HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-08-01_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 1, 1977
7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL
MINUTES of July 18, 1977, approved as presented or corrected by motion of
seconded by
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Presentation by Manager and Engineer.
Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed, 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to
pass. (Continued from May 16, 1977)
A. Grading and Graveling Improvement No. P -C -124 - Amundson Ave. from Cahill
Road to Dewey llill Road
B. Street Improvement No. P -BA -226 - Amundson Ave. from Cahill Road to Dewey
Hill Road
C. Grading & Graveling Improvement No. P -C -126 - Delaney Blvd. from Dewey hill
Road to W. 78th St.
D. Street Improvement No. P -BA -227 - Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill Road to
W. 78th Street
II. REPORTS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON. PLANNING MATTERS Presentation of Planning
Department. Spectators heard. First Reading of 'Zoning Ordinance requires
offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading
'or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, Plats, Buildable Lots,
Flood Plain Permits and Appeals to Administrative or Board of Appeals and
Adjustments Decisions require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote.
A. Lots 3 and 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172 - 4626 France Ave.. S.
1. Rezoning from R -1 Residential District to R -2 Multiple Residential
District - Z -77 -11 (7/6/77)
B. Gabbert and Gabbert Registered Land Survey - West of York Ave. and North of
W. 70th Street.
1. Rezoning from C -4 Commercial District.to C -3 Commercial District - Z -77 -14
2. Preliminary Plat (7/6/77)
C. Lot 4, Block 1, Braemar Parc - Appeal of Administrative Decision - James Otto
D. Eberhardt - Appeal of Decision of Board of Appeals - Sign Ordinance
E. Edina Interchange Center Fourth Addition - Located West of Ohms Lane and
North and West of W. 74th St.
1. Final Plat Approval - S -77 -11 (Preliminary Approval 6/20/77)
F. Edina Interchange Center Fifth Addition - Located East of Cahill Road and
South of Dewey Hill Road
1. Final Plat Approval - S -77 -12 (Preliminary Approval 6/20/77)
G. Lots 14 and 15, Hyde Park 1st Addition - 6000 Bonnie Brae Dr. (Dale Johnson
Builders)
1. Lot Division - LD -77 -13 (7/27/77)
H. Set Hearing Dates
1. Rainbow Management Division - SW corner W. 51st St. and France Ave.
R -1 Residential District to SR -4 Senior Residence District - Z -77 -16
(7/27/77)
2. Oliver Development Company - Blake Ridge Estates - Located South of
Vernon Ave. and West of Olinger Blvd. PRD -3 Planned Residential District
to R -1 Single Family Residential District and Plat - S- 7.7 -14 and Z -77 -13
(7/27/77)
I. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. - Change in Legal Description for Lot Division
(South and East of Vernon Ave and West of Brookside Ave. between Grocery
Store and Hardware Store) (Minutes of 6/6/77)
August 1, 1977, Agenda
Page Two
III. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Inglewood Ave. Traffic Problem
B. C. Wesley Andersen - Morningside Water Pressure
C. 100% Petition - Waterman Ave. Cul -de -sac - Authorize Improvement No. C -127
D. Petition for Curb and Gutter - Concord Ave. between W. 58th and W: 60th St.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A.
Connection Charge - Lot 3, Block 1, Gleason 3rd Addition -
WM- 186 /SS -277
B.
Restraining Order - Fence at 5017 Windsor Ave.
C.
Minimum Lot Size Requirements Policy
D..
Lots 7 and 8, Griffis Subdivision of Block 18, Mendelssohn
Addition -
Addition to Minutes of..6/6/77
E.
Commission and Board.Appointments
F.
Retirement Policy - PERA /ICMA
G.
South Hennepin Human Services Council - Position Paper and
Annual Report
(Continued from 5/2/77)
H.
Northern States Power Rates
I.
Informal Bids - Concrete Repair
J.
Authorize Purchase of .2 Underbody Scrapers
K.
H.R.A. Minutes of 7/19/77 - Southeast Edina Tax Increment
District
L.
Senate File 1507
M.
Order of Council Business
N.
Supreme Court Decision on Grandview Cemetery
b.
Senate Hearing on Metropolitan Council Affairs
P.
Special.Concerns of Mayor and Council
Q.
Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items
V. ANY OTHERS DESIRING TO BE HEARD BY COUNCIL
VI. FINANCE
A. Liquor Report as of June 30, 1977
B. Surplus and Reserves as of December 31, 1976
C. Claims Paid: Motion of , seconded by
for payment of the following claims per Pre -List: General Fund, $83,320.88;
Poor Fund, $18,795.35; Park Fund, $2,810.45; Art Center, $12).35; Park
Construction, $5,393.00;_ Park Sinking, $3,930.00; Swimming Pool, $3,037.19;
Golf Course, $8,020.00; Recreation Center, $35,264.14; Gun Range, $168.72;
Water Fund, $24,939.34; Sewer Fund, $1,655.69; Liquor Fund, $160,017.07;
Construction $116,687.09; IBR Fund, $2,220.45; Total, $466,386.72
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT OF..
EDINA INTERCHANGE CENTER FIFTH ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that
that certain plat entitled "Edina Interchange Center Fifth Addition ", platted
by New England Mutual Life.lnsurance Company, and presented at the Edina City
Council Meeting of August 1, 1977, be and is hereby granted final plat
approval.
ADOPTED this 1st day of August, 1977.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of
Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 1, 1977,
and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 26th day of September, 1977.
City Clerk
RESOLUTION GRA14TING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
OF EDINA INTERCHANGE CENTER FOURTH ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that
that certain plat entitled "Edina Interchange Center Fourth Addition ",
platted by New England Mutual Life Insurance Company, and presented at the
Edina City Council Meeting of August 1, 1977, be and is hereby granted final
approval for Lots 1 thru 6 only, with the balance of the plat to be an out -
lot which will be replatted at a later date, once road patterns are worked
out.
ADOPTED this 1st day of August, 1977
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina,
do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution was duly adopted
by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 1, 1977, and as
recorded in the minutes of said Meet.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 3rd day of August, 1977.
City Clerk
vOCATION MAP
'A ri v
4 RO S 2
ret-
N
s f
[DINA- MORNI�fU
CHUR
45 TP
40 TH
471■ 47 TH
REQUEST NUMBER: I Z -77 -11
LOCATION:4626 France Avenue South
REQUEST: hold two -lot rezonijig for
two double dwellings.
Y311nar planning departl3ient vill�i�e oA edina
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
July 6, 1977
II. Old Business:
2. Rezoning Jack Ovick. Lots 3 and 4, Auditor's Subdivision No.
Z -77 -11 172. Generally located at 4626 France Avenue South.
R -1 to R -2.
Refer to: attached graphics.
The proponent is requesting a rezoning from R -1 to R -2 for Lots 3 and 4
of Auditor's Subdivision No. 172. These lots measure 10,032 square feet
and 10,450 square feet, respectively. Lots 7, 8, and 9, of Auditor's Sub-
division No. 172 are presently zoned R -2 and each is developed with a two -
family dwelling.- Lots 1, 2, 5, and 6 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 172
are zoned and developed as single family residences. -
According to the proponent's site plans, Lot 3 is presently developed
as a single family residence. The proponent'has indicated that this struc-
ture would be "retrofitted" and converted into a two - family dwelling. A
similar dwelling would be constructed on Lot 4.
Based on the proponent's plans, the two structures would share a common
driveway and court area. These plans also indicate that all setbacks and
lot coverage restrictions can be met.
However, Lots 3 and 4 are far below the minimum R -2 lot size of 15,000
square feet. In addition, the gross floor area of each unit substantially
exceeds minimum requirements.
Recommendation: Staff believes that the proponent has submitted very innova-
tive plans fer the development of the subject property for two - family dwellings.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning in that:
1. The proposed land use is consistent with other properties abutting France
Avenue and is a proper land use for this location.
2. Setbacks and lot coverage requirements, can be met.
3. The common driveway access minimizes traffic hazards on France Avenue.
Rezoning is contingent on:
1. Lot size variances from the Board of-Appeals.
CH: nr
7 -1 -77
t
j:
}
�?T4
�— yN/IMEK P�9Lf.4W`�
� I 1
en ♦� \\ 4 �� ♦ L gwrow awry � a
LI ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - --
♦ ee
a
—
existing site plan,.
-V
C
�.O
O
N
FxO
-J• .Y
V
V
C
U.
co
,it
F
Fe
i
i
`f
I,
1
,
,
V
co
1
L
LL
G,Lri(.iV1; IGFi �l tlJ
_ k•�r�s •.r. r4_ _ _
i 1!
_ _
xr
,
I �
1
1
1
t� t�71�1
ly?r
f
.
W
C
�.O
O
N
FxO
-J• .Y
V
V
C
U.
co
,it
F
Fe
i
i
VMAW)
secti ®n
14 ;131
1 3
unit 1*�
W�m
EME.
Fqa court
common a lu"
area
v-•
. 7�
yard unit unit 2 2 9 9
U4W.
site plan
unit 1
WPU W6
yard
AUL
france
lQ
C
0
U
0 U
0
81
>
Ca
U_ C
CU
U_
0
Cq
io" w-pp-
---- --- ------- - -
------- ----
6f3
_j
I 1
F1-
x4
yard
unit 2
9
9
unit 1
yard
i7
Fqa court
common a lu"
area
v-•
. 7�
yard unit unit 2 2 9 9
U4W.
site plan
unit 1
WPU W6
yard
AUL
france
lQ
C
0
U
0 U
0
81
>
Ca
U_ C
CU
U_
0
Cq
io" w-pp-
A114"I'MI M`N'22 !I I i Ill
.... . .... . .
site plan
c
0
U
U-
(D
3
r.
c
0
U
U-
(D
3
7r
UPPER LEVELS PLAN C &D
-r'
Gy
•iL�b
r y m1ritr
�I'i
1,
I
1
vnv_rn ly+�r'I
i
I
4nIrrM
erM =rinur
j ®
lr ✓I q
UPPER LEVELS PLAN C &D
,
1.1
_ . LOWER LEVELS PLAN A&B
■
Il I
I f.','lIL;//R YA -r1
I
q�� Fl�hL fE"1'u`Dr C
u I
3
� � F
00
o
o �
R
Q
V li
c
L
N
(D
V
Eli
-r'
Gy
•iL�b
r y m1ritr
�I'i
1,
I
1'
a
J l
I
,
1.1
_ . LOWER LEVELS PLAN A&B
■
Il I
I f.','lIL;//R YA -r1
I
q�� Fl�hL fE"1'u`Dr C
u I
3
� � F
00
o
o �
R
Q
V li
c
L
N
(D
V
Eli
7 -6 -77 planning Commission Minutes, page 2
access to Lots 2 and 3 from a private roadway. Such a concept
would result in the construction of two private dwellings without
frontage on a public street. Such an arrangement has always been
avoided in conventional types of development. It may be argued
that the structures proposed for Lots 2 and 3.are nothing more
than "isolated" rental units and should be considered as part of
the villa Way Apartments. However, there is no assurance that
these units would remain as rental units.
d approval of the proposed subdivision in
He said staff would therefore recommen
that:
1. The subdivision results in a desirable reduction in the number of lots in.
this location.
2. Lots are of adequate size as compared to surrounding properties.
3. Lot configuration is acceptable.
4. Adequate public road access is available to all.three lots.
Approval should be contingent on:
1. Access to the lots must be provided directly to a public roadway. Access from
Lots 2 and 3 to the private road on the north side of the villa Way Apartments
will not be allowed.
2. The proposed 60 -foot radius cul -de -sac proposed at Oxford Avenue should be
reduced to 50 feet.
3. A tree cutting permit must be obtained prior to grading and construction of
the site.
Mr. G. Hughes further owathes encourage
structures c�uldbeconstruoctedeon examine 3'
tree 'proposal closely as
to minimize'disturbances of the topography and vegetation.
, Mr. G. Hughes said the proponent could now
In response to Mr. S. Hughes
however, it would be very difficult because
legally build on the existing lots;
required. Also, he said there was an
of the large volume of fill which would be volume
easement on the site which would require vacation and, because of the drainage
problem, a suitable ..drainage system would be necessary. Following brief discus-
sion, Mr. G. Johnson moved the subdivision request be continued to the July 27,
1977,r.:eeting because of questions concerning .construction, etc., and
advised the proponent be present. Mr. S. Hughes seconded. All voted aye with
the exception of Mr. Lewis, who abstained. Motion carried.
�-� 2. Rezoning Jack Ovick. Lots 3 and 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172.
Z -77 -11 Generally located at 4626 France Avenue South. R -1 Single
Family Residence District to R -2 Two Family Residence
District.
Mr. G. Hughes recalled that at the last meeting the Planning Commissi n had
heard this request for rezoning and continued it to allow the proponent
7 -6 -77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 3
time to complete his plans. He explained the proponent is requesting permission
to rezone two existing single family lots on France Avenue to R -2 Two - Family
Dwelling District.
Mr. G. Hughes explained the proponent's plans show two two - family dwellings
on Lots 3 and 4 which would bey oriented north -south rather than east -west, sharing
a common driveway access from France Avenue with a courtyard proposed between
the two structures. He said staff, in reviewing the proposal, had found some
very good points regarding land use; the R -2 zoning requested is consistent with
other uses along France Avenue, as Lots 7, 8, and 9 are presently zoned R -2 and
developed with two- family dwellings. Staff, therefore, recommended approval of
the rezoning proposal for the following reasons:
1. The proposed land use is consistent with other properties abutting France Avenue
and is a proper land use for this location.
2. Setbacks and lot coverage requirements can be met.
3. The common driveway access minimizes traffic hazards on France Avenue.
Rezoning approval should be contingent on:
1. Lot size variances from the Board of Appeals.
The proponent, Mr. Jack Ovick, indicated if the cost of retro- fitting the
present single family dwelling into a two - family dwelling was too great, the
structure would be moved to another site and an entirely new structure would be
built.
In response to Mrs. McClelland's concern over the excessive lot coverage,
Mr.. G. Hughes said the lots are substandard and would therefore require a variance
from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments prior to final rezoning approval to
allow the larger lot coverage.
Regarding the structure's height and its effect on setbacks, the proponent
said the proposed roof would be 23 feet high and would, in essence, be lower than
the existing single family dwelling roof. The proponent also said he had a letter
from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Russell of 4600 France Avenue South indicating their
approval of the proposal.
