HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-08-02_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA .
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 2, 1976
7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL
.MINUTES of July 12 and 19, 1976, approved as presented or corrected by,motion.of
seconded by
RECOGNITION OF PETER AND CHRISTINE SANTRIZOS
AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF MINNEAPOLIS - PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AWARD
I. PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNTY ROAD 18 /VALLEY VIEW ROAD INTERCHANGE Presentation
by City Manager and Engineer. Spectators heard. Action of Council by
Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass
II. PUBLIC HEARING.ON H.R.A. MATTER Presentation by Executive Director. Spect-
ators heard. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading
A. Second Reading
1. Ordinance No. 1212 -A1 - Establishing maintenance, public services
and public safety for District
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ZONING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presenta-
tion by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Reading requires offer-
ing of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or
if Second Reading should be waived..
A. Second Reading
1. City..of Edina - Lunds' Parking Lot.- located at Southeast corner of
W. 50th Street and Halifax Ave. - C -2 and C -4 Commercial Districts
to APD Automobile Parking District - Z -76 -9 (6/2/76)
B. First Reading
1. Rainbow Management Division - Part of Lots 56 and 58, Auditors Sub-
division 172 - Located at the Southwest corner of W. 51st St. and
France Ave. - R -1 Residential District to R -4 Multiple Residential
District - Z -76 -11 (7/7/76)
2. Grimes House - Part of Lot 15, Melvin Grimes Subdivision ,.-.and Lots
8, 9 and 10, Grimes Homestead (4200 W. 44th-Street) - R -1 Single
Family District to R -1 Heritage Preservation District - Z -76 -10
(7/7/76)
3. Shadow Hill (Robert E. Hanson) - Generally located at the Northeast
corner of the Crosstown Highway and County Road 18, adjacent to
Lincoln Drive and Vernon Ave. - R -1 Residential District to P.RD -3
Multiple Residential District - Z -76 -8 (7/7/76)
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PRELIMINARY PLATS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presenta-
tion by Planning Department. Spectators heard. Action of Council by Resolu-
tion. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Shadow Hill (Robert E. Hanson) - Generally located at the Northeast corner
of the Crosstown Highway and County Road 18 adjacent to Lincoln Drive and
Vernon Ave. - S -76 -10 (7/7/76)
B. McCauley Heights 6th Addition - Generally located East of McCauley Trail,
South of McCauley Lane and North of Margaret's Lane - S -76 -14 (7/7/76)
C. Deer Run - Generally located West of Olinger Road and North of Olinger
Blvd. - S -76 -15 (7/7/76)
V. PUBLIC HEARING ON FLOOD PLAIN PERMIT Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presenta-
tion by Planning Department. Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed,
action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Lot 1, Block 1, Gleason 3rd Addition - FP -3 (7/7/76)
VI. AWARD OF BIDS Tabulation and Recommendation by City Manager. Action of Council
by Motion'.
A. Radio Service
VII. COWTUNICATIONS
A. Petitions
1. Barry M. Willmert - Sanitary Sewer and Watermain - Parcels 4510 and
1510, Plat 73604 (6630 Normandale Road)
Agenda
August 2, 1976
Page Two
VIII.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Planning Conunission
1.. Lot Divisions
a. Lot 20, Block 1, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition- LD -76 -7 (7/28/76)
Edina Baptist Church
b. Lot 19, Block 1, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition - LD -76 -8 (7/28/76)
Edina Baptist Church
2.' Set Hearing Dates
a:._ Lot Divisions
(1) Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 1, Minnekanda Vista 3rd Addition
LD -76 -6 (7/28/76)
b. Preliminary Plats
(1) Wright's Addition - Generally located East of Valley View Road
at the end of Moccasin Valley Road - 5 -76 -13 (7/28/76)
(2) Braemar's Homestead Addition - Generally located East and South
of Valley View Road and North and West of_Mark Terrace Drive
S -76 -18 (7/28/76)
(3) Robert Middlemist 2nd Addition - Generally located West of
Olinger Road, South of Vernon Avenue and East of the Blake
Ridge townhouses - 5 -76 -16 (7/28/76)
(4). Hyde Park 2nd Addition - Generally located South of Dewey
Hill Road and East of Gleason Road - 7 -76 -19 (7/28/76)
B. Miller Property (Continued from 7/29/76)
C. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities - Executive Director's Annual
Report
D. Metropolitan Council Housing Policy Plan
E. Suit - Douglas R. Schmitt
F. Watermain Improvement 127 - Connection Charge - Lot 16, Valley View Heights
Addition
G. Post Agenda Developments and Miscellaneous Items
1. Public Hearing - N.S.P. Electric Rate Increases
IX. ORDINANCES First Reading requires offering of ordinance only. 4 /5.favorable
rollcall vote if Second Reading should be waived.
A. First Reading -
1. Municipal Parking Facility Regulations Ordinance 1232
2. Campaign Signs - Ordinance No, 451 -A4
X. ANY OTHERS WHO DESIRE HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL
XI. FINANCE
A. Claims paid. Motion of , seconded by _, for pay-
ment of the following claims as per Pre List: General Fund, $244,618.78;
Park Fund, $10,675.68; Park Construction, $243.50; Park Sinking, $4,912.50;
Swimming, $4,771.57; Golf, $4,391.71; Arena, $43,052.55; Gun, $10.06;
Water, $14,104.73; Sewer, $807.98; Liquor, $105,698.40; Construction; IBR,
3,497.70; Total, $437,314..87
B. Repairs of Fire Department Aerial Ladder Truck
Mr. Warren Hyde
Edina City Manager
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Mn. 55424
Dear Mr. Hyde:
July 26, 1976
This is in reference to our conversation of last week, regarding
Peter Santrizos and the Convention Grill and Fountain.
As I mentioned, Peter and Catkerttie— Santrizos are retiring as of
this coming Saturday, July 31; following 35 years of service to
Edina- Morningside and Southwest Minneapolis.
I think it would be a grand gesture if the City Council of Edina
would work up a resolution commending the Santrizos' for many years
of dedicated service to the community.
They are both such sentimentalists, that this would really be something
well appreciated.
They live ay 3422 West 46th Street in Minneapolis, Mn. 55410/
Thank You,
i
Hal hnson
Council Action
Valley View /ffYry 18 Interchange
From May, 1973 to Aug. 2, X976
May 7, 1973 Citizens' Task Force Established
Jan. 20, 1974 Council decided Valley View cul-de -sac should wait until
interchange completed.
Feb. 4, 1974 Task Force recommended
Partial access interchange
Cul-de-sac Valley View
After above completed, reconsider link between Valley
Viewand interchange
Council approved in principle recormrendations of Task Force
for limited access interchange
CONSULTANTIS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, - Full access interchange
May 6, 1974 County preliminary plans and right -of -way acquisition presented
Referred to Task Force
May 20, 1974 Continued to June 17
June 17 If ° td Aug 5 t
Aug 5 " Layout G dated Feb 25, 1974, amended by McCauley Trail revision, 8{27y#
and bikeway route � conceptually approved by Council
Dec. 2 74 Council considered staff recxommendations on results of
symposium on western Edina traffic problems. No specific
action. on Valley View -18 recommendations. Primary attention
given'to Parkwood Knolls (Dovre Drive extension authorized)
Staff recommended that full access be implemented or, at least,
the land for right -of -way be reserved if Council determines that
full access is not needed now .
3/15/76 Council discusses Bike Path in re Valley View /18
4/5/76 Council approves County Plans and specifications
t-rith limited access and cul -de -sac on Valley View west of
hair -pin turn
June 21, 1976 New Petitions received from about .0 300 residents
asking for full access, cul de sac, and link.
August 2, 1976 Council considers above.
j
THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF MINNEAPOLIS
La Salle at Thirteenth Street • Minneapolis, Minn. 55403 - (612) 332 -0255
July 16, 1976
Honorable James Van Vulkenburg
Mayor of Edina
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mayor Van Valkenburg:
It is a pleasure to inform you that once again Edina's excell-
ent record in the field of pedestrian safety during the past
year has been recognized by the American Automobile Association
in its 37th Annual Pedestrian Safety Inventory.
We extend our congratulations to you and Police Chief Merfeld
for this achievement. It is a real credit to Edina and its
fine citizens.
In token of the appreciation of the national AAA.for your out-
standing efforts in this vital area, an inscribed award plaque
is being sent to you.
If you would like your award presented before your city council
please let me know so I may attempt to make the needed arrange-
ments.
Again, please accept our sincere thanks for this excellent per-
formance. We wish you many years of continued success in the
future.
.Sincerely,
pal
Paul G. Nelson
Director, Public Relations
& Traffic Safety
PGN:clf
... SERVING MEMBERS AND THE COMMUNITY SINCE 1902
I'OPUtf ;1'TCiN GROUP c CITY Edina STAN MN
-fin n n - �8�
Nu. Of CI'fI1:S Ri: I'.TI \G_ 3�4 A��1NUPedestrian Safety Citation - 1 year
IVINN'ER' S FAC1 SHEET
1976 A-VX PEDESTRIAN WE`1�- IINVEWORY PROGRta'`•1
2.462 CITIES A� 29 SI NTES REPORfING
GR.,W AWARD 1; IIMTERS
111 States. South Dakota
1lmong .• ••••'''••" ,., San Diego, California
Cities Over 500,000 Population.......... .• ... Oceanside, California
Cities 50,000 to 500,000 P_�ion..........•••• .......... Garfield Heights, Ohio
Cities Under 50,000 Popular :ion .....................
Your City's Score
Score Leading Score in Group Earned
Total Program & Record Score 69% Garfield l l e i g h t s, Ohio 91 w
Pedest• ian Death f, Injury Score 6706 Several Cities Tied 100 b
Pedestrian Program Activities Score 716 Garfield Heights, Ohio 9 4
1975
Pedestrian
Death Rate
(per 100,000 POP.) 0.0
Group
Pedestrian
Death Rate---?- n
1975
Pedestrian
Injury Rate
(per 100,000 Pop.)22
Group
Pedestrian
Injury Rater
PREVIOUS AWARDS
For th�� Year
1939
1940
1941
194 2
1943
1944
1945
194 fi _
1947
.1 948
1949
1950
i951
1952
1953 —
1954 _
1955 _
1956 _
1957 _
1958
1959 , j "2_-�
19601,1-, -3 ._
1961
1962 _
1963
1964 I._
1965 C -:L _
1966 _
1967 _
1965 _
1969
1970
1971
1972 -f
1973
1974
1975, -1_
Code
'
G . A.
Grand Award
N.E.
Award for Excellence
A.M.
Award of Merit
1st P1.
First Place
2nd Pl.
Second Place
3rd P1.
Ibird Place
S.C.
Special Citation (for)
PPA
Pedestrian Program Activities
PI
Program Improvement
CR
Casualty Record
ND'f
No Pedestrian Death Certificate
E'SC
Pedestrian Safety Citation
(Under 10 years without a
Pedestrian fatality)
PSA
Pedestrian Safety :Achievement
(10 or more year_, without a
pcxlcstrian fatality)
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, in 1941 Christine and Peter Santrizos opened the Convention
Grill and Fountain at 3912 Sunnyside Road in the Village of Morningside,
before its annexation by the City of Edina; and
WHEREAS, during the thirty -five years in which they owned and operated
the Convention Grill and Fountain, Christine and Peter Santrizos have
become an integral part of the community and have endeared themselves
to many customers who have patronized the Convention Grill and Fountain
for many years; and
WHEREAS, Christine and Peter Santrizos retired from active business on
July 31, 1976;
SOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby
express its thanks to
MR. AND MRS. PETER SANTRIZOS
for their contribution to life in this community and does further
express most sincere good wishes for every khppiness in their retire-
ment.
DATED this 2nd day of August, 1976.
James Van Valkenburg
Mayor
11�1
f
I
I
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Presiden t
Josephine Nunn
Champlin
Vice President
Lyall Schwarzkopf
Minneapolis
Past President
Clyde Allen
Bloomington
Richard Asleson
Apple Valley
Jack Bailey
Minnetonka
Robert Bruton
Maplewood
J ames Cosby
Hastings
Wayne Courtney
Edina
June Demos
Roseville
Maynard Eder
Lake Elmo
Robert Erickson
Maple Grove
Lyle Hanks
St. Louis Park
David Hozza
St. Paul
Tom Johnson
Minneapolis
Thomas Kelley
St. Paul
Duane Miedtke
St. Anthony
Bruce Nawrocki
Columbia Heights
Larry Thompson
Wayzata
Executive Director
Vern Peterson
07 r-
association of
metropolitan
municipalities
300 hanover bldg. 480 cedar street
st. paul, minnesola 55101 (612) 222 -2861 June 30 ,. 1976
Dear Member City Official:
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities has just
completed its second year of operation and I am excited
and encouraged as we begin our third year. Although we
have passed through some difficult times during the past
two years in dealing with some controversial issues and
concerns, I was very pleased with the attitude and unity
exhibited by the member officials at our May 19th Annual
Meeting. We can also be pleased with the high percentage
of member municipalities that were represented at this
meeting. While we all would prefer 100% attendance, most
similar organizations would be highly satisfied to have
the 80% attendance which we had.
Due to the desire to allocate as much time at the Annual
Meeting to the By -Laws discussion and the election of of-
ficers and board members, the Executive Director.'.•s Annual
Report, which is required by the By -Laws, was not de-
livered verbally. Therefore, enclosed is a copy of a
written report and related data.
I would appreciate it if you would distribute this mater -
ial to your Mayor and Councilmembers.
Thank you.
VP:sb
Sincerely,
V" Ft7"
Vern Peterson
Executive Director
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S ANNUAL REPORT
FOR
1975 -1976 FISCAL YEAR
MEMBERSHIP INVOLVEMENT
This past year can best be characterized as the'year of involvement
by member city officials. While precise records are not available
from previous years, it would appear'^ °that the number of city offi-
cials who actually participated in the study. committee process ex-
ceeded any previous year for metropolita -n municipal organizations
by a large margin. In September of 1975, five legislative policy
committees were appointed by the Board of Directors consisting of
a total of over 100 member city officials representing 35 cities.
In addition to these committees which have been'working to develop
the legislative policies recommendation for the 1977 -78 biennium,
a By -Laws Committee and a Nominating Committee, consisting of eight
members each, also functioned during the year. In total, officials
from 38 of the 51 Association member municipalities participated
directly in the committee process during this past year. The five
legislative policy committees had a combined total of 65 committee
or sub- committee meetings.
LEGISLATIVE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
The primary. function of the Association is to represent the collec-
tive interests of its members before the Legislature and the Metro-
politan Council and its related agencies. The 1976 session was
relatively of .short duration and did not deal in any substantive
manner with-Municipal Revenues and Taxes. Consequently, our pri-
mary efforts were directed towards several pieces of legislation
which were held over from the'1975 session dealing exclusively with
seven county issues. Virtually all of the concerns raised by the
AMM relative to the Mandatory Planning Bill (HF 1530 -SF 1653) were
incorporated in Laws 1976, Chapter 127, including an appeal proce-
dure. Just as important was.the success in eliminating the sub-
stance of'the modest cost housing amendment from this bill. The
Association was also successful in amending-SF 855 to prevent leg -
islative approval of the April 10, 1975 version of the Metropolitan
Council's Proposed Rules and Regulations for the Review of Matters
of Metropolitan Significance. As passed, the.law requires the Coun-
cil to go through the hearing and approval steps once again. This
gives us another opportunity to effectuate some additional changes
in this matter. The Association was also successful in getting the
Solid Waste Bill (SF 1383) amended to be in compliance with AMM pol-
icy. While our primary efforts dealt with the.aIbove three items,
we also had impact on many other legislative bills. (For a more
comprehensive report of our legislative involvement, I refer you
to Attachment I),.,
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
A considerable amount of committee, officers and staff time was
directed.towards the Metropolitan Council and its activities and
programs. In addition, to the day -to -day type - contact and input
to the Council, the Association, through its.committees and Board
of Directors, undertook three major studies of various Council
activities and programs. We had significant impact on and. input
into the, Council's 19.76 Budget and Work Program, Investment Frame-
work Guide Chapter and a revision to the Housing Guide Chapter.
Our efforts will continue on the latter two,projects for the next
several months. Through Association efforts, a number of member
local officials were appointed to key Council Advisory Committees
including Land Use, Modest Cost Housing, Metro HRA Advisory, Trans -
portation Advisory Board (TAB), Solid Waste and Resource Recovery
and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
SUPPORT SERVICES
In addition to our primary function of representing the interests
of member cities before the Legislature and Metropolitan Council,
we continued to provide several other services and benefits to the
member cities. Included are such items as the Metropolitan Area
Salary Survey, of which the AMM is the prime sponsor and major
financial supporter, an. expanded Job Bank and Referral Service,
financial support for the Labor Relations Consultant Services and
secretarial and administrative support for the Metropolitan Area
Management Association (MAMA). In addition to regular publication
of the quarterly Newsletter, several issues of a new communique
called "Legislative Briefs" were published to help keep the member-
ship informed of current legislative activities which would direct-
ly affect them.
MEMBERSHIP AND FINANCE
I am pleased to report that five new cities were added to the mem-
bership.rolls during this year: Ham Lake,. Lake:..Elmo, Lakeville,
Shakopee and, Wayzata. Now for the bad news .... unfortunately, some
previous members did not renew their memberships and we had a net
loss of members. At year end we had a membership of 51 cities
whose combined population contains slightly more than 75% of the
total people living in the seven county area. Because we were
not quite as successful in recruiting new members as had been
projected, our income did not match expenses and we had to "dip"
- 2-
into the cash reserves. In spite of the small deficit: for 1975 -76,
the overall financial position remains strong and we still have an
adequate cash reserve. (For a more complete analysis of the finan-
cial picture, please see Attachment II);
1976 -77 WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET
No year end report is complete without a brief look to the future.
The AMM has both a solid membership and financial base on which to
build upon during the coming.yeare There is solid staff and Board
commitment to increase membership during this coming year and the
potential is there to make substantial gains in membership. The
Association's credibility with the Legislature and Metropolitan
Council has never been higher and,more importantly, our ability
to make an impact on their decision making process has been vividly
demonstrated when we can speak with a single, united voice! The
Board of Directors has adopted a set of objectives, program prior-
ities and budget which will enable the AMM to continue its efforts
on behalf of municipal government. (For more specifics, please
see. Attachment III).
In closing, I would like to emphasize that the Board of Directors
and staff members welcome your inquiries, suggestions and comments
as to how we can make the AMM of even more benefit to its members.
The purpose is. to serve its members. Your needs are the most im-
portant consideration of the Board and staff.
Thank you.
Vern Peterson
-3-
ATTACHMENT I ....
AMM 197511976 POLICY ANALYSIS
May 1, 1976
POLICY NUMBERS'
POLICY MET
BILL
1975 1976
POLICY DESCRIPTION
Yes Part
INTRODUCED
COMMENT
I -A
Levy Limit Relief
1975
197511976
Levy Limit not changed. Relief granted
6
via aids and some special levies. All
cities under 2,500 population exempted.
Bill exempting 5,000 population passed
Senate in 1976 but not heard in House.
I -B -1
Clarify local tax prohobition
- No
No action by Legislature.
I -B -2
Transient Lodging Tax
No
No action by Legislature.
I -C -1
Per Capita Aid
1975
Aids increased to $42 in 1976 and $45
.
in 1977. Signed into law.
I -C -2
Tcchnical modification
1975
Signed into law via new aid formula.
I -D
Permanent levy - new growth
1976
Failed in Tax Committee.
`
I =E
Federal mandated program spe-
No
No action by Legislature.
I
I cial levy..
II -A
Remove 5% Assessment
1975
Signed into law.
II -A -1
Define a percentage of market
value
1976
1976
Commissioner of Revenue adopted by -rule ,
II -A--2
Personal viewing
1976
No
Commissioner of Revenue adopted by rule.
-1-
1975176 POLICY ANALYSIS.... continued
Page Two
POLICY NUMBERS I
i
POLICY MET
'1 LL
1975 1976
POLICY DESCRIPTION
Yes Part
INTRODUCED
COMMENT
II -A -3
Statistical Assessing
1976
No
Commissioner of Revenue adopted by rule.
II -A -4 I
Assessment Equalization Incentives I
1976.
Failed in Tax Committee
II -A -5 I
Public. Records
No
Legislative interest but need not explic-
itly shoran.
II -B I
iMaintenance
of Real Property.,
N.O.
No action by Legislature
II -C
Eliminate Property Class 3CC and I
197511976
Passed both. houses 1975 but dropped in
i Title II. I
Conf. Comm. Passed Senate 1976 and ag -eed'
to in Conf. Comm. but died %,hen 1976 Omni-
bus Tax Bill died in conference.
II-D-1
I! Increase delinquent tax charges I
1975
No action by Legislature
II -D -2
I
I.Reduce Tax Forfeiture period 1975
'
Signed into law
II -D -3
Tax exempt property acqui-
1975
No action by Legislature
sition.
II -E
, I Tax exempt property service tax j
i
1'975
Failed in Committee. No action in 1976
II -F -1
i
Optional Boards of Appeal 1975
I
Signed into law.
II -F -2
II -F -1 ` Court appeal system '
1976
Moved through several committees but time
1 I I
ran out.
II -F -3
II -F -2
County /State Board Duties
1975
No action in 1976.
-2-
Page Three
A:•. +:? 1975176 POLICY ANALYSIS. ...continued
POLICY NUMBERS
POLICY MET I
BILL
1975 1976
POLICY DESCRIPTIO "?
Yes Part
INTRODUCED
CO!•1MENT
II -F -3
Assessment Appeal Award
I
No
No action by Legislature.
II -=A
Tax Increment Financing
No
Policy removed by membership in 1976.
III-B.
III -A
Shade Tree Disease Funding
1975
Signed into law.
IV
I Monitor adjacent development*
1975
Accented by Metropolitan. Council (Dev.
Framework) .
V
Election of Pletro Council
1975
Passed House 1975, rejected by Senate
j
1976.
