Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-20_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 1979 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL MINUTES of August 6, 1979, approved as submitted or corrected by motion of , seconded by I. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Presentation by City Manager and Engineer. Spectators heard. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if Council wishes to proceed. (Continued from 8/6/79) A. Sanitary Sewer Improvement No. P -SS -352 - W. 76th St.. - France Ave. B. Watermain Improvement No. P -WM -336 - France Ave. II. REPORTS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Read- ing of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, 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. Zoning Change - First Reading 1. Braemar Associates - R -1 Residential District to 0 -1 Office District - Part of the East one -half of the Southwest Quarter, S. 8, T. 116, R -21 (Generally located North of W. 78th St. and West of Cahill Road) Z -79 -1 (6/27/79) (Continued from 8/6179) B. Subdivision and Zoning Change - First Reading 1. Don Berg Construction Company - R -1 Residential District to PRD -2 Planned Residential District (Generally located North of the Cross- town Highway and Westof the MN &S Railroad tracks) Z -79 -3 - S -79 -6 (PC- 8/1/79 - CC- 7/16/79) 2. Klodt's Addition to Edina - R -1 Residential District to 0 -1 Office District (Located South of W. 76th St. and East of York Ave.) Z -79 -7 - S -79 -11 (8/1/79) 3. Warden Acres, Peterson Replat - R -1 Residential District to R -2 Multiple Residence District (Generally located South of Grove St. and West of the MN &S Railroad tracks) Z -79 -6 - S -79 -8 (CC- 6/18/79 - PC- 8/1/79) C. Final Plat Approval 1. Crosstown Hills - Located North of Crosstown Highway and West of Krahl Hill S -78 -5 (CC- 4/17/78) III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS IV. AWARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES Tabulations and REcommendations by City Manager. Action of Council by Motion. A. Public Improvements (Continued from 8/6/79) B. Plow and Wing (Continued from 8/6/79) C. Civil Defense Siren D. Park Shelter Buildings E. Interpretive Center - Williams Park F. Prentice Loader G. Hockey Board Lumber H. Rubber Skating Tile I. Carpeting for Yorkdale Liquor Store J. Cash Registers - Liquor Stores K. Miscellaneous.Steel Council Agenda August 20, 1979 Page Two V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of 8/8/69 B. Community Consultation Committee - South Hennepin Human Services Study C. Community Action Agency (C.A.A.) - Continued from 8/6/79 D. Set Hearing Date - Recreational /Commercial Vehicle Ordinance (9/17/79) E. Low and Moderate Income Housing - Continued from 8/6/79 F. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council G. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items 1. Budget Presentation VI. RESOLUTIONS A. Joint Cooperative Agreement - Community Development Block Grant Program B. 1980 -81 Community.Health Services - Final Plan Approval VII. FINANCE A. Liquor Report as of May 31 and June 30, 1979 B. Claims Paid. Motion of , seconded by for pay- ment of the following Claims as per Pre -List: General Funds, $180,535.53; Park, $2,898.68; Edina Art Center, $925.46; Park Construction, $4,296.00; Swimming Pool, $1,821.41; Golf Course, $11,313.21; Arena, $4,726.51; Water Works,'$12,761.54; Sewer Fund, $1,418.44; Liquor Fund, $225,049.41; Construction, $450,760.38; Total, $896.506.57 Jr. CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Petition of BRAEMAR ASSOCIATES for a Rezoning of Land Described as That Part of the East One -Half of the Southwest FINDINGS, One Quarter of the Southeast One DECISIONS, Quarter of Section 8, Township 116, AND Range 21, Lying South of the North REASONS 20 rods thereof, North of State. Highway No. 5 and West of County Road No. 28. (Z -79 -1) The above entitled matter was heard before the City Council, City of Edina, on July 16, 1979, August 6, 1979, and August 20, 1979. Jack Barron,.: ,_ Eugene Nieland, and Harold Haglund ( "Proponents ") were present. The City,-;" Council, having heard and reviewed all of the facts and arguments presented y by the Proponents, City Staff, property owners residing in the vicinity of the land effected by the petition- for - rezoning and their representatives, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponent, City Staff, and surrounding property owners and their representatives, and being fully advised, after due consideration, hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Proponent, on May 17, 1978, submitted a petition (Case Number Z -78 -7) to rezone a 6.1 acre tract of land located in southwest Edina ( "Subject Property "). This petition (hereinafter referred to as the "PRD Proposal ") requested a rezoning of the Subject Property from R -1 (Single Family Dwelling District) to PRD -3 (Planned Residential District - .3). In accordance with ordinance requirements, the Proponents submitted preliminary development plans for the Subject Property which delineated 50 townhouse units. 2. The Edina Community Development and Planning Commission ( "Commission ") reviewed the preliminary development plans at its May 31, 1978, meeting. The Commission continued the PRD Proposal to the June 28, 1978, Commission meeting and .requested that a revised plan be prepared which reduced the number of pro- posed townhouse units and re- aligned the placement of buildings on the Subject. I Property. 3. On June 28, 1978, the Proponents submitted revised plans in support of the PRD Proposal. The revised plans proposed 41 townhouse units for the Subject Property and proposed a re-alignment-of the placement of the buildings on the Subject Property. The Commission reviewed the revised plans on June 28, 1978, and continued the PRD Proposal.to August 2, 1978, and requested the Proponents to re -align the proposed driveway access to the Subject Property. 4. On August.2, 1978, the Commission reviewed further revised plans in support of the PRD Proposal. The Commission thereupon recommended preliminary rezoning approval to PRD -3 for the Subject Property. 5. On August 21, 1978, the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the PRD Proposal. After reviewing the report and recommendation of the Commission, the City Council approved the preliminary development plans as submitted to the Commission on August 2, 1978, and granted first reading of the ordi.nance to rezone the Subject Property to Planned Residential District - 3. 6. On November 29, 1978, the Proponents appeared before the Commission and testified that unstable soil conditions on the Subject Property precluded the implementation of the preliminary development plans approved by the Commis- sion on August 2, 1978, and by the City Council on August.21, 1978. The Propo- nents thereupon submitted a new preliminary development plan for the Subject Property which delineated 41 townhouse units to be located on the peripheral portions of the Subject Property and away from the area exhibiting unstable soil conditions. The Commission recommended denial of the new plan due to its impact on the vegetation and topography of the Subject Property and its similarity to the original plans reviewed on May 31, 1978. The Commission requested the Proponents. to prepare an alternative plan for the Subject Property. -2- 7. On March 22, 1979, the Proponents submitted a petition (Case Number Z -78 -1) to rezone the Subject Property from R -1 Single Family District to 0 -1 Office District (hereinafter referred to as the "0 -1 Proposal "). Although not required by ordinance, the Proponents submitted a preliminary development plan in support of the 0 -1 Proposal. These plans delineated a multi- tenant office building for the Subject Property. This office building contained a gross floor area of approximately 69,000 square feet.. In conjunction with the office building, 326 parking stalls were proposed for the Subject Property. 8.. On May 2, 1979, the Commission reviewed the 0 -1 Proposal. The Commission continued the matter to the May 30, 1979, Commission meeting and directed City Staff to contact individuals who participated in the preparation of the Southwest Edina Plan in order to solicit their comments regarding the 0 -1 Proposal. 9.. On May 25, 1979, the Proponents requested that consideration of the 0 -1 Proposal be continued..to the.June 27, 1979, Commission meeting. 10. On June 27, 1979, the Commission reviewed the 0 -1 Proposal and supporting preliminary development plans. The Commission considered on June 27, 1979, the testimony of the Proponents, the report and recommendation of City Staff, and testimony of property owners residing in the vicinity of the Subject Property.. After reviewing this testimony and the report and recommendation of City Staff, the Commission recommended denial of the 0 -1 Proposal. 11. On July 16, 1979, the City Council considered the 0 -1 Proposal. City Staff - advised the City Council that adequate notice had not been served to surrounding property owners, and therefore a public hearing.and decision by the City Council at the July 16,. 1979, meeting would not be in conformance with City ordinances. However, upon the consent of the Proponents and certain property owners residing in the vicinity of the Subject Property who were in 1911 attendance at the July 16, 1979, City Council meeting, the City Council proceeded with taking testimony regarding the 0 -1 Proposal with the under- standing that additional testimony could be submitted and a decision concluded at a future public hearing. The Council thereupon received testimony from the Proponents and surrounding property owners and continued the 0 -1 Proposal to a public hearing to be held on August 6, 1979. 12. On August 6, 1979, the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the 0 -1 Proposal pursuant to notice duly given. After reviewing testimony of the Proponent, surrounding property owners and their representatives, and City Staff, the City Council requested City Staff to prepare Findings of Fact regarding the 0 -1 Proposal for consideration by the City Council on August 20, 1979. The City Council thereupon continued the public hearing to August 20, 1979. 13. In the late 1960's City Staff began preparation of the Southwest Edina Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan "). On October 7, 1970, the Edina Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the draft Plan prepared by City Staff. This draft Plan proposed industrial land uses for that area lying westerly of Cahill Road and easterly of a proposed roadway which was .later named Amundson Avenue and Delaney Boulevard (hereinafter referred-to as "Amundson /Delaney "). At the public hearing conducted on October 7, 1970, several residents of the southwest Edina area testified in opposition to the proposed industrial land uses west of Cahill Road as well as other elements of the draft Plan.. The Planning Commission thereupon requested that residents of the area form a. committee to study alternative uses for the area west of Cahill Road as well as other elements of the draft Plan. Such a committee was formed and recommended to the Planning Commission that multiple residential land uses rather than industrial uses should be delineated for the area west of Cahill Road.and east of Amundson /Delaney. At a public hearing on -4- December 2, 1970, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a draft Plan which delineated industrial uses for the area between .Cahill Road and Amundson /Delaney. .14. On January 18, 1971, the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the draft Plan. After reviewing the report and recommendation of the Pl.anning Commission, testimony of City Staff and testimony of residents of southwest Edina, the City Council referred the draft Plan back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission thereupon conducted several public hearings during ensuing months. On June 2, 1971, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a draft Plan which delineated multiple residential uses at 0 -12 dwelling units per acre for the area west of Cahill Road and east of Amundson /Delaney. On June 21, 1971, the City Council conducted a public hearing and adopted the draft Plan .which included multiple residential land uses for the area west of Cahill Road and east of Amundson /Delaney. 15. Since its adoption in 1971, the City Council has amended the Plan on three occasions. In 1976, the City Council adopted an amendment which clarified the allowed multiple residential land use densities in the Plan area. In 1978, the City Council amended the Plan by designating an area in the vicinity of County Road 18 and Valley View Road for "Office" uses rather than "Industrial" uses. In 1978, the City Council amended the Plan by defining "low rise apartments" as those apartments having three stories or less. 16. Since the Plan's adoption in 1971, the City Council has taken two actions which were not in accordance with the Plan. First, the City Council declined to construct Amundson Avenue, eliminate portions of Dewey Hill Road, and cul de.sac Cahill Road pursuant to the Plan. Secondly, the City Council acquired parkland in the northwest quadrant of Dewey Hill Road and Cahill Road of greater acreage than that delineated in the Plan. The -5- City Council also has approved single family residential developments in areas designed as "mixed housing" in the Plan but the Plan notes that single family housing is an allowabl.e.use in. "mixed housing" areas. 17. Since the Plan's adoption in 1971, the City Council has taken actions in accordance with the Plan. First, Gleason Road has been constructed. Second, Delaney Boulevard has been authorized for construction. Third, the southwest Edina storm water ponding system has been constructed. Fourth, portions of a parkland /open .space buffer strip located west of Amundson /Delaney have been acquired. Fifth, four multiple residential developments have been approved in areas designated for such uses by the Plan. Sixth, several single family residential subdivisions have been approved in accordance with the Plan. 18. The City Council has never granted a rezoning or subdivision of property located within the Plan area which was inconsistent with the land use graphic contained in the Plan. The City Council has never amended the Plan by changing residential land uses to non - residential land uses. 19. The Subject Property is located in the area lying westerly of Cahill Road and easterly of Amundson /Delaney. This area and the Subject Property are designated by the Plan for medium density residential land uses. 20. The PRD Proposal which received preliminary approval from the City Council.on August 21, 1978, is considered as a medium density residential development and thus conformed to the Plan. 21. The 0 -1 Proposal is not considered a residential land use and thus does not conform to the Plan. 22. The Proponents have testified that compared to other properties in the Plan area the Subject Property exhibits several unique features which limit its use for residential purposes: First, the Subject Property contains an area of unstable soils which require the use of pilings to enable the construction of the PRD Proposal. Second, the topography and vegetation of the Subject Property would have to be altered.substantially to construct the PRD Proposal. Third, the Subject Property is the only property designated for residential use in the Plan area which is bordered on two sides by (but across the street from) industrial uses; all other residential uses in the Plan area are not bordered by industrial uses or are so bordered on only one side. Fourth, the Subject Property .is bordered by, and has access to, two major streets of nine ton capacity which adversely affect the use of the Subject Property for residential purposes. 23.. The Proponents have testified that the preliminary plans for the 0 -1 Proposal. provide for a more prudent land use as compared to the preliminary plans for the PRD Proposal: First, the 0 -1 Proposal would act as a transitional buffer.between industrial uses to the east and south and residential uses to the north and west. Second, the 0 -1 Proposal fits..the Subject Property without the need for major alterations to topography and vegetation. Third, as compared to the PRD Proposal, the 0 -1 Proposal will result in less building coverage of the Subject Property. Fourth, the preliminary plans for the 0 -1 Proposal illustrate a building setback of 80 feet from the north line of the Subject Property and 50 feet from all other property lines, whereas the PRD Proposal illustrates building setbacks of 35 feet from all property lines. Fifth, approximately 20 percent of the .building illustrated by the 0 -1 Proposal would be three stories in height,and the remainder of the building would be less than three stories in height. Sixth, the Office Proposal development would be infrequently used during evenings and weekends thus reducing the impact on surrounding properties. 24. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, office buildings similar to the 0 -1 Proposal generate 4 to 43 (average 14) trip ends per day per -7- 1,000 square feet of gross floor-area. Applying a rate of 14 vehicle 'trip ends per thousand square feet of gross floor area results in a projected trip generation of 966 vehicle trip ends per day. It is estimated that 25 percent of all trips generated by the 0 -1 Proposal will occur during each of the morning and the after- noon peak hours. Therefore, it is estimated that 242 trip ends will be generated during the morning peak hour and a like number will be generated during the after- noon peak hour by the Office Proposal. Due to the nature of the Office Proposal, nearly all trip ends will be generated on weekdays and a minimal number of trip ends will be generated on weekends: 25. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, medium density residential developments generate five to eight trip ends per day per unit. Applying a rate of eight trip ends per day per unit to the PRD Proposal of 41 units results in a projected trip generation of 328 trip ends per day. It is estimated that fifteen percent of all trips generated by the PRD Proposal will occur.during each of the morning and afternoon peak hours. Therefore, it is estimated that 49 trip ends will be generated during the morning peak hour and a like number will be generated during the afternoon peak hour by the PRD Proposal. Due to the nature of the PRD Proposal, the estimated daily trip ends would occur each day of the week. 26. Based upon preliminary plans submitted by the Proponents in support of the 0 -1 Proposal, City Staff calculates the building lot coverage of the 0 -1 Proposal to be approximately 61,000 square feet. Based upon these plans, City Staff calculates the area of parking lots and streets to be approximately 87,000 square feet. The total hard surface area, therefore, is 148,000 square feet. 27. Based upon preliminary plans approved by the Commission and City Council in conjunction with the preliminary approval of the PRD Proposal, City staff calculates the building lot coverage of the approved PRD Proposal to be approximately 59,500 square feet. Based upon these plans, City Staff calculates the area of parking lots and streets to be approximately 64,500 square feet. The total hard surface area, therefore, is 124,000 square feet, or 24,000 square feet less than the 0 -1 Proposal. 28. According to Edina Ordinance No. 811, the "Zoning Ordinance ", the transfer of land to Planned Residential Districts receive final rezoning approval upon final approval by the City Council of the petitioner's "over -all development plan ". Such a plan must include .a detailed site plan showing all proposed streets, structures, parking areas, utility easements, common open areas, recreational facilities,..and a landscape schedule. Subsequent to over -al.1 development plan approval by the City Council, no changes in this plan (except minor changes in the placement of buildings) are permitted without the approval of the Commission and City. Council. 29. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the transfer of land to Office Districts does not require the approval by the City Council of an "over -all development plan. ". Therefore, the City Council cannot require, by way of the Zoning Ordinance, the implementation of a specific development plan for a property transferred to the Office District. 30. Many property owners residing in the vicinity of the Subject Pro- perty have testified and submitted written comments in opposition to the 0 -1 Proposal. In addition, petitions by 193 residents of the Windwood Condominiums, which is located immediately to the north of the Subject Property, have been submitted to the City Council in opposition to the 0 -1 Proposal. These property owners and their representatives have cited several reasons supporting denial of the 0 -1 Proposal: First, the use of the Subject Property for office use would not be compatible with the Plan. Second, property owners living in the vicinity of the Subject Property relied upon the Plan prior to the purchase of their: properties. Third, no reasons have been given to establish that the, Plan should not be applicable to the Subject Property. Fourth, the City of Edina has taken certain actions in reliance on the Plan. Fifth, the 0 -1 Proposal would adversely affect the healthand investment of property owners in the immediate vicinity.of the Subject Property. Sixth, the Plan evolved with the input and efforts of many Edina citizens and officials over many years and should be honored. Seventh, denial of a rezoning on the basis that the proposed use is inconsistent with a comprehensive plan is supported by and consistent with Minnesota law. 31. Several property owners residing in the vicinity of the Subject Property have testified and submitted written comments in support of the 0 -1 Proposal. These property owners have cited reasons supporting approval of the 0 -1 Proposal: First, the 0 -1 Proposal would result in less lot coverage and a reduced impact on the Subject Property as compared to the PRD Proposal. Second, the setback of 80 feet from the northerly property line as illustrated by the 0 -1 Proposal would afford a more desirable buffer for properties to the north.as compared to the 35 foot setback illustrated by the approved PRD Proposal. Third, due to the greater setback of the 0 -1 Proposal development the perceived height of the buildings would be less than those in the PRD Proposal development. Fourth, the 0 -1 Proposal would result in lower evening and weekend traffic generation and lower evening and weekend useage as compared to the PRD Proposal. -10- Therefore, based upon the foregoing Findings, the City Council does hereby make the following DECISION: The Petition by the Proponents to rezone the Subject Property from R -1 Single Family Dwelling District to 0 -1 Office District is hereby denied. The above Decision is made for the following REASONS: A. The 0 -1 Proposal does not conform to the Southwest Edina Plan. B. The Southwest Edina Plan was formulated and adopted with consider- able advise and recommendations from City Staff and Planning Commission and considerable participation by residents of southwest Edina. The goals and objectives of the Plan have not changed; they were proper and reasonable in 1971 and remain proper and reasonable today. C. The City of Edina and owners of property in the Plan area have taken numerous actions in conformance with the Plan. D. Property owners residing in the Plan area have relied upon the Plan to analyze and anticipate the type and intensity of future land uses. Property owners have relied upon the Plan's multiple residential designation of the Subject Property and have taken.actions in reliance on this designation.. E. Actions taken by the City of Edina which were not in accordance with the Plan have not altered any facts and circumstances which affect the Subject Property and do not support an amendment to the land use portion of the Plan. -11- F. Cahill Road and West 78th Street westerly of Cahill Road; was decided to be,and remains, a logical and reasonable boundary between industrial uses to the east and south and residential uses to the west and north. No facts and.circumstances have been presented to support a change in the location of this boundary and the resulting amendment to the Plan. G. The development of the Subject Property for medium density residential uses would be in.conformance with the Plan and would represent a . reasonable.use of the Subject Property. The City of Edina has not denied the use of the Subject Property for medium density residential uses, but has given preliminary approval for such a use. H. Approval of the 0 -1 Proposal could establish a precedence leading to the development of non - residential uses on other properties designated for residential use by the Plan which would adversely effect existing and future residential uses developed in accordance with the Plan. I. As compared to the PRD Proposal which received preliminary approval from the City Council, preliminary plans submitted in support of the 0 -1 Pro- posal would result in greater building coverage and hard surface coverage of the Subject Property. J. Based upon preliminary plans, the 0 -1 Proposal would generate substantially more vehicle trips than the PRD Proposal. .K. Although preliminary plans have been submitted in support of the 0 -1 Proposal, the City cannot require and cannot be assured by way of Ordinance No. 811 that such plans would in fact be implemented if the property were rezoned to 0 -1. L. The Subject Property does not exhibit extraordinary site conditions that preclude the reasonable use of the Subject Property for residential purposes. M. If the 0 -1 Proposal were approved, then the residential property located immediately to the north of the Subject Property (i.e. Windwoods Condo- -12- miniums) would be bordered on two sides by non - residential land uses. -13- Therefore, based upon the foregoing Findings, the City Council does hereby make the following DECISION: The Petition by the Proponents to Rezone the Subject Property from R -1 Single Family Dwelling. District to 0 -1 Office Distr.i.ct is hereby approved. The above Decision is made for the following REASONS: A. The Subject Property exhibits unusual soil, .topographical, and locational conditions which makes its use for residential purposes extremely difficult. These conditions warrant the use of the Subject Property for non - residential purposes. ..B. The unusual site conditions of the Subject Property were not anticipated at the time of the adoption of the Plan; no specific site studies were made at the time the Plan was adopted. C. The 0 -1 Proposal represents a proper transitional use between industrial land uses and residential land uses. D. The 0 -1 Proposal would provide for a greater building setback than the PRO Proposal and would therefore afford greater protection to surrounding residential properties. E. Although the 0 -1 Proposal would generate higher traffic volumes overall than the PRD Proposal, the 0 -1 Proposal would generate less, and essentially insignificant, traffic volumes during evenings and weekends, and, therefore, affordgreater protection to surrounding residential properties. -11- F. Approval of the 0- 1-Proposal would not establish a precedence leading to similar rezonings of other properties designated by the'Plan for residential use in that other properties do not share the unusual soil, topographical, and locational conditions associated with the Subject Property. -12- MICHAEL J. DOHERTY 11882 -1973) WILFRID E. RUMBLE (1891 -1971) FRANCIS D.BUTLER J. C. FOOTE IRVING CLARK HAROLDJORDAN THEOPHIL RUSTERHOLZ FRANK CLAYBOURNE PIERCE BUTLER JOHN L.HANNAFORD PERRY M.WILSON,JR. JEROME HALLORAN JOSEPH M. FINLEY HENRY D. FLASCH EUGENE M.WARLICH JAMES K.WITTENBERG ROBERT L.DAVIDSON JOHN J.MCGIRL.JR. THOMAS E.ROHRICHT BOYD H.RATCHYE BURTON GROSS RALPH K. MORRIS BRUCE E. HANSON J. LAWRENCE MCINTYRE RICHARD A. WILHOIT JOHN G.HOESCHLER WILLIAM J.COSGRIFF RICHARD B. PETERSON RONALD A. ZAMANSKY DOHERTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER DEAN R.EDSTROM C. ROBERT BEATTIE ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID G. MARTIN STEPHEN T. REFSELL 3750 I D S TOWER GEORGE L. MAY WILLIAM J. HARGIS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA TIMOTHY R.O UINN 55402 ALAN I. SILVER JONATHAN P. SCOLL TELEPHONE (612) 340 -5555 ROBERT H.WENNER TELEX 290 -635 ELLEN HIGGINS WRITER S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER JOHN A.YILEK C. FA BRUCE G. ULKEN CYNTHIA S.ROSENBLATT 340 -5566 JEFFREY 13. OBERMAN GREGORY A. KVAM JAMES R.CRASSWELLER SAINT PAUL OFFICE ROBERT S. BRILL 1500 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING BARBARA J. GRAHN STEPHEN HALP I.HALP ER SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 PENELOPE H. CAIRNS FRANK J. DUTKE TELEPHONE (612) 291 -9333 EMILY F.SEESEL MARC W. LARSON August 17, 1979 DAVID P. DYSON OF COUNSEL DANIEL W.O'BRIEN Members, City Council City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Members of the Council: My letter to you of August 3, 1979, on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Windwood Homeowners Association correctly states the position of that group with respect to the rezoning application submitted by the Braemar Associates concerning the property to the south of Windwood Condominiumns, that position being that you should deny the rezoning application. At this time I merely want to re- confirm the position stated in that letter and bring some additional points to your attention: The proposed rezoning application would create a use inconsistent and incompatible with the Southwest Edina Plan. There was discussion in the Council chambers at the August 6, 1979 hearing that there was a 50 -50 split on the issue of devel- opment of the property west of Cahill during the hearings on the Southwest Edina Plan. It must be pointed out that the Council voted unanimously for the adoption of the Southwest Edina Plan. In addition, a review of the records of the hearings and minutes reflects that on April 7, 1971 the statement, "The