Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-03_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 3, 1986 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL MINUTES OF HRA Meeting of February 245 1986, approved as submitted or corrected by motion of seconded by ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL I. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by City Manager or Engineer. Public comment heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if improvement has been petitioned for; 4/5 vote required if no petition. A. Permanent Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb and Gutter 1. Improvement No. P -BA -269 - York Avenue - W. 76th Street to W. 78th St * 2. Improvement No. P -BA -270 - W. 76th Street - Xerxes Av to Edinborough Way * 3. Improvement No. P -BA -271 - Edinborough Way - W. 76th St to York Av B. Ornamental Street Lighting * 1. Improvement No. P -L -27 - 6100 Block Chowen Avenue * 2. Improvement No. P -L -28 - 4800 Block West Sunnyslope Road II. PUBLIC HEARING AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Public comment heard. Zoning Ordinance: First and Second Reading requires four -fifth (4/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Four -fifth (4/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council required to pass. Lot Divisions, Plats, Appeals: Favorable rollcall vote of majority of quorum requires to pass. Final Plat Approval of Property Zoned Planned District: Three -fifth (3/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council required to pass. A. Zoning Change 1. Second'Reading * a. R -1 District to R -2 District - Robert Anderson - 425 Washington Av So B. Preliminary Plat Approval * 1. Edina Oaks - Lot 15, Prospect Hills - Generally located south of Dublin Road and west of Antrim Court C. Final Plat Approval * 1. South Harriet Park Steiner Addition - Steiner and Gislason - Generally located east of Minnehaha Blvd and south of West 52nd Street III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS IV. AWARD OF BIDS * A. Park Improvements - Van Valkenburg Park * B. Restroom Tile - Braemar Club House V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. State Budget Cuts * B. Management Audit Committee C. Appointment to H.O.M.E. Board D. Wine Licensing Procedure - Set Review Date (4/28/86 - 7 p.m.) E. Accessory Uses /Nuisance Ordinance - Set Hearing Date (5/5/86) F. Annual All- Volunteer Awards Reception - April 22 at 5 p.m. G. Seniors Transportation * H. Pilot Recycling Project I• Special Concerns of Mayor and Council . J. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Petition for Wetland Easement Vacation- Lot 3, Block 1, The Habitat - Set Hearing Date (4/14/86) VII. RESOLUTIONS. Favorable rollcall vote by majority of quorum to pass. A. Prohibiting Parking - York Avenue from W. 76th Street to W. 78th Street B. Prohibiting Parking - West 76th Street from Xerxes Avenue to Edinborough Way C. Prohibiting Parking - Edinborough Way from W. 76th Street to York Avenue Agenda Edina City Council March 3, 1986 Page Two VIII. ORDINANCES. First Reading: Requires only offering of Ordinance. Second Reading: Three- fifths (3/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council required to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Four - fifths (4/5) favorable rollcall vote of all member of Council required to pass. A. Ordinance No. 1111 -A9 - To Establish a Tax Lien for Delinquent Accounts B. Ordinance No. 1101 -A10 - To Preserve Remedies in Addition to Certification for Recovery of Unpaid Charges C. Ordinance.No. 171 -A23 - To Change the Amounts of Certain Fees IX. FINANCE. A. Claims Paid. Motion of , seconded by for payment of the following claims as per Pre -List dated 3/3/86: General Fund $138,790.20, Art Center $506.82, Golf Course Fund $122,959.44, Recreation Center Fund $1,710.53, Gun Range Fund $51.59, Utility Fund $196,351.84, Liquor Dispensary Fund $2,204.30, Construction Fund $5,883.08, Total $468,458.16 SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS Mon Mar 10 Special Council Meeting - Survey Format Sat Mar 15 Council Workshop Mon Mar 17 Regular Council Meeting Mon Apr 14 Regular Council Meeting Mon Apr 21 Regular Council Meeting Tues Apr 22 Annual All- Volunteers Awards Reception Mon Apr 28 Wine Licensing Procedure Review 7:00 p.m. Conference Rm 8:00 a.m. Council Room 7:00 p.m. Council Room 7:00 p.m. Council Room 7:00 p.m. Council Room 5:00 p.m. Interlachen 7:00.p.m. Council -Room bi AGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 3, 1986 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL MINUTES OF HRA Meeting of February 24, 1986, approved as submitted or corrected by motion of seconded by - ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL I PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by City Manager or Engineer. Public comment heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if improvement has been petitioned for; 4/5 vote required if no petition. A. Permanent Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb and Gutter 1. Improvement No. P -BA -269 - York Avenue - W. 76th Street to W. 78th St 2. Improvement No. P -BA -270 - W. 76th Street - Xerxes Av to Edinborough Way 3. Improvement No. P -BA -271 - Edinborough Way - W. 76th St to York Av B. _Ornamental Street Lighting 1. Improvement No. P -L -27 - 6100 Block Chowen Avenue 2. Improvement No. P -L -28 - 4800 Block West Sunnyslope Road II. PUBLIC HEARING AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Public comment heard. Zoning Ordinance: First and Second Reading requires four -fifth (4/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Four -fifth (4/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council required to pass. Lot Divisions, Plats, Appeals: Favorable rollcall vote of majority of quorum requires to pass. Final Plat Approval of Property Zoned Planned District: Three -fifth (3/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council required to pass. A. Zoning Change 1. Second Reading a. R -1 District to R -2 District - Robert Anderson -.425 Washington Av So B. Preliminary Plat Approval 1. Edina Oaks - Lot 15, Prospect Hills - Generally located south of Dublin Road and west of Antrim Court C. Final Plat Approval 1. South Harriet Park Steiner Addition - Steiner and Gislason - Generally located east of Minnehaha Blvd and south of West 52nd Street III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS IV. AWARD OF BIDS A. Park Improvements - Van Valkenburg Park B. Restroom Tile - Braemar Club House V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. State Budget Cuts B. Management Audit Committee C. Appointment to H.O.M.E. Board D. Wine Licensing Procedure.- Set Review Date (4/28/86 - 7 p.m.) E. Accessory Uses /Nuisance Ordinance - Set Hearing Date (5/5/86) F. Annual All- Volunteer Awards Reception - April 22 at 5 p.m. G. Seniors Transportation H. Pilot Recycling Project I. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council J. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Petition for Wetland Easement Vacation - Lot 3, Block 1, The Habitat - Set Hearing Date (4/14/86) VII. RESOLUTIONS. Favorable rollcall vote by majority of quorum to pass. A. Prohibiting Parking - York Avenue from W. 76th Street to W. 78th Street B. Prohibiting Parking - West 76th Street from Xerxes Avenue to Edinborough Way C. Prohibiting Parking - Edinborough Way from W. 76th Street to York Avenue Agenda Edina City Council March 3, 1986 Page Two VIII. ORDINANCES. First Reading: Requires only offering of Ordinance. Second Reading: Three - fifths (3/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council required to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Four - fifths (4/5) favorable rollcall vote of all member of Council required to pass. A. Ordinance No. 1111 -A9 - To Establish a Tax Lien for Delinquent Accounts B. Ordinance No. 1101 -AlO - To Preserve Remedies in Addition to Certification for Recovery of Unpaid Charges C. Ordinance No. 171 -A23 - To Change the Amounts of Certain Fees IX. FINANCE. A. Claims Paid. Motion of , seconded by for payment of the following claims as per Pre -List dated 3/3/86: General Fund $138,790.20, Art Center $506.82, Golf Course Fund $122,959.44, Recreation Center Fund $1,710.53, Gun Range Fund $51.59, Utility Fund $196,351.84, Liquor Dispensary Fund $2,204.30, Construction Fund $5,883.08, Total $468,458.16 SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS Mon Mar 10 Special Council Meeting - Survey Format 7:OO p.m. Conference Rm Sat. Mar 15 Council Workshop Mon Mar 17 Regular Council Meeting Mon Apr 14 Regular Council Meeting Mon Apr 21 Regular Council Meeting Tues Apr 22 Annual All- Volunteers Awards Reception Mon Apr 28 Wine Licensing Procedure Review 8:00 a.m. Council Room 7:00 p.m. Council Room 7:00 p.m. Council Room 7:00 p.m. Council Room 5:00 p.m. Interlachen 7:00 p.m. Council Room . MINUTES EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FEBRUARY 24, 1986 Answering rollcall were Commissioners Kelly, Richards, Turner and Courtney. MINUTES of February 3, 1986, were approved-as submitted by motion of Commissioner Turner, seconded by Commissioner Kelly. Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. GRANDVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CONSIDERED. Executive Director Gordon Hughes recalled that on February 3, 1986, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) reviewed land use alternatives for the Grandview area as presented by Peter Jarvis of BRW. Following the presentation, staff recommended that the HRA pursue as public redevelopment projects: 1) a parking facility /Public Works garage east of Jerry's Foods, 2) an upgraded Link Road and 3) a redevelopment of the Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil /railroad property south of Eden Avenue. The Commissioners at that meeting indicated the need for additional information as to public parti- cipation and other background material. Mr. Hughes then identified the following major elements of the Grandview Redevelopment Project: 1) the parking /Public Works facility east of Jerry's, 2) the Link Road project and related roadway improvements, 3) Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil /railroad redevelopment, and 4) the Bowling Alley /Cedrics /Bell Realty redevelopment (i.e. Regis property). These elements of the Project were then summarized by Mr. Hughes as follows: Parking /Public Works Facility - Staff has viewed this as a public /private joint venture whereby the City could save approximately $150,000 on the cost of a new Public Works storage building by taking advantage of the supports and deck of the parking facility. The proposed facility would contain about 270 parking spaces and would cost approximately $1,600,000. This ramp can be financed through the tax increment process, but it may be reasonable to assess a portion of the cost to the adjoining shopping center. If the same policy were followed here as at the 50th and France ramp, 20% of the costs or $320,000 would be assessed. Other assessment policies to consider would be to: a) assess the shopping center an amount equal to the cost of constructing conventional surface parking if property were available or about $1,000 /staff plus the value of air rights over the City property, b) pledge only those tax increments received from the expansion of the shopping center to finance the ramp with the remaining costs to be assessed to the shopping center. Other obvious alternatives are either to finance the ramp totally with tax increments or to provide no public financing. Link Road — Present difficulties with the Eden /Vernon /Sherwood /West 53rd Street intersection(s) prompted the formation of the Tax Increment District and the initial traffic studies by BRW. The recommended solution is the closure of this intersection and the reconstruction of Link Road with signalization of the Link/ Vernon intersection. This upgrading would require substantial right of way acquisition - probably a total taking of the Superamerica Station and the sub- sequent redevelopment of the residual property. In staff's opinion the Link Road upgrading is somewhat dependent on other redevelopment at Grandview. Only five reportable accidents have been documented at the intersection and if no other redevelopment activities occur in Grandview, it is questionable if the Link Road improvement is warranted, given its high costs of construction and right of way acquisition. If other redevelopment does occur staff believes that the additional traffic demands would warrant the upgrading of Link Road. If the improvement is undertaken it deserves the best possible design and staff agrees with BRW that such a design probably necessitates a total taking or at least a total reconstruct- ion of Superamerica in that all access from Link Road would have to be removed. Minutes Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority February 24, 1986 Page Two As an interim measure, Link Road could be reconstructed and signalized without taking Superamerica although some changes to its access would be required. This improvement could then be evaluated and upgraded in the future if warranted due to additional development in the area. Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil /Railroad Redevelopment - This site presents one of the more traditional situations where tax increment financing has been used, i.e. the removal of blighted or underutilized improvements and reconstruction with more intense land uses. BRW has recommended that this property should be redeveloped for multi - family dwellings. These properties would probably not be significantly redeveloped without public participation and alternatives to the HRA's involve- ment in acquiring this property and reselling it for redevelopment are: a) to offer Housing Revenue Bonds or Industrial Development Bonds (i.e. tax exempt financing) as an incentive for private redevelopment, b) offer low interest loans or grants for substantially rehabilitating the existing uses on the property, and c) condemn the railroad property for resale to adjoining properties to facilitate an expansion and upgrading of existing uses. Bowling Alley /Cedrics /Bell Realty (Regis) - This site possesses high potential for redevelopment and staff has not recommended public participation. Even though these properties are somewhat "under- utilized" from a land use standpoint, staff did not document the presence of blight and therefore questioned the need for public participation at this time. The HRA could certainly be involved by promot- ing this redevelopment through the provision of public parking or other incentives. Other Projects - BRW's land use analysis highlighted other properties which may be suitable for redevelopment, e.g. the School bus garage and the Minnesota Wanner property, south of Eden Avenue and east of the railroad tracks. The school bus situation has been discussed with Dr. Hamann of the School District who advised that the District will likely continue its busing program for the forseeable future. -He also noted that the presbnt bus garage site is very small for their use alone and probably would not be conducive to a joint use with the City. The same problem seems to exist if a joint use were attempted on City property, e.g. the existing Public Works site. It may be possible to locate a joint bus garage and City Public Works facility on the Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil site. Short- comings of this alternative are: 1) a "municipal building" could not be financed with tax increments, and 2) more property would be exempt from taxation which would impact the feasibility of the tax increment district. Mr. Hughes reiterated that staff is looking for concept approval of one of the alternatives and to then call a public hearing. Staff's first priority would be the parking /Public Works facility; the Link Road project and the Lewis Engineering/ Kunz Oil redevelopment require more work and would be brought to the HRA when ready. Commissioner Turner asked how the tax reform act would impact the HRA's ability to sell bonds to do any of these projects. Mr. Hughes responded that the Link Road project would probably be defined as a governmental project that could be bonded for; that the parking /Public Works facility becomes less likely to be non - governmental that would be hurt by the pending legislation and that the least likely to bond would be the Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil redevelopment in that it would involve a non - governmental use of bond proceeds. He stated that the City's part of the parking /Public Works facility would be paid by funds programmed in the Capital Improvement Plan. Leon Schmieg of Typhoon Car Wash said that the proposed road alignment for the Link Road improvement would be very detrimental to his business. Charles Malin, Manager of Superamerica, asked what alternatives would allow them to remain at that location. Mr. Hughes responded if the interim measure for Link Road were to be constructed it would require some right of way with the Minutes Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority February 24, 1986 Page Three the flow through Superamerica having to be reversed and the existing frontage road would be eliminated, but that staff would work with Superamerica on that roadway realignment. Dick Weigel, 5421 Woodcrest Drive, said he was a stock- holder in Typhoon Car Wash and expressed his concern regarding the economic effect of the proposed median that would not allow traffic to turn in from both directions as now is possible. Commissioner Kelly raised questions regarding the Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil site redevelopment in that it would remove the property from the tax rolls and would change it to public assisted housing. She further questioned the need for additional housing of that type in the Grandview area. Mr. Hughes explained that the project principally would be to facilitate putting together the land package to make a development possible. It would likely be developed with market rate rental units but that the HRA could anticipate a developer coming forward to ask for housing revenue bonds or a development similar to what was done at the Biltmore site, with 20% of the units affordable to moderate income people. Commissioner Turner commented that she would prioritize the projects as 1) Link Road intersection with the interim configuration, 2) the parking /Public Works facility, 3) the northeast quadrant to develop independent of government involvement, and 4) the area south of Eden. She pointed out the need for discussion of the City's additional goals in the housing area. Com- missioner Kelly identified the parking /Public Works facility as her first priority and that she was not convinced of a problem at the Link Road intersection. Commissioner Richards stated he opted to do nothing at the present time. Commissioner Courtney indicated that the parking /Public Works facility would be his first priority with Link Road as the second. After further discussion, Commissioner Turner made a motion to conduct a concept approval public hearing on the Link Road improvement and the parking /Public Works facility on March 17, 1986. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kelly. Upon discussion of the motion, Commissioner Kelly offered an amendment to the motion that the total concept of Alternative C for the Grandview area be considered at the hearing. Commissioner Turner stated her consent to the amendment. Chairman Courtney then called the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Turner, Courtney Nays: Richards Motion carried. The HRA meeting was then adjourned by motion of Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Turner and carried unanimously. Executive Director CITY OF EDINA 4801 W. 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING �A- PERMANENT STREET SURFACING WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -269, BA -270, BA -271 The Edina City Council will meet on Monday, March 3, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. at the Edina City Hall, to consider the following proposed improvements to be constructed under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The approximate cost of said improvements are estimated by the city as set forth below: PERMANENT STREET SURFACING WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK York Ave. - From 76th St. to W. 78th St. Improvement No. P -BA -269 ESTIMATED COST $617,199.59 West 76th St. - From Xerxes Ave. $158,425.75 Improvement No. P -BA -270 Edinborough Way - From W. 76th to York Ave. $208,103.52 Improvement No. P -BA -271 The proposed work includes curb and gutter and permanent street surfacing on York Avenue from W. 76th St. to W. 78th St.; on W. 76th St. from Edinborough Way to Xerxes Ave.; and Edinborough Way from W. 76th St. to York Ave. Additionally, the project will include sidewalk on all streets abutting the Edinborough project, and sidewalk along the south side of W. 76th St. to serve the office properties on the east side of York Ave. The project will be funded by tax - increment financing, municipal state aid funds, and special assessments. The special assessment rate for the York Ave. and W. 76th St. project portions is to be $20.00 per assessable foot for single family property; $30.00 per assessable foot for multiple residential property; and $40.00 per assessable foot for office and commercial property. Edinborough Way project cost will be assessed against all property in the Edinborough project on a square foot basis of lot per developers agreement. The properties along the north side of W. 76th St. will each receive a $10.00 per assessable foot rate reduction for previous assessment on work done in 1979 on York Ave. and W. 76th St. The area proposed to be assessed for a portion or all of the proposed costs of the improvements includes: under IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -269; Lot 1, Block 1, Al. Johnson Add'n; Lot 1, Block 1, Paul Klodt First Add'n; Lots .1 thru 11, Block 1, Edinborough Add'n; under IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -270; Lots 1 thru 11, Edinborough Add'n; Lot 1, Block 1, Al Johnson Add'n; Lot 1, Block 1, Paul Klodt First Add'n; Lot 1, Block 1, Meadow Lane II Add'n; Lot 5, Block 1, Lyndale Builders Add'n; Lot 1; Block 1, Yorkdale Townhomes of Edina; and Lot 1, Block 1, Ebenezer Society 1st Add'n; under IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -271; Lots 1 thru 11, Edinborough Add'n. Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is listed to you is among those properties which are considered to be benefited by the improve- ment. ti page 2 This project, if approved, is proposed to be constructed in 1986 and the assessments would be levied in 1987. The assessment is proposed to be spread over a ten year period. The present condition of the Municipal Bond market makes it difficult to determine the annual rate of interest that will be charged on the unpaid balance, but it will not exceed the maximum allowed by law. Any inquires, comments and /or suggestions you may have regarding this improvement may be forwarded ;to the City Council or Engineering Department prior to the hearing or presented at the hearing itself. If you desire additional information, please call me at 927 -8861 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m., Monday through Friday. Thank you. Francis . Ho man, P.E. Director of Public Works and City Engineer FJH:rr February 21, 1986 reuruary 14, 1986 ESTIMATE OF COST CITY.OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PERMANENT STREET SURFACING WITH CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -269 S.A.P. 120 - 020 -17 LOCATION: York Ave. from W. 76th Street to I -494 Bridge HEARING DATE: March 3, 1986 ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $617,199.59 (Includes Engineering, Clerical & Interest NO. OF ASSESSABLE FEET: Commerical - 1,610.48 Multi Residence - 637.86 ESTIMATED COST PER ASSESSABLE FOOT: Commerical - $40.00 ($64,419:20) Multi Residence - $30.00 (19,135.80) TOTAL:($83,555.00) ESTIMATED COST TO BE PAID BY STATE AID: $533,644.59 AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED: $83,555.00 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LOT BLOCK ADDITION PINS NUMBER FOOTAGE 1 1 Al Johnson 32- 028 -24 -34 -0021 (1/3) 99.00 1 1 Paul Klodt First Add'n 32- 028 -24 -34 -0023 (full) 777.02 Part of 1 1 Edinborough Addition 32- 028 =24 -34 -0025 Total footage Part of 1 1 05- 027 -24 -21 -0004 for all Edin- borough lots Part of 2 1 05- 027 -24 -21 -0005 is 734.46' at Commerical rate Part of 2 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0026 and 637.86' at multi- family 3 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0027 rate 4 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0028 5 1 If 32- 028 -24 -34 -0029 6 1 If If 32- 028 -24 -34 -0030 7 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0031 8 1 If 11 32- 028 -24 -34 -0032 9 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0033 10 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0034 ..11 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0035 --Page 2 of 3 Pages Estimate of Cost Permanent Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk City of Edina Improvement No. P -BA -269 QUANTITY MATERIAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1.0 L /S, Mobilization @ $23,694.00 $23,694.00 1,600 L /F, Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter @ $ 0.75 _$ 1,200.00 11,287 S /F, Remove Bituminous Pavement @ $ 0.25 $ 2,821.75 3 Each, Remove Catch Basins @ $ 250.00 $ 750.00 10,260 C /Y, Common Excavation (L.V.) @ $ 4.50 $46,170.00 1,260 C /Y, Select Topsoil Borrow (L.V) @ $ 7.50 $ 9,450.00 5,696 Ton, Aggregate Base, Class 2 @ $ 7.00 $39,872.00 329 Ton, Bituminous Material for Mixture @ $ 220.00 $72,380.00 4,393 Ton, Binder Course Mixture (3") 4,8% @ $ 15.00 $65,895.00 2,928 Ton, Base Course Mixture (2 ") @ $ 15.00 $43,920.00 161 Ton, Bituminous Material for Mixture 6.2% @ $ 220.00 $35,420.00 2,935 Ton, Wearing Course Mixture @ $ 16.50 $48,427.50 1,597 Gal., Bituminous Material for Tack coat @ $ 1.10 $ 19756.70 (SS -1) 41 L /F, 12" Pipe Culvert R.C. @ $ 15.00 $ 615.00 1 Each, 12" R.C. Pipe apron @ $ 125.00 $ 125.00 7 Each, Construct Catch Basins, Design "C" Edina @ $ 800.00 $ 5,600.00 8 Each, Casting Assemblies Neenah R1728 @ $ 135.00 $ 1,080.00 2 Each, Casting Assemblies Neenah R2572 @ $ 130.00 $ 266.00 17 Each, Install Castings @ $ 100.00 $ 1,700.00 21 Each, Adjust Frame and Ring Castings @.