Metropolitan Significance
1976
_
Introduced in 1975. Signed into law in
1976. A»M bask position i.,as that (the
rules & regulations adopted by the Coun-
cil in April of 1975 should not be ap-
proved as is. As passed, t %le !a,,,, re-
quires the Council to go through the
I
Bearing & Approval steps again..
VI -213
I Mandatory Planning
1976
1975
Introduced in 1975. Passed and signed in-
i
to law 1976. Virtually all of the con-
cerns raised by the were satisfied ii
`
I I
the final version. (Laws 1976, Chapter 1:
VII
A -95 Grant Review Procedures *
Icy
1975
i
Poli 31 use defined & modified. Staff
to Pietro .. __ for inter-
_.
i
I
nalcnolicye modificat y onCouc;,
✓III
! Solid waste Disposal
1976
Signed into law. (Laws 1976, Chapter 179,
* - ;_'asically non - legislative. Deals more with 1- 9etropolitan Council internal policy, although may require legislation approva.
A1,M 197511976 POLICY NALYSIS
BOARD ADOPTED POLICIES
-4-
SUPPORT/
I
POLICY MET
POLICY NUMBER
I�
OPPOSE I
POLICY DESCRIPTION
BILL NO.
YES ,PART NO COiliiEi'T
1975 Signed into law by Governor.
! I
Board 1
Support
i
Veterans Preference II:F
84
Board 2
Support
1sT;. Tax District reduction
1975
All units outside transit ser-
f
f
vice area must pay 1/10 MTC 1e,
Board 3
Support I
Restructure Criminal Justice Pro-
HF1118
X I
Regional Criminal Justice
i
cess.
SF1132
(
Comm. did not pursue this bill
i
in the 1976 session.
Board 4
Oppose
Establish minimum rousing stand- '
1975
Bill died in committee.
ards.
Board 5
Oppose
Ramsey County police consolida- I
11975
Bill did not receive heari
Rion..
I
Board 6
Oppose
I Delay action of Solid Waste
1975
Passed Senate prior to policy.
�
1 Disposal.
Introduced House. F�.11 ;,.,anted
lay -over for study.
Board 7
Oppose
i Gnpose provision ir. Metropolitan
iSF 855
1976
!fetronolitan Significance rule
(1/13/76)
Provision
Significance rules requiring re-
were rejected by the L_-
I vies• of subdivisions of less t1-En
I ture. The Council is required
`
10 acres in rural areas. Replace
to develop with public hearing
With five acres.
new rules. This provision tray
or may not remain but for the
being t le•ist it is not
g
f
1
Itime
law.
Board 8
Oppose
Delayed assessment of new construe-
I
SF1163
1976
Bill defeated in Senate Tax-.
(215176)
( Bill
tion. Exclusive income approach to
I
Committee by a 5 to 5 vote.
assessment for office and hotel
buildings.
-4-
Page Five
AZ41M Board Adopted Policies.. continued
- 'i_
SUPPOR""/ i
POLICY
POLICY NO. !
OPPGSE POLICY DFSC ?IP 'ION
Support I Cities a?1o:�01 to crargc a fea
BILL NO.
Y^S. r
PAP
CO•1 E_,'
Board . 9
? ?F 1471
1976
Signed into law by Governor. Laws
(21: 76)
Bill I eaual to cancelled special as-
1976, Chapter 259.
sessments to parchaser of tax
_
i forfeited property.
Board 10 l
Oppose Modify r,'unicipal Co=,ission Bill
HF 1154
1976
Bill failed to pass Legislature
(215176) I
Provision to require a : is jorl -U VOtB [7l Lh-
-
in each unit instead of r:,:�ijority
SF 938
i
i of =J"otl: Units for .:iuniClpal CGIn-
I
mission requested consolid tio.s.
i
BOARD._ 11
�
Oppose i 1 ?etrGpolitar. Council population
I
Sr 2013
I57 0'.
'
Provision failed .in Senate Setro-
(2/5/76)
Provision i estimates being replaced by su.tej
politan and Urban Affairs CG��ittee
i I
de.mograprer estimates for metro-
-
i
y pGIi taP. area. i
Beard 12
� Gppose �:,stabiish .may ^•i:'u';; zon_ng re_•?ire� -�
SF 1553
1976
Conference Coru-�ittee removed '� ^is
Provision. I r^er.ts for Zot sire and floor a1�3
provision and established a study
and require a certain percentage
committee to investigate housing
of land dedicated to reduced cost
costs.
i single s multiple fa'mi l y no:asing.
� I
Board 13
y
c -, rt Bon �`.a
u�po_ � ! d fL._d ''ret��r�ge ". for m::ni-
SF 2051
1976
I Signed into law by Governor.
(3/4/76)
Eili::. ,I C; pal capital improvement con-
_
I tracts s: 'iould be at the option
BF 2209
of t,,2e c -LLq. Rescinds mandatory
10 %� retai =lag`.
f
`
i
Board 14
ii
1 Support j
Willow stor:-,? °e:•!er districts to bel
!�F 1790
:i
ia116d in committee 1n both 2CiS °S
(311176)
t
I established m tax
est�b�_s.:ed .o_ ad valorem
i
Session ended before tre - aurnors
in 11eu of special assessrients
I
could rewrite to satisfy the CO::: -.
imittee
and creation of funds in antic
i
objections.
1 nation of storm Se;-7er Improvement
- 'i_
BO. -RD ADOPTED POLICIES.. .continued
j
SUPPORT 11 e
POL! CY -NO. OPPOSE 1 POLICY DESCRIPTION
,., - Y 7
Board 15 Support. Govern.. rt pu rcr�,� tmp_oy i
( .3/ 4 / 7 6) I group insurance piars . Changed
the limitations on %i'ler, Pe:l bids
L'S� 1, e rCC1 °C t: ^d :J:lon renC>d1nC�'
employee group co; tracts f.-OM a:?
increase in sremium. of 10 o to an.
Board 16
(4/1/76)
Staff 1
_.crease of up to 50='x. _,enewals
:.dust still be submitted for bid
if more tear, 4 years (G /as 5 yrs.)
have elapsed since it was last
sub.�itted for biGs.
Support Allow cities in the metro area
i to establish a fund to provide
Iinsurance for coTn—nercial and
1 industrial revenue bond issues
! for Sm311 buSi2:esses.
Oppose I A provision of t'le Salary Bill
reported out of the -First con-
ference committee would have
irequired a17 . municipalitiesto
adopt the State Travel policy.
I POLICY MET
DILL Nod YES PART II NO
SP 2129 1 1976 ! i
P? ,e SiX
C pt.t riEi: _
Signed into law. 1976, Chap-
ter 155.
X Originally a mp1s. bill which was
i
defeated in the Senate. The ses-
1 1 s_on ended before it could be re-
considered for the entire metro
area.
i
i
SP 1963 1976 I Staff felt this was a;i ur_necessary
restriction and shoulf be at lo-
cal option. The s_econd conference
compitte-e did strike finis prori-
II Sion. The bill, as amended, did
fail•to pass for other reasons.
-6
f ATTACHMENT III
A.
ORGAI�TZ,A`.I'IONAL OBJEC''JVES FOR 1976�77
The fol_a- owj_ng objectives are being set forth as steps towards achiev-
ing t ;he goals outlined in the By -Laws:
1. TOI1 II? METROPOLITAN PSLI]y TO BE AN INCEIT"ASII,;GLi LFFLC
CIPALITIES IN T131 STATE LEGISLATURE. This is the primary function
of the Association. The metropolitan community is unique in the
state of Minnesota and, therefore, requires a wide variety and ex-
tensive number of legislative proposals pertaining to metropolitan
municipalities. This, in turn, requires a staffed organization
which can develop proposals and effectively work for the needs and
concerns of the municipalities in the Legislature.
2. TO INFLUENCE THE POLICIES OF THIN IMETROPOLITAII COUNCIL AND THE GIIUI
METROPOLI`T'AN AGENCIES SO AS TO EFFECTIVELY ACCO'JODATE THE NI'EDS AI`;D
CONCERNS OF MUNICIPALITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA. This is an-
other important function.of the Association. The (Metropolitan Coun-
cil and other metropolitan agencies are exercising increasing powers
which have a direct effect on the activities of municipal. govern-
ment. It is of utmost importance that the Association, be a voice
representing and speaking for municipal interest:
3. TO BE AN EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT FOR BRINGING ,MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS TO-
GETHI,R TO SHARE IDEAS AND EXPERIENCES_ A part of any development
of proposals and positions, it is necessary for municipal officials
to meet to share ideas and experiences. It would be the function
of the Association to schedule. events which would facilitate this
exchange by municipal officials.
s 4. TO PROVIDE TO ME';1131 R (MUNICIPALITIES, SI):;.VICES WHICH ARE NECESSARY
'AND MEANINGFUL TO '1UNICIPAL OFFICIALS. The Association should pro-
vide .services to metropolitan municipalities which are Unique a
meaningful' but do not duplicate programs undertaken by other
municipal organizations or agencies.
11
5;. TO llEXELOP A. 1.IFANINGFUUL LI GTSLATIV1 PROGRAM WITIT 130TH SHORT AND
LONG l?r,i;G) _Oi3lYLCTIV11"SS.. It sliould be emphasized, first, that a
meani�;Cr:Cul^ ler alli_ve pro „ra.m must- be preceded by an intens,i.ve
r.evicw of 1:11 e issues by munic_i.pal_ officials. This ;,ill require
substantial - member -Mlip effort and a commitment of considorzgble
sta:Cf tii
G.
Long range J_e,.C;isl.a.tive objectives involve building relations -hips,
w}�i_c;i may require :evera.l years to accomplish, between municipal.
government ai. -,d the metropolitan agencies, counties and state
agencies. Such an objective would be a legislative proposal for
re- assigning services pr.ovicled by levels of government in the
metropolitan area.
Short range 7.egisla.ti_ve objectives involve developing pro...
which can be accomplished in one legislative session, such as
re-- apportionment of representation of a metropolitan agency or
a provision for greater participation by municipal officials sery -.
ing oil tile, metropolitan commissions.
T �T OR CLEAR LILIES OF CO',I'.iUNICATION BETWEEN `tU`dI-
r0 ES'IALLISI OPEC, —_
CIPAL OFFICIALS THE',.ISF.LVES ANT BETj' %EEN ISUNICIPAL OFFICIALS AND
OFFICIALS AT OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERN” "ENT. Such efforts can be
accomplished by the continual monitoring of decisions and events
making sure that those who are or would be involved are informed.
This would include public information efforts by the Association
and the publication of a newsletter distributed to members and
other organizations.
B.
ORGANIZATIONAL PRIORITTES FOR 1976 -77
(Implementation Steps for Objectives)
In serving
its members in the most efficient, effective manger. possi-
ble, tile Assoc:iati_on should consider the following program priorities:
).. C0111SIDER TTON OF STA'1PE. T_1,GTSI^ATTON A FEC' 'ING T1111" 111"'PRO 'O].,J:'IAI'l
C011111UI;T111)'. 1'Iii.s invo].ve�s the development of mea.r_ini;ful ].egis•
lative both short .range and ton;; range, and the com-
m:i.tment of staff and organization membership time on these mat-
tors. i;;��.jor E:teps to i.rnplement this priority include:
a) Providing support and coordination for the Municipal Rev-
enue:; Committee to study and make recommendations concern-
ing
1. Levy Limitations,
2. Iviuni_cipal aids. and aid formula.
3. New sources of revenue for cities.
4. Tax base sharing.
5. Property tax classificaiton system.
6. Tax exempt property.
b) Providing support and coordination for the Metropolitan
Agencies Committee to study and make recommendations con-
cerning:
1. A philosophical framework for dealing with metropolitan
affairs and' issues, including a definition of the proper
relationship between local units of government and the
Metropolitan Council and its related Metropolitan Agen-
cies.
2. A functional framework which would enable the AMIM to
translate (apply) its philosophical framework into a
concrete course of action in a timely manner as issues,
problems and proposals occur.
3. A legislative program as is necessary to restructure
the existing "metropolitan government" to implement (1 )
and (2) above.
c) Providing support and coordination for the Government: Ser-
vices Committee to study and matte recommendations - concerning
the services provided by t:ie various levels of government to
determine if these services are being provided most effective-
ly, efficiently and responsively by the present: level.
_..,�3 -
i
d) hta�nta,lnl.nf; the. J.i_R son wi h. LeL,i_sl.at :or.s and 1 t; i la. ti_ve
conuni.ttecs..
e) Span�.:orin=; a socitil event (dinner.) for the mei;ropol._i_tan
area LcL;isl_rt.i:ors to appr. aise there of the AAS�;S ]_r,lative
program and to . provide _i.hc oppor -1 i.ty for more d:ircct ir. -
terii,ct.ioii bet vec�n at.�r Loca3 . official.; and the Legislators.
r T ,
? REPRI�SENIA I.0i1
0]
{OPOI_,I.7.'�1'v�h',Ui.`
T• , �T ?T'Oh1, 'I'1iJ3
ICl�r t�Ll rTr,> ]3 --
.•
POLI'I`AN AGENCIES.
^.fill
i;fAJU;; STEPS
TO
I �PLEMIENT ` AIS PPIORITI'
INCLUDE:
a) Provide support and coordination for the Metropol_i_t, A,en-
cies Committee in the refinemeilt of the 1jetropoli.tan Invest,
)rent Framework.
b) Provide support and coordination for the IIousing Advisory _
Committee to study and make recorm-nendati.ons on the revised
}busii]g G�iide Chapter.• and to provide input to the ltodesi; Cost
Tiousi.i]g Advisory Co;nmi_t: tee.
c) Monitoring and assisting the Metropolitan Land Use Advisory
Committee.
d) Monitoring and assisting the Solid Iva.ste Advisory Comi:]_ittee.
C) Aioi i_toring and assisting the 1,Setropolitan Council Chairman's
Advisory Committee.
f) Monitoring and assisting the Transportation Advisory Board.
3. DEVELOY)MENT OF SERVICES UNIQUE AND YEANING] UL TO 'METROPOLITAN
MUNTCIPALITIES.
a) Continuing financial support to the Metropolitan Area Salary
Survey .
b) Continuing financial support to the Labor Relations Services.
c) Continue and .possibly expand the Job Data Bank Referral. Ser-
-vice.
d) Continue to provide secretary and administrative support
for MAMA.
e) providing and communicating in -depth information on sub -
7,,t, of municipal interest through the Newsletter, special.
communiques and Legislative Briefs.
4. ' A1\11) _ rI,E _ ASSOCIATION'S EFFECTIVENESS. - - - - A- J-0-
1,
STEPS 7`WIMPL1_MENT THIS PRIORITY ORITY I CLUDE:
1a) `fake positive steps to recruit more member cities. This
cannot happen unless there is a real commitment on the part
of the Board to make it happen.
b) hold meaningful membership meetings and conferences on a
variety of subjects, such as:
,
1, 'lhe new ] -and use planning process and procedures.
2. Other topical- issues of interest?.
c.) Deep members appraised of opportunities
to serve on Associ-
ation committees and various Advisory Committees that work
with the 1jetropolitan Council and other levels of government.
1 �
f
i
_5_
I
C.
1976 -77 BUDGET
(Adopted by Board 516176)
PERSONNEL BUDGETED AMOUNT
Salaries $ 55,160.00.
PERA 3,034.00
Group Health 900.00
Social Security 2,387.00
Life Insurance .345.00
$ 61,826.00
OPERATIONS
Conference, Travel & Meetings
$ 4,100.0-0
Rent
3,.854.00
Telephone
1,300.00
Postage
1,700.00
Equipment
400.00
LMM Services
4,300.00
Audit
500.00
$ 16,154.00
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
Salary Survey $ 9,000.00
Labor Relations 3,000.00
Newsletter 1,500.00
Committee Support 600.00
$ 14,100.00
TOTAL $ 92,080.00
1976-77 PROJECTED REVENUES AND EXPENSE STATEMENT
Beginning Year Cash Balance $ 38,277.88
Membership Renewals 80,000.00
Interest on Investments 2,500.00
New Members` Dues 9,580.00
$130,357.88
Budget 92,080.00
Anticipated Year End Balance $ 38,277.88
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES
COMMENTARY ON BUDGET ITEMS`
SALARIES: Includes salaries fora staff of three - Executive Direc-
tor, Director of Legislative Affairs and Administrative
Assistant.
P.E.R.A. The AMM contributes 5.5 percent of its employees' salar-
ies to PERA.
GROUP The insurance covers medical; surgical and hospitaliza-
HEALTH: tion for employees.
SOCIAL Social Security requires employer contributions of 5.85
SECURITY: percent of an employee's salary up to $15,300, a maximum
of $895.05 per employee.
LIFE INS: The AMM.and LMM have a term.life insurance benefit plan
for their staff employees. The objective of the insur-
ance program is intended to provide:a year's economic
transition.for the survivors of the insured at approxi-
mately a.year's salary..
CONFERENCE, This item includes mileage, at the rate of 140 per mile
TRAVEL AND and costs of parking.. Includes actual expenses for.lob-
MEETINGS bying, meals and'attendance at conferences, conventions
and miscellaneous meetings., .Also includes subscriptions.
.and publications.
RENT Includes the three offices now occupied by the AMM and
share of the common usage space.
TELEPHONE: Self- explanatory.
POSTAGE: Self - explanatory. Based on work load expectancy.
LMM CHARGES: The AMM purchases at cost from the State League, office
supplies, printing,, xerox, secretarial overload and such
other work as needed.
-1-
COMMEN.TARY ON BUDGET ITEMS
Page Two
EQUIPMENT: Expenditures anticipated included an installment pay-
ment on our IBM electric typewriter and maintenance
on the present equipment.
AUDIT: Books are post audited each year as required by the
By-Laws.
SALARY The AMM is the prime sponsor of the Metropolitan Sal -
SURVEY: ary Survey. It pays one -third of the total cost.
Other sponsors are the State League, Metropolitan
Council, Metropolitan Inter- county Council and the
Personnel Departments of the State of Minnesota and
University of Minnesota.
LABOR Lab or Relations consultants provide labor - relations
RELATIONS: consulting service for, a fee to municipalities in the
metropolitan area. In addition, consultants provide
written articles for publication in.the municipalities
magazines', review and.comments upon current state and
national trends, prepare a labor- relations newsletter,
provide advice and assistance to the League and its
committees concerning state statutes and represent the
League before state legislative bodies. The AMM pays
$3,000 as a share in this program.
NEWSLETTER Enables the AMM to publich a Newsletter on a quarterly
basis for internal communications to member.municipal-
ities and external communications to legislators and
other interested parties.
-2-
ATTACHMENT II
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES
BUDGET AND EXPENSE STATEMENT
FOR
1975 -76 FISCAL YEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
Salary Survey $ 9,500 $ 8,492.64
Labor Relations 3,000 3,000.00
Newsletter 1,500 726.90
Miscellaneous Expense -0 310.17
$ 14,000 $12,529.71
TOTALS $ 106,215 $87,650.58
* - One staff member left in July and has not been replaced.
1975 -76 REVENUES AND EXPENSE STATEMENT
(Pre - Audit)
Beginning Year Cash Balance
Dues Income
Interest Income
Miscellaneous Income
Accts. Rec. Payment Recd.
Expense Accts. Balance
Accts. Payable Pymt. made
BALANCE (Checking & Int.)
$ 44,736.07
79,917.00
2,216.67
3.00
325.00
$127,197.74
- 87,650.58
- 1,269.28
$ 38,277.88
PRE -AUDIT
1975 -1976
ACTUAL
BUDGET
1975 -1976
PERSONNEL
Salaries
$ 64,300
$54,224.58
PERA
31.525
2,972.92
Group Health
958
960.00
Soci'a1 Security
2,962
2,587.12
Life Insurance
370
326.25
$ 72,115
$61,070.87*
OPERATIVE
Conference,. Travel & Meetings
5,000
2,579.07
Rent
3,600
3,701.97
Telephone
1,400
1,281.02
Postage,
1,600
1,341.48
Equipment
500
371.95
LMM Services
5,000
3,926.46,
Contingency
3,000
848.05
$ 20,000
$14,050.00
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
Salary Survey $ 9,500 $ 8,492.64
Labor Relations 3,000 3,000.00
Newsletter 1,500 726.90
Miscellaneous Expense -0 310.17
$ 14,000 $12,529.71
TOTALS $ 106,215 $87,650.58
* - One staff member left in July and has not been replaced.
1975 -76 REVENUES AND EXPENSE STATEMENT
(Pre - Audit)
Beginning Year Cash Balance
Dues Income
Interest Income
Miscellaneous Income
Accts. Rec. Payment Recd.
Expense Accts. Balance
Accts. Payable Pymt. made
BALANCE (Checking & Int.)
$ 44,736.07
79,917.00
2,216.67
3.00
325.00
$127,197.74
- 87,650.58
- 1,269.28
$ 38,277.88
r�
1
association of
metropolitan..
municipalities
BOARD OF DIRECTORS 300 hanover bldg. 480 cedar street
st. paul, minnesola 55101 (612) 222 -2861
President MINUTES OF THE
Josephine Nunn
Champlin ANNUAL MEETING
Vice President
Lyall Schwarzkopf May 19, 1976
Minneapolis
Past President
Clyde Allen
Bloomington
Richard Asleson
Apple Valley
Jack Bailey.
Minnetonka
Robert Bruton
Maplewood
James Cosby
Hastings
Wayne Courtney
Edina
June Demos
Roseville
Maynard Eder
Lake Elmo
Robert Erickson
Maple Grove
Lyle Hanks
St. Louis Park
David Hozza
St. Paul
Tom Johnson
Minneapolis
The Annual Meeting of the Association of Metropolitan Muni-
cipalities was held in the Crown Ballroom of the Golden
Valley House, Golden Valley, on May 19, 1976. The business
meeting followed a social hour and buffet dinner and was
called to order at approximately 7:40 P.M. by President
Clyde Allen, Jr.
