The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979-12-17_COUNCIL MEETING(Revised) AGENDA EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 1979 ROLLCALL MINUTES of December 3, 1979, approved as submitted or corrected by motion of , seconded by RESOLUTION.OF APPRECIATION - POLICE OFFICERS DAVID P. HEMBRE AND G. RONALD MUNDALE I. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Reading requires offering of Zoning 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 Deci -- sions and Plan Amendments require action by Resolution only. A. Zoning Change and Preliminary Plat Approval 1. First Reading a. Findell 3rd Addition - R -1 Residential District and R -3 Multiple Residential District - Generally located South of W. 70th Street and West of Cahill School - Z -79 -9 and S -79 -15 (11/28/79) B. Zoning Change 1. First Reading a. Braemar Associates - R -1 Residential District to PRD -3 Residential District - Generally located in the Northwest quadrant of W. 78th St. and Cahill Road - Z -79 -10 (11/28/79) b. Condor Corporation - R -1 Residential District to PRD -3 Residential District - Generally located East of Lincoln Drive, North of Edina West Condominiums and South of Fabri -Tek - Z -79 -11 (11/28/79) II. CABLE TV FRANCHISE HEARING - Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by City Manager. Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass (Continue to 1/21/80) III. GENERAL REVENUE SHARING HEARING Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by City Manager. Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. IV. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS V. AWARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES A. Garbage and City Collection from City Properties B. Dump Truck with Box C. 1/2 Ton Pickups D. 3/4 Ton 4 X 4 Pickup E. 3/4 Ton Pickups F. 10,000 CV14 Truck G. Snow Blower I. Utility Boxes - Sewer & Water Trucks J. Visibars - Emergency Vehicles K. Street Sweepers Council Agenda December 17., 1979 Page Two VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of December 12, 1979 B. T.H. 100 Bridge Deck Repair (Continued from 12 /3/79) C. Morningside Area Garbage D. Indianhead Lake Inversion E. Year End Council Meeting F. Special Concerns of Mayor G. Salary Schedules H. Post Agenda and Manager's .ollection System — December 27, 1979 - 5 p.m. and Council Miscellaneous Items VII. ORDINANCES First Reading Requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote if Second Reading should be waived. A. First Reading 1. Ordinance No. 110 -A1 - Amendment to moratorium on low and moderate income housing 2. Building Department Ordinances VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. Joint Use Rental Agreement - Metropolitan Waste Control Commission B. Community Health Services C. User's Agreement - Portable Breath Tester - State of Minnesota IX. FINANCE A. Budget Transfers B. Claims Paid: Motion of , seconded by for payment of the following claims as per Pre -List: General Fund, $186,125.65; Park Fund, $11,656.21; Art Center, $1,880.09; Park Construction, $59,308.47;, Swimming Pool, $1,,068.53; Golf Course, $6,939.06; Arena, $12,061.75; Gun Range, $243.94; Water Fend, $5,470.36; Sewer Fund, $97,072.67; Liquor Fund, $650,414.32; Construction, $431,111.33; IBR #22 $1,500,315.00; Total, $2,963,667.38; and for confirmation of payment of the following claims: General Fund, $25,577.34; Park Fund, $50.32; Water Fund, $26.00; Liquor Fund, $146,449.79; Construction, $1,628.80;.Total, $1732732.25 qpEDINA 4801 WEST 50TH STREET. EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 612- 927 -8861 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, bon the past 6ou teen yeau the Edina Citizen.d' Satiety Counei.Z and the Edina PoZi.ce Depahtment have eoopetated in an on- going e6 Sort toward promoting b.ieyeee sa6ety in the City o6 Edina; and WHEREAS, as membetus of the Edina Pot ice Department, 044.iceAZ David P. Hembne and G. Ronatd Mundate have whotehean tedZy pah ti.e i.pated in the SicycZe Satiety Pnognam, uh.ing the A expexti�se ass potice o6jicenb to take any action which might prevent b.icycZe accidents; and WHEREAS, the Bdcyete Sa4ety Bnoehune, pnodueed by the Ci tize"' Satiety Councit under the guidance o� 066.icelz Hembne and Mundate, has been ei, cutated in the schoo.2a and haz been avaitabte in the. ;PoZice DepaAt- ment bon aU nea.iden ts ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Councit joiw the Edina Citizew' Sasety Councit in expnezz ing appneciatc:.on to DAVID P. HEMBRE AND G. RONALD MUNDALE jon giving Aso geneAou.6ty o6 thew time and expeAtise in the 6.ietd o6 b.icyc2e ba6ety. ADOPTED th us 17th day o j DecembeA, 1979. Jamey Van VatkenbuAg Ma yon REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, Administrative Assistant VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: December 14, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Three ton dump truck Quotations /Bids: Company 1. Bill Boyer /LaHass 2. Superior Ford 3. Freeway Ford 4. International Harvester /Minneapolis 5. International Harvester /Savage Department Recommendation: : -0 -- - rc� Amount of Quote or Bid $ 19,572.53 19,677.00 19,874.00 20,348.00' 20,577.00 Recommend award to Bill Boyer /LaHass as low bidder. AdministrationlW(, /,� A%,��f L Signatur Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is 5�j— is not within the amou bud eted for the purchase �) Ak!!;b . J — . N. Dalen Finance Director. City Ma ger's Endorsement: L/ 1. I concur with the recommendation of, the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Kerrneth Rosland City Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, Administrative Assistant VIA: Kenneth Rosland., City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: December 14, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): One street sweeper (Public Works) Quotations /Bids: Company BASIC 1. Itasca Equipment $ 53,740 2. Macnueen 68,085 Department Recommendation: Amount of Quote or Bid LESS TRADE -IN NET BID $ 13,870 7,000 $ 39,870 61,085 Recommend award of bid to Itasca as low bidder. Administration��1��.kf Signa a Department ff Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is [X�] is not =within the "am o b dgeted for the purchase. im 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: Kenne-tH Rosland City Manager RE UEST° FOR PUIICIIASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Craig G. Swanson, Chief of P.olice VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: November 23, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Six Federal Signal Corporation Police Light /Sound Systems as described in attached specification sheets. Quotations /Bids: Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Law Enforcement Equipment Supply $5104.20 3604 Main, Kansas City, Mo., ($850.70 ea) 2, Weber & Troseth Co., 1902 University Ave., St. Paul, Mn., $5700.00 ($950.00 ea) 3. Uniforms Unlimited 5609 Lyndale Ave. So., Minneapolis, Mn., $4182.06 / ($697.01. ea) ✓ Department Recommendation: Recommend purchase from low bidder, Uniforms Unlimited, 5609 Lyndale Ave. So., Minneapolis, Mn. Charge Acct 10 -4908- 420 -42 � J` _Police Signature Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is is not within the amount budgeted for the purchase. J.'N. Dalen, Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council ap rove the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: i Kenneth Rosla 'Pd, City Manager I_ . 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: 13 December 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Fiberglass Utility Boxes for.3 /4 ton Water and Sewer Trucks Quotation /Bids: Company Amount of'Quote or Bid j. LaHass Mufacturing & Sales, Inc. $8,038.00 2. Charles Olson & Sons. 8,122.50 3. '. Department Recommendation: LaHass Manufacturing &.Sales, Inc. - $8.038.00 Public Works Signature Department. Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is is not 0 within a un udgeted for the purchase. . N. Ualen Finance Director City Mana er's Endorsement: of the Department and recommend Council 1. I concur with the recommendation p approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: sl Kennet i cos , Ci tv ttanacier REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, Administrative Assistant VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: December 14, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): One snow blower (Public Works) Quotations /Bids: Company I- McMullen 2. 3. Department Recommendation: -7- _ C Amount of Quote or Bid $ 23,424.00 Recommend award to McMullen Company as sole bidder. Administration Signature Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is (S�:] is not within the amou budgeted for the purchase. J. N. Dalen Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: Z,14. 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Kenneth Rosland City Manager REOUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, Administrative Assistant VIA: Kenneth Rosland., City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: December 14,.1979 Material Description (General Specifications): 10,000 GV[4 Truck (Park) Quotations /Bids: Company 1. Freeway Ford 2. Superior Ford 3. Bill Boyer Department Recommendation: Amount of Quote or Bid $ 8,349.00 8,349.00 8,459.46 Recommend award of tied bids to Freeway Ford, based on proximity to City shops for repair. G 914, 1 IL Administration .6. Signatur Department Finance Director's Endorsem nt: The recommended bid is is not 0 within the amoun budgeted for the purchase. J. N. Dalen Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I reconmiend as an alternative: Kenneth Rosl-and City Manager TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: DATE: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE Mayor and City Council Mark Bernhardson, Administrative Assistant Kenneth Rosland; -City Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 December 14, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Two - 3/4 ton ijcc{up trucks (Water Dept.) Quotations /Bids: Company 1. Superior Ford 2. Freeway Ford 3. Bill Boyer 4. Malkerson Department Recommendation: Amount of Quote or Bid $ 12,244.00'x' 12,294.00 12,424.72 12,941.54 Recommend award to Superior Ford as low bidder. Administrationn��Y��JF Sign re Department Finance Director's Endorse nt: The recommended bid is is not 0 within the amount b dgeted for the purchase. Y� J. 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: TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: DATE: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE Mayor and City Council Mark Bernhardson, Administrative Assistant Kenneth Rosland, City Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 December 14, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): 3/4 ton 4 " "X 4 pickup truck (Fire Dept.) Quotations /Bids: Company 1. Freeway Ford 2. Superior Ford 3. Midway 4. Bill Boyer Department Recommendation: V'f) Amount of Quote or Bid BASF + 100 AMP Alt. /Skid Package $ 7,736.00 Not Bid 7,774.00 $ 71884.00 7,841.00 7,921.00 8,039.49 8,098.81 Recommend award to Superior rd as lowest bidder able to provide 100 alternator and skid a k g f fuel tank protection. Adminstration Signature Department Finance Director's Endorsem nt: The recommended bid is is not Cjwithin the am o t ud IN d for the purchase. J. . Dalen Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: L,-,'l. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, Administrative Assistant VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: December 14, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Two - 1/2 ton pickup trucks (Public Works) Quotations /Bids: Company -1. Freeway Ford 2. Midway 3. Malkerson 4. Superior Ford 5. Bill Boyer Department Recommendation: 1-c Amount of Quote or Bid $ 11,016.00 11,552.00 11,609.22 11,680.00 12,083.54 Recommend award to Freeway Ford ��v��✓�,, Administration r Signatu Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is [$ ] is not 0 within the amount budgeted for the purchase. J. N. Dal n Finance Director City Magrager's Endorsement: l' 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: KennetF Rosland City Manager. CITY OF EDINA 4801 W. 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 NOTICE -OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CABLE TV FRANCHISE THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL will meet on Monday, January 21, 1980, at 7:00 p.m. to consider the adoption and approval of franchising documents and author - izing Southwest.Suburban CATV Study Commission to distribute documents and to arrange applicant hearings. All interested persons are urged to attend. BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL. Florence B. Hallberg City Clerk RESOLUTION _ "- - BE IT RESOLVED 'that the City of Edina enter-'into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety for the following purpose, to -wit: To provide authority.for the City to receive from the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, ALERT J3A portable breath test unit or units on a loan basis. The unit or units are to be used by City law enforcement officers to assist them in the detection of motor- ists who may be in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 169.121; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager be and they are hereby authorized to execute such agreement. DATED this 17th day of December, 1979. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of December 17, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 21st day of December, 1979. Cityr- -Clerk REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, Administrative Assistant VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 3.S DATE: December 13, 1979 J� Material Description (General Specifications): Refuse Pickup — City Properties Quotations /Bids: Company j, Able Sanitation 2. 0 Department Recommendation: Amount of Quote or Bid Cost per cubic yard: $ 4.37 ;a Cost per receptacle: $ 1.28 Estimated yearly cost: $ 20,679.15 Recommend award of one year contract to sole bidder, Able Sanitation Administration gnature Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is is not = within the amount b d to for the.purchase. J. N. Dalen Finance Director C::�7 ger's Endorsement: . I con cur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Kenneth Rosla.nd City Manager Community Development and Planning Commission Ibvember 28; 1979 Page 4 that each unit had two parking spaces, exceeding the City ordinance, and only 22% of the land coverage would be buildings. He indicated that.;.the biggest problem he had was external parking ,,since exterior parking.meant that trees may have to be cut down. Mr..Barron said he wanted -to protect the natural environment, therefore he added nine more interior parking units to the plan. - - - _ Mr. Barron stated that he reduced the entraces from Delaney from four to two. He presented the plans for each unit to the Commission and explained the features of the layout. A general discussion followed of the units and layout of the buildings. David Runyan asked Mr. Barron if the City had checked out his plans and okayed them, i.e: engineering, fire department, sewer and water, building inspectors. Mr. Barron responded yes to all of the above. Gordon. Johnson moved approval subject to the contingencies recommended by the staff, i.e. final zoning conditioned on final platting, subdivision dedication and proper berm to be placed along Delaney Boulevard. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. A79 -11 Condor Corporation. R -1 Single Family to PRD -3 Residential District. Craig Larsen stated that the subject property measured approximately.sixteen acres in area and was bounded by Fabri -tek on the north and Edina West Condominiums on the south. The site was shown in the.Western Edina. Plan as a transitional area between industrial uses to the north and residential uses to the south.and east. The plan, in fact, designated one half the site for industrial uses and one half-for multiple residential uses. Mr. Larsen pointed out that several years ago the Planning Commission indicated that the most appropriate use for the site was multiple residential. The Western Edina Plan was not ammended to designate this use, staff had since advised prospective developers that multiple residential uses were appropriate for the site. In 1972, the Commission reviewed and approved a petition to PRD -3 for this property.. The plans approved at the time delineated eight condominium buildings containing a total of 180 units (i.e. 11.1 units per acre) with a total building coverage of 15.4% and hard surface coverage of 13.1 %. The plans were approved by the City Council and the property was rezoned to PRD -3. Following the 'rezoning, the developer did not proceed with the project and a new owner acquired the property. In 1975, the new owner requested that the property be zoned .back to R -1, the Commission and Council agreed to this request. Community Development and Planning Commission November 28, 1979 Page 5 Mr. Larsen explained that the present proponent (Condor Corporation) was requesting a rezoning to PRD -3 Planned Residential District for the site. Condor Corporation is proposing three condominium buildings containing a total of 162 units, 1.25 underground parking stalls per unit and .75 exposed stalls per unit are provided. Mr. Larsen continued that the basic concept of the development was to take advantage of the sloping topography of the site which grades from a high of 920 at Lincoln Drive to 870 at the easterly property line. The most westerly building would have a first floor elevation of 895. Thus, the three buildings would "step" down the slope in order to.provide maximum views. The buildings would be oriented toward Nine Mile Creek and public open space rather than toward the industrial uses to the North. The proposed building elevations and orientations as well as the locations of parking areas and access roads on the northerly portion of the site would also lessen the projects impact on Edina West Condominiums to the South. The site was extensively regraded by a mining operation in 1974, thus, the easterly two thirds of the site was largely devoid of vegetation. The proponent was attempting to use the more level portions of the site for building placement in order to preserve the remaining topographical features. The small pond located on the south property line and the floodplain on the easterly portion of the site would be preserved. From a density standpoint, the proponent was requesting approximately ten units per acre or a reduction of one unit per acre from the 1972 project and two units per acre from the Western Edina Plan maximum of twelve units per acre. The proponent reviewed the subject property in light of the density clarification plan adopted by the Council in 1975. Based upon this review, the proponent found an allowed density of 9.4 units per acre which would allow approximately 150 units on the site. Staff pointed out that proposed multiple residential use of the property conformed with the spirit of the Western Edina Plan and part direction from the Commission, and that the proposed plan of three condominium buildings which step down the slope is a proper design concept for the site. Staff commented that the present proposal provided for reduced density, reduced building coverage (15.4% compared to about 13 %) and reduced hard surface coverage (13.1% compared to about 12 %). The proponents also preserved the natural features of the site, i.e. the pond and floodplain area. Staff advised some modifications to the proposal. 1. Staff thought that the access road along the northerly portion of the site should be a public road. This would be appropriate in that the proponent would request a three lot subdivision of the property which would land lock two lots if a public road were not provided. Staff suggested a fifty foot right of way for this road, consequently, some adjustments would be necessary to achieve the required thirty five foot setback from the right of way. 2. The most easterly building should be adjusted to provide a thirty five foot setback from the south property containing approximately 150 units. Thus, the Commission should consider the limitation of twelve units from the project. Although the buildings were desirably oriented toward Nine Mile Creek, Community Development and Planning Commission November 28, 1979 Page 6. staff would encourage -the proponent to modify the straight alignments of the buildings -and parking areas in order to lessen the visual impact of the project. Staff recommended approval based on the afore mentioned suggestions and the following conditions: 1. Final zoning conditioned on final platting. 2. Final zoning conditioned on submission of an acceptable overall development- plan.' 3_. A grading:. permit_ from -the; Nine -Mile Creek Watershed .District. Final platting would be conditioned on 1. Subdivision dedication. 2. Developer's Agreement. Linda Fisher representing the developer, Condor Corporation, introduced herself. and the following people to the Commission: Greg de- Monceaux, architect; Jim Smuda, Condor Corporation. Ms. Fisher began her presentation by submitting visual graphics to illustrate her points. She informed the Commission of the site plan location and indicated such on the graphics She stated that the new plans she was submitting were in conjunction with the recommendations of the staff, i.e. the plans would show a public road. Ms. Fisher elaborated that the proposed condominium was designed to keep existing topography and vegetation and was oriented away from Edina West Condominiums. She continued by pointing out the recreational areas -and added that the plans met all the requirements of the planned residential district. Ms. Fisher stated that through locations of the units, road and building designs, disturbance of the grading and vegetation area would be minimized. The developers plan to add more vegetation as a buffer from Edina West. Ms. Fisher continued that they planned for 162 units which would be approximately 10 units per acre•on the sixteen acre site which was consistent with the density allowable under.the Planned Residential District Ordinance. She pointed out that it was consistent with the Western Edina Land Use Plan, medium density, multiple residential designation which allowed the maximum of 12 dwellingsper acre. Ms. Fisher observed that the proposed development was less dense with substantially less site coverage..than -other developments that had been approved by the City. She asked the Commission to.:recall that in 1973, the City Council approved a rezoning of.the property, the same site, from.R -1 to.PRD -3 to allow an 11.1 unit per acre development that had substantially greater coverage than the present proposal. There were eight buildings, twenty four .unit and twenty one unit buildings. The developer calculated that their building coverage was approximately 12% while their surface coverage was 15.4%.' She noted that the surrounding developments, i.e. Edina West and Fountinwoods were approximately 12 units per acre - density, .which is greater than the