Mrs. Mary Jo Aiken of 4548 France Avenue South expressed no objections to
the proposal providing only two dwellings are located on the site.
In response to Mr. Runyan, the proponent said the driveway would have ade-
quate area and two stalls per unit would be provided totalling eight enclosed
parking stalls, as well as two additional off - street parking stalls per unit.
In response to Mr. S. Hughes, the proponent said this should not set a
precedent as there were very few lots in Edina with a. similar situation and pro-
ceeded to show photographs of a similar development in Minneapolis.
In response to Mr. Michael Doyle, 4634 France Avenue South, the proponent
said the total construction cost would be approximately $50,000 per dwelling.unit
.7 -6 -77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4
or a total of $200,000 and, if approved by the City, the dwellings should be ready
for vacancy in the spring of 1978.
Mrs. McDonald moved for approval of the rezoning request subject to the
variance approval by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and for the reasons
stated in the staff report. Mr. G. Johnson seconded. All voted aye with the
exception of Mrs. McClelland, who voted nay. Motion carried.
3. Subdivision Rauenhorst Corporation. Normandale Park Addition. Tract
5 -77 -13 and L, R L S. 170. 1129. Generally located at the north -
Rezoning west uadrant of W. 76th Street and France Avenue. PID
Z -77 -12 Planned Industrial District to C -1 Commercial District.
Mr. G. Hughes recalled that this request was considered at the last Planning
Commission meeting wherein the proponent requested a rezoning from Planned Indust-
rial District to C-1 Commercial District to allow construction of a restaurant on
the site. He said the proponent is also requesting a 3 -lot subdivision of the
property. He indicated that, as requested by the Planning Commission, staff had
consulted the City Attorney regarding the legality of either allowing a Special
Use or Conditional Use Permit for restaurant use in the C -1 zone or an amendment
ID zone.
in
to the present ordinance allowing restaurants as a principlewhichessentially said
Mr. G. Hughes referred to the letter from the City Attorney
that either a special or conditional use amendment to the present ordinance or an
amendment to the PID section of the or allowing restaurants as a principle
tions with the City
use would be legal options. Following subsequent conversa
Attorney, however, he had indicated that a zoning to C -1 with a simple condition
that the use be for restaurant purposes only would not be binding and therefore
advised against this action.
As requested by the Commission, staff had also researched the possibility
of allowing restaurants as a use in the PID district. mr. G. Hughes noted that
in the Office Building District section of the zoning ordinance, restaurants and`,`
other accessory Building g Di allowed in Office Buildings having 40,000 or more
feet or at least 200 full -time employees. Also, accessory uses could not
square
exceed feet
10 percent le the gross floor area. He further noted a similar type of use
is allowed in Regional Medical District, but it does not require 200 full -time
employees, and the accessory uses may cover up to 20 percent of the gross floor
area. He said the primary purpose of these accessory uses is to provide service
oriented facilities to individuals employed in the office buildings : and employees
and visitors of medical buildings.
Mr. G. Hughes said staff had reviewed the South Edina Plan which further
stated as an objective the requirement or provision of incentives to office;
industrial, or large apartment developers to allow the incorporation of restaurants
and other uses in developments to capture or intercept possible travel. IIe said
staff therefore feels it would be appropriate to amend the PID section of the
uses, and he referred
ordinance to allow restaurant and other uses as accessory
to a graphic showing the locations of restaurants, lunchrooms, and vending
services in southeastern Edina, which were determined through health Dep tment and
zoning records. Mr. G. Hughes said staff would continue to recommend against
the C -1 zoning for the following reasons:
rm
7ti �mrrmryC��J:
147400
Z57/
W.
E
LC
. a
O
SOUTHDALE
ClSHOPPING CENTER 4.
M 1 —
SOUTHDALE—
> .._. , _ M4_ !
> C -7
r_
x
� F �
x ;
U .
Ix0
r
69 TH.
W 70 T H
MAZELTON'RO. HAZELTON
z0--tping
® subdivision
S -77 -15 and
REQUEST NUMBER: Z -77 -14
LOCATION: W. of York & N. of 14. 70th
REQUEST: Registered land survev and
rezoning to eliminate car wash pardel.
ST.
ST.
-- q
PUBLIC t�
LIERARY ice'
0�
NORTH
n
250 5,00 750 1000
ya�xr l�ianninla�� ^rlmeat vlJaae of edine
EDINA PLANNING CottMISSION
STAFF REPORT
July 6, 1977
III. New Business:
2. Subdivision Gabbert and Gabbert. Registered Land Survey. Gen -
S-77-15 and erally located west of York Avenue and north of
Rezoning West 70th Street. C -4 Commercial District to
Z -77 -14 C -3 Commercial District.
Refer to: attached graphics.
A short time ago, a building permit was issued for the construction
of a new multi- tenant commercial building "located in the northwestern
quadrant of York Avenue and West 70th Street. Previously, this site was
the location of the Southdale Car Wash.
Following the issuance of the building permit, staff determined that
the site was presently zoned C -4 for car wash purposes. (Other uses allowed
in the C -4 district are service stations and drive -in restaurants.) Staff
further determined that C -3 would be the proper zoning for the proposed use
and thus requested the proponent to submit a petition for rezoning to C -3.
The proponent has also submitted a preliminary Registered Land Survey for
the site.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and preliminary
Registered Land Survey in that:
1) The proposed use is consistent with surrounding properties._
2) The requested rezoning is a down - zoning and will result in a more de-
sirable development than can be achieved under the existing C -4 classi-
fication.
Approval is contingent on:
1) The submission of suitable cross easements detailing the parking require-
ments for the new building and other existing buildings which share a
common parking lot.
GH: nr
7 -1 -77
�I
4 1
50 0 100 200
1
1l NII�• INIJN'1H141LN 114 id 1114. 4/lJ�ifl l.�(
041..lN N.N..N(ISl MN1SI (1D Wl: .•: •1� lM1.
I1YI .l Yl• . -NUI N-1M IIM�J Y.N'.1 +�141V 11
Lr
SOUTHDALE SHOPPING I
CENTER I
W. 69 th ST.
SOUTHDALE
BOWL
OQ�S� y4
W. 70 th ST.
TARGET I
I KEY CADILLAC
OFFICE BLDGS.
N I
w
a
I
Y •I
o I KSTP. TV
r
COUNTY
I LIBRARY
PRELILINARY
REGISTERED LAND -SURVEY
for
GACT311-IRT
and GAB.'-,E;-'%T CO,',IPANY
x
wes r 69th
-'W
z 'I"V4 e E e [IrIl rV
4smr P.,.c — — __
- - -
Doc., A10. 610319
-F_90.17
tI
.5'ov rHpq t- c Q
904UL
93F
IV,
Vi
4
I
/90.00
�J'
2
x
-4 IT
Cj
F
.fewA /IV
P R 0 P -0 5 Ac 0
PXOP. OZOOf. 4F46V_85CxO
lick
II
JF0 Zoo
'lie
1AIDICAr4FS PRA A66 Flow
4
Z� P�
t4
C/
I i
ZONING: r�,qe-r .4, R.L.S. No.
M33, PRESENTLY ZO'V'-'O
R
C.
Pkesewri.-
PROPOSED
Wes r 70 M
L E S C P 1 PTI 0%
Tract A, Registered Land Survey !:'0. 1233. files of ilecistrar of Titles-,
County
of Hennepin.
and
The east 111j.00 feet of Tract C and oli of Tract C, �• gistered Land Survey r1o.
1366, files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin.
1'71 r-), I qv)my
I
4•hereby certify that this survey was prepared
by me,or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor
under the laws of the S3 f M4nes9to
State
Date/,-- nZ3- n 7-7 Reg. No.
7 -6 -77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 8
2. Subdivision Gabbert and Gabbert. Registered Land Survey. Generally
S -77 -15 and located west of pork Avenue and north of West 70th St.
Rezoning C -4 Commercial District to C -3 Commercial District.
Z -77 -14
Mr. G. Hughes explained the general location of the subject property as be-
ing at the northwest corner of West 70th Street and York Avenue and recalled a
building permit had been issued for this piece of property for a multi- tenant
commercial building. He said this site was the location of the former Southdale
Car Wash. Following issuance of the building permit, staff determined the site
was zoned C -4 Commercial District for car wash purposes rather than C -3 Commercial
District to allow the proposed use. Staff subsequently requested the proponent
to apply for a rezoning from C -4 to C -3 and a registered land survey for the sub -
ject property.
Mr. G. Hughes said staff recommended approval of the rezoning and preliminary
registered land survey for the following reasons:'
1. The proposed use is consistent with surrounding properties.
2. The requested rezoning is a down - zoning and will result in a more desirable
development than can be achieved under the existing C -3 classification.
Approval should be contingent on:
1. The submission of suitable cross easements detailing the parking requirements
for the new building and other existing buildings which share a. common parking
lot.
Mr. G. Hughes also noted that Hennepin County Highway Department indicated
by letter than an additional 10 feet of right -of -way along York Avenue should be
required. He recomi; ended this dedication as a second condition..
Following brief discussion, Mr. Kremer moved for approval of the request with
the conditions and for the reasons stated by staff., .Mrs. McClelland seconded. All
voted aye. Motion carried.
IV. Adjournment.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy J. Rust, Secretary
(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, August 1, 1977, at 7:00 p.m. and will at said time and place con-
sider the following:
1. Rezoning Request by Jack Ovick from R -1 Single Family Residence District
to R -2 Two Family Residence District, generally located at 4626 France
Avenue South, described as follows: Lots 3 and 4, Auditor's Subdivision
No. 172.
2. Preliminary Reaistered Land Survey and Rezoning Request from C -4 Commer-
cial District to C -3 Commercial District by Gabbert and Gabbert, generally
located west of York Avenue and north of West 70th Street, described as
follows: Tract A, R. L. S. 1233.
3. Appeal by James Otto of a Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision on
June 16, 1977, denying his request for an appeal of an administrative deci-
sion. The property is generally located at 7136 Mark Terrace Drive and
described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1, Braemar Parc.
4. - Appeal by Eberhardt Company of a Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision
on June 16, 1977, denying their request for a 104 percent sign area variance.
The property is generally located at 3250 West 66th Street and described as
follows: Parts of Lot 5, Cassin's Outlots, and Lots 6 and 7, Block 2,
Cassin's Replat.
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, July 20, 1977.
Please send 4 Affidavits of Publication.
AGENDA
Edina Planning Commission
Wednesday, July 27, 1977, at 7:30 p.m.
Edina City Hall
I. Approval of the July 6, 1977, Planning Commission Minutes.
II. Old Business:
1. Lot Division
LD -77 -7
2. Subdivision
5 -77 -8
�J 3. Subdivision
QU 5 -77 -14 and
Rezoning
Z -77 -13
III. New Business:
Lot Division
0 LD -77 -13
2. Subdivision
5 -77 -17
E. B. and J. C. Haedecke. Lot 18, Block 6,
LaBuena Vista.. 5524 West 70th St. (Cont. from
6- 1 -77).
Villa View Addition. Mark Z. Jones Company. Gen-
erally located at tho south end of Oxford Avenue
and north of Villa Way Apartments. (Continued
from 7- 6 -77).
Oliver Development Company. Blake Ridge Estates.
Gonerally,located south of Vernon Avenue and west c.f
Olinger Boulevard. PRD -3 Planned Residential
District to R -1 Single Family Residence District.
(Continued from 7-- 6 -77).
Dale Johnson Builders. Lots 14 and 15, Hyde Park
1st Addition. 6000 Bonnie Brae Drive.
Whiteman Second Addition. Generally located
at 6000 Fox Meadow Lane.
3. Subdivision Phillip Smaby. Woodbury Park Second Addition.
5 -77 -16 and Generally located east of France Avenue and South
Rezoning Z -77 -15 of West 55th Street. R -1 Single Family Residence
District to R -2 Two - Family Residence District.
-� 4. Rezoning Rainbow Management Division. Generally located
Z -77 -16 at the southwest corner of W. 51st Street and
France Avenue. R -1 Single Family Residence District
to SR -4 Senior Residence District.
IV. Adjournment.
0
1-77-
/ -,
July 29, 1977
MEMORANDUM
TO: Warren C. Hyde, City Manager_
Mayor and City Council
FROM: Harold Sand, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: James R. Otto's Appeal of an Administrative Decision.
Mr. Otto's June 24, 1977, statement does not completely or accurately document
the events that have taken place. The differences between a variance and an
appeal of an administrative decision were detailed in the first conversation
with Mr. Otto. It was explained that a variance was a request for an excep-
tion from the literal provisions of the ordinance to allow a specific reduc-
tion in requirements and that an appeal of an administrative decision was an
objection to the staff interpretation of the ordinance. It was further ex-
plained that a variance requires a $50.00 application fee, drawings to docu-
ment the proposed structures, and an explanation of unique circumstances that
justify the variance and that.a notice to surrounding property owners.within
200 feet was.mailed for a public hearing. An appeal of an administrative deci-
sion required no drawings or explanation of the circumstances, no application
fee was charged, and no notice was mailed to surrounding property owners.
However, because proper notices have not been sent, a variance could not be con-
sidered at a hearing that had only been scheduled for an appeal of an admini-
strative decision. The composition of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
the deadlines, meeting dates, and further appeal processes were explained to
Mr. Otto which is customary procedure.
Mr. Otto expressed concern that the easterly adjacent property owner may object
to a variance. He also was concerned about the delay this procedure may cause
and did not want to prepare drawings that may not be approved.
May 19, 1977, the staff received an application to "waive any interpretation of.
the ordinance that requires a side lot line be designated a rear lot line
subject to a 25 foot setback" (emphasis added). No drawings or application fee
accompanied the application and therefore Mr. Otto was scheduled for an appeal
at the next meeting. The minutes of that meeting are attached.
HS:nr
�Y t�
y � �
r. T �` < < 36.54
'fCS Ti
.71 D
j�! • v �, f' r 14 °+
,i� a�7 x8933 ` 9S 4
2 -'n W—i- -zt r84.jj j
CO gat ; i t AOp
o°. V,� >`
W
NI
4-1 ' {'�,:�• � % •�?•�' :■ si .1 a a'i9 i)'c .. 2 ,�. -.., • o!/ •eM,� �� `' +�.