general agree- ment was industrial uses west of Cahill should be eliminated," is made specifically. This is a small point in light of the whole Southwest Edina Plan but yet still an important point to have clarified. It is clear that all of the minutes, records, proceedings and hearings in connection with the adoption of the Southwest Edina Plan by the Edina City Council are incor- porated into the record as part of the position against the DOHERTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER Members, City Council City of Edina August 17, 1979 Page Two rezoning application. The Braemar Associates have made no showing to support the position that the Southwest Edina Plan is not applicable. The area covered by the Southwest Edina Plan is unique. The Southwest Edina Plan is unique. It is tailored to meet the unique situation both of topography and land use in the area and for that reason the Southwest Edina Plan did not allow the subject property to be zoned for an office complex. The homeowners of Windwood Condominium are not opposed to development of the land but they are opposed to development of the land inconsistent with the Southwest Edina Plan., Interest- ingly, the developer at the August 6, 1979 hearing continued to refer to a townhouse plan that he stated was bad for the homeowners and that it was a poor plan. The City of Edina had agreed with the developer on that point as the plan that he was submitting as an alternate use to the office plan was a townhouse plan that the city planning commission had denied a request by the developer for use of the land for that purpose. What the developer failed to point out in his presentation was that the original plan proposed by the developer for 41 townhouse units, which was approved by the city planning commission, had received no negative reaction from the homeowners of Windwood. Therefore, when the developer poses the situation as being bad townhouses versus a good office park he has missed the point or he has created alternatives at his own option by submitting the poor design himself. The implication of more controversial uses of the subject property such as low -cost housing is also not the alternative, nor is it at issue. Instead, the alternative to the proposed office park is the original townhouse plan that has already been approved and would be passed without any opposi- tion from the Homeowners Association. And, it should be pointed out, there would be no need for rezoning or re- hearings as the original townhouse plan is a use consistent with the Southwest Edina Plan. An application for rezoning should be denied when the applicant has not complied with applicable laws. As of the date of this letter the Secretary of State's office for the State of Minnesota informs me that there is no Minnesota corporation by the name of Braemar Associates and there is no such name registered with the Assumed Names Section of the Office of the Secretary of State. Minnesota Statute 333.01 prohibits, without proper filings and publication, the act of rezoning as part of a commercial business venture without compliance with the statute. This is an additional reason to have this application for rezoning denied. DOHERTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER Members, City Council City of Edina August 17, 1979 Page Three Therefore, once again, on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee of Windwood Homeowners Association, I hereby request that you take the above into consideration and that you vote to deny the rezoning application of the Braemar Associates. Very truly yours, DOHERTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER RAZ /sd Ronald A4Zansky cc: Mr. Morris J. Levin, Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee, Windwood Homeowners Association The Arrow Company Room 4421 IDS Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612 335 1519 William F. Simons Regional Sales Manager August 12, 1979 Mrs. June Schmidt Councilwoman 7005 Bristol Boulevard Edina, Minnesota 55435 Dear Mrs. Schmidt: As a four year resident and homeowner of Edina and cur- rently a Windwood, Edina homeowner, I sincerely appreciate your efforts toward maintaining the Southwest Edina Plan. 1/ I felt confident in investing in my current Edina residence based upon that plan. Suddenly, I find my position threatened by a zoning change opposed by a significant majority of the homeowners in the immediate area, be they single or multiple residences. An.arbitrary change in the established zoning could well establish a precedence for additional changes in the future. I strongly feel that both this complex and certainly any future commercial rezoning threatens both my chosen living style as well as my property values. I'm concerned that commercial properties immediately around my home would not only forestall any normal increase in my property value, but might well erode the current value. There was an overall acceptance of Braemar Associates' original plan for a 41 unit townhouse and this is the type of complex the current zoning laws led me to expect, allowing me to feel confident in my investment in a home for my family and myself. I respectfully request your continued opposition to the proposed zoning change and would welcome any visit or call on your part to discuss this matter. /) jRespect u y. urs, W, 1V"m Si \ S�'� t; ' \ 751 0'c a ll 'Road, #216A - 944 -6522 WFS:mk 4421 IDS Center - 335 -1519 cc: The Honorable James VanValkenburg from Cluett -LZ , 4 August 7, 1979 Council Members Schmidt and Bredesen City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Council Members Schmidt and Bredesen: Thank you for your votes regarding the rezoning of the property at the NW corner of 78th Street and Cahill Road. I feel it was the only logi- cal vote to be made based on the facts presented. I encourage you to again vote against the zoning change after the "staff" prepares the written report. I would like to reiterate some of the facts that I especially feel are important: - the statement made by Mr. Hughes that Edina has ample areas where office complexes can be built - the illogical presentation and comparison of the "beautiful" office complex with the "rejected" townhouse plan. Obviously a better townhouse plan can be designed! - the precedent that could possibly be set by rezoning the property and the effect that will have on the undeveloped land to the north of Windwood. I think it is very unrealistic to dismiss the proba- bility of requests for rezoning on these other properties if the rezoning is permitted on 78th and Cahill. - the right of homeowners to expect, within reasonable limits, that the zoning laws will be changed only when very necessary - the traffic considerations are a factor As an additional note, I do not feel threatened by "middle income or lower income" housing, and I do not feel it is in good taste or a proper attitude for city elected officials to project, either. Many, many nice people, with children who behave just as well as more financially fortunate children, are unable to afford most Edina homes. If a townhouse project went up on the property next to us, I doubt very much that there would be an excessive number of children who would live there, but if it happened that way, I do not think a negative attitude would be the proper way to welcome them to Edina. I chose to live at Windwood because it is an adult complex. My own four children are now college age and I_ plan to enjoy a few "non- children" moments for the next few years, but I certainly would not expect to have all properties around my home "adults only ", but I do feel I had the reasonable expectation of having no office complex next door. 0 e Council Members Schmidt and Bredesen August 7, 1979 Page 2 I am not writing to the other council members to ask them to reconsider their vote, but feel free to have copies of this letter made for them if you wish. Thank you for your consideration, and I again encourage you to vote against the proposed zoning change. I also must say you were both very clear and articulate when explaining your vote at the council meeting. Sincerely, ) 4'e�j LL-1 Judith. L. Somers 7520 Cahill Road, #110 Edina, MN 55435 6 r / f m 17-Q - -- - ---- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - p 71 -. -� 1.9 - - - - - - -- ----------------- - ------------- - - - - -- - - -- I� "al ti - -- - � -� �'- �- - - - - =� T - -- -/_a'_ �__�- %lam � .�%_r�- �� � --- 'i°°r/�j_ '1,�- - -/ D!� - • - - - - -- - ----- 1 - -- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - -- - 5!N-_C� �� - -- -- li. - BRAEMAR ASSOCIATES 7201 Shannon Drive Edina, Minnesota August 15, 1979 Mayor James VanValkenburg and Council Members City of Edina Edina, Minnesota Dear Mayor and Council Members At the Edina City Council meeting of August 6, 1979 the city planners were requested to prepare a summary of. findings regarding the proposed rezoning request of Braemar Associates. All interested parties were advised that they would have a copy of these findings made available for their review and study prior to the council meeting of August 20, 1979. The parties were also advised that the minutes of the meeting of August 6, 1979 would be available for review. As of this date we have not been able to obtain a copy of these findings for our review and study nor have we been able to review the council's minutes. In addition, Mr. Jack Barron of Braemar Associates will be leaving town August 16, and not returning until sometime on Monday, August 20, 1979. Consequently, we will not have had adequate time to study the planners' findings prior to the August 20, 1979 council meeting. We, therefore, respectfully request that any matters regarding Braemar Associates proposal for rezoning be laid over until the first September, 1979 council meeting in order that -we,may have -a - reasonable - ,.time to- :perform out- review of the planners' findings. Respectfully your, BRAEMAR ASSOCIATES (J M. Blarron, / 4, l E. A. i land H. G. Haglu HGH: wa r \I LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the East one -half of the Southwest one - quarter of the Southeast one- quarter of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21, lying south of the north 20 rods thereof and north of the center line of State Highway No. 5 as it now exists and west of the center line of County Road No. 28 as it now exists, according to the plat thereof on file and of .record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. LOCATION MAP Zc' BRAEMAR ASSOCIATES REQUEST NUMBER: Z -79 -1 LOCATION: REQUEST: R -1 Single Family to 0 -1 _ Office District village *Manning den ArtmCnt village of edial COME UNITY DEVELOPMENT • STAFF REPORT May 30, 1979 Z -79 -1 Braemar Associates. R -1 Single Family District to 0 -1 Office District. The Commission will recall that this rezoning proposal to 0 -1 Office was continued from the May 2, 1979, meeting. The Commission requested me to notify residents of Southwest Edina of the proposal 'due to its inconsistency with the Southwest Edina Plan. I have sent the attached letter to several residents of the area and requested their conunents. I have also been asked to attend a meeting of the Windwoods Condominium Association in regard to the proposed rezoning. I presume that several residents of the area will speak to the proposed rezoning at the May 30, 1979, meeting. GLH:jkt fITV �� qRED114A 4801 WEST 50TH STREET. EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 612- 927- 8861May 17, 1979 Dear Southwest Edina Homeowner: In reviewing our files, I find that you participated in past discussions concerning the Southu•:est Edina Land Use Plan. You may recall that the original_ draft of this land use plan delineated industrial uses for the area lying west of Cahill load and east of a new proposed roadway (i.e. Delaney Boulevard /Amundson Avenue). Following numerous public hearings, the City Council amended the plan by deleting all industrial uses west of Cahill. Road. This area was designated instead for multiple residences (i.e. apartments, condominiums, etcetera). Since the Southwest: Edina Plan's approval in 1972, two apartment buildings have been constructed in this area west of Cahill Road. A third building is presently under-con- struct-ion in this area. Recently, the City received a request to rezone a parcel of property in the northwest qua-drant of Cahill Road and 78th Street for offices. inf.s rezoning request: c_,as considered by the Planning Conuriission on Ylay 2, 1979. At that time, the Coinn-Assion noted that such a rezoning would be incon- sistent wig h the South,:cst Edina Plan which was formulated with ccnside.rable input from the residents of southwest Edina. The Commission, therefore, instructed me to advise interested residents of the area in order to solicit their corunents and recommendations concerning the requested office rezoning. Enclosed for your reference are a copy of the Southwest Edina flan gr.aph.c and a map showing the location of the requested office. rezoning. 1 will be happy to supply additional. information at your request. The Planning Conanission will meet on May 30, 1979, to consider: again the office rezoning request. Please fon,,ard any comments to me prior to this date. Please advise me if I can answer any questions. Lastly, this letter is being sent to people who have e% ressed interest in the Southwest Edina Plan in past years. If you know Ot otter il�illr.vi.dua.l.s with a similar interest, please feel free to advise them of this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Gordon L. Hughes Director. of Planting COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT May 2, 1979 Z -79 -1 Braemar Associates. R -1 Single Fancily District to 0 -.1 Office District. REFER TO: attached graphics The Commission will recall that it reviewed several proposals for a townhouse development on the subject property during the past year. On August 2, 1978, the Commission recommended preliminary approval of a plan for 41 townhouse units on the site. This plan subsequently received preliminary approval by the City Council. Following this approval, soil investigators -revealed that the central_ portion of the site exhibited very unstable soil conditions. Based upon this investigation, the proponent submitted a revised site plan which relocated the townhouse units to the perimeter of the site. The Planning Commission denied this plan and requested that the proponent prepare a revised plan. The proponents have now submitted a request to rezone the property to 0 -1 Office District. As shown on the attached plans, a 69,000 square foot multi - tenant office building is proposed for the site. This building would have a maximum height of three stories and would offer both conventional office space as well as townhouse offices. In accordance with ordinance requirements, 326 parking stalls would be provided. One hundred fifty one parking stalls would be located under the office building, and 175 exposed stalls would be constructed on the central portion of the site. From a preliminary standpoint, the proposed office building appears to comply with the standards imposed by the "office" section of the zoning ordinance. Southwest- Edina Plan As originally drafted by staff in 1969, the Southwest Edina Plan delineated industrial uses for that area between Cahill Road and Delaney Boulevard. The subject property is located in this area. During 1969 and 1970, this proposed plan was strenuously debated by residents and property owners in southwest Edina. The primary issue which was debated was the proposed industrial land uses west of Cahill Road. Nearly all residents who voiced an opinion at that time were very opposed to industrial uses west of Cahill Road. Following numerous hearings, the City Council. amended the proposed plan by deleting all industrial uses west of Cahill Road and north of 78th Street and specifying residential uses in this area. Please refer to the attached minutes. Recommendation: Staff agrees that the subject property exhibits several constraints to devel- opment (e.g. poor soils, unusual topography, and frontage on collection streets.) Community Development Staff Report Z -79 -1 Braemar Associates May 2, 1979 page 2 However, staff submits that these constraints do not preclude the use of the subject property for residential purposes. Staff also submits that several other properties in southwest' Edina exhibit similar constraints and could be influenced to seek similar rezonings Staff would recommend denial. of the requested rezoning to 0 -1 Office District for the following reasons: 1) The request is inconsistent and in conflict with the Southwest Edina Plan. 2) Residents in southwest Edina have relied upon the Southwest Edina Plan and its concept that non - residential uses would not be allowed west of Cahill Road. 3) Cahill Road and 78th Street form a logical and reasonable dividing line between residential and industrial office uses. 4) The proposed use would especially impact the multiple residence immediately to the north which was recently converted to owner occupied condominiums. 5) The requested rezoning could establish a precedent for similar rezonings of properties fronting on Cahill Road or.78th Street. GI,II: j k t 4/26/79 Mr. Lewis indicated that under the law, the Village has be.a advised that the Planning, Commission raest transmit any comprehensive plan to the Council before the Commission c :act hold a public hearing. 'ir. !Jest indicated that there is a slight change in the recommended• plan involving a l:ig;licr density (from 0 -6 units to 6­17 units per acre) in a small four acre tract located approximately half -way between West 70th Street and the present Dewey Ilill Road and hounded on the cast by Calci:.l pond, lie stated howwer thr.[ the { Staff would recommend that the entire area between the proposed industrial development and file proposed Dewey 1(111, head extensions, ::hick has been reduced from a reccmmended 6 -17 units per acre to 0 -L• units per acre, be restored to its originally proposed density of 6 -17 units per acre. 1!e added that %,:e have been contacted by several property owners in the aces who have expressed i.n interest in a higher density in this area due basically to soil conditions, financing, etc. t;r., Frank ]lean was present and reported on a recent meeting of the resi- dents committee with the Olson- Hansen people (U(:,uglas Olson, Roy Olso.a, Carl Lausea and ilarvey Hansen), who are requestin:; tice higher density on the four acre tract located south of the proposed north :rti exceasion of Dcwcy Ili.11 Road and just west of Cahill Road. Ile indicated that the residents are opposed to this request as this would represent a precedent to increase the density for all of that area to the south between j the proposed industrial development and the prof oscd Dewey (fill Road extensions. { In reply to a question, 'tr. Lewis str.ted that a planned density of 0 -6 units in the area in question is economically unreali<_tic, adding that the •7illage l:as already been confronted with several law suita regarding this land. f Mr. Dean stated that the Mayor is also questioning the proposed industrial t development west of Cahill Rcad. I!:: added that the residents are firin in .their desir^ i � that the entire plan area remain residential. in character, and continue to oppose the encroachment of any industrial development wcst.of Cahill Road. lir., Lewis again reiterated that if apartment (residential) development Nero permitted along the west side of Cahill Road, a trzff;c exit will hav' -! to be provided into Edina, as the resulting residential traffic could hardly be denied direct access into the Village. Ile added that the residential traffic could not be feci do::n an industrial road, out of the Villa ;c, as this would create serious tra::fic prcolems in this area. Mr. Lewis added that any residential development along Cahill Road would not create a good living environsgent for the residents. Mr, Harvey Hansen briefly commiented on the Olson- llansen request for n -4 zoning; at "7200 Cahill Road ", indicating that they are proposing to utilize the easterly portion of tite site with the construction of a 141 unit apartment building. Ile further indicated that they would propose the dedication of approximately four acres of land on the west side of the north Dewey Hill Road extension. Mr. Dean stated that the residents coaanittee generally agreed that the dedication of the westerly four acres as parkland Was an acceptable compromise to increase the density on the easterly four acres, across the north extension of Dewey !fill Road. Mr. Hughes stated that lie would rather the Village have some determination in (ghat is going to be developed in this area instead of being forced by the courts to accept scmething the Village does not watt, lie stated that lie feels 0 -6 units per acre is insufficient and would not stand up in :ourt. lle proposed the: the dc:rtsity in the area west of the proposed industrial dc:vctlopnient and east of the Dewey still Road extensions be increased ict order that the Village could retain some control over the development in the area. After further. discussion, Mr. Hughes clarified that the plan is a gu±deline for development in the southwest Edina area, however the possibility of hi'ghcr densities must be reco ni :cd as appropriate densities are presented for consideration. He noted that each request must be considered on its merit. The residents agreed with this and indicated that although they understand the possibility of increased densities in the area mainly in question, they would prefer that the plan show a proposed 0-6 units per acre rather than 6 -17 units per !cre. They indicated that this vould force the proponents to develop a better overall plan proposal and would also force any requests for a higher dcusity to be considered (more critically. Mr, Hughes moved that the Plannin- Commission approve the recommended Southwest rdina Plan (a:: originally proposed but with a den::ity of 6-17 units per acre in the four acre cr:.ct located ju,!t west of Cahill Road, and jUnt south of the proposed northern extension oF.Dewcy ili]1 Road, and nit`: a density of 0 -6 units per acre in the, remainder of the urea loealed betuecn the proposed Dewey Gill Road extensions a:.cl the i.n.lustr,al d_vclop:ent w0ut of Cahill Road) nd revised tenet, the- ter,( bt -in", c+ : ;.j'c::t t.o any t.: c. :.aa :y real :,tea.. Mr. C. Johnuon seconde.l the motion. All Voted Aye, Motion Corded. . -,r A „ EDT :�PLU PF72—%P.F.D VAC!: TO PI.,°Tha7? CO` =SSION. .11r. West presented ta Scuchwcsc :d1n• Plan :6 submitted by the Piauring Coninisnion, recalling �. that, since the w:atter had originally beau considered by the Planning Com- wiission and a con-prehcnsiva plan davaL:;2d 1•y Brauer 6 Associates and approved by tho Planning Col: 1xaion in 1)67, char.pas in the p1r.rt had bsco= necessary. because of the chango in needs in the School District, the racoivaanda *_ion of the Park Board not to obtain zddttional land South of Braurar Park and indus- trial and /or eo::,e.rcial develop=nt in the City of Bloo- a1ngton just .aSjacesmC to Edina, Yr. Nast recalled that the plan developod in 1957 by Erauar 6 Associates for this proporty bounded by Cahill Rcad, West 70th Street, Old Washington Avenue end the South Village Limits, had called for strip of industrial zoning along; Cahill foal from the baxtona property to W. 73th Street, with a strip or R -2 llultiple Pasirszntial District property barwoen the industrial property and tingle family zoninD. Mr. i;ast added that, in developing this plan, the F1_nnang Commission had considered tha protection and preservation of existing; natural f atures in the area, nsi:mtc,n&ncu 4)f existing residential ir.:egrity and creation of a4e.itional good livin;; environm:nts. He noted that coil conditi:,ns in the general ar ^_a West of Cahill Road and East of the Dewey 11411 Road c tenuicno were svch that thn cost of.piling t:ould require an in:cnaa usa of t!tn land. Ti- 'o proposed plan calls for industrial Ievelop =-,t approximately 00' deep on chs heal. aida of Cahill road, m3diurm density mixad.residencial development which would .. p a mit 6 to 17 units per acre in the four acre trect located just Weft of Cahill Road and just South of tiro proposed Fortk:ern extcnaiou of Deway Hill P,oad, with c lcra dcusitti ri ;ad renidenti_nl d4Qv0:1aprrent of up to 6 vnito pQr acre in the remainder of the area located h:stwocn the proposed Deaway lii.11 Road extansi.on& am d the industrial devolapr._nt klast of Cahill Road. Tha area West of the proposed D,key hill Road extensions contain a pondin3 area, and three areas of low density mixed residential dcvelopr..ent centered on najor hill groups and separated by green strips of open space along th'! sutural drainage ways. The remainder of the study area contains single fancily detached homes and a proposed school and park site. Mr. West recalled that the Village Attorney had indicated that the Western Edina Plan could be adopted by resolution and that the zoning could be changed at any tire. Xavor Bredesen pointed cut that this is a "plan" only and not a "eo=ittmer.t ". Mr. Roger I:ordbye, representing Mr. 0. E. Madsen, urged approval of industrial dnvelop- r.•cnt as proposed on Cahill Road. Speaking in opposition tv the plan a's presented were Mr. and Mrs. Crawley, 5504 14. 70th Street, Mcasre. E. D. Iiaececi ,. 5524 W. 70th Street, Inuis Polries, 7101 Fleetwood Drive, the resident st 5700 Dewey Ilill Road, Robert Klein, 7300 Claredon Drive an•i James Jundt, 7071 Ianham Lane, who said that he bought his house on the basis of environment for his family and that this industrial encroachment would destroy pr,:)perty valves. lie added that he would rather see low income housing in the area then the industrial zoning proposed. Mrs. Donna Rubcns protested that she had roved to -7dina because of a "quality of life" which would be destroyed by t!:e encroachment of industrial development West of Cahill Road. Mrs. M. N. Aksoy, 5.00 11. 70th Street, objected to the proposed high density apartments to ue constructed Southeast of Cahill School. :1r. Villiam Howard, 5805 Dewey Hill :gad, said that he had beer. a r.e^ber of the Citizens' Coamitcec which had wor':.d on this plan and that the plan as presented did not include any'of tai= s- .;grest- ions male by the Co=ittee. An unidentified lady in the audience said that the property on the Lest side of Cahill and. South o'` W. 70th Street was zoned - = R -2, rather than R -3 as presently indicated in the cormprehensive plan. Mayor Bredesen suggested that perhaps the Villr,.r,e, as wall as residents, should eompro =ise and that possibly a six story apartment building might be rx1re pleasing in appearance than a ventilator on the root of a two story warehouse. Mr. William Leiria, Chair an of the Planning Cormission, sugye::t,:d that if the area on the West side of D•:�ey Pill Road o.-as developed with spa- tnant ; ;, traffic would have to exit on to W. 70th Street from Dewey Hill Road, rather than by going to the South. He added that the Planning Commission had discussed the possibility of Office Building Zoning in tha area but had felt that the exposure was not good for office buildings. Councilman Johnson said that he had made an ca -site imaspecti.on and could find no reason why industrial zoning should be extended West of Cahill Road and that, in his thinking, the plan proposed by residents was closer to the wcy the area should be developed. lie agreed with Councilman Shaw that the cul -de -sac on Cahill Road should be eliminated and that Deway Hill Roan should be left as it is at the present time. In response to a lady in the audience who said that the Planning Commnission had not listened to residents, Mavor Bredasen cowtr_nded the Plan- ning Commission for its efforts and said that its interest, as yell as the interest of the Council, was for tka welfare of the entire community. Ile added that the suggestioiis of residents had been taken into consideration in the development of the plan. Requests were wada by mevmbers of the audience that a separate study be nacre of traffic considerations in throe area, that the zoning of tine corner of Old St. Patrick's Church: be chuck and that specific estimtes of cost of pilimmgs for .industrial buildings be available so that they could h" compered. with the cost of pili.ngc for resi.dnntial buildings. Followin., considerable discussion, Councilman Courtn -:y's motion referring the matter back to the Planning Commission was seconded by Councilman Jahn-,;on and carried. SOUTINEST ENTIn PLAIT J Mr. Luce reviewed the boundaries of the plan area, and indicated that the Southwest Edina Plan recoininc:iidecl by the Planning; Ccramiscion was rejected by the Village Council on January 18, 1971, at which time greatest concern was' expressed regarding the area bounded by Cahill Road on the cant and Dowoy Hill Road on the west. Mr.. Luce indicated that the Planning staff presently recommends that the controversial area be given a density of 12-I- units per acre, adding; that the present plan also calls for a 19 acrd park Just to the west of the Dewey Hill I:oad extensions and north of the e: ; ;iotingy Dewey Hill load, which would require dedication on the part of the p:-opOrty O- Oners. Ile explained that the density that woir].d have been permitted on this area at ?.2 units per acre would then be constructed on the rcmaining; portion of the lot (east of the extended road), thus creating a density of 1P12•1r" units pdr acre, -the 19 —acre park would serve as a buffer area b:twecn the multiple development and the existing single family horses. IIe further indicated that the only access permitted to the multiple residential areas would be from Dewey Hill Road extended and not frog Cahill Road, thus preventing the industrial traffic from filtering through the multiple areas and into the single family district. A gentleman representing the Oscar. Grant property indicated that they u,:e definitely opposed to any resich:ntial aoain g on the properLy along Cahill Road, a, they have been a'ssesned for the road as z heavy—duty industrial road and do not feel residential zoning would be an adequate return on .their investment. In reply to a question by Mr. Jim Jundt, Mr. Luce clarified that the "12•x" refers to the fact that the deno:ity on the east side of the Dewey Hull Road extennio;is would be higher than 12 units per acre due to the credit for the park dedication. He indicated that state statutes and the village ordinance provide the means for the Village to require dedication of the land. Ile added that the land would be subject to the approval of the Park Board, which has unofficially accepted the land, and laust be dedicated to the Village free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. He noted that the development of the parkland would be paid for by the Village and would not be requti-ed by the developer or the property owner. Mr. Luce indicated that the total population in the area at full covelopment under the proposed plan would be approximately 5,600 people, or a population gain of 4,000 people, which has increased significantly from earlier estimates due to the deletion of the industry west of Cahill Road,— In reply to Mr. Bill Ho-ward, Mr. Luce observed that the number of apartment buildings in the multiple areas depends of the developers plans for the laid, adding that the prope:tica are large encugh to be developed under the Planned Residential Di.E,trict ordinance, which requires approval. by the Planning; Commi.,sion and the Village Council of complete overall development plans, including topography, vegetation,, the location of the utructures, etc. In reply to several reoident-a, Mr. Hughes stated that the Village does not: have ally choice regarding increasing the population o }: Edina, adding that the choice is to try to determxn- to the e_rtent pos3iblr.k +hat types of bu21d�:.ge the people are going to live in. Ila indicated that the present plan Tons developed wilcii meambcro of the Planning Commission azid Council and the planner held an on—site inspec- tion of the plan area, follo-oing the rejection of the plan by the Council. in reply to Mr. Robert Burns of 51320 Dewey Hill Road, Mr. I•Iest clarified that the maximum height of the PRD structures would be four sr_orieO. Mr. Burn:; stated that the ,:csidcnts leal that the amulti.pla dwcllin;s will reduce considerably the valua of the o :Uot -.n, sin-.1.:! family houcc, anal that the plcn in genarral will cause n :3ubatOntia'l incren je in population, particularly of "transient apartment duellers", and traffic,, and will ba an inc;:eacod burden on the school aysteu nnij the fire and police s^rviccs ;. 