nome LObels 5606 �J City Umite 5601 :600 4516 .'S72 4526 4524 4520 :516 5616 5617 f CrOahe m 5610 $617 5616 5620 5626 a Lk. NL.- 5617 LOltes RYrA ST a POrhs 5637 g 24 Portals O 4501 605 460! 5629 4579 4525 457f :sit f5t3 5645 7 5640 10 5677 4604 4600 4524 G 4520 4516 45;2 m 5655 6 1 1 5656 aK1�tAa1D 1M 5 12 f 4606 4605 4601 efr 5761 4505 :501 5700 5700 {_ tJ 9 WXI AMAD SJM 5761 4600 5706 460e sMe 14 15 i6 slit sMe 71 c7,,vc;to 7� 44713 5716 5717 5712 44M 4524 4420 4416 4412 4405 4404 4400 4605 4601 5717 57M s71r uM F.uea"LN 672/ 44761 5721 572 4604 4G00 OOM 4474 4420 4416 4412 4405 dlOQ 5725 57M 57M 5754 aNNAW SaDD .1 4444 5600 5601 Selo am 5601 5600 Save � Sao$ 5604 S"S Saes 5605 A 5005 5604 Sa. ^5 5005 Sao# 5609 �DOa 5609 5676 5606 uoc.�._.n cub Omr^.� tee.rso4 its 5809 SIDE STREET /FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE 1 STORY HOME /1 & 2 STORY ADDITION 240 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE 1ST FLOOR INTO SETBACK 889 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING 1ST FLOOR ENCROACHMENT 27 %D INCREASE IN 1ST FLOOR ENCROACHMENT 655 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO 2ND FLOOR INTO SETBACK 100% INCREASE INTO SECOND FLOOR SETBACK F PID:1902824240093 �, •�, 44 0 L.:71 4501 Woodland Rd W Edina, MN 55424 � li�TiTi� nTt� e. 14'tiLi� Property I Assessing RESOLU -nom N ®e -B-00 -04- City of Edina 'RE S ®L�DTI06�9 APPROVING A VARIANCE T® Edina Z®nin ®s1�iiir�ao�ce 85® AT 5700 WOoddaie Avenue Edina MN - BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGR ®UN®• s requested a 10 foot and 21�foot side /fronnew attached setback e . 1.01 Stwcn Elie h� N variance from the city code to /for a add a 2 sto and a ones is legally described as property follows: Lot 3 Block 2 Stocke and Nans 1.02 The cord Terrace. C 7�` 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd.7 requires a 35 and 25 foot front /side street Set_ back• 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 14. foot and 25 foot setback . This requires a variance of 101 feet. ota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12 aCanceode Section 1..05 Minnesota Board of Appeals to grant 850.04 authorizes the Zoning on this eals held a public hearing 1.06 On liliay 7 2009 , the Zoning Board of App ortunity to present information. application. The applicant was provided the opp and the staff r ep ' rt,. which are 'The board cbnsidered all of the iiearir}g testimony incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS petition for a Lion 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board r of this Sectiontdould cause 2.01 section unless it finds that the strict enforceen property and undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this that tf le grant of said variance " means that (i) the property in question cannot be put Section. "Undue hardship g52- 07 -g.�i 1 to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS, 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The original home placement and required setbacks: 1. 2. The home was built well within the current required setbacks limiting logical expansion of the existing structure. 3. The addition will encroach into the front yard setback by equal or less amounts than existing portions of the building, with all other portions of the proposed addition conforming to the ordinance requirements. 3.02 The variance would meetthe intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variances would allow the additions to match existing conditions or' improve upon them and would not compound impact of the nonconforming structure:, 2. The variances would maintain the existing nonconforming setbacks that have historically been enjoyed and .been in place since the home was constructed and in the case of the new garage, the setbacks will actually improve. 3. The variances would not interfere with sight lines or negatively impact the character along Wooddale Avenue or Woodland Road. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this .approval, May 7, 2010 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursda May 7, 2009. a fi � cad. 9 it�l.� ¢(� � _ a�j r � `ay�x� Chairperson ATTEST: of Appeals Lui„u .... -o ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption:-)nv&0 Seconded by: 1 Voted in favor of:1laSO � ��� Voted against:0 Abstained: (D �i N� Absent: �/Q�\1 Resolution adopter. m �� olution adopted by hereby certify that the forego a true and correct copy of a res the Zoning Board of App eats of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly 'autho,rize meeting held on May 7, 2009. rt i Page 1 of 1 Page I of I 45o1 U u NQ-) (me A -55 Q �� I7i1(19 LOGISMap Output Page i 61T. i9l Page I of I m L4 �ER R ur auRvTIFICAF-' OR PAIGE CONSTRUCTION, INC. WOODLAND ROAD 967 36.7 SEA q6 i VC TC. -r.-.. - . 96.3 137 N89 °29'03 "W X97.7 97.3 C x97.9 120.01 97.8 PIXMB Y - IRON PIP! i0� _ FOUND 80 = MaN ME I 9a ^ '98 . 5 9e.4 / 42. I I x98.1 / }aS I 98 . � n 7RE.4 E -20 rtc 98.4 I 95.8 Ma 4.7r! w -i-- 39.2 . , / 7} • .�. �. FIBU� � '^d• `I e.I 98.2 .98.2 � Q I I f t e U o }} i q. 0 A � O .9- _ � / • � { V. t"h n 984 ° , a TRtE -tel4) 96.4 4 .. / z� �.rv/ ex 97.9 a•, ..O TREE 98.2! X97.9.. b 98.4 98.1 _ 98.7 /6 - 36.0 -3.e 97 4 96.4 r n 91.1 r t d a / / m: V 8E-38 .I 97.6 99.8 TR • % } a • t r�' � ' • j, / 98.2 0 I a` •� / 30. 4 ..• 86.2 98.9 I / 98.21 98.2 9B. 5 I �•! 98. ail rn F'04R Pp 97.1. V..2 97.4 8 , i _ �4 F Plrt 98.7 98.8` .. PINE -/4 ¢ �� ' ..A 119.92 97.8 37.9 e.1 97.9 F 97.1 ��EfeSTNB CHARS LBM FTNfE ;' / i / 97.2 85 PRaPOm Is+E S89 °37'06 "E E% Tlau� �> I II TOB 667 BA R. PL e6a 9e.x i / PEAK - 1722 / x I •� U'`F 1 }. '98.4 X98.2 �,'98'9.:�:•.. - 96.E EXISTING EUVATIONS GARAGE FLOOR = 98.2 TOP OF BLOCK - LOWEST FLOOR - 99.B PEAK 121.5 LEGEND NORTH • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FC NOTES 9 '2n " "•. DENOTES ppSTING CONTOUR - Boundary 11r-611 shown are as manumented. + DENOTES TREE LINE Bearing's shown are on assumed datum. a, DENOTES UTILITY POLE Elevations shown are on assumed datum. ( IN FEEr i xtOtt.2 DENOTES EIOSTING ELEVATO - I Foot Contour Interval 1 inch 20M Conducted on April 20th, 2009. ` DENOTES DIRECTION OF ORP - Field Survey survey was prepared wlthout atnd b�Ieu,flTlhranoeeemoy Easements. • appurtenances, r"; a 0 M" ?ELIMIAIARY— NOT FOR CONS77-?UC77ON ARC M 01 S Cottages-Cabins. Co A RcHrmcruRE & = 7 P. A. Architectural Desig" ,, AOL N ........_ .. _._.._ -- - msc.'" —'__ .. .— J/ �• -..— may` T-p JE RESIDENCE 3TOM ADDITION/ REMODEL l 4f l M l - 1 lEr- R'EsI.Io)EIe]CE CUSTOM ADDITION/ REMODEL ELIE RESIDENCE CUSTOMADD /T/OAfZ REMODEL LOGISMERp Output Page M� =Mm GMF rea 6509 J5p7 0505 7507 .7iJ7 4508 I 4508 I 0504 I 4502 I 2500 1: J(EV53YM 0509 7507 4505 7507 4501 IJ 1 1512 10510 1 4508 14505 11500 14502 17500 Propel city of Edina 5001 5700 5701 5228 5.701 5267 52ZS 5272 5277 5276 5272 5232 5241 5236 5245 5236 5271 5200 3405 57D7 63x0 5T by 5701 5700 5701 5700 5009 5708 5409 5008 SJOS 5703 5305 5300 1 5:13 5072 5 73 5472 5077 5707 5308 5771 5708 pA 8 SC76 5017 5717 5318 5779 5312 5417 2 16 5225 5724 5725 53£6 5421 5420 5427 5771 5320 5420 20 1S.3375336 5337 5728 r5i 5377 5320 5024 20 3737 5732 5027 S7Jf 5736 747 5728 5725 28 5/M 5428 SJ29 W20 S7J9 5346 5751 372 5776 5751 5300 5757 Su3 saz 776 $432 60TH ST W M� =Mm GMF rea 6509 J5p7 0505 7507 .7iJ7 4508 I 4508 I 0504 I 4502 I 2500 1: J(EV53YM 0509 7507 4505 7507 4501 IJ 1 1512 10510 1 4508 14505 11500 14502 17500 Propel SIDE STREET SETBACK VARIANCE ONE STORY HOME /TWO STORY ADDITION 334 SQUARE FOOT 2ND STORY ADDITION INTO SETBACK 421 SQUARE FEET OF 1ST FLOOR E C-RCOACHMENT �.,f 4, PID. 1802824430046 5336 Kellogg Ave y Edina, MN 55424 gage 1 of 2 Legond Hlghllgh49d Faotur -- Hausa Num6rr LOEa7s Str_ct luama L,h91s City Limit Craaks Late Namae -- L81ws Porhs PDM21s A_sessing - ",'__+W Q /14 /2010 5001 5700 5701 5400 5.701 SODO 5405 5404 5402 5404 3405 57D7 5409 5608 5009 5708 5409 5008 5:13 5072 5 73 5472 5077 5012 pA SC76 5017 5016 5;17 5<f6 5417 1 5421 5420 5427 5320 5421 5420 r5i 6425 5024 5724 5437 5027 5725 5428 5/M 5428 SJ29 W20 5433 5 32 Su3 saz 5433 $432 Sd]6 6431 5438 5037 5736 5337 WN S7 V9 5501 SSOD 5591 5500 5507 5500 26, SIDE STREET SETBACK VARIANCE ONE STORY HOME /TWO STORY ADDITION 334 SQUARE FOOT 2ND STORY ADDITION INTO SETBACK 421 SQUARE FEET OF 1ST FLOOR E C-RCOACHMENT �.,f 4, PID. 1802824430046 5336 Kellogg Ave y Edina, MN 55424 gage 1 of 2 Legond Hlghllgh49d Faotur -- Hausa Num6rr LOEa7s Str_ct luama L,h91s City Limit Craaks Late Namae -- L81ws Porhs PDM21s A_sessing - ",'__+W Q /14 /2010 V RESOLUTION NO. � RESOLUTION APPROVING A VAROANCE TO 5336 K � ®niric ®r�dina eII® �veraaae Iellrua �N race N® 85® AT BE IT RESOLVED b the Zoning Board of A Minnesota, as follows: y g Appeals of the City of Edina, Section'1. BACKGROUND.- 1.01 Mark E ple has requested a 10 foot rear yard setback variance a s street variance and an 18 square foot lot covers a variance from the city code— �e to /for a add a second sto to exist in horns ° 1.02 The property is legally 'described as follows: Lot 10 Hennepin Count Minnesota. Block 4 South Harriet Park 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd. 6 A & B requires a 25 fo rear ro ert line a 15 foot setback from the side street and allowable ®tc overa to of 25 s quare feet 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 15 foot rear and setback a 10 foot side setback and a 2 268, uare foot lot covers a street feet and are 18 s uare foofi Iot covers a variance rest ocegeires a variance of 10 feet ° 5 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12 and 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of A �itY Code Section PPeals to grant variances 1.06 On November 20 2008, the Zoning Board of Appeals held public this application. The applicant was provided the o ortunit p to resentearing ®n information. The board considered all-of the -he-ari g t8.stimony a nd the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. Undue hardship means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii)'the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioners property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for. the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: o The location of the existing home relative to the side street and rear lot lines. o The addition would match the existing foot print of the home. ® The addition will not reduce setback and will have minimal impact on surrounding property. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: o The encroachment will match the existing setback. The improvements would follow the existing wall lines and architecture of the ` home and should have no impact on sight lines. o The addition would _be a reasonable use. given. the hardship imposed by the required setbacks and conditions present on site. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning .Soard.of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, November 20, 2009 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved .a time extension. 2. The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated October 8, 2008. r Adopted by the. Zoning Board of Appeals of the pity ®f Edina, Mir�nes ®ta on November 20, 2008: 9 TIVl9rsday, Chairperson ATTEST: 0 ie Hoogenakker, Sec ary Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: ' Motion for adoption: � Seconded by: qk. Voted in favor of:�$ Voted against: Abstained:. Absent: ° ®T� r Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that .the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a re the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized adopted by meeting held on November 20, 2008. o Hoogenakker, Sec ry'Zoning ®ard of �4ppeals -Page 1 of l y.. AKIV- 9/13/2010 aw —T-r - A.� pia,__ ___ - -- -"t'�'''��f) �t1... •). � � all I r�� PROPERTY UNE-111 I / x I� SCK REED REMFM. E4ENT SO N%Wff ioPERTY LINE � � PROPERTY LINE %VEST 54TH STREET SITE PLAN 1/16" = 1. -0" ORATING NUILBER: EPPOBO2 comm. NO Ioia /OB 0 DATE FACE L�, PRDfECT. 5336 Kellogg Ave L � SITE PLAN DRAITN: Remodel ""`'E cuectcEn: s.Ta„A MN S ONE SECOND FLOOR PLAN 3/32" = V -0" PROTECT: ,I 5336 Iiel l o gg Ave COMM. No.: EPP0802 DR&ITMIG muJOER, Remodel DATE: oieiod SECOND FLOOR PLAN DRAWN: MCC Edina, AIN CUECICED: MCC m �� -PTRgT FLOOR PLAN 3/32" = V -p^ - EPPOB02 533() Kellogg Ave reef Remodel FIRST FLOOR PLAN DRAIN: KE TAN sm)m nDca aF* FmT n= aea SOUTH ELEVATION PROJECT: 5336 Kellogg Ave Remodel COMM. 40, EPP0802 SOUTH ELEVATION DATE: 10/8/08 DRAWN! MCE I /A2 C r) CHECrED: MCC _ - nxnrrRac PIl7ldDER: EPP0802 PROJECT: DATC / -pI 5336 Kellogg Ave MCE A� .1tL Remodel EAST ELEVATION MCE CIIECKEU: snow r= u mtio'- m* Fw rww aclnngt,�, Ig 2 NORTH ELEVATION A2oo .3/32" Y -0° PROJECT:. 5336 Kello gg Ave Remodel COMM. NO.; EPP0802 RRASRNG NUMRER: NORTH ELEVATION DATE: 10/8/08 nRnTTN:. MCE 2/A2 ul .r.. Edina, ILIN CQECKEO: MCC V. Page 1 of 2 L®GISMap Output Page VARIANCE FROM POND SETBACK ONE STORY HOME /TWO STORY ADDITION 112 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO SETBACK 1100 SQUARE IN ENCROACHMENT CREASE IN ENCROACHMENT PIDc3311721330019 5300 Forsiin Dr Edina, E�IPI 5536 property Assessing 0/14/2010 City ®f Edina Legcnd 5906 Fllghlightad Fsatura 5908 5909 Hlsuca Idumgr!_allela Stmet Noma L. 5906 59,7 5917 5012 � Llty Limlts 5912 Crac{tc a' Lai.. Psamzs � 5917 Q 5918 L_ekes a 5917 � 2 5916 5917 � ❑ perks El 59:6 F.312 5704 5206 5204 5200 5921 5212 5727 $320 5716 5700 5970 00TH S7 W 6000 6001 5101 SJ01 5217 5209 5205 5201 $ 6004 5721 5717 5713 5709 5705 6005 f 6009 6000 6006 " `, 6012 5716 5711 5706 570+ 5300 6013 - �—_- -_ 6012 6016 — 5224 60.U' 5309 5305 5701 6100 i 5716 5211 5100 70 5303 6073 5]00 5304 220 5300 $200 5712 6029 el ST ST W 6100 5.329 5725 5321 5717 5715 5;09 53C5 5701 5225 5221 5217 5217 5109 5705 5201 6100 6:09 5116 52 12 5209 5300 5100 5728 5770 5720 5716 5712 5708 5304 5700 $120 5120 6112 "'�+. -nwcus c�a^o��tlixacsaw 0 VARIANCE FROM POND SETBACK ONE STORY HOME /TWO STORY ADDITION 112 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO SETBACK 1100 SQUARE IN ENCROACHMENT CREASE IN ENCROACHMENT PIDc3311721330019 5300 Forsiin Dr Edina, E�IPI 5536 property Assessing 0/14/2010 4 RESOLUTION NO. _gL-o8-58 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zon! gA O ,'d1na 300 Forslin Drive EdInb' MN 0-2-0-0,850 AT BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeal Minnesota,. as follows: s of the City of Edina, Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Tom and Kristi-Butterfield has requested a 5, foot varian Lake and a 1.5 001 side �/�f® hci-e cm.J� f6 rs yard setback variance from the' C*t I . Y code a t-!�IMLF�q a story addition to the ex'i't, ­ h ® me inci h me ,J 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 7 Block 2, Birchcrest Addition, Hennepin County MN 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd 6 requires a 50 foot setback from w2ter bodies and a 1.5 foot side yard setback'for building height 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 45 foot setback from the lake and a 10.5 foot side yard setback,. This requires a variance of 5 and 1.5 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On October 2, 2008 , the I was Board of dity public pre ntring on this application. The applicant p rovided the information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony-and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that'the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in. question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii)'the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations, alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section.. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The limited opportunity for expansion given current setback requirements. 2. The home was built prior to current lake setback requirement. 3. The additions will improve the existing conditions on site by allowing maintaining an existing non-conforming lake setback and allowing a minimal side yard setback variance. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance � t since: 1. The variances would be similar to existing surrounding 2. The variances would maintain the residential character of the and the neighborhood. property 3. The variance would not interfere with sight lines. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the -above-described subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the fm low fiance, conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, October 2, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the Project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated September 18, 2008. A resolution tied to the plan presented will replace the recorded resolution for the variance approved for the Property on July 10, 2008. i iesota'o TThursday, . Appeals of the City of Edina, Minn h Adopted bythe Zoning Board of Ap October 2, 2008. z- irperson ATTEST.,, ffcii'q bHo o-g Q n lak k e r,�, S retary Edina Zoning Board of Appeels e ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION:. Motion for adoption. Seconded by: Voted in favor of:, DaV Voted against: q) Abstained:q) Absent: V 2 Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized . meeting held on 2008. Jackie Hoogenakker, Planning Secretary tz - qftr lid. Page lofI LOGISMap Output Page -- --. —1 , ___a4T on 1/9.010 r JJ 5 36'_4'15•• E \ Ai 75.7 i• I \ \ \pl a ,a e _ - �• •��� .. i IV 86 °5415 W 79.50 V UTILI I . — — — — — 1 -- a X1902,Q6. 1 ,- ;� �\ �\LITY� DRAINAGE EASEMENT ° I GARDEN —� \ \ \�--- d�� �AG���L SM .� ti 1 1 (( E('v 1 X f 902,05 \\( U i 90 ?7' Lot 9, Block 2, BIRCHCHaEST 1 .. \ \ '�� o� + •the renorded pleat thereof iri !: Easeoa>r,qlb'l;s „if ¢tetly, affi ®e81e-.g I us®ge, of public Pecord, or os y • ' �% X . 9 ��\ j<� /� - ?j or eaucup were not reviewed a' �1 °X 902Y30 otherwise irodicated. 2�- _ to ASH �1 \ \\ o �� i \?\ �\ �\ - /: pp�O ' The above land parcel deser d i \� OO °L street address and/ , legal -- - --r J�� client, fogeSher with review, 3-10d 1H9\I -1 \ `' ¢\ d— CHOtion far the l and.par, 3 section ea p inforeuaatioaa. X 90L N �' i. ! . HARDCOVER &A i co 'c)� �; ,iii ,r. .' ��• \� lend parcel surveyed (proF 'Z co, A driveway IN V 6 B building property hardcover ” '1 j� i ' 1 �\ M � l��rJ .� 30 °ELM r eO _� \ 90�. NOTES 6p ,' , r� x 3. �3�3� 1z SH �1 - �� 6 - �� .• OUT FLU - V 1 i ��i Surveyors iron monument' —4o- -sQ 1 � ,y ,90 ` ' ® Surveyor's iron monument O i 912 00 / 908, round and marked LS 650 �° ' %�P f�' 1sT DOR �: �* A�H i i 1 g j�.'i �p t ,�} I I� Bearings are on an assumed ba �" �j / - \�1 5• �- ` "(b: l according to NGVD 1929. Site \ �� \ garage floor slate with an eleva Iaffil i , , �(' 910 9 43 112 pSH` 9�7 �• ) : - - o - 12' 90a 90 '1903 1'4,PTNF_ — ,r Q 90723 j -- •0" NE 90 �904 p iT N 97.52'43' W , L-34.3 R:= y i �. x 906,58 0 9O r .-,:LI HT POLE en a 0 Lea 1 II \ / .� MANHOL'05,92 - - - a " Ede' V. E E q q U o z;: � H � n W Z S !� _N S cs Q `; Y 0 m L in 0 c� � N y N � W r m d U C 91 m 'D y0Z Q c o c_ d W o o W . IE M� to 7 m PROJECT PHASE' Schenalic ResolYOD� PROJECT NU..ER' 0&-048 ISSYE OATS: 5lDlember 10. 2YD8 J _ _ I� DRArm er J r,•; . 1 I 10.9 I I I ct 1 I 0 p9:: ova �ir.v L3 g rti� vELK S nor r LOGISMap Output Page -Page i of 2 Property I Assessing City of Edina 4631 46:7 .16:1 4609 4605 4601 4525 4511 4577 56=5 Lagamd 5615 5640 —. ftlhll t d N.I.I. HDUSe Number Letxls `649 5617 Street Name Lcbals 462: 4E20 46:6 ;5D8 4604 4600 i 4524 4520 4516 4512 5655 ¢� $656 r/ city IJmits 562] Cmchs ti'OfCLA" AD L Lake Ns ;629 }1' a 5701 4501 � Lakes Parks 4625 1621 461) 46:4 1608 1505 4605 1601 5700 O Psrelc 5705 4631 4620 i6 Y6 4530 CCtYLGiO TAR 5704 5705 1612 46A9 4604 5700 4600 5771 5709 NCOP Alm AD 5704 14 5708 5717 I 5714 5716 5717 5712 1120 u2A 4120 4E11 4617 4612 4608 d b 4£OS 4601 571T 5710 5717 5716 $717 5721 5724 5721 p AR=iN 5720 4620 4616 dell 573. 4w 441 •160D - 5725 5728 5715 4426 4424 4430 s754 68TH 3T 5807 5400 5801 3600 Saul 5800 5601 5800 S8D1 5805 50" S805 5900 $804 5805 1 500; $805 5104 5805 5808 5609 Sam _1806 5807 5808 5809 5808 5009 5006 58f1 5817 5612 5814 5813 5813 59 i7 5811 3617 5616 5817 5810 5817 3018 5817 5813 5817 5816 5821 5020 Ulf 5820 5821 $820 [ $821 5820 5831 :8N 5825 5824 1 5435 3824 5623 5824 5825 5825 5829 5818 m 828 W 5820 5818 5828 3824 Sib 5829 s_- 3877 $372 3477 5872 5673 5872 5877 5672 58)7 5632 5837 5526 5477 5826 58J7 5876 5877 5826 5877 Mm 5440 5847 5841 5640 5841 5840 $641 5840 SD41 5880 3444 5845 5144 5847 5841 5645 5844 38.13 5844 ® 697H nW 5901 5900 5901 54CD 5901 5900 5907 5400 54D1 5908 ONE STORY HOME SIDE STREET SETBACK VARIANCE 77 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO SETBACK 111 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING ENCROACHMENT 69% INCREASE INTO THE SETBACK rte' PY ®:4902824240029 [� •,�, 5725 St Johns Ave ?tea_ Elora, MN 55424 inm Property I Assessing A, In lass ti RESOLUTION NO. B-108-20 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 850-11. AT 5725 St. Johns Avenue, Edina, -MN' BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 has requested a. 5 foot side street -setback variance from the city codeto/for'a ara a addition 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 5 Elock 2 Concord _Grove Addition Hennepin County Minnesota 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd. 6,, B. requires a 15 foot side _street setback 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 10 foot side street setb variance of 5 feet. ack. This requires a 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 350.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On Thursday, Ma 1 2003 , the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public on this application. The applicant was provided the o p hearing information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 350.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shell not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is .in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property -which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms ' of Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3:01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the circumstances that are unique to this property: following 1. The location of the existing garage relative to the side street. 2. An attached two car garage required per ordinance could not be accomplished given the existing floor plan and house placement. 3. The corner lot arrangement and original home and garage placement limit design options. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1 • The encroachment will match the existing encroachment' and'the improvements would follow the existing wall lines and architecture of the home and should have no impact on sight lines. 2. The addition would be a reasonable use given the hardship imposed by the required setbacks. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above-described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions:, 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, May 1, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition must be constructed as per the submitted plan dated March 10, 2008. /II Adopted by the Zoning Boar I d of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on, Thursday, May 1, 2008. Mary Vas�al� Chairperson ATTEST: Hoogenaldkerl, Edina Zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION! Motion for adoption: Davidson Seconded by: Scherer Voted in favor of: Davidson, 'Scherer,' Horn ig and Vasaly Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: Schroeder Resolution adopted. May 1, 2008 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City'of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authori by zed meeting held on May 1 2008. oogena- ie Hoogen'akker,: nning Secretary � Page 1 of I a/I,A/9,010 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of I PP.OPERTY DESCWT�0 4 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Lot .5, SlOck 2, COA'Co'?-o ,for--NorwaY Builders E)CIS717ING HOUSE .of—sm sit. Johns Avenue TOB=886.53 585.23 40.2 L ----- ------ LLJ ........ (136.0 PLA 2 T) S89-25-02-E z 1b, 1360 03 4� WI Wis ryti NDO e —7. VINDO qj 50 q Rj� Lj r 1 /21 IP 4� G b -Z X0.2 1 s. o Do! HOI o ro 4 LOWES' 0 EGRES! C; Asti < C4 r EL -C'4 C; -0 Ln O z ------ 16. 0/ cc EXIST /..PROP0 4 7. GARA -:�EXISTR GA FL=88 RAGE 4 DRIVEWAY ADDITION + n� A '4. 4. • CO titer C� 'b q I salgi 5 W3.113 ;P' 10 + - � . ............. lb oj As GV (b N 958TH STREET NOTES Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc. on 3/26/08 — Bearings shown are on an assumed datum. . L'__ i— knr--I< of CUrb. go C.) :�.RG 0 W2- wo-i I ul PU hereby certif or report w0s my direct SUPs a duly Registe the lows of tv MAR 10 2008 i gig A10 1 �� er�(osowsla ..._ _i srarmron�a�n I I II III II 1---t - -_ 4M I ��' d)gJL IE ' •2�.� o . G I lvac 1140. vtm'x .:TYPE LVL fl. fl6.0 " 3-1-314"X9 _ a r•tt° 2 - 1.314130 9 -1/4" LVL 3 Y-V 2 -1 -3/4" 7C 9- 114" L,VL I 4 a-4° 3-231D 3 - 1.314° 1111-1/4° bVL ®R, I: MAR 10 2008 Aft, Page 1 of 2 LOGISMaP Output Page of Edina Legslld Hlghllphted FOatUra House Nembar Labels St.lt Nome Laksls CRY umhs �C meks Lake NOmce Lakes Perks POrcels 4311 <500 4401 4779 :778 utu 1501 4405 4520 1787 phi 4409 4400 �1Nstw 4402 460, NOd 4600 4506 4406 4650 NOB i508 N10 4500 4401 4502 4504 4500 3601 i 4506 3605 45,0 24 4'`07 4706 4400 /� 4507 4500 3605 4602 4600 7402 5}18��`� 4501 4505 4500 4502 4503 1507 9 3501 � 4502 4504 (500 4505 4509 460s Q {q 4607 4601 0f 3562 4507 W 4507 4506 � 5541 4503 4506 4506 450 4509 4577 5 d50T 4501 450 ' 4s„ asps ,� asls 4509 4510 4512 4517 4517 m r. ► 4511 4512 is '4 Vacny4r��MeVi :>r�v��C�.GGd 66:317 property SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE 2ND STORY ADDITION TO TWO STORY ljoUS 54 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION IN/CAN 49.7 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING ENCROACHMENT __._ ,urnceTBACK pID:1802824210018 4506 Sunnyside Rd Edina, MN 55424 Assessing -- - r N TOT-vu R'l- liP.nt \%... 9/14/2010 day O Cl ` r�00RPOR A�F' I686 - RESOLUTION NO. E -08 -49 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE SAO. The Zoning Ordinance #950 AT 4506 Sa nnyside Road, Edina WIN.- BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of-the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Brian and Susan Petersen has requested a 3.55 foot side yard setback variance from the city code #o /for. add a second floor above an existing '� sunroom. — all described as follows: The East 50 Feet Club District and Brown 1.02 The property is legally ^era of I nt 6 Iving West of the East 46 Feet Block 1 Coun Section Hennepin Counter . 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Su_6 requires a 13.75 foot setback osing A 10.2 foot setback . This requires a variance of 1.04 The applicant is prop 3.55_ feet. . Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, rant and variances Code Section 1.05 Minnesota St Board of Appeals to gra 850.04 authorizes the Zoning ublic hearing on Board of Appeals held a p opportunity to present 1.06 On Se ember 4 2008 applicant was provided the and the staff this application. The app testimony information. The board con ed bedefe efnce into this 9 resolution feport, which are incorporated Y Section 2. STANDARDS etition for a Section 850.04.SubdJ -F. states that then Board shall f this Section grant ;ould cause n� 2.01 petitioner's property a variance unless it finds that the strict en undue hardship because of circumstances unique te to spit and intent of this that the grant of said variance is in keeping e property in question cannot be put the plight of the petitioner is Section. "Undue hardship means that (►) Which were not created to a reasonable use as allowed o bhe petsion �s (ii) roperty w essential due to circumstances unique ranted, will not alter the e by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if g property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone character of p p if reasonable use for the petitioner's shall not constitute an uede ms of thiss Section. property exists under th Section 3. FINDINGS would cause undue hardship because of the following 3.01 Strict enforcement unique to this property: circumstances that are 1. The desire to match rooflines to provide a seamless addition to the home. 2. The a ddition will allow for improvement of exlsnngconditions ordinance nice 3. The proposed addition ce unusable folr ahbathroom expansion. would render the spa eet the intent of the ordinance since: 3.02 I he variance would m 1 Adequate spacing would be maintained between properties. The -- meant to insure comfortable distances between structures. setb acks are The variance would sustain property setback. 2. The variance'would maintain the residential character of the property and the'neighborhood. Section 4.* ZOUING BARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, September 4, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. e City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursda Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of th �) Se_ ber 47 2008. Char rso ATTEST: o oogenak ker Secretary diva Zoning_ Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Hornig Seconded .by:. Scherer pavidson, Schroeder Voted in favor of: Hornig, Scherer, Vasaly, Voted against: 0 Abstained: 0 Absent: 0 September 4, 2008 Resolution adopted. Thursday, of a resolution adopted by is a true and correct copy authorized hereby certify that the foregoing of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City meeting held on September 41 2008• a r1A n6% Page 1 of 1 - Page I Of I LOGISNjap Output Page �'% 7 0/1 q /1) 110 74 .0 i p T, E 75027 2 OF v's 0 O RB z z o sq0?� 1 ST-FR . U GARAGE �y ° C 1A o� - _ r Qn HOUSE PTp —/- '"4° #450.4 t � � tub �o�'\ � 10•Z� r T°'' 91 3i �„ y0 acs ,• .903• sq 1 O 1 X9.2 �3 O AIR 2 —ST F�2 GI's 0.� 1 of xc GARAGE H�506 `` ,��° wGFr�.901.9 F F qq 2ND JR AD.? 2 —ST BR HOUSE G #4510 .+ l �,q+ 11 N DE i l +gqb LO 1 OP L 1 DoN�RESE WP�K 14.0 ix "�•, gi . 1 gyfr DOO N 7500t19 O 1''`f CDNC GURg i ce - qgh / _ -( ,.P o :. � ROAD BENCHMARK TNH - - - - - - - - - ; A NYSID ELEV., = 900.88 SUN EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. 0 20 '40 60 X(998.0) PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE �-' SCALE IN FEET OHL - = OVERHEAD UITILTY LINE - LEGAL DESCRIPTION:j 3 G 5 THE EAST 50 FEET OF LOT 5, AND THAT PART OF LOT 6 LYING WEST OF THE EAST 46 FEET, BLOCK 1, COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT BROWN SECTION, HENNEPIN C " LOT AREA = 10975 SF/ 0.25 AC L p PROfCT NO. DZ002 BOOK �P/�.7��, /�° .. T.. .. . - Cdr.! \ ! IF(I%�)C� / E � OF SU/ \ VE Y - . I ." .. .. � � ,� (�J �+ j�a j —.0 I. t I-u'�a I�"' L`c �11 Land Fr Bnk R. C8id8F21jE Surveyor DATE FEB BO PAGE - REVISIONS I -�REBT RIFT THAT TMS vE .IYAS PREPAF2ED BY A(E U ER MY DMECT VISION AM THAT 1 M R DULY RE T ALYB�TA SLRVEYOR �soTA. O �SOTA. .. .. 6440 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, 6440 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, FRAM(R .6508 rte=— t. p El I-T. pl1u6R5 G II — T= ly�,� 4 Fi.m t J e lro�lL _e �U EY'7l wi �.V s..f.G. I cd UppER p OOR ADDITION '/ "I d' p TERSEN RESIDENCE REMODELING / ADDITION 4506 SUNwsim RD, DDINA, MN 3 S /151Og /Tt PW4 11 1 'W .'r V9 'p.t. BACK 'ELEVXTlQNi J725 LArYMD AVENUI SAINT -PAUL mri 55101 PHYMI/rAX (651) 611-0869 EM PH: PETERSEN RESIDENCt REMODELING /ADDITION 4506 SUNNYSIDE RD, EDINA, MN LOGISMap Output Page —� 5601 5672 5605 5616 5608 5604 5520 5617 5608 5617 5612 U24 5621 $676 5628 5620 5025 5629 5624 5676 $633 5628 56=0 7608 5677 5877 56:4 6i T'ri ST N, 5701 5700 5701 5704 $705 5705 24 5708 5709 o�+r ^..� 5709 5712 5717 L1 5713 a 5717 Si /B 5720 > 5711 5721 5714 5720 5725 5725 5726 5728 5733 5729 57]2 5772 5737 5736 5777 5776 5800 5801 5800 Property 1' age 1 of 2 City of Edina Logend Highlighted Fseturu 3217 5601 7301 5600 5607 Housa Numtcr Lstlls 5604 secs Street Nam^ Letels s603 5604 5605 / f city lumps SE0E 5609 5509 5608 5609 Creeks 5612 $617 < 5613 O Lou. N.M. 5612 5673 5617 � LelteS 5616 S6IT 5616 5617 Parks 5620 Sfi31 5620 5627 O p0rcals 5621 5625 5624 5625 5625 5624 5629 5620 5029 5629 5626 5673 5632 5637 5632 5677 5637 5701 5676 5641 5700 5705 5701 5709 � 57 5701 5100 0.1 66TH 5T W s6oD saD1 5600 SBCt 'x801 M1 fi80d 5805 SBOS o SIDE STREET SETBACK VARIANCE GARAGE ADDITION 117 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO EXISTING SETBACK 117 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTIN c ENCROACHMENT PID- 2002824240097 5701 Beard Ave 5 `.• Edina, MN 55410 �3 assessing _ _ m_,,; - - +NT 9/14/2010 ca O j�CoRPORA� pass RESOLUTION NO. B -08-53 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO Zoninal Ordinance loo 850 AT 5701 Beard Avenue South Edina MN BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Lorraine Smith has requested a 10.7 fo ®t side street setback variance from the city code to /for a _ garage addition 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Lot 13 Block 7 Brookline Addition Henng,nin County Minnesota S 1.03 City Code Section 850.11.Subd 6. requires A 20 foot side street setback for garage 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 9.3 foot setback. This requires a variance of 10.7 feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 on Thursday September 18, 2008, the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution Section 2. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property which were not created -- by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the'property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under,the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The location of the existing garage relative to the side street lot line. 2. The proposed setback is in- keeping with similar setbacks within the neighborhood. 3. The variance would allow for -the substantial improvements to the property in a logical location given the existing floor plan.' 4. The variance would allow conformance with the minimum two car garage requirement. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The encroachment will be similar to setbacks provided on the block. 2' improvements would follow the architecture and character of the n �y wouicl be a reasonable use setbacks and given existing t cond tip imposed plan. ns /floor Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION.. 4.01 The Zoning Board ofAppeals approves subject to the above findings. Approval is subject ubject to the f® lowin variance, conditions: 9 1. This variance will expire one year from the date of this approval, September 18, 2009 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition must be constructed as per submitted plan dated 8/18/2008. i i .-.-s: 41,-. r';+w of Pr1inpJ Minnesota, on Thursday v ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: Qt, --Dry, Voted against:, Abstained Absent: Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting held on - . �� ° 2008. J kie HoogenakkeQ,YIanning Secretary Pagel of 1 Page 1 of 1 LOGISMap Output Page 60 Li D � �m 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I " 57TH STREET I l I o R= 950.00' CD S89°31 '10 "E d= 04'33'01 " �0� 9 L =75.45 �h. — - �a• 9 04i Qyy' 0 0 45.00 yya j p�Q�70 CONCv, aA yro` vylry . �� FD. S O.D 1 -- „,0 +pAE 0.40 O ag'C. Qpa' y 1 1 • I (Y�al �gP yA Qc6' "e� tom. W FE E ,� y� n• yy1 I °'J (/i,� ,NC. wry, �ti. w 9 4 �9 ``� �y� eA �yo I a C7 � 0 1 x.; wry. �4 al® i4.8 aP' vmhvh, O -D 4 7ry• le CONC.120 39' ssr `, 1I K C¢7 O ti a I 1 ... g� 1 CNN 5 3 - $9 Ts ce DECF6. - - - - - - -- v / 7• �: R CONC. CE G' y 9 y�. ti• o u�atin m GOB �ti "ae� e, v9' y ��yh ry a S.2 �7• {�1ti•.q,,'•-, -._:r' N89 °31'10”. Site- Exsitin 3/32" Garage Addition Loraine Smith 5701 Beard Avenue Edine, MN 55410 DANIEL MEEKER DESIGN j, 743 Goodrich Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55105 Vm¢ j 651 j 307 -8630 Fax 16511 224 -2878 Web: jwwwj meelterdesign.com All reproduction ✓i, Intellectual property lights reserved c 2007 1<ey Plan: Project No. 0049 Scale 3/32" = V -0" Issue No Description Date 6 Type: Project Status . Date 81192008 2:04:22 P.M Sheet Titles: Site - Exis' ti K .Original drawing is 11" x 17". Scale en88es accordingly if reduce Sheet Number'. A" Garage Addition' Loraine Smith 5701'BoardAvenue Edina,. MN 5506 DANIEL MEEKER DESIGN 743 Goodrich Avenue - .Saint Paul, MN 65105 vex: i r3511 307 - 8630:: . Fax -. 651_i 2242870'. Web:- ' I V'NM .moolcprdesign.cor All reproduction &'intellectuaG- properly rights reserved c 2007 Key:PI1 Project No. 0041 Scale ' 3132" = 1' -0 . Issue No. Description Data Type: Projoct Status Date 8/19/2008:2:04:22 PM Shaot Tft. Site - Demo. Onginal draxln.g 11" x 17". Scale entities "accordingly ifroduced Sheet Number.- A2 I � 4 =1 Garage Addition Loraine Smith 5701 Beard Avenue Edlne,.MN 55410 DANIEL MEEKER DESIGN 743 Goodrich Avenue Saint Paul, MN 56.105 VO)f. 16511 307 -8630 Fex 1051,1 224 - 2878 Wob: 1avww1.meeherdesi9n:c9m All reproduction 8. Intellectual property rir)hts.raserved;c 200T' Key Plan: Project No. OOAg Scale Issue No Description Dale Type: Project Statu Date 81192008.2 :D4:22 P Sheet Titles: Site - Nei Original dravang Is 11" x,17 . Scale entitles accordingly4f:raduc Sheet Number.. fl i Garage Addition Loraine Smith 5701 Beard Avenue Edine, MN 55410 'DANIEL MEEKER DESIGN. Roof - Existin 743 Goodrich Avenue. 8- 0--AP Saint Paul, MN 55105 Vox i 651.1 307 -0630 Fax i 851,1 224 -2870 Web; iwwvii meakerdesign.com i All reproduction Wntelleclual property rights reserved•c 2007 Key.Plan: Grade- Existin —}- b Project No. -0, - 5,—,.� 0040 Scale South -New I v4" = r-o° Issue No. DescripUoh Date Typo: Project Status Dale 0110/2008 2:0423:PM Sheet Titles: Elevations Original draw ng 1- 11- x 17. ". Scala entities accordingly It reduced Sheet Number.: Ad LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 2 Property I Assessing RESOLLITION GAO. iB =08 =15 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIAN TO 850.11 AT 54®® Pa�°l� Ala Edina, illy. BE IT,RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 David and JoAnne Alkire has requested a 18 foot fl t the homeck variance from the city code to /for a addition above the first floor described as follows: Lot 1, Block 7 South Harriet Park. 1.02 The property is legally 1.03 City Code Section 850.11. Subd. 7. A. requires - a front yard setback of 35.8 feet to match adjacent pr o erty setback 1.04 The applicant is proposing a 17.8 foot front yard setback. This requires a variance of 1 S feet. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, nt d C nc ode Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to g 1,06 On April 10, 2008 Appeals held a public hearing on this the Zoning Board. of App P application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. hearing testirn®ny and the staff report, which are The board considered all of the imn fhog resolution y Section 2'. STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Hoard shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause . undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with, the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue'hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's .property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the 'petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: 1. The size, configuration and corner location of the lot. The required 'setback bisects the home and is a hardship hindering the ability to add on to the home. The front yard setback will not be compromised given the rather small additions proposed to the second floor. 2. The proposed additions will be consistent with the dimensions and look of the existing home'and will not alter the footprint. 3. The additions are minimal in scale, however, allow for a tremendous improvement to the interior spaces of the property. 3.02 The variance .would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variance would be similar to existing conditions and would not interrupt the front yard patterned established along Brookview. 2. The variance would not disrupt the goal of maintaining a consistent front setback pattern. 3. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property .and the .neighborhood. Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01.. .The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above - described variance, subject to the above findings. ,approval is subject to'fhe following conditions: I. This - variance thrill exp-ire one year from the date of this approval, April 10, .2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated April 2, .2008. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on Thursday, A ril 17, 2008. Chairperson ATTEST: enakker, Secre ary ina Zoning Boarof Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption. Seconded by:. VJ Voted in favor of: Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Cq) Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a at a duly ion ado t d by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the-City of Edina, Minnesota, meeting h 2008. eld on -� �1� , r ti Page 1 of 1 1 {1• �'aIF - -`t � \��.�. Sew �'(.- -a'•� � 'a { "x[',. ^h R . ` �i� �f[`�Y cv'i tY�� W-•+{ 7 —ti'♦�, i a�+..�«•r} +�.``�,' Aq Af k � •- ww ti IA rte, ff:fi, 1 {1• �'aIF - -`t � \��.�. Sew �'(.- -a'•� � 'a { "x[',. ^h R . ` �i� �f[`�Y cv'i tY�� W-•+{ 7 —ti'♦�, i a�+..�«•r} +�.``�,' Aq Af x 891.8 x 891.6 B9 f.8 z LEGAL DESCRIPTION- Y 995.a N 89 °26'33" . .J LOT 1, BLOCK 7, SOUTH HARRIET PARK . : x882.7 x 877.2 • , - ed9e of bifurriinoas 878.7 C� o Denotes iron monument .' Q /�zlliq % - 685.1 o Denotes offset stoke X 000.0 • Denotes existing elev. Z1 �G9 I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me File J'd0. 873.7 % v O� _ DEhfARS– G4BRIEL or under my direct supervision and that i am a duly Registered Land Surveyor er t Laws of the Slate of Minnesntn. _ 13556 ' Y 897:9 _ FOR: 0 is i . Quirk -1'u�e x884.2 3030 Harbor Lanc No. e - x 8892 ' Plymouth, MN 55447 44$111 x 889.9 889.7 x 9768 Vr D °vid E. Crook Pyone:(763 559 -0908 Fax- :(763) 559 -0479 _ _ Srvle RAWOVAI70N, INC. ' On re: April 1, 70079, Minn. I:r.�l. Iln. ?7411 / # 7.60 el ~ brit 7 n ENS, r' • � .. CO . 7t Fla wi 4.29. O •889.0 "1 ' wood fence eBe.e E4 '1+ - i1 yti 730 - CI L, 411 178 ....:: LO Adjaccnt 990.1 t Garage + CO o GARAG fi FI —B89.6 . g� P� B90. �°., Flaor�890.2 ~ brick drive -� I�r W a • - - 20.75 890.1 r brick SITE ADDRESS: 5400 PARK. PLACE `' F_DINA. MN 55424 e9o.1N ,. a u CID , a tF ,b�+ • EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE 0 0 Building 1,608 Sq.Ft, Patios k Decks 286.1 -Sq.Ft • Total Building Coverage 1.694 Sq.Ft ' Lot Area 8,472 Sq.F Z, of Coverage = 22.4 Z bituminous rive x 891.8 x 891.6 B9 f.8 z 27.00 P &Di N 89 °26'33" . .J . Adjnr. rnL Gar uqa Floore892.69 /0�- -� FlaaF894.27 o Denotes iron monument .' Q /�zlliq % - o Denotes offset stoke X 000.0 • Denotes existing elev. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me File J'd0. _ DEhfARS– G4BRIEL or under my direct supervision and that i am a duly Registered Land Surveyor er t Laws of the Slate of Minnesntn. _ 13556 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY LAND SURVEYORS, INC. _ FOR: - Quirk -1'u�e 3030 Harbor Lanc No. e C' LP� SHOWCASE Plymouth, MN 55447 44$111 1.711 fY 1 irJ D °vid E. Crook Pyone:(763 559 -0908 Fax- :(763) 559 -0479 _ _ Srvle RAWOVAI70N, INC. ' On re: April 1, 70079, Minn. I:r.�l. Iln. ?7411 NOIF� �OT15i TII0lIR^ �ylp�. OIR fi�H lD�. 4 51TE PLAN N� F LOWER LEVEL DN. PLAN Z OPP$ Hill ags is 4a 6� 4� O 3p. N.. e 5400 PS A PLACE B UI EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 E�� "'3gz= f I' i, i II �� D_ Z 0 m m r O A Z OPP$ Hill ags is 4a 6� 4� O 3p. N.. e 5400 PS A PLACE B UI EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 E�� "'3gz= f I' i, i L— 0 to MU Ul W lei d) Q iu I b. WEST ELEVATION w �- � w� 4 w oQ- z 4 V ,n? $ w IM A4 I p EAST ELEVATION 5 �„ , r_Ol LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 2 City of Edina 5705 / 6001 OOCO slot 5700 S70t 5700 5701 Legtend 6008 - Highllghtad F.ctum 5705 5704 5105 3703 5705 Heusa Wum�.f L.W. • ,1 •„ 4012 4001 Strxt Wame L6tzls $709 5708 3709 $708 DQ' 4005 5709 / City Limits f. 5717 5712 5711 5712 5016 4009 5776 Creks ❑ L.L. Pl6mes 5716 5767 577d 5717 5717 5717 LOkes 3721 5720 3737 5720 4020 1015 5720 Pzri;s 5721 5710 5724 P.-1. $735 5724 5725 5014 57:4 4017 5725 5728 5729 24 5728 5725 5��2 � $729 5772 5773 5777 5718 5732 ]928 7025 + "970 39th 79 i2 T 5772 5770 5737 5776 57<0 y 5777 5737 5736 5744 587w 57 w 5801 5800 5807 5000 580f 5800 SOOT 3971 7903 2905 7901 5805 5801 5805 5901 SA05 5005 3517 3917 5005 5808 5809 5808 ' 5309 $808 5809 5008 3903 5009 7908 3912 5812 6812 5877 5612 5817 5812 'fr LA 5817 $816 5817 5816 58.7 3816 4 iFiO 3907 3905 5821 6810 5821 SILO 582/ 6820 5916 7909 y 5815 5824 5925 5824 5825 5814 5820 5820 ¢ z $829 5829 > 5129 $820 5829 1829 829 T 6828 SON 5923 5832 u 5877 5873 5832 3 5828 5901 5837 5837 5876 5877 5876 5 878 5828 5845 5848 5901 SOLO 5901 5c00 5905 5900 5907 5904 5905 59" SM5 5904 5900 5909 F 5905 5917 5904 5909 5 912 5909 5908 5909 5900 590,1 5917 $912 5912 5917 5912 5908 vs e.,n,1T.vi- Cq�.TS ;[;.asca 21155917 5976 =;i 5917 5917 SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE 1 STORY HOME /1 STORY ADDITION 11.7 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO SETBACK 18.5 SQUARE FEET EXISTING IN SETBACK 63% INCREASE IN ENCROACHMENT s } PID: a00a824320128 > L(n 5808 Evwing Ave S (` Q $ ' 1 Ee9ina, I�IN 55410 `; t) 3 propsi-ty I Assessing Ile, COIRZP - 1888 RESOLUTION NO B-08-9 RESOLUTW APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 850.11 V AT 5808 Ewing Avenue, Edina, M BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND., 1.01 S cott c Hedberg has requested a 1.3 foot side yard setback variance from the a— city code to/for a Ih k"th 1�6of , 1.02' The property is legally described as follows: - AA;+,-%r'c Subdivision o 312 He epinCouqn (Minnesota. the East 1/2 of Lot 55 ,n 1.03 City Code Section 850. 11.06 requires a 7 foot side yard setback 1.04 The applicant is . proposing a 5.7 foot setback. This requires a variance. of 1.3 ft. 1.05 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.354, Subdivision 12, and City Code Section 850.04 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances 1.06 On March 20 2008 , the Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information. The board considered all of the hearing testimony and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution . Section STANDARDS 2.01 Section 850.04.Subd.1.F. states that the Board shall not grant a petition. for a .variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause � undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue hardship means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by•this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to`the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. 'Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section. Section 3. FINDINGS 3.01 Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the following circumstances that are unique to this property: J 1. The existence of the nonconforming north side wall. 2. The addition is minimal is scope and scale and would have no impact on the surrounding properties. 3. The addition will match the existing conditions on the site. 3.02 The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since: 1. The variance would. not reduce spacing between structures or existing setback. 2. The variance would maintain the residential character of the property and the neighborhood. 3. The variance would be consistent with similar setbacks provided by other homes in the neighborhood. 4. The variance would maintain Section 4. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 4.01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above-described variance, subject to the above findings.. Approval is subject to the following conditions: i.The variance will expire on March 20, 2009 unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. 2. The addition shall be constructed as per the submitted plan dated March 3, 2008 I" Ac on the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City. of Edina, Minnesota,. 2008. Chairper on ATTEST. ry mgina zoning Board of Appeals ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: , TvDaocb Seconded by: LO . Voted in favor of: IND Voted ,against: Abstained: Absent: Resolution adopts . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Ap`,p�e Is of the City of Edina, Minnesota, -at a duly.authorized meeting held on �\� "� 2008. 0 4D ie Hoogenakker, lanning n Page I of I 9/13/2010 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 „LDING PLANS ,ND SPECIFICATIONS 4 ESTABLISHED 1820 M. J. BERSCHEID + ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER PHDN= DREXEI 4593 3644 -22ND AVE. SO• MINNEA LIS 7. MINN. CITY LOT SURV=vING PLATTING } FARM”. SURVEYGNG z, 8bo-TO a �,�"IZKt 8Ti ] a Of Sep thrV- of Lot 25 da 17 v / 0 pl �� V w <(�7 /) 9 F, U) LA) C--: �, k9J , S / V ,= II 1 US I. 0io i .010 II ------------ J=r- it 1 II -ij II II II II III rj L5 .i� j wu� • 10, i. �II � �= I IL-7 TF Dail � .ry r i I Li ,1/ l �� /" "J ,- � ^~ ' ^~ ~ ~ \ � -_ -- -_--_--- \ � � ' / '. LOGISMap Output Page Page I of 2 Property I Assessing City of Edina Lcgend Highlighted Facture Hvusa Numtrer L L",2 Noma Lo trels City L .! CIY' Limits Creeke Laka Names 5032 302/ 5020 5076 50 r2 5006 3076 Lakes a'.ra�1oDA 4808 1104 4902 t8DO 4710 470E 1708 1704 1707 ,1700 41610 4608 4606 1604 1'602/600 Parka r503? 33 50255077 01750115005 5072 50N 5'011' 50135J0B 5071 OW Taq 47f5 4706 4r06 4707 4701 461745152/ J6f JBif 16084607460 4601 4571 676 data 4704 � N10"AW11 4702 4700 4614 4612 .7610 4608 4606 4604 J602 4600 0.5 f0 ` 24 4907 1902 L 503] 50 502130"... 5031 5037 5018 50]0 3012 5008 LAX6VMV0R 190] 5500 3101 4611 4609 4607 4603 4603 1601 C517 1905 5021 SOf1 5001 71 5802 5304 .' A1� 6907 -• TJ�� 5500 J6f2 1608 4606 4604 4600 JSiB ]4 1602 1�1' _� L 4006 j 5501 9505 5508 G4ADA 5037 5029 5025 $077,5013 5009 4909/ rMIS 3070 3011 24 .: 5507 55'2 1617461} 4607 4603 0t 4517 4910 / I� L 15012j51128 SO9 j 5008 5004 4814 4012 4810 raoe ;$S34 58771 l7M 5600 5575487916]5 4617 37 sOT45075 SOTT.SD77 sallys0. ^s Id 17 dd/5 3601 3510 560z 5528 552 — 4813 5600 5078 5071 5020 5016 3012 5000 061 1 5607 5602 462845244615"124605544 5604 3607 5527 SI533 I Q6Ud 14 i 1 5603 5602 ' 5025 5011 50f7501190a9 5003 $605 5604 �� 5605 Sfi06 687N 57 W 5606 5607 5606 qq 5605 5604 5607 5609 163 4673 4625 4621 4613 4609 4579 ° 14679 '4617 46051801 I 5014 5608 5609 5608 5607 5606 5609 5610 IL SOfd SD1d 5012 soda 5004 5610 .1 5611 5670 5 5609 5608 5611 161Y 'M'646]6462J 46/6411]460446004536 11111114111L qq fig{ ` 20 5812 5617 5812 5611 5670 5613 5614 TONER Sr Z 5611 Se'75 5614 5872 5615 5676 4621 17 4609 4605 4601 561] 3020 U2` 5 5008 y9 �S 5615 4613 $616 5617 5676 5675 5611 3617 36/1 SO1d 5079 �2 ,Y! St;UiNYE'.6'f.Ar 5619 46241 4616 4608 46 4600 5627 5071 5077 n NOODI./JIDAD .' 46]8 4673 Id 171617 4609 605 4601 30 2 5076 5705 =� a 46)0 1624 4620 4616/617 4601 4698 1600 � ccvcavn rEw 34 5773 4621! 16!74609 2i 4607 06'7 uvecl v.nA uG :. �`ya.c�.JCf G:]C{ o :^TI DECK ADDITION VARIANCE FROM POND SETBACK 25 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION INTO SETBACK 169 SQUARE FEET EXISTING IN SETBACK 7% INCREASE IN ENCROACHMENT 1I PID: 1902824220038 eke J, �, r r 4814 Lakeview Dr >1 � t> b 5 Edina, MN 55424 `��titi� � Property I Assessing I ®j��'oRPORe'�9 18B8 RESOLUTION Itl ®o B-0 3-2 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 85 °O7aSubo 18 AT 4814 Lakeview ®rave Ec Ina MA BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: SectlEn 1. BACKGROUND. i.01 Diane Miller has requested a 2.4 foot setback variance from the city code to /for a deck addition to her single family horne. Terrace Golf The propel ty is legally described as follows: Lot as��a ®f Lot 9 Heights . I o 28CH0114. ZONING S ®AP® OF APPEALS ACTION. 4•01 The Zoning Board of Appeals approves the above- described variance, subject to the above findings. Approval is subject'to the following conditions: This variance Will expire one year from the date of this approval, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on February 7, 2008, 2007. Chairper ®n ATTEST: ie Hoogenakker, lankiDg Secretary ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption:�� Seconded by: Voted in favor. of:'t Voted against: Abstained:-] Absent: Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Edina, Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting held on February 7, 2008. "Hoogenakker, ack nih6Secretary LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 left,: / / NN N a• i ' \ HERLY ' \ LOT 9 f "� ScAm VD, - I•-P C • \ i A / \so, Ap X\ 91 ) \ \ \\ \ 8ry r SOUTHWESTEF LINE OF LOT 100 -YEAR �`� \ \\ \ - - S 76 i Jr, FLOOD LINE ` (894.3) \ ICE ELEV.= 893.3 (12/18/2007) NORTHFJ O � LINE OF ` \\ qp,iy NOTE: AREA OF BELOW ORDINAF X89 WATER UNE-t: S h / / i6.G6 Pot NIM FA NIN ft=MR". v B (D fD t9 W MA IN LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN M Jan f= jr 13,zm KA PETERSON So UILI ou MILLER RESIDENCE fall 4814 LARVIEW DRIVE EDIKA, MN SAN on 31 mmu 2= EGWA till SUU FMCKE 9 �y MiAIN LEVEL 12EMOLITION PLAN DE1,10LITION NOTES - MAIN LEVEL I. RELOLATE NEC+ANIGALS A5 Tmr- roz MM G01'5TRGUTION 2. REMOVE AND PWaLE MsTIN* ELEGTFLIGAL GIRGUIT5 A5 jm5r_ FREPARE FOR GIRLUIT RELOCATION AND GHANff -s. 5. REMOVE AND GAF FUJU MIND AND GA5 FIFE5 A5 NESG ° ITM-B TO ®E DEMOLI5MM 5 VAT AUL'R VAIC MIH -IN-NP"", Fm O 9 r G C mil• �� \I\ Or. Y- W ooe � w 5;: 0 T g u ,s a W w° .A w C,l Q C o z 0 � en w m @ e S � SHEET Al ov HU ER --, eE FF ;jai W, real - so GUN I I@ OCAM w• . Itr W V W � � e o� LL J cw cc W gm � III 0 �o �Z 0 w ,M SHEET pm vnre MIN ftM=4p2p?l mw M (wrap MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Edina City Hall Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Fischer, Carpenter, Risser, Scherer, Staunton, Schroeder, Brown, Grabiel, Forrest, Rock, Stefanik STAFF PRESENT: Teague, Aaker, Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the September 29, 2010, meeting was filed as submitted. II. OLD BUSINESS: 2009.0004.10 Zoning Ordinance Amendments 1. Non - Conforming Use /Alternate Setback Standard Ordinance 2. Driveway Width 3. PUD Introduction Planner Teague addressed the Commission and explained since their last meeting planning staff and Roger Knutson's staff reviewed the three ordinances and made grammatical changes and ensured consistency. Teague noted the majority of changes to the text occurred in the Non - Conforming Use /Alternate Setback Standard Ordinance; specifically the Conditional Use Permit addressing additions, repairs, etc. Three "conditions" were incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit process when.the first floor is raised by more than one foot; 1) FEMA, 2) Groundwater, and 3) Building Code. Teague said all or one of these conditional must also meet a fourth condition: ensuring that the new structure or addition fit the character of the neighborhood. Continuing, Teague noted changes from Chair Fischer and informed the Commission that Connie Carrino has also submitted language pertaining to the Non - Conforming Use /Alternate Setback Ordinance as it relates to the first floor elevation for their review. { f Concluding Planner Teague said the discussion would continue in three parts; 1) PUD, 2) Driveway width, and .3) Non - Conforming Use /Alternate Setback Standard. L Planner Teague explained a change was made to the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance Concerning Administration and Procedures and Establishing a PUD District by creating a mechanism that allows "text amendments" by ordinance. The proposed change would allow a text amendment process (pg. 33). Chair Fischer asked for an example of a text amendment. Attorney Knutson said a zoning ordinance text amendment could be requested when a specific "use" is not addressed by ordinance; the current ordinance is silent. Commissioner Scherer asked if a text amendment would apply to the entire zoning district. Knutson responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Grabiel questioned the reason for establishing a text amendment process pointing out a zoning ordinance amendment. process was' already in place. Knutson agreed;' however, the current way a "change was processed would be through two hearings; preliminary and final. The proposed text amendment is a one hearing process. Chair Fischer said as previously'mentioned at the last meeting on pg. 8 1. eliminate the word strongly ... "applicants are strongly encouraged ". Eliminate. strongly in this context throughout the ordinance (possibly two other places). Commissioner Staunton said at the last Commission meeting he brought up the point that in its present form the Zoning Board of Appeals is a "place holder ". The discussion onahe status of the Zoning Board of Appeals continues to determine who the make -up of Zoning Board of Appeals. Commissioner Carpenter noted on page 7 - B.1. Close parenthesis after 10% — Motion Commissioner Brown moved to recommend adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the noted changes. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Fischer acknowledged members of the public and explained that last month the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and took testimony on the three ordinance amendments before the Commission tonight. Fischer said at this time he would welcome further comments on the amendments presented at this meeting. Chair Fisher directed the discussion to the Driveway Width Ordinance. 14 2. Driveway Width Ordinance Jared Anderson, 4004 Monterey Avenue addressed the Commission and explained that he lives in a 1938 home with a one -stall garage. Mr. Anderson said he would like to add a detached garage to the rear of his home but because of the 12 -foot driveway width requirement he can't do that. Chair Fischer said the proposed ordinance eliminates a minimum driveway width. Mr. Anderson thanked the Commission for their work on this issue. Motion Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend adoption of the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance Concerning Driveways. Commissioner Risser seconded, the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 3. Nonconforming Buildings and Uses, Chair Fischer addressed the Commission and said at the last Commission meeting changes were accepted and made to the proposed. ordinance, adding the majority of the discussion and changes focused on the Conditional Use element of the ordinance and three conditions relating to the first floor elevation of more than one (1) foot above the existing first floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit. Fischer noted in the text presented this evening that additional language was added to address State Building Code, City of.Edina Code, and other relevant agency requirements. Fischer stated he thought this-was an important addition to the ordinance to minimize conflict between ordinances, state and building codes, etc. Fischer gave brief examples of Code conflicts. Chair Fischer directed the Commissions attention to a -mails between Roger Knutson and City Staff and Section 3. I. and the term "relevant agency requirements ". Fischer said Knutson suggested eliminating "other relevant agency requirements" and replacing that with "other statutory requirements ". Chair Fischer said in going through the amended language another issue that was brought up at the last meeting was requiring documentation of ground water by a hydrologist adding after reviewing the building and engineering code requirements it was found that code already requires property owners to hire geotechnical engineers. Fischer asked the Commission what language they are comfortable with to ensure that ground water issues are present; and if so, how are they addressed. Commissioner Brown commented that the Commission needs to determine who is credible in addressing the ground water issue to document there is an issue, and if so how to correct it. 3 After further discussion it was determined that reference to ground water documentation should read: "shall be determined in accordance with accepted hydrologic and hydraulic engineering practices. A brief discussion ensued on the use of the term "registered design professional ". All references to this term are to be deleted and replaced with the term "licensed design professional ". Connie Carrino said in reviewing building code and other state requirements that she thought she read or heard reference to an 8 -foot ceiling height requirement. Ms. Carrino asked if that was correct; and if that wasn't correct; should the ordinance allow language indicating "standard building practice" or reference "8 -foot ceilings ". Bjorn Freudendahl said every builder today builds new homes with 8 -foot ceilings. Chair Fischer said the building code requires a ceiling height of 7 -feet, not 8. A discussion ensued on whether 8 -foot ceiling heights should be referenced in the amended language. Commissioners said they felt there should be no reference to ceiling height or adding standard building practices to the language. Those changes do not fit what the Commission was trying to achieve with the Conditional Use process. Further discussion ensued on Conditional Use relating to Section 3 with the following changes to the proposed ordinance: Section 3. I. Last line reads: Subject to the following conditions. It was determined that this reference should be clearer and that: # 4 is constant requirement but 1, 2, or 3 could apply depending '.On the property in question. Maybe it could read: meet one of the following`,1,,2 or 3. .4 must be met at all times. Section 2.b. add from the "applicable lot line ". Section 3 make sure everything is uniform and all references state "single dwelling unit building ". Section 3.1. 1-4 add after "may be increased to the extent necessary" throughout. Motion Commissioner Risser moved to recommend adoption of the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance Concerning Nonconforming Buildings and Uses. Approval is subject to the changes suggested. Commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 4 MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Edina City Hall Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Fischer, Carpenter, Risser, Scherer, Staunton, Schroeder, Brown, Grabiel, Forrest, Rock, Stefanik STAFF PRESENT: Teague, Aaker, Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of.the September 29, 2010, meeting was filed as submitted. II. OLD BUSINESS: 2009.0004.10 Zoning Ordinance Amendments 1. Non.- Conforming Use /Alternate Setback Standard Ordinance 2. Driveway Width 3. PUD Introduction Planner Teague addressed the Commission and explained since their last meeting planning staff and Roger Knutson's staff reviewed the three ordinances and made grammatical changes and ensured consistency. Teague noted the majority of changes to the text occurred in the Non - Conforming Use /Alternate Setback Standard Ordinance; specifically the Conditional Use Permit addressing additions, repairs, etc. Three "conditions" were incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit process when the first floor is raised by more than one foot; 1) FEMA, 2) Groundwater, and 3) Building Code. Teague said all or one of these conditional must also meet a fourth condition: ensuring that the new structure or addition fit the character of the neighborhood. Continuing, Teague noted changes from Chair Fischer and informed the Commission that Connie Carrino has also submitted language pertaining to the Non - Conforming Use /Alternate Setback Ordinance as it relates to the first floor elevation for their review. Concluding Planner Teague said the discussion would continue in three parts; 1) PUD, 2) Driveway width, and 3) Non - Conforming Use /Alternate Setback Standard. 1. PUD Planner Teague explained a change was made to the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance Concerning Administration and Procedures and Establishing a PUD District by creating a mechanism that allows "text amendments" by ordinance. The proposed change would allow a text amendment process (pg. 33). Chair Fischer asked for an example of a text amendment. Attorney Knutson said a zoning ordinance text amendment could be requested when a specific "use" is not addressed by ordinance; the current ordinance is silent. Commissioner Scherer asked if a text amendment would apply to the entire zoning district. Knutson responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Grabiel questioned the reason for establishing a text amendment. process pointing out a zoning ordinance amendment process was already in place. Knutson agreed; however, the current way a "change" was processed would - be.through two hearings; preliminary and final. The proposed text amendment is a one hearing process. Chair Fischer said as previously' mentioned at the last meeting on pg. 8 1. eliminate the word strongly.. "applicants and strongly encouraged ". Eliminate strongly in this context throughout the ordinance (possibly two other places). Commissioner Staunton said at the last Commission meeting he brought up the point that in its present form the Zoning Board of Appeals is a "place holder ". The discussion on the..status of the Zoning Board of Appeals continues to determine who the make -up of Zoning Board of Appeals. Commissioner Carpenter noted on page 7 - B.1. Close parenthesis after 10% — Motion Commissioner Brown moved to recommend adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the noted changes. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Fischer acknowledged members of the public and explained that last month the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and took testimony on the three ordinance amendments before the Commission tonight. Fischer said at this time he would welcome further comments on the amendments presented at this meeting. Chair Fisher directed the discussion to the Driveway Width Ordinance. K 2. Driveway Width Ordinance Jared Anderson, 4004 Monterey Avenue addressed the Commission and explained that he lives in a 1938 home with a one -stall garage. Mr. Anderson said he would like to add a detached garage to the rear of his home but because of the 12 -foot driveway width requirement he can't do that. Chair Fischer said the proposed ordinance eliminates a minimum driveway width. Mr. Anderson thanked the Commission for their work on this issue. . Motion Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend adoption of the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance Concerning Driveways. Commissioner Risser seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 3. Nonconforming Buildings and Uses: Chair Fischer addressed the Commission and said at the last Commission meeting changes were accepted.and made to the proposed ordinance, adding the majority of the discussion and changes focused on the Conditional Use element of the ordinance and three conditions relating to the first floor elevation of more than one (1) foot above the existing first floor elevation of the existing; d wellingi unit. Fischer noted in the text presented this evening that additional language was added to address State Building Code, City of Edina Code, and other relevant agency requirements. Fischer stated he thought.this was an important addition to the ordinance to minimize conflict between ordinances, state and building codes, etc. Fischer gave brief examples of Code conflicts. Chair Fischer directed the Commissions attention to a -mails between Roger Knutson and City Staff and Section 3. I. and the term "relevant agency requirements ". Fischer said Knutson suggested eliminating "other relevant agency requirements" and replacing that with "other statutory requirements ". Chair Fischer said in going through the amended language another issue that was brought up at the last meeting was, requiring documentation of ground water by a hydrologist adding after reviewing the building and engineering code requirements it was found that code already requires property owners to hire geotechnical engineers. Fischer asked the Commission. what language they are comfortable with to ensure that ground water issues are present; and if so, how are they addressed. Commissioner Brown commented that the Commission needs to determine who is credible in addressing the ground water issue to document there is an issue, and if so how to correct it. 3 After further discussion it was determined that reference to ground water documentation should read: "shall be determined in accordance with accepted hydrologic and hydraulic engineering practices. A brief discussion ensued on the use of the term "registered design professional ". All references to this term are to be deleted and replaced with the term "licensed design professional ". Connie Carrino said in reviewing building code and other state requirements that she thought she read or heard reference to an 8 -foot ceiling height requirement. Ms. Carrino asked if that was correct; and if that wasn't correct; should the ordinance allow language indicating "standard building practice" or reference "8 -foot ceilings ". Bjorn Freudendahl said every builder today builds new homes with 8 -foot ceilings. Chair Fischer said the building code requires a ceiling height of 7 -feet, not 8. A discussion ensued on whether 8 -foot ceiling heights should be referenced in the amended language. Commissioners said they felt there should be no reference to ceiling height or adding standard building practices to the language. Those changes do not fit what the Commission was trying to achieve with the Conditional Use process. Further discussion ensued on Conditional Use relating to Section 3 with the following changes to the proposed ordinance: Section 3. I. Last line reads: Subject to the following conditions. It was determined that this reference should be clearer,and that:;.44 is constant requirement but 1, 2, 00 could apply depending `on the property in question. Maybe it could read: meet one of the following. 1, 2 or 3. 