Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1978-09-11_COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA • EDINA.CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 11,.1978 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL MINUTES of August 7, 1978, approved as presented or corrected by motion of , seconded by I. PRESENTATION OF 1979 BUDGET II, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presenta- tion by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Rea3 -ng of Zoning. Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4 /5,favorable rc.Ilcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisinr,�, Plats, Flood Plain Permits, Appeals from Administrative or Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decisions and Plan Amendments require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Victorsen's Timbers - Generally located at the Southwest corner of the Crosstown Highway and,Gleason Road 1. Preliminary Plat Approval - S -78 -10 (Continued from 8/7/78) B. Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition - Generally located South of Interlachen - Blvd., North of W. 73rd St. 1. Final Plat Approval - S -78 -1 (Continued from 8/21/78) C. St. Alban's Addition - Generally located North of Valley View Road and West of Gleason Road - S -78 -12 (CC- 7/17/78) 1. Final Plat Approval D. Tupa Woods Addition (Gross /Fraser- Prospect Hills) - Generally located South of Tupa Drive cul -de -sac and North and West of Kerry Road cul -de -sac S -78 -6 (CC- 4/17/78) 1. Final Plat Approval E. Lot 33, Auditor's Subdivision 172 - Old Edina Liquor__ Store - LD -78 -6 1. Lot Division F. Set Hearing Dates 1. Rezonings a. Kerr Companies - R -1 Single Residential District to 0-2 Office District — Located at 4917 Eden Avenue -- Z -78 -8 (PC= 8/2/78) 2. Preliminary.Plat Approval a. Gittleman Corporation - Generally located at the Southwest quadrant. of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road 3. Dayton Hudson Properties - Proposed commercial use of the Easterly Portion of Tract A, R.L.S. 1365 - Generally located East of the Junior Achievement.Building 4. Frank Kreiser Real Estate Company - Appeal of Board of Appeals & Adjustments decision for 29 car parking variance (BAA- 8/24/78) Part of Lot 49, Auditor's Subdivision 172 III. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Engineer. Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Part of Lots 1 thru 5, Block 1, McGary Addition Council Agenda September 11, 1978 Page Two IV. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS A. Mrs. Eloyse Walcher - Hopkins Mailing Address for Edina Residents B. Mrs. Sam Schneider - Eden Prairie Road Street Name Change V. AWARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES Tabulations and recommendations by City Manager. Action of Council by motion. A. Playground Equipment B. Underground Cable Test Equipment (Continue to 11/18/78) VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Suits and Noti:.,_-j of Claims 1. Robert B. Laurent, Sharon L. Laurent, Dorothy R. Kaup 2. Roy W. Tompkins dba Prestige- Realty 3. David & Karen Wendt and Alvin & Judith Brown 4. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas 0. Willett 5. Roland J. Duff and Lois M. Duff 6. Douglas Mosiman B. Newsletters C. Teamsters 320 Contract D. Appointment of Voting Machine Canvassers E. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council F. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items 1. Letter of Credit - Bellboy Corporation VII. COMMUNICATIONS A. George M. Hansen Company - 1978 Audit VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution Approving Community Health Services Plan IX. FINANCE A. Liquor Report as of July 31, 1978 B. Claims paid. Motion of was seconded by , for payment of the following claims per Pre -List: General Fund, $111,389.70; Park Fund, $10,398.79; Edina Art Center, $186.20; Park Construction, $14,429.00; Swimming Pool, $7,579.67; Golf Course Fund, $4,824.75; Recreation, $3,825.57; Gun Range, $453.16; Water Works, $30,444.84; Sewer Fund, $4,306.13, Liquor Fund, $4,262.16; Construction Fund, $5,625.65; Total, $197,727.62; and for confirmation of payment of the following claims as per Pre -List dated 8/31/78: General Fund, $16,761.68; Art Center, $17.78; Swimming Pool, $370.09; Golf Course, $4,404.04; Recreation Arena, $8.77; Gun Range Fund, $25.15; Water Fund, $636.49; Sewer Fund, $677.67; Liquor Fund, $137,439.45; Total, $160,341.21 I APEL HIL GA11ONAL -t Z/� ti A CAULEY TRAIL WEST CROSSVIEw UTHERAN CHURCH I t I a Q r `_ VTRW �TIMB,ERS REQUEST % NUMBER: S -78 -10 LOCATION: SE Corner of Crosstown and Gleason Rd. REQUEST: R -1 Single Family S ub ivi sion MAP -,i d- mm EM `'� 4 •. 1 �� t I AY W,% Y - ;/, �ZZ�_ 'CREf•K' VALL:E:Y, ti PARK CREEK V ELEM. Y LAxe tlannin de�tm nt v�t�ae �[ ��Iina PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 26, 1978. S -78 -10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Refer to: Attached text, March 29, 1978 Staff�Report The Commission will recall that. the subject subdivision was continued from the March 29,.1978 meeting to allow the Commissioners ample opportunity to .view the site and study the requested subdivision. This ..subdivision proposes 24 single family lots which would be served by a cul -de -sac from Gleason Road and a cul -de -sac from Indian Hills Road.. The subject property has a rather lengthy and complicated history of development proposals which have included single family developments, townhouse developments, apartment and single family combinations, and apartment developments. In 1974, the City Council did grant preliminary approval to a proposed rezoning to PRD-3 which would have allowed 74 multiple residential units on the northerly portion of the site and 21 single family lots on the southerly portion of.the . site. However, when final plans for this proposed development were submitted, the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed development would damage the hill td A much greater extent than had been anticipated at the time of pre - liminary approval. The Planning Commission, thereupon, directed the proponent to eliminate -the single family portion of the proposed development and increase the size of the apartment at the base of the hill on the northern portion of the site. In an attempt to resolve the matter, the proponent in 1975,. submitted .four development alternatives for the site. Alternative A proposed 33 single family lots with access from,Gleason Road. 'Alternative B proposed a 74 unit apartment at the base of the hill and 20 single family lots on the southern portion of the site. .As proposed, all single family lots would gain access from Gleason Road. Alternative B (1) was the proposal which_received.preliminary approval from the City Council. This alternative was very similar to alternative B, but with the single family lots gaining access from Indian Hills Road rather than Gleason Road. Alternative C proposed a single miltiple residence building containing 140 units located at the base of .:the hill. The proposed multiple residence consisted of 3, 4 and 5 story elements. Following considerable study, the City Council granted final zoning approval for alternative C. A condition of this approval was that the property be platted and the portion of the property not utilized by the apartment be dedicated to the City. However, the property was not platted and the dedication not made. - --- Victorsen's Timbers Page 2 April 26, 1978 The staff, the Planning Commission,_and the City Council concluded in 1975, that a multiple residence constructed on the northern extreme of the site was the best and most desirable development: Staff is firmly convinced that this use continues to be the most desirable use of the land from the environmental, public safety and public service standpoint. However, the proponent and his representative have made several points that are difficult to dispute. First, the property is zoned R -1 single family dwelling district and second, most of the property is designated for single family use in the Western Edina Plan. Furthermore, staff is aware that the proponent can prove several other points such as: (1) there are existing cul -de -sacs in the City which are longer than those in the proposed subdivision, e.g. Duncraig Road, Loncoln Drive, Malibu Drive and others; (2) there are existing roads in the City which have similar grades to those on the proposed subdivision, e.g. Braeburn Circle, Shawnee Circle, Overholt Pass, and others, (3) much of the Indian Hills.area was and is vegetated with similar types and quantities of trees as the subject property. Staff submits,.however, that in very few instances are all of the aforementioned circumstances exhibited on one particular tract of land. For example, a long cul -de -sac on.a relatively level grade and straight alignment ...may not present an adverse situation. Similarly, a steep roadway with a southern exposure and alternate means of access may not be highly undesirable. Also, the development of a heavily wooded area with very large lots may not be extremely devastating. However, the aforementioned situations cannot be reasonably compared to the subject proposal which has long, steep, curvilinear cul -de -sacs, substantial roadway cuts, and conventionally sized lots. One developed area of the City most closely exhibits the same topographical and vegetative characteristics as the subject property. This is the Muir Woods area which is located between Dakota Trail and Mohawk Trail south of Indian Hills Road. This area is developed with extremely large, single family lots (i.e. approximately 12 to 4 acres) Perhaps a similar type of develop- ment should be considered for the subject property. Recommendation: It is extremely disconcerting for staff to acknowledge a departure from the multiple residence plan which was agreed upon in 1975 after many years of deliberation. Staff continues to maintain that such a development is the best possible.use, for the site. However, based upon the aforementioned circumstances, it appears that a single family concept for the site deserves consideration. Staff notes, however, the following undesirable features and problems associated with the proposed subdivision and soil erosion plan: 1) the intersection of the northerly cul -de -sac with Gleason Road is much too close to the intersection of McCauley Trail with Gleason Road (approximately 601). Victorsen's Timbers - - - - - -- ---Page 3 April 26, 1978 2) access to the existing residence on Indian Hills Road - appears to be nearly impossible following roadway construction 3) extraordinary measures will be-necessary to provide sewer service to-Lots 13, 14, 15, 16,- and 17. 7) due to the elevation of the subject property in comparison to City water reservoirs, extraordinary measures may be necessary to ensure adequate water.pressure for portions of the subdivision 5) staff cannot adequately determine the various elements of the soil erosion plan without profiles for the proposed roads. Such profiles should also be provided to' ascertain the extent of necessary cuts and fills and resultant loss of vegetation. 6) Staff believes that the location and size of the proposed de- silting basins are inadequate based upon comments from the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District. 7) access to 19 single family lots by way of a 1400 foot long curvinlinear cul -de -sac having grades of up to 12% is highly undesirable. Staff recommends that.a modified subdivision should be prepared which includes the following features: 1) extremely large: lots (perhaps only one -half the presently requested number of lots should be proposed). 2) access to the southerly portion of the site from McCauley Trail rather than Gleason Road. 3) resolution of the access problem for.the existing residence on Indian Hills.Road. -4) -the termination.of the southerly cul -de -sac approximately 400 feet easterly of its-present terminus. GLH:ks 4/24/78 - - 7mc( OMBS -KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Edina Staff & Planning Commission 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Subject: Gentlemen: CONSULTING ENGINEERS ® LAND SURVEYORS 13 SITE PLANNERS April 19, 1978 Folke R. Victorsen The Timbers Ordinance No. 817 Information The following information along with the working drawings are submitted as the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for the subject proposed development. The measures to be taken, as outlined in this Plan, will serve to minimize the harmful effects of soil erosion and sedimentation both during the construction stage of the development and after the construction is completed. 1. Time Schedule It will take approximately four months from the date of City approval of the proposal for the preparation of final plans and the completion of the construction of the utilities and streets. If the City were to approve the proposal at this time, we expect the utilities and streets would be completed by August 31, 1978. The houses will be constructed by individual builders and the completion time for the house construction will depend upon the sale of the lots. lte-�—a►?tic-.ipat-e�—h&t•-•a1"1 hGuse...co.n.str.ucti.om,-,w.ilJ'be:ca.mpl@ted.,bytbe.-fdlL.G- 1 -79v 2. Vicinity Map The attached vicinity map shows the relationship of the site to its general surroundings. This site covers approximately 19 acres. Existing development in the area is predominantly year round single family homes. .There are presently two. existing homes within the boundaries of the proposed develop- ment which will be incorporated into the development. 12805 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 5593700 22 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 TELEPHONE (612) 897 -8029 SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING DIVISION, MARSHALL, MINNESOTA 56258 TELEPHONE (507) 532 -5820 E City of Edina April 19, 1978 Page Two 3. Vegetative Cover The site is heavily wooded with approximately 22 trees (over 6" diameter at 4 feet above the ground) per acre. The higher ground is covered with hardwoods such as oak, maple, and elm. The lower slopes have birch and aspen interspersed with the aforementi.oned de CVdC ee s1e• trees. Un All deJlgn tec ski nzqu es utilized in the development will serve to maximize the.amount of trees and other vegetative cover preserved. These techniques include: A) Use of timber retaining walls and sodded slopes to minimize the area needed for road grading. B) Placing utilities within the grading limits of the roadway wherever possible. C) Choosing alignments that will minimize tree loss if it is necessary to locate utilities outside of roadway grading limits. D) Restoring any areas disturbed as per (c) above to a condition compatible with the surrounding landscape. E) Having each house architecturally designed to fit the existing topography and thereby minimizing grading and tree loss. F) Using retaining walls and crushed rock to protect the stability, root zone aeration, and watering area of trees near the limits of grading. G) Use of any other methods which during the design process it becomes evident are necessary to minimize tree loss. With the use of the above techniques, the area disrupted by the roadway and building sites will be approximately 15% of the total area. This means that approximately 60 to 65 trees will be removed and crown cover will be reduced approximately 15% to 20 %. 4. Erosion Control As shown on the plan, we will have adequate straw dams set up to intercept soil wash during the construction period. On the south cul -de -sac, the curve at the east side of the development will be superelevated and an earth berm constructed around the outside to prevent water which is running down the hill from leaving the roadway and running onto Gleason Road. Runoff from the ten year storm on the 12% slope will have a velocity of approximately 5.3 feet per second. This will exert a pressure of approximately 27 lbs /feet2 or a force of 10 lbs on hay bales in the roadway. Staking of the'hay bales will.prevent them from washing down the slope. Also an insurmountable type curb will be constructed to keep the water in-the roadway. pnnhvl on recycled paf)m City of Edina April 19, 1978 Page Three The grading will take approximately one to two weeks. During _th.is time, soil erosion control measures will progress along with each new area exposed. A natural depression at the proposed entry from Indian Hills Pass will serve as a sediment basin during construction. This depression is approximately 50 feet long by 10 feet wide by 3 feet deep. It -will provide a detention time of about 10 minutes for runoff from the ten year storm. There is no existing outlet for the depression. Any accumulation of water of sufficient quantity to fill the depression currently overflows the depression and flows onto Indian Hills Pass to an existing storm sewer system. This will continue to be the case during construction. The detention time in the depression will allow for settling of sediments which may get past the straw dams. The permanent storm sewer system for the south cul -de -sac will consist of catch basins at the proposed entrance from Indian Hills Pass and at the end of the cul -de -sac. The catch basins at the proposed entrance will connect to the existing storm sewer system which empties into a semi -marsh area off of Creek Valley Road. The semi- marsh area drains to Nine Mile Creed. There is an existing sedimentation pond at the outlet of the storm sewer system. The water entering the catch basin at the end of the south cul -de -sac will be discharged to Arrowhead Lake via storm sewer pipe. This pipe will be designed to cause a hydraulic jump to occur inside of the pipe at the base of the grade bank. This will dissipate much of the water's energy. A surge basin and rip rap will be placed at the outlet of the pipe. The north area of the proposed development currently drains to a semi -marsh grassland south of the County Road 62 frontage road. From there it drains to Arrowhead Lake. This will continue to be the pattern during and after construction. Straw dams will be used for erosion control and a temporary sedimentation pond will be constructed near the base of the fill at the end of the proposed cul -de -sac. This pond will hold approximately one tenth acre -foot of water. Water entering the pond will be detained about one -half hour. It will then overflow to the semi -marsh grassland. The water leaving the end of the culde -sac will flow overland to the semi -marsh grassland. The permanent storm sewer on the north cul -de -sac will consist of catch basins at the proposed entrance from Gleason Pond. There is no existing storm sewer system for these catch basins to connect to. Therefore, the water entering these catch basins will drain to the semi -marsh grassland. Current inflow into this grassland consists of runoff from Gleason Road, County Road 62, the County Road 62 frontage road, and.the church parking lot adjacent to the grassland. Upon completion of grading and utilities, all areas of potential erosion will be sodded as soon as possible. printed on recycled pipe. City of Edina April 19, 1978 Page Four 5. Existing-Soil Types . _ _ ___We_ are_ attaching a copy of the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District data for this area. Sincerely, MCCOMBS- KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Xd&. William H. McCombs, P.E. WHM: j 1 Enclosure 2445 printed on recycled papt:r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 29, 1978 S -78 -10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Refer to:- Preliminary plat, attached past staff reports. and minutes On November 2, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed and subsequently recommended denial of a 25 lot single family subdivision of the subject property. The proponent did not appeal this recommendation to the City Council. The proponent has now submitted a new siftgle family subdivision for consideration by the Commission. This subdivision is essentially identical to that reviewed by the Commission on November 2, 1977, but does show some minor revisions. First, the curvature.of the proposed access road from Indian Hills Road has been modified slightly. Second, one lot has been deleted from the subdivision. Third, a 160,000 square foot outlot designated on the November 2, 1977, proposal -has now been designated as a lot. The proposed subdivision continues to exhibit the same limitations as the subdivision submitted on November 2, 1977: Street grades of 8 %, 10% and 12% -are proposed for the street system; an extensive system of retaining walls is proposed to stablize road cuts; and significant removal of vegetation appears necessary to facilitate development of the site. The proponent has also submitted an erosion control plan for the site. Recommendation: Due to the history of the site and the great amount of work that the proponent has undertaken in an effort to prepare a feasible development plan, staff believes that it-would be hasty to submit a recommendation at this time. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed subdivision be continued until April 26, 1978, and a thorough review by staff and the Commission of the subdivision's - effects on topography, vegetation, public utilities and public safety should be undertaken in the interim. GH:ks 3/23/78 (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION) CITY OF EDINA 4801 W. 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, July 10, 1978, at 7:00 p.m. and will at said time and place consider the following: 1. Preliminary Plat of Victorsen's Timbers, generally located at the south- west corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road, described as fol- lows: Lots 18, 19, and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, commencing at the North- east corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian Hills, thence North 5 degrees, 05 minutes East 131 feet to the actual point of beginning, thence North 34 degrees, 13 minutes, W. 101 35/100 feet, thence North 0 degrees, 13 minutes, 30 seconds Ea.-I.- 114 2/10 feet, thence North 65 degrees, 45 minutes, 30 seconds East 141 7/10 feet, thence South 34 degrees, 41 minutes, 30 seconds, East 168 15/100 feet, thence South 5 degrees, 39 minutes, East 100 feet, thence South 84 degrees, 06 minutes West 178 7/10 feet to the beginning. Lots 18 and 19, Auditor's-Subdivision No. 196, except commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian Hills, thence North 5 degrees, 05 minutes East 131 feet to the actual point of beginning, thence North 34 degrees, 13 minutes West 101 35/100 feet, thence North 0 degrees, 13 minutes, 30 seconds East 114 2/10 feet, thence North 65 degrees, 45 minutes 30 seconds East 141 7/10 feet, thence South 34 degrees, 41 minutes, 30 seconds East 168 15 /100 feet, thence South 5 degrees, 39 minutes, East 100 feet, thence South 84 degrees, 06 minutes West 178 7/10 feet to beginning. Lot 20 Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, except highway. Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 196,- except that part lying Easterly and Southerly of the following described line: commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian Hills, thence North 5 degrees, 05 minutes, East 131 feet, thence North 34 degrees, 13 minutes, West 101 35/100 feet, thence North 0 degrees, 3 minutes, 30 seconds,"East 114 2/10 feet, thence North 65 degrees, 45 minutes, 30 seconds East to the West line of Lot 18 and there terminating. Lot A and 11, Indian Hills. 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, June 28, 1978. Please send two (2) Affidavits of Publication. July 7, 197E Mr. Richard J. Keenan Thompson, Nielsen, Klaverkamp & James 4444 I.D.S. Center - 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 RE: Victorsen Sub - Division Dear Mr. Keenan: In response to our meeting and your.letter of July G, 1978, Assistant Chief Paulfranz and I have revievied the proposed plat and consider it to be acceptable from the standpoint of accessibility by emergency vehicles. If any further clarification of.this issue is necessary, please feel free to contact me at 927 -8865. Sincerely, Robert J. Buresh Director of eublic Safety RJB /rah 1 C It LAW OFFICES THOMPSON. NIELSEN. KLAVERKAMP & JAMES A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION i BRUCE F. THOMPSON 4444 IDS CENTER D. JAMES NIELSEN BRUCE W. BLACKBURN 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET PAUL H. KLAVERKAMP O'PUCE B.JAMES MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 GRANT J. MERRITT RICHARD J. KEENAN R. O. ESTES ROGER A.JOHNSON JOHN D. PARSINEN DONALD P. NORWICH RICHARD MASSOPUST. JR. JOSEPH ALEXANDER RICHARD S. GOODMAN JAMES M. CHRISTENSON ROBERT A. LEVY PATRICK J. MCLAUGHLIN HOWARD S. MYERS, M July 6, 1978 City of Edina Safety Department 6250 Tracy Edina, Minnesota 55436 ATTN: Mr. Robert J. Buresh Mr. Theodore R. Paulfranz Dear Messrs. Buresh and Paulfranz: TELEPHONE (612) 339 -4546 .This office represents Mr. and Mrs. Folke Victorsen. As you know, they are in the process of meeting with the City of Edina relative to their development of the property they own near Gleason and the Crosstown. We have submitted to you and the City maps showing a pro- posal calling for 22 single family lots on this piece of prop- erty. Eight lots would be located on a cul -de -sac egressing onto Gleason Road. The other 14 lots would egress onto Indian Hills Pass. There has been some concern as to the suitability of the 14 lot (south) cul -de -sac from the public safety standpoint. The proposal calls for a 50 foot right of way with 30 feet of paved blacktop, with parking allowed on only one side of the street. The actual turn around part of the cul -de -sac is planned to have a 45 foot radius. The proposed grade is 0 to 3% for the portion leading up to the beginning of the curve; up to 8% through the top half of the curve; and a grade not to exceed 120 on the upper straight part of the road. We would appreciate the observations of your office con- cerning the acceptability of this proposal from the aspect of public safety. Thank you for your cooperation. RJK /mb Sincerely, Richard J. -,OCjA,,TRON MAP TA ........... =SIAIILEr TRAIL RoSSVIEW UTHERAN CHURCH 41. �Pft R k VA C. CREEK VI ELEM. VICTORSEN'S TIMMS REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-10 LOCATION: SE Corner of Crosstown and Gleason Rd. REQUEST: - R-1 Single Family Subdivision a a mc' n I vill m-K-c—dinn COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT May 31, 1978 S -78 -10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Refer to: April 26, 1978 Staff Report and attached graphic On April 26, 1978, the Commission reviewed the subject subdivision. At that time, the Commission requested that the proponent eliminate two lots on the southerly portion of the site and increase the right -of -way width to 50 feet. The proponent has submitted a revised subdivision (attached) which does eliminate two lots and proposes a 50 foot right -of -way. Recommendation: Staff continues to have the same concerns regarding this subdivision that were expressed in the April 26, 1978 staff report. GLH:ks 5/24/78 f� PLANNING COMMISSION ION STAFF REPORT April 26, 1978 S -78 -10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Refer to: Attached text, March 29, 1978 Staff Report The Commission will recall that the subject subdivision was continued from the March. 29, 1978 meeting to allow the Commissioners ample opportunity to view the site and study the requested subdivision. This subdivision proposes 24 single family lots which would be served by a cul -de -sac from Gleason Road and a cul-de-sac- from Indian Hills Road. The subject property has a rather lengthy and complicated history of development proposals which have included single family developments, townhouse developments, apartment and single family combinations, and apartment developments. In 1974, the City Council did grant preliminary approval to a proposed rezoning to PRD-3 which would have allowed 74 multiple residential units on the northerly portion of the site and 21 single family lots on the southerly portion of the site. Ho ever, w;er, final Dlans fog this proposed development were submitted, the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed development would damage the hill to a much greater extent than had been anticipated at the time of pre - liminary approval. The Planning Commission, thereupon, directed the proponent to eliminate the single family portion of the proposed development and increase the size of the apartment at the base of the hill on the northern portion of the .site. In an attempt to resolve the matter, the proponent in 1975, submitted four development alternatives for the site. Alternative A proposed 33 single family lots with access from Gleason Road. Alternative B proposed a 74 unit apartment at the base of the hill and 20 single .family lots on the southern portion of the site. As proposed, all single family lots would gain access from •• Gleason Road. Alternative B (1) was the proposal-which received preliminary • approval from the City Council. This alternative was very similar to alternative B, but with the single family lots gaining access from Indian Hills Road ,rather than Gleason Road. Alternative C proposed a single miltiple residence building containing 140 units located at the base of the hill. The proposed multiple residence consisted of 3, 4 and 5 story elements. • Following considerable study, the City Council granted final zoning approval for alternative C. A condition of this approval was that the property be platted and the portion of the property not utilized.by the apartment be dedicated to the City. However, the property was not platted and the dedication • not made. J Victorsen's Timbers Page 2 " April 26, 1978 • The staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council concluded in •1975, that a multiple residence constructed on the northern extreme of the site • Was the best anc� most desirable .i A�►ol^mm�n t; -- -ff i$ firmly c.^. •i :. .^.