present project. Linda Fisher responded to a question which was raised by the staff concerning the effect of a density reduction ammendment to the western area plan in the South and Southwest Edina area plan;'.she stated that she had reviewed the density report and found no definitions or guidelines to interpret the report. A question that arose in the proponent's mind was what good would be achieved by using the formula.. She pointed out that if the formula was intended to reduce the impact on the environment it may not achieve its purpose. One could comply with Community Development and Planning Commission November: 28, 1979 Page 7 the density formula and reduce the number of units on the site, have larger individual units instead -of the average, have a larger building and end up with greater site coverage and still have fewer density units.... Ms. Fisher clarified that raw density is not always, especially in this case, .a significant environmental factor. To summarize the presentation, Ms. Fisher stated that the proposal was consistent with the ordinance and the Western Edina Land Use Plan; it is .consistent with the findings of the Planning Commission and City Council which they must make in finally.approving a development; it has preserved and put to use vegetation and topography; it provides open space and recreational amenities; and it has no significant impact on the surrounding properties. Following the presentation, there were some general questions regarding parking location, interior /exterior ratios. Greg du- Monceaux stated that the proposal had 1.25 interior parking stalls and .75.exterior stalls. Craig Larsen .added that.the proponent had not met the thirty five foot setback from the street on the north end and the south side. The proponents acknowledged that they did not have adequate setbacks but would adjust the setback to conform to the ordinance. Del Johnson noted that the building on the South West corner was ver close to Edina West Condominiums and asked for.the.proponent'_s.response. Mr. du- Monceaux noted that they were aware of that problem and had discussed different options, e.g. possibly swinging the angle of the building to decrease the distance between the two buildings or reducing the length of the building and an additional story be added to the building. Eli Bud, a member of the audience, wondered what the possibilities were of Condor building a fourth story. Staff indicated that the four story proposal would not conform to the Western Edina Plan. A resident of Edina West, name unknown, asked the proponents what the distance was.between building A and B, the response was 110 to 125 feet. The resident responded that he was concerned that the proposed building would block his view. Mr. de- Monceaux pointed out that Edina West was designed so that all its buildings faced that property line, and the proponent had done his best to design the 'buildings to minimize the impact between the two buildings while trying to maintain the existing topography. David Runyan pointed out that the proponents were meeting requirements, doing everything correctly, but felt the building was.not appealing to look at since it was 500 feet long. Greg de- Monceaux responded.•that several schemes were considered that had more shape but found that they were inconsistent with .characteristics of the site. Jim Smuda said that the angle . of the building was significant in that the minimum curve to the building would minimize -the massiveness. A general discussion followed regarding the size of the units and length of the buildings. Mr.. Bud, owner of an Edina West condominium wondered if the proponent planned to 'put ventilation mechanisms on the roof. Mr. Smuda responded aYes, but mechanical equipment would be screened by a parapit. Community Development and Planning Commission November 28, 1979 Page 8 Bill Edgeton from Edina West stated that his biggest concern was the topography of the land and the closeness of his building to the proponent's building C. A general discussion followed concerning the density of the building. Bob Peterson from Edina West echoed Mr. Edgeton's concern regarding the closeness of the building. Linda Fisher and Greg du- Monceaux both stressed their point to follow the topography of the land. More discussion followed considering the possibility of swinging or pivoting Building C to minimize the distance or 'lowering the building._, Dick Seaberg asked Frank Hoffman if there would be traffic problems since most of the traffic would flow onto Vernon. Mr. Hoffman said there shouldn't be any problem on Vernon. Helen McClelland moved that.the zoning be changed to PRD -3 with the following conditions: that there would be a public road with a 50 foot right of way on the northern edge of the,property as the staff requested; that the most easterly building be adjusted so that it had the proper setbacks from both public road and the southern boundary; that the density be limited to 150 units; final zoning is'conditioned on final platting; final zoning conditioned on submission of an acceptable overall development plan; grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District; subdivision dedication and developer's agreement. Gordon Johnson made an ammendment that all twelve units come off of Building C. Del Johnson seconded the motion. All voted ay64_the- motion carried. - (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION) CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street. Edina, Minnesota 55424 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, on Monday, Deeember 17, 1979, at 7:00 p.m. and will at said time and place __ -- - -- -consider the following: 1. Rezoning Request by Findell and Clark from R -1 Single Family District, and R -3 Multiple Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District, generally located south of West 70th Street and west of Cahill Road and east of Cahill School. 2. Preliminary Plat of Findell Third Addition. Generally located south of West 70th Street and west of Cahill Road and east of Cahill School. 3. Rezoning Request by Crossroads Development from R -1 Single Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District, generally located south of West 70th Street and west of Cahill Road and east of Cahill School. 4. Rezoning request by Braema Associates from R -1 Single Family to PRD -3 Residential District, generally located in the northwest guadrant of 78th Street and Cahill Road. 5. Rezoning Request by Condor Corporation from R -1 Single Family to'PRD -3 Residential District, generally located east of Lincoln Drive, north of Edina West Condominium and south of Fabri -tek. All recommendations and objections will be heard at said meeting. BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL. FLORENCE B. HALLBERG City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun on Wednesday, December 5, 1979. Please send 5 Affidavits of Publication. a �1 fll.l IT, I Iv LERRY �j\ NCyr -4 l�l ��1tF CRIVE tJ ~ O o- Condor Corporation REQUEST NI ,IBER : - Z-79-1-1 LOCATION: REQUEST • R -1. Sind Fi mi 1 y to PR -3 1•' cat � Residential District j jll„••v 21,11m, ti7 ,,. 1,•w,r m,,!,j -- .j(1n,•�• COMMUNITY DEVEI.01'11 ENT STAFF REPORT November 28, 1979 Z- 79 -11 Condor Corporation. R -1 Single Family to PRD-3 Residential District. REFER TO: Attached graphics - - -- -- The subject property measures approximately sixteen acres in. area and 'is bounded by Fabri -tek on the north and Edina West Condominiums on the "south. This site _ was shown in the Western Edina Plan as a transitional area between industrial uses to the north and residential uses to the south and east. The Plan, in fact, designated one half the site for industrial uses and one half for multiple residential uses. Several years ago the Planning Commission, after reviewing this area, indicated that the most appropriate use for the site was multiple residential. Although the Western Edina Plan was not amended to designate this use, staff has since advised prospective developers that multiple residential uses are appropriate for this site. In 1972, the Commission reviewed and approved a petition to PRD -3 for this property. The plans approved at that time delineated eight condominium buildings containing a total of 180 units. (i.e. 11.1 units /acre) . These plans proposed a total building coverage of 15.4% and hard surface coverage of 13.1 %. These plans were subsequently approved by the City Council and the property was in fact rezoned to PRD-3. A copy of the 1972 plans is attached for your reference. Following the rezoning, the developer did not proceed with the project and a new owner acquired the property. In 1975, the new owner requested that the property be zoned back to R -1. The Commission and Council agreed to this request. The present proponent (i.e. Condor Corporation) is now requesting a rezoning to PRD-3 Planned Residential District for the site. As shown on the attached pre- liminary plans, three condominium buildings containing a total of 162 units are proposed. In accordance with ordinance requirements, 1.2.5 underground parking stalls per unit and .15 exposed stalls per unit are provided. The basic concept of the development is to take advantage of the sloping topography of. the site which grades from a high of 920 at Lincoln Drive to 870 at the easterly.property line. The most westerly building would have a first floor elevation of 920 while the most easterly building would have a first floor elevation of .895. Thus, the three buildings would "step" down the slope in order to provide maximum views. The buildings would be oriented toward Nine rule Creed and public open space rather than toward the industrial uses to the north. The proposed building elevations and orientations as well as the locations of parking areas and access roads on the northerly portion of the site would also lessen the,'project's impact on Edina West Condominiums to the south. Community Development Staff Report Z -79 -11 Condor Corporation November 28, 1979 Page 2 � T. ,:' / h From an environmental standpoint, it should be noted that the site was extensively regraded by a mining operation in 1974. Thus, the easterly two thirds of the site is largely devoid of vegetation. The proponent is attempting to use the more level portions of the site for building placement in order to preserve the remaining topographical features.. In addition, the small pond located -- on the south property line and the floodplain on the easterly portion of -the site would be preserved. From a density standpoint, the proponent is requesting approximately ten units per acre or a reduction of one unit per acre from the 1972 project and two units per acre from the Western Edina Plan maximum of twelve units per acre. The proponent has reviewed the subject property in light of the density clarification plan adopted by the Council in 1975. Based upon this review, the proponent found an allowed density of 9.4 units per acre which would allow approximately 150 units on the site. Recommendation: Staff believes that proposed multiple residential use of the property conforms with the spirit of the Western Edina Plan and part direction from the Commission. Staff also .believes that the proposed plan of three condominium buildings which step down the slope is a proper design concept for the site. As compared to the previously approved plan in 1972, the present proposal provides for reduced density, reduced building coverage (15.4% compared to about 13 %) and reduced hard surface coverage (13.1% compared to about 12 %). In addition, the natural features of the site including the pond and floodplain area have been preserved. Staff suggests some modifications to the proposed plans. First, staff believes that the access road along the northerly portion of the site should be a public road. This is appropriate in that the proponent -will request a three lot sub- division of the property which would land lock two lots if a public road were not provided. Staff suggests a fifty foot right of way for this road.