4 must be met at all times. Section 2.b. add from the "applicable lot line ". Section 3 make sure everything is uniform and all references state "single dwelling unit building ". Section 3. I. 1-4 add after "may be increased to the extent necessary" throughout. Motion Commissioner Risser moved to recommend adoption of the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance Concerning Nonconforming Buildings and Uses. Approval is subject to the changes suggested. Commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 4 se��. a� ao►a P�Rnh C0Vn454I0V\ OV' U� 2009.0004.10 Zoning Ordinance 1. Non - conforming Use /Alternate Setback'Standard .Ordinance 2. Driveway Width 3. PUD Introduction Chair Fischer briefed the Commission and audience and explained that for the past 18 months the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee /Planning Commission has been discussing and conducting work r session meetings on amendments to Edina's zoning ordinance 850. Fischer said some of the goals of the amendment process have been achieved and the Committee continues to work on others. Fischer reported -that a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision on the way municipalities review variances had been changed creating the need for cities to readdress how variances are granted; adding another issue to address during the amendment process. Fischer said the City of Edina is now working on a way to address this recent change through a non- conforming use or alternate setback ordinance. Chair Fischer said three issues would be discussed this evening with a brief presentation by Planner Teague on each: . PUD Non- conforming use or alternate setback ordinance Driveway width Planner Presentation Administration and Procedures and establishing a PUD District Planner Teague said in his, opinion there are-two primary benefits of having PUD zoning. First it allows the City more control over development proposals and secondly it allows flexibility. Teague said that establishing a PUD is legislative (City Council) and if the Council were to elect the PUD process specific conditions could be required as conditions of approval. Planner Teague highlighted the Table of Contents expanding on eight revisions to 850.04 Administration and Procedures as follows: Adds language regarding the 60%120 -day rule. (State Statute) — W Chair Fischer noted that State Statute language appears incorporated into the ordinance and asked if that is common practice. City Attorney Knutson explained that any references to State Statutes can be "in or out ", adding the majority of cities include State Statutes in their ordinances. Knutson said what's important to note is that State Statutes are updated yearly and City Ordinances also need to be updated yearly. 2. Variance section is amended to take into practice the City's current procedure (lawsuit regarding Cypress Equities). Commissioner Staunton asked if this is a place holder until the ZOUC deals with the variance process as a whole. Teague responded that this is procedural; adding reorganization of the Zoning Board of Appeals is still something the ZOUC continues to have on the" bucket list ". 3. Eliminates the "transfer to planned district" which is where the Final Development Plan procedure is currently found. Teague said the change was to a traditional site plan review. Also, one rezoning procedure would be established rather than repeating the same procedures for different zoning districts, as per the current standards. Teague said he believes these changes made the code easier to navigate — rather than repeat procedures this provides only one. 4. Add sketch plan review. With the aid of graphics Planner Teague highlighted the application process. Teague noted that the proposed language "strongly encourages" the applicant to participate in a sketch plan review "meeting" prior to rezoning /PUD. Teague said that in reviewing the proposed language the word strongly would be eliminated. Teague explained the language shouldn't confuse applicants into believing that a sketch plan review meeting is a requirement. Chair Fischer agreed. Commissioner Staunton acknowledged that the Commission wrestled with this, adding there should also be a reference encouraging the applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting. The discussion ensued on sketch plan review with the following changes to the language noted: As previously mentioned pg. 8 1. Eliminate the word strongly... "applicants are encouraged ". It would also be beneficial in this area to have a reference that encourages the applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting. Also on pg. 8. #1. Eliminate i. as written and replace with: "Additional information that demonstrates the nature, intent, or benefit of the proposed development ". Note that this sentence could also be added to "Site Plan Review ". 5. Amend submittal process: applicant is to provide more detailed plans, etc. 6. Establish a PUD district — 10 Planner Teague briefly outlined where the Committee /Commission was in this process pointing out that when discussing PUD it should be noted that a PUD is not permitted in the R -1, R -2 or PRD 1 & 2 zoning districts. Teague said the PUD process continues to be a 2 -step process; preliminary and final. Teague added there are concerns with the 60 /120 -day rule and ensuring that the 2 -step process falls within those 120 -days. Attorney Knutson said there isn't a lot of case law "on the books" concerning this requirement, adding an applicant can be sent to as many committees /sub- committees as directed; however an applicant should be able to expect final action within the 120 days. Teague did acknowledge that the City can request additional time above and beyond the 120 -days; however, staff needs to keep abreast of the timeline. 7. Suggests new CUP standards as recommended by the City Attorney. 8. Eliminates temporary CUP's which are not legal. Alternative Setback/Non- conforming Use Ordinance Planner Teague reported that a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision rejected a 20 -year old ruling regarding the meaning of "undue hardship" in regard to review of variances. Teague said in light of this ruling many cities, including Edina, are considering an ordinance amendment to allow expansion of non - conforming structures, rather than variances. The previous ruling of "undue hardship" meant that cities could determine if the ordinance prevented a "reasonable use" of property. The new ruling holds that a variance cannot be approved unless the ordinance prevents all reasonable use of the property, reiterating this is a major change in the criteria for granting a variance. Continuing, Teague said to provide some background in drafting the proposed ordinance alternative setback/non- conforming use ordinance staff researched variances that have been granted in the past. Over the past 3'/z years 154 residential variances were requested. Of those 154 variances nearly half were for expansion to homes that had non - conforming setbacks. The research found that the variances granted were as low as 13 square feet and as high as 1,000 square feet with an average of around 200 square feet which is the basis for the 200 square foot maximum encroachment suggested in the ordinance amendment. With graphics Teague illustrated examples of non - conforming structures and how the proposed ordinance amendment would work. Continuing, Teague explained another aspect of the proposed ordnance amendments address the one -foot rule. Teague stated that staff wrestled with this, noting the one - foot rule is recent, adding since it was established there have been six variance requests from the rule. Concluding, Teague stated staff proposes to address this through Conditional Use. 11 Commissioner Carpenter asked if ground water is a recognized term, and if it is, how is it determined there is a ground water problem. Planner Teague responded that ground water is not defined; however, as part of the application process for a Conditional Use Permit the applicant needs documentation there is a ground water issue. Driveway Width Planner Teague said the amended language essentially eliminates minimum driveway width within the R -1/R -2 zoning districts. During the ordinance rewrite process it became evident that this was an issue in the City's small lot neighborhoods. Public Hearing- Chair Fischer opened the public hearing. Dorothy Krezner, 5820 Jeff Place, said she had two questions to ask; one, what is a PUD - is it a Planned Urban or Planned Unit Development, and two, when would a PUD be used. Jeff Miller, 4509 Garrison Lane asked if the proposed language addresses new reconstruction and well as remodels. Connie Carrino, 4509 Garrison Lane, said that the proposed Conditional Use Permit process as it relates to the first floor elevation is where her concern lies. Carrino stated she had attended a number of meetings on the issue of first floor elevation. Adding that ground water is different street to street and neighbor to neighbor. Concluding, Carrino said staff should also keep in mind when one considers building height meeting current building codes can also create issues with first floor elevation. Commissioner Grabiel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Discussion In response to comments from the public Chair Fischer asked Planner Teague if he ever heard PUD referred to as Planned Urban District. Planner Teague responded that he hasn't heard that terminology, adding staff considers PUD a planned unit development. Continuing, Fischer stated according to the proposed ordinance a PUD is not permitted in the R -1, R -2 and PRD -1 &2 zoning districts. Commissioner Forrest point out that the R -1 Zoning District includes permitted "Conditional Uses'; such as schools, churches, etc. Continuing, Forrest said if R -1 zoning districts are prohibited from a PUD those uses deemed "conditional" (if redeveloped) would not be able to go through the PUD process. Forrest asked if that's the intent. 12 A discussion ensued and it was.agreed that for the present time to leave the ordinance as is; PUD is not permitted in the R -1, R =2, PRD 1 &.2 zoning district. It was also noted the Comprehensive. Plan is another way to. gauge redevelopment potential. . Chair Fischer'directed the discussion to the'question if.new construction would be considered. Planner Teague responded that if a house is torn down it becomes a vacant lot. It doesn't apply; however, one can sfill apply for a variance. In conclusion focus was directed by Chair Fischer to the PUD ordinance. Fischer said he would like to again'stress that an applicant should be encouraged to hold a neighborhood meeting. Commissioners agreed,and noted that all means available to the City, to "get the word out" would be used,, to ensure that residents are aware of µ, developments /red'evelopments in their neighborhood. It was further noted that.a Sketch Plan Review meeting occurs at both the Planning Commission and Council level °and would be found on both` agendas. Residents can also sign up for City Extra to keep abreast of what's,going on in the City. The following changes to the "Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance Concerning Administration and Procedures and Establishing a PUD District" were reiterated as follows: As previously mentioned pg. 8 1. Eliminate the word strongly... "Applicants are encouraged ". It would also be beneficial in this area to have a reference that encourages the applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting. Also on pg. 8. #1. Eliminate L as written and replace with: "Additional information that demonstrates the nature, intent, or benefit of the proposed development ". Note that this sentence could also be added to "Site Plan Review ". On Pg., 10. G. - Strike the word generally. It was proposed that any references to "scale of plan, site plan drawn to scale" on pages 10 & 16 be "cleaned -up" and made consistent. Mr. Knutson said his staff would incorporate to the best of their ability all changes expressed this evening, adding his staff also proofs for grammar and punctuation. Planner Teague said Planning Staff also reviews and proofs the proposed ordinance changes. Motion Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend that the City Council amends 850.04 "An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance.. Concerning Administration and Procedures and Establishing a PUD District" as presented; including comments and corrections from Commissioners. Commissioner Risser seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 13 Chair Fischer directed the discussion to a conclusion on Non - Conforming Use /Alternative Setback Standard Ordinance. Commissioner Schroeder submitted revisions to the proposed alternate setback language. Schroeder noted that in his opinion ground water should be separated from flood plain. Schroeder said 2 -feet is an absolute. Schroeder suggested the following — eliminate the words "may be raised up to a maximum of four feet, only if it is necessary to "increased if necessary to elevate the lowest habitable (there was some discussion on the word habitable) level of an elevation a minimum of two feet above the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain. The Commission also briefly discussed if "ground water" was the right term to use. Continuing Schroeder also suggested the following: Remove any reference to 4 -feet and create a reference that would allow an increase in the first floor elevation only if it is demonstrated that the new building /addition maintains the character of the neighborhood. Schroder suggested adding a number 3 that specifically addressed ground water: Number 3 could read: The first floor elevation may be increased more than 1 -foot if necessary to raise the dwelling above the ground water elevation. 3 should also include the caveat that an applicant should provide documentation of a ground water problem. This documentation should be made by a hydrologist or someone knowledgeable about ground water. This person or persons should also be able to make the determination where the first floor elevation should be if there is an issue. Acknowledgment that building codes do impact the first floor elevation. Commissioners agreed that the suggestions from Commissioner Schroeder on the Non- conforming /Alternate Setback Ordinance had merit and should be incorporated into the ordinance. Chair Fischer directed the discussion to driveways for conclusion. Commissioners raised the question if "driveways" should be demarked to ensure that property owners are not parking their vehicles all over their yard. It was also acknowledged that there have been environmental friendly changes to driveway materials that should be further discussed. In was also noted that new materials could create circumstances of over - parking on residential lots; however, at this time the Commission felt the focus should be on the minimum driveway width. The discussion of 14 driveway materials, "dust- free" and definition of driveway could wait for further discussion' - Chair Fischer noted that a number of changes to the draft ordinances have been proposed, adding it maybe a good idea to have Planning Staff and the City Attorney's; _ office review and make the suggested changes, check for grammar, etc. and present all three ordinance amendments to the Commission at their October meeting. Commissioners agreed this was best. IV. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None. V. INTRAGOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS: Chair Fischer acknowledged receipt of the Council Connection and asked Commission liaisons if they had anything to add. Commissioner Risser said that the Energy and Environment Commission is encouraging everyone to winterize. Risser also reported that if anyone has a rain barrel the barrel should be drained before it freezes to prevent cracks. VI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Carpenter moved meeting adjournment at 10:34 pm. Commissioner Risser seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Respectfully submitted: 15 MINUTES ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS OPEN HOUSE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Fischer, Carpenter, Risser, Staunton, Schroeder, Brown, Grabiel, Forrest STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Teague, Aaker and Hoogenakker OTHERS PRESENT: Bennett, Brindle, Carrino, Miller, Porter, Carrino, Westin, Whitbeck, Kresner, Freudnthal Introduction: Chair Fischer informed Members that the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee (ZOUC) continues its overhaul of the zoning ordinance, adding to date the Commission has amended the ordinance regarding building height by creating a building height overlay district. The Committee also amended the front street setback portion of the ordinance. Fischer said their focus tonight is on the language proposed for the non - conforming setback standards, PUD and driveway width. Chair Fischer thanked everyone for attending the open house and opened the discussion on Driveway Width. Topic Driveway Width Introduced: November 24, 2009 Continued discussion: September 15, 2010 Driveway Width /Zoning Ordinance 850.08 Chair Fischer gave background information on the continuing requests for a variance from the existing driveway width minimum width of 12 feet. Fischer said what the Committee has recommended is that there is no minimum driveway width; however there would be a maximum width proposed at 30 -feet or the width of the garage whichever is larger. The following questions were raised: • Are parking pads included in the 30 -foot maximum width or in front of the garage doors? Many property owners want a parking pad to park excess vehicles (i.e. When kids begin to drive, etc.). • What about turnarounds. Would they be excluded (along with parking pads) in driveway width calculation • Acknowledge that in the current ordinance driveways are not included in lot coverage calculations. • Would a tool to reduce the amount of impervious surface be to include all driveways /some percentage of the driveway and /or anything above the • 30- feet/garage doors as lot coverage. • How would the ordinance address properties with multiple garages? Attached and detached. Maybe multiple garages shouldn't be allowed to have more driveway width than the width of each garage. • How /where is a driveway measured? • Is there a definition for driveway anywhere in the ordinance? • Where /how is driveway width measured - (at the width of the garage door or width of the entire garage? • What about a carport? Members acknowledged if a maximum width is proposed they need to establish where the driveway is measured. This "point" needs to be clearly established. • Who reviews plans for driveways? Planner Teague explained that permits are not required for driveways and there are no setbacks for driveways; however, permits are required for a curb cut and the Engineering Department reviews curb cuts. The discussion ensued and focused on allowing permeable driveways and the materials used for these types of driveways. The following comments were made: Lattice work pavers/ allow these with edges defined. The narrow wheel strip driveways. Allow not allow? Grass -over driveways. Allow, not allow? Does the phrase "dust- free" prohibit or allow flexibility. Further define dust -free. Chair Fischer said the Energy and Environment Committee will take up the discussion on driveway surface materials. The discussion concluded with Members commenting on a revised ordinance that has no minimum or maximum driveway width. It was acknowledged that too wide of a driveway hasn't really been a problem; however, it is important that the Committee clarify /define how a driveway is measured. Others points to remember are parking pads and turnarounds; are they counted, not counted. Topic: PUD Date Introduced: January 13, 2010 Continued Discussion: September 15, 2010 Chair Fischer said the formation of a PUD ordinance would add flexibility to the ordinance. A:PUD is,a custom zoning district aimed at benefiting the City. Fischer -said a PUD is a legislative decision and the conditions stipulated as a condition of approval become the zoning:: Fischer.also noted that the Committee agreed.to prohibit PUD in,611. R -1, R -2 and PRD -1 zoning districts. Planner Teague explained another'thing to remember is that a PUD still needs to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan .. Teague said the majority of the cities in the Metropolitan area have PUDasIpart of their: ordinance, reiterating Fischer said that PUD provides the City with flexibility. The discussion continued addressing. Sketch Plan Review and the ongoing discussion on if Sketch Plan Review should be mandatory or.,elective. It was acknowledged that some feel sketch plan review should be mandatory; however, the City needs to remain mindful of the "120.rule ". The following comments were made on Sketch Plan Review: The intent of the Sketch Plan Review was to streamline the process. How does the Committee find a balance? Should the Sketch Plan Review be required to go before both the Commission and Council, or just one? Note that if Sketch Plan Review is required the "clock starts ticking" and the 120 -rule starts. How does the City "get the word out "? Residents need to be a part of this process; it's critical to success. City Extra, Sun Current all tools to implement "getting the word out Topic: Non - conforming /Alternate Setback Standards: Planner Teague said with the, recent Supreme Court ruling it became difficult for all Minnesota cities to administer variances as they had in the past. Teague said cities are now looking at differ ent ways'to.address variances. Teague reported staff reviewed variances over the last 3'/2 years and found that one -half of the City's variances were for non- conforming structures. Teague said to add some background that 5 %of the total building permits applied for required a variance. Teague concluded that the difficulty in finding a solution to the ruling is establishing a rule that works for the entire City. The following comments were made: • The front yard setback.standard has been changed. Has this recent change impacted properties creating,the need for variances? o Do building codes create-instances where variances are necessary? o Articulate "what's reasonable ". • Acknowledge there have been a number of variances requested from the recently adopted 1 -foot rule; and is the 1 -foot rule compatible with the building codes, floodplain requirements, etc.? • Should the ordinance specify circumstances where it is allowable to increase beyond 1 -foot? (Flood plain, flood fringe, high water table, etc.) • With regard to encroachments under non - conforming instances consider a cap on the allowed square footage within the setback. 200 square feet? • What about second floor additions — second floors can encroach more than first floors into the setback area. Is this because of building height? • Would the present requirements to calculate building height continue to "hold down" these types of variances? • Would the introduction of a Conditional Use Permit for variances be reasonable to pursue. Chair Fischer thanked everyone for attending the session, adding the Planning Commission will address these same issues at their September 29th, meeting. Work session /Open House adjourned at 9:00 pm. MINUTES ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Fischer, Carpenter, Risser, Scherer, Staunton, Schroeder, Brown, Grabiel, Forrest, Kata STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Teague, Aaker and Hoogenakker OTHERS PRESENT: Hansen, Carrino, Busyn, Rhode, Porter Introduction: XX Ch'ai'r Fischer told the Commission: the ZOUC ias been working for the past 18months on ;•rewriting the zoning ordinance, adding in• light of, a recent`Minnesota Supreme Court decision rejecting `a 20 =year old ruling regarding f., meaning of "undue hardship " - < . "re -write committee" has another. ::item to review; the Non Conforming Use ordinance. Chair Fischer said at th s` ine`i 6. ZOUC Would discuss the Non- Conforming User ordinance, Driveway Width and PUD. ` N ew Jopic:.'Wh- Conforming Use Ordinance �.;;. DateIntroduced: Seotember Planner Teague reiterated that the recent Supreme Court's ruling rejecting the meaning of "undue hardship" created the need for many cities, including Edina, to consider an ordinance amendment to allow the expansion of non - conforming structures to match existing non - conforming setbacks. Planner Teague also noted that additionally the City of Edina amended the ordinance on first floor building height for new homes after a tear down. This recent amendment was adopted to address the massing issue. Teague reported since that change the City has granted six variances to allow a taller first -floor elevation than the one -foot that was recently adopted. Continuing, Planner Teague said there are instances where it was /is best to elevate the new home to get it out of an area with a high water table or flood plain. Chair Fischer opened the discussion on the Non - Conforming Use Ordinance. Discussion A discussion ensued with Committee Members asking who reviews the building permit/site plans regarding ground water and flood plain and questioned where the "four- feet" came from. Page 1 of 5 Planner Teague explained that all building permits /site plans are reviewed by the Planning Department (setbacks, flood plain etc.) and Engineering Department (drainage). The 4 -foot figure reflects the largest variance granted for first floor height after a tear down. Teague said in all cases the Committee should realize that the building height requirement remains unchanged Member Staunton said that while he isn't sure 4 -feet is the correct number he believes it wouldn't be fair if the ordinance prohibited someone from "removing" their house from the flood plain. Chair Fischer opened the meeting for public comment: Carl Hansen, 6604 Biscayne Blvd. addressed the Committee and informed them he owns a number of vacant lots in West Edina that were platted years ago and the numerous changes to the ordinance since the original platting may,have -unintentionally - crea #ed a number of non conforming vacant lots- ;mr. Hansen said`fi';f `concern is with..: front yard /side:street setback, clud de -sacs and lots that abut a curve in the road'; Mr. Hansen said recently he ran into trouble over. placement of a• Fi`ouse on a vacant corner lot Concluding; Mr. Hansen said hie just wants the ;Committee, to be aware thaf there are,: unique situations 'but; there "that they can't legislate for adding he is concerned that the: recent rulings: may deem some of his lof unbuildable Co:n•nie Carrino, 4509 Garrison :Lune told because of the newly adopted one -foot n owns; a rambler tfiat abuts a pond and he seeping. grou"p0" ater. She said without i able to renovate their house. Commission their plans are on ho irement . Ms. Car. no explained thc, asement tea is' full of mold becau; approvalof;a variance they would i be Scott Busyn, 4615 Wooddale Avenue informed the Committee his concern is with front street setback, corner lots and multi- street lots. He pointed out there are a number of instances in Edina where a house is required (by ordinance) to maintain two front street setbacks. Lots that also are surrounded by streets poise another problem. Mr. Busyn said care must be taken during the re -write process to prevent devaluation of property. Member Grabiel said in his opinion there will always be unique circumstances that the ordinance doesn't address. An ordinance can't be written that addresses everything. Mr. Busyn presented a draft of an ordinance he wrote. Chair Fischer agreed that a number of variances granted have had to do with front street setback issues. Member Schroeder said one concept that may solve the variance issue would be to address all R -1 lots through a PUD process. Mr. Rhode, 4408 Morningside Road said his concern is with front yard setback. He explained his house already violates the front yard setback rule, adding his house is in Page 2 of 5 front of the house to the west. He explained that the house to the west was positioned deep on the lot. This placement limits redevelopment options for his home. Andy. Porter, 6125 Westridge Road, addressed the Committee and said his issue is with the front street setback requirement. He suggested that the ordinance be amended to require a front yard setback 1000 feet; adding it's probably ridiculous notion, but requesting a setback from that standard would be reasonable. The discussion continued with the following points being made: • Acknowledge there are instances of hardship. • Be careful that any changes to the ordinance don't create unbuildable lots. • Is making setbacks "extreme" as mentioned by Mr. Porter a way to approach the new ruling. • Acknowledge that water bodies, flood plain and high water tables are present in Etlina and need to be addressed. Have staff research "and,tabulate the number of existing non= conforming:; properties that received variances for ,the past few years. Carefullyresearch.the corner lot and :multiple street lots: iveway, Width-:;:: iteAntroduced ��November 24, 2009 . . >tinued Discussion September 1, 20:10 ti • t '.ti hair Fischerb pe ned the discussion on'Driveway Width with :the following comments ode by Members: • There, was agreement on no minimum drivewaywidth tut would establishing a maximum, as recommended be difficult to achieve. Be cognizant that driveways are not included when calculating lot coverage. Consider amending that? • Note that in Edina there are a number of properties that have parking pads and turnarounds. • If Edina isn't experiencing any problems with overly large driveways, etc. why make a rule. • The current ordinance does not contain a definition for driveway. • Should driveway requirements be different for differing zoning districts? The discussion continued on materials used for driveways with the following points being made: • Permeable pavers are OK, the language allows it, but should the City require the pavers to be concrete or brick? There are other materials in the industry that are used as "pavers ". • What's the purpose of no gravel? Gravel materials have changed and some materials in the industry may be considered /advertised as "dust free ". Page 3of5 Acknowledge that the purpose of the "no gravel, dust free" was to prevent the material from washing into the City streets. • There may be value'in taking a narrow approach on driveway materials, pointing out materials change over time and the ordinance would need to be amended to accommodate those changes. • Allow for new technology in driveway construction, such as grid systems. • Gather input from the City Engineer on driveway materials. • Remember one can't legislate everything. • Have different driveway requirements for residential /commercial properties. • Could the ordinance be written to serve as a catalyst for users to gather information? This is especially important on matters when technology changes. • Could there be a policy but not ordinance on driveway materials. Would a policy direction be best in dealing with the ever changing materials? The City needs to encourage a more holistic approach on how to control water runoff. • Suggest eliminating_ references to only asphalt and concrete. All`ow:the market to ;take its course on determining mat6nals: �. _. 5 Topic of Discussion: RUD Date; Introduced:. January 13, 20:10 Continued Discussion ;<::September 1, 2010 Planter Teague delivered' a power point presentatiop. The presentation dealt with the following: A PUD allows the City morecontrol :,oVerproposed development. Allows:;fl6kibility in':certain development standards in exchange for greater;:' standards and control. •'- �The"decision to zone a property`to PUD would be a public policy decision:for the city council to make. • PUD adds language regarding the 60/120 day rule. • Amends variance section. No change to the status of the Zoning Board of Appeals at this time. • Adds a sketch plan review as a requirement. • Provides more detail on submittal requirement. • Elimination of temporary Conditional Use Permits The discussion ensued with Committee Members wondering if the Committee should make a recommendation to the City Council on the future of the Zoning Board of Appeals (as it exists today). The Committee did acknowledge the halt in variances due to the recent Supreme Court Decision, adding that this may be a good time to make a recommendation. It was acknowledged that this is difficult because the City Council is the body that makes the final decision. It was suggested that the Planning Commission act in an advisory capacity and forward their recommendation to the Council. The following obstacles were raised if that process were followed: Page 4 of 5 • Is this creating a two -step process when it was only a one -step process? • The variance process is different between residential and commercial. If a PUD is established variances on the commercial level would be minimal. • Which body would conduct the public hearing? • Should both the Planning Commission and City Council hold the public hearings? • Would the City Council be able to handle the number of variances the City usually receives in one year (acknowledging that may change as the result of the Supreme Court decision) — would the suggestion of placing a variance request as consent be possible. Chair Fischer said he believes that the Committee decided to recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission would become the Zoning Board of Appeals. Member Brown agreed; however as previously mentioned having the Planning Commission as the Zoning Board of Appeals creates a two -step process and simplicity is best. Planner Teague pointed out another thing to consider is timing. The 60 -day rule applies::. M"ber Grabie[:raised fhe point:.With regardao sketch plan review that in his opinion this review shouldn't b6 :fbrmal, adding in the;$egin:ning of the :discussions on thikissue k .. y he feit the reviewshould':be informal; more of a concept without the plans set it stone. Planner Teague. "reiterated. if sketch plan review iss�:m'andator ,j he...clock starts ticking It was suggested #hat on page. 3 b. be removed Chair Fischer thanked everyone:for attending and'gave the following dates as follow -up meetings to this :work session: September 7 — joint meeti ng the City Council September 8 — Work Session September 15 — Open House Work Session adjourned at 10:00 pm. Page 5 of 5 �Jf '�c�QJOI.t� MINUTES OF THE EDINA ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE COMMITTEE MAY 12, 2010, 7:00 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Planning Commissioners in Attendance: Mike Fischer, Kevin Staunton, Arlene Forrest, Nancy Scherer and Steve Brown Staff in Attendance: Cary Teague, Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker Others Present: Roger Knutson, City Attorney Residents in Attendance: Josh Sprague John Bohan I. APPROVAL OF WORK SESSION MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. II. OLD BUSINESS: PUD /Sketch Plan Review Introduction Planner Teague explained that the discussion on establishing a process for a PUD began in January and during the following discussions the topic of "sketch plan review" came up. Planner Teague asked Members to recall that at the last Zoning Ordinance work session the.minimum lot size requirement for a PUD was removed and a PUD would not be considered for R' -1, R -2, Prd -1 and PRD -2 zoning districts. It was also recommended that a "sketch plan review" be mandatory for a PUD /rezoning. Continuing, Planner Teague said as the discussion progressed on'sketch plan review guidelines it came apparent that there was some confusion with sketch plan review and the 60 -day rule. Concluding, Planner Teague said Roger Knutson, City Attorney is present to clarify any questions Members may have on the part sketch plan review plays in the process. Discussion Mr. Knutson informed the Commission that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, an application for Sketch Plan approval /review shall be approved or denied within sixty (60) Member Brown suggested that instead of a formal Sketch Plan review that a °concept plan" could come before the Planning. Commission and City Council. Mr. Knutson said his take was if the Commission was adverse to or in support of a proposal it would be best to say yes /no as soon as possible. Once- an application is filed the "clock starts ticking." Continuing, Mr. Knutson said in the re -write of the ordinance sketch plan meetings could be encouraged; however, he reiterated if there is an application process the- "clock starts ticking ". - Mr-. Knutson said - -that. it has been.. his experience when. more time is needed applicants have been very receptive to, q.gtiq d the "clock ". Concluding, Mr. Knutson said in most cities it's a two -step proceps.con' cluding within 120 -days. The discussion continued with Commissioners indicating thatthey felt the "Sketch Plan Review" would be a good way to begin a dialog:and provide feedback, nothing binding. It was noted there could bean occasion w Commission 1QOks favorably on a concept; but, when it comes before the Commission they aren't as' receptive. Mr. Knutson acknowledged that happens; howev- i,jf the Commission stresses they are responding only to a concept they;.have the option: of. dhariging their Continuing, the discussion Commiss1o6eps.mondered if the Sketch Plan review was becoming another step in the process:. Nfr Knutson .responded that could be the case; however, not all applications Jvould require a` Sketch Plan Review ". Mr. Knutson reiterated the best way'to;.handle this on::all leve�s::wQuid. be to say no quickly. Public Comment Josh Sprague. 4720 70 th 'Street West, told Members he was involved in the Public Works Small area -Guide Pla : Process and liked: the way that process worked. Mr. Sprag ie.suggested that a modified version of,the Small Area Guide Plan Process be implemented to gain consepsus. ' . Concluding, Mr. Sprague said getting neighborhood input early;o; in the process;would�:6eneft everyone. John Bohan, 806;Coventry PI ace, said in his opinion the term "concept" should be used instead of "sketch.- He went:.ori to say a first step would be defining the neighborhood and notifying neighbors, eerly on in the process, creating a more transparent process. More discussion focused on mailing notices etc. Continued Discussion Mr. Knutson reminded Members that regardless of what it is called if it's mandatory the clock starts ticking. A lengthy process ensued acknowledging that the first step would be to "spell out" what type of application would require a "sketch /concept plan review ". It was acknowledged that with a PUD a "concept/sketch" plan review would be a requirement. It was also suggested that a rezoning would also require a "sketch /concept" plan review. It was further suggested that a checklist be established outlining what is required for each application and that the. checklist be located on/or attached to the application. The checklist would encourage and /or highly recommend a neighborhood meeting and sketch plan review for other applications. The discussion continued with Members asking who would write the new ordinances u noting"there are many changes that need, to be implemented that- haven't beenr touched on. It was acknowledged that there is an informal draft.for a PUD, but it's only in the draft stages. Members asked Mr. Knutson if he has any. ides otjiow'toaoceed with the re -write process on the more complicated zoning issud (PUD), Mr. RCJ�u son said the majority of cities he works with hire a consultant tgdf a#'a new ordinanceMr. Knutson said if the Commission-was only tackling specifc'seotions of the ordinance to meet. Met Council requirements that's one thing; however, ,,it appeairs that the pf$sent intent is to completely re -write the entire zoning ordinance; "addinj ��-that's the cas4: :consultant may be the way to proceed. Mr.:kr�:itson suggested: #fiat the Commissiontalk to the City Council to see if funds are evkint available for ar, :`i rd:, nance re- write. The discussion ensued with Chair Fischer rehil Commission will mee~t.vi 6i'Jhq „City Council on Commission will update the Council on thi:e; re=d also suggest hiring'76 consultantto complete 0” said he envisions a' /2 Yi .ur report- on where'tF e are going .,.<,: - icing Mere 66!s that the Planning u:ne'T!: -. At tF s meeting the bite process and the Commission could re -write of the ordinance. Chair Fischer Commission has been and where we Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 24, 2010 Page 4 of 8 Public Comment John Bo n, 800 Coventry, told the Commission he believes the podium height (2 -story at street level) concept resulted from conversations with merchants and residents i the Cahill and West 70th Street neighborhood. Mr. Bohan also referred to the dra uilding height overlay district as it relates to C ntennial Lakes, HOD-4, points out the map indicates 4- stories; howev , the Coventry at Centennial Lakes is only tories. Chair Fischer said he re ed the discussion on Centennial Lakes and as Planner Teague if the r soning behind the 4- stories is that sites with a Simi zoning designati must be treated equally. Planner Teague responded that is rrect. Conti mg, Planner Teague pointed out that currently there is no height Ii ' in th entennial Lakes area. The proposed ordinance would reduce heigh this area possibly more than any other in the City. Action Commissioner Staunto moved to recommend a tion of an Ordinance amending the Zonin rdinance to add a Building fight Overlay District, pages Al -A6, incl ding the most recent appendix A, a the March 24, 2010 memo with the nderstanding that this amendment imp height wherever it as dictated in the Comprehensive Plan by im rting it into the height ov lay district, and where the Comprehensive Plan s silent the current Toning restrictions regarding height would be retaine . Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Ayes; Carpenter, ser, Sc herer, Staunton, Brown Grabiel, Forrest, Fischer. Nay; Schroe r. Motion carried 8 -1 Discussion - Planned Unit Development Planner Presentation Planner Teague reminded the Commission the PUD topic has been separated into four separate elements: 1) Purpose and Intent (goals) 2) Applicability /Criteria; 3) Process /Procedures; and 4) Rules /Standards. Planner Teague said the topic this evening is Rules /Standards. Planner Teague said what has been discussed up to this point and potential language that could be used as the Rules /Standards section. Planner Teague reminded the Commission at the past meetings discussion the two acre minimum requirement was removed, and a sketch plan is required for a PUD or rezoning. A public meeting is required and residents within 1,000 feet would be notified; and the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 24, 2010 Page 5 of 8 60/120 day rule language has been added. The City Attorney has advised that the 60/120 rule does apply to a sketch plan. Discussion Chair Fischer asked Planner Teague to clarify the 60 day rule. Planner Teague explained that State Statute requires Cities to take action on an application within 60 days; however, the City can extend the time for another 60 days. Chair Fischer asked Planner Teague how the 60/120 day rule is defined. Planner Teague responded final action must occur within that time frame. A discussion ensued on sketch plan review with Commissioner Forrest expressing the opinion that it would not make sense if the sketch plan review process was held to the same time frame as a formal application; it would defeat the purpose of the sketch plan review. Commissioner Staunton said if there are separate applications for each leg of the process maybe the rule would apply to each application. Planner Teague said his understanding from the City Attorney, Roger Knutson, was that the "clock starts ticking" at the sketch plan .review. Commissioners acknowledged that in reality there is no way a development application could get through the process from sketch plan review to final approval within 120 days, adding it's hard enough to do that without the addition of sketch plan review. Planner Teague said he would speak with the City Attorney to clarify his position, adding it may be a good idea to invite Mr. Knutson to a meeting. Commissioner Staunton agreed, adding he believes there is a way to write criteria for each application. A sketch plan review is seeking feedback, not action, which is a big difference. Commissioner Grabiel questioned if the intent of the Commission was to have the sketch plan review such a formal process, adding his take was that the sketch plan review was informal. Continuing, Commissioner Grabiel said his take on a sketch plan review was a developer running an idea "up the flag pole" to gather feedback from the Commission, take the input from the Commission and proceed or start over. Commissioner Grabiel reiterated he didn't think the process was as formal as outlined, notices, mailing, etc. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that staff formalize or require a pre - application meeting with developers. Commissioner Carpenter acknowledged that a meeting between staff and developers regularly occurs; however, if required and formalized the applicant would be provided with guidance on their development as it proceeds through the formal process. Commissioner Forrester said her initial though on sketch plan review was that it would benefit the applicant by providing feedback from the Commission on their take on the proposal. Commissioner Forrest said she also agrees with Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 24, 2010 Page 6 of 8 comments from Commissioner Grabiel (depending on what Mr. Knutson says) that the formalities could be minimized. She said posting the sketch plan review meeting instead of mailings, etc. should suffice and staff /commission encouraging an applicant to meet with neighboring property owners (prior to the public hearing) so no one is blind sighted would be good advice. Commissioner Brown said his understanding of a sketch plan review was to provide the Commission with the opportunity to offer feedback to an applicant on how nine Commissioners felt about a certain proposal. Commissioner Brown said his understanding was that this meeting would be less formal; only providing the applicant with feedback and was not part of an official public hearing process. Public meeting, not hearing. Commissioner Schroeder asked Planner Teague if a sketch plan application is made what right(s) does the Commission grant the developer. Planner Teague responded that the sketch plan review meeting does not afford the applicant any rights. A sketch plan review meeting provides only feedback, no Aye, Nay action. Commissioner Staunton pointed out #3 on procedures which indicates approved or denied, adding that language needs to be addressed, noting that further along in the ordinance it states any opinions or comments are advisory. Planner Teague agreed that the language needs to be re- addressed and clarified by the City Attorney. Chair Fischer noted that at the last meeting the Commission talked to a developer about the benefit of a sketch plan review, adding in his opinion a sketch plan review benefits everyone, applicant, staff, Commission and the neighbors. Commissioner Grabiel questioned what would stop a developer from using the Community Comment section on the Agenda to solicit ideas from the Commission as long as no formal application has been made. Commissioner Grabiel said the goal is not to exclude the public in the process but to provide feedback. If everything is formalized the sketch plan review would just add another step to the process. Commissioner Brown suggested that to "get around" the time frame constraints that the applicant could withdraw an application and reapply. Planner Teague agreed. Each new application restarts the clock. Chair Fischer suggested that further discussion on the sketch plan review process be put on hold. Chair Fischer referred to the Rules /Standards portion of the ordinance and asked Planner Teague to briefly go through them. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 24, 2010 Page 7 of 8 Planner Teague said that points 1-4 are general; plan modifications, who maintains the records, codification of developers agreement, expiration language, etc. Number 5 needs to be filled in as the PUD is developed. Chair Fischer said as he reviews the proposed ordinance it appears that what is before the Commission is the framework for an actual PUD Ordinance. Planner Teague responded agreed that it was at least a framework for an Ordinance. Public Comment John Bohan, 800 Coventry, told the Commission he understands the spirit of the PUD; however, he believes in practicality this issue is very complex. III. None. IV. : Chair Fischer acknowledged ck of packet materials. Chair Fischer'reported th next mo h, April 8th; the Public Works Small Area Guide Process will kick o . Chair Fisc r there will be no meeting of the Zoning Ordinance Update Com ittee in April. Commissioner Risser eported that the Green eps event was very successful, adding Heather Wo ington did an excellent job 'th the summary. Commissioner Riss r said the event also included a eport on Copenhagen and an update from th school district on their green progr . Commissioner Staunton also th nked Commissioner Risser for her repo on her travels. Commiss/aning rabiel said he would like to make sure that th City Attorney is present a Ordinance Update Committee meeting whe he Commisskles PUD and sketch plan review, etc. V. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 28, 2010 MINUTES OF THE EDINA ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE COMMITTEE MARCH 10, 2010, 7:30 PM EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Planning Commissioners in Attendance: Mike Fischer, Michael Schroeder, Kevin Staunton, Arlene Forrest, Jeff Carpenter, Floyd Grabiel and Steve Brown Staff in Attendance: Cary Teague, Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker Residents in Attendance: Josh Sprague I. APPROVAL OF WORK SESSION MINUTES: The minutes of the February 10, Zoning Ordinance Update Committee was approved with changes from Chair Fischer. 11. OLD TOPICS — CONTINUING DISCUSSION: Topic: Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Intent, Goals or Purpose Date Introduced: January 13, 2010 Date of Discussion: March 10, 2010 Introduction: Planner Teague told the Committee what will be discussed this evening is the third element of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) which is Process /Procedures. Planner Teague asked Committee Members to note the maps provided indicating the City's existing arterial roadways. Planner Teague pointed out most of the City's commercial, industrial and high density residential areas are located on these roadways and would be eligible for a PUD if the property were less than two acres, according to the current draft language. Planner Teague noted that areas that are not included would be the Cahill industrial area, and the Valley View Road and Wooddale area. Planner Teague said the Industrial properties along Cahill road could be considered a transition area between land uses and would also qualify. The two acre minimum in other areas would encourage the consolidation of lots in order to qualify for a PUD. Zoning Ordinance Update Committee Work Session Minutes March 10, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Continuing, Planner Teague discussed the role of sketch plan review in the PUD process what role would sketch plan review play. Would the Committee want to require a sketch plan review for only properties that would require a PUD /rezoning? How would the Committee like to see the sketch plan review evolve? Discussion: Committee Members raised the following with regard to sketch plan review: • Should a sketch plan review meeting be an option for properties that are not "slated" for a PUD or rezoning? • Should a sketch plan review be required for PUD's and rezoning only? And if so, what would the process be? Time -line is the clock ticking.... etc. • Site Plan Review — This would replace Ordinance language that is currently present in the Rezoning section of the Ordinance. Would sketch plan review be folded into the site plan review language for rezoning and PUD and /or in a separate area? • Have legal staff review all "additions /changes" made to the Ordinance to ensure that any and all changes make sense to staff, developers, advisory boards and commissions and the public. • The Committee agreed that all applicants should be required to meet with City staff before submitting a sketch plan review and prior to formal application. The Committee did acknowledge that staff has indicated that applicants do meet formally with staff before submitting an application; however, a formal meeting with staff should be required as part of the sketch plan review process. • Should the City require neighborhood notification for sketch plan review, and if so, how is that handled? What's the distance (1000 feet) or by neighborhood? It was acknowledged that it is very difficult to define neighborhood. • Ensure that the "clock" isn't ticking at the sketch plan review stage. Sixty days would almost be an impossible timeline to achieve. Committee Members reiterated the City Attorney would need to weigh in on this. A discussion ensued with Committee Members questioning the "sketch plan review„ requirement and /or option pointing out it could just become another step in the process; especially if formal notification is required. It was observed that a goal was to clarify the development review process. Committee Members noted that much would depend on what the Committee deems was the purpose of the sketch plan review. Member Carpenter asked if staff assessed how much this additional step would cost if the Committee decided upon mailed notice, etc. Planner Teague responded that hasn't been specifically assessed, but there would be an added expense. Zoning Ordinance Update Committee Work Session Minutes March 10, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Planner Teague wondered if a sketch plan review meeting is required; would it take the place of the neighborhood meeting? Members acknowledged that was a fair question and a possibility. Chair Fischer said as he understands a "sketch plan review meeting" that only non - binding "comments" from staff, commission and residents would be taken - there would be no vote. Member Forrest noted the sketch plan review meeting would be just that, a meeting; not a public hearing. The discussion continued with Committee Members going back and forth on if a sketch plan review meeting should be mandatory or elective. Members felt that if a sketch plan review meeting is mandatory it should be mandatory for only a PUD /Rezoning with notification required. Members said the goal of the Sketch Plan Review is to achieve*a better product and not add confusion to the process. It was acknowledged a time line of the notice or of the sketch plan review would need to be established and adhered to. Action Committee Members recommended that a Sketch Plan Review meeting be a requirement of a PUD and/or Rezoning and formal notification should be given. A Sketch Plan Review meeting would be a voluntary option for all other applications. Chair Fischer said he would like to focus on the question raised by Planner Teague if there should be a minimum lot/parcel size stipulated for a PUD. After discussion, Committee Members suggested that staff strike the minimum size requirement. It was also stressed that the R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District, R -2, and PRD 1 Residential Zoning Districts would not be considered at this time for PUD designation. Topic: Build' g Height Date Introduced: February 2 201 Date of Discussion: March 10, 201 Introduction Planner Teague briefed the Commissio reminding them at building height must be brought into compliance with a Comprehensive P n. Continuing Planner Teague said there are option to achieve compliance. 1. Establish an overlay district and 2. Write regulatio for each area described in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bohan. agreed wi a Committee's citywide traffic model, adds a Transp steward of the model. � stion that there should be a ion Commission should be the A discussion ensued with the Com suggesting that at all PC and CC meetings that either the City's tra portati engineer or the applicants traffic engineer be present to respond questions. Ms. Westin asked how a res' ent would find out abo the Transportation Commission meetings: It as explained that the Trans rtation Commission's agenda and minutes are osted on the City website. The ansportation Commission meetings ar also televised. Action Clarify Ordinance: Are developers required by Ordinance to prepare a traffic study? Continue Discussion. Topic: Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Intent, Goals or Purpose Date Introduced: January 13, 2010 Date Discussed: February 10, 2010 Introduction Planner Teague reported as discussed at the last meeting, the PUD topic will be separated into four separate elements: 1) Purpose and Intent (goals) 2) Applicability /Criteria; 3) Process /Procedures; and 4) Rules /Standards. Planner Teague explained that the first element for discussion this evening is Purpose and Intent. Discussion Chair Fischer said in defining a PUD the Committee needs to "flash forward into the future to ensure that findings are made that indicate how a PUD benefits the City. Clarification also needs to be made on what a PUD is and what it isn't. Purpose and intent must be clear. Ms. Westin asked if or where residential subdivision fits into the PUD process. The response was that at this time that isn't known; however subdivision (if needed) would be part of the PUD process on large commercial development 3 projects. Members also expressed the opinion that at this time a "PUD" would not be an option at the residential subdivision level. Mr. Bohan asked what triggers a PUD, and if that choice is left up to the applicant/developers? Mr. Bohan commented that in his opinion it would be difficult to provide answers in ordinance form before questions are even poised. Ms. Westin asked Planner Teague if other municipalities have PUD's? Planner Teague responded in the affirmative, adding to the best of his knowledge Edina is one of the few cities he's come across that doesn't have one. Commissioner Staunton pointed out that there is a wide variety of PUD's, each with differing thresholds and triggers. Commissioner Staunton said the ZOUC will need to be explicit in developing a PUD. Ms. Weston asked who would ultimately make the decision on developing a PUD and folding it into the ordinance. Chair Fischer said the City Council would ultimately have to amend the ordinance and approve established guidelines to determine eligibility for a PUD. Chair Fischer said from his experience the PUD process has been a vigorous process for the developer. Continuing, Chair Fischer stated he agrees with Commissioner Staunton's' comment that there are a number of PUD's styles "out there "; making it imperative that the criteria the Committee establishes for a PUD are as understandable as possible. Concluding, Chair Fischer said a PUD can offer more flexibility and could even be a stricter ordinance interpretation; however, much depends on the circumstance. Chair Fischer stated in Edina control rests with the City with the hope that the City gets the best project. Ms. Westin asked if a PUD wasn't an option in the ordinance would the City continue to have to amend the ordinance time and time again. Chair Fischer responded that could be the case, but not if the zoning was correct. Chair Fischer added that having a PUD isn't the "end all" the City still needs a good strong ordinance. A discussion ensued with Committee Members expressing that the Purpose and Intent section of the proposed PUD ordinance needs to be clear; providing procedures and standards that allow creatively and flexibility. The challenge is to write a PUD that benefits the City and its residents. Committee Members told Planner Teague the draft ordinance and the information he supplied was a great start. It was also expressed that the current ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan work. It was also acknowledged that the goal of implementing a PUD into the Code should be to ensure a higher quality project with great design by allowing the City and the developer to work with incentives in "getting what both want ". 4 Action Continue discussion March 10, 2010. Discussion to focus on Applicability /Criteria. III. NEW TOPIC ITEMS — Introductions TOPIC: Dated Introduced: Introduction Tree Preservation ruary 10, 2010 Planner Teague reported this issue hNk been brou t up by the Planning Commission, the Energy and Environm t Commi sion, and residents during the update review process. Planner Teague explained the City Council co idered a "tree ordinance" in 2002; which was not adopted. Planner Teagu ggested the following decision points: T "� 1. Is the tree ordinance above and t necessary? 2. Are the City's current standards 3. Staffing /budget concern to suppo Planner Teague concluded that he 1. Recommend creating a tree pi 2. Make no changes to the City's further examine the City's Ian and 3. Refer the issue to the Energ Public Comment d the City's landscape requirements bquate? a tree preservati ordinance. the following options: rvation ordinance. ulations regarding tree pr ping requirements on new and Environment Commission. tion; but opment; Janey Westin informed the Committee she was surprised to learn that Edin only had a part-time Forrester. Continuing, Ms. Westin said she has surveyed a number of cities to find out if they had tree ordinances, adding she found two municipalities; Minnetonka and Lake Forrest that have excellent tree ordinan s. She suggested that the Committee take a look at them. 5 ZOUC Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 5 of 8 Look at what other cities are doing with sustainable design. • Does the City want to create ordinances ahead of changes he building code? • The City Council needs to take a policy stand on sus nable design. Chair Fischer noted atvqs previously mentioned th ere are a number of issues to consider with sust ble design, addin a public works site may be a good place to start. Continuing, air Fisch e aid what he believes the Committee needs to do at this time is o nue the discussion and have staff "find out" what other cities are doing wit rd to sustainable design, what terms to mandate and how it's meas d. Con ding,- Chair Fischer said he knows someone (Rick Carter) wh as worked with neapolis, St. Paul, St Louis Park, and many other co unities on this issue. would be willing to meet with the Committee an answer any questions the Com ' ee may have. Action Chair Fischer will i ite a colleague to speak to the Committee on sustainable desi%A. We will invite the EEC to participate in that discussion. Staff would solioft other cities to find out how they address sustainable design. C. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Date Introduced: January 13, 2010 Planner Teague addressed the Committee and informed them Edina is one of the few communities without a PUD. Continuing, Planner Teague reminded the Committee this topic has been brought up a number of times by the Planning Commission during review of development proposals. Planner Teague said the following needs to be considered in the decision making process: 1. Should the City adopt a PUD Ordinance? 2. If so, should additional conditions /standards be required? 3. What conditions /standards should be required? 4. Is a PUD the appropriate section of the Zoning Ordinance to require sustainable design principles? 5. Should there be a minimum lot area for a PUD? 6. When would a PUD be justified? 7. Would a PUD allow Edina greater development control? ZOUC Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 6 of 8 Concluding Planner Teague stated he sees the following options: 1. Recommend proceeding with the preparation of a PUD Ordinance; and 2. Do not adopt a PUD Ordinance and continuo to regulate development proposals with conventional zoning. Committee Discussion Member Grabiel raised the question - if there is value in the City's Zoning Ordinance why or how can the City justify saying that none of that applies. He pointed out the Zoning Ordinance has guided the development of the City; it's never had a PUD. Member Grabiel added that in his opinion there may be areas where a PUD may have or may be a good thing; reiterating the City developed without it. Member Staunton said the focus of writing a PUD should be on what is eligible for a PUD, adding the Committee needs to establish criteria or a threshold whereby a PUD would be considered as a viable development option. Member Schroeder said in his opinion developers would also review the zoning ordinance to establish what would be the "best route" for them to take. Chair Fischer acknowledged if the City decides to implement a PUD process; the process is not necessarily "easy" for the developer. Member Schroeder agreed, adding there are areas where a PUD is the best response; however, even if the ordinance is clearly written there may be ways to "get around it ". Member Carpenter said he sees general value_ in a PUD, but also sees simplicity in zoning. A discussion ensued with Committee Members raising the following: • Would properties zoned R -1 be prohibited from a PUD, or would a PUD be appropriate for all zoning districts? • Where is public input determining if a PUD is the right way to go? • What is the benefit for the developer? • What is the benefit to the community? Community Comment John Bohan said in his opinion a PUD is spot zoning. Mr. Bohan stated he believed the Gateway project wasn't a bad exercise, adding he didn't see anything wrong with that process. Continuing, Mr. Bohan pointed out at this time because of the downward turn in the economy (with regard to the Gateway development) it would be very difficult to determine if the PUD process would ZOUC Minutes -'` January 13, 2010 Page 7 of 8 have been the better way to go. Mr. Bohan said if the Committee decides on a PUD process writing the parameters would be very important. Concluding, Mr. Bohan asked when the Committee was going to "tackle" building height. Planner Teague indicated that the Planning Commission would consider the issue at a regular Planning Commission meeting, likely to be held in February. Further discussion Chair Tischer commented with regard to the Gateway proposal (and other large projects in the City) that in a sense the City has had a P.UD process; it just wasn't called that. At this time what is important is for the City to achieve the best development available; and that could be with a PUD designation. Member Schroeder stated he views the following four elements as key: 1. Intent or goals. Purpose of the PUD designations, and in particular what the City aims to achieve by granting a PUD; 2. Applicability /criteria. Limitations based on parcel size, land use designation, or other vactors defined by the ordinance; 3. Process /procedures. Methods of review that vary from the development review process for development under other zoning classifications; and 4. Rules /standards. Description of flexibility provided for projects under a PUD. Member Forrest commented that it appears to her that residents take comfort in the Zoning Ordinance. Member Grabiel pointed out that sometime in the future it is very possible that Southdale will be redeveloped; questioning what would be the best way to proceed. Continuing, Member Grabiel said the Committee needs to remember in all things (Sustainable Design, PUD) if there are performance standards there is enforcement. Chair Fischer said he views a "thorough" process in creating a PUD classification and developing sustainable design guidelines requiring multiple discussions. Chair Fischer said an important focus would be for the Committee to define intent. Continuing, Chair Fischer stated what needs to be addressed immediately (in the updating process) is building height. Planner Teague agreed, reiterating at the February meeting of the Planning Commission he plans to bring before them language relating to building height. Action Continue discussion on PUD. X 4 Cary Teague From: Mike Fischer <Mike.Fischer @lhbcorp.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:34 PM To: Cary Teague; Michael Schroeder, kevin @stauntonlaw.com Subject: Additional Information for Planning Commission Meeting Attachments: Code Summary Scans.pdf Cary, Michael and Kevin, I have attached a scan of several pages copied from the 2006 International Residential Building Code to illustrate why I proposed the language changes to item no. 3 of our new Conditional Use language. There are plenty of potential code issues other than ceiling height that could be justifiable reasons for a property owner to request an elevation increase beyond one foot. Since we have a review process in place, it is better to not restrict it to just ceiling height. I highlighted some of the more interesting language including two different locations where the code already requires property owners to hire geotechnical engineers to evaluate soil conditions. Commissioner Schroeder's amendment at our last meeting is very much aligned with the existing code. We might consider modifying our language in item 2 to this: 2. The first floor elevation may be increased if necessary to reasonably protect the dwelling from ground water intrusion. Existing and potential ground water elevations shall be determined in accordance with accepted hydrologic and hydraulic engineering practices. Determinations shall be undertaken by a registered design professional who shall document that the technical methods used reflect currently accepted engineering practice. Studies, analyses and computations shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow thorough review and approval. I think this allows a little flexibility while requiring some rigor in the evidence supplied. It also aligns with the language already in the building code. I am curious if Michael thinks this is meeting the spirit of his amendment. Please respond to all of us by email so Cary knows if he should include this as a potential change to item 2. 1 will try to check my email on Thursday and Friday. Thanks See you next week. Mike Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEEV AP Senior Vice President LHB, Inc. 250 Third Avenue North, Suite 450 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 752 -6920 direct I www.LHBcory.com SECTION R304 MINIMUM ROOM AREAS 8301.1 N lininitun area. Even dwelling unit shall have at least tine habitable room 111,11 Shull have not less than 1 20 titluure feet I I I n)=) ol• uro.s Ilonr area. 8301.2 Other rootits. Other habitable rooms, shall have a Iloor :urea of nut less than 70 square feet lv:j III). ENception: Kitchens. R304.3 Minimum dimensions. Habitable rmnu% shall not he less than 7 feet (21131 mn)► in any horizontal dimension. Exception: Kitchens. R 301.4 Height effect tin room area. Portions of a rtxtn \\ ith a slopin_ � ceiling ntcasuring less than S feet 11531 nail) ur a I'urredceiling n)easuring less than 7 feet ('_13-4 mot) front the finished fluor to the linishcd ceiling shall not be considered as contributing to the minin)un) required habitahle area for that rout). ` SECTION R305 CEILING HEIGHT R3(1;. l Minimum height. I lahitahte ruminis, hallway s. curTi- dors. hathroonu. toilet room., laundry ror+nts stns! hascments shall have, a ccilim_ height �+I' n. +t less than 7 feet 12134 nun,. 