Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-16_COUNCIL MEETING4 .I AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 16, 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 Council Members present to approve.) A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Meeting of April 2, 2013 and Work Session of April 2, 2013 B. Receive Payment Of Claims As Per: Pre -List Dated 04/04/13, TOTAL $566,485.90; and Pre -List Dated, 04/11/2013, TOTAL $997,121.011 C. Joint Powers Agreement With The City Of Richfield — Building And Plumbing Inspection Services D. Request For Purchase — 2013 Quality of Life Survey E. Resolution No. 2013 -40 Authorizing An Application To The Metropolitan Council For A Livable Community Act Tax Base Revitalization Account For the Redevelopment Of The Pentagon Park Property F. Request For Purchase — Scheduled Well 12 Rehabilitation G. Request For Purchase —Aquatic Vegetation Management, Contract No. ENG 13 -7NB H. Well Head Protection Plan, Part II Approval I. Traffic Safety Report of March 13, 2013 J. Joint Powers Agreement With City of Hopkins For Second Street South Roadway Reconstruction K. Engineering Services For Hazelton Road Improvements V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Police Officer Of The Year — David Lindman W Agenda /Edina City Council April 16, 2013 Page 2 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 — Temporary Intoxicating Liquor License - Chamber of Commerce Taste Of Edina (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members to approve) B. PUBLIC HEARING — Preliminary Plat With Lot Depth Variances, Frank Sidel, Property Located Between Little Street And Morningside Road, Resolution No. 2013 -39 (Favorable vote of majority of 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. 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) B. Planning Commission 2013 Work Plan Amendment C. Resolution No. 2013 -38 Accepting Various Donations D. Neighborhood Boundaries And Names And The Related Neighborhood Association Policy E. Ordinance No. 2013 -06 Amending Chapter 10 Of The Edina City Code Concerning Noise F. Ordinance No. 2013 -05 Amending Chapter 15 Regarding The Edina Art Center Board G. Wooddale Avenue Bike Lanes IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Correspondence Agenda /Edina City Council April 16, 2013 Page 3 B. Minutes 1. Park Board, March 12, 2013 2. Planning Commission, March 13, 2013 3. Art Center Board, January 24, 2013 4. Heritage Preservation Board, March 12, 2013 X. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS XI. MANAGER'S COMMENTS XII. ADJOURNMENT EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF HRA -Special Meeting of April 5, 2013 III. Professional Services For Acquisition Of 3930 West 49 %z Street (Favorable Vote Of Majority Of Commissioners Present To Approve) IV. 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- 8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS Tues Apr 16 Work Session —Joint Mtng with PI. Comm. Pentagon Park 5:00 P.M. Grandview Next Steps 6:00 P.M. Tues Apr 16 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues May 7 Work Session —Joint Mtng with HRRC 5:30 P.M. Tues May 7 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues May 21 Work Session — Budget 5:30 P.M. Tues May 21 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. Mon May 27 MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Tues Jun 4 Joint Mtng with East Edina Housing Fndtn 5:30 P.M. Tues Jun 4 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Jun 18 Work Session —Jnt Mtng with EEC 5:30 P.M. ues Jun 18 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Jul 2 MEETING CANCELLED Thu Jul 4 INDEPENDENCE DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Thu Jul 4 4th of July Parade 10:00 A.M. Tues Jul 16 Business Meeting 5:30 P.M. Tue Jul 16 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS d MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL APRIL 2, 2013 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. II. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. 111. MEETING AGENDA APPROVED Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. IV. CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, approving the consent agenda as revised to remove Items IV.E. Ordinance No. 2013 -05, Amending Chapter 15 Regarding the Edina Art Center Board, and IV.J. Reject Bids for Countryside Shelter Building and Re- authorize Advertisement for Bids, as follows: IV.A. Approve regular and work session meeting minutes of March 19, 2013 iV.B. Receive payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated March 21, 2013, and consisting of 27 pages; General Fund $298,650.47; Police Special Revenue $258.67; Working Capital Fund $20,981.80; Art Center Fund $7,338.15; Aquatic Center Fund $790.43; Golf Course Fund $21,145.81; Ice Arena Fund $21,377.22; Edinborough Park Fund $14,937.29; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $2,886.22; Liquor Fund $204,754.83; Utility Fund $319,283.91; Storm Sewer Fund $5,570.80; PSTF Agency Fund $2,424.41; Centennial TIF District $3,111.60; Grandview TIF District $150.00; Payroll Fund $9,529.16; TOTAL $933.190.77 and for approval of payment of claims dated March 28, 2013, and consisting of 27 pages; General Fund $201,330.47; Police Special Revenue $2,411.00; General Debt Service Fund $2,000.00; PIR Debt Service Fund $1,975.00; Working Capital Fund $39,718.75; Equipment Replacement Fund $50,453.55; Art Center Fund $1,407.04; Golf Course Fund $53,406.49; Ice Arena Fund $38,975.98; Edinborough Park Fund $523.63; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $5,824.46; Liquor Fund $146,564.07; Utility Fund $42,956.21; Storm Sewer Fund $1,576.86; Recycling Fund $32.93; PSTF Agency Fund $1,662.90; Centennial TIF District $11,812.33; TOTAL $602.631.67; and, Credit Card Transactions dated January 27, 2013 — February 26, 2013; TOTAL $19.533.23. IV.C. Approve Biryani Wine / 3.2 Liquor Licenses Renewal IV.D. Approve Smashburger New Wine / 3.2 Liquor Licenses 1V F a No 9013-05 Am ..d: g GhapteF 15 Re ..d: g the rd: w-a Center. e__..d IV.F. Adopt Resolution No. 2013 -34, approving a Final Plat at 5633 Tracy Avenue for Rod Helm on behalf of Miriam Kiser IV.G. Adopt Resolution No. 2013 -35, authorizing the removal of erroneously levied special assessments by Hennepin County on the 2013 property tax statement IV.H. Adopt Resolution No. 2013 -36, designating France Avenue no parking IV.I. Request for Purchase, Award of Bid Lake Edina Noise Wall Improvements, ENG 13 -11NB - awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Rainbow, Inc. at $31,000.00. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Page 1 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 2. 2013 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IV.E. ORDINANCE NO. 2013 -05, AMENDING CHAPTER 15 REGARDING THE EDINA ART CENTERBOARD - TABLED The Council offered edits to strengthen the language of the ordinance and asked staff to also compare its wording with that of the By -Laws and ordinances establishing other Boards and Commissions. The Council agreed the ordinance should not incorporate a list of current activities, as that may frequently change, but should address on -going duties. Manager Neal noted the Board's activities and functions were addressed in its work plan, which was reviewed and approved by the Council. Due to the extensive edits requested, he suggested the ordinance be tabled to allow time for staff to prepare a revised ordinance. Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to table consideration of Ordinance No. 2013 -03, amending Chapter 1S regarding the Edina Art Center Board to the April 16, 2013, Council meeting. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. IV.L BIDS FOR COUNTRYSIDE SHELTER BUILDING AND RE- AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS - REIECTED The Council stated it supported the Countryside Shelter Building retaining the covered picnic table overlooking the play areas, a unique feature, as well as the large window overlooking the skating area. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to reject bids for Countryside Shelter Building and re- authorize advertisement for bids. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS V.A. ARBOR DAY PROCLAIMED —APRIL 26, 2013 Mayor Hovland read in full a proclamation declaring April 26, 2013, to be Arbor Day in the City of Edina. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, approving proclamation declaring April 26, 2013, to be Arbor Day in the City of Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. V. B. EARTH DAY PROCLAIMED — APRIL 22, 2013 Mayor Hovland read.in full a proclamation declaring April 22, 2013, to be Earth Day in the City of Edina. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, approving proclamation declaring April 22, 2013, to be Earth Day in the City of Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Bob Gubrud, Energy and Environment Commissioner, thanked the Council and staff for its support of Earth Day and descried how it would be promoted. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD — Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. VI.A. 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 — TABLED Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the request of Hunt Associates to redevelop three lots, 5109 -5125 West 49th Street. The applicant proposed to tear down the two existing 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 so the density of the proposed development density would be 12 units per acre. Page 2 V Minutes /Edina City Council /April 2. 2013 Mr. Teague explained this was a two -step development review process. The first step takes four votes of the Council due to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from LDAR, Low Density Attached Residential (4 -8 units per acre) to MDR, Medium Density Residential (5 -12 units per acre); Preliminary Rezoning from PRD -2 (Planned Residential District -2), to . PUD (Planned Unit Development); . Preliminary Development; and, Preliminary Plat. He said, if the project was approved, the second step would require three votes of the Council and include Final Rezoning to PUD, Final Development Plan; and, Final Plat. Mr. Teague stated the Council previously considered a sketch plan for this project and raised concern with regard to density and height. As a result, one unit was removed (from 18 to 17) and the roof design was changed from pitched to flat to lower height. Mr. Teague presented the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval on a vote of 5 -3 and its concerns related to reducing density from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential by eliminating one more unit; reducing the height from four stories to three stories, and shifting the units to gain a larger setback on 49th Street. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the developer revised the plan to reduce drive aisles to 18 feet; however, does not want to shift homes closer to Vernon Avenue and suggested a 31 -foot setback, rather than a 37 -foot setback, on 49th Street. Mr. Teague presented details of the site plan and landscape plan, indicating the traffic study found the seven units added could be supported by the existing road system. He indicated the park dedication was $5,000 per unit, totaling $35,000 for the seven new units. Mr. Teague stated another condition of the Planning Commission was to remove the roof decks on 49th Street. He noted the project would be a vast improvement, create a more efficient use of the property, engage Vernon Avenue, provide garage entries internal to the site, and enhance pedestrian connections. The Council considered the elevation of easterly homes and proposed buildings and Comprehensive Plan Development Guidelines referencing the need for buffering and pedestrian sidewalks. 'Member Bennett pointed out that the proposed density, 12 units per acre, was not only the very top end of Medium Density Residential (5 -12. units per acre) but also the beginning of High Density Residential (12 -30 units per acre). Mr. Teague stated the City hired the traffic consultant but it was paid by the applicant. With regard to the possibility of moving the southbound Highway 100 exit ramp, Mr. Teague stated it was a Mn /DOT discussion under the Grandview Plan consideration. While Mn /DOT expressed willingness to look at the possibility of removing that off ramp, it would require improvements to the intersection. Proponent Presentation Chris Palkowitsch, BKV Group, stated the proponent looked at this space as a transition zone from the single - family to the north and Grandview to the south, wanting to integrate townhomes into the neighborhood by having pedestrian connection, an amenity to the neighborhood that would be maintained by the association. He noted this site was challenged with a high side at Vernon Avenue sweeping down to 49th Street. Mr. Palkowitsch described the orientation of the project, size and location of drive lanes, parking areas, shift in location of six buildings, reduction of building height by one foot along 491h Street, and removal of roof decks. He stated the proponent was concerned with the suggestion to reduce the setback from Vernon Avenue by six feet as it would impact the livability of the units. He displayed renderings of the site facing Vernon Avenue, noting front yard spaces that could be shared with the community. Mr. Palkowitsch provided a picture of exterior elements that included architectural cast stone, fiber cement, battens, and stained wood. He described the building elevations resulting from flat roofs, location of the sidewalk, setbacks to transition down the building height, noting there was 120 feet between the building and residential house. At the request of the Council, Mr. Palkowitsch displayed a slide depicting the exterior building materials, noting the materials would be welcoming and fit well with the neighborhood. Mr. Neal indicated the materials board would be presented during consideration of the Final Plan. Page 3 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 2. 2013 14 Mr. Palkowitsch indicated the flat roof could not be further reduced without impacting the Vernon Avenue townhomes. It was noted the three -level townhomes had parking on the lowest level and the front closet could be retrofitted with an elevator to provide accessibility. However, the 49th Street townhomes would not provide accessibility to the patio area. Mr. Palkowitsch stated the units would be for sale and a homeowner's association would address exterior maintenance and snow removal. The Council asked questions of Mr. Palkowitsch relating to stormwater management measures, how to incent townhome residents to own fewer vehicles and use public forms of transportation, perimeter plantings and focus along Vernon Avenue to engage the street, and sufficiency of parking. Mr. Palkowitsch stated the project would be at the high end of Medium Density as this was a transition space and could support that level of density. It was noted the pathway incorporated stairs to traverse the 20 -foot grade change as well as an asphalt path alongside to accommodate walking a bicycle down the grade. With regard to points of measurement to determine building height, Mr. Palkowitsch noted the new garage elevation would be up one foot from the base of the existing garages but the curb line would not be changed. Mr. Teague explained that should the existing building be razed and a house constructed at 5109, a 75 -foot wide lot, the minimum east side setback would be 10 feet, the maximum height to the ridgeline would be 35 feet, and its setback from the street would be required to match the house at 5101 and placed farther back from the street. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Public Testimony Michelle Anderson, 5112 49th Street, addressed the Council. Nancy Hall, 4501 Parkside Lane, addressed the Council. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Mr. Teague addressed issues raised during public testimony relating to a seven -unit townhome previously approved for the westerly portion of this property that had not moved forward. The Council acknowledged the existing structures were ready for replacement and a transitional townhome development was appropriate for this site as long as it maintained strong residential neighborhoods. Support was expressed for the proposed density along Vernon Avenue and the three buildings that face the railroad tracks, and for owner - occupied over rental units. The Council discussed the project's elements and indicated support of a lower density of 11.1 units by removing the easterly end unit, creating space for a circular drive that would provide trash removal, additional parking and snow storage; submission of existing building diagrams with exact measurements and threshold elevation so a comparison could be made to this proposal; the 49th Street townhomes should embrace 49th Street; the Vernon Avenue townhomes should embrace Vernon Avenue; presentation of the actual materials board; and, adding a sidewalk along 49th Street to assure pedestrian safety and serve residents of the townhomes. Several Members supported the option of a 36 -foot setback (equal to building height) on 49th Street, allowing more flexibility to setback on Vernon Avenue than six feet. Member Bennett indicated she finds this to be a lovely design; however, believed it was in the wrong location. She stated why she supported low density attached residential for this site. Mr. Neal stated the City had standards to regulate mass, scale, and types of building materials, but not for design and architectural review. Because of that, the City depends on the developer to cooperate and Page 4 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 2. 2013 incorporate the wishes of the Council. Mr. Neal recommended, due to the extensive revisions under discussion, that staff prepare the changes so the Council could review it in writing. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to table consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat, Hunt Associates, 5109 -5125 West 49`" Street to the April 16, 2013, Council meeting. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Vll. COMMUNITY COMMENT No one appeared to comment. Vlll. REPORTS / RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-29 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 -29 accepting various donations. Member Sprague seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.B. ORDINANCE NO. 2013-04 AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE TO INCLUDE GENDER EXPRESSION — ADOPTED Human Rights and Relations Commissioner Stanton presented the unanimous recommendation of'the Human Rights and Relations Commission to adopt an ordinance including gender expression. Member Swenson made a motion to grant First and waive Second Reading adopting Ordinance No. 2013 -04, amending the City Code Section 1501: Human Rights & Relations Commission. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.C. YORKTOWN PARK PILOT COMMUNITY GARDEN AND PARKING LOT —APPROVED Member Sprague disclosed that he served on the YMCA Southdale Fund Raising Board. City Attorney Knutson advised he could participate in the discussion but would recommend he not participate in the vote. Member Sprague recused himself from both and left the Council Chambers at 9:22 p.m. Parks and Recreation Director Kattreh reviewed the past consideration of community gardens, formation of the Community Garden Working Group, and its recommendation to approve the Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden and Parking Lot Project. She displayed the proposed community garden site plan that was 165 -foot by 75 -foot in size and contained 55 garden plots. It was noted the gardens would be fenced, contain a low- maintenance wood chip walkway, and a water containment tank would be provided. Ms. Kattreh explained the need for parking at Yorktown Park and partnership opportunity with the YMCA, who offered a donation to fund construction of a 122 -foot by 110 -foot parking lot. She described the application process and aggressive marketing plan and presented the anticipated plot rental revenue and expenses. Ms. Kattreh answered the Council's questions about the bituminous connection to the garden /pathway and modification to the pathway to accommodate the parking lot. She explained this site was selected based on input from the do.town initiative and Community Health Committee. The Council asked whether, if the City was looking for a garden with community wide draw, it would prefer a site with good street access and parking available. Ms. Kattreh stated she found this site to be ideal for a community garden because this Page 5 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 2, 2013 park land had not experienced a lot of use since it did not have access, parking, or space to accommodate a playing field. In addition, it did not have view impact to single - family residential property. Member Bennett questioned whether the lack of park and recreational facilities at Yorktown Park may be the reason for low use instead of lack of a parking lot. Ms. Kattreh clarified that the Community Garden Working Group had unanimously supported the community gardens with a parking lot no larger than 15 stalls surfaced with temporary millings from the Public Works Department rather than asphalt. The r- A-Mr -: It was asked whether a temporary parking lot may be more appropriate given this was a pilot project. Ms. Kattreh indicated soil testing was conducted and advised that Public Works does not recommend use of recycling millings for a parking lot due to potential for liability, lack of handicapped accessibility, and increased maintenance. The Council agreed that accessible and convenient parking was necessary to assure the success of the pilot program for community gardens and the proposed parking could also be used by the YMCA, on occasion. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, approving the Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden and permanent 23-29 -space parking lot. With regard to the concern with privatization of public land sc.,,-e the P-AtFa ce to the paFkiRg got was *IlFeUgh ^ iVate land, City Attorney Knutson advised the City would have a cross access easement agreement with the YMCA to gain access and share parking; however, fee title would not be given to the YMCA for the property. This agreement could extend over a number of years or it could be perpetual. Member Bennett stated she supported community gardens; however, would like a policy in place to identify the decision making process and criteria for location. In this case, she was troubled with the issues lack -of access from a public street, a� the creation of -a permanent parking lot for a pilot project and for the chief use of the YMCA, and (lack of planning ne -plafls for the future use of Yorktown Park. Ayes: Brindle, Swenson, Hovland Nay: Bennett Motion carried. Member Sprague returned to the Council dais at 9:54 p.m. VIII.D. UTILITY FRANCHISE BILL HF1450ISF1490 — REFERRED TO ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION Mr. Neal described the proposed legislation that would enable City governments to require energy efficiency goals for Public Utilities Commissions that were regulated utilities in municipal franchise agreements. Following discussion, Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, referring Utility Franchise Bill HF1450 /SF1490 to the Energy and Environment Commission for additional study and recommendation. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.E. ORDINANCE NO. 2013 -03 AMENDING CHAPTER 4 CONCERNING DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLING UNITS —ADOPTED Mr. Neal reviewed the Council's deliberation at its February 19, 2013, meeting and revisions made to the ordinance based on Council direction. The Council discussed the ordinance language and asked questions of staff to gain clarification. With regard to allowable hours of operation for construction projects and remodeling projects, Mr. Neal indicated it was conceivable there could be projects across the street from one another governed by Page 6 i Minutes /Edina City Council /April 2. 2013 different standards. The Council expressed support for additional discussion on creating consistent standards for hours of operation and to remove reference to power equipment. Attorney Knutson suggested that issue be brought back under another consideration. The Council addressed the importance of site management to assure it was secure between home demolition and reconstruction, questioning whether orange construction fencing adequately addressed public safety. It was agreed to make no language change at this time relating to fencing and entertain feedback before considering a revision. The Council asked questions of staff relating to issues raised by constituents on notice of demolition activity, dust control, and abatement of hazardous materials. Building Inspector Bomsta advised that during summer demolitions, the contractor usually used a hose to help control dust and some install a sprinkler in the attic prior to demolition. He indicated there were Federal standards on lead paint but not yet on asbestos; however, most companies conduct asbestos testing prior to demolition and remediate that material. The Council agreed that action to control dust should be taken immediately upon notice, not within one hour of notice. With regard to project signage, the Council concurred the sign should be placed and lettering of a size that could be viewed from the street. Member Sprague made a motion to grant First and waive Second Reading adopting Ordinance No. 2013 -- 03, amending Chapters 1 and 4 of the Edina City Code concerning demolition permits and building permits for single- and two - family dwelling units amended as follows: Section 411.03, Permits. "...is prohibited without a demolition permit issued by...;" Section 411.04, add plurality to "Permit Applicationjsl formts, and feet,;," Section 411.05, Permit Requirements, Subds. 5 and 6, add language indicating "the sign and contents must be visible from the street...;" Section 411.06, Subd. 6, fourth line, delete the comma following the word "keep;' Section 411.06, Subd. 7, change "within one (1) hour of receiving notice" to indicate "immediately upon receiving notice" Member Swenson seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. The Council requested additional information on the issue of fencing construction sites including how it was addressed by other cities and asked staff bring Section 1040.04 before the Council in two weeks. VIII. F. REVISION TO APPROVED PLANS FOR SOUTHDALE APARTMENTS —APPROVED Mr. Teague reviewed the Council's past consideration of the proposed revisions to the approved plans for Southdale Apartments. Ryan Dunlay, Stuart Companies, stated they worked with BKV Group to revise the plans based on the Council's comments at the last meeting. Mike Krych, BKV Group, clarified the points of pedestrian connection at the intersection midway along York Avenue, noting the new sidewalk connection to link the transit site to the York Avenue intersection. The Council referenced the recommendation of the Director of Engineering that the crosswalks be enhanced with thermo plastic finish, which had a three- to five -year life span, to match the France Avenue treatment. Mr. Dunlay stated they would comply with that request. Mr. Krych displayed colored renditions of exterior elevations, noting the top of the building had been changed back to silver in color, subtle color change of the cornice to champagne, windows percentage of glazing and proportions, the addition of triple patio windows, and raised height of entry features with subtle change in material color so it was more integrated with the reinstated cornice. Mr. Krych then displayed the site plan and described the use of colors and building materials. He indicated the development team spent more time to produce a realistic rendering of the project. Page 7 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 2. 2013 The Council expressed support for the updated plan, iconic entry lobby, and coloration of the building's upper floor to arrive at the essence of what had been initially presented. Mr. Krych presented the exterior materials board. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, approving revision to approved plans for Southdale Apartments, as revised to add three thermo plastic crosswalks for the east, west and north crosswalks at York. Stuart Nolan, representing Stuart Development Company and Simon Properties, thanked the Council for its consideration and agreed the project -plans look great. Mr. Dunlay stated it was hoped to start construction early June or July. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. IX CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS IX.A. CORRESPONDENCE Mayor Hovland acknowledged the Council's receipt of various correspondence. IX. 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 Informational; no action required. X. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS — Received Xl. MANAGER'S COMMENTS — Received XI.A. CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (NOC) —APPOINTED Mr. Neal recommended the Council appoint a member to serve as the City's representative to the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) At -Large Community Group. The Council discussed the option of appointing a Council Member and community representative as an alternate. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, appointing Member Bennett as the City's representative to the NOC At- Large Community Group and Jim Vose as the Alternate. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. X11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by Edina City Council, April 16, 2013. Video Copy of the April 2, 2013, meeting available. Page 8 Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL APRIL 2, 2013 5:09 P.M. CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL Acting Mayor Swenson called the meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Sprague and Acting Mayor Swenson. Mayor Hovland entered the meeting at 5:25 p.m. Edina City Staff attending the meeting: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner; Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Technology Services Director; Ari Klugman, City Manager Intern; Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager; Debra Mangen, City Clerk; Scott Neal, City Manager; Eric Roggeman, Assistant Finance Director; Cary Teague, Community Development Director; and John Wallin, Finance Director. NAME YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS Assistant Manager Kurt presented the updated version of the maps reflecting the names and boundaries of the proposed Neighborhoods as well as the revised Neighborhood Association Policy. Member Sprague reviewed the changes to both the maps and policy he had proposed. The Council discussed the challenges and benefits of neighborhood associations. Concern was expressed about the ability to rename an association. Members offered further revisions to the policy. The item will be placed on the next regular meeting agenda for consideration. BUSINESS MEETING Manager Neal reviewed the status of the Council's 2013 work plan priorities and the Leadership Team's 2013 Priorities. Following review of the work plan, the Council reviewed the proposed 2014 -2015 Budget Development Schedule, the 2013 Budget impact from some significant mechanical failures at Braemar Arena, possible impact on the City of tha4 Healthcare Reform and other pending legislation will bFiRg-te €d+Ra and how Edina's benefit program affects its competitiveness in attracting staff. Staff noted standards were being developed for the minutes of #fella the various advisory boards and commissions. Consideration has been given to outsourcing the drafting of the minutes based upon specifics parameters that would yield uniform quality of minutes with the Planning Commission and Park Board following the same model and the remaining boards following the model of the Heritage Preservation Board. Staff asked the Council to consider how they wish to handle budget development for their advisory boards and commission for the next budget cycle. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by Edina City Council, April 16, 2013. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Council Check Register Page - 1 4/412013 - 4/412013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation, PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369801 4/4/2013 105696 3CMA 150.00 SAVVY CONTEST ENTRIES 311212 032213 1130.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS COMMUNICATIONS LICENSES & PERMITS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN SALARIES TEMP EMPLOYEES GENERAL (BILLING) COST OF GOODS SOLD.MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING TOOLS TOOLS. GENERAL SUPPLIES ART WORK SOLD GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE ART CENTER REVENUES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 150.00 EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD - 369802 414/2013 EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 100613 AAA 1,736.19 VEHICLE PLATES 00005097 311410 032713 1553.6260 1,736.19 369803 41412013 103173 ACCOUNTEMPS 829.92- UBTEMP 311139 37552279 1 5910.6013 829.92 369804 41412013 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 126.80 311267 1664518 5842.5515 30.00 311518 1666258 5842.5515 37.20 311519 1666253 5862.5515 194.00 369805 4/412013 129458 ACME TOOLS 67.30 LEVEL, DRILL BITS 00001860 311140 1828793 1301.6556 283.20 HAMMERDRILL 311442 1785870 _1301.6556 160.30 DIAMOND BLADE 00001754 311443 1800214 4090.6406 510.80 369806 41412013 100867 , ALSTAD, MARIAN 44.53 ARTWORK SOLD - - 311496 032613 5101.4413 44.53 369807 41412013 100630 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY 1,070.66. _COPIER PAPER 311306 10355625-00 1550.6406 1;070.66 369806 41412013 101874 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC. 820.50 TRAVEL CHARGERS 00001306 311444 36275 1301.6406 820.50 369809 4/412013 102172 APPERrS FOODSERVICE 637.22 FOOD 311337 1900600 5421.5510 937.89 CONCESSION PRODUCT 311713 1896608 5730.5510 327.78 CONCESSION PRODUCT 311714. 1898282 5730.5510 470.35 CONCESSION PRODUCT 311715 1900525 5730.5510 818.30 CONCESSION PRODUCT 311716 1903979 5730.5510 LICENSES & PERMITS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN SALARIES TEMP EMPLOYEES GENERAL (BILLING) COST OF GOODS SOLD.MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING TOOLS TOOLS. GENERAL SUPPLIES ART WORK SOLD GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE ART CENTER REVENUES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD - EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS R55CKREG LOG20000. CITY OF -EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 - Council Check Register Page.- 2 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # -Doc .No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 3,191.54 369810 41412013 118491 APPLE INC. 1,769.85 IPADS 00004312 311213 . 4233337877 1100.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES _ CITY COUNCIL 1,769.85 . 369811 414/2013 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS 290.39- COFFEE 311338 1060361 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 389.84 COFFEE - 311391- 1062402 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 680.23 369812 4/412013 101677 ARMCOWDISTRIBUTING CO. 454.86 BUILDING SUPPLIES 311717 10055632 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 454.86 369813 41412013 104345 BARCLAYAUDIO 922.57 _SOUND SYSTEM REPAIR 311141 031713 5511.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS 922.57' 369814 414/2013 102195 BATTERIES PLUS 118.50 BATTERIES 00001682 311445 018 - 293444 1325.6406' GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS 118.50 369816 41412013 ' 125300 BAUMAN, DOUG 97.75 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 311446 032913 5510.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ARENA ADMINISTRATION 97.75 i 369816 4/4/2013 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 462.20 311268 77464300 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 857.10 311520 77464500 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING. 231.21 311521 6297300 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 80.41 311522 88191200 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 61.50 311523 77551100 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 334.20 311524 77551000 5642.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 214.05 311525 77550800 5862.5512 COST OF. GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING i 50.93 311526 88191100 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,403.25 311527 77550900 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 3,694.85 369817 41412013 103486 BEND IN THE RIVER BIG BAND 125.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 4 /14/13 - 311507' 031813 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC = OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION j f 125.00 • R55CKREG LOG20000 COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BOTH STREET RUBBISH CITY OF EDINA 50TH STREET RUBBISH Council Check Register 414/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # . Date Amount ' Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 369818 : 41412013 100681: -BENN, BRADLEY 26.00 ART WORK SOLD 311497 032613 5161.4413 26.00 369819 4/4/2013 126847 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 311.00 - COFFEE 311142 1080898 5520.5510 311.00 369820 414/2013 100648 BERTELSON_ OFFICE PRODUCTS 8.17 STAMP 00003156 311307 WO- 835872 -2 1400.6513 173.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00003157 311308 WO- 837780 -1 1400.6513 131.03 CD /DVD DISKS, SLEEVES 00003159 311309 WO- 840451 -1 1400.6513 15.25 MOUSE PAD/WRIST REST 00003160 311310 WO- 840453 -1 1490.6406 27.77- CREDIT 00003145 311311 CP -WO- 829549 -1 1400.6513 14.73 OFFICE SUPPLIES 311312 WO- 841981 -1 1600.6406 22:88 APPOINTMENT BOOK 311339 WO- 837614 -1 1190.6406 10.77 ARROW FLAGS 311340 WO- 838002 -1 1550.6406 63.42 PENS 311341 WO- 838387 -1 1556.6406 30.50 BINDERS 311342 WO- 838431 -1 1550.6406 18.26 KEYBOARD WRIST REST 311392 WO- 837846 -1 1550.6406 19.61 DESK PAD 311447 WO- 835680 -1 1550.6406 11.98 OFFICE SUPPLIES 311508 WO- 835154 -1 1600.6406 15.04 OFFICE SUPPLIES 311509 WO- 835155 -1 1600.6406 506.94 369821 41412013 127771- BIUNNO, LYNETTE 350.00 VOICEOVER TRAINING 311214, 030813 1130.6104 350.00 369822 . 4/4/2013 125268 BLUE COMPACTOR SERVICES 413.51 COMPACTOR RENTAL 311215 E- FEB2013 4095.6103 526.98 COMPACTOR REPAIR 311216 EA 427 4095.6103 940.49 369823 41412013 102M BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MN 1,206.60 PREMIUM 311448 APR2013 1550.604.3 1,206.00 369824 41412013 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS - 18.03 HIGHLIGHTERS, DISPENSER." 00001437 311143 85270 1552.6406 60.90 DUSTPAN, BUCKET 00001437 311143 85270 1552.6511 Subledger Account Description ART WORK SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES "GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Page -. 3- Business Unit ART CENTER REVENUES ARENA CONCESSIONS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL PUBLIC HEALTH POLICE DEPT. GENERAL PARK ADMIN. GENERAL ASSESSING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL PARKADMIN. GENERAL PARK ADMIN. GENERAL CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BOTH STREET RUBBISH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH COBRA INSURANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES .CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENT SVC PW BUILDING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Council Check Register Page - 4 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 10.67 FILE FOLDER TABS 00001437 311144 85291 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 89.60 369825 41412013 101010 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 89.25 ELECTRIC LKG COVER 00001688 311449 905210777 1322.6530 REPAIR PARTS STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 130.85 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 00001859 311450 905408123 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 130.86 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 00001859 311450 905408123 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 130.86 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 00001859 311450 905408123 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 481.82 369826 414/2013 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 964.12 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003601 311393 81039030 1470.6510 FIRSTAID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 964.12 369827 41412013 119351 BOURGET IMPORTS 292.50 311269 112627 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 292.50 369828 41412013 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 13.97 HOSE 00005942 311411 705392 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 370.79 MUFFLER, ELBOW 00005972 311412 715647 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 229.90 BUSHING KIT 00005023 311718 719890 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 229.90 BUSHING KIT 00005023 311719 719890X1 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 455.74 SHACKLE BRACKETS 00005023 311720 719890X2 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,300.30 369829 41412013 104470 BRIDGESTONE GOLF INC. 386.40 GOLF BALLS 311343 1002070003 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 772.80 GOLF BALLS 311344 1002070002 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,159.20 369830 41412013 103239 BRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS CO. 776.75 RAMP DOOR REPAIRS 00001663 311451 5211095 1375.6530 REPAIR PARTS PARKING RAMP 776.75 369831 4/412013 101752 BRISCOE, ROBERT 243.75 ART WORK SOLD 311498 032613 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 243.75 369832 41412013 119826 BRYANT GRAPHICS INC. 781.26 NEWSLETTER 00008284 311345 30708 1628.6575 PRINTING SENIOR CITIZENS 781.26 Q CITY OF EDINA 413/2013 7:46:26 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 5 4/4/2013 - 4/412013 Check # Date Amount- Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit . 369833 4/412013 102149 CALLAWAY GOLF 170.87 MERCHANDISE 311346 924228155 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 170.87 369834 41412013 116114 CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA INC. 88.18 ' OCE MAINTENANCE 00001229 311413 987955928 1552.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - CENT SVC PW BUILDING 88.18 369835 4/412013 119.455 `CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 834.80 311270 260762 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD;BEER 50TH ST SELLING 17.65` 311271 260763 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX ,50TH ST SELLING 2,034.05 _ 311272 260761 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 68.70 311273 260760 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 2.956.20 - 369836 41412013 100677 CARGILL INC. 9,001.35 DEICING SALT 311452 2900999911 1318.6525 SALT SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 9,001.35 369837 41412013, 116683 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE 117.33 _ 311274 95349 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON,SELLING 103.63- 311275 95348 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 13.70 . i_ 369838 41412013 - 112561 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 2,414:04 9724639 -1 311145 9724639 -3/13 5511.6186 HEAT ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS 2,560.30. 5546504 -1 311146 5546504 -3/13 1470.6186 HEAT FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 5,306.06 5591458 -4 311147 5591458 -3113 1551.6186 HEAT CITY HALL GENERAL ' 2,381.97 8034001 -1 311148 8034001 -3/13 1552.6186 HEAT CENT SVC PW BUILDING 157.09 5596524 -8 311149 _ 5596524 -3/13 5430.6186 HEAT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 16`92 5590919-6 311150` 5590919 -3/13. 7413.6582 FUEL OIL _ PSTF FIRE TOWER 1,481.39, 5584304 -9 311151 5584304 -3/13' 7411.6186 HEAT PSTF OCCUPANCY 44:54 5584310 -6 311152 5584310 -3/13 7413.6186 HEAT PSTF FIRE TOWER ! 34.99 9546705 -6 311313 9546705 -3/13 5913.6186 HEAT DISTRIBUTION 28.86 5528973-0 311453 5528973 -3/13 1552.6186 HEAT CENT SVC PW BUILDING 14,426.16 369839 41412013 123898 CENTURYLINK 63.83 952 922 -2444 311219 24443/13 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 57:25 952 920 -1586 311220 1586 -3/13 .1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN'- MIS 40.84 952 922 -9246 311221' 9246 -3/13 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL Q R55CKREG LOG20000 342.66 00113667 - 0120835016 CITY OF EDINA 120835016 -3/13 5111.6189 29.86 Council Check Register 311223 155251008 -3/13 7411.6189 4/4/2013 - 414/2013 00102561 - 0112920000 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 56.62 952 920 -8632 311314 8632 -3/13 5913.6188 TELEPHONE 121.93 952 831 -0024 311454 0024 -3/13 1552.6188 TELEPHONE 340.47 51.20 00079303 - 0155300009 311227 155300009 -3/13 369840 41412013 118580 CITY OF EDINA 51.20 00110793 - 0155250009 311347 64.44 PW BUILDING REMODEL 311455 PERMIT# 120300 1280.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.44 369841 41412013 122084 CITY OF EDINA - UTILITIES SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER EDUCATION PROGRAMS LIGHT & POWER LAUNDRY 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Page- 6 Business Unit CENT SVC PW BUILDING SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT PSTF OCCUPANCY YORK OCCUPANCY ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS GOLF DOME PROGRAM RANGE MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS CLUB HOUSE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS PSTF ADMINISTRATION STORM LIFT STATION MAINT EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 342.66 00113667 - 0120835016 311222 120835016 -3/13 5111.6189 29.86 00103650- 0155251008 311223 155251008 -3/13 7411.6189 85.04 00102561 - 0112920000 311224 112920000 -3/13 5841.6189 342.66 00079303 - 0155300018 311225 155300018 -3/13 5511.6189 222.36 00079303 - 0155300010 311226 155300010 -3113 5511.6189 51.20 00079303 - 0155300009 311227 155300009 -3/13 5511.6189 51.20 00110793 - 0155250009 311347 155250009 -3/13 5422.6189 51.20 00110793 - 0173001001 311348 173001001 -3/13 5210.6189 51.20 00110793- 0173001000 311349 173001000 -3/13 5424.6189 91.21 00110793- 0155250018 311350 155250018 -3/13 5422.6189 3,254.46 00110793 - 0155200000 311351 155200000 -3/13 5420.6189 222.24 00113607- 0170005201 311394 170005201 -3/13 1470.6189 1,814.87 00077479 - 0113317143 311721 113317143 -3/13 5720.6189 6,610.16 369842 41412013 100037 CITY OF MINNETONKA 795.00 DOUBLE PAYMENT FOR COURSE 311456 REFUND 7410.6218 795.00 369843 41412013 100687 CITY OF RICHFIELD 276.50 XCEL BILLING FOR LS 00001891 311228 5544 5934.6185 276.50 369844 41412013 122481 CLARKE, GEOFF 100.00 UNIFORM PURCHASE 311722 032113 5720.6201 100.00 369845 41412013 126726 COBRA PUMA GOLF INC. 773.91 GOLF SHIRTS 311352 G318803 5440.5511 145.63 GOLF CLUBS 31153 G324970 5440.5511 216.71 GOLF CLUBS 311354 G326397 5440.5511 1.136.25 SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER EDUCATION PROGRAMS LIGHT & POWER LAUNDRY 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Page- 6 Business Unit CENT SVC PW BUILDING SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT PSTF OCCUPANCY YORK OCCUPANCY ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS GOLF DOME PROGRAM RANGE MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS CLUB HOUSE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS PSTF ADMINISTRATION STORM LIFT STATION MAINT EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/4/2013> - 4/4/2013 _ Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 369846 41412013 100692 COCA -COLA REFRESHMENTS 189.40 311528 0198117311 5842.5515 189.40 369847 414/2013 129820 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL 892.18 APR 2013 MAINTENANCE 311229 040113 5841.6103 892.18 369848 41412013 101345 COLOURS 2,330.49 ABOUT TOWN ENVELOPES 311153 10375 1130.6123 1,304.00 TEMPLATE DESIGN 311154 10324 -01 1130.6103 463.00 RECREATE FIRE SHIELD 311155 10377 1130.6103 4,097.49 369849 4/4/2013 120433 COMCAST 4.53 8772 10 614 0023973 311355 23973 -3/13 1551.6103 107.46- 311457 396908 -3/13 5760.6105 111.99 369850 41412013 101329 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC. 545.06 WARMING PLATES 00001738 311458 0092900 -IN 1314.6406 545.06 369851 -- 414/2013 121267 CREATIVE RESOURCES 757.00 T- SHIRTS 311723., 19515 5511.6406 757.00 369852 41412013 100701 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. INC. 1,649.80 CUSHMAN TIRES 00001814 311414 159779 1642.6406 1,649.80 369863 414/2013 104020 DALCO 70.92 PUMICE 00001454 311415 2581053 1301.6406 118.15 HAND TOWELS 00001454 .311416 2585615 1552.6511 - 117.19 TISSUE 00001454 311417 2585065 1552.6511 184.89 WYPALLS 00001454`311459 2573309 1301.6406 884.93 HEAT SEALS 00009247 311460 2581617 5111.6406 1,376.08 369854 4/4/2013 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. - 22.40 311276 694056 5842.5515 1,130.45 311277 694055 5842.5514 Subledger Account Description. COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Page - 7 Business Unit YORK SELLING YORK OCCUPANCY MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DUES &.SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE STREET RENOVATION ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS FIELD MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENT SVC PW BUILDING GENERAL MAINTENANCE ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Council Check Register Page - 8 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 1,664.75 311529 694052 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 66.30 311530 694053 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,883.90 369855 41412013 101657 DEHN, BRUCE 20.00 REIMBURSE FOR DRIVING COURSE 311315 032613 5919.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING 20.00 369856 4/412013 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. 155.71 IMPACT WRENCH 00001833 311156 778736 1646.6556 TOOLS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 50.62 SOCKET, ADAPTER 00005096 311418 781370 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 22.44 GLOVES 00005129 311419 781371 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 228.77 369857 414/2013 102831 DEX MEDIA EAST INC. 113.44 650243624 311461 650243624 -3/13 5760.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE 113.44 369858 4/412013 131745 DUPPONG, NICOLE 184.00 SUMMER CLASS REFUND 311462 032913 5511.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 184.00 369859 4/412013 100740 EARL,F. ANDERSEN INC. 993.94 TRAFFIC CONES 311463 0101452 -IN 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS 993.94 369860 41412013 122387 ECOLAB 601.47 LAUNDRY DETERGENT 00003606 311395 1364471 1470.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 601.47 369861 4/412013 124503 EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC CO. 98.82 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 00001819 311157 09771600 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS 98.82 369862 41412013 101656 EDINA CHORALE 100.00 CONCERT PROGRAM ADS 311464 EDINAART 5110.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION CENTER 100.00 369863 41412013 129504 EDINA HIGH SCHOOL 16,001.00 BOYS HOCKEY GAMES % 311471 2012 -2013 5511.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 5,764.10 GIRLS HOCKEY GAMES % 311472 032613 5511.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 9 4/4/2013 —4/412013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 12,009.00 HOLIDAY CLASSIC % 311753 DEC2012 5511.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS 33,774.10 369864 41412013 123169 EDINA LIQUOR 70.00 WINE 311356 1017 5420.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE CLUB HOUSE 70.00 369865 41412013 101407 EGAN, MATT 23.00 REIMBURSE FOR LICENSE RENEWAL 311316 032613 5919.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS TRAINING 23.00 369866 4/4/2013 100049 EHLERS 2,000.00 ARBITRAGE CALCULATION 311357 63857 3301.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PIR DS REVENUES 2,000.00 369867 41412013 131546 ELRICK, DREW 231.25 EEC EVENT POSTER DESIGN 311158 EDI -003 1130.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 231.25 369868 4/412013 101937 EMS INSIDER 198.00 DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (2) 311396 032713 1470.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 198.00 369869 41412013 102367 ENVIROMATIC CORPORATION.OF AME 435.46 KITCHEN EXHAUST VENT CLEANIN ®0006173 311358 243751 5421.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRILL 435.46 369870 41412013 131746 ERICKSON, RICHARD 16.59 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 311510 6112ABBOTTAVE 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET 16.59 369871 41412013 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 190.22 PARTS 00005081 311420 1- 4134755 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 190.22 369872 41412013 129989 FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 1,225.00 PACE LEGAL 311359 21033010 3301.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PIR DS REVENUES 1,225.00 369873 41412013 100756 FEDERAL EXPRESS 33.48 SHIPPING CHARGES 311421 2- 217 -96804 1400.6235 POSTAGE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 33.48 R55CKREG LOG20000 MERCHANDISE 00006069 311360 CITY OF EDINA 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 2,595.76- CREDIT Council Check Register 6954635 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 632.18 4/412013 — 414/2013 311511 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 311512 369874 41412013 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 126004 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 369880 41412013 100773 GENERAL PARTS INC. 4,890.57 METERS 00001897 311317 0011464 -1 5917.6530 REPAIR PARTS 213.10 4,890.57 5450186 5421.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 369875 41412013 213.10 116492 FINANCE AND COMMERCE 369881 207.06 AD FOR BID 311397 10263823 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL 190.32 AD FOR BID 311398 10273698 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL 84812 1623.6406 397.38 1,800.00 369876 41412013 120329 FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC 369882 41412013 130052 GLOWSHOT TARGETS LLC 698.72 NOZZLE 00003580 311399 7878 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 858.20 698.72 218 7414.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 369877 41412013 858.20 129500 FLAT EARTH BREWING CO. 413/2013 7:46:26 Page - 10 Business Unit METER REPAIR ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 160.00 311531 6195 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 160.00 369878 41412013 101476 FOOTJOY 2,725.36 MERCHANDISE 00006069 311360 4790933 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 2,595.76- CREDIT 311361 6954635 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 632.18 MERCHANDISE 311511 4851512 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 620.00- CREDIT 311512 6953235 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GRILL TENNIS INSTRUCTION PUBLIC PROGRAMS 141.78 369879 4/4/2013 102727 FORCE AMERICA 18.38 RUBBER STRAPS 00005038 311724 01401984 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 18.38 369880 41412013 100773 GENERAL PARTS INC. 213.10 FRYER REPAIR 311362 5450186 5421.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 213.10 369881 41412013 100775 GENERAL SPORTS CORPORATION 1,800.00 TENNIS SHIRTS 311159 84812 1623.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,800.00 369882 41412013 130052 GLOWSHOT TARGETS LLC 858.20 TARGETS 311465 218 7414.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 858.20 369883 41412013 100780 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC. EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GRILL TENNIS INSTRUCTION PUBLIC PROGRAMS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Council Check Register Page - 11 4/412013 - 4/4/2013 Check Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account-No Subledger Accoun£Description • Business Unit 100.00 .ANNUALFEE 00019090 311363 61620 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION ' 100.00 '. 369884 4/412013 101103 GRAINGER 213.75 VIDEO SURVEILLANCE 00001858 311160 - 9096015400 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 67.84 FUSES 311230 9098211403 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 234.83 SOLENOID VALVE 00001848 311318 9096015384 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES '_' -WELL HOUSES 70.66 GRAFFITUPAINT REMOVER,TOWELS)0001874 311422 " ; 9098035430 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES. STREET NAME SIGNS 27.06 SAFETY GLASSES 00005094 311423 9098543482 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1,428.65 NITRILE GLOVES, GREASE GUN 00001843 311424 9093510999 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2,042.79 369885 41412013 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 894.00 311532 - 150533 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 676.00 311533 150534 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 78.25 311534 150545 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE_ 50TH ST SELLING 1,588.25 369886 41412013- 100785 GREUPNER,JOE, 12,699.00 2ND QTR PAYMENT 311364 032713 5410.6132 PROFESSIONAL SVCS - GOLF GOLF ADMINISTRATION 12,699.00 369887 41412013 100787 GRUBER'S POWER EQUIPMENT 98.53 MOWER PARTS 00001866 311161 117138 1643.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL TURF CARE 147.97 MOWER REPAIR PARTS 00001927 311425 117185 1643.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL TURF CARE 298.96. BLADES, FILTER ELEMENTS 00001939 311426_ 117204 1643.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL TURF CARE 545.46 369888 4/412013 102060 HALLOCK COMPANY INC 67.87: FUSES 00001841 311162 106391 -1 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 67.87 369889 41412013 106062 .HAYNES, STEPHEN -: 5.20 RE -ISSUE -ART WORK SOLD 311231 CK#352682 5101.4413 ARTWORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 5.26 369890 41412013 115377 HENRICKSEN PSG 1,336.34 PARTS FOR REMODELING 311365 514955 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 852.93 PARK OFFICE REMODEL 311466 514055 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 60.00 CHAIR REPAIR 311467 514056 1551.6530 REPAIR PARTS CITY HALL GENERAL 2,249.27 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Council Check Register Page - 12 4/4/2013 -4/412013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369891 4/412013 100805 HIRSHFIELD'S 38.45 DRYWALL PRIMER 00008092 311725 03046130 5511.6532 PAINT ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 38.45 369892 41412013 100806 HOBART SERVICE 401.67 DISHWASHER REPAIR 00006336 311366 30910412 5421.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRILL 401.67 369893 4/412013 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 848.50 311278 640828 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,648.50 311279 640799 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,985.50 311280 641060 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 4,482.50 369894 41412013 131043 HOLTZ, DOUGLAS 760.00 REPORT WRITING COURSE 311468 032513 7410.6218 EDUCATION PROGRAMS PSTF ADMINISTRATION 760.00 369895 41412013 126816 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 8.12 PW /ENG SUPPLIES 311469 031313 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 84.71 PW /ENG SUPPLIES 311469 031313 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 164.21 PW /ENG SUPPLIES 311469 031313 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS 257.04 369896 41412013 112628 ICEE COMPANY, THE 263.76 CONCESSION PRODUCT 311726 2066381 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS. 159.08 CONCESSION PRODUCT 311727 2077577 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 422.84 369897 41412013 131644 INDEED BREWING COMPANY 300.00 311535 11484 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 300.00 369898 414/2013 131548 INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS LL 216.62 ICE SHOW TICKETS 00008078 311163 IN0248474 5510.6575 PRINTING ARENA ADMINISTRATION 216.62 369899 41412013 105198 INTERNATIONAL ASSOC. FOR PROPE 50.00 MEMBERSHIP - LAURENE DRAPER 311513 103154 1400.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 50.00 369900 414/2013 108618 JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC. R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/312013 7:46:26 Council Check Register Page- 13 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 2,686.19 TURN OUT GEAR 00003602 311400 195442 1470.6552 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,686.19 369901 4/4/2013 100829 JERRY'S HARDWARE 3.24 311319 022813 5421.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL 5.11 - 311319 022813 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES INSPECTIONS 12.80 311319 022813 5841.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK OCCUPANCY 14.59 311319 022813 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 17.05 311319 022813 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 21.05 311319 022813 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 29.79 311319 022813' 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 34.55 311319 022813 4090.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE 88.64 311319 022813 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 166.61 311319 022813 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 1600 311319 022813 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 185.93 311319 022813 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL- MAINTENANCE 198.31 311319 022813 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 733.09 311319 022813 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA.BLDGIGROUNDS 1,773.79 .311319 022813 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES , EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 3,451.25 369902 41412013 129635 JESSE JAMES CREATIVE INC. 1,425.00 EDINA LIQUOR COUPON FUNCTION 311232 JJ5219 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT:- COMMUNICATIONS 1,425.00 369903 41412013 102146 JESSEN PRESS 148.56 = ANNUAL MEETING INVITATIONS _ 311367 36596 1100.6106 MEETING EXPENSE CITY COUNCIL 148.56 369904 41412013 100741. JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 4,033:09 311281 2057391 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER- YORK SELLING :21.50 311282 2057392 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX' YORK SELLING 9,342.70 311536 2057381 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON'SELLING 13,397.29 i 369905 4/412013 124104 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES INC. 42.41 HARDWARE' 00001847 311164 63956743 1643.6406' GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL TURF CARE 18.70_. ICE MELT 00006382 311368 63925796 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES' MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 37.41 ICE MELT 00006386 311369 63952390 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 98.52 369907 4/412013 ._ 100836 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register. 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Page - 14 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit i 1,132.32 311283 1529088 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 48.00- 311284 567830 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE - YORK SELLING 62.74 311537 1533250 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 84.68 311538 1533262 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 276.86 311539 1533260, 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 811.08; . 811540 1533249 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS'SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 959.14 311541 1533257 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS�SOLD.WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,187.76 311542. 1533261 5822.5513- COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 2,914.18 311543 1533274`. ` 5862.5512 COST. OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING .09 311544 1533248 5862.5512-- COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 207.36 311545 1533278 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS°SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 508.11 311546 1539280 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 70.35 311547 1533273 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 292.48 311548 1533252 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1.12 311549 1533256 5842.5513 COST.OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 3,133.43 311550 1533267 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD.WINE YORK SELLING 3,247.81 311551 1533268 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,865.38 311552 1533271 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING w 187.23 311553 1533251 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING. = 2,403.57 311554 1533266 5842.5512 COST,OF GOODS'SOCD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 454.81 311555 1533270. 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 427.48 311556 1533272 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING . 20,181.98 369908 41412013 124669 JOHNSON, BRYAN 23.40 ART WORK SOLD 311499 032613 5101.4413 ART -WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 23.40 369909 41412013 131741 JOHNSON, ED 17.00 PAID MEMBERSHIP TWICE 311370 REFUND 1628.4392.01 SR CENTER MEMBERSHIP SENIOR CITIZENS 17.00 369910 41412013 123696 JOHNSTON; TORI 33.15 ART WORK SOLD 311500 032613 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES - 33.15 369911 414/2013 102113 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 229.29. IGNITER KITS 00001855 311165 189786 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 229.29 369912 41412013 100839' KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 168.70 MOWER REPAIR PARTS 00001834 311427 M671353 1641.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MOWING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/4/2013 - 4/412013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 211.29 BALL BEARINGS-- 00001834 311428 S579900 1641.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MEETING EXPENSE CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARTWORK SOLD SENIOR TRIPS ART WORK SOLD REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS _. CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 413/2013 7:46:26 Page - 15 Business Unit MOWING PARK ADMIN. GENERAL. EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS ART CENTER REVENUES SENIOR CITIZENS ART CENTER REVENUES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CENTENNIAL LAKES BALANCE SHEET REPAIR PARTS :'EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 379.99 CENT SERV. GEN - MIS WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 369913 414/2013 CENT SERV GEN - MIS 102080 KATTREH, ANN CONTINGENCIES 63.55 REFRESHMENTS FOR FORUM 311514 WEST METRO 1600.6106 63.55 369914 414/2013 129405 KEY ELECTRIC LLC 187.50•- REINSTALL HAND DRYER 311728 031313-05 5720.6180 187.50 369915 4/412013 - 126941 KIEFFER, DANIELLE 162.50 ART WORK SOLD 311501 032613 5101.4413 162.50, 369916 41412013 131742 KLIMEK, SHIRLEY 68.00 SENIOR TRIP REFUND 311371 032613 1628.4392.07 68.00 369917 414/2013 121656 LAVEN, JANE 27.30 ARTWORK SOLD 311502 032613 5101.4413 27.30 369918 41412013 100862 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 866.25 SCREWS, FITTINGS, WASHERS 00005117 311166 9301519509 1553.6530 10.78 WASHERS 00005034 311167, 9301522552 1553.6530 877.03 369919 41412013 131166 LEGACY COMPANIES INC. 2,000.00 HVAC.WORK FOR ADDITION 00002323 311470 7507 5750.1705 2,000.00 369920, 41412013 100857 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC. 192.24, SHAFTS 00005048 311168 00050733 1553.6530 192.24' 369921 41412013 100858 LOGIS 50:00 ADMIN CHARGE- 311233 36497 1554.6160 192.38 -:.0 -PANEL LICENSE 311233 36497 1130.6124 71020.00 PDS VALUE NOTICES 311233 36497 1500.6103 16.03 ENTRUSTTOKEN 311234 36511 1554.6406 2,939.05 INSIGHT LICENSES (5) 311235 36526 1500.6103 MEETING EXPENSE CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARTWORK SOLD SENIOR TRIPS ART WORK SOLD REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS _. CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 413/2013 7:46:26 Page - 15 Business Unit MOWING PARK ADMIN. GENERAL. EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS ART CENTER REVENUES SENIOR CITIZENS ART CENTER REVENUES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CENTENNIAL LAKES BALANCE SHEET REPAIR PARTS :'EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV. GEN - MIS WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES GENERAL SUPPLIES -;,_ . CENT SERV GEN - MIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ' ' CONTINGENCIES R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Council Check Register Page - 16 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 10,217.46 769922 4/412013 101453 LUTZ, RICHARD M. 218.97 UNIFORM PURCHASE 311236 032713 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 218.97 369923 41412013 122076 LYNN & ASSOCIATES 1,200.00 FACILITATION SESSIONS 311372 PG:1:2013 1120.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 1,200.00 369924- 41412013 112577 M. AMUNDSON LLP 956.94 311285 149571 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 70.00 311557 149611 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,423.14 311558 149467 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 2,450.08 369925 41412013 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. 584.34 MIRRORS 00005076 311169 2132043 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 240.51 CYLINDER ASSEMBLY 00005816 311170 2132025 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 824.85 369926 41412013 105677 MAGC 195.00 NORTHERN LIGHTS ENTRIES -NON M 311237 032213 1130.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS COMMUNICATIONS 285.00 NORTHERN LIGHTS ENTRIES- MEMBER 311237 032213 1130.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS COMMUNICATIONS 375.00 2013 DUES (5) 311237 032213 1130.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS COMMUNICATIONS 855.00 369927 41412013 122554 MATHESON TRI -GAS INC. 175.23 OXYGEN 00003649 311401 06617840 1470.6510 FIRSTAID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 175.23 369928 4/412013 129579 MAVERICK CUTTING & BREAKING LL 545.70 SAW CUTTING 00002323 311754 9659 5750.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS CENTENNIAL LAKES BALANCE SHEET 545.70 369929 41412013 118096 M -9 COMPANIES INC 277.05 GASKETS, WASHERS 00005073 311429 173021 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 277.05 369930 41412017 125941 MCQUAY INTERNATIONAL 318.65 WATER HEATER REPAIR 311171 2591169 5511.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 318.65 R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # -.-Date . Amount Supplier/ Explanation - PO # 369931 41412013 113941 MEDICA 68.20 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 68.20, 311238, 369932 41412013 103720 MEDTECH 2,995.99 WRISTBANDS 2,995.99 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/4/2013 - 4/412013 Doc No Inv No Account No 311515 LARRY STRATTON 1470.4329 " 311729 IN000397872 5720.6406 369933 41412013 113023 MEGGITT TRAINING SYSTEMS INC. 11.00 MISC'PARTS 311238, INV- 0058160 11.00 369935 41412013 101483 MENARDS 86.43 WARMING HOUSE MATS 00001835 311172 20651 227.54 EXTENSION CORDS, SUPPLIES 00008076 311173 20626 5.96 BRACKETS 00001862 311320 21103 24.71 LUMBER FOR MAILBOXES 00001868 311430 21224 189.92 MAILBOXES 00001802 311431 19913 15.35 NAILS, FIBERLOCK 311473 20662 15.12 WASHERS, SCREWS 00001820 311474 20427 13.40 STAPLES, TEES 00001810 311475 20914 22.41 ; SPACKLE, FIBERLOCK 00001806 311476 19998 23.66 ROLLERS 000011752-3111477 19449 10.12 REACH & ROLL EXT FRAME 00001745 311478 19349 36;80' WOOD GLUE, CONTACT CEMENT 00001729 311479 19037 22.30 .TOTE, SCREWS 00001732 .311480 19049 52.69 BUILDING SUPPLIES 00008041 311730 16700 50.12 REPAIR SUPPLIES 00008089 311731 18190 10.69 REPAIR SUPPLIES 00001715 311732 18505 50.53'- REPAIR SUPPLIES 00001715 311732 18505 17.13 REPAIR SUPPLIES 00008088 311733 18606 60.82 REPAIR SUPPLIES 00001735 311734 19158 12.35 CARPET KNIVES 00001830 ` 311735 20547 906.82 BUILDING SUPPLIES 00001830.311735 20547 48.46 REPAIR SUPPLIES - 00001836 311736 20727 12.79 AC2 PANEL 00001846 311737 21035 21.89 ELECTRICAL REPAIR SUPPLIES 00008086 311738 21098 39.46 PAINTING SUPPLIES 00001854 311739 21110 51.45 LYSOL FILTERS 00001854 311739 21110 2,028.92 7412.6406 1646.6406 5511.6406 5841.6406 1318.6406 1318.6406 1301.6406 1301.6406 1301.6406 1301.6406 1301.6406 1301.6406 1301.6406 1301.6406 5511.6406 5511.6180 1301.6556 5511.6180 5511.6180 5511.6180 1301.6556 5511.6180 5511.6180 5511.6180 5511.6180 5511.6180 1552.6406 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Page - 17 Subledger Account Description Business Unit AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE GENERAL SUPPLIES .. GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS TOOLS CONTRACTED.REPAIRS CONTRACTED' REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS TOOLS CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERALSUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS YORK OCCUPANCY SNOW & ICE REMOVAL SNOW & ICE REMOVAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL-MAINTENANCE ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS GENERAL MAINTENANCE ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS GENERAL MAINTENANCE ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS CENT SVC PW BUILDING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 369936 41412013 102281 MENARDS 131.58 MAILBOX, LUMBER 00001853 311432 19850 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 131.58 369937 41412013 102507 METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS 57.00 OFFICIATING FEES_ 311174 4329 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 57.00 369938 4/412013 104650 MICRO CENTER 286.16 IT SUPPLIES 00004316 311239 4381400 1554.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 181.68 UPS FOR CTS NETWORK ROOM 311240 4382245 1554.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 467.84 369939 41412013 102582 MINN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 20.00 BOILER LICENSE 311242 ABR00662391 5915.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS 20.00 369940 4/412013 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & 1,715.00 REPLACE WATER LINE 00001892 311175 34337 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 1,715.00 369941 4/412013 102174 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 78.86 CO2 CYLINDERS 311241 183075021 7413.6545 CHEMICALS 78.86 369942 41412013 131739 MINNESOTA DVS 1,656.29 VEHICLE TAX/REGISTRATION 311321 032213 1553.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,656.29 369943 4/412013 101559 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS AS 40.00 FIRE CHIEF MAGAZINE (2) 311402 83 1470.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 40.00 369944 41412013 100908 MINNESOTA WANNER CO. 17.10 STEEL 00005075 311176 0097909 -IN 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 17.10 369945 41412013 128914 MINUTEMAN PRESS 99.44 INVITATIONS, ENVELOPES 311177 13034 5510.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 140.62 SURVEY FLYER 311243 13088 5862.6575 PRINTING 140.63 SURVEY FLYER 311243 13088 5822.6575 PRINTING 140.63 SURVEY FLYER 311243 13088 5842.6575 PRINTING 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Page - 18 Business Unit SNOW & ICE REMOVAL EDINAATHLETIC ASSOCIATION CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS WATER TREATMENT DISTRIBUTION PSTF FIRE TOWER EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ARENA ADMINISTRATION VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Council Check Register Page - 19 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Data Amount ' Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 521.32 369946 41412013 100898 MINVALCO 509.79 DAMPER MOTORS 311403. 892989 1551.6530 REPAIR PARTS CITY HALL GENERAL 509.79 -, 369947 41412013 100906 MM DISTRIBUTING INC. 181.38 SAND PRO PARTS 00006384 311373 891057 -00 5431.6530 REPAIR PARTS RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE 808.67 MOWER REPAIR PARTS 00001862 311433 891544 -00 1642.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE 990.05 '. 369948 ' 41412013 100916 MUZAK LLC 264.05 2ND QTR SERVICE 311244 900AH41305 5822.6406 GENERAL'SUPPLIES 56TH.ST SELLING - 264.05 2ND OTR SERVICE 311244 900AH41305 5842.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 264.05 2ND QTR SERVICE 311244 900AH41305 5862.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 792.15 369949 41412013, 100916 MUZAK LLC 247.55 MUSIC SERVICE 311481 AG83131 5761.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 247.55 369950 41412013 123954 NEIGHBORHOOD NETWORKS PUBLISHI 125.00 . EDINA ART CENTER ADS 311482 292889 5110.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 125.00 369951 41412013 103056 NELSON AUTO CENTER 26,707.82 FORD POLICE INTERCEPTORS 00003135 311245 F3372 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT 26,269.82- 311246 F3373 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT -.- POLICE EQUIPMENT 26,289.82 311247 F3374 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT 26,289.82 311248 F3375 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT 26,289.82 311249 F3376 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT ' POLICE EQUIPMENT 131,867.10 369952 41412013 103007 ' NELSON,,DAVID 409.80 " CONFERENCE AIRFARE 311322 032813 1400.6104 CONFERENCES 8 SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 409.80 369953' 41412013 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 826.50 311286 80417 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 211.00 311559 80416 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,037.50 ° R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Council Check Register Page - 20 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369954 41412013 100922 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS 2,373.07 STREET SIGNS, LETTERS 311434 TI- 0259564 1325.6531 SIGNS & POSTS STREET NAME SIGNS 2,373.07 369955 41412013 131740 NISSEN, DIETRICH 151.42 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 311323 032213 1130.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS 151.42 369956 41412013 101620 NORTH SECOND STREET STEEL SUPP 1,772.01 STEEL 00005122 311178 255651 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,772.01 369957 41412013 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 174.40 OFFICE SUPPLIES 311740 650136737001 5710.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 174.40 369958 41412013 102712 OFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOG 23.94 311250 W13020650 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 23.94 311250 W13020650 5311.6188 TELEPHONE POOL OPERATION 23.94 311250 W13020650 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 47.88 311250 W13020650 5111.6188 TELEPHONE ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 47.88 311250 W13020650 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 47.88 311250 W13020650 5813.6188 TELEPHONE DISTRIBUTION 71.82 311250 W13020650 1481.6188 TELEPHONE YORK FIRE STATION 71.82 311250 W13020650 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 71.82 311250 W13020650 5861.6188 TELEPHONE VERNON OCCUPANCY 74.87 311250 W13020650 5821.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 92.52 311250 W13020650 5210.6188 TELEPHONE GOLF DOME PROGRAM 115.80 311250 W13020650, 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 119.70 311250 W13020650 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 167.58 311250 W13020650 5760.6188 TELEPHONE CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE 167.58 311250 W13020650 5710.6188 TELEPHONE EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 239.40 311250 W13020650 1622.6188 TELEPHONE SKATING & HOCKEY 372.90 311251 W13020656 5420.6188 TELEPHONE CLUB HOUSE 1,781.27 369959 41412013 124089 OHMANN, NANCY 58.50 ARTWORK SOLD 311503 032613 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 58.50 369960 41412013 100936 OLSEN COMPANIES 3.86 CONNECTOR LINKS 311179 514013 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 21 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 712.88 HOIST REPAIRS 311483 514350 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 716.74 369961 41412013 130333 O- MALLEY,MARYANNE 51.35 ART WORK SOLD 311504 032613 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 51.35 369962 4/412013 101659 ORKIN PEST CONTROL 134.16 PEST CONTROL 311374 82367519 1551.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL 134.16 369963 41412013 130454 OVEN HEARTH WHOLESALE BAKERY 137.44 CONEY BUNS 311180 320613 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 137.44 369964 4/412013 116603 PARKER, KATHLEEN 71.50 ART WORK SOLD 311505 032613 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 71.50 369965 41412013 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 2,636.12 311287 8393147 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING - 33.25 311288 8391365 -IN 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,996.82 311289 8393174 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 390.62 311560 8393169 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 7.00- 311561 8393231 -CM 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5,049.81 369966 414/2013 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 1,133.83 311252 09421885 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 249.00 311741 09541511 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 1,382.83 369967 41412013 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 820.53 311562 2398268 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 656.17 311563 2398271 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 132.54 311564 2398270 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 189.54 311565 2398281 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 173.60 311566 17360 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,174.35 311567 2398276 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 400.05 311568 2398277 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 367.56 311569 2398279 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 284.58 311570 2398278 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 414/2013 —4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 413/2013 7:46:26 Page- 22 Business Unit COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CONTRACTED REPAIRS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS PAINT PAVEMENT MARKINGS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS ALARM SERVICE ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS LAUNDRY EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE 5,198.92 369968 4/412013 100119 PING 380.13 MERCHANDISE 311375 11660522 5440.5511 321.60 311376 11660523 5440.5511 701.73 369969 4/412013 102748 PIRTEK PLYMOUTH 334.45 HOSE REPAIR 00006381 311377 51734944.001 5422.6180 334.45 369970 41412013 130926 PLANTSCAPE INC. 2,376.75 PARK PLANT MAINTENANCE 311742 315697 5720.6620 2,376.75 369971 41412013 118747 POTTERS INDUSTRIES INC. 7,056.00 HWY SAFETY MARKING SPHERES 00001734 311484 90841774 1335.6532 7,056.00 369972 41412013 125979 PRECISE MRM LLC 51.54 RADIO FEE 311435 306097 1301.6406 51.54 369973 4/412013 100380 PRESTRUD, ROBERT 105.95 UNIFORM PURCHASE 311743 032913 1646.6201 105.95 369974 4/4/2013 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY - 615.41 TOWELS, LINERS, GLOVES 311744 6050 5720.6406 619.69 CAN LINERS, ICE MELT 00002102 311745 6063 5720.6511 1,235.10 369975 41412013 103094 PROTECTION ONE 184.05 12743654 ALARM SERVICE 311746 031413 5511.6250 184.05 369976 41412013 100186 PROULX, ADAM 100.00 UNIFORM PURCHASE 311747 031813 5720.6201 100.00 369977 41412013 100466 R & R PRODUCTS INC. 494.81 MOWER REPAIR PARTS 00001863 311436 CD1657730 1642.6406 413/2013 7:46:26 Page- 22 Business Unit COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CONTRACTED REPAIRS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS PAINT PAVEMENT MARKINGS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS ALARM SERVICE ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS LAUNDRY EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Council Check Register Page - 23 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date - Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description'- Business Unit 494.81. 369978 4/4/2013 105581 RAY O'HERRON CO.-INC. 73.71 AMMO FOR TRAINING 311437 1308577 -IN 1400.6551 AMMUNITION POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 73.71 369979 414/2013 104642 RCM SPECIALTIES INC. 577.70 EMULSION 311438 3638 1301 .6519 - ROAD OIL GENERAL MAINTENANCE 577.70 369980 41412013 125936 REINDERS INC. 428.03 SIDEWALK SALT 00001831 311181 3019397 -00 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 428.03 .- 369981 41412013 101000 RJM PRINTING INC. 49.70 BUSINESS CARDS 311485 76277 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 49.70 369982 4/412013 131736 RLK INCORPORATED 5,386.50 BYERLY'S REDEVELOPMENT 311324 2013019MOI 1140.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PLANNING 14,781:25 311325 2013019M02 1140.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PLANNING 20,167.75 369983 41412013 100980 ROBERT B. HILL CO. ., 164.10 SOFTENER SALT 311404 00281325 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL - 164.10 369984 41412013 100985 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO 41.22 OIL FILTER 00005077 311439 C62960 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 41.22 369985 . 41412013 104786 SANDY'S PROMOTIONAL STUFF 54.69 SURVEY STICKERS 311326 SH2123 5862.6575 PRINTING VERNON SELLING 54.71 SURVEY STICKERS 311326 SH2123 5822.6575 PRINTING 50TH ST SELLING 54.71. SURVEY STICKERS 311326 SH2123 5842.6575 PRINTING YORK SELLING 164.11 369986 - 41412013 105442 SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO. 151.05 LUMBER, BITS 00001753 311486 41094962 1316.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 161.65 LUMBER, NAILS 00002322 311487 41097153 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 199.41 SEALANT, INSULATION 00002322 311488 41098884 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIALLAKES OPERATING 512.11 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Council Check Register Page - 24 4/4/2013 — 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 369987 41412013 104161 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. 560.19 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 311489 8103435412 1551.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL 560.19 369988 41412013 100349 SCOTT COUNTY 485.00 OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT 311327 032813 1000.2055 DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET 485.00 369989 41412013 103970 SEEGER, MICHAEL 35.09 TRAINING EXPENSES 311516 032913 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 101.08 TRAINING EXPENSES 311516 032913 1400.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 136.17 369990 4/4/2013 100995 SEH 830.52 PLAN REVIEW 311182 266806 1001.4722 RENTAL OF PROPERTY GENERAL FUND REVENUES 830.52 369991 414/2013 104689 SERIGRAPHICS SIGN SYSTEMS INC. 93.48 SIGNAGE 311378 43396 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 93.48 369992 41412013 100998 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO. 89.24 STRAINERS 00001818 311490 9659 -7 1335.6532 PAINT PAVEMENT MARKINGS 89.24 369993 4/4/2013 104098 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP 3,488.40 SQL SERVER LICENSE 00004385 311755 B00890075 5932.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL STORM SEWER 6,412.50 SQL SERVER LICENSE 00004385 311755 B00890075 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL (BILLING) 9,900.90 369994 41412013 120784 SIGN PRO 3,221.22 ROAD RESTRICTION SIGNS 00001840 311491 6521 1335.6531 SIGNS & POSTS PAVEMENT MARKINGS 3,221.22 369995 41412013 123473 SITEIMPROVE INC 4,680.00 WEBSITEASSURANCE MONITORING 311253 37944 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 4,680.00 369896 41412013 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 1,480.50 311290 1015998 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 277.50 311291 1016004 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING CITY OF EDINA 413/2013 7:46:26 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 25. 4/412013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 2,431.88 311292 1016003 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 4,201.00 311293 1016006 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 123.00 311294 1014999 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,427.33 311295 1016000 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5,701.75 311296 1015999 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 369.00 311571 1015996 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,380.88 311572 1015995 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 1.25 311573 1013708 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 303.00 311574 1017256 58415513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 19,697.09 369997 41412013 101023 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMI • 7,161.44. 2ND QTR 311328 201307 1130.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER COMMUNICATIONS 7,161.44 369998 4/412013 110977 SOW, ADAMA 22.75 ART WORK SOLD 311506 032613 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 22.75 369999 41412013 100161 SPEEDY KEYS 300.00 RECODE LOCKS FOR VEHICLES 311329 130454 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT 300.00 311330 130455 - 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT 300.00 311331 130456 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT 300.00 311332 130457 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT 1,200.00 370000 41412013 122455. SPRING LAKE ENGINEERING 700:00 SCADA PROGRAMMING 00001843 311333 1258 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 706.00 370001 41412013 101004 SPS COMPANIES 367.05 PLUMBING SUPPLIES . - 00008075 311183 S2695940.001 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 367.05 370002 41412013 102371 STANDARD SPRING 789.92 SPRING, BUSHING, PINS, U -BOLT 00005128 311440 344389 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 7.89.92- 370003 41412013 117685 STAPLES ADVANTAGE - 193.01 PRINTER CARTRIDGES 311379 8024762650 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 193.01 a R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Council Check Register .. Page - 26 4/4/2013 - 4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 370004 41412013 101015 STRETCHERS 82.26 HANDCUFFS 00003564 311405 11007934 1470.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES FIRE DEPT: GENERAL 484.99 UNIFORMS 00003564 311406 11007865 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 567.25 370005 4/412013 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 306.00 BRAEMARARENAAD ` 311184 1427714 5511.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES ARENABLDG/GROUNDS 48.71 PUBLISH NOTICE 311407 1428958 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 51.96 PUBLSIH ORD 2013 -02 311408 1428957 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 406.67 3700.06 41412013 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 677.00 311297 011579 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 968.00 311298 011641 5862.5514: COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 562.00 311575 011723 5822.5514 COST -OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING' 2,207.00 370007 41412013 103307 SWANSON, LEE 91.73 UNIFORM PURCHASE 311492 032513 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING'MAINTENANCE 91.73 370008 414/2013 101027 TARGET BANK 72.34 X- XXX -XX9 -840 311380 3/13 SUPPLIES 5410.6406` GENERALSUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 72.34 370009 41412013 104932 TAYLOR MADE 837.00 STAFF SHIRTS 311381 19266070 5430.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 837.00 STAFF SHIRTS 311381. 19266070 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 837.00 STAFF SHIRTS 311381 19266070 5424.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES 'RANGE n 1,166.56 MERCHANDISE 311382 19293844 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS = PRO SHOP PRO. SHOP:RETAIL SALES 136.86 MERCHANDISE 00006479 311383 19322836 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 3,814.42 370010: 41412013 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY - 3,270.90 311299 743953 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 69.30 311576 743954 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 3,340.20 370011 41412013 127318 TIGER ATHLETICS INC. 450.00 FITNESS, TRAINING 311409 538 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 450.00 CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - - 27 - 4/4/2013 -414/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit . 370012 41412013 - 101474 TITLEIST 460.60 GOLF BAGS 311384 1406633 5440.5511 COST OF.GOODS'= PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 253.67 GOLF BALLS 311385 1399776- 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 92.12 GOLF BAG 311386 1413775 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 4,806.82 GOLF BALLS. 311387 1417778 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 735.00 GOLF..BAGS /CARTS 311388 1425135 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP - PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 6,348.21 370013 4/4/2013 101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 479.15 HELMET, GLOVES, CAP 00005118 311185 130574 1553.6580 WELDING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 479.15 . 370014 414/2013 101046 TWIN CITY FILTER SERVICE INC. 474.31 FILTERS 00008077 311186 568572 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 474.31 370015 4/412013 101360 TWIN CITY HARDWARE CO.. 57.81 KEYS 311187 568572 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 228.45 DOOR CLOSER 311748 568815 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 286.26 - 370016 4/412013 101053 "UNITED ELECTRIC. COMPANY' 56.95 WIRE, GROUND BAR KIT 00001805 311749 940275 5511.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 28.21 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 00001805 311750 940270 5511.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 79:79 REPAIR SUPPLIES 00001805 311751 940407 5511.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 164.95 370017 4/412013 103298 UPS STORE #1715, THE 12.45 SHIPPING CHARGE 311441 TRN:2265 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 12.45 370018 41412013 114236 USA BLUE BOOK 537.02 PRESSURE GAUGES, GLOVES 00001872 311334 914487 5915.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT I - 187.51 LOCATING FLAGS 00001786 311335 912706 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 724.53 370019 4/412013 101058 -VAN PAPER CO. 43.28 CAN LINERS 311188 26793400 1552.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 43.28 370020 4/412013 120318 VEOLUI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 768.45 RECYCLE BATTERIES, TVS, LAMPS 00005083 311189 EW571927 1280.6271 HAZ WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD R55CKREG LOG20000 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE CITY OF EDINA 4,310.07 311301 1080019831 5842.5512 3,814.31 Council Check Register 5842.5513 3,497.60 311583 1080019824 - 5862.5513 4/4/2013 -414/2013 1080019825 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 1080019828 5822.5512 768.45 370028 414/2013 370021 41412013 131737 VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 311302 1090022500 5842.5515 524.94 HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL 00005085 311190 306772809 1280.6271 HAZ. WASTE DISPOSAL 524.94 370022 41412013 101063 VERSATILE VEHICLES INC. 1,870.32 BEVERAGE CART INSERT 00006167 311389 32013001 5423.6530 REPAIR PARTS 28.34 CHOKE CABLE 311390 32013002 5423.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1,898.66 370023 41412013 120627 VISTAR CORPORATION 835.06 CONCESSION PRODUCT 311191 36125439 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 835.06 370024 41412013 123616 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC 1,158.26 LEAK LOCATES 00001898 311336 3849 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,158.26 370025 41412013 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 413/2013 7:46:26 Page - 28 Business Unit SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD GOLF CARS GOLF CARS ARENA CONCESSIONS DISTRIBUTION 667.55 311300 325760 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,856.05 311577 325615 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 114.87 311578 325614-00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE BOTH ST SELLING 2,638.47 370026 4/412013 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 388.48 311579 449036 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 157.80 311580 449037 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,056.40 311581 449039 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 370027 4/412013 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4,310.07 311301 1080019831 5842.5512 3,814.31 311582 1080019832 5842.5513 3,497.60 311583 1080019824 - 5862.5513 110.34 311584 1080019825 5862.5515 1,847.97 311585 1080019803 5862.5512 374.90 311586 1080019828 5822.5512 13,955.19 370028 414/2013 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 43.00 311302 1090022500 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING CITY OF EDINA 4/3/2013 7:46:26 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 29 4/4/2013 -4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 2,493.30 311303 1090022499 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,418.00 311304 1090022059 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 302.40 311587 1090022498 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 112.00 311588 1090024606 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 129.00 311589 1090024607 5862.5515 COST OF•GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,239.05 311590 1090024605 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 6,736.75 370029 .41412013 101726 XCEL ENERGY 101.70 51- 9770164 -7 311255 362473134 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 59.52 51- 4420190 -3 311256 362256154 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 33.20 51 -0160483 -1 311257 362332697 1330.6185 LIGHT & POWER TRAFFIC SIGNALS - 36.10 51 0194596 8 311258 362332710 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 24.62 51- 9770163-6 311259 362481862 1321.6185 LIGHT ` &POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 38.98 51- 0223133 -2 311260 362334045 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 59.83. 51- 8997917 -7 311261 362468979 1321.6185 LIGHT.& POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 8,249.23 51- 6644819 -9 311262 362437023 5720.6185 LIGHT & POWER EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 277.66 51= 6223269 -1 311263 362430094 5210.6185 LIGHT & POWER GOLF DOME PROGRAM 14.29 51- 6541084 -2 311264 362434168 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,140.57 51- 5107681 -4 311265 362409751 5111.6185 LIGHT & POWER _ ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 14.29 51- 6050184 -2 311266 362428793 4086.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AQUATIC WEEDS 53.41 51- 8976004 -9 311493 362642383 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 34,938.65 51- 4621797 -2 311494 362576578 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR - 6,192.28 _ 51- 6955679 -8 311517 362964368 1551.6185 LIGHT & POWER CITY HALL GENERAL 51,234.93 370030 41412013 120099 Z WINES USA LLC 438.00 311305 11865 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE ..- YORK SELLING 438.00 370031 41412013' 101091 ZIEGLER INC 339.80 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 311495 WE79187 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,014.69 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 311752 SW060055172 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,354.49 370032 41412013 102500 7IMMERMAN, TIM 70.00 SAFETY BOOTS 311254 032113 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 70.00 566,485.90 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals • Check Total 566,485.90 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 41412013 —4/4/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit Total Payments 566.485.90 4/3/2013 7:46:26 Page - 30 R556KSUM LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/312013 7:48:34 Council Check Summary. Page - 1 4/4/2013 4/412013 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 174,482.08 03300 PIR DEBT SERVICE FUND 3,225.00 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 1,206.63 04200 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 133,067.10 05100 ART CENTER FUND 3,410.97 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 421.38 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 23.94 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 34,640.81 05500. ICE ARENA FUND 46,537.69 05700- EDINBOROUGH PARK FUND 22,491.06 05750 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK FUND 3,572.58 05800 LIQUOR FUND 118,278.89 05900 UTILITY FUND . 17,219.26 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 3,764.90 - 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 4,143.61 Report Totals 566,485.90 We confirm to the best of our knowledge - and belief, that these claims comply in all material respects = with the-Tequirements of the City of Edina purchasingpoli 'ie -:and ` -13 procedure date ' anc . irector • er R55CKREG LOG20000 4/1112013 129458 ACME TOOLS CITY OF EDINA 319.56 HAMMER DRILL 00008080 Council Check Register 1828855 5511.6406 319.56 4/11/2013 - 4/1112013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 370033 4/1112013 MERCHANDISE 105696 3CMA 91815128 544D.5511 558.17 390.00 DUES - JENNIFER BENNEROTTE 312112 040413 1130.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 100058 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 390.00 34,192.80 RECYCLING 370034 411112013 5952.6183 100609 50TH & FRANCE BUSINESS ASSOCIA 34,192.80 250.00 LIQUOR AD IN GUIDE BOOK 312113 7 -912 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 150.00 ART FAIR ADVERTISING 312114 7 -919 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 5730.5510 150.00 ART FAIR ADVERTISING 312114 7 -919 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 700.00 ART FAIR ADVERTISING 312114 7 -919 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 1,250.00 370035 411112013 124613 ABM JANITORIAL -NORTH CENTRAL 2,885.36 MAR 2013 SERVICE 312115 5090046 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,885.36 370036 411112013 103173 ACCOUNTEMPS 741.00 UB TEMP 311837 37614185 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 751.08 UB TMEP 312116 37628705 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,492.08 370037 411112013 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 31.60 312008 1667842 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 68.40 312009 1667841 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 28.40 312010 1667646 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 370038 4/1112013 129458 ACME TOOLS 319.56 HAMMER DRILL 00008080 311756 1828855 5511.6406 319.56 370039 411112013 102872 ADAMS GOLF 558.17 MERCHANDISE 311757 91815128 544D.5511 558.17 370040 411112013 100058 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 34,192.80 RECYCLING 312117 3149153 5952.6183 34,192.80 370041 4/1112013 105991 AL'S COFFEE COMPANY 250.67 COFFEE 311758 156504 5730.5510 250.67 GENERAL SUPPLIES 4110/2013 7:43:01 Page- 1 Business Unit COMMUNICATIONS 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING CITY HALL GENERAL GENERAL (BILLING) GENERAL (BILLING) 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES RECYCLING CHARGES COST OF GOODS SOLD RECYCLING EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 2 4/11/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 370042 4/1112013 127365 AMERICAN FLEET SUPPLY 128.10 LIGHTS 00005195 312083 AFS- 230840017 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 128.10 370043 411112013 101115 AMERIPRIDE SERVICES 64.98 311897 033113 5821.6201 LAUNDRY 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 75.88 311897 033113 5421.6201 LAUNDRY GRILL 138.84 311897 033113 5841.6201 LAUNDRY YORK OCCUPANCY 162.31 311897 033113 5861.6201 LAUNDRY VERNON OCCUPANCY 204.81 311897 033113 1470.6201 LAUNDRY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 275.60 311897 033113 1551.6201 LAUNDRY CITY HALL GENERAL 404.62 311897 033113 1470.6201 LAUNDRY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,327.04 370044 4/1112013 102774 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS 33.00 311955 040113 5821.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 33.28 311955 040113 1481.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL YORK FIRE STATION 44.71 311955 040113 5111.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT 56.55 311955 040113 1645.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL LITTER REMOVAL 66.29 311955 040113 1470.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 68.66 311955 040113 1628.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL SENIOR CITIZENS 88.91 311955 040113 5422.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 99.35 311955 040113 5861.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL VERNON OCCUPANCY 131.26 311955 040113 5420.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL CLUB HOUSE 134.79 311955 040113 5841.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL YORK OCCUPANCY 207.79 311955 040113 1551.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL CITY HALL GENERAL 208.31 311955 040113 1301.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE 208.32 311955 040113 1552.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING 318.78 311955 040113 5511.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 646.03 311955 040113 5720.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 256.16 312084 4/01/13 7411.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL PSTF OCCUPANCY 2,602.19 370045 411112013 102573 ASSOCIATION OF RECYCLING MANAG 20.00 MEMBERSHIP - SOLVEI WILMOT 312118 039 -2013 5952.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS RECYCLING 20.00 370046 411112013 102195 BATTERIES PLUS 73.34 OUTDOOR LIGHT BULBS 311838 020.267232 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 73.34 370047 411112013 131804 SAUER, DAN R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 - Council Check Register Page - 3 4/11/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subled_ ger Account Description Business Unit 10.97 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 312119 5005 KELSEY TER 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET 10.97 370048 411112013 101343 BEHRi J4SON - 29.36 K9:TRIALS EXPENSES 312085 040113 1400.6104 CONFERENCES SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL . 78.14 K9 TRIALS EXPENSES 312085 040113 1400.6107 MILEAGE OR'ALLOWANCE. POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 107.50 370049 411112013 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 422.75 - 312011 77590700 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR -YORK SELLING 765.35 312012 77639800 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR _ VERNON SELLING 78.85 312013 88223500 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS'SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 108.70 312014 6298300 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING " 1,375.65 _ 370050 4/1112013 117379 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC. 370.00 SNOW REMOVAL 311839 140762 7411.6136 SNOW & LAWN CARE PSTF OCCUPANCY . 583.54 SPRING CLEAN UP 312086 140833 7411.6136 SNOW & LAWN CARE PSTF OCCUPANCY 953.54 370051 411112013 131726 BERBIG, ZACHARY 1,247.55 CARPET INSTALLATION 312120 2042 5761.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 1,247.55 370052 411112013 125139' BERNICK'S 990.55 312015 52145 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING - 990.55 370053 411112013 - 126847 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 150.95 COFFEE 311759 1081884 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 150.95 ' 370054 411112013 ^100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 4.13 PENS 00003156 311760 WO- 835872 -1 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 15:24 DESKTOP ORGANIZERS 311840 0E- 312894 -1 5110.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ART CENTERADMINISTRATION 54.48 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00009249, 311841 OE- 314062 -1 5110.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 19713 OFFICE SUPPLIES 311842 0E- 314690 -1 7410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES PSTF ADMINISTRATION 8.53 PENCILS 311898 W0- 808730 -1 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL- SERVICES GENERAL 80.16 CUSTOM STAMP 00003150 312087 IN- 25940" 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 360.27 370055 411112013 102545 BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MN R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/11/2013 - 4/1112013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 60,597.50 PREMIUM 311843 4-1 -13 1550.6040 HOSPITALIZATION 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Page- 4 Business Unit CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 60,597.50 CENT SVC PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 370056 4111/2013 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CITY COUNCIL 114.94 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00003607 311956 85531 1470.6513 39.33 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00001457 312088 85532 1552.6406 154.27 370057 411112013 101010 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 12.19 PVC CONDUIT 00001859 311761 905417867 1551.6406 12.19 PVC CONDUIT 00001859 311761 905417867 1552.6406 12.20 PVC CONDUIT 00001859 311761 905417867 1322.6406 36.58 370058 411112013 119351 BOURGET IMPORTS 895.50 311867 112674 5862.5513 599.50 312016 112814 5862.5513 1,495.00 370069 411112013 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS - 425.62 MIRROR 00005065 312089 723758X1 1553.6530 425.62 370060 4/1112013 106484 BRINDLE, MARY 48.00 SLU CONFERENCE 311844 5630076 1100.6104 48.00 370061 411112013 102911 BROOKS, JOHN 910.55 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 312090 040513 1470.6104 910.55 370062 411112013 131803 BUTLER, OLIVIA 110.03 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 312121 6336 MILDRED 5900.2015 AVE 110.03 370063 4/1112013 131795 BUTLER, RUTH 2,259.72 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 311957 5400 AKERS LA 5900.2015 2,259.72 370064 4/11/2013 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 1,249.45 311868 260764 5842.5514 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Page- 4 Business Unit CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 5 4/11/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 34.85 311919 264611 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 726.95 311920 264612 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 34.85 311921 264610 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 3,625.05 311922 264609 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 5,671.15 370065 4/11/2013 129923 CAWLEY 25.86 NAME BADGES 311899 V152385 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES 25.86 370066 411112013 100897 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 1,061.75 1CNP SUSPEND2013056780 00001913 312175 GAS SERVICE 5919.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS TRAINING REPAIR 1,061.75 370067 411112013 123898 CENTURYLINK 56.40 952 929 -0297 311762 0297 -3/13 4090.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE 330.80 952 927 -8861 311763 8861 -3113 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 109.92 952 826 -7398 311900 7398 -3113 7410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF ADMINISTRATION 86.08 952 941 -1019 311901 1019 -3/13 7411.6188 TELEPHONE PSTF OCCUPANCY 56.62 311902 032813 5911.6188 TELEPHONE WELL PUMPS 59.32 311902 032813 1628.6188 TELEPHONE SENIOR CITIZENS 121.60 311902 032813 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 140.83 311902 032813 5821.