.; • , F.r
3 �4ti_'�C' ',r �� '.,7 Yr i� el _�;`� d� — yit_ %. /�. I ���9 - �5 =,;c
.� '.�. :% •,/ f w '.� 3,66
Jl ��.
lo
•.V -. ri'�.`;' *' / °`d ••tea ,��'� r,1 57 y S oii�9 n'
� .p�V :� -i•_. � -V3 .y' it 1/� •_ ,r,•'q' � v,-: Q ' � . • °. c ,,•. � I1
, �-
- ",,•� `� ;� _� '`; 6\ , .. _ .w t tit :.�.. -'b:.. •'� s. V �` cL
5 '^: �� gyp, � � / I W i �:� 2,, .;°.� ?�• ��i °' V . e o .
'� C.� � � Ins I`.1 �� : :`. -.1 ,'•; 1�1 �� I and' ^C •�;' �fy
sl` 9
Ngq,.r "F7 'w 379.:4''
• B
`V cd.n F',r'
O UTS 0 T 5
NN 7 •
. }�e• h�� � - 7,0 .1� \ Dot 1.�a,..Y
m ^' U
—71
varian.ce
REQUEST NUMBER:
B -77 -15
LOCATION: 6324 Brookview Avenue
REQUEST: Appeal of an Administrative
decision regarding rear yard setback.
village manning deamrtment Alaaire of edin-a
EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
STAFF REPORT
June 16, 1977
B-77-15 James R. Otto. 6324 Brookview Avenue South.
Request: Appeal of an. administrative decision.
Subject Property: 7136 Mark Terrace Drive. Lot 4, Block 1, Braemar Parc.
Refer to: attached petition, Braemar Parc preliminary plat, minutes and
covenants.
The proponent is the individual that originally platted the subject prop-
erty in 1974. At that time, there was considerable concern from the staff, and
Planning Commission that the property should be platted into three.lots,:not
the four lots proposed, because of the topography, vegetation,. unusual shape and
.surrounding lot sizes. The City Council approved the four -lot plat after lengthy
assurances from Mr. Otto that the four lots were reasonably buildable. The evi-
dence included green .space easements, front yard setbacks, and potential building
locations. The building location on this lot indicated a 25 foot setback from the
east property line which was relied upon by the staff and apparently the neighbors.
The proponent is now appealing an administrative decision that required
..the rear yard to be measured from either the east or west line and the other line
be considered-an interior side line. The proponent would like.the east and west
lines to be side property lines and the rear setback measured as a radius from the
intersection of the..two "'sides. ".
Mr. Otto has not submitted any proposed site plan or other supporting
evidence to the .staff. Apparently, he does not anticipate. attending the Board
meeting.
Recommendation: The staff would point out that this request is an. appeal of an
administrative decision not a variance. No application fee or mailed notices
are sent and therefore discussion of a variance is not possible at this meeting.
The staff has interpreted the lot to be the. same as a corner lot with two non -
right -of -way property lines, one of which must be a rear lot line. The only
other possible interpretation would be to call both property lines rear and measure
25 feet from both fines.
HS: nr
CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
I
Seale : 1 Inch = 50 feet /
NORTH . denotes Iron monument /
Bearings shown ore assumed /
of
a
Q%
D
a
1
/ CLi
Lr!va0,
c
Y ., "zs
I L_
111
1 I u 1
�3 I
a' I
L_
L :J
i
=1
z°
h'
v
I �
}+tom
o P Ac
I L_
111
1 I u 1
�3 I
a' I
L_
L :J
i
=1
z°
I �
C-11
111
ar{f II
ily .._
I f�
1
D.
to
gat
dr.
2n
be
aet
by
by .
Ja:
!e.
t*.
t®:
co=
St
The
Pu:
Thi
the
Th1
dn�
D.
to
gat
dr.
2n
be
aet
by
by .
Ja:
!e.
t*.
t®:
co=
St
The
Pu:
Thi
the
Th1
dn�
869.53
VK
T
O
a
17
a
5G o LA
i
O
�� 32
LI
JAMES R. OTTO
6324 Brookview Avenue
Edina, kinn. 55424
June 14, 1973
Mr. Greg Luce
Village Planner
Village of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Re: Subdivision - Tract A, Registered Land Survey #1246
Dear Mr. Luce:
I am enclosing herewith a topography map showing the location
of the four lots that I believe are appropriate for the area
under consideration and also showing the topography that would
involve the actual homesite on each lot. You will note from
the enclosed topography layout, revised as of June 13, 1973,
that the individual homesites are all -35 feet deep by 60 feet
wide, for a total area of 2,100 square feet. All sites are
set back 35 feet from Mark Terrace and 30 feet from Valley View
Road. You will note that all home sites where excavation
would take place involve a grade of not to exceed eight feet
in 35 feet. The grade for the next 30 or so feet to the rear
of each building site would likewise not exceed approximately
eight feet in 35 feet. It would therefore appear that this
grade and topography is consistent with many residential home
sites throughout Braemar Hills and Indian Hills.
The village ordinance to the best of my knowledge does not
provide any public guidelines with regards to elevation of
the property to be platted at the homesite position. The
substantial number of homes that have been built on homesites
that have an elevation greater than the property in question.
at the homesite level would indicate that there has been no
consistent application of any rules pertaining to elevation.
It would accordingly appear that any decision that the topography
does not lend itself to four homesites would be based upon
r
Mr. Greg Luce - 2
June 14, 1973
arbitrary guidelines that have not been applied to other
property owners in the past and apparently not publicized so
that purchasers of property can be forewarned of the rules
or ordinances affecting the subdivision of property.
I might mention here the elevation of the rear property
fpr each of the sites. Site #1 has a maximum rise of 13 feet
in 65 feet. Site #2 has a maximum rise of 14 feet in 70 feet.
Site #3 has a maximum rise of 22 feet in 80 feet with a
substantial sized side yard. Site #4 has a maximum rise to the
rear of the property of approximately -eight feet depending
upon the location of the building site..
It is my understanding that all lot sizes meet the village
ordinance as far as total square footage and meet all other.
ordinance requirements. There are three.sewer connections and
-water connections on Mark Terrace to serve the property. .There
is one sewer connection and one water connection on the north
part of Valley View Road to serve Site #4.
The maximum f
"follows:
Site #1
Site #2
Site #3
Site #4
ront
- 140
- 100
- 200
- 200
footal
feet
feet
feet
feet
4e for each of the four sites is as
on Valley View Road
on Mark Terrace
on Mark Terrace
on Valley View Road
The front-.footage is consistent with the front footage of
adjoining subdivisions that have•previously been approved by
the Village of Edina.
I am more than flexible in negotiating on your suggestion of.
12 feet of Site #4 should be donated.for roadway purposes. The
present public road, as I recall, is approximately 33 feet. An
additional 12 feet would seem unnecessary. I have been advised
that the present roadway is completely on the property in
question and does not conform to the platted dedicated street.
Considering this fact, it would be appropriate for me to
consider dedication of that part of the roadway presently on
the property and that part of the property in question that is
substantially east of the present roadway. In this connection,
it would appear appropriate for the Village Engineer to survey
that road as it appears to have been established without
consideration as to the boundary lines of Bror Road. I, however,
1 .4 41 - . 91
Mr. Greg Luce - 3 June 14, 1973
do feel that requiring 12 feet of Site #4 towards the crown
of the hill is adverse to the building site and would constitute
a hardship to myself in developing this homesite to my stais-
faction. Considering that the road will only benefit private
property to the east, it would appear that the Village's
position should be flexible in this respect. I fail to
understand, however, why the site in question should be burdened
with a dedication of an additional road when it already has
200 feet frontage on Valley View Road, and the proposed dedica-
tion would benefit oply the property owners to the east.
At the Planning Commission meeting last month, you also
mentioned the esthq;tic impact of four homesites in a wooded
area. This area is more wooded than the area in Braemar Hills,
or for that matter in Indian Hills. The property has been
zoned for residential use; its highest purpose is residential
use. The trees that will be cut down for the actual homesites
can be kept at a minimum by any restrictions that can be put
on the plat. Green areas can be indicated on the plat so that
the natural environment is maintained to its fullest. To suggest
that cutting down a few more trees for four homesites as
opposed to the trees necessary to be cut down for three homesites
'would be an arbitrary decision,as to the best of my knowledge
no guidelines have been established or any village ordinance
or in any published rules in this respect. Considering Oak
Wilt.Disease throughout Braemar Hills, and considering the
number of dead trees in the area already, it would not appear
that this concern is of any major consequence.
The alternative to four homesites isp of course, three homesites
in excess of- 20,000 square feet per homesite. Because of the
triangular shape of the property in question, there would be
two homesites on Mark Terrace, one having approximately 160 feet
of front footage on Mark Terrace, and the other having approxi-
mately 240 feet of front footage on Mark Terrace., The homesite
on Valley View to the north would remain 200 feet. Requiring
three lots with such extensive front footage will obviously limit
the market - ability of the property to a few individuals who are
willing to live in Edina and have their children attend school in
Eden Prairie. Such a requirement appears to me to be unreasonable,
arbitrary and without concern to the financial implications to
the property owner.
I would appreciate your considering the matters I have discussed
above, keeping in mind that I am very flexible in working with
you with regards to green areas, with regards to actual location
of the lot lines, and with regards to negotiation on any public
road that appears to be more in the interest of the property
owners to the east than to the Village.
Mr. Greg Luce - 4 June 14, 1973
Considering I was not aware of any requirements prior to
purchase of this property, considering elevations or trees,
I would appreciate your furnishing me by return mail the
ordinance, the legal rules or the public guidelines upon which
you rely in suggesting that the plotting of the property
into four lots of approximately equal size is not in the best
interest of the community in which it is located. I would
appreciate this information by return mail so that I can review
it prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission.
Y urs tr y,
JAMES R. OTTO
Enc.
/f.
�,�:(:7 Vii; I i' ••(.� �,,,',,. �� 1 j���1' 1 �� /��iti...� __._ 1 •_ •����tJ��! _l'- -� •�� �
rr9, /.off' d •'� ! �' r i `I T `/ � // - /f /F i / //t .rte % // 1 �T� ••, Jj • .
• r / � J ! �' tii�
�• -J.•v� ' // v /= i y t0�'!•' {/t�1" Si1C I00 G- Cif S 7 i
IL
19 aco •`�
,\ ��,;� �`'�" � ,•tip}. 1 ;. � i i
•�.i ••
�r
r
. e
RESTRICTIONS
WHEREAS, "The Bishop Whipple.Schools, a Minnesota non - profit
corporation, is the fee owner, and James R, Otto and Beth D. Otto,
husband and wife, are purchasers under contract for deed, of all
lots in the plat known as "Braemar Parc ", situated in-the County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to -wit:
Lots One (1) to Four (4) inclusive, "Braemar
Parc ", according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in
and for said Hennepin County, Minnesota;-and
WHEREAS said fee owner and purchasers under contract for deed
desire to impose certain building and use restrictions upon said
lots,
_. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of, =the benefits to. them,- and
to their heirs, successors and assigns, "The Bishop Whipple Schools"
and James R. Otto and Beth D. Otto do hereby impose the following
restrictions upon said lots:
1) All those portions-of lots 2, 3 and 4, located more than
110 feet from Mark Terrace Drive are hereby designated "restricted
area" in which there shall be:
No building or improvements of any kind or nature, whether
permanent or temporary, including fences or.other types
of barriers;
No excavations, removal of soil or.stones, defacement or
other alteration of the natural topography of the land;
No. removal or destruction of live trees having a diameter
.(six inches above their base) of three inches or more;
No keeping or storing or placing of any man -made object
or device;
except with the express approval and written authority of the Village ,
of Edina. ahx ��..��, �• OtLa , �'� �r��►,9.
The Village of Edina.may at•any time plant any additional trees
it deems desirable in the "restricted area" to maintain or improve
the public view. This restriction shall run with the land and be
binding upon all owners of lots 2, 3 and 4 until released by the
Village of Edina. j
2) All building setbacks shall be in compliance with applicable
village ordinances, or as may be permitted under duly authorized
variances therefrom.
3) No new building shall be erected, placed or permitted to
remain on any lot until the building plan and the plot plan showing
the external design and.location.(including setback measurements
on four sides and the elevation of foundation above street grade) of
the proposed building shall have been approved in writing by
James-R. Otto or his designee, or in the case of his death by the Planner
of the Village of Edina. Approval or disapproval shall be'based
solely on the conformity of the design and location to the general
development of a high standard residential neighborhood, and approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld. Plans shall be submitted in
advance of construction, and James R. Otto, or in the case of -his
death the Village Planner, shall Have ten (10) days thereafter in
which to issue his decision of approval or disapproval. Failure
to act within said ten•(10) day period shall be conclusively deemed
to constitute approval. If no action to enjoin construction shall
have been commenced prior to completion of the building, approval-
shall be waived and full compliance with this paragraph shall be
conclusively presumed. All construction shall be completed within
one year from issuance of the building permit.
4) No structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement,
tent, shack, or other shelter shall be used on any lot as a residence
either temporarily or permanently.
5) No trailer, motor home, boat, snowmobile, rubbish or garbage
cans shall be kept or stored on- either a temporary or permanent basis-
on the lot except inside a garage attached to the single family
residence (temporary is defined as any period,in excess of 10 days
per month)
6) Easements for drainage and for installation and maintenance
of sewer and public utilities are reserved as shown on the recorded
plat.
0
• 7) Each lot may be used only. for single family residential
purposes.
8) No noxious or offensive activity or improvement shall be
permitted upon any lot, nor shall anything -be done thereon which
may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.
9) No soil, sand or gravel shall be sold or removed from any
lot except for the purpose of excavating or grading for the
construction or alteration of a single family dwelling or garage
attached thereto. If James R. Otto shall so direct by timely notice
to the owner, all excess material created by such construction
or alteration shall be hauled and deposited on other lots within the
plat designated-by James R. Otto.
10) Unless otherwise indicated herein, these restrictions shall
run with the lard and be binding upon all owners of lots in said
subdivision for a period of ten (10) years from the date hereof, .
after which time they shall be automatically extended for successive.
periods of ten (10) years until an instrument signed by a majority "
of the then owners of lots in said plat has been recorded, changing
or revoking the provisions hereof, in whole. or in part. Such
power of change or revocation shall not extend to the provisions in
-paragraph 1 of the restrictions.
11) Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or equity
against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate
these restrictions, either to restrain violation or recover damages.
Invalidation of any one of these provisions by court order shall
in no way affect any of the other'provisions which shall remain
in full force and effect.
i
/ �-77 -15 James R. Otto. 6324 Brookview Avenue South. Lot 4, Block 1, Braemar
F�✓ - Parc.
