HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-16_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 16, 1983
ROLLCALL
RECOGNITION OF TOM OMESTAD
EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION - Ruth Horstmann
MINUTES of April 18, 1983, and Special Meeting of April 25, 1983, approved as sub-
mitted or corrected by motion of , seconded by
I. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Pre-
sentation by City Manager and Engineer. Spectators heard. If Council wishes
to proceed, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Curb and Gutter Improvement No. P -BA -260 - Golf Terrace
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by
Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Read-
ing of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable
rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived.
Lot Divisions, Flood Plain Permits, Plats, Appeals from Administrative or
Board of Appeals and Adjustments decisions require action by Resolution.
3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Kenneth "Chip" Glaser - PID Planned Industrial District to C -1 Commercial
District - Generally located South of Valley View Road, East of Washing-
ton and West of County Road 18 (Continued from 5/2/83) (Cont. to 6/6/83)
B. Preliminary Plat Approval
1. Normandale Bluff - Generally located West of Rolf Ave. and South of
W. 64th St.
C. Appeal from Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decision - Grace Church of
Edina
III. PUBLIC HEARING ON EASEMENT VACATION Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Pre-
sentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. If Council wishes to
proceed, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Lots 2 and 31, Block 1, Crosstown Hill (Confirmation of 4/18/83 Action)
IV. PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET VACATION Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
tion by Planning Department.
ceed, action by Resolution.
A. Amundson Road (Road and
Spectators heard. If Council wishes
3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pasq
Utility Easement).
V. SPECIAL:. CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
A. Waterman Avenue Residents
B. Cascade Lane / Watershed District Report
C. Mr. Neil Erickson - Conservation Easement
D. Mrs. Ruth Plotnicky
Presenta-
to pro-
Edina City Council Agenda
May 16, 1983
Page Two
VI. AWARD OF BIDS Tabulation and Recommendations by City Manager. Action of
Council by motion. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Public Improvements - Contract 83 -3 (ENG)
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of May 10, 1983
B. Year 9 Community Development Block Grant
C. Sanitary Sewer Connection SSHC -9•- Lot 2, Block 2, Berkeley Heights
D. Ambulance Fees
E. Klein Matter
F. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council
G. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items
1. Long Range Meeting Re- scheduling
2. AMM Annual Meeting - May 26
3. County Shade Trees Disease Program
r 4. Notice of Claim - Richard W. Kedzior
VIII. ORDINANCES First Rea
rollcall vote to pass
Second Reading should
A. Second Reading
1. Ordinance No.
B. First Reading
1. Ordinance No.
IX. RESOLUTIONS
A. Chapter 59
X. FINANCE
Sing requires offering of Ordinance only. 3/5 favorable
Second Reading. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if
be waived.
1120 -A1 - Cable TV Ordinance
245 -A2 - Minnegasco Franchise
A. Claims Paid: Motion of , seconded by , for payment
of the following Claims as per Pre -List: General Fund, $194,068.42;
Park Fund, $43,143.15; Art Center, $9,107.9.8; Swimming Pool, $2,787.20;
Golf Course, $31,709.34; Arena, $13,295.39; Gun Range, $271.32; Water
Fund, $18,272.14; Sewer Fund, $157,385.19; Liquor Fund, $71,446.94;
Construction, $230.67; IBR Fund, $13,769.00; Total, $555,486.74
(OFFICIAL PUBLICATION)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th
Street, on Monday, May 16, 1983, at 7:00 P.M. and will at said time and place
consider the following:
Preliminary Plat Approval of Normandale Bluff, generally located west of Rolf
Avenue and south of West 64th Street and generally described as Lots 6, 7 , 8, 9
and the north Z of Lot 10, Block 10, Normandale Second Addition.
All recommendations and objections will be heard at said meeting.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
FLORENCE B. HALLBERG
CITY CLERK
* Please publish.in the Edina Sun on Wednesday, May 4, 1983
* Please send two (2) Affidavits of Publication
i
May 16, 1983
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Members of the City Council:
Regarding the Wallace Subdivision of Normandale Bluff.
In review of events that have occured since the first Planning Commission
meeting on March 2nd, 1983, I was surprised, to say the least, at the
Commission's vote in favor of the subdivision. If the Commission's charter
is simply to review "variances" and make recommendations based on meeting
codes, then they have done their job. But, isn't that the charter of the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments? How could ten or twenty feet of lot width
make such a difference in the Commission's decision to reverse its opinion of
March 2nd, "staff believes that the requested lots would not only be uncharacter-
istic of the entire neighborhood, but would also be particularly incompatible with
surrounding properties . . . . . The entire site has been used as one dwelling
site and should continue so in order to preserve openness and spaciousness of
the neighborhood and to prevent an increased density which would be detrimental
to the neighborhood."
Meeting minimum lot codes is not the issue. It is the negative impact the
subdivision would have on the immediate vicinity. That is, the South half of
6400 Rolf Ave., not the North. That is, the Southeast half of 6400 Mildred Ave.
and Normandale park. This neighborhood is unique with its openness and should
remain so.
The Wallace proposal now includes "remodeling" of the home on that site to meet
lot requirements. It is destruction, not remodeling.
As neighbors, we have not been very organized during this campaign. Maybe
feeling it wasn't necessary and that showing up at meetings and expressing
concern was enough. This will change. We're learning alot about the politics
of such things.
I've been a homeowner for three years on Rolf. I purchased 6433 for specific
reasons, few of which concerned the house itself. My contract for deed expired
May 15, 1983. I arranged for an extension, rather than go through the rigours
of permanent financing, pending the outcome of this subdivision. I am concerned.
If this subdivision gets approval, I will enlist the help of any organization
that will help to investigate it and help appeal it. Including organizing a
Normandale Bluff Homeowners Coalition, consulting with the Heritage Preservation
Board, consulting with the Edina Historical Society, reviewing the story with
Ji
-2-
the Community Section Editor at the Star & Tribune, and local TV news
investigative editors. I also will be reviewing my tax market value with
real estate people in relation to the subdivision's impact on the neighborhood.
I am concerned.
There are plenty of buildable, wooded, hillside lots available without disrupting
an entire established neighborhood to create one for one individual. If it is
such a hardship, put it on the market.
Thank you for your time,
Rodger Rostad
6433 Rolf Ave.
Edina, Minnesota 55435
f
Mt
mob
N U M B E R S -83- Z Normandale Bluff
L O C A T 1 O N Generally located west of Rolf Avenue and south of West 64th Street.
REQUEST
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
He reminded them that the property is composed of four and one -half
pre- existing lots. The new lot now requested to the south of the existing
home comprises one and one -half of these pre- existing lots and the north line of
this new lot is the present north line of Lot 9. Therefore, this lot is already
"separated" by a lot line from the balance of the property and thus no new
subdivision is necessary. However, it is necessary for the existing dwelling to
provide the required setback from this lot line. A 10 foot setback is shown
and an estimated 13 -14 foot setback required due to the height of the building
Thus, a side yard setback variance would be required for the existing house
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new lot to the south.
The proposed lot to the north of the existing house is conditioned upon
the remodeling of the garage which would have to be accomplished prior to
final plat approval.
11. Old Business
S -83 -2 Normandale Bluff
Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission that a subdivision request had been
considered on March 2 and March 30. On March 2, a subdivision proposing
two new, but substandard lots was reviewed and based upon comments by the
Commission, the
proponent requested a continuance and returned on March 30, 198?
with a new subdivision proposing one new lot which likewise did not comply with th
requirements of Zoning Ordinance. The Commission recommended denial of this
subdivision. The request was then heard by the Council on April 18, 1983,
and was referred back to the Commission at the proponent's request.
Mr. Hughes reported that the new plan submitted illustrates a three lot
subdivision that complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He
noted that such a subdivision is achieved by proposing a substantial remodeling
of the existing dwelling which would then permit three lots each measuring 75 feet
in width
and 10,125 square feet in area.
He reminded them that the property is composed of four and one -half
pre- existing lots. The new lot now requested to the south of the existing
home comprises one and one -half of these pre- existing lots and the north line of
this new lot is the present north line of Lot 9. Therefore, this lot is already
"separated" by a lot line from the balance of the property and thus no new
subdivision is necessary. However, it is necessary for the existing dwelling to
provide the required setback from this lot line. A 10 foot setback is shown
and an estimated 13 -14 foot setback required due to the height of the building
Thus, a side yard setback variance would be required for the existing house
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new lot to the south.
The proposed lot to the north of the existing house is conditioned upon
the remodeling of the garage which would have to be accomplished prior to
final plat approval.
CONINIUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
April 27, 1983, Meeting
Page two
Mr. Hughes recommended approval of the request based upon the
analysis that the proposed lots conform to the Zoning Ordinance and would
be compatible in size to other lots in the neighborhood. Recommended approval
is conditioned upon 1.) the remodeling of the garage as shown; and
2.) subdivision dedication.
Mr. and Mrs. Duncan Wallace were present to answer questions.
Mrs. Arlene Joern, 6433 Mildred Avenue, informed the Commission that
she had hired Robert Thene, an engineering consultant. She presented
copies of a letter from him and reviewed the major points in connection
with her property.
* The presence of a house high above the east of 6433 Mildred
would not enhance property value or saleability
* Surface water entering property from the northeast is causing some
distress presently and any increase will indeed cause severe
erosion and damage.
Mr. Thene recommended in his letter the following, if the proposed subdivision
were to be approved:
* In order to minimize its impact, a house on Parcel C should be of a
special walkout design, oriented as far northeast as possible and
locate the garage on the north side
* All increase runoff should be conducted to the street
* The kitchen from the present dwelling, if removed, should be placed
back inside the original house envelope and not expanded to the west
Mrs. Joern closed by saying that the neighbors were still opposed to
Wallace's request. She asked that the opposing neighbors stand to be noted.
Mr. Robert Price, 6412 Rolf Avenue, argued that the proposed 75 foot lots
were still not within the character of the neighborhood. He also noted that the
garage was a remodeled breezeway and did not conform in size to the Zoning
Ordinance's standards.
Mr. Gordon Johnson noted that the placement of a house on Parcel C
and the 18 foot drop towards the Joern house, is something that Planning
Commission would not address. It would be handled by the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments.
David Runyan added that the design of the house would correct much of the
possible run -off problem in addition to sodding. He explained that if approved,
this matter would continue on to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments if
seeking to build on Parce C. This Board generally conditioned approval
subject to plans presented. In addition, plans would need to be reviewed by
the Building Department before receiving a permit.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMIMISSION
April 27, 1983, Meeting
Page three
Helen McClelland voiced her opposition to the proposal. She felt it was
not within the character of the neighborhood. She believed it should remain
one parcel.
Gordon Johnson stated that it was within the Zoning Ordinance's standards.