11ol1ol1ing; further d ioctinaion, Mr. Hughes moved that the proposed 11.00uthweot Edina Plan be approved, and Mir„ C. Johnnon_ seconded the motion. S;)l71V.-' -ST EDIVA CO:�1 ?1U:;II :P:S?VL PLATT AP * :MVED. Affidavits of Notice were presented I by Clerk, approved as to form ar:d ordered placoc; c•n file. Ttr. Luce recallod that on May 3, 1971, Council had requested that the homcowncrs and developers interested in the Southwest aina Plan meet with the Pl.annil :g Department, to attempt to reach a compromise. At that rceLing, residents requested Planned Residential District development for the Southwest Edina area, rather than R -•3 or R -4 Nulti.ple Rc::idence District develop Tent, that the npartlr.eatn have ac:ces6 to Cahill Road and not limited to Dewey hill Road, and that the & :.r..a located inm :cdiately Wert of the pond North of present Dewey Bill Road be zoned FRD -2, allowing a maximum of six units to the acre and that the other sit; units be uned on another part of the Madson property. P.csidcrt *_s had also rec;uestcd that th -a nineteen acre park and the Southerr. pondinr areo. within the quarter - section line be developed to four unitc. per acre, rather than With twelve unit::. per acre as requested. Developers had agreed to all conditions exeapt the last mentio^_cd, since they felt thrt they had alrea'y cgreed to :icdicate large exca of par., land. -Fir. Luce added that four res_6crits out of six voted that, if the con .1y 4 way to get the nir_teen acre par{ and waterway to the South would be to grant twelve units to tire- acre, then that would be acceptable- Mr. Luce said that the Planning Corsai.ssion has now re:om-n.icncled approval of the. Sauttiidcst Plan as j; proposed at Council X! ^acing of 1.1-iy 3, 1971, with the following revisions: 1) that the multiple develop:iF.nts be planrez' reci.uenr_ial developtt: n::; 2) that the apartments; be granted access on Cahill Road; 3) that the .creage between tite four -acre pond on 11r. 1•iadson's property be zoned PRD -2 (6 units per acre) - ! and that the remaining :1:; unit: be constructed elscwhe.re on the Manson rape,ty. 11r. James R. Jundt, 7021 _r.anham. Lane, said ti:at neighbors had cone :.-craised Got that the developers have not matte: any co ;ire. :ise. He ut3,cd titan. Council once again refer the Southwest 'Edina Flan bark to the Planning Co :rmission•with the Yecomacrdation tirrcC cattdominiurr. or totrn house development be Eppboved so tl, at occupants would have a vested interest in the Village. Mr. Jundt said t :at the Planning Cor=aissi.nn llied bc-.en totcll.y unreF.poasive to citizens! regvestS Ind requested fiSures to support the c; mention of the devcicpers- that the d:- .•.relop_ trertt which th pro-pored was the only de -i elor n'Bnt whirl: :tai economically soi:n3. He added that he t.'oui.d be perf €:ctly caticfied with PRO-2 dove loprnant,. Bredesen :aid that the financial adfaizc o£ the developers should trot inEuence Council's d.:cisfcn ih t1:;: r..•ctter. Courclivina Johnson said that: he does no,.- believe that it would be reasonable to expect sin-le fancily dwellings a.djac.�nt to industrial prepeerty, that ltd belienres that the proposal is a fair and reasonable balance of inters is for the hovF2ovners to the West and the vvne_i of the property in qua,ticn and that Council crust keep in mind that they mi£;ht have the Courts to deal with if the proposal is denied. Mr. Johnsorl ad:;cd . th-t Courci.l has control ovar plans in tite Planned ;�c: :idcntia: Diztricts ant j agreed that to :n houacs or condominiums Would 5e desirable for the ;::•ca. Fir. i s frank Dean, 5716 Devoe- ?fill _toad, s:,id that he was one of the four mciibars o:'. the Citizera' Cvma,Uttee idle were willing to accept_ the "credit: of tus.1ve" an-6 that he had agreed only under the astumpzion that saithnut giving Cite. "credit of twelve:" ,here would hL no park land donated along ;:he area at all. .le added that it wss fait thuL- it wctn rx%re to their advantage to acccpC the additional people in orrlar to gaist tine strip of park hand, since it would pre-- vide a buffer Yehich would prevent this land from b =in, zon•ad for ome or er multiple use. He noted that the two m_nber.s of the e1tizcns' ConT.- .Lttcc did not concur with t;te other four and they Mould grant a rrasximurt o° lour units per acre crcoic for t:;u par', and pond. liavor Bredesen referred to a letter frcm :lrs . Dorothy Palter objecting beaausa it is not hropv.,ed to grant industrial zoning for her'father'v property at 7293 Cnni:ll P,oad. Dr. I P. Pa.lries, 71.01 Fleetwood Drive, was told by Mr, 117de•that Chief Bennett had xapeatedly told hint that there is no difference in the crime rate in the Village between si.npl.e family great and sparzricrit areas. In answer to a question, front 1.1r. 11;-(:e, Fir. llhiticck s;t:viscd that the Pillage has no control ove• r type of owner -'. ship. Dr, a:td Mrs. Robert Busdt, 7304 Claredon Drive, Dr. A. N. Lai'aon, 1005 Lanham Lane, Mr. c,rd firs. Rcbcrt auras, 5620 I1,racy Hill Road, exp.res :sod ob jeclions to talc proposal. Mr. Ronald Jacha, 6312 Dakota 'Frail, scid th .t lie had been told that Cdin,7, would be 407 apartments by 1955 and o_)jected to the nur-Ler of apartments in the Vill:de generally. *Mr. Luce said that he hat. made that estimate becau�c much o.c the uacicvelcped land left in the Villat..e was along freeways. In responce to a quast•?on from the r:.rdience, Councilman. Shaw staid that lie had been told, but that lie could not: vaach for the fact, that there would be 1,142 more peoplo in the area if developed an proposed rather than if 6/21/71 177 I A. i'. -1. 11r. Luce reviewed various plans which had been presented for the Area. Discussion ensued as to the tax bena aft 'from Various tyncL; of development. 1•;r. John Murphy, 6201. loch Moor Drive, said th.it lie owns aparLmenG buil,lin -s and that they are not veilci _-lly occupied by people with children. 'Mr. John Telfer, 5717 Ila; kes Drive said that, with good plannin ^, Llle Village can have � Food multiple- c'iaclli.n�, araa3 as well as i;��o1 s ,n -le family e-wclling ar ^.as. Mrs. Charles Mahan, 7129 Shannon Drive, was told by i•klyor Brcuc:scn that the Village could requiro. dedication of park property prior to the von: ng of tale iiaZ I:cG Of ttho pliopCrtf.f In response tto r.. question from the iludience, Councilman VanValkenburE. s aid that hc-- b; iUc -vcs tlliat Lite proposed plan Is a compra•7Ii-ise from the original proposal and tint Co-uncil could control. the dcvoloplannt by the'qunlity of the buildings. UP- expresz -ad his concern with the sugl;astion, that Council 'be put in a , osition of telling people how they can devel.ep their property and noted that the Courts would t ^11 the Village that it cannot refuse certain zonim, requests. Va added that he believes that the proposal does protect the urea. Mr, 1.7111inm llowmrd, .5808 DvtWey I ?ill Road, said that. as ene of the i:.Ltmbers of the col:lmit_t:ce, it was his understanding Livit there was no g1'.ostion but that t-he park land Mould be dedicated. 1•ir. Roger 1- lordby, a'Ltor ey represen1:1,ni . Mr. 0. :i. Ma•jsen, said that Mr. .Lzdsen would dedicate park land if he had a bin, irl contract. with the- Villn";e. • Councilman Johnson YCCalled a 8i.-- C!Stion that if: the Village agl'i 2 to rezo. the property, dcvclopers -would dedicate paz-h lands to cli Village. Mr. l•iilitlock sal '6 that this Council cannot: ll biwl any fat -ore Council to i rake a rezoning. Mr. Hyde suggested that - de?velopars summit their zoning requents with their plat, showing the property to be dedicat .c.d as park lanai and tiler bring in their unit d v lopment for approval at a latter date. In eespQl:s: to a question froiii tha audience, 11r. Hyda sa:.d that there has bcen no dcqucst for rezoning the property on which the Mor►tc.ssori School is located. An unidenti- fied lady .in' the audience complain ^u that : acro was rto :;uYfez bvuweerl her property or, W. 70th 'a;tbcic r and property to the South which h d beyn granted -3 1•lulciplci Residence D strict. zoning. . Court 0 1.l..,n ']`i Johnson su- csti,: d i;hc. possi.- bil.ity of reclassifying the prop•a?:ty on So'uthvest corner of 1.1. 70`1.i Street: and Cahill nC'a=,d from A-3 siCn2.de;ice M'-str c-, to PRD °3, but was told bi Mar. 111a flock that t its could not be made. if il' made the pro- perty less valuable. Councilman Jychnscn said that hc. iwould =nvo.r cuch ca reclassifics'ion and askod. that thin possibility be con sidared. Mr, 0,•ugi;ts Olson, owner of talc prenc_>; U at i'200 Cahi11 Roa,:, s.:Id that he had z ivcn his .1SSilra:nCr. to t!1� Con _?littcl' iarld to the P1311n _mg Commi.ss;.oll tha: pal'ii lands U;: his .prop: rty kculd be :teal °G�:teda fir. .,I l ir:dc? ! , a:Jl1Gr of rtic 4 ro�lcrty t o the North of Mire Olson& property, also z reerl to dedi ca tha part: land oil his property. It Was noted that Mr. It. K. -Strut, the olm! ^r of the property .which is zoned R -3 'rhAtiple 1'ia:iidenca District Soot i of ,% 710Lh StrFC:t and West oz Cahill Road Was not at the c;:.eting,. Councilmar, Johnson t:hm fjfZ,3.i'ed the folloWAng resolution hilt. ;,,.x.y :d In adoption: BE IT r S017NED BY T1I,a EDINA that `_ht SOiitlYr;est Sdima Plan be approved, baacd on the of the pmparty a-mcro that thay will convey park lands to tivti Vi llo;c• anal also that t:verytlilx -g pos: ible Al.l oa :lone to got the presently zoned R -3 Multiple RasidenLial .Dirtrict property in the arcs: to ba subs nct to P rLD -3 restric tio'tin . Motion for Ladopti.ail of t!:'2 r;: sollltian Fiopro in g th►`. Soui. hw st S-18inn, Plan, a copy of which is Zt..oched and made a po.-tion of tt;^_s(: XUnures, war. seconded by Councilrnn VanValkcnbarg anal an rollcal). there- were five syca and Tto nil;s and the resolu�:i.oa writ: ad.opced. II. New Business: Z -79 -1 Braemar Associates. R -1 Single Family District to 0 -1 Office District. Asking the Commission to recall that it had reviewed several proposals for a townhouse development on the subject property during the past year, Gordon Hughes indicated that on August 2, 1978, the Commission recommended preliminary approval of a plan for 41 townhouse units on the site. He continued that although this plan subsequently received preliminary approval by the City Council, following the approval, soil investigations revealed that the central portion of the site exhibited very unstable soil conditions. Based upon this investigation, Mr. Hughes noted the proponent submitted a revised site plan which relocated the townhouse units to the perimeter of the site. However, the Planning Commission denied this plan and requested that the proponent prepare a revised plan. Gordon Hughes explained that the proponents have now submitted a request to rezone the property to 0 -1 Office District and propose a 69,000 square foot multi - tenant office building for the site. He also stated that the building would have a maximum height of three stories and would offer both con- ventional office space as well as townhouse offices. In accordance with ordinance requirements, Mr. Hughes said 326 parking stalls would be provided with 151 parking stalls to be located under the office building and 175 exposed parking stalls to be constructed on the central portion of the site. Staff felt that from a preliminary standpoint, the proposed office building appears to comply with the standards imposed by the "office" section of the zoning ordinance. Gordon Hughes noted, however, that the Southwest Edina Plan, drafted in 1969, delineated industrial uses for that area between Cahill Road i i Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 2 and Delaney Boulevard, the area in which the subject property is located. He continued that in 1969 -70 this proposed plan was strenuously debated by residents and property owners in southwest Edina, the primary issue being the proposed industrial land uses west of Cahill Road. Mr. Hughes indicated that nearly all the residents who voiced an opinion at that time were very opposed to industrial uses west of Cahill Road which prompted the City Council, following numerous hearings, to amend the proposed plan by deleting all industrial uses west of Cahill Road and north of 78th Street and specify residential uses in this area. Staff agreed that the subject property exhibits several con- straints to development such as poor soils, unusual topography, and frontage on collector streets; however, staff submitted that these constraints do not preclude the use of the subject property for residential purposes. Staff also submitted that several other properties in southwest Edina exhibit similar constraints and could be influenced to seek similar rezonings. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the requested rezoning to 0 -1 Office District for the following reasons: that the request in inconsistent and in conflict with the Southwest Edina Plan; that residents in southwest Edina have relied upon the Southwest Edina Plan and its concept that non - residential uses would not be allowed west of Cahill Road; that Cahill Road and 78th Street form a logical and reasonable dividing line between residential and industrial office uses; that the proposed use would especially impact the multiple residence immediately to the north which was recently converted to owner occupied condominiums; and that the requested rezoning could establish a precedent for similar rezonings of properties fronting on Cahill Road or 78th Street. Gordon Hughes introduced Jack Barron, Arthur G. Haglund, and Gene Nieland who were present to answer the Commission's questions. Jack Barron showed the Commission several slides of the piece of property from various angles to illustrate to them why he felt the proposed office complex would be the best plan for the site. Mr. Barron pointed out that the 41 townhouse units that were previously approved would destroy more trees, would occupy more of the area, and would create more traffic than the proposed office complex. He continued that the office building proposed would have no children in it to play near the busy street, and there would be no.traffic on weekends or holidays or after 6 p.m. on.weekdays, but would contain a high professional level of renters such as attorneys and architects. In response to Mr. Runyan's question as to the expected oc- cupancy load of the building, Jack Barron replied that he felt it would be considerably lower than a regular office building due to high rental costs and top quality professionals he intended to rent office space to. Mr. Barron also showed the Commission a new product he planned to use to resolve the peat problem. After a general discussion on the product, Chairman Lewis opened the floor for neighbors to speak. Richard Petschauer of 7520 Cahill Road informed the Commission that a collective position had not been taken on behalf of the Windwood Condo- minium owners but he was concerned that an office building in this location would affect the value of their property. Edina Community Development and Planning Commission May 2, 1979 page 3 Jewell Hiscock of 7520 Cahill Road noted that while Mr. Barron had spoken to a few of the Windwood Condominium owners and was very kind to do that, she would not have invested in a condominium if she had known that an office building might be built. Bob Brandon of 7520 Cahill Road pointed out that Jack Barron had met with about 30 of the approximately 200 condominium owners to explain his proposal, and Mr. Brandon asked that the proposal ,be continued for one month so that all of the Windwood owners could be informed and a collective position taken. Dr. James Roger Fox of 7510 Cahill Road told the Commission that he was sold on the development because he felt that an office building would be the best use for that location other than if the City turned down all zoning and made it into a park which would be unrealistic. Helen McClelland compared the number of trip generations in a 41 townhouse unit development with an office building, and Gordon Hughes clari- fied that the staff figures eight or nine trips per unit for townhouses or about 380 trips per day for the 41 unit development and 12 to 14 trips per thousand square feet for office which would result in an increased number of trips. Dick Seaberg asked if any of the neighbors were present that were concerned about the industrial use in this area when the Southwest Edina plan was made. Mr. Hughes replied that no notice of hearing is sent to sur- rounding property owners for the Planning Commission meetings, and he was not sure if any of these neighbors were aware of Mr. Barron's new proposal. Gordon Johnson moved that the rezoning request be continued for one month. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the request was continued to the May 30, 1979 meeting. i 1 I I I � I � � . � •' •' .. " � . " - � .. - - • • •►- - -� �.�� _^ __ • ��J..� _ ••• 'ii _ _ - :V�.. _ •_1..x_.1 ,. i � 1- .. � 1 _' .. � .; � • � .. .. • .r +fit'•- == �.f� ��.'_�.Y�. . - -. , ,. N L I F! G E -3 (f -L.D l -U �:: ".:�T.t1.2::� ". A..- �:�.�•. A: F- A'A.r, :A'h�a -o'4IA , F- �� A R C .1i 17 C C i S alto c r} G is F• S - : .. /:;7 PAPSH11:.1 MVIP r c!. FvUi . x +tiF =Jr+ f I IL r 1' . •1j•r•Gj ` � _ :— y =;�z. i, /.l1' \,• �'. _y •t `, y..11,. � n.: �^ ;S_, 1. I. VII, NK 'l, IIIIA LL /� .�� -� -� -- •` ,','.. �,. -• _ _� `_� _.• '` `• `/ ,• •ate �'��G t_� �`�� '� - 1. /�_.� -_ _ �•� ` � .-, :- +'• s % "� , � r - �•� • �. 1, � � � -.; ..( it .n � _ �! ._ � � ,�•�, ;— tV� •�::f;;�, • Icy . ^.•.: � , �E- era -cam -� �.�-e- /zYe� ��� ; 1/0 0 0 f-CLIL& zL 7r a"4 p Lei =1 MARTIN B. THIEDE June 25, 1979 Mr. William W. Lewis, Chairman Edina Planning Commission City of Edina Edina, Minnesota Dear Mr. Lewis: I am a resident of the Windwood Apartment located at 7520 Cahill Road, Edina, Minnesota and have been a resident of Edina during the last 20 years. In connection with the proposed re- zoning of the parcel of land immediately to the south of the Windwood Apartment, my understanding of, this proposed re- zoning is that the Owners of the land desire to erect a low -level office building in lieu of the approved town house proposal. The Owners have carefully explained their proposal to me and I have reviewed the concept and the visual presentation independently. It is my opinion that a quality type office development as they have proposed would be superior to a number of town houses located on that site and I believe it to be in keeping with the environmental concepts of today's developers. Please call me if I can be of further assistance to you . regarding this matter. Very truly yours, Martin B. Thiede 7520 Cahill Road Edina, Minnesota of I Y.„ , i 0 L. P. Youngblood 7205 Lanham Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 C" / '01 /V AV 14)LW " 'r4� W�e , 44"1, -a IZAAAA TIAJ tAj z z My 607 gg� May 25, 1979 Mr. William Lewis Planning Commission Chairman 4801 West 50th St. Edina, Mn. 55424 RE: Request for Rezoning NW Quadrant of Cahill Road and 78th St. for office.Buildings. Hearing: May 30th, 1979 Dear Sir: 6121YS2 -, ;-lo N Recently, as a homeowner in the area, I was given notice of the above request set for hearing on May 30th, 1979. . I wish to state my strong objection to said request as being in direct contravention with the very purpose of the Southwest Edina Plan. This Plan was a product of many years of work by the homeowners in this area, and was designed to prevent the very use .which is now being requested. If the Commission intends to give any further consideration to this request, I,and I'm sure a large number of other homeowners, would like to be heard in opposition. Yours very truly, e 1 iam HWow A cp� 1 �jy �� /� May 2 1 1 /d[/d Y 5, 979 At a meeting of the Windwood Homeowner's Association.on May 24, 1979 a motion was made by Dr. Warnken, 213B, to pass a resolution in favor of retaining present zoning of the property in question. The motion was seconded by Joe Haskell, 118B, The motion was unanimously approved, A motion was made by Ann Danahy, 106A, to name Morris Levin, Windwood Homeowner's Association.Board Chairman, to represent the Association at the Edina Village Council meeting on May 30th as our spokesperson. Audrey Knowles, 311C, seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. J /� 7-/-;g , or lck U (J Those•persons wishing to "car pool" to the meeting on May 30th should meet in the Party Room at 7:OOP.M. � 7100 6x11111 Road L�- d111�r, ���illneswa--114ff - <6 b 941-26j0 ,I, �Y1d); Od dlhw May 25, 1979 At a meeting of the Windwood Homeowner's Association on May 24, 19.799 a motion was made by Dr. Warnken, 213B, to pass a resolution in favor of retaining present zoning of the property in question. The motion was seconded by Joe Haskell, 118B. The motion was unanimously approved. A motion was made by Ann Danahy, 106A, to name Morris Levin, Windwood Homeowner's Association Board Chairman, to represent the Association at the Edina Village Council meeting on May 30th as our spokesperson. Audrey Knowles, 311C, seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously �pproved. UUVI I _ Y Z z J 7 Tr -1 ` /� Those p2ons wishing to meet in the tParty Room at 3— /c5� ,rI�/ 2z�vI4.9-- s � �sq "car pool" to the meeting on May 7 :p0t -M. I a e _ 7 00 Ealall Qaad - adma, � 'rnrresata ff4ff <622) 94/263- v 0 should CW1jId);q l�d May 25, 1979 (�Edina- At a meeting of the Windwood Homeowner's Association on May 24, 1979 a motion was made by Dr. Warnken, 2138, to pass a resolution in favor of retaining present zoning of the property in question. The motion was seconded by Joe Haskell, 118B. The motion was unanimously approved. A motion was made by Ann Danahy, 106A, to name Morris Levin, Windwood Homeowmer's Association Board Chairman, to represent the Association at the Edina Village Council meeting on May 30th as our spokesperson, Audrey Knowles, 311C, seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved, �J C� A 'Z t-5 Ile _3 T ose persons wishing to "car po 1 meet in the party room at 7:OOP.M. to the meeting on May 30 should 7500 l.'�illllvCTc �l�lilll� L�i�1i111ESJla ss. f �62i _9I --2E�o NI, ON M -a May 25, 1979 At a meeting of the Windwood Homeowner's Association on May 24, 1979, a motion was made by Dr. rlarnken, 213B, to pass a resolution in favor of retaining present zoning of the property in question. The motion was seconded by Joe Haskell, 118B. The motion was unanimously approved. A motion was made by Ann Danahy, 106A, to name Morris Levin, Windwood Homeowner's Association Board Chairman, to represent the Association at the Edina Village Council meeting on May 30th as our spokesperson. Audrey Knowles, 311C, seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. :.��� Lam/ -�'` �"`'�'�•� ,a Cc i/ • ._,n A a 3 Those wishing to "car pool" to the meeting on May 30 should meet 7100 rlrrll C-;Q0V4-d • G- -ldIna, <62> �)41-2(i��c� �G May 25, 1979 J At a meeting of the Windwood Homeowner's Association on May 24, 1979, a motion was made by Dr. 11arnken, 213B, to pass a resolution in favor of retaining present zoning of the property in question. The motion was seconded by Joe Haskell, 118B. The motion was unanimously approved. A motion was made by Ann Danahy, 106A, to name Morris Levin, Windwood Homeowner's Association Board Chairman, to represent the Association at the Edina Village Council meeting on May 30th as our spokesperson. Audrey Knowles, 311C, seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved. A -W 'r 3 i q V 3 v� 1 � xJ Y23 Those persons wishing to "car pool" to the meeting on May 30 should meet in the Party Room at 7100p.m. NA ek-r,�, C,�hvw)ej +6— ,7100 a - dlll�r�ff 2� f! ��6 0 , ��lillle vlr - f f - <�� Ma 25, Y 1 979 At a meeting of the Windwood Homeowner's Association on May 24, 1979, a motion was made by Dr..,9arnken,. 213B, to pass a resolution in favor of retaining present zoning of the property in question. The motion was seconded by Joe Haskell,.118B. The motion was unanimously approved. A motion was made by Ann Danahy, lo6A, to name Norris Levin, Windwood Homeowner's Association Board chairman to represent the Association at the .Edina Village Council meeting on May 30th as our spokesperson. Audrey Knowles, 311C, seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. _ r cry. �2/C YX 'O'Z eejx�r Q1. ,y r // IS7 C � d 1, � f j`1 l•! l 1 Those persons wishin to "car ool" to the meeting on MayJ30�h should meet in the Party Rom at 7i00.N?. , 7500 L a Jt I7W tTa- d - CTLG�11111, �- 'L— kncsaia- f4 ff - <622i 941 1 2O I I May 25, 1979. At a meeting of the Windwood Homeowner °s Association on May 24, 1R79 a motion was made by Dr. Warnkene 213ns to pass a resolution in favor of retaining present zoning of the property in question, The motion was seconded by Joe H-ackell. 1158 The motion was unanimously approved. A motion was Mace by Ann Danahyv 106A, to name Morris Levin. Windwood Homeo,mer °s Association Board Chairman. to represent the Association at the H-dina Village Council meeting on May 30th as our spokesperson, Audrey Knowles. 311Ct seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved, Of ,�� y` - ✓`� , 1 6- Lit C/ i-i- f' v � A Thosrpkrsons wishing to "car pool" to the meeting one May 30 should meet in the party room at 700P.M. 7500 F 11111 aoa-d ding- ��1jlnesata 55 35 � 42� 9�i -2620 1 wl d)Y O dxqw r� eta y 25, 1979 At a meeting of the Windwood Homeowner's Association on May 24, 19799 a motion was made by Dr.Warnken, 213B, to pass a resolution in favor of retaining present zoning of the property in question. The motion was seconded by Joe Haskell,118B. The motion was unanimously approved. A motion was made by Ann Danahy,106A, to name Morris Levin, Windwood Homeowner's Association Board chairman, to represent the Association at.the Edina Village Council meeting on May 30th as our spokesperson. Audrey Knowles,311C, seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. 7.: 3 rG 1 � i Those persons wishing to "car pool" meet ,in the Party Room at 7 a 00P.M . 7ioo Ea-hill aaad - G -T-JI 1a, k-' ,V_the meeting on May 30th should 11111CSOla SS4 f _941 '-261)o 07 3 Z -,2- -C1 ,f r�. it Those persons wishing to "car pool" meet ,in the Party Room at 7 a 00P.M . 7ioo Ea-hill aaad - G -T-JI 1a, k-' ,V_the meeting on May 30th should 11111CSOla SS4 f _941 '-261)o 07 1 7520 Bldg 116A AAX .� 117A lfrU '212A Pee- ?" `213A r� �Cj�gL:rf312A 'Lfi' �y J 303A !{ ��n�� awl ° � ulCe r�I 321A 7510 Bldg 104B 6.119B ! Jn!) r Y-202D ii.j rf?'=- 2098 ! 3078. r, Oh r ` I 310B r'3 7 500 Bldg I `.-- n ar ' -hr \Son 1160 l`1 C_: 106C Id�1C. nc�r n 209C i �..220c �1��•r n 2190 302C I i m O 3 r ,7100 Ftrlrill dtjla; t. COmm -sofa- •151 Off • <621 2 9 00 ..I may 25, 1979 vmer °s &ssociation on May 249 19790 At a meeting.of the Windwood Homeo a motion was made by Dr. Warnkeno 213B° to p ass a resolution in favor of retaining present zoning of aB® Th�pmotionnwase�animously approvede was seconded by Joe Haskello 11 A motion was made by Ann Danahye 106A9 to name Morris theving Wiatiood HoirieOWn ©Y' °s Association Board Chairman to represent at the Edina Village Council me$ nmotionmayth ®�motionuwas &una.nlmously Audrey I {nowles9 311C9 seconded the approved, 10 (!'." 101 G Those persons wishing to "car pool" to the meeting on May 30 should meet in the Party Room at�7`00P -m, CT --�:._ --'��:j�� ;7 00 'MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1979, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, David Runyan, Richard Seaberg Members Absent: Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson Staff Present: Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning; Judy Teichert, Secretary I. Approval of the Minutes David Runyan moved that the minutes of the May 30, 1979, Community Development and Planning Commission meeting be approved. Richard Seaberg seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved. II. Old Business: Z -79 -1 Braemar Associates. R -1 Single Family District to 0 -1 Office District. Gordon Hughes asked the Commission to recall that this rezoning proposal to 0 -1 Office was continued from the May 2, 1979, meeting at which time the Commission requested that planning staff notify residents of Southwest Edina of the proposal due to its inconsistency with the Southwest Edina Plan. Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that residents of the area had been notified, and he also attended a meeting of the Windwoods Condominium Association in regard to the proposed rezoning. Mr. Hughes introduced Jack Barron who presented his comments as representative of the proponents. Morris Levin, representative of the Windwood Homeowner's Association, voiced their concern that traffic would become a serious problem, their property values would depreciate, and owners along the south side would view a commercial facility and vehicles. They felt that if the property was rezoned a serious precedent would be set. Mr. Levin presented a petition signed by 203 occupants of the Windwood Condominiums of which 196 owners were represented. Darrell H. Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive who-was involved in the preparation of the Southwest Edina Plan remembered a fifty -fifty split of opinion as to whether industrial buildings should.be put on the western side of Cahill Road at the time the plan was formulated. He stated that he felt this office proposal was done in good taste and would be more desirable than townhouses or condominiums. In response to Mary.McDonald's question as to what other properties are left to be developed on the west side of Cahill Road, Gordon Hughes indicated several. that could possibly be affected by the precedent set if the plan was changed. David Runyan asked Jack'Barron if he.had, any information as to how the mass of the proposed office.building from the ground plane to the highest Community Development and Planning Commission .dune 27, 1979 page 2 point on the roof would relate to the townhouses that were approved as earlier proposed. Mr. Barron replied that in mass as compared to the townhouses it covers by far less square footage.of the land area, in mass is smaller than the Windwood Condominiums, and in height less than 20 percent of the proposed office building is higher than Windwood. When asked why he did not go with the townhouses, Mr. Barron recalled the peat and unstable soil conditions of the lot, and also stated he felt an office building was more appropriate to the area. Mr. James C. Tankenoff of 7510 Cahill Road pointed out that the Windwood Homeowners Association is in its ad hoc stages which may have accounted for the lack of response at the meeting with Mr. Barron. He also commented that the rent cost for office space would be considerably better than for townhouses on that site. Mr. Levin spoke again on behalf of the Windwood Homeowner's Association and their opposition to the project and noted Mr. Dick Craven's name appears 36 times on the petition in opposition to the project because he is the developer and owns.36 of the units.. Lorraine Rothwood from the Windwood Condominiums stated she felt Mr. Barron's proposal was definitely setting an undesirable precedent. Cindy Hiscock, also of the Windwood Condominiums, voiced her concern that they would.be sandwiched in with office buildings on both sides of the condominiums. Ann Danahy of the Windwood Condominiums stated that her condo- minium was purchased with the understanding that the land next to it would be developed as residential. David Runyan commented that he felt the proposal would not be setting a precedent leading to the Windwood Condominiums being sandwiched between two commercial.uses. He noted that many of the trees could be left-.in -tact with this office proposal, the office building would be further away from Windwoods than a series of townhouses, and there would be no traffic on evenings, weekends, and holidays; he continued that the ground cover would be less with an office - building, the height would not be taller than the townhouse development previously approved, and the industrial development already existing to the east and south of the site all made the office proposal look pretty positive from a planning point of view. Mr. Levin asked Mr. Runyan if the Commission could guarantee that there would not be another commercial.complex to the north of the Windwoods. Mr. Runyan.answered that the Commission could not absolutely guarantee that. Richard Seaberg pointed out that there was no question in his mind about the quality of the structure proposed to be built. However, he pointed out that there does exist a Southwest Edina Plan and he did not feel any overriding reasons had been brought out as to why the plan should be changed. Mr. Seaberg then moved that the Commission deny the approval of rezoning the property to 0 -1 Office District. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye with David Runyan voting nay; the motion of denial carried. Tf. r. LO"'�ATION zoning subdivision KLODl' S ADDI`^ION TO EDINA REQUEST NUMBER: Z -79 -7 & S- 79 -11 LOCATION: REQUEST R -1 Single Family District_ to 0 -1 Office District village planning department village of edine i i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT August 1, 1979 9-79 -7 Klodt's Addition to Edina. R -1 Single Family District and, to 0 -1 Office District. S -79 -11 Klodt's Addition to Edina. Generally located south of West 76th Street and east of York Avenue. REFER TO: June 27, 1979, . staff report The.subject rezoning was continued from the last meeting. Please advise us if you need a copy of the June 27, 1979, staff report. GH: j t 7/23/79 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT June 27, 1979 Z -79 -7 Klodt's Addition to Edina. R -1 Single Family District and to 0 -1 Office District. 5 -79 -11 Klodt's Addition to Edina. Generally located south of West 76th Street and east of York Avenue. REFER TO: attached graphics The subject property measures 5.28 acres in area and is bounded on the west by York Avenue and on the north by West 76th Street. The subject property is bounded by single family dwellings on the east side.. Yorkdale Townhomes, a 90 unit low and moderate income development is located north of the subject property.. The proponent is requesting a rezoning of the subject property to 0 -1 Office District. According to the proponent's plans, a three story, 60,000 square foot building is proposed for the site. Access to the development would be by way of two curb cuts on York Avenue and one curb cut on West 76th Street. Approximately 320 parking spaces would be provided to support the office uses. The subject property is located within the South Edina Plan area. The primary objective of the South Edina Plan was the control of land uses to lessen existing and future traffic problems. A secondary objective of the Plan was the provision of adequate buffers and transitions of land uses. Further land uses in this area should flow from low to high uses in stages of distance or be adequately buffered from incompatible land uses. Based upon this objective, the subject property was designated for multiple re- sidences at a density of 6 to 15 units per acre. Such a development would provide a transitional land use between single family dwellings to the east and industrial use to the west. In 1977, the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority adopted a redevelopment plan for a portion of southeast Edina. The subject property is included in the redevelopment plan area. The purpose of this plan was the pro- vision of low and moderate income housing. As you know, the 90 unit Yorkdale Townhome project was the first low and moderate housing project constructed in this area. The redevelopment plan designated the subject property for 70 low and moderate income housing units. In reliance on this plan, the proponent requested low and moderate income housing funds for the subject property on two- occasions from the State Housing Finance Agency. On both occasions, funding was denied on the basis that the proposed housing project, coupled with the Yorkdale project, would result in an undesirable concentration of low and moderate income residences. Staff has met with the Housing Finance Agency and HUD regarding this matter and has confirmed their unwillingness to provide funding for the subject property. Community Development and Planning Commission page 2 Staff Report Z -79 -7 and S -79 -11 - Klodt's Addition to Edina June 27, 1979 Recommendation Staff has very mixed emotions regarding the proposed rezoning to 0 -1 Office District. Several aspects of the proposed land use are not desirable in our opinion: 1) The proposed use is not consistent with the South Edina Plan. 2) The concept of providing multiple residences as a transition between single family uses and industrial uses is not followed. 35 The proposed use could encourage single family homeowners on Xerxes Avenue to seek higher zonings. 4) The proposed use could encourage the more intense development of the vacant properties west of York Avenue which would be inconsistent with the traffic objectives of the plan.. 5) The proposed use would contribute to peak hour traffic generation to a greater extent than a residential development on the site. 6) The small vacant parcel in the southeast corner of 76th and York which Is not controlled by the proponent would also have to be zoned to Office. . Due to the size of the parcel, a relatively small office building would result which is not consistent with the plan's objective of integrated developments. 7) The availability of the site for low and moderate income housing would be lost. Several aspects of the project land credibility to the proposed office zoning: 1) The proposed office is relatively small in size, i.e. three stories and a floor area ratio of .26 (ordinance allows .5). Thus, the project would not be overbearing to the single family homes to the east. 2) The subject property is located very close to 1 -494 which could lend credibility to a non - residential use of the site. 3) The proposed office would comply with the trip generation criteria for South Edina. 4) Apparently, the proponent has met with several residents of the single family homes to the east. These residents have apparently reacted favorably to the proposal. However, staff would submit that the alternative to the office proposal is not necessarily low and moderate income housing. The redevelopment plan indicated that if such housing is not possible, then the South Edina Plan should control land use. Due to the unwillingness Community Development and Planning Commission page 3 Staff Report Z -79 -7 and S -79 -11 - Klodt's Addition to Edina June 27, 1979 of HUD and MHFA to fund a low and moderate income development, the alternative development would be a market rate residential development. Thus abutting property owners must realize the the present alternative are (1) the proposed office development or (2) a market rate.residential development. 5) Although the multiple residential transition would be lost, it can be argued that a low intensity office development provides a good buffer from more intense uses. It should be noted that existing office developments (e.g. Yorktown Office Park, the Public Library, etc.) are located east of York and north of Hazelton. These developments abut single family dwellings to the east. Thus, the proposed use is not totally inconsistent with other uses allowed in the area. 6) With the exception of the.subject property, all properties south of West 76th Street are new or are expected to be developed as non - residential uses. It could be argued that 76th Street should form the dividing line between non - residential uses. Based on the above analysis, staff believes that the most appropriate use for the site is multiple residential. Staff sumits, however, that arguments for the proposed rezoning are persuasive. If the Commission and Council agree with the 0- 1- rezoning, staff suggests that a substantial open space easement, perhaps 50 feet in width, should be dedicated and landscaped along the easterly property line. Such a dedication would be consistent with the South Edina Plan goal of adequately buffering incompatible land uses. GLH:jkt 6/22/79 Phase I Redevelopment Rata / Family _ If Proposed !��/ °�s ng I Subsidized I I Family I Proposed Housing I Subsidized I Elderly I Housing Proposed Park d :xist:ng I��csrlcot t?atr Elderly Housing Existing // i� YMCA s o'; Proposed Transitional Development Proposed V o �.: Subsidized r Family �/k '/' Housing �c FLU I�/ 5 Legend 16 Streets 0 Parks 0 Semi — Public Single Family Housing ® Multi Family Housing ® Transitional Development //, (existing) MAP Nrlb Coldwell Banker COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE COMPANY June 13, 1979 Mr. Gordon.Hughes c/o City of Edina 4801 W. 50th,Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Possible rezoning at 76th and York Dear Gordon: Per the request of you and the owner of the subject property, I met with several of the single family owners peripheral to the site on 6/6/79. The meeting was held at the home of Fred Sermeta at 7600 Xerxes. Ten or twelve people were there. Both sides of Xerxes were reprresented. As you know, the east side of Xerxes is Richfield and the west side is Edina. I showed them the plans pertaining to the office development and explained construction materials, traffic generation, curb cuts, etc. Since the same developer has already constructed a similar office structure two blocks from the subject site it was easy for these people to visualize the finished product. Gordon, the consensus of opinion is the following: 1. These people said they would like to see this office development. a. They feel it would be aesthetically pleasing. b. They feel the traffic generation would be about the same as multiple dwelling but feel they would get a break because, in general, the building would not be in use at night, on the weekends, or during holidays. 2. They definitely do not want this property developed as subsidized housing. 3. They favored the positioning of the building in that it would have little effect on blockage of sunlight. 4. They do favor development of this property as opposed to a passive use such as a park, because it would be generating tax dollars that presumably would have some benefit to them as residents of the community. 6600 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55435 - (612) 920 -8611 • A COLDVVELL BANKER COMPANY Mr. Gordon Hughes Page 2 June 13, 1979 Attached is a letter from one of the homeowners on the block. It would seem to typify the feelings of the group. If I can helR in any other way, please let me know. Sinc6�ely David P./ Johnson DPJ /pcx . May 11, 1979 Mr..David P. Johnson c/o Coldwell Banker 6600 France Avenue Edina, Minnesota 55435 Dear Mr. Johnson: I have recently purchased a home located at 7645 Xerxes Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota and will be moving into that home about June 25. I want to let you know that I would like to see a high quality office developed on.the corner of 76th and York. This would be especially preferrable to the housing on the northeast corner of 76th and York. It seems to me that a nice office building would be more visually attractive and would be better for the neighborhood since it wouldn't cause a lot of traffic at night or on the weekends. Please let me know if I can help in any other way. Sincerely, John D. Kuhn le, �lb i�j rj 7:77777777. ,t LOCATION MAP I zoning a 6 a a cl j,v i s ; a n WARDEN ACRES, PETERSON REPLAT REQUEST NUMBER: Z -79 -6 and S -79 -8 LOCATION: REQUEST: R -1 Single Family to R -2 Two Family District (one lot) yillase nlan I c e Farii j nt vdllate o{ ediu COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT August 1, 1979 Z -79 -6 Warden Acres, Peterson Replat. R -1 Single Family District and 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: May 30, 1979 staff report and attached Council minutes The Commission reviewed the subject subdivision and rezoning request at the May 30, 1979, meeting. At that time, the Commission recommended approval of the proposed subdivision but recommended denial of the proposed rezoning to R -2 for one of the lots. The City Council heard the subject subdivision and rezoning request at its June 18, 1979, meeting. The City Council referred the request back to the Commission to consider a reduction of the number of lots in the proposed subdivision. The Council, in staff's judgement, agreed with the Commission's negative recommendation concerning the rezoning request. Since the June 18, 1979, Council meeting, I have met with the proponent's concerning this subdivision. The proponents have stated that they wish to pursue the subdivision and rezoning as originally proposed. I assume that the proponents will. submit additional data in support of their plans at the August 1, 1979, meeting. GH:jt 7/24/79 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 the 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 extend 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 1.3c KOVE EAST 409.20 S T r Zo so 75 _5 0- vo VA St 3 3: < 0, N I = 9.20 - Z399—.20 38 Z3 4-1 17 q . 14 cj 95Z - CZ 239 ?0 15 Cc! It 0 4 ast z 3 3 .5 8-,S CIRCLE 4,LY LE," V1 A 3rd AMC--, >: "a 1-0 35 2 41 39 3o 29 Z8 N ac 4o J 3 41 -1143 145.6 14�- I47.14E 14S5Z 14 "fir s BENTON AVE. 11.1) el 1 82 ;,06 c; 49 ;4 let A C R 46": 2 4 2 11: )4;.6 EC51 es, AD S!q� � IN 12 31 32 N%l �OVI P,j 5 w 7 3 sACRES 4 9, 4 ;! R EPL AT z zS 145. 4C 455Z D /00 1 3 z 82 East 120 6 i EA ui cr 4 70 12 it to.! 9 8 7N 6 5 .5 -i- 3.SI 15 15 79 1 74 L PW') 844 A5T cOUNTRYSIDE 'ROAD �214 rl 10 5114 ca '7. 1,4 j;,,S,64:4\ It q IA 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 7 E,15 T 4 76 430 Ao 50 10 Iz 8 13 Z 74.5 0,0 4 r 1350 Wo lz 10 ri Qc Community Development and Planning Commission August 1, 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 recalled that the Commission reviewed the subject subdivision and rezoning request at the May 30, 1979, meeting and recommended approval of the proposed subdivision but recommended denial of the proposed rezoning to R -2 for one of the lots. He continued that the City Council heard the subject subdivision and rezoning request at its June 18, 1979, meeting and referred the request back to the Commission to consider a reduction of the number of lots in the proposed subdivision. Staff felt the Council, in general, agreed with the Commission's negative recommendation concerning the rezoning request. .Mr. Hughes also stated that he had met with the proponents several times since the June 18th City Council meeting, and the proponents indicated they would like to pursue their original request. He then intro- duced Mr. Evans Meineke and Mr. James Peterson, the proponents. Evans Meineke explained the original proposal to the Commission. James Peterson, the developer of the westerly half of the proposal, commented that the Commission should reach a decision as to what should be used as a buffer between a detrimental area and a single family residential.area. He noted that in several places double bungalows had been used to do just that. Mr. Peterson added that he felt one additional car.in the neighborhood would not create a problem, and that was the best use for that particular corner. Helen McClelland clarified that the Council, in general, felt the R -2 rezoning was not particularly appropriate, but it was the density issue which prompted them to return the request to the Planning Commission. In reference to Mary McDonald's question as to whether single family homes could be put in the proposed rezoning area, Gordon Hughes pointed out that 50 feet back from the railroad right -of -way is the Northern States Power easement. He indicated that the lot width was sufficient for a. double bungalow or single.family dwelling on it and abutt the dwelling right up to the easement area. Larry Lessard of 5501 Grove Street stated he was not opposed to the subdivisions but he was against the R -2 rezoning because it is a dead -end street and quiet neighborhood. Nancy Stevenson of 5500 Grove Street suggested the area that is proposed for rezoning be combined with the lot adjacent to it, and one larger single family dwelling be put in that combined area. She added that the R -2 area is very swampy and thought it would be wiser to consider that whole area as one piece. Robert Ryder of 5509 Grove Street stated he was not against the subdivision but was opposed to the rezoning to R -2. He felt-the rezoning ti Community Development and Planning Commission August 1, 1979 could set an undesirable precedent in the area. Jim Bentley asked-Mr. Hughes if the property was in a flood plain to which Mr. Hughes replied that it was not flood plain but due to the filling of the soccer field water occasionally gets trapped on the Smaby property which is across for the subject site. Mary McDonald requested that Mr. Hughes recall the original reason for denial of the rezoning. Mr. Hughes responded that the other doubles in the area are located on through streets such as Benton and Hansen Roads and that Grove, being a cul -de -sac, was.different. Helen McClelland moved that the Commission.deny the rezoning request. Jim Bentley seconded the motion. Upon roll the following voted: Ayes: McClelland, Bentley Nays: Lewis, Fernelius; D. .Johnson, G Johnson, McDonald, Runyan The motion failed. Len Fernelius moved that the Commission approve the request to rezone the property to R -2 on the basis that it is an acceptable buffer between a residential area and the railroad and to approve the subdivision as requested. Del Johnson seconded the motion. The following voted: Ayes: Lewis, Fernelius, D. Johnson, G. Johnson, McDonald, Runyan Nays: McClelland, Bentley The motion to approve the request carried. _. ...'T RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Edina and the County of Hennepin have a Joint Cooperation Agreement in. effect for.the use.of Community Development Block Grant funds from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment; and WHEREAS, both parties wish to .terminate that.agreement and replace it with a new Joint Cooperation Agreement, County.Contract No. 90442; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the.current agreement with the County. of Hennepin.be terminated effective September 30, 1979, and a new agree- ment with the County of Hennepin, County Contract No. 90442 be implemented effective October 1, 1979; and the Mayor and the Manager be authorized to execute the agreement on.behalflof the City. ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 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 August 20, 1979, and as recorded in the minutes of said regular meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 21st day of August, 1979. City Clerk �t 1 �s WHEREAS, the City of and the County of Hennepin have a Joint Cooperation Agreement in effect for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and WHEREAS, both parties wish to terminate that agreement and replace it with a new Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No.-A*@g7—W--; BE IT RESOLVED, that the current agreement with the County of Hennepin be terminated effective September 30, 1979, anq a new agreement with the County of Hennepin, County Contract No. D be implemented effective October 1, 1979; and the Mayor and the be authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the city. WHEREAS, the City of and the County of Hennepin have a Joint Cooperation Agreement in effect for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and WHEREAS, both parties wish to terminate that agreement and replace it with a new Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. ; BE IT RESOLVED, that the current agreement with the County of Hennepin be terminated effective September 30, 1979, and a new agreement with the County of Hennepin, County Contract No. be implemented effective October 1, 1979; and the Mayor and the be authorized.to execute the agreement on behalf of the city. Contract No. 90442 JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY ", and the CITY OF EDINA , hereinafter referred to as "CITY ", said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59; WITNESSETH: In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. I. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Agreement, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "The Act" means the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Title I, of Public Law 93 -383, as amended (42 USC 5301 et. se .). B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Community" means any city or town in Hennepin County which has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical to this Agreement. \ E. "Strategy" means that portion of the Community Development Block Grant Application entitled "Comprehensive Strategy" and which is developed by the County in conjunction with cooperating communities pursuant to the Regulations. F. "Planning Area" means the various regions of Hennepin County as adopted for purposes of the Act by County Resolution 78 -11 -1169. The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR 570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Page 2 of 7 II. PURPOSE CITY and COUNTY have determined that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COUNTY qualify as an urban county within the provisions of the Act. This Agreement contemplates that identical agreements will be executed between COUNTY and other cities in Hennepin County which do not qualify as metropolitan cities under the Act in such number as will enable COUNTY to so qualify under the Act. The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY to cooperate with CITY in undertaking, or assist in undertaking, essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing pursuant to community development block grants as authorized by the Act and the Regulations. III. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on the effective date of October 1, 1979, and terminating no sooner than the end of the program year covered by the application for the basic grant amount approved subsequent to the effective date. This Agreement is extended automatically for each subsequent program year unless written notice of termination to be effective at the end of such program year is given by CITY to COUNTY following the same schedule as the "opt out" notification requirements as established by HUD. COUNTY shall provide written notifica- tion to CITY of CITY'S right to "opt out" and terminate this Agreement at least thirty (30) days prior to the "opt out" date. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be terminated at the end of the program year during which HUD withdraws its designation of Hennepin County as.an Urban County under the Act. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of CITY and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the CITY in the office of the Hennepin County Administrator, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than August 31, 1979. Page 3 of 7 IV. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES CITY agrees and will undertake and attempt to carry out within the term of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist CITY in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. A. CITY further specifically agrees as follows: 1. It will prepare a grant application for funds in accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR 570 Subpart D (5570.300 et. seq.) and the Strategy. 2. It will submit its application for funds to COUNTY in such form as is required for timely submission to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies. 3. It will use all funds received pursuant to this Agreement within two program years of the approval by HUD of the basic grant amount, unless approved by the County. Such expenditures shall not be for activities disallowed by either the County or HUD pursuant to this Agreement. 4. It will take actions necessary to accomplish the community development program and housing assistance goals as contained in the Urban County Housing Assistance Plan. 5. It will ensure that affirmative action is undertaken with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It will comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota laws,'statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities. B. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: 1. It shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, all necessary applications for a basic grant amount under the Act. Such application shall, to the maximum extent feasible, consider the actions taken by CITY in support of the community development program and housing assistance goals, together with citizen participation, the Act and any other relevant Minnesota and /or Federal statutes or regulations. In setting such priorities, Page 4 of .7 COUNTY will consider the previous performance of CITY in the expendi- ture of funds received under the Act in order to fulfill COUNTY'S responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. 2. It shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to CITY in the preparation and submission of the grant applications. 3. It shall provide ongoing technical assistance to CITY to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. The parties mutually agree to cooperate fully in the preparation of the application for a basic grant amount. In such preparation, the parties will follow the provisions of Hennepin County Citizen Participa- tion Plan as stated in County Resolution 78 -11 -1169 and any subsequent amendments. 4. It shall approve CITY'S request for the use of block grant amounts received pursuant to this Agreement for local needs which are consistent with the Strategy, the Act and Regulations and other relevant Federal and /or Minnesota statutes or regulations. CITY and COUNTY agree that COUNTY shall establish reasonable time schedules for the submission of grant applications by CITY to COUNTY to insure such timely submission and to protect the rights and interest of CITY and other cooperating communities. COUNTY shall communicate such time schedules to CITY. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable require- ments of the Act and the Regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY'S responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of applications pursuant to 24 CFR 570.300 et•seq. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall retain ten percent (10 %) of the total basic grant amount for purposes of defraying its administrative and other costs in performing services for CITY and other cooperating communities Page 5 of 7 t. and for the conduct of such eligible community development activities as the COUNTY may be authorized by state law to perform. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be allocated by COUNTY to CITY and other cooperating communities in accordance with the following formula for, the purpose of allowing the cooperating communities to plan for the application. This amount is only an estimate and is not guaranteed by the.000NTY. The CITY and each cooperating community shall use as a target for planning purposes an amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of CITY and the population of all cooperating communities. 2. The extent of poverty in CITY and the extent of poverty in all cooperating communities. 3. The extent of housing overcrowded by units in CITY and the extent of housing overcrowded by units in all cooperating communities. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. It is the intent of this paragraph that said planning allocation utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth in 42 CFR 507.102(b). The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. In the event that CITY does not apply for or cannot qualify for a community development block grant, or a portion thereof, COUNTY may re- allocate the expected grant amount to all other cooperating communities within the same Planning Area. If the COUNTY is informed in writing by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that the distribution of funds does not comply with Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the COUNTY shall develop and implement a different distribution. No such action shall be taken, however, until and unless the proposed different distribution shall have been presented for review and comment by the cooperating communities. p 4 Page 6 of 7 VI. SPECIAL PROVISIONS Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent or otherwise modify or abrogate the right of CITY or COUNTY to submit individual applications for discretionary funds in the event COUNTY does not receive designation as an urban county under the act. CITY and COUNTY mutually agree to indemnify and hold harmless each other from any claims, losses, costs, expenses or damages resulting from the acts or omissions of their respective officers, agents and employees relating to activities conducted by either under this Agreement, the Act or the regulations. In the event there is a revision of the Act and /or Regulations which would make this Agreement out of compliance with the Act and /or Regulations, both parties will review this Agreement and renegotiate those items necessary to bring the agreement into compliance. Both parties understand and agree that the refusal to renegotiate this Agreement will result in the effective termination of the Agreement as of the date it is no longer in compliance with the Act and /or Regulations. VII. FINANCIAL MATTERS Reimbursement to the CITY for expenditures from implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made upon receipt by the COUNTY of Summary of Project Disbursement form, Hennepin County Warrant Request, and supporting documentation. All funds received by the COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for payment to the CITY for expenditure of local funds for activities funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County Treasury. CITY and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit reports required of the COUNTY to be prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. CITY and COUNTY agree to make available all records and accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal officials. Such Page 7 of 7 records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the date of completion of any activity funded under the Act or less than three years from the last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementation. COUNTY shall perform all audits of the basic grant amount and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations. All program income from activities funded in total or part from the basic grant amount received by CITY shall be held by COUNTY in a non - interest bearing account designated for CITY. COUNTY will release program income funds to CITY for eligible community development activities pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf, this day of Upon proper execution, this agreement will be legally val_id.and binding. Assistant Couryty Attorney Date: -4*-Tl / Vl' APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Assistant County Attorney Da to : CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter 1979. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By: •Chaiman of its County Board And: Deputy County Administrator ATTEST: Deputy County Auditor CITY OF By: Its And: Its V ,i A RESOLUTION.APPROVING:THE PLAN. FOR PROVISION OF- COMMUNITY:-.HEALTH SERVICES IN THE CITY OF EDINA AND THE.SUBMISSION OF AN_APPLICATION FOR.THE COMMUNITY HEALTH .SERV.ICES. ACT SUBSIDY. WHEREAS .,. the >City.Council,of -the City of, Edina- is. the official governing body of the City of Edina.and functions .:as,the..official:Board of Health of the City...of'Edina; and ..WHEREAS,.the City Council,:is:,committed , to : promote.,.support, and.maintain the health. of : the. entire community'. at .the highest level; and WHEREAS.,.the Community..Health Services..Act providesm.for subsidies in support..of public.'health services on-the local.-level throughout the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS,..a_ special. needs. ., study. has.been.made-.and a.e special public meeting held relative to the - .needs and priorities°_of - the community for Community Health.Services; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board:of-Health of.•the:City:of Edina has reviewed the -plan for the provision of. public health services.:in:the City of Edina and recommends.,its,approval to the.City Council; and WHEREAS, the..City. Council.has.rev:iewed -this selfsame -plan and finds it consistent with:the:needs and -prioriti'es�of.'the community as determined by the Advisory.Board.of.. Health` and as expressed by the citizens of Edina; NOW,. THEREFORE,_BEaIT RESOLVED..BY..THE CITY COUNCIL::OF.THE CITY OF EDINA.IN REGULAR MEETING.ASSEMBLED, that the Community Health :Services Plan for the .City.of- Edina.is approved .and:author.ization'..is: hereby -given to submit an application-.for the Communit.y.Health Services_Act subsidy. ADOPTED.this 20th day.of.August, 1979. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF:HENNEPIN ) SS CITY. OF EDINA . ) CERTIFICATE..OF.X ITY CLERK I, the undersigned -.duly��appointed..and..acting Ci- ty-Clerk.for!the City of Edina, do hereby certify- that the attached:-and.:foregoing -resolut,ion.was duly adopted by the Edina City Council:at its'Regular. Meeting -of. August-20, 1979, and as recorded in:.the Minutes.of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my...hand and-seal.,of said City this 20th.day.of August, 1979. City Clerk C -7 u .� +� EDINA COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES PROGRAMS 1980 -1981 Table of Contents Page No. Community Health Services Application .............................. C -1 CHSDirectory ....................... ............................... C -2 CHS Advisory. Committee Membership List ............................. C -3 Assurances and Agreements ........... ............................... C -4 Advisory Committee Resolution ....... ............................... C -6 Board of Health Resolution .......... ............................... C -7 Advisory Committee Activity Summary . ............................... C -8 NeedsAssessment Summary ............ ............................... C -9 Edina Community Health Services Programs: Food Service Facility Sanitation .......................... C -13 Community Sanitation ....... ............................... C -15 Housing Maintenance ........ ............................... C -16 Environmental Pollution Control ........................... C -18 AnimalControl ............. ............................... C -20 Noxious -Weed Control ....... ............................... C -21 Public Health Laboratory ... ............................... C -22 Emergency Medical Services .... C -23 Personal Health Services ... ............................... C -25 Guidelines and Manuals Related to Family Planning, Child Health, and Maternity Services ............................. C -26 CHS Activity Budget Detail: Environmental Health ....... ............................... C -27 Emergency Medical Services . ............................... C -35 Community Nursing Services . ............................... C -37 Home Health Ser vices .............. a....................... C -39 Disease Prevention and Control ............................ C -41 Parent and Child Health .... ............................... C -43 HealthEducation ........... ............................... C -45 1980 Budget Report ..... .. ............................... C -47 1981 Budget Report ......... ............................... C -49 I -, t APPLICATI011 FOR C01-2- -XNITY HEALTH SERVICES SUBSIDY MINNESOTA STATUTE 145.911- 145.925 IDFNTIFTCATION AND AUT- rIOUZATIGNS N,'UIE JUID ADDRESS OF APPLICANT ORG,0IIZATION DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE City of Edina FOR 1iDH USE ONLY .4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 CONTROL NUi-II3ER DATE. RECEIVED SPONSORING 1PNITS OF GOVEPu"TENT 3. MI DING PERIOD City /County Date Approved Jan. 1 1980 Month Day Year City of Edina August 20, 1979 to Deb, 11— �1 81 Month Day Year ALL APPnOPRI ATEE REGIOt•;AL -EVIEW 5. DOES THE SPONSORING UNIT(S) OF GOVEP.N- AGENCIES WERE SENT COPIES OF THIS YIENT I -U INTAIN A WRITTEN EQUAL EPTLOYIn:NT APPLICATION. OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM? Yes No Date ( X ) Yes ( ) No RD C HSA Date Certified March 15, 1976 SUBSIDY REQUEST 1980 $90,641 1981 $962986 Name of County(s) /City(s) City of Edina Local Participation 1980 1981 $309,307 327,572 $ $ l State Share 1980 1981 $ 90,641 9'6 , 986 $ (Total) $309,307 1327,572 (Total) $ 90,641 1 96,986 Application is zsde for a subsidy under tho provisions of the Co----.unity Health Services Act of 1976 in the amount and for the purposes stated herein. By signature, the Authorized Official. agrees and has the authority to agree to comply firth t.",e conditicns and reporting, requirements, consistent with applicable �a Rules and the Co=unity Health Services Act. :n addition, by sirrature below, and signature affixed on page 9 -10 of these ror::13, the Authorized Official assures full compliance with all items stated herein. City Manager. C -1 Late CHS DIRECTORY 1. CHS ADMINISTRATOR Name David A. Velde Title Sanitarian Agency Edina Health Department Address 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Area Code /Phone Number (6 12) 92 7-886 1 3. AU'19ORIZE_rj' OFFICIAL (If different from #1) Name Kenneth R. Rosland Title City Manager Agency City of Edina Address 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Area Code /Phone Number (612) 9 27-886 1 5. •CHAI1;*L0, .. LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH Name James Van Valkenburg Address 4204 Philbrook Lane Edina, MN 55424 County of Residence Hennepin Area Code /Phone Number (612) 922 -2982 7. DESIGNEE, STATE CHS ADIVSORY COMMITTEE Name Leroy Werges Address 5241 Edenmoor Street Edina, MN 55436 County of Residence Hennepin Area Code /Phone NuTrber (612) 929 -3796 C -2 2. FISCAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER (Individual /Agency where payment should be sent) Name Jerry N. Dalen Title Finance Officer Agency City of Edina Address 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Area Code /Phone Number (612) 92 7- 886 1 4. PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CONTRACTS (If different from nl & 3) Name Title Agency Address Area Code /Phone Number 6. CHAIRPERSON, CHS ADVISORY COA1MITTEE Name Homer Kinney Address 4513 Oak Drive Edina, MN 55424 County of Residence Hennepin Area Code /Phone Number (612) 926 -2676 8. MEDICAL CONSULTANT Name Dr. C. V. Rockwell Address 5129 Mirror Lakes Drive Edina, MN 55436 County of Residence Hennepin Area Code /Phone Number (6 12) 922 -5956 . I i T Providers ADVISORY BOARD.OF HEALTH City of Edina Mary Bang, R.N. 5200 Duggan Plaza Edina, MN 55435 941 -4754 Linda A. Bjerke 6600 Nordic Drive Edina, MN 55435 941 -2058 Dr. E. Duane Engstrom 4300 Philbrook Lane Edina, MN 55424 926 -6252 Dr. Walter E. Krafft 5608 Highland Road Edina, MN 55436 929 -2564 Dr. C. V. Rockwell 5129 Mirror Lake Drive Edina, MN 55436 922 -5956 Dr. Richard K. Simmons 4800 Dunberry Lane Edina, MN 55435 927 -4832 Consumers Beverly Harris 4812 West 66th Street Edina, MN 55435 927 -9508 Verne W. Moss, Jr., Attorney 5705 Woodland Road Edina, MN 55424 922 -7508 Barbara Kresoya 6720 Galway Drive Edina, MN 55435 941 -4410 Leroy Werges 5241 Edenmoor Street Edina, MN 55436 929 -3796 Homer Kinney 4513 Oak Drive Edina, MN 55424 926 -2676 Ex- Officio, Non - Voting Members June Schmidt, City Council 7005 Bristol Boulevard Edina, MN 55435 922 -1183 David A. Velde 6701 -68th Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 561 -4009 Tully Stoppel 6238 Upton Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55423 866 -6719 994 -2110 State Community Health Advisory Committee Member Leroy Werges C -3 1 ASSURANCES AND AGREEMENTS BY SIGUAi'URE, UIZ AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL AGREES AND ASSURES 91W.T: 1. The agency will comply with state and _federal requirements for equal opportunity Employment. 2. The agency will comply with state and federal requirements relating to confidentiality of patients information. 3. If vaccines are supplied by the Department cf Health the amount of the Cosaunity Health Services subsidy will be reduced accordingly. 4. The Department of Health will be provided with one copy of all contracts executed under the Plan (original signatures are required). S. The Health Task Force of the Human Services Board Advisory Cor:- -c-ittee, established to meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. 402.03, shall meet the composition and reporting requirements of the Community Health Services Advisory Cor..mittee required by Minn. Stat. 145.913, Subd. 3. 6. The agency will comply with all standards relating to fiscal accountability that apply to the Mlinnesota Department of Health, specifically: a. The local participation Hands identified i.n the budget submission meet the following tests as well as 7 MCAR .9 1.451: 1) 2) Cash contributions are cash outlays, including the outlay of money ccnt=ih;:tcd by other public agencies and institutions and private organizations and individuals. In -Kind contributions represent the value of non -cash contributions provided by (1) the applicant (2) other public agencies and institutions, and (3) private organizations and individuals. Such goods and.services directly benefit and are specifically ide_ ^*_i - x fiable to Comunity Health Ser icos _programs, and are identifiable from the applicant's records. Specifically the number of hours of volunteer services are supported by t-he same methods used by the agency for its employees and the basis for determining charges for personal services, supplies and expenses are documented. b. Budget revisions will be submitted to the Commissioner for prior approval whenever: 1) Changes are made in the objectives to be met in the Community Health Services program, or; 2) The proposed revision involves the addition of key administrative personnel not previously approved in the Plan, or; 3) The c=ulative amount of funds transferred exceeds or is ex- pected to exceed 103 or $2,500.00, whichever is greater, of the approved total Community Health Services Plan budget. c. Reports of Expenditures will he filed with the Commissioner on forms provided no later then 45 days following the end of each calendar year quarter. C -4 , 1 d. Subsidy funds are used as payment for services only after third party pay--ents, such as Titles n'III, XIX, and XX or orivate insurance resources are utilized. e. Financial Mar_agament Sys::era, provide for: 1) Accarate, current, and co--plete disclosure of the financial results of each activity. 2) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for subsidy suprorted,activities. These records contain infor=at =on pertaining to subsidy awards and authorizations, obligations, u_nobligated balances, liabilities (encumbrances), , outlays, and income. 3) Effective control over the accountability for all funds, property and other assets. Subsidy arplicants adequately safeguard such assets and assure that they ara used solely for authorized purpose. 4) Comparison of actaal obligations with budget amounts for each ac- tivity. 5) Accounting records that are supported by source docum►entaticn. 6) Audits that grill be cede by or at the direction of the subsidy applicant /Degas -ant of heal_.h to deter. ine, at a minim=, the CS subsidy that will be retained until audited, with the fol- lowing qualifications: aa) The records will be ret ined beyond this period if audit findings have not he_n destroyed. bb) Records for non - emendable property which was acquired with subsidy funds will be retained for three years a.`_tsr its final dispositicn. AUTHORIZED OFFICLII. C -5 TITL City Manager DATE A RESOLUTION RECOMi1ENDING TO APPROVE THE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES SUBSIDY PLAN FOR 1980 and 1981 WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Edina is an official advisory body to the City Council, which is the official Board of Health; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health is.charged by the City Council to study public health needs in the City and recommend to the Council policies and ordinances and programs necessary to meet these needs; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health has reviewed the plan and application for 1980 and .1981 Community Health Services Act subsidy funds prepared by the Staff of the City of Edina and finds it thoroughly consistent with the needs and priorities of the community as determined by this Advisory Board and as expressed in citizen's participation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Edina, in regular meeting assembled, that the plan and application for the 1980 and 1981 Community Health Services Act subsidy be approved and forwarded to the City Council of the City of Edina with a recommendation for approval. Passed and adopted this 14th day of August, 1979. ATTEST: Minutes Secretary Chairman, Advisory Board of Health C -G TIT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAN FOR PROVISION OF COMMUNITY. HEALTH SERVICES IN THE CITY OF EDINA AND THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ACT SUBSIDY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina is the official governing body of the City of .Edina and functions as the official Board of Health of the City of Edina; and .WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to promote, support, and maintain the health of the.entire community.at the highest level; and WHEREAS., the Community. Health Services .Act provides for subsidies in support of public health services on the local.level throughout the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, a special.needs.study has been made and a special public meeting held relative to the needs and priorities of the community for Community Health.Services; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Edina has reviewed the plan for the provision of public health services.in: the City of Edina and recommends its approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council -has reviewed this selfsame plan and finds it consistent with the needs and priorities of the .community as determined by the Advisory Board of Health and as expressed by the citizens of Edina; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY.COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF EDINA IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, that the Community Health Services Plan for the City of -Edina is approved and authorization is hereby given to submit an application -for the Community Health Services.Act subsidy.- ADOPTED.this.20th day of August, 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 August 20, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 20th day of August, 1979. City Clerk C-7 EDINA HEALTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES The Edina Health Advisory Committee met with Bloomington and Richfield Health Advisory. Committee.members on April 17, 1979. The meeting was scheduled to provide a.forum to discuss mutual health needs in the three cities. A copy of the meeting minutes will be included in the final Community Health Services Plan for Bloomington. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAN On August 9, 1979, a public hearing on the 1979 Community Health Services Plan for South Hennepin County was held at Southdale Public Library, 7001 York Avenue South. The public was notified by newspaper publication, radio announce- ments, and flyers. There were no comments directed at the Edina Community Health Services Plan. C -8 NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES IN EDINA 1979 In 1978, Hennepin County polled the jurors in Hennepin County. The survey asked questions about their perceptions of various health or social services and also asked them about their support for the various programs. From this survey, the South Hennepin Human Services Council extracted the responses made by jurors living in the South Hennepin Human Services Area. These were then tabulated and used to determine priorities and support for programs in South Hen- nepin County. The following ten problems were identified as needing more attention: PROBLEMS PERCENTAGE *Abuse and neglect of children. 75% *V.D. among teenage and young adults. 62% *Inability of ill, disabled, and elderly to manage their personal care in their 60% home. *Misuse of drugs, medications, or alcohol. 60% *Heart disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases due to smoking. 58% *Unwanted or unplanned pregnancies among teenage or young adult women. 53% *Inability of the aged, ill, and disabled to perform routine household chores and 51% maintenance. *Air pollution due to industry and automobiles. 49% *Preference for snack or "junk" food over 48% nutritious foods. *Difficulty for low income families to obtain, maintain, and improve their 45% housing. The following ten programs were supported by the respondents: C -9 I j SUPPORT FOR PROGRAM Strongly Support Support CONFIDENTIAL V.D. DIAGNOSIS & TREATMENT 49 48 SERVICES PROVIDED IN NEIGHBORHOOD CLINICS MEDI -VAN SERVICE PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION TO ROUTINE HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR ILL, 48 49 .DISABLED & ELDERLY INSPECTION OF RESTAURANTS, PUBLIC EATING FACILITIES, ETC. WHERE FOOD IS PREPARED 42 TO ENSURE PROPER FOOD HANDLING PROCEDURES 57 PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING PROGRAM PROVIDING IN -HOME NURSING CARE FOR THE ILL, DISABLED, 40 48 -AND ELDERLY EDUCATION, OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD PROMOTE HEALTHIER:HABITS (E.G. NON - SMOKING, BALANCED DIET, REGULAR, PHYSICAL EXERCISE...) 39 37 HOME DELIVERED, NUTRITIOUS MEALS FOR INDIVIDUALS PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO LEAVE 39 49 THEIR HOMES EDUCATION ABOUT ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND FIRST AID FOR CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS 37 56 A SINGLE PHONE NUMBER TO CALL FOR INFORMA- TION ON PRHn, ' �I' FRVTYES AVAILABLE IN 35 62 EDUCATION AND COUNSELING REGARDING ALCOHOL OR DRUG USE 35 62 INSPECTION OF HOTELS, MOTELS, AND RESORTS TO ASSUME CLEAN AND SAFE LODGING FOR 33 55 CUSTOMERS The following narrative will describe how the problem areas are being dealt with by the City of Edina. ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF CHILDIZLN In 1978 through the Bloomington Public Health Nursing Service a grant was submitted to a local private foundation to initiate a program of primary prevention of child abuse and neglect. The outcome of the grant application is pending, and when the results are final it is hoped that an effective program may be implemented. C -10 VENEREAL DISEASE AMONG TEENAGE AND YOUNG ADULTS This activity was not only identified as a problem which needs more attention but was also strongly supported by the public. In 1978, 48 Edina patients were treated for venereal disease by the Bloomington Public Health Nursing Service. This activity will continue to be funded in the Disease Prevention and Control program. INABILITY OF ILL, DISABLED, AND ELDERLY TO MANAGE THEIR PERSONAL CARE IN THEIR HOME This activity in conjunction with home health aide services, made 160 visits to Edina residents in 1978. The services are being delivered by the Bloomington Public Health Nursing Service. Edina will continue funding this activity. MISUSE OF DRUGS. MEDICATIONS OR ALCOHOL In 1978, twelve Edina residents were counseled for alcohol or drug related problems by the Bloomington Public Health Nursing Service. Through May, 1979, there have been four patients in this activity. Edina will continue funding this activity in the Community Nursing Services. HEART DISEASE, CANCER, AND OTHER CHRONIC DISEASES DUE TO SMOKING Through public information and education, the effects of smoking are addressed. There appears to be a great variety of clinics offered to help an individual quit smoking. These clinics are offered through the private sector. Also, there is a great deal of media time dedicated to informing the public of the health hazards associated with smoking. It may be a duplication of effort to develop and fund a program to address this problem specifically. UNWANTED OR UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES AMONG TEENAGE AND YOUNG ADULT WOMEN In 1978, Bloomington provided 115 family planning visits to Edina residents. This activity will continue to be funded within the adult health services program. INABILITY OF THE AGED, ILL AND DISABLED TO PERFORM ROUTINE HOUSEHOLD CHORES AND MATNTRNANrF The City of Edina has no formal program dealing with this problem. Questions and inquiries about Homemaker services and maintenance requests are referred to various community organizations by City staff. AIR POLLUTION DUE TO INDUSTRY. AND AUTOMOBILES The City of Edina has no heavy industry which would cause a potential problem of air pollution. The automobile is used extensively in Edina and in December, 1978, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ran a carbon monoxide test for two weeks at the Southdale Shopping Center. There were no violations. C -11 PREFERENCE FOR SNACK OR "JUNK" FOOD OVER NUTRITIOUS FOODS The Bloomington Public Health Nursing Service provided nutrition counseling and teaching to 282 Edina residents in 1978. This program will continue to be funded. DIFFICULTY- FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES TO OBTAIN, MAINTAIN, AND IMPROVE THEIR HOUSING The City of Edina has a Minnesota Housing Finance Agency grant administrator who helps individuals with housing problems. This includes home improvement grants. The City has not been able to expend the full allocation of funding for this program due to poor response. The City also uses Community Development funding for grants and loans, and the City also processes applications for Housing and Urban Develop - ment.Section 8 Rental Assistance contracts. These-programs have not been successful in spite of rather extensive promotion campaigns. The City will continue its efforts in this area. This is not an eligible Community Health Services program; therefore, it is not included in the plan. In addition to these problems, the City provides other Community Health Services including food service sanitation, lodging inspection, recreational area.inspections, public housing inspections, community sanitation, water and noise pollution control, animal control, noxious weed control, and emergency medical services. All of these services are under the City of Edina's direct administrative control. There appears to be strong public support for these programs,-even if they are not perceived as problems which need more attention. C -12 FOOD SERVICE FACILITY SANITATION PROBLEMS ADDRESSED Diminished health may result from consuming food contaminated with chemicals or microorganisms. Contamination of foods may occur from unsanitary conditions orimproper handling during food manufacture, processing, delivery, or service. Some of the more common underlying causes of food -borne disease outbreaks are inadequate refrigeration, poor personal hygiene, failure to hold readily per- ishable foods at legal refrigeration temperatures, failure to hold hot foods at legal holding temperatures, and inadequate cooking. GOALS To.achieve, through enforcement and education, compliance with the various laws, ordinances, and policies which will insure all citizens of Edina a healthful and aesthetically pleasing food consumption experience. OBJECTIVES First Step By systematic inspection and education, insure that all food while being trans- ported, stored, prepared, displayed, served, or sold to the public is protected from all forms of contamination or adulteration consistent with the Edina Food Code to insure safe consumption and minimize the possibility of food -borne disease episodes. Second Step To insure, through the plan review process, that each building or parts thereof, that are intended for food production or storage, is constructed to comply with the provisions of the Edina Food Code to insure that the structure and equipment is designed to provide a durable, easily cleanable, and aesthetically appealing environment in which to store, prepare, display, or serve food to the consuming