The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-04-02_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA. CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL"CHAMBERS APRIL 2; 2013 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA All agenda items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be'-no separate discussion of such items unless requested to'be removed from the Consent Agenda by a Member of the City Council. In such cases the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered immediately following the adoption of the Consent Agenda. (Favorable rollcall vote of majority of Councit Members present to approve.) A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Meeting of March 19, 2013 and Work Session of March 19, 2013 B. Receive. Payment Of Claims As Per: Pre- ListiDated 03/21/13, TOTAL $933,190.77; and Pre -List Dated,. 03/28/2013, TOTAL $602,631.67 and Credit.Card Transactions dated 1/27/132 -26 -13 TOTAL $19,533.23 C. Biryani Wine /3.2 Liquor Licenses Renewal. D. Smashburger New Wine /3:2 Liquor Licenses E. Ordinance No. 2013705 ArriencI16 9 Chapter 15 Regarding The Edina Art Center Board F. Resolution No. 2013 -34 Approving A Final Plat At 5633 Tracy Avenue For Rod Helm On Behalf . Of.Miriam Kiser G. Resolution No. 2013 -35 Authorizing The Removal Of Erroneously Levied Special Assessments By Hennepin County On The 2013 Property Tax Statement H. Resolution No..2013 -36 Designating France Avenue. No Parking I. Request For,Purchase — .Award Of Bid-- Lake Edina Noise Wall Improvements, ENG 13 -11NB J. Reject Bids For Countryside Shelter Building And Re- authorize Advertisement For Bids 1 Agenda /Edina City Council April 2, 2013 Page 2 V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Arbor Day Proclamation, April 26, 2013 B. Earth Day Proclamation, April 22, 2013 VI. 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 — Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat, Hunt Associates, 5109 -5125 West 49th Street, Resolution No. 2013 -33 and Resolution No. 2013 -37 (Favorable rollcall vote of four Council Members to approve) VII. 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 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. VIII. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS: (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve except where noted) A. Resolution No. 2013 -29 Accepting Various Donations B. Ordinance No. 2013 -04 Amending Chapter 15 Of The Edina City Code To Include Gender Expression C. Consider Approval Of Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden and Parking Lot D. Letter of Support For Utility Franchise Bill HF1450/SF1490 Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues )n jes Tues Tues Tues Agenda /Edina City Council April 2, 2013 Page 3 E. Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Amending Chapter 4 Concerning Demolition Permits For Single And Double Dwelling Units F. Consider Revision To Approved Plans For Southdale Apartments IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Correspondence B. Minutes 1. Edina Community Health Committee, January 15, 2013 2. Human Rights & Relations Commission, February 26, 2013 3. Energy & Environment Commission, February 14, 2013 4. Veteran's Memorial Committee, February 15, 2013 X. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS XI. MANAGER'S COMMENTS A. City Representative To Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) XII. 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 Apr 2 Work Session — Business Meeting/Neighborhood Assn.Policy 5:00 P.M Apr 2 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. Apr 16 Work Session — Grandview Next Steps 5:00 P.M. Pentagon Park Sketch Plan Apr 16 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 7 Work Session —Joint Mtng with HRRC 5:30 P.M. May 7 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 21 Work Session — Budget 5:30 P.M. May 21 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 27 MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Jun 4 Joint Mtng with East Edina Housing Fndtn 5:30 P.M. Jun 4 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Jun 18 Work Session —Jnt Mtng with EEC 5:30 P.M. Jun 18 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL MARCH 19, 2013 7:01 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. 111. MEETING AGENDA APPROVED Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, approving the meeting agenda as revised to switch Items VIII.B., Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Amending Chapter 4, Concerning Demolition Permits for Single and Double Dwelling Units, and VIII.G., Consider Revision to Approved Plans for Southdale Apartments; and add Item VIII.H., France Avenue Pedestrian Enhancement Easements. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. IV. CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, approving the consent agenda as revised to remove Item IV.D., Request for Purchase of Evidentiary Recording System and Server — Police Department, as follows: IV.A. Approve regular and work session meeting minutes of March 5, 2013 IV.B. Receive payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated March 7, 2013, and consisting of 27 pages; General Fund $435,381.35; Police Special Revenue $78.00; Working Capital Fund $130,923.92; Art Center Fund $3,649.04; Golf Dome Fund $284.22; Aquatic Center Fund $37.41; Golf Course Fund $3,883.31; Ice Arena Fund $24,675.61; Edinborough Park Fund $29,609.04; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $4,765.67; Liquor Fund $209,128.61; Utility Fund $179,791.41; Storm Sewer Fund $47,901.54; Recycling Fund $32.93; PSTF Agency Fund $1,996.09; Payroll Fund $5,447.84; TOTAL $1.077.585.99 and for approval of payment of claims dated March 14, 2013, and consisting of 30 pages; General Fund $127,466.39; General Debt Service Fund $833.75; PIR Debt Service Fund $425.00; Working Capital Fund $43,988.59; Equipment Replacement Fund $14,759.94; Art Center Fund $3,991.74; Golf Course Fund $30,153.71; Ice Arena Fund $102,430.66; Edinborough Park Fund $34,411.03; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $4,538.55; Liquor Fund $147,132.94; Utility Fund $413,905.79; Storm Sewer Fund $3,882.51; Recycling Fund $34,192.80; PSTF Agency Fund $6,406.87; Centennial TIF District $2,627.00; Payroll Fund $3,473.58; TOTAL $974.620.95 IV.C. Request for Purchase, 2013 PV5 Grand Caravan — Communications & Technology Services Department, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Dodge of Burnsville at $20,880 (State contract) IV.E. Award of Bid — Contract ENG 13 -1, Mendelssohn A Neighborhood Roadway Reconstructions, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Palda & Sons, Inc. at $1,233,546.04 IV.F. Award of Bid — Contract ENG 13 -9, Raw Water Line on Vernon Avenue, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, GM Contracting, Inc. at $188,557.88 IV.G. Accept Traffic Safety Report of February 6, 2013 IV.H. Approve Memorandum of Understanding to Retain Professional Services with the Joint Waters Commission Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Page 1 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 19, 2013 Motion carried. ti ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IV.D. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE, PURCHASE OF EVIDENTIARY RECORDING SYSTEM AND SERVER — POLICE DEPARTMENT Police Chief Long described the advanced features and video technologies provided by the Evidentiary Recording system and server. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to approve Request for Purchase, Purchase of Evidentiary Recording System and Server — Police Department, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, WHP Workflow Solutions (IRSA Video) at $89,521.11. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS V.A. EDINA'S "OPEN TO BUSINESS" PROGRAM — PRESENTED Ron Smolund, Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers, described Edina's "Open to Business" Program that was geared toward extending the City's economic development efforts by providing direct one -on -one consultation with entrepreneurs and financing options. He provided his contact information and indicated brochures were available at City Hall. Mr. Smolund answered questions of the Council relating to the Open To Business Program financial resources to assist business with capital needs. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD — Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. VI.A. PRELIMINARY REZONING FROM PCD -3 TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, LUND FOOD HOLDINGS, 7171 FRANCE AVENUE — RESOLUTION NO. 2013-31 ADOPTED Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the proposal of Lund Food Holdings to tear down the existing 59,000 square -foot Byerly's grocery store located at 7171 France Avenue and to build a two -phase project. Phase 1 would be a new 47,000 square -foot Byerly's store; a 6 to 7 -story 109 -unit apartment building with two levels of underground parking; and, a 6 to 7 -story, 77 -unit apartment building with a first floor 10,450 square -foot retail area and two levels of underground parking. Phase 2 would be a 6 -story, 60 -unit apartment building with 10,500 square -foot retail space on the first level and two levels of underground parking. Mr. Teague stated to accommodate this proposed redevelopment would require approval of a preliminary rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary development plan; and, preliminary plat. Mr. Teague explained this preliminary review was the first step of a two -step process and should preliminary requests be approved by the Council, the proponent would make the requested revisions and the second step would be final development plan, final rezoning, and final plat review by the Planning Commission and Council. He displayed slides depicting the Site Plan and reviewed the Council's suggestions offered during site plan review. Mr. Teague stated the proponent developed the plan under consideration based on the Council's suggestions at the sketch plan review. Mr. Teague stated the Planning Commission reviewed the application on February 27, 2013, and offered suggestions to address the pedestrian connections, increase sustainability, and engage the Promenade. The proponent revised the plans to address those issues by adding a water feature, widening the pedestrian connection through the site, pledging to match the existing pavement of the Promenade, closing off a drive entrance, including additional sidewalk etchings into the pavement to clearly mark the pedestrian pathway through the site up to France Avenue, and adding a segment of sidewalk. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised plans at its March 13, 2013, meeting and the motion to approve the requests failed on a split 4 -4 vote. Concerns expressed by the Planning Commission related to pedestrian connections and sustainability. Page 2 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 19, 2013 Mr. Teague presented details of the Site Plan and Preliminary Plat, indicating the primary issues were whether the proposed development and PUD rezoning were reasonable for the site. Staff recommended approval, based on findings and with conditions and, as indicated previously, the Planning Commission's motion for approval failed on a 4/4 vote with concern expressed related to pedestrian connections and sustainability. Mr. Teague and Engineer Houle answered questions of the Council. Member Bennett asked if the density of the proposed housing, 24 units per acre, was calculated based on the entire site or on only the portion of the site on which the apartment buildings was proposed to be built. Mr. Teague replied that the density had been calculated based on the area of the entire site. He added that if housing density was calculated based only on the portion of the site on which housing was proposed to be built, it would be 45 units per acre. Mr. Houle indicated the Southeast Traffic Model took the developments in this area into account and it had been used in the proponent's analysis. With regard to sufficiency of public infrastructure, consultants were asked to compare the modeling with the proposed project and had been determined both the watermain and sanitary sewer were adequate. In addition, the Metropolitan Council's sanitary sewer relief pipe would be modeled to determine whether it could accommodate the greater Southdale area. If expanded, it would be funded from Residential Equivalent Charges (REC) and Sewer Availability Charges (SAC). The Council asked about podium height. Mr. Teague advised it was a suggestion in the Comprehensive Plan; however, not proposed with this project except where the retail area projected from the residential area. The Council acknowledged concern had been expressed that Edina was getting too many apartment buildings in this area and asked whether some cities had limited the number or percentage of apartments to be constructed within certain areas. Attorney Knutson stated two cities had attempted to set a limit on the numbers of rental units in a specific area and one city decision was under litigation. It was noted that in Edina, limitation would be accomplished through density requirements. Mr. Teague stated based on retail square footage, 357 parking spaces were required and the new development has proposed to provide 314 parking spaces so the site would be under - parked. The Council acknowledged allowing Target to be under - parked in exchange for additional landscaping to breakup area of asphalt had worked well. Stephen Manhart, Traffic Engineer with RLK, Inc., described how the level of service and trip generation had been modeled. He said that based on comments received from the City and Hennepin County, they recalculated trip distribution and generation from the existing store, since its footprint was larger than the footprint of the proposed store. Mr. Manhart stated the traffic engineers determined there would be good levels of service at each access point since the number of access points would double with the proposed project. The traffic engineers also determined using existing and future trip generation; there were no warrants for a traffic signal at the site entrance from Hazelton Road. ^nation;. Proponent Presentation Jim Vos, Cresa Partners, corporate real estate advisors to Lund Food Holdings, presented slides of the subject site and described the proposed construction timing for both phases. He reviewed the revisions made in response to comments received from the Planning Commission and Council. He explained the new Byerly's store would be smaller in size, as a result of using an off -site bakery and not having a restaurant kitchen. The project would bring new retail opportunities and a strong pedestrian experience with a covered walkway comprised of a material matching the front of the store in a step down design. The residential component would be within steps of grocery and near retail offerings not offered elsewhere in Edina. Mr. Vos pointed out four key nodes for safe pedestrian pathways on France Avenue and through the site, indoor and outdoor public dining seating along France Avenue, public art feature, engagement and strengthened gateway entrance at the Promenade, and private pool terrace with seating and grills for tenants. He described sustainability measures included with this project. Mr. Vos stated they Page 3 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 19, 2013 would continue to address the wall area to add architectural features to create interest and indicated the proponent would not object if that was placed as a condition. Mr. Vos answered questions of the Council and indicated the total number of apartment units proposed was 246, ranging in size from studio units at 590 square feet to three - bedroom units at 1,470 square feet, with an average size of 950 square feet. Attorney Knutson advised the City's restriction on number and minimum size of units would not apply to a PUD. At the request of the Council, Maureen Michaliski, Shaefer Richardson, presented the type of unit and associated average net square footages. Mr. Vos displayed exterior elevations for units facing the Promenade and private ground -level patios. He answered questions of the Council relating to the pedestrian walkway and number of crossings through the site to access Bylerly's. He stated the crossings would be of stamped or colored concrete to give a clear impression of pedestrian crossing, possibly with raised elevation that could accommodate emergency vehicle movements. Mr. Vos stated alternatives were considered to offer pedestrian access to the Promenade given the challenging grade change. Mr. Vos stated the storm water mitigation plan had been designed to meet standards but was being studied to exceed those requirements. He said the proponent was sensitive to the pedestrian experience, but was also concerned that trees within the parking lot slowed snow removal. With regard to types of residential tenants, Ms. Michaliski indicated the developer would target a broad cross section and anticipated the likelihood of families would be small. Mr. Vos described measures taken with other projects and said the proposed project would match or exceed sustainability and energy consumption would be below that of the Hennepin Avenue and Central Avenues stores. He added the developer planned on reusing and recycling materials from the existing building. The Council encouraged Bylerly's to provide public education on its sustainability efforts. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. Public Testimony Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, addressed the Council. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, Centennial Lakes, addressed the Council. Bob Rofidal, 7125 Bristol Boulevard, addressed the Council. Bill Wolfson, 3655 Hazelton Road, addressed the Council. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Mr. Vos answered questions of the Council relating to the scope of work at Hazelton Road , locations where semi - trucks would enter and exit at Hazelton Road and France Avenue, customer service, and proposed location of bicycle racks. The Council supported adding sidewalk around the north side of Building C, and to create connectivity to Hazelton Road along the sidewalk from Building C. Member Bennett requested that Mr. Teague present the sentence, changing "presented a" to chart depicting densities of residential offerings in the Southdale area. Member Bennett noted that the Comprehensive Plan defined high density residential land use as 12 to 30 units per acre. She added that according to the chart, all but one of the City's high density residential developments with more than 34 Page 4 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 19, 2013 units per acre offered substantial public benefits, including senior and affordable housing Mr. Teague noted one of the benefits from the PUD was a higliier density than specified in the Comprehensive Plan. Member Bennett stated while she appreciated the changes made since sketch plan, she found the project did not offer some of the goals articulated in the Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment of this area, such as podium height. In addition, she found the 27 -foot setback of Building A from the Promenade to be too close, noting the required setback was 81 feet. Mr. Teague indicated the City was getting a mixed -use development, public connections to the Promenade, and sidewalk along France Avenue. 'Member Bennett responded that most of the benefits of this proposed PUD appeared to flow to the development rather than the public. The Council reviewed Page 13 of the staff report containing seven illustrations why PUD zoning was appropriate for this site as well as benefits received. The Council indicated the project was attractive and desirable to tenants because it offered a location on the Promenade with pedestrian access to transit, shopping, fitness, entertainment, and medical care. It was acknowledged that this type of housing would encourage ownership of fewer cars. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2013 -31, approving Preliminary Rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat at 7171 France for Lund Food Holdings Mount Properties based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Mixed Use Center — MXC," which encourages a mixing of uses, including retail and multi - family residential. The proposed uses are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive plan. 3. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. The Byerly's store would be pulled up close to the street, with sidewalks in front, and separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment. 4. Pedestrian connections would be made from France Avenue to the Promenade from the north and south sides of the site, as well as through the middle. 5. The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their project narrative. 6. The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal, and glass building. 7. The site circulation would be improved with a right -in and right -out added along France Avenue. 8. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto - oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. • Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. • Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. • A Pedestrian - Friendly Environment. Improving the auto - oriented design pattern discussed above under "Issues" will call for guidelines that change the relationship between parking, pedestrian movement, and building placement. c. Appropriate Parking Standards. Mixed use developments often produce an internal capture rate. This refers to residents and workers who obtain goods and services from within the development without making additional vehicle trips. *Parking ratios for mixed use development should reflect the internal capture rate for the shared parking opportunities this type of development offers. Page 5 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 19, 2013 d. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of City infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. And subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated January 28, 2012, the revisions submitted to the Planning Commission March 13, 2013. Final Development plans should include specific locations of trash enclosure areas, number of bike parking spaces provided, and where load!ng/deliveries are made to the retail space and apartments. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a complete sign plan for the site as part of the Final Development Plan application. Signage should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. S. Architectural features or articulation must be added to the north elevation of the new Byerly's building. 6. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the City Engineer's memo dated February 22, 2013. 7. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development, for this site. 8. The Final Plat must be considered within one year after approval of the Preliminary Plat, or the Preliminary Plat shall be deemed null and void. 9. A shared parking and access agreement must be established across the Plat. 10. The Park Dedication fee of $1,230,000 shall be paid prior to release of any mylars approving the Final Plat. 11. Enhanced and taller landscaping in the southeast corner of the site by the pool. 12. All public utility, roadway and sidewalk easements shall be dedicated to the City. 13. Detail must be provided for the proposed covered walkways. 14. Attempt an energy saving goal of 10% above Code. 15. Enhanced landscaping within the Byerly's parking field. 16. All crosswalks shall be marked with Duraprint stamping to clearly identify the pedestrian crossing. 17. No delivery truck traffic shall be allowed on 70th Street. 18. County approval of the right -in and right -out on France Avenue. Member Sprague seconded the motion. The Council indicated the Promenade was constructed as a public amenity in the hope that private development would grow along its 80 -foot right -of -way, which would be realized with this project. The Council indicated it was pleased with the work of the Planning Commission, staff, and proponent to react appropriately to comments made and concerns expressed. Rollcall: Ayes: Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Nay: Bennett Motion carried. VII. COMMUNITY COMMENT No one appeared to comment. Vlll. REPORTS / RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.A. GOLF DOME SETTLEMENT ACCEPTED —BIDS AWARDED Paul Kolias, Project Executive and Construction Manager with RJM Construction, described the elements of the Golf Dome reconstruction project that would include a separate accessory building, Code upgrades including a fire suppression system, concrete egress sidewalks at entry points, emergency egress hardware at existing gates, elevated metal driving deck, new asphalt parking lot with curb and underground Page 6 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 19, 2013 stormwater retention system, fire suppression, and backup generators for the fire suppression system. He said, in designing this project, staff considered the reimbursement values of the three insurance policies. In addition, staff recommended consideration of two alternatives: Alternate 1 to upgrade the dome coating to shed dirt/snow and extend life by 5 years at $146,000; and, Alternate 2 to insulate the dome walls to 50 feet high to improve energy efficiency in the winter, allow day lighting, and shedding of snow at $82,000. The costs of the two alternates were not included in total project budget. Parks and Recreation Director Kattreh stated the payback on Alternate 2 was two to four years and would result in energy savings of 35% to 50%. With regard to Alternate 1, Todd Anderson, Braemar Golf Course, stated the life expectancy of the dome membrane was 10 -15 years and the Kevlar coating would extend it to 20 years. Ms. Kattreh recommended inclusion of both alternates to improve energy efficiencies, extend the life of the dome membrane, and increase safety of snow and ice shedding. Manager Neal described the extensive negotiation process for the insurance settlement and recommended acceptance. He noted this project would result in the City having a state -of- the -art golf dome for $981,000. Ms. Kattreh stated the project also included leveling the concrete playing surface and upgrading the padded turf that would be appreciated by athletic teams renting the facility. She advised there was a no cost change to go with more efficient fluorescent lighting and staff would also research dollar value of LED lighting to reduce energy costs for lighting the facility. Mr. Kolias clarified the fencing bid also included temporary fence, repair to the existing gates, and installation of panic hardware. He stated there was a one -year warranty for work and labor for the accessory building and dome. After that, the manufacturer's warranty took effect with a 20 -year warranty on the dome fabric. The Council thanked staff for its diligence to negotiate the insurance settlement of $2.6 million. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, accepting the Golf Dome settlement of $2.6 million, approving construction of the dome and accessory building with insurance settlement proceeds, awarding the bids as presented in staff's report for the dome fabric, turf, dome foundation renovation, and steel driving deck; seeking bids for the fire suppression system, storm sewer and storm water retention system, and quotes for the construction of the new support building, including Alternates 1 and 2. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Note: In accordance with agenda approval, Item VIII. G. was considered at this point. VIII.G. REVISION TO APPROVED PLANS FOR SOUTHDALE APARTMENTS —TABLED FOR TWO WEEKS Community Development Director Presentation Mr. Teague presented the proposed revisions to the approved plans for Southdale Apartments to eliminate the York Avenue intersection improvement; revise Building B from six stories to five stories; revise Building C from four stories to three stories; Building C becoming apartment -style housing rather than two -story townhomes; enhanced landscaping replacing the drive aisles behind Building C; and change from pervious pavers on surface drives to bituminous. Proponent Presentation David Motzenbecker, landscape architect with BKV Group, described the proposed changes from the approved plan including increased efficiencies that allowed the elimination of the northern entry to the underground parking and interior road, increased green space and patio space, keeping pedestrian connections to CUB and the bus stop, adding the walkway to the transit station and crosswalk to the Westin, walkway to the Mall, removing the boardwalks over rain gardens, improved courtyard design, lowering berms to six feet in height, and change from pavers to bituminous for drives since the infiltration standards had been met. Mr. Motzenbecker then reviewed building revisions including the shape of Building C and the walls of lobby and club room being changed from curvilinear to angular. He stated Page 7 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 19, 2013 Buildings B and C would each be reduced by one story. Mr. Motzenbecker stated they found the proposed changes to be an improvement to the design. The Council pointed out the differences between two renderings including a significant reduction in the use of glass at the entry and top stories of the buildings, addition of dark panels on the top floor, and loss of green roof on the two bottom podiums. Mark Krych, architect with BKV Group, stated the use of materials was the same but distributed differently. In addition, the entry fascia was a little thicker and the amount of transom at the upper levels was reduced. The Council indicated the appearance of the buildings had changed considerably from the beautiful high - end design that had been approved. In addition, the boardwalks had been removed from the rain gardens. Mr. Krych explained the structure had the same footprint and the materials remained consistent. The differences have to do with the amount of openings. Mr. Motzenbecker stated the boardwalks were eliminated due to maintenance concern with the wood. The Council discussed the proposed revisions and agreed the building had changed significantly enough to warrant Planning Commission review and recommendation. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, referring the plans for Southdale Apartments to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Ryan Dunlay, Stuart Companies, apologized that the Council found this submittal to be a lesser product and assured the Council that was not the intent of the owners group. He stated the owners had not changed its view that this site deserved a great project and intention to deliver that project. Mr. Dunlay indicated the requested changes were due to the project's evolution, not an attempt to lessen the project. Mr. Neal clarified that the proponent already had an approved plan that could be moved forward; however, should the Council not approve an amended plan it would impact the variances and CUP that had already been approved and require new processes for those development rights. The Council indicated a willingness to table to allow time for the proponent to address the Council's comments and present plans that meet the architectural integrity of the approved plan. Mr. Dunlay stated he would like to take the Council's offer to resubmit plans in two weeks. Members Sprague and Bennett withdrew the motion and second to the motion to refer to the Planning Commission. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, tabling consideration of the plans for Southdale Apartments for two weeks. The Council indicated it would be reluctant to consider an alternate to the intersection design that had been approved. Mr. Dunlay explained that intersection had been included on the plan but when the north entrance to the parking garage was eliminated, it was felt building that intersection was for naught since entry could be gained on the south side. In addition, Hennepin County agreed to keep the intersection as is and re- stripe the walkway to address the City's desire for pedestrian connection. The Council discussed the need for pedestrian crossing at intersections to address safety concerns and encourage increased pedestrian access to the area's amenities. Mr. Dunlay described pedestrian connection that would be provided and indicated new plans would be submitted that clearly depicted those locations. The Council asked that the revised plan submittals identify materials closer to the approved plan and in those locations, identify percentage of building materials, incorporate a thinner cornice at the entrance, enhanced photographs of the building elevations, and depictions of all pedestrian connections including the Transit Station. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Page 8 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 19, 2013 VIII.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-28 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 Bennett introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2013 -28 accepting various donations. Member Swenson seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.D. TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT OF JANUARY 2, 2013 — NORTH /SOUTH STOP SIGN INSTALLATION APPROVED Mr. Houle presented the revised Traffic Safety Committee Report dated January 2, 2013. He explained the Edina Transportation Committee (ETC) reviewed this Report at its February 21, 2013, meeting. Mr. Houle described the current conditions. Relating to Item 61, staff recommended denial of the requested stop sign at the intersection of Kellogg Avenue and 61St Street West. Based on ETC discussion, staff also recommended adding an informational plaque to the existing yield signs that stated: "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop." It was noted the requestors would like the yield signs replaced with stop signs. Mr. Houle responded to the Council's questions relating to vehicle counts and rationale used for placement of other stop signs in this neighborhood. He indicated the Council had discretion; however, staff's recommendations were based on warrants. The Council discussed the basketweave methodology for placement of traffic control. Requestor Presentation Constance Fantin, 6033 Kellogg, stated this neighborhood does not support an east /west stop and only supports a north /south stop. Residents believe that to do otherwise would create a new problem. The neighborhood had found the yield signs are not effective and the concerns relate to the high number of pedestrians, speeding traffic, and cut through traffic on Kellogg and Oaklawn. Ms. Fantin noted this area was one block from a park so there are many pedestrians and drop off traffic. In addition, it was one block from Snuffy's, an ice cream shop, and two daycares. Mr. Houle responded to the Council's questions relating to traffic studies and acceleration of vehicles following a stop sign. Members Sprague and Bennett voiced support for stop sign installation only if warrants were met, preferring a holistic approach including consideration of a basketweave system of stop signs, and to refer the request to the ETC with direction to determine the appropriate pattern for stop signs in this neighborhood. To address speeding and cut through traffic, The Council considered the long- term option of using nodes /traffic circles that were similar but smaller than a roundabout. It was pointed out that the intersection under discussion might function differently at other times of the day. In addition, it was logical to follow the engineering model until you considered that nearly every intersection in this neighborhood had a stop sign. The suggestion was made to approve installation of north /south stop signs and if that was not effective, the City could decide whether small traffic circles should be considered. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, approving the installation of north /south stop signs sign at the intersection of Kellogg Avenue and 61St Street West. Ayes: Brindle, Swenson, Hovland Nays: Bennett, Sprague Motion carried. VIII.E. RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -29 — REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM STANDARDS FOR STATE AID OPERATION — WOODDALE AVENUE — TABLED FOR TWO WEEKS Mr. Houle presented traffic volumes, speed, and crash data for Wooddale Avenue before and after the advisory bike lanes were installed, noting not many accidents related to the bicycle lanes. He presented five options for the Council's consideration and explained that a variance would be required to place a Page 9 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 19, 2013 centerline along Wooddale Avenue from West 50th Street to Valley View Road. It was noted that consideration of Options 3 -5 would not result in loss of federal funding. Ted Schoenecker, Mn /DOT Metro State Aid Engineer, explained that conversations were held with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) about the funding used on this project and while it appeared they were not overly concerned, the FHWA was not prepared to say whether it would or would not ask for a payback. The Council discussed the most viable option to address the concern of driver confusion and assure bicyclist and pedestrian safety. It was noted Option 4 would not endanger the federal grant and result in the highest -level facility on one side with a dedicated bicycle lane combined with a sharrow on the rest of the right -of -way. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, approving Option 4. Mr. Houle indicated that use of MSA funding would result in the need to apply for a width variance. Mr. Schoenecker stated the Variance Board meets the end of June. The Council discussed whether to use local funding of $30,000 to complete the project ahead of the schedule required for FHWA and Variance Board consideration, gaining about two months. Mr. Schoenecker explained the FHWA would consider the money it invested in the corridor to increase bicycle traffic and whether Option 4, if conditionally approved, would increase bicycle traffic. The Variance Board would consider MSA standards and rules for sharing the road with bicycles to assure safety factors were still met if going outside of its rules. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, to present Option 4 to the federal agency for consideration and if approved, the City would fund the cost to paint the street. Mr. Schoenecker explained that should the City decide to move ahead and re- stripe a centerline along Wooddale Avenue from West 50th Street to Valley View Road, it would have to ask for an after - the -fact variance. He indicated if the Council provided direction tonight, staff would resolve the issue with the FHWA prior to the next Council meeting. Members Swenson and Brindle withdrew the motion and second to the motion. The consensus of the Council was to delay consideration to the next Council meeting to allow time to receive an FHWA response. VIII. F. RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -30 —IN SUPPORT OF A METROPOLITAN AREA DEDICATED TRANSIT SALES TAX —ADOPTED Mayor Hovland presented the request by the Regional Conference of Mayors supporting a sales tax increase to support sustained investment to build out and operate the metropolitan region's transit system. The Council discussed revisions to the draft resolution. Member Sprague introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2013 -30 supporting a Metropolitan Area Dedicated Transit Sales Tax revising the third WHEREAS to indicate: "...working diligently to attract, grow, and retain lobs...;" revising the fifth WHEREAS to indicate: "...provides essential mobility for workers, businesses, and students...;" and, to add a seventh WHEREAS indicating: "WHEREAS, residents of the City of Edina are not adequately served by the transit system, and." Member Bennett seconded the motion Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Note: In accordance with agenda approval, Item VIII.B. was considered at this point. VIII.B. ORDINANCE NO. 2013 -3 AMENDING CHAPTER 4 CONCERNING DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLING UNITS — TABLED Page 10 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 19, 2013 The Council continued its discussion from the Work Session. Following discussion and inquiries of staff, Council consensus was reached on the following: • To require liability coverage of $1 million, the same level required by the State of Minnesota; to tie standards to the appropriate permitting (construction or demolition) so it was clearly stated. • To revise Section 411.03. Demolition Defined, to strike reference to the removal or destruction of more than fifty percent (50 %) of the area of the principal roof structure. Enforcement authority for that type of project would be captured in the building permit process. It was agreed there would be two ordinances that might share similar standards but might be different based on timing of construction. In the case of the demolition ordinance, it would be tied to excavation rather than building activities. • Submission of a $2,500 cash escrow or letter of credit with renewability. • It would be left to the determination of staff whether a professional analysis of a soil investigation report would be necessary. • Submission of storm water management and erosion control plans completed by a professional designer at the construction phase. • Submission of photography of existing conditions in the neighborhood by the City with funding from the demolition permit. The Council considered Subd. 6, and the appropriate notification process. It was acknowledged that most often, a range of dates was known but not the exact date of demolition. The intent was to provide a process whereby all residents within 300 feet were notified of the proposed demolition, construction plans, and contact information. In addition, a sign must be posted that included a contact name and telephone number. Should there be no construction plans at the time of demolition, a second notification process would be required. The Council agreed the language should address site restoration if there was a time interval between demolition and rebuild. In addition, the neighborhood should be provided with the Construction Management Plan or copy of the ordinance. Council consensus was also reached on the following: • Subd. 2 — Construction allowed from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through Friday; 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday, and no construction on Sunday. • Subd. 3 — Revise language to define timing relating to damages needing to be repaired within three working days. • Staff was asked to assure the language in all sections applied to both demolition and construction phases. • Subd. 4 — Revise language to address process for overnight parking of a vehicle towing a trailer. • Subd. 6 — Revise language to define timing for twenty -four (24) hour removal. • Subd. 6 — Revise language to indicate: "...or stockpiled on the public streets, boulevards or sidewalks, or adjacent properties." • Subd. 7 — Add language to address abatement of hazardous materials such as asbestos and lead -based paint. • Subd. 8 — Revise language to indicate: "...other than motor vehicles..." • Subd. 9 — Staff was asked to revise language to remove the contradiction between the two sentences. • Subd. 9 — Revise language to indicate it was at the discretion of the Building Official to determine the type of fencing and size of tree. Mayor Hovland left the Council Chambers at 12:58 a.m. Acting Meehe Mayer Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, tabling consideration of Ordinance No. 2013 -3 amending Chapter 4 concerning demolition permits for single and double dwelling units, pending revisions. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson Absent: Hovland Motion carried. Page 11 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 19, 2013 VIII. H. FRANCE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENT EASEMENTS —APPROVED Mr. Houle reported on the need to execute signature pages for the France Avenue pedestrian enhancement easements, noting all of the easements had been donated. Acting ", pmba Mayer Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, approving France Avenue pedestrian enhancement easements. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson Absent: Hovland Motion carried. IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS IX.A. CORRESPONDENCE Acting Mayor Swenson acknowledged the Council's receipt of various correspondence. IX.B. MINUTES: 1. PARK BOARD, FEBRUARY 12, 2013 2. HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD, FEBRUARY 12, 2013 3. PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 4. HUMAN RIGHTS & RELATIONS COMMISSION, JANUARY 22, 2013 Informational; no action required. X. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS — Received Mayor Hovland returned to the Council Chambers at 1:02 a.m. X1. MANAGER'S COMMENTS — Received Xll. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 1:02 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Bennerotte, Acting City Clerk Minutes approved by Edina City Council, April 2, 2013. James B. Hovland, Mayor Video Copy of the March 19, 2013, meeting available. Page 12 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL MARCH 19, 2013 4:40 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were Members Brindle and Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Member Bennett arrived at 4:41 p.m. Member Sprague arrived at 4:43 p.m. Staff attending the meeting included: Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Technology Services Director; Laurene Draper, Civilian Services Manager; Sherry Engelman, Community Health Administrator /City Sanitarian; Wayne Houle, Director of Engineering; Ann Kattreh, Parks & Recreation Director; Steve Kirchman, Chief Building Official; Ari Klugman, City Manager Intern; Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager; Scott Neal, City Manager;. Marty Scheerer, Fire Chief; and Cary Teague, Community Development Director. Mayor Hovland said the meeting would focus on two topics. The first part of the meeting would be spent reviewing and discussing the proposed residential redevelopment management ordinance. The latter part of the meeting would be spent in a joint session with the Community Health Committee to discuss its role and work plan. Manager Neal said the purpose of the proposed residential redevelopment management ordinance would be to move from a passive enforcement strategy to an active enforcement strategy. Chief Building Official Kirchman said the ordinance would give the City "teeth" to enforce the construction management plan that all builders must now sign. Council Members discussed various aspects of the proposed ordinance, including the definition of "demolition," insurance requirements for contractors and the need for soil borings or pre- excavation inspections. Member Sprague suggested that the enforcement should not be triggered by a demolition permit, but rather a building permit, so that major remodeling projects could be enforced, too. Member Bennett suggested that the ordinance have three parts, one for provisions applying to both demolition and construction activities, one for provisions applying only to demolition activities, and the third for provisions applying_ only to construction activities Member Swenson said it is important for the Council to achieve some consensus in order to stifle community fears and improve communication before the next Council meeting. Council Members tabled their discussion on the proposed ordinance at 5:33 p.m., agreeing to pick up the conversation during their regular meeting at 7 p.m. After a short recess, the meeting was reconvened at 5:39 p.m. to meet with the Community Health Committee. Members of the Committee present were Kumar Belani, !M.D., Melinda Bothun - Hurley, Matt Doscotch, Janet Johnson, Mary Jo Kingston, Nadia Martyn, Alison Pence, student Helen Risser and Joel Stegner. Other Board and Commission members present were Louise Segreto of the Park Board and Paul Nelson and Katherine Bass of the Transportation Commission. Janelle Waldock, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota's Director of Center for Prevention, presented "From a Vision to Practice: Health in All Policies." At the conclusion of her presentation, Ms. Waldock recommended the Council consider a resolution to explore a Health in All Policies approach for the City of Edina, amend the Minutes /Edina City Council Work Session /March 19, 2013 City's mission and vision statements to include Health in All Policies principles and convene an interdisciplinary task force to assess policy and process changes needed for implementation of a Health in All Policies Approach. Member Swenson pointed out that the City is already doing many good things to advance health in the community, but that there isn't something that ties them all together. Ms. Waldock said a Health in All Policy would do that. Member Bennett asked Ms. Waldock who has led the initiative for Health in All Policies in other communities: the government or the community? She explained that sometimes, elected official get feedback that these types of initiatives are partisan. Ms. Waldock said successful implementation often requires leadership by both elected officials and community members. Member Brindle asked if a sort of "four -way test" could be developed for measuring health impact. Council Members reviewed the Committee's work plan and discussed the importance of walkability in the community. Mayor Hovland adjourned the meeting at 6:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by Edina City Council, April 2, 2013 2 Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Technology Services Director James B. Hovland, Mayor Subledger Account Description REPAIR PARTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD'MIX PRINTING 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page 1 SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL (BILLING) VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINEINEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD GENERAL SUPPLIES SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register 3/21/2013 - 3121/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 369383 312112013 101971 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC. 106.69 HOCKEY GOAL BANDING 00001803 310403 1- 847483 1648.6530 106.69 369384 .312112013 103173 ACCOUNTEM_PS 741.00 UB TEMP 310248 37460526 5910.6103 741.00 369385 312112013 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 111.60 310327 1659890 5862.5515 46.80 310657 1661667 5862.5515 158.40 369386 312112013 102715 ALLEGRA EDINA 130.58 EDIN PARK PRESS EVENTS 310404 97456 5710.6575 130.58 369387 312112013 100665 AMSAN 120.56 NITRILE GLOVES 00001614 310405 282360627 1646.6406 120.56 369388 3/21/2013 100630 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY 614.71 ABOUT TOWN PAPER 310249 10354367 -00 1130.6123 31173.07 ABOUT TOWN PAPER 310506 10354367 -01 1130.6123 3,787.78 369389 312112013 101874 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC. 785.30 EAR JACKS 310288 35695 1280.6406 820.50 RADIO CHARGERS 310289 35425 1280.6406 - 1,605.80 369390 3/2112013 102172 APPERT'S FOODSERVICE 396.01 CONCESSION PRODUCT 310406 1886872 5730.5510 730.18 _ CONCESSION PRODUCT 310407 1889106 5730.5510 923.21 CONCESSION PRODUCT 310408 1892772 5730.5510 2,049.40 369391 3121/2013 118491 APPLE INC. 490.56 IPAD MINI 00004306 310507 4231461375 1470.6406 99.00 WARRANTY 00004306 310508 4231461374 1470.6406 633.84 IPAD 00004306 310508 4231461374 5510.6513 772.80 IPAD 00004306 310508 4231461374 5913.6406 Subledger Account Description REPAIR PARTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD'MIX PRINTING 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page 1 SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL (BILLING) VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINEINEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD GENERAL SUPPLIES SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES ARENA ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Council Check Register Page - 2 3/21/2013 - 3/21/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv,No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 878.77 IPAD 00004306 310508 4231461374 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 981.75 [PAD 00004306 310508 4231461374 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES INSPECTIONS 1,969.49 IPADS 00004306 310508 4231461374 1470.6406 - GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 5.826.21 369392 3/21/2013 114475 ARMOR SECURITY INC. i 154.38 MONITORING SERVICE 310409 168690 1646.6103 PR OFESSIONAL'SERVICES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 102.92 310410 168691 1646.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING MAINTENANCE` 257.30 369393 3/2112013 126019 8 & 8 PRODUCTS I RIGS AND SQUA 250.00 SQUAD MAINTENANCE 310290 3888 ' 1400.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE: POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 250.00 369394 3121/2013 129624 BARNA GUZY & STEFFEN LTD 64.00 GENERAL LABOR LEGAL 310250 113416' 1170.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES 64.00 369395 - 312112013 100643 BARR ENGINEERING CO. 10,408.00 SANITARY SEWER ANALYSIS 310251 23271180.00 -9 5923.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 10,408.00 369396 3121/2013 117353 BASSFORD REMELE 52.50 LITIGATION 310291 157460 1195.6131 PROFESSIONAL SERV - LEGAL LEGALSERVICES _ 52.50 369397 312112013 102195 BATTERIES PLUS 7.47 BATTERIES 00001823 310411 018 - 296720 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 7.47 369398 3121/2013 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION, 721.90 310328 77263700 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING _ 146.06 310329 88100000 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 108.70 310330 6293500 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 89.55 310331 77263900 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 56TH ST SELLING 325.00 310553 77371300 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 364.65 310554 77361500 5642.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 11,157.05 310555 77361400 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING ' 64.21 310658,, 87239000 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING _. 151.69 310659 88099900 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 108.70 310660 6295100 5862.5515 COST.OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING R 224.40 310661 88130300 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SFII ING CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 3 3121/2013 -- 312112013 Check # Date Amount Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No . Subledger Account Description Business Unit ; 136.24 310662 88130200 5862.5515 COST OF GOODSSOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 3,598.15 369399 312112013 126847 -BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 275.40 COFFEE 310252 1077597 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 159.65 COFFEE 310292 1077580 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 435.05 369.400 3/21/2013 131708 BICOTT, NATALIE 24.00 CLASS REFUND 310509 031313 5101.4607 • CLASS REGISTRATION ART CENTER REVENUES i� 24.00 369401 312112013 101375 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS 32.60 KEYS 00001706 310412 S81135 1646.6556 TOOLS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 32.60 369402 312112013 124151 BLUE BOOK 38.95 MN BLUE BOOKS 00003149 310293 4706 1400.6405 BOOKS & PAMPHLETS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 38.95 4 369403 3/21/2013 102545 .BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MN 132,931.00 APRIL 2013 PREMIUM 310683 11006 - 4/2013 1550.6040 HOSPITALIZATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 18,488.00 APRIL 2013 PREMIUM 310684 030113 1550.6043 COBRA INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 151.419.00 . 369404 312112013 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS 87.56 FRAMES 310413 83735 1552.6406, GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING _ 135.86 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00003597 310618 84967 1470.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 223.42 369405 312112013 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 1,465.60 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003596 310619 81027771 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1.465.60 369406 3/2112013 119351 BOURGET IMPORTS 451.50 310332 112325 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 451.50 369407 3/21/2013 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS - 5,023.13. DIFFERENTIAL 00005057 310414 721927 1553.6530 - REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 81.46 GASKETS, OIL BATH 00005058 310415 721998 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 4,114.69 DIFFERENTIAL 00005058 310416 722000 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS- EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN RSSCKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Council Check Register Page - 4 3/21/2013 - 3/21/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description. ,Business Unit - 81.67 OIL SEAL 00005036 310417 722694 1553.6530. REPAIRjPARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN a 102.69 PANEL 310418 722957 "1553.65130 REPAIR °PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 561.09 -. CREDIT 00005058 310693 CM722000 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION-'GEN 2,003.91- CREDIT 00005057 310694 CM721927 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ,. 6,838.64 369408 3/21/2013 122318 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 125.00 BOARDS /COMMISSIONS DINNER 310294 2083 1100.6106 MEETING EXPENSE CITY COUNCIL 125.00 n 369409 3/21/2013 103239 BRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS CO. 167.77 - WINDOW REPAIR 310419 5210725 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 167.77 369410 312112013 102911 BROOKS, JOHN 585.20 "COURSE REIMBURSEMENT 310620 031413 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 585.20 369411 3/2112013 103254 BRO -TEX INC. fit 466.51 PIG MAT 00005814 310603 430695 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 466.51 369412 3/21/2013 131711 , BROWN, DIANE 475:00 BUILDING RENTAL REFUND 310621 OCT 5 5751.4555 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK% CENTENNIAL LAKES REVENUE 475.00 J! - 369413 312112013 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 180.95 310333 253429 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 3,608.15 310334 253428 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 35.30 310335 253427 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 3,824.40 369414 3/21/2013 116683 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE 265.00 310336 95487 - 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 89.50 310477 95496 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 129.50 310478 95504 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING - 484.00 369415 3/21/2013 131707 CENTENNIAL LAKES II LLC 3,295.22 LEGAL FEE EASEMENT NO. 1 310510 031313. 01404.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN FRANCE AVE PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR 3,295.22 CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 . ' R55CKREG LOG20000 r Council Check Register Page - - 5 b 3/21/2013 - 3/2112013 Check #., Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account.No, Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369416 3121/2013 100897. CENTERPOINT ENERGY 131.84 310295. 030513 5430.6186 HEAT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 209.65 310295 030513 5821.6186 HEAT" 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 400.80 310295 030513 5422.6186 HEAT MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS - 412.47 310295 030513 5861.6186 HEAT VERNON OCCUPANCY " 456.74 310295 030513 5841.6186 HEAT YORK OCCUPANCY j 471.35 310295 030513 1481.6186 HEAT YORK FIRE STATION 1,016:48 310295 030513 1552.6186 HEAT CENT. SVC PW BUILDING 1,032.21 310295 030513 5913.6186 HEAT DISTRIBUTION 1,088.45 310295 030513 5111.6186 HEAT ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT 1,264.52 310295, 030513 5921.6186 HEAT SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 1,459.77 310295 030513 5420.6186 HEAT CLUB HOUSE 1,851.98 310295 030513 5761.6186 HEAT CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING j " 2,140.08 310295 030513 1628.6186 HEAT SENIOR CITIZENS 2,985.49 310295 030513 5911.6186 HEAT WELL PUMPS ` - - 3,333.85 310295 030513 1646.6186 HEAT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 9,144.15 310295 030513 5511.6186 HEAT ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 27,399.83 369417 312112013 103711 CENTERPOINT. ENERGY SERVICES IN 88.71 310685 2576922 5311.6186 HEAT_ POOL OPERATION 5,475.37 - 310686 2576462 5720.6186 HEAT EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS " 5,564.08 - - I 369418 312112013 119661. CENTRAL ENVELOPE CORPORATION 216.75- ENVELOPES 310253 70885 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 216.75 " 369419 312112013 102804 CENTURY COLLEGE 1,900.00 , ACLS REFRESHER .` 310622 00497924 1470.6104 CONFERENCES &SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,900.00 3694.20. 3/2112013 123898 CENTURYLINK 606.52 612 E12 -6797 310254 6797 -3/13 - 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 606.52 612 E01 -0426 310255 -: 0426 -3/13" = 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 205.88 952 835 -6661 310256 6661 -3/13 1552.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SVC PW BUILDING 107.22 952 835 -1161 310257 1161 -3/13 5720.6188 TELEPHONE EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 1.04.93 GV911 612 E23 -0652 310296 0652 -3113 2310.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES E911 " 58.27 952 9441481 310420 1841 -3/13 1640.6188 TELEPHONE PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 155.32 952 285 -2951 310421 2951 -3/13 1470.6188 TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,844.66 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 3/21/2013 - 312112013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 369421 312112013 117187 CHEM SYSTEMS LTD 107.94 AIR FRESHENER DISPENSERS 00008073 310258 517450 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 107.94 369422 3121/2013 100683 CHEMSEARCH 717.79 WATER TREATMENT PROGRAM 310695 1029983 5510.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 717.79 369423 3121/2013 131712 CHOJOR, JAMYANG 199.22 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 310623 0304251002 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND 199.22 369424 3/21/2013 103040 CITY PAGES 291.66 EDINA LIQUOR ADVERTISING 310259 D10061723 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 291.67 EDINA LIQUOR ADVERTISING 310259 D10061723 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 291.67 EDINA LIQUOR ADVERTISING 310259 D10061723 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 875.00 369425 312112013 100692 COCA -COLA REFRESHMENTS 165.20 310337 0178028511 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 199.60 310663 0178029033 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 364.80 369426 312112013 120433 COMCAST 29.08 8772 10 614 0220686 310422 220686 -3/13 5710.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 67.46 8772 10 614 0419858 310696 419858 -3/13 5510.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 96.54 369427 312112013 100695 CONTINENTAL CLAY CO. 58.09 CRAFT SUPPLIES 310624 R200385954 5110.6564 CRAFTSUPPLIES 58.09 369428 3/21/2013 121267 CREATIVE RESOURCES 807.68 BIRTHDAY PARTY CUPS 310423 19893 5720.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 807.68 369429 312112013 131575 DAKOTA WORLDWIDE CORPORATION 1,166.66 MARKETANALYSIS 310687 8813 5860.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,166.67 MARKETANALYSIS 310687 8813 5820.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,166.67 MARKETANALYSIS 310687 8813 5840.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,500.00 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page - 6 Business Unit ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS ARENA ADMINISTRATION UTILITY BALANCE SHEET VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION ARENA ADMINISTRATION ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 50TH STREET GENERAL LIQUOR YORK GENERAL CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 R55CKREG LOG20000 - '- Council Check Register Page - 7 3/21/2013 - 3121/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369430 312112013 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 43.90 310338 - 691110 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX - VERNON SELLING n 89.60 310339 692126 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 2,101.40" ' 310340 692125 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 66.30 310341 692123. 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 3,866.30 310342 692122 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 705.90. 310479 692124 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD, BEER 50TH.ST SELLING 6,873.40 369431 3/2112013 129884 DEARBORN NATIONAL LIFE INSURAN 2,197.08 APR 2013 STD 310297 031113 9900.2033.16 LTD - 99 PAYROLL CLEARING 2,197.08 ' 369432 312112013. 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. 28.29 SOCKETS 00005033 310424 776719 1553.6556 TOOLS - EQUIPMENT OPERATION.GEN 28.29 ' -.369433 312112013 122135, 'DENFELD, SCOTT 122.61 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 310511 031313 1130.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS 122.61 369434 3/2112013 100899 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 8, INDUSTRY 6,987.19 F_ EB 2013 SURCHARGE 310625 16282053060 1495.4380 SURCHARGE INSPECTIONS 6,987.19 369435 3/2112013 104314 DEPOSITORY TRUST & CLEARING CO 1,147.00 CONFIRMATION FEE 310425 3968 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES " 1,147.00 - 369436 312112013 102831 DEX MEDIA EAST INC. 97.25 651972955 310426 651972955 -2/13 5710.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 151.20 650487671 310697 650487671 - 3113._ 5511.6188 TELEPHONE ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 248.45. 369437 312112013 123162 DISH 64.74 8255 7070 8142 2839 -- 310706 030413 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 64.74' 369438 3121/2013 124503 EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC CO. 7.64 DRILL BITS 00001808 310604 09762100 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 981.55 WIRING FOR EOC 00001807 '310626 09761500 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 989.19 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 3/21/2013 — 3/21/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 369439 312112013 101630 EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1,020.00 GYM PERMIT #46372 310627 14586 1600.4722.10 CITY GYM USER FEE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS CONSULTING DESIGN COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page - 8 Business Unit PARK ADMIN. GENERAL CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT GRANDVIEW TIF DISTRICT GRANDVIEW TIF DISTRICT FIRE DEPT. GENERAL L -58 TRACY AVE LIGHTING TRACYAVE TRACYAVE BA -368 TRACY AVE RECON TRACYAVE LS44 LIFT STATION 1 REHAB VERNON SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN WATER METER REPLACEMENT 1,020.00 369440 3121/2013 100049 EHLERS 100.00 CENTENNIAL LAKES CASH FLOW 310512 345995 9232.6103 50.00 GRANDVIEW TIF 310513 345996 9234.6103 100.00 GRANDVIEW TIF REPORTING 310514 345997 9234.6103 250.00 369441 3/21/2013 101956 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC 12,131.47 E -81 REPAIRS 310628 65650 1470.6180 12,131.47 369442 3/21/2013 130604 EUREKA CONSTRUCTION 28.50 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 5 310605 030513 08058.1705.30 5,570.80 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 5 310605 030513 04388.1705.30 12,009.62 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 5 310605 030513 03472.1705.30 14,010.13 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 5 310605 030513 01368.1705.30 14,476.77 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 5 310605 030513 05526.1705.30 46,095.82 369443 312112013 101476 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES 729.95 EASEMENT ACQUISITION AGENT 310427 00 -10615 10044.1705.20 729.95 369444 3121/2013 104195 EXTREME BEVERAGE LLC. 167.50 310664 W- 717805 5862.5515 167.50 369445 3121/2013 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 80.88- RETURN 310698 1- 4116820, 1553.6530 54.96 LINK KITS 310699 69- 093030 1553.6530 46.00 BULBS 310700 1- 4127126 1553.6530 20.08 369446 3/21/2013 126004 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 247,727.05 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 9 310515 032213 05536.1705.30 247,727.05 369447 3/21/2013 120329 FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS CONSULTING DESIGN COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page - 8 Business Unit PARK ADMIN. GENERAL CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT GRANDVIEW TIF DISTRICT GRANDVIEW TIF DISTRICT FIRE DEPT. GENERAL L -58 TRACY AVE LIGHTING TRACYAVE TRACYAVE BA -368 TRACY AVE RECON TRACYAVE LS44 LIFT STATION 1 REHAB VERNON SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN WATER METER REPLACEMENT CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register 3/21/2013 -3121/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 27778 HOSE 00003580 310629 7849 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page- 9 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 5440.5511 277.78 " 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 369448 3/2112013 5440.5511 122683 FIRE USA INC. PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 615.00 HOSE 00003598 310630 59050 1553.6530 615.00 EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 369449 312112013 1553.6530 129500 FLAT EARTH BREWING CO. EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1553.6530 .REPAIR PARTS 166.00 5511.6201 310556 6118 1646.6201 166.00 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 5913.6201 LAUNDRY- 369450 3/2112013 1552.6511 101475 FOOTJOY . CENT SVC PW BUILDING 1553.6201 LAUNDRY 309.54 MERCHANDISE 310260 4791267 1554.6230 5,582:80 CENT SERV GEN = MIS 310261 4795509 ARENA ICE MAINT 15,717.73 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 310262 4793358 720.05 310263 4799962 -- 8,870:50 - SHOE RETURN 310690 6940656 -. 13,459.62 369461 c312112013 102727 FORCEAMERICA 1,178.84 PUMP, PTO 310428 01400257 '1,178.84- CREDIT 310429 01401043 2,596.60 SPREADER ASSEMBLY 00005027 310430 01401373 ' 934.30 JOYSTICK 00005035 310431 01401544 3,530.90 369452 312112013. 100764 .G & K SERVICES 49.69 310516 022813 64.47 310516 022813 69.20 310516 022813 1Y9.P9 310516 022813 182.72 310516 022813 248.86 310516 022813 744.23 369453 3121/2013 115314 GALAXY COMPUTER INC. 80.00 LEXMARK PRINTER MAINTENANCE 310264 7500 koo 369454 3/21120/3 100768 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG IN 1,145.00 COMPRESSOR REPAIR 310265 41591 2,566.90 COMPRESSOR REPAIR .310266 41592 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page- 9 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP'RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES ' 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1553.6530 .REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5511.6201 LAUNDRY ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 5913.6201 LAUNDRY- DISTRIBUTION 1552.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 1553.6201 LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ' 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1554.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN = MIS 5521.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA ICE MAINT 5521.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA ICE MAINT R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Council Check Register Page - 10 3/21/2013 - 3121/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 3,711.90 369455 312112013 100920 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY - MINNEA 73.17 PARTS 310432 022813 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 152.28 PARTS 310432 022813 5761.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 863.03 PARTS 310432 022813 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 1,088.48 369456 3/2112013 125289 GLOCK PROFESSIONAL INC. 195.00 ARMORER'S COURSE 310707 TRP/100037811 7410.6218 EDUCATION PROGRAMS PSTF ADMINISTRATION 195.00 369457 3121/2013 102383 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS AS 455.00 MEMBERSHIP 310517 0123001 -2013 1160.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FINANCE 455.00 369458 312112013 101103 GRAINGER 65.90 BATTERIES, SHOP TOWELS 310433 9079233996 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 29.88 DEGREASER 00001709 310434 9081843360 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 45.82 ROLLER CHAIN 310435 9084226688 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 9.00 SAFETY GLASSES 00005086 310436 9084687483 5913.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION 17.36 PAINT MARKERS 00005086 310436 9084687483 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 659.84 TABLE MOVER, DOLLY 00006154 310518 9078272938 5420.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CLUB HOUSE 827.80 369459 3/21/2013 102320 HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS 185.81 THERMAL PAPER 00007516 310437 115519 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 185.81 369460 3/2112013 103835 HANRAHAN, BRIAN 491.22 COURSE REIMBURSEMENT 310631 031413 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 491.22 369461 3121/2013 125270 HARTFORD -PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 7,332.08 APR 2013 PREMIUM 310632 6254588 -4 9900.2033.05 LIFE INSURANCE - 99 PAYROLL CLEARING 84.77 COBRA 310633 APR 2013 1550.6043 COBRA INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 7,416.85 369462 3/21/2013 102164 HCMC EMS EDUCATION 550.00 ULTRASOUND TRAINING 310637 1328 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 550.00 CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 R55CKREG LOG20000`. Council Check Register Page - 11 3/2112013 - 312112013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369463 312112013 122093 HEALTH PARTNERS 1,278:57 APR 2013 PREMIUM 310634 42964300 1550.6043 COBRA INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL q 10,997.35 310635 42976888 1550.6040 HOSPITALIZATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 12,275.92 369464 3/2112013 128367 HEFTY GRAPICS INC. 121.41 SCHEDULING BOOKS 310438 1302044 5710.6575 PRINTING, EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 121.41 369465 3/21/2013 105436 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER_ 1,796.70 RADIO ADMIN FEE 310267 130238115 1400.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL -POLICE DEPT. GENERAL _ - 1,272.00 RADIO ADMIN FEE 310636 130238114 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL' 651.90 RADIO ADMIN FEE 310701 130238176 1301.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE 3,720.60 369466 312112013 103753 HILLYARD INC -MINNEAPOLIS 119.35 FOAM WASH 00002295 310439 600601683 5720.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 188.45 HAND SANITIZER, BODY WASH 310440 600601684 5720.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 307.80 'r 369467 312112013 100805 HIRSHFIELD'S 119.26 PAINT, SUPPLIES 00006142 310519 03044544 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 65:47 PAINT, SUPPLIES_ 00006161 310520 03047069 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL . 184.73 369468 3/2112013 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX ; -. VERNON SELLING 56.00 310343 637993 , 310344 638994 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER- VERNON SELLING 1,043.50 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 689.00 310480 639007 310481 639211 5B42.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,027.00 3,815.50 369469 312112013 101632_ HOLIDAY 122.13 1400 - 003 -772 -977 310638 RIPLEY TRAINING 1470.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL _ FUEL 122.13 369470 312112013 102205 HOMBERGER, JEFF 51.98 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 310521 031413 5410.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE GOLF ADMINISTRATION 51.98 369471 3/21/2013 100417 HORIZON COMMERCIAL POOL SUPPLY R55CKREG LOG20000 129635 JESSE JAMES CREATIVE INC. CITY OF EDINA 1,100.00 369476 312112013 125031 J.S. PALUCH COMPANY INC. JJ5185 1130.6124 1,100.00 Council Check Register 33.70 518033 BRAEMARAD 310523 1225394 -2113 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 3/21/2013 - 3/21/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 310346 2057262 458.09 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 310441 13021811 5720.6545 CHEMICALS 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 458.09 310348 310444 022813 1628.6406- 369472 3121/2013 2057313 101697 HORIZON GRAPHICS INC 022813 1470.4760 DONATIONS - GOVT FUND 213.19 5842.5514 1,071.48 BIRTHDAY INSERTS /MENUS 310442 32151 5710.6575 PRINTING 1.071.48 369473 3121/2013 103869 HOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MINNESOTA 56.74 SWITCH 00006160 310522 42209 5431.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 56.74 369474 312112013 112628 ICEE COMPANY, THE 79.54 CONCESSION PRODUCT 310443 2053996 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 79.54 369475 3/21/2013 131544 INDEED BREWING COMPANY 3120/2013 7:49:11 Page - 12 Business Unit EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 300.00. 310665 11356 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 300.00 129635 JESSE JAMES CREATIVE INC. 1,100.00 369476 312112013 125031 J.S. PALUCH COMPANY INC. JJ5185 1130.6124 1,100.00 33.70 518033 BRAEMARAD 310523 1225394 -2113 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 33.70 73.80 310345 2057288 369477 3121/2013 100828 JERRYS FOODS 310346 2057262 5862.5515 7.99 310444 022813 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.87 310348 310444 022813 1628.6406- GENERALSUPPLIES 93.31 2057313 310444 022813 1470.4760 DONATIONS - GOVT FUND 213.19 5842.5514 310444 022813 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 369478 3/2112013 129635 JESSE JAMES CREATIVE INC. 1,100.00 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE 310524 JJ5185 1130.6124 1,100.00 369479 3/21/2013 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 73.80 310345 2057288 5842.5514 108.80 310346 2057262 5862.5515 3,777.25 310347 2057261 5862.5514 2,794.10 310348 2057266 5822.5514 156.90 310557 2057313 5842.5515 10,619.35 310558 2057312 5842.5514 4,235.28 310559 2057296 5862.5514 WEB DEVELOPMENT COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 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 GOLF ADMINISTRATION PLAYGROUND & THEATER SENIOR CITIZENS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GRILL COMMUNICATIONS YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date 369480 312112013 Amount Supplier/ Explanation 21.00 36.56- 21.60- 3,616.15 104.00 - 62.40- 25,178.07 PO # Doc No 310560 310561 310562 310666 310667 310668 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 3/21/2013 - 312112013 Inv No Account No 2057297 5862.5513 2057311 5842.5514 1459298 5842.5514 2057302 5822.5514 2023017 5842.5514 2023018 5822.5514 124104 JOHN DEER_ E LANDSCAPES INC. 18.70 ICE MELT 00006375 310525 63815433 18.70 Subledger. Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD.WINE 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 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page - 13 Business Unit VERNON SELLING -YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL .369481 3121/2013 .100833. JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA IN 390.46 FILTERS, OIL 00001804 310606 10047097 -00 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION . 390.46 369484 3/21/2013 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 495.59 310349 1517990 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING - 220.50 310350. 1517471 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE._ 50TH ST SELLING 2,058.52 310351 1517472 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 769.40 310352 1517469 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 294.05 310353 1518732 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 99.36 310354. 1518731 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 7,26- 310355 567349 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 33.53- 310356 568738 5842.5513 COST OF-GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 11.73- 310357 568739 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 325.60- 310358 568424 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE -50TH ST SELLING 6.00- 310359 568740 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 4.16- 310360 568063 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 181,11- 310361 - 568245 5862.5512 COST.OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 192.00 310482 1520420 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS'SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 27.38- 310483 569039 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 87.00 - 310484 569489 5862.5513 COST OF GOODSSOLD WINE VERNON SELLING' 703.81 310563 1522685 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR: 50TH ST SELLING 1,198.38 310564 1522683 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 1,505.32 310565 1522704 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 4,384.75 310566 1522706 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE - VERNON SELLING 2,258.13 310567 1522702 5862.5513 COST OF GOODSSOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,188.48 310568 1522682 5862.5513 COST -OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,504.25 310569 1522703 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,127.69 310570 .1522705 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS,SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 287.69 310571 1522707 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF'EDINA 3120/2013 7:49:11 Council Check Register r Page - 14 3!21/2013 - 3/21/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description ' = Business Unit' 20.99 310572 1522699 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,767.09 310573 1522692 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD.WINE YORK SELLING 2,188.47 310574 1522681 5842.5513 COST OF'GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 29.12 310575 1522700 5842.5513 COST OF, GOODS SOLD WINE - YORK SELLING 5,210.06 310576 1522698 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SO1LD,WINE YORK SELLING 2,420.92 310577 1522693 5842.5513 COST OF.•'GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4,120.47 310578 1522694 5842:5512 COST OF'GOODS SOLD LIQUOR -YORK SELLING .15 310579 1522688 5842:5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORKSELLING 875.05 310580 1522701 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING .19 310581 1522686 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,880.59 310562 1522696 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 31.37 310583 1522695 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 14.50- 310584 569488 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD .WINE YORK SELLING 165.50 310669 1523215 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS'SOLD WINE i. YORK SELLING 360.56 310670 -1523982 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE. YORK SELLING 1,740.98 310671 1522687 58225513 COST OF GOODS SOLD`WWE ' SOTH ST SELLING 1,021.56 310672 1522684 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 44,422.72 369485 312112013. 100357 JOHNSON, DAN - 63.58 UNIFORM PURCHASE 310526 031313 1646.6201 LAUNDRY- BUILDING MAINTENANCE ' 63.58 - 369486 3/2112013 111018 KEEPRS INC. 183.59 UNIFORMS 00003576 310639 208558 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 71.98 00003574 310640 209592 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 579.96 00003576 310641 208558 -01 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 835.53 369487 3/21/2013 116776 KUSTOM KARRIERS 153.74 DWI TOW 310445 031313 2340.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -DWI FORFEITURE i. 153.74 369488 3121/2013 100605 LANDS' END BUSINESS OUTFITTERS - 554.55 STAFF.UNIFORMS 310446 SIN588010 5842.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES- YORK SELLING 554.55 369489 312112013 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 762.36 SCREWS, NUTS, CLAMPS 00005931 310447 9301480076 1553.6536 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 762.36 0 369490. 3/2112013 116399 L'HEUREUX, ADAM CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 R55CKREG LOG20000 Page - 15 Council Check Register 3/2112013 - 3/21/2013 Check # Date Amount . Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 126.37 REIMBURSEMENT 310527 HAND GUN SAFE 1400.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 126.37 369491 312112013 130106 LIFELINE TRAINING LTD 129.00 ADV CRIMINAL PATROL TACTICS - 310298 5195 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 129.00 369492 312112013 112577. M. AMUNDSON LLP 310362 148138 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 846.901.- 846:90 369493 312112013 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. • 310448 2131759 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 101.57 38.B0. SEALS SHEAR BUSHINGS' - 00005061 310607 :. 2131834 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN, " 88.93 SHEAR BOLTS, NUTS 00005061 310608 2131835 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 229.30 369494 3121/2013 100866. MAMA 20.00 2/14/13 LUNCHEON- K. KURT 310450 1149 1120.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION 20.00 369495 3/21/2013 122878. MARTTI, DOROTHEA 480.00 . EDITING AND HOSTING 310528 180 1130.6103 PROFESSIONAL-' SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 480.00 369496 3121/2013 102560 MAXIMUM SOLUTIONS INC. 325.00 SOFTWARE SERVICEAGREEMENT 310451 13953 5720.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 325.00 369497 312112013 131067 MCFILINO LAKES 5500.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET 3,375.00 ICWC PROGRAM 310268 126646 3,375.00 369498 3121/2013 131705 MCGOVERN, PAT REGISTRATION FEES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 385.00 SOFTBALL OVERPAYMENT REFUND 310529 031413 4077.4390 385.00 369499 :312112013- 101483 MENARDS 19466 5440.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 26.64 OAK TRIM 00006374 3105 30 26.64 369500 312112013 100885 METRO SALES INC R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/2012013 7:49:11 Council Check Register Page - 16 - 3/21 /2013 - 3/21/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No -. ; Account.No Subledger Account Description Business Unit- a 143.21 COPIER USAGE_ 310642 507344,.- 5110.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL ART CENTER' ADMINISTRATION 143.21 369501 312112013_ 102729 METROPOLITAN FORD OF EDEN PRAI 89.00 REPAIRS -310449 216348 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 89.00 369502 3121/2013 104650 MICRO CENTER 34.16 DVDS 310269 4335323 1130.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS a- 34.16 369503 3121/2013 101161 - MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUPPLY - 834.85 SUPPLIES 310452 34290- 155116511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL - 1,182.00 SUPPLIES 310452 34290 1551.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 349.70 CAN LINERS, DETERGENT 00003593 310643 34291 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,366.55 369504 3/21/2013 102582 . MINN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 100.00 ELEVATOR LICENSE 310645 ALR00260651 1470.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 100.00 369505 3/21/2013 102007 MINNCOR INDUSTRIES 71.55 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PLATES 00003151' 310270 SOI -011067 1400.6406. GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 71.55 X369506 312112013 101638 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 23.00 CLASS C LICENSE 310531 TRAVIS IVERSON 5919.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS TRAINING +• 23.00 369507 3/21/2013 100903 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR INC 276.00 ELEVATOR REPAIRS 310453 269663 5720.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 276.00 - 369508. 3121/2013 115975 MINNESOTA LEGAL REGISTER 95.00 2013 SUBSCRIPTION 310644 201344 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING 95.00 369509 .312112013 101537 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG 55.00 SB EXAM 310299 NATE BEHLEN . 5919.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS TRAINING 55.00 369510 3/21/2013 101459 MINNESOTA RECREATION& PARKAS m R55CKREG LOG20000 ,. CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Council Check Register Page - 17 3/21/2013 — 3/21/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 100.00 JOB POSTING 310271 7680 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 100.00 s 369511 3/2112013 128914 MINUTEMAN PRESS 109.87. INVITATIONS, ENVELOPES 310702 13002 5510.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ARENA ADMINISTRATION 109.87 369512 312112013 106668 MORRIS; GRAYLYN 200:00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 3 /28/13 310272 030113 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC-' OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION l 200.00 369513 3121/2013 100912 MOTOROLA INC. 1,635.12. SERVICE AGREEMENT .- 310646 78226229 1400.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT . POLICE DEPT. GENERAL T ,635.12 _ 369514 .3/2112013 101796 MPCA 1,750.00 RAP IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 310454 _ 7700005811 05535.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION PW BRAEMAR SITE LEAD ABATEMENT 1,750.00 369515 - 3/21/2013 100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC. 95.26 GRINDING WHEELS 00006362 310532 886797 -00 = 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS " 95.25 .369516 312112013 106662 NET LITIN DISTRIBUTORS 297.42 TABLECOVERS 310455 215016 5720.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 297:42 369517 3/2112013 124528, NORTHEAST WISCONSIN TECHNICAL 1,400.00, TASER TRAINING 310708 SFT0000071401 7410.6218 EDUCATION PROGRAMS -. PSTF ADMINISTRATION 1,400.00 369518 312112013 117830 NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC.. 142.03 DIGITAL RECORDER REPAIR 310609 IN42144 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 142.03 369519 312112013 100933 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY CO. 644.23 WATER COLORS, CANVAS, TAPE 00009242 310647 43674200 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY-GIFT GALLERY SHOP 263.74 ART SUPPLIES 00009242 310648 43674201 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 3.85 ART-SUPPLIES 00009231 310649 43519502 ` 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 263.18 PAPER, WATER COLORS 00009246 310650 43756600 5120.5510 _COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 1,175.00 1 � r R55CKREG LOG20000 MONTHLY FEE 310688 22200732 CITY OF EDINA BANK SERVICES CHARGES GENERAL (BILLING) 39.95 Council Check Register 369524 3121/2013 110832 PC2 SOLUTIONS INC. 3/21/2013 - 3121/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 369520 3/2112013 131709 NORVELL, SENECA 369525 3/2112013 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 95.00 CLASS REFUND 310533 031313 5101.4607 CLASS REGISTRATION 09421754 5520.5510 95.00 ARENA CONCESSIONS 278.70 310365 00114902 369521 3/2112013 VERNON SELLING 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 310457 09421818 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 194.31 OFFICE SUPPLIES 310456 647380246001 5710.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 369526 3/2112013 21.37 STAPLER 310534 1558048971 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 49.65 215.68 2388371 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 682.61 369522 312112013 2388079 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 282.24 310368 2388086 1,369.99 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 310363 8391281 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 3500241 5862.5512 2,615.53 VERNON SELLING 310364 8391293 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1,180.88 42.47- 310485 8391290 -IN 5822.5513. COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 114.50 310585 8391559 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 223.36 106.25 310588 310586 8391380 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 584.99 5,387.15 2391525 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,792.22 369523 3/2112013 2391523 125492 PAYPAL INC. COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page - 18 Business Unit ART CENTER REVENUES EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 39.95 MONTHLY FEE 310688 22200732 5910.6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES GENERAL (BILLING) 39.95 369524 3121/2013 110832 PC2 SOLUTIONS INC. 1,190.00 IT CONSULTING 310535 30913009 1554.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENT SERV GEN - MIS 1,190.00 369525 3/2112013 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 749.57 310273 09421754 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 278.70 310365 00114902 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 214.15 310457 09421818 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 1,242.42 369526 3/2112013 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 49.65 310366 2388371 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 682.61 310367 2388079 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 282.24 310368 2388086 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 62.12- 310369 3500241 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 20.92- 310486 3500517 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 42.47- 310487 3500516 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 515.32 310587 2391524 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 223.36 310588 2391514 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 584.99 310589 2391525 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,792.22 310590 2391523 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING d CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 R55CKREG LOG20000' Council Check Register Page - 19 3/21/2013 - 312112013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # '- Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account. Description Business Unit 216.04 310591 2391515 5622.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 1,215.99 310592 2391522 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,092.84 310593 2391520 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING, 3,268.77 310594 2391518 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 306.94 310595 2391513 5642.5513 -COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2391519 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 515.36 310596 310597 2391521 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 149.94 117.01 310673 2391516 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,456.71 310674 2391512 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH`ST' SELLING 12;344.48 - 369527 3/2112013 -. 124176- PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING 310370 17668 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 25.60 310371 17669 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING ` 89.60 310372 17654 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS'SOLDMIX - VERNON SELLING 172.80 " 288.00 369528 3.12112013 129706 PREMIUM WATERS INC. 71.76 - 622833 WATER 310458 622833 -02 -13 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS _ 71.76 369529 312112013 131706 PRIDE, JOAN . 