�. that -r -- - this use continues to be the most desirable use of-the land -from the environmental, + public safety and public service standpoint. However, the proponent and his representative have made several points that are difficult to dispute. First, the property is zoned R -1 single family dwelling district and second, most of the property is designated for single family use in the Western Edina Plan. Furthermore, staff is aware that the proponent can prove several other points such as: (1) there are existing cul -de -sacs in the City which are longer than those in the proposed subdivision, e.g. Duncraig Road, Loncoln Drive, Malibu Drive and others; (2) there are existing roads in the City which have similar grades to those on the proposed subdivision,. e.g. Braeburn Circle, Shawnee Circle, Overholt Pass, and others, (3) much of the Indian Hills area was and is vegetated with similar types and quantities of trees as the subject property. Staff submits, however, that in very few instances are all of the aforementioned circumstances exhibited on one particular tract of land. For example, a long cul -de -sac on a relatively level grade and straight alignment ..may. not present an adverse situation. Similarly, a steep roadway with a southern ..exposure and alternate means of access may not be highly undesirable. Also, the development of a heavily wooded area with very large lots may not be extremely devastating. However, the aforementioned situations cannot be reasonably compared to the subject proposal which -has long, steep, curvilinear cul -de -sacs, substantial roadway cuts, and conventionally sized.lots. • One developed area of the City most .closely exhibits the same .topographical and vegetative characteristics as the subject property. This is the Muir Woods area which is located between Dakota Trail and Mohawk Trail south of Indian Kills Road. This area is developed with extremely large, single family lots (i.e. approximately lz to 4 acres) Perhaps a similar type of develop - ment should be consideredfor the subject property. Recommendation: -It is extremely disconcerting for staff to acknowledge a departure from the multiple residence plan which was agreed upon in 1975 after many years of deliberation. Staff continues to maintain that such a development is the best possible use for the site. However, based upon the aforementioned circumstances, it appears that a single family concept for the site deserves consideration. Staff notes, however, the following undesirable features and problems associated with the proposed subdivision and soil erosion plan: 1) the intersection of the northerly cul -de -.sac with Gleason Road is much too close to the intersection of - v� McCauley Trail with Gleason Road (approximately 60'). • h"CA L `_� mac- -,- , d �. 6,110 Victo.rsen's Timbers page 3 • April 26, 1978 _ 2) access to the existing residence on Indian Hills Road appears to be nearly impossible following roadway • construction ; 0 �c 3) extraordinary measures will be-necessary to provide sseew�er�� � service to Lots 13, 14, .15, 16, 'and 17. -- due to the elevation of the subject property in comparison to City water reservoirs, extraordinary measures ray be necessary to ensure adequate water pressure for portions of .. -the subdivision - $ staff cannot adequately determine the various elements of the ' soil erosion plan without profiles for the proposed roads. Such profiles should also be provided to ascertain the extent fills and resultant loss of vegetation. of necessary cuts and 6). Staff believes that the location and size of the proposed �_•�,� • de- silting basins are inadequate based upon comments from ,1� the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District. - 7) access to 19 single family lots by way of a 1400 foot long ,- ..., -aog Of ug tO 12% is highly curV.&AAi.Lraar cui- d.''."+ :: ::�� +.•b d� undesirable. Q_ k—t e,&,, - - Staff recommends that a modified subdivision should be prepared which inc],udes the following features: 1) extremely large lots (perhaps only. one -half the �Ip presently requested number of lots should be proposed). L`_2 ` .. •2) access to the northerly portion of the site from McCauley Trail rather than Gleason Road. - V 3) resolution of the access problem for.the existing residence . on Indian Hills Road. "4) the termination. of the southerly cul -de -sac approximately 400 feet easterly of its -present terminus.- h.•��- ---� -� GLH: ks 4/24/78 o 0 0 J r S -78 -10 Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast cornec.of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason.Road. Mr. Hughes noted that this matter was continued from the March 29, 1978 Meeting to allow the Commissioners an opportunity to review and study the requested subdivision. The subdivision proposes 24 single family lots which would be served by a cul de sac from Gleason Road and a cul de sac from Indian Hills Road. This subdivision is approximately 19 acres in size and has two existing residences, one on Indian Hills Road and the other at the top of the hill. This particular tract of land has a rather long history of development pro- posals on it. The City Council, approximately three years ago, did grant preliminary approval to a proposed rezoning to PRD -3, which would have allowed 74 multiple residential units on the northerly portion of the site and 21 single family lots on the southerly portion of the site. When final plans for that proposed development were submitted to the Planning Commission for zoning purposes, it was determined that the amount of cutting and filling and removal of vegetation on the.hill was much greater than had been anticipated at the time of preliminary approval. At that point, the Planning Commission did recommend to the owner that he delete the single family portion of the proposed development and increase the size of the multiple building on the northerly portion of the site. In 1975, the proponent did submit four alternate plans for development of the site. The first was a complete single family plan for the site which proposed all access of of Gleason Road and no access from Indian Hills Road. The second alternative proposed a 74 unit apartment at the base of the hill and 20 single family lots on the southern portion of the site. Another option was a 74 unit building at the base of the hill,. but with the single family lots gaining - access from Indian Hills Road. This is the plan that received preliminary approval from the Council for rezoning to PRD-3. Another plan, which was proposed, was a 140 unit apartment building located at the northerly portion of the site and included no single family development. After numerous hearings before the Commission and Council, this was the concept plan that was accepted and received both first and second reading from the Council. The approval was contingent upon the platting of the property and the dedication of the remainder of the site for park purposes for Community Development Minutes Page 2 April 26, 1978 the City. That platting did not occur and neither did the parkland dedication. The Staff, Commission and Council concluded in 1975 that a multiple residence on the northern extreme of the site was the most desirable development that could occur on the site from an environmental standpoint, public safety standpoint and also from a public service standpoint. We are still convinced that that would be the best development of the site. At the last meeting, however, the proponents made several points that are difficule to dispute. First of all, the site is zoned R -1, Single Family Dwelling District, and it is shown on the Western Edina. Plan as single family use. There are several other points as well: there are cul de sacs presently existing in the City which are longer than those proposed in the subdivision including Duncraig Road, Lincoln Drive and others; there are existing roads in the City which have similar grades to those proposed, such as Braeburn Circle, Shawnee Circle, Overholt Pass and others; and much of the Indian Hills area was vegetated in a manner quite similar to this site. . The Staff also submits that there are very few pieces of property in the City, and especially in this area of the City, that exhibit all of these problems. One developed area of the City which closely resembles the same topographical and vegetative characteristics is Muir Woods, which is located between Dakota Trail and Mohawk Trail south of Indian Hills Road. This area was developed with extremely. large lots. We have reviewed in more detail the single family plan that was submitted at the last meeing and we do wish to point out several problems which we see in them: 1. the intersection of the northerly cul -de -sac with Gleason Road is much too close to the intersection of McCauley Trail with Gleason Road (approximately 60'). 2. access to the existing residence on Indian Hills Road appears to be nearly impossible following roadway construction. 3. extraordinary measures will be necessary to provide sewer service to Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. 4. due to the elevation of the subject property in comparison to City water reservoirs, extraordinary measures may be necessary to.ensure adequate water pressure for portions of the subdivision. 5. staff cannot adequately determine the various elements of the soil erosion plan without profiles for the proposed roads. Such profiles should also be provided to ascertain the extent of necessary cuts and fills and resultant loss of vegetation. 6. staff believes that the location and size of the proposed de- silting basins are inadequate based upon comments from the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District. 7. access to 19 single family lots by way of a 1400 foot long curvinlinear cul -de -sac having grades of up to 12% is highly undesirable. Community Development Minutes Page 3 April 26, 1978 _ Staff recommends that a modified subdivision should be prepared which includes the following features: 1. extremely large lots (perhaps only one -half the presently requested number of lots should be proposed). 2. access to the northerly portion of the site from McCauley Trail rather than Gleason Road. 3. resolution of the access problem for the existing residence on Indian Hills Road. 4. the termination of the southerly cul -de -sac approximately 400 feet easterly of its present terminus. Mr.,Hughes introduced Mr. Richard Keenan, attorney for the Folke Victorsen's. Mr. Keenan noted that when a conflict of interest arose at the March 29 meeting, Mr. Victorsen and his attorney decided that rather than allow the possibility of any distraction-from the Commission as to the merits of this proposal, they would substitute attorneys for this proceeding and that is why he is now representing the Victorsen's. Mr. Keenan noted that when he first started reviewing the Commission's record, he was impressed by one of the first entries that appeared in the file. It appeared in the 1971 staff report and says, "this is a magnificant piece of property with very interesting possibilities for development ". He noted that he and the Victorsen's were hopeful to make some progress tonight. As indicated by Mr. Hughes, Mr. Keenan noted, there was a development.proposal as far back as 1971. The Victorsen's have owned the subject property since 1955. The 1971 proposal showed mixed housing and there was considerable resident objection the the proposal. There was alot of testimony given at that time in opposition to that proposal. The planner hired by the proponents filed a report with the Commission which indicates that, in his opinion, the optimum use of the property was to leave it in its natural state. That would require that either the surrounding residents purchase the property for its parklike purposes or that the City acquire it. The second preference was a development for single family units. The staff has indicated that there were a number of alternative projects. Mr. Keenan then reviewed the 1974 proposal with the Commission. In 1975, after several alternatives were considered, the Planning Commission and the Council reviewed and approved a proposal which would have had 140 units at the northerly end of the property. He pointed out that there is excellent visibility at the Indian Hills-Road juncture with the proposed road. The plan before the Commission involves an application for subdivision with 24 single family lots. That proposal is consistent with the present zoning of that piece of property. It is also consistent with the Western Edina Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We are confident that it is in compliance with all of the applicable ordinances of the City. He urged the Commission to take into consideration the concern, frustratio =: energy and the expenses the Victorsen's have incurred in getting this project into its present form. -==.. Community Development Minutes Page 4 ' April 26, 1978 Mr. Keenan did not agree that there was a safety factor with the intersection of the northerly cul de sac with Gleason Road. He felt that there was good visibility at that point. He noted that one concern of the staff dealt with measures to provide sewer service to five lots. Mr. Keenan noted that it has been reviewed carefully from an engineering standpoint and basically, the engineers brought two alternate proposals to the City; one being individual pumps in the houses to be developed on those particular lots and the second, was one small lift ptation. The City Engineering Department indicated a preference for the lift station. The proponent's engineer discussed the water proposals with the City to see if their proposals were reasonable. The water service would come from a tank approximately a block away from the subdivision. With an 8 inch pipe going up and a 6 inch pipe coming down, there is no problem with the water service,. and this has been confirmed by the City Engineer. Another concern was the submission of profiles of the roads in order to determine the various elements of the soil erosion. Mr. Keenan felt that he was confident that with the information that has already been submitted in terms of the working drawings and the erosion and sedimentation control plans show all the information that could be obtained from profiles. The erosion and soil sedimentation control plan has been submitted to the staff and reviewed by the staff of the Hennepin County Conservation District. We could comply fully with the requests set forth in the Hennepin County analysis, because we think they don't represent any problems. The Hennepin County analysis raises three questions relative to this proposal. They might want to see an additional siltation pond in the area on the west side of Lot 15. The last concern dealt with the length of the cul de sac. Mr. Keenan pointed our that the staff had indicated that there were longer.cul de sacs in the City and the proponent does not feel that this is a problem. Mr. Keenan then indicated that the Fire Department had been consulted about the width of the proposed southerly cul de sac. According to the letter received from Mr. Buresh, the Fire Department indicated that the width of the roadway was not a difficult problem, but there would be no parking on the street. Chairman Lewis asked how people would be kept from parking on the street. Mr. Keenan stated that in reviewing the best layout for that particular road, we looked at two things, how to minimize the disruption of the vegetation and the number of trees to be taken. The recommendation at that point was to do a 36 foot right -of- way which is practical and safe and will minimize tree taking and vegetation disruption. We have also done a layout which shows a 50 foot right -of -way. We are vitally concerned with saving a number of trees and vegetation, basically from an environmental and aesthetic standpoint. We have tried to ask the experts and based on what they have told us, we feel that it is practical to have the 36 foot right -of- way. From an environmental standpoint, every precaution has been taken to maximize the desirable features that now exist on the hill. Community Development Minutes Page 5 April 26, 1978 Mr. Keenan noted that the staff report contained four recommendations; the first suggested changing the lot sizes. The lots as proposed are large and substantial and in compliance with the Edina Zoning Ordinance and they are consistent with lots in the area. It will be expensive to develop. We think that to realistically develop the property is to have a reasonable number of lots and 24 are proposed. He felt that to limit the number of lots in this proposal to 12 would be unreasonable and would constitute a taking of the Victorsen property without compensation. The second recommendation set forth in the staff report suggests that access to the northerly portion of the site be through McCauley Trail-rather than Gleason Road. The property north is owned by the Church and not to Mr. Victorsen, so he does not have that option available to him. The Gleason access is a reasonable one. The third item, access to the Victorsen residence will not be a difficulty. The fourt item, the termination of the southerly cul de sac approximately 400 feet easterly of its present terminus would result in the probable loss of use of the westerly end of the development. We think that this is a magnificant piece of property. The people who buy it will love the hill and the trees and we will take whatever steps are necessary to preserve the present beauty that is there. The architects who design the houses will have a chance to participate in the creation of some of the most exciting housing that will take place. It is proper and reasonable for this Planning Commission to approve this proposal. The project does have unique characteristics. All questions have been fully considered and have been satisfactorily met. The subdivision that we are proposing does meet the Zoning Ordinance and it does meet the comprehensive plan and it meets all applicable ordinances of the City. Gordon Johnson asked Mr. Hughes why there could be no parking on a 24 foot wide road and Mr. Hughes replied that ordinarily parking would be allowed along one side of a 24 foot wide road, but based on the Public Safety Director's comments that because of the steepness of the grade and the curve of the road, we would then recommend against parking on the street. Mr. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer, stated that his department has looked at the property to see how it was developable. We agree with Mr. Buresh's comments that the proposed road is an absolute minimal situation. It is possible to have a 24 foot wide street, if there is a large gathering, we do not have the answer to. the parking problem. There is confusion in the discussion about street right of ways. . We think the proposed street should be wider than 36 feet, we prefer the 50-foot right of way. There is a combination of difficulties.that make this proposal more difficult than others. It is not totally impossible, but difficult. There has been some discussion with the church to the north on McCauley. for access at that point, but the church did not feel that it was a reasonable thing. However, we still feelthat it is a safer option to go out onto McCauley than Gleason Road. We do prefer the one lift station over five individual pumps, but the problem is that someone will have to maintain it, which could be a long range expense to the City. We looked at minimal problems with the proponents and we still feel that there are some problems. We understand the problems and the solutions are not easy. Mr. Hughes noted that the consultant hired by. the neighbors to review the effects of the townhouse and combination and different developments for the site in 1971 recommended that the property either be permanent open space or developed as Community Development Minutes Page 6 April 26, 1978 single family. The consultant did say that if the property were to be developed as single family, there should be only 10 or 12 conventional lots. The second point that needs clarification is the reason for the denial of the preliminary approval of the PRD-3 zoning in 1975, was not the multiple family at the base of the hill, but rather because of the single family encroachment on the hill. A point that should be made is that it is very difficult. to take different elements of different plans out of context and say one element was acceptable at one-time and not now acceptable and vice versa. In 1975, we were looking at an overall compromise plan for the site. We feel there is a real need for cross sections and profiles for the road on this site. We are having some difficulty understanding the plan that has been arrived at, the erosion control plan that was arrived at and the figures of 15% vegetation removal on the site unless cross sections have been prepared. A resident inquired about a cul de ) sac entering the area from the west onto the subject property. Mr. Hughes said that one plan did show the roadway at one time, in the northwest corner, but it is .property not owned by Mr. Victorsen and it was shown only as a future plan that could occur. A representative from the engineering firm representing Mr. Victorsen stated that all of the homes built in the area would be architecturally designed homes to fit the area. He presented a sketch showing the possible locations of homes. He also stated that there is no way we can get the amount of vegetation removal down to a certain percent until we start to develop the property. He stated that there will have to be retaining walls in certain areas. Mr. Runyan inquired about the size of the lots in the plat. Mr. Keenan stated that the smallest lot was 13,400 square feet and the largest lot is 40,000 square feet. There are 10 lots in the 13,400 square foot to 16,000 square foot area; 5 lots that are 16,000 to 19,000 square feet; 1 lot at 31,100 square feet; 4 lots that are 20,000 to 32,400 square feet; 1 lot is 35,000 square feet; 1 lot is 47,300 square feet and one lot is 160,000 square feet in area. Mr. Seaberg said that R -1 is not unique and the property was zoned to PRD -5 at one time and that was not unreasonable. The long cul -de -sac was discussed and they exist in other places in Edina and because they exist today in other places in Edina doesn't mean the-Commission should accept another long cul -de -sac. He stated steep grades were discussed and again, they exist-in Edina but does that mean today, looking at this plan, that a combination of long cul -de -sacs and steep grades should be accepted again? Mr. Bob Perkins, Dakota Trail, stated that he was speaking as an interested property owner and also as President of the Indian Hills Association. We feel that Mr. Victorsen has a right to develop his property as anyone does, and we don't object to his proposal to develop it as a single family project, but we do feel that it has a very significant impact on the Indian Hills area. Our chief concern is the safety and welfare of the people who are travelling that area. We see some significant problems. There is a 180 degree turn into that hill right in the middle of Indian Hills Pass and we think it represents a significant safety problem. He stated that he had not heard anything that gives him any comfort as to the real safety factors of that particular intersection. The high density seems to compound the problems. If people cannot get into their homes in the wintertime, where will they park. We would like to see some further study of the traffic problem as it relates to the Indian Hills Pass area and wonder if there isn't some way that the entire development could, be accessed out onto McCauley or connected out another way so there will be no more traffic on an already busy residential street. Community Development Minutes Page.7 April 26, 1978 Dr. Glenn Lewis, stated that he is very .concerned about the erosion, loss of vegetation as well as the size and location of Lot 12 in the northwest corner on the steep slope of the hill. He stated that he worries about the size of that lot and wondered why there was a change from November when it was shown as an outlot. He• stated that he is concerned that the lot may be developed for an apartment site. He stated that he would much prefer that Lot 12 remain as an outlot. Mr. Harry Murphy, Indian Hills Road, stated that all of us in the area know that Indian Hills Pass is a very difficult road in the winter and there are numerous times when there is a traffic tie up coming up the hill from Gleason Road to the connection of Indian Hills Road. Many of us have to park our cars in the street because of the steep grades to our homes. He asked where the additional land would . come from with a 50 foot right of way. Mr: Keenan replied that it would be on the south side.. He also inquired about the berming situation. The engineer for the Victorsen project stated that while the grading was being done, the property could be bermed at that time. Mr. Hughes stated that the staff did review the schematic showing how the homes are to be located on the lots and we are not sure if they are exact locations, but we did run into some setback problems on Lots 13 and 6 in the subdivision based on the homes that were shown on those lots and if the road right of way is to go to 50 feet rather than 36 feet, and would be placed entirely on the southerly side, it is possible that we will-have other setback problems on the southern side. Mr. Runyan asked what is the genesis for bouncing back and forth from R -1 .to apartment buildings. Mr. Victorsen stated that what actually took place was the fact that we were delayed so long that financing was not available. If we had gotten permission quickly, for the multiple unit in '72, '73 and '74, we would have been able to get the financing. We took a tremendous beating because the financing fell apart in '75, '76 and '77. We are still not able to get financing. Mr. Runyan stated that.one of the things we seem to be discussing is the access off McCauleyand it certainly doesn't seem feasible if Mr. Victorsen doesn't own that property and the Church won't sell it to him. It isn't valid to discuss it at this point. Chairman Lewis inquired about the Church's attitude about giving an entrance off McCauley. Mr. Victorsen stated that the City •Manager and Mayor went out to talk to the Church about this very thing. We had made them two offers on their property and we couldn't work it out, so the Mayor and Manager talked to the Church and found out that it wasn't possible. Chairman Lewis asked what the Church was going to do with the property. Mr. Victorsen stated that he-did not know, but he did know that he could not have access through it. Mr. Hughes stated that the option we have is to suggest the concept of condemnation for roadway in that area if it would be in the public interest. Chairman Lewis stated that he thought it would be in the public interest. Mr. Victorsen stated that when he was working with the soil and erosion people, he was told that the Church would not be able to build in that property, however, if the Church does come in with a development, perhaps the Commission could require them to give us access and we could close off the other roadway. e Community Development Minutes Page 8 April 26, 1978 Mrs. McClelland stated that she would like to comment on this proposal. She stated that she would like to echo Commissioner Seaberg's comments and that she feels that a plan is just that, it is a plan and there is nothing exclusive about R -1. The fact that the property has been owned since 1955 - we have seen an awful lot of changes in the City since 1955 and in fact, a great deal of this environmental concern that we now have, has arisen in the late 1960's and she feels that Edina has tried to keep up with the impact or the spirit of most of these new ideas about floodlands and wetlands and grades and preserving the topography. We have two pro posals here and one is a proposal that involves alot of environmental damage to a very steep slope versus a problem that has.also arisen recently and that is the traffic on Gleason Road. This proposal has been studied and studies through its various forms through the 1970's and it was decided that perhaps one of the best uses from an environmental point of view was to cluster or to put some kind of multiple housing at the base of the hill, but that will aggrevate a traffic problem which has arisen on Gleason Road due to some other factors in the City and perhaps an interchange that was not built at 494, so volumes are probably ahead of yearly estimates for Gleason. She stated that she does not like to go back to an R -1 exclusively. She would not like to, necessarily, on the basis of a plan, throw out all concepts of multiple housing. Perhaps PRD -5 was going too far in the other direction. We have had some changes since that zoning was given, but again, if the environmental factors were strong enough to preserve the hill and it seems like a great number of changes are being made. Perhaps small clusters of townhouses or something that might be financed more easily, could still be considered for the bottom portion of that hill. She said she would not like to find herself limited to only considering R -1 on the basis that it was once R -1 and has reverted to an R -1. Mrs. McDonald expressed concern about doing something at the absolute minimum in a quality development. We should think about parking bays or making the roadway larger. Mr. Runayn stated that there is a steep hill and it is heavily wooded and he felt that homes would be designed, probably, although they may not be by professionals, but they will not wipe the hill clean and put houses in. You just can't do that in this type of a project. North -Oaks has a very nice system of reviewing houses when they are to be built on a particular piece of property and house is checked out to make sure how many trees are removed and what kind and what style of the house, color and everything has to be submitted and approved before the.house can be built. Can something similar be done here where there was a body that would have to review every building that is to be built in a development like this, should it go ahead. Mr. Victorsen stated that he is going to have control over the design and placement of the houses. Mr. Keenan stated that the Victorsen's have a vested interest in the property and will control the restrictions on the property. They will see to it that the homes are appropriately designed and built. The people who buy these lots will buy them because they love the hill, the trees, the view and they will have an opportunity for an exciting design. This is not a standard subdivision, it is an unusual situation. This hill has some unique factors. We are convinced that these factors have been dealt with. This is the optimal proposal for this piece of property. Community Development Minutes Page 9 April 26, 1978 � Dr. Lewis stated that he would like to have Mr. Victorsen explain why Lot 12 has been changed from an outlot. Mr. Victorsen responded that he is considering buildin:_ one house and selling four acres to someone else. There is only one area on Lot 12 that is buildable. Dr. Lewis said he would feel better if part of the lot was an outlot. Mrs. Kongsore, 6512 Indian Hills Road, stated she could see houses on the top of the hill and she felt that this talk is a fairy tale. There is no sidewalk and the school children walk in the road and it is so narrow that there would be a safety problem. She stated that she could not understand why there has to be so i many lots, the lots should be larger. The area is so beautiful and land is precious. Mr. Runyan responded by saying that the hill is not going to be denuded. He didn't feel that the hill would be ripped clean. Mr. Seaberg stated that he felt that he would be more inclined to see PRD -5 l on the property than what has been presented this evening. He said that he cannot, in good conscience go along and accept this proposal as it now stands based on its history and the struggle that„40,s_ gone on up to this point. Based on that, he moved that the Commission deny the Rm-l.Single Family subdivision'thaF is before us. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. Ayes: Seaber %, McClelland, Bentley; Nays: D. Johnson, McDonald, G. Johnson, Runyan, Lewis. Motion Lost. Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Hughes about the size of lots in the surrounding area. Mr. Hughes, by way of a graphic, pointed out the lot sizes in the general - vicinity. The lots ranged in size from 30,000 square feet up to three and four acres. Chairman Lewis asked Mr. Victorsen if he would-be willing to go along with a 50 foot wide street and remove two or three lots. Mr. Victorsen responded by saying that if the Commission were to come to himwith a definite proposal and say that there be a 50 foot street .nd remove -two or three lots on each side, I'd go along with it. If the Commission wants him to remove one lot on each side of the street, he'd go along with it, but he wanted a definite proposal and if it is to be a 50 foot street, he wanted Mr. Murphy to say it would be perfectly all right to be 15 feet from his lot. We went to the narrow street because of Mr. Murphy's objections. Mr. Runyan stated that we could be arbitrary and say take one off either side of the road, maybe that it right and maybe it isn't. He stated that he wouldn't care to make a snap decision on that basis. A person who understands topography should lay it out and it should be reviewed with planning and if you drop only one lot, you drop only one. If you have to drop three to make it all a bit bigger, then maybe it is three. He stated that he senses that if the lot sizes are larger and there is a wider road, then the vote would be more favorable. Mr. Murphy stated that he would be very upset about a 15 foot area between his lot and the road itself. He would prefer to see the road go up into Lot 13 and get the road away from his lot. He would prefer 30 feet between his property and Mr. Gordon Johnson stated that looking at it from the point of view of having �. been seven years with this project, the reaction he has is that he would like to J see the 50 foot roadway with 30 feet paved, parking permitted on one side and he would like to see the average lot size brought up a little higher. In order to make all of that work, it seems that Gordon Hughes and the proponents should, in the next 30 days, see if they can resolve these differences and get back on the agenda May 31 and see if we can make a decision and get moving with this subdivision. Mr. Runyan stated that the lots toward the freeway is probably less critical in their size than the size of the houses up on the hill that are facing the bulk of Indian Hills. At one time we were willing to accept a multiple unit there, which was very dense. He would feel less of a problem with smaller lots on the north side and the larger ones on the balance of the hill. Dr. Lewis stated that as long as we have waited this long, a month or two more would be better. He would feel much better if there was an actual drawing of what the changes are before we see any action. He and others would like to review new plans. Mr. Keenan stated that it is costly to keep redoing the proposals. It would be better to let us wake the changes and take them before the Council. Any residents who have concerns can express them at that time. Gordon Johnson moved that the Commission grant concept approval subject to the right -of -way going to 50 feet with 30 feet of paved blacktop, parking on one side and the elimination of tow lots on the southerly portion of the project and if that can be worked out in 30 days, we will put it back on the agenda the 31st of May. Del Johnson seconded the motinn_ All U.,- A.. Minutes of the 5 -31 -70 Community Development and -3- Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of the 5 -31 -78 Community Development and -4- • Planning Commission Meeting PV ,-, -78 -10 '1d1'13 Mr. G. Hughes said the Commission should recall that this subject was discussed at their April 26, 1978, meeting, and at that time a single family lot subdivision was proposed for the site which would have 25 lots. One lot presently contains the existing residence. He said at that time, the Commission granted concept approval of the proposed subdivision with the conditions the proponents increase the right -of -way for the subdivision to 50 feet and try to eliminate two to three lots. The proponents have re- turned with two alternatives to this proposal, both eliminating two lots from the subdivision. He said the first alternative has a 50 foot road right -of- way with the exception of the curve, where it narrows down to 36 feet. The second alternative is similar to the first; however, the right -of -way is 50 feet through the entire length of the road. Victorsen's Timbers. Generally located at the southeast cor- ner of Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Mt. G. Hughes continued that from staff standpoint, they have the same concerns as expressed at the April meeting. He pointed out the proponents had returned with the plan revised in the direction the Com- mission gave them in regard to the reduction of lots and the 50 foot right -of- way. Mr. Richard Keenan, the attorney for the Folke Victorsen's, was present and indicated that both alternative plans were in compliance with the intent of the Commission at their April meeting. Ile said both alternatives contained a reduction in the number of lots from 24'to•22, as directed by the Commission; however, there were two different ways in which the curve area was done, so as to make sure they came up with a final propo- sal for the Commission which would have the least impact on the environment. He continued they had talked with Mr. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer, and Mr. Bob Buresh, Public Safety, about the feasibility of a plan which would have a 36 foot right -of -way from Indian Hills Road up to the curb, basically to minimize the extent of the cut and the number of trees that would be taken down in that area. He said they are able to accomplish the 22 lots with either alternative. Mr. S. Hughes questioned the control of cutting trees. Mr. G. Hughes said there is an ordinance regulating tree removal and including the necessity of a tree- cutting permit. There is also a soil erosion ordi- nance,and one need not comply with both the-tree removal and soil erosion ordinances. He said staff has asked the proponents to suL-miL a soil erosion plan for the site which includes tree removal for part of the site. Proced- urally, it does not cone before the Commission, but they did receive a copy of the plan for this request. In response to Mrs. McClelland, Mr. Ron Bastor said an in- crease in right -of -way from 36 feet to the 50 feet would not make that much difference to the number of trees taken; it would still be 15 percent. Mr. G. Hughes indicated that accarding to the prepared foot- prints, Lots 13 and 17 may have setback problems, without seeing the specific plans, due to the lot configuration. In response, Mr. Bastor said a dwelling could be placed on the lots without a variance, but they would have to be architecturally designed to fit. Mr. Fran Hoffman recalled the conversation at the last Com- mission meeting stating they would provide a 24 foot surface with no parking on either side which would go to 30 feet with parking one side. Mr. Buresh has said this is acceptable. The basic proposal, however, was for a 50 foot right -of -way with a 30 foot surface and parking on one side. In response to Mr. Seaberg's concern for control of lot con - struction, Mr. Keenan said Mr. Victorsen, as the developer, has a vested interest in the site and an inherent right to impose architectural restric- tions or limitations on what locations on the lots they may be built. It is his intent to have the overall project as environmentally sound as possible. In terms of the actual development and construction of individual lots, he would make sure they were done in a manner consistent with Indian Hills area. However, there is no legal way of enforcing it. In response to Mr. Bentley, Mr. Keenan said Item No. 2 on the staff report would necessarily involve access across property presently owned by the church immediately north of the Victorsen property. In ssponse to Item No. 3, what they are talking about is the egress from the existing residence to the road; this has been reviewed by Engineering and they have determined the driveway would change location and the problems are therefore resolved. He further said the proposal is for single family lots,and for many years the bulk of opposition from the residents of the area has been that this is a single family area, and as far back as five or six years ago, the residents were voicing concerns to the Commission that it should be re- tained that way. Therefore, they feel this is the one proposal which is con- sistent with the overall nature of that particular community. Mr. G. Hughes said in regard to the access problem and its resolution, he asked that a profile, cross sections, or any engineering drawings be brought in so staff could make that determination. Mr. Jack Clark, 6404 Cherokee Trail, was concerned about the hairpin turn off Gleason Road and parking on the street, particularly during the winter. He wondered if there was a possibility for access other than off Indian Hills Road. He also expressed concern about snow removal and the ability of-City vehicles to maneuver on the proposed road. Mr. Victorsen, the proponent, disagreed with the comments on traffic problems, saying he usually had no trouble in the winter. Mr. Paul Jasmin, 6420 Indian Hills Road, was concerned that the silence and open area they presently enjoy would be lost through the proposed development. Mr. Bastor said the Indian Hills Pass and Gleason Road intersection is similar to every intersection in the city. Also, when the profile is brought in, it will be apparent there are a few level areas on the roadway, with a 50 foot flat on the Victorsen property to park on. The City Engineering Department has also reviewed the proposed profiles on the roads and approved them. Minutes of the 5 -31 -V Community Development and Planning Commission Meeting -5- Mrs. McClelland said the road proposed to be built, as it comes by Mr. Victorsen's residence,is about the lot fine where his far north- east lot line is about 910 feet and drops down to where he brings in Indian Hills Pass'to 904 feet. The grade on his property is dropping from 930 to 910 feet on the contour. She did not understand how they will get a driveway in there for the lot in that very narrow little neck in the northeast corner. Mr. Keenan said it would be a steep driveway, but no differ- ent than what he has now. He said they are looking at a grade of about 15 percent and that there is a flat spot at either end of the driveway. It is an improvement over what the existing condition is. In response to Mr. Fernelius, Mr. Victorsen said there are no homes on Indian Hills Pass facing his property; however, there are five lots backing up to his property. Mr. S. T. Robb, 6405 Indian Hills Road, said the hill has been difficult to go up in the winter. Mr. Fernelius asked if the only way to solve the problem of the steep hill is not to develop it. Mr. Robb said he did not know, but felt a second hairpir turn should not be put in. In response to Mr. S. Hughes, Mr. G. Hughes said the property is zoned R -1 because the zoning of the property to PRD -5 was contingent on the platting of the property and the property was never actually platted. Mr. Lewis asked if it would be possible to cut off a portion of the curve. Mr. G. Hughes said this becomes a rather difficult turning movement given the grade of the hill and of the road. He said that perhaps from a grade standpoint, it would be more desirable, but from a turn stand- point, it would not be much of an improvement. He said other alternatives had been brought up at the last meeting, the first being to bring the roadway either from McCauley or Gleason to serve the top of the property, but this proved to be extremely steep. He feels it is very difficult to develop this property with single family homes without a road off Indian Hills Road to serve it. Perhaps with a greatly reduced number of lots in the subdivision, there may be another way to serve them without a roadway. Mr. W. J. Berg, 6409 Cherokee Trail, was concerned about the safety of the children in the area because of the dangerous road and intersec- tion. He was particularly concerned about the hairpin turn. Mr. Keenan recalled a Commission member had said this site was the most examined site in Edina. Mr. Victorsen now has a tremendous financial burden keeping the property in its present undeveloped state. He said the Engineers, Safety people, and experts have indicated this is a real- istic and workable plan. He said it is a sharp turn, but it will be controlled by a stop sign and will have a 50 foot flat space right at the bottom, so you are not turning into a hill. i Minutes of the 5 -31 -78 Community Development and -6- Planning Commission Meeting Mr. Ed Cohen, the attorney for Dr. Lewis, 6328 Gleason Road, made the point the neighbors appear to be concerned primarily for the welfare and safety of their children and said once the area was subdivided, they would no longer have any control over the property and how many trees were removed and what was built as long as. the property owners complied with the building codes and city ordinances. The only control would be if Mr. Victor- sen develops the lots himself. He said it was a free enterprise system and that you cannot always expect to make a profit. Public welfare should come before profit. Mr. Fernelius said the obiections of the residents in the area could only be• served by not developing the property, which is not feasible for the proponent, and felt the proposed plan as laid out is the best possi- ble solution; thus, he moved for approval of the request with the 50 foot right -of -way and 30 foot surface. Mrs. McDonald seconded the motion. In response to Mr. Bentley's question about loot 12, Mr. G. Hughes said questions were raised about Lot 12 at the last meeting and it was discussed as'to whether it should remain as an outlot or a lot. He said from the procedural standpoint, it would not make that much difference. The same procedure would be required to further subdivide this tract of land regardless of its designation as a lot or outlot. . Mr. B. Gunderson, 6405 Indian Pond Circle, also expressed concern for safety of the residents in the area because of the proposed road. Mrs. McDonald asked if the Safety Commission, who had review- ed this road and indicated it did comply with City standards, could again look at the hairpin turn. Mr. G. Hughes said there are minor modifications which could occur such as an increase in the opening on Indian Hills Pass and the roadway could be shifted somewhat westerly. However, no matter what is done, the situation would not be changed tremendously as the property has to be served by Indian Hills Road. Dr. S. Levitt, 6413 Lherokee Trail, said when the subdivision was brought in two to three years ago, possible access from Gleason Road and McCauley Trail was discussed and wondered why they were no longer alter- natives. He felt they were overlooking the major concern of the neighbors which was safety of children. , Mr. Bob Perkins, 6909 Dakota Trail, also felt safety was a major concern and that it should be reviewed again. Mr. G. Hughes said past proposals were for apartments. One proposal was made three years ago for 140 units at the base of the hill, and the roadway did not have to be brought all the way up the hill but could be served easily from Gleason Road because there was no grade problem. He con- tinued that wh6n the proposed plan was brought in two to three months ago, he asked the Engineering Department what the best way would be to get to the top of the hill, and they agreed that it would be very difficult to serve the Property from Gleason Road or McCauley Trail. Minutes of the 5 -31 -78 Community Development -and -7- Planning Commission Meeting Following brief discussion regarding the proposed road, Mr. Fernelius amended his motion to include the understanding that the intersec- tion of. the proposed road and Indian Hills Pass would.be constructed in such a way that the visibility is good for traffic coming up Indian Hills Pass. Mr. G. Hughes said what concerns staff is the cross sec- tions and that they are having trouble determining how the grading plan and soil erosion plan were arrived at and also in determining what driveway grades would be necessary to serve the lots. He said they are also concerned as to how locations of retaining walls were arrived at without the use of cross sections as well as how access will be given to the existing home. In response to Mrs. McDonald, Mr. G. Hughes said they could not deny a building permit due to driveway grades once the lot is created. Mr. Murphy felt the detrimental lot was Lot 13 and he would like to see the roadway moved north and the "half moon area" changed from one lot to two lots. He said if the Commission does approve this, he would ask that the five homes affected have an eight foot cedar- fence constructed to hide the cars from the visibility of the property owners. Also he felt the log re- taining walls were not a good idea and felt the Commission should. ask for a topographical rendering as to the placement of retaining walls.. Mrs. McDonald accepted the amendments to the motion as made by Mr. Fernelius with her second and Mr. Fernelius recalled:'his motion. Mrs. McClelland said she still favored the idea of multiple type housing on the site because of the environmental factor. Upon roll call, the following voted: Ayes: Mrs. McDonald, Mr. D.. Johnson,. Mr. Runyan, Mr. G. Johnson, Mr. Fernelius. Nays: Mrs. McClelland, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Seaberg, Mr. Bentley. Motion carried. Following further discussion, Mr. Fernelius withdrew his' motion and Mr. G. Johnson moved the request be continued for 30 days until the June 28, 1978 meeting, to allow the proponent to meet with staff and review the questions brought up at this meeting. *14r. S. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Victorsen said lie had been meeting with the staff and that he did not see the benefit in extending his request another 30 days. He asked for a denial of the request so he could pursue further action. Mr. G. Johnson therefore withdrew his motion and Mr. S. Hughes moved to deny the request. Mr. Bentley seconded the motion. Mr. G. Hughes said he.agreed with Mr. Victorsen in that an extension of 30 days would not accomplish very much and the request should either be approved with some conditions or denied. Mrs. McDonald said she would vote ".aye" to the stated motion at the request of the proponent and not because she disagreed with the plan; therefore, the motion could be misleading. Mr. S. Hughes then withdrew his motion and subsequently moved to pass the request to the City Council with a tie vote.. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion car - a�rl"tr' ,' ./�f4s+:.ir.[rf..:®.;. /;au.. n:•:#t.. ..ki.... .�.a.��: ewe: �. a; 4. f' .IV►aviW.�t�1.e.::..w+18+�e+•a: •t -- - "� - - -�4,. - ". _ �d4i.cAd:�w..rrw. • 1 I , f"11 s TA -'04 FOND kw -16"ALS If - � 'I i \ � II� /• � \-C I- \ it /.'• 1 '\ / SEW R. ' '� 11 '\ 1 �� 1 �i� !� 1 ��', 'i/ ".: �/ �\ � \ \b _ i /5 -..- ..�oP -� \ ioo' �i�� •1`I- 1 gra 1, I��'/ 1'• j[p1p/ lI Q�.11 1il�l f I � \1 /I 4'!' � \al'l1•\ \: \ \.\` ti 1����%.. � .✓^moo a ` \\\' � \ °, `'1 ` � • il� ) 116 � � �; r \ ` \_ �.'1'�L` .+ \,••� \ \Cf, \ i; /l / II / I � 1 ',1 1'� �\� /' I �, •1 \- ° 10 % - i�`1� 9\:�;\ ��'��1� I o l ��� \4J i / II �� '• 114 �` Y.ISTIHG / \ i % /- i•1'lan � ��� \�� / •o � \ % .j " I 14 •'1r'I \ i \ .'\ 2ce1°awc -. , °.� '// �'(� `,,� \\` - i \\ \ ` "o\ //-Y!a; 7j 1 �� L =�_ SUFEnElEV4TED /� l -9 ° SUQG6 DAs1N QAp "p Jr s nM cwt¢ +�-1. J, 1, J ' \ ��. � �i "�- ` � - - �� /'' I / .��ij�ii'� I_ •�t¢iw enLE� \ _ -_•'\ /. ofJli 23 CONNCC�•C41G11 BASINS ,� \ ` _ % /• i/ / / 1 �1° EleS11u4 SORM %EWE¢ / ] .oACY' %IL 10 vo' D \ mew -/ .. .• y` M.. s-_..,.......V:. FRELIAIINARY '. �o. ... -�! `�ew...r........;.:. ++ .a _ . -- ` °S -/Gy.p �'�{IJ,.r�ly/�' �� ' \•tOa +asaW�sOV.t <�:• +,!'IyINt GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL P L A N r r"'ra °[orc °L A THE TIM[3ERSI� FOLKE R. VICTORSEU E: .7o 2 r► (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION) CITY OF EDINA 4801 W. 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, June 19, 1978, at 7:00 p.m. and will at said time and place consi- der the following: 1. Preliminary Plat of Victorsen's Timbers, _generally located at the south- west corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road, described as fol- lows: Lots 18, 19, and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, commencing at the North- east corner of Lot 7, Block 1; Indian Hills, thence North 5 degrees, 05 minutes East 131 feet to the actual point of beginning, thence North 34 degrees, 13 minutes, W.101 35/100 feet, thence North 0 degrees, 13 minutes, 30 seconds East 114 2/10 feet, thence North 65 degrees, 45 minutes, 30 seconds-East 141 7/10 feet, thence South 34 degrees, 41 minutes, 30 seconds, East 168 15 /100 feet, thence South 5 degrees, 39 minutes, East 100 feet, thence South 84 degrees, 06 minutes West 178 7/10 feet to the beginning. Lots 18 and 19, Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, except commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian Hills, thence North 5 degrees, 05 minutes East 131 feet to the actual point of beginning, thence North 34 degrees, 13 minutes West 101 35/100 feet, thence North 0 degrees, 13 minutes, 30 seconds East 114.2/10 feet, thence North 65 degrees, 45 minutes 30 seconds East 141 7/10 feet, thence South 34 degrees, 41 minutes, 30 seconds East 168 15/100 feet, thence South 5 degrees, 39 minutes, East 100 feet, thence South 84 degrees, 06 minutes West 178 7/10 feet to beginning. Lot 20 Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, except highway. Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 196,`. -- except that part lying Easterly and Southerly of the following described line: commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian Hills, thence North 5 degrees, 05 minutes, East 131 feet, thence North 34 degrees, 13 minutes, West 101 35/100 feet, thence North 0 degrees, 3 minutes, 30 seconds, East 114 2/10 feet, thence North 65 degrees, 45 minutes, 30 seconds East to the West line of Lot 18 and there terminating. Lot A and 11, Indian Hills. 2. Rezoning Request by 0. Madsen from R -1 Single Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District, generally.located north of Dewey Hill Road and north of W. W. Lewis Park, and west of Cahill Road, described as fol- lows: that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Sec- tion 8, Township 116, Range 21 described as follows: Commencing at the (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION) CITY OF EDINA 4801 W. 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, June 19, 1978, at 7:00 p.m. and will at said time and place consi- der the following: 1. Preliminary Plat of Victorsen's Timbers, generally located at the south- west corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road, described as fol- lows: Lots 18, 19, and 21,.Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, commencing at the North- east corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian Hills, thence North 5 degrees, 05 minutes East 131 feet to the actual point of beginning, thence North 34 degrees, 13 minutes, W.101 35/100 feet, thence North 0 degrees, 13 minutes, 30 seconds East 114 2/10 feet, thence North-65 degrees, 45 minutes, 30 seconds East 141 7/10 feet, thence South 34 degrees, 41 minutes, 30 seconds, East 168 15/100 feet, thence South 5 degrees, 39 minutes, East 100 feet, thence South 84 degrees, 06 minutes West 178 7/10 feet to the beginning. Lots 18 and-19, Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, except commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian Hills, thence North 5 degrees, 05 minutes East 131 feet to the actual point of beginning, thence North 34 degrees, 13 minutes West 101 35/100 feet, thence North 0 degrees, 13 minutes, 30 seconds East 114 2/10 feet, thence North 65 degrees, 45 minutes 30 seconds East 141 7/10 feet, thence South 34 degrees, 41 minutes, 30 seconds East 168.15/100 feet, thence South 5 degrees, 39 minutes, East 100 feet, thence South 84 degrees, 06 minutes West 178 7/10 feet to beginning. Lot 20 Auditor's Subdivision No. 196, except highway. Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision No.' 196, except that part lying Easterly and Southerly of the following described line: commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Indian Hills, thence North 5 degrees, 05 minutes, East 131 feet, thence North 34 degrees,-13 minutes, West 101 35/100 feet, thence North 0 degrees., 3 minutes, 30 seconds, East.114 2/10 feet, thence North 65 degrees, 45 minutes, 30 seconds East to the West line of Lot 18 and there terminating. Lot A and.11, Indian Hills. 2. Rezoning Request by 0. Madsen from R -1 Single Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District, generally located north of Dewey Hill Road and north of W. W. Lewis Park, and west of Cahill Road, described as fol- lows: that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Sec- tion 8, Township 116, Range 21 described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the,Easterly extension of the North line of Lot 1, Block 2, Kemrich Knolls; thence North along the East line of said Southwest Quar- ter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 198.99 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence Easterly at right angles to said West line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quar- Notice of Public Hearings - June 19, 1978 Page 2 ter a distance of 82 feet; thence Southeasterly, at a deflection angle of 450 00' degrees to the-right, to an intersection with a line running Southwesterly from the Southeast corner of Outlot A, Braemar Oaks, at an angle of 73010' 02" as turned counter clockwise from the Southwest corner of said Outlot A; thence Northeasterly, along said line running Southwesterly from the Southeast corner of Outlot A, to an intersection with a line 8 °18 feet North of and parallel with the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East along said line 818 feet North of and. parallel with the South-line of said South- west Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to a point--331.95 feet West of the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence Northerly parallel to the-East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the South line of the North 30.0 feet of said North line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast-Quarter; thence East paral- lel with the North line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North along the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of,.30.0 feet to the Northeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast'Quarter; thence West along the-North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South along the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the point of beginning. 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, June 7, 1978. Please send two (2) Affidavits of-Publication. Notice of Public Hearings - June 19, 1978 Page 2 ter a distance of 82 feet; thence Southeasterly, at a deflection angle of 450 00' degrees to the right, to an intersection with.a line running Southwesterly from the Southeast corner of Outlot A, Braemar Oaks, at an angle of 73 10' 02" as turned counter clockwise from the Southwest corner of said Outlot A; thence Northeasterly, along said line running Southwesterly from the Southeast corner of Outlot A, to an intersection with a line 818 feet North of and parallel with the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East along said line 818 feet North of and parallel with the South line of said South- west Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to a point 331.95 feet West of the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence Northerly parallel to the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the South line of the North 30.0 feet of said North line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East paral- lel with the North line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North along the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of .30.0 feet to the Northeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence West along the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South along the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the poir*_ of beginning. 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, June 7, 1978. Please send two (2) Affidavit of Publication. LOCATRON MAP ark VICTORSEN'S TIMBERS REQUEST NUMBER: S -78 -10 LOCATION: SE Corner of Crosstown and Gleason Rd. REQUEST: R -1 Single Family Subdivision v fflnr•p 1jnnning department vilinge of e'dine COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT September 6, 1978 S -78 -10 Victorsen's Timbers. R -1 to Single Family Subdivision. Generally located at the southeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. REFER TO: attached subdivision. The Commission will recall that this proposed subdivision was considered at past meetings. At those times, a subdivision which gained access from Indian Hills Pass and from Gleason Road was proposed. After reviewing this plan, the Commission referred the request to the City Council with a tie vote (i.e. five members recommended approval and five members denial). k The Council reviewed the requested subdivision at several meetings and also toured the site. On those occasions, the Council expressed concern regarding the proposed roadway grades, the amount of disturbance to the hill, the adequacy of public utilities, fire protection; and especially the public safety aspects of the proposed roadway intersections with Indian Hills Pass and Gleason Road. The Council thereupon referred the request back to the Commission and asked the proponent to consider alternative subdivision designs. The proponents have submitted a revised subdivision plan which eliminates the access to Indian Hills Pass and Gleason Road and instead proposes one access at McCauley Trail. This access, of course,,requires the concurrence of Cross View Lutheran Church. The proponents as well as City staff are presently negotiating with the Church for this access. The revised roadway design, of course, answers many of the public safety and access concerns associated with the previous subdivision. However, this roadway is somewhat steeper than that previously proposed. The grades on the northerly porL4on of the roadway are up to twelve percent as compared to eight percent grades on the roadway section from Indian Hills Pass as previously proposed. Also, grading, retaining walls, and disturbance to vegetation will be necessary to accomplish the proposed roadway as compared to the previous roadway. The proponents have also submitted, in outline form, Protective Covenants and Restrictions regarding the development of the proposed lots. A copy of these Covenants is attached. Community Development Staff Report S -78 -10 September 6, 1978 page 2 Recommendation: Although staff has and continues to express concern about the use of the site for single family purposes, we nevertheless believe that the proposed subdivision is far superior to the previously submitted designs. Many of the public safety concerns associated with previous proposals have been answered by the new subdivision. If the Commission wishes to recommend approval, the following conditions should be considered: 1) A scenic and open space easement 100 feet upland from Arrowhead Lake should be required. 