1'he rc+lnired heiehl .hall he measured from the finish Ilya• to ;he 1o\.es1 projeclion Irons the xilin_'. w Exceptions: 1. Beams and girders spaced not less than 1 feet (1319 nim) on center miry project not more than 6 inclics (1 53 mm) below the, required ceiling height. ?. Ceilings in hasemenis without habitable: spaces may project to within 6 feet. 8 inches (3033 ruin) ufthe fin- ished floor: and beams. girders. duets or other obstruction., trey project to within 6 feet 1 inches t 1931 ntnt) of the finished flour. ?. For rooms \\ ilh sloped ceilings. at least 50 percent of the required Moor area of the roost must have a ceiling WALL WALL 4 IN. �I I� 4 IN. --ol I.*— 4 IN. i WC � 21 IN. CLEARANCE LAVATORIES V Pro' SI: I im:h ='`. t 1'dm. 15 IN 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE' 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODEv ONCE MINIML WATER )R ru w open and unobstructed and the reifin_., hei hi is nkirless than height tit :u least 7 fret 1'_ 131 mm) and uu ltsnrii+n ul 7 feet 1313 mm). ' the required Iloor area ma\ have a ceiling height (it" less ti m i feet I I521 nun). -lazed opening. Sunrnom additions. Required g , - shall he permitted to open into ;unroom additions ur patio a. Bathrooms shall have a tnumnuin ceilln,_ height )I• O cove rs that abut a street. yard urcuun irin excess .b1. 40 per- feet 8 inches (203h nu») over the fixture and at the cent ofthe exterior sunroom wall:are open. orareenclosed front clearance area fin fxuur. as sho,an in f~tL_ only by insect screening. and the ceiling height of the sun- R307. 1. A shower or uth equipped with 'a showerltead morn is:nur less than 'r feet t 3131 mm t.. shall haven minimum ceiling height L46 I*eet 8 �nchcs `rant) 0 intlies _._ (2_036 ohm•. a riinintunt area (763 !2303.8 Rt ulred heutin When the winter de 4 g, eign to mpci7t- ' nvn) by 30 inches (763 tniit) .0 ihr aiowcrhe.uh. tune in Table R301.2( I ) is below 60 °F ( I WC). every dwelling unit shall be pruyided with heating facilities capahle,of main- . tainine a minimum ruoni'temp�rautre ui6ll'1= (?U`C`) tit a point `. � . 3 feet (914 nun) uNwe the flour and 3 feet (610 mot) Iron) exte- SECTION R306 riot walls in till habitable roini)s La the design :ternpt):)utre. The SANITATION . installation of.one or nturc.purtable space, heater: shall not be R3U6.L "1'gilet facilities. Lvcry d\vellin�s unit shall b, pruyi�le I used to achieve compliance with this section. \\ ith a water closet. lavatory. and a hathtub or shower. SECTION R304 MINIMUM ROOM AREAS 8301.1 N lininitun area. Even dwelling unit shall have at least tine habitable room 111,11 Shull have not less than 1 20 titluure feet I I I n)=) ol• uro.s Ilonr area. 8301.2 Other rootits. Other habitable rooms, shall have a Iloor :urea of nut less than 70 square feet lv:j III). ENception: Kitchens. R304.3 Minimum dimensions. Habitable rmnu% shall not he less than 7 feet (21131 mn)► in any horizontal dimension. Exception: Kitchens. R 301.4 Height effect tin room area. Portions of a rtxtn \\ ith a slopin_ � ceiling ntcasuring less than S feet 11531 nail) ur a I'urredceiling n)easuring less than 7 feet ('_13-4 mot) front the finished fluor to the linishcd ceiling shall not be considered as contributing to the minin)un) required habitahle area for that rout). ` SECTION R305 CEILING HEIGHT R3(1;. l Minimum height. I lahitahte ruminis, hallway s. curTi- dors. hathroonu. toilet room., laundry ror+nts stns! hascments shall have, a ccilim_ height �+I' n. +t less than 7 feet 12134 nun,. 1'he rc+lnired heiehl .hall he measured from the finish Ilya• to ;he 1o\.es1 projeclion Irons the xilin_'. w Exceptions: 1. Beams and girders spaced not less than 1 feet (1319 nim) on center miry project not more than 6 inclics (1 53 mm) below the, required ceiling height. ?. Ceilings in hasemenis without habitable: spaces may project to within 6 feet. 8 inches (3033 ruin) ufthe fin- ished floor: and beams. girders. duets or other obstruction., trey project to within 6 feet 1 inches t 1931 ntnt) of the finished flour. ?. For rooms \\ ilh sloped ceilings. at least 50 percent of the required Moor area of the roost must have a ceiling WALL WALL 4 IN. �I I� 4 IN. --ol I.*— 4 IN. i WC � 21 IN. CLEARANCE LAVATORIES V Pro' SI: I im:h ='`. t 1'dm. 15 IN 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE' 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODEv ONCE MINIML WATER )R ru A i i i i l SECTION R302 EXTERIOR WALL LOCATION 11302.1 Exterior walls. Construction: projections. opening :utd penetration, of exierior walls of dwellings and accessor% huildin_�s shall complj with Table 8302.1. These provisions shall nnl apply to wails. projections. openings or penetrations in \walls that are perpendicular to the line used to determine the lire separation distance. Projections beyond the exterior wall .hall nut extend more than 12 inches 1305 mm) into the areas %%here openings are prohibited. I?xceptions: I. Detached tool sheds and storage sheds. playhouses Mid sinlilar structures exempted frolm permits are nut required to provide wall protection based on location tm the lot. Projections beyond the exterior Wall shall nut extend over tilt lot line. 2. Detached garages accessory to a dwelling located within '- IM (6 10 mill i ill• a lot line are permitted to hate rool• eave projections not exceeding 4 inches 1 102 11111 t. Inundation tents installed in Compliance \\ith this BUILDING PLANNING installed or a whole-house mechanical ventilation system is installed capable of supplying outdoor ven- tilation air of 15 cubic feet per minu(e: MITI) (78 Ls ) per occupant computed on the basis oft%to occupants for file first bedroom and one occupant for each addi- tional bedroom. 2. The glazed areas need not be installed in rooms where Exception I abate is satisfied and artificial light is pro- vided capable of producing an average illumination of 6 footcandlcs (65 lux) over the area of the room at a heil_ht of 30 inches (762 nun) above the floor level. 3. Use ofsunmomaddit ions and patio covers. asdetinedin Section 8202. shall be permitted for natural ventilation if in excees of -F0 percent of' file exterior sunroorn %%'ails are open. or are enclosed only by insect screening. 12303.2 Adjoining rooms. For the purpose of determining light and ventilation reyuircmems. any room .hull he consid- ered as a purtit.m ot'an adjoining* room when at least one- hallol' the area ol• the common wall is opt: n and unobsu•ucted and pro - %'ides all openim_ of 1101 less than one -tenth of the floor area of the interior room but not less than 25 scluart: feet (2.3 m). Code are permitted. Exception: Opening =s required for light and /ur tcntil:rtian SECTION R303 LIGHT, VENTILATION AND HEATING shall be permitted to open into a Thermally isolated sunraom addition of patio) cmer. pro%riled That there is am openable area between the adjoining room and the sunroom addition or patio cuter t%1• not less than one -tenth of the foor area of 12303.1 flahilxble rooms. gall It ;rhital,lr mint!!, shall ha,c ,:n theinlerioi Ioom I, not1 essthan20syuarel 'eel(? Ill'1.Thc AC, e_tr air �iazin_ area u1 nut lag than r pert col ill file I)t,ln mininttult.openablc area futile ouldoots shall be based upon Orest ,:l 11101 rn, +))1.. \:rtul'ai ccntilati,m shall h flin !_h v. in- e total Ilour :Irca beings wrntilatcd. .I- '..,.iow- h,ri\,•t :.,.+r, +thcruipnv, •rl„ cniny•lolhc�nura„-+r 1 I p 113113.3 ltathr(lgnts. 13 :ahn „•ill., %%aver rh,•rr cnnlh : +rt fill: nt� n tiw It „I,c 1111_• •11;111 hi Inn% ivied \\ ith read\ :1c :c..,11L .hall :,nil other �imilarr,,t,m, •hAl he I11.1 idct) %\ ilh a__rce;uc _•I:li- ,11ht'1%%i.i hl- ri'aJil\ ,:,mrl,ll :,hlr h\ the hl111d111L' tllC! :Ire:, it) \%illdtm, ,11 iwt ICSS Ih:111 mlllare legit (0.3-1,1-!. I he nnnl uruu l q>l n:rhlc area In Ihr tondo: r. �h;lll he .l l><rct ill one -half of \%hirh nmu i i1'c 11lem1blc. i lilt 11••,u':nc;t Kin_ \cntil;rted. Exception: •I'hc blluzcd ure;l..hal1 not hL rcduircd \where I:xcep(iuns: lkial liuht and a mechanical ventilation system are provided. I. The claret areas need not he openable where the The minimum ventilation rates shall he SU cuhiC feet per nlin- ol,eninl is not required by Section 8310 and an the (24 Us) for imerminent ventilation tit- 20 cubic feet per allproved mechanical ventilation symcnl capable of minute 110 IJI) for continuous VCnti lilt iun. Ventilation air 1lroducin_ 0.15 air change per hour in file rocnm is from the space shall be exhausted directly to the outside. EXTERIOR WALL ELEMENT t\ ;,II, i l=ire - resistance rated 1 1Nnt lire- resiaanc r:ned) Il ire- resistance rated) Pr, �icclwils 1\ot lire- resk nee ripe!!) Not n1lo wed Ilhcnins _;'•r \Iaxinlunl0I'1\all.-\rea ['nlinlit�J I” lie, 1:111, 111. AI: �t :� � \„1 ;•%I „.•Iii .ly��e. TABLE R302.1 EXTERIOR WALLS MINIMUM MINIMUM FIRE FIRE - RESISTANCE RATING SEPARATION DISTANCE I houru'hh exposlu•e from hoth ides 1) I'm 0 hours 5 feet I hour on the underside '- feet 1) hours 3 f'cet NiA < 3 left t1 hours ; feet 0 haul, 5 feet Ulllpl4 \\ Ith Swit'111 R, 17.3 < 1 Ices N011e rcyulred 1 Icct 2111* INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE 47 BUILDING PLANNING R320.3 Naturally resistant Hood. Heartwood of redwood and eastern red cedar shall be considered termite resistant. R320.4 Barriers. Approved physical barriers. such ns metal or plastic sheeting orcollars specifically designed for termite pre- vention, shall be installed in manner to prevent termites from entering the structure. Shields placed'on top of an exterior foundation wall are permitted to be used only if in combination with another method of protection. R320.5 Foam plastic protection. In areas where the probability of termite infestation is "very heavy" as indicated in Figure R301.2(6). extruded and expanded polystyrene. polyiso- cyanurate and other foam plastics ,hall not be installed on the exterior face or under interior orexterior foundation walls or slab foundation, located below trade. The clearance between foam plastics instilled above grade :aid exposed earth shall beat least 6 inches (1 51 n1m ). Exceptions: I. Buildings %%-here the ,tructtn•al members ul o%alh. floor;. ceilin-, and reu,l', :u'c entirely Of nunconl- bustible inaterials or pressuro-preserv;uiwe- [reared wood. 2. When in addition to the requirements of Section R320.1. an approved method of protecting the foLim plastic and structure from subterranean termite dart a,,e is used. 3. On the interior side of basement walls. SECTION R321 SITE ADDRESS R321.1 Premises identification. Approved nuntbo or addresses shal I he provided for all rev.- buildings in such ; 1,i- lition as to be plainly visible and legible from the stye fronting the property. SECTION R322 ACCESSIBILITY R322.1 Scope. Where there are lirur or more dwelling units or slecpin" units in a single structure. the provisions ofChapter I of the hurrnarionall3uihlin,, Cudr for Group R -3 shall apply. SECTION R323 ELEVATORS AND PLATFORM LIFTS R323.1 Elevators. Where provided. pascen_+u• elewatnrs. lim- ited- use /limited- appiication elevaitirs or private residence ele- vators shall comply with ASNIF.. A 17.1. 8323.2 Platform lifts. Where provided. platform lifis shall comply with ASNIF A IS. 1. R323.3 Accessibilith'. Elewatnrs or pl:ttfornl lifts that :u-e p:Iri tul an accessible route required by Chapter I I of the 11,l('r7ttllinlrrtl Ruffil u,, Code. shall comply with ICC Al 17.1. i SECTION R324 LFLOOD-RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION 8324.1 General. Buildings and stuctures constructed in wholeitr in part in Iluud hazard areas (including A or 1i ::ones) as established in Table 11301 2(1) ,lull be designed and con - structed in accordance with the provisions cuntuined in this section. , Exception:. Building` and structure.% located in whole_ or in part in identified floodways a, established in Table R301.21 I ) shall he designed and constructed as stipulated in the lnreruuriuxul Birildhig Code. R324.1.1 Structural systems. All stucturd,!.ystents of all buildings.and structures shall be designed. connected and anchored rte resist flotation. collapse or permanent lateral movement Jae to structural loads and stresses front Iluoding equal to the design Iloud elevation. R324.1.2 Flood- resistant construction. All building~ and structures erected in areas prone to flooding shall be con- structed by methods anti practices that ininimize flood dant- apse. R 3_4.1.3 Establishing the design flood elevation. The Design flood elevation shall be used tl define. areas prune Io Iloo�din�a. and shall descrihe. at a minimum. the base flood elevation at the depth of peak elevation of tlo. kid- in wa�!e lie i,ahtl which has a I percent (I 00-year I too i or greater chance of heing equaled or evicectled in any t went veal'. 8324.1.3.1 Determination of (i.esigi, florid clevatillits. If design flood elev:uinns arc rout specified. the buile nz ollicia) is authorized (a) require the appliC :nn w: 1. Oblain and reasonably use data available front it Icd- cral. state rIr other source: or pp _. Ihtrrmina• the :le•,i�n Ilootid ele�mien in a.corda(t�•a �o iih :accepted rne.i�ncer�i �yl[k prot,tice, n•Cal lee define` special Ilttnd h4 /;trtT�lfli�. I)rtcrtninati<an „hall {�• unilrrtal.en h� a registered design professional \% ho .11:111 doetlnh nl 111:I1 the tech- nical lilethoal, used reflect cur•enlh accepted e16- neerin_ liraclwe. studits. :malt •c% and conlput:uitills hall hr Iuhnliucd in ,uI'licie:nt detail to allim ihor- uugh re%ie,.t and appnav;d. R324.1.3.2 Determination of impacts. In riverine flood hazard areas where design flood elevations are specified but Iloodw:rvs have not been designated. the applicant ,hall denunSu•atc that the effect of the proposed build- flood elevations. including fill. %then combined wish all other exislim, and antici- pated flood hazard area encruaclnnents. will not increase the design florid elevation more than I loot 1305 nlni) at any point ttiihin the jurisdiction. R324.1.4 Lcmest floor: The lowest flour shall he the Iluor Of the lowest enclused:u•ea. including hascmcnt. but exclud- ing_ any unfinished Ilood- resistant enclosure th;tt is useable ;nlelw Cor vehicle parking. huildin_ access or limited storage prat itlCd that ,ugh enclosure i, not built ut :ts to renter the I ILI iI(lint! or sn'ucttur in wiolalion of thi, section. 62 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL COD& �y CHAPTER 4 FOUNDATIONS SECTION R401 TABLE R401.4.1 GENERAL PRESUMPTIVE LOAD — BEARING VALUES OF FOUNDATION MATERIALS' R40I.I :Application. The provisions of this chapler shall cunt L1I the Jcsign and conslruclion of the fi,undation and loundation LOAD- BEARING PRESSURE spaces For all buildineS. in addition to the provisions of this CLASS OF MATERIAL ;(pounds per squarefoot) - ihapter. the design and construction of foundations ill areas Cry>IallinCheJrock 13.001 prone to flooding as established by Table R301 ?(1) shall meet — -- Ire provisions of Section 8324. Wood lmindations shall be Srdin,cntnry and foliated risk 4.000 Jcsicnrd and inslallcd in accordance \\ irh A1=c'�P�1 Repu11 \lo. 7. ;Sandi ;_ra\•el and /ur -r i\ el (GW :Intl C;PI 3.000 Fxception: The provisions of this chapter shall he permit- Sand. %ill> sand. ctaycy sand. silt, grzoel led to he used for wood foundations Only in the fallliwim'-- i:uld clayey _ravel 1.000 silnutiufls: tsw. SP. S.M. SC. GNI :u,d GO I. In buildimgS that IIaVC nu more than two floors and a silly clay. clayey sill. silt rill)). � and sandy sill 1.500" IC L. 'M L. \IH and CHI ?. \VIICII interior haSCIlll'tll and fuundaliLill \%'a] IS Lire con- - - -- - 1 till•Llclell al Illli 1'w:11S Ihll CSCCitllll� ?I) feel 1 l l _- 1(11171111. Pot• SI: I i,ullnll per hquare f0LA = QW790a. a. \Vhc11 soil ICII, arc n•yu;rcd by Scoilm R40I.4• t licit llu „• :Ihie heal i It, capaci- ' \1twd foundutions In Seismic Design Cale ory 13,x. r), ill- D: tll.1 of Il1t• wvl .111511 he IMO let the rtx11111111enllafions. Shall I ?2 J2�1C112L1 111 aCi'UfJalll'e U Ilh aCCel eil elloillt:erill,_ ` h. \\'pert the huildin_• uffiChtl determines that in- t,lace .%oils u•i1h an ali'm INC grail ii d. bearing capacity of less than 1.5(1(1 psfare likely to he present at the site. the allowable hcarin, calvcily shall he determined by it .nil. in vest igalinn. R4011.2 Requirements. Foumdalion CUI1SIRIClil,11 Shall be R401.4.2 Compressible Or Shifting soil. Instead ofa complete capahleOfaccontlllodal ill- allloadsaccordin- toSeelionR3111 ccutcchnicalr\ aluatiun. when top clrsuhsnilsarecompressible :uul nl uammilting 1110 I-CS1.116112 loads to the supporting soil. Or. shiftin . they shall hC removed to a depth and \ \idth sUffi- Fill .Oils shat Support footings :Inc) foundations shall he Ltient to assure stable 111 liStUre content in each active Z ) anti llcNi211cJ. ins1 :111cJ and rested in accorda lice wilh accepted Spain not hC used ;IS 1111 ur stahilizcd \rithin each :Ictive "none h\ cm_ineCring practice. GI'iiWI 1111 used as 10061111.1, li,r wood and chemical. JC\ \aterin� nr presaturatiun. ` )recant to1 foundations shall comply with Section 8403• :eIvie �ItaUl.± Drainage. tiurl:,tr tlr.lin,I.r hail hi tli\i,Ir,l 1t, .1 SECTION R402 itvni .:,t:l ,.,n\t• \ ;Inii t r uthir appro\LJ p,timl t fittlliili,tn MATERIALS ,1.11 •'rn1LTL'; Ile :I ltaiarJ. Lt1• •hallhcL•radedIt-Jr;iin•Inl' :Lr R�102.1 11'uod foundations. Wood foundation systtms shall be ..fi. � ; ,t:;, Ili;tni Itnnldaiit,n \\all.. The _r:ulr .hull I;III a 1i uuun .tl t. inches f I nun r \11111111 Ihr tint Ili foil 13,04S nut, :. dl,'Ni"lled and installed in accordance \wiih the provisions of this COLIC. ception: \k here Iot lines. \walls. slopes or other physic;' harriers pruhil,it h inches 1 153 mill) of I•all \within 10 feel R402.1.1 Fasteners. FastenerS used below rant to altar- 004,N )3U-48 nim). the final grade shall slope away front the faun- ph WotnJ to the Cxtiri \n side of exterior basement or crawl- (ki itlm ;It it nlininnml s)npC 01'5 percent and the \valer shall \wall Studs. or fastener, used in knee wall construc- r b2 Jicct2d tit elf airs or xWalts w ensure ilraina�e a\,ay from lion. shall be of Type 304 ur 316 stainless steel. Fasteners the slfUClllle. S\ \'ales shall bC sloped a 111 1 11 him I11 Of - pel'Cilll used above 42tratle to attach plywood and all lumber -to lane :vhcn located within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the huildin`' her fasteners except 1110SC used In knee Wall Constl- llction 1'uundiaion. InlpeI-\-ious surfaces \ \iIhin Ifs feet 1 304.R nun! shall he of Type 304 or 316 stainless steel. silicon bronze. ill the huildinz foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 copper. hot-di plied galvanized (tine coated) steel nails. or pircenl away from the huihlin-' hot unb)Cd galxanirCn (zinc coaled) steel nails. Elector g dvanized steel nails and galanired (zinc coated) steel sta- {t Ill 1.4 Soil tests. In .,lira, 11-11\ 1„ !1:I.i i\i :nl n . c, i ,l Ii., pies shall not lie permitted. 'i...hillin,t + ;•tihil u. ILmnr•. n�,ail :h ;n•ailiri�Ii ;�.1h,•hIi iJln. R402.1? Wood ti-eatment. All lumber and plywood shall 1, i:a ,hall Jrlr!nl ;nr a hiihvr Ito r.yuiri :1 .,tu tC I tt dilir he pressure- preservative treated and dried after t'eatmenvin U I i hr ,.it;i I,\ :,n :,4,i lit , , d ni; accnrtlancC \with ,A\i-P.\ (Coll imodily Specification A. .t_, : .; !'1'•,, ` ”` L!se C';rte2nry 413 anti Section i.2). and shall bear the lapel of :ul accredited agent\•. WIICI-C lunther and /or ply\%ood is cut R401.4.1 Geotechnical evaluation. In lieu m of a Coplete or drillCd alter Ireamient. the treated surface call be field "cotechlliCal cw:tlualinn. the load- bearing values in lahle t• c: mcdWilhcllppernaphthenale . [lie concentradonuf \ \I ich R401.4.1 shall he assumed. shall contain a nlininium of _' percent copper metal. h\ 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE 67 14 R324.1.5 Protection of mechanical and electrical sys- tems. Electrical systems, equipment and components. and heating. ventilating. air conditioning and plumbing .appli- ances. plumbing fixtures. duct systems. and other service equipment shall he located at or above the design flood ele- vation. if replaced as part of a substantial improvement. electrical system.. equipment and components. and heating. ventilating. air conditioning, and plumbing appliances. plumbing lixturiiL duct systems.; and other'service equip- ment shall meei-thi requirements of this section. Systems. fixtures. and equipment and components shall not be mounted on or penetrate through walls intended to break awav under flm)d loads. Exception: Electrical systems. equipment and compo- nents, and heating. ventilating, air conditioning and plumbing appliances. plumbing fixtures. duct systems. and other service equipment are permitted to be located Mow the design flood elevation provided that they are designed and installed to prevent gaiter rrom entering or at:cunudatinas within the components and to resist hydro - static and hydrodynamic loads and stresses. including the ellecfs of buoyancy. during the occurrence of Ilood- ing to the design flood elevation in compliance with the 1100LI- resistant cunstrucliun requirements ol'the ime rntr- Iloind Hit ilrlin4- Code. Electrical hiring systems are per- mitted it) be located below the design flood elevation proN ided they conform to the provisions Of the elf c l-ical (!art of this code fill' wet locations. 1324.1.6 Protection of water supply and sanitary scw- age systems. New and replaccmenl touter supply s)'slcnls Shall he designed to minimize or eliminate infiltr 6011 of flood into the systems in accordance with the plumb - ing provisions of this ciAe. Nee and replacement sanitarn sewage systems shall he de >i_IlICLI to ntirlinlite or eliminate inlillralion of Iloodwaters into s) :rlcnls anddischar-es from s) tents into floodwaters in accordance with the plumbing provisions of this c(xie and Chapter 3 of the Intenitirional Nrirrifr St•n•u,l;t• Disposal Code. i1324.1.7 Flood- resistant materials. Building nlatcri ils uNed hclow the design flood elevation :hall comply with the follrn +'Ing: I. All wood. including (lour sheathing. %hall he pres- sure- preservative- treated in accordance with AWPA is I I'or the species. product. preservative and end use or be the decay - resistant heartwood (11' re(hyood. black 10Cll<i or cedurs. Preservati%es shall be lisred in Section 4 of x111 IIA U 1. ?. Materials and installation nleillods used for flooring' and iolerior and exterior a-alls and wall coyerinrs shall conform to the provisions of F1':!%lA /1=ii \-TB R324.1.8 Manufactured housing. New or replacement manufactured hot >in:_ shall lie elev ;fed in accordance (k ith Section R324.2 and the anchor and tie -dowil requirements ol• Sections AE004 and AF605 of Appendix E shall apply. -rile foundation :Ind ;II1e11(1ra�L'l' t1I I11;II1UfaClllre(1 110L]Sil1L Ili be locule(I in idcntilic(I flood wa) -s as zualilishzd in Table R ?f 1 1.20 1 shall he designed and consuucled ill accordance BUILDING PLANNING with the applicable provisions in the hnernurit,nnl Rllil,liliv Code. R324.1.9 As -built elevation documentation. A re�_islered design professional shall prepare and seal documentation of the elevations specified in Section 1132.1? or R324.3. R324.2 Flood hazard areas (including A 7.on"). Areue that have been determined to be prone to flooding but not subject to high velocity wane action shall he designated as tlturd hazard areas. All buildings and structures Cull\tl• 1ded in-whole or in hart in flood hazard areas shall be designed and constructed in dance with Sections 8324.2.1 fold R 324.2.3. I12134.2.1 Eleilation requirements. I. iiuilthngs and structure, hall ha(r the lo,tal floor% elevate al to or aboxe the dcsa'n Il,anl cle\allon. 2. in area, of sha!lo %% Iloodillp I,\O % „nc�1, hnlltlin_. :1111.1 1111I0ure, shrill hu %e the 10% %V11 11001- 1111JUd1114 ha.cmenl r cict: ted al Ica.l a1 fii_h all +t c .Ire 11i•_hc�l adjacent ,_1•ade :1, the depih niiiliha•I' Ili IeCI morel on the FIRM. or ;It Ieasi ' t'ecl .hill uuul if a ticplh Till nlher i• 11,11 'IieriIical. . B.m.111cnt 11,111r, Ihall are helm. _'rod•. "11:111 .lira” „hall he ell%aged I,I or ab„ \e 1111 dc l ;t' flood t•1:`. ;ill,lll. Leeption: Enclosed areas below the design flood sly✓ boil. includin- haSC11MILS whose floors arc not hclo.,% „rade on all .\ides. SIWII meet the requirements ol• Section R 324.2.'_. 8324.2.2 Enclosed area below design flood elevation. Enclosed :yeas. including crawl spaces. that are belrni, the desi•_n flood elevation <hall: I. Be used solely I01' parking: of vehicles, huildin-, access or stor'a_e. 3. Re prodded % %ith flood ol,enin_. 111,11 alert Ow li,; lowing criteria: There shall he a nlinimunl of Iwo openin_< on different ,ides of etch enclosed area: if a( building, has more than ,lm- enclosed ;Ircu he- ]u\\ file desien flood elevation. cas11 +11V;1111.111 have opcnill "s on exterior +alts. 2.2. The total net area of all openings shall he at least I square inch (645 nun =) for each square Ibot (U.fh) 3 1112) ol•enelosed :u'ca. 01 1111: 01-Ic11- in•_s shall be designed and the construction documents •hall include a statement that the design ;md installation hill pro\ ide li,r cqual- iiation of hydrostatic (loom forces on exterior walls by allowing, for the auwnruic cut•y :uul exit of Iloodwaters. 13. '1 -he bottom of each opening_ ,hall he I fool 1 105 111101! al. lc.\.\ ahoye 111 ildiac.nt 21.0luld level. 2.•I. C)peninu%:hall heat lea o ? inches t ;"nun l in dialnclel% 2.?. AM• louvers. screens or ulher ope! gnu, I:m vrs Shall allot( the aluto111;1 is 1](M of I'll utl\VZlICl'r into and out of the enclo- ;Cd area. • 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL COD& 63 d BUILDING PLANNING it walking surface or other accr%sihlc area. nominal ,lad Ihicknc%s 1101 more than `/,,: inch (4.5 nun). and (for multiple glazing only( the other p :me or panes fully tempered. larninated or wired 1 Glass area _realer than 16 square feet f I AY 000 has doped 30 degree., (012 rail) or less 66111 vertical. and highest point of glass not more than 10 No (3048'• nrnl t above a % %alkin_ surface. orothtra�ce�.iblearea. R308.6.6 Class in greenhouses. :Nony ghzing.ntnterial is permitted w he installed without screening in the MoNd Lire.,% pt'i 0ded dw gree111umb helgllt in file ridge dues not exceed 20 No (UN6 mn1) aixtl_e.grade. R 0(18.6.7 Screen characteristics. The screen and its fasten- ings 4iall he capable of supporting ((vice the weight of the glazing. he 111.1111y:uul euhsljuuially rastened fu the framing nlenlhers. and have a mesh opening of no more than I inch h\ I inch (35 11un by 35 Inni). 1008.6.8 Curbs Ior skylights. All unit skylights installed in q cool' lti•ifh a pitch flatter than three units vertical in I? units horizontal (35- percent slope) shall be mounted on a curb extending at least 4 inches 1 102 nun) above the plane 01 the root' unless 0lhcrlrise Spceilied in the rn:ulilfucfurrr's in "Inilation instructions. R308.6.91'estingand labeling. Unif ;k� Ii11hts.shalI he tested by stn approved independent laboratory. and beater label WC11- lilying manul'achner. perlin•11lance _Made rating andappruxcd inspection agency to indicate compli:mce with the require - mcnt% of AA\•IA/\VDN4.A/C'SA 10111.S .21A44(). SECTION R309 GARAGES AND CARPORTS 8309.1 Opening protecttun. Opening, from it I,rivate g:u•agc directly into a room u%ed for Sleeping purpusc, Shall 1101 be per - mined. Other openings bowl xn the garage and residence shall he equil?ped N ith solid \yrtnd dorn•S not IC"; than I' /, inches ( 5 111111) in Ihicl%ness. solid ur honeyconib cure Steel doors not leg; than 17, inches ( 35 mm) thick. tw uminum fire4wa doors. !2309.1.1 Duct penetration. Ducts in the .1arage and ducts peneuatin�s flu halls iu ceilings sgmrmWg the dwelling from the garage shall be cnnsimewd of a minimum \41. 26 *age 10-154 111111) sheet steel or other appruvgd material and shall have no openings into the ganige. 12309.1? Other penetrations. Penetrations through the separation required in Section R309.2 shall he protected b�- filling the opening :wound the penetrating item %with approved material to resist the lice passage of )lame and products of comhustion. R3092 Separation required. The garage shall he separated front the residence: nd its auk aria hl not less than 0 -inch 1117 nun) .gypsum board applied to Me gwage side. Garages here :1111 habitable roams shall be separated from all habitable rooms above by not less than /. -inch ( 15.9 1111(11 T� pe X gyp-unl hnartl 0r equivalent. \\'here the %epatM011 is a f1o0r Alln_ assembly. the % moure upp ping the separation %hall Aw he protected by not less than '/, -inch ( 117 irlm f gypsum hissed or equivalem. Uaragea !'sated less than 3 Oct (91 1 nun) f imn a du lling unit 52 oil the same lot shall be protected with nol less than '/_ -inch t 1 3.7 mnu gypsum board applied to the interior side orexiaw (( alts to luar %%ithin this area. Openings in these Halls :hall be regu- htted by Section R309.1. This provision does nw apply Io garage walls that are perpendicular to the atkiacent dwellhig unit wall. 8309.3 Fluor surface. Garage (lour.• surfaces shall he of approved nonconlhustihle material. The area•of (lour used fur parkin_ of aulunlohile% or other vehicles shall be sloped to facilitate the movement of liquids to a drain or toward the main vehicle cr uy doorway. R309.4 Carports. Carports shall be open on at least Iwo Sides. Carpul7 flour surfaces shall be of approval noncombustible nl:ucf1al. Cwp ws not open on at leapt tnvu %ides shall he cun- sidereil a gu•aCc and shall comply with the provisions of this Section for garages. Exception: Asphalt surraeeS shall be permitted :u ground level in c:uliorls. The area of tlotlr used for parkin_ of automobiles or other vehicles shall be Sloped to 1'arililalc the 11lovemelit of liquids to a drain ur toward the main vehicle cntr• doorway. 1009.5 Flood hazard areas. For buildings located in Iloud ha /ard areas a% established hr 'I able 1001.2H 1. garage floors :hall he: I. 171e\:. lit ur above the design Iloxul elevaliun as deter- mined in Section IZ324: of- 2. Located below the design nwd elevation provided they -ire at or above grade nn all sides, arc used solely fur parking.. building access. or storage. meet the require- ments ul' Section R321. and are otherwise constructed in accordance With this code. 1309.6 Automatic garage door upcncrs. Automatic �sara_e t1001'011CI .S. il' provided. Shall he listed in accordance with UL. 315 SECTION R310 EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS 12310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required. Bosenit-nls :1nd nvy sleeping rum ,hall hmv at least mw orverahk emer- _ency neape alld iwdue opentll ^_. Such olvnin,_ shall spell dircctlt info a public .trect. puh11L Alev. yard or court. \1 here- hascnlcros contain one ur more hxpin_ nna)i,. emergency `grc„ and re >ctte c,l;ctim., ,I ,:ill he required in cash 11"11111_• hin ,hail not he rctluircd in adjomin_ arras 0rlhe h:t,r- "WM, \\'here emergent:y e-,cape and rescue 0pcnin_, are tided they Sliull have a.Sill height or 1101 more than 44 if c I I.I IN' film) abavC the door. \\'here it d001' openim-V ha\i112 a ihreshold below the at iacent ground elevation serves :ts ;ill emejem:y escape and rescue opening and i pro\ ided a ith a bulkhead enclosure. the bulkhead enclosure Shall comply %% ith Section 8310.3. The net clear opening dimensions required by ibis sectiun shall he obtained by me nwrnw operation of the timer_ *encv escape soul rescue opening Aim the inside. Emer- gency escape and rescue itpcnings with ❑ IIIIiSlled Sill height below the adjacent ground elevation shall he provided %with it wimhm- well in accordance tyith Section R310?. Emergency 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE a c.cape and rescue openings shall Open directly into it public -,way. or it) a yard or court that opens it) a public way. Exception: Basements used only to (rouse mechanical equipment and not exceeding total floor area of 300 square feet (18.55 m=). R310.1.1 Minimum opening area. All emergency escape and rescue openinLS shall have a minimum net clear open- ing of 5.7 square feet 10.530 ni -). Exception: Grade floor Openings shall have a nlinintunt net clear opening of 5 square feet (0.465 nr). R310.1.2 11•11nimum opening height. The minimum net clear opening height shall be 24 inches (610 nun). 8310.1.3 117htimum opening .width. The minimum net clear opening \width :hall be 20 inches (508 mm). R310.1.4 Operational constraints. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational fron the inside of the room \without the use Of key s. tools or special knowlcctec. R 310.2 Window swells. rile minimum horizotual :urea of the window well shall be 9 Square feet 1.0.9 m'). with a mininlunl horizontal projection and width of 36 inches (91.4 inin). The :urea Of the window well shall allow the emergency escape and rescue opening to be fully opened. F xception: The ladder a• steps required by Section R310 2. I shall be permitted Io encroach a maxinwnl of 6 inches (15_' 111111) into th0 require;( dimensions of rho window well. R310.2.1 (.adder and steps. Window \vells with it vertical depth greater than 44 inches (I 113 inn) shall be equipped with a permanently al'lixed ladder nr steps usable with the wintlow in the fully open posit ion. Ladders Or steps required by this section Shall not be required to co)ntply with Sections 1231 1.5 and 1011.6. Ladders or rungs shall have an inside width of ai least 12 inches ( 305 tint). shall project at )east ? inches (76 nom front the wall and shall he spaced not more than 18 inches (457 nun) on center werticaliv for the full height of the \windOw 12310.3 Bulkhead enclosures. Bulkhead enclosureS shall pro vide direct Access to the basement. The bulkhead enclosure with the doer panels in the fully open position shall provide the nlini- munl net clearupening required by Section R310. I. I. Bulklicad enclosures shall also comply with Section R311.5.8.2. R310.4 Bars, grilles, cowers and screens. Bars. grilles. cow- ers. screens or similar devices are perinined w be placed over emergency escape and rescue openings. bulkhead enclosures. Or window wells that serve such openings. provided the mini- mum net clear opening sire complies \with Sections R ;1(1.1.1 to R310.1.3. and such de\ ices shall Ix releasable or removable from the inside wilhout the use of a key. tool. special knowl- edge br force greater ih;in that \which is required for normal operation of the escape and rescue opening. R310.5 Emergency escape windows under decks and porches. Enlergenc\ escape windows are allowed to be installed under decks and pilr0hes provided the location Of the deck allows the eniergency escape twind0 -10 IV fully opened and provides a path not less than 36 inches (914 tun) in hei_,ht to a yard or court. BUILDING PLANNING SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS 8311.1 General. Stairways. ranlpb. exterior egress balconies. hallways and doors shall comply with this section. R311.2 Construction. R311.2.1 Attachment. Required exterior egress balconies. exterior exit stairways and similar means of egress components shall he positively anchored to the primary structure to resist both vertical and lateral forces. Such attachment shall not be accomplished by use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal. 8311.2.2 Understair protection. Enclosed accessil)Ie space under stairs shall have walls. under stair surface and any sof- fits protected on the enclosed side with '/,-inch (13 nun) gyp - sunl board. R311.3 Hallways. The inininlunl width of it hallway shall be not less than 3 feet (914 mn1). Doors. 1131.1.4.1 Exit dour required. Ivn1 less thnn'une exit dour ronittrining.io ihi::cctil+ri hall he provided tier earls d\\ ell - in� unit. The rcquircd cxir ddwr shall pro\ ide f,'r direr ::cc0s� I'ronl the hahitahle lx>rtions Ili' the, dw011iM3 to the exterior \without rcquirin_ travel throe. -li a - :trace, Acce» it) hahirahlr 10vr1. nut ha%int! an exit in accord:urc0 with this section shall he hN a ramp in accordance with Section 831 I.(i_i+r:r .tair\wa\ in ac:rirJancr \with tiecti,m 831 1.5. 1131 l.d 2 Door type and size. The required exit door Shall boa side- hincicd door not less than 3 feet (9 14 ntno in width and h foot R inches (2032 nun) in hcight. Other doors shall not be required to comply with these nlininlunl dimensions. R311.4.3 Landings at doors. There shall he a floor or land - in., on each side of each exterior dour. The floor or landing ;n the exterior dour shall not be more than 15 inches (38 nun) lower than the sup ar the threshold. The landing shall he permitted tO ha\•0 a slope nut w exceed 0.25 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal t3- percent. Exceptions: I . Where a stairway of mo or fewer risers is located on the exterior Side of a dour. other than the required exit door. it landing is not required for the exterior side of the door provided the door. other than in exterior storm or screen dour dues not swine over the stairway. 2. 'rile exterior hindirig at an exterior doorway %hall not be more than T/, inches ( 196 111111) below the top of the threshold. provided the door. outer than an exterior Storm or screen dour clues not swing over the landing. 3. The lie iLfit of Ikons :u cxtcrior doors 01110- th:ul the exit door rapoired by Section 113 I I .�. I shall not he inure than 7'4, inches ( I M n1u11) lower than the top of the threshold. The width of each landilw shall not lie Ices than the dour served. C\0ry landing hall have a minimum dimension irf 36 incites (914 111111) measured in the direction of travel. 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE" 53 BUILDING PLANNING R311.4.4 Type of lock or iatch. All cares. diem shall be readily ope:nahlc from the side front which c.-ress is to he made w ihhous the use of a key or special know ledge urelT(fn. 8311.5 Stairways. R31 1.; .1 Width. Stairways .hall not be less than 36 inches (914 nitll) in clear withh at all points above the permitted handrail height and below the required headmonl height. Handrails .hall not project more than 4.5 inches ( 114 1111111 on either Side of the stairway and the minimum clear width of the stairway it and below the handrail heigbi. including t•ell(1S and Ian(hll-Us. shall not be less than 31.5 incites (787 111111) where a handrail is installet.l on (file side and 27 inches (69K milt where handrails are provided on both sides. Exception: The width of spiral Gain ays shall be in accordance w ith Section R3 1 1.5.9. R311.5 2 Headroom. The ntininlunl he:l1lr0c1_111 in all (,art' i`e less 1!1 :t11 (I fe'.'I N Itiche's t'_Ili(1 - 1 ?'1171 111i: nti l'i tl ee:'t'11;a�it frow, Ihi 'le,pcd plall: ;hlpn1I1111_ lr I tn,.. :!1_ r Ilene 1hr le..n urtaci ev 111L I:liulit ter _ 11.5.3 Stair tread% and risers. R31 11.5.3.1 Riser height. The nlaxin11u11 riser height .hall he 7'7, inches (It)6 moll. The riser shall he mca- >ured (cNically hcnyeen leadin ' edges of the adjacent treads. The!•rcatcst riserht:iL1ht %wilhin any Iliahl ol'stairs Shall not e.ueed the smallest h\. more than V. inch (9.5 8311.9.3.2 Tread depth. '(he minimum tread depth Shall he III inches (254 nim). The tread depth shall he pleasured horizontally hetweell the vertical planes (If the forenlosl projection of adjacent treads and at a right ang Je w the it lea 1i m-, edge. The ;;realest tread depth �� ithin any IliLht ofstairs shall not exceed the sot ;dlest by more than `/, inch (9.5 nun 1. Winder treads Shall have it minimum trend depth of 10 incites (254 1111111 measured as above at it print 12 inches (305 mill) from the side where the treads are narrower. Winder treads shall have it minit11u111 tread depth of6 inches ( 152 tint) at arty paint. Within all flight of stairs. the largest winder tread depth at the 12 inch (305 nuns walk line shall not exceed the smallesi by more than `/, inch (9.5 R31 1.5.3.3 Pr0111e. The radius of curvature at the lead - ing c(lLe t,flhc tread shall he no greater than " 11„ inch (14 tool. 1 nosing not less than `/, inch 111) nim) but not more than I' /, inch 132 nim) shall be provided on stair- ways with solid risers. The ureatest nosing projection Shall not exceed the smallest nosing projection by more then inch (9.5 nun) between two stories. including the nosing, at the Ievcl of floors and landings. iieveling of nosily. %Il;ill (lot exceed 11, inch ( 12.7 111111). Risers shall be ycrtical or dnped froth the underside of the IeadinL cd_e (,l' the (read abuwc al an and Ie not more than 311 ilc ree< t l).5 I cad 1 front the vertical. Open risers :1)4 permiuc(I. provided III, the opening he(ween ucads dnO s not permit the passage of a 4 -inch di,uneler ( 102 film 1 sphere. Fxceptions: 1. A nosing is not required where the tread depth is a ntininlunl of I I inches (279 moll. 2. The opening between adjacent treads is not lim- ited on stairs with a total rise of 30 inches (762 min) or less. R31 13.4 Landings for stairways. There shall he a floor or landing at the top and honnm of each stairway. Exception: A floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs. including stair; in ;i l enclosed :_ara•,e. provided a door does not swing over the stairs. IliLht of stair; shall not h:n•e a vertical rise larger than 12 feet (3658 nim) between floor lever ur landings. The w•ithli ofeach landing shall not he less than the w idih of the stairway served. Every landing shall have it minimum dimension of 36 ho lies 1914 nun) measured in the direction (II I rave 1. R31 1.5.5 Stairway walking surrace. The (walking surface. of beads and landings of Stairways ~hall be sloped no steeper than one unit Vertical in 4S inches horizontal 12 -per- rent •lope). R311.5.6 Handrails. Handrai Is Shull he provided on at least one Side of each cintlinuous run of treads nr Ilim"hl with four or more riser.. 8311.5.6.1 Height. Handrail height. measured verti- call).- from the sloped plane adjoining the tread nosing. or finish surlace of tamp slope, shall he not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965 mot ). R31 11.5.6.2 Continuity. Handrails for stairways shall he continuous for the full length of the Ilight, from a point directly above the top riser of the Ilight to a point directly above the lowest riscrofthe flight. Handrail ends shall bee returned or shall terminate in newel lusts orsafety termi- nu1z. Handrails adjacent to a wall shall have a space of not less than I :/. inch (38 mm) between the wall and the handrails. Exceptions: I. Handrails shall be permitted to be interrupted by a newel Ixist at the turn. '. The use of a wnlute. turnout. starting easing or starting, newel shall h the lo e allowed over west tread. 83113.6.3 Handrail grip size. All required handrails shall be of one of the followcing t, pes or provide equiva- lent graspability. I. Type 1. Handrails with it circular cross section shall have a l outside diameterofat least 11 /, inches (32 mot) and not greater than 2 inches (51 nun). If the handrail is not circular it shall have it perimeter dimension of al least 4 inche. (102 nnnl and not greaser than 61/4 inches 1 160 Illnl) WiIIi 11 nlaxinuln) cross section of dinlcnsion 01'21/., inchcs(57 mil). _'. Type ii. I•lanih•ails with a perinletergre;ucrthan 6' /, inches (I(10 111)111 shall proyidc a gm-aspuble finger 54 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE I o/ • r� �v� \�RePUe REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III.A. From: John Wallin Finance Director ® Action ❑ Discussion 11 Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: Adoption of 2011 -2015 Capital Improvement Program ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the 2011 -2015 Capital Improvement Program. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the years 2011 -2015 is to be discussed. The Council has held several work sessions with General Fund and Enterprise managers discussing the CIP as part of each area. This document is the result of those discussions. A section for possible HRA projects has been added otherwise the projects are as discussed at the work sessions. The complete draft of the CIP was presented to the Council and discussed at the November 1st Council meeting. Please bring the CIP binder with you to this meeting. ATTACHMENT: 2011 -2015 Capital Improvement Program Summary City of Edina, MN Capital Improvement Program 2011 thru 2015 PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT Department Project# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Aquatic Center Flowrider AQC -03 -001 n/a 600,000 600,000 1,200,000 Upgrades and Replacements AQC -11 -001 n/a 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Aquatic Center Total 650,000 650,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 1,450,000 Aquatic Center Fund 650,000 650,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 1,450,000 Aquatic Center Total 650.E 650,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 1,450,000 Arena Replace Zamboni A -09 -002 n/a 130,000 130,000 Evaporative Condenser A -10 -002 n/a 75,000 75,000 Water System Repairs A -10 -003 n/a 60,000 60,000 Replace Zamboni A -10 -004 n/a 130,000 130,000 Parking Lot Resurfacing A -11 -001 n/a 210,000 125,000 35,000 370,000 Floor Scrubber A -11 -002 n/a 20,000 20,000 Arena Total 285,000 255,000 95,000 130,000 20,000 785,000 Construction Fund 285,000 255,000 95,000 130,000 20,000 785,000 Arena Total 285,000 255,000 95,000 130,000 20,000 785,000 Art Center Repairs & Maintenance ART -11 -001 n/a 20,000 20,000 40,000 Greer Garden Permeable Surface ART -11 -002 n/a 22,000 22,000 Rebuild Kilns ART -11 -003 n/a 15,000 15,000 Parking Lot Expansion ART -11 -004 n/a 85,000 85,000 HVAC ART -11 -005 n/a 22,800 22,800 Media Studio Updates ART -11 -006 n/a 12,000 12,000 Art Center Total 22,000 100,000 22,800 32,000 20,000 196,800 Construction Fund 22,000 100,000 22,800 32,000 20,000 196,800 Art Center Total 22,000 100,000 22,800 32,000 20,000 196,800 Page 1 I Department Project# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total lCommunications CL -06-005 n/a Paint Amphitheater Structure CL -07 -003 Mobile switcher system COM -10 -001 n/a 30,000 30,000 Scala System COM -10 -004 n/a 14,000 CL -08-004 14,000 Remote Production Capability COM -10 -005 n/a 34,500 34,500 Graphics COM -10 -006 n/a 70,000 70,000 Council Chambers Camera System COM -10 -007 n/a 70,000 70,000 Council Chambers Monitors COM -10 -008 n/a 29,000 29,000 Tightrope Cablecast System COM -10 -009 n/a 46,000 46,000 CL -11 -002 Communications Total 14,000 34,500 70,000 129,000 46,000 293,500 Communications Fund 14,000 34,500 70,000 129,000 46,000 293,500 Communications Total 14,000 34,500 70,000 129,000 46,000 293,5 Edi nborough /Centennial Replace HVAC Units CL -06-005 n/a Paint Amphitheater Structure CL -07 -003 n/a Signage improvement CL -07 -004 n/a Paint South Park Railings CL -08 -003 n/a Renovate Putting Greens CL -08-004 n/a Replace Cracked/Broken Concrete CL -08 -005 n/a Add Restroom Facility CL -09 -007 n/a Replace Park Sound System CL -09 -008 n/a Replace Concrete CL -09 -009 n/a Floating Dods CL -10 -004 n/a Security Camera System CL -10-005 n/a Centrum Planter Beds CL -10-006 We Paver Replacement CL -11 -001 n/a New Pickup CL -11 -002 n/a Paver Replacement CL -11 -003 n/a Replaster Pool EP -00 -017 n/a Replace Carpeting EP -06 -007 n/a Adventure Peak Renovation EP -07 -006 n/a Floor Scrubber EP -07 -007 n/a Security Camera System EP -08-007 n/a Soft Play for Great Hall EP -08 -011 n/a Pool and Wall Tile EP -08 -021 n/a Outdoor Storage Shed EP -09 -013 n/a Lift to Birthday Party Area EP -09 -014 n/a Track Floor EP -09 -015 n/a Parking Ramp Concrete & Drain Tile EP -09 -016 n/a Adventure Peak Remodel EP -09 -021 n/a West Sidewalk Replacement EP -10 -010 We 16,000 20,000 28,000 40,000 12,000 120,000 20,000 20,000 70,000 25,000 7,000 30,000 15,000 60,000 Page 12 25,000 32,000 15,000 12,000 25,000 20,000 25,000 20,000 12,000 12,000 80,000 30,000 28,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 16,000 20,000 28,000 40,000 12,000 120,000 32,000 15,000 12,000 25,000 20,000 40,000 25,000 20,000 70,000 12,000 25,000 7,000 12,000 30,000 80,000 15,000 30,000 60,000 28,000 25,000 25,000 Department Project# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total North Sidewalk EP -10 -011 n/a 30,000 30,000 Admissions Station EP -11 -001 n/a 50,000 50,000 Upper Level Planter Removal EP -11 -002 n/a 20,000 20,000 Great Hall Wall Matting EP -11 -003 n/a 10,000 10,000 Concession Stand EP -11 -004 n/a 45,000 45,000 Track Air Conditioning EP -11 -005 n/a 60,000 60,000 Adventure Peak Wave Slide EP -11 -006 n/a 20,000 20,000 Exterior Entryway Doors EP -11 -007 n/a 80,000 80,000 Interior Entryway Doors EP -11 -008 n/a 60,000 60,000 Upstairs Restroom Remodel EP -11 -009 n/a 25,000 25,000 Adventure Peak Renovation EP -11 -010 n/a 20,000 20,000 Edinborough/Centennial Total 291,000 397,000 232,000 207,000 162,000 1,289,000 Construction Fund 291,000 397,000 232,000 207,000 162,000 1,289,000 ' Edinborough/Centennial Total 291,000 397,000 232,000 207,000 162,000 1,289,000 General Government Citywide Fiber Optic Cabling CW -02 -001 2 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000 City Hall/Public Works Building GG -11 -001 n/a 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 175,000 Assessing Department Equipment Replacement GG -11 -002 n/a 15,000 30,000 45,000 New Election Equipment GG -11 -003 n/a 150,000 150,000 Electronic Document Management GG -11 -004 n/a 40,000 40,000 General Government Total 110,000 260,000 165,000 110,000 140,000 785,000 Construction Fund 110,000 230,000 150,000 110,000 110,000 710,000 Equipment Replacement Program 30,000 15,000 30,000 75,000 General Government Total 110,000 260,000 165,000 110,000 140,000 785,0 Golf Course Braemar & Braemar Exec: Parking Lot Resurfacing GC -06 -001 n/a 100,000 100,000 Braemar. Maintenance Equipment GC -11 -001 n/a 125,000 135,000 145,000 155,000 155,000 715,000 Braemar. Miscellaneous Equipment GC -11 -002 n/a 45,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 235,000 Golf Dome: Building Replacement GC -11 -003 n/a 460,000 460,000 Golf Course Total 270,000 635,000 195,000 205,000 205,000 1,510,000 Golf Course Fund 270,000 635,000 195,000 205,000 205,000 1,510,000 Golf Course Total 270,000 635,000 195,000 205,000 205,000 1,510,000 1 HRA Page 13 Department Project# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Promenade Phase IV HRA -11 -001 n/a 4,000,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 700,000 4,000,000 Promenade Phase III HRA -11 -002 n/a 2,000,000 2,000,000 France Ave Corridor Improvements HRA -11 -003 n/a n/a 5,000,000 330,000 5,000,000 PK -02-041 BRA Total 120,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 PK -M09 11,000,000 Tax Increment Funds 4,000,000 Pamela Park: New athletic field 2,000,000 5,000,000 11,000,000 400,000 HRA Total Lewis Park: Pathway lighting 4,000,000 n/a 2,000,000 5,000,000 30,000 11,000,000 Liquor Stores PK -09 -005 n/a 100,000 100,000 Garden Park: Parking lot renovation PK -09-006 York Store Remodel LIQ-09 -002 n/a 300,000 250,000 Veterans Memorial PK -10-002 n/a 300,000 50th: Replace Entrance Door LIQ-09 -003 n/a Countryside Park: West Parking Lot Renovation PK -10 -003 20,000 60,000 20,000 York Replace Entrance Door LIQ -10 -003 n/a n/a 25,000 330,000 330,000 25,000 York: Replace Rooftop HVAC LIQ -10 -004 n/a 40,000 25,000 25,000 PK -10 -006 50,000 York: LED Signage LIQ -10 -005 n/a 45,000 Pamela Park: West Parking Lot Expansion 20,000 n/a 20,000 Vernon: Replace Load Leveler Dock LIQ -10 -006 n/a PK -11 -001 n/a 107,000 15,000 20,000 83,000 42,325 15,000 All Stores: Repairs and Maintenance LIQ -11 -001 n/a 35,000 60,000 25,000 120,000 50th: LED Lights LIQ -11 -002 nla 20,000 20,000 Vernon: LED Lights LIQ -11 -003 n/a 25,000 25,000 All Stores: Video & Software Upgrades LIQ -11 -004 n/a 30,000 20,000 50,000 Vernon: Replace Rooftop HVAC LIQ -11 -005 n/a 25,000 25,000 Vernon: Replace Entrance & Exit Doors LIQ -11 -006 n/a 30,000 30,000 Liquor Stores Total 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 700,000 Liquor Fund 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 700,000 Page 14 Liquor Stores Total 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 700,000 Park & Recreation Pamela Park: Renovate senior athletic field PK -00 -033 n/a 330,000 330,000 Chowen Park: Playground PK -02-041 n/a 120,000 120,000 Todd Park: Pathway renovation PK -M09 n/a 45,000 45,000 Pamela Park: New athletic field PK -07 -004 n/a 400,000 400,000 Lewis Park: Pathway lighting PK -08 -006 n/a 30,000 30,000 Natural resources inventory assessment PK -09 -005 n/a 100,000 100,000 Garden Park: Parking lot renovation PK -09-006 n/a 250,000 250,000 Veterans Memorial PK -10-002 n/a 30,000 30,000 Countryside Park: West Parking Lot Renovation PK -10 -003 n/a 60,000 60,000 Countryside Park: Playground & Pathway PK -10 -004 n/a 330,000 330,000 Pamela Park: South Parking Lot Expansion PK -10 -005 n/a 40,000 40,000 Pamela Park: North Parking Lot Expansion PK -10 -006 n/a 45,000 45,000 Pamela Park: West Parking Lot Expansion PK -10 -007 n/a 60,000 60,000 Parks Department Equipment Replacement PK -11 -001 n/a 107,000 82,000 20,000 83,000 42,325 334,325 Page 14 Department Project# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Countryside Park: Basketball Court Renovation PK -11 -002 n/a 25,000 25,000 Weber Park: Basketball Court Renovation PK -11 -003 n/a 25,000 25,000 Amason Acres Park: Replace East Greenhouse PK -11 -004 n/a 30,000 30,000 Rosland Park: Pathway Renovation PK -11 -005 n/a 250,000 250,000 Bredeson Park: Comfort Station Renovation PK -11 -006 n/a 75,000 75,000 Normandale Park: Replace Waring HouselShelter PK -11 -007 n/a 650,000 650,000 Park & Recreation Total 692,000 762,000 600,000 483,000 692,325 3,229,325 Construction Fund 585,000 680,000 580,000 400,000 650,000 2,895,000 Equipment Replacement Program 107,000 82,000 20,000 83,000 42,325 334,325 Park & Recreation Total 692,000 762,000 600,000 483,000 692,325 3,229,325. Public Safety Fire Department Equipment Replacement PS -11 -001 n/a 430,000 255,000 160,000 140,000 25,000 1,010,000 Police Department Equipment Replacement PS -11 -002 n/a 255,587 310,911 42,553 711,594 83,925 1,404,570 Inspections Department Equipment Replacement PS -11 -003 n/a 15,000 15,000 30,000 Health Department Equipment Replacement PS -11 -004 n/a 15,000 15,000 Police to Community Software PS -11 -005 n/a 24,000 24,000 Fire Station #2 Floor PS -11 -0O6 n/a 22,000 22,000 Public Safety Total 722,587 580,911 226,553 866,594 108,925 2,505,570 Construction Fund 22,000 24,000 46,000 Equipment Replacement Program 700,587 580,911 202,553 866,594 108,925 2,459,570 Public Safety Total 722,587 580,911 226,553 866,594 108,925 2,505,570 Public Works Reconstruct 44th Ave. (TH 100 - France) PW -00 -012 n/a 900,000 900,000 Concrete Rehab: Tracy Ave. (Vernon - TH62) PW -00 -015 n/a 600,000 600,000 Reconstruct W. 70th St (TH100 -France) PW -00 -017 n/a 2,324,000 2,324,000 Concrete Rehab: Parklawn Ave. (France to W 77) PW -00 -074 n/a 450,000 450,000 Reconstruct. W 62nd St (Oaklawn - France) PW -01 -011 n/a 520,000 520,000 Reconstruct W 54th St (Wooddale to France) PW -01 -012 n/a 850,000 850,000 Public Works: Braemar Cold Storage: Improvements PW -02 -006 n/a 40,000 40,000 80,000 Reconstruct W 58th St (France to Xerxes) PW -03 -005 n/a 629,000 629,000 Reconstruct W 58th St (Wooddale to France) PW-04 -001 n/a 900,000 900,000 Bridge: 54th Street Bridge PW -05 -003 n/a 520,000 520,000 Mill & Overlay. Olinger Blvd (Vernon - Tracy) PW -05 -006 n/a 275,000 275,000 Reconstruct 1494/TH169 & W RD PW -07 -002 n/a 1,300,000 1,300,000 Braemar Cold Storage - Fire Suppression PW -08 -004 n/a 70,000 70,000 Skid Steer PW -08-005 n/a 60,000 60,000 Reconstruct / Sidewalk: W Rd at Braemar Blvd PW -08 -006 n/a 650,000 650,000 Page 15 V. Department Project# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Mill & Overlay. W 69th St (France to York) PW -09 -004 n/a 120,000 50,000 120,000 530,000 Equipment Replacement Program 120,000 Sidewalk: France Ave (48 to 49) PW -09 -005 n/a 300,000 347,000. GO Improvement Bonds 1998 Cat Backhoe Replacement 300,000 Neighborhood Street Recon Program PW -11 -001 n/a 4,853,000 4,263,000 3,496,000 4,418,000 3,972,000 21,002,000 Sidewalks/Pathways (MSA) PW -11 -002 n/a 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Sidewalks/Pathways: City Costs PWA 1 -003 n/a 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Public Works Equipment Replacement PW -11 -004 n/a 120,000 15,000 72,000 70,000 70,000 347,000 Centennial Lakes Bridge Painting PW -11 -005 3 UT -07 -002 2 70,000 70,000 GPS Electrical System PW -11 -006 n/a 2 3,000,000 3,000,000 30,000 30,000 Mill & Overlay: Maloney Ave (Washington to Blake) PW -11 -007 n/a 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Mill & Overlay: Galagher Dr (Parklawn to France) PW -11 -008 n/a 150,000 500,000 Piping Wells #5 and #18 to WTP #5 150,000 2 Public Works Total 10,507,000 5,788,000 5,998,000 6,012,000 4,692,000 32,997,000 Construction Fund 90,000 160,000 110,000 50,000 120,000 530,000 Equipment Replacement Program 120,000 15,000 72,000 70,000 70,000 347,000. GO Improvement Bonds 1998 Cat Backhoe Replacement UT -03-012 n/a 30,000 30,000 Municipal State Aid 4,490,000 310,000 2,230,000 1,504,200 930,000 9,464,200: Public Improvement Revolving Bonds 5,807,000 4,263,000 3,846,000 4,647,800 4,062,000 22,625,800 Page 16 Public Works Total 10,507,000 4,748,000 6,258,000 6,272,000 5,212,000 32,997,000. Utility Department 1998 Cat Backhoe Replacement UT -03-012 n/a 170,000 170,000 GPS System UT -03 -016 3 30,000 30,000 Public Works: Braemar Work Site - Lead Removal UT- 04-005 n/a 200,000 200,000 Lift Station #7 (4021 Grimes Ave) UT -05 -009 2 200,000 200,000 Lift Station #8 (4023 Monterey Ave) UT -05-010 2 200,000 200,000 New Water Treatment Plant (#5) UT -07 -002 2 1,600,000 2,500,000 3,500,000 7,600,000 New Water Treatment Plant (#6) UT -07 -003 2 3,000,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 Sewer Jetter Replacement UT -07 -008 3 350,000 350,000 Gleason Water Tower (paint) UT -07 -009 2 500,000 500,000 Piping Wells #5 and #18 to WTP #5 UT -08 -008 2 100,000 100,000 Well #5 (West 69th Street) UT -08 -009 2 100,000 100,000 Piping Wells #2, V. #15 and #9 to WTP #6 UT -08 -010 2 750,000 750,000 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Lining Project UT -08 -014 n/a 1,200,000 1,200,000 SCADA Upgrades UT -09 -006 2 50,000 50,000 Well #4 Rehab Project UT -09 -008 2 100,000 100,000 Well #12 Rehab Project UT -09 -009 2 120,000 120,000 Well # 2 Rehab Project UT -09 -010 2 120,000 120,000 Water Meter Replacement Project UT -10 -006 1 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 1,200,000 Well # 7 Rehab Project UT -10 -007 2 200,000 200,000 Well #9 Rehab Project UT -10 -008 2 150,000 150,000 Well # 11 Rehab Project UT -10 -009 1 120,000 120,000 Manhole Repair Project UT -10 -010 2 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 320,000 Page 16 Department Project# Priority 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total W 69th Street and York Ave Water Main Loop UT -10 -011 Water Main Improvements UT -11 -001 Sanitary Sewer Main Improvements UT -11 -002 Storm Sewer - Pipe and Grading Improvements UT -11 -003 Pond & Lake Dredging UT -11 -004 Annual Vehicle Replacements UT -11 -005 Well #10 Rehab Project UT -11 -006 Storm Water Lift Station #3 Rehab UT -11 -007 Sewer Camera and Cable Reel UT -11 -008 2 Utility Department Total 110,000 10,303,000 5,579,000 7,175,000 110,000 n/a 830,000 720,000 590,000 746,000 671,000 3,557,000 1 589,000 589,000 483,000 611,000 549,000 2,821,000 n/a 2,646,000 2,324,000 1,906,000 2,408,000 2,165,000 11,449,000 3 60,000 1,100,000 60,000 120,000 Utility Department Total 1,340,000 3 50,000 70,000 50,000 50,000 220,000 2 19,865,411 15,333,353 20,499,594 13,461,250 100,000 100,000 2 200,000 200,000 2 30,000 30,000 Page 17 Utility Department Total 9,325,000 10,303,000 5,579,000 7,175,000 7,225,000 39,607,000 Utility Funds - San Swr 869,000 2,489,000 593,000 741,000 549,000 5,241,000 Utility Funds - Stm Swr 2,706,000 3,424,000 1,966,000 2,728,000 2,165,000 12,989,000 Utility Funds - Wtr 5,750,000 4,390,000 3,020,000 3,706,000 4,511,000 21,377,000; Utility Department Total 9,325,000 10,303,000 5,579,000 7,175,000 7,225,000 39,607,000 Grand Total 27,188,587 19,865,411 15,333,353 20,499,594 13,461,250 96,348,195 Page 17 :VIA •r�v�. REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No: III. B. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE L ® Action Public Works `Director/ Discussion City Engineer ❑ Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: Agreement 50th & France Commercial Area Trial Valet Parking November 17 — December 31. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve attached license agreement between the City of Edina and Tradition valet service for 50th and France Commercial Area and authorize Mayor and Manager to sign said agreement. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Staff has been working with the 50th and France Business Association and its members to innovatively solve parking issues within the public parking ramps. The restaurants along France Avenue have agreed to subsidize a valet service for the lunch and dinner hours. This valet service would be no cost to the City of Edina. The valet service would run as a test program from November 17 to December 31; after that time the 50th and France Business Association would then reevaluate the service. The valet pickup and drop -off area will be on France Avenue between 5000 France and 5034 France Avenue. The vehicle storage areas will be located in the permit only areas on the upper level of the north parking ramp for the lunch hour and the very lower level of the south parking ramp for the supper hour.- These are two areas that are underutilized during their respective time of day. Staff feels that by diverting 30 to 60 vehicles from parking in the general ramp areas that it might help eliminate a portion of the parking congestion within the ramps. ATTACHMENTS: License Agreement G:\ Engineering \lnfrastructure\HRA's \50th & France \Valet Parking \Item III B Agreement 50th and France Commercial Area Trial Valet Parking November 17 to December 31.docx LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made on , 2010, between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City "), and TRADITION VALET, INC., a Minnesota corporation ( "Licensee "). WHEREAS, the City is the owner of parking ramps located at 3925 49%2 Street West and 4050 51St Street West in Edina ( "Parking Ramps "), which are used for public and permit parking; and WHEREAS, the Licensee wants to provide valet parking to business customers in the 50th and France area in the Parking Ramps subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City agrees to grant a license to Licensee for the use of parking spaces in the Parking Ramps subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. License to Use Property. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, the City hereby grants to the Licensee a non - exclusive license to use 32 parking spaces in the 3925 49%2 Street West City Parking Ramp for valet parking during the lunch hour and 60 parking spaces in the 4050 51St Street West City Parking Ramp for valet parking during the supper hour at the locations approved by the City. No other rights are granted or conferred upon the Licensee by this License Agreement. 2. Term. The initial term of this License Agreement shall commence on November 17, 2010 and end on December 31, 2010, both dates inclusive, unless terminated prior thereto as provided herein. At the expiration of the initial term, this License Agreement shall continue from day to day, unless either party gives ten (10) days written notice to the other party of its intent to terminate this License Agreement. 3. Conditions. The City and the Licensee agree that the Licensee will use the City Parking Ramps subject to the following conditions: 15471702 RNKA l /10/2010 A. Licensee acknowledges that Licensee has inspected the City Parking Ramps and is fully satisfied with its physical condition and agrees to accept the City Parking Ramps in its present "as is" condition without any representation or warranty from the City as to the condition thereof or as to the use or occupancy which may be made thereof and the City shall not be responsible for any latent or other defect or change in condition. B. The Licensee accepts the City Parking Ramps subject to such conditions, restrictions, and limitations, if any, that the City may impose. C. The Licensee accepts the City Parking Ramps subject to any applicable health, life, safety, fire, or zoning ordinances, codes, regulations or statutes of the City, the County of Hennepin, the State of Minnesota, or any other governmental body now existing or which may hereinafter exist by reason of any legal authority during the term of this License Agreement. D. The Licensee accepts the City Parking Ramps and is satisfied as to the boundary lines and contents of its premises and likewise satisfied with the sufficiency of the present title of the City. 4. Use of Property. The Licensee's use of the City Parking Ramps is non- exclusive. The Licensee shall be permitted to use the City Parking Ramps for the purposes described in this License Agreement and shall not use the City Parking Ramps for any other purposes. The Licensee shall not use the City Parking Ramps, or permit anything to be done in or about the City Parking Ramps, which will in any way conflict with any law, statute, ordinance, or governmental rule or regulation. The Licensee shall not use, generate, store, or dispose of any Hazardous Materials in or about the City Parking Ramps. The term "Hazardous Material" shall mean asbestos, petroleum, and any other hazardous or toxic substance, material, or waste which is, or becomes, regulated by any local governmental authority, the State of Minnesota, or the United States Government. The Licensee shall use and keep the City Parking Ramps in a clean and orderly condition. 5. Alterations, Improvements, and Maintenance. Licensee shall not make any alterations, improvements, or installations in or to the Parking Ramps without the City's prior written consent, which consent may be withheld in the City's absolute and sole discretion. 6. Assignment. The Licensee shall not transfer, assign, or sublet this License Agreement to any other party. 7. Indemnification. The Licensee agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City from and against all liability, damages, penalties, judgments, or claims of whatever nature arising from injury to person or property sustained by anyone arising out of use by the Licensee, its members, guests and invitees and occupancy of the City Parking Ramps and will at Licensee's own cost and expense defend any and all suits or actions (just or unjust) which may be brought against the City or in which the City may be impleaded with others upon any such above - mentioned matter, claim, or claims. This indemnification in noway limits the Licensee's obligation to maintain a blanket or other general liability insurance policy for the benefit of the City. This indemnity and hold harmless agreement will include indemnity against all costs, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or in connection with any such claims or proceedings brought thereon and the defense thereof. All of the indemnifications contained in this License Agreement shall survive the expiration or termination of this License Agreement. 8. Insurance. Licensee shall obtain the following minimum insurance coverage and maintain it at all times throughout the life of this License Agreement: Bodily Injury: $2,000,000 each occurrence 154717v02 2 RNK:rl 1 /10/2010 Property Damage: $2,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate Contractual Liability (identifying the contract): Bodily Injury: $2,000,000 each occurrence Property Damage: $2,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate Comprehensive Automobile Liability (owned, non - owned, hired): Bodily Injury: $2,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 each accident Property Damage: $2,000,000 each occurrence 9. Requirement for All Insurance. All insurance policies (or riders) required by this License Agreement will be (i) taken out by the Licensee and maintained with responsible insurance companies organized under the laws of one of the states of the United States and qualified to do business in the State of Minnesota, (ii) will contain a provision that the insurer will not cancel or revise coverage thereunder without giving written notice to the Licensee as an insured party and to the City as an additional insured at least thirty (30) days before cancellation or revision becomes effective, (iii) will name the Licensee as an insured party and "City of Edina" as an additional insured, (iv) will be in accordance with specifications approved by the City, and (v) will be evidenced by a Certificate of Insurance listing "City of Edina" as an additional insured which will be filed with the City. 10. Data Practices. All data created, collected, received, maintained or disseminated for any purpose in the course of this License Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, any other applicable state statute, or any state rules adopted to implement the act, as well as federal regulations on data privacy. 11. Waiver of Default. Any waiver by the City of a default under the provisions of this License Agreement by Licensee will not operate or be construed as a waiver of a subsequent default by Licensee. No waiver will be valid unless in writing and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk on behalf of the City. 12. Invalidity of Provisions. If any term or provision of this License Agreement or any application hereof to any person or circumstance is to any extent found to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this License Agreement or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable will not be effected thereby and each term and provision of this License Agreement will be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 154717v02 3 RNKA 1/10/2010 13. Entire Agreement. This instrument together with the Lease Agreement contain the entire and only agreement between the parties and no oral statements or representations or prior written matter not contained in this instrument will have any force and effect. This License Agreement cannot be modified in any way except by writing executed by both parties. 14. Governing Law. This License Agreement will be governed exclusively by the provisions hereof and by the laws of the State of Minnesota, as the same from time to time exists. 