90.44 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 310536 031413 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT.-GENERAL 90.44 3121/2013 128861 PRIMARY PRODUCTS COMPANY ..369530 69.09 ;GLOVES 00005084 310459 50155 1553.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN - i 69.09 - 369531 3/2112013 100966 PRINTERS SERVICE INC 234.00 ZAMBONI BLADE SHARPENING' 310274 263969 5521.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ARENA ICE MAINT - 75.00 - BLADE SHARPENING 310460 263917 1648.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE 309.00 369532 312112013 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 406.96 LINERS, SOAP, CLEANERS 00002318 310275 6047 5761.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL' LAKES OPERATING - 29130 TISSUE, CAN LINERS 00002293 310461 5925 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ` EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS' j 1,063.79 PLATES, CUTLERY SETS 00002299 310462 5935 5720.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 404.17 ROLL TOWELS, TISSUE, GLOVES 00002297 310463 5929, 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES::. - - EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 393.86 CUPS, LIDS 00002299 310464 5934 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 249.99 TO TISSUE, LINERS 310465 6002 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS: 2,811.07 R55CKREG LOG20000 525.00 CITY OF EDINA 310537 213151 -8 5510.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARENA ADMINISTRATION Council Check Register 2,945.00 ABOUT TOWN AD COMMISSION 310538 313151 -7 3/21/2013 — 3/21/2013 MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 369533 3/21/2013 105690 PRO -TEC DESIGN INC. 3/21/2013 124119 RJM DISTRIBUTING INC. 764.67 SECURITY SYSTEM REPAIRS 310709 62280 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 764.67 310373 22943 369534 3121/2013 VERNON SELLING 100972 R&R SPECIALTIES OF WISCONSIN I 27.50 504.74 ZAMBONI REPAIR 00008074 310276 0051962 -IN 5521.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 369537 3/2112013 504.74 101311 ROOT -0-MATIC SEWER SERVICE 369535 3121/2013 123757 RIECHMANN PEDERSON DESIGN INC 260.00 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page- 20 Business Unit PSTF OCCUPANCY ARENA ICE MAINT 525.00 AD COMMISSION 310537 213151 -8 5510.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARENA ADMINISTRATION 2,945.00 ABOUT TOWN AD COMMISSION 310538 313151 -7 1130.6123 MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS 3,470.00 369536 3/21/2013 124119 RJM DISTRIBUTING INC. 27.50 310373 22943 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 27.50 369537 3/2112013 101311 ROOT -0-MATIC SEWER SERVICE 260.00 CLEAN FLOOR DRAIN 310466 35321 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 260.00 369538 3/2112013 131710 RUSSELL, EVIE 69.00 CLASS REFUND 310539 031313 5101.4607 CLASS REGISTRATION ART CENTER REVENUES 69.00 369539 3/21/2013 101963 S & S TREE SPECIALISTS 342.00 OAK WILT TESTING 310467 67514 1644.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREES & MAINTENANCE 342.00 369540 3121/2013 104087 SAFE ASSURE CONSULTANTS INC. 3,708.00 SAFETY TRAINING SERVICES 310691 548 1513.6218 EDUCATION PROGRAMS EMPLOYEE PROGRAMS 3,708.00 369541 312112013 101822 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 20.96 101-*'**—*9350 310468 BARS 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 20.96 369542 312112013 104222 SHENEHON COMPANY 3,011.60 APPRAISAL REPORT 310651 7082 9232.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT 3,011.60 R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date 369543 3/21/2013 369544 312112013 369545 312112013 369546 312112013 369547 312112013 369548 3/2112013 369549 3/2112013 Amount Supplier / Explanation COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 120784 SIGN PRO 247.95 DASHERBOARD 197.72 DASHERBOARD 445.67 75036 76.35 100999 SIGNAL SYSTEMS INC. 52.37 TIME CLOCK MONTHLY FEE 52.37 50TH ST SELLING CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 3/21/2013 -- 3/2112013 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 310277 6472 5510.6103 310540 6477 5510.6103 310469 62588 5310.6103 1550.6406 1400.6104 1400.6104 5642.5512 5822.5513 5862.5513 5842.5512 5842.5512 5842.5513 5842.5513 5822.5513 5822.5513 5822.5512 5862.5512 1470.6104 5913.6406 5913.6406 5913.6406 5913.6406 5913.6406 Subledger Account Description PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page- , 21 Business Unit ARENA ADMINISTRATION ARENA ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POOL ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLIES CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 101000 SIR SPEEDY COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 76.35 BUSINESS CARDS YORK SELLING 310692 75036 76.35 YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 122368 SOUTH METRO PUBLIC SAFETY 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 695.00 TRAINING - BRIAN HUBBARD 310300 8883 1,200.00 TASER CERTIFICATIONS 310301 8886 1,895.00 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 7,405.23 310374 1008143 185.50 310375 1010306 5,961.14 310376 1011390 14.63 310488 1011389 3,831.37 310489 1011387 3,716.08 310490 1011388. 726.50 310491 1011386 911.00 310492 1011382 648.50 310493 1011384 135.49 310494 1011385 3,401.38 310495 1011391 26,936.82 130021 SPRING LAKE PARK FIRE DEPT. IN 100.00 BLUE CARD TRAINING - VADNAIS 310652 BC- 0068 -1 100.00 101004 SPS COMPANIES 4.49 BUSHING 00001750 310610 52690665.003 27.80 FITTINGS 00001750 310611 52693921.001 48.39 PIPE 00001750 310612 52690665.002 27.36 PIPE, FITTINGS 00001792 310613 S2694511.001 4.97 COUPLING 00001792 310614 52694973.001 5310.6103 1550.6406 1400.6104 1400.6104 5642.5512 5822.5513 5862.5513 5842.5512 5842.5512 5842.5513 5842.5513 5822.5513 5822.5513 5822.5512 5862.5512 1470.6104 5913.6406 5913.6406 5913.6406 5913.6406 5913.6406 Subledger Account Description PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page- , 21 Business Unit ARENA ADMINISTRATION ARENA ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POOL ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLIES CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST 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 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 LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 3/21/2013 - 3121/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 113.01 369550 3/21/2013 129745 ST LOUIS PARK DQ GRILL AND CHI 22.99 SHEET CAKE 310470 602 5720.5510 17.99 SHEET CAKE 310471 603 5720.5510 45.98 SHEET CAKES 310472 604 5720.5510 86.96 369551 312112013 102371 STANDARD SPRING 618.18 REAR SPRING, U -BOLTS 00005062 310473 344223 1553.6530 618.18 369552 312112013 129360 STANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY SO 592.67 MONITORING FEE 310653 10013579 1470.6215 592.67 369553 3/2112013 101007 STAR TRIBUNE 869.33 EDINA LIQUOR ADVERTISING 310278 FES 2013 5822.6122 869.33 EDINA LIQUOR ADVERTISING 310278 FEB 2013 5842.6122 869.34 EDINA LIQUOR ADVERTISING 310278 FEB 2013 5862.6122 2,608.00 369554 3/21/2013 101019 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 2,000.00 MEMBERSHIP 310541 2013 -1ST HALF 1506.6103 2,000.00 369555 3/2112013 118750 SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC. 3,262.95 FINAL PAYMENT 310542 032213 01245.1705.30 3,262.95 369556 3/2112013 121161 SUPER MEDIA LLC 42.73 PHONE LISTING 310543 030413 5821.6188 42.73 PHONE LISTING 310543 030413 5841.6188 42.74 PHONE LISTING 310543 030413 5861.6188 128.20 369557 3/21/2013 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 786.00 310377 010994 5862.5514 470.00 310378 011119 5842.5514 1,065.00 310379 010940 5822.5514 2,321.00 Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD REPAIR PARTS 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page- 22 Business Unit EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS A -245 HANSON RD RETAINING WALL TELEPHONE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY TELEPHONE VERNON OCCUPANCY COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING -- CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register - Page - 23 3/21/2013 - 3/2112013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369558 312112013_ -- - .130357 TASC 165.00 COBRAADMIN 310615 IN1 514739 1550.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 165.00 369559 3/21/2013 129815' THOMAS REPROGRAPHICS 64.37., MAP LAMINATE 00001761 310616 0705633 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 64.37 . 369560 312112013 102798 THOMSON REUTERS -WEST 758.09 FEB WEB ANALYTICS 310544 826759381 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL P 758.09 369561 312112013 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 141.70 310380 740410 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,904.20 310381 740409 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,389.73 310598 741563 .5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING - 4,435.63 369562 312112013 101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 0 74.32 WELDING SUPPLIES 00006377 310545 129302 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 74.32 369563 3121/2013 118190 TURFWERKS LLC _ 51.02 CUPS 310546 T122125 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE.& GROUNDS 2,737.50 TRASH CANS, FLAGS 310547 JI69775 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 2,788:52 36.9564 312112013 123969 TWIN CITIES OCCUPATIONAL HEALT . I - 90.00 PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL - --310548 102028255 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 90.00 369565 312112013 115379 U.S. BANK 17.90 NET ZERO 310279 030513 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES 17.90 = 369566 312112013 131173 U.S. FIGURE SKATING 574.00 `- SKATING REGISTRATION 310703 031813 5510.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARENA ADMINISTRATION 574.00 369567 312112013 - 101051 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED :61.45 UNIFORMS 310302 022813 1401.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM 115.35 UNIFORMS 310302 022813 1419.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE RESERVE PROGRAM 4 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA - 3/20/2013 7:49:11 - _ Council Check Register Page - 24 3/21/2013 — 312112013 Check # Date Amount , . Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No - Subledger Account Description Business Unit a ' 3,303.68 UNIFORMS 310302 022813 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 3,480.48 369568 3/21/2013 125032_: UNI- SELECT USA - 210.27 PARTS 310303 ..022813 1553.6530 REPAIR_ PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN . 210.27 369569 312112013 114236 USA'B_LUEBOOK - 271.30 TRANSMITTER 00001781 310617' ° 897271 5912.6408 GENERAL SUPPLIES WELL HOUSES a 271.30 369570 3/2112013 101058 VAN PAPER.CO. 548.00 LIQUOR BAGS, TOWELS 310280 • 265805 -00 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 333.45 CAN LINERS 310474 264723 -00 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 881.45 -- 369571 3/2112013 131716 VANDEVELDE, THOMAS - 112.66 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND - 310705 4429 CLAREMORE 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET 112.66 369572 312112013 103252 VEAP 25,000.00 2013 SERVICES 310549 031413 1504:6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION 25,000.00 - 369573 312112013 101063 VERSATILE VEHICLES INC. 30.21 SHOCK BUSHINGS 00006376 310550 30713002 54216530 REPAIR PARTS GOLF CARS 298.13 AXLE 00006378 310551 31113002 5423.6530 REPAIR PARTS GOLF CARS a 328.34 369674 312112013 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 497.37 WIRING FOR -EOC 00001755 310654 7121105 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 497.37 369575 312112013 119454 VINOCOPIA 111.75 310382 0073332 -IN 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS'SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 111.75 n 369576 3121/2013 121042 WALLACE CARLSON PRINTING id 4,685.40 2013 SPRING/SUMMER SCHEDULE, 00009244 310655 55879 5110.6575 PRINTING ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 4,685.40 369577 3/21/2013 117074 WEIERKE, DAVID 4 CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register , 3/21/2013 - 3/21/2013 Check # Date Amount . Supplier/ Explanation " PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 272 94 UNIFORM PURCHASE 310552 031313 .1646.6201 Subledger Account Description - LAUNDRY 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page - 25 d Business Unit 'BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1190.6106 272.94 ASSESSING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 369578 3121/2013 5862.5513: 105613 WICKLUND, MITZI VERNON SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 195A2 CONFERENCE EXPENSES 310704 031813 5842.5513 195A2 YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 369579 3/21/2013 5842.5513 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 446.92 5822.5513 310496 324518 700 " 5822.5513 628.25 50TH ST SELLING 310497 324676 -00 VERNON SELLING 176.00 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 310675 324946 -00 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE. - 733.90 5842.5513 310676 324873 -00 5842.5513 316.95 YORK SELLING 310677 324874 -00 50TH ST SELLING 2,302.02 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5862.5512 369580 3/21/2013 VERNON SELLING 101312 WINE MERCHANTS COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 5862.5513 1,031:20 'VERNON SELLING 310383 446526 VERNON SELLING 516.48 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 310384 446575 COST OF GOODS-SOLD LIQUOR .56 5862.5512 310385 446311 5842.5512 80.00 -YORK SELLING 310386 446406 50TH ST SELLING . 330.91 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 310387 *446310 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 96.00 310388 446408 78.24 310498 447245 1,847.68 310599 447248 1.12 310600 447244 3,382.39 310601 447247 218.24 310678 447243 420.48- 310679 60684 7,162.34 369581 -, 3/2112013 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 4,677.75 310389 - 1080013916 98.58 310390 1080010977 3,340.80 310391 1080013917 73,15 310392 1080013918 2,340.10- 310393 2080000690 74.70- 310394 2080001010 177.68- 310395 2080001044 13,845.74 310499 1080013921 1,597.49 310500 1080013919 135.65 _ 310501 1080014061 1,975.45 310502 1080013920 Subledger Account Description - LAUNDRY 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page - 25 d Business Unit 'BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1190.6106 MEETING EXPENSE ASSESSING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5862.5513: COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE .. YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS: SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE. - VERNON SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE - YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE" '' YORK SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD.WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 'VERNON SELLING 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS-SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR -YORK SELLING 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING . 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Council Check Register Page - 26 3/21/2013 - 3/2112013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 131.45 310503 1080014056 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 88.15 310504 1080013923 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 3,729.05 310505 1080013922 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,070.40 310680 1080015294 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 28,171.18 369582 3/2112013 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1,611.55 310396 1090014719 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 129.00 310397 1090014718 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,701.60 310398 1090014717 5662.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 21.50 310399 1090014720 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 2,543.35 310400 1090015756 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 352.00 310401 1090015757 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,590.20 310402 1090015050 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 4,164.50 310602 1090018055 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,723.30 310681 1090018053 5822.5514. COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 21.50 310682 1090018054 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 14,858.50 369583 312112013 101726 XCEL ENERGY 1,239.12 51- 5619094 -8 310281 360159845 1552.6185 LIGHT & POWER CENT SVC PW BUILDING 3,216.39 51- 6840050 -6 310282 360181485 5921.6185 LIGHT & POWER SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 277.43 51- 6137136 -8 310283 359993063 5430.6165 LIGHT & POWER RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 737.59 51- 4197645 -8 310284 360353848 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 6,555.72 51- 5888961 -7 310285 360164806 1375.6185 LIGHT & POWER PARKING RAMP 5,732.96 51- 6121102 -5 310286 360338091 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2,283.40 51- 4966303 -6 310287 359967023 1330.6185 LIGHT & POWER TRAFFIC SIGNALS 649.35 51- 4827232 -6 310475 359282769 5311.6185 LIGHT & POWER POOL OPERATION 20,697.94 51- 5605640 -1 310689 360889535 5911.6185 LIGHT & POWER WELL PUMPS 41,389.90 369584 3/21/2013 101091 ZIEGLER INC 307.68 HOSE, COUPLINGS 00005032 310476 PC001451114 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 307.68 369585 3/2112013 131713 ZUCCO, JAMES 125.00 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 125.00 933,190.77 Grand Total 310656 5724 MELODY LA 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 933,190.77 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 3/2112013 — 3/21/2013 Check # Dale Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Total Payments 933,190.77 3/20/2013 7:49:11 Page - 27 R55CKSUM LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA. _ '3/20/2013 7:50:58 Council Check Summary Page = 1 3/21/2013 - 3/21/2013 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 298,650.47 02300 POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE 258.67 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 20,981.80 05100 ART CENTER FUND 7,338.15 .' 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 790.43 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 21,145.81 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 21,377.22 05700 EDINBOROUGH PARK FUND 14,937.29 05750 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK FUND 2,886.22 05800 LIQUOR FUND 204,754.83 05900 UTILITY FUND 319,283.91 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 5,570.80 07400 PSTFAGENCY FUND 2,424.41 09232 CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT 3,111.60 09234 GRANDVIEW TIF DISTRICT 150.00 09900 PAYROLL FUND 9,529.16 Report Totals - 933,190.77 - A We confirm -to -the best-6f-,-our knowledge and belief, that'these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing polices and - J Procedures g Fina c a: Ci a tiger t CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 1 3/28/2013 —3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Bus_ iness Unit 369586 3/2812013 110728 10,000 LAKES CHAPTER 420.00 REGISTRATION (2) 310820 2013 SEMINAR 1495.6104 CONFERENCES &SCHOOLS- INSPECTIONS 420.00 369587 312812013 100613 AAA 24.50 VEHICLE PLATES 310894 032013 1553.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 24.50 - 369588 312812013 100613 AAA 1.613.26 POLICE PLATES .311131 032213 1553.6260 LICENSES &.PERMITS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,813.26 .- 369589 3128/2013 103173 ACCOUNTEMPS 765.46 UB TEMP 310710 37506800 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - GENERAL (BILLING) . 785.46 - 369590 312812013 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 30.00 311036 1664515 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX', 50TH ST SELLING 130.00 311037 1665389 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING' 160.00: " 369591 3128/2013 100617 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL 28.00 PEST CONTROL 310895 786279 5421.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRILL 28.00 369592 312812013 = 105638 ALPHABITS BAND 125.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 4/11/13 310956 031813 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 125.00 369593 3/2812013 127365 AMERICAN FLEET SUPPLY 128.10 LED LIGHTS 00005067 310711 AFS- 230720062 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN .. 128.10 369594 312812013 ` 100630 ANCHOR PAPER.COMPANY 355.11 COPIER PAPER 310786 10355906 -00 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 355.11 369595 312812013 122312- ANDERSEN, IMOGENE 160.92 GIFT SHOP SUPPLIES 310829 032013 5120.6406 GENERA_ L SUPPLIES ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 160.92 369696 3128/2013 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS - R55CKREG LOG20000 YORK SELLING 131722 ATHENS TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS I YORK SELLING CITY OF EDINA YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 585.00 CALIBRATION SERVICE 00001713 310897 Council Check Register 1330.6215 VERNON SELLING 585.00 VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 3128/2013 -3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 172.18 76.61 COFFEE 310712 9985821 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 172.18 76.61 369597 312812013 102195 BATTERIES PLUS 100634 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. 127.92 307.59 PLUGS, COUPLERS, HITCH PINS 00005070 310896 10114006 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1553.6530 307.59 BATTERIES 00001822 310831 018- 296718 369598 312812013 25.71 102817 ASSOCIATED BAG COMPANY 310957 020 - 266540 7411.6406 541.97 INSPECTION RECORD BAGS 310821 N116522 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 369603 312812013 541.97 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 369599 312812013 1,256.80 100256 AT &T MOBILITY 310802 77346300 5842.5512' 25.93 IPAD DATA 310787 287240706569X03 1130.6160 DATA PROCESSING 5842.5515 92.36 1713 88162300 369600 312812013 YORK SELLING 131722 ATHENS TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS I YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 585.00 CALIBRATION SERVICE 00001713 310897 INV1014573 1330.6215 VERNON SELLING 585.00 VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 369601 312812013 102503 BAGS & BOWS 172.18 GIFT BOX ASSORTMENT 00009237 310830 0090862359 5120.6406 172.18 369602 312812013 102195 BATTERIES PLUS 127.92 BATTERIES 00005091 310788 018- 297240 1553.6530 55.36 BATTERIES 00001822 310831 018- 296718 5821.6406 25.71 BATTERIES 310957 020 - 266540 7411.6406 208.99 369603 312812013 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 1,256.80 310802 77346300 5842.5512' 36.55 311038 77464600 5842.5515 92.36 311039 88162300 5842.5515 291.10 311040 77464200 5822.5513 972.85 311041 77464700 5842.5513 837.38 311042 77464400 5862.5512 14.11 311043 88162200 5862.5515 108.70 311044 6296400 5862.5515 60.62 311045 88162100 5822.5515 3.670.47 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page - 2 Business Unit PSTF OCCUPANCY EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN INSPECTIONS COMMUNICATIONS TRAFFIC SIGNALS ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 50TH ST OCCUPANCY PSTF OCCUPANCY COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 3 3/28/2013 -3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No _Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit ' 369604 312812013 101191 BENNEROTTE; JENNIFER 4.22 REIMBURSEMENT 310958 ° 031913 1130.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 29.42 REIMBURSEMENT 310958 031913 1130.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 83:01 REIMBURSEMENT 310958 031913 1554.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES' CENT, SERV GEN - MIS 116.65 369605 312812013 131726 BERBIG, ZACHARY . 1,589.40 - CARPETAND SUPPLIES 310959 2041 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING' 1,589.40 369606 312612013 131191 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC. 216.00 CONCESSION PRODUCT 310713 314671. 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 216.00 369607 312812013 125139 BERNICK'S . 700.00 310852 49653 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 700.00 369608 3128/2013 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS 9.39 O_ FFICE SUPPLIES 310822 83370 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES INSPECTIONS 15.10 310823 83800 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES INSPECTIONS - 17.08 310824 84308 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES INSPECTIONS 98.55 310825 84681 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES INSPECTIONS 140.12 369609 312812013 119351, BOURGET IMPORTS 675.98 310853 112519 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 675.98 369610 312812013 131732, BOWMAN, SUSAN 65.00 PROGRAM CANCELLED.- 310960 REFUND 1600.4390.15 GEN ADAPTIVE REC PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 65.00 369611 312812013 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 81.46 GASKETS, SEALS- 00005057 310714 721737: 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS;: EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 81.46 369612.: 312812013 100664 BRAUN INTERTEC 68.00 AIR SAMPLE ANALYSIS. 310760 1300366 7412.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF RANGE 68.00 369613 3/2812013 125165 BRAUN, MICHAEL R55CKREG LOG20000 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 43.26 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER CITY OF EDINA 924217551 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 688.68 Council Check Register 369617 3/2812013 3/28/2013 -3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 311133 65.00 HOMETOWN HERO PHOTOS 310789 1160 1130.6124 195.00 ABOUT TOWN PHOTOS 310789 1160 1130.6123 201.22 PHOTOS 310789 1160 1130.6408 310967 1,500.00 ARENA SOFFIT DESIGN 311134 1161 1130.6103 310968 1,961.22 129.43 369614 312812013 131731 BROWNING, RYAN 3128/2013 119465 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 5.00 PARKING FEE 310861 032213 1554.6107 310803 1,310.12 TABLET, KEYBOARD, WARRANTY 310961 032213 1554.6406 310804 1,315.12 17.20 369615 312812013 257258 103244 BURTIS, ROBERT 208.00 311046 200.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 4/4/13 310962 031813 5710.6136 311047 200.00 5,708.20 369616 312812013 102149 CALLAWAY GOLF 3/2812013 123898 CENTURYLINK 384.19 MERCHANDISE 310963 924195944 5440.5511 310715 93.30 310964 924215805 5440.5511 167.93 310965 924217518 5440.5511 5440.5511 1195.6131 1495.6103 1495.6103 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page- 4 Subledger Account Description Business Unit WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS MAGA27NE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENT SERV GEN - MIS GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SERV GEN - MIS PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PROFESSIONAL SERV -LEGAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 43.26 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 310966 924217551 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 688.68 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 369617 3/2812013 120935 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 1 10,396.82 LEGAL 311133 2B51G2113 10,396.82 369618 312812013 116114 CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA INC. 9.43 OCE PRINTER MAINTENANCE 310967 987934874 120.00 OCE SCANNER MAINTENANCE 310968 987946388 129.43 369619 3128/2013 119465 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 59.70 310803 257255 4,928.65 310804 257254 17.20 310805 257258 208.00 311046 259542 494.65 311047 257257 5,708.20 369620 3/2812013 123898 CENTURYLINK 59.32 952 9446522 310715 6522 -3/13 59.32 5440.5511 1195.6131 1495.6103 1495.6103 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page- 4 Subledger Account Description Business Unit WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS MAGA27NE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENT SERV GEN - MIS GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SERV GEN - MIS PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PROFESSIONAL SERV -LEGAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 5511.6188 TELEPHONE PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES LEGAL SERVICES INSPECTIONS INSPECTIONS YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 5 3128/2013 -3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369621 312812013 126726 COBRA PUMA GOLF INC. 478.24 MERCHANDISE 310969 G321335 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,275.31 MERCHANDISE 310970 G321235 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,753.55 369622 3128/2013 131720 COLEMAN, RUTHANNE 31.00 CLASS REFUND 310832 EDINAART 5101.4607 CLASS REGISTRATION ART CENTER REVENUES CENTER 31.00 369623 312812013 124118 COMPLETE COOLING SERVICES 219.63 OIL COOLER REPAIRS 00005074 310898 17985 1553.6160 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 164.29 RADIATOR REPAIRS 316899 17990 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 383.92 369624 3128/2013 100402 CROW WING COUNTY 300.00 OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT 310900 032213 1000.2055 DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET 300.00 369625 312812013 100699 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 105.98 114 - 09855685 -4 310716 FEB2013 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 105.98 369626 312812013 131733 CUSTOM BRANDED SPORTSWEAR 338.62 APPAREL 00006123 310971 41012 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 338.62 369627 312812013 102514 CUTTER & BUCK 1,085.05 MERCHANDISE 310972 92323723 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 199.72 310973 92329820 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,284.77 369628 3128/2013 104020 DALCO 61.45 LPS 1, LPS 3 00005935 310717 2581085 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 395.27 ROLL TOWELS 00009245 310901 2580510 5111.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 456.72 369629 312812013 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 842.30 310806 693126 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 119.60 310807 693127 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 293.67 311048 693124 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 6 3128/2013 —3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 22.40 311049 693125 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX BOTH ST SELLING 3,136.33 311050 693122 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 4,414.30 369630 312812013 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. 39.18 WRENCHES 00005028 310761 776016 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 92.39 HEAT GUN 00005119 310790 779162 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 131.57 369631 312812013 129191 DICK & RICKS AUTO INTERIORS 101.46 REPAIRED ARMRESTS 310718 29012 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 101.46 369632 312812013 123995 DICK'SILAKEVILLE SANITATION IN 3,167.71 REFUSE 310902 369353 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 3,172.93 310903 369354 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 3,167.71 310904 393509 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 2,591.33 310905 393510 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 3,669.57 311136 350214 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 3,237.67 311137 350213 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 19,006.92 369633 312812013 101617 DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR 445.93 TRAFFIC CITATION FORMS 310791 133A 1400.6575 PRINTING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 445.93 369634 312812013 100730 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 3,646.00 LEGAL REVIEW - SOUTHDALE 310762 1860701 9232.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT 605.00 LEGAL REVIEW - HAZELTON RD 310763 1860702 9232.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTENNIALTIF DISTRICT 4,251.00 369635 312812013 106340 EDINA CAR WASH 81.53 FEB WASHES 310906 5418 1553.6238 CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 81.53 369636 312812013 100049 EHLERS 1,975.00 ARBITRAGE MONITORING 310907 63846 3301.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PIR DS REVENUES 2,000.00 ARBITRAGE MONITORING 310908 63847 9232.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT 2,000.00 ARBITRAGE MONITORING 310909 63849 3101.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL DEBT SERVICE REVENUES 5,975.00 369637 312812013 127590 ETTERMAN ENTERPRISES R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 7 3/28/2013 -3128/2013 Check# Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 171.12 FUSES, CONNECTORS, BULBS 00005054 310719 193147 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 171.12 369638 312812013 104195 EXTREME BEVERAGE LLC. 134.00 311052 W- 721961 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 134.00 369639 312812013 131728 F.J. WESTCOTT COMPANY 192.25 UMBRELLAS 00006089 310974 640142 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 192.25 369640 3/2812013 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 205.91 LINK KITS, ABSORBERS 310910 1 -4132861 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 61.40 FILTERS 310911 69- 094484 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 267.31 369641 3128/2013 126004 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 8,375.45 METERS 00001880 310764 0011464 5917.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES METER REPAIR 657.63 REPAIR CLAMPS 00001793 310912 0013377 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 1,004.98- CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 311138 PYS01396549 5917.6530 REPAIR PARTS METER REPAIR 8,028.10 369642 312812013 131188 FIRST-SHRED 31.80 SHREDDING SERVICE 310975 76764 1190.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ASSESSING 31.80 369643 312812013 130156 FLETCHER LEISURE GROUP 96.88 COAT 310976 1113738 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 90.00- RETURN 310977 9016808 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 6.88 SHIPPING CHARGE 310978 1112748 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 2,637.34 MERCHANDISE 310979 1119238 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 2,651.10 369644 312812013 101475 FOOTJOY 217.13 MERCHANDISE 310980 4825416 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 217.13 369645 312812013 102727 FORCE AMERICA 158.13 NIPPLE 00005071 310913 01402061 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 158.13 369646 312812013 100764 G & K SERVICES R55CKREG LOG20000 1,504.57 MERCHANDISE CITY OF EDINA 11589600 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES Council Check Register 1,010.59 310982 40668036 3/28/2013 -3/2812013 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 11591673 15.00 SHOP TOWELS 310833 1006402443 5422.6201 LAUNDRY 4,227.90 15.00 310834 1006424574 5422.6201 LAUNDRY 30.00 369649 312812013 124541 GEYEN GROUP 369647 312812013 100768 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG IN 2,325.94 COMPRESSOR REPAIR 310720 41606 5521.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 5420:6511 2,325.94 CLUB HOUSE 85.50 369648 312812013 101931 GEAR FOR SPORTS 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page - 8 Business Unit MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS ARENA ICE MAINT 1,504.57 MERCHANDISE 310981 11589600 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,010.59 310982 40668036 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,712.74 310983 11591673 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 4,227.90 369649 312812013 124541 GEYEN GROUP 85.50 CHAIR CLEANING 00006158 310835 22620 5420:6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CLUB HOUSE 85.50 369650 312812013 102645 GRAFFITI CONTROL SERVICES 283.22 GRAFFITI REMOVAL 00001881 310765 800 5912.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS WELL HOUSES 283.22 369651 312812013 101103 GRAINGER 10.00 SAFETY GLASSES 00005089 310721 9086838746 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 10.70 BATTERIES 00005089 310721 9086838746 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 323.43 TYVEK (LEAD PROTECTION) 310722 9091901513 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 59.73 PROTECTIVE OUTERWEAR 310723 9091901521 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 74.39 HALF MASK KITS 00006195 310836 9087651023 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 9.42 DEGREASER 00005090 310914 9092662965 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 41.60 SAFETY GLASSES 00005090 310914 9092662965 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1,244.16 TABLES 00006155 310915 9089401112 5420.6530 REPAIR PARTS CLUB HOUSE 1,773.43 369652 312812013 120201 GRANICUS INC. 4,833.53 4/1/13 - 6/30/13 WEBSTREAMING 310792 43966 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 4,833.53 369653 312812013 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 170.25 310854 150289 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 170.25 369654 312812013 102125 GREG LESSMAN SALES R55CKREG LOG20006 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 9 3/2812013 —3/2812013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO #- Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 318.28 MERCHANDISE 310916 48686 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO'SHOPRETAIL SALES 1,445.31, MERCHANDISE 310917 48695 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL_ SALES 1,763.59 -. 369655 312812013 102320 HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS - 185.81 THERMAL PAPER 310918 115949 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES- YORK SELLING 185.81 369656 312812013 101209 HEIMARK FOODS --153.12 BEEF PATTIES 310837 024427 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL _ "153.12 369657 312812013 100801 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 1,285.00. FEB 2013 ROOM & BOARD 310793 1000028687 1195.6225 BOARD & ROOM ;PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES 1,285.00 369658 312812013 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 418.01 310808 639946 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,073:38 310855 640145 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING . 1,153.00 '- 311054 639848 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 28.00 311055 639849 5862.5515 COST OF GOODSSOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,672.39' 369659 312812013 102044 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC. 11,012.50 LANDSCAPE DESIGN 310919 012 -042 -7 47078.6710 EQUIPMENT, REPLACEMENT COUNTRYSIDE PK PLAYGROUND &PATH 11, 012.50 369660 312812013 100808 HORWATH, THOMAS ` 380.81 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 311025 031913 1644.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE TREES & MAINTENANCE 380.81 369661 312812013 131734 HORWITZ NSI - - 1,148.18 CHECKED HEAT PUMP 00001707 311026 W27850 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 1,148.18 369662 312812013 131717 HUMPHREY; SHIRLEY _ 32.00 PROGRAM REFUND 310724 031913 1600.4390.15 GEN ADAPTIVE REC PARKADMIN. GENERAL - 32.00 369663 312812013. 129508 IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS 3,579.12 MAIL WATER BILLS 310984 _ -75358 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES_ GENERAL (BILLING) 3,579.12 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA . 3/27/2013 10:27:12 ; Council Check Register Page - 10 3/28/2013 -1/28/2013 Check #. Date Amount Supplier /Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369664 312812013 100814 INDELCO PLASTICS CORP. 57.56 PVC PIPE 00001888 310920 762711 '5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 57.56 369665 312812013 119808 INTEGRA TELECOM 27.74 ISP SERVICES 310985 10714215 7411.6188 TELEPHONE PSTF OCCUPANCY 27.74 a' 369666 312812013 129077 IVERSON, TRAVIS 98.88 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 310986 032113 5919.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING 98.88 .369667 312812013 118275 J.P. COOKE CO., THE 243.20 DATE STAMPS 310826 218633 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES INSPECTIONS 243.20 369668 3.128/2013 130832 JEA ARCHITECTS 137.92 COURTNEY FIELDS SIGNAGE 310921 13004 1600.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 137.92 369669 3128/2013 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 1,999:01 311057 2057339 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 78.80 311058 2057355 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX _YORK SELLING 6,148.50 311059 2057354 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 5,229.06 311060 2057335 .5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER' VERNON SELLING , 13;455.37 369671 3/2812013 100836 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 1,279.12 310809 1522680 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING .28 310856 1527763 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 498.04 310857 1527792 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 327.99 310858 1527790 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 183.11- 310859 570026 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 133.16- 310860: 570025 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 81.84 310861 570024 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING q: 36.00- 310862 570027 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 99.94 311061 1527767 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR .:- -50TH ST SELLING 79.12 311062 1527771 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 110.21 311063 - 1527773 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 512.77 311064 1527760 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 58.24 311065 1527793 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date 369672 312812013 369673 312812013 369674 312812013 Amount Supplier / Explanation 1,755.06 219.36 1.68 4,070.75 2,208.03 1.12 3,696.41 292.48 2,851.89 2,670.48 1.68 4,368.21 .28 1.12 62.74 2,305.31 448.57 1,250.86 2,034.74 1.12 157.50 1,025.75 784.10 1,590.02 1,439.28 CREDIT TAKEN TWICE 35,770.14 129918 JOHNSON, BRIAN 90.07 AMMO FOR INTRO CLASS 90.07 310725 031613 7414.6406 131729 KAMMEIER, KIM 134.92 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 310987 5036 BEDFORD 5900.2015 AVE 134.92 102080 KATTREH, ANN 100.00 IPAD DATA PLAN 100.00 310988 032213 1600.6188 369675 312812013 111018 KEEPRS INC. 91.78 UNIFORMS 00003577 310922 209589 1470.6558 Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 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 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 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 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 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page - 11 Business Unit VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC PROGRAMS CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET TELEPHONE DEPT UNIFORMS PARK ADMIN. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 3/28/2013 -3/28/2013 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 311066 1527789 5862.5513 311067 1527768 5862.5513 311068 1527775 5862.5513 311069 1527791 5862.5513 311070 1527788 5862.5513 311071 1527765 5862.5513 311072 1527787 5862.5512 311073 1527769 5842.5513 311074 1527781 5842.5513 311075 1527783 5842.5513 311077 1527774 5842.5513 311078 1527779 5842.5512 311079 1527761 5842.5512 311080 1527762 5842.5515 311081 1527780 5842.5515 311082 1527782 5842.5512 311083 1527784 5842.5512 311084 1527786 5842.5512 311085. 1527785 5842.5513 311086 1527764 5862.5515 311087 1529089 5862.5512 311088 1527766 5822.5513 311089 1527770 5822.5513 311090 1527772 5822.5513 311091 567496DUE 5842.5512 310725 031613 7414.6406 131729 KAMMEIER, KIM 134.92 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 310987 5036 BEDFORD 5900.2015 AVE 134.92 102080 KATTREH, ANN 100.00 IPAD DATA PLAN 100.00 310988 032213 1600.6188 369675 312812013 111018 KEEPRS INC. 91.78 UNIFORMS 00003577 310922 209589 1470.6558 Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 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 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 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 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 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page - 11 Business Unit VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC PROGRAMS CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET TELEPHONE DEPT UNIFORMS PARK ADMIN. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 12 3/28/2013 -3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 579.96 00003574 310923 209592 -01 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 67.70 00003569 310924 211123 -01 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 739.44 369676 312812013 106546 KRUEGER, DOROTHY 56.00 REDWING TRIP REFUND 310925 032013 1628.4392.07 SENIOR TRIPS SENIOR CITIZENS 56.00 369677 312812013 101995 KUDOS AWARDS INC. 37.36 PLAQUES 310926 14554 1628.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SENIOR CITIZENS 37.36 369678 312812013 131719 KUMAR, MARISE 363.46 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 310766 7009 LANHAM LA 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET 363.46 369679 312812013 131730 KUMBA, MARY 175.00 6/16/13 RENTAL REFUND 310989 REFUND 5751.4555 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK CENTENNIAL LAKES REVENUE 175.00 369680 312812013 131718 LARSON, FAITH 32.00 PROGRAM REFUND 310726 031913 1600.4390.15 GEN ADAPTIVE REC PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 32.00 369681 312812013 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 37.76 SCREWS 00005931 310727 9301494211 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 658.22 SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS 00005034 310767 9301502035 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 21.27 SCREWS 00005034 310927 9301508862 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 717.25 369682 312812013 100857 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC. 524.66 BOLTS, NUTS 00005968 310768 00050606 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 233.14 SPRINGS, PIN, HANDLE ASSEMBLY 00005011 310769 00050643 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,537.65 HANGER ASSEMBLIES 00005014 310770 00050645 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 243.56 HANGER LEG, SHAFT - 00005043 310928 00050709 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2,539.01 369683 312812013 106301 LOFFLER COMPANIES INC. 163.29 COPIER USAGE 310728 1539999 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2,411.00 ANNUAL SERVICE CONTRACT 310794 1539411 2310.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT E911 2,574.29 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 13 3/28/2013 —3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369684 312812013 100858 LOGIS 1,759.00 310729 36416 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 2,717.00 310729 36416 1120.6160 DATA PROCESSING ADMINISTRATION 3,289.00 310729 36416 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 3,336.00 310729 36416 1495.6160 DATA PROCESSING INSPECTIONS 5,406.00 310729 36416 5910.6160 DATA PROCESSING GENERAL (BILLING) 5,591.00 310729 36416 1190.6160 DATA PROCESSING ASSESSING 6,384.00 310729 36416 1160.6160 DATA PROCESSING FINANCE 3,910.50 NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES 310795 36463 1554.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENT SERV GEN - MIS 32,392.50 369685 312812013 101843 LONG, JEFF 409.80 CONFERENCE AIRFARE 310929 032113 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 409.80 369686 312812013 130155 MACDONNELL, STEPHEN 324.00 MODEL 310930 032213 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 324.00 369687 312812013 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. 458.49 WIPER MOTOR, ARM, BLADE 00005031 310730 2131781 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 458.49 369688 312812013 128426 MARK, LAURA 1,433.74 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 310990 JACK MARK 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,433.74 369689 312812013 119209 MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP 2,090.00 LABOR/MATERIALS - DATA CABINET 310731 477250 46001.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FIBER OPTIC CABLING 2,090.00 369690 3/2812013 101146 MATRIX 350.00 310991 608102476 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 350.00 369691 312812013 102560 MAXIMUM SOLUTIONS INC. 7,077.44 POINT OF SALE EQUIPMENT 311028 13996 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 7,077.44 369692 312812013 130020 MCCD 5,000.00 BUSINESS PROGRAM CONSULTING 310771 3 9232.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT 5,000.00 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/2712013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 14 3/2812013 —3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369693 3/28/2013 101254 MCCORMICK, CAROL 50.00 BAL DUE FOR 3/14/13 310992 031913 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 50.00 369694 3128/2013 105603 MEDICINE LAKE TOURS 657.50 MARCH 23 EASTER TRIP 310931 030713 1628.6103.07 TRIPS PROF SERVICES SENIOR CITIZENS 657.50 369695 312812013 101483 MENARDS 22.37 HARDWARE 00001824 310732 20449 1646.6530 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 22.37 369696 312812013 100886 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 74,593.20 FEB 2013 SAC 310772 031913 1495.4307 SAC CHARGES INSPECTIONS 74,593.20 369697 312812013 127639 MIDWAY FORD 24,931.40 2013 FORD EXPLORER 00003134 310993 93187 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT 24,931.40 369698 3/28/2013 101161 MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUPPLY 414.03 TOWELS, TISSUE, CASCADE 00003599 310932 34308 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 414.03 369699 312812013 130635 MILLNER, CHAD 2,359.71 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 310994 032113 1260.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ENGINEERING GENERAL 2,359.71 369700 312812013 100905 MINNESOTA GOLF ASSOCIATION 360.00 2013 DUES 310838 5028781 5410.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GOLF ADMINISTRATION 360.00 369701 312812013 100231 MINNESOTA POST BOARD 1,440.00 POST LICENSE RENEWALS 310933 032013 1400.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,440.00 369702 312812013 101878 MINNESOTA REAL ESTATE JOURNAL 85.00 SUBSCRIPTION 310733 0069792 -2013 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING 85.00 369703 312812013 1 100330 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE MARSHAL Subledger Account Description CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 130.14 CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 369706 3/2812013 117098 NELSON, COLIN Council Check Register 29.90 ART WORK SOLD - 310840 3/28/2013 -3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 250.00 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 310995 032113 1470.6104 250.00 369704 3/28/2013 100908 MINNESOTA WANNER CO. CONFERENCE EXPENSE 310774 031913 25.65 NIPPLES 310773 0097827 -IN .1553:6530 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 25.65 031913 9232.6104 - 369705. 312812013 290.75 128914 MINUTEMAN PRESS - 311135 032013 9232.6106 43.38 - EMPLOYEE MANUALS 310839 13072 5820.6406 43.38 EMPLOYEE MANUALS 310839 13072 5840.6406 43.38 EMPLOYEE MANUALS 310839 13072 5860.6406 Subledger Account Description CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES ART WORK SOLD MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS MEETING EXPENSE COST;OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE GENERAL SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS = PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS -'PRO SHOP 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page - 15 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 50TH STREET GENERAL LIQUOR YORK GENERAL VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL . ART CENTER REVENUES CENTENNIALTIF DISTRICT .CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT CENTENNIALTIF DISTRICT VERNON SELLING 50TH STSELLING PUBLIC PROGRAMS PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 130.14 369706 3/2812013 117098 NELSON, COLIN 29.90 ART WORK SOLD - 310840 032013 5101.4413 29.90 - 369707. 312912013 130988 NEUENDORF, BILL 45.58 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 310774 031913 9232.6107 225.00. CONFERENCE EXPENSE 310774 031913 9232.6104 290.75 MEETING EXPENSES - 311135 032013 9232.6106 - 561.33 369708 3128/2013 '100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 607.50 310863 80248 5862.5513 129.50 311092 79425 5822.5513 737.00 369709 312812013 122449 ' NEW LIFE ENTERPRISES INC. 141.00 POSTERS, TRAINING BOOKS 310734 5057 7414.6406 141.00 369710 312812013- 104350 NIKE USA 1,355.99 APPAREL 310996 948640853 5440.5511 196.81 310997 948686060 5440.5511 487.50 310998 948686061 5440.5511 105.86 310999 948686062 5440.5511 - 233.38 311000 948700936 5440.5511 425.52 311001, 948718757 5440.5511 2,805.06 369711 312812013 115616 NORTH IMAGE APPAREL INC. REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES ART WORK SOLD MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS MEETING EXPENSE COST;OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE GENERAL SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS = PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS -'PRO SHOP 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page - 15 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 50TH STREET GENERAL LIQUOR YORK GENERAL VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL . ART CENTER REVENUES CENTENNIALTIF DISTRICT .CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT CENTENNIALTIF DISTRICT VERNON SELLING 50TH STSELLING PUBLIC PROGRAMS PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 16 3/28/2013 -3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310.50 UNIFORMS 310841 NIA6179A 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 310.50 369712 312812013 130856 ODELL, JONATHAN 165.30 ART WORK SOLD 310842 032013 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 165.30 369713 3128/2013 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 56.57 CLIPBOARDS, PAPER, MARKERS 310843 648387664001 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 56.57 369714 312812013 100936 OLSEN COMPANIES 12.94 HOISTALTERATION 00001815 310735 513883 5913.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 57.57 EYE & HOOKS 00001825 310736 513982 1646.6530 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 70.51 369715 312812013 130464 OVEN HEARTH WHOLESALE BAKERY 120.26 CONEY BUNS 310737 320347 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 120.26 369716 312812013 129485 PAPCO INC. 176.93 TOWELS, TISSUE, CLEANERS 311002 77308 7411.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 176.93 369717 3128/2013 131698 PARLEY LAKE WINERY 227.00 310864 9700 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 227.00 311093 9800 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 454.00 369718 3/2812013 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 553.31 31081 D 8392232 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,640.31 310865 8392224 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 91.25 310866 8392234 -IN 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 228.12 311094 8392229 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 165.25 311095 8392235 -IN 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 2,678.24 369719 312812013 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 335.04 310738 09421821 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 335.04 369720 312812013 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 5440.5511 5440.5511 5440.6406 1400.6104 1400.6406 421400.6710 1130.6123 5410.6575 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page - 17 Subledger Account Description Business Unit CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 VERNON SELLING 369721 312812013 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 100119 PING Council Check Register VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 3/28/2013 -3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 1,624.80 310867 2394778 5862.5513 59.36 310868 2394769 5862.5513 1,159.50 310669 2394776 5862.5513 420.82 311096 2394770 5822.5512 377.65 311097 2394777 5862.5512 1,400.63 311098 2394774 5842.5512 290.08 311099 2394768 5842.5513 1,822.84 311100 2394775 5842.5513 797.37 311101 2394773 5842.5513 237.06 311102 2395576 5862.5512 714.73 311103 2394767 5822.5513 66.24 311104 2394771 5822.5513 .09- 311105 3499533 5822.5513 5440.5511 5440.5511 5440.6406 1400.6104 1400.6406 421400.6710 1130.6123 5410.6575 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page - 17 Subledger Account Description Business Unit 8,970.99 VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 369721 312812013 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 100119 PING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 399.53 MERCHANDISE 311003 11658666 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,891.12 IRON SETS 311004 11660311 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 130.00 GOLF BAG DISPLAY 311005 11658661 2,420.65 369722 312812013 101138 PLEAA 300.00 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 311006 032113 300.00 369723 312812013 120988 PLYMOUTH FRAMERY 171.64 AWARD COLLAGE 310796 808627 171.64 369724 312812013 111340 POLAR CHEVROLET 25,522.15 2013 CHEVROLET EQUINOX 00003136 311007 D6299504 25,522.15 369726 312812013 100961 POSTMASTER - USPS 5,567.85 ABOUT TOWN POSTAGE 311035 032213 5,567.85 369726 312812013 131064 PRECISION PRINTING INC. 622.25 LOYALTY CARDS 00006169 311008 773 622.25 369727 312812013 100380 PRESTRUD, ROBERT 5440.5511 5440.5511 5440.6406 1400.6104 1400.6406 421400.6710 1130.6123 5410.6575 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page - 17 Subledger Account Description Business Unit 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 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 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 LIQUOR 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 - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES GENERAL SUPPLIES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CONFERENCES 8 SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE EQUIPMENT MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS PRINTING GOLF ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 18 3/28/2013 —3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 25.00 UNIFORM PURCHASE 310934 032113 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 25.00 369728 312812013 105863 R.A. DORAN & ASSOCIATES 325.00 EVIDENCE ROOM MGMT CLASS 311009 194187 1400.6104 CONFERENCES 8 SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 325.00 369729 312812013 100974 RAYMOND HAEG PLUMBING 181.00 SHUT OFF VALVE REPLACEMENT 00001791 310739 15441 5917.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS METER REPAIR 232.00 SERVICE LINE REPAIR 00001771 310740 15440 5917.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS METER REPAIR 413.00 369730 312812013 122170 REGION 3AA 1,403.01 HOCKEY QUARTER FINAL % 311010 032213 5511.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 1,403.01 369731 312812013 125178 RJM CONSTRUCTION LLC 25,698.31 HORNETS NEST PROJECT 310935 1207021807 5500.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET 25,698.31 369732 312812013 100980 ROBERT B. HILL CO. 153.76 SOFTENER SALT 00001839 310797 00281319 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 153.76 369733 312812013 131723 ROLAND, JOSHUA 18.28 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 311011 032113 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 18.28 369734 3/2812013 100986 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO 40.38 SWITCH 00005064 310741 C62911 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 40.38 369735 312812013 100988 SAFETY KLEEN 274.98 CLEAN OUT PARTS WASHER 310798 60169040 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 274.98 369736 312812013 117807 SAM'S CLUB 20.00 SNACKS/KITCHEN SUPPLIES 310742 006277 7414.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC PROGRAMS 103.09 SNACKS/KITCHEN SUPPLIES 310742 006277 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 123.09 369737 312812013 118168 SANSIO R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 19 3/28/2013 — 3128/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 50.00 EMS FAXING 310936 INV 10464 -2013 1470.6160 DATA PROCESSING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 733.00 EMS SUBSCRIPTION 310937 INV 10618 -2013 1470.6160 DATA PROCESSING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 783.00 369738 312812013 130063 SCHWEITZER, JOHN 85.00 TRAINING REGISTRATION 310827 REIMBURSEMENT 1495.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS INSPECTIONS 85.00 369739 312812013 100349 SCOTT COUNTY 285.00 OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT 310938 032213 1000.2055 DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET 285.00 369740 312812013 100995 SEH 1,576.86 NORMANDALE STREET RECON 310775 266363 04390.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN NORMANDALE RECON 3,944.85 NORMANDALE STREET RECON 310775 266363 05530.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN NORMANDALE RECON 5,657.18 NORMANDALE STREET RECON 310775 266363 03474.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN NORMANDALE RECON 5,933.54 NORMANDALE STREET RECON 310775 266363 01394.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN NORMANDALE 337.56 BRAEMAR HILLS LIGHTING PROD 310939 266655 08059.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN L -59 BRAEMAR HILLS B 1,283.16 RICHMOND HILLS RD PROJ 310940 266930 01388.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION RICHMOND HILLS PK 18,733.15 369741 312812013 130047 SELECTACCOUNT 638.50 ADMIN SERVICES 310776 919292 1550.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 638.50 369742 312812013 118211 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO. 64.52 PAINT 00001684 310777 9980 1335.6532 PAINT PAVEMENT MARKINGS 64.52 369743 312812013 120784 SIGN PRO 225.00 SIGN INSTALLATION 310743 6515 5511.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 225.00 369744 312812013 105664 SIMPLEX GRINNELL LP 232.00 ANNUAL INSPECTION 310744 76021434 5841.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT YORK OCCUPANCY 232.00 ANNUAL INSPECTION 310745 76021451 5821.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BOTH ST OCCUPANCY 464.00 369745 3128/2013 103689 SNAP -ON TOOLS 86.67 PLIERS, WRENCH 00005123 310941 214111208 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 86.67 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 20 3/28/2013 -3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369746 312812013 105739 SNAZA, DAVID 81.88 TRAINING EXPENSES 311027 032213 1281.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING 81.88 369747 3/2812013 122800 SOUTH METRO CARPET & UPHOLSTER 80.16 SPOT CARPET CLEANING 310844 974 5841.6162 SERVICES CUSTODIANS YORK OCCUPANCY 80.16 369748 312812013 102936 SOUTH TOWN REFRIGERATION INC 5,091.80 REPLACEMENT FREEZER 310942 36169. 5421.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GRILL 5,091.80 369749 312812013 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 126.53 310811 1011383 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 2,325.80 310870 1013709 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 655.69 310871 1013707 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 4,123.09 310872 1013713 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,319.50 310873 1013711 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 113.00 310874 1012680 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,840.79 310875 1013712 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,549.00 311106 1013706 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1.00 311107 1013710 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,181.72 311108 1013705 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 104.50 311109 1014224 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 161.50 311110 1014223 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 264.54 311111 1014888 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 13,766.66 369750 312812013 130074 SPIRIT LEATHERWORKS LLC 323.65 MERCHANDISE 00006090 310943 338304 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 323.65 369751 3128/2013 104672 SPRINT 3.36 310893 MAR2013 1554.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 17.53 310893 MAR2013 1628.6188 TELEPHONE SENIOR CITIZENS 17.53 310893 MAR2013 5511.6188 TELEPHONE ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 35.06 310893 MAR2013 1190.6188 TELEPHONE ASSESSING 48.63 310893 MAR2013 5720.6188 TELEPHONE EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 50.96 310893 MAR2013 1490.6188 TELEPHONE PUBLIC HEALTH 55.07 310893 MAR2013 4090.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE 59.03 310893 MAR2013 7411.6188 TELEPHONE PSTF OCCUPANCY 82.76 310893 MAR2013 1495.6188 TELEPHONE INSPECTIONS - R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 21 3/2812013 -3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 88.65 310893 MAR2013 1553.6188 TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 113.55 310893 MAR2013 5422.6188 TELEPHONE MAINT OF COURSE &GROUNDS 146.69 310893 MAR2013 1260.6188 TELEPHONE ENGINEERING GENERAL 158.12 310893 MAR2013 1301.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL MAINTENANCE 170.90 _ 310893 MAR2013 1240.6188 TELEPHONE PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL l 199.15 310893 MAR2013 1322.6188 TELEPHONE STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 299.23 310893 MAR2013 1640.6188 TELEPHONE: PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 401.90 310893 MAR2013 5910.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL (BILLING) 679.83' 310893 MAR2013 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,093.21 310893 MAR2013 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 4,721.16 369752 312812013 101004 SPS COMPANIES 47.26 TOILET PARTS 00001813 310746 S2695172.001 1646.6530 REPAIR PARTS' BUILDING MAINTENANCE 47.26. 36.9753. 312812013 131727 SS DESIGN - 4,625.82 UNIFORMS 00008588 311012 10628 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 4,625.82 369754 3/2812013 120267. STANLEY; LYNNE 26.00 DUPLICATE DOG LICENSE 310845 REFUND 1400.4120 DOG LICENSES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 26.00 369755. 312812013 102170 STAR OF THE NORTH CONCERT BAND - 100.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 417/13 311013 031813 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL-SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 100.00 369756 .,3/2812013 112668 STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC. ' 182:38 HEADLAMP 00005971 310944 25084 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 182.38 369757 312812013 101015 STREICHERS 101.49 GUN CLEANING SUPPLIES 310747 11004336 7414.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC PROGRAMS 61.99 GUN CLEANING SUPPLIES 310748 11004708 7414.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC PROGRAMS 163.48 369758 3/2812013 101017 "SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 16.18 INSULATORS 00005125 310945 464847 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 16.18 369759 3/2812013 121681 SUMMIT CONSULTING RSSCKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 22 3/28/2013 -3/28/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier /_Explanation PO # Doc No Inv" No Account No Subledgw Account Description Business Unit 720.00 CODE CONSULTING 310828 1306377 1495.6103 PROFESSIONAL" SERVICES " INSPECTIONS 720.00 369760 312812013 100900 SUN!NEWSPAPERS 120.16 AD FOR BID 310749 1427644 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 120.16 369761 312812013 121492 SUPERIOR TURF SERVICES INC. 4,339.02 FERTILIZER 310846 8698 5422.6540 FERTILIZER MAINT OF COURSE `& GROUNDS 4,339.02 4 369762 - 312812013 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 1,142.00 310812 - 011372 5842.5514 COST.OF.GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING -1,006.00 311112 011393 _ 5862.5514- COST OF GOODS!SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,148.00 369763 312812013 120297 TADYCH; BRIAN 174.00 UNIFORM PURCHASE 310946 032113 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE 174.00 369764 312612013 104932 TAYLOR MADE 67.96 MERCHANDISE. 311014 19266068 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP -PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 170.37 311015 19266069 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 444.09 . - 311016 19276467 5440.5511 COST.OF GOODS'- PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 226.38 311017- 19290502 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS'- PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 13.03 311018 19293843 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 157.34 311019 19300074 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP_ PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,079.17 " 369765 312812013 118083 THOMAS TOOL AND SUPPLY INC. 87.71 TOOLS 00002522 310947 286018 1260.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ENGINEERING GENERAL 87.71 369766 3/2812013 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 2,578.95 311113 742785 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 56.80 311114 742784 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING - 2,635.75 369767 312812013 123129 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 204.85 COUNCIL MINUTES 3 /5/13 310750 M19661 1126.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - ADMINISTRATION - 204.85 "RSSCKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 3/28/2013 -3128/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 369768. 3128/2013 101036 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 150.19 WELDING WIRE 00005059 310778 129739 1553.6580 150.19 369769 312812013. 124753 TOSHIBX FINANCIAL SERVICES 222.10 COPIER USAGE 310751, 224020701 7410.6575 222.10 369770 3/28/2013 101693- TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS 25.75 MAG READER CLEANING CARDS 310752 125 5842.6406 25.75 369771 3/2812013 123649 TOWMASTER 160.Q; 00005063 310948- 346537, 1553.6530 82.13 ' SPRINGS 00005120 310949 346637 1553.6530 242.55 369772 312812013 101403 -TRUCK BODIES & EQUIP INTL INC 60.31 PIN 00005029 310753 LC00016210 1553.6530 60.31 369773 -- 312812013 118190 TURFWERKS LLC 20,513.59 SMITHCO SAND RAKES 00006115 310950 TE01236 5400.1740 20,513.59 369774 312812013 101047 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 745.00 GARAGE DOOR REPAIR 00005995 310951' 388487 1552.6530 _ 1,907.75 GARAGE DOOR REPAIR 310952 388485 1552.6530 2,652.75 369775 ` 312812013 103298 UPS STORE #1715, THE 15.02 SHIPPING CHARGES '310953 TRN:0659 1400.6235 15.02 369776 312812013 100410 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC. ' 182.80 PAGERS 311020 W0319246C 1400.6151 182.80 369777 3.12812013 - 103690 VALLEY -RICH CO. INC. 5,228.06 WATER MAIN REPAIR 00001798 310754 18541 5913.6180 4,461.06 WATER MAIN REPAIR 310799 18576' 5913.6180 4,013.50 WATER MAIN REPAIR 310800 18575 5913.6180 Subledger Account Description WELDING SUPPLIES PRINTING GENERALSUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS MACHINERY &EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS POSTAGE EQUIPMENT RENTAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page- 23 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN PSTF ADMINISTRATION YORK SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN . EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GOLF BALANCE SHEET CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENT SVC PW BUILDING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation 13,702.62 TELEPHONE 369778 312812013 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 363.56 LIQUOR BAGS 363.56 RECYCLING 369779 312812013 102970 VERIZON WIRELESS 32.93 TELEPHONE 32.93 311132 40.01 1554.6160 40.01 CENT SERV GEN - MIS CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 3/28/2013 -3/28/2013 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 310779 267293 -00 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES Business Unit YORK SELLING 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page - 24 311132 031013 1240.6188 TELEPHONE PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL 311132 031013 5952.6188 TELEPHONE RECYCLING 311132 031013 1260.6188 TELEPHONE ENGINEERING GENERAL 311132 031013 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 311132 031013 1400.61118 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 311132 031013 1470.6188 TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 369780 312812013 101063 VERSATILE VEHICLES INC. 162.93 SHOCK BUSHINGS, RECEPTACLE 00006380 310847 31413001 28.13 BUSHINGS, RIVETS 00006379 310848 31313002 191.06 369781 312812013 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 117.85 SPUTTERS, CONNECTORS 00001809 310954 7136824 120.53 EXIT LIGHTS 311021 7148247 238.38 369782 312812013 101067 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 147.74 SAFETY GLASSES 00005088 310755 318596 147.74 369783 312812013 119454 VINOCOPIA 620.21 311115 0074165 -IN 162.50 311116 0074166 -IN 782.71 369784 312812013 120627 VISTAR CORPORATION 721.75 CONCESSION PRODUCT 310756 36011712 28.19- CREDIT 311029 35732290 16.00- CREDIT 311030 35884270 66.63- CREDIT 311031 35884269 16.00- CREDIT 311032 35970231 4.79- CREDIT 311033 36098001 4.83- CREDIT 311034 36119976 5423.6530 5423.6530 1470.6406 5821.6406 1301.6610 5842.5512 5842.5513 5520.5510 5520.5510 5520.5510 5520.5510 5520.5510 5520.5510 5520.5510 REPAIR PARTS GOLF CARS REPAIR PARTS GOLF CARS GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH ST OCCUPANCY SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 3/2812013 - 3/2812013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS LICENSES & PERMITS LICENSES & PERMITS COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD 3/27/2u- 10:27:12 Page - 25 Business Unit PLANNING YORK OCCUPANCY CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING TRAINING TRAINING ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ASSESSING 418.60 585.31 369791 312812013 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 369785 3/28/2013 100023 VOGEL, ROBERT C. 693.20 310876 325120 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,225.00 CONSULTING SERVICES -2ND QTR 324999 -00 310801 213003 1140.6103 774.85 310878 2,225.00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 204.20 311117 369786 312812013 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 101069 VOSS LIGHTING 1,614.50 120.75 BULBS 00001703 310780 15220857 -00 5841.6406 800.96 310879 257.95 REPLACEMENT BULBS 00001703 310780 15220857 -00 5761.6180 448078 5862.5513 773.86 REPLACEMENT BULBS 00001703 310781 15220857 -01 5761.6180 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 128.98 REPLACEMENT BULBS 00001703 310782 15220857 -02 5761.6180 1,281.54 369787 312812013 131642 WAGNER, JOSH 32.00 OPERATOR EXAM FEE 311022 WATER SYSTEM 5919.6260 55.00 WASTEWATER EXAM FEE 311023 CERTIFICATION 5919.6260 87.00 369788 312812013 130574 WATSON COMPANY 405.13 CONCESSION PRODUCT 310757 823908 5520.5510 507.69 310758 824323 5520.5510 912.82 369789 312812013 120816 WEST COAST TRENDS INC. 144.98 MERCHANDISE 00006106 311024 40285779 5440.5511 144.98 369790 312812013 114588 WILSON, ROBERT C. 418.60 CONFERENCE AIRFARE 310851 REIMBERSE 1190.6104 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS LICENSES & PERMITS LICENSES & PERMITS COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD 3/27/2u- 10:27:12 Page - 25 Business Unit PLANNING YORK OCCUPANCY CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING TRAINING TRAINING ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ASSESSING 418.60 369791 312812013 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 693.20 310876 325120 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 57.75- 310877 324999 -00 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 774.85 310878 325204 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 204.20 311117 325118 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,614.50 369792 312812013 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 800.96 310879 447407 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,655.75 310880 448078 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 649.60 310881 448081 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 3/28/2013 -3/28/2013 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Page - 26 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 1,327.23 311118 448076 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE BOTH ST SELLING 1,626.57 311119 448080 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,391.52 311120 448077 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 7,451.63 369793 312812013 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 130.30 310813 1080016659 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 220.60 310882 1080016694 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 3,732.64 310883 1080016662 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 3,805.70 310884 1080016663 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 242.15 310885 1080016746 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 4,352.45 310886 1080016656 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,163.08 310887 1080016657 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,420.04 310888 1080016655 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,763.84 310889 1080016776 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 86.20- 310890 2080001279 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 128.00- 310891 2080002025 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 771.51 311121 1080017852 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,338.49 311122 1080016661 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 26.66 311123 1080016658 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,075.66 311124 1080016660 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 150.19- 311125 2080001043 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR BOTH ST SELLING 21,678.73 369794 312812013 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 2,715.75 310814 1090019047 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 43.00 310815 1090019048 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 4,952.30 310816 1090018052 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 240.00 310817 1090018433' 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,906.20 310818 1090018432 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 21.60- 310819 R09004291 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 21.50 311126 1090021354 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 584.20 311127 1090021353 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,981.35 311128 1090021352 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,624.00 311129 1090021355 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 112.00 311130 1090021356 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 14,158.70 369795 312812013 101082 WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY 229.74 DISPLAY 00006168 310955 290678 5440.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 229.74 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/27/2013 10:27:12 Council Check Register Page - 27 3/28/2013 — .3/28/2013 ;Check# Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation. PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit ;969796 312812015 123911 WRAP CITY GRAPHICS_ 72.14 SIGN 310849 13-156 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF, ADMINISTRATION 72.14 369797.- 312812013. 101726 XCEL ENERGY " 2,899.27 51- 6227619 -3 310759 361073103 5761.6185 LIGHT & POWER CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 44.39 51- 5276505 -8 310783 361405532 1330.6185 LIGHT-& POWER TRAFFIC SIGNALS 2,943.66 369798 3/2812013 119847 YOCUM OIL COMPANY INC. 12,810.00 DIESEL FUEL 310784 545199 1553.6581 GASOLINE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 19,851.71 " UNLEADED GAS 00005815 310785 545767 1553.6581 GASOLINE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 32,661.71 369799 3/2812013 120099 Z WINES USA'LLC 410.00 ' 310892 11843 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 410.00 i369800 312812013 101531 'ZINN, BOBO _ 128.47 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 310850 CRAFTS 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 128.47 602,631:67 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 602,631.67 Total Payments 602,631.67 R55CKSUM LOG20000 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 201,330.47 02300 POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE 2,411.00 03100 GENERAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,000.00 03300 PIR DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,975.00 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 39,718.75 04200 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 50,453.55 05100 ART CENTER FUND 1,407.04 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 53,406.49 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 38,975.98 05700 EDINBOROUGH PARK FUND 523.63 05750 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK FUND 5,824.46 05800 LIQUOR FUND 146,564.07 05900 UTILITY FUND 42,956.21 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 1,576.86 05950 RECYCLING FUND 32.93 _ 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 1,662.90 09232 CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT 11,812.33 Report Totals 602,631.67 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Summary 3/28/2013 - 3/2812013 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 policies anq procedures S 3/27/2013 10:28:51 Page- 1 Number * *6043 * *6043 * *6043 * *7693 * *7693 * *7693 * *7693 * *7693 * *7693 * *0127 * *0168 * *0168 * *0168 * *0168 * *0168 * *0168 * *0168 * *0168 * *8738 * *8738 * *8738 * *8738 * *8738 * *0176 * *0176 * *0176 * *0176 * *0176 * *0176 Name Date LISA SCHAEFER 2013/01/30 LISA SCHAEFER 2013/02/05 LISA SCHAEFER 2013/02/19 MARTY SCHEERE 2013/02/07 MARTY SCHEERE 2013/02/19 MARTY SCHEERE 2013/02/21 MARTY SCHEERE 2013/02/22 MARTY SCHEERE 20i3/02/22 MARTY SCHEERE 2013/02/22 KAREN KURT 2013/02/12 SCOTT NEAL 2013/01/29 SCOTT NEAL 2013/02/01 SCOTT NEAL 2013/02/04 SCOTT NEAL 2013/02/12 SCOTT NEAL 2013/02/14 SCOTT NEAL 2013/02/14 SCOTT NEAL 2013/02/15 SCOTT NEAL 2013/02/22 SUSAN HOWL 2013/01/29 SUSAN HOWL 2013/02/05 SUSAN HOWL 2013/02/19 SUSAN HOWL 2013/02/18 SUSAN HOWL 2013/02/20 JOHN WALLIN 2013/02/05 JOHN WALLIN 2013/02/05 JOHN WALLIN 2013/02/05 JOHN WALLIN 2013/02/05 JOHN WALLIN 2013/02/05 JOHN WALLIN 2013/02/11 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 01/27/13-02/26/13 Amount Description $249.00 BUSINESS EXPENS $397.00 2013 FM LA Class $180.00 Advertising $20.00 DATA PLAN $78.90 Fuel $12.98 OFFICE SERVICES $385.00 TRAINING $377.54 SUPPLIES $2.00 PARKING $52.56 Book $3.00 Parking $42.84 Food $28.42 Food $40.86 Food $93.79 CELL PHONE $62.46 Food $46.26 Food $26.47 Food $119.68 Food $219.30 Food $171.99 Food $200.00 Dues $78.77 Food $35.00 Conference -Bill N $35.00 Conference -Cary $35.00 Conference -Mike $48.00 Conference $60.00 Membership Ren $18.25 Transaction Fee Merchant Name NATL PUBLIC EMPLOYER LA M. LEE SMITH PUB. WEB AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOPAY TRUSOUTH OIL, LLC THE UPS STORE 1715 City 760 - 433 -1686 615 - 373 -7517 DAN.PAVLICH @C 888 - 294 -6804 318 - 7953800 EDINA BSHIFTER 602 - 242 -4396 SIMONSON LUMBER LITTLE FALLS HCMC PURPLE PARKING RAMP MINNEAPOLIS EDINA ART CENTER 612 - 9156600 MN ST IAP ADM PIVID PARK SAINT PAUL THE GUILTY GOOSE NEW YORK EDINA GRILL EDINA EDINA GRILL EDINA SPRINT *WIRELESS 800- 639 -6111 EDINA GRILL EDINA PF CHANG'S #9700 EDINA GOOD EARTH I EDINA PINSTRIPES EDINA PINSTRIPES EDINA PINSTRIPES EDINA LAMBDA ALPHA INTERNATION 651 - 917 -6257 D'AMICO & SONS /EDINA EDINA URBAN LAND INSTITUTE 800 - 321 -5011 URBAN LAND INSTITUTE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITI ev MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT F PAYFLOW /PAYPAL 800 - 321 -5011 800 - 321 -5011 612 - 7207667 651 - 7927036 888 - 883 -9770 State Account CA 1170.6105 TN 1170.6104 MO 1170.6121 CA 1470.6188 LA 1470.6406 MN 1470.6103 AZ 1470.6104 MN 1470.6406 MN 1470.6107 MN 1551.6406 MN 1120.6107 NY 1120.6106 M N 1120.6106 MN 1120.6106 KS 1120.6188 MN 1120.6106 M N 1120.6106 MN 1120.6106 MN 1100.6106 MN 1100.6106 MN 1100.6106 MN 1100.6105 MN 1120.6106 DC 9232.6104 DC 1140.6104 DC 1140.6104 MN 1140.6104 MN 1160.6105 CA 1550.6155 GAPurchasing cards\2013 purchasing card electronic files12013 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx .3/22/2013 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 01/27/13-02/26/13 Number Name Date Amount Description Merchant Name City State Account * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2013/02/11 $19.95 Transaction Fee PAYFLOW /. PAYPAL 888 - 883 -9770 CA 1550.6155 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2013/02/14 $255.00 MNCPA Dues MNSOCIETYOFCPAS 952 - 831 -2707 MN 1160.6105 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2013/02/14 $60.00 Membership Renev MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT F 651 - 7927036 MN 1160.6105 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2013/02/14 $60.00 Membership Reneu MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT F 651 - 7927036 MN 1160.6105 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2013/01/26 $338.24 Hotel RADISSON LACROSSE LA CROSSE WI 1180.6104 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2013/02/07 $19.40 Food DAVANNI'S #15 EDINA MN 1100.6106 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2013/02/07 $57.29 Food WHOLEFDS EDI #10419 EDINA MN 1100.6106 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2013/02/09 $15.47 Supplies TARGET 00013524 CHASKA MN 1100.6106 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2013/02/11 $380.30 Airfare DELTA AIR 0062323672986 DELTA.COM CA 1180.6104 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2013/02/11 $19.40 Food DAVANNI'S #15 EDINA MN 1100.6106 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2013/02/12 $24.72 INSURANCE TRAVEL INSURANCE POLICY 800 - 729 -6021 VA 1180.6104 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2013/02/20 $47.71 Food DAVANNI'S #15 EDINA MN 1100.6106 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2013/01/29 $268.00 Property Tax Appea MINNESOTA CLE 651 - 227 -8266 MN 1190.6104 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2013/02/12 $140.00 Registration MINNESOTA SHOPPING CENTEI MSCA- ONLINE.0 MN 1190.6104 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2013/02/19 $158.00 Registration LBP *REALESTATECOMMGRP 312 - 416 -1860 IL 1190.6104 * *0101 WAYNE HOULE 2013/01/30 $63.85 iPad Accessories AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1260.6406 * *0101 WAYNE HOULE 2013/02/01 $335.00 Membership Reneu MINNESOTA SOCIETY00 OF 00 651- 4572347 MN 1260.6105 * *0101 WAYNE HOULE 2013/02/05 $125.00 Registration PAYPAL *FRESHWATERS 402 - 935 -7733 CA 1260.6104 * *0101 WAYNE HOULE 2013/02/22 $600.00 Registration AZTECA SYSTEMS INC 801 - 5232751 UT 1260.6104 * *4882 ANDERSON SHAb 2013/02/22 $70.00 Registration U OF M CCE NONCREDIT 612 - 625 -4259 MN 1281.6104 * *4882 ANDERSON SHAD 2013/02/22 $70.00 Registration U OF M CCE NONCREDIT 612 -625 -4259 MN 1281.6104 * *4882 ANDERSON SHAb 2013/02/22 $70.00 Registration U OF M CCE NONCREDIT 612 -625 -4259 MN 1281.6104 * *4882 ANDERSON SHAD 2013/02/22 $70.00 Registration U OF M CCE NONCREDIT 612 - 625 -4259 MN 1281.6104 * *4882 ANDERSON SHAb 2013/02/22 $50.00 Registration U OF M CCE NONCREDIT 612 - 625 -4259 MN 1281.6104 * *4882 ANDERSON SHAD 2013/02/22 $50.00 Registration U OF M CCE NONCREDIT 612 - 625 -4259 MN 1281.6104 * *4882 ANDERSON SHAD 2013/02/22 $57.90 Propane SUPERAMERICA 4047 EDINA MN 1552.6406 * *4882 ANDERSON SHAb 2013/02/22 $525.00 Registration MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC 651- 6455726 MN 1281.6104 * *6973 GREG BRETSON 2013/01/25 $159.92 AUTO /RV DEALERS FELDMANN IMPORTS BLOOMINGTON MN 1553.6180 * *6973 GREG BRETSON 2013/02/08 $407.65 WHOLESALE TRADE SEELYE PLASTICS 952 - 8812658 MN 1553.6530 GAPurrhasing cards\2013 purchasing card electronic files\2013 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx 3/22/2013 Number Name Date * *6981 JOHN SCHEERER 2013/02/21 * *6999 DAN MCMAHON 2013/01/30 * *6999 DAN MCMAHON 2013/02/12 * *7005 DAVE GOERGEN 2013/02/21 * *7013 GARY WELLS 2013/02/13 * *2929 DAVID NELSON 2013/01/25 * *2929 DAVID NELSON 2013/02/04 * *7804 JEFF LONG 2013/01/28 * *7804 JEFF LONG 2013/01/28 * *7804 JEFF LONG 2013/01/29 * *7804 JEFF LONG 2013/01/30 * *7804 JEFF LONG 2013/02/13 * *7804 JEFF LONG 2013/02/20 * *7804 JEFF LONG 2013/02/20 * *5546 KRISTIN AARSVO 2013/02/05 * *5546 KRISTIN AARSV0 -2013 /02/21 * *5587 DAWN BEITEL 2013/01/29 * *5587 DAWN BEITEL 2013/02/04 * *5587 DAWN BEITEL 2013/02/08 * *5587 DAWN BEITEL 2013/02/15 * *5587 DAWN BEITEL 2013/02/18 * *0756 BOB PRESTRUD 2013/02/05 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/01/26 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/01/28 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/01/29 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/04 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/05 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/05 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/05 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 01/27/13-02/26/13 Amount Description Merchant Name City State Account $120.00 Training ATSSA 540- 3681701 VA 1281.6104 $250.00 Training ANOKA TECHNICAL COLLEGE 763 - 5764771 MN 1240.6105 $1,001.69 Thermostat ENVIRONMENTAL TECH 5742331202 IN 1552.6406 $95.00 Conference MINNESOTA RURAL WATER AS! 218 - 685 -5197 MN 5919.6104 $300.00 Conference POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 651 - 2967250 MN 5919.6104 $22.60 Fuel HOLIDAY STNSTORE 0403 NORTH BRANCH MN 1400.6406 $30.98 Fuel HOLIDAY STNSTO.RE 0216 LITTLE FALLS MN 1400.6406 $60.00 Office AIAFS 763 - 497 -7335 MN 1400.6104 $55.00 Office AIAFS 763- 497 -7335 MN 1400.6104 $1,540.00 Conference /Hotel SOTA 763 - 545 -0064 MN 1400.6104 $25.49 Business cards VISTAPR *VISTAPRINT.COM 866 - 6148002 CA 1400.6575 $76.39 Book - BARNES &NOBLE *COM 800 - 843 -2665 NJ 1400.6405 $170.00 Membership Renev INT LAW ENF TRAINING 262 - 767 -1406 WI 1400.6104 $131.84 Shoe Polisher AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1400.6406 $70.00 Conference U OF M ARBORETUM OL 952 - 443 -1435 MN 1600.6104 $270.40 EATING /DRINKING BRUNSWICK ZONE EDEN PR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 1629.6406 ($12.97) Food CUB FOODS #3128 SSS EDINA MN 1624.6406 $51.30 Supplies MICHAELS #3739 BLOOMINGTON MN 1629.6406 $31.81 Food JERRY'S FOODS OF ED EDINA MN 1629.6406 $18.10 Food JERRY'S FOODS OF ED EDINA MN 1629.6406 $100.00 Food PINSTRIPES EDINA MN 1629.6406 $30.00 TURF CLASSES JRK SEED AND TURF SUPPLY 651 - 6866756 MN 1643.6104 $20.00 Data plan- Jennifer VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOPAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1130.6160 $5.00 Software AKSMT.COM 877- 273 -3049 CA 1130.6124 $39.96 Office Supplies GALLUP INC 402 - 938 -6339 NE 1130.6406 $99.00 Software DROPBOX 888 - 446 -8396 CA 1130.6103 $2,000.00 License FREEPLAY MUSIC LLC 212- 9740548 NY 1130.6406 $295.45 Software SURVEYMONKEY.COM 971 - 2445555 CA 1130.6406 $32.17 Software ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. 800- 833 -6687 WA 1130.6406 G:\Purchasing cards\2013 purchasing card electronic files\2013 USB Purchasing -Card Register.xlsx 3/22/2013 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 01/27/13-02/26/13 Number Name Date Amount Description Merchant Name City State Account * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/06 $32.17 Software ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. 800 - 833 -6687 WA 1130.6406 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/07 $49.00 Software CTO *GOTOMEETING.COM 800 - 263 -6317 CA 1495.6406 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/08 $13014 Supplies TARGET 00023135 EDINA MN 1554.6406 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/08 $29.99 Software AMAZON DIGITAL SVCS 866 - 216 -1072 WA 1400.6160 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/08 $29.99 Software AMAZON DIGITAL SVCS 866 - 216 -1072 WA 1400.6160 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/13 $20.00 Data plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOPAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1130.6160 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/17 $20.00 Data plan VZWRLSS* P RPAY AUTO PAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1130.6160 * *0085 JENNIFER BENNE 2013/02/25 $599.99 UPS for AV Room AMAZON.COM AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1130.6407 * *7820 SUSIE MILLER 2013/02/13 $47.39 SUPPLIES TARGET 00021899 ST LOUIS PARK MN 5510.6513 * *7820 SUSIE MILLER 2013/02/15 $44.49 Supplies MENARDS 3268 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5511.6406 * *3792 MICHAEL FREY 2013/02/05 $84.61 Supplies MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN CO - B 952 - 8845286 MN 5111.6406 * *3792 MICHAEL FREY 2013/02/19 $173.52 Food PINSTRIPES EDINA MN 5120.6406 * *5821 AMY SMITH 2013/02/09 $70.95 Books U OF M BKSTRS WEBSITE 612- 625 -5516 MN 5422.6406 * *5821 AMY SMITH 2013/02/18 $220.80 Supplies BLAINE WINDOW HARDWARE HAGERSTOWN MD 5420.6530 * *9665 SUSAN FAUS 2013/02/02 $43.60 Office Services PB METER REN *TAL 800 - 228 -1071 CT 5710.6235 * *9665 SUSAN FAUS 2013/02/19 $100.00 Postage PITNEYBOWES- POSTAGE 800 - 468 -8454 CT 5710.6235 * *0667 TOM SHIRLEY 2013/01/25 $60.00 Membership Renev PAYPAL *WOMENINLEIS 402 - 935 -7733 CA 5760.6104 * *0667 TOM SHIRLEY 2013/01/24 $15.30 BUSINESS EXPENS DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 651 - 2016433 MN 5760.6105 * *0667 TOM SHIRLEY 2013/01/25 $61.20 Subscription DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 651 - 2016433 MN 5760.6105 * *0667 TOM SHIRLEY 2013/01/30 $67.50 Supplies MENARDS 3268 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5761.6406 * *0667 TOM SHIRLEY 2013/02/05 $2,194.26 Restroom Project 6102 ALLIED BLDG PROD 763 - 545 -1273 MN 5750.1720 * *0667 TOM SHIRLEY 2013/02/06 $787.90 Supplies MENARDS 3021 BURNSVILLE MN 5761.6406 * *0667 TOM SHIRLEY 2013/02/08 $204.56 Supplies MENARDS 3268 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5761.6406 * *0667 TOM SHIRLEY 2013/02/21 $45.48 Supplies MENARDS 3297 RICHFIELD MN 5761.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSA 2013/02/05 $8.57 Batteries LUNDS #2 EDINA MN 5821.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSA 2013/02/05 $103.23 Flasks MORAN USA LLC 800 - 486 -6726 CT 5842.5515 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSA 2013/02/11 $4.22 Fuel LEROYS GREAT BEAR BLOOMINGTON MN 5861.6406 * *7021 DEB FIELDS 2013/02/01 $30.00 Office Services EMA *EMMA EMAIL MARKETIN 800 - 5954401 TN 7410.6122 * *7021 DEB FIELDS 2013/02/09 $101.52 Office Services GOOGLE *ADWS5107668870 GOOGLE *ADWS5 CA 7410.6122 G:1Pi -teasing cards\2013 purchasing card electronic files\2013 USP Durchasing Card Register.xlsx '" 9212013 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 01/27/13-02/26/13 Number Name Date Amount Description Merchant Name City State Account * *7021 DEB FIELDS 2013/02/13 $58.64 Clothing BARRE ARMY NAVY STORE 802 - 4792289 VT 7414.6218 * *7039 GERALD _ KOPLOS 2013/01/30 $34.24 Supplies MILLS FLEET FARM #2,500 LAKEVILLE MN 7412.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2013/02/05 $32.73 Supplies THE HOME DEPOT #2845 RICHFIELD MN 7411.6511 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2013/02/06 $9.39 Supplies BDI *BEARING DISTRIBUTR 216 - 642 -9100 OH 7411.