1. ROLL CALL
The following member municipalities were represented:
ANOKA
APPLE VALLEY
BLOOMINGTON
BROOKLYN CENTER
BROOKLYN PARK
CHAMPLIN
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
COTTAGE GROVE
CRYSTAL
EDEN PRAIRIE
EDINA
EXCELSIOR
FR IDLEY
GOLDEN VALLEY
HAM LAKE
HASTINGS
HOPKINS
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
LAKE ELMO
LAKEVILLE
MAPLE GROVE
MAPLEWOOD
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MINNEAPOLIS
MINNETONKA
MOUND
NEW BRIGHTON
ORONO
OSSEO
PLYMOUTH
RICHFIELD
ROBBINSDALE
ROSEVILLE
ST. ANTHONY
ST. FRANCIS
ST. LOUIS PARK
ST. PAUL
SHAKOPEE
SPRING PARK
WAYZATA
WHITE BEAR LAKE
Thomas Kelley 2. WELCOME AND PRESENTATIONS
St. Paul
Duane Miedtke President Allen welcomed all delegates, especially the new
St. Anthony member municipality, Ham Lake. Certificates of Apprecia-
Bruce Lion were presented to Don Poss, Frank Fleetham, Elliott
Columbia Heights i Perovieh and Steve Bernard for their service on the Board
Columbia Heights of Directors. Not present to receive their certificates
Larry Thompson were Frank Brixius, Richard Brennan, Roger Peterson and
Wayzata Louis DeMars.
Executive Director
Vern Peterson
—1—
Annual Meeting Minutes
May 19, 1976
Page Two
3. ANNOUNCEMENT - METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMIS -SION
Bruce Nawrocki, member of the Metropolitan Transit Commission, announced
on behalf of the Transit Commission that 338 older diesel engine buses
were to be put up for sale but were first being offered to non- profit
organizations and local government units-on a no -cost basis. Interested
parties were advised to contact Mr. Robert Shiff, Director of Operations,
at the Commission office in the Metro Square Building.
4. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
President Allen's message contained encouragement and enthusiasm
for the continued growth of the Association and stressed the need for a
strong forum such as the Association where municipal representatives of
diverse backgrounds and interests can debate and resolve controversial
issues.
Allen stated that during the past year the Association gained credibility
with the Legislature and the Metropolitan Council through the hard work
and diligent efforts of many members who actively participated in var-
ious Association committees that dealt with a number of controversial
issues, Their committee work resulted in reports containing recom-
mendations on these issues which were considered of significant value
by the Metropolitan Council -: In many,ins.tances�,..the Council wes.heavily
swayed by the arguments and -- recommendations pre§e -n-ted -in -the- reports.
Because the Association has gained credibility, it-is now being recog=
nized as. .-.a source of advice. -Allen concluded that accomplishing two
such major gains in one year is a very convincing argument for the con-
tinuation of the Association.
5. CONSIDERATION OF BY -LAWS AND AMENDMENTS
President Allen advised that the procedure to be followed would involve
review of the proposed changes one by one. Following discussion, votes
would be cast on each proposed.change with one vote allowed each com-
munity, in accordance with Article X, Section 1 of the By- Laws. .
Josephine Nunn, By -Laws Committee Chairperson, led the review of the
By -Laws and proposed changes. Nunn advised that each proposed change
would require 28 affirmative votes for adoption and only those sections
being proposed for change by the committee or by written amendment
would be subject for discussion at this time.
BY -LAWS REVIEW
1. Article II - Section 3.
Unanimously adopted.
2. Article IV - Section 2.
Unanimously adopted.
Z-a
1
Minutes of the Annual Meeting
May 19, 1976
Page Three
3. Article. IV - Section 3.
Motion to delete unanimously carried.
4. Article V.
No action by membership. To be recommended to the Board of
Directors.that this be further explored by a study committee.
5. Article VI - Section l - Budget.
Unanimously adopted.
6. Article VII = Section 3.- Eligibility.
Motion made and seconded to adopt committee recommendation.
Ensuing discussion resulted in motion to amend to require
the Board of Directors to fill any vacancy within 60 days
,of occurrence. Amendment defeated by a voice vote. Original
motion then unanimously carried.
7. Article VII - Sections 4 and 6.
Adopted with one opposing vote cast.
8. Article VIII - Section 3.
Unanimously adopted.
9. Article IX - Section 1.
Unanimously adopted.
10.. Article IX - Section 3.
Unanimously adopted.
11. Article X - Section 1.
Unanimously adopted.
12. Article X - Section 2.
Unanimously adopted.
13. Article XI - Legislative Procedure - Section 2.
The amendment to this Article proposed by Inver Grove Heights
was read to the membership by Gene Atkins, Mayor of Inver
Grove Heights. Atkins moved adoption of this amendment. Mo-
tion seconded.
Wayne Courtney, Councilman from Edina, read an amendment from
Edina being proposed as an amendment to the Inver Grove Hghts.
amendment: "Any community that is a member of the Association
of Metropolitan Municipalities in good standing can vote on
any question through their.delegate or, if no delegate can be
present, by a letter from the Mayor of that community ".
Courtney asked the Chair for a ruling on the amendment and
was advised that the.amendment was in order.. Courtney then
moved adoption of the Edina amendment..
-3-
Minutes of the Annual Meeting
May 19, 1976
Page Four
,i
Discussion held on voting procedure of the two amendments and
the chair ruled they be voted on separately.
Voice vote was held on the Edina amendment and failed to pass..
Prior to voting on the main amendment, a motion was made to
amend the Inver Grove Heights amendment by changing the popula-
tion figure of '150,000 used in.the.amendment to a population
figure of 80,000. Motion seconded. Defeated in voice vote.
Voice vote taken on the Inver Grove Heights' amendment and motion
defeated. Gene Atkins requested a division of the house. Roll
call vote was then taken, which indicated 13 in favor and 28 op-
posed.
The chair then ruled this item of business had been completed and all
the motions recorded.
6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
Bob Bruton, Nominating Committee Chairperson, directed this portion .
of the meeting. Following the reading of the committee report, he ad-
vised the membership that all nominating committee members had been
present at the meeting and all had voted on the recommended slate of
officers and directors.
PRESIDENT
Committee nominee - Josephine Nunn, Mayor of Champlin;
No nominations were made from the floor. Motion was made, se-
conded and carried to close nominations. Joe Fogarty, Cottage
Grove councilman, moved that the secretary be instructed to
cast a white ballot. Motion seconded and carried,
VICE PRESIDENT
Committee nominee - Lyall Schwarzkopf, Minneapolis city clerk.
No nominations made from the floor. Motion was made, seconded
and carried that Schwarzkopf be elected Vice President of the
AMM for the year 1976 -77.
BOARD MEMBERS - TWO YEAR TERM
Committee nominees- Wayne Courtney, Maynard Eder, June'Demos,
Bob Erickson; Lyle Hanks, Dave Hozza, Duane Mi "edtke and Larry
Thompson.
No nominations from the floor. Motion made that nominations be
closed and a white or unanimous ballot be cast. Seconded and
unanimously carried.
am
Annual'Meeting Minutes
May 19, 1976
Page Five
BOARD MEMBERS - ONE YEAR TERM
Committee Nominee - Richard Asleson -- Apple Valley administrator.
No nominations from the floor. Motion made, seconded and
unanimously carried to close nominations and cast a unanimous
ballot.
7. MESSAGE BY AMM PRESIDENT FOR 1976 -77 JOSEPHINE NUNN
President Nunn reflected on thoughts made earlier in the even-
ing concerning local government being the closest form of gov-
ernment to the people and a rebuilding of the peoples' trust
in the government would have to begin with the local government
officials. These officials must make many decisions, some with
resulting ramifications, in order to make their communities a
decent place for its citizens and find themselves constantly on the
firing line, but that is as it should be and must continue to
be so.
The President's message further emphasized the concern for a
united Association as pointed out by Clyde Allen. The diversit.ie:p
of the municipalities represented in the Association...size,
location, wealth and interests.. are the real strength of the
Association, and through a united Association everyone can achieve
their basic goals. Communities can be respected for their dif-
ferences and their right to pursue the achievement of their goals.
Just as the resolving of issues is done by local government, it
can be done also by a united Association.
8. PRESENTATION 70 CLYDE ALLEN
President Nunn presented Clyde Allen with a plague of the Athen-
ian Oath for his service as past president of the Association,,
Allen warmly thanked the membership and was hopeful that Jo Nunn
would receive all of the support and friendship that made his
year as President easy and pleasant.
9.. ADJOURNMENT
sb
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
-5-
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Presic! -nt
wr, ,phine Nunn
Ch,implin
Vice P,esident
Lyall Schwarzkopf
Minneapolis
association of
metropolitan
municipalities
300 hanover bldg. 480 cedar street
sl. paul. minnesota 55101 (612) 222 -2861
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
June 3, 1976
Past President
Clyde Allen
Bloomington
1 ,
ROLL CALL
Richard Asleson
Apple Valley
Present at the June 3rd meeting called to order at
7 :35 P.M. by Chairman Josephine Nunn were: Dick
-c; Bailey
N1 ii • nctonka
Asleson, Wayne Courntey, June Demos, Maynard Eder,
Lyle Hanks, Tom Johnson, Duane Miedtke, Bruce Nawrocki,
Ro,I,t t Bruton
Larry Thompson, Lyall Schwarzkopf. and Vern Peterson,
Maplewood
Roger Peterson and Sylvia Bauer, staff,
,:n1cs Cosby
I ratings
2.
AGENDA
W,tyne Courtney
Ec1;,1a
On motion by Bruce Nawrocki, seconded and carried,
the Agenda was adopted with one addition: discussion
)IineDemos
of the State League Legislative Program.
Roseville
V,n nard Eder
3.
MINUTES OF MAY 6TH MEETING
Laic Elmo
Rr�hert Erickson
Motion made, seconded and carried to approve the Minutes
M.iplc Grove
of the May 6th meeting as written.
Lylc Hanks
S,. Louis Park
4.
TAB VACANCY
David Hozza
No action taken regarding appointment to fill this
St. Paul
vacancy. Board suggested that Vern Peterson continue
Tom Iohnson
working with St. Paul to obtain recommendation.
Nlinncapolis
Thomas Kelley
5.
TAC APPOINTMENT
S1. Paul
Duane Miedtke mclTed, June Demos seconded the appoi.nt-
Du.IncNliedtke
ment of Lowell Odland, Golden Valley city engineer, to
St. Anthony
the Technical Advisory Committee. Unanimously carried.
B c Nawrocki
Co'!Limhia Heights
6.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Larry Thompson
Wav<ata
Appointed to serve on the Executive Co- mmittee along with
President Nunn, Vice President Lyall Schwarzkopf and Past
' Execi;tiieDirector
President Clyde Allen were Bob Bruton, Dick Asleson, Wayne
Vc n Peterson
Courtney and Dave Hozza .
-1-
Board of Directors Meeting
June 3, 1976
Page Two
u
7. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Revenues and Taxes - L7all ,3chwyarzkopf, Chairman.
Schwarzkopf reported that t
Committee has completed its
Sub - Committee will hold one
to be presented to the full
than the end of June and tc
meeting.
he Municipal Revenues Sub-
ii,or.k and the Property Tax
more meeting. Reports are
Revenues committee no later
the Board at the August
B. Metropolitan Agencies - Wayne Courtney, Chairman.
Courtney advised that this committee has studied the
planning bill, metropolitan significance and investment
framework, and will be undertaking the study of the
Metropolitan Council relating to Council activities
and authority.
C. Governmental Services - Duane Miedtke, Chairman.
Several meetings were held with various metropolitan agen-
cies (Citizens League, School Board Association, etc.)
to determine a format for an in -depth study of all levels
of government services, Miedtke stated. Interest in this
project has dimmed and the remaining activie agencies have
concluded that there are three alternatives open: re-
cruit an outside agency that could provide funding; ask
the Legislature to undertake such a study; or the study
could be done solely by the AMM.
Board discussed the alternatives, but no action taken.
8. MEMBERSHIP PROMOTION
The Board reviewed the revised list of potential new members.
Volunteers were named for personal contact with various muni-
cipal officials regarding membership. To assist with promo-
tional activity, Duane Miedtke moved that staff prepare a
packet of promotional materials as hand -outs during presenta-
tions. Motion seconded and carried.
9. STATE LEAGUE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Duane Miedtke pointed out that Stage League policy 3 B
"Minnesota Municipal Commission" addressed the issue in a
general manner and as such could create problems in the metro-
politan area. It was fur.•ther pointed out that earlier
T_ 2-
n
9
Board of Directors Meeting
June 3, 1976
Page Three
the AMM Board had taken a position on this issue that pas-
sage of a referendum would be by a majority vote in each
municipality. Miedtke moved that Vern Peterson review the
State League policy and seek modifications that may have an
adverse effect within the seven county area. Motion seconded
by Wayne Courtney.
Nawrocki was of the opinion. that Peterson should not be charged
with the responsibility of modifying this polic!� as this res-
ponsibility should be left to each community involved.
Dick Asleson then moved that the Executive Director write a
letter to the State League stating that the policy should be
clarified to provide for a separate vo-te in each municipality
involved in the annexation.
Lyall Schwarzkopf commented that if the motion made by Asleson
was adopted, the letter should be signed by the Board rather
than the Executive Director. Further, as the AMM has also been
working on this bill with the League they should be offered an
alternative position.
Vote then taken on Miedtke's motion. Motion defeated.
Dick Asleson amended his motion to read that the letter be
written by the AMM President, enclosing a proposed amendment,
and forwarded to the LMM President, the Chairman of the LMM
Environmental Committee and the LMM Executive Director. Amended
motion seconded and carried.
Board concurred that this letter, with proposed amendment, be
presented at the League Convention in Duluth on June 11th.
10. ADJOURNMENT
sb
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
!Wi
T0: City of Edina Council
RE: Connection Charge - Watermain #127 - $798.00
6209 Tracy Avenue
Lot 16; Valley View Heights Addition
I would like to request that the above connection charge be.assessed
against property referred to above. Starting 1977 thru 1982.
Earl C. ipp, C.D. owner
r Pl-
by: Thomas R. Tripp (son)
July 29, 1976
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Warren C. Hyde, City Manager, and Edina City Council
Greg Luce, Planning Director
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) Home Improvement Grants
City Council may recall that during July we made application to the State of
Minnesota for $30,900 to be used to assist people with less than $5,000 income
in rehabilitating their homes. It appears as though we will receive
approximately $28,400. Because it is probable that we will receive a greater
amount of interest in the program than we have funds available, attached is
a proposed prioritizing plan for the funds. The City Council also asked that
we publicize this program to the greatest extent possible. An attached
memorandum identifies our minimum advertising plans.
The staff seeks approval of both the advertising method and the prioritizing
method.
GL:ln
August 2, 1976
� f
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Luce, City Planner
FROM: Lynnae Nye, Housing Assistance Planner
SUBJECT: Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Home Improvement Grant Program
Publicity
The availability of MHFA home improvement grant funds in Edina will be
publicized during the next 3 -4 weeks by public service announcements on
radio and television (in addition to Edina's daily broadcast on WWTC radio)
and by press releases in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune and Edina Sun.
Information will also be sent to several neighborhood associations (North-
west Edina, Morningside, etc.).
Press releases in local newspapers and on radio and television will also be made
by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
Information about the MHFA grant program has also been included during the
last several weeks in the "Edina Report" on WWTC radio, and the grant program
was briefly mentioned in a recent issue of the Edina Sun; several inquiries
were received as a result of that early publicity, and those individuals
will be contacted directly.
IN
August 2, 1976
August 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Luce, City Planner
FROM: Lynnae Nye, Housing Assistance Planner
SUBJECT: Policy and Standards for Prioritizing Distribution of Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency Home Improvement Grant Funds
Although the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) Home Improvement Grant
Program includes an "administrative package" complete with step -by -step
procedures and forms, the City can enforce more restrictive standards for
prioritizing the distribution of grant funds as long as those standards are not
discriminatory. Because the funds allocated to the City of Edina are limited
(about $28,000), an attempt will be made to distribute a portion of the
available funds to all eligible homeowners who apply for a grant by the
application deadline.
Applications for funding for home improvements which would correct defects or
deficiencies directly affecting the safety, energy usage, or habitability of
residential property, especially properties owned and occupied by elderly
citizens, would receive first consideration and would be prioritized as follows:
1. Structural Deficiencies:
a. roofing - repair or replacement
b. wiring - repair or replacement
c. plumbing - installation or replacement
2. Energy Efficiency Improvements:
a. heating /ventilation systems
b. insulation
C. storm doors and windows
3. Improved Habitability:
a. exterior finishing
b. interior finishing
c. structural additions and alterations
d. landscaping, fences, and other exterior improvements
Greatest consideration will be given to the elderly and to those applicants
with the lowest adjusted gross income.
Consideration was also given to other standards or methods by which the grant
funds could be distributed, such as first come /first served, equal distribution
to all applicants, first priority to applicants with lowest incomes, etc.
However, the proposed prioritizing of improvements rather than applicants was
preferred because all of the applicants would be eligible to receive some funding,
particularly for those improvements which will correct safety or health defects
or which will result in an energy savings thereby reducing future utility bills
and other day -to -day living expenses.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON
THE NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
APPLICATION FOR ELECTRIC RATE INCREASES
Evidentiary Public Hearings in which parties who have been
authorized to intervene in the pro.ceedings may present direct
testimony, be cross - examined by other parties, and present
rebuttal and surrebuttal testimony, begin August 10,1976,
at 9:30 am in the Minnesota Public Service Commission Hearing
Room, 7th floor, American Center Building, 160 East Kellogg
Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota. These hearings will continue
into October. Information about such hearings can be obtained
from the Minnesota Public Service Commission.
The summary below
the proposed rate
of service. Indi
higher or lower.
CLASS OF SERVICE
describes the average percentage impact of
changes upon annual revenues by the classes
vidual rate changes may be substantially
ANNUAL AVERAGE
PERCENTAGE INCREASE
Residential Service 11.0
Small Commercial & Industrial 10.9
Large Commercial & Industr.ial 11.0
Public Street &.Highway Lighting 11.5
Other Sales to Public Authorities 10.9
The rate changes described in this notice have been requested by Northern States Power
Company. The Minnesota Public Service Commission may either grant or deny the requested
changes, in whole or in part, and may grant a lesser or greater increase.than that requested
for any class or classes of service.
The proposed rate schedules and a comparis,on of present and
proposed rates, can be examined by the public at Northern States
Power Company divisional offices located at 414 Nicollet Mall,
Minneapolis; 1518 Chestnut Avenue, Minneapolis; 360'Wabasha
Street, St. Paul; 825 Rice Street, St. Paul; 5505 County Road 19,
Shorewood; 5309 West 70th Street, Edina; 4501 -68th Avenue North,
Brooklyn�Center; 1700 County Road E, White Bear Lake; 3000 Maxwell
Avenue, Newport; 117 Central Avenue, Faribault; 210 Lime Street,
Mankato; 1505 Washington Avenue, Montevideo; 120 North Hiawatha
Avenue N.W., Pipestone; 416 Main Street, Red Wing; 800 St. Germain
Street, St. Cloud; 120 West Second Street, Winona, Minnesota and
2302 Great Northern Drive, Fargo, North Dakota.
N S P
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Warren Hyde
City Council
FROM: Greg Luce
Planning Director
DATE:
SUBJECT:
August 2, 1976
Housing Policy Plan,
Metropolitan Develop-
ment Guide
The Metropolitan Council has sent a draft of the housing element for the
Development Guide for our review. This draft, once adopted, will become a
permanent part of their plan which Edina must address when they prepare
their comprehensive plan per the Mandatory Planning Act. Their draft is
broken into four sections as follows:
1. An overview of Area housing.
2. A policy plan for meeting area housing needs.
3. A distribution plan for new housing units and allocation plans
for subsidized housing over the next ten years.
4. An implementation program to meet the housing needs of the
Area, including housing review guidelines.
Edina and other suburban communities have been the most concerned about Section
No. 3, which includes the Allocation Plan. Appendix A of this memorandum
includes the substantive part of that Allocation Plan.
Hennepin County, through the cooperating communities involved in the Community
Development Act, has hired Wayne Cox, former Metropolitan Council Housing staff
member, to review with our interest in mind the Allocation Plan. We specifically
asked Mr. Cox to prepare an alternative plan to which the Metropolitan Council
may react. That alternative plan was to include credits for rehabilitation
and, most importantly, to place a ceiling on the number of units which each
community must provide based on real rather than ideal factors. Its real factors
are identified as a "capability to develop" and shown.in Mr. Cox's memorandum
to us, which is attached and identified as Appendix B.
With the Council's permission, I will present this alternative to the League
of Minnesota Municipalities on August 4 and to the Human Relations Committee
of the Metropolitan Council on August 16. It will be extremely beneficial
for me to have a resolution opposing the Metropol ; tan Counc-U __sue? an-.but
endorsing the alternative or a similar alternative as prepared by Mr. Cox.
GL:nr
f
,gPPe�dcx n
�EAdZ�'t3- DISTRIBUTION AND ALLOCATION PLANS
3 -1
This section contains plans for the Area -wide distribution of new housing units
and for the allocation of subsidized housing and rehabilitation funds. The plan
for the distribution of new housing units describes the number of new units that
will be needed to meet the Area's needs for new housing over the next ten years
(r (1975 -85) by metropolitan rings and sectors.
The Metropolitan Allocation.Plan for Subsidized Housing describes the "fair share"
of subsidized low- and - moderate income units for each community. The Subsidized
Allocation Plan indicates the number of subsidized units needed over a ten -year
period (1975 -85) and the number each municipality can reasonably expect to have
funded over the next three years based on available funding.
The Metropolitan Allocation Plan for Rehabilitation Funds describes the share and
dollar amounts that each community will be recommended to receive from the State
rehabilitation loan and grant program. Like the Subsidized Housing Plan, the Re-
habilitation Plan is for a three -year period.
These plans provide for meeting Area -wide housing needs on the most equitable basis.
They work to promote orderly and economic development and to provide the highest
standards for metropolitan housing with the available resources. These plans are
a key element of the Council's metropolitan housing strategy and it is the Council's
hope that all the various governmental levels and agencies, builders and developers,
planners and citizens groups will cooperate in their implementation.
