The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979-06-18_COUNCIL MEETINGKL'V1bCa - AGENDA EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 1.8, 1979 ROLLCALL MINUTES of May 21, 1979, approved as presented or corrected by motion of seconded by I. REPORTS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by City Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable roll- call vote to pass Second Reading, or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, Plats, Flood Plain Permits, Appeals from Administrative or Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decisions and Plan Amendments require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Administrative Appeal of Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decision 1. Rauenhorst Corporation - Lot 1, Block 1, Edina Office Center - Gen - erally located at 7600 France Ave. B. Plan Amendment 1. Radisson South - Amendment to PC -2 Planned Commercial Plan - Lot 3, Block 1, Replat of Edina Interchange.. C. Preliminary Plat and Rezoning 1. Regency 1st Addition - R -1 Single Family District to PRD -4 Planned Residential District - Generally located West of France Ave. and South of W. 51st St. - Z -79 -5 and S -79 -7 (5/30/79) 2. Warden Acres, Peterson Replat - R -1 Single Family District to R -2 Residential District - Generally located South of Grove St. and West of MN &S Railroad Tracks - Z -79 -6 and S -79 -8 (5/30/79) II. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION Presentation by Engineer. Spec - tators heard. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if Council wishes to proceed. A. Lot 2, Block 3, Schey's Park View Third Addition - Generally located on East side of Schey Drive (Continued from 5/21/79) III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS A. Mr. William Horn - Painting Street Numbers on Curbs IV. A14ARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES Tabulations Action of Council by Motion. A. Public Improvements B. Irrigation for Football /Baseball C. Glass Doors & Frames for Braemar D. Insurance Renewal.(Continued from and Recommendations by City Manager. Complex Arena 6/4/.79) Aida Xdina City Council June 18, 1979 Page Two V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Summons and Complaints - Kathy Dresow - Juanita Lynn Fennern B. South Hennepin Human Services Study C. Low °and Moderate Income Housing D. State Surplus Property Bid E. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council F. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items 1. Bloomington /Edina Land Exchange VI. ORDINANCES First Reading requires offering of Ordinance only. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if Second Reading should be waived. A. Second Reading 1. Ordinance No. 434 -A4 - Above Ground Swimming Pools B. First Reading 1. Amendment to Ordinance No. 311 (Restrictions on Dogs) 2. Ordinance No. 106 -A2 - Human Relations Commission Membership VII. RESOLUTIONS A. Municipal State Aid Funds - York Ave. and France Ave. Sidewalks B. Amended Application for Plat 739729 Parcel 4020 (Part of Lot 17, Auditors Subdivision 196) C. Local Planning Assistance Funds D. Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Lands VIII. FINANCE A. Claims Paid. Motion of , seconded by , for payment of the following Claims as per Pre -List: General Fund, $352,903.97; Park Fund, $21,033.94; Edina Art Center, $997.23; Park Construction, $1,938.29; Swimming Pool, $270,993.99; Golf Course, $12,600.73; Recreation Fund, $5,506.27; Gun Range, $1,072.24; Water Works, $141,593.20; Sewer Rental, $136,982.19; Liquor Fund, $320,934.47; Construction Fund, $310,429.65; PIR, $10,431.42; IBR, $276.09; Total, $1,587,693.68 B. Liquor Fund as of 3/31/79 June 18, 1979 Mr. Thomas S. Erickson 2400 First National Bank Bldg. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Tom: Enclosed are four copies each of "Amended Application by Governmental Sub- division for Conveyance of Tax - Forfeited Lands and the resolution adopted by the City Council on June 18 relative to Plat 73972, Parcel 4020 (1954) - that part of Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision 196 in the lake and lying North of North line of Lot 4, Block 1, Indian Hills, which you requested for filing. Enclosed also for your information are copies of the resolution and Appli- cation by Governmental Subdivision for Conveyance of Tax Forfeited Lands adopted by the Council for properties which appeared on the Hennepin County Auditor's List Pao. 656 -NC. Someone in tige office will hand deliver these documents to the County in view of the deadline set by the County. Please call me if all is not in order. Yours very truly, City Clerk enclosures s LOCATION MAP "' e n I V ►M ., 4.' 41 variance RAUENIIORST CORPORATION REQUEST NUMBER: B -79 -9 LOCATION: 7600 France Avenue South REQUEST: 2 story height variance & IO foot side yard variance y,ill„gr_pinnning department V;11.-- of ceding EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS STAFF REPORT May 17, 1979 B- 79 -9-- Rauenhorst Corporation. 7600 France Avenue South. Lot 1, Block 1, Edina Office Center. REQUEST: 2 story or 20 foot building height variance and 10 foot side yard variance REFER TO: attached petition, development plan, site plan, elevation and building data sheet Rauenhorst Corporation is proposing to construct a multi - tenant speculative office building at the southwest corner of West 76th Street and France Avenue. The Planned Industrial District development plan that was adopted for this area in conjunction with the National Car Rental Corporation building illustrates two future office buildings on this site, each having a floor area of 100,000 square feet. Subsequently, the National Car site was enlarged to accomodate future expansion, and the development potential of the subject property was reduced in size. The current proposal is a 129,000 square foot, five story building with massing that is reminiscent of the stepped configuration of the National Car building. The PID zoning permits a maximum height of three stories or 40 feet, whichever is lesser. Therefore, a two story or 20.foot height variance is requested. In addition, the PID district requires an interior side yard setback equal to 1.5 times the.building height. The average height will be approximately 60 feet with a setback of 90 -95 feet required. An 85 foot setback is proposed; therefore, a ten foot variance is requested. The other characteristics of the proposal are consistent with the zoning ordinance and development plan. The National Car building is currently under construction. This building was granted a one story height variance to permit a four story building and a side yard setback variance (that was not used in the final design). The primary rationale for the one story height variance was the idea that a four story building is consistent with the 0 -1, Office District requirements and the existing and potential office development along France .Avenue. Other important considerations were the topography and fact that additional intensity of development was not permitted by the variance. Recommendation: The stepped design of the building reduces the apparent mass and compliments the National Car buil din g.__However,- the - five - story - - building- height- - is- - - - inconsistent with the concept of the National Car building variance. The four story limit borrowed from the office zone will be exceeded, and there is Edina Board of Appeals Staff Report B -79 -9 May 17, 1979 page 2 no other height limit in the ordinance that can be closely associated with this type development. The Planned Industrial District does not specifically state a floor area ratio, and therefore the intensity of development is governed by the lot coverage limitation, setbacks, parking requirements, and building height. A taller building has less lot coverage which accomodates more surface parking and potentially permits increased intensity of development on the site. The other three quadrants at this street intersection are undeveloped and have been designated in the South Edina Land Use plan for similar office and industrial developments. Therefore an additional height variance in this case may set an undesirable precedent that allows increased intensity for the remaining development in the area. The staff believes this would be a dangerous precedent considering the traffic congestion in the area and the City's commitment to limit intensity of development. The staff recommends that the five story building height variance is not approved, and that the variance case is continued indefinitely to allow Rauenhorst to return with a four story proposal. HS: j t 5/10/79 PETITION FOR VARIANCE Case Number k"3 ° ?q ° Date 5ldl7c Fee Paid Applicant 9AUCO h49R $7r 06>9 e'- Phone Address 7 ,700 Xef-y -eg Ale !C �0 zIP Status of Applicant (owner, buyer, agent, etc.) : 0 61/C" 42&AZ_ Legal Description: Street Address: °?cQ6_t!7," a n -�,,CG Request: VML/ d n e e - o 6 4.0 6 ra 3F 60 �a /- I zo. -,/ M g Minnesota statutes and Edina ordinances require that,the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: (if yes, please explain. Use additional sheets if neces- sary.) Yes No a) Relieve an undue hardship which was not self- imposed or a mere convenience. � !x/11 Gi IA.Y/ l�l2t C� iJ l2. D i'b of do b-7094 07 r/ iii: �rir�i�►��t�c %eri�.vs.� -.. �,�ti��ia�ssr�is•z:�:��L b) Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. c) Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. d) Not -be materially detrimental to the public welfare -or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning elictrirt_ cd Signature of Crcant �04C� Joe I .............. 7 , •0111.9 b.ltdho 551 parkin—g- 'spaces ma jor entr nee 5f 'ado U. II I P�- ED Lj Li national car U. II I P�- ED Lj Li .i G I I I I I I i o �Uc WLU � w C . CJ N �a r ti co Q � rn W UU O �> cc IE -.- M7 �z- -------- - ' O u Y -- co cc uj t -- _ - -- _ _ - -- -- — -- — 'v` /•: i i' , i\ \t �f .�•�✓•� '1';r.- - I -. I - -- I_ —_ _ —_— _" _ _ —__ - -. _- -_ —__. __ p - _— - 111 1 � `� ;5:� � • ��1 e • — _ _ —_ I I I I —' i � I --i. I i I i- - - - -_ --_ p — ' —�^ �i Z� o ' (Julj 1 e �9 1 1 I _ _. I A GO 0 Q N 0 O (G r N r C'7 � r J O O: U L 777 r.r.. , - , -, P- ?-- I Ike J ------- --- - Rd § 00 ........ ... . major- entrance •i i d I i �O .1 � I o' I�c'I�'.T�jJ +o i + I _ _ -- .:��•r Y r c JJC) — 1— ._- .I_- _— _ —.___— ...._.. .. , o 1 � 7 SITE AND BUILDING DATA Edina Office Center: Phase 2 * Size of Site * Gross Building Square Footage * Net Building Square Footage * Building Height (1210" per floor) * Parking Spaces - ±6 acres - 129,000 sq.ft. - 110,160 sq.ft. - 5 floorsl (6010 ") - 551 1 The National Car project has 4 floors, 1218" per floor, for a total height of 5018 ". There will be a 914" difference between the new building and National Car. RAW: 1 j 5/4/79 t Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments May 17, 1979 page 2 Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Axt if he had a landscape plan for the tennis court. Mr. Axt replied that they would use green vinyl fencing rather than the normal silver to blend in with the grass and planned to land- scape the east side of the court with large barrels while vining plants would be put on the south side. Dave Runyan requested that Mr. Axt obtain written approval from his neighbor to the south of the tennis court. Bill Shaw continued that he felt Mr. Axt should obtain written approval of the neighbors on both the north and south sides of the tennis court. There were no neighbors present to comment on the proponent's request. Gordon Johnson indicated that he felt Mr. Axt should bring in a landscape plan. Bill Shaw moved that the Board approve Mr. Axt's request for a five foot side yard variance with the conditions._that written consent be obtained -from the immediately adjacent property owners on the north and south sides and that a landscape plan be submitted subject to staff approval. Michael Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. B -79 -9 Rauenhorst Corporation. 7600 France Avenue South. Lot 1, Block 1, Edina Office Center. REQUEST: 2 story height variance & 10 foot side yard variance Mr. Sand informed the Board that the Rauenhorst Corporation is proposing to construct a multi - tenant speculative office building at the southwest corner of West 76th Street and France Avenue. He continued that the Planned Industrial District development plan that was adopted for this area in conjunction with the National Car Rental Corporation building illustrates two future office buildings on the site, each having a floor area of 100,000 square feet. Subsequently, he noted that the National Car site was enlarged to accomodate future expansion, and the development potential of the subject property was reduced in size. Harold Sand indicated the current proposal is a 129,000 square foot, five story building with massing that is reminiscent of the stepped confi- guration of the National Car Building. He stated that the PID zoning permits a maximum- height -of -- three- stories- or -40 -- feet,, whichever is- lesser; therefore --a:----- two story or 20 foot height variance is requested. In addition, Mr. Sand explained the PID district requires an interior side yard setback equal to 1.5 times the building height. Because the average height will be approximately 60 feet with a setback of 90 to 95 feet required, Mr. Sand pointed out an 85 foot setback is proposed; therefore, a ten foot variance is requested. He commented that the other characteristics of the proposal are consistent with the zoning ordinance and development plan. The National.Car building currently under construction was granted a one story height variance to permit a four story building and a side Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments May 17, 1979 page 3 yard setback variance that was not used in the final design, Mr. Sand stated. He continued that the primary rationale for the one story height variance was the idea that a four story building is consistent with the 0 -1 Office District requirements and the existing and potential office development along France Avenue. He noted that other important considerations were the topography and the fact that additional intensity of development was not permitted by the variance. He commented that although the stepped design of the building reduces the apparent mass and compliments the National Car building, the five story building height is inconsistent with the concept of the National Car building variance. Harold Sand stated that the four story limit borrowed from the office zone will be exceeded, and there is no other height limit in the ordinance that can be closely associated with this type development. Mr. Sand indicated that the Planned Industrial District does not specifically state the floor area ratio, and therefore the intensity of development is governed by the lot coverage limitation, setbacks, parking requirements, and building height. He continued that a taller building has less lot coverage which accomodates more surface parking and potentially permits increased intensity of development on the site. Harold Sand also pointed out that because the other three quadrants at this street intersection are undeveloped and have been designated in the South Edina Land Use plan for similar office and industrial developments, an additional height variance in this case may set an undesirable precedent that allows increased intensity for the remaining development in the area. Further, staff believed this would be a dangerous precedent considering the traffic con- gestion in the area and the City's commitment to limit the intensity of develop- ment. Therefore, staff recommended that the five story building height variance not be approved, and that the variance case be continued indefinitely to allow Rauenhorst to return with a four story proposal. In response to Gordon Johnson's question, Bob Worthington replied that there was no underground parking planned for the building. In addition, Mr. Sand clarified that the development would remain under the 445,000 square feet of gross floor area. Bob Worthington of Rauenhorst Corporation presented some background of the project to the Board. He pointed out that Rauenhorst was only asking for a six foot eight inch variance from what was originally approved by the variance board. He continued that because the trip generation and square footage requirements would not be violated, Rauenhorst felt they were still being loyal to the original concept proposed. Mr. Worthington stated they were merely adding one more floor of 20,000 square feet. Dave Strand was also present from Rauenhorst and explained that they had attempted to reflect the architecture of the National Car building in the design of the Edina Office Center complex and had shifted the additional Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments May 17, 1979 page 4 height planned for the building to the east so as to relieve France Avenue of the height. He explained the floor to floor height of the building is eleven feet because National Car requires some ten foot ceilings for technical reasons.. He pointed out that in.scale because the National Car building floor to floor height is eleven feet and on the other buildings it is twelve feet eight inches, he felt the additional floor requested would add little more height than the other buildings. - -- Bob Worthington,.in closing the proponents presentation, commented.that he felt Rauenhorst was setting a very positive precedent. He felt that by allowing a five story building to be constructed at that corner, it did not necessarily give permission to build five story office buildings on the other corners. He added that the Pentagon Office Park building is the same size as the one Rauenhorst is proposing. Finally, he stated he felt it would be unfair to single out Rauenhorst and deny them the fifth story. David Runyan asked if the parking around the building was in excess of what is required so that if the building came out a little more, the parking requirements would still be satisfied. Mr. Strand replied the parking would work out exactly right. Mr. Sand replied to Mr. Runyan's question that Rauenhorst was required to have five parking spaces per thousand square feet. Bob Worthington pointed out that only a portion of the building will exceed the height limitation as three quarters of the building will fall within the height limitation. Harold Sand stated, in reply to Mr. Worthington's statement in regards to singling out Rauenhorst to deny the variance, that only one building aside from the National Car Building that is in the Planned Industrial District zoning does not meet the three story height limitation and that would be the Pentagon Park building which may well have been done prior to the three story height limitation. Bob Worthington commented that Rauenhorst was not asking the Board to make any major policy changes in height limitation, but merely to grant them a variance to give them the opportunity to do this based solely on their plan which would be the best way to develop the property.. He pointed out that by doing that, the Board would reserve the right to make any exceptions _but-it - -need not be the rule, anyone else building would have to justify that in terms of traffic, land utilization, and development their plan must be consistent or no variance would be granted. Bill Tolben of Rauenhorst explained about the varying floor sizes put- in the National Car Rental building. James Bentley asked if the back portion would be developed if the variance was_gra nted.Bob_Wor_thington- replied that was one of the tradeoffs Rauenhorst would consider. Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments May 17, 1979 page 5 Mr. Sand pointed out that there is not a density issue to consider on the Rauenhorst site because Rauenhorst has agreed that they would stay within the density restrictions that were approved on the plan. There is, however, a potential density issue on other sites in the area, Mr. Sand observed. David Runyan felt the development would look much nicer with two buildings than with three buildings. He continued that the height differential of six feet doesn't make a great deal of difference. David Runyan asked how much bigger National Car could get and still satisfy the parking requirements. David Strand replied it could enlarge by 80,000 square feet. Bill Shaw questioned what effect the widening of France Avenue would have on the.project. Harold Sand reported that he had contacted Hennepin County to see if there would be any additional right -of -way requirements at the time the property was replatted, and unless the roadway plans change, there would be no further right -of -way requirements. James Bentley moved the Board approve the granting of the five story building based on the fact that the plan does not exceed the overall density, the parking is the same, the traffic generation is not exceeded, the height difference is slight because of the lower floor to floor height, and a hardship has been created by the inability.to use the back piece of the original parcel because a road will be going through it. Gordon Johnson suggested the Board prohibit any construction on that back piece of property. Bob Worthington commented that in ten years it is hard to say what that piece of property will be able to.accomodate; there- fore, they requested to have the opportunity to develop it at some future date in time. James Bentley continued that the parameters set forth in the approved development plan have not been exceeded and the aesthetics of the site have been enhanced on the basis of the design of the building. He added the condition that the variance be limited to the plans as presented. Gordon Johnson seconded this motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. B -79 -10 Windsor Development Corporation. 6101 and 6129 Sherman Circle. Lots 1 and 5, Block 2, Blake Ridge Estates. REQUEST: 6.25 square foot sign area variance & variance to permit two permanent area identification signs Harold Sand explained to the Board that the Windsor Develop- ment Corporation is developing an 18 lot single family subdivision generally LOCATION ; RADISSON SOUTH AMENDMENT PLAN REQUEST NUMBER: LOCATION: Z -79 -4 REQUEST: PC -2 Planned Commercial Plan Amendment yfli age plann'na degMEtment village of edina r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT May 30, 1979 Z -79 -4 Radisson South Plan Amendment. PC -2 Planned Commercial Plan Amendment. REFER TO: May 2, 1979, Staff Report and attached memos The subject plan amendment was continued from the May 2, 1979, meeting at the request of staff and the proponents. Since that time, we have met with the proponent on several occasions to discuss the proposed five story addition to the existing two story shopping mall located on the Edina side of the com- plex. At these meetings, the proponent has supplied additional facts and statistics regarding this expansion. Expansion Data Attached is a memorandum from the proponent which details the pertinent data concerning the existing facility and proposed expansion. This data shows the following: Land Area 19 acres Bloomington 10.2 acres Edina 8.8 acres Building Area Existing- 433,514 square feet Bloomington 367,309 square feet Edina 66,205 square feet Building Area Addition - 107,800 square feet Guest Rooms Existing 408 Addition 170 Additional Convention Facilities - 695 seats Edina Zoning Requirements The subject property is zoned PC -2 Planned Commercial District. This zone allows a maximum building height of four stories and a maximum floor area ratio of .5. The proposed building addition would result in a seven story building. Thus, the proponent will be seeking a three story height variance. CD & PC Staff Report Z -79 -4 May 30, 1979 With the proposed expansion, the floor area ratio for located in Edina is .45. The floor area ratio for the .65 with the expansion. The existing floor area ratio Bloomington Zoning Requirements page 2 that portion of the site entire complex would be for the complex is .52. The Bloomington portion of the complex is zoned FD-2. This zone has neither a maximum height limitation nor a maximum floor area ratio. Building size is regulated primarily by parking and setback requirements. Bloomington parking requirements are quite similar to Edina requirements. However, Bloomington would require more parking spaces for restaurant, bar, and meeting rooms as compared with Edina requirements. Parking Analysis The provision of adequate parking facilities is staff's primary concern regarding the proposed addition. According to the proponent's analysis, the total complex including the addition would require 1765 parking spaces according to Edina's Zoning Ordinance. Based upon figures which we received previously from Radisson South management as well as our past review of building plans, we believe that the gross parking requirement according to the Zoning Ordinance would be closer to 2,000 spaces. Also, the more stringent parking requirements for restaurants, bars, and meeting rooms imposed by Bloomington would result in the need for about 180 additional spaces. Edina's parking requirements do not recognize the concept of overlapping uses: i.e. each use (e.g. restaurants, rooms, meeting rooms, et cetera) must satisfy its individual parking requirements. Thus, the assumption is made that all rooms, bars, meeting rooms, offices, and so forth are fully occupied and none of the hotel guests are occupying the bars, restaurants, and meeting rooms. The proponent has submitted evidence in his memorandum which illustrates that overlapping uses occur. According to hotel records, about 65 to 72 percent of meeting room and restaurant use is comprised of hotel guests. Based upon this overlap, the proponent suggests an actual parking demand of 1,216 parking spaces for the complex following completion of the addition. The complex presently has 1,257 parking spaces. Thus, the proponents suggest that no new parking spaces need be added as a result of the expansion. The proponent also notes that three to four conventions per year strain the parking capacity of the complex. They submit, however, that they have not observed any evidence of on- street parking or off -site parking as a result of these conventions. The Edina Police Department has reported to staff that they can recollect only one or two occasions in the past two years which resulted in excessive parking demand. CD .& PC Staff Report page 3 Z -79 -4 May 30, 1979 Recommendation: Staff submits that the entire Radisson South complex should be treated as an integral unit for planning purposes. Therefore, the location of the Edina /Bloomington boundary should be temporarily overlooked. Based upon this premise, the Commission should be advised that floor area ratio standard of .5 will be exceeded as a result of the proposed expansion (it is slightly exceeded at present). Thus, the proposed expansion will represent an over - development of the site by Edina standards. By Bloomington standards, this would not be the case. It has been our experience that the parking requirement imposed by the Zoning Ordinance limits the maximum potential for development to a much greater extent than floor area ratio requirements and so forth. This is also the case in Bloom- ington. In several cases, the City has accepted "proof of parking" plans for office and commercial developments in the City. Such plans illustrate the manner in which the total parking requirement imposed by ordinance could be achieved on the site. The City then accepts the construction of a lesser number of parking spaces (usually 90 percent of the zoning requirement) and imposes a condition on the developer that the proof of parking plan will be implemented in the future if necessary. The proponents have submitted a proof of parking plan for the complex illustrating that 1,780 parking spaces could be constructed on the site. Staff submits that this plan is not realistic in that parking space dimensions, drive aisle widths, and so forth are below standard. As noted earlier, staff believes the total parking requirement according to the ordinance is 2,000 parking spaces. Such a parking deficiency also could be evidence of the over - development of the site. From a practical standpoint, staff certainly agrees with the proponent that a substantial overlap of uses does exist in a hotel /convention complex.. Under -such circumstances, staff believes that it is inappropriate to require the construction of all parking spaces required by ordinance. Based upon proponent's evidence and staff's observations, it does appear that the complex's existing parking facilities approach capacity on several occasions during the year. The frequency of these occasions are such that the area is not adversely effected. The situation is similar to Southdale's parking facilities which are at capacity five to six days yearly but function adequately during the remainder of the year. Staff submits, however, that the provision of 170 additional guest rooms and additional meeting rooms could result in parking capacity problems much more frequently than four or five times yearly if no additional parking is constructed. Staff submits that frequent capacity problems could adversely affect the area. Presently, about 70 percent of the ordinance parking requirment for the existing complex has been provided on the site. Experience shows that this is a reasonable percentage. Therefore, staff would recommend construction of 70 percent of the ordinance parking requirement caused by the new addition to the building. This CD & PC Staff Report page 4 Z -79 -4 May 30, 1979 would equate to the construction of about 290 additional parking spaces. Staff strongly suggests that the proponent acquire additional property for the construction of these spaces. From a land use, access, and scale standpoint, staff believes that the proposed plan represents a reasonable expansion of the Radisson South complex. With the provision of the aforementioned parking spaces as well as the reconstruction of driveway access from Edina Industrial Boulevard in the northwest corner of the site, staff would recommend approval of the plan amendment. GLH:jkt 5/24/79 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT May 2, 1979 Z -79 -4 Radisson South Amendment Plan. PC -2 Planned Commercial Plan Amendment. REFER TO: attached graphics and parking analysis The Radisson South Hotel is proposing to construct a five story addition to the existing two story shopping mall on the Edina side of the complex. This addition would contain 170 new guest rooms as well as two meeting rooms. According to the proponent's parking analysis, 884 parking stalls were originally constructed for the hotel in 1970. In 1977 -1978, additional parking stalls were constructed on the site to bring the total number of stalls to 1331. The proponent submits that this number of stalls satisfies the parking requirement for the existing hotel as well as the proposed addition. According to the zoning ordinance, building heights are limited to four stories in the PC -2 zone. Therefore, the proponents will also have to seek a variance to allow the proposed seven story structure. Recommendation: Staff is still in the process of reviewing the parking calculations as well as access, landscaping, and other features of the project. A supplementary staff report analyzing these matters will be forwarded prior to Wednesday's meeting. GLH:jkt 4/27/79 1 ---------- n 0 G L . I U a It V 1 1� L. I EE DD CC. 2u I i - I � — NexroaF r— 1: - 7-L' S;X,h L e•i I li .� I ' bL, 85ij �' �• t 121- ns wraN PARKING ANALYSIS - RADISSON SOUTH HOTEL Previously 884 spaces Added 1977 373 spaces .1257 spaces Future @ West (Metro) 20 Share @ West (Metro) 56 N.E. Add 21 S.E. Add 9 West Side Hotel 11 117 spaces TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING 1374 spaces SPACES � r DAr. May 15, 1979 SUMECT RADISSON SOUTH HOTEL F20,A David Constablelp To John Heim cc: Dennis Behrendt Ann Richardson I have enclosed some of the following pertinent information, a synopsis of the zoning ordinance and an analysis of the parking requirements. Land Area Original Bloomington Property 272,290 sq.ft. West Addition(Delaney Property) 112,886 S.E. Addition (Old Motel) 57,813 Bloomington Property 442,989 sq.ft. Edina Property 385,741 sq.ft. 828,730 sq.ft. 828,739 sq.ft. 43,560 = 19.025 Acres Building Area Existing Hotel (Bloomington) Link in Bloomington Building in Bloomington 361,059 sq.ft. 6,250. 367,309 sq.ft. Existing village (Edina) 52,955 Link in Edina 13,250 Hotel Addition(above village) 107,800 _ TOTAL BUILDING 541,314 sq.ft. Radisson South Hotel John Heim Page 2 Floor Area Ratio .(F. A. R. ) (Ratio of building floor area to land area) In Edina with Addition is 174,005 385,741 sq.ft. = 0.451 Requirement by zoning ordinance for PC -3 is 0.5 or less. F.A.R. for entire project with Addition is 541,314 828,730 sq.ft. = 0.653 The Governing Requirements per Edina Ordinance No. Bll are: Planned Commercial District (PC -3) Size of District: Minimum area - 50 acres Gross Building Area: Minimum - 500,000 sq.ft. F.A.R. - 0.5 Height - no maximum Requirements for Parking (Edina) Commercial Area - 6 spaces per 1000 sq.ft. of floor area. Offices - 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of floor area. Restaurants, Taverns - 1 space for each 3 seats plus 1 for each 2 employees. Places of Assembly - Spaces equal in number to 1/3 of maximum seating capacity. Hotels - 1 space for each unit plus 1 space for each employee. 0 Radisson South Hotel John Heim Page 3 The following information was received from Neil Messick concerning the number of people using the facilities-and those spaces required by code (in Edina): Guest Rooms - Exist. 408 New 170 578 rooms @ 1 space per room = 578 pkg. spaces Restaurants, Bars - 512 seats @ 1 space per 3 seats = 171 pkg. spaces Employees - Food: exist. 60 @ 1 space per 2 workers = 30 pkg. spaces Hotel: exist.30 new 10 40 @ 1 space each = 40 pkg. spaces Meeting- Assembly Rooms Exist: Conference 1412 seats /or banquet = 1600 seats New: Conference Room 10422 sq. ft. 15 = 695 seats 2295 seats @ 1 space per 3 seats = 765 pkg. sps. Commercial - 22,785 sq.ft. @ 6 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. = 137 pkg. sps. Office - '4360 sq. ft. @ 1 space per 200 sq. ft. = 44 pkg. sps. Parking spaces required per zoning ordinance - - - - - 1765 Following are some statements by Neil Messick, Radisson South Hotel Manager, concerning the documented and experienced use of the facilitie:: Restaurants, Bars - 65% of business is from room guests. Guest Rooms - Presently 76% average occupancy and 62% of the guests were groups to.conventions. Another 10% - -- wer- e- i- ndividua- l- conven- tioneer-s.- - -- -- - - -- -- - - - -- -- Employees - Peak shifts only required for banquets when the majority are waiters and waitresses. Convention - 800- of business is convention. Largest meetings only use 1/3 of the Ballroom. The remainder of Ballroom is generally set up as booths. The largest numbers of people are found at banquets. Rziclisson South .HoLel John fteim Page 4 Therefore, because of overlapping use, we find the following hypothetical maximum use of facilities: Guest Rooms 578 @ 1 = 578 parking spaces - Restaurants 512 65,o guests 332 (remaining other use) 180 @ 1/3 = 60 parking spaces Meeting Rooms Exist. Banquet 1600 New Conf. Room 695 2295 @ 1/3 =.765 720 of 578 guest rms. at convention therefore deduct (416) 349 parking spaces 70 parking s Employees g p aces Commercial 137 parking spaces Office 22 parking spaces Adjusted total parking spaces required 1216 parking spaces DATE May 18, 1979 SUBJECT Parking Lot Saturation Groups FROM Neil Messick TO Dave Constable - Contract Services Associates k We have gone through the past 12 months and, in fact, a little bit farther than that to pick out the saturation dates with regard to our parking for group functions at Radisson South. The three groups that have historically strained our parking were Northwest Lumbermen, who meet on a Sunday and depart on a Wednesday; National Beauty, who come in on a Saturday and leave on Monday; and the Potentate's Ball, which is always on a Saturday night and in the last couple of years, since we have added the additional parking, have not been a problem. ��flV �UrUlj In discussing this with all of our sales and executive staff, there has not been any problem with parking of which vie were aware until we got to the level of approximately.3,000 people here at any given moment. I know that's not a very scientific measure; however., it happens to be a fact and there can only be very rare moments when something like that does occur at Radisson South, since the groups that put the greatest burden on the parking situation are come - and -go groups such as National Beauty and Northwest Lumbermen, really _trade shows, as is the convention of the state architects, also a come- and -go trade show configuration. In discussing this specific problem with Tom Langlais, who supervises all of our banquet fucctions, he has had no problems with any group with parking, either guest complaints that there was not enough or complaints from the outside that vie were encroaching on someone else's property, since we added the west end and east parking lots a couple of years ago. - -- — I hope this is some help to you. I hardly think designing a parking lot for once or twice -a year (when I- do not -- think - -tire -have--been--------- in trouble since vie have had the additional parking) makes any sense at all nor should it to business people who are interested in the welfare of the city of Edina or Bloomington. Thank you. NM /db .� DATE May 29, 1979 SUBJECT Your Question, Parking Problems, P,adisson South FROM Neil Messick TO Dave Constable cc: John Heim John Norlander We have experienced some problems with parking with a very few groups in Radisson South, Dave; in each case, and I will list them, there have been some unusual and extenuating circumstances but they were problem areas. The more serious parking problems occurred during the Zuhrah Temple's Potentate's Ball, a Saturday night; Northwest Lumbermen's Convention, a trade show, on Monday and Tuesday nights; the Minnesota Jaycees Ten Outstanding Young Men Award Banquet, a Friday night; Gopher State Round -up (AA), a Friday night seminar and a Saturday night' banquet; National Beauty Supply, a trade show and demonstration, Sunday night. In the case of Zuhrah Temple, Northwest Lumbermen, Gopher State Round -up and the Jaycees, part of the problem was not the lack of parking as much as it was the huge snowfalls that we had to contend with this past winter and having piled snow in parts of the parking lot to save the money of trucking it away from here. It did cause problems and we will not do that again. In the matter of National Beauty, they broke all records this year and yet we seem to have had less problems in parking although it did overlap into some of our neighbors on Sunday. They registered something in excess, I think, of 6,000 people. There were several busy times on our parking lot when we seemed to be all filled and yet in surveying the lot during these groups this past year, at no time did we exceed the number of car spaces at any one time more than 80 to 85 percent. These groups were the All Pro Sports Banquet, which falls annually on a Monday or Tuesday night; Control Data's Logotivities banquet, which falls on a Saturday night; Production Credit, which falls on a Wednesday night; Midland Coop, who has their annual meeting and banquet here, a Monday night; MEA Delegate Assembly, which is their largest function meets Thursday and Friday nights; Alano, again a large AA group, which meets here -2- for meetings and a banquet on Friday and Saturday nights; Schmitt Music Seminar and Trade Show, a Viednesday and Thursday night; Minnesota Society of Architects, a trade show with little room business and busiest during the cocktail follo�Iing the closing of the trade show, a Wednesday and Thursday night; Sales Management Executives Ladies Seminar, a day time seminar, which meets on Mondays; Junior Achievement Banquet, which meets on a Friday, our largest single banquet; and Northviest Pilots' Olives, a ladies fund raiser which meets on Saturday luncheon. These are the pieces of business which might seem to tighten the parking areas up to the point where we have very little parking left and yet as we have surveyed them during the times they were in the hotel, we still had another 15 to 20 percent of our parking available. It's also interesting to note. that in most of these cases they fall on off room sales times, i.e. weekends or in the case of falling within the week also have all the rooms in the hotel so the people who are in the sleeping rooms are also the.same people who are attending the meetings and the banquets and that probably has much to do with the fact that they have not used up all of the parking. In no case have we had any complaints at all about lack of parking from any of our customers, a problem I can assure you often with anyone running a group activity, and I base this on my experience over the last 30 odd years in downtown and out here. We have never had a problem out here. Many people try to get too close to the doorways; the police department has had some problems with ticketing for fire lanes because of that. However, at the same time that this condition existed, there was ample parking all around our 20 acres. I have not gone below the 80 to 85 percent line, Dave, because I think that becomes meaningless; I am sitting here dictating this memorandum today with a full house and something like 1500 contestants for FoosbalI and the parking lot is as empty as the third fairway at Braemar Golf Course in the middle of January. I will be happy to join you with the Planning Corr-mission people if you would like on Wednesday or at any time you suggest. Please let me know. Thank you. NM /db Dictated but not read. Community Development and Planning Commission May 30, 1979 Z -79 -4 Radisson South Plan Amendment. PC -2 Planned Commercial Plan Amendment. Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to recall that the subject plan amendment was continued from the May 2, 1979, meeting at the request of staff and the proponents. He continued that since that time, staff has met with the proponents on several occasions to discuss the proposed five story addition to the existing two story shopping mall located on the Edina side of the complex. Mr. Hughes indicated that the subject property is zoned PC -2 Planned Commercial District which allows a maximum building height of four stories and a maximum floor area ratio of .5.. He explained that because the proposed building addition would result in a seven story building, the proponents are seeking a three story height variance. He also noted that with the proposed expansion, the floor area ratio for that portion of the site located in Edina is .45 while the floor area ratio for the entire complex would be .65 with the expansion. Gordon Hughes added that the existing floor area ratio for the complex is .52. Mr. Hughes commented that the Bloomington portion of the complex is zoned FD -2 which has neither a maximum height limitation nor a maximum floor area ratio, and the building size is regulated primarily by parking and setback requirements. He pointed out that Bloomington parking requirements are quite similar to Edina requirements; however, Bloomington would require more parking spaces for restaurant, bar, and meeting rooms as compared with Edina requirements. Gordon Hughes continued that, the provision of adequate parking facilities is staff's primary concern regarding the proposed addition. Ile stated that according to the proponent's analysis, the total complex including the addition would require 1765 parking spaces according to Edina's.Zoning Ordinance. Based upon figures which were received previously from Radisson South management as well as the past review of building plans, staff believed that the gross parking requirement according to the zoning ordinance would be closer to 2,000 spaces, and also the more stringent parking requirements for restaurants, bars, and meeting rooms imposed by Bloomington would result in the need for about 180 additional spaces. Gordon Hughes commented that Edina's parking requirements do not recognize the concept of overlapping uses requiring that each use must - -- satisfy its — individua -1 -- parking - requirements: - Thus;- Iie - explaied- the assumption is made that all rooms, bars, meeting rooms, offices, and so forth are fully occupied and none of the hotel guests are occupying the bars, restaurants, and meeting rooms. Mr. Hughes indicated that according to hotel records, about 65 to 72 percent of meeting room and restaurant use is comprised of hotel guests and based upon this overlap the proponent suggests an actual parking demand of 1,216 parking spaces for the complex following the completion of the addition. Ile noted the complex at present has 1,2.57 parking spaces which prompts the proponents to suggest that no new parking spaces need be added as a result of the expansion. Community Development and Planning Commission May 30, 1979 He stated the proponent also notes that three to four conventions per year strain the parking capacity of the complex, but they submit that they have not observed any evidence of on- street parking.or off -site parking as a result of these conventions. The Edina Police Department had reported to staff that they can recollect only one or two occasions in the past two years which resulted in excessive parking demand. Staff submitted to the Commission that the entire Radisson South complex should be treated as an integral unit for planning purposes, temporarily overlooking the location of the Edina /Bloomington boundary. Based upon this premise, the Commission advised that the floor area ratio standard of .5 would be exceeded as a result of the proposed expansion. Thus, staff felt the proposed expansion would represent an over - development of the site by Edina standards which would not be the case.by Bloomington standards. Gordon Hughes explained that in several cases for office and commercial developments, the City has accepted "proof of parking" plans which illustrate the manner in which the total parking requirement imposed by ordinance could be achieved on the site. He continued that the City then accepts the construction of a lesser number of parking spaces and imposes the condition on the developer that the proof of parking plan would be implemented in the future if necessary. Mr. Hughes added that the proponents have submitted a proof of parking plan for the complex illustrating that 1,780 parking spaces could be constructed on the site. Staff submitted, however, that the plan is not realistic in that parking space dimensions, drive aisle widths, and so forth are below standard. Mr. Hughes commented that such a parking deficiency also could be evidence of the over - development of the site. Based upon proponent's evidence and staff's observations, it appeared that the complex's existing parking facilities approach capacity on several occasions during the year; however, the frequency of these occasions are such that the area is not adversely effected. Staff did submit, though, that the provision of 170 additional guest rooms and additional meeting rooms would result in parking capacity problems much more frequently than four or five times yearly if no-additional parking is constructed. Gordon Hughes indicated that presently about 70 percent of the ordinance parking requirement for the existing complex has been provided on the site which has proved to be a reasonable percentage. Therefore, staff recommended construction of 70 percent of the ordinance requirement cause by_ the new__ addition to the building which would equate to the construction of about 290 additional parking spaces. Staff also suggested that the proponent acquire additional property for the construction of these spaces. From a land use, access, and scale standpoint, staff believed that the proposed plan represented a reasonable expansion of the Radisson South complex. With the provision of the additional parking spaces as well as the reconstruction of the driveway access from Edina Industrial Boulevard in the northwest corner of the site, staff recommended approval of the plan amendment. Community Development and Planning Commission May 30, 1979 Gordon Hughes introduced David Constable who was present on behalf of the proponents to answer.any of the Commission's questions. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Hughes to clarify the actual problem regarding the driveway access from Edina Industrial Boulevard in the northwest corner of the site. Mr. Hughes explained that the City has had several complaints and concerns expressed that the eastbound and northbound travelers on Edina Industrial Boulevard think that is a through street rather than a street into the complex. Therefore, staff felt it should be remodeled into.a more conventional intersection. David Constable questioned the staff suggestion that the Radisson South purchase additional land and noted that they did have a proof of parking plan drawn up illustrating how the parking spaces could be placed.without the need to buy additional property. Gordon Johnson asked how they had re- aligned the cars to gain the necessary spaces. Mr. Constable replied that they had changed from straight to angle parking and the size of the spaces was reduced from nine feet to eight feet six inches. Bill Lewis asked if staff felt that plan would be adequate. Mr. Hughes replied that the parking lot at present is very workable and to add another 300 spaces by doing some re- alignment tends to reduce some of the functional aspects of the parking lot. He concluded that if the proponent can add that number of spaces and still preserve a good, functional lot, staff would not object to the plan. After general discussion of vacant land available in that area that the Radisson South might utilize, the Commission also discussed the shared use concept regarding the possibility of the Radisson sharing parking with some other business around them. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Constable if the building would be capable of holding more than the five floors requested. Mr. Constable replied it was not. Gordon Johnson moved the Commission approve the request subject to staff approval of the parking plan in the next month. Richard Seaberg seconded —the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. M CarISO" COlilp8l11e-V1 C. PVhr/dHeadgz&?&ezy L?,W S /a /eH§huay s5, Mnneapo /s,.Minneso /a S"41 June 18, 1979 City of Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 RE: Radisson South Plan Amendment - -PC -2 Plan Commercial Plan Amendment (Z -79 -4) Gentlemen: In order to induce the City of Edina to approve the above captioned Radisson South Plan Amendment as proposed by Radisson South Company, a limited partnership, by Carlson Companies, Inc., general partner ( "Radisson South "), Radisson South agrees that within one year after the completion of construction of the proposed five story addition to the existing Radisson Village located in Edina, Minnesota either (i) the existing parking lot will be altered in a manner satisfactory to the planning staff of the City of Edina in order to provide 290 additional parking spaces or (ii) the additional parking spaces will be provided in an alternate manner which satisfies the City Planning Staff of the City of Edina. Yours very truly, RADISSON SOUTH COMPANY By CARLSON COMPANIES, INC., W JRH /kad RESOLUTION REQUESTING 1978 -79 LOCAL PLANNING.ASSISTANCE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.851- 473.872, requires that the City of.Edina prepare and submit a comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and the City of Edina entered into a contract numbered 7834 and dated March,3, 1978, for a Local Planning Assistance Grant for 1976 -77 grant funds in the amount of $10,701.00 to assist the City of Edina in carrying out the required planning; and WHEREAS, the. Metropolitan Council has allocated $5,074.00 to the City of Edina in additional grant funds for 1978 -79; and WHEREAS, the total grants from the Metropolitan Council will not exceed 75% of the total cost or 100% of the remaining cost of carrying out the required planning which is documented in Appendix A of the above referenced contract; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Edina requests the addi- tional 1978 -79 grant funds and authorizes the City Manager to execute the Agreement Amendment to the above - referenced contract on behalf of the City of Edina. ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1979. 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 June 18, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 18th day of June, 1979. 'Z. City Clerk 5� -13 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES INVENTORY DATE: June 15, 1979 At the last meeting, the Council briefly discussed the South Hennepin request for $4,000 to assist in doing the Human Services Inventory. (Richfield, $4,000; Eden Prairie, $3,000 cash plus $5,000 staff time; Bloomington, $6,000.) The Inventory is something that I have encouraged as a method to get a handle on what is being provided and by whom. The focus of the survey for Edina has been altered from the initial proposal you received a few months ago so that the emphasis is on inventory rather than needs assessment. South Hennepin has agreed to my proposal of $3,000 in cash and $1,000 for in -kind services (principally staff plus some xeroxing). It is recommended that the Council approve participation in the inventory with the funding arrangements as described. 4 City Manager KR:md - 12 - III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT A. Definition Plan development is a cyclical.process of expressing community values and long - range aspirations for health status and health system perfor- mance, projecting and evaluating the capabilities of current health services to address them, and designing and choosing among actions which will close the gaps between projected and desired levels of community health and health system performance. The product is a future - oriented document which: 1) is based on the health needs and resources available to a given population or community, 2) includes needs assessment, priority goals, objectives, recommended actions and resource requirements, 3) includes a description and inventory of services provided by public, private and voluntary provider,groups, 4) includes a process for involving consumers and providers in the planning- process, 5) includes appropriate data and evaluation, and 6) provides a mechanism for allocating tax revenues for a needed service in an attempt to avoid unnecessary duplication and gaps in service. B. Policies 1) Local governing bodies should have increased capacity to identify needs of citizens through both short- and long -range community health planning. 2) Local, regional, state, and federal policy makers should have greater access to information concerning the need for, as well as the outcomes of, community health programs and services in the Metropolitan Area. 3) Local governing bodies should be given increased discretion in the definition of needs and design and evaluation of services. 4) The federal and state government should, whenever possible, delegate community health planning functions to regional and local government bodies. 5) Public providers of community health services should encourage neigh- borhood groups to participate in planning for community health services. -C. -- Roles 6 Responsibilities 1) It is anticipated that HEW will: a) identify national health priorities and health goals; and b) appropriate funding which is consistent with the national health priorities and goals f - 13 - 2) It is anticipated that the Minnesota State Health Planning and Develop- ment Agency will: a) develop a state health plan that addresses national health priorities; b) identify health priorities;.for the state; c) actively solicit and incorporate public comments on the state health plan and state priorities; and d) mandate changes in.any health systems agency's Health"Systems Plan or Annual .Implementation Plan if they are inconsistent with the state health plan. 3) It is anticipated that the Minnesota Department of Health will: a) provide consultation and technical training to communities to assist in the development and provision of community health services; b) develop guidelines and recommend administrative procedures for. implementing the Community Health Services Act; c) identify major state health problems that should be addressed in local CHS plans and provide that information on major state health problems to the SHPDA; d) support a planning process that will encourage full community participation; e) provide application for and instructions for the use of state CHS funds; and f) make final determination on CHS plans and revisions, based on review and recommendation of the HSA. 4) The Metropolitan Health Board will: a) develop a five -year Health Systems Plan and an Annual Implementation Plan; b) identify at -risk populations; c) identify regional health priorities to improve the health of the area's residents, increase the accessibility, acceptability, availability, continuity and quality of health services d) develop priority goals,and action recommendations; e) identify where federal health program funds should be spent; f) address state and federal priority health problems; g) incorporate information from the municipal and county CHS plans - - -- into the-total CHS-planning effort--for-the-Region;-and - -- h) provide a description of other public and private community health service programs to counties for inclusion in their county plan. 5) It is anticipated that Metropolitan Area - counties and municipalities will: a) identify county or municipal community health needs; b) set priorities for the broad range of community health services, including the health needs of minorities and nonresidents, including tourists and immigrants; - 14 - C) identify available resources (both public and private) to meet the priority health problems; d) address the priority goals in the Metropolitan Health Systems Plan; e) use existing data from local organizations, the Metropolitan Health Board and the Minnesota Department of Health; and f) submit their CHS plans to the Metropolitan Health Board for its review and recommendation, and be forwarded to the Minnesota Department of Health for a final determination on the use of state funds. 6) It is anticipated that hospitals, nursing homes and other institutions providing community health services will: a) submit a written description of their community health programs to the Health Board, municipality or county where those services are provided; and b) address the community health service guidelines in the Metropolitan Health Systems Plan. ` 7) It is anticipated that the private CHS provider groups will: a) provide information to the municipality, county, or Health Board on their CHS efforts, for inclusion in the county CHS plan; b) describe expenditures of public funds to the appropriate body of elected officials to ensure that tax funds are properly spent and the health and welfare of people are protected; and c) address the health priorities in the local - regional CHS plans. 4�1 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: INSURANCE RENEWAL DATE: June 18, 1979 The following are recommended carriers and premiums for renewal, effective July 1, 1979: 1979 1978 PROJECTED TYPE CARRIER PREMIUM PREMIUM General Liability Home $ 90,481 $ 98,051* Auto Home 29,975 28,428* Worker's Compensation Home 141,535 151,422* Property INA 19,366 21,004 Malpractice Western World 1,205 1,900 Money & Securities Hartford 1,644 1,440 Umbrella Liability Interstate Fire 46,920 43,775 * Rates a function of salary (auto -no. of vehicles) subject to audit The rates for general, auto, worker's compensation and property remained the same, however, the factors on which the rates are based (i.e. General Liability - payroll and liquor sales; Property - property valuation; Auto - number of vehicles; Worker's Compensation - salary) changed. Property valuation was increased 11%, salary increased 7% and the number of vehicles decreased. Should you have further questions, feel free to contact me. n � l a k E. Bernhardson Administrative Assistant LN REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director - Parks and Recreation VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: . June 13, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Replacement of doors and frames at front entrance door to Braemar Arena and vandal- proof hardware. Quotations /Bids: . Company 1. Keho Construction Co. 5801 Kemrich Dr. Edina, MN 55435 2. Gateway. GI ass 889 Pierce Butler P1. St: Paul; MN 3. Department Recommendation: Recommend purchasing from Keho Consp-pctA on Co. Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is is not Amount of Quote or Bid $4,545.00 $4,949.00 .ice .ter A _ _ f within the amount budgeted for the purchase. J. . Dalen, Finance Director City M ager's Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: �� % REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director - Parks and Recreation VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: June 13, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): 1 Braemar Complex football field and surrounding area irrigation system (Phase I) Quotations /Bids: Co_ mpany Green Acres Sprinkler Co. 1. 