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2013/02/14 $75.01 Supplies THE HOME DEPOT #2845 RICHFIELD MN 7411.6406 CITY OF EDINA 2013/02/14 ($624.34) REBATE US BANK EDINA MN 1001.8070 $19,533.23 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 pol cic)s and procedures date, f �3 C Ik G: \Purchasing cards\2013 purchasing card electronic files\2013 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx 3/22/2013 To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: April 2, 2013 Subject: Biryani Wine/3.2 Liquor Licenses Renewal w9�,1� o e V V� ,tea Agenda Item #: IV. C. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Action Requested: Motion approving the renewal of On -Sale Wine and 3.2 Beer Licenses to Biryani Inc. dba Biryani at 7078 Amundson Avenue for the period beginning April 2, 2013 and ending March 31, 2014. Information / Background: In March when the rest of the cities' liquor licenses were renewed, Biryani, Inc. had not completed their renewal application. They have now submitted the necessary renewal paperwork and paid all applicable fees. The licensee understands that they will experience an interruption in their license due to the lateness of the renewal application submission. All applicable city departments have reviewed the submittals and finds that they comply with code requirements. The Police Department has completed their investigation. Attached is Sgt. Tim Olson's memo stating the findings of the Police Department's background investigation. The licenses are placed on the agenda for consideration by the Council. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Memo To: Chief Jeff Long From: Sergeant Tim Olson Date: March 25, 2013 Re: Liquor License Renewal A background check has been completed for Biryani's, 2013 -2014 licensing period. The application involved the renewal of a license for; Wine and 3.2 Beer On -Sale. An unqualified recommendation for approval of this renewal application is warranted. Sergeant Tim Olson • Page 1 To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: April 2, 2013 Subject: Smashburger New Wine /3.2 Liquor Licenses NA, ofte Rio 1000 Agenda Item #: IV. D. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Action Requested: Motion approving New On -Sale Wine and 3.2 Beer Licenses to Smashburger Acquisition Minneapolis, LLC dba Smashburger, 10 Southdale Center for the period beginning April 2, 2013 and ending March 31, 2014. Information / Background: Smashburger Acquisition Minneapolis, Inc. dba as Smashburger, at 10 Southdale Center has applied for new on -sale wine liquor and 3.2 beer licenses. This will be a new restaurant within Southdale Center. They have filed the necessary paperwork and paid the applicable fees for the license. 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. Tim Olson's memo stating the findings of the Police Department's background investigation. The licenses are placed on the agenda for consideration by the Council. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina; MN 55424 joBACKGROUND INVESTIGATION SUMMARY ON -SALE WINE AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE Establishment: Smashburger, Store #1272 License: On Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor February 2013, the Edina Police Department began a background investigation relating to a City of Edina application for an On -Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor license. The application was submitted by Smashburger Acquisition - Minneapolis LLC, dba: Smashburger store #1272. Smashburger Acquisition- Minneapolis LLC is one of several Smashburger Acquisition LLC's operating numerous Smashburger locations throughout the United States. The Smashburger Edina location will operate from 10 Southdale Center #229013, Southdale Mall, Edina. Smashburger Acquisition - Minneapolis LLC is authorized to do business in Minnesota and is registered with the State of Minnesota. Smashburger Acquisition - Minneapolis LLC is currently active and in good standing with the Minnesota Secretary of State. Smaslburger Acquisition - Minneapolis LLC and /or it's representatives are aware of the City of Edina's requirement relating to employee alcohol awareness training. Training dates to meet this requirement are pending. Owners /Partners /Members: Smashburger Acquisition- Minneapolis LLC / Smashburger #1272: David P Prokupek Denver CO Chris Chang Denver CO The owners /partners /members have been investigated and were found to have no criminal records. Checks were made with the following agencies. NCIC MINCIS Hennepin County Minnesota Secretary of State Minnesota Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 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 Smashburger Acquisition- Minneapolis LLC dba: Smashburger store #1272 from obtaining an On Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor license. I would support a positive recommendation from the Police Department in regard to the issuance of this license. Sgt. Tim Olson #142 owe To: City Council Agenda Item#: IV.E. From: Michael Frey, Art Center General Manager Action N Discussion ❑ Date: April 2, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Ordinance No. 2013 -05 Amending Chapter 15 Regarding the Edina Art Center Board Action Requested: Approve Ordinance No. 2013 -05 Amending Chapter 15 changing the Edina Art Center Board to the Arts and Culture Commission on the Consent Agenda, Item IV. E. Information / Background: Staff is requesting your approval of an ordinance amendment to City Code changing the Edina Art Center Board to the Arts and Culture Commission. During the February 19, 2013 Joint Work Session with Council and the Edina Art Center Board, Council was in support of the board's recommended change. Ordinance No. 2013 -05 identifies new Duties A., B., C., D., E., G., and H. Ordinance No. 2013705 amends City Code — Section 1508 — Art Center Board by deleting Duty A. and modifying Duties D. and F., shown below. 1508.02 Duties. The Board shall: A. Make recommendations regarding the operation of the Edina Art Center. D. Recommend programs at the Edina Art Center that are responsive to community desires. F. Initiate and oversee fundraising activities that benefit the Edina Art Center and public art in Edina. A brief history of the Arts and Culture Working Group initiating request for city code change: October 2011 — The Arts and Culture Working Group began as an idea of the Edina Art Center Board, noting art and culture in Edina was fragmented and felt the need to establish a volunteer working 'group to develop a vision and strategic plan for art and culture in Edina. December 4, 2011 — Council endorsed the creation of the Arts and Culture Working Group as initiated by the Edina Art Center Board, and encouraged the working group to be as open to resident participation as possible. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 r �l REPORT / RECOMMENDATION A January — March 2012 — Edina Art Center Board Members Hafed Bouassida, Thomas Raeuchle, William McCabe IV, and General Manager Frey meet to. strategize and plan large group meetings. March 8, 2012 — First large group meeting held at Edina Senior Center; vision and inventory sub - groups formed. Nineteen residents were in attendance. April 12, 2012 — Second large group meeting was held; eleven areas of interest identified — music, dance, theater, decorative arts, painting, culinary arts, ceramics, sculpture, literature, media arts and public art. May 10, 2012 — Third large group meeting. Member Naomi Griffith presents comprehensive inventory of decorative arts that will be used as model for council work session. May 15, 2012 —joint Work Session with Council and Edina Art Center Board. Presentation of current findings and request for intern and funding. June 18, 2012 — Intern Claire Lukens begins research internship. Page 2 July 2012 — Monthly and semi - monthly meetings through March 2013 are held to discuss research. Approximately 100 artist interviews were conducted in eleven sub - categories; a SurveyMonkey survey was created; long and short phone surveys with 50 interviewees were conducted and a 31 page Arts and Culture Working Group Inventory was developed. October 2012 — Board begins discussion regarding change to Arts and Culture Commission from Edina Art Center Board which oversees one enterprise facility. This board relationship is unique within the City of Edina. The Arts and Culture Commission would have a broader vision and scope for artistic and cultural ventures within the City, and not just the. Edina Art Center. ORDINANCE NO. 2013-5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING THE ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1508 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Section 1508 —Arts & Culture Commission 1508.01 Establishment. The Council, finding that the encouragement and enhancement of the arts in Edina is vital to the social and cultural well -being of the City and its residents, does hereby establish the Arts & Culture Commission (the "Commission "). 1508.02 Duties. The Commission shall: A. Build a vibrant community through support of art and culture in Edina. B. Advocate for the role and value of art and cultural activities in the City of Edina, including music, dance, theater, decorative arts, painting, culinary, ceramics, sculpture, literature, media arts and public art. C. Develop means to provide communication about arts and cultural activities that promote participation and enhance the cultural life for the residents of Edina. D. Promote artistic and cultural initiatives and make recommendations to the City Council, other City Boards and Commissions and the City Manager for activities and programs that would provide economic and cultural benefit for the residents of Edina. E. Develop a long term plan directed towards fulfilling the needs and desires of Edina residents with respect to art and culture. F. Identify existing and recommend new venues that would benefit the community artistically and culturally. G. Recommend and facilitate programs at venues throughout the City of Edina that are responsive to community desires. H. Advocate for and develop sources of arts and cultural funding, including grants, donations, corporate and business sponsorship directly or in partnership with the Edina Community Foundation. I. Represent the City at community functions pertaining to arts and culture with similar groups and organizations involved in the arts. J. Promote the continued development and implementation of public visual arts programs in Edina. Ordinance No. 2013 -05 Page 2 K. Periodically report to the Council on matters pertaining to art and culture within Edina. L. Perform other duties from time to time as directed by the Council. 1508.03 Membership. The Commission shall consist of nine (9) regular and two (2) student members. 1508.04 Committees and Working Groups. The Commission shall establish and appoint members to a Public Art Committee which shall be charged with establishing and implementing a public arts program in the City. The Public Art Committee shall be chaired by a person who shall be appointed by the Commission Chair with': the consent of the Commission. The Commission may establish other committees and working groups for the purpose of carrying out other Commission duties. 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 Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication Bill to Edina City Clerk Doc. #169268v.1 RNK: 3/15/2013 I w O4ne F •��oaroxw't�° � ,aaB To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: IV.F. From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action 0 Discussion ❑ Date: April 2, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Resolution No. 2013 -34 Approving a Final Plat at 5633 Tracy Avenue for Rod Helm on behalf of Miriam Kiser. Action Requested: Adopt the attached resolution. Information 1 Background: On March 5, 2013, the City Council approved.the Preliminary Plat. (Vote: 5 -0.) The Final Plat is the same as the approved Preliminary Plat. ATTACHMENTS: • Preliminary & Final Plats • Resolution 2013 -34 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50`h St. • Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-34 APPROVING A FINAL PLAT AT 5633 TRACY AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Rod Helm on behalf of Miriam Kiser is requesting a Final Plat of 5633 Tracy Avenue to divide the existing parcel into two lots. 1.02 The following described tract of land is requested to be divided: Lots 1, Block 1, Warden Acres Kiser Replat, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 1.03 The owner of the described land desires to subdivide said tract in to the following described new and separate parcels (herein called "parcels ") described as follows: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Kiser Subdivision. 1.04 The proposed subdivision received the following variances: 1. Lot width variances from 85 feet to 80 feet for each lot. 1.05 On March 5, 2013, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat and above mentioned Variances on a Vote of 5 -0. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Final Plat is the same as the approved Preliminary Plat. Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Final Plat for the proposed subdivision of 5633 Tracy Avenue, subject to the following conditions: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted: CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952 - 927 -8861 • Fax 952 - 826 -0389 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-34 Page Two a. Submit evidence of a Nine Mile .Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. A curb -cut permit must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. C. A grading plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer d. All storm water from the proposed homes, driveways, and westerly half of the lots shall drain to Tracy Avenue. e. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be repaired by replacing the asphalt pavement from curb -to -curb and from saw -cut to saw -cut. f. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. g. Utility hook -ups are subject to review of the city engineer. Adopted this 2nd day of April, 2013. 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 April-2,-2013– and -as recorded-iri the Minutes- of- said-Regular Meeting: - - - - -- — -- - -- — WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 201a. City Clerk 553,3 3528 Ik£�7 5329 SSJ2 1 15516 Sit 7: 1337 5535 3515 5310 5331 DOI:i.A57b7 WAY 5501 3600 5600 Si11 3717 3713 5605 5604 56W 5608 We 5609 24 73 $710 5705 3612 5779 HAVn -- r'1 E 5712 5705 ]711 5725 5708 $721 5701 '/• • 3717 HA FWXE50R Hawk -'L ko $719 709 3705 5701 s76a s7a s7a6 � I 5170 5708 5708 5703 5712 b7f6 5770 City of Edina 5516 s 5521 5321 > SSJ2 3607 3600 5605 5601 5609 3604 5615 5612 5616 5617 5621 5620 5625 5624 5629 5619 -_ _ -- $633 5632 5616 56/2 s608 5604 5640 ONSION mamma 5601 5600 'K. 5605 5601 5609 5604 5605 5529 560e 3617 5609 5612 5516 5512 $508 5504 3616 5501 5500 5505 RDGEPARKRO 5509 55}) 5509 5503 lsoe 5513 5613 $511 y''r 5517 77 5516 5521 56 5110 551! 0 5611 3519 3524 14 5528 5337 5532 5577 ......a r. Pati 5541 ss4s 5549 i td 5705 EF 5804 CftOYE ST SBO1 5800 5801 5521 Q 3677 5609 5603 x 5513 5509 5505 3770 5712 5700 5675 5801 5805 5804 5507 5451 W oSCn'E sr c 5808 5608 5806 24 56210 5816 5808 ,us 5600 W 5601 5721 5717 5711 5709 5705 5701 5813 5877 5801 R 581) 5817 5824 LY7 `LN 5605 5712 5708 s7. 5700 5528 3872 5617 5516 3511 5506 M.11151� r�i o�2l:ms:a =n 5621 PID:3211721130066 ° 5633 Tracy Ave , 542 Edina, MN 55436 ` w Legend Ej Highlighted Feature Surrounding House Number Labels House Number Labels Street Name Labels 'Al City Limits // Creeks Lake Names Lak6s Parks Parcels City of Edina r f -- •1.tf oS ->* y -.'_ .. - - - - -�� 3f fit- Tr r Legend Surr°untling House Number 11 �� 1• 5661.6 t y + Labeia S -- • `1 �y I J., . 7 '�. I p �., it e57a� Housc N— b., Latrels Street Name Labels CI Limits Cneko i3 k.' • i�1 C i `� ��` Lake Names �� Lakes Parks -,\ ' i - 1 !`,a I n ..`_ '. + ♦ r I Parcels 2009 Aerial Photo ••�-� - -i. �: - �J Al 5 lytfL" 6 f _ • 1 '1 1 ' � ?i s � -. -. ,� _ r+ IE f�, 5 ,rye �5 on � •� rt! I .. �i ✓�` 'gip � ., � - - �,r� ti..: +r. � �3_ � , _ ,{ ,I_ I� �x. -�° t, � '� `_� � .� p r7 5 560 'e0"'� 1 Eta r ,z A, PID:3211721130066 % r, 5633 Tracy Ave Edina, MN 55436 a5' � Ir.� it Ly• CY.rtron..K� J IJIJO I 60 PROPOSED UTILITY * OWN" E45ZMEWS ARE 5HOWW 771US: I L---- Being 5 rat n and h W dj-" W M.-d 10 Ma . mft..d .dA—",VW.f.vk- PR ELIM INARY PLAT FOIR: Miriam Kiser 53 T—y A-. E dna, MN 5S438 7 NOTES: Legal Description I /Story fame HA KIKE-9 TERRACE ------------------------------------- 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT L 0 T 1 c KISER I rl 14, I 60 PROPOSED UTILITY * OWN" E45ZMEWS ARE 5HOWW 771US: I L---- Being 5 rat n and h W dj-" W M.-d 10 Ma . mft..d .dA—",VW.f.vk- PR ELIM INARY PLAT FOIR: Miriam Kiser 53 T—y A-. E dna, MN 5S438 7 NOTES: Legal Description I /Story fame S 89'51'45" E 232.50 ------------------------------------- 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT L 0 T 1 c KISER I rl 14, — — — — — ubuy L---- -- - - - --- ----------- ------- ---- ------------ w — — — — — — ------- -------------------------------------- Miriam Kser Z 5633 T..y A.. • L 0 T 2 PROPOSED UTILITY * OWN" E45ZMEWS ARE 5HOWW 771US: I L---- Being 5 rat n and h W dj-" W M.-d 10 Ma . mft..d .dA—",VW.f.vk- PR ELIM INARY PLAT FOIR: Miriam Kiser 53 T—y A-. E dna, MN 5S438 7 NOTES: Legal Description PRELIMINARY PLAT KISER SUBDIVISION — — — — — — — Fm N 89'51'49"W 232.50 I Miriam Kser 5633 T..y A.. Edl.., MIN 55436 E-A -- ----------- CERTIFICATION ............ / .Story Frame No.5612 I Nc.5GIG No.56M LOT KSIWVM COMPANY. SCALE IN FEET 0 20 Sheet 2 of 4 �L�Y + ..... ............ ............I.................. ....... . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . ... .................... + KISER SUBDIVISION >' I I I e: I ;r I �• I I I I 1 I :• 1 I I m I I 1 PR0191CD URUM1I CR.OplAR Ll9dlbrl! AR[.wtlMN M1p6: f1.q ]tea SCALE IN FEET 0 ]o 60 90 wl.mpL wnAm. x�.rl.pa.xe.�crt..,,.k.n_n x_ ®l.vvrekv wwpvaexu5iN9oIV519xwebalvevv.. p-bpYk _k..rmovaorywsq.pepmva_ns0p. Ipomv.l yn6]Y__I II®yfYYi. Cn_T. YIV® •••• •••• ICOmF;ev uyC®lam[gLS ' I IL very —1 1 b _ ln l.. uvaak.m] am ol.w ev vupn vyp>m ewvvkv.. tl I _.uy Yvvm IaaSv.s]v oe meetul_ert;tl sepa emm npe_.um Yen b NN�mew. queamw]�ol 6eea]. vm 1.4—.matlo o..1ibnn.W Sbaee u:.pv: me4l pohW.en.. lewnams` �w.vY.tl r, em xl.ev ev.e.IV wva Yn4 o�� laere]e rrw�_wew.xgeak]ve_mu._r]� �yY�rtTA Ives xwy5.m. cm.r.k Yl.m OIxA uIMNSYYA Tk.pv YIJSEI[UOYINAHX av grvNw.velb N'NaMCa_YafEe tlH. eEpm YMem.a. rtL�rm.l4 eYmfkY01._b5N .IfapleW Ol vllees urtvspmf_wlk Cati]IIyNmTF�vkw k_m:..A!] rdh v Ib ps.�e]o!e Imlat V elHV vld mYpl pd ®m w v pvltl b Likmv. 01ib. 9sYnv 50].0]. N W.Idm 1. a Ym h MCM �1mr I.Yn.aa Ikrtpemry0mea my Pr. O4k_ wvlvymkn kvntde5vka esitrema:.pa 0.rte ae —e•Op OIYY V,-0. 11— 10. A.. By OepvT YIAVET OMfI0N.11mepn CwH.4lvem M1tivtvun.nav Yawn SV_Y]nJU14wI0epa Ylvn.mw.:Oi. _An of w�El_O.msvxmep.n.q 5...]. ] couxrr sEewnea ertm], Yl.ms - Ikw,. �enmr .Ik.,k�luac5uaorvulo4..-.mrt r.r5p Y.m Yx.ala uamwEemy w.�ert a De m. clavan o_4n. Ine. e.e.., LOi SURVEYS COMPANY LAND SURVEYORS + ................. ............ ............. REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Robert C. Wilson City Assessor Date: April 2, 2013 roRPOR =`� / IB00 Agenda Item #: IV. G. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Subject: Resolution No. 2013 -35 Authorizing The Removal Of- Erroneously Levied Special Assessments By Hennepin County On The 2013 Property Tax Statement Action Requested: Adopt Resolution No. 2013 - 35 authorizing the removal of erroneously levied special assessments by Hennepin County on the 2013 property tax statement. Information / Background: Each year property owners have until November 15th to pay off the balance of any existing levied special assessments, so that the principle and interest payment does not accrue to the following year's property tax statement. These payments are received by the City, and Hennepin County is notified that the special assessments have been paid off and to remove them from the following year's property taxes. An owner of a specific property, who paid off a previously existing special assessment on November 29, 2011 was erroneously charged annual principal and interest in the 2013 tax statement. The resolution is needed to direct the County to remove the principal and interest charges from the specific property. All City records are correct; this action will bring County records in line with City records. The affected property owner has been notified by the City of this error by mail, and will receive an adjusted 2013 property tax statement. A copy of the resolution listing the affected property is attached for your consideration. Attachments: Resolution No. 2013 -35 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 35 Authorizing The Removal Of Erroneously Levied Special Assessments By Hennepin County On The 2013 Property Tax Statement WHEREAS, an owner of a specific property, who paid off a previously existing special assessment on November 29, 2011 was erroneously charged annual principle and interest for 2012 on their 2013 property tax statement. WHEREAS, a resolution is required to direct Hennepin County to remove the principle and interest charges from the 2013 property tax statement NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the following special assessment is to be removed by Hennepin County from the 2013 property tax statement: Levy No PID To Remove 17205 30- 028 -24 -41 -0040 $ 1,146.19 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 2013 ATTEST: City Clerk 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 April 2, 2013 and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaA4N.gov • 952 - 927 -8861 • Fax 952 - 826 -0390 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering Date: April 2, 2013 Subject: Resolution No. 2013 -36 Designating France Ave No Parking C o Le vr�ri) 'SID p 80 0 • Agenda Item #: IVA Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Action Requested: Adopt attached Resolution No. 2013 -36 designating No Parking restrictions on France Ave from 350' South of 76th Street to 200' North of 66th Street (CSAH 53). Information / Background: This resolution is for the France Avenue Pedestrian Enhancement Project. France Avenue is designated as a County State Aid Highway (CSAH 53) and requires a no parking resolution due to utilizing federal funds to improve the roadway. Being a County roadway a resolution authorizing the required no parking restrictions does not exist for this roadway. Attachments: Resolution No. 2013 -36 G:U WICENTRAL SVCS04G DIVIPROJEC MCONTRACTSUOMENG 13 -5 France Ave IntersectionS18A404, Intersections EnhancelADMINIMISNtem . Resolution No. 2013, Designating France Ave No P"ng.docx City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St - Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -36 FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON FRANCE AVENUE FROM 350' SOUTH OF 76TH STREET TO 200' NORTH OF 66TH STREET (CSAH 53) WHEREAS, the City of Edina has planned pedestrian improvements for France Avenue from 350' South of 76th Street to 200' North of 66th Street (CSAH 53), State Project No. 120 - 020 -037; and WHEREAS, the City of Edina will be expending Federal Aid Funds and Local Funds on the improvements on France Avenue; and WHEREAS, this improvement does not provide adequate width for parking on both sides of the street; approval of the proposed construction as a County State Aid street project must therefore be conditioned upon certain restrictions; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that the City Council of the City of Edina hereby bans the parking of motor vehicles on France Avenue, as described in the project limits listed above: ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 2013 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) 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 Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 2"d , 2013, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20_ City Clerk ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 wwwEdinaMN.gov • 952 - 826 -0371 • Fax 952 - 826 -0392 To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering Date: April 2, 2013 ' A o Le �y • f��DAPOL:A�� • ISBB Agenda Item #: IV.[. The Recommended Bid is ® Within Budget ❑ Not Within Budget Subject: Request For Purchase - Award of Bid - Lake Edina Noise Wall Improvements, ENG 13-11 NB Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: March 18, 2013 Company: Rainbow, Inc. Wasche Commercial Finisher, Inc. Tyson Enterprises, LLC Recommended Quote or Bid: Rainbow, Inc. Bid or Expiration Date: May 18, 2013 Amount of Quote or Bid: $31,000.00 Did not submit a quote Did not submit a quote $31,000.00 General Information: The Lake Edina Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Project was ordered by the Edina City Council at the December 11, 2012 Public Hearing. The noise wall improvements included paint removal and landscaping. Both components were part of the Public Hearing. The paint removal and landscaping portions of the project were quoted separately due to the specialty nature of the work and the extended warranty on the landscaping. Paint removal work includes removal of loose paint from the wall by pressure washing and installation of paint by color matching in areas of mismatched colors or bare concrete. The landscaping work includes matching the landscaping style the residents at Larkspur Lane began a few years ago; their landscaping will remain as is. This includes installation of ivy's, junipers, and lilacs. This project is funded by special assessments. The special assessments include roadway and noise wall improvements for the Lake Edina Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Project. The final special assessment will be determined prior to the final assessment hearing. The quotes above were for the paint removal operations. A separate quote was taken for the landscaping. The low quote for the landscaping work was submitted by Hoffman & McNamara Co. for $14,930.00. Staff will issue a purchase order for this work, since the value is below $20,000. Staff recommends awarding the paint removal portion of the project to Rainbow, Inc. G:~CENTRAL SVCSIENG DIVIPROJECTSICONTRACTSUOIMENG 13-4 Lake EdinaW249 Landscaping lSPECS%PaintRemovallLeVRRFP.doa City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 To: Mayor and City Council From: Ann Kattreh Parks and Recreation Director Date: 4/2/13 owe �o pass Agenda Item #: IV. J. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Subject: Reject Bids for Countryside Park Shelter Building and Re- authorize Advertisement for Bids Action Requested: Reject bids for the Countryside Park Shelter Building and authorize staff to revise the scope and re- advertise bids for the park shelter project. Information / Background: On January 16, 2013 the City Council authorized bids for the Countryside Park renovation including site work and a new park shelter building. Bids were opened for the park shelter building on March 22, 2013. The architects estimate and budget for the shelter building was $375,000. The low bid came in at $561,017. Staff would like to revise the scope of the project to address potentially excessive pricing in the areas of HVAC, mechanical room size, exterior building materials and roof overhang and interior finishes. Please find attached the March 22 bid tabulation sheet. Bids for the site work portion of this project will be opened on April 4, 2013. Attachment: Countryside Park Shelter Building Bid Tabulation City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 ow a -� I- S9 UL Wendel H � o SGN/Wendel • .�� • 111 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 ,nua Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 612 332 -1401 Countryside Park Improvements - New Park Shelter Building Bid Opening: 10:00 a.m. Friday March 22, 2013 Contractor Bid Bond Addendum 1 Base Bid Alternate 1 Cedar Shake Roofing Total Custom Builders, Inc. X X $ 561,017.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 576,017.00 American Liberty Construction X X $ 581,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 587,500.00 A & L Construction X X $ 652,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 657,000.00 Meisinger Construction X X $ 589,000.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 610,000.00 Ebert Construction X X $ 568,200.00 $ 16,900.00 $ 585,100.00 at To: City Council From: Ann Kattreh Parks and Recreation Director Date: 4/2/13 Subject: Arbor Day Proclamation, April 26, 2013 Action Requested: Proclaim April 26, 2013 Arbor Day o e v �y •'MroRPORP�� • 1886 Agenda Item #: V. A. Action ❑x Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Information / Background: Arbor Day is a holiday in which individuals and groups are encouraged to plant and care for trees. It originated in Nebraska City, Nebraska by J. Sterling Morton. The first Arbor Day was held on April 10, 1872 and an estimated one million trees were planted that day. Many countries now observe a similar holiday. Though usually observed in the spring, the date varies, depending on climate and suitable planting season. City Forester Tom Horwath will recognize Arbor Day by planting trees at Garden Park. The tree planting will take place on Friday, April 26 from 10 = I I A.M. This year staff will be planting 3 balled and burlapped size evergreens on the north side of the playground. With the weather conditions so far this spring, this planting will take place "weather permitting ". The frost must be out of the ground and evergreens available for planting. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 I• PROCLAMATION ARBOR DAY APRIL 26, 2013 WHEREAS, in 1812; J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees'and WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska, and WHEREAS, 2013 is the 141st anniversary of the holiday and Arbor Day is now observed - - - - - -- - -- throughout the nation- and -the world, -and- WHEREAS, trees are a most valuable resource, purifying our air, helping. conserve our soil and energy, serving as a recreational setting, providing a habitat for wildlife of all kinds, and enriching our lives in other important ways, and WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce life- giving oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife, and WHEREAS, disease, insects and pollution have damaged and continue to threaten our trees, creating the need, for tree care and tree planting programs and fostering greater public concern for the future of our urban forest, and WHEREAS, Edina is proud of the beautiful shade trees which grace our homes and public places, and NOW, THEREFORE, 1, James B. Hovland, Mayor of Edina, do hereby proclaim April 26, 2013, to be Arbor Day and call upon the spirited and foresighted citizens of Edina to plant, trees now for our pleasure and that of future generations. Dated this 2nd day of April 2013. James B. Hovland Mayor t: \Energy and Environment Commisslon \I'tojecls \20 13 \Earth Day Proclamotion \Eorlh Day Procloniation RR.docx _ City of Edina 4801 W. SO`" St Edina, MN 55424. O e - VJ 0 �,��RhOMKV.9 u IU UU To:. MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: V.B. From_: Ross Kintner P.E. A4110h 0 Environmental Engineer Discussion Date: April 2, 2013 Inforin..atl ®n ❑ Subject: Earth Day Proclamation, Apri122,, 2013 Action Requested: Authorize Mayor to sign attached proclamation. . Information / Background: At its March 14, 2013, meeting the Energy and Environment Commission recommended the Edina City Council proclaim April 22, Earth Day 2013 in Edina and encourage residents to attend the April 18, Edina Dialogue; "What's up with the weather? Our changing climate and what we can do about it" at 7:00 p.m. at Edina High School,, Fick Auditorium. Attachment: Earth Day 2013 Proclamation t: \Energy and Environment Commisslon \I'tojecls \20 13 \Earth Day Proclamotion \Eorlh Day Procloniation RR.docx _ City of Edina 4801 W. SO`" St Edina, MN 55424. PROCLAMATION Earth Day 2013 WHEREAS, the global community now faces extraordinary challenges, such as global health issues, food and water shortages, and economic struggles; and WHEREAS, all people, regardless of race, gender, income, orgeography, have a moral right to a healthy, sustainable environment with economic growth; and WHEREAS, it is understood that the citizens of the global community must step forward and take action to create a green economy to combat the aforementioned global challenges; and WHEREAS, a green economy can be achieved on the individual level through educational efforts, public policy, and consumer activism campaigns; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to broaden and diversify this global movement to achieve maximum success. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Edina hereby proclaims April 22, 2013, as EARTH DAY 2013 In order to support green economy initiatives in the City of Edina and to encourage others to undertake similar actions. FURTHERMORE, let it be known that the City of Edina, Minnesota, hereby encourages its residents, businesses and institutions to use EARTH DAY to honor and celebrate the earth and commit to building a sustainable and green economy. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, James B. Hovland, Mayor of the City of Edina, have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Edina to be affixed this second day of April, 2013. James B. Hovland, Mayor REPORT / RECOMMENDATION • �9�? - 0 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VI.A From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action 0 Discussion ❑ Date: April 2, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: PUBLIC HEARING — Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat, Hunt Associates, 5109 -5125 West 49th Street, Resolution No. 2013 -33 and Resolution 2013 -37 Action Requested: Adopt the attached resolutions. Information / Background: Hunt Associates is requesting redevelopment of three lots, 5109 -5125 West 49th Street. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and single family home on the site (10 units total) and build a new 17 -unit attached housing development. (See narrative and plans on pages A 13 —A45 of the Planning Commission Staff report.) The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density of the project would be 12 units per acre. The existing property is zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential District -2, which allows residential building containing six or fewer dwelling units. The existing apartments contain four and five units each. The applicant is seeking a rezoning of the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The site is guided LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4 -8 units per acre), therefore, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to MDR, Medium Density Residential would be required to allow a density of 5 -12 units per acre. The applicant narrative indicates why they believe that a PUD rezoning is justified for this proposed development. In order to obtain to approvals for the above mentioned project, the applicant must go through a two - step process. The first step in the process is to obtain the following approvals: I . A Comprehensive Plan Amendment from LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4 -8 units per acre) to MDR, Medium Density Residential (5 -12 units per acre). This requires a four -fifths vote of the City Council for approval, 2. Preliminary Rezoning from PRD -2, to PUD, Planned Unit Development, 3. Preliminary Development Plan; and 4. Preliminary Plat City of Edina • 4801 W. SO' St • Edina, MN 55424 _- , If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan are approved by the City Council, the following is required for the second step: Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning to PUD. Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD. The Planning Commission and City Council considered a sketch similar to the proposed project last fall. (See the sketch plans on pages A11 —Al2; and the minutes from those meetings on pages A46 —A52 of the Planning Commission Staff Report.) The applicant has attempted to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission and City Council. Some of the changes include: 1. Reducing the density from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential by eliminating one unit. 2. Reducing the height from four stories to three. There was a lot of discussion by both the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the number of units on this site. While the general belief was that medium density may be appropriate for the site, however, many suggested a greater reduction in the number of units; and providing more open area or green space on the site. The applicant however, has indicated that they may not be able to make the project work financially by further reducing the number of units. Planning Commission Recommendation: On March 13, 2013, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed project on a vote of 5 -3. (See attached minutes.)_ Based on the comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission, the applicant has revised the proposed plans, and are attached, date stamped March 25, 2013. ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution No. 2013 -33 & 2012 -37 • Draft minutes from the March 13, 2013 Edina Planning Commission meeting • Planning Commission Staff Report, March 13, 2013 • Revised Plans and Narrative Submitted to the Planning Commission March 13, 2013. • Resident letters RESOLUTION NO. 2013-33 RESOLUTION APPROVING A GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LDAR, LOW DENSIDTY ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 UNITS PER ACRE) TO MDR, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (5 -12 UNITS PER ACRE) AT 5109 -5125 WEST 49TH STREET FOR HUNT ASSOCIATES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Hunt Associates is requesting redevelopment of three lots, 5109 -5125 West 49th Street. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and single family home on the site (10 units total) and build a new 17 -unit attached housing development. The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density of the project would be 12 units per acre. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: See attached Legal Descriptions 1.03 The site is guided LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4 -8 units per acre), therefore, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to MDR, Medium Density Residential would be required to allow a density of 5 -12 units per acre. 1.04 On March 13, 2013, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Guide Plan Amendment. Vote: 5 Ayes and 3 Nays. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The subject property is a transition area, and serves as a buffer from single - family homes to the north to Vernon Avenue and the GrandView Commercial area to the south. 2. The proposal would be an improvement over the current two existing apartment buildings and single - family home (10 units) on the site. Seven townhomes would face 49th Street and eight townhomes would face Vernon Avenue with the garages and drive aisle internal to the site. 3. The proposed two/ three story buildings are generally consistent with existing height in the area. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952 - 927 -8861 • Fax 952- 826 -0389 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-33 Page Two 4. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads. 5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. b. Locate and orient buildings to fit with their existing and/or planned context by framing and complementing adjacent streets, parks and open spaces. C. Locate and orient vehicle parking, vehicular access, service areas and utilities to minimize their visual impact on the property and on adjacent/ surrounding properties, without compromising the safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces. d. Regulate scale, massing, and height to provide complementary transitions to adjacent sites and nearby neighborhoods and areas. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby'resolved that the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the guide plan amendment for the following described property: See attached Exhibit A Approval is subject to the following condition: 1. Final Rezoning to PUD and Final Development Plan approval for the project. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) James B. Hovland, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 2013-33 Page.Two 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 April 2, 2013, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 2013. City Clerk Exhibit A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED (Per Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Stewart Title Guaranty Company, File No. 152183, dated October 31, 2011. and File No. 153093, dated October 5, 2012) Lot 3, 4, 5 and 6, and all that part of Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 lying North of State Highway No. 5, Block 4, 'Tingdale Bros! Brookside`, Except that part of Lot 12 which ties Southeasterly of the following described line: s Beginning at a point on the East line of said Lot 12 distant 35 feet South of the Northeast comer thereof; thence run Southwesterly to the Southwest comer of the above described Lot 12 and there terminating Together with: A 25.00 foot wide strip of land tying east of the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railroad between West 49th Street and Vernon Avenue in Section 28, Township 117 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being Torrens Property, Certificate Number. 577550 And: Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Tingdale Bros: Brookside, Except that part of said Lot 8 described as follows: I Beginning at a point on the East boundary of said Lot 8 distant 28 feet North of the Southeast comer thereof, thence South along said East boundary 28 feet; thence West along the South boundary of said Lot, 50 feet; thence North along the West boundary of said Lot, 12 feet; thence Northeasterly to the point of beginning, including any part or portion of any street or alley adjacent to said premises vacated or to be vacated, Hennepin County, Minnesota Abstract RESOLUTION NO. 2013-37 APPROVING PRELIMINARY REZONING FROM PRD -2, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 5109 -5125 WEST 49TH STREET FOR HUNT ASSOCIATES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Hunt Associates is requesting redevelopment of three lots, 5109 -5125 West 49th Street. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and single family home on the site (10 units total) and build a new 17 -unit attached housing development. The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density of the project would be 12 units per acre. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: See attached Legal Descriptions 1.03 On March 13, 2013, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. Vote: 5- 3. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is based on the following findings: Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today it is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature trees. The proposed site plan turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two - story townhomes. 2. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49th street or Vernon Avenue. 3. The project would enhance pedestrian connections. The plan provides for a public sidewalk through the site from 49th to Vernon, that would connect, not only this development, but the entire area to the north to the GrandView District. 4. Landscaping would be enhanced. Extensive Landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over double the number required by City Code. The mature trees along Vernon venue would be preserved. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952- 927 -8861 . Fax 952 - 826 -0389 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-37, Page Two 5. The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. ' The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated February 13, 2013, March 25 & 27, 2013. Modifications consistent with the Planning Commission recommendations as follows: a. interior drive aisle narrowed by at least 6 feet. b. front yard setback on West 49th be increased by 6 feet. c. the entire project should shift south by 6 feet creating a 37 -foot setback from West 49th Street, a 10 -foot setback from Vernon Avenue and a 21 -foot setback on the east side. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo dated March 7, 2013. 4. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. 5. Approval of the Final Rezoning of the subject property to Planned Unit Development, PUD. 6. The Final Plat must be considered within one -year after approval of the Preliminary Plat, or the Preliminary Plat shall be deemed null and void. 7. 'A shared parking and access agreement must be established across the Plat. 8. The Park Dedication fee of $35,000 shall be paid prior to release of the mylars approving the Final Plat. Adopted by the city council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on April 2, 2013. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 2013-37 , Page,Two 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 April 2, 2013, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2013. City Clerk Exhibit A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED (Per Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Stewart Title Guaranty Company, File No. 152183, dated October 31, 2011, and File No. 153093, dated October 5, 2012) Lot 3, 4, 5 and 6, and all that part of Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 lying North of State Highway No. 5, Block 4, "I7ngdale -Bros., Brookside, Except that part of Lot 12 which lies Southeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Lot 12 distant 35 feet South of the Northeast comer thereof; thence run Southwesterly to the Southwest comer of the above described Lot 12 and there terminating Together with: A 25.00 foot wide strip of land lying east of the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railroad between West 49th Street and Vernon Avenue in Section 28, Township 117 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being Torrens Property, Certificate Number. 577550 And: Lots ,7 and 8, Block 4, T'ingdale Bros: Brookside, Except that.part of said Lot 8 described as follows: i Beginning at a point on the East boundary of said Lot 8 distant 28 feet North of the Southeast comer thereof, thence South along said East boundary 28 feet; thence West along the South boundary of said Lot, 50 feet; thence North along the West boundary of said Lot, 12 feet; thence Northeasterly to the point of beginning, including any part or portion of any street or alley adjacent to said premises vacated or to be vacated, Hennepin County, Minnesota Abstract z Commissioner Carr asked to amend the motion, to include the addition of architectural features along the north building wall. Commissioners Grabiel and Forrest accepted that amendment. Ayes; Scherer, Carr, Forrest, Grabiel. Nays; Schroeder, Potts, Carpenter and Staunton. Motion failed. VQ') B. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Edina Fifty - `9 Five LLC. 5125 49th Street West and 5118 -5109 49th Street West Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission Hunt Associates is requesting redevelopment of three lots, 5109 -5125 West 491h Street. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and single family home on the site (10 units' total) and build a new 17 -unit attached housing development. The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density of the project would be 12 units per acre. The existing property is zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential District -2, which allows residential building containing six or fewer dwelling units. The existing apartments contain four and five units each. The applicant is seeking a rezoning of the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The site is guided LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4 -8 units per acre), therefore, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to MDR, Medium Density Residential would be required to allow a density of 5 -12 units per acre. The applicant narrative indicates why they believe that a PUD rezoning is justified for this proposed development. Planner Teague stated that staff recommends that the City Council approve the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential to MDR, Medium Density Residential (5 -12 units per acre) for the subject property based on the following findings: The subject property is a transition area, and serves as a buffer from single - family homes to the north to Vernon Avenue and the GrandView Commercial area to the south. 2. The proposal would be an improvement over the current two existing apartment buildings and single - family home (10 units) on the site. Seven townhomes would face 49th Street and eight townhomes would face Vernon Avenue with the garages and drive aisle internal to the site. 3. The proposed two /three story buildings are generally consistent with existing height in the area. 4. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads. Page 6 of 13 5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. b. Locate and orient buildings to fit with their existing and /or planned context by framing and complementing adjacent streets, parks and open spaces. c. Locate and orient vehicle parking, vehicular access, service areas and utilities to minimize their visual impact on the property and on adjacent /surrounding properties, without compromising the safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces. d. Regulate scale, massing, and height to provide complementary transitions to adjacent sites and nearby neighborhoods and areas. e. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. Teague added that staff recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from PRD -2, Planned Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and Preliminary Development Plan to build 17 new townhomes on the subject 1.43 acre parcel based on the following findings: 1. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today it is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature trees. The proposed site plan turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two -story townhomes. 2. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49th street or Vernon Avenue. 3. The project would enhance pedestrian connections. The plan provides for a public sidewalk through the site from 491h to Vernon, that would connect, not only this development, but the entire area to the north to the Grandview District. 4. Landscaping would be enhanced. Extensive Landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over double the number required by City Code. The mature trees along Vernon Avenue would be preserved. Page 7 of 13 Approval is also subject to the following Conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated February 13, 2013 and the final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo dated March 7, 2013. 3. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Concluding, Teague recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat to create a new 17 -lot townhome plat for the subject property based on the following findings: 1. The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. And subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Final Rezoning of the subject property to Planned Unit Development, PUD. 2. The Final Plat must be considered within one -year after approval of the Preliminary Plat, or the Preliminary Plat shall be deemed null and void. 3. A shared parking and access agreement must be established across the Plat. 4. The Park Dedication fee of $35,000 shall be paid prior to release of the mylars approving the Final Plat. Appearing for the Applicant David Motzenbecker, Chris Palkowitsch, BKV Group, Ed Terhaar, Wenck Applicant Presentation Mr. Motzenbecker delivered a power point presentation. He further informed the Commission BKV adjusted the development to better fit the site and meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Motzenbecker further explained the topography of the property played a large role in building design. Motzenbecker explained that they are putting in a plinth to minimize stairs, adding the plinth moves along the property line and raises it about two feet. Continuing, along the front the development team wanted to open the units up to the street. Small patios will be added on the top of the plinth. With graphics Motzenbecker explained the internal circulation, parking and guest parking. He pointed out there will be bike and pedestrian access and the site would be open creating a more welcoming space; this also creates a space that is public; not private. Motzenbecker introduced Chris Palkowitsch, project architect. Page 8 of 13 Chris Palkowitsch told Commissioners that each unit would have their own entry and the exterior building materials have been chosen and will be cast stone, fiber - cement panels, and stained wood to warm the exterior palate. Palkowitsch said the project would promote energy efficiency and the conservation of natural resources. Continuing, Palkowitsch said general sustainability principles for the buildings and the site will be applied as follows: • It is possible the existing buildings will be relocated. • If the buildings are demolished many of the materials will be recycled. • Use of low VOC paints. • Energy Star appliance. • High — efficiency HVAC will be standard. • Stone and cement board with recycled contents will be incorporated • Skylights will add additional daylight to each unit reducing energy consumption; and • Storm water infiltration and a variety of native plants. Motzenbecker also asked the Commission to note that along Vernon Avenue the units are two -story with a gathering space in the front. Motzenbecker also pointed out that the front doors are "sunken ", providing each unit with privacy from Vernon Avenue and passersby. Discussion Commissioner Forrest questioned accessibility and asked if any units are without stairs. Forrest also stated parking concerns her; especially guest parking or lack thereof. Mr. P responded any unit could be retro- fitted for an elevator. Commissioner Carr commented that she observed that some garages have windows and questioned this reasoning. Mr. Palkowitsch explained that the windows proposed for the garages are frosted; letting light in and providing a degree of privacy. Commissioner Forrest asked how building height is measured. Planner Teague explained that building height is measured from the existing grade. Chair Staunton stated the roofs of the proposed townhouses are flat and pointed out Edina's Comprehensive Plan suggests pitched roofs; not flat as proposed. Mr. Motzenbecker explained that the reason they went with the flat roof was to ensure that the buildings "tie" into the neighborhood. He noted that the majority of the roofs (single family homes) in the neighborhood are hip; adding the proposed flat roof "ties" in better while minimizing the impact of building height. Ed Ter.haar addressed the Commission and gave a brief overview of traffic highlighting the following: Proposed development is expected to generate 1 net trip during the weekday peak period, 2 net trips during the weekday pm and 29 weekday daily trips. Intersections have adequate capacity; no improvements would be required. Page 9 of 13 • It should be noted that the entire neighborhood area has only one access point and if a train was stopped on the tracks for an extended period of time, additional steps would be needed to access this neighborhood; however, this exists with or without the proposed townhomes. Terhaar told the Commission townhouses tend to generate fewer trips than single family homes. He also acknowledged that the intersection of Vernon and Interlachen Boulevard can pose problems. Commissioners agreed with that statement. A discussion ensured on the ramifications of this development on neighborhood traffic, acknowledging the unique one way in and out and railroad tracks. Chair Staunton acknowledged that this proposal is located in a unique setting with a one way in and out, agreeing if you go up the hill and try to turn left onto Interlachen Boulevard one can "sit" there for some time before there is an opening to turn. Mr. Terhaar agreed, adding he believes that movement is at service level D which isn't good; however, is acceptable in an urban setting. Commissioner Forrest questioned how often the figures used for the traffic analysis report are updated. Mr. Terhaar responded they are updated on a regular basis,-adding it was recently updated and the most current information was used in this analysis. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. The following spoke to the proposal: Michelle Anderson, 5112 49th Street West Steve Russ, 5040 Hankerson Avenue Tony Wagner, 5120 West 49th Street Leslie Losey, 5105 West 49th Street Gail Helbereot, 5116 West 49th Street Mrs. Wagner, 5120 West 49th Street Chair. Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to this issue; being none Commissioner Potts moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Staunton questioned how storm water and snow removal would be handled. Mr. Motzenbecker said they have a civil engineer on board that between now and final will work out the storm water management issues, adding he believes at this time runoff storage will be underground. Continuing, Motzenbecker said with regard to snow removal the excess snow will be moved off site. Chair Staunton said he observed on the schematics there are units with roof top decks and asked if that is an option. He pointed out neighbors privacy would be compromised. Mr. Motzenbecker said there is an interest in roof top decks, adding they would be an amenity on some of the units. Page 10 of 13 Commissioner Carr discussed density and setbacks and asked the developers if they ever considered removing the last townhouse unit on the east. She pointed out this unit directly abuts a residential home and if that unit were removed that area could be used for guest parking. Mr. Motzenbecker responded they hadn't considered that option. Chair Staunton directed the discussion back to the Comprehensive Plan and the requested amendment to increase density and have a flat roof. Commissioner Carpenter said he doesn't have a problem in increasing density in this location. Commissioner Forrest said she struggles with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan noting the Comprehensive Plan is the City's development guide. Commissioner Schroeder commented that his struggle would be leaving the site low density, adding the step from low density to medium density may actually encourage redevelopment, and in this instance seems reasonable. Schroeder said this project could be considered one of the first steps in the Grandview Plan, noting the increase in density isn't at the upper end of what's permitted in medium density. Chair Staunton stated he agrees with Commissioner Schroeder. Continuing, Schroeder said in his opinion( from a site plan perspective) that he doesn't mind the intensity, and in fact, would slide the entire development over; closer to Vernon Avenue, narrow the driveway and squeeze the site together from all sides. Schroeder said if this is done the impact of the building height from 49th street would be minimized. Commissioner Forrest said she wasn't adverse to the project; however has a concern. She said she doesn't what this site to appear claustrophobic and negatively impact the neighbors. The neighbors do have legitimate concerns. Chair Staunton said he agrees the neighbors have legitimate issues; however change in this location makes sense. Continuing, Staunton said he really likes the look of the project from Vernon Avenue, adding he also believes the use of PUD in this instance is correct. Staunton said he also likes that the site provides a pathway to Vernon Avenue for not only residents of the townhouses but area residents as well. He also stated he things the bike curb is another plus. Continuing, Staunton said the trick of this project is to make the transition from residential to the commercial area off Vernon Avenue friendly. Concluding, Staunton said he does have a concern with the overall building height and the flat roof (especially from West 49th Street). Commissioner Forrest questioned who would maintain the Vernon Avenue access. Mr. Motzenbecker responded that the association for the townhomes would maintain the access. Page 11 of 13 Commissioner Carr stated the use appears reasonable, adding that she somewhat likes the contemporary nature of the architecture; however in her opinion the site is too dense, adding removal of that end unit may be key to her support. Commissioner Carpenter asked the development team their feelings about Commissioner Schroeder's suggestion of pulling things back from the property lines. Mr. Motzenbecker responded that can be looked at, adding they did not consider it. Commissioner Schroeder pointed out they could slide the townhouses 6 -feet closer to Vernon Avenue and narrow the driveway squeezing the entire project. Commissioner Scherer said she doesn't know if she would be a fan of living that close to Vernon Avenue, she pointed out this stretch of Vernon is very busy, noting the exit ramp for Hwy 100. Commissioner Forrest reiterated that her concern is parking; adding she doesn't think it's adequate. She concluded that this project may just be too much for a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Carpenter commented this site will be redeveloped at some point in the future and at this time the Commission needs to determine if they can support this project as presented. Commissioner Forrest reiterated in her opinion the density is too much and parking could become an issue. Motion Commissioner Carpenter moved approval of the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Rezoning approval, and Development Plan approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions with the additional condition that the housing units be modified as expressed by Commissioner Schroeder. Commissioner Schroeder seconded the motion. Schroeder clarified that the interior drive is to be narrowed by at least 6 -feet, the front yard setback on West 49th Street increased by 6 -feet, and the entire project would technically be shifted south by 6 -feet creating a 37 -foot setback from West 49th Street, a 10- setback from Vernon Avenue and a 21 -foot setback on the east side. (listen to tape) Chair Staunton asked if Commissioners Carpenter and Schroeder would accept an amendment to their motion that would prohibit roof top decks. Commissioners Schroeder and Carpenter agreed with that amendment. Commissioner Scherer stated this project in her opinion is too tall and too dense. Commissioner Potts said that the developer needs to provide better representation of the height and elevation of the townhouses from West 49th Street for Council review. Chair Staunton called for the vote: Ayes; Schroeder, Potts, Carpenter, Grabiel and Staunton. Nays; Scherer, Carr, Forrest. Motion carried 5 -3 Page 12 of 13 Cary Teague From: Christopher Palkowitsch <cpalkowitsch @bkvgroup.com> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 7:25 PM To: Cary Teague Cc: Dhunt @huntassociatesllc.com; JHunt @huntassociatesllc.com; David M. Motzenbecker Subject: Vernon Avenue Updates -1 of 2 Attachments: 2013 -03 -22 Vernon Avenue - Sections & 3d Views.pdf Cary, I have attached new section drawings, updated plans, and updated 3d views that reflect changes in reaction to the planning commission's findings. The new section drawings include information to clarify the relationship to the surrounding context and the building heights. We adopted most of the planning commission's findings, seethe comments below. Changes to the Plans 1. Internal driveways have been reduced to 18' wide. (previously 24') 2. The NE Building (Y) has been moved 6' to the west & 6' to the south. This creates more space between this project and the neighboring houses. As a condition of approval the planning commission also stated that building Z needs to move 6' south closer to Vernon Ave & Building Y an additional 6' South. [See sheet A100 for building naming.] However, we feel the distance between the SE most unit of building Z and its relationship to Vernon Avenue does not give enough buffer between the unit and the street. 3. Roof top decks have been removed. Best regards, Chris Chris Palkowitsch, AIA I Project Architect/Associate 1 BKV Group I Ph: 612.373.9110 222 North 2 a Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401 1 Chicago, IL 1 Washington, DC Architecture, Interior Design, Landscape Architecture, Engineering 1 www.bkvgroup.com EOE Please consider the environment before printing this email; print oily if necessary. VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES 49TH AVENUE LOOKING EAST lAscsom D 3 -as- t3 Ij rr Q HuntAss.",-, B K V VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES -------- - - - -------- 49TH AVENUE - LOOKING WEST ' LII ti BKVHunt VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES PFD, 4 . VERNON AVENUE - LOOKING WEST Hunt ss, B KV IRCHWEP VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES VERNON AVENUE - LOOKING WEST Hunt&sociates B K V clow D fEC[EUWE[D) I TYE F 1 11 11 ER t 11 I I Kul 1 11111 1 0 1 , 1 EMS YYY L. 15— I — 1—. , .IUUU 49TH STw Y O � W M Z Hg ARC JAVE �151TE ��AIJ ®_ Q10100"MEMM-- MUMMMMMMM KEY NOTES Qemarxxx mxxmiox mix sr..s Qamsro swoe mm; m .ux.r, CD (j> O M. -M. ED OTn a+[ sax roc[ vmx r,.Lxncs O BM R o8q [NwAK Om uW VcMA q�xn6q (5Q 5�[a Llo�) xOi wro suH1a5, M. OwVa p]vpFR. M. wl&�[Eu WE [ID BKV G R O U P Interior Design landsmpe An:hiteM e Enoneving 1110 n VDgel Group Inc 222 North Second Street Mnneapolis MN 55901 Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 Faaimle 612- 339 -6212 w 0 b k v g r o u p.corn NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Preliminary Development Plan Submittal Vernon Avenue Townhomes �r�L,ax IRW IS . Nsrm(�m iv a,E MTE Diavm 9Y m A n OIEU ®BT OYN,6IDHA6 Im�Oi SITE PLAN L100 o mu won WE LJ LL z W M 3 BKV G R 0 U P Interior Design ao- Krooe Vogel Grow Inc- 222 North Second Stied Kmeapob MN SMI Telephone 612-339-3752 0 6 v g r 0�-6212 9 bek 12- P. mm_ OMEILTAN113 Vernon Avenue Townhouses Basement Floor Plan A100 OMEWftAMEM 0 L%1 I 77 &i ---------- O, L ii ImP 1 11 1 :U: hm. ht --- ---- ---------- r---------- L --- JIL —1 L --- j L-- YA ------- --- L r ---- BUILDING X BUILDING Y O ---------- -,I Li --------- 1k---------- I II I II---------- II BUILDING Z 2.0 - — - — I II - — - — - — -- - — - L) II F ---- 1 1-7 F ---- I F --- L) : ------ X. L --- �'L--- nn Basement Levei Plan' BKV G R 0 U P Interior Design ao- Krooe Vogel Grow Inc- 222 North Second Stied Kmeapob MN SMI Telephone 612-339-3752 0 6 v g r 0�-6212 9 bek 12- P. mm_ OMEILTAN113 Vernon Avenue Townhouses Basement Floor Plan A100 OMEWftAMEM Na; ILI; j - -- a1= ICI JI J1111 II � � L -� � colfu� ■C711C7,, , .,. _ - - _� PfcjErmlF WJ Vemon Avenue Townhouses mm xl zz rl n n rs B K V QG R O U P I I nrddre� �I —� Interior Design a fVCh tectrue Group hm 222 North Second Street ®® ® Minnepolis MN 55401 ® ®® -®® _ Tdpo 612 - 339-3752 Fadrnile: 612- 339 -6212 jO I®® ® ®® ® _ group. com oasivwls 1aIf,il I O O _ ®0 ®0 Vernon Avenue Townhouses I l •. CffnF :Tm d.� I :�' ® ; a ® MON., ea gentmnn I I z.o I.mrme� i qir� " "" - - - - _ ❑ ❑_ _ - _ _wu Os ❑ I I '�' s+FmIE ❑ - L - - - -- - ED M Second Floor Plan (111'1 (111'1 (111n1 (111n1 (1�\ (Ilnl icpawii-r))A102 _ Sec�nd Floor Plan D 11 12JL= i+. UMM 0N0¢RYCEOE UU xl xi n� n ' G R O U P 11 tedorDmtr lamps Ardubw m o F Kraft Vosd Group �) �. 222 North Second Street L] Kmeaporis MN 55401 Tdepho= 612- 339 -3752 Faafrnffe 612- 339 -6212 J I Q - I v .bkvgroup.com CCMLV PFUM"rum I Vemon Avenue Townhouses ^]3 WIP-111 r11HIHA fiM r I iP�li/(;@!�IIyLN 4 I, I - ?11'M1CUHHa= wnnwsdres�mrn„� 1 LUI q r LL LULI Roof Plan p A103 a IIUI a m��r« S® ITE WEST ELEVATION /1 SITE SECTION NORTH-SOUTH SITE SECTION EAST -WEST Vernon Avenue Townhouses Site Sections B K V 03 -22 -13 G R O U P oG� " -- 4) J LJI gg LL z Uj rl West Elevation- Bunding X %cuth ETeveflon - Building X NO CC��iE BKV G R 0 U'P Ardubmture bbmior Deer Landsage AmhftcbLre Vogel Group Inc 222 North Second SbW PTameapark MN 55401 Twwwrw 612- 339 -3752 Facwdc 6:2-339-6212 w .bkvgroup.00m 031MLOM MaM7MLE Vernon Avenue Townhouses *-YRM CROWFEW caum7m Exterior Elevations A503 O= EVVQ.,Ak.EM BKV iG R O U P em,�so �W/ v r - - �r - m� vnw ! 1222 N.,u s—e sUed Por MN SSWI Tdph -- -- , -� �-$ ` re�Fna 6t2- 339-3767 Fecrdc 617- 339 -6213 i .bkvarou0•oam Z QEOt Eleyotbn -C.Wa mBNlalnaX /13oNb Elevation - B.mlmX O 0 � I W Vernon Avenue Townhouses V � 0 0 0 � 1¢xFlr+i wnwraaDv Z� wmmares�aw�eam M rtweat elevelbn- e�naxwX - � � m W W j cn lipD Exterior Elevations eOZID BtV(�gh� IE -lll- - lll- I I I .�wa. SRE WEST ELEVATION 4 k A I I Yll: p ri1SITE SECTION NORTH -SOUTH I % I %ZSITE SECTION EAST -WEST Vernon Avenue Townhouses Site Sections B K V o3 -22 -13 G R O U P R1E(9F0'\, 7 O O © O O © O O O mun- mml mNma ......� ......a a..un -1 a _ .IitI, ,L. ,ICI �.Il�ll,il..1; I,I,I. �.I�I�I�I�IJ� ■� F.I �� . IrC �.. ■� 01 rn�:a o. © O O o m00 Oi00 . . rv�a� RITE! �N��N�I�� . ��■ III �IINIP� _- � - - � III �� -� � -� .• 0 r m,11 t,�1u n= n=rR -n- i I�l1�ll�91�IBEi6�gII��A ®p�Tllipl�lli�llif�_ IH�EIII �JfJ�Iw :1111 _ i•.hl.l � LI.I.I �L'L.'L'I � �� I�I:IJ ��:71 i�_ :: � - � �I .I_l.. �LI_I �L 1 ��111��•�9�EIfJ�L'111��I_IEII 11� II J�� f �� i� f _, . � ��I•:I:��.�I:: MI, I r r�._•ia•; wl1r� u I I,..� - �I��r�•i��•1•I•- :I��.� � :, Zllpllil�iiiiie�l�iiin�5191_ ininnnwn) LiNl�lilil�illl�l�jpiiil�liaiIn IM�IN_. ��: IIINIPXIIIgXNIIN�PPIRIp��EIIXMIMIIpI1p1111PU _ m. uua - u =_imaamna.nnaami_ smiawnnu.aniwi.wmn- I'�1.�.�._ �� I Lr.:.l�.l� I•,•€ °- ��E�ILIIIIIIIII @II411PIPM',� _�_ivamiuiXnua�i� I — = -- - 6 - "� : ,_ �;� N —� �� -�� ' e vv o � 1 v 7 ow e PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague March 13, 2013 VLB Community Development Director INFORMATION /BACKGROUND Project Description & Background Hunt Associates is requesting redevelopment of three lots, 5109 -5125 West 49th Street. (See property location on pages Al A10.) The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and single family home on the site (10 units total) and build a new 17 -unit attached housing development. (See narrative and plans on pages A13 —A45.) The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density of the project would be 12 units per acre. The existing property is zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential District -2, which allows residential building containing six or fewer dwelling units. The existing apartments contain four and five units each. The applicant is seeking a rezoning of the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The site is guided LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4 -8 units per acre), therefore, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to MDR, Medium Density Residential would be required to allow a density of 5 -12 units per acre. The applicant narrative indicates why they believe that a PUD rezoning is justified for this proposed development. In order to obtain to approvals for the above mentioned project, the applicant must go through a two -step process. The first step in the process is to obtain the following approvals: 1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment from LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4 -8 units per acre) to MDR, Medium Density Residential (5 -12 units per acre). This requires a four -fifths vote of the City Council for approval. 2. Preliminary Rezoning from PRD -2, to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and 3. Preliminary Development Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan. Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan are approved by the City Council, the following is required for the second step: 1. Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning to PUD. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD. The Planning Commission considered the following sketch plan proposals for this site: • On March 28, 2012, the applicant presented a sketch plan for a six -story, sixty -foot tall, 98 -unit senior housing building. The density proposed was 71 units per acre. (See minutes from the Planning Commission discussion on pages A53 —A57.) • On June 27, 2012, the applicant presented a sketch plan for a four -story, forty four -foot tall, 60 -unit senior housing building. The density proposed was 43 units per acre. (See minutes from the Planning Commission discussion on pages A58 —A61.) The consensus of the Planning Commission for both of those proposals was that the development proposed was too much for the site. The Planning Commission and City Council considered a sketch similar to the proposed project last fall. (See the sketch plans on pages A11 —Al2; and the minutes from those meetings on pages A46 —A52.) The applicant has attempted to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission and City Council. Some of the changes include: ➢ Reducing the density from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential by eliminating one unit. ➢ Reducing the height from four stories to three. There was a lot of discussion by both the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the number of units on this site. While the general belief was that medium density may be appropriate for the site, however, many suggested a greater reduction in the number of units; and providing more open area or green space on the site. The applicant however, has indicated that they may not be able to make the project work financially by further reducing the number of units. 2 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single- family homes; zoned R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District and guided low density residential. Easterly: Single- family homes; zoned R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District and guided low density residential. Southerly: Vernon Avenue. Westerly: Railroad tracks and the Holiday Gas Station; Zoned and guided for Commercial use. Existing Site Features The subject property is 1.43 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains a single - family home and two townhome buildings containing nine dwelling units between the two. (See pages A3 A6.) Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Access /Site Circulation LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4 -8 units per acre) PRD -2, Planned Residential District -2 Access to the site would be from 49th Street West on the north side of the site. This neighborhood is relatively isolated; there is only one roadway access point to the surrounding street system. That access is from Brookside Avenue, up to Interlachen Boulevard. (See page A2.) A public pedestrian connection would be made from the sidewalk on 49th Street through the site on the west lot line to Vernon Avenue, which would provide a Pedestrian Connection from this neighborhood to the GrandView area. (See pages A34- A35.) Traffic Study Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic study, which concludes that the surrounding roadways could support the additional seven units that are proposed to be added, and no improvements are needed at adjacent intersections to accommodate the proposed project. (See the attached study dated February 4, 2012 on pages A62 -A96.) 41 Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 25 over story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs. The applicant is proposing 61 over story trees. They would include a mixture of Maple, Juniper, Spruce, Oak and Linden. (See pages A34 —A35.) A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. Final Landscaping would be more closely reviewed with the Final Development Plan. Grading /Drainage /Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be generally acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached page A97. A Developer's Agreement would be required for the construction of the proposed sidewalks, utilities and any other public improvements. Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, as they are the City's review authority over the grading of the site. A more detailed review would be done at Final Development Plan. Building /Building Material The applicant is proposing the townhomes to be made of painted fiber cement, architectural cast stone and stained wood panels. (See pages A26— A30.) The buildings would have flat roofs with patios on the top that would contain a rectangular deck. Density The proposal is to develop 17 units on this 1.43 acre parcel. The proposed density would be 12 units per acre would be on the high end of the medium density residential range. However, there are already 10 units on this site, which is located on a minor arterial roadway (Vernon Avenue). Higher densities are often located on arterial roadways. Medium Density residential is often used to buffer low density residential development from commercial areas or major roadways. The proposed land use arrangement would accomplish that. Preliminary Plat The applicant is also requesting a Preliminary Plat to create separate lots for each of the proposed units. (See the plat on pages A31 -A32.) Il Park Dedication Per Minnesota State Statute 462.353, Subd. 4(a) and Section 810.13 of the City Code, the applicant is required to dedicate land for public use as parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, trails, or public open space. Per Section 810.13. Subd. 5 of the City Code, the fees in lieu of land dedication is $5,000 per dwelling unit. The development would create 7 new dwelling units; therefore $35,000 would be required for park dedication at the time of release of the final plat. The fee would be paid prior to the City's release of the signed final plat mylars or subdivision approval for recording with Hennepin County. Future Project Expansion The proposed plans have been designed so that the proposed project could be extended to east. The internal driveway could be extended if needed. (See page A35.) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Per Section 850.04. Subd. 4 D provides the following regulations for a PUD: 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to 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 purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 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, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use 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 priented design, and podium 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; _ f. 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 i, ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today it is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature trees. The proposed site plan turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two -story townhomes. (See pages A28 -A29.) The plan also provides for a public sidewalk through the site from 49th to Vernon, that would connect, not only this development, but the entire area to the north to the GrandView District. Extensive landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over double the number required by City Code. The mature trees along Vernon Avenue would be preserved. The transition of land uses is appropriate. Higher densities are often located on arterial roadways. Medium Density residential is often used to buffer low density residential development from commercial areas or major roadways. The proposed land use arrangement with the proposed development on Vernon Avenue, would buffer the low density residential 0 area to the north from Vernon Avenue and the Commercial development to the south. Proposed parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and would not be not visible from 49th street or Vernon Avenue. 2. Applicability /Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined 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 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. The proposed use, townhomes containing six or fewer uses, is a permitted use in the existing zoning PRD -2 Zoning District. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the 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 PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the. City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for "Low Density Attached Residential - LDAR," which allows 4 -8 units per acre. The proposed plan would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow a density of 5 -12 units per acre. Under the current zoning, a maximum of 11 units would be allowed on the site; 10 exist today. The proposal for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow six additional units on the site. ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; This project would be for a single land use; however, as stated above is consistent with some of the objectives of the PUD Ordinance. iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall 7 be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and The proposed density requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If the Plan is amended it would allow a maximum of 17 units on this site, as it is on the high end of the density range for medium density development. iv, the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the underlying PRD -2 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Should the City decide to rezone this site to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the lots. Please note that a few City Standards are not met under conventional zoning. However, by relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described in #1 above would be met. The site layout would be improved by engaging Vernon Avenue and providing a public pedestrian connection to Vernon Avenue and the GrandView District. The design of the buildings would be of painted fiber cement, architectural cast stone and stained wood panels (See pages A26— A30.) Compliance Table *Variances would be required Under the PRD -2 Regulations PRIMARY ISSUES /STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is Medium Density development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposed density is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The transition of land uses is appropriate. The townhome proposal would provide a nice transition of land uses between the single - family homes to the north, to Vernon Avenue and the GrandView commercial district to the .south. The proposed townhome development would serve as a buffer; with a row of six townhomes facing 49th Street. 2. The proposal would be a vast improvement over the current two existing apartment buildings and single - family home on the site. 3. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49th street or Vernon Avenue. 4. The proposed two /three story buildings are generally consistent with existing height in the area. 9 City Standard Proposed (PRD -2) Front — 49th Street 30 feet 25 feet* Front — Vernon 30 feet 16 feet* Side — East 30 feet 15 feet* Side — West 30 feet 20 feet* Building Height 2 -1/2 stories or 2 stories & 32 feet 30 feet, whichever is less Building Coverage 25% 25.5 %* Density 8 units per acre (11 12 units per acre* (17 units) units) Parking Stalls 2 enclosed spaces 2 enclosed spaces per unit per unit *Variances would be required Under the PRD -2 Regulations PRIMARY ISSUES /STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is Medium Density development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposed density is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The transition of land uses is appropriate. The townhome proposal would provide a nice transition of land uses between the single - family homes to the north, to Vernon Avenue and the GrandView commercial district to the .south. The proposed townhome development would serve as a buffer; with a row of six townhomes facing 49th Street. 2. The proposal would be a vast improvement over the current two existing apartment buildings and single - family home on the site. 3. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49th street or Vernon Avenue. 4. The proposed two /three story buildings are generally consistent with existing height in the area. 9 5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the.car. b. Locate and orient buildings to fit with their existing and /or planned context by framing and complementing adjacent.streets, parks and open spaces. c. Locate and orient vehicle parking, vehicular access, service areas and utilities to minimize their visual impact on the property and on adjacent/surrounding properties, without compromising the safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces. d. Regulate scale, massing, and height to provide complementary transitions to adjacent sites and nearby neighborhoods and areas. e. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. 6. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads. (See pages A62= A96.) • Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site. As highlighted above on pages 5 -8, the proposal meets the City's criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: 1. Create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today Vernon is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature trees. The proposed site plan turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two -story townhomes. (See pages A26 -A27.) 2. Provide internal parking. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49th street or Vernon Avenue. 3. Enhance pedestrian connections. The plan provides for a public sidewalk through the site from 49th to Vernon, that would connect, not only this development, but the entire area to the north to the Grandview District. 10 4. Enhance landscaping. Extensive landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over double the number required by City Code. The mature trees along Vernon Avenue would be preserved. 5. Ensure that the buildings proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. Staff Recommendation Comprehensive Plan Amendment Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4 -8 units per acre) to MDR, Medium Density Residential (5 -12 units per acre) for the subject property. Approval'is subject to the following findings: 1. The subject property is a transition area, and serves as a buffer from single - family homes to the north to Vernon Avenue and the Grandview Commercial area to the south. 2. The proposal would be an improvement over the current two existing apartment buildings and single - family home (10 units) on the site. Seven townhomes would face 49th Street and eight townhomes would face Vernon Avenue with the garages and drive aisle internal to the site. 3. The proposed two /three story buildings are generally consistent with existing height in the area. 4. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads. 5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. b. Locate and orient buildings to fit with their existing and /or planned context by framing and complementing adjacent streets, parks and open spaces. 11 c. , Locate and orient vehicle parking, vehicular access, service areas and utilities to minimize their visual impact on the property and on adjacent/surrounding properties, without compromising the safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks, and open spaces. d. Regulate scale, massing, and height to provide complementary transitions to adjacent sites and nearby neighborhoods and areas. e. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD & Preliminary Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from PRD- 2, Planned Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and Preliminary Development Plan to build 17 new townhomes on the subject 1.43 acre parcel. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Currently the site does not engage Vernon Avenue. Today it is clearly the back of the site, and contains mature trees. The proposed site plan turns and faces Vernon Avenue with a row of two -story townhomes. 2. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49th street or Vernon Avenue. 3. The project would enhance pedestrian connections. The plan provides for a public sidewalk through the site from 49th to Vernon, that would connect, not only this development, but the entire area to the north to the GrandView District. 4. Landscaping would be enhanced. Extensive Landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over double the number required by City Code. The mature trees along Vernon Avenue would be preserved. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated February 13, 2013. 12 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo dated March 7, 2013. 4. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Subdivision — Preliminary Plat Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat to create a new 17 -lot townhome plat for the subject property. Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Approval of the Final Rezoning of the subject property to Planned Unit Development, PUD. 2. The Final Plat must be considered within one -year after approval of the Preliminary Plat, or the Preliminary Plat shall be deemed null and void. 3. A shared parking and access agreement must be established across the Plat. 4. The Park Dedication fee of $35,000 shall be paid prior to release of the mylars approving the Final Plat. Deadline for a city decision: June 4, 2013 13 City of Edina 48714 S V/ 0 4807 5109 5105 5101 4801 1476 5..... S 4W eb0s ON 3 4811 � x109 W OB7J b 4810 110 4900 17 4811 4013 4817 o a 4816 4821 g 4816 4817 ML1PU °!D PL y� o v 4815 0 � Q90/ 4871 4815 5101 4820 5111 3717 3f 17 4833 ° 3 ° R71XLf AW 4132 4871 4908 4614 5120 5116'5111 5705 4841 4626 4831 4876 4840 4840 Q845 Ia e Qe7Hs w v� 4911 24 4900 5`Of d 5100 108 SO 5107 125 5117 5109 qT� 4916 24 5000 '1� ((LL 5200 C 9Y 4920 5070 to 5000 E S .b A Yo� � 6pTNSrh- 5001 E 5100 SYOtLS'S LA 5013 24 ° stDt 5035 5075 x a 24 a 24 Z 5146 5101 T 5746 r�l /1 5716 ZI - iranM iuPu Park mA ACC15 Cw! R iC� Lr5057)]! 040.141 -- - o _ 4 PID: 281172131004® / J ° J21 ';�i' 5115 49th St W tia �• Edina, MN 55435 �1_ 111111 AI Lcgcnd Nause Num Cer Lath ]. Street Neme L.ebels N clyt�m�5 �,/ Creeks Lt1kr N. mes Lakes UPerks pa—is City of Edina I ��. •t '0 + °' � r Legend !'i f e 4.0 t. - a• +�; YrSZ� � I — h I l en City Urn". i Z�... Crzeks ROIL' /�✓E 1 .aJ 11�`- *4L. ]] bbl y 'J I Late NaiilYS Lakes 5 , r r• ; ,. 1 A F-1 rrzf Sr!e�F-1 Parse is 7R7'l !7361 '(ie.,o' $gg + +I . , �. Je.r� a 1 /', v ' 2mA —;ar ahem `rh ' . j' '� i` :0 '9�,� I� Sli :T, ;I _ t �• _ • ' - ! r � y . uo NW, �r � FIr t► .j ;i j; 'Y «,j-j sior , f,.tio 1'iir r• . II r1ros •�• .8 a R , ,` � t, cry t ♦ i d° r 6br1aT}i 4' �� !-.1 •%: � �sonrsivll [w; rw I:T •I t e Ads 17• ,T —~ 305 YJWI. ?! 4 Ao Ak PID: 2811721310040 OI- "C', Ill 5115 49th St W r'r si Aj Edina, MN 55436 •..• 1 111 LLf AM City of Edina WS � t 9r . C9rHsrw 1 t; I Njp7aTQV�NG'L Ya x,tl.F... "VS VF7N ( vF4°N r _ r • :it L7 PID:2811721310040 5115 49th St W Edina, MN 55436 ,J R y : 5M W i a < 1 ' 50iN 57W i. L rVi% ICU mT f '1 Legend Hausa Numher labels Street Name labels N City Limits w Creeks ❑ Lake Names Lakes ❑ Parks Parcels 2DDSAerial Phut, t y• I tl` - fr' 'C 1 t; I Njp7aTQV�NG'L Ya x,tl.F... "VS VF7N ( vF4°N r _ r • :it L7 PID:2811721310040 5115 49th St W Edina, MN 55436 ,J R y : 5M W i a < 1 ' 50iN 57W i. L rVi% ICU mT f '1 Legend Hausa Numher labels Street Name labels N City Limits w Creeks ❑ Lake Names Lakes ❑ Parks Parcels 2DDSAerial Phut, � \� �� A� map K fly, RIF- City of Edina 4arN Sl W 7 0 4801 5209 5205 S2 1 4801 5111 5117 5113 5709 5105 4800 4805 f'. 21? 52Wi LN, O' 5118 J.n c..emv nAcr15 - Cmr yt:G 1..OGS G: ]lOS ui a uCjr EM O 8S S 4805 -i:c3 Legond House Number Labels M36 Street Name Labels 12,73 City Limits Creeks tAke Name. 4vo Lakes 4 yQ Q 487} �+ APO (AU lull PMw" 0-1 4904 � MOD -(M,el Owebamerrl 0a1rn1 a ■ � ■ slot 5746 PCO1IPbrnol Can.rr�wY U�4r.z1 4908 i PCO21K. —ICa n.rr. 4809 PCO -3 (PMnns4 Ca nrrar.-,al l ■ no 4(P- -Ca R.—Wrintrrl OPf0 (PlvrnoS ln4uMrvl D,tlrv.11 W 4813 POO.1 (Iula,rnroJ plm m4EC11 h OPOtl i(PMerrol Off-0�9-11 4810 ■ PRD IIP- -I lw-*Idlw Oiwinl 5110 3118 51}2 5104 5}p4 S _ ■ 10 4 48 12 PRO s(ft—R -4 wOierctl 4817 ■ PSR 4(PkarM Srrgr Oa1rc11 a R118�9b Oupnsp U.al eat ■ R- 2(Dauk4QrwaurI 0rt41 1817 ° fY Parcels 4a2f 46 15 o 4816 4817 MLLPOVD Pt 4815 a t 4810 4821 4825 5711 5177 4113 ° 3 ° A(R1,F9f1ERVE ±E012 41 J7 4624 5112 5108 4141 4628 a32 4876 4840 4840 I4 4845 5 TI 1900 49rfI sr W f'. 21? 52Wi LN, O' 5118 J.n c..emv nAcr15 - Cmr yt:G 1..OGS G: ]lOS ui a uCjr EM O 8S S Legond House Number Labels M36 Street Name Labels 12,73 City Limits Creeks tAke Name. 4vo Lakes 4 yQ Q 24 514E APO (AU lull PMw" 0-1 4904 � MOD -(M,el Owebamerrl 0a1rn1 a ■ � ■ slot 5746 PCO1IPbrnol Can.rr�wY U�4r.z1 4908 i PID:2811721310040 5115 49th St W Edina, MN 55436 z z z s 2 Fran* rup Pala rw le )I (n Legond House Number Labels M36 Street Name Labels City Limits Creeks tAke Name. 4vo Lakes Park. Zoning APO (AU lull PMw" 0-1 4904 O MOD -(M,el Owebamerrl 0a1rn1 ■ MOO5(1.1un1 DwvlaRrravf 0 1nn1 ■ MOD 601 Dawlaamarl U-9-1 ■ PCO1IPbrnol Can.rr�wY U�4r.z1 4908 ■ PCO21K. —ICa n.rr. ■ PCO -3 (PMnns4 Ca nrrar.-,al l ■ no 4(P- -Ca R.—Wrintrrl OPf0 (PlvrnoS ln4uMrvl D,tlrv.11 4911 POO.1 (Iula,rnroJ plm m4EC11 OPOtl i(PMerrol Off-0�9-11 ■ PRD IIP- -I lw-*Idlw Oiwinl 491E . PRO 2ipwv 11-1 —lial Oistncll ■ PRO 3M..ol RerWarRial Oatnnl _ ■ PRO441` r dRvaaaeluY O,a.inl ■ PRO s(ft—R -4 wOierctl /'J<J ■ PSR 4(PkarM Srrgr Oa1rc11 a R118�9b Oupnsp U.al eat ■ R- 2(Dauk4QrwaurI 0rt41 4bTyf RMD(R.I —S Wde 0—_il fY Parcels Fran* rup Pala rw le )I (n P.-A fOtt• 't �i O$ e � 1•id for living, learning, raising families & doing businessr�' ' Table 4.3. Future Land Use Categories 2008 Comprehensive Plan) Residential Description, Land Uses Development Density Range Categories Guidelines LDR _ _ Applies to largely single- family Massing standards Low Density residential neighborhoods, (under development) 1 - 5 units /acre Residential encompassing a variety of lot and impervious Floor to Area sizes and street patterns (see coverage limitations Ratio: per "Character Districts" for more would apply to ensure current Zoning detail). Typically includes small compatibility of infill Code` institutional uses such as schools, construction. churches, neighborhood parks, etc. LDA Applies to two - family and Introduction of more Low - Density attached dwellings of low contemporary housing 4 - 8 units /acre Attached Residential densities and moderate heights. types, such as low - This category recognizes the density townhouses, Floor to Area historical role of these housing may be an Ratio: per types as transitional districts appropriate current Zoning between single- family residential replacement for two- Code* areas and major thoroughfares or family dwellings in commercial districts. May some locations, include single- family detached provided that dwellings. adequate transitions to and buffering of adjacent dwellings can be achieved. _ MDR Applies to attached housing In new development Medium- Density townhouses quads, etc. and (townhouses, q � ) or redevelopment, p 5- 12 Residential multi - family complexes of improve integration of units /acre moderate density. multi - family housing May also include small into an Floor to Area institutional uses, parks and interconnected street Ratio: per open space network and work to current Zoning create an attractive, Code` pedestrian- friendly street edge. HDR Existing "high- rise" and other Provide incentives for High- Density concentrated multi - family updating older 12- 30 Residential residential, some of which may multifamily buildings. units /acre contain a mixed use component. Work to create an May also include limited office, attractive, Floor to Area service or institutional uses pedestrian- friendly Ratio: per primarily to serve residents' street edge and current Zoning needs, parks and open space provide convenient Code* access to transit, schools, parks, and other community destinations. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4. Land Use and Community Design 4 -27 ...For- living, learning, raising families & doing business 1r�SAI 2008 Comprehensive Plan Legend LDR- Low❑msdY Residential OR- OIRto Racdenlial RM- Regloml Modtal I DAR - Low Denoty AV x he d Residential � o - ofr- 111111, OSP -Open SOatearid Parks MDR - Medium Doty Reeldentlal MXC -MMed Use Center PSP- PubldSeml -Public HDR. High Oensdy ResldenhW CAC. ConmunryMfiviy Center ! IAH- UnhIed Atte55Hghway - NC- Wighholhood Comme, -I I- Induetdel ij Le '@ o , a �J fly I rJdljj _I r mi 6 �L a` a N l G W5 EXI '9 y �S sdw ]I i p � S ulhvlcw La I �. w5911 eenun Ilvs — N , Height Limits VE 2 Stories: 24' 2 3 Stories: 36' 4 Stories: 48' 6 Stories: 72' .T Standard Height NC Podium Height y9r�!t. {r e City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Data Source: URS . N. 3 N( ■ P� ! Pic r I e � a a _E_ I IIDR. {� yygashsr I Future Land Use Plan with Building Heights Northeast Quadrant Figure 4.6A e0 05 Mlles Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -53 W l�+rl a 0 O t�t - 7••1 Housing 6 *J V sr. *.4a- r.- — ■ate? ra'• ?-, y ate., .. i , ,y r• I III N• - y yl It 'r 446 �►: � i � 1 -�� .1141 t/ I l! , Or a • - +'tl"� i I__ A 'Ilt 1 »t t t ' �� \fib N.q`'L� \� P9 �\ Illustrative Master Plan Supporting Policies - GrandView Height SAP GUIDING PRINCIPLES • Turn perceived barriers into opportunities. Consider layering development over supporting infrastructure and taking advantage of the natural topography of the area • Design for the present and the future by pursuing logical increments of change using key parcels as stepping stones to a more vibrant, walkable, functional, attractive, and life -filled place • Create an identity and unique sense of place that incorporates natural spaces into a high quality and sustainable development reflecting Edina's innovative develop- ment heritage LAND USE GOALS • Recognize the need for a range of housing types and choices and address those markets that also reinforce the district vision • Address needs of underserved populations (teens, singles, seniors, etc) PUBLIC REALM GOALS Plan for a safe, comfortable pedestrian environment that links public and private destinations north -south (neighborhoods, library, businesses) and east -west (neigh- borhoods, businesses, commons, city hall) '-- NSPORTATION GOALS rte a more bike and pedestrian environment by applying Complete Streets and 1g Streets principles to Vernon, Eden and the local street network • Create an improved circulation and access network between public streets /parcels and private development/ destination • Complete the pedestrian/bike system...make bikes and pedestrians a priority and allow for a safe crossing over Highway 100 • Reserve the CP Rail corridor for future, possible public transit and non - motorized movement/ connection in the district SUSTAINABILITY • City Council Living Streets policy - Recommendation of the Edina Trans- portation Commission (ETC) to establish a comprehensive Living Streets Policy that integrated all modes of transportation and addressed issues such as: traffic calming, stormwater management, promoting active living, community feel, improving walling and biking, and enhancing urban forests. IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 1 -5 CP Rail bike path from Eden to Brookside YEARS 5 -10 • Vernon Living Streets /streetscape /3 lane section • Dedicate right turn from Vernon to Interlachen • Vernon as primary bike route to GrandV Crossing YEARS 10+ Hwv 100 pedestrian lh;ks n� fl v o U r„buc n.m� >�nrc - nephbo.hootl commerriN omc. medium l high density,e denW 1 �Ajj, u u L.F-' -j Y O m I- w rn Z 49TH 5T W T T T T 11' m aw L nwA, m.�ro m.i rwn 9i +iouu +rm I ' I I-6.w umm - - �xW.9/ �y _ _ VERNON AVE i 4 ARCADIA AVE. € �\ VERNON AVENUE SENIOR HOUSING SKETCH PLAN 4 PROJECT SUMMARY FLOOR TOTAL LL �Sr ]ND fL00R fL00R BUILDING FOOTPRINT 2o,9ao 20.640 sr FLOOR AREA DWELLING UNITS +e ie uNirs PARKING(IN -UNIT) 3s 36 STALLS (DOUBLE G�RALE) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS 39.300 sr 52R RERNDU9 LOT SIZE 99.9a0 9r 59.940 sl er +.SB acres UNIT DENSITY +B am+a/ +.38 ate. a -I+. R.r ecr. FLOOR AREA RATIO 99,75+ al / 59.940 .1 BKV G R O U P ArchiteL9+re Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering Kroos Boarman Vogel Group Inc 222 North Second Stmt Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone 612- 339 -3752 Facs imile: 612- 339 -6212 wrrv.bkvg ro up. wm Vern on Avenue Senior Housing mmRUnoN pun ®us wne7 —� i� ra.r�rse RLVISON9 wh oRwv.H er � mu art�n o>.e�ora No. SKETCH PLAN L010 L66 BKV G R O U P ArchiteL9+re Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering Kroos Boarman Vogel Group Inc 222 North Second Stmt Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone 612- 339 -3752 Facs imile: 612- 339 -6212 wrrv.bkvg ro up. wm Vern on Avenue Senior Housing mmRUnoN pun ®us wne7 —� i� ra.r�rse RLVISON9 wh oRwv.H er � mu art�n o>.e�ora No. SKETCH PLAN L010 BKV G R O U P Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc. 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612.339.3752 Facsimile: 612.339.6212 www.bkvgroup.com EOE MEMORANDUM PROJECT: Vernon Avenue Housing TO: Cary Teague FROM: David Motzenbecker MPt i C*#V T pi*,#*T,Ye CLIENT / FIRM NAME: Edina Fifty Five, LLC COMM'. NO.: 1874.01 DATE: 02.13.13 RE: Narrative for Vernon Avenue Housing Development Land Use Applications After much thought and market study, the Vernon Avenue Housing development has been reconfigured to be a 17 -unit townhome development. The units will be 3 levels and 30' high, each with their own tuck -under 2- or 3 -car garage. They will range in gross floor area from 3120 to 3600 square feet. The development is located on three parcels of land adjacent to the Vernon Avenue exit ramp from Hwy. 100 southbound. The parcels are between Vernon Avenue on the south and 49th Street on the north. The development is envisioned to meet the demands of empty- nesters and those who want to stay in Edina and downsize their homes. However, life -cycle housing is currently in short supply. We see this development ensuring a high quality of design that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as well as fitting in nicely with the current Grandview Heights Small Area Plan and many of its suggestions. Taking the Planning Commission's and Staff's previous comments into consideration, we've reduced the density and scale to something we feel better fits within the neighborhood context. Seventeen units currently equates to approximately 12.14 units /acre. The building has been reduced in height from the previous scheme from 4 stories to 3 stories, fitting within the zoning requirements for height. Adding a townhome development at this location is appropriate and will bring public value to the city and neighborhood. The creation of life -cycle housing with a high -level of amenities is an excellent public value, With its location near Hwy. 100, the development allows easy vehicular access for those who have cars. We believe that by locating the development here that we are eliminating additional traffic that will filter into the heart of the neighborhood /1(3 One of the key elements of our site plan is how we are connecting the development to greater Edina. We are still planning to add a public walkway to our site that connects 49th Street and the neighborhood beyond directly to Vernon Avenue. This access route works directly into the small area plan route suggestions of bicycle and pedestrian paths. We also anticipate improving the sidewalk and boulevard along Vernon, helping to create a better connection to the east. We envision this as a catalyst towards beginning the "complete streets" transformation of Vernon as outlined in the small area plan. One of our sustainability goals is to retain as much of the mature vegetation and trees as possible, ensuring the development has a good vegetative buffer from the surrounding traffic. This also benefits the developments heating and cooling costs, as the trees will help keep the building cooler during the summer months, and when the leaves drop, allow the sun to warm the building during winter. The parcels - 5109, 5117, and 5125 49th Street W — are 60,850 square feet (1.4 acres) in size and zoned PRD -2. The current zoning allows 2.5 stories /30' and 6 units. The current zoning requires 7300 s.f. /unit. Due to our proposed number of units, we are anticipating a need to up -zone these parcels to a PUD zoning classification. In conclusion, we anticipate the following land use applications: 1. Rezoning from PRD -2 to PUD 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3. Preliminary Development Plan Application We ask for your support and recommendations of approval for this submittal. BKV MEMORANDUM R 0 U P PROJECT: Vernon Avenue Housing Architecture Interior Design TO: Cary Teague Landscape Architecture Engineering FROM: David Motzenbecker Boarman Kroos Vogel CLIENT / FIRM NAME: Hunt Associates COMM. NO.: 1874.01 Group Inc. DATE: 03.04.13 222 North Second Street Minneapolis. MN 55401 Telephone: 612.339.3752 RE: Narrative for Vernon Avenue Housing Development — PUD Addendum Facsimile: 612.339.6212 www.bkvgroup.com EOE Please see the attached addendum language outlining in more detail our reasoning for why a PUD is the appropriate zoning for this project. We have provided examples from both the PUD guidelines and the overarching goals, principles and policies of the 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan that support the proposed development.. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Per Section 850.04. Subd. 4 D provides the following regulations for a PUD: Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to 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 purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; Townhomes and duplexes are "the most common building types in Edina. They tend to be clustered close to highway or major road corridors, while duplexes are often found in narrow strips along major thoroughfares such as Vernon or France Avenues as a kind of buffer for adjacent single - family detached housing." (2008 Comp Plan, Ch. 4, Pg.3) This development fits best within a PUD zoning district. The setting is appropriate for medium - density residential, as it is immediately adjacent to the Hwy. 100 off- /J I�- ramp and Vernon Avenue; as well across from the proposed Grandview Heights redevelopment planned for south of Vernon, which will add density and activity to the area. The proposed townhomes will help to buffer the single family homes north across 49th from the traffic on adjacent streets and activity to the south. In these ways the proposed development is consistent with the City's_ Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development also supports the following Land Use Goals found in the Comp Plan (2008 Comp Plan, Ch. 4, Pg. 21 -22): 2. Preserve and maintain housing that serves a range of age groups and economic situations. This development offers options for downsizing and compact living that is immediately adjacent to 4 transit routes with 30 minute headways; proposed retail and commercial development; and ease of access to the road network. 4. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. The proposed architecture and style of townhome complements the character of the area, creating a high - quality transition and buffer from a busy street network to a residential neighborhood. 7. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. This location encourages walking and biking — residing immediately adjacent to a proposed regional trail, as well as creating a pedestrian and bicycle path to connect the greater neighborhood north of 49th to Vernon Ave and all points east, west, and south from there. Per Edina's Bicycle Transportation Plan, the proposed development is located dead center at the intersection of: a) a primary bike route — 50th Street, b) a secondary bike route — proposed to weave between Vernon and Interlachen and across 100 at what appears to be 49th Street, c) what is called out in the plan as a major destination — Vernon, Hwy. 100, and Grandview, d) the proposed regional Canadian Pacific Trail that is envisioned as a major bike commuter trail with connections to the Cedar Lake Trail to the north. The location of this connection is also immediately adjacent to 3 transit stops which serve 4 bus routes with 30 minute headways which connect residents to the greater metro area. 8. Ensure that the public realm corridor design is contextual, respectful of adjacent neighborhood character, supportive of adjacent commercial and /or mixed use development, promotes community identity and orientation, and creates the highest quality experience for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. The enhancement of the public realm along Vernon provides individual unit access to the pedestrian realm, adjacent transit, and commercial. Landscaping will be enhanced along the length of the property adjacent to Vernon and 49th. Adding this access and vegetation will be a substantial enhancement over the current pedestrian environment. 9. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long -term operation of new and existing development. General sustainability principles for building and site will be applied. There is the possibility of the existing buildings being relocated, which would be very sustainable. Should demolition be the result, many of the building materials will be recycled. Low VOC paints, Energy Star appliances, and high- efficiency HVAC will all be standard. Sustainable and long- lasting building materials such as stone, brick, and cement board with recycled content will be incorporated into the design. Skylights will add additional daylighting to the units, reducing energy consumption. Tree plantings and species were chosen to enhance solar gain in the winter and cooling in summer, again reducing energy consumption. Stormwater infiltration and a variety of native plants continue the sustainability trend. The proposed development also supports following the Land Use Policies found in the Comp Plan (2008 Comp Plan, Ch. 4, Pg. 34): 1. The City will endeavor to accommodate private redevelopment in the Greater Southdale area, Grandview Heights and the West 77th St. corridor. This is a key location for redevelopment immediately adjacent to the Grandview Heights locale. We are proposing to build 17 units of residential housing (a net increase of only 7 units over the existing development) on the edge of a walkable, soon -to -be enhanced small area plan location within this corner of Edina. 5. In reviewing development proposals, the City will examine how land use and transportation are integrated to ensure that new development and redevelopment expands non - motorized travel options. The location of this connection is immediately adjacent to 3 transit stops which serve 4 bus routes that have 30 min. headways, which in turn connect residents to the greater metro area. Per Edina's Bicycle Transportation Plan, the proposed development is located dead center at the intersection of: a) a primary bike route — 50th Street, b) a secondary bike route — proposed to weave between Vernon and Interlachen and across 100 at what appears to be 49th Street, c) what is called out in the plan as a major destination — Vernon, Hwy. 100, and Grandview, d) the proposed regional Canadian Pacific Trail that is envisioned as a major bike commuter trail with connections to the Cedar Lake Trail to the north. 8. The City will grow and develop in a sustainable manner that will protect its high quality natural environment, promote energy efficiency and conservation of natural resources, and minimize the impacts of buildings on the environment over the lifetime of each building. General sustainability principles for building and site will be applied. There is the. possibility of the existing buildings being relocated, which would be very sustainable. Should demolition be the result, many of the building materials will be recycled. Low VOC paints, Energy Star appliances, and high - efficiency HVAC will all be standard. Sustainable and long- lasting building materials such as stone, brick, and cement board with recycled content will be incorporated into the design. Skylights will add additional daylighting to the units, reducing energy consumption. Tree plantings and species were chosen to enhance solar gain in the winter and cooling in summer, again reducing energy consumption. Stormwater infiltration and a variety of native plants continue the sustainability trend. The proposed development also supports the following Principles for Citywide Movement Patterns and Public Spaces found in the Comp Plan (2008 Comp Plan, Ch. 4, Pg. 36 -37): 2. Design public open and green linkages that bring both amenity and positive image to neighborhoods, corridors, and business precincts. Adding the new pedestrian and bike connections integrated into the development and enhanced on the Vernon edge will enhance the image of this "Gateway" corner and act as an amenity that currently does not exist. 4. Preserve and make accessible natural areas and features as part of the comprehensive open space network. Adding the new pedestrian and bike connections integrated into the development and enhanced on the Vernon edge will offer an easy connection down to the proposed Canadian Pacific Regional Trail and from there to the metro area open space network. 5. Protect and improve the urban forest, including street trees and related landscaping, in order to provide shade and shelter for pedestrians and screening for parking and service uses. Adding and protecting street trees, screening with coniferous trees and enhanced landscaping will accomplish the intent of this principle. 6. Create and promote environments that make it safe and convenient for people to integrate physical activity into their daily routines. Adding the new pedestrian and bike connections integrated into the development and enhanced on the Vernon edge will make it much easier and convenient for access to the bike route on 50th, the proposed regional trail, and walking connections from north of 49th to the Grandview Heights redevelopment. 7. Recognize and integrate Edina's historic landscape features, such as its stone walls and gateways, into the design and redesign of streets, paths, and pedestrian ways. Low stone walls.are being proposed for the landscape design, helping to retain the hillside along Vernon and to provide transition from 49th to the building entries. 10. Within corridors served by existing or planned transit, orient buildings towards sidewalk and paths that lead to mixed use destinations and transit stops. The units in the proposed development are connected to the public sidewalk via internal paths, taking users directly to 3 transit stops immediately adjacent. 11. Encourage design of building entrances that open up and link directly to sidewalks and pedestrian and bike paths. The units in the proposed development are connected to the public sidewalk via internal paths, taking users directly to the 50th Street Bike route. Proposed development is also immediately adjacent to the potential Grandview Gateway location and proposed regional trail, per Comp Plan. (2008 Comp Plan, Ch. 4, Pg. 40) The design of the proposed development supports the following Guidelines for integration of multi -unit housing into transitional areas found in the Comp Plan (2008 Comp Plan, Ch. 4, Pg. 43 -44): • Housing should emulate single - family housing in its basic architectural elements — pitched roofs, articulated facades, visible entrances, porches or balconies. • Including semi - private transitional space such as a porch and adequate landscaping provide a sense of privacy for residents while allowing them to keep "eyes on the street ". Provide opportunities for surveillance of shared outdoor areas such as streets. • Parking garages should be located to the rear or interior of the block 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, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; The proposed development is creating an efficient use of the existing lots by incorporating 17 units (a net increase of only 7 units over the current existing housing) of medium - density housing into a transitional buffer between single - family residential and higher volume roadways and the proposed mixed -use Grandview Heights district. The design of this development places all garages and vehicles to the center of the site; adds pedestrian connections; and individual entries promoting health, safety, comfort and aesthetics. This will enhance the city's tax base and bring an enhanced development to a key gateway location. 41A C. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use 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 podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; General sustainability principles for building and site will be applied. There is the possibility of the existing buildings being relocated, which would be very sustainable. Should demolition be the result, many of the building materials will be recycled. Low VOC paints, Energy Star appliances, and high- efficiency HVAC will all be standard. Sustainable and long- lasting building materials such as stone, brick, and cement board with recycled content will be incorporated into the design. Skylights will add additional daylighting to the units, reducing energy consumption. Tree plantings and species were chosen to enhance solar gain in the winter and cooling in summer, again reducing energy consumption. Stormwater infiltration and a variety of native plants continue the sustainability trend. Site lighting will be tasteful and located to enhance safety of pedestrians and deterrence of crime, while keeping light pollution to a minimum. The pedestrian and bicycle- oriented design with the added connections greatly increases the accessibility of this location to other locales in the city. d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; Sustainable and long- lasting building materials such as stone, brick, and cement board with recycled content will be incorporated into the design. The building aesthetic will be compatible with the surrounding land uses. e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; The proposed development maintains the efficiency of public streets and does not create a detriment to access or traffic. All intersections have adequate capacity and no improvements are needed. Vehicle queues do not interfere with intersection operations. f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; "Landscaping is frequently used to define entries or as a buffer from adjoining roads or surrounding development." (2008 Comp Plan, Ch. 4, Pg.13) Tree plantings and species were chosen to enhance solar gain in the winter and cooling in summer, again reducing energy consumption. The goal is to keep as many of the existing plantings along Vernon as is possible, while using coniferous planting to help screen the development from uses to the east. The proposed pedestrian and bike connection from 49th to Vernon offers a view of the open space to the west, which over time, will become the regional trail. AJO g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; There is only a single use within this development, as the surrounding character of the area on the north side of Vernon Ave is strictly single - family residential. This development is seen as a quality addition to the site which will act as a transitional buffer between the planned mixed -use Grandview Heights area to the south and the neighborhood to the north. h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and The development will offer a variety of townhome square footages at market rate. L ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. There is only a single use within this development, as the surrounding character of the area on the north side of Vernon Ave is strictly single - family residential. This development is seen as a quality addition to the site which will act as a transitional buffer between the planned mixed -use Grandview Heights area to the south and the neighborhood to the north. 2. Applicability /Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit Contained in the various zoning districts defined 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 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. The current zoning for two of the parcels is PRD -2, one is R -1. We feel for continuity and ability to meet the goals of the PUD and Comprehensive Plan, all parcels should be folded into a PUD zoning land use. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: L 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 PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; Not applicable to this development, as all land uses are designated residential. Aj- ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; As a single residential land use typology, a PUD should be approved at this location to allow the proposed development due to its consistency with the aforementioned objectives, principles, goals and policies of the Edina Comprehensive Plan. ii.permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and The proposed density is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Townhomes and duplexes are "the most common building types in Edina. They tend to be clustered close to highway or major road corridors, while duplexes are often found in narrow strips along major thoroughfares such as Vernon or France Avenues as a kind of buffer for adjacent single- family detached housing." (2008 Comp Plan, Ch. 4, Pg.3) This development fits best within a PUD zoning district. The setting is appropriate for medium - density residential, as it is immediately adjacent to the Hwy. 100 off - ramp and Vernon Avenue; as well across from the proposed Grandview Heights redevelopment planned for south of Vernon, which will add density and activity to the area. The proposed townhomes will help to buffer the single family homes north across 49th from the traffic on adjacent streets and activity to the south. In these ways the proposed development is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. The setbacks for this development were close to the required setbacks, but strict adherence to them would cause undue hardship for the full development of the site. By allowing the PUD, we are able to flex these conditions and still provide an appropriately scaled and aesthetically compatible development that accomplishes the intent of the district and adds amenities and connections as outlined previously. Aaa 7i-. BKV G R O U P w v VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES - EXISTING AERIAL B • 02.13.2013 r: _•YAK L jj11 VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES - EXISTING AERIAL B • 02.13.2013 - l t: VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES - SITE PICTURES 02.13.2013 HRr 17 HRr i, S tiC„ �y,�• 1t 45� C1 PF r.\ 3� E�� -.., I - I III -"W, 1111 ail Illll El ILI iil DO I III Mil ti I II I I Ill) �-�- -� � a �1�. _�(.I � - ill f �i iiIf �. -_ 1- i 16Y 10 1 NI � Yf �' l � I -f � - i�j - �� /� II J �� - I ,. r Jo PAINTED FIBER CEMENT W/ BATTERNS Fffr w. A�i L-- t �y STAINED WOOD PANELS ARCHITECTURAL CAST STONE FIBER CEMENT TRIM VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES - MATERIALS • 0 3. 0 8. 2 0 1 3 • 9--%.AJ N OBRIEN KIMMEL 11 -------------------------------- !reef NORTH 0 2D 40 SCALE IN PERT' s Ev z 0' 1 Ss s "T'm 1 ---- - -r- -- Block 2 31 4 5I 6 outiot 02 4— -:4 Block I 2 90 ---- - -= 3 4 k 1 3 t I 0-70 - ------ - -- al — — I — --- — — — — — — -- — — — — — --- — — — — — — — — — — — J- NORTH 0 2D 40 SCALE IN PERT' s Ev z 0' 1 Ss s KNOW ALL PERSONS BY TIMES PRESENTS: Thal E Ftlry Flue, LLC, a Mimueme IImNed Senility .—Iet-fte n wlb I, of the 'dieing descdud Pm ny...- h Iu Coulmy a INemwln, SIeN a Leta 2 and B, Block a. "ThlStleb ltl ' Bmekvlte ", Eecepl Bel Pm a oab LM B eeecdbetl be follows: BeglnNm M e Pdm on the Eeet bouMary If sea LM S dhnm 28 beet NMh If to Se ulheast mr IN—. I — elms sod .. Iw dU 28 feel; Iheme YAM I-, IN .- baueary a said Lot, 551.1; tunes Nan elan. IN Wert...Ny al setl La, 12 fee; Hem NmlMIINIY W IU Palm If bA,,J AIn,, Imluang any pen K patbn of am ebM m alley edi,c nu I premnee wuteda b be wr Hemepin County, Mlnmob. Ta.MUr —: A VAN Imd wide NbIP It brie IYInE eeM a IN Mlrunp 11, NmtNield aW Seedhem RSIlroed between Wee asN SNM art Verm Awnw b Seaton 25, TNnN.p 112 NoNS Rene 21 Weal, Hennepin County. NmesaA (At—. Prep." Lot S, a, 6 eM 6. eel AS tut put of LMa 1.15,11 and 121YIM Nodh of Sbte Highway N, 6, B-1, 4 'Tngd.le Bub. ' 13— kshk °, EIDne DIM put a La 12 whkN HIS Slu beasterly a UH mowing deecrlbal IW: Beginning It e polm an to EIM line a uId La 12 seam 36 feet Seell If the NMNIft cam, Nuea; Iheme In Soahwe neny to the Sadhwest Caner a the IbpVe eeealbed La 12 end Bergb eMetlnD (Torten PmPerty) Has Cauud the lame n u surveyor eM plated as OBNEN KIMMEL In wllmse wberM led ED NIA FIFTY ME. LLG has caused V prea to be Ngnee by In Pnlper o1BOn due _day In 201 , EDINA FIFTY FIVE, LLC Daniel Hunt, Chief Meruger Sub oe C..nly I. 1— Deling In'mmem wee ecknowled.ed Mme me tuna _eery a 101_ by Demel Han ChW MIND., of Eau FEty Flve, LLC, a M.memle Ilmletl UaMllty wmpmy, m belulla Ica cone _ (SIOneNrc) (Prlmm Nema) Naery PUblk County, MY Canmisalm Etptrev Jaruery N, 201_ OBR /EN KIMMEL SUNVETOAS CERTIFICATION I. Ncum L LIrAL ec Hereby cent, Nat Ina Abe was pleperee by IN or 1— my drM supeMean; tut I em a duty Llwmee LAnd ihb a er In IN Sbie o1 L1Wlesob; Inn INS put Is a wrM repreeentmlon a the bmrpery survey: tut el menum 1 eel end lebeb I. correctly EealgMetl on INS Put; tut ell -- deplored an INe plot uw been, w will N corree.y ee wlWn orla Yesr: tut ell Water Oaolmarlee and Wet Iona. ea delve In Mbneaab —.. SeMbn I""' Sube. S. ca a Iu dW of Nu ceninub ere Bunn are bMM on We put; em ell pubs Ways arc shwm art labeled m Nor pleL RkM1wtl L Llatl, Llcemetl lend Surveyor MumaMa Ucem NA 26T2a Sun a Mlmeada Ca yaH Pln Tu 1aepdn9 Inerumea wee acknomadged beorc run INS _ de, If 301_ by Wcham L Uchl, a Limned LarN Surveyor, (SIgnebrel (Printed Name) ru:ublk crony, m nneeote MY ComWbn EaPlru aemury Jt, 201_ EDINA, MINNESOTA TNIs Pbl W ORRIEN pMG91 was appmled aM accepted by Dee City Cauncll a III— M,Nubb , M a rcgubr rlleettrg Hereof hetliNa_daya 251 ..appal... IN wetlen menn ene mwrmnmdetum If W ComeMaalmm a Tmewpela8w mN IN Daum, HWNuy Empmv have been mce ed by Iu Gry m 1Ne :ubN Ned 30 day period bee enpeetl enuene receipt a slcH comment. arm recomreer ms, es pmedee by Minn. SIM,1M Seallm E5353, S 2 CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA, MINNESOTA By Mayor BY -MeNgn TAXPAYM SERWCSS DEPARTMENT. llereepin C.edy, Mlbbu a I N uIby CelOty apt luea PeYable In 20 _ m0 Pda Yeere hew been Pee III ub deecr m Nu Put land NS_ days 201_ Mark Y. Cupin, Hm"n County AIKIIW By Deputy SUNVBY DIVISION, HeenvI, Colaly, Nnneeate Pursuant n RIN. -TAT. Sec. SB311A66 (IM) lNa pert us been approvetl DJs � It, of 101_ Mill— P. Brown, Hemlepin County Surveyor REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Nenne& County, mu be I hereby ceNfy END to WIN, Pbl of OBRIEN KIMMEL was Bled In Ws eBl® Uu _tlay a t5t_,et _e'cbclfL Mahn McCormick, Reglenar a TIWa COUNTY RECORDER, Hemepin WuMy, Mlmesob I hereby CeNty Vut to MN, pbl a OBRIEN NMRffL Me n:cortled In 1Na olfla W e_ dry At 301 —a1 _n _M. Mahn McCmMck, Court/ Recaner By Deputy � i " W SURVEY LEGEND — EXISTING CONDITIONS 01, m _ O sun_ mtl. o� �W aB �:I raxBwBla ma • Nc urm �� ^r • wmu m aXUUar rvw 7.T mvosxa.r- ml.w.m.n 0 Ndhina y Plat OBRIEN KIMMEL 12 -313 Sheetm1 of 1 0 OBRIEN Kimmel Preliminary Plat of OBRIEN KIMMEL Edm, Minnapl] Edina Filly Fire, LLC ry.cTCm.ren.a tr m xme W Buen ]we ou.u] Fmk, ors xo. u3t ®. aeb] a¢er]I.mn.mtl wex t ,BOwf Rmpr0. mtxl canrA - ItOopwan tleb xWmHMB. BIOmI 'Ibple Wo•• a6rmW6'. Eewm ntlyta W t].nm m 6aMatlmly a Mmlmnq ms2M mw Bgmemq tl • pmx m M Fm m. a ema w t] WtrB s wtl eamt a M Nebml mrim bored: nmwelPmMelery mM Bammmmwd Merou Beevmtl Im I] W nmetrmMw] MMivepelu�libneeda, SBall To]mrmaw _ .me mp d wtl Imp eef d M emamade, xmwaa me smnnvn wYed Beerun vtllm •rws X Seam 381mdm tl] xvb. wPP ]t B`ma Xwvpn Bmp farms �. M]vb laemv 6PSV �. ertl4mmli. paeleba' evime .6tWaulpnaulaldOMVleeanldre BpmapdepuPMFm eaem' yaula Wemps.130lal NVndbe :aNrp amr >b�xem smpMna esemm]ae.a~Im�rzbLL' nBn wvmsrym MVan m eeP.mp. mmpg mp pm v poem m mw u.l a dey egemu m wa remee row a m os r�Xmmat TiamlT.larafY ramp mddp Bdmrptrmm.e. B «� maBB Ioel m Emu ma.n) ..�iapr: iii a. 3°°Piwoi tea' ASSOCIATES �. a F s .nF.tl .BaBBeaaB.P3,am ;sue , naB.P]a.. MBBeFFaow3m� Wmaeo�� __ ri'_a -- ®eanRr0.P,ld.. mtB. FFrB.P,latr _ r,.waaB,aB.aP .m]BnnaaP,latr - uim�'emi msnrteon� — _ imBBO w.aamaoP Id >me�: ,eaB,arBp.,la.. aaoeendBm]ma Tor aeon m aww n rmmx lm.. aaarmW be. amw. M B]u...d. ran eel Fem I W rm wtle men. Famm..ary aeXl ]a ]1aV 01]EtE Muf ne ame a eepbr0r 2 20 W. etl uGP P rpN eswp M ma b M xetl d v meY. vHC m ne WPbpremYama q w m mdelnry norm m low reamM eevpn M apnn meb ors d n T ��ewawae. md�.emx Ilwn mr.la. ba m �.w�a mal .. Ir I®le ..am, n.e ba, xleb mn b M a bun � ery ana.m trm. mPl.w aXtl. e®vna�. Ml m. rmb. emB ybuam. xewww eeMPbmr.gmla. tla aemwmu d.e.rW mm.n .�.mmtr.ee.]aaaml.amm.eem rom.tre.w eamn.rm Wau•ewPe FI mp'�r, w W amdtrm meM mbtr claw. mm' m]a.. m.dr more exaee a. b.be bl xqi� p wpm e] op.gwx eLlr eClp.ml. me lemm� v b ]r a wn.leem merry h ER ERFLIdiFD Nr BEFaIEWCdWaxq YW ME eYnuwTiO xp3aY ( P al nuyleemmeewmma. TTWtl wca:e I7m]]W etl t33somB. M Weep dMtr bm a1Mlm afF1 FeIFWY �] eRNW3W � F� �Z..%Lf 0 Ndhina y Plat OBRIEN KIMMEL 12 -313 Sheetm1 of 1 51 10 15116 I 15112 I 5108 IJ� Y O col EDg Uj N ARC JAVE �1\ SI'E PLAN Y 1 x,.�,.da YLtd KEY NOTES Q.mmm.x mxxFrmx cox s..s Qx um.w umF nFS nm .cue, pu.FaIDS,A. '�' frivx ovmmF � role wx ww.cv O4®..1NF�f9Mm�C.L Opp �e u6[o � %A Oe'b aF tu.R [axllwus ® rnovua'01 NYOK.S fSO: sE[i .1011 OaID r4xlpb m. O weU BORO0. m. BKV G R O U P Interior Design Landscape Architecture Erlgneering Boromen Vogel Group Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone 612- 339 -3752 Facsimile 612- 339 -6212 — .bkvgroup.mm NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Preliminary Development Plan Submittal Vemon Avenue Townhomes ®cFerwroN 1bwe,lae...o•.� (g1N1®US- N44] � I)p00IX 8,SNSF N1M. PFM1SpNS Ne Mn: MlE DMVrN aY _ _ O1Em9 BY mMlffiiON xl6 1BNL1 SITE PLAN L100 o mN evowp,.c� �oioolll�lll�lll�lll�lll�lll�� KEY NOTES Q.mmm.x mxxFrmx cox s..s Qx um.w umF nFS nm .cue, pu.FaIDS,A. '�' frivx ovmmF � role wx ww.cv O4®..1NF�f9Mm�C.L Opp �e u6[o � %A Oe'b aF tu.R [axllwus ® rnovua'01 NYOK.S fSO: sE[i .1011 OaID r4xlpb m. O weU BORO0. m. BKV G R O U P Interior Design Landscape Architecture Erlgneering Boromen Vogel Group Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone 612- 339 -3752 Facsimile 612- 339 -6212 — .bkvgroup.mm NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Preliminary Development Plan Submittal Vemon Avenue Townhomes ®cFerwroN 1bwe,lae...o•.� (g1N1®US- N44] � I)p00IX 8,SNSF N1M. PFM1SpNS Ne Mn: MlE DMVrN aY _ _ O1Em9 BY mMlffiiON xl6 1BNL1 SITE PLAN L100 o mN evowp,.c� J U U � -J 0 �w mg N �1 ! ,D QAPE PI AN ;g...; �• i L�iiir!q 1W M r• BKV G R O U P Interior Desip Landsmpe Archite�re E^&—.g Boarman Krona Vogel Group Inc 222 North Seoond Sheet Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone: 612 -339 -3752 Faa rnilc 612- 339 -6212 —.b kvgroup.corn NOT FOR CON5MUC'nON Preliminary Development Plan Submittal Vernon Avenue Townhomes r>marntnN .m..a.srarw.a.am ar000anaa�Nww.m rmm ranmc aensiors No. wre wre r wvrN er OIEO ®BY COMM690N N6 LANDSCAPE PLAN L101 LL11 LL, cc LJ1 BKV G R 0 U P Architxbrra Interior Desip landxape Archbcbze &V--M Vaild GMW Inc 222 North Second Sted 141rineapo6s MN 55401 Tek#—. 612-339-3752 RaMle 612-339-6212 w .bkv xroup.com Vemon Avenue Townhouses WYRM MORMARFION CEUMAMON Basement Floor Plan 3M1r9MM Al 00 D= MVG.*W-EM r LF P ►% r I-� , LLL-JF:7---: -nJi 1LA coi CI L ----- ----- ------------ MIN I it I it I II I II =91 ---------- L............ ILir L --j- BUILDING Y BUILDING X ---------- ------------ J ---------- ---------- iL ---------- II 7 BUILDING Z FU ---------- F --- F --- 1 li it L------ rlBasement Level Plan BKV G R 0 U P Architxbrra Interior Desip landxape Archbcbze &V--M Vaild GMW Inc 222 North Second Sted 141rineapo6s MN 55401 Tek#—. 612-339-3752 RaMle 612-339-6212 w .bkv xroup.com Vemon Avenue Townhouses WYRM MORMARFION CEUMAMON Basement Floor Plan 3M1r9MM Al 00 D= MVG.*W-EM N EW" IMI MEMO MCI - Tw-,S2 Ills A Vernon Avenue Townhouses r IL1 Iffil! — Z I 1 �_ -- 1` -- I lefRAN NO!Rn� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ... ........ •First Floor Plan O ` Li i M Q o-- XC - O' o-- q i m m ® I' _ I iii 11 [� �I ■i It ICI �I �4 4 Q Q n I O 0 4 I .---a o-- -------- - - ®, 7-P I O — I -- - -- -- -- - - i - �-- -- r---a I I (Lond Floor Plan D N G R O U ArdiiOemae= Irderior Design Landscape Ard, v.sw Group ht 222 North Sewn Minneapofis MN Telephone 612 -3 Fac*da 612 -3 www.bkvgroi aCrsxTmns Vernon PFQECrMLE Avr Townhou: IeYnml m CERTFM,N MINE, I: —0 9q TI Second Floo METMIREr- A10: ®Zm BWGnp YCE P .f 17 +fit; .LS I i �9 S-- xc - O° o-_ o-- w 0 Q q i 'o II l m e�' ,O l-- - 4 Q 4 Q I i I I I I 0 WO BKV G R O U P nrchiter� trririior De a- Rroo. V%W Grow Inc 222 North Semnd Street Mmnmpofis MN 55401 Tetphonc 612- 339 -3752 acdmac 612- 339 -6212 w .bkvgroup.com COMIUM s PMELTUILE Vemon Avenue Townhouses I•wtr nrnrHPJa nr raMMA7 M I m4/OWIk �,msea�a�s�arsr� m 9�TRIIE Roof Plan Al 03 ®M aKVCC�v kr .` � .� I —_I • I u�♦ Itl 1�1 �� is lal lal ��i i�l o r f, T' IIINII ° I i,�.all�l '�' _ _ - 4 J —• - � m ♦ �, ME u O BKV G R O U P nrchiter� trririior De a- Rroo. V%W Grow Inc 222 North Semnd Street Mmnmpofis MN 55401 Tetphonc 612- 339 -3752 acdmac 612- 339 -6212 w .bkvgroup.com COMIUM s PMELTUILE Vemon Avenue Townhouses I•wtr nrnrHPJa nr raMMA7 M I m4/OWIk �,msea�a�s�arsr� m 9�TRIIE Roof Plan Al 03 ®M aKVCC�v kr 1�p 9 V.4 Elevation - BuRcring Z �� :�h�� _��,II III ��I o� @ west Elevation - 11,1,1"q Z t-w— – --,E% "P i -- EEIM "P BKV G R 0 U P Arthitezhue kderior Dew VOW C—UP hr- 222 North Se d Sweet. Knmapob MN 55401 TdThorm 612-339-3752 Fdabulm 612-339-6212 �bk group.com M.UN �U Vernon Avenue Townhouses ICYFLAN NORMARFON CBUFrAMN 211-2am Exterior Elevations W&MMOR- A501 ®M BWQ.Ab.ME . . ■If e . . . Ili ®11 . . . y - ■ _ If ■I . . JM! y II®I . . .. w MIN. . . . ■.� ■_■ - - ---- p - __ �i�. - iii - - -- 0 - _ LN■ _R■ = .... . - Townhouses LN■ LN■ -i� r. . r1■ . ■■ �� L ■■ L == �� rrI L L■■ ■ �/� [ ■ _..: . . - - - - - - - u� n 4111 ■ ■ ■ I oil m - ^ ilI ®I `IrI11�1 ■ ■ ■ ■I1 ■ ■ ■III ■ ■ ■ �11M ;111 4111 Elm ■ ■ ■ f®II� ■ ■ ■ �I� ®— ®— rr L� _ a ;-- --- - rr -- ------------------ --- _ -- :r..`- - -- - . - - -- ::::: I � -- - - -- _ __ -: ::_ -:: .. .::. :::1�_ Exterior Elevations -------------------------------------- 1 , BKV G R O U P Arddtec Inberior Design Undso" Ardritechm VOSW Group hsc 222 North Seomd Street Kmapods tM1 55401 Tele *"= 612- 339 -3752 Fac*nBm 612 - 339-6212 www.bkvgroup.com mNSLL' s naEnmE Vemon Avenue Townhouses gnat tamixcaw o3rrnosnw I? mryamae e M - w»oweams�arm®ra m Exterior Elevations Mfffnamr- A503 D2m el O-4%k -E X - -- ... - -- 103 - -- - -- - - -. ...` -.r.-. o - �i-- < . s ------------- "#? �� jaiI #;1�� :�,: _'1m'g.�. 1�1 - - 1�' Vernon Avenue �� -':. -: Townhouses • -CI FEW, ,.. II - - 4 I�illl.-- Will .ili s�� i!il' g III 6 s� - -�-,.- ._ Exterior � 1 A V: . t� a. MEN .... ........ ?- � t Ogg; Effl. I-�,� - - - - 'a��, . i ,� II®I � �,�' Il�il �,� li�ill - -+ - �,�_ 11a �,� p la E a = =� _ i-e�= �tx>JCJ�__�_ _ '>�ra. 'gg _l�1F= Pry e >�� 51 ..S CCNSLLTAIM p o- L 1 -� Mm Vemon Avenue ragof Townhouses -rim 0 u - t� Ram � 1 �1 � sk ■_ III ■III ■I � �N�I e - c .e. ligla, ��. ®I ��.r if ®I �� 1,1 1 �� .11 1 �� 11I® p .., ._ Ill ES •li .. _. ._ i..i .__ ��l��I� mNN■�� mid mmi � � I �l1HIMI I � ! � f ®11 -- � � � M11- � � � 91aw -- N� ZM 1 ' BKV G R O U P % % . %c '• n 7 Architecture ior De sk Lan Umds®pe Architecture m.raEa Braman —" -- r - -- 13M �� 03 GroW O O O MUM. hm 222 North SemM Strad Minneapolis MN 55901 1r . - - , ,. Tekpha- 612-339 -372 — - — - - trll 2-339 -6212 COKISLUM GEast Elevation - Courtyard Building X n South Mevafion - Building X y� FRaILTMLE Vernon Avenue Townhouses IEvBari tvU?THArara>N ;s z G l' » e r C�Ia�nR�ATMpa�p�r�D � � GWest Elevation - Buldinn X urhtletmsdfe9�afAkr ®2 Mg� ?ppLwt`rIS C/O SHTaaE Exterior Elevations A503 o� SNCinAYeECE MINUTES CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS October 24, 2012 7:00 P.M. I. Chair Gra 'el called the eting to order at 7:00 PM II. RO CAL Answering the ro c were Scherer, Forrest, Schroeder, Kilberg, Potts, Platteter, Cherkassy, Carpenter, Staunton Fischer a Grabiel. III. The agenda wj§ filed as IV. Kathleen asescha, 5348 Holl ood Road requested that she be kept informed on all development plans for the foperties at 5109 -5125 Slest 49th Street. V. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS Planner Presentation Planner Teague told the Commission they are being asked to consider a sketch plan to redevelop three lots 5109 -5125 West 49th Street to build an 18 -unit attached housing development. The subject properties are 1.28 acres in size, therefore the proposed density of the project would be 14 -units per acre. Continuing, Teague reminded the Commission they heard two previous sketch plan reviews for the subject properties; one on March 28, 2012 for a six - story, sixty -foot tall, 98 -unit senior housing building and the last one on June 27, 2012 for a four - story, forty -foot tall, 60 -unit senior housing building. Teague noted at both meetings the consensus of the Planning Commission was that the proposed development was too much for the site. Discussion Commissioners asked how many units are permitted by Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Teague responded that Code would allow roughly 10 -11 units. The Comprehensive Plan between 8 -10 units, adding the request exceeds those standards. Applicant Presentation Page 1 of 6 David Motzenbecker delivered a power point presentation highlighting the following: • Site reconfigured to accommodate an 18 -unit housing development; roughly 14 units /acre. • Units are proposed at three levels and 30'high. • Each unit would have a two stall garage. • Development is envisioned to meet the demands of empty- nesters and would be considered life - cycle housing. • High level of amenities • Connecting the development to greater Edina by adding to the public walkway that would help connect 49th Street directly to Vernon Avenue. • Rezone site from PRD -2 to PRD -4 • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Setback Variances; and • Site Plan review Motzenbecker added there also is the possibility of rezoning the site to a PUD; not PRD -4 as mentioned; however they would follow staff and Commission lead on this matter. Concluding, Motzenbecker said they will retain as much of the mature vegetation and trees as possible. Landscaping provides a good buffer from the surrounding traffic. Discussion Commissioner Forrest inquired on the width of the driveway into the project and internally; noting that trash hauling would need to be accommodated in this area. Mr. Motzenbecker responded that at this time the proposed driveway aisle width is standard. Continuing, Motzenbecker said with regard to trash each individual unit would have its own trash and recycling bins. Commissioner Platter asked if this project would be guided by bylaws establishing specific rules. Motzenbecker said their intent is for the building to have an association directing rules for trash enclosures and other standard multi - tenant issues. Chair Grabiel asked for clarification on the internal workings of the site; especially at the east end. Motzenbecker responded at the east end of the site there will be a hammer head turn around. Commissioner Staunton asked for clarification on unit construction noting the changing topography of the site. With graphics Mr. Worman explained the step down approach of some of the units as they take advantage of the topography, adding at 49th Street there would be a 2 Y2 - story exposure. Commissioner Schroeder asked how guest parking would be accommodated. Mr. Worman responded that guest parking would be accommodated in front of each garage (2 spaces). He said their goal is to achieve parking for 36 guests. Commissioner Fischer asked if any thought was put into exterior materials. Mr. Worman said at this time their goal is to achieve high quality housing that has character. Worman said there has been some discussion on roof gables, dormers and brick but not much else. Page 2 of 6 �-� Chair Griibiel said he salutes the fact that the number of units went down from 71 to 18, adding that's a large drop. Grabiel said he still has concerns about traffic moving into and out of the area. Mr. Motzenbecker responded that at this time a traffic study is being done on the project. Commissioner Schroeder asked the applicant if any thought was given to storm water management. Mr. Motzenbecker said they have discussed some options including water gardens, cisterns and rain barrels to collect water off the roof. Public Comment Kathleen Wasescha, 5348 Hollywood Road, stated she would like the Commission to consider when reviewing development proposals what the benefit would be for the neighborhood. Discussion Commissioner Fischer told the applicant that he likes what he sees. He said the project utilizes the grade pretty well. Fischer said the Commission will ultimately answer the questions about variances; however, the concept is good. Commissioners asked Planner Teague if the roadway addressing the single family home is included in the land; pointing out it is important to know if the street was vacated and is included as part of this development. Teague responded that at this time he is not sure if that roadway was vacated and recorded with Hennepin County. Commissioner Scherer commented that she agrees with Fischer; she likes the concept. Scherer said at this time she doesn't want to comment on the proposed units at three stories, reiterating she likes the concept; it's a step in the right direction. . Commissioner Carpenter said he agrees with Commissioners comments; however, he still thinks the site may be a little tight. Carpenter suggested they reconsider the number of units to allow some "breathing" room. Commissioner Forrest said she has a concern with the east setback; however, she would like a "clearer" picture before she makes any decision. Forrest also said it would be important to know if this project proceeds if the street (Pukuana) was vacated and is part of the site. Commissioner Staunton said that this definitely is an area of transition although he's not sure R -1 is appropriate here, adding the townhouse project feels right. Continuing, Staunton acknowledged the applicants desire to embrace the Grandview area, but in his opinion how the project addresses 49th Street will be the most important. Concluding, Staunton said low density is desirable in this location. Commissioner Potts commented that the proposed townhouse project appears to be a good fit, adding he could support a low density project in this location. Commissioner Schroeder said with regard to the Grandview Small Area Plan and its surrounding roadway systems that reconfiguration of the Highway 100 ramps was discussed as a future possibility. Schroeder added if there was a reconfiguration of these ramps the excess land could serve a useful ,)urpose. Schroeder said it may be important to anticipate "what could happen" in the future. Commissioners agreed. Page 3 of 6 44-1 Chair Grabiel thanked the applicant for their presentation and said the following should be addressed if the project proceeds: • Find out if the road that serves the single family home was vacated; • Consider reducing the number of units; • Conduct a traffic study; and • Consider what this development would look like from the people that live directly across the street from it. B. Zoning Ordinance Amendments • Grading • Subdivisions Planner Presentation Planner Teague said what he would like from the Commission at this time is how to move forward getting public input on ordinance amendments. Teague added he sees a couple ways the Commission can proceed; 1) Hold a public hearing at a regular . meeting of the Planning Commission; or 2) Hold a public hearing at another venue; such as the Senior Center; not at a regular Planning Commission meeting. Teague also said he would like further thought by the Commission on how to "reach out" to residents on specific issues. Discussion Chair Grabiel commented that the Commission would need to decide if the public speaks more freely at an informal venue vs. a formal venue such as a televised Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Platteter added in his opinion there are benefits from a less formal setting such as the Senior Center. Commissioner Potts agreed, adding he believes the language developed thus far on.retaining walls and grading is good; however it would be good to have an informal discussion with residents on these topics. Continuing, Potts asked Planner Teague if the suggested language changes to the code with regard to retaining walls and grading add additional survey costs to residents. Teague responded in the affirmative. He noted that the Engineering Department in some instances has requested information on a survey for retaining walls less than 4 -feet. Commissioner Staunton said from his experience with the "Grandview" project that beginning with a less formal setting worked well. He noted that getting other people's opinions and knowledge is a good thing. Staunton pointed out that the Council has proposed the use of "small working "groups " adding, these small groups can discuss the best way to gather public input and, also tackle ordinance topics. Continuing, Staunton said the goal is to reach out to everyone in a thoughtful manner and gather as much information as possible before the formal public hearing process begins. Page 4 of 6 Minutes /Edina City Council /November 20. 2012 feasibility study of the Braemar Soccer Field. The Park Board also recommended that the forward motion of the dome not occur until the issue of expanded playing fields was addressed, solved, and budgeted. Ms. Kattreh suggested a temporary solution, if a dome was built, to increase field space through a swap between the Edina Football Association and Edina Soccer Club to move football to the turf field in the fall to free up the Lewis Park fields for soccer and allow the ability to rest one of the fields at Lewis Park. She noted there was also ability on the very westerly field at Lewis Park to run two soccer fields width wise, similar to that at Braemar, creating a soccer complex. It was noted the Public Works Director and maintenance staff had indicated this was a viable solution. The Council agreed there was a need to address the shortage of field space and potential for increased demand as additional sports become popular. Ms. Kattreh explained the swap was intended to be a temporary solution until the City was able to resolve the field shortage issue. She indicated it would be ideal if a field could be added to Pamela Park as studies had clearly indicated it was a need. The Council indicated support for the swap option, need to plan for the future with a broader vision, and preference to build to projected need rather than existing requests. Discussion ensued relating to use of Fred Richards Golf Course as an amenity (but not as a site for a dome) and possible turfing of McCarthy (school property), since it would be able to sustain three times more usage than a grass field, would fit the "do Town" initiative, and support youth activities. Ms. Kattreh stated the action requested by the Park Board was to further study the Braemar athletic sites by consultants used in the first two phases to determine the kind of dome, cost, and financial feasibility, (create a business model) conditioned on resolving the need for expanded playing fields. The Council supported a parallel track to also study needed hours, projected hours, and potential solutions to field shortages. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, receiving the Sports Dome recommendation conditioned upon studying the issue of expanded playing fields and financing for those expanded playing fields. Ayes: Bennett, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.B. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWED — 5109 -5125 WEST 49' STREET Community Development Director Presentation Mr. Teague presented a map of the subject site and the Sketch Plan request to redevelop three lots at 5109 -5125 West 491h Street. The proponent proposed to tear down the existing two apartments and single - family home and build an 18 -unit attached housing development. The subject properties were 1.28 acres in size so the proposed density of the project would be 14 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan guides these properties as low density residential (1 -5 units per acre) and indicates over 12 units per acre as high density and between 5 -12 units per acre as medium density. Mr. Teague advised that on October 24, 2012, the Planning Commission considered the Sketch Plan proposal and determined it generally believed that a medium - density residential designation was more appropriate for the site than high - density residential. At the time of the Planning Commission's review, the vacated right -of -way adjacent to the site was not used in the density calculations. However, using that acreage, the site area would be 1.43 acres and the density would be 12.57 units per acre. Proponent Presentation Daniel Hunt, 6516 Interlachen Boulevard, President of Hunt Associates, stated they previously came forward with two other larger proposals that were abandoned due to finding no common ground with the neighbors and receiving negative comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Hunt stated the residential for sale market had dramatically improved, which was the genesis of this plan, a significant improvement on the existing buildings, answered opposition received relating to height of the building, traffic generation, and sunlight impact to the north. He noted some revisions had been made to the plan since Planning Commission consideration. In addition, as reported by Director Teague, they had approached the Canadian Pacific Railroad, owner of a 175 -foot strip of property to the west and learned it Page 7 �� Minutes /Edina City Council /November 20, 2012 needed only a 100 -foot strip and was open to selling a portion, which would lower the density of this project to fewer than 13 units per acre. Chris Palkowitsch, architect with the BKV Group, presented a revised Site Plan, noting it better fit the project into the neighborhood by reducing the scale to smaller -sized townhomes and continuing a wider bicycle trail /pedestrian pathway in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Grandview Plan. Mr. Palkowsitsch indicated the project would include two types of townhomes: Type A abutting Vernon Avenue would be 2 -story units above grade; and, Type B along 49th Street were 2%: -story units and slightly recessed to grade. The project would comprise a total of 18 units with garages slightly set back to allow for guest parking (38 visitor stalls in total). Mr. Palkowsitsch presented elevations depicting project views, noting the base of the ridgeline would fit the residential homes on the north side. Exterior treatments would incorporate gables, dormers, and brick subject to additional study on materials within the neighborhood and market. The Council discussed the Site Plan and asked questions of the proponents. Mr. Palkowsitsch explained that a height of 2.5- stories would provide for the underground parking and enough living space. The current zoning allowed for 35 feet at the ridgeline or 2.5 stories, whichever was less. The Type A units facing Vernon Avenue were 25 feet high but with the first level tucked under ground on the rear side to accommodate the 23 -foot grade change in topography. Mr. Palkowsitsch indicated exploration remained on water gardens, cisterns, and /or rain barrel collection. Mr. Palkowsitsch indicated the requested density allowed offset of major site costs related to topography and drainage. Mr. Hunt explained they had done little work on the architecture of the site, but all units would have large front porches and back decks, providing adequate programmed space. He pointed out this site was very unique with single - family homes to one side and non - residential uses on the Vernon Avenue side, requiring two faces. Mr. Hunt suggested that too much of a standard residential appearance would be out of place on the busy street and it would need more substance (architectural features) to hold its place. It was noted the eight larger units had a main floor master suite while the other units contained upper level bedrooms, allowing attraction of a different market. Following discussion, the Council indicated that townhomes provide a needed lifecycle choice and including .15 acres from the railroad would be of benefit. It supported the proposed pathway, the attempt to engage Vernon Avenue, and found that creating housing along with commercial was intriguing. However, the Council indicated that 18 units created too high of a density for this site. Members Sprague and Swenson and Mayor Hovland stated a willingness to entertain a medium - density range to gain economic viability. Member Bennett stated her rationale to prefer a low- density range of 10 -12 units, as guided by the Comprehensive Plan, to allow creation of a buffer space /transition between the single family homes across the street and this project, less impact on neighborhood streets, and improved quality of life. The Council found that additional green space and a common amenity would enhance the project. VIII.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-146 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. 2012 -146 accepting various donations. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.D. ORDINANCE NO. 2012 -19 — AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF EDINA CODE CONCERNING BICYCLE LANES — ADOPTED Page 8 A51 t P c. VIII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan Review for Senior Housing - 5109 -5125 West 49th Street for Hunt Associates Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop three lots at 5109 -5125 49th Street West. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartment buildings and single - family home and build a new six story, sixty foot tall, 98 -unit senior housing building. Teague pointed out the existing properties are zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential District which allow residential buildings containing six of fewer units. Teague said should the City decide to rezone these sites to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the site. Continuing, Teague said a traffic study would need to be completed to determine impacts on adjacent roadways. Concern was expressed from residents in regard to congestion that would be created at the intersection of Brookside Avenue and Interlachen Boulevard. Concluding, Teague stated which the proposal would be an improvement over the existing buildings on the site, staff is not sure that the proposal would rise.to the level of meeting the purpose and intent of a PUD. The proposal far exceeds allowed densities. Seven variances would also be required under traditional senior housing zoning. Appearing for the Applicant Daniel Hunt, Hunt and Associates, David Motzenbecker, BKV Group Chair Grabiel explained that before the Commission this evening is a sketch plan review. Grabiel clarified that a sketch plan wasn't a public hearing. It's an opportunity for the developer to obtain feedback from the Planning Commission on their concept. Discussion /Comments Chair Grabiel told the Commission he seems to remember the Commission and Council approving a development concept in this area for townhomes, adding he doesn't remember the unit count. Planner Teague responded that Chair Grabiel was correct. The Council approved a 6 -unit townhouse development; however, the townhouse development only included the R -1 lot and right -of -way. 41 �- Page 9 of 14 A� 3 Commissioner Forrest observed that ordinance stipulates a building height limit of 2- stories in the PRD -2 zoning district. Planner Teague agreed adding PRD -2 also contains a density cap of 6- units. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hunt addressed the Commission and said he believes the proposed use of the site as senior housing is good. Continuing, Hunt explained in Edina there is demand for senior housing. Edina residents want to be able to remain in their community when it comes time for them to sell their home. This proposal gives them that option. Hunt introduced David Motzenbecker to speak more on the proposal. Mr. Motzenbecker told the Commission that in his opinion this is a key piece and an excellent location for a senior building. Continuing, Motzenbecker said that the project will entail tearing down the existing two apartments and single - family home to construct a new 98 -unit, 6 story structure and rezoning the site to PUD incorporating the requirements of the City's PSR -4 zoning. The parcel is located adjacent to the Vernon Avenue exit ramp and West 49th Street. - — - -- - - otzeri -ticker said -in his opinion the proposed building would bookend with Grandview. With graphics Motzenbecker pointed out design elements and the goal of incorporating this site into the greater Grandview area. Motzenbecker also noted the goal of the ETC was to establish a comprehensive living streets policy that integrated all modes of transportation. Motzenbecker said he believes this project is a step in the right direction in implementing that goal. Concluding, Motzenbecker said they looked to the Grandview small area development plan and incorporated its keyprinciples into their site. One principle was key, turning perceivable barriers into opportunities. In this respect the natural topography actually became an asset. Discilssion /Comments Chair Grabiel said in his opinion this may be a very difficult area to "get out of including getting onto Interlachen Boulevard. Mr. Motzenbecker acknowledged that and informed the Commission a traffic study needs to be completed to ensure traffic is handled appropriately. Continuing, Motzenbecker said they also anticipate improving the sidewalks and boulevard along Vernon. Chair Grabiel noted their reference to senior housing and asked exactly what type of senior housing this would be. Motzenbecker said that the population served would be able bodied seniors 62 +. Chair Grabiel asked if the units would be market rate or something else. Motzenbecker responded that the units would be market rate and be around $2,000 per month depending on unit size. Commissioner Staunton said he has a concern with the request as it relates to zoning /PUD /PSR -4. Staunton said to him it appears to be an excuse to get around X1( Page 10 of 14 code. Mr. Motzenbecker said their intent was to create the best development possible and tie into the Grandview small area plan by bringing connection to the Grandview area. Vernon Avenue would also be enhanced through landscaping and walkways along with boulevard enhancement. Aligning the project with the PSR -4 zoning district provides the opportunity for the project to implement bonuses. Commissioner Fischer said he has a difficult time justifying a building of this size and density in a small residential neighborhood. Mr. Motzenbecker said their intent was to set the building as far back from the street (49th Street) as possible and add amenities to the front of the building. Motzenbecker said the building would be 200' from the nearest residents across 49th. Concluding, Motzenbecker said they took advantage of the topography when designing the building pointing out that the topography absorbs the building height. Commissioner Carpenter said in his opinion the building is too large. Carpenter asked the developers how parking was handled; not only parking for residents of the building but for guests. Mr. Motzenbecker said the building was designed with 132 enclosed parking spaces those spaces include spaces for visitor parking. Carpenter questioned if that would really work. Commissioner Staunton stated in his opinion this plan is very aggressive and causes him concern. Staunton said he likes the attention paid to Vernon Avenue; however the unit-count is way too high; more attention needs to be paid to the north side and traffic is a major concern. Staunton noted the one -way in and out scenario is difficult at best. Commissioner Platteter agreed and questioned site circulation, traffic circulation on West 49th St, site drop -off, metro mobility, deliveries and visitor parking. Platteter said that he doesn't think the drop -off area as sketched would work. There's just too much going on with this building. Commissioner Forrest added she was also concerned with the circulation on the site and on 49th St. This proposal will certainly add additional traffic into the area pointing out it's a one way in and out. Continuing, Forrest also said in her opinion the building is too tall, the site is too tight (especially on the east), and it's just too much. Concluding, Forrest said the Commission also has to keep in mind housing trends change over time, adding it may be a senior building today but maybe not in the future. Commissioner Schroeder said the site intrigues him with the question of how you transition from Vernon into the residential neighborhood while maintaining the residential character. Schroeder said in his opinion this isn't a very friendly project. He added the building needs to relate better to the R -1 neighborhood. Concluding, Schroeder said the building at least at the residential level on 49th St. needs to be scaled back. Page 11 of 14 0' �- Commissioner Staunton agreed with Schroeder's comments pointing out the proposal increases the density 10- fold. It's just too much. Concluding, Staunton said that he's also not sure if this is consistent with the GrandView Framework. The building is way out of scale. . Mr. Motzenbecker asked the Commission if they could provide some guidance on the number of units they would be comfortable with. Commissioner Staunton said traffic is another large issue. He said the one way in and out nature of this neighborhood along with the RR tracks is key in redeveloping this site and achieving the correct unit count. Staunton concluded that he doesn't know the "right" unit number. Commissioner Potts suggested that the applicant take another look and respond more to the topography and to the residential neighborhood. Potts asked if their intent was to build the building and sell it or would they continue to manage the property. Mr. Hunt responded they would build and manage the property. Commissioner Fischer asked the applicants if they spoke with their neighbors. Mr. Motzenbecker responded they had, adding around 1S -20 neighbors came to - -- - -a neighborhood meeting. Motzenbecker said they received both positive and negative feedback. Commissioner Forrest indicated the proposed use is fine with her, reiterating her .concern is massing and traffic. Forrest said in her opinion this project isn't the right "transition" into the neighborhood. Concluding, Commissioner Forrest said that in her opinion 20 units at 21/2 stories may be the right transition. As presented it's just too large. Chair Grabiel said he agrees with all comments thus far adding his concern is that the building is just too large and the transition into the R -1 neighborhood just isn't there. Grabiel said he doesn't want to give false encouragement, adding he believes the use is right; however this is just way to large. Mr. Motzenbecker said he understands the Commissions comments indicating they want to see a smaller building. He asked the Commission if they could provide him with a unit range. Commissioner Schroeder commented that he understands the applicant is looking for a number; however, that can't be provided. Schroeder said he wants to see a creative solution that is sensitive to the neighborhood. Concluding Schroeder said there are other options out there. Commissioner Carpenter suggested considering other areas, adding this may not be the right site. Page 12 of 14 M5 L Chair Grabiel thanked the applicants for their presentation adding the Commission would be receptive to them bringing forward another sketch plan for review. Public Comment David Valentine, 5021 Hankerson, told the Commission he doesn't think a building of this size belongs in a residential neighborhood. Valentine said he has no objection that it's a senior building; however, the building is just too large with too many units. B. M dification to the Redevelopment Plan for Southeast Edina Re velopment Project Area and the TIF Plan for the Establ7fent of the Southdale 2 TIF District. Planner PrOentation Planner Teagu\aw ed the Commission the City Counci 's considering the establishment TIF District that would include uthdale and surrounding parcels. Teague explained the Xe f creating the TIF was to facilitate improvements to Soutluding the fo owing renovations to common areas; new entrances, flooring, signage" estrooms, parking deck lighting, exterior seating, columerior eatments. Teague said at this time there are no proposed chang o t property with the proposed improvement project. Teague told the Commat at thi ime they are being asked to determine by resolution th at the improve ent to the common areas are consistent with the Comprehensi Commissioners as ed Planner Teague eir action. Planner Tea a explained the Commission is beng a ed to determine by resolution that the pr osed use of TIF funds to improve common reas was consistent with the omprehensive Plan. �mmissioner Fischer moved to adopt the resolution as outliked by City staff on page Al. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried 9 -0. [ G� Page 13 of 14 S� �7j ,96\ i� C B. Sketch Plan Review - BKV Group - 5109 and 5117 West 49th Street. Vernon Avenue Senior Housing Planner. Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission they are being asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop three lots at 5109 -5125 West 49t" Street. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartments and single family home on the site and building a new four story 44 -foot tall, 60 unit senior housing building. The density of the project would be 43 units per acre. Teague reminded the Commission the applicant had previously proposed a six story, sixty foot tall, 98 -unit senior housing building that was considered by the Planning Commission on March 28, 2012. Teague explained that the existing property is zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential District -2, which allows residential building containing six or fewer dwelling units. The existing apartments contain four and five units each. The applicant would be seeking a rezoning of the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The site is guided LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (1 -4 units per acre), therefore, a -- -- - - -- Compre - erisive -P ari- Ameridmerif -to HDR� High- Density Kesideritial would be required. The applicant is again requesting a Sketch Plan review to solicit comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Opinions or comments provided to the applicant shall be considered advisory only, and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request. Concluding Teague indicated that staff remains concerned with the proposed density of the proposed density of the proposal at 44 units per acre. While the maximum density of the PSR -4 District is 44 units per acre as requested, it is still at the high end of what the City of Edina has allowed for high density development in the past. Additionally, this site is adjacent to single - family residential homes to the north and east. The City's other high density residential sites in town are not located so close to single - family residential areas. They are generally located in the Southdale area. Appearing for the Applicant David Motzenbecker, BKV Group and Jim Hunt, Hunt and Associates, applicant Chair Grabiel welcomed everyone present and explained that the process for Sketch Plan Review allows a developer to bring a development /redevelopment plan before the Planning Commission to solicit comments and opinions. A Sketch Plan Review is not an official application and is not a public hearing. It is a public meeting. An Page 11 of 15 A51 Applicant Presentation Jim Hunt, addressed the Commission and said he was excited to be present this evening to share the significant changes made to the plan since the Commission last viewed it. Hunt introduced David Motzenbecker. Mr. Motzenbecker told the Commission the unit count and building height has been decreased from 98 -units to 60 -units and from 6 to 4- stories. Continuing, Motzenbecker said the setback of the building from West 49th Street was increased to 82 -feet. Motzenbecker told the Commission he would stand for comments /questions. Comments from the Commission Commissioner Potts said the massing along Vernon Avenue in his opinion is acceptable; however he has two points of concern as follows: Concerns with the R -1 residential properties directly adjacent and to the east of the subject site. How will this impact them. Traffic. Traffic and stacking is a major concern. There is only one way in and one way out of this neighborhood. Has a complete traffic study been done on the intersection at 49th St and Brookside and Brookside at Interlachen. Also, what about the RR tracks -they potentially poise a real stacking problem. Stacking at the most at the tracks would be 8 -car lengths. This is an issue. Mr. Motzenbecker agreed that with only one egress it will be challenging; however, they have to deal with what exists. Motzenbecker said he was open to any suggestions. Commissioner Platteter agreed with Potts and added that his concern remains the same as before, internal circulation and drop off. Platteter said the site cannot function without a clearly designated drop off area. He pointed out as a senior facility there will be Metro Mobility drop offs, and the usual residential deliveries; not to mention medical deliveries, US mail and visitors: A lot will be going on in this area. Chair Grabiel said the Commission supports redevelopment; but in this instance the topographical issues, proximity to RR tracks and the R -1 properties to north create difficulty for him to support the request as submitted. Grabiel said he can't see the benefit to the immediate neighbors nor the community as the result of this proposal. Mr. Motzenbecker said that the site will be re- landscaped and everything possible will be done to retain the trees along Vernon Avenue and nestle this building into the 1 Page 12 of 15 hill away from the R -1 properties. Motzenbecker said that in his opinion the introduction of more life -style housing to Edina is a benefit to its residents and improving the site is also a big plus. Continuing, Motzenbecker pointed out market analysis supports the theory when people can no longer live in their single family homes they want to find housing in the same area; even neighborhood when available. Commissioner Fischer commented that this request also includes an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would be a policy decision; however, for this neighborhood amending the Comprehensive Plan from low- density residential to high - density residential is a big leap. Fischer acknowledged that the proposal can be viewed as an improvement; however, this neighborhood is single family with two low- density buildings, adding he doesn't believe this type of density compensates for the improvements to the site and additional housing options. Commissioner Potts stated he feels certain aspects of the project can be readdressed, adding he believes the proposal presented this evening is better than the previous proposal; however he still can't get by the traffic. Potts said to him that's the largest hurdle. The one way in and out and adding more density is a big concern for him. - - - Commissioner c -erer said -s a just can't get past the density. —Slie stated in her opinion this is too much and too close to residential R -1 properties, pointing out R -1 properties are directly north and east. Scherer concluded reiterating the density of this project is too much Commissioner Forrest said she has a number of concerns with this project. Her issues are with density, drop -off and pickup, street parking.possibilities, staffing and traffic. Forrest stated in her opinion the proposed building is uncomfortable to enter and exit, pointing out the proposal has access steps to Vernon Avenue that are steep; especially for seniors. Concluding, Forrest pointed out a rezoning to PSR -4 may "fit" the project better, adding whatever process they pick; as presented this one is just too much. Mr. Hunt responded that the proposed building will not have 24 -hour staff and if "manned" would only have day staff. He asked the Commission to note that the proposed building; although for seniors, is proposed for the active senior that lives independently. Commissioner Staunton said he agrees with many of the comments from Commissioners and added he continues to believe what's proposed is too dense. Staunton stated if the plan were to proceed the density must be reduced significantly. The proposal as submitted is just too dense for this site. Continuing, Staunton said he may feel differently if the entrance to the building was off Vernon Avenue, but it isn't, and the 49th Street entrance /exit is limited to one -way in and out, adding the railroad tracks and the steep hill to gain access to Interlachen /Vernon leave little stacking room for vehicles. Concluding, Staunton said he can't support the project as A J -0\ Page 13 of 15 h O proposed. He said he could envision townhomes;. maybe 10 -12, but can't visualize an apartment building of this density in this spot. Mr. Motzenbecker informed the Commission they did consider a rezoning to PSR -4, adding with bonuses there may be a comfortable unit count range the developer could proceed with. Motzenbecker said he would take "another look" at the site and the proposed density. Chair Grabiel reiterated his concern is with the size of the building. Grabiel said the building in a sense is on the wrong side of the hill; less disruption to the neighborhood would occur if the topography was more in their favor. Chair Grabiel thanked the applicants for their plan and told them to take all Commission comments in good faith. Mr. Motzenbecker and Mr. Hunt thanked the Commission for their interest and comments. VIII. Chair Grabiel acknowledged "back of packet" materials. Commissioner Staunton app ' ed the Commission that he atte ed a meeting with City Staff on the idea of develop' g work plans for each boar:K or commission. Staunton said he believes someti %deve een now and th all when the Commission and City Council hold their annusession the Co tan" ission and planning staff need to "get together" to discuss ing a "work for the Commission. Commissioner Fischer said he attended a. t nsp tation meeting that discussed the France Avenue corridor. The meeting touche on three key intersections and the consultants are looking at the early start of an orming France Avenue. Fischer said this corridor needs guidance and a v' ion. Th France Avenue of the future will not look like the France Avenue of tod . Fischer sa it's not unrealistic to envision bikes along this corridor. Chair Grabiel asked the Commis on to refer to a Memo fr Kris Aaker on a property located at 5427 Wo crest. Grabiel said it appears he City Council had some concerns about rear y rd access, fill and retaining walls. Commissi/to o asked if the retaining wall in question was permitted use. Planner Tnded in the affirmative. Expanding on his com ent Teague explained ncil expressed concern over retaining walls, fill d access. Teague saiion is should we regulate access. Continuing, Teague explained that with rding, fill, etc. that the City's engineering reviews all plans to ensure pro age. Teague said full review is also required if a retaining wall 3 Page 14 of 15 p Wenck File #3022 -01 Prepared for: CITY OF EDINA EDINA FIFTY FIVE, LLC. Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 -0249 (763) 479 -4200 Traffic Impact Report for Vernon Avenue Towrihomes Edina, MN DRAFT February 4, 2013 --Ad&Wend< Ap Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUNIIVIARY ................................................................. ............................1 -1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND .................................................. ............................... 2 -1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................. ............................3 -1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ................................................................. ............................... 4 -1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................... ............................... 5 -1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... ............................... 6 -1 7.0 APPENDIX ........................................................................................... ............................7 -1 (KC109:R FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION .......................................................... ............................... 2 -2 FIGURE 2 CURRENT SITE PLAN ......................................................... ............................... 2 -3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................... ............................... 3 -2 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ........ ............................... 4 -3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ...................... 5 -4 DRAFT hL3 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic Impact Report is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed Vernon Avenue Townhomes development located in Edina, MN. The project site is located on the south side of 49th Street east of Brookside Avenue. Based on direction from City of Edina staff, this study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development on the following intersections: • Vernon Avenue /Interlachen Boulevard • Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue • Brookside Avenue /491h Street Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve the construction of 17 new townhomes. The existing single family house and 9 rental apartment units will be removed and replaced by the proposed townhomes. Access for the development will be via a single driveway on 49th Street, which will provide full movement access. The project is expected to be complete by the end of 2014. The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate 1 net trip during the weekday a.m. peak hour, 2 net trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour, and 29 net weekday daily trips. • All of the analyzed intersections have adequate capacity with existing geometrics and control to accommodate the proposed development. No improvements are needed at these intersections to accommodate the proposed project. • The maximum southbound vehicle queue lengths at the Vernon Avenue /Interlachen Boulevard intersection do not interfere with operations at the Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue intersection under 2015 Build conditions. • The maximum westbound queue at the Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue intersection does not result in any operational issues. • The proposed project is located in a neighborhood that has only one roadway access point to the surrounding street system. The neighborhood is bound by the creek on the north, T.H. 100 on the east, and Vernon Avenue on the south. In addition, railroad tracks are located immediately east of Brookside Avenue. A review of the entire neighborhood area did not reveal an obvious location for a secondary access. If a train was stopped on the tracks for an excessive amount of time, additional steps would be needed to access the neighborhood. 1 -1 DRAFT 0 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic Impact Report is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed Vernon Avenue Townhomes development located in Edina, MN. The project site is located on the south side of 491h. Street east of Brookside Avenue. The project location is shown in Figure 1. Based on direction from City of Edina staff, this study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development on the following intersections: • Vernon Avenue /Interlachen Boulevard • Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue • Brookside Avenue /491h Street Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed project will involve the construction of 17 new townhomes. The existing single family house and 9 rental apartment units will be removed and replaced by the proposed townhomes. Access for the development will be via a single driveway on 491h Street, which will provide full movement access. The current site plan is shown in Figure 2. The project is expected to be complete by the end of 2014. 2 -1 DRAFT A v�- APPROXIMAI Wenck Engineers • Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION t J ----s U U 1.-_ - I 49TH ST W NMI..., NM�v;S f*N) un INN.I i Jai lil APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 60' Wenck Engineers • Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 2 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN t 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed site currently consists of one single family home and nine rental apartments. The project site is bounded by existing single family homes to the east, 49th Street to the north, railroad tracks to the west, and Vernon Avenue to the south. Near the site location, 49th Street is a two -lane undivided local roadway. Brookside Avenue is also a two -lane undivided roadway near the site location. Interlachen Boulevard is a two -lane undivided roadway with turn lanes at Brookside Avenue and Vernon Avenue. Vernon Avenue is a four -lane divided roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. Existing conditions at the proposed project location are shown in Figure 3 and described below. Vernon Avenue/Interlachen Boulevard The signalized intersection provides one left turn/through lane and one through/right turn lane on the westbound approach. The eastbound approach consists of one left turn lane, one through lane, and one through/right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches consist of one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. Striped crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads are present at this intersection. Interlachen Boulevard /Brookside Avenue The three -way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the westbound Brookside Avenue approach. The southbound approach consists of one left/through lane. The northbound approach consists of one through lane and one right turn lane. The westbound approach consists of one shared left turn/right turn lane. A bike lane is present on the northbound approach. Brookside Avenue /491h Street This three -way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the westbound approach. The westbound approach consists of one shared left turn /right turn lane. The northbound approach consists of one through /right turn lane. The southbound approach consists of one left turn/through lane. Turn movement data for the intersections was collected during the weekday a.m. (7:00 - 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (4:00 - 6:00 p.m.) peak periods in January 2013. 3 -1 DRAFT '} !P APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 165' Wenck Engineers • Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS t 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses' were completed for the year 2015. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: 2013 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the subject intersections. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses currently on the site. 2015 No- Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2015 No -Build volumes. The 1,.0 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on both recent growth experienced near the site and projected growth in the area. 0 2015 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2015 No- Build volumes to determine 2015 Build volumes. In addition, existing trips generated by the uses currently on the site were subtracted from the total volume. Trip Generation Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation for the existing and proposed developments were calculated based on data presented in the ninth edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.(ITE). The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 1. 4 -1 DRAFT ��6 Table 1 Net Trip Generation for Proposed Proiect Use (land use code) Size Unit Peak Hour Trips Generated Daily Total A.M. Peak Hour In Out Total Proposed Project Residential Townhouse (230) 17 DU 1 6 7 99 Existing Uses Removed Single - Family Detached Housing (210) 1 DU 0) (1) (1 ) (10) Apartment 220) 9 DU (1) 4 (5 ) (60 Net Total Added by Project 0 1 1 29 P.M. Peak Hour Proposed Project Residential Townhouse (230 ) 17 DU 6 3 9 99 Existing Uses Removed Single - Family Detached Housing 210 1 DU (1 ) (0) (1) (10 Apartment (220) 9 DU (4) (2) (6) (60 Net Total Added by Project 1 1 2 29 Notes: DU= dwelling unit Table 1 shows the net number of trips generated by the proposed development including reductions for existing trips. As shown, the project adds 1 net trip during the a.m. peak hour, 2 net trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 29 net trips daily. Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are as follows: • 60 percent to /from the east on Vernon Avenue • 10 percent to /from the north on Brookside Avenue • 10 percent to /from the west on Interlachen Boulevard • 10 percent to /from the west on Vernon Avenue • 10 percent to /from the south on Interlachen Boulevard Traffic Volumes Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant traffic volumes are presented in Figure 4. 4 -2 DRAFT Ali t A.M. PEAK HOUR v co g ao T_ O Co M T M f7 OD OCD HO O�o7 r T M J�� 90/92/92---t 367/374/374 40/41/41 �. P.M. PEAK HOUR co- o) rn� vrn mM 0000 It N N T Co co N N 00 T M ti N N It V) 225/230/230---t 713/727/727 --> 22/22122-71, 0 J m z W z '- 22/22/22 f- 162/165/166 T r> A A � N s7' 00 M U-) Co O 00 (") Cl) '- 302/308/308 F- 428/437/437 ,p- 87/89/89 VERNON AVE ITS OLoao o it Q2 v c� Co rn;; ch 0 J fD z W 2 z +- 18/18/18 f- 102/1041105 T BRC AVE AVE D O N O W M r- 't M C7 � N +-- 324/331/332 E- 389/3971397 f" 64/65/65 VERNON AVE I f r ao r) co NCr) CO G f� r N O Lo co co T T (o 22/22/23 212/2 49TH ST. ) o PROJECT LOCATION E O M O EXISTING 2013 -F-r - 2014 NO BUILD 2014 BUILD XYnrYncY Co T T T T � (o 2/2/2 /4/5 49TH ST. T (D PROJECT LOCATION E nj r (o � T ti N FIGURE 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT �Wenck FOR VERNON AVENUE WEEKDAY A.M. AND P.M. Engineers • Scientists TOWNHOMES IN EDINA, MN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES A30-1- 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics, control, and signal timing. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. . • Level of service D corresponds to high- density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop- and -go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, 5 -1 DRAFT UMM and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. The LOS results for the study intersections are presented in Figure 5 and discussed below. Vernon Avenue /Interlachen Boulevard (signalized) - During the a.m. peak hour under existing conditions, all movements except the eastbound left turn operate at LOS D or better. The eastbound left turn movement operates at LOS E. Under the 2015 No -Build and 2015 Build conditions, all movements except the eastbound and southbound left turns operate at LOS D or better. The eastbound and southbound left turn movements operate at LOS E. The overall intersection operates at LOS C for all scenarios. During the p.m. peak hour under existing, 2015 No- Build, and 2015 Build conditions, all movements except the eastbound and southbound left turns operate at LOS D or better. The eastbound and southbound left turns operate at LOS E under all three conditions. The overall intersection operates at LOS C under all scenarios. The traffic generated by the proposed development has minimal impact on the intersection operations and does not change the level of service of any movement. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue (westbound stop controlled) - During the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under existing, 2015 No- Build, and 2015 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS D or better. The traffic generated by the proposed development has minimal impact on the intersection operations and does not change the level of service of any movement. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. Brookside Avenue 149`h Street (westbound stop controlled) - During the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under existing, 2015 No- Build, and 2015 Build conditions, all movements operate at LOS B or better. The traffic generated by the proposed development has minimal impact on the intersection operations and does not change the level of service of any movement. No improvements are needed at this intersection to accommodate the proposed project. 5 -2 DRAFT Vehicle Queue Length Impacts Vehicle queue lengths were reviewed to determine if any intersection blocking issues are expected. The expected maximum and average queues were determined with the SimTraffic software. By definition, the maximum queue occurs once during the one hour simulation time period. The average queue is the average of all the queue lengths during the simulation time period and therefore happens more frequently. The southbound left turn and through/right turn queues at the Vernon Avenue / Interlachen Boulevard intersection were reviewed to determine if they impact operations at the Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue intersection. Under existing conditions, there is approximately 370 feet of available queuing space on Interlachen Boulevard between Vernon Avenue and Brookside Avenue. Under the 2015 Build condition during the a.m. peak hour, the maximum southbound queue is 356 feet and the average queue is 213 feet. Under the 2015 Build condition during the p.m. peak hour, the maximum southbound queue is 362 feet and the average queue is 203 feet. The maximum queue length is shorter than the available 370 feet and therefore does not block the intersection. The forecasted southbound queue lengths are similar to those witnessed in the field during data collection. Even though the southbound queue came close to the Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue intersection, operations at the intersection were not greatly impacted. In addition, the southbound queues were able to clear onto Vernon Avenue during every signal cycle, which minimized the overall delays. The westbound queue at the Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue intersection was also reviewed. Under the 2015 Build condition during the a.m. peak hour, the maximum westbound queue is 212 feet and the average queue is 79 feet. Under the 2015 Build condition during the p.m. peak hour, the maximum westbound queue is 197 feet and the average queue is 79 feet. Once again, these queue lengths are similar to those witnessed during the data collection. The queues at this intersection did not result in any operational issues. Railroad Crossing Impacts The proposed project is located in a neighborhood that has only one roadway access point to the surrounding street system. All vehicle traffic for this neighborhood must enter and exit via 49th Street at Brookside Avenue. The neighborhood is bound by the creek on the north, T.H. 100 on the east, and Vernon Avenue on the south. In addition, railroad tracks are located immediately east of Brookside Avenue. Therefore, when a train is traveling through the area, all vehicle accessing the neighborhood must wait for the train to pass. A review of the entire neighborhood area did not reveal an obvious location for a secondary access. If a train was stopped on the tracks for an excessive amount of time, additional steps would be needed to access the neighborhood. 