DISTRIBUTION PLAN FOR* TOTAL NEW ROUSING UNITS 1975 1985
The Metropolitan Council has estimated that 220,000 new housing units will be
needed in the area over the coming decade (1975 -85) to house newly formed households,
replace houses destroyed by demolitions, to maintain a reasonable vacancy rate and
to replace seriously substandard units. In order for these new units to meet the
varying kinds of needs of different locations within the Area and to promote orderly
and planned growth, these units, should be distributed throughout the Area according
to the Council's Distribution Plan. The Distribution Plan for new housing units is
based on anticipated growth, past and projected demolitions, and vacancy rates.
More than 40 per cent or 88,203 of the area's 220,000 new housing units are expected
to be built.in the developing ring suburbs between 1975 and 1985. Less than 20 per
cent of the units will be built in the already developed inner ring suburbs, while
only 8 per cent of all new units are expected to be built in the outlying areas.
Minneapolis is expected to receive 45,950 or 21 per cent of all new units and St. Paul
is expected to receive 29,070 or 13 per cent of the unit -s. Area sectors receiving
the most new units between 1975 -1985 are expected to be the South Minneapolis sector
(29,700 or 13 per cent of new units) and South St. Paul sector (23,760 or 11 per
cent).
The developing ring of the South Minneapolis sector will have the greatest growth
in new housing units with 19,789 new units expected between 1975 and 1985. The
developing ring in the South St. Paul sector will have almost as much new -growth,
with 18,107 new units. In the outlying areas, the Southwest Minneapolis sector
and South Minneapolis sector are expected to have the greatest growth, with 4,151 units
and 4,044 units each. The areas anticipated to receive the Least number of new
units are located in the outlying area of the `forth St. Paul -sector (318 units) and
the South St. Paul sector (596 units).
METROPOLITAN ALLOCATION PLAY e0R SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
In January, 1972, the Council adopted a housing allocation plan which identified where
housing for low- and - moderate income persons should be developed in the Metropolitan
Area to achieve the goal of increased locational choice in areas offering high levels
of services. The plan was intended to apply to low rent public housing as well as
3 -2
moderate income housing.
In 1973, the Council adopted a revised allocation plan which included numerical
f goals for the distribution of subsidized housing by subsector. The plan was established
�._ as a short -range plan in order to provide the Council with the opportunity to re-
spond in a timely way to changes in the subsidy programs and to changes in the level
of services offered in particular geographic areas.
This present plan is for a three -year period from 1976 through 1978. The plan will
guide any local plans developed during this time period, although the planning period
which may be covered by the local plans may extend beyond 1978. In particular,
communities will be developing three -year. Housing Assiscance Plans which will cover
time periods beyond 1978. The plan will` apply to all federal and state subsidized
housing for low- and - moderate income persons to be funded in the Area, including
Section 8 existing, new construction, and substantial rehabilitation programs, as
well as any subsidized low- and - moderate income homeownership programs. It does not
include state rehabilitation funds which are covered in a separate allocation plan.
It is important to note that the intent of the allocation plan is to broaden housing
choice for low- and - moderate income persons by encouraging development of subsidized
housing in areas which have limited low -and- moderate income housing opportunities
at present. It is not to force people to move but to make it possible for them to
move where they may not now be able to find a home they can afford, or to allow the
suburban poor and moderate income residents to stay in their home communities.
CHANGES IN THE ALLOCATION PLAN
There are three major changes in the allocation plan for subsidized housing from
previous plans. First, the allocation plan has numerical goals at the municipal
level instead of for subsector. This change was required to give communities a
better basis for their local planning and is needed in particular to enable the
Metropolitan Council to review local 'housing assistance plans required by the federal
government.
The second major change is to make the'allocation plan more consistent- with the De-
velopment Framework. This involves in particular adjusting the boundaries of the
third priority areas to correspond with the 1975 Metropolitan Urban Service Area
(MUSS) delineated by the Development Framework. It also includes adjusting the
treatment of Freestanding Growth Centers to be more consistent with the Development
Framework.
The third major change is chat this plan indicates for each community not only the
share of the subsidized units which can reasonably be expected to be available in
the Area, but also each community's share of the total need for subsidized housing
in the Area. in the next ten years if identified needs were fully met. For example,
while the.expecced federally subsidized units may only be the short -range three-
year share of expected units as well as the longer -range cen year share of the co.tal
need for subsidized housing. It is hoped that including the ten year goal will
stimulate communities in their comprehensive olans and other longer -term planning
activities to be aware of the total need for lower income housing and not be con-
fined to planning only for the available, and limited resources.
PRIORITY AREAS
This plan, like the previous - plans, retains
ties within the MUSA are designated as eith
the development of subsidized housing. The
by the Development Framework are treated as
special sec -aside of funds for their use is
cussed in turn.
the concept of priority areas. Communi-
ar first, second, or third priority for
14 Freestanding Growth Centers designated
a separate group of communities and a
proposed. Each of these areas is dis-
PRIORITY DESIGNATION FOR COK4UNITIES WITHIN THE MUSA
According to Council Housing and Development Framework policy, all communities within
the MUSA have a responsibility to be planning for provision of low- and - moderate income
3 -12
housing. Therefore, the allocation plan revision began with the assumption that all
communities within the urbanized area would be designated as having some priority
for subsidized housing.
A new refined priority classification based on revised criteria and a new system for
ranking communities is included. The basic intent of the allocation plan, however,
remains unchanged. That intent is to allocate subsidized housing units to well -
serviced areas offering limited low- and - moderate income housing opportunities. The
plan measures priorities by using _a five -part formula which relates to availability
f
of services and facilities. The actors are as follows; degree of urbanization,
proximity to Metro Centers, availability of transit service, availability of jobs,
and availability of shopping facilities.
Based on the combined: scores of these five factors, the communities within the MUSA
are ranked as first, second,.or third priority areas. Large fringe municipalities
with substantial variation in the level of development within the community were, in
a few cases, given split priority assignments. Table 7 indicates the ranking system
used to determine priority classifications.
TABLE 7. FACTORS USED IN DETERMINING PRIORITY AREAS FOR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
ALLOCATION PLAN.
1. Level of Urbanization
80% + 4 points
50 -79% 3 points
10 -49% 2 points
under 10% 1 point
2.' Proximity to center cities
5 miles or less to CBD 4 points
10 miles or less to CBD 3 points
15 miles or less to CBD 2 points
More than 15 miles to CBD 1 point '
3. Availability of transit service (based on Council's 1975 Metro Transit System
map).
Community is served by at least two and usually more 4 points
regular MTC local service routes
Area served by one regular-MTC local service route 3 points
and one or more limited service if."C or private
operator routes.
Area served by express routes only or only one 2 points
regular local MTC or private operator routes
No bus service available 1 point
4. Availability of jobs (based on Area residents' average travel -time to
employment locations, Travel Behavior Inventory, and number of jobs a-
vailable by location; Council's Employment Distribution Map, December, 1971).
Most community residents are within 2 -3 miles of an 4 points
employment center of 10,000+ jobs.
Most residents are within 2 -3 miles of job centers 3 points
of 5,000 - 10,000 jobs.
Within 2 -3 miles of 1,500 -5,000 jobs 2 points
Location is within 2. -3 miles or less of less than 1 point
1,500 jobs
3 -14
5. Availability of shopping facilities
Within 5 miles of a-regional center (700,000 sq. ft.) and 4 points
within 3 miles of 3 or more district (150,000- 4000,000)
or community centers (150,000 sq. ft.)
Within 5 miles of a regional center and 3 miles of one 3 points.
or two community or district centers
Within 3 miles of at least one or two community or 2 points
district shopping centers or a local business
district.
No shopping facilities within.3 -4 miles 1 point
Based on the combined scores of these five factors, the communities were ranked into
first, second, and third priority areas.
Housing proposals to be located in higher priority areas are more likely to be well
situated with respect to a range of services and facilities desirable for residential
development. Thus, the first priority area is that portion of the Metropolitan Area
where subsidized housing is most desirable. Proposals for low- and - moderate income
subsidized housing within the first priority areas should, as a rule, receive high
priority in federal funding decision. Second priority communities have a middle pri-
ority for subsidized housing among competing MUSA communities. Third priority com-
munities have the lowest priority. The relationship between priority status and
numerical goals is discussed further below.
This priority area procedure establishes a general framework that allows for more
rational' decisions in regard to the general location of subsidized housing within
the Metropolitan Area. In addition, the Council carefully examines each individual
proposal. Projects must also be found acceptable on their merits when judged ac-
cording to Development Guide policies and housing review criteria. A proposal,
for example, that is located in a floodplain, seriously damaging to the environment,
or in an otherwise unacceptable location would be given a negative review regardless
of what priority category it is assigned. Furthermore, priority will be given to
those projects that include opportunities for families as well as for elderly per-
sons, and projects which are only partially subsidized. In short, the allocation
plan does not replace the necessity for careful and detailed reviews of each pro-
ject, but it does give general guidelines against which to evaluate a number of good
proposals. In addition to Council criteria, housing proposals will have to satisfy
the requirements of HUD and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for economic feasi-
bility.
FREESTANDING GROWTH CENTERS
The plan treats the Freestanding Growth Centers as a separate category. Fourteen
per cent of units will be available to these communities. According to the numer-
ical formula adopted for the distribution of units. The Freestanding Centers would
compete against each other for the available funding rather than with the urban
communities within the M- SA.
No priorities are recommended among the various freestanding towns, but their
numerical goal will reflect their relative employment, population, and need for
housing. When ranking competing proposals from freestanding communities, the pro-
jects proposed in the larger, better - serviced freestanding centers will be given
,priority over the smaller, less- serviced freestanding centers.
No subsidized housing units are allocated to the general Rural Service Area outside
the freestanding centers. The freestanding centers are the places most suitable
for rural housing needs to be met and units are allocated only to these 14 areas.
The rural share of jobs, population, and need is added to that of freestanding centers
and distributed among the 14 communities in relationship to their relative size.
It should be noted that Freestanding Growth Centers may extend beyond the municipal
boundaries of the communities listed and include some of the adjacent urbanized
communities as well. The Development Framework and local comprehensive plans will
3 -15
Z ]
be used to define the appropriate boundaries of the urban service areas of free-
standing communities.
NMIERICAL GOALS
The plan establishes numerical goals for each community within the `NSA and for each
of the 14 Freestanding Growth Centers. The numerical goals are determined by apply-
ing a six -part formula which averages each community's share of the Area's total
population, anticipated population growth, employment, anticipated employment growth,
and low- and - moderace income households in need, and then subtracts out each community's
existing supply of subsidized housing. This formula is incended to provide. a nu-
merical goal which relates to the general growth and development of the Area, as
well as to the communicy's immediate need, in terms of Low- and - moderate income house-
holds, and -supply, in terms of existing subsidized housing. The formula incorporates
considerations for supplying the exiscing need for subsidized housing from within
the community as well as for providing expanded locacional choices distributed on
an equitable basis throughout the urbanized portion of the Area. In short, it con-
siders the housing needs, not only of current residents, but also for those persons
who might wish to live there or be expected to reside in the community if the op-
porturXities were available.
The numerical goal which is a result of the six -part formula is expressed as a per-
centage share for each community. This establishes the community's "fair share"
of the Area's total subsidized housing or total housing needs.
This percentage share is applied in two ways to determine two separate sets of nu-
merical goals. First, the plan identifies each community's share of the Area's
cotal real need for subsidized housing over the next ten years. This number repre-
sents the ideal "full share" goal if sufficient funding were available to meet the
area's cotal need for lower income housing. This 10 -year full share goal should be
useful in longer -range comprehensive communicy planning.
The second numerical goal is a three -year available funding goal. It is based on
the number of units the Area can realistically anticipace having funded and is sub -
stantially less than the full -share goal based on the total need for the Area. This
second figure represents the most realistic assessment of the number of lower income
units a community can expect to have funded. Therefore, this number should be used
in a community's shorter -range planning, such as in federally required Housing
Assistance Plans.
The proportions for funding allocation are more important than any absolute number
of units, for federal funding may vary from year to year. The absolute number of
units allocated to a community will, of course, vary according to the cotal units
allocated to the Metropolitan Area. For illustrative purposes, a funding level is
assumed of 12,000 units over the three -year period, or 4,000 units a year. This
is the best escimate of available chree -year funding at chis time.
HOW NUMERICAL GOALS WILL BE APPLIED
Numerical goals provide a useful planning tool for local governments, the Metropolitan
Council, and the funding agencies- -HUD and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. On
the other hand, numerical goals are meant to be applied with some flexibility in
considering specific project proposals or plans. A number of points in regard to the
application of the numerical goals should.be clarified. -
As noted, avilable funding numbers are three -year goals. A single project might
utilize a community's encire three -year allocation; particularly in communities al-
located a rather low number of units. This is expected and would be acceptable,
provided, of.course, chat the community was achieving the appropriate balance between
family and elderly needs with the proposal.
A basic assumption of any allocation plan is that all communities allocated units will
in fact comoece for units within the period of the allocation plan. While achieving
that is desirable and consistenc with Council policy, not all urbanized communities
will do their fair share in providing subsidized 'housing. This is true particularly
with the new construction subsidized housing program which involves private developers
3- 16
-,.-,
almost exclusively. Therefore, some additional policy interpretations are needed to
guide Council application of the numerical goals, since some communities will not
be applying for any units and others will be proposing subsidized housing in excess
of the Council's recommended numerical goals. AM
The following policy guidelines will be followed by the Council:
1. The center cities-of Minneapolis and St. Paul should view the numerical
goals as the maximum.number of units to be provided. Once the numerical
goal is reached no further units will be recommended by the Council
for funding.
The Freestanding Growth Centers should view the numerical goal for all
fourteen communities as the maximum number of units to be provided.
No more than 14 per cent of the subsidized housing will be allocated
to that group of communities. Within the total allocation for the free-
standing communities, however, some flexibility at the individual com-
munity level will be acceptable.
2. For communities within the MUSA, the numerical goals are most appropri-
ately-viewed as the minimum units to be provided. The Council will,
further, be guided by the priority status of the community; higher
priority suburban communities would be encouraged to plan for more units.
First and second priority communities, in particular, are key areas
within which Council policy encourages the development of subsidized
housing and their housing goals may reflect their priority status.
Third priority communities represent more of a cross - section of levels
of development and vary in their immediate suitability for large amounts
of subsidized housing. These communities are generally encouraged to
plan for numbers of subsidized housing which bear a fairly close re-
lationship to the numerical goals allocated by the Council. Typically,
the Council would not recommend more funding for a third priority
community than that designated by the allocation plan.
This plan has made the Metropolitan Area more receptive to federal funds, and has
increased the amount of funds allocated to the area for subsidized housing. Due to
the fact that the actual need for lower income housing substantially exceeds even the
most optimistic estimates of available funding, it should be made very clear that the
Council will in no case ever recommend that funds be returned to the federal govern-
ment simply to achieve the recommended distribution of units. While the Council be-
lieves a planned distribution of low- and - moderate income housing is extremely import-
ant, it would not wish to have the supply of subsidized units available to the Region
reduced simply to accomplish that goal.
FAMILY AND ELDERLY NEEDS
The proposed allocation plan established a single system of priority areas and nu-
merical goals for families and elderly. The allocation plan does, however, establish
policy guidelines for the distribution of units between family and elderly needs.
Historically, the vast majority of subsidized housing built in this Area has been for
the elderly. The Council has established that the percentage of family and elderly
units should meet at least the area -wide need of 60 per cent family and 40 per cent
elderly. Provision of at least 60 per cent family units should be viewed as a
minimum for each community. A community which has a need or wishes to serve a
greater percentage of families would certainly be encouraged to do so.
All communities within the MUSA should plan to meet this guideline within the three -
year period of the allocation plan. Although each individual project would not be
expected to meet this objective, a community's over -all three -year subsidized housing
activity should provide at least 60 per cent for families. Community plans and
housing assistance plans will be reviewed in light of this policy.
The existing subsidized housing supply will be considered in goals for future activity.
In cases where a community already has either family or elderly subsidized housing,
this may be considered as reason for variance of the guideline on an individual com-
munity basis.
3 -17
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION
P,P IN — PRIORITY AREAS
G3 1st Priority
M 2nd Priority
0 3rd Priority
Freestanding
Communities
ST. KIM"
EAST BCTN9L
sup"s i GROVE
G
OAK R
11" OV,
.ASSAPI
CN..
COICONAN I MAPLE PM!:::tr,
HENNEPIN CO.
RLTTo
I/rant .........
LONG LAX_
2
HOLLYWOOD
ANOKA CO.
AMIMIM I MANLARS
..........
BLAINE
---I
LINWOOD,
COLUMBUS
NEW SCAPICI.
FONEST LAKE
LONG LAKI
CIRCLE PINES
may
RUSS) I
WASHINGTON CO.
STILLWATER
GRANT
LAII9 BAY"".
6XIODALA 'L.0
WEST
LA ELANO
ST. CIIO#* 29
ASTON
.................
................
..................w....! ....
NLr GERMANY It;
.In MANY Ov N1 7�
y CN;NNA6;W
CAMDEN
TOAIH
ACONfA LAKE . ......
.......... .. ................
.........................
11, ............... ......... ............
CARVER CO. .... ........ . .....................
............
... . . ... .... ..... .....
CHASKA
�JATINICA
I%IWTA CO.
CARTER ACKSON
OAMLGAIEN $A a `..l........... .
CqLOGN .......... ......
TOUNG AMERICA BENTON Lkjjj* : 0-- lastmovair MININGER
P41104 .........................
LAKE GS
r LOUISVILLE
I t;:a-46:M= ...............
SAN FRANCISCO
COCK VERMILLION II I
I I ( LARKIFILLE MANSHAN
L " —AN AND CREEK SPRING LANE CREDIT
ROVER
I i (5 MILLION
*1 SCOTT CO.
ST. LAWRENCE I J040&N
0.�. TL
BELLE PLAINS
Nf P, MARKET m
SLARELEY BELLE PtAfNE I HELENA CEDAR SAKE EUREKA CASTLE ROCK L
I I HAMPTON DOUGLAS
New MARKET
CqE;:Lxo
MILES 5 10 :S 20 23 GREENVALE IWATERFORO
I SCIOTA
TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
t SPRING PARK t1 1ICT0:IA 17 FALCON :91411STS 2 GIN LAKE
I ORONO 013KA 1 0 .096' 111 dINIMPT z: 11INCHWOOS AtLQv--*— County Boundary
3 SO "RIF EACH It SPRING LAKE PARK I: LILT DAL& 27 WHITE BEAR
4 TG:KA RAT L2 U. I. GOVT. 20 GREY CLOUD 29 IATPOOT OR*"*
IX "9LJI04 13 HILLTOP 21 LANDFALL 22 *ILLINNIC Municipal Boundary
'ItIM110041 14 COLUMBIA 141141ITS 22 D9LLW00D 30 OAK PARK HEIGHT[ Z"-U2L-- Township Boundary
7 .0001. n' IS I'. ANT No.' 23 PIKE IP2IN46 31 LAKILAX0 SHOICS
, .9vICX LANE 11 LAUD:RDALK 24 MANYOU901 32 IT. &All'$ POINT
3-18
Freestanding Growth Centers may emphasize their own local needs to a greater degree
than communities within the MUSA. Freestanding centers and the surrounding rural
area they serve may contain higher percentages of elderly persons than the MUSA. In
addition, newly forming families would not be expected to locate in these areas to
the same degree as they will within the MUSA. Therefore, freestanding communities
may plan to meet their own local needs, and the guideline for family and elderly WR
would be applied more flexibly for these communities.
Despite the Council's strong advocacy of the need to develop family as well as elderly
subsidized housing, few housing developments for lower income families have been
developed in recent years, particularly for larger families requiring three or more
bedrooms. Therefore, the Council will give immediate top priority to any housing
development which is proposed to include at least 20 per cent of its units as sub -
sidized family units containing three or more bedrooms. For such projects the Council
will set aside its normal priority area classifications and numerical goals and re-
commend highest priorities, except in the case of Minneapolis and St. Paul, which must
accommodate all projects within their established numerical allocation. The project
must, of course, meet normal review criteria, such as being adequately provided with
necessary services, having no negative environmental impact, and not constituting
an excessive concentration of low income families. However, provided Council review
criteria are satisfied, housing developments which will include subsidized three and
four - bedroom units for families will receive the Council's strongest support for fund-
ing.
NEW TOWNS
Some flexibility may have to be exercised in the application of the allocation plan
in regard co chose projects that are of a fairly large scale and which involve inno-
vative planning and financing concepts, such as developments financed under the New
Communities Act, or other Large -scale "newtowns" or planned unit developments. These
are projects where utilities, services, amenities, shopping, recreation, and employment
are included as part of a comprehensive development plan. Due to the problems of
land assembly and cost, such developments can be expected to occur in the areas
generally classified as having low priority for development. Therefore, in order
to support these kinds of innovative approaches and achieve economically integrated
communities, it may be necessary to give such proposals special consideration apart
from their general priority classification and municipal unit allocation.
When units are set aside at the national level to support a federally - guaranteed New
Town such as Jonathan and Cedar - Riverside, these are viewed as above the normal
allocation and are not governed by the allocation plan. However, if the units applied
for are noc part of a HUD New Town bonus allocation, the distribution of the units
would be governed by the allocation plan. In such cases, some flexibility may have to
be exercised by the Council based on the individual "new town" situation.
TABLE 8. SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN: NUMERICAL GOALS BY PRIORITY AREAS
Fair Share of Ten -:ear Three -Year
Subsidized Full -Share Available
Rousing Goal Funding Goal
Minneapolis 17% 15,850 2,040
St. Paul 11% 10,250 1,320
All other First Priority 3170 28,900 3,720 -
Second Priority 13% 12,100 1.560
Third Priority - 147. 13,050 1,680
Freestanding Communities. 14% 13,050 1,680
100% 93,200 12,000*
*All numbers based on a hypothetical federal funding level of 12,000 units in a
3-year period. Actual federal funding could vary and may be less than 12,000 units
3 -19
TABLE 9. SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN - NUMERICAL GOALS BY COMMUNITY: FIRST
PRIORITY COMMUNITIES.