$ 150.00 $ 3,150.00 11 Each, Salvage Frame & Castings Catchbasins @ $ 75.00 $ 825.00 225 L /F, Sawing Bituminous Pavement @ $ 3.50 $ 787..50 14,325 S /F, 4" Concrete walk @ $ 1.35 $19,33,8.75 2,925 L /F, Concrete Curb and Gutter Design B6 -18 @ $ 7.10 $20,767.50 3,230 L /F, Concrete Curb and Gutter Design B6 -24 @ $ 8.20 $26,486.00 389 L /F, 3" Rigid Steel Conduit @ $ 6.50 $ 2,528.50 PREPARED BY:d CHECKED BY: SUB- TOTAL: $497.581.10 ADD 10% ENGINEERING & 2% CLERICAL: 59,709.73 557,290.83 ADD 10.75% CAPITALIZED INTEREST: 59,908.76 ESTIMATED ^TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $617,199.59 Francis J. H fman P. . Director of ublic Works and City Engineer rage 3 oT i Pages ' Estimate of Cost Permanent Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk City of Edina Improvement No. P -BA -269 QUANTITY MATERIAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 4 Tree, Transplant Trees 3 -6" Maple & Linden @ $ 190.00 $ 760.00 12 Shrub, Transplant Shrubs 4 -6' High @ $ 90.00 $ 1,080.00 11,152 S /Y, Sodding @ $ 1.70 $18,958.40 575 Pound, Commerical Fertilizer, Analysis @ $ 1.50 $ 862.50 12 -12 -12 (F & I 250 lbs. /acre) 10 Each, Adjust Gate Valves @ $ 90.00 $ 900.00 PREPARED BY:d CHECKED BY: SUB- TOTAL: $497.581.10 ADD 10% ENGINEERING & 2% CLERICAL: 59,709.73 557,290.83 ADD 10.75% CAPITALIZED INTEREST: 59,908.76 ESTIMATED ^TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $617,199.59 Francis J. H fman P. . Director of ublic Works and City Engineer tt ESTIMATE OF COST CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA STREET SURFACING, CURB & GUTTER & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -270 S.A.P. 120 - 136 -04 LOCATION: W. 76th Street from Xerxes Ave. to Edinborough Way HEARING DATE: March 3, 1986 ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $153,425.75 (Includes Engineering, Clerical & Interest NO. OF ASSESSABLE FEET (SINGLE FAMILY): 76.5 NO. OF ASSESSABLE FEET (MULTI FAMILY): 560.56 NO. OF ASSESSABLE FEET (COMMERCIAL): 419.61 ESTIMATED COST PER ASSESSABLE FOOT: Single Family - $20.00 Multi Family - $30.00 Commercial - $40.00 AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED: $53,944.80 AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY STATE AID $104,408.95 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LOT BLOCK Part of 1 1 Part of 1 1 Part of 2 1 Part of 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 ADDITION Edinborough Addition It It It 11 32- 028 -24 -34 -0025 05- 027 -24 -21 -0004 05- 027 -24 -21 -0005 32- 028 -24 -34 -0026 32- 028 -24 -34 -0027 32- 028 -24 -34 -0028 32- 028 -24 -34 -0029 32- 028 -24 -34 -0030 32- 028 -24 -34 -0031 32- 028 -24 -34 -0032 32- 028 -24 -34 -0033 32- 028 -24 -34 -0034 32- 028 -24 -34 -0035 February 14,19• FOOTAGE Total footage for all Edin- borough lots is 560.56 Page 2 of 3 Pages ., Estimate of Cost Street Surfacing, Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk City of Edina Improvement No. P-.-BA-270 LOT BLOCK ADDITION PINS NUMBER FOOTAGE 1 1 Al Johnson 32- 028 -24 -34 -0021 225:73 1 1 Paul Klodt 1st 32- 028 -24 -34 -0024 :193:88 1 1 Meadow Lane II 32- 028- 24 =34- 0019(1/3) 44.00 5 1 Lyndale Builders 32- 028- 24 -31- 0013(1/3) 32.50 1 1 Yorktown Town Homes 32- 028 -24 -31 -0027 434.34 1 1 Ebenezer Society 1st 32- 028 -24 -31 -0007 522.59 QUANTITY MATERIAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 6,785 S /Y, Remove Bituminous Pavement @ $ 0.25 $ 1,696.25 2,844 C /Y, Common Excavation E.V. @ 4.50 12,798.00 117 C /Y, Select Topsoil Borrow L.U. @ 7.50 877.50 1,295 Ton, Aggregate Base Class 2 C" @ 7.00 9,065.00 92.7 Ton, Bituminous Material for Mixture @ 220.00 20,394.00 (4,8%) 1,236 Ton, Binder Course Mixture 3" @ 15.00 18,540.00 824 Ton, Base Course Mixture 2" @ 15.00 12,360.00 45.3 Ton, Bituminous Material for Mixture @ 220.00 9,966.00 (6.2%) 824 Ton, Rearing Course Mixture- 2" @ 16.50 13,596.00 15 Ton, Bituminous Mixture for Driveways @ 100.00 1,500.00 618 Gal., Bituminous Material for Seal @ 1.10 679.80 Coat 31 Ton, Seal Coat Material @ 85.00 29'635.00 (FA 3 Traprock) 247 Gal., Bituminous Material for Tack @ 1.10 271.70 Coat 16 Each, Adjust Frame and Ring Castings @ 150.00 2,400.00 2,875 S /F, 4" Concrete walk @ 1.35 3,881.25 1,280 L /F, Concrete Curb and Gutter, @ 7.10 9.088.00 Design B 6 -18 1,055 S /Y, Sodding @ 1.70 1,793.50 Page 3 of 3 Pages Estimate of Cost Street Surfacing, Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk City of Edina Improvement No. P -BA -270 UNIT TOTAL QUANTITY MATERIAL PRICE PRICE 55 Pound, Commercial Fertilizer, Analysis @ $ 1.50 $ 82.50 12 -12 -12 (250 lbs. /Acre) 2 Each, Adjust Gate Valves PREPARED BY CHECKED @ 90.00 180.00 SUB - TOTAL: $121,804.50 ADD 10% ENGINEERING & 2% CLERICAL: 14,616.54 136,421.04 ADD 16.13% CAPITALIZED INTEREST: 22,004.71 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $158,425.75 Francis J. Hof ma E. Director of Public Works and City Engineer February 19, 1986 ESTIMATE OF COST CITY OF EDINA, MI14NESOTA STREET SURFACING, CURB & GUTTER & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -271 LOCATION: Edinborough Way HEARING DATE: March 3, 1986 ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $290,112.13 (Includes Engineering, Clerical & Interest NO. OF ASSESSABLE SQUARE FEET: 1,028,973 ESTIMATED COST PER ASSESSABLE SQUARE FOOT: $00.282 AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED: $290,112.13 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LOT BLOCK ADDITION PINS NUMBER SQUARE FOOTAGE Part of 1 1 Edinborough Addition 32- 028 -24 -34 -0025 Part of 1 it 05- 027 -24 -21 -0004 155,953 Part of 2 1 05- 027 -24 -21 -0005 Part of 2 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0026 79,693 3 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0027 182,667 4 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0028 136,456 5 1 " 32- 028 -24 -34 -0029 61,757 6 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0030 75,178 7 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0031 88,860 8 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0032 72,874 9 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0033 51,228 10 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0034 73,534 11 1 32- 028 -24 -34 -0035 50,776 ^Eftimate of Cost Street Surfacing, Curb & Gutter & Sidewalk City of Edina Improvement No. P -BA -271 QUANTITY MATERIAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 30.3 Rd. Sta., Subgrade Preparation @ $150.00 $ 4,545.00 1,128 C /Y, Topsoil from Stockpile (CV) @ $ 3.00 $ 3,384.00 5,747 Ton, Class 5 Agg. Base (100 % crushed) @ $ 6.55 $ 37,642.85 88 Ton, Bituminouse Material for Mixture @ $205.00 $ 18,040.00 1,532 Ton, 2" Bit. Wear Course (2341) @ $ 12.00 $ 18,384.00 147 Ton, Bituminous Material for Mixture @ $205.00 $ 30,135.00 2,936 Ton, 4" Bit. Binder Course (2331) @ $ 11.00 $ 32,296.00 638 Gal., Bit. Material for Tack Coat @ $ 1.25 $ 797.50 192 Ton. FA -3 Trap Rock Seal Coat @ $ 45.00 $ 8,640.00 3,840 Gal., Bituminous Material for Seal Coat @ $ 1.30 $ 4,992.00 4,880 L /F, B618 Conc. C & G @ $ 5.00 $ 24,400.00 12,425 S /F, 4" Conc. Sidewalk w /4" Base @ $ '1.75 $ 21,743.75 200 L /F, 4" PVC Sleeve @ $ 6.00 $ 1,200.00 113 L /F, 4" RMC Sleeve @ $ 12.00 $ 1,356.00 91981 S /Y, Sodding @ $ 1.05 $ 10,480.05 1,400 Lbs., Fertilizer 12 -12 -12 @ $ .20 $ 280.00 6.6 Ton, Mulch, Type 1 @ $300.00 $ 1,980.00 3.3. Ac., Seeding @ $400.00 $ 1,320.00 116 Lb., Seed Mixture, No. 5 @ $ 3.00 $ 348.00 250 Gal. M, Water @ $ 15.00 $ 3,750.00 77.5 S /F, Signing, Type C @ $ 20.00 $ 1,550.00 2,752 L /F, Striping 4" Dbl. Yellow Barrier @ $ .40 $ 1,100.80 5,000 L /F, Striping 4" Solid White Edge @ $ .20 $ 1,000.00 480 L /F, Striping 4" Broken Solid White Lane @ $ .20 $ 96.00 3 Ea., Salvage Permanent Barricades @ $ 75.00 $ 225.00 Page 3 of 3 Pages Estimate of Cost Street Surfacing, Curb & Gutter & Sidewalk City of Edina Improvement No. P -BA -271 QUANTITY MATERIAL UNIT TOTAL PRICE 9 Ea., Adjust Water Valve Box @ $100.00 $ 900.00 22 Ea., Adjust Frame & Ring Castings PREPARED BY:f�"GU CHECKED BY: �v @ $150.00 $ 3,300.00 SUB - TOTAL: ADD 10% ENGINEERING & 2% CLERICAL: ADD 10.75% CAPITALIZED INTEREST: ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION: -Francis J. Hof man . Director of Public Works and City Engineer FA $233,885.95 28,066.37 261,952.26 28,159.87 $290,112.13 . L 1 lt. JY4 .14 YU'1 PUBLIC HEARING BA -269 - YORK AVE. BA -270 - 76TH ST. BA -271 - EDINBOROUGH WAY PEWAIENT STREET SURFACING, CONCRETE CURB Aft GUTTER, SIDEWALK FUNDING: $72,168.80 - ASSESSED TO OTHERS EAST OF YORK NORTH OF 76TH $211,125.13 - ASSESSED TO PARK & HOUSING $144,318.00 - OFFICE & ELDERLY OFFICE - PHASE I - $63,020.12 OFFICE - PHASE II- $53,803.79 ELDERLY - $27,494.09 $638,053.54 - STATE AID GRADING IN RDW FOR EDINBOROUGH WILL BE ADDED TO ASSESSMENT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. 10 YEAR ASSESSMENT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. r d01 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 612- 927 -8861 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT P -L -27 ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING LOCATED BETWEEN 6116 AND 6120 CHOWEN AVENUE The Edina City Council will on Monday, March 3, 1986, at 7:00 P.M., at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, hold a Public Hearing on the necessity and feasibility of constructing ornamental street lighting on the street listed above. Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is listed to you is among those properties which are considered to be benefited. The estimated cost of this improvement is $799.53. It is proposed that this improvement be assessed on a per lot basis at an estimated cost of $199.88 per assessable lot. The fixture proposed to be installed at the location shown on the sketch. It is proposed to be 100 watt high pressure sodium luminaire mounted on 15 foot high pole with a lantern fixture. This project is being proposed as a result of a petition by adjacent property owners. The City will pay the monthly electric charge after installation and Northern States Power will maintain the system. Construction of this improvement, if approved, will be accomplished in 1986. Assessments would be levied in 1986 with the initial installment due in 1987. The improvement is proposed to be assessed over a one year period. The present condition of the "Municipal Bond Market makes it difficult to determine the annual. rate of interest that will be charges on the unpaid balance, but it will not exceed the maximum allowed by law. The area proposed to be assessed includes Lot 17, 18, Block 2; Lot 5, 6, Block 3, Edina Bel -Air 5th Division. Any inquiries, comments, and /or suggestions you may have regarding this improvement may be forwarded to the City Council or Engineering Department prior to the Hearing or presented at the Hearing itself. If you desire additional information, please call me or Bob Obermeyer at 927 -8861 between 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. Thank you, Francis J. Hoffmnan, P.E. Director of Public Works and City Engineer FJH:rr A � 110 a M wg •- 0, 1G. 2' O 1; rr—a ;m '0$ J." N � � - = N OC _ _ d Fled SM /50 w, A O ZS�SO) �- -iii RDA, .- Of � m l 0 rJ1 Mo erg° --H( 1s " � LT I '" DD.: �'"• '° 15�r1^ A o� _ H ,. LT . 2 �d° DD _ � T. _ E 15 co INA 111.15 ° - �16° o , -TOE V'iti615 . 75 111.35 0 A O ZS�SO) �- -iii RDA, .- Of � m l 0 rJ1 Mo erg° --H( 1s " � LT I '" DD.: �'"• '° 15�r1^ A o� _ H ,. LT . 2 �d° DD _ � T. _ E 15 co INA 111.15 ° - �16° o , -TOE V'iti615 . 75 111.35 0 , .X TH M y G o 15 - 75 �75 is 1 41 e ^ { 94.1 0 $ o ,+P N : i .'• J — N � m i- ' � — oo N frJ ' � . ''•.1 .� - � - N r'• p C � E IN M EL AI Mo 100 09 ti° o b� 179 X1.1 - - a, a O 6o 75 75 90.9L 1 " N �� \~ m O &tr S; O 47 �O V ti4fP N 0 ° Im O. oo IZ.L M ry 75 - 15 41.041 E I INA _ BE L A RAN � 5 5 °rr CD N - �; ' •'�' %.- S u " \ 9'001 � 40 c N v o '9♦ � o s — � M p: N �= Qy� 8 8'�t•' �V �Q M BI TC7t _ " 0.99 �A rA ry 5 5 75 7 5E5�3 s- ::n Kf In In IT " E IN 'm BE -Al - a �� _ m °°cam " _ _ o r W 75 75 11.1 N '3 35 la 100 p 85 0 105 167.5 o, I N 0 11 95 75 y. 0 " IS_T- °- DIV.�m �►�' EDINA� °M -� p,0 NN_ rill Ol _ ° _ r rr 6o p tio�— . o "'1 a d°If.3C 14 �• ^ b los 89•�� : x lo. c ° c • . .R SOUTH o Nor +h 427.2 r Go jj. o 0 0 o 71.43 11.43 11.83 165 65 gG a 1 9 31 'oEDI AM M 8 L-A R - 8 L- IK TH.- IV. M A; a M, N" 8o 11. 80 0 o M 80 _ 1.4 '6 =.� 11.43 11.43 s Z JIGS _ 8z.5 ...M R $ loo loo g7 5,ah 87 88.31 s f v, ,' _F a 15,(.1 N AO� M 4T m ° Div. W V ° N 2- N ° - F ►R — N loo 0o h 81 Gl 5 0 ww� �r Ij5 4,A �.r 2 Herilt fG5 Mme ' 9p�o�s. Z63L07 Res.•' °' • qe� nnnrn-r I. nituum 11 • 40 1 • .� C CC` CC o� o , .X TH M y G o 15 - 75 �75 is 1 41 e ^ { 94.1 0 $ o ,+P N : i .'• J — N � m i- ' � — oo N frJ ' � . ''•.1 .� - � - N r'• p C � E IN M EL AI Mo 100 09 ti° o b� 179 X1.1 - - a, a O 6o 75 75 90.9L 1 " N �� \~ m O &tr S; O 47 �O V ti4fP N 0 ° Im O. oo IZ.L M ry 75 - 15 41.041 E I INA _ BE L A RAN � 5 5 °rr CD N - �; ' •'�' %.- S u " \ 9'001 � 40 c N v o '9♦ � o s — � M p: N �= Qy� 8 8'�t•' �V �Q M BI TC7t _ " 0.99 �A rA ry 5 5 75 7 5E5�3 s- ::n Kf In In IT " E IN 'm BE -Al - a �� _ m °°cam " _ _ o r W 75 75 11.1 N '3 35 la 100 p 85 0 105 167.5 o, I N 0 11 95 75 y. 0 " IS_T- °- DIV.�m �►�' EDINA� °M -� p,0 NN_ rill Ol _ ° _ r rr 6o p tio�— . o "'1 a d°If.3C 14 �• ^ b los 89•�� : x lo. c ° c • . .R SOUTH o Nor +h 427.2 r Go jj. o 0 0 o 71.43 11.43 11.83 165 65 gG a 1 9 31 'oEDI AM M 8 L-A R - 8 L- IK TH.- IV. M A; a M, N" 8o 11. 80 0 o M 80 _ 1.4 '6 =.� 11.43 11.43 s Z JIGS _ 8z.5 ...M R $ loo loo g7 5,ah 87 88.31 s f v, ,' _F a 15,(.1 N AO� M 4T m ° Div. W V ° N 2- N ° - F ►R — N loo 0o h 81 Gl 5 0 ww� �r Ij5 4,A �.r 2 Herilt fG5 Mme ' 9p�o�s. Z63L07 Res.•' °' • qe� nnnrn-r I. nituum CD N - �; ' •'�' %.- S u " \ 9'001 � 40 c N v o '9♦ � o s — � M p: N �= Qy� 8 8'�t•' �V �Q M BI TC7t _ " 0.99 �A rA ry 5 5 75 7 5E5�3 s- ::n Kf In In IT " E IN 'm BE -Al - a �� _ m °°cam " _ _ o r W 75 75 11.1 N '3 35 la 100 p 85 0 105 167.5 o, I N 0 11 95 75 y. 0 " IS_T- °- DIV.�m �►�' EDINA� °M -� p,0 NN_ rill Ol _ ° _ r rr 6o p tio�— . o "'1 a d°If.3C 14 �• ^ b los 89•�� : x lo. c ° c • . .R SOUTH o Nor +h 427.2 r Go jj. o 0 0 o 71.43 11.43 11.83 165 65 gG a 1 9 31 'oEDI AM M 8 L-A R - 8 L- IK TH.- IV. M A; a M, N" 8o 11. 80 0 o M 80 _ 1.4 '6 =.� 11.43 11.43 s Z JIGS _ 8z.5 ...M R $ loo loo g7 5,ah 87 88.31 s f v, ,' _F a 15,(.1 N AO� M 4T m ° Div. W V ° N 2- N ° - F ►R — N loo 0o h 81 Gl 5 0 ww� �r Ij5 4,A �.r 2 Herilt fG5 Mme ' 9p�o�s. Z63L07 Res.•' °' • qe� nnnrn-r I. nituum �V �Q M BI TC7t _ " 0.99 �A rA ry 5 5 75 7 5E5�3 s- ::n Kf In In IT " E IN 'm BE -Al - a �� _ m °°cam " _ _ o r W 75 75 11.1 N '3 35 la 100 p 85 0 105 167.5 o, I N 0 11 95 75 y. 0 " IS_T- °- DIV.�m �►�' EDINA� °M -� p,0 NN_ rill Ol _ ° _ r rr 6o p tio�— . o "'1 a d°If.3C 14 �• ^ b los 89•�� : x lo. c ° c • . .R SOUTH o Nor +h 427.2 r Go jj. o 0 0 o 71.43 11.43 11.83 165 65 gG a 1 9 31 'oEDI AM M 8 L-A R - 8 L- IK TH.- IV. M A; a M, N" 8o 11. 80 0 o M 80 _ 1.4 '6 =.� 11.43 11.43 s Z JIGS _ 8z.5 ...M R $ loo loo g7 5,ah 87 88.31 s f v, ,' _F a 15,(.1 N AO� M 4T m ° Div. W V ° N 2- N ° - F ►R — N loo 0o h 81 Gl 5 0 ww� �r Ij5 4,A �.r 2 Herilt fG5 Mme ' 9p�o�s. Z63L07 Res.•' °' • qe� nnnrn-r I. nituum 1 February 13, 1986 ESTIMATE OF COST CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT NO. P -L -27 LOCATION:. Located between 6116 and 6120 Chowen Ave. HEARING DATE: March 3, 1986 ESTIMATED COST, OF CONSTRUCTION: $799.53 (Includes Engineering, Clerical and Interest NUMBER OF ASSESSABLE LOTS: 4 ESTIMATED COST PER ASSESSABLE LOT: $199.88 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LOT BLOCK ADDITION PINS NUMBERS 17 2 Edina Bel -Air 5th Division 20- 028 -24 -33 -0067 18 2 Edina Bel -Air 5th Division 20- 028 -24 -33 -0068 5 3 Edina Bel -Air 5th Division 20- 028 -24 -33 -0078 6 3 Edina Bel -Air 5th Division 20- 028 -24 -33 -0079 QUANTITY MATERIAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL NSP CONSTRUCTION $450.00 $450.00 79 S /F, Sod on 4" Black Dirt @ $ 2.50 $197.50 SUB- TOTAL: $647.50 ADD 10% ENGINEERING AND.2% CLERICAL: 77.70 725.20 ADD 10.25% CAPITALIZED INTEREST : 74.33 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION $799.53 PREPARED BY:' CHECKED BY: Francis J. HWman '/,Iy jr Director of Public GWbrks and City Engineer EDINA 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 612 - 927 -8861 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT P -L -28 ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING LOCATED BETWEEN 4817 & 4821 WEST SUNNYSLOPE ROAD The Edina City Council will on Monday, March 3, 1986, at 7:00 P.M., at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, hold a Public Hearing on the necessity and feasibility of constructing ornamental street lightinq on the street listed above. Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is listed to you is among those properties which are considered to be benefited. The estimated cost of this improvement is $777.92. It is proposed that this improvement b-e assessed on a per lot basis at an estimated cost of $194.48 per assessable lot. The fixture proposed to be installed at the location shown on the sketch. It is proposed to be 100 watt high pressure sodium luminaire mounted on 15 foot high pole with a lantern fixture. This project is being proposed as a result of a petition by adjacent property owners. The City will pay the monthly electric charge after installation and Northern States Power will maintain the system. Construction of this improvement, if approved, will be accomplished in 1986. Assessments would be levied in 1986 with the initial installment due in 1987. The improvement is proposed to be assessed over a one year period. The present condition of the Municipal Bond Market makes it difficult to determine the annual rate of interest that will be charged of the unpaid balance, but it will not exceed the maximum allowed by law. The area proposed to be assessed includes Lots 9, 10, Block 1, Lots 10, 11; Block 6, Sunnyslope-Section Country Club District. Any inquiries, comments and /or suggestions you may have regarding this improvement may be forwarded to the City Council or Engineering Department prior to the Hearing or presented at the Hearing itself. If you desire additional information, please call me or Bob Obermeyer at 927 -8861 between 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. Thank you, FrancHUff n/, . E. Director of Public Works and City Engineer FJH:rr ■ CY 4c %C 4 40 5 1 ' 6r -RL 4 1 � MP-A it? -1950 o4RDEN '.7o4 45 7755 ..t 4 B 45 10 R O's 77r. N 4D 10 A C6 C) ,n L,4 24 552 4 14 'rn— 11 14 n r 0, Ol 12 !4Q 13 IC fa o �;30 jr.a, IS 140A li�l � Ol Mlt29 1 11 J f�liar. golf. p C2 1 4 40 5 1 ' 6r -RL 4 1 � MP-A it? -1950 o4RDEN '.7o4 7755 ..t 4 77r. LO oj f 70* 12, 1;2 3 4 2: "�- 10 ?0 Y 4- R10 4.8 0 u N 14 7.9 05 35! o zo ce V M go 41 \e ass 77 C2 10 cr- d%. Z5 10 JL i3 0 cl) k9 OWOODHILL -5. 14 c. z 14 .a- 15 -9 r-n - 14 ESTIMATE OF COST CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT NO. P -L -28 LOCATION: Between 4817 & 4821 West Sunnyslope Road HEARING DATE: March 3, 1986 ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $777.92 (Includes Engineering, Clerical and Capitalized Interest NUMBER OF ASSESSABLE LOTS: 4 ESTIMATED COST PER ASSESSABLE LOT: $194.48 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LOT BLOCK 9 1 10 1 11 6 10 6 ADDITION February 13, 1986 PINS NUMBERS Sunnyslope Section Country Club District 18- 028- 24 -23- 0008 Sunnyslope Section Country Club District 18- 028 -24 -23 -0009 Sunnyslope Section Country Club District 18- 028 -24 -23 -0044 Sunnyslope Section Country Club District 18- 028 -24 -23 -0043 QUANTITY MATERIAL UNIT PRICE - TOTAL PRICE NSP Wiring $300.00 $300.00 132 S /F, Sodding @ $2.50 $330.00 SUB - TOTAL: $630.00 ADD 10% ENGINEERING AND 2% CLERICAL: 75.60 705.60 ADD 10.25% CAPITALIZED INTEREST: 72.32 PREPARED BY: CHECKED BY: ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $777.92 rancis J. Hoff an, P. Director of Public Wbrks and City Engineer uv iLil r 1KST READING- R -1 to R -2 ZONING FOR ROBERT (425 WASHINGTON�AVENUE). Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, aANDoRSON 11 and ordered placed on file. Planner Larsen stated that the subject property ved �t J property is G Cj• located at the corner of Washington Avenue and Maloney Avenue. 1r5��y located to the immediate west of the site and Grandview Cemetery County Road lg is to the south. 18 i The property is a vacant lot measuring 70 feet in width, approximately 125 feet in depth and contains 8,898 square feet of lot area. Robert Anderson, proponent, is requesting rezoning of the site from R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District to R -2 Double Dwelling Unit District to allow the construction of a two -unit dwelling. This request was heard at the May 20, 1985 Council Meeting at which time the motion for rezoning failed. At its meeting of June 3, 1985, the Council took action to re -hear the request. Mr. Larsen pointed out that on the two -block stret -cn -o� Washington Avenue there exists a variety of R -1 lots and R -2 lots. Currently, there are six R -2 lots ranging in width from 76 feet to 124 feet with most being 76 to 79 feet in width. There are eleven existing R -7 lots ranging between 45 and 78 feet in width. Lots fronting on Washington Avenue are shown by the Comprehensive Plan as suitable for conversion to this type of use.. Since the last Council Meeting the proponent has presented a- petition from several neighbors in the area in support of his petition for the rezoning. The Community Develop- ment and Planning Commission and staff recommend approval. Mr. Larsen noted that, if the Council were to approve rezoning, the request would still have to petition the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for variances for lot width and lot size. Robert Anderson, the proponent, referred to the photograph he had submitted to the Council and said the proposed dwelling would be similar and that he understood that the plans would have to be approved by the Board of Appeals. He added that he had talked to his neighbors and no one objected to the double unit dwelling. No further comments being heard, Member Bredesen introduced Ordinance No. 825 -A7 for First Reading as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 825 -A7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 825) BY ADDING TO THE DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT (R -2) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding O the following thereto: "The extent of the Double Dwelling Unit District (Sub- District R -2) is co enlarged by the addition of the following property: 0 Lot 14 and the south 24.00 feet of Lot 15, Block 9, "West Minneapolis m Heights ", except that part of said Lot 14 lying southwesterly of a Q line drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 14 distant 5.00 feet north from the southwest corner of said Lot 14 to a point on the south line of said Lot 14 distant 5.00 feet east from the southwest corner of said Lot 14." Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Turner who commented that she supported the proposal for the reasons that it is a transitional area, it is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as low density attached residential and that the proposed dwelling is appropriate for this site because of the busy highway and other doubles in the area and that, even thought variences are required, it would not set a precedence. Mayor Courtney said he agreed with Member Turner. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVED FOR CREEK VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH (6400 TRACY AVE, ,.) Planner Larsen presented the request of the Creek Valley Baptist Church, located at 6400 Tracy Avenue, for a Conditional Use Permit. Creek Valley Baptist Church is proposing construction of additional classroom space, restrooms and general storage. The addition would contain a total of 3,780 square feet, 2,680 square feet of which would be on the main floor, and would be to the south of the existing structure. All classroom activities are currently held in the basement. No other. �.:. f,•. P R ERA :ti LU G BROOK p H ST. PATRIC _ a CATHOLIC SC a " a 69 TH ST N- DIRE .OU BLIND ilp. 1C1 CL ' sco _ �TU PA C I R CiR 4 I Lt 01 rc LLIF TENNIS `'r;'��i!1i• < ?P ]c:: COURTS KEM H Q *r a N SUEDIeeosa0� NUMBER S-86-1 L 0 C A T10 N South of Dublin Road and west of Antrim Court REQUEST Five (S) Lot Subdivision EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Phil Sked, John Bailey, Virginia Shaw, Jane Paulus, John Palmer, John Skagerberg and David Runyan. MEMBERS ABSENT: William Lewis STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the January 29, 1986 Community Development and Planning Commission Minutes. Mrs. McClelland requested a revision in the minutes. The revision reads: Mrs. Helen McClelland stated that after conferring with the Engineering Department, she agreed that the sewer line should connect to the invert on Antrim Court to provide proper gravity drop. Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion that the revised plat for 6 homes is too dense and still caused extensive alteration to the site's topography. She pointed out that if Mr. Trones wishes to promote country living in Edina the prospective homeowners would expect certain amenities, such as a back yard for homes priced at $500,000. In the present plat, lots 2 and 3 have retaining walls and no yards; lots 1 and 4 have extremely limited yards. Such home owners could quickly become unhappy with the City and the Commission. Mrs. McClelland concluded that she could support a plat for 5 homes around the cul de sac if _the topography were respected. Mrs. Jane Paulus seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the January 2, 1986 Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting Minutes. Mr. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: 5 -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones Lot 15, Prospect Hills. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that a proposal for a six lot subdivision of the subject property was denied by the Commission at its January 29, 1986 meeting. Mr. Trones has resubmitted with a request for a five lot subdivision of this 4.05 acre parcel. Mr. Larsen added the Commission should be advised that the proponent has appealed the Commissions January 29, 1986 decision. The City Council has set a March, 3, 1986 hearing date on the 6 lot preliminary plat. However, the Council will be informed of any action taken by the Commission at the February 26th meeting. Mr. Larsen explained the revised preliminary plat illustrates 5 lots ranging from 23,000 sq. ft. to 46,800 sq. ft. in area. The average lot size has been increased from 27,800 square feet to 32,800 square feet. Lot 1 would access on Dublin Road at approximately the same point as the existing driveway. The remaining four lots would be served by a new cul de sac off of Antrim Court. Mr. Larsen pointed out the curb cut off Antrim and the alignment of the cul de sac remain similar to previous plans. However, the newest proposal reduces the length of the road by approximately 20 feet. This results in increased rear yards on lots 2 and 3. The revised preliminary plat proposes a 30 foot conservation easement along the westerly and southerly property lines. No structures or land alteration would be allowed in the easement area. Mr. Larsen concluded that any recommendation for preliminary plat approval should be conditioned on the following: 1. Developers' Agreement 2. Subdivision Ded- ication 3. An erosion control plan during the construction period 4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court Mr. Larsen suggested the Commission consider increasing the conservation easement from 30 feet to 50 feet. The proponent Mr. Trones, Randy Stern and Robert Hoff were present. Interested neighbors were also in attendance. Mr. Trones submitted to the Commission a signed petition from members of the neighborhood supporting the 5 lot subdivision. Mr. Trones clarified for the Commission his reasons for going before the City Council on March 3, -1986 and before the Planning Commission this evening. He told the Commission he met with interested neighbors the week of February 3, 1986. At that meeting Mr. Trones suggested a third proposal. This proposal was for a 5 lot subdivision, 1 lot less than the 6 lot subdivision he appealed to the Council. There were 8 - 10 neighbors in attendance at that meeting. During the discussion Mr. Trones made changes in the plat. Lot 1 was changed from a walk -out lot. This change would keep the terrain at its natural elevation, and two 5 foot retaining walls constructed of boulders would be put in at this point. Mr. Trones said he told the neighbors he was willing to go before the Planning Commission with the new 5 lot subdivision proposal if he had neighborhood support. Mr. Trones said at that meeting all but 1 person supported the 5 lot subdivision. Mr. Trones felt the 6 lot proposal was adequate but will abide by the 5 lot subdivision if. approved. Mr. Trones pointed out to the Commission the majority of names on his petition abut the property and are most affected by this proposal. Mr. Trones said the subject property is similar in topography with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Trones said he tried very carefully to consider the feelings of the neighbors but understands not all needs will be met. He added that he had initiated 3 neighborhood meetings and made an honest effort to find what the neighbors want. Mr. Trones stated he finds no problem with the increase in the conservation easement requested by staff, and stressed again he wants to maintain the integrity and environment of this neighborhood. Mr. Trones indicated homes build on the proposed lots would have a square footage of around 2,500 sq. ft. on the main floor. This would vary with the individual buyer, but in speaking with prospective buyers there is an indication to build approximately this size. Mrs. Bland spokesperson for the Prospect Hills Homeowners Association presented to the Commission a signed petition by neighbors opposing the 5 lot subdivision and an aerial photo of the area for their viewing. Mrs. Bland began her presentation by informing the Commission that 52 names appear on the petition, which is an increase from the previous submitted petitions. Continuing Mrs. Bland stated they are at'a point where the lot sizes as defined in square feet are immaterial. Mrs. Bland quoted Edina's Comprehensive Land Use Plan " Topography and vegetation characteristics are to be utilized as a basis for determining suitable lot sizes ". Mrs. Bland added the location and grade of the new cul -de -sac road to serve the proposed subdivision requires a substantial cut into the existing hill. The woods, slopes and gullies of the land in question provide severe developmental limitations. Mrs. Bland told the Commission at this poi -nt the neighborhood has been developed without greatly altering the natural terrain. It is felt the proposed 5 lot subdivision will not be sensitive to the topography. Mrs. Bland stated there was some confusion regarding lot #1 on the proposed plat. She indicated she was led to believe lot #1 would be a walk -out lot which would require a 16 foot cut. She questioned why the staff report was silent on this issue and the issue of the increased height of the retaining walls on lot #2. Mrs. Bland commented she mentioned these emissions to Mr. Larsen, who responded he felt these issues would be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. It was clarified for Mrs. Bland that lot #1 would be a partial walk -out. Mrs. Bland told the Commission the proposed cul -de -sac has some changes The elevation at the west end is 955 feet and slopes to 948 feet where it enters Antrim Court. This change will benefit the new homeowners but in Mrs. Blands opinion could cause hardship for the homeowners in Danens Meadows. The most affected property owners at 7101 and 7105 Antrim Court have already experienced water damage and soil slippage, if this proposal is approved there is bound to be problems. Mrs. Bland suggested that Mr. Trones pay for any adjustment needed in landscaping to prevent this from occurring. Mrs. Bland expressed her concern regarding the traffic safety issue. She said the access of lot #1 unto Dublin Road has the potential to become a safety hazard. The topography of lot #1, the fact there is a road on three sides and because there is no easy place for the driveway to go make this lot a forced lot. This road access should be eliminated. Mrs. Bland thanked Mr. Trones for the addition of the conservation easement but added she felt a 30 foot easement was too small. Mrs. Bland said she would like to see a 50 foot easement on the south and a 60 foot easement on the west. Mrs. Bland took issue with the fact that Mr. Trones appealed the decision of the Commission's denial of the 6 lot subdivision to the Council and this evening was before the Commission with-a 5 lot proposal. She felt this did not ring true. This was not what the policy writers intended. Mr. Larsen responded to some of the issues brought up by Mrs. Bland: 1. Mr. Larsen commented that Mrs. Bland quoted Edina's Comprehensive Plan many times. He said he realized that policies were open to varying interpretations. He continued by stating that policies must be applied in a reasonable manner. Mr. Larsen said the reason he has not used the Plan thus far is because in his judgement he felt Mr. Trones proposal was not in conflict with the Plan. 2. Mr. Larsen said the reason he did not mention the retaining walls in his February 26, 1986 Staff Report is because retaining walls have been a part of each plat ranging from 4 feet to 12 feet high. The omission was intentional. 3. Mr. Larsen added he remembers speaking to Mrs. Bland regarding lot #1 and told her he felt lot #1 would not be a walk -out. Mr. Larsen then spoke to Mr. Trones who informed him as a result of the neighborhood meeting the decision was to leave the hill and the terrain as is, which would eliminate a walk -out on lot #1. Mrs. Bland played a video tape of the area. The tape was made by Dr. Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road, who spoke in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Trones reminded Mrs. Bland she was present at the neighborhood meeting where it was decided lot #1 would not be a walk -out. Mr. Trones told the Commission he felt the video portrayed a biased and distorted look at the area. He said there can be no comparison made between the proposed subdivision and the subdivision he completed in Danens Meadows. Danens Meadows is what the name suggests, a meadow. The Danens Meadows site did not have of many trees and where trees were found they were preserved as much as possible. Mr. Trones stressed that he does not rape the land. He added he is concerned about the trees, and does not intend to go into this project and level trees. Mr. Trones reminded the Commission of the work he did at Braemar Oaks where many trees were saved. He pointed out how they worked to save trees on Antrim Court with the construction of retaining walls. Mr. Trones referred to his slide presentation whichs show that many homes in the area are set into the hill and have numerous retaining walls. Mr. Trones said he felt the issue has become an emotional issue, adding he tried very hard to present this proposal in an intelligent, reasonable and respectable way. Mr. Robert Hoff and Mr. Trones delivered a slide presentation illustrating homes and the general area. Mr. Runyan commented that in a sense he felt Mr. Trones hurt his case by presenting too much information. All Mr. Trones was required to do was to plat the sites and show how the street would work . Mr. Runyan said that a great deal of time was spent talking about if a home is a walk -out, is it a rambler, does it have a retaining wall. This is all speculation because the proposed homes will have to fit the site. Mr. Runyan said this plan is quite an improvement over the last presented plan, adding many of the issues that troubled him have been cleaned up with this plat. Much confusion has resulted because of the home footprints placed on this plat. Mr. Runyan took measurements of the homes footprints and found that lot coverage ranged from a 70 lot coverage to a 100 lot coverage. Mr. Runyan said he does not understand why at the previous meetings the neighbors mentioned lot size as a very important issue and at this meeting it was suggested by Mrs. Bland that lot size was now immaterial. Mr. Runyan concluded that the plan presented this evening is a vast improvement over the two previous plans. He said the retaining wall issue cannot be addressed until it is decided where to place the home and what style it will be. He said believes the rolling terrain and ample vegetation will make the whole project much less visible than it would be on a flat parcel of land. He pointed out it is obvious when you build on a hill that some of the site will be disturbed and it is unreasonable to think it would not be. The terrain and vegetation will help the visual appearance of the site. Mr. Runyan noted that Mr. Trones is a reputable builder and he feels this project is a much better project. Mr. John Palmer seconded the thoughts of Mr. Runyan and said in terms of the Comprehensive Plan mentioned here the Comprehensive Plan sets standards and principals that are very important to Edina, such as topography as a measure of lot size, desirable spacing, intelligent development , sensitivity to the environment. These issues are all true but in a particular case they come down to a matter of judgement. Mr. Palmer stated that in his judgement this plan is at a state where it is much improved and fits those concerns addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. He added this proposal does not do violence to the environment or to this very special part of Edina. Mr. Palmer moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to staff conditions in the staff report and subject to the further condition that the conversation easements shown on the south and west side of the plat be increased from 30 feet to 50 feet. Mr. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon Johnson opened the floor for discussion. Mr. Skagerberg commented he felt the 30 foot conservation easement was adequate, but will accept the 50 foot easement. Mrs. McClelland stated she felt this proposal was a improvement. She added from the beginning she was able to see 5 lots on this site. Mrs. McClelland said she still had three items that bothered her and would like the Commission to consider them. 1. The entrance unto Dublin is a concern but, one she can live with. 2. The retaining wall that appears on lot #2 is a problem. She would like to see that retaining wall eliminated. 3. Mrs. McClelland said she would like to see a change in the motion regarding the conservation easement. She proposed 50 feet on the southside and because of the severe slope found on the west side she would like a 85 foot easement. She indicated she would also like to see 35 feet on the north and east sides. A discussion ensued between Mrs. McClelland and Mr. Trones on the placement of homes on the lots. Mr. Skagerberg commented the reason he would not agree with the easements Mrs. McClelland proposed is because he feels the future homeowner should have some control of what they do on their own yard. Mr. Runyan reminded the Commission they are loosing site of their task. The location of the homes on the site and the location of retaining walls is not their job. He added the Commission is to look at a piece of property, how it is to be divided and whether the traffic enters and exits appropriately. The design of the homes should not enter into it. He feels they are off- base if they try to tell a developer where to put a retaining wall etc. Mrs. McClelland said she is only concerned with erosion and the topography of the area, this is why she does not agree with the retaining wall and would like to eliminate the retaining wall on this site. Mrs. McClelland withdrew her request for a change in the conservation easement. Concerned neighbors expressed their views of the proposed subdivision: Mr. Langer of 7101 Antrim Court said he is worried about possible water damage to his property and concerned with the traffic issue. Mr. Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive commented he felt the site was to dense and questioned if the proposed homes would have adequate spacing. Mr. Elliot of 5904 Lee Valley road said he has lived in the neighborhood for a number of years and has seen neighbors subdivide off part of their property. He would like this to stop, he feels the neighborhood is too dense. Dr. Van Beek of 7115 Antrim Court commended Mr. Trones as a builder but added he would like to see the site developed with 4 lots. Mrs. Jungels of 7108 Antrim Court expressed concern over the possibility of inadequate water pressure, and the traffic safety issue and suggested the possibility of water damage to her property as a result of this proposal. She concluded that she would like to see the site developed with 3 lots. Mr. Robert Naegeli of 5912 Lee Valley Circle echoed the concerns of his neighbors and recommended the site to be developed with 3 lots. Mr. Ralph Linvill of 7005 Antrim Road commended Mr. Trones on the 5 lot subdivision but expressed worry about the icy conditions that occur in the winter. He wondered if it was a possibility to re- locate the driveway. Mrs. Naegeli of 5912 Lee Valley Road said she would like to see the site developed with 4 lots. No further comment being heard, Mr. Johnson reminded the Commission that a motion had been made and seconded. Mrs. Paulus asked to make a comment. She told the residents she is torn and understands their needs. She appreciates all the work the members of the neighborhood have gone to. She added the land in this area has already been divided and you cannot go back in time. She feels this plat has come along way and Mr. Trones has worked with the neighbors to try to fill their needs. Mr. Palmer asked the Commission to vote for amend the motion. Mr. Johnson called for a roll call vote: Jane Paulus Aye John Palmer Aye John Skagerberg Aye David Runyan Aye Gordon Johnson Abstain Del Johnson Aye Helen McClelland Abstains for the reasons of Dublin Road access and would like too see a larger conservation easement. Mrs. McClelland agrees with lots. Phil Sked _ Aye John Bailey Aye Virginia Shaw Aye The motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. the 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 26, 1986 5 -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones Lot 15, Prospect Hills south of Dublin Road and west of Antrim Court Refer to: Attached revised preliminary plat, area map, and previously proposed plat. The Commission will recall that a proposal for a six lot subdivision of. the subject property was denied by the Commisison at its January 29, 1986 meeting. Mr. Trones has resubmitted with a request for a five lot subdivision of this 4.05 acre parcel. The Commission should be advised that the proponent has appealed the Commissions January 29, 1986 decision. The City Council has set a March 3, 1986 hearing date on the 6 lot preliminary plat. However, the Council will be informed of any action taken by the Commission at its February 26th meeting. The revised preliminary plat illustrates 5 lots ranging from 23,000 sq. ft. to 46,800 sq. ft. in area. The average lot size has been increased from 27,800 square feet to 32,800 square feet. Lot 1 would access on Dublin Road at approximately the same point as the existing driveway. The remaining four lots would be served by a new cul de sac off of Antrim Court. The curb cut off Antrim and the alignment of the cul de sac remain similar-to previous plans. However, the newest proposal reduces the length of the road by approximately 20 feet. This results in increased rear yards on lots 2 and 3. The revised preliminary plat proposes a 30 foot conservation easement along the westerly and southerly property lines. No structures or land alteration would be allowed in the easement area. Any recommendation for preliminary plat approval should be conditioned on the following: 1. Developerrs' Agreement 2. Subdivision Dedication 3. An erosion control plan during the construction period 4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court P9 / 71 ON I 0 PETITION We, the undersign, do hereby approve the five (5) lot subdivision proposed for the property located at 7012 Dublin Rd. Joe Hayes 7013 Dublin Rd.G gilt C.L' �G' 1z ^�C %017 /%C �lG ✓ � �',l/�,L°' 102 ��` - G;� PETITION We, the undersign, do hereby approve the five (5) lot subdivision proposed for the property located at 7012 Dublin Rd. /e If NA /,- e::�PZSSoq/ 1 o0a, . 7/o j°,,�;-,,a' %l v a `drvc�/nyl CUB WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME W` LAZ�� A)212altz---- /7?, et-�e� ADDRESS �7�05 S�vRon� 7 X.E- 7m p ,� A?. 0 4 7j�'-al Z S90t/ LCF_�VA -LLt y IZ-D. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME OIL A/ 46 ADDRESS % U 2 70/6 -7(oo r- S O �� sY1Gk N n on J r� ' | � ^ { ' ' WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT lS, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME - zel-� / / / ` ` / ' / ADDRESS � Va4O M , . ~� �umu ' // - WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME r �P Z zx ADDRESS Tao 9 . 6- yvc) U Tao WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAPE ADDRESS Mr. John Pais mnv ced seconded t e II. OLD BUSINESS: S -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones Lot 15, Prospect Hills Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that an eight lot subdivision of the subject property was considered on — January 8, 1986, and rejected. The proponent, Rudy Trones, has submitted a new preliminary plat illustrating six lots. 1 He added the revised plat increases the average lot size from 20,800 square feet to 27,800 square feet. In the .original plat lots ranged from 16,650 square feet to 27,750 square feet in area. The range in the revised plat is from 22,125 square feet to 33,480 square feet in area. Mr. Larsen pointed out the location and grade of the proposed cul de sac remain the same as in the previous plan. However, the grading plan adjacent to the road has changed significantly. Building elevations for lot 1 and 5 have been raised which reduces the cut into the hill adjacent to the road. The maximum height of retaining walls along the road has been reduced from 12 feet to 6 feet. Except for grading and filling necessary to prepare individual building pads most earth work is confined to the interior portions of the plat adjacent to the road. Mr. Larsen said the revised preliminary illustrates the location of existing trees, and indicates which will be saved and which will be removed. According to the surveyor trees with a diameter of 8 inches or greater are shown. The plan does not illustrate all of the existing trees on the western portions of lots 2, 3, and 4. Of 267 trees inventoried, 44 would_ be removed due to construction of the road and preparation of individual building sites. The revised site p Dublin Road for access. cul de sac as an access from the cul de sac for does not have access to must use Dublin Road. lan illustrates lot 1 and 2 using The house on lot 1 could use the point. Staff believes that access lot 1 is more appropriate. Lot 2 the cul de sac. Consequently, it Mr. Larsen concluded staff continues to recommend the following conditions for a plat approval. 1. Developers Agreement r 2, -.,�- sSubdiv.ision,D,edication. �.J IN oS yr- •, �.,...- t.. .w.. r °.� .+z u .rrurx 4'.r3 *Fn i 3. An approved erosion control plan durin the construction period. 4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court. The proponent Mr. Trones was present, with Mr. Krueger of Krueger & Associates and Attorney Donald Smith,of Thomsen, Nybeck, Johnson, Bonquet and Van Valkenburg, P.A., Residents of the area were also present. Mr. Donald Smith pointed out to the Commission issues that were discussed at the meeting of January 8, 1986 and changes in the plat as a result of that meeting: 1. Density. Mr. Trones decreased the density of the original plat by trimming the number of lot sites to 6. The original plat depicts 8 lot sites. 2. Topography. The lots that require a significant amount of grading and soil movement are lots 2 and 3. The remaining 4 lots require minimal alteration. With the revised plat the impact of tree loss will be minimal. Calculations indicate that 90% - 95% of the total amount of trees on the site will remain untouched. 3. Safety. The revised plat has two sites that will access Dublin. However, Mr. Trones will abide by the staff request that lot #1 access Antrim Court. The future homeowner of Lot #2 will have sufficient space to turn around and will enter Dublin front first. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Trones tried very hard to respond to the concerns of the Planning Commission, staff and area residents.. The number of lots has decreased, resulting in an increase in individual lot size, the rolling hills and vegetation of the area will be retained where possible, Dublin will serve as assess to one lot instead of the proposed two, and the revised plat complies with all Zoning Ordinances. Mr. Smith submitted to the Planning Commission a print -out of subdivisions in the general area that were developed over the past several years. Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Krueger the height of the retaining walls on lots 2 and 3. Mr. Krueger said the retaining walls will be six feet high. Mr. Krueger informed the Commission a crew of workers was at the site for 1 1/2 days tallying the amount of trees over 8 inches that would be lost as a result of constructing building pads for each lot. Their calculations found that with careful planning the tree loss would be minimal. The proposed location of the cul -de -sac would require the removal of 7 trees. Mr. Trones told the Commission he met with homeowners of the area and discussed the issues that were brought to his attention at the January 8, 1986 meeting. The homeowners expressed concern about the alteration of the natural environment of the area as a result 'of this subdivision. Mr. Trones referred to his Braemar development as an example of maintaining the natural beauty of the land. Mr. Trones pointed out the new lot size averages 27,800 square feet. This increase in lot square footage makes the proposed lot sizes larger than many of the lots in the area. Mr. Trones assured the Commission it is important for him to maintain the integrity of the area. Mrs. Rhonda Bland, 7000 Kerry Road submitted a signed petition to the Commission opposing the development of a 6 lot subdivision at 7012 Dublin Road. Mrs. Bland asked the Commission to recall her presentation of the January 8, 1986 Planning Commission, Meeting. Mrs. Bland stated her presentation this evening would address the failings of the revised proposal: Topography: Mrs. Bland told the Commission that members of the neighborhood do not feel the increased square footage of the lots satisfy the standards setforth in Edina's Comprehensive Plan. "It is the policy to utilize topography and vegetation characteristics as a basis for determining suitable lot sizes." Continuing Mrs. Bland stated this subdivision is not a logical development of the land. The wildlife would loose their natural habitat and the tree loss would be greater than what Mr. Trones has indicated. Mrs. Bland quoted the Edina Tree Ordinance #823 " A tree has a diameter of greater than 6 ".when measured at a point of four feet above ground level. The City Council hereby finds it is necessary to maintain and protect the existing urban forest in order to preserve wind break protection, abate soil erosion and enhance the natural beauty of the City." The elimination of trees, especially the many oaks in the area is a high cost to pay for development. Mrs. Bland said that no matter how well intentioned Mr. Trones is the. topography will be severely altered and its natural environmental beauty lost forever. The removal of vegetation and the alteration of the elevations on all six lots present a potential for further erosion and soil slippage. The development could aggravate an existing water drainage problem. 2. Relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing neighborhood. Mrs. Bland indicated the development of 6 lots does not blend with the character and symmerty of the neighborhood. In general the area of Prospect Hills is comprised of small homes on large lots. This ratio results with land being the dominant element. It is felt that Mr. Trones will build large homes on the proposed sites, resulting in unbalance. The residents of Prospect Hills feel the proposed plat is part of Prospect Hills and redevelopment of this area must considered with that in mind. The character of the neighborhood must be maintained. 3. Traffic Safety Factor Mrs. Bland said the 2 proposed home sites that will access Dublin Road could result in a grave safety problem. Several mishaps have already occurred in this area. It is felt that for safety reasons no home sites should access Dublin Road. Mrs. Bland added if the density is reduced to three or four homes sites many of the concerns of the residents will vanish. Less need for excavation and fill will reduce the extent of damage to the topography and the overall development will be more compatible with Prospect Hills. If all the home sites have access unto Antrim Terrace the traffic safety factor is less of a concern. Mrs. Bland offered an alternative to this subdivision. She contacted each homeowner with land adjacent to the proposed site, all homeowners stated they would be interested in listening to a proposal which would enable them to purchase part of the land that is Lot 15. In addition, the subdivision dedication could be in the form of land rather then cash. The presence of unaltered plant communities and natural wildlife habitats is a very limited resource in Edina. Several residents have expressed their support for an assessment that could offset the ongoing maintenance costs of the City for maintaining this land. Mrs. Bland asked the Planning Commission to maintain the integrity of Prospect Hills. She recommended that Mr. Trones further amend the plat so the neighborhood concerns are addressed. Darrell Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive voiced his concern regarding the density and lot size of the proposal. Mr. Trones reminded him that the proposed lot sizes are larger than many of the developed lots in the area. Allen VanBeek of 7115 Antrim Road asked Mr. Trones if there is any form of control which can be exercised to regulate what the new homeowners place in their yards (ex. pools, tennis courts, etc.). Mrs. Trones said the topography limits what could be placed in yards. He anticipates that most yards would have deck structures. Lot 6 and lot 1 are the only lots on which he would anticipate the new homeowners putting in a swimming pool or tennis court. Henry Langer of 7101 Antrim Court expressed concern over possible water drainage problems and traffic safety. Mr. Smith said he understood the natural apprehension of the neighbors regarding the change caused by this proposed development, but cutting the number of lots to 3 or 4 is unfair. Mr. Smith stated the neighbors are demanding substantially more square footage in lot size from Mr. Trones than they themselves have on their own lots. Mr. Smith told the Commission that Mr. Trones has a history of fine developments in Edina. There is a risk that another developer could develop the property with less care than Mr. Trones would take. There is no question that this development will alter the terrain, but the development of 3 or 4 homes will alter the terrain. Mr. Smith pointed out that the homes Mr. Trones builds are quality homes and it is very important to Mr. Trones to develop these lots with minimal alteration. Mr. Smith added that Mr. Trones will comply with the staff request that only 1 home access Dublin which will lessen neighborhood traffic concerns. Mr. Smith feels Mr. Trones has done everything he could to eliminate the general concerns of the residents. By asking him to increase lot size to 1 1/4 acres you are asking him to have a far greater lot size then what the local community meets. Mrs. Eckberg of 7020 Kerry Road commented that she has been approached to subdivide her lot but has refused. The uniqueness of the area is special to her and that is the reason she moved inta this area. She understands change comes but would like change to be subtle, once change is made is cannot be undone. Mr.Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road submitted to the Commission an ariel photo of Prospect Hills. Mr. Elasky is opposed to the revised plat. Mrs. Langer of 7101 Antrim Court pointed out an acre of land is viewed differently if it is flat then if it is rolling. Mr. Robert Naegeli of 5912 Lee Valley Road is against the density of the proposal. He feels his view will be changed due to the fact that he is 40 feet below the proposed homes. Mr. Runyan introduced himself as acting chairman in the absence of Mr. Gordon Johnson. Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Larsen if the Commission had control of home placement on new lots. Mr. Larsen informed Mr. Palmer the Commission has never exercised control of where a home is placed on the lot. Controls are exercised where a water body is involved placing a conservation restriction 100 ft. along the shore line. Mr. Trones proposed placing a conservation restriction along the west and south side of the property. This would protect the natural vegetation of the environment . Mrs. Helen McClelland stated that after conferring with the Engineering Department, she agreed that the sewer line should connect to the invert on Antrim Court to provide proper gravity drop. Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion that the revised plat for 6 homes is too dense and still caused extensive alteration to the site's topography. She pointed out that if Mr. Trones wishes to promote country living in Edina the prospective homeowners would expect certain amenities, such as a back /side yards, for homes priced at $500,000. In the present plat, lots 2 and 3 have retaining walls and no yards; Lots 1 and 4 have extremely limited yards. Such homeowners could quickly become unhappy with the City and the Commission. Mrs. McClelland concluded that she could support a plat for 5 homes around the cul -de- sac if the topography were respected. Mr. Paulus stated she felt the present homeowners would suffer a great loss as a result of this subdivision. She further added that in her opinion the development of 3 or 4 lots would be a reasonable approach to this property. Understandably the homeowners are concerned about the integrity of their neighborhood and they do not want to see a development mistake made. Mr. Palmer said he is inclined to think this project is to dense. Mr. Skagerberg added he is not unhappy with the revised 6 lot subdivision, but his concern is placement of the proposed homes. He would like to see the homes blend into the environment. Mr. Skagerberg commented it is asking much of the developer to reduce the number of lots too 3 or 4. Mr. Del Johnson said he leans toward a 5 lot subdivision. Mr. Smith said he felt the objectivity has been lost on this matter. Mr. Smith said the Commission works under rules. Mr. Smith pointed out that a 5 lot subdivision increases the square lot footage to an average of 33,360. The lots that abutt this area average in the 201s. Mrs. McClelland said the rules she based her decision on are of density and maintaining the integrity of the area. Mr. Smith asked in the decision making process the Commission to look for objective criteria. It was felt by Mr. Trones that the 27,750 average square footage is reasonably consistent for the area. Mr. Trones asked for some direction ffom the Commission in the development of this property. Mr. Runyan said he would like to see this site developed creatively. He added the site is very rolling which will enable the profile of the homes to appear lower and fit into the terrain without appearing as large as they would on a flat surface. Mr. Runyan added he finds a problem with site #2. He can envision the development of lots 1,3,4,5, and 6 but indicated he has a hard time with lot 2. Mr. Trones agreed with Mr. Runyan that lot #2 is a difficult lot to develop. Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for denial of the preliminary plat on the basis of density. Mrs. Jane Paulus seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1 ILI W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JANUARY 29, 1986 5 -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones Lot 15,.Prospect Hills General Location: South of Dublin Road and West of Antrim Court Refer to: Revised preliminary plat, staff report and preliminary plat from January 8,1986 meeting The Commission will recall that an eight lot subdivision of the subject property was considered on January 8, 1986, and rejected. The proponent, Rudy Trones, has submitted a new preliminary plat illustrating six lots. The revised plat increases the average lot size from 20,800 square feet to 27,800 square feet. In the original plat lots ranged from 16,650 square feet to 27,750 square feet in area. The range in the revised plat is from 22,125 square feet to 33,480 square feet in area. The location and grade of the proposed cul de sac remain the same as in the previous plan. However, the grading plan adjacent to the road has changed significantly. Building elevations for lot 1 and 5 have been raised which reduces the cut into the hill adjacent to the road. The maximum height of retaining walls along the road has been reduced from 12 feet to 6 feet. Except for grading and filling necessary to prepare individual building pads most earth work is confined to the interior portions of the plat adjacent to the road. The revised preliminary illustrates the location of existing trees, and indicates which will be saved and which will be removed. According to the surveyor trees with a diameter of 8 inches or greater are shown. The plan does not illustrate all of the existing trees on the western portions of lots 2, 3, and 4. Of 267 trees inventoried, 44 would be removed due to construction of the road and preparation of individual building sites. The revised site plan illustrates lot 1 and 2 using Dublin Road for access. The house on lot l could use the cul de sac as an access point. Staff believes that access from the cul de sac for lot 1 is more appropriate. Lot 2 t � does not have access to the cul de sac. Consequently, it must use Dublin Road. Staff continues to recommend the following conditions for a plat approval. 1. Developers Agreement 2. Subdivision Dedication. 3. An approved erosion control plan during the construction period. 4. vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court. l � z9 -86 Got Rs2wxm r.4 31 S s 6 2 In Antrim Terrace R.O.Y. 7 LL t o! 267 Total Trees to be Removed 16.51 Q OXIfir NW 33 O� /NV 91%r. 46 EX /5T. Hi/4 �1 • .0 / / TR - 949. 97 / 4 / G@ NV- 939. A-7 �/ + � • " rR- 949. Bo • /NV- 934. /8 EAl'!S 3trreL Mrs �B / l /A1V 927 XT rwv Jr • o • - \ 77t- 1y5..?2 m. % � • . \t3990 ��� WA S I • • \� _1 -4 6 • • ty � z rXr - 7s /NV- 938 - DB EX/3T. MN A 2 ?7 O . �T. xy� � \ \` 7R - 946.07 sx/fIr HYPO. EXAM M N. d ffff` / /// � X1'1• p •` • — ! �\ \ ��� j/� �►r� \ \ 1 I - \ IM/- 937948. 6 \ � \� � � .oc I PtC - % N LL / S / Z NO ADO / j /ON I pf70 3 �1 1 NoTB - TYP14At- GA3EMEN76 50 ir. oN LOT c /NAS AHO /O.O Fr ON ON A.O.W. L //VCS L / • -/NOIc A-rES TREE TO RCMIi IN \� o - 1NO1c A-ra 5 rQEE TO BE ROMCvfO - /NO /GATES / Z9- W'n WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME I / ADDRESS Ycr mZ "-1 I �S Try �c�. Li-• poi,' r7los_ 7d C0 A,5, f W/ 0, Y, �,0 700D bcc-g el-d)- 7 0 0 d /---) OA�2 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME all� 0 17 IJ -7 ADDRESS LA f' I ti J ivy Kill �iiiii - /co/ ti WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME ADDRESS .sq ! b U Sq 7 iw MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY JANUARY 8, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY.HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Lewis, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Virginia Shaw, John Bailey, Jane Paulus, John .Palmer, John Skagerberg and David Runyan STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. John Palmer moved for 1985 Community Development and Minutes. Mr. John Skagerberg in favor. The motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: approval of the December 4, Planning Commission Meeting seconded the motion. All were 5 -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property measures approximately 4 acres in size, and is zoned R -1, Single Dwelling District. The property is developed with a single dwelling-located slightly northeast of center. Mr. Larsen explained that the proponent has submitted a request for an 8 lot subdivision of the property. The existing dwelling would be removed. The proposed lots range in size from 17,170 to 27,750 square feet with an average size of 20,800 square feet. Two of the lots would front on Dublin, two on Antrim with the remaining four served by a new cul -de -sac off Antrim Court. Mr. Larsen added the subject property is part of the Prospect Hills area which contains some of the largest lots in the City. Over the years a number of subdivisions of these large lots have occurred. The most notable being' Danens Meadows, directly east of the subject property, for which,a 10 lot subdivision was approved in-1980. Also developed by Mr. Trones, lots in Danens Meadows average approximately 20,600 square feet in area. Mr. Larsen pointed out the proposed plat illustrates the vacation of excess right of way along the west-side of Antrim Court. This excess right of way is a result of a or . 1, ' realignment of Antrim Court which occurred as a result of the Danens Meadow Plat. Mr. Larsen told the Commission construction of the cul -de -sac that will serve the proposed subdivision will require a substantial cut into the existing hill. Retaining walls up to 12 feet tall will be required along sections of the new road. Lots 1,2,4 and 5 will require considerable fill to provide adequate building pads at and an elevation high enough to be served by existing sanitary sewers. During the period of construction there will be the potential for considerable soil erosion if adequate erosion control steps are not taken. Mr. Larsen summarized staffs findings: - - - - -- - - 1. Lots in the proposed subdivision are very similar to the lots in Danens Meadows. The use of Antrim Court as the access point to the subdivision is preferable to using Dublin'Road. The proposed road provides acceptable spacing to the intersection, a less severe road grade, and possibly the loss of fewer trees. 2. The 20,800 square foot average of the proposed lots is nearly identical to the 20,600 square foot size in Danens Meadows. The right of way along the frontage of lot 8 is excess and could be vacated. The right of way along lots 3 and 7 should be only partially vacated in order to maintain an adequate boulevard. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends Preliminary Plat approval with the following conditions. 1. Developers Agreement 2. Subdivision Dedication 3. An erosion. - control plan to insure against undue erosion during the construction period. 4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court. The proponent Mr. Rudy Trones, Ron Krueger and Peter Knable of Krueger and Associates and interested neighbors were present. Mr. Trones addressed the Commission informing them he proposes to build homes that are comparable to the homes previously built in Danens Meadow. All the proposed homes would be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Trones stated he understands the concerns of the neighbors regarding the amount of ground to be moved, elevations of the terrain and the amount of vegetation that may be disturbed as a result of this proposal. Mr. Trones assured the Commission and neighbors that where possible the terrain would remain in its natural state. Mr. Skagerberg asked Mr. Trones if he had an erosion control plan that would address the erosion issue after the proposed homes were completed. Mr. Trones said that all sites would be sodded which would help control erosion. He also added he felt the drainage problem would lessen due to grading, in addition, he would encourage buyers to maintain their yards in the natural condition. Mrs. Rhonda Bland spokesperson for concerned neighbors of the area submitted to the Commission a signed petition opposing the proposed subdivision and development at 7012 Dublin Road. Mrs. Bland addressed the Commission explaining the concerns and reasons for neighborhood opposition to the proposed development. She stated three main reasons for opposing the proposed development: 1) topography 2) relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing neighborhood and 3) traffic safety factor. 1) Topography: Mrs. Bland told the Commission the neighborhood is comprised of a rolling topography, steep slopes, and woodlands (many of the woodlands are oak). This area offers a rich habitat for wildlife. Mrs. Bland noted that because of the fully developed status of Edina the presence of unaltered plant communities and natural wildlife habitats are very limited. She explained that to date the development and subdivision in the area has been compatible with the overall topography of the neighborhood and has not greatly changed the characfer'of the land. Mrs. Bland told the Commission that according to Edina's Comprehensive Plan; "It is the policy to utilize topography and vegetation characteristics as a basis for determining suitable lot size." She added that it is the firm belief of many members of the neighborhood that this policy was disregarded in the proposed subdivision. It is felt that according to the submitted plat, natural high elevations would be reduced and lowlands would be raised, this would severely alter or eliminate the present topography of the area. She indicated that the neighbors understand the pressures to subdivide and develop lots in Edina. They believe the goals of the land use element are to provide for the orderly and logical development and re- development of lands and maintain an attractive living environment while preserving the high quality residential character of Edina. Mrs. Bland asked Mr. Trones to amend his proposal so that the natural topography of the area remains unaltered. 2. Relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing neighborhood. Continuing, Mrs. Bland stated it is understood that the policy of Edina is to allow further subdivision for the purpose of developing single family lots only if neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved. It is felt that the proposed subdivision would detract from the character of the Prospect Hills neighborhood. Mrs. Bland said the proposed lot sizes relate to Danens Meadows (a transitional area between the smaller lots bordered - -on the east by Shannon Drive and the very large lots to the west of Prospect Hills) and not to Prospect Hills which have a large average lot size. Mrs. Bland quoted an October 31, 1979 staff report which read: "The Danens Meadow project provided a logical transition between these two diverse areas." Mrs. Bland further added the provision of adequate transitions between dissimilarly platted lands is one of the most historic objectives of land use planning. Because the proposed lot sizes relate to Danens Meadows it does not make them acceptable to the neighborhood of Prospect Hills. Mrs. Bland told the Commission that she was aware that the lot measurements of the proposed subdivision fall within the stipulations of the Edina Zoning ordinance, but the proposed subdivision is not sympathetic to prevailing neighborhood standards. Mrs. Bland quoted the Edina Comprehensive Land Use Plan: "Currently, Edina's Zoning Ordinance contains a single set of standards for each residential district that applies throughout the City. Existing standards work well in the City's's newer neighborhoods, but they present problems in older neighborhoods which were developed under less restrictive standards. In order to assure that recevelopment will occur in a manner sympathetic to' prevailing neighborhood standards, uniform guidelines for redevelopment should be developed for sub -areas of the City." The character and stability of the City's neighborhoods depend on the standards imposed for each individual area. 3. Traffic Safety Factor. Mrs. Bland pointed out to the Commission that Prospect Hills has only two points of access into the area, 70th and Antrim Road in the north and Shannon Road in the south. This roadway serves not only those who live in the neighborhood but also those to the east on the newer part of Shannon and those in the south in the Dewey Hills area. The road curves and winds and has a steep grade. In the summer road conditions are at their best,.but are still a safety hazard, in the winter these conditions are compounded. Since there are no sidewalks all pedestrian traffic is on the street. Mrs. Bland said from a traffic safety point of view the proposed subdivision would result in an increase of traffic flow. This fact would be compounded with 2 of the proposed homes accessing on Dublin. This in Mrs. Blands opinion would increase the possibility for potential accidents. Mrs. Bland recommended that Mr. Trones amend his proposal in view of the above mentioned concerns. Mr. Daryl Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive asked the Commission to examine the proposed subdivision in relation to the large lots of Prospect Hills and not the smaller lots of Danens Meadows. Mr. Ron Krueger explained to the Commission that Mr. Trones completed a development with similar topography on St. Albans Addition. At that time an extensive amount of time and care with minimal altering of the natural environment was taken in the placement of each home. Mr. Trones has the same intentions for the proposed development. All areas with natural contours will stay the same. Each proposed home will be designed to fit in the lot with minimal lot alteration. ` Mr. Roy.Olson of 5920 Lee Valley Road stated he is not opposed to this development, but expressed surprise on the number of proposed homes. Mr. Olsons concern is a possible drainage problem that could have a detrimental effect to his property. He expressed that he would like some assurance that the proposed subdivision would not add a drainage problem for him. -Mr. Olson added that traffic is a problem. Mr. Peter Knable clarified the problem of drainage, adding that by his calculations the post development rates of runoff would be less than what occur, at the present time. He said they do not expect any additional downstream problems from storm--runoffs. Mr. David Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road submitted to the Commission snapshots of the area in question. Mr. Elasky expressed his opposition to the proposed development. Mrs. Helen McClelland stated her displeasure with the proposed subdivision. She felt the development of 8 lots would result in an absolute mutilitation of the topography. She pointed out very few trees would be left if this proposal was approved, which could result in numerous erosion problems. Mrs. McClelland added the grading and fill this proposal would need would severely alter the environmental beauty of this area. She stressed traffic considerations are a grave concern, pointing out that the 2 proposed homes accessing Dublin could be a real safety problem. Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion that 5 homes would be a realistic amount to develop. A development of 5 homes would respect the areas topography. Mrs. McClelland stated she would not consider the development of 8 homes on this location. Mr. Palmer stated he opposes the development of this property for the reasons Mrs. Bland previously mentioned. He added that he views this open area as a transition point between the large lots of Prospect Hills and the smaller lots of Danens Meadows. Mr. Palmer felt the rolling hills and woodlands added a uniqueness to Edina and is a special resource. Mr. Palmer concluded that he would like to see the area developed with special care. Mr. John Bailey agreed with the feelings of Mr. Palmer and asked Mr. Trones if he had looked into the possibility of developing this site with fewer lots. Responding to Mr. Baileys question Mr. Trones stated at the present time only 8 lots were looked at for development at this site. In reference to Mrs. McClellands comments Mr. Trones stressed he did not feel the site would be mutilated by this development adding the existing terrain would remain generally the same. Mr. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer commented that he believes Mr. Trones can preserve the natural integrity of this site . Mr. John Palmer moved -for denial of the subdivision based on the density of the proposal, taking into consideration the special topography of the area and viewing this area as a transitional point between the larger lots of Prospect Hills and the smaller lots of Danens Meadows. Mrs. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. P -86 -1 Hoyt Development 5555 West 78th Street Mr. Larsen told the Commission the subject property measures approximately 5 acres in size and is zoned Planned Industrial District, PID. Until recently the property was developed with a small industrial building. The Commission may recall that a redevelopment of the property for office - warehouse use was approved in July and by the City Council in August, 1985. The previously approved plan has been abandoned and a new design has been submitted. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the new proposal calls for a office - warehouse building containing 73,557 square feet of gross floor area, which is slightly greater than the 72,390 square feet in the old plan. A building set back variance was granted for the previous plan. The new plan would require no building set back variance. The new plan also complies with Ordinance requirements for Floor Area, and building coverage. Mr. Larsen added the new plan provides parking for 208 cars compared to 209 spaces in the previous plan. Both plans comply with Ordinance parking quantity requirements. However, both plans require parking setback variances. The location and magnitude of the requested variances for the new plan are similar to those granted to the earlier plan. Parking is set back less than the required 20 feet along most of the northerly property line. The required 10 foot building to parking /drive aisle set back is not provided along the westerly portion of the south building wall. The landscaping plan illustrates the retention of existing landscaping along the northerly property line. Retention of this existing material will be difficult due to the extensive grading proposed in this area. The primary exterior materials will be brick with clay tile used as an accent. The rear of the building will be decorative concrete block. All materials comply with the Ordinance. Mr. Larsen concluded the proposed plan conforms much more closely to Ordinance requirements than did the previously approved plan. The requested parking set back variances will have little or no visual impact due to the large grade change near the property line. Staff recommends approval of the Final Development Plan subject to the following condition: 1. Staff approval of a revised landscaping plan and - schedule. Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for approval of the Final Development Plan. Mr. John Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor. the motion carried. S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT. JANUARY 8, 1986 5 -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones Generally Located: South of Dublin Road and West of Antrim Court Refer to: Attached Preliminary Plat The subject property measures approximately 4 acres in size, and is zoned R -1, Single Dwelling District. The property is developed with a single dwelling located slightly northeast of center. The proponent has submitted a request for an 8 lot subdivision of the property. The existing dwelling would be removed. The proposed lots range in size from 17,170 to 27,750 square feet with an average size of 20,800 square feet. Two of the lots would front on Dublin, two on Antrim with the remaining four served by a new cul -de -sac off Antrim Court. The subject property is part of the Prospect Hills area which contains some of the largest lots in the City. Over the years a number of subdivisions of these large lots have occurred. The most notable being Danens Meadows, directly east of the subject property, for which a 10 lot subdivision was approved in 1980. Also developed by Mr. Trones, lots in Danens Meadows average approximately 20,600 square feet in area. The proposed plat illustrates the vacation of excess right of way along the west side of Antrim Court. This excess right of way'is a result of a realignment of Antrim Court which occurred as a result of the Danens Meadow Plat. Construction of the cul -de -sac to serve the proposed subdivision will require a substantial cut into the existing hill. Retaining walls up to 12 feet tall will be required along sections of the new road. Lots 1,2,4 and 5 will require considerable fill to provide adequate building pads at and an elevation high enough to be served by existing sanitary sewers. During the period of construction there will be the potential for considerable soil erosion if adequate erosion control steps are not taken. Recommendation 1. Lots in the proposed subdivision are very similar to the lots in Danens Meadows. The use of Antrim Court as the access point to the subdivision is preferrable to using Dublin Road. The proposed road provides acceptable spacing to the intersection, a less severe road grade, and possibly the loss of fewer trees. 2. The 20,800 square foot average of the proposed lots is nearly identical to the 20,600 square foot size in Danens Meadows. The right of way along the frontage of lot 8 is excess and could be vacated. The right of way along lots 3 and 7 should be only partially vacated in order to maintain an adequate boulevard. Staff recommends Preliminary Plat approval with the following conditions. 1. Developers Agreement 2. Subdivision Dedication 3. An erosion control plan to insure against undue erosion during the construction period. 4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court. F-D)NA OAK5 I..UO 8 FRELIM IdArg FLAT - Mh/ 33 I 'Q S INV 952. 48 ,6 EX 517 v1H 4 / 2 1 ra - 999 y� �� rl � -/ o /NV • 939. 67 / r --x/ T � V � i � ,vv 93/f. /8 EX /ST• TR - 94� 2005 / I1 �,� \\ INVS -9: alo IAA >✓��� III \ � b • r \ �4ri 1I_ —.,1 I I y� "6 95 / �� \p I � I I r I 952 -- /541 - . 9e I 4f I\ � PR N_D Ao0/r/0/v I I / h �pIUIS��IJS wlt6�iN 'aS�ec -�-• H-iI s INAICai�ED . �r �/�ht A t.-.i Nes Lets 2141 %, 71 8,1 tl� iL(I S hid •e � T�IUrDtfl . Lod 5 is 110!1t v 7 c5wN -- -� Yj t EDINA OAKS SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL BY RUDY TRONES CONSTRUCTION, INC. Prepared By: RON KRUEGER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 7382 Washington Avenue South Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 / RON KRUEGER &. ASSOCIATES, INC. LAND SURVEYING • ENGINEERING • PLANNING 7382 WASHINGTON AVENUE SO. • EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 • PHONE (612) 941 -3030 December 27, 1985 Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of Rudy Trones Construction, Inc. I would like to express our appreciation for your consideration of the following land development application. We are requesting preliminary plat approval of 8 single family lots. We look foreward to your comments and to working with you toward the completion of a successful development. Sincerely, eter J. Knaeble, P.E. RON KRUEGER & ASSOCIATES, INC. PK /cb I. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION A. OWNERSHIP The site is owned by Robert A. Roberts, 7012 Dublin Road, Edina, and is optioned to Rudy Trones Construction, Inc. a Minnesota Corporation with offices at 7101 York Avenue South, Edina, Minnesota, for purchase subject to preliminary plat approval. B. DEVELOPER The developer of this site will be Rudy Trones Construction, Inc. This developer has been active in real estate development and residential construction in Edina. Other consultants involved in the project are: Ron Krueger & Associates, Inc.- Engineering, Planning, Surveying C. DEVELOPMENT TIMING The Developer proposes that the lots be developed so that home construction can start in the summer of 1986. In order to provide building sites within that time schedule, the Developer hopes to gain City approvals by early March with site development beginning in early April and being completed in June. The Developer would then begin marketing and building the units with first occupancy expected in summer of 1986. Full project completion is expected by the spring /summer of 1987. D. PUBLIC APPROVAL Approvals necessary for the project to proceed are: 1. Preliminary plat approval for 8 single family lots. The site is presently zoned single family residential (R1), so no rezoning is required. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT BOUNDARIES /LAND USE The project site is located approximately South of Dublin Road and West of Antrim Court. The site is bordered on all sides by existing single family home developments. B. TRANSPORTATION The site will be served by Dublin Road and Antrim Court. C. ZONING EXISTING /PROPOSED The site is currently zoned single family residential (R1). No rezoning is being requested. D. VEGETATION The site is densely covered with mature hardwood trees. The proposed development was layed out to minimize the number of trees to be removed during construction. E. PRELIMINARY PLANS Attached to this report is one plan sheet: Sheet 1 of 1 Preliminary Development Plan C $� i - S - S�) WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME ADDRESS ��v/ � %►-`mil -�i�- �C.:� 44 7 o -7 7p-d, � 7 7�d � AtFi ? /US 1-i i� i WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME �. fv- Az;c rka; ADDRESS 74a-- 76332 - -�z) 3z w i } WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): Ike, NAME ADDRESS ?07z 6� 7a 701 5� -7 o �Z o t NAME ` G�•I//� i oxk ..ADDRESS l7r- GLENN G.NYBECK GORDON V.JOHNSON JOHN K. BOUQUET JAMES VAN VALKENBURG MARK G.OHNSTAD'� DONALD' D. SMITH' MARSH J. HALBERG DENNIS M:PAT,RICK JOHN R. PRAETORIUS THOMSEN,`NYBECK,JOHNSON, BOUQUET & VAN VALKENBURG; P.A. LAW OFFICES SUITE 102 7250 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS I EDINA), MINNESOTA 66435 (612) 635 -7000 Mayor C. Wayne Courtney Mayor of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 February 28, 1,986 RE: Edina Oaks Preliminary Plat Elm OF COUNSEL HELGE THOMSEN RICHARD D. WILSON, P.A. JACK W. CARLSON STEVEN J.OUAM ROBERT E.ZECK Dear Mayor Courtney and Members of the Edina Council: In the absence from town of Don Smith of our office, who has represented Mr. Trones on this matter at various hearings before the Planning Commission, I would like to make some comments for your consideration. Mr. Trones is anxious to develop this area on Dublin Road, Antrim..Road, and Antrim Court. In the area there are many lots that have been subdivided -and Mr. Craig Larsen can give you the detail of those subdivisions. There have been a series of hearings on this matter and I would like to summarize the proposals made at those hearings: # Lots Size Square feet Variation '8 Averaze 20,800 16,650 to 27,750 square feet 6 Average 27,800 22,125 to 33,480 square feet 5 Average 32,800 23,000 to 46,800 square feet There have been several meetings of the Planning Commission, namely on January 8th when they turned down the request for an 8 lot sub- division; January 29th when they turned down the 6-lot proposal; and February 26th when the Planning Commission approved and recommended the 5 lot.proposal subject to certain conditions. Mayor C. Wayne Courtney -2- February 28, 1986 Mr. Trones has had meetings with the neighbors and had agreed to the five lot proposal; and to a 50 foot conservation ease- ment. Accordingly, even though the Ordinance permits him to develop the 8 lot subdivision, he is now proposing the 5 lot subdivision. There are many lots in the immediate area that are under 20,000 including the lots of some of the objectors. The neighbors immediately to the North of this project and many on the West, South and East have agreed to the latest proposal. Mr. Trones, as you know, has developed many-other areas within the City and did an excellent job on those. Mr. Trones will do the building on these lots and accordingly on his proposed plats he has indicated approximate locations and sizes of buildings. In this way Mr. Trones can control the earth, topography, erosion, and tree removal problems that have been raised by people at the various Planning meetings. Mr. Trones has met with these people and has agreed to reduce his request from 8 lots to 5, has agreed to a conservation ease- ment of 50 feet if the staff feels that that is proper, acknowledges that the staff has recommended approval of everyone of these proposals; and further acknowledges that the Planning Commission has, on February 26th, recommended approval of the 5 lot proposal. ments. documents: All of these proposals far exceed the Ordinance require- For your information I am enclosing copies of the following 1. Staff report of January 8, 1986. 2. Excerpts from the Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 1986. 3. Planning Commission minutes (excerpts) of January 29th. 4. Staff report of February 26th. Mayor C. Wayne Courtney -3- February 28, 1986 At the February 26th Planning Commission meeting there were two abstentions. One was Gordon Johnson of our office who abstained, and the other was Helen McClelland who did indicate at the meeting that she favored the proposal, but that she was abstaining from the vote If there are any questions on this proposal I would appre- ciate your comments or call. I realize that the neighbors are excited over the fact that there will be a subdivision there rather than the natural habitat that is now in existence. However, Mr. Trones has the option to buy and will proceed to develop, and there is certainly no obligation on his part to keep land in an open state. JVV:jd cc: All Members of the C Kenneth Rosl-a nd Craig Larsen Gordon Hughes Rudy Trones r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 -86 -1 Generally Located: Refer to: STAFF REPORT JANUARY 8, 1986 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones South of Dublin Road and West of Antrim Court Attached Preliminary Plat The subject property measures approximately 4 acres in size, and is zoned R -1, Single Dwelling District. The property is developed with a single dwelling located slightly northeast of center. The proponent has submitted a request for an 8 lot subdivision of the property. The existing dwelling would be removed. The proposed lots range in size from 17,170 to 27,750 square feet with an average size of 20,800 square feet. Two of the lots would front on Dublin, two on Antrim with the remaining four served by a new cul -de -sac off Antrim Court. The subject property is part of the Prospect Hills area which contains some of the largest lots in the City. Over the years -a.. number _ o -f= subd:: v-i-s ons —o -f —these larger lots have occurred. he�-most' notable being Danens Meadows, directly east of the subject property, for which a 10 lot subdivision was approved in 1980. Also developed by Mr. Trones, lots in Danens Meadows average approximately 20,600 square feet in area. The proposed plat illustrates the vacation of excess right of way along the west side of Antrim Court.. This excess right of way is a result of a realignment of Antrim Court which occurred as a result of the Danens Meadow Plat. Construction of the cul -de -sac to serve the proposed subdivision will require a substantial cut into the existing hill. Retaining walls up to 12 feet tall will be required along sections of the new road. Lots 1,2,4 and 5 will require considerable fill to provide adequate building pads at and an elevation high enough to be served by existing sanitary sewers. During the period of construction there will be the potential for considerable soil erosion if adequate erosion control steps are not taken. I a j . Recommendation 1. Lots in the proposed subdivision are very similar to the lots in Danens Meadows. The use of Antrim Court as the access point to the subdivision is preferrable to using Dublin Road. The proposed road provides acceptable spacing to the intersection, a less severe road grade, and possibly the loss of fewer trees. 2. The 20,800 square foot average of the proposed lots is nearly identical to the 20,600 square foot size in Danens Meadows. The right of way along the frontage of lot 8 is excess and could be vacated. The right of way along lots 3 and 7 should be only partially vacated in order to maintain -an adequate boulevard. Staff recommendsCPrel imi nary -PPlat approvals with the following conditions. 1. Developers Agreement 2. Subdivision Dedication 3. An erosion control plan to insure against undue erosion during the construction period. 4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY JANUARY 8, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Lewis, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Virginia Shaw, John Bailey, Jane Paulus, John Palmer, John Skagerberg and David Runyan STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. John Palmer moved for 1985 Community Development and Minutes. Mr. John Skagerberg in favor. The motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: S -86 -1 approval of the December 4, Planning Commission Meeting seconded the motion. All were Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property measures approximately 4 acres in size, and is zoned R -1, Single Dwelling District. The property is developed with a single dwelling located slightly northeast of center. Mr. Larsen explained that_•the proponent has submitted a request for anr8 lot— subdi-vi-san of the property. The existing dwelling would be removed. The proposed lots range in size from 17,170 to 27,750 square feet with an average size of 20,800 square feet. Two of the lots would front on Dublin, two on Antrim with the remaining four served by a new cul -de -sac off Antrim Court. Mr. Larsen added the subject property is part of the Prospect Hills area which contains some of the largest lots in the City. Over the years a number of subdivisions of these large lots have occurred. The most notable being Danens Meadows, directly east of the subject property, for which a 10 lot subdivision was approved in 1980. Also developed by Mr. Trones, lots in Danens Meadows average approximately 20,600 square feet in area. Mr. Larsen pointed out the proposed plat illustrates the vacation of excess right of way along the west side of Antrim Court. This excess right of way is a result of a realignment of Antrim Court which occurred as a result of the Danens Meadow Plat. Mr. Larsen told the Commission construction of the cul -de -sac that will serve the proposed subdivision will require a substantial cut into the existing hill. Retaining walls up to 12 feet tall will be required along sections of the new road. Lots 1,2,4 and 5 will require considerable fill to provide adequate building pads at and an elevation high enough to be served by existing sanitary sewers. During the period of construction there will be the potential for considerable soil erosion if adequate erosion control steps are not taken. Mr. Larsen summarized staffs findings: 1. Lots in . the proposed subdivision are= _ver_y= s-imi -lar =,tom the lots Danens,_Mead wo s. The use of Antrim Court as the access point to the subdivision is preferable to using Dublin Road. The proposed road provides acceptable spacing to the intersection, a less severe road grade, and possibly the loss of fewer trees. 2. The 28,860 square foot average of the proposed lots is nearly identical to the 20,600 square foot size in Danens Meadows. The right of way along the frontage of lot 8 is excess and could be vacated. The right of way along lots 3 and 7 should be only partially vacated in order to maintain an adequate boulevard. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends Preliminary Plat approval with the following conditions. 1. Developers Agreement 2. Subdivision Dedication 3. An erosion control plan to insure against undue erosion during the construction period. 4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court. The proponent Mr. Rudy Trones, Ron Krueger and Peter Knable of Krueger and Associates and interested neighbors were present. Mr. Trones addressed the Commission informing them he. proposes to build homes that are comparable to the homes previously built in Danens Meadow. All the proposed homes would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Trones stated he understands the concerns of the neighbors regarding the amount of ground to be moved, relevtions3of the terrain and the amount of�vegetation, that may be disturbed as a result of this proposal. Mr Trones assured the Commission and neighbors that where possible the terrain would remain in its natural state. Mr. Skagerberg asked Mr. Trones if he had an erosion control plan that would address the erosion issue after the proposed homes were completed. Mr. Trones said that all sites .w,ould =be- sodded -which ow uld =help _ contr.ol= er.os.i.on.. He also added he felt the drainage problem would lessen due to grading, in addition, he would encourage buyers to maintain their yards in the natural .condition. Mrs. Rhonda Bland spokesperson for concerned neighbors of the area submitted to the Commission a signed petition opposing the proposed subdivision and development at 7012 Dublin Road. Mrs. Bland addressed the Commission explaining the concerns and reasons for neighborhood opposition to the proposed development. She stated three main reasons for opposing the proposed development: 1) topography 2) relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing neighborhood and 3) traffic safety factor. 1) Topography: Mrs. Bland told the Commission the neighborhood is comprised of a rolling topography, steep slopes, and woodlands (many of the woodlands are oak). This area offers a rich habitat for wildlife. Mrs. Bland noted that because of the fully developed status of Edina the presence of unaltered plant communities and natural wildlife habitats are very limited. She explained that to date the development and subdivision in the area has been compatible with the overall topography of the neighborhood and has not greatly changed the character of the land. Mrs. Bland told the Commission that according to Edina's Comprehensive Plan; "It is the policy to utilize topography and vegetation characteristics as a basis for determining suitable lot size." She added that it is the firm belief of many members of the neighborhood that this policy was disregarded in the proposed subdivision. It is felt that according to the submitted plat, natural high elevations would be reduced and lowlands would be raised, this would severely alter or eliminate the present topography of the area. She indicated that the neighbors understand the pressures to subdivide and develop lots in Edina. They believe the goals of the land use element are to provide for the orderly and logical development and re- development of lands and maintain an attractive living environment while preserving the high quality residential character of Edina. Mrs. Bland asked Mr. Trones to amend his proposal so that the natural topography of the area remains unaltered. 2. Relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing neighborhood. Continuing, Mrs. Bland stated it is understood that the policy of Edina is to allow further subdivision for the purpose of developing single family lots only if neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved. It is felt that the proposed subdivision would detract from the character of the Prospect Hills neighborhood. Mrs. Bland said the proposed lot sizes relate to Danens Meadows (a transitional area-between the smaller lots bordered on the east by Shannon Drive and the very large lots to the west of Prospect Hills) and not to Prospect Hills which have a large average lot size. Mrs. Bland quoted an October 31, 1979 staff report which read: "The Danens Meadow project provided a logical transition between these two diverse areas." Mrs. Bland further added the provision of adequate transitions between dissimilarly platted lands is one of the most historic objectives of land use planning. Because the proposed lot sizes relate to Danens Meadows it does not make them acceptable to the neighborhood of Prospect Hills. Mrs. Bland told the Commission that she was aware that the lot measurements of the proposed subdivision fall within the stipulations of the Edina Zoning ordinance, but the proposed subdivision is not sympathetic to prevailing neighborhood standards. Mrs. Bland quoted the Edina Comprehensive Land Use Plan: "Currently, Edina's Zoning Ordinance contains a single set of standards for each residential district that applies throughout the City. Existing standards work well in the City's's newer neighborhoods, but they present problems in older neighborhoods which were developed under less restrictive standards. In order to assure that recevelopment will occur in a manner sympathetic to prevailing neighborhood standards, uniform guidelines for redevelopment should be developed for sub -areas of the City." The character and stability of the City's neighborhoods depend on the standards imposed for each individual area. 3. Traffic Safety Factor. Mrs. Bland pointed out to the Commission that Prospect Hills has only two points of access into the area, 70th and Antrim Road in the north and Shannon Road in the south. This roadway serves not only those who live in the neighborhood but also those to the east on the newer part of Shannon and those in the south in the Dewey Hills area. The road curves and winds and has a steep grade. In the summer road conditions are at their best, but are still a safety hazard, in the winter these conditions are compounded. Since there are.no sidewalks all pedestrian traffic is on the street. Mrs. Bland said from a traffic safety point of view the proposed subdivision would result in an increase of traffic flow. This fact would be compounded with 2 of the proposed homes accessing on Dublin. This in Mrs. Blands opinion would increase the possibility for potential accidents. Mrs. Bland recommended that Mr. Trones amend his proposal in view of the above mentioned concerns. Mr. Daryl Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive asked the Commission to examine the proposed subdivision in relation to the large lots of Prospect Hills and not the smaller lots of Danens.Meadows. Mr. Ron Krueger explained to the Commission that Mr. Trones completed a development with Csimil_.= ar– topogr- aphy –on= =St— Albans_Add.ilf0—'. At that time an' extensive amount of time and care with minimal altering of the natural - environment was taken in the placement of each home. Mr. Trones has the same intentions for the proposed development. All areas with natural contours will stay the same. Each proposed home will be designed to fit in the lot with minimal lot alteration. Mr. Roy Olson of 5920 Lee Valley Road stated he is not opposed to this development, but expressed surprise on the number of proposed homes. Mr. Olsons concern is a possible drainage problem that could have a detrimental effect to his property. He expressed that he would like some assurance that the proposed subdivision would not add a drainage problem for him. Mr. Olson added that traffic is a problem. Mr. Peter Knable clarified thetp oblem_of =d-a.i.nage adding that by his calculations the post development rates of runoff would _less= tha`n� what occur at the present time. He said they do not expect any additional downstream problems from storm runoffs. Mr. David Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road submitted to the Commission snapshots of the area in question. Mr. Elasky expressed his opposition to the proposed development. Mrs. Helen McClelland stated her displeasure with the proposed subdivision. She felt the development of 8 lots would result in an absolute mutilitation of the topography. She pointed out very few trees would be left if this proposal was approved, which could result in numerous erosion problems. Mrs. McClelland added the grading and fill this proposal would need would severely alter the environmental beauty of this area. She stressed traffic considerations are a grave concern, pointing out that the 2 proposed homes accessing Dublin could be a real safety problem. Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion that 5 homes would be a realistic amount to develop. A development of 5 homes would respect the areas topography. Mrs. McClelland stated she would not consider the development of 8 homes on this location. Mr. Palmer stated he opposes the development of this property for the reasons Mrs. Bland previously mentioned. He added that he views this open area as a transition point between the large lots of Prospect Hills and the smaller lots of Danens Meadows. Mr. Palmer felt the rolling hills and woodlands added a uniqueness to Edina and is a special resource. Mr. Palmer concluded that he would like to see the area developed with special care. Mr. John Bailey agreed with the feelings of Mr. Palmer and asked Mr. Trones if he had looked into the possibility of developing this site with fewer lots. Responding to Mr. Baileys question Mr. Trones stated at the present time only 8 lots were looked at for development at this site. In reference to Mrs. McClellands comments Mr. Trones stressed he did not feel the site would be mutilated by this development adding the existing terrain would remain generally the same. Mr. Fran Hoffman, City .Engineer commented that he believes Mr. Trones can preserve the natural integrity of this site . Mr. John Palmer moved for denial of the subdivision based on the density of the proposal, taking into consideration the special topography of the area and viewing this area as a transitional point between the larger lots of Prospect Hills and the smaller lots of Danens Meadows. Mrs. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. P -86 -1 Hoyt Development 5555 West 78th Street Mr. Larsen told the Commission the subject property measures approximately 5 acres in size and is zoned Planned Industrial District, PID. Until recently the property was developed with a small industrial building. The Commission may recall that a redevelopment of the property for office - warehouse use was approved in July and by the City Council in August, 1985. The previously approved plan has been abandoned and a new design has been submitted. Wy COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 26, 1986 S -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones Lot 15, Prospect Hills south of Dublin Road and west of Antrim Court Refer to: Attached revised preliminary plat, area map, and previously proposed plat. The Commission will recall that a proposal for a six lot subdivision of the subject property was denied by the Commisison at its January 29, 1986 meeting. Mr. Trones has resubmitted with a request for a five lot subdivision of this 4.05 acre parcel. The Commission should be advised that the proponent has appealed the Commissions January 29, 1986 decision. The City Council has set a March 3, 1986 hearing date on the 6 lot preliminary plat. However, the Council will be informed of any action taken by the Commission at its February 26th meeting. The revised preliminary plat illustrates 5'lots ranging from 23,000 sq. ft. to 46,800 sq. ft. in area. The average lot size has been increased from 27,800 square feet to 32,800 square feet. Lot 1 would access on Dublin Road at approximately the same point as the existing driveway. The remaining four lots would be served by a new cul de sac off of Antrim Court. The curb cut off Antrim and the alignment of the cul de sac remain similar to previous plans. However, the newest proposal reduces the length of the road by approximately 20 feet. This results in increased rear yards on lots 2 and 3. The revised preliminary plat proposes a 30 foot conservation easement along the westerly and southerly property lines. No structures or land alteration would be allowed in the easement area. Any recommendation for preliminary plat approval should be conditioned on the following: 1. Developerrs' Agreement t' 1 2. Subdivision Dedication 3. An erosion control plan during the construction period 4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY JANUARY 29, 1986, AT 7:38 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland, Phil Sked. Jane Paulus, John Palmer, John Skagerberg and David Runyan MEMBERS ABSENT: William Lewis , John Bailey and Virginia Shaw STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the January 8, 1986 meeting minutes. Mrs. Jane Paulus seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: LD -86 -5 Ron Clark Construction 6516 -6518 Gleason Court Mr. Larsen told the Commission the proponent is requesting a party wall division for an existing double bungalow. Separate utility connections are provided. Staff recommends approval. Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for approval of the division. Mr. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. Ld -86 -6 Country Club Builders 6441 -6445 Vernon Avenue Mr. Larsen said the proponents are requesting an party wall division of an existing double bungalow. Separate utility connections are provided. Staff recommends approval. 1 Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the division. Mr. Phil Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: S -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones Lot 15, Prospect Hills Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that an eight lot subdivision of the subject property was considered on January 8, 1986, and rejected. The proponent, Rudy Trones, has submitted a new preliminary plat illus.tratingsix lots. He added the revised plat increases the average lot size fromr-2$, -- -80.0_ square - feet- to -27- 800 - squa -r-e -feet. In the original plat lots ranged from 16,650 square feet to 27,750 square feet in area. The range in the revised plat is from 22,125 square feet to 33,480 square feet in area. Mr. Larsen pointed out the location and grade of the proposed cul de sac remain the same as in the previous plan. However, the grading plan adjacent to the road has changed significantly. Building elevations for lot 1 and 5 have been raised which reduces the cut into the hill adjacent to the road. The maximum height of retaining walls along the road has been reduced from 12 feet to 6 feet. Except for grading and filling necessary to prepare individual building pads most earth work is confined to the interior portions of the plat adjacent to the road. Mr. Larsen said the revised preliminary illustrates the location of existing trees, and indicates which will be saved and which will be removed. According to the surveyor trees with a diameter of 8 inches or greater are shown. The plan does not illustrate all of the existing trees on the western portions of lots 2, 3, and 4. C*V467= trees=, inventor ied; �A_mould`tbe gemoved:14ue to construction of the road and preparation of individual building sites. The revised site p Dublin Road for access. cul de sac as an access from the cul de sac for does not have access to must use Dublin Road. lan illustrates lot 1 and 2 using The house on lot 1 could use the point. Staff believes that access lot 1 is more appropriate. Lot 2 the cul de sac. Consequently, it Mr. Larsen concluded Otacff _con.tinues _ to= recommend =the~ fo11-oi h:. ng- conditions - for -a- plat - approval. 1. Developers Agreement 2. Subdivision Dedication. 3. An approved erosion control plan during the construction period. 4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court. The proponent Mr. Trones was present, with Mr. Krueger of Krueger & Associates and Attorney Donald Smith,of Thomsen, Nybeck, Johnson, Bonquet and Van Valkenburg, P.A., Residents of the area were also present. Mr. Donald Smith pointed out to the Commission issues that were discussed at the meeting of January 8, 1986 and changes in the plat as a result of that meeting: 1. Density. Mr. -Trones creased- fhe_dens_i ty —_7 of the original plat by trimming the number of lot sites to 6. The original plat depicts 8 lot sites. 2. Topography. The lots that require a significant amount of grading and soil movement are lots 2 and 3. The remaining 4 lots require minimal alteration. With the revised plat the impact of free -3os evil -1` -be =m_ fnimal. Calculations indicate that 90% - 95% of the total amount of trees on the site will remain untouched. 3. Safety. The revised plat has two sites that will access Dublin. However, Mr. Trones will abide by the staff request that lot #1 access Antrim Court. The future homeowner of Lot #2 will have sufficient space to turn around and will enter Dublin front first. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Trones tried very hard to respond to the concerns of the Planning Commission, staff and area residents. The number of lots has decreased, resulting in an increase in individual lot size, the rolling hills and vegetation of the area will be retained where possible, Dublin will serve as assess to one lot instead of the proposed two, and the revised plat complies with all Zoning Ordinances. Mr. Smith submitted to the Planning Commission a print -out of subdivisions in the general area that were developed over the past several years. . Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Krueger the height of the retaining walls on lots 2 and 3. Mr. Krueger said the retaining walls will be six feet high. Mr. Krueger informed the Commission a crew of workers was at the site for 1 1/2 days tallying the amount of trees over 8 inches that would be lost as a result of constructing building pads for each lot. Their calculations found that with careful planning the tree loss would be minimal. The proposed location of the cul -de -sac would require the movai of::-T:j eees. Mr. Trones told the Commission he met with homeowners of the area and discussed the issues that were brought to his attention at the January 8, 1986 meeting. The homeowners expressed concern about the alteration of the natural environment of the area as a result of this subdivision. Mr. Trones referred to his Braemar development as an example of maintaining the natural beauty of the land. Mr. Trones pointed out the new lot size averages 27,800 square feet. This increase in lot square footage makes the proposed lot sizes larger than many of the lots in the area. Mr. Trones assured the Commission it is important for him to maintain the integrity of the area. Mrs. Rhonda Bland, 7000 Kerry Road submitted a signed petition to the Commission opposing the development of a 6 lot subdivision at 7012 Dublin Road. Mrs. Bland asked the Commission to recall her presentation of the January 8, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. Mrs. Bland stated her presentation this evening would address the failings of the revised proposal: Topography: Mrs. Bland told the Commission that members of the neighborhood do not feel the increased square footage of the lots satisfy the standards setforth in Edina's Comprehensive Plan. "It is the policy to utilize.topography and vegetation characteristics as a basis for determining suitable lot sizes." Continuing Mrs. Bland stated this subdivision is not a logical development of the land. The wildlife would loose their natural habitat and the tree loss would be greater than what Mr. Trones has indicated. Mrs. Bland quoted the Edina Tree Ordinance #823 " A tree has a diameter of greater than 6" when measured at a point of four feet above ground level. The City Council hereby finds it is necessary to maintain and protect the existing urban forest in order to preserve wind break protection, abate soil erosion and enhance the natural beauty of the City." The elimination of trees, especially the many oaks in the area is a high cost to pay for development. Mrs. Bland said that no matter how well intentioned Mr. Trones is the topography will be severely altered and its natural environmental beauty lost forever. The removal of vegetation and the alteration of the elevations on all six lots present a potential for further erosion and soil slippage. The development could aggravate an existing water drainage problem. 2. Relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing neighborhood. Mrs. Bland indicated the development of 6 lots does not blend with the character and symmerty of the neighborhood. In general the area of Prospect Hills is comprised of small homes on large lots. This ratio results with land being the dominant element. It is felt that Mr. Trones will build large homes on the proposed sites, resulting in unbalance. The residents of Prospect Hills feel the proposed plat is part of Prospect Hills and redevelopment of this area must considered with that in mind. The character of the neighborhood must be maintained. 3. Traffic Safety Factor Mrs. Bland said the 2 proposed home sites that will access Dublin Road could result in a grave safety problem. Several mishaps have already occurred in this area. It is felt that for safety reasons no home sites should access Dublin Road. Mrs. Bland added if the density is reduced to three or four homes sites many of the concerns of the residents will vanish. Less need for excavation and fill will reduce the extent of damage to the topography and the overall development will be more compatible with Prospect Hills. If all the home sites have access unto Antrim Terrace the traffic safety factor is less of a concern. Mrs. Bland offered an alternative to this subdivision. She contacted each homeowner with land adjacent to the proposed site, all homeowners stated they would be interested in listening to a proposal which would enable them to purchase part of the land that is Lot 15. In addition, the subdivision dedication could be in the form of land rather then cash. The presence of unaltered plant communities and natural wildlife habitats is a very limited resource in Edina. Several residents have expressed their support for an assessment that could offset the ongoing maintenance costs of the City for maintaining this land. Mrs. Bland asked the Planning Commission to maintain the integrity of Prospect Hills. She recommended that Mr. Trones further amend the plat so the neighborhood concerns are addressed. Darrell Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive voiced his concern regarding the density and lot size of the proposal. Mr. Trones reminded him that the proposed lot sizes are larger than many of the developed lots in the area. Allen VanBeek of 7115 Antrim Road asked Mr. Trones if there is any form of control which can be exercised to regulate what the new homeowners place in their yards (ex. pools, tennis courts, etc.). Mrs. Trones said the topography limits what could be placed in yards. He anticipates that most yards would have deck structures. Lot 6 and lot 1 are the only lots on which he would anticipate the new homeowners putting in a swimming pool or tennis court. Henry Langer of 7101 Antrim Court expressed concern over possible water drainage problems and traffic safety. Mr. Smith said he understood the natural apprehension of the neighbors regarding the change caused by this proposed development, but cutting the number of lots to 3 or 4 is unfair. Mr. Smith stated the neighbors are demanding 8ubstan.tialry_ more square foo- age— in— lo.t_s .ze_from_Mr_.. Trones than they s} have on theii own lots Mr. i Smith told the Commission that Mr. Trones has a history of f "ine developments in_Ed.i.na_. There is a risk that another developer could develop the property with less care than Mr. Trones would take. There is no question that this development will alter the terrain, but the development of 3 or 4 homes will alter the terrain. Mr. Smith pointed out that the homes Mr. Trones builds are quality homes and it is very important to Mr. Trones to develop these lots with minimal alteration. Mr. Smith added that Mr. Trones will comply with the staff request that only 1 home access Dublin which will lessen neighborhood traffic concerns. Mr. Smith feels Mr. Trones has done everything he could to eliminate the general concerns of the residents. By asking him to increase lot size to 1 1/4 acres you are asking him to have a far greater lot size then what the local community meets. Mrs. Eckberg of 7020 Kerry Road commented that she has been approached to subdivide her lot but has refused. The uniqueness of the area is special to her and that is the reason she moved into this area. She understands change comes but would like change to be subtle, once change is made is cannot be undone. Mr.Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road submitted to the Commission an ariel photo of Prospect Hills. Mr. Elasky is opposed to the revised plat. Mrs. Langer of 7101 Antrim Court pointed out an acre of land is viewed differently if it is flat then if it is rolling. Mr. Robert Naegeli of 5912 Lee Valley Road is against the density of the proposal. He feels his view will be changed due to the fact that he is 40 feet below the proposed homes. Mr. Runyan introduced himself as acting chairman in the absence of Mr. Gordon Johnson. Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Larsen if the Commission had control of home placement on new lots. Mr. Larsen informed Mr. Palmer the Commission has never exercised control of where a home is placed on the lot. Controls are exercised where a water body is involved placing a conservation restriction 100 ft. along the shore line. Mr. Trones proposed placing a conservation restriction along the west and south side of the property. This would protect the natural vegetation of the environment . Mrs. Helen McClelland stated that after conferring with the Engineering Department, she agreed that the sewer line should connect to the invert on Antrim Court to provide proper gravity drop. Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion that the revised plat for 6 homes is too dense and still caused extensive alteration to the site's topography. She pointed out that if Mr. Trones wishes to promote country living in Edina the prospective homeowners would expect certain amenities, such as a back /side yards, for homes priced at $500,000. In the present plat, lots 2 and 3 have retaining walls and no yards; Lots 1 and 4 have extremely limited yards. Such.homeowners could quickly become unhappy with the City and the Commission. _s: McClelland-concluded --_� that _ stfe - could- suppoi_ t_ a_pla.t-_f.or_5= homes_ar_o.und� the cul -de- sac if the topography were respected. Mr. Paulus stated she felt the present homeowners would suffer a great loss as a result of this subdivision. She further added that in her opinion the development of 3 or 4 lots would be a reasonable approach to this property. Understandably the homeowners are concerned about the integrity of their neighborhood and they do not want to see a development mistake made. Mr. Palmer said he is inclined to think this project is to dense. Mr. Skagerberg added he is not unhappy with the revised 6 lot subdivision, but his concern is. placement of the proposed homes. He would like to see the homes blend into the environment. Mr. Skagerberg commented it is asking much of the developer to reduce the number of lots too 3 or 4. Mr. Del Johnson said he leans toward a 5 lot subdivision. Mr. Smith said he felt the objectivity has been lost on this matter. Mr. Smith said the Commission works under rules. Mr. Smith pointed out that a 5 lot subdivision increases the square lot footage to an average of 33,360. The lots that abutt this area average in the 20's. Mrs. McClelland said the rules she based her decision on are of density and maintaining the integrity of the area. Mr. Smith asked in. the decision making process the Commission to look for objective criteria. It was felt by Mr. Trones that the 27,750 average square footage is reasonably consistent for the area. Mr. Trones asked for some direction from the Commission in the development of this property. Mr. Runyan said he would like to see this site developed creatively. He added the site is very rolling which will enable the profile of the homes to appear lower and fit into the terrain without appearing as large as they would on a flat surface. Mr. Runyan added he finds a problem with site #2. He can envision the development of lots 1,3,4,5, and 6 but indicated he has a hard time with lot 2. Mr. Trones agreed with Mr. Runyan that lot #2 is a difficult lot to develop. Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for denial of the preliminary plat on the basis of density. Mrs. Jane Paulus seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 23 � ; 7.G, -�e� .z+ee �� ,,a �-2- S _ .�.crc�1� o -c�-�a ; su -eta. �.c.c�� ; a� ��C. �S•�P �'"� . 7 -A T—.-A fe'4 aZ"C- z° • ,� �, ce.�o ,we:Y�t ,�- oa�con a..�s� ��- a� J`. L .� .