2) A grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District should be required. 3) Approval of the proposed Erosion Control Plan. 4) Subdivision dedication. 5) An executed developer's agreement. GLH: j t 9 -1 -78 Outline of Proposed Covenants and Restrictions Concerning "THE TIMBERS" Subdivision Edina, Minnesota 1. Restricts development to single - family dwellings; provides for a minimum square footage per dwelling; provides credit for walkout and second floors; gives no credit for garages, porches, or similar structures. 2. Requires that the plans, specifications, exterior color scheme, plat plan, lot topography, and finished ground elevations be approved by a Committee composed of members of the Victorsen family and elected members of lot owners. Provides for injunctive relief in the event of noncompliance. 3. Provides for a limitation in the percentage of a lot that may be developed and the width of a home in regards to the lot. fi 4. Restricts the location of a dwelling, garage or porch as to the distance from the street right -of -way and its location in regards to the depth of a lot. S. Prohibits any trailer, basement, tent, shack, etc. being used as a residence, temporarily or permanently. 6. Restricts certain activities including: a. The removal of sod, soil, sand or gravel without the consent of the Committee; b. Outside containers for storage or fuel or garbage, etc.; c. Identification signs; d. The height of fences or walls; e. Horses, cows, sheep, etc. being kept on the premises; f. Business or trade activity on premises; g. Removal of trees. In this section a tree is defined as set forth in Ordinance #823 of the City of Edina and applicable portions of that Ordinance will be incorporated in the restrictive covenant. In addition, the covenant pro- vides that development shall take place in such a manner that the maximum number of trees shall be preserved.. It further prohibits trees being cut except those occupying the actual physical space in which a structure or improvement is to be erected or developed. The home builder is to provide the Committee with information of no other feasible or prudent alternative to the cutting of trees than that which is being proposed. In addition, the home builder is to propose replanting of trees being removed, if feasible. It further provides that new trees shall be of a variety of species and shall not utilize any species presently under a disease epi- demic. Further provisions provide that grading and contouring on the lot shall take place in such a manner that the root zone aeration stability of existing trees shall not be affected and provides existing trees with a watering equal to one -half the crown area. Preservation of trees is critical to the subdivision both from a private and public interest. The Victorsens recognize the objective of the City of Edina in preserving trees and woodlands for ecological, recreational and aesthetic functions to the benefit of existing and future residents of the area. It is to these objectives that the covenants are directed. ca OZA2V ... nor w..c.+snas Esc acxso ws.w LION \ y moo won ' \ "fir \ • �_. J �\ \ • \. \' LJ /i> �o COT ry f `` i 4 �_e :1 \ \ \ \ �6 iA1h1111• Q= i -��sqo N -/ l / ^_ a� —�_� \�G�• q �o _ R , I . g : R' 'I . � i' � �,T � ,i1 if' I �( \ , \,, Q \ •1�:,\ .\ � � g _ ; a" � \'` _.- �- -�G. , � \ \ .v••\ j \ Sp'�/ r I •, ',11�:, ` .F"xt,�T�acr / I / \ `• \ \�• ��% // — /��i � 90 / / �/ •'' � ,1 I !% \��t. \O 6310 EMC , \\\ �, nx_ C.. �• _�\ il:l /� a. ri' ISi �7a-r� 90 r 0_' • i o' � \�\ \ � \'10_ __- _� %%{, ec,�� ��/f/ l ��1 � � / /.) %�/ � i :� den i :+�_ � -�'/ � 1 MA \LpLC I p�40e/ * �< 1^ � � `Ex�•s 1MG� 1�?; ,'ice ���.� lr .r.. -� \r 1., \,� -_- . �\ �.\ \ 6 � �.���_'- �— _�-._�'��1 . \ \��;1 ri' //! I •/ �'� r/r I ` (/ � .- 1��/89� �� ' 1 j • \\ .I r 1 r•IrI LIrnlrinrrf +'� - - 0 .. .... ���. .�' ;d'•'Nrt nr:rr u, rl r'r �Nllnq ('I Ari �. -. I... .•. ,.. .`. •r•• r•r. r. rY `- CitY-'% Of �d1n a 4501 WEST FIFTIETH STREET • EDINA. MINNESOTA 67424 927 -8861 Mr. Robert Hoffman Attorney at Law 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Suite 1500' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 Dear Bob: August 28, 1978 .RE: Folke Victorsen I do not know if I am writing to the correct person or not, but ranted to set out some of my concerns on the above. I had suggested to .Gordon that on Folke's revision using the access to the North and over the church property, that they merely come in with a drawing and not go to all the de- tailed expense of a full blown survey. Next, Folke indicated that he had a set of proposed restrictions, and I guess I would like.to either see them, or at least an outline thereof. I am particularly concerned with his procedure for permitting the removal of trees. He indicated that he had had another experience where the home put in was one that required a great deal of tree removal to merely get it in. I think it was a Wausau home or something of that kind. He was going to prevent that in this instance. Will the restrictions pass on to the homeowners so that they will have something to say about the ultimate tree removal? I think that they should also consider the Lot 12 to make certain that that is included as one of the single family lots. I am also concerned with the closeness of the line to Harry Murphy's lot. I recognize that Mr. Murphy put his home and such in too close to the line. However, I think that this is an existing situation and I would hope that we could accommodate that as much as possible. - Mr. Robert Hoffman August 28,. 19.78 Next is the matter of the dedication to the City. This is variously referred to as the "Park Dedication" and the "City Dedication ". I do not know the exact value of the property, but it seems to me that we should be looking for a dedication of somer. thing in excess of $50,000. We are going to be assuming some, thing here that is going to require extra maintenance on the various retaining walls, perhaps extra care in the shoveling and handling of this to make these roads safe for the homeowners, and of course, there will be the additional expense in the matter of the lift stations and the like. With some of these things I would hope that we could get a decision for you as promptly as possible. I would hope that that would be on September 11th. I would like to get these before that meeting, rather than at the last minute as is often the case. I was concerned at tht2 last meeting when Folke came in with some information on the after- noon of the hearing so that the staff did not have.time to review the same. As you are aware, we have a staff that I believe is competent and we do look to them for guidance and expertise. Accord- ingly, they must have the information on time. * I would be happy to review any of these with you. Yours tru,i,�i, 7 ol Van Valkenburg JVV:jd CC: fir. Fred Richards Mr. Gordon Hughes Mr. Kenneth Rosland Mr. Thomas Erickson *This should be in at least by September 6th, or sooner if needed by the Planning Commission. LARKIN, HOFFy1A:N, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. JAMES P. LARKIN DAVID C. SELLERGREN ROBERT L HOFFMAN JOHN O. FULLMER ATTORNEYS AT LAW JACK F. DALY ROBERT e. BOYLE O. K CNNETM LINDGREN FRANK 1. HARVEY ISOO NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER ROBERT B. WHITLOCK FRANCIS E. GIBeRSON ALLAN C.'PAT' MULLIGAN JAMES E. STROTHER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH ROBERT J. MENNESSEY EMBER D. REICHGOTT RONALD R. FLETCHER CHARLES S. MODELL MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS431 JAMES C. ERICKSON RICHARD A. FORSCH LER LOWARO J. DRISCOLL LINDA A. FISHER TELEPHONE (4512) 63S -3800 ARTHUR MACK JAMES P. MILEY GENE N. FULLER ROBERT W. IUNGMANS JOSEPH W. ANTHONY OF COUNSEL JOSEPH GITIS August 31, 1978 Mr. James VanValkenburg VanValkenburg, Comaford, Moss, Fassett Flahertv & Clarkson, P.A. 2350 IDS Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Re: City of Edina Folke Victorsen Proposed Single - Family Plat Dear Jim: Thank you for your letter of August 28, 1978, concerning the above - entitled matter. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you the information you requested. The information is as follows: 1 Provisions have been made to the proposed plat for the entrance on McCauley Trail and no entrance on Indian Hills Pass. That revised plat has been filed with the City. Cuts and grades that relate to that plat will be filed with the City by September 1, 1978. 2 Mr. Victorsen intends private covenants and restrictions on the property. Upon approval of the proposed subdivision it is his intention to subject the property to a torrens proceeding. As part of that process he will record the covenants and restrictions which will inure to the benefit of the future homeowners of the subdivision. I am attaching an outline of the proposed covenants and restrictions which have not been fully prepared. However, the outline sets forth in more detail the proposed restrictions relating to the removal of trees. The Victorsens have computed the approximate number of trees that will be removed from the site in developing the subdivision and having the access onto McCauley Trail as compared to Indian Hills Pass. The computation for McCauley Trail is as follows: a. McCauley Trail right -of -way - 196 trees = 6 -1/2%. b. Housing, driveway, etc. development - 210 trees = 7%. C. Embankments and retaining walls = 4% Total of 17 -1/2 % LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & L.INDGREN, LTD. Mr. James VanValkenburg August 31, 1978 Page Two Access onto Indian Hills Pass would reduce the number of trees removed by 18 but would not materially affect the above percentages. (As a matter of interest it is estimated that approximately 23.7% of the total trees would have been removed had the apartment development, which was approved, been developed.) 3 Lot 12 is now a single - family lot and has frontage access on the proposed road. 4 It has been determined that Mr. Harry Murphy's lot line is approximately 26 feet from the improved blacktop (50 feet) of the proposed roadway. In addition his home sits approximately 15 feet back from his lot line. The home is, therefore, approximately 41 feet from the improved roadway. Several of the proposed new homes will not be more than 30 feet from the proposed roadway. Therefore Mr. Murphy's house will be a further distance from the proposed roadway than several of the new homes. However, Victorsens will agree to develop an earth berm partially on Lots 15 and 16 at a height of approximately 4 feet which will shield Mr. Murphy's home and lot from the roadway. Any attempt to move the roadway further to the north would require substantial alteration of the plat which would require the removal of a substantial number of additional mature trees. 5 The Victorsens will make a park dedication, in cash, to the city in accordance with the ordinances of the city. It is our understanding that the last several subdivisions approved a cash dedication equal to five percent of the market value of the property. The 1978 market value, according to the assessor's tax statement, is $400,000. This was increased from $270,000 in 1976, apparently in response to the rezoning. In addition to the cash dedication there will be the dedication of a scenic easement which will be approximately three - quarters of an acre. Based on an overall market value of $400,000 that dedication could have a market value of approximately $16,000. We do not think that the park dedication should be arrived at except under the ordinances of the city and the applicable state law and court decisions thereto. (Particularly the case of George C. Collis, et al., v. City of Bloomington, 246 N.W.2d 19.) We do not think a proposal should be made to the city which would not be consistent with city ordinances and court decisions. It may give someone an opportunity to question the approval, if given, through a court action. Most of the retaining walls will be on private property and the maintenance therefore will be required of the property owner. I assume that any additional expense for a lift station can be assessable against the property. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. James VanValkenburg August 31, 1978 Page Three I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this additional information. If you have any questions regarding this please call me. As you know, Mr. Richard Keenan will be appearing on behalf of the Victorsens at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Sincerely, Ro ert L. Hoffman, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. mp cc: Mr. Fred Richards Mr. Thomas Erickson Mr. Gordon Hughes - Director of Planning, City of Edina Mr. Kenneth Roseland - City Manager, City of Edina Mr. and Mrs. Folke Victorsen EJ :tip E ® 0 NQ A 4801 WEST 50TH STREET. EDINA. P;?1'd'dES(3 1 A i4;4:1 612- 927-8861 September 28, 1978 Mr. Folke Victorsen 6440 Indian Hills Pass Edina, MN 55435 RE: "The Timbers" Subdivision Dear Mr. Victorsen: On September 11, 1978, the Edina City Council granted preliminary plat approval for the subject subdivision. This approval was granted with several conditions to and modifications of the subject subdivision which must be satisfied prior to the granting of final plat approval by the Edina City Council. These conditions and modifications are as follows: 1) Receipt by the City of Edina, and in a form acceptable to the City of Edina, of a scenic, and open space easement over a strip of land contiguous to Arrowhead Lake which strip shall extend to a line 100 feet upland from Arrowhead Lake as measured from.the high water mark of Arrowhead Lake. This easement shall also include the bed and water of that portion of Arrowhead Lake lying within the boundaries of the subject subdivision. 2) Receipt of evidence by the City of Edina that a grading permit has been issued by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for the subject subdivision. 3) Approval by the City of Edina of an Erosion Control Plan for the subject subdivision. 4) Receipt by the City of Edina of a subdivision dedication in an amount yet to be determined by the Edina City Council. 5) Receipt by the City of Edina of an executed Developer's Agreement for the subject subdivision. 6) Approval by the City of Edina of deed restrictions to be imposed by the developer against all lots in the subject subdivision. One of these deed restrictions shall state that the lots as originally platted in the subject subdivision shall not be further subdivided. 7) Agreement by the developer to construct a landscaped berm adjacent to 6508 Indian Hills Pass of a height, slope and location acceptable to the City of Edina. 8) Agreement by the developer that adequate access to the Lewis residence, 6328 Gleason Road, will be maintained during the construction of roadways and other improvements associated with the subject subdivision. t Mr. Folke Victorsen September 28, 1978 page 2 9) Modification of the preliminary plat dated August 30, 1978, by the elimi- nation of Lot 10 and relocation to the north of the proposed roadway in the vicinity of this lot. 10) Public road access for the subject subdivision in the location shown on the preliminary plat shall be acquired, dedicated, platted, or obtained in a vay acceptable to the City of.Edina from Crossview Lutheran Church without payment by the City of Edina. It is recognized that the City of Edina will assist in this matter. 11) No modification of the physical conditions of the subject property (including - the removal of trees) shall be commenced prior to final plat approval. Please advise if I can answer any questions regarding these conditions and modifications. Sincerely, -::�l Gordon L. Hughes Director of Planning GLH: j t cc: Mr. Rich Keenan s (f�llt 1 17 VICTORSEN'S TIMBERS GRANTED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. Mr. Hughes presented Victorsen's Timbers for preliminary plat approval, recalling that, at the meeting of August 7, 1978, this plat, located on the Northeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road, had been referred back to the Planning Commission so that they could further study questions as to grades and slopes, traffic safety and the possibility of Crossview Lutheran Church platting their property,in con- nection with the Victorsen property. He presented a revised subdivision which eliminated the access road from Indian Hills Pass and Gleason Road and provided for a new access at McCauley Trail across property owned by Crossview Lutheran Church. The new access to the property provides for a 12% grade and construction. of additional retaining walls. Mr. Hughes advised that the Community 1 evelop- meet and Planning Commission had recommended approval of the plat subject to the following conditions 1) that a scenic and open space easement 100 feet upland from Arrowhead Lake be required; 2) that a grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District.be submitted; 3) that the proposed Erosion Control Plan be approved by ?; 4) Receipt of the required subdivision dedication and 5) receipt of an executed developer's agreement. Mr. Hughes recommended that the Victorsens continue their negotiations with the church and come back to Council for final approval on October 16, 1978. Mr. LIL Keenan, representing Mr. and Mrs. Victorsen, noted disadvantages to the revised plat from the developer's standpoint, advising that development would be more expensive and that there are only 21, rather than 22, lots. Reference was made to a letter from Mr. Harry A. Murphy, Jr.,.6508 Indian Hills Road, stating his approval of the plat if a berm is constructed with a minimum height of 6 feet between the Victorsen property, the Ted Carlson property and his own lot, and - that this berm have plantings that. will give it,a natural look. MA attorney representing Dr. Glenn Lewis, 6328 Gleason Road, expressed concern that the erosion problem had not been given adequate consideration and suggested that Lot 10 be eliminated. He also requested assurance that access to his home would not be cut off during construction. Dr. Lewis requested that all lot sizes be increased and.said that it would be preferable if the density for the site was at the base of the hill as had been proposed originally. He referred to a letter to Mr. Hughes dated April 26, 1978, from the Chairman of the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District and contended that most of the questions raised regarding erosion and water run -off were never answered. Mr. Robert Perkins, 6909 Dakota Trail, expressed concern that the developer is plan- ning too many lots for the area. Mr. Calvin R. K$hlman, representing Crossview Lutheran Church, said that the church emembership would have to evaluate the proposal before a decision can be reached. In response to a, question of Mr. i" Kuhlman as to whether the church would receive credit against any future dedica- tion if it should dedicate a portion of its land for use for a road running thru its property at this time, Councilman Richards said that the overall effect of the development would have to be studied. Expressing concern also about lot size, possible erosion and storm water problems.was the resident at 6501 Cherokee Trail who requested that the Victorsens submit to the Hennepin Conserva- tion District and the staff an erosion control plan.. He said that the elimina- tion of Lot 12 would reduce the average size lot from 34,393 to 23,595 square feet. Mr. William Burke, 6409 Cherokee Trail, also expressed his concern that the Eastern side of the hill would be denuded and presented a map showing an alternative plan which he said would be more environmentally sound. Mayor Van Valkenburg said that he also has.concern about the lot sizes, but that the Council does not have the authority to require that the lots be larger than required by ordinance. He added that he believes that there has been a great improvement from the originally proposed plat. XZPUMsmK@xm8mxmxmxmkmsma6umDSm � whxm*mpms3dbJmx-XMZTh mxmxmamauxP and hxfi . As recom- mended by the Mayor, Councilman Courtney then moved that the plat be granted .preliminary approval subject to the following conditions: l) receipt by the City -of -a- scenic -and- open- space- easement -100 -fee upland- from - Arrowhead - Lake; - -2) receipt b the Aity .of adii pgrmiitt. fTV6 the Niinnee Mile Creek Watershed District 3) approval of the proposed Erdsion Control Pl n� 4� re f a ,tn subdivision dedication by the Cit�; 5) receipt by the City off an executed developer's agreement 6) he 1; 7) agreement must be put. landscaped of record that lots cannot be divided; 8) Construction of a /berm adjacent to 6508 Indian Hills Road; 9) access to Dr. Lewis' property to be open during construction; 10) that negotiations be continued with Crossview Lutheran Church. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman - Schmidt. Councilman Richards then amended. the motion to provide further for the elimination of Lot 10,xm hat thulde-sac be moved farther to the North, that the road access be obtain &without.payment by the City of Edina and that no modification of physical conditions (including cutting of trees) be'made on the property until the plat is granted final approval. The amendment to the motion was accepted by Councilman Courtney and Councilwoman Schmidt. Rollcall - all ayes Members of the audience were assured that they would be notified before the plat comes back to Council for final approval. ;r (612) 944 -2804 FOLKE R. - V. M. VICTORSEN 6440 INDIAN HILLS PASS EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 October 3, 1978 Councilman Fred Richards Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, lvIn. 53424 Subject: The Edina City Council's directive 3f 9/11/78 to move the proposed roadway northward onto Lot 10 of the Timbers Project. Dear Fred: Confirming our discussions and on site examination of 9/23/78. It was concluded that the roadway be moved approximately 20 feet northward. Yours truly, O Z Folke R. Victorsen cc to the other council members. - H MURPHY ENTERPRISES SUITE PH4, 1051 HILLSBORO MILE POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA 33062 MINNESOTA BRANCH: SUITE 2B. 5525 H, ANSEN ROAD EDINA, MINN. 55436 September 7, 1978 Mr. James Van Valkenburg, Mayor City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, Mn. 55424 Dear Mayor: I will be unable to attend the council meeting to be held at 7:30 P. M. Monday, September 11th so wish to put my thoughts before you and the council in written form. First of all, I believe Mr. Victorsen's approach presented to the Planning Commission on September 6th corrects the majority of the entire neighborhood's complaints. I feel the four contiguous land owners who will :still be disturbed the most will be Ted Carlson, myself, Lee Kopt, and Dr. Christgau. Mr. Carlson will be at the very west end. I will have 244 feet with my lot line staying at 12 feet from the right -of -way. Mr. Kopt's house is located on his lot to the south side of the lot and thus will be farther removed and Dr. Christgau does not have the road this close. My request as presented to the Planning Commission is that a burm is constructed with a minimum height of 6 feet between the Victorsen property and Carlsons and my own lots and that this burm have some plantings that will give it a natural look. With these steps taken, I approve fully of the plan-shown on September 6th. Very truly yours, t�gt al, �S _ , Harry A. Murphy, r. 6508 Indian Hills Road Edina, MN. 5543"5 HAM: s AGENDA Edina Community Development and Planning Commission Wedesday, September 6, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. Edina City Hall Council Chambers I. Approval of the August 2, 1978, Minutes. II. Old Business: S -78 -10 Victorsen's Timbers. R -1 to Single Family Subdivision. Generally located at the southeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road. Z -78 -8 Kerr Companies. R -1 Single Family District to 0 -2 Office District. Generally located at 4917 Eden Avenue. III. New Business: Z -78 -10 Rauenhorst Corporation. R -1 Single Family District to PID - and Planned Industrial District. S -78 -14 Edina Office Center. Generally located at the northwest quadrant of West 76th Street and France Avenue South. S -78 -15 Dewey Hill Condominiums. Generally located at the southwest and quadrant of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road. (Rezoning request Z -78 -9 from R -1 to PRD -3 for same received first hearing.) Z -78 -11 Proposed Commercial Use of Easterly. Portion of Tract A, R.L.S. No. 1365 (East of Junior Achievement Building) - Dayton Hudson. Z -78 -12 Oasis Petro Energy Corporation. Generally located at W. 69th Street, Southdale Center. Registered Land Survey No. 629, Lot H. Southdale Gas Station Plan Review. IV. Adjornment OPEN SPACE 12 POS/8/73 on the relative size of drainage areas and the loca- tion of urbanized areas in the watershed. The run- off in urbanized areas is generally collected into a storm sewer. When the storm sewer capacity be- comes overtaxed during heavy rain storms, flooding in streets or overflow into basements results. Failure to recognize that the natural function of a floodplain is to hold and carry away excess water in time of flood has often led to rapid and haphaz- ard development on floodplains with a consequent increase in flood hazards. It is perhaps economically infeasible and often physically impossible to pro- vide adequate flood control measures for every lo- cality subject to flood damages. However, correc- tive and preventive measures must be taken when possible. Solid waste disposal sites in the floodplain could lead to contamination of the river water as could on -site absorption systems. The extension of pub- lic utilities into the floodplain could encourage un- desirable development. Alterations of the flood- plain could reduce the water - carrying capacity of the floodplain, increasing the probability of flood- ing and flood damage. Flood damage is expensive. It includes cleanup costs, loss of wages and profits, and expenditures for tem- porary housing. Flooding on an undamaged flood- plain can cause disruption of public services; greatly increased public expenditures in rescue and rebuild- ing, and possible loss of life. In rural areas, damage to crops and pastures include siltation, erosion, cost. of debris cleanup, replanting, reduced yields and pollution of wells. POLICIES 23. Counties and municipalities should designate a 100 -year floodplain for all watercourses based on anticipated development in their watershed. The floodplain designation should be re- evaluated every five years. 26. Wetlands in a floodplain should not be devel- oped or altered. 27. Counties and municipalities should adopt and enforce the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources standards for floodplains (Manage- ment Act Chapter 590, Laws of Minnesota 1969). ERODIBLE SLOPES Erodible slopes are lands whose per cent of slope and surficial soil type make erosion, slippage; or construction a potential hazard. Generally these slopes have a 12 per cent grade or more, although underlying soils may cause problems at lesser grades. The moisture content of the soil will also affect how the slope will erode. County soil surveys should be used to determine suitability of slopes for development or alteration. The Soil Conserva{ tion Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has determined erosion susceptibility by soil type; these determinations should be used in designating use of erodible slopes. Those slopes which are susceptible to severe erosion should be protected as permanent open space. Those slopes which are subject to moderate erosion . should be protected and the development allowed should be constructed so as to minimize problems. Maintaining natural vegetative cover can also con- trol erosion problems, thereby reducing property damage and expense. Preservation of a slope in a natural condition can be an esthetic addition to an area. In addition, these areas may provide for linear recreation, vista points, and wildlife habitats. Drainage discharges and improper plowing can cause erosion. Much of the top soil on a cleared slope could be washed away, leaving gullies and increas- ing siltation of rivers and streams. POLICIES 24. Floodplain designations and regulations should be uniform along each watercourse. Slopes which because of their surf icial soil type are susceptible to severe erosion should . 25. Counties, municipalities, and other units of be maintained in a natural state. Counties government should not allow encroachments and municipalities should adopt regulations into watercourses or floodplains which would to maintain or replace vegetative cover on reduce their water carrying ability below these slopes to reduce erosion and slippage planned capacity. problems. C OPEN SPACE 15 POS/8/73 Figure 9. Slopes as steep as the one pictured should not be built upon but should be left in e their natural state. 29. Slopes subject to moderate erosion should be managed to minimize erosion and slippage; management may include special design and construction methods for development or appropriate vegetative or other cover. FORESTS AND WOODLANDS A forest is a large tract of trees and other woody vegetation and related wildlife. A woodland is a smaller land area used primarily for growing trees and shrubs and includes farm wood lots, shelter - belts, and windbreaks. General tree cover includes the scattered trees in urban areas. Forests and woodlands stabilize slopes and erosion prone areas and have a positive effect on the quality of life by providing amenity areas and recreational opportunities. They can act as buffers against noise and may be agents in air purification. Unique stands can provide the basis for scientific research in addition to general education. Because of their amenity value, they can increase property values significantly, as can general tree cover. Urban development works against the maintenance of forests and tree cover. Unplanned development itself is the most obvious detriment. The natural tree cover is often not considered in site designs. Care should be taken so that tree removal is done solely for locating structures and roadways. Fires and open burning may be major hazards, but in some instances they may be used as management tools. Unregulated harvesting of trees can damage forest cover for many years. Disease in trees, such as Dutch elm disease, has become epidemic. Its spread is facilitated by the maintenance of mono- cultures, especially in city trees and commercial forests. POLICIES 30. Innovative development plans should be en- couraged in areas containing forests and wood- lands: These features should be incorporated as permanent parts of the development. 