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 165.11 311902 032813 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 168,12 311902 032813 1622.6188 TELEPHONE SKATING & HOCKEY 192,19 311902 032813 5932.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL STORM SEWER 273.79 311902 032813 5511.6188 TELEPHONE ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 512.88 311902 032813 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 2,273.66 370068 4111/2013 117187 CHEM SYSTEMS LTD 393.30 CLEANING SUPPLIES 00008084 311764 517479 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 140.82 FILTERS 00008085 311765 517480 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 534.12 370069 411112013 103235 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 419.86 TENNIS BALLS 312122 1445 -4440 1623.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES TENNIS INSTRUCTION 419.86 370070 4/1112013 122317 CITY OF EDINA -COMMUNICATIONS 450.00 ABOUT TOWN AD 311958 COM1371 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/11/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 450.00 370071 411112013 100692 COCA -COLA REFRESHMENTS 317.80 312017 0188020205 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 235.00 312152 0108340913 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 552.80 370072 411112013 120433 COMCAST 6.80 8772 10 614 0373022 311845 373022 -3/13 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 90.90 8772 10 614 0164959 311959 164959 -3/13 5430.6188 TELEPHONE 96.60 8772 10 614 0177449 311960 177449 -3/13 5420.6188 TELEPHONE . 194.30 370073 411112013 104928 CONCRETE CUTTING & CORING INC. 580.93 SAW BLADE & CHAIN 00003603 311961 88221 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 580.93 370074 411112013 100695 CONTINENTAL CLAY CO. 231.44 CLAY 311962 INV000076785 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES 592.07 CLAY 311962 INV000076785 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 823.51 370075 411112013 103330 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT 75.03 PINS, WASHERS 00005127 311766 FP150467 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 75.03 370076 411112013 100699 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 190.19 114 - 10014090 -3 312123 033113 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 190.19 370077 4/11/2013 129550 CUNINGHAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE 1,021.06 SPORTS DOME SITE CONSULTING 311963 38763 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 56,601.16 GOLF DOME RECONSTRUCTION 311964 38764 5200.1727 GOLF DOME 57,622.22 370078 4/1112013 100700 CURTIS 1000 -MIDWEST 1,393.57 PERMIT STICKERS 311965 3497500 4090.4751 PARKING PERMITS 1,393.57 370079 4111/2013 100706 D.C. ANNIS SEWER INC. 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Page- 6 Business Unit VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL RICHARDS GOLF COURSE CLUB HOUSE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CONTINGENCIES GOLF DOME BALANCE SHEET 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE 440.00 PUMP SUMP 311966 95080 1470.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 440.00 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 7 4/11/2013 — 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 370080 411112013 104020 DALCO 39.01 VAC HOSE 00003594 311967 2585568 1470.6530 REPAIR PARTS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 39.01 370081 411112013 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 747.50 311869 694054 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 3,431.55 311923 695075 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,749.15 311924 695076 5622.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 22.40 311925 695077 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 6,795.55 311926 695078 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 44.80 311927 695079 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 13,790.95 370082 411112013 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. 1,089.53 CHARGER, SOCKETS, WRENCHES 00001302 311767 781493 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1,089.53 370083 4/1112013 122135 DENFELD, SCOTT 257.44 REIMBURSE FOR DVD RECORDER 312124 040413 421130.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 257.44 370084 4/1112013 102831 DEX MEDIA EAST INC. 997.98 110311893 311968 110311893 -3/13 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION 997.98 370085 4/1112013 129157 DO- GOOD.BIZ INC 707.00 MAILING 311846 5541 -01 5110.6235 POSTAGE ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 1,154.25 ART CENTER FLYERS 311846 5541 -01 5110.6575 PRINTING ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 1,861.25 370086 411112013 112663 DOLLARS & SENSE 683.33 DIRECT MAIL COUPON 312125 31450 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 683.33 DIRECT MAIL COUPON 312125 31450 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 683.34 DIRECT MAIL COUPON 312125 31450 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 2,050.00 370087 4/1112013 129718 DREW'S CONCESSIONS LLC 1,152.00 CONCESSION PRODUCT 311768 1600 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 1,152.00 370088 411112013 124503 EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC CO. R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 8 4/11/2013 — 4111/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 65.70 CABLE TIES, INSULATION 00001875 311769 09797600 5511.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 55.59 CHEM FEED PARTS 00001873 311770 09796600 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WELL HOUSES 121.29 370089 4111/2013 129947 EHLERS INVESTMENT PARTNERS 94.66 MANAGEMENT FEE 311847 033113 1550.6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 94.66 370090 4/11/2013 100549 ELECTRIC PUMP INC. 7,215.21 LIFT STATION REPAIRS 00001657 312126 0049306 -IN 5921.6530 REPAIR PARTS SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 7,215.21 370091 4111/2013 129676 EMERGENCY SUPPORT SERVICES 2,347.39 HEAD LAMPS 00003604 311969 2703268 -1 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPTGENERAL 2,347.39 370092 4111/2013 130846 ETHICAL LEADERS IN ACTION LLC 2,715.00 BLDG DEPT ANALYSIS 311970 1138 1495.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSPECTIONS 2,715.00 370093 411112013 100018 EXPERT T BILLING 6,370.00 MARCH BILLINGS 311971 040213 1470.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 6,370.00 370094 411112013 104195 EXTREME BEVERAGE LLC. 33.50 312018 W- 730044 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 33.50 370095 4111/2013 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 34.26 OIL FILTERS 00005101 312091 6M95553 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 34.26 370096 411112013 131188 FIRST-SHRED 75.00 SHREDDING 311903 76765 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 100.00 311904 76976 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 175.00 370097 4111/2013 130156 FLETCHER LEISURE GROUP LDT 1,063.79 STAFF JACKETS 00006087 311972 1122340 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 1,063.79 370098 411112013 102015 FLOWERS OF EDINA CITY OF EDINA 4/1012013 7:43:01 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 9 4/11/2013 - 4/1112013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 100.84 ANNUAL MGT - BUD VASES 311905 7981 1100.6106 MEETING EXPENSE CITY COUNCIL 92.20 SYMPATHY BASKET 311906 8017 1120.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADMINISTRATION 193.04 370099 411112013 100759 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 149.50 REPAIR DOOR LOCKS 00001884 311973 330060 5921.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 149.50 370100 411112013 120776 GAGE, NATHALIE 31.64 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 311907 040213 1130.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS 31.64 370101 411112013 127497 GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICES INC 800.00 ACTUARY SERVICES 312092 30989 1160.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FINANCE 800.00 370102 4/11/2013 118941 GLOBALSTAR USA 46.33 R -91 PHONE 311974 4614335 1470.6188 TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 46.33 370103 4/11/2013 100780 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC. 397.35 MARCH 2O13.SERVICE 00001909 311975 65815 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 397.35 370104 4/1112013 101103 GRAINGER 338.58 NITRILE GLOVES 00001933 311771 9102290534 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 56.68 SHELF 00001856 311772 9096015392 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS 105.04 CASTERS 00005764 312093 9012518388 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 500.30 370105 4/1112013 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 887.75 311928 150734 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 404.50 312019 150800 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,292.25 370106 411112013 101618 GRAUSAM, STEVE 136.73 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 312127 032913 5840.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 136.73 370107 411112013 102125 GREG LESSMAN SALES 241.95 TEES 311773 48765 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 241.95 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/11/2013 — 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 370108 411112013 102320 HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS 123.87 THERMAL PAPER 311848 115521 5822.6512 123.87 370109 411112013 103835 HANRAHAN, BRIAN 682.44 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 312094 040513 1470.6104 682.44 370110 411112013 125270 HARTFORD -PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 3,786.71 PREMIUM 311849 6268142 -4 9900.2033.16 3,788.71 370111 411112013 120227 HARTSHORN, BOB 280.00 REIMBURSE FOR BENCHES 311976 040413 1628.4392.03 280.00 370112 411112013 100797 HAWKINS INC. 4,474.58 CHEMICALS 00005243 311774 3449531 5915.6586 4,474.58 370113 411112013 100801 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 338.96 MAR 2013 BOOKINGS 311850 1000029204 1195.6170 338.96 370114 411112013 105436 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 160.31 BUNDLED SERVICE 311851 1000029149 1400.6160 160.31 BUNDLED SERVICE 311908 1000029150 1190.6105 320.62 370115 411112013 103753 HILLYARD INC - MINNEAPOLIS 133.79 ICE MELT 311775 600612496 5720.6406 146.61 HAND SANITIZER 311776 600616113 5720.6406 117.51 HAIR & BODY SOAP 311777 600621253 5720.6511 397.91 370116 411112013 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 876.50 311929 641943 5862.5514 583.50 311930 641944 5822.5514 1,576.71 312020 642116 5842.5514 3,036.71 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Page - 10 Subledger Account Description Business Unit PAPER SUPPLIES 50TH ST SELLING CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL LTD - 99 SENIOR SOFTBALL PAYROLL CLEARING SENIOR CITIZENS WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT COURT CHARGES DATA PROCESSING DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERALSUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER LEGAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL ASSESSING EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 300.00 CITY OF EDINA 11515 5822.5514 300.00 Council Check Register 370120 4/1112013 131170 INFINITY WIRELESS 4/11/2013 - 4/1112013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 370117 411112013 19,084.67 129508 IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS 370121 411112013 571.59 MAIL LATE NOTICES 311909 75699 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 571.59 SKATING CLASS CERTIFICATES 311778 IN0250129 370118 411112013 168.42 105756 IN THE HEART OF THE BEAST 370122 4/11/2013 76.00 ART CENTER AD 311977 0086 5110.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 935.00 76.00 311978 00007137 47078.6710 370119 4/1112013 131544 INDEED BREWING COMPANY 4/1012013 7:43:01 Page - 11 Business Unit GENERAL (BILLING) ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES PRINTING CONTINGENCIES ARENA ADMINISTRATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COUNTRYSIDE PK PLAYGROUNDBPATH PROTECTIVE CLOTHING GENERALSUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER FIRE DEPT. GENERAL VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING GRILL YORK SELLING 300.00 312153 11515 5822.5514 300.00 370120 4/1112013 131170 INFINITY WIRELESS 19,084.67 IN- BUILDING CELL COVERAGE 312128 17060 1500.6406 19,084.67 370121 411112013 131548 INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS LL 168.42 SKATING CLASS CERTIFICATES 311778 IN0250129 5510.6575 168.42 370122 4/11/2013 131794 INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AS 935.00 WARMING HOUSE INSPECTION 311978 00007137 47078.6710 935.00 370123 411112013 108618 JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC. 334.56 BOOTS 00003581 311979 195295 1470.6552 334.56 370124 411112013 100830 JERRY S PRINTING 37.67 ENVELOPES, STAMP 311910 60462 5862.6406 37.68 ENVELOPES, STAMP 311910 60462 5822.6406 37.68 ENVELOPES, STAMP 311910 60462 5842.6406 113.03 370125 411112013 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 3,010.20 311870 2057390 5842.5514 17.55 311871 2057377 5822.5515 3,927.90 311872 2057376 5822.5514 38.80 311931 2073816 5862.5515 1,226.30 311932 2073815 5862.5514 217.00 311980 2077877 5421.5514 8,228.97 312021 2073828 5842.5514 4/1012013 7:43:01 Page - 11 Business Unit GENERAL (BILLING) ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES PRINTING CONTINGENCIES ARENA ADMINISTRATION EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COUNTRYSIDE PK PLAYGROUNDBPATH PROTECTIVE CLOTHING GENERALSUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER FIRE DEPT. GENERAL VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING GRILL YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 12 4111/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 18.00 312022 2073829 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,362.45 312154 2073817 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 40.00 312155 2073818 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 12.30- 312156 1459301 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 18,074.87 5862.5513 3,638.14 311879 1533279 5862.5513 370127 4/1112013 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 90.00 POPCHIPS 311779 1527380 5730.5510 5,511.39 311873 1533254 5842.5513 900.82 311874 1533259 5822.5513 1,861.26 311875 1533255 5822.5513 3,350.24 311876 1533253 5862.5513 2,513.48 311877 1533275 5862.5513 70.35 311878 1533281 5862.5513 3,638.14 311879 1533279 5862.5513 1,389.26 311880 1533276 5862.5513 2,067.96 311933 1533277 5862.5512 2,470.44 312023 1538973 5842.5513 1,374.84 312024 1538975 5842.5513 2,753.29 312025 1538977 5842.5513 372.22 312026 1538959 5842.5512 1,212.32 312027 1538972 5842.5512 891.55 312028 1538976 5842.5512 1,338.51 312029 1538978 5842.5512 3,387.50 312030 1533269 5842.5512 3,439.31 312031 1538981 5862.5512 184.91 312032 1538985 5862.5512 332.48 312033 1538983 5862.5512 2,241.48 312034 1538979 5862.5512 1,090.58 312035 1538982 5862.5513 1,454.80 312036 1538984 5862.5513 2,296.83 312037 1538980 5862.5513 151.06 312038 1538961 5822.5512 798.11 312039 1538962 5822.5512 91.12 312040 1538964 5822.5512 93.73 312041 1538966 5822.5512 102.23- 312042 571625 5862.5513 36.97- 312043 571626 5862.5513 1,791.76 312157 1538960 5822.5513 509.22 312158 1538963 5822.5513 1,633.14 312159 1538965 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD 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 LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 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 WINE EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST 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 VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 13 4/1112013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 5,724.22 312160 1538971 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DEPT UNIFORMS TREES & MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DWI FORFEITURE GENERAL SUPPLIES ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP GENERAL SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 56,887.12 EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES TRAFFIC SIGNALS 370128 4/1112013 116901 K.C. GROVES TREE EXPERTS 693.88 OAK WILT TREATMENT 311780 032713 1644.6103 693.88 370129 411112013 111018 KEEPRS INC. 183.59 UNIFORMS 00003569 311982 211123 1470.6558 183.59 370130 411112013 126597 KREFTING, WAYNE 225.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 4/18/13 311983 040113 5710.6136 225.00 370131 4111/2013 131787 KUNO, KURT 1,183.84 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 311852 040213 1470.4329 1,183.84 370132 4/1112013 116776 KUSTOM KARRIERS 153.74 DWI TOW 311981 040413 2340.6103 153.74 370133 411112013 131802 LAPPIN, DANA 57.54 FOOD FOR RECEPTION 312129 040513 5120.6406 57.54 370134 411112013 124611 LARSCO INC. 1,623.38 REPAIR KITS 00001903 311781 3056 5915.6406 1,623.38 370135 411112013 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 12.78 SCREWS 00005117 311782 9301532664 1553.6530 862.11 SCREWS, WASHERS, TY RAP 00005126 311783 9301532663 1553.6530 692.18 ADAPTERS, SCREWS, BITS 00005133 312095 9301542364 1553.6530 164.09 TY -RAP, CONNECTORS, BITS 00001876 312096 9301528892 1330.6406 164.10 TY =RAP, CONNECTORS, BITS 00001876 312096 9301528892 1322.6406 1,895.26 370136 411112013 105726 LINDMAN, DAVID 138.89 COMPUTER CORD, FUEL 311911 REIMBURSE 1400.6406 138.89 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DEPT UNIFORMS TREES & MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DWI FORFEITURE GENERAL SUPPLIES ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP GENERAL SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES TRAFFIC SIGNALS GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4111/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 370137 4/11/2013 100857 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC. 617.62 PINS, LOOP ASSEMBLY 00005030 311784 00050883 1553.6530 617.62 370138 4/1112013 100858 LOGIS 29.78 CABLES FOR HORNETS NEST 312130 36359 5500.1705 50.00 ADMIN CHARGE 312130 36359 1554.6160 58.99 BATTERY 312130 36359 1554.6406 376.00 MAINTENANCE CONTRACT 312130 36359 5500.1705 482.48 WIFI IMPROVEMENT - GOLF COURSE 312130 36359 4413.6103 816.43 WIFIIMPROVEMENT - GOLFCOURSE 312130 36359 4413.6103 902.75 WIFI IMPROVEMENT- CITY HALL 312130 36359 4413.6103 987.31 PD OUTDOOR ACCESS POINT 312130 36359 1500.6103 1,443.82 PD OUTDOOR ACCESS POINT 312130 36359 1500.6103 1,865.89 WIFI IMPROVEMENT AT ARENA 312130 36359 4413.6103 3,381.52 SWITCH FOR HORNETS NEST 312130 36359 5500.1705 10,394.97 370139 411112013 112577 M. AMUNDSON LLP 1,321.83 312161 150105 5862.5515 1,321.83 370140 411112013 129657 M.S. INDUSTRIES INC. 1,698.80 SWEEPER BROOMS 312097 8978 1314.6406 1,698.80 370141 411112013 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. 536.64 BEARINGS, LIFT ARM 311785 2131818 1553.6530 536.84 370142 4/1112013 131581 MARCO INC. 6,061.25 HP PRINTER SERVICE/SUPPLIES 312131 INV1356748 1554.6230 6,061.25 370143 411112013 100869 MARTIN- MCALLISTER 5,100.00 PERSONNEL EVALUATIONS 311786 8382 1120.6103 5,100.00 370144 411112013 119209 MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP 105.00 REPAIR CARD SCAN 311787 477769 5720.6180 105.00 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Page - 14 Subledger Account Description Business Unit REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CONSTR. IN PROGRESS DATA PROCESSING GENERALSUPPLIES CONSTR. IN PROGRESS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSTR. IN PROGRESS ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET CENT SERV GEN - MIS CENT SERV GEN - MIS ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET CITY WIFI PROJECT CITY WIFI PROJECT CITY WIFI PROJECT CONTINGENCIES CONTINGENCIES CITY WIFI PROJECT ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET RENOVATION REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS R55CKREG LOG_ 20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 - Council Check Register Page - 15 4/11/2013 - 4111/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 370145 411112013 106605 MEDICINE LAKE TOURS 1,527.50 GOLDEN STRINGS TRIP 311984 040213 1628.6103.07 TRIPS PROF SERVICES SENIOR CITIZENS ' 1,527.50 370146 4111/2013 101483 MENARDS 54.42 PAMELA PK WH SUPPLIES 00001637 311788 16740 1646.6530 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 335.03 -- BUILDING SUPPLIES 00001932 311789 21678 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 473.71 BUILDING SUPPLIES 00001941 311790 21840, 1646.6577 LUMBER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2,086.04 PAMELA PK'DUGOUT ROOFS 00001936 312098 21753 1646.6577 LUMBER. - BUILDING MAINTENANCE - 16.53 PLUMBING !SUPPLIES 00006389 312133 21554 5420.6530 REPAIR PARTS :: CLUB HOUSE 2,965.73 370147 4/11/2013 100886 METRO SALES INC 2,709.74 COPIER USAGE 311985 508410 1495.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSPECTIONS 4,309.20 COPIER USAGE 312134 513027 1550.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 7;018.94 370148 411112013 102507 METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS 57.00 OFFICIATING FEES 311986 4337 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINAATHLETICASSOCIATION 57.00 370149 411112013 100887 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME 353,559.94 SEWER SERVICE 311987 0001013765 5922.6302 SEWER SERVICE METRO SEWER TREATMENT 353;559.94 370160 411112013 102729 METROPOLITAN FORD OF EDEN PRAI 403.16 TRANSMISSION REPAIRS 312099 217382 1553.6180 CONTRACTED'REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 403.16 370151 4/1112013 104650 MICRO CENTER 14.95 USB FLASH DRIVE 00004311 312135 4366352 1260.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES= ENGINEERING GENERAL 288.53 CABLE & UPS FOR IT 00004311 312135 4366352 1554.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SERV GEN - MIS 303.48 _ 370162 411112013 100019- MIDWEST ART FAIRS 41.79 CONSIGNMENT SALES 311988 8057 5120.5510 `COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 41.79 370153 4/1112013 102682 MINN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 100.00 . RAMP ELEVATOR PERMIT 311853 ALR00262901 1375.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PARKING RAMP 100.00 CITY HALL ELEVATOR PERMIT 311990 ALR00262941 1551.6180 CONTRACTED'REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/11/2013' — 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description CLEANING SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS WATER PURCHASED TOOLS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS LICENSES & PERMITS LICENSES & PERMITS CONSULTING DESIGN CONSULTING DESIGN 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Page - 16 Business Unit CENT SVC PW BUILDING DISTRIBUTION. DISTRIBUTION GENERAL MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE TRAINING TRAINING LAKE EDINA B MENDELSSOHN A CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 200.00 370154 411112013 102007 MINNCOR INDUSTRIES 98.00 HAND SOAP 00001499 311791 SOI- 011988 1552.6511 98.00 370155 4111/2013 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & 1,715.00 REPLACE SERVICE LINE 00001910 311989 34339 5913.6180 1,715.00 370156 411112013 103216 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPARTMENT 14,099.10 WATER PURCHASE 311912 431 - 0005.300 -4/ 5913.6601 13 14,099.10 370157 4111/2013 100522 MINNESOTA AIR INC. 3.08 INSPECTION MIRROR 00001871 311792 1325815 -00 1301.6556' 296.92 CIRCUIT BOARD 00001870 311793 1325804-00 1646.6530 896.20 HEATER KIT FOR ARNESON 00001934 311794 1326327 -00 1646.6530 1,196.20 370158 411112013 101638 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 23.00 LICENSE RENEWAL 312136 BRUCE DEHN 5919.6260 23.00 370159 4171/2013 101638 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 23.00 LICENSE RENEWAL 312137 STEVE HAMER 5919.6260 23.00 370160 411112013 101537 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG 400.00 STORMWATER PERMIT APPLICATIONS 311854 040113 01398.1705.20 400.00 STORMWATER PERMIT APPLICATIONS 311854 040113 01393.1705.20 600.00 370161 4111/2013 117837 MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOCIAT 125.00 TRAINING 312138 GARY WELLS 5919.6104 125.00 370162 4/1112013 100908 MINNESOTA WANNER CO. 2,563.93 WORKBENCH 00001908 311991 0097992 -IN 5913.6406 2,563.93 CLEANING SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS WATER PURCHASED TOOLS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS LICENSES & PERMITS LICENSES & PERMITS CONSULTING DESIGN CONSULTING DESIGN 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Page - 16 Business Unit CENT SVC PW BUILDING DISTRIBUTION. DISTRIBUTION GENERAL MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE TRAINING TRAINING LAKE EDINA B MENDELSSOHN A CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION Subledger Account Description DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Page - 17 Business Unit PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL ARENA ICE MAINT BUILDING MAINTENANCE CONTINGENCIES MOWING CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL MEETING EXPENSE CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENTENNIALTIF DISTRICT UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register 4/11/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 370163 4/1112013 102812 MN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUS 110.00 ELECTRICAL EMPLOYER REG 311992 APPLICATION 1240.6105 110.00 370164 411112013 102812 MN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUS 40.00 REI PERMIT 312176 032613 5521.6406 40.00 370165 4/1112013 102812 MN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUS 40.00 REI PERMIT 312177 040113 1646.6406 40.00 370166 4/1112013 102812 MN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUS 75.00 REI PERMIT 312178 040213 1500.6406 75.00 370167 411112013 100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC. 215.24 TIRES, PLUGS 00001877 311795 892005 -00 1641.6406 215.24 370168 4/1112013 101575 MUNICIPALS 360.00 SPRING WORKSHOP 312132 8 PARTICIPANTS 1550.6104 360.00 370169 411112013 130988 NEUENDORF, BILL 23.23 MEETING EXPENSE 311913 040313 9232.6106 33.69 FED EX DELIVERY 311913 040313 9232.6103 34.87 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 311913 040313 9232.6107 91.79 370170 411112013 101359 NIBBE, MICHAEL 199.50 UNIFORM PURCHASE 312100 040413 1400.6203 199.50 370171 411112013 130119 NIEBUR TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT INC 224.45 FILTERS 00006390 312139 01- 15738 5422.6530 224.45 370172 411112013 100933 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY CO. 129.27 PENS, CANVAS PANELS 00009246 311993 43756601 5120.5510 65.01 LTX TUBES 00009250 311994 43817500, 5120.5510 194.28 Subledger Account Description DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Page - 17 Business Unit PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL ARENA ICE MAINT BUILDING MAINTENANCE CONTINGENCIES MOWING CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL MEETING EXPENSE CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENTENNIALTIF DISTRICT UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 18 4/11/2013 — 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 370173 411112013 106007 NU- TELECOM 557.72 APR 2013 SERVICE 312140 80898776 1400.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 557.72 370174 411112013 105575 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO. INC 2,233.87 ART CENTER SUMMER CAMPS 311855 26354 5110.6575 PRINTING ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 2,233.87 370175 4/1112013 130856 ODELL, JONATHAN 15.95 ART WORK SOLD 312101 040513 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 15.95 370176 411112013 115669 ON CALL SERVICES 7,280.00 OUTDOOR PLAY CONSTRUCTION 312179 2356 5311.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS POOL OPERATION 7,280.00 370177 411112013 103624 P & L AUTOMOTIVE INC. 187.03 WINDOW TINTING 311796 239356 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT 80.16 WINDOW TINTING 311797 239567 421400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT 267.19 370178 4/11/2013 129485 PAPCO INC. 16.04 AIR FRESHENER 311856 77309 7411.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 16.04 370179 411112013 119486 PARAGON BLACK DIRT 2,500.00 DIRT DISPOSAL 312102 4517 1301.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE 2,500.00 370180 411112013 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 2,543.09 311881 8393167 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,531.29 311934 8393180 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 651.48 311935 8394065 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,257.81 311936 8394055 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5,983.67 370181 411112013 126492 PAYPAL INC. 39.95 MONTHLY FEE 311798 22803481 5910.6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES GENERAL (BILLING) 39.95 370182 4/1112013 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 19 4/11/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 379.80 312162 10006550 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 379.80 370183 411112013 131785 PETES WATER & SEWER INC. 2,151.81 WATER SERVICE REPAIR 00001905 311799 107373 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 2,151.81 370184 4/1112013 100950 PETTY CASH .95 312141 040113 1001.8060 CASH OVER AND UNDER GENERAL FUND REVENUES 5.34 312141 040113 01386.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS RICHMOND HILLS PK 16.95 312141 040113 1120.6106 MEETING EXPENSE ADMINISTRATION 18.40 312141 040113 1100.6106 MEETING EXPENSE CITY COUNCIL 19.00 312141 040113 1140.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS PLANNING 22.31 312141 040113 1160.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE FINANCE 22.46 312141 040113 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 24.00 312141 040113 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 25.00 312141 040113 1160.6106 MEETING EXPENSE FINANCE 26.03 312141 040113 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 28.76 312141 040113 1190.6106 MEETING EXPENSE ASSESSING 36.48 312141 040113 5841.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK OCCUPANCY 39.55 312141 040113 1495.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE INSPECTIONS 48.30 312141 040113 1600.4390.56 BREAKFAST WITH SANTA PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 50.00 312141 040113 1554.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 50.00 312141 040113 1495.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS INSPECTIONS 50.43 312141 040113 1140.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PLANNING 60.00 312141 040113 5840.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 63.39 312141 040113 1130.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 103.29 312141 040113 1140.6106 MEETING EXPENSE PLANNING 108.48 312141 040113 1260.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ENGINEERING GENERAL 111.65 312141 040113 5860.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 930.77 370186 4/1112013 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 1,719.68 311882 2398272 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 458.84 311883 2398267 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 97.12 311884 2398283 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 622.61 311885 2398282 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,542.91 311886 2398280 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 6,448.23 '311937 2398274 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 483.65 312044 2401704 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 68.32 312045 2401707 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,671.46 312046 2401715 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - .20 4/11/2013 - 4111/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 893.88 312047 2401716 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 605.71 312048 2401714 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 6,160.88 312049 2398273 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 2,111.32 312050 2398468 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 270.72 312051 2401703 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,128.63 312052 2401711 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 822.26 312053 2401712 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 805.60 312054 2401713 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 79.95 312055 2401709 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 591.47 312056 2401710 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 143.12- 312057 3501882 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 539.73 312163 2401706 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 134.24 312164 2401705 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 29,114.09 370187 411112013 100957 PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT 133.06 CYLINDER REPAIR KIT 00001906 311800 0060601 -IN 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WELL HOUSES 133.06 370188 411112013 100958 PLUNKETTS PEST CONTROL 46.30 PEST CONTROL 311857 3591431 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY 46.30 370189 411112013 119620 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC. 673.38 TIRES, SERVICE 00005082 311801 210051619 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 673.38 370190 411112013 100961 POSTMASTER - USPS 325.00 NEWSLETTER POSTAGE 312142 040813 1628.6235 POSTAGE SENIOR CITIZENS 325.00 370191 411112013 125979 PRECISE MRM LLC 756.42 2 -WAY RADIOS 312103 306400 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 756.42 370192 411112013 100974 RAYMOND HAEG PLUMBING 191.00 PLUMBING REPAIR 00001904 311802 15488 5917.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS METER REPAIR 191.00 370193 4/11/2013 100980 ROBERT B. HILL CO. 140.95 SOFTENER SALT 00003648 311995 00281810 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 140.95 Subledger Account Description DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS REPAIR PARTS 4/1012013 7:43:01 Page- 21 Business Unit ADMINISTRATION COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COUNTRYSIDE PK PLAYGROUND&PATH GENERAL SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS METER REPAIR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING Council Check Register 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4/11/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 370194 411112013 102614 ROTARY CLUB OF EDINA 303.00 DUES /MEALS - SCOTT NEAL 312104 1761 1120.6105 303.00 DUES /MEALS - J. BENNEROTTE 312143 1738 1130.6105 606.00 370195 4111/2013 100988 SAFETY KLEEN 113.07 RECYCLE PARTS WASHER 311803 928886441 1553.6530 113.07 370196 411112013 103219 SGN WENDEL 1,455.00 COUNTRYSIDE SHELTER BID DOCS 311996 3651 47078.6710 1,455.00 370197 411112013 120784 SIGN PRO 260.51 SIGNS 311804 6523 5511.6406 260.51 370198 4/1112013 131786 SLOSSER, ANN 148.00 PLUMBING REPAIR 311858 REIMBURSE 5917.6180 148.00 370199 4/1112013 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 1,215.00 311887 1015997 5822.5513 3,882.50 311888 1016001 5842.5513 7,320.73 311938 1016002 5862.5512 2,131.00 311939 1018352 5852.5513 1,215.00 311940 1016005 5862.5513 1,350.00 311941 1018346 5822.5513 1,256.04 311942 1018349 5842.5513 2.00 311943 1018347 5842.5512 2,794,77 311944 1018348 5842.5512 461.13 312058 1018345 5822.5512 1,883.34 312059 1018351 5862.5512 184.50 312060 1017611 5842.5513 207.07 312165 1018867 5842.5512 23,903.08 370200 4/1112013 129745 ST LOUIS PARK DO GRILL AND CHI 205.20 DILLY BARS 311805 605 5730.5510 205.20 Subledger Account Description DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS REPAIR PARTS 4/1012013 7:43:01 Page- 21 Business Unit ADMINISTRATION COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COUNTRYSIDE PK PLAYGROUND&PATH GENERAL SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS METER REPAIR 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 WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4111/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Suhledger Account Description 370201 411112013 101007 STAR TRIBUNE 158.60 SUBSCRIPTION 311997 493121 -4/13 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Page - 22 Business Unit CONTINGENCIES 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 7414.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC PROGRAMS 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1120.6120 158.60 ADMINISTRATION 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL 370202 411112013 1120.6120 101007 STAR TRIBUNE ADMINISTRATION 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 869.33 EDINA LIQUOR ADVERTISING 312144 033113 5862.6122 869.33 EDINA LIQUOR ADVERTISING 312144 033113 869.34 EDINA LIQUOR ADVERTISING 312144 033113 2,608.00 370203 411112013 101015 STRETCHERS 149.63 TRAININGAMMO 00003162 311859 11009349 49.38 CLEANING RODS 311860 11009569 187.66 BRUSHES 311861 11008500 142.57 BRUSHES 311866 11009066 529.24 370204 411112013 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 217.44 LATCH, HANDLE 311806 466049 217.44 370205 411112013 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 89.91 PUBLISH BOARD OF REVIEW 312105 1430149 42.22 PUBLISH NOTICE 312106 1430151 181.86 AD FOR BIDS 312107 1430150 133.33 LIQUOR SURVEY AD 312145 1429046 133.33 LIQUOR SURVEY AD 312145 1429046 133.34 LIQUOR SURVEY AD 312145 1429046 713.99 370206 411112013 101910 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR INC. 290.84 OSSI MAINTENANCE 312108 63338 290.84 370207 411112013 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 608.00 311945 011848 470.00 311946 011879 1,078.00 370208 4/1112013 104932 TAYLOR MADE 34.93 MERCHANDISE 311807 19342140 34.93 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Page - 22 Business Unit CONTINGENCIES 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 7414.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC PROGRAMS 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 1400.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 23 4/11/2013 - 4111/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 370209 411112013 102987 TEEMASTER CORPORATION 1,000.00 MONTHLY SERVICE FEE 00006179 311998 201310036 5410.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GOLF ADMINISTRATION 1,000.00 370210 411112013 101035. THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 2,891.95 311947 745138 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 150.00- 311999 00770570 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 150.00 312061 745193 5662.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,891.95 370211 411112013 104347 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC. 1,608.46 MEDIA UPGRADES 312109 1517 -2 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY 1,608.46 370212 411112013 120700 TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS INC. 366.66 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 311808 2013 -88744 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 366.67 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 311808 2013 -88744 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 366.67 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 311608 2013 -88744 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 1,100.00 370213 411112013 103331 TILSNER, DONNA 125.00 VAN VALKENBURG CONCESSIONS 312146 START UP CASH 4000.1040 CHANGE FUND WORK CAP BALANCE SHEET 125.00 370214 4/1112013 123129 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 428.50 COUNCIL MINUTES 3/19/13 311862 M19690 1120.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 160.95 VETERANS MEMORIAL MEETING 312000 M19689 47073.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT VETERANS MEMORIAL 589.45 370215 4/1112013 103277 TITAN MACHINERY 37.22 WIPER BLADES 311811 237741PC 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,098.97 CUTTING EDGES, PLOW BOLTS 00005069 311812 235615PC 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN, 1,136.19 370216 411112013 101474 TITLEIST 108.00 GOLF BALLS 311813 1399777 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 921.46 MERCHANDISE 311814 1413773 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 647.04 MERCHANDISE 311815 1412312 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 55.50 UMBRELLAS 311816 1420183 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 961.44 MERCHANDISE 311817 1420184 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 2,693.44 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 24 4/11/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 370217 4111/2013 131040 TLO LLC 111.25 MARCH 2013 USAGE 312147 269634 -MAR 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 111.25 370218 4111/2013 101047 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 222.76 GARAGE DOOR REPAIR 311818 388971 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 222.76 v 370219 4/1112013 103048 U.S. BANK 900.00 TRUSTEE FEE 311863 3360090 3201.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL DS REVENUES 900.00 370220 4111/2013 131793 U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 2,616.75 MEMBERSHIP 312001 040413 1120.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION 2,616.75 370221 4/1112013 131066 UMR GEOTHERMAL 1,430.00 GEOTHERM SERVICE 311819 6278 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 1,430.00 370222 411112013 101908 US FOODS 22.50 43805514 312002 033113 5421.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL 104.81 43805514 312002 033113 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 654.12 43805514 312002 033113 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 781.43 370223 411112013 103590 VALLEY -RICH CO. INC. 3,971.00 WATER MAIN REPAIR 00001915 312148 18612 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 4,294.00 WATER MAIN REPAIR 00001914 312149 18614 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 8,265.00 370224 411112013 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 12.74 FORKS, CLEANER 311914 268767 -00 5862.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 498.01 LIQUOR BAGS 311914 268767 -00 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 900.07 CAN LINERS, TOWELS, CUPS 312003 268497 -00 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 31.33 SOAP 312004 268497 -01 5421.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL 72.39 TISSUE, PLATES 312110 268809 -00 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 1,514.54 370225 4/1112013 119454 VINOCOPIA 22.45 312062 0074786 -IN 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 25 4/11/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 184.33 312063 0074785 -IN 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 383.50 312064 0074782 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 114.50 312065 0074781 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 76.38 312066 0074780 -IN 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 82.50 312166 0074787 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING REPAIR PARTS PARKING RAMP GENERAL SUPPLIES PARKING RAMP CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL REPAIR PARTS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 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 VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 863.66 370226 411112013 101069 VOSS LIGHTING 58.33 LAMPS 00001878 311820 15222716 -00 1375.6530 544.42 BULBS 00001918 312111 15222911 -00 1375.6406 602.75 370227 411112013 120720 WAKEFIELD, TODD 385.00 BLUE CARD TRAINING 312005 REIMBURSEMENT 1470.6104 385.00 370228 411112013 101078 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT COMPANY 320.63 FLEETKEY BLACK KEYS 00005098 312150 1296 1553.6530 320.63 370229 411112013 131421 WILLEMS, MATTHEW 125.00 CONFINED SPACE TEST FEE 312006 REIMBURSE 1470.6104 1,451.23 COURSE FEES 312006 REIMBURSE 1470.6104 1,576.23 370230 4/1112013 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 180.20 312067 326375 -00 5862.5513 825.20 312068 326275 -00 5842.5513 767.55 312167 326262 -00 5822.5513 1,772.95 370231 411112013 102351 WINE ENTHUSIAST 29.95 MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION 311822 040113 5840.6105 29.95 370232 4/1112013 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 736.96 311889 449042 5862.5513 3,909.27 311890 449040 5862.5513 2,878.72 312069 449933 5842.5513 1.12 312070 449931 5862.5513 1,820.16 312071 449934 5862.5513 372.48 312168 449930 5822.5513 REPAIR PARTS PARKING RAMP GENERAL SUPPLIES PARKING RAMP CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL REPAIR PARTS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 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 VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4110/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 26 4/11/2013 - 4/11/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 9,718.71 370233 411112013 117482 WINECONNECT INC. 159.24 WEB -APR 2013 311821 1089 5842.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 159.24 370234 411112013 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 1,545.75 311891- 1080019829 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,697.25 311892 1080019884 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,810.40 311893 1080019827 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,256.66 311948 1080021950 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 130.30 311949 1080021952 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 4,769.37 311950 1080022006 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 321.11 311951 1080022007 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 2,452.84 311952 1080019826 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING .96 312072 1080018599 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 4,323.16 312073 1080019833 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 6,558.79 312074 1080022005 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 97.78 312075 1080021951 '5862.6515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,625.84 312076 1080021949 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 352.07 312077 1080019830 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING .38 312078 1080018598 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 1,558.52 312079 1080021953 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 2,147.80 312080 1080022004 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 28.24- 312081 2080002472 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 89.32- 312082 2080001650 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 33,531.42 370235 411112013 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 633.35 311894 1090024608 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,557.30 311895 1090024967 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 710.00 311953 1090025792 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 3,899.45 311954 1090025791 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 3,464.00 312169 1090027966 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 21.50 312170 1090027969 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 96.00 312171 1090027968 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 2,047.10 312172 1090027967 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 4,695.70 312173 1090027970 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 672.00 312174 1090028071 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 17,796.40 370236 411112013 101726 XCEL ENERGY R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 27 4/11/2013 - 4111/2013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subiedger Account Description Business Unit 229.60 51- 8987646 -8 311823 362643228 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 38.93 51- 8102668 -0 311824 362628345 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER _ STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 1,687.56 51= 5547446 -1 311825 362938433 1628.6185 LIGHT & POWER- SENIOR CITIZENS 960.19 51- 9251919 -0 31.1826 362816648 5765.6185 LIGHT & POWER PROMENADE EXPENSES 600.00 51- 6229265 -9 311827 362775296 1481.6185 LIGHT & POWER - YORK FIRE STATION 1,721:85 51- 6229265 -9 311827 362775296 1470.6185 LIGHT & POWER FIRE DEPT. GENERAL - 259.06 51- 6046826 -0 311828 362776837 5422.6185 -LIGHT: &POWER MAINT OF COURSE' &GROUNDS 605.68 51- 4827232 -6 311829 362575952 5311.6185 LIGHT & POWER POOL OPERATION 234.20 51- 9337452 -8 311830 362648625 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 94.88 51- 6692497 -0 311831 362608614 1460.6185 LIGHT & POWER CIVILIAN DEFENSE 34.01 51- 0193479-4 311832 362487173 5934.6185 LIGHT & POWER STORM LIFT STATION MAINT 127.04 51- 9608462 -5 311833 362655963 5921.6185 LIGHT & POWER SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 855.98 51= 9011854 -4 311834 362640606 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 141.66 51- 5938955 -6 311835 362769878 4086.6185 LIGHT& POWER AQUATIC WEEDS 2,661.88 51- 4159265 -8 311864 362565861 7411.6185 LIGHT & POWER PSTF.000UPANCY 479.53 51- 9422326 -6 311915 363209224 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 930.95 -51- 6979948 -4 311916 363202549 5821.6185 LIGHT & POWER 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 1,298.65 51- 6979948 311916 363202549 5861.6185 LIGHT & POWER VERNON OCCUPANCY 1,606.83 51- 6979946 -4 311916 363202549 5841.6185 LIGHT.& POWER YORK OCCUPANCY 14,374.35 51- 9603061 -0 311917 363206114 1552.6185 LIGHT & POWER CENT SVC PW BUILDING 21,552.43 51- 4888627 -1 312180 363280287 5511.6185 LIGHT & POWER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 50,495.26. 370237 411112013 100568 XEROX CORPORATION 214.05 MAR 2013 USAGE - PARK & REC- - 00004322 311865 067221323 1550.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 77.48 COPIER USAGE 312007 067221412 1628.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SENIOR CITIZENS 291.53 370238 411112013 131433 Z SYSTEMS 908.11 TRICASTER SUPPLIES 312151 31995 421130.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 908.11 370239 411112013 101572 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC 564.30 RINK TRACTOR BROOM 00001832 311836 0142916 -IN 1648.6530 REPAIR PARTS SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE 564.30 370240 411112013, 101091 ZIEGLER INC " 450.00 GENERATOR MAINTENANCE 311918 E6395948 1551.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL 450.00 997,121.01 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:43:01 Council Check Register Page - 28 4/11/2013 — 4/1112013 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Check Total 997,121.01 Total Payments 997,121.01 R55CKSUM LOG20000 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 179,541.61 02300 POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE 153.74 03200 CITY HALL DEBT SERVICE 900.00 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 9,197.47 04200 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1,432.74 05100 ART CENTER FUND 5,418.62 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 56,601.16 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 7,885.68 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 9,803.68 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 28,529.29 05700 EDINBOROUGH PARK FUND 1,919.81 05750 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK FUND 2,207.74 05800 LIQUOR FUND 245,321.73 05900 UTILITY FUND 403,499.18 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 226.20 05950 RECYCLING FUND 34,212.80 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 6,389.06 09232 CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT 91.79 09900 PAYROLL FUND 3,788.71 Report Totals 997,121.01 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2013 7:44:53 Council Check Summary Page - 1 4/11/2013 - 4/11/2013 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 poli i s nd procedures If r - To: Mayor and City Council 9�1r� e U) 0 Agenda Item #: IV. C. From: Marty Scheerer, Fire Chief Action Discussion ❑ Date: April 16, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Joint Powers Agreement With The City Of Richfield — Building And Plumbing Inspection Services Action Requested: I would recommend your approval of the Joint Powers Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to approve and sign the attached JPA agreement. Information / Background: This Joint Powers Agreement would allow the City of Edina Building Inspections to utilize the City of Richfield Building, Mechanical and Plumbing inspectors in the City of Edina and vice versa. The agreement compensates for the services of the inspector at an hourly rate of $56.00 /hour. The inspectors would still operate as employees of their respective city and use their own city's vehicle. This will benefit the City of Edina with the ability to use an additional inspector when needed, which is anticipated this year. This also helps the City of Richfield to better utilize their staff and have inspectors available if needed due to an extended illness or similar situations. Attachments: Joint Powers Agreement City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 0 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, AND THE CITY OF EDINA THIS AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is entered into this 21 day of March 2013 by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation (` lichfield") and the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Edina''), hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Cities." RECITALS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes § 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to enter into agreements to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting cities; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and the City off-'diva each employs building and plumbing inspectors on staff, and WHEREAS, Edina and Richfield desire to make available to the other city certain building and plumbing inspection services on a contract basis, upon request of one of the parties (the "Requesting City ") and the availability of staff for the other party (the "Responding City "). NOW, THEREFORE, Edina and Richfield agree as follows: 1. 13UILDING AND PLUMBING INSPECTION SERVICES. Upon request of a Requesting City, the Responding City will provide, if it has adequate staff available, (a) a Minnesota certified building official to review building and related permit applications, conduct necessary inspections, or (b) a Minnesota licensed master plumber to conduct necessary inspections for plumbing and mechanical permits, and (c), in either case, the building official or master plumber (the "Inspector ") will ensure that the requirements of the State Building Code as well as all applicable State and Federal laws, rules, and regulations are met, and will issue permits consistent with the Requesting City's ordinances. 2. EMPLOYEE STATUS. The employees who provide inspection services to a Requesting City shall remain employees of the Responding City and shall not be deemed employees of the Requesting City for any purpose. 1?ach city shall maintain liability and errors and omissions insurance on its building and plumbing inspection employees at all times in amounts not less than the tort liability limitations set out in Minn. Stat. 466.04, and shall maintain all required workers' compensation insurance on such employees. 3. INDEMNIFICATION. Each city shall be liable for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent provided by law and agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless each other (including their officials, employees, volunteers and agents), from any liability, claims, causes ofaction, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorney's .119586v2 CAM IZC160 -3 a fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the party, anyone directly or indirectly employed by it, and /or anyone for whose acts and /or omissions it may be liable. in the performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. Each city's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 and other applicable law. "fhe parties agree that liability under this Agreement is controlled by Minnesota Statute 471.59. subdivision la and that the total liability for the parties shall not exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single unit ofgovernment as specified in 466.04, subdivision i(a). a.. Each city warrants that it has purchased insurance or has a self - insurance program. b. Daly to Notify. Each city shall promptly notify the other of any claim, action, cause of action or litigation brought against the party, its employees, officers, agents or subcontractors, which arises out of the services contained in this Agreement and should also notify (lie other city whenever the notifying city has a reasonable basis for believing that the notifying city, and /or its employees, officers, agents or subcontractors, and /or the other city might become the subject of a claim, action, cause of action or litigation arising out of the services contained in the Agreement. 4. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES. 'fhc Requesting City shall pay the Responding City for inspection services at the rate of $56.00 per hour. The Responding City shall invoice the Requesting City monthly for services rendered and the Requesting City shall pay the invoices within thirty -five (35) clays of receipt of an invoice. 5. TERM. This Agreement is for an indefinite term but may be terminated by either party upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other party. 6. DOCUMENTS. All documents relating to building and plumbing inspections in the Requesting City, including electronic data prepared under this Agreement, shall be the property of the Requesting City and will be collected and maintained in a manner as deemed appropriate by the Requesting City consistent with its records retention schedule. When not using the Requesting City's property files in the field, the Inspector shall store all files related to building, plumbing or mechanical permits issued by the Requesting City at the Requesting City's City ]-fall. 7. MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT (Minn. Slat. Chap. 13 and related statutes). All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated, in any form. for any purposes because of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minn.Stat.Chap.13 and related statutes), as amended, the Minnesota Rules implementing such Act, as amended, as well as any applicable Federal Regulations on data privacy ( "Data Privacy Laws "). `fhe parties each agree to comply with all applicable Data Privacy Laws. Each party agrees to notify the other orally data requests that the notifying party rccei%-cs for data related to the notifying party's performance of this Agreement. 419586v2 CAI I IZC160 -3 8. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement supersedes any prior or contemporaneous representations or agreements, whether written or oral, between the parties and contains the entire agreement of the parties related to building inspection services. 9. AMENDMENTS. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall require a written agreement signed by all parties. 10. NOTICE. Any notice, statement or other written documents required to be given under this Agreement shall be considered served and received ifdelivered personally to the other party, or if deposited in the U.S. First Class mail, postage prepaid, as follows: a. Notice to: City of Richfield City Manager 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 b. Notice to: City of Edina City Manager 4801 W. 501h Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 CITY OF RICHFIELD IN Debbie Goettel, Its Mayor By: Steve Devich, Its City Manager Approved as to form and execution: Corrine Heine, City Attorney 419586v2 CAI RC 160-3 3 CITY OF EDINA By: By: 419586v2 CAM IZC160 -3 James Hovland, Its Mayor Scott Neal, Its City Manager C i To: Mayor and Council Members o e 1 P Agenda Item #: IV. D. The Recommended Bid is From: Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Technology Services ® Within Budget Director ❑ NotWithin Budget Date: April 16, 2013 Subject: 2013 Quality of Life Survey Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Expiration Date: Company: Decision Resources Recommended Quote or Bid: Decision Resources Amount of Quote or Bid: $26,000 General Information: Staff has been directed to complete a Quality of Life, or public opinion, survey every two years to measure residents' satisfaction with City services and facilities and to gauge interest on various topics. Staff has been working with Decision Resources, Limited, the leading public opinion research firm for area municipalities and school districts, to develop the 2013 survey. To measure change, many of the questions asked in 2011 will be asked again in 2013. Most of the new questions focus on the City's image, capital needs and redevelopment activities. A representative sample of 400 residents would be interviewed via telephone as part of the project. The proposed 180- question survey will cost $26,000, half of which is due before the interviews can be completed. The balance will be paid once the City receives the results of the survey. Each additional question would cost $135. In anticipation of its work on a parks master plan, the Park Board has asked that five more questions be added to the survey. The Parks & Recreation Department will cover the cost of the additional questions. In 2011, the City paid $24,000 for a 156- question survey. If approved, Decision Resources hopes to begin survey work April 29 and complete its report by the end of May. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50w St. • Edina, MN 55424 9 AGREEMENT PREAMBLE VV hereas, Decision Resources, Limited, (hereinafter referred to as DRL) offers its services to organizations in the public and private sectors for the purpose of conducting market research by telephone survey to ascertain such information as may be requested by its clients, and C _VV hereas, the City of Edina (hereinafter referred to as CLIENT) wishes to employ DRL �as an independent contractor) for the above stated purpose, DRL and CLIENT agree to the ollowing ferms, conditions, and fees governing such employment. SERVICES (A.) DRL shall conduct a telephone survey: the sample size of which shall be 400 residents of the City of Edina. (B.) DRL will submit the questionnaire for the survey to CLIENT for its approval prior to the commencement of interviews. The specific details of the survey as to timing, questionnaire content, and population sample to be surveyed (except as otherwise specified in paragraph A) shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties as circumstances may require. In the event the parties fail to agree, CLIENT shall have the final authority to determine the subject matter content of the survey, while DRL shall have final authority to determine the specific wording of questions on the questionnaire and the specific individuals within the given population to be sampled. DRL shall not be obligated to ask questions of persons interviewed in addition to those questions included on the approved questionnaire or to provide data or interpretations with respect to topics or issues not covered by the questionnaire. DRL will proceed with a survey only after it receives notice of CLIENT's approval of the questionnaire. (C.) The survey shall be commenced as soon as is practicable following: (1) Approval of the questionnaire by CLIENT, and (2) Down payment of one -half the total survey cost is paid. 0 (D.) Upon payment of all fees due to date, DRL shall furnish to CLIENT a written report of the survey results including interpretations which may be reasonably drawn there from. At that time, CLIENT, in consultation with DRL, will schedule meetings for the presentation and discussion of these results. Further time commitments of DRL personnel deemed needed by CLIENT shall be billed upon a mutually agreed -to hourly basis prior to their execution. FEES (A.) CLIENT shall remit to DRL fees in the amounts, at the times, and in the manner specified hereunder: The fee shall be $26,000.00 for a 180 question survey. Each additional question would be $135.00. Half of the total cost will be due before fieldwork; the remaining half is due upon delivery of the final report. (B.) All fees due under this agreement shall be payable by ordinary check, except that DRL reserves the right to require payment by certified check, after having given CLIENT three days notice of such requirement. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS AND DISCLOSURE The written report required under Section II (D.) shall become the sole property of CLIENT after payment to DRL of the TOTAL AMOUNT required in Section III. The survey questionnaires and replies and all related data, materials, and information shall remain the property of DRL. DRL agrees not to divulge or use for any purpose, including but not limited to advertising and public relations, the information obtained in the survey without the written consent of CLIENT; provided, however, if the data or results of the survey are directly or indirectly made public by CLIENT or anyone else, DRL may make public the following information: the population from which the sample was taken, the method of obtaining the interviews, including the size and design of the sample, and the basis of the data if the sample is less than the total sample, the dates and times when the interviews were conducted, the exact wording of questions asked and the client's name. CLIENT agrees that if it or anyone else acting on its behalf wishes to release in whole or in part to the public by press release, speech, or otherwise, the data or results of the survey or contents of the written report, that CLIENT or such other person will first notify DRL 2 k in writing, and that there will be also stated in the release, speech, or otherwise, that the survey was done by DECISION RESOURCES, LIMITED, OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA. CLIENT further understands and agrees that the names and addresses of interviewers used by DRL and the names and/or addresses of persons sampled are confidential and will not be made available to CLIENT. EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES DRL agrees to utilize its best efforts to insure the accuracy of any survey by it pursuant to this Agreement. However, it is specifically. understood and agreed that nothing in this Agreement, or any survey or written report furnished under Section II (D.), shall be considered as either a prediction or guarantee of the results of any election or the outcome of any event, and any representations or warranties, express or implied, to that effect are hereby excluded. In addition, DRL shall not be responsible or liable for any failure by it to conduct any survey or render any written report if such failure results from labor disturbances, fires, floods, wars, riots, civil disturbances, and other events beyond the control of DRL. MODIFICATIONS Modifications of this Agreement shall not be enforceable. unless in writing and signed by the party to be charged. Neither parties' waiver of any rights due him/her under this Agreement shall have the effect of waiving other or subsequent rights due hereunder. MISCELLANEOUS (A.) This Agreement merges and supersedes all other agreements, verbal and written, between the parties and represents all agreements between them and binds their administrators, heirs, successors, and assignees. (B.) Any provision of this Agreement which may be held unenforceable shall be severable and the balance of the Agreement enforced. (C.) CLIENT agrees that it shall comply with all laws respecting disclosure of this Agreement. (D.) DRL reserves the right to use the findings from this survey in anonymous form as to the specific population and client for purposes of aggregate and comparative analyses to be made available to other clients of DRL or publications. (E.) This agreement may, be subject to amendment based upon the mutual consent of both parties. (F.) DRL shall indemnify and hold harmless the CLIENT and its agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including but not limited to attorney's fees arising directly or indirectly out of this project. en witness whereof, the parties affix their signature on this Iot" day of April, 2013. DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.. Client By: PRESIDENT Position X To: Mayor and City Council From: Bill Neuendorf Economic Development Manager Date: April 10, 2013 o e {� .r H�v - ° �y 1 ®8B Agenda Item #: IV.K E Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Subject: Resolution No. 2013- 40, Authorizing An Application To The Metropolitan Council For A Livable Community Act Tax Base Revitalization Account For The Redevelopment Of The Pentagon Park Property Action Requested: Adopt Resolution. Information / Background: ABOUT TBRA: The Met. Council's Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) is a competitive grant program that funds the investigation and clean -up of polluted areas that have lost commercial /industrial activity. The grants are intended to enhance the local and regional tax base while promoting job retention and job growth. The source of funds is the Metropolitan Council and the grant requires NO matching City funds. Program rules require that the City of Edina apply for the grant on behalf of the private developer /owner. When grants are awarded, the City will then enter into a sub - recipient agreement with the developer /owner. CURRENT PROJECT: The developer and the City were successful in their quest for TBRA funds in October 2012. A grant for $568,000 was awarded to remediate asbestos and lead -based paint from four buildings of the Pentagon Park redevelopment project on West 77th Street. There are still several buildings to remediate and re- occupy on the 37 -acre site. As anticipated when the Council approved Resolution 2012 -143, Hillcrest Development intends to apply for additional TBRA funding to facilitate the short -term re -use and eventual redevelopment of the site. This request supports abatement of an additional three buildings. Approval of this Resolution will allow Hillcrest Development to seek TRBA funding for the Pentagon Park project. The application deadline is May I, 2013. Attachments: Resolution No. 2013 -40 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -40 AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR A LIVABLE COMMUNITY ACT TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PENTAGON PARK PROPERTY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: WHEREAS the City of Edina is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives Account Program for 2013 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make application apply for funds under the Tax Base Revitalization Account; and WHEREAS the City has identified a contamination clean -up project within the City that meets the Tax Base Revitalization Account's purpose /s and criteria; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project and grant administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract grant agreements; and WHEREAS the City finds that the required contamination cleanup will not occur through private or other public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future without Tax Base Revitalization Account grant funding; and WHEREAS the City represents that it has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding for the activities for which Livable Communities Act Tax Base Revitalization Account funding is sought but was not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for cleanup completion and states that this representation is based on the following reasons and supporting facts: • Due to existing conditions and lack investment by the previous ownership, the property has limited occupancy. • The property's condition and value will continue to decline until it is properly repositioned and stabilized. • Due to the extent and location of asbestos containing materials and lead -based paint throughout the buildings, redevelopment of the properties for their highest and best use is extremely difficult and not feasible without grant assistance. N BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if the City is awarded a Tax Base Revitalization Account grant for this project, the City Council of Edina, Minnesota acknowledges it will be the grantee and agrees to act as legal sponsor administer and be responsible for grant funds expended for the project contained in the Tax Base Revitalization grant application submitted on May 1, 2013. Adopted by the Edina City Council this 16th day of April, 2013. Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 City Council Minutes is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its regular meeting of April 16, 2013, and as recorded in the Minutes of said regular meeting. WITNESS, my hand and seal of said City this day of 2013. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk To: Mayor and Council From: Brian E. Olson, Director of Public Works Date: 4/16/2013 Subject: Request For Purchase — Scheduled Well 12 Rehabilitation Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: 3/26/2013 Company: E.H. Renner & Sons Recommended Quote or Bid: E.H. Renner & Sons �s�2, WA o Le H�v g 0 ,seB Agenda Item #: IV. F The Recommended Bid is ® Within Budget ❑ NotWithin Budget Bid or Expiration Date: n/a Amount of Quote or Bid: $ 52,594.00 General Information: Well 12 is a primary well located at Water Treatment Plant (WTP) 4. As such, it is on a seven year rehabilitation schedule and is due for maintenance. Staff received quotes from three contractors to perform the work: • E.H. Renner & Sons: $52,594.00 • Bergerson Caswell, Inc.: $66,425.00 • Keys Well Drilling: $83,600.00 Staff recommends acceptance of the quote submitted by E.H. Renner at a price of $52,594.00. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE . -1reg: IN EXCESS OF $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER To: Mayor & Council From: Laura Adler Water Resources Coordinator Date: April 16, 2013 •vv• ,nR�RPORP`��O IBBB Agenda Item #: IV.G. The Recommended Bid is ® Within Budget ❑ NotWithin Budget Subject: Request for Purchase - Aquatic Vegetation Management, Contract No. ENG 13 -7NB Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: April 3, 2013 Company: I. Lake Restoration, Inc. 2. Lake Management, Inc. 3. Lake Improvement Consulting, LLC Recommended Quote or Bid: Lake Restoration, Inc. General Information: Bid or Expiration Date: July 3, 2013 Amount of Quote or Bid: 1.$30,425.15 2. $30,871.00 3.$39,450.00 $30,425.15 The City of Edina provides aquatic vegetation management for 39 lakes within the city. Previously, these contracts were managed by the Parks & Recreation Department. The Engineering Department is now managing the contracts, and has requested quotes for the herbicidal treatment of these lakes, as well as DNR permitting and resident communication. The quote is designed to provide the same level of service as past years, and the costs are similar to last year. Staff recommends awarding the bid to Lake Restoration, Inc. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: Ross Bintner P.E. Environmental Engineer Date: April 16, 2013 Subject: Wellhead Protection Plan, Part II Approval Action Requested: Consider Approval of the Wellhead Protection Plan, Part 11. Information / Background: ' A ZN .. o Le q ch OSil"IF'O • sa Agenda Item #: IV.H Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ The City of Edina Wellhead Protection Plan, Part II (WHPP) was subject of a public hearing held by the City Council on December 18, 2012. After the hearing, Council directed staff to submit the plan for review by state agencies. The review is now complete and minor changes were made. The WHPP is now ready for approval by the City Council. It is available for review on the City's website under City Offices /Engineering/Environmental Engineering pull down menu. The purpose of the WHPP is to provide a framework for City operations to reduce the risk of future sources of contamination that could affect public health. Due to the improved understanding of groundwater flow and the resulting increase in size of the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA), the WHPP now addresses over 1600 potential contaminant sources. The WHPP and its implementation is a first attempt to prioritize and address this improved understanding of potential risks, and provides recommendations to evaluate and address a subset of these sources over the next 10 years in an effort to reduce risk. Programmatic activities detailed in the WHPP will be led by the Engineering Department, and amount to staff demand of approximately 0. 15 full time employees. Next steps will include notice to nearby local governments and state agency stakeholders of adoption of the plan and ongoing plan implementation. Attachment: Letter from Minnesota Department of Health G:\PW\INFRAS\UTILITIESDIV\WATER\Wellhead Protection \WHPP 2 \130416 WHPPII Final Approval.docx City of Edina 4801 W. 50'' SL • Edina, MN 55424 t. Protecting, maintaining and improving the health of all Minnesotans April 1, 2013 Mr. Wayne Houle p&� 0```F Director of Engineering GL0�, 9 / City of Edina 7450 Metro Boulevard Edina, Minnesota 55439 Dear Mr. Houle: Subject: Final Approval of the Wellhead Protection Plan Part II, City of Edina, Minnesota I have reviewed the remaining part of the amended wellhead protection plan (Part II) for the city of Edina, received on January 2, 2013, according to the requirements of Minnesota Rules, part 4720.5555, subparts 1 and 2. The following principles were used as a basis for review: ■ Compliance with the rule - the wellhead protection plan must be in compliance with parts 4720.5100 to 4720.5590. Sound management of water resources - includes evaluations concerning whether significant up- or down - gradient effects on groundwater may result from management controls specified in the plan. Source management options should be based on sound data and technical analysis, and the interactions between surface water and groundwater are considered. Also, the effects of short- and long -term variations in precipitation must be evaluated for their impacts on source management. ■ Effective health and environmental protection - includes preventing potential water and related land resource problems which may impact the public wells, identifying anticipated and appropriate improvements in the quality of the environment within the drinking water supply management area, and promoting public health and safety. Efficient management of potential contaminant sources - includes estimating the cost of implementing the wellhead protection plan. Also, the management approach must identify 1) mechanisms for funding plan implementation, 2) how coordination will be achieved with participating state and local agencies, 3) approaches that were used to identify source manage- ment problems and opportunities to correct them, and 4) how water conservation practices will be used to support wellhead protection goals. _ The plan provides an adequate assessment of the city's source waters and contains goals, objectives, and action strategies for the potential sources covered by the plan. The city of Edina is commended for their efforts in amending their plan to protect their drinking water supply from contamination. General Information: 651- 201 -5000 • Toll-free: 888-345-0823 •TTY.651- 201 -5797 • wwwhealth.state.mmus An equal opportunity employer * ,� Mr. Wayne Houle Page 2 April 1, 2013 The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Minnesota Department of Health finds the plan amendment to be consistent with Minnesota's wellhead protection rules and approves your plan for: :Well`No .' Well No _ 2 208399 3 240630 4 200561 5 206377 6 200564 7 206474 8 204884 10 206184 11 206183 12 203614 13 203613 15 207674 16 203101 17 200914 18 200918 19 505626 20 686286 Upon receipt of this letter, the city of Edina has up to 60 days to: 1) begin implementation of your wellhead protection plan amendment (Minnesota Rules, part 4720.5560, subpart 1); and 2) notify all local units of government within the drinking water supply management area of the adoption of your plan amendment (Minnesota Rules, part 4720.5560, subpart 2). , Should you have any questions in the future or would like assistance with the implementation of your plan, please contact me at john.freitag@state.mn.us or (651) 201 -4669. Sincerely, John Freitag, Planner Principal Source Water Protection Unit Environmental Health Division P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, Minnesota 55164 -0975 JF:TV W cc: Mr. Ross Bintner, Environmental Engineer, City of Edina Mr. Erik Tomlinson, Source Water Solutions Mr. Isaac Bradlich, Engineer, Community Public Water Supply Unit, Metro Office To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering Date: April 16, 2013 Subject: Traffic Safety Report Of March 13, 2013 w91N�,r� o e • ,��RPOPA�� • less Agenda Item #: IV. I. Action Requested: Review and approve the Traffic Safety Committee Report of March 13, 2013. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Information / Background: The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) reviewed the March 13, 2013, Traffic Safety Committee Report at their March 21 meeting. The ETC did have discussion regarding the new web page and did not recommend any changes to the report, see attached draft minutes. Attachments: Traffic Safety Committee Report of March 13, 2013 Draft ETC Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2013 G:\ Engineering \Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic \Traffic Safety Committee \City Council Reports\2013 \Item IV. I. Traffic Safety Report of March 13, 2013.docx City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 To: Edina Transportation Commission From: Byron Theis — Traffic Safety Coordinator Date: March 14, 2013 Subject: Traffic Safety Committee Report of March 13, 2013 ,w91A,1 0 e ., • In CO 88 8 1 1888 Agenda Item #: VI. A. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ y. Action Requested: Review and recommend Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) Report of Wednesday March 13, 2013, be forwarded to City Council for approval. Information / Background: An overview of the comments from the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) will be included in the staff report provided to Council for their April 16, 2013 meeting. Attachments: Traffic Safety Review for March 13, 2013. G:\ Engineering \Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic \Traffic Safety Committee \Staff Review Summaries \12 TSAC & Min \03- 13- 13.docx City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT Wednesday, March 13, 2013 The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on March 13. The Director of Engineering, Public Works Director, Police Traffic Supervisor, the Assistant City Planner, the Sign Coordinator, and Traffic Safety Coordinator were in attendance for this meeting. From these reviews, the recommendations below are provided. These recommendations will be presented at the March 21, Edina Transportation Commission and the April 16 City Council agenda. SECTION A: Requests on which the Committee recommends approval: Request approval of new webpage labeled, "Transportation" on the City of Edina website and updates to traffic control policies. Staff created a new webpage to aid in directing residents with concerns involving traffic safety. The link can be found here: http: / /edinamn.gov /index.php ?section= transportation test page One intent of the new webpage is to eliminate traffic control policies that are covered within the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( MNMUTCD). The policies that would be removed are: • Residential Stop Sign • Multi -Way Stop Sign • Yield Sign • Speed Limit policies Staff will use the MNMUTCD when analyzing traffic control devices. Policies that will remain the same are: • Parking Restrictions • Disabled Person Signs • In- Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs • Marked Pedestrian Crosswalks • Alley Speed Bumps • Temporary Speed Tables The webpage also includes instructions for residents to request traffic control changes and an explanation of traffic management and control within the City of Edina. Staff recommends approval of new Transportation webpage and updates to traffic control policies. Traffic Safety Committee Report Page I of 2 March 13, 2013 SECTION B: Requests on which the Committee recommends denial: At this time, there are no requests that require deferral to a later date. SECTION C: Requests that are deferred to a later date or referred to others. At this time, there are no requests that require deferral to a later date. SECTION D: Other traffic safety issues handled. I. Request for retiming of signal lights at the intersection of Vernon Avenue and Gus Young Lane. Requestor states that vehicles making a left do not have enough time and have to wait for two cycles of lights before clearing the intersection. This signal light is owned and maintained by Hennepin County. Requestor was forwarded to Hennepin County. 2. Request for retiming of signal lights at the intersection of eastbound TH 494 and France Avenue. Requestor states that vehicles attempting to make a left onto France Avenue wait an "unreasonable amount of time" before being cycled through. This signal is owned and maintained by MNDOT. Requestor was forwarded to MNDOT. 3. Call from a resident to update contact information for handicap sign. 4. Call from a resident concerned with speeds at the intersection of Code Avenue and Porter Lane. Resident states that vehicles are going "too fast" near pedestrians and travelling at a high rate of speed on Code Avenue. Resident was informed that speed counts will be conducted as soon as the weather permits the placement of traffic counters (in the spring) and the speed data will be forwarded to the Edina Police Department for enforcement. 5. City staff reviewed possible addition of a raised median on the west leg of the intersection of Valley View Road and Antrim Road. Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 2 of 2 March 13, 2013 MINUTES OF CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUNITY ROOM MARCH 21, 2013 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Answering roll call was members Bass, lyer, Janovy, LaForce, Nelson, Sierks, Spanhake, and Whited. New member Dawn Spanhake was welcomed to the ETC by chair Nelson. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF FEB. 21.2013 The following corrections were made: page 4, P paragraph, last sentence, delete 'Park' and replace with 'Art;' 7th paragraph, first sentence, delete 'Grove' and replace with 'Wood;' page 6, 4th paragraph, first sentence, add '....would fit with the street car option that the Transportation Options Working Group reviewed but she would;' page 6, 5th paragraph, delete ... questions posed by residents and the Mayor answered 10' and replace with '...residents who wanted to ask questions and the Mayor was able to get to 10 during the time.' Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member LaForce to approve the revised minutes of Feb. 21, 2013. All voted aye. Motion carried. COMMUNITY COMMENT REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS Traffic Safety Committee Report of Mar. 13, 2013 Director Houle showed the new Transportation webpage which include information on the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC), Traffic Management and Traffic Control. He said the Traffic Management section shows the City's traffic policies and each policy links directly to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( MMUTCD). Traffic signs that are not in the MMUTCD are listed under Traffic Control. He also demonstrated the TSC map that shows all traffic safety requests and response. The map will allow residents to see if a safety request was made for their street and what the outcome was. He said the map is not user friendly and staff is working with LOGIS to make corrections. He said the goal is to have the map corrected and posted to the web by this summer. Discussion included the following: • Combine Traffic Management and Traffic Control. • Add the house research memo that explains the speed limit law. • Edits: reword first paragraph; delete or rephrase 3`d paragraph (be mindful of tone and choice of words — must /need /negativ %ritical — use neutral tones). • Add the TSC form and link to the map. • Do year -end report of traffic requests. Section D: Director Houle said staff was prompted to consider modifying the intersection at Valley View Road and Antrim Road because the stop sign there is hit almost weekly. In reference to county road issues, Director Houle will check with staff to see if they follow up with Hennepin County to see what action will be taken. Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member lyer to recommend that the City Council eliminate the traffic policies for residential stop signs, multi -way stop signs, speed limit, and yield signs. Bike Standard Update Director Houle.said staff created these bike standards, similar to other standard plates that they use for uniformity. They are internal working documents and are not meant for the general public. Comments included the following: Standard Plate #722 — eliminate the optional dotted lines. Standard Plate #725 — remove bike boulevard sign. Standard Plate #730 — eliminate the Bike Route sign. Send standard plates to Minneapolis for review and feedback. Motion was made by member Bass and seconded by member LaForce to approve the modified bike standard plates. Updates Student Members Member Sierks asked about a constant yellow blinking traffic signal light that she saw in Eden Prairie. Director Houle said this is a new feature that is activated certain times of the day that allows drivers to turn if there are no on- coming traffic. He said they are looking at adding this feature here in Edina. Bike Edina Task Force Received minutes of Feb. 14, 2013. Member Janovy said a bike rodeo is taking place the 3rd Saturday of April at Cornelia Elementary School and volunteers are welcomed. She said they are discussing which bike routes to mark next. Chair Nelson mentioned Vernon Avenue and Director Houle said staff is working with Hennepin County to stripe a bike lane on Vernon Avenue when they do a mill and overlay in Sept /Oct. Living Streets Working Group Chair Nelson said he, member Janovy, Director Houle, Asst. City Manager Kurt and Mr. Thompson met today and they discussed two options for moving forward —1) get approval for the entire plan; or 2) get approval for the policy now and implementation approval later on. He said they agreed on the latter so that they could use the policy to help guide the 2014 neighborhood reconstruction projects. He said the first step will be to circulate the policy between now and July 16 for review and feedback. Director Houle said the new transportation planner should begin working by the end of April and this person will be working on this. He or she will also eventually become the liaison to the ETC. He said a joint session meeting with the City Council is scheduled for April 16, 5 p.m. to discuss the Living Streets Policy. Transportation Options Working Group Member Whited clarified that specific authorization is not needed for Prism to operate in Edina; that she is asking for funds to buy another bus; that Edina's annual contribution would be for operating costs and it would help to leverage other funding sources. I To: - MAYOR AND COUNCIL ' A �N= owes V' )V,A 0 • C��APORA��O • 1888 Agenda Item #: IV. J. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering Action Discussion ❑ Date: April 16, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Joint Powers Agreement With City of Hopkins For Second Street South Roadway Reconstruction Action Requested: Approve attached Joint Powers Agreement with City of Hopkins for the reconstruction of 2nd Street South and authorize Mayor and Manager to sign agreement. Information / Background: The 2013 -2017 Capital Improvement Plan included a joint project with the City of Hopkins to reconstruct the border street of 2nd Avenue South from Monroe Avenue to Harrison Avenue, see project number ENG- 13 -008. This agreement clarifies the responsibilities of the project along with identifying the future maintenance of the roadway. The estimated cost to the City of Edina is approximately $81,529.00; the CIP allocated $150,000 for this project. Legal counsels from both cities have reviewed the proposed agreement. Attachments: Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Edina and the City of Hopkins for the 2013 Street & Utility Improvements Project Specifically 2nd Street South from .Monroe Avenue to Harrison Avenue G: \PW\CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV\PROJECTMIMPIk NOS\A248 2nd St Resurfacing(Hopkins)\ADMIN \MISC \Item IV. J. Joint Powers Agreement with City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDINA AND THE CITY OF HOPKINS FOR THE 2013 STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY 2 °d STREET SOUTH FROM MONROE AVENUE TO HARRISON AVENUE THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Edina ") and the CITY OF HOPKINS, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Hopkins "), with the parties collectively hereinafter referred to as the "Cities ". WHEREAS, the Cities desire to implement the design and construction of 2nd Street South iia L&I vitieu (+I,. "Prvjea+L h uiad WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to enter into agreements to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any similar power; and WHEREAS, Hopkins entered into a contract with Bolten & Menk to prepare construction documents and Hopkins entered into a contract with Ryan Contracting for the Project construction. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants the parties agree as follows: 1. COST ALLOCATION. Relevant construction costs for 2nd Street South between Monroe Avenue and Harrison Avenue shall be paid as 50% by Edina and 50% by Hopkins as determined per the final construction costs. Project costs are: engineering, inspection, testing and constructions costs. Project costs do not include costs associated with the parties' employees. 2. OWNERSHIP. Each party shall own the portion of the Project located within its corporate boundaries. 3. PAYMENT. Hopkins will act as the paying agent for all payments to the Contractor and Bolton & Menk. Payments will be made as the Project work progresses and when certified by Hopkins. Hopkins, in turn, will bill Edina for the project costs. Upon presentation of an itemized claim by one agency to the other, the receiving agency shall reimburse the invoicing agency for its share of the costs incurred under this agreement within 30 days from the presentation of the claim. If any portion of an itemized claim is questioned by the receiving agency, the remainder of the claim shall be promptly paid, and accompanied by a written explanation of the amounts in question. Payment of any amounts in dispute will .be made following good faith negotiation and documentation of actual costs incurred in carrying out the work. 1 7. CHANGE ORDERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS. Any change orders or supplemental agreements that affect the project cost payable by Edina and changes to the plans must be approved by Edina prior to execution of work. 8. RULES AND REGULATIONS. Hopkins shall abide by Minnesota Department of Transportation standard specifications, rules and contract administration procedures. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. Hopkins agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Edina against any and all claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement and caused by or resulting from negligent acts or omissions of Hopkins and/or those of Hopkins employees or agents. However, Hopkins shall not be obligated to defend, indemnify or hold Edina harmless from any claims arising out of or based upon defects in the work performed by the Contractor or negligence of the Contractor or Bolton & Menk, Inc. Edina agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Hopkins against any and all claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement for which Edina is responsible, including future operation and maintenance ot*tacilities owned by Edina and caused by or resulting from negligent acts or omissions of Edina and/or those of Edina's employees or agents. All parties to this agreement recognize that liability for any claims arising under this agreement are subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Claims Law; Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. In the event of any claims or actions filed against either party, nothing in this agreement shall be construed to allow a claimant to obtain separate judgments or separate liability caps from the individual parties. 10. WAIVER. Any and all persons engaged in the work to be performed by Hopkins shall not be considered employees of Edina for any purpose, including Worker's Compensation, or any and all claims that may or might arise out of said employment context on behalf of said employees while so engaged. Any and all claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said Hopkins employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated herein shall not be the obligation or responsibility of Edina. The opposite situation shall also apply: Hopkins shall not be responsible under the Worker's Compensation Act for any employees of Edina. 11. AUDITS. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, Subd. 5, any books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Edina and Hopkins relevant to the Agreement are subject to examination by Edina, Hopkins, and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate. Edina and Hopkins agree to maintain these records for a period of six years from the date of performance of all services covered under this agreement. 12. INTEGRATION. The entire and integrated agreement of the parties contained in this Agreement shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements between Edina and Hopkins regarding the Project; whether written or oral. 13. FUTURE MAINTENANCE. Each party shall be responsible for their portion of the roadway that is within their corporate boundaries. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed by E their duly authorized officials. CITY OF HOPKINS BY: BY: Its Mayor AND AND Its City Manager CITY OF EDINA Its Mayor Its City Manager To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering Date: April 16, 2013 Subject Engineering Services for Hazelton Road Improvements 'w9tN�,1� ow e • ,NroRPo"', � • 1888 Agenda Item M IV. K. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Action Requested: Authorize City Manager to approve attached proposal for Engineering Services for Feasibility Study / Preliminary Design of Hazelton Road Improvements. Information / Background: Attached is the proposal from WSB & Associates, Inc. for engineering services for the feasibility study and preliminary design of the Hazelton Road improvements. This project was initiated with the redevelopment of the adjacent Byerly's site. Staff has worked with the adjoining property owners to develop a solution for the access points to their properties. This study will address the proposed layout, costs / funding, and proposed schedules for this project. The proposed layouts will be presented to the Transportation Commission on May 16 and then a public hearing will be scheduled with the City Council for June 4 to coincide with the final development plan approval of the Byerly's project. Attachments: Proposal of Engineering Services for Feasibility Study / Preliminary Design of Hazelton Road Improvements G: \PW\ADMIN \COMM \EXTERNAL \GENERAL CORR BY STREETS \F Streets \7171 France Avenue (Byerlys)\Hazelton Road Design \Item IV. K. Engineering Services for Hazelton Road Improvements.docx City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 Ak WSB - & Associates, /uc. Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning ■ Construction April 10, 2013 Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Director of Engineer City of Edina 7450 Metro Boulevard Edina, MN 55439 Re: Hazelton Road Improvements Proposal for Engirieering Services Feasibility Study/Preliminary Design City of Edina, MN Dear Mr. Houle: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541 -4800 Fax: 763 541 -1700 WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB) is pleased to submit the attached proposal for the Feasibility Study/Preliminary Design for improvements on Hazelton Road east of France Avenue (CSAH 17). Our proposal includes a scope of services, estimated cost to complete those services and an anticipated schedule. This project involves the reconstruction of approximately 1000 feet of Hazelton Road from France Avenue to just east of the Edina Promenade. The City has been working with the Byerly's redevelopment team to determine alternative access scenarios for the reconstruction of their site, located in the southeast quadrant of France Avenue and Hazelton Road. Two primary roadway configurations alternatives have been prepared. One assumes a traffic control signal at the east driveway and the other assumes a.roundabout. Both alternatives involve reconfiguration of the west driveway access to a right - in/right -in right out. Based on discussions with the adjacent land owners preliminary agreement has been made to proceed with the roundabout concept. Roadway improvements will include addition of a raised concrete median east of France Avenue, modification to the Byerly's and Rue de France access, modifications to the Guitar Center and Szechuan Star access, mill and overlay of the existing undisturbed pavement, sidewalk connections to the Edina Promenade, construction of a roundabout, revisions.to the existing pedestrian flasher system at the Promenade, and drainage improvements as needed. Utility systems, including sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer will need to be evaluated to determine rehabilitation or repair methods needed Our project team will be led by Mr. Chuck Rickart, P.E., P.T.O.E. He will serve as project manager and coordinate all activities with the City. Mr. Rickart will be assisted by Mr Andrew Plowman P.E. as the primary design engineer. Mr. Rickart and Mr. Plowman will be assisted by an experienced staff of engineers and technicians. Minneapolis ■ St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Wayne Houle, PE City of Edina April 10, 2013 Page 2 of 2 If the proposed Scope of Work and the associated fee appear to be appropriate, please sign a copy of the proposal and return to me at your earliest connivance. We will proceed immediately upon receipt of the signed contract. WSB welcomes this opportunity to continue to work with the City of Edina. WSB commits itself to deliver the City of Edina a quality of services that is consistent with your expectations and WSB's reputation. Thank you for consideration of WSB & Associates, Inc. for these professional engineering services. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 763 - 287 -7183. CITY OF EDINA Sincerely, WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. Authorized Signature Charles T. Rickart, PE, PTOE Principal/Project Manager Its Date Hazelton Road Improvements France Avenue (CSAH 17) to Edina Promenade Feasibility Study / Preliminary Design Engineering Services SCOPE OF WORK Task 1— Project Management This task includes planning and coordination of all work tasks, establishing and monitoring of budgets, communication with City Staff, and periodic meetings with staff on the project status. Task 2 — Data Collection / Survey / Base Mapping Available data will be collected from the City and other impacted agencies along Hazelton Road. WSB will work with the City of Edina and Hennepin County in securing the GIS data for the corridor and any topographic information available. In addition design surveys will be completed for the area from France Avenue to east of the Edina Promenade. The result of this task will be the preparation of a topographic base mapping suitable for preparation of construction documents. Task 3 - Public Involvement/Meetings We understand the importance and the City's methods of involving the public and will assist City staff with the preparation of meeting notices, questionnaires /surveys, and power point presentations, as well as assistance with conducting presentations for various public meetings as follows: • Edina Transportation Commission Meeting (1) • Public Hearing (1) • City Council Meeting (1) Task 4 - Preliminary Engineering Services Two primary alternatives have been developed in conjunction with the Byerly's site development. One provides for a traffic signal system at the easterly site driveway and the other provides for a roundabout. Both include a modified access for the westerly site driveway. Both concepts will be developed further and evaluated to determine impacts to the adjacent properties. Based on field evaluations, topographic survey, as-built data, and geotechnical report (provided by the City /developer), and the concept plans developed, preliminary design will be completed for just the roundabout improvement alternative in accordance with State Aid standards. The following will be completed as part of this task: • Field evaluation of pavement, curb, and sidewalk conditions with City staff • Field drainage evaluation • Preliminary roadway typical section for each alternative • Preliminary roadway alignment, profile, and cross sections Proposal — Hazelton Road — Engineering Services Page 1 France Avenue to Edina Promenade City Of Edina ro • Identify sanitary sewer and watermain improvements /coordinate with City Staff • Preliminary storm drainage design in accordance with State Aid and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District requirements • Evaluate on- street bicycle guidelines based on City of Edina's Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan and State Aid guidelines • Evaluate pedestrian/bike connections to the Edina Promenade including modifications to the existing flasher system • Meetings with City staff to review preliminary design findings • Identify permitting requirements of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for storm water treatment and rate control • Identify permitting requirements from Hennepin County for revisions to the intersection of France Avenue • Gopher State One design locate. Obtain private utility maps and identify relocations /impacts based on discussions with private utility companies. • Preliminary project cost estimates for each alternative Task 5 - Feasibility Study A feasibility report will be prepared based on the preliminary design of the proposed improvements. The report will include discussion of the existing and proposed conditions for the street and utility work along with the following items: • Project location maps and typical sections • Project photos • Preliminary cost estimates • Identify funding sources • Preliminary assessment roll and map based on City's current assessment policy • Project schedule • Summary of resident feedback from informational meeting and survey results Task 6 — Agency / Utility Coordination Up to four (4) coordination meetings will held with impacted agencies, utilities and property owners along the corridor during preliminary design. These will include, but are not limited to: • Hennepin County • Nine Mile Creek Watershed District • Property Owners • Private Utilities Proposal — Hazelton Road — Engineering Services Page 2 France Avenue to Edina Promenade City Of Edina ESTIMATED COST The table below shows WSB's estimate of the cost for the preparation of the Preliminary Design/Feasibility Study. The estimated cost is $22,479. This includes WSB's labor at our standard hourly billing rates. WSB will bill the City for the actual hours worked up to the maximum of $22,479. SCHEDULE CityApproves Proposal .............................................................. ............................... April 16, 2013 Survey/Base Mapping ................................................. ............................... Week of April 15, 2013 Draft Feasibility Report to City for Review ................................ ............................... May 10, 2013 Edina Transportation Commission Meeting ................................ ............................... May 16, 2013 Council Accepts Feasibility Report/Sets Public Hearing Date .... ............................... May 21, 2013 Conduct Public Hearing/Authorize Preparation of Plans /Specs .... ............................... June 4, 2013 Proposal — Hazelton Road — Engineering Services Page 3 France Avenue to Edina Promenade City Of Edina Tasks Project Cost Task 1 — Project Management $2,684 Task 2 — Data Collection / Survey $5,044 Task 3 — Public Involvement $2,359 Task 4 — Preliminary Engineering $8,152 Task 5 — Feasibility Study $2,520 Task 6 — Agency/Utility Coordination $1,720 Total Cost $22,479 SCHEDULE CityApproves Proposal .............................................................. ............................... April 16, 2013 Survey/Base Mapping ................................................. ............................... Week of April 15, 2013 Draft Feasibility Report to City for Review ................................ ............................... May 10, 2013 Edina Transportation Commission Meeting ................................ ............................... May 16, 2013 Council Accepts Feasibility Report/Sets Public Hearing Date .... ............................... May 21, 2013 Conduct Public Hearing/Authorize Preparation of Plans /Specs .... ............................... June 4, 2013 Proposal — Hazelton Road — Engineering Services Page 3 France Avenue to Edina Promenade City Of Edina o�e� 1888 AGENDA ITEM V. A. Police Officer of the Year DAVID LI N DMAN No packet data Oral presentation Information coming To: MAYOR & COUNCIL o e • `��RppTW��O • 1 B8 Agenda Item #: VI.A. From: Jeff Long Action Police Chief Discussion ❑ Date: April 16, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Temporary Intoxicating Liquor License — Chamber of Commerce Taste of Edina Action Requested: Approve the Temporary On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Special Permit to use city property. The two permits will be used in conjunction with one another during the "Taste of Edina" event. Information / Background: The Edina Chamber of Commerce has applied for a Temporary On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Special Permit to use city property to hold their annual "Taste of Edina" event. The event will be held at Centennial Lakes, Hughes Pavilion, 7499 France Avenue, on May 16th, 2013 between 4:30 -7:30 p.m. The applicants estimate approximately 500 attendees. The applicants have provided a security plan which includes: the hiring of police officer(s) for security purposes, the use of ropes /gates as physical barriers separating the licensed premises, and servers will be of proper age. Historically, the "Taste of Edina" event poses little public safety concern. I recommend the Temporary Liquor License /Special Permit be approved with the condition that the sale and consumption of intoxicating beverages be limited to beer and wine. Attachments: None City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 o e Cn v '� �y • rMroRPOSiA��O • 1888 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VI.B From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action 0 Discussion ❑ Date: April 16, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: PUBLIC HEARING — Preliminary Plat with Lot Depth Variances, Frank Sidell, Property Located between Little Street and Morningside Road, Resolution No. 2013 -39 Action Requested: Adopt the attached resolution. Information / Background: As a result of the sketch plan review process recenty completed by the applicant, Frank Sidell, has submitted a revised proposal to subdivide the Sidell family -owned property located in between Littel Street and Morningside Road into eight lots. Of the three options considered in the sketch review process, the "modified original," is now formally proposed. In general, this option was the preferred option. (See the property location and the three options on pages A28a —A28c of the Planning Commission Staff Report.) The proposed plan includes a reduced right -of -way from 50 feet to for feet, and the width of the street reduced from 28 feet to 24 feet. The Outlot, located east of the cul -de -sac, has been widened to propvide additional separation from the home located at 4408 Morningside Road. This Outlot would be landscaped and then deeded to the adjacent property owner. The driveway leading to 4408 would then be relocated off Morningside onto the new cul -de -sac. (See applicant narrative and proposed plans on pages A6 —A34.) The applicant considered turning Lots I & 2 to face Morningside Road; however, is proposing to have them access directly to the cul -de -sac. The applicant would like to integrate these lots into the cul -de- sac, rather than potentially isolating them. To accommodate the request the following is required: ➢ A subdivision; ➢ Lot depth variances from 161 feet to 130 feet for Lot 4; to 140 feet for Lot 6 and to 135 feet for Lot 7. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50`° St • Edina, MN 55424 Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 9,606 square feet, median lot depth is 161 feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet. (See attached median calculations on pages A17 —A19 of the Planning Commission Staff Report.) The applicant has developed a plat that would meet all of the minimum lot size requirements; therefore, this site is entitled to develop with eight lots. However, as previously discussed, the applicant would rather not develop the site with that plan. There are some steep slopes on this property as well as very mature trees. By developing the site in that configuration with a through street to connect Morningside Road to Littel Street would require extensive tree removal and slop disturbance. The applicant is continuing to propose a conservation easement over some of the mature trees to ensure they are protected. Planning Commission Recommendation: On March 28, 2013, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request, and added the following conditions to the staff recommendation of approval: Condition 2.h. revised as follows: h. Establishment of a tree and slope conservation easement as demonstrated on the grading and tree preservation plan. The easement shall include a 20 -foot buffer zone that protects the permanent easement during any construction. The easement shall detail how the protection shall occur within the buffer zone. Condition 2.m. revised as follows: M. All homes must be constructed with fire sprinkler protection in accordance to NFPA 13d, if required by the fire marshal. Add Condition 2.P as follows: P. Submittal of a landscape plan showing trees in the right -of -way. ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution No. 2013 -39 • Draft minutes from the March 28, 2013, Edina Planning Commission meeting • Planning Commission Staff Report, March 28, 2013 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-39 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH LOT DEPTH VARIANCES AT 4212 MORNINGSIDE ROAD 4232 LITTLE STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Mr. Frank Sidell is requesting a Preliminary Plat for an eight lot subdivision with three lot depth variances. 1.02 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 -8, Block 1, Acres Dubois Edina, Minnesota 1.03 The proposed subdivision requires the following variances: 1. Lot depth variances from 161 feet to 130 feet for Lot 4; to 140 feet for Lot 6 and to 135 feet for Lot 7. 1.04 On March 28, 2013, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and Variances on a Vote of 7 -0. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The applicant has submitted a subdivision of the property that would meet all minimum zoning district requirements with eight lots and new through street that would connect Morningside Road and Littel Street. 2. Rather than develop the site per all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements, the applicant has submitted a proposed subdivision of the property with a cul -de -sac, which requires lot depth variances for Lots 4, 6 and 7. 3. The proposed subdivision with the three lot depth variances would preserve the steep slopes on the site, and preserves 50 mature trees by placing them in a conservation easement. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street . Edina, Minnesota 55424 wwwEdinaMN.gov • 952 - 927 -8861 • Fax 952 - 826 -0389 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-39 Page Two 4. The proposed subdivision still has eight lots. 5. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 6. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. There is a practical difficulty to the property caused by the existing steep slopes and mature trees on the property. b. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lots larger in size than the median, and there are 26 lots within 500 feet of the property that do not have lot depths greater than 130 feet, which is the shallowest of the three lots that require lot depth variances. The variance request is reasonable, as subdivision still contains eight lots, which would be allowed with the Code compliant subdivision; however, it protects steep slopes and 50 mature trees. d. If the variances were denied, the applicant could still subdivide the property into eight lots, however the steep slopes would be disturbed an additional 42 mature trees would be removed. Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Preliminary Plat and requested Variances for the proposed subdivision. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: 1. The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. 2. Prior to release of the final plat, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. Enter into a Developers Agreement with the City. The Developers Agreement shall include the requirement for construction of the sidewalk as proposed. c. Pay the park dedication fee. of $10,000 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-39 Page Two d. Individual homes must comply with the overall grading plan for the site. Each individual building permit will be reviewed for compliance with the overall grading plan subject to review and - approval of the city engineer. e. Compliance with the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated March 22, 2013. f. A construction management plan will be required for the overall development of the site, and for each individual home construction. g. Utility hook -ups are subject to review of the city engineer. h. Establishment of a tree and slope conservation easement as demonstrated on the grading and tree preservation plan. The easement shall include a 20 -foot buffer zone that protects the permanent easement during any construction. The easement shall detail how the protection shall occur within the buffer zone. i. Outlot A shall be deeded to the adjacent parcel at 4408 Morningside Road. The applicant must rebuild the driveway at 4408 Morningside Road to access off the new street, and eliminate the curb cut on Morningside Road. The configuration shall be subject to approval of the director of engineering. k. A stop sign is required to be installed on the new street approaching Morningside Road. Clear sight lines shall be maintained from the intersection. 1. Use of Lot 7 for the overall grading of the development will require compensation to the City of Edina. A restoration plan shall be submitted by the applicant subject to review and approval by the City Council. m. All homes must be constructed with fire sprinkler protection in accordance to NFPA 13d, if required by the fire marshal. n. Signage stating "No Parking Fire Lane" along one side of the roadway the entire length of the road. o. Installation of fire hydrant(s) near end of cul -de -sac, & possibly at intersection of Morningside. Fire hydrant location is subject to review and approval of the fire marshal. p. Submittal of a landscape plan showing trees in the right -of -way. Adopted this _ day of , 2013. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor RESOLUTION No. 2013 -39 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 , 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 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 28, 2013 . 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Carr, Carpenter, Forrest, and Staunton Absent from the Roll: Platteter, Grabiel, Kilberg, Cherkassky III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Potts moved approval of the March 28, 2013 meeting agenda. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Potts moved approval of the February 27, 2013 meeting minutes. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. No public comment. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Preliminary Plat With Variances. Frank and Carol Sidell. 4232 Oakdale Avenue and 4412 Morningside Road, Edina, MN Page 1 of 10 Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that as a result of the sketch plan review process recenty completed by the applicant, Frank Sidell, has submitted a revised proposal to subdivide the Sidell family -owned property located in between Littel Street and Morningside Road into eight lots. Of the three options considered in the sketch review process, the "modified original," is now formally proposed. In general, this option was the preferred option. Teague explained that the proposed plan includes a reduced right -of -way from 50 feet to for feet, and the width of the street reduced from 28 feet to 24 feet. The Outlot, located east of the cul -de -sac, has been widened to propvide additional separation from the home located at 4408 Morningside Road. This Outlot would be landscaped and then deeded to the adjacent property owner. The driveway leading to 4408 would then be relocated off Morningside onto the new cul -de -sac. Currently the site consists of six lots. The existing home on the south side of the property and various accessory buildings would be torn down and a cul -de -sac street would be built along the east lot line to serve six of the new home sites. The existing home at 4232 Oakdale would remain,and one new lot created on Littel Street. Teague informed Commissioners to accommodate the request the following is required: A subdivision; Lot depth variances from 161 feet to 130 feet for Lot 4; to 140 feet for Lot 6 and to 135 feet for Lot 7. Teague stated within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 9,606 square feet, median lot depth is 161 feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet. Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed eight lot subdivision of the Sidell property and the lot depth variances from 161 feet to 130 feet for Lot 4; to 140 feet for Lot 6; and to 135 feet for Lot 7: Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The applicant has submitted a subdivision of the property that would meet all minimum zoning district requirements with eight lots and new through street that would connect Morningside Road and Littel Street. 2. Rather than develop the site per all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements, the applicant has submitted a proposed subdivision of the property with a cul -de -sac, which requires lot depth variances for Lots 4, 6 and 7. 3. The proposed subdivision with the three lot depth variances would preserve the steep slopes on the site, and preserves 50 mature trees by placing them in a conservation easement. 4. The proposed subdivision still has eight lots. 5. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. Page 2 of 10 - 6. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. There is a practical difficulty to the property caused by the existing steep slopes and mature trees on the property. b. The requested variances-are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lots larger in size than the median, and there are 26 lots within 500 feet of the property that do not have lot depths greater than 130 feet, which is the shallowest of the three lots that require lot depth variances. C. The variance request is reasonable, as subdivision still contains eight lots, which would be allowed with the Code compliant subdivision; however, it protects steep slopes and 50 mature trees. d. If the variances were denied, the applicant could still subdivide the property into eight lots, however the steep slopes would be disturbed an additional 42 mature.trees would be removed. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. 2. Prior to release of the final plat, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. Enter into a Developers Agreement with the City. The Developers Agreement shall include the requirement for construction of the sidewalk as proposed. C. Pay the park dedication fee of $10,000 d. Individual homes must comply with the overall grading plan for the site. Each individual building permit will be reviewed for compliance with the overall grading plan subject to review and - approval of the city engineer. e. Compliance with the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated March 22, 2013. f. A construction management plan will be required for the overall development of the site, and for each individual home construction. g. Utility hook -ups are subject to review of the city engineer. Page 3 of 10 h. Establishment of a tree conservation easement as demonstrated on the grading and tree preservation plan. i. Outlot A shall be deeded to the adjacent parcel at 4408 Morningside Road. The applicant must rebuild the driveway at 4408 Morningside Road to access off the new street, and eliminate the curb cut on Morningside Road. The configuration shall be subject to approval of the director of engineering. k. A stop sign is required to be installed on the new street approaching Morningside Road. Clear sight lines shall be maintained from the intersection. Use of Lot 7 for the overall grading of the development will require compensation to the City of Edina. A restoration plan shall be submitted by the applicant subject to review and approval by the City Council. M. All homes must be constructed with fire sprinkler protection in accordance to NFPA 13d. n. Signage stating "No Parking Fire Lane" along one side of the roadway the entire length of the road. o. Installation of fire hydrant(s) near end of cul -de -sac, & possibly at intersection of Morningside. Fire hydrant location is subject to review and approval of the fire marshal. Appearing for the Applicant Frank and Carol Sidell, property owners and applicants and Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering, Inc. Discussion Commissioner Forrest noted the "no parking" suggested for one side of the proposed street and suggested if parking was limited to one side of the street that it be on the east side. Planner Teague responded that the Edina Fire Department (EFD) due to the width of the proposed road wants parking only on one side to allow for emergency vehicle access. Commissioner Carr asked for clarification on the conservation easement. Planner Teague responded that no trees can be "touched" behind the dashed line as indicated on the site plan. Commissioner Carr noted two lines are represented on the site plan; one dashed and one solid. Carr asked the significance of the solid line. Teague responded the solid line denotes the silt fence /grading line. Carr suggested that the "conservation" easement be extended to the silt fence /grading line to ensure that the trees behind the dashed line are fully protected. She pointed out if the lot can be graded right up to the "dashed line" tree roots could be compromised causing the tree to die. With the conservation easement extended to the solid line more "breathing" space would be provided behind the line. Page 4 of 10 Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to clarify the Parkland Dedication fee. Planner Teague explained the site was originally platted as 6 -lots and parkland dedication was paid on six lots. Continuing, Teague explained since the property owner is requesting the creation of 8 -lots; a parkland dedication fee is levied against the two additional lots. The Parkland Dedication fee for both lots is $10,000; $5,000 per lot. Commissioner Schroeder questioned who the conservation easement is "granted" too and who monitors it. Teague responded that the conservation easement is granted in favor of the City. During the construction phase the easement area is monitored by city staff; after the home is constructed the property owner and neighbors usually monitor that area. Teague reported since he has worked for the City residents with lots with conservation restrictions have petitioned the City Council to remove portions of the restriction to allow something; such as a play structure to be built within the restricted easement area. Teague stated in all instances the City Council is the body that would grant any modifications of the conservation easement. Commissioner Schroeder said he agrees with Commissioner Carr, adding he also has issues with the conservation easement line vs. silt fence /grading line indicating in his opinion two should match. Schroeder asked how the conservation easement line was determined and if there is a plan for trees not in the easement area. A discussion ensued on the conservation easement line and silt fence /grading line with suggestions by Commissioners that the line be one and the same. The applicant reported that the grading line is determined by the topographical features of the site per lot; noting each lot is different and building pads also play a role in grading and preservation lines. The applicant also noted the importance the grade /elevation of the new street plays in establishing grading and preservation lines. The applicant reiterated the street grade or elevation is established first with individual building pads following. Concluding the applicant explained the tree conservation restriction line can remain firm; however, the grading /slit fence line is more flexible; however can be a determined line. Commissioner Scherer asked the Commission to note the revised memo from Wayne Houle regarding grading, etc: Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague if the property owners at 4408 Morningside Road approve of this option. Teague responded in the affirmative. Staunton referred to letter "m" in the staff report under conditions (all homes must be constructed with fire sprinklers) and asked Teague why this item is a condition of approval. Teague responded this requirement is the result of the narrow road (under 27') and was recommended by the EPD. Applicant Presentation Mr. Sidell informed the Commission they are returning with the modified version of their original proposal with cul de sac. Sidell asked the Commission to recall there were a number of options presented during sketch plan review; options included a 10 -lot plat, differing lot size and arrangements (two on Morningside Road) and one option with a through street. Sidell said the option with the through street was eliminated early on because it was found to be too disruptive to the neighborhood. Continuing, Sidell explained that the proposal before the Commission is for 8 -lots all over 75 -feet in Page 5 of 10 width. The width of the road serving the site is 24 -feet, adding they wanted to achieve the feel of a "lane" while accommodating the concerns of the police and fire departments. Concluding, Sidell said they continue to work on water run -off management and would continue to work with the Minnehaha Watershed District to come up with a final plan, adding the plan at this time includes a "wetland" area on the property at 4232 Oakdale Avenue. Peter Knaeble explained that at onetime they considered a water retention system in the cul de sac; however, that wasn't supported by the City. Knaeble also said depending on the boulevard area and pipe gallery that the proposed boulevard trees may be pushed back, adding the amount and tree placement in the right -of -way can't be determined at this time. Commissioner Schroeder said he would like trees planted in the right -of -way area defined and /or landscaping plan. Discussion Commissioner Potts asked why sprinklers are required. Mr. Sidell responded that originally when the family spoke with the Fire Marshall it was indicated to them that any road less than 27 -feet in width would require the houses accessing that.road to be sprinkled. Sidell commented they wanted the smaller road and learned from further study that sprinklers appear to be more user friendly in single family home construction than in the past. Commissioner Forrest asked Mr. Sidell his reason(s) for eliminating lots from fronting Morningside Road. Mr. Sidell responded that in his opinion having all houses gain access off the same road made the most sense and created a more "inclusive" development /micro- neighborhood. Sidell said in his opinion if two houses (one option) faced Morningside Road the farthest lot could be considered an orphan lot and both houses wouldn't appear to be part of the "new" neighborhood. Commissioner Carr asked if this development is proposed with a homeowners association. Sidell said there are no plans to develop this with a "neighborhood" association. Carr asked if lighting was discussed. Mr. Sidell said he believes the city would require three streetlights. Carr questioned if the tree conservation area includes undergrowth. Mr. Sidell responded that much of the undergrowth was buckthorn and some of it has been already removed. Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague if some of these issues would be resolved in the developer's agreement at the time of final plat. Teague responded in the affirmative. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. The following spoke to the project: Greg Murphy, 4311 Morningside Road Richard Hardy, 4408 Morningside Road Arnold Hymanson, 4403 Morningside Road Page 6 of 10 Mary Carte, 4208 Branson Street Peter Killilea, 4236 Lynn Avenue Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Scherer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Discussion Chair Staunton reminded the Commission that at this time the City is working on finalizing the Construction Maintenance Plan and asked Planner Teague if this project would be reviewed under those guidelines and requirements. Teague said this development proposal would be required to conform to the requirements found in the Construction Maintenance Plan. Teague reported that the City Council will discuss the "plan" at their next meeting on April 2, and at that time the Ordinance could be adopted and become part of City Ordinance. Chair Staunton asked Mr. Sidell if more consideration was given to the development process, inquiring if a final determination was made on if the lots would be developed all at once or one at a time. Sidell responded that at this time he is unsure of their next step. He added the family believes the lots would be developed individually and pretty much simultaneously because of the interest the lots have generated; however, he reiterated he isn't sure of their next step. Concluding, Sidell stated at one time they discussed leaving one lot as a staging area for construction equipment, etc. Chair Staunton questioned who enforces the requirements for the narrower street. Planner Teague responded much of this is handled through the developer's agreement. Staunton wonder if there would be some flexibility with the sprinkling requirement. Teague responded that would be up to the Fire Marshall. The discussion ensued with the focus shifting to lot arrangements; especially the fact that this option eliminates lot(s) fronting Morningside Road. It was further noted that Commissioner Platteter expressed support for lots fronting Morningside Road. Further discussion pointed out that if approved as proposed (no lots fronting Morningside Road) there was the potential for erecting a ferice thereby creating a wall effect. Chair Staunton agreed that there is a legitimate concern that if the plat is approved as proposed a new homeowner could erect a fence on that corner lot; creating a wall. Commissioner Carr suggested that one lot could front Morningside Road similar to the configuration of the house at 4408 Morningside Road. Commissioner Potts said he understands the concern about the potential for a fence; however, when one views the neighborhood the proposed plat mirrors the platting along the north side of Morningside Road. Front facing houses appear on the south side of the road. Page 7 of 10 Commissioner Schroeder stated he continues to have concerns with the conservation easement and the lack of detail as a condition of approval. He noted nothing presented to the Commission indicates a description of the easement area; what the easement includes or doesn't include. Schroeder said the word "permanent" is also used; however, trees are not permanent. Schroeder added he also feels the silt fence /grading line needs to be better defined pointing out nowhere does it indicate how much disturbance could occur in the area between the silt fence /grading line and tree conservation line. Schroeder said in his opinion there should be a "no disturb" buffer area established that would actually protect the trees in the conservation easement area, especially during the initial construction phase. Concluding, Schroeder reiterated he would like to see a plan not a line on a drawing and would like also to see a better description of the plantings proposed for the right -of -way (ROW). Commissioner Forrest said she is also concerned with the conservation easement adding that it appears to her the majority of the houses build will be walkouts or lookouts noting there are significant grade changes to consider. Continuing, Commissioner Forrest reiterated her earlier concern about the recommended parking on one side of the street, suggesting that it be permitted on the east side, adding in her opinion the east side is the safest because parking on the west would reduce the sight lines for those backing out of their driveways. Forrest stated this is a safety issue for her. Commissioner Potts reiterated his concern with.the condition requiring the houses to be sprinkled, pointing out that could place a significant burden on the applicant and /or new property owner. Chair Staunton noted if he understands correctly the right -of -way is established at 40 -feet with 24 feet paved and suggested that the road be paved to a width acceptable to the Fire Marshall that eliminates the sprinkling requirement. Staunton said as he understands it that "number" is somewhere between 24 and 28 feet. Commissioner Schroeder said in this instance the applicant is in a bit of a bind because of differing code requirements. Staunton agreed stating what the Commission wants is to keep the road width accessing the development as small as possible and not pushed beyond what is safe MOTION . Commissioner Scherer moved Preliminary Plat approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions with the following: that condition h. "Establishment of a permanent tree preservation easement as demonstrated on the grading and tree preservation plan be modified to include a 20 -foot buffer zone and amend condition m. "all homes must be constructed with fire sprinkler protection in accordance to NFPA 13d. be amended to read any house that shall be constructed is subject to the recommendations of the Fire Marshall. Add p. trees in the right -of -way (ROW) (provide landscaping plan.) Commissioner Schroeder suggested as an amendment to the motion that finding 3 on page 7 be modified to state "preserves 50 mature trees by placing them in a conservation easement" not 82 as indicated. Schroeder also suggested a similar modification to 6. C. modify the language to say permanently protects steep slopes and mature trees; that as opposed to a specific number. Commissioners Scherer and Carpenter accepted the amendment. Page 8 of 10 Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Zoning Ordinance Update — Residential Development Discussion Chair Staunton explained that at the next Planning Commission meeting on April 10th a work session is scheduled directly after the Commission meeting. Staunton referred to the 12 -point memorandum from Planner Teague and asked Commissioners if there was anything they would like added to the list, taken off the list or discussed Commissioner Carr commented that the memo lists 12 items and questioned if any of these topics should be prioritized. Commissioner Scherer commented that in her opinion numbers 1, 2, 9 & 10 could be consolidated; this would address Commissioner Carr's comment. Scherer said with regard to #11; the single /two car garage requirement with the consideration of eliminating the two stall garage requirement didn't appear to her to be fully supported by the Council; adding she's not in favor of it. Chair Staunton said in his opinion at this time the list should stay inclusive. He agreed that a number of items could be "clumped together"; however that could be discussed at the work session on the 10th Planner Teague said he would like to add an additional item for discussion and that item is front yard setbacks. Teague explained that on the west side of Edina where the lots are larger it has become problematic when averaging the front yard setback of the houses on either side to establish the front yard setback for the lot in question. Commissioner Scherer said another concern she has might fall under #3 — adding she's not sure the 1- foot elevation limit accomplished what the Commission wanted. Staunton agreed and said additional discussion should occur on building height, where it is taken, its starting point and ending point. Scherer agreed on the importance of understanding these calculations. Commissioner Forrest said public input played a large role in developing these topic items, adding soliciting input from the public is still welcome, it's ongoing. Chair Staunton said that he agrees further study is needed on front yard setbacks and asked Planner Teague to add that as umber 13. Staunton also asked Teague to list as a topic of discussion permission for narrower lots than 75 -feet in width (subdivision). Concluding Staunton said the list should be placed on the website and notice should be posted of the public meeting. Page 9 of 10 w9S�A.r� o� e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague March 28, 2013 VLA Community Development Director File # 2012.014.12a INFORMATION &BACKGROUND Project Description As a result of the sketch plan review process recenty completed by the applicant, Frank Sidell, has submitted a revised proposal to subdivide the Sidell family - owned property located in between Littel Street and Morningside Road into eight lots. (See property location on pages Al —A5.) Of the three options considered in the sketch review process, the "modified original," is now formally proposed. In general, this option was the preferred option. (See the three options on pages A28a— A28c.) The proposed plan includes a reduced right -of -way from 50 feet to for feet, and the width of the street reduced from 28 feet to 24 feet. The Outlot, located east of the cul -de -sac, has been widened to propvide additional separation from the home located at 4408 Morningside Road. This Outlot would be landscaped and then deeded to the adjacent property owner. The driveway leading to 4408 would then be relocated off Morningside onto the new cul -de -sac. (See applicant narrative and proposed plans on pages A6 —A34.) The applicant considered turning Lots 1 & 2 to face Morningside Road; however, is proposing to have them access directly to the cul -de -sac. The applicant would like to integrate these lots into the cul -de -sac, rather than potentially isolating them. Currently the site consists of six lots. The existing home on the south side of the property and various accessory buildings would be torn down and a cul -de -sac street would be built along the east lot line to serve six of the new home sites. The existing home at 4232 Oakdale would remain and one new lot created on Littel Street. To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; 2. Lot depth variances from 161 feet to 130 feet for Lot 4; to 140 feet for Lot 6 and to 135 feet for Lot 7. Within.this neighborhood, the median lot area is 9,606 square feet, median lot depth is 161 feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet. (See attached median calculations on pages A17— A19.) The applicant has developed a plat that would meet all of the minimum lot size requirements; therefore, this site is entitled to develop with eight lots. (See code compliant plat on page A28.) However, as previously discussed, the applicant would rather not develop the site with that plan. There are some steep slopes on this property as well as very mature trees. By developing the site in that configuration with a through street to connect Morningside Road to Littel Street would require extensive tree removal and slop disturbance. The applicant is continuing to propose a permanent conservation easement over some of the mature trees to ensure they are protected. (See pages A26 —A27.) Surrounding Land Uses The lots on all sides of the subject properties are zoned and guided low - density residential. (See pages A3 —A5.) Existing Site Features The existing site contains two single - family homes and number of accessory buildings. (See pages A4 & A21.) The southernmost home and accessory buildings would be removed. Planning Guide Plan designation: Single- dwelling residential Zoning: R -1, Single- dwelling district Lot Dimensions * Variance Required Grading /Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them acceptable. (See the specific comments the city engineer on page A61.) Storm water would be directed off the homes and driveways toward the new cul -de -sac. The cul -de -sac would then drain to the north into a catch basin that would direct drainage by pipe to a ponding that would be located on proposed Lot 8. Overflow from this pond would drain primarily to the west into St. Louis Park and to a lesser amount to Littel Street and the City -owned parcel to the east. (See grading and utility plans on page A24 —A25.) As the City's regulatory authority on the drainage plans, they shall be subject to review and approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The grading plan demonstrates encroachment on the City -owned property adjacent to Lot 7. Use of this property will require compensation to the City of Edina, and a restoration plan subject to review and approval by the City Council. The detailed grading plans for each new home would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of a building permit application. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. Area Lot Width Depth REQUIRED 9,606 s.f. 75 feet 161 feet Lot 1 12,512 s.f. 75 feet 161 feet Lot 2 12,111 s.f. 75 feet 161 feet Lot 3 12,113 s.f. 75 feet 161 feet Lot 4 10,342 s.f. 80 feet 130 feet* Lot 5 18,169 s.f. 83 feet 179 feet Lot 6 14,533 s.f. 94 feet 140 feet* Lot 7 23,289 s.f. 122 feet 179 feet Lot 8 12,170 s.f. 90 feet 135 feet* * Variance Required Grading /Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them acceptable. (See the specific comments the city engineer on page A61.) Storm water would be directed off the homes and driveways toward the new cul -de -sac. The cul -de -sac would then drain to the north into a catch basin that would direct drainage by pipe to a ponding that would be located on proposed Lot 8. Overflow from this pond would drain primarily to the west into St. Louis Park and to a lesser amount to Littel Street and the City -owned parcel to the east. (See grading and utility plans on page A24 —A25.) As the City's regulatory authority on the drainage plans, they shall be subject to review and approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The grading plan demonstrates encroachment on the City -owned property adjacent to Lot 7. Use of this property will require compensation to the City of Edina, and a restoration plan subject to review and approval by the City Council. The detailed grading plans for each new home would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of a building permit application. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. Specific hook -up locations would be reviewed at the time of a building permit for each lot. Tree Preservation /Street Construction — Through Street vs. Cul -De -Sac The applicant considered developing the site with a through street that would connect Morningside to Littel Street. (See page A28.) This is the configuration of eight lots that meet all minimum City Code requirements; therefore, the applicant is entitled to a subdivision of this property into eight lots. As mentioned, this site contains steep slopes along the west and north side of the site, and contains many mature trees. The Code compliant plat would require a significant amount of grading to make the slopes work to connect the streets and the majority of the mature trees would be removed. By developing this site with a cul -de -sac, grading would be significantly reduced, and mature trees could be saved. To ensure that the trees be permanently preserved, the applicant is proposing a conservation easement over the slope and mature trees. (See conservation easement on pages A26 —A27.) A significant number of trees would be saved as a result of the cul -de -sac configuration compared to the through street. As demonstrated on page A34, there are several cul -de -sacs in area. There are eight shown to the west in St. Louis Park, and six shown to the south in the City of Edina; the closest cul -de -sac is just over 800 feet to the south On Oakdale Avenue; therefore a cul -de -sac would not be completely out of character in this area. Traffic /Safety Concern was raised in regard to traffic safety in the area with the increase of six new single - family homes in the area; therefore, WSB was asked to do a traffic study to determine impacts. As demonstrated in the attached report, the level of service on the existing streets would not change as a result of the proposal. (See pages A44 A52.) There would be sufficient sight lines for traffic exiting or entering the proposed new street intersection on Morningside Road. A stop sign is recommended for the new street approaching Morningside Road and providing a clear sight line from the intersection. With the reduction in the width of the roadway to 24 feet, the applicant shall be required to post one side of the street for no parking for a fire lane; additionally residential fire sprinkler protection shall be required for each home subject to approval of the fire marshal. (See memo from the fire marshal dated March 20th, 2013 on page A62.) 4 Previous Vacation of Right -of -Way (West side of the Sidell Property) As demonstrated on Exhibit A35, there was a 20 -foot wide strip of right -of- way along the west side of the Sidell property. Another 20 -foot wide strip of right -of -way had existed in St. Louis Park as well. Both of these right -of -ways have been vacated. Most recently, the City of St. Louis Park vacated its 20- foot easement. Many years ago, believed to be in the 1950's, the City of Edina vacated the 20 -foot right -of -way on the Sidell property. When this area was originally platted, Natchez Avenue was to continue to the north to Littel, which was to extend to the west into St. Louis Park. However, over time this right -of -way has been vacated both in Edina and St. Louis Park, including the extension of Littel to the west. Given the steep slopes in this area it was determined that the road would not be constructed in that location. There would still be adequate room to construct the cul -de -sac along the west property line, even with, the vacation of right -of -way that has already taken place. Using a west side street configuration, 68 trees would be preserved compared to 82 in the east side street configuration. Also, a smaller amount of steep slope would be preserved with a road on the west of the property. Sidewalk The applicant is proposing a sidewalk that would be located within the right - of -way on the west side of the new street. This would tie into the existing sidewalk on Morningside Road. (See page A22.) Park Dedication The property exists as six lots originally platted in the Crocker & Crowell's First Addition plat. Therefore, park dedication has already been paid for six lots. Edina City Code requires a park dedication fee of $5,000 for each additional lot created. Therefore a park dedication fee of $10,000 would be required. Primary Issues • Are the findings for a variance met? Yes. Staff believes that the findings for a Variance are met with this proposal. Per state law and the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is 1:1 reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal meets the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements? Yes. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The practical difficulty is due to the steep slopes and mature trees on the site. By re- configuring the shape of the lots and building a cul -de -sac, an additional 40 mature trees would be saved and protected by a conservation easement; a total of 50 within the easement. A majority of the severe slopes would also be maintained. (See page A25.) The result of the cul -de -sac design is the need for three lot depth variances; Lot 4, 6 and 7. The variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood and for the subdivision. It does not create any additional lots. The Code compliant Plat results in eight lots, as does the proposed subdivision. To deny the variances would not prevent the property from developing with eight lots. Denial of the variances would however, result in the significant disturbance of the slopes and the removal of all but 40 mature trees on the site. (See page A28.) b) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self - created? The circumstances of a large, mostly vacant, parcel with mature trees and steep slopes are unique to this property. There are no other parcels of this size and shape in the City of Edina. While the family has held these properties for many years, they did not plant the vast majority of the trees and did not create the steep slopes. C) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. There are many lots in the area that have lot depths that do not meet the median of 161 feet. There are 26 lots within 500 feet that do not have a lot depth of greater than 130 feet, which is the shallowest of the lots in the subdivision. (See pages A17 —A19.) M Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed eight lot subdivision of the Sidell property and the lot depth variances from 161 feet to 130 feet for Lot 4; to 140 feet for Lot 6; and to 135 feet for Lot 7. Approval is based on the following findings: The applicant has submitted a subdivision of the property that would meet all minimum zoning district requirements with eight lots and new through street that would connect Morningside Road and Littel Street. 2. Rather than develop the site per all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements, the applicant has submitted a proposed subdivision of the property with a cul -de -sac, which requires lot depth variances for Lots 4, 6 and 7. 3. The proposed subdivision with the three lot depth variances would preserve the steep slopes on the site, and preserves 50 mature trees by placing them in a conservation easement. 4. The proposed subdivision still has eight lots. 5. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 6. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. There is a practical difficulty to the property caused by the existing steep slopes and mature trees on the property. b. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lots larger in size than the median, and there are 26 lots within 500 feet of the property that do not have lot depths greater than 130 feet, which is the shallowest of the three lots that require lot depth variances. C. The variance request is reasonable, as subdivision still contains eight lots, which would be allowed with the Code compliant subdivision; however, it protects steep slopes and 50 mature trees. d. If the variances were denied, the applicant could still subdivide the property into eight lots, however the steep slopes would be disturbed an additional 42 mature trees would be removed. Approval is subject to the following conditions: VA The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. 2. Prior to release of the final plat, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. Enter into a Developers Agreement with the City. The Developers Agreement shall include the requirement for construction of the sidewalk as proposed. C. Pay the park dedication fee of $10,000 d. Individual homes must comply with the overall grading plan for the site. Each individual building permit will be reviewed for compliance with the overall grading plan subject to review and - approval of the city engineer. e. Compliance with the conditions outlined in the director of engineemog's memo dated March 22, 2013. f. A construction management plan will be required for the overall development of the site, and for each individual home construction. g. Utility hook -ups are subject to review of the city engineer. h. Establishment of a tree conservation easement as demonstrated on the grading and tree preservation plan. Outlot A shall be deeded to the adjacent parcel at 4408 Morningside Road. The applicant must rebuild the driveway at 4408 Morningside Road to access off the new street, and eliminate the curb cut on Morningside Road. The configuration shall be subject to approval of the director of engineering. k. A stop sign is required to be installed on the new street approaching Morningside Road. Clear sight lines shall be maintained from the intersection. 8 Use of Lot 7 for the overall grading of the development will require compensation to the City of Edina. A restoration plan shall be submitted by the applicant subject to review and approval by the City Council. M. All homes must be constructed with fire sprinkler protection in accordance to NFPA 13d. n. Signage stating "No Parking Fire Lane" along one side of the roadway the entire length of the road. o. Installation of fire hydrant(s) near end of cul -de -sac, & possibly at intersection of Morningside. Fire hydrant location is subject to review and approval of the fire marshal. Deadline for a City Decision: April 16, 2013 0 City of Edina J� e (k Q C� Qe PID:0702824420094 4412 Morningside Rd Edina, MN 55416 Legend N City limits f/ Cnaks Cakes ❑ Parks ❑ Parcels City of Edina 4235 4172 4233 4234417J. 1176 4237 4238 A238 4220 ^ 4117 4220 QI22.3]] 4224 1215 4228 .4217 ❑ Legend Surrouodig House Numt— w 4241 4140 4241 P W 4714 4119 4124 1119 Labels 422-1 4245 4718 47 <.+ @ 24 Z7 14228 Cr 4221 4226 4218 4211 House Number Labels 4828 48224816 4246 4249 4710 4228 4251 42. D ;1232 422 4128 4213 4212 Street Name Labels .! City Limits /OY TJfT£i 5T f 4225 4230 4227 42157 422< 4217 Building footprints 4251 4815 4811 4805 4253 41 A132 \ 4405 4232 op.. Space 6 4171 r^� ❑ 42161..E 4219 4_I Creeks Lake Names 42?-1 + 4270 4231 Li 42 4157 2545542 14 §2 Itjl 4252 42 i23a�12]I 4136 d2]7 4�] F O Lk Parks 4281 4Y80 _ 24 ,. 4235 � 4236 42 '8 .4235 � 42D EJ Parcels 4265 4264 /26142 Q237 Y, /717 426542 4269 4268 24 .� `t 4238 239 4140 1-^7 L--12J9 L'1278 4271 4270 426942 '=142�0_j 1213 4273 42 24 4242 f 424.3 �J111 - X4243 Q 4242 4274 =J :92441 245 4C4 --114 4240 A5OO 428142 4278 4510 ( <J11- 8 4246 4247 4310 92467 4 ?08 TJ =241 I� 4276 4108 428741 41M L4350� �J 4118 x'4140 LJ 91' 41:nxx4r�enfl x395 5 450 ,1117 441s'; r`-I (-"`7 f"7 rj _ '4417 44H (1-7' LS X16, n e209 4291 315 9306 4303 Lr u 4316 � I 1 4409 44054407 Q,api 4_315115a 371147❑09 4 ?O711 5 4301 4215 4213 4111 U 4315 — 325 43 23 x4]057 a ❑ .- 4706 4718 1307 4720 4325 ❑ Q ]06�10470247001 ' 2D 4109 4329 1yrt'4]14 $ 0 4775 ❑,2408 f l rl 41f0i� j ❑ `J ,,.,,. 421441114210 312100 8 Q20T 4100 4712 3708 43j4 u l� U -0� 4373 `}cr'• 4730 4406 SQ04 44014100 4326 4335 4324 4375 1,`' .-,o ✓ O &FftNSUV Si 43 ?7 v 4337 ,_33S 4339 4339 430 4,701f215: n 167 *ly .471342114209i2O6 4�4 4344342 498! 4330 4341 4377Q344 44, 11j t�l3f�y `f 440 1 ^ 4711 4348 4400 4407 4405 4407 4725 4371Y 0 4753 4140 4751 v y � 0 1�041T6S }Q 4J7i`4'�6 4359 4346 4375 1 Q�1. 4150 Q9 ..41 '� 4160 4377 4760 4363 4350 �Q3 4 4164 4188 4176 4367 4354 �� 4366 79 4377 6 4365 4194 u 4108 t2to Q2� µ11T 51 Y'T 1C7'. X4374 4360 4379 � ```"`CCCCGG��NN**** 177, 0-� � 4141 V � 4 }6f .:axws. c,vrM^ictio sCSaus 4387 4112:,2101 4155 d47 v PID:0702824420094 i r 4412 Morningside Rd kT 5 Q Edina, MN 55416 r Cl'114ip,,,gn .l2 City of Edina 41�r 01111 422e 1c7 4718 4714 ( w LEI 6111 ¢ - - - 4128 Legend Surroundtnp House Number Labels 1710 4128 '� ,171 4172 -- f�j ❑ 41277 4228 House Number Label, Street Name Labels _._ rmFS sr f '.1225 ��___II 1770 �_ V City Limits /C' Building Foatprints - 2!7 4271 4231 4403 4227 4fl /,j Creek. 0 0 Lake Names Lakes - - 4111 71 42 ❑ Parks El Parcels 1233 3 23 ` N 41;4 3 4275 4I6� 737 i II 1275 4115 1�.. 4281 781 �_ L 4177 4238 P2. -- -- - -- ,I83 /278 14 4239 4240 4159 4H 289 0-� 4240 L.J LJ 4277 41d2 24 i 1 4247 IL. It—' 4211 === =333 H 1204 � 1211 1 5145 ❑ 421 4181 !� 4408 4146 4412 . --- IN7 4010 S 4287 4267 -1Y IWGSfOE FD m 4117 � 1415 i 1 � � 7417 4111 FO--� 1 p 47171 IIIF'�1I' C L 607 4708 4707 4107 V 4409 44OS Ir�I 4:07 ( �ve .4 •.. � L� I LJ u - ..nAWS Cmf T:C::C4t -: GC'.U,S LYY. A, PID: 0702824420094 ' 4412 Morningside Rd a Edina, MN 55416 F� • r L IUtt LOGISMap Output Page o v ti a t, City of Edina PID:0702824420094 4412 Morningside Rd Edina, MN 55416 4T Legand Surrounding Home Number Labels House Number Labels Street Name Labels N City Limits ^/ Creeks Lake Names Lakes El Parcels 2009 Mrial Photo City of r �.. , {' '. Legond City Li�ift 1, `�"'• ll `. '•1.e. E �.�,.5 4 '.j / ■rte= I7 - M C Lakes ,. r- � 4 s �.1111 Illli 1111 1111' i� If1111�1IIII�IIIIII A 11 11� i �� ■rte ,,.a - o�, t �l �_C ��Ii RRES c i r� ■ I ■C. fir` =_21 Mal -C �, J ��. _� . rte} :,_ [ 1 ■ i ■�� $ .1101111111111112 �• % r� / 2 Illllllli mall =,e111/ �,� E3 t���+ �llllllllllnlllllinll ,— � CBI_ : s g �� +�- t� nunlllllllillllill>�'r�,t _;s � '�� ►�11 ,�;'i_. -.'� _ y�l�;,.: A $ �a 1 ♦. o •' = �.... / ° Ii 21. " = / S.:I� ins ti VIM affal 111.1 o �:'114 1, \. .��' m uli �_ CS,� ► �i�i * Baum= _ - =i I '`z:r IP �� WAD E3 zz fez Z= — IIIIIIIIIP I f r • r 1 1 11'� Alk ZOAJ I N G MAP �s. Acres DuBois - Sidell's are 50 year residents of Morningside - Create a legacy for our father (Franklin DuBois Sidell) - Larger lots - Room for kids to play - Trees and Grass - Serenity and privacy - Maximize the value for our Mom (Iris Ann Sidell) - Pass on the true value to her children - The family's goal is to maintain the uniqueness of this property r C -p -Wo Character of Morningside ..A _._.. A 40TH 5T W � - ... • -. � T y J- z D �,SS51vi J '' *Weber field Park W 42ND ST W D G > c 0 0 1 D G MORNINGSIDE RD 0 BRANSON ST .. �w 44tµ . 45TH ST W o SUNNYSIDE RD -._i }.}� F� 9r. C0E0'qY"4 of GLENDALE TE - Oldest section of Edina - 633 houses - 65 rebuilt or heavily remodeled in the last few years ( >10 %) - More than 35% have garages in the front. - 1/3 of the community does not have sidewalks - More than 35% of the lots are larger than 50' - Current property is unique - 7,000 sq. ft. house on a 3 acre lot - Which part do we copy? Very eclectic. No two houses are the same. It's about community not house style or lot size. ►. w � W I� m t o MORNINGSIDE RD "..6rowndale < 43 1/2 ST w Park o _ �.. ¢ i 2 I DV0H 3CISONINHOR Vim{ r F- - -- i dcml7s— ear I .'IBI I F 4 I ls:xlrx, ----------- I I I -------- --�-'j pl Z 0 M L---- !6 [[I'LI I of I o I D - - - - -- I , [� I a ® l m °�, .9191 e £ u > V o I -- Z---- ------ C —cml I m m� �[�3 va• � 4 - -- !S —7, ---- - - - - -- -- I U- _ I 4 5 -'CL Z a X11' - - - - -- ------ �a , I RRRI" f II ;r o Ell 1'181 - - - -- gIIS�a L I I Br -- --- - - - - - I- u sLUYI a L ----------- g�.� u/[ pdik RR3 7 •+ 8 _ p 2�v o 9'Ir 'Qw,II � I rn �" B ocl RI w w m 'is z/I z> 0 51;; k k alik gg r- �iII= ` 3 • G -------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- I I-- / p� "qa _ 10 6 — j s N' CONFORMING CONCEPT PLAN n'"- o.".... m 2 e Terra v.[. rr�. ,00 i ACRES DUBOIS EDINA. MN Conforming Concept Features - .8 lots - Through street connecting Littel with Morningside ltd No variances are necessary Issues - Many neighbors opposed to this concept - Completely changes the character of lower Oakdale - Eliminates most of the trees Creates the need for excessive grading and fill - Creates the need for large retaining walls - More traffic Does not maintain the uniqueness and serenity of the original property Preliminary Site Plan (Original Revised Option) Features Eight lots (six new houses) - Six on top of the hill Two accessing off Littel Narrow street at 40' row with a 24' pavement. - 18 foot wide out lot on the east side of the road Tree conservation area Best use of the natural topography - " Run -off water management plan Sidewalk in front of the houses - Advantages All lot widths are 75' or greater 88+ feet from 44 08 to the houses in lots 1,2&3 Lower housing density than surrounding neighborhood Only requires three minor variances for lot depths Best use of the natural topography - Greatest tree savings Less traffic than through street option Maintains the serenity and uniqueness of the original property OVON 30ISONINNN' a '� VNM I — ral oo. slsl 3sr3 .61 - ' I ____ °i I 15�9r1'ZI .I L---- - - - - -- a=.i R J - - - - -- I° J I Io - -- ------- - - - - -� I � I w L---- - - - - -- ---------- - -1 - -- L— I--- - -- - - — J a. o r----- - - - - -1 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ml "s Q YI r--- - - - - -- — C r s�i of — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — a lal bul) \ I - .� 01 -------- - - - - -- � I� — — — — — — — — — — ' JG fiC r — — — — — — — — — — -------- - - - - -- -- I �-6 b I I s <s3 f& xcl� ----- - - - - r�— ese sz._. �� , o r P,Rmum _ eR £80 °° I� ni @' �g FBI =a����o � M Tx�, s 0 c R; 133tlus 13iin fi I PRELIMINARY PLAT gFR Terra ACRES DUBOIS Sp® EDINA. MN Preliminary Site Plan (Original Revised Option) Features Eight lots (six new houses) - Six on top of the hill Two accessing off Littel Narrow street at 40' row with a 24' pavement. - 18 foot wide out lot on the east side of the road Tree conservation area Best use of the natural topography - " Run -off water management plan Sidewalk in front of the houses - Advantages All lot widths are 75' or greater 88+ feet from 44 08 to the houses in lots 1,2&3 Lower housing density than surrounding neighborhood Only requires three minor variances for lot depths Best use of the natural topography - Greatest tree savings Less traffic than through street option Maintains the serenity and uniqueness of the original property ci Preliminary Plat Addressed Issues - No lots with widths of less than 75' - Walkability - Public sidewalk into the cul -de -sac - Connecting walkway to the city lot on Lynn Ave and Littel deemed not feasible - The hill on Morningside Rd needs a sidewalk - Traffic - Study confirms east side road is the safest - Study confirms cul -de -sac will have far less traffic load than a through street - Run -off water plan - Water management feature added to the low area behind 4232 Oakdale - City said no to some type of water management system in the center of the cul -de -sac - 4408 Morningside Rd (Rick and Sarah Hardy) - Deeding the south 150' of the the out lot (Adding 2,728 sq ft, an additional 36 %) to their lot - Moving their driveway to the cul -de -sac = Adding some landscaping - Tree savings - Included a tree conservation area - Size and feel of the new road - Family would prefer a narrower road (more of a lane) - City is dictating the dimensions - Character of Morningside Current property is already unique to the neighborhood - Our plan will maintain this uniqueness by creating a great pocket neighborhood . .. . .... .... 11� w Z Ar, -��rrr.::.�► i� II + Preliminary Plat Addressed Issues - No lots with widths of less than 75' - Walkability - Public sidewalk into the cul -de -sac - Connecting walkway to the city lot on Lynn Ave and Littel deemed not feasible - The hill on Morningside Rd needs a sidewalk - Traffic - Study confirms east side road is the safest - Study confirms cul -de -sac will have far less traffic load than a through street - Run -off water plan - Water management feature added to the low area behind 4232 Oakdale - City said no to some type of water management system in the center of the cul -de -sac - 4408 Morningside Rd (Rick and Sarah Hardy) - Deeding the south 150' of the the out lot (Adding 2,728 sq ft, an additional 36 %) to their lot - Moving their driveway to the cul -de -sac = Adding some landscaping - Tree savings - Included a tree conservation area - Size and feel of the new road - Family would prefer a narrower road (more of a lane) - City is dictating the dimensions - Character of Morningside Current property is already unique to the neighborhood - Our plan will maintain this uniqueness by creating a great pocket neighborhood 41�&-' T u �J Ok Terra Engineering Inc. Peter Knaeble, PE 763 - 5939325 a iowl. Mol v,� Ali TEL S.TR11FT Y. Terra Engineering, Inc. - Civil Engineering Land Planning • Consulting November 7, 2012 Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina 4801 West 50"' St. Edina, MN 55424 Re: PROJECT NARRATIVE Acres DuBois 4232 Oakdale Ave., Edina .4412 Morningside Rd., Edina TE #12-109 Dear Cary: �pf a.oc�tat NARRAIAJE 6oRi6nup L) - �ov -•, }� �j;• / Vii. ,'(r�" �� - Based on input from City staff and neighbors, we have prepared our Preliminary Plans for the Acres DuBois development (Sheets 1 -9, dated 11/5/12) and this Proiect Narrative for your review and approval. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located at 4232 Oakdale Ave. and 4412 Morningside Rd. in the Morningside neighborhood of Edina. The 3.14 acre site has a home on.the south side of the property that will be removed, and a home on the north side of the property that will remain. The owners of the property are longtime Morningside residents (50 years). They have made the decision not to sell to a developer and to stay involved with this project through the approval process in an attempt to keep it as neighborhood friendly as possible. The property is currently zone'R -1 Residential and is surrounded by existing homes that are also zoned R -1 Residential. The western boundary of the property abuts the city of St. Louis Park, and is also adjacent to existing homes in St. Louis Park. 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 763 - 593 -9325 Aim Terra Engineering, Inc. : w� Civil Engineering Land Planning • Consulting The existing homes on the site are currently connected to City sewer and water, and front on City streets that have existing public sanitary sewer and watermains. Per City requirements, we have had a tree survey prepared by a certified forester and located all trees on the property per City zoning standards. We have also hired a wetland consultant to review the site and he has determined that there are no wetlands on the property. We have also hired a soil testing company to provide soil borings and a soil report for the site. The soil report indicates that the site is suitable for a residential development. The site is relatively level on the south part of the property with some steep slope areas in the northern part of the property. The slopes areas over 18% have been identified, per City requirements, on the plans. The northern portion of the site is a low area that is currently landlocked with a ground overflow elevation of approximately 881. Due to the porous /granular nature of the existing soils, stormwater that is currently directed to this low area is rapidly _ infiltrated. The land owner estimates that the flood elevation for the July 87 super stormwwas only about 874, or two feet above the bottom elevation. TV- a vls ' PROPOSED PROJECT: As shown in the plans (Sheet 9; Conforming Concept Plan), this site could accommodate an eight lot conforming plat, utilizing a through street connecting Morningside Road and Littel Street. This conforming plat would meet all City zoning and subdivision requirements, including lot size, setbacks, lot depths and lot widths. But this eight lot conforming plat would also require significantly more site grading (including additional grading in the steep slope area) and tree removal. The conforming plat would also increase the site's imperious coverage. Given the additional grading and tree removal requirements, we are proposing a cul -de -sac street option that would also accommodate eight lots. Our development proposal is to subdivide the property into eight single family lots that would be served by a new public cul -de -sac and existing streets. All eight lots would exceed the R -1 Residential Zoning standards for lot size (minimum 9606 sf) and lot width (minimum 75'). Three of the lots will require a variance for the 161.5' minimum lot depth (Lot 4 is 127', Lot 6 is 140', and Lot 7 is 135'). All lots would be large enough to accommodate standard sized one level and two story detached single family homes. This project would require less grading, less tree removal, and less impervious coverage than the conforming eight lot plat option. The developer of the site will construct the public utilities and streets as shown on the plan. Other than grading for the streets and utility areas, all other tree removal and house pad grading will be done on a custom graded basis to maximize tree savings. Homes will be custom designed to the individual lot topography to minimize site grading, erosion and tree removal. 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 763 - 593 -9325 �q Terra Enzd Inc. I*• Civil Engineering Land Planning • Consulting �♦ 41 . 1 Tp�'L We are also proposing a Tree Conservation Area Easement to maximize the long term stability of the existing significant trees on the property designated to be saved. Trees within the conservation area will not be allowed to be removed unless damaged or diseased. This Tree Conservation Area Easement will be recorded against all of the abutting lots. Public water to serve the cul -de -sac lots will be provided by extending the existing watermain in Morningside Road. Public sanitary sewer service will be provided by a new public gravity sanitary sewer flowing north to the existing sewer in Littel Street. Stormwater will be collected from the new public street with a storm sewer system and directed to a proposed rain garden/infiltration basin to be constructed as shown on the preliminary plans. The project soil borings indicate that this area is aptly suited for an infiltration area due to the existing porous sand and gravel subsoils. The infiltration basin will be appropriately sized to meet City and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards. In case of emergency or flooding conditions in the infiltration area, a backup stormwater lift station and forcemain system is proposed. This system would utilize temporary pumps as required to handle any excess storm water. Based on our recent neighborhood meetings, we have added a concrete sidewalk to the west side of the proposed street. This sidewalk would allow residents of the six new homes to safely access the existing neighborhood sidewalk system on Morningside Road and beyond. VARIANCE REQUEST: As discussed above, our proposed project is requesting lot depth variances for three of the proposed eight lots. The proposed eight lots exceed the other zoning standards for lot area and lot width. The zoning ordinance requires new subdivided lots to have a minimum lot depth of 120', or the median lot depth of the existing lots within 500' of the property, whichever is greater. Per the surveyor's calculations, the median lot depth of the existing lots within 500' of this property is 161.5'. The proposed lot width for Lot 4 is 126', Lot 6 is 140', and Lot 7 is 135'. These three lot depths exceed the zoning ordinance standard of 120', but not the neighborhood standard of 161.5'. These proposed reduced lot widths will not adversely impact any existing neighborhood homes. As discussed above, the "Conforming Plat" for eight lots does not require any zoning variances (including lot depth variances), but would require the construction of the through street. 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 763- 593 -9325 A(`- Terra Ennineering, Inc. si6iit;, see* Civil Engineering Land Planning • Consulting Minnesota statues and Edina ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variances will: Relieve an undue hardship which was not self - imposed or a mere inconvenience: Yes. Due to the unique shape of the existing property, and the unusually deep lots in the immediate neighborhood, the minimum lot depth standard of 161.5' is difficult to achieve with the cul -de -sac design plan. The through street option would not require variances, but would be more detrimental to the environment and the neighborhood. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Yes. Again due to the unique shape of the existing property, the variances are required. This proposed variance is not applicable to other properties in the vicinity because they cannot be subdivided (in a conforming way) such as this property can be. Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. Yes. Since the property can be subdivided into eight conforming lots utilizing the through street option, approving this variance will continue to preserve the property rights of the surrounding neighbors. Based on our neighborhood meetings, a large number of neighbors support the cul -de -sac option (and variances) vs. the through street option. Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Yes. As discussed above, by granting the proposed variances, there will be substantially less site grading, tree removal, and impervious area coverage. The through street option (without variances) would be more detrimental to the public welfare and the neighborhood in general. NO ;3 i,- 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 763 - 593 -9325 �Ir Terra Engineering, Inc. Civil Engineering Land Planning • Consulting 11,14, au Based on the above information, we believe that this project will be an asset to not only the immediate neighborhood, but also to the entire City of Edina. It will provide the opportunity for seven new families to call Edina their home. We respectfully request review and approval of this single family residential development by the City staff, Planning Commission and City Council. If you have any questions, please call me at 763 -593 -9325, or email me at PeterKnaeble@gmail.com. Sincerely, Peter J. Knaeble, PE Terra Engineering, Inc. 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 763 - 593 -9325 A .,S108na S3aOV.. -'A1213dOMd ll3alS ..J -i 9991717 #slm VN1a3 "aa 3alSONINNOW UVV °oul 16uiAanjnS Vuel away `.ieplau4oS en4sor :Ag ' °` VN1a3 ".Ls 3lllll ZEZ17 - s UOVOEM (Ted slnol • ;S ul s;ol •loxe) Aaf11S ld 009 Liy OOz 17176'6 4 00 L jas!e}l 8£Z17 'any J9�OOJO OOZ 179£'£ L L9 shod 9£Z17 'any JaNOOJO OOZ 99 CE L 99 uoslJeO 17Ez17 'any Ja�OOJO OOZ L9E'E L L9 zuen8 zEz17 'any Ja�OOJO ON 9L6'6 09 Oli Pau!1 AXIS 0£217 'any J9�OOJO OR LL6'6 09 Oil JaVojo 8ZZ17 'any J9NOOJO OOZ LL L'E 4 99 uewJo0 9ZZ17 'any Ja�OwO OOZ 6E17'E 4 £19 pnipuel 17ZZ17 'any J9NOOJO 09L 9917'L 09 uosJead L17Z17 'any uuAl 09L 17L17'L OS :49NOeH 917217 'any uuf1l OOZ 696'6 09 uewWJ9 E17Z17 'any uuAl OOZ 17£6' LZ M4 4 au!naa 6£Z17 'any uuXl OOZ LL6'6 OS 400uepe8 L£Z17 'any uuAl OOZ ZL6'6 OS IIa4Ot!W S£Z17 'any uuAl OOZ Z96'LL 06 s!JJeH £EZ17 'any uuAl OOZ 9L6'6 09 PA L£Z17 'any uuAl OOZ 9L6'6 OS u11960i LZZt7 'any uuAl OOz 9L6'6 OS uewde4O 9ZZ17 'any uuAl OOZ LL6'6 OS :pago EZZ17 'any uudi OOZ 170£'£L L'99 IIaP!S LZZ17 'any uuAl OOZ 90E'EL L'99 4s!jaed 6[Z17 'any uuAl OOZ LO£'£L L'99 peO LLZ17 'any uuAl OOZ 80£'EL L'99 ueJOH 9LZV 'any uuAl OR O4£'EL L'99 Jeu!d ELZ17 'any uuAl 09L E817'L OS 46neueneO 917217 'any uuAl 09L £817'L OS jezoWAZS 1717217 'any uuAl OOZ 696'6 09 w40 Z17Z17 'any uuAl OOZ OL6'6 OS 6jagjON 017217 'any uuAl OOZ OL6'6 OS }unH 8£217 'any uuAl ON 9176'6L OOL uoslaN 9£z17 'any uuAl OOZ 9176'64 004 aalge0 17£Z17 'any uuAl 9ZL 9LZ'6 17L A9199j0 ZEZ17 'any uuAl 9ZL OLZ'6 17L uasueH 8ZZ17 'any uuAl 9ZL 99Z'6 17L !No!upn2j 17ZZ17 'any uuAl 9ZL 69Z'6 17L UeNOWB OZZ17 'any uuAl SZ4 179Z'6 17L sjagwe4O 9LZ17 'any uuAl 9ZL L99'OL 178 4oeld ZLZ17 'any uuAl 06 006'4 L ZE 4 seAua8 OOZ17 'any uuAl Z17 L 808'8 09 xeS L01717 'M '3S PuZ17 9ZL 9LZ'6 17L :PaM4oS LEz17 •any alepNeO 9ZL OLZ'6 17L wieplloW LZZ17 'any alepNeO 924 99Z'6 17L uos}nuy{ £2217 'any 91ep)le0 924 69Z'6 17L 6jagwoa ;S 64217 'anV aleP)leO SZ4 E9Z'6 17L s9nW0 9 M 'anyalePNeO SZL 817Z'6 17L uosu4o£ L LZ17 'any alePNeO 00 4 E9£'L 9'EL Oil alep)leO 9OZ17 'any alePNeO 0£ 4 L09'6 17L lanoA 8ZZ17 'any alepNe0 OE L L09'6 17L suana ;S 17ZZ17 'any 91epNe0 0£ 4 909'6 17L ueo0 OZZ17 'any alepNe0 OEL 909'6 17L }pats6ja8 9LZ17 'anV alepNeO OEL 909'6 17L uosiapuy ZLZ17 '9nyalepNe0 0£ L 909'6 17L eljag3 80217 'any alepNBO OE L 4179'6 9'EL Pielle8 170Z17 'anV aleP�eO UJ H 3n V39—V 13TH1aIM 3WVN SS3maaV 133miLs 101 10-1 101 .,S108na S3aOV.. -'A1213dOMd ll3alS ..J -i 9991717 #slm VN1a3 "aa 3alSONINNOW UVV °oul 16uiAanjnS Vuel away `.ieplau4oS en4sor :Ag ' °` VN1a3 ".Ls 3lllll ZEZ17 - s UOVOEM (Ted slnol • ;S ul s;ol •loxe) Aaf11S ld 009 Crocker Ave. 4240 Thomas 100 19,940 _ 200 Crocker Ave. 4242, Ellingson 50 9,969 '? <:200 Crocker Ave. 4244 Thompson 50 9,968 Q-1 200 Crocker Ave. 4246 Warren 50 6,735 135 Crocker Ave. 4248 Siftar 50 6,735 135 Morningside Rd. 4408 Hardy 50 7,453 150 Morningside Rd. 4400 Berman 50 7,483 150 Morningside Rd. 4350 Plant 50 7,489 150 Morningside Rd. 4310 Cooper 50 7,483 150 Morningside Rd. 4308 Ratner 65 6,464 100 Morningside Rd. 4307 McGill 50 7,999 160 Morningside Rd. 4309 Toth 50 8,998 180 Morningside Rd. 4311 Murphy 50 8,998 180 Morningside Rd. 4313 Hartley 50 9,223 184 Morningside Rd. 4315 Yang 50 10,498 210 Morningside Rd. 4317 Hobbs 50 11,336 227 Morningside Rd. 4401 Flemming 50 11,336 227 Morningside Rd. 4403 Hymanson 50 10,740 215 Morningside Rd. 4405 Parlin 50 10,740 215 Morningside Rd. 4409 Monchamp 100 20,982 210 Morningside Rd. 4411 Lawrence 47 6,677 142.2 Morningside Rd. 4413 Wilde 47 6,685 142.2 Morningside Rd. 4415 Bowell 50 4,743 94.8 Morningside Rd. 4417 Goodwin 120 6,381 94.8 Morningside Rd. 4501 Tallakson 140 12,372 88 Oakdale Ave. 4306 Sundberg 63.6 8,926 140 Oakdale Ave. 4312 Ross 60 8,421 140 Oakdale Ave. 4318 Hoffman 50 7,018 140 Oakdale Ave. 4324 Milano 50 7,018 140 Oakdale Ave. 4330 Johns 50 7,018 140 Oakdale Ave. 4334 Pepin 50 7,018 140 Oakdale Ave. 4338 Anschel 50 6,981 140 Oakdale Ave. 4342 Joyce 50 6,981 140 Oakdale Ave. 4303 Carlson 47.4 5,233 109 Oakdale Ave. 4305 Pffeiderer 47.4 8,953 186 Oakdale Ave. 4307 Hannula 47.4 8,207 171 Oakdale Ave. 4309 Grotte 47.4 7,456 155 Oakdale Ave. 4315 Valgemae 47.4 6,708 140 Branson St. 4410 Aby 117 11,858 102 Branson St. 4408 Falldin 50 11,091 222 Branson St. 4406 Cap 50 11,030 222 Branson St. 4404 Bennett 50 10,719 214 Branson St. 4402 Klatt 50 10,658 213 Branson St. 4400 Vanko 50 9,954 200 Branson St. 4316 Smeby 50 9,290 185 Branson St. 4314 Schwartz 50 9,301 185 Branson St. 4312 Colburn 50 9,707 194 Branson St. 4310 Refinded, LLC 50 9,065 179 Branson St. 4308 Mills 50 8,197 163 MEAN 63.2 10140.0 165.1 102 Total MEDIAN 50.0 9606.0 161.5 0% '500 FOOT OVERLAP SKETCH FOR: FRANK SIDELL 0 150 IN FEET I inch = 150 fL •SEE ADDITIONAL SHEETS FOR LOT TABULATION* NORTH furl 'T z % __j 4200 kqs" IN - -- ---- --- 4204 QZ) 4208 k. di 4212 wt s 4216 s LL ­4220"P < h, aD 4224 4228 101T 111 4205": nut x'11/ IIAD�V 4200 4212 4215's 4216 (iicl 1,10 ntm 2 nnl fLy Woe ("4 4224 4223 _ P4 ,A 4227 4228 4231 4232 ' 42-.W- —ST—W CT 4225 4230 4227 4232 ? C 1 4232 W) X CITY OF EDINA R1 4231 4234 ---- -------- 4233 4234 A) 4236 4235 tM .__________i- 4238 A, nzrl 4236 411 C L mI 42M Z < ------ i 4239 4240 CD rO j' 4240 I'M 4242 4243 MI In, 4242 o ------ ---- -- : f.) 4244 -4 4 - 424 4245 W) 4246 4247 m3I 424600 91 1" 4412 (4) 5 01) --------- ------ -- 4400 4350 (C41 :4310 4308: 4248,. 1, 4413:4411 4501 4417'4415 4409 :4313 4311 :4309 4303 ...... 4405 14403 4401 14317 4315 CM a) 4306 430316� 10 4307 4306 ♦00, ole, %12 4305 4307 --- i431 0 4306 F It; 1%A E VE_ :43oa 4302 �4324 4312 1 (73) 4314 M 4= 404 :4402 :4316 '01 51 4408 :44M 4334 WIN.. 4410 • 4M It — --- -- ----- (74 (44, I hereby certify that this plan, sketch or report as prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. RE LAND SUR MN C763 27 8 J6SHUA P. SCHNEIDER Date: !! :I t2 Reg. No. 44655 4321 4317 4313 '4309 4305 4WI IM (M) Iul 61 4211 4208 M) i14'## ----------- 1% 4213-- --------------- ------------- 4215 ------- 4216 ♦ I LLI 4217 4220 Lel -------- Lu ,.:4219 422,61 •----------- 4221 4223 IM -4226 5,4228 F. 42-.W- —ST—W CT 4225 4230 4227 4232 ? C 1 4232 W) X CITY OF EDINA R1 4231 4234 ---- -------- 4233 4234 A) 4236 4235 tM .__________i- 4238 A, nzrl 4236 411 C L mI 42M Z < ------ i 4239 4240 CD rO j' 4240 I'M 4242 4243 MI In, 4242 o ------ ---- -- : f.) 4244 -4 4 - 424 4245 W) 4246 4247 m3I 424600 91 1" 4412 (4) 5 01) --------- ------ -- 4400 4350 (C41 :4310 4308: 4248,. 1, 4413:4411 4501 4417'4415 4409 :4313 4311 :4309 4303 ...... 4405 14403 4401 14317 4315 CM a) 4306 430316� 10 4307 4306 ♦00, ole, %12 4305 4307 --- i431 0 4306 F It; 1%A E VE_ :43oa 4302 �4324 4312 1 (73) 4314 M 4= 404 :4402 :4316 '01 51 4408 :44M 4334 WIN.. 4410 • 4M It — --- -- ----- (74 (44, I hereby certify that this plan, sketch or report as prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. RE LAND SUR MN C763 27 8 J6SHUA P. SCHNEIDER Date: !! :I t2 Reg. No. 44655 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR: ACRES DUBOIS EDINA, MINNESOTA IN 15' SIDE SETBACK FOR STREET SIDE CORNER LOT (OR 30' IF SITE ADDRESS: 4232 OAKDALE AVE. & THERE IS AN 'ADJOINING' INTERIOR LOT ON THE SAME STREET) 4412 MORNINGSIDE RD., EDINA, MN 25' REAR SETBACK EDINA, MN 55416 EDINA R -1 ZEINING1 SITE AREA: 136,828 SF (3.141 AC.) 9000 SF MIN. LOT SIZE (500' MEDIAN =9606 SF PER SURVEYOR) ■ 75' MIN. LOT WIDTH (AT 50' FRONT SETBACK) (500' MEDIAN =50.0' PER SURVEYOR) ■ 1 • 'S0' FROM FRONT LOT LINE AT RT ANGLE TO LOT DEPTH' ' 120' MIN. LOT DEPTH (500' MEDIAN= 161.5' PER SURVEYOR) ■ x 'MID PT OF FRONT LOT LINE TO MID PT OF REAR LOT LINE' MAPLE GROVE, MN 55311 30' FRONT SETBACK (OR MATCH ADJ. HOUSES) 612- 817 -0096 10' SIDE SETBACK ( +6' FOR EVERY FT. IN HT. OVER 151) mmindessmad.- 5' SIDE SETBACK FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE KAMERON KYTONEN 15' SIDE SETBACK FOR STREET SIDE CORNER LOT (OR 30' IF SITE ADDRESS: 4232 OAKDALE AVE. & THERE IS AN 'ADJOINING' INTERIOR LOT ON THE SAME STREET) 4412 MORNINGSIDE RD., EDINA, MN 25' REAR SETBACK EDINA, MN 55416 MAX. FRONT HT. IS 30' TO ROOF MID PT. OR SITE AREA: 136,828 SF (3.141 AC.) 35' TO ROOF PEAK LOT WIDTH TO PERIMETER RATIO ) 0.1 MAX. BUILDING COVERAGE 25% LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE SURVEY 30' MIN. STREET FRONTAGE ' is OR MEDIAN OF LOTS WITHIN 500' (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) Ar "''r+aq rtislnc�v \p`• r i j a 4 , t l LOCATION MAP NO SCALE SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION 1. COVER SHEET / SHEET INDEX 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 3. PRELIM. SITE PLAN 3A. PRELIM. SITE RENDERING 4. PRELIM. UTIUTY PLAN 5. PREUM. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN S. PRELIM. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 7. PRELIM. PLAT e. EROSION CONTROL DETAILS. GRADING NOTES & SWPPP 9. CONFORMING CONCEPT PLAN CIVIL ENGINEERJILANQ PLANNER TERRA ENGINEERING INC. FRANK 6001 GLENWOOD AVE. 4232 OAKDALE AVE. GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 EDINA, MN 55416 763 - 583 -9325 PETER KNAEBLF. P.E. 612- 805 -6006 fdslddl0g d.cam pabsk-.bI.0;;—D:— SURYIEYOR ACRE LAND SURVEYING INC. SOIL ENGINEER MERVYN MIND= PE 9140 BALTIMORE ST. NE, 5100 CONSULTING SOIL ENGINEER, PLLC BLAINE. MN 55449 7522 MNEWOOD COURT 763- 238 -6278 MAPLE GROVE, MN 55311 JOSH SCHNEIDER. RLS 612- 817 -0096 Js.acrelandsumyOWnalcom mmindessmad.- ARROWHEAD ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING KAMERON KYTONEN 2909 MEADOW LANE ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST 04237A MOUND. MN 55364 612 -237 -5998 15 PINTO LANE ISANTI. MN 55040 BEN CARLSON' WDC 763- 614 -4071 beneftnwh -d— k..mnkytan.Chobna0.aom Lc:�> - OTTAWA AVE. S. Ell BO' BO' 60' 60 40 70 II I I I I I III I I I ____- ,• I •`� I; E)lS71NG HOUSE I DOSRNG HOUSE I 'kj0511NG HOUSE, I I (1 I `R:KIS7MC HOUSE i \ Lava '. �'° --- = `•C, `------ ----- ---- __�- -- Bay--- - - - --s ' sue- -- -- = ��•_ � IS K _ zip GO GO f Ep ° _I 596.63 S00°02'44 "7' u ` rr ___ _ I o �'�' iI ° T I ° I Q EXISTING HOUSE ` c7 sG' EX. SITE AREA 136,826 SF/3.141 AC. (SURVEY) I - = IX. IMPERVIOUS 16,740 SF (ON -SITE) 70' =~ >w {'I m I li HOUSE i 1i;Ii,ll 5 / - - -- A I--- -' —_-_ - 1I DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS ;-ll6— —056— o'Ii� >) ---- >>— To >� DENOTES SANITARY SEWER DOTES WATERMAIN =~ >w {'I m I li HOUSE i 1i;Ii,ll 5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - - -- DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT — —1 DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS ;-ll6— —056— DEN07ES PROPOSED CONTOURS >) ---- >>— DENOTES STORM SEWER >� DENOTES SANITARY SEWER DOTES WATERMAIN DENOTES I]OSTING SPOT ELEVATION X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION V- --�JW&o DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION N ° — 1--- -1- - -- 100' m O L \ \ =m 7 C' ]G"NC "VOUS? ``,j z m a. I I IQ z "° - - - - -- _ ST. LOUIS PARK ' 6A s � - -- `— I - - - -- ® �tdl—NA 1 \ I rJ m zz CD jl, I z W a ®Q.. lQ1 X v c MpR W <w ` m z BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY AND C 11/5/12 GAR. 30 0 30 GOB WARNING SCALE IN FEET THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXOMAIE WAY ONLY. THE EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF nsmra PJL I 'i aea c arc= PJK ' 74 6' alp wM 7"W8 9" VCP SAN. z° 74• - -_ --- - -E °s °$s ------ I 74' �i ti ``,j z m a. I I IQ z "° OW f� mm t o 6A s � - -- `— I - - - -- ® o 1 \ I rJ m zz CD jl, I z W a ®Q.. lQ1 X v c MpR W <w ` m z BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY AND C 11/5/12 TREE SURVEY BY ACRE LAND SURVEYING (DATED 8- 22 -12). m 30 0 30 GOB WARNING SCALE IN FEET THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXOMAIE WAY ONLY. THE EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF r ALL EX(ISUNG UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR AGR— TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCA' 'Y HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROU S. OTTAWA AVE. S. °$ oa I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g I Eg57ING HOUSE I DUSnNO HOUSE E70571NG HOUSE I ExISTOJC HOUSE N I I I I I �� I I E�nsnNC HOUSE I e I I si5 I 1 EbSTNG HOUSE 00 Ta CURB AA 0 • I I I I - - -� —+ - -i - -- i I I I I� r l I I I I I I DOSnNG HOUSE DOSTING HOUSE I I I =g I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q 0 I \ I � \ I o \ I \\ ST. LOUIS PARK ®INA N� zM t 2 IAR. A aa' NO r M M $ 3 VARIANCES OAKDALE AVENUE 0 N N � � N 3 " m o � m lip SG® P- RYN IW. E4® PJ `ee ra° ae E^ 8 C rc "nogg I I Z I za I a° �w y s rn ------= t - - - -- }wW I a_j :5z za o� I cn z 12/31/12 H rw M 12 -109 0 30 60 9QT is I —I I I 1 - - -1 9� 9 CA I \ I � \ I o \ I \\ ST. LOUIS PARK ®INA N� zM t 2 IAR. A aa' NO r M M $ 3 VARIANCES OAKDALE AVENUE 0 N N � � N 3 " m o � m lip SG® P- RYN IW. E4® PJ `ee ra° ae E^ 8 C rc "nogg I I Z I za I a° �w y s rn ------= t - - - -- }wW I a_j :5z za o� I cn z 12/31/12 H rw M 12 -109 0 30 60 9QT is i 1 y"- -y�- -- , 1 t7 sib j r!„f'e sit _ 0 OR x� �"`;`.•.Qe�— i y�y��� �'i- ICS t WlUr, 2 ,(; � i •K`S' i t �] "lei i'"�i: `*ice : t Pill .EA t ° Yf,.,: - "e_isi"�4• �:kt'# �r� ..y�� r< 3 M o x ? �a N ", " °ro u ^ PRELIMINARY SITE RENDERING l a m u dllawnee" d a "r $ Terra \ it 6001 Glenwood Avenue ACRES DUBOIS • ":.• Minneapolis, Minnesota 55412 `O ^' EDINA, MN pee J. Maebl pL Dov: s /� /rs 6g. No. 14aH +^+x^a 763 593 9325 Fax: 763 512 07 OTTAWA AVE. S. ° J. m 12 - I I I I 1' 11I' ~ EXISTING HOUSE ETOSTING HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE I EXISTING HOUSE I f I I I N a; I EX SING HOUSE ; s�5 6 eFj � I =— J--- - - - -�— -� -- �-- J--- L------ - - - - -J r 10' EASE. —, �\ ®INA 10' EASE. r I — — — — � F — — — — � r - -- 1 2D� TREE LGNSV. 1 m - � — - - - - -� �----- - - - --� I ID U7 l I I I I I I Im (� �� I II II II vl SON 57 g l L L -- 10' EAs�-J L. - - - -� ° °°° ` I A: S+ 6 DIP WM ° u ;ox 1 I -0'g v I I _ F'+I = 8" PVC SAN. 8618 CURB *0 n/ _ / 53'. �y 20•_ NO PARKING' EAST SIDE ONLY N - — — — qn .r lecc D &U EASE. I I I 0� m y� v n,A EXISTING HOUSE y I \ I \� I N ° � I I ST LOUIS PARK mr I � I L� I I. I Is L a 20' EASE... 1 Boao I C I I 'F wn I =6 m G� + N A 0 �m"rn N 1D R= A' I m I �$ I m aT I �' o L30_GR�. uvS _ ° ° ,1 0 ° 00 ut \ P $ r =3 - -- IA -- - - - --I I ° m I I osss I� A I 0' EXISTING HOUSE x I I I I I EXISTING �-5 1 I I I I 13-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING ` I - -�5��_ DENOIfES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT. �. DEN q S E70STING CONTOURS m I I —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS ° 8 DENOqTES STORM SEWER 'a I I I DENOTES SANITARY SEWER — 1. ALL UTILITY ONSTRUCRON SHA CONFORM TO CITY ��TANDARDS. DENOTES WA MAIN I 2. ALL WATERM�IN SHALL BE DUC7II. IRON, CLASS 52. WITH 7.5 FOOT MINIMUM COVER. . me.x> DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION 3. ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALU BE PVC ASTM 30341 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 7-1 x 1056.0 DEN gr PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION I 4* SANIT Y SEANCE PIPE SHALL BE 6' PVC SDR26 EOF <3�pgg O DEN S EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION 5. WATER SER CES SHALL BE 1.5' TYPE K COPPER I z LYNN AVENUE T 6" CIP WM ®INAI x= me 1 C GAR. > VEE. m I I 6 C I yu a Ly r N �� F_ 0 Ln 0 l I� m _0 'I p� Sf 9" VCP SAN. AVENUE N N N N o � $.m m a M m s 8R ims ®$I cr� �1 P_ P /IC 5 SSE = °g 5��° d d RI 111 § s�o I sit; i I I I Z a I � I P N I Q ' I Z MPR 0 �d\3 w X11 a Z d Z 30 o v 3D eD P�1,2-109 C /5/'12 SCALE -. 6" MP, � FEET 9" VCF 10' EASE. —, �\ I mr I � I L� I I. I Is L a 20' EASE... 1 Boao I C I I 'F wn I =6 m G� + N A 0 �m"rn N 1D R= A' I m I �$ I m aT I �' o L30_GR�. uvS _ ° ° ,1 0 ° 00 ut \ P $ r =3 - -- IA -- - - - --I I ° m I I osss I� A I 0' EXISTING HOUSE x I I I I I EXISTING �-5 1 I I I I 13-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING ` I - -�5��_ DENOIfES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT. �. DEN q S E70STING CONTOURS m I I —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS ° 8 DENOqTES STORM SEWER 'a I I I DENOTES SANITARY SEWER — 1. ALL UTILITY ONSTRUCRON SHA CONFORM TO CITY ��TANDARDS. DENOTES WA MAIN I 2. ALL WATERM�IN SHALL BE DUC7II. IRON, CLASS 52. WITH 7.5 FOOT MINIMUM COVER. . me.x> DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION 3. ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALU BE PVC ASTM 30341 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 7-1 x 1056.0 DEN gr PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION I 4* SANIT Y SEANCE PIPE SHALL BE 6' PVC SDR26 EOF <3�pgg O DEN S EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION 5. WATER SER CES SHALL BE 1.5' TYPE K COPPER I z LYNN AVENUE T 6" CIP WM ®INAI x= me 1 C GAR. > VEE. m I I 6 C I yu a Ly r N �� F_ 0 Ln 0 l I� m _0 'I p� Sf 9" VCP SAN. AVENUE N N N N o � $.m m a M m s 8R ims ®$I cr� �1 P_ P /IC 5 SSE = °g 5��° d d RI 111 § s�o I sit; i I I I Z a I � I P N I Q ' I Z MPR 0 �d\3 w X11 a Z d Z 30 o v 3D eD P�1,2-109 C /5/'12 SCALE -. 6" MP, � FEET 9" VCF 00" 'Fit poi — ----------- -- a" > 61, t E2 "D--- Gue ZYZY 'a I of rl aff tG — ---------- Nrimaens Ma q.-. 'III i -1 fi .11 g - -2 IT b MOM 9 g)�R-�j IMM Tq 19 H §O� oillgo, CyZ ------ --------- dols t O 01 --7---1 .b , 0'616 VO -Z L6 SS', no,. Q, Of ANN 6 V0 ;o - in am gse > > so m 1 9 zu 0' 06 1 58 ma z > 9 0>1 01 in opm 01 rz 0,806 9 L 00 St X 11S ON J ON Ot A 00169 VO- W MO?I,fl Ag 6G Is dn% 0,9 - -- 0 115 8 ing- ON > & dt OlwgArl es -tl - ------ — ti, q0HSV9L9'lPlSG 0M, (60 ------------ gm,"41 - -------- - ----- i. 9V6Vt) S10 OW9 1332US ------- --- ----- 1 1 -! i , > v 9 L-- - ---+Rk wa6k AkOV A ► 0 I L n i > > 35110H ONMSn z > 9 -1, IN K W;0 r- m w *ut 91,Lt 2AS > R.. 2 3 J - I z .82932 - ------ - - - -11 C m — — — — — — — — +EZ+ — - 4 — X ------ .1.08M RELIMINARY GRADING I co that Vi� 0o or dor -p by .: :d that F. 'd.". oo—r E%ffa AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN F. I h. ." M tM ACRES DUBOIS elk* 6001 GO= ad Avenue EDINA, MN Later J. Knoebld PY- dac 3/11/13 Rog. No. 1814 Minneapollso Minnesota r,5422 763 593 9325 Fax: 763 512 0717 NO L 3 i— O 4710 OAP - W . —_ ,0 I 4257 1 40' ROW � LITTEL STREET i<G NI I Iw 3Q 9- 30ip -9 I — 18 1� 90 23,272 SF � �� O's•SB to � 1 4253 W 0.20 F O> I.W N/ I I — JN ----- - - - - -- - 2o, - L / L 1 25 RSB ,�.ry' �p I coNSV. 12R1/P 0. S o SF) I 90. 425s — — — — — 20' TREE CONS ----- - - - - -- — . I I\ 16,394 SF1% I� 41 .. y/P -0.16 Z W IN 4257 M ------ - - - - -- L ^I 1 39 SF <I ,5 4261 141.x-4 ----- - - - - -- r a 4265 - — — — — — — — — — — I I 101p6 ISF — — VA1P.)� N 4289 \ � I A 8.1 10, r I� 3 .m In and H 12,1 SF I m a 1 L w/P -ale 17 - - -J 18.2 — 766-- - - - 4273 I I —� I I �I ------ - - - - -- n1 I o10 I N 1 1 48 SF I I Iryl 16 II 426, 1 r -- - - - - - -� C ------ - - - --I of 1214LI5L eF 42e7TR o i I Im I I n ' SS B SEET I 1 1 L — - - - -- 10' EASE. 161.9 40.0 18.: i NO SDPM. ST. LOUIS PARK--- - - - - -J 61—NA Jv O�v / Q� O MORNINGSIDE ROAD 67 ROW .0 I C" PROPERV 0 J 3� F� �3 0 as °s�a�a as 000 COOO oq — A j1 O l N1p� 4 I x♦ 4234 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4236 4239 - - - -- — — -- - - - -- 4240 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4242 I' I 4244 N I M — - Y, 4246 L I - - - - - - - - - - - 30' FSB I 1 4400 4417 1 4415 -.3 1 4411 I 4408 I I I I I 4405 I44M I I I I I I I 4401 Ay I I I I W z z z I e al Iy ID I� to I I� I Olto I Fq � I \ L x 1� 0 D v OTTAWA AVE. S. o� ON I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I S I EMSiING HOUSE I E%ISfiNC HOUSE I FJDSfWG HOUSE = i EXISTING HOUSE g l I I I ®I I I L - - I - - - - F705TING HOUSE I I I I I mo# I I I I m I I = I - - - - - - Ei�I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DOSIWG HOUSE I I I I I I I I I TREE INVENTORY BY KAMERON SEE DETAILED TREE INVENTORY KYTONEN CERTIFIED ARBOR ST SPREADSHEET FOR MORE #4237A. TREE SURVEY BY ACRE INFORMATION. LAND SURVEY (8 -12). Im �• .s. ly I� IE v 4 0' Y I Y IrEASE. S A EXISTING HOUSE LiI �\ I I o I I 'ST. I $ — 10 EASE. _, ®IN c — 00 \ I \ I \ 0= GAR. I 20' EASE. I I � 1 s s OAK[ r H r N rn m rq TREES COUNTED -:154 ESTIM. TREES SAVED 86 (55.8% ESTIM. TREES REMOVED _687 (44.2; FINAL TREE REMOVAL COUNT WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL HOME SIZES AND ELEVATIONS F -1 F- — — — - 'l — sr —I r ° - DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS DENOTES STORM SEWER DENOTES SANITARY MV ER ° 6. x 1056.0 U) EW401M.0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION s A' L - - - -J I- - -,o' EASE L - - - -J i yy -8018 GlRB / 53' yp� NO PARIONG• EAST SIDE ONLY ° - J o WEA L OL A m °� A I fkT R 1 - a E 2 - — - -- 2 Ei�I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DOSIWG HOUSE I I I I I I I I I TREE INVENTORY BY KAMERON SEE DETAILED TREE INVENTORY KYTONEN CERTIFIED ARBOR ST SPREADSHEET FOR MORE #4237A. TREE SURVEY BY ACRE INFORMATION. LAND SURVEY (8 -12). Im �• .s. ly I� IE v 4 0' Y I Y IrEASE. S A EXISTING HOUSE LiI �\ I I o I I 'ST. I $ — 10 EASE. _, ®IN c — 00 \ I \ I \ 0= GAR. I 20' EASE. I I � 1 s s OAK[ r H r N rn m rq TREES COUNTED -:154 ESTIM. TREES SAVED 86 (55.8% ESTIM. TREES REMOVED _687 (44.2; FINAL TREE REMOVAL COUNT WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL HOME SIZES AND ELEVATIONS 30 SCAI WYLY• ATINUTOn LOCATIONS EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SMALL ALL EIGSDNG UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES N FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY $B-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING UNIT DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS 1055— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS DENOTES STORM SEWER DENOTES SANITARY MV ER —B•�W— DENOTES VIATERMAIN DENOTES EXSTING SPOT ELEVATION x 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EW401M.0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION 30 SCAI WYLY• ATINUTOn LOCATIONS EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SMALL ALL EIGSDNG UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES N FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY 0 | | � Cato we* | ......... .. H� ------------ -- ---------- I IITII� All o OL cow bul Fw Le zz We- PzWou ACRES DUBOIS 0 Y. EDINA, MN --11L5LL2—Re,, No. 14— 763 593 9325 F= 763 5L2 0717 i i i i i4 a ' OVOS 33SONIMN' YNI03 ----- - - -wna SU10T 1S - - a � I I q F � A.1 � I p vx 'gut I ° - - - - - -- °n -- -, -s at D� I s ° q a° I _m r - -�- m ------ ---- --- - -- YY t , I L I --- ----- -.� -- - --- °— L---- - - -- -- A. ppgg ��II m9x, xm // n9 iMELS 13LLn - - - -- B > o m I > r— _ + - — — — — — — — — — — - - �g N I I I I Nk PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (ORIGINAL REVISED OPTION) 'm" ",:.h2"m ~ Terra \ k k gob ACRES DUBOIS EDWA, MN n _ mm9 mar Modified Original Proposal Features -. Narrowed the street to a 40' row with a 24' pavement. - Suggest parking be allowed on only one side. Increased the out lot on the east side to 18' - Added a pervious center to the cul -de -sac bulb. Could be grass pavers? Agreed to move the driveway for 4408 to the new road. - Advantages No 50' lots - -88' from the east boundary to the houses in lots 1,283 Lower housing density Only requires three minor variances for lot depths Greatest tree savings - Less traffic Maintains the serenity of the original property r I • I t, 5�. Sketch Plan A Features - Creates 6 smaller lots (<751) similar to the 50' lots of the surrounding area. - 40' ROW 24' paved surface road. Road moved one lot over•from 4408. Houses on lots 1,2 &3 load off of Morningside Rd similar to the majority of the house on this street. - Lot 1 may save some trees (lots 2 &3 will lose some) - Pervious center added to the cul -de -sac bulb Issues Neighborhood uproar about houses being built on 50' lots. - The Family will not agree to be held to different building regulations than the rest of the community. Higher density - Estimate net loss of trees at 14 More park usage fees - We will only pay for two 26 Variances needed The Family will need a legal statement from the City guaranteeing that the variances will be available when the houses are built. V a OtlON 30WNINNOA VNM r----- - - -wra SM 1s — tea. I I ---- - - - - -- ^a i - -, -- - - - - -fi _ �- I I ° -- y �nnn 3q I M 9 � w� ems, 9 I aA fi a ----- cams,zs B I d I� I I I -[ G O N O Z V SS m c o m §y •� -- -- d�yo I 8P S 1 3 M I s I I-- 'a N a ti. i3' SKETCH PLAN •A• rr Terra rm�am re smsm mu ACRES DUBOIS t, 5�. Sketch Plan A Features - Creates 6 smaller lots (<751) similar to the 50' lots of the surrounding area. - 40' ROW 24' paved surface road. Road moved one lot over•from 4408. Houses on lots 1,2 &3 load off of Morningside Rd similar to the majority of the house on this street. - Lot 1 may save some trees (lots 2 &3 will lose some) - Pervious center added to the cul -de -sac bulb Issues Neighborhood uproar about houses being built on 50' lots. - The Family will not agree to be held to different building regulations than the rest of the community. Higher density - Estimate net loss of trees at 14 More park usage fees - We will only pay for two 26 Variances needed The Family will need a legal statement from the City guaranteeing that the variances will be available when the houses are built. V H I I I I I I I I Y Iq I I I I I I I I I Sketch Plan B a OVON 30150MNUM VN13 SM Is - ED ` ° ° _ Features Creates 6 .smaller lots ( <751) similar to the ------- - -� - -; N� �"" i 50' lots of the surrounding area. ff e ❑ a ; ----------- - 40' ROW 24' paved surface road. r ------------ - Road is next to 4408 with a 15' out lot. s w� - House on lot 1 is about 60' from the east �.. a r- - - -- boundary. qe Houses on lots 1,2 &3 load off of Morningside ---------- -- ins Q - -., - - - - -- Rd similar to the majority of the house on J i this street. 9 �' __ - Pervious center added to the cul -de -sac bulb 9E tp I rl H g Issues ------------------ L I "°`- -U ya a a° P Neighborhood uproar about houses being L__,________ built on 50' lots. The Family will not agree to be held to A s L _ different building regulations than the O pq rest of the community. ° Higher density ti m � mo � umsuo � � 601. - �Om S �o� - Estimate net loss of trees at 15 a �9�° More park usage fees a a3s,3u� - - - -- - We will only pay for two 26 Variances needed k - The Family will need a legal statement ° 3 _____ s; ___ __ x 1 °- ; from the City guaranteeing that the xp Y N ; I variances will be available when the gg - houses are built. to N c \a SKETCH PLAN OPTION V tl s Term EDINA, MN o \ ACRES ONBOIS••'�' E �� - 01Jne00OAi"°' Tree Inventory Sidell Property, Acres Debuis Terra Engineering Inc. PER PLAN DATED 11/5/12 Revised: 11/5/12 Notes from tree inventory by Kytonen: 1. Inventory performed on Saturday, July 21, 2012 by Kameron Kytonen, ISA Certified Arborist #4237A; numbered tags were set in the trees and the spreadsheet below is a summary of the data collected. 2. For tree numbers 201 -209, ribbons were used for these groups of conifers; the number was written on the ribbon; we tried to put the ribbon in the middle of the said group. 3. Many of the insignificant understory trees consist of common buckthorn, a non- native invasive tree. 4. Oak wilt may be present in the north part of the property (where some dead red oaks were noted below). 5. Some of the large bur oaks are rotting/decaying and have signs of insect damage in the trunk. 6. All coniferous trees shown are 6 foot or greater height. A �r1 Number of Tree # Species DBH (in.) stems Condition Notes Save Remove 1 boxelder 25.5 good leaner Remove 2 boxelder 10 good leaner Remove 3 boxelder 11.5 good leaner Remove 4 boxelder 11 good leaner Remove 5 boxelder 12.5 good leaner Remove 6 boxelder 10 fair leaner Remove 7 boxelder 3,5,8,10 4 good leaner Remove 8 boxelder 13 good Remove 9 American elm 14 good Remove 10 boxelder 14 good Remove 11 green ash 12 fair Save 12 green ash 11 fair Save 13 blackwalnut 6.5 good Save 14 blackwalnut 8 good Remove 15 green ash 8.5 excellent Remove 16 black walnut 9.5 good Save 17 green ash 11,11,12.5 3 fair Save 18 black walnut 6 good Save 19 bur oak 28 fair Save 20 boxelder 7 fair Save 21 boxelder 11.5 good Remove 22 boxelder 15 good Save 23 American elm 10.5 good Save 24 boxelder 13 good Save 25 bur oak 36 fair Save 26 boxelder 6 fair Save 27 boxelder 9.5 excellent Save 28 bur oak 12 dead Save DON'T COUNT A �r1 29 boxelder 18 poor leaner Save DON'TCOUNT 30 red elm 7.5 fair Save 31 American elm 15 good Save 32 bur oak 26 dead Save DON'TCOUNT 33 buroak 26 good Save 34 boxelder 6 good Save 35 boxelder 6 fair Save 36 boxelder 6 good Save 37 hackberry 7 fair Save 38 boxelder 6 good Save 39 boxelder 9 fair leaner Save 40 bur oak 16.5 dead Remove DON'TCOUNT 41 boxelder 8 good Save 42 buroak 26 good Save 43 boxelder 6 fair Save 44 hemlock 4 good Save 45 boxelder 7 good Save 46 American elm 9 good Remove 47 boxelder 13 good leaner Save 48 boxelder 17.5 good leaner Save 49 green ash 7.5 good Remove 50 basswood 9,13 2 good Remove 51 buroak 16 excellent Remove 52 bur oak 24.5 excellent Remove 53 bur oak 17 fair Remove 54 white spruce 6 good Remove 55 bur oak 9,11,12,13,14 5 good Remove 56 bur oak 22 poor Remove DON'TCOUNT 57 sugar maple 6 poor Remove DON'T COUNT 58 red elm 8 good Remove 59 American elm 11.5 good Remove 60 bur oak 27.5 fair Remove 61 boxelder 7 _ fair leaner Remove 62 mulberry 8 good Remove 63 boxelder 7 fair Remove 64 bur oak 14,22 2 fair leaner Remove 65 American elm 26 poor Remove DON'TCOUNT 66 boxelder 7.5 fair Remove 67 American elm 10.5 poor Remove DON'T COUNT 68 boxelder 6 fair Remove 69 boxelder 7 good Remove 70 black walnut 9 good Remove 71 hackberry 6 good Remove 72 bur oak 21.5 good Save 73 boxelder 9 good leaner Remove 74 boxelder 9 good Remove �3ti j. 75 silver maple 11 fair Remove 76 mulberry 7.5 good Remove 77 blue spruce 17 fair Remove 78 red maple 11 fair Remove 79 balsam fir 10.5 fair Remove 80 crabapple 5,5 2 fair Remove DON'TCOUNT 81 blue spruce 14 fair Remove 82 blue spruce 13 fair Save 83 blue spruce 11.5 poor Save DON'TCOUNT 84 blue spruce 10 dead Save DON'TCOUNT 85 blue spruce 15 good Save 86 blue spruce 11 fair Save 87 blue spruce 8.5 poor Save DON'TCOUNT 88 blue spruce 9.5 fair Save 89 silver maple 15.5 good Save 90 blue spruce 9.5 poor Save DON'TCOUNT 91 buroak 33 good Remove 92 blue spruce 13.5 fair Save 93 blue spruce 12 fair Save 94 blue spruce 12 poor Save DON'TCOUNT 95 blackwalnut 21 excellent Save 96 blackwalnut 23 excellent Save 97 buroak 30 goad Remove 98 buroak 32 good Remove 99 red oak 39 good Remove 100 blue spruce 12 poor Remove DON'TCOUNT 101 blue spruce 11.5 poor Remove DON'TCOUNT 102 blue spruce 10.5 poor Remove DON'T COUNT 103 buroak 38 good Remove 104 blue spruce 6 fair Save 105 blue spruce 12 poor Save DON'TCOUNT 106 blue spruce 12 fair Remove 107 blue spruce 12 fair Remove 108 blue spruce 11 poor Save DON'T COUNT 109 blue spruce 19 fair Save 110 buroak 26 fair Remove 111 buroak 22 poor Remove DON'TCOUNT 112 buroak 27 fair Remove 113 buroak 43 excellent Remove 114 blue spruce 11 poor Save DON'TCOUNT 115 buroak 29.5 good Save 116 blue spruce 15 poor Remove DON'T COUNT 117 blue spruce 14.5 fair Save 118 blue spruce 11 poor Remove DON'TCOUNT 119 blue spruce 11 poor Save DON'TCOUNT 120 buroak 20 good Save 63i- C 121 blue spruce 12 fair 122 blue spruce 10.5 fair 123 silver maple 7 good 124 blue spruce - 12 good 125 blue spruce 7 fair 126 blue spruce 12 fair 127 blue spruce 10.5 fair 128 blue spruce 12 fair 129 blue spruce 15.5 good 130 buroak 22 good 131 buroak 7,15 2 poor 132 bur oak 21.5 fair 133 white spruce 12 fair 134 buroak 25.5 good 135 buroak 23 good 136 blue spruce 7 good 137 buroak 22.5 fair 138 buroak 24 fair 139 buroak 20,22.5 2 good 140 buroak 22 fair 141 bur oak 14.5 fair 142 American elm 33 poor 143 blue spruce 12 poor 144 blue spruce 11.5 fair 145 blue spruce 11.5 fair 146 blue spruce 11.5 poor 147 blue spruce 14 goad 148 blue spruce 12 fair 149 blue spruce 16 good 150 blue spruce 14.5 poor 151 Siberian elm 28 fair 152 buroak 16 poor 153 buroak 12 fair 154 buroak 18 good 155 Siberian elm 20 fair 156 buroak 16 good 157 bur oak 5,6 2 . fair 158 red elm 11.5 fair 159 buroak 14 dead 160 buckthorn 8 fair 161 buckthorn 7 fair 162 buroak 23 fair 163 silver maple 12 good 164 green ash 8 fair 165 red maple 6 excellent 166 black cherry 11,12 2 fair Save Save Save leaner Save Save leaner Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save Save invasive Save invasive Save Save Save Save �30, Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove . Remove DON'TCOUNT Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove DON'T COUNT DON'T COUNT DON'T COUNT DON'T COUNT DON'T COUNT DON'T COUNT DON'T COUNT DON'T COUNT 167 buroak 29 excellent Save 168 black cherry 7.5 fair Save 169 boxelder 9 good Save 170 bur oak 20 good Save 171 boxelder 7.5 fair leaner Save 172 red oak 11 dead Save DON'TCOUNT 173 American elm 26.5 excellent Save 174 green ash 6 good Save 175 boxelder 12 poor leaner Save DON'T COUNT 176 red oak 17 dead Save DON'T COUNT 177 red oak 10 dead Save DON'T COUNT 178 red oak 16 dead Save DON'TCOUNT 179 black walnut 24 excellent Save 180 boxelder 14 poor leaner Save DON'TCOUNT 181 red maple 10 excellent Save 182 buroak 29 good leaner Save 183 sugar maple 10 good Save 184 boxelder 8 good Remove 185 green ash 13.5 fair Save 186 green ash 10 good Save 187 black ash 7 good Save 188 green ash 7 fair Remove 189 bur oak 16.5 fair Remove 190 green ash 19 good Save 191 red maple 7 fair Save 201 hemlock 2,2,2 3 fair Remove DON'TCOUNT 202 hemlock 2,3 2 fair Remove DON'T COUNT 203 balsam fir 2"-6!' 18 good Remove DON'T COUNT 204 balsam fir V-4" 11 good Save DON'T COUNT 205 white pine 4 good Save 206 arborvitae 2 " -5" 25 good Remove DON'T COUNT 207 arborvitae 2 " -5" 13 good Remove DON'TCOUNT 208 while spruce 6 poor Remove DON'TCOUNT 209 balsam fir 6 fair Save 200 trees surveyed 154 trees counted 86 68 (excl. poor, dead, small, etc.) 55.8% 44.2% Saved Removed x-33 0 vi . 42ND ST. W. �' 0 LM"ON NO SCALE MAP' ir ow #RfA SHE ETINDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION 1. COVER SHEET / SHEET INDEX 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 3. PRELIM. SITE PLAN 3A. PRELIM. SITE RENDERING 4. PRELIM. UTILITY PLAN 5. PRELIM. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 6. PRELIM. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 7. 8. PRELIM. EROSION PLAT CONTROL DETAILS, GRADING NOTES & SWPPP ..... -ir, flr%Kl,-Cr-JT 01 ANI N.1 /2 SE. 1/4 SEC - F Ii101 N (111) (112) � (11J) - (1141 - (115) It lfil � 1117) _ � p1B) (119) (120) (121) {122) (123) (:(91 (106) (138) i (139) 42ND ST W a 8 • 8 U 8 (98) 8 1571 3 ,4 (88) �) 8 (87) U 8 (90) (66) _ (e9) 9 (95) (16) B (67) 6 (59) (21) (92) (60) 1101) 01 (123) 3 (fib 8 1611 ,ss g ' ' ,b d i (126) MORNINGSIDE 9 ,(42) 8 ,g (37) O v y (75) 4 (t 22) 0 I791 p21)_ 8 (82) (83) l8=) 8 (39) (4 J1 144) a (69) e 8(391 f<0) x m I4tl (3) ltl x R) 8 z 8 �(t 07)� g o(45) •) > _ 1 1103) �z (^20) tii% t g e z B 8 s 1' 8 z 8 (°) 51 < m (80) a4 (461 z (10 41 (1'19) ra (110) 8 zl (3]) (5) 8 (79) 8 g (47) - e 7 �4n� rr �NT11) 'e) zoo 22 1. (8) f (los) ¢ pie) 2 �a W 8 1 E 8 W 19) ,n ,a • 1� /jr^ 'per 8 8 (36) �0 ,1 ry�•. 9 (7fi) • N ;. Fr D (107) O (116) (1131 I71 - E (IM (115) O14( (75) s e xo x t•' �? `fstl d c,-'• V e (32) 8 M r w fs1 U a LITTLE ST i °I t Ii X% y (52) 3,) i (8) i6) 571 9) J U 6,1 ` Z UI , /4) F_EIOI ol rL.✓, (261 zre e ` � 8 • 8 U 8 (98) 8 1571 3 ,4 (88) �) 8 (87) U 8 (90) (66) _ (e9) 9 (95) (16) B (67) 6 (59) (21) (92) (60) M® (30) l g g 78) (2s) r' - /R { �., 1 lzn 1701 1m (25) B 8 8 (13) ++ rL.✓, (261 zre n U (23) 8 1571 R °) (68) .a U 8 (66) (M) (22) (16) B (67) 6 (59) (21) (60) (20) 01 3 (fib 8 1611 ,ss g ' ' ,b d i (126) MORNINGSIDE 9 8 (37) (74) (75) 3 I77) B 0 I791 ? p09) 9 (108) r 1381 (39) • r' (69) e (70) - ¢ z 8 �(t 07)� g This is not a legally recorded snap. It represents a compilation of information and data from city, county and other sources. 200 400 Feet Print Date: Thu Jul 11 13: 2:331 20 iG�1 ��YP�al V.1CIAI o ,f y N�ea PYb�eJtd ' 0 �� ✓�1c�1�� N.1 /2 SE. 114 SEC 5 /NW /7 S"E" N / SW / 7 S/SW /7 S/SE/7 Eighth /I- �r^ -- -- , , . - . - -, -� � � 1 ti � i Y ! � , )'. !F itar�e{J }•l�Jfia...t {r.. V^J.. ,,' 1.. r?t.. .'Y� y"f _ li'kr. �{ ':. syy.i n3 ..�ft�.f `t°Y .. .. �_ ... _ ._ � •!. ..'��' _ -_ __ ,. _ _, ._ . r 1 1 � _�' J.N lY� J 1. ��yy.. --rr. 1 .' "1 � YY 4 r J J� � 1 � �� \� I Y t{ ��7 �y�� .�t� 4XYy.. f) r'fi+ 1. "� ,`zw lY'f }k. } Y^ /� � .I �R:. :.1 � i:lk. i `)/� J ri � M ��� [���i �' h } :,1,YArh .Z�l J., f k u Y%'' .4J JUG ^�'•'1�4,�_'. ���.� fJJ.t ��/�: it i.. 1 �.� ,j. t•i :r:� � % �.�:'in�*J�i�! _ f�( v �'1- - ..:�: .��_ �" _ S L _ -:�Y - .� ..: .. r �- �:. j. .. h.. ' .. ! _ .. .. ,. _ _ ..:_ ._... _l :.- ..,.. `�, ` r 7 -�Irh �: b \, ��� / T{�\ c` a .e^. r `�� p�• _(�d.� (. ^„ r, r ( r _ r �i',� . t,,l�� cam,, � �4� t�i4��i�it .�1��`, f •''_'s, .. •,d 1p.N� ��M. ?'.�1� r .�i j � �.� , .:c±�,.�'? .�I�I�L ! /'�l A- -tip_; \'.'• .'/ it I}� f Ic'�'. �' W, "M1 +,'J'. 1.•: +_- �. � \ \.�.1 `C' .�t�'� '".r;�-a •�� 1�. r.• i��y� 1j � •:�•�t . � i ? I:i „x.... i _..tiXl• j ` i i+'"�4: � .yp r�l j� 1 tR `' ,'•. tip 1, ,�� � . � .{� '�1 , � - -'�, > _ � 1s���lj� {I' '; 4." � 'y ��7v. �,L`I, ..�ri; -+ -- l �� ` �J / Ui�4� ��� ` Y � �•_ � 1 �`� • l� d I (IIt�Y � i" 1 _ F✓ � Cyy Y.•;JJ r� - �r p��,, �, 7 !'y' 7^• �iL4 .. ', � ) 'rV`� ti � ' � 1 1 �i -J.• !`.R^�t �yn �IL... : a � •�' � e. � � _ ( y fir. ?: I ,�\' �s, ��, .. `, +J'r 1 /� •I t�7���+ ?ir. rig- { li I � r �( 177 � t t .�, '> - . xi����y r .:•, � .rF t � � ``. g' f 1'1 "!'' 1� rr 1 - fT Ar � a./s*r r i[ �. -'`.. [ iGl,,� - � �.~ ; -~ �='j� I,- :.!,- = �',ifFi,s% '�: � ?:r.ur�'ryrY �(. �l kri7: t- 7�r;F� °�f�'7�•��;�I#?������1�', VT "'ice 77— r1 `I'1 i 1 li� , `� ` ;�'"., •sa,r�em�•,° `� `�' �� � � "7Yfr � ,�li�•�(�i \��ll S pi.. �q �,� h1�� ,� 1=�' ..`b„� ;•� rr.f IS��''. "S'�a >,i� S �, , .H 1�� �r.:...r�i�?` ��i�trVl•,�i It�Ili � s r - ,,A { r 1i•c 7 � i� L.+� �l� � Lr r � lt,a o. -� � � °.� �:r�' +r r 3 J% a.. ,. \�5 ( , (( 1 1'nL hl 1� :1(� vlIg. +f.� �� ��:• `�� �»'.� mot•£ gin, f: J 'L . S +A' In - y.7 (� . r .µ� ,:` ,• � , rt' r'r.- r a ` a7 lie tS 7 �p�il i+:.: i..- '7?",ty, + rs'�.y''•f+,,l'.� h�q 1, 5.8 :,.{�. 4 11` .••4 -f �,lo 'S- $]7 Y r��� 1 ( litit Isl A i � t , �� ZSr - -' •�,.• .. � .H- , - � F �. � 1 "Fr V K 71 5.�;. ��` f�S�t::J\^� t:� •, r� � I '�t�'1 y�r tl ✓fir :fir 1 �'x�S� "`�1 ?:•• If �1 •c ti •'�+ ` `` ' > ':qty r�, � z c, 7y }"� ° 4' �u� 1615M all l� j'„" ` �.� •'71� 1 �� �. � 3 i � � \h.1• � ��:�5� '.{•i � � j i y� ;f!"� Y ,' �'+ ti,; y i. .1% `< a,,,. �. ..4 � � •t. � ,� �;, � � �_ �ss ,� ;. ,ry�y!,�'',,.. ?� � 'l� •. . 7 � � �s. _, � 'yW , ?� .,.�'1.. ;��{f � fit.: 7 � " =1: t i*'. $- r. q; �.a `�`,: _ ` .- Y } a "sum r �0<�t'y:'•: k jF. ,;, \` /�, � :. t, sT ` ,, n i `�"� '��.; `„L, ' ,'� Y2, ' � ."` '�-:p i,1�y�j d . } } ��e�. ,�.,..fl!y,.wr"}' �• �.;, {,` +� #a _ !�. � iJ 4. < t; �° '��•�'<� ' �; r1 a?� ''". �.} f`J �j�'_eLyy�:: E.<�q�I �.�� \y�1 Vii, . !9't <� • �•�•... < J+ .�f 1' c, e r S �.¢? ` rz � s.Ji -ta vi�r"+i � . /, -• ►' r � .f ,y �F ' w �`�• � t 7 {. '4�F�f'Y eS.iV 1�s� 1•� ]17� + e ..yr, � :'�' r. ..�� ,[i'!�T{•'.Y'ti f e . L 115- - a ,j1��1 ri'7" tr e � ' '=,. { ;L. •l �r till i., 1;61:1, i., s ; _. r ... I � ..,N �� .- � .-► t, 1) s �- • i� V � ' ,r a Z i- '1, v '�.�. -� �_ � �.,„A''1 Tr �Fr i g�1 fs��. 1111 i �,7 If .. _ 1 ;� } I' y � i �f� { i, � �� �iY /�►''a ���ri�ypnc- - � t 11 "44'' 1 i • r�tso4 1 � 1/ j'� }•�J��i /V.�'"� �f'z �`"re.!' ` � �— 1 1• ' b{ � / :�_ '1 •. 11'��`�' �._ 'w� v, —IF11�M,�Iz..; � .. ;�C+4��".' .,s `i,w- .v,{�pa` .,�, • _ tir •a.'l'� W�' .. -x1� 1.:i�L•. G.!jY, .Ncr'!'b. .!,''i h >�� „L } ��' .. —"'. � n °/'• . } . F � a � -J ,�- ern ^'� t� �{..• ..r�• �t "--� -- - =�—' :. �`" .. _ t:_ .�=Ml7 n� ��• 2Yir,�.t`:F7' .. � a' �} !� ".,�xYi.�+•Z11'� r: °n• ` 1 � s#r �y$dcC °°... - -- -- - - -- _ 17" - 1 .•?i rS' �.fi� '�►�,.. ��r�'�3�, •;: L1�,�� '�.,�1 . � • �,�s,' a '� "i , h ♦ ��r.�, ,¢ Z ti l.tj � o �� %� ft6),!".,�. � t � i.�.•q �'•ra ,rK4q i' •t wi�1jM ,� �.;! !..•i tlr' �� \'.V' ,S�IN ta` t,c { ,�• r"� �. a`! 4F�'T 7 G ° 5 `Y ; BSI; �w jr #..� � ,,� + d�. '��ii �r�., c b\ \iri /. 1 e �R l v' 4•ii j / +.s,r �. L. t{�'� F ivpN' !�f Dt►.. U \ .� �� r $ t8T' �f�ryf/f1.�? , °r,w �� r' *�+- l. •:!k' }���11 �-.`,�v�ia�a+�l�,�Si7'''e; 11 \��iD �lr ��ra�•��FS, A—b+ y, ` -. `S`r! %t \�•� sX ;P!f r \'�:����.�. ' 1� 20, r:ia1 •,' "ir, I ��� �' .i� q� r'� .a±�?l► �i a ' 1*,. �r'a �s Y""';.a ry 1 � � + �y� �� ! iI Nfy�A Sf', �,T1 '.y •.� ��„ 'I`4„G; V . QI� 1!� ' ', I ���I� N. 7y; i !} ��rq �,4 pyi• "y ., _� ,�`F.►o.. -. •'thy °P '' \- �5��'l;v . .� z �\ r •...�y„ i. t9 7/7 �'r� % 7r ./ mil' 1 J` �1�' , t ,. �d. �}��Pk��} h'� GrFr��dES • ► r�dr /� ,/�, �j ",ryJ` %� pj 5rr�r.�S�i: �� �P." "' 4 ��� �� i• r •.� l'.`Q �!: ,�a ,',�i�dl1•l\ ry xf. :�'. ���" �/�7 - 1{'' % i �� 4�"•`�.7r�� ':>s� ' �:ra?�,,•, fr.(� ✓ "1 P� keQ ':�•�L l.. �r., ggkk4� t { jj '• p� �~ ,i e• + t i ,� r' i h�. �Q '1.� �•„ r �^ ; n `•f `'pjJ�'•• .` •` #� r:A� 5 •�. 'r ,,,. 't5. ,�•�', ..r, •,� '. f f C d fi:4t' }.�t r • y r,,,, ;}� f i� r S -r+• r '� r�'ti �z ti' � J .? ,+1 �''''`•rr�����,,'4 "gr� }'yv..y� i . ��" s¢ 1. -;w. �,. :{i� ,r'., ,r, \,,,,,,!!'�i}i t`.�',� •�..r 'cti aka .5. .`a, •C•TR �`; vf�, •'f�, ).h . <\'�`i f a% y r� ,Ji .' i' ,3:1 7,a�" " "'f��- /. i �r i�: �' - �i i -r Nye-- '3'I ��a�,'•p' -a• ) �f fi +7l .4� fir;' .' T� !r' -�� � r�vS °" .i. � ' �.1�.!''`• '' �" r }. .'�,S i� ; �i'� `7,, dd'� i •tr f, o �-.,,` Yin��a- c.+i � -�+ s/ s j r r . ;� r ,J +a, � p , .dc �F '`: y�; 1 �✓ °A, t, s irrti \, D ,y� r5 + fi,l.r rrJ.,;lly`J ,.r �'Y dl.. i• m,f ,,• I is �0 _ t yGR rFp n ¢._ r a J �..r. �Y_r.� �`tkt, 1,. [.v " %� ¢.¢111 tf w #t;�% Y� :i d�;• v1 t� �� ^1 �a y.� '7 11, ` 4r1 oC. \� iY ,J jV I a.l q (• f'. this property proposed for r 1. j SUBDIV146 By: Frank Sidell (952) 920-1197 for information contact -ti7 EDINA PLANNING (952) 826-0369 Ak 10.0 SOW. .rte. r jj.� i FL �i ,'y . t (.s �'„',,e,. -" ;�- -`� ''V r . ,o-'ri'. v +;•7 t, ti r s J r�""`f� ,:7, C�g,, � • 'tit•1 f e �,�� •a,F �r ••'{ _r yr, ,K- A~ -ti. ;��'i' 't' a:.� _ r L2 Memorandum DATE: December 6, 2012 TO: Mr. Cary Teague, Community Development Director Mr. Wayne Houle, Director of Engineering City of Edina FRom. Charles Rickart, P.E., P.T.O.E. RE: Acres Dubois Residential Development Traffic Review City of Erlina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 - 36 Background The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic and safety impacts the proposed development of the Acres Dubois residential development plan has on the adjacent roadway system. The site is located north of Morningside Road and west of Lynn Avenue on the border between the City of Edina and the City of St Louis Park. The existing site includes two single family residential units. One has access on the south side of the site directly to Morningside Road and the other has access on the north side of the site to Oakdale Avenue /Little Street. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site plan includes development of eight (8) single family residential homes including maintaining one of the existing homes and the construction of seven (7) new homes. Access to six (6) of the homes will be via a new cul -de -sac street connection from Morningside Road. The one remaining existing home and one new home will have access on Oakdale Avenue/Little Street on the north end of the site. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. An alternative site plan was also considered which extends a new through street from Morningside Road to Little Street. All driveway access would be provided on this street. Figure 3 shows this alternative site layout. The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated traffic and safety impacts the proposed development will have on the adjacent roadway system. �/���� Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning ■ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South W/I Suite #300 - Minneapolis, MN 55416 & Associates, Inc. Tel: 763 541 -4800 Fax: 763 541 -1700 Memorandum DATE: December 6, 2012 TO: Mr. Cary Teague, Community Development Director Mr. Wayne Houle, Director of Engineering City of Edina FRom. Charles Rickart, P.E., P.T.O.E. RE: Acres Dubois Residential Development Traffic Review City of Erlina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 - 36 Background The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic and safety impacts the proposed development of the Acres Dubois residential development plan has on the adjacent roadway system. The site is located north of Morningside Road and west of Lynn Avenue on the border between the City of Edina and the City of St Louis Park. The existing site includes two single family residential units. One has access on the south side of the site directly to Morningside Road and the other has access on the north side of the site to Oakdale Avenue /Little Street. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site plan includes development of eight (8) single family residential homes including maintaining one of the existing homes and the construction of seven (7) new homes. Access to six (6) of the homes will be via a new cul -de -sac street connection from Morningside Road. The one remaining existing home and one new home will have access on Oakdale Avenue/Little Street on the north end of the site. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. An alternative site plan was also considered which extends a new through street from Morningside Road to Little Street. All driveway access would be provided on this street. Figure 3 shows this alternative site layout. The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated traffic and safety impacts the proposed development will have on the adjacent roadway system. Z.z_ - 'Agp..p Dubois TrafficReview Oty of Edina December 6, 2012 Page 2 of 6 Site Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed development is shown below in Table 1. The trip generation rates used to estimate the site traffic are based on extensive surveys for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 91" Edition. The table shows the total daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed eight (8) signal family homes. To analyze a worst case condition, it was assumed that all eight (8) lots were new homes and would generate new trips to the roadway system. Table I - Estimated Site Trip Generation Use Size ADT AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Single Family Residential 8 Units 1 78 39 39 6 1 5 1 8 5 3 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Traffic Operations Analysis In order to determine a base line condition, existing traffic counts were conducted on Morningside Road and Lynn Avenue December 3`d — December 5'h 2012. Based on these counts the following traffic conditions currently exist on these streets. Morningside Road Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 1,350 AM Peak Hour 138 PM Peak Hour 111 Lynn Avenue Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 360 AM Peak Hour 41 PM Peak Hour 31 Morningside Road is an east /west street providing local access to France Avenue and Wooddale Avenue. This type of higher fimctioning street will carry slightly larger traffic than a typical local City street such as Lynn Avenue. Typical local City streets will have traffic volumes ranging from 200 to 2000 vehicles per day (vpd) depending on the density of the area and its connection to other higher functioning streets (i.e. collectors or arterials). As- Acres Dubois Traffic, Review. City of Edina December 6, 2012 Page 3 of 6 The traffic operations analysis was conducted established methodologies documented in the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used,to evaluate traffic operations. The analysis techniques defined in the HCM are different for roadway segments and intersections. Roadway segment analysis focuses on the average daily volume to capacity ratio, while intersection analysis focuses on delay caused by the AM or PM peak hour critical movements. It is therefore possible to have an efficient intersection located along a poorly operating roadway segment, or a poorly operating intersection along an otherwise free - flowing roadway. Roadway segments or intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to "F" as defined in the HCM. LOS A is. the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay along a roadway segment or at an intersection LOS. E represents the condition where the roadway segment or intersection is at capacity. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the roadway segment or intersection. At.a stop sign - controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues and /or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through - street intersection. For purposes of this review, the roadway segment analysis was conducted at a planning level. The analysis consists of comparing the average daily flow rates on a roadway segments to the ADT roadway segment traffic capacity threshold volumes. A two -lane urban street with driveway and street access has a capacity threshold of 2000 vpd at LOS A and 4000 vpd at LOS E/F. The existing and anticipated (with the development) roadway segment traffic operations are displayed on Table 2. As shown on the table, both roadway segments are operating at LOS A as they exist today and with the proposed development traffic included. Table 2 — Roadway Segment Traffic Analysis Street Location Existing LOS Projected LOS �D,I �D I, Morningside Road West of Lynn Ave 1350 A 1410 A Lynn Avenue North of Morningside Rd 360 A 370 A The LOS ranges for both signalized and un- signalized intersections are shown in Table 3. The threshold LOS values for un- signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Ack .;.Acres Dubois Traffic Review f:x• City of Edina December 6, 2012 Page 4 of 6 Table 3 - Intersection Level of Service Measures Source: Highway Capacity Manual The existing and anticipated (with the development) intersection operations were evaluated for both the AM and PM peak hours. Synchro /SimTraffic microsimulation software was utilized to model the area intersections with the peak hour counts, lane geometry, and traffic control. The results of this analysis are illustrated on Table 4. Table 4 — Intersection Traffic Analysis Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un- Signalized A <10 <10 B 10 -20 10 -15 C 20 -35 15 -25 D 35-55 25-35 E 55-80 35-50 F >80 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual The existing and anticipated (with the development) intersection operations were evaluated for both the AM and PM peak hours. Synchro /SimTraffic microsimulation software was utilized to model the area intersections with the peak hour counts, lane geometry, and traffic control. The results of this analysis are illustrated on Table 4. Table 4 — Intersection Traffic Analysis Delay and LOS = Worst case intersection movement Results of the intersection traffic analysis shown in the above table indicate that the existing intersections in the area are operating at an acceptable LOS and would continue to operate at acceptable levels with the proposed development. Traffic Safety Review In addition to the traffic operations analysis a traffic safety review was also conducted. This included reviewing the crash history in the area, reviewing the sight distance required at the new street intersection to Morningside Road and reviewing the site plan for safety issues or concerns. 4 +1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Projected Existing Projected Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec) (sec) (Sec) (sec) Morningside Rd at 4.2 A 4.6 A 3.8 A 4.0 A Ave -Lynn Morningside Rd at NA NA 1.7 A NA NA 1.6 A Site Access Morningside Rd at 11.4 B 11.5 B 10.6 B 10.7 B Oakdale Ave Lynn Ave at 2.2 A 2.2 A 2.1 A 2.1 A Little St Delay and LOS = Worst case intersection movement Results of the intersection traffic analysis shown in the above table indicate that the existing intersections in the area are operating at an acceptable LOS and would continue to operate at acceptable levels with the proposed development. Traffic Safety Review In addition to the traffic operations analysis a traffic safety review was also conducted. This included reviewing the crash history in the area, reviewing the sight distance required at the new street intersection to Morningside Road and reviewing the site plan for safety issues or concerns. 4 +1 Acres Dubois Traffic Review City of Edina December 6, 2012 Page 5 of 6 Crash History — Crash data provided from Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) records from the past 10 years was reviewed for the area. Based on that review no reported crashes have occurred on Morningside Road at Lynn Ave or Oakdale Ave or between the intersections. However, just west at Ottawa Ave, an eastbound minivan sideswiped a parked vehicle in 2002. Further west, the intersection of Morningside Rd and Wooddale Ave has had 5 crashes since 2005 (3 right angles, 1 sideswipe opposing, 1 ran off road). To the east, there have been 5 crashes in the Grimes Ave area since 2002 (3 right angles, 1 head -on, 1 ran off road). Sight Distance Analysis — As -built plans for Morningside Road were reviewed to determine if sight distance would be a concern with the construction of a new intersection on Morningside Road between Lynn Avenue and Oakdale Avenue. The analysis included review both the horizontal and vertical profile of the existing roadway in relationship to the new intersection location and the speed of traffic on Morningside Road. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines were used for the analysis. Two primary conditions were analyzed: The sight distance required for a stopped vehicle at the new street intersection to safely pull out onto Morningside Road — Based on the requirements a sight line of 440 feet from the intersection looking east or west on Morningside Road would be required. Looking east there is sufficient sight lines to see any oncoming vehicle. Looking west there is a crest of a hill located approximately 475 feet from the intersection. Based on this distance there is also a sufficient sight line looking this direction to make a decision to pull out from the intersection. The sight distance required to stop for a vehicle in the street turning from Morningside Road onto the new street — Based on the requirements a sight distance of 200 feet would be required to see a vehicle or other object in the street to safely stop traveling at 30mph. Traveling westbound on Morningside Road there is sufficient distance to safely stop. Traveling eastbound, a vehicle would be able to see another vehicle or object in the road at the crest of the hill approximate 475 feet from the intersection. This also is sufficient distance to safely stop prior to the intersection. Site Plan Review — The site plan was reviewed including both roadway alignment alternatives. The following should be considered: 1. With either roadway alignment alternative a stop signs should be placed on the new street approaching Morningside Road. 2. Provide a clear sight line from the intersection in both directions, keep it clear of trees or other landscaping that would be in the line of vision. 3. With either roadway alignment alternative the driveway adjacent to the new street for the existing property at 4408 Morningside Road should be realigned from Morningside Road to the new street to eliminate turning conflicts. . _ 1 Acres Dubois Traffic Review , ; q, • ,•. Citrof Edina December 6, 2012 Page 6 of 6 _ ' I � 4. The roadway alignment for the cul -de -sac option has the following advantages /disadvantages: Advantages • Traffic will not be able to cut - through to the neighborhood to the north. • Only six of the eight lots will access Morningside Road directly. • Less opportunity for increased conflicts at the new Morningside Road intersection. Disadvantages • Only one access to the proposed six lots for emergency vehicles. 5. The roadway alignment for the through street option has the following advantages /disadvantages: Advantages • Two ways to access the street for emergency vehicles. Disadvantages • Traffic will be able to cut - through this new street to the neighborhood to the north. • All the new lots and potentially cut - through traffic would access Morningside Road at the new intersection increasing the potential for additional conflicts and crashes. Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the traffic review documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: ■ The proposed development will generate 78 daily trips, six (6) AM peak hour trips and eight (8) PM peak hour trips. ■ Based on the traffic operations analysis the intersections and roadway segments on both Morningside Road and Lynn Avenue will operate at satisfactory (LOS A or B) with the proposed site developed. ■ No crashes have occurred in the area adjacent to the site in the past 10 years. ■ Sufficient sight lines exist for traffic exiting or entering the proposed new street intersection on Morningside Road. ■ With both roadway alignment alternatives safety would be improved by relocating the driveway adjacent to the new street, installation of a stop sign for the new street approaching Morningside Road and providing a clear sight line from the intersection. ■ Although both roadway alignment alternatives would operate at satisfactory LOS, the cul -de- sac option would provide less opportunity for cut - through traffic therefore less opportunity for possible conflicts and crashes at the Morningside intersection. Aq- 1 N O N a 0 0 a � � W. 48th Li N N W 2 / U (� W. 40th z a ST. L, j 0 700 ft 1400 ft :T,"w a a IN G 2 Z ? w I� J Y W 42nd ST. Project Location JNLI Q Q QTTLE ST. N w F- w uJ Ui Z Z O � Q MORNINGSIDE, � L, U RD. z�� o BRpI.lSON STS, a a� u > a 3 a )LF a TER. a a O Y w O 1 Y 1 OAK = DR. W 55 th J1 LEXING TON ST. Y TOWER IT wnnn .1 l C, �J 47th ST FW48th 4 ST. w 49th ST. 19/2 ST. s r. LL_ �st ST.� a w u > o c W. 52nd ST w� U Z Q w 54th I II S a J W. 1 Traffic Review Figure 1 :e 12 r� Y Acres Dubois 4� City of Edina; Minnesota Project Location Map OOte: Printed. 12161202 eSO EBenomer K: 101686- 360\Cae\ErniDit5 %1686 -36 fig-02 - Site PIOn.COn ^M� Traffic Review Figure 2 Acres Dubois City of Edina, Minnesota Development Site Plan ■ d1I1 �' t "1 • � �• r� • t i� t i II � � " �I � /l �II` ! 1•a f Oat &Printed, 216120¢ WS8 FBen— K, %01696- 360\Cee�ExnfbftsXIG86 -36 fi0'03 - Altem,tfvo Site PIan.COn IL Traffic Review Figure 3 Acres Dubois ,y City of Edina, Minnesota Alternative Site Plan 1 OTTAWA AVE. fi 6; ' �Ir°I H I I I 1 I I I I � SSE Iv _ 8 99 ❑1 I � Aq it ST. 1.01a5 PARK L _ ai.tl 1 >stl 1 n.o• 1 no' 1 ao A 1 n.tl 1 vstl, I im.v EDMA .1 ! 1 I I 1 I I 1 I a 1, q I W I I I I 1 I 1 I - - -- b ntl 1 no• 1 mtl 1 tstl 1 I xo• 1 ntl �1 mo• 8pA1mAlL AVENUE 1 I a 6 s— _ -' -- 'T PROPOSED OAKDALE AVENUE •tlt�! !i � 9 A Sa 3 � 1 I I:• 1 � I 1 I 1 I � � o os Q�- 71/5/12 - --- I I I � I _0-�• - .r.mAe.u.. 1 7 1 - -.•.r_ �e o >' . -- �� 1 12 -109 Sa IV.C. RESOLUTION NO. ; -18 APPROVING LOT DIVISION, 5700 AND 5712 GROVE STREET — ADOPTED Community Development Dir or Teague answered questions of the Council relating to the narrow strip of undeveloped land to the \was platted right -of -way for a future north /so;. reet. He indicated the property to the ildable and vacant lot, and its front yard se 1 c would have to match the setback at 570t. Member Swenson introduced and"_ved adoption of Resolution No. 2013 -18, appivision of 5700 and 5712 Grove Str fit. Member Sprague seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett,'Brindle, Spragovland Motion carried. IV.D. BROWNDALE AVENUE BRIDGE SCOU EI Engineer Houle answered questions of the Cou that were expected to commence upon approva indicated the project had been redesigned to insti withstand higher springtime flows. Member Bri approving the Browndale Avenue bridge scour rp Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, H ' a Motion carried. 'AIRS, CONTRAST NO. ENG13 -6NB — APPROVED I relating to the Browndale Avenue bridge scour repairs Mr. Tea described staff's efforts to recoup costs and o sized riprap with a boulder appearance that could i e made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, ai Contract No. ENG13 -6NB. nd V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND ',�RESENTATIONS V.A. PRESENTATION BY HUMANIGHTS AND RELATION \ined MISSION Meg Newell, Human Rights and R,�elations Commissioner, all to attend the April 22, 2013, Edina Reads spring event during whiZthe novel A Thinking Man'and the negative force of bullying would be addressed. VI. PUBLIC HEARIN . HELD — Affidavits of Notice presented amtordered placed on file. VI.A. VARIANCE APP AL, 5801 CRESCENT TERRACE — CONTINUED NO FEBRUARY 19, 2013 It was noted the ap icant and appellant had requested to continue consideration of the variance appeal to February /oariance . Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to continue considerati Appeal, 5801 Crescent Terrace, to February 19, 2013. Ayes: Benle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion ca VII. COMMUNITY COMMENT No one appeared to comment. VIII. REPORTS/ RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.A. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWED, 4412 MORNINGSIDE ROAD AND 4232 OAKDALE AVENUE Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the request of the Sidell family for sketch plan review. It was noted the applicant had originally submitted a subdivision application to divide this property into eight lots with a cul -de -sac off Morningside Road to provide access to six of the new lots. That request required three variances. The Planning Commission, at its December 12, 2012, meeting recommended the applicant consider an alternative way to develop the property. As a result, the applicant prepared three alternatives that were presented to the Planning Commission on January 23, 2013, and would be presented again tonight. Mr. Teague indicated the Council was being asked to review and offer comments on the sketch plan. Proponent Presentation Frank Sidell, 4232 Oakdale Avenue, introduced Sidell family members and stated the Sidell family had lived in the Morningside area for 50 years, prior to it becoming part of Edina, and would like to create a legacy for his father, Franklin DuBois Sidell, who liked larger lots with room for children to play, offering privacy Page 2 )K3 Minutes /Edina City Council /February S. 2013 . tom; and serenity. However, his mother's goal was to maximize the value and pass it on to her children through her estate. He described the character of Morningside, finding it to be very eclectic with no two houses the same. Mr. Sidell stated that he had performed a walking inventory of Morningside, and that by his count the neighborhood contained 633 homes, that 65 had been rebuilt or heavily remodeled in the past years, that more than one -third had garages in the front and that more than one -third were on lots larger than 50 feet in width. Mr. Sidell described the features and advantages of an eight -lot conforming concept requiring no variances and a modified original concept with a slight modification for a 44 -foot road right - of -way and 24 -foot paved surface with a center of permeable pavers to increase infiltration. This allowed pulling the road away from the newly constructed home at 4408 Morningside Road and relocating its driveway to the cul -de -sac to increase safety. Mr. Sidell acknowledged that the conforming concept was met by resident opposition to the through street. He identified the benefits of the modifled original concept as no 50 foot lots, lower housing density, need for only three minor variances, less impact on trees, and a cul -de -sac that would maintain the peace and serenity of the existing property Mr. Sidell presented the elements in Sketch Plan A and in Sketch Plan B, each requiring 26 variances. He stated it had been proposed to construct a sidewalk from the cul -de -sac to the City -owned lot on the corner but the family was not in favor because it was not a programmed park, the hill was too steep for a safe walkway without 65 steps and a railing; and, there was already a sidewalk 200 feet to the east on Lynn Avenue. He noted the cul -de -sac had been proposed to save mature trees and not disturb a steep sloped area on the site. Peter Knaeble, Civil Engineer with Terra Engineering representing the proponent, advised that the variances for sketch plans A and B related only to lot size, and that other variances might be sought for construction of homes on those lots. The Council discussed the elements proposed in each of the three concepts and unanimously preferred the modified original concept because it would lower density with 75 -foot lots that created pleasant space between houses that residents prefer, preserve the grand tree canopy, maintain the charm, beauty, and serenity of the original 50 -acre park -like estate. Support was expressed for the conservation easement, thoughtful rain garden feature, pervious paver roadway enhancement, and 18 -foot westerly shift in the roadway. Members Sprague, Brindle, and Mayor Hovland supported orientation of homes toward the cul -de -sac to create a holistic experience for neighbors and a greater sense of community. In addition, orienting the homes toward the cul -de -sac would lessen pressure on the intersections of Oakdale and Morningside by concentrating traffic starts within the cul -de -sac, and result in most of the traffic coming /going toward the new roadway instead of shining headlights towards homes along the south side of Morningside. Members Bennett and Swenson supported turning the two southernmost lots to face Morningside Road to encourage a sense of community, beyond a micro neighborhood, and engage new residents on the north side with existing residents on south side of Morningside Road. It was noted that the house to the east of the proposed cul -de -sac faces Morningside Road and while that garage could be relocated to the cul -de- sac, the front of the house and porch would face Morningside Road. Member Bennett added that homes facing Morningside Road would provide a more welcoming, safer environment for pedestrians and could have a calming effect on traffic on Morningside Road The Council thanked Mr. Sidell for his thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood. VIII.B. RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -17 — CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROJECT BY CALVIN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL OF MINNEAPOLIS — ADOPTED Page 3 A14 javj. a3, X013 VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS a. Sketch Plan Review — Sidell. 4412 Morningside Road and 4532 Oakdale Avenue, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague told the Commission based on the direction of the Planning Commission at its December 12, 2012 meeting, the applicant, Peter Knaeble, on behalf of Frank Sidell, has created three (3) subdivision alternatives for the property located in between Littel Street and Morningside Road. Teague explained that one option is a "revised" original plan. The other two are variations. Teague reminded the Commission there is also a "conforming" plan that depicts a through street; however, the applicants have indicated they do not believe that option is best for the site and neighborhood. Chair Grabiel explained the Sidells have elected to present a Sketch Plan Review with differing options. The Sketch Plan Review allows the applicant to obtain feedback from the Commission before they proceed with a formal application. Applicant Presentation Frank Sidell.addressed the Commission and introduced his siblings Tina and Phil. Sidell explained that their intent with this proposal is to honor their father, Franklin DuBois Sidell and create a legacy. Sidell explained his father purchased this property 50 years ago, adding his father liked larger lots with trees and grass especially for growing families. Sidell asked the Commission to remember that although many talk about the "character" of Morningside it should be remembered that Morningside is Edina. Continuing, Sidell said their intent is to redevelop this property themselves to ensure that its uniqueness is preserved. With the aid of graphics Sidell explained that the character of Morningside is very eclectic, adding this proposal is about community, not house style or lot size. Sidell noted the following about the Morningside neighborhood: • Morningside is the oldest section of Edina with 633 houses. • Over 65 homes have been rebuilt or heavily remodeled ( >10 %) in the last few years. • More than 35% of the homes have garages in the front. • 1/3 of this community does not have sidewalks. • More than 35% of the lots are larger than 50 -feet • The current property is unique —a 7,000 square foot house on a 3 acre lot —which part do we copy? Page 7 of 12 A ^,) Sidell referred the Commission to four redevelopment concepts as follows: Conforming Concept: • 8lots • Through street connecting Little with Morningside Road • No Variances Sidell said in his opinion this concept would change the character of the area and remove too many existing trees and vegetation. Modified Original Concept: • Street was narrowed to a 40 -foot right of way (ROW) with 24 -feet of pavement. • Increased out lot on east side to 18 -feet • Added a pervious center to cul -de -sac • Agreed to move the driveway for 4408 to the new road. Sidell said this is the concept they prefer. He also noted that in speaking with members of the Commission that he really likes the idea of "Living Streets ". He also pointed out this "concept" has no 50 -foot lots and only requires three minor variances. Continuing, Sidell said this proposal has the greatest tree savings, less traffic and maintains the serenity of the original property. Concluding, Sidell said he believes larger lots allow greater flexibility in house placement. Sketch Plan "A ": • Creates 6 smaller lots similar to the 50 -foot side lots in the surrounding.area • 40 -foot ROW, and 24 -foot paved surface road • Road moved lone lot over from 4408. • Lots 1, 2, and 3 load off Morningside Road • Tree loss of at minimum 14 • 26 variances required. • Pervious center added to the cul -de -sac bulb. Sidells said in his opinion 50 -foot wide lots do not provide enough flexibility for house placement. He added if this concept is favored that the family would need a legal statement from the City guaranteeing that the variances will be available when the houses are built. Page 8 of 12 A% Sketch Plan "B ": • Creates 6 small lots similar to the 50 -foot wide lots in the surrounding area • 40 -foot ROW and 24 -foot paved surface road. • Road is not next to 4408 with a 15 -foot out lot. • Lots 1, 2, and 3, continue to load off of Morningside Road • Pervious center added to the cul -de -sac bulb. Sidell stated that the property owners at 4408 do not favor this concept they prefer a road, not house adjacent to them. Sidell pointed out that both concepts "A" and "B" create smaller lots noting that some Edina residents have expressed opposition to redevelopment on 50 -foot wide lots and that redevelopment of 50 -foot lots is a "hot - topic" in Edina. Sidell stated his family doesn't want to be held to different building regulations than the rest of the community. Continuing, Sidell said he is very favorable to the smaller paved surface road of 24 -feet, adding he also supports the18 -foot paved surface that was also suggested. Sidell reiterated he likes the concept of "living streets "; however, he isn't sure how the Edina Fire Department feels about it. He added in all the scenarios their goal is to create permeable centers in the cul -de -sac to accommodate water and unless the Fire Department gets "on board" with a road narrower than24 -feet that road couldn't be developed. Concluding Sidell said they would build the road the City wants them to build and asked the Commission to provide them with feedback on their concept preferences. Discussion Chair Grabiel thanked Mr. Sidell for his presentation adding that the facts provided in the presentation were very helpful. Grabiel asked the Sidells which concept they prefer. Mr. Sidell responded the family favors the "modified original concept ". Chair Grabiel asked Mr. Sidell if the family would be agreeable to the Commission /Council imposing restrictions on some lots. Mr. Sidell responded as mentioned earlier that he doesn't believe his family should be held to different building standards than the rest of the City. Sidell said he has found that many young families don't have an issue with front loading garages. He added the buyers of these lots should not be restricted in house design adding their hope is all these homes are custom designed. Commissioner Forrest questioned if the family was still considering the tree conservation easement. Mr. Sidell responded that the tree conservation easement is still in place for the modified original concept. Commissioner Schroeder asked Mr. Sidell to clarify if the tree preservation easement was only for the modified original. Mr. Sidell responded that at this time that is where the conservation easement was noted; however, they would consider developing some form Page 9 of 12 AS of tree preservation easement for the others (A & B); especially B; however, the conservation easement area would change and would need further review. Schroeder asked Mr. Sidell what option his family prefers. Sidell responded they prefer the modified original and do not like the through street concept. Commissioner Staunton commended the Sidells for all their work on this proposal acknowledging they could have turned the site over to a developer for redevelopment but instead are proceeding with this as a family. Staunton said in his opinion he prefers a variable lot size concept. He added the two smaller lot concepts better reflect the character found in Morningside. Staunton however stated that he is not sure how he feels about houses fronting Morningside Road, adding he knows it mirrors the "other side of the street ", reiterating he's still not sure how he feels about it. Continuing, Staunton said he agrees the cul -de -sac concept is best adding the narrower paved surface and the treatment of the cul -de -sac bulb is interesting and good for the site. Concluding, Staunton said one issue that will be in the forefront during redevelopment is construction management. Mr. Sidell said that his family has thought a lot about the construction phase and its management. Sidell said one option they considered would be to use one of the lots as a staging area. Commissioner Platteter thanked the Sidells for their work on this project adding their property is a huge part of the Morningside neighborhood. Platteter said he is not sure he likes the additional lots on the alternative sketch plans; however, he supports houses facing Morningside Road; reiterating he is unsure additional lots are the way to go. Concluding, Platteter suggested taking two lots out and rotating two at the front onto Morningside Road. He also reiterated the importance of tree preservation. Commissioner Potts said Sidell was correct in saying this area of Edina is eclectic. Potts also agreed that he would be sorry to see the property developed with the through street concept. Concluding Potts said he does favor the smaller lot concepts. Commissioner Schroeder said with regard to sketch plan concepts A & B that in his opinion the lots fronting Morningside Road would appear disconnected from the rest of this development. Schroeder said that whatever is decided this development will become "its own thing ", a unique and different "neighborhood ", and part of the Morningside area of Edina. Continuing, Schroeder said in his opinion the "new" street should be developed as a dynamic living experience. He also suggested thinking of the cul -de -sac in a different way; possibility shifting it slightly and playing with the geometry of the street thereby creating a "living" fluid street. Schroeder said he's not concerned with lot size; however, wants this street and these houses to become a unique dynamic part of Edina. Concluding, Schroeder said he wants to see a great street developed. Page 10 of 12 A�Iw Commissioner Forrest said she was opposed to the through street adding she is also hesitant on supporting the concept of fronting homes on Morningside Road. She said these houses would be isolated from the rest of the development. Continuing, Forrest agreed with Schroeder's suggestion of "playing" with the street. Concluding, Forrest said she would like the Sidells to keep their high redevelopment standards and work closely with developer(s), concluding her preference is the modified original concept. Chair Grabiel stated he also supports the modified original concept, adding he agrees with Commissioner Schroeder that this development will be its own micro - neighborhood. Commissioner Platteter said he doesn't want this neighborhood to become exclusive adding he continues to believe homes should be fronted on Morningside Road as laid out in Sketch Plan option A & B. Commissioner Forrest acknowledged that the cul -de -sac in itself can give the appearance of "shutting" out others; however, if care is taken with the corner house by creating a welcoming presence any perceived isolation could be overcome. Commissioner Fischer said he supports Sketch Plan concept "A ". Fischer said in his opinion it's not about the number of lots it's about the street itself. Fischer said whichever concept is ultimately chosen what he wants to see is the creation of a special place and special street. Concluding Fischer suggested that the applicant speak more with the Fire Department to see if they would "come on board" supporting a less wide street (18- feet). Planner Teague informed the Commission that while the Fire Department has expressed reservation about a road narrower than the suggested 24 -foot paved surface, they would be willing to reconsider the paved surface width, if the drive aisle width were 18 -feet and there was an attached level drive -over sidewalk of 6 -feet. Emergency vehicle access is paramount. Chair Grabiel thanked the Sidells for their presentation, adding what he takes from this exchange is that whichever concept is chosen that care needs to be taken with tree preservation and that creativity needs to be taken with the cul -de -sac. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Grabiel acknowledged the back of packet materials. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Grabiel stated that Commissioner Fischer would be ending his term as Planning Commissioner and thanked him for his 9 + years of service. Commissioner Staunton Page 11 of 12 AS-1 echoed Grabiel's thanks and expressed his appreciation to Mike Fischer. All Commissioners agreed thanking Commissioner Fischer for his service. X. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague thanked Commissioner Fischer for his service to the City as a Planning Commissioner. Teague reported that being the "new" City Planner Fischer was very helpful in making him feel welcome and sharing his vision for Edina. XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fischer moved adjournment at. Commissioner Staunton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. (/QG�G,/e TIOOQ�iC�G�/� Respectfully submitted Page 12 of 12 A 60, Engineering Department • Phone 952 - 826 -0371 Fax 952 - 826 -0392 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: March 22, 2013 To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Wayne Houle — Director of Engineering Re: Preliminary Plat for Acres Dubois Dated November 5, 2012 With Revisions Dated 3/1/2013 MEMO ui 95� A o e �y �M Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plat and offer the following comments: O A Minnehaha Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as MNDH, MPCA, MCES, and a grading permit from the City of Edina Building Department. O SAC fees will be required for this project; REC fees will not be required due to the developer installing the water main and sanitary sewer system. O A developer's agreement will be required for constructing the public utilities, roadway, sidewalk and street lights. The developer will be responsible for funding the cost of construction administration as performed by City Staff. Construction administration includes construction staking, inspection, material inspection, pay requests to the contractor, and record drawings. The developer's agreement will also include a three year minimum maintenance period for maintaining the proposed rain garden and also include the temporary use of the westerly edge of the City of Edina property located at Lynn Avenue and Littel Street. Sheet 4 — Preliminary Utility Plan: • Provide additional easement for access to maintain proposed rain garden / infiltration basin located at Lot 8. Provide storm water calculations for the project. Per the City of Edina's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan, verify that the proposed rain garden located at proposed Lot 8 can provide a two foot clearance to surrounding structures by providing storage for a concurrent 100 - year single rainfall event or a 100 -year 10 -day snowmelt, whichever is greater. Sheet 5 Preliminary Grading Plan: • Use of City property adjacent to proposed Lot 7 will require compensation to the City, along with a restoration plan approved by the City Council. Compensation will be calculated as a temporary construction easement. Staff does not support the placement of a. retaining wall at this location due to long term maintenance adjacent to proposed sanitary sewer and water main. Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans if this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review. 1�'l0 G: \PW \CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV\PROJECTS \CONTRACTS \PRIVATE \P2012 \P012 -1 Acres Dubois\20130322 WH -Edina Review Acres Dubois.doc Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 Cary Teague, From: Jeff Siems Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:07 PM To: Cary Teague Cc: Marty Scheerer Subject: RE: CD Meeting Hello Cary, As per our original discussions in order for a reduced road width concession, and emergency access considerations the fire department would require: • Signage stating "No Parking Fire Lane" along one side of the roadway the entire length of the road. • Residential fire sprinkler protection in accordance to NFPA 13 d. • Installation of fire hydrant(s) (near end of cul -de -sac, & possibly at intersection of Morningside). • I did not see any issues with angles of approach /departure for fire department vehicles. • Addressing and Premise ID to conform to code. Jeff - - - -- Original Appointment---- - From: Cary Teague Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:54 PM To: Wayne Houle; Brian Olson; Jeff Siems; Steve Kirchman; Steve Kiehn; Ross Bintner; Kris Aaker; Shelagh Stoerzinger Subject: CD Meeting When: Monday, March 25, 2013 2:00 PM -3:00 PM (UTC- 06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: ED Minnehaha Room (by Building) To discuss Acres Dubois << File: P -4 3 -1 -13 PRELIM UTIL PLAN..pdf >> << File: P -4 3 -1 -13 PRELIM UTIL PLAN..pdf >> << File: P -5 3 -1 -13 PRELIM GRADING PLAN.PDF >> « File: P -3A 3 -1 -13 PRELIM SITE RENDERING.PDF >> 1 +01 Cary Teague rom: Nancy and Peter Killilea <pkandnb @comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:22 PM To: Cary Teague Subject: Morningside Subdivision Ca ry, My name is Nancy Killilea. My family lives at 4236 Lynn Avenue. We are directly effected by the proposed subdivision on the Sidell property as our property backs up to the land. My husband, Pete, attended the Planning Commission meeting on December 12 and provided feedback during the meeting. Thank you for sending out the alternatives that are currently being considered. We are grateful that the city is interested in considering alternatives that will fit the unique needs of our neighborhood. My family wanted to provide additional feedback to consider as this proposal moves forward: 1. We highly support the development of homes directly facing Morningside Road.This clearly enhances the sense of community on that street. 2. We support and would encourage sidewalks along the entirety of the cul -de -sac. The cul -de -sac concept is not one that is consistent with our neighborhood or consistent with the more urban nature of Morningside. A full sidewalk would be a minor effort to overcome the impact of a cul -de -sac. 3. We support greater open space between homes to honor the heritage of this unique plot of land. Many of us bought these homes because of the benefit of the trees and open spaces adjacent to them. It is possible to maximize this financial opportunity while also protecting the.benefits that brought us to this neighborhood. This should be . considered through two different opportunities: o Number of lots. We appreciate the involvement of the Planning Commission to revise the proposed design to address the concerns of the community. At the Dec 12 meeting there was discussion among the Commissioners about a design with smaller lots but an increased number of lots in order to encourage homes that are consistent with the neighborhood. We appreciate the intention but it seems like a backwards approach to achieve this objective. This should be met by appropriate zoning requirements for the height and size of new homes as well as appropriate set backs. Given the number of issues Morningside has experienced due to the inadequacy of the current requirements, this subdivision should not be allowed to proceed without new requirements being developed and applied. o Greater set backs for sides and backs of homes. The drawings are best case but we have seen homes developed that interrupt the sight -lines and open space of their neighbors. New set backs should be a requirement. 4. The current alternatives miss one of the most unique opportunities offered by this lot and this neighborhood: a connection to the open lot at Lynn and Littel. Many neighborhood children utilize this open space and it brings our community together. Like similar areas in other parts of Edina (near Creek Valley Lane) as well as St. Louis Park (intersection of Wooddale and Princeton), we have the opportunity to create a path or walkway from the cul -de -sac to the open lot. Kids sled on the hill, play sports in the open lot. The many families with children that make up our neighborhood will sorely miss this. Cul -de -sacs are not consistent with our neighborhood. This dead -end concept can be overcome by allowing walkers, joggers, dog walkers, children and adults to connect to the streets and lots below. Please consider this small change that will have minimal impact on lot size or financials. It is worth so much more than its cost. We have lived in Morningside for 12 years. We recently moved into our second home in this community, a home on Lynn, and vested in the remodeling of a home that has been here for many generations. We stayed in this area because we value the ,iversity of people, the urban feel of the neighborhood and the tightly knit neighborhood. I am hoping that we are able to maintain these qualities despite the changes that are being planned. Please give consideration to the characteristics of this unique neighborhood as you determine the future of our backyard! January 15, 2013 Dear Mr. Teague and Members of the Planning Commission: My name is Peggy Lawrence. I live at 4411 Morningside Road — directly across the street from the proposed Acres DuBois subdivision. I attended the recent Planning Commission meeting at which this proposal was discussed and walked away with a hopeful feeling that our concerns had been heard, that brainstorming would be done with the Sidell family and that other options for the site would be forth coming. Upon examining the new plans, I'm feeling disillusioned and here's why: • Our main objection was the cul -de -sac; I think the Commission missed that point. The residents of Morningside like the urban feel to the community with its connected streets and sidewalks. As long as the property is being subdivided, it would be important to connect Morningside to Littel and lower Oakdale, and a through street would accomplish this. Cul -de -sacs are suburban not urban, and there are none in Morningside at present. I believe there is a conforming plan for the site that would require no variances. • The number of houses has increased from 8 to 10, with 2 or 3 facing my house on Morningside. This is very dense housing. The size of these houses would have to be carefully controlled, and we all know that this isn't happening in Morningside. Most of the new houses currently being built are 35' high and stretch to the lot lines on each side. The granting of variances seems to be the rule rather than the exception with the result being huge houses on small lots. Also concerning would be front garages, etc., so I'm trying to wrap my head around what I'll see when I look outside my front windows, and how it will change the feel of my property. • Adding a subdivision to an already established neighborhood is no small task! The thought of all that construction is quite disarming. I see several years of portable "billies," construction trucks, building materials lying on the ground, blocked streets, noise and the fear that a gas or water line will be accidentally cut into. Construction is difficult, and Morningside has certainly had its share. • I'm worried that the Planning Commission and the City Council will see the building of 10 new houses as an added source of revenue for the city and ignore the best interests of Morningside. In concluding, I would urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to choose the conforming plan which would need no variances. This would offer a connecting grid street with sidewalks; it may also be the choice of least resistance from the community thereby sparing the hard feelings that may damage the otherwise supportive and delightful community of Morningside. Remember there is an emotional element to all of this. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to state my feelings. I have lived across the street from the Sidells for 34 years and highly value them as friends and neighbors. Hopefully, a solution acceptable to all will be found. Sincerely, Peggy Lawrence October, 2012 Mr. Cary Teague Planning Director City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Subject: Acres DuBois Dear Mr. Teague, We are writing today to express concern regarding the proposed development, Acres DuBois, at 4412 Morningside Road. It is understood the owners of this property intend to seek a permit to develop lots for seven new homes on the site. -Three of the proposed lots do not meet minimum size requirements of City of Edina and would need variance from the City Planning Commission. Six of these constructed homes would be accessed via a cul -de -sac road on the east side of the property. As an impacted neighbor living within 500 feet of the project we are opposed to a cul -de -sac with lots that do not meet the minimum size requirements. The Morningside neighborhood is an urban development of connected streets with sidewalks. This proposal is inconsistent with the neighborhood. Connecting streets with sidewalks benefit all community members. There is an enhanced sense of community through better connections to neighbors and businesses. Sidewalks encourage exercise and provide the benefits of a healthy lifestyle. There are safety benefits to connecting streets with sidewalks. Sidewalks separate pedestrians from motorists. Connecting streets offer easy and timely access for emergency vehicles. Crime is deterred when there is pedestrian traffic. Additionally, connecting streets with sidewalks offer community members economic benefits. Home buyers are willing to pay more for homes in a walkable neighborhood. Property values rise fastest in pedestrian friendly areas. We respectfully oppose the proposal for site development that includes a cul -de -sac road with lots that do not meet the minimum size requirements. This is a profoundly unique and valuable property. Please consider other options for this site, including a connecting street on the west side of the property with conforming lots. Sincerely, Morningside Neighbors (signature page enclosed) Enclosures (1) cc: Frank Sidell Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering Inc. s 14 October, 2012 Mr. Cary Teague Planning Director Subject: Acres DuBois Enclosures (1) cc: Frank Sidell Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering Inc. Frank - - -- Original Message---- - From: Nancy and Peter Killilea <pkandnKDcomcast.net> To: acresdubois <acresdubois(cD-aol.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 6:02 pm Subject: FW: Morningside Subdivision Frank, I wanted to forward to you a note that Pete and I sent to Cary regarding the subdivision proposal. We continue to be concerned more about the current city codes that will apply to your project that most of the specifics of your project. In most scenarios, we are the only home with a new home adjacent to our lot (on the Edina side; the SLIP side has topography helping them). The other homes benefit from the light and space that comes with the cul -de -sac. But in all of the scenarios we are impacted directly by a home. With current city codes, that means we are liking to have a 3 story wall to look at rather than your beautiful trees. Having just tried to responsibly remodel and invest in the neighborhood it is disappointing to us to lose what brought us here. I know we will likely lose that battle (it would have been nice have the cul -de -sac continue directly behind our home) but we will do our best to work with the city to improve the codes to give us some peace of mind. I appreciate your involvement and continue to be amazed that you are willing to engage with everyone given how emotional this topic appears to be to many. Thank you! Nancy From: Cary Teague <cteague @ Edina MN.gov> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:37:54 +0000 To: Peter Killilea <pkandnb @comcast.net> ubject: RE: Morningside Subdivision Thank you Nancy, I will include your email in the Planning Commission packet of information that will go out this Friday. Ca ry x M - Cary Teague, Community Development Director 952- 826 -0460 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 1 Cell 952 - 826 -0236 cteague(iDEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov /Planning ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Nancy and Peter Killilea [ma ilto:pkandnb@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:22 PM To: Cary Teague Subject: Morningside Subdivision Ca ry, My name is Nancy Killilea. My family lives at 4236 Lynn Avenue. We are directly effected by the proposed subdivision on the Sidell property as our property backs up to the land. My husband, Pete, attended the Planning Commission meeting on December 12 and provided feedback during the meeting. Thank you for sending out the alternatives that are currently being considered. We are grateful that the city is interested in >nsidering alternatives that will fit the unique needs of our neighborhood. My family wanted to provide additional feedback to consider as this proposal moves forward: `1. We highly support the development of homes directly facing Morningside Road.This clearly enhances the sense of - v community on that street. 2.' We support and would encourage sidewalks along the entirety of`the cul -de -sac. The cul -de -sac concept is not one le that is consistent with our neighborhood or consistent with the more urban nature of Morningside. A full sidewalk would be a minor effort to overcome the impact of a cul -de -sac. 3. We support greater open space between homes to honor the heritage of this unique plot of land. Many of us bought these homes because of the benefit of the trees and open spaces adjacent to them. It is possible to maximize this financial opportunity while also protecting the benefits that brought us to this neighborhood. This should be considered through two different opportunities: o Number of lots. We appreciate the involvement of the Planning Commission to revise the proposed design to address the concerns of the community. At the Dec 12 meeting there was discussion among the . Commissioners about a design with smaller lots but an increased number of lots in order to encourage homes that are consistent with the neighborhood. We appreciate the intention but it seems like a backwards approach to achieve this objective. This should be met by appropriate zoning requirements for the height and size of new homes as well as appropriate set backs. Given the number of issues Morningside has experienced due to the inadequacy of the current requirements, this subdivision should not be allowed to . _. proceed without new requirements being developed and applied. o Greater set backs for sides and backs of homes. The drawings are best case but we have seen homes developed that interrupt the sight -lines and open space of their neighbors. New set backs should.be a requirement. 4. The current alternatives miss one of the most unique opportunities offered by this lot and this neighborhood: a connection to the open lot at Lynn and Littel. Many neighborhood children utilize this open space and it brings our community together. Like similar areas in other parts of Edina (near Creek Valley Lane) as well as St. Louis Park (intersection of Wooddale and Princeton), we have the opportunity to create a path or walkway from the cul -de -sac to the open lot. Kids sled on the hill, play sports in the open lot. The many families with children that make up our neighborhood will sorely miss this. Cul -de -sacs are not consistent with our neighborhood. This dead -end concept can be overcome by allowing walkers, joggers, dog walkers, children and adults to connect to the streets and lots below. Please consider this small change that will have minimal impact on lot size or financials. It is worth so much more than its cost. We have lived in Morningside for 12 years. We recently moved into our second home in this community, a home on Lynn, and invested in the remodeling of a home that has been here for many generations. We stayed in this area because we value the diversity of people, the urban feel of the neighborhood and the tightly knit neighborhood. I am hoping that we are able to maintain these qualities despite the changes that are being planned. Please give consideration to the characteristics of this unique neighborhood as you determine the future of our backyard! Thank you, Nancy Killilea October 26, 2012 Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina 4801 West 50`1' Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Acres DuBois Development Dear Mr. Teague We are writing today to express our viewpoint concerning the development being planned for the Sidell property in Morningside. It is our understanding that two potential plans are being considered. One includes a cul -de -sac with six new lots originating from Morningside Road and a seventh stand -alone parcel accessed off Littel St. The other proposed plan would add a through street connecting lower Oakdale Ave. with Morningside Road and have seven new lots adjoining the west side of this new street. We would like to go on record as being deeply opposed to the through street option and in favor of the cul -de -sac option for the following reasons: 1. Traffic — a. A historical traffic flow through the neighborhood already exists and we feel adding a through street within 200 feet of Lynn Ave is unnecessary. b. The connecting through street will run along.the backyard boundaries of the houses on the west side of Lynn Ave creating additional unwanted noise and increased traffic activity. c. The number of vehicles using the six house cul -de -sac will minimize the traffic impact on the surrounding neighbors and the community as a whole. d. A through street will dramatically increase the number of vehicles using lower Oakdale and completely change the feel of our neighborhood. 2. Safety — a. Vehicles using the cul -de -sac will be fewer and slower moving than those using the through street. b. The hill that would exist on the through street creates added safety concerns due to limited visibility, excessive vehicular speeds and winter ice and snow issues. The existing, steep condition on Lynn Avenue makes it very unsafe... especially during the winter months. This hazardous condition should not be replicated! c. There are many young children on lower Oakdale that play in their front yards near the street. The increased vehicle traffic of a through street increases the risk of an accident. 3. Trees and Vegetation — .: a. The cul -de -sac option would allow many of the mature trees on this property to be saved. b. The though street would create the need to remove almost all of the mature trees in order to build the new roadway and develop the property into suitable lots. c. The cul -de -sac design provides significantly more total landscaping area (both new and saved existing) than the through street option. 4. Natural use of the land — a. The cul -de -sac option allows for better use of the natural contour of this property by creating two beautiful walk -out lots that utilize the natural slope of the hillside and save many of the trees. b. The through street option requires the lots to be situated across the hillside creating the need for excessive grading, tons of additional fill and the installation of large retaining walls. c. The connecting through street option adds approximately 7,000 square feet more asphalt pavement and 3,500. square feet more concrete pavement than the cul -de -sac option. These added hardscapes will necessitate additional roadway maintenance due to both the added paved surface area as well as the increased overall traffic usage on the through street. d. The overall layout and steep slope of the connecting through street would also produce exponentially more storm water runoff which could adversely impact the existing storm sewer system and downstream bodies of water. 5. Neighborhood Serenity — a. The property as it exists today is a quiet oasis in the neighborhood. The cul -de -sac option offers the most viable solution to maintaining this sense for the immediate neighbors and Moringside community as a whole. 6. Sidewalks and walkability — a. We are aware that some of the neighbors on the south side of this property feel the through street is necessary to create a sidewalk connection from Momingside Road to the open space city lot on the corner of Lynn and Littel and to 42nd Street. An existing sidewalk located roughly 200 feet east of the proposed Acres DuBois development on Lynn Ave. already provides pedestrian sidewalk access to both of these areas. b. Approximately one third of the Momingside neighborhood does not have sidewalks (42nd Street, Monterey, north Lynn, Kipling and north Grimes). Forcing a through street option to maintain the neighborhood.feel of streets with sidewalks does not have precedence in Momingside. For the reasons stated above, we must adamantly oppose the site development plan that includes the addition of the through street. The applicant has provided a development option that is much less intrusive to the existing property, the environment, future safety concerns, and the current "feel' of the neighborhood. We trust that the City staff, the Planning Commission; and the City Council would appreciate this much more thoughtful approach to the redevelopment of this unique property. We respectfully ask the City of Edina to work with the applicant toward the development option that utilizes the preferred cul -de -sac option. Sincerely, Morningside Neighbors (Signature pages attached) cc Frank Sidell Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering Inc. Signature �r Is r3, Address y2.23 04t Lie ©w'Re"kre S, (yam) k, ` z2,q 0 aZd oAk 4w.(Zzrbp�s Ala -�-T o ,yam S �•' f � /Yl o/l o�ie � iSC,/ Y` q 2r� o� -Gco�E ,,k" r- T S, 1-9 - 1009 .� &&k-,06Q h�.�e -s, lq.,�Gl� ttbr.✓1.� 4Zc)Q> Ave �{c use $ignature ovw lc-)AOA4�-e� 3 q, -� Address 1-1goo W rst L4 2A.2 Vge,rV 1,JeY 010 4Z I I Qa�c�& Ave, �J. Pwe EcW�ct, i �5 NAA) We- 6-dllq:) S - _ lyo-Al&> &, ""0( A.4 300, "-IZ2-0 zly/v'ki AIIF— WWII awAj� �y. F^� -t ��r% y5 �,�,�VO —,/ /lam / /,f�i,���Pi '000�� 4211 di\lm kt 4�2� yft V- q2vt Sj� aviA ti It f, 1 D1 James and Connie Wilde 4413 Morningside Road Edina, MN 55416 December 3, 2012 City of Edina Mayor City of Edina Council Members City of Edina Planning Commission 4801 W. 501h Street Edina, MN 55424 Subject: Acres DuBois Dear Esteemed City Leader, We are writing today to express our opposition to the proposed cul -de -sac subdivision, Acres DuBois. Morningside neighborhood has a rich history and is a unique and vibrant urban community. Morningside is not a neighborhood of suburban cul -de -sacs. Our community is platted on a grid system between 40th Street / 44'h Street / France Ave / Wooddale Ave. The first page of the preliminary plat for Acres DuBois shows a location map with circles around fourteen "cul -de- sacs" in the area, most of which are in St. Louis Park. It is misleading to point to these as precedent for the construction of a cul -de -sac in Morningside. On this map only two sites are even in Morningside, neither of which are cul -de -sacs but rather dead end streets. One site on the map is a dead end at 45th Street that gives the community street parking and sidewalk access to Kojetin Park. This is nothing like what is proposed in Acres DuBois. Connecting streets with sidewalks benefit all community members. We, like many Morningside residents, bought our home here in part because of the sidewalks. Our family loves walking the streets of our community. The preliminary plat for Acres Dubois shows no sidewalk on Littel Street. It does include a partial sidewalk on the west side of the cul -de -sac but this ends in the middle of the circle. Ending the sidewalk creates one -way pedestrian traffic, benefiting only the residents of the cul -de -sac. We urge the Planning Commission to require continuous sidewalks along all roads in the project. We understand that development is important and inevitable, but as proposed this project displaces a great deal of cost to residents on Morningside Road only to benefit the developer. We will see increased traffic, years of construction and wear and tear on our roads, the cost of which current residents will bear. Our property value and quality of life is being robbed. This proposal seeks variance exception because three of the new lots do not meet minimum size requirements. The Conforming Concept Plan is reasonable and fits consistently in the grid pattern of the neighborhood. There is no "undue hardship" to the developer. If the developer is unhappy with the Conforming Concept Plan we implore the city of Edina to work with the developer in creating a proposal that respects the character and culture of Morningside. Could part of this land be incorporated into an expanded park utilizing the city lot on 1IPage the corner of Littel and Lynn? Using 45`h Street or Bridge Street in Country Club as a model, could there be a sidewalk connecting a continuous sidewalk on the proposed cul -de -sac to a new sidewalk on Littel, thus giving all residents greater access to the city lot? There is a tremendous opportunity to create a "legacy" that the developer purports to value while respecting and enhancing the quality of life for all Morningside residents. Please do not approve this plan as submitted. Sincerely, `. onnie James Wilde cc: Cary Teague, City of Edina 2 Page Jackie Hoogenakker From: Angela Deen <angeladeen @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 7:57 AM To: Edina Mail Cc: jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle; joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @ gmail.com; Cary Teague; Edina Mail; Jackie Hoogenakker; David Deen Subject: Letter of Concern - Morningside Development Attachments: Letter of Concern - Morningside Development.pdf Dear Mayor Hovland, We are writing to express our concern over the rampant uncontrolled development of Morningside, which similarly plagues other areas of Edina. At the end of 2010, we bought a 1931 house on the corner of Eton Place and Morningside Rd because we were attracted to the neighborhood's charm and the friendly village that it is. However, in our first year here, we have witnessed firsthand 8 teardown /rebuilds on Morningside Rd and Scott Terrace alone. We are nothing short of appalled at the number of teardowns and newly constructed behemoths arising at an alarming rate. We cannot imagine what the long -term residents must be experiencing as streets are becoming unrecognizable (especially 45th Street). Out of this growing concern,,we were amongst the large crowd that gathered at Morningside Church last Thursday, November 29th. We listened to you discuss the record - breaking rankings of how Edina residents rated their quality of life. The survey firm must not have surveyed residents in Morningside. Of course the school system is terrific, and the community of people is wonderful, but the quality of life in our neighborhood is slipping. There is an overwhelming feeling of dissatisfaction amongst our community about the BUILDER - DRIVEN construction going on. You were presented with numerous issues at this meeting about how this type of development is negatively impacting our quality of life - including: New construction reduces the value of existing adjacent homes due to lost views, poor aesthetic, etc. Sidewalks and roads are being degraded by builder traffic (yet homeowners are expected to pay for new roads themselves!) • Construction workers are urinating in adjacent yards, and outhouses nearly block sidewalks • Volume of traffic and the speed of contractor vehicles down our roads has increased • Construction noise, often beginning before 7am • Storm water drainage off of these massive homes is problematic, concern of basement flooding (huge loss of impervious surface area with 5,000 sq ft homes replacing 1,500 sq ft bungalows) • Loss of decades -old trees (The 7 lot Sidell development, "Acres Dubois," threatens to remove almost 50% of the 200 trees on the 3 acres, but that's likely a low estimate) • Loss of sunlight through existing home's windows due to towering new construction. • Loss of historic homes (e.g., 4400 Branson, original Morningside Police Chief residence, 4115 Morningside, airplane bungalow) • Loss of aesthetic ( "Acres Dubois" proposes bringing suburbia to Morningside, complete with a cul -de- sac) New houses are "detached" from the outside community with front facing garages instead of porches, few windows, and backend living areas. • Builders push zoning to the max - building tall structures, with barely 5 feet to spare on the sides of 50 foot lots, and bulldozing mature trees, even if they are in the backyard. - la0.u; e In some instances, approved plans have not looked like the final product built. We understand that change is imminent in any community - but this letter is directed at the builder- driven, uncontrolled, negative change. There are examples of new construction that evokes positive change - we encourage you to drive past 4307 Eton Place where the house was carefully designed by the homeowner and crafted to "fit -in" to the historic charm of the neighborhood without dwarfing and damaging its neighbors. What is the difference here? This house and others were purchased by a single family, and coordinated with a builder, in that order. Too many other houses in this neighborhood are purchased by the builder first, and then controlled by that builder to be a large size thereby maximizing the builder's profit (typically these houses sell in excess of $1M). If we wanted to move into this neighborhood today, we simply could not afford to; houses are purchased with the intent of being torn down at a whopping $400K just for the land they are sitting on. Suddenly, it's a neighborhood dominated by just a handful of builders, namely, REFINED, DAVID ALLEN, and BELLA. These houses are: - Nearly identical (can you tell the difference between 4242 and 4244 Scott Terrace ?), - Oversized (see all new construction by these builders), and - Crowded - a lawnmower cannot pass between without having to use the neighbor's yard! (Drive by BELLA constructed houses 4113 or 4213 Morningside). We fear that the proposed "Acres Dubois" Subdivision (3.1 acres on 4412 Morningside) would be a similar loss of Morningside's aesthetic. It was such a heated topic at the meeting that the pile of submitted questions could not be addressed. Thank you for volunteering to make copies of these concerns to share with City '.ouncil members. If such a hugely devastating leveling of property is allowed, how could new construction be .ontrolled elsewhere? For example, we live next door to the original Morningside Church built in 1912. As our elderly neighbor discusses "selling out," this small historic home surely would be leveled and replaced by a wall of new housing blocking our morning sunrise. You see, while the pockets of the builders are being lined with profits, the actual residents of Morningside are the big losers - all the reasons listed above are undermining our quality of life. If this is indeed the direction we're headed, where builders will simply elbow out and outbid single family buyers to take hold of this area, then we need your protection to put more comprehensive policies in place. The current state of development is threatening to forever change the face of Morningside, and the reason so many of us moved here in the first place. We advocate for controlled development that preserves the character of our neighborhood, protects our trees and waters, and promotes our quality of life. We know that you believe these values are important, and so we ask you to work with us to save Morningside. Sincerely, Dr. David and Angela Deen 4301 Eton Place lorningside Cary Teague From: jshf <jshf @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:49 AM To: jhoviand @krausehovland.com; floyd.grabiel @tsi.com; Cary Teague Subject: sub division Regarding the subdivision on Morningside. High hopes that you, our elected officials and planners will not allow a cul -de -sac in our urban neighborhood-- - A cul -de -sac (with all new homes) will look and feel like a fish out of water —or some weird SET on a bad Desperate Housewives drama. If that lot must be subdivided - -- we are counting on the city to make certain that it is a through street. Having 7 more houses — average 2 cars each -14 cars — basically come out of that ONE ENTRANCE /EXIT "driveway- aka cul -de -sac" is not a good idea. We already have safety issues with that blind spot coming over the hill —to Oakdale —and now another? We also hope that some sort of guidelines will be drawn up (As far as aesthetic) —so the development blends with the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you Jilene Framke Ps —what is with the name of the subdivision? Heaven forbid is its own NAME like some strange little Plymouth/ Woodbury stand alone community... December 6, 2012 Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina Planning Division 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 (952) 826 -0460 Dear Cary, We are Rick and Sarah Hardy. We moved with our two school -aged daughters to Edina 2 %2 years ago from the city of Portland, Oregon where we lived in a turn of the (20th) century neighborhood called Laurelhurst. Prior to moving to Oregon, we owned a home built in 1908 in the St. Paul's Macalester Groveland neighborhood. In 2010, we chose Edina because of its excellent public schools and services, its close proximity to Rick's job and to our church, and for its unique proximity to urban and suburban amenities. We are "city" people who love established neighborhoods, sidewalks, older homes; urban wildlife and an eclectic community that is organized and engaged. In Edina, Morningside is, no doubt, the right pocket for us. In January of 2011, our builder purchased a lot on our behalf from the Sidell family at 4408 Morningside Road. Throughout 2011, we planned and built our "new old" home and were delighted to take occupancy in December of 2011. In our choice of builder and in many subsequent design decisions,. we made it a priority to design a home that fit the character of Morningside. Recent developments with the Sidell Family, our neighbor at 4412 Morningside Road, have commanded our attention. The Sidells have proposed a new subdivision of 7 homes including a cul de sac on the east side of their property. The proposed cul de sac runs 8.7 feet from our property, 15 feet from our home and less than one foot from and parallel to our driveway. Frank Sidell knows that we have concerns with their plan and we have asked him to reconsider a west side cul de sac. A summary timeline of our experience and good faith efforts to work with the Sidell Family is attached as Appendix A. We are compelled to take action to protect our home's safety, value, compliance with city code, and our quality of life. To that end, we respectfully express our concerns regarding the proposal for Acres Dubois at 4412 Morningside Road, Edina. 1. Adequate access to a subdivided Acres Dubois can be secured with a cul de sac running on the west side of the proposed sub - division. A number of points relating to history, safety, city code, fairness, due process under the law, and impact on residents' property values support this and are detailed in Appendix B. 2. An east side cul de sac, as proposed by the Sidell Family and under current review by the City of Edina Planning Commission, has a unique and profound impact on the Hardy Hardy Letter of Concern re: Acres Dubois residence and residents nearby, affecting our property value and quality of life. These impacts include: • Creating an unsafe intersection by placing a road within 1 foot of our driveway • Pushing our home and driveway out of compliance with city code for set backs • Risking a significant negative impact to our property value for the fiscal benefit of the Sidell Family • Imposing a disproportionate and intimate amount of air, light, and noise pollution on the Hardy home A detailed discussion is outlined in Appendix C. 3. The entire neighborhood faces the prospect of imminent and long -term heavy construction of seven new houses where today only one stands. We have concerns regarding the impact of the increased density in our neighborhood, and these are detailed in Appendix D. 4. We object to a through- street plan included, but not recommended, in the Sidell submission and our objections are outlined in Appendix E. Above all, we ask the Edina Planning Commission and City Council to make a west side cul de sac a condition of any approval of a new sub - division on the property. Frank Sidell's August 12, 2012 letter to neighbors describes the family's desire to create a positive legacy and to keep their plans " Morningside friendly." We trust his sincerity in this and our conversations with Frank and other family members to date have been open and reasonable. Similarly, the Hardy family picked Morningside for its neighborly feel. We are doing our best to work with our neighbors and our City to navigate a path that best balances the rights of all involved. Naturally, we look forward to welcoming any new neighbors who will be building their homes on Acres Dubois, just as we have been welcomed so warmly into our wonderful pocket of Edina. Thank you for your diligence in this matter. Sincerely, Rick and Sar H l I l I y 1z, O %/ 2,0a_ 4408 Morningside Road Edina, MN 55416 (952) 486 -7658 cc Scott Dahlke, RE Frank Sidell Hardy Letter of Concern re: Acres Dubois APPENDIX A: RECENT HISTORY OF 4408 AND 4412 MORNINGSIDE ROAD We Hardys live at 4408 Morningside Road, directly east and next to Acres Dubois at 4412 Morningside Road. We have lived in our house less than one year. The recent history of our property is relevant: January 2011: 4408 Morningside Road purchased from the Sidell Family by REFINED LLC with the express written commitment to construct a new, custom home on site for Rick and Sarah Hardy January - April 2011: Hardy home plan designed and finalized May 3, 2011: Frank Sidell Sr. of 4412 Morningside Road passes away. Unbeknownst to the Hardy family, this event puts into motion the Sidell family plans to subdivide and develop Acres Dubois. June 27,2011: Ground is broken for Hardy home at 4408 Morningside Road. December 15, 2011: Hardy family moves into 4408 Morningside Road. December 2011- August 2012: Frank, Tina (Rhode), Phil and Mrs. Iris Sidell welcome us personally to the neighborhood and we exchange contact information and pleasantries. August 11, 2012: Frank Sidell Jr. distributes a letter formally describing the Sidell family's intent to develop their property at 4412 Morningside Road. Despite summer -long rumors in the neighborhood, August 11th is the first direct word from the Sidell family to us regarding their plans. Had the timeline of events for either family shifted by six months, it is likely that either of our decisions regarding the property and project would have been radically impacted. October 9, 2012: The Sidell Family hosted a neighborhood meeting during which they revealed a drawing of their probable plan for Acres Dubois. This plan included a new east side cul de sac providing access to 6 new homes on the south end of Acres Dubois. The cul de sac is drawn directly next to and running parallel to the Hardy residence. The Hardy family was invited but not present at this meeting. October 11, 2012: Having seen the plans, Sarah Hardy called Frank Sidell to ask why the road was not planned on the west side of their lot, away from the Hardy home and where any new road intuitively belongs. A meeting between families is set for October 19". October 19, 2012: Frank Sidell, Peter Knaeble (Terra Engineering), Sarah and Rick Hardy meet at the Hardy residence to discuss the Sidell's plan for Acres Dubois. An hour long discussion is held recapping the Sidell's reasons for the east -side access plan. Hardy Appendix A Together, we walked the Sidell property. Sarah and Rick made an appeal for a west side road citing the profound and unique impact of a road within 15 feet of their home. Frank and Peter agree to "take a second look" at a west side access option. October 23, 2012: A second, larger neighborhood meeting is hosted by the Sidell Family to describe the plans for Acres Dubois. The plan presented at this meeting is the "East Side Cul De Sac" plan to which the Hardys objected on October 19th. Sarah Hardy attended the meeting and again verbalized the Hardy's desire for a west side cul de sac accessing the new lots. October 27, 2012: Sarah Hardy called Frank Sidell to request a direct response to their October 19`h appeal for reconsideration of West side access. Frank reported that the Family will not be pursuing a west side access despite the impact of an east side road on the Hardy residence. The reason for this per Frank is "we lose a lot with a west side road." December 8, 2012: Planned meeting with Frank Sidell, Rick and Sarah Hardy. Hardy Appendix A APPENDIX B: IN SUPPORT OF WEST -SIDE ACCESS TO ACRES DuBOIS We feel that fair and adequate access to a subdivided Acres Dubois can be secured with a cul de sac running on the west side of the proposed sub - division. A number of points support this: 1. History: The original survey and vision for the neighborhood shows lot subdivision of this property with road access on the west side. Until Monday, December 3, 2012, a portion of road right -of -way still existed on the St. Louis Park border for this purpose. "Natchez Avenue South" is shown on Hennepin County Section Map N1 /2 SETA Sec.07 T.28 R.24 . Attached (Attachment 1) is a copy of a partial print of the section map with the Hardy residence, Acres Dubois development, and existing Natchez Avenue South noted. It is clear that the original intent for subdivision of the Acres Dubois parcel incorporated access with a west side road. 2. Safety: An intersection that logically continues an existing road, where stopped traffic already pauses, is a safer place to put a new street connection to Morningside Road. A continued street coming in from the north to Morningside Road where Oakdale already .enters from the south will not surprise drivers and will be no less safe than the existing Oakdale / Morningside Road intersection. 3. City Code: Section 850.08 Subd. 6 part A. "General Requirements: Vehicular traffic be channeled and controlled in a manner that will avoid congestion and traffic hazards on the lot or tract or on adjacent streets. Traffic generated by the use shall be directed so as to avoid excessive traffic through residential areas." A west side cul de sac complies with this requirement, while an east side road presents potential hazards as described above and in Appendix C. 4. Shared Impact: The amount of light, noise and air pollution plus traffic congestion of a west side access into Acres Dubois is more fairly dispersed and shared by residents. St. Louis Park residents state in their recently granted petition to their City Council to vacate . the .right of way for Natchez Ave South that they would be buffered by ,a hillside between Hardy Appendix B 1;. eAF them and any new prospective road on the west side of Acres Dubois. An east side road intimately and disproportionately impacts the Hardy residence and residences south of Acres Dubois on Morningside Road. 5. Property Values of affected west -side neighbors are already adjusted: Because the potential for "Natchez Avenue South" already existed (point 1, above), lots of record for residents of St. Louis Park whose homes backed up to this as- of- yet - unbuilt road had the existing road right -of -way, and the real possibility for a road, already factored into their property values. With the Right of Way vacated by the City of St. Louis Park on December 3, 2012, those property values could increase. St. Louis Park Residents' desire to have the right of way vacated supports our position that a right of way.— not to mention an actual adjacent road— depletes a property's value. 6. Property Values of affected east -side neighbors are preserved: We assert that, if the City of Edina approves the plan as proposed for Acres Dubois, this is an illegal seizure of property value from the Hardy family and other neighbors to benefit a private party, the Sidell Family, without due process. A west side cul de sac avoids this unjust transfer of property value. 7. The Sidell's Plan is preserved, in mirror image: We assert that the Sidell Family does not "lose a lot" by placing the road on the west side as has been previously indicated. An overlay of a mirror -image cul de sac to the one they are proposing shows that the road and lots fit in either configuration, east or west, regardless of the challenging topography to the north end of the lot. See the attached (Attachment 2) of a West Side Street Layout drawing. Additionally, any "loss of a lot" or value for the benefactors of Acres Dubois, needs to be weighed against the loss of property value for other existing owners impacted. Hardy Appendix B .W91W, APPENDIX C: EAST SIDE CUL DE SAC CONCERNS An east side cul de sac, as proposed by the Sidell Family, has a unique and profound impact on the Hardy residence, affecting our home's legality, property value and our quality of life. These impacts include: 1. Home Setback Compliance: A new road west of the Hardy home creates ambiguity around the Front or Side Street Setback Requirements for City of Edina Single Family Dwellings. Front Street Setback is required to be 30 feet. Our home and garage are built facing our current west side lot line. Any future appraiser, future buyer, and/or future building permit official could interpret that the front of our house faces west (i.e. faces the proposed cul de sac) and therefore requires a front setback of 30 feet. OR, City Code ,Section 850.11 Subd. 7.A.2 and City of Edina Fact Sheet titled "Setback Requirements for City of Edina Single Family Dwellings" reads that Side Street Setback is 15 feet "but increases to front street setback if adjacent house faces side street." The Code's exception clause, and the exact interpretation of what is considered "adjacent," is somewhat ambiguous. Any future appraiser, future buyer, and/or future building permit official could interpret that our home meets the exception clause for Side Street Setbacks and therefore requires a front setback of 30 feet. This ambiguity impacts our home's compliance, value and desirability on the market, and complicates our deed and insurance requirements. 2. Driveway Setback Compliance: The east side-cul de sac puts the Hardy residence driveway out of compliance with setback requirements for the City of Edina Single Family Dwelling Driveways. Per city code 1205.02 Subd. 3 "Minimum Distance to Street Intersection. The minimum distance between the driveway and the nearest return of the intersection of two streets shall be 50 feet as measured at the curb line of the street." Our driveway would be within 20 feet of the curb of the new cul de sac, an undesirable and unsafe distance that is out of compliance with City Code. 3. Air, Light, and Noise Pollution: The east side cul de sac places disproportionate amounts of light, noise and air pollution on the Hardy family. Partly due to the fact that it runs parallel to our home, but mostly due to the fact that the proposed right -of -way runs 15 feet from our home where no road currently exists, we will experience a tremendous and intimate amount of new headlight, streetlight, vehicular noise, and air pollution as a result of this new cul de sac. 4. Property Value: The plan for an east side cul de sac has already disproportionately and substantially depleted the property value of our home at 4408 Morningside Road. We did not purchase a corner lot for our home. Our home and driveway were not designed with the expectation that a road would be running directly to the west of our property. Our house currently conforms to all city codes, however if we were to try and sell our home today we would be compelled to disclose the Acres Dubois plans and their impact on our home. Hardy Appendix C APPENDIX D: DENSITY CONCERNS RELATING TO THE SUBDIVISION OF ACRES DUBOIS: While it is reasonable to expect the Sidell family to consider options for the Acres Dubois property, and Morningside is a neighborhood of higher density, the proposed plan will create an extreme challenge to the existing residents of this already developed neighborhood. The density of the sub- division creates the following concerns: 1. Construction Schedule: The demolition of one home and its outbuildings, property grading, and the construction of seven new homes, could result in years of construction nuisance to the nearby residents if not properly managed. We urge discussion of this topic upfront in the process, and accommodations be made to limit the impact to the neighborhood. Potential accommodations could include: • Reduce the number of new lots / homes • Coordinate construction on all new homes to happen simultaneously • If multiple builders are being used, require coordination among them in bringing equipment, building supplies, and high noise into the neighborhood • Limit and enforce hours of construction activity to 8:OOAM to 5:OOPM Monday - Friday with no construction on weekends or holidays. 2. Burden on Infrastructure, Streets and Sewer: More heavy machinery in Morningside takes a toll on our streets, which all residents will be assessed to upkeep. Also, will the burden of these net six new homes' plumbing and other infrastructure demands accelerate the need for repair or upgrade of Morningside's infrastructure? Will assessments be higher, and come sooner, as a result of this project? . 3. Urban Wildlife, Habitat, and Green Space: Acres Dubois is a unique property in Morningside, a high- density neighborhood. Developing the property to the maximum limits of City Code will unfortunately result in the loss of precious urban green space, wildlife habitat, and trees, many of which are over a hundred years old. Has any consideration been made toward formally preserving at least a portion of this land and its unique qualities as a park or designated open space? Could one or more lot be designated or donated as " Sidell Park ?" 4. Impact to Edina Public Schools Enrollment and Cost: The proposed development will introduce six new households to the Edina Public School district. From experience, we know that the currently districted public school for the Acres Dubois address is Highlands Elementary, which is experiencing several classrooms already beyond recommended capacity. How does the prospect of six net new households that could bring almost an entire new classroom of students to Highlands fit into the district's space and expense plans? Does the City expect that property tax revenues will cover the cost of educating the new school -age residents? 5. The City's Comprehensive Plan: The proposed density will alter the character of a portion of Morningside that has been in place for decades. Inserting seven new residences into a space that has accommodated one residence for this long period arguably defies the City's Comprehensive Plan which states "Building on current efforts, the City will seek options that allow for single - family redevelopment that is sensitive to the community character and context of existing neighborhoods." Hardy Appendix D APPENDIX E: CONCERNING A THROUGH - STREET PLAN FOR ACRES DuBOIS The option of a through -street connecting Morningside Road to Upper Oakdale / Littel Street has been raised, and supported by some residents. We feel compelled to comment against this option. We assert that the through -street plan adversely impacts us in all the same ways that an east -side cul de sac does as outlined in Appendix C, only to an amplified degree. Further, we believe that an approval of a through -street plan would be a detriment to the Morningside neighborhood and its residents given the following considerations: 1. Traffic for Close Neighbors: The traffic impact, including noise, light, and air pollution for the Hardys and neighbors on Morningside Road between Lynn and Upper Oakdale, is a major concern. Assuming ten trips per household per day, the traffic impact of six net new homes on a cul de sac entering onto Morningside road would be roughly 60 trips per day. The traffic impact of a through street would include traffic from 24 homes: the seven newly developed homes plus traffic from the seventeen newly - connected- to- Morningside Road homes on lower Oakdale. Traffic from a through street would be minimum one half of 240 trips per day, or 120. Estimated Traffic Impact of a Through Street on Close Neighbors: • Cul De Sac = 60 trips per day • Through Street = 120 trips per day minimum Further, each of these homes does or will provide housing for citizens of Edina, and therefore we assert that more than half of their trips out each day would take them south to Morningside Road and to their destinations in Edina including schools, work, kids' activities, churches, etc. We feel confident that a cul de sac would result in a milder traffic impact for close neighbors of Acres Dubois. 2. Cul de Sac does fit Morningside: A cul de sac is consistent with the eclectic nature of Morningside and its streets. There is precedent for dead -end and cul de sac streets in and near the Morningside neighborhood, when topography or other terrain challenges seem to have necessitated a break from the grid structure. Examples in Edina Morningside: • West 45`h street off of Grimes • Upper Oakdale at Branson Street There are additional dead ends and cul de sacs in Edina's nearby White Oaks neighborhood and even closer in neighboring pockets of St. Louis Park. 3. Urban Wildlife, Habitat and Water A through street necessitates the near complete obliteration of Acres Dubois for the sake of grading the landscape and paving the road, and near twice the impermeable road surface would result. A cul de sac holds promise for at least preserving some of the existing habitat for urban wildlife and water management. 4. Some have argued that "no variances whatsoever" should be the guiding principal as city planners review the options for Acres Dubois. We disagree and feel this is a unique property, and situation, meriting special and careful consideration for the neighborhood, the habitat and landscape, and the family's legacy. Hardy Appendix E 7 0 2) �k - g 2do R n ^ (108) (115) (114) 1 (75) 3 N '1) OTTAWA .::1998 (5) ❑ 0 125 125 ° ' :-20 a ::.5.86 .... -- - - - - - --' .5 ICS' e cn (74) —�— - 74.5 - -LI-T-TEL ST— - I 200 128 I �1. Q 1 �` ....- .128--- z ' 1 (72) e O' 2 �_ O 1 °0 19 c 8 °o o -79 - 1';op (156) g;;o. :'I^ 100) (85) o- - - - - - - (� a.. --- -3 -- -- - 1 20 0 v Q (157) 18 N � O 9 O O° 1a o ) ( ) io Existing - ;- :- � ^- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - - - - - W - - - Natchez Ave S --- ____Z70 � � Right -of -Way Q ' (70) a ° (1 8) ° 7 Q o 70 0 °o (159) _ _ Proposed (127) (69) ._. , 128 N Acres ' a Dubois zoo - - °- - - -129 - -„ Q ° Development (88) z a° Z- 0 1s ---- 11--- - - - - -° o 12a ( ) �j� o - - - - (68) ° 1a ° w ° (87) (161) a ❑ v 28 Hardy Residence , 200 66 0 12 R 3 (162) �� 15 ------- - - - - -g o ----- - - - - - - 75 128 95) (89) (67) °v 13 150 200 l � (163) (93) po 14 0 14 °o (91) - -- 13--- - - - --° (94) ° 15 (92) (63) SD NO 27 Doc 102118 _.� 149.4 941 --- ---- 114--- 150 100 100 100 (64) 4 1 126 4) 20 ''� -.. 200 50 200 40 200 )FSTl�OUISPARK SD NO 283 ' -__ _ MORN —IN GSIDE ROAD - )F EDINA 147.65 SD NO 27 Doc 102118 _.� 149.4 941 100 100 100 100 I I I I I I 1 34 1 (135 ( ) 1133.67 as 17 C 3 a (133) (132) I I 1 ,\40 aol w 1 I I I (70) (83) � �� S 117.94 I (136) a i (58) I 1 N (61) �1 (63) (64) i (67) (69) o l o 5; 9 i ° ° o ° 94 0 PART OF HENNEPIN COUNTY SURVEY • 3 � �� 5 a GR DIVISION SECTION MAP A® 4,0 (137) 24 N1 /2 SE1 /4 Sec.07 T.28 R.24 4 138 (85) 164) - -- { -- .., Cam, ; M t�nff�ICCIffEZ Ra rA y c� v,ehA-1 2 +1wa"r,1n% � °q I I I I , � ► I ewr I esi .oc I 9rn I . I 99,v1 I N. — — — — — — — — Mn Z Lrz+ Z m– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – - an io =I xc. s° Ht, T $gygq 03 �oG8o63 I I [1 , t OvOH 3OISONINUOV4 ON8 MU$NN � $ � � � 6 � p � 955 ,Sl u63a09a u° (•� 919- Y i5 Zl ► ` II N � 91 i5 ll I °lo I I I ► I °,• I 91.r 1 Ere. I I t I I [1 , t OvOH 3OISONINUOV4 _. .Ol '1338 955 ,Sl }vq, pi • � 919- Y i5 Zl ► ` II N � 91 i5 ll I °lo 1 q I S'66 b '\ \ \ I W. i5 £ S vt A =— I V L. j is PC �\ i5 (6'H+II I .Il; r I /^o -�° a Ymm ------- - -iavd suioi —is , v905 O9 — or u .Impa( I F of I oB�\ tr cam% � i5 6HL'PZ 181, ► ay f I -° I� V I I In gX 133HLS 1311n L p . I J 4.99 A. I in 0 9 G I x 9s[. Lca • S r7 I � ei I z I� ► N I 4 ib[ : sa PRELIMINARY PLAT .` 1 MN ► L----- - - - - -- I i I 192. I ► ----- - - - - -- I i I I ► ----- - - - - -- 692. ( I ► I I I---- ----- - -' i ► 192r I I LSE. I I i — — — — — — — — — — ► I sszs I L---- - - - - -- can 7A '1S Z/t Z11 / r I / r I / r I / r k �.. MI 6palls. 9 Avenue Mlnms9411s, 9tinnrsere 55422 Ilc Ibl. °'vr.w 763 593 9375 F- 7.3 512 0717 0 0 Cary Teague From: Patrick Judge <judge5920 @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:37 AM To: floyd.grabiel @tsi.com; Cary Teague; kevin @stauntonlaw.com Cc: jhovland @krausehovland.com Subject: Regarding Edina Planning Commission and the 7 -8 lot "Acres Dubois" Subdivision Dear Mayor Hovland and concerned parties, As a resident of Edina - Morningside, I am emailing the following to express my thoughts on the proposed 7 -8 lot "Acres Dubois" Subdivision. Let me thank you in advance for considering my thoughts as you navigate the governance of this issue. I do appreciate the opportunity to provide insight on the matter in question as it directly impacts my neighborhood. My wife and I moved into Morningside a year and half ago with our two boys. Edina has a great quality of life and education to offer. Fortunately, here in the Twin Cities, there are many options for a great quality of life and education. So why choose Morningside? We chose Morningside for the character of the neighborhood. We are concerned the proposed sub - division will detract from that character. Having said that, it is important to understand, we are of the strongest opinion that new construction has a place in our neighborhood. We would never want to create a deterrent for some other couple's chance to move in to such a fine neighborhood. Our concern is centered on two things: 1) The laws or lack thereof regarding setbacks, heights, grandfathered in structures that can be taken advantage of by builders to expand the footprint of homes on narrow lots, and character preservation, and 2) The enforcement or lack there of regarding those laws. To be clear, we do not want to prevent or deter new home construction. Rather, we want to welcome a dialogue with the building community. We feel strongly this dialogue can only be effective if the Planning Commission enacts and enforces a process that allows for the Builder's adherence to the concerns of the existing neighborhood. Alternatively, the City might consider turning the property in question in to a park, library or botanical garden of sorts, maybe even a community co -op farm. Perhaps the neighborhood with the city's help can issue a municipal bond to buy the property from the owner. Edina could get great publicity for this. There is no shortage of creativity regarding what can be done with this property, and I am somewhat disappointed there is no energy coming from our elected officials to promote an alternative solution that can be a win, win for everyone. Respectfully submitted, Patrick Judge 4307 Eton Place Edina, MN 55424 Chris McClain 4043 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 (952) 929 -8582 December 5, 2012 Ms. Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina Planning Division 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Sidell Property Development Dear Ms. Teague: I am writing to express concern regarding the planned development of the Sidell family property on Morningside Rd. I believe that the drawbacks of the current development plan outweigh the benefits and request that the city of Edina take special note of the negative impact of the Sidell development on safety and congestion in the Morningside neighborhood. Morningside is a wonderful, tight knit neighborhood that suffers from one major drawback. Its roads are used as traffic cut - throughs between Linden Hills /Lake Harriet and Highway 100 /St. Louis Park. During rush hour in particular, cars race through the neighborhood, generating congestion, noise pollution, and, most importantly, safety concerns. I live on Sunnyside Rd., where we have already had two near misses (one with our dog and one with our five year old). The proposed development of the Sidell property adds to this problem in two ways: 1) The addition of new lots will add, in all likelihood, 12+ new cars to the neighborhood as well as new traffic from visitors, delivery vehicles, construction crews, etc. 2) Traffic from the newly developed homes will flow onto Morningside Rd. at the crest of a hill, where it will by nature be difficult to see oncoming traffic. I understand from conversations with residents who have lived in Edina longer than I have that the codes and regulations that govern development in the city may favor the developer. However, I cannot believe that those codes and regulations call for assessment of development plans solely through the lens of the developer. So, I ask that the city of Edina consider the impact of the proposed Sidell development on the well -being of all the residents of the Morningside neighborhood and not just the well -being of the Sidell family. Morningside is already plagued by traffic hazards, and any evaluation of the Sidell development plans must take this serious safety concern into account. Thank you for your time and attention. Best regards, V C ris Wain owe ) i) 0 • �MCORpolAt- O • 1888 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VIII.A From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action ❑x Discussion ❑ Date: April 16, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: 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: New Information. The applicant has submitted revised plans (See attached dated April 9, 2013) based on comments from the City Council at the April 2nd meeting. The revisions include:. • Removal of one unit (16 total). The northeast setback increased from 15 to 42 feet. • Increase the setback on 49th to 36 feet. • Sidewalk has been added on 49th. • Additional greenspace provided. • One way drive implemented with an additional drive and curb cut. (Garbage truck access.) • Three additional guest parking spaces have been added. Previous Information. 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. - - — City of Edina • 4801 W. 50h St. • Edina, MN 55424 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, 3. Preliminary Development Plan; and 4. Preliminary Plat 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: 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. 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: • Revised Plans date stamped April 9, 2013 • 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 w' 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 16 -unit attached housing development. The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density of the project would be 11 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. Five townhomes would face 49th Street, three townhomes would face west, and eight townhomes would face Vernon Avenue; the garages and drive aisle are 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 wwwEdinaMN.gov • 952 - 927 -8861 • Fax 952 - 826 -0389 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-33 11 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: 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. 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 16, 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 1 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, 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 J v 4 J 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 16 -unit attached housing development. The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size; therefore, the proposed density of the project would be 11 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: 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. 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 ,,'N( 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 date stamped April 9, 2013. Cpl 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. 9. There shall be no rooftop decks. Adopted by the city council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on April 16, 2013. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) James B. Hovland, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 2013-37 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 16, 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 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 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, 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 v 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. B. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Edina Fifty - .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 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. 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: 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. 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 491h Street and eight townhomes would face Vernon Avenue with the garages and drive aisle internal to the site. 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 S. 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. 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. Page 7 of 13 t 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 Terhaar 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 491h 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 491h 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 Cary Teague —114 -, �,.. 'rom: 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 2nd Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401 1 Chicago, IL 1 Washington, DC Architecture, Interior Design, Landscape Architecture, Engineering 1 www.bkvgroup.com EOE Please consider the enviromnent before printing this email; print only if necessary. Is— ' 15112 I 5109 5110 U U A -1 O OW K Z m5 I W 3 A AVE J� AVE r1 SITF LAN —,--= s a �� iiriarr�� KEY NOTES Qi .vcmun mnxrrnw m1. aids O[uStvG ado[ .x{x lr. xYxN) O001," a R 0" 9 W ME 4-1-tv j [D) BKV G R O U P Interior DesiyP Landscape Arthitect re Engineering Boarmae Krow Vogel Group Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis MN SS401 Telephone 612- 339 -3752 Facsimile 612- 339 -6212 — .bkvgroup.com NOT FOR CONSTRUC -nON Preliminary Development Plan Submittal Vemon Avenue Townhomes ®nrrwnon IFNSION9 Na fNTE OPANIJ BY 10. �9r conr®ara wa SITE PLAN LIQO o uu 9avc+snc�roa Vernon Avenue Townhouses Perspective View - Northeast 04 -08 -13 Scale BKV G R O U P 1A[2/;Z, P Vernon Avenue Townhouses Perspective View - Northwest B K V 04 -08-12 _,tale G R 0 U V N[E t�� r= %�91;`OWR Doi VERNON AVENUE 70WNHOMES 1 _r_ �i 49TH AVENUE - LOOKING EAST Q - RK HuntAssociatc v VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES 49TH AVENUE - LOOKING WEST Hunt"ssociatc B K V NOR U .� D 9 12(glaw 1119 -V D 9MID 1.4- tf: Ell III SITE WEST ELEVATION cl ama � , t Will if Ell =1 I it la, III =4 1 1 P--4 =4 =111111 1p=--44 SITE SECTION NORTH-SOUTH .m1 ma A La U"- ii1SI- E SECTION EAST -WEST Vernon Avenue Townhouses Site Sections BKV 04-08-13 G R 0 U P 9 12(glaw 1119 -V D 9MID 'W9t��l� o� e W 0 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 —Al 0.) 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: 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. 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.) 3 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.) 2 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 5 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 C: { i 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- 22oning 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.) 8 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: 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. Lj 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: 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. Lj 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 PU.D 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: 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: 1. 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: 1. The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Approval is 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. Deadline for a city decision: June 4, 2013 13 City of Edina ®T11871M 10 Lcg°nd House Number Labels 5 "Of d 1521 5209 105 A 0 5205 I 5109 �, '�. 5207��2_ 125 5117 � 4916 24 $200 5200 v ��J 4920 5010 +o 5000 85 � Y6�ONAsT y sp7/yylf' n 4Y a 5001 5100 SYOVRG LA v`01] 24 ' 5101 5033 5075 x y a 5� 24 24 �2 5146 a 57/0 5101 ffi ® 5116 0 21 irsnY i.ry�u Pifll us��r...w4s.c�y�.�clsrs e52an 0 aem -- -- PID: 2811721310040i� �° ~a 5115 49th St W 4 "`+'� �• Edina, MN 55436 ti� 9 4801 5209 5105 5201 d80i q]6 Shact Name I,ebzls g 4805 City Lim its IIJI Q 4605 4808 At Z`i CReka w jIjIIMI2sl0 4811 ��✓ 4609 Luke Names 4810 y $ 4613 0 4900 {sk4g 7 '1812 4813 6817 ° y Parks 4821 Paroe15 4816 48 f dEffi 7 a'a14S1,YD PL � p x 4825 0 Q90/ 4921 48=5 5121 5117 5113 5701 ° 4620 4833 3 ° RUTf- rO(PAVP 4812 4637 4908 4824 5120 5116'5112 51 U8 4841 4ez6 4011 d838 4940 4840 N 4845 � y 21 7900 60TH 5TW p 4912 5 "Of d 1521 5209 105 A 0 5205 I 5109 �, '�. 5207��2_ 125 5117 � 4916 24 $200 5200 v ��J 4920 5010 +o 5000 85 � Y6�ONAsT y sp7/yylf' n 4Y a 5001 5100 SYOVRG LA v`01] 24 ' 5101 5033 5075 x y a 5� 24 24 �2 5146 a 57/0 5101 ffi ® 5116 0 21 irsnY i.ry�u Pifll us��r...w4s.c�y�.�clsrs e52an 0 aem -- -- PID: 2811721310040i� �° ~a 5115 49th St W 4 "`+'� �• Edina, MN 55436 ti� 9 City of Edina Run VE .4 - , i •� � I � �� �; t ± +, �,1:. � � . t'r'ill •I ��A} Y Ilk r k � �• to+ � 1 v � " ,� i � _: s17J~ ,11E rl- ,. 1�1 , -� ,�' � -: • � �:� l ±J� yv - e.s t-+e+J I u _ �. `� +eau - / j 14 AT (�q . L} �e�JO 1•R 11V _ l 50TH 17 vi _ -`-• Z,—. rti !� Yt. sonfst?, cr; rw "0110 A 17 OAMCP I,, 313..1•' o �, ■ PID: 2811721310040 %QtY e ��i ? tai l Y) l 511549thStW 4r Qf ti o Edina, MN 55436 \�..� tl:itln'Sx3 4�1- Legend Hausa NumMr L.Ws S:r Name Lute is .! -city u,,,ih ti CreeRa Ww Names L.A— 1AI ParRs Pa rr s 20"Jkt,ial Phsh, t , 11 IL ry P l .G NV t t ,,; � •f�th Leask;: m � .:^� �lacuatlw.�A WS Cave go!C;�aGS^.]SS �9 0 PID: 2811721310040 a l� ° 5115 49th St W {n l C+ tia �• Edina, MN 55436 City cad E-dip--:! - --- - _.._ - r• la � •,. .. .: .;£ Lagend House Number Labels h d fi �.• _ y t r (' Street Name Labels �. 71 City Limits Creeks Lake Names r i - >z9a yic ,aex Lakes 0 Parks t r , � Parcels ! 2M .aerial Photo d�Z t�irr A, s _ t , 11 IL ry P l .G NV t t ,,; � •f�th Leask;: m � .:^� �lacuatlw.�A WS Cave go!C;�aGS^.]SS �9 0 PID: 2811721310040 a l� ° 5115 49th St W {n l C+ tia �• Edina, MN 55436 -�e A AA ' r Ai A`- LN .............. ............ City of Edina _- 4801 5209 5703 $201 4801 1 S/ti 5117511]5/0851054800 4805 4805 ON 3 4811 1809 487] 4810 5170 'S /7B 57725108 5104 Yt x217 4812 4913 4811 r 4818 4821 � - - -- - 4918 4817 eaJ.NYD 1s. O 4815 $ � 4904 4821 4875 5707 4820 5121 1111 5773 4833 $ AU7LEDWAYE 4&12 4837 Owe 4824 1201, 5112 5108 IB47 8 4828 4832 4838 4840 4840 24 Kts �4 49rN sr w t . 24 1900 5197 41 52111211 I05 -- >20l 5205 51,7 5,08 �aa.� p '4916 002 5002 21 -000 'fj, 3200 4920 5000 �,,r�11 A Y 5001 s :j 5100 5 5017 i 24 5101 5075 5073 9 d 74 5 }48 (�j�a 5T {8 5 }O7 N 5}18 24 rFm,-ky F W a�.m,rnAa+VStmr C::Afd CSSYq, iYT r PID: 2811721310040 ( "o�' e 511549thStW tie Edina, MN 55436 A� Legend -- - — House Number Labels Street Name Labels City Limits Creeks L] lake Names lakes Parks Zoning OAPO 4,4, bsl P.Y -0—,11 MODe(M— Oa'._.� ■ POE, StW.in¢M Gmm -rcmU d• -� OP.D SP,L nRn, ima�n..y U�..:tt OKID.,iW.aR. !CM >a U.9. It OPOD 2 wi— Off - D:a,.:71 ■ Pi70-3 (Fmnn¢a Racf:M]t .PAD 4(p].— f--- D a..;.ii ■ PRD S(P¢ —RS+ D.-1 ■ PSR 4plaroiF rr.OcVCtI O R I ISn1v9wia 0.41 ■ R2 {0autrbpwaBne Unill ❑ RMU;Ra7. —1 Mw wDwl.ct) I-1 Parcels 1 _ 9th' �• ^� :..for living, learning; - raising families &doing business 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, townhouses, quads, etc.) and or redevelopment, 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 A'� Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -27 a ...for living, learning, raising families & doing business �� S= l -1 2008 Comprehensive Plan Legend Benion AY LDR. Low Denvry Residential OR - Ofice Residential RM. Rsgicnal Mecical WAR -Low Density Adxhed Residential ±' O -Ofice OSP- Open Space and Parks MDR - Medium Dix-ty Residential MXC. Mixed Use Center PEP- PublcSeml -Public A HDR -High Densty Resde liar CAC - Communty Actwily Canter l I IAH- LlmledAccess Highway - NC Nelghbomlood Commercial I - Industrial °2 ig 3 Stories: 36' z z e� 4 Stories: 46 Ila 1� 6 Stories: 77 V 31 '. �1 11 r i lJ 101 j Standard Height 1 I Tarr. � Podium Height 2 NC S�z a` 4 0 n orr• N o" a E 4- e W 391h �1 >`e i I :t �i A., /111 SI r • 9 Nf_' Ihvlew La xj Wset+ 2 y. ey 9y NC City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Data Source: URS 1 2 1 w 1 � i _... Atom sl HaR� h w e /In sl I Future Land Use Plan with Building Heights Northeast Quadrant Figure 4.6A 0 0 5 M1fe5 Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -53 Benion AY g Height Limits s M 0 2 Stories: 24' °2 3 Stories: 36' z z 4 Stories: 46 6 Stories: 77 a Standard Height v 9) Podium Height 4- e W 391h �1 >`e i I :t �i A., /111 SI r • 9 Nf_' Ihvlew La xj Wset+ 2 y. ey 9y NC City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Data Source: URS 1 2 1 w 1 � i _... Atom sl HaR� h w e /In sl I Future Land Use Plan with Building Heights Northeast Quadrant Figure 4.6A 0 0 5 M1fe5 Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -53 V T I 0 O P{oposed Housing r lei I � � ` �� � -' ai ��� 'Mfg: -� I M1 [rwY ''r ��yj•. I ` .. , r g•_ -•� "� � ;,i ' -�_ 111- �- {� tel: I. I' � •'• � '� - 'n--_� - �J -p II - -- r µ, • ,� it T F L` t 9- I _ ` -ate•; I Ix i _.esie -� { o I d I elr .• Il � t'`�;StiStiy i ti�, I ;I I �� -.r I I oq *r f;, k , ,i ' ' it dr• .�.A �iri •, I I � J Illustrative Master Plan Supporting Policies - GrandView Height SAP GUIDING PRINCIPLES T= 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 and 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) • 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, calming, storwater management, promoting active living, community feel, improving walking and biking, and enhancing urban forests. IMPLEMENTATION YEARS 1 -5 • CP Rail bike path from Eden to Brookside YEARS 5 -10 • Vernon Living Streets /stmetscape /3 lane section • Dedicate right turn from Vernon to Interlachen • Vernon as primary bike ro+•' -'n GrandV Crossing -,PORTATION GOALS [e a ore bike and pedestrian environment by applying Complete Streets and YEARS 10+ .i m g Streets principles to Vernon, Eden and the local street network • Hwy 100 Dedestrian/bike a� d D Bicycle Improvements Pr many B 4 router 1­.d.- bike .auras rwB mn cP Bowl n a� o❑ Q C� �f 0 UL r PuL,110. ml public Land Use Map - aegnbornooe commerdal - m,.ee -vr. I atnre meeium I high eenrlry rerieen W ,iw" TrA u o 0: m �w w Z �3 L4 L� L 49TH ST W r \ I rf _ iA swo v 0 1w J i n..ara imr �9ip mgr 1r ' I loo pmax t/H9 - s �n i ARCADIA AVE. VERNON AVENUE SENIOR HOUSING SKETCH PLAN �i PROJECT SUMMARY FLOOR TOTAL LL Isr xuo FLOOR ROOR BUILDING FOOTPRINT zDS+o zos +o sr FLOOR AREA DWELLING UNITS le IB uwrs PARKING(IN —UNIT) Ba dB sous (DWBLE LFR.aGE) PERVIOUS/ IMPERVIOUS '9•� � 52A PERNWS LOT SIZE 59.9+0 SF 59.940 sl w 1.11 BKV G R O U P AnI1lieCwR Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering K-- Vogel_ Group Inc 222 Nort h Semnd Street Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 FaaimOe: 612- 339 -6212 viww.bkvg ro up. mm Vernon Avenue Senior Housing aRrwunor+ anpes +v9vae Mn ��q Oa�F,�erloalansrlrl a trRr+lw uswu+L7 om oRnwry 9r � xs oacam ar SKETCH PLAN L010 O ]011 BKV GmpFC EOE area UNIT DENSITY FLOOR AREA RATIO 99JS al / 59,940 al BKV G R O U P AnI1lieCwR Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering K-- Vogel_ Group Inc 222 Nort h Semnd Street Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 FaaimOe: 612- 339 -6212 viww.bkvg ro up. mm Vernon Avenue Senior Housing aRrwunor+ anpes +v9vae Mn ��q Oa�F,�erloalansrlrl a trRr+lw uswu+L7 om oRnwry 9r � xs oacam ar SKETCH PLAN L010 O ]011 BKV GmpFC EOE MEMORANDUM BKV G R o u P PROJECT: Vernon Avenue Housing Architecture Interior Design TO: Cary Teague Landscape Architecture Engineering FROM: David Motzenbecker Boarman Kroos Vogel Group Inc. 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612.339.3752 Facsimile: 612.339.6212 www.bkvgroup.com EOE ,i ro 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 H13 _ we_ are connecting the One of the key elements of our site plan is how ,.. 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. - r B KV MEMORANDUM,. G 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: 612.339.62 12 www.bkvgi-oup.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: 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; 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 -4 redevelopment planned for south of Vernon,iwhich 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 majorbike 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. i. 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 we between Vernon and Interlachen and across 100 at what appears to be 491h Street, c) what is called out in the plan as a major destination — Vernon, Hwy. 100, and Grandview, All 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. It A 7. Recognize and integrate Edina'sI 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. AIA 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. All) g. allow for mixing of land uses. within -a development; y'`- 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. A aL. H...,any P.UD.which involves a single land use type q 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. H. 