Ten -Year Full
Three -Year Available
Per
Share Goal
Ten -Year Full
Three -year Available
788
Per cent -
Share Goal
Funding Goal
139
2.42
2,242
290
Minneapolis
16.94
15,850
2,033
St. Paul
10.65
10,250
1,278
Bloomington*
4.68
4,397
562
Brooklyn Center
1.98
1,860
238
Columbia Heights
.72
677
86
Crystal
Edina
.89
3.69
836
3,467
107
443
Falcon Heights
.39
366
47
Fridley
2.07
1,945
248
Golden Valley
1.40
1,315
168
Hilltop
.06
56
7
Hopkins
.92
864
110
Lauderdale
.14
131
17
Maplewood
2.76
2,593
331
New Hope
.91
855
109
Richfield
1.25
1,175
150
Robbinsdale
.67
629
80
Roseville
2.55
2,396
306
St. Anthony
.73
686
88
St. Louis Park
2.76
2,594
331
So. St. Paul
.98
921
118
West St. Paul
1.21
1,137
145
*Part of this community
is in another
priority area, but the
community's total share
and number of units are
shown here.
1�
TABLE 9. (CONTINUED) SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN: SECOND PRIORITY COMMUNITIES.
Arden Hills*
Brooklyn Park
Burnsville*
Landfall
Lilydale
Little Canada
Medicine Lake
Mendota
Mendota Heights
Minnetonka
Moundsview
New Brighton
Newport
North St. Paul
Plymouth*
St. Paul Park
-Shoreview*
Spring Lake Park
Wayzata
+7hite Bear Lake
*Part of this community is in another priority area, but the community's total share
and number of units are shown here.
3-20
Ten -Year Full
Three -Year Available
Per
Share Goal
Funding Goal
.85
788
102
1.16
1,075
139
2.42
2,242
290
.05
47
6
.16
148
19
.54
500
65
06
56
7
.05
47
6
.75
695
90
1.84
1,704
221
.40
371
48
1.08
1,000
130
.22
204
26
.48
445
58
2.43
2,251
291
.23
213
28
1.14
1,056
137
_ .23
213
28
.42
389
50
.60
556
72
*Part of this community is in another priority area, but the community's total share
and number of units are shown here.
3-20
TABLE 9. (Continued) SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN: THIRD PRIORITY COMMUNITIES.
TABLE 9. (Continued) SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN: FrREESTANDING COMMUNITIES
Ten -Year Full
Three -Year Available
Per cent
Share Goal
Funding Goal
Andover
.01
9
1
Apple Valley
1.05
980
126
Birchwood
.02
19
2
Blaine
.35
327
42
Chanhassen
.21
195
.25
Circle Pines
.12
112
14
Coon Rapids
1.43
1,335
172
Cottage Grove
.28
262
34
Deephaven
.14
130
17
Eagan
2.28
2,130
274
Eden Prairie
1.35
1,260
162
Excelsior
.24
224
29
Gem Lake
.06
56
7
Greenwood
.02
19
2
Inver Grove Heights
.41
383
49
Lexington
.05
47
6
Long Lake
0
Mahcomedi
..
29
271
35
Maple Grove
.35
327
42
Minnetonka Bh
.02
19
2
Minnetrista
.01
9
1
Mound
.29
271
35
North Oaks
.10
93
12
Oakdale
.49
458
59
Orono
.25
234
- 30
Osseo
.21
196
25
Pine Springs
.01
9
1
Savage
Shorewood
.16
149
19
Spring Park
.16
149
19
Sunfish Lake
.05
47
6
Tonka Bay
.03
28
4
Vadnais Heights
.32
299
38
Victoria
.06
56
7
.White Bear
.27
253
32
Willernie
.02
19
2 .
Woodbury
.16
1749
19
Woodland
.01
9
1
TABLE 9. (Continued) SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN: FrREESTANDING COMMUNITIES
METROPOLITAN ALLOCATION PLAN FOR REHABILITATION FUNDS
Recent changes in state and federal housing legislation have given increased emphasis
3 -21
Ten -Year Full
Three -year Available
Per Cent
Share Goal
Funaing Goal
Anoka
2.73
2,563
328
Belle Plaine
.33
309
40
Chaska
1.37
1,285
164
Farmington
.47
441
56
Forest Lake
.65
611
78
Hastings
1.87
1,756
224
Jordan
.30
282
36
Lakeville
1.23
1,155
148
New Prague
.35
329
42
Prior Lake
.47
440
56
Rosemount
.73
685
88
Shakopee
1.70
1,597
204
Stillwater
1.70
1,597
204
Waconia
.48
450
58
METROPOLITAN ALLOCATION PLAN FOR REHABILITATION FUNDS
Recent changes in state and federal housing legislation have given increased emphasis
3 -21
APPENDIX B
. ....,,
Discussion draft of the proposed Housing Chapter of the Metropolitan Development
Guide and Recommendations for Changes from a meeting of Edina, Richfield,
Robbinsdale, Minnetonka., Crystal and Golden Valley on 7- -21 -76.
The proposed Housing Chapter, of the Metropolitan Development Guide
recommends several implementive tools aimed at insuring local
government response to providing opportunities for low- and- moderate-
income housing.
Most of these new tools, including primarily the current Allocation Plan
for Subsidized Housing and the Criteria for Review of Local Housing
Assistance Plans, have been used during the past year on a basis of
interim authorization.. The Allocation Plan was tentatively adopted
after public hearing several months ago. Since that time, several
communities that had assumed the Plan was acceptable found it in
part unacceptable and unreasonable when these communities prepared
Local Housing Assistance Plans this past spring.
The Criteria for Review of Housing Assistance Plans was adopted for use
without public hearing. An even greater number of communities have
.found it in part unacceptable.
The following is an analysis of the deficiencies in the proposed Housing
Section of the Metropolitan Development Guide, and recommendations for
changes.
The recommended changes in the Guide chapter (described below) deal
primarily with the Council's proposed Allocation Plan for Subsidized
Housing and its Review Criteria for Subsidized Housing.
The deficiencies are most directly apparent to those communities that
prepared Housing Assistance Plans in the past year.
t
Summary of .the Major Findings and Recommendations ,
1. The 10 -year goals for individual cities should be eliminated from in-
clusJon in this year's Guide chapter due to questions concerning the
magnitude of need, and to its not considering local capability to
provide subsidized housing.
2. The.method. of deriving three -year goals by a community should be
altered to include the factor of local capacity to produce subsidized
housing.
3. Each community should be given the opportunity to perform an analysis
of its. local capacity according to the methodology outlined below; and
this numerical capacity analysis by communities wishing to undertake it
should be included in deriving the three -year numerical goals.
4. Local rehabilitation loans and grants in Housing Assistance. Plan (HAP)
goals should .be credited to communities in determining whether cities
meet the 60 7o/407o family /elderly split.
5. The 6076/4016 family /elderly split criteria should not apply. to a city
accepting the family goal when a rigid application of the criteria would
make it impossible to attain the elderly goal.
6. Multi -city pooling of goals, if reasonable,. should be available to larger
cities, not just to small ones.
The communities suggesting these changes do not disagree with the
intended purpose of this allocation plan of "serving the housing needs,
not only of current community residents, but also of those persons who
might wish to live there or be expected to reside in the community if the
opportunities were available. "
However, each community, in doing its fair share, does not want to agree
to an allocation plan on which it cannot deliver. This would do disservice
not only to individual communities asked to do the impossible, but also to
the overall workability of the plan.
• The most troubling portion of the allocation plan at issue is that which
indicates the number of subsidized housing units. "each municipality can
reasonably be expected to have funded over the next three years."
In the following, it is demonstrated that for certain communities, the
current allocation plan is not reasonable and that conditions in these com-
munities make impossible the provision of subsidized housing requested by
the allocation plan.
The consequences of a community's agreeing to a housing allocation plan it
cannot implement. are very serious.
Each community_ seeking Community Development Funds from the federal
government must prepare a Housing Assistance Plan (HAP). The Metro-
politan Council will review these HAP's against the Council's housing
allocation plan as part of their review for Community Development funding.
Those HAP's with housing goals inconsistent with the Metropolitan Council's
housing allocation plan will be found to be "In conflict" with Metropolitan
Council policies, and those offending communities will not be recommended
for Community Development funding.
Furthermore, as stated on page 4 -32 of the proposed housing chapter:
As time goes on, a major issue in reviewing HAP's will be
the progress of the community in achieving the goals estab-
lished in previous year's plan. In the future, both the
federal government and the Council will probably be
unwilling to approve continued Community Development
funding in the absence of demonstrated progress toward
meeting low income housing goals outlined in previous
HAP's. It is clear that the Council is interested in
seeing that HAP's are not only developed, but also
implemented.
Hence, amending the allocation plan to incorporate only realistic goals
makes not only good planning sense, but will be crucial in insuring the
continued vital funding provided through the Community Development
program.
t .
Capability
The current three -year allocation plan for subsidized housing described in
the proposed Housing Chapter computes numerical goals by:
applying a six -part formula which averages each com-
munity's share of the Area's total population, anticipated
population growth, employment, anticipated employment
growth, and low -and- moderate income households in
need, and then subtracts out each community's existing
supply of subsidized housing.
This formula nowhere incorporates a factor describing the community's
capability to provide subsidized housing.
As a result, numerical goals are established which are impossible for
some communities to achieve.
This is so because there is only one program currently operating which
can provide substantial amounts of additional subsidized housing--thc�
Section 8 Rental Assistance program.
The workability of the Section 8Existing Housing program in a community
requires the. existence of a sufficient number of available housing units with
rents below Fair Market Rent ceilings established by the federal government.
The workability.of the Section 8, New Construction program in a community
requires the existence of vacant available land with size and location suitable
for the construction of multi - family housing.
Suppose a community does not have the existing units or suitable vacant
land in sufficient quantity to provide the number of subsidized housing units
called for in the proposed Housing Allocation Plan? Clearly the proposed
plan would be unrealistic for such a community.
This factor of "capability to provide subsidized housing" was not considered
in deriving the proposed numerical goals.
2
-5-
It is hereby suggested` that the three -year housing allocation plan be revised
to allow concerned communities to incorporate this "capability" factor into
the determination of thZdV numerical goals.
�.
'Elderly /Family
In some cases communities may have vacant available land suitable for the
construction of elderl}levelopment(s) with a sufficient number of units, but
may not have vacant land-suitable for the construction of family developmeni.(s)
' 5P %
with the number of units &fled for in the proposed allocation plan.
The same could be true in utilizing the Section 8 Existing Housing program
in certain communities. A community may have existing units of a size
suitable for family housing but too large for elderly housing.
Consequently, the assessment of a community's capability to provide
subsidized housing should be made separately for family and for elderly
housing, and it is hereby suggested that the Allocation Plan be revised to
describe realistic three -year goals by household type (family and elderly).
One example highlighting the need to incorporate this "capability" factor
into the allocation plan concerns the community of Edina.
Edina city officials estimate that there are approximately 35 existing housing
units in Edina which have rents under the Fair Market Rent ceilings required
of units utilized in the Section 8 Existing Housing program. The current pro-
posed Housing Allocation Plan requires that Edina provide 443 units of
subsidized housing over the next three years. Thus, approximately 408 of
these subsidized units ih Edina would involve Section 8 new construction.
Based upon average development sizes proposed last year in the Section 8
New Construction program, Edina would have to initiate five average -size
Section 8 developments over the next three years to meet the requirements
of the current allocation plan.
U
-G-
It is unrealistic to expect that five suitable sites for new construction could
be found and developed there within three years. Indeed, were this attempted.
the Metropolitan Council would probably disapprove some because of
"undue concentrations.of subsidized housing developments" in Edina.
Since Section 8 is the only substantial tool for subsidized housing, it is
clear that the 443 unit goal for Edina is unrealistic. But unless Edina's
capability to provide subsidized housing is assessed, and a realistic goal
set, Edina could be faced with a cutoff in Community Development or other
funds because of its failure to achieve a goal which does not consider
realities currently perceived by city officials.
The Metropolitan Council's own HRA obviously perceives such realities as
a community's "capability to deliver subsidized housing" in designing their
own Section 8 Existing Housing program. One factor considered by the
Council's HRA in determining each community's share of the Section 8
Existing Housing units available was the community's "supply of fair
market rent units." Thus, it appears that even the Council's own HRA
perceives a weakness in the Council's Housing Allocation Plan - -a weakness
corrected by incorporating a measure of each community's "capability" to
supply subsidized units for the program -.
.Is it then unreasonable to suggest that this same "capability" factor be
considered in determining an allocation plan for subsidized housing?
It is hereby recommended that:
1. The 10 -year goals be eliminated from the Development Guide due to
serious questions as to the accuracy of the needs projections and
due to lack of "capacity" analysis. A revised set of 10 -year goals
could be added in a future revision of the Guide. (See Appendix
B for details.)
-7-
2. The three -year goals be refined as follows:
a. The six -part numerical formula be expanded to include
"Local Subsidized Housing Capacity" as one of the formula
elements.
b. That this_ revision occur prior to adoption of this proposed
Development Guide chapter. (See Appendix A for details.)
3. Each community be given the opportunity to perform an analysis of
its local capacity according to the methodology outlined below; and
that this numerical capacity analysis by communities wishing to
undertake'it be included in deriving the three -year numerical goals.
Method for Including "Local Subsidized Housing Analysis" as
Part of the Allocation Plan Formula-
The Metropolitan Council will distribute to each community the proposed
Allocation Plan goals for that community. The Council will also distribute
a blank form entitled "Local Subsidized Housing Capacity Analysis."
Any community that feels it might have not had sufficient qualifiable rental
units or sufficient amounts of feasible vacant land should undertake a "Local
Subsidized Housing Capacity Analysis."
The Local Subsidized Housing Capacity Analysis determines how many
units of various types of subsidized housing could be accomodatcd in the
community.
Specifically, a community will determine the total number of units of
each of four categories of subsidized housing that could be provided in
the city.
The city would determine the number of Section 8 Existing units for families
and for the elderly, respectively, by counting the number of rental units
that would qualify for the Section 8 Existing program.
-8-
The city would determine the numb.cr of Section 8 New Construction units
for families and for the elderly, respectively, by counting the number of
units that could be built on sites that meet the Metropolitan Development
Guide standards of site suitability and accessibility to services and
facilities.
If the City's Local Subsidized Housing Capacity Analysis totals are less
than the proposed Metropolitan Council Allocation Plan three -year
community goal in either the family or the elderly category, then that
community's allocation plan goals will be the "capacity" numbers.
No community will have three -year, goals in the Allocation Plan that are
greater than its capacity levels.
The Metropolitan Council would reassign the excess units (those units
beyond the capacity of the individual community to produce) to those
communities that do not have capacity limitations in the manner
prescribed in the current six -part formula.. (See Appendix A for
more detail.)
Rehabilitation Subsidies
The current Allocation Plan for Subsidized Housing does not include
rehabilitation goals as goals for subsidized housing. However, it is
clear that rehabilitation loans and especially rehabilitation grants do
in fact often reduce the count of "low- and - moderate- income families
living in inadequate housing" and thus reduce the count of those house-
hold's in need of a housing subsidy.
HUD's guidelines for preparing a Housing Assistance Plan as part of a
Community Development Block Grant Application call for the city to include
proposed rehabilitation assistance as housing assistance in assessing
whether it is meeting its needs for family housing. The Metropolitan
WZ
Council should include the same hypes of housing assistance in measuring;
family -vs.- elderly goals as HUD uses. Such a change is rational and it
reduces conflicting review criteria from different review bodies.
The argument for not counting rehabilitation as housing subsidy is
that rehabilitation does not allow a family to move, i.e., does not provide
a wider choice of housing. However, anticipation of a rehabilitation loan
or grant, which in effect subsidizes the homeowner by making his payments
less than they would otherwise be for adequate housing, is often a motive,
in purchasing a home in need of rehabilitation. Thus, a carefully designed
rehabilitation program intended to make larger households currently
occupied by smaller elderly families available for larger, younger families
would indeed provide greater locational choice and should be considered
a housing subsidy.
It is hereby recommended that:
4. The proposed criteria for review of Housing Assistance Plans would
include the following provision: Rehabilitation loan and grant programs
which reduce the count of "those low- and - moderate income households
-in need of housing assistance" should be counted as part of the housing
subsidies provided in a community for the purposes of a Housing
Assistance Plan and Metro Council review of that plan. Further,
the HAP goals for rehabilitation loans and grants would be included
in determining whether a community met the 60 % /40ojo family /elderly
split requirement.
Family - Elderly Proportions
In some communities with smaller allocations of subsidized units in the
. . current Allocation Plan, the family need can be met by utilizing the Sec-
tion 8 Existing Housing program. However, due to the unavailability of
appropriate size existing units, the elderly need may not. be able to be met
through the Section 8 Existing Housing program. For example, say a
-!0
community were allocated 80 subsidized units. The current plan would
require that no more than 32 of these could be elderly units and at least
48 would have to be family units. The community might, have the capability
to supply 48 existing housing units for families, but not 32 existing units
for elderly tenants. The only opportunity of meeting the elderly need for
subsidized housing would then be through Section 8 New Construction.
But most housing developers would not sponsor that small a new
construction project (32 elderly units)due to economic considerations .
If more units were requested by the community-so that an economically
feasible elderly project could be constructed, of say 80 units, and if
the community could supply no more than 48 family units, then the
family /elderly split would be in conflict with the proposed Allocation
Plan's requirement for a 60 7o/407o family /elderly split for each com-
. munity.
This situation represents a case wherein a rigid application of the 60 %/407o
family /elderly split requirement would actually penalize certain communities
that are meeting their family needs.
It is recommended that:
5. The proposed Criteria for Review of Housing Assistance Plans
would include the following provision: In those communities where
the family goal in the allocation plan has been listed in the HAP by the
community, and where the allocation plan requirement of a 60 0/o/407o
family /elderly split would have the net effect of denying a community
the opportunity to meet its elderly need for subsidized housing
through Section 8 New Construction, the 60 %/40 %.family /elderly
split requirement would not apply..
Communities Sharing Subsidized Housing Responsibilities
Proposed criteria for the sharing of subsidized housing responsibilities
listed on page 4 -33 of the proposed housing chapter are in some instances
-11
quite arbitrary - - especially the limitation that any community with
a three -year allocation for subsidized housing -of more than 50 units
be precluded by such sharing.
It is hereby recommended that:
6. Item I on page 4 -33 of the proposed housing chapter of thb Guide
be amended to read as follows:
Sharing or clustering is allowable for groups of
contiguous communities as an alternative method of
meeting Allocation Plan responsibility for reasons of
efficiency, increased opportunity to achieve production,
for meeting reasonable minimum size and service
levels, or meeting local geographic or site constraints.
Sharing responsibilities is specifically encouraged for
smaller, contiguous third - priority communities whose
allocations under the Allocation Plan are small and most
be clustered in order to support delivery of subsidized
units, particularly for new construction.
i� Units
Appendix A
Subsidized Capacities Form
Section 8 Existing Housing -- Family units:
A community count of (lie number of rental units
with two or more bedrooms with rents below the
Fair Market Rent ceilings governing the Section 8
Existing Housing program.
Section 8 Existing Housing -- Elderly units:
A community count of the number of rental units
with one bedroom (or of efficiency units) with rents
below the Fair Market Rent ceilings governing the
Section 8 Existing Housing program.
Section 8 New Construction -- Family units:
The community would locate on a map those
vacant available parcels of land-that meet the
minimum distance requirements listed in the
Metropolitan Council's Development Guide for
accessibility to services and facilities. No more
than 85 family units per parcel should be counted,
but no more units per parcel than can be supported
considering the parcel size and the municipality's
maximum density requirement.
Parcels considered should not be less than one mile
in distance from another parcel considered.
Parcels incapable of supporting 30 units or more of
family housing should not be considered as such
developments would not likely be funded by funding
agencies.
Section 8 New Construction -- Elderly units:
The community would locate on a map those vacant
available parcels of land *that meet the minimum
*vrhich are appropriately zoned or identified for multi -
family housing on the community's Comprehensive Plan
_2- (A)
distance requirements listed in the Metropolitan
Council's Development Guide for accessibility to
services and facilities. No more than 130 elderly
units. per parcel should be counted, but no more
units per parcel than can be supported considering
the parcel size and the municipality's maximum
density requirement.
Parcels incapable of supporting 50 units or more
of elderly housing should not be considered as such
developments would not likely be funded by funding
agencies.
Metropolitan Council Procedure Following Receipt of
Subsidized Capacities Form
Communities will have six weeks to prepare the Local Subsidized Housing
Capacity Analysis. Upon receipt of the Capacity Analysis Forms by the
deadline date, the Metropolitan Council would then revise its proposed
three- year allocation plan for subsidized housing as follows:
First, the maximum number of family units the community had the
capability of producing would be considered. • The total family capability
for both existing housing and new construction would be computed and if this
total were less than 60% of the subsidized units currently allocated that
community, then this total capability would become the revised family
goal for subsidized housing. Should this total family capability be more
than 6016 of the subsidized units currently allocated that community, then
the allocation plan would remain as is.
The capability of the community to supply elderly units would then be
computed by totaling the existing housing units available with the residual
number of new construction elderly units possible after meeting as nearly
as possible the requirements of the current allocation plan regarding
_3- (A)
family units. Should the maximum elderly total be less than 40% of Elie
subsidized units currently allocated the community, then this total capability
would be the revised elderly goal for subsidized housing. Should this total
elderly capability be more than 40% of the subsidized units currently
allocated that community, then the. allocation plan would remain as is.
Having recomputed family and elderly allocation goals as described above,
the Metropolitan Council would then calculate the total number of units
communities with insufficient capacities were unable to supply, by family
and by elderly categories. These units would then be re- allocated among
all communities with sufficient capacity in the same porportion as called
for in the current allocation plan. A check would then be made of those
communities submitting Capacity Forms because capability was nearly
exhausted by the allocation plan. The purpose of this check would be to
determine if the re- allocation of units caused them to be incapable of
meeting the revised allocation plan. Should this occur, a second
re- allocation would be necessary and would be performed in the same
manner as indicated above.