- As a result, some adjustments will be necessary to achieve the required thirty five foot setbacks from this right of way. Second, the most easterly building should be adjusted to provide a thirty five foot setback from the south property line. Third, according to the density clarification amendment, the site should contain approximately 150 units. Therefore, the Commission should consider the elimination of twelve units from the project. Four, although the buildings are desirably oriented toward Nine Mile Creek, staff would encourage the proponent to modify the straight alignments of the buildings and parking areas in order to lessen the.visual impact of the project. With these suggestions, staff recommends concept approval with the following conditions: Community Develojiment Staff Report Page 3 7. -79 -11 Condor Corporation November 28, 1979 1. Final zoning is conditioned on final platting. 2. Final zoning is conditioned on submission of an acceptable overall development plan. 3. A grading permit from the Nine Mile Creed Watershed District. Final platting will be conditioned on: -- - - -1 -- Subdivision dedication 2. Developer's agreement 4 t lKl, Af A- P--,)) i., C; Z 0 BRAEMAR ASSOCIATES IIEQL*E--,,r Nt mm:n : 7. -79-10 LMATION: RE(1UESI': - o PRD-3 Residential District CMUNITY DEVELOPMTt NM STAFF REPORT November 28,J979 Z -79 -10 Braemar Associates. R -1 Single Family to PRD-3 Residential District. REFER TO:Attached graphics The Cormission will recall that it has considered development proposals for the subject property on several occasions during the past one and a half years. In August, 1978, the Commission granted preliminary approval for forty one townhouses on the subject property which measured 6.1 acres in area. Soil investigations later showed that this plan was not feasible. The proponents, thereupon, petitioned for a rezoning of the subject property to 0 -1 Office District. This petition was denied by the Commission and.City Council. Subsequent to the consideration of the 0 -1 proposal,. the City completed condemnation proceedings and acquired a 4.3 acre parcel of property located westerly of the subject property. This parcel was acquired for Delaney Boulevard and a storm water ponding area. The Commission will recall that it encouraged the addition to the subject property of that portion of the condemned parcel located easterly of Delaney Boulevard. The City and the proponents have reached a preliminary agreement on the addition of this residual parcel to the subject property. Based upon this preliminary agree- ment, the proponents would acquire density credits for the entire 4.3 acre parcel acquired by the City, eventhough only 1.25 acres would be incorporated into the subject project. The proponents have submitted a new petition to rezone the property to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. As shown on the attached plans, eight three story condominium buildings containing eighty nine units are proposed for the subject property. Access to the project would be totally from Delany Boulevard. As shown, 1.8 parking stalls per unit would be provided by under building parking and .5 stalls per unit would be provided by exposed parking. A small pond would be developed in the low area located on the east central portion of the site. Recommendation: Staff believes that the proponents have submitted an excellent development plan for the subject property. The condominium buildings have been located so as to minimize the alteration of the slopes and wooded areas located on the perimater and west central portion of the site. The development of the low area as a pond will provide an excellent amenity for the project. Staff recommends that the plan should be modified to reduce the number of curb cuts on Delaney Boulevard. Staff would also note that-parking within the thirty five foot setback.from Delaney Boulevard would require variances. Community Development and Planning; Commission Staff Report November 28, 1979 Z -79 -10 Braemar Associates With these modifications, staff recommends preliminary approval with the following conditions; 1. final zoning is conditioned on final platting 2. subdivision dedication ^ `1 zr / �i i ; � . -' 1 " -; :: •i � 1. •� i ' \� �� ! ,,��I ;' `� �' `� �'- � �\ �- ;J•.C�J � •'� 1 r- ;, I +ate �'..f, ,,� :..: ` . f � �'i ` S• �:�: �.n' /�i% � `\\ \� ' ��1y` `; it .�J T' E_ PLA N ,.ale i " -,o =o• If � zo .f'; L I M N - ��'�) ��`\��G. it 4'�. f ; _� \`�^ \�\G� I '�:� - -rT:� ;t �_•- .;rr!- ROOM �f _�;\ ��:: � y �� __� �' %j� �.A . /•� - ' ' .i i ��` ° 1 i ,.. �- //"��•• ��,� __RED. -.. { , 2.2-70 I_ Lb -E II ; I v IV � �_ .. ..._ . -- -� �- ��.�,. --•-- it _. ... -- =- 2.2-70 I_ Lb -E Community Development and Planning Commission November 28, 1979 Page 3 Z -79 -10 Braemar Associates. R -1 Single Family to PRD -3 Residential District. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that several development proposals for the subject property have been considered during the past year and a half. In August, 1978, the Commission granted preliminary approval for forty one townhouses on the subject property which measured 6.1 acres in area. The plan was not feasible after soil investigations. The proponents then petitioned for a rezoning of the subject property to 0 -1 Office District. The petition was denied by the Commission and City Council. Subsequent to the consideration of the 0 -1 proposal, the City completed condemnation proceedings and acquired a 4.3 acre parcel of property located westerly of the subject property. The parcel was acquired for Delaney Boulevard and a storm water ponding area. The proponents and the City reached a preliminary agreement on the addition of this parcel to the subject property. Based upon the preliminary agreement, the proponents would acquire density credits for the entire 4.3 acre parcel acquired by the City, even though only 1.25 acres would be incorporated into the subject project. Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the proponents had submitted a new petition to rezone the property to PRD -3, Planned Residential District. The eight condominium buildings would be three stories, containing eighty nine units in the subject property. The project would be accessible only from DelareyBoulevard. 1.8 parking stalls per unit would be provided by under building parking and .5 stalls per unit would be provided by exposed parking. In the low area, located on the east central portion of the site; a small pond would be developed. The staff observed that the proponents had submitted an excellent plan, locating the buildings so as to minimize the alteration of the slopes and wooded areas located on the perimater and west central portion of the site. Staff pointed out that the development of the low area as a pond would provide an excellent amenity for the project. Staff recommended that the plan be modified to reduce the number of curb cuts on Delaney Boulevard. Snaff noted that parking within the thirty five foot setback from Delaney Boulevard would require variances. Mr. Larsen said that the staff recommended preliminary approval with the conditions that 1. final zoning was conditioned on final platting and 2. subdivision dedication. There was a general discussion between Mr. Larsen and the Commission in order to clarify where the thirty five setback was from Delaney Boulevard. Gordon Johnson asked Jack Barron, developer for Braemar Associates what he planned to do with the area between the street and parking lot. Mr. Johnson wondered if Mr. Barron would be willing to berm that area. Mr. Barron responded that he would be willing to. Mr. Barron presented preliminary plats and informed the Commission of his plan. He stated that he was trying to create a noise shadow from Highway 494, and was trying to provide mostly underground parking. He pointed out -� 0 � ! Community Development and Planning Commission Nouember 28, 1979 Page 4 that each unit had two parking spaces, exceeding the City ordinance, and only.227. of the land coverage would be buildings. He indicated that the biggest problem he had was external parking , since exterior parking meant that trees may have to be cut down. Mr. Barron said he wanted to protect the natural environment, therefore he added nine more interior parking units to the plan. Mr. Barron stated that he reduced the entraces from Delaney from four to two. He presented the plans for each unit to the Commission and explained the features of the layout. A general discussion followed of the units and layout of the buildings. David Runyan asked Mr. Barron if the City had checked out his plans and okayed them, i.e. engineering, fire department, sewer and water, building inspectors. Mr. Barron responded yes to all of the above. Gordon Johnson moved approval subject to the contingencies recommended by the staff, i.e. final zoning conditioned on final platting, subdivision dedication and proper berm to be placed along Delaney Boulevard. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. Z -79 -11 Condor Corporation. R -1 Single Family to PRD -3 Residential District. Craig Larsen stated that the subject property measured approximately sixteen acres in area and was bounded by Fabri -tek on the north and Edina West Condominiums on the south. The site was shown in the Western Edina Plan as a transitional area between industrial uses to the north and residential uses to the south and east. The plan, in fact, designated one half the site for industrial uses and one half for multiple residential uses. Mr. Larsen pointed out that several years ago the Planning Commission indicated that the most appropriate use for the site was multiple residential. The Western Edina Plan was not ammended to designate this use, staff had since advised prospective developers that multiple residential uses were appropriate for the site. In 1972, the Commission reviewed and approved a petition to PRD -3 for this property... The plans approved at the time delineated eight condominium buildings containing a total of 180 units (i.e. 11.1 units per acre) with a total building coverage of 15.4% and hard surface coverage of 13.1 %. The plans were approved by the City Council and the property was rezoned to PRD -3. Following the rezoning, the developer did not proceed with the project and a new owner acquired the property. In 1975, the new owner requested that the property be zoned back to R -1, the Commission and Council agreed to this request. MINUTES TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 12, 1979 10:00 A.M. -_ Members present: Fran Hoffman - Chairman Gordon Hughes Gene Bartz Craig Swanson Alison Fuhr Lowell Holman Members absent: None Others present: None SECTION A Requests on which the Committee recommends approval as requested or modified, and the Council's authorization of recommended action. 