5 -3 DRAFT t A.M. PEAK HOUR as UUW UUL�t UUl q( Ch E/E/E B /B /B B /B /B �• P.M. PEAK HOUR m z W W t +-- D /D /D ,F— D /D /D T� as t- C /C /C E— C /C /C _'F— C /C /C <-1Tr Umm Wenck Engineers • Scientists as B/B/B L> ,�— B/B/B Q49TH ST. PROJECT a a LOCATION BROOKSIDE AVE EXISTING 2013 2014 NO BUILD I 2014 BUILD OC )OWD( B/B/B B/B/B Q Q 49TH ST. PROJECT a a LOCATION BROOKSID a a AVE FIGURE 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR VERNON AVENUE WEEKDAY A.M. AND P.M. TOWNHOMES IN EDINA, MN PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS 0 J m Z W U QQ �_ a a �i +-- D /D/D f-- D /DID T r� Q Q as v U u t— C /C /C �i C /C /C C /C /C E/E/E ---+ B /B /B B /B /B �. UUU Wenck Engineers • Scientists as B/B/B L> ,�— B/B/B Q49TH ST. PROJECT a a LOCATION BROOKSIDE AVE EXISTING 2013 2014 NO BUILD I 2014 BUILD OC )OWD( B/B/B B/B/B Q Q 49TH ST. PROJECT a a LOCATION BROOKSID a a AVE FIGURE 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR VERNON AVENUE WEEKDAY A.M. AND P.M. TOWNHOMES IN EDINA, MN PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate 1 net trip during the weekday a.m. peak hour, 2 net trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour, and 29 net weekday daily trips. • All of the analyzed intersections have adequate capacity with existing geometrics and control to accommodate the proposed development. No improvements are needed at these intersections to accommodate the proposed project. • The maximum southbound vehicle queue lengths at the Vernon Avenue/Interlachen Boulevard intersection do not interfere with operations at the Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue intersection under 2015 Build conditions. • The maximum westbound queue at the Interlachen Boulevard/Brookside Avenue intersection does not result in any operational issues. • The proposed project is located in a neighborhood that has only one roadway access point to the surrounding street system. The neighborhood is bound by the creek on the north, T.H. 100 on the east, and Vernon Avenue on the south. In addition, railroad tracks are located immediately east of Brookside Avenue. A review of the entire neighborhood area did not reveal an obvious location for a secondary access. If a train was stopped on the tracks for an excessive amount of time, additional steps would be needed to access the neighborhood. 6 -1 DRAFT &-7 1 7.0 Appendix • Level of Service Worksheets 7 -1 DRAFT L v Lames, Volumes, Timings 7: Interlachen Blvd & Vernon Ave 1/31/2013 wd„ = f:ST .IfBL . �NBT NI3}SBL SBT ^SBI Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 0 <2> 0 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 90 367 40 87 428 302 39 34 8 390 116 101 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 125 0 0 0 60 0 275 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (fl) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prof) 1770 3486 0 0 3328 0 1770 1809 0 1770 1732 0 Flt Permitted 0.960 0.826 0.532 0,727 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3486 0 0 2763 0 991 1809 0 1354 1732 0 (tight Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 16 130 9 48 Unk Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 498 675 490 431 Travel Time (s) 11:3 . 15.3 11.1 9.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 442 0 0 888 0 42 46 0 424 236 0 Tum'type Prot NA Perm NA Perin NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 4 Total Split (s) 15.0 60.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Act EfIct Green (s) 9.3 57.2 42.4 36.8 36.8 36.8 36.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.54 0.40 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.35 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.23 0.74 0.12 0.07 0.89 0.37 Control Delay 64.4 12.9 27.9 22.8 18.3 54.8 21.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 64.4 12.9 27.9 22.8 18.3 54.8 21.1 LOS E B C C B D C Approach Delay 22.2. 27.9 20.4 42.7 Approach LOS C C C D Queue Length 50th (ft) 64 78 238 18 16 255 88 Queue Length 95th (ft) #132 110 322 43 40 #429 151 Internal Unk Dist (ft) 418 595 410 351 Turn Bay Length (it) 125 60 275 Base Capacity (vph) 162 1907 11% 372 686 509 681 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiliback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.23 0,74 0.11 0.07 0.83 0.35 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length: 105 Offset 0 (0° %), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBT, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.89 Intersection Signal Delay: 30.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (+nirr)15 2013 Existing AM Peak Hour V.130221011synchro12013 AM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Interlachen Blvd & Brookside Ave 1/31/2013 (ovement -- _— -V "B :WB - - SEL SET. Lanes 1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (veh1h) 162 22 48 455 338 80 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Houdy Clow rate (vph) 176 24 20 495 367 87 Pedestrians Lane Width {ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type done None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 431 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 901 367 454 vC1, stage 1 cwnf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 901 367 454 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 42 96 98 cM capacity (vehm) 303 678 1106 Direction; Lane # WB T SE —F —WI NVTh2 - - - Volume Total 200 614 367 87 Volume Left 176 20 0 0 Volume Right 24 0 0 87 cSH 325 1106 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.62 0.02 0.22 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 96 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 32.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D A Approach Delay (s) 32.4 0.5 0.0 Approach LOS D Intersection�Summary Average Delay 5.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 2013 Fadsting AM Peak Hour V.130221011synchro12013 AM E)dsbng.syn hf D Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Brookside Ave & 49th St 1/31/2013 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR�$81. - - -_ - -- Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehm) 22 2 93 5 1 1162 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow Fate (vph) 24 2 101 5 1 17'6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft.) Walking Speed (ft/s) PercentBlockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked VC, confTcting volume 282 104 107 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 282 104 107 to, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 'p0 queue free °% 97 100 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 707 951 1484 Direction, Lane # WB'1 Nd T- -S-B. 1� Volume Total 26 107 177 Volume Left 24 0 1 Volume Right 2 5 0 cSH 723 1700 1484 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.06 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 Control belay (s) 10.2 0,0 03 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summ - _, -- Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.3°% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2013 Existing AM Peak Hour V:130221011synchro12013 AM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Interlachen Blvd & Vernon Ave 1/31/2013 t:ane t tpue i E13€: 'f tzBR :W81: VIFq� -�IfB -- NBL 146T NB - SBL SBT SBj Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 0 <2> 0 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 92 . 314 41 63 437 308 40 35 8 398 118 103 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (A) 125 0 0 0 $0 0 275 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3486 0 0 3328 0 1770 1809 0 1770 1732 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.823 0.529 0.726 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3486 0 0 2753 0 985 1809 0 1352 1732 0 Right Turn on Iced Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 17 130 9 48 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 498 675 490 431 Travel Time (s) 11.3 15.3 11,1 9.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 452 0 0 907 0 43 47 0 433 240 0 Tum Type Prot NA Perm NA Penn NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 4 Total Split (s) 15.0 60.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Act Effct Green (s) 9.3 56.7 41.9 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.54 GAD 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 We Ratio 0.64 0.24 0.77 0.12 0.07 0.90 0.37 Control Delay 65.2 13.1 29.3 22.8 18.3 55.5 21.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 65.2 13.1 29.3 22.8 18.3 55.5 21.1 LOS E B C C B E C Approach Delay 22.5 29.3 20.4 43.2 Approach LOS C C C . D Queue Length 50th (ft) 66 81 247 19 16 263 90 Queue Length 95th (ft) #135 112 334 43 41 #443 154 Internal Link Dist (ft) 418 595 410 351 Turn Bay Length (h) 125 60 275 Base Capacity (vph) .162 1890 1176 370 686 508 681 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62. 0.24 0.77 0.12 0.07 0.85 0.35 lnterse�tipn Summary _ _ _ _ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length: 105 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBT, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal Delay: 31.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) IS 2015 No Build AM Peak Hour V:1302210%ynchro1201SAM No Build.syn J�ja Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Interlachen Blvd & Brookside Ave 113112013 Movoment WBL • WBtZ SEL gE r • ARC Lanes 1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (veh/h) 165 22 18 464 345 82 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0°% 0°% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 179 24 20 504 375 89 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fits) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type !None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 431 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 918 375 464 VC1, stage 1 conf Vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 918 375 464 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 39 96 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 296 671 1097 Direction, Cane# WB:1: W-11--NW!' NW 2 Volume Total 203 524 375 89 Volume Left 179 20 0 0 Volume Right 24 0 0 89 cSH 317 1097 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.64 0.02 0.22 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 104 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 34.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D A Approach Delay (s) 34.6 0.5 0.0 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary y "� Average Delay 6.1 Intersection Capacity U6lizaflon 56.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 No Build AM Peak Hour V:130221011synchro12015 AM No Build.syn k83 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Brookside Ave & 49th St 1/3112013 _— WBL --W�i . - - - -NBS` NOR $IJL Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehm) 22 2 95 5 4 165 Sign Control stop Free Free Grade 0% 0°0 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 24 2 103 5 1 179 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked VC, conflicting volume 288 106 109 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 288 106 109 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2,2 p0 queue free % 97 100 100 cm capacity (vehlh) 702 948 1.482 Volume Total 26 109 180 Volume Left 24 0 1 Volume Right 2 5 0 cSH 718 1700 1482 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.06 0.00 Queue Length 95th (fl) 3 0 0 Control Delay is) 40.2 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach belay (s) 10,2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection $ummaj Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.6 0/0 ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 No Build AM Peak Hour V.130221011synchro12015 AM No Build.syn �U Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Interlachen Blvd & Vernon Ave 1/3112013 Cane Group : EB( EBF� EBR +:GfBi :WSi' Wt3 _ NBL NBT ` NSA SBL SBT B)I Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 0 <2> 0 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 92 374 41 89 437 308 40 35 8 399 118 103 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 125 0 0 0 60 0 275 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 3486 0 0 3328 0 1770 1809 0 1770 1732 0 FftPennitted 0.950 0.823 0.529 0.726 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3486 0 0 2753 0 985 1809 0 1352 1732 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 17 130 9 48 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 498 675 490 431 Travel Time (s) 11.3 45.3 11.1 9.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic (0/6) Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 452 0 0 907 0 43 47 0 434 240 0 Turn Type Prot NA Penn NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 4 Total Split (s) 15.0 60.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 616 5.5 5.5 5.5 Act Effct Green (s) 9.3 56.7 41.6 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.09 0.54 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.36 vlc Ratio 0.64 0.24 0.77 0.12 0.07 0.90 0.37 Control Delay 65.2 13.1 29.4 22.8 18.3 55.7 21.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 65.2 13.1 29A 22.8 18.3 55.7 21.1 LOS E B C C B E C Approach Delay 22.5 29.4 20.4 43A Approach LOS C C C D Queue length 50th (ft) 66 81 247 19 18 264 90 Queue Length 95th (ft) #135 112 334 43 41 #446 154 Internal Link Dist (ft) 418 595 410 351 Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 60 275 Base Capacity (vph) 162 1888 1175 370 686 508 681 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Wo Ratio 0.62 0.24 0.77 0.12 0.07 0.85 0.35 in(ersection Summary AreaType: Other Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length: 105 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBT, Start of Green Control Type., Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v1c Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal Delay. 31.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 115 2015 Build AM Peak Hour V:130221011synchr612015 AM Build.syn Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Interlachen Blvd & Brookside Ave 1131/2013 2015 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report V. 0221011synchro12015 AM Build.syn � I Page 1 Lanes 1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (veh/h) 1'66 22 18 464 345 62 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) t80 24 20 504 375 89 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft!s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 431 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 918 375 464 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 918 375 464 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 39 96 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 296 671 1097 Direction, Lane,# WB 1 SE 1- -NW 1 ' NV - - -T -- -- - -- - - Volume 7otat 204 524 375 89 Volume Left 180 20 0 0 Volume Right 24 0 0 89 cSH 317 1097 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.65 0.02 0.22 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 105 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 34.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D A Approach Delay (s) 34.9 0.5 0.0 Approach LOS D IntersectlomSummary Average Delay 6.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.2°/6 ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report V. 0221011synchro12015 AM Build.syn � I Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Brookside Ave & 49th St 1/31/2013 f ovement – — WBL,- , -WEIR N8Y' ',N6R SBL: ' 5T Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehlr) 23 2 95 5 1 165 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0°% 0% 0°% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flowrate(vph) 26 2 103 6 1 179 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fl/s) Percent Olockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None - Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 288 106 109 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 288 106 109 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue Free °% 96 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 702 948 1482 0ii00n; Laney .. _ ... - :WB1 NBT SB 1 Volume Total 27 709 180 Volume Left 25 0 1 Volume Right 2 5 0 cSH 717 1700 1482 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.06 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 Control belay (s) 102 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B ]ntersaction Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report V.130221011synchro12015 AM Build.syn Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Interlachen Blvd & Vernon Ave 113112013 Lane Group EBL 13 - =ERR -ML, ,YYf3T Vd�l3., N 33� NBT IVY- SsL SBT M-q Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 0 <2> 0 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 225 713 22 64 389 324 27 91 6 321 126 47 Ideal Flow (vphpQ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 125 0 0 0 60 0 275 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 3525 0 0 3303 0 1770 1846 0 1770 1788 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.800 0.585 0.691 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3525 0 0 2653 0 1090 1846 0 1287 1788 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 5 189 3 19 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 498 675 490 431 Travel Tlme (s) 11.3 45.3 11.1 9.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 6.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic N Lane Group Flow.(vph) 237 774 0 0 817 0 28 102 0 338 182 0 Tum Type Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 4 Total Split (s) 24.0 66.0 42.0 42.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Act Effct Green (s) 17.3 62.9 40.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.16 0.60 0.38 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 We Ratio 0.81 0.37 0.72 0.09 0.19 0.89 0.34 Control Delay 84.3 14.8 26.2 26.1 26.7 61.0 26.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 64.3 11.8 26.2 26.1 26.7 61.0 26.9 LOS E B C C C E C Approack0elay 24.1 26.2 26.6 49.1 Approach LOS C C C D Queue Length 50th (ft) 153 138 201 13 48 209 82 Queue Length 95th (ft) #268 178 281 35 89 #363 141 Intemal Link Dist (ft) 418 595 410 351 Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 60 275 Base Capacity (vph) 311 2115 1131 347 591 410 583 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.37 0.72 0.08 0.17 0.82 0.31 nlersection; Summary _ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cyde Length, 105 Offset: 0 (076), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBT, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.89 Intersection Signal Delay: 30.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6°% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 2013 Exisfing PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report V:1302210%ynchro12013 PM Existing.syn Page 1 I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Interlachen Blvd & Brookside Ave 1/31/2013 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour V.13022101Lsynchro12013 PM Existing.syn Ad Synchro 8 Report Page 1 _ -- Lanes 1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (vehlh) 102 18 38 486 431 234 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Houdy flow rate (vph) 109 19 40 517 459 249 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ns) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upsireamsignal (fl) 431 pX, platoon unblocked vC, oonflicting volume 1056 459 707 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 oonf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1056 459 707 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 1C, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 54 97 95 cM capacity (vehlh) 238 802 891 Direction. Lane # dUS 1 SE 1 'Aw.1.. NW.2 - - — — - Volume Total 128 557 459 249 Volume Left 109 40 0 0 Volume Right 19 0 0 249 cSH 262 891 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.49 0.05 0.27 0.15 Queue Length 95th (fl) 62 4 0 0 Control Delay (s) 31.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D A Approach Delay (s) 31.2. 1.2 0.0 Approach LOS D Inteisection:Summary Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour V.13022101Lsynchro12013 PM Existing.syn Ad Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Brookside Ave & 49th St 1/3112013 2013 Existing PM Peak dour VA30221011synchroQ013 PM Existing.syn Aqo Synchro 8 Report Page 2 W151 —WSR % 'RBT N.BEt BBL SBT. Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehlh) 4 2 257 15 1 11.6 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0°A 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.64 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 2 306 18 1 138 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f /s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 455 315 324 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 con vol vCu, unblocked vol 455 315 324 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2,2 p0 queue free % 97 100 100 W capacity (vehlh) 662 726 1236 Diteclion, Lane:# WB 1 NB 1. SB 1 _ Volume Total 17 324 139 Volume Left 14 0 1 Volume Right 2 18 0 cSH 581 1700 1236 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.19 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.4 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.4 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2013 Existing PM Peak dour VA30221011synchroQ013 PM Existing.syn Aqo Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Laries, Volumes, Timings 7: Interlachen Blvd & Vernon Ave 1/31/2013 (ane Group - E131 fW EBR W61. W8T_ __VV8R _V.NBL _. _ IJB]`- N1314 SBI. SBT 8B7R Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 0 <2> 0 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 230 727 22 65 397 331 28 93 6 327 129 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 190D 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190D Storage Length (ft) 425 0 0 0 60 0 275 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 3525 0 0 3303 0 1770 1846 0 1770 1786 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.797 0.578 0.690 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3525 0 0 2643 0 1077 1846 0 1285 1786 0 Right Turn ornRed Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 5 189 3 19 Ink Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 498 675 490 431 Travel Time (s) 11.3 15.3 11.1 9.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic ( %) Lane Group Flow (vph) 242 788 0 0 834 0 29 104 0 344 187 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm NA germ NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 4 Total Split (s) 24.0 66.0 42.0 42.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 AS 5.5 5.5 Act Effct Green (s) 17.4 62.6 39.7 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.60 0.38 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 vic Ratio 0.83 0.37 0.75 0.09 0.19 0.90 0.34 Control Delay 65.3 110 27.4 26.2 26.6 61.9 27.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 65.3 12A 27.4 26.2 26.6 61.9 27.0 LOS E B C C C E C Approach Delay 24.5 27.4. 26.5 49.6 Approach LOS C C C D Queue Length 50th (ft) 157 442 209 14 49 214 85 Queue Length 95th (ft) #277 182 292 36 90 #373 144 Internal Link Dist (ft) 418 595 440 351 Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 60 275 Base Capacity (vph) 311 2103 1116 343 591 409 582 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spfllback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v1d Ratio 0.78 0.37 0.75 0.08 0.18 0.84 0.32 Pntersestion Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length: 105 Offset: 0 (0°%), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBT, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal belay: 30.8 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.8°% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 No Build PM Peak Hour V:130221011synchro12015 PM No Build.syn V\ Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Interlachen Blvd & Brookside Ave 1/31/2013 Movement W�L. W.i3R -SSL SET NY'9.-- NWR Lanes 1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (vehm) 104 18 39 496 440 239 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Houdy flow rate (vph) 111 19 41 528 468 254 Pedestrians Lane Width (it) Walking Speed (flls) Percentf3lookage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 431 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1079 468 722 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf Vol vCu, unblocked vol 1079 468 722 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 13 2.2 p0 queue free % 52 97 95 cM capacity (v") 230 595 680 pireiiV6.5ne # M 1 SE 1 NW 7f --NW 2--- Volume Total 130 569 468 254 Volume Left 111 41 0 0 Volume Right 19 0 0 264 cSH 253 880 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.51 0.05 0.28 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 67 4 0 0 Control Delay (s) 33.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D A Approach Delay (s) 33.2 1.3 0.0 Approach LOS D - --.— Intersection Summary _ Average Delay 3.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 No Build PM Peak Hour V:130221011synchro12015 PM No Build.syn Ala Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Brookside Ave & 49th St 1131/2013 2015 No Build PM Peak Hour V.-U0221011synchro12015 PM No Build.syn 03 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 V . ' _. K'• NBT "NOR ` SOL Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehih) 4 2 262 -15 1 118 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Houdy flow rate (vph) 14 2 312 18 1 140 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 464 321 330 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 464 321 330 lC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h} 556 720 1230 direction, Lane #' ' :WB i` �IVl3'1 Si31,• - - -_- _�._ Volume Total 17 330 142 Volume Left 14 0 1 Volume Right 2 18 0 cSH 575 1700 1230 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.19 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Inters'eclion'Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.7°% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 No Build PM Peak Hour V.-U0221011synchro12015 PM No Build.syn 03 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Interlachen Blvd & Vernon Ave 1/3112013 (Tan e Group.-`* -- -_.. rBL -Fffr W#_._ _WBL "f$T %6ff . NBL- __ NBT7 . NBR SBL SBT SB8 Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 0 <2> 0 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 230 727 22 65 397 332 28 93 6 328 129 48 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 125 0 0 0 60 0 275 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3525 0 0 3303 0 1770 1846 0 1770 1786 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.797 0.578 0.690 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3525 0 0 2643 0 1077 1846 0 1285 1786 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 5 189 3 19 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 498 675 490 431 Travel Time (s) 11.3 15.3 11,1 9.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared lane Traffic ( ° %) Lane Group Flow (vph) 242 788 0 0 835 0 29 104 0 345 187 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Penn NA Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 4 Total Split (s) 24.0 66.0 42.0 42.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Act Effct Green (s) 17.4 62.6 39.6 31A 31.4 31.4 31.4 Actuatedg/C Ratio OX 0.60 0.38 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.37 0.75 0.09 0.19 0.90 0.34 Control Delay 65.3 12.0 27.5 26.2 26.6 62.1 27.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 65.3 12.0 27.5 26.2 26.6 62.1 27.0 LOS E B C C C E C Approach Delay 24.5 27.5 26.5 49.8 Approach LOS C C C D Queue Length 50th (1t) 157 142 210 14 49 215 85 Queue Length 95th (ft) #277 182 292 36 90 #375 144 interval Link Dist (ft) 418 595 410 351 Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 60 275 Base Capacity (vph) 311 2102 11;75 343 591 409 582 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio 0.78 0.37 0.75 0.08 0.18 0.84 0.32 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cyde Length: 105 Offset: 0 (0° %), Referenced to phase 2.WBTL and 6:EBT, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum We Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal Delay: 30.9 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.9°% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Build PM Peak Hour V:13022101%synchro12015 PM Build.syn ftlIk Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Interlachen Blvd & Brookside Ave 1/31/2013 ovement INBL WOR SEL SET �NVVf NINFf Lanes 1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (vehlb) 105 18 39 498 440 240 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0°% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow-rate (vph) 112 19 44 528 468 255 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 431 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1079 468 723 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1079 468 723 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free °% 52 97 95 cM capacity (vehlh) 230 595 879 l711recti6n, Lane' -' _-. — WB 1 SE•1, NW 1 --NW-2 - — - -'- -- - - - Volume Total 131 569 468 255 Volume Left 112 41 0 0 Volume Right 19 0 0 255 cSH 253 879 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.52 0.05 0.28 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 68 4 0 0 Control Delay (s) 33.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D A Approach Delay (s) 33.5 1.3 . 0.0 Approach LOS D intetsection'S-ummary - Average Delay 3.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.3°% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Build PM Peak Hour V- 130221011synchro12015 PM Build.syn Aq ) Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Brookside Ave & 49th St 1/31/2013 ovement ± . VIAL ` -WBR wBT N SB Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (veh/h) 5 2 262 16 1 118 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 2 312 i9 1 140 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftfs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked VC, conflicting volume 464 321 331 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 464 321 331 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.4 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 Z.2 p0 queue free % 97 100 100 cM capacity (vehm) 556 719 1228 Direction; Lane # WB 1 NBI, SB 1 Volume Total 20 331 142 Volume Left 18 0 1 Volume Right 2 19 0 cSH 571 1700 1228 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.19 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.5 00 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary. _ Average Delay. 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Build PM Peak Hour V.130221011synchro12015 PM Build.syn A Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Jackie Hoogenakker rom: Dan Kersten <dankersten @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 2:08 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: re: 2013.005, Edina Fifty Five, LLC My wife Michelle and I live at 4817 Rutledge. We support the proposed rezoning and redevelopment. Sounds like it will be good for the neighborhood. 646- 717 -4584 (cell) 952 - 984 -3107 (work) Jackie Hoogenakker From: dede skold <dedskold @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:51 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Comments for Planning Commission Rezoning Dear Commissioners, I am writing you concerning the proposed rezoning on W. 49th St. and Puckwana. I am the last original member of this neighborhood.) have lived in my home since 1952. 1 love my neighborhood and want to see it retain it "s charm and character. I find that the plans that were sent to us March 1st are totally unacceptable. The front to W.49th street looks like a fortress. There are no trees, grass or a site line through the property.( We don't need a sidewalk along W. 49th but Would greatly appreciate a walkway from 49th to Vernon.) We would lose two specimen maple trees and wonderful green space if this happens.The plan is far to dense to be welcoming. I think that the area could take on 12 units, max. I think that the present apartments could be reconfigured to have 1 and 2 story housing.Three story units could go along Puckwana and to the back of the lot along Vernon. The variety of elevations and landscaping would add interest and be welcoming to that space. My second concern is the added traffic problem. We have seen an increase in both train and auto traffic at the only entrance /exit to our neighborhood.This will only get worse in the future. Thank you for your time and the consideration that you will give this matter. Sincerely, Doris Skold 5101 Millpond Place (922) 929 -7163 ^,- � 3 ��'��' 1. - .l1L11J.:•.III .i..yy.L�i -�.:::L'�f��J�. .. .- ��r. •,,,...tom r t •�' r'��i _ `L''' �, �- �: r • �� ' . . • ` may^ ti t . �, +��. /a � "�� t� -fir -- -r ��; �1 ei� �� ''�y .r ham. - r �.i Vii` � �' �• � t RAL I� 4. .r ham. - r �.i Vii` � �' �• � t _� amt r•,F. 4 i - � r �. �.#� ��i�•'�7 "..�: >�on y =.w 1�tiT�'•r ......... w Yvy i kR ti+ �� ,„ �� 1�Y •! �, Ry I.) — N I AI -[' , � 5 .ate '� }'� � � J�FL' -t- .� 1� r 1 � � • �' Eel �� jig`'` -- _-17 —a I # � rN: - ..__ fly• _....._ .: ".:.=s,.. r gyp+• �� : _ � ey Y • r w ,� `fd` ,V � _ �, Y � .. a. � ur?t s.q r .r•"° y��'`� , ,M.. Ym. - -- -- :.I,L..�'Ys (a 'L�'� ,J`a�iie akpy P'• +.s ::. ;C` - �xy,.s -�,. :... ..... _ � A tr � 1 RS 4 i i� } T--lw-ll---1 Iwo 1,4 O-e PAINTED FIBER CEMENT W/ BATTERNS Y STAINED WOOD PANELS FIBER CEMENT TRIM ' ERNON AVENUE TOW S MATERIALS . it r r J '61 BKV G R 0 U P Architecture Interior Design Landscape Axchitecbura Engineering L— V02.1 Group Inc. 222 North second Street Minneapolis MN 55901 Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 Facsirnfle: 612- 339 -6212 b k v g r o u p. conn Vernon Avenue Townhouses le(r Ncrrmxfz J— CERTFICnI[H Basement Floor Plan A100 02XB BW( ;µF EOE I II C( j - - - - - - - - - - I 11 L,... - - --------- I - - - - - - - - - - j - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L --- L----' --- j L - - - - - - - - - - : • L ------- - BUILDING Y ----- - - - - -J ---------- BUILDING X o o- ---------- r----------- j ---------- ---------- - — - — - — - — - — -- F --- F ---- 1 1-7 F ---- I ii II ii L J BUILDING Z ---------- II I I II X. - — - — - — 1-7 '--t - — - — -- — - — - 1-7 r - - --I I ED El — - — - —_ —_— ---- ----- ---- II U11 En X. r - — - — -- El F3 J X. �ZBasement Level Plan BKV G R 0 U P Architecture Interior Design Landscape Axchitecbura Engineering L— V02.1 Group Inc. 222 North second Street Minneapolis MN 55901 Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 Facsirnfle: 612- 339 -6212 b k v g r o u p. conn Vernon Avenue Townhouses le(r Ncrrmxfz J— CERTFICnI[H Basement Floor Plan A100 02XB BW( ;µF EOE `I �� .'.'. IFNI = �� - .. ..�.� K �' I— �I' iJ 3:1 =1 III , i tee_ III NOR �_ -�- J Inc � -��L� -- _ - - -��. _ — °— �� —� 4 !� Q � �� I� 1� _ ; ICI - Imo, _ �� 10. FRaECTMLE Vernon Avenue Townhouses T70- Rl slut mm O BKV Interior Design En re &ezpe Arrhilec4r Engineering i Ir Bwmun ° D D K- Void 1� �_ — O O' D Group Inc ®m ® ®® ® El -- _ ®® ® -- ®® ® -- ❑ 222 North Second Street Minneapd. MN - 55901 ®® ® ®® ® _ — - _ - — Telephone 612- 339 -3752 Faaimile 612-339-6212 -- --, 1O -- - - - - i vwSLLT v rouP.00m caNs.ueurs o--Vernon Avenue Townhouses ^• I O o o \ �J •,r �,CN Lf wnvewsnossffiamer�ta __ It O -- - - -- -- - -- - -- - - -- -- -- - �a ®® DVE Al F ®® Second Floor Plan ^' ® t ° H (ZSecond Flear Plan Al 02 � 03ID BKVCmaFCEOE BKV -� G R O U P r Inen0 Design Landscape Puchiteccae E^&^eeriIg ewrm.n moo Vogel — — Grow - O Inc I -- . I 222 North Second Street —., I L Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone: 612- 339 ...... -- ...... --63752 F hll: 62- 339 .22 bkvgroupmm NfJALTMfr$ I - , - OPTIONAL ROOF TOP DECK INDIVIDUAL OWNER DECISION O Vemon Avenue Townhouses ��— 0 I O -- - - - -- I - - - - -- - -- -- --�i I E I-YR PN NcAiIHARFM I ILFMIiI�FyKATM C_. 2pm��ghNione Gf� Im�!¢UROhnd0e9�arNfns6 _ —_— y� v HEN90vNiE- s-EErMIE Roof Plan c R I II� A103 �Reer _ ®= aKVGmRk.EOE rr it ��- u116_ ❑ I'M 111 rjjjTj I loll .11111 0,111 l ffill 111�� .��.11 i��i Il.i�i. ll i��i a .��. ll i��i l'��. II I�I,I��, I ��. Il, i��i W I W _ 1111111 [ijij loll Oil ■ I 111 0 ruin _W1911 ...... Ross Effla PIRM MIN =99H . Miami loll HA 711111,37 =r 1: LI g, tj ff u ii i�, 1111110 i iiiiii E I I I Vill- IF HE IFIR g 71 I FIR IN 2 BKV G R 0 U P Architecture Interior Deeilp Landscape Architecture Engineering Bo,o—n, M co V09.1 Group Inc 222 North Semnd Street Minneapolis MN 5540I Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 F.mirrilm 612- 339 -6212 vnw�r.bkvgroup.00nn CCNILTNCS Vemon Avenue Townhouses �Rm �ARRON � Tm Exterior Elevations A501 CM BKVG.L;1ln,E0E BKV G R O U P Architecture xc ` u) Imerior Design landscape Arch'rtechue rM,rm wM IY Engineumg =mil IIII -W vow Group x,12; o $' Inc - North Second Street Min Minneapolis MN 55401 — - — - — - — - - — ` i�,o°�. a• Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 Facsimile: 612- 339 -6212 vnwr.bkvgrou p.mm arsr_TOxrs �._ _ I -- -- - � -- -- -F-- -- -- -- - `- _ it East Elevation - Courtyard Building X ,a LZSoulh Elevation - Building X xc w.aoa�w PFULEM mE Vernon Avenue _ ® ® ® Townhouses l CERIFICAMN Ihx'h'a:Mya�7kph��hn �rnmn�� wgtWlaneerdy°� �___ . mem� ' -_-_ w�geo�sw�sffianr� ,� r �ZWest Elevation - Bui ing X - A a � a ^il - �S SFEErMLE EXterior Elevations a A503 02IN BKVC}aplrc EOE I Sr' �y �., ' M• I I _ ►. r `II err r now I� wo glig ,f irII� - -- ® f I(I a awl i •I I...I r - � � MET — r I nil ,I y ps it i _ AV d. ryya "y' r a � t Lai �r It Jackie 1400genakker rom: nancy hall <nlphall @comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:44 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: FW: Attachments: 49th Street Project.pdf From: nancy hall [mailto:nlphall @comcast.net1 Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:22 PM To: alina.perez- campos @fallon.com; Alex and Michael Landreville (alexanderlandreville 2013 (@depauw.edu); ann legeros (annlegeros @edina.kl2.mn.us); bkaroli @yahoo.com; blake johnson; Bigmama375 @aol.com; brad case (bdcase8 @yahoo.com); Vicki Berg (bergwolf @hotmail.com); Charles and Sue Kelly (susanjkelly @comcast.net); doug@waterdesigngroup.com; elizabeth.macdonagh (@gmail.com; Elizabeth King (king.home @comcast.net); gretasimll @gmail.com; Gary Rooney (MLRooney10@aol.com); ha.janet.222 @gmail.com; John Purdum (jpir750@gmail.com); joyhazucha @gmail.com; jmkscott@msn.com; Joel and Harmony Kaplan (jkaplanslookout @ comcast.net); Johnfolkestad (iohnfolkestad (dsalollc.com); june kuntz (ibk630 (@ live. com); Julia Tangeman (iitangeman (&aol.com); lagerstrom220comcast.net; Kim Gharrity (kcgharrity@gmail.com); marta martinez davison (mmmdavison @mac.com); nhaley @mac.com; Nancy Peters (nano .peters @courts.state.mn.us); Olivia and Ricardo Gorostiaga (o.gorostiaga a gmail.com); 'Penelope Purdum' ( penelope@waterdesigngroup.com); Randy Swanstrom (randy.swanstrom@fcgm.com); shannon.case@yahoo.com; smithkaralyn @gmail.com; sara strothman @uhc.com; 'Suzanne Kerwin'; sfolkestad @comcast.net; Tracey Zavadil (shinybirdy(ayahoo.com); shardy730gmail.com; susenQenC&edina.k12.mn.us; 'Jennifer Livingston'; theguinbys@g.com; Katie and Tim Meehan (Tsmeeh@aol.com); -eazar @comcast.net; kathy w. clifford; kfaroomes gmail.com; KristinSmith @edinarealty.com; Jhoogenakker @edinagov.mn'; 'k.carter @comcast.net'; Ann Swenson (swensonannl@gmail.com); jhovlanclMrausehovland.com; joni bennett (joniben nett120comcast. net); Josh Sprague (joshsprague@edinarealty.com); Mary Brindle (mbrindle @comcast.net) Subject: Good Afternoon, I am sending this proposal out to our neighborhood and the Edina City Council. I do not approve of this proposed rezoning. This is the layout of the proposed rezoning on 49th and Brookside. This is really going to impact our neighborhood with traffic. The design is not in keeping with the neighborhood. This is an unnecessary change to the comprehensive plan and our zoning code. There is no hardship proven and no need for this rezoning. The due diligence hasn't been done by our planning commission. The traffic study was flawed at best saying that there will be no additional impact on the neighborhood with 17 additional homes, guests, etc. as it is nearly impossible to get on Interlachen from Brookside most mornings and evenings. This will definitely increase traffic on Rutledge, Hollywood, Vandervork, Division and Cooper. If you know anyone in this area that I have missed, please forward this to them. This will be happening on April 2nd at the city hall. I suggest that if you value your property you may wish to attend and please send a note to ihoopenakker @edinagov.mn as recommended on the page attached. Regards, Nancy Purdum -Hall 4501 Parkside Lane Edina, MN 55436 City of Edina Planning Department Case file: 20013.005 Hunt Associates Property Address 5109 -5125 49th Street West, Edina MN Good Morning, The purpose of this letter is to express our views on rezoning and planned development coming before the Council April 2, 2013. 1 will be attending the meeting. As a 35 year resident of the neighborhood and with 49th Street as our single access in %out of the neighborhood we have a vested interest in changes to zoning and final building plans. Having attended a significant number of planning meetings on this project I believe the applicant has made progress in revising their intent and development designs for the land use. We want to see development on this parcel. We are asking you for further modifications to make the project even better for the existing neighborhood and future residents. Keep in mind we are a neighborhood. I encourage you to visit 49th Street to understand the impact of decisions before you. Density: Our concern is for density on 49th Street. The number and height of the units are not in balance with the established neighborhood. A modification to reduce from 6 units to 4 units along 49th would allow for more "breathing room ", green space, and lessen the tunnel and wall effect to the neighborhood. Two fewer units might also allow the 49th street homes to be one story resulting in home sites more attractive to residents requiring single story living. One story would also be more in keeping with neighbor home styles (ramblers) on 49th Street and throughout the neighborhood. Parking: Please consider where visitors, service, and emergency vehicles would park. Parking on 49th is very limited; 4 -5 cars at best. How would pull off parking inside the development, as on Vernon Lane, work to improve the plan? In all seasons navigating is a challenge with cars parked on 491h street. I did not see a turnaround for the development private road; how would service trucks (garbage, parking, utility) maneuver in the space? I expect current construction discussions would be in play with this project. We would expect everything possible to be done to minimize' impact to the neighborhood with drainage, roads, construction parking, deliveries and utilities. Your reassurances are important to us. Finally, we are the 99%ers in Edina. We saw the benefits of Grandview long before it had a name. We ask you to hold developers accountable for projects that are Right Sized for our neighborhood. Mary and Bill Hartupee 5016 Edinbrook Lane Edina, MN 55436 maltuvilla @earthlink.net 952 - 926 -1487 Jackie Hoogenakker om: Kevin Kuemmel <kevin.kuemmel @WDPI.com> lent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:57 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Hi Jackie, I'm a resident at 5008 edinbrook lane and I'm extremely concerned about the new development proposal. It is a lot of housing crammed into a space and my biggest two issues is the parking [corner on 49th is very tight and unsafe the way it is] and the traffic from 17 houses and only 1 exit for all of the houses. I'd be much more inclined to be a proponent of this with off street parking and another entrance [2 options]. I am or redeveloping those less appealing houses but this many people given the parking restraints and exits seems like a bad idea for me. I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrw but if there is anything I can do or ay questions you may have, please let me know. Kevin kuemmel 5008 edinbrook lane 651 270 5645 Sent from my Samsung EpicT"' 4G [World Data Products] Our commitment to providing quality products and services is demonstrated by our achievement of ISO 9001:2008 certification. Grow your business and maximize your budget with proven IT solutions from WDPI. Visit www.wdpi.com for more information. [ISO 9001:2008] r • Jackie Hoogenakker V ' • I X • From: Alina Perezcampos <alina.perezcampos @fallon.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:49 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Development in our neighborhood Hello Edina City Council, I would like to object to the proposed rezoning and change in the Comprehensive Plan in this location by Hunt associates. This design and the amount of townhouses is excessive for the area and doesn't remotely fit in the area with the surrounding residential homes. There is no necessity nor hardship proven by the developer and the Planning Commission to make any changes in a well thought out City Plan. As Kevin Staunton said repeatedly to this developer, this is NOT part of the Grandview Plan. There will be so much additional traffic in this area that was not included in the traffic study which rated a D without showing all of the additional traffic due to the Grandview Plan. Please stay the course with the Vision for Edina and leave this zoning as it stands. Regards, Alina Perez Campos 4509 Parkside Lane Edina, MN 55436 Alina Perez- Campos I we are fallon alina. perewampos(Wallon.com d : 612 - 758 -2198 c: 612 - 387 -0387 Disclaimer The information in this email and any attachments may contain proprietary and confidential information that is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, retention or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. When -iddressed to our clients or vendors, any information contained in this e-mail or any attachments is subject to the terms and conditions in any governing contract. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the e -mail. Jackie Hoogenakker From: keazar @comcast.net Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 9:38 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 49th and Brookside change in Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Change Good Morning, I would like to object to the proposed rezoning and change in the Comprehensive Plan in this location by Hunt associates. This design and the amount of townhouses is excessive for the area and doesn't remotely fit in the area with the surrounding residential homes. There is no necessity nor hardship proven by the developer and the Planning Commission to make any changes in a well thought out City Plan. As Kevin Staunton said repeatedly to this developer, this is NOT part of the Grandview Plan. There will be so much additional traffic in this area that was not included in the traffic study which rated a D without showing all of the additional traffic due to the Grandview Plan. Please stay the course with the Vision for Edina and leave this zoning as it stands. Regards, Katherine Azar 5332 Hollywood Rd Edina,MN 55436 4. Jackie Hoogenakker From: Doug Hall <doug @waterdesigngroup.com> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:04 PM To:/- Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: FW: 49th and Brookside change in Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Change Good Evening, I would like to object to the proposed rezoning and change in the Comprehensive Plan in this location by Hunt associates. This design and the amount of townhouses is excessive for the area and doesn't remotely fit in the area with the surrounding residential homes. There is no necessity nor hardship proven by the developer and the Planning Commission to make any changes in a well thought out City Plan. As Kevin Staunton said repeatedly to this developer, this is NOT part of the Grandview Plan. There will be so much additional traffic in this area that was not included in the traffic study which rated a D without showing all of the additional traffic due to the Grandview Plan. Please stay the course with the Vision for Edina and leave this zoning as it stands. Regards, Doug Hall 4501 Parkside Lane Edina, MN 55436 ft Jackie Hoogenakker From: Nancy Haley <nhaley @mac.com> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:57 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 49th and Brookside: change in Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Change Good Evening, I am voicing my objection to the proposed rezoning and change in the Comprehensive Plan in this location by Hunt Associates. This design and the number of townhouses is excessive for the area and does not fit with the surrounding residential homes. Three of the commissioners dismissed issues voiced by neighbors in the immediate vicinity of this proposed structure including reduced /minimal privacy, on street parking caused by visitors of occupants, limited space for snow removal, and increased traffic. How unfortunate that they appear to not care about their fellow Edina residents and the quality of their neighborhood. I do not believe that necessity or hardship has been proven by the developer and the Planning Commission to make any changes in a well thought out City Plan. As Kevin Staunton said repeatedly to this developer, this is NOT part of the Grandview Plan. There will be so much additional traffic in this area that was not included in the traffic study, a study that rated a D without showing all of the additional traffic due to the Grandview Plan. I am especially concerned about the traffic leaving this area during morning and evening commutes by accessing Interlachen Boulevard. It is currently very difficult to exit onto Interlachen toward Vernon from Brookside; it will be even more difficult with increased traffic. My concern is that motorists will choose an alternate route by traveling on Rutlege, to Hollywood, and Vandervork changing a quiet and peaceful neighborhood to one with heavy traffic patterns. There are many children and dog walkers on these streets; with no sidewalks, they will be left to maneuver the road with this increased traffic. I implore you to stay the course with the Vision for Edina and leave this zoning as it stands. Regards, Nancy Haley 4521 Parkside Lane Edina, MN 55436 Jackie Hoogenakker From: david bruflodt <dabOlb @yahoo.com> Sent. Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:33 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 2013.005, 49th St Redevelopment Hello. My name is David Bruflodt. My wife, Patti, and I reside at 4837 Westbrook Lane. We have the following questions /concerns regarding the redevelopment of 5109 -5125 49th St W. 1. Green Space: Currently the site has a considerable amount of "green space ". At a time when Edina is investing heavily in creating a more "green" community, why would we want to approve a project-that will unnecessarily reduce "green space "? We think 12 units maximum on the site would be appropriate. 2. Affordable Housing and Neighborhood Character: The existing homes in our neighborhood are for the most part of modest size, in the $200,000 - 300,000 range. It is our understanding that the proposed,town houses would have much larger square footage than the average home, and be priced: around $400,000. If Edina is really interested in developing more affordable housing; as well as maintaining the character of its neighborhoods, this would be a great opportunity to demonstrate both by bringing down the size and price of these townhouses. 3. Neighborhood Topographx: The 49th St site is topographically the highest point in the neighborhood. Therefore the proposed 3- story townhouse structure will loom over our 1 -story homes, maybe. to the point of blocking out sunlight for the closest homes. We think 2 -story townhouses would be a better fit for the immediate area. 4.. Car Traffic: We are concerned about increased car traffic on 49th St. We .heard the traffic study results, but we just can't understand how adding 6 -7 more housing units would not add substantially to the traffic level, especially during rush hour. - 5. Pedestrian Safety: There is substantial pedestrian traffic right on 49th St, because currently there is no sidewalk. I, -David, frequently travel the street using my power wheelchair'r We believe the site'drawings from last Fall showed a proposed sidewalk on the south side of 49th St. Could a sidewalk be added back into the plans to ensure pedestrian safety? Thank you for your consideration David Bruflodt 4837 Westbrook Lane Edina i :i Jackie Hoogenakker rom: michelle anderson <srfnbind @hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 8:52 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: Sue Kellett; Mike Kellett; Neal Anderson; srfnbind @gmail.com Subject: Case File 2013.005 Rezoning 5109 75125 49th Street-West Attachments: Letter to planning commission.rtf To: the members of the Edina City Council Case File: 2013.005 RE: Rezoning of,Property Addresses: 5125, 5117, and 5109 49th Street West, Edina MN Dear. Edina City Council Members, I am a resident of 5112 49th Street West, Edina MN (directly across the street from the properties to be re- zoned:) I would first like to say that I am absolutely excited at the,.prospect of redevelopment in the lots across the . street from me. However, I am opposed to the re- zoning and plans put forward for 17 town -home units to be built in that space. I have reviewed the planning commission's previous discussions on defining what PUD zoning is, and how it should be utilized. I feel that the current proposal to change prope,rties�5125, 5117, and 5109 49th street west from PRD -2 to PUD zoning is an inappropriate use of the- PUD zoning regulations. The company applying for this zoning seems to be trying to take advantage of the "wiggle room" in this new type of zoning, while not upholding the fundamental ideas (ie creating and preserving.green space, not causinga listurbance to the current residences /habitat, creating .a strain on resources around the site...) It seems all they have to offer the neighborhood is a steep walking path we can use as a shortcut, up to Vernon. An additional concern I have is that there seems to be room for expansion towards the East of the properties, where the road ends on the plan. It leaves room to continue on to the end of the block with even more townhomes adding to the strain on the neighborhood. I am disappointed in the Planning Commission's decision to allow such a high density project to be built in our quaint little neighborhood.. We would be incredibly happy if Hunt and Assoc. built 10 -12 townhomes on the land, as would be allowed with current zoning. This would keep more green= space, trees, and could still connect to the future "Grandview Terrace ". The Commissioners have heard a few different plans from Mr. Hunt, all of which were much too large for the space. I think if.this was the first plan (17 town- homes) that was presented to them however, they would not have accepted it, due to the density /lack of green space. Since it is so much better than the previous outlandish proposals, it feels as'if they are giving up and just letting it through. The designers working for Hunt and Associates were making lots of promises about parking availability; snow removal and water containment (based on our concerns), but didn't seem to really have a well thought•out, written plan for it..] want to know who I can call /who is responsible when and if these promises'are broken. We are the ones who have to live here and deal with the repercussions associated with these town -homes (parking; water /snow issues, density and aesthetics), everyone else involved in this decision making process has a fleeting part in it all. I feel that due to'the fact that we are not a neighborhood filled with half'million to a million dollar houses, we are seen as less`important, and that our .objections and opinions don't really matter; this project wouldn't even be proposed in one of those ieighborhoods.' 1 My husband and I have invested a lot of money, and have a lot of pride in our home and our neighborhood; we want to stay here indefinitely. We never would have dreamed of moving into our house if it were across the street from higher density housing. The housing that is currently there is a four -plex, and five -plex apartment building, however they look like just 2 houses across the street. The proposed buildings do not fi-, into the style of the neighborhood, and are not very attractive, both of which will directly affect us. We have lived here nine and a half years, and don't want to have to move due to this project. I have been following all the different plans that have been proposed for construction on these three lots, and I will leave you with this analogy: the current plan, to put 17 townhomes on this site is like trying to park a Hummer in a "compact only" parking spot. (previously they were trying to park an 18 wheeler, and then a monster truck there). I realize that we probably won't have a "compact" car parked in that "compact only" spot, but lets at least get it down to the size (and style) of a Cadillac. I have attached for your review, the letter I sent to the planning commission, highlighting my and my neighbor's concerns. Thanks for your consideration, Sincerely, Michelle Anderson Michelle Anderson, 5112 49th Street West srfnbind @hotmail.com Written on behalf of myself, my husband, and 2 sons (2yrs and 4yrs) To: the members of the Edina Planning Commission Case File: 2013.005 RE: Rezoning of Property Addresses, 5125, 5117, and 5109 49th Street West, Edina MN Dear Planning Commissioners, I am a resident of 5112 49th Street. West, Edina MN (directly across the street from the properties to be re- zoned.) I would first like to say that I am absolutely excitedat the prospect of redevelopment in the lots across the street from me. However, I am opposed to the re- zoning and plans put forward for 17 townhome units to be built in that space. In reviewing your discussions on defining what PUD zoning is, and how it should be utilized, I do not feel that this project as it has been presented, is a good candidate for PUD rezoning at this site. The following are some of my main concerns, as they not only pose a problem to those of us who live close to this project, but also because they seem to go against the fundamental goals of PUD rezoning. 1) The density and size of the units seems to be too much. There are too many units on 1.4 acres of land (not even 2 acres as suggested for PUD zoning). The units are butted up to all 4 boundaries of the property, especially towards 49th street. Also, according to the grading, all of the units along 49th street not only will be 3 stories, but there are many stairs leading up to the units (total height looks to be 47 -50ft over the curb height on 49th street). This would not only affect our sun exposure, but also feel like there is a 3 story high brick wall, 8 ft. from the curb across the street. 2) Traffic flow /blockage, not only on 49th street, but also entering onto Brookside and onto Interlachen. There are 56 houses (not including the properties hoping to rezone) which rely on 49th street as our only way out of the neighborhood. Adding 17 more residences (34 more cars) competing to get out onto Brookside from 49th, and onto Interlachen will be a nightmare. 3) Storm /water drainage. According to the density and current plans, there is not nearly enough "green space" to absorb any falling precipitation. One of the main goals of PUD zoning seems to be protection of greenspace, especially to prevent storm /drainage problems. I understand these are preliminary plans, however most of the pervious surfaces are much too small, or have too steep of a grade to adequately accomodate rain and snowfall. Where will the water go? Into Minnehaha Creek? Also, where will they put the snow ?? The driveways and inner drive are so tight, and butted up to all edges of the property I am worried that the snow will get piled up onto my curbside. 4) Parking. According to the plans, there is no off - street parking available. They expect guests to park in the resident's driveways, however only some of the residents will even be able to park in their own driveways. Six of the 17 townhome units have driveways so short, that neither the resident, nor a guest could park in it /off street. I think it is unreasonable for the planners to count on and expect availability of street parking for residents and their guests, especially in the wintertime. 5) Nuisance and safety issues. 49th street is so narrow that parking is only allowed on one side of the street. Construction vehicles would be parked on the street across from us, making the street even more narrow, as well as prohibiting us from parking on the street. There is limited parking on that side of the street as it is; I am not sure where many of the workers will park. Also, to remind you, the proposed townhomes are right at the edge of the only street outlet for 56 houses. We will have to endure months to years of dealing with the annoyance and safety issues of large -scale construction. Many of us have small children, or dogs and are concerned about the noise, and heavy machinery posing not only a threat to their safety, but also to their daytime schedules. Another concern is that there will be headlights from 34 cars pointed directly into my livingroom and bedroom. 6) Aesthetics of the neighborhood. We all have houses that are of similar style and size. The apartments that are currently in place also fit into this style. The proposed townhomes seem very stark, modern and generic on the plans presented, remnicent of an industrial business park or strip mall. Both the size, height and design are very imposing, especially when placed at the outermost corners of the property. Again, I am not opposed to something new or different, but it should enhance the current design and feel of the neighborhood, not stick out like a sore thumb. Apartment curb to neighbor's house, my house, and view of apartment from my curb I feel that the'current proposal to change properties 5125, 5117, and 5109 49th street west from PRD -2 to PUD zoning is an innappropriate use of the PUD zoning regulations. The company applying for this zoning seems to be trying to take advantage of the "wiggle room" in this type of zoning, while not upholding the fundamental ideas (ie creating and preserving green space, not causing a disturbance to the current residences /habitat, creating a strain on resources around the site...) An additional concern I have is that there seems to be room for expansion towards the East of the properties, where the road ends on the plan. It leaves room to continue on to the end of the block with even more townhomes. My husband and 1 have invested a lot of money, and have a lot of pride in our home and our neighborhood. We never would have dreamed of moving into our house if it were across the street from high density housing. The housing that is currently there is 2 four -plex apartment buildings, a however they look like just 2 houses across the street. I have been following all the different plans that have been proposed for construction on these three lots, and I will leave you with this analogy: the current plan, to put 17 townhomes on this site is like trying to park a Hummer in a . "compact only" parking spot. (previously they were trying to park an 18 wheeler, and then a monster truck there). I realize that we probably won't have a "compact" car parked in that "compact only spot, but lets at least get it down to the size of a Cadillac. Thanks for.your consideration, Sincerely, Michelle Anderson, 5112 49th Street West srfnbind @hotmail.com Vi. A . Jackie Hoogenakker rom: Colette Prohofsky <coprohof @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 10:28 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 49th St rezoning I have attending a couple of planning commission meetings regarding the 3 lots on 49th St West being rezoned. I still have the following concerns: —The number of units still seems too high for the size of the property. I would have the zoning left as is and have less units. I wish that the owner would work within those parameters. —The height of the units is a concern, especially if roof patios are allowed as was discussed at the last planning commission meeting that I attended. —At the last meeting they were discussing moving the buildings even closer to Vernon Ave, which should make us concerned for the safety of the residents, especially if there are children living there. —I heard the report from the traffic consultant, and understand the model he was using doesn't significantly increase the projected traffic, but I still find it hard to believe that traffic won't increase at Brookside and 49th, which is a dangerous intersection due to the hill and curve on Brookside. I look forward to seeing that area rebuilt. Sincerely, Colette Prohofsky 4821 Rutledge Ave Jackie Hoogenakker From: michelle anderson <srfnbind @hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 8:52 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: Sue Kellett; Mike Kellett; Neal Anderson; srfnbind @gmail.com Subject: Case File 2013.005 Rezoning 5109 -5125 49th Street West Attachments: Letter to planning commission.rtf To: the members of the Edina City Council Case File: 2013.005 RE: Rezoning of Property Addresses: 5125, 5117, and 5109 49th Street West, Edina MN Dear Edina City Council Members, I am a resident of 5112 49th Street West, Edina MN (directly across the street from the properties to be re- zoned.) I would first like to say that I am absolutely excited at the prospect of redevelopment in the lots across the street from me. However, I am opposed to the re- zoning and plans put forward for 17 town -home units to be built in that space. I have reviewed the planning commission's previous discussions on defining what PUD zoning is, and how it should be utilized. I feel that the current proposal to change properties 5125, 5117, and 5109 49th street west from PRD -2 to PUD zoning is an inappropriate use of the PUD zoning regulations. The company applying for this zoning seems to be trying to take advantage of the "wiggle room" in this new type of zoning, while not upholding the fundamental ideas (ie creating and preserving green space, not causing a disturbance to the current residences /habitat, creating a strain on resources around the site...) It seems all they have to offer the neighborhood is a steep walking path we can use as a shortcut, up to Vernon. An additional concern I have is that there seems to be room for expansion towards the East of the properties, where the road ends on the plan. It leaves room to continue on to the end of the block with even more townhomes adding to the strain on the neighborhood. I am disappointed in the Planning Commission's decision to allow such a high density project to be built in our quaint little neighborhood. We would be incredibly happy if Hunt and Assoc. built 10 -12 townhomes on the land, as would be allowed with current zoning. This would keep more green- space, trees, and could still connect to the future "Grandview Terrace ". The Commissioners have heard a few different plans from Mr. Hunt, all of which were much too large for the space. I think if this was the first plan (17 town - homes) that was presented to them however, they would not have accepted it, due to the density /lack of green space. Since it is so much better than the previous outlandish proposals, it feels as if they are giving up and just letting it through. The designers working for Hunt and Associates were making lots of promises about parking availability, snow removal and water containment (based on our concerns), but didn't seem to really have a well thought out, written plan for it. I want to know who I can call /who is responsible when and if these promises are broken. We are the ones who have to live here and deal with the repercussions associated with these town -homes (parking, water /snow issues, density and aesthetics), everyone else involved in this decision making process has a fleeting part in it all. I feel that due to the fact that we are not a neighborhood filled with half million to a million dollar houses, we are seen as less important, and that our objections and opinions don't really matter; this project wouldn't even be proposed in one of those neighborhoods. My husband and I have invested a lot of money, and have a lot of pride in our home and our neighborhood; we want to stay here indefinitely. We never would have dreamed of moving into our house if it were across the street from higher density housing. The housing that is currently there is a four -plex, and five -plex Apartment building, however they look like just 2 houses across the street. The proposed buildings do not fit into the style of the neighborhood, and are not very attractive, both of which will directly affect us. We have lived here nine and a half years, and don't want to have to move due to this project. I have been following all the different plans that have been proposed for construction on these three lots, and I will leave you with this analogy: the current plan, to put 17 townhomes on this site is like trying to park a Hummer in a "compact only" parking spot. (previously they were trying to park an 18 wheeler, and then a monster truck there). I realize that we probably won't have a "compact" car parked in that "compact only" spot, but lets at least get it down to the size (and style) of a Cadillac. I have attached for your review, the letter I sent to the planning commission, highlighting my and my neighbor's concerns. Thanks for your consideration, Sincerely, Michelle Anderson Michelle Anderson, 5112 49th Street West srfnbind @hotmail.com Written on behalf of myself, my husband, and 2 sons (2yrs and 4yrs) To: the members of the Edina Planning Commission Case File: 2013.005 RE: Rezoning of Property Addresses, 5125, 5117, and 5109 49th Street West, Edina MN Dear Planning Commissioners, I am a resident of 5112 49th Street. West, Edina MN (directly across the street from the properties to be re- zoned.) I would first like to say that I am absolutely excitedat the prospect of redevelopment in the lots across the street from me. However, I am opposed to the re- zoning and plans put forward for 17 townhome units to be built in that space. In reviewing your discussions on defining what PUD zoning is, and how it should be utilized, I do not feel that this project as it has been presented, is a good candidate for PUD rezoning at this site. The following are some of my main concerns, as they not only pose a problem to those of us who live close to this project, but also because they seem to go against the fundamental goals of PUD rezoning. 1) The density and size of the units seems to be too much. There are too many units on 1.4 acres of land (not even 2 acres as suggested for PUD zoning). The units are butted up to all 4 boundaries of the property, especially towards 49th street. Also, according to the grading, all of the units along 49th street not only will be 3 stories, but there are many stairs leading up to the units (total height looks to be 47 -50ft over the curb height on 49th street). This would not only affect our sun exposure, but also feel like there is a 3 story high brick wall, 8 ft. from the curb across the street. 2) Traffic flow /blockage, not only on 49th street, but also entering onto Brookside and onto Interlachen. There are 56 houses (not including the properties hoping to rezone) which rely on 49th street as our only way out of the neighborhood. Adding 17 more residences (34 more cars) competing to get out onto Brookside from 49th, and onto Interlachen will be a nightmare. 3) Storm /water drainage. According to the density and current plans, there is not nearly enough "green space" to absorb any falling precipitation. One of the main goals of PUD zoning seems to be protection of greenspace, especially to prevent storm /drainage problems. I understand these are preliminary plans, however most of the pervious surfaces are much too small, or have too steep of a grade to adequately accomodate rain and snow fall. Where will the water go? , Into Minnehaha Creek? Also, where will they put the snow ?? The driveways and inner drive are so tight, and butted up to all edges of the property I am worried that the snow will get piled up onto my curbside. 4) Parking. According to the plans, there is no off - street parking available. They expect guests to park in the resident's driveways, however only some of the residents will even be able to park in their own driveways. Six of the 17 townhome units have driveways so short, that neither the resident, nor a guest could park in it /off street. I think it is unreasonable for the planners to count on and expect availability of street parking for residents and their guests, especially in the wintertime. 5) Nuisance and safety issues. 49th street is so narrow that parking is only allowed on one side of the street. Construction vehicles would be parked on the street across from us, making the street even more narrow, as well as prohibiting us from parking on the street. There is limited parking on that side of the street as it is; I am not sure where many of the workers will park. Also, to remind you, the proposed townhomes are right, at the edge of the only street outlet for 56 houses. We will have to endure months to years of dealing with the annoyance and safety issues of large -scale construction. Many of us have small children, or dogs and are concerned about the noise, and heavy machinery posing not only a threat to their safety, but also to their daytime schedules. Another concern is that there will be headlights from 34 cars pointed directly into my livingroom and bedroom. 6) Aesthetics of the neighborhood. We all have houses that are of similar style and size. The apartments that are currently in place also fit into this style. The proposed townhomes seem very stark, modern and generic on the plans presented, remnicent of an industrial business park or strip mall. Both the size, height and design are very imposing, especially when placed at the outermost corners of the property. Again, I am not opposed to something new or different, but it should enhance the current design and feel of the neighborhood, not stick out like a sore thumb. Apartment curb to neighbor's house, my house, and view of apartment from my curb I feel that the'current proposal to change properties 5125, 5117, and 5109 49th street west from PRD -2 to PUD zoning is an innappropriate use of the PUD zoning regulations. The company applying for this zoning seems to be trying to take advantage of the "wiggle room" in this type of zoning, while not upholding the fundamental ideas (ie creating and preserving green space, not causing a disturbance to the current residences /habitat, creating a strain on resources around the site...) An additional concern I have is that there seems to be room for expansion towards the East of the properties, where the road ends on the plan. It leaves room to continue on to the end of the block with even more townhomes. My husband and I have invested a lot of money, and have a lot of pride in our home and our neighborhood. We never would have dreamed of moving into our house if it were across the street from high density housing. The housing that is currently there is 2 four -plex apartment buildings, however they look like just 2 houses across the street. I have been following all the different plans that have been proposed for construction on these three lots, and I will leave you with this analogy: the current plan, to put 17 townhomes on this site is like trying to park a Hummer in a "compact only" parking spot. (previously they were trying to park an 18 wheeler, and then a monster truck there). I realize that we probably won't have a "compact" car parked in that "compact only" spot, but lets at least get it down to the size of a Cadillac. Thanks for your consideration, Sincerely, Michelle Anderson, 5112 49th Street West srfnbind @hotmail.com Written on behalf of myself, my husband, and 2 sons (2yrs and 4yrs) i� Jackie, Hoogenakker rom: greta simondet <gretasim11 @gmai1.com> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:41 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Fwd: 49 & brookside. One more thought is that our neighborhood already has two strikes against it: 1) the new concentration of airplane traffic which will increase noise 2) the recent change that has increased train traffic, with the increasing noise'`from train whistles/horns in 'pre- dawn hours to late -at -night hours 3) so please do not also expose this neighborhood to increased traffic congestion! Thank you! !'! Greta Simondet 4448 Vandervork Ave. Edina, MN 55436 ----------- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: greta simondet <gretasiml 1@ gmail -com> Date: Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:00 PM Subject: 49 & brookside. To: jhoogenakkerQedinamn.gov Please count me as one who is objecting to the proposed rezoning and change in the Comprehensive Plan in this location by Hunt associates. Re: DESIGN AND SIZE This design and the amount of townhouses is excessive for the area and doesn't remotely fit in the area with the surrounding residential homes. The current apartments are very modest and fit in well. with the rest of the residential area'of single family homes. With Edina choosing to hire a new staff person to monitor and manage new construction so it doesn't overwhelm the existing neighborhood, shouldn't this neighborhood have protection against this type of huge building that overshadows the rest? Re: TRAFFIC I cannot understand how this fits with the Grandview Plan. There will be so much additional traffic in this area!! It is now extremely difficult to enter onto Interlachen Blvd. from Brookside and other local streets during rush hour. Please check it out during those times and you'll see a long backup, which,,includes risks being taken, adding to the already dire vulnerability of pedestrians theret ! t Please stay the course with the Vision for Edina and leave this zoning as it stands! Thank you, Greta Simondet 4.448 Vandervork Ave. Edina, MN 55436 1 Jackie Hoogenakker From: greta simondet <gretasim11 @gmai1.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 4:01 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 49 & brookside. Please count me as one who is objecting to the proposed rezoning and change in the Comprehensive Plan in this location by Hunt associates. Re: DESIGN AND SIZE This design and the amount of townhouses is excessive for the area and doesn't remotely fit in the area with the surrounding residential homes. The current apartments are very modest and fit in well with the rest of the residential area of single family homes. With Edina choosing to hire a new staff person to monitor and manage new construction so it doesn't overwhelm the existing neighborhood, shouldn't this neighborhood have protection against this type of huge building that overshadows the rest? Re: TRAFFIC I cannot understand how this fits with the Grandview Plan. There will be so much additional traffic in this area!! It is now extremely difficult to enter onto Interlachen Blvd. from Brookside and other local streets during rush hour. Please check it out during those times and you'll see a long backup, which includes risks being taken, adding to the already dire vulnerability of pedestrians there!!! Please stay the course with the Vision for Edina and leave this zoning as it stands! Thank you, Greta Simondet 4448 Vandervork Ave. Edina, MN 55436 To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: April 2, 2013 Subject: Resolution No. 2013 -29 Accepting Various Donations Action Requested: Adopt Resolution. Information / Background: o e C0 �g rJ) ' x,PC 19149 Agenda Item #: VIII. A. Action Discussion O Information El 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 recipients departments for your consideration. Attachments: Resolution No. 2013 -29 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-29 ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE 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 Art Center: Doris Blackmun $50 Helen Zabel Memorial Fund Barb Nelson 15 Bottle Acrylic Paint Donald & Patricia Sullivan $65 Greta & Jim Solheim $100 Mark Thompson Memorial Mary Dvorak $25 Helen Zabel Memorial Fund Solveig Swendweid $50 Mark Thompson Memorial Barry Cosens 10 Hardcover Art Books Larry & Amy Bounds $50 Park & Recreation Department For Edible Playground At Lewis Park: Dow Water Process Solutions $1,000 Fairview Southdale Hospital Foundation $5,000 "Keep America Beautiful Initiative Minnesota Department of Health (SHIP) $3,500 Edina Resource Center $1,500 Edina Police Department: Edina Crime Prevention Fund $2,500 Extra Patrol At Southdale Dated: April 2, 2013 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) 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 Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 2, 2013, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk 4 To: MAYOR & COUNCIL OLe !...-. !4� H� 4o 1XNB Agenda Item #: VIII. B. From: Lisa Schaefer, Action Staff Liaison to the Human Rights and Relations Commission Discussion ❑ Date: April 2, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Ordinance No. 2013 -04 Amending Chapter 15 Of The Edina City Code To Include Gender Expression. Action Requested: Approval of the attached Ordinance No. 2013 -04 regarding amendments to Section 1501: Human Rights & Relations Commission, including waiving of the second reading of the Ordinance. Information / Background: At the January 22, 2013 regular meeting of the Human Rights and Relations Commission, the Commission received correspondence regarding the absence of gender expression in the City's non- discrimination clause of the City Code. Although gender expression has been interpreted by the courts to be included in the definition of Sexual Orientation in Minnesota State Statute Chapter 363 A. 03 Subdivision 44, the Commission believes there is a clear distinction between Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression, and that both should be included in the policy statement. Below are the revisions: 150 1.0 1 Policy Statement. A. Secure for all of the residents of the City freedom from discrimination because of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, marital status, disability, status with regard to public assistance, familial status or national origin in connection with employment, housing and real property, public accommodations, public services, credit and education. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 ORDINANCE NO. 2013 -04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE SECTION -1501: HUMAN RIGHTS &RELATIONS COMMISSION. Section' 1. Subsection 1501.01 is amended to read: 1501.01 Policy Statement A. Secure for all of the residents of the City freedom from discrimination,because of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, marital status, disability, status with regard to public assistance, familial status or national origin in connection with employment, housing and real property, public accommodations, public services, credit and education. Section 3. 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 Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk To: City Council From: Ann Kattreh, Director �91NA, ll?l o e,, v � ' • ,A�RPORp`� j 1888 Agenda Item #: VIII. C. Action Parks & Recreation Department Discussion ❑ Date: March 12, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Consider Approval of Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden and Parking Lot Action Requested: Approve the Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden and Parking Lot Project. Information / Background: A brief history of recent community garden discussions: • 2009 — City of Edina assesses public spaces for community gardens, action was tabled at that time • March 2012 — City Council members expressed a desire to revisit the community garden question on public land • March to June 2012 — do.town community conversations identifies a base of supporters • July 2012 — City Council encourages community health committee to add community gardens to their work plan • August 6, 2012 — Mayor Hovland and the Council proclaimed Aug. I I th as Community Garden Day — recognizing ALL a community garden brings to your community • August 7, 2012 — do.town begins letter writing campaign to City Council and Community Health Committee — 7 letters generated • September 2012 — do.town administers a petition drive at The Durham — resulting in 47 signatures • October /November 2012 — Community Health Committee recommends to City Council a pilot community garden at Yorktown Park • November 2012 — do.town meets with the Southdale YMCA to confirm their interest in partnering on a community garden project • December 2012 — do.town hosts a meeting at the Southdale YMCA • January 8, 2013 — The Park Board selected Ellen Jones and Dan Peterson to serve on the Yorktown Community Garden Work Group. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION • January 2013 — PLANNING BEGINS. Staff collected community garden data from 16 neighboring communities, compiled the data, completed a project timeline and prepared a Draft Rules and Policies document. • January 30, 2013 — Recreation Supervisor Donna Tilsner, Assistant Director Susan Faus and Director Ann Kattreh hosted the first Yorktown Park Community Garden Work Group meeting. • February 12, 2013 — Park Board approved the Draft Rules and Policies document with some revisions requested. Page 2 • February 27, 2013 — The second community garden meeting was held. The work group discussed the timeline, parking lot, rules, policies, marketing, the application form and master gardener opportunities. • March 12, 2013 — The Park Board held a public hearing and was asked to review and comment on the proposed community garden and parking lot. The unapproved portion of the minutes from that meeting is attached. • March 20, 2013 — The third community garden meeting was held. The work group, chaired by Ellen Jones, made the following recommendation: The Yorktown Park Community Garden Project Working Group recommends that a parking lot, no larger than 15 stalls be built out of temporary millings from the Public Works department as opposed to an asphalt surface. In addition, the smaller lot should be shifted south to allow for more open space. They stated that if the council wants a parking lot it is doing it for other reasons than to benefit the park. There was one opposition by Park Board Member- Dan Peterson who wants the parking lot paid for by the YMCA. Staff is requesting your approval of the overall community garden project and on the proposed site plan, including a new, shared use parking lot with the YMCA. The YMCA is proposing to pay for the construction and maintenance of the parking lot on Yorktown Park property. The City would have reserved spots for gardeners. The net gain in parking spots for the YMCA is 29 spots. There is currently no parking at Yorktown Park and the lack of parking has limited the use of the park. The YMCA experiences significant parking shortages during the winter months. During the summer months, the YMCA's back parking lot is a busy bus staging area for kids programming, day trips and camps. Staff contacted the Durham Apartments to discuss a parking partnership and they are unable to accommodate Yorktown Park parking. A parking lot in this park will increase the use of the park and give us the ability to program both the community garden and the grassy areas of the park. The Nine Mile Creek Trail will also run on the north border of the park. This parking lot would provide safe access to the trail for walkers or bikers. The Engineers estimate for the parking lot is $66,000. The City proposes to construct the parking lot and be reimbursed by the YMCA for all associated costs. Soil testing and soil borings have been completed and it was determined that the site is conducive for a garden and for a parking lot. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION At the March 12 Park Board Meeting staff asked for review and comment on the proposed community garden project and associated parking lot. Members Cella, Deeds, Gieseke, Hulbert, D. Peterson, K. Peterson, Segreto, and Steel spoke in favor of the proposed community garden and parking lot. Member Jacobson agrees that a parking lot is needed, but has reservations about size and access. Member Jones is opposed to the parking lot as proposed. Both Members Jacobson and Jones were in favor of the community garden as proposed. Staff also recommends constructing a 4' high black vinyl fence around the garden to provide an attractive solution for keeping rabbits and other small animals out of the garden. When fencing is not provided, individual plot holders are forced to put up their own fencing and the area quickly becomes unsightly. Staff recommends a water containment tank in the first season and will budget for a permanent water supply as soon as possible. Bike racks, benches and signage will be provided this year. Staff is currently working on a calendar of educational topics and programming that will be covered throughout the summer. We are working with Larry Cipolla, a master gardener, to determine programming opportunities. The YMCA will be given 2- 10' X 15' plots and we will be partnering with them on other programming and marketing opportunities as well. Whole Foods has granted us a Community Day on 4/18. Five percent of the sales on that day will be donated to the Yorktown Community Garden. The anticipated donation amount is approximately $3,000. This' will pay for signage, bike racks, etc. ATTACHMENTS: A. Community Garden Rules and Policies B. Community Garden Timeline C. Community Garden Plot and Site Map D. Community Garden Budget E. City Comparison of Community Gardens F. Spring Garden Basics G. Yorktown Community Garden and Parking Lot H. Draft, Unapproved March 12 Park Board Minutes Page 3 Attachment A 1 YORKTOWN PARK PILOT COMMUNITY GARDENS RULES AND POLICIES CITY OF EDINA This pilot Community Garden is owned and run by the City of Edina. In order to have a plot in the garden, you must agree to abide by the rules. Any outside people that you bring in to the garden are expected to follow these rules and the plot holder is responsible for communicating the rules to their guests. The rules are created in order to have a fruitful, secure, and enjoyable place to garden. REGISTRATION INFORMATION r� O • Priority for plots is as follows for 2013: (1) Edina residents (2) People who work in Edina (3) Non - residents Next year: (1) Previous year Edina resident plot holders (2) Edina residents -new (3) Previous non - resident plot holders (4) Non - residents - new • Plots are assigned on a first -come, first -serve basis • A waiting list will be maintained if garden plots fill, which is based on the date the application form is received. • Gardeners may rent one plot per household. • Payment can be in the form of a check payable to: City of Edina. We also accept VISA, MasterCard and American Express. • There will be a fee of $25 for a I Ox 10 and $30 for a I Ox 15 plot. • Garden plots are assigned to one person only and are not transferable. Others may garden at your site, but the responsibility for payment of fees, cleanup and other duties at the site will be the responsibility of the individual whose name is assigned to the plot. PLOT INFORMATION • The size of the plots will be approximately I Ox 10 and I Ox 15. • Gardeners may begin planting on the third Saturday in May, weather permitting. In 2013, this is May 18. • All gardens must be planted by June 3. If you are unable to meet this deadline, please contact the City of Edina. • All non - organic and organic materials must be cleared out to ground level by October 30. • If you must abandon your plot, please inform the city so it may be re- assigned. If there is no evidence of activity at your plot by June 3, it will be re- assigned. If you are unable to meet this deadline, contact the City of Edina. There will be no refunds on fees paid. MLLM ii r Urlt H CITY OF EDINA YORKTOWN PARK PILOT COMMUNITY GARDEN RULES & POLICIES t I . Plots are intended for personal use only. Gardening for commercial purposes is prohibited. 2. Gardeners are responsible for planting, weeding, and watering. Harvest produce from your designated plot only. 3. Gardeners are responsible for bringing their own tools. Storage is not provided. 4. Water source is available on site; you will be required to bring your own bucket. Hoses will not be provided. 5. Stakes that mark your plot's corners and have your plot name and number must be left in place all season. 6. There will be trash and recycling receptacles on site. 7. A compost bin will be available for your use. 8. Please park in designated parking areas only. 9. Pets are not allowed inside the fence of the garden area. 10. Insecticides or herbicides may not be used in order to create and nurture healthy soil and a healthy plant environ- ment in the garden. 11. Gardener will not plant illegal drugs or any invasive plants. 12. Tobacco, illegal drugs or alcoholic beverages are not allowed in Yorktown Park. 13. Only seasonal (annual) plants may be planted. No perennials, shrubs or trees are allowed to be planted. 14. No individual temporary fencing is allowed. No permanent structures or other decorative items are allowed. 15. Bio- degradable mulch such as compost, leaves, straw and hay are encouraged. 16. Please keep weeds to a minimum. If weeds are growing 12" tall on more than 1/3 of your pot or if you have ex- tended your plot beyond the assigned boundary lines, you will be contacted by the City by phone/email. You need to respond to this communication. Gardeners will have 2 weeks from the day we notify you to take the appropri- ate action before the plot will be tilled, plot must be maintained during any extended absences. 17. A walkway must be maintained around each garden plot. Crops, plants, vines, vegetation and weeds must be con- tained within boundaries of your garden plot. Overlapping on to adjacent pathways or garden plots is prohibited. 18. Anyone not tending his /her plot may risk losing their garden privileges for the year and lose priority registration for the following year. 19. Non - organic waste (cans, bottles and plastic containers) should be placed in the trash /recycling barrels provided. CITY OF EDINA RESPONSIBILITIES • City will take registrations and payments for the plots. • City will plow, till, drag, measure and stake out the gardens in the spring. • City will provide access to water. • City will provide a designated area to park. • City will designate compost site. • City will till the plots after October 30. • City will do an annual user survey to determine satisfaction with their experience. Complaints, policies and mediations will be addressed by the community garden subcommittee with the City of Edina having the final authority. City of Edina does not assume responsibility for acts of vandalism or loss of crops due to thefts or due to animals eating crops. Attachment B COMMUNITY GARDEN PROJECT TIMELINE Rules and Policies February 1 Park Board Approval February 12 . (Rules and Policies)` Location and Parking Februay 15 Soil Testing February' 15 Site Map February 28 Application Form February 28 Budget Completed February 28 Park Board Public Hearing . - - - March:12 Park Board Review and Comment on Garden Proposal Marketing Plan Finalized March 12 Educational Plan March 18 City Council Approval April 2 Open Registration Edina Residents April 4 Kick Off Event at Y April 5 Plant Bed Construction April 8 Open Registration for Non -Edina Residents, April 18 Garden Fence May 3 Grand Opening Week of May 13 Closing of Garden October 30 Attachment C _ 10 X 15 Plots 10 X 10 Plots 3' Path Flower Beds Common Area C� f�J Plot k 5 Southdale YMCA Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden 44 45 7335 York Avenue, Edina 49 50 t�'NA1j�! HI 54 55 �l Its Reserved 'lease note that a water source is available on site, you will be required to being your own bucket to haul water- from the water source, gardeners also need to bring their own tools, as storage is not provided. Please read over all rules and policies to determine if renting plot is right for you! Happy Gardening! Attachment D Line Items 1st Year 2nd Year REVENUE Plot Fees $1,515.00 $1,515.00 TOTAL REVENUE $1,515.00 $1,515.00 EXPENSES Soil Borings and Testing $4,275.00 $0.00 Mobilization $1,000.00 $0.00 Chainlink Fence Design $8,500.00 $0.00 Roto Tilling and Topsoil Prep $4,000.00 $1,500.00 Hydraulic Soil Stabilizer $640.00 $0.00 Compost Bin $400.00 $0.00 Signage $1,400.00 $0.00 Marketing & Promotions $825.00 $450.