The net .effect of this procedure would be a plan with the same number of
subsidized units as the current plan, and with the same 600%6 -400/6 family-
elderly split, but without requiring communities to agree to a plan they
did not have the capability to implement.
These steps would be taken prior to adoption of the Housing Section of the
Metropolitan Development Guide.
Appendix B
Ten -}year Full Share Goal Unrealistic
On page 1 -10 of the Housing Chapter, the Metropolitan Council estimates
that 93, 173 additional units of subsidized housinc will be needed in the
metropolitan area over the next ten years. Community comprehensive
plans will be reviewed in light of each community's "fair share'; of
this need, as described in tables beginning on page 3 -29.
This figure of 93, 173 additional subsidized units seems unrealistically
high. Page 1 -7 indicates that in 1975, the area contained 27, 061 sub-
sidized units. A goal of 93, 173 additional subsidized units would
find the area with a total of 120, 234 subsidized units in 1985, or
about four times as many as currently exist.
Recent population estimates also provided by the Metropolitan Council
indicate that population growth has slowed in recent years. A June
25, 1976, Public Information Release indicates that the area has
grown approximately one percent per year over the last six years.
Should this growth pattern continue for the period 1975 to 1985, the
1985 population would be approximately 10016 greater than the 1975
population and , even assuming a smaller average household size of
3. 0 persons per household, only 92, 901 new Housing units would be
built in the area over the next ten years.
It is difficult to imagine that a household growth of 92, 901 units would
be accompanied by additional subsidies for 93, 173 units. Is it realistic
to plan for a 344% increase in subsidized housing in an area where total
housing will increase a little over 100/o?
Should this occur, the percentage of area housing which is subsidized
would rise from 4. 07o in 1975 to 15. 616 in 1985.
The inflated figures for additional subsidized housing would produce
even more extreme comparisons for individual communities.
-2- (13)
For example, in Edina, Metropolitan Council household forecasts
indicate a total household growth of 4, 249 twits for the period 1075 to
1985 (derived from Metropolitan Council figures interpolated at
16, 001 households in 1975 and 20, 250 households in 1985). Yet, the
ten -year full share goal for Edina indicates that 3, 467 additional
units should be subsidized there. Since very few existing housing
-units would be eligible for housing subsidies in Edina, .the implication
of this ten -year goal' is that almost 82% of new construction in Edina
over the next ten years should be for subsidized units.
Put another way, in order to meet this full share ten -year goal,
Edina would have to construct four new average -size (83- unit)
subsidized developments in each of the next ten years. At that
point, over 2016 of the housing in Edina would be subsidized.
MEMO
TO: Warren C. Hyde, City Manager
The Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Melena
DATE: August 2, 1976
SUBJECT: REPAIRS OF FIRE DEPARTMENT AERIAL LADDER TRUCK
This memo is to advise you of the following information:
After a great deal of negotiations with the companies-concerned, the
following are cost estimates-for repairing the aerial ladder truck to
its intended structural and safety specifications.
First and foremost is the repair of the ladder, this will be repairing
all defective welds a.nd in the end receiving an underwriters test on
the ladder and certification from the manufacturer. Also, along with
this, the ladder would be x -rayed by.an.independent ladder and boom
inspection company and further certification would be received from
that company. The.cost of that inspection will be between $400 and
$500 from the inspection company. The repairs of the ladder will be
approximately $1,400.
The other repairs, which basically are maintenance items to the ladder
truck, are as' follows: repair jacks $150; check turntable $550;
electrical operation $100; ladder control levers $25; pressure gauge
$75; lubricate $50; and fly ladder chatter $75.
It is felt by staff that at.present that the City should justifiably
pay for the maintenance items and x -rays, however, the payment of the
$1,400 for the repairs to the ladder, which we thought was structurally
sound in the first place, is a very questionable item.
At the present time we are over a barrel, in that the vehicle is down,
it is needed, and until the repairs are done, it cannot be used.
Therefore, we would suggest that we have the repairs made, get the
vehicle back in our hands and then argue over the $1,400 cost and point
out the possible implications and negative publicity to Seagraves.
Therefore,.at present we are looking at a total cost of approximately
$2,925. Of this, there is the possibility of not being charged $1:,400
leaving a total cost of $1:,525. In light of this, I would recommend
proceeding with'the repairs, knowing that further conversation and
negotiations will take place.
4;
L
IF M =A
T-
w 4? in V
48 T04 ST
- 7
I L
W
IK
4 T,(
T- L,
itco'c
CL
I L I
zoning
REQUEST NUMBER: Z-76-9
SE corner of 50th Street
LOCATION: and Halifax Avenue
]REQUEST: Rezoning pursuant to
H.R.A. redevelopment plan.
Villnge plannilin depnrtmenl 44I.Inge of edin
M
1 1 MI
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
1
-June 2, 1976
2 -76-9 City of Edina. Lunds parking lot generally located at the southeast
corner of West 50th Street and Halifax Avenue.
Refer to: Attached map.
Request: C -2 and C -4 Commercial District to APD Automobile
Parking District.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority wishes to protect the parking ratio at
.50th and France by having the parking lot in front of Lunds store and the former
Union Oil gas station site rezoned to Automobile Parking District. The City of
Edina and the Lunds have recently signed a cross easement for parking on each
,other's property.
Recommendation: Approval for the following reasons:
1. It is in conformance with the 50th and France Redevelopment Plan.
2. It will preserve the parking ..reservoir on 50th and France.
GL:ln
5/28/76
r �
C onLr[ rG
r,
.., r :�..�.
s.... r
:4004. ` i •
-.- ---_
4040
IT
-
07.61 '
Area
I
•��
,.'• ,
00
I 01.41
•�
�`.
i
I
I lone. �
�
�•`
r•
!•
-
0
y ❑
I
( P.., /.1..d ,
�
I ,'
•
;
f.�.. li,.. t7. t,
1 +
UN /ON 76
`
I
`\
�•
�,
ir
.f,L ,Lb
p.q
``
.•
r -N (•w1. 1 Lv,p I✓.Y! r %N G,.• L..t
♦ `�
cone.
Orire
( K.7S
Ara r
si Lb
Ra,ap
I
_
I
CM1.
I
10 e. �
Z &Ar 05
I
v
• v r v
III. REZONINGS:
Z -76 -9 City of Edina. Lunds parkin lot enera 1L located at the southeast
corner of West 50th Street and Halifax Avenue. C -2 and C -4 Commercial
District to APD Automobile Parking District.
Mr. Luce stated the property in question is the former Union Oil gas station
site on 50th and Halifax and the parking lot in front of ,Lunds grocery store. He
recalled the land trade which occurred between the Edina Housing and Redevelopment
Authority and the Lunds, and explained the proposed commercial condominium building
to be constructed in the present Edina Eye Clinic location. Mr. Luce noted that
Edina and the Lunds recently signed a cross easement for joint parking privileges,
and now desire to have the existing and future parking areas rezoned from C -2
commercial district to APD Automobile Parking District.
Mr. Kremer moved the rezoning from C -2 to APD be approved as requested. Mrs.
McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
V
[AwCATION MAP As
• amom
ice■ �qm�
�I
zoning
REQUEST NUMBER: z -76 -11
SW corner of W. 51st Street
LOCATION: and France Avenue.
REQUEST: Rezoning from R -1 to R -4
for elderly housing in conformance with
H.R.A. 50th and France plan.
.fflase planning dennrtment village of edina
�� . II � •11 it "
�i s 1 111 1 1
N. Nam S a,
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
July 7,1976
Z -76 -11 Rainbow Management Division.. Generally located at the southwest corner
of W. 51st Street and France Avenue. R -1 Single Family Residence
District to R -4 Multiple Residence District.
Refer to: Attached location map, 50th and France Redevelopment
Plan map, and site plan and floor plan.
In general agreement with the 50th and.France redevelopment plan, the
proponents are requesting to build a 45 unit apartment structure for the
elderly. This building would be four stories in height (approximately
the same height as the existing Lanterns condominiums building). The site
data as well as the floor plan data is shown on the attached plans submitted
..,by the developer. The developer has agreed to build a bus stop and shelter
iVn*the France Avenue side of this building. The proponents would construct
individual enclosed garage stalls (1/3 per unit) on the west side of the
building. It is important to note that the proposed structure would be
significantly below its existing grade and thus the setback between the
property.line to the west will create a natural berm.
Recommendation: The staff would recommend approval contingent on:
1. Significant (almost excessive) landscaping along the westerly property line.
2. Construction of.a bus shelter and bus stop.
3. Approval by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Section 8
funds.
Approval is recommended for the following reasons:
1. The development will aid in Edina's achievement.of its housing
allocation requirement.
2. The proposal achieves the elderly segment of Edina's Housing Assistance
Plan.
• 3. The development is consistent with the 50th and France Redevelopment Plan.
GL:ln
7/2/16
J " /off �h J •(((�����` ` ' • . '
. �.
Sl-
lum
Z.
dkv
KI
so
Nc�.-'!� .. �..� .f��. � —ppl�y J • _ \ , v.- /- /� \ •.t l•
,
QY
fi►CS VA 3NNIN 'vN103 133tl1S N1311AU 1S7M 100*
OIL
f • �,. j. .�
if! aj �.
.r��� -•w fir � (....,��• --i .... - ;''�• -•+-.-. r+•,- r.... ..+vsv,--- +•FS"- t_f^-..,....,. :......s•� � 'mot
- > • .- - ...,,.p ... -
to fm cm 1=6=mca cl
r
• .1 ��� PROVIDE LANDSCAPE BEEPER —/
i „�'•' .'i INCREASE INTERSECTION RADA
NO ON STREET PARKING
aft
,• Ag 112TH Sr.
r VISE INTERSECTION P1PROVE �1
ii TRAFFIC FLOW E:F.,L•: ED
9 SHOA PING
ONE-WAY FLOW 2 LEVEL PARKWG D E
samwsww
• "b FROM BANK
RETAIL 91
6.000 $F 01 — RETAIL 5.000 S.F.
i P{
O �?
' 4•
INCREASE MAJOR PLAZA=
INTERSECTION RADII u MAJOR FOCUS �
AIL p REDUCE TO 2 DRIVE
PROVIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER---j !A9.SFgTHROUG LANE
YPARKING .� _ .a ,Ina a wq
�-� q M�
-. F1 ui f»faeaarla
r h RESIDENTIAL ! � < •RETAIL 11.900 S.F:
v r �: Q PRO /OFF. 1 1,900 S.F. S
30.000 S.F.
•14 -16 UNITS — a i 1 H f
Q = PDD 2,LEVEL9. i9 r,
a fSE Gam'
TO EXISTING (.jJ �
y PARKING E
1ST`FLOOR'
RETAIL 1 SAM SF.
?
!'2ND FLOOR
r4• ', Y ;` r s y i �� A. AS.F.[,
OPTION.CLOSE HALIFAX PRO /OFF 15.000
�i -- � S - J u
ON. STREET: PARKING %v
hsY•ti O dd
REALIGN STREET S -
-' TAPER TO IMPROVE SITE LINE
�e•' •� > ui �: =I. + RESIDENTIAL y
29,000 S.F.: C
1-� 's' •' X isi�13-15 UNITS —��`—
-11� `t -,7t = PROVIDE LANDSCAPE euFFFR --7/
0
- uls�ilY •`4a�:w�Y.. •!. +r�.:i� �.. +..�6 +k•- _ _ _ ._.fr..Y t a'a.r.�r•ml
50th & FRANCE
COMMERCIAL AREA PLAN 'T 20E CITY OF. EDINA
U e 1
z
a
pg
p NO LEFT TURNS
—NO ON STREET P.-
c•
wow 1
now
1
o .
u --
_ ri�ilr'1^r� iV
n
z
- - - -- -9
W -
i
A
...
li.... • .il i tx A,i -fJY t
1•.�� i t .i1�rL —a '.:/. nwuear- w+ W. ++„r.•..w....i.- .r�.....w_.._., �� -_-_ ��... ..
�
� � � �
-
•'
..
-
� - „I.,...a
_ ' '
�eBD 1lLD®IV.Y., MAJCC�l01 - � ,r � � - /
.
Gtr
GBB
r
- -' -
.+�' :,Y.Irtlilr��If •' 4rLrs•I•oIY •:I,11'1i�
G� y J�������� �jj- ,� 1�� ate. �� ((�•�����!!
'
�. •'• g� A%'4
Vnt•'1
•1 /lI!
1
'y'iO4JY>•JLy _ YL�
►..�Ii,IIltiryAiytl�ICILL•pl,i
`(w.
''f:8'3'.rx.u.r::i.�.��
_ Y ti _fF..- - i•.ti
+' - La.,�� 'G-
.
- ..
•
•
--
1`.
4- �teW r
°1' .�
••`
t I -J• //7 .. r
t. •
'
. •� _ ^ y .J:'.; • , 1.:11
.:.
ti-
i
1 •{ •
tv
1.
'A -o
6o64,- Wi
ray
a CNO *I =F pq m
JF
\
S )
S
:,t 1�• ;! Ir.:.
•`LEA
VP16
it
t
f.. kn"
n'i
Zw
6o64,- Wi
ray
JF
\
S )
S
:,t 1�• ;! Ir.:.
•`LEA
VP16
it
t
f.. kn"
n'i
Zw
6o64,- Wi
ray
S -76 -11 Rainbow Management Division. Generally located at the southwest
....corner of W. 51st Street and France Avenue. R -1 Single Family
Residence District to R -4 Multiple Residential District.
Mr. Luce noted the property in question is designated for multiple resi-
dential use on the 50th and France Redevelopment Plan. He explained the proponents
are requesting to build a four story, 45 unit apartment structure for the elderly
with individual enclosed garage stalls (1/3 per unit) on the west side of the
building. Five surface parking stalls would also be constructed. He noted the
garage floor of the proposed structure would be significantly below the existing
grade so the building would be slightly lower than the Lanterns Condominiums to
the north and there would be a natural berm between the structure and the west
property line. The developers have agreed to provide.a bus pull -off zone on France
Avenue and to construct a bus shelter.
7 -7 -76 Planning Commission Minutes, page 7
Mr. Luce recommended the requested rezoning be approved for the following
reasons: 1. the development will aid in Edina's achievement of its housing allo-
cation requirement and will achieve the elderly section of Edina's Housing Assist-
ance Plan._ (This site was identified in the City's 1975 -76 Housing Assistance
Plan, a document which was produced and submitted to the Metropolitan Council and
HUD as part of Edina's application for Community Development funds.); and 2. the
development is consistent with the 50th and France Redevelopment Plan, and the
50th and France Business and Professional Association has endorsed the project.
Mr. Luce recommended that approval of the rezoning be contingent on:
1. significant landscaping along the rear (westerly) property line; 2. construc-
tion of the bus shelter and bus pull -off lane on France Avenue; and 3. approval
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Section 8 funds.
Mr. Runyan felt outdoor open areas should be provided on the site, and the
indoor lounge and laundry areas should be expanded. Roxanne Givens, the developer,
stated the residents at 50th and France would be able to participate.in the
activities at the Yorktown Continental (an apartment building for the elderly at
7151 York Avenue.South, also managed by Rainbow Management Division).. Mr. Bob
Pope, the architect, stated the project.is feasible only because the.Yorktown
apartments are close and the management will be the same. He stated the lounge
and laundry areas could be expanded only by eliminating one unit. He agreed to
provide a one bedroom unit adjacent to the lounge on the first floor so that that -
.unit might eventually be converted into additional lounge space.
After additional discussion, Mr. G. Johnson moved the requested rezoning
be approved subject to the contingencies listed by the staff and the relocation
of units on the first floor next to the lounge, as discussed. H. E. McClennand
seconded the motion.
Mr. John Chapman, current president of the Edina Homeowners Coalition, stated
that a majority of the homeowner's associations are in favor of the request be-
cause of the need for elderly housing. A representative of the Lanterns Condo- ,
miniums felt the residents of the Lanterns should have been notified of the
Phanning Commission meeting. Mr. Luce stated that Sam McGowan of the Lanterns
had reviewed the plans earlier that day and indicated he had no objections to the
proposal.
Mr. Lewis recalled a motion approving the rezoning had been seconded. All
voted aye. Motion carried.
r
MUNN
MEN 011 a,
ti
c4ULEI
TRAIL NEST
CROSSVIEW
U CHURCH
• +� ill L� :�' .�. :: �.
Q.
'IryD1A. •�
I P�
HI LB 1
PP 99 CIRC46
IND,
W ,H NIL
V
0
-34m ;" Ulm, =01
A-
4Y
Y-1
�I
REQUEST NUMBER: S -76 -14
E of McCauley Trail, S of
LOCATION: McCauley Ln. & N of Margaret's Ln.
REQUEST: 3 lot single family subdi- v SCALE
V-600'
vision. O 250 500 750 1000
Village planning depri Zcnt villaae of Minn
5
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
July 7, 1976
S -76 -14 McCauley Heights 6th Addition. Generally located east of McCauley
Trail, south of McCauley Lane and north of Margaret's Lane.
Refer to: Attached survey and area map.
The proponents are requesting to subdivide another small portion of their
property into three more lots. The lot sizes vary from 13,400 square feet to
19,000 square feet. These lot sizes are in general conformance to the lot
sizes in the neighborhood. All of the lots could have direct access onto
Margaret's Lane.
Recommendation: The staff would recommend approval of the proposed plat
contingent on:
1. submission and approval of a Developer's Agreement;
2. The dedication of 5% of the raw land value for parks.
GL:ln
7/2/76
�7 ;
IPA
t �J • ,
C1
a J • �••
ej ' N '.V e ► ` �. '� �J A
G '
* '•
..
• / \ C• C. • 'y If r
f•
or
�RIm J
• 'r. � •). �p gg,\.: ~�.\ �' Mfr 'y.+s. 'f. � •1`' `�•�l,ls�ta
to 11K
CL 0
m V
. �
Uj -tic
• � � � V . -. Ij .• Imo\
ti �• �� V ...�� 14 6 Z�t� ; rO•
1
Vv 1410ATS
i.
T104
f , W `Y y �AU01 _
n6 I
t a
TWO
u' McCt•J�EY .� ''o'�' lOT tIL NAEO
LOT
tb " it, Ar
3 1 HEiurR9 ^ 4 V�- �„ Oki
i
Id iz
,� ,
j .`. I � Ct e lal'
!1 • • ° s--- • 1 •
•.
Lot areas in proposed Mc Cauley Heights 6th Addition.
Lot-I' 19,000 square feet
Lot 2 - 15, 300 square feet Prepared by:
Lot 3 - .13,400 square feet
• Outlot A - 84,000 square feet
Total Area - 3 acres
S
rr' .
of/ port 0
t,,
flit — 1
2 -PART
OP
,1
•• 11
�LOT6 �'�q, •
r y • j . . �
r ,
Egan, Field & Nowak, Inc.
Surveyors
•�•�ti
• t
TIEARINC.5 ',1104 /N AVIF. A95UhU:D
• o OENOIt S IRON MJNUMENI
150 a 0 Z50
, '` P� ter` • : ' .
�, t. M. dYalr Nl�e/r/! IfN 100/l /M N rBK•
�� .1 KIJ'JJY,`! /....• me i,v4
. g ±� )•. °�. •/ N�uvar{ RafNrJ irN .roof ew
_e_ _ t
j ! }'`� . d \ , .Y eJ•LI'N ,,�� O o° •-la /- J..OI�YI-
M/C C4 UL E Y AIZ-16 •yT5 0N ,4Do /T /Ors/
C 7!' " AiiO UlrEt nr Eh: Belly J. M.•rR,,Ilry
M17 Tr-il
Eoinf, Minnesota
941-1517
SURVEYOR AND DESIGNER: Egan, Field LNo-.vak,Inc.
Surveyors
7415 Waryzata Uoulevard
Minneapolis, 1.1:155176
546.6831
NOTE: Troy aptlkdata taken from W. P. A. survey.
DESCRIPTION: Oullot A. WCAUIEY NEIGIITS 5111 ADOITI011.
1 herely certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my cirecl supervision and that I am a duty
Registered land Surveyor under [tic la:vs of the Sl ! r I Minnesota.
Dated this 151h day of June, 1976.
EGAN, FIELD LNO::AK. INC.
Surveynrs
Innc;nla Ilegl ;Ir.ihrm Gn. 61 %'7
1/•s�
l- 's
Q � -LL ,>„ f,, \� M IJYLfI NlILY1J JRO JIMl/lal
'ice
2r
\ 100' �
�•'
-- - - -__ �....
QO I
` ,' 119.E
..•�\
-/
-YJ °� '��
�fj'K»•ri:r.-w. ---
•
24
�
� 1I ay , :
to
• \,�
, BL,rR rr
'•/ .q�1' .% /
1 yl' , g'l. N! /Wtj
JR.1 '0O1e
rs, /Fwn, /n
//`�,;
NeJ•JJ Ir'N •( :� / i.,�i.li -f.Y %YLIJ7l'TS
l9cGAL,, -A
fr.idlrr .� /c ;•.�1..
Nr cJUa(r Nua.rJ w'
M/C C4 UL E Y AIZ-16 •yT5 0N ,4Do /T /Ors/
C 7!' " AiiO UlrEt nr Eh: Belly J. M.•rR,,Ilry
M17 Tr-il
Eoinf, Minnesota
941-1517
SURVEYOR AND DESIGNER: Egan, Field LNo-.vak,Inc.
Surveyors
7415 Waryzata Uoulevard
Minneapolis, 1.1:155176
546.6831
NOTE: Troy aptlkdata taken from W. P. A. survey.
DESCRIPTION: Oullot A. WCAUIEY NEIGIITS 5111 ADOITI011.
1 herely certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my cirecl supervision and that I am a duty
Registered land Surveyor under [tic la:vs of the Sl ! r I Minnesota.
Dated this 151h day of June, 1976.