public. METHODS First Step A minimum of two (2) comprehensive sanitary surveys will be conducted on each C -13 FOOD SERVICE FACILITY SANITATION food service facility annually. Along with the sanitary surveys, necessary follow -up surveys will be conducted on a pre - determined, mutually agreeable timetable. Second Step All new or remodeled food establishments will require that detailed plans and specifications be-submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. The plans will be systematically reviewed detailing all areas of the structure or equipment not in conformance with the Edina Food Code. Follow -up field in- spections will be conducted, as required, to determine if construction is pro- ceeding according to the approved plans. EVALUATION First Step Routine checks will be performed to determine if the twice annual sanitation surveys are being conducted on a timely basis. The performance of the inspection process will be evaluated by certified inspectors from the State Department of Health. The certified inspectors will evaluate the interpretation and applica- tion of the food code during periodic field visits. This evaluation will also be carried through the administrative aspects of the inspection and enforcement process. Second Step The evaluation of the plan review process will primarily be judged by field evaluation and review of all correspondence within the process to determine uniformity of interpretation and enforcement. C -14 COMMUNITY SANITATION PROBLEMS ADDRESSED Diminished health may result from exposure to hazards or conditions in the physical environment of the community. Community sanitation covers a variety of environmental health problems which provide a link in the transmission of disease in man. Included are problems related to rodent, insect, and weed control, improper refuse storage, animal control, and a variety of public health nuisances. Many sanitation problems are inter- related so that a practical approach to control involves looking at the total community sanitation picture rather than each component separately. GOALS Either.by citizen complaint or by observation in the community, identify and abate all nuisance conditions consistent with State laws and local ordinances. OBJECTIVE Prevent the accumulation of refuse and weeds, destroy rodent and vermin harbor- age and control domesticated animals that constitute a nuisance. METHODS In response to complaints, investiage all community sanitation nuisances and issue orders to correct situations which are hazardous. Complete follow -up inspections to determine compliance with written orders. EVALUATION The Community Sanitation program will be evaluated by.viewing the effectiveness of the abatement process. C -15 HOUSING MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS ADDRESSED Diminished health may result from conditions of illness associated with sub- standard housing. Although the total impact of substandard housing on health cannot be fully determined, many researchers believe that the irritations and frustrations that occur in some residential environments are leading or con- tributing factors of mental illness. Respiratory infections, such as colds, bronchitis, and influenza are related to inadequate heating or ventilation and inadequate and crowded sleeping arrangements and food handling facilities. Other potential problems include carbon monoxide poisoning due to faulty home heating devices, rodent and insect infestation, accidents due to crowding, poor electrical connections, poor lighting, and structural problems. GOALS Minimize the public health hazards, associated with substandard housing. Mini- mize the hazard.of exposure to low levels of carbon monoxide in living spaces. OBJECTIVES First Step Prevent irritants or impairments that may result from substandard or overcrowded housing. Second Step Prevent injury resulting from exposure to low levels of carbon monoxide in living spaces of apartment buildings with underground garages. METHODS First Step In response to complaints or during periodic inspections, determine the conform- ity of housing with minimum housing standards. Issue orders to correct unsafe or substandard conditions and perform follow -up inspections to insure compliance with written orders. C -16 HOUSING MAINTENANCE Second Step Monitor the carbon monoxide levels within living spaces of apartment buildings with underground garages. Inspect the underground garages for proper ventila- tion and maintenance. Inspect the penetrations and openings to the living spaces for proper sealing and maintenances. Issue orders to correct any de- ficiencies and perform follow -up inspections to determine compliance with written orders. EVALUATION First Step It is difficult to measure the outcome of a housing program, but with compliance with minimum housing codes there should be an increase in the general welfare within the community. The abatement of hazardous or unhealthy conditions in itself will be the measure of.the outcome, because the specific unhealthy or hazardous condition will no longer be in existence. Second Step The underground garage segment of the program will be evaluated by observing compliance with the correction orders issued. C -17 ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL PROBLEMS ADDRESSED Diminished health may result from improperly maintained recreational areas such as swimming pools. If not properly maintained, accidental injury or contamina- tion may result for persons using the recreational facility. Also, polluted water or unwanted noise may cause diminished health. Water is used for a variety of activities, and pollution of the water may effect wells,.stormwater discharge, and recreational areas. The effects of noise on the health of the population may be either of two types: (1) they are consciously perceived effects or (2) insidious effects. Consciously perceived effects are those recognized by the recipient or person. They usually have a subjectively irritating or nuisance character, but they are nevertheless important functionally, producing such effects as inter- ference with the thought process, communication disruption, performance impair- ment, sleep disturbance, and general mental stress.. Excessive noise can also result in permanent hearing loss. GOALS To minimize the health effects attributable to water and noise pollution. OBJECTIVES 1. Prevent accidental injury or disease resulting from use of swimming pools. 2. Eliminate the entrance of pollutants into surfact or ground water. 3. Reduce the occurrence of unwanted noise in the .community. METHODS First Step Continue the routine inspections of swimming pools to determine compliance with minimum health and safety standards. Issue orders to correct any health or safety situation, and if necessary, close the swimming pool to the public until necessary corrective measures have been taken. Develop educational aids to assist swimming pool operators in providing a safe and sanitary recreational environment for the community. C -18 Environmental Pollution Control Second Step Continue the surveillance of on -site sewage disposal systems. Wherever feasible, encourage conversion of on -site sewage disposal systems to sanitary sewer. Continue routine sampling and surveillance of the city water supply. Continue sampling individual well water supplies as requested by the community. Continue monitoring surface water. Third Step In response to complaints, investigate all noise nuisances and require compliance with accepted noise standards. EVALUATION First Step The effectiveness of the swimming pool meeting the monthly inspection schedule minimum public health safety standards. re- assessed to cope with new hazardous Second Step inspection program will be evaluated by and observing the conformance with Emphasis within the program will be situations. The evaluation of the water pollution program will be based on observing the changes in number of on -site sewage disposal systems, 'the prevention of contamin- ation within the city water supply and the change in the quality of the surface water. Third Step The abatement of unwanted noise source will result in the reduction of irrita- tion to the complaintant. The evaluation of this program can be assessed by the number of.successful. noise abatements or noise reductions. C -19 ANIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS ADDRESSED Dogs, cats, and other warm blooded animals can transmit rabies and inflict severe harm on people's health. If all dogs are vaccinated for rabies and all animals who bite.a person are quarantined and observed for signs of rabies, the hazard associated with rabies transmission can be minimized. In addition to this, the control of loose dogs helps to lessen the risk of expo- sure to dog bites. OBJECTIVES First Step By a licensing and animal code enforcement procedures, ensure that all dogs are vaccinated for rabies control. Second Step By quarantining animals that have bitten someone, monitor the animal's health and behavior for signs of rabies. METHODS First Step Employ an animal control officer to patrol the city and respond to complaints about loose dogs. Also, the animal control officer will enforce the licensing ordinance. Second Step All animal bites will be promptly investigated by the animal control officer or police officer and quarantine measures implemented to monitor the animal's be- havior and health for a period of ten days. EVALUATION Records will be kept of all animal quarantines and complaints. C -20 NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PROBLEMS ADDRESSED Noxious weeds are a cause of forms of allergic reactions. The Department of Agriculture lists 71 weeds as injurious to public health, public roads, live- stock, and other property. It is the city's responsibility to locate and cause the destruction of these.noxious weeds. OBJECTIVES By locating or responding to complaints, remove or cause the destruction of all noxious weeds. METHOD A weed inspector will investigate all complaints and known stands of noxious weeds and cause the destruction of the noxious weeds. EVALUATION The effectiveness of the noxious weed control program will be evaluated by reviewing the degree of compliance with written orders. C -21 PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY PROBLEMS ADDRESSED Problems addressed by this program include food -borne illness, food quality, water quality (public water supply, lakes, ponds, and streams), air quality, and miscellaneous analysis from all areas of environmental health. GOALS Assist the environmental health services in controlling the quality of food and water thereby preventing adverse health conditions in the community. OBJECTIVES Analyze the samples promptly and report the results to the appropriate environ- mental health services. METHODS By using specific chemical and microbiological tests, perform analysis on samples submitted to the laboratory. All tests are performed using standard methods. EVALUATION The laboratory and personnel performing the analysis must meet the appropriate certification by the,Minnesota Department of Health. C -22 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PROBLEMS ADDRESSED Sudden life threatening situations such as accidents are a constant threat to the health of the citizens within the community. The morbidity and mortality associated with these situations can effectively be altered by quick, professional delivery to a health care facility. GOALS First Step Provide ambulance service for the sick and injured. Second Step Provide emergency medical treatment for the sick and injured. OBJECTIVES 1. Provide one advanced life support emergency ambulance, staffed by paramedics and emergency medical technicians. 2. Provide a back -up ambulance staffed by emergency medical technicians. 3. Provide cardio- pulmonary resuscitation classes for various groups in the city of Edina. METHODS 1. The fire department shall have six personnel trained as paramedics, with two assigned to each shift. 2. There shall be no less than one paramedic on duty at a time. 3. All fire department personnel shall be trained as emergency medical techni- cians and assist the paramedics as necessary. 4. All police department patrolmen shall be trained as emergency medical tech- nicians and assist the fire department as necessary. C -23 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EVALUATION The city of Edina will be a member of the Hennepin County Emergency Medical Services, who will review the training, methods, procedures, and equipment used by the city of Edina for providing emergency medical services. TIMETABLE This program is in effect now and will be on- going. Services will be provided as needed. C -24 PERSONAL HEALTH SERVICES The following personal health services will be delivered by the Bloomington Public Health Nursing Services under contract: Home Health Services A. Home Nursing Disease Prevention and Control Services A. Prevention and Control B. Vaccine Community Nursing Services A. Health Promotion and Counseling Parent and Child Health A. Child Health B. Adult Health C. School Age Health Health Education A. Public Information and Education The program descriptions for the above listed services can be found in the Bloomington Community Health Services Plan. The budget report follows this narrative and will be revised as the contract with Bloomington is finalized. C -25 STATUTES, GUIDELINES, AND MANUALS RELATED TO FAMILY, MATER14AL AND CHILD HEALTH ACTIVITIES 1. Family Planning State Plan - 5/74 (to be revised) 2. Instruction Manual for Preschool and School Hearing Conservation - 1973; Instruction Manual for Pre- school and School Vision Conservation - 1973 (to be revised) 3. Early Detection of SCOLIOSIS by School Screening - 8/76 4. Guidelines for Early Periodic Screening - Final 9/76 (0 -21 years) 5. Early Periodic Screening Manual - 8/76 (to be re- vised) 6. School Health Guide for Use in Minnesota Schools, 1973 (to be revised) 7. Community Nursing Manual /Guidelines - November, 1974 8. Immunization Clinic Manual and Guidelines - June, 1975 9.. Parent Education Guidelines (draft #1) 2/76 10. EPS Cost Sharing Plan - 4/76 C -26 SOURCE Minnesota Depart- ment of Health to if if To n It if ,* Mlnricsota,Department of Health Corrimunitj Health Servicfjs Subsidy Plan BUDGET DETAIL BY PRGGlZAM For the period January 1, 1980 To December 31, 1980 Name of Agency: CITY OF EDINA 1. PROGRAM TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES II. PROGRAM [BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES NO. OF FTE POSITIONS Control No Date 8 / 13 / 79 Mo. Day Yr. ® Original ❑ Revised AMOUNT Food Ser ce Sanitation 1.68 44,245 Community Sanitation .42 11,061 Environmental Pollution Control .28 7,374 Housing Maintenance .42 11,061 Water Treatment Chemicals 11,608 *Laboratory Support 93,088 9,510 *Animal Control 25.343 *Weed Control 11,726 TOTAL III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE: OF FUI\DS• 131,928 CHS Local Participation Other" Othero* Total Subsidy State Federal Budget Tax 1_ovy Fees Other" 14,840 93,088 24,000 131,928 'Specify Type (e.g. hi -Kind, Gifts, P,('VenUe Sharing) "Specify Source of Funds. *Supported by separate budget detail HE -01067 -01 C -27 IV. 'PROdHAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES 1. Personnel Sanitarian 1 FTE Medical Officer Assistant Sanitarian 1 FTE Secretary 0.5 FTE Summer Help 0.3 FTE 2. Capital Outlay 3. Contractual Services 4. Travel 5. Dues, Conferences and Training 6. Supplies General Water Treatment 7. Lab Support 8. Animal Control 9. Weed Control 10. Fixed Charges C -28 AMOUNT 23,205 300 15,993 5,838 4,500 25 405 475 140 11,608 9,510 25,343 11,726 22,860 TOTAL 131,928 1980 Minnesota Department of Health Coi-nmunity I- lealch Scrvices Subsidy flan BUDGET DETAIL BY PROORAhAt For the period January 1, 1980 To December 31, 1980 Name of Agency: CITY OF EDINA I. PROGRAM TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST; ACTIVITIES NO. OF-FTE POSITIONS Lab Support 1.3 III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: Control No. Date 8 / 13 1_79 Mo. Day Yr. M Original ❑ Revised TOTAL AlIOUNT 28,530 28,530 CIAS Local Participation Other" Other" Total Subsidy State Federal Budget Tax Levy Fees Other* 9,510 19,020 28,530 'Specify Type (e.g. In -Kind, Gifts, Revenue Sharing) **Specify Source of Funds. The laboratory costs are shared equally by Edina, Bloomington, and St. Louis Park. HE-01063 -01 C -29 IV.,,PROGRAMii BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEC30RIES AMOUNT 1. Personnel Lab Director 1 FTE 20,420 Summer Help 0.3 FTE 2,200 2. Capital Outlay 1,500 3. Travel 180 4. Dues and Conferences 330 5. Supplies 3,900 C -30 TOTAL 28,530 1+# Minnesota Department of Health Control No. Community Health Services Subsidy Plan BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM Date 8 / 13 / r. For the period January l, 1980 To December 31, 1980 Mo. oev v ED Original Name of Agency: City of Edina ❑ Revised I. PROGRAM TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES NO. OF FTE POSITIONS AMOUNT Weed Control .5 11,726 TOTAL 11,726 III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: CHS Local Participation Other" OtheriO Total Subsidy State Federal Budget Tax Levy Fees Outer a 11,726 11,726 'Specify Type (e.g. In -Kind, Gifts, Revenue Sharing) "Specify Source of Funds. C-31 HE-01063-01 IV. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES 1. Personnel 2. Capital Outlay 3. Travel C -32 TOTAL AMOUNT 10,282 1,040 404 11,726 1980 Minnesota Department of Health Community Health :services Subsidy Plan BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM For the period January 1 1980 To December 31, 1980 Name of Agency: CITY OF EDINA I. PROGRAM TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES NO. OF FTE POSITIONS Animal Control III. PROGRAMi [BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS3 1.0 Control No Date --L / 13 / 79 Mo. Day Yr. M Original ❑ Revised TOTAL AMOUNT 25,343 25,343 CHS Local Participation Other" Other " Total Subsidy State Federal Budget Tax Levy Fees Other* 25,343 25,343 "Specify Type (e.g. In -Kind, Gifts, Revenue Sharing) "Specify Source of Funds. C- 33 HE-01063-01 IV. 'PROGRAM BUDGET DETAH- BY COST: COST CATEGORIES AMOUNT 1. Personnel 14,493 2. Contractual Services 4,250 3. Equipment Operation 6,600 C -34 TOTAL 25,343 198U Minnesota Department of Health Coanrnuni,ty Health —[vices Subsidy Plan BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM For the period January 1, 1980 To December 11, 1980 Name of Agency: City of Edina I. PROGRAM TITLE: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES NO. OF FTE POSITIONS Ambulance Services, Life Support, and Rescue III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: 6 FTE Control No Date 8 U / 79 Mo. Day Yr. 0 Original ❑ Revised AMOUNT 175,893 TOTAL 175,893 CHS Local Particinetion Other" OtherO° Total Subsidy State Federal Budget Tax Levy Fees Other* 41,443 130,450 4,000 175,893 *Specify Type (e.g. In -Kind, Gifts, Revenue Sharing) "Specify Source of Funds. C -35 HE -01063 -01 IV. -.PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES 1. Personnel Six Paramedics 2. Capital Outlay 3, Supplies 4. Contractual Services 5. Fixed Charges C -36 AMOUNT 123,399 7,606 5,880 4,043 34,965 TOTAL 175,893 Minnesota Department of Health Community Health Services Subsidy Plan BUDGET' DETAIL BY PROGRAM For the period January l., 1980 Name of Agency: CITY OF EDINA • To December 31, 1980 I. PROGRAM TITLE: COMMUNITY NURSING SERVICES II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES NO. OF FTE POSITIONS Health Promotion and Counseling III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: Control No Date 8 13 1 79 Mo. D"; Yr. ® Original C) Revised AMOUNT 26,717 TOTAL 26,717 CHS Local Participation OtherGO OtherO° Total Subsidy State Federal Budget Tax Levy Fees Other" 16,293 10,424 26,717 *Specify Type (e.g. In-Kind, Gifts, Revenue Sharing) `Specify Source of Funds. C =37 11E- 0 10 63 -01 IV. 'PROG'nANI BUDGE "r DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES AMOUNT Contract for Services with Bloomington Public Health Nursing Services 26,717 TOTAL 26,717 C -38 1980 Minnesota Department of Health Coi•tununi'ty Health Services Subsidy Plan BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM For the period January 1, 1980 To December 31, 1980 Name of Agency: CITY OF EDINA I. PROGRAM TITLE: HOME HEALTH SERVICES II. PROGRAM-PUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES NO. OF FTE POSITIONS Home Nursing III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: Control No. Date 8 / 13 j 79 Mo. Day Yr. ® Original ❑ Revised TOTAL AMOUNT 29,481 29,481 CHS Local Participation Other" Other" Total Subsidy state Federal Budget Tax Levy Fees Other* 29,481 0 29,481 'Specify Type (e.g. In-Kind, Gifts, Revenue Sharing) "Specify Source of Funds. HE -01063 -01 C -39 IV. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL RY COST: COST CATEGORIES AMOUNT Contract for Services with Bloomington Public Health Nursing Services 29,481 TOTAL 29,481 C -40 19$0 Minnesota Department of 11calth Control No. Ccmmuni,(y 1-iealth Servicas Subsidy Plan BUDGET DETAIL CY PROGRAIA Date 8 / 13 / 79 December 31, 1980 Mo. Day Yr. For the period January 1, 1980 To - ® Original Name of Agency: CITY OF EDINA ❑ Revised I. PROGRAM TITLE: DISEASE PREVENTION AND CONTROL IL PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST ACTIVITIES NO. OF FTE POSITIONS Prevention and Control TOTAL III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: AMOUNT 5,528 5,528 CHS Local Nrtici aR tion Other" Other" Total Subsidy State Federal Budget Tar. Levy Fees Other* 2,715 2,813 5,528 'Specify Type (e.g. In -Kind, Gifts, Revenue Sharing) **Specify Source of Funds. HE-010G3-01 C -41 IV. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEC30RIE:S Contract for Services with Bloomington Public Health Nursing Services /l AMOUNT 5,528 5,528 TOTAL C -42 1980 Minnesota Department of Health Control No. Cotrmuniiy Health Services Subsidy Plan BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRA/A Date 8 / 13 / 79 Mo. Day Yr. For the period January 1, 1980 To December 31, 1981 ® Original Name of Agency: CITY OF EDINA ❑ Revised I. PROGRAM TITLE: PARENT AND CHILD HEALTH II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: Child Health Adult Health School Age Health III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SQURCE OF FUNDS: MOUNT 9,213 11,976 4,606 TOTAL 25.795 CHS Local Participation Other** OtherA° Total Subsidy State Federal Budget Tax Levy Fees Other° 15,350 10,445 25,795 'Specify Type (e.g. In-Kind, Gifts, Revenue Sharing) "Specify Source of Funds. C-43 HE- 01063 -01 W.'- PROCRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES AMOUNT Contract for Services with Bloomington Public Health Nursing Services 25,795 TOTAL 25,795 C -44 C Minnesota Department of Health Coriimunify Health Servic„ s Subsidv Plan BUDGET DETAIL BY f'ROGRAA°► For the period January 1, 1980 Name of Agency: CITY OF EDINA I. PROGRA[A TITLE: HEALTH EDUCATION 1980 To December 31, 1980 II. PROGRAWBUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES NO. OF FTE POSITIONS Public Information and Education 111. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: Control No Date 8 1 13 / 79 Mo. Day Yr. ® Original ❑ Revised TOTAL AMOUNT 4,606 4,606 CHS Local Partic Other" Other" Total Subsidy State Federal Budget Tax Levy Fees Other" 0 4,606 4,606 *Specify Type (e.g. In-Kind, Gifts, Revenue Sharing) "Specify Source of Funds. C -45 HE -01063 -01 IV. .PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES AMOUNT Contract for Services with Bloomington Public Health Nursing Services 4,606 TOTAL 4,606 C -46 1980 Minnesota Deportment of Health Coni.Pnunit� 1-1,ealth Services Subsidy Plan BUDGET REPORT For the Period January 1, 1980 To- December 31, 1980 Name and Address of Agency: CITY OF EDINA Control No. BUDGET Lxl Original O Revised II. CERTIFICATION (SIGNATURES) certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the data reported on this form is correct and that all transactions will be made in accordance with subsidy provisions and applicable assurances. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL FISCAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER DATE DATE Address 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN` 55424 C -47 HE-01062-01 Other Participation Local Participation CHS Subsidy Total 1. PLANNED EXPENDITURES: Program Community Nursing 10,424 16,293 26,717 Services Home Health Services 29,481 0 29,481 Disease Prevention 8c Control Services 2,813 2,715 5,528 Emergency Medical Services 134,450 41,443 175,893 Health Education 4,606 0 4,606 Environmental Health 117,088 14,840 131,928 CHS Administration Other (Specify) Parent and Child Health 10,445 15,350 25,795 309,307 90,641 399,948 TOTAL — Planned Expenditures TOTAL. — Less In -Kind Contributions 309,307 90,641 399,948 II. CERTIFICATION (SIGNATURES) certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the data reported on this form is correct and that all transactions will be made in accordance with subsidy provisions and applicable assurances. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL FISCAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER DATE DATE Address 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN` 55424 C -47 HE-01062-01 III. Pl ANNED SOURCES OF FlL1_r`1_D� CHS Subsidy Financial Assistance Direct Assistance Local Participation Local Tax LWY Municipal County Revenue Sharing Medicare Reimbursement Medicaid Private Fees /insurance Veteran's Administration Contracts (specify) Grants (specify) Gifts /Donations In -Kind Contributions Other Income (specify) Other Par'icipgtior Other State Funds (specify) Other Federal Funds (specify) TOTAL Planned Sources of Funds TOTAL — Less In -Kind Contributions Excess Funds Collected Over (Under) Total Expenditures C -48 SUBTOTAL 90,641_ 309,307 399,948 'Coll F, Minnesota Dehartmnnt of Health Control No. Con^niunl'y Health Services Subsidy Plan BUDGET REPORT (ANTICIPATED) BUDGET For the Period January 1, 1981 To December 31, 1981 ® Original Name and Address of Agency: CITY OF EDINA 0 Revised II. CERTIFICATION (SIGNATURES) certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the data reported on this form is correct and that all transactions will be made in accordance with subsidy provisions and applicable assurances. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL FISCAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER DATE DATE Address 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55_424 T HE- 01062 -01 C -49 Other Participation Local Participation CHS Subsidy Total I. PLANNED EXPENDITURES: Programs Community Nursing -Services 11,154 17,433 28,587 Home Health Services 31,545 0 31,545 Disease Prevention & Control Services 3,010 2,905 5,915 Emergency Medical Services 142,811 44,344 187,155 Health Education 4,928 0 4,928 ' Environmental Health 122,948 15,879 138,827 CHS Administration Other (Specify) 11,176 16,425 27,601 TOTAL — Planned Expenditures 327,572 96,986 424,558 TOTAL — Less In -Kind Contributions 327,572 96,986 424,558 II. CERTIFICATION (SIGNATURES) certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the data reported on this form is correct and that all transactions will be made in accordance with subsidy provisions and applicable assurances. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL FISCAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER DATE DATE Address 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55_424 T HE- 01062 -01 C -49 III. PLANNED SOURCES OF FUNDS CHS Subsidy Financial Assistance Direct Assistance Local Particination Local Tax Levy Municipal County Revenue Sharing Medicare Reimbursement Med;caid Private Fees /Insurance Veteran's Administration Contracts (specify) Grants (specify) Gifts /Donations In -Kind Contributions Other Income (specify) Other Participation Other State Funds (specify) Other Federal Funds (specify) TOTAL — Planned Sources of Funds TOTAL_ — Less In -Kind Contributions Excess Funds Collected Over (Under) Total Expenditures C -50 TOTAL 327,572 1 424.558 1 1- 424,558 1 SUBTOTAL 327,572 — 4.24,558 � TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Ken Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES STUDY DATE: August 14, 1979 As part of the study, South Hennepin has proposed that two committees be established to assist in the study. The first is the Community Consultation Committee for each municipality which will formulate what that community desires to gain from the study. The second is a Study Area Committee at the South Hennepin level which will take the recommendations of each community and design the overall study from that. Appointments to the Community Consultation Committee are up to each City Council. I would like to recommend for the approval at the August 20th meeting the following individuals who have agreed to serve: June Schmidt Council Member Janet Card-le League of Women Voters Marcia Carthaus Edina Public Schools Betty Carver Human Relations Commission Linda Bjerke____ __ Health Advisory Board _ Mancel Mitchell Edina Police Department Cecelia Smith Edina Park & Recreation As for the Study Area Committee, each community gets three _ "slots ". These are preferably one Council Member, the City Manager or his designee, and representative from Community Consultant Committee. (At this point Charles Bredesen has agreed to serve on this Committee.) If you have any questions, please feel free to contact either Mark Bernhardson or myself. v Kenneth E. Rosland City Manager KER /skh 0- U' f F. 1 � �•i•./`/ 6.. V Wes^ R. T, p®G.Al® rchasers under contract, and Citizens State Know all men by these presents that Cardarelle &Associates, Inc. pu a ea of the following Bank, a Corporation organized and ofXHennepinnd State eofa State of Minnesota, mortg Minnesota ; g described property in the County Road 158. That art of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Southeasterlytrightuof -way Quarter of County Road 31, Township 117, Range 21. lying Southeasterly of West 30 feet of the :southeast _)uerter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of The ? ?I;CL' 21, lying South of the Southerly right -of -way line of County Road No. 158. Section 31, Township 117. 