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $21,040.00 $1,950.00 NET REVENUE ($191525) ($435.00) Attachment E City COST SIZE OF PLOT LIMIT REGISTRATION MISCELLANEOUS HOPKINS /MTKA $20 for 1/ �20 X 20 2 per household 3/5/2013- Residents _ _ City tills $50 for two- Hopkins _ a 3/12 - Non Residents Engineering dept. plots stakes $25 -Mtka Water spigot provided PhotoiD needed PLYMOUTH $40 14 X 14 2 per household 1/1 returning City inspects each month 1 " walkway of 2/1 New gardeners Water spigot and hoses Wood chips Provided EAGAN $30 20 X 20 No information No information Pets not allowed in garden area BUFFALO $25 10 X 20 2 per household No information Water available _ Pets not allowed in garden area City tills Looking at providing compost area BROOKLYN PARK $50 -20X20 1 per household Returning by Dec. 7 Photo ID needed Feb. 1 new ones Begin by May 15 BEMIDJI $20 15 X 15 No information No information City Stakes $15 19 X 15 City provides water May 27 - Oct. 22 AUSTIN $20 15 X 20 No information No information City stakes, plows, marks City provides water with a timed Sprinkler system HUTCHINSON $30 10 X 20 No information No information City stakes, plows, marks City provides water ALBERT LEA $20 20 X 20 Lst choice No information City provides water. City tills and fertilizes FALCON HEIGHTS $25.00 10 X 12 No information City provides hoses, water, - composite once, waste pick up, ANDOVER $30 10 x 15 1st choice No information Water provided. Fencing not provided $50 25 X 35 plot by Jan. 1. This is on church property. $60 20 X 75 Pesticides allowed BLOOMINGTON $30 10 X 15 No information Reg. begins 1 -15 Water provided 5 X 15 Raised bed for Handicap INVER GROVE HEIGHTS $25 lox 15 Request deadline May 3 No information City plows. July they fertilize. Harvest deadline Oct. 19 Rec staff plots the plots. Water supply is far away. Some soil is sandy /rocky. WILLMAR No information lox 15 No information No information 5' wood chip pathways. Boy scouts can help with clean up. They can do compost, build a bench, etc. _ Monthly newsletter. Worked with a Master gardener for advise. ST. LOUIS PARK $25 16x16 No information No information MONTICELLO $25 15x20 Residents first; non residents can reserve in City provides shed, hoses, water and spigots, some gardening tools, and fence. City �_ PARKING RESTROOMS FENCING I HOPKINS /MTKA s� 15 Yes No PLYMOUTH Share with city workhouse No No. Plot owner can provide HUTCHINSON Street and apartment lot No No BUFFALO Yes, not much needed Yes 4 Foot BROOKLYN PARK 60 at farm location, only 15 at plots Yes 10 Foot ALBERT LEA 24 Port a Potty No FALCON HEIGHTS 50 Port a Potty 4 Foot BLOOMINGTON By an existing facility Port a Potty None provided, renters can put up 3 -6 foot fence. INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 20 -25 Port a Potty 6 -8 Foot PRIOR LAKE 10 Port a Potty No MONTICELLO 3 -4 close to garden, Community Center parking lot Port a Potty Chicken wire. 2 -3 foot ST. LOUIS PARK 6 -8 close to garden, use of church lot, 50 more Port a Potty 3 Foot Attachment F rd n. as 1 CS FREE on Fridays at the Southdale YMCA, 7355 Yorl< Avenue Rotary Room Master Gardener Larry Cipolla will lead 3 FREE interactive sessions on all you want to know about gardening. Come with your questions and learn j about the proposed pilot community garden at Yorktown Park in Edina. Garden Basics and Best Practices - Session Friday, April S, 6 - 8 p.m. • Learn about what vegetables and herbs to grow and how to grow them • What to grow in community garden and organic /non- organic fertilizers • "Top 10" Garden Tools to consider plus Garden Designs /Themes to consider i • Using supports, cages, posts and poles Garden Basics and Best Practices - Session II Friday, April 19, 6 - 8 p.m. • Community Garden Overview • Heirlooms, open pollinated, hybrids and more • How to minimize insect /soil borne diseases without chemicals • Myths and Facts about GMOs and GEs plants /seeds Garden Basics and Best Practices - Session'-111 Friday, May 17, 6 - 8 p.m. • Pending Council approval and weather permitting, we will do experiential activities in garden plots, planting seeds and plants o e -1 r. s011 No registration is needed. QUESTIONS, email koarsvold@edinamn.gov or call 952 -826 -0367 P�,NEa o.a.R,RT °.k.,YOM�, E.M11�Mw� u�w Attachment G r. CA 17 7 'r40 min ;41 Alk P f� \ rf 4. •) I q" or T i • I An 1 'f • � i wF Yt i > PLAN WAS PREPARED BY YE DR yORKTOWN PARK m DNDER NY DIRE =, SUPERNSDN CITY OF EDINA J< AND THAT I AR A DULY COMMUNITY GARDEN "� ENGN EREU DER THE LAWS OF COMMUNITY GARDEN .( ^)0 7EAON uyN a551J9- 7UR.lD7 TnE STAtC OE wNNE90u Ph: 952 -826 -0771 & PARKING LOT u & PARKING LOT FRC 952 -W6 G392 NOIDATEIBYI REYARRS n DAB M RQ 4197N RENSIONS Attachment H MINUTES - DRAFT. OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL March 12, 2013 7:00 PM 1. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS VI.A. Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden Public Hearing Ms. Faus gave a power point presentation on the Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden as well as gave the history of how they got to where they are today. Member Gieseke asked if they are going to be able to pick a first, second and third choice for a particular spot to which Ms. Faus replied yes, she believes on the application is asks for a first, second and third choice. Member Hulbert asked when the Farmer's Market begins at Centennial Lakes because he thinks they could probably market it there as well. Ms. Faus replied they will be getting the word out at all of their enterprise facilities.and anywhere else they are able to get the word out. Member Segreto commented at the last meeting they talked about a number of parking spaces that would be reserved for the gardeners and asked how many spaces have been allocated for it. Ms. Faus replied that hasn't been determined yet if they are moving ahead with the parking lot and is something they will need to work out with the YMCA. Member Segreto indicated when she read the rules and regulations she noticed there is no enforcement provision saying something such as if you don't abide by these rules and regulations you will lose your rights. She stated that it alludes to it but doesn't come out and say it. Ms. Faus replied it does allude to it; however, they will also be going through all of the rules and policies and make sure people understand what the expectations are for them when they are using the garden. Ms. Faus asked Member Segreto if she would like to see stronger more specific language to which Member Segreto replied yes. Member Hulbert commented that on points four, six and seven regarding parcel priority they could strike the first sentence in number four and say returning Edina residents are given first priority. Number six could list the different priorities and number seven could be taken out. Ms. Faus replied they can certainly make that change. Member Kathryn Peterson asked regarding costs have they broken down what is considered a one- time implementation such as the fence versus costs that will be recurring on an annual yearly basis. Ms. Faus replied they did a little research on other cities and it was hard to find what the actual costs were because, once the garden is built the only real costs will be water and labor for tilling the different plots which will be done through Edina City staff. She added they have some information from Bloomington and Plymouth that it will be approximately $2,000 to $2,300 at the most. Member Jones asked regarding the maintenance operating costs the time that it takes for the water truck to come and the time it's going to take to mow the paths is going to be additional time to just mowing the park and asked if the costs have been figure out for staff's time to administer all of this. Ms. Kattreh replied she doesn't know if it will happen in the first year or not, it depends on how the N budget plays out, but they hope to have the inside walkways mulched so it won't be a mowing issue long -term. She stated as far as the time to fill the water container they honestly have no idea what those costs are going to be because they don't know how quickly they are going to go through it and therefore it's going to be very difficult for them to plan the first year. She explained in conversations with the Public Works Director the way that they view those costs are an internal transfer so they will not be charged directly for those costs either from a staffing perspective or for the water itself. However, that is not to say that a staff person isn't going to be taken off another job so there are certainly going to be some indirect costs to the city but it won't be a line item budget transfer. Member Dan Peterson commented he understands there will be no raised beds at this time. Ms. Faus replied because it is a pilot project and this is their first year they decided to wait and see what the demand is and if there are a lot of requests that may be something they could add next year. Member Dan Peterson asked with that in mind do the other cities you've looked at generally have three foot separations for walking to which Ms. Faus replied yes, they do that to make sure if anyone is using a wheelbarrow there is enough space in between to walk through. Ms. Kattreh added they would really like to have those raised beds be an Eagle Scout project and they hope to be able to do that next year. Member Jones asked how successful have other communities been with the chain link fence for keeping bunnies out. Ms. Faus replied she doesn't know how successful the fences are at keeping all animals out but she does know that other community gardens.do have some type of fencing and assumes it helps to keep them out. Member Jones asked Ms. Faus to ask the master gardener if this is a plan that would keep out the most common problem, which she assumes would be bunnies. Ms. Faus replied a small animal will probably be able to get in; however, another reason for the fence is to make sure the gardens are looking nice because if they don't gardeners will be putting up their own type of fencing and they want to avoid that. Chair Steel had each Park Board member share their comments. Member Jones indicated she is a little frustrated because she supports getting a community garden in Edina but she will not support the proposal as it's presented to them. She stated the proposal to pave over parkland and allow parking for an adjacent property owner goes against the goals and policies of the Edina Parks and Recreation Department as stated in the comprehensive plan to retain, maintain and protect and preserve all park and open space property currently owned by the City of Edina. She stated the City has no compelling reason to pave over this parkland and has no compelling reason to act so quickly right now. She noted there are many unanswered questions that should be thoroughly vetted before taking an action of this kind. She added this department is about to embark on a strategic plan that could easily give guidance on many of these questions if this project were included in the scope of the strategic plan. She pointed out when the Community Garden was originally brought to her attention at a meeting held by the Do.Town staff at the YMCA in December she was told that the YMCA would provide parking at the lower back for this project. The statement was again stated at the January Park Board meeting. She indicated she became part of the community garden work group and supported the project with the understanding that parking would be provided at the YMCA lot. She stressed that the work group did not select the site of Yorktown Park and asked is this the best site for a pilot community garden because a pilot project should not require the sacrifice of a large part of a park to create a parking lot for a private entity next door. She indicated at the last community garden work group meeting they voted unanimously not to support the paving of the park for the parking lot. She pointed out there are other parks that could support a community garden and perhaps Lake Edina Park would be a better site as it has parking, sun, irrigation could be pulled from Fred Richards Golf Course and a potential new path is already being planned running next to it. She knows that this park is going to be part of the strategic planning process. Member Jones added there are other questions l such as where is this money going to be coming from in order to support and maintain this park, what programs will we forego in order to build and maintain a community garden or what other park maintenance projects will be delayed. She stated they are minimizing the cost of this because they don't know and she actually is kind of glad that they are trying to get a community garden in at any cost; however, they should know a little bit more before they start putting capital into this and they should really study the site and make sure that this is the best site. She commented that other uses for this park have been suggested but not studied; therefore, they don't know how much parking is required for some of these other items that have been mentioned as potential uses for that park. She added that traffic in that area is high right now and bringing in other purposes in that area right there right now seems as if it might be misguided. Member Jones pointed out her other concern is where is the base of supporters, she knows that in all of the reading that she has done on community gardens that successful community gardens have a base of supporters that will be there and she is reluctant to say they have an overwhelming urge by this community to put in a community garden at this time. She would love to see a community garden in Edina but she doesn't like paving over that park and she doesn't think that they need to be doing that right now particularly when they are having a strategic plan. Member Segreto indicated that she is always sensitive to losing open space; however, she has gotten more comfortable with some of the discussion they had at their last meeting regarding how the park is really very underutilized. She commented from the standpoint of making this park become useable, whether it is the garden or athletic fields, without parking no one is using the park except for people who are arriving to the park by foot or by bike. She stated she will vote in favor of the community garden because she has gotten more comfortable about paving some of it to make the park more accessible primarily because it's really just a flat piece of land and she doesn't think traffic will be impacted by this significantly. She will vote in favor of the proposal. Member Cella noted that her comments echo the comments just made that given that this park doesn't have a parking lot and there is no way for people to utilize it unless they arrive by bike or foot. She stated to even be able to have a strategic plan for the park they need to provide parking. She indicated she doesn't like to pave over parkland but when you have a park with no parking sometimes that is what they have to do. Member Kathryn Peterson asked if there might be some middle ground where they could have a reduced version of the parking lot which would allow the garden area to be moved over and the field could be used for other activities like soccer. She noted that it's hard to tell because they are not looking at the entire map but maybe that is something that should at least be explored and see if there might be a way to have a small parking area, garden and field to use if they determine that is appropriate for the park. Member Hulbert indicated he doesn't think anyone wants to pave over parkland but he cannot think of any real park amenities that don't require parking. He noted he has been to that park many times and he wouldn't classify that park as the most attractive parkland we have; it's in a really high traffic area and it's not anywhere you would go to have a picnic. He stated that he views it as a great opportunity, the YMCA wants to step up and pay for the parking and we are putting in an amenity that lot of residents have been wanting for a number of years. He is in favor of the project. Member Deeds noted that he supports the project, it's a win /win with the YMCA providing them a little more parking and at the same time the City gets additional parking that is needed for the park. To him it makes too much sense so he supports the plan. In addition, he trusts the negotiations that have gone on and the YMCA has said these are the number of spaces they need to make this happen. He 3 1 commented that he thinks overall they are not encroaching badly into the park and they are hoping to provide more opportunities and Edina gets a community garden in. This has his support. Member Dan Peterson indicated this has his support. Member Segreto asked Ms. Kattreh if they do not go forward with the parking proposal would it still be possible to go forward with the garden. Ms. Kattreh replied she thinks they would go forward with the garden but it would be her recommendation that they leave space where they could add a parking lot at a future date. She stated they would need the YMCA to allow use of their parking lot to our users and added it wouldn't be convenient for them because there is a little bit of a slope up from the YMCA parking lot up to the grassy area but it might be feasible. Chair Steel noted that she supports this proposal and commends staff for working on a tight deadline and really thoroughly thinking this through and giving a great presentation. She stated it is a pilot project and they will learn from it but she thinks they have done everything they can to adequately prepare and look at other cities experiences. She indicated regarding the parking lot she also supports that because she thinks whether or not the community garden is successful it provides opportunities in the future and this funding opportunity will not be present in the future. Member Kathryn Peterson commented by quick count it appears there are approximately 40 some spots in the parking lot. Ms. Kattreh replied there are approximately 40 spots; however, the YMCA is also losing 13 to 14 spots because of the lot line so it's a net gain of about 29 spots. Member Gieseke asked when the busiest time is for the YMCA when those parking spaces might be fully utilized and not really available for the city use. Member Kattreh replied the busiest time for the YMCA is during the winter months and that during the summer months the back lot of the YMCA is utilized for buses for their camps and programs. Member Jacobson commented she agrees with having a pilot community garden and maybe not putting in the parking lot the first year because they may learn vital things about where you really need a parking lot after you've done it for a year. She noted maybe you need your gardens to be twice the size that they are and the parking lot you put down the first year might not fit it the way you need it the next year. She asked is there any potential for waiting for the parking lot for the second year when they know better what the gardens are going to be like and how they are going to be used. Ms. Kattreh replied it's certainly a possibility. Member Jones stated the work group also felt this is a pilot project and we don't know how many people are going to want garden plots; we don't know how it's going to work and therefore felt for a pilot program they should'not move ahead with any long -term parking lot. She noted she thinks they were willing to say if the YMCA would allow them access to the park they could drive and park on the field close to the park. That was the plan that the work group felt comfortable with to just park on the grounds wlTile they are reviewing this and trying to figure out if they want garden plots or not. She indicated that would be the first solution, how much space we need and if it is really popular we may need more than ten spots. She added the rule of thumb she has been hearing is it's somewhere between 6 and 10 spots, it's certainly not 29 spots and is certainly not saying they need them this year, they just need access to it. Member Jones pointed out that she also thinks this is setting a precedent that she is concerned about. She commented that she knows people are saying this is not a very attractive park but, honestly, this area is getting more concentrated with people and that's a good thing they have a park there. She added she received an email today from someone asking if they could look at putting in a basketball court at that park and /or a badminton court and horseshoes. She 4 commented this is from a man on the work group who is trying to look.at.other uses for the park. She stated that she realizes the park is not landscaped and it's not very attractive but there are many uses for parks that you can walk to. She stated again that she is concerned about the precedent and is also concerned that if they move ahead with a parking lot they may realize they don't need"a parking lot for this park. Member Deeds indicated he has two concerns with not putting a parking lot in and a community garden. First, if they out the community garden in, even on a pilot project, without any,parking they are not exactly being good neighbors with the YMCA because.people will park at the YMCA. Second, if "you open up the area where the parking lot was going to be put beginning in April it will turn into a mud pit and the YMCA users and others will use it., It will turn into'a mud pit very rapidly with the kind . of soil and terrain that is there and with the amount of water they are liikely to get he doesn't.think it makes sense.. He stated they need to commit to doing both. He commented it's notan experiment with community gardens because community gardens a.re everywhere and they, succeed and people use them. There will -be demand if there are parking spaces and if they have a marketing problem the first year it.will be solved the second. He stated approve it as a.package or vote it down as a package because it doesn't make sense to go to the hassle and headache of putting up a.co,mmunity garden spot without anyway to really utilize it. Member Seg_reto, Chair Steel and' Member Jacobson all agreed. Chair Steel added that if the parking is being underutilized that is a challenge for them that can be solved because there are other programming alternatives and there is grassy space. 5 To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL From: Scott H. Neal, City Manager Date: April 2, 2013 Subject: Letter of Support For Utility Franchise Bill HF 1450 /SF 1490 14A 1 �y Le �t Agenda Item #: VIII. D. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Action Requested: Authorize the City Manager to compose and distribute a letter of support for proposed legislation HF 1450 /SF 1490. Information / Background: I have been in discussion with representatives from the City of Minneapolis concerning proposed legislation they are backing that would enable city governments to require energy efficiency goals for Public Utilities Commission - regulated utilities in municipal franchise agreements. The City of Minneapolis has worked with its legislative delegation to produce two bills which are currently under consideration at the Legislature: House File 1450 and companion bill Senate File 1490. A summary of the proposal is as follows: Bill Summary for HF 1450 Dehn, Hornstein, Allen, Bly (Companion bill is SF 1490 Dziedzic, Champion and Marty) HF 1450 modifies the conditions under which a municipality and a utility may enter into a franchise agreement. The following elements must be included in franchise agreement unless the municipality agrees to not include them. 1. The utility must commit to energy efficiency measures that will be taken in the municipality. These may include transmission and delivery system efficiency improvements. Neither increased rates nor special tariffs may be used to offset losses due to reduced use caused by efficiency measures. 2. The utility must describe the procedures and policies related to connecting alternative energy sources and these procedures must be as simple, timely and cost effective as possible. 3. The utility must annually submit an infrastructure maintenance plan that is sufficient to ensure system reliability. 4. The utility must describe how its activities in the municipality relate to its compliance with state energy goa Is. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 5. The utility must provide quarterly reports on system reliability and identify the least reliable circuits. 6. The bill also provides for financial recourse for a municipality if a franchise agreement cannot be reached. If the City Council is supportive of this legislation, I will compose a letter of support on your behalf and distribute it to our legislative delegation and the City of Minneapolis. ✓It To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL From: Scott H. Neal, City Manager o Le �t� 18H9 Agenda Item #: VIII.E. Action Discussion ❑ Date: April 2, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Ordinance No. 2013 -4 Amending Chapter 4 Concerning Demolition Permits for Single and Double Dwelling Units Action Requested: Adopt first reading of Ordinance 2013 -3. Information / Background: At its February 19 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff and City Attorney to review the City's "Construction Management Plan" (CMP) document and procedures in order to evaluate the overall use and effectiveness of the CMP in regulating residential redevelopment projects. City staff and City Attorney Knutson produced a draft of a proposed new ordinance that I distributed to the Council at the end of the March 5 Council meeting and informed the Council of my intent to advance the ordinance to the Council for adoption at the March 19 Council meeting. At the March 19 Work Session and Council meeting, Council Members shared their input and feedback with City staff and City Attorney concerning the proposed new ordinance (Ordinance No. 2013 -3) and directed staff to prepare a new draft of the ordinance that incorporated that feedback. City staff and City Attorney embraced the Council's direction and have produced a new draft of proposed Ordinance No. 2013 -3 which includes the following changes from the draft Council reviewed on March 19: • Clarified which provisions apply to building permits, which apply to demolition permits and which apply to both building and demolition permits • Edited definition of "demolition" • Reduced insurance requirement from two million to one million • Deleted letter of credit requirement for $10,000 and replaced with a $2,500 cash escrow • City not applicant takes photos • Deleted requirement that neighborhood meeting be at City Hall • Changed work hours from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday to Friday to 7a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday • Misc. wording changes The Council also provided input to me on my proposed plan to focus the City's new enforcement duties into a single new fulltime enforcement employee (F,TE) who would be charged with coordinating all aspects of City of Edina • 4801 W. 50t� St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 the residential redevelopment process for builders, potential new residents, current residents and City staff. I estimated the cost of this new enforcement initiative to be approximately $100,000 per year. In order to fund this new FTE, I recommended the City increase the price of the demolition permit from its current price of approximately $200 to $1,500. While there appeared to be unanimous support for the increase in the price of the permit, Council also asked me to consider a wider range of options for the implementation of the new enforcement strategy. I am actively working on that request with our Human Resources Department. We will examine not only the option of a new FTE, but also various forms of outsourcing the service, including possible joint service agreements with other cities. There's no doubt in my mind that this ordinance is not perfect. However, I think there's also no doubt that this ordinance is an improvement on the City's current regulatory powers over residential redevelopment. I recommend the Council give strong consideration to adopting Ordinance 2013 -3 at the April 2 Council meeting in order to provide staff sufficient time to inform area builders, developers, realtors, construction contractors and our residents of the new ordinance and enforcement strategy. The sooner we can get started with that educational process, the better compliance we will have during what we all believe is going to be a very busy home construction season in Edina. 1�r ORDINANCE NO. 2013-3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 4 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING DEMOLITION PERMITS AND BUILDING PERMITS FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 4 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding Section 411 to read: Section 411— DEMOLITION PERMITS AND BUILDING PERMITS FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS 411.01 Purpose. Both the demolition of single or two family dwelling units and the construction of new dwelling units can disrupt the quietude of the neighborhood, damage adjacent public and private property, create storm water and erosion problems, and result in littering and other nuisances. The purpose of this Section is to prevent problems associated with the demolition of single and two family dwelling units and the construction of new dwellings. 411.02 Definitions. The following words and terms, whenever they occur in this Section, are defined as follows. Demolition: The removal or destruction of more than fifty percent (50 %) of the area of the exterior walls of a single or two family dwelling unit. Building Permit: A permit to construct a new single or two family dwelling unit. 411.03 Permits. The demolition of single or two family dwelling units is prohibited without a permit issued by the Building Official pursuant to this Section. The construction of single or two family dwelling units is prohibited without a building permit issued by the Building Official pursuant to this Section and Section 410 of the City Code. 411.04 Permit Application. The applicant must complete the application forms provided by the City, pay the permit fee in the amount set forth in section 185 of the City Code, deposit the cash escrow and furnish all other documents and reports required for the permit. The application must be signed by the property owner or the owner's authorized agent. 411.05 Permit Requirements. Unless otherwise specifically provided the following are required for both demolition permits and building permits. Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Page 2 Subd. 1 The applicant must furnish the City with a certificate of insurance evidencing the following required coverage: Commercial general liability, including XCU coverage: Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate products and completed operations Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate Comprehensive Automobile Liability (owned, non - owned, hired): Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 each accident Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence The minimum insurance coverage must be maintained until six (6) months after the demolition has been completed or, if a new dwelling is being constructed, a certificate of occupancy has been issued. The City must be named as an additional insured. Subd. 2 The applicant must furnish the City a cash escrow of Two Thousand Five Hundred ($2,500) Dollars. A single escrow is required for both a demolition permit and building permit. The City may draw on the cash escrow to reimburse the City for the repair of damage to public property or to remedy permit violations. If the City draws on the cash escrow, upon the City's demand the permit holder must deposit in escrow additional funds to restore the escrowed amount to Two Thousand Five Hundred ($2,500) Dollars. The cash escrow must remain in place until the work under the permit for which the escrow was made has been completed. Subd. 3 Based upon soil types, topography, the location of adjacent structures and other pertinent information, the Building Official shall determine if a soils investigation report is necessary. If the Building Official determines that a soils report is necessary, the applicant shall have a soil report prepared and signed by a licensed professional soil scientist or licensed professional engineer. The report must provide detailed plans to ensure that adjacent property will not be damaged by reducing lateral support for driveways, foundations, fences or lawns caused by excavation, demolition or construction activity. The report must be approved by the Building Official. The permit holder must adhere to the approved plan. Subd. 4 Before a permit is issued, the Building Official must photograph the existing condition of the property, curbs, sidewalks, streets, boulevard and trees adjacent to the property. Subd. 5 For a demolition permit, at least fifteen (15) days before demolition commences, the permit holder must provide written notification to all property owners Doc. #168978v.7 RNK: 03/26/2013 Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Page 3 within three hundred (300) feet of the demolition site notifying the property owners of the proposed demolition and building plans, if applicable, and invite them to a neighborhood meeting. The neighborhood meeting must be held at least five (5) days before demolition commences. A sign must also be posted on the demolition site at least five (5) days before demolition commences identifying the nature of the demolition, the permit holder, a contact name and phone number, and the site address. The sign must also provide a City phone number to call with any questions, complaints or concerns. The dimension of the sign must be between five (5) and six (6) square feet. The sign must be kept in place until the completion of demolition. Subd. 6 For a building permit, a sign must be posted on the permit site at least five (5) days before construction commences identifying the nature of the construction, the permit holder, a contact name and phone number, and the site address. The sign must also provide a City phone number to call with any questions, complaints or concerns. The dimension of the sign must be between five (5) and six (6) square feet. The sign must be kept in place until a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Subd. 7 For a building permit, the applicant must submit stormwater and erosion control plans prepared and signed by a licensed professional engineer. The plans must be approved by the City Engineer and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. The stormwater management plan must detail how stormwater will be controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage system. The erosion control plan must document how proper erosion and sediment control will be maintained on a continual basis to contain on -site erosion and protect on and off -site vegetation. Permit holder must protect all storm drain inlets with sediment capture devices at all time during the project when soil disturbing activities may result in sediment laden storm water runoff entering the inlet. The permit holder is responsible for preventing or minimizing the potential for unsafe conditions, flooding, or siltation problems. Devices must be regularly cleaned out and emergency overflow must be an integral part of the device to reduce the flooding potential. Devices must be placed to prevent the creation of driving hazards or obstructions. 411.06 Permit Standards for Both Demolition Permits and Building Permits. Subd. 1 The permit holder must comply with the State Building Code, State Statutes and the City Code, including City Code Sections 410, 415, 425 and 830. Subd. 2 Deliveries of equipment and material to the site, work crews on site and construction and demolition activity are prohibited except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Subd. 3 The permit holder must repair any damage to public property, streets, and sidewalks. If damage occurs to the foregoing, it must be repaired within three (3) working days after the damage occurs, unless the permit holder has received written permission from the Building Official to delay repairs to a later specified date. Doc. #168978v.7 RNK: 03/26/2013 Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Page 4 Subd. 4 The permit holder must maintain a five -foot (5') parking setback from driveways and a thirty-foot (30') parking setback from intersections. When parking on a street, a vehicle must be completely located on the street surface, parallel to and within twelve (12) inches of the curb. Vehicles in violation of these requirements may be towed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 168B.035. On street parking of equipment other than licensed motor vehicles is prohibited. Stopping, standing or parking a vehicle is prohibited, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic control device, in any of the following places: On a boulevard between the sidewalk and roadway; b. Within five (5) feet of the intersection of any public or private driveway or alley with any street or highway; C. Where the vehicle will block a fire escape or the exit from any building; d. Where temporary signs prohibit parking. Parking is allowed on local streets if a twelve -foot (12') wide area is open for the traveled portion of the road. On collector and arterial roadways, a minimum of twenty - two feet (22') must be open for the traveled portion of the road. Off - street and off -site parking for on site workers is required to the extent practicable. Subd. 5 The permit holder must install and maintain a rock entrance pad or its equivalent at each location where vehicles enter or exit the construction site, at locations approved by the Building Official. Subd. 6 The site must be maintained in a neat and orderly condition. Prior to leaving the construction site at the end of each day, the permit holder must remove empty cans, paper, plastic and other material that is not needed for construction from the site or deposit them in a dumpster. The permit holder must keep, streets, sidewalks, boulevard areas and adjacent properties clean from waste, materials or refuse resulting from operations on the site. Inoperable equipment and equipment not being used on the site must be removed within twenty four (24) hours after it becomes inoperable or is no longer in use. Where work on any project lies within areas of pedestrian traffic or vehicular traffic, the project area must be cleaned and swept and all materials related to the project must be stockpiled in appropriate areas. Debris must be contained on the project site. No material may be deposited or stockpiled on the public streets, boulevards, sidewalks or adjacent property. At the end of each working day, the permit holder must remove any soil, trash or debris that washed or was deposited on any public sidewalk or street and must remove any trash or debris that washed or was deposited on any adjacent property. Subd. 7 Dust control is the responsibility of the permit holder. The permit holder must eliminate dust problems within one (1) hour of receiving notice from the Building Official that there is a dust problem. Doc. #168978v.7 RNK: 03/26/2013 Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Page 5 Subd. 8 No building material, temporary sanitary facilities, dumpster or equipment may be placed within street right -of -way, or on a sidewalk. Motor vehicles may not be parked or stopped on a sidewalk. Public sidewalks must be left open and unobstructed at all.times. Subd. 9 Prior to commencing demolition, protective fencing approved by the Building Official must be installed around boulevard trees'and trees that will not be removed. 411.07 Stop Work Orders. If the Building Official finds any work being performed, in a dangerous or unsafe manner or that is in violation of the provisions of the permit; City Code or the State Building Code, the Building Official may issue a stop work`order. The stop work order must be in writing and lissued to the.permit holder or the person doing the work.: Upon issuance of a stop work order, the cited work must immediately cease. The stop work order must state the reason forthe order and the conditions under which the cited work will be permittedto resume. 411.08 Misdemeanor. Violations of this Section or of tfie terms of approval of a permit issued under this Section are a misdemeanor. Section 2. Chapter 1 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding the following fee: section subsection purpose offee or.charee amount 411 411.03 demolition permit for single $1,500.00 and two family dwelling units Section 3: This ordinance is effective upon passage. This ordinance does not apply to applications that have been approved or that are pending before its effective date. 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 Doc. #168978v.7 RNK: 03/26/2013 James B. Hovland, Mayor rk O i� YroRPOi:A� °' yeas / To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VIII.F. From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action x❑ Discussion 0 Date: April 2, 2013 . Information Subject: Consideration of Revisions to the approved plans for Southdale Apartments Action Requested: Approve the attached revisions, or send the request for full review and recommendation to the Planning Commission. If the item is referred to the Planning Commission, the City Council would then review the project as a new Site Plan with Variances and Conditional Use Permit following the Planning Commission recommendation. If the item is referred back to the Planning The applicant would still have the right to build the previously approved project. Information / Background: This item was continued at the last City Council meeting for the applicant to revise the plans based on City Council recommendations. ATTACHMENTS: Previous plans considered by the Council on March 19, 2013 Revised plans submitted by the applicant date stamped March 28, 2013 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50" St. • Edina, MN 55424 BKV G R O U P Architecture Interior Design Engineering Boa man Kroos Vogel Group Inc. Memorandum PROJECT: Southdale Place COMM. NO.: 1884.01 DATE: 3/27/2013 RE: Design Change Narrative In response to the City Council comments on March 19, BKV has been working to re- capture the spirit of the original exterior design. Certain changes are inevitable as all aspects of design evolve, but the essence of the original intent must emerge. The major categories of re- design focus are outlined below. Lightness. We have re- worked some of our unit plans in order to free up exterior wall area for more windows. Our percentage of glazing has increased by approximately 25% since the 3/19 meeting. We have also increased the amount of silver metal panel to lighten the overall appearance. Proportions. We have re- proportioned windows and doors in order to emphasize the vertical. Double terrace doors have been changed to triple, as in the original design. The wood panel has been re- worked closer to its original proportions and energy. Entry. The entry/lobby volume has been raised and the pattern of glass to wood panels has been re- established. The form has changed from curvilinear to angular for constructability and compatibility with other design elements, but the light, airy, sculptural essence of the lobby is revitalized. 3 -story. Building C. While the form has changed from curvilinear to angular and the townhomes have been removed, the proportions and materials of the 3 -story structure have been re- worked to more closely resemble the original intent. The projecting wood clad forms have been raised to capture the upper level terraces. This will re- establish some of the volumetric play that was formerly present. The stone base has been enhanced to more closely resemble the original design, but the garages have been replaced with dwelling units and the townhouse access drive has been replaced with landscaping. We feel this change to the first floor of the 3 -story building greatly enhances the overall pedestrian environment and the relationship of building C to the landscape. Site. Sidewalk on the south side of the mall exit has been added back, as have the 3 requested crosswalk striping patterns on the east, west, and south sides of the intersection on the north end of the site closest to Cub Foods. [MEOWlE D 19 4i NO �6��U WINDOW AND DOOR PROPORTIONS CHANGED TO EMPHASIZE VERTICALITY, ADDITIONAL WINDOWS ADDED TO CREATE VERTICAL "COLUMNS" AND INCREASE % OF GLAZING, TRIPLE PATIO DOORS AND METAL PANEL SPANDRELS BROUGHT BACK ENTRY RAISED TO 20', GLASS AND WOOD PANELS REFINED TO BRING BACK TALLER VERTICAL EXPRESSION, REVISED PROJECTED CANOPY ADDS FLAIR RETURN TO ORIGINAL DESIGN OF BUILDING B EAST ELEVATION '9 'I�l IIt it" fill Eli, 0 I !is :�• !1' SSTUARTCO Southdale Place Residential Deveiopnnent 03.27.13 BKV Southdale Place Residential Development 03.05.13 BKV +r Southdale Place Residential Development 03.05.13 BKV Southdale Place Residential Development 03.05.1 3 BKV South�--.1,1e Place Residential Development 03.05.13 BKV Southdale Place Residential Development 03.27.13 BKV Southdale Place Residential Development 03.27.13 BKV Southdale Place Residential Developmearit 03.27.13 B K V Southdelo Place Residential 03.27.13 B K V Southdale Place Residential Development 03.27.13 BKV R :PORT / R : C®MM :�NDATIOO N 9ZriA, 1 o Ce� Cn c f�cORPORI`T� e IAAA Toi MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VIII.G From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action ❑ Discussion nx Date: 'March 19, 2013 Information Subject: Consideration of Revisions to the approved plans for Southdale Apartments Action Requested: Approve the attached revisions, or send the request for full review and recommendation to the Planning Commission. If the item is referred to the Planning Commission, the City Council would then take final action as a revised Site Plan, following the Planning Commission recommendation. Information / Background: The applicant is requesting some revisions to the approved plans for the Southdale Apartments. (See attached - narrative explaining the revisions in detail.).The highlights of the revisions include: ➢ Elimination of the York Avenue intersection improvements. Applicant has stated that a pedestrian crossing on York would be added, but is not shown on the proposed plan. ➢ Revising Building B from 6 stories to 5 stories. ➢ Revising Building C from 4 stories to 3 stories. Building C becomes apartment style housing rather than 2 story townhomes. ➢ Enhanced landscaping replaces the drive aisles behind Building C. ➢ Changed pervious pavers on surface drives — now bituminous. City of Edina • 4801 W. SO St. • Edina, MN 55424 F BK \ / Memorandum G R O U P PROJECT: One Southdale Place COMM. NO.: 1884.01 Architecture Interior Design DATE: March 4, 2013 Engineering RE: Clarifications and Revisions update to City of Edina Boarnnan Kroos Vogel Group Inc Below reflects a comprehensive list of layout and configuration changes that were implemented to adhere to conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission and City Council. Our goal was to remain true to, or enhance, the original approvals. The essence and spirit of the design remains, showcasing more cost - effective implementation efforts. Siteworlc Revisions (numbers are coordinated with plan): 1. Added significant landscape buffering and pedestrian paths /connections by removing drive, aprons and curb /gutter on the west (Mall) side of Building C 2. Added a sidewalk connection north to Transit Station 3. Added crosswalk indicator (to be finalized with City of Edina) to Westin & Galleria across 69`". 4. Reconstructed parking lot island to create a green pedestrian connection to Southdale Mall 5. Eliminated boardwalk "bridges" over rain gardens 6. Revised and improved courtyard design 7. Offering one pedestrian crossing on south side of intersection (pending County approval) in lieu of full intersection reconstruction on York Ave, due to elimination of secondary north entry to underground parking. B. Reduced maximum berm height to 6 feet 9. Changed pervious pavers on surface drives — now bituminous 10. Upgraded entrance turnaround to concrete for longer -term viability. Paver walk still surrounds turnaround Building Revisions(numbers are coordinated with plan): I. .Change of shape for Building C from curvilinear to segmented. Form remains similar. 2. Parking garage efficiency enhanced by upgrading layout from curvilinear to _. segmented. Total Garage & Surface Stalls: 327 stalls previously, 338 currently. 3. Walls of I "floor Lobby and Club Room changed from curvilinear to segmented 4. Northerly parking garage access ramp was eliminated due to enhancements in parking efficiency 5. Reduced height of Building B by one story from 6 to 5 stories. Construction type went from 5 -story wood on I -story concrete above grade, to 5 -story wood type III -B construction. 6. Reduced height of Building C courtyard, taking it from 4 -story wood type V -A to 3 -story wood type V -B construction. Eliminated green roofs from roof of 3- story building due to change in unit type from 2 -story townhomes and garages with roof access to stacked flats. q,\ 1884 -01 \I \cor \dd clarifications memo to city 022513_dmm.doc PRWECT SUMMARY FLOOR TOTAL 3 R O U P 'm. BOOR' TR ROM RWR T= I a. I a. 1;5 "M Building Revisions SVIVDING FOOTPRINT Ss,s95 Glow Sikewerk Revisions (numbers are coordinated with Rc plan): 1. Added significant landscape buffering and 2z2 NRrth Se=w — Pedestrian path4/connections by removing drive, aprons +s—pmK N M 55-1 TekO—. 612 -339 -3752 and curb/gutter on the west (Mall) side of Building C '9mNk 612- 339 -6212 _.b tN group. com SS.S s FLOOR AREA �• TI I µsly u,ssa µs9s µSN ]IAaf a >,a•> a•.af> Ia,Rll V.AI 11.9.1 I IAtI aR0.19a Y DWELLIK UNITS 7. Dffemlg one pedestrian crossing on south side of intersection (pending County approval) in lieu of full in- tersection reconstruction on York Ave due to elimination of secondary north entry to underground parking. Southdale Housing 8. Reduced mapmum berm height to 6 feet 9. Changed pervious pavers on surface ass urns FARMING -SITE PARKING- 1O10NN011c 77. SI Iw��l > 51AL�s ^Karl PERNOUs •1s>O Y LOT SRE y (s.I soxl usT OENSITV aai wR / a.al.cns FLOOR AIIU RAID }ST.Iw M / oiler M .Y (I'I� /e KmN) previously Approved Plan' Building Revisions(numbers are coordinated with plan): P ): 1. Change of shape for Building C from ""— c.-IR. earto segmented. Farm remalns sirrilar. ING 2. Parldng garage efficiency enhanced by upgradinglayoldfmmcurvilineartosegmented. Total Garage 8 Surface Stags: 321 stalls previously. 338 �b6 curn.Ysfy 3. Walls of 1 st floor Lobby and Club Room changed from curnlinear to segmented 203'so , a, R 4. Northerly parking garage access ramp was dimmated due to enhancements in parking efficiency 5. Reduced height of Building 8 by one story from 6 to 5 SITE N-AN stones. Construction type wend from 5 -story wood on 1 -story concrete above grade, to 5 -story wood type III -B construcdan. 6. Reduced height of Building C courtyard, taking d from 4 -story wood type V -A to 3 -story wood Eliminated L100 rood or 3 -story twilling due to chanen unit type from 2 -story townfromes and garages with roof access to stacked flats. BKV 3 R O U P Site Revisions laMsmpe A,bikeeee ^rIg ee.Lrr.R Building Revisions Vailla Glow Sikewerk Revisions (numbers are coordinated with Rc plan): 1. Added significant landscape buffering and 2z2 NRrth Se=w — Pedestrian path4/connections by removing drive, aprons +s—pmK N M 55-1 TekO—. 612 -339 -3752 and curb/gutter on the west (Mall) side of Building C '9mNk 612- 339 -6212 _.b tN group. com 2. Added a sidewalk connection north to Transit Station 3. Added crosswalk indicator (to be finalized with City of Edina) to Westin & Galleria across 69th. 4. Reconstructed panting Im island to create a green pedestrian connection to Southdale Mall 5. Eliminated boardwalk 'bridges' over rain gardens 6. Revised and improved courtyard design 7. Dffemlg one pedestrian crossing on south side of intersection (pending County approval) in lieu of full in- tersection reconstruction on York Ave due to elimination of secondary north entry to underground parking. Southdale Housing 8. Reduced mapmum berm height to 6 feet 9. Changed pervious pavers on surface rimes - now bituminous 10. Upgraded entrance turnaround to concrete for lon- ger- term viability. Paver walk still surrounds turnaround Building Revisions(numbers are coordinated with plan): P ): 1. Change of shape for Building C from ""— c.-IR. earto segmented. Farm remalns sirrilar. ING 2. Parldng garage efficiency enhanced by upgradinglayoldfmmcurvilineartosegmented. Total Garage 8 Surface Stags: 321 stalls previously. 338 �b6 curn.Ysfy 3. Walls of 1 st floor Lobby and Club Room changed from curnlinear to segmented 203'so , a, R 4. Northerly parking garage access ramp was dimmated due to enhancements in parking efficiency 5. Reduced height of Building 8 by one story from 6 to 5 SITE N-AN stones. Construction type wend from 5 -story wood on 1 -story concrete above grade, to 5 -story wood type III -B construcdan. 6. Reduced height of Building C courtyard, taking d from 4 -story wood type V -A to 3 -story wood Eliminated L100 rood or 3 -story twilling due to chanen unit type from 2 -story townfromes and garages with roof access to stacked flats. ��D�mmm�mOm�mf� ®moo ■� ■� ■ ■ ■��® i NEY NOTES BKV GM G R O U P p..sue w......•.,_ � .�,.........,.., _,.a,..,, r...«. C a- Place gyC), •.,r,•�.«.,....,.r �,...... .� O r. �.a .. r.. Mu apo6 M 55101 U-0— 612 -739 -1752 F•oiWC 612 - 779 -6112 ww.Dkvgroup. can LEGEND s M. D ff'- p4'c A IQ L"i s e, 1i I i ]��:V'Si•:_ -blF \ � Yl it - — � I e •� WEST 69Th STREET - SITE PLAN TAN O O O O o LI00 AA Legend Site Revisions Building Revisions Sitewark Revisions (numbers are coordinated with plan): 1. Added significant landscape buffering and pedestrian paths/connections by removing drive, aprons and curb/gutter on the west (Mall) side of Building C 2. Added a sidewalk connection north to Transit Station 3. Added crosswalk indicator (to be finalized with City of Edina) to Westin & Gallena across 69th. 4. Reconstructed paridng lot island to create a green pedestrian connection to SouBdale Mall 5. Eliminated boardwalk'bndges' over rain gardens 6. Revised and improved courtyard design 7. Offering one pedestrian crossing on south side of intersection (pending County approval) in lieu of full s, tersection reconstruction on York Ave due to elimination of secondary north entry to underground parking. 6. Reduced mardmum berm height to 6 feet 9. Changed pervious pavers on surface drives - now biturrinous 10. Upgraded entrance turnaround to concrete for lon- ger- term viability. Paver walk still surrounds turnaround Building Revisions(numbers are coordinated with Ian F, Ghange of shape for Building C from curvilmearto segmented. Form remains similar. 2. Parking garage efficiency enhanced by upgrading layout from curvilinear to segmented. Total Garage & Surface Stalls: 327 stalls previously, 338 currently 3. Walls of 1 st floor Lobby and Club Room changed from curvilinear to segmented 4. Northerly parking garage access ramp was ellmnated due to enhancements in parking efficiency 5. Reduced height of Building B by one story from 6 to 5 stories. Construction type went from 5-story wood on 1 -stay concrete above grade, to 5 -story wood type III -B construction 6. Reduced height of Building C courtyard. tatting it from 4 -stay wood type V -A to 3-story wood type V -B construction Eliminated green rods from roof of 3-story buildup due to change in unit type from 2 -stay townhomes and garages with roof access to stacked flats. BKV GM G R O U P e AnshAesture C a- Place II �® I� 122 North S—J Street Mu apo6 M 55101 U-0— 612 -739 -1752 F•oiWC 612 - 779 -6112 ww.Dkvgroup. can 1i I i ]��:V'Si•:_ -blF \ � Yl it - — � I e •� WEST 69Th STREET - SITE PLAN TAN O O O O o LI00 AA Legend Site Revisions Building Revisions Sitewark Revisions (numbers are coordinated with plan): 1. Added significant landscape buffering and pedestrian paths/connections by removing drive, aprons and curb/gutter on the west (Mall) side of Building C 2. Added a sidewalk connection north to Transit Station 3. Added crosswalk indicator (to be finalized with City of Edina) to Westin & Gallena across 69th. 4. Reconstructed paridng lot island to create a green pedestrian connection to SouBdale Mall 5. Eliminated boardwalk'bndges' over rain gardens 6. Revised and improved courtyard design 7. Offering one pedestrian crossing on south side of intersection (pending County approval) in lieu of full s, tersection reconstruction on York Ave due to elimination of secondary north entry to underground parking. 6. Reduced mardmum berm height to 6 feet 9. Changed pervious pavers on surface drives - now biturrinous 10. Upgraded entrance turnaround to concrete for lon- ger- term viability. Paver walk still surrounds turnaround Building Revisions(numbers are coordinated with Ian F, Ghange of shape for Building C from curvilmearto segmented. Form remains similar. 2. Parking garage efficiency enhanced by upgrading layout from curvilinear to segmented. Total Garage & Surface Stalls: 327 stalls previously, 338 currently 3. Walls of 1 st floor Lobby and Club Room changed from curvilinear to segmented 4. Northerly parking garage access ramp was ellmnated due to enhancements in parking efficiency 5. Reduced height of Building B by one story from 6 to 5 stories. Construction type went from 5-story wood on 1 -stay concrete above grade, to 5 -story wood type III -B construction 6. Reduced height of Building C courtyard. tatting it from 4 -stay wood type V -A to 3-story wood type V -B construction Eliminated green rods from roof of 3-story buildup due to change in unit type from 2 -stay townhomes and garages with roof access to stacked flats. e DaeloP- e Ore Southdale Place II �® 1i I i ]��:V'Si•:_ -blF \ � Yl it - — � I e •� WEST 69Th STREET - SITE PLAN TAN O O O O o LI00 AA Legend Site Revisions Building Revisions Sitewark Revisions (numbers are coordinated with plan): 1. Added significant landscape buffering and pedestrian paths/connections by removing drive, aprons and curb/gutter on the west (Mall) side of Building C 2. Added a sidewalk connection north to Transit Station 3. Added crosswalk indicator (to be finalized with City of Edina) to Westin & Gallena across 69th. 4. Reconstructed paridng lot island to create a green pedestrian connection to SouBdale Mall 5. Eliminated boardwalk'bndges' over rain gardens 6. Revised and improved courtyard design 7. Offering one pedestrian crossing on south side of intersection (pending County approval) in lieu of full s, tersection reconstruction on York Ave due to elimination of secondary north entry to underground parking. 6. Reduced mardmum berm height to 6 feet 9. Changed pervious pavers on surface drives - now biturrinous 10. Upgraded entrance turnaround to concrete for lon- ger- term viability. Paver walk still surrounds turnaround Building Revisions(numbers are coordinated with Ian F, Ghange of shape for Building C from curvilmearto segmented. Form remains similar. 2. Parking garage efficiency enhanced by upgrading layout from curvilinear to segmented. Total Garage & Surface Stalls: 327 stalls previously, 338 currently 3. Walls of 1 st floor Lobby and Club Room changed from curvilinear to segmented 4. Northerly parking garage access ramp was ellmnated due to enhancements in parking efficiency 5. Reduced height of Building B by one story from 6 to 5 stories. Construction type went from 5-story wood on 1 -stay concrete above grade, to 5 -story wood type III -B construction 6. Reduced height of Building C courtyard. tatting it from 4 -stay wood type V -A to 3-story wood type V -B construction Eliminated green rods from roof of 3-story buildup due to change in unit type from 2 -stay townhomes and garages with roof access to stacked flats. Southdale Residential Development Land Use Application, Pac.kage - o919 1 -9 City of Edina, Minnesota B K B K Southdale Residential Development Land Use Application Package - 09.12.12 Southdale Residential Development Land Use Application Package - 09.12.12 c- K,j`! Southdale Residential Development .and Dse �Applicatidn Package - 09.E Z. B_ KLv ,,,rid Use Appl.ication Package - 09.12.12 BKV \2© \ \ \SOuƒhda |O Reside\ / \1 Development :.. � � 2.■ �� \� |! ® � � f\ f s [ | . w u dfill Land Use Application Package - dq.12.� /� f.,/��: §� }�.f © © } \! ■. : °■• | /i, 00� | } } / Land Use Application Package - dq.12.� /� os.osAs BKV I Iacs '�Rmidontial Development 03.05.13 B K V Southdale Place Residential Development 03.05.1 3 B K V To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: April 2, 2013 Subject: CORRESPONDENCE Action Requested: Attached is correspondence received since the last Council Meeting. No action is requested. �r A A O e A Cn lass Agenda Item #: IX. A. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information SRI CONSULADO DE CARRERA DE MhaCO EN SAINT PAUL Mayor James B. Hovland The City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St., Edina, MN 55424 B"I" Consulado de Mexico Saint Paul, Minnesota Saint Paul, Minnesota, on March 21St of 2013 Dear ovland, As we know, not all good things last forever and now it is time for me to return to Mexico to continue working for a better present and future. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Jose Antonio Meade Kuribrena, has appointed me as the new Director General for North America, a position I will proudly begin this April 1st. After almost five years of living in this wonderful state, it is difficult to say goodbye. The people of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and of northern Wisconsin; their government, their academia, their social and cultural organizations, and their enterprises, showed me an efficient and kind world. I am sincerely grateful for this as it allowed us to reach many goals and develop new challenges. The Mexican people who live in these states and who contribute everyday to their growth.through_ their work, their culture, and their traditions, taught me to tightly embrace new stories, always keeping strong ties with our beloved Mexico. Thank you to all and each one of you for your, support in representing Mexico with dignity and commitment and for being an important part of my professional.and personal growth. I will miss you all deeply. You may always reach me at this email: afajer @sre..gob.mx Respectfully, JAA.n.a Luisa Fajer Consul of Mexico. 797 East 7th Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55106. , Tels.: (651) 771 5494 http://wR-w.sre.gob.mx/saintpaL[I/ '.A Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:12 PM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Apathy Project 2013 LLv. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist �El 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno(cDEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov y' For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Ellen Pflaster jmailto: ellenpl8816 Ccbapps.edina.kl2.mn.usl Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:04 PM To: Edina Mail; jonibennett12Ca)comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshspraQue(s)edinarealty.com; swensonannl(&gmail.com Cc: Jennifer Buckley Subject: Apathy Project 2013 Dear Mr. Hovland, Mr. Sprague, Ms. Brindle, Ms. Bennett, and Ms. Swenson, Our 7 °i grade Language Arts class at South View Middle School has been studying apathy for the past month. We've been asked to investigate a topic that the average person is apathetic toward, and come up with a solution. Our topic is tree conservation, and we focused more specifically on conservation at homebuilding sites. After collecting data through an online survey, taking pictures, and analyzing the tree situation in Edina, we've come up with a potential solution. We hope you can join us, as we'd like to share the solution with you all. On April I Ith, from 11:45 to 12:10, we'll be presenting in Dragseth Auditorium at South View Middle School. If you cannot attend, we'd be pleased to send you a link to our presentation. However, you can help us put a tree conservation ordinance in place, which is our final goal. Thank you for considering our offer. We hope to see you on the 1 l `I'! Sincerely, Julia F. and Ellen P. 4725 South View Ln. Edina, MN 55424 James B. Hovland, Mayor City of Edina 4801 West 50�' Street Edina, MN 55424 1 Re: New Water Meters Dear Mayor Hovland, On February 21, 2013, Ferguson Waterworks installed a new water meter in my home at the direction of the City of Edina. The City had indicated this installation was mandatory and the installer assured me that the new meter would not present any risk to members of my household. Since the installation of the new water meter in my home, a concerned neighbor referenced the February 14, 2013 Edina Sun Current `Letters to the Editor" item written by Erin Angelats. The contents of Ms. Angelats letter are alarming. a I do not.have the time, expertise or financial resources to meaningfully research the claims of Ms. Angelats. I am thus requesting written assurance from you, the owner of the company manufacturing the new water meter and an unbiased authority on electromagnetic frequency (EMF) as it pertains to the new water meters, that the new water meters will present no risk to me and my family. Thank you in advance, for ensuring the health, safety and peace -of -mind of the residents of the City of Edina. Sincerely, udith A. Wryk Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:12 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Mayor Hovland and City Council Members - Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 IbiunnoCilEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: LOIS RING [mailto:llydesigns @msn.com1 Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:41 AM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Mayor Hovland and City Council Members Re: Lunds /Byerlys Apartment Project Rather than attend the hearing on the above project I choose to write to express my concerns. I watched the March 19 meeting on Channel 16. The exterior of.the Byerly's store appears to be very well designed and has a pleasant skin from the sketches and description. However, my concerns are for the apartment buildings especially since they are planned so close to the Edina Promenade. I heard in the description that the exterior will be part metal panels. I urge you to tour other buildings (so there will not be any surprises with the end result) with the same materials to ensure that the exterior skin will be of the highest quality and appearance. There may be some other exterior material with more appeal for this very visible to the eye location for the many users of the Promenade. Thank you. Lois Ring 7440 Edinborough Way Edina MN 55435 March 25, 2013 Dr. Frank Wei, MD 6600 Naomi Drive Edina, MN 55439 RE: Letter to the Mayor dated March 18 Dear Dr. Wei: Thank you for your letter sent to the Mayor regarding sidewalks along W 66"' St. The recent approval of the Pedestrian and Cyclists Safety fund will enable the City to properly plan and implement a sidewalk such as the one you are suggesting. The City is currently hiring a Transportation Planner. The first goal of the Transportation Planner will be to refine the current sidewalk master plan, prioritize the missing gaps, and then coordinate an implementation plan. The sidewalk you are referring is currently on our master plan, see attached. We are anticipating the master plan and prioritization to be completed in 2013. Our new Transportation Planner- will contact you for input when we start to analyze this area of the City. Thank you again for you letter and please contact me at 952- 826 -0443 or at whoule c� ci.edina.mn.us if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Engineering Enclosure C: Mayor and City Council Scott Neal — City Manager G: IPWWDMINYCOMMVEXTERNAL',GENEFAL CORR BY STREETSW Svc \2000375 WH -Edlna to 6600 Na W Dr.doc _ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www,EdinaMN.gov a 952 -826 -0371 -Fax 952 - 826 -0392 f. bn NO OOy al F. NO'R'TIl 0 im fr HOD F I 7 • 69 FJ- L @ rV U rah \. �— _�� - — — 4 —I tll V Lqj T7 • -47' /;� ir F F- LEGEND: Existing Proposed School/ Proposed Sidewalk Business Sidewalk State-Ald Sidewalk Note: Park Pathways are included on F City of Edina Sidewalk Facilities 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Figure 7.10 March 18, 2013 Mayor Jim Hovland. City of Edina 4801 West,50th St Edina, MU55424 Dear Mayor Hovland: Congratulations on your re- election! I read your column in the latest Winter 2013 About Town. I agree with initiative that Edina is working on to improve our network of sidewalks and trails. This encourages the health and wellness of our citizens and a'sense of community and connectivity. I live at the bottom of W 661h St. right across from Normandale Park. So many people, including myself, walk for exercise, and there are many active walkers who are forced to walk in the street on 66th to get to Cornelia Park or conversely to Normandale Park. We have two great facilities at either end ... the city pool and a recreational park that has an ice rink and tennis /basketball courts at the other end. It has always confounded me as to why there is a sidewalk on the bridge that crosses over Hwy 100, but then suddenly stops. There is a lot of traffic on 66th which warrants a sidewalk to allow community members to walk/bike safely to get up or down the hill just west of Hwy 100 on 66th. Adults and children are essentially segregated' by this lack of a safety lane from crossing Hwy 100. This is especially true during the winter or at sunset when the low sun makes visibility difficult heading west. Likewise if you follow proper precautions and walk west opposing traffic, cars barreling up the hill can't.see pedestrians in the street walking: It is an accident waiting to happen. Therefore I propose creating a sidewalk on W. 66th west of Hwy 100 at least to Normandale Park. It would be a great addition to the community that would be highly used in addition to fighting the epidemic of obesity, diabetes, hypertension and sedentary lifestyles that is the scourge of our modern society. Si cerely, rank Wei MD 6600 Naomi Dr. Edina, MN 55439 CC: Scott Neal, City Manager Ann Kattreh, Director Parks and Recreation Brian Olson, Director Public Works Joni Bennett, Council Member Mary Brindle, Council Member Josh Sprague, Council Member Ann Swenson, Council Member Susan kowl Subject: Dan Patch Corridor (All Passenger Rail) Good,afternoon Mayor Hovland-and Edina City Council Members, Attached below is a link to a KSTP article regarding a heavy oil freight car spill by CP Rail in Otter Tail county that happened today. littb:Hkstp.com /news/ stories /S2977597'.shtnil ?cat =l The current Status Quo under the Federal Commerce clause means CP Rail could haul that and any other hazardous material right through Edina. If all the cities along the Dan Patch line from Rochester, Owatonna, Faribault ,Northfield, Lakeville, Burnsville, Savage, Bloomington, Edina, St.Louis Park, got together (formed a passenger rail alliance) and charged each . homeowner $115.00 in a one time asessment charge you could raise anywhere between $12 to $15 million, done for just two years and we could raise $24 to $30 million to purchase the line from CP Rail & implement Commuter Passenger'Rail. Benefits: Guarantee of no toxic pollutant spills in our neighborhoods from CP Rail along the Dan Patch Line. - Ability to implement passenger rail that would connect us to Minneapolis & Rochester /Mayo Clinic - City Rail Alliance could then control or have input in the following: Schedule, Speed, Implementation of Noise & Vibration technology from Dow Industries, Safety at Intersections, Station & Train Advertising; Revenue - City of Lakeville would see the removal of Progressive Rail Freight Cars which are a blight on their: neighborhoods - City,of Edina could then use a station at Grandview to.generate greater and higher value development prospects in and around the Old Public Works facility. - Increased Smart Development in the Grandview District could potentially pay for more sound walls for neighborhoods along Hwy 100 & Hwy 62 -City of Bloomington Stop could connect potentially with BRT service expected along American Blvd and would'connect the line to the Mall of America -High School & College Students would benefit by having daily access to St.Olaf & Carleton College without having to pay for room & board. - Neighbors could have direct input or even serve on the City Rail Alliance, allowing for community buy -in. Sincerely, Andy Brown 5512 Park Place Edina MN 55424 612- 220 -3045, 1 Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:42 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Invitation to Apathy Project Presentation on Houses in Edina Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 IbiunnoCrDEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Emily Kompelien jmailto: emilyk18145 Ca)apps.edina.kl2.mn.usl Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:08 AM To: Edina Mail; jonibennettl2(&comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ioshsprague(&edinarealty.com; swensonannl(d)gmail.com Cc: elimickleson @edina.kl2.mn.us; Emma May; Ellery Mahlum Subject: Invitation to Apathy Project Presentation on Houses in Edina Dear Edina City Council, Our names are Ellery M., Emma M., and Emily K. In our 7th grade Language Arts class, we have been studying the idea of apathy. For this unit, we were asked to find a problem in our community and come up with a solution. We would like to invite you to our presentation on large houses in Edina neighborhoods, specifically the Country Club Neighborhood. Our problem is that construction companies are being apathetic towards citizens who want to keep their neighborhood's originality. New houses that are going up are taking away from the authenticity because they are all too large and generic for the neighborhoods they are being built in. We believe we have gathered enough data to provide a solution, and we'd like to share. it with you. We would appreciate if you could come to our presentation at the Dragseth Auditorium at Southview Middle School on Friday, April 12th at 8:15 am. If you are unable to attend, but would still like to see our presentation we are very willing to send you a link. Thanks for your help, and we hope to see you on Friday! Sincerely, Ellery M., Emma M., and Emily K. 4725 South View Ln. Edina, MN 55424 Susan Hbwl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:53 PM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Edina and Colonial Church's Innove ;.. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist J-. " 1�' 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno(d)EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov r " � ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: jack. r.iorgensen(agmail.corn [mailto: jack. r.iorgensenCa)gmail.coml On Behalf Of Jack Jorgensen Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:29 PM To: Edina Mail; ionibennettl2(&comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ioshspra4ueCa)edinarealty.com; swensonannl@gmail.com Subject: Edina and Colonial Church's Innove My naive is Jack Jorgensen and I represent a semi - finalist project for Colonial Church's Innove initiative. The project, GoVo, will be a website and mobile application that connects volunteers to volunteer opportunities in our community. I am emailing you all to see if you would be willing to support our project. GoVo is designed to be a bridge between those who have needs in our community and those who are looking to serve. Volunteers looking for service opportunities will be able to use our website and app to sign up for local opportunities as they are posted, while organizations, such as churches, the schools, the city, and local non- profits, will be able to use our service to easily recruit and manage volunteers from the community. No web - based service currently exists that performs such a function, especially on the local level, and we intend to fill that gap. In the long run, our goal is to create a functioning web -based service in Edina that can then be copied -and- pasted to other communities locally, then regionally, and perhaps even nationally. For those of you that don't know, Innovd is an initiative started by Colonial to provide young entrepreneurs the financial resources to turn their ideas for social good into reality. More information on the project can be found here. We also have a video from our project proposal as well. And a little about us: the group is composed of me, Megan Mooty, and Andrew Helseth. Each of us have lived in Edina for as long as we can remember, and we all graduated from Edina High School in 2008. I am currently a graduate student at Stanford University, and will be completing my masters degree this June. We are passionate about this project and hope you will each share some of our enthusiasm as well. We officially pitch our idea on April 1 st, and we would love it if we could have your support. If you are interested in supporting us or have any comments or questions about our project, please email me at jacki( ,stanford.edu or call me at 952 - 797 =3930. Thank you for your time. Jack Jorgensen Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:48 PM Cc: Susan Howl; Ariel Klugman Subject: FW: defer ordinance Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno(a EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living. Learning, Raising Families & 13oing Business From: Ring, Joseph H jmailto:JH Ring @CBBURNET.COMI Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:28 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: defer ordinance Defer ordinance No. 2013 -3. The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. The sender believes that this E -mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's company is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Nothing in this email shall be deemed to create a binding contract to purchase /sell real estate. The sender o.f this email does not have the authority to bind a buyer or seller to a contract via written or verbal communications including, but not limited to, email . communications. Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:22 PM To: Brian Olson; Wayne Houle; Scott Neal Cc: Susan Howl; Ariel Klugman Subject: FW: parking around tear downs Attachments: DSC_1552.JPG; DSC_1553.JPG Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 -826 -0389 �? j Ibiunno(abEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov j ...Fier Livinn�, Learning, Rai:in- F amilie, Doing; I3usinrss From: Steven J. Timmer [ mai Ito: stimmer(aplanetlawyers.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:09 PM To. Edina Mail Subject: parking around tear downs This is for the Mayor, the City Manager, and the Public Works Director Gentlemen, Here are a couple of photographs I took this afternoon. There is a tear down a couple of doors down from us (we live at 5348 Oaklawn Avenue) and a situation such as the one that is shown here from today has been common in recent days. This particular truck has been there all day. As you can see, there isn't even anything parked behind it. Now I know, the contractors have to have access to the site; I understand that. But they've been denying anybody access, including the mail carrier and package delivery personnel, to our sidewalk. This is not acceptable to me; it's rude on the contractor's part. I presume they wouldn't park in front of somebody's drive way. Not to mention that the truck, is too close to the stop sign on 54`n It promises to be a long spring. Steve Timmer stimmer@planetlawyers.com h ids y �.y J rte. g�2f E C At, Y ii it i` sl+ 1 `t, i �iA M t , *� 41 s ' L r Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:31 PM Cc: Susan Howl; Ariel Klugman Subject: FW: ordinance #2013 -3 - Lynette Biunno, Receptionist .1h .... 952- 927- 88611Fax 952 - 826 -0389 { Ibiunno(cDEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.-gov -J ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families . ]Doing BUSiness From: Weber, Corky [ mailto :CorkyWeberPedinarealty.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:20 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: ordinance #2013 -3 We do not need any more Government in our lives and ask for a delay of 30 days to study and void the ordinance. Government is the problem not the solution CORKY WEBER REALTOR EDINA REALTY 952 - 927 -1198 WK 612 - 590 -0978 CELL HTTP : / /CORKYWEBER.EDINAREALTY.COM Susan Howl To Mayor Hovland, City Manager Neal and the Edina City Council: I read with dismay the recent Star Tribune article regarding a new Edina Teardown Czar. At a time when many governments are working to streamline their operations to make them more cost effective, Edina proposes to create a position that shouldn't be needed if existing employees — building inspectors and all others responsible for approving and monitoring new construction — were doing their jobs. If setbacks, height restrictions, etc. are being violated, then enforce them with current staff. If the regulations need tweaking, then weak them. The Edina city manager's comments, as quoted by the Star Tribune, imply that this new position carries no real cost, as it would easily be covered by significant increases in fees. Those fees don't materialize out of thin air: they either will be passed directly by the builder to the new home buyer or effectively paid by the owner selling his "teardown" at a lower price. There is no free lunch. While we all hope that Edina will remain a desirable place to live, the current pace of tear downs is unlikely to continue long -term. Much of it is spurred by our extremely low interest rate environment. But, once hired, how quickly will Edina shed an unneeded employee? How many administrative positions were added over the years while Edina's population size remained essentially unchanged? The city manager's proposals, as described, would yield a very cumbersome process. Builders meeting with neighbors to discuss their plans - Who is a "neighbor ?" Are such neighbors likely to reach a consensus on what they want? Why is it their call? What about the buyer looking to purchase a tear down - Is he supposed to spend a half million dollars or more for a lot and then wait while his potential neighbors design his home? If the process now is inefficient, it's difficult to see how these ideas will streamline it! Perhaps the responsibilities of existing employees can be better defined to encourage departments to work together to implement the construction requirements now in place. We already have multiple layers of City management. To be clear, I am not against reasonable building codes and regulations to control setback, height, etc. But soil investigation reports for a lot which has had a home on it for 75 years? I live in South Harriet Park, one of the areas at the epicenter of the current building boom, so I'm familiar with the pros and cons of living amidst new construction. (I own neither a newly built home nor one that is likely to be torn down.) Some of the recent construction is attractive; some less so. But, to be fair, many of the demolished houses were in need of repairs and would not have won any architectural awards. The neighborhoods are, at best, eclectic and we simply are seeing the tract houses of 1939 being replaced by the tract houses of 2013. This past year has seen our City government focus on a name your neighborhood initiative that few citizens wanted or even cared about, and experiment with bike lanes that many consider dangerous, while being caught flat- footed as the FAA and MAC decided to send more planes over our homes. Let's not again spend excessive time and money on complicated new processes of dubious value. If in fact we really have a problem - and it's not clear that we do - let's address it through better use of existing resources. Respectfully, Barbara Whalen 5301 Kellogg Avenue Susan Howl Subject: City Planning Enforcement I am writing in support of adding resources to City Planning to actively review and enforce the existing city code. Believe me, I am no fan of adding expensive resources to Edina government, but I am frankly tired of what paying taxes to support what Gary Teague is quoted as being "passive" city plan enforcement — enforcement which originates with the residents and is often diluted or ignored by the present planning department. My family reside at 4622 Bruce Avenue. Five years ago, I joined with other residents appealing to the Heritage Preservation Board against a JMS project on our street which included the following: • Removing a 70 yr. -old tree from the median; • Adding a steel plate retaining wall, shiny hardy board and dyed concrete stones, all of which were not in the approved plans: • Adding height and mass unseen in the neighborhood (fooling City staff with elevations); • And re- grading the lot, changing drainage (even Minneapolis does not allow re- grading). After inaction with the Preservation Board, I personally appealed to the City Council. My quote was that Planning needed to "up their game ", especially in a designated historic district. Here we are today. The JMS project at 4524 has been an unmitigated disaster. My modest asks of the development.at 4624 Bruce on setback and re- grading were ignored by the admittedly lay person Heritage Preservation Board. While better than JMS, this developer here befuddled Planning staff, which initially stated that the Building Code setback standard should include the unenclosed porch to the South. When I challenged, they then stated that it was 4622's own (raised, fenced) "patio" which allowed the new home to be set two feet in front of the line between the adjacent homes. They supplied a wandering legal opinion which only restated the code. Now, we can only wait nervously for the combination of the'new home's mass and lot grading to likely send drainage to my basement (Note, the rehab of the home behind me actually included a French drain through their rear retaining wall onto my lot!). The current Planning Department might well be labeled "Developer Services ". With my tax dollars, they are rubber - stamping developer plans; "selling" them to nervous neighbors, and performing "dry lab" inspections. City Planning relying on residents against savvy developers is not adequate. While I would like to see changes in current department personnel, I will accept adding a resource to deliver on the true mission of a city planning department: to enforce the City Code. Thank you for your attention. Paul Runice 4622 Bruce Avenue Susan Hbwl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:59 PM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Benefit of All Passenger Rail on Dan Patch Corridor = Lynette Biunno, Receptionist Ik 952 -927 -88611 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno (DEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN..qov Jj ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families &. Doiiig Business From: Andrew Brown [ mailto:andrew.r. brown 0)att.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:14 PM To:' Edina Mail; swensonannl(cbgmail.com; joshspra4ueC edinarealty.com; jonibennettl2@)comcast.net; Mary Brindle; Scott Neal; Wayne Houle Cc: Sen.Melisa.Franzen(a)senate.mn; rep: ron. erhardt(a)house.leg.state.mn.us Subject: Benefit of All Passenger Rail on Dan Patch Corridor Dear Mayor Hovland; Please read the linked article from Minn Post. This is the biggest reason why the Dan Patch Corridor should be bought and turned into all Passenger rail service, eliminating any danger for Edina to have unknown cargo going through. the center of Edina. httn: / /.www.minnuost.com /greater- minnesota/20.13 /03 /trai n- carried- hazmat- m ay- go- through = your- town -you - don -t- know - about -it' Sincerely, Andy Brown 5512 Park Place Edina MN 55424 612- 220 -3045 1 Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:41 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Thank you! Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952-927-88611 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno @EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Susan Dixon [mailto:sdixon410 @gmail.coml Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:54 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Thank you! Mayor Hovland, After watching the council meeting on line today, I walked the Promanade from my townhome at 802 Coventry Place to Target to pick up a few things and was feeling very grateful that the city council accepted the proposal for the new mixed living development for Byerlys. We are constantly "on foot" for many trips to shop, eat and exercise.... let alone enjoy Centennial Park! We feel this will make our neighborhood more desirable. We walk to Southdale, Galleria, Target and Yorktown all the time without the headache of traffic and parking. We appreciate all you do to make Edina a better place to live! Both my husband and I have been raised here.... raised our family here and now continue to enjoy it each day!, Thanks again, Mark and Sue Dixon Sent from my iPad Susan Howl Friends My name is Julie Rogers Bascom and I am the Edina Public Schools' Service- Learning Coordinator. I want to tell you about the 7th graders at South View Middle School - you may be hearing from them .... The Apathy Project is part of teh 7th grade Language Arts Curriculum. The students are tasked with identifying an issue or problem in our community that they feel others are apathetic about - such as garbage, hunger, or bike lanes. In an attempt to understand perspectives on their selected issue, they have been researching, surveying, and discussing the issue with students, teachers, and community leaders and members. Here's where you may come in - - this week, we had a discussion about TARGETED AUDIENCE and STAKEHOLDERS. These are people who are impacted by an issue, would benefit from a solution to the problem or may be able to support change. As the students dutifully did their research, some may have found your name, department or community effort as being linked to the issue they have chosen. For instance, if a student is concerned with bike lanes in the city of Edina, they may have identified the city council or bike task force as stakeholders they would like to contact. My hope is that some of the seventh graders connect with you - - and that you will answer and ask questions that help them gather multiple perspectives. AND I hope you will consider joining us when students present their suggested solutions in Mid - April. I will have a list of times and topics in the coming weeks and would be happy to pass that along to you. If a student does talk with you, ask them when s /he is presenting. I am very excited about this project - it's using the teaching strategy of service- learning that encourages students * to solve real world problems * to research the WHY of these problems * to see themselves as active citizens and able to solve community issues. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions, comments or if I can be of assistance to you and the important work you all are doing. Regards,. Julie Julie Rogers Bascom Service Learning Coordinator Edina Public Schools Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:59 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: DOME Lynette Biunno, Receptionist �(71; 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno(cbEdinaMN.aov I www.EdinaMN.00v .. FOV Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doiiig Business From: Joan White [mailto:Joan.White(&senate.mn] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:55 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: DOME Dear Mayor and city council members, It is ridiculous that we do not have a dome in the city of Edina. It has been over a year since the golf dome collapsed. I think you've been given ample time to "study" the issue, which didn't need much studying if common sense was factored into the equation. Please spend less money fixing botched bike lanes and build a dome for our kids! We are at a significant competitive advantage, and further, if you really think the obesity epidemic is real, give the kids somewhere to train when it's too cold and, there's too much snow to train for sports outside. Thank you, Joan White March 25, 2013 Is Mayor and City Council Members City of Edina S T U A R T i 0 4801 West 50th Street Youk 1iomi: nu p. commif.m[rq.i. Edina, MN 55424 RE: Southdale Place Apartments Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: I have watched the tape of your March 19 meeting when you considered changes to Southdale Place Apartments and am sorry I could not attend due to previous plans to be out of town. I appreciate your tabling this issue until April 2 which I will attend. I was pleased to hear your approval of most of the requested revisions presented to you and your excitement of the original architecture. I assure you our intent was not to diminish it but rather to respond to necessary interior changes that affected the exterior. We agree that the elevations you saw on March 19 were not acceptable and appreciate your opinions. Those elevations were the result of: (1) Inferior computer generated graphic design and (2) Our wrongful focus on other elements of Southdale Place Apartments that had been changed and needed your approval. We agree with your critique of the exterior and are working with our architects to return the exterior appearance to one that is not only acceptable to you but also to become a rental housing project that the City of Edina and us are proud to have created. We look forward to that discussion on April 2. Corporate Sincerely, Headquarters 1000 west 80th Street STUART COMPANIES Minneapolis, MN 55420 -1000 a (952) 948 -9500 fax: (952) 948 -9570 www.stuartco.com Stuart H. Nolan Chairman cc: Scott Neal, City Manager Cary Teague, City Planner Susan Howl From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:48 AM To: ED Everyone; Ann Swenson; James Hovland Ohovland @krausehovland.com); Joni Bennett; Josh Sprague; Mary Brindle (Comcast) Subject: February website statistics Good morning! We use Google Analytics to monitor activity on our website. Activity on the City of Edina website reflected the following activity during the month of February 2013: Total visits: 56,727 Number of unique visitors: 39,981 Average time of each visit: 2 minutes, 44 seconds Total page views: 166,764 About 56 percent of visitors came just one time. Nearly 44 percent visited more often. Besides the home page, the most visited page was the Edinborough Park home page with 11,339 page views. Other top pages included the following (with number of page views): Edinborough Park General Info — 6,756 Edinborough Park Adventure Peak — 7,758 Centennial Lakes Park Ice Skating — 4,879 Braemar Golf Course — 3,779 Centennial Lakes Park — 3,552 Job Opportunities — 3,262 Police Chief Jeff Long's blog post, "Why We Leave Our Squad Cars Running" — 2,344 Adventure Peak Birthday Parties.