REQUEST: Appeal of an Administrative Decision.
V� prop
erty
°\ Mr. Sand showed a graphic of the property concerned and explained the P P
the proponent in 1974. He said there was considerable discussion platted
_ was platted by Corimission felt the property should be
_ at that time as staff and the Planning vegetation, unusual
into three rather than four lots because of the top proponent had had a strong
_ shape of the lots and the surrounding lot sizes. The e P P
argument in favor of four lots and had indicated it was buildable which illustrated 1pos-
ort this argument, the proponent submitted adra
To supp lot ghad a 25 -foot setback
sible building locations on aler1eswhicheha subject
relied upon by the staff and
-- illustrated from the east property line
surrounding property owners.
Mr. Sand said the proponent is now appealing staff's interpretation of
of the ordinance requiring the rear yard to be measured from either the east or
the west line and the other line to be considered the interior side lot line.
He noted that this request was not a variance but an appeal of an administrative
decision which does not require an application for or notices mailed to surrounding
property owners. He indicated the proponent would like the east and west property
lines to be considered side lot lines, with the rear setback measured as a radius
from the intersection of the two "sides." Mr. Sand said staff could come to one
other conclusion besides the original interpretation, wherein both lines are
treated as rear lot lines and there is a 25 -foot setback from each line. He
said staff recommended denial of the appeal.
Mr. Otto was not present at the meeting.
Following short discussion, Mr. Runyan moved for denial of the appeal. Mr.
Shaw seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried.
j
James R. Otto NOTICE OF APPEAL OF AN
VS.
i
City of Edina ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
I
To: City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
WHEREAS, an application for variance was filed with the
assistant city planner requesting a variance from the requirementsof
the City of Edina for a private residence to be built on Lot 4,
Block 1, Braemar Parc, be modified for the reasons stated therein; and .
WHEREAS, Mr. Harold Sand, without knowledge of the under -
signed or without agreement of the undersigned, set this matter for
appeal before the Board of Appeals orA adjustment; and
WHEREAS, on June -16, 1977, said Board of Appeals ariladjust
ment met and denied the appeal of the administrative decision that
determined that the city ordinances of the City of Edina requires a
25 foot set -back from either of the si;Ae lot lines of Lot 4,.Block 1,
Braemar Parc in view of the fact that said lot did not have a rear
lot line; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the decision of the assistant
planner of the City of Edina requiring a 25 foot set -back line from
either of the side lot lines of Lot 4, Block 1, Braemar Parc is
arbitrary, capricious and constitutes an uncompensated burden on the
property and has deprived myself of the equal protection of the law,
which generally allows a ten foot set -back on either side lot line; and
WHEREAS, it does not appear that said determination of the
planning department restricting the use of my property was reason-
able under the circumstances and discriminated against my use of the
property; and
WHEREAS, the city ordinance should have been interpreted by
the city planner to require that no private dwelling can be constructed
to the rear of a line drawn from a point on the west side lot line 25 .
feet from the most northernly portion thereof to a point on the east
side lot line 25 feet from the most northernly point thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY REQUESTED That the Edina City
Council review this matter and order the planning department to approve
the construction of a private residence on any portion of subject
property.excluding the rear 25 feet thereof as defined above and exclud-
ing any portion of the property within ten feet of either s•de lot line.
a
JAMES R.,OTTO
Owner of Premises
L.
MEMORANDUM
In April of this year I discovered that the City of Edina
maintains a sanitary sewer on Lot 4, Block 1 Braemar Parc. No sewer
easement had been obtained by the City of Edina and said sewer presently
exists at the sufferance of myself. The attached drawing indicates
the location of said sewer and the proposed sanitary sewer easement
area. The existance of this sewer line 'and the fact that the sewer
is subject to future construction maintenance alterations, repairing,
reconstruction, etc. has affected the buildibility of the lot. I
no longer feel it practical or prudent to construct the dwelling
ten feet from the easterly side lot line, which if done, would have
centered the proposed residence equidistant between the adjoining
homes on each side. I have therefore been forced by the existance
of this sewer and the ramifications thereof to construct this dwelling
on-the westerly portion of said lot, the result of which will be to
have said dwelling approximately 20 feet from the residence to the
west and approximately 80 feet from the residence to the east. It
is my opinion that the aesthetic value of the residence I build on
this property will be significantly increased by keeping said residence
more than ten feet from the west property line which the planning
department has refused based upon their interpretation of the current
ordinance. The City of Edina has clearly placed on this property
uncompensated burdens, which in my opinion, are not only unfair, un-
necessary, unreasonable bUt also constitute the taking of property .
without compensation.
JRO
2
' CARDARELLE &
ASSOCIATES, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
/
l'J
1
L.J
♦ i
cal
I
h I
Scale 1 Inch = 50 feet
NORTH o denotes Iron monument
/
aN I
Bearings shown are assumed
/ �oH
"1�O
C11
N�
17 ,
�♦
i — 6 �� 6�1
f, i v' / l �� 6 ♦, ,�
" a0
r 0
33
✓` \�
!� tx
\ m
L-
:J
1
pl
4f
�-
/�P
° a „
v3
O
S�
�o
,s
1
9
yj
Z
Z
Yi
I �
� Q 1
I 24.
- -�
I
c c,i
n r=r a
yn I W i41CdS r a�
I� -prap
� v
6I�
EARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
� -AND
�
SURVEYORS
I
\ ( 6 N
X
\
�
oI
X.
'
lSJ
F
6\
i
LM'
LaJ
\ i
cal
'♦
I
I
Scale : 1 inch = 50 feet /
_
I
-_J
' I'
.SJ
--
NORTH
o denotes Iron monument /
\
W�
I
L.J
1
Bearings shown are assumed vk
aAO
j
/ N
O
CO
0 0
-41
_
o P I \\
ev
f � X �9 N
\ io 7
vi
94 I CY
i I V NO
o 0d' I-
/
0
ft°
mss ,
X' J
�l♦��� ♦ p• 9
L --
1
-D,
{I
St
I nx 1111
9
\ ( 6 N
X
\
�
oI
X.
'
6\
Cwt
C
L --
1
-D,
{I
St
I nx 1111
Cwt
�'J
'♦
LIJ
_
<1
CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
I _
I 1 `IJ
GAT 1�
•J La_
Scale I inch = 50 feet
NORTH o denotes Iron monument / I
P +
Bearings shown are as
N 17
�
,
`♦ i / 66 gym' 0 . Q
/ h �° r - —
•�C� x � ,i yx I I �_i
c \•: fkH v Gr \ 6 S- � 2
3
0
0
f&4 rim r
ln r_rQre rz.•7i Brs
/9C? �<\,c�v OSS 1
S u � � • Se � r
��rrer-
3. -Pro �
l °n 6k9 \ a� 00
r 1 M Hal¢
ea
. Aft "♦ ap V, ryi __J i —.
_ 0 �2�9• K• __
1
RF.S(1T.TTTTnN
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land:
Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Hyde Park; and
WHEREAS, the owner has requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows:
All of Lot 15, Block 1, Hyde Park, and that part of Lot 14, Block 1,
Hyde Park, which lies Easterly of a line drawn from the Southeast corner
of Lot 14 to a point on the North line of said Lot 14, distant 5.00 feet
West of the Northeast corner of said Lot 14; and
Lot 14, Block 1, Hyde Park, except that part of Lot 14 which lies
Easterly of a line drawn from the Southeast Corner of Lot 14 to a point on
the North line of said Lot 14, distant 5.00 feet West of the Northeast
corner of said Lot 14; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship 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 Ordinance 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, however, 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 1st day of August, 1977.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA )
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina,
do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution was duly adopted
by the Edina City Council at its regular meeting of August 1, 1977, and as
recorded in the minutes of said regular meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 2nd day of August, 1977.
City Clerk
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land:
Lots 14 and 15, Hyde Park 1st Addition; and
WHEREAS, the owner has requested the
GUSTAFSON, GUSTAFSON 8c ADAMS. P. A.
July 28, 1977
Ms. Florence Hallberg
City Clerk
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
RE: Paulsen Subdivision
Dear Florence:
Enclosed please find a redrafted Resolution pertaining to-.the
recently subdivided Jerry Paulsen property. The revision is simply
for.the purpose of clarifying the legal description -on Ahe previously
adopted Resolution. Some minor changes were made to the legal des-
cription to both correct and simplify the same. The parcels which
were outlined on the plot_eplan and approved by the City Council have
not been changed. The legal descriptions have simply =been modified to
conform precisely to said plat plan, as previously approved.
I discussed this matter this afternoon with Gordon Hughes, and
he has approved my request. Please`arrange for .thi's, matter to be on
the Agenda for next Monday's meeting.
If you have any questions whatsoever; please do not hesitate to
call me.
Very truly yours; .
GU SON, GUSTAFSON DAM A:
Gregor D. Gustafson
GDG lmf
Enc.
HAND DELIVERED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 411
7400 METRO BOULEVARD
HARRY GUSTAFSON
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 66436
WALTER C. GUSTAFSON
TELEPHONE (612) 836 -7277
MICHAEL J. ADAMS
GREGORY D. GUSTAFSON
-
JOHN M. BUJAN
July 28, 1977
Ms. Florence Hallberg
City Clerk
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
RE: Paulsen Subdivision
Dear Florence:
Enclosed please find a redrafted Resolution pertaining to-.the
recently subdivided Jerry Paulsen property. The revision is simply
for.the purpose of clarifying the legal description -on Ahe previously
adopted Resolution. Some minor changes were made to the legal des-
cription to both correct and simplify the same. The parcels which
were outlined on the plot_eplan and approved by the City Council have
not been changed. The legal descriptions have simply =been modified to
conform precisely to said plat plan, as previously approved.
I discussed this matter this afternoon with Gordon Hughes, and
he has approved my request. Please`arrange for .thi's, matter to be on
the Agenda for next Monday's meeting.
If you have any questions whatsoever; please do not hesitate to
call me.
Very truly yours; .
GU SON, GUSTAFSON DAM A:
Gregor D. Gustafson
GDG lmf
Enc.
HAND DELIVERED
1
LOCAT�ON MAP 111"
ARCR RY,�:�a
RANGE ar:.•�r.
• jti3 •y
lot divisiorl,
REQUEST NUMBER: LD -77 -13
LOCATION: 6000 Bonnie Brae Drive.
REQUEST: Lot division to adjust-the
existing lot line.
y�l1 . Rlanning dellutmcni v'�Be of edina
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
July 27, 1977
III. New Business:
1. Lot Division Dale Johnson Builders. Lots 14 and 15, Hyde
LD -77 -13 Park 1st Addition. 6000 Bonnie Brae Drive.
Refer to: attached graphic.
The proponent requests a lot division to re -align the lot line between
Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, of Hyde Park 1st Addition. This lot division
will relieve the necessity of obtaining a side yard variance for the
construction of a dwelling on Lot 15.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed lot division.
GH:nr
7 -21 -77
' Plwoosca' L o/' Di loa r` 171oase L oco f��o�7
Tor
Dole dofir)sor? B(wldel-6
L o f /5 ;��arl o;', L& M H ), P14 Rid
Sca /e /"- ,zO.
,/uy 1-3, /977
. r.
,4
00
�' -- ds oo —
I
I
I
f�
I C
O1
15 "
/ '4233
v ?b?
I
l G
'•s7oz
0
90r7121'e Bro e Dpi ve
Minutes of the 7 -27 -77 Planning Commission Meeting, page
III. New Business:
1. Lot Division Dale Johnson Builders. Lots 14 and 15, Hyde Park 1st
LD -77 -13 Addition. 6000 Bonnie Brae Drive.
Mr. G. Hughes explained the general location of the property. He said the
proponent is requesting a lot division similar to one heard by the Commission ap-
proximately two months ago, wherein he would re -align the property line between
Lots 14 and 15, adding an additional five feet to Lot 15, to avoid the necessity
of obtaining a side yard setback variance upon the construction of the dwelling..
He further said staff recommended approval of the proposed lot division as they
could see no apparent problems with the request. Following brief discussion, Mr.
S. Hughes moved for approval of the requested lot division. Mrs. McClelland
seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Applicant: r
PETITION FOR LOT DIVISION
AI S O
Date 7—)'/-77.
Phone:
Address: ��' /o6
Owner (s) = — =/� �/� 0
(as listed on the warranty deed)
Address: AI X t'; k;4 ;r c Phone:
Buyer(s): ,�ivtwtFs p L RNA
J r (as proposed to be on warranty deed)
Address: ��7 d �! • Phone:
The original tract of land propose to b liyided esci7ibed as follows: ••
The following parcels will be made from the division of the above described tract of
land:
yc 4)V ID . T1S9 -r 1-24A7- d , lUT` %/�
/X �' /7C� �� �ii� G� GI G r..
45 S i s % /�1 l� /
L. e
�w
S r ,� , o
�( >�{�o rti1 TX-f ��o
o e r rG /� �G / A /
f - -
_0
/V
Th F /irRT/J I,Iq d F &A lb Ld 7` /�
� � 5 7 -41V 7- a d
to e
/y. t,5Ls 7- 6 R IX /Z o 9:'/5z' -/�>. G.6
7`
%� Gib /1 iC�i //-S �S!���c�
�� ! �iN�-
h/
I `'o l No �ii� �D %'— /�f 7G /�D i T•
�Sf} -� T /� 01 S 7` -,q-1y T `, 6 /)
T CDC ANo 4, U
s/��� 4 7' /4 ,
'
Signature of icant
J
'
f
_,__ �^� �•GC.�2 �2- tic -C°!� a-cl `-3-� �7�G'��
4e- a�e��.c�r.Ge�c)
Cx_ c9 , 141 _
Cet
Y'
GtA-f i�
AW 3
J� a4 � � �Gi7 � - - - ►�
O
S-O
' h-, a-�4 �r- 8-n•.P �p .
fir/ J
07
.��:IV
July 20,,1977
Ms. Florence Hallberg
City Clerk
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota
Dear Ms. Hallberg,
There is attached a.signed petition from residents on Inglewood
Avenue in St. Louis Park and Edina. The petition asks that the two
cities cooperatively review the traffic hazard problem on Inglewood
Avenue and jointly determine a solution for early 'implementation.
It would be appreciated if you would bring this to the
attention of the Edina City Council in order that it may be officially
and properly referred to the appropriate department.- A similar.petition
has been.sent to Mr. Dave Rudberg, Acting City Manager, City of St.