5233 Richwood Dr. Edina, MN 55436 2. Albrecht Landscape 1408 W. County Road C Roseville, MN 55113 3. Department Recommendation: Amount of Quote or Bid $6,720.00 $6,921.00 Recommend Green Acres Sprinkler Co. -Signatu Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is K--J—. is not City Manager's Endorsement: within the amount budgeted for the purchase. N. Dalen, Finalfice Director �1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2.• I recommend as an alternative: Kenneth Roslan , City Man er LOCATION zoning 0 SLY" h TLI q WARDEN ACRES, PETERSON REPLAT REQUEST NUMBER: Z -79 -6 and 5 -79 -8 LOCATION: REQUEST: R -1 Single Family to R -2 Two Family District (one lot) Yillage planning de ar.rn ,nt village of edina COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT May 30, 1979 Z -79 -6 Warden Acres, Peterson Replat. R -1 Single Family and District to R -2 Two Family District. S -79 -8 Warden Acres, Peterson Replat. Generally located south of Grove Street and west of the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railway. REFER TO: attached graphics The subject property is comprised of two developed single family lots which have a total area of 22 acres. Two existing single family dwellings which front on Grove Street are located on the subject property. The subject property exhibits some constraints to development. First, . the property abutts the M, N, & S railroad tracks on the east. Secondly, a 50 foot wide power line easement abutting Jhe railroad right -of -way reduces the amount of buildable area. The Commission may recall that a similar subdivision entitled Warden Acres, Austin Replat was approved about three years ago. This property is also located south of Grove Street and lies westerly of the subject property (please refer to attached graphics). At that time, it was anticipated that the new street (i.e. Oak Lane) which was dedicated by this plat, would ultimately extend easterly to allow for future development. This street was then to e.xtead northerly through the subject property to form a loop road with access to Grove Street. Portions of the right -of -way for the easterly extension of Oak Lane have been dedicated by some property owners in this area. The proponents are requesting a seven lot subdivision of the subject property. Two lots would-be retained for the existing dwellings on the property. One lot, which fronts on Grove Street and abutts the railroad tracks would be rezoned to R -2 Two Family Dwelling District. In conjunction with the proposed subdivision, a new street would be platted to serve.all the lots in the sub- division with the exception of the R -2 lot. This street is located to allow its westerly extension and linkage with the street dedicated by way of Warden Acres, Austin Replat. A temporary cul -de -sac would be constructed on the new street (similar to the Oak Lane cul -de -sac) pending the further extension of the street. The owner of the existing dwelling on the east side of the new street has stated his intent to remodel this dwelling by adding an attached garage to the north side of the dwelling and re- orienting the entrance to the house to the new street. The owner of the existing dwelling on the west side of the new street is contemplating a similar remodeling. CD & PC Staff Report Z -79 -6 and S -79 -8 May 30, 1979 Recommendation: page 2 Staff believes that the requested subdivision is in conformance with the overall development plan for the area which was contemplated when Warden Acres, Austin Replat was approved. Proposed lot sizes (10,000 to 16,000 square feet) are consistent with the lot sizes in the area. Also, the requested rezoning to R -2 of lot 2 is logical due to proximity to the rail- road tracks and power line. Such a rezoning is also consistent with other R -2 zonings abutting these tracks. Staff recommends that the proposed subdivision should be modified as follows: 1) The temporary cul -de -sac should be extended to the southerly line of the plat. 2) The southerly lot line of lot 1 on the west side of the new street should be moved 15 feet to the south to pro- vide an adequate rear yard for the existing dwelling. 3) Right -of -way for a cul -de -sac for Grove Street should be provided over the R -2 lot. With these modifications, staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision and rezoning with the following conditions: 1) an executed developers agreement 2) subdivision dedication 3) the owner of the existing dwelling on the east side of the new street must commit to the removal of the existing detached garage on lot 3 and the construction of a new garage on lot 1. A bond should be considered to insure the completion of this work. GLH:jkt 5/24/79 : >'_ C)V= EAST 9:0 s 83 7.5 7 1 z 0— 'o i , — ,, 3 ! '�5 i , Z-" X04' IL 41 I zt 9. 20 7S Z' ------ 38 Z 3 4-1 � 23 :o r) '6; 14 'T 239 70 5 L� L 58958.2;w '9"� '0' jo LY L ul CIRCLE s 99- ADD. ,,,VfA E rJ 3 rd 41 39 T 30 29 28 a: 4o 14 114.3 14S .A 14 ..c P c ,,vb BENTON AVE. 4- v I Z9 V_7 �A A.0 Is 'InC R E 0 1- 8 41 4D b"j 2 lz P' UJI, !456 Fasl 31 32 z CL: 6 7 5 in; 145. :4 F- 4� loo s-4 1 6 1. 45 5Z sz �-i i' -5 9" 51 ch LL) 70 13 — 12 11 21 10.- 9 7 6 5 'r 2 3 a 7. 4. 78 :7i51 I I 75 f\p 35 95 71 7n- !4,1- COUNTRYSIDE ROAD A.5 T �V.44) 90 '51 L4, Z. 6 410 9 8 5 3 2 1 s .70 7 rs 41 30 0 123.0 11>o '140 5 3t V 9 10 1 Z 13 774 S ' W' V 21(,l Ll --R-QA 1) 7:7 3 Iz I z is I. Y PLAT \1 ^,;<GE N Ac 2� 5 P�Tt -25oN EPGAT � DARELLE c4c. ASSOCIATE.�.� L A N D S U R- V E Y 0 R S Drive. Eden Prairie MinnesoU, 55343 Phone 612941.3030 / _ fO i- — L) Da Data .� =LZ 790. 98 /4.5.4 /45. Sz • o.,osc tj P. Cie �3 4¢ 1 317 j i � ., N C) IFt, ' � L �G,G� L DE5G2JP7" /OnJ ; L071.5 Z3, Zll.- Y✓A14ZI061V Acl2 ES Srr—= [t.YATiOnJ MAP G -/{ yl ' ✓( l � I I �Gr c.a r �< � J� v uw ie &Z •eon= ' y II �� J5,ZI30 6007 111 •' - ,a a •,4 Lz 32.0 ', 2g e M 20.3 ? a2o• X134 W a �� r I I$ I /Zo.4� J 97 - I N N 9860 . 6Q, � I 0p , j CO N L- t r F=0 co 1' 'CO � � 6 v 9a8o x2 N N /ZO.4/o Z5' 25 \ /20.52 r� r N � �E 145.52 /90 = -- OF-DIC A?5D i Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 30, 1979 Z -79 -6 Warden Acres, Peterson Replat. R -1 Single Family and District to R -2 Two Family District. S -79 -8 Warden Acres, Peterson Replat. Generally located south of Grove Street and west of the Minneapolis, Northfield, and Southern Railway. Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property, comprised of two developed single family lots which have a total area of 2z acres, houses two existing single family dwellings which front on Grove Street. He indicated the subject property exhibits some constraints to development with the first one being that the property abutts the M, N, & S Railroad tracks on the east, and the second being a 50 foot wide power line easement abutting the railroad right -of -way which reduces the amount of buildable area. Mr. Hughes asked the Commission to recall that a similar subdivision entitled Warden Acres, Austin Replat was approved about three years ago and was also located south of Grove Street but lies westerly of the subject property. He continued that at that time, it was anticipated that Oak Lane which was dedicated by this plat, would ultimately extend northerly through the subject property to form a loop road with access to Grove Street. He noted that portions of the right -of -way for the easterly extension of Oak Lane have been dedicated by some property owners in this area. Gordon Hughes explained that the proponents are requesting a seven lot subdivision of the subject property with two lots which would be re- tained for the existing dwellings on the property. He pointed out that one lot which fronts on Grove Street and abutts the railroad tracks would be rezoned to R -2 Two Family Dwelling District. In conjunction with the proposed subdivision, Gordon Hughes stated that a new street would be platted to serve all the lots in the subdivision with the exception of the R -2 lot. Mr. Hughes stated the street would be located to allow its westerly extension and linkage with the street dedicated by way of Warden Acres, Austin Replat, and a temporary cul -de -sac would be constructed on the new street pending the further extension of the street. Gordon Hughes observed that the owner of the existing dwelling on the east side of the new street has stated his intent to remodel this dwelling by adding an attached garage to the north side of the dwelling and re- orienting the entrance of the house to the new street; the owner of the existing dwelling on the west side of the new street is contemplating a similar remodeling. Staff believed that the requested subdivision is in conformance with the overall development plan for the area which was contemplated when Warden Acres, Austin Replat was approved, and proposed lot sizes of 10,000 to 16,000 square feet are consistent with the lot sizes in the area. Staff also felt the requested rezoning to R -2 of lot 2 is logical due to proximity to the railroad tracks and power line, and such a rezoning would be consistent with other R -2 rezonings abutting these tracks. Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 30, 1979 Staff recommended the proposed subdivision should be modified as follows: 1) the temporary cul -de -sac should'be extended to the southerly line of the plat.. 2) the southerly lot line of lot 1 on the west side of the new street should be moved 15 feet to the south to pro - vide an adequate rear yard for the existing dwelling. 3) right -of -way for a cul -de -sac for Grove Street should be provided over the R -2 lot. With those modifications, staff recommended approval of the proposed subdivision and rezoning with the following conditions: 1) an executed developers agreement 2) subdivision dedication 3) the owner of the existing dwelling on.the east side of the new street must commit to the removal of the existing detached garage on lot 3 and the construction of a new. garage on lot 1. A bond should be considered to insure the completion of this work. Gordon Hughes introduced Evans Meineke who was present to answer the Commission's questions. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Hughes what guarantees could be made that the loop road would be built rather than having two cul -de -sacs. Mr. Hughes replied that guarantees would be difficult to obtain at this point because it would require the concurrance of all the people from whom right -of -way would have to be obtained, and the people who have been working toward this end have informed staff that they can not get 100 percent agreement to do that. He stated that the only other option might be for the City to entertain some sort of condemnation proceedings. Bill Lewis asked if each of the parcels is individually owned, to which Gordon Hughes replied that many of the parcels in fact have two owners in that most of them are divided down the center. Mr. Jeffrey Stevenson of 5500 Grove Street asked what was the rationale for rezoning one lot to R -2 but none of the.others. Gordon Hughes answered that the distinctions that had been made for past rezonings were that the type of lot that has the side lot line along the railroad tracks or powerline easement had a distinct disadvantage. He continued that based on that theory, rezonings have been allowed for R -2 in the past, and the same rationale was used for this situation. Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 30, 1979 Helen McClelland also voiced her concern about rezoning the lot to R -2. She noted that the other R -2 lots in the area seemed more appropriate due to their being located on streets with heavier traffic. Gordon Hughes commented that in terms of the lot size, staff did consider the easement area in terms of the lot area. He considered the most critical factor to be the lot width for an R -2 dwelling. Mr. Stevenson commented that he felt an R -2 dwelling would be totally out of character with all the residential homes in the area. Helen McClelland elaborated that the neighborhood is characterized by houses set farther back on the lots alluding to a spacious neighborhood, and the added bulk of a double bungalow would not be appropriate. Gordon Johnson asked the proponent, Mr. Meineke, why he was requesting an R -2 lot. Mr. Meineke replied he felt the lot would adopt itself better to a double than a single home being next to the power lines and with the railroad running through the area. He also indicated the double would be rental property rather than divided and owned. Gordon Johnson wondered if Mr. Meineke personally lived on one of those lots. Mr. Meineke replied he had planned to live on lot 1 and update the property. Del Johnson noted he had seen a "For Sale" sign on that particular lot. Mr. Meineke explained he had a contingency on the lot conditioned upon the soil conditions and the approval of.the subdivision. Jeff Stevenson stated that the neighborhood was not informed of the meeting, and he felt there would be significant opposition from the neighbors; therefore, he requested the Commission continue the item to the next meeting to give the neighborhood a chance to form an opinion and respond to the request. Darrell Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive commented that he could sympathize with the neighbors for not wanting R -2 housing in the area just to make a little more money on the land with something that is not in character with the surrounding area. Helen McClelland moved the Commission approve the subdivision request subject to an executed developers agreement, subdivision dedication, and the owner of the existing dwelling on the east side of the new street must commit to the removal of the existing detached garage on lot 3 and the construction of a new garage on lot 1. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Helen McClelland then moved the Commission deny the rezoning request from R -1 to R -2. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. I + June 18, 1979 Subject: Petition After Numbers Were Painted Over the past weekend, I called at every house on Moorland Avenue and worked about one -third of the way up Browndale Avenue before running out of time. Many people were not at home. However, a signature was obtained from every house where an.adult owner was at home, except two. In addition, Mr. Debrey and I, who are appearing before the Council, did not participate, although we are obviously opposed to the numbers. Almost all residents who opposed numbers also signed the petition requiring permission. Results from 30 houses: Total opposition 50 %, not including Debrey and Horn. Total for "Permission required" 97 %, not including Debrey and Horn. * One of these opposes "anything done" on boulevard or curb without permission or consultation and would have signed such a petition; the other favors numbers regardless. b' William B. Horn W. 8. HORN gn BRowmt s AVIL UUMP"Us. MINN. tm Oppose Any No numbers unless Wouldn't At Home Numbers permission Sign Moorland 20 9 20 - Browndale 10 6 8 2* Total 30 15 28 2 Total opposition 50 %, not including Debrey and Horn. Total for "Permission required" 97 %, not including Debrey and Horn. * One of these opposes "anything done" on boulevard or curb without permission or consultation and would have signed such a petition; the other favors numbers regardless. b' William B. Horn W. 8. HORN gn BRowmt s AVIL UUMP"Us. MINN. tm ,A, ---- 1 June, 1979 l .! � W2 the undersigned, wish to advise the City Council that the painting of house numbers on curbs in the City of Edina: 46 10 z en j/' dj- ' June, 1979 We the undersigned, wish to.advise the City Council that we oppose the painting of house numbers on the curb in the front of a residence in the City of Edina unless permission has been obtained from the house owner of that residence: ry I r 21te-, L `/ � � � Y y'!j n� v � i June ' 1979 | ./ '| \ We, the d i d wish to advise the City Council that we oppose the Pilinting of house numbers on curbs in the City of Edina-: , June, 1979 We, the undersigned, wish to.advise the City Council that we oppose the painting of house numbers on the curb in the front of a residence in the City of Edina unless permission has been obtained from the house owner of that residence: y2zz, THE S-1 LETTER MARKET MUSINGS June, 1979 Ma was a relatively light month for bond offerings, with about $2.7 billion in volume compared to3.1 billion in April, 1979, and $5.1 billion in May, 1978 (the last month of advance refundings). This light volume was demonstrated by the drop in the BBI from a 6.27% on May 3 to a 6.16% on May 31. This may not continue for Fong because the May 31 Placement Ratio dropped to 78.4% from 90% the week before. The Visible Supply is also high at $1.95 billion and the Blue List is up to over $1 billion. With the current moratorium on housing bonds however, we may be able to survive current market conditions without major increases in interest rates. COMPETITIVE vs. NEGOTIATED SALES There are two basic marketing routes available to an issuer for the sale of bonds: (1) by public competitive sale, or (2) by negotiation, except as prohibited by law. A public competitive offering occurs when the issuer invites all qualified bidders to submit offers for an issue whose terms the issuer has prescribed, primarily on the basis of the terms thought by the issuer to be most favorable to its interests, and secondarily on the basis of market acceptability. A negotiated offering is one for which the issuer agrees to give a specific underwriter the exclusive option to purchase the bonds, usually on the condition that the underwriter will ultimately make an acceptable offer. In the public competitive situation the issuer, with its financial advisor, such as SPRINGSTED Incorporated, or alone, decides what the terms of the bonds to be issued will be. These terms include the length of the issue, maximum rates, whether a discount shall or shall not be allowed, rate of prepayment, redemption rights, the security to be offered, etc. Each of the critical factors are decided by the issuer without any direct underwriter influence. By contrast, in a negotiated environment the underwriter is usually an active, if not predominant party to all decisions regarding the terms of the issue. Although the final decision belongs to the issuer, the influence of the underwriter, who is in effect writing his own specifications, is always present. Since the underwriter's principal business is selling bonds it is reasonable to believe that his tilt will be toward terms which will make the issue more attractive for marketing. The most aggressive proponents of the negotiated route, almost without exception, are not issuers, but underwriters who contend that with negotiation the sale of the bonds is assured whereas with a public sale it is a "shake of the dice" proposition. , To borrow a Presidential expression, "Baloney ". It would be a most unique situation for an underwriter at the outset to guarantee to purchase the bonds, much less guarantee a rate. The small print of the agreement almost always leaves the underwriter an escape hatch. Retreat for the issuer though is difficult. Time has usually run out for financing the project when the underwriter goes around to the opposite side of the negotiating table from the issuer and f inal ly turns up his card. At that stage the project has matured to the point that just really doesn't allow for rejection, or even any real negotiation, of the offer - even though there may be a little haggling (for which the underwriter has probably left room). Outright rejection isn't likely to be a viable option. In comparison, public competitive bidding is strictly an objective at -arms- length transaction. The best offer wins - it's that simple and that straightforward. There is a measure of the market SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS 800 OSBORN BUILDING SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 (612) 222 -4241 by reason of multiple offers and the underwriter who is either in the best position to market the bonds at the time; or is willing to take the greatest risk, wins. The issuer needs to make only a simple decision - is the best bid an acceptable bid? There are no friendships at stake. As to the shake of the dice theory, that is only a smokescreen. If an issue is marketable by one underwriter, it is marketable by others. Exclusive marketing ability is more promotion than reality. Potential buyers are not a secret cult, nor are they generally monogamous in their fidelity to a specific underwriter. Finally, no one