EGAN, FIELD LNO::AK. INC.
Surveynrs
Innc;nla Ilegl ;Ir.ihrm Gn. 61 %'7
r
I
S -76 -14 McCauley Heights 6th Addition. Generally located wast of McCauley
Trail, south of McC'uley Lane and north of Margaret's Lane. - 7-
76,
10c
Mr. Luce explained the proponents request to plat three single family lots
(at the end of Margaret's Lane) and one outlot which would eventually be further
subdivided. A graphic illustrating that future platting was presented.
In reply to Mr. Hughes, who suggested the entire property be platted at the
present time, the proponent, Mr. Tom McCauley, explained that further subdivision
of the outlot was postponed because of the difficulty in marketing double bungalow
lots along County Road 18.
After discussion, Mr. Kremer moved the preliminary plat of McCauley Heights
6th Addition be approved contingent on: 1. submission and approval of a Developer's
Agreement; and 2. a cash donation equal to five percent of the raw land value
to staisfy the parkland dedication requirement. Mr. Runyan seconded the motion.
All voted aye. .Motion carried.
7
i
r
I
III �r
_�82% •��'r'% _ 92�ZY72
Ale-_
LOCATION MAP
'e
LL
s ZI
subdivision
REQUEST NUMBER: s -76 -15
W of Olinger Road and N of
LOCATION: Olinger Boulevard
REQUEST: 4 lot single family
subdivision.
village planning degwrtment village of of n
It'
■
1 •' ME
loss
r
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
July 7, 1976
S -76 -15 Deer Run. Generally located west of Olinger Road and north of
. Olinger Boulevard.
Refer to: Attached location map and survey.
The proponents are requesting to subdivide a presently unplatted piece of
property into four single family lots. The property lies immediately north
of a portion of Bredesen Park which lies outside of the park perimeter lot.
The lot sizes in the neighborhood are extremely varied but average about
15,000 square feet. The proposed lot sizes range from two lots at about
14,000 square feet to one lot in excess of 55,000 square feet.
As can be seen on the attached survey, the proponents are requesting to plat
the two. larger lots so that a long neck of land provides access to each lot
from Olinger Road. In one instance this neck would be 245 feet long by
22 feet wide. The staff consistently discourages this kind of platting,
however, in the broadest sense of the regulations these lots do meet our
ordinances and in this instance the property would be impossible to develop
in another manner. Of utmost importance, the property does have direct
access to a public street so that fire and police as well as water and sewer
problems will not be created.
The greatest. question the staff has is where the front and rear yards would
be in these types of lots. It is the staff's opinion that this should be
identified at the time of platting and held to when the developer seeks a
building permit.
Recommendation: The staff would recommend approval of the proposed subdivision
assuming a conclusion by the Planning Commission of the above discussed "neck
lot" matter. Approval is recommended for. the following reasons:
1. The request is in conformance with the Western Edina Plan and it would
be adviseable to use the property for single family purposes rather than
delaying approvals and causing future owners to request increased zoning.
Approval should be granted with the following conditions: 1. That a 5%
cash parkland dedication be submitted; 2. that a Developer's Agreement be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department; and 3. that the
developer identify the front yard of the two proposed "neck lots ".
GL:ln
7/2/76
EDINA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION"
STAFF REPORT
Kirkpatrick Addition.
Refer to: Attached vicinity map and graphic.
The proponent is requesting a four lot subdivision located at
Olinger Road and Olinger Boulevard directly north of Bredesen
Park. Lot sizes are generally consistent with surrounding
properties and quite large (i.e. 14,000 square feet to 55,400
square feet).
Of particular interest is the presence of a small wetland which
lies both on the proponent's property and the City's property
directly to the south. The proponent wishes to clean up the
shoreline on the portion of the wetland lying on his property.
He has been informed by staff that that portion lying on City
property would be left in its natural state.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the
1. building sites have been loc,
soil conditions and minimize
2. the wetland is properly used
3. the natural character of the
'protected.
proposed subdivision in that:
ated to utilize areas of good
encroachment into the wetland;
as a storm water retention area;
wetland will be adequately
Approval is conditioned upon approval by the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District and the Department of Natural Resources if
required.
GH:ln
6/25/76
^
mg, Emil-
s.
_
N PIPER
ouRT
SAN\AR|T
xAETHOD|S
"~^^ OOUNTRY
IC
��
SIDE
ELEMENTARY
SCHO<
A.
vx
_
^
FIRE STATIdON
. .
Fill
� MENT � �
^ �� i
� \ io,
\
\ D�
O PROPOSED''
pER
lit
� a
EDINA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
July 26, 1976
Kirkpatrick Addition (III. A)
Last month the EQC reviewed a four lot subdivision located at Olinger Road and
Olinger Boulevard. At that time, the EQC recommended approval of the.plat -on,.
the condition that the developer not encroach or alter the small wetland
located on the site. The EQC based this decision on Les Blocklock's Mud Lake
report which noted the excellent wildlife habitat afforded by the wetland..
Mr. Kirkpatrick, the proponent, has asked the EQC
tion of June 28 regarding alteration of the pond.
Olinger Boulevard was constructed, the water level
appreciably causing it to be dry much of the year.
that because of this lack of water, the wetland is
wildlife area noted by Mr. Blocklock.
to reconsider the recommenda-
He has noted that when
of the wetland dropped
He also notes, and I agree,
no longer the excellent
Mr. Kirkpatrick has expressed a desire to excavate portions of the wetland to
provide improved wildlife habitat. He will attend Monday's meeting to discuss
plans for such an improvement.
GH:nr
7 -23 -76
�-Q F ry 16
iL o is •r, ' °' -
5 R/� .•( ;/ .L.�. NO. ��lf9 1 e. r• -eC
i w 14 •q . �y '� ; ..c ' R/ L
� t' � 1•v ' 15 .mil � ' „Te. � t q \''• .. ," � r
125 G_O 1 '
`i -� -�i;° ^ I• GROVE
' 4 0( p a � s2 Np, °
p: 39 1f q 6
60.69
IWST 5t 4 5
F�
4
v
r 1 ti
O ��'�h;6� , 1 t.i 'i: j. l y1 q,• 95 '5 1 95
10 ��, 3 �1� n�` I 1 •(]�O 4�„ `�..'S:.tf 4 . 90
0� °I
3 N 4 . 5
t� L45 3i:'JS c c r
1,990 sS, 4o p v x 'S3 F. o c L 90 9n
•i'6s? � OU ,•, 2.�,LdO •vtr c y .o v. h• -0,98.99 .�:t1Y`si•£.
T• 4ad _ �/,.•rl - •�Q.J 1 lf...; . QUI' lof
.�O / .V G
i 006p 10
'S �i3 off,® to
. 32 qoo iii �co i Nom; �"' � 4 � \,r °•._ j,S ".��
rN - cc _._. 11b' �� •r Il k_ p141 41.70 1E
/ 12 a •.t Y`5 6� R�
• '� � �D U00 � ` is pT` �, ��� t4� 11.ai 09 = 11'0" 49
Gsty
.r:r.a tid1• i'F. :� 0 6o a• C
Op
3 � . k
96 DOQ = •'' 0 �': s 1
O ` .0•' I f, : 11r'1''r�. rO M '•�� g .. p�'/ S
• I•
i � 7.' ■
� R
_ `.t•. aa� o `1 � .11.7,9
o
r 1 • .�(� it O r i
S -76 -15 Deer. Run Generally located west of Olinger Road and north of
Olinger Boulevard. '
7-7-7(,
AC.,
Mr. Luce presented the proposed four lot single family subdivision and ex-
plained the two lots on Olinger Road would be about 14,000 square feet, and the
two "neck lots" to the west would be approximately 55,000 square feet. The neighbor
hood lot sizes are extremely varied, but average about 15,000 square feet in recent
subdivisions. Mr. Luce explained the staff is generally in favor of the proposed
plat but feels the front, rear, and side yards should be specifically identified
for both "neck lots" prior to final plat approval. Although the staff has con -
sistently discouraged the creation of "neck lots ", in the broadest interpretation
of the regulations they do conform to the platting and zoning ordinances, and in
this instance, the property would be impossible to develop in another manner.
7 -7 -76 Planning Commission Minutes, page 5
The triangular parcel of Bredesen.Park property between the subject property
and Olinger Boulevard was discussed. Mr. Luce indicated that although the City
had considered selling that parcel to the developer, it was decided that the piece
serves as a natural buffer from the park activities to the south and the single
family residential development to the north.
Mr. Bob Chance, 5804 Olinger Road, questioned the proposed drainage pattern.
Mr. Dunn indicated that a drainage easement along the lot line between lots 1 and
2 would be provided for surface drainage. Mr. Michael Kirkpatrick, the proponent,
stated he is proposing in addition to create a pond which would be partly on park
property and partly on the subject property. In reply to Mr. Ed Rippie, 5824
Olinger Road, Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that one driveway would serve both lots 1 and 2.
Mr. Luce presented the subdivision dedication report which requires the
donation of 2,250 (5 percent of the raw land value) for parkland purposes. Because
the developer had questioned the assessor's valuation, Mr. Luce indicated there is
an appeal process.
Mr. Luce reported the Environmental Quality Commission recommended the
park property not be modified or disturbed and that.the proposed ponding area not
be allowed. He suggested the developer address the Environmental Quality Commis-
sion if he still desires to modify the city's parkland.
Mr. Jim Borhave of Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, the surveyor, stated the
rear yard setback of lots 1 and 2 should be measured from the north lot line.
After additional discussion, Mr. Runyan moved the preliminary plat of Deer
Run be approved because the proposed density and use is desirable and is in
conformance with the Western Edina Land Use Plan.. Approval should, however, be
contingent on: 1. payment of a cash parkland dedication; 2. an approved
Developer's Agreement; and 3. the rear setback being measured from the north lot
line of proposed lots 1 and 2. Mr. Kremer suggested the City and developer trade
equal protions of land so two of the proposed lots would have access to Olinger
Road and two would have access to Olinger Boulevard. After brief discussion,
however, Mr. Kremer seconded the motion approving the preliminary plat as pre -
sented. All voted aye except if. E. McClelland, who voted nay because she is
opposed to.the "neck lot philosophy." motion carried 6 -1.
iL
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor, Council, City Manager
FROM: Gordon i#ughes, Environmental Planner
DATE: July July 9, 1976
SUBJECT: Preliminary Application for Lawcon Grant for Miller Property
Acquisition-
Attached is the preliminary grant application for the above noted property.
This preliminary application must be submitted by July 16, 1976, to the
Office of Local and Urban Affairs as well as the Metropolitan Council.
After their review, we well be notified as to whether we may submit a
final application. This application is due January 14, 1977.
Staff has contacted the Office of Local and Urban Affairs regarding the
possibility of obtaining funding for the Miller property acquisition.
Based on their grant criteria, they feel that we have a good possibility
of obtaining partial funding (i.e., 50 %) for the project.
The grant requested for the project is $110,000. This includes $95,000
for the purchase of the property plus $15,000 for relocation costs and
other costs. This $15,000 addition was recommended by the Office of
Local and Urban Affairs.
GH /ls
A.. i}.
1. Application for a Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant, July 1, 1977.
10.
11. .Recreation Action Plan:
12. Source of Local Share
Funding:
Attachments
Attached (reference to proposed
acquisition on page 2)
The City of Edina proposes to use
parkland dedication funds which have
been contributed over the years by
local land developers for the purpose
of parkland acquisition.
1. City of Edina vicinity map
2. Half- section map showing proposed acquisition
3. Aerial photograph showing proposed acquisition
4. City of Edina Park and Recreation Department Capital Improvements
Program
Submitted to the Office
of Local and Urban Affairs
2.
Applicant:
.City of Edina
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
3.
Responsible Person:
Gordon Hughes
Environmental Planner
(612) 927 -8861
4.
Name of Project:
Lake Cornelia Park
5.
Type of Project:
Acquisition
6.
Proposed Use:
Nature study, bicycle trails,
passive uses
7.
Estimated Cost..and Acreage:
$110,000
1.57 acres
8.
Location Map:
Attached
9.
Site Map:
Attached
10.
11. .Recreation Action Plan:
12. Source of Local Share
Funding:
Attachments
Attached (reference to proposed
acquisition on page 2)
The City of Edina proposes to use
parkland dedication funds which have
been contributed over the years by
local land developers for the purpose
of parkland acquisition.
1. City of Edina vicinity map
2. Half- section map showing proposed acquisition
3. Aerial photograph showing proposed acquisition
4. City of Edina Park and Recreation Department Capital Improvements
Program
July , 1976
Mrs. Lee N. R. Miller
4701 West 64th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55435
RE: Purchase Option to the City of Edina on
4701 West 64th Street, Edina, Minnesota
Dear Mrs. Miller:
This letter is to advise you that, in connection with the
option given to the City of Edina on the property at the above address,
and should such option be exercised and the purchase be consummated,
you are or may be entitled to certain relocation costs, moving costs,
and other related expenses by virtue of the Federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The
expenses for which you are or may be entitled to be reimbursed are:
1. Moving expenses.
(a) Actual, reasonable expenses of moving.
(b) Actual, direct losses of tangible personal
property resulting from the moving.
Or, at your election, and in lieu of the reimbursed
expenses at (a) and (b) above, you may elect to
accept the sum of $300 for moving expenses and $200
as a dislocation allowance.
2. Acquisition of replacement housing.
(a) Reasonable expenses incurred for evidence of title,
recording fees, and other closing costs incident to
the purchase of a replacement dwelling, but not
including prepaid expenses.
(b) The amount, if any necessary to compensate you for
increased interest costs for financing the purchase
of a comparable replacement dwelling.
The above payments need be made, pursuant to statute, only
if you purchase and occupy a replacement dwelling within
one year after the City has paid for your present dwelling
or you move from your present dwelling, whichever date is
later.
Mrs. Lee N. R. Miller
Page Two
July , 1976
This is further to advise you that the City and its staff are
available to assist you, should you need any assistance., in obtaining
information on replacement dwellings, and to provide other advisory services
in order to minimize any hardships in adjusting to the relocation resulting
from the City's acquisition of your home.
Although the law, in certain cases, would also require the City to
reimburse you for the amount, if any, which, when added to the City's
purchase price for the. property, equals the reasonable cost of a comparable
replacement dwelling, the City believes that in this case comparable replace-
ment dwellings are available at a price not in excess of the amount paid
for the property, and, therefore, no such additional payment is required.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF EDINA
$y
Its
The undersigned acknowledges receipt of a copy of the foregoing
letter and understands the contents thereof.
-Rosalyn S. Miller
- i1'1 -►3
O P T I O N
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of August,
1976, by and between ROSALYN S. MILLER, as Administratrix of the Estate of
Lee N. R. Miller, deceased (hereinafter called "Optionor "), and the CITY
OF EDINA, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota
(hereinafter called "Optionee ");
WITNESSETH, That, in consideration of the sum of Twenty five thousand
Dollars ($25,000), in hand paid by Optionee to Optionor, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by Optionor, it is agreed by
and between Optionor and Optionee as follows:
1. Option. Optionor hereby grants to Optionee the exclusive
right and option, to be exercised on or before August 15, 1977 (hereinafter
called the "Option Date "), to purchase that certain tract or parcel of land
(hereinafter called "Optioned Premises ") situate in the city of Edina,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Lots 7 and 8, Block 11, Normandale Addition,
according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. Purchase Price. If this option is exercised and the purchase
consummated as herein provided, the purchase price to be paid by Optionee
shall be Ninety nine thousand five hundred Dollars ($99,500), payable as
follows:
(A) Twenty five thousand Dollars ($25,000) earnest money,
the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Optionor; and
.(B) Seventy four thousand five hundred Dollars ($74,500),
in cash or by check of Optionee, on date of closing.
Optionor and Optionee agree that the above purchase price for the Optioned
Premises is the fair market value of the Optioned Premises as based upon a
current appraisal of the Optioned, Premises made by Wiley Real Estate Ap-
praisal and Consulting Service.
3. Exercise of Option. The option herein granted shall be deemed
fully exercised if written notice of election to, purchase is given by Optionee
to Optionor by depositing said notice in the United States mail, registered
or certified, addressed to Optionor, with postage prepaid, on or before
midnight of the Option Date.
4. Date of Closing; Possession. The notice of election to purchase
hereinabove described shall set a date for the closing of the sale herein
contemplated, which date shall be on a business day, and which date shall be
not less than ten (10) nor more than thirty -five (35) days from and after
the date the notice of election to purchase is given by Optionee, provided,
however, if title objections are made pursuant to paragraph 6, and Optionor
requires more than the period to the date of closing stated in said notice
to correct them, the date of closing shall then be postponed and shall be within
ten (10) days after said title objections are corrected or Optionee exercises
election (ii) as set out in paragraph 6, as the case may be; provided, however,
that the date of closing shall not, in any event, be earlier than August 15,
1977, or such earlier date as Optionor and Optionee mutually agree upon.
The closing shall take place at 10:00 o'clock A.M., at the City Hall, City
of Edina, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota. Subject to performance
by Optionee of its obligations herein, complete possession of the Optioned
Premises shall be given to Optionee on the date of closing.
5. Optionor's Obligations on Date of Closing.
(A) Optionor, on date of closing, shall execute, as necessary,
and deliver to Optionee:
(i) An administratrix's deed conveying all of the right,
title, and interest of the Estate of Lee N. R. Miller, deceased, in and to
the Optioned Premises, to Optionee, and subject only to:
(a) Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state
and federal regulations.
(b) Reservations of any minerals or mineral rights
to the State of Minnesota.
(c) Utility easements and public road easements
of record.
(ii) Such other documents as Optionee deems necessary
to evidence of record the authority of Optionor to convey marketable title
to the Optioned Premises to Optionee.
(B) If, on date of closing, a final decree of distribution
has been entered in the Estate of Lee N. R. Miller, deceased, then the devisees
of the Optioned Premises shall execute and deliver a Warranty Deed to Optionee
subject only to the matters set out at (a), (b), and (c) in subparagraph (A)(i)
of this paragraph 5, in lieu of an administratrix's deed, and a duly recorded
copy of the final decree of distribution.
WZ
6. Title Examination. In the event Optionee elects to purchase
the Optioned Premises as herein provided, the Optionor shall, as soon as
reasonably possible after the giving of such notice of election, deliver
to Optionee, at the address hereinafter provided, complete abstracts of
title covering said Optioned Premises, certified to a then current date, or
a registered property abstract, both with the usual searches attached, showing
marketable title. Optionee shall have twenty (20) days from and after the
receipt thereof in which to examine title and notify the Optionor in writing
of any objections thereto. If any objections are made, the Optionor shall
be allowed one hundred twenty (120) days to,correct such objections and make
title marketable. If said title is not marketable, and is not made so within
said 120 -day period, then Optionee shall have the election to (i) declare .
this agreement terminated, whereupon all money paid hereunder by Optionee to
Optionor shall be immediately refunded, and thereafter neither party hereto
shall have any further obligation hereunder to the other; or (ii) to accept
such title in its then condition and consummate this transaction, without
reduction of the purchase price. But if the title to said property be found
marketable, or be made so within said time, and said Optionee shall default in
any of the agreements and continue in default for a period of ten (10) days,
then and in that case the Optionor may terminate this agreement, and on such
termination, all payments made upon this agreement shall be retained by said
. Optionor as liquidated damages, time being of the essence hereof. The right
to terminate and the retention of moneys paid hereunder shall be the sole
and exclusive remedy of Optionor in the event of default by Optionee in any
of its agreements herein.
7.. Taxes and Assessments. In the event this option is exercised
by the Optionee and the purchase is consummated as herein provided, Optionor,
on or. before the date of closing, shall pay in full all real estate taxes
payable in the first one -half of 1976 and in all prior years, with penalties
and interest, if any, and all installments, of special assessments payable
therewith. Optionee shall pay all of the real estate taxes payable in the
second one -half of 1976 and in subsequent years and all installments of
special assessments payable therewith and thereafter, if any. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, Optionor shall pay all real estate taxes and installments of
special assessments on the Optioned Premises when they become due and before
they become delinquent, up to the date of closing. On date of closing, Optionee
shall reimburse Optionor for the taxes and installments of special assessments
paid by Optionor that Optionee is obligated hereby to pay, but without interest
and without paying any penalties or;interest that may have been paid by Optionor.
If Optionor does not pay the taxes and installments of special assessments
for which Optionee is to reimburse Optionor pursuant hereto, before they
become delinquent, then, on date of closing, Optionor shall pay to Optionee
all penalties and interest that have accrued as of date of closing on such
delinquencies.
-3-
8. Special Agreements.
(A) - -Entrance upon Optioned Premises During Term of Option.
Optionee shall have the right during the term of this option and agreement
to enter upon the Optioned Premises for test borings; surveys, studies, or
for any other purpose in connection with ascertaining the suitability of the
Optioned Premises for Optionee's purposes, provided that. any such entry does
not unreasonably interfere with Optioner's use of the Optioned Premises.
Optionee shall hold Optionor harmless from any and all liability or damages
that Optionor•may sustain by reason of any entry upon said Optioned Premises
by Optionee or its agents.
(B) Retention of Option Payments. Except as otherwise pro-
vided herein, if Optionee does not exercise this option within the option
period as the same may be extended, then Optionee will not be entitled to
refund of the moneys paid for this option, and such moneys may be retained
by Optionor.
(C) Commission Claim. The parties hereto warrant that neither
has incurred any real estate brokerage fees, finders' fees, loan brokerage
fees, or any other fees to any third party in connection with the purchase
and sale covered by this option. In the event any third party institutes
legal action in an effort to recover any such fees, the parties jointly shall
_ defend such adtion. If a judgment is obtained against the parties jointly,
the party responsible for breach of this warranty shall reimburse the other
for the latter's attorneys' fees, court costs, and share of the judgment.
(D) Optionee agrees to pay all closing costs that may be incurred by
Optionor in connection with the sale made pursuant to this option, exclusive
of Optionor's attorneys' fees.