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. AJa 0 BKV G R 0 U P 74 I mon Ave VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES - EXISTING AERIAL B • �l 02,13,2013 i A mw VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES - SITE PICTURES 02.13.2013 m al CI Tl '` T� i� ow�' } ,r 1 •yam. v ,1 ��.5 �'ry y.. fi�i' so Jj lie � -. �7y + tam _ _ V +, pn�y �' . -,'. _ � ��� {ice'• y e Teti _ -,' hY ��' F� .r��•�1 �� •` j' `��`^% t; 1. Z. i y .i. i f � ,,•..r -rte Y i so Jj lie � -. �7y + tam _ _ V +, pn�y �' . -,'. _ � ��� {ice'• y e Teti _ -,' hY ��' F� .r��•�1 �� •` j' `��`^% t; 1. Z. i EI`� - -- ir I-=_ _- 1 FL, ;-Io L IIN IJ _ I��� �i gill El II III I V or , WE- C-S! 111f �� ��ll e F- ki� 41, rI I ILI! Twil, V rl. r iii C> PAINTED FIBER CEMENT W/ BATTERNS STAINED WOOD PANELS ARCHITECTURAL CAST STONE FIBER CEMENTTRIM BKV G R O U P OBRIEN KIMMEL --------------------------- j T- V:3 "'011111111' NORTH 0 20 40 %7...� SCALE IN FEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS w KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRFSENf9: -A Mlm Fdry Five. =, a W lots IIm1.d "Illy company. ill, , m rcN bllvwbe dsulbed pro;,Iny.INaNd In IM CwMy m H—pil. sbb of Nbmesma, to I,a^ T ad B, Block .,•Tlnemle Brm' 111—SM .Eecept BW part m.altl let It deacrlbad ea NOOwe: ii.0— B et a Pmm m Na Ead buloli- of uN Lai a dbfari m 1M Nmn m - SmdMea! 1mm 111are0. u Bourn elms geld Eed --y N feet 11—. Wed .Imp ill Somh bod,tlary m .eIC Lot. 0 feeF. bel..e NMb elOrp w Wert bo o dary m lath Lot 12 fe lbeme NodbWMy roue Pew m begllntlrle, Bslu ®np lm P. a ,— m." street m alley atl — b vN I-- vaubd or to a —d, .—ph, C—q. lOmesma T.Odbar nllh: A N.00 foot wNe lolp of Wtl hI 1p lad of tM Ninn.epolb. —ld ad 90mhem Rdlrmd bawls. Wml 18th Strad.d V.— Avenue In 9R,Hon= T ,dO 117 Nadi%ileM. 21 Wea% N—.Pln Co.*. fA-- (Ababad PmpedW 111;1. S mtl B, errt e0 OW part m Lab 1.10.11 ed 12 ybp NON m slab 1410 —y No 6. Bbc51, °rurpdele arm• Brmlalm•, E.W OW part of to 12 w1lch IIS Sol lb ly of the 1—lfi p decrbe0 tlm: Baelstlne tl • pohd on Cl, ftd Bra m .dd L0112 dbbm BB 1st Bomb m 1m NadMart cam NNrsol: Ue¢e rm nomh 11 to IIr $Qm11'/IOd rnmr m IW.bow deaalbed Lpi 12ed —lb, (T.— ft,.,) ' Has Dosed liN elms W be amveRd —pladed as OBMEN KIN.B1Fl wbarsl Wd MibiA ill— FNE, t nn uwd d— prelerm W m Bernd by Ib ­ Y d 201_ EDINA FIFTT FIVE, LLC ..., Hun %Chef —.u., Sole m CaWym The Iolepmnp ImewmN waa actrlad.dpW Wore vN Oda _ dry m N1_ by INNId Hm% Cl— Nardeer m MI. FMy Fl,, LLC, . Mlmesma 11— 1h 11y canpany, m mharc— company. lslymme) (Primed will) Nmay Pldgk Coolly, L1Y CNNnladm Eapbe. Avuury St, Nt_ OBR /EN KIMMEL SILL E ORe CEIITIFICATION L Rlcmrd L Lkh% do hereby cerllry Cwt W. pW wu prepared by m. or pdar my dbem wpeMelOn; UW I am . dmy Lkense0 Lad BurveYar M lM 91e1. m Mlm.eOb; ....Na pW la a codem o p yea Now; l , , We pW: UW ell w dep oNpill IuebeeR oWW M cw—j s—i, M Wboundarls ,d net bdR ad In Nbm. W dbn eio1 x s S. ea m the arts m Nm cedlOUle are Blown ed bdood on W. PIN; ed an PmAC Wan art .11own ad NbeW mdda Plat Oiled W. —mym 201_ a RkN W L Udd, LkemW Lad lil. err . MlmeaW Uc.nae No. NM Comdyol W pw TIN fore9eh0 bdrwerA . ackmMedeed bdoro ne Um _ my m 211_ by Rlcham L Uft a Llsnaed tad Smwyor. ("MW Norm) Notary -9. Cwmy, Nbo,eama Mytonwlvlm EaPbs.Yneary H, ]Alm MINA, MINNESOTA Thla pill m OBRIEN KIA1610, of approved AM ...spud by the City Cmmcll m Ulm Nbne.ma, M a reemar IM mee Ihes01hadcemmmmuptio b drym 2p1�rcappncabb.tMWanly mnmema ed m of IN CommlWOmr m Tly Wild hu end ft County H pt of Enebear haw been m000l by Ole m 1 tm pn by IVII D my parld hm.bp.ad Sl rettlp{ m ml*ld .pcn oammenb em,.cmmNnmtlma, ea prpNdad er emm sbnrta., scups BBABS. slma z CRY COUNCA OP wilm. R9WYESOTA By Y. By TA AYER SERVICES OEPA ENT, HemepinCmdy.L11- I hercty cN1 fy Ilut Non plyl l In 20 _ ad pall yeah hew been pad fo, lad mscdbad on Weplel,mbd W._mym .Nt� . Nark V. Chills, Hll.PM CSedy AUdem By I OepulY sURVEY DIVISION, R—lob, Cerny. N)mesob flleauant t. NN. =AT, sec sB 11 (bur) W. pill sera bass appmv.0 um day of N1_ W®am P. B— Hemepn Cmmy lba By MGISTNAII OP MI.M. Hemepin County, Nlmemta I _W c_y tml DN MWn Ida m 06f NIM1b'EL was MeA b W. mss Wa _my m N1�,rt _o'cbcl�l Mahn N[Cmm1cB, Redauarm Tills. By Deputy COUNT• nCOROER. Mesmepin C—y. NINNSme I —by Mn y Cod uN—to pm m OERIEN gwE.l Woe recordod In Wa o-1 W._ dry m zm� d_e'dou_AL Ma,i41 MceomticR COUmy Remdar By pePmy J 0 y SURVEY LEGEND - EXISTING CONDITIONS 00 urmi _ O sun m.l. y�umvmum [urnn o rno..xr —�— xorzrx aIo �zo ECAJ81 - IN ) .....«..a)aewn wn[ e Nc wrt ow K � • mmv aw maxw nab wws,wnvwJ�w Ac !v I D` I I �ll I I I I 5. OBRIEN Kimmel Preliminary Plat of OBRIEN KIMMEL [dmz, Ntinnsw Ix.�cwmm..�l e. mrt o.m ry ba.n na. ooew r:paopn. ro)w ,sru. ane m Edna Fi® bem[.m,..d x xdnmapmome.aA,:t a wNm:ar a my wndrou[q..)r.aaod.. Mm w. nm�.w.ss.l) -"r '.aar�' sue• °e�m�: r�l.mo�bl m iu iimmzn edemdbm rou.wy a®m k [.rtl"m0eemnsa.°'w.mm�me s�av .00tlm."aer�'mn�ip,i.%au�r�J�s v.�w°�9...mnd�ro )a[emw �,n wn nnwar�lm'�.sm weo )drdrax.e..ra...bromr.emw ua) vd 6 Bbn l )enaao am.• Gomm. Emel N M d m [d a ampr n liwc mno Stem d9a[b Em evm/'A bp: nen YAb xvbpro barn mim et n�erowm®vry�b)ro ada aeep.n).bmvq�p.nvav)mdau.dd vary Jpamamnapbpan relm vbr r.mea. NV.WY�Cam /. WJewb [nwn�.•9IDie,CN ) m[bvbefinevdtrandawn �' Ew,Wa ID[dw I )N nrtl ® r I aeos.n vaw Ma ••- �-�.7� •� tlim�a+ '�e.n vacua •'•�� �• Lg4�oai ina. Fl.vawua %rte ..�.: �' nm n.smsua w'beaz %seaynsawua 0 n. wn. >aw ua n.s. n. a.aa uJa uas.nvamua suwn.vawua mamn.sawnma )wmnvawua w tlmda 1uub allow Jim. )add Namq.va• Eoaysetcv,uua Ma d4oe b merlin b tw [ Ua tlda�a b r vaaaa ro Or mna nne ameaml M MYSnn Nbvq. [bvmrysdYm Ilml®aEneWeaW dSepbTp2�[ robrRllnardc bd�lnmanab mYpNOm Men dvodsy. enmb 9 rq waran wml a.muiry ngvdbbwb [qab enp�roagaa mr aau v,v+l- rol mWp.�m apnea PNtla Yve)nvn ea n Dame o�m�'n qd�e. n � ml ee mm mn � w.�o ®b mm � bNn+abMwvom WI Bir M be mmma meq.W V mvwo mry man mvnw ptl. raven p a evw wry. NI bwa weaeee e) Rmda, dM dma do o aaa boM d b an p ea a bmea n reY Fx e)[)EaxEGu AT IFwSiwIQMI WP/uSE�OmWEx D.1 T. MI mp� �mmdm: ildtl Nua ,11mC[ N 121Pg0. ro MaM �u ad p " r _I.`-%4 WA0 r Preliminary Plat of OBRIEN KIMMEL 12 -313 Sheet 1 of 1 5,10 L5— I Is— Swa i U UU 49TH ST W aew Y O IxW mZ yg ARCADIA J� AVE w SITE;Up KEY NOTES 0' .mmm rowrna m+.ne Qi rm,wc vac ,.u•: m ..+,,.o 0 o¢�9A. rt [u.0 M04 O BY b[cw CdnMAUs O uAeDW'[. RW,euOS c. SM10 l,o�) 0 nm RuOrlq 1K, On wvp 000¢1 m. BKV G R O U P Interior Design Land —pe Amh'rtecb, Engineering so-- Vogel Group., Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone 612- 339 -3752 Famirrlc 612- 339 -6212 w .bkvgroup.corn ' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Preliminary Development Plan Subm'lttal Vemon Avenue Townhomes oxrarwmw Mh __ o.www ar a p u o¢a®er m)r�oNan SITE PLAN Lioo o mn ecvws,kwE MWOMMOM ! 0 0 0 � � lll� lll� lll� lll� KEY NOTES 0' .mmm rowrna m+.ne Qi rm,wc vac ,.u•: m ..+,,.o 0 o¢�9A. rt [u.0 M04 O BY b[cw CdnMAUs O uAeDW'[. RW,euOS c. SM10 l,o�) 0 nm RuOrlq 1K, On wvp 000¢1 m. BKV G R O U P Interior Design Land —pe Amh'rtecb, Engineering so-- Vogel Group., Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone 612- 339 -3752 Famirrlc 612- 339 -6212 w .bkvgroup.corn ' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Preliminary Development Plan Subm'lttal Vemon Avenue Townhomes oxrarwmw Mh __ o.www ar a p u o¢a®er m)r�oNan SITE PLAN Lioo o mn ecvws,kwE i U UU .aao Y 0 0, Rg Q LANDSCAPE PLAN ry`rR . r IP14i@11 1, BKV G R O U Ardutem- h uuior Design ErqO—Mg B- Kroo, Vogel Group Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 Faairmlc 612- 339 -6212 —.bkvgroup.wm ,' `NOT FOR . ' 't-- ONSTRUCTION , Preliminary Development Plan Submittal Vemon Avenue Townhomes mnarwrow u��ri.aq+•wa�on pnc�n ®usr�nnq � aEVmonu .n wn wn acam nr r+a LANDSCAPE PLAN Lr. 1 0' o IDn WGwpxc EOE is sec B KV' G R 0 U P An:NbMtwe bbmiw Deign Lwdsmpe Aidu=bze S*eabg Ar", 2�' North Second St" M 2-339- =11:2-339L-62 VI w4w�bkvkroup.cor5- FFQM,IIIE Vernon Avenue Townhouses WYPLAN NOUMAPJM CBUFrAT,CN I M u:=F;wFMpbMnar.dudftMM==dJy %bW� Ir I IM90N I MT- &MTI�LE Basement Floor Plan A100 O= BKVQMAi.EM L71pw IT-1117-=1 0- M : L ---------- Ind ------- TM - ----- Y.5 ------------ BUILDING Y BUILDING X ---------- r_____ - -___i O II I BUILDING Z I I I I I I ED 4 II ED II i L --- jL --- i B KV' G R 0 U P An:NbMtwe bbmiw Deign Lwdsmpe Aidu=bze S*eabg Ar", 2�' North Second St" M 2-339- =11:2-339L-62 VI w4w�bkvkroup.cor5- FFQM,IIIE Vernon Avenue Townhouses WYPLAN NOUMAPJM CBUFrAT,CN I M u:=F;wFMpbMnar.dudftMM==dJy %bW� Ir I IM90N I MT- &MTI�LE Basement Floor Plan A100 O= BKVQMAi.EM Q 4 4 Q Q Q Q BKV _Q G R 0 U P o- -- Y.E 1:113 1113 013 ®® Architectire IrrberlorDeslp LandsmpeAx&dtKftm E 9L, 113 ED F3 13 U ED Vo9d G-W EU 9 bir 13 0 la 222 North Seomd Street 13 Minm polis MN 55401 Tckli 612-339-3752 =�� 1.12— 39 2 13 13 ED LLi Ve m on Avenue Townhouses < '-AJ cx E3113 M 93 &'YRM NOMHARROIN E un MEN 0 cy I LU LL co First Floor Plan Z2 A101 First flour Plan 0279 BWO.1pi.EOE q I Ye Q V 1 Arditecture °0 or Do* I VOA m° ,r. ° ®0� I O ®�® _ ®® ❑ ; ® ®® ® ® ®® '' ❑ 222 North Second Street Minneapolis (' ®® ® ®® RE - — - — — - -0 6I2 -339-3752 Fatshn0e 612- 339 -6212 Li e vnvw: bkv B rou P.mm OMULWM5 O I ' I 11 0 I� O I � „ a I � I waECnme _ ------- - - - - -- Q ® p ® Vernon Avenue Townhouses ' 1® *nw+ r�r wv - ° 13 o o ®� a ®® deasmorrmaaia Tn.. -�' C3 Cm Ego El sEErnu � X0 0 I Second Floor Plan Al 02 Second Floor Plan Q q °° Q Q BKV G R 0 U P Arditecture c InteriorDesign Lmdsmpe Axdiftcwm Er Ifneedng ar l K- 0 I Elf Elf Vogel roup. LQU Liu ff— ,J 1 ®® Elm 3 Irn IF13 r 13 222 N.�rffi-S =-nd Street Krinapois 'MN'. 5S40J Pr-3 EM 3 La Tdept� 612 -339-3752 FacsNe: 612- 339 -6212 IV group.!�T ............ j Mn,) A 7 0 Vernon Avenue Townhouses C3 > *-YFLM NOMARFON Imp IDA" 0 El ;h-1• 3-137. C3 L —MT—E fLTAr7 Roof Plan zi A103 I OM MVQ.;Xk.ECE - :.: - - - - - -- -1.m MIMI OEM fil 0 --- . ... ----- = - v� Ve on Avenue Tomwnhouses ME mi-IM a M--qM ms--- MEN mm � ��I I�I'� � I� I° '�L�!Ih� . _ 1L�11�`IL'�il�° �I'1'�I■■I �li�' _ � -- N - -_ - __ - -__ -- _ -__ ..� ._:_ Exterior Elevations - - - =. -------- - o �. 0 North Elevation - Building X & Y 7 @ w-v---n - Bullding Y & — -------------- aW� --------- ----- ----- - 777 ioMElevation - Coutyard Building Y Se Elevation Elevation - Building Y BKV G R 0 U P Ard*ecture Interior Died rr landscape ArdA..tL- Evneenng B. VIckel 222 North Second Street Krmeapers MN 55401 Telephone: 612-339-3752 Famirrille: 612-339-6212 ww .bkvgrouD.wrn caraUWB PFUMME Vernon Avenue Townhouses S-EErMLE e Exterior Elevations A502 OMM SWQ..f,k ECE L.L z C� z LLJ East El-gfi- - C..Ibld B011D., X ,�g Tp @ g- BuOdna x @ S.4. El—fi.. - Wild- X IMP �F X26. NK" .R: 0 U P uL�pe Architecture COS MM p 2 North Seoind Street meapolls MN 55401 lephom 6� 2-339-3752 mimUe: 612- 339 -6212 w.bkvgroup com NSLUANTS Kcacrffff- Vernon Avenue Townhouses K. 7� CERIFrA7M MMEMMEM7 m,df/ . Exterior Elevations A503 ZM MQ.4,kEOE T . . .-n . . �IJf -- - fr.4 . . ... IN" . - iM. ,,, W'L.I y ,,, . . ' §aa . . --2 .,1 I� �, ILJ ,• e �v Wool NNW MEM amommmma %UM - --- ... I BI- Vernon Avenue WIN log 19 12 1 07 'Fola—mm"ll ou------------- I_ I!A,I mill,i�I ii �IIII JIA!I Ilw, D 'i x� —�_ 0 m B'K ArchbchinI LmigWa Anhbcbjm 5 --- ------------- --------------- ---------- - ------ -- --- -- -- - ------------ ----------------------- -- -------------- ------ ----- -- --------- --------- awma-9 ZI voged ON ON Ill G-?p WE F.0- mi Ill IN, I' ON No -01 WE No:__ !mJ -- --- -------------- ------------------- - - — -- --------------- S- EMU, p FMA I fog- 0 CCNILMWIS O -- -------------- - ------------- - --------------------------- .............. .... . --------------------- -------- ----- - ----- -- ------- --- --- ----------- =======m ---------- - ----- - -------------- - ------- --- --- -- ---- --- --- -- Vem n Avenu6 ToWnhouges- a. --- — r.:. i. fflm�== -------- 7 ------ --------- ---------------- -:-:� --------------- --- - - -- --- ------- �� ------ ---- --------- -- ------------- --- -- ---- -- -- -------- - ---- - --------- --------- - ------ INm ---------- IN IN ------------------- ---------------------- - ---- -------- ----- - -- ----------- ----- ---- ---- -- -- - ------ - ------ -------------- 1 ''I — ----------- — ---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Awn -------- -------- --- ------------------ om ----------------- ------- ------ --- ------------ - ---------- rl IV I Full —5 1 1 Ml— FI-91 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------------------------------- : - --------- -------- .... . ............. ------------------ - ------ - ---- - ---------------- - � - ------------------- - -- --- ------ --- - ------------------------- ---- --------------------------- ------ ---- --------- ----- ---------------- - --------- -------------- --- ---- --------------------------------------------- o m BK-V G U U P .mow Y xe xc XD 7 Ardiit bdaior Desipr. - _ - _ .. ....%. . •���".. �.� �.� � � ✓r'ii.":; bE W `i �::�.' -Y`Q _ _ _ q h M••.J�y ,A3. try mwso- _ 14 F _ - _ n,.rr� �IOG� . a °�•c, ' rtr 2 222 North Se &Wl Gs MN N 55401 TelePtioric 612- 339 -3752 — - — - _ „a.> -'" " ...�� • .. ..: Fac*nUc 612-339 -6212 . .. µµ}:.r.;, e v .bkv6rou P.eom msivwrs (ZEast Elevation - Courtyard Building X n South Bmticn - Bulcina X U'rm�nara S't t� ,•!'J^• 'L� .. �,� R aEcnmE Vernon Avenue Townhouses IkYRWt tJORR109i7N .i •' i p1� "{ii P c �y�,� . �0'p n9]uOyLai� IonOdy a7 ��/s/ � �1 West Elevation - Buildino X _ lia�mlwharasagamtr®q q�y"r1 a�a U) 9glTIaE 9. } Exterior Elevations i, A503 i� 4)Ei81L0loap.mr�E i t I. MINUTES CITY OFJ�DINA, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS October 24, 2012 7:00 P.M. Chair Gra \CAL called-the eeng to order at 7:00 PM II. ROLL Answe ring the e Scherer, Forrest, Schroeder, Kilberg, Potts, Platteter, Cherkassy, Carpenter, Staunton Fisch III. The agenda wJ§ filed as si ?mitted. IV. KathleenlVasescha, 5348 Holl ood Road requested that she be kept informed on all development plans for the onerties at 5109 -5125 Slest0th 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 A% I. David Motzenbecker delivered a power point presentati-orLhighlighting.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 1/z - 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 01 I Chair,Grabiel said he salutes the fact that.the number of units went down from 71 to 18, adding.ihat's a large drop. Grabiel said he still has concerns about traffic moving into and out of the area. Mr. �flll . .. re Motzenbecker responded that at this t ric 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 purpose. Schroeder said it may be important to anticipate "what could happen" in the future. Commissioners agreed. Page 3 of 6 4o Chair Grabiel thanked the applicant for their presentation and.said the following should be addressed:ifi . 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, 2,012 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 49TH 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 49`h 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 � o 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 Ayr 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 45-3 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 491h Street. - otzeri ie er 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 key principles into their site. One principle was key; turning perceivable barriers into opportunities. In this respect the natural topography actually became an asset. Discussion /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 / 1( 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. n 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 15 -20 neighbors came to a neig h b or h ood meeting. Motzenbecker said t hey 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. �1L'� Page 12 of 14 W5 � 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 ReavIvelopment Project Area and the TIF Plan for the Establish ent of the Southdale 2 TIF District. Planner PresVntation Planner Teagu\aw ed the Commission the City /uthdale idering the establishment TIF District that would incland surrounding pa rcels. Teague explained the Xe of 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, columns, erior 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 time they are being asked to determine by resolution t hat the improve ent to the common areas are consistent with the Comprehensi Commissioners as /d Planner Teague to clarifyXeir action. Planner ;Tea,,,**e" explained the Commission is being a ed to determine by resolution that the osed use of TIF funds to improve common reas was consistent with the omprehensive Plan. ommissioner 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. [� Page 13 of 14 �� Juvit .27, '9 b R PCdM,,4 J r 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 49th 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 - - - - ompre -- engive P an Ameridmerit-tc HDR, High-Densit Residential 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. Aab- Page 11 of 15 �51 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. Hasa 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 /4;�1 Page 12 of 15 ASI 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 Sc -erer said she just can't get past -the density. -She 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 � 0 \ Page 13 of 15 n � D 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 d or commission. Staunton said he believes someti %deve 2session een now and th all when the Commission and City Council hold their annu the Co mission and planning staff need to "get together" to discuss ing a "work an" for the Commission. Commissioner Fischer said he attended a. t nsp tation meeting that discussed the France Avenue corridor. The meeting touch- on three key intersections and the consultants are looking at the early st/v"Ion. n orming France Avenue. Fischer said this corridor needs guidance and Th France Avenue of the future will not look like the France Avenue of tod her sa it's not unrealistic to envision bikes along this corridor. Chair Grabiel asked the Comi property located at 5427 Wo some concerns about rear ya on to refer to a Memo frk Kris Aaker on a est. Grabiel said it appearsXhe City Council had access, fill and retaining walls. Commissioner Staunto asked if the retaining wall in question was permitted use. Planner Teague resp nded in the affirmative. Expanding on his com ent Teague explained the City, ouncil expressed concern over retaining walls, fill d access. Teague said the uestion is should we regulate access. Continuing, Teague explained that with reg d to grading, fill, etc. that the City's engineering reviews all plans to ensure pro erty drainage. Teague said full review is also required if a retaining wall A a 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 Townhomes Edina, MN DRAFT February 4, 2013 �Wenck 1p Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................. ............................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 FIGURES FIGURE1 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 491h 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 geometries 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 J�G`� 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, NIN. The project site is located on the south side of 49th 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 /49th 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 current site plan is shown in Figure 2. The project is expected to be complete by the end of 2014. 2 -1 DRAFT AGE APPROXIMA7 Wenck Engineers • Scientists TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION t Gam. J APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 60' 49TH ST W u , ren �x r uur Gz%nl nun.es o - -4eAWenck Engineers • Scientists pVE TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES IN EDINA, MN FIGURE 2 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN t e, 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, 491h 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 k�� :j rR r /' APPROXIMATE SCALE ' p� 0 165' 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. 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 h16 Table 1 Net Trin Generation for Pronosed 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 1 1 2 1 29 Notes: M= 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 Al t A.M. PEAK HOUR co v00 i� v ao r Lo Co I�- a Lo m W =mac` M Co00 00 4*— 2/2/2 0a 4/4/5 -Co 22/22/23 o +— 302/308/308 2/2/2 '22/22/22 E 49TH ST. VERNON AVE PROJECT 1621165/166 367/374/374 e- LOCATION BROOKSIDE Lo T AVE N L0 N 0) 4* O Q i C7 M Lo Cp Co O�O M =mac` M Co00 00 4*— 2/2/2 0a 4/4/5 -Co T� 49TH S' o +— 302/308/308 M j � E F- 87/89 89437 VERNON AVE 90/92/92 —A` If r 367/374/374 O Lo Co 40/41/41 —y o Q o N :!VM 0) It C7 M P.M. PEAK HOUR m O O O � 't o' Icc Q CD 00 W L> m Z W U z +- 18/18/18 f— 102/104/105 T BRC AVE O O 0. N 60—) C7 ` N O00 04M mN O ti N N .0�ch t�� N 04 '� 324/331/332 �i f— 64/965/65 397 VERNON AVE 225/230/230 �` <1 T r> 713/727/727 --> 00 cl co 22122/22--+ � M ZB co � � N O Co co 4*— 2/2/2 4/4/5 T� 49TH S' c-4 co PROJECT co LOCATION E a� O Lf) LO N EXISTING 2013 F -i-r- 2014 NO BUILD 2014 BUILD XX/X JXX 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 A-7 o-'- 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 �� 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 /49`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 Oueue Leneth 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 A.7 t A.M. PEAK HOUR I s �i UUW U.0 t7i UUU E/E/E B /B /B —� B /B /B J m Z as w a a +--- B /B /B 12 � L> f- B/B/B ' 49TH ST. -D /D /D tQ PROJECT f-- D /D /D LOCATION Q Q —Az BROOKSIDE a a AVE as AVE +— C /C /C <— C /C /C _,p— C /C /C Umm �j m`m Co EXISTING 2013 2014 NO BUILD 2014 BUILD P.M. PEAK HOUR I I xx/xxna as UUW U—ia ) UUW jl� C/C E/E/E B /B /B —� B /B /B �. r_- Wenck Engineers • Scientists 0 J m Z as w a a '� B/B/B Z f- B/B/B 49TH ST. D /D /D Q Q PROJECT �F" D /D /D a a LOCATION T BROOKSIDE a a AVE Q Q as T— C /C /C E— C /C /C f-- C /C /C UUU UUU UUU FIGURE 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR VERNON AVENUE WEEKDAY A.M. AND P.M. TOWNHOMES IN EDINA, MN PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS fl� 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 geometries 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 pi 7.0 Appendix • Level of Service Worksheets 7 -1 DRAFT L v Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Interlachen Blvd & Vernon Ave X1/31/2013 ;,•�;�,.: - - -F_8T .E��t' _ y.4V6- -'1BR. _ fVBL t+JBT fVlit SBA . SBT- - SBA Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 0 <2> 0 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vptr) 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 tength (ft) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (Prot) 1770 3486 0 0 3328 0 1770 1809 0 1770 1732 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.626 0.532 0,727 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3486 0 0 2763 0 991 1809 0 1354 1732 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 16 130 9 48 fink 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 0 688 0 42 46 0 424 236 0 Turn 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 5.5 5.5 5.5 '5.5 5.5 Act Effct 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 0.35 0.35 0,35 0.35 v1c 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 48.3 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 86 Queue Length 95th (ft) #132 110 322 43 40 #429 151 Internal tank Dist (ft) 418 595 410 351 Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 60 275 Base Capacity (vplr) 182 1907 1194 372 686 509 681 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 0.60 0.23 0,74 0.11 0.07 0.83 0.35 filtersection ummary __ _ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length: 105 Offset 0 (0 0/6), 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 (inin)15 2013 Existing AM Peak Hour V:130221011synchro12013 AM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity_Malysis 4: Interlachen Blvd & Brookside Ave 1/311201j'' - overoent -' - - —WB-L :WI#. SEL I_' Lanes 1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (vehlh) 162 22 18 455 338 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 flow rate (vp4) 176 24 20 495 367 87 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) 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 901 367 454 vC1, stage 1 conf 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 (veh/h) 303 618 1106 Direction, Lane f- WB 1 El •NW ;1.' °: NW 2 - — - Volume Total 200 514 367 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 Existing AM Peak Hour V :130221011synchro12013 AM Existing.syn NO Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis icr3 6: Brookside Ave & 49th St 1/31/2013 IViovemenf WBL WBR NBT ' NBR�i3l -SB7 _ - - - - - -- ---- . - - -T -. _ Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehlh) 22 2 93 5 1 162 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) 24 2 101 5 1 t76 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) PercentEllockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 282 104 107 vC1, stage 1 cwnf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 262 104 107 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 capadly (veh /h) 707 951 1484 Direction, Lane# WB'1 Midi %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 (it) 3 0 0 Control Delays) 10.2 0.0 0.'b Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 1'0.2 0.0 0:1 Approach LOS B ntersectiori Summary e - Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2013 Existing AM Peak Hour V:130221011synch►o12013 AM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Interlachen Blvd & Vernon Ave 1/31/2013 2015 No Build AM Peak Hour V:130221011synchro12015 AM No Build.syn I�ja Synchro 8 Report Page 1 M, ; _ W81 � - �BL N NRf SBL - -- SRO Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 0 <2> 0 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 92 374 41 fig' 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 (1) 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 (prot) 1770 3486 0 0 3328 0 1770 1809 0 1770 1732 0 Fit 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 Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 17 130 9 48 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 498 675 490 431 Travel }rime (s) 11.3 15.3 17.1 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 (04) Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 452 0 0 907 0 43 47 0 433 240 0 Turn 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 5.5 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 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 v/c 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 87 247 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 Intersection 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: 31.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utifization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 No Build AM Peak Hour V:130221011synchro12015 AM No Build.syn I�ja Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Interlachen Blvd & Brookside Ave 3a c '1131/2013 ovQment WBL 11VBtZ SEL SE`f NWT NWft Lanes 1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (vehm) 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 (f fs) 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 1C, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free °% 39 96 98 cM capacity (vehlh) 296 671 1097 Dirsction, Lane # WB.1 St~ -1--NW-1 N_ W 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 064 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 Average Delay 6.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56A% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 No Build AM Peak Hour V:130221011synchro12015 AM No Build.syn ki3 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection dapacity Analysis 6: Brookside Ave & 49th St 113112013 ' 2015 No Build AM Peak Hour V.130221011synchro12016 AM No Build.syn �� Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehm) 22 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 flow rate (vph) 24 2 103 5 1 179 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ills) Percent Blockage Right turn Rare (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 IC, 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 1482 Direction, Lane # WB 1 . NB 1 SB -1 _ 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 (s) 40.2 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.2 OA 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary - - -- - - - - -- - - -- 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.130221011synchro12016 AM No Build.syn �� Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Interlachen Blvd & Vernon Ave 1/31/2013 Cane Group EBL� � . MW_- -W-ME `ME � T' __WBW NBL N Ni3R SBL SBT _9- 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 (9) 25 25 25 25 Said. Flow (prof) 1770 3486 0 0 3328 0 1770 1809 0 1770 1732 0 FitPermitted 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 (°%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 452 0 0 907 0 43 47 .0 434 240 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm 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 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Act Effct Green (s) 9.3 56.7 41.8 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 Actuated g!C Ratio 0.09 0.54 0.40 0.36 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 29.4 22.8 18.3 55.7 21.1 LOS E B C C B E C Approach.Delay 22.5 29.4 20.4 43.4 Approach LOS C C C D Queue Length 501h (ft) 66 81 247 19 16 264 90 Queue Length 95th (ft) #135 112 334 43 41 #446 154 Internal Link Dist (11) 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 v/o Ratio 0.62 0.24 0.77 0:12 0.07 0.85 0.35 Area Type: Qther Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length: 1,05 Offset: 0 (0° %), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and &EBT, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal Delay: 31.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Build AM Peak Hour V.130221011synchro12015 AM Build.syn Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Interlachen Blvd & Brookside Ave k4 1!3112013 Movement: , — - . -9NI3L - WBR_.. _SEJ. 1_ 5 NyV'f - -- — -NWR- Lanes 1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (vehlh) 166 22 18 464 345 62 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) 480 24 20 604 376 89 Pedestrians Lane Width (fi;) 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 918 375 464 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 916 375 464 1C, 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 (vehlh) 296 671 4097 Direction; Lane.# 'WB 1 " SE 1 'NW.; NW -2.-!7 - Volume Totat 204 524 375 89 Volume Left 180 20 0 0 Volume flight 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 wtersectlan zSummary Average Delay 6.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.296 ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Build AM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report V.130221011synchro12015 AM Build.syn � Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ��- 6: Brookside Ave $ 49th St 1/31/2013 oveme WBL. •WBR NBT. ,NBR � 58L. Ifff___ _ Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehm) 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 flowfate (vph) 25 2 103 5 1 179 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (fl/s) 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 vCi, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 288 106 109 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 96 100 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 702 948 1482 DirectTo`n; Lane # WB 1 _T 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 (fi) 3 0 0 Control belay (s) 10:2 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B InFer—seckrisdiiimary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.5° 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 W 1131/2013 Lane Group _ - -- EBL EST' EBR 491' 11fIBT . l+Vl ftr - NBL NBT - IVO.IT- SBL SBT -- -10-8 Lane Configurations 1 2> 0 0 <2> 0 1 1> 0 1 1> 0 Volume (vph) 225 713 22 64 369 324 27 o1 6 321 126 47 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 125 0 6 0 60 0 275 b Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 26 25 25 Said. Flow (prol) 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 RightTum 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 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) 237 774 0 0 817 0 28 102 0 338 182 0 Tum type Prot NA Penn 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 6.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 Act Effct Green (s) 17.3 62.9 40.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 Actuated g/C 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 64.3 11.8 28.2 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 Approach Delay 24.1 262 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) 08 595 410 351 Turn Say Length (ft) 125 60 275 Base Capacity (vph) 311 2115 1131 347 591 410 683 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.76 0.37 0.72 0.08 0.17 0.82 0.31 lnte`rsection�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 We Ratio: 0.89 Intersection Signal Delay: 30.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6°% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 1.5 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report V:130221011synchro12013 PM Existing.syn Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ilo 4: Interlachen Blvd & Brookside Ave 1/3112013 lylovefnen ` ___. WBL WBR SEL SET — t�"WT NWR -- -" _ . Lanes 1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (veh /h) 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 (f ls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstreamsignal (fl) 431 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1056 459 707 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1056 459 707 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 1C, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 54 97 95 cM capacity (vehm) 238 602 891 Direction, Lane # VIB 1 SE 1 •IVW 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 (8) 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 Intersection 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:Q0221011synchroQ013 PM Existing.syn lTU Synchro 8 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Brookside Ave & 49th St 1/31/2013 MgyemeK77 ME- -T WBR B - Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehlh) 4 2 257 15 1 116 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) 14 2 306 18 t 138 Pedestrians Lane Wldth (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 455 315 324 vC1, stage 1 cwnf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 455 315 324 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free °% 97 100 100 CM capacity (veh1h) 562 726 1236 DUection, Lane,# WB 1 - Volume Total 17 324 139 Volume Left 14 0 1 Volume Right 2' 18 0 rSH 581 1700 1236 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.18 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.4% IOU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) , 15 2013 Existing PM Peak Hour V :1302210%ynchroV013 PM Existing.syn Aqo Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings _7:. Interlachen Blvd & Vernon Ave ^:.l. -:r­ .. 1/3112013 Cane Group,,., .... ' ..___, - - 813C EBT EBR WBL _'- W8T_ ­W8 -__N8L, ^' NWr NCR SBL -� SBT - SBR 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 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190D 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 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3525 0 0 3303 0 1770 1846 0 1770 1786 0 At 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 Tum ortRed 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) 11.3 115.3 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 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) 17.4 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 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.37 0.75 0.09 0.19 0.90 0.34 Control Delay 65.3 .12,0 27.4 262 26.6 61.9 .. 27.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 65.3 120 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) 157 142 209 14 49 214 85 Queue Length 95th (ft) #277 182 292 36 90 #373 144 Internal Link Dist (9) 418 595 410 351 Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 60 275 Base Capacity (vph) 341 2103 1116 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 vlc Ratio 0.78 0.37 0.75 0.08 0.18 0.84 0.32 Intersection 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 vlc Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Signal Delay: 30.8 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period.(mirr)15 2015 No Build PM Peak Hour V:1302210%ynchro12015 PM No Build.syn V\ Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Interlachen Blvd &Brookside Ave jN• "' 1/31/2013 Movement W L. Wt�R SEL" SETT .: NWWIT., NWR' Lanes 1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (vehlh) 104 18 S9 498 440 239 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0°% 0°% 0°% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 111 19 41 528 468 254 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft1s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) 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) tF (a) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free °% 52 97 95 cM capacily (vel*) 230 595 880 pirectian, Lane # WB 1 SE 1 NW 1 NV� 2 Volume Total 130 569 468 254 Volume Left 111 41 0 0 Volume Right 19 0 0 254 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 relay (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. $: Brookside Ave & 49th St "` 113112013 Nloyem rit : _ ML -. 'WBR "� NE NCR SBL �T Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (veh/h} 4 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) 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 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 (vehm) 556 720 1230 Direction, Lane# 1NB 1 NB 1 561f Volume Total #7 330 142 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 Iniers 6 -o Summery 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:130221011synchro12015 PM No Build.syn rtg3 Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Lane.; Volumes., Timings 7: Intorlachen Blvd & Vernon Ave . c,i!% "" 1/3112013 Cane Group. WE EST " EER _WBL - "Wt3T " VtiIBR NBL NBT . NBR SBL SBT SBA 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 (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- (A) 25 25 25 25 Satd. 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 Travet lime (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 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 Tune (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 5.5 Act Effct Green (s) 17.4 62.6 39.6 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 037 0.60 0.38 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 vlc 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 (ft) 1-57 142 210 14 49 215 85 Queue Length 95th (ft) #277 182 292 36 90 #375 144 internal, Link Dist (ft) 418 595 410 351 Turn Say Length (ft) 125 60 275 Base Capacity (vph) 311 2102 1115 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 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.37 0.75 0.08 0.18 0.84 0.32 Intersection 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: 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: 130221011synchro12015 PM Build.syn Synchro 8 Report Page 1 ;;. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Interlachen Blvd & Brookside Ave 1/3112013 . ovement WBL WBR SBL SET NWT NWI - - Lanes -1> 0 0 <1 1 1 Volume (vehllh) 105 18 39 496 440 240 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 gate (vph) 112 19 44 528 466 255 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum 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 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s). 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 52 97 95 cM capacity (veh/ h) 230 595 879 Direction, Lane # -W-BT -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 ntersection Summary Average Delay 3.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Build PM Peak Hour V11302210%ynchro12015 PM Build.syn M�- Synchro 8 Report Page 1 VCM - U.nsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - � 13r66kside Ave $ 49th St h;:, - -: 1131/2013 avement WCL _Wl3R TliBT N 99L.- - B• , Lanes 1> 0 1> 0 0 <1 Volume (vehlh) 5 2 262 16 1 118 Sign Control Slop 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 19 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 oonf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 464 321 331 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 (C, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free °% 97 100 100 cM capacity (vehm) 556 719 1228 Direction; Lane # WB f NBf1, 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 0:0 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% ICI! Level of SeMee A Analysis Period (min) 15 2015 Build PM Peak Hour V:1302210%ynchro12015 PM Build.syn MI' Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Jackie Hoogenakker From: 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 'rom: 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 WA9th 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. "hank you for your time and the consideration that you will give this matter. Sincerely, Doris Skold 5101 Millpond Place (922) 929 -7163 1 i i - e �. t,.. . � . `44x✓ ' t�'r. ..Af `� s�.J 4.: i •'tom ��. •�,. ' ,�?G•J }�'�,�. "�,� � �' •..� c - ,- �j cj �T lipr •m - �� �i Q '7]' -� l: � I� YL � - ' T '�� - uL• LLB `_;� � ���� � f � {��� ;�� � :�� l_`� -L~+� _s ��_ «r � "f 7" -;^, `_ ii? 3�h k- _. �y �P� ms� t f �jrr fi �,� •_ .. 1 ' r •r t vC` -gin -„ 00% zz ' tea; .M �r 1 •.. �. � 4 J:I PAINTED FIBER CEMENT W/ BATTERNS STAINED WOOD PANELS ARCHITECTURAL CAST STONE FIBER CEMENT TRIM BKV G R O U P BKV G R O U P. Ardli[ecNre Interior Design Landscape Arrhi -=m (Engineering pitman Vogel Group Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 Facsimile: 612- 339 -6212 vnvw.bkvgroup.mm Ctl•81TM Vemon Avenue Townhouses JIEYP� CERT CATION Ihae�y� BL9pcLqLy��r�rLL�ap'n Im8] ERNIIEddl/ aN 1 iAntnrdFn3ati NNa1 -ah 9$i71RE Basbment Floor Plan A100 OM BKVGnp. he ECE �I YS I 01 Ct II I 4 L__________J r----- - - - - -t I � um • 4 ' - -_ - -- I II I I I:" I -_- - -- I II I•••�_ �___' -___- -_ II II 1 II 1 I��� - -- I I I I•��� -- �, I I I; II II l I'• I' I ... I 1 ' I I I I I II I o- L_ -J _ --- - - - - � i; i i i i �•• i� I I i i i ��• i II I II II it i i i I i I L II � " I _; :. --- `-- -- I 1 --"' I , - - -' -- : - 1I_ r.e I r__________t I I I ------{ I I BUILDING Y I I ---- - - - - -- BUILDING X r----------T I I I I I I a� O I ._.... ' I r__________- I I I L __________J I O I I zF o- - L----- - - - --J F 7-7 - -- O i I y BUILDING Z 1 I I I I ___ i i ___ i ED I II II I I jell II I E3 ��II 4 I I i i 1 I l i I 4 _ _ -_ -_ -_ li I II -_- _i -iy� I ILZr I ___ �___ 1 i i j0 _ -_- I _ _ I I 1 i i ii I I ED J Ot4 I i I i i I i I I I i i. XF X. p I Ej I xl ment Level Plan rZlase. zt n n z. zs zz BKV G R O U P. Ardli[ecNre Interior Design Landscape Arrhi -=m (Engineering pitman Vogel Group Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 Facsimile: 612- 339 -6212 vnvw.bkvgroup.mm Ctl•81TM Vemon Avenue Townhouses JIEYP� CERT CATION Ihae�y� BL9pcLqLy��r�rLL�ap'n Im8] ERNIIEddl/ aN 1 iAntnrdFn3ati NNa1 -ah 9$i71RE Basbment Floor Plan A100 OM BKVGnp. he ECE . 4 Q Q 12 KV G R 0 U P ArcKdecbjm 13 El 13 ElInterior Q Design Landscape Archib-t Engineering Elul, U 93 VopI Group Inc LA 222 North Second St —A Miriheapolis MN 55401 lel.ph nazis 112-339-3752 Facsimiloa 612-339-6212 �.bkvgroup.mrn U =�T,!NM Ell C] UL ED 13 J23 !I EF 13 Vernon Avenue Townhouses :f: leypLm NOTMARRDW El 0 m E3 U3 m F \ 1 ME- .f cc �p- El E3 El I ®® El I y I Or S-EErme ------- First Floor Plan - — - ------ - - - - -- - A101 @ First Floor Plan 0 BWQ..d.EOE 4 Q 4 , Q Q B K V _4 GROUP, Ardvtectum InteHor Design L�d=pe Archite� "x" Engineering x" 13— Kn VOPI Group 13=13 mm 13 222 North Second Stied CC3 [I C =1 13 , - OF 1]r---r-V-- Minn eapoRs MN 55401 Telephonm 612-339-3752 X, 1 F=hIle: 612-339-6212 � .bkiegroup.00m CONSLUANTS 8— - PRDBMM-E CID— - Vernon Avenue Townhouses IeYPLAN NCFUHARFM ED 0 ED El Cam T04 .htb-dft3at.IhbI-h 77-7 El El 0 El Eg El mu I I MTE j El C3 C3 S-EMIM m rm ED no fl`�n I Second Floor Plan Z2 b b Al 02 ft L,,gl Floor PI- r. CXM BKVGq1W-ECE I • Q Q Q! QI BKV o--- - - - - -� - - - -� - - - -' - - -- _ R U ro-- -�-- -- -- -- -- -- - r — Interior Des' Landscape Architecture Engineering Bowmen Krooe Vogel Group - - - i O Inc �- - 222 North Second Street .I r o- -- Telephone 612-339- 3752 ,� i _ , , , • , - — - — - - = - — - - -0 .c Facsimile: 612- 339 -6212 _ ..... ..... _ _ ...... OPTIONAL ROOF TOP DECK, INDIVIDUAL OWNER DECISION O PRI� -_ o- -- — Vernon Avenue � Townhouses - - - -- ..- - -- • ctmcicnnav __ I O I og - _ -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- Roof Plan S er Al 03 (1 Rocl r 03IH &NOaRYCEOE �Illilll� �IIIIIII� II�IIII� , =111, IIIIIII„� �I 1111111,, IIIIIII�� � � = 1111111, IIIIIII_� - l�lllall- ■■■ 9 - a _ ■■■I 1;11 - W1 11 11 - - jla ■■■ 11 11 ■■■ ��II.IIh ■■■ fl:i ■■■ rl�l ■■■ - - Iii ■■■ ���II__zIUl11G��ll��lUl, « ■ ■ ■ ■ � I �- ■ ■ � ■ ■ I' Ill_ ■ ■ I ■ ■ � ■ ■ ��� ,1� _ _� - -x ■ ■ a COMUMTS v 1 — ������ Iwl ,I�' 1111111 •i ■ ■ 1111111 ■ ■ L��•I. 1111111 �— ■ ■ I•j = 11!1111 1111111 IIIIII�� ■I ICI — m �l ■I — �■ n _ _ _ ion =I ■il ■, - =il ..I� ICI _ ■I =I �I� �_ ■I ICI =I� �I no F. ■I■ 1� , PFUBZTTTFLE Vernon Avenue um� -ruo .�. .I. rnw row - cool` Townhouses II ®�. IEi 1111 � � IEI U .■. .. �.. � � I�®�'F. --. ..�11 ■ ■ I�®�t- .-.-.. 11 �.. ..�.. 1111 II. ■ ■r--I■ ®h�. -.. ■ ■ I7P� ��■ In�.�: € IE�I IE�I �I • — . III • — • TI[p1llp_ IE I. — - - � -1 ..., ... III I IIII-I.IIIII. II IIIIIIILIIIIIIIIILIIIIIII I ' � II I.11ll.l.11ll. l lG ll llllr�lll_lg_ llllllllll ut ll n � .lul l R.� IWI . �� � le11 .11I I`` 1llell.lUll�l�llllleoillalll I '- � IIrl�lll:l�ill:lllllrl.l:lflrll.l�l:ll.11lrl.l.11 l-lll1lr ll l ll�-u- alll Fra.111 : IIl111lIl0111 ll V �. '- IIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIII II ■�- � I I• -II 1 II • II II• -IILI �• II ILI• ILp �• I IIIIIIIIIIIDIIIIIMIIlIII111lllllll • ■t��9 e iriru��:�riuiwll11116- 0��ICI I•I - - -` 1/WR lil I.I o!o_IIIII1� �� ��IIIIII � � o 7 T; BKV G R 0 U P- A &kecWre Tnteri., Design Landscape Archftobjre Engineering Bovmur Vogel Group Inc. 222 North Second Street Knneapo7ts MIN 55401 Telephone: 612-339-3752 Fac m?,m 612-339-6212 w .bkvgroup.corn COK%LTl PFCXi.Tln1E Vernon Avenue Townhouses Z- !I- F?�Kio SHB-R Exterior Elevations A503 0=9e0. 0a EOE c D — ---------- "-2—V .— _— T- - - - - -- East !Ilevation - Courtyard Buildinq X Q—fi.. ..Rdmn X D Xc vmoveoz El 13 I "W; West �6111111 - Buldriq X BKV G R 0 U P- A &kecWre Tnteri., Design Landscape Archftobjre Engineering Bovmur Vogel Group Inc. 222 North Second Street Knneapo7ts MIN 55401 Telephone: 612-339-3752 Fac m?,m 612-339-6212 w .bkvgroup.corn COK%LTl PFCXi.Tln1E Vernon Avenue Townhouses Z- !I- F?�Kio SHB-R Exterior Elevations A503 0=9e0. 0a EOE VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES � 7N bw� ti 49TH AVENUE - LOOKING EAST F=@F= WFMB 1 3 -;25- 3 1 IIr Q BKVHuntAssociates , J i VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES 49TH AVENUE - LOOKING WEST a R K v HuntAssociatc, `� ' ` VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES VERNON AVENUE - LOOKING WEST B K V HuntAssociates I D VERNON AVENUE TOWNHOMES 41! . - ............... � ; >_.. �'"�- ,,.. � �: ''".. µE.'ti !� `y4� a� i •�i i_,� �_�.`} '`� ,fir+ a -* ..;# z pt � Al � a�- . -wmw . VERNON AVENUE - LOOKING WEST HuntAssociat,, B K V C120UP -'�---] 9 D T Vernon Avenue Townhouses Perspective Northeast BKV 03-22-13 G R 0 U P D '10 IBM ii 11� � � �� � jE ill LSlf6 I 5112 51. Sf2D 9w Y O O w EC Z mg 1 L---J L ARC FFAVE E (.1 SITE P LAIJ KEY NOTES Q.Exs,.�x cwxri,ex nM :,. Qi f.nmro swoE ,oEm Da .EWw Qi .wEm.xo ,tuffs: tsEE .xEE *11on OwwuEr,.. mvs: ls¢ srt[, i,n1, p=NN. x6Ew .,.x,»G: f6EE sxR. ,101, .(xE max, L-) On. —NE .E x .Exx w" Oo .M[ COKRCR [Wfi �� x wsW OslY 9rt[ cWB. [Ox1xA.s O0. 5xE0 EIOD Oe.m .I.N,Ea1 No. ]Oi oasts 505x.. Te. �C6E [D) a BKV G R O U P ' Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering so— Vogel Group Inc 222 North Second Stre et Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 Fa i,nk 612- 339 -6212 — .bkvgroup.com NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION Preliminary Development Plan Submittal Vernon Avenue Townhomes If41M[O U NAME] One NllMBfa1 lv NmGi VILONS Ne a F WN BY plf OI[OID 6I (T 9"1SSQV l.b. SITE PLAN L100 O Lln 6KV f+uR NC EOE MUMM Mons "Maoo���s��® �mmmmmmmmmr - KEY NOTES Q.Exs,.�x cwxri,ex nM :,. Qi f.nmro swoE ,oEm Da .EWw Qi .wEm.xo ,tuffs: tsEE .xEE *11on OwwuEr,.. mvs: ls¢ srt[, i,n1, p=NN. x6Ew .,.x,»G: f6EE sxR. ,101, .(xE max, L-) On. —NE .E x .Exx w" Oo .M[ COKRCR [Wfi �� x wsW OslY 9rt[ cWB. [Ox1xA.s O0. 5xE0 EIOD Oe.m .I.N,Ea1 No. ]Oi oasts 505x.. Te. �C6E [D) a BKV G R O U P ' Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering so— Vogel Group Inc 222 North Second Stre et Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone: 612- 339 -3752 Fa i,nk 612- 339 -6212 — .bkvgroup.com NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION Preliminary Development Plan Submittal Vernon Avenue Townhomes If41M[O U NAME] One NllMBfa1 lv NmGi VILONS Ne a F WN BY plf OI[OID 6I (T 9"1SSQV l.b. SITE PLAN L100 O Lln 6KV f+uR NC EOE D �C RqT a '.Z � Lj - SITE WEST ELEVATION I I - I- I H W I I I� I I I I I III -I III - III -III- I I T lT=l I I I- III =1 IT -lT I I I I I I� I T -I I I I I I - III- _ __ _ I IIII I! 1 111 1I—I I 11 1 I (z1 SITE SECTION NORTH —SOUTH Y I 1 - - ALE SECTION EAST —WEST Vernon Avenue Townhouses Site Sections B K V 03 -22 -13 G R O U P D �C RqT a '.Z � Lj B K V G R O U P . n .. Architecture hterior wanes ao LandscapeArrh'ftchae F�eeeering & Boomma vasal Group Inc °°' _ 5 222 North .Second Street MinneWils MN 55401 Telepho m 612 - 339 -3752 Fda e 612- 339 -6212 4 - vnvw.bkvg roup.00m omcwals .. -- GLEast Elevelion - Courtyard Buldna X (� South EI -11on - BOW na X x. O PiiZ�l'nRE _ Vemon Avenue $ Townhouses <YFLm CRTHAFUM ec. ,..-�• 4 . West El—d- - Builcrm X w CffnWATICN umvelxeases�,m�.®a — CUB 3 i � p, WE i NII siErmlE �• j7 /1�� s� ,,, jEicterior Elevations' _ 3 Jti A503 � maw acvoo�p.rnEaE _ Li Ulf LIJI rre i BKV G R 0 U P Am re hitectu Interior Detn YY Landscape Architecture eweelq i ---------- oulr� Group Inc. L ----- ----- 222 North Second Stred --------- .11N Krineapolls PIN 55401 ...... Telephones 612-339-3752 ---------- ---- --- ----- ---- Mi. v6,1 2 -3-12 r.. p. corn 14 YT--- -- - - - IM J, OCNILTANM ` - - -J OL__j ---------- BUILDING X L ------------ ------------- BUILDING Y ---------- H; --------- ---------- ---------- PFOILTMIE Vernon Avenue ----------- L) Townhouses - MFLAN 55inWSi?N— L --- I i BUILDING Z F --- F ---- I --- CUUMAMON SM-N—MIEF; K C.- - — - — - — - — - — -- — - — - F ---- 1 11 - --- ''I ---- I I zc - — - — - — - — - —_ —_— - I t i 11 i : L --- i L --- i — X. ZC - - - - - - - - - — - — Basement Floor Plan I - — - — - -- - - - - -- — - - - - -- I — t — -- L n A100 G�B,,enenl eyej - - emw icECE ffi PIE V J .71 mz Vernon Avenue Townhouses m First Floor Plan I, o ,f BKV G R 0 U P Ardubectum heriorDetn Wdsope AmMxtn BWMWM y x" VO&d ® GroW Inc 11 m 13 Elm 13 222 North Se=d Street Knnepolls PIN 55401 Elm 103 11CM a r-E: 61 Telephmc 2-339-3752 612-339-Q12 =9kvgroup.oxn C3 iwf,�, - LL G>1 C, )--I - — - — - — - --- — El RUILTULE Of Vernon Avenue Townhouses IIEIFLM "alIM"M 09MCAM4 0 EH ❑ 0 00 ED Emu 03 M Second Floor Plan OEM C= ---------- 4 b �, NaMUREr- r, 19 Sewnd Floor Plan zbi zz za zf ze a A102 I Li ,:L OMM BIWQMAknEOE UUI- S-XJ'-tI:jL." ■+ n r+ n n rs rs n n ' / V I G R O U PP o -� - - -- -- - --1-- -- - - -- - I - - - Architectum htm^ o- —} r- }--- - - - - -- - — o VOW d^ 272 North Second Street _ Minneaporis MN 55901 _ - I _ II" I Telephone 612- 339 -3752 FaaGnile: 612- 339 -6212 �LJLJLJ 1II ,.w+,. bkvgroup.00m -- T_- _- _I- _- _- I_---- -_T_ -V _ I I I PI. --- - - - Vemon Avenue Townhouses �• l �i� O O I 1 — _ — _ — _ ZE r ^ CEUFrlTld .9Al� I �^Zp' I�I1��� Baia dabs aYm1 ��a+leM�/ ; I� — _ — _ — _ — _ _ — _ _ _ — _ — _ _ — _ — I _ is I -� a —I -- ze a Roof Plan I (111n1 (111,1 (ZIlSI (111e1 (111n1 T - -O FD Aim IN. Jul ®aID SWG.Lp,k.EOE !'D � j II Via: IIIIIIIIY O I Ii�G- I,h� I _t�.�;r mm c: ■II=iz�l u■ II ©�` ='� IIIIIIIII _ VIII - -.1 Q�uIPl�l�1�912'JIl�1�l l'li !JIM a EL��� y i�b- •�����_I�yl,� p r�;� II :III; "I�� �I G � sl �! lii G - mu IiP� I Uf IIIIIIIIIII II II!!! U 1I- ��II "IY'IWr11J i ns ��r� I; •II t��: � 11..:1■ i � � �.ifl Lflf 1 i E. (IIIIIIIII I�IIII III -7111 •��II III ME�F '�I .:I� II■.:�■ � ■�_ 'IIIIIIIII Ir ■� � ( L.: I'�1. ��_ ■ -II I� I I III ' r�i -- I� I IIIIIIIII I■.. II .1. fL I lrm il'i flt Ily 7 ��J __: =j�,'I� ■.: III II� R391rIV'r�'IrofJl � I- IpICSI� iii® P �� -I���f =0;i� �h �II�'�e�I II ■•- IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII � IIIh p _�•�JI� I` III I� h, l' I �I f7l !II '���� - , it IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIh ',, � ® lam. � uirlrJV�l����r��i — I = • =III C �I � 11■ � .. Q� � I d I- I F , 0 SHEET BINDING AREA - DO NOT USE �4 i� zl 6511 is !S I n � I! � gal 11 I s � s I s I I a i• � � I c� I. � I I I / V V uG�tl ----- - - - - -- j" g lqj� Kill[ 1.111 ;--Uo /`` W H i9f8 p25 Th G^4� v g S WEST ELEVATION n S SECTION NORTH -SOUTH n SITE SECTION EAST -WEST Vernon Avenue Townhouses Site Sections B K V 03 -22 -13 G R O U P D ��L7U ,�L• `� pl� 1 r t i O O O O O © O ::em nX1u� �uun - mew muu muu i 1 °m■■■■■■■ ■111__ . .... .... un Y .I:I� VIII �Llt . III EIRIII,I I I��VII ds .LI. � loll�ll I �I �911X Ill 1 911 RI 3 I a rldl� 1 ■1 ����� ,�� x �.�r.,� .. �.��■.q��aE �i.l;ll_ . �■��� I rXME"r�=� °-�� °�a® I © m m o mmm minim � I ■I�� ■�- — ,7NIe ■� .��- ...�..� � �_ !�1,dp Itll>w � fllzEa�l _. - -__— — --�' -- .� '1 IIIIIIN "�"l�l ---. - e =G =n =� II11_ 11, I = n= FIE-all I!T �17,11I- n �1 ■11I H1S�II � g1671f RIB g13E 1111 I1V1E!111411 11@111 =n= 111= 1�I- 11f In l � l"i RIII#i �— � . � �,�,t , ,i, ■: .C� . Il i °1° ��s .■ . := 1'•!r'L•lrl•.r�l.•t�: �I�(��I•Yrl•.f•1a3a gIINXNIXIIIIIIIIIMIXNNIINI° IIIIIIIIIINIIIIINIIIIIIXIIIINII3eIIIINYIINIIIIIIIINNIIIIIINI:' ?. 1 [ 61lI 111IIN all l•Y�I�lelnl•,lep pl•;L•I•.I•Y•l�l�l�lrf €I,X- I•Irl�l•I•hl.I r�� IIIIIINNINNNIilllllllllllllllll° lt� �Itl�ltl hlml�ll I�L.le.l�l.11�.le.lr:� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII C'� lRk 'II ���p �� ; aI1X1�� ��T,��.�-��' /� ■ � „ X�- _ _.IlLll- - v�mn.nmixmxunmumi_ !_mnnnnnnmm�inimninn: ,IIIIIIIIIIIINIIINNIWNIIIIIIIe , Its __ =1911 .nnuuunrennlmu +nnmur ,mnnnlnnniuxn.nnnmur ximrenniu.monntnunm= .I�I �unininnnnmunumunois ;�i _r _ Il ■II � —� -- -. -:€rte, _— — _ - ='q'�, _- � 1 � v s � pl� 1 r t i Jackie- Hoogenakker. %1PY 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 jmailto:nlphall @ comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:22 PM To: alina.perez- campos @fallon.com; Alex and Michael Landreville .(alexanderiandreville 20130)depauw.edu); ann legeros (annlegeros @edina.k12.mn.us); bkaroli yahoo.com; blake Johnson; Big mama 375 @aol.com; brad case (bdcase8 (&yahoo.com); Vicki Berg (berciwolf (&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); haJa net. 222C@gmail.com; John Purdum (jpir750 @gmail.com); ioyhazuchaC@gmail.com; jmkscott@msn.com; Joel and Harmony Kaplan (jkaplanslookout@comcast.net); Johnfolkestad (johnfolkestad (&salollc.com); june kuntz (ibk630C&Iive.com); Julia Tangeman (jitangeman@aol.com); lagerstrom22 @comcast.net; Kim Gharrity (kcgharrity (&gmail.com); marta martinez davison (mmmdavison (@mac.com); nhaley @mac.com; Nancy Peters ( nancy .peters @courts.state.mn.us); Olivia and Ricardo Gorostiaga (o.gorostiaga (&gmail.com); 'Penelope Purdum' ( Penelope @waterdesign4roup.com); Randy Swanstrom (randy.swanstrom@fcgm.com); shannon.case @yahoo.com; smithkaralyn@amail.com; sara strothman @uhc.com; 'Suzanne Kerwin'; sfolkestad@comcast.net; Tracey Zavadil (shinybirdy(a yahoo.com); shardy73 @gmail.com; susengen @edina.1<12.mn.us; 'Jennifer Livingston'; thequinbys @q.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); jhovland (cbkrausehovland.com; joni bennett (jonibennettl2 @comcast.net); Josh Sprague (joshspraaue @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 Ihoogenakker @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 491h 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 491h 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 49th 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> Sent: 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 651270 5645 Sent from my Samsung Epic"' 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] I }em /Ill ii 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 first want to thank you for all the thought, care, and consideration you put into reviewing the . comprehensive plan and zoning changes proposed for the properties across the street from me. I truly felt "heard ", and appreciate the points you made in favor of keeping the character of the neighborhood, as well as following /upholding the rules and standards that have already been set forth. I appreciate the fact that you tabled the issue to be able to have more time to review, not wanting to rush into anything. Some of the changes, and suggestions for change were fantastic; I love the idea for a sidewalk across the street. I would like to respond to the last city council meeting with some points to ponder, as well as some suggestions for design /material use. First, I have to bring this up again, I am very concerned about the water drainage system they are proposing. I am unsure of how it works, as well as how effective it is. Is it a commonly used system to contain water? Is it successful in applications such as this project? What happens if it overflows /gets clogged with roots /doesn't function properly? Will we have flooding issues? Will the town homes /foundations be affected? I don't want to be a "negative nellie ", but I also want to make sure this project is done right. Again, my neighbors and I (as well as the townhome owners) will have to deal with this problem for the rest of our days living in this neighborhood. I am dubious about snow removal, but I can deal with that a bit better than potential water flooding. Second, I still feel that 16 units is too many, however I am glad we at least got one more unit taken off the plan. In talking with my fellow neighbors, it sounds as if there are many, if not most of us concerned and opposed to the density. We understand that the project has to be lucrative, however, we need to find the balance that works for us all. I am also concerned that it doesn't really seem to be an option to say no to this current proposal. Should we be bending over backwards to make all of these allowances and changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning codes that are already in place (and for good reason)? Why is it a given that Hunt and Associates is the best company to develop this property? It has been discussed that this is a "choice" piece of property, maybe there is another developer that could propose something that would fit in better. This is going to be one of the first projects addressing the Grandview Terrace project, it should be an inspiring, "standout" design to get the ball rolling. If we do decide to go along with the current proposal, here are my suggestions for material usage, as well as design elements: At the very least, I would like for the color of the materials, and shape /tone of the stone to change on the units facing West 49th street. I thought it was a brilliant point /compromise for the units to look different facing Vernon, vs. facing our quaint 1950's style homes on 49th street. I would be much happier if the fiber cement board were a light color, and in lapboard configuration, rather than dark, stark, broad sheets of it. Also, I really dislike the weird stained wood, checker -board elements being slapped onto the sides of the buildings. I have some examples of what I, and my neighbors find much more appealing in terms of tweaking the actual materials'and how they are used. ig. 2 Even Better would be if the actual design of the buildings would be changed (see Fig. 3). Those of us on 49th Street, as well as many people within the neighborhood, are strongly opposed to the flat roofs. Again, the townhomes look very boxy, and almost like a solid wall with little variation in height across the units, as well as pushing the space in and out across the face. Above (Fig. 3) 1 have a bit of a better example of variation that could be achieved. I know we are concerned with height, and that is why the roofs are flat, however there is an example of a very slightly peaked roof in Fig. 2, that I think could work on a design level. I would much rather live across the street from these townhomes, despite the fact that they are still too high and dense for my taste. The best compromise for the proposed townhome units would be for the townhomes along West 49th street to be 1 less story. This would do a few things, first of which would solve the dilemna of the height issue along 49th Street. I think we all agree that the design looks appropriate along Vernon, but simply doesn't work for 49th Street. The second thing it would do is address concerns of mobility of the people that might live in these units. An elderly person might be more inclined to buying one of the units with less stairs, and possibly a bit smaller /more manageable to maintain. Maybe they drop N another unit and stretch the other ones out to accomodate for the loss in height. One of the principles they discuss in PUD zoning is allowing for a range of different price levels, making the property more accessible to a variety of people. Maybe the Units on 49th cost slightly less than the others, due to being one less story? There are MANY different ways we can tweak the design /materials to make these townhomes fit in better, as well as be attractive to those of us around them. I realize "beauty is in the eye of the beholder ", however myself and my neighbors are the beholders. There are 56 homes that use 49th as their egress on a daily basis. We will all be looking at these units for the rest of our days here. I think that if we are unhappy with the design, our voice should be heard loudly. We rely on you, our elected City Council Members to be our voice in this matter. So far you have done a wonderful job, please don't let us down on Tuesday! We want to work with this plan, but we need the "other guys" to be a bit more receptive to our needs and design ideas. Again, 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 5yrs) ?'resn VIII. �. Jackie Hooaenakker From: Go Daddy <Leslie @FriesianStable.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:29 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: Scott -Work Cell; Scott -Work Cell; Jarick Losey Subject: Case File #2013.005;.(5109 -5125 49th Street West) Hello, We would like to express our views of the proposed 17 -unit housing development. First, we have offered to sell our property (5105 West.,49th Street) to,Hunt Associates, so they can have more land to work with. Also, we were planning to put our house on the market this year anyway, so it wasn't going to displace us in any way. Second, if Hunt Associates declined to purchase our property, then we would have some serious concerns with the proposed development. This 17 -unit would be right next do.or to our house, which would take away all of our privacy from every angle, as these building are much taller than our rambler home.. The tenants would have clear access to watching us inside our house in every room, and outside in the backyard, front yard, side yards and garage! We have a 6 foot privacy fence we installed for our Beagles, but we don't think it would give us any privacy with 36 foot tall buildings. These tall buildings would really makes us feel on display 24 hours a day /7days a week. Not at all relaxing, especially after, working all day! We were required to consider our neighbors and the neighborhood when we did our addition /remodel (back in 2000). The city gave us restrictions on the height.and size, which forced us to revise our house plans a couple of times. Now, our. neighbors.(Hunt Associates), want to create something over the top next to us. We hope the city takes this all into consideration. Thank you, Scott and Leslie Losey 5105 West 49th Street Edina, MN 55436 (952) 927 -8986 Sent from my iPad 1 hemVM-A- Jackie Hooaenakker -rom: Gail Hetletvedt <gailmk65 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:42 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 5109 -5125 49th Street West, Edina, MN Dear City Council Members, I live at.5116 W 49th Street (directly across from property to be re- zoned). Thank you for taking the time to listen/read about our concerns to our neighborhood, My neighbors have told me about the last. meeting and I am very grateful for your,.concerns and, attention to the character of our neighborhood. Michelle Anderson has done, a great job expressing the concerns of the neighborhood and I don't need to repeat all that she has expressed. I am most concerned with the drainage issue with the lack of green space. I feel that units under the town homes to collect the water is not a good solution. How deep will the hole be? what proof (buildings in Edina that have this system) is there that this a effective drainage solution. Ice dams, heavy rain what happens if this system fails. Where will the water drain to? Please note that the existing street drains always clog and the city .seeds to open them up. Who do call when this system fails? I know that some of you on the council see that the new town homes need to fit the charter of the neighborhood and I thank you for that. For those of you who are o.k. with the straight face and squareness of the buildings, think of the neighborhoods around you and how you feel about the odd residential houses, the ones that don't fit in. lets give these town homes some character, don't make them powering -and let the original building design go across the street to the pending project in the commercial /residential area. Lets keep the North side of Vernon looking residential. Thank you'for your consideration. Gail Hetlewedt 511.6 W 49th Street 1 ' .1'OO ` T / � COO MGM :�NDATIOO N To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Date: April 16, 2013 Subject: Planning Commission 2013 Work Plan Amendment Action Requested: ' 0 8. tx� �4, O o o I�C�RPOTU`�FO o IAAA Agenda Item #: VIII.B Action 0 Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Accept the proposed change to the 2013 Planning Commission Work Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission to conduct a Small Area Plan for the Valley View and Wooddale area. Information / Background: The Planning Commission would like to undertake a Small Area Plan for the Valley View and Wooddale area, which has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a potential area of change. With the exception of the north east corner (Ed Noonan property), the area has not seen any improvements in many years. The area has great potential for redevelopment, especially the strip mall site on the northwest corner. The Planning Department has not budgeted for a Small Area Plan in 2013. Assuming the need for a Planning Consultant to assist with the Plan the anticipated cost would be $25,000 - $75,000 depending on the scope of work to be done by a consultant. If the City Council accepts the proposed change, staff and the Planning Commission would then prepare a scope of work for the project; and then come back to the City Council for approval which would include a specific estimate for the cost of the project. City of Edina 4801 W. 50t1 St. Edina, MN 55424 Planning Commission 2013 Annual Work Plan 2013 New Initiative Target Budget Required Staff Support Required Council Approval Completion Date Zoning Ordinance Amendments (See On -going No additional Yes, staff support is Yes attached Zoning Ordinance Work Plan budget requested required Tracker.)The Planning Commission would at this time like to complete the following from the list in 2013: 1. Sign Plan Sign Ordinance 2013 40 Hours 2. Parking regulations /Proof -of- parking 2013 40 Hours 3. Landscaping Requirements 2013 20 hours 4. Max. /min.size for Apts. & Senior Housing 2013 40 hours 5. Lighting /Noise Regulations 2013 20 hours Progress Report: 41' The Planning Commission is responsible to review all Land Use applications submitted to the City of Edina. Land Use applications include: Variances; Site Plan Review; Sketch Plan Review; Conditional Use Permits; Subdivision; Lot Line Adjustments; Rezoning; and Comprehensive Plan Amendments. To accomplish this responsibility the Planning Commission meets twice per month, on the second and fourth Wednesday of the month. The Planning Commission typically reviews 3 -4 of the above requests each agenda. Other Consideration of Ordinance Amendment regarding the Grandview District (PUD vs. Form Based Code ?) Small Area Plans —Areas from the Comprehensive Plan that suggest are "Potential Areas of Change" —Conduct a Small Area Plan for the Wooddale and Valley View Commercial area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Other Items mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Impervious surface ordinance; design standards; building and garage placement consideration (limit the size of a front - loaded garage); integration of multi -unit housing in transitional areas; provisions for urban forest protection; mixed use development standards; and subdivision ordinance. Proposed Month for Joint Work Session: We anticipate 2013 as a busy year for development. We will try to accomplish as much as we can outside of our usual "ongoing responsibilities." Council Comments: ...for living, learning, raising families & doing business ` 3 ' /v0 �'R Avg 2008 Comprehensive Plan Figure 4.4 �i• L!1 e x City of Edina Conceptual Land Use Framework: r� 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Potential Areas of Change n—F-= Date of Aerial Photography: August 2006 e 0.5 Mdes Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -33 t foci s� C I for living, learning, raising families & doing business d `= � �0 2008 Comprehensive Plan suitable areas to accommodate additional households and jobs that are anticipated, based on Metropolitan Council projections, to locate in the City by 2030. Because the City is fully developed, additional housing would have to occur through redevelopment. The areas listed here and shown in Figure 4.4, "Potential Areas of Change," represent less than 10 percent of the total acreage of the City. 1. North France Avenue (West 54th Street South to TH 62): This corridor includes many duplexes interspersed with small -lot single - family dwellings and small commercial nodes. It has the potential to accommodate some additional attached housing types, with careful attention to transitions, and some additional commercial opportunities near 54th Street. 2. Neighborhood Commercial Nodes: These include the Morningside commercial area, Valley View and Wooddale, and 70th and Cahill. The last two have greater potential for addition of new compatible uses. 3. Community Commercial Nodes: These include the 50th and France district and the Grandview Heights district, both of which have experienced redevelopment and are evolving toward mixed use, while continuing to function as commercial centers. 4. Southdale Area: This area is the northern portion of the study area of the "Greater Southdale Area Land Use and Transportation Study" received by City Council in February 2006 (the southern portion included in that study is the Centennial Lakes area). The Southdale area is the site of considerable development pressure. Design standards and equivalent zoning updates should be developed as discussed under the Community Design guidelines. 5. Commercial /Office Corridors: These areas include the commercial /office development along 1 -494 and locations on the edges of the Southdale and Cahill Industrial areas. Long -term transition is envisioned away from single - site commercial use toward a mix of predominantly office and residential =uses. Additional site - specific studies may be necessary. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -31 Discussion Chair Staunton explained that at the next Planning Commission meeting on April 10th a work session is scheduled directly after the Commission meeting. Staunton referred to the 12 -point memorandum from Planner Teague and asked Commissioners if there was anything they would like added to the list, taken off the list or discussed Commissioner Carr commented that the memo lists 12 items and questioned if any of these topics should be prioritized. Commissioner Scherer commented that in her opinion numbers 1, 2, 9 & 10 could be consolidated; this would address Commissioner Carr's comment. Scherer said with regard to #11; the single /two car garage requirement with the consideration of eliminating the two stall garage requirement didn't appear to her to be fully supported by the Council; adding she's not in favor of it. Chair Staunton said in his opinion at this time the list should stay inclusive. He agreed that a number of items could be "clumped together "; however that could be discussed at the work session on the 10tH Planner Teague said he would like to add an additional item for discussion and that item is front yard setbacks. Teague explained that on the west side of Edina where the lots are larger it has become problematic when averaging the front yard setback of the houses on either side to establish the front yard setback for the lot in question. Commissioner Scherer said another concern she has might fall under #3 — adding she's not sure the 1- foot elevation limit accomplished what the Commission wanted. Staunton agreed and said additional discussion should occur on building height, where it is taken, its starting point and ending point. Scherer agreed on the importance of understanding these calculations. Commissioner Forrest said public input played a large role in developing these topic items, adding soliciting input from the public is still welcome, it's ongoing. Chair Staunton said that he agrees further study is needed on front yard setbacks and asked Planner Teague to add that as umber 13. Staunton also asked Teague to list as a topic of discussion permission for narrower lots than 75 -feet in width (subdivision). Concluding Staunton said the list should be placed on the website and notice should be posted of the public meeting. B. 2013 Work Plan Chair Staunton said it was time to "check in" on the 2013 Work Plan, adding he has another initiative to add for 2013; discussion on a Small Area Plan for the Valley View and Wooddale area. Staunton asked if anyone would care to add additional initiatives. Commissioners indicated they would like to revisit the PUD process and determine if the PUD is working as planned. Another topic that should be considered is the Comprehensive Plan, adding the Comprehensive Plan should always be a priority. Page 9 of 10 . N Commissioners also reported that the Linden Hills neighborhood of Minneapolis is in the process of undertaking a Small Area Plan and the Commission and staff may be interested in how their process is working. Commissioner Carr stated she was still interested in further discussions on lighting and how it relates to the present Zoning Ordinance. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials. IV. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague reported that the City Council has approved the demolition of the old Public Works Site. Teague also reported that the AUAR for the Pentagon Park Office complex area is in the process of being updated and the Council will hold a work session on the AUAR on April 16th. IV. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Carr moved meeting adjournment at 10:00 PM. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. (746 a llooywal& Respectfully submitted Page 10 of 10 To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: 'April nl 16, 2013; Subject: Resolution No. 2013 -38 Accepting Various Donations Action Requested: Adopt Resolution. Information I Background: c,91�11rIr o e 0 logo Agenda Item #: VIII. C Action M Discussion O Information 0 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 -38 City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-38 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: Minneapolis Foundation John & Sharon Parciak Barbara O. Korner, Ph.D. Kurt & Pauline Philips -Zabel Schott Ellwood & Suzanne Timble Cathy Carlson Park & Recreation Department: MN Department Of Human Services Dated: April 16, 2013 $500 $50 $75 $50 $100 17 Art Books $5,579.30 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK Michele & Andy Herring Family Fund Mark Thompson Memorial Helen Zabel Memorial Helen Zabel Memorial Helen Zabel Memorial Centennial Lakes Farmers Market, Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) 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 16, 2013, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk w91�,r� • ,M�RPORA�FO • �ese To: City Council Agenda Item #: VIII. D. From: Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager Action Discussion ❑ Date: January 22, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Neighborhood Boundaries and Names and the related Neighborhood Association Policy Action Requested: • Adopt the neighborhood boundaries and names outlined in the attached map • Adopt the Neighborhood Association Policy Information / Background: The attached neighborhood map and Neighborhood Association Policy reflect the changes recommended by the Council during April 2 work session. The Name Your Neighborhood project started in January of 2012 and was led by the Neighborhood Identification Steering Committee — a group of residents appointed by the City Council to facilitate resident input in the identification and naming of neighborhoods. Committee members were Hope Melton (chair), Dick Brozic (vice chair), Bruce Carlson, Bright Dornblaser, Laura Ericksen, Rob Erickson, Paula Harter, Jennifer Janovy, Bob Miller, Bob Moore and Gene Persha. The Committee gathered input through a community-wide written survey and three community meetings held May 30, July I I and Sept. 12. The Committee presented its final recommendations at the December 4, 2012, Council work session. A public hearing was held on the proposed neighborhood names and boundaries and the proposed Neighborhood Association Policy at the January 22 Council Meeting. Attachments: • Neighborhood Association Policy Map of Neighborhood Names and Boundaries City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 Neighborhood Association Policy Definitions Neighborhood: A geographic area defined by the City that exists as a sub -area within the City as a whole. Each property within the City resides within a single Neighborhood. Neighbors: People or legal entities who own or occupy property within a Neighborhood. Neighborhood Association: A voluntary Neighborhood -based organization, recognized by the City, and in compliance with this policy. Purpose The City encourages the voluntary formation of Neighborhood Associations for the purpose of facilitating communication between residents, City staff and officials, fostering interaction between i on issues of common geographic concern and building a better community through cooperative action. In keeping with this philosophy, the City will seek to notify and consult with Neighborhood Associations on matters of Neighborhood interest. For example, Neighborhood Associations will be notified when: • Significant Neighborhood projects are being discussed or proposed such as street reconstruction, park development or redevelopment or land use planning. • A mailing goes out to residents in the Neighborhood related to a City matter or public hearing. • A developer requests a Neighborhood meeting for the purpose of sketch plan review. • The City is seeking to organize a Neighborhood group for resident input. Expectations The following expectations exist with respect to Neighborhood Associations: • Neighborhood Associations will be included in the public input process but will not be assumed by City officials to speak on behalf of all Neighbors and will not limit the ability of any person or entity, including non - recognized Neighborhood groups, from participating on their own behalf. Communication with the Neighborhood Association will not replace the City's traditional methods of direct outreach to residents. • Neighborhood Associations are strictly voluntary and no neighbor will be required to participate. Each Neighorhhood Association will determine its own priorities and desired level of activity. • Neighborhood Associations will not assume the role of an administrative or legislative body. Neighborhood Associations have no legal authority to enact or enforce property design or maintenance requirements. • Only one Neighborhood Association may exist in each Neighborhood, as identified in the official Neighborhood map. Bylaws In order to be recognized as a Neighborhood Association by the City, Neighborhood Associations are required to adopt bylaws that include the following minimum standards: • An outline of the Neighborhood boundaries as defined by the City; • Membership criteria allowing any Neighbor over the age of 18 the right to belong and to vote. • A statement that the Neighborhood Association will not discriminate based on 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; • One annual meeting with notice to all addresses within the geographic boundaries, • Procedures for the election and removal of leadership; and • Method of determining quorum and how votes are taken and recorded at annual meetings. Changes or amendments to the bylaws shall be provided to the City staff liaison. Recognition A group of neighbors intending to form a recognized Neighborhood Association or seeking recognition of an existing Neighborhood organization, must notify the City staff liaison. The recognition steps are as follows: • Upon request, an educational meeting may be conducted_by the City staff liaison regarding steps to organize. • The organizing committee notifies, in writing, all Neighbors of the opportunity to vote on becoming a recognized Neighborhood Association and the proposed Neighborhood Association bylaws. Upon request, the City will pay for and coordinate this initial mailing. • Upon an affirmative vote, the Association formally applies for recognition and submits a completed recognition application and minutes from the meeting during which the neighbors voted to seek recognition and a copy of the current or proposed Association bylaws. • The City staff liaison will forward the application materials to the City Manager for review and approval. The City Manager will notify the Association and City Council of his or her decision with regard to recognition in writing. Associations can appeal the decision of the City Manager to the City Council. Removal of Recognition The City Manager has the authority to remove recognition from a Neighborhood Association if the Association fails to comply with any requirement of this Policy. Prior to the removal of recognition, the Neighborhood Association will be given written notice of non - compliance and a period of 60 days to achieve compliance. If the City Manager removes recognition, the Neighborhood Association and City Council will be informed of his or her decision in writing. Neighborhood Associations m�y reapply for recognition without prediudice. Funding Membership fees, when established by the bylaws of a Neighborhood Association, shall be voluntary and shall not preclude any neighbor from participating in the Neighborhood Association. Neighborhood Associations may charge fees for events or activities that do not include voting on Association business. The City shall not serve as the fiduciary agent for a Neighborhood Association. Any Association which raises money outside of a city- sponsored grant or program is responsible for complying with applicable state and federal laws. If funds are disbursed by the City for use by an Association, the Association may be required to provide documentation of appropriate use. Failure to do so will result in removal of recognition. r City Staff Liaison The City will assign a staff liaison to recognized Neighborhood Associations. The role of the staff liaison will be to: • Provide information about the role and organization of Neighborhood Associations, both generally and in direct consultation with residents; • Receive and process applications for recognition; • Ensure that the recognition requirements are met and notify the associations and City Manager of any shortcomings; • Maintain City records related to Neighborhood Associations; • Work with the Communications and Technology Services Department to facilitate the communication activities outlined in this policy; • Develop and maintain a City speaker list and contact speakers upon request from a Neighborhood Association; • Educate City staff on the role of Neighborhood Associations and how to fully engage Neighborhood Associations as a valued resource; • Refer issues brought forward by Neighborhood Associations to appropriate staff; and • Advise the City Council on issues related to Neighborhoods or Neighborhood Associations and draft or revise related policies. It is not the role of the City staff liaison to organize a Neighborhood on behalf of a proposed Neighborhood Association or to advocate positions on behalf of Neighborhood Associations. Communication Support The City shall not serve as the primary communication vehicle for Neighborhood Associations. The City's Communications and Technology Services Department will provide basic communication support to Neighborhood Associations to ensure that residents are aware of their existence within the community. Basic communication support from the City includes: • Website Page: The landing page will include the neighborhood boundaries and notable features, Neighborhood Association bylaws, regular meeting place and time of Neighborhood Association meetings, Neighborhood Association contact information, and links to the Neighborhood Association website or other online resource. • Initial Mailer: Upon request, the City will pay for and coordinate a Neighborhood -wide postcard mailing notifying residents of a meeting to vote on the potential formation of a recognized Neighborhood Association. Content must be delivered to the Communications and Technology Services Department at least 21 days in advance of the organization meeting date to ensure timely delivery. Postcard mailings will be addressed to "Resident." • Copying: Upon request, the City will provide copying once annually for each association in an amount equivalent to the Neighborhood's estimated population (double- sided, on BY by 11" paper). Associations should anticipate a 2 -3 day turnaround for each copying project. Associations can maximize the copy services provided by the City by using half sheet flyers. • About Town Listing: Recognized Neighborhood Associations and their contact information will be highlighted annually in About Town. Communication with the Neighborhood Association will not replace the City's traditional methods of direct outreach to residents. Any communication facilitated by the City is subject to the City's communication policies and ordinances. As a result, the City will not facilitate any communication that is inconsistent with its policies general operating principles, or the City Code. Examples of communication of that would be inconsistent with City policies include items that are discriminatory or politically partisan in nature. Neighborhood Boundary Changes The City has defined boundaries for each Neighborhood. Neighborhood Associations may propose both technical corrections and Neighborhood boundary changes. Technical Corrections. Technical corrections are minor changes regarding the placement of the boundary line on the map. For example, a technical correction could entail shifting a boundary line to include the properties on both sides of a street. Technical corrections impact a small number of properties. To apply for a technical correction to a Neighborhood's boundary, the Neighborhood Association must submit a written request to the City staff liaison along with the minutes from the meeting at which the organization's members voted to make the change. The City staff liaison will forward the request to the Neighborhood Association(s) of any adjoining impacted Neighborhoods for review and comment. The City staff liaison will forward the request and any comments from the adjoining impacted Neighborhood Associations(s) to the City Council for review. The City Council has the sole authority to approve or deny any technical corrections. Boundary Changes. Boundary changes represent a larger change with respect to the geographic definition of the neighborhood. Boundary changes have the potential to impact a large number of properties. For example, a boundary change could entail moving the boundary from one street to another street located a few blocks away. To promote stability and growth of the Neighborhood Association system, and in recognition of the significant public process involved in creating Neighborhood names and boundaries, boundary change requests will only be considered at time of application for initial recognition, or any time within two years of initial recognition. In addition, any boundary change request that creates Neighborhood(s) with less than 70 parcels will not be considered. To apply for a boundary change, the organizing committee must submit the request to the City staff liaison along with a Neighborhood petition demonstrating the support of a majority of households. The City staff liaison will forward the request to the Neighborhood Association of any adjoining impacted Neighborhoods for review and comment. The City staff liaison will forward the request and any comments from the adjoining impacted Neighborhood Association(s) to the City Council for review. The City.Council has the sole authority to approve or deny any boundary changes. Neiahborhood Name Changes The City has defined names for each Neighborhood that are listed on the official Neighborhood map. Neighborhood Associations may apply to change the official Neighborhood name at time of application for initial recognition, or any time within one year of recognition. After one year, the official Neighborhood name cannot be changed. To apply for a name change, the Neighborhood Association must submit a request to the City staff liaison to change the Neighborhood name along with the minutes from the meeting at which the organization's members voted to change the name and a summary of how the Association collected data regarding the name preference of their Neighbors. The City staff liaison will forward the request to the City Council for review. The City Council has the sole authority to approve or deny any name changes. Additional Benefits Meeting Space City -owned meeting space available for public use will be offered free of charge for any Neighborhood Association meetings or events that are free to the public (no charge). If City staff are required to open or monitor the building, the Neighborhood Association may be charged a recovery fee. City- sponsored meetings and programming will take precedence over Neighborhood Association meetings, and Neighborhood Association meetings may be "bumped" from a City facility with a minimum of 30 days notice. Guest Speakers The City will develop and maintain a list of City staff that can be scheduled as guest speakers by Neighborhood Associations. City staff may be available to speak on special topics by request. The guest speaker program is designed for education and information sharing purposes. Annual Workshop City staff will coordinate an annual workshop to facilitate the sharing of ideas and best practices between Neighborhood Associations and to gather suggestions from Neighborhood Associations for City staff. Annual Award Each year the Mayor will give a Neighborhood Association Award during the Annual Volunteer Recognition Banquet to recognize community building efforts by the City's Neighborhood Associations. Nominations for the award will be solicited from all Neighborhood Associations prior to the event. r Neighborhood Association Policy Definitions Neighborhood: A geographic area defined by the City that exists as a sub -area within the City as a whole. Each property within the City resides within a single Neighborhood. Neighbors: People or legal entities who own or occupy property within a Neighborhood. Neighborhood Association: A voluntary Neighborhood -based organization, recognized by the City, and in compliance with this policy. Purpose The City encourages the voluntary formation of Neighborhood Associations for the purpose of facilitating communication between residents, City staff and officials, fostering interaction between individuals on issues of common geographic concern and building a better community through cooperative action. In keeping with this philosophy, the City will seek to notify and consult with Neighborhood Associations on matters of Neighborhood interest. For example, Neighborhood Associations will be notified when: • Significant Neighborhood projects are being discussed or proposed such as street reconstruction, park development or redevelopment or land use planning. • A mailing goes out to residents in the Neighborhood related to a City matter or public hearing. • A developer requests a Neighborhood meeting for the purpose of sketch plan review. • The City is seeking to organize a "Neighborhood group for resident input. Expectations The following expectations exist with respect to Neighborhood Associations: • Neighborhood Associations will be included in the public input process but will not be assumed by City officials to speak on behalf of all Neighbors and will not limit the ability of any person or entity, including non - recognized Neighborhood groups, 499 paFtieipating to participate on their own behalf. Communication with the Neighborhood Association will not replace the City's traditional methods of direct outreach to residents. Neighborhood Associations are strictly voluntary and no neighbor will be required to participate. Each Neighorhhood Association will determine its own priorities and desired level of activity. Neighborhood Associations will not assume the role of an administrative or legislative body. Neighborhood Associations have no legal authority to enact or enforce property design or maintenance requirements. Only one Neighborhood Association may exist in each Neighborhood, as identified in the official Neighborhood map. Bylaws In order to be recognized as a Neighborhood Association by the City, Neighborhood Associations are required to adopt bylaws that include the following minimum standards: • An outline of the Neighborhood boundaries as defined by the City; • Membership criteria allowing any Neighbor over the age of 18 the right to belong and to vote. I • A statement that the Neighborhood Association will not discriminate based on 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; • One annual meeting with notice to all addresses within the geographic boundaries, • Procedures for the election and removal of leadership ; and • Method of determining quorum and how votes are taken and recorded at annual meetings. Changes or amendments to the bylaws shall be provided to the City staff liaison. Recognition A group of neighbors intending to form a recognized Neighborhood Association or seeking recognition of an existing Neighborhood organization, must notify the City staff liaison. The recognition steps are as follows: • Upon request, an educational meeting may be conducted by the City staff liaison regarding steps to organize. • The organizing committee notifies, in writing, all Neighbors of the opportunity to vote on becoming a recognized Neighborhood Association and the proposed Neighborhood Association bylaws. Upon request, the City will pay for and coordinate this initial mailing. • Upon an affirmative vote, the Association formally applies for recognition and submits a completed recognition application and minutes from the meeting during which the neighbors voted to seek recognition and a copy of the current or proposed Association bylaws. • The City staff liaison will forward the application materials to the City Manager for review and approval. The City Manager will notify the Association and City Council of his or her decision with regard to recognition in writing. Associations can appeal the decision of the City Manager to the City Council. Removal of Recognition The City Manager has the authority to remove recognition from a Neighborhood Association if the Association fails to comply with any requirement of this Policy. Prior to the removal of recognition, the Neighborhood Association will be given written notice of non - compliance and a period of 60 days to achieve compliance. If the City Manager removes recognition, the Neighborhood Association and City Council will be informed of his or her decision in writing. Neighborhood Associations may reapply for recognition without prejudice. Funding Membership fees, when established by the bylaws of a Neighborhood Association, shall be voluntary and shall not preclude any neighbor from participating in the Neighborhood Association. Neighborhood Associations may charge fees for events or activities that do not include voting on Association business. The City shall not serve as the fiduciary agent for a Neighborhood Association. Any Association which raises money outside of a city- sponsored grant or program is responsible for complying with applicable state and federal laws. If funds are disbursed by the City for use by an Association, the Association may be required to provide documentation of appropriate use. Failure to do so will result in removal of recognition. 4 e City Staff Liaison The City will assign a staff liaison to recognized Neighborhood Associations. The role of the staff liaison will be to: • Provide information about the role and organization of Neighborhood Associations, both generally and in direct consultation with residents; • Receive and process applications for recognition; • Ensure that the recognition requirements are met and notify the associations and City Manager of any shortcomings; • Maintain City records related to Neighborhood Associations; • Work with the Communications and Technology Services Department to facilitate the communication activities outlined in this policy; • Develop and maintain a City speaker list and contact speakers upon request from a Neighborhood Association; • Educate City staff on the role of Neighborhood Associations and how to fully engage Neighborhood Associations as a valued resource; • Refer issues brought forward by Neighborhood Associations to appropriate staff; and • Advise the City Council on issues related to Neighborhoods or Neighborhood Associations and draft or revise related policies. It is not the role of the City staff liaison to organize a Neighborhood on behalf of a proposed Neighborhood Association or to advocate positions on behalf of Neighborhood Associations. Communication Support The City shall not serve as the primary communication vehicle for Neighborhood Associations. The City's Communications and Technology Services Department will provide basic communication support to Neighborhood Associations to ensure that residents are aware of their existence within the community. Basic communication support from the City includes: • Website Page: The landing page will include the neighborhood boundaries and notable features, Neighborhood Association bylaws, regular meeting place and time of Neighborhood Association meetings, Neighborhood Association contact information, and links to the Neighborhood Association website or other online resource. • Initial Mailer: Upon request, the City will pay for and coordinate a Neighborhood -wide postcard mailing notifying residents of a meeting to vote on the potential formation of a recognized Neighborhood Association. Content must be delivered to the Communications and Technology Services Department at least 21 days in advance of the organization meeting date to ensure timely delivery. Postcard mailings will be addressed to "Resident." • Copying: Upon request, the City will provide copying once annually for each association in an amount equivalent to the Neighborhood's estimated population (double - sided, on 8.5" by 11" paper). Associations should anticipate a 2 -3 day turnaround for each copying project. Associations can maximize the copy services provided by the City by using half sheet flyers. • About Town Listing: Recognized Neighborhood Associations and their contact information will be highlighted annually in About Town. Communication with the Neighborhood Association will not replace the City's traditional methods of direct outreach to residents. Any communication facilitated by the City is subject to the City's communication policies and ordinances. As a result, the City will not facilitate any communication that is inconsistent with its policies general operating principles, or the City Code. Examples of communication IN that would be inconsistent with City policies include items that are discriminatory or politically partisan in nature. Neighborhood Boundary Changes The City has defined boundaries for each Neighborhood. Neighborhood Associations may propose both technical corrections and Neighborhood boundary changes. Technical Corrections. Technical corrections are minor changes regarding the placement of the boundary line on the map. For example, a technical correction could entail shifting a boundary line to include the properties on both sides of a street. Technical corrections impact a small number of properties. To apply for a technical correction to a Neighborhood's boundary, the Neighborhood Association must submit a written request to the City staff liaison along with the minutes from the meeting at which the organization's members voted to make the change. The City staff liaison will forward the request to the Neighborhood Association(s) of any adjoining impacted Neighborhoods for review and comment. The City staff liaison will forward the request and any comments from the adjoining impacted Neighborhood Associations(s) to the City Council for review. The City Council has the sole authority to approve or deny any technical corrections. Boundary Changes. Boundary changes represent a larger change with respect to the geographic definition of the neighborhood. Boundary changes have the potential to impact a large number of properties. For example, a boundary change could entail moving the boundary from one street to another street located a few blocks away. To promote stability and growth of the Neighborhood Association system, and in recognition of the significant public process involved in creating Neighborhood names and boundaries, boundary change requests will only be considered at time of application for initial recognition, or any time within two years of initial recognition. In addition, any boundary change request that creates Neighborhood(s) with less than 70 parcels will not be considered. To apply for a boundary change, the organizing committee must submit the request to the City staff liaison along with a Neighborhood petition demonstrating the support of a majority of households. The City staff liaison will forward the request to the Neighborhood Association of any adjoining impacted Neighborhoods for review and comment. The City staff liaison will forward the request and any comments from the adjoining impacted Neighborhood Association(s) to the City Council for review. The City Council has the sole authority to approve or deny any boundary changes. Neighborhood Name Changes The City has defined names for each Neighborhood that are listed on the official Neighborhood map. Neighborhood Associations may apply to change the official Neighborhood name at time of application for initial recognition, or any time within one year of recognition. After one year, the official Neighborhood name cannot be changed. To apply for a name change, the Neighborhood Association must submit a request to the City staff liaison to change the Neighborhood name along with the minutes from the meeting at which the organization's members voted to change the name and a summary of how the Association collected data regarding the name preference of their Neighbors. The City staff liaison will forward the request to the City Council for review. The City Council has the sole authority to approve or deny any name changes. L Additional Benefits Meeting Space City -owned meeting space available for public use will be offered -free of charge for any Neighborhood Association meetings or events that are free to the public (no charge). If City staff is required to open or monitor the building, the ,Neighborhood Association may be charged a recovery fee. City- sponsored meetings and programming will take precedence over Neighborhood Association meetings, and Neighborhood Association meetings maybe "bumped", from a City facility with a minimum of 30 days' notice. Guest Speakers The City will develop and maintain a. list of City staff that can be scheduled as guest speakers'by Neighborhood Associations. City staff may be available to speak on special topics by request. The guest speaker program is designed for education and information sharing purposes. Annual Workshop City staff will coordinate an annual workshop to facilitate the sharing of ideas and best.practices between Neighborhood Associations and to gather suggestions from.,Neighborhood Associations for City staff. Annual Award Each year the Mayor will give a Neighborhood Association Award during the Annual Volunteer Recognition Banquet to recognize community building efforts by the City's Neighborhood Associations. Nominations for the award will be solicited from all Neighborhood Associations prior to the event. Proposed Revision to Ordinance No. 2013 -06 ORDINANCE NO. 2013 -06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OFTHE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING NOISE THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 1040.03D of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: No person shall engage in or permit construction, demolition or repair activities, audible beyond the property line of the property where the activity is occurring, 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. Saturday. 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. #169596v.2 RNK: 4/15/2013 IT] ,j_I Morningside -1st Pop: 1852 Est Parcels: 700 1-71 L Presidents j 3 Rolling Green Interlachen Park Est Pop: 919 Est Po 205 Hilldale; White Oaks Est Parcels: 437 .� Est Pop: 269 P TParcels try Club Est Parcels: 110 Est Parcels: 98 Est Pop: 196 Todd Park op: 1768 Est Pop: 422 st Parcels: 73 Est Pop: 1075 Est Parcels: 179 Est Parcels:; 170 rcels: 596 5th and France Est Pop: 47 st Parcels: 41 Arden Park st Units: 54 Grandview � Est Pop: 1102 Est Parcels: 295 Est Parcels: 368 Parkwood Knolls Golf Terrace Heights Est Pop: 2429 `' Highlands Est Pop: 1012 , n Est Parcels: 825 L Est Pop: 1089 Est Parcels: 350 % Fox Meadow Est Parcels: 386�� ..,M,•a .d^ Est Pop: 687 n �• "^^`-" °^ L Est Parcels: 273 l Creek Knol " Minnehaha Woods Est Po _ ti. Est Pop: 1100 Est Par Is: 124 Est Parcels: 407 _ / Melody Lake Q l Est Pop: 110U __.. �..,.. Est Parcels: 402 ` Est Chowen Pop: 1620 Fl Pamela Park Est Pop: 1329 Est Parcels: 713 Bredesen Park a� Est Parcels: 527 Est Pop: 1503 Countryside r— - - - -- - ^�^^ V ryr7 Strachauer Park Est Parcels: 411 � �� Est Pop: 2134 Concord Est Parcels: 866 Birchcrest Est Pop-1510 p: Po �l Est Po 1079 E p: 822 J p Est Parcels: 586 Est Parcels: 310 Est Parcels: 399 Normandale Park Est Pop: 1411 Z= - Est Parcels: 468 --� Creek Valley Est Pop: 355 ___ -- Indian Hillsl Est Parcels: 165 Est Pop: 915 _f - Est Parcels: 370 1 The Heights Brookview Heights ' Est Pop: 1037 -A Est Pop: 931 Lake Cornelia Est Parcels: 361 Est Parcels: 352 Est Pop: 1667 Indian Trails Est Parcels: 654 Est Pop: 515 Est Parcels: 195 1 v Southdale Est Pop: 2008 Est Parcels: 120 Promenade - Prospect Knolls Est Pop: 1007 Est Pop: 1259 South Cornelia Est Parcels:27 Est Units: 1049 Braemar Hills Est Parcels: 380 Est Pop: 1403 -- Est Pop: 724 Est Parcels: 482 Est Parcels: 311 ;.. J Parklawn I� Est Po' p: 0 Est Pop, 57,'8 T�Est t ParPels� 42 r Edinbor ugh Est Parcels. 102 Est Parcels. 25 L.5 Est Pope, 1125 Est Units: 450 Est Parc ci Is: 53 Dewey Hill Est Pop: 1379 i Cente Pentagon Park Est niaf akes Est Units 0 1701 Est Parcels: 390 i Est Pop: 0 Est P rce 27 I Est Parcels: 36 Est I nits: 344 0k e (� Neighborhood Communities r Visit SpeakupEdina.org To provide additional feedback N W E S Engineering Dept March. 2013 REPORT / R � C®M1vI� :�NDA'TI®N To: MAYOR & COUNCIL o 7BUS Agenda Item #: VIII. E. From: Debra Mangen Action City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: April 16, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Ordinance No. 2013 -06 Amending Chapter 10 Of The Edina City Code Concerning Noise Action Requested: Consider ordinance. Information / Background: At the April 2, 2013, the Council requested that an amendment to City Code section 1040 be prepared. Attorney Knutson has prepared a draft ordinance per those instructions. Attachments: Ordinance No. 2013 -06 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 ORDINANCE NO. 2013 -06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OFTHE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING NOISE THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 1040.03D of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: No person shall engage in or permit construction, demolition and repair activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel or gas - powered motor vehicles or machine or other power equipment, audible beyond the property line of the property where the activity is occurring, 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. Saturday. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication Bill to Edina City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor I Toi City Council From: Michael Frey, Art Center General Manager Date: April 16, 2013 ,�f� O Ce: _ it, � Neil �0 1888 Agenda Item #: VIII. F. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Subject: Ordinance No. 2013 -05 Amending Chapter 15 Regarding The Edina Art Center Board Action Requested: Approve Ordinance No. 2013 -5, Agenda Item VIII. F. on the April 16, 2013 Consent Agenda. Information / Background: Staff requests your approval of Ordinance No. 2013 -5 that amends Chapter 15 of Edina City Code changing the Art Center Board to the Arts and Culture Commission. Staff has included recommended changes from Council members from the April 2, 2013 regular meeting of Edina City Council. The recommended changes are high - lighted in yellow for your review, and affect Duties A., B., C., D., E., F., G., H., I., and J. and Section 1508.04 Committees and Working Groups. During the February 19, 2013 Joint Work Session with City Council and the Art Center Board, Council was in support of the board's recommended changes. A brief history of the Arts and Culture Working Group initiating the request for changes to the City Code. • October 2011 — The Arts & Culture Working Group began as an idea of the Art Center Board, noting art & culture in Edina was fragmented and felt the need to establish a volunteer working group to develop a vision & strategic plan for art & culture in Edina. • December 4, 2011 — Council endorsed the creation of the Arts & Culture Working Group as initiated by the Art Center Board, and encouraged the working group to be as open to resident participation as possible. • January — March, 2012 — 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. 