1. Paint a pedestrian crosswalk on Southview Lane at the intersection of Southview Lane and the east frontage road of Highway 100. Request from Diane Gramling, Edina East school teacher, to mark Southview Lane with a pedestrian crosswalk in the area between the north faculty parking lot and the school building. ACTION TAKEN: Captain Holman advised the Committee that the requested location for a pedestrian crosswalk is approximately 30 feet east of the intersection of Southview Lane and the east frontage road of,Highway 100. Because of the close proximity of the requested crosswalk with the intersection of Southview Lane and the frontage road, the Committee recommends that the requested crosswalk be moved 30 feet to the west and therefore be located at the intersection of Southview Lane and the east frontage road where there is currently a stop sign in existence. Chief Swanson moved that the Committee recommend painting a pedestrian crosswalk on Southview Lane at the intersection of Southview Lane and the east frontage road of Highway 100. Motion seconded by Captain Holman. Motion carried 6 -0. 2. Remove current "NO PARKING ANYTIME" signs from the east side of Gleason Road from Dewey Hill Road to Schey Drive. Request from Joe Schueneman, 7313 Gleason Road, to remove the current "NO PARKING ANYTIME" signs on the east side of Gleason Road from Dewey Traffic Safety Committee Minutes December 12, 1979 Hill Road to Schey Drive. ACTION TAKEN: Page 2 Fran Hoffman advised the Committee that he received a letter from Mr. Schueneman stating that all the residents on Gleason Road affected by the signing have been contacted and they all agree they want the "NO - - PARKING ANYTIME signs removed from the east side of Gleason-Road. Fran Hoffman moved that the Committee recommend removal of the current "NO PARKING ANYTIME" signs on the east side of Gleason Road from Dewey Hill Road to Schey Drive. Chief Swanson seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 -0. SECTION B Requests on which the Committee recommends denial of the.request. 1. Request from the City of Richfield to have the City of Edina consider a "STOP" sign for southbound Xerxes Avenue at West 70th Street. The City of Richfield has received a request for a "STOP" sign for north- bound Xerxes Avenue at West 70th Street. This intersection would then be a 4 -way stop. (Deferred from November meeting.) ACTION TAKEN: Fran Hoffman advised the Committee that he has talked to the chairman of the Richfield Traffic Safety Committee and he was advised that the Richfield City Council felt there wasn't the necessary warrants to install a "STOP" sign on their side of Xerxes Avenue, but if Edina would install one on their side of Xerxes Avenue then Richfield would install one on their side of the street. Richfield has had mostly rear -end type accidents at this intersection while Edina has had failure -to -stop- for- the - stop -sign type accidents on their side of the intersection. Both Richfield's and Edina's Traffic Safety Committees feel additional "STOP" signs at this intersection are not warranted. Chief Swanson moved that the Committee recommend denial of the request due to lack of warrants, but that the City of Edina replace the current "STOP" sign -for eastbound West 70th Street at Xerxes Avenue with a larger "STOP" sign constructed of high intensity sheeting. Motion seconded by Captain Holman.. Motion carried 6 -0. SECTION C Requests which are deferred to a later date or are referred to others. NONE. Traffic Safety Committee Minutes Page 3 December 12, 1979 Gordon Hughes moved the meeting be adjourned. Motion seconded by Gene Bartz. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Lowell Holman, Secretary Edina Traffic -- Safety Committee V STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND RECOMMENDED TRANSFER FOR YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1979 Mayor and Council Planning Administration Finance Election Assessing Legal and Court Public Works: Administration Engineering Other For Year 1979 (1,050) 1,100 Estimated 229,059 2049013 Transfer 25,100 Expenditures Appropriation Balance To From Remarks $ 26,339 26,520 181 1,340,278 1,384,941 851-688. 80,461 (5,227) $ 5,300 Part -time help for Metro plan and overtime 17511253 176,401 1,148 $ 1,000 Lower cost of contractual services 149,481 166,250 16,769 16,600 Lower cost payroll(auto license).Lower cost computer services 10,432 9,218 (1,214) 1,300 Service voting machines 117,213 128,730 11,517 11,400 Lower cost payroll. Services 95,382 78,000 (17,382) 17,400 Higher cost - prosecuting attorney $3500;professional services $7,000;County -Court costs $5,000;and board and room prisoners $1900 Police Protection :� �L_ °re*_ection Civilian Defense Animal Control Health Inspection Contingencies Settlement of Suits Special Assessments on City Property Central Services - Capital outlay Capital Improvements Commissions and Special Projects 48,226 47,176 (1,050) 1,100 Higher payroll cost 229,059 2049013 (25,046) 25,100 Higher payroll cost. Summer help and overtime(more construc- tion projects) 1,340,278 1,384,941 44,663 44,000 Lower cost payroll $55,100; Higher cost forester $9,000; Rubbish hauling $4,000; lower cost commodities $1,900 10497,251 1,504,519 7,268 7,000 Less cost contractual services $5,200; Capital Outlay $5,000; Higher cost payroll $3,200 890,220 8559458 (34,762) 34,900 Higher cost payroll - overtime call back $37,200; lower cost contractual services $2,300 5,793 9,536 3,743 3,700 Aid received from State for payroll cost and warning siren 22,379 25,362 2,983 2,800 Lower cost of payroll (overtime and extra help) 168,580 162,189 (6,391) 6,400 Higher cost payroll(Sick leave and severance pay)$3,600; higher cost contract with Bloomington $2,600; Higher cost Capital Outlay $200 104,839 110,237 5,398 5,300 Lower cost payroll 35,524 641409 28,885 28,700 Note A 2,500 20500 29500 78,192 80,000 1,808 1,800 18,095 17,725 (370) 400 50,000 50,000 -0- 93,608 104,950 11,342 11,300 Less cost of tree subsidy $5,241,832 $5,288,595 $ 46,763 $ 91,900 $136,100 Recommend an increase in estimated revenue as follows: Building permits Court fines TOTAL $ 15,000 15,000 $ 30,000 STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND RECOMMENDED TRANSFERS CONTINUED For Year 1979 Estimated Transfer Central Services: Expenditures Appropriation Balance To From Remarks General $1,095,068 $1,109,760 14,692 $ 14,600 Higher cost of g pension $26,100; Lower cost hospitalization, life and long term liability $18,800; Liability and Workmen's Compensation $9,600; telephone $7,700; Postage $2,300; and commodities $2,400 City Hall 65,378 61,200 (4,178) 4,200 Higher payroll cost $4,200(Public Works personnel, overtime and extra help) Public Works Building 73,610 65,160 (8,450) 8,600 Higher cost of utilities $2,000; and Commodities $7,300; Lower payroll cost $850 Equipment Operation 478,259 402,360 (75,899) 76,000 Higher payroll cost $7,000; Gasoline $55,000; Accessories $119-000. Other commodities $8,000; Lower cost of insurance $5,000 _1,712,315 $1,638,480 (73,835) 88,800 14,600 $6,954,147 $6,927,075 $ (27,072) $ 180,700 $150,700 Recommend an increase in estimated revenue as follows: Building permits Court fines TOTAL $ 15,000 15,000 $ 30,000 STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND RECOMMENDED TRANSFER CONTINUED GENERAL FUND: Balance Reserve for Commitments at December 31, 1979: Surplus at January 1, 1979 $ 349,276 Estimated revenue for year $5,423,003 Capital improvement (Street replacement) $329,538 Less transfer from surplus 209,564 5,213 439 Capital improvements (General type) 250,000 5,562,715 Concrete replacement 22,000 _.:ass estimated expenditures: Planning 4,500 Operating accounts $5,288,595 Improvements - City Hall 3,500 Additional expenditures - Central Services 73,835 5,362,430 Traffic signs 5,000 Contract work - Lakes and ponds 10,000 BALANCE AT DECEMBER 31 1979 , $ 200,286 Accounting system 20,000 Microfilm equipment and supplies 5,550 Police - pension supplement 40,000 Note A - Disbursements charged to contingencies for 1979 were as follows: School - assessing 3,000 Reserves: Logis- Development cost -data processing $ 5,000 Transit - engineering $ 2,400 Unemployment compensation 23,400 Fire 38,000 40,400 Heco dues 1,100 Consulting service - tower height. 693 TOTAL $733,488 Insurance consultant 41,200 Radio 725 Conferences and schools - .clerical staff 198 Service contract - Inter - communication system 715 Typewriters 2,493 Monitoring.- Morningside school building 607 . Newsletter 49494 Storm windows 1,906 Nailing machine 1,823 Radar units (4) 2,078 Dinner - volunteers 1,156 - Unclassified - small items 936 November and December items 59000 TOTAL $ 35,524 I ti 1 Gtr 1_L_.! ` .i' — J1 A A v I. Y 1IL .k .� I! Ell54 lam+ ."�.�.�r.. -�.� � - .. : r •' ' i r.J r I l< i tZ 2 b L C A H I LL L •'�'�:`: E L cl SCHC --TFr J I f /J� IA�:,. . 'L`Y!IS PARK • '' .. s b ICI I -,*I v is, - S I \1 4t�-' 0 +_� Findell 3rd Addition REQUES'C NL'1iDi:R: Z -70 -0 -, S -20-14 LOCATION: �I s cm NORTH U, R -1 and R -3 to PRD -3 RGQUEST • 0 l.50 500 ,50 1OOU YAL- COMMUNITY DEVELOP'11`:NT r STAFF REPORT November.28, 1979 Z -79 -9 Findell and Clark. R--1 Single Family District, and R -3 Multiple Family District to PRD-3 Planned Residential District. and S -79 -15 Findell Third Addition. Generally located south of West - --- 70th Street and west of Cahill Road and east of Cahill School. REFER TO: October 31, 1979 staff report and attached graphic. The subject rezoning and subdivision was heard by the Commission at its October 31, 1979, meeting.. At that time, the Commission continued the request and asked that the proponent prepare revised plans which considered the setback, access, and density problems e:-�iibited by the first plans. Attached are revised plans which address many of the concerns expressed on October 31. First, setbacks from all property lines have been increased to thirty five feet as required by ordinance. Second, a public road right of way and turn around have been delineated to provide access to the townhouse portion of the project. Three, two units have been eliminated from the project. In addition, the condominium building is now three stories in height rather than t;ao stories. This change provides for less lot coverage and 2--eater setbacks. Staff reported on October 31, that fourteen townhouse units were originally approved for Outlot A (i.e. the most westerly parcel). In reviewing past plans, staff has determined that eighteen units were approved. Thus, in our view, the proposed density conforms with past approvals, the existing R -3 zoning on the most easterly parcel, and the density clarification amendment. The overall density for the project is now 8.6 units per acre. RnnnmmPn Anti nn! Staff believes that the proponents have responded favorably to suggestions made at the last meeting. Therefore, staff recommends preliminary zoning and plot approval with the following conditions: 1. final zoning is conditioned upon final plotting 2. a developer's agreement 3.' subdivision dedication which should be based in staff's opinion only upon the two acre unplatted parcel located in the middle of the subject property. • .f C011L`1Uf1l7'Y DEV1M011.•IF. ;1.1• AI.D PI.AN.1T 11C C01- IM1SSION STAFF REPOI:1' October 31, 1979 J Z -79 -9 Findel.l and Clark. R -1 Single Family District and R -3 Multiple Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. S -79 -15 Findell Third Addition. Generally located south of 14. 