31. Subdivision regulations should require a devel- opment plan which depicts existing trees, proposed removal, and proposed plantings. OPEN SPACE 17 POS/8/73 32. In the construction of public and private facilities the removal of trees should be avoided, and replanting should take place where removal is unavoidable. SOILS HAVING SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT Certain soils have susceptibility to erosion and present difficulties in construction of high density urban development such as multi - family, commer- cial, and industrial structures. Basically, these are organic soils, shallow soils overlying bedrock, or poorly drained soils. These soils present prob- lems due to their poor permeability, shrink /swell properties, compressibility, and other character- istics. An important benefit of protecting and managing these soils is the reduction of public cost. Buyers would be warned of soil problems and would not have to face remedial costs later. Construction on these soils is more expensive due to special engineering needs. Land reclamation and drainage are frequently involved. Available soil survey information from the Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the Soil Conservation Service should be utilized for planning by all levels of government, as well as private developers, to reduce costs and to protect the consumer. The map on page 13 has been generalized from more detailed maps to indicate the general areas where problems due to soils may be encountered, and where more specific data should be sought. POLICIES 33. The suitability of soil or rock formations for urban development should be a basis for determining what kind of development is to be permitted. 34. Where urban development is permitted, it should be designed and constructed to com- pensate for existing soil problems. In addition to soils with erosion and construction problems, there are soils which, because of perco- lation rates, depth to groundwater and other properties, are unsuitable for on -site absorption systems. These include fine textured soils, soils Figure 12. Construction on poor soils can re- sult in structural damage, similar to that shown in this photo of a parking lot in Hennepin County. ' VICTORSEN'S TIMBERS GRANTED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. Mr. Hughes,presented Victorsen's Timbers for preliminary plat approval, recalling that, at the meeting of August 7, 1978, this plat, located on the Northeast corner of the Crosstown Highway and Gleason Road, had been referred back to the Planning Commission so that they could further study questions as to grades and slopes, traffic safety and the possibility of Crossview Lutheran Church platting their property in con- nection with the Victorsen property. He presented a revised.subdivision which eliminated the access road from Indian Hills Pass and Gleason Road and provided for a new access at McCauley Trail across property owned by Crossview Lutheran Church. The new access to the property provides for a 12% grade and construction of additional retaining walls. Mr. Hughes advised that the Community 1 evelop- ment and Planning Commission had recommended approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1) that a scenic and open space easement 100 feet upland from Arrowhead Lake be required; 2) that a grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District-be submitted; 3) that the proposed Erosion Control Plan be approved by ?; 4) Receipt of the required subdivision dedication and 5) receipt of an executed developer's agreement. Mr. Hughes recommended that the Victorsens continue their negotiations with the church and come back to Council for final approval on October.16, 1978. Mr. Keenan, representing Mr. and Mrs. Victorsen; noted disadvantages to the revised plat from the developer'.s standpoint, advising that development would be more expensive and that there are only 21, rather than 22, lots. Reference was made to a letter from Mr. Harry A. Murphy, Jr., 6508 Indian Hills Road, stating his approval of the plat if a berm is constructed with a minimum height of 6 feet between the Victorsen property, the Ted Carlson property and his own lot, and that this berm have plantings that will give it a natural look. Mr. Unnon (SP ?) .attorney representing Dr. Glenn Lewis, 6328 Gleason Road, expressed concern that the erosion problem had not been given adequate consideration and suggested that Lot 10 be eliminated. He also requested assurance that access to his home would not be cut off during construction. Dr. Lewis requested that all lot sizes be increased and said that it would be preferable if the density for the site was at the base of the hill as had been proposed originally. He referred to a letter to Mr. Hughes dated April 26, 1978, from the Chairman of the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District and contended that most of the questions raised regarding erosion and water run -off were never answered. Mr. Robert Perkins, 6909 Dakota Trail, expressed concern that the developer is plan- . ning.too many lots for the area. Mr. Calvin R.jehlman, representing Crossview Lutheran Church, said that the church emembership would have to evaluate the osal before a decision can be reached. In response to a'.question of Mr. man as to whether the church would receive credit'against any future dedica- tion if it should dedicate a portion of its land for use fora road running thru its property at this.time, Councilman Richards said that the overall effect of the development.would have to be.studied. Expressing concern also about lot size, possible erosion and storm water problems was the resident at 6501 Cherokee Trail who requested that the Victorsens submit to the Hennepin Conserva- tion District and the staff an erosion control plan. He said that the elimina- tion of Lot 12 would reduce the average size lot from 34,393 to 23,595 square feet. Mr. William Burke, 6409 Cherokee Trail, also expressed his concern that the Eastern side of the hill would be denuded and presented a map showing an alternative plan which he said would be more environmentally sound. Mayor Van Valkenburg said that he also has concern about the lot sizes, but that the Council does not have the authority to require that the lots be larger than required by ordinance. He added that he believes that there has been a great improvement from the originally proposed plat. Rmpmsmsma�xm�xmffixm�ffim KMXM*mFmxmxb $mxmxmsmmmxudxmkmxxmxmmm LXUGURx*1inKmTMX As recom- mended by the Mayor, Councilman Courtney then moved that the plat.be granted preliminary approval subject to the following conditions: 1) receipt by the City of a scenic and open space easement 100 feet upland from Arrowhead Lake; 2) receipt by the City of a grading permit from the Nine.Mile Creek Watershed District; 3) approval of the proposed Erosion Control Plan; 4) receipt of a subdivision dedication by the City; 5) receipt by the City of an executed developer's agreement 6) all lots.are'to be zoned R -1; 7) agreement::must be put landscaped. .of record.that lots cannot be divided; 8) Construction of a /berm adjacent to 6508 Indian Hills Road; 9) access to Dr. Lewis:' property to be open.during- construction; 10) that negotiations be continued with Crossview Lutheran Church. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt,. Councilman Richards then amended the motion to provide further for the elimination of Lot 10,axd that the cul -de -sac be moved farther to the North; hat the road access be obtained without payment by the City of Edina nld that no modification of physical conditions .(including cutting of trees) be made on the property until the plat is granted final approval. The amendment to the motion was accepted by Councilman Courtney and Councilwoman Schmidt. Rollcall - all ayes Members of the audience were assured that they would be notified before the plat comes back to Council for final approval. MAP zoning DEWY HILL CONDOMINIUMS REQUEST NUMBER 5 -78 -15 and Z -78 -9 LOCATION: SW quadrant of Cahill Rd. & Dewey Hill Rd. RF,QUEST: Rezoning request R -1 Single Family to PRD -3 Planned Residential District; Subdivision. NORTH ulln;=e p!1311nJ1iti._urlumt villoge of edins COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT September 6, 1978 S -78 -15 Dewey Hill Condominiums. Generally located.a.t.the southwest and quadrant of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road. (Overall Develop - Z-78-9 ment Plan and Subdivision.) Refer to: attached Overall Development Plan and Proposed Subdivision, August 2, 1978, staff report. On August 2, 1978, the.Commission granted preliminary approval for a 159 -unit development located in the southwest quadrant of Dewey Hill Road and Cahill Road. Preliminary approval for the development was also granted by the City Council on August 2, 1978. The proponent has now returned with the overall" development plan for the site and is requesting final approval for rezoning to PRD-3. The proponent has also submitted a preliminary subdivision for the site. This sub- division delineates one lot for the development site and two outlots lo- cated west of Delany Boulevard. Recommendation: Staff finds that the materials submitted are satisfactory for overall development plan approval. Staff noted on August 2, 1978, that adequate site distance must be established at the Cahill /Dewey Hill Road intersection. The grading plan proposes to provide this site dis- tance. Staff also suggested that the parking lot northeast of building 3 should be modified slightly. Staff and the proponents have reviewed this area and find that the original plan is more suitable due to parking requirements and area constraints. It should be noted that the City has received a petition from several adjacent residents to vacate that portion of Delaney Boulevard located within the subject development. This petition will be heard by the Council on September 18, 1978. If this section of Delaney Boulevard 'is vacated, it will obviously require.a re- design of the proposed development. Nevertheless, staff would recommend final rezoning approval at this time with the understanding that if a portion of Delaney Boulevard were va- cated, the proponents would have to return to the Commission with.a modi- fied plan. Staff recommends final rezoning conditioned upon.final platting of the property. Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision with the following conditions: 1. An executed developer's agreement. 2. Receipt of a subdivision dedication. 3. Granting of various utility and water storage easements in conjunction with final platting. GLH:nr 8-30-78 COM,MUN I TY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT August 2, 1978 Z -78 -9 Gitticman Corporation. R -1 Single Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Generally located at the southwest quadrant of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road. Refer to: attached graphics. The subject property is a 24 acre tract of land located in the southwest quadrant of Dewey Hill Road and Cahi11 Road. Most of the site is characterized by rolling topography with the exception of the westerly portion of the site which exhibits slopes of 25% -30%. Storm water retention ponds which are part of the South- west Edir.a Stormwater Ponding system are located along the northerly and westerly site boundaries. The Delaney Boulevard right of way also traverses the extreme westerly portion-of the site. The subject property has a.rather interesting history of rezoning requests. In 1973, preliminary approval was granted for a 276 unit (i.e. 12 units per acre) multiple residential deve.lopment proposed by Condor Corporation. This proposal included three and four story elements. This proposal was withdrawn by the developers following preliminary approval by the Council. In 1975, a proposal entitled Lowry Hill was considered. This proposal also included 276 units, but in two 5 story buildings. The Planning Commission and Council denied the proposal based upon a•3 story height limitation implied by the Southwest Edina Plan. (This height limitation is no:•r stated in the Plan.) A lawsuit followed this denial in which the Court affirmed the City's actions. The present rezoning request to PRD -3 proposes three condominium buildings containing a total of- 159 units or approximately 7 units per acre. All buildings are three stories in height and contain underground garages. The required number- of surface parking spaces have been provided in close proximity to the proposed buildings and are located such that they are well - screened from adjacent properties . Access to the development would be from De%,.ey Hill Road and from Delaney Boulevard. The proposed COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT page 2 Z -78 -9 August 2, 1978 buildings have been located on the most developable._ portion of the site and much of the steep topography in the southwestern quadrant has been retained. The small wetland on the southern portion of the site has also been retained and is proposed to be improved. Recommendation: Staff believes that the proponents have done an exceptional job of responding to many of the objections and con- cerns of the City and neighborhood regarding previous proposals for this property: 1) The total number of units has been reduced from 276 to 159. The proposed density of 7 units per acre is below the densities preliminarily approved for two other multiple residential developments in Southwest Edina. 2) Building height has been reduced from five stories to three stories in conformance with the Southwest Edina Plan. 3) The proposed buildings have been located primarily on the eastern portion of the site to provide a buffer for single family hones to the west. 4) Surface parking has been located away from the ponding areas and is well hidden from properties to the west. 5) The access road to Dewey Hill Road is located as far as possible from single family residences and maintains an adequate distance from the Cahill Road/ Dewey Hill Road intersection. The access road to Delaney Road is located as far south as possible to eliminate the possibility of headlights shining into homes on Coventry Way, to avoid encroachment into ponding areas, and-to provide adequate.sight distance for Delaney Boulevard. The internal roadway system is also designed to discourage through traffic. 6) The steep slopes located on the southwesterly portion of the site are preserved and should provide an excellent buffer. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT page 3 Z-78-9 August 2, 1978 7) The internal roadway system is designed to facilitate the future inclusion of the five acre parcel which fronts on Cahill Road and is not controlled by the proponents. Based upon these factors, staff recommends preliminary approval of the proposal. Staff suggests that the following items should be considered in the preparation of the final plans for the project: 1) Adequate sight distance must be maintained at the intersection of Cahill Road an,44 Dewey Hill Road. Sight distance is presently a problem at this intersection. 2) The surface parking lot northeast of building 3 should be modified slightly to further facilitate the future incorporation, if warranted, of the easterly parcel not owned by the proponent. 3) Signage' for the development must be in conformance with the sign ordinance. 4) Final zoning is contingent upon the final plotting of the property. GLH:jt 7`2$_78 LOI�r`A,T'UmON MAP II zoning, eu.b • vio � 10 DEWEY HILL CONDOMINIUMS REQUEST NUMBER: 5 -78 -15 and Z -78 -9 LOCATION: SW quadrant of Cabill Rd. & Dewey Hill Rd. REQUEST: Rezoning; request R -1 Single (�4A��j 1 '&6()()' L Family to PRD -3 Planned Residential District; C Subdivision. NORTH ,village rt1:n11j11% !:1xmiilltnt villp$e of edinA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT September 6, 1978 S -78 -15 Dewey Hill Condominiums. Generally located at the southwest __... and quadrant of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road.. (Overall Develop - Z-78-9 ment Plan and Subdivision.) Refer to: attached Overall Development Plan and Proposed Subdivision, August 2, 1978, staff report. On August '2, 1978, the Commission granted preliminary approval for a 159 -unit development located in the southwest quadrant of Dewey Hill Road and Cahill Road. Preliminary approval for the development was also granted by the City Council on August 2, 1978. The proponent has now returned with the overall development plan for the site and is requesting final approval for rezoning to PRD -3. The proponent has also submitted a preliminary subdivision for the site. This sub- division delineates one lot for the development site and two outlots lo- cated west of Delany Boulevard. Recommendation: Staff finds that the materials submitted are satisfactory for overall development plan approval. Staff noted on August 2, 1978, that adequate site distance must be established at the Cahill /Dewey Hill Road intersection. The grading plan proposes to provide this site dis- tance. Staff also suggested that the parking lot northeast of building 3 should be modified slightly. Staff and the proponents have reviewed this area and find that the original plan is more suitable due to parking requirements and area constraints. It should be noted that the City has received a petition from several adjacent residents to vacate that portion of Delaney Boulevard located within the subject development. This petition will be heard by the Council on September 18, 1978. If this section of Delaney Boulevard is vacated, it will obviously require a re- design of the proposed development. Nevertheless, staff would recommend final rezoning approval at this time with the understanding that if a portion of Delaney Boulevard were va- cated, the proponents would have to return .to the Commission with a modi- fied plan. Staff recommends final rezoning conditioned upon final platting -of the property. Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision with the following conditions: 1. An executed developer's agreement. 2. Receipt of a subdivision dedication. 3. Granting of various utility and water storage easements in conjunction with final platting. GLH:nr 8 -30-78 COMNUN I TY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT August 2, 1978 Z -7$ -9 Gittleman Corporation.. R -1 Single Family District to PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Generally located at the southwest quadrant of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road. Refer to: attached graphics. The subject property is a 24 acre tract of land located in the southwest quadrant of Dewey Hill Road and Cahill Road. Most of the site is characterized by rolling topog`r'aphy with the exception of the westerly portion of the site which exhibits slopes of 25% -30%. Storm water retention ponds which are part of the South- west Edir.a Storrmgater Ponding system ire located along the northerly and westerly site boundaries. The Delaney Boulevard right of way also traverses the extreme westerly portion-of the site. The subject property has a rather interesting history of rezoning requests. In 1973, preliminary approval was granted for a 276 unit (i.e. 12 units per acre) multiple residential deve.lopment proposed by Condor Corporation. This proposal included three and four story elements. This proposal was withdrawn by the developers following preliminary approva-1 by the Council. In 1975, a proposal-entitled Lowry Hill was considered. This proposal also included 276 units, but in two 5 story buildings. The Planning Commission and Council denied the proposal .based upon a*3 story height limitation implie:l by the Southwest Edina Plan. (This height limitation is now stated in the Plan.) A lawsuit followed this denial in which the Court affirmed the City's actions. The present rezoning request to PRD -3 proposes three condominium buildings containing a total. of- 159 units or approximately 7 units per acre. 'All buildings are three stories in height and contain underground garages. The required number- of surface parking spaces have been provided in close proximity to the proposed buildings and are located such that they are well- screened from adjacent properties . Access to the development would be from Dewey Hill Road and from Delaney Boulevard. The proposed COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Z -78 -9 August 2, 1978 page 2 buildings have been located on the most developable portion of the site and much of the steep topography in the southwestern quadrant has been retained. The small wetland on the southern portion of the site has also been retained and is proposed to be improved. Recommendation: Staff believes that the proponents have done an exceptional job of responding to many of the objections and con- cerns of the City and neighborhood regarding previous proposals for this property: 1) The total number of units has been reduced from 276 to 159• The proposed density of 7 units per acre is below the densities preliminarily approved for two other multiple residential developments in Southwest Edina. 2) Building height has been reduced from five stories to three stories in conformance with the Southwest Edina Plan. 3) The proposed.buildings have been located primarily on the eastern portion of the site to provide a buffer for single family homes to the west. 4) Surface parking has been located away from the ponding areas and is well hidden from properties to the west. 5) The access road to Dewey Hill Road is located as far as possible from single family residences and • maintains an adequate distc•nce from the Cahill Road/ Dewey Hill Road intersection. The access road to Delaney Road is located as far south as possible to eliminate the possibility of headlights shining into homes on Coventry Way, to avoid encroachment into - ponding areas; and.to provide adequate . sight -distance for Delaney Boulevard. The internal roadway system is also designed to discourage through traffic. 6) The steep slopes located on the southwesterly portion of the site are preserved and should provide an excellent buffer. w COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT page 3 Z -78 -9 August 2, 1978 7) The internal roadway system i-s designed to facilitate the future inclusion of the five acre parcel which fronts on Cahill Road and is not controlled by the proponents. Based upon these factors, staff recommends preliminary approval of the.proposal. Staff suggests that the following items should be considered in the preparation of the final plans for the - project: 1) Adequate sight distance must be maintained at the intersection of Cahill Road aria. Dewey Hill Road. Sight distance is presently a problem at this intersection. 2) The surface parking lot northeast of building 3 should be modified slightly to further facilitate the future incorporation, if warranted, of the easterly parcel not owned by the proponent. 3) Signage' for the development must be in-conformance with the sign ordinance. 4) Final zoning is contingent upon the final plotting of the property. GLH:jt 7 -28 -78 minnesota department of health 717 s.e. delaware st. (612) 296 -5221 minneapolis 55440 TO: State CHS Advisory Committee DATE s Au Boards of Health gu st 10, 1978 Chairperson, Advisory Committee Medical Consultants CHS Administrators Community Nursing Directors FROM Robert W. Hiller %' 'PHONE: (612) 296 -5384 Assistant Commissioner I' Community Health Services SUBJECT: Registration: FIRST ANNUAL MINNESOTA BOARDS OF HEALTH MEETING Arrowwood Lodge, Alexandria, MN September 19 -20, 1978 I wish to invite you to attend the FIRST ANNUAL BOARDS OF HEALTH MEETING. The purpose of this meeting is to assess the development of Community Health Services since enactment of the CHS Act in 1976 and to provide an opportunity for members of Boards of Health, CHS Advisory Committees, Medical Consultants, and staff to share infor- mation, exchange ideas, and plan together for the future of community health services in Minnesota. A variety of speakers have been invited to present information and to participate in workshops on the wide range of issues and programs in community health. I urge you to attend and actively participate in these sessions. Registration materials are enclosed along with the Preliminary Agenda. Enclosures i� an equal opportunity employer 1:3 FIRST ANNUAL 14INNESOTA BOARDS OF HEALTH MEETING Arrowwood Lodge Alexandria, Minnesota September 19 -20, 1978 Room Reservations Reservation requests and payment should be sent directly to Arrowwood Lodge by August 18, 1978 to assure accomodations for this meeting. Arrowwood Lodge P.O. Box 639 Alexandria, MN 56308 (612) 762 -1124 (800) 892 -7006 Registration The Registration Fee of $11.00 includes luncheons on Tuesday and Wednesday. Please make check payable to First Annual Minnesota Boards of Health Meeting and send along with this form to the,1-1i,nnesota Department of Health, Office of Community Health Services, 717 SE Delaware Street, Minneapolis, MN 55440, Attention: Margaret Sandberg. Pre - Registration Form I will be attending the First Annual Minnesota Boards of Health Meeting. ADDRESS PHONE ( CHS AGENCY ZIP Payment is enclosed for Registrations. Additional registrations may be made at the meeting if necessary. Tuezda:i, September 19 9:00 a.m. 9:15 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 1 i e 30 a.m..- 1:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M. 1:45 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 3:30 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 20 9:00 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. Preliminary Agenda FIRST A!^JUAL '.' _".7,50TA BOARDS OP iMALT(: *^:STING September 19-20, 1973 Arrowwood Resort, Alexandria. Idinnesota Rezistration: I,onday 4:00 p'.m. and Continuous Informal gathe{ii:g in the Lounge; 8:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Welcome and Opening F.emarks Warren R. Lawson Commissioner of Health Opening Address The Honorable Rudy Perpich Governor Break.•:. Assessing CHS Development Moderator: Bob Hiller, Assistant Commissioner Community Health Services CHS Panel. luncheon The Role of Boards of Health and Physicians in Cormmunity Health Services George Pickett, M.D. Past President APHA Washington, D.C. Panel Presentation - Minnesota Health Officers and 'Cedical Consultants Moderator* Bob Hiller Break Fiscal* Management Workshur Emil Angelica Adjorn for Dinner (On your own) Concurrent Workshops 1. Community Nursing/Home Care 2. Disease Prevention and Control MPHA Task Force Reports Environmental Health Health Education Break Federal Perspective of Health Education Horace Ogden, Director Bureau of Health Education Department of HEW Atlanta, Georgia Luncheon Keynote Speaker E. Frank Ellis, M.D. Regional Health Administrator Region V 107 -' Chicago, IL 1979 Legislature Preview Minnesota Department _of Health Commissioner Lawson Minnesota Department of Public Welfare Commissioner Dirkswager Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sandra Gardebring Minnesota State Planning Agency Peter.Vanderpoel. Legislative -iS tai'f Adjorn• to '`Pi ?A Annual '•'eeting First Annual.Boards of Health Meeting Arrowwood lodge Alexandria, MY September 19-20, 1978 The purpose of the first Annual Boards of Health Meeting is to assess the development of Community Health Services since enactment of the CBS Act in 1976 and to provide an opportunity for members of Boards of Health, CHS Advisory Committees, Medical Consultants, and staff to share information, exchange ideas, and plan together for the future of CBS in Minnesota. A variety of speakers have been invited to present information and to participate in workshops on the wide range of issues and programs in community health. CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Deposits Working Fund Loan To Other Funds Inventory: Liquor Wine Beer and Mix Prepaid Expenses: Unexpired Insurance Supplies Inventory FIXED ASSETS AT COST: Land Land Improvements Buildings Furniture and Fixtures Leasehold Improvements Less Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization Construction in Progress CURRENT LIABILITIES: LIQUOR FUND BALANCE SHEET CITY OF EDINA As at July 31, 1978 ASSETS -Zj ,4 $ 153,801.77 3,500.00 $ 157,301.77 415,000.00 $ 298,625.57 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS Trade Accounts Payable _ $ 185,132.40 Accrued Payroll 9,856.51 $ 194,988.91 Due to Other Funds 23,396.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $ 218,384.91 SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets $ 984,350.08 Unappropriated 1,027,680.26 2,012,030.34 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $2,230,415.25 338,958.83 33,639.47 671,223.87 $ 2,139.53 400.00 2,539.53 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $1,246,065.17 $ 152 - ,518.85 $ 27,369.87 481,643.80 151,075.01 3,035.55 $663,124.23 263,630.21 399,494.02_ $ 552,012.87 432,337.21 984,350.08 TOTAL ASSETS $2,230,415.25 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS Trade Accounts Payable _ $ 185,132.40 Accrued Payroll 9,856.51 $ 194,988.91 Due to Other Funds 23,396.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $ 218,384.91 SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets $ 984,350.08 Unappropriated 1,027,680.26 2,012,030.34 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $2,230,415.25 LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDIPIA Seven t:naim; yr 31, 1978 and July 31, 1977 INCREASE- DECREASE' 1978 1.977 ..r 50th St, Yorkdale Grandview 10 ta1 50th St. Ynrlydal.e. Grandview Total ' '.50th St. Yorkdale Grandview Total SALES: Liquor $239,247.24 $ 598,300,96 $518,506.82 $1,356,055.02 $213,962.13 $ 557,832.35 $502,592.45 $1,274,386.93 $ 25,285.11 $ 40,468.61 $15,914,37 $ 81,668.09 Wine 106,605.95 262,777.17 220,192.76 589,575.88 63,099.75 222,112.26 183,849.86 469,061.87 43,506.20 40,664.91. 