19 residents in attendance. City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina,. MN 55424 It REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 • April 12, 2012 — Second large group meeting held; I I 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 Art Center Board. Presentation of current findings and request for intern and funding. Y June 18, 2012 — Intern Claire Lukens begins research internship. • July 2012 — Monthly and Semi - monthly meetings through March 2013 are held to discuss research. Approximately 100 artist interviews conducted in I I sub - categories, SurveyMonkey survey created, in addition to a 31 page ACWG Inventory, long and short phone surveys with 50 interviewees. • October 2012 — Board begins discussion regarding change to Arts & Culture Commission from Art Center Board which oversees one enterprise. This relationship is unique within the City of Edina. The Arts & Culture Commission would have a broader vision and scope for artistic and cultural ventures within the City, and not just the Edina Art Center. eA 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: A1. St vir e of build a vibrant community through support of art and culture in Edina. B. Encourage leadership an_d advocacy in advancing Advee the role and value of arts and culture aretWa=icies' in the City of Edina, including but not limited to music, dance, theater, decorative arts, painting, culinary rta ceramics, sculpture, literature, media arts and public a rt. C1. Pevelep FaeaRS t9 PFeYidq ' Facir litate communication and collaboration that promotes a �,h; and e, ltural ar- tiv;+:^s that ^ participation and enhances the cultural life of the residents of Edina. C2. Facilitate communication and collaboration that enhances the role and value of arts and culture in Edina. D1. Strengthen partnerships with artistic and cultural organizations based on mutual respect L and equal responsibility for advancing the cultural climate in Edina i E. Recommend arts and culture intiatives, including, , a long term plan directed towards fulfilling the needs and desires of Edina residents with respect to art and culture. Pr omoPr to 'artistic and cultural initiatives and make recommendations to the City Council and other, Ordinance No. 2013 -05 Page 2 F1. Identify and su port existing and recommend new venues that would benefit the community artistically and culturally. F2. Identify existing and potential new venues for artistic and cultural events throughout Edina. F. Recommend and facilitate programs at venues throughout the City of Edina that are responsive to community desires. G. fW and develep s^lIr^°i; Af RAS ; ^a r-It., -,' F � ^a_ Id�entify potential sources of funding for artistic and cultural initiatives, including grants, donations, a and L bliSiRess sponsorships, both. directly:, and 'ef in partnership with the Edina Community Foundation. H. Represent the City ',Ra 'r-aiR, ^rt GeRte: at community functions throughout the city. is and cultural events throughout Edina inclu r_11 :_a_ IL__ w s- r__1:.._1 wth _r 1,.1.. n----i- 1. PF91Rete the —eee inued develep -rent and .p:erx�e Continue to develop and implement e# public visual arts programs in Edina. k Derferw. ether rl„ties free time to tim6 as direete.d by the GqW AG_il 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; st -a "'ir"iig no implementing a public arts program in the City. The Public Art Committee shall be chaired by a person who shall be appointed by -tf�e T ....i S:.,., Ghair With the �e ^r^ .t of the Ge...rrr by a majority vote of the Arts and Culture 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. Doc. #169268v.1 RN K: 3/15/2013 Ordinance No. 2013 -05 Page 3 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 R• :PORT / IZ :COO MME :�NDATIOO N To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL R, �y u ,�roRPORA��O o lass Agenda Item #: VIII. G. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering Action ❑x Discussion ❑ Date: April 16, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Wooddale Avenue Bike Lanes Action Requested: Review funding options to restripe Wooddale Avenue. Information / Background: At the March 19 City Council meeting, staff reviewed different options to restripe the Advisory Bike Lanes along Wooddale Avenue. The City Council asked staff to pursue the option of restriping Wooddale Avenue to a dedicated south bound bike lane from W. 50th St. to W. 56th St. then "share the road" from W. 56th St. to Valley View Road and "share the road" the entire northbound direction. The northbound parking lane would remain; see attached sketch. The unknown questions at the time were, if the City would jeopardize the federal grant given to the City to install the bike boulevard project and also funding of the restriping. Staff has received word from Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MNDOT) that this change would not jeopardize the federal grant; see attached email. The question now is, does the City pursue a variance from Municipal State Aid (MSA) Standards to fund restriping the roadway or, does the City fund the restriping internally. The cost to restripe Wooddale Avenue is approximately $30,000. The restriping of the roadway is weather dependent. If the project is funded internally, we could potentially have the roadway restriped by the end of May. If the project is funded using MSA funds we will need a variance from MNDOT State Aid Variance Committee and also MSA approval of plans. These required final approvals would not occur until mid -July because the variance committee meets the end of June and the plan approval requires another three weeks for approval. Attachments: Proposed sketch of Wooddale Avenue Email from MNDOT dated April 11, 2013 Letter to MNDOT from Wayne Houle dated March 25, 2013 G: \PW \CENTRAL SVCS \ENG 13IV\PROJECTMCONTRACTS\2012\ENG 12 -6 Bike Blvd (TLC) \FINAL DESIGN\State Aid Variance Request \Item VIII. F. Wooddale Avenue Bike Lanes.docx City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 s 1 West 50th Street } .t Share the road Valley View Road Proposed improvements to Wooddale Avenue between West 50th Street and Valley View Road M TIT", I M, 1 From: Erickson, Dan (DOT) fmailto : Dan. Erickson (&state.mn.us] -Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:07 PM To: Wayne Houle Cc: Schoenecker, Ted (DOT); Mike Anderson (manderson balliant- inc.com); Eue, Scott (DOT); Steve Clark (stevec (&ticminnesota.org); Joan Pasiuk Uoanp @ticminnesota.org); Timothy.Anderson(s�dot.aov Subject: RE: Wooddale Avenue Bike Lanes Wayne —Thank you for your patience in waiting for my reply. In regards to your letter, I had discussions with both the FHWA, Tim Anderson, and TLC, Joan Pasiuk and Steve Clark, because they.can more'appropriately address your questions. In- response to your first question, the FHWA MnDivision will not request repayment of previously used federal funds as long as the final report for the MUTCD experiment is completed by the City of Edina. Additionally, as the Non - Motorized Transportation Pilot Program manager, TLC will not require a repayment but expects the City to report on the existine lane confieuration as well as the proposed configuration and its operation. Regarding your second question, TLC stated that they would not be willing to add federal funding for the new lane configuration. From Metro State Aid's perspective, I'd like to note that if Edina plans to use State Aid funding for the new lane striping it will require a variance from State Aid Rules. Metro State Aid would support such a request if the City wants to pursue one. Once again, thank,you for your patience and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. dan.ericksoh @state.mn.us Mn /DOT- Metro District State Aid Federal Aid Engineer Phone: 651 - 234 -7763 fax: 651 - 234 -7765 March 25, 2013 Mr. Dan Erickson, PE Federal Aid Engineer MnDOT Metro District Office of State Aid 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 RE: Proposed Change to Wooddale Avenue SP No. 120 -091 -002 City of Edina No. ENG 12 -6 Dear Mr. Erickson: The Edina City Council has requested that staff pursue a change to the above stated project. The proposal changes the Wooddale Ave advisory bike lanes to a combination of dedicated and "share the road" type bicycle facilities. The City would like the following questions answered: 1. Will the City be required to pay back the original federal funds if the advisory bike lanes along Wooddale Avenue are changed out to bicycle facilities as described below? 2. If this change does not affect federal funds, would additional federal funds be available for this change out? Given the proper variances and or design exemptions are obtained. The current roadway is 32 -feet wide from Valley View Rd to 56th St W and 36 -feet wide from 56th St W to 50th St W. The proposed lane configuration for the southerly end is two 12 -feet wide share the road travel lanes and an 8 -foot wide parking lane. The proposed lane configuration for the northerly end is a 6- foot dedicated south bound bike lane, I I -foot wide southbound travel lane, a I I -foot wide share the road northbound travel lane, and an 8- foot wide parking lane. If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at 952 - 826 -0443 or at whouleCct�.ci.edina.mn.us. Sincerely, Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Engineering Q Mike Anderson — Alliant Engineering G:1PV010ENTRAL SVCSIENG OMPR0)ECTSICONTRACTSQ0121ENG 12-66 Blke Blvd (TLC)1PINAL DESIGNI9tate Aid Variance Request120130325 VVH -Edina to MNDOT.doc ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard o Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.go'v a 952- 826 -0371 a Fax 952- 826 -0392 wg1��l'�r • fN�'ORPOPA�� • 1888 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: IX. A. From: Debra Mangen Action ❑ City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: April 16, 2013 Information EK Subject: CORRESPONDENCE Action Requested: Attached is correspondence received since the last Council Meeting. No action is requested. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St • Edina, MN 55424 5700 Tucker Lane Edina, Minnesota 55436 952- 930 -9040 April 10, 2013 The Honorable James B. Hovland Mayor, City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor: I read with interest the article in the most recent About Town with respect to our City's sustainability. That article reminded me of the olden days when I served on the Village, and then City, Council. At that time our vernacular did not include "sustainability" or "carbon footprint," but nevertheless the Council did some good things with respect to environmental preservation, which included: e The approval of curb and gutter in the Country Club without cutting down the boulevard trees. • The approval of the acquisition by purchase of the mostly wet land, which became Bredesen Park. • The approval of the acquisition by gift of the Arnesons' home and most of their nursery, the home of which is now the home for the Edina Historical Society and the nursery Arneson Acres Park which I regard as a crown jewel arboretum. • The approval of the acquisition by purchase of the heavily -treed "Krahl's Hill," across Vernon Avenue from Fountainwood, which was necessary to preserve the trees which would have been mostly felled by owner Karl Krahl's plan to develop the property. Since those olden days, subsequent Councils, including the current Council, has done much, very much, to move the City in ft direction of sustainability. Still, going-forward; there is more.that could be done. One of the things that could be done is to reroute the bike trail to be constructed by the Three Rivers Park District to spare countless trees which would have to be felled, some of which are majestic old cottonwoods. I know that the Council has approved the trail and the route thereof, but since our City has now been designated as a "Tree City U.S.A.," avoiding felling trees would be consistent with that accolade. There are a lot of Edina property owners who would support a reroute, many of whom have made their views known to the Council. Very truly yours, Dick John n RCJ /tlt cc: Edina City Council Members P.S. As you may know, I was one of the members of the Community Assessment Team that met with representatives of the-TRPD' with respect to the proposed trail.. What you ma-y not know is that in our discussions with those reps, CAT members were not free to discuss or propose an alternative route outside the Nine Mile Creek corridor. 30R over areas of South technology to enhance Minneapolis, Richfield, and compliance with existing aircraft Edina. noise abatement departure The proposed Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures, in the form of Area Navigation (RNAV) operations, had been designed by the FAA to employ technological advances throughout the National Airspace System. The system improvements are documented in the FAA's NextGen Implementation Plan. (www.faa.gov/nextgen/ implementation /media/ NextGen Implementation Plan 2012.pdf). procedures. (The NOC is an advisory body to the MAC and is comprised of six elected officials representing impacted communities and six aviation Recognizing the shift in scope, the NOC developed and forwarded noise criteria for the FAA's consideration during its development and evaluation of the new procedures to ensure that noise considerations remained an important focus. industry representatives:) Specifically, the NOC investigated the use of PBN to the south of MSP off Runway 17 over the Minnesota River Valley and to the east off Runways 12L and 12R in the Eagan- Mendota Heights Departure Corridor. After initial review, the FAA determined in 2010 that MSP was a favorable location for The NOC noise criteria focused on a noise analysis, including Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contour and single - event noise evaluations of the proposed procedures, a public information program, and various procedure design considerations intended to (Continued on page 2) A quarterly publicadon of the Metropolitan Airports commission - Noise Program Office Performance Based Navigation at MSP: What's Next? At the request of the Federal PBN procedures leverage Global airspace -wide RNAV design and Aviation Administration (FAA), Positioning Systems (GPS) implementation, and moved the Metropolitan Airports capabilities to enhance safety, forward with the procedure Commission (MAC) took action optimize airspace and aircraft design process for all runways at recently to support part of an operational efficiencies and, MSP. The FAA's airspace -wide FAA proposal to implement new when possible, reduce negative initiative represented a transition aircraft procedures into and out environmental impacts. from a singular focus on of Minneapolis -St. Paul The topic of PBN at MSP dates enhancing existing noise International Airport (MSP). back to 2007, when the MSP abatement departure procedures However, the MAC withheld Noise Oversight Committee to a broader enhancement of support for proposed departure (NOC) began evaluating the airspace operations, including paths from Runways 30L and possibility of leveraging RNAV safety and efficiency. 30R over areas of South technology to enhance Minneapolis, Richfield, and compliance with existing aircraft Edina. noise abatement departure The proposed Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures, in the form of Area Navigation (RNAV) operations, had been designed by the FAA to employ technological advances throughout the National Airspace System. The system improvements are documented in the FAA's NextGen Implementation Plan. (www.faa.gov/nextgen/ implementation /media/ NextGen Implementation Plan 2012.pdf). procedures. (The NOC is an advisory body to the MAC and is comprised of six elected officials representing impacted communities and six aviation Recognizing the shift in scope, the NOC developed and forwarded noise criteria for the FAA's consideration during its development and evaluation of the new procedures to ensure that noise considerations remained an important focus. industry representatives:) Specifically, the NOC investigated the use of PBN to the south of MSP off Runway 17 over the Minnesota River Valley and to the east off Runways 12L and 12R in the Eagan- Mendota Heights Departure Corridor. After initial review, the FAA determined in 2010 that MSP was a favorable location for The NOC noise criteria focused on a noise analysis, including Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contour and single - event noise evaluations of the proposed procedures, a public information program, and various procedure design considerations intended to (Continued on page 2) PaRe2 ,'Continued from poge 1) reduce noise impacts around the airport where possible. The FAA proceeded with the design process, considering the criteria related to procedure design elements. However, the agency indicated that its implementation plan and related budget did not allow for the requested noise analysis and public information process. In an effort to bridge the gap between local expectations and the FAA's project scope, the NOC took a leadership role in the noise analysis and public information program efforts. The public information process was to begin once the FAA completed development of the procedure tracks, and the noise analysis was conducted in compliance with the NOC criteria. The process was anticipated to require a minimum of four months to complete. In various meetings from 2010- 2012 the NOC conducted a public dialogue and received updates from the FAA on the progress of the procedure track development. In addition, related updates were provided in NOC and MAC meeting packets, in previous editions of the "MSP Noise News," and on the MAC Noise Program website (www.macnoise.com). In August 2012 the FAA finalized the package of draft procedure tracks. At the September 19 NOC meeting the FAA presented the procedures, highlighting the considerations given to the NOC procedure design criteria. At the meeting MAC staff reviewed a noise analysis of the procedures in compliance with the related NOC criteria. The FAA informed the NOC that it needed a statement of support from the MAC by the end of November 2012 to avoid a 16- month delay in procedure publication. In an effort to accommodate the FAA's scheduling requirement, the NOC voted unanimously to direct MAC staff to move forward with the public information program, including two public open houses to be conducted in early -to -mid November, prior to the November NOC meeting. At its November meeting NOC planned to determine whether the FAA had adequately considered the NOC noise criteria in its procedure design and implementation process.. Shortly after the September 19th NOC meeting, NOC- sponsored PBN informational open houses were scheduled and information was posted on the MAC Noise Program website (m=.macnoise.com/news/ oven- houses - scheduled -m p- performance- based - navigation) . Open houses were held the evenings of November 8 in Minneapolis and November 13 in Eagan. Notice of the open houses was. published widely in area newspapers. Several stories about. the FAA's project ran in local newspapers and on news channels. Coverage by local news channels included a piece on KSTP Channel 5 on October 8 directing those interested to attend the FAA and MAC staff briefing to the Mendota Heights City Council on October 30. The story also announced the community open houses and directed interested parties to the information on the MAC Noise Program website. In addition to the open houses, there was a focus on community briefings. FAA and MAC staff provided an informational briefing to any entity that requested one, including the city councils of Richfield, Eagan, and Mendota Heights. Additionally, Volume 11, Issue 4 briefings were provided to a group of Minneapolis policy makers, to Apple Valley and Burnsville city staffs, to participants in the fourth quart er 2012 NOC Public Input Meeting on October 23rd, and to multiple individual residents. In all, 109 people attended the Minneapolis open house, and 203 people attended the Eagan open house. Depending on where people lived -the feedback ranged from positive to very concerned. The predominant concern was with the concentration of overflights over certain residential areas Following the open houses, the NOC voted 10 to 1 that the FAA's procedure design and implementation process adequately considered the NOC noise criteria. The question of whether or not to support the FAA's implementation of the procedures was. then placed on the November 19 MAC Full Commission meeting agenda in an attempt to meet the FAA's deadline for' MAC support by the end of November 2012. Prior to the November 19 Commission meeting, a large volume of communication was received from residents and elected officials expressing concern about concentrating flights over certain residential areas in South Minneapolis and Edina, the speed of the process, and other matters. Based on that input, the MAC board took action during its meeting on November 19 to support only partial implementation of the FAA's proposed procedures, withholding support for the departure procedures proposed for Runways 30L and 30R, which would direct departure operations over areas of South Minneapolis, Richfield and Edina. Now, the FAA will determine whether to move forward with partial implementation of PBN/ RNAV as supported by the MAC. The FAA has stated that "the vote taken November 19 approved a `partial' package of RNAV procedures that must be studied and reviewed before any further action can be taken. At this time, there is no time line for completion of that review." If the FAA moves forward with the partial implementation supported by the MAC, the departure procedures would be implemented to the south and east of MSP and arrival procedures would be implemented on all runways except Runways 17 and 4/22. However, it remains unclear at this time whether or when the FAA will move forward with partial implementation. Decisions about where and how aircraft fly are determined solely by the FAA, not by the MAC or other airport authorities. The future of possible RNAV departure procedures off Runways 30L and 30R over areas of South Minneapolis, Richfield, and Edina is unknown. The FAA is the agency responsible for design, environmental review, and implementation of aircraft procedures, and will ultimately make that determination. You may find agendas and minutes for MAC Commission meetings at the following webpage:www.metroaiWorts.org /mac /meetings / fc.aspx. MSP Noise Oversight Committee meeting information can be found at the following webpage: www.macnoise.com/ our-neighbors/ sl?-noise- oversight-committee. Maps of the proposed procedures that were supported by the MAC can be found at this webpage: www.macnoise.com/ news /update-macs-action, suPport- proposed -faa- procedures.* abbeys H 0 P E SAFER POOLS. SAFER KIDS. Mayor Jim Hovland Office of the Mayor City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor Hovland, Each year the drowning prevention community and public health professionals across the nation recognize May as Water Safety and Drowning Prevention Month. It is our time collectively and in partnership with nonprofits, law enforcement, government and public health officials to bring attention to our entire state and Edina community to drowning prevention and the steps we can make to protect all swimmers and especially children this summer. As you know, last year, the state of Minnesota unfortunately had a record number of drowning deaths. Clearly, we all need to redouble our efforts to protect our citizens. To that end, we've enclosed a model proclamation for you to declare May as Water Safety and Drowning Prevention Month. Your recognition of our efforts will lend credibility to our message and our public safety initiatives. Please know that Abbey's Hope Charitable Foundation will be doing all it can to prevent this tragic events from happening. As you may know, our daughter, Abbey, died in 2008 from injuries she received from an improperly maintained wading pool drain. Her hope was that no child would again suffer or die as the result of a preventable entrapment or drowning. The Abbey's Hope Charitable Foundation works tirelessly on her behalf and in her memory. Please Help make Abbey's hope a reality. Our organization would be willing to help with a public press event at a local Edina pool should you want to schedule an event around Water Safety and Drowning Prevention Month. If you have any questions, please contact Alan Korn or Sam Carolus at 952.303.5421. Scott Taylor Co- founder & KahlY Y Co- Founder & President 5021 Vernon Aue. Suite 164 www obbegshope.org phone (612) 388.5350 a -mail info @obbegshope.org mail Edina, Minnesota 55436 Proclamation WHEREAS, the arrival of warm weather brings increased levels of outdoor activity across Edina ensuring the safety and well -being of people engaged in all forms of outdoor recreation is a priority during this time of year — especially with regard to swimming, water sports, and other aquatic - related activities where safety, sensibility, and smart choices are critically important; and WHEREAS, an abundance of resources that include a growing number of public swimming facilities, home pools and spas, and waterparks, as well as a vast network of lakes, creeks and rivers in Minnesota and Edina provide residents and visitors with a wide range of opportunities for water recreation and sporting activities in which care and caution must be exercised at all times so as to prevent drownings and recreational water - related injuries; and WHEREAS, the important role that education plays in improving water safety awareness among the greater public cannot be overemphasized, as sharing valuable information and facts about water safety is one of the most effective and successful ways to convey a potentially lifesaving message to people; and WHEREAS, two -thirds of drowning occur in the summer, between May and August, and most commonly on the weekends. in fact, last year Minnesota experienced a record number of drownings. Far too many children and other swimmers died; and WHEREAS, drowning is silent and happens very quickly; and WHEREAS, drowning can be prevented by watching children when they are in or near water and designating one adult with the group to use the Water Watchdog tag and be a Water Watchdog; and WHEREAS, swimming lessons is a key component in drowning prevention. Making sure individuals know how to swim, float and enter and exit water safely; and WHEREAS, individuals who are poor swimmers, especially children wear personal floatation devices when in or around open bodies of water; and WHEREAS, individuals understand the dangers of pool drains and all public pools and spas in Edina should be compliant with the Abigail Taylor Pool and Spa Safety Act to prevent drain entrapment; and WHEREAS, no summer day at an Edina pool or lake should end in tragedy. All Edina citizens should help prevent drownings and entrapments and enjoy the summer; and NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jim Hovland, Mayor of the city of Edina do hereby proclaim May as Water Safety and Drowning Prevention Month in 2013, and call upon all the residents of this state to join with me in supporting the efforts and activities of Abbey's Hope Charitable Foundation to prevent drownings and pool entrapments. Susan Howl Subject: 7th graders taking action - The Apathy Project Schedule at South View Middle School Dear Friends Over the past few weeks, the South View Middle School 7th graders have been hard at work creating presentations for their Apathy Project. Each group chose a local problem that is caused by apathy, collected data to support their opinion, and designed a campaign to help solve the problem. Essentially, we asked students to propose a small change that will make a big difference in helping themselves and others overcome apathy. It has been full of critical thinking - students had to work through many layers to problem solve around issues in their project. Our hope is that through this process, students practice being active citizens and tie it with meeting learning standards. I invite you to join us for some of the final presentations on April 11, 12, 15, 16 in the Dragseth Theater at SVMS. Attached is a schedule. While it is a very long list, please take a few minutes to see if any of the topics relates to what you are doing or what you're interested in — bike lanes and food in the lunchroom, racial bullying and safe driving. It's interesting to see the different types of issues that students think are problems in our community. Please park in the west lot between SVMS and the Community Center and enter the building through Door 7 on the west side of the building near the theater lobby. Thanks for all you do to support and encourage our students! We hope to see you at the performances. Julie Julie Rogers Bascom Service - Learning Coordinator Edina Public Schools 952.848.3957 No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. -Aesop Check out Edina's Service - Learning website http: / /edina.kl2.mn.us /service - learning -edina From: Bascom, Julie Rogers Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:43 PM To: Buckley, Jennifer; Russell, Beth; Heller, Cathy; Mickelson, Elijah J; Communications z = April 5, 2013 Mayor James Hovland City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, .Minnesota 55424 Dear Mayor Hovland. Thank you very much for the forwarded article about the creative use of Corporate Personhood for driving in HOV lanes. I have found another example of the impact of the Supreme Court decision; the City of Seattle Phone book ordinance. This seems to be another example of some un- intended consequences. I have recently met with Mayor Harris at the Capitol and have conveyed these articles to him, and also met Joni Bennett at an event and passe them along to her as well. Always good to engage others on this decision, as there clearly are local impacts. In coming weeks, bills will reach the floor in both the House (Dehn - HF276) and Senate (Marty - SF17) which are resolutions calling on Congress to create a Constitutional Amendment to overturn this Supreme Court decision. We anticipate passage in both houses and that the Governor will sign them. If you have the opportunity, we would appreciate your support of these bills in conversations with the various legislators that you are in contact with. jR Besgards, Laird Beaver 952 200 2358 Edina Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 12:44 PM ;c: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Airplane niose in Edina ' Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952- 927 -8861 I Fax 952-826-0389 Ibiunno(cD dinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, L earning, Raising Families &. Doing Business From: Sue Gormley [mailto:smgemtPgmail.com1 Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 12:34 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Airplane niose in Edina To the Mayor-and all council members, I have been an Edina resident for 43 years. Our 3 children attended Edina schools and we have always enjoyed living in Edina. Much of the enjoyment has come from socializing with neighbors and friends in this quiet, peaceful suburb, until recently. The airplane noise has become unbearable in my neighborhood. It is impossible to sit outside when summer finally arrives and enjoy a conversation because every minute from 4 -6, a plane flies over the house and conversation must stop. I have recently retired so am home during the day now as well. Some days, including today, the noise is non -stop all day long. The planes have been going since 6 AM today as an example and will probably not end until 10 PM. I grew up in South Mpls near Washburn Tower. I watched the situation deteriorate year after year. In 1973, my mother had a heart attack caused by stress from the low flying aircraft that slowly but surely increased and ruined many south Minneapolis neighborhoods. Insulating homes and adding central air meant a life inside because you could not go outside due to the noise. That is not the answer. Now, we have a similar situation in Edina, miles from the airport. My home falls under the proposed new flight patterns and the current ones are already making life miserable around here. Why are we allowing noise pollution to spread like a virus to a broader and broader geographic area? If this were a company polluting the ground water or rivers or the creeks in Edina, there would be a public outcry and steps would be taken to halt the practices. Insulating is not the answer. Directing planes over other populated areas is not the answer. No community should have to put up with this. Stopping the noise pollution is the answer. The airport needs to find ways to get the planes over less populated areas and pull up much sooner than they are doing. How is it that they were not flying so low at this point previously? Why can't they follow 494 over business areas? Those are the questions that need to be answered. We can't allow them to continue to move further and further out ruining more neighborhoods by allowing the noise to continue. I know there has been a group working on this noise issue in Edina. How can I find out more about what is being done and possibly join? Please let me know, Thank you, Sue Gormley smgemt @gmail.com Susan Howl From: James Hovland Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:41 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Thank you! Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 0611 , t 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 +1 IbiunnoC�EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.00v ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Lisa Wittmer Finailto:l wittmerO)yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:38 AM To: James Hovland Subject: Thank you! Dear Mayor Hovland, I wanted to share with you the good news that this week we signed the papers and put down a deposit for the Aquajets to continue renting the Edina Aquatic Center. The City of Edina granted the Aquajets a standard two - year contract, and we will be renting the pool from 6:OOAM- 8:OOAM. I truly believe that without your support and advice the Aquajets would have been without a pool this summer. On behalf of the the Edina residents and families on the team, I want to extend a huge thank you! Moving forward, now that the City is committed to sharing the training time at the EAC, the Aquajets can begi to partner with the City, and hopefully the Gators, to make improvements to the training capacity of the EAC. Over the course of these last few months, I have had some very productive conversations with Parks Director Ann Kattreh about the future of the EAC. I realize that Ann has been in a difficult spot in her new job - doing what is best for the City, while also trying to appeal to the demands of the Gators and the pleas of the Aquajets. She has been remarkably patient and level- headed. The Aquajets looks forward to partnering with Ann and the City to help make the EAC the best outdoor training facility in the Twin Cities! While I hope this note is the final chapter in our efforts to share the pool, I do hope that you continue to keep your hand on the pulse of the swim community in Edina. Both the Aquajets and the Gators and certainly the EAC are breeding grounds for our championship high school teams, as well as some exciting national and even world -class level swimming! We would love to have you visit one of our practices at the EAC this summer, perhaps followed by breakfast and a cup of coffee with Joel and I! Thank you again, Mayor Hovland!!! Yours, Lisa Wittmer Page 1 of ride waffle tapes Vinner of Nine Pulitzer Prizes cal News THE TODAY FILE "our guide to the latest news from around the Northwest ,ebruary 20, 2013 at 5:37 PM Seattle will pay $50o,000 to settle yellow pages lawsuit ' osted by Lynn Thompson 'he city of Seattle is finalizing an agreement to pay $500,000 to settle its losing fight against the publishers of he yellow pages phone books, according to two sources familiar with the lawsuit. 'he city has decided not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court an October ruling by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit ;ourt of Appeals that a city ordinance violated the companies' free speech rights. The panel ruled mconstitutional a city law that created an opt -out registry for unwanted phone books and charged the rublishers a disposal fee for recycling costs. 'he court rejected Seattle's argument that the yellow pages are commercial speech and not subject to First amendment protections. City Council voted in 2010 to crack down on unwanted delivery of the phone books. In addition to the opt - .egistry, the city charged the companies that distribute the phone books $loo each, plus a per -book charge aid a disposal fee for unwanted directories that ended up at the recycling center. .ocal Search Association, an industry group representing three yellow pages publishers, sued, arguing that the :ity unconstitutionally restricted its right to publish its books. A federal district court judge in Seattle sided with he city, saying government had a legitimate interest in wanting to reduce waste and prevent unwanted books rom being deposited on private property. 3ut a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit, generally a left - leaning court, sided with the yellow -pages publishers, uling that they are protected, like other publications, by the First Amendment. 'he ordinance was championed by Councilmember Mike O'Brien, a former Sierra Club activist who sought to educe the city's costs to recycle unwanted phone books. n a statement this afternoon, O'Brien said he couldn't comment but confirmed that the City Attorney's Office is n negotiations over a tentative settlement of the lawsuit "to address both settlement fees and the future of +eattle's yellow pages opt -out system." t continued: "However, I believe Seattle's residents have a right to say `no thanks' to yellow pages deliveries. In he first two years of our opt -out system, one - quarter of businesses and residents in Seattle made the choice to ipt out of receiving phonebooks. This powerful expression of Seattle consumers' choices also led the industry to :hange how they operate in Seattle, such as scaling back some deliveries and streamlining multiple directories nto one. All told, we have seen a two- thirds reduction in yellow pages directories delivered each year in Seattle - a savings of 1,000 tons of paper annually from pre- program levels of 1,490 tons. These figures indicate that the people of Seattle clearly want a choice when it comes to receiving yellow pages at r homes or places of business. Ensuring that Seattle's residents and businesses continue to have their ..,ices honored in the future will be key to our ongoing negotiations." tp :llblogs.seattletitnes.comltoday /2013 /02lseattle -will - pay - 500000 -to- settle - yellow - pages - lawsuit/ 4/4/201: This is to introduce you to Miss Annalee Friedman an outstanding young person from North Star State who has qualified to compete at the National Level of the Miss American Preteen for 2013 to be held at the Hilton Resort at Wait Disney World during the week of November 25 -30, 2013. One of the greatest honors girls receive as a reward for qualifying to compete at the National Pageant is meeting local, state and national officials, and business and civic leaders. Please take a few minutes from your busy schedule to let this outstanding Leader of Tomorrow meet you and have her photo taken with you. I know it will be an exciting experience for her; one she will remember for the rest of her life. American Coed State Pageants have been held nationwide annually for thirty years in an effort to recognize and reward as many outstanding girls and young women throughout America as possible, while encouraging them to set lofty goals for the future. Local, state, and national leaders are recognizing more and more that the best investment they can make for the good of our nation is to support programs that help young people mature into responsible citizens. As young people receive encouragement and support from their communities and state, they develop a strong feeling of commitment to their government. Thank you for helping to recognize and reward an outstanding girl who typifies our motto: "Youth ... Pride of the Present, Hope of the Future." Sincerely, Patty Ha ins, President Miss North Star State Preteen Annalee Friedman Age: 10 Address: 5900 St. Johns Ave Edina, MN 55424 Parent(s): Mr. Howard Friedman and Mrs Phone: (952) 920 -8794 Pamela Friedman 1S0 rU„�sq � 1 0 $` t �l� J�'\L a C. e,j r, a� Miss American Coed Pageants 4120 Piedmont Road, Pensacola, FL 32503 o Ph (850) 432 -8662 o Fax: (850) 438 -2078 nationals@gocoed.com o www.gocoed.com o www.facebook.com /americancoed a www.twitter.com /MACPageants 02013 American Coed Pageants, Inc. Cc: Laven, Mark; Punchard, Isabelle; Woelber, Scott; Buettner, Steve; Walker, Michael L; Bascom, Julie Rogers Subject: 7th graders taking action - The Apathy Project 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 the 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 952.848.3957 The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others. Mahatma Gandhi Presentati Teacher Block Group Members Topic on Date Time Slot Collin Kidd, Adam Melo, Buckley 1/2 A Charlie Meyer Bulling at hyland hills 4/12/2013 8:15 -8:40 ethan senna mike swanson Buckley 1/2 A and ian rywelski bike lanes 4/12/2013 8:15 -8:40 New, big houses going Ellery Mahlum, Emma May, up in small Mickelson 1/2 A Emily Kompelien neighborhoods 4/12/2013 8:15 -8:40 Patrick Peterson, Andy Speeding on Side Mickelson 1/2 A Whiteside Streets 4/12/2013 8:15 -8:40 Will Burger Quinn Marple Buckley 1/2'A Max Pardo Dirty desk sanitation 4/12/2013 8:40 -9:05 Shea Haw - Schepers & Buckley 1/2 A Mackenzie Solie School Security 4/12/2013 8:40 -9:05 Jon Ashbrook jack Buckle 1/2 A rosenthal Connor Kelly Trash in southview 4112/2013 8:40 -9:05 mackenzie solie,shea haw - Buckley 1/2 A Schepers school security 4/12/2013 8:40 -9:05 Kaela Bloemendaal, Katherine Hulbert, Lily Mickelson 1/2 A Goldaris Locker Vandalism 4/12/2013 8:40 -9:05 Buckley 1/2 A Ben Poole Ian Yang Cell phones 4/12/2013 9:05 -9:30 Emma Jordan, Jessica Brenner, and Katherine Buckley 1/2 A Berube Texting and Driving 4/12/2013 9:05 -9:30 Buckley 1/2 A Chitram Imrit,Caiden Spigel Cyber Bullying 4/1212013 9:05 -9:30 Medha Kaul, Quinn Mickelson 1/2 A Ramsay Wifi on school buses 4/12/2013 9:05 -9:30 Presentati Teacher Block Group Members Topic on Date Time Slot Ben Perunovich, Walter sportsmanship among Buckley 1/2 A Brandt players 4/16/2013 8:15 -8:40 Gigi deGrood Lauren Leaving trash in the Buckley 1/2 A Hahnn Margaret Brandt lunch room 4/16/2013 8:15 -8:40 Buckley 1/2 A jr adegbenro. matt nunn bad sportsmanship 4/16/2013 8:15 -8:40 Olivia Coughlin and Sara Mickelson 1/2 A Sabri Recycling 4/16/2013 8:15 -8:40 No free water in the Jack Tyson, Jackson lunch room and people Mickelson 1/2 A Lomax, and Jacob Crain not recycling 4116/2013 8:40 -9:05 Emma Nicholson Elizabeth The Bathrooms at Mickelson 1/2 A Teynor SVMS 4/16/2013 8:40 -9:05 Kate Higgins, Annika School drinking Mickelson 1/2 A Wennerlund fountain water 4/16/2013 8:40 -9:05 Jonny Sorenson, Cole Lack of nutrition, Knickelbine, and Zeeshan people eating angry, Mickelson 1/2 A Abu and foods running out 4/16/2013 8:40 -9:05 Skyla Woodhull, Rachel Kramer, Elizabeth Buckley 1/2 A Stringfield Public Security 4/16/2013 9:05 -9:30 ben miller alec Mickelson 1/2 A mandershied mikol.sntnl IGTA 4/16/2013 9:05 -9:30 Shelby Wang, Emma Mickelson 1/2 A Arndt, Hayley Banker Handicap Parking 4/16/2013 9:05 -9:30 Presentati Teacher Block Group Members Topic on Date Time -Slot Joey Puckett Harris Mueller Buckley 1/2 B John Pflaster Movie Theater Etiquitte 4/11/201318:15-8:40 Matthew Berzinski, Ben ' 1 1 (Mickelson 11/2 B Enaen. Will Moe Edina bike lanes 4/11/2013 8:15 -8:40 Justin Green, Jack Grage, Mickelson 1/2 B ISpencerchristia.nson Woodale Ave. 4/11/2013 8:15 -8:40 Elke`Peterson, Katie Misplaced .`4/11/20.13 Buckley 1/2 B . Mendel, Rylee Wallisch -. Merchandise in Stores 8:40 -9:05 . Buckley 1/2 B Boyle ;.F 'Idrrian, Hubbell Hydration Statiori'`:' 4/1.1/2013 8:401- 9`.05- Dylan Brandt, 'Max Borst, Boys Bathrooms at Mickelson :: 1/2 B Nick Pu liese 9 South =View . 4%11/2013 ,. 8:40 =9:05: Buckley. 1/2 B Sara Smith .. Graffti in school 4/11/20;1°3 9:05 =9 30..`' Olivia LaLuzerne and Alli People.Disrespecting. Mickelson - 1/2 B Walburg School Property " 4%11/2013 9:05 =9 30,--- - Presentati Teacher Block Group Members Topic on Date Time Slot Frey Hackbarth,.Manu Buckley 1/2 B Guron, Za`ch streit recycling 4/15/2013 8:15 -8:40 Damaged and Unretumed library Mickelson 1/2 B Josh Cuate, Abdi -Sahal books 4/15/2013 8:15 -8:40 Johana Engstrom, Shawn Mickelson 1/2 B Fisher, Andrew Wei Recycling 4/15/2013 8:15 -8:40 Adam Abdi, chase Rutter, Mickelson 1/2 B Richard Anderson gum 4/15/2013 8:15 -8:40 G E homework„ 4/15%2013 x Mickelson, ,, 1/2 _B.,. Hunter K Reese,H ;Jake, ,`: Nathaniel Essma�Charlie Buckley 1/2 B Weltlojn °Abnerl Mosetti Cyber bullying 4/15/2013, 8 40 9.05 � }TM r ' e r gnamaya Shore, Tnana x t Buckley' i ,112 B,. ,` Will'mert . ; Fealthy:Choices 411`512013 9:05 4-86,. Michael Peter Lar "son, `. 1/2 W.,`. .and .Lin, laijsl ayton =., `,. TZi ,Overuse of'electronics ,. 4115/,2013 9 05 93 E k , e F _. E••E - t Technology d Uri ng } Mickelson__ ' ,1/2 B_ „'Abbey f Denn _Kylie I,rnholte ,, school; - ,., ,x _ 4/1_5/201.3 9 5,9- . i Presentati Teacher Block Group Members Topic on Date Time Slot. Arden Ruehl and Sam Buckley 5/6.A Swenson Vandalism Apathy 4/12/2013 11:45 -12:10 August Blanchett and Buckley 5/6 A Osama Sabri bullying 4/12/2013 11:45 -12:10 Raime Jones and Karmen Exclusion of students Mickelson 5/6 A Vizcaino in DCD. 4/1.2/2013 11:45 -12.10 student non- Tanner Jones, Clay involvement in Mickelson 5/6 A Dawson, and Carl Weigel educational affairs 4/12/2013 11:45 -12:10 Libby Spizale, Emily Rice - Slothower, and Erin Speeding in front of Buckle .. 5/6 A Semin ton. schools 4/.12/2013 12:10 -12:35 faysal ali Austin haral;bowdy. Buckley, 5/6 A:'; gustfa.n g um: ,under the desk.. 4/12/2013 12;10 -12:35 Kathryn Mertb :Ellie: Mickelson 5/6 A Soukup, Korina Pekarek Vandalism on desks 4/12/2013 12:10 -12:35 Jonah Calvo, Christopher Unhealthy School Mickelson 5/6 A Minge Lunches 4/12!2013 12:10 -12:35 P Izzy Ha' rtwig.'Hannah" Buckley,; 5/6 A _;,; ;Masuda ' Dog Poop _, 4%12/2013,12.35..i: 00 Markel Aune,Connor Buckley;. ,', 5/6,A - Monehamp Charlie `Fischer Bike,Lanes . 4%12/20;1.3 Ben P issolt; -'Erik Nickelson =..: 5 Michaelson,°att.Bidgood Road"Salt 4%12/201;3 12 35 1 00 middy_Hoffman, sun. us { Mohamed and Kjeirstin Nickelson , ° 5 /6_A„ Carlson, , Texting and Driving: 4/12/201`3 12, 35 1 ,00 >_ Presentati Teacher Block e Group Members Topic on Date I Time Slot Bucklev 15/6 A (Austin Carter Quinn 4/16/2013111:45 - 12:101 Mickelson 5/6 A John Webb, Cole Wiley Phones in class 4/16/2013 11:45 -12:10 John Bailey III, Andrew Mickelson 5/6 A Salsbury Lost and found 4/16/2013 11:45 -12.10 Anika Boss, Sophie Keeping lockers Mickelson 5/6 A Clarkowski cleaner 4/16/2013 11:45 -12:10 Ta for Kerr a nd Libby y Buckley:, 516 A ': Thompson,_. '': Bad Sportsmanship 4/;16/201.3 12 10= 12.:35 Elliot Shively & ;Ke'ara Buckley, ' 516 A _Williams Wasting food' at school 4/16/2013 12 10 -12.35 Mickelson 5/6 A DheerajGadde Md Rafi Racial bullying - 4/16/2013 12:10 -12:35 LUCY EMPTAGE, ABBY ROSSELIT, JOSIE Mickelson 5/6 A . LAGERSTROM EXCLUSION 4/16/201;3 12:10 -12:35 Ryan Meyer Jack is-,, f o t ball/h6ckey as Buckley ; 516 A : Eolgeaberg :safe as it could be? 4716/2013 12 35 00 Buckley 5L6,A Joe I<ratzer,G,ary Cooper Sneaking,rnto= movies , 4/16/201.3 12 35 -1 00' - =: Quan Johnsor;_Davanti _. Buckley;: 5%6 A ; REynolds', _ Distracted b'' n-g .; 4%16/201..3 12:35 =1:00 Gretdhen_Gilbert, Gracia Paper Towel; Usage. in the ,6'athrooms_ „` 4/16/2013 12:35--i':00, Presentati Teacher Block Group Members Topic on Date Time Slot Anna. Pins, Mallika Shore, Buckley 5/6 B Grace.Masuda Lack of carpooling 4/11/2013 11:45 -12:10 Buckley 5/6 B.. Ellen Pflaster, Julia Fabbro Tree replantinq 4/11/2013 11:45 -12:10 Buckley 5/6 B Ben Elliot, Max Barber Recycling 4/11/2013 11:45 -12:10 Alex Pese_k and Letao Coyotes in Edina Mickelson 5 /6.B Chen Neighborhoods 4/11/201311:45 -12:10 David Ha, Dylan Boorsma EI,, pefgy-._,C.. onsamp tion ih Buckley: 5/6.6 _ Bergerud, JoeHelllckson :, Homes _. ;... , 411112013 1'2-10,- 35 Mickelson ..'; 5/6.6 Tenzm dhoridup,Nick:lugo;: hte�ing 4/11/2013 12 10 12:35 Mickel son : -5/6 B kadab ahmed, khalid,omair, liter ng 4/11/2013 12:10.12 -:35 Jack Nasby and Demetrios Miekelson _ 5/6 B _ Koumontzis ..A Concussions. -4/11/20,1:3 12:35 ,1,OO:r Alisha`Collier,Emily; Bullying & S_elf, Mickelson . 5/6 B_ Ruscly Marion Mofamud.`. Conf tlence' : ' 4_/91120,13 12 35 0:00-'s Bennett Stanchfieltl an Mickelson 5/6.6 Parker` Hal ling. .Texting whlle'drivirng: 4/1,1/201t3 12-35 --1 40 ananda wielock emly Mickelson,' . 5 /6`_B'• romaln;, maggie marinovich :und'e�age.drinking ; 4/11/2013.1213571:. .00' Presentati Teacher Block Group Members Topic on Date Time Slot ethan kopiecki ryan harvey Mickelson 5/6 B matthew holderness dummy locking 4/15/2013 11:45 -12:10 Mickelson 5/6 B ' karan sharma max yuhas sexting 4/15/2013 11:45 -12:10 Stanley Wu, Derek Bellas, Students and Mickelson 5/6 B Sai Tharun Tallapragada Homework 4/15/2013 11:45 -12:10 John.Berube; Aaron Disrespecting Public Buckley,; ': 5/6 B, Frenkel,.Pierce Gruidl Property , : 4/15/2013 12:1:0 -12:35 ` stephany buenrostro and"';, _ Mickelson 5/6 B: Leslie °gomez _ disrespect in public, 4/1512013 12 `1Q 12 35 Mickelson 5/6 B. s Kyle. G;:HbrrrM -Juan U ,. graffitt ' 4/.15/2013 12.10 12:35 - Calvin Kruse, Charlie` - Mistreat ment.of,Kids Buckley 5/6,.6 Wood;,JorrThomas ; with ADHD 4/15/20`13 ,1.2.35 1 :00' Child exposure to , Laigah.Hanold Evyn:, ` inappropriate media,_ Buckley 5/6 B. ,Hausman, -Grace ZdechIik and'Words, 411512013 1,2:35 1 0.0`.: :1 Katherine Hark man ;`'Ashley- Misplaced Buckley;, `5/6 B -_` Post and Emma Clark ' , -_ Merchandise. _ 411512013 12:35 1.00., � oS Mickelson. ,_ , 5/6 t. _ _;, ,Enc woolner:Max Hanson -:. Drugs'.' . _ .,.. 4/'.15/2013 12:35 1.00 Presentati Teacher Block Group Members Topic on Date Time Slot loiteing in public parks Buckley 7/8 A will burns chris lethert after curfuew 4/12/2013 1:15 -1:40 Savanna Atol and Lauren Mickelson 7/8 A Shaw Driving Distractions 4/12/2013 1:.15 -1:40 4/12/2013 7/8 A Nick, Enzo . Speeding cars 1:15 -1:40 Jaiden B, Sebastien F, 4/12/2013 7/8 A Tala S. Teen loitering 1:15 -1:40 Granf:kohnerjake:cross r, Trash in the_lunch Buckley; . ;. 7 /QA_ ,. jack bailey- ' . room .` 4/1- 2/2013 1' 40. -2.05 .: Buckley 748 A.::Tate F,Ryan:.T,Dylan'E, passing time 4/12/2013 1 �0 -2:05. 4/12/2013 7/8 A,; Aidan; Jackie, Annelore ,_ ;passing time.. 1:40-2:05 Alex Pelinka Tyler- Masuda Buckley:. , 7 /8_A:.: Will Fischer Littering 4112/2013 2:Q572-15, Grace DeBoom and .: Recycling in the .' Mickelson, 7/ 8A' ,Jasmine. Brown lunchroomt ; 4/12/2013 2:05-2:35i'' Nick Spades Ben,: Fraley Mickelson 7/8-A ; Leo Franklin_ Littering:ln Edina > 4/12/2013 2:05 -2;35, MA Dylan, Billy, Will ; ' Lake pollution .; _ 4112/2013 205.12:;35 Presentati Teacher Block Group Members Topic on Date Time Slot Mackenzie Croxdale, Matthias Dewane, and Disrespect at Sports Buckley 7/8 A Talia Fladager. Events 4/16/2013 1:15 -1:40 Gracie Hendricks, Grace Buckley 7/8 A Webert, Celeste Haberman Bike Helmets 4/16/20131:15-1-.40 Drew Herzer, Garrett Mickelson 7/8 A mackay, Nick Belbas Wearing helmets 4/16/2013 1:15 -1:40 Libby Kiddoo & Katy Mickelson 7/8 A Murphy The humane society 4/16/2013 1:15 -1:40 Sean Anderson, Charles Trash In Movie Buckley 7/8 A Finkenaur, Prabjyot Singh Theaters 4/16/2013 1:40 -2:05 Abby Dzandzara & Sarah Buckley 7/8 A Fleury Crosswalks 4/16/2013 1:40 -2:05 Nathan Caspar, Antonio Lunch Prices and Food Mickelson 7/8 A Aiello, Luke Hauritz Quality 4/16/2013 1:40 -2:05 Mickelson 7/8 A Eli Leupold & CJ Miller Texting While Driving 4/16/2013 12:35 -1:00 Adam Hecker, Nate Buckley 7/8 A Rasmussen Careless driving 4/16/2013 2:05 -2;35 Alexandra Schribman and Buckley 7/8 A Taylor Oberpriller Bullying 4/16/2013 2:05 -2:35 Mickelson 7/8 A CJ Miller, Eli Leupold texting while driving 4/16/2013 2:05 -2:35 Presentati Teacher Block Group Members Topic on Date Time Slot Connor Smith, Zach Students not having Buckley 7/8 B Paradis pencils 4/11/2013 1:15 -1:40 Madi Larson, Wynne Hallway behaviors and Buckley 7/8 B Wrede saftey 4/11/2013 1:15 -1:40 J Connor Smith & Zach Students not having Buckley 7/8 B Paradis pencils 4/11/2013 1:15 -1:40 Emily Klippenstein, Grace Buckley 7/8 B O'brien, Maria Boman Messy Fitting Rooms 4/11/2013 1:15 -1:40 Abby Mans, Courtney Buckley 7/8 B Shirley Bus Etiquette 4/11/2013 1:40 -2:05 Alex Bourgeault, Sam Elliot 4/11/2013 Buckley 7/8 B t computer abuse 1:40 -2:05 Anna Karos, Maddie Mickelson 7/8 B Mccartan, Kate Johnson Room temperature 4/11/2013 1:40 -2:05 Elise Bernstein, Elizabeth Berube, Tatum Park Safety and Buckley 7/88 Meisenheimer . Appeal 4/11/2013 2:05 -2:30 Anders Carlson, Bram Buckley 7/8 B Rasmussen, Josh Fortin Band Practicing Apathy 4/11/2013 2:05 -2:30 Natalia Madrinan Sarah Mickelson 7/88 Willet wolves 4/11/2013 2:05 -2:30 Presentati Teacher Block Group Members Topic . on Date 'Time Slot Mark Ellenberger, Rohan Buckley 7/8 B Gholkar SV Lunch Reform 4/15/2013 1:15 -1:40 Daksh Adhikari, Jack Golf Conditions at Mickelson 7/8 B Fruechte, Robert Buckley braemar golf course 4/15/2013 1:15 -1:40 DCD /Special Needs 4/15/2013,..' Mickelson 7/8 B Kai Vickman, Harry Tuttle students 1:15 -1:40 Mataya Pavlieh,-.Kemi 4/.15%2013 Mickelson 7/8-B Daniel`' - C.yberbullying - 1:40` =121`:0.- 5 r_h Buckley 7 /8,B JohnHobbs, ; Gum.untler Tables , Y 4/15/2013 1 40 -2.05 Patrick.,Westerlund :Aram Mickelson: 7/8 B".. Carrillo Acosta, .erbal:Bullying 4/;15/2013 1:45 - 2:05.. Eileen CarnpbellZ !,L Utah Turner = Aaron Butwinik Mickelson , '. 7/8 B ,• Kristen 'We - k Traffic& carpooling;. ; 4/15%2013 2:05 =2 30 , _F Evan 0' Evan. ; Nickelson :. 7/8 B -: Dorgari,_Joe. Bornflefh Vandalism at`SVMS; ' , 4%15%2013 2.05 -2 30.`,` Anna Lampron and'Mireya 'Graffiti: in school Buckley:- . Z/8 B '.: Daniels _. restrooms _ ,:._ 4/.15/2013 2.,05-2-30; 41:15/20;13 a ;� MickeI on , 7/8 B Brando n Willr, _Max,Aldnchti Clogged.,Hallways- : _ _ 2 05' -2,30 '; �,91NA11� oe Cn Nov �sY2, �y leas To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: IX. A. From: Debra Mangen Action ❑ City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: April 16, 2013 Information Q 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. 501 St • Edina, MN 55424 Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:54 PM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FK Name Your Neighborhood Distribute to: Mayor and City Council Lynette Biunno;'Receptionist 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826-038,9 .r Ibiunno(5_EdinaMN.gov I www.Edin6MN gov ...For Living, Learning; Raising Families Doing Business From: Lev Mailer [ mailto:levmeister@hotmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013'11:36 AM To: Edina Mail Cc: Lev Mailer Subject: Re: Name Your Neighborhood Distribute to: Mayor and City Council Will those of us living in condo's along Lincoln Drive now have to join the Bredesen Park Home Owners Association? We, of course, have our own Home Owners Association. A little humor. When I attended the Name Your Neighborhood meetings, I suggested that the approximate 1100 units comprising 1 -6 1.. Londonderry Townhomes . 2. Manor Homes of Edina 3. Edina West 4. Edina East 5. Habitat Court 6. Fountain Woods be called Lincoln Creek, bounded by Lincoln on the west and creek on the east. We are different from the single family homes., comprising most of the.area from Lincoln to Vernon to Bredesen Park.. Sincerely, Lev Mailer 6875 Langford Drive Edina, Minnesota 55436 952 - 930 -0636 i 1 i y i Our /,�Sd P p .�DL) eC CA Susan ?cowl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:44 AM :c: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Out apathy project Lynette Biunno, Receptionist' 952- 927 78861 1 Fax 952- 826 -0389 Ibiunno @ Edina MN.gbv I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For LiVing;`Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business. . - - -- Original Message ----- From:'Nathan fmailto:nir18647 @Rmail.coml Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:25 PM' To: Edina Mail Subject; Our apathy project Hi our names are Nate', and Adam Dear mr. Mayor, we have a big project on the 16th of April. We would love if you came so we could show you what we've. done to try to prevent careless driving, our project is on careless driving because we feel to many people are being killed in these horrible crashes. Our project is about how people are being apathetic about careless. driving. This includes texting while driving and drinking and driving. We are trying our best to prevent reckless driving n the U.S. we would love if you came to Show what we have done to make the world a better place, we go to south view - middle -chool here in edina. 1 Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:22 PM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Waterloo Station Picture London England Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952 - 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 (.........a ;, : Ibiunno(a )EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For 1_iving, Learning, Raisin" Families &. Doing Business a� From: Andrew Brown Imai Ito: andrew.r. brown caatt.netl Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:03 PM To: swensonannl(a)gmail.com; jonibennettl2(a)comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague(aDedinarealty.com; Edina Mail Cc: Bill Neuendorf Subject: Waterloo Station Picture London England Dear Mayor & Edina City Council, The link below is an aerial picture of Waterloo Station in London England and how the Brits were able to link interconnect a train station, Land/Business Development, while interconnecting the neighborhood over the resource. http : / /erikschonsett.blogspot.com /2011 /05/ waterloo - station- london.html #! /2011 /05 /waterloo- station- london.html A much smaller version of this at the Grandview /Old Public Works Site could be a great asset for the City of Edina and its residents. Thank you Andy Brown 5512 Park Place Edina MN 55424 612- 220 -3045 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL March 12, 2013 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Steel called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. ll. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones, Dan Peterson Ill. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones, Dan Peterson Motion Carried IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, approving the consent agenda as follows: W.A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Park Board Meeting of Tuesday, February 12, 2013 Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones, Dan Peterson Motion Carried V. COMMUNITY COMMENT None Vl. 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 and 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 those changes. 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 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. A 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 & 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 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. 3 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 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 4 1i 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 while 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 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 put 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 likely to get he doesn't think it makes sense. He stated they need to commit to doing both. He commented it's not an experiment with community gardens because community gardens are 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 community garden spot without any way to really utilize it. Member Segreto, 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. VI.B. Strategic Planning Information and Discussion Ms. Kattreh gave a power point presentation on the Strategic Planning process. She explained there are a variety of topics that Chair Steel had expressed an interest in as well as other topics she thought the Park Board might be interested in. Ms. Kattreh went through the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges. Member Deeds asked if one of their weaknesses is that they don't really have a large central community center because when you look at surrounding communities, especially the ones that are a generation after us, they usually have a central community center that include a lot of concentrated facilities. Ms. Kattreh responded that may be a weakness and explained the concept that Edina has had is instead of having one main community center their amenities are at facilities which are spread out over Edina for better or worse. She noted it may not be the most feasible to accommodate a community center; however, that is definitely an amenity that they are missing in Edina that a lot of comparable cities have. Member Deeds asked Ms. Kattreh how Edina stacks up against other communities such as Wayzata, Minnetonka, Maple Grove, etc., in terms of our parks and recreation amenities. Ms. Kattreh replied those are some of their biggest competitors in the area and she thinks Edina has a really great park system and is very excited about the opportunity to work on the strategic plan this year. She indicated that she feels they've done a good job working on the individual parks; however, she doesn't think they ever looked at their parks as a system and how they work together. She stated she is excited to really leverage the amenities and talk about how they are able to travel between the different parks; their commuter patterns, walking trails and bike trails. She commented that has never been considered before and those are some of the things that she would consider the more "premier" park systems have done. She added another thing the strategic plan will do is give them the ability to prioritize. She noted they have talked about in the past how they are constantly putting out fires and feel they are more reactive than proactive and this will give them the ability to be a little bit proactive in planning strategically. Chair Steel commented it's interesting to read the vision and the mission statement and reflect on the challenges and opportunities and how they align with these different areas. She commented that they don't talk about these things very often in Park Board meetings; therefore, as part of the strategic planning process they need to look at their vision and mission and everything needs to focus towards those points. Member Segreto asked how dated is the mission and vision statement to which Ms. Kattreh replied she is not sure but when going through the materials she did see that it was updated in 2008. Member Segreto indicated that it seems a little dated to her; for example, regarding the mission, it's clear that they have a big task in front of them in terms of maintaining, repairing and replacing a lot of the infrastructure and that really should be their mission. She commented although it's sort of gritty and not as high- minded as fostering new development and promoting health and wellness they do need to maintain, repair and replace what they have; otherwise they will not have much to offer. Member Segreto indicated the other thing that struck here in the vision statement is how they refer to people who use the parks as "customers ". She noted that it seems like out in the market place they've gone from customers to clients but nowhere in this vision statement do we talk about the residents of the City of Edina and she feels one of their highest goals should be to serve their community and residents, not necessarily their customers. Member Jacobson noted that she had the same thought and if they need to try that hard to try to appeal to customers then maybe they are doing something wrong. Because we have such amenities that they just want to enjoy the parks and the facilities so they've got her thinking about those enterprise facilities and is that really a park or not and she still doesn't know the answer. 11 Member Dan Peterson asked Ms. Kattreh, with respect to the presentation, to explain "nature based play ". Secondly, he had the impression that the Art Center had their board and the Parks Department had nothing to do with them, is that correct. Ms. Kattreh replied that is correct; however, the Art Center Board is currently in the process of making a change. The Art Center Board is going to be changing to the "Arts and Culture Commission" and they are looking at really broadening the scope to include public art and all different types of art in Edina. She responded in regards to the "nature based play" question there are some really cool new types of play equipment and play amenities that are much more nature based and she feels they would be really interesting components to include in some of their parks. She added they are more educational, more real life and are being done by all of the main playground manufacturers; it's more of a realistic and educational nature experience but it does incorporate physical activity as well. Member Segreto asked regarding nature programming would the Parks Department team up with Community Education to offer more nature programming. She explained she has already begun some preliminary discussions with Community Education because she feels so strongly about it and would like to be a part of it and help. Ms. Kattreh replied they definitely want to work on their partnership with Community Education in that way and would also like to forge a relationship with the Three Rivers Park District and see if they can get them into their parks to offer some programming as well. Member Cella noted that she too was struck when reading the mission statement; the one sentence seems to capture what she would think as their mission statement but then it goes on to say the primary mission is followed by nine different things. She stated they are lovely but they are sort of broad philosophical feel good kind of things that any entity could say they were responsible for. She commented that it doesn't really seem tailored except for a couple of them; producing natural resources and providing opportunities for recreational experiences. She indicated she feels a lot of them are really good things; however, she thinks some of them are primarily the job of other entities. The Parks & Recreation Department needs to focus on what it is that is their primary and most central goal; therefore, as part of the strategic planning she would like to be able to take the opportunity to rethink how they list those. Member Deeds informed the Park Board that the goal of a good mission or vision is to guide decision making during uncertainty, it's to guide people to refer to, what is it we are trying to achieve. In this situation it's what we do and where we spend the resources, etc., it's worthless if it doesn't guide decision making. He indicated where it states "We create community through people, parks and programs" maybe; however, the second one is all over the place. It's vague and it's a grab bag of everything and to be honest they are better off eliminating that one and keeping the paragraph above. Member Deeds indicated that he thinks the place to start is to really think through what it is that this department, this set of operations is trying to achieve for the city and for its citizens. He indicated that to be honest he is not sure that is something that a consulting firm can particularly tell them. Chair Steel stated they have to come up with at least their mission statement, the department itself. She noted that all of the points are more of the strategic issues and thinks they first have to agree on one sentence stating what they are about. She indicated that she thinks it's the strategic issues where the consultant comes in and you start to dig into the details and in the meantime they need to come up with a statement about what their mission is. Member Segreto asked how they get this done. Chair Steel replied right now this is a discussion item and she has been talking with Ms. Kattreh about how to go about this and she would definitely like Park Board's feedback. She indicated that she would like to work with Ms. Kattreh and come up with a list of user groups, stakeholders, partnerships and the people we serve because we need to keep that 7 in mind when we are going forward with our mission statement and have that ready for their next meeting. She explained their next step, if they are going to have a consultant, they need to start working on the RFP and they can talk about that at their next meeting; her thought is a consultant would be very valuable for a needs assessment. Chair Steel asked Ms. Kattreh if she had thoughts about how members could help with RFP. Ms. Kattreh replied it would be especially helpful if everyone looked through the three RFP examples and email her any comments, specific parts you like or don't like or if you would like to add something or expound on anything and she will put a draft together for Park Board's review at the next meeting. Member Deeds indicated his concern is are they doing something about the mission and vision or not because it's a little bit like painting before they get the whole thing scraped down if they go out for an RFP. He stated the problem is they don't know what they are asking for until they know what it is they are trying to achieve to some degree. Member Deeds informed the Park Board that through his experience if you are trying to craft a mission and a vision statement with more than three or four people in the room is a nightmare, small groups do a better job.and then receive feedback from the larger group for this kind of thing. He noted the question in reviewing the mission and vision is are we just accepting the vision and mission as it stands and moving on from there. Chair Steel replied she thinks they need to take a look at that and suggested they focus their work next time on reviewing the mission and vision and that she will talk with Ms. Kattreh and look for updated terminology, etc. She noted in the meantime she would like for Park Board to submit their comments about the RFP, mission statement, vision statement and needs assessment. She stated they can start a discussion about the RFP next time about the components they like and don't like. Member Jones asked what they feel the biggest needs would be in terms of benefits to a strategic plan because they have all spoken about their cautiousness from sending anything out to a consultant if we don't have a really clear idea of what the questions are we want to ask. She indicated she would also like to hear staff's recommendation for what they would really like and how they would like this money spent because it isn't just Park Board's ideas of what we think the Parks Department needs. She indicated staff has been dealing with the numbers-and know what's been going on and may have some other concept of what the needs are. Ms. Kattreh replied she thinks there are a lot of components that would be very helpful to them in a strategic plan but again she would probably reiterate what she stated a few minutes ago about looking at the entire park system as one kind of living and breathing entity instead of looking at each individual park and try to figure out what we are doing well at individual parks, what we are not doing well at individual parks, what we may be duplicating, in services in areas really close to another facility or park, current trends, we really haven't done a lot of updates in our parks and she thinks it is really important that we look at everything from how we travel between parks and neighborhoods and schools to way finding. She commented that they don't do a lot of signage and feels all of their parks signage needs to be updated. She stated in really looking at the whole system and how it operates, where we are best utilizing our resources and part of this plan could also be a consultant putting dollar amounts to these potential improvements. Member Cella indicated that she thinks Member Deeds had a good point if they are really thinking they want to look at the mission statement and revise it if they all just send in suggestions by email that isn't going to get the job done. That is really the work of a smaller group that sits down for a concentrated amount of time and really plays with the language and the ideas and figures out how to say it in the fewest possible words with the most possible meaning. Member Segreto noted that sounds like a work group to which Chair Steel then asked if any members who would be willing to work on this before the next meeting. Members Segreto, Cella, Deeds and Steel all agreed they would do it. In 8 i addition, Ms. Kattreh will also help. Member Deeds asked Ms. Kattreh is she could pull together mission statements from some of the exemplars of parks departments around the country. VI.C. Election of New Officers Member Hulbert made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, to nominate Keeya Steel as Chair of the Park Board. Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones, Dan Peterson Motion Carried Member Kathryn Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Steel, to nominate Ellen Jones as Vice Chair of the Park Board. Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones, Dan Peterson Motion Carried Vll. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VII.A. Council Updates Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board at the February 19 work session the City Council and Art Center Board decided to change to the "Arts and Culture Commission ". She noted they are currently drafting the language for the City Code and she expects that change to be taking place sometime within the next couple of months. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board at the February 19 City Council meeting John Gunyeau, Chair of the Three Rivers Park District, gave a brief presentation and talked about the Nine Mile Regional Trail and noted he has an interest in working with the City Council on trying to get that project moved along as quickly as possible. Member Deeds asked Ms. Kattreh if she could put on a future agenda a review of the Nine Mile trail and where it is going to run through Edina and which parks it's going to tie up, etc., because it would be a good thing to know as they are trying to tie the whole system together. This could be the backbone of putting it together. Ms. Kattreh replied she will do that. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board at the March 5 City Council meeting the Parks & Recreation Department's Turf Management Plan was approved. This was something that was actually done last year but because of staffing changes it never received City Council approval. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that the City Council waived the building permit fees for Countryside Park which is a savings of almost $10,000. VIII. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Steel informed the Park Board there are still a few members who have not filled out the survey and asked for those who have not already done so to please do it soon. She indicated she values everyone's input and will put the information together and will share the information at their next meeting. Member.Segreto commented she thinks they should do this every year. Member Dan Peterson asked if any park system has a naturalist on staff, someone tying in environmental affairs. Ms. Kattreh replied she doesn't know of any local park departments that have a full -time person that specializes in that but could look into it. She stated Three Rivers Park District does and some of the larger metro parks but she does not know of any city park systems. Member Dan Peterson indicated that it seems a park naturalist would have a great deal to do with the school system in Edina with all of the senior living facilities and he could see lectures being held at Arneson Acres that 4 a lot of people would like to attend and learn how the natural world works. He noted this is something they may want to think about and it may be in conjunction with Three Rivers Park District or maybe they could hook up with Bloomington, St. Louis Park or Hopkins and have each one pay a portion for it. Member Dan Peterson informed the Park Board there was a wonderful background story in the local paper on water and water uses and asked if the City is thinking about water usage or intelligent ways to use it so the aquifers aren't drained as quickly. Ms. Kattreh replied they are having that conversation as a City right now and are talking about a lot of environmental issues from water to the salt on the roadways during the winter months. It's definitely a very hot button topic right now that they are taking very seriously and discussing internally. Member Hulbert passed along a "thanks" for keeping the skating rinks open for another couple of weeks; it lengthened a very short season. IX. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board she recently had a meeting with Lisa Nelson and Karen Platt, co- chairs of the Edina Garden Council Planning Committee, to discuss the potential to do a master plan and vision statement for Arneson Acres. She noted they are interested in donating $30,000 towards a consultant to develop a master plan for Arneson Acres Park. She explained the Garden Council is concerned that there are so many different clubs within the Garden Council and they all have really great ideas, plans and agendas but are concerned there isn't an overall vision for the park. She indicated they've been discussing this for many years and have now potentially volunteered to donate $30,000 toward the project. Ms. Kattreh commented that she thought this was a very interesting time considering the strategic plan they are discussing. She pointed out to the Park Board that this is not on their current work plan but maybe is something they could consider for their work plan for next year if the Park Board is interested. Member Deeds indicated they should tell them yes but see if they can stall them for a year because it doesn't make sense to do a strategic plan for one park before they can get an overall plan in place. He noted it is a very generous offer and they don't want it to go away so can they give them a yes, but. . .? Ms. Kattreh replied she will and added she already alluded to them it could possibly be added to their work plan for 2014. Member Hulbert commented it's such a unique park and asked how many other communities have a little arboretum like Arneson Acres to which Ms. Kattreh replied not a lot. Ms. Kattreh noted that she thinks this is really a great idea and is thrilled that the Garden Council is interested in taking this on and willing to support it because it's going to help to protect a very unique and valuable asset. Member Gieseke asked Ms. Kattreh if she is aware of any parameters that were put in place or agreed to by the City when Mr. Arneson gifted that area to the City. Ms. Kattreh replied she thinks the City did and it is certainly something she will need to look into a little bit further. Ms. Kattreh reminded the Park Board at their last meeting they asked staff to come up with a recommendation to consider taking one or two hockey rinks and during the off season to use them as dog parks. She noted that based on discussions with staff and observations based on programming and proximity to homes the two rinks they felt worth considering are Pamela and Highlands. She asked if this is something Park Board would like to put on a future agenda. Member Segreto replied that is what they asked for and thinks they should follow through. Chair Steel agreed. Member Gieseke indicated that he would like Lewis Park added to that as well, it seems to make sense since it is not in close proximity to any homes. Member Dan Peterson asked if anyone has come with a better way to get rid of the dog refuse, he understands it is still a problem at Van Valkenburg. Ms. Kattreh replied that Ms. Faus has just become 10 in charge of the dog park. She stated from a Parks & Recreation standpoint they have been overseeing it to the level that they can; however, they are going to be working with Tim Hunter and hopefully will, do a better job from both a police standpoint in monitoring the dog park and from a staff standpoint making sure they are consistent in their policies and follow through a little bit more. She pointed out she needs a little bit more history and do some research to see what they've tried as far as pick -up bags. She knows they used to offer dog trash bags in the park system but had a hard time keeping them because people were stealing them and that sort of thing. Member Segreto stated she thinks dog parks create a sense of community among the people who use them and noted that Tim Hunter can't be at several dog parks patrolling, it's well beyond the ability of the-City to enforce. She indicated it needs to be enforced by the people who use the parks. Member Deeds commented they need to recruit a committee made up of users and noted he has been to dog parks that are self- enforced and if you didn't pick up after your dog someone was going to say something to you. The question is how do you put a committee together and empower them. Member Segreto suggested if you post it at the dog park people will show up because the users of the dog park want it clean. She indicated at other dog parks she has been to they have provided utensils /shovels so that whoever is there can use it and not be searching around. Member Hulbert commented he thinks they quit putting bags out a few years ago and were spending like $15,000 a year on bags. He commented last time he checked when you go to a jungle gym they don't provide diapers for the people who are bringing their children. Ms. Kattreh noted Member Segreto had a great idea of maybe providing some tools and more convenient trash pick -ups. Chair Steel commented she knows there are a few individuals who really do have a sense of community and are there three times a day, knows everyone's first name and their dogs name(s) and what they have told her is there are repeat offenders and they are coming again and again. They are typically people without the license, which is a whole different issue and safety issue, but with technology maybe they can take a picture of their car license plates. Ms. Kattreh replied they could look at that. Ms. Kattreh asked the Park Board if this is something they would like to do soon or put on a work plan going forward. Member Segreto replied she doesn't think it will take that much to launch and would like to see it done sooner rather than later. Chair Steel stated that she thinks until they run into an issue she doesn't feel like it's going to take a ton of time. Ms. Kattreh replied she would agree and thinks it would involve a little bit of an expense in terms of adding gates to the entrances to the hockey rinks but nothing that would be cost prohibitive for them to be able to assume in their budget this year if they were to do it at one or two parks. Member Deeds suggested take one and do a pilot to which Ms. Kattreh replied they could do that. Ms. Kattreh asked Park Board if they would like to add it to the April agenda to explore for implementation this summer to which it was noted yes. Member Hulbert asked they will need to send a public notice, correct? Ms. Kattreh replied that is correct. She pointed out they could discuss it at the next meeting and narrow it down to maybe one or two rinks and then do a public notification for the May meeting to which the Park Board agreed. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that next Tuesday, March 19, they will be taking the golf dome insurance proposal and construction proposal to the City Council. She indicated they received everything that they asked for from the insurance company for reimbursement so they are very happy with the way that it has worked out with Travelers Insurance. She stated having said that they are still short, they have made a couple of what they feel are critical decisions, one is to separate the dome accessory building from the dome. The other recommendation they are making is that they replace the wooden two -level driving deck with a steel /concrete driving deck so it will be secured and added she thinks it will increase revenues at the dome because people are going to feel more comfortable going up on that second level. She indicated to add those two items will cost approximately $700,000 11 which is not covered by insurance. They are going to ask City Council to support it and they have a couple of other options they are going to ask for support from the City Council. One is to provide a Teflon surface to the dome that will help snow and ice fall off the surface easier as well as last longer and will keep the whole dome looking whiter and newer longer. The other is additional insulation which will make the whole dome more energy efficient; these two additional add -ons will cost approximately $220,000. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board she has finally struck a deal for the Aquatic Center rental. The Aqua Jets will be using the pool from 6 until 8:00 a.m. and the Edina Swim Club, with their priority, will be using the pool from 8 to 11:30 a.m. A Park Board member asked about the sports dome to which Ms. Kattreh replied that is the one project that unfortunately, with everything else they have going on, has taken a little bit of a backseat. She is hoping to have a report for the Park Board at the April meeting, May at the very latest, as to the recommendation for field use and improvements. Member Dan Peterson asked if any more money has been raised for the Veteran's Memorial to which Ms. Kattreh replied unfortunately no; however, they are working with the committee to try to determine possibly how they can be more effective as a committee. Meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. 12 e� MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 13, 2013 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Kilberg, Cherkassy, Carr, Carpenter, Forrest, Grabiel and Staunton Absent from the Roll: Platteter Ill. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Carpenter moved approval of the agenda. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Forest moved approval of the February 27, 2013 meeting minutes. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. No public comment. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat. Anderson -KM Builders, 7171 France Avenue South, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague reminded the Commission they continued this item at their last meeting. Teague reported that he and Chair Staunton met to clarify for the applicant the major concerns expressed by Page 1 of 13 i �r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 13, 2013 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Kilberg, Cherkassy, Carr, Carpenter, Forrest, Grabiel and Staunton Absent from the Roll: Platteter III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Carpenter moved approval of the agenda. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Forest moved approval of the February 27, 2013 meeting minutes. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. No public comment. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat. Anderson -KM Builders, 7171 France Avenue South, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague reminded the Commission they continued this item at their last meeting. Teague reported that he and Chair Staunton met to clarify for the applicant the major concerns expressed by Page 1 of 13 I the Commission at that meeting. Those concerns were shared with both the applicant and Commissioners via e-mail. Suggestions from.the Commission were to widen and expand the connections to the promenade, enhance the pedestrian crossings within the site, add windows to west and north elevation, address screening for the loading dock and work on enhancing the water feature. Sustainability was also an issue with the Commission expressing that they were looking for ways to ensure that sustainable standards implemented are measureable. Appearing for the Applicant: Jim Vos, Cresa, Greg Anderson, Anderson Builders, Maureen Michaliski, Schaefer Richardson Applicant Presentations Mr. Vos addressed the Commission and reported the development would incorporate sustainable standards that would be measurable. Vos said Lund Holdings is committed to construct buildings that use materials that reduce energy consumption. These include low flow toilets, lighting, mechanicals, motion sensors and other measures. Vos said their goal is to achieve a measurable standard 5% better than existing energy codes. With graphics Vos pointed out. the changes to the pedestrian flow to and from the promenade and internally (covered walkways, heated sidewalks). Vos noted the connection to the promenade has been widened and ties in directly to the Byerly's store. The internal crossings are stamped concrete clearly defining the crossings. Vos further added the water feature has been enhanced and includes an area for seating. Concluding, Vos said they also envision creating a "meeting area" with an art element. This area would be used by the apartment residents, Byerly's patrons and those walking along the promenade. Discussion Commissioner Grabiel noted the mention of LEED standards; and questioned who actually signs off on them. Grabiel stated he understands they intend to follow LEED standards; however, someone must review the measures and sign off on them. Vos responded there is a judiciary review body that signs off. Commissioner Potts acknowledged sustainability can be challenging to address, adding he wants to know how much "better the buildings will be" than just meeting the standard building codes. Potts noted the applicant indicated their goal is to be 5 percent better than state code; adding that's a start, but more could be accomplished. Continuing, Potts asked if both the retail and housing component are working with EDA. Vos responded in the affirmative. With regard to storm water Potts questioned if the applicant heard anything from the Watershed District. Vos responded they are working with the District; however, the details haven't been hammered out. Vos said there is the assumption that water runoff would be handled through underground storage, adding water quality should rise. A discussion ensued on parking acknowledging that some Commissioners felt that parking could be reduced allowing for more green space. Mr. Vos said it was very important to the property owner that Page 2 of 13 IV the store has adequate parking. Vos said measures could be implemented internally such as adding more cashiers and carry-outs that would move patrons through the store more efficiently. This would also free up parking at a faster rate of turnover. Vos concluded that it has been difficult addressing sustainability without formal criteria from the City. Chair Staunton acknowledged the lack of City standards on sustainability and pointed out one of the obstacles the City faces is the building code. All building code standards must be met. Staunton said the Commission felt that adopting the PUD ordinance would be a way for the City to negotiate above those standards. Commissioner Grabiel stated one issue of concern raised at the last meeting was the driveway encroachment between the Byerly's site and the Wolfson site to the east at 3655 Hazelton Road. Grabiel asked if that issue was resolved. Vos responded in the affirmative, adding the Byerly's driveway no longer encroaches. Chair Grabiel commented that at the last meeting the applicant indicated the difficulty in redeveloping the site while the present store was open. Grabiel asked if that's still the case. Vos responded in the affirmative. He stated that was mandated from the start. Commissioner Forrest said in reviewing the site plan that she believes bike racks should be located closer to the patio area. Vos agreed, adding that can be reviewed. Forrest also encouraged more landscaping especially along the east elevation, adding that wall still appears a bit tall and blank. Chair Staunton said he was curious if the applicant views the PUD process as a benefit to them. Vos responded that the PUD process is a benefit and provides the development team with the chance to do something different from what could be done through straight rezoning. Mr. Vos said the added density and setback variances allow this area to be created as part of the community at large. It can address the promenade and invite "people in" and become a destination. Commissioner Schroeder said he appreciates the sustainability goal of 5% above code; however, he believes that doesn't go far enough. Continuing, Schroeder said he also appreciates the statement that water would be handled through underground storage systems; however, storing the water that way probably is the result of the site itself. Concluding, Schroeder said he doesn't see any extra effort made to go above and beyond what would normally be done. Commissioner Carr stated that overall she believes the project was well done, adding she has a few questions. One is the seating capacity of the patio area(s). Mr. Vos responded that the at grade patio seats between 20 & 30 visitors and the mezzanine level seats roughly 15. Carr asked if trees are proposed for the parking lot, adding she thinks that would be a nice touch. Vos responded that can be reconsidered, however, if trees are added islands.need to be created and islands are difficult for maintenance (plowing, etc.). Carr also asked Vos to explain the exterior building materials for the store and apartment buildings and their compatibility. Vos indicated the materials that would be used and concluded that their intent was to coordinate the finishes and color type. He also added Byerly's and the residential component won't match, however would be completely compatible. Commissioner Carr z�_ ... Page 3 of 13 f concluded that she does have a concern with the north elevation of the building, adding she would like to see windows placed along that building wall or some other form of architectural feature. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. The following gave testimony: Robert Rofidal, 7125 Bristol Boulevard, Edina, MN R. Wolfson, 3655 Hazelton Road, Edina, MN Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none; Commissioner Carpenter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. AII'voted aye; public hearing closed. Discussion Chair Staunton asked Mr. Houle to speak to traffic. Mr. Houle gave a brief report on the traffic analysis. Chair Staunton noted the traffic measures referred to; signalization or roundabout, and asked Mr. Houle his preference. Houle responded because of the disruption a traffic signal creates; not only to the site but City streets he believes a roundabout is the way to go. Houle reported there is a roundabout design that can accommodate semi delivery trucks. Houle also noted that signalization at this point doesn't meet the State and County requirements, adding it is possible those requirements will be met sometime in the future, but for now the State and County won't sign off on signalization at this location. Houle concluded pointing out this situation isn't too much different from the Westin and Target issue; adding a roundabout was placed in that area over signalization. Commissioner Carpenter said he continues to have problems with this project and would vote against it, adding in his opinion it's an uninspired development and the lack of pedestrian integration between the promenade, residential element of the site and the retail component is troubling. With regard to parking Carpenter said he would rather see more parking than less, adding he doesn't want to see cars waiting for parking spaces, concluding he would rather error on the side of sufficient parking. Commissioner Forrest stressed that at final she would like to see the materials board, adding she wants assurance that the exterior buildings materials are compatible. Commissioner Grabiel commented that in his opinion he believes City ordinance tends to over park. Grabiel said what he is having difficulty with this evening is "negotiating" with the applicant over specific issues: Grabiel said he doesn't feel the City has a good enough tool to negotiate during the PUD process. He pointed out according to State Statute the City needs to act on a submittal within a specific timeframe, reiterating in his opinion it's difficult to negotiate at a public forum. He pointed out the last time the Commission met specific items were listed; the applicant came back with some of those issues addressed ; and if the Commission continues to have further issues this could go on and on. Grabiel Page 4 of 13 Q acknowledged the mention of forming_a subcommittee that would negotiate with the developer during the PUD process, which could work; however, again the City has time limit. Commissioner Scherer stated she is likely to vote in favor of this project. She said she continues to have issues; especially the long north facing brick wall, adding to her it looks like a prison with two guard towers at the end. She said she was also concerned with the height of the retaining wall for the community element, adding she would like it softened because she doesn't want the appearance of a tunnel from the promenade. Scherer stated she understands this is a balancing act, adding she will be very interested in viewing the covered walkway because to her it could look "cheesy". Concluding, Scherer said this has been a strange process and she appreciates everyone's input. Commissioner Potts stated that this request is asking for a significant increase in density, adding he was expecting more "coming out of the gate ". Concluding, Potts said he doesn't see a community benefit in granting the PUD. Commissioner Forrest stated she agrees with Commissioner Scherer's and Carr's comments on the north building wall. With regard to the PUD process Forrest acknowledged it's a balancing act that may need to be revisited further down the line. Further discussion continued on the PUD process itself and the project's pluses and minuses. Chair Staunton asked for a motion. Motion Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend preliminary rezoning approval to PUD and preliminary development plan approval based on staff findings found on pages 14 & 15 of the staff report and subject to staff conditions found on pages 15 & 16 of the staff report. Preliminary plat approval is also recommended based on staff conditions on page 16 of the staff report; noting the payment of a Parkland Dedication fee of $1,230,000 is to be paid prior to release of the final. plat. Commissioner Forrest seconded the motion. 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. B. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Edina Fifty - Five LLC. 5125 49th Street West and 5118 -5109 49th Street West Page 5 of 13 Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission 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. 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: 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. Page 6 of 13 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. 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 also subject to the following Conditions: 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. 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 Page 7 of 13 - a new 17 -lot townhome plat for the subject property based on the following findings: The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. And 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. 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. 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. Page 8 of 13 i • 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. Palkowitsch 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 while 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 Terhaar 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. 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 /Brookview 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 Page 9 of 13 J 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 contained 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. 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 flat roofs. Commissioner Carpenter said he doesn't have a problem with increasing the density in this location. Page 10 of 13 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 GranclView 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 does have concerns. She said she doesn't want 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 thinks 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. 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 important to her support. Commissioner Carpenter asked the development team their feelings about Commissioner Schroeder's suggestion of pulling the buildings 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, pointing out this stretch of Vernon is very busy, noting the exit ramp for Hwy 100. Page 11 of 13 .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 this site and 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 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 before the City Council hears this issue that the developer needs to provide a better representation of building height and elevation from West 49th Street. Chair Staunton called for the vote: Ayes; Schroeder, Potts, Carpenter, Grabiel and Staunton. Nays; Scherer, Carr, Forrest. Motion carried 5 -3 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials. VII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chair Staunton gave a brief follow up of the work session between the council and commission. Staunton said there were two topics of discussion; the Ordinance and Construction Management Plan. Staunton said staff is considering a work session on April 10th to further discuss these issues. Staunton asked the Commission how they would like the work session handled; formal or informal. Commissioners stated they would support a more informal process; possibly meeting in the Community .Page 12 of 13 Room. Commissioner Carr commented that she has a special interest in lighting, adding she would be interested in studying that topic further. Chair Staunton officially welcomed Claudia Carr to the Planning Commission. Vlll. ADJOURMENT Commissioner Carr moved adjournment at 10:40 PM. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 7 i L Respectfully submitted Page 13 of 13 Edina Art Center Board Meeting Meeting Minutes City of Edina, Minnesota Edina City Hall Council Chambers January 24, 2013 4:30 P.M. I. Call to Order Chair Bouassida called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. II. Roll Call Members Present: Hafed Bouassida, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Bill McCabe, Ray Meifert, Kitty O'Dea, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon.- Members Absent: Colin Nelson. Staff Present: Michael Frey, General Manager - Edina Art Center; Kaylin Martin, Edina Communications Coordinator. Students Representatives Present: Anna Ellingboe and Melissa Stefanik Mr. Bouassida noted that Member McCabe, current Vice Chair and previous Chair of the Edina Art Center Board, has a term expiring on January 31, 2013. He thanked him for his years of service to the Board and for his dedication to the arts in Edina. He also recognized Ruth Valgemae, Justin Moran and Tara Mohtadi whose terms expired during 2012. He reported that Member Colin Nelson was unable to attend. III. Approval of Meeting Agenda Chair Bouassida noted the meeting agenda had been circulated and asked if there were requests for additions or changes. No additions to the agenda voiced. Motion by Member Barbara La Valleur and seconded by Member Kitty O'Dea that the Art Center Board approve the January 24, 2013 agenda as presented. Ayes: Hafed Bouassida, Bill McCabe, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Ray Meifert, Kitty O'Dea, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon. Motion carried. IV. Adoption of Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Meeting of November 15, 2012 Chair Bouassida asked if there were changes or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 15, 2012. No changes voiced. Motion by Member Raeuchle and seconded by Member John Swon that the Art Center Board approve the November 15, 2012 regular meeting minutes as presented. Ayes: Hafed Bouassida, Bill McCabe, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Ray Meifert, Kitty O'Dea, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon. Motion carried. V. Community Comment No comments were made. VI. Reports /Recommendations A. Introductions Ao introductions necessary. B. Arts -& Culture Working Group Member Raeuchle provided background information on the creation of the Arts and Culture Working Group, noting that the group began meeting in 2011 in order to make a presentation of goals related to the arts in Edina to the City Council in December 2012, at which time the group was formally approved and the process towards meeting those goals began. He summarized the goals that the group will be working towards meeting and noted that the group would be meeting again soon to finalize details for another presentation to the Council. Member La Valleur invited any interested members of the public to attend the meetings and bring their fresh ideas and thoughts. C. Edina Film Festival Member Swon reported on the second Edina Film Festival, which concluded in October 2012. The input from the public has been great. He stated that the group has already met to begin planning of the 2013 event. D. Membership Member Lappin presented the membership statistics for December and January, noting that 2012 ended with an additional $3,000 in membership fees. She explained that membership numbers fluctuate each month due to expiring and renewing memberships. She advised that she has tried to maintain consistency in this position in sending out the expiring membership letters and cards in a prompt manner. She stated that she would like to investigate benefits that enhance membership. She also wants to search for additional members, not only inside Edina, but in other communities as well. She believed that the Arts and Culture Working Group will assist in bringing in additional interest and also mentioned other ideas to increase or enhance membership. E. Mission Statement Member Kitty O'Dea stated that under the direction of the City Council, the Edina Art Center Board has worked with a consultant to analyze the operations of the Art Center and identify the art needs within Edina. She stated that part of that process was to develop an updated Mission Statement for the Edina Art Center. She explained that the vision and purpose of the Art Center has expanded beyond education and simply offering classes. She read the current draft of the Mission Statement, "Our mission is to build a vibrant community and foster common bonds that contribute to the vitality of the city, to nurture talent and create venues for expressing and appreciating the arts in Edina ". She stated that the group has been amending the statement and sharing the statement with members of the City Council and of the public. She hoped that the statement would be finalized in the next few months. Member Meifert stated that he would like to see more action in the statement. He believed that the basics were included but suggested that the statement be shortened. Chair Bouassida noted that discussion of this item would continue at the next Board meeting. F. Public Art Committee — Chair Appointment and Member Recommendations Member La Valleur highlighted the achievements of 2012, including the printing of a book entitled Edina Sculptures. Public art exhibits that were held during 2012, distribution of map cards, free public tours of sculptures, and new methods of reaching out to people. She also provided information on the installation of QR codes at sculpture sites which will provide information on the artist and how to make donations. The QR code will be placed at public art sites throughout the year. She advised that new pages were added to the second edition of Edina Sculptures. She advised of an upcoming book signing this Saturday at the Edina Art Center from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Member Raeuchle stated that although the Promenade is a great destination, he urged the Public Art Committee to look beyond that location so that members of the public are better able to stumble across public art rather than drive to a destination. Member La Valleur stated that 50th and France is also a destination but agreed that any promotion or public event is berreficial. G. The Author's Studio Member Meifert reported the Author's Studio is in its second year and is offered once per month. He explained that the program attempts to find Edina authors but advised that the participation is not simply limited to Edina. He reported that attendance has increased to 20 -25 per meeting. He noted that they also urge attendees to make purchases in the gift shop to help support local artists. He believed the program is well publicized and thanked Mr. Frey for his efforts. W Member La Valleur encouraged members of the public to take part in The Author's Studio events not only to increase their writing skills, but to open themselves to new authors. H. Annual Report Member McCabe stated that this process began about a year ago when the Director of Parks & Recreation was asked to find consultants who would comment on the operations of the Edina Art Center. He reported that members of the Art Center Board were a part of reviewing and selecting a consultant. He reported that Sutton and Associates was chosen and the scope was to discuss the organization, operations, programs and services, mission statement, and a comparative analysis with other local art centers. He stated that he and other members attended the tours of other local art centers and summarized what was found through those efforts. He provided the recommendations that were made to the City Council through the Analysis that was created by George Sutton and Associates through this process. VII. Correspondence and Petitions Chair Bouassida asked if there was any correspondence or petitions. None voiced. VIII. Chair and Board Member Comments Chair Bouassida thanked all the members and staff of the Edina Art Center for their support and dedication to the arts and to the Art Center. He also thanked the City for the opportunity to share the arts and cultural concerns with all the Edina residents. He asked that any interested residents bring questions or concerns to any future meetings of the Art Center Board. IX. Staff Comments A. General Manager's Yearly Report Mr. Frey thanked all the Board members for their hard work, dedication, creativity, and passion for the arts during 2012, which was a time of change. He also recognized Ruth Valgemae and Lois Ring for their past service to the Art Center. Frey stated that after the review this past year and the recommendations from the Sutton Analysis, the organizational status of the Art Centerwould not be changed to 501(c)3 status. He is also looking forward to the fundraising and philanthropic efforts in 2013. He stated that the Capital Improvement Program identified an upgrade in software to streamline membership and registration processes, which he is very excited about. He summarized the classes listed in the winter class catalog, noting that 16 percent of those classes were canceled. He stated that the Author's Studio and Film Festival were both newer programs and commended Members Swon and Nelson for their efforts as Chairs of those groups. Frey stated he believed that the Mission Statement will soon be finalized and reported that he is ahead of schedule on the reorganization of the Art Center staff. He reported that the City of Edina currently has 12 open positions and the Art Center is now on the list. He stated that classes at outreach locations, such as the Senior Center, and the Teen Show in partnership with Edina High School and reported that those classes and exhibits are doing very well. He stated that this is the third year for the Edina Art Center's Teen Art Show and thanked Student Members Anna Ellingboe and Melissa Stefanik for their work as Co- Chairs of that event. He also advised of a possible expansion into a retail site at the Southdale Center. Frey stated that he is one of five judges for the Edina Art Fair this year and noted that the Art Center has a strong presence at the event with two booths. He mentioned that the public is always amazed with the moving pottery wheel and attracts both young and old and everyone in between. He noted the Consultant Working Group toured other Art Centers, and while the Art Center is strong in terms of programming, the other facilities have invested in infrastructure and noted that space continues to bean issue for the Art Center. He stated that he made a difficult decision in 2012 to close the darkroom at the Art Center, as the movement has been towards digital photography. He advised that he sold some of the equipment and turned the area into a pottery pugging space. Frey stated that marketing continues to be a challenge for the Art Center and believes additional focus be put in this area. The gallery and gift shop continue to show decreased sales and Frey believes the economy continues to have an effect on that revenue source. He advised that donations have also declined in the past two years. He stated that the current membership as of January 2013 is 900. He advised that there was a goal of 1,000 members and noted that while the Art Center reached that mark in July 2012 he hoped to retain that number throughout the year. -he General Manager stated that he made a decision to not apply for MN State Arts Board grant for 2014. He stated chat Member McCabe and Edina City staff were essential in obtaining information for the grant in the past. He believed that once more of the Sutton recommendations are put into place then the timing would be better before attempting to receive grant support again. He provided information regarding the Juried Art Show for 2012, which returned an income of $5,000. He thanked everyone once again for their efforts and hoped to have a great year going forward. Member la Valleur stated that she enjoys working with Mr. Frey and commended him for his efforts. She also advised of a method of making donations through resident utility bills. Member O'Dea commended Mr. Frey for his efforts in expanding art activities outside of the Art Center walls. X. Adjournment Motion by Member Raeuchle and seconded by Member Barbara La Valleur that the Art Center Board adjourn the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Ayes: Hafed Bouassida, Bill McCabe, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Ray Meifert, Kitty O'Dea, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon. Motion carried. MINUTES Meeting of the Edina Heritage Preservation Board Edina City Hall — Community Room Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Answering roll call was Vice Chair Moore and Members Mellom, Christiaansen, Sussman, O'Brien, McDermott, Weber, Johnson, and Good. Absent were Members Davis and Holtan. Staff present was Senior Planner, Joyce Repya. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member Sussman moved to approve the meeting agenda as submitted. Member O'Brien seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES February 12, 2013 Member Mellom moved to approve the minutes from the February 12, 2013 meeting. Member Moore seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT - None VI. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A. H -13 -2 4504 Drexel Avenue - Build a detached garage in the southwest corner of the rear yard Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of the 4500 block of Drexel Avenue. The existing home, a Mediterranean style constructed in 1936, currently has a single story 2 -car attached garage accessed by a driveway on the south side of the property. The Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) request entails the construction of a new detached garage in the southwest corner of the rear yard. The plans also include converting the single story attached garage to living space at the rear of the home. Elaborating on the plans for the garage, Ms. Repya pointed out that they propose a 528 square foot 2 -car detached garage measuring 24' x 22' feet in area. A service door and window are provided on the north elevation. Access to the garage will be obtained on the east elevation from the existing driveway. The design of the structure is proposed to compliment the style of the home with traditional stucco walls and ceramic tiles on the roof. On the east elevation attention to detail is provided with carriage entry doors and a small dormer in the hip roof area. The height of the garage is shown to be 19' 6" at the highest peak. The height at the mid -point of the gable is shown to be N i 1 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes March 12, 2013 14' 6 "', and a height of 9'6" is provided at the eave line. The hip roof is designed with a 9/12 pitch, complimenting the hip roof of the home. All dimensions for the proposed structure are consistent with the surrounding detached garages and new garages previously approved by the HPB through the COA process. Ms. Repya added that the proposed location of the garage is 4.5' from the south and west property lines which abut 6 foot privacy fences, thus no windows or architectural detailing have been provided for those sides; consistent with other garages plans approved in the district. Ms. Repya also pointed out that plans for the conversion of the attached garage to living space at the rear of the home were provided for the Board's information. The new space has been designed to provide a compatible use of the home while at the same time maintain the home's overall historic character. The square footage of the attached garage space will be reduced by 228 square feet to ensure that the total footprint of the structures on the lot does not exceed the 25% maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. (The existing lot coverage is 22.3 %, and the proposed lot coverage will be 24.9 %). Preservation consultant, Robert Vogel reviewed the proposed plans and determined that the new garage would match the character of the historic house and be compatible in size, scale, massing, and material. He added that the improvements to the property would also be compatible with.the character of the neighborhood and should not detract from the historic significance and integrity of the district as a whole. Ms. Repya concluded that Staff agreed with Consultant Vogel's evaluation of the proposed improvements to the property, noting that the detached garage is consistent with new garages previously reviewed in the district and conversion of the attached garage to living space will blend in well with the historic facade of the home; thus she recommended approval of the COA request. Findings supporting the recommendation included: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the. proposed projects. • The proposed detached garage will complement the architectural style of the home and not be detrimental to the adjacent historic structures. The information provided supporting the subject COA meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Ms. Repya added that she recommended the following conditions for approval: 1. The approval recommendation is subject to the plans presented, and 2. The placement of a year built plaque on the exterior of the new detached garage. Board members briefly discussed the proposed plan, agreeing the design was very nice — providing better living space for the property owners while at the same time complimenting the Mediterranean style home, and enhancing the property. Member Sussman inquired about the J Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes March 12, 2013 doors proposed for the garage. Homeowner, Brett Fenske explained that they will install wood carriage overhead doors, as well as a wood service door. After board members shared positive comments regarding the proposal, Member Mellom moved approval of the COA request subject to the plans presented and a year built plaque be installed on the exterior of the garage. Member Christiaansen seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. Welcome New Heritage Preservation Board Members Planner Repya introduced new HPB members Connie McDermott, Tim O'Brien, and Ryan Weber (Tracy Holton was absent), and the board spent some time getting acquainted. An HPB resource booklet was then distributed to all members; designed to provide easy access to pertinent information relative to the responsibilities of the HPB. The information provided was broken down into the following chapters: I. Board Member Information (Meeting schedule, City Map, Council & Planning Staff, etc.) II. Work Plan, Studies & Awards III. Bylaws /Ordinances /Governing Documents IV. Heritage Landmark Properties & Historic Resources V. Historic Country Club District The board thanked Planner Repya for providing a valuable tool to assist them in understanding the work of the HPB — both previous actions that have taken place as well as the vision for the future. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Update Status of 203 Work Plan The Board reviewed the 2013 work plan. All agreed that progress is being made on the work plan action items. Vice Chair Moore commented that he noted some of the items identified on Consultant Vogel's work plan don't appear to be reflected on the HPB plan — he suggested that as the 2014 plan is formulated that Mr. Vogel's plan is taken into consideration. The board agreed with Mr. Moore. No formal action was taken. B. Update — Consultant's 2013 Work Plan - No Report C. Updates from Standing Committees 1. Communication & Education — Video Clip Idea — No Report 2. Research and Landmark Designation of Eligible Edina Properties Member Moore reported that the informational meeting for the owners of properties . determined eligible for heritage landmark designation is being targeted for the May June time frame. Once the date is set, the invitation letters will be sent. D. Updates from Ad Hoc (Temporary) Committees 1. Southdale Center Preservation — No Report KI Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes March 12, 2013 Vill. OTHER BUSINESS - None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS IX. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Moore advised the board that the Annual Meeting of the HPB will take place at the next regular meeting on April 9`h. As set out in the HPB Bylaws, at the annual meeting the election of a Chair and Vice Chair takes place; the Bylaws are reviewed and updated if necessary; and the regular meeting schedule for the. upcoming year is affirmed. X. STAFF COMMENTS None VI. NEXT MEETING DATE April 9, 2013 XII. ADJOURNMENT . 8:00 p.m. Member Christiaansen moved for adjournment at 8:00 p.m. Member Mellom seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Repya 4 MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT CITY HALL APRIL 5, 2013 4:02 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hovland called the HRA meeting to order at 4:02 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Chair Hovland. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2013 APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Sprague and seconded by Commissioner Swenson approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority for March 19, 2013. Ayes: Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Commissioner Bennett entered the meeting at 4:04 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -05 AUTHORIZING FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT 3930 WEST 49% STREET ADOPTED Economic Development Manager Neuendorf explained the HRA previously entered into a purchase agreement to acquire the property at 3930 West 49 -1/2 Street for a price not to exceed $2,650,000. The purchase terms provided the HRA with a due diligence period to fully evaluate the property conditions. He noted recent environmental testing identified the strong possibility of soil contamination at the site possibly related to a dry cleaning operation in the 1970s and 1980s. The property owner has been made aware of these findings. Findings of this type are not unusual for a property of this age that has hosted numerous tenants and businesses. Continuing, Mr. Neuendorf stated the proposed First Amendment to the Purchase Agreement requested an additional 90 -days (July 1, 2013) to fully understand the extent of contamination and to determine a remediation strategy. He said the Seller was supportive of the proposed amendment. The costs associated with further environmental study would be borne by the HRA. After the site conditions were fully understood, a Second Amendment was anticipated to modify the purchase terms. Mr. Neuendorf said the additional studies would begin immediately with acquisition in summer of 2013 still anticipated. He explained that failure to execute the First Amendment in a timely manner would result in the HRA's full commitment to purchase the site as -is. If both parties were unable to execute, it would be in the HRA's best interest to terminate the original purchase agreement and renegotiate terms that reflected the site conditions. Thomas Nelson stated the seller was in agreement with the amendment to the purchase agreement. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Swenson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague adopting Resolution No. 2013 -05 authorizing the First Amendment to Purchase Agreement for the property at 3930 West 49 % Street. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Chair Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 4:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, 1 Scott Neal, Executive Director 10 J o e � N O IRYR To: Members of the Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority Agenda Item #: III. From: Bill Neuendorf lb-� Action Economic Development Manager Discussion Date: April 10, 2013 Information Subject: Resolution No. 2013- 06, Professional Services for Acquisition of 3930 West 49 -1/2 Street Action Requested: Adopt Resolution. Information / Background: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) previously entered into a purchase agreement to acquire the property at 3930 West 49-1/2 Street for a price not to exceed $2,650,000. The purchase terms provided the HRA with a due diligence period to fully evaluate the property conditions. At the HRA's request, Barr Engineering conducted a Phase I Environmental Assessment and limited Phase 2 environmental testing. Evidence of contaminants related to dry cleaning operations was discovered on the site and the Seller has agreed to additional time to more fully evaluate the conditions. Soil contamination is not an unusual finding when redeveloping properties in an aging business district such as 50th and France. The purpose of the additional testing is to fully understand the costs and time required to clean up the site. The costs of the environmental testing are the responsibility of the HRA. Based on the extent and nature of the contamination, the purchase price or acquisition terms could potentially be renegotiated. Barr Engineering proposes to conduct further testing to determine the extent of contamination. Once the full extent is known, a remediation plan can be developed in cooperation with the property owner and M PCA. To date, Barr has provided services valued at $15,200. This additional scope is likely to raise the full contract amount to $30,600. An additional $15,000 is requested to be authorized to allow for the development of a remediation plan. This final work, if needed, is proposed to be authorized by the HRA Executive Director and would bring the total value of the contract to $45,600. Attachments: Resolution No. 2013 -06 Barr Engineering Proposal dated April 10, 2013 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -06 AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR ACQUISITION OF 3930 WEST 49 -1/2 STREET WHEREAS, on February 5, 2013, the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved a purchase agreement to acquire real property located at 3930 West 49-1/2 Street; and WHEREAS, the HRA and property owner executed the agreement on February 11, 2013; and WHEREAS, during the course of the HRA's due diligence, evidence has emerged to indicate the presence of environmental contamination on the site consistent with dry cleaning operations; and WHEREAS, professional services are needed to further study the environmental conditions and determine a remediation strategy, if necessary; and WHEREAS, Barr Engineering has successfully completed the Phase I Environmental Assessment for the property and proposes further evaluation of the site for a total amount not to exceed $30,600. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority approves the Professional Services agreement with Barr Engineering and authorizes the Chair and Executive Director to execute the documents necessary to carry out the work BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event that additional professional services related to a remediation plan for the site are necessary, the Executive Director is authorized to amend this contract to a maximum total amount of $45,600. Dated: April 16, 2013. Attest: Ann Swenson, Secretary STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR James B. Hovland, Chair I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Executive Director for the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority at its Regular Meeting of April 6, 2013, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Special Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of Executive Director I* 4 resourceful. naturally. BARR engineering and environmental consultants April 10, 2013 Mr. Bill Neuendorf City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Proposal - limited Phase II Investigation 3930 491/2 Street West, Edina, Minnesota Dear Bill: Barr Engineering Company is pleased to submit this proposal for conducting a limited Phase II Investigation (Investigation) at 3930 49'/2 Street West, Edina, Minnesota (Property). The purpose of this Investigation is to confirm the absence or presence of shallow groundwater contamination associated with the findings of the Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) and Limited Phase II Investigation regarding the historic on -site dry cleaner and off -site dry cleaner located potentially upgradient. The previous Limited Phase I Investigation indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with dry cleaner operations in the soil and in soil gas beneath and immediately adjacent to the existing building. The analytical results of the Investigation will be used to determine if the shallow groundwater concentrations meet or exceed current Minnesota Department of Health's (MDH's) Health Risk Limits (HRLs). Scope of Work Barr will provide the following scope of work: • Update the project - specific health and safety plan (PHASP) prior to performing the site sampling visit. • Mobilize to the site. • Retain a drilling firm to advance up to four soil probes to 30 to 40 feet below the ground surface (bgs) that will be converted to temporary monitoring wells to collect shallow groundwater samples. Temporary monitoring well locations may vary depending on utility locations and accessibility in the field. • Observe the well installation, conduct field screening, and collect shallow groundwater samples. • Collect soil samples from the soil probes if the organic vapor readings as measured with a photoionization detector (P1D) exceed 10 parts per million (ppm). • Collect one groundwater sample from each temporary monitoring well and submit the samples for laboratory analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA method 8260. • Survey the ground surface and top of temporary well casing and collect spatial data. Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Mr. Bill Neuendorf April 10, 2013 Page 2 • Complete a file review, at MPCA's office, for the Hooten Cleaner property, located up- gradient from the Property. • Prepare a letter report, which presents the findings and results of the investigation and provides recommendations and conclusions for potential further actions based on these findings and results. Field tasks and documentation will be collected in accordance with Barr's standard operating procedures (SOPS) applicable to the project. Schedule Barr will plan to initiate the file review and conduct the field work during the week of April 15, 2013. A five -day turnaround time for the analytical results will be requested from Legend Technical Services, of St. Paul, Minnesota, to accommodate the project schedule. Assuming the field work starts on the scheduled date, Legend is able to provide results within the five -day turnaround time, and the files are readily accessible at MPCA's office, Barr will prepare a verbal report by April 29, 2013, a draft Phase Il letter report by May 3, 2013, and a final report upon receipt of comments. Estimated Cost Our estimated cost for completing the Investigation $15,400, and is broken down as follows: Cost estimate includes: • Roundtrip travel to Property • Field preparation (contracting, safety plan development, and coordination) • Field implementation (drilling and analytical fees included) • Project management • Conference calls and e-mail correspondence • File review at MPCA's office for the Hooten Cleaner site • Phase Il draft and final reports The cost assumes that Barr and its subcontractors will have access to the Property prior to and during the field work the week of April 15, 2013, and that the City of Edina will provide access to and permits for work within the sidewalk. Additionally, Barr assumes that no soil samples will be collected; however, as indicated above, if contaminated soil (PID reading above 10 ppm) is encountered, soil samples will be collected for chemical analysis for VOCs by EPA method 8260. You will be notified if contaminated soil is encountered. The cost to analyze additional soil samples is $82.50/ sample. Assuming the field work can be completed in two days, Barr is seeking an additional $15,400.00 for this work under Barr's February 27, 2013, contract with the City of Edina for a contract total of $30,600 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271292 Phase I ESA\ProjRiskMgmt\Phase 2 ProposahAdditional Phase 11\Revised Cost Estimate Letter 2nd Phase.doc Expense Breakdown Barr Labor Equipment + Barr Total (Field + Report) Expense Subcontractors Phase II Cost Estimate $9,900 $500 $5,000 $15,400 Cost estimate includes: • Roundtrip travel to Property • Field preparation (contracting, safety plan development, and coordination) • Field implementation (drilling and analytical fees included) • Project management • Conference calls and e-mail correspondence • File review at MPCA's office for the Hooten Cleaner site • Phase Il draft and final reports The cost assumes that Barr and its subcontractors will have access to the Property prior to and during the field work the week of April 15, 2013, and that the City of Edina will provide access to and permits for work within the sidewalk. Additionally, Barr assumes that no soil samples will be collected; however, as indicated above, if contaminated soil (PID reading above 10 ppm) is encountered, soil samples will be collected for chemical analysis for VOCs by EPA method 8260. You will be notified if contaminated soil is encountered. The cost to analyze additional soil samples is $82.50/ sample. Assuming the field work can be completed in two days, Barr is seeking an additional $15,400.00 for this work under Barr's February 27, 2013, contract with the City of Edina for a contract total of $30,600 P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271292 Phase I ESA\ProjRiskMgmt\Phase 2 ProposahAdditional Phase 11\Revised Cost Estimate Letter 2nd Phase.doc Mr. Bill Neuendorf April 10, 2013 Paae 3 (including the initial Phase I ESA ($2,900) and the previous Limited Phase lI Investigation ($12,300)). Barr will charge our costs on a time and expense basis and will not exceed the above cost estimate without prior approval from the City of Edina. Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by signing this proposal and returning a copy. Thank you for the opportunity to provide assistance on your project. If you have any questions, please call Mary Sands or me at 952- 832 -2740 or 952- 832 -2725, respectively. Sincerely yours, BARR ENGINEE ING COMPANY l rim-A. Aiken, RG, PG 11s vice President Accepted this day of 92013 Its a P: \Mpls\23 MN\27\23271292 Phase I ESA \ProjRiskMgmt \Phase 2 Proposal\Additional Phase 11\Revised Cost Estimate Letter 2nd Phase.doc 46 Approximate Property Boundary • Proposed Shallow Groundwater Sampling Location O Potential Shallow Groundwater Sampling Location 0 Feet 100 0 100 Figure 1 PROPOSED SAMPLING LOCATIONS 3930 49 1/2 Street West Edina, Minnesota ��O liv -ti � a�0��4�14�4 fp����4'd�,�'s����'t�ti 1��f 4��9�#0 Of � 40f�a� vp4att,�� it loi# lot I d bdf Qdgb$�e���� 4e��! tt4tti� tr0� $ a +lttf4 f tttofo ta 4t t d a j l�+ 14��1 t } ; f# 4t bfitt fttttit Oft 00 tt t i City Hall a 4801 W. 50th St- .,•Edina, MN 55424 801 'hone 952 - 927 -8861 • Fax 952 - 826 -0390 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: April I, 2013 Edina Board of Appeal and Equalization Members To: Edina Citv.Council Members From: Robert C. Wilson, City Assessor Re: Board of Appeal and Equalization 4 _ MEMO Beginning March 11, 2013 approximately 20,000 valuation notices were mailed to Edina property owners. Since this time, the assessing department has responded to over 110 calls from owners with questions and concerns regarding their new valuation notice. The review process is a key aspect of the mass appraisal system. Over the last three weeks, the assessing staff has reviewed the valuations on over 65 properties. When there is evidence that a property has been overvalued, its market value has been adjusted. These reviews have resulted in changes to approximately 58% of the properties. In the instances where the appraiser and property owner cannot come to a mutual agreement on valuation, the Board of Appeal and Equalization is one of several avenues for the owner to make an appeal. The following material has been prepared for the Board's meeting on Monday April 8, 2013. The Edina Assessing Department consists of Liz Lopez, Assessing Technician; Mitzi Wicklund, Assessing Technician; Adrienne Ledermann, Appraiser; Bev Moos, Appraiser; Nate Stulc, Appraiser, Shelagh Stoerzinger, Appraiser; and Bob Wilson, City Assessor. At the initial meeting, Board members will hear testimony from property owners. Assessing staff will be available to provide information and answer questions. No decisions will be made during this meeting. The assessing staff will prepare property review reports and provide copies to Board members prior to the April 22nd reconvened meeting, when the Board will make their final decisions. It has been the policy of the Board to sustain the assessor's valuations on commercial, apartment and industrial properties, and on all appeal applications received after the March 29th deadline. This allows the property owner to present their case to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization for their consideration. ON of Fr1inn • d801 West 50t6 Strapt • Fdinn. MN 55d2d 'c ` TABLE`OF CONTENTS' SECTION 1 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION - GENERAL 1. Letter of Transmittal .......................:................................. ..:.....:....::.....::......... 1 2. Board of.Appeal and Equalisation Rules and Procedures ..:...... ............................... 2 3. Local Board Meeting /Duties of the Local Board .......:..........:... ............................... A SECTION 2' ASSESSMENT /APPRAISAL INFORMATION 4: Edina 2013 Assessment Summary.. ......................................... ....................... 10 5. Sample Real Estate Valuation Notice .................:................ ............................... 16 6. Estimating Market Values ....... ............................................ :................................. 18 7. Historical Changes in Market Value ............... . .......................... .......................... 21 8. Residential Assessment ................................... ................ ............................. 24 9. Apartment and Commercial /Industrial Assessment ................ ............................... 41 10. 2013 Assessment Calendar .............................................. ........J...................... 43 SECTION 3 PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION 11. Simplified Chart of Property Tax Process .....:....................... ............................... 44 12. Property Tax Refunds and Programs .................................. ............................... 45 13. Market Value Exclusion on Homesteads.of Disabled Veterans ..... ............................... 46 14. Property Taxation 101 ........................:...........:................ ..............:.....:.:..:..... 47 15. Market Value Exclusion 101 .................................................. ............................... 53 SECTION 4 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION 16.' Sale and Resale Analysis Summary ........ ............................... 17. Article "Median Prices Up, Closed Sales Down.. ...................... ...................:........... 73 18. Article "Homes for Sale in Twin Cities at 10 -Year LovV ........... ............................... .57 19. 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market .............. ............................... 84 'c City of Edina BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION RULES AND PROCEDURES 1. GENERAL The following rules and procedures shall govern the Board of Appeal and Equalization in the exercise of the authority and responsibilities granted to it pursuant to Chapter 274 of the Minnesota Statutes. 2. MEETINGS a) The board shall conduct annual meetings and hearings in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01, subd. 1, and make preliminary determinations of property classification and assessment matters. The board meetings shall be conducted in the City Council Chamber of the City Hall. The City Clerk shall give published and posted notice of the meetings at least ten (10) days in advance thereof. b) All meetings of the board shall be considered open meetings and shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.705). c) The board shall elect a Chairperson who shall preside at all Board meetings, and shall have duties and responsibilities specifically prescribed by any applicable laws and regulations. d) There must be at least one member at each meeting, who has attended an appeals and equalization course required by M.S. 274.014, within the last four years. e) Board meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order. f) Three (3) members of the board must be present for a quorum to exist in order to conduct board reviews. Formal action may be taken by a majority of those members present at a meeting. g) Board meetings, shall be attended by the city assessor, and /or a designated city staff member, and a recording secretary. The board may also request the advice of the city attorney on legal issues which arise. r. h) Upon receipt of the completed applications of property owners or taxpayers, the city assessor shall schedule hearings thereon. Board meetings shall be held until all petitions have been heard. Each appellant will be allowed a maximum of ten(10) minutes to present any data or information relevant to the market value or classification of the subject property. i) The board shall take each petition under advisement and shall render its determination thereon at a subsequent meeting of the board. j) Board policy is to sustain the assessor's valuations on commercial, apartment and industrial properties, appeal applications received after the deadline, and walk -ins. This allows the property owner to present their case to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization for their consideration. k) A list of all appellants and copies of all assessor recommendations shall be sent to the local board for final consideration and decision not more than twenty (20) days from the commencement of the Board of Appeal and Equalization. 3. CONFLICTS: EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS a) When not in session, the board shall not accept or consider any ex parte communications concerning parcels being reviewed, except as requested by the board, at a regular board meeting, in order to render an equitable decision. b) A board member shall not participate in any actions of the board which result in market value adjustments or classification changes to property owned by the board member, the spouse, parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of a board member, or property in which a board member has a financial interest. The relationship may be by blood or marriage. If the board is faced with this scenario, the decision to continue with the appeal shall be made by the remaining members of the board (assuming there is still a quorum). If there is not a quorum, or the remaining board members feel that there may otherwise be a conflict of interest, "No Change" should be marked on the record form and the property owner shall be able to appeal to the county board. 3 The board meeting Who must attend the meeting - Local Boards Per Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.0 1, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), the town board of a town or the council or other governing body of a city is the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, except in the following situations: • Cities whose charters provide for a board of equalization; • Cities or towns that have transferred their local board duties to the county (see Chapter 5); • Cities with Special Boards of Appeal and Equalization appointed by the governing body (see Chapter 5); or • Cities or towns whose local board duties have been transferred due to noncompliance with the training requirements. When a Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes, a majority of the voting members (quorum) must be in attendance in order for any valid action to be taken (see Chapter 4 for more information about quorum requirements). The local assessor — when applicable — is required by law to be present with his/her assessment books and papers. The local assessor is required to take part in the proceedings to support his values or recommend a change, but the local assessor has no vote. He /she should be prepared to explain how the value was determined, and in doing so, the assessor should be able to describe the characteristics of the property, such as: location and neighborhood, public or private restrictions on the property, building type and size, quality of construction, age of the structure, physical condition of the structure, total number of rooms and total number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and market conditions, etc. The local assessor should be knowledgeable about the local real estate market and the property in the area. While it is not the goal of the assessor to influence the board, the assessor should provide factual information to support the value and classification or to support a recommended change to a subject property. The local assessor also should be able to explain how the property classification was determined. In addition to the local assessor, the county assessor or one of his/her assistants is required to attend. The board should ask the local and/or county assessors to present any tables that have been prepared, making comparisons of the current assessments in the district. Either the local or county assessor is required to have maps and tables relating particularly to agricultural land values for the guidance of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. The local board should be prepared to ask the local and county assessors questions, and assessors should be prepared to answer questions and provide information that will assist the board in its deliberations. Meeting dates and times for the local board The meeting date and time for the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is set by the county assessor. The county assessor must provide written notice of the date and time to the city or town clerk by February 15 of each year. The clerk shall publish and post notice of the meeting at least 10 days before the date of the meeting. The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting must be held between April l and May 31 of each year (unless the provisions of a charter provide otherwise). The local board must conduct its business and adjourn within 20 days of the date stated in the published notice. Upon request, the Department of Revenue (at its discretion) may grant extensions beyond the 20 -day time period to da date no later than May 31. No changes may be made by the local board after adjourning. The county assessor also may not make any changes in valuation or classification that are intended to correct errors in judgment by the county assessor after the local board has adjourned. However, the county assessor may make changes that are clerical in nature or changes that extend homestead treatment until the tax extension date for that assessment year. A list of all the changes made by the local board must be fully documented and maintained in the assessor's office and must be available for review by any person. A copy of the changes made during this period in those cities or towns that hold a local board must be sent to the county board no later than December 31 of the assessment year. Role of the board in the assessment process ' 4 Who must attend the meeting County Boards Per Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.13, subdivision 1, the county commissioners, with the county auditor, or, if the auditor cannot be present, the deputy county auditor, or, if there is no deputy, the court administrator of the district court, shall form a board for the equalization of the assessment of the property of the county, including the property of all cities whose charters provide for a board of equalization. When a County Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes, a majority of the members (quorum) must be in attendance in order for any valid action to be taken (see Chapter 4 for more information about quorum requirements). The county assessor is required by law to attend the meeting of the county board of equalization. He /she takes part in the proceedings to support values and classifications or to recommend changes to the board but is not a voting member of the board. The county assessor investigates and reports on any assessment ordered by the county board and enters all changes made by the board in the assessment books. The county assessor should be prepared to explain how the value was determined, and in doing so, the assessor should describe the characteristics of the property, such as: location and neighborhood; public or private restrictions on the property; building type and size; quality of construction; age of the structure; physical condition of the structure; total number of rooms and total number of bedrooms and bathrooms; and market conditions, etc. The county assessor is knowledgeable about the local real estate market and the property in the area. He /she provides factual information to support the value or to support a recommended change to a subject property. The county assessor also should explain how the property classification was determined and why the classification is appropriate or why it should be changed. While the County Board of Appeal and Equalization is in session, the county assessor assists the board in performing its duties. The assessor shall famish the board with all necessary charts, tables, comparisons, and data which it requires in its deliberations, and shall make whatever investigations the board may desire. The county assessor should present any information that has been prepared, making comparisons of the current Role of the local board in the assessment process assessments in the county. The county assessor is required to have maps and tables relating particularly to agricultural land values for the guidance of the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. The board should be prepared to ask the county assessor questions, and the county assessor should be prepared to answer questions and provide information that will assist the board in its deliberations. Meeting dates and times for the county board The board may meet on any 10 consecutive meeting days in June, after the second Friday in June. The actual meeting dates must be contained on the Notice of Valuation and Classification mailed to each property owner in the county. New legislation resulting from the 2008 session now allows the board to meet on Saturdays. The legislation also requires at least one meeting must not end prior to 7:00 pm. Similarly, if the board requires appointments, some of the available times must extend until at least 7:00 pm. The Saturday meeting may be in lieu of the extended meeting time requirement. No action taken by the County Board of Appeal and Equalization after June 30 is valid, except for corrections that are clerical in nature or changes that extend homestead treatment until the tax extension date for that assessment year. Any such changes made by the assessor after adjournment must be fully documented and maintained in a file in the assessor's office and shall be available for review by any person. A copy of any changes made by the assessor during this period shall be sent to the county board no later than December 31 of the assessment year. The county auditor shall keep an accurate record of the proceedings and orders of the board. The record must be published like other proceedings of county commissioners. A copy of the published record must be sent to the commissioner of revenue, with the abstract of assessment. Documenting board actions Before adjourning, the Board of Appeal. and Equalization must prepare an official record of all actions taken by the board. This means that the board must prepare an official record of the proceedings. The 'reeord must reflect UD board actions. Therefore, the record must list all: • Assessments of property added to the tax rolls with the market value for each local boards only; • Appeals brought before the board, indicating the action taken by the board (including all appeals in which the board voted "no change "); • All blanket changes (changes to an entire class of property) county boards only; • Assessments that have been increased or decreased with the market value for each; • All classification changes; and • All changes that the county assessor brought to the board for action, indicating the action taken by the board. For each meeting, .a certification form must be signed and dated by the members of the board who were present at the meeting. The certification form must also list the names and titles of all voting members of the board, including those who are present and those who are absent, to verify that the quorum and training requirements were met. The county assessor is to make all changes ordered by the board that are authorized by law. Required forms for documenting board actions County assessors are required to submit any changes made by the Local and County Boards of Appeal and Equalization to the Commissioner of Revenue, along with a copy of the proceedings of each board. For local boards, this must be done within 10 working days following final action of the local board. For county boards, this must be done within 5 working days of the final action. The information must be filed in the manner prescribed by the Commissioner of Revenue (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 270C and Section 270C.89 subdivision 1). In recent years, there has been increasing interest by the legislature and others in the number of appeals at the local level and the effect of the changes that were made. However, because of the manner in which many counties submit this information, the Department of Revenue has not been able to respond to requests for this information. Therefore, we are requiring that the counties provide the data in a format that is complete, readable and easily interpreted. Each county will be required to submit this information in an electronic format as instructed by the Department of Revenue. To ensure that the information is consistent from local jurisdiction to local jurisdiction and from county to county, the Department of Revenue requires that each board complete the following two forms for each meeting: • Board ofAppeal and Equalization Certification Form — must be completed and signed to verify that the quorum and training requirements were met and to provide a summary of board actions; and • Board ofAppeal and Equalization Record Form — must be completed to provide a detailed report of the proceedings of the board. The county assessor will provide these forms to the board. The board will complete the forms (the jurisdiction total EMV is to be completed by the assessor), and the county assessor will take possession of the completed forms at the end of the meeting. A Certification Form must be completed in the case of a reconvene meeting. If a recess is called, a quorum and trained member must also be present at the reconvene meeting for the board to take valid action. To verify that the quorum requirement was met, the board must complete and sign a Certification Form for each reconvene meeting. The board will continue to complete the original Record Form at each reconvene meeting. The reconvene meeting(s) must be held and all business of the local board must be concluded within 20 calendar days (including the day of the initial meeting) unless the board requests a time extension in writing from the Department of Revenue and the time extension is granted by the department (no extensions will be . granted beyond May 31). For county boards, no action may be taken after June 30. The date and time for the reconvene meeting must be determined before the initial meeting is recessed. Once the Board of Appeal and Equalization has adjourned, it cannot reconvene. Role of the board in the assessment process 6 Duties of the board The board is to determine whether all of the taxable property in the jurisdiction has been properly valued and classified for the current assessment. All property is to be valued at its market value, and all property is to be classified according to use. At the county level, the board is to ensure equalization from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well. The county board is required by law that each member take an oath to fairly and impartially perform duties as a member. It is assumed that the assessor has properly valued and classified all the property in the jurisdiction. The burden of proof rests with the property owner who must present factual evidence to disprove the assessor's value or classification. The complaints and objections of property owners appealing individual assessments for the current year should be considered very carefully by the board. An appeal may be made in person, by letter, or through a representative of the owner. Written objections should be filed prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeal and Equalization and must be presented to the board for consideration while it is in session. The board must hear all complaints and examine all letters. Such assessments must be reviewed in detail, and the board has the authority to make corrections as it deems to be just. The board may recess from day to day until all cases have been heard. The board should look for improvements that are not on the tax rolls. When improvements are missing from the tax rolls, an unfair burden falls upon the owners of all properties that have been assessed. If the board finds any improvements that are not on the tax rolls, the board should place it on the assessment list along with its market value, and correct the assessment so that each tract or lot of real property and each article, parcel or class of personal property is entered on the assessment list at its market value. Prohibition on changes within 10 days of local board meeting Since the Notice of Valuation and Classification must be mailed to taxpayers at least 10 days prior to the meeting of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, the assessor should not make changes to the valuation or classification of a property within that 10 -day window without bringing the change to the local board for action. Role of the local board in the assessment process 7 After receiving the notice, the property owner can contact the assessor to discuss questions or concerns. The assessor can make changes to the valuation or classification without bringing the change to the local board if a new notice is mailed to the property owner at least 10 days prior to the local board meeting. Oftentimes, the assessor will continue to review properties within 10 days of the local board meeting. However, if the assessor makes a change, that change should be brought to the local board for action. If the property owner agrees with the change, he/she does not need to personally appeal to the board. Instead, the assessor should present such changes to be voted on by the board. What the board can do Reduce the value of a property. The board may reduce the value of a property if the facts show that the property is assessed at a value that is higher than its market value. All property is to be valued at its market value. It is assumed that the assessor has properly valued the property. The burden of proof rests with the property owner who must present factual evidence to disprove the assessor's value. Increase the value of a property. The board may increase the value of a property if the facts show that the property is assessed at a value that is lower than its market value. The board must also base the decision to increase the market value on facts. All property is to be valued at its market value. It is assumed that the assessor has properly valued the property. The board must rely on factual evidence to disprove the assessor's value. Before the board raises the market value of a property, it must notify the owner. The law does not prescribe any particular form of notice, except that the person whose property is to be increased in assessment must be notified of the intent of the board to make the increase. The owner must be notified either in writing or orally. He/she should be given a time to appear before the board. After the hearing, the board should make any corrections that it deems just. Add improvements to the assessment lisp In reviewing the individual assessments, the board may find instances where property is not listed at its market value because the value of a building or other improvement was not included when the market value of the property was A member of the board can't make changes to property in which he/she has a conflict of interest or financial interest. If a property being appealed is owned by a board member, a board member's spouse, parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece, by blood or marriage, the board member is prohibited from participating in the actions of the board for that appeal. The board member is also prohibited from participating in an appeal of a property in which a board member has a financial interest. If the remaining members constitute a quorum, the board may vote on the action with the compromised board member abstaining from the vote. Otherwise, or if the._board wishes to prevent any perception of preferential treatment, it should mark "No change" on the record form for the meeting. The taxpayer will be eligible to appeal to the next appeal level (County Board, Tax Court). The board can't grant special program status If a property owner is appealing for enrollment in special programs that require an application (e.g. Green Acres), they must follow the proper application procedure. The local board can't make changes benefiting a property owner who refuses entry by the assessor. The board may not make an individual market value adjustment or classification change that would benefit the property in cases where the owner or other person having control over the property will not permit the assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any buildings or structures. The county board is not statutorily precluded from making a change based on the property owner's refusal to allow the assessor access to view the property. However, simply because the statute does not explicitly preclude the county board from making such a change, it is strongly recommended that the county board not grant any reduction in value until the property owner has allowed the assessor access to view the property. It seems obvious that for an assessor to make a fair and knowledgeable value estimate, he /she must first be allowed to view the entire property. Until such access is granted, the county board should not grant a value reduction. The local board can't order percentage increases or decreases for an entire class of property. The county board can't add properties to the . assessment list. It can request that the auditor place such omitted properties on the tax rolls. Recommendations for board members Become familiar with sales information prior to board meeting Most board members are not necessarily aware of current trends in the real estate market or trained in the field of appraisal. Therefore, advance preparation is essential to making informed, fair decisions on the appeals heard by the local board. The county assessor (or the local or city assessor in some instances) should provide information on the real estate market in advance of the board meeting. If this information is not provided, the board should request that the assessor provide the information at least one week prior to the meeting so board members have time to review it. The following are examples of the type of data that the assessor may provide for the board to use when determining if an adjustment is necessary. This is not an all- encompassing list, and depending on the jurisdiction, Role of the local board in the assessment process it may or may not be necessary for every board to have all the items on the fist. The board should work with the assessor to determine the specific information to be supplied to the board. • Information on sales within the district that occurred in the previous year. • Valuation tables of land types. • Copy of the values from the mini - abstract for the district (current year and prior year). • Printout of parcel listings for the district with the values. • Review of the current statutory classifications and the corresponding class rates. • Review of value changes by property type in the district. The board should also be prepared to request additional background information and to ask questions of the-assessor in order -to assist with the board's deliberations. estimated. These should be carefully reviewed by the board and placed on a tentative list of property values to be increased. The board should then determine to what extent the valuation of such property should be increased. Before the board adds value for new or overlooked improvements, it must notify the owner. Change the classification of aproperty. In Minnesota, property is classified according to its use on the assessment date (January 2 of each year). If the property is not currently being used, it is classified according to its most probable, highest and best use. Property owners do not get to choose how they want their property to be classified. It is the assessor'sjob to classify it according to its current use or its most probable, highest and best use. The board can change the classification of any property which in the board's opinion is not properly classified. Again, it is assumed that the assessor has classified the property correctly. The classification must be based on use, and in order for the board to change the classification, the appellant must present evidence that the property is used in a manner consistent with the classification. Local Boards Only. Add properties to the assessment RA If the board finds that any real or personal property has not been entered onto the assessment list, the board shall place it on the assessment list along with its market value, and correct the assessment so that each tract and lot of real property and all personal property is entered on the assessment list at its market value. County Boards Only. Order percentage increases or decreases for an entire class ofproperty (blanket changes). The county board can order a percentage increase or decrease to an entire class of property if it feels that the original assessment is incorrect. These increases or decreases can be on land alone, buildings alone, or land and buildings together. The county board does not need to notify the property owners affected by blanket changes. Additionally, the county board has the authority to make changes to market values or classifications established by local boards as it deems appropriate. The County Assessor typically brings these changes to the county board's attention. What the board can't do The board can't consider prior year assessments The Board of Appeal and Equalization does not have the authority in any year to reopen former assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The board considers only the assessments that are in process in the current year. Occasionally, a property owner may appear with a tax statement and protest the taxes or assessment of the previous year. The board should explain tactfully that it does not have the authority to consider such matters. After taxes have been extended, adjustments can be made only by the process of application for abatement or by legal action. The board can't reduce the aggregate assessment by more than I percent Although the both Local and County Boards of Appeal and Equalization have the authority to increase or reduce individual assessments, the County Board alone can increase or reduce the assessments of an entire class of property. However the total of all adjustments for both local and county boards must not reduce the aggregate assessment of the jurisdiction by more than 1 percent. The "aggregate assessment" is the total EMV that the board has the authority to change, i.e. the total EMV of assessments within the jurisdiction excluding state assessed property. For example, if the total EMV of a Assessor's EMV + Total board EMV increases - Total board EMV reductions EMV after board actions jurisdiction is $2,000,000, the board cannot reduce the total EMV of the jurisdiction by more than $20,000. This means the EMV after all board actions must be at least $1,980,000. If the total amount of adjustments made by the board does lower the aggregate assessment by more than 1 percent, none of the adjustments will be allowed. This limitation does not apply, however, to the correction of clerical errors or to the removal of duplicate assessments. Clerical errors are limited to errors made by someone performing a clerical function during the course of the actual assessment. Examples of clerical errors are errors such as transposing numbers or mathematical errors. Errors that occur when making estimations during the inspection and appraisal process (judgment errors) are not considered to be clerical errors. The board can't exempt property. The Board of Appeal and Equalization does not have the authority to grant an exemption or to order property removed from the tax rolls. Role of the board in the assessment process SUMMARY The 2013 property assessment has been completed, and property owners received a Notice of Estimated Market Value in mid- March. The 2013 property assessment applies to property taxes payable in 2014 and reflects sales that have occurred between October 2011 and September 2012. Key points of the 2013 property assessment include: U) i 0 m • The total estimated market value for Edina in 2013 is $9.06 billion, an increase of approximately $133 million, or 1.5 percent greater than the $8.93 billion total in 2012. Approximately 80 percent of the total market value comes from residential properties, while 20 percent comes from commercial, industrial, and apartment properties. 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Assessment Year • Average 2013 market value changes are listed below for the major property classifications: Single family residential 0.0% Doubles 0.9% Zero -Lot Lines -0.1% Townhomes -1.0% Condominiums -2.3% Commercial 2.2% Industrial -0.3% Apartments 1.7% 10 Similar to the previous year, commercial values have held more of their value than residential properties. The result is a continuing shift of the property tax burden from residential to commercial properties. • For 2013, most single - family residential properties received statistical adjustments from 0 percent to -3 percent. After five years of consecutive decreases, the market has stabilized and appears to be improving. These adjustments are based on the specific characteristics of the property, its location, and comparisons to actual selling prices. This approach results in similar market value adjustments for like properties throughout the city. • Comparisons with other cities for 2013 indicate an average change of -0.8 percent for southwestern suburban cities. Edina is one of three of these cities with flat or slightly positive growth for single family properties. • Distribution of the 2013 percentage changes in value by residential property type: City of Edina Single Family Change in EMV 2412 -2413 11 Decrease > -30/0 ■ Dccremc -1 to -3% i 7 No Change ■ Increase Ito 3% EH Increase 4 t 6% ■ increase > 6% 3% 8% 43° 2013 Assessment City of Edina Condominiums Change in E M V 2012 -2013 16% 8% 9% 7. 6% 6% ■ Decrease > -10% ■ Decrease -7 to -10% ■ Decrease -4 to -6% ■ Decrease -1 to -3% n No Change Increase 1 to 3% [ ? Increase 4 to 6% Increase > 61/o City of EdinaTownhomes Change in EMV 2012 -2013 ■ Decrease > -9% 12% 30% ■ Decrease -3 to -9% tj No Change ■ Increase 3 to 5% 37% iii Increase > 5% 12 • The accuracy and equity of the property assessment are evaluated through two statistical measures: the sales ratio and the coefficient of dispersion (COD). The sales ratio is the assessor's estimated market value divided by the actual selling price. For 2013, Edina's overall sales ratio is 95.8 percent, indicating a desirable level of assessment. The COD measures how far the assessor's market values deviate from the median ratio. For 2013, the COD is 5.2 which would indicate an equitable assessment. • Adjustment to Sales Ratio Relative to Hennepin County Target - The standard that assessors use to measure the accuracy of the assessment is the change in sales ratio for the state mandated sales study period of October 2011 through September 2012, not the annual change in the median sale price of properties. For the 2013 assessment, the ratios.for sales that occurred between October 2011 and September 2012 were as follows: Single- family residential 95.3% Doubles 88.8% Zero -lot lines 98.4% Townhouses 95.1% Condominiums 98.4% The target ratio defined for each property type by Hennepin County is 95 percent. As a result, many residential properties remained unchanged or had slight decreases for 2013. Changes to townhouse and condo properties were made by analyzing sales from each individual complex. Value changes for single - family properties were made based on a variety of factors, including location, style, quality class, and price point. The appeals process is an important part of the annual property assessment. Residents having questions about their 2013 Notice of Estimated Market Value are urged to contact the assessing. department. This allows staff to discuss the property characteristics and, where needed, conduct an on -site review. Property owners must complete ,an application by March 29 2013, to appeal their value to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, which convenes April 8, 2013. 13 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 SALES RATIO 95.0 96.0 95.5 95.7 95.7 95.8 95.8 COD 6.8 5.7 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.5 5.2 • Adjustment to Sales Ratio Relative to Hennepin County Target - The standard that assessors use to measure the accuracy of the assessment is the change in sales ratio for the state mandated sales study period of October 2011 through September 2012, not the annual change in the median sale price of properties. For the 2013 assessment, the ratios.for sales that occurred between October 2011 and September 2012 were as follows: Single- family residential 95.3% Doubles 88.8% Zero -lot lines 98.4% Townhouses 95.1% Condominiums 98.4% The target ratio defined for each property type by Hennepin County is 95 percent. As a result, many residential properties remained unchanged or had slight decreases for 2013. Changes to townhouse and condo properties were made by analyzing sales from each individual complex. Value changes for single - family properties were made based on a variety of factors, including location, style, quality class, and price point. The appeals process is an important part of the annual property assessment. Residents having questions about their 2013 Notice of Estimated Market Value are urged to contact the assessing. department. This allows staff to discuss the property characteristics and, where needed, conduct an on -site review. Property owners must complete ,an application by March 29 2013, to appeal their value to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, which convenes April 8, 2013. 13 The Residential Real Estate Market - The Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors (MAAR) reported that the median sales price in Edina was $343,875 in 2012, an increase of 1.4 percent from the 2011 median of $339,000. These sales include single - family, doubles, zero lot - lines, condominiums and townhomes. as N 4- 0 L E Z Z 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Number of Sales by Sales Price Less than $200,000 to 400,000 to $600,000 to Greater than $199,999 5399,999 5599,999 S999,999 S1,000,000 ®2011 o2012 Edina had the second lowest percentage of distressed sales in the 13- County Twin Cities Region at 11.8 percent. The lowest percentage was the City of North Oaks at 7.2 percent. Distressed sales include foreclosures and short sales. Short sales occur when the lender allows the property to be sold for less than the outstanding mortgage balance. Some cities have shown a significant decline in housing values and have been greatly impacted by the high volume of foreclosures. MAAR data for Brooklyn Center for instance, indicates that 55 percent of the sales were lender mediated. (see page 15 ) 14 Changes in Median Sales Price by Area 2011 to 2012 Residential Sales (includes: single - family, condos and townhomes) Distressed sales as a Bloomington 1,091 27% $170,875 9% 33% Brooklyn 528 3% $95,000 15% 55% Center Brooklyn 1,271 9% $146,000 15% 52% Park Eden Prairie 922 22% $257,000 0% 28% Edina 952 36% $343,875 1% 12 % l i 1 Golden 309 14% $218,500 10% 24% Valley i Hopkins I 204 21% $159,950 28% 38% Maple Grove 1,165 15% $219,700 3% 32% Minnetonka 805 23% $255,000 9% 23% New Hope 226 10% $155,000 23% 42% Plymouth I 1,103 18% $276,250 13% 21% Richfield 544 19% $155,000 10% 34% St. Louis 805 17% $198,000 7% 27% Park Source: Regional Multiple Listing Service * Includes Lender -Owned Foreclosures and Short Sales 15 i City of Edina 4801 West 50e Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 Important: Property Tax Information Valuation Notice for 2013 Your assessor's contact information l City of Edina Assessor's Office 4801 West 501h Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 (952) 826 -0365 FAX: (952) 826 -0389 TTY: (952) 826-0379 Your Property's Classification(s) and Values Taxes Payable in 2013 Taxes Payable in 2014 (2012 Assessment) (2013 Assessment) TheAssessor has determined your property's classi lcation(s) to be: Residential Residential Homestead Homestead ❑ If this box is checked, your classification has changed from last year's assessment. The Assessor has estimated your property's market value to be: Estimated Market Value (EMV) $348,000 $348,000 Several factors can reduce the amount that is subject to tax: Green Acres Value Deferral: Open Space Deferral: Rural Preserve Value Deferral: Platted Vacant Land Exclusion: This Old House Exclusion: Disabled Veterans Exclusion: Mold Damage Exclusion: Homestead Market Value Exclusion: $5,900 $5,900 Taxable Market Value (TMV): $342,600 $342,600 The following values (if any) are reflected in your estimated and taxable market values: New Improvement Value: The Classification(s) of your property affect the rate at which your value is taxed. How to Respond If you believe your valuation and property class are correct, it is not necessary to contact your assessor or attend any listed meetings. If the property information is not correct, you disagree with the values, or have other questions about this notice, please contact your assessor first to discuss any questions or concerns. Often your issues can be resolved at this level. If your questions or concems are not resolved, more formal appeal options are available. Please read the back of this notice for important information about the formal appeal process. The following meetings are available to discuss or appeal your value and classification: Local Board of Appeal and Equalization County Board of Appeal and Equalization 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 8, 2013 Monday, June 17, 2013 Council Chambers, Edina City Hall Hennepin County Government Center 4801 West 501h Street. 300 South 61h Street, Minneapolis MN 55487 Edina, MN 55424 -1394 Appointments are required and available through 7:00 p.m. Applications are requested by March 29, 2013 To make an appointment, call (612) 348 -7050 by May 22, 2013 16 Property tax notices are delivered on the following schedule: 2013 Values for Taxes Payable in Your Property's Classification(s) and Values Taxes Payable in 2013 Taxes Payable in 2014 (2012 Assessment) (2013 Assessment) TheAssessor has determined your property's classi lcation(s) to be: Residential Residential Homestead Homestead ❑ If this box is checked, your classification has changed from last year's assessment. The Assessor has estimated your property's market value to be: Estimated Market Value (EMV) $348,000 $348,000 Several factors can reduce the amount that is subject to tax: Green Acres Value Deferral: Open Space Deferral: Rural Preserve Value Deferral: Platted Vacant Land Exclusion: This Old House Exclusion: Disabled Veterans Exclusion: Mold Damage Exclusion: Homestead Market Value Exclusion: $5,900 $5,900 Taxable Market Value (TMV): $342,600 $342,600 The following values (if any) are reflected in your estimated and taxable market values: New Improvement Value: The Classification(s) of your property affect the rate at which your value is taxed. How to Respond If you believe your valuation and property class are correct, it is not necessary to contact your assessor or attend any listed meetings. If the property information is not correct, you disagree with the values, or have other questions about this notice, please contact your assessor first to discuss any questions or concerns. Often your issues can be resolved at this level. If your questions or concems are not resolved, more formal appeal options are available. Please read the back of this notice for important information about the formal appeal process. The following meetings are available to discuss or appeal your value and classification: Local Board of Appeal and Equalization County Board of Appeal and Equalization 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 8, 2013 Monday, June 17, 2013 Council Chambers, Edina City Hall Hennepin County Government Center 4801 West 501h Street. 300 South 61h Street, Minneapolis MN 55487 Edina, MN 55424 -1394 Appointments are required and available through 7:00 p.m. Applications are requested by March 29, 2013 To make an appointment, call (612) 348 -7050 by May 22, 2013 16 Property tax notices are delivered on the following schedule: Property ID Number Valuation and Classification Notice 18- 028 -24 -31 -0000 Step Class: Residential See details Estimated Market Value: $348,500 Below. Prooefit Location: Homestead Exclusion: $ . 5,900 1234 Oaklawn Avenue Taxable Market Value: $342,600 Proposed Taxes Notice Taxpayer(s) Step 2013 Tax: Joe Mary Smith �] 2014 Proposed: Coming November 2013 and L Change: Property Tax'Statement Step Taxes Due May15: .` Taxes Due October 151Nov.15* 3 *Agricultural Coming March 2014 Class: Total Taxes Due in 2014: NOW is the time to question or appeal your CLASSIFICATION or VALUATION! it will be too late when proposed taxes are sent. Your Property's Classification(s) and Values Taxes Payable in 2013 Taxes Payable in 2014 (2012 Assessment) (2013 Assessment) TheAssessor has determined your property's classi lcation(s) to be: Residential Residential Homestead Homestead ❑ If this box is checked, your classification has changed from last year's assessment. The Assessor has estimated your property's market value to be: Estimated Market Value (EMV) $348,000 $348,000 Several factors can reduce the amount that is subject to tax: Green Acres Value Deferral: Open Space Deferral: Rural Preserve Value Deferral: Platted Vacant Land Exclusion: This Old House Exclusion: Disabled Veterans Exclusion: Mold Damage Exclusion: Homestead Market Value Exclusion: $5,900 $5,900 Taxable Market Value (TMV): $342,600 $342,600 The following values (if any) are reflected in your estimated and taxable market values: New Improvement Value: The Classification(s) of your property affect the rate at which your value is taxed. How to Respond If you believe your valuation and property class are correct, it is not necessary to contact your assessor or attend any listed meetings. If the property information is not correct, you disagree with the values, or have other questions about this notice, please contact your assessor first to discuss any questions or concerns. Often your issues can be resolved at this level. If your questions or concems are not resolved, more formal appeal options are available. Please read the back of this notice for important information about the formal appeal process. The following meetings are available to discuss or appeal your value and classification: Local Board of Appeal and Equalization County Board of Appeal and Equalization 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 8, 2013 Monday, June 17, 2013 Council Chambers, Edina City Hall Hennepin County Government Center 4801 West 501h Street. 300 South 61h Street, Minneapolis MN 55487 Edina, MN 55424 -1394 Appointments are required and available through 7:00 p.m. Applications are requested by March 29, 2013 To make an appointment, call (612) 348 -7050 by May 22, 2013 16 wa ^rte City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 Important: Property Tax Information Valuation Notice for 2013 Appealing the value or , classification of your property Informal Appeal — Contact your assessor If you have questions or disagree with the classification or estimated market value for your property for 2013, please contact your assessor's office first to discuss your concerns. Often your issues can be resolved at this level. Contact information for your assessor's office is on the other side of this notice. Formal appeal options If your questions or concerns are not resolved after meeting with your assessor, you have two formal appeal options. Option 1: The Board of Appeal and Equalization You may appear before the Board of Appeal and Equalization in person, through a letter, or through a representative authorized by you. The meeting times and locations are on the other side of this notice. °' You must have presented your case to the Local Board of.Appeal and Equalization BEFORE going to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. • Step 1— Local Board of Appeal and Equalization If you believe your value or classification is incorrect, you may bring your case to the - Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, Please call your Assessor's Office first, an application is requested no later than Friday, March 29, 2013. • Step.2 — County Board of Appeal and Equalization If the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization did not resolve your concerns, you may bring your case to the Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization. To appear before the County Board of Appeal and Equalization, you must have first appealed to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. You must call in advance to get on the agenda. The deadline for making an appointment with the County Board of Appeal and Equalization is May 22, 2013, and the number to call is (612) 348 -7050. Option 2: Minnesota Tax Court Small Claims Division — You may take your case directly to the Small Claims Division of Tax Court if: • The assessor's estimated market value of your property is less than $300,000; or • The entire parcel.is classified as a residential homestead (1a or 1b) and the parcel contains no more than one dwelling unit; or • The entire property is classified as an agricultural homestead (2a or 1b), or • You are appealing the denial of a current year application for homestead classification of your property. Regular Division — Regardless of your property type or the nature of your claim, you always have the option to file directly with the Regular Division of Tax Court. You have until April 30, 2014, to file an appeal with the Small Claims Division or the Regular Division of Tax Court for your 2013 valuation and classification. For more information, contact Minnesota Tax Court 25 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd, Room 245, St Paul.MN 55115 Phone: (651) 296 -2806 or 1- 800 -627 -3529 Website: www.taxcourt.state.mn.us Postage Permit #123ABC - Joe and Mary Smith 1234 Oaklawn Avenue Edina,.MN 55424 -1924 Definitions Disabled Veterans Exclusion — Qualifying veterans may be eligible for a valuation exclusion on their homestead property.. Estimated Market Value — This value is what the assessor estimates your property would likely sell for on the open market. Green Acres — Applies to productive agricultural property that is facing increasing values due to development pressures not related to the agricultural value of the land. The assessor arrives at this lower value by looking at what comparable agricultural land is selling for in areas where there is no development pressure. The taxes on the higher value are deferred until the property is sold, transferred, withdrawn, or no longer qualifies for the program. Homestead Market Value Exclusion — Applies to residential homesteads and to the house, garage, and one acre of land on agricultural homesteads. The exclusion is a maximum of $30,400 at $76,000 of market value, and then decreases by nine percent for value over $76,000. The exclusion phases out for properties valued at $413,800 or more. New Improvement —This is the assessor's estimate of the value of new or previously unassessed improvements made to your property. Plat Deferment — For land that has been recently platted (divided into individual lots) but not yet improved with a structure, the increased market value due to platting is phased -in over time. If construction begins or the lot is sold before expiration of the phase -in period, the lot will be assessed at full market value in the next assessment. Rural Deferment — Applies to class 2b rural vacant land that is part of a farm homestead or that had previously been enrolled in Green Acres, if it is contiguous to ag land enrolled in Green Acres. This value may not exceed the Green Acres value for tilled lands. The taxes on the higher value are deferred for as long as the property qualifies. Taxable Market Value — This is the value that your property taxes are actually based on, after all reductions. This Old House Exclusion — This program expired with the 2003 assessment However, property may still be receiving the value exclusion under this program . Qualifying properties with improvements that increased the estimated market value by $5,000 or more were eligible to have some of the value deferred for a maximum of 10 years. After this time, the deferred value is phased in. For additional information about assessment services: http: / /wvvw.hennepin.us For more information on appeals, please visit the Department of Revenue website: http: //www.revenue.state.mn.us Property information can also be viewed by the public at your assessor's office between 8:00 and 4:30 Monday through Friday. The assessor's address and phone number are listed on the other side of this notice. 17 ESTIMATING MARKET VALUES The purpose of the assessment process is to make an accurate estimate of the market value of each parcel of property, every year. Doing so requires current information about the properties being assessed, and about the local real estate market. The Edina Assessing Office maintains a record of every property in the City, including its size, location, physical characteristics, and condition. This record is updated whenever new information becomes available — as the result of the five -year reappraisal, or when improvements are made to the property, or when the property owner requests a physical review. This information is computerized, allowing statistical comparisons of properties by type and location. It is important to know that assessors must out of necessity use a mass appraisal process for valuing residential property, and the mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by ,banks, mortgage companies and others. The mass appraisal system used in Edina involves the comparison of properties with actual residential market sales from the same neighborhood and throughout the city. New houses, additions, and remodeling are valued based on their individual characteristics and the current costs of construction. Having the local assessment system operate effectively requires as much information about the local real estate market as possible. The Assessing Office makes a record of all property sales, using the Certificate of Real Estate Value (or CRV) filed at Hennepin County for each property sale. This information is augmented with regular sales information obtained from the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and other sources. The Assessing staff also examines multiple sales — properties that have sold more than once over a period of a few years. After taking into account any physical changes that may have occurred, the Assessor is able to determine what is happening to the real estate market over that period of time. In all cases, the sales information collected by the Assessing Office is closely scrutinized. Evidence suggesting a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a relative, or anything but an arms - length transaction results in the sales information being discarded. This is important, because the real estate sales information constitutes the data -base for the statistical comparisons necessary to make the property assessment. in The accuracy of the Assessing Department's estimated market values is measured by the sales ratio, which is simply the Assessor's estimated market value divided by the actual selling price. For example, a house having its estimated market value assessed at $270,000 and. an actual selling price of $300,000 gives a sales ratio of 90.0. For cities in Hennepin County, the accepted range for the median sales ratio measurement is 90 to 105. In other words, the median (or midpoint) of the sales ratios for all properties sold should fall within 90 to 105. A sales ratio of slightly less than 100 is desirable in order to avoid having a great many properties valued at more than their actual market value. If the median sales ratio were at 100, as shown at the left below, it would mean that half the properties were assessed at less than market value and half were higher, with too many over the actual market value. On the other hand, as shown at the right below, a sales ratio of 95.0 means half the properties are below 95.0% of actual market value, half are higher, and a relative low number are valued by the Assessor, at more than actual market value. Therefore, the acceptable range is 90 to 105, with a target of 95.0. Edina's 2013 assessment results in a sales ratio of 95.8. SALES RATIO: MEDIAN 100 95 97.5 102.5 105 HALF THE VALUES ARE OVER 100% 19 MEDIAN .95.0 90 92.5 97.5 100 FEW VALUES ARE OVER 100% A measure of the equity of the property assessment is the coefficient of= dispersion, which measures the average deviation or dispersion from the midpoint, or median. The more closely the Assessor's values are grouped around the midpoint, the more equitable the assessment. This is true because relatively few properties have been valued too high, or too low, compared to actual selling prices. For the annual property assessment, a coefficient of dispersion of less than 15 is deemed acceptable and less than 10 is considered excellent. Edina's 2013 assessment reflects a coefficient of dispersion of 5.2. COEFFICIENT OF DISPERSION: MEDIAN 95.0 VALUES, ARE, DISPERSED FROM MEDIAN (HIGH COEFFICIENT) MEDIAN 95.0 W VALUES ARE GROUPED CLOSE TO MEDIAN (LOW COEFFICIENT) The review process is a key aspect of the mass appraisal system. Because som:e., properties receive statistic -based adjustments to market value, the review allows the`' assessing staff the opportunity to individually examine certain properties. Where there is evidence a property has been overvalued or valued inequitably, its market value can be readjusted to an appropriate amount. A property owner who is not satisfied with the assessing staff's review may make an appeal to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, which meets on April 8, or make an appeal directly to State Tax Court. HISTORICAL CHANGES IN MARKET VALUE Edina experienced steady growth in the market value of real property in the community up until 2009. This occurred through the construction of new single - family, multi - family and commercial properties as well as the appreciation of existing properties. The chart below shows the amount of market value change from year to year, and the proportions of the changes attributable to new construction and appreciation /depreciation. As indicated, the city's 2013 assessment is the first time in five years the total market value for the -city has increased. This value increase is comprised of $105 million in . new construction. for the 2013 assessment. The improvement amount for single - family properties was $77,731,800 or 74% of the total new construction amount. CITY OF EDINA GROWTH 1997 -2013 YEAR MARKET VALUE NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUE CHANGE TOTAL GROWTH 1997 $4,257;192,500 0.8% 4.1% 4.9% 1998 $4,526,862,400 1.1% 4.4% 5.5% 1999 $4,904,869,300 1.5% 6.9% 8.4% 2000 $5,457,802,200 1.5% 9.9% 11.4% 2001 $6,230,194,800 1.4% 12.8% 14.2% 2002 $7,081,684,800 0.7% 13.0% 13.7% 2003 $7,487,906,000 1.0%. 4.8% 5.86/6 2004 $8,073,198,900 1.0% 6.8% 7.8% 2005 $8,693,345,900 0.7% 8.0% 8.7% 2006 $9,598,697,600 1.1% 9.3% 10.4% 2007 $9,984,799,500 1.3% 2.3% 3.6% 2008 $10,101,311,700 1.7% -0.3% 1.4% 2009 $10,054,504,600 1.9% -2.0% -0.1% 2010 $9,446,343,100 0.7% -5.7% -5.0% 2011 $9,239,541,600 0.7% -5.7% -5.0% 2012 $8,956,726,200 0.9% -2.2% -1.3% 2013 $9,063,787,400 1.2% 0.3% 1.5% 21 The first graph (p. 22) compares the annual change in property type growth over the past ten years for apartment, commercial, industrial and residential properties in Edina. The second chart (p.23) compares market values and tax capacities by property class. Although residential property accounts for 80% of market value, the property tax is based on tax capacity and residential property accounts for 69% of the total tax capacity. Commercial /industrial and apartment properties make up 20% of market value and 31 % of the total tax capacity. The third chart (p.24) illustrates the changes in tax capacity by property class over the past ten years. Changes made by the Legislature starting in 2001, to the classification system, have resulted in property tax shifts. Commercial, industrial, and apartment properties received significant reductions in their class rates which have resulted in residential properties picking up a greater share of the property tax burden. From 2003 to 2013 the residential tax capacity has increased form 67 percent to 70 percent of the tax base, while the commercial /industrial tax capacity has decreased from 29 percent to 26 percent. CITY OF EDINA PROPERTY TYPE GROWTH --APARTMENT --*-COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL = - RESIDENTIA 25.0 - -- — -- 20.0 15.0 W a 10.0 U `ti z 5.0 W U W 0.0 -5.0 - -10.0 -15.0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 YEAR 22 8000% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% Market Values vs. Tax Capacities by Property Class 2013 City of Edina Estimated Market Value Residential Conm(Ind Apts 2013 Total Market Value: $9,063 Million 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 2013 City of Edina Tax Capacity Residential Comm /ind Apts 2013 Total Tax Capacity: $108 Million CITY OF EDINA TAX CAPACITY BY PROPERTY CLASS 2003 -2013 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 23 n Residential ■ Con mil nd Apts u Residential A Comm /Ind I Apts 70.00% 60.00% ■ Residential 50.00% 40.00% �frnrro /Ind 3n00% Apt; 20.00 °o 10.00% 0.00% Residential Conm(Ind Apts 2013 Total Market Value: $9,063 Million 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 2013 City of Edina Tax Capacity Residential Comm /ind Apts 2013 Total Tax Capacity: $108 Million CITY OF EDINA TAX CAPACITY BY PROPERTY CLASS 2003 -2013 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 23 n Residential ■ Con mil nd Apts u Residential A Comm /Ind I Apts RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT Edina Single - Family Residential Sales 2005 -2012— which indicates the median and average sales price for the last eight years EDINA SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SALES BY CALENDAR YEAR YEAR MEDIAN AVERAGE # OF SALES 2005 $425,000 $510,987 $568,985 492 474 2006 $469,000 2007 2008 $437,250 $595,622 $558,005 414 363 $450,080 2009 2010 $389,950 $494,851 317 $429,040 $524,942 292 2011 2012 $436,500 $565,724 291 $447,450 $550,312 450 The median sale price (the point where half the homes sell for more and half for less) for single- family homes that sold in 2012 is $447,450. This is an increase of 2.5% from the median sale price in 2011 of $436,500. Edina Single - Family Houses 2005 -2012- compares the growth in the average and median sale price with the estimated market value over the past seven years. The 2013 median estimated market value is $399,700. 5700,000 5600,000 w $500,000 W $400,000 $300,000 UJ S200,000 S100,000 af EDINA SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 YEAR 24 —s Ave SP -f- Median SP Median EMV RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT (continued) For the 2013 assessment, 434 residential sales which occurred between October 2011 and September 2012 were analyzed both for market trends as well as the assessment ratio (assessor's value divided by sale price) on the sales. For 2013, most single - family residential properties received statistical adjustments from 0 to -3 percent. These adjustments are based on the specific characteristics of the property, its location, and comparisons to actual selling prices. This approach results in similar market value adjustments for like properties throughout the city. Distribution of the changes in market value from 2012 to 2013 for Edina's 12,534 single - family homes: City of Edina Single Family Change in EMV 2012 -2013 9% The following pages include: ■ Decrease > -3% ■ Decrease -1 to -3% r No change ■ Increasc 1 to 3% ■ Increase 4 to 6% r-i increase > 6% District Maps —which shows Edina's 36 geographic districts 2. Qualifying Single- Family Residential Sales from January 2012 to December 2012 -which shows individual sales by District 25 CITY OF EDINA SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS NE Districts LL_ Doi 02 NW Districts ��_ =€ os 21 06 - 22 �''� _ j6 �. E LACHEN_ _ _ -I- iliui'Lw 23 25 14,E 31 �"-$'�� -�3mmj 33 oey���L I�ICfk LfT�SW��,��� /�C�Fl^^ 35 _ n{ r -- ` inn 36 - 37 42 South Districts - 16 of • �,a�n.��j",' -' i. �— `� �, - 17 - 18f�� 19 o ^Pr, r lrwu - 20 i 1. �sr�fE�`�s[lors © 26 i ' ,c. F f � EM��;I'.:i 27 28 I - 38 , I 40 Map Features N t- Railroad Creeks Parks City of Edina highway Assessing Department 26 ��_ . MATTFFIT melt llama ME Kill L P INortheast Assessing Area E IL FFI, kIE: �wwwmw TT I El - �1 I ManIMS noun MMM M EN ON on so so M a ok ........ I Northeast Districts F—]01 ®06 02 M 07 F-103 08 F--] 04 09 -05 ®10 City of Edina Assessing Department Date.- 11/6/2012 MISS UFA JL ill' Fji- El L U_11 I k J 7uai ok 111,111 I � WRIM1,5171 - i.(�• City of Edina Qualifying.Sales by District for Calendar Year 2012. ;y.�... . District Address Sale Date Sale Price Mornin-gside 01 4110 Morningside Rd 01/23/2012 $ 220,000 01 4160 44th St W 05/25/2012 $ 291,500 .01 4229 Grimes Ave 10/10/2012 $ 363,000 01 4901 44th St W 05/10/2012 $ 411,000 01 4211 44th St W 06/01/2012 $ 415,000 01 4002 Sunnyside Rd 07/18/2012 $ 426,000 01 4242 Crocker Ave 11/29/2012 $ 465,000 01 4211 Branson St 03/15/2012 $ 487,000 01 4219 Alden Dr 10/16/2012 $ 505,000 01 4245 Scott Ter 12/14/2012 $ 559,900 01 4305 Morningside Rd 09/28/2012 $ 638,000 01 4233 Crocker Ave 08/29/2012 $ 720,000 01 4409 Branson St 08/1512012 $ 725,000 01 4239 Lynn Ave 06/20/2012 $ 750,000 White Oaks 02 3923 49th St W 10/30/2012 $ 325,000 02 3918 49th St W 01/09/2012 $ 410,000 02 4613 Meadow Rd 04/30/2012 $ 525,000 02 4545 Meadow Rd 07/17/2012 $ 575,000 02 4601 Townes Rd 05/24/2012 $ 900,000 02 4816 Townes Rd 05/04/2012 $ 985,000- 02 9 Bridge La 07/09/2012 $ 1,120,000 Country Club 03 4613 Bruce Ave 03/05/2012 $ 527,000 03 4529 Bruce Ave 08/24/2012 $ 619,000 03 4630 Bruce Ave 04/11/2012 $ 621,000 03 4508 Bruce Ave 09/14/2012 $ 627,500 03 4612 Bruce Ave 08/31/2012 $ 705,000 03 4627 Casco Ave 09/28/2012 $ 739,900 03 4515 Drexel Ave 05/15/2012 $ 755,000 . 03 4614 Casco Ave 06/27/2012 $ 810,000 03 4504 Casco Ave 06/28/2012 $ 825,000 03 4607 Wooddale Ave 04/16/2012 $ 868,500 03 4600 Drexel Ave 05/14/2012 $ 870,200 03 4617 Browndale Ave 04/15/2012 $ 912,500 03 4531 Casco Ave 05/24/2012 $ 950,000 03 4627 Bruce Ave 04/24/2012 $ 955,000 03 4608 Drexel Ave 11/09/2012 $ 960,000 03 4116 Sunnyside Rd 04/12/2012 $ 999,000 03 4807 Sunnyside Rd 10109/2012 $ 1,000,000 03 4606 Sunnyside Rd 08/29/2012 $ 1,025,000 03 4513 Edina Blvd 01/27/2012 $ 1,050,000 03 4511 Moorland Ave 02/28/2012 $ 1,065,000 03 4500 Edina Blvd 05/29/2012 $ 1,141,800 03 4506 Browndale Ave 12/17/2012 $ 1,197,450 03 4806 Sunnyside Rd 06/22/2012 $ 1,300,000 03 4618 Moorland Ave 06/27/2012 $ 1,675,000 03 4501 Wooddale Ave 04/24/2012 $ 1,700,000 03 4610 Moorland Ave 05/24/2012 $ 1,750,000 03 4615 Moorland Ave 01/12/2012 $ 2,500,000 30 City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2012 District Address Sale Date Sale Price Sunnvsloye 04 4933 Sunnyslope Rd E 04/27/2012 $ 2,595,000 Brucewood /Indianola 05 5136 Gorgas Ave 07/19/2012 $ 474,500 05 5020 Arden Ave 07/31/2012 $ 755,000 05 5009 Arden Ave 07/24/2012 $ 763,875 05 5021 Wooddale La 03/23/2012 $ 875,000 05 5105 Juanita Ave 05/01/2012 $ 1,087,000 05 5201 Minnehaha Blvd 10/15/2012 $ 1,498,500 05 5115 Halifax Ave 03/29/2012 $ 1,525,000 Golf Terr /Halifax 06 5724 France Ave S 11130/2012 $ 263,000 06 3924 58th St W 07/17/2012 $ 266,750 06 5721 Concord Ave 07/20/2012 $ 291,617 06 3921 58th St W 07/19/2012 $ 296,500 06 5805 Halifax Ave 06/15/2012 $ 325,000 06 4604 58th St W 09/27/2012 $ 351,700 06 6109 Halifax Ave 09/27/2012 $ 365,000 06 4524 56th St W 10/02/2012 $ 395,000 06 5617 St Andrews Ave 02/03/2012 $ 400,500 06 4625 56th St W 06/18/2012 $ 415,000 06 5932 Grimes Ave 06/18/2012 $ 420,000 06 5602 Sherwood Ave 09/14/2012 $ 424,463 06 5517 Wooddale Ave 06/15/2012 $ 428,500 06 4500 Lakeview Dr 06/22/2012 $ 475,000 06 5908 Halifax Ave 07/27/2012 $ 478,500 06 5916 Grimes Ave 09/27/2012 $ 479,900 06 5630 France Ave S 09/11/2012 $ 491,500 06 5614 Dalrymple Rd 10/01/2012 $ 514,000 06 5316 Brookview Ave 04/16/2012 $ 525,000 06 4613 Woodland Rd W 06/01/2012 $ 540,000 06 5313 Wooddale Ave 10/05/2012 $ 540,000 06 5615 Concord Ave 08/31/2012 $ 545,000 06 5432 Brookview Ave 09/14/2012 $ 562,500 06 4304 Philbrook La 06/1512012 $ 570,000 06 4625 Lexington Ave 08/01/2012 $ 618,500 06 68 Woodland Cir 04/03/2012 $ 655,000 06 4602 Oak Dr 03/19/2012 $ 660,000 06 5404 Kellogg Ave 06118/2012 $ 677,000 06 5609 Oaklawn Ave 05/29/2012 $ 720,000 06 5528 Kellogg Ave 06/15/2012 $ 724,500 06 5304 Oaklawn Ave 09/14/2012 $ 755,000 06 5320 Kellogg Ave 09/18/2012 $ 809,200 06 24 Woodland Rd 06/28/2012 $ 849,000 06 5409 Kellogg Ave 12/14/2012 $ 877,500 06 5504 Dever Dr 08/06/2012 $ 900,000 06 5652 Woodcrest Dr 06/15/2012 $ 1,160,000 06 5505 Dever Dr 02/21/2012 $ 1,170,000 06 5508 Brookview Ave 08/31/2012 $ 1,172,000 06 4909 Lakeview Dr 07/17/2012 $ 1,265,000 06 4506 Golf Ter 12/14/2012 $ 1,925,000 31 I!P - 11! : -!IM - ., ..._ , City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2012,.... , , ,,,c, , District Address Sale Date Sale Price S58th St/Fairfax- 07 5908 Wooddale Ave 07/16/2012 $ 201,500 07 5800 Wooddale Ave 07/12/2012 $ 211,000 07 6137 Oaklawn Ave 04/26/2012 $ 220,418 07 6100 Kellogg Ave 10/12/2012 $ 224,000 07 5808 Ashcroft Ave 06/13/2012 $ 262,870 07 6128 Oaklawn Ave 04/23/2012 $ 278,900 07 5908 Ashcroft Ave 06/26/2012 $ 280,000 07 5829 Wooddale Ave 07/17/2012 $ 283,000 07 6021 Wooddale Ave 08/27/2012 $ 284,200 07 5828 St Johns Ave 04/20/2012 $ 288,000 07 5825 St Johns Ave 05/30/2012 $ 296,169 07 5804 St Johns Ave 04/27/2012 $ . 301,000 07 5901 Concord Ave 07/12/2012 $ 325,000 07 5832 Wooddale Ave 12/26/2012 $ 343,750 07 5808 St Johns Ave 10/10/2012 $ 344,000 07 5832 Ashcroft Ave 09/28/2012 $ 369,500 07 5844 Kellogg Ave 09/07/2012 $ 440,000 07 5828 Wooddale Ave 07/31/2012 $ 460,000 07 5813 St Johns Ave 09/27/2012 $ 540,000 S Jr High /Concord 08 6004 Wooddale Ave 06/15/2012 $ 250,000 08 6216 Virginia Ave 10/01/2012 $ 275,100 08 4835 Valley View Rd 07/31/2012 $ 290,000 08 6201 Ryan Ave 06/22/2012 $ 300,000 08 6240 Brookview Ave 04/25/2012 $ 308,200 08 6004 Concord Ave 10/31/2012 $ 312,390 08 6316 St Johns Ave 05/01/2012 $ 326,500 08 6201 St Johns Ave 09/14/2012 $ 329,800 08 6009 St Johns Ave 11/26/2012 $ 333,500 O8 6233 Brookview Ave 07/31/2012 $ 345,000 O8 6308 Halifax Ave 11/19/2012 $ 349,000 O8 6329 Brookview Ave 12/26/2012 $ 350,000 08 6224 Virginia Ave 08/24/2012 $ 370,000 08 6205 Halifax Ave 11/14/2012 $ 383,400 08 6300 Halifax Ave 07/12/2012 $ 385,000 08 6141 Concord Ave 08/06/2012 $ 400,000 08 6208 Ashcroft La 04/26/2012 $ 407,000 O8 6012 St Johns Ave 06/18/2012 $ 432,500 08 6124 Virginia Ave 04/04/2012 $ 575,000 08 6224 Peacedale Ave 08/23/2012 $ 582,500 32 City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2012 District Address Sale Date Sale Price i E France /h 60th" St .4 (v 09 5720 Xerxes Ave S 12/31/2012 $ 217,500 09 5412 Xerxes Ave S 05/11/2012 $ 226,883 09 5605 Abbott Ave S 12/07/2012 $ 229,000 09 5836 Abbott Ave S 08/30/2012 $ 234,100 09 3208 60th St W 08/27/2012 $ 236,000 09 5913 Abbott Ave S 11/02/2012 $ 247,000 09 5912 Zenith Ave S 05/25/2012 $ 249,900 09 5929 York Ave S 11/13/2012 $ 250,000 09 5917 York Ave S 09/06/2012 $ 258,780 09 5929 Zenith Ave S 10/15/2012 $ 260,000 09 5805 Drew Ave S 08/31/2012 $ 260,000 09 5712 Zenith Ave S 09/20/2012 $ 260,000 09 5828 Abbott Ave S 01/3112012 $ 263,355 09 5909 York Ave S 11/30/2012 $ 268,520 09 5921 Abbott Ave S 04/13/2012 $ 275,000 09 5809 Drew Ave S 05/01/2012 $ 279,360 09 5632 Beard Ave S 09/21/2012 $ 282,500 09 5912 Abbott Ave S 04/27/2012 $ 295,000 09 3811 57th St W 11/30/2012 $ 332,500 09 5921 Ewing Ave S 07/16/2012 $ 365,000 09 3113 54th St W 01/13/2012 $ 370,000 09 5728 Drew Ave S 07/26/2012 $ 393,500 09 3808 57th St W 09/27/2012 $ 414,434 09 3616 Fuller St 05/01/2012 $ 500,000 09 5925 Ewing Ave S 09/25/2012 $ 505,000 09 5405 York Ave S 06/15/2012 $ 600,000 09 3700 55th St W 07/02/2012 $ 871,000 E France /S 60th St 10 7434 Xerxes Ave S 12/21/2012 $ 125,000 10 6000 Ewing Ave S 11/29/2012 $ 208,000 10 6033 Zenith Ave S 04/12/2012 $ 265,250 10 3113 60th St W 06/14/2012 $ 308,550 10 6012 Beard Ave S 11/29/2012 $ 340,000 10 6016 Chowen Ave S 08/20/2012 $ 340,000 10 6028 Abbott Ave S 07/20/2012 $ 366,000 10 6221 Chowen Ave S 11/30/2012 $ 405,000 Parnell /Ryan 15 6500 Sherwood Ave 10/26/2012 $ 279,500 33 City of Edina-Qualifying. Sales by District for Calendar Year 2012 District Address Sale Date Sale Price Lake Cornelia 16 4504 70th St W 04/27/2012 $ 200,000 16 6817 Southdale Rd 05/30/2012 $ 282,000 16 4704 70th St W 12/10/2012 $ 330,000 16 6808 Oaklawn Ave 08/21/2012 $ 350,000 16 6844 Point Dr 12/14/2012 $ 384,000 16 4725 Upper Ter 03129/2012 $ 440,000 16 6813 Cornelia Dr 08/17/2012 $ 457,500 16 4311 Cornelia Cir 01/18/2012 $ 495,000 16 6625 Southcrest Dr 01/16/2012 $ 500,000 16 4813 Upper Ter 08/15/2012 $ 501,095 16 6720 Point Dr 05/09/2012 $ 505,000 16 6820 Creston Rd 06/15/2012 $ 560,000 16 6637 Brittany Rd 06/29/2012 $ 575,500 16 4704 Upper Ter 10/11/2012 $ 605,000 16 6809 Creston Rd 12/26/2012 $ 972,558 16 6704 Point Dr 10112/2012 $ 1,146,900 Oscar Roberts 17 7001 Bristol Blvd 04/18/2012 $ 263,000 17 7016 Lynmar La 03/09/2012 $ 267,000 17 7217 Cornelia Dr 06/06/2012 $ 316,000 17 7100 Glouchester Ave 07/23/2012 $ 357,500 17 7128 Glouchester Ave 09/28/2012 $ 375,000 17 7117 Cornelia Dr 07/23/2012 $ 389,000 S 70th /Lake Edina 18 4816 Aspasia La 04/24/2012 $ 310,000 18 4903 Trillium La 09/13/2012 $ 355,020 18 4805 Trillium La 04/27/2012 $ 370,000 18 4409 Ellsworth Dr 06/27/2012 $ 371,500 18 4505 Belvidere La 06107/2012 $ 390,500 18 4417 Claremore Dr 01126/2012 $ 397,000 18 4805 70th St W 04/20/2012 $ 414,500 18 4813 Aspasia La 07/18/2012 $ 415,000 18 7325 Oaklawn Ave 01113/2012 $ 415,000 18 4412 Fondell Dr 05/25/2012 $ 421,000 18 4916 Trillium La 10/11/2012 $ 426,700 18 4412 Fondell Dr 12/07/2012 $ 428,025 18 7312 Wooddale Ave 12/28/2012 $ 429,200 18 4528 Belvidere La 02/09/2012 $ 430,000 18 4501 Andover Rd 05/01/2012 $ 435,000 18 4428 Claremore Dr 06/26/2012 $ 443,290 18 4517 Dunham Dr 04/16/2012 $ 459,900 18 4429 Claremore Dr 11/14/2012 $ 460,000 18 4445 Ellsworth Dr 05/01/2012 $ 470,000 18 7313 Oaklawn Ave 10/29/2012 $ 474,150 18 4421 Claremore Dr 06/08/2012 $ 480,000 18 4709 Hibiscus Ave 06/11/2012 $ 530,000 18 7411 Kellogg Ave 08/20/2012 $ 530,000 18 7412 West Shore Dr 01/17/2012 $ 530,000 18 4949 Poppy La 06/15/2012 $ 574,000 18 4520 Sedum La 10/03/2012 $ 580,000 18 7244 Monardo La 07/09/2012 $ 590,000 34 5 City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2012 District Address Sale Date Sale Price Brookview Hts 19 6605 Ridgeview Dr 07/27/2012 $ 240,000 19 5312 64th St W 07/16/2012 $ 299,900 19 5132 Abercrombie Dr 05/18/2012 $ 324,000 19 6500 Ridgeview Dr 05/25/2012 $ 331,000 19 5305 Whiting Ave 07/02/2012 $ 332,000 19 6720 Ridgeview Dr 12/13/2012 $ 342,000 19 5336 64th St W 08/10/2012 $ 360,430 19 5108 Duggan Plaza 08/03/2012 $ 402,500 19 5225 Danens Dr 07/25/2012 $ 412,000 19 5309 64th St W 05/31/2012 $ 532,500 Wilryan So Xtown 20 6357 Josephine Ave 12/21/2012 $ 187,000 20 6500 Wilryan Ave 10/23/2012 $ 240,000 20 6416 Tingdale Ave 06/08/2012 $ 255,000 20 6349 Wilryan Ave 09/28/2012 $ 280,000 20 6432 Wilryan Ave 04/30/2012 $ 313,000- 20 6301 Rolf Ave 10/1112012 $ 317,000 20 6337 Holborn Ave 07/23/2012 $ 342,000 20 6308 Mildred Ave 06/28/2012 $ 370,000 Richmond /Birchcrest 21 5011 Richmond Dr 03/23/2012 $ 184,300 21 5108 59th St W 12/20/2012 $ 202,300 21 5008 Clover Ridge 10/23/2012 $ 205,000 21 5901 Josephine Ave 01/27/2012 $ 253,073 21 5116 Richmond Cir 06/22/2012 $ 254,375 21 5024 Benton Ave 05/11/2012 $ 279,900 21 5221 62nd St W 11/09/2012 $ 280,000 21 5617 Dale Ave 10/31/2012 $ 287,100 21 6220 Wyman Ave 04/13/2012 $ 294,500 21 6001 Code Ave 04/21/2012 $ 309,000 21 5124 Valley View Rd 10/31 12012 $ 333,882 21 5724 Melody La 10/26/2012 $ 343,000 21 5800 Dale Ave 09/28/2012 $ 354,000 21 5320 Maddox La 06/05/2012 $ 359,000 21 5225 Birchcrest Dr 11/08/2012 $ 360,000 21 5324 Birchcrest Dr 06/04/2012 $ 363,000 21 6113 Birchcrest Dr 05/09/2012 $ 363,000 21 5201 Birchcrest Dr 07/09/2012 $ 373,353 21 5221 Richwood Dr 06/12/2012 $ 383,150 21 6217 Wyman Ave 06/29/2012 $ 397,500 21 5325 Benton Ave 03/02/2012 $ 400,000 21 5309 Birchcrest Dr 10/10/2012 $ 463,000 21 5717 Dale Ave 07/26/2012 $ 463,000 21 5201 Windsor Ave 07/25/2012 $ 544,000 21 5120 Windsor Ave 09/20/2012 $ 620,000 35 City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar.Year 2012 District Address Sale Date Sale Price Brookside 22 5009 Edinbrook La 05/04/2012 $ 222,500 22 5113 48th St W 10/15/2012 $ 222,500 22 5224 51st St W 06/14/2012 $ 224,250 22 5108 49th St W 03/30/2012 $ 225,000 22 5112 William Ave 05/01/2012 $ 228,920 22 5017 William Ave 07/23/2012 $ 240,000 22 5044 Edinbrook La 04/19/2012 $ 241,530 22 5128 William Ave 05/16/2012 $ 246,944 22 4540 Vandervork Ave 04/11/2012 $ 269,900 22 4433 Rutledge Ave 11/02/2012 $ 285,500 22 5112 Hankerson Ave 09/20/2012 $ 299,900 22 5036 Bedford Ave 11/09/2012 $ 300,000 22 4513 Oxford Ave 10/05/2012 $ 314,478 22 4524 Parkside La 07/30/2012 $ 315,470 22 4509 Parkside La 08/24/2012 $ 338,000 22 5029 William Ave 06/14/2012 $ 341,925 22 5236 Interlachen Blvd 10/05/2012 $ 372,000 22 4840 Rutledge Ave 08/14/2012 $ 374,000 22 4532 Vandervork Ave 11/06/2012 $ 383,033 22 5343 Interlachen Blvd 06/22/2012 $ 418,390 22 4432 Vandervork Ave 11/29/2012 $ 425,000 22 5345 Division St 07/31/2012 $ 437,500 22 4373 Thielen Ave 05/24/2012 $ 445,000 22 4364 Vernon Ave 05/15/2012 $ 475,000 22 5005 Bedford Ave 07/3112012 $ 477,754 22 5101 Bedford Ave 09/17/2012 $ 525,000 Rolling Green 23 5808 Mait La 11/01/2012 $ 831,915 23 6 Merilane 12106/2012 $ 2,550,000 Highland 24 6104 Kaymar Dr 12/28/2012 $ 385,000 24 5501 Doncaster Way 06/27/2012 $ 399,900 24 5300 Ayrshire Blvd 01/30/2012 $ 420,000 24 5205 Duncraig Rd 11/16/2012 $ 466,000 24 6005 Idylwood Dr 05/25/2012 $ 480,000 24 5321 Ayrshire Blvd 08/28/2012 $ 482,500 24 5209 Lochloy Dr 08/31/2012 $ 525,000 24 5124 Skyline Dr 04/19/2012 $ 550,000 24 5512 Highwood Dr 03/29/2012 $ 550,000 24 5705 Ayrshire Blvd 10/05/2012 $ 575,000 24 5504 Glengarry Pkwy 03/21/2012 $ 580,000 24 5008 Skyline Dr 06115/2012 $ 632,500 24 5529 Mirror Lakes Dr 11/27/2012 $ 675,000 24 5408 Dundee Rd 06/15/2012 $ 700,000 24 5120 Mirror Lakes Dr 12/28/2012 $ 900,000 24 5317 Mirror Lakes Dr 04/27/2012 $ 900,000 24 5812 Hidden La 02/09/2012 $ 995,000 24 5004 Skyline Dr 09/07/2012 $ 1,250,000 24 5117 Skyline Dr 11/26/2012 $ 1,525,000 24 5113 Mirror Lakes Dr 04103/2012 $ 1,760,000 36 _.., . City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2012 District Address Sale Date Sale Price Countryside 25 5708 Hawkes Dr 05/31/2012 $ 280,330 25 5716 Benton Ave 06/15/2012 $ 289,668 25 5601 Tracy Ave 09/07/2012 $ 298,500 25 5512 Warden Ave 06/20/2012 $ 300,000 25 5729 Hawkes Dr 08/24/2012 $ 336,876 25 5516 Ridge Park Rd 08/30/2012 $ 338,500 25 5501 Countryside Rd 10/26/2012 $ 344,000 25 6208 Crescent Dr 04/02/2012 $ 368,000 25 5509 Ridge Park Rd 05/16/2012 $ 387,200 25 6227 Westridge Blvd 09/04/2012 $ 398,500 25 5801 Jeff PI 07/25/2012 $ 407,650 25 5800 Olinger Blvd 08/27/2012 $ 415,100 25 5820 Olinger Blvd 11119/2012 $ 416,000 25 5712 Wycliffe Rd 05/17/2012 $ 449,900 25 6301 Colonial Ct 07/06/2012 $ 453,000 25 5816 Amy Dr 05/11/2012 $ 456,000 25 5920 Merold Dr 07/27/2012 $ 475,000 25 6200 Westridge Blvd' 12/10/2012 $ 500,000 25 5605 Gate Park Rd 07/16/2012 $ 505,000 25 5805 61st St W 09/21/2012 $ 530,000 25 6016 Grove Cir 07/20/2012 $ 564,000 25 5829 Jeff PI 08/28/2012 $ 615,000 25 5928 Merold Dr 08/31/2012 $ 620,000 25 5914 Olinger Rd 10/29/2012 $ 775,000 Creek Valley /Limerick 26 6304 Limerick La 10/12/2012 $ 250,000 26 6021 Chapel Dr 04/23/2012 $ 324,700 26 6017 Shane Dr 07/02/2012 $ 325,000 26 6720 Galway Dr 06/27/2012 $ 332,500 26 5408 Valley La 08/17/2012 $ 362,500 26 6709 Gleason Rd 08/03/2012 $ 377,000 26 6005 Chapel Dr 08/15/2012 $ 385,000 26 6813 Limerick La 10/29/2012 $ 388,000 26 6808 Brook Dr 10/22/2012 $ 408,500 26 6525 Scandia Rd 03/02/2012 $ 410,000 26 5616 66th St W 07/26/2012 $ 423,400 26 5605 Mcguire Rd 11/30/2012 $ 460,000 26 6508 Nordic Dr 04/03/2012 $ 497,500 26 6613 Scandia Rd 04/13/2012 $ 526,000 26 6601 Cahill Rd 03/15/2012 $ 535,000 26 6633 Gleason Rd 04/02/2012 $ 667,500 26 6500 Nordic Dr 10/01/2012 $ 685,000 37 38 City, of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2012 District Address Sale Date Sale Price Antrim /Dublin 27 7109 Antrim Ct 06/08/2012 $ 720,000 27 5916 Lee Valley Rd 09/13/2012 $ 772,000 Kemmrich /Shannon 28 7116 Shannon Dr 11/29/2012 $ 382,000 28 7225 Fleetwood Dr 08/15/2012 $ 515,000 28 7201 Fleetwood Dr 07/23/2012 $ 525,500 28 7412 Hyde Park Cir 05/18/2012 $ 575,000 28 7040 Lanham La 01/06/2012 $ 596,100 28 7203 Gleason Rd 09/27/2012 $ 613,250 28 7419 Coventry Way 10/18/2012 $ 635,000 28 7033 Lanham La 09117/2012 $ 690,000 28 7431 Hyde Park La 08/10/2012 $ 925,000 Dewey Hill 29 5816 Long Brake Tr 01/19/2012 $ 725,000 29 5739 Long Brake Cir 10/30/2012 $ 1,580,000 Mendelssohn 30 521 Arthur St 06/22/2012 $ 225,000 30 300 Grove PI 06/21/2012 $ 257,500 30 6301 Maloney Ave 05/18/2012 $ 302,000 30 301 Dearborn Ct 04/30/2012 $ 402,550 30 308 Dearborn Ct 12/18/2012 $ 462,000 30 500 John St 01/24/2012 $ 480,000 30 6413 Mendelssohn La 08/30/2012 $ 525,000 Muls Heights 31 300 Adams Ave 09/27/2012 $ 212,000 31 315 Madison Ave S 10/26/2012 $ 213,000 31 407 Jackson Ave S 09/07/2012 $ 219,600 31 414 Tyler Ave S 02/23/2012 $ 242,500 31 418 Tyler Ave S 08/29/2012 $ 269,900 31 401 Tyler Ave S 07/24/2012 $ 310,200 Park Knolls New 34 6404 Willow Wood Rd 03/08/2012 $ 602,000 34 5120 Malibu Dr 09/21/2012 $ 625,000 34 5040 Park Ter 07/06/2012 $ 625,000 34 5108 Blake Rd 10/26/2012 $ 635,000 34 5012 Kelsey Ter 02/29/2012 $ 690,000 34 5308 Kingsberry Dr 05/31/2012 $ 705,000 34 5020 Malibu Dr 04/27/2012 $ 745,000 34 5005 Kelsey Ter 12/21/2012 $ 757,000 34 5201 Green Farms Rd 06/29/2012 $ 757,500 34 6221 Fox Meadow La 04/30/2012 $ 815,000 34 6308 Westwood Ct 09/06/2012 $ 924,000 34 6619 Kelsey Ct 07/20/2012 $ 975,000 34 5313 Highwood Dr W 09/24/2012 $ 1,115,000 34 5209 Schaefer Rd 08/31/2012 $ 2,425,628 38 39 �• _- City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2012 District Address Sale Date Sale Price Park Knolls Older 35 5512 Blake Rd 06104/2012 $ .526,000' 35 6213 ldylwood La 09/18/2012 $ 632,000 35 5520 Knoll Dr 07/05/2012 $ 720,000 35 6501 Parkwood Rd 06/10/2012 $ 950,000 35 6204 Parkwood Rd 05/16/2012 $ 965,000 35 6512 Parkwood Rd 01106/2012 $ 1,300,000 35 5405 Londonderry Rd 08/17/2012 $ 2,060,000 Park Nolls Middle 36 5709 Deville Dr 08/14/2012 $ 700,000 36 6709 Parkwood La 10/26/2012 $ 725,000 36 6701 Parkwood La 10/12/2012 $ 728,242 36 5713 Deville Dr 06/28/2012 $ 782,500 36 6417 Biscayne Blvd 08/15/2012 $ 800,301 36 5613 Parkwood La 09/12/2012 $ 865,000 36 6636 Londonderry Dr 04/13/2012 $ 1,350,000 Artic Way/Tamarac 37 6537 Polar Cir 06/11/2012 $ 387,000 37 5920 View La 06/08/2012 $ 410,000 37 6013 Killarney La 12/10/2012 $ 465,000 37 6142 Arctic Way 07/06/2012 $ 500,000 37 6115 Arctic Way 07/31/2012 $ 515,000 37 6006 Killarney La 06/17/2012 $ 540,000 37 6152 Arctic Way 05/09/2012 $ 595,000 37 6008 View La 06/07/2012 $ 605,000 Indian Hills 38 6415 Indian Pond Cir 01/30/2012 $ 600,000 38 6813 Dakota Tr 11/30/2012 $ 625,000 38 6529 Navaho Tr 03/21/2012 $ 625,000 38 6424 Timber Ridge 08/24/2012 $ 659,816 38 7104 Valley View Rd 01/27/2012 $ 700,000 38 6312 Indian Hills Rd 05/29/2012 $ 740,000 38 6437 Margarets La 03/30/2012 $ 882,500 38 6812 Cheyenne Cir 04/13/2012 $ 1,177,500 Sioux Tr 39 6717 West Tr 03/12/2012 $ 270,000 39 7009 Sally La 03/20/2012 $ 305,000 39 6612 Paiute Pass 06/18/2012 $ 375,000 39 6801 Indian Hills Rd 05130/2012 $ 413,525 39 7134 Valley View Rd 07/12/2012 $ 440,000 39 7025 Comanche Ct 11/15/2012 $ 490,000 39 6317 Post La 06/14/2012 $ 553,500 39 6401 Mccauley Cir 07/27/2012 $ 675,000 Braemar 40 6901 Gleason Cir 05/10/2012 $ 407,500 40 6940 Moccasin Valley Rd 06/29/2012 $ 497,718 40 7137 Gleason Rd 11/19/2012 $ 502,975 40 6903 Gleason Cir 05/16/2012 $ 506,679 40 6203 Loch Moor Dr 04/16/2012 $ 527,889 40 7100 Mark Terrace Dr 07/25/2012 $ 531,250 40 6204 St Albans Cir 12/06/2012 $ 651,000 40 6994 Tupa Dr 11/29/2012 $ 689,000 40 6921 Moccasin Valley Rd 06/25/2012 $ 732,500 40 7001 Valley View Rd 10/22/2012 $ 770,000 40 7016 Tupa Cir 03/14/2012 $ 825,000 Hilldale 42 5404 Interlachen Blvd 04/03/2012 $ 805,000 42 5001 Interlachen Bluff 01/31/2012 $ 814,750 42 5041 Interlachen Bluff 08/03/2012 $ 1,224,400 39 COMPARISONS WITH OTHER CITIES The assessing department has contacted other southwest suburban communities to determine the overall adjustment they have made to the market values of existing residential properties for their 2013 assessment. These amounts.do not include increases in value due to new construction. The reported adjustments are as follows: CITY 2008 PERCENT' CHANGE 2009 PERCENT CHANGE 2010 PERCENT CHANGE 2011 PERCENT CHANGE. 2012 PERCENT CHANGE'.. 