70th Street and west of Cahill Road. REFER TO: Attached graphics. The subject property treasures 5.56 acres in area and is comprised of three separate. parcels of property. Outlot A, Findell's Second Addition measures approximately 2 acres and is the most westerly parcel. A two acre unplatted parcel is located immediately to the east of Otltlot A. A 1.6 acre parcel having frontage on Cahill Road is the most easterly parcel. The Commmission may recall that Outlot A and properties to the south were proposed for development several years ago. The Commission recommended approval of this develop- ment plan but requested that Outlot A be combined with properties to the east to facilitate a more unified development. At that time, 14 townhouse units were proposed for Outlot A and 64 units were proposed for the properties to the south. The most easterly parcel which fronts on Cahill Road is presently zoned R -3 multiple residential. This property could be developed with approximately 16 units without the need for rezoning or plan approval from the City. The middle parcel is zoned R -1 and is developed with one single family dwelling. This parcel is controlled by one of the proponents. In order to provide a more logical development of the properties and to conform with the Commission's direction, the proponents. have agreed to pursue an overall Planned Residential District zoning of the subject property. As proposed, a 16 unit condominium building would be located on the easterly portion of the property. This building would be two stories in height. The westerly two thirds of the property irould be developed with 34 townhouse units. Two enclosed parking spaces vould be provided for each unit and 27 exposcd. parking stalls would be provided on the site. Access .to. the project would occur by way of a private drive- way from Cahill Road. Staff . has suggested that the allowed density for the subject property should be based on the densities of the three component parcels. Thus, the R -3 parcel would be allowed! 1? dmi s per acre in accordance with the zoning ordinance and Out of A would be allowed 7 units per acre based on plans previously approved by the Commission and Council. Density for the two acre parcel in the middle should be based upon the density reduction amendment to the Southwest Edina Plan. Recoi- nmenda t ion: Staff believe: that the proponents should be commended for their efforts to provide .1 com1)rchcnsi�•c (10%010- ,nient 1)!;111 for thc;:c propert.ics. Such a unified 1)1;111 1 e. long been ld\?oCZlted l)\• strlil Ind the Coia,ni! ;lion. The features of such a plan in term: of access, building; placement and archi.tccture are certainly desirable. UV:II III IIII f. 1" Vl 1,V', t: I I.L 1. {1 \. . 1.11. Staff Rcport Odtobcr 31, 1079 .Z; -79 -9 lindell and Clark S -79 -15 1•i.ndell Third Addition a From a density standpoint, staff believes that the easterly parcel which is zoned R -3 should retain the density allowed by the zoning ordinance, i.e. 10 units per acre. Staff helieves that this parcel should not be reduced in density as a result of the ot-ner's willingness to participate in an overall plan. Staff also believes that Outlot A (the most westerly parcel) should be al lowed -1-?+'units which is consistent with prior approvals. Staff has analyzed the middle parcel in light of the density reduction policy. ` Based on this r.evi.cw, we find that this parcel should be allo�-:ed approximately 13 units. Therefore, staff believes that the overall project should contain approxi- mately 43 units rather than 50. units as requested. Therefore, the Co,:.mission should consider requesting that the proponents eliminate several townhouse units. According to ordinance requirements, a 35 foot setback is required from all property lines. The proposed plans illustrate 20 foot setbacks from the north, south and east property lines. Staff believes the plans should be modified to comply with setback requirements. Of special concern to staff is the status of the private road in the project. The proponents will be requesting a two lot subdivision of the property which will create a lot for the 16 unit condominium building and a lot for the townhouse portion of the project. Therefore, the townhouse portion of the project would not have frontage on a public street and would have to rely on private cross easements for access to Cahill. Road. In addition, the condominium project and the townhouse project will establish separate and independent homeowners` associations. Therefore, ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the private road could be unclear for future ov-ners. Staff believes that the most appropriate.solution for these problems would be the dedication of a public road across the condominium lot. Staff believes that a 40 foot wide right -of -way should be dedicated for this road across the northerly extreme of the property. The paved surface of this road should be 28 feet in width. A cul -de -sac or turn around should be located on,the westerly terminus of -this public road. According to ordinance requirements', buildings should maintain a 35 foot setback from the new road right -of -way. Due to the nature of this road, staff would support a variance request from this requirement. Staff believes that the above noted modifications should be pursued by the proponents. A preliminary zoning approval, which may not be appropriate at this time, should be conditioned upon the above modifications and, /I ) a developer's agreement ,i2) final platting, and �3) subdivision dedication which should be based, in staff's opinion, only upon the two acre unplatted parcel located in the middle of the subject property. CLU : and 10/26/79 « . \ / ' \ �. ^ | .� � ~- � �J � \ I P i 6-i-- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28,. 1979, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - Members Present: Chairman Bill Lewis, Richard Seaberg, David Runyan, James Bentley, Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson, Helen McClelland Members Absent: Len Fernelius, Mary McDonald Staff Present: Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner; Harold Sand, Planner; Fran Hoffman, City Engineer; Deborah Strand, Secretary I. Approval of the Minutes Richard Seaberg moved that the minutes of the October 31, 1979, Community Development and Planning Commission meeting be approved. David - Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the minutes were approved. II. Old Business: Z -79 -9 Findell and Clark. R -1 Single Family District, and R -3 Multiple Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. and S -79-15 Findell Third Addition. Generally located South of West 70th Street and West of Cahill School. Craig Larsen reminded the Commission that the subject rezoning and subdivision was heard by the Commission at its October 31, 1979, meeting. The Commission continued the request and advised the proponent to prepare revised plans which considered the setback, access and density problems exhibited by the first plans. Mr. Larsen submitted the revised plans and explained that the setbacks from all property lines had been increased to thirty five feet as required by the ordinance , and forty foot public road right of way and turn around were delineated to provide access to the town house portion of the project. He added that the units had been reduced from fifty to forty -eight in the project. The plans showed that the condominium building was raised one story in height providing for less lot coverage and greater setbacks, thus the condominium would be three stories instead of two in height. Mr. Larsen said that the staff reported on October 31, that fourteen townhouse units had been originally approved for Outlot A (i.e. the most westerly parcel) and in reviewing past plans, staff had determined that eighteen units were approved. Thus, the proposed density conformed with past approvals, the existing R -3 zoning on the most easterly parcel, and the density clarification amendment. He stated that the overall density for the project was 8.6 units per acre. Community Development and Planning Commission November 28, 1979 Page 2 The staff felt that the proponents had responded favorably to suggestions made at. the last meeting. Thus, the staff recommended . preliminary zoning and plat approval- with.the conditions that l.'final zoning was conditioned.upon final platting, 2. developer's agreement and 3. subdivision dedication which should be based in staff's opinion only upon the two acre unplatted parcel located in the middle of the subject property. There was a general discussion among the Commission and audience to explain exactly which project was being discussed as some people in the audience thought the Commission was discussing the Crossroads Development project. There were some questions regarding the density, Mr. Larsen clarified that the density would be six to eight, general discussion regarding the location of the property followed. Richard Seaberg moved approval of the preliminary zoning with the three conditions as stated by the staff..' Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. REQU'7ST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kojetin, Park and Recreation Dept. VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager p SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 DATE: November 21, 1979 Material Description (General Specifications): Printing of Park and Recreation Activities Calendar for 1980 -81 Quotations /Bids: Co- mpany Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Paul Foss Printing & Lithography, Inc. 1401 West River Rd. No. $6,998.00 Minneapolis, MN 55411 2. Colorbrite, Inc. 718 Washington Ave. No, $7,768.00 3. Minneapolis, MN 55401 . Department Recommendation: - Recommend Paul Foss Printing & Lithography, Inc. - Department Finance Director's Endorsement: �v The recorrnended bid is is not wi in the amount budgeted for the purchase. N. Dalen, Finance Director ,'ity Manager's Endorsement: I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase.. 2. I recommend as an alternative: M Kenneth Rosl'and, City "M nager What is a Community Action Agency? A Community Action Agency (CAA) is an organization designated by a unit of government, in this case Hennepin County, and recognized and funded by the Federal Community Services Administration (formerly the Office of.Economic Opportunity). The basic pur- pose of a Community Action Agency is to better focus all available public and private resources toward the goal of enabling low- income people to become self- sufficient. The focus of the Community Action Agency proposed for suburban and rural Hennepin County will be to enhance the utilization and coordination of the many existing services in the County available to respond to the needs of the poor and near poor. The Board of Directors of a Community Action Agency must include and provide for the active participation of representatives of the poor. In this way, a Community Action Agency gives consumers of services the oppor- tunity to participate in decisions about the services they will receive. Do We Need a Community Action Agency in Suburban and Rural Hennepin County? The goal of a Community Action Agency is to focus ser- vices on the poor and near poor. There are at least 19,000 suburban and rural Hennepin County residents with incomes below the federal poverty level. In addition, there are approximately 5,000 people whose incomes are only slightly above the poverty level. This means that there are about 24,000 suburban and rural Hennepin County residents who could be served by a Community Action Agency. What Kind of Community Action Agency Will We Have? There are several kinds of Community Action Agencies. The one proposed for Hennepin County would.be a pri- vate non - profit organization. There are currently two organizational structures for such a "private" Community Action Agency being considered by the County Board. The first of these, often called the "merger" model, would