John Palmer questioned Mr. Hughes by what standards the Planning Commissior
should follow when reaching a decision. Mr. Hughes replied that it must be
within the Zoning Ordinance regulations and coincide with the Comprehensive
Plan. John Palmer noted that the present request conformed to both
and that there could be no reason for denial.
Mr. Fredrick Oftel, 6400 Mildred Avenue, gave a slide presentation of the
homes in the neighborhood to illustrate the openness and the topography
problems of the site.
Mary McDonald objected to the proposal. She had voted in favor of the
previous proposal of the two lot subdivision and was in disagreement of the three
lot subdivision. She was concerned with a house being built on Parcel A.
John Palmer agreed, however, he would support the revised proposal
since it complied with the ordinance requirements.
Mrs. McClelland noted that this was a vary large house located in the
center of the property and should remain that way. John Palmer commented
that the house size was to be decreased and would be appropriate for the
proposed lot size.
Lowell Briar, 6413 Rolf Avenue S., noted that this large, older dwelling
should not be ruined as proposed with the remodeling.
Mrs. Joern reported that she had been in contact with the title holder
for the Wallace property and that she was very upset also. She argued that the
Wallaces would not have legal rights to make their desired modifications. Gordon
Johnson noted that this was not material for the Commision's decision. He moved
for approval of the three lot subdivision proposal. David Runyan seconded the
motion. All were in favor with the exception of Bill Lewis, Helen McClelland and
Mary McDonald who voted not. The motion carried.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 30, 1983
TO: Community Development and Planning Commission
FROM: Craig Larsen, Edina Planning Department
SUBJECT: Normandale Bluff Subdivision Reguest
You will recall that the subject request was heard by the Commission at
its March 2, 1983, meeting and was continued at the request of the proponent.
A three lot subdivision creating two new buildable lots of 8,100 square feet
and 7,425 square feet respectively was requested.
The proponent, Duncan Wallace, has now returned with an amended proposal
(see attached letter) . Mr. Wallace has increased the size of parcel C (south
lot) to 62 feet from 55 feet. This results in a new lot area of 8,370 square
feet. In order to meet the zoning ordinance set back requirement of 10 feet
for the existing house on Parcel B, an existing deck would have to be removed.
Mr. Wallace has indicated that he would remove the deck.
Members of the Commission indicated at the March 2, 1983, meeting that they
may be amenable to a compromise two -lot plat if the size of the south parcel
(Parcel C) were increased. The proponent has responded by increasing the
size as much as possible while still retaining the required setback for the
existing structure without structural modification, except for removal of the
deck. Staff agrees that this maybe an acceptable compromise, but only if
the north parcel (Parcel A) is combined into one lot with the existing house
on Parcel B.
March 21, 1983
Mr. Gordon Hughes
City Planner
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Eding, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Hughes,
This will confirm our conversation of today.
Please amend our request for variance in such a manner that a
buildable lot of 62ft. in width would be created on the south
portion of our property. It is our understanding that any approval
by the Planning Commission and the City Council would be conditional
on the removal of that part of the deck which is south of the
permanent wall of the dwelling.
Sincerely,
Duncan Wallace
II. OLD BUSINESS:
S -83 -2 Normandale Bluff. Generally located west of Rolf Avenue
n� and south of West 64th Street.
1 �
�`V ,, N Mr. Gordon Hughes explained that this item had been continued from
the February 9, 1983, meeting. He stated that the subject property measures
30,375 square feet in area and is zoned R -1 Single Family Dwelling District with
the exception of one of the lots zoned R -2 Multi Residence District. The property
is composed of four and one -half 50 foot wide lots which were platted prior to the
enactment of present lot and area requirements. A single family dwelling which is
located on the central portion of the property, occupies two of the pre- existing
lots and encroaches a small distance into the third lot.
Mr. Hughes reported that the applicant is requesting approval of a
division that would have the effect of combining the four and one -half existing
lots into three new lots which are designated as Parcels A, B and C. Parcel B
which measures 14,850 square feet in area and 110 feet in width would be
retained for the existing dwelling. Parcels A and C would constitute new buildable
lots. Parcels A measures 8,000 square feet in area and 60 feet in-width and
Parcel C 'measures 7,425 square feet in area and 55 feet in width. The Zoning
Ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet and a minimum of 75
feet. Therefore, the applicant is also requesting a subdivision variance to permit
the creation of these substandard lots.
He noted that Parcels A and B are relatively level, whereas, Parcel C
falls quite steeply to the southwest. A drop of about 16 feet in elevation from
the northeast corner of this lot to the southwest corner is illustrated by the survey.
The lot is particularly steep in the approximate area to be occupied by a new
dwelling.
Most of the area bounded by Warren Avenue, the Crosstown Highway,
West 66th Street and Highway 100 was platted into 50 foot wide lots many years ago.
However, many of these lots have since been combined to provide larger building
sites. The more important lot widths to consider are the lots adjacent to the
subject property. To the north of the property is a 100 foot lot; to the east are
three 100 foot lots, to the west are two 75 foot lots and two vacant 50 foot lots
which are both owned by the owner of one of the adjacent 75 foot lots, and to the
south is Normandale Park.
Community Development and Planning Commission
March 2, 1983
Page three
Mr. Wallace quoted the Comprehensive Plan which states that the City
should "allow further subdivisions of developed single family lots only if
neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved ". Although Staff believes
it is against the character of the neighborhood, Mr. Wallace believes just the
opposite. He notes that the neighborhood consists of modest two and three
bedroom homes on modest size lots between 50 to 100 feet. His present home
does not conform to that character. His proposal would place it within the
character of the other homes.
Mr. Wallace addressed the density issue. Although the requirement
is 75 foot lots and a variance from this requirement is necessary, the intent is
still present which is three dwellings on 225 feet.
In closing, Mr. Wallace presented photographs which he passed to
the Commissioners showing the present dwelling in the neighborhood. Len Fernelius
asked the approximate size of the model homes displayed. Mr. Wallace reported
35 by 50 for the southerly lying model and estimated 2,000 square feet for the
northerly lying model home.
Mr. Fernelius wondered if there were any plans for 65th Street to extend.
Mr. Hughes replied no.
Mr. Robert Price, 6412 Rolf Avenue South, agreed with Staff's recommen-
dation. He also presented photographs displaying the neighborhood dwellings and
the present openness.
Mr. Price commented on the openness and conservative homes in the
neighborhood. He noted that two additional homes would bring more traffic into the
neighborhood.
Beth Nelson, 6443 Rolf Avenue, commented that the Wallace house gave the
neighborhood so much character and this would be ruined by jamming other homes in.
Arlene Joern, 6433 Mildred Avenue, bought her home with the understanding
that the Wallaces' site would only contain one dwelling. Her view would be destroyed
with the addition of two more homes with the loss of trees and openness. However,
owning a realty company herself, she could understand how new homes
could increase the value of the surrounding property.
Marcia Perbix, 6421 Mildred Avenue, felt the additional homes would be
inappropriate for the neighborhood.
Roger Rostad, 6433 Rolf Avenue South, purchased his home for the park-
like atmosphere and felt this would be destroyed with approval of the proposal.
John Iken, 6408 Rolf Avenue, believed that the proposed home additions
did not fit in with the spaciousness and character of the neighborhood.
Jim Curt, 6425 Rolf Avenue, was the father of small children. He was
concerned with the increase of traffic.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 2, 1983
S -83 -1 Normandale Bluff, Generally located west of Rolf Avenue and
south of West 64th Street
Refer to: Attached survey, area map and 1979 survey
The subject property measures 30,375 square feet in area and is zoned R -1,
Single Family Dwelling District. The property is composed of four and
one -half, 50 foot wide lots which were platted in August, 1917, prior to the
enactment of present lot width and area requirements. A single family dwelling
which is located on the central portion of the property, occupies two of the
pre- existing lots and encroaches a small distance into a third lot.
The applicant is requesting approval of a division that would have the effect
of combining the four and one -half existing lots into three new lots which are
designated as Parcels A, B, and C on the attached survey. Parcel B which
measures 14, 850 square feet in area and 110 feet in width would be retained
for the existing dwelling. Parcels A and C would constitute new buildable lots.
Parcel A measures 8,000 square feet in area and 60 feet in width, and Parcel B
measures 7,425 square feet in area and 55 feet in width. The Zoning Ordinance
requires a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet and a minimum width of 75 feet.
Therefore, the applicant is also requesting a subdivision variance to permit the
creation of these substandard lots.
Parcels A and B are relatively level. However, Parcel C falls quite steeply to the
southwest. A drop of about 16 feet in elevation from the northeast corner of this
lot to the southwest corner is illustrated by the survey. The lot is particularly
steep in the approximate area to be occupied by a new dwelling.
Most of the area bounded by Warren Avenue, the Crosstown Highway, West 66th
Street and Highway 100 was platted into 50 foot wide lots many years ago. However,
many of these lots have since been combined to provide larger building sites. The
attached graphic illustrates this neighborhood and highlights those building sites
which are 60 feet or less in width. All other lots have either been combined to
form larger parcels or were originally platted as larger lots; but many have lot
widths of 65 to 75 feet and are, therefore, non - conforming.
The more important lot widths to consider are the lots adjacent to the subject
property. To the north of the property is a 100 foot lot; to the east are three, 100
foot lots; to the west are two, 75 foot lots and two vacant 50 foot lots which are both
owned by the owner of one of the adjacent 75 foot lots, and to the south is
Normandale Park.
Recommendation
Subdivisions and variances involving substandard lots are very difficult to evaluate
especially in a neighborhood with a variety of lot sizes and housing types. In some
cases, the creation and development of substandard lots are warranted. In our
Normandale Bluff
February 2, 1983
Page two
opinion, however, the proposed subdivision and variance request is not such a
case. Of paramount importance in this instance is the effect of this division and
variance on the neighborhood in general and the immediate vicinity in particular.
While it is true that most of the neighborhood was originally platted into 50 foot
lots, most lots have been combined in whole or in part to meet, exceed or more
closely approximate the requirements of our ordinances. Of particular concern
are relatively generous lot sizes in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
In our view, the requested lots would not only be uncharacteristic of the entire
neighborhood, but would also be particularly incompatible with surrounding
properties. The spirit and intent of our lot width and area requirements are to
preserve the ooenness and spaciousness of residential neighborhoods and to prevent
an increase in density. In our opinion, the requested division and variances
conflict with this objective. In addition, the Edina Comprehensive Plan states
that the City should "allow further subdivisions of developed single family lots
only if neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved." In our view, the
development of the proposed lots would conflict with this statement of policy.
The subject property has been held in common ownership and used as one dwelling
site for many years, since at least 1930. It is apparent that the dwelling was located
to take maximum advantage of the entire property and that no consideration was
given for the development of the balance of the property for additional homes. This
is further evidenced by the fact that the garage, until only recently (approximately
September 15, 1982) was accessed by a concrete driveway from the north (across
Parcel A) rather than the east. (See attached survey dated July 2, 1979.)