Louis Parka
As the matter proceeds to a conclusion,. I will be pleased to
serve as communications liaison between the residents and the city
government departments if information would be made available to me.
Sincerely,
�ard ernelius
4008 Inglewood Avenue
Edina, Minnesota 55416
Attachment
cc: Mr. Dave Rudberg
P E T I T I O N
FOR JOINT GOVERNMENTAL ACTION
We, the undersigned residents of Inglewood Avenue, respectfully request
assistance from the city governments of Edina and St. Louis Park to resolve a hazard to
the safety of our families. The safety hazard we refer to is the careless and irresponsible
movement of motor vehicles south on Inglewood Avenue over what is commonly known
among many youthful drivers as "Suicide Hill." A sharp. decline in grade commences at the
city limits of the two communities and continues south until it reaches level ground at the
4008 residence.
At the present time, a thru -stop stop sign is maintained at the top of the hill
and two school- caution signs have been placed on each side of the roadway to warn
motorists traveling south that a safety hazard exists. These warning devices are ignored
by the motorists described above. The traffic incidents which have alarmed residents
customarily occur several times each month, and involve motor vehicles traveling at high
speed (40 -50 mph) to the south; they make no stop or deceleration in speed, leave contact
with the roadway at the crest of the hill, touch ground at the bottom of the hill and curve
to the right on the left -front and rear wheels of the vehicles as they continue south on
Inglewood Avenue. Any object, whether human or inanimate, cannot be seen by the
drivers until the moment of near - collision. Usually, these incidents include multiple trips
over the same course by the drivers.
Several years ago, an accident occurred as a high -speed vehicle, traveling
south on Inglewood, collided with 'a vehicle which was exiting from a driveway at 4002
Inglewood. Fortunately, no human life was lost in this accident but considerable damage
to the vehicles resulted. The severity of the accident must have been communicated
among the abusive drivers group as the number of "joy rides" diminished, up until this
summer when the pace of incidents resumed its past frequency.
The undersigned residents insist that corrective action be taken to remove this
safety hazard before the loss of human life occurs. Increased police patrolling by the
communities would be viewed as an inadequate response to the problem as most incidents
occur in random order after the area has been checked for police presence; an additional
stop sign on the left side of the roadway was maintained for some time but also proved
inadequate to deter the traffic abuses; closing the street to thru- traffic or designating it
as a one -way roadway to the north would present problems for home servicing or street
maintenance. One possible remedy is the annual construction of "speed- bumps" on the
road surface at several points north of the present stop sign.
We request that the engineering departments of the two cities jointly study the
safety hazard problem and take corrective action as soon as possible -- preferably before
the school term reopens in late August. Please help us avoid a serious tragedy.
Dated ,bXA 11 -7 7 Signed,
<Akw
at jp � Inglewood Avenue at Yao y Inglewood Avenue
at yDQ y Inglewood Avenue
ea,'� �hL �J
at 40/,;, Inglewood Avenue
at Inglewood Avenue
at 3 C106 Inglewood Avenue
,► 0 nglewood Avenue
P E T I T I O N
,�L Z��
I If
at #V 14 Inglewood Avenue
"Z=
at �D /6 Inglewood Avenue
at Inglewood Avenue
at Inglewood Avenue
at Inglewood Avenue
L
at Inglewood Avenue at Inglewood Avenue
(Copy for City of Edina)
-2-
1'1PIL ktP - :it f v1, CL LFNT`ER �pTESPOSim
MIi?L)L.Em1Ul ,
N , VA 22645 t .
! �A
western union Z
- 7. us.Maa m
2- 145031U211010 07/30/77 ICS WA05504 MPSB,
0.0764 rLTN VA 07/30/77
® MAYOR JAMES VAIN VALKE P49URG
CITY HALL
E D I N A MN 55424
HOUSE VOTE WEEK OF
AUGUST IS ON ENERGY BILL HR8444,
HOUSE PUBLIC
WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE
ON TRANSPCRTATION CHAIRMAN HOWARD
AMENDMENT
WILL INCREASE GASOLINE
TAX 5 CENTS WITH HALF OR $20
BILLION
ANNUALLY EARMARKED
FOR LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
AND
FACILITIES
HR8444 AND HOWARD
AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH USCM POLICY.
YOLR
- SUPPORT ESSENTIAL.
IMPERATIVE, YOU CAN OR TELEGRAM
YOUR CONGRESSMEN
TODAY AND URGE SUPPORT
OF HOWARD AMENDMENT AND FINAL
PASSAGE OF
HR8444, INFORM US
OF YOUR ACTION,
USCM CONTACT HUGH
MIELDS (202) 293.7572,
JOHN J, GUNTHER
00:33 EST
MGMCOMP MGM
T(D Rf- PI Y R N-^ :.I "(1,'';:., ":1. =:(ii f'!c'Tkci F ",IrF_ FOR b';'f STUIN U`;If)N'S TOIA 1 =1'Fr
HARRY GUSTAFSON
WALTER C. GUSTAI'SON
MICHAEL J. ADAMS
GREOORY D. GUSTAFSON
001 -IN 1-1. BUJAN
July 19, 1977
GUSTAFSON, GUSTAFSON & ADAMS. P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LA \V 2 7�
SUITE 411 LU
f
7400 METRO BOULEVARD •��
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 06436 1�
1,1r. Jerry Dal en
Edina City Hall
4801 'vest 50th Street
Edina, r1innesota 55424
TELEPHONE (612) 836 -7277
RE: DeMarsh - Tax Split
6422 -24 Vernon Avenue South
Dear Mr. Dalen:
w
Enclosed please find my letter dated Marcie 17,1977, reflecting
my telephone conversations prior to that date with both Mr. Ken Swanson
and Mr. Tom Erickson. Subsequent to march 17, I had further conver-
sations with both the DeMarshes and Mr. Swanson relative to the proposed
tax split and the issue of special assessments for connection charges
against their property. On those occasions, fir. Swanson agreed to
spread the additional specials against tale property over a ten (10)
year period at 8% interest. The DelMarshes have now agreed to such a
proposed settlement to this long pending problem. The alternative to
them is to appeal directly to the City Council for partial or permanent
relief from the proposed connection charges. The DeHarshes have chosen
not to appeal this matter to the City Council, but would prefer to have
the specials assessed, equally, against their two (2) parcels and to
have the tax statement in connection with said parcels issued immediately
reflecting said allocation of these new special assessments.
I am directing this letter to you in light of the fact than lent
was no longer with the City.
If you have any questions or problems with this matter, please
call me.
GDG:1 ni
Enc.
cc: Mr. and Mrs. David DeMarsh
Mr. and Mrs. Albert J.DeHarsh
Very truly yours,
GUSTAF�Q'N, GUSTAFSON of ADAMS, P.A.
regory D.(JGustafson
GUSTAFSON, GUSTAFSON & ADAMS. P. A.
March 17, 1977
Mr. and Mrs. David DeMarsh
6424 Vernon Avenue South
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Re: Tax Split /Homestead Exemption /Connection.Charges
Dear Mr. and Mrs. DeMarsh:
2 have been in contact with both Mr. Tom Erickson the
Edina City Attorney and gent Swanson, the Edina City Assessor
in connection with the above-captioned _ matter. I am happy to
report that Mr. Swanson has assured me on the following two
points:
1. You and your parents have satisfied all require-
ments for two homestead exemptions commencing with .
taxes due and payable in 1977. Although the home-
stead exemption cannot be fully processed to the
county until the matter on connection charges has
been resolved., Mr. Swanson assured me that when the
- connection charges have been resolved, the homestead
exemption will be applied retroactive to the first
of this year. In the event the first half tax pay-
ment should be paid by you at the end of May before
the homestead exemption has been applied by Hennepin
County, you and your parents will both receive a
credit on the tax statement thereby reducing the
amount payable in November.
2. Mr. Swanson assured me that the tax statement for
your two properties will be established by dividing
the existing valuation by two. There is no basis
for a revaluation and Mr. Swanson assured me that
no attempt will be made to reassess your property or
your parents property or to otherwise deviate from
the previous valuation.
Mr. Erickson and I still do not agree on the le al basis
g
for the City assessing you the additional connection charges.
Mr. Erickson now owes me a letter in which he agreed to fully
set out the authority for his position. It is my advice at this
ATTORNEYS AT LAW -
SUITE 411
7400 METRO BOULEVARD
HARRY GUSTAFSON
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA &&485
HALTER C. GUSTAFSON
TELEPHONE (613) 885 -7377
MICHAEL J. ADAMS
GREGORY D. GUSTAFSON
JOI-IN I.I. Buj ;4'I
March 17, 1977
Mr. and Mrs. David DeMarsh
6424 Vernon Avenue South
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Re: Tax Split /Homestead Exemption /Connection.Charges
Dear Mr. and Mrs. DeMarsh:
2 have been in contact with both Mr. Tom Erickson the
Edina City Attorney and gent Swanson, the Edina City Assessor
in connection with the above-captioned _ matter. I am happy to
report that Mr. Swanson has assured me on the following two
points:
1. You and your parents have satisfied all require-
ments for two homestead exemptions commencing with .
taxes due and payable in 1977. Although the home-
stead exemption cannot be fully processed to the
county until the matter on connection charges has
been resolved., Mr. Swanson assured me that when the
- connection charges have been resolved, the homestead
exemption will be applied retroactive to the first
of this year. In the event the first half tax pay-
ment should be paid by you at the end of May before
the homestead exemption has been applied by Hennepin
County, you and your parents will both receive a
credit on the tax statement thereby reducing the
amount payable in November.
2. Mr. Swanson assured me that the tax statement for
your two properties will be established by dividing
the existing valuation by two. There is no basis
for a revaluation and Mr. Swanson assured me that
no attempt will be made to reassess your property or
your parents property or to otherwise deviate from
the previous valuation.
Mr. Erickson and I still do not agree on the le al basis
g
for the City assessing you the additional connection charges.
Mr. Erickson now owes me a letter in which he agreed to fully
set out the authority for his position. It is my advice at this
4
Mr. and Mrs: David DeMarsh-
Page Two
March 17, 1977
time that we review said letter together after I receive it and
determine at that time if the City Council might consider
capitulation. It is my present feeling that it is at least
worth presenting this matter to the City Council for its cofi -
sideration. As I previously discussed with you, the City
Assessor has previously indicated his willingness to extend the
time period within which the connection charges may be paid from
six years to ten years. Given the 8% interest rate and the.
small amount.of the assessment, this is not much of a concession.
However, the assessor cannot make any direct concession on his
own authority. Any such concession must be made only by the
City Council, which Council will obviously look to the City
Attorney for guidance in this matter.
I will keep you informed of all progress in this matter.
Very truly yours,
GUSTAFSON, GUSTAFSON & ADAMS, P.A.
Gregory D. Gustafson
Attorney at Law
GDG:bk
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Albert J. DeMarsh
6422 Vernon Avenue South
Edina, Minnesota 55435
]�Cf ., 3,/
TABULATION OF BIDS
CITY -OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CONCRETE REPAIR WORK
IMPROVEMENT NO. 77 -8 (ENG)
Bids Opened August 1, 1977 - 11:00 A.M.
LOCATION: Various locations throughout City.
BIDDER
BID AMOUNT
Victor Carlson & Sons, Inc.
$13,418.50
N O R T H E R N =UD
STATES P O W E R C O M P A N Y
NORMANDALE DIVISION
5309 WEST 70TH STREET
EDINA. MINNESOTA 55435
July 27, 1977
Honorable Mayor and City.Council
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Gentlemen:
The enclosed electric rate schedules reflect higher rates which
became effective on June 20, 1977. These higher rates have
been put into effect by NSP on a temporary basis as provided
by Minnesota law.
NSP has applied to the Minnesota Public Service. Commission for
approval of the.higher rates. The requested rates will be in
effect while the Commission is holding public hearings and making
a final determination. Further notice regarding public hearings
dates and locations will be published. The result of the hearings
may be a final rate adjustment either upward or downward from
those requested by NSP for any class or classes of service. If
the overall revenues granted by the Commission are less than the
revenues generated by the temporary rates, NSP customers will be
refunded the difference plus interest.
Electric consumption prior to June 20, 1977, will be charged
at the rates in effect prior to this application.
For further information, please contact your local NSP office
at 941 -2992.
Yours very truly,
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
r
D. L. Anderson
General Manager
DLA:vg
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA)
ELECTRIC Rate Schedule A & C
Minne3ota
STREET LIGHTING SERVICE (COMPANY OWNED EQUIPMENT)
Availability: Available for year -round illumination of public streets, parkways,
and highways by electric lamps in luminaires supported on poles, where the
facilities for this service are furnished by Company. Custom Residential
service under this schedule is limited to residential areas having a Company
owned underground electric distribution system.
Rate:
Designation of Lamp
175W Mercury
250W Mercury
400W Mercury
700W Mercury
1 OOOW Mercury
Monthlv Rate Per Luminaire
70W High
Custom
Overhead
Residential
$ 6.70
$ 8.45
7.65
9.20
9.70
N/A
14.75
N/A
17.70
N/A
70W High
Pressure
Sodium
$ 8.00
$ N/A
100W High
Pressure
Sodium
7.85
9.20
150W High
Pressure
Sodium
8.75
10.45
250W High
Pressure
Sodium
10.55
N/A
40OW High
Pressure
Sodium
13.70
N/A
N/A - Not Available
Service Included in Rate: Company shall own, operate, and maintain the
Overhead and Custom Residential Street Lighting systems using Company's
standard street lighting equipment.
Surcharge: In certain communities bills are subject to a surcharge provided
for in Surcharge Rider.
Daily Operating Schedule: The daily operating schedule of the above lamps
shall be from approximately one -half hour after sunset until one -half hour
before sunrise.
Outages: If illumination from any lamp is interrupted and said illumination
is not resumed within 24 hours from the time Company receives notice thereof
from Customer, 1/30 of the monthly rate for .such lamp shall be deducted for
each night of nonillumination after such notice is received.
6 -77
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA)
ELECTRIC Rate Schedule A
Minnesota
STREET LIGHTING SERVICE (COMPANY OWNED EQUIPMENT) (Closed)
Availability: Available for year -round illumination of public streets, parkways,
and highways by electric lamps in luminaires supported on wood poles, where the
facilities for this service are furnished by Company. Service under this
schedule is limited to installations being served as of the effective date of
this schedule.