— 2,326 Edina Art Center — 2,144 The most frequently accessed PDF among visitors was the January- February calendar of events at Braemar Arena. Other frequently downloaded files included the following: Section 850 of the City Code (Zoning) Section 450 of the City Code (Swimming Pools) Dan Patch Study Phase I Rezoning Development Review Bike Plan Section 1000 of the City Code (Crimes & Forbidden Conduct) Section 1350 of the City Code (Commercial Photography) Section 1341 of the City Code (Massage) Community Street Map The most popular blog category was the Parks & Recreation Department, followed by Police Chief Jeff Long's and City Manager Scott Neal's blogs. The most popular blog posts were "Why We Leave Our Squad Cars Running," "Civility" and "Keeping Guns in Safe Hands." The most searched for words or phrases were "dog license," "jobs," "employment," "recycling," "tennis," "wedding," "zoning map," "permits" and "Braemar." Speak Up, Edina Activity on the "Speak Up, Edina" website reflected the following activity during the month of February 2013: Total visits: 1,228 Number of unique visitors: 612 Average time of each visit: 5 minutes, 13 seconds Total page views: 4,654 More than 57 percent of visitors came just one time. About 43 percent visited more often. Nearly all of the site's activity was centered around the residential redevelopment discussion. Ecommerce E- commerce on our site totaled $59,484.90 in February. Top sales were golf lesson registration, $25,934.83; dog licenses, $7,717; building permits, $7,309.25; golf league registration, $6,045; Adventure Peak birthday party, $4,440; Art Center class registration, $2,394; and Aquatic Center season passes, $2,216.56. Webstreaming We have been streaming video on our website through Granicus for several years. In February, there were 906 views through Granicus. The most requested videos on Granicus in February were the Feb. 19 City Council meeting, 276 views; Feb. 5 City Council meeting, 180; Jan. 22 City Council meeting, 44; January Art Center Board meeting, 38; February Park Board meeting, 32; Feb. 13 Planning Commission meeting, 31; January Energy & Environment Commission meeting, 20; Jan. 23 Planning Commission meeting, 19; February episode of 'Beyond the Badge," 19; and Jan. 8 City Council meeting, 14. We have been streaming all programming on YouTube since January 2011. In February2013, there were 3,302 views on the City's YouTube channel. The most requested videos on YouTube in February were pilot episode of "Enterprise Edina," 320 views; Jan. 31 meeting of the Rotary Club of Edina, 233; "Agenda: Edina" segment on the Braemar Golf Dome, 152; "Agenda: Edina" segment on Winter Neighborhood Night Out, 130; Braemar Golf Dome commercials, 118; Braemar Golf Dome commercial featuring "Fred," 95; late January episode of "Agenda: Edina," 90; "Agenda: Edina" segment on the Hornets Nest, 81; "Agenda: Edina" segment on the City's property acquisition at 501h & France, 73; and 2012 July 4 parade, 68. Please continue to review our new website and think about ways to improve it. If you have suggestions or questions, contact me. If you have things that need to be fixed, please write to,helpdesk@EdinaMN.gov. Thanks! Have a great day! -' Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Technology Services Director It- 952- 833 -9520 1 Fax 952- 826 -0389 f JBennerottena EdinaMN.gov 1 www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living , �l [+ p Lcarnin Raisin( Families & Doing Business o e • �� eonroz5s'q . less To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: IX. A. From: Debra Mangen Action ❑ City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: April 2, 2013 Information ❑X Subject: CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER PACKETS Action Requested: Attached is correspondence received after the packets were delivered to you. No action is necessary. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50' St. • Edina, MN 55424 Susan Howl Subject: Resent: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors Comment Letter - Revised Demolition Permits Ordinance Proposal April 2, 2013 .Edina City Council .4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 To the Honorable Mayor Hovland and Members of the Council The Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® (MAAR) would like to thank the City Council and its staff for your recent in -depth contemplation of Ordinance No. 2013 -3 amending Chapter 4 Concerning Demolition Permits for Single and Double Dwelling Units (the "Proposed Ordinance "). We are encouraged by the steps the Council has taken in revising the. original proposal to reduce some the significant costs and regulatory burdens that it would have added'to the residential redevelopment process in Edina. However, MAAR still has some concerns with the Proposed Ordinance, even,,in its revised form. Attached please find our comment letter regarding the revised Proposed Ordinance, describing where areas of concern still exist. In light of the inclusion of the Proposed Ordinance on tonight's City Council agenda, we respectfully request the Council consider the attached comments and incorporate the related recommendations before voting to approve final passage of the Proposed Ordinance. Once again, we would like to thank the City Council and City Staff for your openness to receiving input from residents and stakeholders on the issue of residential redevelopment in the City of Edina. We greatly appreciate the'opportunity to share our thoughts. Please contact me should you have any questions. Julia Parenteau, Public Affairs Director Minneapolis Area.Association of REALTORS® p. (952) 988 -3124 e. iuliap@mplsrealtor.com 1 April 2, 2013 Edina City Council ' 4801 West 501h Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor Hovland and Members of the Council, MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association -f REALTORS' Thank you for your continued attention to the challenging issue of residential redevelopment in the City of Edina. The Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® (MAAR) appreciates your commitment to finding the most equitable method for maintaining oversight of infill development in the city. Ahead of the Council's meeting on March 19, 2013, MAAR submitted comment detailing our concerns regarding Ordinance Proposal No. 2013 -3, Amending Chapter 4 Concerning Demolition Permits for Single and Double Dwelling Units (the "Proposed Ordinance "). We were grateful that the Council voted to table a final decision on the Proposed Ordinance as read at that meeting. That action has allowed for some additional research and revision to ensure the regulations on redevelopment in Edina alleviate residents' concerns without cutting off redevelopment activity completely or infringing unnecessarily upon property rights. MAAR is also encouraged by the steps the Council recommended on March 19 for revising the Proposed Ordinance. For example, reducing the required amount of cash escrow and insurance liability will take some immediate financial burden off property owners at the onset of any remodeling project. Modifying the allowable work hours to include some weekend hours especially helps homeowners who choose operate as their own general contractors or conduct construction activities themselves. Most significantly, the addition of building permits regulations to the Proposed Ordinance recognizes the activity which is most likely to cause consternation from neighboring residents. However, MAAR still has some concerns with the Proposed Ordinance, even in its revised form. We met with City Staff on March 27 to discuss some possible resolutions for these concerns. At this time, those resolutions have not been incorporated into the Proposed Ordinance for presentation to the Council. Please find those concerns in the foregoing sections. 411.02 — Definition of Demolition. The proposed definition, although favorably revised to include only the removal or destruction of more than fifty percent (50 %) of the exterior walls of a single or two family dwelling unit, is still much more restrictive than surrounding communities. a. MAAR recommends reviewing how this definition relates to property tax standards for remodel versus new construction of a residential structure. The city may find acceptable compromise between this proposed definition and surrounding community standards by defining "demolition" as the removal or destruction of more than seventy-five percent (75 %) of the exterior walls of a single or two family dwelling unit. (Indeed, standards of 75% are found in many states and local jurisdictions nationwide.) i ?i4 t IN. i OLN JR;YE V 952 913.90.1^ www.mplsrealtor.com M INGEAPOLIS. W, °.5, ;r, 3694 f 9s, 9J3 901' 0 ,\ 411.04 — Permit Applications. 1. it is not clear as to whether this ordinance allows.for a single permit issuance for a demolition plus construction project, or whether two separate permits (including two fees payable) will be required. a. MAAR recommends revising this section to articulate. whether demolition and building permit may be issued jointly, or whether permit applicants will need to separately y` apply for permits for each activity. 411.05 — Permit Requirements. 1. Subd. 3: The Proposed Ordinance does not adequately define what,conditions may lead to a required soils investigation report. a. ' MAAR recommends that clearer standards should be listed to describe what might trigger a requirement for a soils investigation.report; eg: types of soils and topographies that are more likely to be at risk, or a'standard of proximity for nearby structures that may cause concern. Even if these definitions are not necessarily listed in Ordinance No. 2013 -3, they should at least be made available in a concurrent procedural document for review by permit applicants. 2. Subd. 5: Requirement to notify property owners within 300 feet is limited only to demolition permits. However,.more concern is often raised because of construction activity. a. MAAR recommends that if the city is going to require this type of notification, it makes more sense to link it to the building permit; rather than the demolition permit. 3. Subd. 7: Requirements for stormwater and erosion control plans are not clearly described. Does the city intend that any mitigation efforts will need to be in place for the life of the new structure, or only for the duration of the construction project? The only time qualifier in this section is contained -in this sentence: "Permit holder must protect all storm drain inlets with sediment capture devices at all time during the project when soil disturbing activities may result in sediment laden storm water runoff entering the inlet." a. MAAR recommends this section be revised to include specific expectations for the duration of these mitigation actions. 411.06 — Permit Standards for. -Both Demolition Permits and Building Permits. 1. Subd. 2: Allowable work hours do not take into consideration emergency circumstances where work is necessary to avoid damage to.the property, structure, materials or equipment. a. MAAR suggests revising this section to allow, permitted work in cases of emergency at the discretion of the Building Official and /or'other.city representatives. 2. Subd. 4: How do these parking and other vehicle operations requirements differ from standard traffic laws? This section also does not clearly relate regulated parking or other vehicle operations activities to the physical premise of demolition or construction. a. If the intent of this section is to limit parking and vehicle operatio'n's within a specific physical proximity to the demolition or construction zone, -that physical proximity where these requirements will be enforced should be defined. 3. Subd. 9: The requirement to protect trees is naclearly defined. a. If the intent of this section is to protect trees within a specific physical proximity to the demolition or construction zone, that physical proximity where these requirements will be enforced should be defined. Additionally, "trees" should be defined in some manner, such as included classes of plants and /or trunk diameter. 411.07 — stop Work Orders. 1. The ability of the Building Official to issue "Stop Work" orders is not clearly defined. a. MAAR recommends that standards for "dangerous or unsafe" operations should be enumerated. 2. There is no option for appeal described under this section. a. Work stoppage can create significant financial and time burdens on property owners. Some method for appeal of these orders should be included for permit holders who believe any work stoppage orders were issued without due cause. 411.08 — Misdemeanor. 1. Violation of this ordinance constitutes a misdemeanor, but no avenues for appeal are described. a. Misdemeanor charges are significant criminal penalties. Some method for appeal of these charges should be included for permit holders /property owners who believe they are innocent of such charges. summary The City of Edina has made significant progress in revising and improving Ordinance Proposal No. 2013- 3, Amending Chapter 4 Concerning Demolition Permits for Single and Double Dwelling Units (the "Proposed Ordinance "). MAAR appreciates the effort that has been expended on the part of the City Council and its staff to consider all aspects of regulating residential redevelopment and . We believe that through the incorporation of the above recommendations to clarify certain sections of the Proposed Ordinance, the City of Edina will be well situated for the anticipated home construction 'season'. The Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® respectfully requests the Council consider revising the Proposed Ordinance as recommended before final adoption of Ordinance Proposal No. 2013 -3. Thank you very much for your consideration. Julia Parenteau Public Affairs Director Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® p. (952) 988 -3124 e. juliap @mplsrealtor.com Cc: Scott Neal, City Manager. Cary Teague, Community Development Director MAAR Board of Directors MAAR Public Affairs Committee Susan Howl -rom: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail ent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:59 PM Vic: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Safe Routes to School Hearing Wednesday @ 3:00 p.m. Attachments: Senate hearing advisory.docx Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 4.1161 F7 1. 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 -826 -0389 Ibiunno(ccDEdinaMN.00v I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising families & i)oinI Business From: Dorian Grill.ey [mailto•dorian(bbikemn.orcll Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:54 PM To: Edina Mail Cc: Rachel Callanan; matt schaferO)cancer.or4 Schafer Subject: Safe Routes to School Hearing Wednesday @ 3:00 p.m. Dear Mayor Hovland, The MN Senate Transportation Committee has scheduled a hearing on Senator Franzen's bill to fund the state safe routes to school grant program that was created but not funded last year. Last year the City of Edina resolved to support the creation and funding of the program. So, on behalf of the MN Safe Routes to School Coalition htt :// www. facebook. com /SafeRoutesToSchoolMinnesota ?ref =is &fief =ts (Heart Assn., Cancer Society, BikeMN, B1ueCross, etc.) I'd like to invite you to testify at the hearing. If you are unable to make it please feel free to suggest someone else from Edina. I have also attached the Coalition's media advisory on the hearing for some background. Sorry for the short notice. Sincerely, Dorian Grilley Executive Director Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota 651-387-2445 dorian(a bikemn.org www bikemn.ory For immediate release: April 2, 2013 For more information: Rachel Callanan 612 - 803 -1008 MEDIA ADVISORY - MEDIA ADVISORY - MEDIA ADVISORY Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee to Hold Hearing This Week on Legislation to Fund a Minnesota -based Safe Routes to School Program Measure is designed to increase the safety of students who walk and bike by reducing funding gaps St. Paul, Minn. —The Minnesota State Senate will hold a hearing this Wednesday to take testimony on legislation to fund a Minnesota -based Safe Routes to School -Program. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 3 starting at 3:00 p.m. in the Minnesota Senate's Transportation and Public Safety Committee in room 15 of the Capitol Building. The legislation, which was introduced by Representative Melisa Franzen (DFL- Edina), would appropriate $12.8 million in bond proceeds and $3.2 million from the general fund to help develop, create and improve infrastructure such as sidewalks, trails, street crossings and bike paths to make it safer for students to walk and bike to school. Last year the Minnesota Legislature created but did not fund a Minnesota SRTS Program due to extreme budget shortfalls. The Minnesota program was created because the existing federal SRTS Program does not adequately fund the safety needs of Minnesota's school students. In the last federal funding cycle, MnDOT received 82 applications from local schools requesting $23 million but only $3.8 million was available and awarded to 16 applicants through the federal program. In addition, under the federal program, high schools aren't eligible for funding. To make matters even more challenging for Minnesota schools that want to make it safer for students to walk or bike to school, the 2012 federal transportation bill cut funding for the federal SRTS program by one - third, further reducing available grants. Nationally in 2009, more than 23,000 children (ages 5 to 15) were injured and 250 killed by cars or trucks when they were struck while walking or bicycling. This represents 25 percent of all children's traffic fatalities and 15 percent of all children's traffic injuries. In 2012, 38 Minnesota pedestrians and six bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor.vehicles. SRTS is designed to help prevent those injuries and fatalities, especially when children are walking and bicycling to school. Other Senate sponsors of the SRTS funding legislation include John Pederson (R -St. Cloud), Barb Goodwin (DFL- Columbia Heights), Bev Scalze (DFL - Little Canada) and Jeremy Miller (R- Winona). A companion bill has been introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives. A wide range of Minnesota school, community and health -based organizations support the establishment and funding of a Minnesota -based SRTS Program. Those organizations include the American Heart Association, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Minnesota Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Minnesota School Boards Association, Allina Health, American Cancer Society, Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, Minnesota PTA, BLEND, Cancer Caucus (Minn. Legislature), Childhood Obesity Working Group (Minn. Legislature), Children's Hospitals & Clinics of Minnesota, City of Princeton, City of Royalton, City of Sauk Centre, Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, Edina City Council, Fire Up Your Feet, Health & Learning Associates, Health Partners, MN Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Minnesota Association of School Administrators, Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition, Minnesota Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Minnesota Elementary School Principals Association, Minnesota Local Public Health Association, Minnesota Medical Association, Minnesota Public Health Association, Minnesota Safe Routes to School Network, Minnesota Secondary School Principals Association, Minnesotans for Healthy Kids Coalition, Princeton Public Schools, Transit for Livable Communities, Twin Cities Medical Society and Youth Determined to Succeed, Inc. - -30 -- Note to reporters and editors: A video on the benefits of Safe Routes to School to Minnesota students can be seen at http : //www.youtube.com /watch ?v= dq_Sbx6lGvA Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:38 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Mayor Hovland and City Council Members Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952-927-88611 Fax 952- 826 -0389 Ibiunno(@EdinaMN.gov_ I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business - - - -- Original Message---- - From: dede skold (mailto•dedskold@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 3:54 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Mayor Hovland and City Council Members Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council Members, I would appreciate it if you would consider my comments prior to your April 2nd meeting.This is concerning plans for housing on W. 49th street. There needs to be a great deal of modification to this plan. It is way to dense The front buildings tower over the neighbors across the street.The flat roof, row house, fortress architecture has nothng to do with the charm and character of our neighborhood. We would lose beautiful trees and a lot of rolling green space.What would we gain? Please consider that there must be someone that can come up with a better plan! Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Doris Skold 5101 Millpond Place, Edina (resident for 61 years!) (952)929 -7163 dedskold @;;mail.com 1 Susan Howl -rom: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 2:06 PM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: FAA Update Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952-927-88611 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno6DEdinaMN.gov _ I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Peter Kaiser Lmailto:pmkaiser100 @icloud.coml Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 2:02 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: FAA Update Hello Jim, I have been active in the fight against the FAA and MAC and their plan to route planes over several of the homes I own in Edina. You and I spoke briefly at the MAC meeting at the airport and at the meeting in the State building in St. Paul At that last meeting it appeared as if the MAC representative understood that Edina wasn't represented in the initial. decision to skewer Edina through the Country Club neighborhood and Rolling Green plus the two country clubs. I had great confidence following that meeting that you had things well in hand and they would rethink the path over the most expensive real estate in Edina. Today the Star and Trib published an article that sounded somewhat alarmist at first glance. They said the FAA was proceeding with RNAV. It sounded like they were saying that the original paths would be used but a careful read shows that they just said it is inevitable at some point, which everyone assumes. I had hoped that they would reconsider their path and not have such a costly path. Do you have any additional information on this? Has a path been.decided upon? Do you have any idea as to dates for initiation? I appreciate having you on our team and look forward to hearing from you. Thanks Peter Kaiser President /CEO Innovative Computer Software Sent from Peter's Wad 1 March I7, 20I3 Honorable James Hovland, Mayor City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 re: Construction Management Plan Dear Mayor Hovland: This is the third letter to you on the subject of Neighborhood Revitalization in Edina. My March I4, 2013 addressed the critical importance of revitalization to the municipality and to the community. My March I6, 2013 letter responded to contentions of revitalization opponents. This letter comments on the Construction Management Plan, and in particular the joint City Council- Planning Commission working session of March 5th. Everyone agrees that construction unavoidably places a heavy burden on neighbors. This can be unnecessar- ily made worse by abusive practices. Thoughtless behavior of some builders, subcontractors and individual tradesmen is not something that is recent, or occurring only in Edina. So the issue is not that these practic- es should be minimized but rather whether sweeping proposed prescriptions under the rubric of construc- tion management are so draconian as to be counterproductive. Before offering insights on construction management, it will be useful to provide context, observations about the recent change in tenor on the part of the municipality. This new temperament is surprising to those of us who have lived here for decades and find it uncharacteristic of the Edina values we know. • One difference is an evident rush to regulate. After imposing new zoning restrictions just a few years ago, now a small group of activists is pushing for even more, without any municipal study of their effect on construction, and thus community reinvestment. The construction management plan is even more baf- fling. It only became effective in December and no one yet knows the effects of these additional rules and conditions. Yet in Tuesday's meeting the working group was already considering even more regulation. Now we find a revised ordinance has been drafted for council approval on March I9th. Why such speed? And where were the public hearings? • A second difference in tenor is a demorlization of private initiative. Given Edina's historic self -image as businesslike, both in the occupations of its many citizens and in how the municipality is run, this is astonishing. There is an obvious bias against homebuilders, whose positions are dismissed by activists — THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM, I.I.C. 5200 WILLSON ROAD, SUITE 150, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 952.836.2665 WWW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 Q [PAGE 2OF3] supported by some members of the Council and Planning Commission — as profit driven; and therefore not worth consideration. Many of our local homebuilders are long -time Edina residents /taxpayers and naturally resent being cast as second -lass citizens. As a consequence, the various working groups have only -a limited understanding of revitalization in Edina. A self - appointed neighborhood subcommittee meeting with five�builders is not a seat at the municipal table for`'builders. Nor have the City's revitalization deliberations included any recent: homeowners at the table no first -hand insights about experiences and motivations of those who know more than anyone about these private -re- investment decisions. Apparently owners, of new or transformed million -dollar properties are`also second - class citizens. At present the City has already instituted responses to abusive construction practices, from street block - age to jobsite appearance, to damage to.public and private property. Citing the most egregious examples, revitalization opponents continue pressing for ever -more conditions and requirements. We do not yet know whether the December construction management regulations are cost - effective, or even effective at all. Cer- tainly it is premature to contemplate very expensive additional provisions like full-yard fencing, a $ 10,000 letter of. credit, hefty new permit fees,new City Indemnification requirements, criminal penalties, and much more. Moreover, by excluding work on Sundays and holidays, the municipality would handicap do -it- yourself property owners for whom these days off are essential for work on their own homes. No doubt if so ex- cluded, they would find time to express their feelings to the City Council. The underlying anti- revitalization message is to raise administrative 'and regulatory costs to these home- owners in every way possible. They have no choice, they'll always buy or re- invest in Edina no matter what. This glib assertion is flawed. We already see the effects of flow, where new -home activity moves from currently hot Edina neighbor- hoods to others which have not yet experienced significant revitalization. We can assume that at some point, flow will extend beyond the City's borders if building' here becomes too onerous or costly. The West Metro offers many desirable neighborhood alternatives. Moreover, since housing affordability is usually based on mortgage payments, when interest rates rise, as they must from today's, ultra -low level, the million -dollar buyer can quickly become a $500,000- 600,000 buyer. Stacking up administrative. costs and fees will lower long -term property tax revenues because addi- tional front -end costs beyond brick- and - mortar do not add to taxable property value. THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM,; LLC. 5200 WILLSON ROAD, SUITE 150, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 952.836.2665 WWW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO_ BC643121 1 i 1 [ PAGE 3OF31 Three directions are promising at present. First, the City must consciously evaluate the effectiveness of the December construction management regulations. Municipal actions cannot be based on angry anec- dotes, if for no other reason that they are less - defensible to legal challenges. For instance, despite conten- tions to the contrary, police and staff do respond effectively to problems, in the case of police calls in a matter of minutes. Second, rather than broad - brushing all homebudders, the minority abusers should be identified and penal- ized as repeat egregious offenders. We do not ticket all drivers, only those who break the speed limit. And third, the City needs to think through cost - benefits with a longer -term perspective. As noted in the March I4, 20I3 letter, those who reinvest in our community by building new homes or transforming existing homes pay ten -of- millions in additional property taxes over the years. Is it consistent to extract every nickel of possible municipal costs from Edina homeowners while the entire community benefits and their increased taxes enable the City to float a loan to an Indianapolis corporation to help pay for up- grades to their commercial property? The reality is that construction is noisy, messy, and disruptive to adjacent residents. But citizens are net beneficiaries long term for the inconvenience. There are egregious abusers of the circumstances as there always has been, but enforcement efforts should be directed at them particularly, not those who do not cause the bulk of problems — and indeed who undertake the essential revitalization of our community. Sincerely, Lon Oberpriller President The Replacement Housing Services Consortium, LLC cc: Edina City Council Edina Planning Commission enclosures: Current required Construction Management Plan (CMP) agreement Proposed Demo Ordinance (as an amendment to Construction Management Plan) THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM, LLC. 5200 WILLSON ROAD, SUITE 150, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 952.836.2665 WWW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 121 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR Project Name & Site Address Number QR Code (For Office Use Only) Permit Number The construction on this site will follow normal industry and City accepted construction methods for a project of this type. Specific items of concern will be addressed as noted below. Any references to start date or duration of specific items are estimated and included only for reference. Construction management plans can also be found at:www.EdinaMN.gov The undersigned hereby acknowledges that they are responsibe for complying with the below conditions. Signature of Developer Date Developer: — Address: Phone: Email Address: Signature of Contractor Date Site Contractor. Address: Phone: Email Address: The estimated construction start date is The estimated completion date is 2. Construction activities will be scheduled during the hours of 7:00 am to 9 :00 pm Monday through Friday; and 8:00 am to 7:00 pm Saturday, Sunday and holidays per Section 1040.03 of the Edina City Code 3. Before work begins on the site, a Contractor sign must be installed identifying the Contractor company name, a contact name and phone number and the site address. The sign may not exceed six (6) square feet in a single - family residential zoning district, and thirty -two (32) square feet in high density residential, commercial or industrial areas. A copy of this document must also be attached to the sign. The City can provide a laminated copy of this document. 4. The Contractor is responsible for repairing any damage to public streets or adjacent properties. The Contractor shall provide pictures of the existing condition of the curb, sidewalk and street, and any boulevard or border trees adjacent to the property. prior to construction. When damage occurs or if pavement is disturbed, in must be repaired within three (3) working days, unless the Contractor has received written permission from city staff to delay repairs to a later specified date. The Contractor shall obtain written permission from the city engineer to block any roadways during any portion of the project. 5. Edina Ordinance 1400.10 Parking, Stopping and Standing, Loading shall apply as follows: No person shall stop, stand . or park a vehicle, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic control device, in any of the following places: a. On a boulevard between sidewalk. and roadway; b. Within five feet of the intersection of any public or private driveway or alley with any street or highway; c. In any place where the vehicle will block a fire escape or- the exit from any building; or d. In any place where temporary signs prohibit parking as long as the signs are in place. Street.parking is allowed on Local Streets as long as a minimum of a twelve -foot (I 2') wide area is open for the traveled portion of the road, unless otherwise authorized by the city engineer. On streets Collector or Arterial Roadways, a minimum of twenty -two feet (22') must be open for the traveled portion of the road. The Contractor shall encourage off- street and off -site parking to workers on site. 6. Minnesota State Law requires a five -foot (5') parking setback from driveways and a thirty-foot (30') setback from intersections. When parking on a street, a vehicle must be completely located on the street surface, parallel to and within 12 inches of the curb. 7. The Contractor shall keep the site, all streets, all sidewalks, boulevard areas and adjacent propertiesclean from waste, materials or refuse resulting from his operations on the site. Equipment not usable on the work site shall be promptly removed and the site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition at all times. All empty cans, paper, plastic, etc. that is not needed for construction shall be removed and cleaned from the site every evenir prior to leaving the construction site. Where work on any project lies within areas of pedestrian traffic and /, vehicular traffic the project area will be cleaned and swept and all materials related to the project will be stockpiled in appropriate areas. No materials may be deposited or stockpiled on the public streets, boulevards or sidewalks. At the end of each working day, the Contractor- shall remove any soil that washed or was deposited on any public sidewalk or street and shall remove any trash or debris that washed or was deposited on any public property. No dumpsters, portable toilets, building materials, or equipment may be stored on a public street, sidewalk, or boulevard area. 8. Tracking of dirt onto public roads during hauling and general day -to -day construction operations will require periodic cleaning of these roadways. Scraping and vacuum assisted sweeping or a combination may be required. Power- brooms or "sidewinder" type devices are not acceptable for cleaning of the roadway. 9. Any sediment tracked onto City streets or sidewalks; or onto streets that drain into storm sewer systems shall be kept clean by the Contractor; sediment shall be removed within 12 hours of discovery. If the Contractor fails to remove all of the tracked sediment from streets the City shall remove any sediment at the Contractor's expense,. 10. The site will have proper- erosion and sediment control and will be adequately maintained on a continual basis to contain on -site erosion and protect on and off -site vegetation, as shown on City approved erosion control plans. Contractor- must protect all storm drain inlets with sediment capture devices prior to soil disturbing activities that may result in sediment laden storm water runoff entering the inlet. The Contractor shall provide effective stor-^ drain inlet protection over the life of the Project until all surfaces with potential for discharging sedimentto an inlet have been stabilized. The Contractor is responsible for preventing or minimizing the potential for unsafe conditions, flooding, or siltation problems. For example, devices must be regularly cleaned out and emergency overflow must be an integral part of the device to reduce the flooding potential; and devices must be placed such that driving hazards or obstructions are not created. I . The Contractor shall clean, remove sediment, or replace storm drain inlet protection devices on a routine basis such thatthe devices are fully functional for the next rainstorm event. Removal and disposal of trapped sediment in inlet protection devices shall be incidental to the Project. Sediment deposited in and /or plugging drainage systems is the responsibility of the Contractor and shall be removed at no expense to the Department. 12. The Contractor and all subcontractors will install and maintain a rock entrance pad or its equivalent, or similar surfaces, at each location where vehicles enter or exit from the construction site, as shown on the approved plan. 13. All debris will be contained on the project site. A regularly scheduled trash removal service shall be hired to remove this debris. Dumpsters and containers with an individual capacity of 1.5 cubic yards (40.5 cubic feet) or more shall not be stored in buildings or placed within 5 feet of combustible walls, openings or combustible roof eave lines, unless the area containing the dumpster or container- is protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system. Structures of Types I and II fire - resistive construction used for dumpster or container storage located not less than 10 feet from other buildings. 14. Building materials will be delivered to the site within the working hours listed in #2 above, on an as- needed basis, thus keeping large material stockpiles located on the site to a minimum. 15. Dust control is the responsibility of the on -site Contractor. The Contractor shall be required to respond to any verbal notice from the City regarding dust control and respond appropriately within one (1) hour from the time of notification. 16. No building material; port -o- potty, or dumpster may be placed within street right -of -way. Public sidewalks must be left open and unobstructed. 17. When practical, protective fencing shall installed around all boulevard trees and or trees along lot lines that are intended to be saved. 3 To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL From: Scott H. Neal, City Manager Date: March 19, 2013 psi O \ Jahn Agenda Item #: VIII. B. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Subject: Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Amending Chapter 4 Concerning Demolition Permits For Single And Double Dwelling Units Action Requested: Adopt Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Amending Chapter 4 Concerning Demolition Permits For Single And Double Dwelling Units. Information I Background: At its February 19 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff and City Attorney to review the City's "Construction Management Plan" (CMP) document and procedures in order to evaluate the overall use and effectiveness of the CMP in regulating residential redevelopment projects. I worked with City Attorney Knutson and City staff leadership on that review, which has resulted in a proposed new regulatory ordinance and enforcement plan. I distributed a draft of the proposed ordinance and enforcement plan to the Council at the March 5 Council meeting and informed the Council of my intent to advance the ordinance to the Council for adoption at the March 19 Council meeting. The material changes in City Code and enforcement strategy can be summarized as follows: New Regulatory Ordinance - Ordinance 2013 -3 is attached to this memorandum. The City Attorney drafted the new ordinance based on the current Construction Management Plan (CMP). The attached draft has been reviewed by City staff and is ready for review and adoption by the City Council. Generally, it incorporates the terms of the CMP into Chapter 4 of the City Code, which gives the.City a fully enforceable CMP that is backed by the authority of our City Code. Ordinance 2013 -3 will more strongly leverage the issuance of the demolition permit. A demolition permit will not be issued unless the permit applicant can demonstrate ownership of the property. Ordinance 2013- 3 requires a number of new conditions that must be satisfied before the issuance of the demolition permit. Some of those new conditions include: 1. Proof of insurance; naming City as additional insured 2. Submission of $10,000 cash escrow or letter of credit 3. Submission of soil investigation report 4. Submission of storm water management and erosion control plans 5. Submission of photography of existing conditions in neighborhood City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. ^ Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 6. Submission of proposed building plans to the Building Official 7. Facilitation of a neighborhood meeting to share building plans with neighbors New Enforcement Plan — The City's enforcement response to the quality of life issues created by residential redevelopments has been a somewhat passive. Staff responded to calls for service, but did not actively monitor redevelopment sites for compliance. We depended on neighbors and interested residents to assist us with that function. Also, requests for enforcement came to the City in an uncoordinated manner. The City's enforcement actions were also not coordinated well. As I expect the pace and volume of residential redevelopment to increase in Edina, I believe it is necessary to shift our enforcement strategy from passive to active enforcement and also to better coordinate our regulatory enforcement functions. My plan to accomplish both of these objectives is to focus the responsibility and accountability for managing the City's regulatory enforcement duties into a single new fulltime enforcement employee (FTE). The new FTE will be responsible for coordinating all aspects of the residential redevelopment process for builders, potential new residents, current residents and City staff. The new FTE will also coordinate the pre - permit neighborhood meeting; conduct site reconnaissance; answer questions from concerned residents; coordinate City enforcement actions; and keep City staff and Council informed through the redevelopment process. estimate the cost of this new enforcement initiative to be approximately $100,000 per year. In order to fund this new FTE, I recommend the City increase the price of the demolition permit from its current price of approximately $200 to $1,500. City staff are projecting the City will -issue a total of 100 demolition permits in 2013. If we issue 70 permits under the new permit price, we will be able to cover the cost of the new FTE through this new revenue source. The price change for this permit is included in Ordinance 2013- 3. SUMMARY The challenge the City is facing with residential redevelopment is not insurmountable. It is a challenge we should welcome because of what is says about the desirability of the community. I believe the City can manage its residential redevelopment challenges better if we, as Council and staff, are willing to change our approach to the challenge. I recommend the City Council approve the proposed new regulatory ordinance and the new enforcement plan, which includes full adoption of Ordinance 2013 -3 at the March 19 City Council meeting. If adopted by the Council, staff will immediately begin the search process for the new FTE; begin communicating our new standards to residents, builders and developers; and begin the drafting of new policies and procedures to implement the new ordinance requirements. ORDINANCE NO. 2013-3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 4 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLING UNITS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 4 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding Section 411 to read: Section 411— DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLILNG UNITS 411.01 Purpose. The demolition of single or double dwelling units and the subsequent construction of a new dwelling unit can disrupt the quietude of the neighborhood, damage adjacent public and private property, create storm water and erosion problems, and result in littering and other nuisances. The purpose of this Section is to prevent problems associated with the demolition of single and double dwelling units and the construction of new dwellings. 411.02 Permit. The demolition of single or double dwelling units is prohibited without a permit issued by the Building Official. 411.03 Demolition Defined. Demolition is defined as removal or destruction of more than fifty percent (50 %) of the area of the exterior walls (in aggregate); or the removal or destruction of more than fifty percent (50 %) of the area of the principal roof structure (not including roofing material, fascia, soffit, eave moldings, or dormers). 411.04 Permit Application. The applicant must complete the application form provided by the City, pay the permit fee and furnish the City with the certificate of insurance, letter of credit, photographs and plans required by this Section. The application must be signed-by the contractor and the property owner. The permit holder must be both the contractor and the property owner. 411.05 Permit Requirements. Subd. 1 The applicant must furnish the City with a certificate of insurance satisfactory to the City evidencing the following required coverage: Commercial general liability, including XCU coverage: Bodily Injury: $2,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate products and completed operations 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 - Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Page 2 $2,000,000 each accident Property Damage: $2,000,000 each occurrence The minimum insurance coverage must be maintained until six (6) months after the demolition has been completed or, if a new dwelling is being constructed, a certificate of occupancy has been issued. The City must be named as an additional insured. Subd. 2 The applicant must furnish the City a cash escrow or letter of credit from a bank in a form acceptable to the City's Finance Director for Ten Thousand ($10,000) Dollars. The City may draw on the letter of credit to reimburse the City to pay for the repair of damage to public and private property or to remedy any permit violation. The letter of credit must remain in place until the demolition is completed or, if a new dwelling is being constructed, until a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the Building Official. Subd. 3 If excavation will occur within ten (10) feet of a property line, the applicant must furnish a soils investigation report prepared and signed by a registered professional engineer, who is competent in soil mechanics. The report must provide detailed plans to ensure that adjacent property will not be damaged by reducing lateral support for driveways, foundations, fences or lawns caused by excavation, demolition or construction activity. The report must be approved by the Building Official. The permit holder must adhere to the approved plan. Subd. 4 The applicant must submit stormwater and erosion control plans prepared and signed by a registered professional civil engineer. The plans must be approved by the Building Official and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. The stormwater management plan must detail how stormwater will be controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage . system. The erosion control plan must document how proper erosion and sediment control will be maintained on a continual basis to contain on -site erosion and protect on and off -site vegetation. Permit holder must protect all storm drain inlets with sediment capture devices at all time during the project when soil disturbing activities may result in sediment laden storm water runoff entering the inlet. The permit holder is responsible for preventing or minimizing the potential for unsafe conditions, flooding, or siltation problems. Devices must be regularly cleaned out and emergency overflow must be an integral part of the device to reduce the flooding potential. Devices must be placed to prevent the creation of driving hazards or obstructions.. Subd. 5 The applicant must provide photographs of the existing condition of the property, curbs, sidewalks, streets, boulevard and trees adjacent to the property. Subd. 6 If a new dwelling will be constructed on the site, the applicant must furnish the City building plans for the new dwelling, meeting all ordinance requirements, which have been approved by the Building Official. Subd. 7 At least fifteen (15) days before demolition commences, the permit holder must provide written notification to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the demolition site notifying the property owners of the proposed demolition and construction plans, if applicable, and inviting them to a neighborhood meeting at the Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Page 3 Edina City Hall. The neighborhood meeting must be held at least five (5) days before demolition commences. A sign must also be posted on the demolition site at least five (5) days before demolition commences identifying the 'permit holder, a contact name and phone number, and the site address. The sign must also provide a City phone number to call with any questions, complaints or concerns. The sign may not exceed six (6) square feet. The sign must be kept in place until the completion of demolition or if a new dwelling is being constructed until a certificate of occupancy is issued for the dwelling being constructed. 411.06 Permit Standards. Subd. 1 The permit holder must comply with the State Building Code, State Statutes and the City Code. Subd. 2 Deliveries of equipment and material to the site, work crews on site and construction and demolition activity are prohibited except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Subd. 3 The permit holder must repair any damage to public property, streets, sidewalks and adjacent properties. If damage occurs to the foregoing, it must be repaired within three (3) working days, unless the permit holder has received written permission from the Building Official to delay repairs to a later specified date. Subd. 4 Permit holder must maintain a five -foot (5') parking setback from driveways and a thirty -foot (30') parking setback from intersections. When parking on a street, a vehicle must be completely located on the street surface, parallel to and within twelve (12) inches of the curb. Vehicles in violation of these requirements may be towed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 168B.035. On street parking of equipment other than motor vehicles is prohibited. Stopping, standing or parking a vehicle is prohibited, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic control device, in any of the following places: a. On a boulevard between the sidewalk and roadway; b. Within five (5) feet of the intersection of any public or private driveway or alley with any street or highway; C. Where the vehicle will block a fire escape or the exit from any building; d. Where temporary signs prohibit parking. Parking is allowed on local streets if a twelve -foot (12') wide area is open for the traveled portion of the road. On collector and arterial roadways, a minimum of twenty - two feet (22') must be open for the traveled portion of the road. Off- street and off -site parking for on site workers is required to the extent practicable. Subd. 5 The permit holder must install and maintain a rock entrance pad or its equivalent at each location where vehicles enter or exit from the construction site, at locations approved by the Building Official. Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Page 4 Subd. 6 The site must be maintained in a. neat and orderly condition. Prior to leaving the construction site at the end of each day, permit holder must remove empty cans,' paper, plastic and other material that is not needed for construction. The permit holder must keep, streets, sidewalks, boulevard- areas and adjacent properties clean from waste, materials or refuse resulting from operations on the .site. Inoperab;le.equipment and equipment'not being used on the site must be removed within twenty four -(24) hours. Where work on any project lies within areas of pedestrian traffic or vehicular traffic, the project,.area.must be cleaned and 'swept. and all materials related.to the project must be stockpiled in appropriate areas. Debris 'must be contained on the project site. No material may be :deposited or stockpiled on the public streets, boulevards or sidewalks. At the end of, each working day, the permit holder must remove any soil, trash or-debris that washed or was deposited on any public sidewalk or street and must remove any trash or debris that washed or was deposited on any adjacent property. Subd. 7 Dust control is the. responsibility of the permit holder. The permit holder must eliminate dust problems within one (1) ;hour of receiving notice from the' Building Official that there is a dust problem... Subd. 8 No building material, temporary sanitary facilities, dumpster or equipment other then motor vehicles may be placed within street right -of -way, or on a sidewalk. Public sidewalks must be left open and unobstructed at all times. Subd. 9 Prior to commencing demolition, protective fencing approved by the Building Official must be installed around boulevard trees and trees that will not be removed. 411.07 Stop Work Orders. If the Building Official finds any work being performed in a dangerous or unsafe manner or that is in violation of the provisions of the permit, City Code or the State Building Code, the Building Official may issue a.stop work order. The stop work order must be in writing and issued to the permit holder or the person doing the work. Upon issuance of a stop work order, the cited work must immediately cease. The stop work order must state the reason for the order and the conditions under which the cited work will be permitted to resume. 411.08 Misdemeanor. Violations of this Section or of the terms of approval of a permit issued under this Section are a misdemeanor. Section 2. Chapter 1 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding the following fee: Section Subsection Purpose of Fee or Change Amount 411 411.04 demolition permit for $1,500.00 single and.double dwelling Units Section 3. This ordinance is effective upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Ordinance No. 2013 -3 Page 5 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 James B. Hovland, Mayor March I6, 2013 Honorable James Hovland, Mayor City of Edina .4801 West SOth Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Revitalization Opposition Dear Mayor Hovland: As an adjunct to my Neighborhood Revitalization letter to you.of March 14, 20I3, the following com- ments address the MNA subcommittee report of February 28, 2013. Revitalization opponents have agitated for ever -more regulation and additional restrictions over the past several years. The subcommittee report is the latest of these efforts. In significant respects this is the most - radical opposition proposition in its potential negative effects on future neighborhood revitalization in Edina. Unrepresentative The subcommittee proposes additional city-wide zoning building code restrictions based on "conversations" among about 50 people (plus interviews with builders, staff, etc.) — that is half the number of new houses built in Edina last year. These people are a statistically small percentage of the population of Morningside neighborhood, and a tiny percentage of upwards of 50,000 Edina residents whom this subcommittee in effect purports to represent: Generic The fundamental city - planning truth is that every situation is unique. Not only does every Edina neigh- borhood differ from all,others in some ways, but situations can differ materially within any one neighborhood. The committee memo's implication that, say, all SO' -wide lots are the same is ungrounded in, reality. Simplistic Every neighborhood has a distinctive personality and values established by its residents over, decades. Physical characteristics are only>part of this singular mix of influences, preferences, and experiences. Since every- thing in a neighborhood is interconnected with everything -else, tinkering with seemingly minor code . formulas could unravel important neighborhood qualities. Untested The committee proposal offers no modeling. Site planning requires highly experienced professionals because in tight conditions even a single foot can make the difference between workable and non - functional - for instance in parking -lot layouts. A table of proposed new setback restrictions is an empty exercise without modeling to assess its design implications._ THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM, LLC. 52.00 WILLsoN ROAD, SUITE 150, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 952 836 2665 WWW- PEPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 .121 [ PAGE 2OF31 Unrealistic The market determines viability. Municipalities can regulate downwards but that does not mean that people will still buy the result, what to them is a deficient house by current standards. Of course without modeling, there is no way of knowing what can realistically be built, much less who if anyone would invest in such a house. The market itself measures, regulates, and enforces. Overreaching The committee seems to be energized by the prospect of widespread regulation. Somehow the topic of reducing house lot coverage has broadened to the need for an ordinance regulating the maintenance of trees on private property. Edina traditions may be unfamiliar to committee members, since over the past century the munici- pality has characteristically erred on the side of under - regulating. Irrelevant The committee's proposal is largely a grab bag of conventional notions pasted on from a variety of sources, few if any pertinent to the issue supposedly at hand. To wit: houses of any size can have low -flow shower - heads and ceiling fans, and thus qualify as "sustainable" by the committee's definitions. And more - expensive, that is larger, houses are more likely to be built of better, more durable materials. Overall, the sense of the committee proposal is that Morningside should be like Linden Hills. And that Edina should be the Fourteenth Ward of Minneapolis. Of course, every community and every neighbor- hood within every community ideally evolve in their own best direction. Trying to be like someplace else is fruitless. It is disappointing that endorsement and encouragement by members of our own planning commission have contributed to the media perception that the committee's ideas represent a spontaneous outpouring of grievances and of universal concerns from all citizens of Edina. This is hardly the case, as city records show in excess of I00 new -house permits last year, and many more major remodels. These hundreds of homeowners have voted with their checkbooks for a revitalizing community . Few of these people to date have weighed in on this issue. They are largely unaware of the potential risks to their equity investments. Once alerted, they represent a large and economically powerful constituency that can quickly become a force for revitalization that is presently only nascent Going Forward We should set aside negativism and reflexive regulation in addressing Edina's future. There are useful avail- able directions with respect to neighborhood revitalization. We must first appreciate that change is constant Forever. And now that Edina is built out, change will oc- cur in built -up neighborhoods. There may be a misperception that all we need to do is pass a new, more - restrictive ordinance and we have fixed the problem. But the "problem," that is, change, is never going away. Ordinances that try to lock in a regulatory answer to what is always a fluid situation are missing the point. The question is whether inevitable, unstoppable change is positive, resulting in the continual revitalization of our community; or whether essential reinvestment is retarded. THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM, LLC. 5200 WILLSON ROAD, SUITE 150. EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 952.836.2665 WWW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 1� [ PAGE 3OF31 Planning and Design My March I4 letter to you observed that the market enforces harsh penalties on bad or excessive building practices. Understandably, many homebuyers do not really understand this. That is why widely available education about how the local market works would be highly useful to both homebuyers and the commu- nity. Zoning The elephant in the room is that the municipal code is obviously inadequate for the Edina of the present, much less the future. This is not a matter of more regulating, but rather of a different kind of code, one that sets out what the community is trying to be (rather than to protect against a universe of unknowns), and also accommodates the many singular situations through the city. All R -Is are not the same. Zoning is a highly sophisticated planning specialty. Unfortunately, when municipalities engage national zoning consultants, they commonly end up with generic codes — one city fits all — or are provided with the current planning fashion, today the so -called form -based codes. While local planning consultants may be happy to write a new code, this is not something for a generalist. Indeed, only one metro -area consultant is qualified to devise a specific code for a city the size and com- plexity of Edina. So the immediate zoning issue is not devising a new code, but first carefully understand- ing what the city needs and the then how to go about accomplishing those needs without wasting public funds. Thank you for this opportunity to share these observations. Sincerely, Lon Oberpriller President The Replacement Housing Services Consortium, LLC cc: Edina City Council Edina Planning Commission Enclosures. Morningside Neighborhood Association subcomittee report: Residential Zoning Codes . Speak Up Edina Forum: Excerpts of citizen commentary on Residential Redevelopment THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM, LLC. 5200 WILLSON ROAD, SUITE 150. EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 952.836.2665 WWW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 12t To: Edina City Council and Planning Commission From: Morningside Neighborhood Association subcommittee Re: Residential zoning code Date: February 28, 2013 The Morningside Neighborhood Association held a neighborhood conversation on residential reconstruction in October 2-012. More than 5o residents attended. The steering committee prepared a summary of the meeting, which was distributed in November (attached), and formed a subcommittee to follow up on the discussion. The subcommittee focused its attention on residential zoning code and the Construction Management Plan (CMP). Our recommendations on the CMP were distributed to the Planning Commission and City Council on February 5, 2-013. The attached recommendations relate to the City's residential zoning code. These recommendations were developed by the subcommittee and are currently being reviewed by the steering committee. The process used by the subcommittee to develop these recommendations included: • Reviewed residential zoning code of Edina and other communities; • Met with five builders (Dan Murphy of Kuhl Design and Build, Dave Allen of City Homes, Lon Oberpriller of Replacement Homes, Dave Pinske of David Pinske Design and Build, and Mike Pearson and Morningside Builders); • Met with Cary Teague and Kris.Aaker in Planning and Community Development; • Met with Steve Kirchman in Building Inspections; • Met with members of the Planning Commission subcommittee on residential zoning; • Attended both public input sessions on residential construction; • Additional small group and individual meetings with interested residents In any discussion on residential zoning, there are likely to be a variety of views. There are residents who want to see more restrictive residential zoning code and residents who do not. Our goal was to balance these divergent perspectives and make practical recommendations that not only address the concerns raised at the October meeting, but also simplify the code and plan review. We would be happy to meet to go over the recommendations and answer any of your questions. Please contact us at edina.morningsideagmail.com. Thank you. ,�� '��*��m�u�u� ` - ^ ` ` ' RECOMMENDATIONS Lots lessthan 75' wide, �unless specified ' - �xtg��sth�m��? w__umQesa .For ^wuvw""."na"=c~^^'^---'--��' ^ ' � issues these e��o�wNadd��p please Z0I background ' . ^ ' &4N/\ meeting sun�nna�� Increase interior side ' yard'setba—ck Recmcnn`eopawwns , � �d 1' wide ' with 7' minimum on one, side - For lots _,'-6�' �de� 8'aach skie({6'l � r��hR� For lots 7[/-�z' 91 '-~ � ' ` ` b,�ach�6e/�u�' For lots . 'vvkdeand,over l -,--v--/ '^ ' ��f ' pd to attached �ara�esand other ` 2- Aon|vsanleinterk»r~._e</a setbacks . . � attached a``=s""'xstructures ` ' 3. Delete requirement toincrease � intehorside` cdsetbackbysixinchesfor e --' one foot building hek~htexceeds 15/ ozsg,uuu�q' ft and less only) 4. Delete requirement td increase Interior side yard setback hv four inches for each one foot lot width exceeds 6O' (up to75'l ` ' �� Delete a�ernatesetbackrU|e � _ , Benefits 1' increases minimum interior side yard setbacks on narrow lots Z. Addresses resident concerns ' 3' Flexibility on narrowest lots 4' Sinlp|i5essetbacks/ irnp|Ulesp|anrevievv ` nc � 5^ Increases transparency and neighbor notification by requiring all non- conformities to seek variance ` See tables next page P Table I Table z Current Interior Side Yard Setbacks Proposed Interior Side Yard Setbacks Lot Width Current Interior Side Yard Setback' Wand under 5' each side 61' 5'411 each side 62' 5' 8" each side 63 6' each side 64 6'4" each side 65 6'811 each side 66' 7' each side 67' 7'4" each side 68' 718" each side 69' 8' each side 70' 8'4" each side 71 ' 8' W' each side 72' 9' each side 73' 9'4" each side 74' 9' 8" each side 75' and over lo' each side 'Does not include additional setback for building height over 15' Lot Width Proposed Interior Side Yard Setback 63' and under 16' aggregate, with 6' minimum 64'— 66' 16' aggregate, with 7' minimum 67'— 69' 8' each side (16') 70'— 72' 9' each side (18') 73' and over lo' each side (20') 3 Reduce building height Recommendations 1. Cap at 30' to the ridge, measured from the first floor elevation 2. Delete measurement to midline Benefits 1. Decreases overall building height to reduce mass and impact on neighboring properties z. Simplifies measurement — height is measured from a constant (first floor elevation rather than average grade. Code prohibiting raising first floor more than 1' to stay) 3. Simplifies code and plan review — eliminates complexity of measuring to midline on different roof styles Reduce lot coverage The majority of original homes in Morningside were constructed before 197o. Lots were platted for the size of home built or anticipated to be built at the time of the plat. In 1950, the average size of a single family home was 983 sq. ft. in 2011, the average size of a single family home was 2,48o sq. ft. —a 152% increase.' A new home in Morningside can be two or more times larger than the home it replaced. The smaller the lot, the greater the possible impact of the larger house on its neighbors. The impacts most often stated are loss of light, air, and privacy, and drainage concerns. Recommendations on lots less than 9,000 sq. ft. in area: 1. Reduce lot coverage to 25% (making it the same as for lots 9,000 sq. ft. and over) 2. Cap lot coverage at 1,875 sq. ft. (in practice, applies only to lots more than 7,5000 sq. ft. and less than 9,000 sq. ft.) 3. Allow bonus 400 sq. ft. for detached rear garage Benefits 1. Small reduction in lot coverage with attached garage 2. No reduction in lot coverage with bonus for detached garage See Tables 4 - 7 1 http: / /css.snre .umich.edu /css_doc/CSSol- o8.pdf 4 Table 4 — Com ari Dimension 50 x too 50 x 120 50 x 150 50 x 200 6o x 100 6o x 120 60 x 150 6o x 200 70-x too 70 x 120 70 x 150 70 x 200 1 _ w+ son or ju%o a„u z-yo 25% D Difference 5,000 . .1,500 1 1,250 - -250 6 000 1 1,800 1 1,500 - -300 7,500 2 2,250 1 1,875 - -375 10,000 N NA 2 2,500 0 0 6,000 1 1,800 1 1,500 - -300 7,200 2 2,16o 1 1,800 - -360 9,000 N NA 2 2,250 0 0 12,000 N NA 3 3,000 0 0 7,000 2 2,100 1 1,750 - -350 8,400 2 2,520 (2,250 2 2,100 - -150 with ca 10,500 N NA 2 2,625 0 0 14,000 N NA 3 3,500 ° ° 'Lot coverage is "the percentage of the lot area occupied by principal and accessory bwl ings an structures, including without limitation, patios." Lot coverage can, but does not necessarily, equal interior square footage. 5 I aDle j - c5/b JUL wva, a c •V IL.. Area l,. / jI 2W - 1,875 Cape 400 sq. ft. Lot Dimension -garage coverage bonus ' with bonus3 50 x 100 5,000 1,250 NA 1,650 33% 50 X120 6,000 . 1,500. NA 1,900 32% 50 �i 150 7,500 1,$75 NA 2,275 5o 'x zoo, 10,000 2,500 NA:: NA 25% 6o x 100 6,000 1,500 NA 1,900 32% ., 6o x 120 7,zoo . 1 ;800 NA 2,200 31% 60'x 150 :9,000 2, 250 NA NA . 25q 6o x zoo 12,000 3,000 NA NA 25% 65 x 100 6,500 1;625;. NA 2,025 31% 65 x "i2o 7,800 1,950 1,875 2,350 30% 65 x 150 91750 2,438 NA NA 25% 65 x zoo 13,000 3,250 NA NA z.5% 'For lots 9,000 sq. ft. and over, current iot coverage n /�)/- 'For lots more than 7,500 sq. ft. but less than 9,000 sq. ft. in area, current cap is 2,250 sq. ft. 313onus applies to lots less than 9,000 sq. ft. 9 6 •r_Lt- / t�_..�I��wwi ....i....i.�l��rrnn� rnriu Dimension Area Lot First floor First 2" Second Two Two coverage' setback floor floor floor story floor story potenti setback potential potential' potential potential' 50 x too al 11250 400 16' w/ 6' 50 x too 5,000 1,500 575' 1,500 varies varies <3,000 50 x 150 7,500 2,250 5'15' 2,250 varies varies <4,500 50 x 200 10,00 2,500 5'15' 2,250 varies varies <5,000 0 min min plus 400 50 x 200 65 x too 6,500 1,950 6' 8 1116' 8" 1,950 varies varies <3,900 65 x 150 9,750 2,437 6' 8 "/6' 8" 2,437 varies varies <4,874 65 x zoo 13,00 3,250 6' 8"16' 8" 3,250 varies varies <6,500 1,625 0 min 70 x 100 7,000 1,750 8' 4 '/8' 4" 1,750 varies varies <3,500 70 x 150 10,50 2,625 8'4"/8'4)p 2,625 varies varies <5,250 min 0 min 65 x 200 13,000 3,250 70 x 200 14,00 3,500 8' 4 "18' 4" 3,500 varies varies <7,000 0 min min 70 x 100 ' 25% for 9,000 sq. ft. and over; 307- for unaer 9,000 sq. rt. UuC� IIUL 51%. U c _u_ tom_••- 1___��i.�wiw..i:•.1 ---A a ~195 Dimension Area Lot Detached First floor First 2" floor Second Two coverage garage setback floor setback floor story 25% bonus potential potential potential' 50 x too 5,000 11250 400 16' w/ 6' 11250 16' w/ 6' 1,250 2,500 min min plus 400 50 x 150 7,500 1,875 400 16' w/ 6' 10875 16' w/ 6' 1,875 3,750 min min plus 400 50 x 200 10,000 2,500 NA 16' w/ 6' 2,500 16' w/ 6' 2,500 5,000 min min 65 x 100 6,500 1,625 400 16' w/ 7' 1,625 16' w/ 7' 1,625 3,250 min min Plus 400 65 x 150 9,750 2,437 NA 16' w/ 7' 2,437 16' w/ 7' 2,437 4,874 min min 65 x 200 13,000 3,250 NA 16' w/ 7' 3,250 16' w/ 7' 3,250 6,500 min min 70 x 100 7,000 1,750 400 979' 1,750 979' 1,750 3,500 Plus 400 70 x 150 10,500 2,625 NA 9119' 2,625 979' 2,625 5,250 70 x 200 14,000 3,500 NA 9'19' 3,500 9'19' 3,500 7,000 'Does not include basement 7 Recommendation i. Require unobstructed on -site access to backyard from one side of house Benefits i. Reduces impacts on neighboring properties z. Provides access to home and yard for maintenance Protect trees Recommendation 1. Develop comprehensive tree protection, preservation and replacement ordinance Benefits 1. Preserve and improve urban forest z. Preserve neighborhood character 3. Reduce impacts on neighboring properties Address drainage concerns Recommendation 1. Stronger code and plan review Recommendation i. Reduce impacts on neighboring properties z. Reduce volume of untreated stormwater that goes into storm sewer and local creeks, ponds and lakes Encourage garages that do not dominate front facade Recommendations 1. Increased interior side yard setbacks and 400 sq. ft. bonus for detached garage provide incentive to locate garage at rear of the house z. Neighborhood character guidelines can define garage styles that are keeping with the neighborhood character (these can include not only detached rear garages, but also side loading, set back, and front loading garages that take up less than a set percentage of the front facade) 3. Administrative site plan review can award points for garage styles that have desirable design features , Benefits 1. Addresses resident concerns U. Recommendation 1. Develop guidelines for neighborhood character with input from neighborhood task force Neighborhood character can be difficult to define, especially in a neighborhood that was developed over a long period. Morningside was platted in 1905 and original homes developed over most of the century. When thinking about features that define neighborhood character, it is important to understand that a feature does not need to be pervasive for it to be considered a defining characteristic. For example, we've heard many residents comment that they feel front loading garages are out of character. Yet, the neighborhood has many original homes with front loading garages. We've heard that the size of some new homes is out of scale with the neighborhood. Yet, there are several large original homes with square footage that may equal the new,homes. It is therefore important to think of neighborhood character in two ways: the physical features that dominate an area and the features that dominate people's perceptions of an area. They may be the same thing in some cases, but in others they may not. The following features generally define neighborhood character in Morningside. The list is offered as a starting point to a longer discussion on neighborhood character and development of guidelines. • Mature trees • Sidewalks • Larger homes on larger lots, smaller homes on smaller lots • Larger homes with traditional two -story architecture, often brick or stucco, garages set back or at rear of home • Garage doors do not dominate front fa4ade Benefits 1. Addresses resident concerns z. Strengthens neighborhood identity Institute administrative site plan review Recommendation 1. Develop an administrative site plan review process similar to that used by the City of Minneapolis (attached) The plan identifies desirable design elements and assigns points to them. Builders choose which design elements to include in their project to earn the 0 required number of points. This gives the builder flexibility while encouraging desirable design elements that may not be specified in code. The design elements can be tailored for specific neighborhoods to help to preserve neighborhood character. The design elements or site features can also provide incentives for tree preservation and replacement, green building practices, increased energy efficiency, reductions in impervious surfaces or other features deemed desirable. Benefits 1. Alternative to citizen design review board 2. Flexibility— builders and homeowners can choose which elements to incorporate into design 3. Design elements can be neighborhood- specific, without requiring additional zoning or overlay district SUMMARY The above recommendations offer trade -offs. In exchange for greater interior side yard setbacks, setbacks do not have to be stepped back for building height above 151, allowing for more traditional two -story architecture, more second floor square footage, and less complexity in plan review. In exchange for reduced height to the ridge, height is measured from the first floor elevation, rather than the average front yard grade, reducing mass and simplifying plan review. In exchange for reduced lot coverage, builders are given a bonus if they locate a detached garage at the rear, bringing lot coverage back up to and over 30 %. See comparison table attached. Any changes have the potential for unintended consequences. For this reason, we recommend that any proposed changes be modeled and tested against real life examples These recommendations are intended to work together. The recommendations should also be considered in conjunction with our earlier recommendations to refine the CMP, which address issues such as neighbor notification, site conditions, construction traffic and other concerns raised at the October meeting. Please excuse any errors in calculations. 10 Dimension Area Lot coverage percentage current Lot coverage percentage proposed Lot coverage sq.ft. current Lot coverage sq.ft. proposed (with Interior side yard setback current' Interior side yard setback proposed Max height current Max height proposed bonus o% 25 %+ 1,500 1,250 5'15' W w16' 35' 30, 50 x too 5,000 3 min. bonus (1,650) 25 %+ 2,250 1;875 5'15' 16' w16' 35' 30, 50 x 150 7,500 3 0% p bonus 2p275 min. 25% 3, 00 16' w16' 35' 30, 50 x zoo 10,000 25% 000 2,5 515 min. 2,900 25 %+ 1,950 1,625 6' 8 "16' 16' wl7' 35' 30 65 x 100 6,500 30% , bonus 202 5 8 " 8 2438 6' 8 "16' 16' w17' 35' 30, 65 x 150 9,750 25% 25% 2,43 , 8 min. , 65 x zoo 13,000 25% 25% 3,250 3,250 6' 8 "16' 16' w17' 35 30 g" min. 18' 9'19' 35' o 5 ' 2 % + 2,100 1,750 8' 4 " 3 70 x 100 7,000 30% 2,150 4" , bonus 5% 2,625 2,625 8' 4 "18' 9'19' 35' 3° 70 x 150 10,500 25% 4„ 7o x 200 14,000 z5% 25% 3,500 3,500 8' 4 "I8' 9'19' 35' 30, ' Base 5'15' setback, plus additional four inches for each foot lot width exceeds 6o'. Does not include additional setback for each foot building height exceeds 15'. Table 8 — Summary A GUIDE TO New residences containing 1-4 dwelling units MPLS shall obtain a minimum of 15 points from • Residential Point System (1 -4 units) must also comply with the standards included in Chapter 535 Regulations of General Applicability. DETACHED G/ftLk.RAAGE At least one parking space is provided in an enclosed garage that is detached from the main structure. 5 POINTS The primary exterior building materials are masonry, brick, stone, stucco, wood, cement - based siding, and /or glass. 4 POINTS The pitch of the primary roof line is 6/12 or steeper (or less -steep or flat if there Is a roof of similar pitch within loo feet). 2 POINTS The structure includes a basement as defined by the = building code. . 5 POINTS SUFFICIENT WINDOW AREA ? At least io% of the walls on At least 20% of the walls each floor that face a rear on each floor that face a or interior side lot line, public street, not including not including walls on half walls on half stories, are stories, are windows. windows. 3 POINTS 3 POINTS The structure includes an open -air, covered front porch of at least 70 square feet if there is at least one existing open front porch within ioo feet of the site. 1 POINT „n , WA There is at least one deciduous tree in the front yard. POINT ACCESSIBILITY Designs that offer certain accessibility features will receive BONUSES: point bonuses that allow them to bypass some of these requirements while still fulfilling the 15 -point minimum. FOR MORE INFORMATION - Consult the Site Plan Review Chapter 53o, Article VI of the City's Zoning Code online at: City of Minneapolis http: / /www.minneapolismn.gov /government /ordinances. asp rev 12,12011 Ew.nrx [le.v.mnery AWAS Center for Sustainable Systems Residential Buildings University of Michigan 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 -1041 phone: 734-764-1412 fax: 734-647-5841 email: css.info @umich.edu http: / /css.snre.umich -edu Patterns of Use Proven climate - specific, resource - efficient house design strategies exist, but per capita materials and energy consumption continue to increase. Additionally, between 1950 and 1990, urbanized land expansion grew at a rate 3 times the rate of population growth.' Size and Occupancy Average Size of a New U.S. Single - Family House' A majority of Americans live in single - family houses — in 2011, 64% of the 115 million U.S. households were single - family.'- Some 2011 unsustainable residential building trends to consider: 1970 1,500 ft2 2,480 ft2 Average size of a new U.S. single -family house2•3 1950 983 ft2 - 1970 1,500 ft'- - 2000 2,200 ft2 2011 2,480 ft- a 152% increase from 1950 Average area per person in a new U.S. single - family house'- - 1950 292 ft2 per person - 1970 478 ft- per person - 2000 840 ft2 per person - 2011 961 ft- per person a 229% increase from 1950 ,-Average number of occupants per U.S. household'' -•; - 1950 3.37 -.1970 3.14 - 2011 2.58 a 23% decrease from 1950 ■ In 1950, 9% of housing units were occupied by only one person. In 2009, this had increased to 27 %.5 a Americans spend, on average, 90% of their time indoors.' Energy Use • A new single - family house in Michigan — as studied in 1998 by CSS — consumes 1.3 GJ per square meter annually -' -' • A similar study of 3 houses in Sweden built in the 1990's shows annual energy consumption of 0.49 — 0.56 GJ per square meter — less than half the energy consumed in the lNiichigan house? . • Between 1990 and 2010, total residential GHG emissions increased by 28.7% while population increased by only 24 %.10 • The residential sector accounted for 22% of total primary energy consumption in the US in 2011.11 See figure on right for a breakdown of energy consumption by activity. ��`1•r.Vi•n r5 cy'. M 65% Increase Average U.S. Residential Energy Consumption in 201012 s`*UgfAirip,;a0 %` Refrigeration, 5% Color Televisions, ,r 5% Clothes Dryers, 3% Cooking, 3% Dishwashers, 1% —Freezers, 1% Personal Computers, 3% other Uses, 14% Furnace Fans, 2% Clothes Washers, o% ' Rusk D. (1999) Inside Game Owsidc Game: rPinning Simiegicsfor Saving Urban America. Washington, D.C. Brookings Institution Press. 2 National Association of Home Builders (2007) Housing Facts. Figures and Trends and Single-Family Square Footage By Location, U.S. Census Bureau, and Wilson. A. and J. Boehlmd (2005) "Small is Beautiful, U.S House Size, Resource Use, and the Environment" Journal of Industrial Ecology. Vol 9, No. 1-2.277-287. U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Characteristics of New Housing 2011 and American Community Horsing Suney 1009. ' U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Suney: 1011 Anmml.Social and Economic Supplement ' U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Census ofHorsing. Tables Living Alone (2004) and (2010) 2009 Arrrcrican ('orrrnrrini0• Srrn q% 'Wilson, 5. (2004) "Design for Health: Summit for Massachusetts Health Care Decision Makers." Presentation September 2004. Blanchard, S. and P. Reppe (1998) Life Cycle Analysis ofa Residential Home inAichigan (CSS98 -OS). s Keoleian, G.A., S. Blanchard and P. Reppe (2001) ••Life Cycle Energy, Costs, and Strategies for Improving a Single Family House ". Jurirnal of indusnriol Fculugy IJS -156. (CSS00 -I I 4(2), p. ). Adalbertl4 K. (1997) "Energy use during the Life Cycle of Single -Unit Dwellings: Examples." Building and Enrimiumcnr. Vol. 32, No. 4, 321.329. 10 EPA (2012) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 1010. ' U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2012) Annual Energy Review 2011. ''- EIA (2011) Annual Energy Outlook 1011. Complete Set of Factsheets <http:llcss.snre.umlch.edu> Life Cycle Impacts The Center for Sustainable Systems conducted a case study to inventory life -cycle energy consumption from manufacturing, construction and operational phases of a new 2,450 ft' single - family house built in Ann Arbor in 1998. The following off -the -shelf energy efficiency strategies were then modeled to quantify the resulting life -cycle energy savings: ■ Wall and ceiling insulation increased from R -15 to R -35 and R -23 to R -49 respectively; building infiltration (leakage) reduced by half ■ Wooden basement walls instead of concrete; basement thermal insulation increased from R -12 to R -39 v 4 Double- glazed windows upgraded to include low -e treatment and argon fill 0 Energy- efficient appliances; stove & dryer switched from electricity to natural gas ■ Energy- efficient lighting (fluorescent) �., ■ Building- integrated shading (overhangs) on south - facing windows _ Hot -water heat recovery ■ Air -to -air heat recovery used with ventilation system ■ Glass fiber thermal insulation replaced with recycled cellulose ter—` 0 Recycled- materials roofing shingles (wood /plastic) ■ The case study house required 172 tons of concrete? and 24 tons of wood and wood products.' ■ 90% of the life cycle energy consumption occurred during operation; only 10% went into building and maintaining the house. 7 ■ Top contributors to the primary energy consumption of the case study house were polyamide for carpet, concrete in foundation, PVC for siding, window frames and pipes, and asphalt roofing shingles. 7 ■ 75% of the materials in the case study house are currently recyclable7; however, the U.S. average recycling rate of building materials from demolition and construction is only 20- 30 %.1i ■ A 63% building life -cycle energy reduction was achieved through the above measures, all with readily available technology. ■ Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions were reduced from 1,013 to 374 metric tons CO2- equivalent, over the 50 -year life of the house. ■ Despite the additional material requirements, the total embodied energy was reduced by about 4 %. ■ Installing high efficiency HVAC system and cellulose insulation ranked as the most effective strategies in reducing annual energy costs. Solutions and Sustainable Alternatives Reduce operational demand of the home From a life -cycle perspective, energy and water consumption during the life of a building contribute much more to its environmental impact than do building materials. The following suggestions can significantly reduce operational energy demand: ■ Use passive heating methods — passive solar, waste heat from disposed hot water. ■ Make use of passive cooling — night- flushing, shading. ■ Add ceiling fans, and the A/C can be comfortably set about 5 degrees higher. ■ Maximize day lighting — skylights, south facing windows. ■ Consider decentralized, "passive" sanitary services — compost toilet, living machine, rainwater use for toilets, greywater for gardening. ■ Convert appliances from electric to natural gas, reducing primary energy consumption by about 75 %? ■ Install a low -flow showerhead — less than 2.5 gallons- per - minute — to save both water and energy. ■ Save 40% of hot water heating energy with a simple wastewater heat exchanger. 7 ■ Adequate insulation — recommended R- values can be calculated online at: http: / /www.ornl.gov /—roofs /Zip /ZipHome.html. ■ Many energy efficient home upgrades, if installed before 2012, are still eligible for federal tax credits: HVAC systems, insulation, roofing, water heaters, and windows and doors. Some renewable energy systems also qualify through 2016. Please see: http://www.energysavers.gov/financial/70010.htrnL'4 Select durable and/or renewable materials Building materials with long lives may have greater upfront cost, but long -term savings and reduced environmental impact are achieved by avoiding replacement. Renewable building materials also offer potential environmental advantages. • Durables to consider: cork or hardwood vs. carpet, standing -seam roofing vs. asphalt shingles • Renewables to consider: cork, linoleum, wool carpet, certified wood and plywood, strawboard, cellulose insulation, straw -bale • Substituting asphalt shingle roofing with recycled plastic /wood fiber shingles can reduce embodied Photo Courtesy ofhttp:// v,• ww .snre.umich.edu/greendana/green matenals. energy by 98% over 50 years. 7 r' U.S. EPA (1998) Charaeterisetion of Building- Rclated Constntcrion and Demolition Debris in the llnited.Oates Report No. EPA530 -R -98 -010. " U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2006) "Energy Savers: Tips on Saving Energy & Money at Home. Insulation." http: / /wwwl.eere. energy. gov lconsumerltipsrinsWaiion.html. CHe as Centerlor Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2012. - Residential Buildings Factsheet.' Pub, No. CSS01 -08. October 2012 amb Summary of Discussion on Residential Reconstruction 2012 Annual Meeting Morningside Benefits of residential reconstruction Morningside has always been a welcoming community with diverse housing styles —from early 20th century bungalows, post war Cape Cods, 1960s & 70s ramblers, to today's larger suburban - styled homes. The benefits of residential reconstruction in the neighborhood are many. Residential reconstruction: • Renews housing stock and adds to the diversity of housing styles in Morningside • Attracts new residents to Morningside • Has the potential to raise property values • Increases the City's tax base Concerns raised related to residential reconstruction and the impact on neighboring properties A variety of concerns were raised at the 2012 NINA Annual Meeting during a discussion on residential reconstruction. For the most part, these concerns are related to the impact of residential reconstruction on neighboring properties from the perspective of those who have been impacted. Some concerns are related to building styles and neighborhood character. As the below notes show, many concerns and their impacts are inter- related. Summary of concerns and impacts Changes to side or rear yard elevation, lot grade or land contours • Can result in removal of trees and vegetation • Can change patterns of surface water runoff and drainage • Can impact building height • "Can increase visual mass • Can change sun /shade cycle on adjacent properties • Can reduce privacy in adjacent homes or yards Changes to lot coverage, setback, or how home is located on the lot • Can change neighborhood character • Can increase visual mass • Can result in tree removal • Can change sun /shade cycle on adjacent properties • Can impact air circulation • Can reduce privacy in adjacent homes or yards Changes to surface water runoff and drainage • Can direct water to adjacent properties • Can cause standing water, flooding, erosion, and property damage Retaining walls at lot line • Can require access from adjacent properties to build and maintain Tree removal • Can change neighborhood character, natural aesthetics • Can alter sun /shade cycles on adjacent properties • Can reduce privacy in adjacent homes and yards Window wells to lot line • Can prevent homeowner from accessing own backyard from own property • Can create potential safety issues with children, vehicles on adjacent driveways Homes with no outside access to back yard • Can result in use of neighboring property to access, with or without permission • Potential for issues with adverse possession and homeowner liability Changes in sun /shade cycles on adjacent properties • Can change thaw /freeze cycles • Can impact gardens and landscaping • Can reduce or increase light in interior living spaces • Can reduce or increase need for mechanical heating and cooling Changes to air circulation • Can impact comfort and interior air quality • Can reduce or increase need for mechanical heating and cooling Changes to privacy • Can create need for fences, landscaping, or window coverings • Can impact how neighboring property owners use and enjoy their property Changes to traffic patterns, vehicle access, and parking • Can impact neighborhood livability • Can create concerns about safety Issues during construction • Construction vehicles blocking access to driveways or making it difficult for other vehicles to get through • Wear and tear on roadways from construction vehicles and construction activities • Noise • Construction activities seven days a week • Sidewalks torn up and /or not maintained in winter • Neighbors not sure who they should contact about questions or complaints; some experienced City staff and /or builder not responsive to concerns Questions and perceptions What does City code say about residential reconstruction? • Perception that City code is inadequate to protect neighboring properties and neighborhood character in the areas of: • building height or rooflines • setbacks (especially window wells and eaves) • lot coverage • grading, elevation and drainage • garages at the front • penalties for violations 2. How many variances are granted? . • Perception that some recently built homes have required variances and that variances are easy to obtain What code or policy changes related to residential reconstruction are currently being discussed? How do residents advocate for code or policy changes? What other strategies or practices does the City have to address concerns about residential reconstruction? • Perception that plan review and inspection practices sometimes fail to catch code violations related to building height, setbacks, lot coverage, grading, elevation and drainage • Perception that, when code violations related to the above are caught after construction has begun, current practices do not require the builder to take corrective action • Perception that this contributes to some builders intentionally violating code What can be done to protect a property from construction activities or new construction on a nearby or adjacent lot? NEXT STEPS About 50 residents attended the discussion on residential reconstruction held as part of the 2012 MNA Annual Meeting. The goal of this discussion was to give residents an opportunity to share experiences and identify questions and concerns related to residential reconstruction in the neighborhood. In any discussion on residential reconstruction, there are likely to be a variety of views. The Steering Committee hopes to hear from as many residents as possible on this issue. Whether you are a new or longtime Morningside resident, whether you live in an original, remodeled, or rebuilt home, your perspective is valuable. To comment on this summary, share your experience, or ask a question, please email the MNA Steering Committee at edina.morningside @gmail.com. The Steering Committee will share this summary and any new input with City officials and ask for responses to the questions and concerns that have been raised. The Steering Committee will also work to schedule a neighborhood meeting with City officials to identify and discuss action steps that can be taken in response to these concerns. Information will be posted on the MNA website and distributed via the MNA email list. ABOUT MNA The Morningside Neighborhood Association (MNA) was formed at a neighborhood meeting on November 9, 2003. The purpose of the MNA is to promote a better community through group; action, to promote involvement in decisions made by local government, and to represent the interests of all residents and property owners in the Morningside Neighborhood. Activities of the MNA are guided by a Steering Committee, elected each October at the Annual Meeting. 2012 -2013 Steering Committee members are: Mindy Ahler (Crocker), Helen Burke (Grimes), Mary Carte (Branson), Pat Corcoran (Monterey), Susan Danzl (Lynn), Jennifer Janovy (Inglewood), Kay Johnson (Oakdale), Tim Rudnicki (Lynn), Scott Smith ( Morningside Road), and Paul Thompson (Crocker). For more information, please see wwwedinamorningside.org or email edina.morningside @gmail.com. © 2012 Morningside Neighborhood Association 3. City of Edina, MN • Select Language • Sian in / up or • Connec • Home • Discussions • Ideas Like 2 Send Tweet 12 Share 0 `11;1 iN n � r l r ^. 