We, therefore, do not believe that an undue hardship exists to support a variance
from our lot width and area requirements; the applicant's property now complies
with our requirements; the dwelling was located so as to maximize the benefits
of a large lot; the entire site has been, (since at least 1930) and continues to be, used
as a one dwelling site; the use of Parcels A and C for additional yard area and
accessory uses rather new building sites is reasonable; the use of these Parcels
for purposes accessory to the existing dwelling add more than an insignificant
value to the property as a whole; and the proposed subdivision conflicts with the
objections of the City ordinance to preserve openness and spaciouness of residential
neighborhoods and to prevent an increase and density and if granted, will be
substantially detrimental to the neighborhood.
We, therefore, for the above reasons, recommend denial of the subdivision and
variance.
is
J.
8100 SO.FT.
.19 AC.
Parcel Al
LLJ
V
r w
m
LL \\ 14850 SOFT. Parcel B /34 AC. Qt
Cr
NORTH
SCALE: 1 '-20'
LLGAL CES,:�iFrz
r A ?C EL A
Lot i , J tria :,Jr tr. :0.•. C
UIOCK JU
Lot t t.- .::r:.
lot .t "'-• :.z"t
Addtt ion
PARCEL C
Lot 9, exceot -ne !lortn
tnercot and t�� ..It, —1,
Blots1;' . " '.' , - .. .
I — '.0—anua- �� :_:
I
sV tr1 � � t v ,' t "_• - "1�'�J ea.. � : v .. S� .r � 4
,: -• ��.,, "z -' l z m ' •�' ROBERTS PLACE
;P,, r5
,.CO. RD. - __ NO. 62
`U.. S. 6 HWY. 4 NO. 169 & 212
w A-A t. - - - - - - -' - �� - - -
N.
'a!-o
.:
6Ze ^ 1
rn
Z p31
5
l
Q
r
zo
30
29 2
28
3
v-
SD
27
B
ERICKS�':$�''
NDRMAZ!fL?71
A00. " 4
zo
30
29 2
28
3
27
3
25
0
�•., ..�,ti,Y7.
.....
1
22
9
22 .. -3 —
z_
__ . —___
- . -
r
—
0
21
21 o
O
2C
D
D
2C
ti
cn
J
'1
.'., 1. },. .: ?ifs': �: 1:•:''�:�
�
d
-v-o - - - — W 64 th — -- — -- - - r.T f—� . - -1
.- :z 3 3
2'. a 21 a
20 5 20 — 5 20 -.r . .
" ..y� a.•�.::
:7 8 �• 17 - -- 9 -
Zol
rl•ti..�.., bye ��i' - .- to
20— 5—
a12
s D _ z .2
'p
O T'7
J1
. ,� 4ae -.� _+,_ .t.��, 7- �,_..'... L ?::. -. _i•'c�_ ..-`• 4 n :� � ?7�tkr ,.. c. �. ...
E3.I.]J " v.�.ti ��,/��^!b"y _�V',�y:.N'.•2t4\.,:._ti7�vl.( .(��.
ST
•`•C .
a�`r �'•N,G �, ` �' L >.:,`,':!"�`- -^f�`cla =,'r C. r`t,- „;.�`! M �-
3i 4 :� , i o 2a':
� , .v.; .. v,�;.. :r L. �:.. .y :*„r, fir: 1�'`w �• --: o
ar '-a:_ 23 23 ;^ .......
.•D v7 D -
n:o 22 22 '0 ...
..
v3•�r rn m 'L .4•u`V :.�.�r ``L i 4.'�=._�s`S y� �� - �-' ;v _ a
__ -. PARK
:O _Y' .Y .�” 9t�.: }:•.i
9
�• -• .. _
�w�•::•;,;, oT5 �O -��-
°_'- - .{��:^.!c�:n- '..:c.s.: (1(,,:, ��L-Jt "�".r• = V; -t c ' ili i DE Q•+ LE55 `- r
W 66th
;'- ^.^T'�. :T Ci L:..L:.,tti;; �:�.. „�...}}'= -`:. -: _�� _`�.L_•�.�.� -.�`-f
y`. .'�.$;w. 4- - 'J�_Cri;fl��'�;� +•th�:(•`� +s- {: :�K:y.. 't4. �yL�yl Z °..
7 JI :P,�n� 5 - R:'L.S. N0. 1 78 '44
-
q 2 S N ,
I w
•, YTS i �ti ` _. _ !f- __ -,_Y� � •', 1. ~ ; _ r � y. _
�c.v N Vie.
29 -A. 1> E
N
cale
V'l S
-z N _ N s -�fu�CO tt { Y.
/ y
. � -. .. 1 6e+et» cerurn t>s.c tits..,rverrt>� or rerc.T� -
{tc��r —,kr me dtt.z[ •r�.+-
•ulcm At-' rh�v 1 •m y�.iri.- !t�tl =r.i Lr�.l .
. - 9urvr.4,c t.�Ad tie d'tu s... t
• _ •: �. , `�2- %� �'s.� SSG' '_
Community Development and Planning Commission
March 30, 1983
Page two
S -83 -2 Normandale Bluff
Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission that the subject request was heard
by the Commission at its March 2, 1983, meeting and was continued at the request
of the proponent. A three lot subdivision creating two new buildable lots
of 8, 100 square feet and 7,425 square feet respectively was requested.
He explained that the proponent, Duncan Wallace has now returned with
an amended proposal. He has increased the size of Parcel C (the south lot) from
55 feet to 62 feet. This results in a new lot area of 8,370 square feet. In order to
meet the zoninq ordinance setback requirement of 10 feet for the existing house
on Parcel B, the existing deck would have to be removed which Mr. Wallace has
indicated that he would do.
Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission that they had indicated at the March 2, 1983
meeting that they may be amenable to a compromise two -lot plat if the size of the
south parcel (Parcel C) were increased. The proponent has responded by increasing
the size as much as possible while still retaining the required setback for the existing
structure without structural modification, except for removal of the deck. Staff
agrees that this may bean acceptable compromise, but only if the north parcel (Parcel
A) is combined into one lot with the existing house on Parcel B.
Mr. Duncan Wallace noted that he was most interested in building on the south
lot. He pointed out that the openness and uniqueness would be preserved, because
the lot was located next to a park. They were interested in building a home
on this lot thjt would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood
since they! intended to build for themselves.
Mr. Del Johnson questioned whether or not the new lot would need any variances
when building. Mr. Wallace replied that he would live within the bounds and would not
request a variance.
Gordon Johnson asked if Mr. Wallace would agree to eliminate the north lot,
Parcel A. Mr. Wallace agreed that he would only build on the south lot, Parcel C.
Helen McClelland asked what would need to be removed from the present house .
to increase the size to 62 feet and mantain'a 10 foot setback for Parcel C. Duncan
Wallace replied that the deck would have to be removed. Mrs. McClelland expressed
her concerns that the homes would be too close together. Mr. Wallace stated that it
was mostly roof that would be seen from his present house and that it was an
architectural problem and would be dealth with. His concern was to be able to sell
his present home and would try to make the view as appealing as possible.
Mrs. McClelland noted that she was concerned with the surrounding neighb:)r•s.
Arlene Joern, 6433 :- Milcirecl Avenue, stated that she contested the proposed
subdivision and variances for two reasons:
1. She believed that it would diminish the value and esthetics of her land.
It was her understanding when purchasing her home that the southerly lot did not
meet the City's Zoning Ordinances and, therefore, was an unbuildable lot. She
purchased her property because of the character, privacy and surrounding environment
This would diminish the value of her property.
Community Development and Planning Commission
March 30, 1983, Meeting
Page three
2. She was concerned with the severe drop in the contour of the subject
property. This would present drainage problems once the hard surfaced house
replaced trees and undergrowth. She would be affected by water run -off and soil
erosion.
Ms. Joern presented a copy of market statistics, along with copies of her
statement for the Commissioners. The market statistics showed Edina as being
the most costly location in the Metropolitan area to live in. She is certain the property
values would be endangered.
Mr. John Eickman, 6408 Rolf Avenue, argued against Mr. Wallace's petition
discussed in the previous meeting. He felt there was no undue hardship, that it
was all self imposed. As for Mr. Wallace's understanding when purchasing the house,
nothing can be confirmed. However; a substantial period of time has past since then.
He believed that replatting was not only .unnecessary, but impractical and should not
be allowed.
Mr. Eickman stated that this would set improper presidence for other property
in the neighborhood. He noted that the property Mr. Wallace had pointed out at
6409 Rolf Avenue had not received a variance or requested one according to
the City's records. Mr. Eickman argued that this was some 30 odd years ago.
This could not be considered a "property right" but detrimental to that property.
If damaged by fire or windstorm, it is possible that the building could not be
reconstructed with the same variance.
Mr. Eickman concluded that no circumstances for granting this subdivision
were present and should be denied.
Marcia Perbix, 6421 Mildred Avenue noted her 175 foot lot abuts Mr. Wallace's
on the west. She explained that she had considered building on the south most 50 feet
of her property, but decided that she would not apply for the variance. However,
if Mr. Wallace's request was approved, she would expect the same consideration
upon application.
Beth Nelson, 6443 Rolf Avenue South, expressed her beliefs that no hardship
exists and therefore, no variance should be granted.
Jim Kurtt, 6425 Rolf, pointed out that at the present time only Parcel C would
be built upon. However, perhaps two years down the line Parcel A will request the
same variance due to the precedence set should Parcel C be allowed to be built upon.
Robert Price, 6412 Rolf Avenue, presented an area map for the Commissioner's
consideration. He commented on Mr. Wallace's position paper presented at the last
meeting. The intent to preserve the spaciousness and openness regarding density
was incorrectly described by Mr. Wallace, he argued. Three homes on 225 feet
of land should not be allowed. The homes in the neighborood as is, although they are a
mixed group of sizes and lots, are well balanced. Mr. Price questioned the degree
of improvements the Wallace's have made on their present home. He suggested that
there is no guarantee that the Wallace's will live in the new home if built, or sell it.
Mr. Price questioned the reason as to why the Wallace's waited two years before proposin
to build on the south lot, if that were truely their intention when purchasing the
property.
' Community Development and Planning Commission
March 30, 1983, Meeting
Page four
Mr. Price concluded that the grove of trees, south of the property
which would be removed in order to build the home, are a resting place for the
Monarch butterfly migration.
Mary McDonald requested Fran Hoffman to comment regarding the
erosion possibility. Mr. Hoffman stated that the building plans must be approved
by the City and drainage would be addressed at that point.
Mr. Duncan Wallace responded to the neighbors' comments. He attempted
to clarify the density issue. The City intended one house every 75 feet, and although
he was proposing something different, he felt it was equivalent.
Mr. Wallace explained that they have been in the process of making their
present home saleable and that was the purpose of the two year wait.
Del Johnson moved for denial of the request and Helen McClelland seconded
the motion. All were in favor except Mary McDonald. The motion carried.