Rate:
Designation of Lamps
1 500 Lumen Incandescent
2 500 Lumen.Incandescent
4 000 Lumen Incandescent
6 000 Lumen Incandescent
10 000 Lumen Incandescent
F48EHO Fluorescent
F48EHO Fluorescent
F72HO Fluorescent
F72HO Fluorescent
F72HO Fluorescent
F72EHO Fluorescent
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PARK BOARD (Group I)
1 000 Lumen Incandescent
2 500 Lumen Incandescent
SEASONAL LIGHTING UNITS
Lamp
2 500 Lumen Incandescent
17514 Mercury
250W Mercury
Number of Lamps Monthly Rate
Per Luminaire
Per Luminaire
1
$
1
7.80
1
8.75
8.90
9.50
1
$ 9.15
2
11.55
1
7.00
2
10.70
4
15.10
4
19.50
1 $ 5.60
1 6.20
Rate Per Post Per Period of Operation
$93.60 Less $.60 /Non - Burning Month
80.40 Less .60 /Non- Burning Month
91.80 Less .85 /Non - Burning Month
Service Included in Rate: Company shall own, operate, and maintain the Overhead
Street Lighting system using Company's standard street lighting equipment.
(Continued on following sheet)
6 -77
4
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA)
ELECTRIC Rate Schedule A
Minnesota
STREET LIGHTING SERVICE (COMPANY OWNED EQUIPMENT) (Closed) (Cont.)
Daily Operating.Schedule: The daily operating schedule of the above lamps shall
be from approximately one -half hour after sunset until one -half hour before
sunrise.
Outages: If illumination from any lamp is interrupted and said illumination is
not resumed within 24 hours from the time Company receives notice thereof from
Customer, 1/30 of the monthly rate for such lamp shall be deducted for each
night of non - illumination after such notice is received..
Public Telephone Booth Lighting
Telephone Booth: Various locations served through Company -Owned overhead
street lighting circuits.
Rate: $2.10 per month plus $.21 for each 10 watts or fraction thereof in
excess of 100 watts of connected load per booth per month.
Surcharge: In certain communities bills are subject to a surcharge provided for
in Surcharge Rider.
6 -77
NOMERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA)
ELECTRIC Rate Schedule B
Minnesota
STREET LIGHTING SERVICE (CUSTOMER OWNED EQUIPMENT) (Cont.)
Where more than one of the above luminaires is mounted on a single standard,
the monthly rate for each luminaire in excess of one shall be reduced by 25G
(except as modified in Service Included in Rate - Group I paragraph).
MINNESOTA STATE HIGHWAY DEPT.
(Lowry Hill Tunnel Lighting)
Operating
Lamps Current (MA)
Per Unit Day Night
F96 T -12 Fluorescent (1500 MA) 2 1500 to 0
1500 to 200
800 to 200
430.to 200
40OW Metal Halide 1 8 Hour
40OW Metal Halide 1 9 Hour
1 OOOW Metal Halide
(Customer Maintains) 1 AN
Cost Per Unit
Per Month
$ 6.40
6.65
5.00
4.55
6.30
6.35
10.15
Surcharge: In certain communities bills are subject to a surcharge provided
for in Surcharge Rider.
Service Included in Rate:
Group I
Company shall furnish all electric energy necessary to operate customer's
Ornamental Street Lighting system, shall make all lamp and globe renewals,
clean the globes, light and extinguish all lamps, paint the metal portions
of the standards and furnish all the materials and labor necessary therefor.
At Customer's option Company shall make all ballast renewals in lieu of
painting the standards; in which case the 25q, per luminaire reduction for
more than one luminaire per standard, as provided for under the above
Rate, shall not apply.
Group II (Standards do not require painting and globes are unbreakable)
Company shall furnish all electric energy necessary to operate customer's
Ornamental Street Lighting system, shall make all lamp renewals, clean
the globes, light and extinguish all lamps and furnish all the materials
and labor necessary therefor.
(Continued on following sheet)
6 -77
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA)
ELECTRIC Rate Schedule B
Minnesota
STREET LIGHTING SERVICE (CUSTOMER OWNED EQUIPMENT) (Cont.)
Group III (Customer furnishes glassware and ballast)
Company she "I fur:lish all electric energy necessary to operate customer's
Ornamental Street Lighting system, shall make all lamp renewals, clean
the globes, light and extinguish all lamps and furnish all the materials
and labor necessary therefor. Customer shall furnish and stock glassware
and ballast - Company shall furnish replacement labor.
Daily Operating Schedule: The daily operating schedule of the above lamps
on the All -Night (A:J) schedule shall be from approximately one -half hour
after sunset until ane -half hour before sunrise, and on the Midnight (MN)
schedule shall be from approximately one -half hour after sunset until
midnight (Central Standard Time).
Outages: If illumination from any lamp is interrupted and said illumination
is not resumed within 24 hours from the time Company receives notice thereof
from customer, 1/30 of the monthly rate for such lamp shall be deducted for
each night of nonillumination after such notice is received.
6-77
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA)
ELECTRIC Rate Schedule B
Minnesota
STREET LIGHTING SERVICE (CUSTOMER OWNED EQUIPMENT) (CLOSED)
Availability: Available for year -round illumination of public streets,
Parkways, and highways by electric
lamps mounted
on standards where
Customer owns an Ornamental Street
Lighting
system complete with
standards, luminaires with globes,
lamps and
other appurtenances,
together with all necessary cables
extending
between standards and
to points of connection to Company's
facilities
as designated by Company.
Service under this schedule is limited to installations
being served as
of the effective daca of this schedule.
Rate:
Number of
Lamps per
Monthly Rate per Luminaire
Designation of Lamp
Luminaire
MN AN 2AN -2MN .24 Hour
1 000 Lumen Incandescent
1
$- $2.55
1 500 Lumen Incandescent
1
- 3.00
2 500 Lumen Incandescent
1
- 3.20
4 000 Lumen Iincandescent
1
3.95 4.30
6 000 Lumen Incandescent
1
5.00 5.45
10 000 Lumen Incandescent
1
6.20 6.95
15 000 Lumen Incandescent
1
7.40 8.40
F48EHO Fluorescent
1
- 3.50
V48EHO Fluorescent
2
4.30 4.70
F72HO Flourescent
1
_ 3.05
F72HO Fluorescent
2
_ 3.85 _ _
F72110 Fluorescent
.4
5.75 6.25 6.00 _
F72EHO Fluorescent
1
- 4.15 _ -
F72EHO Fluorescent
2
4.95 5.40 _ 6.55
F72EHO Fluorescent
4
- 8.75 8.20 _
Where more than one of the above luminaires is mounted on a single standard,
the monthly rate for each luminaire in excess of one shall be reduced by 25C
(except as modified in Service Included in Rate).
(Continued on following sheet)
6-77
NORTHERN STATES POWER C0MPANY (MINNESOTA)
ELECTRIC Rate Schedule B
Minnesota
STREET LIGHTING SERVICE (CUSTOMER OWNED EQUIPMENT) (CLOSED) (Cont.)
Seasonal Lighting Units:
Lamp
2 500 Lumen Incandescent
6 000 Lumen Incandescent
10 000 Lumen Incandescent
250W Mercury
400W Mercury
Rate Per Post Pei: Period of Operation
$38.40 Less $.h.! /Non- Burning Month
65.40 Less 1.2j /Non- Burning Month
83.40 Less 1.90 /Non - Burning Month
44.40 Less .85 /Non- Burning Month
58.20 Less 1.40 /Non - Burning Month
Service Included in Rate: Company shall furnish all electric energy necessary
to operate Customer's Ornamental Street Lighting system, shall make all lamp
and globe renewals, clean the globes, light and extinguish all lamps, paint
the metal portions of the standards and furnish all the materials and labor
necessary therefor.
At Customer's option Company shall make all ballast renewals in lieu of
painting the standards; in which case the 251,, per luminaire reduction for
more than one luminaire per standard, as provided for under the above Rate,
shall not apply.
Daily-Operating Schedule: The daily operating schedule of the above lamps
on the All -night (AN) schedule shall be from approximately one -half hour
after sunset until one -half hour before sunrise, and on the Midnight (MN)
schedule shall be from approximately one -half hour after sunset until
midnight (Central Standard Time).
Outages: If illumination from any lamp is interrupted and said illumination
is not resumed within 24 hours from the time Company receives notice thereof
from customer, 1/30 of the monthly rate for such lamp shall be deducted for
each night of non - illumination after such notice is received.
Public Telephone Booth Lighting
Telephone Booth: Various locations served through City -Owned ornamental street
lighting circuits.
Rate: $2.10 plus $.21 for each 10 watts or fraction thereof in excess of
100 watts of connected load per booth per month.
Surcharge: In certain communities bills are subject to a surcharge provided for
in Surcharge Rider.
6 -77
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA)
ELECTRIC
Minnesota
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SERVICE
Availability: Available to municipal, state, and federal govenments, their agencies and subdivisions, (to
exclusion of other rates) for operation of traffic signals, and direction and warning lights along
streets and highways, for traffic regulation and guidance as distinguished from street lighting and
general illumination..
Rate:
Customer Charge per month $2.50
Demand Charge per Month
First 5 kW or less -0-
Excess kW - per kW $4.10
Energy Charge - per kWh
4.660
Fuel Clauses: Bills subject to the adjustment provided for in Fuel Clause Rider No. 1.
Monthly PAInknum Charge: $2.50
Surchsargo: In certain communities bills are subject to a surcharge provided for in Surcharge Rider.
beterminction of Demand: The demand in kW for billing purposes shall be the greatest 15- minute
load during the month for which bill is rendered. For billing purposes the demand shall be
adjusted to the nearest 0.1 kW. The demand may be determined by test.
Special Terms and Conditions: The customer shall supply the service wires run in conduit up the
nearest pole or to some other point designated by the Company near the signal. The necessary
meter loops and cabinets must be supplied by the customer.
6 -77
NOMERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA)
ELECTRIC
Minnows
MUNICIPAL PUMPING SERVICE
Availability:. Available to municipal owned water works and municipal sewage
systems for operation of pumping and treatment plants.
(Rate schedule applied separately to each delivery point)
Rate:
Oct -May June -Sept
First 2 000 kWh per month - per kWh 3.580 3.95
Next 2 000 kWh per month - per kWh 2.930 3.28
Next 96 000 kWh per month - per kWh 2.290 2.66e
Excess kWh per month - per kWh 2.11 2.48(,
Fuel Clause: Bills subject to the adjustment provided for in Fuel Clause
Rider No 1.
Monthly Minimum Charge:
First 1 hp or less of connected load $1.50
Excess hp of connected load - per hp .66
Surcharge: In certain communities bills are subject to a surcharge provided
for in Surcharge Rider.
Power Factor: If the monthly power factor of any delivery point is less than
90% lagging, the kWh will be determined by multiplying the kWh actually
supplied by 90% and dividing the product thus obtained by the power factor
expressed in percent. The power factor for the month may be determined by
permanently installed metering equipment or by periodic test under normal
operating conditions.
6 -77
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA)
ELECTRIC
Minnesota
FIRE AND CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN SERVICE
Availability: Available for power service for the operation of municipal fire and
civil defense warning sirens having a rated capacity not in excess of 25 horse-
power.
Rate: 341� per month per horsepower of connected capacity
Discount: None
Minimum Bill: $1.70 net per month
Surcharge: In certain communities bills are subject to a surcharge provided for
in Surcharge Rider.
Connection: Under the above rate the Company will make no extension for service
other than a normal service span. Where conditions are such that a long service
connection or extra transformer capacity, or both, are necessary, the customer
shall either pay the entire cost of such extra equipment or pay a monthly facil-
ities charge based on such costs.
The circuit serving the siren must be in conduit from the entrance to the motor
with an enclosed entrance switch box, which may be sealed and operated from an
external appliance.
Optional: In case the customer already has a service connection of sufficient
capacity to permit operation of the siren without unduly disturbing conditions on
the Company's nearby circuits, the siren may be connected at the option of the
customer on the load side of the customer's existing meter and the commercial
rate applied to the total load.
6 -77
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA)
ELECTRIC
Minnesota
FUEL CLAUSE RIDER
Fuel Clause Rider No. 1
There shall be added to or deducted from the net monthly bill 0.004 per kilowatt -hour for each 0.001a increase
above or decrease below 0.554¢ in the Fuel Cost per kilowatt -hour sales.
The Fuel Cost shall be the sum of the following for the most recent two month period:
a. The fossil and.nticlear fuel consumed in the Company's generating stations as recorded in Accounts 151
and 518.
b. The net energy . cost of energy purchases as recorded in Account 555 exclusive of capacity or demand
charges, when such energy is purchased on an economic dispatch basis.
c. The actual identifiable fossil and nuclear fuel costs associated with energy purchased for reasons other
than identified in (b) above, less
d. The fuel - related costs recovered through intersystem sales.
The kilowatt -hour sales shall be all kilowatt -hours sold excluding intersystem sales.
6-77
_ NW,
LIQUOR FUND
'
BALANCE SHEET-
CITY OF EDINA
As at June 30, 1977
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash:
Demand Deposits
$
465,738.01
Working Fund
3,500.00.
$ 469,238.01
Accounts Receivable
100.00
Loan To Other Funds
415,000.00
Inventory:
Liquor
$
326,538.79
Winei
208,456.38
Beer and Mix
46,184.28
581,179.45
Prepaid Expenses:
4,119.66
Unexpired Insurance
$
.Supplies Inventory
400.00
4,519.66
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
$1,470,037.12
FIXED ASSETS AT COST:
Land
$
152,518.85
Land Improvements
$ 21,474.17
Buildings
481,643.80
Furniture and Fixtures
149,325.01
Leasehold Improvements
3,035.55
$655,478.53
Less: Allowance for Depreciation
and Amortization
230,467.46
425,011.07
577.,529.92
Construction in Progress
57,924.09
635,454.01
TOTAL ASSETS
$2,105,491.13
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
Trade Accounts Payable
Accrued Payroll
Due To Other Funds
SURPLUS:
Invested in Fixed Assets
Unappropriated
LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS
$ 136,888.93
4,459.03
141,347.96
3,188.50
$ 635,454.01
10252500.66 1,960,954.67
$2,105,491.13
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE
CITY 01 EDINA
h E
A, 30 1977 and June 30. 1976
_ C= SAL S.
109,208.09
- = - 250,344.42_
5.359,552.51
="``7"- June30 116, 062.60
$
eICsS F;eF$ 243,489.91 42,537.56
EXPENSES
22,182.66
:7 6,365.62
19 892.13
- .='`^L 0E-' A71 48 440.41
5,902.85*
Y t.'0 F;
218,953.44.