15. Default. If the Licensee violates or fails to perform any of the other conditions, covenants or agreements herein made by the Licensee, and such default continues for thirty (30) days after written notice from the City, such violation or failure shall constitute an Event of Default. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the City may, in addition to any other remedies available to the City at law or in equity, immediately revoke the license granted by this License Agreement without any further notice to the Licensee. Neither the passage of time after the occurrence of the Event of Default nor the exercise by the City of any other remedy with regard to such Event of Default shall limit the City's rights under this Section. 16. Attorney's Fees. The Licensee shall pay all of the City's costs, charges, and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and fees of agents and others retained by the City, incurred in enforcing Licensee's obligations hereunder or incurred by the City in any litigation, negotiation or transaction in which Licensee causes the City, without the City's fault, to become involved or concerned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this License Agreement effective the day and year first above written. CITY: LICENSEE: CITY OF EDINA TRADITION VALET, INC. BY: BY: James Hovland, Mayor Its mm Scott Neal, City Manager 15471702 4 RNKA l /10/2010 o1�e O REPORURECOMMEN DATION To:. MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III.C. From: SHERRY ENGELMAN COMMUNITY HEALTH ADM ® Action Discussion Information Date: NOVEMBER 16, 2010 Subject: ORDINANCE NO. 2010 -16 AMENDING SECTION 7 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING BODY ART ESTABLISHMENTS ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Ordinance No. 2010 -16 amending Section 7 of the Edina City Code concerning body art establishments and waive second reading of the ordinance. INFORMATIOWBACKGROUND: The Edina City Council adopted a body art ordinance in 2002 to regulate body art establishments. At the time, Minnesota state statutes were silent on body art regulation. Bloomington, Minnetonka, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Anoka County and Hennepin County also developed body art ordinances to regulate these establishments. During the 2010 session, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law requiring the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to regulate body art establishments in areas not regulated by local health agencies. In addition, the new law requires that individual body art professionals (technicians) be licensed by MDH. Proposed Ordinance No. 2010 -16 incorporates by reference the new state statute to update language and adds a provision for body art plan review fees. Edina will continue to review plans and license and inspect body art establishments, while MDH will license the individual technicians. Currently we license only one cosmetic body art establishment. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved Ordinance No. 2010 -16. Rn ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 2010 -16 Amending Section 7 of the Edina City Code Concerning Body Art Establishments (PDF VERSION ONLY) ORDINANCE NO. 2010-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING BODY ART ESTABLISHMENTS THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 745 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Section 745 - Body Art Establishments 745.01 Purpose. This ordinance is enacted to establish standards to protect health, safety and general welfare of the people of Edina through regulation of body art establishments. The general objectives of this ordinance are: A. To prevent disease transmission; To correct and prevent conditions that may adversely affect persons utilizing body art establishments; C. To provide standards for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of body art establishments; and D. To meet consumer expectations of the safety of body art establishments 745.02 General Provisions. Subd. 1. Scope. This ordinance shall apply to-all ;^. i-vid ..,'.. peFfeF ^°^^ bedy aFt pFerzedwFes and all body art establishments where tattooing and body piercing are conducted. Subd. 2. Incorporation by Reference. Minnesota Statutes 1468 is incorporated herein by reference. Subd. 3. Prohibitions. No individual shall A. Operate a temporary body art establishment;Gend et branding eut4ing implant � ^^ B. Operate a body art establishment ordinanee without a license issued by the City of Edina. 745.03 Definitions. _ s�r_rrr:rrt: Aknfiseptie Paeans an agent tha4 destroys disease �eer-gamsffis on human skin 0 b Body Art Eneans any plaee or- pies }ise, whetheF -publre body but limited to, the following or- e where the pr-aefiees ef bedy aft, whether- means physieal aderamepA using, net . ■ ■ • but lifnited te, implants the Seeh shall no B. Operate a body art establishment ordinanee without a license issued by the City of Edina. 745.03 Definitions. _ s�r_rrr:rrt: Aknfiseptie Paeans an agent tha4 destroys disease �eer-gamsffis on human skin 0 b Body Art Eneans any plaee or- pies }ise, whetheF -publre body but limited to, the following or- e where the pr-aefiees ef bedy aft, whether- means physieal aderamepA using, net . ■ ■ but lifnited te, implants the Seeh shall no stieh. as, rfne not ., bed), under skin. art establ:sl„m e t medieal preeedures erF Body Ar—t Establishment Eneans any plaee or- pies }ise, whetheF -publre Ar pr-ivate, tempefaFy e pefmanent in natufe p mac efined. or- e where the pr-aefiees ef bedy aft, whether- or- not for- pfefit, are MIMM Mt fP�!![ MM M ■ ■ 111,1110,1111 film MIMM Mt fP�!![ MM M 111,1110,1111 film Ear- Piereing System __ - . ;tramenit designed to puneture the ear lobe using a pr-e- ilized single use stud and ii earving. FquviFAnent mean- all - -,hi - ,, _ „ i„a: tg fixtuiiii eentaine -s, vessels, teels de vie e n implements, 7 areas, sinks, and all other- appar-aWs and appuftenanees used in the operation ef a bedy art establishment. Establishment Plan means a to -scale drawing of the establishment's layout illustrating the requirements of this ordinance. Hand Sink me-ans -;; '_;;v_at9Fy equipped ii hi;_# and r-pild watpr hii undeF pFeSSUFe, used seliely fGF washing handS WFists, aFFAS 9F ethy. PGFti9RS OF the be d,• Health Department means the Edina Health Department, its designated employees, or other designated agents. Het WateF FnearawateF at least 110 ° F- _�estrsr.�_ MI MIN �- Ear- Piereing System __ - . ;tramenit designed to puneture the ear lobe using a pr-e- ilized single use stud and ii earving. FquviFAnent mean- all - -,hi - ,, _ „ i„a: tg fixtuiiii eentaine -s, vessels, teels de vie e n implements, 7 areas, sinks, and all other- appar-aWs and appuftenanees used in the operation ef a bedy art establishment. Establishment Plan means a to -scale drawing of the establishment's layout illustrating the requirements of this ordinance. Hand Sink me-ans -;; '_;;v_at9Fy equipped ii hi;_# and r-pild watpr hii undeF pFeSSUFe, used seliely fGF washing handS WFists, aFFAS 9F ethy. PGFti9RS OF the be d,• Health Department means the Edina Health Department, its designated employees, or other designated agents. Het WateF FnearawateF at least 110 ° F- Pffson means any individual, _�estrsr.�_ Pffson means any individual, �- Pffson means any individual, MEN _ 10 s r.r.ragn FT. • - - 1r. 1IM"WIM MEN _ 10 s Tattooing means any methed of plaeing ink er- ether pigments in4e er under- the skiR OF MUBE)Sa with aeedl6s or- y instnimen4s used te punetufe the skin, o 745.04 License Administration. Subd. 1. License Required. No person shall own or operate a body art establishment without an establishment license. Each license shall be obtained from the City Clerk pursuant to Section 160 of this Code. Subd. 2. Licensing Procedure. A. All applications, new and renewal, for licenses shall be made upon forms furnished by the City Clerk. The application shall be submitted to the City Clerk accompanied by a fee as set forth in Section 185 of this Code. Each establishment license application shall describe the general nature of the business, the location, and any other information deemed necessary by the Health Department. Subd. 3. Location Restricted. No individual shall engage in body art activities at any place other than a licensed establishment. Subd. 4. License Expiration. Licenses issued pursuant to this code shall commence and expire on the dates indicated on the license. Subd. 5. Transfer and Display of License. Only a person who complies with the requirements of this ordinance shall be entitled to receive a license. A license shall not be transferable as to person or place. A valid license shall be posted pursuant to Section 160 of this Code. 745.05 Inspection and Plan Review. Subd. 1. Inspection Required. The Health Department shall inspect each body art establishment: A. Before issuing a license for a new establishment; As part of a construction or remodeling plan review; As part of a complaint investigation; or D. At least once a year for a routine inspection. Subd. 2. Construction Inspections. The body art establishment shall be constructed in conformance with the approved plans. The Health Department shall inspect the body art establishment as frequently as necessary during the construction to ensure that the construction occurs in conformance with this ordinance. The Health Department shall conduct a final construction inspection prior to the start of operations and issuance of a license. Subd. 3. Access to Premises and Records. The operator of the body art establishment shall, upon request of the Health Department and after proper identification, permit access to all parts of the establishment at any reasonable time, for the purpose of inspection. The operator shall allow review of any records necessary for the Health Department to ascertain compliance to this ordinance. Subd. 4. Interference with the Health Department. No person shall interfere with or hinder the Health Inspector in the performance of its duties, or refuse to permit the Health Department to make such inspections. Subd. 5. Removal and Correction of Violations. Operator(s) or technician(s) shall correct or remove each violation upon receipt of an inspection report giving notification of one or more violations of this ordinance in a reasonable length of time as determined by the Health Department. The length of time for the correction or removal of each such violation shall be noted on the inspection report. Failure to remove or correct each violation within the time period noted on the inspection report shall constitute a separate violation of this ordinance. The Health Department may issue orders to halt construction or remodeling, or to take corrective measures to ensure compliance with this ordinance. 745.06 Grounds for Closure. Subd. 1. Violations. If any violation of this Code exists the operator(s) or technician(s) may be ordered to discontinue all operations of the body art establishment. Body art establishments shall only reopen with permission from the Health Department. 745.07 Standards for Health and Safety. No operator or body art establishment shall engage in body art activities without complying with the following regulations: Subd. 1. Facilities. A. Any new or remodeled establishment shall submit to the Health Department a to -scale establishment plan in sufficient detail to ascertain compliance with conditions in this ordinance, a plan review application and a plan review fee as set forth in Section 185 of this Code. B. There shall be no less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor space for each procedure area. The procedure area(s) must be separated from the bathroom, retail sales area, hair salon area, or any other area that may cause potential contamination of work surfaces. For clients requesting privacy, dividers, curtains, or partitions at a minimum shall separate multiple procedure areas. C. Each establishment shall have a readily accessible hand sink that is not in a public restroom and is equipped with: (1) Hot and cold running water under pressure; (2) No touch faucet controls such as wrist or foot operated; (3) Liquid hand soap; (4) Single use paper towels; and (5) A garbage can that is nonporous washable receptacle with a foot operated lid or no lid and a removable liner. D. Every establishment shall have at least one available bathroom equipped with a toilet and a hand lavatory. The hand lavatory shall be supplied with: (1) Hot and cold running water under pressure; (2) Liquid hand soap; (3) Single use paper towels or mechanical hand drier /blower; (4) A garbage can that is nonporous washable receptacle with a foot operated lid or no lid and a removable liner; (5) A door that closes; and (6) Adequate ventilation. E. The establishment shall have an artificial light source equivalent to 20 foot - candles at three feet above the floor. At least 100 foot - candles of light shall be provided at the level where body art procedures are performed, where sterilization takes place, and where instruments and sharps are assembled. F. All procedure surfaces shall be smooth, nonabsorbent and easily cleanable. G. All ceilings shall be in good condition. H. All walls and floors shall be free of open holes or cracks and washable. Carpeting may not be used in areas of body art procedures. I. All facilities shall be maintained in good working order. J. All facilities shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. K. No establishment shall be used or occupied for living or sleeping quarters. L. Only service animals may be allowed in the establishment. No animals shall be allowed in the procedure area(s). M. Effective measures shall be taken by the operator to prevent entrance, breeding, and harborage of insects, vermin, and rodents in the establishment. Cu{„i 7 Equipment and Ine•4r„n,en+s_ iure be sterilized before use. All reusable A. M! j eweir-y used as pai4 ef a pi sha4l rinsed, and sterilized All be needles. All ster-iliza4ion shall be before and after use. needles hem. shed! Steam sterilized heat single use shall be operated weer-ding to the eendueted using steam ster-iliza4ioa units steel, solid 1.4k or- l8k white e gold, yellow be f+ee of G All inks, 3 dyes, e .1 ether pigments eA sb,a11 b e 1 inks, dyes, ., •f 1 11 (111 Y 11 f + ,l f tat4ee . l� p(�p \��.p� p reeedWes to.. .. alee1,,,1 aeeeptable. before tattoo, the pigments, of 4he dye used shall be transfeFfed fr-ofa 1). lmmedia4ely applying a quantity these single use eups and their- Meets x1,.,11 b..- disear.io.l tables, E. All f during fluids and shall be sanitized between uses with suitable maa4erial liquid .,hein;nn that 4 ' l n 3iri4L—; e-emplete sanitization, be te the These tewels shall be dispensed -a in F. Single use tewels er- wipes shali pr-evided disposed elient. in elea-Rable eentainer- with a manner liner, thfft preeludes eentaminatien dr-essings and be ef a or garbage bWk elean and staFed in G. All bandages and sur-gieal used shall sterile paekaged s ee MUM C. No body aizt pr-eeedur-e shall be per-feFmed on an), area of the skin where there is an evide in4;aetierrnzTCUCion, or- open we;und. Q h.a it M-And Washing and Hygiene. A. Eaeh teehnieian shall senib his er- her hands and Nwists ther-eughly for- 20 seeends before and .,++.,Y Y ff ..,-.i.,.. n 1..,lli,_aFt Y o,]„Yo 14. Teeh.*ieians vAth skin infeetiens of the hand shall net pei:fen:n body aft pr-eeedur- A. They b7GCePiiG- R'Lifnagei`u'-; non v irca.a- - ie s• Vim � r - G They come in ..+ne+. with th;Y.7 L'tF 7 n + a minimum, gloves shall be ,a; ,..7o.a after the 1 t f ,a, Subd. 3. Hands and twists fmist be washed before puRing on a elean pair- of gloves and afte 11V11 V �../ .l ,i.�,n f11 ,i..,n nh ,ll .. ,+ h , Y .�rl . Disposal .. Gentaminated 1 V,.LUV vv. Subd. 1. Contaminated waste that may release liquid bleed of bedy fluid-s when eempr-essed a that may release &-ied bleed or body flidids:,when GG 77 must be plaeed in an appreved 7 red bag that is rnafked with the intema4ional biehazar-d symbol. it must be disposed of by a lieensed .0 NVOINS "mm MW ram I � - A. They b7GCePiiG- R'Lifnagei`u'-; non v irca.a- - ie s• Vim � r - G They come in ..+ne+. with th;Y.7 L'tF 7 n + a minimum, gloves shall be ,a; ,..7o.a after the 1 t f ,a, Subd. 3. Hands and twists fmist be washed before puRing on a elean pair- of gloves and afte 11V11 V �../ .l ,i.�,n f11 ,i..,n nh ,ll .. ,+ h , Y .�rl . Disposal .. Gentaminated 1 V,.LUV vv. Subd. 1. Contaminated waste that may release liquid bleed of bedy fluid-s when eempr-essed a that may release &-ied bleed or body flidids:,when GG 77 must be plaeed in an appreved 7 red bag that is rnafked with the intema4ional biehazar-d symbol. it must be disposed of by a lieensed waste hauler- at an approved sile, or- at a minim ,. eatitained in 29 GFR n . 101 n 1 nzn n pats , +„_ule,.,lt,ome Pathege Subd. 2. Contffininated waste that flet. feleese liquid bleed or- body fluids when eenipr-essed or- handled ffiay be plaeed in a eever-ed r-eeeptaele and disposed of thfeugh normal, approve dispesal methods. Subd. 3. Sharp-, ready fef disposal shall be disposed of in an appr-oved shaFps eaelitainer. Subd. 4. Storage of eetitaminated waste en site shall not emeeed the period speeified by -29 CPR Pa.* 1 91 n 1 030 n atio.,.,1 Exposure to nl,,,,a1. ome Pathogen 745.10 Industry Self - Survey and Training ResponsibilityT -eeh. ieia., Requirements and Pi4essional Standards. A. Full name; R lueme addfess; Q ►:.:1,.,,.,,, phone . beF, D. Date of bifth-, E. l,lentifteation phete ass&• s - vim TIMM .. FMIM (I) That any tattoo sheuld be eensider-ed permanent; it may only be r-emeved with a sufgioal pfoeedur-e; and any offeetive may leave se i g, 71 T1 l, .,t leaVe SE)a as C � ,, b "b' 1 / .0mem-rPmr-mirm MY age, and euffeat address of the elient; M- te'. Ma:. �.ia�av an•..is..i:.:�a.� :ate: �... aQ �:. %.,�Q� i�..asv D. The + of he body a4 pr- eceduiQ pe f r J aft pfeeedufe en vAth:required defined signatut-es a-, in 74 c 10. c,,,,a 3., if ,,,,,,;,..,,,t, 84d. 11. industry Sel f S....vey and Training Responsibility.—Every licensee of a body art establishment shall arrange for and maintain a program of sanitation self - inspection conducted by the owner, operator, technician, or apprentice and approved by the Health Department. The self - inspection program shall include written policies, appropriate forms for logging self - inspections, and evidence that routine self - inspection of all aspects of the body art establishment takes place. Records of the body art establishment self - inspection program shall be available for review. SECTION 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor o e I�C�RPOPAT�9� 1898 REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III.D. From: John Wallin Finance Director ® Action Discussion Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: Consider Mayor's Expense Reimbursement ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the Mayor's expense reimbursement. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The Mayor will present this item concerning recent travel expenses. owes 0 ,eaa REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III.E . From: Debra Mangen F7 Action City Clerk ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: Reappointment of Members to Boards, Committees & Commissions ACTION REQUESTED: Motion reappointing the persons listed below to terms beginning February 1, 2011 on the various city boards, committees, and commissions. Info /Background: Letters were sent to all individuals with terms expiring February 1, 2011. Two of those members: John Swon, Art Center Board and Rob Presthus, Park Board; have not yet responded to the inquiries. The following individuals declined reappointment: Art Center Board: Richard Fesler and Ani Washburn; Board of Appeals and Equalization: Jefrrey Johnson and Kenneth Sorteberg The following individuals have expressed a willingness to be reappointed to their respective board, commission or committee. All are eligible to be reappointed with respect to term limits and attendance requirements where applicable: Board of Appeals and Equalization Michael Friedberg Planning Commission Craig Johnson Floyd Grabiel Gordon Tuchenhagen Community Health Committee Janet Johnson Mary Jo Kingston Human Rights and Relations Commission Lisa Finsness Jessica Kingston Russell Stanton Park Board Joseph Hulbert Daniel Peterson Transportation Commission Jennifer Janovy Zoning Board of Appeals Scott Davidson Bernadette Hornig Helen Winder East Edina Housing Foundation (Not subject to attendance ordinance) Douglas Mayo Mary Kay McNee Mayor Hovland sent letters to the following indivuals thanking them for their service who were term limited: Art Center Board: Heather Randall King; Community Health Committee: Mark Johnson and Idelle Longman; Construction Board of Appeals: John Glover; Planning Commission: Stephen Brown; and Transportation Commission: Geoffrey Workinger. The following vacancies will exist assuming Council reappoints all of the above named individuals: Art Center Board: Four positions — one for term limits, two declined reappointment and one resignation. Board of Appeal & Equalization: Two positions — two declined reappointment Community Health Committee: Two positions — two term limits persons Construction Board of Appeals: One position — one term limited person Energy & Environment Commission: One position — one resignation Human Rights & Relations Commission: One position — one resignation Planning Commission: One position — one term limited person Transportation Commission: Three positions — one term limited person, one resignation and one person elected to Council In addition to these vacancies, there may be additional vacancies due to attendance issues. I will report on these once I have received the final year end attendance records. I recommend that the City issue a press release with the above mentioned vacancies and accept applications until Friday, December 17, 2010. The applications can then be distributed for review by the Council. Also if the Council could set aside three times for interviews of applicants I will incorporate those dates onto the application. I would suggest three different nights of the week and two different weeks in January. • r� 0w e �� • f�roaroxA'��� ,aae REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III. F. From: Robert C. Wilson City Assessor ® Action ❑ Discussion Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: Resolution No. 2010 -114 Approving Deferral of Special Assessments ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2010 -114 authorizing special assessment deferral for 4616 Drexel Ave, 4618 Casco Ave, 4525 Drexel Ave, 4904 Arden Ave, 5513 Chantrey Rd, 5833 Ashcroft Ave, 5809 Ashcroft Ave, 5940 Ashcroft Ave, 7020 West Shore Dr, 4517 Andover Rd, 4436 Dunham Dr, 7109 West Shore Dr. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: State Statutes and City policy allow the deferment of special assessments for property owners who meet the required eligibility standards and complete an application. An application for deferment has been received and a resolution has been prepared. A copy of this resolution is attached for your consideration. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2010 -114 RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -114 APPROVING DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS City of Edina WHEREAS, certain applications and authorization for deferral of special assessments have been received by the City of Edina from citizens seeking to have the special assessments for their properties deferred as allowed by provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 435.193 to 435.195 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the following applications are hereby granted the requested deferral of special assessments: PID PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS LEVY NO. 18- 028 -24 -13 -0007 Richard J. Stromme 18- 028 -24 -13 -0020 Onan A. Thompson 18- 028 -24 -12 -0108 Beverly L. Rosenberg 18- 028 -24 -13 -0125 Judith A. Sorensen 32- 117 -21 -12 -0062 Bruce H. Hiller 19- 028 -24 -31 -0061 Wanda T Schumacher 19- 028 -24 -31 -0100 Corrine Sharp 19- 028 -24 -31 -0066 Shirley Oxley 31- 028 -24 -21 -0010 Ruth C. Johnson 31- 028 -24 -21 -0024 Maynard T. Nelson 31- 028 -24 -21 -0081 Lorraine M. Nygaard 31- 028 -24 -21 -0102 Rex W. McClelland PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November, 2010 ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK 4616 Drexel Ave 17710 4618 Casco Ave 17710 4525 Drexel Ave 17710 4904 Arden Ave 17710 5513 Chantrey Rd 17712 5833 Ashcroft Ave 17713 5940 Ashcroft Ave 17713 5809 Ashcroft Ave 17713 7020 West Shore Dr 17714 4517 Andover Rd 17714 4436 Dunham Dr 17714 7109 West Shore Dr 17714 Mayor I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of November 16, 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com ,20—. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 r o e \�cOIleea REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III.G . From: Debra Mangen � Action City Clerk F] Discussion 11 Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: Resolution No. 2010 -88 Accepting Various Donations ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: In order to comply with State Statutes, all donations to the City must be adopted by a resolution approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donation. I have prepared the attached resolution detailing the various donors, their gifts and the recipient departments for your consideration. The City has received a grant from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District to aid in placement of GSP units on snow plows to aid in monitoring salt use as outlined in Jesse Struve's attached memorandum. ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 2010 -88 Jesse Struve Memorandum 11 -9 -2010 Kevin Bigalke Letter 07 -19 -2010 o e V� RESOLUTION NO. 2010-88 N �° ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDINA aaa . City of Edina WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants and donations of real or personal property for the benefit of its citizens; WHEREAS, said donations must be accepted via a resolution of the Council adopted by a two thirds majority of its members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council accepts with sincere appreciation the following listed donations on behalf of its citizens. Edina Public Works Department: Nine Mile Creek $20,000 Dated: November 16, 2010 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK GPS Units For City Snow Plow Trucks James B. Hovland, Mayor I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of November 16, 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com day of City Clerk 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952 -826 -0379 DATE: November 8, 2010 TO: Wayne Houle FROM: Jesse Struve, PE MEMORANDUM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA SUBJECT: Grant Approval from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Nine Mile Creek was designated as an impaired water by the DNR for excessive turbidity, chloride concentration, and biotic impairments in 2003. As a result of the impaired classification, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) began monitoring the creek extensively and began a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study to address the issues. As a way to address issues within the NMCWD, they created a grant program in early 2010 which will provide financial assistance for efforts that protect and improve water and natural resources. I applied for the grant and the City was awarded $20,000. NMCWD will. reimburse up to 75% match for materials and labor. Therefore, if the City spends $26,667 on improvements, NMCWD will reimburse us for $20,000. With the funds, we will be purchasing GPS units for our snow plow trucks. This will allow us to effectively monitor how much salt is being applied to roadways located in NMCWD. This will also allow us to evaluate salt applying practices currently used and make changes to reduce the amount of salt applied to the roadways. The reduction of salt applied to the roadways will reduce the impact to Nine Mile Creek and it will help provide a cost savings to the City. If the grant is accepted by the City Council, we anticipate the delivery and installation of the devises later this fall. W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T District Office: Edina Business Center • 7710 Computer Avenue - Suite 135 • Edina, MN 55435 Ph. 952- 835 -2078 Pax 952 -835 -2079 Web Site: www.nlnemilecreek.org July 19, 2010 Mr. Jesse Struve City of Edina Engineering 4801 West 501h Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Struve: Congratulations! Your project has been selected to receive a cost -share grant in the amount of $20,000 from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. We were only able to provide partial funding of your request due to the number of high quality applications we received this year. Enclosed with this letter is the cost -share grant agreement that requires your signature. Please review the grant agreement to make sure all information is correct. Please sign and return the grant agreement at your earliest convenience. Once we have received the signed copy we will sign the agreement and return a copy of the agreement to you. If you have any questions or if you have decided not to move forward with the project, please contact me at (952) 835 -2078. Thank you for your interest in the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Cost -Share Grant Program. Sincerely, Kevin D. Bigalke District Administrator Board of Managers LuAnn Tolliver - Minnetonka Corrine Lynch - Eden Prairie Bob Kojelin - Edina Steve Klolber - Edina Geoffrey Nash - Edina �91N�1r'rL, o e Cl) 0 lass •l�� �9� 1889 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III.H. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Action Discussion Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: 2011 Council Meeting Dates and Holidays ACTION REQUESTED: Motion approving the 2011 Council meeting dates and holiday schedule per the attached list. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Annually the Council confirms the Council meeting dates. Also, Edina's Code of Ordinances Section 150 establishes which holidays are observed. The attached list will be distributed to staff and the public to advise all of these dates after Council approval. ATTACHMENT: 2011 Holiday List Calendar of 2011 Council Meetings & Holidays PLEASE ROUTE THROUGH YOUR DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: November 17, 2010 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Debra Mangen, City Clerk SUBJECT: 2011 COUNCIL MEETING DATES AND HOLIDAYS At its meeting of November 16, 2010 the City Council approved continuation of the current City Council regular meeting schedule of first and third Tuesdays and study session (if needed) on the fourth Tuesdays for 2011 with the following exceptions. Wednesday, August 3, 2011 First Tuesday is National Night Out and Ramadan begins August 1, 2011 The Personnel Ordinance No. 150 established the following HOLIDAYS FOR 2010: NEW YEAR'S DAY 2011 FRIDAY DECEMBER 31, 2010 MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY MONDAY JANUARY 17, 2011 PRESIDENTS' DAY MONDAY FEBRUARY 21, 2011 MEMORIAL DAY MONDAY MAY 30, 2011 INDEPENDENCE DAY FRIDAY JULY 3, 2011 LABOR DAY MONDAY SEPTEMBER 5, 2011 VETERAN'S DAY FRIDAY NOVEMBER 11, 2011 THANKSGIVING DAY THURSDAY NOVEMBER 24, 2011 DAY AFTER THANKSGIVING FRIDAY NOVEMBER 25, 2011 CHRISTMAS DAY MONDAY DECEMBER 26, 2011 a_. 2011 City of Edina Meetings, Study Sessions, Holidays, & Election Dates Holidays - City Council 6 Study Session 7am Election Day Study Session 11:30 am Night To Unite JANUARY S M T W T F S 1 2 Z:: 2 3 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 31 APRIL S M T W T F S 1 2 Z:: 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 :::: 20 21 22 23 24 25 =::26 27 28 29 30 31 31 JULY S M T W T F S 1 2 Z:: 2 3 1 2 3 3 8 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 17 :::: 20 1 21 22 23 24 25 YY'., 27 28 29 30 31 31 OCTOBER S M T W T F S 1 2 Z:: 2 3 4 1 2 3 8 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 :::: 19 20 21 22 23 24 :::fig 26 27 28 29 30 31 FEBRUARY S M T W T F S 1 2 Z:: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 :::: 23 24 25 26 27 28 31 31 31 30 MAY S M T W T F S 1 2 Z:: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 ¢ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 31 30 AUGUST S M T W T F S 1 Z:: 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 ::: =.:3: 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 30 NOVEMBER S M T W T F S F7 2 3 4 5 6 t21 8::: 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 = 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 30 MARCH S M T W T F S 2 3 4 5 5 t21 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 20 = 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 30 JUNE S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 :::::Z$ 29 30 30 SEPTEMBER S M T W T F S 1 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 DECEMBER S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26Y 281 29 1 30 1 31 File: Council Meeting Schedule Including Study Sessions 2011.x1s Printed: 11/12/2010 at 12:06 PM Le ) 0 • l ~�R888 �v // REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No: 111.1. From: Boyd Tate Traffic Safety Coordinator ® Action ❑ Discussion Information Date: November 16, 2010 Subject: Traffic Safety Report of November 3, 2010. ACTION REQUESTED: Review and approve Traffic Safety Staff Review of Wednesday, November 3, 2010. BACKGROUND: It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the Council meeting regarding any of the attached issues. ATTACHMENTS: Traffic Safety Review for November 3, 2010. TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW Wednesday, November 3, 2010 The staff review of traffic safety matters occurred on November 3, 2010. Staff present included the City Engineer, Assistant City Engineer, City Planner, Traffic Safety Coordinator and Sign Coordinator. From that review, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They were also informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can be included on the November 16, 2010, Council Agenda. SECTION A: Requests on which staff recommends approval of request: 1. Request that all intersections within the City that are controlled by traffic signals also have marked and painted pedestrian crosswalks (C- agenda item from October 19, 2010). This request comes from an Edina resident who is concerned with the safety of pedestrians throughout the City. The total traffic signals within the City are 54. Ownership and maintenance are as follows: City of Edina — 14; City of Minneapolis — 6; Hennepin County — 26; MnDOT — 8. Mn/DOT and Hennepin County have their own established policies regarding pedestrian crosswalks. Minneapolis traffic signals are in compliance with the request (8 -inch line type markings). Almost all City owned traffic signals are currently in compliance, or will be in compliance with this request by November 16, 2010. Hennepin County's policy states "County not required to mark the crossing at intersections (signalized or unsignalized). If crossings are marked then the local agency (City) is required to pay for and maintain markings. Installation per MN MUTCD. Painted crosswalks are typically "zebra" style markings." Staff will continue working with Mn/DOT and Hennepin County on this issue. Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 1 of 4 November 3, 2010 See Attachment A -1. Staff recommends approval for pedestrian crosswalks at all signalized intersections that are owned and maintained by the City of Edina because we are already, or will be, in compliance with this request by November 16, 2010. 2. Request to enhance the signs at W. 70`h Street and Antrim Road that state "Traffic From Left/Right Does Not Stop" making them more visible to motorists. This request comes from a resident who had a near collision at this intersection recently. Requestor feels that the signs are not visible enough. W. 70th Street and Antrim Road is a four leg, three -way stop intersection. West bound 70`" Street traffic is not required to stop. There are two advisory signs at the intersection. South bound Antrim Road traffic must stop at W. 70`h Street. Directly under this stop sign is an advisory sign that states "Traffic From Left Does Not Stop." North bound Antrim Road traffic must stop at W. 70`" Street. An advisory sign here states that "Traffic From Right Does Not Stop." These advisory signs are 24" x 12" and are attached to the stop sign post directly under the stop sign. W. 70`" Street has an average Mon. -Fri. daily traffic count of 5,645 vehicles with an 85`h- percentile speed of 28.1 mph. Antrim Road has a Mon. -Fri. daily traffic count of 4,104 with an 85th- percentile speed of 36.4 mph. There have been three property damage traffic accidents at this intersection from 2001 -2009 (one rear end, one right angle and one not specified). The design of this intersection is due to a hill for west bound traffic and the fact that these are concrete streets. Concrete becomes slippery during the winter months and vehicles and school busses would have a difficult time negotiating this hill if west bound motorists were required to stop. Staff feels that these signs can be enhanced by adding a 24" x 4" bright orange highlight bar to the stop sign post. Staff recommends approval for the installation of a 24" x 4" bright orange highlight bar to the stop sign post, in both directions, to make these advisory signs more noticeable. Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 2 of 4 November 3, 2010 3. Request to install "No Parking - Begin Loading/Unloading" and "No Parking - End Loading/Unloading" along the west side of France Avenue for approximately 60 feet near the pedestrian walkway between Salut Bar Americain and Edina Grill. This request comes from staff working with the 501h and France Business Association and their members to facilitate a temporary valet parking program. This trial program will run from November 17, 2010 to December 31, 2010. Staff recommends requesting Hennepin County to authorize the City of Edina to install the "No Parkins — Begin LoadingWnloading Only" and "No Parking — End Loading/Unloading Only" signs alonk the west side of France Avenue near the pedestrian walkway. SECTION B: Requests on which staff recommends denial of request: 1. Request for a "No Parking Here to Alley" sign 30 -feet west of the alley behind 4405 Country Club Road. This request comes from two residents that use this alley to access their driveways. Requestors state that a neighbor parks two SUV type vehicles next to the alley entrance /exit making it difficult to see cross traffic when exiting the alley. Country Club Road is currently restricted to "No Parking Anytime" on the north side of the street. Parking is permitted on the south side. The sign being requested would have to go on the south side of the street on property other than the requestors and would take away parking in front of 4901 Browndale Avenue. A letter was sent to the home owner of 4901 Browndale asking for input on this request. This resident does not want any additional parking restrictions in front of their home. This resident states that the two SIN type vehicles do not belong to them but to the family across the street. There are no clear view issues at this location. Cars legally parked do not pose a safety issue for a driver that uses due regard for safety when exiting this alley. Edina City Code 1400.10 sub 1 -B states that "No vehicles shall park within five feet of the intersection of any public or private driveway or alley." Requestors have been advised to call police if a violation occurs. Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 3 of 4 November 3, 2010 Staff recommends the denial of the request for a "No Parking Here to Alley" sign at the above location due to the survey letter response from the affected home owner. 2. Request for a stop sign at the intersection of Limerick Lane and Brook Drive for east and west bound Brook Drive traffic. This request comes from a resident on Creek View Lane who recently witnessed an accident at the above intersection. As a result of this request, a traffic study was conducted from 10/10/2010- 10/25/2010. Limerick Lane had a Mon. -Fri. average daily traffic count of 324 vehicles with an 850'- percentile speed of 32.4 mph on the north leg of the intersection and a count of 433 vehicles with a speed of 30.5 mph on the south leg. Brook Drive had a Mon. -Fria average daily count of 86 vehicles with a speed of 25.3 mph. on the west leg. The east leg of Brook Drive was not counted (this is a no outlet street). There has been one property damage accident reported from 2001 -2009. Warrants are not met for stop signs at this location. Staff recommends the denial of the request for stop signs at the intersection of Limerick Lane and Brook Drive for lack of warrants. SECTION C: Requests that are deferred to a later date or referred to others. 1. Request for a traffic light at the intersection of York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue. (Contact Hennepin County). 2. Request for a "Yield" sign at the intersection of Johnson Drive and Ridge Park Road for west bound Ridge Park Road traffic. (Traffic study to be completed when weather permits). Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 4 of 4 November 3, 2010 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/4/2010 -1114/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 340673 1114/2010 108767 3D SPECIALTIES 750.02 SHOP SHELVING 00001753 248812. 434149 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 750.02 340674 11/4/2010 101971 ABLE HOSE & RUBBEW INC. 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Page- 1 Business Unit BUILDING MAINTENANCE 62.35 HOSE, FERRULES 00005189 248475 1- 825959 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES" EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 62.35 340676 1114/2010 119677 ACCESS COMMUNICATIONS INC. 258.75 ACCESS FIBER WORK 248605 16824 46001.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FIBER OPTIC CABLING 78.02 ACCESS FIBER WORK 248606 17251 46001.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FIBER OPTIC CABLING 336.77 340676 11/4/2010 102971 ACE.ICE COMPANY 32.00 248698 0807898 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 56.00 249022 0724774 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 91.20 249023 0724773 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 340677 1114/2010 103367 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO INC. 230.00 AV SERVICE 248476 SVCINV12024 2210.6103 230.00 340678 11/412010 100867 ALSTAD, MARIAN 264.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248920 102910 5110.6103 264.00 340679 11/4/2010 100627 AMERICAN TEST CENTER INC. 200.00 T -90 INSPECTION 248813 2102946 1470.6215 200.00 340680 11/4/2010 122312 ANDERSEN, IMOGENE 216.00 GIFT SHOP HELP 248921 102910 5120.6103 216.00 340681 1114/2010 103870 ANDERSON, SHAWN 249.94, UNIFORM PURCHASE 248947 102810 1301.6201 249.94 340682 1114/2010 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS 248.31 COFFEE 248477 417908, 1550.6406 133.76 COFFEE 249002 417898 7411.6406 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LAUNDRY GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES. ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP GENERAL MAINTENANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL PSTF OCCUPANCY R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY Or _iNA Council Check Register 11/4/2010 — 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description PLANTINGS & TREES LTD - 99 REPAIR PARTS 11;. '0 8:25:28 Page- 2 Business Unit TREES & MAINTENANCE' PAYROLL CLEARING SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE SAND GRAVEL & ROCK PATHS & HARD SURFACE 382.07 POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES. ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 340683 1114/2010 127391 ASGRIMSON, TYLER 26.72 WOOD MULCH FOR SCOUT PROJECT .249003 102910 1644.6541 26.72 340684 11/412010 119168 ASSURANT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,200.45 PREMIUM 248638 102210 9900.2033.16 3,200.45 340686 1114/2010 106015 ATHLETICA INC. 523.40 RINK PARTS FOR TODD PARK 00001798 248814 0031750 -IN 1648.6530 523.40 - 340686 11/4/2010 -- 120996 AVR INC. 232.99 CONCRETE 00001211 248815- 40953 1647.6517 232:99 340687 11/4/2010 104069 B.B. WATSON GRAPHIC DESIGN 112.32 BUSINESS CARDS 248877 474 1400.6104 112.32 340688 11/4/2010 102603 BAGS & BOWS 184.44 GIFT BAGS, BOXES 00009274 248878 0090097232 5120.6406 184.44 340689 1114/2010 100644 BARRETT-MOVING AND STORAGE 968.00 MOVE VOTING,EOUIPMENT 248948 B283- 1140 -0/1. 1180.6103 996.00 ' MOVE VOTING.EOUIPMENT 248949 B283- 1138 -0/1 1180.6103 1,964.00 340690 11/4/2010 106622 BATTLE, DAVID 13.31 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 249004 6008 KAYMAR DR 5900.2015 13.31 340691 11/412010 126300 BAUMAN, DOUG 92.25 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 248950 102910 5510.6107 92.25 340692 11/412010 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 2,213.53 248554 55330100 5842.5513 1,863.65 248555 55115500 5842.5513 PLANTINGS & TREES LTD - 99 REPAIR PARTS 11;. '0 8:25:28 Page- 2 Business Unit TREES & MAINTENANCE' PAYROLL CLEARING SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE SAND GRAVEL & ROCK PATHS & HARD SURFACE CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES. ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ELECTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ELECTION CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ARENA ADMINISTRATION COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE . YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 39.42 11/4/2010 -11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 727.75 248556 55273600 5842.5513 71.84 248557 84355100 5842.5515 138.45 248558, 84355200 5842.6406 383.18 248699 55417800 5862.5513 1,412.26 248700 55418000 5842.5513 711.30 248701 55329200 5842.5512 1,366.95 248702 55330000 5842.5512 495.75 248703 55421400 5842.5512 193.15 248951 84386200 5842.5515 109.50- 248952 55421900 5842.5512 21.00 249024 55417600 5862.5515 36.95 249025 84355500 5862.5515 9,526.26 540.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248922 102910 Subledger Account. Description COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX GENERAL SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 11/3/2010. 8:25:28 Page- 3 Business Unit YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 340693 11/4/2010 :101191 BENNEROTTE, JENNIFER 39.42 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 248953 102910 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 125.00 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 248953 102910 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 303.70 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 248953 102910 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 468.12 340694 11/412010 119213 BENTLEY, MACHELL 106.90 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248640 102510 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT, GENERAL 106.90 340696 11/4/2010 127386 BERGERON, CHESE SUZETTE 540.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248922 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 540.00 340696 11/412010 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 20.97 TAPE 248478 WO- 6650737 -1 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 19.11 NOTE REFILLS 248479 - WO- 651417 -1 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 800.11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 248641 WO- 652974 -1 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 588.45 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00009135 248879 OE- 237999 -1 5110.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 1,428.64 340697 1114/2010 100649 BEST BUY BUSINESS ADVANTAGE AC 442.02 TV FOR BGC PRO SHOP 00004553 248607 366531 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 426.41 TV FOR.BGC EXEC COURSE 00004553 248608 363341 5424.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RANGE 860.29 TV FOR SCADA AT PW 00004553 248609 373657 05508.1705.31 MATERIALS /SUPPLIES WM -508 SCADA SYSTEM 886.99- RETURN TV 00004553 248610 380783 05508.1705.31 MATERIALS /SUPPLIES WM -508 SCADA SYSTEM 19.26 SHIPPING 00004553 248611 368935 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 34.87 SHIPPING 00004553 248611 368935 5424.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RANGE R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY Or -iNA 11i ,0 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 4 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 1,440.98 TVS FOR SCADAAT PW 00004553 248611 368935 05508.1705.31 MATERIALS /SUPPLIES WM -508 SCADA SYSTEM 5.03 BAL DUE ON INV 338329 248612 338329DUE 4402.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PW BUILDING J 2,341.87 340698 1114/2010 100653 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC. 45,679.44 ASPHALT 00001223 248954 17626 1314.6518 BLACKTOP STREET RENOVATION 45,679.44 340699 1114/2010 119679 BIXBY PORTABLE TOILET SERVICE - 179.19 TOILET SERVICE 00001859 248480 23436 1642.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIELD MAINTENANCE 34.34- TOILET SERVICE 00001859 248481 23437 1642.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIELD MAINTENANCE 34.34 TOILET SERVICE 00001859 248482 23438 1642.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIELD MAINTENANCE 247.87 340700 1114/2010 101376 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS 37.06 KEYS 00001762 248483 S70995 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 37.06 340701 11/4/2010 - 123329 BLOTZ, MOLLY 400.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248923 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 400.00 340702 11/4/2010 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS 35.94 FRAMES, STAPLES 00001437 248484 63608 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 146.46 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00003821 248816 63612 1470.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 6.72 CALENDAR 00003821 248817 63612.1 1470.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 677.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00001437 248818 63654 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 866.49 340703 11/4/2010 123414 BOOM, CHET 146.04 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248955 103110 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE 146.04 340704 1114/2010 100669 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 333.10 SPRING, FASTENERS 00005220 248485 454129 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 333.10 140706 111412010 122318 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 255.00 KNOX BOX FOR KEYS FROM CENT LK 248613 102610 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 255.00 340706 11/412010 100873 BROCKWAY, MAUREEN R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 5 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 102046 CAMPS, HARRIET COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 414.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248924 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 414.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248925 102910 448.00 340711 1114/2010 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 340707 1114/2010 - 101430 BROWNELLS INC. 248704 13170 1,899.90 248705 98.42 SUPPLIES 248642 06237046.00 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL ' 98.42 340712 11/4/2010 340708 11/4/2010 119826 BRYANT GRAPHICS INC. 462.00 248707 88115 802.90 NOV 2010 NEWSLETTERS 248956- 23159 1628.6575 PRINTING SENIOR CITIZENS 100681 CATCO 802.90 219.23 PURGE VALVE KITS 00005288 248486 3 -98793 340709 11/4/2010 3.85 102663 C.S. MCCROSSAN CONSTRUCTION IN 248643 1 -55594 223.08 4,547.93 ASPHALT 00001210 248957 8488MB 1314.6518 BLACKTOP STREET RENOVATION 3,733.20 ASPHALT 00001210 248958 8484MB 1314.6518 BLACKTOP STREET RENOVATION 5112.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER POTTERY 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 8,281.13 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 340710 11/4/2010 YORK SELLING 102046 CAMPS, HARRIET COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 208.00 POTTERY MAINTENANCE 248925 102910 240.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248925 102910 448.00 340711 1114/2010 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 468.25 248704 13170 1,899.90 248705 13178 46.60 248706 13179 2,414.75 340712 11/4/2010 116683 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE 462.00 248707 88115 462.00 340713 11/4/2010 100681 CATCO 219.23 PURGE VALVE KITS 00005288 248486 3 -98793 - 3.85 UTILITY LAMP 00005196 248643 1 -55594 223.08 340714 1114/2010 124777 CDFT TRAINING LLC 3,055.00 TRAINING COURSE 249005 PPCT 3,055.00 340716 11/4/2010 112561 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 5112.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER POTTERY 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 7410.6218 2,155.14 5591458 -4 248614 5591458 -10/10 1551.6186 EDUCATION PROGRAMS PSTF ADMINISTRATION HEAT CITY HALL GENERAL R55CKREG _oG20000 656.85 CITY G. NA 340718 Council Check Register 122084 CITY OF EDINA - UTILITIES 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc.No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description SEWER & WATER 805.06 5546504 -1 248615 5546504 -10/10 1470.6186 HEAT 203163003 -10/10 42.98 5590919 -6 249006 5590919 -10110 7413.6582 FUEL OIL 00102561- 0200862003` 3,003.18 200862003 -10/10 5821.6189 SEWER &.WATER 340716 11/4/2010 788.08 117187 CHEM SYSTEMS LTD 154.51 DISINFECTANT, DEODORANT 00008054 248644 516147 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 154.51 206.25 340717 11/4/2010 248645, 119726 CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTING CO 5916.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 11`. .0 8:25:28 Page - 6 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PSTF FIRE TOWER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 187.00 248708 430366 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 89.85, 248709 430365 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 380.00 248710 430599 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING BUILDING MAINTENANCE VERNON OCCUPANCY 50TH ST OCCUPANCY METER READING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL MEDIA STUDIO YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 656.85 340718 1114/2010 122084 CITY OF EDINA - UTILITIES 196.74 00077443 - 0200650027 00001867 248819 200650027 -10/10 1646.6189 SEWER & WATER 105.23 00102561- 0203163003 248880 203163003 -10/10 5861.6189 SEWER & WATER. 486.11 00102561- 0200862003` 248881 200862003 -10/10 5821.6189 SEWER &.WATER 788.08 340719 1114/2010 125219 CITY OF FARMINGTON 206.25 SALES TAX ON PURCHASE 248645, 100710 5916.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 206.25 340720 1114/2010 106246 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 45.00 CFMH COURSE - KAYLIN MARTIN 248646 CFMH 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 45.00 340721 11/4/2010 116304 , CLAY, DON 220.50 MEDIA INSTRUCTION 248926. 102910 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 220.50 340722 11/412010 100692 COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO. 432.10 248711 0178163026 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 533.40 249026 0118028711 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 965.50 340723 11/4/2010 101119 COCKRIEL, VINCE 139.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 248959 102910 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 139.50 340724 111412010 101329 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC. BUILDING MAINTENANCE VERNON OCCUPANCY 50TH ST OCCUPANCY METER READING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL MEDIA STUDIO YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING PARK ADMIN. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Council Check Register. Page - 7 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 37.41 WHITE CURE 00001937 248487 - 0056552 -IN 1314.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET RENOVATION 37.41 340726 11/4/2010 100695 CONTINENTAL CLAY CO. 32.62 00009270 248882 INV000055953 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 158.27 00009270 248882 INV000055953 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 190.89 340726 11/4/2010 100697, COOL AIR MECHANICAL INC. 2,958.33 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE 00008098 248647 72378 5510.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA ADMINISTRATION 2,958.33 340727 1114/2010 123663 CROSSTOWN CONCRETE 6,345.00 PAVER REPAIRS AT CENT LAKES 00002372 248616 102010 5630.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CENTENNIAL LAKES 6,345.00 340728 11/4/2010 122096 DAKOTA COUNTY. LUMBER CO. 147.96 LUMBER 00001648 248883 149581 47069.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PAMELA PARK HOCKEY RINK 147.96 340729 1114/2010 104020, DALCO 1,609.97 LINERS, STAIN REMOVER,. CLEAN E80008043 248648 2264835 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 296.58 CLEANING SUPPLIES 00001781. 248820 2258865 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 191.31 DEGREASER 00005282 248821 2263796 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,097.86 340730 1114/2010 126727 DALE TILE COMPANY 3,428.75 FINAL PAYMENT 248822 110510 4402.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS PW BUILDING 3,428.75 340731 11/4/2010 102478 -DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 43.90 248559 573639 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,716.55 248560 573638 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 460.40 248712 574548 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 36.80 248713 574549 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 844.10 248714 574547 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,203.20 248715 574550 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 5,304.95 340732 11/4/2010 103436 DENECKE, ANDREA L 627.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248927 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 627.00 R55CKREG ._ G20000 CITY 0. NA Council Check Register 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount- Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 340733 11/412010 100720 DENNYS 6TH AVE. BAKERY 11, 1 !: 8:25:28 Page - 8 26.06 BAKERY 248649 348058 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 70.08 BAKERY 248650 348320 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 96.14 340734 11/4/2010 102831 DEX MEDIA EAST INC. 96.80 650243624 248691 650243624 -OCT10 5631.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 96.80 340736 11/4/2010 123996 DICK'S /LAKEVILLE SANITATION IN 3,445.98 REFUSE 248884 1165038 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 3,415.19 REFUSE 248885 1165037 4095.6103, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 6,861.17 340736 11/412010 - 102464 DRISTE, BRIAN 149.94 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248651 102610 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 99.96 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248960 102910 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 249.90 340737 11/4 @010 119716 EASTERN PACIFIC APPAREL INC. 41.60 SHIRT 248652 446810 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 41.60 340738 11/4/2010 100744 EDINA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 25.00 OCT MEETING - MARTIN 248617 29026 2210.6106 MEETING EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS 25.00 340739 111412010 101666 EDINA CHORALE 116.66 PROGRAM ADVERTISING 248886 2010 -2011 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 116.67 PROGRAM ADVERTISING 248886 2010 -2011 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 116.67 PROGRAM ADVERTISING 248886 2010 -2011 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 350.00 340740 11/4/2010 101321 EDINA HARDWARE 41.13 PAINT,.HOOKS 00009278 248887 83799 5111.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 41.13 340741 1114/2010 120331 EKKLESIA MEDIA SERVICES _ 995.00 SOUND SYSTEM AMPLIFIER 00008053 248653 3552 5500.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET 995.00 R55CKREG LOG20000 DRYJOY CART MITTS 248654 CITY OF EDINA 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 68.39 SHOES Council Check Register 3418533 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 164.64 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 3417169 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 340742 11/4/2010 PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 101613 ELECTION ADMINISTRATION REPORT RETURN 248658 6856196 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 219.00 ANNUAL REPORT 248961 10051033 1180.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 219.00 447.79 340743 11/412010 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 102727 FORCE AMERICA 131.27 HUB BEARING 00005253 248488 69- 023283 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 131.27 400.78 340744 11/412010 106035 FASTENAL COMPANY 122414 FORKLIFTS OF MINNESOTA INC. 117.95 HARDWARE 00001835 248823 MNSTU34059 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 117.95 340746 111412010 340761 11/4/2010 100766 FEDERAL EXPRESS 81.86 SHIPPING CHARGES 248888 7- 268 -79543 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 81.86 340746 11/4/2010 106420 FIKES SERVICES 41.25 AIR DEODORIZERS 248824 5669 5841.6162 SERVICES CUSTODIANS 41.25 340747 1114/2010 120329 FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC 154.95 FIRE BOOTS 00003828 248825 6774 1470.6552 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 154.95 340748 11/4/2010 101476 FOOTJOY 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Page- 9 Business Unit ELECTION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN BUILDING MAINTENANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL YORK OCCUPANCY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 124.94 DRYJOY CART MITTS 248654 3413747 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 68.39 SHOES 248655 3418533 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 164.64 SHOES 248656 3417169 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 100.94 SHOES 248657 3306359 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 100.94- RETURN 248658 6856196 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 89.82 JACKET 248889 3424792 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 447.79 340749 11/4/2010 102727 FORCE AMERICA 400.78 RADIO CONTROL 00005192 248962 01351094 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 400.78 340760 11/4/2010 122414 FORKLIFTS OF MINNESOTA INC. 410.78 PARTS FOR FLOOR SCRUBBER 00001852 248826 01P1698050 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING - 410.78 340761 11/4/2010 106168 FRANKLIN, ELIZABETH R55CKREG —jG20000 CITY O, .NA 11, J 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 10 11/4/2010 — 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 240.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248928 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION CONTRACTED REPAIRS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES EDUCATION PROGRAMS SAFETY EQUIPMENT PLANTINGS & TREES CENT SVC PW BUILDING BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE PSTF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION TREES & MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION REPAIR PARTS GOLF DOME PROGRAM 240.00 340752 11/4/2010 103039 FREY, MICHAEL 1,475.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248929 102910 5110.6103 1,475.00 340763 11/4/2010 127383 FRONTIER AG & TURF 3,139.96 TRACTOR REPAIR 00006472 248659 W02297 5422.6180 3,139.96 340764 11/412010 127386 GARAGE DOOR STORE 370.00 REPAIRS ON CAR WASH DOORS 00001224 248827 16900 1552.6530 370.00 340765 11/4/2010 106608 GEMPLER'S INC. 380.88 TOOLS 00001657 248828 1016208554 1646.6406 162.96 TOOLS 00001637 248829 1016215617 1646.6406 543.84 340756 11/412010 127392 GENERAL DYNAMICS OTS 595.00 TRAINING COURSE 249007 50000701 7410.6218 595.00 340767 1114/2010 104877 GENERAL SPRINKLER CORP. 400.00 FIRE SPRINKLER INSPECTION 00006134 248890 12162 5410.6610 400.00 340768 11/412010 103185 GERTENS 206.01 TREES, MULCH 00001807 248830 212385 1644.6541 206.01 340759 1114/2010 101867 GETSINGER, DONNA 288.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248930 102910 5110.6103 288.00 340760 111412010 104662 GILLIS, LOUISE 960.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248931 102910 5110.6103 960.00 340761 1114/2010 100778 GOODIN COMPANY 478.33 COOLER 00006471 248660 01888226 -00 5210.6530 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION CONTRACTED REPAIRS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES EDUCATION PROGRAMS SAFETY EQUIPMENT PLANTINGS & TREES CENT SVC PW BUILDING BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE PSTF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION TREES & MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION REPAIR PARTS GOLF DOME PROGRAM R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 11 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 478.33 340762 11/4/2010 124696 GRACE, LARRY 155.50 MEDIA INSTRUCTION 248932- 102910 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MEDIA STUDIO 155.50 - 340763 1114/2010 101103 GRAINGER 63.78 WELDING MASKS 00005278 248489 9373675835 1553.6580 WELDING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN - 130.05 AIR FILTERS. 00001907 248490 9374353606 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WELL HOUSES 187.46 SHELVES, BATTERIES 00005284 -. 248491 9377212874 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES. EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 117.62 STEP STAND, VALVE 00005191 248661 9375761229 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN - 117.29 COUPLERS, PLUGS 00005191 248662 9375761211 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 73.01 ELBOW, REGULATOR, GAUGE 00005191 248663. 9375761237 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN -68.16 SIGNS 00001844 248831 9378293956 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 158.23 EAR PLUGS 00001805 248832 9371171480 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 7.97 HARDWARE 00001805 248833 9371171498 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 74.07 EAR PLUGS 00001805 248834 9372732066 1646.6610. SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE .997.64 :340764 1114/2010 120201: GRANICUS INC. 829.64 - NOV WEBSTREAMING 248492 21819 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 829.64 340766 11/412010 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 82.25 248716 123575 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING - 122.25 248717 123578 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE- " VERN0N:SELLING 204.50 340766' 11/4/2010 101618 GRAUSAM, STEVE 6.00 - SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 248891 102910 5840.6406 GENERAL, SUPPLIES LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 50.66 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 248891 102910 5822.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH ST SELLING 101.32 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 248891 102910 5842.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 101.32 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 248891 102910 5862.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 259.30 340767- -1114/201.0 106636. HANDMADE, TILE ASSOCIATION 509.15 ADVERTISING 00009280 248892 1505 509.15 340768 1114/2010 126270 HARTFORD 5,000.94 PREMIUM- 248639 5087512 -9 5,000.94 5110.6122 9900.2033.05 ADVERTISING OTHER LIFE INSURANCE - 99 ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION PAYROLL CLEARING R55CKREG _- )G20000 CITY O. NA 11, J 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 12 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 340769 111412010 127379 HEARTLAND SERVICES INC. 495.00 ENGINE 83 TOUGHBOOK REPAIR 00004372 248618 HS10234083 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 495.00 340770 111412010 106436 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION 656.00 RADIO ADMIN FEE 00001957 249008 21098078 1301.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 656.00 340771 1114/2010 116680 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY 197.72 LCD MONITOR FOR POLICE 00004375 248664 48424143 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 732.88 PC FOR WEATHER TAP DISPLAY 00004373 248835 48438080 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 811.43 PC & LCD 00004368 248836 48286535 7411.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PSTF OCCUPANCY 1,742.03 340772 1114/2010 102484 HIRSHFIELD'S PAINT MANUFACTURI 554.68 FIELD PAINT 00005183 248493 88703 1642.6544 LINE MARKING POWDER FIELD MAINTENANCE 105.59 FIELD PAINT 00005183 248837 88879 1642.6544 LINE MARKING POWDER FIELD MAINTENANCE 660.27 340773 1114/2010 104376 HOHENSTEINS INC. 305.50 248718 538797 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 658.00 248719 538161 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 463.39 248720 538855 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 56.00 248721 538856 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 977.88 246722 538858 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,460.77 340774 1114/2010 103214 HOOTEN CLEANERS 241.32 LAUNDRY 248893 102110 1400.6201 LAUNDRY POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 241.32 340776 11/4/2010 101468 IIMC 200.00 MEMBERSHIP - DEBRA MANGEN 249009 6555 -9/10 1120.