2013 PERCENT' CHANGE: Bloomington -2.9 -5.5 -5.6 -3.6 -6.3 -2.9 Eden Prairie -0.9 -4.7 -6.1 -3.4 -4.5 -2.3 Edina -1.1 -1.9 --5.1 -2.7 -3' .5 0.0 Maple Grove -2.9 -5.0 -5.4 -3.5 -6.2 0.6 Minnetonka -1.8 -4.3 -6.4 -2.3 -3.6 -1.2 Plymouth -2.6 -4.6 -5.8 -2.4 -3.8 0.3 St. Louis Park -0.7 -2.3 -4.6 -2.5 -4.3 -2.3 Average . -1.9 -4.0 . -5.7 -3:0 -4.6 -0.8 W APARTMENT AND COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL ASSESSMENT The assessment for apartment, commercial, and industrial properties is subject to the same general standard as the residential property assessment. That is, there is a,target sales ratio of 90 — 105% set for commercial properties (including apartments and industrial property). A significant difficulty encountered with local sales ratio studies for commercial /industrial -and apartment property is there are usually relatively few property sales. For example, although there are 375 commercial /industrial parcels in the city, Edina typically has fewer than 10 commercial /industrial property sales in any single year. In order to avoid this difficulty, countywide samples of comparable commercial property sales are used to help determine appropriate adjustment of market values. These studies show the following results: COMMERICAL /INDUSTRIAL Jurisdiction Assessment Sales Sales Ratio Coefficient of Year Dispersion 2013 6 103.1 6.6 Edina 2012 2 176.6 41.9 2011 4 98.5 3.1 Hennepin 2013 2012 79 100.0 19.8 County 2011 67 98.0 14.3 APARTMENTS 2013 0 - -- - -- Edina 2012 2 88.0 1.5 2011 1 99.1 - -- . Hennepin 2013 2012 17 96.8 11.3 County 2011 10 97.5 5.9 41 APARTMENT AND COMM ERICIAL /INDUSTRIAL ASSESSMENT (continued) This last four .years have been challenging for the real estate market, however there appears to be some signs of recovery. Edina's retail properties increased 10 percent overall, primarily in the 50th and France and Southdale areas. Apartments as a group increased 3 percent. Office and industrial property values decreased less than one percent from 2012 to 2013 l Commercial /Industrial Market- Adjustments CITY 2012 2013 Bloomington 5.2% 0.5% Eden Prairie 1.2% 0.2% Maple Grove -5.8% 0.0% Edinal 1`.7% 1.80/0 Minnetonka 0.4% 0.6% Plymouth 7.5% 0.4% St. Louis Park 1.5% 3.5% Average 1.7% 1.0% Tax Court As anticipated, a significant number of tax court petitions have been filed over the past four years. There were 115 petitions filed for the pay 2009 taxes, 147 filed on the taxes payable in 2010, 125 petitions filed for payable 2011 and 108 petitions filed for payable 2012. Over the past eight years, over $6 billion in market value has been appealed through petitions filed with the Minnesota Tax Court. These petitions require a substantial amount of time and resources to resolve. 42 $1,600,000,000 $1,400,000,000 $1,200,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $800,000,000 $600,000,000 $400,000,000 $200,000,000 DATE March 1 March 7 March 29 April 8 April 22 April 30 May 22 June 17 City of Edina Value Under Petition 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 ASSESSMENT CALENDAR ACTION County Auditor's target date for mailing 2013 property tax statements. City Assessor's target date for mailing 2013 value notices. Last day for property owners to file an appeal to appear at the Local Board. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. Reconvened meeting for Local Board of Appeal Last day for property owners to file State Tax Court petitions regarding the 2012 assessment. Last day for property owners to file an appeal to appear at the County Board of Appeal and Equalization Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization. 43 2012 SIMPLIFIED CHART OF PROPERTY TAX PROCESS ------ - - - - -- I --- - - - - -- -----=-- - - - - -- determines what property; is taxed, and by what ___ i - - - - - -- procedures � ----------------- - - - - -- ASSESSOR _ lists all taxable property__; -- - ----- - - - - -- ---------- -------------------- - - - - -- estimates value of ----- ____th is_p roperty_---- - - - -_; ---------------------------- .sends valuation notices ----- to property_ owners_ - - - -• --- - - - - -- -------------------- - - - - -: property owners can appeal _their assessment ------------------- sends final assessment roll to Hennepin County ------------------------------- - - - - -- 1 STATE LEGISLATURE CITY COUNCIL review budgets and ____proposed tax rate ----- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -: holds bud _get hearings ----- - - - - -- ------------------- - - - - -- sets tax levy and sends to County ----- - - - - -E -------- - - - - -- I HENNEPIN COUNTY I r------- ---------------------- ------------r applies tax rate to assessed values and sends out ________ resulting tax bills -- - - - - -- 44 --------------------------------- determines levy limits and budqet procedures I CITY MANAGER I sends proposed .budget to council PROPERTY TAX REFUNDS AND PROGRAMS Property Tax Refunds Available The regular property tax refund provides relief to property owners who meet certain guidelines. For 2012, homeowners whose adjusted gross incomes are less than $103,730 and renters less than $56,220 are eligible for the program. Homeowners may receive a refund of up to $2,530; renters are eligible for up to $1,600. The special refund program offers relief to property owners, regardless of income, whose taxes in 2013 go up more than 12 percent and at least $100. The state will refund 60 percent of any amounts paid beyond those limits, up to a maximum of $1,000. For more information on property tax refunds, contact the Minnesota Department of Revenue at 651 - 296 -3781 (TTY users, call 711 for MN,'relay). Senior Citizens Property Tax Deferral This program allows people 65 years of age or older whose household incomes are $60,000 or less, to defer a portion of their homestead property taxes. The deferred tax is a loan from the state. While in this program, you will pay no more than 3 percent of your household income toward your property taxes and the state will pay the rest. You or your heirs will need to repay the deferred amount before you can transfer title of the property. A property may qualify even if there are unpaid special assessments or property taxes, penalties or interest. For more information, call the Department of Revenue at 651 556 -6088 (TTY users, call 711 for MN relay). 45 MARKET VALUE EXCLUSION ON HOMESTEADS OF DISABLED VETERANS The 2008 State legislature amended the homestead law that provides a. market value exclusion for all or a portion of property owned and occupied as a homestead by a military veteran who has a service - connected disability of 70 percent or more. To qualify, a veteran must have been honorably discharged from the United States armed for and must be certified by the United States Veterans Administration as having a,service- connected disability. A veteran who has a disability rating of 70 percent or more qualifies for a $150,000 market value exclusion, and must reapply annually, if not considered permanent. A veteran, who has a total (100 percent) and permanent disability, qualifies for a $300,000 market value exclusion. To receive this valuation exclusion, a property owner must apply to the assessor by July 1 of the assessment year. The exclusion is a one- time application, and the property continues to qualify until there is a change in ownership. If a disabled veteran qualifying for a valuation exclusion predeceases the veteran's spouse, and. if upon death of the veteran the spouse holds the legal or beneficial title to the homestead and permanently resides there, the exclusion shall carryover to the benefit of the veteran's spouse for four additional assessment year or until such time as the spouse sells, transfers, or otherwise disposes of the property, whichever comes first. For taxes payable in 2013 (2012 assessment), 52 parcels will qualify for the market value exclusion. The total excluded market value is $8,283,900. 46 �o LEAGUE of CONNECTING & INNOVATING MINNESOTA SINCE 1913 CITIES Property Taxation 101 Updated August 2012 This guide is intended to describe the basics of Minnesota's property tax system. This system collected just over $6 billion in 2012 to help fund the services of schools, counties, cities, townships, and special districts and the state general fund. One of the challenges of trying to understand this system is the complex array of terms involved. As new terms are introduced in this guide, they are shown in italics. A glossary at the end of the guide has short definitions of these terms. Assessment and classification The property tax system is a continuous cycle, but it effectively begins with the estimation of property market values by local assessors. Assessors attempt to determine the approximate selling price of each parcel of property based on the current market conditions. Along with the market value determination, a property class is ascribed to each parcel of property based on the use of the property. For example, property that is owner- occupied as a personal residence is classified as a residential homestead. The "use class" is important because the Minnesota system, in effect, assigns a weight to each class of property. Generally, properties that are associated with income production (e.g. commercial and industrial properties) have a higher classification weight than other properties. The property classification system defines the tax capacity of each parcel as a percentage of each parcel's market value. For example, a $75,000 home which is classified as a residential homestead has a class rate of 1.0 percent and therefore has a tax capacity of $75,000 x .01 or $750. (A 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST ST. PAUL, MN 55103 -2044 sample of the class rates are included in table A.) [parcel market value] * [class rate] = [parcel tax capacity] The next step in calculating the tax burden for a parcel involves the determination of each local unit of government's property tax levy. The city, county, school district and any special property taxing authorities must establish their levy by December 28 of the year preceding the year in which the levy will be paid by taxpayers. The property tax levy is set after the consideration of all other revenues including state aids such as LGA. [city budget] - [all non - property tax revenues] = [city levy] For cities within the seven - county Twin Cities metropolitan and on the iron range, the levies are reduced by an amount of property tax revenue derived from the metropolitan and range area fiscal disparities programs (see "Fiscal Disparities 101" for more information). PHONE: (651) 281 -1200 FAX: (651) 281 -1299 47 TOLL FREE: (800) 925 -1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG Local tax rates Local governments do not directly set a tax rate. Instead, the tax rate is a function of the levy and the total tax base. To compute the local tax rate, a county must determine the total tax capacity to be used for spreading the levies. The total tax capacity is computed by first aggregating the tax capacities of all parcels within the city. Several adjustments to this total must be made because not all tax capacity is available for general tax purposes. The result of this calculation produces taxable tax capacity. Taxable tax capacity is used to determine the local tax rates. [city levy] / [taxable tax capacity] = [city tax rate] The city tax rate is computed by dividing the city levy (minus the fiscal disparities distribution levy, if applicable) by the taxable tax capacity. Under the current property tax system, the tax rate is expressed as a percentage. For example, the average 2012 city tax capacity rate is approximately 46.26 percent. Dramatic changes to the tax system in 2001 increased the average city rate significantly in 2002. This same calculation is completed for the county based on the county's levy and tax base, the school district and all special taxing authorities. The sum of the tax rates for all taxing authorities that levy against a single property produces the total local tax rate. This total local tax rate is then used to determine the overall tax burden for each parcel of property. Parcel tax calculations The property tax bill for each parcel of property is determined by multiplying the parcel's tax capacity by the total local tax rate. The tax statement for each individual parcel itemizes the taxes for the county, municipality, school district, and any special taxing authorities. Updated August 2012 48 [parcel tax capacity] * [total local tax rate] _ [tax capacity tax bill] To complicate the tax calculations, voter - approved referenda levies are applied to the market value of each parcel, not tax capacity. As a result, each identically valued parcel, regardless of the property's use, pays the same amount of referenda taxes (with the exception of certain agricultural and seasonal recreational properties, which are exempted from referenda taxes). In 2012, four counties, 50 cities and 336 school districts levied market value -based levies. These communities must have a separate calculation for a market value referenda levy by the total taxable market value of each community. [parcel market value] * [market value tax rate] = [market value tax bill] [tax capacity tax bill] + [market value tax bill] = [total tax bill] State property tax New to the tax system in 2002 was a-state property tax on all commercial, industrial, seasonal recreational, and utility real property. In 2012, this tax raised more than $821 million statewide; the proceeds are deposited in the state general fund. Prior to 2002, the state last collected a property tax in 1968. Property tax credits Several tax credits for various types of properties are available in certain instances. These amounts are subtracted from the overall taxes for each parcel to determine the net tax bill for the individual owner. Minnesota also provides additional property tax relief directly to individual homeowners, cabin owners, and renters through the circuit breaker and the targeting refund programs. Property tax intricacies The technical details of computing property taxes mask many other intricacies of the property tax system. Many communities over the past several years have experienced situations where individual property taxes rise much faster than the increase in the levies that are certified by local units of government. The most common factor that results in an increase in an individual parcel's tax is the change in .the parcel's estimated market value. Without any change in local levies, a property owner can experience a tax increase due almost exclusively to any valuation increase. The Legislature frequently changes the classification system. Changes to the classification system can shift property tax burdens from one type of property to another. Table A demonstrates some of the changes the Legislature has made to class rates since 1997. Commercial, industrial, and apartment properties received significant reductions in their class rates.. This shifts tax burden to other classes of property that did not receive class rate reductions. In an effort to minimize the effect of these shifts, the legislature reduced school levies across the state and created the Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHQ. This credit reduced property taxes for homesteads by 0.4 percent of the homestead's market value up to a maximum $304 dollars. As part of the credit program, the state was supposed to reimburse cities for the amount by which the credits reduce cities' tax receipts. The Legislature made significant reductions to the reimbursement amounts for cities in 2003 and 2004 and later extended those reductions to 2005 and 2006. The reimbursements were restored for 2007. Reimbursements were again reduced in 2008, 2009, and 2010 through the governor's use of Updated August 2012 49 unallotment and by the legislature in 2011. The reimbursement program was eliminated beginning in 2012. Going forward, qualifying homeowners will receive a partial market value exclusion instead of the credit offset. Economic factors that may affect broad classes of property-can also influence the overall tax changes for individual parcels of property. For example, in the early 1990s the metropolitan area experienced major declines in the valuation for commercial and industrial properties. These valuation declines shifted taxes from property classified as commercial and industrial to all other types of property. Valuation declines also may have accentuated the levy changes by local units of government. A 2002 law change exempted agricultural and cabin property from voter - approved referenda levies. In some jurisdictions where these types of property are a significant part of the tax base, this change shifted taxes onto other classes of property. Legislative changes in state aid programs can also affect the revenue needed to be raised from the property tax. In 2002 the legislature eliminated HACA and increased the other major aid program, LGA, by $140 million. In 2003, the Legislature reduced 2003 LGA by about $120 million and 2004 LGA by about $150 million. In 2005, however, the Legislature added about $48 million to the LGA program for 2006 and beyond, $4 million of which is directed to cities under 5000 via a per capita aid base. In December 2008, the governor used the unallotment authority to reduce cities' LGA and MVHC payments. Actual aid and credit payments for 2009 and 2010 were reduced by $64.2 million and $128.3 million, respectively, through the power of unallotment'. The legislature cut MVHC 1. The 2010 legislature later ratified the governor's unallotments. reimbursement by $45 million and LGA by $7.8 million during the 2010 session —these cuts were in addition to the ratified unallotments. The 2011 special session budget agreement cut LGA by $102 million, leaving roughly $425.3 for 2011 and 2012. In 2012, legislators passed an LGA freeze for payments due in 2013. Levy limits also impact local levy decisions. During the 2003 session, cities that had been previously covered by levy limits lost any unused levy authority. There were no levy limits in place for 2008 but the Legislature did pass new levy limits for cities over 2500 for taxes payable in 2009, 2010, and 2011. There are no levy limits in place under current law. This discussion is only a general overview of the current Minnesota property tax system. Over time, the .system has become more complex and difficult for taxpayers to understand. Unfortunately, local officials must frequently explain how the system works and take the blame for the complicated features of the system. Local officials, however, can only control local levy decisions. They have no direct ability to modify the overall structure of the tax system and are at the mercy of the Minnesota Legislature. Glossary of Terms Circuit breaker - A state -paid property tax refund program for homeowners who have property taxes out of proportion with their income. A similar program is also available to renters. Class rates - The percent of market value set by state law that establishes the property's tax capacity subject to the property tax. See Table A for a sample list of class rates. Fiscal disparities programs - Local units of government in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and on the iron range participate in property tax base sharing programs. Under Updated August 2012 50 these two programs, a portion of the growth in commercial and industrial property value of each city and township is contributed to a tax base sharing pool. Each city and township then receives a distribution of property value from the pool based on market value and population in each city. Homestead and agricultural credit aid (HACA) - A $200 million property tax relief program that was eliminated in 2001. Homestead Market Value Exclusion (HMVE) – Starting with taxes payable in 2012, eligible homesteads will pay property taxes on only a portion of the value of their homes. The maximum exclusion, 40% of value, occurs at home value of $76,000 and phases out as home value grows. Local government aid (LGA) - A state government revenue sharing program for cities and townships that is intended to provide an alternative to the property tax. The formulae for distributing the aid payments were changed for 2004 and beyond. The 2008 Legislature implemented additional formula. changes: LGA is distributed using different formulae for cities over 2,500 and cities under 2,500. Large city formula factors are: pre -1940 housing percentage, population decline over last decade, accidents per capita, average household size, metro or non - metro, and adjusted net tax capacity per capita. Small city formula factors are: pre -1940 housing percentage, population decline over last decade, commercial /industrial property percentage, and population. In 2006, a new aid base for small cities was created. Cities under 5,000 in population received base aid equal to $6 per capita. The 2008 reforms resulted in several other changes and additions to aid base. See "Local Government Aid 101: 2009 Distribution & Beyond ". Local tax rate • The rate used to compute taxes for each parcel of property. Local tax rate is computed by dividing the certified levy (after reduction for fiscal disparities distribution levy and disparity reduction) by the taxable tax capacity. Market value - An assessor's estimate of what property would be worth on the open market if sold. The market value is set on January 2 of the year before taxes are payable. Market value homestead credit - This credit offset a portion of each homestead's property tax burden equal to .4 percent of the homestead's market value up to a maximum credit of $304. For taxes payable in 2012 and beyond homestead properties will not receive a credit but rather see a portion of the value excluded from taxation (for eligible properties). Property class - The classification assigned to each parcel of property based on the use of the property. For example, owner - occupied residential property is classified as homestead. Property tax levy - The tax imposed by a local unit of government. The tax is Table A: class rates established on or around December 28 of the year preceding the year the levy will be paid by taxpayers. Targeting refund - a state paid property tax refund for homeowners whose property taxes have increased by more than 12 percent. A similar program is available to cabin owners. Tax capacity - The valuation of property based on market value and statutory class rates. The property tax for each parcel is based on its tax capacity. Total tax capacity - The amount computed by first totaling the tax capacities of all parcels of property within a city. Adjustments for fiscal disparities, tax increment and a portion of the powerline value are made to this total since not all tax capacity is available for general tax purposes. Truth -in- Taxation - The "taxation and notification law" which requires local governments to set estimated levies, inform taxpayers about the impacts, and announce which of their regularly scheduled council meetings will include a discussion of the budget and levy. Taxpayer input is taken at that meeting. Property Class Taxes Local Taxes State Tax Payable Payable 2011 Payable 2012 2012 Residential Homestead: 1,1$500,0001 1.0% 1.0% No state tax >$500,000 1.25 1.25 Non - homestead Residential: Single unit: V $500,000' 1.0 1.0 >$500,000 1.25 1.25 No state tax 2 -3 unit buildings 1.25 1.25 Market -rate Apartments: 1.25 1.25 No state tax Commercial/Industrial: Subject to state V $150,000' 1.5 1.5 levy (commercial - >$150,000 2.0 2.0 industrial rate) Seasonal Recreational. Residential: Subject to state 111$500,000 1 1.0 1.0 levy (seasonal- >$500,000 1.25 1.25 recreational rate Updated August 2012 51 First tier limit was $72,000 for 1997, $76,000 for 2000, and $500,000 for 2002 and thereafter 'First tier limit was $100,000 for 1997, $150,000 thereafter Resources League of Minnesota Cities httl2: / /www.Imc.org/page /1 /property -tax- state - funding- fiscal- issues.im • Local Government Aid 101: 2009 Distribution & Beyond • Fiscal Disparities 101 • State Homeowner Property Tax Relief Programs 101 • Homestead Market Value Exclusion 101 Updated August 2012 52 O 0 LEAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 Homestead Market Value Exclusion 101 May 2012 The Homestead Market Value Exclusion (HMVE) program (hereafter referred to as "the exclusion ") replaced the Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) program for taxes payable in 2012 and beyond. This guide describes how the exclusion works and highlights some of the issues that cities should keep in mind when examining the effects of the new program on their communities. Many of the issues relate to the ways that different aspects of the property tax system interact. A detailed description of the overall property tax system can be found in the "Property Taxation 101" guide. An overview of the new exclusion program and a variety of resources to help cities explain the changes to property owners are available on the League's site. History of MVHC Reimbursement Year Original Amount cities Final Amount (cities) 2002 87,512,765 87,512,765 2003 85,539,919 65,425,091 2004 85,290,722 66,279,257 2005 82,636,505 65,087,094 2006 78,921,393 62,809,103 2007 75,935,548 75,935,548 2008 75,810,435 63,310,311 2009 76,770,261 57,204,103 2010 82,053,176 12,106,217 2011 60,246,987 12,148,508 2012 Eliminated Eliminated How it works for homeowners: Much like in the MVHC program, homeowners will not have to take any action in order to benefit from the market value exclusion. It is applied automatically. The maximum exclusion will go to homes valued at $76,000 or less. The exclusion at that level is 40% of market value. For a $76,000 home, that means $30,400 of value is not taxable. In other words, all property taxes are applied only to the remaining $45,600 of market value. As home value increases, the portion of market value eligible for exclusion phases out and is at zero percent for homes valued at more than $413,778. Note that market values are determined in the year prior to the year in which taxes are paid. For example, values used to calculate taxes payable in 2011 were set in early 2010. Property owners received notices stating the value of their property for 2012 taxes early in the spring of 2012. That was the first time that homestead owners saw the amount of their value excluded. 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281 -1200 FAX: (651) 281 -1299 ST. PAUL, MN 55103 -2044 53 TOLL FREE: (800) 925 -1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.OPG Page 2 Below is a sample calculation of total taxes due (city, county, and school district taxes) before and after the exclusion from the Department of Revenue: Sample Home Market Value $76,000 $150,000 $300,000 $450,000 Previous Law: MVHC Net Tax Capacity (market value x 1% class rate $760 $1,500 $3,000 $4,500 Gross Tax at rate of 105.81% (rate x tax capacity) $804.16 $1,587.15 $3,174.30 $4,761.45 Current MVHC $304.00 $237.40 $102.40 $0 Net Tax total tax less credit $500.16 1 $1,349.75 1 $3,071.90 1 $4,761.45 New Law: Exclusion Market Value Exclusion $30,400 $23,740 $10,240 $0 MV after exclusion $45,600 $126,260 $289,760 $450,000 Home Net Tax Capacity (market value x 1% class rate $456 $1,263 $2,898 $4,500 MVHC Credit $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Tax at rate of 110.92% rate x tax capacity) $505.80 $1,400.48 $3,214.02 $4,991.40 *the total tax rates used in this example are statewide averages before and after the effects of the exclusion What it means for cities The immediate effect of the exclusion was a decrease in the tax base. The valuations used for calculating taxes owed in 2012 were set in early 2011. The extent of the decrease in tax base depended on the portion of homestead property each city had. The tax base decrease meant that in order to generate the same amount of city property tax dollars as in 2011, city tax rates had to go up. For example, if prior to the conversion a city's tax base was 1000 and its tax levy was 100, the tax rate would be 10 %. With the new exclusion, in that same city the tax base has been reduced 40% to 600. The city still needed to generate 100 in property taxes. The rate climbs to almost 17 %. For many cities, it was very difficult to hold levies flat given the repeated cuts to Local Government Aid (LGA) payments and to ongoing cost pressures, like the cost of healthcare, fuel and infrastructure maintenance. The exclusion resulted in a shift in tax burden from homestead properties to other kinds of property. The extent of this shift was influenced by the portion of all homestead property made up of lower value homes. The more lower -value homes a city had as a portion of its tax base means more tax burden shifting. In many communities, lower value homes paid more in taxes even if the levy remains flat. This is because of the increase in tax rate necessary to generate the same amount of tax levy. This effect was more likely in cities where a high portion of property was lower value homes. Property tax bills, of course, reflect the levy decisions and tax bases of not just the city, but also the county, the school district and any special districts. The tax bases of all local governments were affected by the new exclusion program. A given city may not have seen a big decrease in its city tax base and therefore experienced little shifting of city tax burden. The county containing that city may have a lot of lower -value homes and therefore experienced a big tax base loss. That would have still affected property owners within the city. Updated May 2012 54 Page 3 Beyond 2012 Going forward, valuations provided on tax statements sent to homeowners will reflect the exclusion. City leaders will know what their tax base for the following year's property tax levy is going into budget season. Cities, however, will still see shifts of property tax burden as property values for all kinds of properties change. Other issues to consider The new HMVE program interacts with other aspects of the tax system, namely Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Local Government Aid (LGA), and market value levy limits. During the 2012 legislative session, the League worked on language that would clarify some of these interactions and clean up details of how the HMVE program works. Those provisions, however, were in the vetoed tax bill. The interactions are described briefly below: MVE and TIF: Current values of TIF properties will be adjusted but the Dept. of Revenue has indicated that the base year values will NOT be adjusted. This will result in a decrease in the increment: captured and may cause problems for cities in paying off debt associated with the TIF district. MVE and LGA: The current LGA formula takes city tax base into - account in distributing the LGA appropriation. The exclusion will reduce tax capacity in each city. That will mean a reduction in the capacity side of the need vs. capacity comparison the formula makes. MVE and market value levy limits: The Dept. of Revenue has indicated that market values for determining HRA and EDA levy limits and certain debt limits will be the values after the effects of the exclusion. Resources League of Minnesota Cities hqp: / /www.Imc.org/page/l /property- tax - state - funding- fiscal - issues. jsp Updated May 2012 55 Sale and Resale Analysis Summary The best indications of change in market conditions are provided by the prices of properties that have been sold and resold several times. There were 21 single - family residential properties that sold in 2012 that had also sold within the prior 4 years. Sale prices were adjusted for cash equivalency. Properties with improvements made from 2008 to 2012 were excluded from this analysis. Summary of Sales - Single Family Year Sold Year Resold Number of Sales Aggregate Percent Change Average Annual Change Median Annual Change 2008 2012 6 -19.4 -3.7 -2.4 2009 2012 10 -5.9 -1.4 -0.9 2010 2012 2 5.0 -4.6 4.6 2011 2012 3 6.9 6.6 5.7 For all 21 sales, the average annual change was -0.4 percent and the median annual change was -0.7 percent. Summary of Sales- Condominiums Year Sold Year Resold Number of Sales Aggregate Percent Change Average Annual Change Median Annual Change 2008 2012 8 -14.7 -3.8 -1.5 2009 2012 9 -0.6 -0.3 0.2 2010 2012 8 -3.8 -1.0 0.5 2011 2012 1 0 0.0 0.0 The average annual change for the 26 sales was -1.7 percent and the median annual change was -0.3 percent. For townhomes, there were only two repeat sales. The average annual change was -4.4 percent and the median change was -2.7 percent. The following pages include the sales used in this analysis. The percent change column represents average annual rates based on elapsed months between sales. Report Name: M . Sales Analysis City 6. Edina Current Sale Year: 2012 Sales Data Period: 01/2008 - 12/2012 Multiple Sales Analysis User Name: BWILSON (2) Single Family -Sale Year 2008- -Sale Year 2009 - PID Address Mo Price Pct MO Price Pct 04- 116- 21 -24- 0036 6432 Wilryan Ave 06- 116 -21 -13 -0049 6415 Indian Pond Cir 5 1,015,000 -11.2 06- 116 -21 -23 -0022 6801 Indian Hills Rd 7 450,000 -2.0 07- 028 -24-42 -0068 4239 Lynn Ave 19- 028 - 24-12 -0117 5508 Brookview Ave 10 1,150,000 0.7 19- 028 - 24-14 -0078 3924 58th St W 19- 028 - 24-31 -0111 5901 Concord Ave 20- 028 -24 -21 -0007 5412 Xerxes Ave S 12 245,000 -1.9 20- 028 -24 -31 -0134 5913 Abbott Ave S 7 237,500 1.2 20- 028 -24 -31 -0176 5929 York Ave S 3 262,000 -0.7 20- 028 -24 -34 -0051 3113 60th St W 5 349,500 -2.2 28- 117 -21 -23 -0093 4524 Parkside La 11 315,000 1.1 28- 117 -21 -32 -0027 5224 51st St W 9 269,900 -5.4 28- 117 -21 -32 -0161 5005 Bedford Ave 10 505,000 -0.7 29- 117 -21 -41 -0012 5004 Skyline Dr 9 1,500,000 -5.6 30- 028 -24 -21 -0032 6201 St Johns Ave 5 359,600 -1.6 31- 028 -24 -12 -6028 7128 Glouchester Ave 31- 028 -24-13 -0089 7325 Oaklawn Ave 8 510,000 -5.5 31- 028 -24 -21- 0075 4429 Claremore Dr 5 459,900 0.0 31- 117 -21 -44 -0016 6013 Killarney La 10 520,000 -2.5 33- 117 -21 -21 -0037 5116 Richmond Cir 6 258,750 -0.4 Sale and Resale Analysis Summary Aggregate Average Year Year Number Percent Annual Sold Resold Sales Change Change 2008 2012 6 -19.4 - -3.7 2009 2012 10 -5.9 -1.4 2010 2012 2 .5.0 ,,4.6 2011 2012 3 6.9 6.6 57 -Sale Year 2010- MO Price Pct 1 330,000 -1.6 12 235,000 10.8 Median Annual Change -2.4 -0.9 4.6 5.7 -Sale Year 2011= Mo Price Pct 8 700,000 8.6 5 305,000 5.6 7 351,500 5.7 rated: 3/672013 Page: 1 -Year 2012- MO Price 4 318,000 1 600,000 5 425,000 6 750,000 8 1,172,000 7 275,000 7 325,000 5 233,900 11 247,000 11 255,000 6 318,000 7 324,000 6 230,000. 7 .492,500 , 9 1,250,000 9 340,000 9 375,000 1 415,000 11 460,000 12 465,000 6 254,375 Report Name: Multiple Sales Analysis Current Sale Year. 2012 Sales Data Period: 01/2008 - 122012 User Name: BWI SON (2) )SID Address Complex 08- 116 -21 -12 -0060 5501 Village Dr 104 HP 08- 116 -21 -13 -0145 7250 Lewis Ridge Pkwy 311 LR 08 -116 -21-42 -0054 7520 Cahill Rd 304 WW 08 -116 -21-42 -0181 7500 Cahill Rd 217 WW 08 -116 - 2142 -0210 7500 Cahill Rd 323 WW 18-028 -24-41 -0250 5000 Halifax Ave 205 HN 28- 117 -21 -22 -0030 4360 Brookside Ct 106 BS 28- 117 -21 -33 -0072 5275 Grandview Square 3210 GV 28- 117 -21 -34 -0089 5225 Grandview Square 314 GV 28- 117 -21- 34-0119 5250 Grandview Square 2108 GV 29 -028 -24 -21 -0072 6400 York Ave S 506 YR 30-028 - 24- 14-0037 6566 France Ave S 311 PF 30 -028- 24- 14-0109 6566 France Ave S 911 PF 31 -028 -24-11 -0094 7000 Sandell Ave 3 SL 31 -028 -24-41 -0058 4100 Parklawn Ave 212 HH 31 -028 -24-42 -0082 4401 Parklawn Ave 308 PE 31- 117 -21 -33 -0083 6105 Lincoln Dr 229 EW 31- 117 -21- 34-0128 6650 Vernon Ave 406 1W 32 -028 -24-32 -0078 7540 Edinborough Way 1111 CL 32 -028 -24-32 -0088 7540 Edinborough Way 1205 CL 32 -028 -24-32 -0168 7520 Edinborough Way 2105 CL 32 -028- 2432 -0170 7520 Edinborougk Way 2107 CL 32 -028- 2434-0175 7621 Edinborough Way 2106 EI) 32 -028- 24340219 7625 Edinborough Way 2312 ED 32 -028- 24340753 7605 Edinborough Way 6314 ED Complexes 2008 -2012 W W- Windwood (3 salt:s) average annual change 1.9% GV- Grandview (3 sales) average annual change -0.3% PF -Point of France (2 sales) average annual change 3.5% CI.Centennial Lakes (4 sales) average annual change 11.0% ED- Edinborough (3 sales) average annual change -2.0% City of Edina Multiple Sales Analysis Multiple Sales Condo -Sale Year 2008- --Sale Year 2009- -Sale Year 2010 - -Sale Year 2011- M Price Pct Mo Price Pct Mo Price Pet Mo Price ,Pct 5 259,900 3.7 1 325,000 0.2 7 112,000 1.0 10 410,000 -1.2 7 110,737 -3.6 8 115,000 -14.6 4 116,500 -1.8 9 200,000 -10.2 12 95,000 0.0 5 149,000 -0.3 7 411,000 02 11 140,000 7.5 6 185,000 5.5 4 45,500 -1.5 8 106,500 0.1 6 177,500 -12.6 3 118,500 -0.9 4 102,000 5.5 12 520,000 -7.2 9 119,900 11.3 4 175,000 1.4 10 90,000 1.8 7 139,900. -9.2 6 195,000 4.7 58. 9 425,000 0 Printed: 3/6/2013 Page: 1 -Year 2012 - Mo Price 10 292,700 6 327,500 8 116,000 10 116,000 2 116,000 6 463,500 8 110,000 5 413,550 11 390,000 5 425,000 6 167,000 2 212,000 5 180,000 3 43,500 8 93,001 11 93,600 9 112,000 10 45,000 11 107,000 8 215,000 7 122,000 9 105,000 10 95,000 8 147,000 .11 110,000 4 3 139,400 -5.8 Sale and Resale Analysis Summary Aggregate Average Median Year Year Number Percent Annual Annual Sold Resold Sales Change Change Change 2008 2012 8 -14.7 -3.8 -1.5 2009 2012 9 -0.6 -0.3 0.2 2010 2012 8 -3.8 -1.0 0.5 2011 2012 1 0 0.0 0.0 58. 9 425,000 0 Printed: 3/6/2013 Page: 1 -Year 2012 - Mo Price 10 292,700 6 327,500 8 116,000 10 116,000 2 116,000 6 463,500 8 110,000 5 413,550 11 390,000 5 425,000 6 167,000 2 212,000 5 180,000 3 43,500 8 93,001 11 93,600 9 112,000 10 45,000 11 107,000 8 215,000 7 122,000 9 105,000 10 95,000 8 147,000 .11 110,000 4 Report Name: Mu Sales Analysis City Otqdina Current Sale Year: 2012 Sales Data Period: 01/2008-12/2012 Multiple Sales Analysis User Name: BWiLSON (2) Multiple Sales Townhome —Sale Year 2008— —Sale Year 2009— —Sale Year 2010 - PID Address MO Price Pct Mo' Price Pct Mo Price Pct 31- 117 -21 -34 -0043 2 Wellesley PI 6 303,000 -2.7 32- 028 -24 -32 -0595 307 Coventry La 8 550,000 0.7 32- 117 -21 -23 -0075 6070 Blake Ridge Rd 5 287,500' -11.3 Sale and Resale Analysis Summary —Sale Year 2011 - Mo Price Pct I- d: 3/12/2013 Page: 1 —Year 2012 - Mo Price 10 267,500 9 565,000 4 225,000 Aggregate Average Median Year Year Number Percent Annual Annual Sold ReSold Sales Change Change Change 2008 2012 2 -2.4 -1.0 -1.0 2009 2012 0 0 0.0 0.0 2010 2012 1 -21.7 0.0 0.0 2011 2012. 0 0 0.0 0.0 —Sale Year 2011 - Mo Price Pct I- d: 3/12/2013 Page: 1 —Year 2012 - Mo Price 10 267,500 9 565,000 4 225,000 Wednesday I March 13, 2013 finance- commerce.com Finance & Commerce 5A Median rices upj closed sal d BY BURL GILYARD Staff Writer As the housing market continues to show signs of improvement, there's still something of a disconnect in the local housing numbers: Median sales prices are posting solid gains, but the overall in- ventory keeps dropping. The latest statistics from the Minneapolis Area Associ- ation of Realtors (MAAR) show a median sales price of $160,000 in February, up 15.5 percent from February-2012. j That's encouraging, given that the middle of winter is generally the slow season.for selling homes in Minnesota Median prices have now posted year-over-year . in- creases for 12 consecutive months. The statistics cover the 13- county metro area Pending sales were tip 2 percent last month, but closed sales were down 4.7 percent in February. One factor in the de- cline of closed sales could be the contin- ued dwindling of houses for sale. The current 12,202 homes'for sale is the low- est number of homes for sale in more than 10 years. "It's definitelybecoming apparent that the market is constrained due to supply issues," said Aaron Dickinson, an agent with Edina Realty. "It's part of the grow- ing pains of a changing market." Dickinson said that some buyers simply' can'.t find homes that they want to buy in the current market. The inventory of homes for sale dropped 3L6 percent' from a year ago and the num- berr of new listings declined 9.6 percent compared with February 2012. Based on cur- rent sales trends and inven- tory, MAAR calculates that the supply of homes available would only last for 2.9 months. Distressed properties are still a factor in the market. In February, 55A percent of closed sales were traditional homes, while 44.6 of closed sales were distressed deals. Among closed sales last month, 33.3 percent of the properties were fore- - tr;llllo�� C��ho�ie'��es�ie 4Citi�a���rea�..� �, n� .:�r �.y ry�,a--r Via• � but ys' .�h��'- 3 �R'' � E`i�= .r^.n -�"�l x�z �S�• �K� .crr marts �'.ti..+,.tts� '4 ��Y.c�- -,� "�"� -• § R - Ne A `-ia5s¢"� x % mss. -d'C+a "4 .t PT + 4...�,.- � -.�5�� n``:�F'r Ak�'z�.R�s'35�`�� Y"..:� '1.J;6 n��� .Y- ,•i,�C�,,y \'t�4���]�lG�il�� " �. ge�ding s�les'�����,, ��-� � �. �,tr �r �;fi$9 �y� �-��.i � ��I��- �2�perc�nt✓��; �,,yy t -�� 'rte' 3Vat +�.iPx � 7' �.e�. -+!s• r r9- roc � zF 1. r �t iF ���tiXe�j loo #�Fto`i�e��4�'s�lle'� -�,��.����72r2�2�s7� �� ���� o-�- 31S6,peGCe�►t�� C .r .. ,� 4 � r tr t -5•a, # �i +� � 'F F� j��� a ��-. .3* .�'T.r rl r '& r ySa�itCe'�M� ea al�1g,a'[ �altcibsA�sw4�- �'��- tnr•�w`r'�y�Y�'sa*�� G,. �i t � � ��,�5 �r > � ��`; w , -,y. �;yam 1'V• 3 _ m cfy. � -� .og�'�z_u'. S . L'fr� 'F �,� w^� -'�' �e'x K'� f; �: $ 3 d•,� i..n�. +ra �J� �,,: +�� L,r�.._Y` a '*� ,, � a� .��y =a- rs' -'�•} R r �1 � �, 4 1°n7 „f G•� 'aF :z? iKa � a r rat STAFF PHOTO: BILL KLOTZ A recently sold home in south Minneapolis. Closed sales dipped 4.7 percent in February compared with February 2012. closures and 11.3 were short sales. While distressed properties are still a factor in the market, traditional homes represented 72.3 percent of new listings in February. That marks the first time that traditional homes have comprised more than 70 percent of new listings since June 2008. "We're working through most of our distressed properties," Dickinson said. Dickinson said that he is expecting strong sales activity in the spring and summer and noted that sellers are draw- ing solid interest on properties priced to meet the market. "We're watching seller activity almost more than buyer activity," said Andy Fazr--ain, president of the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, in a" state- ment. `Bank listing activity is down while traditional seller activity is up. That's an encouraging shift." "It's part of the growing pains of as changing market." - Aaron Dickinson, Edina Realty Finance & Commerce > Print > Homes for sale in Twin Cities at 10 -year low (update) Page 1 of 2 Finance & Commerce http:/ /finance - commerce.com Homes for sale in Twin Cities at 10-year low (update) by Burl Gilyard Published: February 12th, 2013 Total is down 32 percent from 2012 Amid improving fundamentals for the Twin Cities housing market, the number of homes currently for sale is down: way down. The current inventory of 11,977 homes for sale is down 32.2 percent from a year ago and marks a 10 -year low for the Twin Cities market. According to new statistics from the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, that works out to a supply of just 2.9 months. The number is calculated by dividing the inventory of homes for sale by the average monthly pending sales for the last 12 months. Five years ago in January 2008, the market had an 8.8 month supply of homes for sale. Distressed properties, including foreclosures and short sales, accounted for 42.9 percent of closed sales in the Twin Cities during January, but new listings for such properties are declining. (File photo: Bill Klotz) "What we're seeing Is a huge demand. There's tons of buyers out there looking," said Andy Fazendin, president of MAAR. "There seems to be this shortage of supply." The latest local statistics from MAAR for the 13 -county metro area show that the overall median sales price for January was $160,000 for January, an increase of 14.3 percent compared to a year ago. As the market improves, even median sales prices for foreclosed and short sale homes around the Twin Cities are going up. According to MAAR, the median price for traditional homes climbed 3.6 percent to $199,900 in January. The median price for a foreclosed home was up 22.5 percent to $124,900. The median price for a short sale — wherein a lender agrees to a sale for less than what's owed on the mortgage — was up 2.9 percent to $125,500. But as the market Improves, the question remains: Why aren't more people putting homes up for sale? "That Is the million dollar question. My gut is they're waiting for those prices to get up higher," Fazendin said, noting that prices are still down from peak levels. "They want a return on their Investment. They want to buy low and sell high. What we really need to see to get more listings Is an Increase in price." Seven years ago in January 2006 when the housing market was near its peak, the median sale price was $227,900. The current median price of $160,000 is 30 percent lower. But the latest numbers are in line with the recent trends: prices and total sales are climbing as the Inventory of homes for sale continues to fall. Closed sales were up it percent in January; pending sales were up 13.3 percent compared with January 2012. The inventory of homes for sale was down 32.2 percent compared with the same period a year ago. Distressed properties are still a factor In the market, accounting for 42.9 percent of sales that closed in January. But new listings for distressed properties are decflning: the number of foreclosed homes hitting the market In January dropped 13.4 percent while the number of new 61 http: / /finance- commerce .corn /wp- contentlplugins /tdc- sociable - toolbar /wp- print.php ?p= 567... 2/13/2013 Finance & Commerce > Print > Homes for sale in Twin Cities at 10 -year low (update) Page 2 of 2 ' listings for short sales dropped 47.1 percent. At the same time, the number of new listings for ' traditional homes climbed 9.9 percent compared to January 2012. Winter in Minnesota is typically a slow season for home sales, but real estate agents are encouraged by the numbers. "The recovery is under way, it's going a little bit slower than we anticipated," Faze ndin said. "I think we are starting to see the beginning of an increase in seller confidence." Good start for home sales Numbers in key categories continued to point in the right direction in January in the Twin Cities area housing market. Jan. 2013 / % change from Jan. 2012 Median sales price: $160,000 / +14.3 %. Closed sales: 2,797 / +11% Pending sales: 3,456 / +13.3% Days on market: 107 / (- 24.1 %) of original price received: 93.5% / up 2.5% Inventory of homes for sale: 11,977 / (- 32.2 %) Source: Minneapolis Area Realtors Association Complete URL: http: / /finance - commerce.com/ 2013 /02 /no- winter - chill- for -twin- cities - home - sales/ 62 http: / /finance- commerce .com /wp- contentlplugins /tdc- sociable- toolbar /wp- print.php?p= 567... 2/13/2013 I f At�nii�l -Ron III fill] I win Cities Hoi�sin J M�rk�t FOR RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE ACTIVITY IN THE 13-COUNTY TWIN CITIES REGION c"� MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of ® REALTORS pi to?r orl t1 :01 1.1iir� IT Il�ar ktz,t FOR RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE ACTIVITY IN THE MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association 13- COUNTY TWIN CITIES REGION -f-REALTORS" . With a mean crossover dribble and a wicked head fake, housing is again driving the lane with authority. Between 2007 and 2011, housing markets were overburdened with distressed properties, excessive supply and weak consumer demand. But a timeout was taken in 2012, and the market was able to rehydrate and breathe easier. Yearlong evidence points to market recovery — just in time to alleviate beleaguered homeowners and relieve a dwindling tax base. Housing has been the center of attention in 2012 — and it's lonely at the top. For the first time since 2006, housing is on track to be a net positive contributor to GDP. Some have claimed that an accommodating Federal Reserve policy has driven down interest rates so much that it's enabled families to purchase up to 50 percent more house than they otherwise could. Others make a more "market fundamentals" argument, asserting that dramatic declines in supply and solid increases in demand have led to the year's successful turnaround jump shot. The truth lies somewhere in the paint. Low mortgage rates, affordable prices and rising rents created a three -point play that bolstered consumer confidence. On a national scale, natural disasters, fiscal cliffs, contested elections and sovereign debt crises could not slow down buyers. Consequently, home values are ticking higher in many regions. In addition to the feel -good nature of a housing recovery, it has tangible benefits to homeowners — particularly those still in underwater mortgage situations. Rising prices should convince more sellers to re -enter the marketplace, passing the rock to buyers. Listings In general, sellers remained along the baseline, but there are hints of change in the listings playbook. Traditional sellers are returning just as banks seem to be listing fewer distressed properties. In 2012, homeowners introduced 65,914 new properties to the marketplace, a modest 4.3 percent decrease or about 3,000 units fewer than 2011.. sales The buyer rebound remained strong throughout the year. Better still, housing demand strengthened without performance- enhancing government incentives. Closed sales were up about 16.9 percent to 48,641 for the year. And only 39.7 percent of them were distressed, compared to 50.0 percent in 2011. Inventory Currently, buyers have 31.8 percent fewer choices than last year at this time. Changing teams, sellers have 31.8 percent less competition. Supply -side correction is generally a positive, but many local communities are on the brink of a housing shortage, which has given rise to new construction in . certain neighborhoods. Move -in ready inventory is at a premium. Thus, restoring seller confidence is a slam dunk to continued recovery. Well- priced and well - presented listings are. fetching more than 94.0 percent of list price at sale, significantly higher than in recent years. Prices Both locally and nationally, home prices are turning a corner. In fact, we ended 2012 with an 11.9 percent median price gain compared to 2011. At $167,900, prices have come down 26.6 percent from their bubbly apex in 2006. They have .recovered from the air ball lows of 2011. Sustaining a healthy, equitable and bubble -free housing market is of paramount importance. It will require both public and .private cooperation — something that was difficult to achieve last year. This recovery is fragile, and an injury at this juncture could be devastating. Given the importance of housing to the overall economy, it's also critical to the recovery of our nation. Here's to continued improvement and a breakaway year! Table of Contents 3 Quick Facts 5 Property Type Review 6 Distressed Homes Review 7 New Construction Review 8 Area Overviews 17 Area Historical Prices 26 Historical Review Click on desired metric to jump to that page. �.(uii Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 2 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market QuickFacts MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association Rankings ;nclude geographies with 15 sales or more. Counties, townships and Minneapolis neighborhoods are not included. °J REALTORS' New Listings Pending Sales 93,464 82,977 81,858 49,610 46,180 68,886 65,914 39,737 38,198 42,072 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Top 5 Areas: Change in New Listings from 2011 Top 5 Areas: Change in Pending Sales from 2011 Hanover +91.1% Woodland +250.0% Lexington +47.1% Spring Park +125.0% Arden Hills +36.6% Lakeland +107.1% Otsego +33.6% Lexington +100.0% Loretto +33.3% Spring Lake Park +96.4% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in New Listings from 2011 Bottom 5 Areas: Change In Pending Sales from 2011 Lindstrom -23.2% Watertown - 10.4% Greenfield -30.3% Saint Francis -15.6% Excelsior -34.6% Rush City -22.7% Rockford -36.0% Chisago -29.5% Cologne -41.8% Greenfield -45.0% Closed Sales Inventory of Homes for Sale At the end of the year. 48,641 25,611 39,598 45,877 38,288 41,606 20,620 22,645 17,416 11,875 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Top 5 Areas: Change in Closed Sales from 2011 Top 5 Areas: Change In Homes for Sale from 2011 Woodland +400.0% Hanover +72.7% Spring Park +115.4% Lauderdale +60.0% Spring Lake Park +101.8% I Stacy +57.1% Lakeland +100.0% I Zumbrota +47.6% Somerset +82.9% f Saint Paul Park +43.8% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Closed Sales from 2011 ` Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Homes for Sale from 2011 Minneapolis - Near North -12.4% Lexington -60.0% Rush City -16.7% Rockford -61.5% Saint Francis -20.8% Saint Bonifacius -64.7% Chisago -34.7% Cologne -65.4% Greenfield -37.8% Maple Plain -66.7% Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 13 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Quick Facts Ilankings include geographies with 15 sales or mnip. Counties, too ps ❑ icl f:hn: r:nl;r rigihi;cr'nxds are not �ncIx1�rI, Median Sales Price $195,000 5165,000 $169,900 $167,900 $150,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 Top 5 Areas: Change in Median Sales Price from 2011 Arden Hills Spring Park Independence Deephaven Tonka Bay Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Median Sales Price from 2011 Stacy Orono Woodland Afton Loretto 2012 +106.3% +76.3% +56.2% + 53.2% +45.0% -21.8% -28.7% -34.3% -36.0% -40.3% Cumulative Days on Market Until Sale 153 144 147 1 211 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Top 5 Areas: Change in Cumulative Days on Market from 2011 Bayport + 69.0% Mora + 55.9% Spring Park +52.6% Cokato +14.9% Independence +- 9.8% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Cumulative Days on Market from 2011 Carver Cambridge -43.2% Lakeland -44.2% Corcoran -44.7% Zumbrota -55.4% Woodland -61.4% MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS` Average Sales Price $236,570 $199,377 $211,338 $193,341 $210,787 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Top 5 Areas: Change in Average Sales Price from 2011 Spring Park +69.8% Arden Hills +51.9% Bayport +32.8% Dayton +32.2% Osseo +29.8% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Average Sales Price from 2011 Stacy -14.8% South Haven -16.7% Orono -24.3% Loretto -31.5% Afton -36-2% Percent of Original List Price Received 92.7% 923 ° /a 91.85t� � 90.6% 94.0°/, 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Top 5 Areas: Change in Pct. of Orig. Price Received from 2011 Woodland + 24.8% Rockford +11.6% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale +10.7% Cannon Falls + 10.6% Cambridge + 9.0% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Pct. of Orig. Price Received from 2011 Carver -2.1% Bayport -2.1% Lauderdale -3.7% Mora -4.1% Loretto -12.1% jam// Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 4 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Property■ ype Review MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association .f REALTORS' Rankings include geographies with 15 sales or more. Counties, townships and Minneapolis neighborhoods are not included. Top Areas: Townhouse -Condo Attached Market Share In 2012 114 1 �Q Twin Cities Region 22.8% �./ 1 Minneapolis - Central 99.6% Saint Paul - Downtown 96.7% Average Cumulative Days on Average Cumulative Days on Lilydale 95.2% Market Single - Family Market Townhouse -Condo Minneapolis - University 67.6% Minneapolis - Calhoun -Isle 50.4% Cumulative Days on Market Until Sale y Oak Park Heights 49.0% Hugo 48.3% This chart uses a rolling 12 -month average for each data point. Wayzata 47.4% �Single- Family - Townhouse -Condo Saint Paul - Summit - University 47.0% 180 ......................:..., ...........,............. ..:,................... .............._.._.,........... Little Canada 45.9% Apple Valley 44.8% 170 ......... ....... ..... i......... .... _. _.., ............... . .....__..... B Burnsville 4 3.3% Vadnais Heights 43.1% 160 .. ...... .. ... ......................... -..... ............. ...... .............. ;.... ..... ....... Spring Park 42.9% Hopkins 40.7% 50 ..........._... ......................... ..5.....................i...... Saint Anthony 40.6% Saint Paul - Summit Hill 39.0% 40 ....... _ .. .. ; ;..... .............: . .............. Minneapolis - Phillips 38.9% Saint Paul - St. Anthony Park 38.9% MO...................... . .................... ... ................ ....... ............ t......... ....... Eden Prairie 38.3% Woodbury 38.2% 120 .............. ........j,.....,...........,,.. .............. ........j.....,................ .............. ... l. Eagan 37.2% Inver Grove Heights 37.2% 110 Saint Bonifacius 36.4% 1 -2008 1 -2009 1 -2010 1 -2011 1 -2012 Shakopee 36.2% +10.2% One -Year Change in Price Single - Family Detached Median Sales Price $21 OK at7otc $185K $184K +8.8% One -Year Change in Price Townhouse -Condo Attached 2008 02009 02010 W2011 .2012 $165K $140K $135K . -__.. Single- Family Detached Townhouse -Condo Attached 94.1% Pct. of Orig. Price Received Single - Family Detached 93.4% Pct. of Odg. Price Received Townhouse -Condo Attached Percent of Original List Price Received 2008 02009 M2010 E2011 U2012 91.6% 93.2 %92.7% 91.1% 94.1% 92.5% 91.2% 91.3% - _. 93.4% Single - Family Detached Townhouse -Condo Attached Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 5 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Distressed Homes Review Rankings include geographies with 15 sales or more. Counties, townships and Minnc2 39.7% - 7.2% Percent of Closed Sales in One -Year Change in Sales of 2012 That Were Distressed Distressed Properties Percent of Sales That Were Distressed 48.9% X17.9% 50.0% 0 39.7% 32.5% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 +1.8% -0.5% Four -Year Change in Price Four -Year Change in Price All Properties Traditional Properties Median Sales Price 000 $210,000 $217, $208,875 _ $200,000 - Ilk "Wi MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association REALTORS* polis neighborhoods are not included. Top Areas: Distressed Market Share in 2012 Twin Cities Region 39.7% Rush City 77.1% Somerset 72.0% Zimmerman 71.0% Saint Francis 69.7% Saint Paul - Dayton's Bluff 65.7% Princeton 65.2% Newport 64.5% Isanti 64.1% North Branch 64.0% Cambridge 63.7% Stacy 62.5% Lonsdale 61.9% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale 58.1% Big Lake 58.0% Saint Paul - Payne - Phalen 57.8% Spring Lake Park 57.5% Minneapolis - Camden 57.5% Minneapolis - Phillips 56.5% Saint Paul - Greater East Side 56.4% Minneapolis - Near North 56.4% Farmington 56.3% Elk River 56.3% Chisago 56.3% Coon Rapids 56.0% East Bethel 55.8% - 15.4% Four -Year Change in Price Short Sales $152,900 $150,000 III III $131,600 $129,410 Traditional Short Sales -1.7% Four -Year Change in Price Foreclosures 2009 ■ 2010 ■ 2011 III $120,000 $125,900 $118,000 $108,000 Foreclosures _Ap Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 16 CI 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market New Construction Review MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association Months Supply of Inventory 2008 ■2009 02010 02011 02012 10.6 7.9 8.1 7A 7.6 New Construction 7.2 Previously Owned Percent of Original List Price Received This chart uses a Rolling 12 Month Average for each data point. - New Construction - Previously Owned 100% 98% 98% 94% 92% 90% 88% 1 -2008 1 -2009 1 -2010 1 -2011 1 -2012 _Z6.01 Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 17 °I REALTORS' Rankings include geographies with 15 sales or more. Counties, townships and Minneapolis neighborhoods are not included. Top Areas: New Construction Market Share in 2012 Feb ' 08 3, 354 Twin Cities Region 6.4% Cologne 38.1 Otsego 26.7% Peak of Drop in New Construction Arden Hills 26.3% New Construction Inventory Inventory from Peak Mayer 25.0% Victoria 23.3% Bayport 22.2% New Construction Homes for Sale Rogers 20.4% Hugo 19.4% Blaine 19.4% 5, 000 ...._._...__..---- -------------- _------ __. .- ____---- ...__..,_____._______ ._ Delano 19.2% Carver 19.1% Montrose 17.7% 4.000 ..... ..................... ...........'........_........ ....^..................... ......... ......... Dayto n 16 4°/ 0 Plymouth 16.1% Minneapolis - Central 15.6% ta 3,000 .............. ............ ............ ..... ........ ...........,....., ............. {.,.....,..,...... Stillwater 15.0% Medina o 14.8/0 North Oaks 14.5% Andove r 1 4.3% 2'0° .................. :........... .......... ..............f... Savage 14.3% Orono 13.8% Maple Grove 13.5% - Greenfield 13.0% 1,000 -..._. -_ . -- 1 -2008 1 -2009 1 -2010 .. -... 1 -2011 1 -2012 Woodbury 12.6% 5.2 2.7 98.6% 93.7% Year -End Months Supply Year -End Months Supply Pct. of Orig. Price Received Pct. of Orig. Price Received New Construction Previously Owned New Construction Previously Owned Months Supply of Inventory 2008 ■2009 02010 02011 02012 10.6 7.9 8.1 7A 7.6 New Construction 7.2 Previously Owned Percent of Original List Price Received This chart uses a Rolling 12 Month Average for each data point. - New Construction - Previously Owned 100% 98% 98% 94% 92% 90% 88% 1 -2008 1 -2009 1 -2010 1 -2011 1 -2012 _Z6.01 Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 17 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market s L ., °ras Overview ® " "u ®""nd Me Mato ® MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association °f REALTORS' 1L6U Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 18 Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price . Closed Sales from 2011 Construction ,�.._ Condo Distressed Market Received Twin Cities Region���.'- __,_..� 48,641 -mmv ,.. +16.9% u•�6.4% 22.8% 39.7% 117 94.0% Afton 37 +48.0% 5.40/6 0.0% 48.6% 162 88.4 %� Albertville 109 +5.8% 7.3% 23.9% 49.5% 89 95.0% Andover 447 +16.7% 14.3% 9.6% 42.1% 111 95.6% Annandale 95 +30.1% 1.1 % 1.1 % 27.4% 196 92.1% Anoka 191 -3.5% 2.1% 17.8% 52.4% 113 94.9% Apple Valley 799 +10.2% 3.0% 44.8% 47.8% 96 94.4% Arden Hills 114 +67.6% 26.3% 17.5% 28.1% 114 93.8% Bayport 36 +24.1% 22.2% 11.1% 25.0% 142 92.2% Becker 131 +50.6% 9.2% 6.1% 51.9% 126 94.2% Belle Plaine 124 -0.8% 3.2% 6.5% 53.2% 117 93.2% Bethel 9 -40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 88.9% 110 90.1% Big Lake 276 + 8.2% 3.3% 5.4% 58.0% 108 94.6% Birchwood Village 5 -16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 88 91.3% Blaine 1,019 +5.9% 19.4% 25.0% 36.3% 97 96.2% Bloomington 1,091 +26.7% 3.1% 28.3% 33.5% 109 93.8% Brooklyn Center 528 +2.7% 0.0% 11.6% 55.1% 97 95.9% Brooklyn Park 1,271 +9.5% 6.6% 22.0% 52.0% 100 95.6% Buffalo 298 +8.4% 3.4% 15.1% 50.7% 117 92.9% Burnsville 840 +8.8% 4.6% 43.3% 43.6% 111 95.4% Cambridge 182 .-3.7% 3.8% 17.0% 63.7% 105 94.4% Cannon Falls 105 +25.0% 0.0% 9.594. 39.0% 203 90.6% Carver 94 +25.3% 19.1% 8.5% 24.5% 137 93.0% Centerville 60 +25.0% 11.7% 8.3% 41.7% 159 94.8% Champlin 354 +12.0% 1.7% 20.1% 52.3% 111 95.0% Chanhassen 448 +19.8% 12.1% 34.8% 20.8% 123 94.4% Chaska 426 +51.1% 10.3% 30.8% 40.6% 116 94.0% Chisago 64 -34.7% 3.1% 15.6% 56.3% 141 93.4% Circle Pines 96 +45.5% 1.0% 29.2% 53.1% 112 95.0% Clear lake 88 +76.0% 3.4% 0.0% 39.00/. 168 89.4% Clearwater 56 +27.3% 3.6% 3.6% 44.6% 153 91.5% Cokato 49 +8.9% 4.1% 6.1% 36.7% 162 91.8% Cologne 42 +2.4% 38.1% 9.5% 33.3% 170 94.2% Columbia Heights 332 +14,9% 1.2% 14.5% 53.3% 116 92,1% Columbus 35 +52.2% 2.9% 0.0% 45.7% 123 93.9% Coon Rapids I 966 +7.6% 3.6% 31.0% 56.0% 99 95.4% Corcoran -39 +34.5% 0.0% 0.0% 46.2% 125 91.5% Cottage Grove 555 +26.4% 8.6% 14.8% 48.1% 93 95.8% Crystal 366 +10.6% 2.7% 4.6% 46.2% 104 94.3% Dayton 55 +17.0% 16.4% 0.0% 32.7% 135 92.4% Deephaven 60 +22.4% 5.0% 0.061. 13.3% 132 91.6% Delano 99 +6.5% 19.2% 10.1% 34.3% 140 92.3% Dellwood 11 -21.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 189 84.6% Eagan 946 +18.3% 5.6% 37.2% 41.3% 96 94.7% 1L6U Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 18 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities HousingMarket° Area Overview - Around the Metro MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association °f REALTORS G' Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 19 Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2011 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received East Bethel 165 +26.0% 0.0% 0.6% 55.8% 143 91.4% Eden Prairie 922 +21.8% 3.4% 38.3% 28.4% 124 94.4% ?Edina 952 +36.2% 6.1% 34.0% 11.8% 135 92.7% Elk River 391 +2.1% 4.9% 24.0% 56.3% 109 94.0% Elko New Market 98 +1.0% 11.2% 9.2% 44.9% 111 95.4% Excelsior 29 +7.4% 0.0% 13.8% 20.7% 172 90.9% Falcon Heights 44 +7.3% 0.0% 9.1% 18.2% 101 93.9% Faribault 327 +0.9% 0.9% 8.0% 44.3% 101 92.3% Farmington 426 -3.2% 8.0% 26.3% 56.3% 103 96.0% Forest Lake 282 +6.4% 7.1% 20.6% 45.0% 143 93.1% Fridley 298 +11.6% 1.3% 14.4% 53.7% 98 94.1% Golden Valley 309 +14.4% 1.0% 16.2% 23.9% 121 93.3% Grant 30 +3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 23.3% 185 .90.3% Greenfield 23 -37.8% 13.0% 8.7% 30.4% 164 93.1% Greenwood 19 +58.3% 0.0% 5.3% 15.8% 177 89.2% Ham Lake 208 +33.3% 9.1% 7.2% 43.8% 120 94.3% Hamburg 7 -22.2% 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 184 94.6% Hammond 52 +52.9% 0.0% 7.7% 51.9% 152 93.3% Hampton 18 +12.5% 0.0% 5.6% 72.2% 92 91.7% Hanover 48 +33.3% 8.3% 0.0% 50.0% 111 94.7% Hastings 355 +8.6% 5.4% 32.1% 52.1% 105 92.7% Hopkins 204 +21.4% 1.5% 40.7% 37.7% 116 92.7% Hudson 319 +13.1% 11.39/o 28.5% 34.8% 180 93.0% Hugo 319 +10.4% 19.4% 48.3% 48.9% 99 97.0% Hutchinson 274 +10.0% 2.6% 10.9% 33.9% 118 92.7% Independence 45 !!!y +73.1% i 4.4% 0.0% 35.6% 201 90.8% Inver Grove Heights 401 +28.5% I 5.7% 37.2% 42.4% 124 93.6 %, Isanti 167 +13.6% 1.29,. 4.8% 64,1% 98 95.4% Jordan 107 +48.6% 10.3% 7.5% 47.7% 125 93.6% Lake Elmo 83 +38.3% 12.0% 1.2% 25.3% 186 91.3% Lake Minnetonka Area 933 +30.1% 5.8% 14.9% 28.5% 179 90.8% Lake St. Croix Beach 13 -13.3% 0.0% 7.7% 23.1% 143 87.7% Lakeland 26 +100.0% 0.0% 3.8% 46.2 % 129 92.1% Lakeland Shores 6 +50.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 16.7% 230 89.6% Lakeville 923 +20.8% 12.4% 21.8% 39.0% 104 95.5% Lauderdale 19 +5.6% 0.0% 31.6% 31.6% 117 90.6% Lexington 16 +60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43.8% 111 88.5% Lllydale 21 0.0% 0.0% 95.2% 19.0% 160 90.4% Lindstrom 108 +12.5% 3.7% 13.9% 45.4% 190 90.4% Lino Lakes 234 +16.4% 12.4% 17.9% 33.8% 121 95.3% Little Canada 109 -3.5% 7.3% 45.9% 39.4% 120 93.1% Long Lake 27 +58.8% 3.7% 7.4% 25.9% 140 89.9% Lonsdale 97 -8.5% 1 11.3% 3.1% 61.9% 99 96.5% Loretto 10 +66.7% i 0.0% 10.0% 40.0% 90 81.3% G' Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 19 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market-at��: AreaOverview - Around the Metro ! a MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS' Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2011 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Mahtomedi 101 +20.2% 8.9% 9.9% 27.7% 145 93.0% Maple Grove 1,165 +15.2% 13.5% 35.2% 32.3% 105 94.7% Maple Lake 61 -3.2% 0.0% 8.2% 44.3% 195 91.6% Maple Plain 26 +30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.9% 159 93.3% Maplewood 530 +30.5% 3.8% 27.7% 44.7% 125 93.7% Marine on St. Croix 15 +50.0% 0.0% 6.7% 26.7% 300 86.2% Mayer 40 +8.1% 25.0% 2.5% 45.0% 104 96.7% Medina 88 +63.0% 14.8% 14.8% 15.9% 219 91.9% Mendota Heights 175 +68.3% 8.6% 34.3% 27.4% 136 93.2% Minneapolis - (Citywide) 5,229 +19.1% 3.7% 23.3% 33.2% 111 94.0% Minneapolis - Calhoun -Isle 425 +34.5% 8.7% 50.4% 20.9% 165 91.3% Minneapolis - Camden 560 -6.2% 0.2% 2.1% 57.5% 109 92.9% Minneapolis - Central 564 +25.6% 15.6% 99.6% 22.7% 130 94.5% Minneapolis - Longfellow 319 +7.4% 1.3% 4.1% 25.1 V. 79 95.0% Minneapolis - Near North 319 -12.4% 1.9% 5.6% 56.4% 106 94.8% Minneapolis - Nokomis 750 +31.3% 1.1 % 4.3% 34.0% 106 94.1% Minneapolis - Northeast 477 +16.6% 0.4% 4.8% 34.6% 90 94.4% Minneapolis - Phillips 108 +36.7% 3.7% 38.9% 56.5% 129 92.3% Minneapolis - Powderhorn 547 +17.1% 1.1 % 19.2% 44.4% 107 95.3% Minneapolis - Southwest 944 +38.4% 1.6% 5.4% 15.6% 100 94.6% Minneapolis - University 216 +39.4% 9.7% 67.6% 29.6% 140 92.8% Minnetonka 805 +23.5% 4.3% 30.9% 23.1% 119 93.1% Minnetonka Beach 11 +22.2% 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 287 84.6% Minnetrista 120 +37.9% 15.0% 3.3% 24.2% 180 92.5% Monticello 197 -7.5% 5.1% 18.3% 49.7% 103 95.4% Montrose 79 +3.9% 17.7% 7.6% 48.1% 106 94.3% Mora 125 +23.8% 1.6% 1.6% 49.6% 212 85.7% Mound 198 +29.4% 1.0% 10.1% 42.9% 179 90.2% Mounds View 129 +31.6% 3.1% 14.7% 34.1% 122 92.9% New Brighton 263 +48.6% 2.7% 30.0% 30.4% 97 94.3% New Germany 11 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 63.6% 308 85.7% New Hope 226 +10.2% 0.4% 18.6% 41.6% 113 94.1% New Prague 186 +21.6% 5.4% 16.7% 39.8% 126 94.3% New Richmond 190 +33.8% 6.8% 12.6% 52.1% 206 91.5% New Trier 3 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 135 92.6% Newport 31 -6.1% 0.0% 6.5% 64.5% 89 95.7% North Branch 197 +31.3% 6.6% 5.6 %, 64.0% 109 92.9% North Oaks 69 +35.3% 14.5% 11.6% 7.2% 214 89.5% North Saint Paul 165 +6.5% 1.8% 9.7% 45.5% 102 93.1% Northfield 293 +17.7% 5.1% 28.7% 37.5% 141 91.6% Norwood Young America 61 +19.6% 4.9% 8.2% 39.3% 132 94.6% Oak Grove 112 +6.7% 6.3% 1.8% 50.0% 114 94.2% Oak Park Heights f I 49 +2.1% 2.0% 49.0% 51.0% 126 90.6% Oakdale 385 +3.5% 0.5% 34.5% 48.6% 93 95.0% j�U Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 10 i 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Area Overview - Around the Metro MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association -t REALTORS* Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2011 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Orono . 160 +20.3% 13.8% 16.3% 35.0% 194 90.3% Osseo 30 +7.1% 0.0% 10.0% 40.0% 173 89.50/0 Otsego 315 +20.2% 26.7% 27.3% 44.8% 85 97.4% Pine City 115 +32.2% 4.3% 6.1% 47.8% 166 87.8% Pine Springs 4 -20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 165 84.9% Plymouth 1,103 +17.8% 16.1% 33.7% 21.3% 111 94.89/. Princeton 204 +33.3% 1.0% 4.9% 65.2% 117 91.4% Prior Lake 520 +14.5% 11.7% 28.8% 34.0% 129 94.9% Ramsey 372 +41.8% 10.2% 29.8% 55.6% 107 95.2% Randolph 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.1% 72 94.4% Red Wing 217 -0.5% 1.8% 11.5% 30.4% 159 87.1% Richfield 544 +19.0% 0.7% 8.8% 34.4% 86 94.6% River Falls 182 +34.8% 6.6% 18.7% 34.6% 170 91.2 %, Robbinsdale 267 .+27.8% 4.5% 13.5% 42.7% 106 93.2% Rockford 59 +8.49/6 5.1% 18.6% 50.8% 153 95.4% Rogers 162 +31.7% 20.4% 18.5% 40.1% 130 95.0% Rosemount 375 +8.1% 12.0% 35.5% 45.1% 105 95.7% Roseville 414 +33.5% 5.8% 26.8% 21.3% 117 93.5% Rush City 35 -16.7% 2.9% 8.6% 77.1% 107 88.5% Saint Anthony 96 -5.9% 2.1% 40.6% 25.0% 114 91.8% Saint Bonifacius 33 +57.1% 0.0% 36.4% 39.4% 144 92.7% Saint Francis 99 -20.8% 6.1% 14.1% 69.7% 120 93.3% Saint Louis Park 865 +16.8% 2.1% 20.9% 26.8% 99 94.3% Saint Michael 250 +0.8% 7.6% 18.8% 49.6% 108 95.4% Saint Paul - (Citywide) 3,477 +14.7% 0.6% 11.8% 42.2% 115 92.9% Saint Paul - Battle Creek / Highwood 267 +41.3% 0.0% 3.7% 50.6% 118 94.4% Saint Paul - Como Park f 173 +50.4% 0.0% 5.2% 24.3% 124 93.1% Saint Paul - Dayton's Bluff i 207 -1.0% 0.5% 2.9% 65.7% 118 91.6% Saint Paul - Downtown 123 +28.1% I 2.4% 96.7% 36.6% 175 89.2% Saint Paul - Greater East Side 427 -2.7% I 0.7% 1.4% 56.4% 100 93.0% Saint Paul - Hamline- Midway 134 +6.3% 0.0% 0.7% 37.3% 112 93.5% Saint Paul - Highland Park 335 +37.3% 0.3% 8.7% 17.9% 109 93.7% Saint Paul - Lexington- Hamline 151 +21.8% 0.0% 4.0% 23.2% 117 92.6% Saint Paul - Macalester- Groveland 278 +31.8% 1.1% 11.9% 14.4% 90 94.0% Saint Paul - North End / South Como 306 +22.4% 0.3% 5.2% 55.6% 115 93.2% Saint Paul - Payne - Phalen 327 -5.2% 0.3% 1.8% 57.8% 106 92.3% Saint Paul - St. Anthony Park 54 +28.6% 7.4% 38.9% 20.4% 111 92.9% Saint Paul - Summit Hill 82 +64.0% 0.0% 39.0% 12.20A 151 93.4% Saint Paul - Summit - University 151 +5.6% 0.0% 47.0% 43.7% 153 89.5% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale 124 +12.7% 0.8% 2.4% 58.1% 85 95.3% Saint Paul - West Seventh 158 +31.7% I 0.6% 22.2% 43.0% 136 93.5% Saint Paul - West Side E 177 +16.4% 0.6% 3.4% 55.4% 115 92.2% Saint Paul Park 81 0.0% 9.9% 16.0% 51.9% 94 93.1% Savage 518 +4.6% 14.3% 28.0% 36.5% 95 96.3% -i°U Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 11 � n 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Area Overview - Around the Metro MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS' jM!/ Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 112 Percent Cumulative Pct. of Drill. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2011 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Shakopee 600 -4.2% 7.2% 36.2% 50.2% 104 95.9% Shoreview 387 +44.9% 2.1% 33.9% 27.4% 114 93.2% Shorewood 118 +10.3% 2.5% 16.1% 16.9% 179 92.3% Somerset 75 +82.9% 4.0% 14.7% 72.0% 173 90.1% South Haven 46 +24.3% 0.0% 0.0% 19.6% 204 91.4% South Saint Paul 362 +33.6% 12.4% 14.9% 49.7% 106 92.1% Spring Lake Park 113 +101.8% 1.8% 10.6% 57.5% 103 95.0% Spring Park 28 +115.4% 0.0% 42.9% 39.3% 209 89.5% Stacy 48 +14.3% 4.2% 2.1% 62.5% 97 95.6% Stillwater 347 +14.1% f 15.0% 25.9% 29.4% 148 92.4% Sunfish Lake 7 +133.3% I 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 300 90.5% Tonka Bay 37 +32.1% 0.0% 2.7% 24.3% 167 88.7% Vadnais Heights 160 +15.1% 6.3% 43.1% 40.0% 124 92.4% Vermillion 3 -40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 36 97.2% Victoria 180 +40.6% 23.3% 19.4% 21.1% 150 94.0% Waconia 203 +20.1% 10.3% 19.2% 31.09/6 111 94.9% Watertown 62 -3.1% 9.7% 11.3% 46.8% 142 91.8% Wayzata 78 +34.5% 6.4% 47.4% 17.9% 186 89.6% West Saint Paul 267 +34.8% 1.9% 23.6% 42.3% 131 92.5% White Bear Lake 342 +16.3% 0.9% 23.1% 33.9% 113 94.0% Willemie 9 -18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 129 83.6% Woodbury 1,117 +11.8% 12.6% 38.2% 33.3% 103 95.1% Woodland 15 +400.0% 0.0% 6.7% 20.0% 230 93.5% Wyoming 80 +6.7% 2.5% 10.0% 53.8% 111 94.8% Zimmerman 214 +6.5% ( 2.3% 6.5% 71.0% 101 93.7% Zumbrota 56 +5.7% i 8.9% 1.8% 16.1% 78 94.2% jM!/ Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 112 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cj es Housing Market Area Overview - Minneapolis Neighborhoods MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association °f REALTORS' Percent Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2011 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received Minneapolis - (Citywide) 5,229 +19.1% 3.7% 23.3% 33.2% 111 94.0% Armatage 125 +43.7% 1.6% 0.0% 20.0% 87 95.1% Audubon Park 93 +38.8% 1.1 % 0.0% 32.3% 78 96.3% Bancroft 70 +18.6% 2.9% 10.0% 35.7% 102 93.5% Beltraml 12 +100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 83.3% 93 93.2% Bottineau 25 +92.3% 0.0% 16.0% 36.0% 102 88.0% Bryant 48 +23.1% 0.0% 0.0% 39.6% 68 97.2% Bryn Mawr 49 +28.9% 0.0% 4.1% 10.2% 179 91.6% Calhoun(CARAG) 47 +62.1% 0.0% 46.8% 21.3% 114 95.4% Cedar -Isles -Dean 90 +69.8% 25.6% 68.9% 31.1% 145 91.9% Cedar - Riverside 17 -34.6% 0.0% 94.1% 29.4% 79 92.5% Central 59 -22.4% 0.0% 5.1% 55.9% 92 101.2% Cleveland 71 +12.7% 0.0% 0.0% 52.1% 123 88.80/0 Columbia Park 33 +65.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 87 96.2% Cooper 48 -15.8% 2.1% 2.1% 18.8% 50 97.2% Corcoran Neighborhood 48 +29.7% 0.0% 8.3% 52.1% 106 94.7% Diamond Lake 91 +16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 19.8% 98 95.1% Downtown East - Mpls 83 +16.9% 49.4% 100.0% 2.4% 136 97.2% Downtown West - Mpls 123 +20.6% 0.0% 100.0% 25.2% 129 93.5% East Calhoun i 37 +42.3% 8.1% 54.1% 21.6% 104 91.6% East Harriet 52 +18.2% 0.0% 17.3% 9.6% 140 92.6% East Isles I 38 -9.5% 0.0% 50.0% 10.5% 167 91.1% East Phillips 32 +39.1% I 6.3% 28.1% 50.0% 92 91.0% Elliot Park 89 r +81.6% 42.7% 100.0% 13.5% 114 97.2% Ericsson 69 +72.5% 0.0% 1.4% 40.6% 77 97.8% Field 48 +45.5% 0.0% 0.0% 31.3% 101 93.1% Folwell 104 -12.6% 0.0% 9.6% 54.8% 110 94.7% Fulton 156 +62.5% 3.8% 0.6% 7.1% 90 95.6% Hale 64 +30.6% 1.6% 0.0% 21.9% 104 95.9% Harrison 21 +5.0% 0.0% 19.0% 57.1% 123 92.0% Hawthorne 30 -3.2% 0.0% 10.0% 50.0% 113 101.6% Hiawatha f 79 +12.9% 2.5% 5.1% 25.3% 86 95.0% Holland 49 -12.5% 0.0% 10.2% 44.9% 145 93.6% Howe 107 +25.9% 0.0% 0.9% 27.1% 76 94.2% Jordan Neighborhood 115 -6.5% 0.9% 0.0% 59.1% 103 92.6% Keewaydin 63 +5.0% 1.6% 3.2% 36.5% 99 95.2% Kenny d 92 +76.9% 1.1 % 1.1% 4.3% 85 95.3% Kenwood 26 +62.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 221 90.8% Kenyon 34 0.0% 2.9% 2.9% 52.9% 138 85.9% Kingfield E I 130 +26.2% 0.0% 7.7% 26.9% 82 95.3% Lind - Bohanon 82 -28.1% 0.0% 2.4% 65.9% 102 94.2% E( Linden Hills [ 152 +8.6% 3.9% 15.1% 15.1% 107 94.4% Log Park ' 18 + 63 0.0% 11.1% 444% 62 912% 9n Longfellow 47 - .:_..- +6.8% ..600 0.0% 0.0% 34.0% 1 100 91.3% _ Current as of January 15. 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 1 OK Research and Marketing. 113 A 2012 Annual Report on the Twin. Cities-Housing Market "rte Area Overview - Minneapolis Neighborhoods MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS' _ Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 14 Total Closed Sales Change from 2011 Percent Percent New Townhouse- Construction Condo Percent Distressed Cumulative Days on Market Pct. of Drill. Price Received Loring Park 96 +20.0% 0.0% 100.0% 22.9% 153 93.9% Lowry Hill '69 +13.1% 14.5% 55.1% 15.9% 237 88.7% Lowry Hill East 39 +18.2% 2.6% 64.1% 35.9% 122 93.5% Lyndale 53 +55.9% 0.0% 39.6% 41.5% 121 94.3% Lynnhurst 109 +58.0% 0.0% 2.8% 9.2% 130 93.9% Marcy Holmes 43 +38.7% 11.6% 76.7% 18.6% 146 94.1% Marshall Terrace 18 +28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 38.9% 81 92.1% McKinley 46 -20.7% 2.2% 0.0% 54.3% 118 91.4% Midtown Phillips 43 +16.2% 4.7% 37.2% 58.1% 168 91.0% Minnehaha 90 +16.9% 5.6% 16.7% 34.4% 101 94.1% Moms Park 78 +20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43.6% 128 91.1% Near North 29 -32.6% 0.0% 6.9% 69.0% 100 97.2% Nicollet Island - East Bank 53 +23.3% 1.9% 100.0% 28.3% 125 94.4% North Loop 145 +22.9% 6.2% 100.0% 28.3% 113 94.1% Northeast Park 14 -6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 75 89.4% Northrup 90 +63.6% 0.0% 4.4% 27.8% 100 93.9% Page 34 +30.8% 0.0% 0.0% 23.5% 123 96.4% Phillips West 22 +120.0% 0.0% 63.6% 54.5% 110 95.4% Powderhorn Park 69 -9.2% 0.0% 13.0% 46.4% 126 93.2% Prospect Park 51 +96.2% 13.7% 49.0% 37.3% 178 90.2% Regina 48 +26.3% 2.1% 20.8% 52.1% 120 93.9% Seward 38 -7.3% 2.6% 18.4% 15.8% 82 98.5% Sheridan 20 +33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 56 99.4% Shingle Creek 61 -11.6% 0.0% 0.0% 68.9% 92 92.4% Southeast Como 52 +79.3% 15.4% 36.5% 32.7% 134 92.7% St. Anthony East 16 0.0% 0.0% 31.3% 18.8% 30 99.6% St. Anthony West 16 - 11.1% 0.0% 25.0% 43.8% 121 93.8% Standish 132 +41.9% 0.8% 5.3% 35.6% 94 95.3% Stevens Square 28 -3.4% 0.0% 92.9% 71.4% 155 85.6% Sumner - Glenwood 13 + 18:2% 30.8% 69.2% 30.8% 160 86.9% Tangletown 77 +63.8% 0.0% 3.9% 23.4% 94 94.5% University District 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Ventura Village 11 +22.2% 0.0% 27.3% 72.7% 125 95.0% Victory 102 +34.2% 0.0% 0.0% 46.1% 98 94.4% Waite Park 102 -1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 24.5% 83 95.1% Webber- Camden 94 -5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 63.8% 124 92.6% Wenonah 75 +50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.3% 127 89.9% West Calhoun 30 +66.7% 0.0% 86.7% 26.7% 191 86.4% Whittier 68 +28.3% 4.4% 79.4% 58.8% 145 94.5% Willard Hay 111 -18.4% 0.9% 0.0% 55.0% 98 96.2% Windom 51 +15.9% 0.0% 2.0% 31.4% 112 92.4% Windom Park 61 +13.0% 0.9% 0.0% 55.0% 107 92.4% _ Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 14 f in-N2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market AreaOverview - Townships MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association or REALTORS' _ Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 15 Total Closed Sales Change from 2011 Percent Percent New Townhouse- Construction Condo Percent Distressed Cumulative Days on Market Pct. of Orig. Price Received -26- Baytown Township + 857% 38.5% 0.0% 11.5% 190 92.5% Belle Plalne Township 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 178 93.7% Benton Township 0 -100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 - 100.0% Blakeley Township 0 -- 0.0 %0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Burns Township 6 +20.0% 0.0 %. 0.0% 100.0% 208 84.4% Camden Township 0 -100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 - 100.0% Castle Rock Township 2 -60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 95 98.4% Cedar Lake Township 15 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 60.0% 150 93.4% Credit River Township 36 -28.0% 5.6% 0.0% 25.0% 167 91.2% Dahlgren Township 5 +400.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 119 97.4% Douglas Township 0, -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Empire Township 32 +39.1% 12.5% 12.5% 59.4% 83 94.0% Eureka Township 12 -29.4% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 232 80.0% Greenvale Township 1 -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34 94.3% Grey Cloud Island Township 5 +66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 177 89.7% Hancock Township I 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Hassan Township 0 -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Helena Township 8 +166.7% 0.0% 0.0% 37.5% 142 96.4% Hollywood Township 1 -50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 357 87.5% Jackson Township 18 -10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 226 84.9% Laketown Township 10 -23.1% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 212 81.20A Linwood Township ` 61 +60.5% 6.6% 0.0% 60.7% 144 91.3% Louisville Township 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 239 91.2% Marshan Township 1 -75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 8 93.2% May Township 26 +36.8% 3.8% 0.0% 19.2% 178 90.7% New.Market Township 16 -5.9% 12.5% 0.0% 50.0% 118 96.9% New Scandia Township 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Nininger Township 4 ( 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 183 94.3% Randolph Township 0 -- I 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Ravenna Township 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.1% 185 85.4% San Francisco Township 4 +100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 181 88.7% Sand Creek Township 2 -71.4% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100 88.7% Sciota Township 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 59 98.0% Spring Lake Township 15 +36.4% 0.0% 0.0% 53.3% 175 86.2% St. Lawrence Township 0 -- I 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Stillwater Township 23 +187.5% I 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 170 93.3% Vermillion Township 8 -- 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 75 86.7% Waconia Township 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 355 92.8% Waterford Township 0 -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% Watertown Township 6 +50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 233 105.2% West Lakeland Township 38 +46.2% 2.6% 0.0% 18.4% 132 93.1% White Bear Township 133 +24.3% 1.5% 31.6% 39.1% 130 92.7% Young America Township i 5 +150.0% I 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 170 92.3% _ Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 15 -2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market' -A Area Overview - Counties Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Goodhue County Hennepin County Isanti County Kanabec County Mille Lacs County Ramsey County Rice County Scott County Sherburne County St. Croix County Washington County Wright County Total ' Change Closed Sales from 2011 4,907 +12.3% 1,601 I +27.4% 796 +14.4% 6,022 +16.4% 527 -4.5% 17,635 +19.2% 557 +8.8% 248 +18.1% 420 +23.2% 6,382 +20.3% 773 +4.0% 2,187 +6.0% 1,384 +10.5% 1,188 +33.2% 3,721 +14.4% 1,888 +9.1% r � MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association -f REALTORS' Percent Percent New Townhouse- Percent Construction Condo Distressed 8.7% 19.4% 48.4% 13.4% 24.1% 30.9% 5.4% 6.4% 57.3% 7.0% 33.1% 44.5% 2.1% 10.1% 30.4% 5.3% 24.4% 32.8% 1.6% 7.0% 63.2% 1.6% 0.8% 48.8% 1.9% 4.5% 54.8% 2.4% 19.1% 38.2% 4.0% 14.7% 44.2% 10.0% 25.3% 42.0% 5.0% 10.6% 55.9% 5.9% I 13.8% 47.3% 10.1% 26.9% 39.1% 9.5% 14.7% 46.0% Cumulative Pct. of Orig. Days on Price Market Received 109 94.8% 128 94.1% 129 92.4% 107 94.4% 175 88.9% -115 94.0% 117 93.1% 182 87.1% 144 90.3% 117 93.1% 118 92.6% 114 95.2% 120 93.5% 176 92.1% 118 94.2% 124 94.3% - Current as of January 15. 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www- RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 16 2012 Annual Report 'oin,the Twin Cities Housing Market - :iii sr . - Median Prices - Around the Metro MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association �tREALTORS` Change Change 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 From 2011 From 2008 Twin Cities Region $195,000 $165,000 $169,900 $160,000 $167,900 +11.9% -13.90/6 Afton $412,000 $307,000 $330,000 $430,000 $275,000 - 36.0% -33.3% Albertville $201,750 $167,190 $150,200 $142,500 $149,950 +5.2% -25.7% Andover $225,400 $205,000 $205,000 $182,000 $205,000 +12.6% -9.1% Annandale $170,500 $154,700 $154,110 $153,889 $170,000 + 10.50A -0.396 Anoka $160,000 $130,000 $136,312 $113,500 $122,900 +8.3% -23.2% Apple Valley $206,000 $170,500 $177,150 $149,950 $175,000 +16.7% -15.0% Arden Hills $262,600 $232,250 $241,025 $157,500 $325,000 +106.3% +23.8% Bayport $271,000 $186,000 $157,500 $147,000 $184,500 +25.5% -31.9% Becker $171,000 $134,500 $131,950 $131,700 $149,375 +13.4% -12.6% Belle Plaine $175,000 $149,900 $142,250 $137,300 $144,500 +5.2% -17.4% Bethel $159,900 $140,000 $147,600 $100,000 $112,000 +12.0% -30.0% Big Lake $150,000 $135,900 $140,000 $117,500 $134,900 +14.8% -10.1% Birchwood Village $297,450 $299,000 $0 $240,500 $227,900 -5.2% -23.4% Blaine $194,750 $169,900 $170,500 $154,900 $175,000 +13.0% -10.1% Bloomington $201,500 $181,200 $178,322 $157,000 $170,875 +8.8% -15.2% Brooklyn Center $115,000 $90,000 $110,000 $82,300 $95,000 +15.4% -17.4% Brooklyn Park $174,500 $134,020 $140,000 $127,000 $146,000 +15.0% -16.3% Buffalo $175,000 $145,500 $150,000 $131,500. $142,000 +8.0% -18.9% Burnsville $200,000 $175,000 $167,000 $147,750 $165,500 +12.0% -17.3% Cambridge $139,500 $110,125 $105,000 $94,000 $101,300 +7.8% -27.4% Cannon Falls $155,000 $146,500 $139,450 $121,450 $145,000 +19.4% -6.5% Carver $287,000 $237,950 $225,900 $225,000 $245,000 +8.9% -14.6% Centerville $209,000 $222,000 $180,000 $154,600 $180,000 +16.4% -13.9% Champlin $196,000 $162,000 $172,078 $148,000 $159,825 +8.0% -18.5% Chanhassen ( $296,650 $287,500 $313,500 $297,500 $280,000 -5.9% -5.6% Chaska $229,250 $177,500 $210,750 $170,000 $207,000 +21.8% -9.7% Chisago $190,650 $175,000 $159,500 $155,700 $168,500 +8.2% -11.6% Circle Pines $171,100 $148,750 $139,900 $124,150 $139,450 +12.3% -18.5% Clear Lake $180,000 $113,000 $168,950 $146,800 $152,450 +3.8% -15.3% Clearwater $149,900 $122,000 $159,900 $127,750 $150,000 +17.4% +0.1% Cokato $125,000 $120,000 $99,000 $107,500 $105,000 -2.3% -16.0% Cologne $207,450 $205,013 $193,000 $189,900 $182,550 -3.9% -12.0% Columbia Heights $145,000 $122,500 $120,000 $101,500 $99,900 -1.6% -31.1% Columbus $262,450 $222,000 $232,000 $177,277 $208,500 +17.6% -20.6% Coon Rapids $159,900 $136,500 $133,000 $114,900 $125,500 +9.2% -21.5% Corcoran $293,950 $315,000 $291,500 $246,000 $230,000 -6.5% -21.8% Cottage Grove $199,000 $180,000 $174,450 $160,000 $174,900 +9.3% -12.1% Crystal $160,750 $139,950 $139,900 $105,000 $127,550 +21.5% -20.7% Dayton $260,300 $197,000 $205,000 $142,000 $191,000 +34.5% -26.6% Deephaven $485,000 $545,000 $509,000 $322,000 $493,250 +53.2% +.1.7% Delano $233,686 $201,500 $195,000 $173,150 $205,500 +18.7% - 12.1% Dellwood $750,000 $462,500 $617,575 $499,000 $360,000 -27.9% -52.0% Eagan $215,000 $182,150 $189,000 $170,950 $194,000 +13.5% -9.8% G// Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 1OK Research and Marketing. 1 17 2012 Annual Report on, the Twin Cities Housing Market Median Prices - Around the Metro MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS' _4U Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 18 Change Change 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 From 2011 From 2008 East Bethel _ $179,988 $158,950 $150,400 $162,500 $165,000 +11.5% -8.3% Eden Prairie $280,000 $250,000 $264,800 $257,110 $257,000 -0.0% -8.2% Edina $389,450 $324,900 $339,000 $339,000 $343,875 +1.4% -11.7% Elk River $190,000 $158,000 $160,000 $132,000 $157,000 +18.9% -17.4% Elko New Market $235,000 $229,500 $209,900 $193,000 $215,000 +11.4% -8.5% Excelsior $450,000 $332,450 $277,000 $350,000 $291,500 -16.7% -35.2% Falcon Heights $280,250 $267,500 $239,500 $207,500 $228,706 +10.2% -18.4% Faribault $133,000 $115,500 $118,500 $100,000 $115,000 +15.0% -13.5% Farmington $195,460 $175,600 $172,000 $140,500 $163,000 +16.0% -16.6% Forest Lake $204,700 $142,000 $135,450 $153,750 $185,000 +20.3% -9.6% Fridley $160,025 $138,900 $136,545 $120,000 $127,000 +5.8% -20.6% Golden Valley $263,000 $220,000 $235,500 $199,000 $218,500 +9.8% -16.9% Grant $455,000 $432,500 $395,000 $422,500 $367,500 -13.0% -19.2% Greenfield $235,000 $153,250 $237,750 $373,000 $350,000 -6.2% +48.9% Greenwood $705,000 $796,750 $659,900 $755,000 $675,000 -10.6% -4.3% Ham Lake $289,500 $235,500 $227,500 $211,500 $232,000 +9.7% -19.9% Hamburg $82,325 $124,900 $102,450 $75,200 $111,500 +48.3% +35.4% Hammond $150,950 $127,500 $116,500 $115,750 $121,450 +4.9% -19.5% Hampton $253,950 $173,875 $189,950 $172,000 $138,500 -19.5% -45.5% Hanover $229,000 $229,900 $208,875 $214,950 $211,000 -1.8% -7.9% Hastings $177,500 $150,000 $148,500 $128,500 $142,000 +10.5% -20.0% Hopkins $169,000 $160,000 $148,000 $125,000 $159,950 +28.0% -5.4% Hudson $218,000 $195,000 $194,848 $184,500 $195,012 +5.7% - 10.5 %' Hugo $193,000 $154,900 $158,338 $137,000 $164,199 +19.9% -14.9% Hutchinson $150,000 $124,950 $127,950 $115,000 $111,750 -2.8% -25.5% Independence $490,500 $306,500 $433,500 $247,950 $387,250 +56.2% -21.0% Inver Grove Heights $190,000 $165,751 $165,500 $155,000 $160,000 +3.2% -15.8% Isanti $145,000 $120,950 $114,114 $91,500 $117,000 +27.9% -19.3% Jordan $219,950 $204,000 $174,150 $178,000 $177,000 -0.6% -19.5% Lake Elmo $450,000 $405,250 $369,500 $374,800 $367,500 -1.9% -18.3% Lake Minnetonka Area $385,000 $337,900 $341,250 $329,860 $339,900 +3.0% -11.7% Lake St. Croix Beach $184,950 $158,000 $154,850 $85,250 $180,000 + 111.1% -2.7% Lakeland $246,000 $169,000 $211,000 $221,000 $195,500 -11.5% -20.5% Lakeland Shores $498,500 $270,000 $738,100 $178,139 $276,250 +55.1% - 44.6% Lakeville $255,000 $224,180 $225,000 $205,000 $226,000 +10.2% -11.4% Lauderdale $197,000 $189,950 $173,900 $128,150 $168,000 +31.1% -14.7% Lexington $170,000 $138,250 $130,000 $108,563 $136,950 +26.1% - 19.4% Lilydale $208,500 $180,000 $201,500 $177,500 $190,000 +7.0% -8.9% Lindstrom $202,000 $180,000 $150,000 $143,900 $140,000 -2.7% -30.7% Lino Lakes $227,700 $218,950 $211,250 $174,200 $208,375 +19.6% -8.5% Little Canada $205,500 $175,250 $106,500 $140,000 $175,000 +25.0% -14.8% Long Lake $248,125 $197,450 $198,500 $186,500 $227,500 +22.0% -8.3% Lonsdale $194,000 $160,750 $150,000 $135,000 $144,900 +7.3% -25.3% Loretto $218,950 $190,800 $215,572 $217,875 $130,000 -40.3% -40.6% _4U Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 18 w . 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities HousingilNarket . . " °'r - Median Prices - Around the Metro MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association or REALTORS' -i°U Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 19 2008 20109 2010 2011 2012 Change From 2011 Change From 2008 Mahtomedi $297,000 $199,000. $249,995 $257,500 $249,900 -3.0% -15.9% Maple Grove $254,600 $222,000 $258,000 $214,000 $219,700 +2.7% -13.7% Maple Lake $174,700 $100,000 $100,000 $112,840 $133,450 +18.3% -23.6% Maple Plain $159,900 $161,250 $166,700 $153,500 $187,450 +22.1% + 17.2% Maplewood $190,000 $162,000 $156,000 $139,400 $145,000 +4.0% -23.7% Marine on St. Croix $381,500 $283,500 $272,500 $242,000 $274,450 +13.4% -28.1% Mayer $213,600 $169,900 $174,950 $169,900 $164,405, -3.2% -23.0% Medina $620,000 $580,000 $615,000 $525,000 $460,000 -12.4% -25.8% Mendota Heights $296,625 $289,450 $305,000 $286,500 $271,000 -5.4% -8.6% Minneapolis - (Citywide) $168,000 $145,000 $160,000 $140,000 $165,000 +17.9% -1.8% Minneapolis - Calhoun -Isle $290,000 $273,500 $315,000 $267,021 $300,000 +12.4% +3.4% Minneapolis - Camden $52,500 $49,000 $66,002 $45,000 $59,900 +33.1% + 14.1 % Minneapolis - Central $254,950 $236,825 $225,000 $214,000 $220,000 +2.8% -13.7% Minneapolis - Longfellow $189,500 $172,000 $170,500 $147,500 $169,000 +14.6% -10.8% Minneapolis - Near North $35,725 $36,700 $55,000 $42,750 $60,000 +40.4% +67.9% Minneapolis - Nokomis $209,000 $189,892 $195,400 $162,700 $176,500 +8.5% -15.6% Minneapolis - Northeast $164,925 $150,000 $151,500 $125,000 $140,000 +12.0% -15.1% Minneapolis - Phillips $85,000 $78,000 $110,000 $72,500 $90,000 +24.1% + 5.9% Minneapolis - Powderhorn $130,000 $123,950 $135,000 $110,000 $116,400 +5.8% -10.5% Minneapolis - Southwest $275,000 $260,000 $276,000 $264,000 $277,000 +4.9% +0.7% Minneapolis - University $247,118 $215,000 $207,950 $205,250 $209,900 +2.3% -15.11% Minnetonka $265,900 $245,000 $265,713 $233,000 $255,000 +9.4% -4.1% Minnetonka Beach $616,000 $2,700,000 $825,000 $1,130,000 $675,000 -40.3% +9.6% Minnetrista $385,000 $346,639 $325,086 $349,950 $385,000 +10.0% 0.0% Monticello $160,000 $133,000 $135,000 $124,000 $137,095 + 10.6946 -14.3% Montrose $139,900 $133,943 $131,371 $114,950 $130,357 +13.4% -6.8% Mora $119,000 $87,700 $79,900 $84,400 $86,500 +2.5% -27.3% Mound $207,750 $181,000 $188,000 $150,000 $169,000 +12.7% -18.7% Mounds View $175,000 $153,000 $166,700 $134,950 $139,500 +3.4% -20.3% New Brighton $210,000 $187,000 $178,000 $157,500 $165,000 +4.8% -21.4% New Germany $93,950 $109,000 $105,000 $110,000 $100,000 -9.1% + 6.4% New Hope $186,000 $158,250 $148,000 $126,125 $155,000 +22.9% -16.7% New Prague $192,000 $170,000 $161,250 $143,000 $174,000 +21.7% -9.4% New Richmond $141,000 $139,950 $135,400 $110,000 $124,900 +13.5% -11.4% New Trier $207,110 $0 $149,900 $0 $75,000 -63.8% Newport $150,000 $127,400 $123,500 $72,175 $98,500 +36.5% -34.3% North Branch $160,000 $144,350 $136,000 $115,000 $123,650 +7.5% -22.7% North Oaks $637,735 $475,000 $584,000 $480,000 $510,000 +6.3% - -20.0% North Saint Paul $159,500 $160,000 $145,000 $120,000 $139,950 +16.6% -12.3% Northfield $190,000 $165,000 $159,900 $144,550 $157,500 +9.0% -17.1% Norwood Young America $155,000 $134,500 $155,450 $119,900 $128,912 + 7:5% - ,16.8% Oak Grove $249,950 $207,000 $200,450 $175,000 $200,825 +14.8% -19.7% Oak Park Heights $185,000 $127,000 $136,100 $130,000 $134,799 +3.7% -27.1% Oakdale 1 $184,900 $159,900 $164,600 $133,000 $134,950 +11.5% -27.0% -i°U Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 19 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housiln§Narket Median Prices - Around the Metro MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS' jY// Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 120 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Change From 2011 Change From 2008 Orono $767,500 $595,000 $565,000 $532,500 $379,445 -28.7% - 50.6% Osseo $152,000 $134,500 $128,500 $115,000 $151,500 +31.7% -0.3% Otsego $175,000 $159,900 $160,610 $159,900 $163,900 +2.5% -6.3% Pine City $125,500 $122,500 $100,000 $81,500 $105,260 +29.2% -16.1% Pine Springs $334,000 $485,000 $390,000 $300,000 $271,500 -9.5% -18.7% Plymouth $275,000 $253,500 $249,000 $245,000 $276,250 +12.8% +0.5% Princeton $122,206 $103,160 $11'3,900 $111,000 $105,101 -5.30/o -14.0% Prior Lake $245,000 $234,500 $223,900 $211,000 $227,500 +7.8% -7.1% Ramsey $188,989 $152,250 $156,830 $137,000 $153,000 +11.7% -19.0% Randolph $202,000 $169,400 $198,900 $168,937 $164,900 -2.4% -18.4% Red Wing $142,000 $139,900 $125,000 $119,850 $127,500 +6.4% -10.2% Richfield $185,500 $165,000 $160,000 $140,250 $155,000 +10.5% 16.49/o River Falls $175,000 $165,000 $172,500 $143,600 $151,000 +5.2% - 13.7% Robbinsdale $160,000 $145,000 $131,500 $104,750 $123,499 + 17.9% 22.8% Rockford $206,000 $192,500 $169,800 $130,000 $154,000 + 18.5% -25.2% Rogers $253,000 $226,825 $212,000 $210,000 $236,000 + 12A% -6.7% Rosemount $214,950 $193,500 $201,500 $170,000 $180,500 +6.2% -16:0% Roseville $225,000 $198,000 $190,000 $158,500 $187,000 +18.0% -16.9% Rush City $145,000 $87,000 $95,000 $113,000 $92,000 -18.6% -36.6% Saint Anthony $220,000 $210,000 $181,000 $178,200 $154,950 -13.0% - 29.6% Saint Bonifacius $223,500 $170,000 $178,850 $145,000 $189,500 +30.79/a - 15.2% Saint Francis $163,250 $133,000 $135,000 $122,100 $130,000 +6.50/o -20.4% Saint Louis Park $227,000 $212,500 $213,250 $185,000 $198,000 +7.0% -12.8% Saint Michael $204,000 $179,950 $165,000 $165,000 $183,726 +11.3% - 9.9e/u Saint Paul - (Citywide) $145,000 $117,500 $121,250 $100,000 $120,000 +20.0% -17.2% Saint Paul - Battle Creek / Highwood $150,000 $116,000 $123,000 $89,700 $112,000 +24.9% -25.3% Saint Paul - Como Park $215,000 $199,900 $190,400 $145,000 $170,000 +17.2% -20.9% Saint Paul - Dayton's Bluff $58,563 $60,000 $75,000 $50,000 $59,900 +19.8% +2.3% Saint Paul - Downtown $200,000 $140,000 $152,500 $128,250 $136,500 +6.4% -31.8% Saint Paul - Greater East Side $109,948 $103,000 $102,500 $85,000 $88,900 +4.6% -19.1% Saint Paul - Hamline- Midway $156,950 $149,450 $142,000 $104,500 $126,700 +21.2% -19.3% Saint Paul - Highland Park $248,000 $225,000 $232,250 $235,000 $229,900 -2.2% -7.3% Saint Paul - Lexington - Hamline $225,000 $214,900 $217,000 $210,000 $240,000 +14.3% +6.7% Saint Paul - Macalester- Groveland $265,000 $240,000 $250,000 $228,750 $235,000 +2.7% - 11.3% Saint Paul - North End / South Como $81,000 $75,000 $76,250 $57,313 $74,000 +29.1% - 8.6% Saint Paul - Payne - Phalen $79,950 $70,000 $82,250 $65,000 $80,250 +23.5% +0.4% Saint Paul - St. Anthony Park $241,000 $258,000 $216,750 $180,000 $190,000 + 5.6% -21.2% Saint Paul - Summit Hill $261,000 $315,000 $370,000 $325,000 $288,000 -11.4% +10.3% Saint Paul - Summit - University $165,000 $125,000 $157,325 $130,000 $148,750 +14.4% -9.8% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale $44,450 $49,500 $65,450 $45,000 $55,000 +22.2% +23.7% Saint Paul - West Seventh $151,623 $148,450 $142,900 $103,626 $121,000 +16.8% -20.2% Saint Paul - West Side $110,000 $91,000 $113,000 $82,000 $90,000 +9.8% -18.2% Saint Paul Park $129,900 $134,600 $117,000 $127,750 + 9.2% - 17.8% Savage L$2155,450 0,000 $210,000 $200,000 $186,500 $207,143 + 11.1% -13.7% jY// Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 120 y 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market 4% Median Prices - Around the Metro MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association �jREALTORS* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Change Change From 2011 From 2008 Shakopee $199,888 $175,000 $180,000 $154,900 $167,500 +8.1% - 16.2% Shoreview $222,000 $204,950 $205,000 $180,000 $191,000 +6.1% -14.0% Shorewood $465,000 $356,200 $359,288 $349,950 $414,950 +18.6% -10.8% Somerset $145,000 $136,400 $130,950 $127,000 $119,900 -5.6% -17.3% South Haven $164,750 $160,000 $215,500 $187,500 $153,500 -18.1% - 6.8% South Saint Paul $158,000 $130,250 $131,500 $114,995 $111,000 -3.50/6 -29.7% Spring Lake Park $159,000 $136,500 $131,000 $92,250 $118,000 +27.9% -25.8% Spring Park $229,900 $270,000 $266,500 $199,900 $352,500 +76.3% +53.3% Stacy $175,000 $153,450 $138,500 $139,000 $108,750 -21.8% -37.9% Stillwater $262,950 $208,500 $230,000 $208,000 $216,250 +4.0% -17.8% Sunfish Lake $1,051,250 $830,000 $300,000 $550,320 $685,000 +24.5% -34.8% Tonka Bay $1,062,500 $525,000 $495,000 $550,000 $797,500 +45.0% -24.9% Vadnais Heights $195,900 $153,500 $165,000 $165,000 $149,900 -9.2% -23.5% Vermillion $175,000 $169,900 $145,013 $153,500 $187,500 +22.1% + 7.1% Victoria $401,000 $330,375 $374,695 $351,250 $341,990 -2.6% -14.7% Waconia $237,000 $199,700 $213,500 $187,500 $204,250 +8.9% -13.8% Watertown $186,000 $175,263 $159,500 $118,000 $153,000 +29.7% -17.7% Wayzata $409,400 $500,000 $439,000 $426,000 $418,000 -1.9% +2.1010 West Saint Paul $160,800 $126,500 $136,500 $120,000 $125,700 +4.8% -21.8% White Bear Lake $200,000 $167,000 $175,000 $148,500 $162,000 +9.1% -19.0% Willernle $147,175 $70,000 $117,699 $77,000 $141,500 +83.8% -3.9% Woodbury $261,900 $239,000 $243,750 $219,700 $240,000 +9.2% -8.4% Woodland $2,513,000 $847,500 $561,000 $1,065,000 MUM -34.3% -72.1% Wyoming $189,900 $165,000 $156,700 $150,000 $163,750 +9.2% -13.8% Zimmerman $154,950 $135,000 $143,700 $118,000 $130,000 +10.2% -16.1% Zumbrota $166,178 $154,000 $129,700 $132,950 $147,950 +11.3% -11.0% sot/ Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 21 14, , 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market " =nuaa .,..,, Median Prices - Minneapolis Neighborhoods MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS' _ °U Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorlhstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 122 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Change From 2011 Change From 2008 Minneapolis $168,000 $145,000 $160,000 $140,000 $165,000 +17.9% -1.8% Armatage $243,000 $231,500 $225,000 $205,500 $218,000 +6.1% - 10.3% Audubon Park $175,953 $169,400 $169,500 $137,275 $144,259 +5.1% - 18.0% Bancroft $147,500 $151,500 $153,750 $127,000 $143,500 +13.0% -2.7% Beltraml $140,000 $115,000 $116,000 $100,450 $72,500 -27.8% - 48.2% Bottineau $144,950 $89,000 $156,500 $80,001 $132,000 +65.0% -8.9% Bryant $75,500 $115,000 $123,000 $110,000 $125,500 +14.1% + 66.2% Bryn Mawr $308,500 $254,000 $306,000 $317,000 $274,000 -13.6% -11.2% Calhoun (CARAG) $207,000 $265,500 $203,500 $195,000 $206,186 +5.7% -0.4% Cedar -Isles -Dean $345,000 $385,000 $315,000 $320,000 $302,750 -5.4% -12.2% Cedar - Riverside $142,750 $109,500 $111,950 $116,950 $119,050 +1.8% -16.6% Central $84,950 $71,600 $118,950 $78,450 $89,000 +13.4% +4.8% Cleveland $52,000 $78,000 $87,000 $50,000 $74,000 +48.0% +42.3% Columbia Park $151,750 $105,000 $138,200 $120,718 $127,000 +5.2% -16.3% Cooper $215,000 $192,000 $192,000 $165,000 $202,500 +22.7% -5.8% Corcoran Neighborhood $170,000 $136,000 $145,500 $99,900 $105,000 +5.1% - 38.2% Diamond Lake $238,250 $223,700 $226,950 $195,000 $210,000 +7.7% -11.9% Downtown East - Mpls $397,414 $374,243 $369,861 $415,000 $412,500 -0.6% +3.8% Downtown West - Mpls $200,000 $180,000 $186,000 $166,000 $184,900 +11.4% -7.6% East Calhoun $306,650 $234,750 $416,500 $390,000 $407,500 +4.5% +32.9% East Harriet $242,250 $289,950 $298,500 $293,500 $272,000 -7.3% +12.3% East Isles $270,000 $278,000 $244,500 $275,000 $299,000 +8.7% +10.7% East Phillips $89,900 $59,000 $99,000 $55,000 $82,650 +50.3% -8.1% Elliot Park $301,750 $255,000 $240,700 $220,000 $182,500 -17.0% -39.5% Ericsson $205,000 $198,948 $197,750 $160,750 $174,950 +8.8% -14.7% Field $208,500 $198,750 $192,500 $180,000 $185,750 +3.2% -10.9% Folwell $36,000 $35,000 $45,000 $30,325 $45,000 +48.4% +25.0% Fulton $347,950 $315,000 $303,905 $336,000 $349,000 +3.9% +0.3% Hale $267,500 $277,550 $255,000 $249,000 $266,000 +6.8% -0.6% Harrison $57,000 $42,000 $84,900 $76,450 $65,000 -15.0% +14.0% Hawthorne $27,000 $37,300 $54,900 $46,500 $57,500 +23.7% +113.0% Hiawatha $199,500 $182,000 $162,550 $150,400 $165,000 +9.7% -17.3% Holland $113,750 $84,000 $118,500 $63,575 $100,000 +57.3% -12.1% Howe $175,000 $175,000 $164,000 $125,900 $165,000 +31.1% - 5.7% Jordan Neighborhood $29,000 $29,000 $40,000 $29,000 $50,000 +72.4% +72.4% Keewaydin $215,000 $207,000 $215,250 $161,775 $188,500 +16.5% -12.3% Kenny $255,000 $242,500 $251,000 $242,500 $246,950 +1.8% -3.2% Kenwood $810,000 $885,000 $817,500 $682,500 $760,000 +11.4% -6.2% Kenyon $127,713 $107,000 $90,000 $68,300 $62,750 -8.1% - 50.9% Kingfield $220,000 $189,900 $224,900 $178,000 $227,000 +27.5% +3.2% Lind - Bohanon $65,000 $51,838 $79,000 $50,000 $54,250 +8.5% -16.5% Linden Hills $339,300 $330,000 $373,000 $345,000 $373,750 +8.3% +10.2% Logan Park $158,500 $152,500 $180,500 $129,250 $153,850 +19.0% -2.9% Longfellow. $173,225 $152,000 $158,200 $121,000 $155,000 +28.1% - 10.5% _ °U Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorlhstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 122 j 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market ..... , Median Prices - Minneapolis Neighborhoods MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association -f REALTORS' -Z& Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 123 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Change From 2011 Change From 2008 Loring Park $219,000 $178,400 $200,000 $169,000 $157,450 -6.8% -26.1% Lowry Hill $506,000 $276,443 $455,000 $239,900 $494,500 + 106.1% -2.3% Lowry Hill East $200,500 $103,500 $200,000 $233,050 $236,500 +1.5% +18.0% Lyndale $158,500 $126,063 $149,000 $125,000 $117,000 -6.4% -26.2% Lynnhurst $435,000 $399,700 $448,716 $417,000 $414,500 -0.69/o -4.7% Marcy Holmes $311,450 $243,000 $438,750 $312,000 $299,900 -3.9% -3.7% Marshall Terrace $100,000 $125,000 $124,000 $68,650 $128,000 +86.5% +28.0% McKinley $32,750 $27,000 $39,000 $35,000 $44,450 +27.0% +35.7% Midtown Phillips $87,550 $85,550 . $119,000 $84,850 $94,900 + 11.8% + 8.496 Minnehaha $194,800 $172,000 $169,000 $144,000 $149,000 +3.5% - 23.50 Morris Park $160,000 $112,000 $152,250 $109,950 $125,000 +13.7% -21.9% Near North $54,000 $55,000 $71,100 $37,756 $63,750 +68.8% + 18.1% Nicollet Island - East Bank $382,500 $269,950 $250,000 $300,000 $322,500 +7.5% -15.7% North Loop $251,000 $249,500 $248,875 $223,700 $263,000 +17.6% + 4.8% Northeast Park $103,100 $144,400 $150,450 $52,000 $88,875 +70.9% -13.8% Northrup $219,300 $195,000 $206,450 $182,000 $195,000 +7.1% - 11.1% Page $310,000 $285,000 $293,750 $254,500 $306,000 +20.20/o -1.3% Phillips West $62,500 $88,000 $106,700 $50,000 $71,000 +42.0% +13.6% Powderhorn Park $125,000 $104,900 $113,750 $73,250 $99,900 +36.4% -20.1% Prospect Park $248,000 $213,500 $220,000 $229,750 $230,000 +0.10/o -7.3% Regina $160,000 $118,500 $164,900 $107,000 $133,241 +24.5% -16.7% Seward $200,000 $170,950 $197,200 $161,000 $171,300 +6.4% -114.456 Sheridan $135,000 $86,750 $136,000 $89,000 $111,500 +25.3% -17.4% Shingle Creek $99,250 $72,500 $98,884 $55,000 $60,225 +9.5% -39.3% Southeast Como $204,000 $189,000 $168,000 $157,000 $151,450 -3.5% -25.8% St. Anthony East $169,000 $143,750 $179,900 $120,550 $149,586 +24.1% - 11.5% St. Anthony West $203,000 $249,575 $221,000 $207,250 $171,750 - 17.1% -15.4% Standish $175,000 $165,000 $156,000 $128,500 $142,000 +10.5% -18.9% Stevens Square $146,750 $110,000 $68,900 $62,950 $104,000 + 65.2% -29.1% Sumner - Glenwood i $189,500 $182,500 $155,000 $170,000 $201,500 +18.5% +6.3% Tangletown $308,900 $266,050 $315,000 $330,000 $320,000 -3.0% +3.69/o University District $278,600 $210,000 $225,000 $0 $0 -- -100.0% Ventura Village $109,900 $100,500 $79,450 $57,900 $66,100 +14.2% -39.996 Victory $96,500 $85,000 $115,000 $85,200 $98,075 +15.19/o +11.6% Waite Park $183,500 $174,200 $168,000 $137,588 $159,150 +15.7% -13.3% Webber- Camden $50,000 $40,000 $61,000 $42,000 $47,500 +13.1% - 5.0% Wenonah $185,000 $176,000 $171,200 $143,000 $152,500 +6.6% -17.6% West Calhoun $177,000 $365,000 $567,500 $104,500 $163,250 +56.2% -7.8% Whittler $112,900 $109,660 $100,000 $107,000 $84,250 -21.3% - 25.4% Willard Hay $45,000 $40,000 $66,450 $51,750 $67,000 +29.5% +48.9% Windom $216,500 $196,750 $226,225 $163,832 $185,915 +13.5% -14.1% Windom Park $205,000 $172,000 $146,000 $164,163 $163,500 -0.4% -20.29/0 -Z& Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 123 2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Median Prices _ Townships MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS® 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Change From 2011 Change From 2008 Baytown Township $560,000 $425,000 $547,900 $455,000 $509,167 +11.9% -9.1% Belle Maine Township $235,000 $142,750 $65,000 $212,500 $216,000 +1.6% -8.1% Benton Township $0 $0 $0 $165,000 $0 -100.0% -- Blakeley Township $297,000 $205,000 $0 $0 $0 -- -100.0% Burns Township $262,547 $221,000 $209,125 $119,900 $181,500 +51.4% -30.9% Camden Township $0 $0 $219,000 $177,500 $0 -100.0% -- Castle Rock Township $250,000 $162,500 $141,500 $160,000 $256,250 +60.2% +2.5% Cedar Lake Township $378,000 $365,000 $273,950 $330,000 $203,000 -38.5% -46.3% Credit River Township $605,000 $402,250 $400,000 $392,000 $438,000 +11.7% -27.6% Dahlgren Township $0 $383,000 $135,000 $470,000 $250,000 -46.8% -- Douglas Township $430,000 $0 $181,000 $0 $0 -- -100.0% Empire Township $282,900 $138,200 $189,250 $154,000 $208,000 +35.1% - 26.5% Eureka Township $162,500 $116,750 $127,000 $172,100 $132,500 -23.0% -18.5% Greenvale Township $0 $351,707 $0 $0 $150,000 - Grey Cloud Island Township $365,000 $154,500 $500,000 $270,000 $203,000 -24.8% -44.4% Hancock Township $56,000 $176,500 $216,400 $0 $0 - -100.0% Hassan Township $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -- -- Helena Township $0 $405,000 $215,000 $260,000 $303,000 +16.5% -- Hollywood Township $0 $230,500 $229,250 $319,950 $210,000 -34.4% Jackson Township $162,000 $173,000 $108,500 $143,000 $214,750 +50.2% +32.6% Laketown Township $199,900 $160,000 $154,250 $189,900 $129,750 -31.7% -35.1% Linwood Township $177,250 $187,900 $160,000 $139,750 $156,600 +12.1% - 11.7% Louisville Township $400,000 $0 $406,078 $395,000 $115,000 -70.9% -71.3% Marshan Township $0 $309,500 $302,500 $284,200 $205,000 -27.9% -- May Township $450,450 $332,000 $345,000 $285,000 $310,000 +8.8%. -31.2% New Market Township $417,500 $349,900 $271,200 $266,000 $331,500 +24.6% -20.6% New Scandia Township $245,000 $154,000 $0 $0 $0 -- -100.0% Nininger Township $0 $0 $272,450 $0 $400,000 -- Randolph Township $243,500 $335,000 $350,000 $0' $0 - -100.0% Ravenna Township $198,500 $187,000 $213,000 $200,000 $219,165 +9.6% +10.4% San Francisco Township $485,000 $132,500 $307,000 $199,250 $242,500 +21.7% -50.0% Sand Creek Township $170,000 $0 $271,900 $152,500 $269,000 +76.4% +58.2% Sciota Township $0 $176,000 $348,800 $323,850 $245,000 -24.3% Spring Lake Township $350,000 $252,500 $324,900 $263,500 $301,000 +14.2% -14.0% St. Lawrence Township $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - - Stillwater Township $399,900 $357,450 $342,500 $350,000 $356,500 +1.9% -10.9% Vermillion Township $0 $285,000 $162,500 $0 $298,000 - - Waconla Township $258,500 $187,000 $300,000 $96,000 $366,000 +281.3% +41.6% Waterford Township $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - Watertown Township $0 $245,000 $138,500 $472,500 $297,500 -37.0% West Lakeland Township $500,000 $384,500 $381,750 $308,000 $399,950 +29.9% -20.0% White Bear Township $260,000 $214,000 $196,000 $181,000 $179,500 -0.8% -31.0% Young America Township $194,900 $239,775 $565,000 $262,400 $215,000 -18.1% + 10.3% .iceI Current as o1 January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 24 °2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market MedianPrices - Counties MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association REALTORS' Change Change 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 From 2011 From 2008 Anoka County $180,000 $155,000 $155,000 $136,900 $152,000 +11.0% -15.6% Carver County $248,500 $218,000 $230,000 $215,784 $229,900 .+6.5% -7.5% Chisago County $175,000 $155,000 $145,250 $136,000 $139,000 +2.2% -20.6% Dakota County $205,000 $174,250 $175,000 $156,000 $170,814 +9.5% -16.7% Goodhue County $152,500 $144,950 $134,500 $127,000 $134,900 +6.2% -11.5% Hennepin County $205,000 $174,025 $184,000 $162,500 $182,500 +12.3% -11.0% Isanti County $140,000 $119,000 $109,900 $94,950 $117,900 +24.2% -15.8% Kanabec County $99,750 $84,950 $85,000 $76,250 $79,750 +4.6% -20.1% Mille Lacs County $113,050 $92,000 $89,000 $85,000 $92,005 +8.2% -18.6% Ramsey County $174,900 $144,000 $145,000 $125,500 $142,000 +13.1% - 18.8% Rice County $155,250 $145,000 $140,000 $125,000 $134,000 +7.2% -13.7% Scott County $224,700 $200,000 $190,000 $180,000 $197,000 +9.4% -12.3% Sherburne County $163,500 $144,000 $149,900 $129,900 $143,150 +10.2% -12.4% St. Croix County $175,000 $161,450 $160,000 $144,650 $149,000 +3.0% -14.9% Washington County $226,000 $189,000 $195,000 $179,000 $200,000 +11.7% -11.5% Wright County $179,900 $153,450 $152,390 $139,000 $152,000 +9.4% -15.5% GU Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 125 " X2012 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Historical Review Year Number of Listings Processed Total Dollar Volume (in billions) Number of Units Sold' Average Sales Price 1980 37,018 $1.34 18,351 $74,069 1981 35,580 $1.25 15,675 $80,238 1982 41,465 $1.00 12,193 $82,288 1983 50,794 $1.35 15,914 $84,953 1984 53,646 $1.55 18,231 $85,007 1985 51,492 $1.87 21,335 $87,789 1986 58,382 $2.52 28,015 $90,319 1987 55,422 $2.46 25,772 $95,914 1988 80,771 $3.21 34,244 $93,977 1989 89,170 $3.28 33,962 $96,658 1990 78,548 $3.37 34,496 $98,016 1991 71,850 $3.52 35,598 $99,402 1992 72,730 $4.31 41,944 $103,264 1993 70,685 $4.30 39,842 $107,569 1994 63,369 $4.73 42,454 $111,806 1995 64,556 $4.94 42,310 $117,053 1996 73,433 $5.82 46,949 $124,022 1997 63,189 $5.68 41,441 $137,085 1998 64,280 $7.09 47,836 $147,346 1999 57,573 $7.62 46,675 $163,277 2000 59,618 $8.76 48,208 $181,605 2001 71,861 $10.22 50,298 $203,136 2002 73,940 $11.33 51,212 $221,275 2003 88,129 $13.80 57,457 $240,005 2004 100,035 $15.62 60,176 $259,292 2005 99,629 $16.60 60,061 $273,673 2006 108,033 $13.92 49,414 $279,151 2007 104,986 $11.41 41,027 $275,774 2008 93,464 $9.44 39,598 $236,570 2009 82,977 $9.19 45,877 $199,377 2010 81,858 $8.16 38,288 $211,338 2011 68,886 $8.10 41,606 $1.93,341 2012 65,914 $10.32 48,641 $210,787 Need More Data? Check out www.mpisrealtor.com to access up -to- date market reports throughout the year. You can also create your own custom reports on- the -fly with The Thing, our interactive market analytics tool. Just a few simple clicks will break out any area you need by any variable you need. Access it now at thething.mplsrealtor.com. MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS* 1980 -1996 All property types and all MLS districts. 1997- Present Single- family detached homes, condominiums, townhomes and twin homes for the 13- county metro area. 2003 - Present Home sales were recalculated in 2012 to account for all late - recorded activity, affecting data back to 2003. MRp ape Current as of January 15, 2013. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 126