create a single organization through a merger of the three existing Human Ser- vices Councils. This would create an organization which, while its primary focus would be on the poor and near poor, would serve the needs of all of the residents of the suburban and rural areas of the County without creating a new :and separate agency. The second of the two alternatives, called the "linkage" model, was developed by the suburban Hu- man Services Councils and proposes the development of a new and separate Community Action Agency to be linked to the existing Councils. The new agency, however, would have as its only focus the needs of the poor and the near poor. What is the Purpose of This Hearing? The purpose of this hearing is to gather testimony from the citizens of the County and other interested parties concerning the designation of a Community Action Agency with particular attention being given to: The need.for a Community Action Agency in suburban and rural Hennepin County The most appropriate organizational structure to be designated as a Community Action Agency What Will Happen After This Hearing? The Board of Commissioners will carefully consider all the testimony presented and will then make a final decision concerning: (a) whether a CAA should be established and (b) if a CAA is to be established, how it should be organized and structured Where Can I Get Additional Information? Additional information concerning the designation of a Community Action Agency, the proposed models or the public hearing may be obtained by contacting: David Parachini, Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development, 348 -5106 r PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE �p1N. CO t�: G 2; 2 ES BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55487 It is the intent of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to designate a Community Action Agency for suburban and rural Hennepin County. A public hearing on the intent of the Board of Commissioners to make this designation will be held on Tuesday, December 11, 1979 beginning at 4:00 p.m. and continuing until 8:00 p.m. in the Crystal City Hall, 4141 Douglas Drive North in Crystal, Minnesota. The purpose of this hearing will be to receive i testimony concerning the designation of a Com- munity Action Agency from citizens in Hennepin County and other concerned parties. Nancy Olkon i Chairperson, Hennepin County Board of Commissioners DATE: December 3, 1979 TO: Hennepin County Muni ci l 1 i ti es HENNEPIN FROM: O David Parachini, Office of Planning and Development 9 �i��M F_SO�' SUBJECT: Brochure Announcing a Public Hearing on the Intent to Designate a Community Action Agency to Serve Suburban /Rural Hennepin County Enclosed are twenty -five copies of a brochure designed to provide background information concerning the public hearing to be held on December 11 concerning the intent of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to designate a Com- munity Action Agency to serve suburban /rural Hennepin County. Please make these brochures available to those in your municipality concerned about the .proposed development of a Community Action Agency. If you have any questions concerning the hearing or about the designation of a Community Action Agency, please contact me at 348 -5106. Thank you for your assistance. dw - enclosures C�j (T) VT) �55 /(Yo-) A MIDWESTERN STATES FEDERATION of BEVERAGE LICENSEES, INC. Eden 100 Building • 5100 Eden Avenue • Minneapolis, MN 55436 MSFIBL. (612) 927 -9974 November 30, 1979 MEMO TO: MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS RE: ADVISORY BOARD BOARD OF DIRECTORS 8 OFFICERS DAVID J. ARONSOHN, President WILLIAM KOZLAK, Vice President JOE M. SHUSTER, Vice President ROBERT LYNCH, Treasurer FREDERICK C. BOOS RON DOTY GEORGE A. HENTHORNE I have been - talking with officials of the League of Minnesota THOMAS J, OLSETH Cities (LMC) and with Minnesota Municipal Liquor Stores, Inc. DONALD H. OSBORNE Both of these organizations have endorsed the Federation and W.R JONES, Exec. Secretary it's programs. In our discussions, I brought up the Federation's plan to develop an Advisory Board in which the leadership of various organizations would be represented. Alec Parkin, President of Minnesota Municipal Liquor Stores, Inc. has grac- iously offered to serve on this Advisory Board. Peter Tritz, Assistant Research Director of the LMC, has also informed the Federation that a sel- ection from his organization will be made shortly. The purpose of the Board will be to advise and counsel the Federation on various aspects of their operation. It will serve as a sounding board for the Federation's Board of Directors as well as it's administrative staff. If you are not already aware, the Federation is composed of almost 900 liq- uor license holders and municipals in the state....nearly 25% of the total licensees in the state! By the end of the year, we expect to have more than 1,000 members.. The Federation is dedicated to provide an operative Dram Shop insurance program that is realistic and inexpensive. At this date, an off -shore captive reinsurance company has been formed. A primary carrier has been selected as well as a managing organization. The insurance carrier is known as Midwestern States Insurance, Ltd. (MSIL). The primary carrier is. "A" rated Ideal Mutual Insurance Company of New York and the managing or- ganization is the Fred S. James & Company, one of the largest firms of its kind in the nation. And, most important, Dram Shop insurance is being written at substantially lower rates. The LMC advises that the new municipal insurance program, which is being developed and of which you will be receiving information shortly, will recommend the MSF /BL Dram Shop coverage as a part of the program. Other goals of the Federation are programs on public information, general public service and legislative relief, as well as safety and loss control programs for Federation members. This letter is intended to alert you to the fact that your organization will be represented on the Federation Advisory Board and also, asking you to join the Federation if you haven't already and take advantage of the pro - rams we have to offer. I am enclosing a confidential James questionnaire. If you have not already requested a quote, I would advise that you complete and return the enclosed form. Sincerely, MIDWESTERN STATES FEDERATION OF BEVERAGE LICENSEES, INC. W. R. on s P WRJ /kl Executi Secretary Enclosure l�R� FF MIDWESTERN STATES FEDERATION �r of � BEVERAGE•LICENSEES, INC. • Eden 100 Building 5100 Eden Avenge 19'77 S Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55436 `fgA6 f 77 (612) 927 -9974 - - MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION -- NAME OF APPLICANT (Licensee) BUSINESS NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS Street City Zip TYPE OF LICENSE: County Phone area code Food & Liquor Liquor Beer & Wine The applicant understands that this application is made subject to the approval of the MIDWESTERN STATES FEDERATION OF BEVERAGE LICENSEES, INC. MEMBERSHIP FEE $250.00 DATED APPLICANT: Make checks payable to MIDWESTERN STATES FEDERATION OF BEVERAGE LICENSEES, INC. IL FRED.S.JAMES & CO. OF MINNESOTA, INC. 2901 Metro Drive, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420 612 854 -1711 This information will be held in strict confidence. -mendal connu T Questionnaire- The Midwestern States Federation of Beverage Licensees Liquor Liability Program. 1. Name of Business: 2. Address Tel. No. 3. Name of Licensee a. License Number b. Is licensee active in operation of business? 4. Classification of Risk: Liquor Only ❑ 3.2-Beer ❑ Wine Only ❑ 3.2 Beer & Wine ❑ Premises Used as: Hotel ❑ Restaurant ❑ Tavern ❑ Private Club ❑ Bottle Club ❑ Package Carry Out ❑ Municipal On & Off ❑ Municipal Off ❑ Municipal On ❑ The Premises are /are not within the City Limits. Population 5. Present Coverage: Present Premium $ a. Policy Dates b. Liquor Limits c. Public Liability Limits 6. List last three years receipts: a. Liquor b. Beer c. Food d. Package 7. List all Dram Shop claims brought against you in last five years. Description of Claim Amount Paid or Reserved (Information can be obtained from your Agent.) 8. List all Premises or Products claims brought against you in last 5 years. 9. Square Footage area of Tavern, Restaurant or Store open to public ?_ 10. Is there entertainment on Premises? Description (over) Insurance Brokers Since 1858. 11. Is there dancing on Premises? Area of Dance Floor Number of Pool Tables Other Amusement Devices 12. Does Applicant Rent out Facilities for Banuqets, Weddings, etc.? 13. No. of Times Rented per Year Amount of Receipts for Rented Facilities 14. Parking Lot Capacity: Area' sq. ft. No. of Cars Lot Holds 15. Estimated Daily Receipts: Liquor Beer Food Pkg 16. Seating Capacity: No. of Booths &.Tables No. of Stools 17. No. of Bartenders: Full Time Part Time 18. No. of Waitresses: Full Time Part Time 19. Normal Hours of Operation: From to 20. No. of Days Open a Week 21. Length.of Time Applicant has been in the Liquor Business 22. Length of.Time Applicant has been Operating at Present Location 23. Previous Locations: (Show under what name last business was conducted & Address) 24. Is Applicant Tenant ; or Owner 25. If Tenant, What Portion of Building Occupied? 26. Description of Remainder of Premises 27. Do you have docking facilities? 28. Do you have drive up faciiities? 29. Any Liquor or Other Law Violations or License Revocations or Suspensions? Describe: 30. Has Applicant Ever Had Insurance Refused, Cancelled or Not Renewed by Other Carrier in Last Five Years? (If Yes, Name Carrier) 31.. Previous Carriers and Policy Numbers.for the Last.Two Years 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 612 - 927 -8861 . December 19, 1979 Ms. Sue Zuidema Community Health Department Hennepin County 4th Floor, McGill Building 501 Park Ave. Minneapolis, MN 55415 Dear Ms. Zuidema: Enclosed herewith are three executed copies of the proposed 1980 -81 Com- munity Health Services Agreement between the City of Edina and Hennepin County, along with a certified copy of the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute said agreement.. Yours very truly, City Clerk cc: David Velde Enclosures (3) COMMUNITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 4th Floor, McGill Building 501 Park Avenue HENNEPIN Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 LM ,November 29, 1979 �p1N C W 2 `.yam ENE S� J Mr. David Velde City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Velde: Enclosed are three copies of the proposed 1980 -81 Community Health Services Agreement between the City of Edina and Hennepin County. The main difference between this and previous agreements is that it covers two years, consistent with the two year Community Health Services Subsidy Plan the Minnesota Department of Health will approve. In addition, the Agreement language has been streamlined. Please review the Agreement and call me at 348 -4382 if you have any questions. If not, would you please have the Agreement approved, all three copies signed and returned to me by December 28, 1979, with a certified copy of your City Council's action authorizing the Agreement and its execution by the appropriate principal officials. Sincerely, . CJ Sue Zuidema� SZ:kmbr Enclosures (3) HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer I AGREEMENT No. 01044 THIS AGREEMENT, Made between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as County, and the CITY OF EDINA, a municipality .organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as Municipality; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Municipality wishes to provide Community Health Care Services; and WHEREAS, County funds are available to support such services and whereas Community Health Services subsidy funds are available from the . Minnesota Department of Health; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth herein, the County and the Municipality agree as follows: 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from January I, 1980, through December 31, 1981. This Agreement shall include the period July 1, 1981, through December 31, 1981, only if the Community Health Services Act is continued, fully funded by the State of Minnesota for the 1982 -83 biennium and the County receives the full amount of subsidy funds requested in the approved 1980 -81 Hennepin County Community Health Services Subsidy Plan. If such funds are not available to allow for funding during the period July 1, 1981, through December 31, 1981, this Agreement shall be cancelled upon written notice from the County; such cancellation to be effective as of July 1, 1981. 