� �1/ )3
MEMORANDUM
TO: tinnehaha Creek Watershed District
Board of Managers
FROM: E. A. Hickok and Associates
DATE: May 1 1 , 1983
8UBJEC L': High Water Investigations
Minnehaha Creek and Cascade Lane Vicinity, Edina
I. Introduction
As a result of high water conditions on Minnehaha Creek in the vicinity of
Cascade Lane, numerous complaints have been received by the engineering staff.
A common reaction from concerned property owners adjacent to the creek in this
area has been the belief that operation of the Headwaters Control Structure has
caused the high water conditions.
Many of the Property owners issuing complaints appeared at the April 21, 1983
meeting of the Managers to discuss high water problems with the Board. The
Engineer also reported to the Managers, the nature of the problems and the
staff's response to the complaints. The Engineer concluded, based upon all
available data, that the high water conditions were not caused by operation of
the Headwaters Control Structure, and the water levels experienced would have
been higher had the control structure not been restricting discharge from Lake
Minnetonka.
As directed by the Board of Managers, the Engineer has further investigated the
hydraulic capacity of the creek in this area. The purpose of this investigation
was to identify possible causes of and solutions to high water conditions that
may have developed in recent years.
This memorandum is in response to the Board's direction on April 21, 1983.
II. Review of Existing Data
The following existing data have been reviewed as part of this investigation.
1. Federal Insurance Administration Flood Insurance Study, City of Edina,
Hennepin County, November, 1979.
The FIA study, performed by the USGS, estimates backwater profiles for
various recurrence intervals using the COE HOC -2 step back water computer
program, field surveyed creek cross- sections and bridge /culvert dimensions
and elevations. Field surveys were performed between 1974 and 1979 by the
USGS.
2. Construction Plan for Bridge No. 27103, T.H.100 and T.H.169 Over Minnehaha
Creek, MN /DOT, dated May 4, 1970.
This plan shows an as -built channel section 20 feet wide with 2:1 side
slopes and a flowline elevation of +880.0 at the bridge.
3. USGS stream gaging data of record at Browndale Avenue Dam ( +4,000 feet
downs tream of Highway 100).
4. Miscellaneous MCWD stream gaging, water level and precipitation data.
5. MCWD Browndale Avenue Dam Rating Curve, developed from USES gaging data.
6. City of Edina water level and survey data.
III. Field Survey of Highway 100 Bridge Hydraulics
On May 6, 1983, as part of this investigation, the Engineer recorded water
levels and other survey data on Minnehaha Creek in the vicinity of Highway 100
and Browndale Avenue Dam. The field observations were compared with existing
data listed in Section II above to determine whether any conditions have
developed that would cause unusual high water levels in the vicinity of
Minnehaha Creek and Cascade Lane.
IV. Conclusions
1. The creekbed elevation profile shown in the FIA study ( +881.25) is
accurate in the vicinity of the Highway 100 bridge. The surveyed
elevation of the creekbed was 881.6 on May 6, 1983.
2. The FIA study shows the existing Highway 100 bridge does not act as a
significant restriction to flow for recurrence intervals up to 100 years
(peak discharge of 1 100 cfs). Swellhead for a peak discharge of 500 cfs is
shown to be +0.5 feet.
Survey data from May 6, 1983 determined a swellhead of 0.2 feet
corresponding to a discharge of 200 cfs. This substantially confirms the
findings of the FIA study.
3. An abandoned well known as the "Cascade" lying within the creek channel
approximately 200 feet upstream of Highway 100 does not act as a
significant flow obstruction. The FIA study indicates only minor
headlosses occur at the location of the "Cascade ". No significant change
in water levels upstream and downstream of the "Cascade" were observed by
the Engineer on May 6, 1983.
4. The 10, 50 and 100 -year water level elevations in the vicinity of Cascade
Lane are 887.1, 888.7 and 889.5, respectively according to the FIA study.
The basement slab elevations at 4604 Cascade Lane (Keith Keller) and 4609
Cascade Lane (Margaret Francis) are 885.66 and 885.27, respectively. The
basement elevation of the Ansinson home is unknown.
The water level elevation upstream of Highway 100 on May 6, 1983 was 885.20
which corresponded to a flow and water level elevation at the Browndale
Avenue Dam of 200 cfs and 885.02 feet respectively.
.r
At the time a water level elevation of 885.02 feet was recorded at the
Bruwndale Avenue Dam, a water level elevation of 885.03 feet was recorded
immediately downstream of Highway 100. This shows no head loss between
Bruwndale Avenue and Highway 100 for a flow of 200 cfs which is consistent
with the FIA study.
5. No conditions were discovered in the field that may be causing unusually
high water levels. However, it appears that approximately 1.5 feet of
sediment has been deposited at Highway 100 between the time the bridge was
constructed and the time field surveys were performed for the FIA study.,
It appears that no sediment deposition has occurred in the last six years.
Rp
V.
1.
The sediment deposit has insignificant effects on the hydraulic capacity
of the creek but could represent a navigational obstruction under low flow
conditions .
The District's rating curve for the Bruwndale Avenue Dam is based upon USGS
gaging data. Considering all available data, the rating curve appears to
be accurate.
Recommendations
Channel Modifications
Water levels on Minnehaha Creek upstream of Highway 100 range from 0.0 to
0.2 feet above the level of the Edina Millpond reservoir for all flows up
to 200 cfs. Any modification or series of modifications at or immediately
upstream of Highway 100 could, at best, result in insignificant decreases
in the water level profile near Cascade Lane. Therefore, it is recommended
that no further consideration be given to modification of the Highway 100
bridge section, channel dredging or removal of the "Cascade Well" to
improve high flow channel hydraulics.
2. Flood Proof ing
At least two homes (possibly more) are constructed below the 100 -year
water level of Minnehaha Creek on Cascade Lane. One of these homes is
constructed well below the 10 -year water level. Flood proofing these homes
in accordance with City code would require the construction of a dike a
maximum of 5 to 6 feet in height along the north bank of the creek upstream
of Highway 100. A lift station or some other means of _conveying local
runoff trapped upland of the dike to Minnehaha Creek would also be
necessary.
The feasibility of flood proofing these homes could be determined by
hydraulic studies to evaluate the effects of the dike on the creek water
surface profiles.
Flood proofing would result in exclusive benefits to improved properties
within the floodplain. Therefore, it is recommended that administration
and costs of such a project be the respons ib li ty of benefited property
owners.
3. Structural Modifications at Browndale Avenue
A Clow of 200 cfs at the Browndale Avenue Dam corresponds to a water level
elevation in the Edina Mill pond of 885.02 or 1.87 feet of water above the
dam crest. This flow also corresponds with a water level elevation of
885.20 near Cascade Lane which is 0.07 feet below the lowest known walkout
basement slab in the area.
From review of the FIA study and based upon recent field observations, the
water level profile elevation near Cascade lane could be reduced
significantly if improvements were constructed at the Browndale Avenue Dam
site, such that water could be discharged in a controlled manner at an
elevation several feet below the existing dam crest elevation (883.15).
Discharge at the lower elevation could be controlled in such a way that
existing flooding problems downstream of Browndale Avenue would not be
aggravated, existing normal water levels in the Edina Millpond would not
change and water level fluctuation in the Millpond would be reduced.
Preliminary analysis of the FIA water surface profiles indicates such an
improvement could prevent flooding near Cascade Lane for flows up to +500
cfs (10 year recurrence interval). Currently, flooding occurs at flows
slightly above 200 cfs.
An improvement at the existing Browndale Avenue Dam site is identified as a
proposed project in the District's Overall Plan for Water Management.
Therefore, it is possible that such a project could be part of the
District's plan for basic water management provided the improvement is
designed to afford more than localized benefit.
It is recommended that further investigation of the feasibility of an
improvement be authorized with a subsequent staff report at the June 16,
1983 meeting.
cc: G. Macomber
bran Hoffman, City Engineer, Edina
Margaret Francis
Keith Keller
Steven Libby
Mrs. Ansinson
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, high water conditions on Minnehaha Creek in the vicinity of Cascade
Lane in Edina has caused flooding of backyards for residents in the area, and
WHEREAS, the Edina City Council has been concerned with the affect of the high
water to the property of these residents, and
WHEREAS, the City has worked with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to
protect the interests of Edina residents who border Minnehaha Creek, and
WHEREAS, the Council and staff have reviewed the report of E. A. Hickok and
Associates, Engineer for Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, on the subject
of High Water Investigations - Minnehaha Creek and Cascade Lane Vicinity,
Edina, dated May 11, 1983;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council supports further
investigation of possible solutions to the high water conditions to be reported
at the June 16, 1983, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District meeting.
ADOPTED this 16th day of May, 1983.
96
Al
ske I"( CL
2 ��J All
Yoe < e e-
Y12,c !,'Z'T /, BL CxX /, 5A-A Y722l4VE.R ESTATES
7cr AtAE+EN B,2OS, CC/VST,?!JC7-57,
N KRUEGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
REGISTERED LANG SURVEYORS
(ING CLOUD DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE. MINN 55344 PHONE 612 -941 -3030
= 30 _ _ REVISIONS I+DRAWN BY DATE
�Z TENN /S CG�/RT I CMS OCT /4182
A/1 CK'D LAC ESMi'ANO O/MEN.s/dJSr F2MS t 7 2/, 62
- --
T. //7 R. Z/ i BOOK ¢O? PAGE 42 f }
NO)FT14
30- 5cric.E
/oo. 00
1
/ I
1171-'o 7 " //va_ s- -
svR ✓E`/
� bl0�8� ..
1
qp
1_
EAST
co
v
h 'h
L A K E
0 0
V!
F is
t'
Q
m
m
a
N
iS
8
N
958 i
N.S.
e 3 141. 75
' � - _ �� P,cbF�SE17 `OVATIONS
VIE ISROVE RCAo M %5= FQ
'rte, nc3e Fiao,• '� -11.50
LOTAREA 6/ 132 SQ.FT.1 /.40,gG.
O/e� °OSEp
53
A
PoRGLJ+f O 5
C
6527 Soo• FT.
coURT nl
�
,LD C VE,QAUE
9'Z 4
970 -9'1
M1
0
\\
94346
0
tiO 9542 °
Q �N
0
964.3
0 �
0
\�
c 956 z
w o
4.y
913.3
�•
�a�',;e
N
iS
8
N
958 i
N.S.
e 3 141. 75
' � - _ �� P,cbF�SE17 `OVATIONS
VIE ISROVE RCAo M %5= FQ
'rte, nc3e Fiao,• '� -11.50
f3 a Cgh fLY!/AT'�h LTdIC
p- rN,f1'C, d- kit
THaEL, SORENSON, THIEL AND CAMPBELL
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
520 TITUS BUILDING
6550 YORK AVENUE SOUTH
WILLIAM F.THIEL MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435
RUSSELL A. SORENSON
ALAN C.THIEL
DONALD G. CAMPBELL
DEAN L. MCADAMS
ROBERT G.GUNDERSON
PAUL F. GARVIE
May 13, 1983
The Honorable Members of the
City Counsel
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland,
City Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
YbIM
JOHN R. EVERETT (1888-1965)
CHAS. W. ROOT (1899 -1968)
(612) 920 -8444
IN REPLY, REFER TO FILE NO.