36,342.90 120,514,01 Beer 79,291.96 21,7,597.67 158,177.88 .455,067.51 66,202.47 198,530.98 155,287.94 420,021.39 13,089,49 19,066.69 2,889.94 35,046.12 Mix and Mlscellan`9' 7,180.76 20,447.49 16,299.10 43,927.35 6,002.11 19,563.40 15,78_1.66 41,347.17 1,178.65 894.09 517.44 2,580.18 $432,325.91 $1,099,123.29 $913,176.56 $2,444,625.76 $349,266.46 $ 998,038.99 $857,511.91 $2,2049817.36 $ 83,059,45 $101,084.30 $55,664.65 $239,808.40 Less bottle refunds _14,966.42 40,620.22 35,382.70 90,969.34 10,850.1.6 34,051.51 31,990.50 76,892.17 4,11.6.26 6,568.71 3,392.20 1.4,077.17 NET SALES 127,925.19 $ 78,943.19 $ 94,515.59 $52,272.45 $225,7:1.23 $417,359.49 $1,058,503.07 $877,793.86 $2,353,656.42 $338,416.30 $ 963,987.48 $825,521.41 $2, CC,T OF SALES: Inventory - January 97,456.21 234,430.65 222,573.02 554,459.88 109,208.09 218,953.44 195,512.91 523,674,44 1.1,751.88* 15,477.21 27,060.11 30,785.44 Purchases _431,077.95 913,252.13 769,930.1.8 2,114,260:26 744,377.10 819,782.36 71.2,310.86 1,826 470.32 136,700.85 93,469.77 57,619.32 287,789,94 $528,534.16 $1,147,682.78 $992,503.20 $2,668,720.14 $403,585.19 $1,038,735.80 $907,823.77 $2,350,1.44.76 $124,9 +8.97 $ln8,046.98 $84,679.43 $318,575.38 Inventory- luly3l' 176,248.57 2531709.68 241,265.62 671,223.87 115,047.99 224,307.78 200,765.22 540 120.99 61,200.58 29,401.90 40,5011.40 1.31,102.88 $352,285.59 $ 893,973.10 $751,237.58 $1,997,496.27 $288,537.20 $ 814,428.02 $707,05_8.5_5 $1,810,023.77 $ 63 748,39 S 79 545.08 $44,179.03 $187,472.50 GROSSPROF$ 65,073.90 $ 164,529.97 $126,556.28 $ 356,160.15 $ 49,879.10 S 149,559.46 $118,462.86 $ 317,901.42 $ 15,194.80 $ 14,970.51 $ 8,093.42 $ 38,258.73 OPERATING EXPENSES :26,551.41 43,933.19 36,487.47 106,972.07 24,907.64 38,796.78 35,101.60 98,806.02 1,643.77 ., 5,1.36.41 1 385.87 8,166.05 Selling 13,169.93 20,935.96 18,115.30 52,221.19 7,516.25 19,475.70 14,977.76 41,969.71 5,653.68 1,460.26 3,137.54 10,251.48 Overhead Administrative 24,612.49 30,491.33 28,522.79. 83,626.61 23,154.85 28,349.54 24,201.73 25,706.12 1,457.64 2,141.79 4,321.06 7.920.49 TOTAL OPERATINrO 64 333.83 $ 95 360.48 -83"125.56 $ 242 819.87 $ 55 578.74 $ 86,622.02 5 74,281.09 $ 216,481.85 $ 8,755.09 $ 8,738.46 $ 8,844.47 $ 26,338.02 EXPENSE. 740.07 $ 69,169.49 $ 43,430.72 $ 113,340.28 $ 5,699.64*$ 62,937.44 $ 44,181.77 $ 101.,419.57 $ 6,439.71 $ 6,232.05 $ 751.05 *$ 11,920.71 NET OPERATINt 26,437.59 $ 1,892.57'$ 3,645.99 $ 2,828.64 $ 8,367.20 NET PROFIT $ 8,126.30 $ 83,772.23 $ 56,246.34 $ 148,144,87 $ 205.98*$ PROFIT 54,168.75 $ 127,856.96 $ 8,332.28 $ 9,878.04 $ 2,077.59 $ 20,287.^1 OTHER INCOME: 6,697.81 14,674.59 12,603.14 33,975.45 4,044.32 11,018.68 9,923.92 24,986.92 2,653.49 3,655.91 2,679.22 8,988.62 Cash Discount 43.90* 71.85* 212.48 96.73 27.90 61.93* 63.06 29.03 71.80* 9.92* 149.42 67.70 Cash over or under -�_ 1.77 1.38 -0- 518..75 1.62 1.14 518.75 518.75* NET INCOM 518.75* Income on inve Other 732.32 732.32 902.69 NET PROFIT $ 1.95% 902.69 170.37* 6.29% .06 %* 170.37* $ 7,386.23 $ 14,602.74 $ 12,815.62 $ 34,804.59 $ 5,493.66 $ 10,956.75 $ 9,986.98 $ 26,437.59 $ 1,892.57'$ 3,645.99 $ 2,828.64 $ 8,367.20 NET PROFIT $ 8,126.30 $ 83,772.23 $ 56,246.34 $ 148,144,87 $ 205.98*$ 73,894.19 $ 54,168.75 $ 127,856.96 $ 8,332.28 $ 9,878.04 $ 2,077.59 $ 20,287.^1 PERCENT TO NET SALES:, 15a59% 15.54% 14.42% 15.13% 14.74% 15.51% 14.35% 14.94% Gress profit Operating expenses 15.41 9.01. 9.47 10.32 16.42 8.99 9.00 10.17 Operating profit .18% 6.53% 4.95% 4.81% 1.68 %* 6.52% 5.35% 4.77% Other income 1.77 1.38 1.46 1.48 1.62 1.14 1.21 1.24 NET INCOM NET PROFIT $ 1.95% 7.91% 6.41% 6.29% .06 %* 7.66% 6.56% __ 6.01% APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES SUBSIDY LAWS OF MINNESOTA, 1976, CHAPTER 9 IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATIONS 1. APPLICANT DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE FOR MDH USE ONLY City of Edina CONTROL NUMBER DATE RECEIVED 2. SPONSORING UNITS OF GOVERNMENT 3. FUNDING PERIOD City /County Date Approved Jan. 01 1979 Month Day Year City of Edina to Dec. 31 1979 Month Day Year 4. FISCAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER 5. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL if different from 4. Name - J. N. Dalen Name Kenneth Rosland Title Finance Officer Title City Manager Agency City of Edina Agency City of Edina Street 4801 West 50th Street Street 4801-West 50th Street City. Edina City Edina State /Zip Minnesota 55424 State /Zip Minnesota 55424 area code) Phone Number (612 927 -8861 area code Phone Number 612 927 -8861 3. ALL APPROPRIATE REGIONAL REVIEW 7. DOES THE SPONSORING UNIT(S) OF AGENCIES RECEIVED COPIES OF GOVERNMENT MAINTAIN A WRITTEN EQUAL THIS APPLICATION. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM? Yes No Date ( x ) Yes ( ) No If yes, has it been certified by Minnesota HSA Department of Human Rights? ( x ) Yes ( ) No RDC Date Certified March 15, 1976 8. SUBSIDY REQUESTS 80,552 (Total) Name of County(s) /City(s) Local Participation State Share City of Edina $256,893 $ 80,552 K, Application is made for a subsidy under the Minnesota State Board of Health Rules MHD 451 -455 in the amount and for the purposes stated herein. By signature, the Authorized Official agrees and has the authority to agree to comply with the conditions and reporting requirements, consistent with applicable MHD rules and the Community Health Services Act as may be stipulated by the Board. In addition, by signature below, and signature affixed on page A -2 of these forms, the authorized official assures full compliance with all items stated herein. Authorized Official (Signature) Title City Manager Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Assurances and Agreements ....... ............................... b -1 Membership list of the Edina Community Health Services Advisory Committee ............. ............................... b -3 Summary of the Activities of the Edina Community Health Services Advisory Committee...... ......... b -4 Resolutions Approving the Edina Municipal Plan .................. b -5, 6 Guidelines and Manuals Related to Family Planning, Child Health and Maternity Services ......... ............................... b -7 Edina Community Health Services Programs: Food Service Facility Sanitation .............................. b -8 Community Sanitation ........... ............................... b -9 Housing Maintenance ............ ............................... b -9 Environmental Pollution Control....... ...................... b -10 Public Health Laboratory ...................................... b -12 Emergency Medical Services ..... ............................... b -13 Personal Health Services ....... ............................... b -14 CBS Activity Budget Detail: Environmental Health ................................ a.......... b -15, 16 Public Health Laboratory ....... ............................... b -17, 18 Emergency Medical Services .................... .............. b -19, 20 Home Health Services ........... ............................... b -21, 22 Disease Prevention and Control. ... ............................ b-23,,24 Community Nursing Services ..... ............................... b -25, 26 Maternal and Child Health ...... ............................... b -27, 28 Health Education ............... ............................... b -29, 30 CHSBudget Report ................ ............................... b -31, 32 1. 2. 0 ASSURANCES AND AGREEMENTS BY SIGNATURE, THE AUTHORIZED OFFICAL AGREES AND ASSURES THAT: The agency will comply with state and federal requirements for equal opportunity employment. The agency will comply with state and federal requirements relating to confidentiality of patient information. The agency will comply with all standards relating to fiscal account- ability that apply to the Minnesota Department of Health. a. The local matching funds identified in the budget submission (PART IV A and B meets the following tests as well as rule MHD 451: 1. Cash Contributions are cash outlays, including the outlay of money contributed by other public agen- cies and institutions and private organizations and individuals. 2. In -Kind Contributions represent the value of non - cash contributions provided by (1) the applicant, (2) other public agencies and institutions, (3) private organizations and individuals. Such goods and services directly benefit and are spe- cifically identifiable to the Community Health Services programs, and.are identifiable from the applicant's records. Specifically, the number of hours of volunteer services are supported by the same methods used by the agency for its employees and the basis for determining charges for personnel services, supplies and expenses are documented. b. Budget revisions will be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Health for prior approval whenever: 1. The revision results from changes in the objective or methods employed in the subsidy supported activity. 2. The revision involves the addition of personnel not previously approved in the award. 3. The cummulative amount of transfers among /between activities exceeds or is expected to exceed 10 percent or $2,500.00 whichever is greater, of the subsidy budget. b -1 1 1 ASSURANCES AND AGREEMENTS c. Reports of expenditures will be filed with the Minnesota Department of Health on forms provided by the M D H no later than 45 days following June 30 and December 31 each year. d. Subsidy funds are used as payment for services only after third party payments, such as Titles XVIII, XIX, and XX and private insurance resources are utilized. e. Financial Management Systems provide for: 1. Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each activity. 2. Records which identify adequately the source and application of funds for subsidy supported activi- ties. These records contain information pertaining to subsidy awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, liabilities (encumbrances) , outlays, and income. 3. Effective control over the accountability for all funds, property and other assets. Subsidy appli- cants adequately safeguards such_assests and assures that they are used solely for authorized purposes. 4. Comparison of actual obligations with budget amounts for each subsidy. ' 5. Accounting records which are supported by source documentation. 6. Audits which will be made by or at the direction of the subsidy applicant /Department'of Health to determine, at a minimum, the fiscal integrity of financial transactions and reports.. 7. Financial records and supporting documentation pertinent to the Community Health Services subsidy which will be retained until audited, with the following qualifications: a. The records will be retained beyond this period if audit findings have not been resolved. b. Records for non - expendable property which was acquired with subsidy funds will be retained for three years after its final disposition.. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL TITLE city Manager b -2 DATE ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH City of Edina Providers Mary Bang, R.N. 5200 Duggan Plaza Edina, MN 55435 941 -4754 Linda A. Bjerke 6600 Nordic Drive Edina, MN 55435 941 -2058 _ Dr. E. Duane Engstrom 4300 Philbrook Lane Edina, MN 55424 926 -6252 Dr. Walter E. Krafft 5608 Highland Road Edina, MN 55436 929 -2564 Dr. C. V. Rockwell 5129 Mirror Lak;: Dr. Edina, MN 55436 922 -5956 Dr. Richard K. Simmons 4800 Dunberry Lane Edina, MN 55435 927 -4832 Consumers Beverly Harris 4812 W. 66th Street Edina, MN 55435 927 -9508 Verne W. Moss, Jr., Attorney 5705 Woodlane Road Edina, MN 55424 922 -7508 Barbara Kresoya 6720 Galway Drive Edina, MN 55435 941 -4410 Leroy Werges 5,241 Edenmoor Street Edina, MN 55436 929 -3796 Homer Kinney 4513 Oak Drive Edina, rEi 554.24 926 -2676 Ex- Officio, Non - Voting Members June Schmidt, City Council 7005 Bristol Boulevard Edina, MN 55435 922 -1183 Kenneth Esse 5136 Russell Ave. So. Minneapolis, MN 55410 922 -0239 Tully Stoppel 6238 Upton Avenue So. Minneapolis, MN 55423 866 -6719 994 -2110 State Community Health Advisory Committee Member Mr. Leroy Werges b -3 PLAN DEVELOPMENT BY COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Edina Health Advisory Committee has been seeking information about and attempting to evaluate existing programs in the community. Presently they are addressing the area of home health care as provided by the contract with Bloomington Public Health Nursing Services. From this information, it is hoped that the advisory committee will be able to offer suggestions for this service that will help in the delivery of home health care for the community. .Other areas that have been suggested for further study are: counseling of teenagers; child abuse; transportation for therapy and medical care; and development of informational material on services available. It is antici- pated that there will be additional activities in these areas and that the results from these activities will be incorporated in developing the final 1979 Edina Community Health Services Plan. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLAN On August 23, 1978, a public hearing on the 1979 Community Health Services Plan for South Hennepin County was held at Southdale Public Library, 7001 York Avenue South. The public was notified by newspaper publication, radio announcements, and flyers. There were no comments directed at the Edina Community Health Services Plan. b -4 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PLAN AND APPLICATION FOR THE 1979 COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ACT SUBSIDY BE APPROVED WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Edina is an official advisory body to the City Council, which is the official local Board of Health; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health is charged by the City Council to study public health needs in the City and recommend to the Council policies and ordinances and programs necessary to meet these needs; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health has reviewed the plan and application for 1979 Community Health Services Act subsidy funds prepared by the staff of the City of Edina and finds it thoroughly consistent with the needs and priorities of the community as determined by this Advisory Board and as expressed in citizen participation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Edina, in regular meeting assembled, that the plan and application for the 1979 Community Health Services Act subsidy be approved and forwarded to the City Council of the City of Edina with a recommendation for approval. Passed and adopted this day of , 1978. ATTEST: Minutes Secretary b-5 Chairman, Advisory Board of Health EDINA 4801 WEST 50TH STREET. EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 612 - 927 -8861 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAN FOR PROVISION OF-COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES IN THE CITY OF EDINA AND THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ACT SUBSIDY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina is the official governing body of the City of Edina and functions as the official Board of Health of the City of Edina; and WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to promote, support, and maintain the health of the entire community at the highest level; and WHEREAS, the Community Health Services Act provides for subsidies in support of public health services on the local level throughout the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, a special needs study has been made and a special public meeting held relative to the needs and priorities of the community for Community Health Services; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Edina has reviewed the plan for the provision of public health services in the City of Edina and recommends its approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this selfsame plan and finds it consistent with the needs and .priorities of the community as determined by the Advisory Board of Health and as expressed by the citizens of Edina; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, that the Community Health Services Plan for the City of Edina is approved and authorization is hereby given to submit an application for the Community Health Services Act subsidy. ADOPTED this 11th day of September, 1978. 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 September 11, 1978, and as recorded in_the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 12th day of September, 1978. City Clerk ME STATUTES, GUIDELINES, AND MANUALS RELATED TO FAMILY, MATER14AL AND CHILD HEALTH ACTIVITIES SOURCE 1. Family Planning State Plan - 5/74 (to be revised) Minnesota Depart- ment of Health 2. Instruction Manual for Preschool and School Hearing Conservation - 1973; Instruction Manual for Pre- school and School Vision Conservation - 1973 (to be revised) it 3. Early Detection of SCOLIOSIS by School Screening. - 8/76 to 4. Guidelines for Early Periodic Screening - Final 9/76 (0 -21 years) " 5. Early Periodic Screening Manual - 8/76 (to be re- vised) 6. School Health Guide for Use in Minnesota Schools, 1973 (to be revised). " 7. Community Nursing Manual /Guidelines - November, 1974 " 8. Immunization Clinic Manual and Guidelines - June, 1975 " 9. Parent Education Guidelines (draft 461) 2/76 if 10. EPS Cost Sharing Plan - 4/76 of b -7 EDINA PROGRAMS TITLE OF PROGRAM: FOOD SERVICE FACILITY SANITATION (ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH) Problems Addressed: Diminished health may result from consuming food con - taminated with.chemicals or microorganisms. Contamination of foods may occur from unsanitary conditions or improper handling during food manufacture, processing, delivery, or service. Some of the more common underlying, causes of food -borne disease outbreaks are inadequate refrigeration, poor personal hygiene, failure to hold readily perishable foods at legal refri- geration- temperatures, failure to hold hot foods at legal holding tempera- tures and inadequate cooking. Goals To achieve, through enforcement and education, compliance with the various laws, ordinances and policies which will insure all citizens of Edina a healthful and aesthetically pleasing food consumption experience. Objectives 1. By systematic inspection and education, insure that all food while being transported, stored, prepared, displayed, served or sold to the public is protected from all forms of contamination or adulteration con- sistent with the Edina Food Code to insure safe consumption and minimize the possibility of food -borne disease episodes. 2. To insure, through the plan review process, that each building or parts thereof, that are intended for food production or storage, is constructed to comply with the provisions of the Edina Food Code to insure that the structure and equipment is designed to provide a durable, easily cleanable and aesthetically appealing environment in which to store, prepare, display or serve food to the consuming public. Methods: Specific methods used to achieve the objectives are: a Objective 1: A minimum of two (2) comprehensive sanitary surveys will be conducted on each food service facility annually. Along with the sanitary surveys, necessary follow -up surveys will be conducted on a pre - determined, mutually agreeable timetable. 0 Objective 2: All new or remodeled food establishments will require that detailed plans and. specifications be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. The plans will be systematically reviewed detailing all areas of the structure or equipment not in conformance with the Edina Food Code. Follow -up field inspections will be conducted, as required, to determine if construction is pro- ceeding according to the approved plans.. Rvaluat-inn 0 1. Routine checks will be performed to determine if the twice annual sanitation surveys are being conducted on a timely basis. The b- US performance of the inspection process will by evaluated by certi- fied inspectors from the State Department of Health. The certified inspectors will evaluate the interpretation and appli- cation of the food code during periodic field visits. This evaluation will also be carried through the administrative aspects of the inspection and enforcement process. 0 2. The evaluation of the plan review process will primarily be judged by field evaluation and review of all correspondence with- in the process to determine uniformity of interpretation and enforcement. TITLE OF PROGRAM: COMMUNITY SANITATION (ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH) Problems Addressed: Diminished health may result from exposure to hazards or conditions in the physical environment of the community. Community sani- tation covers a variety of environmental health problems which provide a link in the transmission of disease in man. Included are problems related to rodent, insect, and weed control, improper refuse storage, animal control and a variety of public health nuisances. Many sanitation problems are inter - related so that a practical approach to control involves looking at the total community sanitation picture rather than each component separately. Goal Either by citizen complaint or by observation in the community, identify and abate all nuisance conditions consistent with State laws and local ordi- nances. Objective 1. Prevent the accumulation of refuse and weeds, destroy rodent and vermin harborages and control domesticated animals that constitute a nuisance. Methods: Specific methods used to achieve the objectives are: ® In response to complaints, investigate all community sanitation nuisances and issue orders to correct situations which are hazardous. Complete follow -up inspections to determine compliance with written orders. F:va l rn in +- i nn ® The Community Sanitation program will be evaluated by viewing the effectiveness of the abatement process. TITLE OF PROGRAM: HOUSING MAINTENANCE (ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH) Problems Addressed: Diminished health may result from conditions if ill- ness associated with substandard housing. Although the total impact of b-9 substandard housing on health cannot be fully determined, many researchers believe that the irritations and frustrations that occur in some residen- tial environments are leading or contributing factors of mental illness. Respiratory infections, such as colds, bronchitis, and influenza, are re- lated to inadequate heating or ventilation and inadequate and crowded sleeping arrangements and food handling facilities. Other potential pro- blems include carbon monoxide poisoning due to faulty home heating devices, rodent and insect infestation, accidents due to crowding, poor electrical connections, poor lighting and structural problems. Goal Minimize the public health hazards associated with substandard housing. Objective Prevent irritants or impairments that may result from substandard or over- crowded housing. Method: -Ihe specific method used to achieve the objective is: ® In response to complaints or during periodic inspections, determine the conformity of housing with minimum housing standards. Issue orders to correct unsafe or substandard conditions and perform follow -up inspection to insure compliance with written orders. Rvalnatinn ® It is difficult to measure the outca with compliance with minimum housing crease in the general welfare within of hazardous or unhealthy conditions of the outcome, because the specific will no longer be in existence. ne of a housing program, but codes there should be an in- the community. The abatement in itself will be the measure unhealthy or hazardous condition PROGRAM TITIE: ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL (ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH) Problems Addressed: Diminished health may result from improperly maintained recreational areas such as swimming pools. If not properly maintained, accidental injury or contamination may result.for persons u$ing the recrea- tional facility. Also, polluted water or unwanted noise may cause diminished health. Water is used for a variety of activities and pollution of the water may effect wells, stormwater discharge and recreational areas. The effects of noise on the health of the population may be either of two types; (1) they are consciously perceived effects or (2) insidious effects. Con- sciously perceived effects are those recognized by the recipient or person. They usually have a subjectively irritating or nuisance character, but they are nevertheless important functionally, producing such effects as interference with the thought process, communication disruption, performance impairment, sleep disturbance and general mental stress. Excessive noise can also result in permanent hearing loss. b -10 Goals To minimize the health effects attributable to water and noise pollution. Objectives 1. Prevent accidental injury or disease resulting from use of swimming pools. 2. Eliminate the entrance of pollutants into surface or ground water. 3. Reduce the occurrence of unwanted noise in the community. Methods: Specific methods used to achieve the objectives -are: ® Objective 1: Continue the routine inspections of swimming pools to determine compliance with minimum health and safety standards. Issue orders to correct any health or safety situation, and if necessary, close the swimming pool to the public until necessary corrective measures have been taken. Develop educational aids to assist swimming pool operators in providing a safe and sanitary recreational environment for the community. Objective 2: Continue the surveillance of on -site sewage disposal systems. Wherever feasible, encourage conversion of on -site sewage disposal systems to sanitary sewer. Continue routine sampling and surveillance of the city water supply. Continue sampling individual well water supplies as requested by the community. Continue monitoring surface water. ® Objective 3: In response to complaints, investigate all noise nuisances and require compliance with accepted noise standards. ® 1. The effectiveness of the swimming pool inspection program will be evaluated by meeting the monthly inspection schedule and ob- serving the conformance with minimum public health safety Stan- dards. Emphasis within the program will be re- assessed to cope with new hazardous situations. ® 2. The evaluation of the water pollution program will be based on observing the changes in number of on -site sewage disposal systems, the prevention of contamination within the city water supply and the change in the quality of the surface water. ® 3. The abatement of unwanted noise source will result in the re- duction of irritation to the complainant. The.evaluation of this program can be assessed by the number of successful noise abatements or noise reductions. b -11 PROGRAM TITLE: PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY (ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH) Problems Addressed: Problems addressed by this program include food -borne illness, food quality, water quality (public water supply, lakes, ponds, and streams), air quality and miscellaneous analysis from all areas of environmental health. Goals Assist the Environmental Health Services in controlling the quality of food and water thereby preventing adverse health conditions in the com- munity. Objectives Analyze the samples promptly and report the results to the appropriate En- vironmental Health Services. Methods ® By using specific chemical and microbiological tests, perform an- alysis on samples submitted to the laboratory. All tests be per- formed using Standard Methods. Evaluation ® The laboratory and personnel performing the analysis must meet the appropriate certification by the Minnesota Department of Health. 0 b -12 TITLE OF PROGRAM: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Problems Addressed: Sudden life threatening situations such as accidents are a constant threat to the health of the citizens within the community. The morbidity and mortality associated with these situations can effective - ly be altered by quick, professional delivery to a health care facility. Goals 1. Provide ambulance service for the sick and injured. 2. Provide emergency medical treatment for the sick and injured. Objectives 1. Provide one advanced.life support emergency ambulance, staffed by para- medics and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT's). 2. Provide a back -up ambulance staffed by EMT's. 3. Provide cardio - pulmonary resuscitation classes for various groups in the city of Edina. Methods ® The Fire Department shall have six personnel trained as para- medics, with two assigned to each shift. There shall be no less than one paramedic on duty at a time. p All Fire Department personnel shall be trained as EMT's and assist the paramedics as necessary. ® All Police Department patrolmen shall be trained as EMT's.and assist the Fire Department as necessary. ----I . - -i _.-- 0 The City of Edina will be a member of the Hennepin County Emergency Medical Services, who will review the training, methods, procedures and equipment used by the City of Edina for providing emergency medical services. Timetable This program is in effect now and will be on- going. Services will be pro- vided as needed. b -13 PERSONAL HEALTH SERVICES The following personal health services will be delivered by the Bloomington Public Health Nursing Services under contract: Home Health Services A. Skilled Home Nursing B. Home Health Aide Disease Prevention and Control Services A. Senior Center Health B. Vaccine Community Nursing Services A. School Health B. Counseling C. "ome Nursing Maternal and Child Health Services A. Childrens Health B. Adult Health , Health Education A. Public Information and Education The program descriptions for the above listed services can be found in the Bloomington Community Health Services Plan. The budget report follows this narrative and will be revised as the contract with Bloomington is finalized. b -14 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM Dated /x /78 MO. DAY YR. FOR THE PERIOD Jan. TO Dec. 1979 (�) Original ( ) Revised I. PROGRAM TITLE: Environmental Health II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES AMOUNT Food Service Sanitation 60% 40,073 Community Sanitation 15% 10,018 Environmental Pollution Control 10% 6,679 F Housing Maintenance 15% 10,018 Water-Treatment Chemicals 9,300 Lab Support 8,963 TOTAL -- III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: 85,051 CHS Local Participation Other ** Other ** Total Subsidy Tax Levy Fees Other State Federal Budget 5,294 .56,757 23,000 85,051 * *Specify Source of Funds. b -15 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM PAGE 2 IV. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES 1. Personnel Sanitarian Medical Officer Secretary Assistant Sanitarian Lab Technician Summer Help Lab General 2. Capital Outlay 3. Contractual Services 4. Travel 5. Dues, Conferences & Training 6. Supplies 7. Fixed Charges 8. Lab Support NO. OF POSITIONS AMOUNT 1 20,431 1 300 0.5 4,680 1 15,740 .3 3,050 23 405 310 General 129 Water Treatment Chemicals 9,90_ 21,720 b -16 TOTAL -- 8,963 85,051 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM Date 9 / 6 / 78 MO. DAY Y R. FOR THE PERIOD ,Tan. TO Dec. 1979 ( X ) Original ( ) Revised I. PROGRAM TITLE: Environmental Health II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES AMOUNT Lab Support 26,885 w III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: TOTAL -- 0 CHS Local Participation Other ** Other ** Total Subsidy Tax Levy Fees Other State Federal Budget 8,963 17,922 26,885 * *Specify Source of Funds. The total costs of the Tri -City Lab are shared by Bloomington, St. Louis Park, and Edina. Edina's participation appears as Local Participation Tax Levy here and is supported in the Environmental Health Budget. b -17 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM PAGE 2 IV. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES 1. Personnel Lab Director Summer Help 2. Capitol Outlay 3. Travel 4. Dues and Conferences 5. Supplies b -18 NO. OF POSITIONS AMOUNT 1: 0 18,375 0.3 2,000 1,500 180 330 4,500 TOTAL - -• 26,885 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD Jan. TO Dec. 1979 I. PROGRAM TITLE: Emergency Medical Services II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES Ambulance Service, Life Support and Rescue III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: Date 9 / 6 /78 MO. DAY YR. ( X ) Original ( ) Revised AMOUNT 167,517 TOTAL -- 167,517 CHS Local Participation Other ** Other ** Total Subsidy Tax Levy Fees Other State Federal Budget 16,258 147,259 4,000 167,517 * *Specify Source of Funds. b -19 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM PAGE 2 IV. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES 1. Personnel Paramedics 2. Capitol Outlay 3. Supplies 4. Contractual Services 5. Fixed Charges [11 W1 NO. OF POSITIONS AMOUNT 6 117,523 7,244 5,600 3,850 33,300 G TOTAL -- 167,517 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD Jan. TO Dec. 1979 I. PROGRAM TITLE: Home Health Services II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: A^/ T %IT TT f-1 Skilled Home Nursing Home Health Aide TOTAL -- III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: Date_/ 6 / 78 MO. DAY YR. ( x ) Original ( ) Revised AMOUNT 15,678 6,915 22,593 0 CHS Local Participation Other ** Other ** Total Subsidy Tax Levy Fees Other State Federal Budget 19,759 2,834 22,593 * *Specify Source of Funds. b -21 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM PAGE 2 IV. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES NO. OF POSITIONS AMOUNT Contract For Services with Bloomington Public Health Nursing Services 22,593 TOTAL -- b -22 22,593 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD .Tan. TO Dec. 1979 I. PROGRAM TITLE: Disease Prevention and Control Services II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES Senior Center Health Vaccine III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: Date 9 /6/ 78 M0. DAY YR. ( x ) Original. ( ) Revised AMOUNT 3,347 1,200 TOTAL -- 4,547 CHS Local Participation Other ** Other ** Total Subsidy Tax Levy Fees Other State Federal Budget 1,248 3,299 4,547 * *Specify Source of Funds. b -23 -BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM PAGE 2 IV. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES NO. OF POSITIONS AMOUNT Contract for Services With Bloomington Public Health Nursing Services 4,547 b -24 TOTAL -- 4,547 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD .Ian. TO Dec. 1979 I. PROGRAM TITLE: Community Nursing Services II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES School Health Counseling Home Nursing TOTAL -- III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: Date_ /_fi_/ 78 MO. DAY YR. ( X ) Original ( ) Revised AMOUNT 4,644 7,121 19,195 0 CHS Local Participation Other ** Other ** Total Subsidy Tax Levy Fees Other State Federal Budget 15,642 15,318 30,960 * *Specify Source of Funds. b -25 $ UDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM PAGE 2 IV. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES NO. OF POSITIONS AMOUNT Contract for Services with Bloomington Public Health Nursing Service 30,960 TOTAL -- 30,960 b -26 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM Date —9 / 6 / 78 MO. DAY YR. FOR THE PERIOD .Ian. TO Dec. 1979 ( ) Original ( ) Revised I. PROGRAM TITLE: Maternal and Child Health II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES AMOUNT Childrens Health 16,317 Adult Health 5,439 TOTAL -- III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS:_. 21,756 CHS Local Participation Other ** Other ** Total Subsidy Tax Levy Fees Other State Federal Budget 20,000 1,756 21,756 * *Specify Source of Funds. b -27 'BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM PAGE 2 IV. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES NO. OF POSITIONS AMOUNT Contract for Services With Bloomington Public Health Nursing Service 21,756 TOTAL - -. b -28 21,756 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM DateMO. /DAY /78 FOR THE PERIOD .Tan. TO Dec. 1979 (x ) Original ( ) Revised I. PROGRAM TITLE: Health Education II. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY ACTIVITY COST: ACTIVITIES AMOUNT Public Information and Education 5,021 TOTAL -- III. PROGRAM BUDGET BY SOURCE OF FUNDS: 5,021 0 CHS Local Participation Other ** Other ** Total Subsidy Tax Levy Fees Other State Federal Budget 2,351 2,670 5,021 * *Specify Source of Funds. b -29 - BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM PAGE 2 IV. PROGRAM BUDGET DETAIL BY COST: COST CATEGORIES NO. OF POSITIONS AMOUNT Contract for Services with Bloomington Public Health Nursing Services 5,021 TOTAL -- b -30 5,021 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES SUBSIDY PLAN BUDGET REPORT For the Period Jan. To Dec. 1979 Name and Address of Organization: I. PLANNED EXPENDITURES: Programs Community Nursing Services Home Health Services Disease Prevention & Control Services Emergency Medical Services Health Education Environmental Health Services CHS Planning & Admin. Maternal & Child Health Services Native American Services Other (Specify) TOTAL - Planned Expend. TOTAL - In -Kind Contrib. TOTAL - Planned Expend. Less In -Kind Contrib. Other Local Participation Participation r1__4. -1 R1_ BUDGET ( x ) Original ( ) Revised CHS suhsidv Tntal II. CERTIFICATION (SIGNATURES) I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the data reported on this form is correct and that all transactions will be made in accordance with subsidy provisions and applicable assurances. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL DATE FISCAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER DATE ADDRESS b -31 15,318 15,642 30,960 2,834 19,759 22,593 3,299,. 1,248 4,547 151,259 16,258 167,517 2,670 2,351 5,021 79,757 5,294 85,051 1,756 20,000 21,756 256,893 80,552 1,200 337,445 256,893 79,352 336,245 II. CERTIFICATION (SIGNATURES) I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the data reported on this form is correct and that all transactions will be made in accordance with subsidy provisions and applicable assurances. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL DATE FISCAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER DATE ADDRESS b -31 MN DEPT. OF HEALTH "OS SUBSIBY PLAN BUDGET REPORT, PAGE 2 III. PLANNED SOURCES OF FUNDS CHS Subsidy Financial Assistance Direct Assistance Local Participation Local Tax Revenue Municipal County Revenue Sharing Medicare Reimbursement Medicaid Private Insurance Patient Fees Veteran's Administration Contracts (specify) License or Permit Fees Grants (specify) Gifts /Donations In -kind Contributions Other Income (specify) Other Participation Other State Funds (specify) Other Federal Funds (specify) TOTAL -- Planned Sources of Funds TOTAL -- Less In -kind Contributions Excess Funds Collected Over (Under) Total Expenditures b -32 TOTAL SUBTOTAL 79,352. 1,200 80,552 229,893 27,000 256,893 (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION) CITY OF EDINA 4801 W. 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, September 11, 1978, at 7:00 p.m. and will at said time and place consider the following: 1. Rezoning Request by Kerr Companies From R -1 Single Family District to 0 -2 Office District, generally located at 4917 Eden Avenue, described as follows: Registered Land Survey No. 390, Tract B, and Registered Land Survey No. 1021, Tract B. 2. Proposed Commercial Use of the Easterly Portion of Registered Land Survey No. 1365, Tract A, generally located east of the Junior Achievement Building. 3. Preliminary Plat of Dewey Hill Condominiums by Gittleman Corporation, generally located at the Southwest quadrant of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road, described as follows: The North thirty (30) acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section eight (8), Township One hundred sixteen (116), Range Twenty -one (21), according to the Government Survey thereof; except the easterly four hundred forty (440) feet of the southerly five hundred fifty (550) feet thereof. 4. Appeal by Frank Kreiser Real Estate of a Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decision on August 24, 1978, denying their request for a 29 car parking variance. The property is generally located at 5036 France Avenue South and described as follows: Part of Lot 49, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172. 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, September 6, 1978. Please send 2 Affidavits of Publication. RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL ST. ALBANS ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that that certain plat known as St. Albans Addition, platted by Rudy Trones, Jr., and Joyce E. Trones, husband and wife, and by Walter G. Irwin and Karen S. Irwin, husband and wife, and by St. Alban's Episcopal Church, LaVern 0. Klingensmith, Senior Warden and John 0. Wallschlaeger, Junior Warden, and presented at the Regular Meeting of the Edina City Council of September 11, 1978, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. ADOPTED this 11th day of September, 1978. 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 September 11, 1978, and as recorded in the minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 21st day of September, 1978. City Clerk 6401 Mendelssohn Lane Edina, MN 55343 September 3, 1978 Mr. Morton E. Layer, Postmaster United States Post Office Minneapolis, MN 55401 Dear Mr. Layer: We were very disappointed to receive another letter of survey. We do not.need to be surveyed again. We need your positive action! ' When I talked with Mr. Clardy several.times during the past 5 years and on August 14 with Mr. Frank Blake, I requested again that our street addresses of approximately. 479 families in this area be listed in the United States Zip Code Directory that is published by the Post Office Department. This third survey does not solve the problem. According to your. letter we have a choice of using Hopkins 55343, in which case our street addresses will not be listed in the zip code directory; and the alternative would be service out.of the Normandale Branch Post Office and our street addresses would then be listed in the zip code directory. Naturally most of us object to being subjected to drive the distance to that branch post office to pick up any mail that has not been delivered. In other words, there is no alternative; only the negative proposal. I am enclosing a copy of a directive from the Village of-Edina dated September 25, 1973, and please note paragraph 3 that reads: "Accordingly, the Minneapolis Postmaster, Mr. M. E. Layer, has advised that, effective immediately, all Edina residents whose mail has previously been addressed 'Hopkins 55343' may now be 'Edina 55343'. You will still be served by the Hopkins Post Office." We have not objected to mail delivery out of the Hopkins Post Office and using the address of Edina 55343, but we do object to your omitting our street addresses from the zip code directory. Being surveyed again does not solve the problem. Your positive response of listing the street addresses for our area will solve the problem! Revenue Sharing Funds are distributed to the city in which you live and pay real estate taxes. Since all 479 of these .families pay taxes to the City of Edina, we want these funds to be paid to the City of Edina, for our tax relief, and not the City of Hopkins. Using Hopkins 55343 on our tax returns assures that these funds are distributed to the City of Hopkins, which has no legal right to these funds. The City of Edina boundaries were set in the 1880's and I cannot understand how the Post Office Department has jurisdiction to'change the boundaries of any city. We would appreciate your favorable and prompt action to see that our street addresses with the zip codes are listed in the next issue (January 1979) of the United States and all area zip code directories. Thank you. Sincerely, (Mrs.) Elo se Walcher cc: to all interested parties . / UNITED STATES POST OFFICE IN REPLY REFER TO MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55401 10- MEL :bjt September 1, 1978 Postal Patron: It has been brought to our attention that some postal customers in the Edina, MN city limits that are now receiving mail delivery by the Hopkins Post Office wish to have an Edina, MN 55436 address instead of a Hopkins, MN 55343 address. The Postal Service has two alternatives to the solution of this problem. One alternative would be to establish delivery from the Edina, Normandale Branch Post Office. This would require that your mail would be addressed as Minneapolis, MN 55436 or Edina, MN 55430. Your street address would also then be included in zip code directories under the multicoded Mills., M11 listing. All mail required to be called for would be picked up at the Edina, Normandale Branch Post Office, 5108 West 74th Street. This change also requires that all personal correspondence, charge accounts, bank accounts, publishers, etc. are notified of your change of address. This change would constitute a delay in the mail delivery until all correspondents have changed to the new address. The other alternative would be to continue the same delivery of mail from the Hopkins Post Office, as is now being done. To determine the desires of our customers in making this adjustment of delivery, please complete the bottom part of this letter and return in the enclosed postage -paid envelope by September 15, 1978. For your information we have included a map on the other side of this letter. Please do not make any address changes at this time. You will be contacted in the future and advised of our decision. M. E. Layer MSC Manager /Postmaster , CHECK ONE Yes, I prefer to have a Mpls., MN 55436 or Edina, MN 55436 Address No, I prefer for my address to remain Hopkins, MN 55343 Name: Address: •ti / �,-•, =I` �' QQQM319NI�' N3..._ Z . °V l.e ....... AY 3 Ydd f 1 �Y+��. .. L� :1: � SUv 37dylY d \�y �tl r�, • �� NV X31 VH yNA • - rt 3dY _ ^Q111 _ N l -t>a i : , �z _ - 3nr. : µ p8Y y 3 ( 2 N YY �'< 1 •JNI7 7' •% �_ 3_- I.3AY`I`_- 7:4A1_i z �� •, ut ^AY 1 Nt .-.7 -1 rl' '�Al IA\t"_ � .�. �_,,, I ;; :C ����J_ IF - •ii � ': � �1. U 1 \• 1 NN 4,T ' A3 n 1_. a� • d 075Y A f •n L N/d1V xY0 Z�; �NrrtH •• * o nral`liicjiJO 'f - ]AY - t: ; ^0 N .,,. - W(:' •. ,j ' fir rc > #n_ — h' 'o. 3Ar v �!�. •rle :Y.A1 4n31Y902UM,ir "'�'�''� ..r=' 37Y;Qti4M -i g o� :a fr..7 �r`�'rY" Ga �3tiy I „ . ' I ,•, 11 .. �, -- "fir 1' :Uj- ".'r -f.• I• R ,n < nr E z O >��J1L'13Y_ v x Via_: Ci`' S F r� Y • • • SNHOF 15 v .NO 3tl y of O • i o.�,' K31U ° v�d ie S�J� 5; 3nr3 o = 1 n\`� m 1�+ +"' 'AV i N6��:n � �•* u I Zr; �' lOa_7H V ''�.•� ,( { d - ' 1+ rn,77r• �A ? *tir` �� V�Y7lY�' tO I• ` \I3�v: „.4,Tp A-• ..a:? N �?C' .t�C ��[?-�{.. wtr+e ,n V_ .� \ s = )¢ IAV_OC]lUl' 'AYJ ]�irA w Av , nH, c >1 q� L., j ,,._.:. f i 7 j 7,1! " J r 1• ^• (5.,:1..,...• YDIU1 t,y�lvll 'Y it €:,i \,'�7j �. •y' `f/ �,I ,-AY A3>ijYW� v) /M %VnC,•.y�nt'S� .I, .,. - -- / / %_" (( a3lSn3M- � •\ ,,J - i ; .r l.,- •- •- y-- +-- -.Oy'l �i:, X17 � \�:.J•i':1.�.•1M..y '..- _�.��T -. `,•• q •l� ,. � , 1�c�n,�•,.,, �mr•'�rtr ;7(. ��� Y'• •O�o.N.N3.x;° '1 .I °,JJ .,j,«••,�:•,;:t:r: Z:N - };. � -.• n •-1-!? t „n FFF iii 1 3vn n v 'I � ' �. f v ^' Ilo; wr • ,y jF � ^St. �Zl{ }��-' Yf :'i_� -' 1 I� 1�.� 4__ - :{111dlSOf ' � L��1\w)�NYi112iYi;^ \1t ��A]' 311Nri1 p i1 1 (� -' •'FBI 5-+��� ~��..,,��" �'__ "1YIa11M ��: •\ ' _�•�:M..f. r6Yly { O7Vp �-!"'�"" �.' '%/ \\ _ .,1Y. lY D. �-- r- {�SvIY 'a_ •t� �'o C15y. r'7,'•'�: ^• OC3 1�Hr --�.1• •i Y -- 'I+ NO.ksv 73 \-�rB,lr,� j. ,n,�±YHY `Li`.i' -� y. Y. ©Y.1.Y ��1 ., ° HOSa3H77� \ 3Ar �.�• "`I] 0�;r •. -1 \; _nr f Ar ?IO 'O I 1.- \t1 G,OM a'HS n' -1v;o '- 3 )la liw ° —•O �% � ,••. ` I i�l [ LL c O J� .. wYIl1�M N o 1dLLL''- ^ 71_Q JI O H 0A,l 2 T -- • y RJ (�O_Cr8'>1 jAr _00 �ZO G O10 aO.JxO 030331�T7�• °�� •; :s]AYr.. w'{l.'fY,Y.�r.. i _jrlovra�J,,� `j3},I �• „�\\ MTV � �” (i'"o -4*x" ^L•• � nrF'1Y9z a Frc OJ' �' �' Oy "1,.• Qi! _ N3,SNVN .r- r- �Za =. - 91Yb?N • +^ — iroan.,s. ��,x.,•--��, a .. .. H^) ?_ _- : }O ?►t" �E d1L `703 r s" _ !sl y j °1 4/�.N34aV`�i ° LY7Jc]� j �, �� .t.., J �� ��jj ��{t��''.l _,rs�.H \P,\ 1 W X17• o ai' j 7:� lout tl• r ,.� 1t� 1� •� +., 'A�" t�} •�' 3 C..�$dy7 _ ':",(�: v, N"TJ''`,_t('7P��'t O Y _ ¢• '"y'• Y p °''7�m ,ar-.. NOSNH_Q( ,`_ l LC =`_ Sl.:� ,G�•St ��� oo $ aw �o �' �� ••: I� Y .1'• 7 •.c :i7- ��Iy�iOi 3w11 a 3i y3r �'�>7 •,t 1^ �• �ttzzW r �- •• :� Z {{p `� �q I O ara.... SANE 1�,' �Y= YUA; 6 `� t�{ -3 dZAYr,:YU{ C I �ti 7 1�'x1`rr oo-`Or� :', YQ0v3p � ` �•• jli I �q a ; - � c,OY3,v y ,T Nr;i./,�'••y '` + ti rA JN �i: �/' •.• -.,,' oa ':,, tc .�'- •... J - !. All �,.\ \ \� \* p E I .. EJ lo'ana �` _ �7llre I ----11 F 3 NO 380 \ 1� ► o ~ v� Iz altn� F l' ,e,•. 3 -� 'I : -J-SIy VAIASNN3d iV _ - v %R, • a,. .I'.,� Q 4A i • '' �3y3(;0 ii YE \OOEY Op0. //tl G ;N NNOHjA< H < u ?� • -�, dti siorno _ y • I .i�.•... a . •1 _[aNY151700f18 0A P� 9�1•Y+.IJJ " r e, lY 3ri�. = :1 •.�.� •cd:' l�� •'�; '�'r '-- _ �L.- j} 834wns��. %r� l )l;r,u� ii, L,,O llll. IIdVW .9 0 s. 1[, „ i ; , _ of _' G,c, t . f' fAv J .SYX11.1 �. _� o';"��"%;ei. _ a r�ll��C N31 Vll {71NI v T/ •d `. _.[. �• ( �V..�' � • : v •� °'l•1- � Ilrinl °sue ,�;• ' '� ��•�7yc�Y ler �' .n. __. �_.__� • 1. ���1417a1A ��Et "J la � On e7nrHlt , - a I e•.° 1 r A x ^ :� �ol-• \.•4L \, WJ C_8 110/,:15, �7 I .o gCab, p° r7r . •�. Jtllr� •5 ,] s 4' a N911x � . -3AY YNOw 4:Q A /lSt 1/ • IJ ttt D 3 •.• °� .u. •' •'�C i�SY3l`7 m` •L' t 3; z G F t r at K� 7 Y1c, ,{ 1 .,rn.,,,r .} -��•r h X11 O }v_r8yi2 u x� + r I am, '•, � "') z + � \ ' 37 3rd o �•• } rlstl311v� o o�? ° r I d �`yl+ C {NCbe �1 3 ocal+ 1 _ '1� < a >r� u° S � Y° 'QU39a+8 'V•7var �: •e �:� �• ....,,• L �% • 113 \r �',. �_ r^ = n Q\ AV _ ' Nrl\l.. r' O �•� b y '� , (i`1S -� a - E _ I '•�Y ;�.,erLaA• , a AY NOS IY.I Y, .+Y•Yr •° ' . ..., - - f' r(• `• R L1r�3�,J' Y: b• r, i •o. , -0g rao a •1rM I u °xra +•l i;,c •. ��--J 'a •,o• 1i 3AY an WO N �Mni)' ¢I 1- h\•iO �OnY1 z + f� y y '•1+ •, t'�/ \!, M .�. %r.. ..¢z rJ, v'� J 'n5)+_ �, j ± *4110, op E•��•.,�►��" rr...o„ 1 ' S 1y PO •=..• • I:•r' r•, •� AY'3�iw: - .la�� �ny� 1•,' tl. 'OW 1 "�"S O �: r,,, l L• ?�•,.o.. Z �'n�ti '�':I- 3 I or PARNW oOOh i G 1r1/' �- -i y< �� n 1\ I •o nar,.na NLb I V u BI'ON'ON 'OI L i 1.1 l 1•d •0 M107MIY y '•. ., C :P I, , �� r N tla 1' .1 L: , CY \; Y l� 1 �� 1,e•I �: '1. � / _..,c_ za_OOw_j^C -' „•' eie AY-1 \2{Ql,LyL.y..' �evab -�z' i c `-1 u•: an ` 1 y ,s O 1 M 3AV N /6 1• c•+' z 4�•b r (1 1 1 t I < Y � ••.r�''� ;' Yvr �p j• 3 00 rl✓ ....J.. o. �r 'N 1 e•..... -:nr. > �a�) - ?r,� vi < I o I • �j I x I _ _ i1�aa W . 'C .3AY •_ H1i < �' I.'j,�• �r =' l_.a T:: '. I < I a °)J 1 = { 'a I O �� N1t- b .. ,. ��3 A-J' 1, •+} 4...•- s' i• c N ul I ; JZ 1 i W I r ,•�Ar,.a/ I 1AY N+��.I�i3 �F Y� 7d 11]71',11 i .Q :rA z N g a '! Y }"` , u z ~r I -c 1 •�n 33 ' �y 3ev Nl a I + 1.!5_3!)1 v _:r-•� v ra . i ' =1 3AY _ `� . ® „4 ._m '3AV H16'A -� 0 ►,• •C x•13: •� ; J �• t3 e'; �! 3AY N10� _ .'•+�. Qr HI {- Nl.011rn _ _ _ .. _ _ •� 1 r w 11a`; + )AY ♦�11L•'•- .:.r,f •.il.�If1.' M+jl N:11 �C i a 1 1. 't' r i O /. 3A_� - -L NI ZI _.. K 1` 1j^1 Nlz F xNl = 1 r r. 7 NI AY VI Nl[I WL.1 N_1 { f• N' r { Oy r rK 3AYf N1 >I Sa, �a+ bin AY OIfI N70i09 0 is •...V- gin; ... - Nl 1 • 4 -�l� 1 1 �• 1l' SOtl].NJ`�"a- /g�d.1Y _Nll�j3• 10 N ;6 L ,_ MYOAOVIIS.� j, ff L / • - ' -- Tau / as i� . i1��11•t 1 is �• i t'.•ii .3w • NtBI_ .. i 0! 03 -,ut0. • nt^ n, t 4S(}] IN 50T II SVIMT SA11•IA, I•I•LI' IL:SOTA 55424 Septmcbar 25, 1973 ,�•���.�.�� . , t:.',o 4.1,1. 9jI.i,n,' o. rvzr N r.25x •MITS SERVED .,_ TIM e .'1he 3.973 Hinneanta S; ate l.eM.aXrt.ure revised 2'i:zr.esnia I:! ccri.an % �a�f; F o 17IO�J; CS.^ i -!mt . rf C 1 i 1 ? •� 1 • -� t Cr a � Co t.y o.. i la s c�i_.1 h 1 dl- - .1 ,. � r r. -7-ni r.2r-_onn, vi, _ n 11eai1,.nf.I? Cou- itiJ:, xC3 lau 131.:7 pravIdO3 !:'.`_.maiu 3 (lam voCcr3 t:'ll h!ra- I,aS:e(t �r e , vt;l _..:y 1 ' by CO!!7]1 -1 L;a; f:o i 1 �:.i= a' '9 1 ;. -{ ,^.% reoie-n. rllecti-,ia1e of I-Iti i I= *�'i ( ou..r..'tt •yi ` 1• en' •.��� r a f••'. C UtL? i'L�l_fl?"L. .O:l ., j 1 ?'�9� I. I3 iru-ne i!t.:' ve 01Fl:: the font �r� d � r t ] b e i•_ *., � . � 'C.t;•t. :LCE ti :Iz 3fl cL f_£:��h t C'_1' t7�. ti :.IS•.. S`.. :t..:l a,....;; ir'mic ali ty, CC:4i(1�11�►�yr CLIe Ii:�n11O ^noli.a roe l•CC: ntar, Mr. t1.. -., LayC'..' rty'i ;3 ; _!4•..'! ;-hat , ac t1r; �,C43.va i.i3.1. tEelilla x't`_utd --roes ?d1lOCl' rii�.l i <r�Fj ' ?�C.•.'' ..... � � a,�!�a ' 55343" may lle:+% v'3 ,&J.:la 5 _ t3 Yt_1.t wk' i. -L . ► .. . -_ F4rt..3 bye: the PupIL'Ixis Pot Os�'?�:L': ' Yallr Ct]::3•e:r;7C1:t�'C r =�t3 r1t,0111d be r_:a�: 4.�sad -o be quv a'. -o U �: ;, `• $.R order l' :o .a )id a--nv unr.ct- ennary del ` s.,Y- 11.l".' Tort ni:f lmz. 1 .:rs � _. •i 1-h at . thora :�:i f t L'� ��t� ies:errt.;; 4�0:�: and -_o Ctar: -: , '! :� y,�:aN f�a. . .The - Vil,la-e cE E." taa feels that Q':` x, C11 •:tge 1.101 du aI'I v Z, COT1ai!11i4i2 lll,!. h 1'33 E_:iotcd Of: your fI.0p- IC111r; ar!6,:.t::7 C:id Cdr? . ^,i•�C fOu. will use Edilla ea pL'.3� 43: }iOU7.' 1��2i. 4:t�'. 7aCi1.'� s:l ver-7 t ;f< V1xla .3 1.1 a ' -17 RT All REQUEST FOR PURCHASE Mayor and City Council ,OM: Bob Kojetin (A: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager JBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 ATE: August 30, 1978 aterial Description (General Specifications): Playground Equipment listed below iuotations /Bids: ITEM Wood Climber Super Bee - Buck About . *Auto Mate - Coil Spring *Two Back Hoes . Swing Set (Four horses ,2 tot seats) * These items totaling $451.00 will be paid out of community development funds. Department Recommendation: Gametime Playground Equipment Co. for $4,036.00. WP /�. D.p: finance Director's Endorsement: U The recommended bid is is not within the amount budgeted for the purchase..' J. N. Dalen Finance Director Ci��tyy Manager's Endorsement: I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Kenneth Rosland .� City 1.1anager Amount of Quote or Bid Gametime Miracle $2,131.00 $2,340.00 685.00 Not Available *219.00 Not Available *232.00 Not Available 769.00 850.00. S4.036.00 * These items totaling $451.00 will be paid out of community development funds. Department Recommendation: Gametime Playground Equipment Co. for $4,036.00. WP /�. D.p: finance Director's Endorsement: U The recommended bid is is not within the amount budgeted for the purchase..' J. N. Dalen Finance Director Ci��tyy Manager's Endorsement: I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Kenneth Rosland .� City 1.1anager TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: DATE: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE Mayor and City Council Bob.Kojetin Kenneth Rosland, City Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $1,000 August 30, 1978 Material Description (General Specifications): Playground Equipment listed below: ►, Quotations /Bids: ITEM Swing Set (2 swan seat's, 2 ponies) Natureville I Climber Kangaroo Hop (2 ponies) * Tornado Slide * 2 Saddlemates * These items totaling $2,319.00 will be paid out of community development funds Department Recommendation: Amount of Quote or Bid Miracle Gametime 635.00 769.00 2,265.00 Not Available 462.00' 471.00 *2,085.00 2,268.00 * 234.00 254.00 $5,681.00 Miracle Playground Equipment Co. for $5,681.00 Finance Direct ' E ors ndorsemeni. The recommended bid is 5�1 is not = within the amount budgeted for the purchase. IN.'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: Ke neth Ros n , City M ager :/ b. September 8, 1978 To: Mayor and Council KemnathLE..._.Rosland, City Manager From: Florence Hallberg, City Clerk Subject: Canvassers for Voting Machines The following should be appointed to serve as Voting Machine Canvassers for the Primary Election of September 12, 1978: Patrick Scott W. Ralph Hines Mark Bernhardson Ralph Campbell Hilding Dahl Glenn Harmon Sam Mobley ...Robert Wynkoop w IMEDINA • .. 4,901 VYEST 50TH STREET. EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 612 - 927 -8361 September 11, 1978 Wood- Nelson Company 100 Builders Exchange Minneapolis, MN 55420 Certified Mail 558698 Gentlemen: Re: Robert and Sharon Laurent and.Dorothy Kaup The letter you received dated September 7, 1978, should have - cited the above case instead of Roy W. Tompkins d /b /a/ Prestige Realty. Enclosed is a copy of the above cited letter. My apologies for my error in this matter. Sincerely, Mar Bernhardson Administrative Assistant MB:md enclosure cc: Blackburn, Nickels and Smith, Inc. 625 Second Avenue So. Minneapolis, MN 55402 . The Home Insurance Company (w /o enclosure) Thomas S. Erickson (w /o enclosure) Fred Gedelman ✓Florence Hallberg WOOD-NELSON C O M PA N Y Builders Exchange Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 / Phone 336 -5866 �C�°� -'� r-° —^^cf a',y",JT�.f:: c: :'�' ! 'R"'r'• ..' ;'1:r- r;`.d° R ".. :.c._...:.c:..- ._.7=tC�'�..�,m 12 e'_^..'Ceti'T;t" BUSINESS AND PERSONAL INSURANCE i1 September 6, 1978 Interstate Fire & Casualty Company 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 INTERSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY POLICY #155 -C -05771 INSURED: CITY OF EDINA EDINA, MINNESOTA AGENT: BLACKBURN, NICHOLS & SMITH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA Gentlemen: FLO.k� � V Claims have been filed against the City of Edina as a result of property damage caused by alleged flood waters on August 30, 1977. The Home Insurance Company, which has the primary liability insurance for the City of Edina, has advised that claims are in excess of $500,000 which is the limit of the primary insurance. Please accept notice of a possible claim under Interstate Fire & Casualty Company policy as noted above. Details of these claims may be obtained from the Minneapolis Service Office of the Home Insurance Company. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this notice. Yours very truly, FRED G. GEDELMAN FGG:rw cc: Blackburn, Nichols & Sm Mr. Mark Bernhardsonl� e I �= AM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 612 - 927 -8861 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAN FOR PROVISION OF COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES IN THE CITY OF EDINA AND THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ACT SUBSIDY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina is the official governing body of the City of Edina and functions as the official Board of Health of the City of Edina; and WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to promote, support, and maintain the health of the entire community at the highest level; and WHEREAS, the Community Health Services Act provides for subsidies in support of public health services on the local level throughout the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, a special needs study has been made and a special public meeting held relative to the needs and priorities of the community for Community Health Services; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Edina has reviewed the plan for the provision of public health services in the City of Edina and recommends its approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this selfsame plan.and finds it consistent with the needs and priorities of the community as determined by the Advisory Board of Health and as expressed by the citizens of Edina; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, that the Community Health Services Plan for the City of Edina is approved and authorization is hereby given to submit an application for the Community Health Services Act subsidy. ADOPTED this 11th day of September, 1978. 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 September 11, 1978, and as recorded in the Minutes'of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 12th day of September, 1978. City Clerk 1 GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY Certified Public Accountants 175 SOUTH PLAZA BUILDING WAYZATA BOULEVARD AT HIGHWAY 100 MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55416 546 -2566 September 5, 1978 The City Council City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street :Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Councilmembers: We are currently planning our fall and winter work program and would appreciate an indication that we may be invited to conduct the 1977 audit of the City as we have in the past year. We would perform an audit of the balance sheets of the various funds of the City as of December 31, 1978 and the related financial statements for the year then ended. The audit would be performed in accordance with the procedures established by the State Auditor and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. These procedures are compatible with the pronouncements of the National Council,on Governmental Accounting. The audit which we will perform will be an examination which consists of a review of internal control, accounting procedures, and the details of all records, including subsidiary records and supporting data as to mathematical accuracy, propriety and completeness of all transactions on a test basis. The test examina- tion presumes that the items selected are representative of all the transactions. Although such an audit is the one most frequently used today, it will not necessarily discover fraud or defalcation. However, should fraud or defalcation exist, it may be uncovered as the result of one or more of the procedures applied on a test basis. As in the previous year, we-plan to do as much.work before the year end as possible so that we may present our report at an early date. We estimate the cost of such.an. audit will not exceed $10,500. Should our time be less than,anticipated, our fee would be reduced accordingly. We have enjoyed our relationship with the City during the.past year and hope that we may be allowed to conduct the 1978 audit. JGM:gmd Accepted by the City of Edina By Very truly yours, J. Gregor Murphy Title Date GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY Certified Public Accountants 175 SOUTH PLAZA BUILDING WAYZATA BOULEVARD AT HIGHWAY 100 MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55416 546 -2566 September 5, 1978 The City Council City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Councilmembers: We are currently planning our fall and winter work program and would appreciate an indication that we may be invited to conduct the 1977 audit of the City as we have in the past year. We would perform an audit of the balance sheets of the various funds of the City as of December 31, 1978 and the related financial statements for the year then ended. The-audit would be performed in accordance with the procedures established by the State Auditor and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. These procedures are compatible with the pronouncements of the National Council on Governmental Accounting. The-audit which we will perform will be an examination which consists of a review of internal control, accounting procedures, and the details of all records, including subsidiary records and supporting data as to mathematical accuracy, propriety and completeness of all transactions on a test basis. The test examina- tion presumes that the items selected are representative of all the transactions. Although such an audit is the one most frequently used today, it will not necessarily discover fraud or defalcation. However, should fraud or defalcation exist, it may be uncovered as the result of one or more of the procedures applied on a test basis. As in the previous year, we plan to do as much work before the year end as possible so that we may present our report at an early date. We estimate the cost of such an audit will not exceed $10,500.. Should our time be less than anticipated, our fee would. be reduced accordingly. We have enjoyed our relationship with the City during the past year and hope that we may be allowed to conduct the 1978 audit. Very truly yours, JGM:gmd J. Gregor Murphy Accepted by the City of Edina By Title Date Date: To: From: Subject: September 7, 1978 Mayor and Council Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager 1978 - 320 IBT /Police Contract Attached is the master contract and appendices for the 1978 police settlement which is the result of the arbitration award and subsequent negotiations between MAMA and the union to work out specific contract language to implement the arbitrator's award. The principal changes from the 1977 contract are as follows: 1. Education - Longevity - The arbitration award thoroughly revamps the City's Education - Longevity program. The 1977 contract had instituted a phase out of longevity with an educational program of up to 12% for college courses. The 1978 award reinstates longevity and allows officers to chose between the two programs. The major change in addition to reducing the educational incentives maximum from 12% to 9% requires that only job related courses be counted. Longevity Education Salary Number of Years OR Credits Percentage 4 -8 45 -89 3% 9 -12 90 -134 5% 13 -16 135 -179 7% 17+ 180+ 9% 2. Position Differential - Establishes an $85 per month premium for those working in classifications or assignments as detectives or school liaison officers. This is an increase from the $75 per month pay differential detectives received in 1977. Previously, no premium was paid for school liaison officer. 