195,512.91
9,374.99
523,674.44
Six Mont s n ing ,
214,596.83
219,022.28
606,153.16
63,325.96*
349.51*
INCREASE- DECREASE°
23,509.37*
59,094.97
82,478.72*
59,888.04*
3,761.78
125.36
1977
'� Grandview
ot a l.
50th St.
Y�r1-d�le
- Grandview Total-
•'•50th St.
Yorkdale_
Grandview
Total
$35,585.60 $142,367.36*
16.57
$913,611.25
240 345.08
-'
$181,737.41
xk�,l.e
$462,605.05
$413,916.79
$1,058,259.25
$249,790.43
$465,876.67
$380,830.25
$1,096,497.35
$ 68,053.02*
15,583.62*
$ 3,271.62*$
25,610.62
33,086.54 $
39,563.88
38,238.10*
49,590.88
- -
54,900.60
189,337.27
156,735.43
400,973.30
335,893.18,
70,484.22
84,049.46
163,726.65
154,81.6.13
117,171.55
112,128.26
351,382.42
350,993.85
30,389.83*
3,600.15
11,689.01
15,100.67*
$ 98,878.45
53,659.63
158,416.28
123,817.27
12 715.27
32 972.65
72415.74
15 325.13
11 727.66
34,468. 53
2 598.89*
115.40
987.61
1,495.88*
29,842..80
4 816.85
15 440.53
$525,799.13
$707,184.76
$1,E28,098.38
$411,739.85
$799,744.58
$621,857.72
$1,833,342.15
$116,625.36*
$26,054.55 $
85,327.04 $
5,243.77*
.12,832.71
9,087.02
28 205.81
26,146.17
- 63 439.00
7,870.58
$403,869.27
13 679.48
$786,065.10
11,082.31
$610,775.41
32 632.37
$1,800,709.78
1,216.44
$117,841.80*
_14,526.33
$11,528.22 $
15,063 .86
70,26'.18 $
30,806.63
36,050.4C'-
NE7 SA
$
$797,593.32
$681,038.59
$1,764,659.38
$62,410.17 $
196,851.01
$ 11,790.62*
$ 343.03_$_
1,222.66 $_10,224.93*
$ 49,774.31
_ C= SAL S.
109,208.09
- = - 250,344.42_
5.359,552.51
="``7"- June30 116, 062.60
$
eICsS F;eF$ 243,489.91 42,537.56
EXPENSES
22,182.66
:7 6,365.62
19 892.13
- .='`^L 0E-' A71 48 440.41
5,902.85*
Y t.'0 F;
218,953.44.
195,512.91
9,374.99
523,674.44
172,534.05
214,596.83
219,022.28
606,153.16
63,325.96*
349.51*
4,356.61
11,634.10*
23,509.37*
59,094.97
82,478.72*
59,888.04*
3,761.78
125.36
694 657.81
611,419.00
1,556 421.23
$2,080,095.67
357 693.93
$530,227.98
706 291.91
$920,888.74
552 324.03 1,616,309.87
$771,346.31 $2,222,463.03
60.45*
107
$170,675.47*
$ 7,277.49*
$35,585.60 $142,367.36*
16.57
$913,611.25
240 345.08
$806,931.91
224p771.77
581 179.45
184 292.56
266 131.02
251 703.95
702 127.53
68229.96*
25,785.94*
26,932.18*
120,948.08*
2,202.29*
$673,266.17
$582,160.14
$1,498,916.22
750.14
4 766.12
$345,935.42
$654,757.72
$519,642.36 $1,520,335.50
$
280,374.28
$102,445.51*
$ 15,396.29*
$18,508:4 5
$ 6,980.23*
$62,517.78 $
$ 7,745.40 $
21,419.28*
14,631.12*
881.78
$124,327.15
$ 98,878.45
$
265,743.16.$
57,933.85
$131,307.38
$ 91,133.05
3,524,83 $
67,310.46
$36,156.71 $
106,992.00 $
4,661._56* $
8,205.04 *$
33,215.76
29,842..80
'.CENT - +0 Nri 5,+.-'ES:,
.
85,241.22
28,048.63
32,574.63
25,886.90
86,510.16
5,865.97*
361.67*
641.13
2,614.80
3,955.90
1,897.51
1,268.94*
4,150.64
16,815.03
.12,832.71
_.::s
36,013.36
6;727.29
14,200.23
27 434.95
10,935.20
25,588.07
31,862.72
78 478.13
.
5 562.98*
2,912.90*
4,630.75*
13,106.63*
24 522.05
$ 74,552.84
20 957.32
$ 63,632.83
$
65 371.50
186,626.08
25 455.11
$ 60,231 03
$ 74,209 81
$62,410.17 $
196,851.01
$ 11,790.62*
$ 343.03_$_
1,222.66 $_10,224.93*
$ 49,774.31
$ 35,245.62
$
79,117.08
$ 2,297.18 *$ 57,097.57
$28,722.88 $
83,523.27
$ 3,605.67*
$ 7,523.26 *$
6,522.74 $
4,406.19*
I s, CC
3,471.99
9,374.99
8,413.09
.21,260.07
3,621.53
8,071.05
5,805.71
17,498.29
149.79
1,316.57
2,683.38
83.00
3,761.78
125.36
c•er or under
25:24
43.88*
61.31
42.67
.55*
60.45*
21.69*
82.69*
25.79
16.57
518.75
518.75
518.75
750.14
-0-
2 201.03
2,202.29
1 649.81
-0-
6,053.13
518.75
1,450.89*
2,202.29*
1,649.81*
5,302.99*
S
750.14
4 766.12
$ 9,331.11 $
8,474.40 $
22 571.63 $
5 822.01
10 212.89
7,433.83
23 468.73
1 055.89*
881.78
1 040.57
897.10*
't"T 1NCOM.
1-,136.73*
$ 59,105 42 $
43,720.02 .
101,688.71 $
3,524,83 $
67,310.46
$36,156.71 $
106,992.00 $
4,661._56* $
8,205.04 *$
7,563.31 $
5,303.29*
'.CENT - +0 Nri 5,+.-'ES:,
.
14.87%
15.59%
14.52%
15.06%
14.34%
16.70%
14.92%
15.57%
_.::s
16.94
9.35
9.34
10.58
14.91
9.44
10.22
10.93
2.07 %*
6.24%
5.18%
4.48%
.57%*
7.26%
4.70%
4.64%
1.67
1.17
1.24
1.28
1.44
1.29.
1.22
1.30
Nc 11 INCOME'
40%*
7 41%
6.42%
5.76%
87%
8.56%
5.92%
5.94%
i" . .. s
ALL FUNDS
SURPLUS AND RESERVES
CITY OF EDINA
As of December 31, 1976
GENERAL FUND
Reserve for Commitments:
Capital improvements (street replacements)
Capital improvements
Concrete replacement
Sidewalk construction
Alley construction
Bridge renovation
Curb repair
Planning
Contingencies
Improvements -City Hall
Street name signs
Contract work -lakes and ponds
Accounting system
Microfilm - equipment and supplies
Backhoe and sweeper for bobcat
Storage loft and rack
Police- pension supplement
Assessing - Schools
Ornamental lighting
Reserve for replacements:
Sweeper
Grader
Floor hoist
Beds -Fire
Siren - Civilian Defense
Unappropriated surplus
REVENUE SHARING FUND
1977 budget item
Unappropriated surplus
POOR FUND
Unappropriated surplus (deficit)
PARK FUND
Parkland dedication
Unappropriated surplus (deficit)
- SWIMMING -POOL -FUND - -- --
Unappropriated surplus (deficit)
GOLF COURSE FUND
Reserve for debt service (must be maintained, until all bonds
are paid -1987)
Unappropriated surplus
$ 179,538
100,000
25,000
10,500
3,000
17,000
9,000
4,500
88,596
3,500
18,000
25,000
20,000
5,550
2,500
2,000
40,000
Z, 000
4,000
$ 8,500
8,500
1,400
9,000
1,500
28,900
$ 588,584
158,878
$ 747,462
$ 136,331
(47,867)
$ 52,300
24,587
$ 150,000
147,520
$ 297,520
(1,940)
88,464
(16,393)
76,887
a
ALL FUNDS
SURPLUS AND RESERVES (CONT'D)
RECREATION CENTER FUND (Ice Arena)
Reserve for debt service (Must be maintained until all bonds
are paid -1982)
Unappropriated surplus (deficit)
GUN RANGE FUND
Unappropriated surplus (deficit)
PARK SINKING FUND
Unappropriated surplus (Not available until all bonds are
paid -1981)
PARK CONSTRUCTION FUND
Reserve for construction
CONSTRUCTION FUND
Reserve for construction (Available, but presently being used for
temporary financing of assessed projects)
$ 36,500
(128,800) $ (92,300)
PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND
Unappropriated surplus ( 100,000 loaned to Construction Fund
for temporary financing of assessed projects,
and $100,000 loaned to Recreation Center Fund
(Arena) for construction costs)
SANITARY SEWER N0. 53 FUND
Unappropriated surplus
IMPROVEMENT_ BOND REDEMPTION FUND
Unappropriated surplus (Not available until all bonds are
paid -1984)
MUNICIPAL STATE -AID STREET BONDS FUND
Unappropriated surplus (deficit)
ADVANCE FUNDING HIGHWAY BONDS FUND
Unappropriated surplus (Not available until bonds are
paid -1977)
WATERWORKS FUND
Appropriated surplus (Not available until all bonds are
paid -1980)
Unappropriated
SEWER RENTAL FUND
Unappropriated surplus (deficit)
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
Unappropriated surplus
Less:
Amount invested in merchandise inventory
Loan to Golf Course Fund
Loan to Recreation Center Fund (Arena)
$ 56,550
1,015,470
$1,255,458
( 9,548)
130,771
60,008
40,617
407,389
42,843
3,120,379
(424)
47,365
1,072,020
224,058
$524,075
245,000
170,000 939,075 316,383
TOTAL $6,551,561
I
ALL FUNDS
SURPLUS AND RESERVES (CONT'D)
SUMMARY
Available
Contributions for specific purpose
Reserve for debt service
Improvement fund surplus
- Temporary financing of construction projects
Loans to another fund
Reserve for capital improvements
Appropriated for 1977 budget
$2,401,210
136,331
276,121
3,167,744
40,617
100,000
279,538
150,000
TOTAL $6,551,561
GERRY SIKORSKI
Senator 51 st District
9367 Otchipwe
Stillwater. Minnesota 55082
and
G -24 State Capitol Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Phone: 296 -4700
Ii'— Ufil:7V\.11 1151
UUMiTs,"".
State of Minnesota
July 27, 1977
To: Metropolitan Area Citizens and Public Officials
From: Senator Gerry Sikorski, Chairman
Task Force on Metropolitan Affairs
Senate Governmental Operations Committee
The Task Force on Metropolitan Affairs of the Senate's Governmental
Operations Committee will hold a series of regional hearings in August
to get the views of metropolitan area citizens and public officials on
two issues related to metropolitan government in the 7- county metro-
politan area.
The Task Force is interested in your views on whether the Metropolitan
Council should become an elected body, and whether the provisions of the
Administrative Procedures Act should be extended to cover the Metro
Council and metropolitan agencies. You may_ testify on one or both of the
issues.
The hearing for citizens and public officials living in Metropolitan
Council.districts 9, 11, 15 and 16 (Dakota, Scott, Carver and part
of suburban Hennepin County) will be held on Wednesday, August 24th,
in the Auditorium of Penn Junior High School, 2501 West 84th Street
(corner of 84th Street and Penn Avenue), Bloomington, Minnesota at
7:30 p.m..
Those wishing to participate in the hearing should write the Task Force
on Metropolitan Affairs, Room 205 State Capitol, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155,
or call 296 -4175, so that you can be listed on the agenda. While it is
not necessary to be listed on the agenda in advance, your cooperation will .
help us to.accommodate all -those wishing.to testify.. If.you wish to submit
written testimony, it should be sent to the Task Force on Metropolitan
Affairs, Room 205 State Capitol, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55155. The deadline
- - - - - -- --------.._..-- - - - --
for written testimony is September 2, 1977.
Both Senator Chenoweth, as chairman of the Governmental Operations Committee,
and I hope that these hearings will afford all interested citizens an
opportunity to give their views on these important issues.
CONINUTTEES • Commerce • Health, Welfare & Corrections • Judiciary • Transportation
C.(,, ,(
Z
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE
HOUSING AIJD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
HELD TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1977
EDINA CITY HALL
1. Roll Call: Charles W. Freeburg, Chairman
Lawrence W. Rixe
Frederick S. Richards
William F. Greer (arrived at 7:45 P.M.)
Staff Present: Robert C. Dunn, Executive Director
Gordon Hughes, City Planner
Lynnae Nye,. Secretary
2. Approval of the Minutes of the July 5, 1977, H.R.A. Meeting.
Mr. Rixe moved the July 5, 1977, H.R.A. minutes be approved as written and
submitted. Mr. Freeburg seconded the motion, and upon roll call the following voted:
Ayes: Mr. Rixe, Mr. Freeburg, Mr. Richards.
Nays: None.
Motion carried.
3. Proposed Southeast Edina Tax Increment District.
Mr. Freeburg stated he attended the July 11th City Council meeting and
requested clarification of what the Council was directing the H.R.A. to do. He
reported the Council wants the benefit of the H.R.A.'s knowledge and expertise with
regard to tax increment financing, and they want any thoughts or recommendations
the H.R.A. might have regarding the establishment of a tar, increment district in
this particular area. The Council further indicated they want the H.R.A.'s
recommendations regardless of its future disposition.
Mr. Freeburg presented several suggestions as "food for thought" and lengthy
discussion was held. In reply to Mr. Freeburg, Mr. Dunn stated he consulted a
member of the Dorsey law firm regarding the required tax increment district findings
and conditions and whether it would be possible to make those necessary findings in
this. particular situation. He stated it appears there would be no legal problem
whatsoever in meeting the required conditions and establishing a tax increment district
in Southeast Edina.
Mr. Freeburg felt that if a tax increment district is apropos for this area, it
should be limited to currently visible projects, those which are zoned and signed up,
and future possible development should not be relied upon to pay off the bonds. Mr.
Richards suggested that if the large district were established, the present low land
values and tax base could be captured for all of the undeveloped land in the area.