3 donate and dedicate to the public d the saime to be surveyed and platCedn�sutilitTO asementsnasdshowneon the plat. Have cause Y for public use fori?ver the court and drainage purchasers under contract, Citi'��ns State Bank, mortgagee, and Cardarelle & Assocaat' =of Inc., l� —' S In witness whereof, " officers this Y have caused these presents to be signed by its proper CITIZENS STATE SANK & 1, TES, I14C. signed 1t5 an R.r C�tc ?•:;�a.l.ic:, i r:.��c:l its ee R. Cardarelle F:o!� =.::u •'•- ..e!. b Frank Sr.a o� u n. •. `- Co:!?1ty of in —�� d y --- ( °'A..,�, ±.s,;�, 19 Y �a tr:n ���I, ., " before mc= this a ° - .:_ _ and�� Rana.ld L. ICrue -De:r. x ,...ts^ +J,._,✓v,rnrnrNJnna•:ti1. � ���;�;'•, 1��.� . ,., a .. ,..,... _ ... :•,ii .: sNr, _} = - "xie ni.r !',:in C Alnty pilnrgSOt3 t.11l / Lo:i;� iss.I { r r.01 Subdivision No. --3 TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department /+ SUBDIVISION NAME: LAND SIZE: % G LAND VALUE: � (By: 7-�� Date: TheEl developer of this subdivision has been required to A. grant an easement over part of'the land E B. dedicate $ of the land of T"l C. donate $ as a fee in lieu of land As �a result of, applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. 2. If property is 6 acres or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. T-13. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 4. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. n 5. If the property is a place of significant natural., scenic or his- toric value. 11 6. B. ,Cash .Required U1. In all other instances than above. El 2. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Fran Hoffman, Director of Public.Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager: SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: August 16, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Miscellaneous Steel Rebars, Pipes, & Rolled Steel Quotation /Bids: Com an 'Amount -of "Quote or Bid 1. Paper Calmenson & Co. .$4,966.83 2. Williams Steel $5,075.02 3. Department Recommendation: Paper Calmenson $4,966.83 • Public Works ignature Department. Finance Director's Endorsement: The recomaliended bid is­L�s not Q within e n udgeted for the purchase. . N. Dalen finance Di rector City Manager's Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: .cnnetri s and. Ci tv Manacier TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: DATE: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE Mayor and City Council FINANCE DIRECTOR Kenneth Rosland, City Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 8-15-79 Material Description (General Specifications): Electronic Cash Registers (Liquor Stores) Bid by Hennepin County for Logis. Quotations /Bids: Company 1. NCR CORPORATION 2, MINNESOTA CASH REGISTER. Amount of Quote or Bid $44,667.72 (A) $46,491.00 (B) 3. (A) Not available until first quarter of 1980. (In process of developing machine). (B) Available within 60 days. Department Recommendation: RECOMMEND BID TO MINNESOTA CASH REGISTER Signature Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is, r>—�,s not = within the amount b gpt.,ed for the purchase. -�* 91 M. N. Dal&n Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: V 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: a Kenneth Rolsland City Manager Ux CONTRACT 1,10. 9459 TABULATION OF BIDS FOR ELECTRONIC CASH REGISTERS o (Bids FOR HENiNEPIN COUNTY COOPERATIVE PURCHASING XEMBERS opened Wednesday, July 18, 1979 at 2:00 p.m. CDSi) �. NCR CORPORATION • 1700 S. Patterson Blvd. Dayton, Ohio 45479 ITEM 513- 449 -2000 NO. DESCRIPTION MFP,. & MODEL NO. UNIT PRICE j1. Electronic Cash Registers (Master Units) it NCR 2140 -3103 etc. $8049.08 Per attached schedule i.2. Electronic Cash Registers (Slave Units) NCR 2140 -.3120 etc.. $3420.08 (Per attached schedule 3. Optional equipment (please list major it&ns, especially those required to perform functions identified in Detailed Specifications, Sub Pa ragrzph 18, - - -- included Above NCR 7877 -0101 W/ 52261.00 Paragraphs 6, 8, 9, and 20 2140-;; 208 and 2140 -K250 (FR7EXTRA) NCR 2140 -K300 $118.75 (FR7EXTRA) Included Above CONTRACT NO. 9459 i MINNESOTA CASH REGISTER 5614 West 36th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 920 -8191 MFR. & MODEL NO. UNIT PRICE ,. DTS Model 550 12.5K S5,116.50 * ** ** DTS Model 550 8.5K S4,801.5D �6) * * ** No Charge per explaination 8) Spectro physics scanner S3, 99 5. 00 (9) DTS Remote Pole Display 5247.50 — (10) DTS Cash Drawer S135.00 (Per additional dre. Totai/4 drawe 4. Discount from price list for other optional or accessory items. 5% rs max_ 10% 5. Maintenance (See Paragraph 9) a) Total Cost 51133 /Annually Masters - S434.80 /Annually i b) Labor Slave - S405.80 /Annually l Parts 542 /hour Included 6. Maximum percent annual increase over previous year's prices Not available _(See Para raph 3 and Paragraph 10) 10% Discount for payment in 20 da s Not A Rlicable 0 Number ed See Paragraph 5) days after receipt of order that delivery will be completed 45 Days after receipt and acceptance 60 A.R.O. of order but not before 1st quarter 1920 Manufacturer's specifications enclosed in duplicate (See Para. 13) YES YES U 1 CONTRACT NO. 9459 G a,e J i REMARKS MINNESOTA CASH REGISTER - * If only 1 price per item is needed (18. 1, b, 2) corresponding memory reduction reduces price to $4801.50. f ** If only,l price per item is needed (18, 1, b, 2) corresponding memory reduction reduces price to $4441.50. * ** Tele Communications (18, 4) requires one Ans -R -Tran device per store plus a 2025 or 201C compatable modem. The price of the Ans -R -Tran is $805.50. * * ** Cassette recovery is provided by our service department. No hardware necessary by user. — !: NCR CORPORATION - See attached for additional information. ., NO BID LITTON SWEDA INTER`iATIONAL g 4444 West 78th Street I' j Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 TABULATED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY F W'I L 1 , E. 6�1'iGER Manager of Purchasing and Central Services July 19, 1979' Buyer: Richard A. Ryberg 348 -2084 Y `+ � k r f G i I � ii 4 EVALUATION OF ELECTRONIC CASH REGISTERS Background The LOGIS study of point -of -sale devices has evaluated the three cash registers recommended in the Price Waterhouse study for possible use in the inventory control system. The original study completed by Price Waterhouse eliminated electronic cash registers that did not have the major capabilities needed for this type of computer system. The intention of the LOGIS evalu- ation was to take a detail. look at the cash registers that appear to have the functions,.capacities, speeds and abilities that are needed for the inventory control. The study that we have performed included evaluations of documentation, software, hardware, communications capabilities, and difficulties, and the time of actually programming and running the SCR's to determine any unexpected limi- tations or identify any special capabilities. A table of the limitations and capabilities identified during the study is en- closed with this report. Summary of Evaluation All of the electronic cash registers recommended for our use on the Price Water- house study were supposed to be cash registers that could communicate to a host computer, to send data to that computes., and to receive updated information from the computer. After programming and working with the representatives of the three companies, it has been determined that this is really not possible with all the equipment. Therefore, our .first determination needs to be how soon do we want to have equipment that can communicate-in a way that we specified in our Price Waterhouse study. Of the three cash registers, the DTS from Minnesota Cash Register does have the capabilities that we have been looking for and is available immediately. The cash register which has been recommended by NCR is currently not available. The projected date of availability for the NCR is late 1979. The Delta 80 ECR is available now but communcations will not be available until July, 1979. The differences of availability would have the following impact: If a DTS or Delta 80 cash register were installed in a store today, price lookup tables and inventory reporting would be available immediately, even if a computer system was not programmed and operational. Because the conrmuni- cation memory inventory capability for the NCR is not currently available, . only the cash register could be installed in a store. It would function as any ordinary cash register functions today. Some time in the future, late 1979, the memory and inventory capability would be available for the NCR. Many of the reports or portions of the Waterhouse study would be available at 80 electronic cash register. We would munications between our host computer in the liquor stores. important reports recommended by the Price the store site through the DTS or Delta be able to immediately implement com- at LOGIS and the DTS cash registers located -2- In general, the three systems that we are evaluating have the capabilities needed to interface with the computer system that we are considering. One system, the NCR, has more in the way of reporting and communication capability than the DTS or Delta 80, and the prices on the various models of the NCR are correspondingly higher. Major Capabilities of the Electronic Cash Register Both the NCR, Delta 80 and DTS systems have the following capabilities: 1) All systems have the capability for automatic answering and automatic shutoff. This will allow us to call the liquor store cash registers from the LOGIS computer in the middle of the night, turn the system on, read the data out, update the price lookup or.inventory files, and tun-1 the system off. NCR has indicated that its system will allow us to actually format data that would be printed onto the cash register receipt tape. in a report form. 2) Price Lookup Table Capability. These systems allow the city. manager, through the Bost computer, or-the liquor store manager, to enter in prices by item number. Tax can be associated with item numbers, dis- counts can be specified and current inventory can also be input. The inventory can be entered either locally or remotely through. a host computer. The inventory information is adjusted with each sale and can be checked on the DTS by a specific key programmed for the purpose of checking inventory or through a report which allows single item lookup on the NCR and Delta 80 cash register. . 3) The ECR's can have departments and subdepartments for financial reporting. 4) The.cash registers may have multiple drawers and multiple clerks using the cash registers. The management reports at the end of the day allow accumulation of data by cash register, by clerk and by store. S) The cash register's have the capability of storing all prices and all in- ventories for liquor store needs. 6) All systems have many management reports that can be produced on request. All of the reports contents are listed in this report.. The reports include control totals, department reports, subdepartment reports, reports of all the price lookups, reports of all the inventories, reports concerning cashier information, numbers of sales, numbers of voids, total amount of voids, the total numbers of credit sales, dollar amount on credit sales, management reports on hourly productivity and inventory out -of -stock reports, and inventory reports indicating items that have reached a re- order point, and reports on physical inventory. Major Differences between NCR, DTS and Delta 80 The information that we have available on the NCR cash register is only what has been presented locally in documentation and in brochures. We do not have any experience in using the cash register first hand, because it is.currently not . available for use. Therefore, tWe information that we present in comparing the NCR with the DTS and Delta 80 must be understood as information which is cur- rently stated information by NCR concerning its capabilities. 0 -3- Some of the special functions of the ECIZ's: 1) The NCR cash register does keep employee time for cashiers and all other employees in the store. That data could be.communicated to the computer to automatically update the payroll, labor distribution, and master files. 2) The NCR cash register has a cassette capability. All inventory and price lookup data can be copied to cassettes daily as a security backup should the machines be broken or a power loss over an extended period of time occur. 3) None of the SCR's have the capability of communications over long distances to another electronic cash register. Therefore, the method that we would use for updating the records, both price and inventory from city hall, would be to implement communication tothe LOGIS computer. City hall would then be able to use its terminal to update the LOGIS computer files with price lookup information and inventory information. At a time specified at the city hall terminal, this information would then be trans- mitted to each of.the cash registers in the stores within that city. 4) The NCR cash register has many hardware options that can be added on to the basic unit. Most of these features are available also on the DTS and Delta 80 system. However, the one capability of a wider tape receipt with English descr.iptives is not available on the Model DTS 450, which has the basic functions that we plan to use. Consequently, anyone desiring the receipt tape which contains ten characters of descriptive information needs to start off ordering the Model 550. The difference in price between the 450 and 550 is approximately $500 per unit. If you should choose to start with the 450 and later plan to upgrade to a 550 DTS, there will be a 20 per cent trade -in loss for each year that you hold the cash register. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE v TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Finance Director VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: August 17, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Replacement Carpet - Yorkdale Liquor Store Quotations /Bids: Company. Amount of Quote or Bid - - . - - -- -- - - - - - - -- -- 1, Noah-Williams &-Associates 2, Jack's Carpet Service 3. Department Recommendation: Noah Williams & Associates - Low Bid Finance Director's Endorsement: 2,716.75 Signature Department The recommended bid is SZa is not 0 within the amount b e or the purchase. B J. N. Dalen Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Ken eti Rosland City Manager TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: DATE: REOUEST FOR PURCHASE Bob Kojetin, Park and Recreation Dept. Kenneth Rosland, City Manager .1P REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 August 17, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Skate tile and installation for Braemar Arena Quotations /Bids: Company Robert A. Paeschke & Associates 1. 912 East Wells St. Milwaukee, WI 53202 2. Merit Supply, Inc. P. 0. Box 264 Hopkins, MN 55343 3. Department Recommendation: Recommend Robert A. Paeschke & Associates na Amount of Quote or Bid . $2,330.00 $2,500.00 Park and Recreation Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is J is not within the amount budgeted for the purchase. N. Dalen, Finaince Director City Man er's Endorsement.: ` 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: ' Kenneth Roslan , City M nag REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kojetin, Park and Recreation Dept. VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: August 16, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Lumber for hockey rink at Lewis Park Quotations /Bids: Company 1. 2. 3. HARKED LUP4BER Co., 221 West 78th, MS., MN 55420 Amount of Quote or Bid JUSTUS LU14BER CO., 11th Ave. & Cnty. Rd. #3, Hopkins, MN. Department Recommendation: Recommend HARKED Lumber Company $4,331.40 4,736.00 S'g ure Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is is not City Ma ger's Endorsement: G within the amount budgeted for the purchase. J N. Dalen, Fina ce Director 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: I K nneth Rosland, City Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kojetin, Park and Recreation Dept. VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: August 15, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Prentice Loader for removal of trees and branches during the summer months - l working month - rental Quotations /Bids: . Com an Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Road (Machine Company $2,400.00 2.. 3. Department Recommendation: Department recommends rental of. Prentice Loader for 1 working month from Road Machine Company Park.and Recreation Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is ff� is not within the amount budgeted for the purchase. N en, Finance uirecior City Manager's Endorsement: I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2.* I recommend as an alternative: Kenneth R sland, City Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob'Kojetin, Park and Recreation Dept. VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: August 15, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Construction of the .Edina Mills Interpretive Center Dwight Williams Park, Browndale at West 50th Street Quotations /Bids: Company Amount of Quote or Bid W. H. Cates Construction Co. �. 3220 Xenium Lane. Minneapolis, MN .55427 $ 9,975.00 2, Hobco Inc., 1141 128th Avenue Northeast $19,800.00 Minneapolis, MN 55434 3, Socon, Inc. 9901 Xylite Street Northeast $19,603.00 Minneapolis, MN 55434 Department Recommendation: Recommend W. H. Cates Construction Co. ti Park and Recreation Sign t Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is Eg/ is not within the amount budgeted for the purchase. N. Dalen, Finance Director City Manager's. Endorsement: �. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Kenneth Rosl nd, City Manager BID TABULATION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CONTRACT #79 -6 (ENG) PROPOSAL "A" LIFT STATION & FORCEMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. LS -9 CONTRACT #79 -8 (ENG) PROPOSAL "B" SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. SS -352 CONTRACT #79 -9 (ENG) PROPOSAL C WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. WM -336 CONTRACT 7#79 -7 (ENG) PROPOSAL "D" PERMANENT STREET SURFACING WITH CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -227A BID OPENING: FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1979 — 11:00 A.M. BIDDER PROPOSAL A" #79 -6 PROPOSAL "B" #79 -8 PROPOSAL 'C" #79 -9 TOTAL OF A,B, & C PROPOSAL "D" 7#79 -7 Northdale Construction $133,059.50 $105,768.15 $60,361.00 1299,188.6E Northern Contracting, Inc. $131,203.05 $116,579.52 $67,777.12 315,559.6S G.L. Contracting, Inc. * $120,642.55 11-27,931.40 ..$70�077-20 318,651-4r Erickson Bros. Contracting $126,778.14 $122,583.65 $71,366.00 320,727.7 Johnson Bros. $141,552.00 $125,386.20 $74,694.00 341,632.2 Progressive Contractors, Inc. $146,965.45 $132,073.45 $70,143.40 349,182.3 Orvedahl Construction $167,037.50 $127,616.42 $66,392.00 361,045.92 Bury & Carlson 177,655.35* Northdale Construction $191,505.40 Matt Bullock 197,369.50 Minnesota Valley Surfacing 214,220.50 Johnson Bros. 232,914.00 Engineer's Estimate $126,254.00 $117,238.80 $77,203.00 kO,695.801$217,418.6O � r REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: August 3, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Lift Station, Watermain, Sanitary Sewer; France & 76th Delaney Blvd. - Surfacing, Curb & Gutter Quotation /Bids: Company 1. See attached:Tab 2. 3. Amount of'Quote or Bid Department Recommendation: Proposal D: Bury & Carlson, Inc. Proposal A+9rC : Dependent upon /Hearing Engineering Signature, ( Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recokmended bid is is not within he budgeted for the purchase. J. N. Da en Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: .ennet i toslan Ci tv t.1ana(wr I� BIDDER BID TABULATION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CONTRACT #79- 6_(ENG) PROPOSA_L1 A" LIFT STATION & FORCEMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. LS -9 CONTRACT 1#79 -8 _ENG PROPOSAL HP SANITARY SEINER IMPROVEMENT NO. SS -352 CONTRACT #79 -9 (ENG) PROPOSAL C WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. WM -336 CONTRACT Tr79 -7 (ENG) PROPOSAL PERMANENT STREET SURFACING WITH CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -227A BID OPENING: FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1979 i 1:00 A.M. Northdale Construction Northern Contracting, Inc. G.L. Contracting, Inc. Erickson Bros. Contracting Johnson Bros. Progressive Contractors, Inc. Orvedahl Construction Bury & Carlson Alnr+hria 1 r, Cnn ,,tructi on #79 i_- t $133,059.50 $131,203.05 $120,642.55, $126,778.14 $141,552.00 $146,965.45 $167,037.50 #79 -8 179 -9yy. AB, & C_ $11005,768.15 $60,36 .00 '299,188.6 $116,579.52 $67,777.12 315,559-6 $122,583.65 , $71,366.00 1320,727.7 $125,386.20 $74,694.00 341,632.2 $132,073.45 $70,143.40 349,182.3 $127,616.42 $66,392.00 361,045.9 Matt Bullock Minnesota Valley Surfacing $77,203.00 Johnson Bros. Engineer's Estimate ]:$126,,254.00 $117,238.80 #79 -7 177,655.35* 191,505.40 `197,369.50 M4,220.50 $232,914.00 320,695.801$217,418.60 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 May 31, 1979 ASSETS TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS FIXED ASSETS AT COST: Land 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 207.433.31 TOTAL ASSETS CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll Due to Other Funds LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES $ 122,889.32 3,500.00 $ 389,394.03 319,848.89 47,176.47 $ 126,389.32 64,653.34 128,064.00 415,000.00 756,419.39 $ 4,571.50 400.00 4,971.50 $1,495,497.55 $ 233,784.60 699.303.56 933,088.16 $2,428,585.71 $ 184,842.13 4,807.37 $ 189,649.50 92,475.00 $ 282,124.50 SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets $ 933;088.16 Unappropriated 1,2131373.05 2,146,461.21 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $2,428,585.71 1 LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDINA Five Months Ending May 31, 1979 and May 31, 1978 1979 1978 I NCR EASE - DECREASE* 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total SALES: Liquor $ 196,376.01 $ 418,931.57 $ 360,022.38 $ 975,329.96 $ 152,695.44 $ 406,621.22 $ 348,613.56 $ 907,930.22 $ 43,680.57 $ 12,310.35 $ 11,408.82 $ 67,399.74 Wine 120,755.81 212,140.97 168,665.56 501,562.34 68,176.57 188,072.26 157,969.96 414,218.79 52,579.24 24,068.71 10,695.60 87,343.55 Beer 68,213.07 146,017.57 109,330.07 323,560.71 43,819.10 133,379.19 95,187.63 272,385.92 24,393.97 12,638.38 14,142.44 51,174.79 Mix and Miscellaneous 5,608.10 12,244.31 10,332.60 28,185.01 4,075.60 12,971.21 9,752.52 26 799.33 1,532.50 726.90* 580.08 1,385.68 _ $ 390,952.99 789,334.42 $ 648,350.61 $1,828,638.02 $ 268,766.71 $ 741,043.88 $ 611,523.67 $1,621,334.26 $122,186.28 $ 48,290.54 $ 36,826.94 $207,303.76 Less bottle refunds 13,622 06 28,741 98 25,934.55 68,298.59 9,409.48 27,163.25 23,829.77 60,402.50 4,212.58 1,578.73 2,104.78 7,896.09 NET SALES $ 377,330.93 $ 760,592.44 $ 622,416.06 $1,760,339.43 $ 259,357.23 $ 713,880.63 $ 587,693.90 $1,560,931.76 $117,973.70 $ 46,711.81 $ 34,722.16 $199,407.6' 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 Purchases 331,183.34 675,512.24 578,321.56 1,585,017.14 290,919.39 610,501.07 502,972.45 $ 499,729.41 $ 943,947.17 $ 801,875.29 $2,245,551.87 $ 388,375.60 $ 844,931.72 $ 725,545.47 Inventory May 31 184,582.87 302,653.10 269,183.42 756,419.39 169,613.83 243,346,37 223,640.86 $ 315,146.54 $ 641,294.07 $ 532,691.87 $1,489,132.48 $ 218,761.77 $ 601,585.35 $ 501,904.61 GROSS PROFIT $ 62,184.39 $ 119,298.37.$ 89,724.19 $ 271,206.95 $ 40,595.46 $ 112,295.28 $ 85,789.29 554,459.88 71,089.86 1,404,392.91 40,263.95 $1,958,852.79 $111,353.81 636,601.06 14,969.04 $1,322,251.73 $ 96,384.77 $ 238,680.03 $ 21,588.93 34,004.28 65,011.17 $ 99,015.45 59,306.73 $ 39 708.72 7,003.09 980.71 106,074.85 75,349.11 180,624.23 $ 76,329.82 $286,699.08 45,542.56 119,818.33 $ 30,787.26 $166,880.75 $ 3,934.90 $ 32,526.92 OPERATING EXPENSES: Selling 21,836.96 32,666.49 26,499.82 81,003.27 18,032.06 29,797.81 25,236.96 73,066.83 3,804.90 2,868.68 1,262.86 7,936.44 Overhead 12,533.87 18,548.15 13,151.09 44,233.11 7,638.92 13,785.23 12,469.07 33,893.22 4,894.95 4,762.92 682.02 10,339.89 Administrative 18,341 51 27;232.49 20,726 91 66,300 91 18,015.20 22,069.13 20,460.14 60,544.47 326.31 5;163.36 26_6.77 5,756.44 TOTAL OPERATING $ 52,712.34 $ 78,447.13 $ 60,377 82 $ 191,537 29 $ 43,686.18 $ 65,652.17 $ 58,166.17 $ 167,504.52 $ 9,026.16 $ 12,794.96 $ 2,211.65 $ 24,032.77 EXPENSES NET OPERATING $ 9,472.05 $ 40,851.24 $ 29,346.37 $ 79,669.66 $ 3,090.72 *$ 46,643.11 $ 27,623.12 $ 71,175.51 $ 12,562.77 $ 5,791.87* $ 1,723.25 $ 8,494.15 PROFIT OTHER INCOME: Cash Discount 5,452.20 11,335.62 10,389.92 27,177.74 4,466.70 9,790.11 8,240.89 22,497.70 985.50 1,545.51 2,149.03 4,680.04 Cash over or under 56.86 60.48* 23.26 19.64 35.11* 78.66* 120.20 6.43 91.97 18.18 96.94* 13.21 Income on investments 1,218.46 1,218.46 -0- -0- 1,218.46 1,218.46 Other 625.55 625.55 540.77 540.77 84.78 84.78 $ 7,353 07 $ 11,275 14 $ 10,413 18 $ 29,041 39 $ 4,972 36 $ 9,711.45 $ 8,361.09 $ 23,044.90 $ 2,380.71 $ 1,563.69 $ 2,052.09 $ 5,996.49 NET INCOME $ 16,825.12 $ 52,126.38 $ 39,759.55 $ 108,711.05 $ 1,881.64 $ 56,354.56 $ 35,984.21 $ 94,220.41 $ 14,943.48 $ 4,228.18* $ 3,775.34 $ 14,490.64 PERCENT TO NET SALE_ S: Gross profit 16.48% 15.68% 14.42% 15.41% 15.65% 15.73% 14.60% 15.29% Operating expenses 13.97 10.31 9.70 10.88 16.84 9.20 9.90 10.73 Operating profit 2.51% 5.37% 4.72% 4.53% 1.19 %* 6.53% 4.70% 4.56% Other income 1.95 1.48 1.67 1.65 1.92 1.36 1.42 1.48 NET INCOME 4.46% 6.85% 6.39% 6.18% .73% 7.89% 6.12% 6.04% CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Deposits Working Fund Contracts Receivable 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: Allm-rance for Depreciation and Amortization CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets Unappropriated LIQUOR FUND BALANCE SHEET CITY OF EDINA As At June 30, 1979 ASSETS TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS $ 21,083.61 658,333.27 224,284.44 3,035.55 $906,736.87 �— $ 220,923.89 3,500.00 $ 224,423.89 64,653.34 415,000.00 $ 356,871.09 347,121.97 38,106.24 742,099.30 $ 2,171.50 400.00 2,571.50 $1,448,748.03 $ 233,784.60 210,758.31 695,978.56 929,763.16 . $2,378,511.19 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES $ 190,762.07 5,342.50 $ 196,104.57 $ 929,763.16 1,252,643.46 2,182,406.62 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $2,378,511.19 LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDINA Six Months Ending June 30, 1979 and June 30, 1978 1979 1978 INCREASE - DECREASE* 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total SALES: Liquor $ 245,622.49 $ 522,021.29 $ 457,728.55 $1,225,372.33 $ 196,834.80 $ 504,669.37 $ 435,176.78 $1,136,680.95 $ 48,787.69 $ 17,351.92 $ 22,551.77 $ 88,691.38 Wine 145,949.49 258,060.87 207,185.75 611,196.11 87,800.19 225,596.86 189,213.37 502,610.42 58,149.30 32,464.01 17,972.38 108,585.69 Beer 90,507.08 191,961.73 148,592.88 431,061.69 61,094.57 173,866.79 126,449.55 361,410.91 29,412.51 18,094.94 22,143.33 69,650.78 Mix and Miscellaneous 7,649.21 16,267.19 14,272.89 38,189.29 5,721.10 16,665.07 12,936.44 35,322.61 1,928.11 397.88* 1,336.45 2,866.68 $ 489,728.27 $ 988,311.08 $ 827,780.07 $2,305,819.42 $ 351,450.66 $ 920,798.09 $ 763,776.14 $2,036,024.89 $138,277.61 $ 67,512.99 $ 64,003.93 $269,794.53 Less bottle refunds 16,969.15 24,987.02 32,766.00 85,722.17 12,165.14 33,617.06 29,722.74 75,504.94 4,804.01 2,369.96 3,043.26 10,217.23 N ET SA LES $ 472,759.12 $ 952,324.06 $ 795,014.07 $2,220,097.25 $ 339,285.52 $ 887,181.03 $ 734,053.40 $1,960,519.95 $133,473.60 $ 65,143.03 $ 60,960.67 $259,577.30 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 416 091.55 835 619.47 710 365.42 1,962,076.44 350 572.16 743 321.39 610 033.08 1,703,926.63 65 519.39 92 298.08 100 332.34 258 149.81 $ 584,637.62 $1,104,054.40 $ 933,919.15 $2,622,611.17 $ 448,028.37 $ 977,752.04 $ 832,606.10 $2,258,386.51 $136,609.25 ,$126,302.36 $101,313.05 $364,224.66 Inventory June 30 188,841.67 300,097.38 253,160.25 742,099.30 161,748.62 229,208.22 204,677.37 595,634.21 27,093.05 70,889.16 48,482.88 146,465.09 $ 395 795.95 $ 803,957.02 $ 680 758.90 $1,880,511.87 $ 286,279.75 $ 748,543.82 $ 627,928.73 $1,662,752.30 $109,516.20 $ 55,413.20 $ 52 830.17 $217,759.57 GROSS PROFIT $ 76,963.17 148,367.04, 114,255.17 339,585.38 53,005.77 $ 138,637.21 106,124.67 $ 297,767.65 4 23,957.40 9,729.83 8,130.50 $ 41,817.73 OPERATING EXPENSES: Selling 25,947.70 $ 38,807.75 32,961.30 97,716.75 21,990.53 35,700.92 30,074.77 87,766.22 3,957.17 3,106.83 2,886.53 9,950.53 Overhead 15,562.95 22,467.97 17,348.49 55,379.41 10,835.70 17,783.29 15,236.19 43,855.18 4,727.25 4,684.68 2,112.30 11,524.23 Administrative 21,600.73 31,756.20 24,415.54 77,772.47 21,150.30 25,275.69 24,275.69 71422.34 450.43 5,759.85 139.85 6,350.13 TOTAL OPERATING 63,111.38 $ 93,031.92 $ 74,725.33 $ 230,868.63 $ 53,976.53 $ 79,480.56 $ 69,586.65 $ 2039043.74 $ 9,134.85 $ 13,551.36 $ 5,138.68 $ 27,824.89 EXPENSES NET - OPERATING $ 13,851.79 $ 55,335.12 $ 39,529.84 $ 108,716.75 $ 970.76 *$ 59,156.65 $ 36,538.02 $ 94,723.91 $ 14,822.55 $ 3,821.53* $ 2,991.82 $ 13,992.84 PROFIT OTHER INCOME: 22,829,06 $ 69,251.52 $ 52,575.88 $ 144,656.46 $ 4,999.88 $ 71,065.48 $ 46,742.31 $ 122,807.67 $ 17,829.18 $ 1,813.96* $ 5,833.57 $ 21,848.79 PERCENT TO NET SALE: 16.28% Cash Discount 7,039.19 13,970.16 .12,952.58 33;961.93 5,430:03 11,980.95 10,025.70 27,436.68 1,609.16 1,989.21 2,926.88 6,525.25 Cash over or under 36.76 74.74* 47.32 9.34 48.11* 72.12* 178.59 58.36 84.87 2.62* 131.27* 49.02* Income on investments 1,218.46 4.83% Operating profit 1,218.46 -0- -0- 1,218.46 1.76 1.34 1,218.46 Other 682.86 20.98 46.14 749.98 588.72 588.72 94.14 20.98 46.14 161.26 $ 8,977.27 $ 13,916.40 $ 13,046.04 $ 35,939.71 $ 5,970.64 $ 11,908.83 $ 10,204.29 $ 28,083.76 $ 3,006.63 $ 2,007.57 $ 2,841.75 $ 7,855.95 N ETIN COM E $ 22,829,06 $ 69,251.52 $ 52,575.88 $ 144,656.46 $ 4,999.88 $ 71,065.48 $ 46,742.31 $ 122,807.67 $ 17,829.18 $ 1,813.96* $ 5,833.57 $ 21,848.79 PERCENT TO NET SALE: 16.28% 15.58% 14.37% 15.30% 15.62% 15.63% 14.46% 15.19% . Gross profit 13.35 9.77 9.40 10.40 15.91 8.96 9.48 10.36 Operating expenses 2.93% 5.81% 4.97% 4.90% .29%* 6.67% 4.98% 4.83% Operating profit 1.90 1.46 1.64 1.62 1.76 1.34 1.39 1.43 Other income N ETINCOM E 4.837 7.27% 6.61% 6.52% 1.47% 8.01% 6.37% 6.26% A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAA FOR SUBURBAN AND RURAL HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, the question of whether there is a need for a CAA to serve suburban and rural Hennepin County, and what organizational form is most appropriate if a CAA should be established, has been under study for the past year; and WHEREAS, this review has indicated that the County's lower income citizens will benefit from the establishment of a CAA that can build on and complement the activities of the existing Human Service Councils; and WHEREAS, a task force representing the three Human Service Councils has developed an organizational model designated the "Linkage Model ", which will enable a CAA to be organized while retaining the Human Service Councils and making the fullest use of their existing planning, management and ser- vice-capabilities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby urge the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to accept the recommenda- tions of the task force and establish a CAA for suburban and rural Hennepin based on the "Linkage Model ", with the following reservations: 1. That no Director be hired for the CAA; 2. That the size of the Board be as small as possible in accordance with CAA regulations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the present task force be designated as the interim board to implement the formulation of the CAA. ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 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 August 20, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 21th day of August, 1979. City Clerk RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that that certain plat known as Crosstown Hill, platted by Cardarelle.& Associates, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and Citizens State Bank, a Minnesota Corporation, and pre.= sented at the Edina City .Council Meeting of August 20, 1979, be and is hereby granted final.plat approval, subject to the receipt of a subdivision dedication fee of $4,000 and.the receipt of an agreement that only one curb cut will be made to the property from Vernon Avenue. ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 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 meeting of August 20, 1979, and as recorded in the minutes of said Regular Meeting, and that a subdivision dedication fee of $4,000 has been received, along with an agreement that only one curb cut will be made to the property from Vernon Avenue. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 11th day of September, 1979. City Clerk Zc e 7 -T-0 4XJ'AjrY11,,x,,-T- Af- &IP 7 0 -4140 7e A-v e" 0 IV C/l, A'w.7 —7 g; rwl 17 37 �I&IX Ole -7-0 �lel — Swrt- 3 z-1 /73Z ilLI ./ -; >, CG " j o4 + / o4 2 G c) 31- 11-7-.:-71 - a- 3 -0o73 "0 -5� -� September 5, 1979 Mr. Russell Stricker, Director South Hennepin Human Services 9800 Penn Ave. S. Bloomington, 11N 55431 Dear Mr. Stricker: Enclosed herewith,is a corrected copy of the.Resolution Supporting the. Development of a CAA for Suburban and Rural Hennepin County which was adopted by,the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 20, 1979. If possible, I•would appreciate the rdturn of the original resolution which I sent to on ou August 21 1979. Y E Yours very .truly, City Clerk enclosures (11) August 21, 1979 Mr. Russell Stricker, Director South Hennepin Human Services 9800 Penn Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55431 Dear Mr. Stricker: Enclosed herewit#His a copy of the Resolution Supporting the Development of a CAA for Suburban.and Rural Hennepin County wnich was adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 20, 1979. Wurs very truly, City Clerk enclosure A RESOLUTION _ J SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAA FOR - SUBURBAN AND RURAL HENNEPIN �TY e� s T WHEREAS, the question of whether there is a need for a CAA to serve suburban and rural Hennepin County, and what organi- zational form is most appropriate if a CAA should be esta- blishede has been under study for the past year, and .WHEREAS, this review has indicated that the County's lower income citizens will benefit from the establishment of a CAA that can build on and complement the activities of the existing Human Service Councils, and WHEREAS, a task force representing the three Human Service Councils has developed an organizational model designated the "Link - age Model ", which will enable a CAA to be organized while retaining the Human Service Councils and making the fullest use of their existing planning, management and service capa- bilities, NOW, THEREFORE,, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby urge the Hennepin County Board of Com- missioners to accept the recommendations of the task force and establish a CAA for suburban and rural Hennepin based on the "Linkage Model ".and to designate the present task force as the interim board to implement the formulation of the CAA. Adopted this day of 1979. } f MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: KENNETH ROSLAND, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY - SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY DATE: AUGUST 20, 1979 Friday afternoon Commissioner Kremer; Councilmember Schmidt; David Farinelli, County Planning; Mark Bernardson, Ralph Campbell and I met and discussed the proposal developed by the three Human Services Councils. The major points of the proposal are: - To make 50 -60 poverty programs available to poor persons in the area it must be done through a Community Action Agency (CAA). (Food stamps, Emergency Energy Assistance, etc.) - Service to surburban Hennepin is currently being handled through Minneapolis and Scott - Dakota CAA's. - A suburban CAA may give better control and availability when handled locally. - The only increase in funds coming into suburban_Hennepiii::will most likely be because more people can avail themselves of the programs with little, if any, extra coming in. - The CAA model selected would be one where CAA has a small staff (2 -3 people) which contracts wit other agencies and organizations to deliver services. - CAA is independen of�but will probably deliver at least some services thru the Human Sery ce Councils. - CAA will be governed by a board of which 1/3 of the representatives are from the public sector, 1/3 from the private and 1/3 representing the poor. - The CAA program can be revised, redesigned or eliminated by the County should something indicate need for such. Edina always has the option of removing itself from participation. Given the contracting model, the Human Relations Committee forwarded the proposal recommending approval. Commissioner Kremer has not had an opportunity to adequately study the new proposal and is reserving judgement. Based on the current model, it is recommended the Council give its endorsement to the plan with the provisos: M Memorandum Mayor.and Council Page 2 a) that it should remain a small staff contracting for service instead of a large staff giving direct service, b) that should the South Hennepin Human Services Study indicate a better set -up for the programs CAA delivers, that it can be altered at that point. Should you have further questions, June Schmidt, Leslie Turner, Mark or I will be happy to discuss it. 0 City Manager KR:md 1 6 YOU, ARE INVITED TO: SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL'S SECOND ANNUAL JOINT MEETING WITH CITY OFFICIALS August 22, 1979- 8:00 - 10:00 A.M. Breakfast Meeting L'Hotel de France AGENDA 8:00 A.M. Breakfast*- 8:30 A.M. 1. Welcome, introductions - Norris'Olson, Chairperson South Hennepin Human Services - Council 8:40 A.M. 2. Overview.of Comprehensive Study of Human Service Needs in the South Hennepin Area - Russ Stricker, Executive Director, South Hennepin Human Services Council 8:55 A.M. 3. Hennepin County's response and participation in the study - David Parachini,- Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development 9:10 A.M. 4. What should the study accomplish? Kenneth Rosland, City Manager, Edina �',: John Pidgeon, City Manager, Bloomington Roger Ulstad, City Manager, Eden Prairie Karl Nollenberger, City Manager, Rich.field 9:30 A.M. 5. Open discussion - comments, concerns and criticisms regarding the Comprehensive Study and future Human Services Council activities 10:00 A.M. 6. Adjourn *RSVP by August 17, 1979 so an accurate number of reservations -can be scheduled (888- 5530). We are asking for $3.00 from each person to cover a portion of the costs (A collection box will be available at the meeting), Thank you. Serving:, Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Richfield 9801 Penn Avenue South •, ' Room 100 • Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (612) 888 -5530 7 •� l THE MINNEAPOLIS • .t Copyright 1979 Minoeapo9a 46r and Tribune Company Monday, July 30, 1979 y�rrefl L_ binnapla hYTOa I /ff Yl.e/ J \J '.« b.' fr,3i si ur. r"!- x"11 a ".,!� .Y @9 rr� tom: �� � ,� • r ., •, o fn ­A e o e... r 1 .,-4 J*dd e"n oor, . By DEBRA L. BUCK Minneapolis Star Staff Writei At the end of the month an el- To stretch her resources, she sets derly woman living in a Hopkins' her thermostat at 50 degrees in the high -rise runs low on money and winter, burns candles after dark, food. Her $160 monthly social se- and does without a telephone. curity check hasn't arrived yet. So In Mound, a young woman and she stretches her meals with cat- her five -year old son live in a home food. i with no running water. The well is A poorly insulated summer cabin broken and they have no money to near Lake Minnetonka is home for,, .flx it. -To use the toilet or shower an elderly, impoverished woman.: or to wash dishes, they must go to, - — ;a neighbor's home. She has little .money, no job, no car, no husband., He has left her. In a few months,, the mortgage on her small house ,le , ;';to be'foreclosed. I These examples of poverty In,, Minneanolls -area suburbs are .ex- treme, but they symbolize'the kind of deprivation that most people. as -- suma does not exist thel e. "The poverty found in the subur- ban area is just as severe as the poverty found in the inner city," concludes a report prepared by the West Hennepin Human,, Services' agency. Outreach workers from the agency, who attempt to identify needy suburban residents and refer them to sources of help, say they have been shocked by the severity of poverty they've discovered. "It never occurred to me that poverty was as widespread and prevalent as I found it," said Nan - cy Triplett, an outreach worker for West Hennepin. "I found people living with just the bare necessi- ties. People have a house and noth- ing else. Trying to keep their houses - warm (in winter) took all of their money." " According to several outreach' workers, poverty in the suburbs Is hidden. Impoverished families are not concentrated .iu decaying, slum -like pockets, as they often are in big cities. Instead, they are scattered from Bloomington to Mound to Brooklyn Park. They're even in the most affluent sub- urbs— Edina, Minnetonka, Excelsi- or, Galden Valley and others. In many cases, the indigent are concealed by' the facade of well West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board 4100 Vernon Avenue South St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 920 -5533 - - Poor Turn to Page 4A .� �' .. ,- } Flt w a •�'' _1L '.« b.' fr,3i si ur. r"!- x"11 a ".,!� .Y @9 rr� tom: �� � ,� • r ., •, o fn ­A e o e... r 1 .,-4 J*dd e"n oor, . By DEBRA L. BUCK Minneapolis Star Staff Writei At the end of the month an el- To stretch her resources, she sets derly woman living in a Hopkins' her thermostat at 50 degrees in the high -rise runs low on money and winter, burns candles after dark, food. Her $160 monthly social se- and does without a telephone. curity check hasn't arrived yet. So In Mound, a young woman and she stretches her meals with cat- her five -year old son live in a home food. i with no running water. The well is A poorly insulated summer cabin broken and they have no money to near Lake Minnetonka is home for,, .flx it. -To use the toilet or shower an elderly, impoverished woman.: or to wash dishes, they must go to, - — ;a neighbor's home. She has little .money, no job, no car, no husband., He has left her. In a few months,, the mortgage on her small house ,le , ;';to be'foreclosed. I These examples of poverty In,, Minneanolls -area suburbs are .ex- treme, but they symbolize'the kind of deprivation that most people. as -- suma does not exist thel e. "The poverty found in the subur- ban area is just as severe as the poverty found in the inner city," concludes a report prepared by the West Hennepin Human,, Services' agency. Outreach workers from the agency, who attempt to identify needy suburban residents and refer them to sources of help, say they have been shocked by the severity of poverty they've discovered. "It never occurred to me that poverty was as widespread and prevalent as I found it," said Nan - cy Triplett, an outreach worker for West Hennepin. "I found people living with just the bare necessi- ties. People have a house and noth- ing else. Trying to keep their houses - warm (in winter) took all of their money." " According to several outreach' workers, poverty in the suburbs Is hidden. Impoverished families are not concentrated .iu decaying, slum -like pockets, as they often are in big cities. Instead, they are scattered from Bloomington to Mound to Brooklyn Park. They're even in the most affluent sub- urbs— Edina, Minnetonka, Excelsi- or, Galden Valley and others. In many cases, the indigent are concealed by' the facade of well West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board 4100 Vernon Avenue South St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 920 -5533 - - Poor Turn to Page 4A t , .'(Poor, trom Page IA) kept homes in pleasant neighbor- hoods. "Behind those nice homes with aluminum siding and well -mani- cured lawns are people with no food," said Nancy Anderson, a sen- ior citizen outreach worker with the'.Mizpah'United Church of Christ in Hopkins. On the Inside, she' added, "the wallpaper is peel- ing an4 there are cracks in the ceil- ing "k have lived 1n Hopkins all of my life. When I was growing up it seeq]ed tliat everybody. was not well off, abut they were comfort.' able: Then I discovered all of a sud- den that people on the very street where I used to ride my bike aren't making It." Many of the suburban poor are elderly: They are trying to survive on fixed monthly incomes that, in InflationaryAimes, don't cover the costs of • living. Generally, howev- er, the suburban--poor are the working poor, those whose low, wages are barely enough to make gads meet. A large percentage of the poor are divorced women trying to sup- port families on low wages or tak- ing Aid to Families With Depen- dent Children.as their only source of income. Divorcees and the elder - ly make up the majority of the oc- cupants of low- and moderate -In- come- housing developments,in the' suburbs.- In 1978, welfare records show, Brooklyn Park had the highest monthly average number of AFDC casesin Hennepin County, with 675 families. Not !far behind was Brooklyn Center, with 606. Offi- cials of both communities point out that they have subsidized housing and 'a large number of older apart- ment buildings with relatively low rents that tend to attract lower -in- corre tenants,. In comparison, Bloomington had a monthly average of .398 AFDC case in ' 1978; St. Louis Park, 346; Richfield, 218; Hopkins, 185; Gold- en Valley, 120, and Edina, 89, ac- cording to the Hennepin County's', Economic Assistance Department. Brooklyn Park also led the 1978 list of food stamp recipients with an average of 444 a month. Brook- lyn Center has 285; Bloomington, 242; Richfield, 209; St. Louis Park,' 189 and Hopkins, 129. Other welfare records reveal that a higher percentage of subur- ban welfare recipients than Minne- apolis recipients receive food stamps as well as some other form of public assistance. In Minneapo- lis, 71 percent of welfare recipients are enrolled in one or more pro - grams. In the suburbs, 84 percent A of the welfare recipients get one of more kinds of.aid. 'Special problems Living in the suburbs poses spe- cial problems for low- income peo- ple. A car is almost a necessity, be- cause bus' transportation to and from downtown Minneapolis often is. Infrequent and inconvenient. But for the poor, maintaining a car and 1 driving several miles into the city further drains already limited in -d comes. Those who doti't" work and can-1 not afford cars or recreational ac -,, tivities are oftgn isolated in their; homes. Lack of transportation used to mean that many suburban resi- dents were =4)le to apply for public assistance. It had been too hard for them to get downtown, where all the +, elfare and' food stamp offices we a located. But now, offices have been moved to St. Louis Park,. Bloom- ington, Brooklyn Park and Brook- lyn Center. However; these need- ing emergency food stamps and those applying for a category of aid called general assistance still,, must-go downtown. For the most part, federal-relief' . programs are not readily accessible, ()'11,n uburban residents. the Inner city, all one's friends and neighbors are poor and there is program after program for poor people," said West Henne- pin's Triplett. "Out here (in the suburbs) there is no network of programs for the poor." Because -many suburban r•si- dents aren't aware that they might qualify for assistance, the goal of the suburban outreach workers Is to find the. whereabouts of the t needy and to refer them to various sources of help -local emergency. relief agencies, programs such as congregate dining or Meals on Wheels; and federal programs such as food stamps, AFDC and emer- gency fuel assistance. But the suburban poor are scat- tered, so finding them is no easy task, said Triplett. Publicizingin- formation about sources of help is, difficult because there is no central place to tack up posters or drop off leaflets. "It is hard to spread the word," she said. And that difficulty can make it, hard to spread the benefits. Minne- apolis has only about 40 percent of Hennepin County's population, ac- cording to the Metropolitan Coun- cil. But about 69 percent of Henne- pin County's AFDC' recipients live In Minneapolis. The remaining 30 percent .of those recipients are dis- persed throughout the suburbs, which represent nearly 60 percent, of the county's population. Similar patterns persist for other benefits: � . • About 80 percent of the coun- ty's food stamp recipients live in • Minneapolis and about 18 percent , `live in the suburbs. • Fifty -eight percent of those re- 4eiving medical assistance live in 1 Minneapolis. • Minneapolis accounts for 6,1 percent of those receiving old age assistance, • Minneapolis residents com- prise 60 percent of the county's , ;caseload for assistance to the dis- abled. *Distribution of subsidized housing is uneven, too. According to tte Metropolitan Council, 32,000 units of low and moderate income housing are available in the Minne- apolis area. Sixty -five percent of those units are located is Minne- apolis. • Demand for subsidized housing In the suburbs far outweighs the supply,. says Nancy Reeves, direc '--tor-of the Metropolitan Council's housing', division. In many cases,, she says, residents who seek such housing in the suburbs must wait at least a year before getting an apartment. The council has a vvait- ing list of 1,500 names. Finding the needy and informing 'them of available assistance is only half the battle, outreach workers said. The other half is convincing ,the needy to accept the help. Often the poor, particularly the elderly, are reluctant to accelit any assis- tance. 'They are proud' The elderly "won't accept help' that Is offered," said Gunilla' Bjork- man -Robb, a senior citizen out - . reach worker in St. Louis Park. "You've got to convince them that they have been working and pay- ing taxes all their lives and that , this (assistance) is something they are entitled to. "They are proud. They don't want to show their poverty. They dress up, keep their houses clean - and neat. They don't; want to show that they don't have money for .� themselves or their houses." For the elderly to get food stamps, they must buy them from JEW 40 a local bank, Bjorkman -Bobb said. "a Getting to the x bank might be x difficult for ` some residents .; without auto - s mobiles, and - ''` that, coupled with the stigma . of being poor in the suburbs, dis - ? >>„ courages many i from seeking > _ food stamps. Triplett More people might accept food stamps, said Bjorkman -Bobb, if they were mailed to recipients or dispense(' more discreetly. O Rather than accept public assis- tance, many of the suburban poor. choose to try to make it on ,their own. "One St. Louis Park couple bad In cut back on their medication or- der to pay their fuel bills. Yet, they ,were hesitant to accept food vouchers," said Triplett, who co- ordinated West Hennepin's emer- ; gency fuel assistance program last winter. Under the fuel assistance pro -' _ gram, those persons with outstand- , ingg fuel and utility bills became ell - gible for $250 in credit towards, • those bills. ,In addition, those who •' could prove they sacrificed on food- order to keep utility bills paid .in were eligible for $250, in grocery store credit. In another case, said Tr.plett, a woman who feared embarrassment `requested that her food vc achers be redeemed at a store that was 20 miles away from where she lives. The stigma can be profound. "It Says Triplett: would help for people, particularly those around Lake Minnetonka, to knovi that . they aren't the only ones who are fir.„ _ Begpoor in feels worse,,. when everyone around t*s 4ffl uent Mound woman and her 5 -year -old son live in a home with no running water - dishes have-,to be "done at neighbors By DEBRA.L. BUCK'.' UCK ' Minneapolis Star Staff Writer Poor people in the suburbs face a problem the urban poor don't: the stigma of living In poverty in the midst of affluence:. Some Minnetonka school offi- cials, for example,' might take it for granted that a student's parents are able to pay $5 for field trips. and $15 fees for after- school ac- tivities. But Nancy Sailor, a single parent who lives in Minnetonka with her four children, can't afford. those things. Her paychecks don't leave much room for extras. Sailor lives In "Archer Heights, Minnetonka's only .housing- for low- income families and the elder- ly. "By the time I paid rent ($191, which is fixed by formula at a fourth of her monthly Income)," she said, "we had $47 left over for groceries and gas for two weeks." Sailor's junior high school daughter` qualified for the senior high track team but was unable to participate because ' sbe doesn't have a. way home after school. Most students' parents can pick them up after school. But • Sailor has to use her car for work. Gasoline and car maintainance are big expenses for Sailor. She works In downtown Minneapolis and drives back and forth on weekdays. if she took a bus, she says she wouldn't get to work on , time. It takes her more than an hour to get to downtown Minne- apolis from Minnetonka. Buses run so Infrequently that she couldn't catch a bus in the evenings. Sailor's children, ages 16, 15, 12, and 10, like other children, are in- fluenced by their peers. They want to dress fashionably and to have the same things their friends have. "Do you know what it's like to tell a 5th - grader that he can't have a bike when everybody else has one ?" she .asks. "Do you know, what it's like to tell a child he can't, ,have a'pair of,tennis'shoes when he is standing.;,there, cryjng,,day after day ?" . Sailor's children say they are hesitant to bring friends from more well -to -do families. to their sparse- ly furnished, ' home. "If' somebody picks me up, T meet them (at' a nearby ,intersection)," said 571 year -old Renee. "I never hive friends drop me.,off here."Al1•!ly friends are rich." _ - Although Sailor has a college de-. gree, she too, is reluctant to Invite Sailor: ' i= Turn to Page 4A J ' Star Photo by Tom Sweeney -]Nancy Sailor and her children at mwn ean:es Archer Heights it Wo"oe to be "Poor when others are rich (Sailor, from Page 1A) her professional colleagues to her home. "The people I associate with are predominately professional people and college graduates," she says. "They own their own homes. I feel uncomfortable inviting them out here." Sailor would like to own a house some day, but doubts that she'll ever be able'to. "As a single parent, it is impossible (to buy a house) un- less you have a large downpay- ment," skid Sailor. "When you are trying to raise a family, it is impos- sible to save. It's a hand -to -mouth existence." Sailor has been-divorced 10 years. As in the case of many of the Archer Heights residents, she supports her family alone, without help from her former husband. After her divorce, Sailor won a scholarship to the University of Minnesota, where she studied full - time. During that period, she also worked full- time —from 4 p.m. to 2 a.m. —to support her family. Upon graduation, she became a high school teacher in Hopkins. But after a year, she was laid off because of declining enrollment. She took another job with Anoka County Hospital, and because, of cutbacks, she was ilaid off there, too. Then Sailor pumped gasoline for three years. One of her regular customers offered her a job as manager of a diamond store. Now she's making more than before. But she still has to scrimp to make . ends meet.'' Because she has a better job, -she no longer qualifies for food stamps or any aid programs. She says she's only a little better off than before. Being able to live-in a comfort- able, clean home for a moderate price is a big help to Sailor, and other Archer Heights residents: ' Another single parent moved there two years ago because she couldn't afford the heating costs of the old farmhouse in which she used to live. She works in Minne- tonka to support herself and her two children. Her- salary Is less than $9,000 a year. The woman, who asked not to be Identified, senses that many Min- netonka residents frown. upon Ar- cher Heights. When she tells peo- ple in the community that she lives there, she says the reaction is simi- lar too','Oh God, you live in those slums. "They think'the buildings are ugly, that they are an eyesore. "They don't realize how nice. they ' are. There are no rodents or bugs here. They don't realize we need these places. We live in this hous- ing because we have to. It's all we can afford.- . "A lot of people think that in Minnetonka there is no real need," the' woman said. "But we are in need. Most of, the people I work with have a husband working and bringing home. a good paycheck. Most of us „(in ..Archer Heights) don't.” I • Agencies offer help f6r, poor 111, Suburbs "'A '.By DEBRA L. BUCK • Minneapolis Star Staff Writer Several volunteer relief agencies, operate in the Minneapolis-area suburbs for people who need tem- O�lp, IyKe.,'are a few of P e th e The St. Louis Park Emergency Program, 41st Street and Vernon Avenue, St. Louis Park, provides food and clothing assistance, driv- ers for medical appointments and one-to-one visits to residents in the St. Louis Park area. 0 'The Volunteer Emergency As- sist4hce Program, 7000 S. Nicollet Ave., Richfield, provides those same kinds of services to needy residents of Bloomington, Richfield and•Minneapolis south of 50th Street. oThe Community Emergency Assistance Program, 7100 Brook- lynblvd., Brooklyn Center, pro- videp food,' furniture, transporta- tiont,clothing and meal deliveries and Visits to residents of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Centef. *In the Eden Prairie area, Peo- ple Reaching Out to other People, 6935 Mariann Drive, Edell Prairie, provides emergency food, clothing and transportation. • In Mound, St. Vincent De Paul provides emergency food, clothing, shelter and other general assis- tance. 0 In addition to these volunteer services, federal emergency fuel- assiStance money is avaliable through Hennepin County each winter to qualifying households. ln�.the past, the majority of emer- gency'fuel-assistance funds had gone to Minneapolis residents be- cause Minneapolis City Hall, where they were being dispensed, was "totally inaccessible to suburban people," said Marcie Shapiro, West .Hennepin director. L4st winter, however, the group manned service centers in Mound, St. Lolis Park, Minnetonka, Plym- outh, Maple Plain and Excelsior. In addition, South Hennepin Services and Northwest Hennepin Services distiibuted funds in their respec-; tive'suburban areas. "We also spent a lot of time edu- cating people about the service," sai(CShapiro, "because most people haven't had experience with these kinds of programs." - The West Hennepin Service group Is also attempting to estab- lish'a community action agency in the •guburbs, like the one in Minne- apolis. In addition, the group has formed a food and nutrition coun- cil and is attempting to establish a food co -op for needy people In the subqrbs. r Aid to area s poor Monthly average number of recipients of Aid for dependent Medical General Food 1978 children assistance assistance dUmpi4 population Bloomington ............ 398 357 54 .242';'..Y77,990 Brooklyn Center ..... 606 117 45 285 33,700 Brooklyn Park ......... 675 63 44 444 39,010. Crystal ..................... 286 164 19 80 27,840 Eden Prairie ............ 30 5 • 2 49 12,330 Edina ......................... 10 _3,0 18,920 Exceisior .................. 25 22 35 2,970 Goldell Valley 120 310 24 70 23,230 ............ Hopkins ... i ............... 185 133 21 129. •15,180; Maple Grove ............ 22 19 5 17 .15,470 Minnetonka ............. 72 84 23 50 40,850 Mound ...................... 76 20 12 86 9,290 New Flope ................ 325 268 16 285 22,630 Plymouth ................. 87 66• 33 48 28,040 Richfield .................. 350 218 39 209 42,250 Robbinsdale ............. .119 218 26 83 14,580 St. Louis Park ......... . 346 680 53 189 44,540 Wayzata .................. 17 16 12 47 4,230 Sources, Hennepin County Economic Assistance Department and Metropolitan Council