Re: Proposed Driveway at 5521 Kellogg Avenue
Dear Counsel Members and Mr. Rosland:
Ms. Ruth Plotnicky of 5525 Kellogg Avenue, City
of Edina, has retained our firm regarding a matter which
involves her neighbor, Mr. Ron Kohlstedt, at 5521 Kellogg
Avenue. Apparently Mr. Kohlstedt proposes to expand his
current driveway out to the common lot line between his property
and Ms.. Plotnicky's property. It is my understanding that
Ms. Plotnicky has voiced her objection on two occasions,
in writing, to the City Counsel, and has requested that such
expansion not be allowed. .
Ms. Plotnicky has
sent to the City Counsel frI
of the Dorsey Law Firm, and
Ordinances. The purpose of
on behalf of Ms. Plotnicky,
should be allowed to expand
asked me to review the correspondence
Dm her and from Mr. Thomas Erickson
to review the appropriate City
my letter is to express my opinion,
as to whether or not Mr. Kohlstedt
his driveway to the lot line.
It is my considered opinion that even though the
Ordinances do not speak directly to this question, the spirit
and intentions of the Ordinances of the City of Edina would
prohibit such an expansion. My opinion is based on the following
items:
1. As set forth in Mr. Erickson's letter, City Ordinance
No. 1031 prohibits the parking of any vehicles within
five feet of the property line. Clearly, if Mr. Kohlstedt's
driveway extended all the way to the lot line, he would
City Counsel 9 2 May 13, 1983
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
be continually parking within five feet of the property
line and therefore be in constant violation of this
Ordinance.
2. Section III of the Ordinances dealing with Single Family
Dwellings Districts, paragraph 3, which deals with interior
side yards states that the width of interior side yards
shall in no event be less than five feet. Should Mr.
Kohlstedt be allowed to expand his driveway as proposed,
the-side yard would be less than five feet and therefore
in violation of the statute.
Also, paragraph 5 of that same ordinance states "no
Parking area shall occupy any required setback, nor
shall it be located closer than five feet to a side
or rear lot line, nor closer than ten feet to any building."
Again, should Mr. Kohlstedt be allowed to expand his
driveway, he would be occupying a required set back
and would also be located closer than five feet to the
side lot line, and therefore, in violation of this
Ordinance.
3. Section III concerning the Open Development District,
Paragraph H, states "no side yard shall be less than
five feet in width . . . " Again, Mr. Kohlstedt would
violate this five yard width should he be allowed to
expand his driveway to the lot line.
4. It is my understanding that Ms. Plotnicky has canvassed
85 homes in her area in order to determine whether or
not there are other driveways that extend to the lot
line. Her results were that there were very few such
driveways and that in almost all cases there was a five
foot side yard as noted in the above ordinances. Therefore,
I believe that the intention of the ordinance, that
being a five foot side yard, is evidenced by the common
usage and the standard of use in the community.
5. It is necessary to point out that Ms. Plotnicky very
strongly objects to the expansion of the driveway and
should such an expansion be allowed to take place, Mrs.
Plotnicky would take it upon herself to rely on Ordinance
1031 each time Mr. Kohlstedt used the expanded driveway
area to park his vehicles. This of course would cause
a constant conflict between the neighbors, and therefore,
such expansion would not be within the spirit and intention
of the Ordinances of the City of Edina.
6. Mr. Erickson points out Ms. Plotnicky's right to private
legal remedies such as trespass. However, I believe
the City of Edina is the proper governing body to deal
City Counsel Q 2 May 13, 1983
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
with such types of conflicts and any interference by
the Courts would be undesirable. Therefore, it is more
appropriate for the City Counsel to take steps to avoid
such conflicts rather than waiting for the conflict
to arise and relying on the Courts to settle the conflicts.
Thank you for your consideration of the above matter.
Please note that Ms. Plotnicky has not requested that we
appear on her behalf before the City Counsel. It is my under-
standing that she will be discussing this matter with you
in person at the next counsel meeting.
Very truly yours,
THIEL, SORENSON, THIEL and CAMPBELL
by Robert G. Gunderson
RGG:tlb
5525 Kellogg Avenue
Edina, Minnesota
May 12, 1983
Mayor Courtney
Members of the City Council
Mr. Erickson, City Attorney
Mr. Rosland, City Manager
Presentation of Facts - Within the .Zo nin g Ordinance-of the
City of Edina mandating -that a .driveway in- South•Harriet Park,
Edina must be located not less than 5 (five) feet from the
lot line.
'I am opposing any expansion of.the- existing driveway - at
5521 Kellogga adjoing my property because within- they _zoning - laws ^ of.
the ordinance of Edina are regulations that tavern the placement of
a driveway not less - than 5- (five) feet from the-property-line
It is the responsibility of the City of Edina to maintain and enforce
these regulations in the.ordinance.
The following 3 (three). regulations -in -the ordinance address
the placement of a .driveway 5 .feet from the-lot line,. - although- these
precepts are not grouped under a single heading of-driveways per se.
3.. Amended 811 -A30 stipulates that an attached garage must
be located 5 (five) feet from the lot line. The property
at 5521; Kellogg has an attached_ garage. .
2. Amended 811-A30 also stipulates that- no parking area shall
be located closer than -5 ft. to a.side.-or rear lot.
City ordinance'No. 1031 ( the nuisance ordinance ) prohibits
( DRIVEWAYS
the parking of vehicles within 5 (five) feet of the lot line.
No. 3 - :_h " of the zoning law stipulates " No side yard shall be
lesa than 5 (five) feet in width ". Side _.yard clearly designates the
area that is sometimes called setback, buffers leeway or other
terminologies and its meaning is no less clear. ( Side yard. Not .a
driveway.) A'-.side-,yard.- must -be no less than 5 (five) feet in width.
No. 5 of 1032 addresses the above issue.
The abave rules and regulations of the zoning ordinance provide'
•
beyond any doubt a 5 ft. buffer, leeway, or setback, whatever terminology
is used. It is a matter of semantics. The meaning could not be
clearer.
As I have stated in my April 49 1933, all of the 85 or so properties
which I have assessedi wal':cing along each one, have a 5 foot setback
except a very few and this is not merely a matter of chance, but because
of the afore mentioned zoning facts.
I will not allow any ex pansion of the driveway at 5521 Kellogg:
towards my propery. Th ®i:existi.ng driveway corresponds to the above
zoning ordinance and it is the intent of this ordinance to regulate
a 5 (five) ft. area between a driveway and the adjoing lot.
For the City of Edina to allow any expansion of the driveway that
now embodies the City code would be to, flv in the face of your own
ordinance. The ordinance must be upheld.and I have the right to call
the police if any further changes in driveway should be attempted.
Respectfully submitted,,
h K. Plotn'
Mayor Courtney
Members of the City Council
Mr. Erickson, City Attorney
Mr. Rosland, City Manager
5525 Kellogg Avenue
Edina-, *Innesota
May 12, 1983
ADMISE=T FROM ATTORNEYS IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
ATTORNEYS
Mr. David McKenna, tort claim lawyer...Telephone 296-6139'
Mr. Greg Cuyerj investimtive attorney, T.elephD_ne_
'These attorneys in the Attorney General's Office have given ad-
visory counsel that if an ordinance does not have a separate
section of DRIMiAYS per se, does not me-an that a driveway can
be located to the lot line. It would be necessary to research
the entire zoning ordinance in order to make that determination-,.
Herein, in this rebuttal, there are, In fact the regulations
and determinants as referred to-above. which regulate beyond any
doubtj that a driveway must be 1@cated 5 (five) feet from the
lot line.
The State does not permit its lawyers to Issue written
statements but the.names and telephone numbers herein given
May be used for. your consultation.
Rd"pectfully submitted
BEQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Francis Hoffman, City Engineer.
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE: 12 May 1983
_-�L-.-T 4
Material Description (General Specifications
Contract
Storm Sewer, McCauley Trail from Gleason nRoad toBTimber Ridge.
Watermain, Sanitary Sewer; Grading and Gravel - Marth Court from West 78th to Cul -de -sac.
Quotations /Bids:
Company
1. See attached tabulation
2.
3.
uepartment Recommendation: Q.R.S Corporation
Amount of Quote or Bid
47,437.55
Public Works - Engineering
re
Sign
Department
Finance Director's Endorsement:
The recommended bid is A
is not within the amount budget for the purchase.
J. N. Dalen, Finance Director
Ci ty; Manager's Endorsement: U
1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve
the purchase.
2. I recommend as an alternative:
I Ke eth Rosland, City Manager
TABULATION OF BIDS
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CONTRACT
STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN AND GRADING AND GRAVELING
IMPROVEMENT NO'S ST.S. -172, SS -364, WM -349 AND c -140
BID OPENING - MAY 12, 1983 - 11:00 A.M.
BIDDER
CONTRACT
#83 -3
1
SECTION "A
". SECTION "B"
SECTION "C" SECTION
"D"
-
Q.R.S. CORPORATION
15,197.50
15,197.50
11,994.05
10916
2.
G.L. CONTRACTING, -.C.
9,330
14,442.09
15,908.52
10453.23
9900.50
50,704.34
3.
NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO.
15,571.50
16,678.45
10218.25
4.
SARAH INC.
10,929.50
53,406.70
19,253.50
14,496.52
10624
12,440
56,814.20
5.
HAYES CONTRACTING
18,997.50
16,457.25
10145
15,775.00
61,374.75
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
11482.50
17014.25 9900.00
12,800.00 51142.7q
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor and City Council.
FROM: 6 p�A) 1464S-- .
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,.000
DATE: /(?,,�,v g /5z�3
Material Description (General Specifications):
IhA vr�s ri�� OF- /7�,P,Po2
Quotations /Bids:
Company Amount of Quote or Bid
2.
k)o o
3.
Department Recommendation:
Signature Department
Finance Director's Endorsement:
The recommended bid is = is not = within the amount budgeted for the purchase.
J. N. Dalen
Finance Director
City �Maer's Endorsement:
1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council
approve the purchase.
2. I recommend as an alternative:
WEST 66TH STREET /SOUTHDALE EXIT
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Edina Traffic Safety Committee has reviewed the existing
traffic signal, and
WHEREAS, the existing signal is not up to the standard of construction to other
signals in the Southdale area, and
WHEREAS, there is concern by the Traffic Safety Committee that motorists do not
react properly to the existing signal, and
WHEREAS, The Edina City Council concurs with the findings of the Edina Traffic
Safety Committee;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Edina City Council requests Hennepin
County to upgrade the existing signal to the standards of other signals in
the Southdale area.