3. Uniforms - Prior to the 1978 contract the City was utilizing a cash system in which each officer was paid an annual sum ($212.in 1977) to maintain his /her uniform. Under the new contract the City is solely responsible for providing uniforms. 4. Injury on Duty - The previous contract had a maximum of 60 days for injury on duty. The arbitration award increased that to 90 days. 5. Insurance - The City's share of family insurance coverage increased from $65 to $75. 6. Wages - The final change was in the area of wages. a) Top patrol salary was increased 8.57% from $1,400 per month to $1,520 Mayor and Council -2- September 7, 1978 with the requirement that other rates be similarly adjusted. b) The award also required that Edina reduce from 48 to 36 months the length of time it takes to reach top patrol salary. c) It is proposed that the starting salary be increased by an amount greater than 8.57% to more closely equate starting patrol salaries in Edina with those in other communities. The estimated cost of the new wage scale, longevity /education, and premium pay was about 1.7% higher than anticipated. The increase in insurance amounts to about $1,800 more than anticipated. The change in cost of providing uniforms over the old system has not been estimated. Neither has the new injury on duty provision been costed out. It is my recommendation that the contract be accepted as found in your council packets. KR:md MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT BETl4EEN AND MINNESOTA TFAT - ISTERS PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL NO. 320 ARTICLE I PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is entered into as of JA.WLkNt,% 1 !1 0 between hereinafter called the EMPTJOYER, and the MINNESOTA TEAYISTERS PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCE?IENT EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL NO. 320, hereinafter called the UNION. It is the intent and purpose of.this AGREEMENT to: 1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this AGREEMENT'S interpretation and /or application; and 1.2 Place in written form the parties' agreement upon terms and conditions of employment for the duration of this AGREEMENT. -1- C— -2- ARTICLE II RF;COGNITTON 2.1 The EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the exclusive representative, under. Minnesota Statutes, Section 179.711 Subdivision 3, for all police personnel in the following job classifications: Twk, �rctk '2.2 In the event the EMPLOYER and the UNION are unable to agree as to the inclusion or exclusion of a new or modified' job class, the issue shall be submitted to the Bureau of Mediation Services for determination. ARTICLE III DEFINITIONS 3.1 UNION: The Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320. 3.2 UNION MEMBER: A member of the Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320. 3.3 EMPLOYEE: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit. 3.4 DEPARTMENT: The �I Police Department. 3.5 EMPLOYER: The Q-r-4 of Z1vjf�, - 3.6 CHIEF: The Chief of the 7bltl k Police Department. 3.7 UNION OFFICER: Officer elected or appointed by the Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320. -3- 3.8 INVES`T'IGATOR /D;'.'I'ECTIVE: An employee specifically assigned or classified -by the Emmi OYE12 to the job classification and /or job position of INVESTIGATOR/ DETECTIVE. 3.9 OVERTIME: Work performed at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER in excess of the employee's scheduled shift. 3.10 SCHEDULED SHIFT: A consecutive work period including rest breaks and a lunch break. 3.11 REST BREAKS: Periods during the,SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.12 LUNCH BREAK: A period during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.13 STRIKE: Concerted action in failing to report for duty, the willful absence from one's position, the stoppage of work, slow -down, or abstinence in whole or in part from the full, faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment for the purposes of inducing, influencing or coercing a change in the conditions or compensation or the rights, privileges or obligations of employment. ARTICLE IV EMPLOYER SECURITY The UNION agrees that during the life of this AGREEMENT that the UNION will not cause, encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow -down or other interruption of or interferen,e with the normal functions of: the EMPLOYER. -4 ARTICLE V EMPLOYER AUTHORITY 5.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all manpower, facilities, and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, direct, and determine the number of personnel; to establish work schedules, and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this AGREEMENT. 5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this .AGREEMENT shall remain solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify, establish, or eliminate. ARTICLE VI UNION SECURITY 6.1 The EMPLOYER shall deduct from the wages of employees who authorize such a deduction in writing an amount necessary to cover monthly UNION dues. Such monies -shall be remitted as directed by the UNION. 6.2 The UNION may designate employees from the bargaining unit to act as a steward and an alternate and shall inform the EMLOYER in writing of such choice and changes in the position.of steward and /or alternate. 6.3 The EMPLOYER shall make space available on the employee bulletin board for posting UNION notice(s) and announcement(s). 6.4 The UNION agrees to-indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the EMPLOYER as a result of any action taken or not taken by the EMPLOYER under the provisions of this Article. -J- ARTICLE VII ISM.J'LO 7EE RIG]I'lTS - GIilE\7ANCE FIiOCEDURE 7.1 D] -1 1NITJON O1 A GRII�VANCE A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreen.nent as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of this AGRE'E119ENT. 7.2 I)'-'\-',ION RE1'PI;SI� \T1�,'1'1 \'J,S The EMPLOYER will recognize REPRESENTATIVES designated ]-�, the UNION as the grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsi.bilities established by this Article. The UNION shall notify the EMPLOYER in writing of the names of such U\TION REPRESENTATIVES and of their successors when so designated as provided by 6. 2 of this AGREEMENT. 7.3 PROCESSING OF A GRIEVANCE It is reco.g-ized and accepted by the UNION and the EMPLOYER, that the processing of grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the EMPLOYEES and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when consistent with such EMPLOYEE duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved EMPLOYEE and a UNION REPRESENTATIVE shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss in pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the EMPLOYER during normal working hours provided that the EMPLOYEE and the UNION REPRESENTATIVE have notified and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence i.s I reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the EMPLOYER. -G- 7. 4 1- 110CI.l1h El' 11 Grievances, as defined by Section 7. 1, shall be resolved in con- formance X'; ii.li the following procedure: Stcp 1. Ar• E.A1PLOYI';1: claiming a violation concerning the i.nierpretation or appl.ication of this AGI 1%EE1 \ZE1\1T shall, within twenty -one (21.) calendar days after such alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the EMPLOYEE'S supervisor as designated by the EMPLOYER. The EMPLOYER- designated representative will discuss and give an answer to such Step 1 grievance N�Iithin ten (10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step I. and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the AGREEIVIENT allegedly violated, the remedy requested, and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the EMPLOYER- designated representative's final answer in Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. ' Step 2. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER - designated Step 2 representative. The EMPLOYER -designated representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER'S Step 2 answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER- designated represent- -7- ative's final Step `L answer. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 Ly the UNION N,,ithin tell (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 3. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UT-`ION and discussed with the EArPLOYLR- designated Step 3 representative. The representative shall give the UNION the EAZPLOYER'S answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 3 may be appealed to Step 4 within ten (10) calendar days following the T]A'IPLO'YER- designated repres.entative's final answer in Step 3. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 4. A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed to Step 4 by the UNTIONT shall. be submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971. The selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the "Rules Governing the Arbitration of Grievances" as estal-iished Vy the Public Employment Relations Board. 7.5 ARBITRATOR'S AUT1- IORITY A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The arbitrator shall consider and decide -S- only the specific issuc(s) submitted in writing by the EJVTF-LO,�'Ell and the UNION, and shall have no authority to make a decision on any other issue not so submitted. B. The arbitrator shall be without po%:,er to make decisions contrary to, or inconsistent N -Jth, or n-iodifying or varying in any way the appli.cation of rules, or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted in «riting within thirty (30) days following close of the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this AGREEMENT and to the facts of the grievance presented. C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by the EMPLOYER and the UNION provided that each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings the cost shall be shared equally. -9- 7.6 NVAlN'l.11 If a grievance is not presol-11cd Within the tinge limits set forth above, it shall be considered "Nti?aivcd. " If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the spcci.ficd time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall he considered settled on the basis of the Ei17PLOYEM'S last answer. If the El\,IPILOYER does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof within the specified time limits, the UNION may elect to treat the grievance as denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual written agreement of the EMPLOYER and the UNION in each step. 7.7 CHOICE OF REMEDY If, as a result of the written EMPLOYER response in Step 3, the grievance remains unresolved, and if the grievance involves the suspension, demotion, or discharge of an employee who has completed the required probationary period, the grievance may be appealed either to Step 4 of Article VII or a procedure such as: Civil Service, Veteran's Preference, or Fair Employment. If appealed to any procedure other than Step 4 of Article VII the grievance is not subject to the arbitration procedure as provided in Step 4 of Article VII. The aggrieved employee shall indicate in writing which procedure is to be utilized- -Step 4 of Article VII or another appeal procedure- -and shall sign a statement to the effect that the choice of any other hearing precludes the aggrieved employee -10- from making a subsequent appeal through Step 4 of Article VII. ARTICLE VIII SAVINGS CLAUSE This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the Cn OF Tpr4A% . In the event any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment or decree no appeal has been taken within the time provided, such provisions shall be voided. All other provisions of this AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be renegotiated at the written request of either party. ARTICLE IX SENIORITY 9.1 Seniority shall be determined by the employee's length of continuous employment with the Police Department and posted in an appropriate location. Seniority rosters may be maintained by the Chief on the basis of time in grade and" time within specific classifications. 9.2 During the probationary period a newly hired or rehired employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. During the probationary period a promoted or . reassigned employee may be replaced in his previous position at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. 9.3 A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis of seniority. -11- Employces shall be recalled from layoff on the basis of seniority. An employee on layoff shall have an opportunity to return to work within two years of the time of his layoff before any new employee is hired. 9.4 Senior employees will be given preference with regard to transfer, job classification assignments and promotions when the job - relevant qualifications of employees are equal. 9.5 Senior qualified employees shall be given shift assignment preference after eighteen (18) months of continuous full -time employment. 9.6 One continuous vacation period sliall be selected on the basis of seniority until 115 MAeO of each calendar year. ARTICLE X DISCIPLINE 10.1 The EMPLOYER will discipline employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one or more of the following forms: a)' oral reprimand; b) written reprimand; c) suspension; d) demotion; or e) discharge. 10.2 Suspensions, demotions and discharges will be in written form. 10.3 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notices of . discharge which are to become part of an employee's personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by signature of the employee. Employees and the UNION will receive a copy of such reprimands and /or notices. 10.4 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files at reasonable times under the direct supervision of the EMPLOYER. -12- 10.5 Dischrargcs will be preceded by a five (5) day suspension without pay. 10.6 Employees will not be of disciplinary action an opportunity to have such questioning. 10.7 Grievances relating to the UNION in Step 3 of Article VII. .uestioned concerning an investigation unless the employee has been given a UNION representative present at this ARTICLE shall be initiated by the grievance procedure under ARTICLE XI CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION Employees shall have the rights granted to all citizens by the United States and Minnesota State Constitutions. ARTICLE XII WORK SCHEDULES 12.1 The normal work year is two thousand and eighty hours. (2,080) to be accounted for by each employee through: a) hours worked on assigned shifts; b) holidays; c) assigned training; d) authorized leave time. 12.2 Holidays and authorized leave time is to be calculated on the basis of the actual length of time of the assigned . shifts. 12.3 Nothing contained in this or any other Article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee of a minimum or maximum number of hours the EMPLOYER may assign employees. -13- ARTICLE XIII OVERTIME 13.1 Employees will be compensated at one and one -half (1 -1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate for hours worked in excess of the employee's regularly scheduled shift. Changes of shifts do not qualify an employee for overtime under this Article. 13.2 Overtime will be distributed as equally as practicable. 13.3 Overtime refused by E2mp?,oyees will for record purposes under Article 13.2 be considered as unpaid overtime worked. 13.4 For the purpose of computing overtime compensation overtime hours worked shall not be pyramided, compounded or paid twice for the same hours worked. 13.5 Overtime will be calculated to the nearest fifteen (15) minutes. 13.6 Employees have the obligation to work overtime or call backs if requested by the EMPLOYER unless unusual circumstances prevent the employee from so working. ARTICLE XIV COURT TIME An employee who is required to appear in Court during his scheduled off -duty time shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours' pay at one and one -half (1 -1/2) times the employee's base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for Court appearance does not qualify the employee for the two (2) hour minimum. H -14- ARTICLE XV CALL BACK TIME An employee who is called to duty during his scheduled off -duty time shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours' pay at one and one -half (1 -1/2) times the employee's base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for duty does not qualify the employee for the two (2) hour minimum. ARTICLE XVI WORKING OUT OF CL�ISSIF ICATION Employees assigned by the EMPLOYER to assume the full responsibilities and authority of a higher job classification shall receive the salary schedule of the higher classification for the duration of the assignment. ARTICLE XVII INSURANCE The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of seventy -five dollars ($75.00) per month per employee toward health, life and long -term disability insurance. ARTICLE XVIII STANDBY PAY Employees required by the EMPLOYER to standby shall be paid for such standby time at the rate of one hours' pay for each hour on standby. ARTICLE XIX UNIFORMS The EMPLOYER shall provide required uniform and equipment items. -15- ARTICLE XX INJURY ON DUTY Employees injured during the performance of their duties for the EMPLOYER and thereby rendered unable to work for the EMPLOYER will be paid the difference between the employee's regular pay and Worker's Compensation insurance payments for a period not to exceed ninety (90) working days per injury, .not charged to the employee's vacation, sick leave or other accumulated paid,benefits, after a five (5) working day initial waiting period per injury. The five (5) working day waiting period shall be charged to the employee's sick leave account less Worker's Compensation insurance payments. -16- ARTICLE XXI LONGEV1TY AND EDUCATIONAI, INCENTIVE hf:fective July 1, 1978 the following terms and conditions are. effective: 21.1 After four (4) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid three percent (30) of the employee's base rate or supplementary pay based on educational credits as outlined in 21.6 of this ARTICLE. 21.2 After eight (8) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid supplementary pay of five percent (5 %) of the employee's base rate or supplementary pay based on educational credits as outlined in 21.6 of this Article. 21.3 After twelve (12) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid supplementary pay of seven percent (7 %) of the employee's base rate or supplementary pay based on educational credits as outlined in 21.6 of this Article. 21.4 After sixteen (16) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid supplementary pay of nine percent (9 %) of the employee's base rate or supplementary pay based on educational credits as outlined in 21.6 of this Article. 21.5 Employees may choose supplementary pay either for length of service or for educational credits no more often than once every twelve (12) months. L_ -17- 21.6 Supplementary pay based on educational credits will be paid to employees after twelve (12) months of continuous employment at the rate of: Education Credits stated in terms of college quarter credits 45 - 89 90 - 134 135 - 179 180 or more Percentage Pay Increment 3% 50 7% 90 Not all courses are to be eligible for credit. Courses receiving qualifying credits must be job related. (Thus, a 4 year degree is not automatically 180 credits -- or a 2 year certificate is not automatically 90 credits.) Job - related courses plus those formally required to enter such courses shall be counted. If Principles of Psychology (8 credits) is required before taking Psychology of Police Work (3 credits), completion of these courses would yield a total of 11 qualifying credits. C.E.U.'s (Continuing Education Units) in job - related seminars, short courses, institutes, etc. shall also be counted. The EMPLOYER shall determine which courses are job related. Disputes are grievable based on the criteria outlined in the award of Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services Case No. 78 -PN- 370 -A. C ARTICLB XXII WAIVER 22. 1 Any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules and regulations regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this AGREEMENT, are hereby superseded. 22.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negoitations whkh resulted in this AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated duration of this AGREEMENT. The EMPLOYER and the UNION _each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered by this AGREEMENT, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time this contract was negotiated or executed. -19- ARTICLE XXIII DURATION This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of January 1, 1978, except as herein noted, and shall remain in full force and effect until the thirty -first day of December, 1978. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on this day of , 1978. FOR MA.M.A. 12 FOR (NAME OF EMPLOYER) FOR I.B.T., LOCAL NO. 320 APPENDIX A 1. WAGE RATES 2. (a) Employees classified or assigned by the EMPLOYER to the, following job classifications or positions will receive eighty-five dollars ($85.00) per month or eighty -five dollars ($85.00) pro -rated for less than a full month in addition to their regular wage rate: Investigator (detective) School Liaison Officer WEEKLY MONTHLY ANNUAL Start $ 273.00 $ 1,183.00 $ 7,098.00 (6 mo.) After 6 Months 276.92 1,200.00 7,200.00 (6 mo.) If 12 " 302.31 1,310.00 15,720.00 " 24 " 323.08 1,400.00 16,800.00 36 " 350.77 1,520.00 18,240.00 2. (a) Employees classified or assigned by the EMPLOYER to the, following job classifications or positions will receive eighty-five dollars ($85.00) per month or eighty -five dollars ($85.00) pro -rated for less than a full month in addition to their regular wage rate: Investigator (detective) School Liaison Officer APPENDIX B This supplementary agreement is entered into between the City of Edina and Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320, for the period beginning January 1, 1978, and ending December 31, 1978. Nothing in this supplementary agreement may be in conflict with any provision of the MASTER AGREEMENT between M.A.M.A., the City of Edina, and I.B.T., Local No. 320. In the event of conflict, the MASTER AGREEMENT will prevail. W ARTICLE B -I VACATION The following minimum vacation schedule is established: 0 -5 years of service - 10 days per year 6 -10 years of service - 15 days per year Over 10 years of service - one additional day per year, not to exceed 20 days ARTICLE B -II SEVERANCE PAY Employees who retire due to reaching the retirement age permitted by provisions of the Public Employee's Retirement Association Act and subsequent amendments thereto, or the EMPLOYER'S mandatory retirement age of 65, or who are disabled, or laid off as provided by Article 9.3 for a period greater than two years, shall be granted severance pay in the amount of one and one -half (1 -1/2) days pay for each year of service to a maximum of four weeks' pay. ARTICLE B-III SICK LEAVE WITH PAY Employees shall accrue sick leave with pay at the rate of one day per month with a maximum accumulation of 120 days. ARTICLE B -IV HOLIDAYS Employees will receive eleven (11) holidays. M MEMORANDUM Date: September 11, 1978 To: Mayor and Council From: Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager Subject: Newsletters I have been working with Ralph Lieber of the Edina School District and we now have put together a program that we would like to propose both to the City Council and to the School Board regarding newsletters. We are proposing that three newsletters go out each year at specific times so that all people involved in putting newsletters together and the various volunteer boards would know the times and be able to gather their information. The estimated costs at this time vary depending upon whether the Edina School District does the printing or whether we have the printing done by a private firm. If the School District does the printing, the extimated cost for approximately-16,000 newsletters would be $1,070. If a private firm does the printing, we are looking at approximately another $500 to $700. In addition to this, there would be the hourly costs of writing a newsletter which would be approximately $300 to $350. The total estimated..-cost then would be as follows: If the School does the printing - approximately $1,400 If a private firm does the printing - approximately $2,000 This cost would be split between the School District and the City of Edina. The City's share would be approximately $700 to $1,000 for each newsletter. I would recommend that we pay for these newsletters from the liquor fund, the water fund and the general fund, depending upon which area is stressed the hardest. I would also recommend that we have the newsletters printed by a private firm although this would cost the School District and the City an additional $300 each. I think the quality would be well worthwhile. The School District may_not agree with this point of view and may want to do it through their print shop. If they do, .I am sure we would be willing to meet their request. Th.e...three recommended times for the newsletters are: latter part of September, January 1st with the homestead exemption applications, and approximately the 1st of April as the preliminary to the Recreation Program. KR:md RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: Lot 33, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder within and for Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the owner has requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows: The South 119.9 feet of Lot 33, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172; and All that part of lot 33, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172 except the South 119.9 feet thereof; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina mill create an unnecessary hard- ship and.said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinance Nos. 801 and 811; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordin- ance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 811.are. hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provision thereof, and subject, how - ever,_to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. ADOPTED this 11th day of September, 1978. 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 September 11, 1978, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 9th day of March, 1979. City Clerk Florence Hallbexg �II1v / :: ►11 lu Date: September 11, 1978 To: Mayor and Council From: Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager Re: Melody Lake I have been in contact with Mr. Bob Laing who is president of Clean -Flo Laboratories, Inc. This company specializes in lake restoration.throughout the United States and is.ver_y active in the field of studying how lakes die. I have had Bob study Melody Lake and his comments were as follows. Melody Lake is slowly dying. However, there is no indication that the Mizncsota Highway Department caused any unnatural or additional problems to this lake other than the normal flow of storm waters. A lake is an eco, system containing many living organisms that interact with one another and with their environment in a balanced web of life. That balance may be destroyed by either the excess of growth of some organisms or by the death of other organisms. In either event, the lake begins to die. When you have storm waters continually flowing into a lake this causes the imbalance. Melody Lake, obviously, is not the only lake with this problem. The most important element needed.in the support of a lake is oxygen. This oxygen supports the small benthic.organisms of the lake bottom. These organisms range from bacteria to worms and shellfish. In the presence of oxygen, benthic organisms can consume the bottom muck the same as snails do in an aquarium. Incoming onganic waste becomes food for these organisms. There are two basic needs to keep a lake alive: 1) is to supply oxygen to the bottom waters of the lake as well as to the upper waters, and, 2) is to rid the lake of the toxic gases at the bottom. I feel that some day in the future the City of Edina will somehow be involved in the cleaning of.these lakes. Clean -Flo now has a program they call the Brownson -Teien Plan. This plan is a little more expensive than their regular plan. However, what it does is to guarantee that we reach the required improvements or it doesn't cost the City and the homeowners _a penny other than the electrical service needed to run the aeration and circulation systems. An independent testing agency would come out and test certain parameters before they start their action. They would then guarantee to remove a certain amount of muck and obtain a certain reduction of aquatic plant growth before the program even started. A program such as this for Melody Lake would cost $11,250. This program may merit some discussion as Melody Lake, I am sure, will be involved in the assessment hearing regarding the storm sewers along Highway 100 that are due for discussion in October. KR:md