should suppose that negotiation is less costly. It is not to be expected that an underwriter's salesmen will make concessions in their commissions simply because a deal was negotiated thus the distribution profit margin is very likely to be the same, if not more, because there likely has been no pencil sharpening competition. On top of this distribution profit there must be added the underwriter's management fee for putting the issue together which is over and above the distribution cost. While lots of arguments are made in favor of negotiated purchases, the bottom line must be that it offers the underwriter, not the issuer, an almost guaranteed deal without concern for being underbid. S4 STATISTICAL SAMPLER FOR MAY Municipal Certificate of Deposit Rates Random Sampling for May MN WI 30 -day - 9.800% 9.500% 60 -day - 9.850% 9.875% 90 -day - 9.950% 10.000% 180 -day - 10.150% 10.125% ($100,000 minimum investment) Bond Buyer Placement Treasu Bills Far the Week Ending Index Ratio 13-Weeic 26-Week May 4 6.27% 76.6% 9.498% 9.570% May 11 6.30% 81.2% 9.621% 9.617% May IS 6.30% 79.3% 9.506% 9.459% May 25 6.21% 90.0% 9.744% 9.602% June 1 6.16% 78.4% 9.526% 9.409% Municipal Certificate of Deposit Rates Random Sampling for May MN WI 30 -day - 9.800% 9.500% 60 -day - 9.850% 9.875% 90 -day - 9.950% 10.000% 180 -day - 10.150% 10.125% ($100,000 minimum investment) Band Buyer Index - Ten Year Summary Year Range Year Range 1970 7.12% - 5.33% 1975 7.67% - 6.27% 1971 6.23% - 4.97% 1976 7.13% - 5.83% 1972 5.54% - 4.96% 1977 5.93% - 5.45% 1973 5.59% - 4.99% 1978 6.67% - 5.58% 1974 7.15% - 5.16% 1979 6.58% - 6.16% Municipal Certificate of Deposit Rates Random Sampling for May MN WI 30 -day - 9.800% 9.500% 60 -day - 9.850% 9.875% 90 -day - 9.950% 10.000% 180 -day - 10.150% 10.125% ($100,000 minimum investment) SELECTED MAY SALES Sale Final Moody's Municipality Date Type Amount Maturity Rating BBI Rate Menasha, WI 5 -01 G.O. Corp. Purpose $1,010;000 1994 Aa 6.26 5.53 Duluth, MN 5 -07 G.O. Bonds $5,275,000 1998 A -1 6.27 5.78 St. Charles, MN 5 -07 G.O. Improvement 245,000 1995 Boo-1 6.27 6.01 South St. Paul, MN 5 -07 G.O. Bonds 2,615,000 2004 Boa-1 6.27 6.11 Stewartville ISD 534, MN 5 -08 G.O. School Bldg. $1,650,000 1996 A 6.27 5.91 Stewartville, MN 5 -08 G.O. Improvement $ 510,000 1995 A 6.27 5.79 Stewartville, MN 5 -08 G.O. Tax Increment $ 135,000 2000 A 6.27 6.15 Wisconsin Rapids, WI 5 -08 G.O. Corp. Purpose $2,040,000 1996 A 6.27 5.85 Bellingham, MN 5 -09 G.O. Temp. Imp. $ 325,000 1980 NR 6.27 5.98 Minneapolis, MN 5 -10 G.O. Redevelopment $2,600,000 1993 Aaa 6.30 5.56 Faribault Co., MN 5 -15 G.O. Drainage System $ 600,000 2000 A -1 6.30 5.84 Waukesha, WI 5 -15 Sew. Sys. Mort. Rev. $6,175,000 2002 A(Con.) 6.30 6.08 Beloit, WI 5 -21 G.O. Prom. Notes $ 5259000 1988 Aa 6.30 5.53 Bloomington, MN 5 -21 G.O. Develop. Dist. 1,440,000 1989 Aa 6.30 5.48 Marshall, MN 5 -21 G.O. Improvement 690,000 1989 Baa -I 6.30 5.84 Pewaukee, WI 5 -21 Sew. Sys. Mort. Rev. $2,380,000 2009 NR 6.30 6.72 MHEFA -St. Olaf College 5 -22 First Mort. Rev. $5,245,000 2010 A -I 6.30 6.59 St. Francis, MN 5 -29 G.O. Improvement $ 650,000 1993 Boo 6.21 5.95 MINUTES TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE JUNE 13, 1979 10:00 A.M. The Traffic Safety Committee meeting scheduled for June 13, 1979 at 10.:00 A.M. was cancelled as there were no Traffic Safety matters to be heard by the Committee. Respectfully, Lowell Holman, Secretary Edina Traffic Safety Committee ,r DORSEY, WINDHORST, HANNVORD, WHITNEY a HALLADAY HENRY HALLADAY G. LARRY GRIFFITH JULE HANNAFORD CRAIG K BECK ARTHUR B. WHITNEY DAVID L MCCUSKEY RUSSELL W. LINDOUIST THOMAS O. MOE DAVID R. BRINK JAMES H. 0HAGAN HORACE HITCH JOHN M. MASON VIRGIL M. HILL LARRY L VICKREY ROBERT V. TARBOX LOREN R. KNOTT ROBERT J. JOHNSON PHILLIP H. MARTIN MAYNARD B. HASSELOUIST REESE C JOHNSON PETER DORSET CHARLES J- HAUENSTEIN GEORGE P. FLANNERY CHARLES A. GEER CURTIS L ROY JOHN C. ZWAKMAN ARTHUR E, WEISBERG JOHN R. WICKS DUANE E. JOSEPH EUGENE L JOHNSON JAMES B. VESSEY JOHN W. WINDHORST, JR. WILLIAM A. WHITLOCK MICHAEL PRICHARD EDWARD J. SCHWARTZBAUER JOHN P. VITKO THOMAS M. BROWN WILLIAM R. SOTH CORNELIUS 0. MAHONEY. JR. RICHARD G. SWANSON WILLIAM C. BABCOCK FAITH L OHMAN THOMAS S. ERICKSON DAVID A. RANHEIM MICHAEL E. BRESS ROBERT J. SILVERMAN RAYMOND A. REISTER THOMAS R. MANTHEY JOHN J. TAYLOR WILLIAM R. HIBBS WILLIAM J. HEMPEL PHILIP F. WELTER JOHN S. HIBBS WILLIAM B. PAYNE ROBERT O. FLOTTEN ROBERT A. HEIBERG JOHN D. LEVINE JOHN D. KIRBY ROBERT J. STRUYK ROBERT A. SCHWARTZBAUER MICHAEL A OLSON DAVID N. FRONEK LARRY W. JOHNSON THOMAS W TINKHAM THOMAS S. MAY JON F. TUTTLE U% - 2300 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING EMERY W. BARTLE W. CHARLES LANTZ WILLIAM A JOHNSTONE STEVEN F. WOLGAMOT MINNEAPOLIS ,MINNESOTA 55402 STEVEN K. CHAMPLIN MICHAEL J. RADMER J. MARQUIS EASTWOOD EDWARD J. PLUIMER _ MICHAEL TRUCANO OWEN C. MARX JAMES A. JAMES E. BOWLUS ( 612) 340-2600 DAVID L SOEHFLADER EN GEORGE L CHAPMAN MICHEL A. LAFOND THOMAS D. VANDER MOLEN DON D. CARLSON MARK & JARBOE PAUL J. SCHEERER BRUCE D. BOLANDER FRANK H. VOIGT JUDITH A. ROGOSHESKE WILLIAM H. HIRPEE, JR. PAUL B. KLAAS ROBERT A. BURNS MARGERY K. OTTO CABLE: DOROW ROGER J. MAGNUSON RONALD J. BROWN PETER S. HENDRIXSON MARC L KRUGER T E LEX: 29 -0605 J. ROBERT HIBBS CATHERINE A. BARTLETT JAY F. COOK DAVID J. LUBBEN TELECOPIER:(612) 34O -2868 STANLEY M.REIN BRUCE J. SHNIDER CHARLES L. POTUZNIK GEORGE G. ECK 1468 W -FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING VERLANE L. ENDORF DEN NIS P. BURATTI DARRON C. KNUTSON BARBARA B. FARRELL ST. PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 GEORGEANN BECKER LENZA MCELRATH,JR. (612) 227 - 8017 ROBERT L HOBBINS MARIANNE D. SHORT BARRY D. GLAZER MICHAEL E. REESLUND IRVING WEISER ELIZABETH A. GOODMAN 115 THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST STEPHEN E. GOTTSCHALK ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55901 KENNETH ER GARY M.JOHNSO HNSON (507) 288 -3156 JAY LSENNETT ROBERT G. BAYER OF COUNSEL SUZANNE B. VAN DYK WALDO F. MAROUART STUART R. HEMPHILL GEORGE E. ANDERSON May 2 9, 1979 J DAVID JACKSON JOHN F. FINN Mrs. Florence Hallberg City of Edina 4801 West 50 Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Lands Dear Florence: .Enclosed are an original and three copies of an Amended Application by the City of Edina for the acquisition of tax for_. feited land in Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision 196 and Indian Hills for water storage, which are to be executed by the Mayor and City Manager, notarized and returned to me. We previously made appli- cation for this property and, in fact, a state deed was issued,' but there was an error in the legal description, which necessitates this Amended Application. We will also have to have a new resolution passed by the City Council with a certified copy of said resolution attached to each copy of the Amended Application. As I have discussed with Fran Hoffman, the legal descrip- tion is bad. However, it appears to be the only one presently available for use in the state deed. Therefore, I recommend we again obtain this property by use of the bad legal- -then we can work to straighten out the description problem either now, or when it becomes a problem. Very truly yours, T mas S. Eric son TSE:AMK:ek Enclosures cc: Mr. Francis J. Hoffman Mr. Gordon L. Hughes RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina that the City Attorney be authorized and directed to file "Amended Application "Gov= er- nmental -- Subdivision for -Conveyance of-- Tax- Forfeited Lands ", for the following described property contained in Hennepin County Finance Division Manager's List dated September 14, 1977, said property to be used by the City of Edina as hereinafter set forth: Plat 73972, Parcel 4020 (1954)- -that part of Lot 17, Auditor's Sub- division 196 in the lake and lying North of the North line of Lot 4, Block 1, Indian Hills- -for Water Storage. ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1979. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly.ap.po.inted 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 June 18, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 19th day of June, 1979. City Clerk No. 2597 - Department of Taxation Form No. 92 Miller -Davis Co., Minneapolis AMENS - r _. APPLICATION BY GOVERNMV N TAL SUBDIVISION FOR CONVEYANCE OF TAX- FORFEITED LANDS ✓ 111rsotta Slat utcs 190, S(!Cti011, 282.01 In the .Natter of the .4pplication .......... of ........ the...CitY...of ... Edtna .................................................................. ................... ............, . a Governmental Subdivision, for a Conveyance of Certain Lands. Comesnow........ the... City. ... pf ... Edina..................................................... : ................... ............................and alleges: (name of subdivision) 1. That applicant is a ( a) ..... ...mua. cip.a.l ... corporation; .......................................... ............................... Q. That (b) ....by resolution of the City Council adopted on .................................................................................................................................... ............................... . acquisition of the below described property was authorized, a copy of said resolution is attached hereto; 8. That there is situated within applicant's boundaries in the County of .......... Hennepin certain tax- forfeited land described as follows: ....................................... b ....................................................... I ................. I ....................... Plat 73972, Parcel 4020 (1954) - -that part of Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision 196 in the lake and lying North of North line of Lot 4, Block 1, Indian Hills- -for Water Storage; 4. That said lands are (c) ..... 1akc ... bQt. torn... lands ... benea.th ... Arrowhead ... Lake.; ............... ............................... 5. That applicant desires to obtain said land f or the ollowin ur oses: d to continue their present use; 6. That there is need for such lands for the following reasons: ..........water storage. .. Wherefore applicant prays that said lands be conveyed to it for the use stated herein. CITY OF EDINA. ............................................................................................ ............................... By........................... ...................................... :...........................,.. James Van Valkenburg I .. .... ..Y..o r f ..:............ �� ......... . Kenneth E. Rosland Mana er Its ................. g.......................................... ............................... estate of inne!610$a, ss. Henne in County of ................ .......... P................. ............................... JAMES VAN VALKENBURG and KENNETH E. ROSLAND, .........:......each being first duly sworn, depose and say, each for himself, that they are respectively the ............. Mayor ........................................................ City Manager TY OF ENA : and................................................... ..............................o f the................ CI...........................DI........................................................................ .............................; that they have read the foregoing application and k now the contents thereof; and that the matters stated therein are true. ............................................................................................... ............................... ............................................................................................... ............................... Subscribed and sivorn to before me this .. ............................... dayof .......................................... .............................., 19..79.... Notary Public, .................... I ................................. County, Ninn. My cornnaission expires ...................................... ............................... (a) State facts relative to legal organization. I b) State facts showirng authorization of acquisition of lard hereinafter described by resolution of governing body or by voters, ate., as the case may require, attaching copics .f resolutions, if any. (c) n 1)rscritic naturc of lands, use of surrotuiding pr iert ad Other similar facts. (d) Give statcrruent of facts as to the use to tic ma, c of n 51 :h Muds. 11 UPCl1T TTTTnTT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina has received from the County of Hennepin a list of lands in said municipality which became the property of the State of Minnesota.for non- payment of the 1970 real estate taxes, which said list has been designated as Classification List No. 656 -NC; and WHEREAS, each parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County, Minnesota, as non - conservation land and the sale thereof has heretofore been authorized by said Board of County Commissioners; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by said City Council, acting pursuant to Minnesota Statute 282, that the said classification by said Board of County Commissioners, of each parcel of land be and the same is hereby approved, and that the sale of each such parcel of land be and the same is hereby approved. ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1979. 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 June 18, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 19th day of June, 1979. City Clerk DPQAT TTTT()AT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina that the City Attorney be authorized and directed to file "Application for Governmental Subdivision for Conveyance of Tax Forfeited Lands ",.for the following des- cribed property contained in Hennepin County Auditor's List "656 -NC ", said property to be used by the City of Edina as hereinafter set forth: 1. Outlot. 1, Indianhead Lakeview Addition.(Plat 75875, Parcel 8000) - For Storm Drainage Purposes; 2. That part of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 lying North of Creek Valley Addition and South-of Highway, Sec. 5, -T. 116, R. 21 (Plat 73605, Parcel 1125) - For Open Space Purposes; 3. The.Northerly 10.,feet of Lot 10, Block 8, Brookview Heights 1st Addi- tion (Plat 74280, Parcel 8120) - for Storm Drainage Purposes. ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1979. 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 June 18, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 19th day of June, 1979. City Clerk No. 2597— Department of Taxation Form No. 99 APPLICATION BY GOVERNMENTAL SUBDIVISION FOR, CONVEYANCE OF TAX- FORFEITED LANDS JUM1ex0t(a ,titu.lates 194,9, .Ycetion;e82.01 In the Matter o the ./1 lication o the CitY....o.f...Ed.ina ........................................... : ............................................................ ,f pP f ......................... a Governmental Subdivision, for a Conveyance of Certain Lands. Comes now ........the .City.... of Edina . . . ............ ......and alleges: .................................................................................. ............................... (name of subdivisiott) 1. That applicant is a ( a).....muuiclP.al ... e.Q..r.P.Qra .�Qu...vnd.ar...t.he... laws.... of... tbe...S.mt..e...Q.f.34janesota. Q. That fb) by resolution of the City Council adopted June 18, 1979, acquisition of t e below...descrili'ed..properties was authorized; a copy of...said...resoYution is attached hereto; rl. That there is situated within applicant's boundaries in the County of....H. Pnn. Q, P1 R .... ............................... certain tax - forfeited land described as follows: .......................................................................................................................................... Plat 73605, Parcel 1125 (05- 116 -21 -24 -0001) - That part of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 lying North of Creek Valley Addition and South of Highway, Sec. 5, T. 116, R. 21 - For Open Space Purposes 4. That said lands are ( c) ..... open ... s.p.ace.,....with,...Czoss. town ... H; Lghway ... 62. ... on...the....Nor.th ...... a ... church and open space on the South, high school property on the West. 5. That applicant desires to obtain said land for the following purposes: ( d) ..... to ... continue ............. present use; e. That there is need for such lands for the following reasons: ........ Open ... $.P.aCe ... lArpQS.es ................... Wherefore applicant prays that said lands be conveyed to it for the use stated herein. By...................................................................................:.. ............................... Its .... ........................... Mayo r ................ ............................... % nd ...................................................................................... ............................... Its....................... Cit.y. ... MaRage r... ............................... state of inneq;Otap ss. Count of Hennepin ....................... ......... James... Van... alkenhu.r,g.. and.. Ke.�ne,t,h., E,.,.,. QS.laad,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,; ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,each being first duly sworn, depose and say, each for himself, that they are respectively the .......... Mayor .......................................................... and ............. City.. Manage. r ............................... of the............. City. .... of. .... Edina that they have read the foregoing application and k7tow the contents thereof; and that the matters stated therein are true. Subscribed and sworn to before one this .. ............................... dayof ..... .. .........:............. P 19............ Notary Public, ............................... .......................County, Minn. J{fy commission expires ...................................... ............................... (a) State facts relative to legal organization. b) State fact showing authorization of acquisition of land hereinafter described•by resolution of governing body or by voters, etc., as the case may requ.re, attaching copies of resolutions, if any. (c) 1) scribe ,attire of lands, use of surrounding pro pertp and other similar facts. (d) Give slat :ment of facts as to the use to he mace of such lands. 4 RESOLUTION OF COUNTY BOARD UPON APPLICATION WIIERE✓18, the County Board of ................... ............................... ........................County, Minnesota, has examined intothe allegations of the application of ......................................................................................................................... ............................... dated ............................................................... ................19............, for the conveyance of certain lands therein described; now, Therefore, be it resolved by the County Board of ....................... ............................... ........................County, Minnesota, that it hereby ...............approves said application and recommends that the same be ................................. granted. ............................................................................................... ............................... County Board of said County estate of Alinneotat ss. Countyof ............ :................................................................. I, .......................................................................................... ..............................I county auditor and clerk of the County Board Of ....................... ............................... ............,...........County, .Minnesota, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of resolution of the County Board of said county with the original record thereof in the minutes of the proceedings of said board at a meeting duly held........... ............................... ..............................1 19............, and that the same is a true and correct copy of said original record and of the whole thereof, and that said resolution was duly adopted by said board at said meeting. I f urther certify that the application referred to in said resolution is hereto attached. Witnessmy hand and seal this .... ............................... .............:..............day of.................................... ............................... 19............ ............................................................................................... ............................... County Juditor and Clerk of the County. Board .......................... ............................... ........................County, Minnesota OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER. OF T.4XdTIOX St. Paul, Minn .. ................................. ..............................1 19............ Upon due consideration of the within application it is ordered that the same be and, it is hereby rejected granted. a d O V >4 a a A o RI ......................................................................................... ............................... Commissioner of Taxation By ................. ............................... ................... ................... ...... ..... ...... ..... Deputy 1 � L � U -� O LaGr O V � A o CO-1 1 No. 2597 — Department of Texatlon Form No. 92 APPLICATION BY GOVERNMENTAL SUBDIVISION, FOR CONVEYANCE OF TAX- FORFEITED LANDS xin.n.r.ota stututes m)49, seetion;e82.t)1 In the Matter of the .4pplieation of .............City... of . .... Edina . . . ..... , ............................. ............................... a (Governmental Subdivision, for a Conveyance of Certain Lands. Comesnow .................... C.i..t.y...of ... Edina ................................. ................................. ......................... ...... ............. ............... and alleges: (name of subdivisiou) 1. That applicant is (a) ....... municipal.. corporation.... nd,er ... he ... laws,,, ,Qf,,,the,,,,$ta.tg .... Qf ... Mi Znesota. Q. That (b) by resolution of the City Council adopted June 18, 1979, acquisition of the &elow described properties was autliorizecl'; a"coi yoi 'said resolution is attached hereto; 3. That there is situated within applicant's boundaries in the County of ...... Hennepin ... ............................... certain tax- forfeited land described as follows: .......................................................................................................................................... Plat 75875, Parcel 8000 (06- 116- 21 -43- 0020) - Outlot 1, Indianhead Lakeview Addition For Storm Drainage Purposes .l. That said lands are (c) ............. lake,. bottom..lands...beneath_.. Arrowhead... Lake..,...,... ............................... 5. That applicant desires to obtain said land for the following purposes: ( d).. to .... coatin.u.e ................. present use; 6. That there is need for such lands for the following reasons: ....Storm Drainage Purposes Wherefore applicant prays that said la71.ds be conveyed'to it for the use stated herein. By...................................................................................:.. ............................... Its.............................................................. ............................... Mayor znd....................................................................................... ............................... Its................................ ......................... tate of Ifflinnefsota, - ss. County of .............ft fi1R. ep..: 0.......... ............................... Jame. i5 .... V. an... Val kenhux'.g...an.d ... Kenneth...E. Rosland ........ ............................... ...........................each being first duly sworn, depose and say, each for himself, that they are respectively the ............. Mayor........................................................ and................ Cit.y.. Man. age. r ............................. of the ............... City .... o£. ... Edin. a ........................................................................................ .; that they have read the foregoing application and k now the contents thereof; and that the ]'natters stated therein are true. Subscribed and sworn to before me this .. ............................... dayof .......................................... ............................... 19............ Notary Public, .............................. ........................County, Minn. .ht y commission expires ...................................... ............................... (n) Slate facts relative to legal organization. b State facts showing authorization of acquisition of land he, einafter described by resolution of governing body or by voters. etc., as the case may require, attaching copies of resolutions, if any. (c) Describe nature of lands, use of surrounding Propernp and ntF -r similar facts. (d) Give statement of facts as to the use to he made of such la ds. I RESOLUTION OF COUNTY BOARD UPON APPLICATION WHERE✓IS, the County Board of ................... ............................... ........................County, Minnesota, has examined intothe allegations of 'he application of ......................................................................................................................... ............................... dated ............................................................... ................i9............, for the conveyance of certain lands therein described; now, Therefore, be it resolved by the County Board of ....................... ............................... ........................County, Minnesota, that it hereby ...............approves said application and recommends that the same be ................................. granted. ........................................................................................... ............................... County Board of said County estate of , innee;ota, 83. Countyof ............................................... ............................... I, .......................................................................................... ............................... county auditor and clerk of the County Board Of ....................... ............................... ........................County, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of resolution of the County Board of said county with the original record thereof in the minutes of the proceedings of said board at a meeting duly held ........... ............................................. .................. 19.. ..........., and that. the same is a true and correct copy of said original record and of the whole thereof, and that said resolution was duly adopted by said board at said meeting. I f urther certify that the application referred to in said resolution is hereto attached. Witness my hand and seal this ................................................................. day of ................ ............................... 19............ ............................................................................................... ............................... County .duditor and Clerk of the County Board .......................... ............................... ........................County, Minnesota OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF TJX.4TIOX St. Paul, Minn ................................... ..............................1 19 Upon due consideration of the within application it is ordered that the same be and it is hereby rejected granted. O p V pq a. ' iX Commissioner of Taxation By.................................................................. ............................... ..... Deputy V a 0 ti C` h 0 0 v� V .4-A y ry ti c� O U A V a 0 ti C` h 0 0 v� V r No.' 2597— Departroent of Taxation Form No. 91 APPLICATION BY GOVERNMENTAL SUBDIVISION FOR. CONVEYANCE OF TAX- FORFEITED LANDS JH71.1texota ,titat.atc.v 1949, sf'rlioli ;e8 .01 In the .Matter of the . 4ppli. cationof .......... the...City. ... of... Edina ........................................................................... ............................... a Governmental Subdivision, for a Conveyance of Certain Lands. Comesnow ... ............................the City.... °f... ......... Edina.......................................... ............................... ............................and alleges: (name of subdivision) 1. That applicant is a (a) ..... municipal .... orporaton,,,und.�.r,..thg,.. laws,., of,,, tesota Q. That (b by resolution of the City Council adopted June 18, 1979, acquisition of the be ow...descr Ued...p-roperfres...was author'ized .... a ""copy...of...s nb.i i -aid....i6s61: ..s..... attached hereto; 3. That there is situated within applicant's boundaries in the County of .................. HemApP n...................... certain tax- forfeited land described as follows: ............. ............................................................................................................................ Plat 74280, Parcel 2255 (04- 116 -21 -32 -0023) - The Northerly 10 feet of Lot 10, Block 8, Brookview Heights 1st Addition - For Storm Drainage Purposes .!. That said lands are (c)....surrounded..by... the... MrI , &S...Railroad...tracks...on.. the..West...and.... private homes across Ridgeview Drive and to the North of the property in question; 5. That applicant desires to obtain said land for the following purposes: ( d) ..... t.o .... continue ............. present use; 6. That there is need for such lands for the following reasons: .Storm Drainage Purposes Wherefore applicant prays that said laal.ds be conveyed to it for the use stated herein. By...................................................................................:.. ............................... Its ......................... Mayor.. ............................... .................... znd............. :....................................................................................................... Its....................... i.ty.... Man. agex.... ............................... tate of Ainnvgotav ss. Henne in County of ................................... P.......... ............................... Jame,$,.. V....Valkenb.urg... and.,, Kenneth... E,,.. ,Rosland,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;,,, „., .,,,,.,.,...,,,,..,.,..,,.,each being first duly sworn, depose and say, each for himself, that they are respectively the ..................................................... ............................... and..................... Mayor................ .............. ............... of the.... ........ ....... �i. t. X.. Mana. ger.......................................................................................... that they have read the foregoing. application and k now the contents thereof; and that the matters stated therein are true. Subscribed and sworn to before me this .. ............................... dayof .......................................... ............................... 19............ Notary Public, .............................. ........................County, Xinn. r1f y commission expires ...................................... ............................... b (a) State facts relative to legal organization. State facts showing authorization of acquisition of land hereinafter described by resolution of governing body or by voters, etc., as the ease may require. attaching copies of resolutions, if any. (c) 1)escribe nature of lands, use of surrounding property and oth:r similar facts. (d) Give statement of facts as to the use to be made of such lat,ds. 0 RESOLUTION OF COUNTY BOARD UPON APPLICA'T'ION WHERE✓ 8, the County Board of ...... :.. ....................... .......................................... Cotud y, Minnesota, has examined into the allegations of the application of.. ..................... ............................... .................................................................. ............................... dated ............................................................... ................19............, for the conveyance of certain lands therein described; now, Therefore, be it resolved by the County Board of ....................... ............................... ........................County, Minnesota, that it hereby ...............approves said application and recommends that the same be ................................. granted. ............................................................................................... ............................... County Board of said County bta$te of Ninneota, ss. Countyof ............................................... ............................... I, .......................................................................................... ............................... county auditor and clerk of the County Board Of ....................... ............................... ........................County, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of resolution of the County Board of said county with the original record thereof in the minutes of the proceedings of said board at a meeting duty held .......................................... ............................... 19............, and that the same is a true and correct copy of said original record and of the whole thereof, and that said resolution was duly adopted by said board at said meeting. I f urther certify that the application referred to in said resolution is hereto attached. Witness m hand and seal this .................................. ..............:..............da o .................. 19............ y y f .................. ............................... ..............................:.......................................................... ............................... County .4uditor and Clerk of the County Board ....... : .............................. _ ......................................... County, Minnesota OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF TJX -4TION St. Paul, Minn., ................................. ............................... 19............ Upon due consideration of the within application it is ordered that the same be and it is hereby rejected granted. Commissioner of Taxation By......................... 0 a Deputy W e � U z z �° O t H a C � x 0 a Deputy MP MnR A M nT TM TO: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager FROM: Colleen Paulus, Edina Health Department SUBJECT: Spring Education Conference . DATE: June 18, 1979 On June 1, 1979, the Edina Health Department attended the Spring Education Conference. of the Minnesota Environmental Health Association. The conference was held in Duluth, Minnesota at the Normandy Inn. The meetings began at 9 a.m. and went to 4 p.m. The conference was divided into four seminars, two in the morning and two in the afternoon. Below is a summary of each seminar. *Public Health Aspects of Human and Animal Rabies - Dr. Larry Anderson The cause, the effect, and the.prevention of rabies in wild and domestic animals was discussed. A new mode of transmission that only had been theory had been discovered. In 1978, rabies was found to be transmitted through a corneal transplant. This was the first case of rabies acquired from a tissue transplant of any kind. Immunization of animals was stressed and management of biting animals reviewed, as well as effective measures in protecting rural communities from skunk habitation. *Acid Rain Public Health Implications - Dr. Gary Glass The effect of coal fire power plants on the environment was examined. It was pointed out that the sulfur particles emitted into the atmosphere from the.plants� has a direct effect on plant and tree damage. It was pointed out that the Ozone from Chicago. and Kansas City causes plant and tree damage in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Sweden's acidified lakes were used as examples and their techniques for correcting their lakes were reviewed. *Pests /Pesticides - Dr. Phil Harein The interspecific identification of roaches, ants, and flies was discussed and illustra- ted. Methods of extermination and proper use of pesticides were explained. *Rodents /Rodenticides Urban, Rural, and Wharf - Ray Prochaska and Tom Douville Rats and mice were the main topic of discussion. Identification of domestic rats and mice were illustrated. Principals of rodent control and killing were expanded upon. CJP:jkt APPENDIX 7 Sample Resolution RESOLUTION REQUESTING 1978 -79 LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 473 .851 - 473.872, requires that C, of' 6 /nO prepare and submit a comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan //��Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and scale. - entered 02 r into a contract, numbered and dated 31��gfor a Local Planning Assistance Grant for 1976 -77 grant funds in,the amount of $ 01'701-60 to assists a..y dj 9,e - in carrying out the required planning; and WHE S t e etropolitan Council has allocated $ �' 7 ,ve to :the >�.;.�- in additional grant funds for 1978 -79; and WHEREAS, the total grants from the Metropolitan Council will not exceed 75% of the total cost or 1000 of the remaining cost of carrying out the required planning which is documented in Appendix A of the above - referenced contract. NOW THEREFORE, the ( SP� requests the additional 1978 -79 grant funds and authorizes` 4¢ d4 /j' a,y,,cr� to execut the Agreement Amendment, to the above- ref erenc d contr ct on behalf:of Adopted by 197 Attest Title this day of , - 41 - By Title MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: BLOOMINGTON /EDINA LAND EXCHANGE DATE: June 8, 1979 It has come to my attention via Gordon Hughes that he has been meeting with Arlyn.Grussing, Planning Director of Bloomington, to discuss preliminary development plans for property in the northeast quadrant of France Avenue and I -494 and at present it is my understanding that the developer is proposing a hotel complex with some supportive commercial uses. Gordon has pointed out that maybe this is the time to discuss any land exchange between Bloomington and the City of Edina as the project would be somewhat similar to the Radisson South Hotel. Although the Council in the past has shown some interest in land exchange for the Radisson, I personally feel at this time that a land exchange is not feasible. Coming up at your next Council meeting will be the Radisson's request for some additional rooms at their present building. Any type of a land exchange that we might do for the Radisson so they possibly could have a liquor license would only again complicate the problem at France and I -494. I am sure Bloomington would readily accept our land at I -494 and some part of the Radisson for exchange of the land south of Braemar. However, I strongly feel two problems exist: 1) we become a loser tax -wise, and 2) it would look as if the Council made a transfer convenient for a liquor license. The reason for this memorandum is to start your thinking processes so that we may react in the near future. I personally would like to see us resolve the issue prior to any I -494 and France development plans so that we are not reacting to an individual case but reacting to a principle. If you have any questions I would be more than happy to chat with you regard- ing this. Thank you. City Manager KR:md cc: Gordon Hughes J/F % RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROPRIATION OF MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUNDS TO S.A.P. PROJECT NO. 120 - 020 -05 WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable.and necessary for the City of Edina to participate in the cost of a construction - project located on C.S.A.H. No. 17 within the limits of said municipality; and WHEREAS, said construction project has been approved by the Department of Highways and identified in its records as S.A.P. No. 120-020-05; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that.the Edina City Council does hereby appropriate from its Municipal State -Aid Funds the sum of $30,000 to apply toward the construction of said project and requests the Commis- sioner of Highways to approve this authorization. DATED this 18th day of June, 1979. 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 June 18, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 9th day of July, 1979. City Clerk RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROPRIATION OF MUNICIPAL STATE -AID FUNDS TO S.A.P. PROJECT NO. 120 - 020 -07 I WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and.necessary for the City of Edina to participate -in the cost of a construction project located on C.S.A.H. No. 31 within the limits of said municipality; and WHEREAS, said construction - project has been .approved by the Department of Highways and identified in its records as S.A.P. No. 120 - 020 -07; NOW, THFIREFORE,.BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City .Council does hereby appropriate from its.Municipal.State_Aid Funds the sum of $20,000 to apply toward the construction of said project -and requests the Commis - sioner of Highways to approve this authorization. ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1979. 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 June 18, 1979, and as recorded in the minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal.of said City this 9th day of July, 1979. City Clerk CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Depopits Working Fund Contrnets Receivable Due from Other. Funds Loan To Other Funds Inventory: Liquor Wine Beer and Mix Prepaid Expenses: Unexpired Insurance Supplies Inventory FIXED ASSETS AT COST: Land Land Improvements Buildings Furniture and Fixtures Leasehold Improvements Less: Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization CURRENT I.IARILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll Due To Other Funds SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed.Assets Unappropriated L7QTTOR FUND BALANCE STIEFT CITY OF EDTNA As At April 30, 1979 ASSETS $ 77,504.99 3,500.00 $ 434,893.67 337,268.26 36,773.47 Y--t-11 -1 A $ R1,004.99. 64,653.34 12$,064.00 415,000.00 808,935.40 $ 6,971.50 400.00_ 7.371.50 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $1,505,029.23 $ 233,784.60 $ 21.9083.61 658,333.27 224,284.44 3,035.55 $ 90,673.87 204,108.31 702,628.56 936,413.16 TOTAL ASSETS $2,441,442.39 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $ 936,413.16 1,181,698.96 $ 225,9R4.312 4,870.95 $ 230,855.27 92,_4_75.00 $ 323,330.27 2,11.8,112.12 $2,441,442.39 Ade LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDINA INCREASE - DECREASE" 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale I Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total SALES: $ 152,441.47 $ 325,562.11 $ 274,864.37 $ 752,867.95.$ 111,428.62 $ 315,211.00 $ 268,801.90 $ 695,441.52 $ 41,012.85 $ 109-351.11 $ 6,062.47 $ 57,426.43 Liquor 96,305.43 168,337.74 131,353.61 395,996.78 47,923.59 151,283.68 127,343.49 326,550.76 48,381.84 17,054.06 4,010,12 69,446.02 Wine 50 984.10 109 301.66 80 002.57 240 288.33 28 683.90 98 067.97 68,187.62 194 939.49 22 300.20 11 233.69 11 814.95 45 348.84 Beer Beer nd Miscellaneous 4,094.93 9,184.53 7,546.10 20,825.56 2,676.35 .9.672.99 7,083.58 19,432.82 1,418.58 488.36* 462.52 1,392.74 Mix $ 303,825.93 $ 612,386.04 $ 493,766.65 $1,409,978.62 190,712.46 574,235.54 $ 471,416.59 $1,236,364.59 $113,113.47 $ 38,150.50 $ 22,350.06 $173,614.03 10,700.56 22,204.74 19,764.51 52,669.81 6,553.41 20.947.98 18,527.94 46,029.33 4,147.15 1,256.76 1,236.57 6,640.48 NET SAALES LES Less bottle s $ 293,125.37 $ 590,181.30 $ 474,002.14 $1,357,308.81 $ 184,159.05 $ 553,287.56 $ 452,888.65 $1,190,335.26 $108,966.32 $ 36,893.74 $ 21,113.49 $166,973.55 COST OF SALES: Inventory -January 1$ 168,546.07 $ 268,434.93 $ 223,553.73 $ 660,534.73 $ 97,456.21 $ 234,430.65 $ 222,573.02 $ 554,459.88 $ 71,089.86 $ 34,004.28 $ 980.71 $106,074.85 Purchases 273,644.75 565,367.61 455,933.52 1,294,945.88 217,159.67 493,204.24 420,495.91 1,130,859.82 56,485.08 72,163.37 35,437.61 164,086.06 $ 442,190.82 $ 833,802.54 $ 679,487.25 $1,955,480.61 $ 314,615.88 $ 727,634.89 $ 643.068.93 $1,685,319.70$127,574.94 106,167.65 $ 36,418.32 $270,160.91 Inventory April 30 19.7,910.60 336,951.34 274,073.46 808,935.40 159,154.78 262,339.27 256,880.07 678,374.12 38,755.82 74,612.07 17,193.39 130,561.28 $ 244,280.22 $ 496,851.20 $ 405,413.79 $1,146.545.21 $ 155,461.10 $ 465,295.62 $ 3R6,1P8.86 1,006,945.58 $ 88,819.12 $ 31,555.58 $ 19,224.93 $139,599.63 GROSS PROFIT $ 48)845.15 93,330.10 $ 68,588.35 210,763.60 $ 28,697.95 $ 87,991.94 $ 66,699.79 183,389.68 20,147.20 5,338.16 1,888.56 $ 27,373.92 OPERATING EXPENSES: Selling 17,661.95 26,186.96 20,697.66 64,546.57 14,212.17 23,908.70 20,833.63 58,954.50 3,449.78 2,278.26 135.97* 5,592.07 Overhead 9,826.46 14,794.37 10,689.38 35,310.21 6,729.08 10,863.41 9,669.27 27,261.76 .3,097.38 3,930.96 1,020.11 8,048.45 Administrative 15,034.91 22,371.98 16,501.12 53,908.01 14,322.46 17,208.71 15,797.11 47,328.28 712.45 5,163.27 704.01 6,579.73 TOTAL. OPERATING $ 42,523.32 $ 63,353.31 $ 47,888.16 $ 153,764.79 $ 35,263.71 $ 51,980.82 $ 46,300.01 $ 1.33,544.54 $ 7,259.61 $ 11,372.49 $ 1,588.15 $ 20,220.25 EXPENSES NET OPERATING $ 6,321.83 $ 29,976.79 $ 20,700.19 $ 56,998.81 $ 6,565,,76 *$ 36,011.12 $ ` 20,399.78 $ 49,845.14 $ 12 887.59 $ 6,034.33* $ • 300.41 $ 7,153,67 PROFIT 12,441.84 $ 39,432.55 $ 28,487.57 $ 80,361.96 $ 2,860.47 *$ 44,215.43 $ 27,514.78 $ 68,869.74 $ 15,302.31 $ 4,782.88* $ 972.79 $ 11,492.22 OTHER INCOME: 4,259.01 9,508.06 7,769.26 21,536.33 3,454.15 8,277.79 6,986.05 18,717.99 804.86 1,230.27 783.21 2,813.:': Cash Discount 64.20 52.30* 18.12 30.02 1 30.14* 73.48* 128.95 25.33 94.34 21.18 110.83* 4.69 Cash over or under 1, 218.46 2.09 1 60 1,218.46 -0- -0- 1,218.46 N ETINCOM E 4.24% 1,218.46 Income on investments 578.34 1.56%* 7.99% 578.34 281.28 281.28 297.06 297.06 Other $ 6,120.01 9,455.76 7,787.38 23,363.15 $ 3,705.29 $ 8,204.31 7,115.00 19,02 .60 2 $ 1414.72 $ 1,251.45 $ 672.38 4,338.55 $ 12,441.84 $ 39,432.55 $ 28,487.57 $ 80,361.96 $ 2,860.47 *$ 44,215.43 $ 27,514.78 $ 68,869.74 $ 15,302.31 $ 4,782.88* $ 972.79 $ 11,492.22 N ETINCOM E PERCENT TO NET SALES: Gross profit 16.66% 15.81% 14.47% 15.53% 15.58% 15.90% 14.73% 15.41% Operating expenses 14.51 10.73 10.10 11.33 19.15 9.39 10.22 11.22 Operating profit 2.15% 5.08% 4.37% 1 64 4.20% 3.57 %* 2_D1 6.51% 1.48 4.51% 1.57 4.18% 1.60 Other income 2.09 1 60 L, - N ETINCOM E 4.24% 6.68% 6.01% 5.92% 1.56%* 7.99% 6.08% 5.79% �EE ®1111A '801 :EST 50TH STREET. EDINA. vi,ir;ESCTA 55'24. 612 -927 -8861 RESOLUTION APPROPRIATION 0 1UNICIPAL STATE -AID FUNDS TO . 1"N&, ANDS► WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of Edina to participate in the cost of a construction project located on C.S.A.H. No.: f 7 within the limits of said municipality; and WHEREAS, said construction project has been approved by the Department of Highways and identified in its records as S.A.P. Nos. 1-1-x, 124-466-G-1 an-d -1-90-446-9-1-; /LU -GNU -DS . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City'Council does hereby appropriate from its Municipal State -Aid Street Funds the sum of $6*',bftIF V J d to apply toward the construction of said project and requests the Commis- sioner of Highways to approve this authorization. DATED this 1,aktrday of Deeeif6er, 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 December 18, 1978, and as recorded in the minutes of said regular meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 28th day of December, 1978. City Clerk '801 v:EST 50TH STREET_ EDINA. %•i•ir;ESCTA 55a2s 612 -927 -8861 RESOLUTION APPROPRIATION OF MUNICIPAL STATE -AID FUNDS TO vry -irrr. PROJECTS NOS. OZ - 07 WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of Edina to participate in the cost of a construction project located on C.S.A.H. No. 31 within the limits of said municipality; and WHEREAS, said construction project has been approved by the Department of Highways and identified in its records as S.A.P. Nos. 12�.�I2, 120-466---ft /Zu - OZ® -07 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City-Council does hereby $� D /` appropriate from its Municipal State -Aid Street Funds the sum of $$ Z V • to apply toward the construction of said project and requests the Commis- sioner of Highways to approve this authorization. DATED this t&t -Wday of DtremtTe -t, 44-?W. 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 December 18, 1978, and as recorded in the minutes of said regular meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 28th day of December, 1978. r City Clerk �T WHERE GOOD TIMES BEGIN " 9 EDINA SENIORS NEWS Numb6PINIA SENIOR CITIZENS COMMUNITY CENTER 7151 YORK 835 -299A1 6 HAPPY BIRTHDAY JULY BIRTHDAYS! Rollin.Baker - 2 Martin Dunn - 3 Doris Maurer - 5 Florence Rosholt - 5 Astrid.Johnson - 5 Margaret Van Horn -•7 Vera Krueger - 9 Gust Weiss - 9 Irene Skogren - 11 Kay Macmillan - 11 Margie Dahlen - 11 Nellie Carlbom - 12 Agnes Lindahl - 14 Mrs. Sytske Warren - 14 Florence Harrington - 15 Emma Moore - 17 Priscilla Rugloski - 17 Nels Lindberg - 17 Rose Norton - 17 Edythe Nichols - 18 Pearl McClard j 19 Laurette Scholz - 19 Mrs. Clyde Lonestretch - 20 Christine Raadt - 22 Dorothy Cook - 24 Anastacia Madden - 24 Chester Bergstrand - 25 Helen Cain - 25 James Purcell - 25 Erling Ebbeson -.26 Adalyne Pearson - 26 Virginia Andreen - 27 Sidney Gunn - 27 Mary Kaye - 28 Gladys Carlson- 28 Dorris Peterson 28 Violet Johnson - 28 Mary Alice Adler - 29 Margery Weber - 29 Olive Nelson - 30 Jacob Harder - 31 Belated birthday message - Mae Carlson -May 30 UPCOMING DATES MONTHLY REVIEW Wednesday, July 4 - 'Center closed Thursday, July 5 9:30 Crafts & Coffee Friday, July 7 - 1:00 Bridge exchange at Richfield 3:00 Speaker: Dr. Keister, podiatri t Monday, July 9 Federation picnic Tuesday, July 10 - 1 :30 Sr. Club Business meeting Tuesday, July 17 - 1:00 Public Health Day Self Breast Exam Thursday, July 19 - 5:30 Summer Polka Festival Friday, July 20 1:30-Birthday party Tuesday, July 24 - 10:45 Walk to library (Southdale) & lunch Thursday, July 26 - 12:30 Twins game & Mr. Steak Tuesday, August 7 - Trout Aire with Richfield Tuesday, August 14 - Byerly tour & lunch Thursday, August 16 - picnic & walk at Cornelia Park i w - special a events J Date: July 19 1\ SUMMER POLKA FESTIVAL Time 5:30 -9:00 p.m. Come One! Come All! to our Summer Polka Festival sponsored by the Edina Special Childrens Group and the Edina Seniors. We'll have all kinds of eats, so plan to come for supper. The Polk Lovers Klub of America will be our big attraction along with Tony Buss's live band, The Country Kousins! The Polka Klub will be performing many of your favorite old time dances and you'll get a chance to kick up your heels and dance too! Keep this date open, we'll have a ball... See you there. SR. CLUB BUSINESS MEETING Date: Tues.,July 10 Time: 1:30 Charlene Christensen from SHARE will be here to give details about a new comprehensive health program and answer any questions. This is one of the best health programs and it is endorsed by the Federal Government. Be sure and attend. BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION July 20, at 1:30 p.m. we will be honoring all July birthdays. If you are celebratin g your birthday in July and plan on attending the party, please call the office or sign up for the birthday table. Everyone else is welcome to the party. TWINS vs. CLEVELAND INDIANS and MR. STEAK Date: Thurs., July 26 Cost: $4.50 (ticket and transportation) Leave Center: 12:30 p.m. Join us for an afternoon at the Twins game when they play the Cleveland Indians. We will then enjoy a meal at Mr. Steak. There is a 15% discount for senior citizens at Mr. Steak until 4:30 p.m. Sign up with Sue or Debbie. P. S. A minimum of 25 people is needed for the bus: yiP SUMMER WALKS Come and enjoy our beautiful Minnesota summer with walking trips. (weather permitting) Tues., July 3 1:30 p.m. - leave for park stop for afternoon snack afterwards Sign up with Debbie! Tues., July 24 10:45 - leave for Southdale library & tour 12:00 - lunch at Original Pancake House w ' SPECIAL PEOPLE Helen Greer, thank you for your devotion to the caring of our plants. The conversation area is beautified by all the greenery. P.S. We are looking for someone to care for the plants while Helen takes a leave of absence. Contact Sue immediately if interested. Amy Carlson - 100 hrs. Jo, Wolfe - 100 hrs. Mary Young Dohle - 100 hrs. Special thanks to Muriel Cords for making all the name tags for special occasions. 1 10 �j7 1 f 7' ?r i M2 Winners of the June Bridge Exchange: 1st - Dorothy Weiss 2nd - Ann Graham . 3rd - Rose Van Eyhe 4th - Florence Harris Congratulations! We welcome letters to the editor, original poetry, etc. THIS IS YOUR NEWSLETTER. DON'T FORGET TO SIGN IN AT FRONT REGISTRAION DESK. Congratulations of the June 4th "Throw Out Hole" - Special Event winners: Men John Bolego Women Dorothy Foley The Monday Golf League at Hyland Greens has been a tremendous success. We've ;% got lots of good times yet to come, . why not join us? Call Sue at 835 -2999 forte` information. o f you wait for perfect conditions, you i-'ll never get anything done. Ec. 11:4 A !� - 77 --% SUGGESTION: Do it that very moment! Don't put it off - don't wait. There's no use in doing a kindness If you do it a day too late! (Charles Kingsley) z 1st Thursday of each month 10:00- 12:00* Paramedics Blood Pressure Clinic. Cost 25¢. pressure reading will be sent to your doctor. and mailing cost) . 2nd Thursday of each month- 1:00 -3:00 Public Health Blood Pressure Clinic. No cost. 3rd Thursday of each month - 1:00 -3:00 Public Health Blood Pressure Clinic. No cost. *BLOOD PRESSURE TIME CHANGE Please Not The Paramedics will be here the first Thursday of every month from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. If desired, your blood (The 25� covers cards PODIATRIST Dr. Steve Keister, a podiatrist will be f here to speak fon July 6p t 3:00 p.m. at the will be discussing the possibilities or o questions make sure you attend! center. If you are interested or have any q BREAST SELF EXAM CLASSES Did you know that 1 out of every 13 women in the United States will develop cancer in her lifetime. OR that 8 out of 10 breast changes are NOT cancer. OR that 95% of all breast abnormalities are discovered by women (or their sexual partners)? You are your doctor's best diagnostic tool: Learn how to examine your own breasts for changes that might indicate cancer by attending a class taught by a Public Health Nurse at your Senior Center. Tuesday 7/10 Creekside Center, Room 108 9801 Penn Bloomington 10:30 - 11:30 a.m. Tuesday 7/17 Edina Community Center 7151 York Edina 1 2 p.m. Tuesday 7/24 Richfield Community Center 70th and Nicollet Richfield 12:30 - 1:30 p.m. Breast models with simulated lumps will be used to teach "Breast Self- Exam ". No one will undress. Please call the Richfield Community Center, 861 -4148 if you wish to attend. There is no charge. 7 .. iNOO TI E CRAFTS & COFFEE HOUR Date-: Thursday Time: -9:-30 - 11:30 am. Start July 5th - 26th (4 sessions) Cost: For own materials A. coffee The first two sessions will cover -the basic knotting-techniques of mac -rame. Project ideas, such as plant hangers, spice hangers, belts, or jewelry will also be covered. The last two sessions will give the student the opportunity to explore coiled basketry or needlepoint on plastic canvas. this is a great chance to learn a fun craft and enjoy a cup of coffee. If interested, see Debbie. EDINA MSF Members of EDINA MSF enjoyed breakfast together at the Original Pancake House on June 5. It was announced that the picnic planned for July,(which was cancelled) will be held as originally planned on July 9 at 4:00 P.M. A large group signed up for the August Festival at our last meeting. Two tables have been reserved. If you want to help in the protest of the 10� fare Company, call your state representative at 296 -2146 Let them know that you oppose the fare and want the money for continuing the subsidy which gives Senior riding free on off -peak hours. )eing proposed by the Transit and your senator at 296 -0504. Legislature to appropriate the Citizens the privilege of NEW MAILING STANDARDS! Under the new size standards pieces 011 be:non- mailable if they are less than 3z inches high, 5 inches long, seven thousandths (.007) of an inch thick or are not rectangular in shape. Also odd - shaped pieces are not mail- able. FINAL - THOUGHT If we might have a second chance To live the days once.more, And rectify mistakes we've made To even up the score. If we might have a second chance To use the knowledge gained, Perhaps we might become at last As fine as God ordained. But though we can't retrace our steps However, stands the score, Tomorrow brings another chance For us to try once more. (Farr) JULY Monday, July 2 Friday, July 13 Friday, Jul 27 9:.00 - Bowling - Southdale 9:00 - Bowling - Southdale 9:00`- ow Ong - Southdale 9:30 - Physical Fitness 12:00 - Cong, dining - Spaghetti 12:00 - Cong. Dining 10:30 --Golf Pork Monday, July 16 Monday, July 30 12:00 - Cong. Dining - Sausage 9:00 - Bowling - Southdale 9:00 - Bowling - Southdale Patty 9:30 - Physical Fitness 9:30 - Physical Fitness Tuesday, July 3 10:30 - Golf 10:00 - Golf 9:00 - Sr. Federation 12:00 - Cong. Dining - Meat 12:00 - Cong. Dining 9:30 - Shuffleboard Loaf Tuesday, July 31 10:00 - Watercolor Baked Tuesday, July 17 9:30 — Shuffleboard 12:00 - Cong. Dining - Chicken 9 :30 - Shuffleboard 10:00 - Watercolor Center open until 8:30 p.m. 10:00 - Watercolor 12:00 - Cong. dining Wednesday, July 4 12:00 - Cong. dining - Baked Center open until 8:30 p.m. Center closed Thursday, July 5 9:30 - Physical Fitness 9:30 - Crafts & Coffee 10:00 - 12:00 - Blood pressure 12:00 - Cong. dining - Tuna Macaroni Salad 2:00 - Bowling - stadium Center open till 9 p.m. Friday, July 6 9:00 - Bowling - Southdale 12:00 - Cong. dining - Roast Beef 1:00 - Bridge Exchange at Richfield 3:00 - Speaker: Dr. Keister, podiatrist Monday, July 9 9:00 - Bowling - Southdale 9:30 - Physical Fitness 10:30 - Golf Swedish 12:00 - Cong. Dining - Meatballs Federation picnic Tuesday, July 10 Shuffleboard 10:00 - Watercolor Baked 12:00 - Cong. Dining - Chicken 1:30 - Sr. Club Bus. meeting Center open until 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, July 11 9:30 - oil & acrylic 10:00 - Sr. Club - Ex. Bd. meeting 12:00 - Cong. dining - Broiled Beef Liver -- Thursday -,— July-- 12 - - - -- - - - .9:30 - - Physical Fitness 9:30 - Crafts & Coffee 12:00 - Cong. Dining - Ham loaf 1:30 - 3:30 - Blood Pressure Center open until 9:00 p.m. Ham 1:00 - 2:00 - Public Health Day - self - Breat Exam Center open until 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, July 18 9:30 - Oil & Acrylic Turkey 12:00 - Cong. dining - A La King Thursday, July 19 9:30 - Physical Fitness 9:30 - Crafts & Coffee 12:00 - Cong. Dining - Baked . Chicken 1:00 - 3:00 - Blood Pressure 2:00 - Bowling - stadium 5:30 - Summer polka festival Friday, July 20 9:00 - bowling - Southdale 12:00 - cong. dining - Baked Fish 1:30 - Birthday party Monday,July 23 Bowling - Southdale 9:30 - Physical Fitness 12:00 - Cong. Dining Tuesday, July 24 9:30 - Shuffleboard 10:00 - Watercolor 10:45 - Walk to library & lunch at Original Pancake House 12:00 - Cong. dining Center open until 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, July 25 9:30 - Oil & acrylic - -- 12:00 = -Cong. dining Thursday, July 26 9:30 - Physical Fitness 9:30 — Crafts & coffee 12:00 - Cong. dining 12:30 - Twins game & Mr. Stei - Bowling - Stadium Center open until 9:00 p.m. Remember, you must sign up for dining at least 2 days in advance! CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Deposits -Working Fund Contracts Receivable Due from Other Funds Loan to Other Funds Inventory: Liquor Wine Beer and Mix .Prepaid Expenses: Unexpired Insurance Supplies Inventory LIQUOR FUND BALANCE SHEET CITY OF EDINA As at March 31, 1979 ASSETS $ 38;734.44 3 ;'500.00 $ -42,-234.44 -64,653.34 128, 064.00 415,000.00 $ 336,421.72 305,149.12 31,028.27 672,599.11 $ 9,371.50 400.00 9,771.50 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $1,332,322.39 FIXED ASSETS AT COST: Land $ .233,784.60 Land Improvements $ 21,083.61 Buildings 658,333.27 Furniture and Fixtures 224,284,44 Leasehold Improvements 3,035.55 $906,736.87 Less: Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization 200,783.31. 705,953.56 939,738.16 TOTAL ASSETS $2,272, 060.55 CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll Due to Otbcr Funds S UL" PLUS: - Invosted in Fixed Assets Unappropriated -LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS i $ 939,738.16 1.154.432.74 $ 80,724.50 4,690.1.5 $ 85,414.65 92,475.00 $ 177,989.65 2,094,170.90 $2,272,00-0.55 LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDINA _ r Three Months Ending March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1978 1979 1978 INCREASE - DECREASE' 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total SALES: Liquor $ 112,808.66 $ 243,326.17 $ 202,18T_.10 $ 558,316.93 $ 13,870.89 $ 227,580.05 $ 195,128.96 $ 496,579.90 $ 38,397.77 $ 15,746.12 $ 7,053.14 $ 61,737.03 Wine 72,252.35 123,184.68 96,639.23 292,076.26 28,173.81 112,465.56 95,752.64 236,392.01 44,078.54 10,779.12 886.59 55,684.25 Beer 36,917.76 79,214.10 57,725.54 173,857.40 17,928.38 70,265.01 48,537.61 136,781.00 18,939.38 8,949.09 9,1.87.93 37,076.40 Mix and Miscellaneous 2,989.71 6,708.73 5,625 03 15,323 47 1,753 91 6,882.01 5,000.92 13,636.84 1,235.80 173._28* 624.11 1,686.63 $ 224,968.48 $ 452,433.68 $ 362,171.90 $1,039,574.06 $ 121,776.99 $ 417,192.63 $ 344,920.13 $ 883,389.97 $103,191.49 $ 35,241.05 $ 17,751.