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ADMINISTRATION 200.00 340776 11/4/2010 100814 INDELCO PLASTICS CORP. 25.65 PVC PIPE 00001809 248838 626935 1648.6530 REPAIR PARTS SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE 25.65 340777 11/412010 101732 INDUSTRIAL DOOR CO. INC. 362.02 OVERHEAD DOOR REPAIRS 248839 D216886 -IN 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010` Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 1400.6203 1419.6102 5600.1720 5600.1720 5210.6122 5842.5514 5862.5514 5822.5514 5822.5514 5862.5514 5862.5515 5842.5514 5842.5513 5842.5513 5822.5513 5822.5513 5842.5513 5822.5513 5822.5513 5822.5513 5842.5513 5842.5513 5842.5513 5842.5513 11/3/2010 .8:25:28 Page - 13 Subledger Account Description Business Unit UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RESERVE PROGRAM BUILDINGS EB /CL BALANCE SHEET BUILDINGS EB /CL BALANCE SHEET ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF DOME PROGRAM COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS'SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE _ 362.02 - YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 340778 11/412010 COST -OF GOODS SOLD WINE 118322 ITL PATCH COMPANY INC. COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 736.21 EMBLEMS 248894 30015 50TH ST SELLING 736.21 YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING - 340779 111412010 YORK SELLING 101400 JAMES, WILLIAM F, YORK SELLING 100.00 POLICE SERVICE 248545' 110110 100.00 340780 1114/2010 127389 JAN LASSERUD CONSTRUCTION INC. - 14,180.65 EP BATHROOM CONSTRUCTION 248963 001 19,388.46 EP BATHROOM CONSTRUCTION 248964 002 33,569.11 340781 . 111412010 124808 JEFFERSON GIRLS HOCKEY 50.00 BRAEMAR GOLF AD 248965 103110 50.00 340782 :. 11/4/2010 100741 JJ TAYLOR.DIST. OF MINN 72.00 248561 1433396 4,442.10 248562 1433378 2,167.25 248723 1433379 2,982.31 248724 1443418 4,624.10 248725 1443415 30.00 248726 1443416 4,491.45 248727 1443424 18,809.21 340786 11/412010 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 268.36 248563 1931833 3,106.59 248564 1930790 582.14 248565 1930783 1,160.93 248566 1930780 19.40- 248567 475018 25.66- 248568 475016 27.00- 248569 475015 5.55- 248570 475155 18.03- 248571 470660 6.93- 248572 470659 6.00- 248573 470658 8.30- 248574 465039 1400.6203 1419.6102 5600.1720 5600.1720 5210.6122 5842.5514 5862.5514 5822.5514 5822.5514 5862.5514 5862.5515 5842.5514 5842.5513 5842.5513 5822.5513 5822.5513 5842.5513 5822.5513 5822.5513 5822.5513 5842.5513 5842.5513 5842.5513 5842.5513 11/3/2010 .8:25:28 Page - 13 Subledger Account Description Business Unit UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RESERVE PROGRAM BUILDINGS EB /CL BALANCE SHEET BUILDINGS EB /CL BALANCE SHEET ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF DOME PROGRAM COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS'SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE _ YORK SELLING COST'OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST -OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING R55CKREG _dG20000 Check # Date 340786 111412010 340787 11/4/2010 Amount Supplier / Explanation 6.30- 740.65 1.12 4,057.50 1,641.22 1,627.91 3,529.30 1,024.23 92.22- 41.60- 107.14- 22.40- 15.83-. 13.04 4,758.94 31.37 850.12 1,916.69 728.96 2,268.86 1,858.60 1,359.17 63.12 88.48 531.63 22.11 1,451.31 1,045.01 102.62 122.07 35,346.20 CITY V .JA 101918 JUNGWIRTH, MARK. Council Check Register UNIFORM PURCHASE 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 248575 465041 5842.5513 248728 1935086 5862.5512 248729 1935075 5862.5512 248730 1935092 5862.5512 248731 1935090 5862.5512 35,346.20 1935089 5862.5513 101918 JUNGWIRTH, MARK. 95.97 UNIFORM PURCHASE 92.50 UNIFORM PURCHASE 188.47 248735 475646 122239 KANDIKO, GEORGIA 615.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 615.00 248737 248732 1935089 5862.5513 248733 1935087 5862.5513 248734 1935091 5862.5513 248735 475646 5862.5512 248736 475019 5862.5513 248737 473332 5862.5513 248738 475503 5842.5512 248739 475017 5842.5512 248740 473331 5842.5512 249028 1935083 5842.5512 249029 1935084 5842.5515 249030 1935085 5842.5512 - 249031 1935080 5842.5512 249032 1935077 5842.5512 249033 1935081 5842.5513 249034 1935079 5842.5513 249035 1935078 5842.5513 249036 1935074 5842.5513 249037 1935088 5862.5515 249038 1935067 5822:5513 249039 1935068. 5822.5513 249040 1935069 5822.5513 249041 1935070" 5822.5513 249042 1935066 5822.5512 249043 1935071 5822.5512 249044 1935072 _ 5822.5512 248665 102710 5913.6201 248966 103110 5913.6201 248933 102910 5110.6103 11'. .0; 8:25:28 Page - 14 Subledger Account Description Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR . VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE - YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING LAUNDRY DISTRIBUTION LAUNDRY DISTRIBUTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CONFERENCES &SCHOOLS 1,840.1.5 CITY OF EDINA 5919.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 340789 11/4/2010 Council Check Register 101340 KOCHENASH, RICK 11/4/2010 -11/4/2010 620.00 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 340788 11/4/2010 111018 KEEPRS INC. 340790 812.25 AMMO 248494 149783 1400.6551 AMMUNITION 96.99 UNIFORMS 00003810 248840 150013 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS - 279.98 UNIFORMS 00003810 248841 150013 -01 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 539.96 UNIFORMS 00003778 248842 149487 -01 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 110.97 UNIFORMS 00003775 248843 150964 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 5110.6103 1414.6010 1553.6530 4090.6406 1646.6556. 1553.6201 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Page - 15 Business Unit POLICE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT, GENERAL ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION SALARIES REGULAR EMPLOYEES COURT CALLBACK REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES TOOLS LAUNDRY 5919.6104 CONFERENCES &SCHOOLS 1,840.1.5 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 5919.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 340789 11/4/2010 101340 KOCHENASH, RICK 620.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248934 102910 620.00 340790 1114/2010 127382 LANNERS AND OLSON P.A. IOLTA - 30.00 CHECK REFUND 248666 102710 30.00 340791 11/4/2010 100862 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 350.31 SCREWS, NUTS, WASHERS 00005216 248495 9707768 235.91 TY -RAP 00001853 248496 9707769 89.28 TOOLS 00001806 248844 9701522 675.50 340792 1114/2010 102966 _ LEONE, RON 386.25 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248667 102710 386.25 340793 11/4/2010 116676 LIFE LINE INC. 343.00 AED &.CP.R TRAINING 00001223 248497 LL -3444 686.00 AED & CPR TRAINING 00001223 248497 LL -3444 245.00 AED & CPR TRAINING 248619 LL -3438 735.00 'AED & CPR TRAINING 248619 LL -3438 2,009.00 340794 11/412010 124810 LIFT BRIDGE BEER COMPANY 130.00 248576 10988 130.00 340796 11/4/2010 117681 LINDSTROM EMBROIDERY INC. 530.00 LOGO EMBROIDERY 00003829 248845 4948 530.00 340796 11/4/2010 100868 LOGIS 5110.6103 1414.6010 1553.6530 4090.6406 1646.6556. 1553.6201 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Page - 15 Business Unit POLICE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT, GENERAL ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION SALARIES REGULAR EMPLOYEES COURT CALLBACK REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES TOOLS LAUNDRY 5919.6104 CONFERENCES &SCHOOLS 1281.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 5919.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 1640.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN TRAINING TRAINING TRAINING PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL VERNON SELLING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date 340797 11/4/2010 Amount Supplier/ Explanation, 192.00 WORK ORDER 456.00 WORK ORDER 648.00 WORK ORDER 120.00 P.O # Doc No 154:93 Account No 629.49 32715 3,488.28 . 47.01 1554.6103 959.27 32848 3,000.00 248695 3,306.02 1554.6103 12,000.00 32833/32763 12,580.90 248695 13,585.05 1554.6160 83.25 32833/32763 1,591.00 248895 5,501.92 5,522.47 6.064.89 69,930.48 100443 LUCHT, PETE 188.43 UNIFORM PURCHASE 188.43 340798 11/4/2010 15.00 15.00 30.00 340799 11/412010 25.95 115.82 141.77 340800 11/4/2010 473.49 J 248967 102810 5913.6201 114693 MAAP MAAP WINTER MEETING 248897 102810 MAAP „WINTER MEETING 248897 102810 100864. MACQUEEN EQUIP INC. PLUGS 00005298 248968 2106012 FILTER 00005223 248969 2105997 114699 MANAGED SERVICES INC. JANITORIAL SERVICE 249010 C005182 1190.6106 1190.6106 1553.6530 1553.6530 7411.6180 Subledger Account Description PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT DATA PROCESSING" PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT LAUNDRY MEETING EXPENSE MEETING EXPENSE REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS CONTRACTED REPAIRS 11, J 8:25:28 Page- 16 Business Unit CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENT SERV GEN - MIS IT CENTRAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS PARK MAINT EQUIPMENT EQ OPER CENTRAL SERV EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION STREET EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS IT CENTRAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION ASSESSING ASSESSING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN PSTF OCCUPANCY CITY O ,.qA Council Check Register 11/4/2010 - 11/412010 P.O # Doc No Inv No Account No 248692 32715 1554.6103 248693 32737 1554.6103 248694 32848 1554.6103 248695 32833/32763 1554.6103 248695 32833/32763 1550.6406 248695 32833/32763 1554.6160 248695 32833/32763 421554.6710 248895 32444/32370 1554.6160 248895 32444132370 1554.6103 248895 32444/32370 421650.6710 248895 32444/32370 421553.6710 248895 32444/32370 421260.6710 248895 32444/32370 5913.6406 248895 32444/32370 421305.6710 248896 32563/32594/325 1554.6406 85 248896 32563132594/325 1554.6103 85 248896 32563/32594/325 421260.6710 85 248896 32563/32594/325 1554.6160 85 248896 32563/32594/325 421554.6710 85 248967 102810 5913.6201 114693 MAAP MAAP WINTER MEETING 248897 102810 MAAP „WINTER MEETING 248897 102810 100864. MACQUEEN EQUIP INC. PLUGS 00005298 248968 2106012 FILTER 00005223 248969 2105997 114699 MANAGED SERVICES INC. JANITORIAL SERVICE 249010 C005182 1190.6106 1190.6106 1553.6530 1553.6530 7411.6180 Subledger Account Description PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT DATA PROCESSING" PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT LAUNDRY MEETING EXPENSE MEETING EXPENSE REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS CONTRACTED REPAIRS 11, J 8:25:28 Page- 16 Business Unit CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENT SERV GEN - MIS IT CENTRAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS PARK MAINT EQUIPMENT EQ OPER CENTRAL SERV EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION STREET EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS IT CENTRAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION ASSESSING ASSESSING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN PSTF OCCUPANCY R55CKREG LOG20000 U i Y Ur LUiNA 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 17. 11/4/2010 - 11/412010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 473.49 340801 11/4/2010 122878 MARTTI, DOROTHEA .425.00. HOSTING FEE 248620 150 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 425.00 340802 11/412010 101146 MATRIX 218.13 248898 607680952 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 218.13 340803 11/4/2010 102600 MATRIX COMMUNICATIONS INC 67.50 REMOTE PROGRAMMING CHANGE 248668 56938 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 67.50 - 340804 1114/2010 112360 MAY, DOUG 64.24 REIMBURSEMENT FOR ROPE 248621 102610 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 64.24 340806 1114/2010 101292 MEDZIS, ANDREW 11.00 PARKING FEE 248899 102810 1470.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 35.00 MAPMO SEMINAR 248899 102810 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 46.00 340806 1114/2010 101467 MEICHSNER, EARL . 73.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 248846. 101210 1652.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE WEED MOWING 73.50 340807 11/4/2010 101987 MENARDS 45.17 ROTARY TOOL, BLADE SHARPENER)0002007 248498 31606 5630.6556 TOOLS CENTENNIAL LAKES 79.91 TOOLS 00001794 248847 29654 1646.6556 TOOLS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 125.08 340808 1114/2010 102281 MENARDS 4.16 LUMBER 00001945 248499 10531 4090.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE 51.26 PAINT 00001782 248848 2526 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 277.75 SHELF KITS 00001832 248849 2884 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 47.26 LUMBER & TOOLS 00001815 248850 10309 1646.6577 LUMBER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 380.43 340809 11/4/2010 104166 MENARDS 512.36 MINI CLEAR LITES 00002009 248500 86740 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 512.36 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY Oi _-iNA 11"' .'0! 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 18 11/4/2010 - 11/412010 Check # Date Amount. Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 340810 11/412010 101891 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY 202.96 PYLONS, CHAIN &DOWN SET 00001780 248503 127798 1627.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SPECIAL ACTIVITIES 202.96 340811 111412010 101625 METRO.FIRE CHIEFS OFFICERS ASS 200.00 DUES - M. SCHEERER & D. TODD 248900 .102810 1470.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 200.00 340812 11/4/2010 102607 METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS 82.50 OFFICIATING FEES 248970 3803 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 82.50 340813 11/412010 104660 MICRO CENTER 112.62 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 248669 2979031 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 112.62 - RETURN 248670 2979044 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 112.19 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 00003147 248671 2979047 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 230.80 KVM & CABLES FOR PW 00004371 248672 2980992 1554.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SERV GEN - MIS' 342.99 340814 111412010 127263 MID AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS 3,005.85 JAMCO FAMMABLE CABINET 00001200 248501 714481 421552.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PW BUIL CENTRAL SERV EQUIPMENT 3,005.85 340816 11/4/2010 100891 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. 354.62 ASPHALT 00001224 248971 108007MB• .•1301.6518 BLACKTOP GENERAL MAINTENANCE 2,157.23 ASPHALT 00001224 248972 108201 MB 1301.6518 BLACKTOP GENERAL MAINTENANCE 2,511.85 340816 11/412010 103186 MIDWEST FUELS 1,619.55 SULFUR FOR GENERATOR 248502 53581 1551.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL 891.49 GENERATOR FUEL 248851 53582 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,511.04 340817 11/412010 125297 MILLS- NOVOA, NICOLE 360.00 ' INSTRUCTOR AC 248935 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 864.00 MEDIA INSTRUCTION 248935 102910 5120.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 1,224.00 340818 11/4/2010 102441 MINING AUGER & TOOL WORKS INC. 203.01 PIPE DRIVER 00001804 248852 24674 1646.6556 TOOLS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 203.01 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page- 19 11/4/2010 - 11/412010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 340819 11/4/2010 102582 MINN DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 45.00 BOILER LICENSE RENEWAL 248973 103110 1240.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL 45.00 340820 111412010 127062. MINNEHAHA BLDG. MAINT. INC. 21.38 WINDOW CLEANING 248853 921077180 5841.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS YORK OCCUPANCY 21.38 340821 11/4/2010 100906 MINNESOTA GOLF ASSOCIATION 5.00 GHIN HANDICAP 248901 45- 0150 -21 -10/1 5401.4603 COMPUTERIZED HANDICAPS GOLF REVENUES 0 19.00 GHIN HANDICAP 248902 45- 0150 -13 -10/1 5401.4603 COMPUTERIZED HANDICAPS GOLF REVENUES 0 57.00 GHIN HANDICAPS 248903 45- 0150 -16 -10/1 5401.4603 COMPUTERIZED HANDICAPS GOLF REVENUES 0 81.00 340822 11/4/2010 106193 MINNESOTA HIGHWAY SAFETY AND 366.00 NIGHT PIT COURSE 248904 629430 -2177 2340.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS DWI FORFEITURE 366.00 340823 11/4/2010 127384 MINNESOTA PETROLEUM SERVICE 450.00 TRANSFERED FUEL 00005289 248673 76482 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 450.00 340824 11/4/2010 101376 MINNESOTA PIPE &.EQUIPMENT 1,253.57 HYDRANT PARTS .- 00001765 248504 0259794 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 1,187.27 HYDRANT PARTS 00001765 248505 0259796 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 2,440.84 340826 11/4/2010 100231 MINNESOTA POST BOARD 90.00 POLICE OFFICER LICENSE 248674 102610 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 90.00 340826 11/4/2010 118144 MINNESOTA PREMIER PUBLICATIONS 486.00 NEWSPAPER ADVERTISNG. 248622 118202 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 486.00 NEWSPAPER ADVERTISNG 248622 118202 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 486.00 NEWSPAPER ADVERTISNG 248622 118202 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 1,458.00 340827 1114/2010 100908. MINNESOTA WANNER CO. R55CKREG -320000 CITY G. JA Council Check Register 11/4/2010 -11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 55.58 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 00001808 248854 0086564 -IN 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 58.78 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 00001858 248855 0086624 -IN 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS REPAIR PARTS 11, 1' 8:25:28 Page - 20 Business Unit BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLUB HOUSE DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING - COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERAL STORM SEWER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PAMELA PARK HOCKEY RINK EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PAMELA PARK HOCKEY RINK ACCESSORIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 114.36 340828 11/4/2010 100898 MINVALCO 35.10 HVAC SENSOR 00001940 248675 770290 5420.6530 35.10 340829 11/4/2010 113819 , MORRISON COUNTY 320.00 OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT 24901.1 110110 1000.2055 320.00 340830 11/4/2010 100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC. 66.98 BELT, SPRING (00006351 248676 763594 -00 5422.6530 66.98 340831 111412010 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 606.50 248741 62422 5862.5513 123.00 248742:- 62427 5842.5513 729.50 340832 11/412010 101369 NIBBE, MICHAEL 27.99 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248905 102810 1400.6203 27.99 340833 1114/2010 126728 NORTH COUNTRY CONCRETE INC. 1,000.00 PED RAMPS AT PW 00001857 248856 92435 5932.6180 1,000.00 340834 11/4/2010 101620 NORTH SECOND STREET STEEL SUPP 920.87 STEEL FOR RINKS 00001817 248906 188113' 47069.6710 248.91 STEEL FOR RINKS 00001799 248907 187319 47069.6710 83.48 STEEL 00005184 248974 187320 1553.6585 1,253.26 340836 11/4/2010 127377 NORTHERN STAR COUNCIL 70.20 EXPLORERS POST REGISTRATION 248677 100710 2210.6103 70.20 340836 1114/2010 100933 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY 416.38 ART SUPPLIES 00009273 248908 39655200 5120.5510 416.38 REPAIR PARTS 11, 1' 8:25:28 Page - 20 Business Unit BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLUB HOUSE DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING - COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERAL STORM SEWER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PAMELA PARK HOCKEY RINK EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PAMELA PARK HOCKEY RINK ACCESSORIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP R55CKREG LOG20000 50TH ST SELLING 600.00 INSTRUCTOR AC CITY OF EDINA 102910 5110.6103 YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 944.00 Council Check Register 102910 5112.6103 1,644.00 11/4/2010 — 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 340637 11/4/2010 103678 OFFICE DEPOT 8280294 -IN 5822.5513 1,979.78 36.21 PAPER 248678 1270230129 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 248745 37.25 STORAGE BOXES, MOUSE 248679 1269513572 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 248746 8280291 -IN 73.46 8.00- 249027 340838 1114/2010 100936 OLSEN COMPANIES 3,686.99 340843 334.45 NYLON SLINGS 00005188 248506 613630 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES 334.45 248680 65202512 5421.5510 340839 11/4/2010 104163 ORECK CORPORATION 340844 111412010 100948 PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS 236.44 VACUUM CLEANER 00001783 248857 24686809 1646.6556 TOOLS 00001860 248507 85 236.44 4,275.00 EXCAVATE FOR HOCKEY RINK 00001871 248909 340840 11/4/2010 127378 OVERSTREET, DAVID 6,850.00 340845 175.00 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 248625 6413 MILDRED 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND AVE 175.00 340841 1114/2010 102440 PASS, GRACE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Page - 21 Business Unit GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN BUILDING MAINTENANCE UTILITY BALANCE SHEET ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION ART CENTER POTTERY COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 600.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248936 102910 5110.6103 YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 944.00 248936 102910 5112.6103 1,644.00 340842 1114/2010 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 330.15 248743 8280294 -IN 5822.5513 1,979.78 248744 8280295 -IN 5862.5513 1,351.81 248745 8280289 -IN 5842.5513 33.25 248746 8280291 -IN 5842.5515 8.00- 249027 8279517 -CM 5822.5513 3,686.99 340843 11/412010 100946 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 218.08 248680 65202512 5421.5510 218.08 340844 111412010 100948 PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS 2,575.00 REROUTE PAMELA PARK TRAIL 00001860 248507 85 1648.6103 4,275.00 EXCAVATE FOR HOCKEY RINK 00001871 248909 90 47069.6710 6,850.00 340845 11/412010 122992 PESEK, NICOLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Page - 21 Business Unit GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN BUILDING MAINTENANCE UTILITY BALANCE SHEET ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION ART CENTER POTTERY COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PAMELA PARK HOCKEY RINK R55CKREG _,G20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation 1,820.00 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 1,820.00 340846 11/4/2010 126978 PETSMART#469 105.09 K9 DOG FOOD 105.09 CITY C AA Council Check Register 11/4/2010 -11/4/2010 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 248681 102110 1400.6104 00003151 248626 T -6223 340848 11/4/2010 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 1,252.50 248577 2978836 322.24 248578 2978838 2,880.91 248579 2978839 1,249.34 248747 2981916 59.02 248748 2981909 841.53 248749 2981914 674.83 248750 2981915 97.12- 248751 3446819 49.12- 248752 3446820 23.67- 248753 3446818 60.97- 248754 3446817 4.27- 248755 3446624 140.12- 248756 3446821 8.00- 248757 3446824 10.35- 248758 3446855 10.35- 248759 3446823 144.00 248975 2982161 409.25 249045 2981911 41.07 249046 2981913 1,444.59 249047 2981912 1,995.51 249048 2981910 570.31 249049 2981908 392.98 249050 2981907 820.67 249051 2981906 12,694.78 340849 11/412010 100957 PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT 898.07 PIPE, FLANGE 00001903 248508 0055578 -IN 898.07 340860 11/412010 101138 PLEAA 50.00 CLASS REGISTRATION 248858 102810 50.00 4607.6406 5822.5513 5842.5513 5842.5513 5862.5513 5862.5513 5862.5513 5862.5512 5822.5513 5822.5513 5822.5512 5822.5512 5862.5513 5842.5512 5842.5513 5842.5513 5842.5513 5842.5513 5842.5512 5842.5515 5842.5513 5842.5513 5822.5513 5822.5512 5822.5513 5921.6530 1400.6104 Subledger Account Description CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS GENERAL SUPPLIES 11. J 8:25:28 Page - 22 Business Unit POLICE DEPT. GENERAL EDINA CRIME FUND K9 DONATION COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING REPAIR PARTS SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 Business Unit TIRES& TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CITY OF EDINA CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS PW BUILDING Council Check Register 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date. Amount Supplier, / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 340861 11/4/2010 119620 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC. 369.57 TIRES 00005252 248976 23080 15516583 53.27 TIRES, 00005252 248977 23071 1553.6583 422.84 340862 11/412010 122061 PRESTIGE BUILDERS OF MINNESOTA 2,170.00 FINAL PAYMENT 248859 110510 4402.1705.30 2,170.00 340863 11/4/2010 126736 PROGRESSIVE BUILDING SYSTEMS .8,175.04- PARTIAL',PAYMENT.NO.3 248860 110510 4402.1705.30 ' 8,175.04 340864 1114/2010 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 707.82 TOWELS, LINERS, BROOMS 00002010 248696 5001 5630.6511 707.82 340865 11/4/2010 106458 QUALITY CLEANING INC. 9,060.00 FINAL PAYMENT 248861 110510 - 4402.1705.30 9,060.00 340866 1114/2010- 100971 QUALITY WINE 378.79. 248760 374465 -00 5822.5513 1,201.40 248761 = 374413 -00 5822.5513 644.13 248762 374297 -00 5822.5512 1,704.43 248763 374464 -00 5862.5513 405.10 248764 374295 -00 5862.5513 18.60 248765 374296 -CO 5862.5513 2,977.42 248766 374309 -00 5862.5512 1,701.06 248767 374463 -00 5842.5513 37.20 248768 374293 -CO 5842.5513 _ 362.84 248769 374294 -00 5842.5513 2,891.06 248770 374401 -00 5842.5512 55.50- 248771 371158 -00 5842.5513 140.00- 248772 364604 -00 5862.5513 67.33- 248773 371237 -00 5862.5513 55.83- 248774 371946 -00 5822.5513 12,003.31 34.0867 11/412010 126424 QUINN, MATTHEW 315.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 315.00 248937 102910 5110.6103 11/3/2010- 8:25:28 Page - 23 Subledger Account Description Business Unit TIRES& TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN TIRES &TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS PW BUILDING CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS PW BUILDING CLEANING SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS PW BUILDING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD.WINE . COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH'. ST- SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY O. ..NA 11,. .0 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 24 11/4/2010 - 1114/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 340868 11/4/2010 123898 QWEST 55.20 952 922 -2444 248627 2444 -10/10 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 113.93 952 920 -8166 248628 8166 -1010 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 40.11 952 922 -9246 248910 9246 -10/10 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 209.24 340869 11/4/2010 104460 RAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING INC. 86.57 MAIL PAST DUE NOTICES 248509 4803 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL (BILLING) 86.57 340860 111412010 100974 RAYMOND HAEG PLUMBING 1,240.65 PLUMBING REPAIRS 00001225 248978 12524 1301.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1,240.65 340861 1114/2010 125326 REACH LOCAL INC. 290.00 WEB ADVERTISING 248510 CID - 638388 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 290.00 WEB ADVERTISING 248510 CID -638388 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 290.00 WEB ADVERTISING 248510 CID - 638388 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 870.00 340862 11/412010 100976 RED WING SHOE STORE 140.21 SAFETY BOOTS 248629 BILL HANLY 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 140.21 340863 11/4/2010 100977 RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPANY 3,855.51 INSTALLED EYE WASH STATIONS 248630 55985 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 3,855.51 340864 11/412010 117073 RINEHART, THOMAS 167.28 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248631 102510 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE 167.28 340866 11/4/2010 100980 ROBERT B. HILL CO. 602.33 SOFTENER SALT 00008042 248682 00242135 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 602.33 340866 11/4/2010 100984 RUBENSTEIN & ZIFF 385.63 FABRIC 00009728 248911 575936 5110.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 385.63 340867 1114/2010 100986 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 1,603.13 ROLLER RENTAL 00001960 248979 E01985 1314.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 1,603.13 ROLLER RENTAL 00001960 248980 E02001 1314.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 3,206.26 340868 11/412010 .127390 S_& S CUSTOM, BUILDERS -LLC 410.00 INSTALL ALUMINUM RAILING 249012 1282 5861.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 410.00 340869 11/4/2010 101963 S & S SPECIALISTS 1,027.81 OAK WILT CONTROL 00001861 248511 44367 1644.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,308.50 WOOD WASTE DISPOSAL " -- 00005539 248862 44475 1644.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 3,336.31 340870 11/4/2010 127387 SCHARF, CLARE 232.36 INSTRUCTOR AC 248938 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 232.36 340871 11/4/2010 124780 SCHAUER, LAUREN 54.89 SUPPLIES 248939 102910 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES 873.20 INSTRUCTOR AC 248939 102910. 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 928.09 340872 11/412010 103016 SCHEERER, JOHN 158.00 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248632 102510 1301.6201 LAUNDRY 158.00 340873 11/412010 105442 SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO. 18.29 LUMBER. 00001848 248863 40883699 1646.6577 LUMBER 18.29 340874 11/4/2010 104161 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Page - 25 Business Unit STREET RENOVATION STREET RENOVATION VERNON OCCUPANCY TREES & MAINTENANCE TREES & MAINTENANCE ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION GENERAL MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 669.84 RAMP ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 00001966 248981 8102760295 1375.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PARKING RAMP 669.84 340875 11/4/2010 105514 SCHIRO, DOUG 146.35 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248982 102810 1646.6201 LAUNDRY 146.35 340876 11/4/2010 124792 SCHUELLER, JASON 164.96 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248983 102910 1301.6201 LAUNDRY 164.96 BUILDING MAINTENANCE . GENERAL MAINTENANCE a R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY O, NA 11,; i0': 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 26 11/4/2010 _ 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doe No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 340877 11/4/2010 103970 SEEGER,'MICHAEL 60.00 USPCXCONFERENCE FEE 248633 102210 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 60.00 34087811, 11/4/2010 104689 SERIGRAPHICS SIGN SYSTEMS INC.-. 72.62 CUSTOM SIGN 248864 41565 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL. 261.50 CUSTOM SIGNAGE 248984 41554 1100.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY COUNCIL 334.12 340879 11/4/2010 101862 SEVEN CORNERS HARDWARE INC. 299.14 TOOLS 00001787 248865 152521 1646.6556 TOOLS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 299.14 340880 11/4/2010 .101380 SHAUGHNESSY, SANDRA 720.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248940 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION c 1,120.00 POTTERY MAINTENANCE 248940 102910 5112.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER POTTERY 1,840.00 340881 11/4/2010 116601 SIMONSON, JUSTIN 72.56 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248985 102810 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 72.56 340882 111412010 100629 SMITH, AMY 278.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 248912 102910 5410.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE GOLF ADMINISTRATION . 278.00 340883 11/412010. 122800.,. SOUTH METRO CARPET & UPHOLSTER .320.63 CARPET CLEANING 248512 736 5821.6162 SERVICES CUSTODIANS 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 213.75 CARPET CLEANING 248513 737 5641.6162 SERVICES CUSTODIANS YORK OCCUPANCY 213.75 CARPET CLEANING 248514 738 5861.6162 SERVICES CUSTODIANS VERNON OCCUPANCY 748.13 340884 11/412010 110977; SOW,ADAMA: 255.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248941 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION • 1,617.00 CLEANING / MAINTENANCE 248941 102910 5111.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 1,872.00 340885 11/4/2010 106193 SPAIN, MARK 19.99 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248634 102510 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,948.20 STUMP GRINDING 00001874 248866 100110 1644.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREES & MAINTENANCE 350.00 ELM TREE REMOVAL 00001812. 248867 091710 1644.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREES & MAINTENANCE 2,500.00 STUMP GRINDING 00001874 248868 OCT01 1644.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREES & MAINTENANCE R55CKREG LOG20000 _ CITY OF EDINA 111312010 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 27 lI 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 4,818.19 340886 111412010 101004 BPS COMPANIES 75.22 PLUMBING PARTS 00001818 248869 S2278710.001 1646.65302 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 26.32 ,PLUMBING PARTS 00001814 248870 52275458.001 1646.6530 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 101.54 340887 11/4/2010 .121298 STATE FARM INSURANCE, 1,320.00 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 249013 STRICKLAND 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,320.00 340888 11/4/2010 106462 STONE, HOLLY 1,000.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248942 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 1,000.00 " 340889 1114/2010 101016 STREICHERS 155.99 BRUSHES, CLEANING RODS 249014 1782301 7412.6406 _ GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 41.65 CLEANING RODS 249015 1781705 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 5.86. GUN CLEANING SUPPLIES 249016 1781647 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 203.50 340890 11/412010 101017 SUBURBAN'CHEVROLET 101.44 MIRROR 00005194 248986 271010 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 101.44 340891 11/4/2010 126332 SUCCESS COMMUNICATIONS INC.' 2,590.00 CLASS FEES 249017 1179 7410.6218 EDUCATION PROGRAMS PSTF ADMINISTRATION 3,590.00 CLASS FEES 249018 1178 7410.6218 EDUCATION PROGRAMS PSTF ADMINISTRATION 6,180.00 340892 11/412010 101336 SULLIVAN, MONICA 1,410.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248943 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 1,410.00 340893 11/412010 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 39.33 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 248987 1279739 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 50.05 DELINQUENT UTILITIES NOTICE 248988 1279740 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 200.20 PUBLISH ORD #2010 -15 248989 1280944 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 271.70 PUBLISH ORD 92010 -11 248990 1282159 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 89.38 PUBLISH ORD #850 -A -34 248991 1282161 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 386.10 PUBLISH ORD# 2010 -08 248992 1282160 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 101.89 PUBLISH NOTICE OF ELECTION 248993 1282157 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG L6620000 CITY Ot- _"iNA 11/ ._- i0 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 28 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 21.45 PUBLISH PAT NOTICE 248994 1282158 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 1,160.10 340894 11/412010 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 911.76 248775 MVP01835 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 896.00 248776 MVP01778 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,155.76 248777 MVP01837 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 629.76 248778 MVP01833 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 3,593.28 340896 11/4/2010 103307 SWANSON, LEE 157.93 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248995 103110 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 157.93 340896 11/4/2010 122661 TAP PUBLISHING - 97.14 WEATHER TAP SUBSCRIPTIONS 00004374 248635 1493186- 2010102 1280.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD 5 97.14 340897 1114/2010 101027 TARGET BANK 61.72 X- XXX -XX9 -840 SUPPLIES 248683 101810 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 61.72 340898 1114/2010 120602 TEAGUE, CARY 97.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 249019_ 1101.10 1140.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PLANNING 97.50 340899 111412010. 113649 .TENNIS WEST , 1,522.00 .FENCE REPAIRS 00001869 248872 R- 777 -1195 1642.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIELD MAINTENANCE 1,485.00 FENCE REPAIRS :00001870 248873 10-777 -1011 1642.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIELD MAINTENANCE 7,174.00 RINK FENCING WORK 00001869 248913 TC- 777 -1071 47069.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PAMELA PARK HOCKEY RINK 10,181.00 340900 1114/2010 101036 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 108.40 248580 613181 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,296.55 248581 613180 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 4,580.80 248779 614078 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 60.00- 248914 00772915 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 6,925.75 340901 11/4/2010 123129 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 262.50 DRAFT MINUTES 10/5/10 MEETING 248996„ M17990 1120.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 29 11/412010 - 11/412010 Check # Date Amount . Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 262.50 340902 11/4/2010 101474 TITLEIST 561.60 GOLF BALLS 248915 2054790 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 71.46 HATS 248916 2056930 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 548.02 248917 1710703 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS -.PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 548.02 - 248918 6002663 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 633.06 340903 1114/2010 101038 TOLL GAS &WELDING SUPPLY 31.17 TORCH HOSE 00001647 248515 323370 1646.6556 TOOLS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 31.17 340904 1114/2010 102705 TREE TRUST 7,143:22 YCC SUMMER CREW 00001862 248516 10352 1647.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PATHS & HARD SURFACE 7,143.22 340905 11/4/2010 123969 TWIN CITIES OCCUPATIONAL HEALT 55.00 PHYSICAL EXAMS 248871 101718149 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 80.00 PHYSICAL EXAMS 248871 101718149 1400.6175 PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 135.00 340906 11/412010 102160 TWIN CITY SEED CO. 1,369.60 GRASS SEED 00001650 248517 24216 1643.6547 SEED GENERAL TURF CARE 1,369.60 340907 1114/2010 102328 UNIMED MIDWEST INC. 408.51 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003805 248874 0077479 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 408.51 340908 11/412010 100569 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA c 110.00 COURSE FEE 00001813 249020 28164515 1640.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 110.00 340909 11/412010 103298 UPS STORE #1716, THE 9.90 SHIPPING CHARGE FOR RETURN 00004383 248636 TRAN:5601 1554.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SERV GEN - MIS 9.90 340910 1114/2010 101058 -VAN PAPER CO. 18.06 LIQUOR BAGS 00007513 248518 176536 -01 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 164.88 TISSUE, TOWELS 00001660 248519 175431 -00 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 36.28 CUP LIDS 00006347 248684 176560 -01 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL _ R56CKREG G20000 1,445.64 CITY G. JA 4882990 1551.6530 REPAIR PARTS CITY HALL GENERAL Council Check Register 1,445.64 11/4/2010 -1114/2010 340914 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 326.33 . LIQUOR BAGS 00007512 248875 176534 -00 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 545.55 457.43 EAR PLUGS 00001796 248876 257326 340911 11/4/2010 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 102970 VERIZON WIRELESS 1,037.80 89.23 248685 2470538930 1400.6188 TELEPHONE 104820 VOELKER, JAMES 89.23 55.75 J 248997 102810 1553.6201 340912 11/4/2010 101063 VERSATILE VEHICLES INC. 55.75 165.54 RACK STEERING, BELTS 00006354 248686 52081 5423.6530 REPAIR PARTS 101932_ VOTH, BART 165.54 340913 111412010 UNIFORM PURCHASE 101066. VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 102510 - 5913.6201 LAUNDRY 11. J: 8:25:28 Page - 30 Business Unit YORK SELLING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GOLF CARS 1,445.64 LOBBY LIGHTING 248520 4882990 1551.6530 REPAIR PARTS CITY HALL GENERAL 1,445.64 340914 11/412010 101067 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 580.37 GLOVES, FLASHLIGHTS, PADLOCKS)0001659 248521 257067 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 457.43 EAR PLUGS 00001796 248876 257326 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,037.80 340916 1114/2010 104820 VOELKER, JAMES 55.75 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248997 102810 1553.6201 LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 55.75 340916 11/4/2010 101932_ VOTH, BART 345.87 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248637 102510 - 5913.6201 LAUNDRY DISTRIBUTION 58.95 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248998 103110 5913.6201 LAUNDRY DISTRIBUTION 404.82 340917 11/412010 104681 WEBB, DONNA 64.00 248944 102910 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 654.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248944 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 718.00 340918 11/4/2010 117074 WEIERKE, DAVID 231.14 UNIFORM PURCHASE 248999 103110 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 231.14 340919 11/412010 103266 WELSH COMPANIES LLC 566.06 NOV 2010 MAINTENANCE 248546 110110 5841.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YORK OCCUPANCY 566.06 R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date 340920 11/4/2010 340921 11/4/2010 Amount Supplier/ Explanation 5822:5513 127388 ,WELTON, MICHAEL 126.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 126.00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 685.23 254594 -00 603.55 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 587.55 248782 2,324.73 340922 11/4/2010 101312 WINE MERCHANTS- 7.60- 253.98 525.60 7.06- 10.00- 13.34- 10.67- 1,222.62- 190.99 5.60 3,147.08 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 -PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 248945 102910 5110.6103 340923 11/4/2010 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 7,889.04 156.28 3,966.36 4,649.13 2,375.93 461.78 73.10 48.000. 49.10- 97.05- 24.98- 93.05- 97.05- 796.80 90.00 6,322.26 Subledger Account Description PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Page - 31 Business Unit ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 248582 253892 -00 5822:5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 248780 254438 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 248781 254594 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING " 248782 254445 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 248783 50680 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 248784 337800 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 248785 337798 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 248786 50681 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 248787 50701 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 248788 50700 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 248789 50683 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 249052 337799 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 249053 337797 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 249054 336829 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 249055 337796 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 248790 477527 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 248791 477529 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD'MIX YORK SELLING 248792 477526 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 248793 477522 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 248794 477524 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 248795 477525 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 248797 477521 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 248798 812079 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 248799 811542 5862, 5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 248800 811433 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 248801 811831 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 248802 812352 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 248803 812351 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 249000 479350 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 249001 479351 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 249056 477520 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING R55CKREG .,jG20000 CITY O,: AA 11", 0' 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 32 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 26,371.45 346924 11/4/2010 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 64.50 248583 672654 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,408.50 248584 672653 .5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,745.80 248804 673489 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 81.50 248805 673490 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING .03 248806 672921 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 956.25 248807 _ 672920 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,846.15 248808 672414 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 7,102.73 340926 11/412010 101086 WORLD CLASS WINES INC 989.55 248809 256398 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 989.55 340927 11/412010 101726 XCEL ENERGY 2,319.43 51- 9011854-4 248522 258335136 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 69.36 51- 9608462 -5 248523 258352721 5921.6185 LIGHT &POWER SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 9.08 51 -6050184 -2 248524 258118548 4086.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AQUATIC WEEDS 1,117.63 51- 5107681 -4 248525 258097804 5111.6185 LIGHT &POWER ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT 117.55 51- 6541084 -2 248526 258127116 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE . 56.90 51- 4420190 -3 248527 258084378 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 90.40 51- 9770164 -7 248528 - 258179201 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 19.07 51- 9770163 -6 248529 258182375 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 7,044.62 51- 9603061 -0 .. 248530 258172482 1552.6185 LIGHT & POWER CENT SVC PW BUILDING 368:79 51- 8324712 -5 -' 248531 258152073 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 32.74 51- 6892224 -5 248532 258135565 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 282.20 51- 9251919 -0 248533 258169175 5650.6185 LIGHT & POWER PROMENADE 1,100.07 51- 6223269 -1 248534 258121782 5210.6185 LIGHT & POWER GOLF DOME PROGRAM ` 40.82 51- 8997917 -7 246535 258174818 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 50.49 51- 8976004 -9 248536 258335658 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 86.52 51- 8526048 -8 248537 258153752 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 71.54 51- 9422326 -6 248538 258343567 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 165.21 51- 9337452 -8 248539 258343301 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 192.44 51- 8987646 -8 248540 258333479 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER' STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 7,460.34 51- 6955679 -8 248541 258299359 1551.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL 1,652.19 51- 5547446 -1 248542 258274610 1628.6185 LIGHT & POWER SENIOR CITIZENS 2,126.95 51- 4159265 -8 249021 257930977 7411.6185 LIGHT & POWER PSTF OCCUPANCY 24,474.34 340928 11/4/2010 100668 XEROX CORPORATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/3/2010 8:25:28 Council Check Register Page - 33 11/4/2010 — 11/4/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 242.79 FAX MAINTENANCE 248543 111567731 1550.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 242.79 340929 111412010 103226 YEADON FABRIC DOMES INC. 2,556.89 DOME REPAIR 00006142 248919 US15047 -IN 5210.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GOLF DOME PROGRAM 2,556.89 340930 11/4/2010 119647 YOCUM OIL COMPANY INC. 14,530.82 UNLEADED FUEL 00005290 248687 406167 1553.6581 GASOLINE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 863.58 GAS 248688 404821 5431.6581 GASOLINE RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE 1,206.56 DIESEL 248689 404822 5422.6581 GASOLINE MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS 395.49 GAS 248690 404823 5423.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF CARS 16,996.45 340931 11/4/2010 '120099 Z WINES USA LLC 247.50 248810 9876 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 223.50 248811 9875 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 471.00 340932 1114/2010 101091 ZIEGLER INC 450.00 GENERATOR MAINTENANCE 248544 E6395919 1551.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL 450.00 340933 11/4/2010 101531 ZINN, BOBO 168.11 SUPPLIES 248946 102910 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 483.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 248946 102910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 651.11 559,501.66 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 559,501.66 Total Payments 559,501.66 R55CKSUM , ,10000 CITY G. AA 11. J 8:26:24 Council Check Summary Page - 1 11/4/2010 - 11/4/2010 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 172,059.56 02200 COMMUNICATIONS FUND 2,047.96 02300 POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE 366.00 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 43,240.24 04200 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 49,952.01 05100 ART CENTER FUND 22,777.26 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 4,185.29 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 9,102.90 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 6,412.39 05600 EDINBOROUGH /CENT LAKES FUND 41,877.70 05800 LIQUOR FUND 162,220.19 05900 UTILITY FUND 22,436.66 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 1,000.00 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 13,622.11 09900 PAYROLL FUND 8,201.39 Report Totals 559,501.66 We confirm to the best of our knowledge and belief, that these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing po ici s and nmi -Mures date Manager R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # 340934 11/11/2010 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 77.80 109.50 40.80 284.10 340936 11/11/2010 101116 AMERIPRIDE SERVICES 49.00 53.94 112.26 119.96 146.76 216.12 259.30 957.34 340936 11/11/2010 101566 APPRAISAL INSTITUTE 80.50 REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL BOOK 80.50 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Doc No Inv No Account No 249165 0807959 5842.5515 249166 0807955 5862.5515 249167 0807954 5822.5515 249419 0724798 5842.5515 Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page - 1 Business Unit YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING 249123 103110 5821.6201 LAUNDRY 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 249123 103110 5841.6201 LAUNDRY YORK OCCUPANCY 249123 103110 5861.6201 LAUNDRY VERNON OCCUPANCY 249123 103110 5421.6201 LAUNDRY GRILL 249123 103110 1470.6201 LAUNDRY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 249123 103110 1551.6201 LAUNDRY CITY HALL GENERAL 249123 103110 1470.6201 LAUNDRY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 249124 110210 1190.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ASSESSING 340937 11/11/2010 102774 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS 6.14 249125 110110 5430.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 33.28 249125 110110 1481.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL YORK FIRE STATION 44.71 249125 110110 5111.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT 56.55 249125 110110 1645.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL LITTER REMOVAL 81.00 249125 110110 5821.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 81.29 249125 110110 1470.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 83.66 249125 110110 1628.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL SENIOR CITIZENS 88.77 249125 110110 5841.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL YORK OCCUPANCY 96.43 249125 110110 5210.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL GOLF DOME PROGRAM 123.35 249125 110110 5861.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL VERNON OCCUPANCY 146.78 249125 110110 5511.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 197.25 249125 110110 5422.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 232.79 249125 110110 1551.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL CITY HALL GENERAL 238.25 249125 110110 1645.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL LITTER REMOVAL 298.39 249125 110110 1301.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE 298.40 249125 110110 1552.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING 309.03 249125 110110 1645.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL LITTER REMOVAL 424.03 249125 110110 5420.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL CLUB HOUSE 592.03 249125 110110 5620.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL EDINBOROUGH PARK 264.01 249389 NOV0110 7411.6188 TELEPHONE PSTF OCCUPANCY R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description SAND GRAVEL & ROCK SENIOR TRIPS ART WORK SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page - 2 Business Unit PATHS & HARD SURFACE SENIOR CITIZENS ART CENTER REVENUES VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING SNOW & LAWN CARE PSTF OCCUPANCY GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,696.14 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 340938 11/11/2010 OFFICE SUPPLIES 120995 AVR INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 361.24 CONCRETE 00001211 249321 37836 1647.6517 361.24 340939 11/11/2010 127479 BACHMAN, MONA 62.00 TRIP REFUND 249230 110310 1628.4392.07 62.00 340940 11/11/2010 121083 BARR, FRANK 211.25 ART WORK SOLD 249380 110210 5101.4413 211.25 340941 11/11/2010 101365 BELLBOY CORPORATION 1,483.70 249168 55523400 5862.5513 176.29 249169 55523300 5822.5513 555.50 249170 55523500 5842.5513 55.55- 249171 55421300 5842.5513 271.55 249276 55532000 5862.5512 482.10 249420 55637300 5862.5512 2,913.59 340942 11/11/2010 117379 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC. 780.00 NOV 2010 SNOW REMOVAL 249391 136290 7411.6136 780.00 340943 11/11/2010 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 139.98 OFFICE SUPPLIES 249126 OE- 239032 -1 5842.6406 184.06 OFFICE SUPPLIES 249127 OE- 239611 -1 5862.6406 135.50- RETURN 00003144 249128 CP- WO- 648972 -1 1400.6513 24.57- RETURN 00003144 249129 CP- W0-648972 -1- 1400.6513 2 j '37.77 FOLDERS 00003157 249130 WO- 653929 -1 1400.6513 278.68 PAPER 00009729 249390 OE- 240092 -1 5110.6513 480.42 340944 11/11/2010 106367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 859.91 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003715 249322 87195782 1470.6510 2,827.13 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003823 249323 87196142 1470.6510 200.64 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003823 249324 87196473 1470.6510 624.00 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003824 249325 87197384 1470.6510 SAND GRAVEL & ROCK SENIOR TRIPS ART WORK SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page - 2 Business Unit PATHS & HARD SURFACE SENIOR CITIZENS ART CENTER REVENUES VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING SNOW & LAWN CARE PSTF OCCUPANCY GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation 4,511.68 340946 11/11/2010 119361 BOURGET IMPORTS CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page- 3 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 625.54 PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 249172 100688 5842.5513 PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 625.54 340946 11111/2010 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 44.32 FILTERS 00005222 249231 454935 1553.6530 44.32 340947 11/11/2010 100667 BROCK WHITE COMPANY 115.50 CAULK 00001843 249326 12045503 -00 1301.6406 115.50 340948 11/11/2010 104595 BUCKENTINE, JOHN 180.87 UNIFORM PURCHASE 249057 110210 1646.6201 180.87 340949 11/11/2010 102149 CALLAWAY GOLF 211.92 GPS UNITS 249131 921954636 5440.5511 157.22 249132 921873935 5440.5511 157.22- 249133 921893715 5440.5511 217.22 249134 921893716 5440.5511 217.22- 249135 921908449 5440.5511 211.92 340960 11/11/2010 127600 CAPITAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES L 878.58 NOV JANITORIAL SERVICE 249392 86111 7411.6180 878.58 340951 11/11/2010 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 1,411.70 249173 13177 5842.5514 6,964.80 249174 13278 5842.5514 622.65 249175 13276 5822.5514 1172.50 249421 13318 5842.5514 9,171.65 340952 11/11/2010 127477 CASTINO, KATHLEEN 67.26 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 249232 5721 DREW AVE 5900.2015 67.26 340963 11/11/2010 116683 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page- 3 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CONTRACTED REPAIRS PSTF OCCUPANCY COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 1119/2010 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - 4 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 1,086.00 249176 88179 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 82.00 249177 88206 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 222.21 340958 11/11/2010 100693 COMMERCIAL FURNITURE 1,381.51 OFFICE FURNITURE 00006112 249138 47098 -0 1,381.51 340959 1111112010 100697 COOL AIR MECHANICAL INC. 512.86 CONDENSER REPAIR 00008056 249059 72437 391.00 CONDENSER REPAIR 00008057 249060 72443 903.86 340960 1111112010 124807 CORVAL CONSTRUCTORS INC. 512.00 HVAC REPAIRS 249393 787294 512.00 i 340961 11111/2010 124910 COURSE TRENDS INC. 100.00 EMAIL MARKETING 249139 168855 100.00 340962 11/11/2010 121618 DAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP 12,542.34 METERS 00001912 249328 6665559 12,542.34 5410.6406 5521.6180 5521.6180 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,168.00 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 340954 11111/2010 100681 CATCO 39.05 LED LICENSE LAMP 00005196 249058 2 -55000 1553.6530 39.05 340955 11/11/2010 122084 CITY OF EDINA - UTILITIES 198.58 00114667- 0210000012 249233 210000012 -10/10 4090.6406 198.58 340956 11111/2010 120747 CMS 270.00 DRUG TESTING 249327 102010532294 1550.6121 270.00 r 340957 11/1112010 120433 COMCAST 88.26 8772 10 614 0177449 249136 177449 -10/10 5420.6188 74.95 8772 10 614 0165667 249137 165667 -10/10 5424.6406 59.00 8772 10 614 0199138 249482 199138 -10110 5422.6188 222.21 340958 11/11/2010 100693 COMMERCIAL FURNITURE 1,381.51 OFFICE FURNITURE 00006112 249138 47098 -0 1,381.51 340959 1111112010 100697 COOL AIR MECHANICAL INC. 512.86 CONDENSER REPAIR 00008056 249059 72437 391.00 CONDENSER REPAIR 00008057 249060 72443 903.86 340960 1111112010 124807 CORVAL CONSTRUCTORS INC. 512.00 HVAC REPAIRS 249393 787294 512.00 i 340961 11111/2010 124910 COURSE TRENDS INC. 100.00 EMAIL MARKETING 249139 168855 100.00 340962 11/11/2010 121618 DAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP 12,542.34 METERS 00001912 249328 6665559 12,542.34 5410.6406 5521.6180 5521.6180 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL TELEPHONE GENERAL SUPPLIES TELEPHONE GENERAL SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 5917.6530 REPAIR PARTS CLUB HOUSE RANGE MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS GOLF ADMINISTRATION ARENA ICE MAINT ARENA ICE MAINT PSTF OCCUPANCY GOLF ADMINISTRATION METER REPAIR R55CKREG LOG20000 22.40 CITY OF EDINA 575487 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING Council Check Register 249179 575486 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 340963 11/11/2010 104020 DALCO 575483 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 184.31 DEODORIZER 00008058 249061 2254944 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 660.27 WYPALL, WIPES, CLEANER 00008021 249062 2255018 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 249424 575485 255.54 TOWELS, FLOOR CARE 00001454 249329 2266117 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 10,066.20 1,100.12 340964 11111/2010 103176 DANICIC, JOHN INC 83.85 ART WORK SOLD 249381 110210 5101.4413 ARTWORK SOLD 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 83.85 4.04 340965 11/11/2010 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 340967 11/11/2010 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page - 5 Business Unit ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS CENT SVC PW BUILDING ART CENTER REVENUES 22.40 249178 575487 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 4,676.50 249179 575486 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 43.00 249180 575646 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 66.30 249422 575483 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,433.40 249423 575484 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,824.60 249424 575485 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 10,066.20 340966 11/11/2010 102466 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC 4.04 PRESSURE RELIEF VALVES 00005232 249063 4- 126270 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 4.04 340967 11/11/2010 118490 DEEP ROCK WATER COMPANY 59.99 622833 WATER 249330 7093559 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 59.99 340968 11/11/2010 124367 DELANEY, ALICE 83.20 ART WORK SOLD 249382 110210 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 83.20 340969 11/11/2010 122136 DENFELD, SCOTT 56.00 REIMBURSEMENT 249140 110110 2210.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS 1 123.04 REIMBURSEMENT 249140 110110 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 179.04 340970 11/11/2010 100720 DENNYS 6TH AVE. BAKERY 101.17 BAKERY 249141 349088 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 101.17 340971 11/11/2010 102831 DEX MEDIA EAST INC. R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/11/2010 — 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 6,685.29 249142 110311893 -10/10 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 115.40 249331 110311867 -10/10 5621.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER PAINT ART WORK SOLD ART WORK SOLD 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page- 6 Business Unit GOLF ADMINISTRATION EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION PAVEMENT MARKINGS ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL ADVERTISING OTHER ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION CLUBHOUSE GOLF REVENUES GENERAL SUPPLIES ADAPTIVE RECREATION LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 6,800.69 340972 11/11/2010 100571 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS 1,583.57 PAINT 00001767 249332 802124885 1335.6532 1,583.57 340973 11111/2010 124358 DILL, SARAH 52.65 ART WORK SOLD 249383 110210 5101.4413 52.65 340974 11/11/2010 108648 DOAN, SIIRI 98.90 ART WORK SOLD 249384 110210 5101.4413 98.90 340976 11111/2010 100731 DPC INDUSTRIES 4,015.35 CHEMICALS 00001215 249064 82701765 -10 5915.6586 4,015.35 340976 11/1112010 124503 EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC CO. 121.53 SWITCHES 00001956 249065 07605600 1322.6406 121.53 340977 11/11/2010 104766 EDGE, THE 50.00 DIRECTORY AD 00009268 249394 2919 5110.6122 50.00 340978 11/11/2010 119432 EDINA BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION 100.00 BRAEMAR GC CANCELLATION REFUND 249066 102910 5401.4553 100.00 340979 11111/2010 102966 EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 136.50 OCT 10 TRIP TO GOLF ZONE 249234 10-075 1629.6406 136.50 i 340980 11/11/2010 119362 EHRESMANN, DANIEL 86.95 UNIFORM PURCHASE 249067 110210 1301.6201 86.95 340981 11/1112010 100649 ELECTRIC PUMP INC. 57.39 O -RINGS 00001914 249068 0042563 -IN 5921.6406 PAINT ART WORK SOLD ART WORK SOLD 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page- 6 Business Unit GOLF ADMINISTRATION EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION PAVEMENT MARKINGS ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL ADVERTISING OTHER ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION CLUBHOUSE GOLF REVENUES GENERAL SUPPLIES ADAPTIVE RECREATION LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page- 7 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION 57.39 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION 340982 11/11/2010 EQUIPMENT OPERATION 100018 EXPERT T BILLING REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 6,437.50 OCT TRANSPORTS BILLED GEN 249235 110310 1470.6103 6,437.50 340983 11/11/2010 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 47.49 GASKET COVER SET 00005253 249236 1- 3485679 1553.6530 402.59 GASKET, TENSIONERS, BELT 00005253 249237 69- 023584 1553.6530 112.87 WIRE KIT, PLUGS 00005253 249238 69- 023682 1553.6530 33.68 BELT 00005297 249239 70- 031135 1553.6530 35.59 BELT IDLER PULLEY 00005297 249240 1- 3488876 1553.6530 93.22 GASKET SET, ROD 00005297 249241 75- 001184 1553.6530 133.60 RODS, ENDS 00005297 249333 69- 023943 1553.6530 859.04 340984 11/11/2010 106035 FASTENAL COMPANY 33.68 CLEVIS PINS 00001009 249334 MNTC2103437 1301.6406 33.68 340986 11/11/2010 101612 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPANY 143.74 WIRE, TUBING 00001734 249069 13774 5920.6406 847.52 CAMERA REPAIR 00001922 249242 13781 5920.6180 991.26 340986 11111/2010 101476 FOOTJOY 160.65 SHOES 249143 3441809 5440.5511 160.65 340987 11111/2010 127497 GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICE INC. 650.00 ACTUARY SERVICES 249243 1806 1160.6406 650.00 340988 1111112010 118941 GLOBALSTAR USA 28.96 R -91 PHONE 249478 2594538 1470.6188 28.96 340989 11/11/2010 100780 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC. 1,058.50 OCT SERVICE 00001921 249244 0100489 5913.6103 1,058.50 340990 11/11/2010 101103 GRAINGER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page- 7 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES SEWER CLEANING CONTRACTED REPAIRS SEWER CLEANING COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES GENERAL SUPPLIES TELEPHONE FINANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION R55CKREG LOG20000 11/11/2010 101618 GRAUSAM, STEVE CITY OF EDINA 194.00 Council Check Register 249247 110410 5840.6107 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 111.00 STEP STOOL 00005314 249070 9382293364 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES 950146509 103.15 HAND CLEANER 00001913 249071 9377574463 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 39.39 LIGHTING FIXTURE 00001959 249245 9382293356 5861.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.22 DRILL BIT, SPLINE 249335 9368116969 5620.6556 TOOLS 270688 185.96 FILTERS 00002189 249336 9368116951 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 270795 162.06 BALLASTS 249395 9384665684 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 53.86 SAFETY EYEWEAR 249396 9383345387 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.16 SAFETY EYEWEAR 249397 9381278952 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 2.40- CREDIT 249398 9381821009 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 21098015 731.40 1,287.73 340991 11/11/2010 124711 GRANDVIEW TIRE & AUTO - CAHILL 11/11/2010 106371 HENNEPIN FACULTY ASSOCIATES 29.95 ALIGNMENT 00005304 249246 18096 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 249146 29.95 1470.6103 2,475.08 340992 11/11/2010 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 202.50 249181 123739 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1,384.75 249277 123740 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 2.25 249425 123787 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 340993 11/11/2010 101618 GRAUSAM, STEVE 194.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 249247 110410 5840.6107 194.00 340994 11/11/2010 100783 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. INC. 39,316.11 MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING 00001259 249337 950146509 47069.6710 39,316.11 340995 11/11/2010 102320 HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS 169.77 REGISTER ROLLS 00007515 249144 270688 5842.6512 113.18 REGISTER ROLLS 249145 270795 5822.6512 282.95 340996 11/1112010 106436 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION 1,287.73 RADIO ADMIN FEE 249399 21098015 1470.6151 1,287.73 340997 11/11/2010 106371 HENNEPIN FACULTY ASSOCIATES 2,475.08 MEDICAL DIRECTOR SERVICES 249146 QB15411 1470.6103 2,475.08 11/9/k_ 8:52:36 Page- 8 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN DISTRIBUTION VERNON OCCUPANCY EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK PSTF OCCUPANCY PSTF RANGE PSTF RANGE PSTF RANGE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE LIQUOR YORK GENERAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PAPER SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT RENTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PAMELA PARK HOCKEY RINK YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - 9 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 340998 11/1112010 101688 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE 736.80 TRAINING 249400 00215025 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 736.80 340999 11/11/2010 103763 HILLYARD INC - MINNEAPOLIS 289.10 CLEANERS, SOAP 00002206 249338 6521235 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 289.10 341000 11/11/2010 104376 HOHENSTEINS INC. 1,918.50 249182 539596 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,269.00 249426 539757 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 994.50 249427 539594 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 4,182.00 341001 11/11/2010 102463 HOULE, WAYNE D. 4.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 249401 110510 1260.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ENGINEERING GENERAL 288.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 249401 110510 1240.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL 292.50 341002 11/11/2010 126093 ILVONEN, ILONA 200.20 ART WORK SOLD 249385 110210 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 200.20 341003 11/11/2010 108618 JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC. 2,056.28 FOAM . 