ADOPTED this 16th day of May, 1983.
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 May 16, 1983, and as
recorded in the Minutes of Said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 20th day of June, 1983.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 16, 1983
TO: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
FROM: Gordon Hughes, City Planner
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (.CDBG)
Budget for Program Year IX
You will recall that the City Council held a public hearing and approved
the attached budget for program year IX at its March 21, 1983, meeting.
The budget has subsequently been .approved by the Hennepin County
Planning Area Citizens Advisory Committee at its April 12, 1983, meeting.
Edina's proposed CDBG budget can now be submitted to the Hennepin
County Board for inclusion in the Urban County application to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development. The application must be accompanied by
a resolution by the City Council. Staff would recommend the attached
resolution.
Program funds will be available for use on July 1, 1983.
M E M 0 R A N DUN1
DATE: March 16, 1983
TO: Ken Rosland, City Manager
FROM: Gordon Hughes, City Planner
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Budaet
For Program Year IX
A public hearing before the City Council has been scheduled for March 21, 1983,
to consider a proposed budget for Year IX of the CDBG program. Notice of the
hearing and the proposed budget was published in the March 9, 1983, edition
of the Edina Sun. -
Program regulations and citizen participation requirements for the program remain
substantially the same as last year. Only one public hearing is required at the
local level. Following approval of the budget by the City Council, the Planning
Area Citizen Advisory Committee ( PACAC) reviews the budget and forwards it
to the Hennepin County Board. Edina is represented on the PACAC by Donna
Scudder.
Edina's planning allocation for Year IX is 214,049 or 6.34 % of the Urban
Hennepin County total of $3,752,000, or about 10 $ less than last year.
Staff has prepared the following budget for City Council consideration:
Activity Budget
Rehabilitation of Private Property $30,000
Assistance to low and moderate income $107,449
housing development
Handicapped access improvements to $50,000
public properties
Non - profit housing sponsor $20,000
Public Services (H.O.M.E.) $6,600
Total
$214,049
All activities proposed represent projects continued from Year Vlll or earlier.
Rehabilitation of private property, assistance to low and moderate income housing
development and handicapped access improvements have been budget items for
several . years. The non - profit housing sponsor project was initiated last year to
assist with the development of housing in the Windfield - Laukka mixed -use project.
The public services project was also started in Year Vlll to assist South Hennepin
Human Services Council through its H.O.M.E. program, to orovirle maintenance and
repair service to senior citizens in Edina. They have indicated to Staff that they
wish to continue to receive this assistance.
V
c
WHEREAS; the City of Edina has
executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County establishing
participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the City has developed a proposal for the use of Urban
Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant
.funds by the City has been developed consistent with the Urban Hennepin
County Statement of Objectives and the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974; as amended, and
WHEREAS, the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant
funds was developed in cooperation with local citizens and the appro-
priate Urban Hennepin County Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee;
BE IT RESOLVED: that City Council of the City of Edina
approves the proposed program for use of Year IX Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant funds by the City and authorizes
submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for consideration for
inclusion in the Year IX Urban Hennepin County Community Development -
Block Grant Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 2, 1983
TO: Ken Rosland, City Manager L
FROM: William Feck, Acting Fire Chief �� 7
SUBJECT: Ambulance Fees
With the help of Ron Rogers, Paramedic, we surveyed five ambulance companies
as to their fee schedule for providing emergency and non - emergency ambulance
service. It appears that there are two main factors that influence the amount
of the fee. The two factors are Medicare and the cost to provide the service
divided by the projected number of service calls. The latter factor seems to
be what has determined the wide spread in the variation of the fee schedules
of the surveyed ambulance companies.
There appears to be three ways to approach a fee schedule:
1. a flat rate for any type of a service call
2. a flat rate plus add -ons; i.e., mileage, oxygen, etc.
3. a flat rate for different levels of service; i.e., ALS, BLS, etc.
North Memorial chose to use a flat rate with add -ons, while Hennepin County
chose to use the flat rate system. Health Central and Smith use a combination
of flat rate, level of service, and add -ons. St. Francis uses a level of
service with only a few add -ons as a basis for their fee schedule.
I think you suggested some type of level -of- service fee so as to help keep the
bookkeeping to a minimum. I agree with your suggestion and will propose some
possibilities that we can look at.
In a recent (1983) Direct Expense for ALS Service in the West Metro Area Survey,
Edina's expenses totaled $220,263.00. I divided this by the number of medical
calls and came up with an approximate cost per run of $184.00. I do not know
who supplied the data for the survey.
The first level of service would consist of BLS services that an E.M.T. could
accomplish without the assistance or presence of a Paramedic. These services
would include vital signs, oxygen, splinting, backboard without extrication,
and bandaging. The fee for this service would be $155.00.
The second level of service would involve procedures that only Paramedics can
perform. These services would include.I'.V.'s, drugs, monitor, G -Suit, extri-
cation, etc. The fee for this service would be $200.00.
The third level of service would include cardiac arrest and any Code 3 transport.
Fee for this service would be $250.00.
We would continue to respond to all medical calls and only charge i,f the patient
has to be transported.
Memo to Ken Rosland
May 2, 1983
Page 2
I think we should take a very close look at the possibility of charging an
extra fee for transporting to hospitals other than Fairview Southdale and
Methodist. A fee of $25.00 would seem fair to me.
As I understand Medicare Insurance, they pay the fee schedule that has been
used the previous six months. So in setting our fee' schedule, we should keep
in mind that for Medicare, we won't be able to collect our proposed fees until
they have been in effect for six months.
I feel that the proposed fee schedule would recover a good share of the cost
for our Paramedic Program. Our fees are also below those of the private sector
that are providing emergency medical service.
In the future, here are a few possibilities for additional fees:
1. DOA's (check vital signs, monitor, etc.)
2. Treat patient and standby for another ambulance service
a) this could involve various levels of service.
I'm not sure of the City's position on how much time should be spent in collecting
money that is owed them. My recommendation is that non- paying users (Metro area)
should be billed at least twice and then followed -up by a telephone call to
request some kind of a payment plan.
WBF /rah
Attachments (3)
FEE SCHEDULE FOR EMS-AMBULANCE SERVICE
April, 1983
-plus mileage & oxygen
ST.
Description
HEALTH CENTRAL
SMITH
FRANCIS
NORTH HCMC
PARAMEDIC REGULAR
EMERGENCY RUN
$175.00+ $193.0
PARAMEDIC
$200.00 +
UNSCHEDULED RUN
Mileage + 0
$ 85.0
$2.15.00 +
ALS MINIMUM
0 + Mileage
$225.00
$130.00
$280.00 +
ALS MODERATE
0 + Mileage
$260.00
$170.00
350.00 +
ALS MAJOR
0 + Mileage
$330.00
$250.00
$400.00 +
PARAMEDIC CORONARY
0 + Mileage
$450-00 +
ALS ARREST
0 + Mileage
$400.00
$320.00
ALS NO TRANSPORT
$ 60.00
$150.00
EXTRA ATTENDANT
$ 40.00
$ 30.00
BLS
WAIT /STANDBY
$15.00 /1 -Hr.
$20.00 /4 -Hr.
$20.00 /1 -Hr.
ALS
ALS .50 /mi.
MILEAGE
$4.25 /mile
BLS =$3 ea. way
$3.90 /mile
$155 Med /Trauma
$110.00
BLS
$185 Coronary*
$78 Scheduled
Routine =$125
BLS
Emer . = $135`
PARAMEDIC SCHEDULED
$135.00 +
ROUTINE TRANSFER
Milea e + 0
$125.00 +
DOA
Milea e + Drugs
$125.00
JUVENILE - NO SIGNATURE
$25.00
OXYGEN
1 $25.00
1$11/!-Hr.
1$18-75
-plus mileage & oxygen
PROJECTED AMBULANCE SERVICE FEE REVENUES
MEDICAL
CARDIAC ARREST... 29 @ $250 each ...................$7,250
BREATHING PROBLEM...252 @ $200 each ..............$50,400
POSSIBLE STROKE /UNCONSCIOUS...56 @ $200 each ..... $11,200
FAINTING...
ALCOHOL...
ABDOMINAL PAIN... 47 @ $155 each ............ $7,285
DRUG ABUSE ... 21 @ $200 each .......................$4,200
MATERNITY ... 1 @ $200 each ...........................$200
DISORIENTED ... 5 @ $155 each .........................$775
SMOKE AND GAS ... 8 @ $250 each .............'........$2,000
MISCELLANEOUS:..61 @ $155 each ....................$9,455
...continued
$92,765
PROJECTED AMBULANCE SERVICE FEE REVENUES
TRAUMA
FRACTURES, DISLOCATIONS ... 100 @ $200 each ......... $20,000
LACERATIONS... 55 @ $155 each .......................$8,525
HEAD & NECK INJURIES ... 104 @ $200 each ............ $20,800'
BURNS...3 @ $200 each ..... ...........................$600
INTERNAL /CRUSHING...7 @ $200 each ................... $1,400
$51,325
TOTALS
Total Trauma = 269 .................$51,325
Total Medical = 480............ ..$92,765
TOTAL TRANSPORTS = 749 $144,090
COST .......................$220,263
PROJECTED INCOME ........... $144,090
$- 76,173
10% THAT DON'T PAY ......... $- 14,409
DEFICIT ....................$ - 90,582
RESOLUTION ALLOWING SPECIAL USE ON EASEMENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby allows the use of a
triangular shaped approximate 500 square feet within the City's open space
easement on Lot 1, Block 1, Graytower Estates for a tennis court.
ADOPTED this 16th day of May, 1983.
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 May 16, 1983, and as
recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 17th day of May, 1983.
Acting City Clerk
March 16, 1983
:Robert Buresh
Director of Public Safety
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mr. Buresh:
gwkl North
Memorial
Medical
Center
3300 Oakdale North
Robbinsdale, Minnesota 55422
612/520 -5200
I would recommend that the following transportation guidelines be adopted
by the Edina Fire Department Paramedic Service:
1. Patients in critical condition should continue to be taken
to Methodist Hospital or Fairview Southdale Hospital, de-
pending on which is closer. If the Paramedics believe that
the patient is critical or very serious and the family wishes
transportation to a hospital other than.Methodist or Fairview
Southdale, a medical control physician should immediately be
contracted. The medical control physician should then dis-
cuss the situation with the Paramedics and advise appropriate
transportation to the nearest facility. This is in keeping
with the Hennepin County EMS Guidelines for Patient Transfer.
2. If the patient wishes transportation to a hospital within the
City of Minneapolis because of an ongoing relationship with
a physician at that facility, this should be considered. Med-
ical direction as to the appropriateness of the transport to
an.in city hospital should be discussed with the controlling
medical physician. The hospitals.I believe appropriate to
transfer patients to, in light of time constraints, would be;
Northwestern Hospital, Metropolitan Medical Center, Hennepin
.County Medical Center, Lutheran Deaconess, Fairview Downtown,
St. Mary's Hospital, University of Minnesota Hospital, Mt.