•77 $156,184.31 Less bottle refunds 8,048 86 16,250 48 14,389 09 38,677 43 4,068 42 15,112,71 13,424.82 32,605.95 3,980.44 1,137.77 953.27 6,071.48 NET SALES $ 216,919.62 $ 436,183.20 $ 347,793.81 $1,000,896:63 $ 117,708.57 $ 402,079.92 $. 330,995.31 $ 850,783.80 $ 99,211.05 $ 34,103.28 $ 16,798.50 $150,112.83 COST OF SALES: Inventory - January 1 Purchases 168,546.07 183,469.84 268,434.93 366,782.34 $ 223,553.73 306,819.91 660,534.73 857,072.09 97,456.21 115,708.23 234,430.65 362,621.14 222,573.02 328,840.11 554,459.88 807,169.48 71,089.86 67,761.61 34,004.28 4,161.20 980.71 22,020.20* 106,074.85 49,902.61 $ 352,015.91 $ 635,217.27 $ 530,373.64 $1,517.606.82 $ 213,164.44 $ 597,051.79 $ 551,413.13 $1,361,629.36 $138,851.47 $ 38,165.48 $ 21,039.49 *$155,977.46 4.16% InventoryMarch 31 171 477 45 268 019.67 233,101.99 672,599.11 113,429.79 259,727.53 269,774.36 642,931.68 58,047.66 8,292.14 36,672.37* 29,667.43 $ 180,538 46 $ 367,197 60 $ 297,271 65 $ 845 007.71 $ 99,734.65 $ 337,324.26 $ 281,638_77 $ 718,697.68 $ 80,803.81 $ 29,873.34 $ 15,632,98 $ 12,631..03 $ 36,381.16 $ 68,985.60 $ 50,522.16 $ 155,888.92 $ 17,973.92 $ 64,755.66 $ 49,356.54 $ 132,086.12 $ 18,407.24 $ 4,229.94 $ 1,165.62 $ 23,802.80 GROSS PROFIT 402.99 402.99 229.51 229.51 173.48 173.48 OPERATING EXPENSES: Selling. 13,418.29 19,786.38 15,338.61 48,543.28 9,679.15 18,153.34 16,088.31 43,920.80 3,739.14 1,633.04 749.70* 4,622.48 Overhead 6,820.56 10,796.90 7,943.07 25,560.53 4,764.51 8,550.19 7,311.00 20,625.70 2,056.05 2,246.71 632.07 4,934.83 Administrative 11,463 68 17,745.46 12,431.77 41,640.91 11,417.25 13,540.33 12,172.20 37,129.78 46.43 4,205.13 259.57 4,51.1.13 TOTAL OPERATING 31,702 53 $ 48,323 74 $ 35,713 45 $ 115,744 72 $ 25,860 91 $ 40,243 86 $ 35,571 51 $ 101,676.28 $ 5,841.62 $ 8,084.88 $ 141.94 $ 14,068.44 EXPENSES NET OPERATING $ 4,678.63 $ 20,656.86 $ 14,808.71 $ 40,144.20 $ 7,886.99*$ 24,511.80 $, 13,785.03 $ 30,409.84 $ 12,565.62 $ 3,854.94* $ 1,023.68 $ 9,734.36 PROFIT 21.97 10.01 10.75 11.95 Operating expenses 2.15% 4.74% 4.26% 4.01% 6.70 %* 6.10% 4.16% OTHER INCOME: Cash Discount 2,979.13 6,426.27 5,292.53 14,697.93 1,626.07 5,692.71 5,381.55 12,700.33 1,353.06 733.56 89.02* 1,997.60 Cash over or under 22.24* 32.72* 12.12 42.84* 19.07* 45.20* 94.43 30.16 3.17* 12.48 82.31* 73.00* Income on investments 1,218.46 1,218.46 -0- -0- 1,218.46 1,218.46 Other 402.99 402.99 229.51 229.51 173.48 173.48 $ 4,578.34 $ 6,393.55 $ 5,304.65 $ 16,276.54 $ 1,836.51 $ 5,647.51 $ 5,475.98 $ 12,960 00 $ 2,741.83 $ 746.04 $ 171.33 *$ 3,316.54 N ETINCOM E 9,256 97 $ 27,050.41 $ 20,113 36 $ 56,420 74 $ 6,050 48 *$ 30,159 31 $ 19,261 01 $ 43 369.84 $ 15,307.45 $ 3,108.90* S 852.35 $ 13,050.90 PERCENT TO NET SALES: 16.77% 15.82% 14.53% 15.57% 15.27% 16.11% 14.91% 15.53% Gross profit 14.62 11.08 10.27 11.56 21.97 10.01 10.75 11.95 Operating expenses 2.15% 4.74% 4.26% 4.01% 6.70 %* 6.10% 4.16% 3.58% Operating profit 2.11 1.46 1.52 1.63 1.56 1.40 1.66 1.52 Other income NET INCOME 4.26% 6.20% 5.78% 5.64% 5.14 %* 7.50% 5.82% 5.107 June 14, 1979 TO: Ken Rosland, City Manager FROM: Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: State Surplus Property Bid - July 5, 1979 A listing of state surplus property will be coming out on June 19, 1979. In this list, four traffic controller cabinets and controllers that have never been used will be on the bid list. The controllers are the same type that we have at 50th and Halifax and each controller retails from $11,000.00 to $15,000.00. The controller at 50th and Wooddale has malfunctioned approximately a dozen times in the past year and we have been cannabilizing parts from old surplus controllers from the State to this point. However, we do not have anymore parts available for repair and would suggest the City bid for one of the controllers and cabinets on the bid list. The salvage value on these controllers ranges from $3,500.00 to $4,900.00. The Public Works Department recommends a bid be subs listed as 72 -2, which is a six -phase controller and a replacement program at 50th and Wooddale and also to maintain a repair parts inventory, if we use the as we have at 50th and Halifax. We would recommend $4,500.00 _jZ J0 pitted for the unit would fit into less expensive same brand controller a bid of at least f I J0CAT7, 0N 4 - pow_- L.�� = ,"Am mw UTLEY PA RK w t CLUB so �« J a A A D E N zoning C, 0 su'Diclivislon MAP " 1 Yf� b �-- Jim METRO CONSULTANTS /REGENCY 1ST ADDITIOr REQUEST NUMBER: Z -79 -5 and S -79 -7 IOCA'I'11N: 51st and France REQUEST: R -1 Single Family to PRD-4 Planned Residential District villnge planning degortrnent village of edlira COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT May 30, 1979 Z -79 -5 Metro Consultants. R -1 Single Family District to and PRD-4 Planned Residential District. S -79 -7 Regency 1st Addition. Generally located west of France Avenue and south of 51st Street. REFER TO: attached graphics The subject property is comprised of three single family dwelling lots having a total area of about 32,000 square feet. Two existing single family dwellings are located on the subject property. These dwellings are not in a good state of repair. The subject property is located within the 50th and France Redevelopment Area. The 50th and France Area Plan designated the subject property for 13 -15 multiple residential units. This number of units was based upon a lot area of 29,000 square feet. The Commission may recall that two rezoning requests were considered for the subject property in past years. In 1976, Rainbow Management requested a rezoning to R -4 to allow the construction of 45 apartment units for the elderly. This request was denied by the Council. The Council, however, adopted a zoning. amendment which established special allowances and lesser standards for senior citizen residences. Rainbow Management subsequently petitioned for a rezoning to the senior citizens, residence zone and proposed a 40 unit building. This request received preliminary approval by the Council; however, the Board of Appeals denied a variance for the proposed building and requested that a maximum.of 32 units be proposed. Rainbow Management did not pursue this plan. The proponents are presently requesting a rezoning to PRD -4 for the subject property. A three story, 18 unit market rate condominium building, is proposed for the site. Access to the building would be from 51st Street. As required by the Zoning Ordinance,,two parking spaces per unit are provided. According to the ordinance, 23 of these spaces should be enclosed and 13 exposed. The proponent requests to enclose 30 spaces and provide 6 exposed spaces. The proposed building would maintain setbacks of 20 feet, 25 feet, and 29 feet from the east, south, and west property lines respectively. The Zoning Ordi- nance requires a 35 foot setback. Thus, the proponents will be pursuing set- back variances in these areas. For comparison purposes, staff has reviewed plans for the Lanterns Condominiums,. which is located adjacent to the subject property as well as the White Oaks Apartments located at France Avenue and 49th Street. The Lanterns building contains 44 units and is four-stories_ in height. The density-of this develop- ment is approximately 31 units per acre. This building maintains a 16 foot CD & PC Staff Report Z -79 -5 and S -79 -7 May 30, 1979 page 2 setback from 51st Street at one corner of the building, a 40 foot setback to the south property line, and a.30 foot setback to the west property line. The White Oaks Apartment building contains 32 units and is four stories in height. The density of this development is approximately 54 units per acre. This building maintains a 30 foot setback from 49th Street, a 15 foot setback from France Avenue, a 0 to 7 foot setback from its south property line, and a 44 foot.setback from its west property line. Recommendation: Staff believes that the proposed use of the subject property is consistent with the concepts contained in the 50th and France Redevelopment Plan. In addition, the density and height-of the proposed building are significantly below other comparable multiple residences in the area. Due to the size of the site, staff believes that the provision of an increased number of under- ground parking spaces as proposed is warranted and desirable. Staff would recommend some modifications to the concept plans prior to final plan preparation. First, the proposed driveway entrance to the site must be relocated.either to the southern extreme of the site on France Avenue or to the western extreme of the site on 51st Street. Secondly, the amount of landscaping should be increased especially on the west side of the building. Staff would recommend preliminary rezoning and subdivision approval with the following conditions: 1) final zoning is conditioned upon final platting 2) subdivision dedication GLH: jkt 5/24/79 \, _S 1 SL_ STREET.- ui n z LU ui 0 z 8 � —213R. 1 LE VEL.: A LEVEL 28P. I LEVEL 3 -26R 1 LEVE —XI I LEVCL 3 S- R I L CV g B ms =M 0 10 25 FEET ui n z LU ui 0 z -- r Lj irO BEDROOM . II 1 i MASTER BEDROOM z i STORAGE O C) STUDY MY i LIVING ROOM \ I �,•II TWO BEDROOM PLAN 0 5 1-0 FEET +__;, Xlvlv MASTER BEDROOM nil STUDY - LIVING ROOM DINING ROOM . i TWO BEDROOM PLAN 0 10 FE.E,r T $TORAGE. VI .7 77J ........ ..... L) J1, �� r7.7- BEDROOM L 2 / mT., 9 FMS - I q Y Y i ;: o �. ' 1 �: ,u it r31 v it ► 9 7300 France Avenue South Iciina, tiiirncsota $ati3:i Telephone: (612) 835-3011 flay 29, 1979 Mr. Gordon Hughes City Planner of Edina 4601 West 50th Street Edina, Pied 55424 Dear Gordon: Enclosed are copies of correnspondence relating to separate meetings at Twin City Federal in Edina with (1) residents of Edina that have homes abutting the proposed site (2) Lanterns residents. Letters inviting participation at a meeting held on May 25, 1979 were sent to the following: Mr: Wesley R. Weber, Jr., 5101 Gorgas Ave. Mr. John R. Amundson, 5105 Gorgas Ave. Ms. Alice Landt, 5109 Gorgas Ave. Ms. Charlotta Kuhlmann, 5115 Gorgas Mr. and Mrs. Grant Eggen, 5112 France Ave. As the enclosed letter indicates, an announcement was sent to Lanterns Board President, A. E. Gaucher inviting residents to attend a meeting on May 29th. This was posted by Mr. Gaucher. The following attended this meeting: Mr. C. R. Holmberg Mr. and Mrs. Sam McGowan Mrs. Dayton Rogers Mr. and Mrs. S. E. Whitney Mr. James F. Mullin Mr. A. Ernest Gaucher Ms. Joyce ifogck Mr, and firs. William S. Phillips Ms. Ge rt Brellenthin Without exception, everyone was extremely supportive to the proposed development. As well, I contacted Sam McGowan, a Lanterns resident and informed him as to our proposed plans. He expressed no criticism of the project. The only phone call relative to the rezoning was Mr. Grant Eggen at 5112 France. Both Mr. and Mrs. Eggen attended the meeting of May 25th. They expressed no problem with either the variance or rezoning. I have also met with Ms. Alice Landt, 5109 Gorgas Ave. on May 29th for approximately one hour. Site plans and elevations were shown to her. I believe that she will attend the Planning Commission meeting. Yours truly, or John C. Brandt President Enclosures Copy: Peter Jarvis METRO CONSUMANTS, INC. Divisions: RE'Aixy CONSUTA'ANTS AI'AIi'rNIENT CONSUIXANTS' 7300 prance Avenuc South Edina, Minnesota 55115 Telephone: (612) 835-3011 May 23, 1979 Mr. A. E. Gaucher �T� r � 0 5 4075 West 51st Street � Apartment 308 Edina, MN 55435 Dear Mr. Gaucher: Persuant to our conversation of today; please be advised that we have made arrangements for an informal meeting for Lanterns residents only, to discuss our proposed rezoning of the site located at 51st and France Ave. So. Edina. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, I'lay 29, 1979 at Twin City Federal in the lower level community room at 6:30 p.m. At this meeting we will make available to you tentative site plans and will answer any questions. As well, we would certainly welcome any suggestions. Basically, we are proposing a 3 story, 18 unit, brick, market rate condominium. Unit size would range from approximately 1,500 -1,800 square feet. Prices would range from $120,000- $140,000. There would be 30 underground parking spaces and 6 -8 outdoor parking spaces. We feel that it would be a positive addition to.your neighborhood. If you have any questions or are unable to attend this ineeting, please call me. I would be happy to meet with you individually. Yours truly, John C. Brandt President JCB:sb MET1ZO COICISIlUFANTS, INC. Division %: REALTY CONSULTANTS AVARTNIENT CONSULTANTS 7300 Prance AN-cnue Smith Edina, Minn esola 55435 Telephone: (612) 83S -3011 May 23, 1979 Ms. .Alice Landt 5109 Gorgas Edina, MN 55424 Dear Ms. Landt: As you probably are aware, the property abutting your home is in the process of a rezoning application. As one of the homeowners most affected by this rezoning, we are interested in providing you with any information that you desire. Thus, we have arranged for an informal meeting to be held at Twin City Federal, 3924 West 50th Street at 6:30 on.Friday, May 25th. We are inviting to this meeting only those homeowners who have property directly abutting our proposed site. This meeting will be in . the lower level community room. At this meeting, we will make available to you site plans and elevations. We would as well appreciate any suggestions that you have relative to landscaping or site plans. Basically, we are proposing a 3 story, 18 unit, brick, market rate condominium. Unit size would range from approximately 1,500 -1,800 square feet. Price would range from $120,0004140,000. There would be 30 underground parking spaces and 6 -8 outdoor parking spaces. We feel that it would be a positive addition to your neighborhood. If you have any questions or are unable to attend this meeting, please tali me. I would be happy to meet with you individually. Yours truly, John C. Brandt President JCB:sb Community Development and Planning Commission May 30, 1979 III. New Business: Z -79 -5 Metro Consultants. R -1 Single Family District to and PRD -4 Planned Residential District. S -79 -7 Re-cency lst Addition. Generally located west of France Avenue and south of 51st Street. Gordon Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property, comprised of three single family dwelling lots housing two existing single family dwellings which are not in a good state of repair, has a total area of about 32,000 square feet. He.continued that the subject property is located within the-50th and France Redevelopment area and was designated on the 50th and France Area plan for 13 to 15 multiple residential units. Mr. Hughes asked the Commission to recall that two rezoning requests had been considered for the subject property in past years, one which requested a rezoning to R -4 to allow the construction of 45 apartment units for the elderly which was denied by Council, and the other for a rezoning to the senior citizens residence zone which proposed a 40 unit building and received preliminary approval from the City Council but was denied a variance by the Board of.Appeals who re- quested that a maximum of 32 units be proposed. Gordon_Hughes stated that this plan was not pursued. He explained the proponents are presently requesting a rezoning to PRD -4 for the subject property to construct a three story,.18 unit market rate condominium building which would have access to the building from 51st Street. Gordon Hughes noted that as required by the zoning ordinance, two parking spaces per unit would be provided. According to the ordinance, 23 of these spaces should be enclosed and 13 exposed; however; Mr. Hughes indicated the proponent requested to enclose 30 spaces and provide 6 exposed spaces. Gordon Hughes explained the setbacks of 20 feet, 25 feet, and 29 feet property lines respectively. He noted the setback so the proponents will be pursuing proposed building would maintain from the east, south, and west zoning ordinance requires a 35 foot setback variances in these areas. Staff believed that the proposed use of the subject property is consistent with the concepts contained in the 50th and France Redevelopment plan. In addition, Mr. Hughes pointed out the density and height of the proposed building are significantly below other comparable multiple residences in the area. Due to the size of the site, staff felt that the provision of an increased number of underground parking spaces as proposed is warranted and desirable. Staff recommended some modifications to the concept plans prior . to final plan preparation which included the relocation of the proposed driveway entrance to the southern extreme of the site on France Avenue or to the western extreme of the site on 51st Street, and that the amount of landscaping:.should be increased, especially on the west side of the building. Staff also recommended preliminary rezoning and subdivision approval with the following conditions: that final zoning is conditioned upon final platting, and that a subdivision dedication be made. Community Development and Planning Commission May 30, 1979 Gordon Hughes introduced Peter Jarvis of BRW who was present representing the developer to answer the Commission's questions. Mr. Jarvis gave the Commission some general background information on the site and with visual graphics explained the entire plan proposed. He noted the building would have a true, classic colonial representation done in brick. Mr. Jarvis also compared the proposed Regency development with the Lanterns apartments on 51st and Halifax and the White Oaks apartments on 49th and France in terms of the number of units, parking spaces, size of acreage, and number of units per acre. David Runyan asked Mr. Jarvis how the first floor would relate to the.ground level in terms of .elevation and if the plan would accomodate handi- capped people getting into the unit. The north entrance, Mr. Jarvis replied, would be barrier free and that is where the elevators would be located. Mr. Runyan also wondered how the waste removal would be handled to which Mr. Jarvis replied the dumpsters would be kept underground and enclosed. Mr. Wesley R. Weber, Jr. of 5101 Gorgas Avenue South asked about a six foot hill where the proponents showed parking to be located. Mr. Jarvis commented that the hill would be graded down with a gentle slope back to the street. Mr. Weber also expressed his concern about the traffic problem that could be created at the corner of 51st and France with the drive aisle in that location. Mr. Jarvis explained the traffic flow in the area and illustrated why they did not believe it would cause any additional problems. Mr. Ray Bentall of Americana State Bank asked how high the building would be relative to the elevation of the street. Mr. Jarvis responded that from the east, south, and west sides the building would appear to be three stories in height and would be about 24 feet high; from the north side, however, the building would appear to be four stories due to the underground parking,.and that would be about 39 feet in height. Mrs. James Larsen of 5100 Gor.gas Avenue wondered if there was a difference in underbuilding parking versus underground parking. In reply Peter Jarvis answered they were the same. Mr. and Mrs. Sumner E. Whitney of the Lanterns apartments stated they were very much in favor of the proposed building and felt it would be a big improvement to the whole community. Mr. Samuel F. McGowan of the Lanterns apartments commented that he felt the proposed development was far superior to the plans that had previously been proposed for that site. He was very much in favor of the plan and recommended the Commission approve the request. Mr. Al Gaucher of the Lanterns apartments also voiced his approval of the plan stating lie felt it would be a great improvement to the area. Richard Seaberg moved that the Commission give preliminary approval to the request with the conditions that final zoning be conditioned upon final platting, and that a subdivision dedication be made. David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby deny the administ- rative appeal of the Planning Department and that the height and side yard variances be approved, with the condition that 445,000 square feet be the maximum gross floor area for all of the plat entitled "Edina Office Center ";' and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this restriction be placed of record before it becomes effective. ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1979. 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 June 18, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. DATED this 25th day of July, 1979. City Clerk