3/4/13 6:12 PM Speak Up, Ed1'6LA1LCL1i MM% 0% We're always looking for feedback and ideas for how we can make Edina an even better place for living, learning, raising families and doing business. Take a moment to provide your feedback and ideas on any of the forums you see here or start your own discussion. it's your chance to speak up, Edina! ► SHARE your feedbac:' ► POST your ldcas' ► JOIN the discussion! Want to provide your feedback for the City of Edina? Simply Sian up using your email or connect with Facebook! Once you have created an account, post your ideas or participate in the discussion forums. • 104 Answers • 28 Participants • Discussion Closed Residential Redevelopment Topics 1. Your Top Three Suggestions 2 Construction Process 3. Building Mass and Heia The Planning Commission and City Staff are looking for resident input to help ensure a balance among homeowners planning to move, existing neighbors impacted by new construction and new homeowners moving into our community. Here is your chance to http: / /speakupedina.org/ discussions / residential - redevelopment /topics /your- top- three - suggestions Page 1 of 1 3/4/13 6:12 PM City of Edina, MN provide feedback and propose solutions to redevelopment issues currently impacting the City. Edina continues to be a disirable community. As a result, it has expereinced a large increase in the removal of existing homes a, construction of new homes in established neighborhoods. This trend has sparked concern among residents. The Planning Commission established a subcommittee to identify residential zoning issues and suggest possible changes to our current zoning codes and policies. Please keep all comments constructive and civil. Your Top Three Suggestions What are your top three suggestions regarding new residential constructions? Next Topic Sion in to Respond 51 answers (hide replies) • Nancy Killilea (edit answer) My top three suggestions concerning new construction: 1) How can we consider and respect sight lines within the process? Bigger homes close to much smaller homes often result in a claustrophobic experience for the smaller home. Three story walls can feel overwhelming Ensuring appropriate sight lines would help. 2) Restrictions on adding fill or changing topography of the land would ensure that new homes don't dramatically change the feeling of the neighborhood or the views of the current residents. 3) Update the current set up requirements. One of the overall impacts of the building of much larger homes (regardless of lot size!) is the feeling of overcrowding and the elimination of open space. One last thought given that Edina is trying to develop neighborhood identities (for example naming separate neighborhoods): Can we consider different solutions for different neighborhoods to ensure that we maintain the character of the neighborhood. I understand that we do that in neighborhoods such as Country Club. Perhaps other neighborhoods, such as Morningside, should have solutions appropriate to their needs. Jan 12 at 8:44 am Hide 1 Reply Replies • 66 Josh Mason (edit answer) Nancy nailed it, esp. when it comes to neighborhoods like Morningside. It is getting ridiculous. Feb 12 at 4:29 pm Replies • david frenkel (edit answer) City of Edina staff seem to be overwhelmed and unprepared for the volume of construction going on. I live next to a new house going up and I am surprised by the attitude of city hall that the streets surrounding the developmnet are part of the construction site. The streets surrounding the develpment are routinely blocked by construction related vehicles doing deliveries or dropping off /picking up construction vehicles like backhoes and bobcats. The site next to me looks like a junkyard with all the constructioon debris, old fencing and landscaping that is in piles around the property. The property-was allowed to dig below the previous grade that borders my property where I have 2 huge oak trees that may be impacted by this digging. Is my responsbiltiy to inform the developer of state law that allows for triple damages if the developer kills these oak trees by their digging? I could go on about what I have seen but the bottom line is this new development looks like the wild west with limited controls. The city does not care if streets are blocked so school buses have to be rerouted at the last minute. I have seen and others have told me about school buses going backwards down streets because construction vehicles refused to move out of the way. I have talked to the city and state about this and nobody sees a problem. If construction takes priority over the safey of our children I see a big problem. Jan 12 at 9:04 am Replies http: / /speakupedina.org/ discussions /resldential- redevelopment /topics /your- top- three - suggestions Page 2 of 14 3/4/13 6:12 PM City of Edina, MN s v avid frenkel (edit answer) @Nancy, I completely agree with you. You should be on the planning commission to add some common sense to the City of Edina's wait and see attitiude. Jan 12 at 9:05 am Replies kw (edit answer) 1) Enforce existing building codes. 2) Higher impact fees for construction permits which require heavy equipment on the streets. 3) Stick to the comprehensive plan and any variances subject to statuatory requirements. Jan 14 at 6:46 pm Replies Andrew Brown (edit answerl How about a freeze on construction, so I can actually enjoy a summer of peace an quiet Jan 14 at 7:36 pm Hide 2 Replies Replies david frenkel (edit answerl I do think it is crazy to allow construction on evenings, weekends and holidays.) have children who I do not want playing among construction equipment and materials. Why do these residential construction projects take priority over community livability? These developments are for profit businesses and why should the community be inconvenienced so somebody can make money? Jan 14 at 8:49 pm Replies david frenkel (edit answer) I think you are being facetious about the freeze but I do think there should be a freeze on new construction not on the books so the city can get its arms around what is going on with residential development. Things have spiraled out of control with what appears to be a lack of city staff which has led to a lack of various code and ordinance enforcement. There are unintended consequences like road blockages that have re- routed school buses and are a threat to emergency response. I moved from a community in VA that had very strict building codes and enforcement to Edina that is in comparison the wild west of construction. Jan 15 at 2:27 pm Replies Isaac (edit answer) More construction = higher property values = higher tax revenue. City Hall isn't overwhelmed, its the plan. Jan 14 at 9:25 pm Hide 1 Reply http:/ /speakupedina.org /discussions/ residential - redevelopment /topics /you r- top- three - suggestions Page 3 of 1• 3/4/13 6:12 PM City of Edina, MN Replies • Y david frenkel (edit answerl Higher property values also means higher property taxes. If you are selling higher values are great if you plan on staying and paying higher property values or elderly on fixed income not so good. The city has to be careful there isn't a saturation of over priced homes and a real estate or economic bubble burst occurs leaving lots of these houses on the market. This scenario has happened on other communities. You mentioned a'plan', hoping things continue on the upswing is not a plan. It will also be interesting to see how the quality of new construction holds up in 5/10 years down the road. Jan 15 at 7:57 am Replies • r Mark Daum (edit answerl construction house ext to a teardown /new being built on a 50 foot lot. Here are my concerns and suggestions: I unfortunately live setbacks are inadequate. The law allows new construction to tower over existing properties, robbing them The current side a next o a of free space, sunlight, and landscaping /property repair access. We should not be forced to travel over the adjoining property to make home repairs. 1) Interior side yard setbacks need to be revised from the current 5 feet to a minimum of 10 feet for lots smaller than 60 feet, and revised accordingly for larger lots. 2) The setback for egress windows and roof overhangs need to be revised from the current 3 feet to 6 feet minimum. Come on people, 3 feet is equal to you stretching out your arms side to side! 3) Existing trees on adjoining properties should be better protected. All new construction excavation and subsequent building should be subject to inspection and direction of the Edina City Arborist at the expense of the builder. One fifth of my mature river birch tree's roots were destroyed by the excavation of the new house. Additionally, the trimming that was required due to the new construction was done hap - hazardly by a construction worker, leaving the branches exposed to disease! They have a right to trim the trees that overhang the adjoining property, not kill them. 4) Builders should be required to pay $10,000 for each new house built for street repairs of the street the new construction occupies. The amount of damage done to the streets due to heavy construction equipment and their cost of repair should not be forced upon the existing residents of that street. 5) Any and all builders who have violated any of the rules for new construction should be be banned from working again within the city limits. First offense= 3 years. Second offenE years. Third offense = 10 years. This would go a long way to ensuring the companies who built new construction in Edina follo, rules. Jan 19 at 11:43 am Hide 3 Replies Replies • Y david frenkel (edit answer Did you know there is a state law that allows for triple damages if a neighboring property owner kills trees on your property? I agree with your suggestions but the city appears to be addicted to the cash via building permits this new development is bringing into the city treasury and seems reluctant to upset the developers. Jan 19 at 12:07 pm Hide 2 Replies Replies • Y Mark Daum (ed!t answerl I will be looking up that state law today. I have photos from both thip excavation and trimming fiascos that show the damage. Extremely frustrating how the city seems more interested in assisting developers than 25 year residents /tax payers! Jan 19 at 12:26 pm Replies http: / /speakupedina.org /discussions/ residential - redevelopment /topics /y our -to three -su p- 99 estions Page 4 of 1 3/4/13 6:12 PM City of Edina, MN a _ iatt Tourangeau (edit answerl David, while you contct that attorney regarding Marks tree roots, ask him about over hanging branches that are encroachments onto someone elses property, also ask him about damages, your tree roots are on my property which means you planted your tree to close to my property, i your tree roots damage my sewer line or lawn ( maple trees have shallow roots) what would my recourse be. I say this so you and Mark can get serious, stop whining. Feb 8 at 4:02 pm Replies • as david frenkel (edit answer) I have talked to a lawyer about the tree issue and yes I would take photos. I doubt the city or the developers know about the law and of course developers hide behind I didn't know rational. The city is typical of code enforcement where they go after an easy mark and don't get into big battles with developers who may take them to court which has happened. The city needs a code of conduct which if not followed developers are suspended or banned from doing business in Edina. If state and federal government does it why can't Edina have a reasonable code of conduct. Jan 19 at 2:58 pm Replies as david frenkel (edit answer) Matt, thanks again for drawing attention to my century old trees. Again, FYI, I did not plant the trees and before construction started next to my house the 2 yards were at the same grade. I did not ask the developer to go below grade. The new property owner has the legal right to trim the tree branches over there property. I understand the law on this issue. It is impossible for my trees to block my neighbors utilities since they are on the other side of the lot from my trees. If whining is requiring the city to enforce local, state and federal laws around construction you can call it anything you want. If you like 3rd parties trampling your rights as a property owner I applaud your flexibility. Feb 8 at 10:17 pm Replies Tom LaForce ledit answerl Here are two suggestion for the builders. It might create some good will which they seem to be lacking in these days. Put up a sign 3 weeks prior to the wrecking ball inviting people to have it on perennials. One is about to go near me and the yard is full of nice plants that could have been given a new home. It was empty early this fall, the perfect time for transplanting. Now they'll just be destroyed along with the home. Also, there should be a requirement that a salvage company be brought in before any house is torn down. I've got to think it would make economic sense for someone to spend a couple days stripping out metal, fixtures, working appliances, etc. Maybe this happens, but I haven't noticed it yet. It's hard to watch livable houses be smashed to nothing and taken to the landfill. What a waste. Jan 19 at 1:24 pm Hide 3 Replies Replies david frenkel (edit answerl Edina is in the dark ages when it comes to commercial recycling. There is no mandatory commercial recycling. Drive by almost any construction dumpster and it is full or recyclable cardboard. There are companies that tear out wooden floors for resale. Developers are in the business of getting up new houses ASAP and not bothering with anything else. http: / /speakupedina.org/ discussions / residential - redevelopment /topics /your- top- three - suggestions Page 5 of 1• 3/4113 6:12 PM City of Edina, MN Jan 19 at 3:03 pm Hide 1 Reply Replies • Y Matt Tourangeau (edit answer) David, you are not in the business, you have to way the cost of salvage against possible gain. it costs about 8 bucks a square foot to lay raw wood flooring. If the floor has been sanded 2 -3 times, its projected life has been used up. Feb 8 at 4:15 pm Replies • Y Matt Tourangeau (edit answer) regarding paragragh #1 Tom! are you serious? You want a builder to wait 3 weeks for a bunch of other people to fight over plants, just how would they be distributed. Maybe YOU or anyone else should approach the owner prior to selling and PURCHASE any and all lanscaping you want. But being a liberal, you want to legislate it and make a rule. #2, all properties are stripped of hazardous materials including light bulbs, transformers, appliances, etc, etc,etc. & yes, if there are architectural things in the house anyone is going to salvage those because they are worth lots of $$$ Yes I attacked you Tom, I am sorry, but its rediculous ideas like this that waste peoples time. Feb 8 at 4:12 pm Hide 1 Reply Replies Tom LaForce (edit answer) Hey Matt, they asked for suggestions. I provided some. Feb 8 at 4:52 pm Replies • Y david frenkel (edit answer) Matt, I have young children that I try not to frame everything in dollars and cents. Why can't Edina try to be a leader in at least attempting to recycle some residental construction materials. Yes some floors may not be salvagable but some may be reusable. Edina has promoted some of its green achivements why doesn't the city do more? Is it that difficult to require recycling commercial cardboard? I see dumpsters full of cardboard going to the dump instead of being recycled. There are plenty of states that require commercial cardboard recycling but not. MN or Edina. Feb 8 at 10:27 pm Replies • Y david.frenkel (edit answer) Are there any meeting notes from the meeting or anybody that attended have any comments? Thanks Jan 27 at 2:27 pm Replies http: / /speakupedina.org/ discussions /residential- redevelopment /topics /your- top- three - suggestions Page 6 of 3/4/13 6:12 PM City of Edina, M.N O Y Javid frenkel Ledit answerl Today I witnessed 2 cement trucks parked side by side blocking Golf Terrace and then 2 big utility trucks drove over a curb on to a neighbors lawn to get around the trucks. Is this construction boom completely out of control? Is driving on neighbors lawns acceptable under 'developers rights' I keep in hearing from city officials? What can I do to keep trucks off my property since the construction industry does not care. I have a neighbor across the street that has tracks in the snow from a heavy truck driving on her property. Jan 28 at 1:50 pm Replies e r J Lonnquist (edit answerl Thanks for this online opportunity for input for those who can't attend the meetings on this important topic. Having lived next to a home redevelopment by a commercial interest, I offer these suggestions: 1) In addition to immediate neighbor notification and opportunities to view the plans, require developers and city inspectors to publish a time during which neighbors can walk the site and view where new walls will be located on the property. This should be done before machinery arrives, as it is then too late or too expensive to correct or contest set - backs. 2) City expenses that are caused by developer activity (e.g. officers addressing traffic or noise concerns that neighbors can't settle through requests to the builders or contractors) should be billled back to the developer. That is only fair: if developers are making a profit while working in a residential area, the city shouldn't have to bear additional expenses and residents have the right to retain a livable environment. 3) Keep in mind that living next to major construction rattles even sensible people. It is inconvenient and even stressful. Seeing contractors trampling your gardens or severing your gas lines makes it harder to be patient with the inevitable parking and noise issues. And the signs that contractors post about being respectful to neighbors are pure p.r. in my opinion and don't alter the behaviors of their contractors. If it is a homeowner /dweller /neighbor undergoing a renovation, patience lasts much longer. If it is a developer building a spec house, there is a different dynamic. Should they be required to have a buyer who will live in the home in place before proceeding with construction? I think that would go a long way to softening some of the neighbor concerns. Thanks for considering these ideas. We know the demand for infill housing will always be strong in Edina given the location and schools, so please do what is correct for the city and its residents -- the builders won't walk away if we make their parameters a little tighter. Jan 29 at 10:42 am Replies Jack (edit answerl The question I am wondering is that when protesting new developments in the town, how do you do that loudly but then still maintain relationships with the new neighbors when they finally move in? I would think that new buyers coming in and investing in the neighborhood and wanting edina to be a home for their families would then look at all of this distastefully. I guess that all this development will lead to Edina residents really disliking each other. That's too bad. Jan 29 at 4:22 pm Replies david frenkel (edit answerl @Jack, it would be interesting to hear feedback from the homeowners of houses previously built by each developer. I am seeing things on the new house next to me that are problematic. For example the developer went below the previous grade in the back yard which is now below my yard and adjacent street. We already have a high water table and a yard filling with water will cause problems. The new grade in the back yard may also cut into the roots of 2 mature oak trees I have along the common border which is problematic. Edina likes to talk about all the environmental initiatives yet allows cutting down of mature trees. Lots of issues that need,to be addressed. Jan 29 at 10:26 pm Hide 2 Replies Replies http:/ /speakuped ina.org /discussions/ residential - redevelopment /topics /you r- top- three - suggestions Page 7 of 1 3/4/13 6:12 PM City of Edina, MN Y Jack (edit answer) my question was just that with teardowns won't the new neighbors have a horrible relationship with the protesting existing neigh' or is that not a concern... hence my question that if one protests new develpments loudly, how do relationships with neighbors end up-sounds like leads to some hostility from the outset which is too bad ... always.thought edina was supposed to be welcoming at least from the majority of people i met there and 99% of teardowns don't get angry reactions from neighbors Jan 30 at 8:01 am Hide 1 Reply Replies • Y david frenkel (edit answer) I am not sure how you came to the 99% number because I know plenty of people in the Morningside neighborhood are not happy with the teardown process and the end results. Some of these houses, like the one next to me, are dramatically changing the landscape with retaining walls and changing elevations. In this case they are doing a good job of not having the house fit into the neighborhood which if I was the new home owner would be a concern. I unfortunately see some issues that will have to be resolved with the developer which may drag in the new home owner. My biggest concern is always the safety of my children which I am not getting a warm a fuzzy feeling from the City of Edina. There is virtually no enforcement of existing ordinances dealing with the use of the street and the long construction hours including holidays are when my children would be playing in the street. My rights as a homeowner are being trampled so a for profit business can do as they please and along the way violate city code and federal safety standards. I am supposed to stand by and just say go ahead block my driveway, move construction equipment across my lawn, dump construction materials into the street. Sorry Jack I have small children and possibly upsetting a future neighbor is not on my radar, protecting my children is an issue I face every day because of the wild west we are experiencing in Edina. I moved from a community in VA that has very strict building codes that are enforced and to move to Edina at the other extreme is a little disheartening. Jan 30 at 8:42 am Replies Y Matt Tourangeau (edit answer) David, it appears you have an issue with the builder who built the house next to you, I am very sorry, I asked this question myself on P.I.E, & Jack is asking it here. Now that a new owner lives in that home, how do you treat them, are they welcomed? did you build a big fence to separate your self from them, what exactly is your relationship with them and others who have had BIG BAD HOUSES built in you hood? Feb 8 at 4:23 pm Hide 2 Replies Replies A Y david frenkel (edit answerl Matt, none of my comments have actually been addressed to the acutal house being built but that seems to be your hot button. My issue is with how the neighborhood has been treated by the developer and there contractors. These job sites are poorly supervised and the contractors push the limits on how they use the road. You are making all kinds of assumptions, if you are not familiar with the property I am referring to it is ok to ask questions. The new owners have not move in and FYI they are due to move in sometime in April. Why are you so worried about my relationship with my neighbors, that has nothing to do with this blog. When my new neighbors move in I might be too busy having 2 very large oak trees removed form my property. Thanks for your interest in my relationships. ' Feb 8 at 10:06 pm Replies http: / /speakupedina.org/ discussions /residential - redevelopment) topics /your- top- three - suggestions Page 8 of 1 3/4/13 6:12 PM City of Edina, MN .avid frenkel (ed!t answerl - Matt, none of my comments have actually been addressed to the acutal house being built but that seems to be your hot button. My issue is with how the neighborhood has been,treated'by the developer and there contractors. These job sites arepoorly supervised and the contractors push the limits on how'they use the road. You are making, all kinds of assumptions, if you are not familiar with the property I am referring to it is ok to ask questions. The new .owners have not move in and FYI they are due to move in sometime in April. Why are you so worried about my relationship with my neighbors, that has nothing to do with this blog. When .my new neighbors-move in I might be too busy having 2 very large oak trees removed form my property. Thanks for your interest in my, relationships: Feb 8 at 10:06 pm Replies Mark Daum (edit answer) Another post about the meeting last Saturday morning: Side set- backs:were universally deemed inadequate. My suggestion of doubling the setbacks from 5 foot to 10 feet for 50 foot lots was questioned whether the remaining space would be large enough for new construction. One of the attendees from the Morningside area suggested perhaps if a 50 foot lot isn't large enough for a person's dream home, they should search for a1arger lot. While it's true that Edina has many 50 ft lots, I agree that this size lot is being abused by those who will build right to the lot lines if allowed. The question should be what is an appropriate size house for the size of the lot. Building massive, rules- testing sized homes in a neighborhood of smaller lots will result.in damaging the value of the existing homes. I fear that not too far in the future, my once desirable arts & crafts home will be worth only the value of the land, and ultimately bulldozed for a new mini McMansion. Might have to look into historical designation. Jan 30 at 12:27 pm Hide 1 Reply Replies david frenkel (edit answer) These larger new homes also can create a fire hazard for,neighbors being built so close to the property line. Most of these new homes have 2 story front atrium's which become a funnel for fire which is why many of these new homes when they catch fire are a total loss. The construction trades have successfully lobbied to keep state building codes from requiring residential sprinkler systems which fire marshals are inJavor of having in the code. Another example of common sense being thrown out the window,. because of lobbying. @Mark, your comments are repeated by developers who tell residents'they are going to buy their houses and tear them down. I passed on buying a new house in a neighborhood with older houses for reasons many people have mentioned. Jan 30 at 7:34 pm Replies r N'an Schwappach (edit answer) agree with most of what has been written and suggested... but would like to add that there should be restrictions on the construction .process that take into consideration the neighbors in the immediate area. There is a tear down, new build, three houses down from me. The demolition, blasting, noise has virtually shook my house and rattled my windows. There are new cracks in the wall and.ceiling plaster. I have witnessed dumpsters dragging on the street and leaving behind damaged roads ... and this is just the beginning! There should be rules that construction companies must follow and an avenue•that neighbors can follow to petition enforcement. % Jan 31 at 5:41 pm Hide 1 Reply Replies Page 9 of http:/ /speakupedina.6ig/ discussions /residential - redevelopment /topics /your- top - three - suggestions 3/4/13 6:12 PM City of Edina, MN 0 as david frenkel Iedit answer) The key as you eluded to is enforcement. I think the city is understaffed for the flood of new houses being built. It is too bad Edii housing inspections does not have the reputation of writing citations like the Edina Police has. There has been a constructioon dumpster partially on a sidewalk on Wooddale in the Sunset neighborhood and nobody seems to care. Jan 31 at 10:36 pm Replies • lois meerwald jedit answer) I live next door to a teardown /new construction and agree with many of the comments. I understand the need to refresh the housing stock but with what. In my neighborhood of $300,000 homes, they are being replaced with $800,000 homes. Good for the city tax base but will it last? If you want an $800,000 home there are plenty in other Edina neighborhoods. I think the city would be better with a mix of housing prices instead of th way it is headed. Feb 1 at 8:43 pm Replies • 66 lois meerwald (edit answer) I live next.door to a teardown /new construction and agree with many of the comments. I understand the need to refresh the housing stock but with what. In my neighborhood of $300,000 homes, they are being replaced with $800,000 homes. Good for the city tax base but will it last. If you want an $800,000 home there are plenty in other Edina neighborhoods. I think the city would be better with a mix of housing prices instead of the way it is headed. Feb 1 at 8:48 pm Hide 1 Reply Replies • david frenkel (edit answer) The city is working under the premiss that it will work it self out for the best. I moved from one of the first planned communities in the US which is about the size of Edina. The planning shows. Feb 9 at 12:19 am Replies • as Angie Berger Ledit answer) The premise has not been yet proven that there needs to be any changes. Offering suggestions buys into the idea that there is a problem to be solved. 1) Do not do anything that restricts the property rights of Edina taxpayers 2) Enforce current restrictions 3) Increase monitoring and fines on contractors that are causing some of the problems. Feb 8at2:15pm Hide 1 Reply Replies • as david frenkel (edit answer) I have the City numerous times to do what you suggested with little luck. http:/ /speakupedina.org/ discussions / residential - redevelopment /topics /your- top- three - suggestions Page 10 of 3/4113 6:12 PM city of Edina, MN Feb 9 at 12:18 am .eplies • to Matt Tourangeau (edit answerl Most of all these comments are a bunch of people whining. Yes, the city should police construction sites and neighbors who are adversely affected should make their voices heard at the city, so that the city can address those issues with the builder and or subs that are at fault. People here should hold their comments to the project next door to them and or in their immediate neighborhood. Prior to posting your comment, if it's not a fix or a solution (meaning within the law and the ability of the city to perform & not a restriction of the rights of the property owner) just don't post it. Oh yeah, think to yourself, am I whining before you post it. Construction is dirty, time is money, and the sooner their done with the project the quieter it will be. No you don't need to put up with destruction to your property, call the city! SETBACKS, remember what you ask for, whatever you want the builder to do will apply to YOU, think about remodeling, etc. Someone made the remark setbacks should be 10 feet on either side of a new home, absolutely laughable, every home in Edina built prior to 1950 has a 5 foot setback on either side, what makes one think it's acceptable to change that? You could always hang out your windows and shake hands or watch your neighbor do whatever in their homes. And Im pretty sure you don't want a 30 foot wide house next to you. AFFORDBLE HOUSING, Really! That's an argument here? Seriously? People and builders are buying homes from $400,000 to a $1,000,000, and tearing them down to build new. I will also add to that, these new owners all have 3 - 4 kids or more so I really don't want to hear about families not being able to afford home here when it's quite evident THEY CAN. Also keep in mind, these new homes are increasing the value of your property, and if you disagree, show me an example, I will eat my words. You find me one person that will tell me that $400,000 is affordable, I'm pretty sure you know the income it takes to buy that house. DRAINAGE, this is probably the only thing I can see that a neighbor has a complaint; no one should have to have water coming onto their property from another's. Especially if they raised or were allowed to raise the lot. MAKING ABSURD RULES for builders. Stopl Just Stop! This comes from a suggested requirement that plants should be allowed to be salvaged, etc by the neighbors. I'll revert to my second statement as to the city policing a construction project and fining them appropriately. It's your job to make the complaint; it's the cities job to enforce the rules. And finally, they are called uniform building codes for a reason, if you want to do something outside of them; you get a variance, which needs to be approved. Also keep in mind current building practices using new materials which cause a home to be taller, etc. Floor trusses, roof trusses, higher basement and interior ceilings, allow for larger, open interior rooms, these are what because a home to become those towering so called mansions. Oh and remember, families are buying these homes and I hope you are keeping with Edina's standards and graciously welcoming them when they move in, they are your new neighbors and are excited to be there. Feb 8 at 5:39 pm Hide 1 Realy Replies david frenkel (edit answerl Matt, you hit the nail on the head, I have been complaining to the city and I get a lot of answers like the developers have rights and mainly no response. Over the past 5 months of construction next to me I have probably called the police close to 20 times for blockiing roads, parking illegally, parking before roads are plowed, dumping constructon materails on the street and more. You comments are interesting but not very useful. I have been experiencing first hand not only violations of the cities various street ordinances but violations of federal OSHA laws regarding worker safety. The city is overwhelmed which is why they have announced they are hiring somebody to watch redidental construction. Why has it taken so long for the city to spend some of the millions in construction permit money to acutally hire somebody to monitor construction sites? Thanks for your comments Matt but I hope you don't have to deal with this construction wild west in your neighborhood. Feb 8 at 9:56 pm Replies Mark Daum (edit answer) Matt, You seem to be under the impression that City requested suggestions & solutions to upgrading' existing residential building codes is whining. Reading you posts suggest you are either a builder or a new monster homeowner who couldn't care less about your neighborhood. Nice to have you in the discussion, but your comments do not assist in finding solutions to the real problems. Feb 9 at 10:36 am Page 11 of 1 http:/ /speakupedina.org/ discussions /residential- redevelopment/ topics /your- top- three - suggestions 3/4/13 6:12 PM City of Edina, MN Hide 1 Reply Replies • Y Joseph (edit answerl I replied about Matt's comment. See above. Realtors, builders may be investing in the neighborhood by helping "distressed" properties but not for the long term as their checks will eventually be cashed. Feb 10 at 9:56 am Replies • Y . Joseph (edit answer) Mark as a neighbor in the area you are talking about I agree. I agree but think the responses of "whining" sounds more like a realtor making them as we sit with three listings on our block with another listing for 999,999 new construction now bank - owned. I shudder when I see a REMAX sign put up because I fear the new construction will already become a pre - forclosure candidate on some of these spec homes. Feb 10 at 9:52 am Hide 1 Reply Replies • Y david frenkel (edit answer) The bank owned new house you mentioned reinforces what I have mentioned at the past that Edina has to be careful that this housing bubble doesn't collapse and leave even more houses in foreclosure. These are expensive houses going up in a spec market for a very small buyer demographic. What neighborhood is the foreclosed house in? Is there any particular reason you trunk the house has not sold (over priced, location, poor layout)? Feb 11 at 11:21 am Hide 1 Reply Replies • Y Joseph (edit answer) On the Creek off 57th st with 55410 zip code. Maybe priced out of neighborhood or because it is on a busier street or too close to France Ave itself. Not sure. Feb 13 at 12:45 pm Replies • Y Jacqueline Zipp (edit answer) I don't think most Edina residents oppose improvements and even as we object to huge new houses on 50 -foot lots, we welcome our new neighbors. What concerns me first, like others, is re- development that is both out of character (style -wise) for the existing neighborhood and too large for the lot size. I know many of us have lost privacy in our backyards and rooms in our homes. Zoning laws need to be changed to address this. Second, with $1,000,000+ homes replacing $300,000 - $500,000 homes I think we are legitimately concerned that the value of our 1950s homes will gradually be reduced to that of the land. Third, I am very concerned about the increased water runoff towards existing homes caused by changed amounts of hard surfaces and elevated foundaV I was informed by the city that builders are allowed to increase the foundation height 1 foot above where it previously was. On with 5 -foot setbacks, this results in real runoff issues: While the city was responsive to my calls during reconstruction . next door wnd required the builder to make changes to the swale so that it complied with the engineering design, I am nervous for the spring melt and rains. Finally, I agree with others who call for much higher impact fees from builders for damages to roads, especially. We http : / /speakupedina.org /discusslons /residential- redevelopment/ topics /your- top- three - suggestions Page 12 of 1 3/4/13'6:12 PM City of Edina, MN haven't even begun to pay the assessments for our reconstructed streets before we watch the daily parade of heavy construction quipment wear them down. Feb 1.0 at 5:40 pm Hide 1 Reely Replies david frenkel (edit answer) Also if.you look at the street site lines the lots somewhat conform to each other and you can see down the properties. Many of these new houses have different setbacks, they have retaining, walls front and back and the topography of the lot is completely changed not to mention the removal of mature trees. - Feb 11 at 11:24 am Replies (e l City of Edina admin (edit answerl To keep this space welcoming to everyone and their ideas, please keep comments respectful, constructive and on- topic. Thanks! ,Feb 12 at 2:30 pm Replies Participants o� o o e a o o ' o� o o o a o o o o. _ Page 13 of: http: / /speakupedina.org/ discussions / residential- redevelopmentJtopics /your- top- three - suggestions. 3/4/13 6:12 PM City of Edina, MN 0 •Y • •Y • • • • Y • .Y • •Y • . Y 0 .Y © 2012 Granicus I I Terms and Conditions I Privacy Policy I Support I powered by Civicldeas I Patent pending 1. Post Post your ideas for community improvement. 2. vote Help the City of Edina prioritize what's most important by showing support for and commenting on great ideas 3. Review The City of Edina reviews all of the ideas posted to this site. Check the status of an idea (located in the bottom right -hand corner of an idea) and watch it change as staff review, discuss and plan to implement ideas. 4. Participate Follow an idea and receive updates on it. Share ideas with friends, participate in forums and take surveys — be a part of your community in innovative ways online. s. Results See ideas in action and know that your voice is being heard! Page 14 of http: / /speakupedina.org /discussions/ residential- redevelopment /topics /your- top- three - suggestions ] March I5, 20I3 An Open Letter to our Clients and Concerned Friends: Once again neighborhood redevelopment - revitalization issues have flared up in Edina. You may be some- what aware of the small- lot /big house controversy now appearing in the local media. This has been billed by revitalization opponents as a necessary, environmentally responsible reaction to irresponsible, out -of- control homebuilding that is destroying the quality of life of Edina residents. This issue is probably not high on your radar but the reality is, it should be. As active or potential partici- pants in the revitalization of your house, and thus of reinvestment in your neighborhood, you have high stakes in the outcome of this current controversy. You should be aware that lots of 75' widths and less are the focus. That includes most single - family properties in East Edina and a high percentage of those in West Edina as well. Current recommendations (see enclosures) could seriously impact your recent or anticipated investment. In responding to pressure generated by the monster -house debate of a few years ago, the city of Edina signifi- cantly tightened its building requirements for size, height, and setbacks, restricting what could be built/ rebuilt on a given lot. In so doing, Edina became one of the most restrictive communities in the region — resulting in restrictions that today would preclude the building of Country Club. Meanwhile, the economic pressure of rising land costs is channeling redevelopment to areas where acquisi- tion costs are lower, reigniting the debate. Proponents of increased restrictions claim they were ignored in previous round of regulation, which is simply not so; the monster -house debate which triggered increased regulation was sparked in neighborhoods with 50' and 60' lots — notably South Harriet Park and Morning- side, epicenter of today's agitation for even more regulation. Current opposition to revitalization is placing significant pressure for additional budding restrictions, which could have serious side effects and unintended consequences by retarding further redevelopment-remvest- ment, thus potentially negatively influencing property values and appreciation. Parsing the rhetoric, it comes down to a basic direction: do we embrace the future and change, or retard it in an inevitably futile attempt to preserve the status quo? The public decision process is well down the road, with City Council and Planning Commission work sessions having begun on March Sth to facilitate and implement action. THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM, LLC. 5200 WILLSON ROAD, SUITE 150. EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 952.836.2,665 WWW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 17 [ PAGE 2OF21 On March 19th, the council is slated to vote on additional draconian provisions and fees to amend its recently enacted (Dec 2012) Construction Management Plan. Additions include higher permit fees and administrative costs, $ I0,000 bonding requirement, mandatory insurance indemnifying the City, criminal penalties for property owners and controversial neighborhood approval requirements, to name but a few.. All of this was instigated — and rapidly facilitated — by a dedicated but small group of revitalization op- ponents aided by a few sympathetic elected and appointed officials. I am writing to call your attention to this issue and to point out your stake in its outcome. As committed or potential stakeholders and investors in your neighborhood and the larger community — members of a group which far - outnumbers revitalization opponents — your voices need to be heard and represented. We inions to the discussions before it is too late. An issue of such urge you to weigh in and contribute your op great personal importance should not be decided without your input. Sincerely, Lon Oberpriller President The Replacement Housing Services Consortium, LLC cc: Edina City Council Edina Planning Commission THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM, LLC. 5200 WILLSON ROAD, SUITE 150. EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 952.836.2665 WWW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 Q March I4, 20I3 Honorable fames Hovland, Mayor City of Edina 480I West 50th Street Edina; MN SS424 re: Neighborhood Revitalization Dear Mayor Hovland: In the interest of balance, please allow me to offer some observations about the current new - house /build- ing- setback controversy now playing out in the Planning Commission. It's.important to appreciate that the relevant topic is neighborhood revitalization, not sideyard setbacks or the construction management plan. Revitalization impacts the future economic health of both the munici- pality and homeowners. Building or rebuilding new houses is the most - visible component of revitalization, but must be considered within the larger neighborhood context. Several specific observations are appended to this letter. Key points are: Revitalization is essential to all mature cities and suburbs. A community that does not revitalize is by definition a community in decline. Edina is by far a net beneficiary from its recent revitalization activity. • Revitalization is occurring.here as private activity. Most communities attempt to leverage revitaliza- tion with public funding. Our revitalization is thus a gift to taxpayers. • As is always the case, contemporary homes reflect market demand. New houses are not foisted on the community by homebuilders; they are chosen by fellow citizens. 0 New and transformed houses represent a collective private investment of hundreds of 'millions of dollars by Edina property owners. If municipal actions cause expected continued revitalization to falter in their neighborhoods; they will not be happy. THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM, LLC. 5200 W.ILLSON ROAD, SUITE 1,5,0, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 952 836 2665 W.WW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121. Q ( PAGE 2OF51 • The municipality is bound by state law. Planning precedent on permitted uses is well- established Any restrictions based largely on complaints are subject to legal challenge. • The path forward is through education, by fully understanding how market forces always drive changes in housing by rewarding the best and penalizing the worst. Additional regulations only function to retard. Thank, you for considering these insights and the appended observations. Sincerely, Lon Oberpriller President The Replacement Housing Services Consortium, LLC cc: Edina City Council Edina Planning Commission THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM. LLC. 5200 WILLSON ROAD, SUITE 150. EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 952.836.2665 WWW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 t3 [ PAGE 3OF51 Revitalization is essential to all mature cities and suburbs. Until fairly recently, developable land has always been available somewhere in Edina. So as market preferences evolved from one decade to the next, there was always open property to build then - contemporary homes. But from now on, most redevelopment will occur in built -up neighborhoods. While this is a routine occurrence in older American communities, it is a relatively new situation for Edina. In some residents will object to changes because they feel personally threatened by what seems to them a break with the past. Of course the Council must think of the entire community. And from a community-wide perspec- tive, housing renewal- neighborhood revitalization is essential, for two reasons. One is that buildings depreciate, physically and economically. So generally throughout any community, property apprais- als typically discount value based On increasing age. In historic districts like Country Club, intrinsic visual qualities must be maintained. Though even here many houses have been expanded substantially, on small lots. Ironically, Country Club could not be built from scratch today under present -day restrictions. The other reason revitalization is essential is that market preferences change almost by the decade. Older houses are often perceived as stylistically dated and functionally obsolescent. Less attractive to buyers, their resale potential softens. Edina is by far a net benSflciary from revitalization. This is true in three respects. New / transformed houses pay substantially more in property taxes. TO illustrate, a representative group of twenty new houses built between 2005 and 2009 showed a 329 - percent increase in taxes paid, collectively on the properties, from $84,925 pre- redevelopment to $365,269 after. Second, these large private investments -stabilize adjacent older properties, making them more valu- able than would have been the case had no redevelopment Occurred. And third, many owners of older houses in revitalizing neighborhoods have sold out at much- higher prices than if their properties had been located in non - revitalizing neighborhoods elsewhere in Edina. Revitalization is occurring here as private activity. Given that the municipality has no experience with neighborhood - redevelopment programs, it is easy to under- appreciate how significant this is. Housing rehabilitation /neighborhood redevelopment programs have been underway in the metro area since the late I960s. These cost tens -of- thousands of dollars per property in publicly - funded acquisition, write- downs, and administration. Most of these new houses are modest -cost, and thus pay much -lower property taxes than the Edina norm. It is no wonder that Edina's private revitalization is the envy of its neighboring communities. THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM, I.I.C. 5200 WILLSON ROAD. SUITE 150, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 952.836.2665 WWW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES. COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 Q - -- - - - - -- - -- - - [ PAGE 4OF51 Contemporary homes are a response to market demand. Contemporary houses of any given era reflect current popular taste and standards. A homebuilder who does not offer what buyers want will soon be out of business. In a sense, Edina suffers from an embarrassment of riches, in that it overwhelmingly attracts affluent buyers. Average 2012 sales prices were $200,000 higher than for the next - highest area community, Minnetonka. Since 2007 the sales percentage of million -dollar properties in Edina (9.74) dwarfs those of Minnetonka (I.44), Minneapolis (0.82), Golden Valley (0.56), Hopkins (0.33), St. Louis Park (0.17), and Bloomington (0.I5). This has also been the case with respect to actual numbers, where Edina's 285 million -dollar houses sold since 2007 far - surpassed the 189 in much - larger Min- neapolis, where home sales average more than 4,000 units per year compared to about 500 in Edina. Buyers paying top dollar naturally insist on today's expected features such as mud rooms, first and second floor laundries, gourmet kitchens, larger garages, and the like. These do take more space, so today's newer houses are much larger than, say, a 1950s rambler that they may replace. Still, it should be noted that increased size is not just associated with expensive houses. Nationally today's average new house is more than three -times larger than its postwar counterpart, an era when a large part of Edina was developed. And will soon require redevelopment. So the matter of changing neighborhood scale is endemic, and will be from now on. New bomebuyers expect their neighborhood's revitalization to be completed. Even for the affluent a new home is a major personal investment. If their neighborhood's revitaliza- tion is now limited or even halted by additional municipal restrictions, then they may face potential losses in resale value on their good -faith investment. Others who expect to sell their property because of rising values could be hurt too. If this occurs, the Council should expect much -more citizen dis- content than it has received up to now from revitalization opponents. The municipality is bound by state law. With respect to restrictive zoning and building code conditions, Minnesota planning law has been unambiguous since the 1960s. When Minneapolis undertook a massive downzoning in the early 1970s, city attorneys cautioned staff that by settled state law every privately owned parcel must have a permitted use. And— critically —that this use must be reasonable for its situation. The implications are easy to apply to the present controversy in Edina. If legal, privately owned parcels are restricted from redeveloping according to current market conven- tions, then that could be construed as a public taking. This contention would be even more difficult to defend against if the restrictive public action were the result of complaints, rather than profes- sional findings of fact, as Minnesota planning law requires. THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM, LLC. 5200 WILLSON ROAD, SUITE 150, EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 952.836.2665 WWW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 17 [ PAGE 5OF5.1 Market forces always drive changes in housing. Any regulatory approach must acknowledge the contemporary market. A community can regulate itself out of market desirability, or, 'worse, contort possib le design solutions into market-substandard, forms. Migbborbood revitalization can be a very emotional topic. It has resulted in polarization between proponents and opponents. In Edina the arguments have devolved into property - rights assertions which insist on additional restrictions.on massing, size, and scale. But these kinds of provisions have.been unsuccessful in achieving. good outcomes -when tried elsewhere. That is because as a .practical matter, one cannot regulate or mandate taste or personal pref- erences, or even effectively define beauty and other intangibles. Every community's position on revitalization is fundamental. Do you shape the future? Or do you attempt to absolutize the status quo? Change occurs either way. Revitalization means significant private reinvestment, which upgrades the housing stock in Edina at no cost to the municipality. And consequent additional property-tax support of schools and public services. On the other hand, resisting revitalization is a disincentive to significant private reinvestment Any upgrades are spotty and the remaining housing stock becomes increasingly obsolete, and thus less -at- tractive to prospective homebuyers. Community-wide, property values can plateau or even fall. Absent the increased property-tax revenues from private housing reinvestment, everyone's taxes rise to make up the difference. This is not conjecture With Edina's decade -long housing - renewal track record and a consequent large base of examples, it 1s now possible to clearly demonstrate how the resale market quantifies various building solutions. This mechanism effectively rewards the best while economically punishing the worst. Fear of resale loss is thus a far - more - powerful and effective motivator than heightened regulation. Already assembled data can usefully educate those involved about the harsh.penalties resulting from bad or excessive building practices. So the path forward is through education, by fully understanding how market forces drive changes in housing. And thus how to support the best interests of Edina. THE REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES CONSORTIUM, LLC. 5200 WILLSO-N ROAD, SUITE 150, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 952.836.2665 WWW. REPLACEMENT HOUSING SERVICES.COM MN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO. BC643121 1� Susan Howl 11 Subject: Demolition Code Revision r Hello Everyone, I have followed the process of "Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.Concerning Demolition Permits For Single And Double Dwelling Units ", and have read over the Recommendation/Report to. be discussed at tonight's meeting. I appreciate many of the changes that will reflect positively on the neighborhood' of any future demolition project. Thank you for your hard work. But I am very concerned that there is no recommendation for containing and disposing of toxic materials such as asbestos and lead. In -my. opinion, toxic particles that may wind up in a neighbor's yard or home; should be first and foremost addressed. Our neighborhood is filled with gardens and children - they do not need this toxic exposure. Which. brings me to the other item discussed. Dust. The recommendation is that dust issues be addressed within an hour. That seems jointless because an entire small house can be demolished in an hour - and if there were no dust containment measured put in place to begin with, such as the application of water hoses, the (possibly toxic) dust can fly for hours, even days -- especially if it's dry and. windy. Thank you for your consideration, Mickie Turk 1. 6141 Brookview Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Mickie Turk mickieturku,gmail.coni 612- 382 -3182 i MINUTES COMMUNITY HEALTH COMMITTEE CITY HALL MAYORS CONFERENCE ROOM January 15, 2013 at 6:30 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Doscotch•welcomed members and called the meeting to order at 6:34 pm. H. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were members Matt Doscotch, Jan Johnson, Helen Risser, Carolyn Peterson, Nancy Ott- Pinckaers. Members Kumar. Belani, Mary Jo Kingston and Adrian Qureshi joined later in the meeting. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Motion by Member Peterson and seconded by Member Ott- Pinckaers to approve the meeting agenda. All voted aye. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Member Peterson, seconded by Member Johnson to approve consent agenda item N.A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Meeting October 17th, 2012. All voted aye. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT None presented. VI. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Work Plan Chair Doscotch outlined the 2013 CHC Work Plan and his efforts to clarify the Work Plan with City Manager Scott Neal and Assistant City Manager Karen Kurt. Also discussed was a coordinated effort with do.town to discuss programs in place and how the CHC can help from a policy standpoint. It is not the intention of the CHC to step in where do.town leaves off. Member Ott- Pinckaers discussed the Healthy Eating/Active Living initiative. This piece will be discussed further at the March meeting. Member Doscotch sought clarification on what the Council wants to achieve; however, the target date of April, 2013 may not be the best timing to write new language relating to the mission of the CHC. Liaison Engelman related that the Council agreed with the CHC ideas for focus groups, etc. She also advised the CHC members that there will be an expectation of 12 monthly meetings beginning in 2014, in addition to any scheduled work sessions. B. Community Health Committee Mission: Language Update In reference to the work plan (packet supplement 1503.02, Purpose and Duties), Member Doscotch intends to get more direction from the Council for the March meeting as to what they are looking for. He asked that the Committee members give this some thought and bring ideas to the March meeting. Richfield's Health Mission was reviewed for comparison purposes. Liaison Engelman said that MDH "Healthy Minnesotans" documents need to be incorporated when developing Edina 20/20 Health Vision. Liaison Engelman stated that coordination with MDH occurs through the community health assessment required by local health agencies every five years. She also L discussed the State guidelines for Community Health services. It was suggested the CHC assess community initiatives for gaps and trying to fill those gaps with State resources. C. Pilot Community Garden Member Doscotch discussed the Pilot Community Garden project, advising that the City Council approved moving forward with the Yorktown site. A meeting with the YMCA, Park Board and other participants will be taking place, with the Park Board taking the lead. CHC participation is also expected.' The intention is to have a small sub - committee to work on potential issues. There will have to be a method in place for selecting participants, determining fees, parking, tools, and supplies provided. It will also be important to decide who will be responsible for construction, fencing, etc. Collaboration with a Boy Scout Troup was suggested. Member Kingston agreed to participate in the project on behalf of the CHC. This project is part of the Park Board's work plan, but the CHC will partner with them to see it through. Richfield's Community Garden Program was discussed as an example and Member Johnson mentioned that the Art Center is also interested in starting a garden through the Garden Club and had approached Member Johnson about contributing extra vegetables `to VEAP. Member Kingston added that cooking lessons and education about ethnic foods and vegetables are being considered at the Farmer's Market. D. Youth, Aging and General Health. Updates: Aging Subgroup : Member Johnson gave an update about the subgroup's meeting with the Senior Center. (See attachment) Hennepin County will be outsourcing 150 employees to the same facility where VEAP is moving, so food stamps and the food shelf will be available at the same location. Member Johnson passed around a brochure and newsletter with more details about the new facility. The VEAP transportation brochure needs to be updated and redesigned and placed in the Senior Center. Member Johnson discussed this issue with VEAP and Sue Weigle. Some seniors may be falling through the cracks because they don't realize they qualify, or have concerns about any stigma attached to receiving low income services. It was suggested that resources for seniors be published in the About Town magazine with the emphasis on "qualifying" seniors, rather than "low income seniors. Member Doscotch believes the City should invest in. publicizing these resources by including a tear -out insert in the publication and that this could be a specific recommendation the CHC makes to the Council. Currently, the Senior Center newsletter only goes to those with a paid'membership, while the About Town publication is mailed to every residence in the city. Store -to -door delivery through Cub Foods was discussed: a. delivery fee is involved and they accept Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Member Peterson asked if announcements could be aired on the local cable channel. Liaison Engelman stated she will discuss these ideas with the Communications and Marketing Department. Youth Subgroup: Members Doscotch and Ott- Pinckaers updated the CHC on their meeting. A parent community group is charged with looking at issues such healthy food choices in the schools and school wellness policies, and looking at other ways . the CHC can strengthen those policies through recommendations to the City. Member Johnson brought up the Tri -City Partners attachment from Josh Sprague and provided a copy to pass around. The recommendation was made to continue supporting efforts such as Tri -City Partners as it is shown to result in a decline in drug and alcohol use. No other items to report from that meeting. 16 Members Kingston, Ott- Pinckaers and Doscotch scheduled a meeting at 2:30 PM on Friday at the Community Center. There was a discussion about including Our Lady Of Grace and other private schools, but since the City does not have a direct relationship with them it was decided that the CHC is limited to providing them with information about CHC work and available resources. Member Doscotch also discussed the Shape 2010 Survey and will propose to Scott Neal that the next Quality of Life Survey include some questions relating to children to establish a benchmark relative to the surrounding community as well as the metro area to get a sense of where Edina stands. General Health Subgroup: Influenza in the community and schools was discussed. There does not seem to be a greater flu problem in Edina and there is awareness in the school system. Flu and vaccination information18 gone out to parents. Edina has one of the highest vaccination rates in the State. E. Resolutions/Recommendations: Healthy Eating/Active Living (tabled from 9/11/12 agenda): This discussion will occur in.March:.The medical society can help promote this ,initiative /program. The document is lengthy. Sherry Engelman pointed out that the initiative can affect several departments and suggested that it be circulated through various departments for input and feedback. The CHC will address this in March, dovetailing with part of the work plan. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS None presented.- VIII. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Member Johnson discussed food safety as a significant issue that has not been addressed by the CHC. She presented a packet of information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture which would be applicable to seniors who may have a habit of keeping food in the refrigerator too long. Food handling classes are available for churches and their volunteers. Member Kingston suggested writing an article for the Sun Current. Member Doscotch asked members to review the CHC Annual Report he drafted last year to see if there are items the CHC wants to address in 2013: Further discussion in March. IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. Liaison Engelman discussed the CHC 2013 tentative meeting schedule, including the required work session with the Council in March. All meetings are mandatory to count toward attendance. Sherry called attention to the attendance handout provided in the packet outlining the attendance requirements (75% of meetings). The work session will include reviewing the charter. Sherry also encouraged everyone to attend the Boards and Commissions Annual Dinner. on March 11`h to honor members whose terms are completed and introduce newly appointed members. The dinner will be held at Braemar. She also reminded CHC members to about the Telephone Town Hall Meeting on January 16d. Applications for the various boards are open through the end of January. Sherry acknowledged that attendance can be a sensitive issue because members also have other commitments, but the Council's intention is to be fair to everyone. l . -. B., 2013 Community Health Assessment with Bloomington and Richfield Boards: Meeting with these Boards of Health for the five -year assessment. Sherry discussed the supplement in the packet. Most likely a survey will be sent to every distribution list they have. Member Peterson suggested the survey be publicized on the cable channel. Certain items on the draft survey were discussed and suggestions were made which Sherry will pass on. Member Johnson noted that stress is not mentioned on the survey and should be added. The survey should come out at the end of the month and be available for about two weeks. C. Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) Update: Sherry included SHIP updates from Ruth Tripp, our SHIP coordinator from Bloomington Public Health in the packet. Member Johnson brought up bicycle parking and bicycle safety issues. The CHC will make the recommendation that additional consideration be made to address bicycle safety and bicycles following traffic laws. D. Do.town Update: Sherry included the do.town update in the packet and mentioned that a documentary will be done on the do.town experience with the three cities. Blue Cross.Blue Shield will evaluate the overall do.town-project for potential expansion to 'Other communities. Sherry congratulated Member Doscotch and Member Belani for being reappointed to serve on,the CHC. Member Peterson completed her term.and due to work commitments has decided not to continue with another term. Sherry thanked her for her service and encouraged her to attend the dinner. Member Qureshi was encouraged to reapply for membership by the end of January. The Council will interview new applicants and.appoint four new members to join the CHC. The Committee thanked Sherry for her work and perseverance. X. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn was made by motion from Member Belani and second by Member Johnson. All voted aye and the meeting was adjourned at 8:43 PM. Respectfully submitted, Laurene Draper MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HUMAN RIGHTS & RELATIONS COMMISSION February 26, 2013 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Kingston called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM. H. ROLLCALL Answering roll call were Commissioners Bigbee, Cashmore, Newell, Seidman, Stanton, Winnick and Chair Kingston, and Student Member Stang. Staff present: Lisa Schaefer, Staff Liaison and Ari Klugman, City Manager Intern. III. MEETING AGENDA APPROVED Motion was made by Commissioner Bigbee to approve the meeting agenda of the January 22, 2013 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Seidman. Ayes: Bigbee, Cashmore, Kingston, Newell, Seidman, Stanton, Winnick. Motion carried. IV. CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED IV. A. January 22, 2013 Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Seidman and seconded by Commissioner Cashmore to approve the consent agenda. Ayes: Bigbee, Cashmore, Kingston, Newell, Seidman, Stanton, Winnick. Motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT There were no community comments. VI. REPORTSAND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Chair and Vice Chair Elections Commissioner Winnick asked the two nominee's he introduced at the January 22nd meeting to confirm their interest in running. Commissioner Bigbee confirmed his interest in Chair, and Commissioner Seidman confirmed her interest in Vice - Chair. Commissioner Winnick opened up to further nominations for Chair, hearing none he moved for nominations to be closed. Commissioner Cashmore seconded the motion. Ayes: Bigbee, Cashmore, Kingston, Newell, Seidman, Stanton, Winnick. Motion carried. Commissioner Winnick opened up to further nominations for Vice - Chair, hearing none he moved for nominations to be closed. Chair Bigbee seconded the motion. Ayes: Bigbee, Cashmore, Kingston, Newell, Seidman, Stanton, Winnick. Motion carried. Commissioner Winnick made a motion and Commissioner Stanton seconded the motion to vote by voice acclamation to appoint Arnie Bigbee as Chair and Jan Seidman as Vice Chair. Commissioner Stanton seconded the motion. Ayes: Bigbee, Cashmore, Kingston, Newell, Seidman, Stanton, Winnick. Motion carried. B. Review and update bylaws City Manager Intern Klugman shared this is part of the annual work plan; it is an opportunity to review the current bylaws and recommend to Council any changes. Staff Liaison Schaefer shared staff has no recommended changes at this time. Commissioner Kingston shared the history of the bylaws; the work was done by Assistant Manager Kurt and a small committee last year. Commissioner Kingston did not recall any problems in the past year that have come up over the past year. Commissioner Newell shared she is concerned there is not a formal process for the removal of a commissioner by council. She believes this should be addressed in the bylaws. Staff Liaison Schaefer shared the Council is elected and has the authority to appoint and unappoint anyone they choose to, because ultimately they are appointing these people to do work on their behalf. Commissioner Newell felt that the human rights commission should persuade the Council to revise the process. Commissioner Kingston asked if Commissioner Newell had any specific language she would like to propose. Commissioner Stanton asked for clarification about the HRRC's bylaws and how, as a subservient group of the Council, they would go about changing the bylaws. Staff Liaison Schaefer clarified changes would have to be in the form of recommendations to the Council and the Council would have to approve of the change. Commissioner Stanton stated he agreed there should be due process and transparency. Commissioner Winnick stated he felt anything the Commission does regarding this can only be in the form of a recommendation to the Council. The focus should be solely on whether or not any member of an Edina Board or Commission receives due process from the Council when the issue of removal is considered. It should have nothing to do with any particular person. Commissioner Winnick stated if what she is just talking about is just due process, he would support the idea, but felt it should start at the council level, not the EHRRC. Commissioner Newell stated she believes the human rights commission has a special charter to address issues like this for the City. Commissioner Kingston made a motion to disband this discussion and deal with a proposal of a process in March. Commissioner Seidman seconded the motion. Commissioner Winnick stated he will not be here in=March and this is an issue he feels very strongly about and would request it be moved to April and that he is willing to serve as a co -chair on a subcommittee with Commissioner Newell on the issue. Commissioner Kingston amended her motion to move the discussion to April, Commissioner Seidman seconded the motion.. Ayes:. Bigbee, Cashmore, Kingston, Newell, Seidman, Stanton; Winnick. Motion carried. Chair Bigbee suggested the Commission come in one hour early to a meeting and have box .dinners and use the ,opportunity to -get to know one another. Commissioner Kingston suggested moving the dinner to April, so all Commissioners can be present. The Commission will meet at 6 pm for.the meeting on April 23rd Commissioner Cashmore asked for clarification if it would be City Staff would be included. Chair Bigbee said the group here, including City Staff. C. Selection of Administrative Chair Commissioner Kingston. nominated Commissioner Winnick to serve as administrative chair. Commissioner: Seidman seconded the nomination. Commissioner Winnick accepted the nomination. Chair Bigbee asked if there were any other nominations. Hearing none, he called for a vote. Ayes: Bigbee, Cashmore, Kingston, Newell, Seidman, Stanton, Winnick. Motion carried. D. Tom Oye Award Discussion Commissioner Winnick introduced the Tom Oye Award discussion by reviewing the nominations. The Commission then discussed the nominations.. E. Volunteer Awards Reception Staff Liaison Schaefer shared thOnvitation ;to the April Volunteer Recognition Reception, which was sent to the;HRRC from City Manager Neal and is in the packet. There is an opportunity for Commission members or residents to :individually nominate individuals for the Mayor's Commendation awards. Send the nominations to Susan Howl. F. Edina Reads Book Review Chair Bigbee have an update on the Edina Read event. The event will take place on April 22 from 7 -8:30 pm at the Senior Center. Student Member Stang shared she brought the books to the library and plans to put up a display in the library when it gets closer to the event. The Commission then held a brief discussion of the book. G. Monitor Domestic Partner Legislation and the City Ordinance Commissioner Stanton reviewed the correspondence they received regarding sexual expression as part of our City Ordinance. He found several examples of this being done in other cities, and provided proposed language for the amendment. After hearing about our new member being the one who wrote the correspondence, the Commission decided it may be fitting for her to make the motion at our next meeting. The Commission tabled the item until the March meeting. Commissioner Winnick asked about altering subpoint c. of the City Ordinance which currently reads, "Cooperate with the State Department of Human Rights, the State League of Human Rights Commissions and other agencies and programs that relate to the public policy stated herein." To read: "Cooperate with the State Department of Human Rights, Rights Commissions and other agencies and commissions in their programs that relate to the public policy stated herein." Commissioner Stanton stated he would, rather have the gender identity and the agencies /commission issues handled separately so as to not confuse the issues. Commissioner Newell pointed out there is another point in the ordinance, subpoint c. of the policy statement where it would need to be altered as well. Commissioner Stanton made a motion to make the changes to the Ordinance, Commissioner Winnick seconded the motion. Ayes: Bigbee, Cashmore, Kingston, Newell, Seidman, Stanton, Winnick. Motion carried. Chair Bigbee stated he will speak with Chief Long before the next meeting to clarify if there are any legal restrictions that would affect the ordinance change. Commissioner Stanton shared this week at the legislature there is going to be a bill introduced to legalize same sex marriage. The bill would make other legislative changes, such as domestic partner benefits, moot. This will not be a party line vote. Minnesota United for all Families has asked others who have proposed domestic partner legislation to delay it until there is a vote on gay marriage. If the marriage bill doesn't pass, we have proposed legislation for domestic partner benefits. Both Representative Erhardt and Senator Franzen are both going to work on that legislation, if needed. H. 2013 Budget Commissioner Kingston explained the Commission did not receive full funding from the Council because of the biennium budget. There are two events that were competing for funds, the first was for community outreach, which could potentially be used to do something with Fartun Weli. The second was for the Days of Remembrance program with Janet Horvath. Dates are fairly limited now for Janet, so it would have to be April 14th. The Commission would need to nail down a location, and confirm with her this week if they wanted to do the event. Commissioner Cashmore made a motion to coordinate the bigger event with Janet Horvath in 2014 with Commissioner Cashmore serving as Chair. Commissioner Stanton seconded the motion. Ayes: Bigbee, Cashmore, Kingston, Newell, Seidman, Stanton, Winnick. Motion carried. Commissioner Kingston clarified we are just going to run the videos for Days of Remembrance. I. Review leaders and draft work plans for each commission initiative. Commissioner Bigbee suggested moving commission initiative work plans to next month's meeting. J. 2013 Work Plan Commissioner Newell shared Fartun Weli will be at next month's meeting to share her proposal. Commissioner Newell has spoken to professors at Hamline about speaking to the EHRRC about the state of legislation and protections for victims of domestic violence. This would have to be April. Commissioner Winnick requested to move the updating of the Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan from March of each year to May of each year. Commissioner Cashmore is going to work on the plan with Commissioner Winnick this year, with the intention of taking over the response plan. Chair Bigbee said one other thing to mention is the celebration of the City's 125th anniversary. The Commission should go through and identify what their role is going to be in the celebration. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS There were none. VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Bigbee shared he is excited to work this next year, there is a lot of information ahead of us. Commissioner Cashmore asked for the date of the work session with Council. Chair Bigbee stated it is May 7 `h, Staff Liaison Schaefer shared it will probably start at 5:30pm. Chair Bigbee asked for a reminder to be sent that we are convening an hour early for the April meeting. IX. STAFF COMMENTS Staff Liaison Schaefer clarified that two new commissioners will be appointed because Commissioner Erhardt resigned. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business on the Commission Agenda, Commissioner Winnick moved and Commissioner Seidman seconded adjournment of the meeting. Ayes: Bigbee, Cashmore, Kingston, Newell, Seidman, Stanton, Winnick. Motion carried. Chair Bigbee declared the meeting adjourned at 9:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by HRRC, March 19, 2013 Ari Klugman, City Manager Intern Arnie Bigbee, HRRC Chair MINUTES CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday February 14, 2013 7:03 PM I. CALL TO ORDER 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Answering Roll Call was Brandt, Gubrud, Heer, Kostuch, , Risser, Rudnick!, Thompson, Zarrin, and Chair Sierks Late Arrival: Latham, Sokol Staff Present: Ross Bintner, Rebecca Foster and Solvei Wilmot III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA. Chair Sierks requested Items VI. B. ii. and F. to be delayed until after Member Latham arrives. Motion made by Member Rudnicki and seconded by Member Kostuch to approve the amended Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes B. Attendance report and roster C. Workgroup list and minutes. Member Risser requested the following Water Quality Working Group Members to be removed from the list due to lack of participation Bill Johnson, Robert Skrentner and George Hunter. Motion made by Member Risser and seconded by Member Zarrin to approve the Minutes for December as amended and the Work Group list as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Member Gubrud and seconded by Member Thompson to approve the Minutes for January as amended. Motion carried unanimously. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT. No Comments. VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Air and Water Quality WG. Member Risser said the Storm Water Pollution Plan will be the group's main focus. The group would also like to work closely with the Laura Adler the new Water Resource Coordinator. Laura coordinates the Wellhead Protection Plan, Storm Water Prevention Pollution Plan and Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. B. Recycling & Solid Waste WG L Edina Business Recycling Task Force. Member Zarrin gave an update on how Hennepin County is creating a Business Recycling Brochure and the task force is hoping it'll be done by April. The manager from Allied Waste will be at the next meeting to discuss how business recycling is done and how it's different from residential recycling. Member Zarrin is planning on promoting business recycling in the About Town, Chamber of Commerce Newsletter and Sun Current. All articles will be reviewed by the City's Communications Department before it's released. Member Zarrin would like to promote businesses, especially Jerry's Foods, who's currently zero waste and ask them how they did it. Member Zarrin would like the city's website to be updated with Edina Business Recycling. Report recommending amendment of ordinance section 1300 Collection and Disposal of Refuse and Recyclables. Member Latham gave an update on the edits to the ordinance section 1300 Collection and Disposal of Refuse and Recyclables. A final copy will be approved at the May meeting. C. Education Outreach WG L April 18th Edina Forum: "what's up with the weather ?" Member Thompson gave an update on the Forum of "Changing climate and what to do about it ". The event will have a resource fair prior to the forum. The event will be advertised in the About Town Calendar. Senator Franken 'will either be speaking or do a welcome video. All of the legislators are invited too. Member Latham suggested having master gardeners or horticulturist that live in Edina talk about what's changed with gardening. Paul Douglas will be the Keynote presenting Minnesota's changing weather. J. Drake Hamilton, Fresh Energy, will discuss what actions people can take legislatively. Member Rudnicki asked Members Sokol and Brandt to Tweet about the event and other energy tips. Both Members said they'd be willing to Tweet if the Commission provides bullet points for them. Member Thompson might request money to place an ad in the Sun Current and for promotional materials. Member Gubrud will write a proclamation for Earth Day to get approval at the March EEC meeting. D. Student Initiatives. Member Sokol announced that Planet Earth Club didn't get the grant for hand dryers in the bathrooms. E. Energy WG. Member Heer said they had a joint meeting with the Education and Outreach work group, because the work plan overlapped between both works groups. The work group will focus on the Building Energy Efficiency through the State program first. F. Green Step Cities Presentation. Philipp Muessig is the coordinator for Green Step Cities. He presented what the current and possible future green steps will include. He said Step 4 might be completing more actions at higher star level, more actions under a Best Practice or more Best Practices. Chair Sierks thanked Member Latham for her time in having the City complete Green Step Cities. Mr. Muessig said Edina's PACE program puts them at a higher level than other cities. Mr. Muessig said Green Steps is used as a reporting system for cities to help Councils see sustainability, cost savings and a vehicle for more transparency. He said Step 5 might be for cities to start using Regional Indicators Reports as a measuring tool. He said Steps 6 & 7 might be indicators looking at wealth, health, school attainment, noise or crime. VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS. No Comments. VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS A. 2013 Workplan and Commission workgroups. Chair Sierks reviewed the EEC work plan and proposed a meeting schedule to accomplish the work plan priorities. B. Schedule of work and future meeting topics and speakers. Chair Sierks proposed the meeting schedule to stay more focused on priorities. A discussion about how to accomplish the work plan item will occur at each meeting. Chair Sierks asked the Members to review the plan and email Ross if they have any concerns about the priorities. Member Kostuch was concerned that Work Plan 4 and 8 are too much for the July meeting. Chair Sierks is asking work groups to create a work plan, so new volunteers understand what the group does before they join. Chair Sierks said maybe the work group model needs to be reviewed and matched up with a work plan item in order for the EEC to accomplish their work plan. Member Zarrin suggested that more communication about what the EEC is doing to get the public more interested in joining work groups. The mandatory joint Work Session with Council will occur June 18tH IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. March Meeting: Election of chair and vice chair, outgoing member recognition and incoming member orientation. Chair Sierks asked Members to email Ross if they are interested in being EEC Chair or Vice Chair this year. B. Miscellaneous Updates. Mr. Bintner invited Members to the Boards and Commissions Dinner on March 111h from 5 -7pm at Braemar Club house. Mr. Bintner will do a brief orientation to the new EEC member before the March meeting. i. April 22nd DQ Green Expo. Dairy Queen will be hosting a Green Expo for their employees on April 22nd at 10:30a.m. Mr. Bintner was thinking about presenting on B3 or other sustainability issues. ii. Turf Management Plan. Mr. Bintner said the Council will be approving the plan at the March 5th meeting. iii. Coal tar enforcement. Mr. Bintner said the investigation is completed and fines have been issued between $600 - $1000. iv. City environmental goal summary. Mr. Bintner is going to present a summary of all the City's environmental goals at the March meeting. Member Latham arrived at 8:07p.m. Member Latham presented an Advisory to Council to restore the Urban Forest Task Force to the EEC work plan. Member Latham would like to finish the report before her term ends. Motion made by Member Kostuch and seconded by Member Heer to approve several more meetings to finish report documentation and send it to Council for approval. Motion carried unanimously. Member Brandt excused himself from the meeting at 8:20p.m. There being no further business on the Commission Agenda, Chair Sierks declared the meeting adjourned at 9:22p.m. Motion made by Member Latham and seconded by Member Heer to adjourn meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Foster GIS Administrator rop� MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE VETERANS MEMORIAL COMMITTEE HELD AT CITY.HALL February 15, 2013 7:30 AM I. CALL TO ORDER In the absence of Chairman Goergen, Member Reed called the meeting to order at 7:35 a.m. it. ROLLCALL Answering roll call were Members Benson, Cardarelle, Kieffer, Lonsbury, Reed and Schwartz J, Staff in attendance: Kristin Aarsvold, Edina Parks and Recreation Department, Recreation Supervisor Ill. 'APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Motion by Member Cardarelle and seconded by Member Benson to approve the meeting.agenda, as-presented... Ayes: all members, Motion carried. IV., ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA. Motion by Member Schwartz and seconded by Member Cardarelle to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of the January 18, 2013 Veterans Memorial Committee Meeting Minutes. Ayes: all members. Motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT There were no members of the general public present at the meeting. Vt. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT A. Fundraising Report February 14, 2013 email from Richard Olson read by Kristin Aarsvold, "Over the past month / have sent out a -mails to a number of people identified by General. Schulstad. I received a few a -mails that said it was a great project but they could not participate. I have one person who is away from town and we will connect when he gets back, and I have had 3 visits. I have heard 'their perspectives on the project and in one visit received a commitment of $1000 and possible help with the granite base. In addition, Marshall Schwartz provided me a contact l sent an e-mail introducing myself and asking for a visit. l have'not heard from .the resident at this time.: Mayor Hovland is trying to get an appointment with the Sit family to discuss their participation. On January 29th / met with 4 community leaders and discussed the project. Again l received interesting feedback on the Memorial and acknowledged their concerns and received another $1000 commitment. N l have visited with Rep. Erhardt and Sen. Franzen about the bonding bill. As you know they have included a bill in the amount of $250, 000 to support the project. The chances of the bonding bill being passed and Edina receiving $250, 000 is remote, but ... we need to explore all avenues. / have also visited with Scott Neal the City Manager about the commitment of the City. He continues to be a great supporter of the project within City Hall. Jennifer Bennerotte will be visiting with the Rotary about providing the funds now (originally it was $20,000 over 3 years), and not in the future. The meeting will be held on February 21st. The one comment / have heard is "how invested is the Committee in the project ?" Without knowing exactly the amount the committee has contributed / cannot answer that question. / would suggest that each of the members think about making a gift commitment of at least $1000 to the Edina Community Foundation. Therefore, when we talk to potential donors we can say the Committee is 100% invested in the project beyond their time. Plus, this money would help the Committee get the plans finalized ($33,000 is needed). Therefore, one of the issues the Committee needs to explore is scaling the project back if the project cannot gamer more support. , / am sorry l cannot be at the meeting but should you want to discuss this e-mail or provide me some names to contact l would love to hear from you." In response to the email, members concluded that their investment in the project should not be an issue. All members are offering their time in -kind as well as contacting potential in -kind donors and potential supporters of the memorial. Member Lonsbury made the suggestion to contact the architect to see if he would do in- kind work for the committee. Member Schwartz suggested all members come up with a list of potential donors and bring names and contacts to the next meeting, including any potential businesses for in- kind donations. Members weighed in on taking a fresh approach to the project. Members discussed having the next meeting in March focused on planning and strategy. Proposed agenda items included: 1. Status Report A. Account balance at Edina Community Foundation B. Fundraising Contacts C. Architect Contract as it relates to gathering in -kind donations 2. The likelihood of completing project as proposed or what is the alternate plan if funding cannot be secured, 3. Potential in -kind donors including architects, landscape architects, construction companies ....etc. 4. Timeline (marketing, in -kind donations, etc) Vll. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS A. Marketing Efforts e Member Lonsbury suggested priorities for the fundraising /marketing efforts be: 1. Mailing to veterans because theoretically veterans will give more. Member Reed was opposed to mailing to houses valued over $500,000. 2. Utility Bill Stuffer because it hits everyone in the City. Members responded that it is the best return on investment. 3. Posters because they give us visibility. Members Lonsbury noted the connecting to where to donate must be clear. All members were in favor of posters. Member Lonsbury recommended that press releases and other publicity must be newsworthy. Costs associated with fundraising were discussed. No motion was made on allocating funds for marketing efforts. Kristin will talk with the Edina Community Foundation as well as Jennifer Bennerotte regarding the best "page" for donors to land on when they want to make an online donation and report at the next meeting. Member Schwartz and other members commented on the mock -up at Utley Park created by Member Kojetin as a nice addition to bringing awareness to the memorial. VII. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS A. MARKETING /COMMUNITY RELATIONS Member Schwartz stated that three copies of his book are now at the Edina Library and a third will be at Southdale Library in the coming weeks. He reported he has sold 12 books, 7 to a veteran who has been using them for fundraising. Member Schwartz will be doing a presentation at 7500 York this spring as well as at the Historical Society. He continues to give presentations at Edina Schools along with Member Cardarelle. B. RESEARCH (KIAS) No report C. DESIGN /ARCHITECTURE No report. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:35 a.m. a /-4 O1 •,v u • To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item #: XI. A. From: Scott H. Neal, City Manager Action Discussion Date: April 2, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Manager's Report: City Representative to Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Action Requested: Appoint a Member of the City Council to serve as the City's representative to the NOC At -Large Community Group Information / Background: At its March 20 meeting, the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) changed its bylaws to formally incorporate the City of Edina into the At -Large City Group, which also includes the cities of Sunfish Lake, Inver Grove Heights, Burnsville, Apple Valley, St. Louis Park and St. Paul. As a member of the At -Large City Group, the City will participate in discussions with the other At -Large cities that help to inform and guide the advocacy and voting behavior of the NOC At -Large Committee Member. Each member of the At -Large City Group has one representative to this group. It is necessary for the City of Edina to select our Primary and Alternate representative to the group. I recommend the Council fill these two positions from among the Council. The MAC has asked that this decision be made before June 1, 2013. Attached: March 26 letter from Chad Leqve, MAC's technical advisor to the NOC. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 It METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION �,Pt,S s4 -ti, Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport t 9( 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450 -2799 Z Plione (612) 726 -8100 N t 0 mt o a t o y ° F f o 26 March 2013 Mr. Scott Neal, City Manager City of Edina Administration Department 4801 W 50" St Edina MN 55424 RE: -Appointment of an Edina Representative to the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) At -large Community Group Dear Mr. Neal, As you are aware, the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) is a 12- member Committee comprised of six airport user representatives and six community representatives that makes airport noise - related recommendations to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). In addition to five city seats, there is an at -large community seat on the Committee. As a result of the unanimous action taken by the NOC at its 20 March 2013 meeting, the City of Edina, along with the cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights, St. Louis Park, St. Paul and Sunfish Lake, is now represented by the at -large community seat. The individuals appointed by the respective communities in the at -large group will elect the individuals to serve as the Primary and Alternate At -large Community Representatives to the NOC for a term of two years. I am requesting that the City of Edina appoint a representative to the At -large Community group to participate in the At -large Community Representative selection process, and to act as the primary contact on behalf of the City with the NOC At -large Community Representative group. Once the appointment has been made, please submit a letter to that effect and include the representative's name, mailing address, telephone numbers and e-mail address. Your letter should be submitted prior to 1 June 2013 to: The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. www.mspairport.com Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTY /BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL I)OWNTOWN Christene Sirois Kron, NOC Secretary MSP Noise Oversight Committee 6040 281h Ave S Minneapolis MN 55450 christene.siroiskron @mspmac.org Thank you for Edina's participation in the NOC process. I look forward to working with Edina's appointed representative over the next two years. Sincere Virector, Environment Department MSP NOC Technical Advisor