Sinai Hospital, and Veteran's Administration Hospital.
3. I also feel that if there is a high liklihood that patients
will not be admitted, that they could be taken into either
Fairview Southdale or Methodist, and the Emergency Physician
there contract their private physician. The exception to this
would be where, because of a patient's health insurance carrier,
they are restricted to receiving care at certain other hospitals.
Page One
4 .
4
I ki
Robert Buresh
Edina Fire Department
Paramedic Service
Page Two
,.,It should be emphasized that in all cases, decisions regarding appropriate
hospital for patients to be transported to can be discussed with the medical
control physician. Whenever a question arises, the Paramedic should contact
the physician and discuss the situation with him, and it is the physicians
responsibility to decide on appropriate destination.
Sincerely,
G. Patrick Lilja, MID, FACEP
Medical Director
Edina Fire
Paramedic Service
GPL /RSC
..
7204 Shannon Drive
Edina, MN 55435
May 11, 1983
Subject: Robert B. Klein
vs. City of Edina
City of Edina Council
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Council Members:
Reference is made to the recent correspondence between
Gordon Hughes and Cheryl Grasmoen of Dorsey $ Whitney, and
in turn from Cheryl to Messrs. Stuurmans and Goodman, regarding
Robert B. Klein vs. City of Edina.
As most of you know, I have personally been involved in the
status of this property since 1966, when the City allowed the
subdivision of Chet Nordeen's property in Prospect Hills, even
though all of us had deeds of restriction against this kind of
subdivision. Furthermore, the City Council approved the action
without notification of the neighbors, thereby creating today's
problem and lawsuit.
I appreciate that the City would prefer to settle this lawsuit
without going to trial, as it involves time, energy and taxpayer's
money. I must admit, however, that I find it very difficult to
believe that your case is as weak as has been described to me.
I seriously question how much precedent has been set for a neck
lot to be accessed by a 17 foot utility easement, resulting in
a 260 foot driveway, with an average grade of 10 %, and requiring
retaining walls up to 10 feet in height on both sides of that
driveway. (Per paragraph 17 of the "Findings, Decisions and
Reasons" report following the City Council's decision of March 17,
1980 to deny Klein's petition for variance.
As Gordon Hughes' letter indicates both Dick Emmerich and I
strongly recommend that you impose a restriction on the Klein
lot which would preclude the construction of more than one
dwelling. The fact that Mr. Klein rejects this recommendation,
as well as our recommendation that the set backs for such a
dwelling be 60 feet and 90 feet respectively, is a sure
indication that he will sell the new owner on the investment
opportunities of a future subdivision.
I have indicated to Ken Rosland that I would agree to a similar
restriction on my lot, if it'would give the City Council greater
fortitude in dealing with Mr. Klein
-2- May 11, 1983
Unfortunately, I will be on a business trip in New York City
on the evening of May 16th, and therefore will be unable to
attend the council meeting covering this subject. However,
my wife, Sis will represent our case at this meeting.
In the interim, I would hope that this letter will summarize
our continued strong feelings on this matter, and will result
in your reconsidering the action that your lawyers are recommending.
The fact that your staff has been unable to negotiate restrictions
which are reasonable to all parties leads me to recommend that you
let the lawsuit go to trial.
An error was made in 1966, and it was properly resolved in 1980.
The risk of spending legal monies to support that intelligent
decision should not preclude your continued support. Mr. Klein
can still access the particular lot through his own homestead,
an option which he has chosen not to consider as long as this
request for a variance has been unresolved.
Sincerely,
Darrell H. Boyd
enc.
cc: K. Rosland, City Manager
,e
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
-----------------------------------
Robert B. Klein,
. Plaintiff,
VS.
City of Edina, a Municipal
corporation,
Defendant,
VS.
Darrell H. Boyd and
Richard Emerich,
Intervenors.
------------------------------------
E_
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No. 771095
STIPULATION
WHEREAS, the parties above -named now wish to compromise,
settle and stipulate as to all matters in controversy between them;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
1. The parties, through their respective attorneys of
record, consent to, agree upon and jointly request the Court to
issue its Order containing the terms, conditions and provisions as
set forth in the form of Order attached hereto.
2. Any party may apply for and obtain the Order in form
attached hereto and file the same without prior notice to any other
party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the above -named parties, through their
respective attorneys of record, have executed this Stipulation this
day of , 1983.
GROSSMAN, KARLINS, SIEGEL & BRILL
By:
Thomas H. Goodman
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Suite 1350
100 Washington Square
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 339 -7131
DORSEY & WHITNEY
By:
Cheryl L. Grasmoen
Attorneys for Defendant
2200 First Bank Place East
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 340 -8724
Darrell H. Boyd Richard Emerich
Pro Se Pro Se
-2-
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Robert B. Klein,.
Plaintiff,
VS.
City of Edina, a Municipal
corporation,
Defendant,
VS.
Darrell H. Boyd and
Richard Emerich,
Intervenors.
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No. 771095
ORDER
This above - entitled matter having come before the Court
upon a Stipulation of the parties attached hereto, and the Court
being fully advised in the premises, upon all the files, records
and proceedings herein, makes the following as its Order herein.
respects.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The attached Stipulation is hereby approved in all
2. The City of Edina, its officers, agents, employees,
departments and others over whom it has authority or control are
hereby enjoined and restrained for a period of two years from the
date hereof from restricting, preventing or hindering plaintiff's
use of the real property described on the attached Exhibit "A" for
any of the uses permitted,without variances or without conditional use
or special use permits, to other lots in defendant's "R -1 District ",
including the use thereof for and the construction thereon of a
single family residence and permitted uses accessory thereto.
3. The City of Edina, its appropriate officers, agents,
employees, departments and others over whom it has authority or
control are hereby ordered to grant to plaintiff the application
and petition sought for by plaintiff herein and referred to in
plaintiff's Complaint in this action, together with any other
approvals as will allow plaintiff to make use of the property
described on the attached Exhibit "A" for any uses of property
permitted, without variances or without conditional use or special use
permits, to other lots in defendant's "R -1 District ", including
the use thereof for and the construction thereon of a single
family residence and permitted uses accessory thereto.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraphs 2 and
3 hereof, the City may condition said grant and approvals upon the
specific conditions and restrictions contained in the attached
Exhibit "B" and enforce the same, and the plaintiff's use of the
property shall be subject to and conditioned upon compliance with
said conditions and restrictions and all other applicable ordinances,
statutes, codes, rules and regulations,now or hereafter in effect,
of the City or any other governmental authority.
5. Intervenor Darrell H. Boyd and plaintiff shall
execute, acknowledge and cause to be filed of record the Restrictive
Covenant, attached as Exhibit "C" wherein the real property described
on Exhibit "A" and the real property owned and occupied by Intervenor
Darrell H. Boyd and legally described in Exhibit "C" shall each be
restricted to development of one dwelling unit.
MOM
6. The above action is hereby dismissed with prejudice
and without costs to any party.
DATED: , 1983.
BY THE COURT:
Judge of District Court
-3-
E X H I B I T . "A"
That part of Lot 6, Block 3, Prospect Hills Second Addition,
according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the
office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 6, Block 3,
Prospect Hills Second Addition; thence north along the _
west line of said Lot 6 a distance of 130.28'; thence
northeasterly to a point on the east line of Lot 6 said
point being 163.37' southeasterly of the northeast corner
of said Lot 6; thence southeasterly along the east line
of Lot 6 a distance of 264.69'to the southeast corner of
Lot 6; thence west to point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom the following part thereof: Beginning
at the Southeast corner of said Lot 6, thence running West
along the South line thereof 93.93 feet, thence deflecting
93 °16' to the right and running Northeasterly 104.12 feet
more or less to a point in the Northeasterly line of said
Lot 6, distant 136.2 feet Northwesterly from the Southeast
corner thereof, thence running Southeasterly along said
Northeasterly line 136.2 feet to the point of beginning.
( "Parcel I "); and
-and-
The East 17 feet of Lot 12, Block 1, Holand's lst Addition,
according to the duly recorded plat thereof.
E X H I B I T "B"
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
1. Setbacks. The setback for any building from the east and
south lot lines must be at least 35 feet. This setback
does not apply to the driveway and retaining walls.
2. Drainage. All drainage from the driveway must be directed
down the driveway to Claredon Drive rather than onto adja-
cent properties. Approval of the drainage plan by the City
Engineer will be required prior to issuance of any building
permit, which shall not unreasonably be withheld.
3. Retaining Walls. Any slope exceeding a 2:1 ratio must be
retained and all retaining walls will be subject to building
permits which shall not unreasonably be withheld.
4. Landscaping. A row of coniferous trees, such as Spruce trees,
must be planted and maintained in healthy condition at 15 -foot
intervals to screen Mr. Boyd's swimming pool (8 trees) and Mr.
Emerich's house (8 trees). The trees must be 5 -6 feet in height
when planted.
5. Guard Rail. A guard rail must be purchased and installed at
the expense of Robert B. Klein on the street right -of -way on
the south side of Claredon Drive opposite the driveway. The
kind, quality and installation, of the guard rail shall be
subject to the prior approval of the City, which shall not
unreasonably be withheld.
E X H I B I T "C"
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
THIS AGREEMENT, Made this day of May, 1983, by and
between ROBERT B. KLEIN and MARILYN F. KLEIN, husband and wife
(the "Kleins "), and DARRELL H. BOYD and MARY M. BOYD, husband
and wife (the "Boyds ").
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the Kleins hold fee title to those certain
premises legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 6, Block 3, Prospect Hills Second Addition,
according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the
office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 6, Block 3,
Prospect Hills Second Addition; thence north along the
west line of said Lot 6 a distance of 130.28'; thence
northeasterly to a point on the east line of Lot 6 said
point being 163.37' southeasterly of the northeast corner
of said Lot 6; thence southeasterly along the east line
of Lot 6 a distance of 264.69'to the southeast corner of
Lot 6; thence west to point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom the following part thereof: Beginning
at the Southeast corner of said Lot 6, thence running West
along the South line thereof 93.93 feet, thence deflecting
93 116' to the right and running Northeasterly 104.12 feet
more or less to a point in the Northeasterly line of said
Lot 6, distant 136.2 feet Northwesterly from the Southeast
corner thereof, thence running Southeasterly along said
Northeasterly line 136.2 feet to the point of beginning.
( "Parcel I "); and
WHEREAS, the Boyds hold fee title to those certain premises
legally described as follows:
Lot 4, Block 3, Prospect Hills Second Addition, according
to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of
the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and that
part of Lot 6, Block 3, Prospect Hills Second Addition,
according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the
office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
lying east of a line running from a point in the south
line of said Lot 6 distant 93.93 feet West from the south-
east corner thereof to a point in the northeasterly line of
said Lot 6 distant 136.2 feet northwesterly from the south-
easterly corner thereof.