The H.R.A. generally agreed it would be reasonable to create the largest district
(alternative 3), but that bonds should be sold in stages as specific development .
proposals are presented and approved.
In reply to Mr. Rixe, Mr. Dunn stated that the Southeast Edina Land Use Plan and
the Housing Assistance Plan apply to this area and arc official City policy at this
time. Mr. Freeburg noted that establishing a district and reducing land costs will
result in less density, fewer units, and less traffic; in addition, subsidized housing
would be precluded without the proposed land cost write down. Mr. Richards stated
Page 2 -- 7 -19 -77 H.R.A. Minutes
the City has agreed to try to meet and comply with the Metropolitan Council's
guidelines, which call for the provision of subsidized housing in order to obtain
federal funds. Mr. Freeburg observed that inasmuch as the City's Housing Assistance
Plan calls for subsidized housing units in this area and the Southeast Edina Land
Use Plan proposes potential multiple residential development, tax increment finance
could be used to achieve lower densities and facilitate the construction of
subsidized housing units.
After lengthy
themselves to tax
If the City wants
increment financh
Southeast Edina.
recommendations:
discussion
increment
subsidized
ig would be
The H.R.A.
the H.R.A. agreed the proposed projects appear to lend
financing, and fir. Rixe made the following motion:
housing, lower densities, and federal funds, then tax
one method which could be used to finance a project in
would, however, make the following comments and
1. According to the City's legal counsel, it appears the City would have no
legal problems in making the findings necessary to establish a tax increment
district.
2. The timing is such that if a district is to be created it should be created
before the end of the year, since the tax increment statutes are expected to
be substantially revised during the next legislative session.
3. Bond sales should be phased to coincide with development. Bonds should be
issued only for development projects which are in hand, signed up, and
,properly zoned, so there is no question about the payback schedule.
4. Provided there is no problem with future, phased bond sales, the district
should include the maximum land area to take advantage of present low land
values and to avoid any further complications which might result from possible
changes in the law. If bond sales cannot be phased, then the district
should be limited to only those projects which have proper zoning and have
been approved.
Finally, the H.R.A. would request that the City Council either authorize or not
authorize the H.R.A. to prepare.and implement the proposed tax increment plan for
the establishment of a district in Southeast Edina. Mr. Greer seconded the motion,
and upon roll call the following voted:
Ayes:. Mr. Rixe, Mr. Freeburg, Mr. Greer, fir. Richards.
Nays: None.
Motion carried.
4. Adjournment.
Mr. Richards moved the July 19, 1977, H.R.A. meeting be adjourned. Mr. Greer
seconded the motion, and upon roll call the following voted:
Ayes: 11r. Rixe, Mr. Freeburg, Mr. Greer, .fir. Richards.
Nays: None.
Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert C. Dunn, Executive
Director
%_ . =f
AGENDA
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 1, 1977
7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL
MINUTES of July 18, 1977, approved as presented or corrected by motion of SC__ ,
seconded by S
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED IMPROVE EM NTS Presentation by Manager and Engineer.
Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed, 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to
pass. (Continued from May 16, 1977)
A. Grading and Graveling Improvement No. P -C -124 - Amundson Ave. from Cahill
(��� �v Road to Dewey Hill Road
" �� B. Street Improvement No. P -BA -226 - Amundson Ave. from Cahill Road to Dewey
J Hill Road
C. Grading & Graveling Improvement No. P -C -126 - Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill
Road to W. 78th St.
D. Street Improvement No. P -BA -227 - Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill Rcad to
W. 78th Street
II. REPORTS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PLANNING MATTERS Presentation of Planning
Department. Spectators heard. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance requires
offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading
or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, Plats, Buildable Lots,
Flood Plain Permits and Appeals to Administrative. or Board of Appeals and
Adjustments Decisions require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote.
rIh » Pu.- A. Lots 3 and 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172 - 4626 France Ave.. S.
� Rezoning from R -1 Residential Dis ric to R -2 Multiple Residential
n
I14� District - Z -77 -11 (7/6/77) 's.t
B. Gabbert and Gabbert Registered Lan Survey - West of York Ave. and North of
W. 70th Street. 61c, S/
1. Rezoning from C -4 Commercial District to C -3 Commercial District Z -77 -14
ni' 2. Preliminary Plat (7/6/77)
w Lot 4, Block 1, Braemar Parc - Appeal --of dmini rative Deci;Ion - James Otto
$ /lam J Eberhardt - 'Appeal of Decision of Board of Appeals - Sign Ordinance &J �-j
l Edina Interchange Center Fourth Addition - Located West of Ohms Lane andj,
North and West of W. 74th �� - G ��- C•
1. Final Plat Approval - S -77 -11 (Preliminary Approval 6/20/77)
OEdina Interchange Center Fifth Addition - Located East of Cahill Road and
South of Dewey Hill Road O /C
1. Final Plat Approval - S -77 -12 (Preliminary Approval 6/20/77)
G' Lots 14 and 15, Hyde Park 1st Addition - 6000 Bonnie Brae Dr. (Dale Johnson
Builders)
1. Lot Division - LD -77 -13 (7/27/77) D �<
11. Set Hearing Dates
1. Rainbow Management Division - SW corner W. 51st St. and France Ave.
R -1 Residential District to-SR-4 Senior Residence District - 'Z -77 -16
(7/27/77) S1,5- - 4%S
2. Oliver. Development Company - Blake Ridge Estates - Located South of
Vernon Ave. and West of Olinger Blvd. PRD -3 Planned Residential District
to R -1 Single Family Residential District and Plat - S -77 -14 and Z -77 -13
(7/27/77) 9-115- �/s I. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. - Change in Legal Description for Lot Division
(South and East of Vernon Ave and West of Brookside Ave. between Grocery
Store and Hardware Store) (Minutes of 6/6/77)
e1s-
August 1, 1977, Agenda
Page Two
III. COMMUNICATIONS — S C /
A.
B.
C .
D.
Inglewood Ave. Traffic Problem -14'� L -'I'
C. Wesley Andersen - Morningside Water Pressure-
100% Petition - Waterman Ave.. Cul -de -sac - Authorize Improvement No. C -127
Petition for Curb and Gutter - Concord Ave. between W. 58th and W. 60th St.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Connection Charge - Lot 3, Block 1, Gleason 3rd Addition -- WM- 186 /SS -277
B. Restraining Order - Fence at 5017 Windsor Ave. 1U�
C. Minimum Lot Size Requirements Policy
Lots 7 and 8, Griffis Subdivision of Block 18, Mendelssohn Addition -
Addition.to Minutes of 6/6/77 j
E Commission and Board.Appointments�
Retirement Policy - PERA /ICMA
G. South Hennepin Human Services Council - Position Paper and Annual Report
(Continued from 5/2/77) -• •• 9l /,;)- ': �• /s_ \
H. Northern States Power Rates - e3" `� _Y , �-S-
I. Informal Bids - Concrete Repair '�"-f°°`{" 8 _ (f/s.
J. Authorize Purchase of 2 Underbody Scrapers
K. H.R.A. Minutes of 7/19/77 - Southeast Edina Tax Increment District
L. Senate File 1507 - Lt,�,4
M. Order of Council Business
N. Supreme Court Decision on Grandview Cemetery P o
0. Senate Hearing on Metropolitan Council Affairs
P. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council
Q. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items
V. ANY OTHERS DESIRING TO BE HEARD BY COUNCIL
VI. FINANCE
A. Liquor Report as of June 30, 1977 r
B. Surplus and Reserves as of December 31, 1976
C. Claims Paid: Motion of S _, seconded by ,
for payment of the following claims per Pre -List: General Fund, $83,320.88;
Poor Fund, $18,795.35; Park Fund, $2,810.45; Art Center, $127.35; Park
Construction, $5,393.00; Park. Sinking, $3,930.00; Swimming Pool, $3,037.19;
Golf Course, $8,020.00; Recreation Center, $35,264.14; Gun Range, $168.72;
Water Fund, $24,939.34; Sewer Fund, $1,655.69; Liquor Fun $160,01.7.07;
Construction $116,687.09; I'BR Fund, $2,2'20.45; Total, $4 ,386.7?"
/D ""'
A-L
�O,3
Aa
CL
II
Z
. ,_
___ - -__ _ �__�'�.�., -ems �_ ____ -_ __ - --._ _�..__�_- _ __ -_ -
�_ . _ -___ _,_ _ _ ___ __ __ � _ __ _:�_ -__r _ __ - __ � - __
- - -�
- -mow. _0✓!��� 1 �• � _ _ _w�'�'� -alp t�asc T P _ i . L e �. _�� � x q`
1
..
- - - -- - - - -- - � - -- - - -� � - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - -- --- -- - -- °� = -- K - - --
�i
---- - - - - -- I - - - --- - - - - -- - =- - �- - - -- --=- -- -------- - - - - -- - --
--
-- 1 - -- - --- - -- - - -- - -- — �_.. __ - -- — -- — - -- — - -- — -- —
�- - I - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -- - -- - . --- - - - --- --- - - - - -- - - _- -- - -- - - --
- -- --- - -- - - - -- . J --- - - - - -- ------ �-- - - - - -- -- - _ - - - -- - -- - = -- -- - = - �_-= �------ - - - - --
__ l� �I _ - _ � __
LA
ZA
Al
CIA- R
Nvx
Tj- -
_®r -_Q - -•�-�: -- - - - _� /- cam•. -�
tO
`yam
� � L 4 �L-i' � ✓• '^+.�' V
%�
-D'
- -- -- -'�� ,,
11
- - - .- - - -- 1j.
- s_ �. - - -- : -7LO -- - .
LL
V
t�,� 1
--_
� --
- -�- - -- — - — ---- - - —= —� — — -- — ' —a —�— —
—vv =— — - - -- — --
oa
-- -
- �Q--- - -- �-y-�, -� -, - -- - - - - - - -- - - 77
' • . G
_ --
' .lam
•
' I� � /O
-- �-- - =- - - w- = ! - - - -- - - - =�- - -- - V_ -- -- - - - - --
`LA
__ - - -- _
jo4
,- I 20 0 -_ -- - -� LU
_ -. 3 .
L-7-
= - - -- ter' - z�--- -- -- - --
1
------------ ------------------ - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- -
It
jtj�
r
Ar
C-- - - `_ - --
- -- - - --
'
-_-6, _
G
C.�.
-
r
CD
r
-- -------------------------
�77
ti
T1
47
i
!
..
_._ �
�- �L. _ GSA._ - - -- --T-�
� -
�
V/j
- /�� �/ _ / -�,�
/
_
-� 6'_-- -
.
- -- - - -;
- �-- G -��� -- - - -- - - - =- -� _---__
- ____
.
-�
- �
l
.�
�.
____ ____
-Z� _ ___ __ -
_
; �� �
�._-
.
_
-
_ J
_I 2 - _
- � �
.
--
h �
-
-------------
-------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------
It
LU
1-��
- 9 -3
It
l
- _'
-�_� -_ _ _______• __� -rte ,�__ _ -_�.._
-�`
- -
eq
TA-, .
0
- - r - -- -. - - - - - -� - -- ti`s- Imo'- - - - - -- -
-- o - -- - - - -. c t - — - - --
-r -- - -- - -" -�'-
Tf
s
SOUTHEAST EDINA TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT PLAN TO BE PREPARED. Mr. Dunn called.Council's
attention to the H.R.A. Minutes of July 19, 1977, in which the H.R.A. requested the
Council to "either authorize or not authorize the H.R.A. to prepare and implement the
proposed tax increment plan for the establishment of a district in Southeast Edina ".
Councilman Richards said that he thought that at its last meeting the H.R.A. had
indicated that if something is to be done in the area, the tax increment district makes
sense and that it should be used as a financial vehicle, but that only the Council
could decide as to whether or not the City feels it is important to create an H.R.A.
district in Southeast Edina to meet other policies and criteria that are in existence
today, i.e., low and moderate income housing. He clarified that if the Council
decides in the affirmative, then the H.R.A. should seriously consider which of the
three( afternatives should be used for the tax increment financing district. He
recommended that the Council now direct Mr. Luce, with the understanding that the
project is not going to cost the City one cent, except for the legal fees, to prepare
a plan for the largest area and that, hopefully, that plan would enable the H.R.A.
and Council to meet jointly and determine which size area should be developed if the
tax increment district is, in fact, approved. Mr. Hughes said that the Planning
staff has already developed plans for the area and recommended that the Council meet
with the H.R.A. on August 2, 1977, to review the basic information included in those
plans. Councilman Richards emphasized that the Council has seen nothing of the largest
proposal and that all of the facts must be available so that they will know the economic
impact on the City before they decide on any of the plans. Mr. Luce said that his..
client, Ryan Construction Company, felt some urgency because of the possible changes
in the possible changes in the tax increment law. He recalled that, at the Council
Meeting of June 20, 1977, he had indicated that the smallest plan would be paid in
four years (1981), that the middle plan would be paid by 1982 and that he is relying
on the Council and the staff to tell him just what should be included in the largest
plan. He spoke of traffic and tax problems in the area, but estimated that all of the
plans could be accomplished within 4z to 6 years.
e
He said that he would prepare the largest plan for consideration. Motion of
Councilman Shaw was seconded by Councilman Courtney, directing Mr. Luce and the
staff to prepare a plan for the ax increment district.,ti
Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg
Nays: None ,,))
Motion carried.
(Motion for I -A thru D)
Motion of Councilman Richards was seconded by Councilman Courtney, that the hearings
on Improvements Nos. P -C -124, P -BA -226, P -C -126 and P -BA -227 be continued until
September 12, 1977, to give the City Attorney an opportunity to determine whether or
thy' �ro
not it would be legal to approve only j. portion of the project /__ ____:= acquisition
if it should be authorize
of the Johnston property .(which would be assessed against the entire project /at a d
later date) And :. ;.so:_that the._:Engineers and the Planning C on can make a recom-
mendation as to whether or not the Southwest Edina should be retained,- .andlor amended Q4
Ayes: All C�,�S t 4
ALSO - HOW DO I WRITE THE FINAL PLAT FOR EDINA INTERCHANGE CENTER 4TH ADDITION? Just
as usual and not sign it until the hardshells arq in as approved? (See minutes of 7/11/77)
k"o
ALSO - HOW ABOUT THE ORDER OF COUNCIL BUSINESS? DID YOU SAY I NEED A RESOLUTION? I 1
THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SOMETHING OR OTHER (Agenda I em IV -M) y nl
4 / _