��Zc.e -,,,e -�f` �cv�� •Csc n�o �e._co�..e- ,- „a..:�� � :Z�. ) &L A-4- 'fie � , . pru, —t.,( fv 6-zza( tr- " � 3I3l fb MARCH 3, 1986 WE WISH TO MAKE A STATEMENT REGARDING OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE FEBRUARY 4, 1986 MEETING WHICH WAS HELD IN MR. RUDY TRONES' OFFICE. MR. RUDY TRONES PRESENTED HIS NEW PLAT PROPOSAL WITH FIVE LOTS. THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS PRESENTED WAS THAT WE EITHER SUPPORT HIM ON THIS PROPOSAL, OR HE WOULD TAKE THE PLAT OF SIX TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WE DO RECALL THAT TWO PEOPLE EXPRESSED DEFINITE SUPPORT. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HAVE ALWAYS WANTED FEWER THAN FIVE HOMES ON THAT LOT. FIVE, IN OUR OPINION, ARE STILL NOT DESIRABLE FOR THAT PARTICULAR TOPOGRAPHY. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY AND CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGH- BORHOOD. " _. �i- C;J�,.Fv'( '� C-6 Kau c�,�� k-� 3�3 �� l WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME -AZ,14� A )22aAz-,, fie., /-k f�'u:, c I ADDRESS 7X� %�� 7 ;2 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME f Wiz,{ J ADDRESS `7 � 2 � i .�.,► i T v J ri -7,00 4v 1 1 12 11 AD�� %�• �� . -700 fJ � j.( 6r, h Z'^ I WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME I ADDRESS 71 c/ ­7 /C 71 p7i i7-�tzw cT-,, Zee -7 ory -76 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT t 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME 012. I ADDRESS j -A Sao 9 ., 6-1%vc) 7 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME ADDRESS ♦/1 i WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS): NAME ADDRESS �� , '�� �9- / I RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that that certain plat entitled "SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION ", platted by Richard W. Steiner, a single person, and Robert V. Gislason and Patricia G. Gislason, husband and wife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of March 3, 1986 be and is hereby granted final plat approval. ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 1986. 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 March 3, 1986, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of March, 1986. City Clerk ?. SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission 7I. L . /12 Subdivision No. 57- 815-)Z— Park Board Environmental Quality Commission / r FROM: Planning Department s[y� I (aC-r, ,+ PC'�6 `�� IVC�� SUBDIVISION NAME: LANDS I ZE : �q �` GUTr 1 LAND VALM (BY: Date: Th d 1 f th ' e eve oper o is subdivision has been required to 0 A. grant an easement over part of the land ElB. dedicate % of the land C. donate $ as a fee in lieu of land As a result of applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. 2. If property is 6 acres or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. II3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 4. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. D5. If the property -is a place of significant natural, scenF ic or his- toric value. F] 6. B. Cash Required Q1. In all other instances than above. D 2. MINUTES FE Answering rollcall were edesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and Mayor Courtney. MINUTES o cial Meeting of January 25, 1986 were approved as submitted by m iember Turner, seconded by Member Kelly. Bredese mmm PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR LOTS 41 AND 42, BLOCK 2, SOUTH HARRIET PARK 2ND ADDITION. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered G placed on file. Planner Craig Larsen recalled that the request for preliminary plat approval for Lots 41 and 42, Block 2, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition, generally located east of Minnehaha Boulevard and south of W. 52nd Street,-had �j been continued from the Council Meeting of January 6, 1986 pending agreement between the proponents and concerned neighbors on certain deed restrictions. The subject property consists of two, individually developed single dwelling lots and the owners are proposing a four lot subdivision which would create two new buildable lots. Mr. Larsen said that since that meeting the neighbors and staff have gone over a list of restrictions proposed by the neighborhood group and agreement has been reached on a list of restrictions that would be imposed on the property by way of a private covenant. A graphic was presented showing the proposed plat. The new lots would measure 81.5 feet and 80 feet in width. The proposed restrictions are: 1) dwelling must front on West 52nd Street, 2) dwellings must be single family, 3) dwellings on Lot 1 and Lot 2 must maintain a 40 -foot rear yard, 4) dwellings must be no greater than 1.5 stories, or 25 feet from the peak to foundation line, 5) roof pitch of dwellings shall be 6 on 12 or greater, 6) garage floor elevations shall be no more than 2 feet above elevation at center line of street, 7) siding material shall be brick, cedar shingles, lap siding, or a combination thereof, 8) each dwelling shall have no more than a two car garage, and 9) north faces of the two new dwellings shall be less than 100% glass. Staff would recommend pre- liminary plat approval with the following conditions: 1) execution of the private deed restriction, 2) developer's agreement covering the extension of the watermain to West 52nd Street to serve the properties, and 3) subdivision dedication. Mr. Larsen advised that Richard Steiner, proponent, and repre- sentatives of the neighborhood were present to confirm that an agreement had been reached. No objections being heard, Member Bredesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to the conditions identified by staff: RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that that certain plat entitled "South Harriet Park Steiner Addition ", platted by Richard W. Steiner, a single person, and Robert V. Gislason and Patricia C. Gislason, husband and wife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of February 3, 1986 be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR 5555 WEST 78TH STREET (HOYT DEVELOPMENT). Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. Mr. Larsen advised that the subject property, located south of West 78th Street and south of Cahill Road extended, measures approximately 5 acres in size and is zoned Planned Industrial District, PID. Until recently the property was developed with a small industrial building. Final plan approval REQUEST.FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director, Park and Recreation Dept. VIA: Ken Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: February 28, 1986 Material Description (General Specifications): Van valkenburg Park Softball Field Improvements Quotations /Bids: Company 1. Norex 2. G.L. Contracting 3. Buesing Corp. 4. ACG, Inc. 5. O & P Contracting 6. Northdale Construction 7. B.H. Blattner 8. B.& D. Underground 9. Matt Bullock Contracting '0. C.S. McCrossan Department Recommendation: Norex Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is.---' is not purchase. City Manager's Endorsement: IV A. Amount of Quote or Bid $242,271.86 248,208.15 248,945.23 255,290.70 260,105.05 272,000.70 273,229.23 285,507.01 314,422.00 452,318.70 within the amount budget for the Director 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: neth Rosland, City r IVB REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council ROM: Bob KOjetin, Director, Edina Park and Recreation Dept. VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: February 28 ,1986 Material Description (General Specifications): Tile for restrooms and handicap shower at Braemar Golf Course Club House Quotations /Bids: Com any 1, Dale Tile 2. Land of Lakes Tile Co. Grazzini Brothers Department Recommendation: Dale Tile $8,831 Finance Director's Endorsement. Amount of Quote or Bid $8,831 $11,160 $14,215 Edina Park & Rec Department The recommended bid is/ is not within the amount budget for the purchase. J John Walll n, Finance Director Ci ty Anager `s Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. _ 2. I recommend as an alternative: nneth Rosland, City Manager Serving Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Richfield and Edina ousehold & Outside Maintenance for Elderly February 19, 1986 Ms. Cecelia Smith 4801 West 50th Edina, MN 55424 Dear Ms. Smith: In response to our phone conversation Monday, this letter is a formal request for an appointment of an Edina resident by the City Council to our H.O.M.E. Advisory Committee. The appointment would be for a two(2) year term beginning April 1, 1986. Judy Norback is the current Edina representative. She has been an active, helpful committee member. Unfortunately, she is resigning from the committee because of other committments. We would like to pass along a suggestion by Ms. Norback as you consider a replacement. She thought the H.O.M.E Advisory Committee would benefit most from an appointment who is well acquainted with current activities in city hall. Edina has always given good support to the H.O.M.E. program. We think the program, in turn, has provided the opportunity for a significant number of low- moderate income elderly to continue living independently in their own homes. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Donald Hauge H.O.M.E. Maintenance Coordinator South Hennepin Human Services Council Creekside Center 9801 Penn Ave. So. Room 100 Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 888 -5530 MANAGEMENT AUDIT COMMITTEE Kenneth Woodrow, Chairman 6508 Willow Wood Road (36) Warren Beck 4421 52nd Street West (24) Edward (Ned) Bixby 6926 Moccasin Valley Road (35) Karen Bohn 4112 Sunnyside Road (24) Mark Kaiser 4702 Golf Terrace (24) Philip Larson 6356 Red Fox Lane (36) Patrick Rile 4506 Moorland Avenue (24) Target Stores 935 -7593 Gabberts 925 -4551 General Mills 944 -2935 Piper Jaffrey 929 -5249 Erickson /Holiday 922 -6882 NW Natl Life 927 -9006 Dain Bosworth 925 -1762 r Edina Recycling Program Pilot Project -- Household Pick -up, May - Dec. 1986 1. Objectives of Program To increase participation in recycling in Edina in order to comply with policies set forth by Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Legislature. To try out equipment, methods and personnel needed for a recycling pick -up program, with the possibility in mind of expanding to a city wide program. 2. Pilot Project Area The area bounded by 54th St. on the North, Crosstown Highway on the South, Xerxes Ave. on the East and Highway 100 on the West. Approximately 3,100 households, mostly single familv homes. 3. Duration of the Project May through December 1986, with evaluation in Sept. -Oct. 4. Materials to be Picked Up Paper: newspaper, letters & windowless envelopes Glass: clear, green and brown Metal: beverage cans, "tin" cans, aluminum foil and trays 5. Preparation of Materials for Pick -up Householder to prepare materials and place at curb. See sample flyer. Containers not provided, but could be made available. 6. Routes & Schedule Once a month pick -up on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th Wednesday as indicated on the map on flyer. Each route has between 750 & 800 households. In case of holidays or bad weather postponement, pick -up would be made the following Friday. 7. Pick -up Equipment & Personnel Pick -up will be made by a two - person crew, with a truck and trailer. They will place materials into bins on the trailer, sorting as they go. Materials will be unloaded at the Recycling Center. 8. Marketing of Materials Materials would be marketed together with materials collected at the Recycling Center. Hauling will be done by City employees, but could be contracted if necessary. 9. Promotion & Public Information Letter to each Pilot Project household one month before start -up. Public information meeting at City Hall 3 weeks before start -up. Newspapers, newsletters, city publications. Cable TV Block leader program - -lawn signs 10 Evaluation Survey of householders after 3 or 4 months to get public response, satisfactions and dissatisfactions. Tabulation of quantities of materials collected and participation rate. Identify any operational problems and suggest improvements. 11. Compliance with Edina Ordinances Request exclusion from present regulations regarding placement of "garbage ". Future changes might be needed to define "Recyclables" and address anv scavenging problems. r) - In projectiryfigures for the Household Pick -up Program, the following estimates were used: 1. a participation rate of 30 %, (930 of 3,100 households) 2. average pick -up of 45 pounds 3. the same proportions of materials as are now received at the Drop -off Center 4. total monthly pick -up of 21 tons. Income Sale of materials $4,680 Grants Metropolitan Council 50C per household $1,550. Metropolitan Council $4 Ton payment $ 672 Total $6,902 Costs Equipment New 3/4 ton truck $14,500 40% (Park Bd. 60 %) Containers for collection Trailer lease Salaries $5,800 1,500 4,564 11,864 11,864 Coordinator (12 months) $10,000 Part -time emplovees.Public works 2 persons, 1 2 days /week 9,600 19,600 19,600 Publicity Direct mail Extra flyers Lawn signs Paper bags with Logo Income $ 6,902 Costs 34,044 Balance - 27,142 Hennepin County will pay 50% of net costs. $13,571 $13,571 An additional $5,000 grant may be available from Met. Council in a few months. paid by Hennepin Co. cost to City of Edina $1,000 500 200 880 $2,580 2,580 Total $34,044 MATERIAL PAPER FOR RECYCLING newspapers, letters j windowless envelopes CANNOT BE RECYCLED book s s, g os GLASS FOR RECYCLING clear, green or brown CANNOT BE RECYCLED -proo METAL FOR RECYCLING beverage cans aluminum foil & trays "tin" food cans such as soup cans CANNOT BE RECYCLED f ei PREPARATION Put paper in grocery bags DO NOT TIE papers with twine or string Rinse food from jars Remove lids, caps & metal rings Avoid breaking K SEPARATE BY COLOR & Put in paper bags 1 e� ) •r I Colts DeM its I \ Rinse food from cans & trays Cans may be flattened to save space Sort & place in grocery bags-- - 1. All pop & beer cans 2. Aluminum foil & trays 3. "Tin" food cans Recycling collection begins at 8 AM. Place your recyclables at the curb for pick -up. Put materials in paper grocery bags. Plastic bags are NOT RECYCLABLE. It's OK to put sacks of sorted items into a box for collection. Label the box "Save for Recycling" so the haulers will not pick it up. h St yinyt view — Lane LOX. e.al $OUT. !LN' i ee�..�- „ NNp. C .� .,� 0 58th 21% ��� 1 Cora +o ysC� t , ��� ^�L[� � r 9 o 0 0 ,c�jL`hP0/, L 9` CF AFC Psi 6 IJ6 7 '- IE!ILU, J LIZ i WE iff ilk ` w t�� o �j N 4 8t X X 4th \ 11 a� r° -- z; 1 °� �e 4a a ;ice C, AA i 1a e� 1 °� �y f �J °o OQ' --' Crosstown Highway .7 CANMRBURY. D O W N S February 268 1986 The Honorable Mayor C. Wayne Courtney 4313 Eton Place Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor Courtney, On behalf of Canterbury Downs, I'd like to extend our thanks and congratulations to you and your city. Your community, Edina, showed tremendous support for Minnesota's newest professional sport of horseracing during our Inaugural Season. As a tribute to your enthusiastic community, we have - selected one of our major racing events to be named in your city's honor -- the 130,000- Added, Edina Stakes on Saturday, June 21, 1986. The highlight of all racing calendars is the stakes program - a series of the richest, most prestigious of races. Your special day could become an annual event of celebration and unified city spirit, paying dividends for years to come. We have invited your Chamber of Commerce to take the lead in promoting your city's day at the track as a fundraiser. We hope to feature Edina, its citizens, entertainers and yourself as our special dignitary. Please mark the date on your calendar. We hope to see you in the Winner's Circle on the day of the Edina Stakes. Thank you in advance for your support. Our office will be in touch with your office to review details. Sincerely, atrick L. Dawson Director of Marketing PLD /mjh Canterbury Downs /1 100 County Road 83/P.O. Box 508 /Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/16121 445 -7223 RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON S.A.P. 120 - 136 -04 FROM XERXES AVENUE TO EDINBOROUGH WAY IN THE CITY OF EDINA. MINNESOTA THIS RESOLUTION, passed this 3rd day of March, 1986, by the City of Edina in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Municipal corporation shall hereinafter be called the "City ", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, THE "City" has planned the improvement of MSAS 136 (West 76th Street) from Xerxes Avenue to Edinborough Way, WHEREAS, the "City ", will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the improve- ment of this Street, and WHEREAS, this improvement does not provide adequate width for parking on both sides of the street approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid Street project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restric- tions, and WHEREAS, the extent of these restrictions that would be necessary prerequisite to the approval of this construction as a Municipal State Aid project in the "City ", has been determined. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED.that the "City" shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on both sides of MSAS 136 (West 76th Street) at all times. Dated this 3rd day of March, 1986. 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 March 3, 1986, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 18th day of March, 1986. City Clerk RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON S.A.P. 120 - 020 -17 (YORK AVENUE) FROM WEST 76TH STREET TO WEST 78TH STREET IN THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA THIS RESOLUTION, passed this 3rd day of March, 1986, by the City of Edina in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Municipal corporation shall hereinafter be called the "City ", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the "City" has planned the improvement of CSAH 31 (York Avenue) from West 76th Street to West 78th Street, WHEREAS, the "City ", will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the improve- ment of this Street, and WHEREAS, this improvement does not provide adequate width for parking on both sides of the street approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid Street project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restric- tions, and WHEREAS, the extent of these retractions that would be necessary prerequisite to the approval of this construction as a Municipal State Aid project in the "City ", has been determined. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the "City" shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on both sides of CSAH 31 (York Avenue) at all times. Dated this 3rd.day of March, 1986. 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 March 3, 1986, and as recorded in.the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 18th day of March, 1986. City Clerk 4471C(9):TSE:022686 _= A.L3 'G ORDINANCE NO. 1111 -A9 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1111 TO ESTABLISH A TAX LIEN FOR DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS AND TO ESTABLISH SERVICE CHARGES PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 171 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Sec. 4 of Ordinance No. 1111 is hereby amended by adding thereto the following subparagraph (j): '(j) If accounts are delinquent 30 days or longer, said delinquent accounts shall be deemed to be charges against all owners, lessees and occupants of the property served. The City may certify such delinquent accounts to the County Auditor of the County of Hennepin, and, if certified, the same shall be collected and the collection thereof enforced in the same manner, in all respects, as County and State taxes, and they shall be added to such taxes, subject to like penalty, costs and interest charges; provided, however, that such certification shall not preclude the City or its agent from recovery of such delinquent accounts and interest under any other available remedy. The County Treasurer of Hennepin County shall, when such delinquent accounts are collected, forthwith pay them over to the.City Treasurer." Sec. 2. Paragraph (c) of Seca 4 of Ordinance No. 1111 is hereby amended to read as follows: "(c) Delinquent notices will be mailed 30 days after original bills, and water service will be discontinued to any accounts delinquent 45 days. A eharge of $3 w €ll be :Wade and shall be payable be-fore seev4ee 3s restered." Sec. 3. Paragraph (f) of Sec. 4 of Ordinance No. 1111 is hereby amended to read as follows: "(f) A service charge will be made for shutting off curb stops and for turning on curb stops or re- establishing serefee if done at the customer's request, or if done 4f serviee #s d4seentinued for due to non - payment of bills. The charge will be in the amount established by Ordinance No. 171." Sec. 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: ATTEST: City Cler Mayor 4472C(9):TSE:022686 ORDINANCE NO. 171 -A23 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 171 TO CHANGE THE AMOUNTS OF CERTAIN FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. The amounts of the following described Fee Numbers of Schedule A to Ordinance are hereby amended to read as follows: Ordinance Section Purpose of No. No. Fee or Charge 1111 4(f) Shutting off or turning on curb water stops at customer's request or due to non- payment of bill Fee Amount No. $12.50 for 37i each turn on and for each shut off Sec. 2. Fee No. 39h of Schedule A to Ordinance No. 171 relating to Sec. 4(c) of Ordinance No. 1111 and which reads as follows is hereby deleted in its entirety: 'Restoration of service - $5.00" Sec. 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. First Reading: , 1986 Second Reading: 1986 Published in the Edina Sun - Current on , 1986. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk E ORDINANCE NO. 1101 -A10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1101 TO PRESERVE REMEDIES IN ADDITION TO CERTIFICATION FOR RECOVERY OF UNPAID CHARGES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Subparagraph (d) of Sec. 1 of Ordinance No. 1101 is hereby amended to read as follows: "(b) Terms. The gross rates shall apply unless the bill is paid within the discount period, in which case the net rates shall apply. All bills will be payable to the Edina City Hall within 21 days of the date rendered, and no discount shall be allowed after said 21 days have elapsed. If such rental charge is not paid within 30 days after the billing date, the City may certify the same to the County Auditor of the County of Hennepin, and, if certi- fied, the same shall be collected and the collection thereof enforced in the same manner, in all respects as County and State taxes, and they shall be added to such taxes, subject to like penalty, costs and interest charges; provided, however, that such certification shall not preclude the City or its agent from recovery of such delinquent accounts and interest under any other available remedy. The County Treasurer of Hennepin County shall, when such sewer rental charges are collected, forthwith pay them over to the City Treasurer. Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published in the ATTEST: City Clerk 198 198 Edina Sun - Current on 209 -10 Mayor 198 510 NORTH CENTRAL LIFE TOWER 445 MINNESOTA STREET ST. PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 (612) 227 -8017 P. O. BOX 848 340 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55903 (507) 288-3156 315 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 (612) 475-0373 350 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022 (212) 415-9200 DORSEY & WHITNEY A Partnership Including Professional Corporations 2200 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 (612) 340 -2600 TELEX 29-0605 TELECORER: (612)340 -2866 THOMAS S. ERICKSON, P. A. (612) 340 -2659 February 13, 1986 Mr. Kenneth Rosland City Manager, City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Ken: 201 DAVIDSON BUILDING 8 THIRD STREET NORTH GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401 (406) 727 -3632 304 TRANSWESTERN PLAZA III 550 NORTH 31" STREET P. O. BOX 1179 BILLINGS, MONTANA 59103 (406) 252 -3800 30 RUE LA BOETIE 75008 PARIS, FRANCE Oil 331 552 32 50 Re: Establishment of tax lien for delinquent water bill accounts By letter of November 4, 1985, I sent you a proposed ordinance establishing a tax lien for unpaid water accounts that imposed an eight percent interest rate. You inquired whether it would be possible to impose a higher rate of interest. I have determined that there are possible legal difficulties with imposing a higher rate of interest and that, from a pragmatic point of view, the best approach would be to adopt the enclosed revised Ordinance No. 1111 -A9 which, rather than stating a particular rate of interest, simply states that unpaid water bills shall be subject to the same interest charges as delinquent property taxes. I have discussed this matter with Gordon Hughes. He is in concurrence with my recommendation that the ordinance in the enclosed form be adopted. I have also enclosed a proposed Ordinance No. 1101 -A10 consisting of an amendment to the sewer ordinance which would make that ordinance consistent with the amended water ordinance by adding the language "provided, however, that such certification shall not preclude the City or its agent from recovery of such delinquent accounts and interest under any other available remedy." DORSEY & WHITNEY In order to provide further incentive for property owners to pay their water bills, the charges for shutting off and turning on water due to non - payment (currently $20 and $5 respectively) should be increased the next time that the fees ordinance is revised. The charges may be increased up to the amount which reflects the actual cost to the City of terminating and restoring service. A change should also be made to the structure of fees under the sewer ordinance. At present the sewer ordinance has a charge of $20 to re- establish service after it has been stopped at a customer's request, but only $5 to restore service after it is turned off for nonpayment of bills. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance on this matter. Very truly yours, } Thomas S. Erickson TSE:cac cc: >Y! Gordon Hughes Mr. John Wallin 1986 CITY OF EDINA V CHECK N0. DATE �( I 056761 - -- 02/26/86 - - -- �I lI lffi#f I_ I 062003 -- 02/25/86 - - 062026 02/25/86 _ 062026 02/25/86 CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 300.00 BILL HANSON UNIFORM ALLOW 300.00 • - 32.70 32.70 146.14 52.76 198 90 • 03- 03. -86 PAGE 1 ACCOUNT NO._INV. A P.O. N MESSAGE 10 -4266- 440 -44 �3 * **-CKS 5 n — ALBINSON BLUE PRINTING— - -10= 4570= 260 =26 —. �i BADGER METER INC REPAIR PARTAS BADGER METER INC REPAIR -PARTS V' - - - - - -- -- - - -- -- -- f** -CKS -- 1 40- 4540- 807 -80 �1 — 40- 4540 = 807 =80- � I_I i ------- _._------ ---------------- --- - -_ _. #f- CKS__..._ _ i ".'I 10- 4540- 520 -52 �. I =a 062030 02/25/86 146.00 BERNARD J MULCAHY CO REPAIR PARATS I I - - - -- — - - -146.0 0 I,ll - - - -50 -4626- 862- 86- - - - - -- - - - -- �' f#tfff i f * -CKS - 1 ` f 062033 02/25/8E 96.00 BERGFORD TRUCKING INVENTORY ** *-CKS 062033 02/25/86 187.60 BERGFORD TRUCKING INVENTORY 062033 02/25/86 222.50 BERGFORD TRUCKING INVENTORY -- — 4,r 506.10 • fkit #f 4Av OS2035 02/25/86 154.20 BOUSTEAD ELEC B MFG 154.20 • v ffffii 062037 02/25/86 39757.35 BRAUN ENG TESTING IN %w 062037 02/25/86 19153.80 BRAUN ENG TESTING IN 49911.15 SUPPLIES CONST 60 -1300- 264 -04 CONST 60 -1300- 268 -04 062038 02/25/86 100.00 GEORGE BUTLER POLICE SERV 1 100.00_* 062047 02126/86 21.25 BROWN PHOTO PHOTO SUPP 21.25 • 062048 02/26/86 12.96 BRISSMAN KENNEDY INC GEN SUPP 12.96 T 062049 02/25/86 87.00. BURESH ROBERT MEETINGS h 87.00 • � II f'4 S4I 062058 02/25/86 100.00 HAYNE�ENN T7 ELI RBI - — - -- -- --- -- - 100000 • 10- 4100 - 420 -42 , - -1 * * *- CKS ``'I 10- 4508- 420 -42 25073 10 -4504- 520 -52 611 10- 4206 - 440 -44 * ** -CKS I - - - - - -- -- - - -- -- -- f** -CKS -- 1 40- 4540- 807 -80 �1 — 40- 4540 = 807 =80- � I_I i ------- _._------ ---------------- --- - -_ _. #f- CKS__..._ _ i ".'I 10- 4540- 520 -52 �. I =a f* *— CKS .F 50- 4626- 822 -82 50 -4626- 842 -84 I,ll - - - -50 -4626- 862- 86- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- - i f * -CKS - 1 10- 4540 - 646 -64 174172 ** *-CKS CONST 60 -1300- 264 -04 CONST 60 -1300- 268 -04 062038 02/25/86 100.00 GEORGE BUTLER POLICE SERV 1 100.00_* 062047 02126/86 21.25 BROWN PHOTO PHOTO SUPP 21.25 • 062048 02/26/86 12.96 BRISSMAN KENNEDY INC GEN SUPP 12.96 T 062049 02/25/86 87.00. BURESH ROBERT MEETINGS h 87.00 • � II f'4 S4I 062058 02/25/86 100.00 HAYNE�ENN T7 ELI RBI - — - -- -- --- -- - 100000 • 10- 4100 - 420 -42 , - -1 * * *- CKS ``'I 10- 4508- 420 -42 25073 10 -4504- 520 -52 611 10- 4206 - 440 -44 * ** -CKS I ,. ER 03 -03 =86 E 2 1986 Cl F EDINA CHECK RL r ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. 0 MESSAGE CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR f * ** -CKS 3` , REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 520 -52 758892 062064 02/25/86 21.26 THERMAL CO * ** -CKS 21.26 ADV_RTISIN6 .. •rrrr* 2 -- i3 062072 02/26/86 74.00 DAILY CONST REPORTS •I "� `I 74.00 - *** -CKS 062078 02/26/86 171.35 COCA COLA BOTTLING „ 171.35 * ** *-CKS 23 °al WATER 10- 4258 - 446 -44 062091 02/25/86 115.64 CITY OF EDINA 062091 02/25/86 45.00 CITY OF EDINA - 160.64 * - • rfr *f* �.' 062106 02/25/86 100.00 DAHL- MR HILDING �• 100.00 062125 02/26/86 490.17 MERIT SUPPLY 10- 4504 - 520 -52 614102 490.17 -i 062150 ... --- -. —. 02/25/86 -- - 22.71 ELECTRONIC CENTER ' rrrr*! — ___.--- - - - --- 22.71 • . 062160 02/25/86 249.00 FLOYD LOCK 8 SAFE Cf 386112 062160 02/25/86 8.85 FLOYD LOCK B SAFE Cf - -- -° ** *-CKS - 257.85 r - - -- -- — v . 10- 4540- 520 -52 26142 REPAIR 062183 02/25/86 290.20 GIVENS INC .R 062183 02/25/86 GIVENS INC <j 062183 — 02/25/86 92.60 _ _ _ GIVENS INC • = �i. 062183 02/26/86 41.35 GIVENS INC 10- 4540 - 540 -54 062183 02/25/86 284.40 INC.,_._ PARTS 062183 _ 02/25/86 _ _ _ 158.00 __GIVENS GIVENS INC a 10- 4540 - 646 -60 904.25 G� �I OcFICE EQUIP 10 -4906- 600 -60 62552 °I " 062188 02/25/86 33.72 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO a -- REPAIR PARTS i40- 4540 - 802 -80 62368— ,. ER 03 -03 =86 E 2 r ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. 0 MESSAGE z * ** -CKS 3` , REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 520 -52 758892 5 • * ** -CKS ADV_RTISIN6 -10- 4210 - 140 -14 2 -- i3 I;,i a i - *** -CKS n CONCESSIONS 28- 4624 - 704 -70 „ ** *-CKS 23 °al WATER 10- 4258 - 446 -44 WATER 10- 4258 - 646 -64 I -,: i r ** —CKS POLICE SERV 10 -4100- 420 -42 �• * *r -CKS • GEM SUPP 10- 4504 - 520 -52 614102 * ** -CKS REPAIR PARTS 40 -4540- 801 -80 386112 I..I - -- -- - - - -- -° ** *-CKS REPAIR PARATS 10- 4540- 520 -52 26142 REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 540 -54 26001 .R - - - -- * ** -CKS REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 540 -54 62048 d REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 540 -54 62047_ REPAIR-PARTS' 10- 4540 - 646 -60 61767 - - °° OcFICE EQUIP 10 -4906- 600 -60 62552 °I REPAIR PARTS 40- 4540 - 802 - 80_62367 -- REPAIR PARTS i40- 4540 - 802 -80 62368— -- —` '• 72 *** —CKS 7J REPAIR PARTS 40 -4540- 801 -80 76• 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 03 -03 -86 PAGE 3 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 6 P.O. a MESSAGE r v 33.72 + z w 062194 02/25/86 23.85 GENERAL C04HUNICATNS GEN SUPP 10 -4504- 420 -42 61241 - CKS - - -- - n 23.85 * - -- -- -- -- -- - -- — - - -- - -- �. f ►f ►f i ++ *-CKS �. 062249 02/25/86 100.00 WILLIAM KOFFMAN POLICE SERV 10- 4100 - 420 -42 I "I 100.00 • iff #ff fi+ -CKS '9 062267 02/25/86 433.51 IBM CORPORATION EQUIP RENAL - 10- 4226 - 510 -51 433.51 f • k • f f ... .._ _.. _ —. . —_.- _. -._ _._ - -- ##.-CKS __ '- -- - -- - - 062278 02/25/86 12.68 JERRYS FOODS CLEAN SUPP 10- 4512 - 440 -44 12.68 # - - - -- -- ------- - - -�_. 11 r f f 1 f f f • ## -CKS �. 062289 02/25/86 100.00 WALTER JOHNSON POLICE SERV 10 -4100- 420 -42 100.00 + I _ 4fifff •f• -CKS , 062295 02/25/86 127.89 -- TRIARCO ARTS B CRAFT CRAFT SJPP - -- "- -- - -23- 4588 - 616 -61 -- 180356 127.89 • f #i-CKS 062304 02/25/86 72.80 KNOX LUMBER CO REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 540 -54 420001 062304 02/25/86 - -- -14.78 - KNOX LUMBER CO REPAIR PARTS - --- - - - -10 -4540- 540 -54 411946 - - -- • 87.58 • - # #i- CKS - -� - -- - 062313 02/26/86 550.00 JOHN H FOSTER REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560-56 550.00 # - -- _ ._.. - -- -- - - - - -- - -- — #fikff • 052324 062324 02/25/86 02/25/86 919.92 19816.83 LOGIS LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICES 10 -4228- 160 -16 10- 4230 - 160 -16 062324 02/25/86-' __ 29952.32--- -LOGIS - -- — - " - -- COMPUTER- SERVICES 10= 4233 =200 =2 • :; 062324 02/25/86 29196.53 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 10 -4233- 420 -42 062324 02/25/86 19094.49 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 10 -4233- 560 -56 062324 02/25/86 19980.38 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES -- -40 -4232- 800 -80- - r i 062324 02/25/86 474.30 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 50- 4233- 820 -82 062324 02/25/86 474.30 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 50- 4233 - 840 -84 062324 _ _ 02/25/86 -- — 474:29 LOGIS— — "— COMPUYER�ER�IY�E$ 54'133 =861- i 129383.36 * 74 7, , .. .. -- -- --' --— - — --- -- ---- --- '-- ----- - - -- -- - --- - ---- _— . - -.. -- 7.1 r � V 062365 02/25/86 100.00 BURT MERFELD POLICE SERV - rkf •ff 1986 Cl )F EDINA *a* -CKS CHECK R, 062356 02/25/86 160.92 MN BLUEPRINT GEN SUPP - 10- 4504 - 260 -26 — �r 062356 02/25/86 V CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR 201.72 v fff rff 062332 02/25/86 39640.00 LEAGJE OF MN CITIES ' * ** -CKS - 062359 02/25/86 39640.00 + MINN TORO INC REPAIR PARTS 27 -4540- 662 -66 596848 V ffrft• 31.60 109134.78 THOMSEN NYBECK SERVICES 062344 02/26/86 29.00 MED OXYGEN B EQUIP v 062344 02/26/86 17.05 MED OXYGEN & EQUIP 104.50 062344 02/25/86 36.36 MED OXYGEN 8 EQUIP 104.50 82.41 ... rrtfrt �. 062346 !ER ITEM DESCRIPTION DUES 03 -03 -86 E 4 ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. N MESSAGE_ 7 * ** -CKS 10- 4204 - 140 -14 �I• e - - -- - -. _ - fff -CKS i,l+ EQUIP MAINT -- 10- 4274- 449 -44 1ST AID SUPPLIES 10- 4510 - 440 -44 �';• 1ST 410 SUPP 10 -4510- 440 -44 :I * ** -CKS 02/25/86 1849061.90 MET N WASTE C L COMM SEWER SERV 40- 4312 - 801 -80 1849061.90 062363 02/26/86 7.15- MONARCH MARKING CORRECTION 50- 4516 - 540 -84 062363 02/26/86 7.15 MONARCH MARKING PAPER SUPP 50- 4516 - 540 -84 062363 02/26/86 7.15 MONARCH MARKING PAPER SUPP 50- 4516- 840 -84 7.15 r trrfff 062365 02/25/86 100.00 BURT MERFELD POLICE SERV - rkf •ff *a* -CKS 100.00 • 062356 02/25/86 160.92 MN BLUEPRINT GEN SUPP - 10- 4504 - 260 -26 — �r 062356 02/25/86 40.80 MN BLUEPRINT GEN SUPP 10- 4504 - 260 -26 I - "i- 201.72 02/25/86 151.23 •r -- trfr.t 28-4624- 704 -70 ' * ** -CKS - 062359 02/25/86 31.60 MINN TORO INC REPAIR PARTS 27 -4540- 662 -66 596848 *C. #kf rtt 062380 31.60 109134.78 THOMSEN NYBECK SERVICES 10- 4100 - 220 -22 * ** -CKS 109134.78 • 062363 02/26/86 7.15- MONARCH MARKING CORRECTION 50- 4516 - 540 -84 062363 02/26/86 7.15 MONARCH MARKING PAPER SUPP 50- 4516 - 540 -84 062363 02/26/86 7.15 MONARCH MARKING PAPER SUPP 50- 4516- 840 -84 7.15 r trrfff v "�' ffffrf eJ r I" i * ** -CKS - ** *-CKS I _ + ** —CKS <I_ - --- .. . - - -- — - - ._ -. . * ** —CKS 062365 02/25/86 100.00 BURT MERFELD POLICE SERV - 10- 4100- 420 -42 100.00 • v 062370 02/25/86 151.23 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSIONS 28-4624- 704 -70 151.23 * - -- - - -- - i #kf rtt 062380 02/25/86 109134.78 THOMSEN NYBECK SERVICES 10- 4100 - 220 -22 109134.78 • 062381 02/25/86 104.50 STAR 8 TRIBUNE ADVERTISING 10- 4212 - 160 -16 104.50 v "�' ffffrf eJ r I" i * ** -CKS - ** *-CKS I _ + ** —CKS <I_ - --- .. . - - -- — - - ._ -. . * ** —CKS v 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 03 -03 -86 PAGE 5 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. # MESSAGE 062383 02/25/86 49914.32 MPLS COMP TREAS WATER PURCHASED 40- 4640- 803 -80l 4014.32 • - - -- - + ++ -CKS %w 062385 02/26/86 240.00 MCGUIRE ROBERT TREE INSPECTION 10- 4200 - 353 -30 062385 02/26/86 720.00 MCGUIRE ROBERT TREE INSPECTION 60 -1300- 012 -18 960.00 • - - - - - -- -- I'•� frrrrr +fr -CKS 062406 02/25/86 85.00 NTCC NW RESION REPAIR PARTS 10 -4540- 520 -52 635662 85.00 + 9✓ frttrr + ++ —CKS 062412 02/26/86 - 61.76 -- - — NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY INVENTORY -SUPP — -23- 1209 - 000 -00 - -- -- - — -- - -�' 062412 02/26/86 35.37 - NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY CREDIT 23 -1209- 000 -00 26.39 �+ fkrrrt + *+ -CKS 062417 02/25/86 19452.00 OFFSET PRINTINa PRINTING - -- - 10- 2010- 000= 00- _�5949' ` 19452.00 + 999999 * *+ -CKS v 052445 02/26/86 5,453.47 PAPER CALMENSON B CO PARTS 10 -4620- 560 -56 � 59453.47 f.. - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- -- -- 'V rrktft - - - - .rf -CKS r 062457 02/26/86 67.46 R.L.GOULD 8 CO.INC. REPAIR PARTS 27- 4540 - 662 -66 67.46 + frrrrf + ++ -CKS 062461 02/25/86 83.80 REED SALES 8 SERVICE REPAIR PARATS - 27- 4540 - 662 - 66156499 — J 062461 02/25/86 79.96 REED SALES 8 SERVICE REPAIR PARTS 27- 4540- 662 -66 156498 062461 02/25/86 84.82 REED SALES 8 SERVICE REPAIR PARTS 27- 4540 - 662 -66 156493 062461 02/25/86 - - - 5.12 - REED SALES & SERVICE REPAIR -- PARATS - __ 27- 4540 = 662 =66- 156495 - -- - -- - - "- 253.70 + - - - -- - ffr -CKS qw 062465 02/26/86 64.45 RICHFIELD PLUMB B CO CDNT REPAIRS 28-4248 - 707 -70 „<I ~ In i� ftrrrr + ++ -CKS r, 062470 02/25/86 25.00 DR ROCKWELL MED SERV 10- 4100- 481 -48 - - -- - - -- -- — 25.00 fr +frr + ++ —CKS ]< r M 1986 Cl ,F EDINA CHECK RL ;ER 03 -03 -86 E 6 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. N MESSAGE 062484 02/25/86 93.12 AMERICAN SHARECOM TELEPHONE 10- 4256 - 510 -51 93.12 * - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -- --- - •frfr* * ** -CKS e 062498 02/25/86 14.59 STARK EILECTTRONICS REPAIR PARTS 10 -4540- 520 -52 14.59 -- - - -- - _---- - - - -- -- _ ��, f►ftfr ._. - frt -CKS 062503 02/25/86 25.38 SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTS 10 -4540- 520 -52 578722 062503 02/25/86 12.35 SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTAS 10 -4540- 520 -52 879229 062503 02/25/86 88.91 SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540- 520 -52 818723 062503 02/25/86 13.90 SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 520 -52 882883 062503 02/25/86 22.98 SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARATS 10- 4540 - 646 -64 877629 I• 062503 02/25/86 104.24 -_ SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP CREDIT 40 -4540- 801 -80 876421__ 062503 02/25/86 - 40.75 -- SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTS 40 -4540- 801 -80 875829 Z 062503 02/25/86 34.25 SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARATS 40 -4540- 801 -80 576252 062503 02/25/86 99.50 SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTS 40- 4540 - 801 -80 875828 233.78 *... _. - - - -- - -- - - - - frf •fr - - -- -- - - * *f -CKS �• - - 062508 02/25/86 22.38 ST PAUL BOOK GEN SUPP 10- 4504- 440 -44 062508 02/25/86 6.20 ST PAUL BOOK GEN SUPP 4504 - 510 -51 062508 02/25/86 2.91- J ST PAUL BOOK CREDIT - _ _1D- 10- 4504 - 510 -51 • 25.67 -- - -- * ** -CKS • • 062526 02/25/86 29000.00 TRACY OIL CO GASOLINE 10- 4612-560 -56 29000.00 • - -- - -- - - -- rfrrrr * ** -CKS 052545 02/25/86 22.90 TWIN CTY GARAGE DOOR REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 540 -54 1907 22.90 • i+ * ** -CKS I � 062553 02/25/86 115.34 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP GEN SUPP -- `! 062553 02/25/86 40.78 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 540 -54 062553 02/25/86 65.10 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 540 -54 062553 02/25/86 56.99 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS _ 10- 4540 - 646 -64 _ 062553 02/25/86 19105.94 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP CONST 27- 1300 - 000 -00 - 062553 02/25/86 _ _ _ 140.74 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP ON 27- 1300 - 000 -00 ' 062553 02/25/86 - 166.40 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP ____CONSTRUCTION GEN SUPP'-- - - - - - -- - - -- -- • =� 062553 02/25/86 45.80 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 40 -4540- 802 -80 Il,l 19737.09 - Q ,I ffrrrf * ** -CKS ") 062587 02/25/86 132.25 WEIGLE SUE - 72 l3 MILEAGE 10- 4208 - 600 -60 132.25 * �� b � V � 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK,REGISTER 03 -03 -86 PAGE 7 r.. CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. N MESSAGE v *r►►.r * ** -CKS , 062590 02/25/86 100.00 HENRY WROBLESKI POLICE SERV 10 -4100- 420 -42 ` 100.00 • *r *rr* * ** -CKS 052592 02/25/86 240.00 MID CENTRAL FIRE GEN SUPP 10 -4504- 449 -44 11105 052592 02/25/86 183.75 MID CENTRAL FIRE CLOTHING REPLACEMENT 10- 4574- 440 -44 11105 ` 423.75 •r 999999 * ** -CKS 062594 02/25/86 39604.16 STORE FRONT CONT SERV- 10-4200-504-50-----' 39604.16 f4w * ** -CKS 062702 02/25/86 105.00 JUDY LIEBER S= RVICES 23- 4100 - 614 -61 105.00 * _. - -- - - - - -- - -- - -..._. --- - - - -__ - -- - -, I qw 062703 02/25/86 192.00 PAM BONZELET SERVICES 23 -4100- 614 -61 .� - - 192.00 * - - -- - - -- - -- -- -- - -- - 062704 02/25/86 17.15 ACE SUPPLY CO INC REPAIR PARTS 10 -4540- 540 -54 75375 062704 02/25/86 6.00 ACE SUPPLY CO INC _ REPAIR PARTS _ 40- 4540 - 802 -80 76562 r, 23.15 052705 -02/25/86 13.50 ROGER DLWIN - LIU LIC - -- - - -- -10 -30:8= 000 -00 - - -- - - r 062705 02/25/86 45.15 ROGER OLYIN MEETIN EXPENSES 10 -4206- 420 -42 052705 02/25/86 9.98 ROGER OLYIN EQUIP M4INT 10 -4274- 420 -42 062705 02/25/86 14.06 ROGER OLWIN - GEN SUPPLIES-- 10- 4504 - 420 -42 - 4I 062705 02/25/86 14.40 ROGER DLYIN GEN SUPP 10- 4504 - 460 -46 97.09 y 062706 02/25/86 49.98 MINVALCO REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 520 -52 49.98 r 062707 02/25/86 47.80 MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC CONT REPAIRS 10- 4248-560 -56 I� 47.80 rI 062708 02/25/86 86.00 MARSHALL 8 SWIFT OFFICE SUPP 10 -4516- 200 -20 86.00 * r 062709 02/25/86 160.00 DANNYS CONST CONT REPAIRS 10- 4248-461 -46 160.00 * -T r - 062710 02/25/86 188.37 BRADY OFFICEWARE GEN SUPP 10- 4504- 420 -42 188.37 w 062711 02/25/86 304.45 NATL CAMERA EXCHANGE GEN SUPP 10- 4504 - 470 -47 304.45 062712 02/25/86 175.00 EDINA EMPLOYEES CLUB SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 500 -50 ' °� I 1986 Cl jF EDINA CHECK RL TER 03- 03'-86 E 8 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION - -- - -- ACCOUNT NO. INV. 0 P.O. N ------ - - - - -- - - -- - - MESSAGE - - - - -- rr 175.00 * I. 062713 02/25/86 72.80 DAIRY HOME CONCESSIONS 28- 4624 - 764 -70 e.. 72.80 * Iq , 062714 02/25/86 12.50 BARBARA SCHNEIDER CLASS REFUND 23- 3500- 000 -00 ny 12.50 * 052715 02/25/86 5.00 MARY ANNE GROBE CLASS REFUND 23- 3500- 000 -00 w 5.00 * 062716 02/25/86 19316.00 SPANCRETE MIDWEST CO CONST 27- 1300 - 000 -00 19316.00 * 062717 02/25/86 15.90 INTER CONF OF BLDG BOOKS 10 -4502- 120 -12 15.90 * OG2718 02/25/86 53.13 SUSAN MOOR. SUPPLIES MILEAGE 10 -2149- 000 -00 - 53.13 062719 02/25/86 570.00 MPLS B SUB SEWER CONY REPAIRS 40- 4248 - 863 -86 10935 b 570.00 0627 10 02/25/86 709558.50 - DORSEY & WHITNEY SERVICES 10 -4218- 220 -22 Air 062720 02/25/86 177.00 PLUMBING 8 HEATING CONT REPAIRS 40- 4248 - 803 -80 8302 t OG2721 02/25/86 67.00 MPH INDUSTRIES EOUI MAINT 10- 4274 - 420 -42 12170 062721 02/25/86 _ 67.00 MPH INDUSTRIES EQUIP MAINT 10- 4274-420 -42 12168 062721 02/25/86 44.35 _ MPH INDUSTRIES _ EQUIP MAINT _ 10- 4274 - 420 -42 12169 178.35 + 062722 02/25/86 630.00 PTAC POLICE TRAINING—- 10- 4202- 420 -42 630.00 * 062723 02/25/86 145.30 SHERIFFIS DEPT ROOM B BOARD 10- 4286 - 220 -22 145.30 * 062724 02/25/86 29452.72 FEED RITE CONTROL WATER 40- 4622- 805 -80 - - 29452.72 * 062725 02/25/86 6.54 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS CONT REPAIRS - - 50- 4208- 861 - 8626882 - Qp 6.54 * 062726 02/25/86 251.93 BRW CONST 60-1300-371-01'040216' 251.93 * C 062727 02/25/86 74.70- MIDWEST CHEM SUPPLY CLEANING SUPP 10- 4512 - 440 -44 - - - - - -- 74.70 + 062728 02/25/86 587.40 BARR ENG COMP CONT SERV _ W __ _16- 2010 - 000 -00 .- r I 587.40 062729 02/25/86 ' 49.98 A PLUS RESORT POSTAGE 10- 4290 - 510 -51 ,3 -� 49.98 + 7a � 1. 75 •. 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 03 -03 -86 PAGE 9 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. A P.O. 0 MESSAGE 062730 02/25/86 28.45 - LYNDALE GARDEN CTR GEN SUPP 10 -4504- 643 -64 55158 28.45 . - - - - - -- -- - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - 062731 02/25/86 261.62 LUNDS CONT SERV 50- 4200 - 821 -82 3282 261.62 • - - - - -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - - -- - - 062732 02/25/86 194.79 XEROX CORP EQUIP RENAL 10- 4226 - 510 -51 194.79 • 062733 02/25/86 253.60 LABOR RELATIONS ASSO CUNT. SERV 10- 4200 - 440 -44 253.60 * - -- -- - - - -- - - - -- 062734 02/25/86 4.75 MOORE BUSINES CENTER GEN SUPP 10- 4504- 500 -50 062734 02/25/86 236.15 MOORE BUSINES CENTER GEN SUPP - 10- 4504- 500-50 - 062734 02/25/86 19.90- MOORE BUSINES CENTER CRE]IT 10 -4504- 500 -50 221.00 • ,o 062735 02/25/86 35.00 SPENCER PETERSON SKATING LESSON 10- 2235- 000 -00 35.00 * ,r 062736 02/25/86 35.00 WAYNE DAHLSTEN SKATING REFUND 10 -2235- 000 -00 35.00 * v .••... * * *-CKS' , 062738 02/25/86 25.00 PARK NICOLLET MED S ERV -10- 4224 - 420 -42 r 052738 02/25/86 63.50 PARK NICOLLET MED PHY EXAM 10- 4246- 260 -26 88.50 • y **•. ** * * *-CKS - 062746 02/26/86 38.00 FIRE ENGIN =ERING SUBSCRIPTION 10- 4204 - 440- 44 - - - - -- - -- ,� 38.00 I • 062747 02/26/86 - "- 89.17 ' - RUTH SCHMOLL PETTY CASH - _- ---10.-;4504-440-44 -- - 89.17 062748 02/26/86 129.00 OSWALD FIRE HOSE GEN SUPP -'- -- - - - -10 =4504= 449 -44 -- -- - - 129.00 062749 02/26/86 - - 105.77 - - - -- MINTEX CORP GEN SUPP 105.77 • 062750 02/26/86 15.04 KATHY GUSTAFSON SUPPLIES - 23 -4588- 616 -61 15.04 • 062751 02/26/86 -- -- -- 27.00 ----- SYLVIA SUN]ING- CLASS REFUND- 23- 3500 = 000 -00 - -- ----- - - - I�M1I - -' r 062751 02/26/86 4.00- SYLVIA SUNDING CLERICAL FEE 23- 3800- 000 -00 23.00 * W , 062752 02/26/86 359595.00 CURRAN V NIELSON CO CONST 27- 1300 - 000 -00 6948 359595.00 * I� - I 062753 02/26/86 269826.00 NATL AUTO SPRINKLER CONSTRUCTION 27- 1300 - 000 -00 v � 60 1986 Cl F EDINA CHECK R, ;ER 03 -03 -86 E 10 CHECK N0. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION - - -- - -- - - - -- ACCOUNT NO. INV. 8 P.O. 9 - - - -- - -- -- -- MESSAGE - - - -- d. 269826.00 * I.,I ,I 062754 02/25/86 369823.00 BOWLER COMPANY CONSTRUCTION -- 27- 1300- 000 -00 - - !° 369823.00 * l 062755 02/26/86 150.00 BRIAN HOLZER SERVICES 10- 9200 - 440 -44 - -Uiw t.. 150.00 * I 062756 02/26/86 150.00 STEVE CONROY SERVICES 10- 4200 - 440 -44 way 150.00 * 062757 02/26/86 150.00 WILLIAM THOMPSON SERVICES 10-4200- 440 -44 150.00 062758 02/26/86 200.00 DON BECKERING SERVICES 10- 4200 - 440 -49 - �, 200.00 062759 02/26/86 300.00 TED PAULFRANZ UNIFORM ALLOY -10- 4266 = 440 =44 - tw 300.00 062760 02/26/86 300.00 - FRANK WELLMAN UNIFORM ALLOW - - 10 -4266- 440 -44 - _ !w► 300.00 i * * * -CKS too 062762 02/26186 16.00 - NANCY KARKOFF - - CLOTHING 10- 4266- 420 -42 16.00 *-- 1i b .I 062763 02/26/86 - - 49123.07 -- - HENN CTY TREASURER ROOM B BOARD 10- 4286- 220 -22 12096 40123.07 i 062764 02/26/86 - - 153.54 . - BRADY OFFICE WARE GEN SUPP 10- 4504 - 420 -42 153.54 + -- - . .. b , 062765 02/26/86 62.00 INTERSTATE OFFICE EQUIP MAINT 10- 4274 - 420-42 I. 62.00 . - -- - -- - - - -- - -- - 062766 02/26/86 24.60 MATS ALEXANDERS CONi WORK 10- 4200 - 622 -62 (• 24.60 i 0.52767 02/26/86 RED WING SIDE STORE UNIFORM ALLOWENCE 10- 4262- 301 -30 062767 02/26/86 - _ ,416.75 74.95 - - RED WING SHOE STORE UNIFORM ALLOWENCE - - 10- 4262 - 560 -56 - - r 062767 02/26/86 329.85 RED DING SHOE STORE UNIFORM ALLOWENCE 10- 4262 - 646 -64 062767 02/26/86 89.95 RED WING S40E STORE UNIFORM ALLOWENCE 40 -4262- 801 -80 911.50 tar I 062768 02/26/86 145.86 ERIC ANDERSON SERVICES 10- 4200 - 500 -50 145.86 062769 02/26/86 -- -- -- 38.40 NFPA HANDBOOK---- i 38.40 * - - - - -- - -- -- -- -- - -- - - -- - -- - - b 062770 02/26/_86 15.00_ DON LARSON DUES 10 -4204- 280 -28 I. '1 ,Z I" 15.00 - -- -- -- - -- -- - -- - - -- -- , `I ! )3 062771 02/26/86 92.01 R 8 R SPECIALTIES -. CONi REPAIRS - - - - -- - 28- 4248 - 707 -70 7178 -- - -- ----• - - - - • -- - 1 ?' 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 03-03 -86 PAGE 11 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. # MESSAGE 92.01 • �I `f 062772 02/26/86 30.22 DALE LUNDGREN MILEAGE - - - - -- - -28 =4208- 706 --70 - - - -- - `. 30.22 ; 062773 02/26/86 128.47 E Z SHARP GEN 128.47 • ` 062774 02/26/86 500.00 DAVE LANGHOLTZ SERVICES- -- - - -- 28- 3480- 000 -00 500.00 • 062775 02/26/86 500.00 FRANK FISCHER PROF SERV --28 -3480- 000 -00 - - - - 500.00 • 062776 02/26/86 630.00 PTAC POLICE TRAINING - 10- 4202 - 420 =42 ; I 630.00 * ' 062777 02/26/86 - 15.00 - - -AM SOCIETY FOR IND CHAPTER 15.00 • ♦ 062778 02/26/86 177.38 FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS GEN SUPP- - - - - -- - -40- 4504 = 803 -80 177.38 OS2779 02/26/86 - - 19800.00 -- - - -SUN ELECTRIC CORP GEN SUPP'-- _----- " - - "10- 4504 - 560 -56 L 19800.00 • 062780 02/26/86 872.41 M 8 COMPANY GUN �4 872.47 • 062781 ' - - -_- 02/26/86 - 119597.00 - - POLAR CHEV & MOZDA TRUCKS -- 14 ` 119597.00 * 062782 02/26/86 19250.00 SAVIORS SO=TYARE CONT SERU -10- 4200 - 500 -50 l 19250.00 • 062783 02/26/86 - 29.89 -" - RALPH JOHNSON GEN SUPPI --- - - " - -- - " - "10 -4504- 260 -26 -- -- 29.89 062794 02/26/86 51.95 PRO INSTANT PRINT GEN SUPP -' -- -- - - - - - -` __29- 4504- 720 -72 ' 51.95 • ;• 062785' 02/26/86 109800.00 - _RIDGEDALE ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION - -- -� 27-1300-000-00--- - -- - 109800.00 • 062786 02/26/86 109000.00 E2 CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION 27- 1300 - 000 -00 - 100000.00 • 062787 02/26/86 - -- - - - -- .55 - - - - -AT & T - - TELEPHONE- �t - -- ,� 062787 02/26/86 9.25 AT & T TELPHDNE 10- 42 °_6- 628 -62 9.80 •rrrtr ••• -CKS� 063537 - 02/26/86 942.00 TTRI STATE DRILLING - - REPAIR PARAT$ 40= 4540= 805=80 r 942.00 + V 1986 Cl F EDINA CHECK RI 'ER 03 -03 -86 E 12 %. i CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 4 P.O. t MESSAGE �tl z .• +.•. +++ —CKS 064131 02/25/86 114.00 WALL STREET JOURNAL DUES 10- 4204 - 140 -14 6,� 114.00 + 0 4 + ** *** * *+—CKS of 1389790.20 FUND 10 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 506.82 FUND 23 TOTAL ART CENTER 4, 1229959.44 FUND 27 TOTAL GOLF COURSE FUND 1 19710.53 FUND 26 TOTAL RECREATION CENTER FUND 51.95 FUND 29 TOTAL GUN RANGE FUND V 1969351.84 FUND 40 TOTAL UTILITY FUND 29204.30 FUND 50 TOTAL LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND 59883.08 FUND 60 TOTAL CDNSTRUCTION FUND I V ' 4689458.16 TOTAL ~ I !. COMPUTER CHECKS'S li 68955 - — - -- — -~ - THRU 69094 - - _ L1f PF,- -V F-3,'Z F,il'i'F.NT, :I AIL T %w c:- lyn;a_, — - .I GG I1, J b 1 I IP