2. CONDITIONS OF COUNTY SUPPORT a. The County agrees to make payments to the Municipality in reimbursement for the provision of Community Health Services as described in the 1980 -81 Community Health Services Subsidy Plan, hereinafter referred to. as Plan, written pursuant to Minnesota Laws 1976, Chapter 9, a copy of which is on file at the Hennepin County Community Health Department, 4th Floor, 501 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Plan is incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. b. The total 1980 cash payments to the Municipality for Community Health Services shall not exceed $93,810, and total 1981 payments shall not exceed $96,986. T? T: CAT TTTTANT BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby authorize and direct the Mayor and City Manager to enter into the 1980 -81 Community Health Services Agreement between the City of Edina and Hennepin County. DATED this 17th day of December, 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 December 17, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 19th day of December, 1979. City Clerk METROF �LITAn 'WAf TE (onTROL COfYlmiffion Twin Cities Rrea November 19, 1979 - - -M r -. - -K a nne- t-h - -R o s 1 a nd - - -- - -- City Manager Cityyof Edina 4801 W. 5.Oth. Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 RE: JOINT USE RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR 1980 Dear Mr. Rosiand: In accordance with Section 4 of the Joint Use Rental Agreement No. 146 between the City of Edina and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, such contract can be renewed by consent of both parties. We wish to renew for another year the Joint Use Rental Agreement No. 146 under the same terms and conditions contained in: -the Agreement which is presently in force between the City of.Edina and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. The Renewal Agreement is enclosed in triplicate for your endorsement. We have signed the enclosed statement as our intention of renewing the Agreement and ask that you also sign and return to us.two (2) of the executed copies and retain one (1) for your records. Should you have any questions or suggested changes to the basic contract agreement, please contact us. Your cooperation in accepting this renewal procedure is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Richard_,.,J.. Dough rt Chief Administra r RJD:LRB :hy Enclosures cc: LaRae Bohn, Administrative Assistant, MWCC George W. Lusher, Director of Operations, MWCC John Almo, Interceptor Engineer, MWCC 350 METRO fOUARE BLDG. 7TH 6 ROBERTlTREET/ /AinT PAUL Min 55161 6121222.8423 !V'.a recycled �.�: :r December 19, 1979 Yours very truly, City Cleric enclosures (3) . RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby authorize and direct the Mayor and City Manager to enter into Joint Use Rental Agree- ment for 1980 No. 146 with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. DATED this 17th day of December, 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 December 17, 1979, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 19th day of December, 1979. City Cler STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT RENEWAL JOINT USE RENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 146 The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the City of Edina agree to renew the Joint Use Rental Agreement No. 146 under the same terms and conditions contained in the Agreement which is currently in force between these parties. The Renewal period for Joint Use Ren- tal.Agreement -No. 146 shall be January -1; 1980 - December 31, 1980. That both parties agree to the renewal period and terms is evidenced by the signatures affixed to this statement. FOR THE CITY OF EDINA 01(T it lee) 1� -• �-v XL.,-,. / 7, 5 7 Dated THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION Salisbury Wffs, Chairman chard Dough y, C lef Administrator NOVI 2. 1L979 Dated TF _ (f, ��r1NESpp4 Minnesota a a Department of Transportation District 5 2055 No. Lilac Drive of Ta Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422. November 6, 1979 Mr. Ken Rosland, City Manager City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 RE: S.P. 2734 -27029 - T.H. 100 Bridge Deck Repair Dear Mr. Rosland: � ?ter. �••a �J � ��/ � (612) 545-3761 i am writing in regard to our bridge deck repair program for next summer. A part of our program involves work on four T.H. 100 bridges in the city of Edina. The bridges are: T.H. 100 over 44th Street T.H. 100 over Minnehaha Creek `- l 50th Street over T.H. 100 Eden Avenue over T.H. 100 Our plans for traffic control are to maintain two lanes of traffic in each direction on T.H. 100. We will close Eden Avenue and route that traffic onto 50th Street. Upon completion of Eden Avenue, 50th Street will be restricted to one lane in each direction until work on that bridge is complete. Current estimates indicate the project will last from about the first of June until mid - September. Your comments would be appreciated. Sincerely, _Z.I • 0. D. 0. Miller District Bridge Engineer �S An Equal Opportunity Employer MEMORANDUM TO: ' MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: 'KENNETH ROSLAND, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: 1980 HEALTH INSURANCE DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1979 This memorandum requests Council confirmation of the $80.00 per month contribution for non -union employee /dependent health contribution as provided for in the budget. The contractual contribution for 1980 for both Police and Fire is $80.00 per month with Public Works not having settled a contract at this time. KR:md 19 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: KENNETH ROSLAND, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: 1980 PAY RATES - PART TIME /FULL TIME DATE: DECEMBER 12, 1979 Attached are the proposed part time rates and grouping together with the table of full time rates that were part of the adopted budget. .It is requested the Council formally adopt these rates for 1980. Actual wages paid will be in accordance with the figures in the adopted budget. The part time rates are generally a 6% across the board increase. KD:md City Manager ^ 1980 PAY RATES � Year Roun / ��--- Level & Level D ` Step I $3.07 $3.45 2 3.40 3.71 2 3.60 3.98 4 3.82 3.98 ` 5' ' 4.13 4.24 Managerial positions should not exceed $4.77 ) �—_---/~ ' Level 1 1o6o Iat 2,81 2nd 2.97 3rd 3-I8 Level 2 jobs lot 2.92 ' 2nd 3-O7 3rd 3.29 Level 3 jobs Iot 3.I8 ` 2nd 3.71 3rd 4.24 Level 4 - Range ' 3.34 to 4-51 � Management III Management II Management I Technical Management Technical III Technical II Technical I General II General I Public Safety: PS Management III PS Management II PS Management I PS General Il PS General I . PERSONNEL COMPENSATION RATES r 1 ,Q 2 AJ. $29,406 $31,980 $34355 $36,76 21,996 23,920 25,844 27,482 18,512 20,124 21,762 23,140 ` 16,900 18,382 19,864 .210138) "14,924 162224 17,524 18,642 133,23, 4 14,378 151,548 16,536 11,882 12,922 13,962 14,846 10,348 112232 12,116 12,870 9,152 9,958 10,764 113,440 24,934 2710118 29,302 31,174 ' 23,348 25,376 27,430 29,172 211,216 23,062 24,934 26,520 12,974 14,118 15,262 16,224 10,296 11,206 12,116 12,870 r- 0 OF TO Minnesota Department of Transportation District Five 5801 Duluth Street Golden valley, Minnesota 55422 December 7, 1979 Ms. Florence B. Hallberg- City Clerk City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: C.S. 2733 (T.H. 100) At West 77th Street Left Turn Signals at West Ramp Dear Ms. Hallberg: (612) 545.3761 In response to traffic studies we recently completed, complaints received from motorists, and your City Council's resolution; we have requested that our Electrical Services Unit modify the traffic'signals at this location to provide left turn control for both directions on West 77th Street at the West Ramp. We anticipate that this work will be completed by March 1, 1980 depending upon the Electrical Services Unit's work load. If you have any further questions, please contact Dennis Eyler of our Traffic Section. Sincerely, R. Michael Robinson, P.E. District Traffic Engineer RMR:rs An Equal Opportunity Employer January 7, 1980 Yours .very truly, City Clerk enclosures (3) .iw , -* BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION � F 1246 UNIVERSITY AVENUE - ,g ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55104 N TELEPHOE: 296 -7940 s) 9� Qr MINNE °� STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY December 14, 1979 Craig Swanson, Chief Edina Public Safety 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, M 55424 Dear Chief Swanson, Enclosed are three copies of a use agreement for ALERT J3A.portable breath testing units. Please have the agreement executed by the individual(s) authorized to do so by resolution. A sample form of resolution is enclosed. It is up to your.city council as to who they may want to authorize to execute the agreement. In the sample resolution form the phrase, "hereby are authorized to execute such agreement ", appears. It is important, that whatever form of resolution is used, this phrase appear at some point in the resolution. When the three copies'of the agreement have been executed by the authorized individual(s), return the agreement with the certified copies of the resolution to: the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Laboratory, 1246 University Avenue, St. Paul, NCI 55104; Attention Eldon Ukestad. When the appropriate State officers have executed the agreement, we will return a copy to you for your files, and further instructions as to how the unit or units will be delivered. Enclosure 71 Lowell C. Van Berkom Laboratory Director AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ss +' -1W Sample RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety for the following purpose, to -wit: To provide authority for the city to receive from the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, ALERT J3A portable breath test unit or units on a loan basis. The unit or units are to be used by city law enforcement officers to assist them in the detection of motorists who may be in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 169.121. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the and be and they hereby are authorized to execute such agreement. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota City of I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of 19 , as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. City Clerk