( "Parcel II "); and
WHEREAS, the Kleins and the Boyds desire and intend to
impose certain restrictions upon Parcel I and Parcel II upon the
terms and conditions hereinafter provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of the foregoing premises,
the mutual covenants contained herein, the sum of One and no /100
Dollars ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree
as follows:
1. The Kleins hereby covenant that no more than one
dwelling unit shall be constructed or occupied on Parcel I at any one
time.
2. The Boyds hereby covenant that no more than one
dwelling unit shall be constructed or occupied on Parcel II at any
one time.
3. The covenants contained herein shall run with the
land and shall be binding upon and inure to the exclusive benefit
of the present and future owners of Parcel I and Parcel II and
may be enforced by any such benefitted parties by a proceeding at
law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting
to violate such covenants, either to restrain violation or compel
compliance or to recover damages.
Robert B. Klein
Marilyn F.Klein
Darrell H. Boyd
Mary M. Boyd
-2-
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of May, 1983, by Robert B. Klein and Marilyn F. Klein,
husband and wife.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of May, 1983, by Darrell H. Boyd and Mary M. Boyd, husband
and wife.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Dorsey & Whitney (CLG)
2200 First Bank Place East
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
-3-
Notary Public
TI
TO: A14M Member City Officials
FROM: Jim Krautkremer, Chairperson
Nominating Committee
RE: Nominating Committee Report
Pursuant to Article IX, Section 3 of the By -Laws, a Nominating
Committee was appointed by the AMM Board of Directors on March 3,
1983. The Committee has completed its work and has nomianted the
below listed persons for consideration at the Annual Meeting on
May 26th.
FOR PRESIDENT:
Jack Irving, Manager, Crystal
FOR VICE - PRESIDENT:
Ron Backes, Councilmember, St. Louis Park
FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS: TWO YEAR TERMS (8 TO BE ELECTED):
Gary Bastian, Councilmember, Maplewood
Bea Blomquist, Mayor, Eagan
Hannah Mullan, Councilmember, St. Paul Park
Neil Peterson, Councilmember, Bloomington
Eldon Reinke, Mayor_, Shakopee
Jim Scheibel, Councilmember, St. Paul
Mary Schweiger, Mayors Office, St. Paul
Bob Thistle, Manager, Coon Rapids
ONE YEAR TERM (1 TO BE ELECTED);
Mike Baldwin, Councilmember, Champlin
* Additional candidates may be nominated by any voting delegate from
the floor at the Annual Meeting.
BOARD MEMBERS WHOSE TERM EXPIRES MAY, 1984:
Bill- Barnhart, Coordinators Office, Minneapolis
Jerry Dulgar, Manager, Anoka
Laura Fraser, Councilmember, Lake Elmo
Jim Miller, Manager, Minnetonka
Jackie Slater, Councilmember, Minneapolis
Jim Spore, Manager, Burnsville
Bob Sundland, Mayor, St. Anthony
(over)
NOMINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Jim Krautkremer, Mayor, Brooklyn Park, Chairperson
Patti Armstrong, Councilmember, Cottage Grove
Marlis Overgard, Mayor, Apple Valley
Hank Sinda, Administrator, Savage
Jackie Slater, Councilmember, Minneapolis
Mary Schweiger, Mayors Office, St. Paul
TO: AMM Member Officials
FROM: Board of Directors
SUBJECT: Proposed By -Law Amendment - Article VII, Section 2, Officers` Terms
AMM By -Laws Article VII, Section 2 provides for terms and length of service for
Officers and Board Directors. It states that; 'The same person shall not be
elected to the Board of Directors for more than two consecutive terms, or
serve more than five years if first appointed by the Board to fill a vacancy,
unless elected to the presidency or vice - presidency.' The By -Laws do not
define term but do state that; ' =- -the Directors shall be elected for two -
year overlapping terms.' Section 3 provides that if a vacancy occurs within
60 days prior to an annual meeting, it shall be filled by election for the
remainder of the term. The Board of :Directors has interpreted the By -Laws
to mean that if a person has been elected to fill the one remaining year
of a two year term, that person is eligible for two additional two year terms
which still preserves the five year overall limitation.
In order to clarify the By -Laws and ensure that a consistent interpretation
is applied in future years, the Board of Directors recommends adoption of
the following amendment by the general membership at the May 26, 1983 Annual
Meeting:
ARTICLE VII.
SECTION 2. OFFICERS' TERMS.
Officers shall be elected at the Annual Meeting of the Association. The
President and Vice- President shall each be elected annually for one -year terms,
and the Directors shall be elected for two -year overlapping terms. Eight
Directors elected in even numbered years and eight Directors elected in odd
nu.-zbered years. The same person may not be elected to the office of President
for more than two successive terms. The same person shall not be elected to the
Board of Directors for more than two consecutive two year terms, or serve
more than five years if first appointed by the Board or elected at the Annual
Meeting to fill a vacancy, unless elected to the presidency or vice - presidency.
Except for cities of over 75,000 population, when a director or officer leaves
the Board of Directors for any reason, primary consideration for replacement
will be given to member cities who have not been represented on the Board during
the past 12 months.
Note: Underlined words are new language.
A '
association of
»metropolitan
munoc palities
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING
DATE: Thursday, May 26, 1983
LOCATION: Fox and Hounds Restaurant
1734,Adolphus Street
I -35E and Larpenter Ave.
Maplewood, Minnesota
5:30 to 6:30 P.M. 6:30 to 7:30 P.M. 7:30 P.M.
Social Hour Buffet Dinner Business Meeting
(sponsored by Miller Entrees:
& Schroeder Municipals,Inc.) Beef Ala Deutch
Texas Style Ribs
Southern Fried Chicken
COST: $15.00 per person
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
1. Call to order - President Mary Anderson.
2. Introduction of Guests and Retiring Board Members.
3. Keynote: Metro Today - -- Metro Tomorrow: New Chairs - New Direction?
Gerald Isaacs, Metropolitan Council Chairman and others.
4. Proposed By -Laws Amendment (proposed amendment enclosed).
5. Annual Report: President Mary Anderson.
6. Election of Officers and Board Directors (Nominating Committee Report enclosed)
Jim Krautkremer, Chairperson.
7. Comments: President Elect.
8. Announcements.
9. Other Business.
10. Adjournment.
PLEASE NOTE:
A. Dinner reservations must be confirmed to Carol Williams at the AMM Office
(227 -5600) by May 24, 1983.
B. Each member city should send at least one delegate to cast its vote. Cities are
encouraged, however, to send as many additional officials as possible. Spouses and
guests are welcome!
C. This notice has been mailed to Mayors, Delegates and Managers /Administrators .
183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227 -5600
RICHARD E. KREMER PHONE
COMMISSIONER U
4 � 's err 348 -3087
r'V�LSC
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
May 10, 1983
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
Manager, City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Ken,
Enclosed is a copy of a resolution which is being studied by county staff
before action by the County Board. This resolution was introduced by
Commissioner Andrew as an attempt to fill the gap created by lack of state
funding in the area of shade tree programs as well as providing much
needed jobs in Hennepin County.
Your city has been sent a questionnaire asking for some data for the program
analysis. I would appreciate it if you would consider Edina's reaction
to such a program.
This issue will be before the County Board the end of this month. Before
that time I will be in touch with you by telephone for your reactions to
the proposal. Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
/D ---�
Richard E. Kremer
Commissioner
REK:meh
Enclosure
A
RESOLUTION N0. 83 -4 -24.0 Rl
The following resolution was offered by
tQIE:R.D%S the citizens of Hennepin County are facing a crisis in shade
tree losses resulting from dutch elm and oak wilt disease, and
WHEREAS a substantial percentage of our urban stock of shade trees in
Hennepin County municipalities has been lost, and
WHEREAS these debilitating diseases threaten to eliminate as much as 90%
of all elm and oak tree populations by 1990 unless adequate safeguards are
reestablished to control them, and
W1TTEAS it is possible to slow the rate of loss of shade trees
in Hennepin County to 50-0 per year, and
t-,HEREAS Uie State of t1innesota has totally eliminated state matching
funds to participating municipalities in 1982, and
1N7=-AS this proqram was proven to be highly effective and economical
in controlling the spread of shade tree diseases, and
t.T EREAS in .addition to this epidemic of dutch elm disease in our commu-
nities which threatens the quality and vitality of our neighborhoods,
there is a corresponding need for new jobs for the unemployed, and
t-J= —AS a comprehensive county -wide shade tree disease control program
in conjunction with participating municipalities .will create new jobs, and
ivT EREA.S these new jobs fit ideally into the State Jobs and General
Assistance proposal d:- 2:eloped and supported by Hennepin County and currently
being considered by the Minnesota Legislature, and
WHEREAS these new jobs will decrease our dependence upon welfare and
increase our commitment to new jobs,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Hennepin County does hereby authorize
the establishment of a comprehensive shade tree disease control program
for Hennepin County by adopting at least the following measures:
1. n special levy on all property in Hennepin County, the proceeds
of which shall be placed in a special fund administered by the
Hennepin County Departrnent of Environment and Energy;
2. A program where proceeds generated will be used to provide 50/50
matching grants to participating municipalities for sanitation
and reforestation services;
-1-
3. The establishment of an accelerated diseased wood destruction
and disposal program;
4. Any other additional measur-5z, such as public awareness, addi-
tional training of tree inspectors, agreements to subsidize
private property owners for tree ren -oval, and appointment of
an advisory conanittee to advise the County on the abatement
to the greatest extent possible of the spread of shade tree
diseases in Hennepin County.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Hennepin County staff, using
this resolution as an outline,. prepare a final resolution for pre-
sentation before the Hennepin County Board at its next scheduled meeting.
The question was on the adoption of the resolution, and there were
YEAS and MAYS, as follows:
COLWTY OF HENN -S P I N
BOARD OF COUNTY COrT- LISSI0jTERS
Jeff Spartz
Randy Johnson
Richard E. Kr en -er
E.F. Robb, Jr.
Sam S. Sivanich
Mark Andrew
John E. Derus, Chairman
ATTEST:
Clerk of the County Board
-2-
YEA NAY OTHER
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the 1983 Minnesota State Legislature passed Minnesota Session Laws, 1983,
Chapter Number 59 at the request of the City of Edina, and
WHEREAS, the City of Edina desires to utilize the power given it by the Legisla-
ture under the law, and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 645.021 require that the special legislation
does not become effective until approved by a majority of the local governing
body prior to the next legislative session,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Edina approves
Minnesota Session Laws, 1983, Chapter Number 59, and instructs its Clerk to send
the appropriate certificate to the Secretary of State of Minnesota with a certified
copy of this Resolution of Approval.