00003834 249339 172279 1470.6557 FIREFIGHTING FOAM FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,056.28 341004 11/11/2010 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 414.00 249183 1433380 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 11.70- 249184 1444174 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 157.50 249428 1120197 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 80.85 249429 1443476 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 15,170.37 249430 1443475 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,423.30 249431 1443464 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 43.00 249432 1443465 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 17,277.32 341006 11/11/2010 124104 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES I LESCO 56.24 IRRIGATION REPAIRS 00001864 249248 5631,3141 1643.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERAL TURF CARE 56.24 341007 11/11/2010 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - 10 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 973.86 249185 1935082 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 75.00- 249186 475998 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 200.00- 249187 475999 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 509.04 249278 1935073 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,552.81 249279 1939397 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 742.06 249280 1939396 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 636.39 249281 1939395 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 4,127.66 249282 1939398 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 4.83- 249283 476257 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 58.92 249433 1940560 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 213.90 249434 1939380 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 575.37 249435 1939379 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 2,025.88 249436 1939378 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 35.37 249437 1940561 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 797.12 249438 1940559 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 153.78 249439 1939381 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 3.36 249440 1939400 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 4,172.37 249441 1940564 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,637.67 249442 1939388 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,281.66 249443 1939389 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,072.64 249444 1939391 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 287.12 249445 1939384 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 137.75 249446 1939385 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 113.12 249447 1939387 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,916.29 249448 1939390 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 112.83 249449 1939392 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5.17- 249450 476255 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2.76- 249451 476256 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 24,849.21 341008 11/11!2010 123696 JOHNSTON, TORI 78.00 ART WORK SOLD 249386 110210 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 78.00 341009 11/11/2010 1 127499 JR BROADCASTING LLC 2,470.00 ADVERTISING 00009287 249402 4832 5125.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER MEDIA STUDIO 2,470.00 341010 11111/2010 100841 KEPRIOS, JOHN 70.10 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 249072 110110 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 70.10 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/11/2010 -11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 341011 11111/2010 122616 KOPLOS, GERALD 7.72 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 249476 110510 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.08 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 249476 110510 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.80 341012 11/11/2010 100846 KREMER SPRING & ALIGNMENT INC. 640.07 SPRING REPAIR 00005231 249073 6780 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 640.07 341013 11/11/2010 101220 LAND EQUIPMENT INC. 54.61 ELEMENTS, FILTERS 00002391 249340 217413 5630.6530 REPAIR PARTS 19.79 ELEMENT 00002003 249341 217862 5630.6530 REPAIR PARTS 157.79 REPAIR PARTS 00002006 249342 217999 5630.6530 REPAIR PARTS 232.19 341014 11/11/2010 124611 LARSCO INC. 198.82 INLET SPRINGS 00001920 249249 2719 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 198.82 341015 11111/2010 121666 LAVEN, JANE 85.80 ART WORK SOLD 249387 110210 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 85.80 341016 11/11/2010 100862 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 324.71 DRILL BITS, TERMINALS 00005287 249074 9729913 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 132.09 HEX NUTS 00001952 249250 9738115 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 205.12 DRILL BITS, HEX NUTS 00001962 249343 9749121 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 661.92 341017 11/11/2010 124810 LIFT BRIDGE BEER COMPANY 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page- 11 Business Unit PSTF OCCUPANCY PSTF RANGE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CENTENNIAL LAKES CENTENNIAL LAKES CENTENNIAL LAKES WELL HOUSES ART CENTER REVENUES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN STREET NAME SIGNS STREET NAME SIGNS 130.00 249452 11043 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 130.00 341018 11/11/2010 i 125208 LOVEJOY, NICHOLAS 52.85 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 249075 110210 1554.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 52.85 341019 11/11/2010 124333 LUSE, MICHAEL S 85.00 PIANO TUNING 249403 337350 5621.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 85.00 341020 11/11/2010 127367 M & W R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 38.30 ROD, NUTS 00001954 249076 614340 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 5842.5515 2210.6104 1301.6406 5913.6406 1646.6406 7411.6406 1400.6103 45008.6710 Business Unit DISTRIBUTION COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page - 12 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION BUILDING MAINTENANCE PSTF OCCUPANCY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FIRE STATION #1 RENOVATION 1646.6577 LUMBER 38.30 1647.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PATHS & HARD SURFACE 341021 11/11/2010 PATHS & HARD SURFACE 112677 M. AMUNDSON LLP SAND GRAVEL & ROCK PATHS & HARD SURFACE 1,846.31 249453 97429 1,846.31 341022 11/11/2010 106677 MAGC 225.00 FALL CONFERENCE 249147 110310 225.00 341023 11/11/2010 100866 MAGNUSON SOD 185.05 BLACK DIRT, SOD 249251 103110 250.89 BLACK DIRT, SOD 249251 103110 456.36 BLACK DIRT, SOD 249251 103110 892.30 341024 11/11/2010 114699 MANAGED SERVICES INC. 98.40 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 249404 W28934 98.40 341026 11/11/2010 100869 MARTIN - MCALLISTER 400.00 POLICE ASSESSMENT 249252 7123 400.00 341026 11/11/2010 119209 MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP 6,269.28 AN SYSTEM 249344 , 445739 6,269.28 341027 11/11/2010 127488 MCCABE, BILL 13.13 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 249253 110410 20.00 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 249253 110410 85.06 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 249253 110410 191.89 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 249253 110410 310.08 341028 11/11/2010 100876 MCCAREN DESIGNS INC. 128.25 PLANTS 00002194 249345 49766 128.25 341029 11/11/2010 124142 MCNAUGHTON, MARY 61.75 ART WORK SOLD 249388 110210 5842.5515 2210.6104 1301.6406 5913.6406 1646.6406 7411.6406 1400.6103 45008.6710 Business Unit DISTRIBUTION COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page - 12 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION BUILDING MAINTENANCE PSTF OCCUPANCY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FIRE STATION #1 RENOVATION 1646.6577 LUMBER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1647.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PATHS & HARD SURFACE 1647.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PATHS & HARD SURFACE 1647.6517 SAND GRAVEL & ROCK PATHS & HARD SURFACE 5620.6620 TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS EDINBOROUGH PARK 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES R55CKREG LOG20000 2,297.60 CITY OF EDINA 11/9/2010 8:52:36 341031 11/11/2010 Council Check Register 103944 MED COMPASS Page - 13 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 39.00 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 61.75 39.00 EMPLOYEE HEARING TESTS 249148 16632 341030 11/11/2010 126941 MCQUAY INTERNATIONAL 52.00 EMPLOYEE HEARING TESTS 291.10 EQUIPMENT REPAIR 249346 2537919 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 1,504.00 INSPECTION CONTRACT 249347 28598 5620.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT EDINBOROUGH PARK 502.50 REPAIR BOILER 249405 2537749 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING GENERAL GOLF ADMINISTRATION POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL (BILLING) TREES & MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE CENTENNIAL LAKES SEWER TREATMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS METER REPAIR 2,297.60 341031 11/11/2010 103944 MED COMPASS 39.00 EMPLOYEE HEARING TESTS 249148 16632 5621.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 39.00 EMPLOYEE HEARING TESTS 249148 16632 5631.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 52.00 EMPLOYEE HEARING TESTS 249148 16632 1260.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 78.00 EMPLOYEE HEARING TESTS 249148 16632 5410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117.00 EMPLOYEE HEARING TESTS 249148 16632 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 130.00 EMPLOYEE HEARING TESTS 249148 16632 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 208.00 EMPLOYEE HEARING TESTS 249148 16632 1644.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 465.00 EMPLOYEE HEARING TESTS 249148 16632 1301.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,128.00 341032 11/11/2010 102281 MENARDS 111.90 BUILDING SUPPLIES 00001863 249254 13524 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 111.90 341033 11/11/2010 104166 MENARDS 103.88 LIGHTS 00002009 249349 87310 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 103.88 341034 11/11/2010 100887 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME 355,505.96 SEWER SERVICE 249149 0000944924 5922.6302 SEWER SERVICE METRO 355,505.96 341036 11/11/2010 104650 MICRO CENTER 510.59 CARD READER FOR ASSESSING 00004371 249077 2948592 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT i 493.43- RETURN 249078 2980991 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 22.42 EXT CORD 00004379 249479 2987918 1554.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 39.58 341036 _ 11/11/2010 118464 MIDWESTTESTING 2,395.00 METER TESTING 00005429 249079 1834 5917.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 2,395.00 341037 11/11/2010 102441 MINING AUGER S TOOL WORKS INC. EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING GENERAL GOLF ADMINISTRATION POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL (BILLING) TREES & MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE CENTENNIAL LAKES SEWER TREATMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS METER REPAIR R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - 14 11/11/2010 — 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 203.01 PIPE DRIVER 00001877 249255 24731 1646.6556 TOOLS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 203.01 341038 11/11/2010 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & 980.00 REPLACE STAND PIPE 00001916 249080 33728 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 980.00 341039 11/11/2010 101320 MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC OF REAL 130.00 MAAR DUES - ROBERT WILSON 249081 1641515 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING 130.00 341040 11111/2010 103216 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPARTMENT 14,171.16 WATER PURCHASE 249350 110310 5913.6601 WATER PURCHASED DISTRIBUTION 14,171.16 341041 11111/2010 102174 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 49.03 CO2, METHANE 249406 R110100256 7413.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF FIRE TOWER 49.03 341042 11111/2010 127062 MINNEHAHA BLDG. MAINT. INC. 16.03 WINDOW WASHING 249082 921077181 5861.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS VERNON OCCUPANCY 5.34 WINDOW WASHING 249083 921077182 5821.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 21.37 341043 11/11/2010 127320 MINNESOTA CIT OFFICER'S ASSOCI 5,940.00 CRISIS INTERVENTION COURSE 249477 20093010 7410.6218 EDUCATION PROGRAMS PSTF ADMINISTRATION 5,940.00 341044 11/1112010 102137 MINNESOTA ELECTRICAL ASSOCIATI 30.00 WINTER CONFERENCE 249084 2010 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 30.00 341045 11/11/2010 101467 MINNESOTA STATE HORTICULTURAL 110.00 MEMBERSHIP - CINDY ULLRICH 249407 110510 5621.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 110.00 341046 11111/2010 121491 MORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP 724.83 CONTROL 00005221 249085 485486F6W 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 58.21 MOTOR ASSEMBLY 00005226 249351 485609F6W 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 783.04 341047 11/11/2010 108668 MORRIS, GRAYLYN R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 150.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 11/18110 249417 110510 5621.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER 150.00 341048 11/11/2010 120142 NELSON, TEDD 99.99 SAFETY BOOTS 249150 110310 1495.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 99.99 341049 11/11/2010 100922 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS 1,033.87 SIGNS 00001941 249352 TI- 0227998 1325.6531 SIGNS & POSTS 1,033.67 341060 11111/2010. 101359 NIBBE, MICHAEL 209.58 'UNIFORM PURCHASE 249256 110310 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 209.58 - 341061 11/11/2010., ;; 101620 NORTH SECOND STREET STEEL SUPP 184.68 ALUMINUM PIPE 00005228 249086 188441 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 184.68 341052 11/11/2010 104232 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC 34.34 LENS 00005225 249353 25586 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS . 34.34 341053 11/1112010 127377 NORTHERN STAR COUNCIL 12.55 REGISTRATION - INGRID CURTIS 249151 110310 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12.55 341054 11/71/2010 100933 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY 33.90 ART SUPPLIES 00009277 249257 39687000 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 33.90 341066 1111112010 103678 OFFICE DEPOT 141.76 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00002198 249354 537921519001 5621.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES '14,1.76 I 341056. 11/11/2010 y.: 101600 PAPER DEPOT INC. 263.79 PAPER &'ENVELOPES 00009279 249408 13204 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES 263.79 341057 11111/2010 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS . 966.75 249188 8281173AN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 33.25 249189 8281172 -IN 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page - 15 Business Unit EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION INSPECTIONS STREET NAME SIGNS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN COMMUNICATIONS ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION ART;CENTER ADMINISTRATION' VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 11/11/2010 CITY OF EDINA 126492 PAYPAL INC. COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING Council Check Register VSV0002830598 VERNON SELLING 5862.5512 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 VERNON SELLING Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 14.00- 249190 8280060 -CM 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 104.25- 249191 8280064 -CM 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 2,055.04 249284 8280292 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1,255.25 249285 8281164 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 2,001.51 249286 8281168 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 259.50- 249287 8280367 -CM 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 145.00 249454 8281230 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 108.75- 249455 8281231 -CM 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 341068 11/11/2010 VERNON SELLING 126492 PAYPAL INC. COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 39.95 VSV0002830598 VERNON SELLING 5862.5512 39.95 VERNON SELLING 341069 11/11/2010 50TH ST SELLING 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 2,476.51 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5513 2,778.90 50TH ST SELLING 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 978.10 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 66.12 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5512 220.71 YORK SELLING 132.02 745.43 627.37 114.24 1,498.82 3,691.91 3,190.52 16,520.65 341060 11/11/2010 100968 PLUNKETTS PEST CONTROL 44.52 PEST CONTROL 44.52 341061 11/11/2010 (' 127489 POPP, JAMES W 211.25 ART WORK SOLD 211.25 341062 11/11/2010 100961 POSTMASTER - USPS 2,600.00 UTILITY BILLING PERMIT #939 2,600.00 341063 11/11/2010 102884 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 249087 110110 249288 2984975 249289 2984973 249290 2984974 249456 2985715 249457 2984964 249458 2985711 249459 2984965 249460 2984963 249461 2984970 249462 2984969 249463 2984972 249464 2984971 249409 1988863 249258 110110 249090 110210 5910.6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES 1119/2070 8:52:36 Page - 16 Business Unit YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING GENERAL (BILLING) 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY 5101.4413 5910.6235 ART WORK SOLD POSTAGE ART CENTER REVENUES GENERAL (BILLING) R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - 17 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 32.58 PARTS 00002001 249355 153652 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 32.58 341064 11/11/2010 101811 PREMIER FLEET SERVICES 1,751.50 PLOW REPAIRS 00005291 249086 21121 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 744.28 PLOW REPAIRS 00005292 249089 21122 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2,495.78 341066 11111/2010 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 1,475.59 LINERS, TOWELS, CLEANERS 00002202 249356 5010 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 43.58 TOWELS, WATER WAND 249357 4982 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 1,519.17 341066 11111/2010 100971 QUALITY WINE 2,840.69 249192 377389 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,555.70 249193 377609 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,541.96 249194 377548 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 6,406.45 249195 376173 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 179.20 249196 377610 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,133.68 249197 377549 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,298.47 249198 377413 -00 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 57.60 249291 377607 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,588.20 249292 377547 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 834.14 249293 377608 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,732.88 249294 377412 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 112.00 249465 378445 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 20, 280.97 341067 11/11/2010 123898 QWEST 342.74 952 927 -8861 249091 8861 -10/10 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 55.67 952 929 -0297 249092 0297 -10/10 4090.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE 55.86 249259 0146 -10/10 5911.6188 TELEPHONE WELL PUMPS 58.56 249259 0146 -10/10 1628.6188 TELEPHONE SENIOR CITIZENS 113.44 249259 0146 -10/10 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 117.22 249259 0146 -10/10 1470.6188 TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 138.07 249259 0146 -10/10 5821.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 165.90 249259 0146 -10/10 1622.6188 TELEPHONE SKATING & HOCKEY 228.21 249259 0146 -10/10 5511.6188 TELEPHONE ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 234.75 249259 0146 -10/10 - 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 266.44 249259 0146 -10/10 5932.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL STORM SEWER 2,055.11 249259 0146 -10/10 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 3,831.97 R55CKREG LOG20000 200.00 CITY OF EDINA 249359 20100902002 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL Council Check Register 200.00 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 341068 11/11/2010 106807 RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING CO. IN 17.99 CAKE 249360 63.90 GOUGHNUT BLACK STICKS 249260 260409 4607.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 63.90 341069 11/11/2010 100974 RAYMOND HAEG PLUMBING 11/11/2010 108669 RICHTER, BRIAN 559.00 DRAIN LINE REPAIRS 249152 12530 5861.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 559.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 11/21/10 249418 110510 341070 11111/2010 EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 104642 RCM SPECIALTIES INC. 100.00 1,008.10 CRS2 00001007 249358 3071 1301.6519 ROAD OIL 341074 11/11/2010 1,008.10 102408 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED 341071 11111/2010 127498 RESCUE VAC SYSTEMS 70.09 WIRING ADAPTERS, PINS 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page - 18 Business Unit EDINA CRIME FUND K9 DONATION VERNON OCCUPANCY GENERAL MAINTENANCE 200.00 TRAINING 249359 20100902002 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 200.00 341072 11/11/2010 126343 RICHFIELD DQ GRILL AND CHILL 17.99 CAKE 249360 533 5620.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK 17.99 341073 11/11/2010 108669 RICHTER, BRIAN 100.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 11/21/10 249418 110510 5621.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 100.00 341074 11/11/2010 102408 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED 70.09 WIRING ADAPTERS, PINS 00005230 249093 1197373 -01 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 26.80 PLUGS, SOCKETS 00005229 249094 1197185 -01 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 23.16 HITCH PIN & CLIP 00005315 249261 1197960 -01 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 120.05 341076 11111/2010 100980 ROBERT B. HILL CO. 88.67 SOFTENER SALT 00003648 249361 00242717 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 88.67 i 341076 11/11/2010 118779 ROGGEMAN, ERIC 4.50 REIMBURSEMENT 249153 110210 1160.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE FINANCE 170.25 REIMBURSEMENT 249153 110210 1160.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FINANCE 174.75 341077 11/11/2010 101682 S & S WORLDWIDE INC. 714.76 PLAYGROUND PROGRAM EQUIPT 249154 6775407 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PLAYGROUND & THEATER R55CKREG LOG20000 320.00 TRAINING CITY OF EDINA 102010 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL Council Check Register 341084 11/11/2010 — 11/11/2010 127490 SCULLY, PAT Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description ART WORK SOLD 249264 714.76 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 341078 11111/2010 100988 SAFETY KLEEN 341086 11/11/2010 113.07 CLEAN OUT PARTS WASHER 00005300 249095 923088759 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 113.07 STORM /SIGN INVENTORY 249364 233300 5932.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 341079 11/11/2010 118940 SAMS IRRIGATION SERVICE CO. 230.00 IRRIGATION WINTERIZATION 00002197 249362 303 5620.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 230.00 51.35 ART WORK SOLD 341080 11/11/2010 5101.4413 100990 SCHARBER & SONS ART CENTER REVENUES 51.35 70.54 MIRROR 00005351 249262 1061746 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 118211 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO. 70.54 341081 11/11/2010 PAINT 100126 SCHEEL, WADE 3279 -7 5861.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON OCCUPANCY 126.75 ART WORK SOLD 249273 110110 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 126.75 341082 11/11/2010 127478 SCHEEREL, JEAN 62.00 TRIP REFUND 249263 110310 1628.4392.07 SENIOR TRIPS 62.00 341083 11/11/2010 127049 SCHNEIDER, KATHERINE 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Page - 19 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EDINBOROUGH PARK EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ART CENTER REVENUES SENIOR CITIZENS 320.00 TRAINING 249363 102010 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 320.00 341084 11/11/2010 127490 SCULLY, PAT 55.25 ART WORK SOLD 249264 110110 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 55.25 341086 11/11/2010 100996 SEH 60,992.27 STORM /SIGN INVENTORY 249364 233300 5932.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL STORM SEWER 60,992.27 341086 11/11/2010 102870 SEIFERT, ELIZABETH 51.35 ART WORK SOLD 249265 110110 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 51.35 341087 11/11/2010 118211 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO. 85.26 PAINT 249155 3279 -7 5861.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON OCCUPANCY 85.26 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - 20 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 341088 11/1112010 121382 SIGNATURE AQUATICS 97.50 POOL SERVICE 00002209 249365 770 5620.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINBOROUGH PARK 97.50 341089 11111/2010 101000 SIR SPEEDY 40.61 BUSINESS CARDS 249096 66434 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 40.61 341090 11/11/2010 105193 SPAIN, MARK 69.67 UNIFORM PURCHASE 249097 110210 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 69.67 341091 11/11/2010 101021 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC 233.69 PROPANE 00001011 249366 102510 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 233.69 341092 11/11/2010 104672 SPRINT 439.89 CARD READERS 249480 312188813 -035 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 439.89 341093 11111/2010 101015 STREICHERS 89.99 UNIFORMS 249098 1782798 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,271.80 AMMUNITION 249410 1783982 7410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF ADMINISTRATION 61.97 GUN CLEANING BRUSHES 249411 1784109 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 1,423.76 341094 11/1112010 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 17.06 TUBE 00005313 249266 271350 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 64.84 SHIELD, BOLTS 00005316 249267 271640 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 653.22 VEHICLE REPAIRS 00005303 249268 581416 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 735.12 341095 11/11/2010 102140 SUN MOUNTAIN SPORTS INC. 84.43 GOLF BAG 249156 483253 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 123.58 MERCHANDISE 249157 466473 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 208.01 341096 11/11/2010 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 107.25 PUBLISH SAMPLE BALLOT 249099 1283458 1180.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ELECTION 42.90 PUBLISH NOTICE 249100 1283460 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 107.25 PUBLISH ELECTION NOTICE 249101 1283459 1180.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ELECTION 257.40 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - - 21 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 341097 11111/2010 110674 SUPERIOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIO 17.80 USB CABLE 00001919 249269 28663 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 35.00 NEXTEL REPAIR 00001880 249270 28644 1640.6188 TELEPHONE PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 64.08 USB CHARGER 249367 28507 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 116.88 341098 11111/2010 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 751.00 249199 Z01874 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,075.00 249200 Z01882 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,826.00 341099 11/11/2010 108609 TAFFEE, MARY 124.80 ART WORK SOLD 249271 110110 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 124.80 341100 11/11/2010 101036 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 94.20 249466 615041 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,058.95 249467 615040 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,153.15 341101 11/11/2010 101826 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP. 868.63 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 249158 671874 5420.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CLUB HOUSE 868.63 341102 11/11/2010 123129 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 293.75 DRAFT MINUTES 10/19 MEETING 249102 M18026 1120.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 293.75 341103 11/11/2010 101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 94.14 PROPANE 00005227 249103 327473 1553.6581 GASOLINE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 124.49 WELDING GAS 00005227 249103 327473. 1553.6580 WELDING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 40.80 WELDING TANKS 249368 411354 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 259.43 341104 11/11/2010 103982 TRAFFIC CONTROL CORPORATION 275.63 GREEN BALL & RENO LOADSWITCH)0001953 249369 0000045837 1330.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE TRAFFIC SIGNALS 275.63 341106 11/11/2010 103163 TREUTING, KRISTEN 60.45 ART WORK SOLD 249272 110110 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 60.45 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - 22 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 341106 11/11/2010 118190 TURFWERKS LLC 63.40- RETURN 249104 SC01230 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 12.57 MOWER REPAIR PARTS 00001811 249105 0122824 1642.6530 REPAIR PARTS FIELD MAINTENANCE 327.13 WHEEL & TIRE 00005301 249106 0122897 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 426.16 CLUTCH, BUSHINGS 00005306 249370 S125190 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 145.79 FILTERS 00005306 249371 S125187 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 848.25 341107 11/11/2010 101047 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 116.95 REPAIR GARAGE DOOR 00002013 249372 339813 5630.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CENTENNIAL LAKES 116.95 341108 11111/2010 116379 U.S. BANK 17.90 NET ZERO 249412 110210 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES 78.20 INTERNET 249412 110210 1550.6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 96.10 341109 11/1112010 122321 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC. 420.00 DRAIN CLEANING 249413 37990 5111.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT 420.00 341110 11/11/2010 122664 VALLEY NATIONAL GASES LLC 76.61 OXYGEN 00003649 249373 897500 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 132.14 OXYGEN 00003649 249374 583781 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 410.09 OXYGEN 00003649 249375 586184 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 618.84 341111 11/11/2010 101068 VAN PAPER CO. 322.81 LIQUOR BAGS 00007512 249159 178083 -00 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 322.81 341112 11/11/2010 101061 VICTORYCORPS 58.98 USA FLAG 00006133 249160 110715 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 58.98 341113 11/11/2010 101067 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 36.06 SAFETY VESTS 00001010 249376 257978 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 31.80 SAFETY VESTS, GLOVES 00001010 249377 258255 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 67.86 341114 11/11/2010 126327 VINOANDES R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - 23 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 475.25 249295 1791 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 475.25 341116 11/11/2010 119454 VINOCOPIA 171.67 249201 0031661 -IN 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,665.50 249202 0031502 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 101.50 249296 0031514 -IN 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,938.67 341116 11/11/2010 121042 WALLACE CARLSON PRINTING 165.66 BUSINESS CARDS 00009289 249415 38503 5110.6575 PRINTING ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 165.66 341117 11/11/2010 127339 WELNA II HARDWARE 156.32 HOOKS, PAINT, LIGHTS 00009267 249414 213357 5111.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT 156.32 341118 11/11/2010 127476 WIDSTRAND, RAY 34.09 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 249161 110110 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 34.09 341119 11/11/2010 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 208.40 249203 254982 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 854.85 249204 255113 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 508.40 249297 254975 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,571.65 341120 11/11/2010 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 87.36 249298 338788 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 8.67- 249299 50732 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 8.67- 249300 50733 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 6.67- 249301 50734 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 11.00- 249302 50703 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 7.50- 249303 50704 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 6.67- 249304 50678 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 31.00- 249305 50679 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 204.99 249468 339050 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 212.17 341121 11/11/2010 117482 WINECONNECT INC. 159.24 WEB - NOV 2010 249107 674 5842.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 159.24 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDWA 11/9/k 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - 24 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 341123 11/1112010 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 4,449.18 249205 479349 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 8,956.35 249206 479348 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,422.00 249207 477523 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 4,458.31 249208 478333 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 6,219.78 249209 479352 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 11,048.74 249210 477528 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 889.30 249211 480005 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 148.57 249212 481412 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5,550.05 249213 481403 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 57.10 249214 481404 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 206.64 249215 479347 5862:5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 56.26 249216 481406 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 3,150.37 249217 481409 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 672.66 249218 481408 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 67.75 249219 481407 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 120.00- 249220 814286 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 45.13- 249221 814243 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 65.10- 249222 814679 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 44.66- 249223 814608 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5,642.78 249306 481411 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 4,630.84 249307 481410 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,512.25 249308 481405 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,150.15 249309 479927 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 388.11- 249310 814678 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 170.15- 249311 814657 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 26.84- 249312 814073 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 35.98- 249313 814606 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 240.00- 249314 814275 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 154.96- 249315 814605 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 145.05- 249316 814080 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 59,853.10 341124 11/11/2010 ' 60.00 2,344.40 5,283.34 43.00 64.50 4,101.45 3,387.20 124629 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 249224 675089 249225 675088 249226 675312 249227 676119 249228 676120 249229 676118 249469 677871 5822.5515 5822.5514 5842.5514 5842.5515 5842.5514 5842.5514 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 11/9/2010 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - 25 11/11/2010 - 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 3,521.25 249470 675326 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 100.00 249471 675327 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 3,742.50 249472 675609 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 312.00 249473 675610 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,319.35 249474 677676 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 64.50 249475 677677 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 24,343.49 341126 11/11/2010 101086 WORLD CLASS WINES INC 255.00 249317 256591 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 2,019.50 249318 256651 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 67.88 249319 256590 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 321.85 249320 256592 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,664.23 341126 11/11/2010 123911 WRAP CITY GRAPHICS 64.13 DECALS FOR TRASH CANS 00006146 249162 10-507 5410.6575 PRINTING GOLF ADMINISTRATION 64.13 341127 11/11/2010 101726 XCEL ENERGY 28.63 51- 4151897 -6 249108 258943208 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 33,48 51- 7567037 -0 249109 258995086 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 900.89 51- 6979948 -4 249110 259147023 5821.6185 LIGHT & POWER 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 1,231.34 51- 6979948 -4 249110 259147023 5861.6185 LIGHT & POWER VERNON OCCUPANCY 1,497.71 51- 6979948-4 249110 259147023 5841.6185 LIGHT & POWER YORK OCCUPANCY 34.79 51- 8102668 -0 249111 258495469 1321.6165 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 491.76 51- 4827232 -6 249112 258438086 5311.6185 LIGHT & POWER POOL OPERATION 56.86 51- 6692497-0 249113 258474193 1460.6185 LIGHT & POWER CIVILIAN DEFENSE 550.20 51- 6046826-0 249114 258635062 5422.6185 LIGHT & POWER MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 148.73 51- 6229265 -9 249115 258639420 1481.6185 LIGHT & POWER YORK FIRE STATION 1,557.28 51- 6229265 -9 249115 258639420 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 332.04 51- 9013604 -6 249116 259015079 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 902.02 51- 5847121 -5 249117 258983664 5914.6185 LIGHT & POWER TANKS TOWERS & RESERVOIR 3,994.15 51- 6621207 -1 249118 258981216 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 1508.02 51- 5634814 -2 249119 258626897 5934.6185 LIGHT & POWER STORM LIFT STATION MAINT 186.69 51- 5938955 -6 249120 258633685 4086.6185 LIGHT & POWER AQUATIC WEEDS 30,620.78 51 -4621797 -2 249121 258434569 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 4,512.74 51- 4966303 -6 249122 258785993 1330.6185 LIGHT & POWER TRAFFIC SIGNALS 460.58 51- 6137136 -8 249416 259310921 5430.6185 LIGHT & POWER RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 3,006.80 51- 6840050 -6 249481 259492012 5921.6185 LIGHT & POWER SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 51,055.49 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 1119/201u 8:52:36 Council Check Register Page - 26 11/11/2010 — 11/11/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 341128 11/11/2010 100668 XEROX CORPORATION 168.90 OCT USAGE - PARK & REC 00004322 249163 051242177 1550.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 35.08 OCT USAGE - BLDG /ENG 00004322 249164 051242176 1550.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 203.98 341129 11/11/2010 119647 YOCUM OIL COMPANY INC. 8,433.58 DIESEL FUEL 00001010 249275 407623 1553.6581 GASOLINE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 8,433.58 341130 11/1112010 102732 YUNGER, DAVE 55.25 ART WORK SOLD 249274 110110 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 55.25 341131 11/1112010 101672 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC 4,351.95 ELGIN BROOMS 00001008 249378 0130651 -IN 1310.6523 BROOMS STREET CLEANING 4,351.95 341132 11111/2010 101089 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 459.46 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 00002012 249379 54166599 5631.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 459.46 861,922.48 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 861,922.48 Total Payments 861,922.48 R55CKSUM'LOG20000 Company Amount .01000 GENERALFUND , 94,226.62 MOO COMMUNICATIONS FUND 450.68 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 46,090.23 05100 ART CENTER FUND 5,523.76 05200 GOLF DOME FUND, 96.43 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 491.76 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 11,923.56 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 2,123.43 05600 EDINBOROUGH/CENT LAKES FUND 7,320.91 05800 LIQUOR FUND, 218,302.58 05900 UTILITY FUND 403,454.00 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 61,766.73 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 10,151.79 Report Totals 861,922.48 CITY OF EDINA 11/9/2010 8:53:31 Council Check Summary Page - I 11/11/2010- 11/11/2010 We confirm to the best of kn owledge and belief, that these claims comply in all material 'respects with the requirements of the City of Edina Purchasing P0 . I. es nd .[ d procedure S_dj3te,,__ 7 irect r CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 9/28/10- 10/25/10 Card Holder Aerchani Account Name Trans Date Amount Purchase Discription Merchant Name Merchant City State Code JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/10/05 $10.00 ADULT SPORTS ROUNDTABLE MN RECREATION AND PARK 763- 571 -1305 MN 1600.6104 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/10/08 $110.00 PESTICIDE CONFERENCE ACT "UNIVERSITY OF MINN 888 - 351 -9948 CA 5531.6104 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/10/08 $683.00 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION NRPA 703 - 8582165 VA 1600.6104 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/10/09 $261.44 HALLOWEEN DECORATIONS YARDINFLATABLES COM 330 - 2689273 OH 5620.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/10/12 $100.00 POSTAGE PITNEYBOWES- POSTAGE 800 -468 -8454 CT 5621.6235 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/10/12 $50.00 ADAPTIVE REC PROGRAM GOLF ZONE CHASKA MN 1629.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/10/15 $187.62 ADAPTIVE REC PROGRAM BRUNSWICK ZONE EDEN Pf EDEN PRAIRIE MN 1629.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/10/21 $438.00 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION NRPA 703 - 8582165 VA 1600.6104 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/10/22 $35.61 EQUIPMENT RENTAL PITNEY BOWES" 800 - 228 -1071 CT 5621.6235 JEFF LONG 2010/09/28 $363.12 LABELS /STICKERS FEDEX OFFICE #0622 EDINA MN 2330.6405 JEFF LONG 2010/10/01 $219.00 EXCEL 2007 TRAINING- ELASKY KAPLAN PROFESSIONAL SC651- 641 -1000 MN 1400.6104 JEFF LONG 2010/10/01 $219.00 EXCEL 2007 TRAINING - CAMPBEL KAPLAN PROFESSIONAL SC 651 - 641 -1000 MN 1400.6104 JEFF LONG 2010/10/06 $363.12 LABELS /STICKERS FEDEX OFFICE #0622 EDINA MN 2330.6405 JEFF LONG 2010/10/06 $102.77 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE MAX EDINA MN 1400.6406 JEFF LONG 2010/10/12 $125.00 CRIME SCENE TRAINING INSIDE THE TAPE 757 - 7481991 VA 1400.6104 JEFF LONG 2010/10/15 $64.26 SOFTWARE LICENSES MICROSOFT STORE 877 - 696 -7786 CA 2310.6103 DEB MANGEN 2010/09/28 $12.02 ELECTION SUPPLIES PAYPAL'DULUTHLIGHT 402 - 935 -7733 CA 1180.6406 DEB MANGEN 2010/10/05 $130.12 COUNCIL WORKSHOP D BRIAN'S DELI - #6 MINNEAPOLIS MN 1100.6106 DEB MANGEN 2010/10/22 $351.05 MINUTE BOOKS SPECTRA ASSOCIATES 518 -439 -9534 NY 1120.6406 JOHN WALLIN 2010/09/30 $21.02 EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION LINDEN HILLS COOP MINNEAPOLIS MN 1513.6103 JOHN WALLIN 2010/09/30 $38.62 EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION STARBUCKS USA 00002741 EDINA MN 1513.6103 JOHN WALLIN 2010/09/30 $100.38 EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION PERKINS 00010058 EDINA MN 1513.6103 JOHN WALLIN 2010/10/02 $192.01 HEALTH CONFERENCE CRAGUNS LODGE AND GOL BRAINERD MN '1490.6104 JOHN WALLIN 2010/10/04 $44.81 COMPUTER CABLES MONOPRICE COM 909 - 989 -6887 CA 1554.6406 JOHN WALLIN 2010/10/14 $1,109.50 E -MAIL SOFTWARE 1/2 IT BRANDEDMAILSCOM KOEBENHAVN ! 1154.6160 JOHN WALLIN 2010/10/14 $1,109.50 E -MAIL SOFTWARE1 /2 COMMICP BRANDEDMAILSCOM KOEBENHAVN ! 2210.6406 JOHN WALLIN 2010/10/18 $45.00 BUILDING PUBLICATION ASME 973 - 882 -1170 NJ 1495.6405 JOHN WALLIN 2010/10/18 $5.99 PROPS FOR COMMERCIAL AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILI WA 2210.6406 JOHN WALLIN 2010/10/19 $23.99 PROPS FOR COMMERCIAL AMAZON.COM AMZN.COM /BILI WA 2210.6406 JOHN WALLIN 2010/10/19 $17.74 PROPS FOR COMMERCIAL AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILI WA 2210.6406 $7,068.59 We confirm to the best of our knowledge and belief, that these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing poll ke and procedures dale -� I a /_0 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 9/28/10- 10/25/10 Card Holder Aercharn Account Name Trans Date Amount Purchase Discription Merchant Name Merchant City State Code JOHN WALLIN 2010/10/19 $129.58 COUNCIL WORKSHOP D BRIAN'S DELI -#6 MINNEAPOLIS MN 1100.6106 JOHN WALLIN 2010/10/20 $11.89 PROPS FOR COMMERCIAL AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILI WA 2210.6406 JOHN WALLIN 2010/10/21 $393.43 146 GB HARD DRIVE HP SERVICES 800 - 325 -5372 CA 1554.6710 $7,068.59 We confirm to the best of our knowledge and belief, that these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing poll ke and procedures dale -� I a /_0 a 001 "M \•.vv • �RBPBUB REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item VI. A. DEBRA MANGEN Action From: CITY CLERK ❑ Discussion ® Information Date: NOVEMBER 16, 2010 Subject: CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Attached are copies of a -mails and letters received since the last Council meeting. October 26, 2010 Marty Scheerer Chief, Edina Fire Department 6250 Tracy Ave. Edina, MN 55436 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 5701 Normandale Road Edina, MN 55424 (952) 848 -3900, www.edina.k12.mn.us R Cis Ph�L!1 NOV 0 8 2010 Re: Thank You For Assisting Through Our District's Crisis Dear Marty: want to take this opportunity to thank you for the help you provided our school district in managing our non - toxic, grey water spill at the high school on October 15. The teamwork was most impressive. Your responsiveness to the situation Was truly appreciated. I recognize this situation was. managed by a team effort of literally hundreds, working to ensure the safety of our students, staff and community. On behalf of Edina Public Schools, I extend a heartfelt thank you for assisting us through.our crisis. Also, I would encourage you to provide me with any feedback you might have related to the October 15.. incident. The District leadership is completing a review of the incident to help in- future emergencies. You may direct your feedback to my email at ricdressene— edina.k12.mmus. regards, Ric ss n Superintendent N:\ Communications \Crisis- Emergency Response \10 -11 -10 Community TY.doc WE CARE V WE DARE V WE SHARE s: r NOV 0 8 2010 t�tt^ 5a 'ru�eR I . fill (DIV- q^ "-,kvl-Vvt OvA B-vr«- ol Susan Howl Subject: FW: Service - - - -- Original Message - - - -- NOV 0 8 2010 From: Jeff Long Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:29 AM To: Susan Howl; Ceil Smith Subject: Service Communication for the Council Packets, police & fire did save the 21 year old who suffered a heart attack. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Arthur Cobb [mailto:acobb @cobbassoc.com] Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 5:01 PM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Service This morning, Sunday, November 6, 2010, I stopped to offer assistance as an Edina Police Officer and a women attempted to revive a young man near 50th and Wooddale while EMTs were in transit. A Center Point Energy person assisted the officer by getting equipment from the squad car. The officer worked with calm, focus and determination. I greatly hope that the Officer, the women (the young man's aunt) and the EMTs were successful. I have long been impressed by the Edina Police Department. I was very impressed with the professionalism of the officer. Arthur H. Cobb 1 • Neighborhood Open House Come see the proposed plan and elevations of the new store Meet and discuss details with: Whole Foods Representatives Project Architect Project Civil Engineer Developer /Owner's Representative ��MID-AMERICA REAL ESTATE - MINNESOTA. LLC QUESTIONS: Bruce Carlson - Project Director P: 953.563.6674 E: bcarlson @midamericagrp.com SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION FACING I'gANCt AVE ARCHITECTURAL PREPARED FOR: WHOLE FOODS EXTERIOR RENDERING CONSORTIUM L. L.C. CENTENNIAL LAKES PLAZA. LLC ueuaoar. MID AMERICA - REAL ESTATE BUILDING 5353 WAYZATA BLVD., SUITE 650 A 3.1 901 North 3rd Street 612A36 -4030 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55416 EDINA, MN SCALE: AS NOTED Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612-692 -9960 Architectural Consortium, L.L.C. 2010 MTOR ofnCeram "- r mo ,` �vFra R�no..aa svnsoo s w 1 i '� � vaovosEO�j! '1 IYR0.EFGGG9 MNO{ETJ IBLDG F007PRIM I WHSLE FOODS lit ml r+l t -�� France Ave 4 II B0 M m lSUtle i]0 Fu 6121 -62� 11 t Q�s WHOLE FOODS CENTENNIAL LAKES PLAZA EDINA, MN SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=50'-O" A1-J • REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item VI. A. -1 DEBRA MANGEN ❑ Action From: CITY CLERK Discussion ® Information Date: NOVEMBER 16, 2010 Subject: CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER PACKETS INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Attached are copies of a -mails and letters received after the packets were delivered to you. RECEIVED Susan Howl NOV 1 � 2010 Connecting With Kids has had a busy fall! Here are a few highlights: EDINA NAMED ONE OF THE "100 BEST COMMUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE" BY AMERICA'S PROMISE ALLIANCE We were very excited that Edina was named one of the 100 Best Communities for Young People! The application for the award came through Connecting With Kids, and in fact, CWK was specifically named by the judges as a contributing factor to Edina's meriting the award. The America's Promise award is significant because it looks at the community as a whole, not just one or two factors in determining winners. Edina residents, can be proud, of the way the school system, the City, civic organizations; faith communities and the business comm- unity' work together for the good of our youth. 2010 EDINA DAY OF SERVICE We were fortunate to have had a great day with perfect weather! For the second year in a row we had over 1,000 people from the coiimunityvolunteering on the "Day ", giving over 3000 hours of the their time. There were dozens of projects that we knew of. Projects ranged from a 61h grades collecting grocery.bags to donate to VEAP all the way to the Girl Scouts and'Normandaleflementary families gathering, cleaning, sorting and then donating over 15,000 to the Hennepin County Medical Clinic system. As I drove around Edina that day, I was amazed at the number of people working on service sites1hroughout the city. Thanks to all who organized projects and to those who pitched in to help at each of them. Without your help and enthusiasm the Day, of Service could not be as successful as it is every year. Look for the 3`d annual Edina Day of Service in October of 2011. The date has not been finalized yet, but when it is I will let you know. KIDS - VOTING EDINA Our kids were invited to the polls again this election for Kids Voting Edina! Kids Voting is a non = partisan initiative that teaches students in the classroom about the voting process and then invites those students to -take part in an actual vote. Though not part of the official results, Kids Voting does allow our youth to learn about the candidates and experience casting a ballot. Almost 1500 students took part in Kids Voting Edina this year. Here are their results: Governor - Tom Emmer Secretary of State - Mark Ritchie Congressional District - 3 Erik Paulsen State Senate - Geoff Michel State Rep 41 A- Keith Downey State Rep 41 B - Pat Mazorol_ Edina City Council - Steve Brown and Josh Sprague Thanks to the many volunteers who made Kids Voting possible! BREAKFAST WTH A PURPOSE Together with the Edina Resource Center, Edina Public Schools, the City of Edina, and the Edina Community Foundation, Connecting With Kids has helped to plan for a "Breakfast With A Purpose ". At the breakfast, you can learn about what makes. Edina an award winning community for young people and how you can keep the commitment to our youth growing. Click here for more information about the breakfast. Connecting With Kids is proud to work with the community to better serve our youth and to make children a priority in our lives. It remains our vision to be a community where all children, have the support they need to grow up to be responsible, healthy and caring adults. With your continued support we can make that happen. Thank you, Heather Haen Anderson Executive Director Connecting With Kids )52 -688 -8081 connectingwithkidsedina. org RECEIVED Susan Howl Subject: Light Rail for the Southern Suburbs Please notify members of the City Council of the following issue that should be of current interest. I would attend the Tuesday meeting to discuss the issue, but I will be out of town. I plan, instead, to attend and make public comment at the Transportation Commission meeting on Thursday. I live in Edina and recently completed a review of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (DoT's) 2030 plan for freight and passenger rail: http: / /www.dot .state.mn.us /planning /railplan Phase I of the plan calls for completion of a commuter rail system in Minnesota, including Twin Cities - Mankato Corridor, one of ten corridors considered. According to the plan, the heavy commuter trains will run at 80 miles per hour, with significant hazard to the surrounding properties in case of derailment. Stations will be five miles or more apart. The Twin Cities - Mankato Corridor has a fork at Savage. The routes of the two forks are as follows: - A western [ "CP Line" or "MN &S "] fork from the Twin Cities to Savage via Saint Louis Park, Edina, and Bloomington; and - A southern fork from the Twin Cities to Savage. Distances by either fork are approximately the same, so inclusion of both forks is an extravagance. ly preliminary analysis indicates that deletion of the MN &S fork from the Twin Cities - Mankato Corridor will significantly improve the economics of the corridor, and it will provide an opportunity for consideration of light rail, instead of heavy, fast commuter rail, along the fork. A light rail line would serve Saint Louis Park, Edina, Bloomington, and Savage with several stations and with lighter trains moving somewhat slowly. By comparison to the commuter rail in the 2030 plan, light rail has the following advantages: - Much smaller potential for damage in the case of derailment; - Greater access for local residents to public transit; - Coexistence with planned recreational trails; and - Promotion of business growth along the line. In the Rail Forum of 8 November, the MN DoT solicited comments on its cost - benefit analysis. The cutoff date for comments to the DoT is 23 December. I am requesting that someone in an official capacity (e.g., Transportation Commission or City Council) respond to the call for comments as follows: That MN DoT examine the cost and other benefits of including light rail as an alternative to commuter rail along the MN &S fork of the Twin Cities- Mankato Corridor. David Davison (dd0l(@annben.us) 952 - 944 -7549 1 i • �n`b�&O1"S4r City of Edina November 9, 2010 Property owners of along West 7091 Street from TH 100 to France Avenue RE: Proposed landscaping plan for West 7011, Street Dear Property Owner* The roadway reconstruction for West 70th Street is not scheduled to be completed until late fall of 2011; therefore, the landscaping. for this project will occur during late spring of 2012. The landscaping will occur in two major areas, the east and west end of the project, see attached concept plans. Staff is requesting that you comment on the proposed concepts by December 17, either through email, voicemail, or regular mail. The City's landscape consultant will then review the comments and prepare final plans and specifications for bidding out the landscaping project for late summer 2011. Attached are the landscaping concept plans. Please note the design narratives for each concept plan. We would like to know your preferred concept of the two concept plans for the roundabout landscaping. There are many existing boulevards that contain plantings other than grass. We anticipate that the project will disturb most of the boulevards and we ask that the adjacent property owners transplant what you would like to save from these boulevards prior to construction next spring % summer. The roadway contractor will not be saving any plants within the boulevard areas. The City's landscape consultant has included a boulevard planting option for property owners that prefer not to have grass replanted in the boulevard. The plants that are shown are chosen for low maintenance and tolerance to street conditions. Costs for any plants other than grass will be planted and funded by the adjoining property owner. You will also notice on the project area plan random overstory trees to be planted along the corridor. The intention. of the trees is to infill where trees do not exist today. Their location will be coordinated with the respective property owner. City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com 952- 927 -8861 FAX 952- 826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 I Page 2 Landscaping letter for West 70 Street November 9, 2010 - Please reply with comments to: US Mail: Email: Voicemail: City of Edina whoule @ci.edina.mn.us 952- 826 -0394 Attn: Engineering Department Write in subject line: Leave name, address, 7450 Metro Boulevard West 70 St comments. and co_ mments. Edina, MN 55439 Thank you for taking the time to review these items. Sincerely, Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Public Works / City Engineer Enclosures. G: \Engineering \Contract Numbers \2010 \ENG 10-8 70th St - TH 10010 France - Landscaping \A -241 70th St fr TH 100 to France - Landscaping \DE$IGN \FEASIBILITY (All Pre - Designs) \Current Design \20101105 resident landscaping letier.docx AREAA WEST - PROJECT AREA EAST - PROJECTAREA • CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN i� , F - "'t yt - I CHURCH r ^.i f .,,=fti `' K'• `.y,,,se..+ v" ! , , 17 AREA D r� 1 \ \\ - 4 • f�J. - aREAe s W 70TH ST 10, Aore wr _- r ARNE50NACRES PARK +� AREA C k r ry NORMANDALE BLVD r S � V .y' vv f .ice..,. ...,r.. -!',3 4d NTS 1 9 two_T. lF .q{ t 7 r L � " y AREA E . ) of s1 4.J:_ P..:•ej AREA y Y A H :'•?i W 70TH ST _ W 70TH 5T — - -- ,l = -- - -- - - - - - -- 0 �. r, ... AREA :. ,. _ 1� ! (SEE ROUNDABOUT CO.N . [EPTS " - D ` 8, " Ra� CORNELIASCHOOLPARK AIf - Sol OF d ^- .2, -_ Y NTJ Corridor Landscaping Concepts - project area plan 1J West 70th Street S E H �� fy Edina, MN "sy August 20, 2010 W 70TH ST B Enlarged view of Areas B and C East of Highway 100 Section A -A A SEH NORMANDALE BLVD Section B -B DESIGN NARRATIVE The landscape concept for the corridor is informed by the area's agricultural and neighborhood's horticultural history. It reflects the "ordered" patterns reminiscent of row planting. It is also inspired by the current residential boulevard gardens that celebrate the neighborhood, echo the gardens found in Arneson Acres Park, and create a beau- tiful and colorful edge along West 70th Street. Key features of the corridor landscape concept include: • A diverse palette of trees, shrubs, perennial flowers and ornamental native grasses, and a potted prairie option are repeated throughout the corridor to create a contigu- Corridor Landscaping Concepts - project design narrative West 70th Street Edina. MN August 20, 2010 ous ribbon of seasonal color and texture -_ - - == - - - — - Gateway medians on the west side of West 70th Street (Areas A and B) hint of the existence of a midwestern prairie using horizontally branching hawthorn trees that Ij are underplanted with little bluestem and prairie dropseed grasses • The "orchard" planting in rows of pink and white flowering crabapple trees near Nor - mandate and West 70th Street (Area C) are suggestive of Arneson tree farm N plantations A medley of evergreens (species to match existing vegetation), lilacs, roses, and perennials provide the visual "windbreak" between the Church and West 70th Street (Area D) and enhance the existing gardens ! Berm plantings of evergreens, lilacs, serviceberry and spirea (Areas E and J) pro - ! vide screening, traffic calming and seasonal beautification on the north and south sides of West 70th Street just west of the new roundabout • Low plantings of daylilies and native grasses in the medians on the west, north and east side of the roundabout (Areas F, H, and K) repeat the same patterns of colors and forms used near the church while reinforcing the traffic calming measures of the roundabout - Seasonal shrubs and the repeated use of daylilies along the area adjacent to the office building east of Valley View Rd (Area G) provide parking lot screening and traffic calming measures while continuing to weave the palette of plants used throughout the corridor • Two options for the roundabout (Area 1) are shown (See Roundabout Concepts A and B for design narrative of each) • The concept also includes recommendations for street tree enhancements along the corridor with specific locations to be determined Corridor Landscaping Concepts - project design narrative West 70th Street Edina. MN August 20, 2010 PLAN a DESIGN NARRATIVE This concept responds to the area's historic agricultural and horticultural landscape by taking form from the blades of a windmill. Key features of the roundabout concept include: • A basic form that is created by the placement of natural stone pieces in a pattern will echo the movement of the windmill's blades and the direction of movement of traffic around the roundabout • The simple use of several types of ornamental grasses provides a hint of the native midwestern landscape • Varying heights of grasses provides another form of movement by their swaying in the breeze while providing structure and changes in color that pro- vide interest throughout the seasons • No mow grass serves as a low maintenance and attractive buffer between the planted bed and the truck apron CHARACTER SKETCH PLANTS GIANT MISCANTHUS KARL FOERSTER GRASS PRAIRIE DROPSEED Corridor Landscaping Concepts - roundabout concept a West 70th Street 5 E H Augu st Edina. MN 20. 2010 NO MOW GRASS — STONE PIECES - KARL FOERSTER GRASS PRAIRIE DROPSEED GIANT MISCANT}IUS — F � e s� >s PLAN a DESIGN NARRATIVE This concept responds to the area's historic agricultural and horticultural landscape by taking form from the blades of a windmill. Key features of the roundabout concept include: • A basic form that is created by the placement of natural stone pieces in a pattern will echo the movement of the windmill's blades and the direction of movement of traffic around the roundabout • The simple use of several types of ornamental grasses provides a hint of the native midwestern landscape • Varying heights of grasses provides another form of movement by their swaying in the breeze while providing structure and changes in color that pro- vide interest throughout the seasons • No mow grass serves as a low maintenance and attractive buffer between the planted bed and the truck apron CHARACTER SKETCH PLANTS GIANT MISCANTHUS KARL FOERSTER GRASS PRAIRIE DROPSEED Corridor Landscaping Concepts - roundabout concept a West 70th Street 5 E H Augu st Edina. MN 20. 2010 i SECTION NO MOW GRASS POTTED PRAIRIE ay"•.y CYLINDER SCULPTURE 's «8 r pA p 8 T' S )N I A DESIGN NARRATIVE This concept presents public art in the form of three cylinders of varying heights Key features of the roundabout concept include: • Three basic forms in varying heights that emulate the idea of the farmstead silos - vessels used to store the grains before being delivered to the mill. Advancement of of public art in the roundabout would be determined Surrounding the "silos" is a short grass potted prairie using a blend of native grasses and colorful praire flowers • No mow grass serves as a low maintenance and attractive buffer between the planted bed and the truck apron CHARACTER SKETCH PLANTS PLAN e Corridor Landscaping Concepts - roundabout concept b West 70th Street i C U Edina. MN August 20, 2010 LITTLE GRAPETTE DAYLILY SEDUM STELLA D'ORO DAYLILY CATMINT RUBY STELLA DAYLILY KARL FOERSTER GRASS PLANTS RUBY STELLA DAYLILY STELLA D'ORO DAYLILY LITTLE GRAPETTE DAYLILY LITTLE TITCH CATMINT AUTUMN FIRE SEDUM KARL FOERSTER GRASS DESIGN NARRATIVE This planting option is shown as a 50 foot x 4 foot wide boulevard garden. The planting plan provide residents with a list of plants that are part of the cor- ridor planting palette Key features of the boulevard garden option: • Planting beds large enough to provide ample room for drifts of color that would enhance both residence and corridor • Plants selected for low maintain ance and tolerance in street conditions PLAN . ��.,. Corridor Landscaping Concepts - boulevard planting option ,f west 70th Street 5 EH =y , Edina. MN August 20, 2010 PLANT PALETTE AREAS A & B - WESTERN MEDIANS ? + ' THORNLESS HAWTHORN LITTLE BLUESTEM PRAIRIE DROPSEED AREA C NORMANDALE & 70TH i PRAIRIEFIRE CRABAPPLE RED SPLENDOR CRABAPPLE SNOWDRIFT CRABAPPLE JAPANESE WHITE SPIREA `� IROQUOIS BEAUTY CHOKEBERRY tx1 L INCREDIBALL HYDRANGEA AREA D -AT CHURCH LITTLE GRAPETTE DAYLILY STELLA D'ORO DAYLiI Y RUBY STELLA DAYLILY CATMNF SEDUM JAPANESE TREE LILAC, CLUMP r i BALSAM FIR BLACK HILLS SPRUCE ""4 f` COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE WONDE BIL,UEOLILAC RUBY STELLA DAYLILY STELLA D'ORO DAYLILY LITTLE GRAPETTE DAYLILY s LITTLE TITCH CATMINT f" AUTUMN FIRE SEDUM < AREAS E & J - BERMS BLACK HILLS SPRUCE '? AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY WONDERBLUE LILAC r ` JAPANESE WHITE SPIREA k PINK PARASOLS SPIREA 1` NEON FLASH SPIREA CHAMPLAIN ROSE GIANT MISCANTHUS KARL FOERSTER GRASS LTTTLE 6LUESTEY PRAIRIE DROPSEED LOW PRAIRIE PERETMIIL MR AREAS F,H &K- 5 } "` �•-- :.,��. - ROUNDABOUT MEDIANS LITTLE BLUESTEM RUBY STELLA DAYLILY STELLA D'ORO DA YLILY LITT LE GRAPETTE E DAYLILY AREA G - ADJACENT TO OFFICE BLDG. "mot' IROQUOIS BEAUTY CHOKEBERRY >' RUBY STELLA DAYLILY DAYLILY STELLA LITTL GRAPEOTTE DAYLILY AREA I - ROUNDABOUT CONCEPT A MISCANTHUS X 'GIGANTEUS' KARL FOERSTER GRASS PRAIRIE DROPSEED ; ` AREA I - ROUNDABOUT CONCEPT B NEON FLASH SPIRFA xJ IAPANESE WHITE SPIREA PINK PARASOLS SPIREA IROQUOIS BEAUTY CHOKEBERRY WONDERBLUE LILAC RED BARRON CRABAPPLE POTTED PRAIRIE PERENNIALS f AREA I - ROUNDABOUT CONCEPT C POTTED PRAIRIE PERENNIALS z - � RECOMMENDED STREET TREES e f 3' FRONTIER ELM �V EMERALD LUSTRE MAPLE Jt�k+`? *F' r Y x ,�� '''S,•- SWAMP WHITE OAK f lL - *', a- .4 f a� BLACK HILLS SPRUCE COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE ti SWAMP WHITE OAK EMERALD LUSTRE MAPLE WHITE CRABAPPLE .� 1 -�� PINK CRABAPPLE JAPANESE TREE LILAC >Y Corridor Landscaping Concepts - plant palette recommendations West 70th Street s 5 E H t' Edina. MN August 20. 2010 MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, September 16, 2010 Edina City Hall 4801,, West 50th Street Council.Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Jennifer Janovy,,, Paul Nelson, Michael Schroeder, Tom Bonneville, Jean White, Geof Workinger, Nathan .Franzen, Sarah Engbretson, Bohde Scheerer MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Sprague STAFF PRESENT: Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison I. Call to Order The meeting was called order by chair Janovy. II. Welcome new members Chair Janovy welcomed new student members Edina High seniors, Sarah Engbretson and Bohde Scheerer to the ETC. III. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of August 19, 2010 Commissioner Schroeder motioned to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 19. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nelson. All voted aye. Motion passed. IV. Public Comment No public comment. V. New Business a. 2011 -12 Street Reconstruction Projects Assistant city engineer Sullivan said as part of the Capital Improvement Program, there is a 5- year plan for street reconstruction, with an outlook to 10 years. Residents are notified.2 years in advance and approximately 1,300 were recently invited to an open house to learn more about the process. The open house is scheduled September 20 at the new Public Works. and Park Maintenance facility located at 7,450 Metro Boulevard. Sullivan said streets . are selected based on pavement condition, utility deficiencies and drainage issues and there is a neighborhood street reconstruction map that .shows all, the streets that are scheduled to be redone over the next 10 years. The 2011 neighborhoods are Carson's Hill, Killarney Shore, McCauley Heights, Golf Terrace, Minnehaha Woods, and Oscar Roberts. In addition to the open house, Sullivan said, individual neighborhood meetings will be .scheduled at a later date for each project area and a questionnaire is sent to residents to gather feedback on such things as sump pump, pet containment/irrigation system, sidewalk, streetlighting, traffic V management concerns, etc. He said residents are generally assessed for such things as street, streetlight, and sidewalk, while the City pays for all utilities. b. Site Traffic and Circulation Sullivan said they often talk about the right -of -way line being the marker for the ETC's review responsibility while other groups are responsible for such things a site traffic and circulation. Sullivan explained that in addition to the ETC, development applications are reviewed by the City Engineer, Planning Director, other internal staff, Planning Commission, and the City Council. Explaining the role of each body, Sullivan said the ETC advises the Council on traffic volumes, congestion, functional classification, but not maintenance activities, and the review is usually in the form of a Transportation Impact Analysis. The city engineer reviews traffic circulation including directional signalization, channelization, turn lanes, increased street width, warning lights, stacking lanes and location, number and width of curb cuts. The planning director reviews on -site traffic and circulation including parking spaces, parking drive isles and drive entrances. He presents the development application to the Planning Commission and they hold public hearing(s) and make recommendation to the City Council. The planning director presents the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council who may hold public hearing(s) and makes the final decision. Overall staff review includes the engineering, planning, fire and building departments. Commissioner Bonneville said he hopes that the ETC will still be able to make comments on areas outside of their jurisdiction and have them passed along. Commissioner Schroeder asked who has the responsibility for looking at local streets network with respect to buses, pedestrians, and transit. He said the code does not talk about how sites connect with other parts of the local network. Sullivan said the Transportation Plan, city engineer, BETF, etc. looks at these areas but better definition is probably needed. Chair Janovy said it does talk about mass transit. Chair Janovy asked if the ETC is in the right place in the order of the review process considering that a lot could change on the site by the time it goes through the process that could affect the roadway. Sullivan said it was set up this way to give ample time to the others in the review process. VI. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Schroeder) Commissioner Schroeder said their major activity has been zoning code updates in areas such as ordinance for driveway widths and driveway pavement materials for R1 and R2 zoning classification; and adding a Planned Unit Development section to the code. The review process would be informal, no vote up or down, could involve the ETC, and getting neighborhood input early in the process. They are also looking at hardship for variances. He said most communities are not taking applications at this time due to a recent court decision. VII. Bike Edina Task Force Update (Commissioner Janovy) a. July and August 2010 meeting minutes Commissioner Janovy reported that construction of Phase I (bicycle route for which the City received a Transit for Livable Communities grant) is scheduled for 2011. She said the BETF would like to be kept informed and asked if the ETC should also have a role in receiving information about and/or commenting on this project. 2 r:R She asked if the ETC would like to involved with the Nine Mile Creek Trail. VIII. Staff Liaison Comments a. 70th Street Reconstruction Update Sullivan said bids were opened and the low bidder will be awarded the project by Council at their next meeting. He said staff is having discuss_ ion with the contractor to see what can be done before winter. IX. Commission Comments Commissioner Workinger suggested to the new student members that they give some thought to traffic in their school zone and share their thoughts with the ETC at a future meeting. Commissioner Bonneville said he would like to see the ETC look at Xerxes Avenue from TH- 494 to the crosstown as a connection to TH -494 and-', determine if it would be an alternative truck route to France Avenue which is becoming more crowded. Chair Janovy asked that this be added to a future agenda for exploration- and to identify agencies that would be involved. Sullivan said the process has already started with improvements to the bridge through Mn /DOT and city of Bloomington. He said, Edina was recently included in their meetings and .he will bring this up at their next meeting and report back. Chair Janovy said a resident reported a concern with stacking and the potential for collisions as a result of the restriping on France Avenue at 60th and she suggested looking at the timing of the signal. Sullivan said he will look into this and report back. Sullivan said a complaint was received regarding truck traffic on Gleason Avenue traveling towards 78th Street and traffic safety coordinator, Boyd Tate is checking axle count to determine how many trucks are using. this road; however, the City cannot limit trucks on state aid roads (very similar to W. 70th Street). Sullivan said they are also checking to see how fast the trucks are traveling and -will involve PD for enforcements. X. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. 3 November 12, 2010 Edina City Council 1 City of Edina PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Attached to this letter are the newly adopted bylaws for the City of Edina Planning Commission. According to the Edina City Code, The planning commission should have a set of bylaws. See Chapter 8, Section 805.05, Subd. 2 = Bylaws; "The commission shall adopt bylaws necessary or desirable for the conduct of its business ". For whatever reason, the Planning Commission has never had bylaws, so I made it a goal when I became Chair to get that done. Commissioner Carpenter chaired a subcommittee including Commissioners Grabiel, Brown and myself in an effort to create a set of guidelines for the commission. For, the most part, the bylaws simply document current operating procedures and policies of the planning commission, with one major exception. Please refer to SECTION 12. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. where we clarify the policy regarding communicating with outside parties related to Quasi - Judicial Matters. On occasion, you may get complaints from citizens that the planning commission is not willing to talk with them about proposed projects. Every time I explain why we should not be talking with either party during quasi - judicial matters, the concerned person comes away feeling good about our process. I feel very strongly that the role of the planning commission, as an appointed body, is to provide the City Council with an unbiased recommendation.. This Ex Parte Communications Policy will ensure that happens. It is my understanding that the City Council does not need to "approve" the Planning Commission bylaws, so I am attaching them for your information. Of course, we work for you, so if you have any concerns with the document, please let me know. Sincerely, MICHAEL A. FISCHER CHAIR, EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall 952- 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952 -826 -0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY,952- 826 -0379 CITY OF EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS SECTION 1. PURPOSE The purpose of these Planning Commission bylaws is to provide a set of operating procedures for the Planning Commission. SECTION 2. MEMBERSHIP The membership of the Planning Commission shall consist of such voting and nonvoting members as shall be appointed, from time to time, in accordance with Section 805.04 of the Edina City Code. All members of the Planning Commission shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council. SECTION 3. ANNUAL MEETING The annual meeting of the Planning Commission shall be the first regular meeting in the month of February of each year. Such meeting shall be devoted to the election of officers for the ensuing year, consideration of any updates to the bylaws of the Planning Commission, and such other business as shall be scheduled by the Planning Commission. SECTION 4. REGULAR MEETINGS Regular meetings of the Planning Commission shall be held in the City Hall or other officially noticed location at 7:00 pm on the Wednesday immediately preceding the first meeting of the City Council for each month. At such meetings, the Planning Commission may consider all matters properly brought before the Planning Commission. A regular meeting may be cancelled or rescheduled by the Planning Commission at a prior meeting, or by the Chairperson, the City Council or Mayor. Unless otherwise determined by the Chairperson, any regular meeting falling upon a holiday shall be held on the following business day at the same time and place. SECTION 5. SPECIAL MEETINGS Special meetings of the Planning Commission may be called by the Chairperson or Vice - Chairperson, City Council or Mayor who shall designate the time, place and purpose of the meeting. Notice of special meetings must conform to the State Open Meeting Law. Written notice thereof shall be given to all members not less than 24 hours in advance of the special meeting except in the case of an emergency. SECTION 6. QUORUM In order for any meeting to be called to order, a quorum of a majority of all then existing voting members must be present. During the course of a meeting, such a quorum must be present to take action on any matter before the Planning Commission. Edina Planning Commission Bylaws (377032- 9).DOC SECTION 7. MEETINGS AND THE OPEN MEETING LAW In accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 131)), and unless otherwise provided, authorized or permitted under the Open Meeting Law or other applicable law, all official meetings of the Planning Commission shall be open to the general public. An "official" Planning Commission meeting is any gathering, or simultaneous communication (via email, telephone or otherwise), between a quorum of Planning Commission members for the purpose of considering the public business of the Planning Commission. SECTION 8. VOTING AND RECOMMENDATIONS At all meetings of the Planning Commission, each member attending, with the exception of any high , school student member, shall be entitled to cast one vote on matters before the Planning Commission. In the event that any member shall have a conflict of interest, as determined by the City Attorney, concerning a matter then before the Planning Commission, he /she shall disclose his/her interest, refrain from participation in any discussion of such matter, and be disqualified from voting upon the matter, and the Secretary shall so record in the minutes that such member refrained from all such participation and that no vote was cast by such member. The affirmative vote of a majority of voting members in attendance shall be necessary for the adoption of any resolution or other voting matter. The results of any vote shall be recorded, listing those voting Aye and those voting Nay. All recommendations shall be sent to the City Council by means of written minutes, and shall include the record of the division of votes on each recommendation. SECTION 9. REGULAR PROCEEDINGS (A) At any regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the following shall be the regular order of business: 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Minutes of the Preceding Meeting(s) 4. Public Hearings- New Applications 5. Public Hearings - Continued Hearings 6. Old Business 7. New Business 8. Communications and Reports 9. Public Comment on Matters Not on Agenda 2 10. Miscellaneous 11. Adjournment The order of business may be varied by the presiding officer, but no public hearings shall be held at an earlier time than specified in the notice of hearing. (B) Except as otherwise determined by an affirmative vote of a majority of voting members in attendance, and except for public hearings which shall be governed by the procedures set forth in Section 14, the following procedures shall be observed for matters before the Planning Commission; provided, however, the Chairperson may, in the Chairperson's reasonable discretion, rearrange individual items if necessary for the expeditious conduct of business: 1. Staff presents report and makes recommendation (if any). 2. The Planning Commission may ask questions regarding the staff presentation and report (if any). 3. The applicant (if any) of the agenda item make a presentation (if any). 4. The Planning Commission may ask questions of the applicant (if any). 5. Members of the public (proponents or opponents) make comments (if any). 6. The Planning Commission asks any questions it may have of the applicant, proponents, opponents or staff (if any). 7. If in the determination by the presiding officer the applicant's responses to questions from the Planning Commission introduces materially new information or issues relevant to the matter then under consideration, proponents and opponents may make additional comments confined solely to such new information or issues. 8. The Planning Commission asks any questions it may have of the applicant, proponents, opponents or staff (if any) with respect to such new information. 9. The Planning Commission then discusses and takes a vote. 1 (C) In order to promote meeting efficiency, the ' Chairperson may discourage duplicative comments and may place reasonable time limits on the amount of time that individuals have to speak. (D) Each formal action of the Planning Commission required by law, rules, regulations or policy shall be embodied in a formal vote duly entered in full upon the Minute Book after an affirmative vote as provided in Section 6 hereof and may be accompanied by written findings of fact. 3 (E) Unless agreed to by a majority vote of the Planning Commission, no new agenda items shall be taken up after 11:00 p.m. SECTION 10. AGENDA AND DEADLINE FOR AGENDA (A) A enda. The agenda of a Planning Commission meeting shall be prepared by City Staff in cooperation with the Chairperson. (B) Submissions. Any Planning Commission member may request an item or issue to be placed on a future agenda at a regular meeting by instructing the City Staff responsible for agenda preparation; provided, however, a majority vote of the Planning Commission is required for the item or issue to become a future regular agenda item. No item shall be placed on the agenda unless the item is expressed in such a way as to clearly show the subject matter involved. (C) Agenda Additions During Regular Meetings. Additional items may be added to the agenda at a Planning Commission meeting subject to approval by a majority vote of the voting members in attendance. The additional agenda items may be discussed, but no action may be taken if any voting member objects. If a new item of business proposed to be added to the agenda requires staff review (such as rezonings, ordinance amendments, preliminary subdivision plans, and subdivision review procedures and guidelines), involves quasi-judicial procedures (such as a request for a hardship variance from Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance standards), or involves substantive matters of potential public interest (such as the Comprehensive Plan, or other major policies), the Planning Commission may add the item to the agenda only for purposes of referring it to the staff or a Planning Commission committee, or scheduling it for consideration at a later meeting (as appropriate). The Planning Commission may not discuss the substance of the matter or take any final action on the item except at a meeting where the item is included on the distributed agenda. (D) Delivery of Agenda to Members. On the Friday immediately preceding the next meeting of the Planning Commission, the meeting agenda shall be delivered to each member of the Planning Commission, along with any supporting materials related to items on the agenda. (F) Order and Form of the A eg nda. The agenda organization shall generally conform to Section 9 above. In addition, the agenda shall generally organize matters to be addressed at the meeting so as to best promote opportunities for effective public input and the timely and efficient performance of Planning Commission responsibilities. SECTION 11. MINUTES (A) Duties of Staff Preparing Minutes. City Staff shall prepare minutes of all Planning Commission meetings. The minutes shall state: Which members were present and absent, and whether absent members were excused or not excused. 4 2. A summary of staff and committee reports and recommendations, applicants' presentations, public comments, and the Planning Commission's discussion on each item. 3. The content of each principal motion before the Planning Commission, the identity of the person who made and seconded the motion, and the record of the vote on the motion (identifying the vote count and, unless the vote was unanimous, the names of those voting for or against the motion). If the motion called for or recommended adoption of an ordinance or resolution, or the acceptance of a report, the minutes shall also include a copy of the ordinance, resolution or report. SECTION 12. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS (A) Ex Parte Communications. Ex parte communications are contacts, whether oral or written, direct or indirect, which occur outside the public meeting forum between individuals seeking to influence the decisions of the Planning Commission and individual members of the Planning Commission in which such member discusses the merits of any matter which may or will be subject to such Commissioner's vote. Such contacts include, without limitation, meetings with project proponents or opponents, residents, property owners, citizens or other interested parties separate from Planning Commission meetings, and telephone calls or letters which attempt to influence a Commissioner's opinion on a matter which may or will be subject to the Commissioner's vote. (B) Exclusions. Notwithstanding Section 12(A) above, ex parte communications shall not include the following: 1. Written communications delivered to City Staff for distribution to all members of the Planning Commission as part of each member's public meeting packet and which thereby become available to all interested parties and constitute communications within the public meeting forum; or 2. The conduct of site visits by members of the Planning Commission provided that all such members are able to, and do, conduct such visits for the specific purpose of gathering physical facts and data, and without any unnecessary contact with any project proponents or opponents, residents, property owners, citizens or other interested parties, or any of their respective representatives. (C) Ex Parte Communications Prohibited In Connection With Quasi - Judicial Matters. In the interest of avoiding bias or undue influence, or the appearance of bias or undue influence, all Planning Commission members shall refrain from engaging in any ex parte communication related to any Quasi - Judicial Matters. In the event any Planning Commission member is contacted by any project proponents or opponents, residents, property owners, citizens or other interested parties, or any of their respective representatives, under circumstances where the Planning Commission member has reason to believe that an ex parte communication related to a Quasi - Judicial Matter will or may occur, such member shall promptly inform such interested party that the Planning Commission member cannot discuss the matter or have any contact with such interested G party on the subject of such matter other than at a Planning Commission meeting. Members are encouraged to recommend to all such interested parties that they attend meetings of the Planning Commission to publicly express their views, or that they otherwise deliver written comments to the office of City Staff for distribution to Planning Commission members. (D) Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications /Abstention. When any ex parte communication occurs, each Planning Commission member participating in such ex parte communication shall promptly notify the Chairperson and City Staff of the occurrence of such ex parte communication, and shall divulge the occurrence and substance of such communication on the record at the commencement of the public hearing to which such communication pertains. In doing so, each member shall disclose, if known, the name of the party or parties participating in such communication, the substance of such communication, and whether, in the opinion of such member, such communication has caused such member to become biased in connection with any public vote on such matter. If, in the opinion of that member, an ex parte communication has caused such member to become biased in connection with any public vote on a matter, such member shall refrain from participation in any discussion of such matter, and be disqualified from voting upon the matter, and the Secretary shall so record in the minutes that such member refrained from all such participation and that no vote was cast by such member. (E) "Quasi- Judicial Matters" Defined. For purposes of this Section 12, "Quasi- Judicial Matters" shall mean such matters as to which the Planning Commission determines the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties in a public hearing or other contested case proceeding over which the Planning Commission has jurisdiction. By way of example only, Quasi-judicial matters do not include legislative actions recommending, adopting, amending or revising comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, other land use planning documents, or other similar matters. SECTION 13. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS All meetings of the Planning Commission shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rule of Order of Standard Parliamentary Procedure 10th Edition, or such later edition as may then be in effect ( "Robert's Rules "). SECTION 14. PUBLIC HEARINGS (A) A public hearing is a noticed, official hearing, the express and limited purpose of which is to provide an equitable opportunity for the public to speak on matters before the Planning Commission. (B) For certain matters considered by the Planning Commission, a requirement that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing is prescribed by State Statute, the City's Municipal Code of Ordinances or by City Policy. The Planning Commission, however, may elect to conduct a public hearing, although not specifically required, if the Planning Commission determines that due to the unique nature of the matter, it is advisable. 3 (C) The Planning Commission may neither deliberate nor take a substantive vote during a public hearing, but may ask questions for the sake of clarification of speakers. (D) The Planning Commission, upon resuming their regular meeting after the close of the public hearing, may take action upon the matter discussed at the public hearing. (E) Conduct of Persons Before the Planning Commission During all public hearings required by State law or ordinance, members of the public shall be given reasonable opportunity to speak. In order to promote meeting openness, fairness and efficiency, the Chairperson may discourage duplicative testimony, may place reasonable time limits on the amount of time that individuals have to speak, and may establish such other rules of procedure as shall, under the circumstances, 'reasonably facilitate a fair, open and orderly conduct of the public hearing. Comments should be addressed to the item before the Planning Commission. Where a comment is irrelevant, inflammatory, disruptive or prejudicial, the Chairperson may instruct the Planning Commission to "disregard" the comment, which nevertheless remains in the public record. 2. During all regular and special meetings of the Planning Commission, the public may be present but shall remain silent unless specifically invited by the Chairperson to provide comment. 3. During all proceedings, members of the public have the obligation to remain in civil order. Any conduct which interferes with reasonable rights of another to provide comment or which interferes with the proper execution of Planning Commission affairs may be ruled by the Chairperson as "out -of- order" and the offending person directed to remain silent. Once, having been so directed, if a person persists in disruptive conduct, the Chairperson may order the person to leave the Planning Commission meeting or hearing. Where the person fails to comply with an order to leave, the Chairperson may then call upon civil authority to physically remove the individual from the chamber for the duration of the hearing or deliberation on that item. 4. The Chairperson may impose additional limits or rules upon members of the public as permitted by Section 16. (F) Additional Rules of Procedure for Public Hearings 1. Public Hearing Format. Public hearings shall be conducted in the following manner: (a) The presiding officer calls the public hearing to order and declares the time of opening. (b) It is the intent of the Planning Commission to open all public hearings at or after the predetermined and published time. From a practical standpoint, not all hearings can be opened at their designated time. The presiding officer may delay the start of a hearing until the business at hand is acted upon, in any manner, by 7 the Planning Commission. However, in no circumstances can a hearing be opened prior to the predetermined and published time. (c) The presiding officer shall read, from the hearing notice, the details on the hearing sufficient to provide the public a general understanding of the purpose and procedures for the hearing, and the fact that the hearing is their exclusive or primary opportunity to provide input to the city on the subject. (d) Staff and/or a consultant make a presentation or report on the subject matter for the hearing. (e) The applicant (if any) may make a presentation or report on the subject matter for the hearing. (f) The presiding officer asks Planning Commission members if they have questions of the staff or consultant, if any. (g) The presiding officer requests a motion and second to open the public hearing. (h) The presiding officer announces that input will be received from the citizens, requesting that each speaker provide a name and address, noting any applicable time limits for comment from individual members of the public, any other applicable rules and explaining the procedure for enforcement of such rules. (i) After members of the public have spoken, the presiding officer requests a motion to: L Close the public hearing, and the Planning Commission votes on the motion. Once the vote is taken, the hearing is closed for the record. ii. Continue a public hearing, and the Planning Commission votes on the motion. If the .Planning Commission votes to continue the hearing, the presiding officer shall, in consultation with City Staff, select and announce a time and date certain for the continued public hearing. No additional publication or notice requirements are needed if a hearing is continued to a later date. However, no public hearing may be continued more than once without renotice and publishing the time, date and location of the hearing. (j) The Planning Commission may request that the applicant respond to issues or questions arising from, or raised by the public during, the public hearing. In such event, and if the presiding officer determines that the applicant's response introduces materially new information or issues relevant to the matter then under consideration, the presiding officer may request a motion and second to reopen the public hearing, after which the reopened public hearing shall be conducted, and closed or continued, in accordance with Section 14(F)(1)(i) above; provided, however, the presiding officer may limit the scope of such reopened public hearing only to a discussion of such materially new information or issues. (k) The Planning Commission addresses the subject matter through deliberation, questions to citizens and staff, and reactions and statement of position on the subject. (1) If the public hearing is closed, the Planning Commission may take action on the application before them. The Planning Commission may formulate a recommendation which outlines the parameters under which an approval would be granted. The reasons and conditions shall be stated in the motion or resolution for approval or denial. Continuation of an action may occur in the event insufficient information is present to make a decision. The Planning Commission shall delineate the missing information before continuing the item. SECTION 15. OFFICERS The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a Chairperson, a Vice - Chairperson, and Secretary elected by the Planning Commission at the annual meeting for a term of one year. In the absence of the Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson, the remaining members shall elect a Temporary Chairperson for that respective meeting. SECTION 16. DUTIES OF OFFICERS The Chairperson is a voting member of the Planning Commission and may make motions. In addition, the duties and powers of the officers of the Planning Commission shall be as follows: (A) Chairperson. 1. To preside at all meetings of the Planning Commission. 2. To call special meetings of the Planning Commission in accordance with these bylaws. 3. To sign documents of the Planning Commission. 4. To see that all actions of the Planning Commission are properly taken. 5. To cancel or postpone any regularly scheduled meetings. 6. To invoke a reasonable time limit for speakers during any public hearing in the interest of maintaining focus and the effective use of time. 7. To provide for the selection of one or two spokespersons to represent groups of persons with common interests during public meetings and hearings. 8. To order an end to disorderly conduct and direct law enforcement to remove disorderly persons from Planning Commission meetings or hearings. 9 W 9. To schedule a second official public hearing meeting or other continued meeting in the event that a meeting or public hearing cannot be concluded by a reasonable hour in the judgment of the Chairperson. 10. The presiding officer has the responsibility to facilitate discussion by the Planning Commission. This may occur in a variety of ways, including: • Interpret and apply rules of procedure. • Decide whether motions are properly made. • Decide whether motions are in order. • Decide whether questions of special privilege ought to be granted. • . Decide when to recognize speakers. • Call for motions or recommend motions. • Expel disorderly persons from the meeting. • Enforce speaking procedures. (B) Vice - Chairperson. During the absence, disability or disqualification of the Chairperson, the Vice - Chairperson shall exercise or perform all'the duties and be subject to all the responsibilities of the Chairperson. (C) Secretary. 1. To sign official documents of the Planning Commission and other duties as required. (D) Secretarial duties to be delegated to City Staff. 1. To give or serve all notices required by law or by these Bylaws. 2. To prepare the agenda for all meetings of the Planning Commission. 3. To be custodian of Planning Commission records. 4. To inform the Planning Commission of correspondence relating to business of the Planning Commission and to attend to such correspondence. 5. To handle funds allocated to the Planning Commission in accordance with its directives, the law and city regulations. 10 6. To take the minutes of all meetings of the Planning Commission for typing and filing into the appropriate minute book by City Staff. SECTION 17. VACANCIES If a vacancy occurs among the members of this Planning Commission by reason of death, resignation, disability or otherwise, notice, shall be1 given to the City Administrator or City Clerk and Chairperson -by the, Secretary. City staff shall then see that a new appointment is made by the City Council. Resignations should be made. in, writing to the Chairperson stating the effective date of the resignation. SECTION 18 AMENDMENTS These bylaws may be amended at any meeting of the Planning Commission provided that notice of said proposed amendment is given to each member in writing at least four (4) days prior to said meeting. SECTION 19. COMMITTEES A. The Chairperson may appoint ad hoc committees unless the Planning Commission or City Council shall otherwise direct. The Chairperson shall be an additional voting member of all committees. The Chairperson may appoint a Planning Commission member to chair each ad hoc committee. B. All committees shall consist of at least three voting members, except as otherwise ordered by the Planning Commission. C. The majority of the voting members of any committee shall constitute a quorum of such committee. If a quorum is not present at a meeting, the members present may prepare reports and submit them to the Planning Commission on behalf of the committee, in which case the report shall name the committee members who prepared it. D. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as waiving the ability of the Planning Commission at any time to increase or curtail the duties of any committee and/or to direct or control its actions. ADOPTED thisZOday of, Q=LE&g , 2010. Chairperson 11 MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Heritage Preservation Board Tuesday, October 12, 2010, 7:00 PM Edina Community Room 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Joel Stegner, Chris Rofidal, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Arlene Forrest, Claudia Carr, Colleen Curran, Ross Davis, Katherine McLellan, and Lauren Thorson MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Schwartzbauer STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 14, 2010 Member Rofidal moved approval of the minutes from the September, 2010 meeting. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H -10 -04 4501 Casco Avenue — Remove a detached garage and build an addition with an attached garage Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the southeast corner of the Casco Avenue and Sunnyside Road. The home, constructed in 1926 is an English Cottage style with a 2 -car detached garage accessed by a driveway off of Sunnyside Road. The proposed plans for the home include removal of the detached garage in the southeast corner of the rear yard and constructing an attached 3 -stall garage with a master suite above. The proposed addition of a 3 -stall attached garage is planned to continue access off of Sunnyside Road. A second story master suite is designed to be constructed above the garage. Setbacks provided for the addition are shown at 56.9 feet for the rear yard (a minimum 25 feet is required), and 20 feet from the north property line which is the minimum allowed for a garage abutting a side street. The proposed addition demonstrates a design that continues the English Cottage architectural style of the home with stucco clad walls, decorative stonework at the foundation, and designer overhead garage doors. However, the 943 square foot addition with a height 32 feet" to the peak appears to dominate the original home which has an 850 square foot footprint and a height to peak of 29.6 feet. Furthermore, the survey for the property illustrates an elevation of 910.8 feet at the south wall of the addition, while the home to the south (4503 Casco Avenue) has an elevation of 905.3 feet at their north wall — a difference of 5.5 feet. Taking into consideration the difference in grade, the peak of the subject home is currently situated 35 feet in height relative to Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 the southerly lot. The addition as proposed would be 37.5 feet in height when viewed from the abutting property. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel reviewed the proposed plans and observed that the home at 4501 Casco Avenue contributes to the historic significance of the Country Club District but is not individually eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark. The existing detached garage does not contribute to the historic significance of the house and is not considered a heritage preservation resource; therefore, demolition would be an appropriate undertaking. Regarding the proposed new construction, attached garages are common in the Country Club District, where a substantial number of houses with attached garages were constructed during the district's period of historic significance (1924 - 1944). The addition of living space above attached garages is also characteristic of historic homes in the district, where the earliest structural additions above attached garages probably date from the 1930s. From the perspective of the district's historic context, therefore, adding second -story living space above an attached garage would need to be considered an appropriate undertaking in the Country Club District. Mr. Vogel added that unfortunately, the proposed addition falls short of the design requirements for new construction. While it minimizes the loss of historic fabric (the area of the house that will be altered does not meet the plan of treatment's threshold for demolition) and is compatible with the mass, texture and materials of the original house, the plans presented with the COA application depict a structure that will add approximately 2 feet to the height of the house. If allowed to be built, this would allow the addition to overpower the original house, altering the scale and character of the property and making it incompatible with the other historic homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Vogel pointed out that although the preservation standards used in evaluating applications for COAs are neither technical nor prescriptive, they are intended to provide philosophical consistency to design review decisions. New additions need to be designed for compatibility with the character of the building and the neighborhood: the best practice, therefore, is to avoid adding new height to a building, particularly when the new work is visible from the street. There has been a tradition of enlarging homes in the Country Club District, where the most common house styles (Tudor and Colonial) typically accommodate large structural additions on their side and rear elevations without detracting from the architectural character of the houses or the integrity of the district as a whole. Although roof height is by no means uniform along any street in the district, relatively few homes have received additions that are taller than the original construction. When viewed from the public right -of -way, the facades are usually dominated by the primary roofs. In my opinion, it would be reasonable for new construction to respect this long- standing design tradition. Mr. Vogel concluded that design review needs to recognize the special problems inherent in carrying out large structural additions to historic homes in the Country Club District. Lowering the height of the addition to 4501 Casco may require altering the shape of the roof and the height of the walls. It is important to remember that Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 preservation standards do not require new construction to duplicate the forms and shapes of the original building — compatibility does not mean exact reproduction of historic architectural details. It should be possible to redesign the addition so that.the roof profile is hot visibly higher than that of.the original house when viewed from Casco or Sunnyside. Planner Repya added that both she and Consultant .Vogel recommend denial of the COA application for the new attached garage as proposed. Findings support the denial recommendation included: • The'plans presented with the CON-.application depict a structure that would exceed the height of the house by 2 feet. If allowed to be built, this would allow the addition to overpower the original house, altering the scale and character of the property and making it incompatible with the other historic homes in the neighborhood. • It is possible to redesign the addition so that the roof profile is not visibly higher than that of the original house when viewed from the street. Homeowners, Charles and Raquel Layton, 4501 Casco Avenue Comments: The Laytons spoke in sup of their COA proposal - pointing out that their desire is to construct an addition to their home that is in keeping with its architectural details and compatible with the surrounding properties. Mr. Layton explained that they wish to create an attached garage addition that is sensitive to the mass of the home. He added that they have struggled with the design of the addition, and presented the Board with several alternative plans which they had considered, but rejected. Jim Bizal, Bizal Construction, contractor for the Laytons explained that the restricting . element driving the design is the southerly. roof line on the existing home. As presented, the higher roof of the addition-actually reduces.the mass of the addition due to the sloping roof on the east or rear elevation. He added that the alternative plans where the roof of the addition was reduced created living spaces that did not flow with the original home. Board Member Comments: Member Forrest expressed agreement with the comments of staff and the.consultant, and pointed out that there are many homes in the district that have reduced the height of additions by incorporating a flat roof at the peak. Member Rehkamp Larson stated that she too shared the concerns expressed by staff. She added that she was also concerned about the south wall which is designed to be over 80 feet in length with no relief, provided. Ms. Rehkamp Larson opined that the homeowner has expressed a desire for an addition that is sensitive to the mass of the home; however the plan proposed does not meet their desire. She added that there is a way to design an addition that would both meet the Laytons needs for living space, while at the same time demonstrate sensitivity to the height of the original home, and Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 provide some relief on the south elevation by stepping back portions of the wall area. Members Carr, Stegner, Davis, Curran, and Rofidal agreed with the comments expressed by Member Rehkamp Larson. Member Carr asked if the homeowners would be willing to table the item until the November meeting when they could submit an alternative plan that would address the concerns expressed. Mr. and Mrs. Layton agreed that they would prefer the Board not vote on the COA as proposed, but rather come back with an alternative plan at the November meeting. Member Rehkamp Larson moved to table the subject COA request until the November 9, 2010 meeting; affording the applicant time to research a plan that would address the concerns expressed by the HPB. Member Curran seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. H -10 -05 4512 Casco Avenue — Construct a new detached garage and review changes to the front entry portico Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of the 4500 block of Casco Avenue. The existing home, constructed in 1938 had a 2- stall, tandem detached garage, measuring 14' x 43' (602 sq. ft.) in area and accessed by a driveway on the southerly side of the property. In 2008, the garage was demolished and a COA (H- 08 -08) was approved for a new 2 -stall 576 sq.ft. garage; along with a plan to build a front entry portico, and add a shed roof with brackets over the windows on the 2nd floor. As the project progressed, the homeowner decided that they wanted a different plan for the garage - they were advised from the start, any changes to the plans would require a new COA. The proposed plan is similar in size and mass from that which was approved in 2008, and reflects the new garage the homeowner would desire. Ms. Repya pointed out that in 2008, changes to the front fagade were completed; however unbeknownst to city staff, the plan for the front entry portico that was approved with COA (H- 08 -08) was modified without city inspections or the required COA review. The completed front entry portico is presented with this COA application along with plans for what had been approved. The COA request involves two projects that are subject to review: 1. Construction of a new detached garage 2. Revisions to the front entry portico that had been approved in 2008 1. New Detached Garage Planner Repya explained that the proposal includes construction of a new garage that Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 maintains a 6 foot setback from the rear (west) lot line, and a 4 foot setback from the side (southerly) property line. A new curb cut will not be required since the proposed garage will utilize the existing driveway. The new 2 -stall detached garage measures 24'x 24' feet in area. The design of the structure is proposed to compliment the American Colonial Revival architectural style of the home with James Hardie shake and lap siding, support brackets, and a cedar shake roof to match the house. Two east facing dormers similar in character to the small eyebrow roofs at the second floor of the home with identical brackets are proposed. Attention to detail with windows and /or doors is demonstrated on the north, south and east elevations. On the west elevation, a 2.5 foot extension of the roof with brackets is proposed. Ms. Repya added that a slight revision has been requested to the west elevation with the addition of doors that will provide access to the garage from the rear. The height of the proposed garage is shown to be 16.9 feet at the highest peak. The height at the mid -point of the gable is shown to be 115, and a height of 7' is provided at the eave line. The ridge line is shown to be 24.5' in length, and the roof is designed with a 9/12 pitch. The maximum lot coverage allowed for the property is 30 %. Construction of the proposed 576 sq. ft. garage will create total lot coverage of 27% - within the limits allowed by city code. 2. Revised Front Entry Portico Addressing the front entry portico, Ms. Repya explained that in 2008, the HPB approved a change to the front entry of the home that included replacing an overhang that was added to the home sometime after 1960, with a gabled front entry canopy projecting 4.25 feet out from the front building wall. The gabled end was to be open with vertical slats — the design complimenting the gable ends of the proposed garage (that was not built). Brackets were shown to support the roof structure with no posts or pillars. Photos were provided illustrating the front entry portico that was constructed. The gable end with vertical slats was replaced with an arched opening supported by square columns on either side with stone ledges (depicted in the 2008 plan) at the base. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel reviewed the subject plans for the garage as well as photographs of the built front entry portico contrasted to the plans that were approved in 2008. Regarding the detached garage, Mr. Vogel observed that the COA application describes a building that is consistent with the design review guidelines presented in the district plan of treatment. The proposed work will not result in the loss of any historic fabric and, if built according to the plans presented, the proposed new construction would be compatible with the size, scale, material, and character of the subject property and the neighborhood. Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 Addressing the front entry portico, Mr. Vogel opined that although the new entry portico does not match the plans approved by the HPB with the 2008 COA, it appears to meet the design review criteria for new construction in the Country Club District. He added that the new work is architecturally compatible with the historic character of the house and the neighborhood. Since the new construction did not meet the conditions of the original COA, it is appropriate that the city is requiring the owner to apply for a new COA. Planner Repya concluded that she concurred with Consultant Vogel's comments and recommended approval of the COA for the new detached garage subject to the plans provided, and the front entry portico as built. She also recommended the following conditions to the approval: • A year built (2010) plaque or sign is placed on the new detached garage. • Any changes to the approved plan MUST be brought back to the Heritage Preservation Board for approval. Ms. Repya added that findings supporting the recommendation include: • The plans provided for the detached garage clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. • The plans for the detached garage demonstrate design that abides by the requirements of the Country Club District Plan of Treatment and the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. • The front entry portico as built appears to meet the design review criteria for new construction in the Country Club District, and is architecturally compatible with the historic character of the house and the neighborhood. Homeowner, Dan Hollerman, 4512 Casco Avenue explained that the garage subject to the current COA changed from that which was approved in 2008 because they prefer the revised plan and feel it would be more complimentary with their home. Mr. Hollerman also explained the confusion that occurred in 2008 with his contractor which led to the front entry portico plan changing without the HPB's approval. Member Rehkamp Larson commented that the doors added to the rear of the garage make sense considering the kick -out roof overhang that is planned on that elevation. Addressing the front entry portico on the home, Ms. Rehkamp Larson stated that since the structure was built without COA approval, the HPB could require that it be removed and built per the original plans; however in this case, she believes revised design is more appropriate for the home. Board members agreed with Ms. Rehkamp Larson, but expressed concern regarding process and questioned how a project that was built to the approved COA plans could be completed without coming back to the HPB. Planner Repya explained that the need Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12,-2010 for a new COA for revised plans is emphasized over and over to homeowners during the process. When the approved Certificate of Appropriateness is mailed to the homeowner and provided to the contractor, the document clearly states in bold letters that "Issuance of this Certificate of Appropriateness is subject to the plans approved. Any change in the scope of the work will require a new Certificate of Appropriateness." Board members agreed that the process provides sufficient notice, and noted that they do have the ability to require a structure violating a COA to be removed or brought into compliance with what was approved. Following a brief discussion, Member Forrest moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the new detached garage subject to the plans presented and a year built plaque be displayed on the exterior of the garage; and the front entry portico as built. Member Curran seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: COA Process Clarification Planner Repya reminded the Board that at the September meeting they discussed requiring the review of an addition if is part of a project requiring a COA, and visible from the street. Because Consultant Vogel did not attend that meeting, it was agreed that the discussion would be continued to provide Mr. Vogel an opportunity to comment. Mr. Vogel observed that it is within the Board's purview to require that if a project requiring a COA includes an addition to the original home, the HPB could review the addition. However, he pointed out that the design review process need not become overly complicated. He observed that in his opinion, residents have been sensitive to the district when designing additions to their homes. The greatest threat to the district comes from the potential teardown of historic resources in the district. Mr. Vogel suggested that the educating the residents and their contractors on the design goals outlined in the plan of treatment would go a long way to ensure that projects brought before the HPB uphold the historic integrity of the surroundings. Board members agreed with Mr. Vogel. After`a brief discussion, Planner Repya stated that when reviewing an application for a COA, if an addition is included in the project, she will advise the applicant that the addition will be included in the HPB's evaluation of the project. IV. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Draft Report Review Consultant Robert Vogel observed that the Morningside Bungalow Study provides in- depth research into the history of the Morningside neighborhood and its built environment. The primary objective of the study was to identify the preservation value of the bungalow style homes in the Morningside neighborhood, and simplify the process for designating the historic bungalows as Edina Heritage Landmarks. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the recommended plan of treatment (POT) on pages 32 -34 of the report is proposed to serve as a template for homeowners requesting landmark Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 designation for their bungalow homes. With use of the recommended POT, a final plan of treatment unique to each designation would be crafted - fine tuned to the homeowner's desires; it would become part of the overlay heritage landmark zoning for the property. A general discussion ensued regarding the proposed POT. Board members agreed that under the heading of "New Construction — Design of New Houses" they would like to remove statement #2 Reproductions of historic bungalows will not be encouraged. All agreed that the reproduction of historic bungalows in the Morningside neighborhood could be a positive for the area and should not be discouraged. Discussing the next steps, the Board agreed that they would like Mr. Vogel to add photographs of the various bungalow style homes, a reconnaissance list of bungalow homes in the Morningside neighborhood, as well as an executive summary of the study for placement on the heritage preservation web page. All agreed that they would also like the entire study provided as a PDF on the web site. Chairman Stegner suggested that at the November HPB meeting the Board establish a timeline to identify dates for presenting the research data to the Morningside neighborhood as well as a list of future actions. The HPB agreed with Chair Stegner's suggestion. Consultant Vogel promised to provide the information requested. No formal action was taken. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None VI. - HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE: September 16 -17 in Winona — Attendee Reports Board members Joel Stegner, Colleen Curran, Claudia Carr and Ross Davis represented the Edina Heritage Preservation Board at the Annual Historic Preservation Conference in Winona, Minnesota. The attendees reported that a highlight of the conference came from the keynote speaker who spoke of a foundation he founded which identifies, purchases, and rehabilitates vacant historic homes in North Carolina. The before and after photos he presented provided evidence that even houses in total dilapidated condition can be beautifully rehabilitated. The information provided for a good discussion of rehabilitating historic properties, begging the question "Is demolition really necessary?" VII. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. League of Women Voters Reception for New City Manager, Scott Neal Member Forrest referred to an invitation the board members received in their packets from the League of Women voters of Edina. She explained that at a reception to be held on Monday, November 15th from 6:00 — 8:00 p.m. at Edina City Hall, the community will have an opportunity to meet and welcome the new City Manager, Scott Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 Neal who will start working in Edina on November 8th. Board members appreciated receiving the invitation, and agreed that the event would be a good way to meet Mr. Neal. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: None IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: November 9, 2010 X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:20 PM Respectfully submitted, Joyce Repya i Minutes of the Edina Park Board October 12, 2010 Edina City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Todd Fronek, Dan Peterson, Rob Presthus, Ellen Jones, Jennifer Kenney, Austin Dummer, Felix Pronove, Randy Meyer, Joseph Hulbert, Keeya Steel, Louise Segreto, Bill Lough t. STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton, Doug Bauman, Tom Shirley, Ani Kattreh, Todd Anderson I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Dan Peterson MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 PARK BOARD MINUTES. Louise Segreto SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. II. NEW BUSINESS A. 2011 -2015 Capital Improvement Plans for Enterprise Facilities - Mr. Keprios asked each enterprise facility manager to give an update on the new items that have been added to the Capital Improvement Plans. Mr. MacHolda informed the Park Board that the flow rider is not anew CIP project. He noted that it has actually been proposed and approved three times but has not been bid or advertised. He indicated that after it was passed in 2009 they made a giant poster board advertising the flow rider as a coming attraction. Mr. Peterson asked will they need extra liability insurance to which Mr: MacHolda replied no, it's his understanding that it's a very safe amenity. Doug Bauman, Braemar Arena Manager, informed the Park Board that:recently one, of the city engineers inspected the parking lot and the main road, Ikola Way, in front of the ice arena. He noted that it was the city engineer's recommendation that the parking lot and Ikola Way do need some yepairs. Mr. Bauman pointed out that he has broken this down into three separate years so that they don't incur the entire cost in one season. Secondly, he has added a new floor scrubber to the 2015 CIP. Tom Shirley, Centennial Lakes Park Manager, informed the Park Board that in 2015 they will, be replacing their 4 x 4 pick -up truck which at that time will be ten years old. He noted the second item is $20,000 for paver replacements in 2.015. He commented that they have found they have to go through the park and do a lot of paver replacements. Ann Kattreh, Edinborough Park Manager, informed the Park- Board that in 2011 she has the addition of an outdoor storage shed for maintenance equipment, lawnmowers, snow blowers, etc. Currently they have no outside storage for these items. She indicated that there is now the addition of the Great Hall wall matting, the current wall matting has jagged edge stone and is the original to the park from 1987 and needs to be replaced. Ms. Kattreh pointed out that in 2015 she is adding the remodel of the upstairs restrooms. She stated her other change to the 2011 CIP is to convert their existing park office to a concession stand and then add a new guest services counter across the walkway to replace the current park office. Todd Anderson, Braemar Golf Course Manager, informed the Park Board that the only change they have on their CIP is the replacement of the golf dome building in 2012. He indicated that with their debt service and their cash position that they can't replace it at that time but want to make sure everyone is aware that the building is in really tough shape. He explained that the dome was built in 1983 and that there's a major design flaw where the dome is actually attached to the building so that all of the stress actually moves the building. Mr. Anderson stated that he thinks this should be their number one priority once they are in a position to start replacing things. Mr. Fronek asked if the dome itself would stay the same and that it would just be a new building. Mr. Anderson replied that basically they would put up a support over the building that would anchor the dome. The footprint of the dome and the lobby of the dome would stay the same. He stated that they need a solid building with concrete block versus wood. Mr. Lough commented just so he understands correctly the total expenditure would take place in 2012. Mr. Anderson replied it's more symbolic because they won't be able to afford to replace it until 2015 or later. He explained that their debt service goes away in 2013 but their cash position is still tough as far as the actual funding of something like this. Mr. Keprios added that they may end up in a position where structural engineers will tell them they can't wait another year. He stated that is why it's shown in 2012 in case they get into that scenario and then they are going to have to find some creative financing to do it because if they don't have the structure they are out of business. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Anderson what is the difference in revenue between the summer practice area and the dome in the winter. Mr. Anderson replied there is some vacillation but between the range and the dome it's approximately $600,000 to $700,000. Dan Peterson MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED 2011 -2015 CIP FOR THE ENTERPRISE FACILITIES. Louise Segreto SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. 2011 Fees and Charges — Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that in the economic times they are facing he thinks his staff has done an exceptional job keeping their expenses down. He noted that they try to keep their programs, facilities and services affordable and accessible to the public which is why the majority of the fees have not increased this year. Mr. Keprios pointed out there are a couple of circumstances at the golf course where in order to remain competitive in the market place they've actually decreased slightly. Mr. Dummer asked Mr. MacHolda with the addition of the flow rider in 2012 is the season pass or a daily admission going to go up. Mr. MacHolda replied that the flow rider amenity is actually going to be the first amenity that will not be included in the season ticket or the daily admission. He explained the way it is currently being proposed is you would buy a wristband to use if for the day, or there would be an add -on charge to your season ticket to use it for the season. He noted that the .season ticket prices have not gone up since 2005 and daily admission has not gone up since 2007. Mr. Keprios added that the reason the flow rider fee is not included in the fees and charges is because it will not be built in time for the 2011 season. Ms. Steel' indicated that she is struggling processing this without seeing budgets and knowing how much revenue is coming in and'being able to compare'that. She noted that in the -future she would hope that they-would be able to see that information. Mr. Keprios responded that typically they have not gone down that road as far,-as the amount of revenues for each .and every budget. He noted that it will become. a bit cumbersome but they can certainly do that if you want to get into each and every,program and what 'their revenues and expenses area Mr. Keprios commented that he thinks they. are heading closer toward that with their enterprise facilities because he thinks there's a desire on the City Council's: part to, do that. He added it is all public information and if this is something the Park Board would like him to do in the next budget cycle process he would be happy to do so. Mr. Fronek asked Mr. Anderson to explain why the non - resident patron card was reduced $20.00. Mr. Anderson explained that last year was the first year they offered a non- resident patron card and for the first year they sold 258. This year they only sold 209. He added that the overall high number of resident patron cards sold was 2,500 and this past year 1,271 resident patron cards were sold. He noted that in talking to the people and the reactions at the counter they could see a lot, of people were calculating and deciding that it didn't make sense for them to do it. He indicated that the biggest benefit of having a patron card was being,able to get advanced reservations; however, with the golf market the way it is that's no longer the case. He commented he felt he needed to reduce the fee in order to bump up the sales. Mr. Hulbert noted that he would entertain a motion to approve the fees and charges as outlined. Louise Segreto MADE THE MOTION. Dan Peterson SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. C. Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail - Kelly Grissman, Senior Manager of Planning from Three Rivers,Park District, gave a power point presentation. She indicated that the Park District and city staff are requesting the Park Boards' assistance in reviewing the three different options of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through the community of Edina. She pointed out that the three options include predominately a creek -based route, a road - based route as well as a no -build option. Jonathon Vlaming, Chief of Planning at Three Riversi Park District, talked about the regional trail system as well as their recently passed vision plan. Mr. Vlaming noted that there are over 100 miles of regional trails throughout Suburban Hennepin County and that they are looking at over two million visits annually on the hundreds of miles of trails that are currently open. He indicated that the trails serve both a recreational function as well as a transportation, function but primarily the focus is on the recreation portion. Mr. Vlaming pointed out that their trails connect to neighborhoods, to schools, to parks, to greenways or linear parks, and connect to grand rounds. He added that you can bike downtown from their trail network as well as past downtown and into St. Paul. Mr. Vlaming informed the Park Board that last summer Three Rivers passed a vision plan that had five actionable goals and three directly relate to why they have regional trails in the first place. Mr. Vlaming indicated that first they are in the business of inspiring people to recreate and they have found with regional trails that if you build it they will come. More specifically if you build a regional trail they will come in mass from the area within about a half mile of the trail. He noted it's about convenience and proximity, as people will take advantage of amenities when they are near where they live. Mr. Vlaming pointed out that people go to these trails for health reasons, exercise, to talk to their friends, to develop community and simply to play and be outdoors. Mr. Vlaming stated that the second goal relating to trails is to connect people to nature because very few people will walk out into the woods unless there is a path to walk on and the regional trails serve that function. It's an introduction into the woods for many people because it's a safe, secure type of environment. Mr. Vlaming indicated that regional trails are also important for creating vibrant places. He pointed out that the "Star Tribune" recently ran a series of articles on the aging baby boomers. He noted that retiring baby boomers will create a new challenge; however, to meet that challenge they need to maintain a balanced economy which includes retaining and attracting entrepreneurs, retaining and attracting innovators and retaining and attracting young workers. Mr. Vlaming pointed out that one thing young workers are going to be looking for are alternative transportation networks in developed biking systems. Mr. Vlaming informed the Park Board that it was recently proclaimed that Minneapolis is the number one city for biking in America and that part of that success was the regional trail network. He stated that if you put together a network that crosses cities, crosses communities and ties communities together what it is doing is creating a critical mass for marketing to a much needed younger generation to come in and continue to stay. Mr. Vlaming noted that with that vision plan it recognizes the importance of regional trails throughout the plan. It recognizes the importance of providing regional recreational trail facilities within the developed cities, Edina and other first ring suburbs in Minneapolis, as it also recognizes the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail as one of the primary capital projects in the ten year capital forecast within the plan. He noted that the Park District has a very strong interest in this project and has been very supportive in moving it forward. Ms. Grissman informed the Park Board that the Community Assessment Team (CAT) was compiled about a year ago and it included representatives of every route /section that was under consideration at that time. She noted that it also included Edina City Staff, Park District Staff, Watershed District, a representative from the Edina School District, Joseph Hulbert from the Park Board as well as a representative from the Edina Task Force. She explained that the role of the CAT was three fold. First, identify the constraints and opportunities of each route under consideration. Second, provide design 4 suggestions and considerations for each route under consideration as well as the entire route through the city, and third to convey information back to respective neighbors. Ms. Grissman indicated that as of June their work was done and -they concluded with a document. She noted that the document included social, technical and economic assessments for each route design suggestions and the entire. route. She added that it also provided an opportunity for CAT members to include a. narrative on their thoughts of their route as well as the process. Ms. Grissman commented that in respect to the social, technical and economic assessment what this included was for the social part how many people live adjacent to the this trail, how many backyards there are, how many front yards there are and'how many destinations do the different routes serve. For the technical it was things like how many road crossings, how many driveway crossings,; is road construction required and is design deviations required in order to accommodate the regional trail where a public right -of -way may not be as wide as anticipated or where there are other constraints that would limit typical regional, trail design. She noted that the economic assessment is how much the different routes are going to cost-. Ms. Grossman went through the feedback of the 30 day comment period and' noted that they received over 200 correspondences from the community members sharing their preference. Ms. Segreto asked on the creek -based route there are roughly 243 residential homes that will be adjacent to the property and to the trail and asked Ms. Grissman to,talk about buffers that Three Rivers has offered to home owners to help shield the trail. Ms. Grissman replied that they have worked with local communities and adjacent property owners and have done things with split rail fencing, vegetative screening and dirt berms that would be vegetative. She indicated that they will also look at how close the primary residence is to the trail and work with the city to determine,w.hat criteria should be considered in offering those amenities so that it's consistent with the city and the type of regional trail that the city is hoping to obtain through their community. Ms. Segreto asked who would be responsible for that expense to which Ms. Grissman replied the Park District. Mr. Fronk asked why the CP rail line was not considered because it seems every other community where Three Rivers puts bike trails they are along rail lines. Ms. Grissman explained that the reason C °P has not been implemented is because it is still an active rail line and Canadian Pacific at this time is not interested in entertaining any conversations regarding an active rail and trail corridor. She noted that in other locations where they have used rail corridors for regional trails it's generally because the rail operating authority has abandoned the corridor, therefore making it available for regional trail construction and operation. Mr. Hulbert asked approximately how many acres of parkland is the trail going through if it's going to be a creek -based route or a road -based route. Ms. Grissman replied that for the creek -based route it would be 685 acres of existing park land and for the road -based route it would be 530 acres. It's approximately a 150 acres difference. . 5 Mr. Lough asked Ms. Grissman if they have gotten any reaction from the School Board or the School administration. Ms. Grissman replied that they have worked with a School District representative throughout the project and they are very excited and supportive currently of the trail route. She pointed out that the creek -based route would utilize school district property and will provide access from the school district to Bredesen Park. She noted that the school district is looking at the opportunity of cross country skiing, high school running teams, expanding their environmental services program to do water sampling and vegetative analysis in Bredesen Park as well as the parkland and the school district property on the south side of Highway 62. Ms. Segreto asked what are the federal financing deadlines that they are being faced with in continuing on with the decision making process so that they can meet those deadlines. Ms. Grissman replied that June 2011 is the federal solicitation deadline for federal funds available in 2015 and 2016 and that is predominating what the Park District is looking at funding for this project. She noted that in order to meet that June deadline they need to have a route approved and established in very early March so that they can put the application together and submit it timely. Mr. Lough indicated that he would like to think that the working relationship between Three Rivers and the City of Edina and the residents of Edina would at all times be exemplary. However, if legitimate disagreements arise and they become nettlesome is there an established process for resolving the differences that might arise. Mr. Vlaming responded that it would go back to a standard trail way agreement which is whenever they develop a trail they sign an agreement with the city. The agreement lays out the agreed upon rules for moving forward in the project. It also describes how in the design phase if they are to do the design work how it essentially needs to go before the City Council for approval before they actually break dirt. He noted that in some cities the city itself does the design work and then that design work goes to their Park Board for approval before they break ground. Mr. Vlaming stated that in either case it continues to be a mutually agreed upon outcome that they are working towards. Mr. Peterson asked how other cities have handled boardwalks and if any other cities have creeks that overflow every spring. He also asked if there are boardwalks in place or are there boardwalks planned in Minnetonka and/or Hopkins. Ms. Grissman replied there are no boardwalks planned in Minnetonka and Hopkins and as far as their regional trail system they do not have an identical situation to what they have on routes 9 and 11. She noted that they do have very similar situations to route 2 and that is south of Medicine Lake along the Luce Line Regional Trail. Ms. Grissman stated that in working with other communities they have been very open to design solutions that maintain a useable trail yearly or just spring, summer and fall. They are interested in providing a safe means to their community members to use the trail. She added this is a unique situation and is something that their engineers as well as the environmental assessment work has indicated that a feasible solution is possible. Mr. Peterson asked Ms. Grissman if is it her professional opinion that if the trail was a hard surface at essentially creek level and was not useable for a couple three weeks each spring is that a big problem. Ms. Grissman replied that she thinks the big problem having 0 it at grade through a wetland is that you have to then mitigate for the wetland impacts. She noted that the wetlands along the creek corridor are generally considered high quality wetlands and for every one acre of wetland that is impacted they would need to mitigate or create nine additional wetland acres. She pointed out that there is not space available in the City of Edina, at least not that she is aware of, where they could construct a trail at grade through a wetland situation and then do the mitigations in close proximity to where the wetland was impacted. Mr. Hulbert asked; in the event of a flood, who would be responsible for cleaning up along and around the pilings? Ms. Grissman replied that she believes in that situation it would be ;the Park District's responsibility to assist if not take complete ownership of the operation of maintenance and the cleanup associated with the flooding: Mr. Hulbert asked when a boardwalk is constructed is. it not constructed in a fashion that it can be submerged for three weeks. Ms. Grissman replied that dependingr`on the design it could be underwater but cannot speak to how long it could be underwater; however, they can continue to study and provide information back to the Park Board if it's something they are interested in learning more about. Mr. Dummer asked if there is any, overhead lighting on the Dakota:Trail and Elm Creek Park Reserve Trail to which Ms. Grissman replied no. Mr. Dummer asked if there would be an exception for the Nine Mile Creek Trail in Edina. Ms. Grissman responded that at this point they are not proposing lighting but if it. is something the City is interested in entertaining they could certainly work together on addressing it. Mr. Fronek indicated that he has participated in the bike race "Purple Ride" that is held at the Elm Creek Park Reserve trail which Three Rivers has been very gracious to offer that spot. He stated that doesn't know if events like that, with thousands of bikers, I are necessarily appropriate per se in a fully developed suburb. Mr. Fronek asked is there a Three Rivers policy in terms of races and events. Ms. Grissman replied that they do not have a policy in place currently that would restrict thatkind of activity. She.noted that if it is something that Edina is not interested in hosting within the community, then it's' something they could work into the agreement that would exclude those types of activities or activities that have a certain threshold of participation. She pointed out that in most cases activities are very short lived, it may be on a Saturday from 8:00 am to noon so that the impact on the community is very minor in that respect. Mr. Hulbert asked who pays for the cost to police the,trails and in the winter when the trails are shut down are the residents responsible for snow removal such as a sidewalk. Ms. Grissman replied that the public safety costs are included in the: $185,000 annual anticipated operation maintenance costs, it would be the park district'. s burden to bear. She noted that in terms of snow removal they currently are not removing snow in the winter; however, she believes the city does have an ordinance about snow removal': 'Mr. Keprios pointed out that there is not an ordinance that applies to the trails within Edina's park system, but there is. an ordinance with regards to sidewalks. He noted that Three Rivers is offering the City the option to maintain it during the winter months and if they so choose to do that-it would be at the city's expense. Mr. Hulbert asked would the law enforcement be at the expense of Three Rivers on a yearly basis. Ms. Grissman replied 7, r. that their officers are available all of the time but that patrol might be less frequent during the winter because they are not operating and maintaining it, but if there were an emergency or complaint they would certainly respond. Mr. Lough asked Mr. Keprios would there be any difference in approach to snow removal between a creek -based trail and a road -based trail. Mr. Keprios replied that decision would be left up to City Council essentially on an annual basis whether they would want to continue to maintain it during the winter months. Mr. Dummer asked about the residential yards adjacent to the trail, if those residents would have a private access to the trail or would they still have to go through a public access point. Ms. Grissman replied she doesn't know what type of ordinance the city currently has on whether residents have to stay on trails through a natural corridor or is the city amendable to people walking out their backyard and accessing the trail. She asked Mr. Keprios what type of access the city would prefer. Mr. Keprios replied if this gets built he thinks they would encourage that the access points be either easements of the city or publicly owned property. Mr. Keprios gave a presentation to the Park Board and indicated that on September 291" at the joint work session with the elected bodies of the City of Edina and the Board of Commissioners for Three Rivers it was suggested by staff to propose the three options that Ms. Grissman just went over. He stated that the City Council has asked that the Park Board deliberate on these three options and make a recommendation. Mr. Keprios stated that the City Council will be holding a public hearing on Tuesday, December 7, 2010, in the City Council Chambers. He noted that everyone who would like to speak to that issue that evening will be given an opportunity. He indicated that if the City Council makes the decision to move forward with one of the options it would then go to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and from there on to the Edina Public Schools, since it is partly on their property. Mr. Keprios went over the benefits of a walking/biking trail and noted that in this case it would add 7 '/Z additional miles of new biking and walking trails, currently there are just over nine miles of trails within Edina's park system. He noted that it equates to approximately an additional 14 acres of new park amenities if they were to add all the land it would take. Mr. Keprios commented that it would connect Edina to the greater regional trail system and will connect to the Minneapolis Grand Rounds. He added it would promote and offer get fit activities, it would promote a healthy lifestyle for people of all ages and it would give residents more access to enjoy nature and the outdoors. Mr. Keprios indicated that it would provide additional safe off -road biking opportunity versus more on -road bike lanes regardless of the route. Also, it would provide regional recreational facilities within the City of Edina which is something that has been asked of since 1998. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that staff would recommend to the Park Board to consider a creek -based option. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the 2006 community attitude and interest survey was very clear in the result and that it validates the need and desire for walking and biking trails. More walking and biking trails were the number one most requested amenity by residents. He noted that the survey also validates why residents of Edina want more trails; to exercise, get fit, enjoy the outdoors and enjoy nature. He indicated that a creek - based option is safer than a road -based option as well as the creek -based option is likely to be used more than a road -based option. He noted that the creek -based option is obviously more aesthetically pleasing for walkers and cyclists. Mr. Keprios commented in his view its excellent use of public land for a public good and the whole route is accomplished without having to use private land to either purchase or condemn. Mr. Keprios indicated that the engineering phase is a complex phase which they would be very engaged in should this go forward. He noted that Three Rivers would have to do a very complex balancing act with the homeowners, the environment, the wetlands, water quality, natural resources and construction costs. He stated that it all plays a role when you are trying to find exactly where the trail is to be placed which is done during the engineering phase and the City would be very much involved in that process. Mr. Keprios stated that he recommends the creek -based route but under several conditions. He noted that he would agree that it would be nice to minimize the amount of boardwalks, but again that would to be determined through the engineering phase. He pointed out that the nine to one mitigation pretty much dictates where they are going to have to build boardwalks. He added that he would also like to offer the condition that, if it is decided to build a creek -based route, homeowners should be provided some buffer options like they have done in similar situations in other regional trails either by landscaping or fencing options. Mr. Keprios commented that the easement deadline restriction idea was born out of the joint work session on the 29`h and he suggested that we should work with the attorneys to establish the proper language. The easement deadlines are needed to protect the City of Edina's interests in case unforeseen factors occur and the trail doesn't get built in a reasonable time frame. Mr. Keprios pointed out that he would like to see Route 2 be a little more fine- tuned. He would like to see it go back to the original recommendation of going through the south side of Walnut Ridge Park as opposed to the north edge because it would still end up at the same starting point and ending point within the Park. He added that he knows there are some issues with possibly some wetlands and flood issues; however, Ms. Grissman has informed him that it is something they can work together on. To sum up his recommendation Mr. Keprios would like for the Park Board to recommend to the City Council to approve a creek -based option with the stated conditions and use that as a basis for the City Council to conduct a public hearing, which is scheduled for Tuesday, December 7`h. Mr. Keprios informed the audience that they have received well over 300 letters, a -mails and various files from the public and as of tonight they are now available for viewing on- line in a PDF format through the Park and Recreation Department section of the City of Edina website. 9 Bob Schwartzbauer, 6107 Waterford Court, indicated that he is a member of the Community Assessment Team and represented Route 3. He showed the map of Route 3 and explained how he would like to shorten it and reinforce what Mr. Keprios and Three Rivers said about safety concerns caused by road crossing and driveway crossings. He highlighted the area where it starts and pointed out that it creates centrally a triangle and the interesting thing about the triangle is that there are no streets or automobile bridges anywhere along this section of the creek which means everyone who lives or works within that triangle in order to leave must use either Lincoln or Vernon. He explained that the proposal is that the trail would go along the north side of Vernon and on the east side of Londonderry which means that anyone who lives or works in that triangle in order to leave their homes or work are going to have to cross the trail every time they leave or go back. Mr. Schwartzbauer noted that inside that triangle is United Healthcare's World Headquarters and he was told that they have 1,100 cars parked in their parking lot every week which means that on average they will have about 2,200 road crossings going across the trail in that section. He added that in addition there are approximately 800 residents that live in that area and assuming they leave their house on average once a day and are going to cross that trail. Therefore in effect there will be 1,800 — 1,900 trail crossings or automobile crossings the trail every day for a total of 3,000 to 4,000 trail crossings. He indicated that the Park District realize this is unsafe and are proposing to deal with it by putting up stop signs for the bicycles at various points so in effect bicyclist will have to stop 8 times through this entire section and noted that isn't going to happen and the bicyclist will not want to do that. He commented that instead he thinks they ride right onto the street or not use the trail since a lot of time ... he was cut off Bill Westerdahl, 5912 Walnut Drive, indicated that it has always been assumed that Three Rivers would pay the maintenance and security on the regional trail. He noted however, that information from Three Rivers indicates that they may not have the financial resources to pay for maintenance and security which are paid from their general/operating fund. He pointed out that Three Rivers currently has approximately 30 miles including the Edina section of the Nine Mile Creek Trail, a regional trail in the active planning stage and approximately ten miles of trail scheduled for construction in 2010 which is an addition of approximately 40% of the existing trail network. Mr. Westerdahl pointed out that Three Rivers 2010 Operations Budget indicate that Three Rivers is approaching its statutory limit of 300 of I% of total market value of property to fund their operations. He noted that Three Rivers has frozen its employees' wages in 2010 and 2011. Also, Three Rivers is dependent on the property value levy to provide 84% of its operating revenues. He indicated that in the last four years property values for which they depend on these revenues in their levy limit have declined over 10 %. He added that their operational expenses have increased 25% or 7 million dollars in the last four years. Mr. Westerdahl pointed out that if the property tax levy as it exists now is barely sufficient to fund present Three Rivers Park District operations which include maintenance and security how will they be sufficient to cover a plan that is a 40% increase in the trail system as well as an additional Scott County Park. He asked if Three Rivers is not able to fund maintenance and security in the future then who is going to be responsible for maintenance and security on this trail. The City of Edina is being asked to cede control of 13 plus acres of prime parkland contained in 7 miles of trails of Three 10 Rivers. He noted his question is if Three Rivers is not able to raise the funds to maintain the maintenance is this going to fall back on the City of Edina over the long run. He stated that he would like to hear Three Rivers respond to that, what they are going to do about this difference between their levy limits and the amount of money it's obviously going to cost to continue to maintain their system. Michael Lilja, 5809 McGuire Rd, informed the Park Board that his wife and he started biking a few years ago and they would put their bikes in the back of the car and go to Hopkins to get on the Three Rivers Trail, which is a tremendous trail system. He indicated that people in cars don't pay very much attention to bikes so bikers need to pay a lot of attention to cars. He stated that right now they have the ability to build a premier trail because they have this public corridor along the creek that would be safe for kids and people walking, roller blading, etc.; it's a multi -use trail, not just a bike trail. They have a chance to put in a high quality trail and it's not just about the people here today but it's about the long -term for their community because. people come and go so what they are doing is creating an amenity that will last in time and will signify something about their community and he hopes something they can be proud of. Fritz Corrigan, 6509 Biscayne Blvd., indicated that his house immediately backs up to Walnut Ridge Park that they built over 26 years ago. He noted that as a family they run on the basis of what they need every day versus what they would like to have and they don't do things they can't afford to do. He noted that he thinks this approach to how they manage their family would be a good one for this case. He stated that this is not something that is required but it is something that would be wonderful to have someday, but it's not required today. He pointed out that today this country is broke, the State of Minnesota has a 5 billion dollar deficit, the Three Rivers Park District has no money and is going to have to issue bond financing to put this in and now they are talking about spending 20 million dollars on a bike path. He commented it would be wonderful if they could afford it but they simply cannot so they should wait until they can afford to do it which is not next year. Andrew Heyer, 5717 Deville Dr., indicated that he is for the creek -based trail and also founded a Facebook group that supports the trail and currently there are 201 members in this group. He showed the Park Board some photos of different trails that might address some of the concerns that have been raised. He noted that in summary he urges the Park Board to support the regional trail. Dianne Plunkett Latham, 7013 Comanche Court, informed the Park Board that she is chair of the Edina Environmental Commission and that their recommendation to support the creek -based trail was approved at their August 12`h meeting. She noted that the trail offers many benefits to the community for all ages and would make biking safer and more accessible to all. She commented that Edina currently is deficient in bike trails for its citizens in comparison to surrounding communities. In addition, it would allow access to public land that is currently inaccessible to the vast majority of residents. The trail will provide a crucial part of plans that have been developed as part of the city's comprehensive plan and also part of the international council for local environmental initiatives of which Edina is a member. She noted that it also supports the green step 11 cities programs which Edina will hopefully soon be joining. Ms. Plunkett- Latham indicated that obviously there are some concerns about the impact of the trail along the creek; however, the trail will be routed through an area that has already been impacted by years of urbanization including chemical runoff from the lawns and road salt in adjacent streets. She commented that the project will open the possibility of reversing some of that damage as the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District will be improving the creek. She indicated that promoting and building bike and pedestrian trails, especially regional trails is a great action item in helping Edina go green and make the community less dependent on auto transportation. Richard Griffith, 7009 Comanche Court, informed the Park Board that he has been a member of the Edina Bike Task Force since its inception. He noted that he is here to explain why he believes the creek -based route is really essential for the growth and development of our community. He pointed out that it costs the school district a lot of money to bus kids to school and the new walkways that are going to be put in will allow kids who live less than a mile from major schools to walk. He added this will make everybody healthy and save money from bussing. Therefore, he would like the Park Board to consider not only the quality of life but the economic aspects of providing a transportation alternative to driving your kids to school when they can walk. He feels the creek -based route would be wonderful. Harvey Johnson, 5505 Valley Lane, indicated that he is a member of the CAT team and is also involved with the protecting Nine Mile Creek. He noted that there are approximately 500 members that are concerned about the environment of Nine Mile Creek. He stated that from his point of view he doesn't feel that Three Rivers has done an adequate job of giving Edina the information it needs to make a decision about the trail. He commented that this is the largest project that Edina has had in a long time that will affect Edina residents. Mr. Johnson stated that there are many open issues that need to be discussed and there are many things that are clouded in the whole decision making process. He pointed out that one that was asked is if community members or other groups been involved in the process to which he will tell you no. He stated that he has a couple of documents and one is the resolution from the elected members of the CAT Team that states that they did not endorse the Community Assessment Report. He noted that the Community Assessment Report went to press without the support of the elected members. He explained that his group to protect Nine Mile Creek gave a very detailed response to the environmental assessment with information that they would like answered, but didn't really get answers so they asked an environmental attorney what he thought about their response. He read one sentence from that attorney "The Park District largely ignored the comments in most cases, the Park District utterly failed to respond to the comments as it must under the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act." Mr. Johnson stated that they don't think the Park Board has enough facts to make a decision and would recommend that the Park Board get the facts before they decide where the trail should be. Ray O'Connell, 4612 Valley View Road, indicated that they all pay property taxes included in the provisions to allocate a number of dollars for the Nine Mile Creek District that has been in place for the last 20 years. He noted that during that time there have 12 been a significant number of dollars allocated to Hennepin County in budgeting for Nine Mile Creek District and it's a big number. He stated that Three Rivers is also responsible for all of the planning and protection of the Nine Mile Creek corridor which includes not just water but the land that borders the creek. Mr. O'Connell pointed that the corridor belongs to all of the taxpayers and, even though there are some groups who are for this while others are against it, they have to look to natural law and the common good and consider where all of these other people that are not talking. He noted that he wants to make that point because there should be no covenant enacted that would be detrimental to benefit the few but would be detrimental to the whole. He stated that the proposed trail is not only needed but will be historic. Jed Hepworth, 5509 Valley Lane, indicated that about-a year ago. they (Save the.Nine Mile Creek Task Force) sent a letter to the Park Board talking about some of the issues that they think need to be dealt with and are still on the table.. He commented that he thinks one of the big ones for this group to think about is what a 16 foot wide trail down the Nine Mile Creek Watershed means to the parkland that this board is responsible for -- administering. He stated that essentially it means that not quite two acres of land per mile are going to be turned into pavement and crock siding. Therefore; he thinks it really is important they acknowledge what's going to happen if they build a trail down the watershed. He noted that in building a trail down a narrow watershed doesn't just change the area under pavement but what it does when you cut a narrow ribbon like Nine Mile Creek into two very much narrower pieces is you eliminate the ability of the wildlife to continue to sustain itself in those narrow corridors so it will have an impact and he would like for the Park Board to consider that. Amanda Simons, 5725 Olinger Drive, informed the Park Board that she and her husband are new residents of Edina. She noted that they are young professionals and are avid bike riders who use the greenways and grand rounds almost daily 'for exercise and often for transportation to work. She added that many of her peers and colleagues also use these trails. She pointed out that one of their sadness about living in Edina is that there is not a connection to the greenway through Edina which means they have to use the roads. She stated that although Edina may have a share the road program it does not always protect her from cars coming too close. She indicated they think that the creek -based route would be better for safety with all of the trail crossings. For example, trail crossings in Hopkins and St. Louis Park that go through stop signs that while bikers often stop the cars do not often see the bikers that may already be in the trail. Ms. Simons stated that she would like the Park Board to think about young professionals like herself who are interested in moving to Edina but are also interested' in the transportation and exercise of the regional trails. Paul Ratelle,,5521 Valley Lane, stated that he is vehemently against the creek -based route. He noted that he lives in Section 9 which is�going'to be directly affected by the creek -based bike trail. He indicated that it has not been easy for residents to work with the Three Rivers; they have been uniformly dismis "s'ive of the concerns that they've tried to raise to them. He stated that it's important to the residents to know what they intend to build through the creek and where they intend to build it. He indicated..that when they talked to Bonestroo they were put off with the comment "we don't really know where the 13 placement is going to be, we weren't asked to consider that when we evaluated and prepared our environmental assessment worksheet." He noted Ms. Grissman made a reference to a 2003 study on the negative impacts on property values where a bike trail occurs next to or adjacent to a particular property. Mr. Grissman pointed out that 2003 study has been in the Three Rivers files since it was prepared. He noted that the conclusion that was reached by Ms. Shilcox, who prepared the study, shows homes that are adjacent to these types of trails their values go down. She knows it and Three Rivers knows it, it isn't a matter of debate and it isn't a question of dollars and cents per foot from the trail. He stated that his concern is they need to work with the people about what's going to be built and where it's going to be built because the trail is going right across their backyards. He commented if they can't work cooperatively with Thee Rivers, as has been evidenced so far with their contact with them, it's going to be a big issue in the community and he urges the Park Board to take that into consideration. Diane Fansler, 5709 W. 66`h Street, indicated that she is a 30 year resident of Edina and lives in the Route 7 area and feels like it is a route from nowhere to nowhere. She stated that it's supposed to be starting at Tracy Avenue heading south along the east side of Valley View Road and Route 7 ends at Antrim Road. She noted the cost they were given for 5f, which is where it's supposed to be connecting to the north side is $2,600,000, Route 7 is $600,000. She pointed out that she was very surprised tonight when she heard Ms. Grissman say they've added Antrim Road to Route 7. She noted there is no funding in that $600,000 for Antrim Road which is supposed to go along the east side of Antrim Road and connect with Route 8, which is 701h Street. She noted that Antrim Road has 7 houses on the east side; it has Calvary Lutheran Church with at least two commercial driveways and has at least two or three hydrants which would have to be changed and give driveways. She added that six houses would be within 25 feet of the route of the trail. She explained that if you go to the north end, 5f which was incidentally added after the CAT assessment, it ends where you cross the ramp on highway 62 and it's just supposed to magically join up with Valley View there. She noted that in that section there is a .4 mile gap that has not been considered in anything. She commented that they are supposed to be building a ten foot wide trail with three feet of green space on each side by eliminating a six foot sidewalk at Valley View and eliminating the shoulder /park lane. She stated we have to do the winter plowing in there because that's the main pedestrian route for the students to get to the High School and Valley View Middle School. She pointed out that all of the snow, construction and maintenance would be on private property because they are proposing to take it to the very end of the right -of -way. She stated that the section, the .4 mile that's missing between the on ramp of Highway 62 up to Valley Lane or West 66`h Street wherever you happen to take it, that's missing there is no six foot sidewalk there, there is no parking/shoulder lane that is the, there are two lanes going north bound. She also has safety issues. TG Clifford, 6500 Creek Drive, showed the Park Board photos of the connection of Route 9 and Route 11 near Heights Park. He also showed photos of the creek level in March of 2010 and in August 2010. He pointed out that the water level in August was actually higher than in March. He commented that he wanted to show photos from March because without the vegetation you have a better view of the actual water level. Mr. Clifford pointed out that in this case you have a floodway where water rushes down 14 and needs to be drained from the area and is going to be a difficult place to put a trail. He stated that he assumes the Park Board members volunteered not to debate regional trails but to look at park programs, playground equipment, ball fields, etc., things for the community. However, what's happened is you've ended up being involved in a discussion and decision about a regionai trail. He indicated that he feels the primary duty of the Park Board members is to be stewards of our parks. He noted that he specifically wants the Park. Board, to consider what's going to happen. to Walnut Ridge Park and Heights Park if the trail goes through. He noted that Height's Park serves two neighborhoods, both on each side of the creek and if the regional trail goes through one of those neighborhoods will be disconnected from the neighborhood playground with bicyclists. He stated that two million cyclists a year on 100 miles of trails translates to about 21,000 visits per mile per year for an additional seven miles of trails. He noted that he thinks we need to ask ourselves can kids safely visit their neighborhood park if that trail goes through sections 9 and 11. Laurie Chapman, 6420 Aspen Rd., stated that she lives-about 25 feet from the creek and she will be sacrificing;her privacy and her quality of life in the interest of the greater majority. She indicated that all of the residents that live on the creek side will be living with the pictures previously shown of the boardwalks. She knows others want this but she will have to live with it 24/7. She noted that this is about property values and showed photos of her current view and what it will look like. She stressed that she has a very hard time believing that her property values will not go down. Ms. Chapman explained that every time it rains she goes out to collect all of the junk that collects just trying to go through the creek. She noted her concern about all of the junk that will collect in all of the pilings that are going to support a 12 foot by 12 foot wide wooden bridge across the creek and questioned who will take care of that. She pointed out that it's not even accessible so she wonders how they are going to get to the creek to clean it up. She noted that she also hopes that the Park Board, would consider the idea of building a ten ton bridge through. valuable wet lands for over 20 million dollars- in these economic times that will steal the privacy and the quality of life of those people who live on the creek side in exchange for 8 .months of recreational use. She commented that there are so many questions that are unanswered that this may not be a good idea to build this bridge at this time. Alice Hulbert, 7221 Tara Road, indicated that she has been a member of the Park Board; she is currently a member of the Bike Edina Task Force and has been participating with the CAT team as well. She noted she would like to thank the Three Rivers Park District; they have done a wonderful job, answered every question and have been extremely professional. She added that they have been one of the best organizations that she has worked with. She. stated that now is the time to do this and that the trail system has expanded since she. saw the first tier regional trail abstract in 2002. It will actually connect to something where before it couldn't get across the rail road tracks. She noted the first regional trail system helped Edina connect to Hopkins but it really didn't add too much. However, now with the explosion of the trail system we have now it's going to add greatly. Ms. Hulbert commented that one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that this is going to be a combined project to improve the environment of the creek as it currently exists. She noted that it's her understanding that when the creek restoration is 15 done the flooding will improve and there won't be the issue of water running all over and debris washing up and causing dams. She indicated that the trail is going to let the rest of the residents of Edina access to that area. She stated that the bridges they may be able to construct across Highway 62 and Highway 100 for pedestrians and bikes to be able to cross without traffic is going to be a tremendous addition to the community. She indicated that she believes Three Rivers put in a grant application last year for a bridge and it was denied because it didn't hook to anything; however, with the trail approved and an alignment there is a much better chance of getting the money. She explained that the funding for this is going to come from grants and the potential for getting the grants approved have to do with the quality of the project. Dorothy Kerzner, 5828 Jeff Place, indicated that she is kind of neutral, she has two avid bikers in her family and she lives across Bredesen Park. She stated that she did attend a meeting at South View this summer and was at a planning Commission meeting. She noted that apparently she lives in section 5f and they seemed to not have had a representative to answer questions because she has a lot of questions about where the trail is going. She commented that she also thinks now is not the time, they can't afford it and right now there are too many things going on in Edina that are still unresolved. She stated that they need to save and wait. There needs to be more community participation, send letters out to people within 1,000 feet. She added that she never heard anything about this bike trail until seven months ago so if that could be addressed they would appreciate it in their neighborhood. David Thompson, 5517 Valley Lane, asked the Park Board to recommend against using the Section 9 alignment which is the creek -based route. He noted that they believe the section 9 alignment will destroy their privacy, their quality of life and their property values. He indicated that he hopes the Park Board has taken the opportunity to walk this very small area so you know how incredibly destructive a boardwalk would be in this area. It is not an issue that fence or some vegetation can remedy. He commented that the residents are going to pay dearly and while Mr. Keprios alluded briefly to these facts in his recommendation letter he later mentioned that property owners have no right to expect that the city will not develop the land in a manner it sees fit. He noted that they strongly disagree and that neighborhoods are built on the premise that each of us will keep and use our properties in a manner that will not undermined our neighbor's quiet enjoyment of their properties. He pointed out that even though they own their homes they are not free to convert them into retail stores, hotels or health clubs because to do that would be detrimental to their neighbor's quiet enjoyment and their property values and therefore the city would not allow it. However, now the city is considering changing the use of a completely natural area within the neighborhood into a greater metropolitan thoroughfare that will funnel an estimated 500,000 users' just feet from their decks, patios and swing sets. He commented that in effect the city is saying it has the right to be a bad neighbor, it's saying that it has the right to harm our privacy our quality of life and our property values to which they disagree. Mr. Thompson stressed that they believe that the city should abide by the same land use conventions that protect the rights of the residents in the neighborhood. He noted his final point is they don't have to argue about property values, the Park Board should ask Three Rivers Park District to commission an 16 appraisal, an independent appraisal of what will happen to property values along the creek. Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, indicated that he would first like to give a vote of confidence to the Three Rivers Park Planning group. He indicated'that,he didn't quite agree with the setup of the CAT team in how it was put together, but he has absolute confidence in the objectivity that Three Rivers has done to come up with the facts. He stated that it was their job to come up with interpretations that would be the most fitting for the terrain and the job of the city is to make decisions based on what they found. Therefore, he has'no fault in the thoroughness which they have done—and he has been watching this for a very long time. He informed the Park Board that he has biked most of the major bike trails.in Minnesota and added that some of the trails come very, very close to people's properties. He indicate that this past summer he biked the entire length of the Chicago Park Forest Preserve, which is one of the most densely populated areas in America and homes are very close to the creek. He noted that in all of the years and places he has biked he has, never heard a negative comment about neighbors and homes being too close to a bike path. He pointed out that he has never seen, even in the Chicago area, graffiti, trash or- anything else that would detract from the neighborhood. Mr. Persha stressed that he thinks this is the most, opportune time to make a bike path because the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District is repairing the land with a restoration project. Therefore, it's a chance to save hundreds of thousands of dollars if the two projects are done together. He commented that if it's not done he doesn't think this project will ever come again to Edina. He asked for the Park Board's support for the project from a safety standpoint, a user standpoint and to treat the communities that are adjacent to us as a unit. Bob Lubar, 6619 Londonderry Dr., indicated that he thinks they need to take a serious look at the engineering aspects of building through the creek and what it could mean and have they done the due diligence necessary so that they can make a recommendation going forward. He noted that if the creek -based route is developed as proposed it would result in approximately, 6600 linear feet of wood deck timber boardwalk, this is equivalent to a bridge that is 1 1/4 miles long. He added that much of the boardwalk will be constructed within the hundred year flood plain and/or the Nine Mile Creek flood plain. He stated that the boardwalk will be approximately 10 to 12 feet high and 12 feet wide with the enclosed railings and pilings every 12 to 20. feet and has a ten ton capacity bridge suitable for supporting vehicle traffic. He commented it will be,.built parallel to the stream which is very significant; the intended design is similar to building abridge above a stream rather than across a stream. He explained that a structure of this nature with its entire length in the current of the water when it's flooding can be expected to trap debris during periods of heavy water run off which will increase the level of flood water and increase maintenance costs. He pointed out that when the creek is running right next to it, when that water is flowing; it's going to catch on one piling, and if it'misses that piling it's going to catch on the other and the likelihood of creating a dam and creating collateral damage due to the flooding is huge. He stated as a homeowner whose property backs up to the wetlands he has a vested interest in assuring that the proposed bridge along the creek performs as intended. Mr. Lubar asked what experience Three Rivers have with building a wood deck bridge located in a stream floodway because it is critical that there is no incremental risk of flood damage resulting from the implementation of 17 this project. He asked how will Three Rivers protect the elevated trail and surrounding wetlands from accumulation of debris and how are they going to remove all of the debris. In addition, how will the bridge be maintained in the winter because he knows the traverse decking and rail system will prevent efficient plowing and given the railings on the side it will be virtually impossible to get a traditional plow system down the lumber as well as tearing up the lumber. Therefore, the next question becomes will it be incumbent upon the city to buy additional capital equipment so that they can maintain this bridge work. Mr. Lubar asked does Three Rivers Park have sufficient operating funds to support this high maintenance project well into the future and what actions will the city take to guarantee performance now and in the future. Dan Atkins, 6812 Chapel Lane, quoted Theodore Roosevelt "Unite People in connection with the heartbreakingly gorgeous land they share ". He noted that the last word he thinks is the key "share" this land we all "share" and we all want to be able to use it. He stated that he thinks everybody needs to consider being on the right side of history and not what's the right decision for now or December or November elections but for next year or even 10, 50 or 100 years from now. George Rerat, 6620 Londonderry Dr., informed the Park Board that they are putting together a Parkwood Group to support Walnut Ridge, if you look at the neighborhood in Parkwood Knolls as it exists today it is a great community asset that is used by everybody who lives around that park. He stated that when you are talking about this trail you are talking about the users coming from a small distance to enjoy it for exercise, for nature and for community building. He indicated that Walnut Ridge already does this and if that trail is brought in you are going to get rid of that. He pointed out that the current trail is a nice circle and if you go there any night after work you are going to see kids riding their bikes, parents walking their dogs and stopping to talk to neighbors and it's disheartening to think you want to disrupt Walnut Ridge Park the way it is. He noted that the kids play tennis, hockey, lacrosse and softball; these are all of the different things the park is currently used for by all of the neighbors and nobody wants to see that changed. Routing the path through that park just disrupts what's already good and they don't have to spend any money to change it and therefore doesn't like the idea of it going through the park. He noted that the neighborhood is putting together a petition that they will bring to the City Council that will have a lot of signatures on it stating that they don't want the trail to go through Walnut Ridge Park. Mr. Rerat stated that the other thing is he doesn't know why they are in such a hurry, if they miss the deadline for 2015 -2016 there will be funding available for 2017 -2018; it's not like funding is going to disappear. He commented why don't they let Richfield and portions of Lake Minnetonka as well as portions of all of these other areas get built so we could learn from them what the best practices are for design, building, maintenance, etc. They could learn from their mistakes rather than us jumping in now when we don't have all of the facts, we don't know what we are doing. He indicated it might be prudent to wait and learn what works and what doesn't and then have Edina step in knowing the best practices. He stated that he thinks they are rushing to a decision for Three Rivers Park, not for the benefit of Edina. Bruce Jackson, 5716 Continental Dr., stated that he has three general comments. First, he thinks the road versus creek -based option is sort of a false choice and that they should 18 have the ability to select the best route for any particular segment. He noted that while he may be opposed to Route 2 he may like the bridge over Highway 62 from Bredesen to the High School and thinks that might be a valuable addition to the community. Second, the community survey does not provide the data to justify this trail or the selection of the creek versus the road -based option or any particular section on this trail because the survey instrument is flawed; it is not designed to answer those questions. Finally, he would challenge the assertion that Edina not be connected to the Regional Trail system if we chose not to do this project. He noted that he thinks the community has made tremendous progress in building up its bike trails locally and he is sure that they can continue to do so even if they do not participate in this project. Joseph Hulbert MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT IF NECESSARY. Todd Fronek MOVED, Dan Peterson SECONDED. Ms. Steel asked Mr. Keprios to talk about why he would prefer the route of the trail to go along the south side of Walnut Ridge Park when the north side had been proposed to avoid flooding issues. Mr. Keprios explained that when he looks at the impact on the park both the entrance and the exit would remain the same. He noted that having it go along the south side it would keep it further away from the hockey rink yet close enough to the building so that people will still have access to the restroom facilities. He added that's also a shorter route and it's the shortest distance between two points so he suspects that a lot of people using the trail will take that route naturally so therefore in his view it makes more sense. Mr. Hulbert indicated that he thinks he is speaking for everyone when he says this has been a long and emotional process. He noted that all of the neighbors want what is best for the parks, but ultimately he thinks the number one issue in his mind is if we were to consider some sort of a trail, safety is a major issue for him so in his mind a creek -based alignment is the safest option. He stated that he realizes this is not going to be a popular opinion with a lot of people who feel like they are losing privacy. He commented that he also sees the formation of a trail through Edina as a way to encourage our neighbors to get outside, enjoy the parks and connect with the community. Mr. Hulbert pointed out that they have received hundreds of a -mails and letters and one that stood out and kind of separated the emotion from the decision was from former City Council member Scott Johnson. He wrote "the proposed creek -based route is a logical and wise use of public land for a healthy environmentally sound project which will be of enormous benefit to the community and all who use it. The project involves no taking of private land, and while understandably of concern to those joining the path, it is a predictable public use of public lands for the public good ". He stated that is where he stands and thinks it ultimately would be a good amenity for our community and, although not popular with everybody, any decision that is made is not going to be popular with everybody. Mr. Fronek stated that he thinks this presents our community with an amazing opportunity and they have heard a lot of the benefits of trails. However, he thinks they need to have some more careful thoughtful planning. He indicated that to him the rail line is the way to go and he understands the CP is not playing ball right now and it is certainly a frustration; however, if they are looking to connect to these regional trails 19 that's where it's got to go. He added that is where Three Rivers has the most experience in building these trails. Mr. Fronek explained that looking from the comprehensive Bike Plan and at the demographics; the Edina population is more densely concentrated in the northeast quadrant. Those people are going to be able to utilize a trail along the CP line a lot more. Also, to the extent that you want to encourage commuting he doesn't think that the Nine Mile trail necessarily encourages that. He thinks the CP rail provides the best connection for Edina. He stressed if it's not the time now, then we should get CP to the table and figure it out. Mr. Dummer stated that he thinks what's important to note here is that no matter what decision it is whether its road or creek as Mr. Keprios stated that if we build it we will use it. He noted that we have to take into account that high school kids are going to be able to utilize this to get to school and to navigate through the City of Edina. He indicated that he thinks it's important to see how it will be a positive effect on Edina. Mr. Pronove stated that in addition to what Mr. Dummer said is that he has actually joined several classes that go outside and use the fields and explained that it's kind of tough to get out of the premises from down below. He noted that basically you have to go up either stairwells or back into the parking lot back outside or you have to go out bushwhacking. He noted that with this he thinks they could actually go out for other studies like science and such things. He stated that he also thinks it might help with some of the traffic congestion around release time because it would help more kids have the ability to walk to school. Ms. Steel pointed out that she had an eye opening experience at the last Park Board meeting when they were looking at the CIP. She noted that she didn't realize how expensive it is to repair the asphalt paths. She indicated that looking at the Needs Assessment Survey and seeing how many residents want new bikes trails and walking opportunities that she doesn't know if as a city they can really provide the amount that the community needs. Therefore, she sees this as an opportunity for the Park District to step in and address our needs. She added that the Edina taxpayers have been funneling money to the Park District and she thinks it's time they benefit from what they have put in. Dan Peterson MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PARK BOARD PROPOSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL A CREEK -BASED REGIONAL TRAIL WITH THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AS PROPOSED BY STAFF REGARDING THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT THROUGH WALNUT RIDGE PARK, EASEMENT RIGHTS, BUFFERS AND THE ISSUES INVOLVING BOARDWALKS AND TO WORK IN A LEGAL TIME FRAME FOR A START AND FINISH OF THE PROJECT. Louise Segreto SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Peterson commented that what he found interesting at the joint meeting was when the chairman of Three Rivers stated that if Edina does nothing and passes on a trail there will be bike trails coming through Edina. They are just not going to be particularly safe because people who ride their bikes want to come from Minnetonka, Hopkins, Richfield, Bloomington, etc., and Edina happens to be right in the middle of it. Mr. Peterson stated 20 that they might as well do it and they might as well do it right for the future of the city and the future of our families and they might as well do it safely. IN FAVOR: Jennifer Kenney, Louise Segreto, Bill Lough, Joseph Hulbert, Keeya Steel, Ellen Jones, Dan Peterson, Rob Presthus OPPOSED: Todd Fronek ABSTAINED: Randy Meyer MOTION CARRIED. D. Community Advisory Team Report — Member Ellen Jones — Ms. Jones indicated that they are continuing to create their report and they will be submitting that to the City Council when it's done. III. UPDATES FROM STAFF A. Off -leash Dog Park — Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that Ms. Segreto was able to attend the off -leash dog park meeting last night to listen to some of the issues and questions that users had. He asked Ms. Segreto to share with the Park Board what she witnessed. Ms. Segreto indicated that the group had a lot of issues ranging from inadequate signage to enforcement issues to requests for lighting to a request for maintaining the trail going around the perimeter of the park to licensing fees. She noted that she thinks the bottom line is that the signage is being evaluated and new signage will be put up to help with enforcement in the park. She commented that some of the other capital improvement issues staff will need to look at solutions if they're possible. Mr. Keprios stated that he was very pleased at how it played out and he thought they had some really wonderful constructive comments and it didn't turn into just a complaint session. He noted that they came forward with some excellent ideas, a very long list and all very positive. He stated that, if resources and money weren't an issue, they would do more of them sooner, but at least they are able to get them on a list. Mr. Meyer pointed out that last year there were some severe issues with snow and ice accumulation. It was actually quite dangerous getting in and out of the space. Mr. Keprios responded that they did hear that last night and Vince Cockriel, Park Superintendent, was there and did make a note of that. IV. PARK BOARD COMMENTS Mr. Hulbert stated that he would like to commend Austin and Felix for doing an awesome job in their second Park Board meeting because it was a little bit of a pressure cooker tonight. MEETING ADJOURNED 21 Statewide Health Improvement Program November 9, 2010 In This Issue School Initiatives A positive approach at Indian Mounds gets students to choose physical activity More schools participate in International Walk and Bike to School Day 2010 Worksite Initiatives Richfield employees learn to cook "fast foods" for better health Community Initiatives • Richfield residents give Bicycle Master Plan momentum • Iguana helps picky eaters at more childcare centers and preschools Healthcare Initiatives What is ICSI and why is it important here? For Your Information • News about Active Living in Minnesota abounds • From StarTribune.com Fusing fun and fitness Help us make our community better for our health! Share this eNewsletter with a friend. Join the SHIP eNewsletter mailing list. Reminder: Check our SHIP website for updates and current events. School Initiatives VfSfb,N SHIP A positive approach at Indian Mounds gets students to choose physical activity The fitness level of students at Indian Mounds Elementary School in Bloomington was below average for the school district in spring of 2010,° according to their Presidential Fitness Assessment results. Chris Tomberlin, physical education instructor z at the school, wanted to change that. He knew, - *•i.� however, that many children go home after school to watch television, play video games or sit in front of a ,- computer screen. This seemed like an opportunity. Chris applied for and was awarded a SHIP mini -grant �. to increase physical activity by adding more of it to afterschool programming. His approach would arm students with knowledge, skills and, most importantly, a positive attitude toward fitness. It would encourage students to make the CHOICE to be physically active. And it is a choice they must make in order to reverse the trend of rising obesity in school age children. Chris implemented a set of activities called " Skillastics." He chose Skillastics, he said, because it is designed to develop an individual's self- confidence, facilitate cooperation among players and instill positive exercise habits (pictures at right). Initially, the Skillastics activities were offered to children with the lowest fitness scores. These are children who most likely do not participate in physical activity on a daily basis. The children participated in a four -week, after school club and received either a soccer ball, volley ball or basket ball to take home for continued use. Additional Skillastics opportunities will be provided throughout the school year. The afterschool club will be offered twice more, and Skillastics will be integrated into the physical activity curriculum and Kids Safari after school program. To get involved, contact Indian Mounds School at 952 - 681 -6003. Overall, the effort is part of the school district's commitment to providing more opportunities to students for physical activity. The long term intent of this approach is for students to embrace physical activity and make it their choice. Though only one club session has been completed, signs look good for the success of this approach in a number of ways. "One mother came up to me and said her daughter was really excited to stay after school for the club," said Chris. "The mom said socially it has really helped her daughter and she has better self- esteem." These are important first steps to making healthy choices. More schools participate in International Walk and Bike to School Day 2010 On October 6, 275 students from six schools in Bloomington and Edina walked or rode their bikes to school. The grand total including students from three Richfield schools is much higher, but the exact number is unknown. They all participated in International Walk and Bike to School Day and were awarded "I walked" or "I biked" stickers because they did. Bike Walk Twin Cities also gave the students free stickers, water bottles, t- shirts, spoke lights and reflectors and Clif Fruit Twists (Dad and son bikers from Highlands Elementary pictured at right). Last year, Oak Grove Elementary School was the first and only school in the three cities to participate in International Walk and Bike to School Day. This year the number increased to 9. The event was organized by school principals, parent volunteers, and SHIP staff to emphasize the importance of physical activity for children and encourage more biking and walking to school. In 1969, 42% of students walked or rode their bike to school compared to 16% in 2001 (National Center for Safe Routes to School). Now in its 13th year, this one -day event in the U.S. is part of an international effort. It takes place in more than 40 countries to celebrate the many benefits of safely walking and bicycling to school. Events take place to highlight the need for safe walking and cycling routes. They also emphasize the importance of issues such as increasing physical activity among children, pedestrian safety, traffic congestion, concern for the environment and building connections between families, schools and the broader community. Worksite Initiatives Richfield employees learn to cook "fast foods" for better health City of Richfield and Richfield Public Schools employees may be short on time when they get home from work, but that won't stop them from preparing a healthy meal. Thirty employees attended a free cooking class and learned recipes and cooking techniques to prepare healthy meals fast. The class was only one of the activities funded by a SHIP mini - grant to increase employees' physical activity and provide incentives for healthy living and well -being (pictures at right). In the hands -on class, employees learned fast cooking techniques and recipes using locally grown produce. They learned how to create fast and easy stir -fry sauces and salad dressings. It was exciting trying new foods such as quinoa that can be used to replace rice. At the end of the class they sampled a full plate of food. In addition to the cooking class, staff members were invited to attend a forum with Richfield's Biggest Loser contestant. He motivated those attending to eat healthy and exercise by sharing his experience. The employers also implemented activities that encourage walking and biking to work. A book of walking maps is in the process of being completed, and a walking competition between the City employees and the School employees will take place. Community Initiatives Richfield residents give Bicycle Master Plan momentum Residents gave ideas for better biking in Richfield at an Open House on October 20 at the Richfield Community Center. They were invited by The Richfield Bicycle Master Plan Task Force to give input for a master plan that is being funded by a SHIP mini - grant. Residents attending the Open House viewed master bike plans from other cities and learned about the vision and mission of the Richfield Bicycle Master Plan Task Force. Using a highlighter on a map of Richfield, residents showed where they would like improved bicycling facilities such as trails or bike lanes. They also shared their desires and concerns regarding biking in Richfield with the Task Force. This information will be quite helpful as the Task Force continues development of the master plan. The Task Force is comprised of residents, commission members and City staff. To learn more about the Richfield Bicycle Master Plan Task Force, visit: http / /www.cityofhchfield orgiPublicWorks /BikeTaskForce.htm a,:k Iguana helps picky eaters at more childcare centers and preschools An iguana named LANA (pictured at right) is making friends with a lot more children in preschools and childcare centers in Bloomington, Edina and Richfield. LANA is not only an iguana puppet, but also the name of a training that has been very successful with childcare and preschool teachers to help children learn to eat more fruits and vegetables. The acronym stands for Learning About Nutrition through Activities. Two more LANA trainings were provided in October. The first was for childcare and preschool professionals from licensed preschools and childcare centers in the three cities. The second was to train all of the staff at the Bloomington /Richfield Early Childhood Family Education Center. That raises the number of childcare or preschool sites in Bloomington, Edina and Richfield to 42 that are working hard to improve the nutrition environment in their facility! Those attending the trainings were excited by what was offered. "Five - star," is what one participant called it. They learned how to improve the food environment and effectively encourage children to try new fruits and vegetables. It's done through food tasting and curriculum activities with LANA that kids love. Centers and preschools already using LANA have many stories about its success and now there will be even more. Back Healthcare Initiatives What is ICSI and why is it important here? In simple language, ICSI (Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement) is about providing patients in Minnesota and surrounding states the best outcomes for the best cost. This non - profit, independent organization is also working toward transforming Minnesota's health care system as is SHIP. ICSI brings leading medical experts together to develop best practice health care guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and management of numerous diseases and health conditions. Our local SHIP initiative and a Multi- Grantee SHIP initiative, including the health departments of Bloomington, Hennepin County and Minneapolis, are supporting the implementation of two guidelines in area clinics. The guidelines are Prevention and Management of Obesity and Primary Prevention of Chronic Disease. One of the area clinics working to implement the guidelines is Bloomington Natural Care Center at Northwestern Health Sciences University. A QI (quality improvement) team is assessing current clinic systems and developing processes to implement the guidelines. In October, a chiropractor and an acupuncturist began piloting these. They talked with patients about their BMI (body mass index) and their nutrition and physical activity habits. From this they assisted patients with taking small steps to change harmful habits. After working out kinks in the processes, they will roll out the new systems with all of their clinic providers in the coming months. Similar work is happening at the Bloomington Lake Clinic located in Bloomington and Minneapolis. There, two physicians will pilot system changes in the near future. At Southdale Internal Medicine, P.A. in Edina and our WIC and Sage Plus public health programs, QI teams are conducting chart audits and provider surveys. This data will enable them to set goals and determine changes needed in their respective systems. This work with metro area clinics is featured in an article by Dr. Courtney Jordan in MetroDoctors magazine. Dr. Jordan is the medical consultant to the Multi- grantee SHIP Initiative. In the article, Dr. Jordan shares the important role of providers and their challenges in fighting tobacco use and the obesity epidemic. Read Dr. Jordan's article on pages 13 -14. Back For Your Information News about Active Living in Minnesota abounds An article from Prevention Minnesota's Active Living e- newsletter recounts a MinnPost story about the controversy over trail development of Nine Mile Creek in Edina. Edina Mayor Jim Hovland is quoted as saying, "It's a classic case of trying to balance public and private interest." The Edina City Council will hold a public hearing and vote December 7, 2010 on three choices: disapprove any trail, place the trail along city streets or place the trail along the creek. Read the full article, "Edina Wrestles with Trail Development Near Nature Area," and others regarding Active Living in Minnesota Active Living Network News. Back From StarTribune.com: Fusing fun and fitness "An innovative new playground at Minnetonka's Groveland Elementary School is "tricking" kids into getting fit during recess. In fact, the KidPower playground -- one of only six in the world -- is keeping kids literally running in circles every afternoon." Read the entire article from StarTribune.com. Back