(E) If Optionor desires to replace the oil tank now in the
Optioned Premises, she shall notify Optionee, and Optionee promptly shall
make such replacement. If, for any reason, this option is not. exercised,
or if exercised and the purchase is not consummated, then, on demand of Op-
tionee, Optionor shall pay to Optionee the cost it incurred in making such
replacement, without interest.
9. Damage or Destruction. If the Optioned Premises are destroyed
or substantially damaged by fire or.;any other cause prior to exercise of
this option, or after exercise but prior to the date of closing, Optionee
may nevertheless exercise this option and consummate the purchase and, in
such event, shall be paid all insurance moneys paid or payable to Optionor
as a result of such damage or destruction; or Optionee may terminate this
option by notice given to Optionor within thirty (30) days after such damage
or destruction if it occurred prior to exercise hereof, or on or before the
date of closing if it occurred after exercise but prior to date of closing,
in which event all moneys paid hereunder by Optionee to Optionor shall be
immediately refunded, and thereafter neither party hereto shall have any
further obligation or liability hereunder to the other. If the Optioned
Premises are less than substantially damaged prior to exercise of this option,
and Optionee thereafter exercises this option, or after exercise but prior
to date of closing, then, on date of closing, all insurance moneys paid or
payable to Optionor as a result of such damage shall be paid over to Optionee.
-4-
10. Notices. Wherever in this option it shall be required or
permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this
option to or on the other, such notice or demand shall be given or served,
and shall not be deemed to have been duly given or served, unless in writing .
and forwarded by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
To Optionor at: 4701 West 64th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55435
To Optionee at: City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Edina,.Minnesota 55424
Attention: Mr. J. N. Dalen
Such addresses may be changed from time to time by either party by serving
notices as above provided.
11. Successors and Assigns. The terms, conditions,-and covenants
hereof shall extend to, be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the
heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns of the respective parties
hereto.
12. -Acceptance by Optionee. If this Option be first signed by
Optionor, then this Option shall be outstanding, and may not be revoked or
terminated, for a period of twenty -one (21) days from the date signed by
Optionor, and Optionee may accept this Option by signing the same within
said 21 -day period.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Optionor and Optionee have caused these presents
to be duly executed, all as of the day and year first above written.
OPTIONOR:
Rosalyn S. Miller, as Administratrix of
the Estate of Lee N. R. Miller, deceased
OPTIONEE:
CITY OF EDINA
by
and
-5-
Its Mayor
Its Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1976, by ROSALYN S. MILLER, as Administratrix of
the Estate of Lee N. R. Miller, deceased.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1976, by JAMES VAN VALKENBURG and WARREN C. HYDE,
as Mayor and Manager, respectively, of the CITY OF EDINA, on behalf of the
City.
Q�
CONSENT
ROSALYN S. MILLER, single, NORMAN R. MILLER, single, and MOLLY M.
MARTIN, the widow, son, and daughter, respectively, and the sole heirs at
law, of Lee N. R. Miller, deceased, and MARTIN, the husband
of Holly M. Martin, hereby (i) agree to the sale of the Optioned Premises
made pursuant to the foregoing option, (ii) agree to the terms and condi-
tions of said option, and (iii) agree, if a final decree of distribution
in the Estate of Lee N. R. Miller, deceased, has not then been entered,
to execute and deliver quit claim deeds to the Optioned Premises on date
of closing, conveying the same to the City of Edina, to release and convey
their right, title, and interest in and to the Optioned Premises.
ROSALYN S. MILLER
NORMAN R. MILLER
MOLLY M. MARTIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
MARTIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of August, 1976, by ROSALYN S. MILLER, single.
Cris
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged-before me this
day of , 1976, by NORMAN R. MILLER, single.
STATE OF MINNESOTA }
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1976, by MOLLY M. MARTIN and
MARTIN, husband and wife.
N
GIFT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of
August, 1976, by and between ROSALYN S. MILLER, single (hereinafter called
"Miller "), and the CITY OF EDINA, a municipal corporation under the laws of
the State of Minnesota (hereinafter called "Edina "),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Miller desires to make a gift to Edina of Lots 5 and 6,
Block 11, Normandale Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Miller Lots "); and
WHEREAS, Edina has entered into an option (the 'Option ") of even
date herewith for the purchase of Lots 7 and 8, Block 11, said Normandale
Addition (the "Optioned Premises "), adjoining the Miller Lots.
NOW, THEREFORE, Miller hereby agrees to make a gift to Edina of
the Miller Lots, and Edina agrees to accept such gift, on the following
terms and conditions:
1. The Miller Lots will be given to Edina only if Edina purchases
the Optioned Premises,.and if Edina so purchases the Optioned Premises, the
Miller Lots will be conveyed by quit claim deed delivered on the date of
closing of the Option.
2. Miller will deliver to Edina an abstract of title to the Puller
Lots with the abstract to the said Optioned Premises, certified to the same
date and containing the same searches as the abstracts to the said Optioned
Premises. Edina shall examine the title to the Miller Lots and, based on
such examination, accept or reject the gift, but Miller shall have no obli-
gation to correct any title objections.
3. Taxes and assessments ou the Miller Lots shall be prorated
and paid in the same manner as set out in paragraph 7 of the Option for
the taxes and assessments on said Optioned Premises.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this instrument
the day and year first above written.
ROSALYN S. MILLER
CITY OF EDINA
. by
and
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Its Mayor
Its Manager
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before-me this
day of August, 1976, by ROSALYN S. MILLER, single.
-2-
� r
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of August, 1976, by JAMES VAN VALKENBURG and WARREN C. HYDE, Mayor and
Manager, respectively, of the City of Edina,,on behalf of the City.
-3-
. f.
-.0CATION MAP
NE BLVD. p BISCAYNE BLV
I 5 C.Aj 4E BLVD.
T�
PARK;.
I APEL HILL
CO GA1 ONAL
FLOOD PLAIN PERMIT
REQUEST NUMBER:
FP -3
mm
CL
�'7 °4Nc
or
v Q' � •
' W .
Q w
Ir' W ( •.
J`. - ,,•
LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, Gleason 3rd Addi
REQUEST: Flood plain permit for one
double bungalow.
1Jllag'' planning dwartment wo Inge of edine
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
July 7, 1976
V. Other Business:
1. (FP -3) Flood Plain Permit for Lot 1, Block 1, Gleason 3rd Addition.
Refer to: EQC Staff Report.
Attached is the staff report from the environmental staff to the City
Environmental Quality Commission in regard to this flood plain permit
request. The planning staff would concur with the recommendation of the
environmental staff.
GL:ln
7/2/76
EDINA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
June 28, 1976
FLOOD PLAIN PERMIT - Gleason Third Addition, Lot 1, Block 1
Refer to: Attached vicinity map and surveys.
Approximately three years ago, the EQC reviewed problems associated
with floodplain, encroachment on the above noted lot. At that time ,
the Nine Mile Creek Watershed Disarict and the owners of the lot
agreed on a grading plan for the lot which must be-followed at the
time of development.
Presently, the proponent is requesting a floodplain permit to
construct a duplex as shown on the attached survey. Also shown on
this survey are the grades agreed upon by the proponent and water -
shed district in 1974. Also proposed is a deck at the rear of the
structure which would be constructed above grade on posts in the
floodplain.
R
Staff recommends approval of the floodplain permit in that:
1. the grading plan.agreed to in 1974 has been complied with;
2. the proposed deck would be constructed to allow passage of
flood waters and would not cause an obstruction to flow.
Approval is conditioned on:
1. the bottom floor elevation of the structure must be 866;
2. adequate soil erosion control measures must be taken during'
construction.
GH:ln
6/25/76
G -Z
Jc.J.:U..= Y ORS Z _.'� ti=p �f •.. �\
. - mr741S WAYZATA OWL "= -" MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
Gk•o
,S
r100 1pp
G
a
CIS �
�x �o
�.i M�► 1i W � Li irti V J L� � � � �/ I.a Y
For Edina Building, Inc.
CG0 0tl
Proposed garage floor
elevation=
z(' 4°
4t04d;' ,��
F /ooc/P /aiz ,S�a,�e
X15
Pp
X
R NO) O ,�� DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 1,
�o-
�- 21 4' GLEASON THIRD ADDITION..
ae hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of
the boundaries of the land above described and of the location ofall building;
f any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land.
3
Scale: III = 40'
Doted this 27th day of Aj!rjit,�.t , 1973
i le No. 1162 2024
J;: a
EGAH, FIELD b N'OWAKr IKC.
�rveyors
Nine File Creek Watershed District
4344 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
Edina Building, Inc.
7400 Metro Boulevard
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Attn: Mr. Jeff Gustafson
January 22, 1974
RE: Lot 1, Block 1 Gleason Third Addition
Dear Mr. Gustafson:
Here is a marked up copy of your Certificate of Survey showing the
allowable grading on the above referenced lot. The area shown in blue
should be left.at the exis.ting contour level. It may be leveled for
sodding, but no .additional material. shall be placed on this portion of the
lot. The area shown in solid red may be filled to .alj.ow. placement of the
proposed. structure. The area shown in red hatch. marks is the area where
existing material must be removed. The hatched area should be graded
to blend in .with the unfl.l.l.ed area shown in blue. The 864 contour should
be located within 10 feet of the back of the house and 10 feet of the west
property line. It should beat least five feet west of the east property
line.
These requirements are from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and
do not necessarily represent.the requirements that may be imposed by the
City of Edina. If you have any questions, please contact us.
Yours truly,
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
yjyJo:hn D. Dickson
v
JDD /am
Encl.
cc: Mr. Frank Laska
Mr. Raymond Haik
Mr. Robert Dunn
Mr. Gary West
2. Flood Plain Permit for Lot 1, Block 1, Gleason 3rd Addition. (FP -3),2
Mr. Luce explained a double bungalow is proposed to be constructed on the P�
site, and the proponent is requesting a flood plain permit to allow additional
fill along the east property line. tie indicated the staff would concur with the
recommendation of the Environmental Quality Commission; namely, that the flood
plain permit be granted provided the bottom floor elevation of the structure is
constructed at 866 and provided adequate soil erosion control measures are taken
during construction. The Nine Mile Watershed District must also approve the flood
plain permit.
Mr. Hughes moved the requested flood plain permit be granted with the condi-
tions listed by the Environmental Quality Commission and staff and with any addi-
tional conditions attached by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Mr. G. Johnson
seconded the motion. All voted aye except H. E. McClelland and Mr. Kremer, who
voted nay. Motion carried 5 -2.
i
l
ss
r
0
6/28/76 EQC Minutes, Page 2
Mr. Hays stated that there should be a more satisfactory method of
handling overflow problems which would prevent sewage from being pumped into the
street and water bodies.
Following further discussion, Mrs. Casselman moved that staff,
1) contract the PCA to determine the frequency of sewage spills, 2) survey
other cities to determine their method of handling sewage problems, and 3) esti-
mate the cost of necessary equipment to deal with emergency spills. Mr. Hays
seconded the motion. All voted aye.
IV. New Business
A. Election of Officers
Chairman Bentley opened nominations for EQC officers.
Mr. Hays nominated Mrs. Casselman for the office of chairman. Mr. Telfer
seconded the nomination, Mrs. Casselman was elected by a unanimous ballot.
Mrs. Casselman nominated Mr. Telfer for the office of vice - chairman.
Mr. Hays seconded the nomination. Mr. Telfer was elected by a unanimous ballot.
Mrs. Casselman nominated Mr. Mucke for the office of secretary. Mr. Telfer
seconded the ;nomination. Mr. Mucke was elected by a unanimous ballot.
B. Floodplain Permit - Lot 1, Block 1, Gleason, Third Addition
Mr. Hughes recalled that the EQC had reviewed floodplain filling problems
on this lot about three years previously. He noted that at that time, the
Watershed District and the owner of the lot had agreed on a grading plan for the
site. He explained that the owner was presently requesting a floodplain permit
to construct a duplex on the lot. A wood deck built on posts was also proposed
and would extend into the floodplain on the lot.
Mr. Hughes recommended approval of the permit in that, 1) the proposed
grading plan for the site conformed with that agreed to by the owner and watershed
district and 2) the proposed deck would be constructed to allow,passage of flood -
waters and would not cause an obstruction.to flow. His recommendation was
conditioned on, 1) the bottom floor elevation of the structure must be 866 and
2) adequate erosion control measures must be taken during construction.
After short discussion, Mrs. Shaw moved approval of the permit with the
conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Mucke seconded the motion. Mr. Telfer urged
that the proposed deck be designed to prevent heaving problems. Chairman Casselman
recalled the motion. All voted aye.
C. Kirkpatrick Addition
Mr. Hughes presented a four lot subdivision located in the northeast quadrant
of Olinger Boulevard and Olinger Road. He noted that the subdivision bordered a
small strip of parkland on the north side of Olinger Boulevard which was purchased
as part of the Bredesen Park acquisition. He further explained that a small
wetland was situated partly on the park property and partly on the land proposed
for subdivision. Mr. Hughes noted that the proponent had expressed an interest
in "cleaning up" the portion of the wetland lying on his property.
LOCATION MAP=-2/-`
NOR
Sol
o -
4
subdivision
REQUEST NUMBER: S -76 -15
W of Olinger Road and N of
LOCATION: Olinger Boulevard
REQUEST: 4 lot single family
subdivision.
COUNTRY
1
SIDE L",G
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
X� i
yjlinge planning degwrtrnent village of edin
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
July 7, 1976
S -76 -15 Deer Run. Generally located west of Olinger Road and north of
Olinger Boulevard.
Refer to: Attached location map and survey.
The proponents are requesting to subdivide a presently unplatted piece of
property into four single family lots. The property lies immediately north
of a portion of Bredesen Park which lies outside of the park perimeter lot.
The lot sizes in the neighborhood are extremely varied but average about
15,000 square feet. The proposed lot sizes range from two lots at about
14,000 square feet to one lot in excess of 55,000 square feet.
As can be seen on the attached survey, the proponents are requesting to plat
the two larger lots so that a long neck of land provides access to each lot
from Olinger Road. In one instance this neck would be 245 feet long by
22 feet wide. The staff consistently discourages this kind of platting,
however, in the broadest sense of the regulations these lots do meet our
ordinances and in this instance the property would be impossible to develop
in another manner. Of utmost importance, the property does have direct
access to a public street so that fire and police as well as water and sewer
problems will not be created.
The greatest question the staff has is where the front and rear yards would
be in these types of lots. It is the staff's opinion-that this should be
identified at the time of platting and held to when the developer seeks a
building permit.
Recommendation: The staff would recommend approval of the proposed subdivision
assuming a conclusion by the Planning Commission of the above discussed "neck
lot" matter. Approval is recommended for the following reasons:
1. The request is in conformance with the Western Edina Plan and it would
be adviseable to use the property for single family purposes rather than
delaying approvals and causing future owners to request increased zoning.
Approval should be granted with the following conditions: 1. That a 5%
cash parkland dedication be submitted; 2. that a Developer's Agreement be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department; and 3. that the
developer identify the front yard of the two proposed "neck lots ".
GL:ln
7/2/76
EDINA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION -
STAFF REPORT
Kirkpatrick Addition.
Refer to: Attached vicinity map and graphic.
The proponent is requesting a four lot subdivision located at
Olinger Road and Olinger Boulevard directly north of Bredesen
Park. Lot sizes are generally consistent with surrounding
properties and quite large (i.e. 14,000 square feet to 55,400
square feet).
Of particular interest is the presence of a small wetland which
lies both on the proponent's property and the City's property
directly to the south. The proponent wishes to clean up the
shoreline on the portion of the wetland lying on his property.
He has been informed by staff that that portion lying on City
property would be left in its natural state.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the
1. building sites have been loc,
soil conditions.and minimize
2. the wetland is properly used
3. the natural character of the
protected.
proposed subdivision in that:
3ted to utilize areas of good
encroachment into the wetland;
as a storm water retention area;
wetland will be adequately
Approval is conditioned upon approval by -the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District and the Department of Natural Resources if
required.
GH:ln
6/25/76
IN
no
MOEN
ME
ME
c R c C. 1.( VA L.0 �E'Y
!A RK
n
"e ._� _....._ I _._..2A3 - -- l
0
1
o
IT,/
ss .iov 30 rr 41)
\ ZI $I
AN \ LO lAOUD �Pr1
/401 1 J
T, / I _ '� or-
RAINAGE E4SEM
ENT`s I \� /q 000 3QFT \\
1
G�
� R
N%
IN
1
1
n/
m
V
4
V
I
h
nJ
•
m
W
CD
J
0
EDINA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
July 26, 1976
Kirkpatrick Addition (III. A)
Last month.the EQC reviewed a four lot subdivision located at Olinger Road and
Olinger Boulevard. At that time, the EQC recommended approval of the plat on
the condition that the developer not encroach or alter the small wetland
located on the site. The EQC based this decision on Les Blocklock's Mud Lake
report which noted the excellent wildlife habitat afforded by the wetland.
Mr. Kirkpatrick, the proponent, has asked the EQC to reconsider the recommenda-
tion of June 28 regarding alteration of the pond. He has noted that when
Olinger Boulevard was constructed, the water level of the wetland dropped
appreciably causing it to be dry much of.the year. He also notes, and I agree,
that because of this lack of water, the wetland is no longer the.excellent
wildlife area noted by Mr. Blocklock.
Mr. Kirkpatrick has expressed a desire to excavate portions of the wetland to
provide improved wildlife habitat. He will attend Monday's meeting to discuss
plans for such an improvement.
GH:nr
7 -23 -76
17 �F— -Y81,'f
STI
j7 t• S. o N. _
V�Ul 60
l `'•' --'••+ 1•�n 15
JN
N. = 9 .
rl I: GRbVE
'60.69 ca a 4 1:40(. q
NEST ucst _ v v, . h:'39j5'.?
6u ) MI ~!0���� •'. �3 y19r X95 �� ♦u5 i 9-1
0 ; >L.ys.a -- T :'; 3y s „�oP � � ; . D R I V E
jo
r,
psi "., ��' j i • �}. s; el4 y0 90 + , ;v 7J
- C� ZS U(,p • I N �``� 0_O' `xvo � � cr ^�'�1��, �= NI NI N V
�l - key* �` �, 1 t•I 3 1 �'^ 2 N 3 N 4 5
-
('y� :.45
15 04
✓6s e / 9OOU ui
Ouflot
^ N
E. .fl
// 2 ✓ -,.� �•. �V / 4'7� 00�: t°c SS IL3 L orpuo 10
3• _
32 ,cjpQ %�i icp / ,� °.� __/�y = tr • Lrfl 1 \b•4 �\ /' o It k: �•1��1; S- 41,70 -Sc
• 4• � - � ..- Lee -._. _ ^ 'emu
C3
', /•� Jib ,i ,°IS
nJ.:$ 1 ai
41410 ^49
�J410J�
., a•j,'•L�•. S a r Q
CIYy .. (. •i:�•L Ili.:/ ! 1'b ti �l.l)y�,91 E: hry
��� Opp p•.'•,o uI t
14
All
Ile 0%
[I �.L'`� �' mil. `fib '� � c �� •,g.,:A('/'�`) �•
' r •�6. ' � GE,� t -•��.� Gp `y� �vV� L'b•CZ a ,,
L. 3
lbb ' ,. , "'y• H F, I. is 1: •;.I,r` `
N*l�•. i. .v I .�...`
S -76 -15 Deer Run. Generally located west of Olinger Road and north of
" Olin er Boulevard.
-,
7-7-7,
pc
Mr. Luce presented the proposed four lot single family subdivision and ex-
plained the two lots on Olinger Road would be about 14,000 square feet, and the
two "neck lots" to the west would be approximately 55,000 square feet. The neighbor -
hood-lot sizes are extremely varied, but average about 15,000 square feet in recent
subdivisions. Mr. Luce explained the staff is generally in favor of the proposed
plat but feels the front, rear, and side yards should be specifically identified
for both "neck lots" prior to final plat approval. Although the staff has con-
sistently discouraged the creation of "neck lots ", in the broadest interpretation
of the regulations they do conform to the platting and zoning ordinances, and in
this instance, the property would be impossible to develop in another manner.
7 -7 -76 Planning Commission Minutes, page 5
The triangular parcel of Bredesen.Park property between the subject property
and Olinger Boulevard was discussed. Mr. Luce indicated that although the City
had considered selling that parcel to the developer, it was decided that the piece
serves as a natural buffer from the park activities to the south and the single
family residential development to the north.
Mr. Bob Chance, 5804 Olinger Road, questioned the proposed drainage pattern.
Mr. Dunn indicated that a drainage easement along the lot line between lots 1 and
2 would be provided for surface drainage. Mr. Michael Kirkpatrick, the proponent,
stated he is proposing in addition to create a pond which would be partly on park
property and partly on the subject property. In reply to Mr. Ed Rippie, 5824
Olinger Road, Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that one driveway would serve both lots 1 and 2.
Mr. Luce presented the subdivision dedication report which requires the
donation of 2,250 (5 percent of the raw land value) for.parkland purposes. Because
the developer had questioned the assessor's valuation, Mr. Luce indicated there is
an appeal process.
Mr. Luce reported the Environmental Quality Commission recommended the
park property not be modified or disturbed and that the proposed ponding area not
be allowed. He suggested the developer address the Environmental Quality Commis-
sion if he still desires to modify the city's parkland:
Mr. Jim Borhave of Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, the surveyor, stated the
rear yard setback of lots 1 and 2 should be measured from the north lot line.
After additional discussion, Mr. Runyan moved the preliminary plat of Deer
Run be approved because the proposed density and use is desirable and is in
conformance with the Western Edina Land Use Plan.. Approval should, however, be
contingent on: 1. payment of a cash parkland dedication; 2. an approved
Developer's Agreement; and 3. the rear setback being measured from the north lot
line of proposed lots 1 and 2. Mr. Kremer suggested the City and developer trade
equal protions of land so-two of the proposed lots would have access to Olinger
Road and two would have access to Olinger Boulevard. After brief discussion,
however, Mr. Kremer seconded the motion approving the preliminary plat as pre -
sented. All voted aye except H. E. McClelland, who voted nay because she is
opposed to :the "neck lot philosophy." Motion carried 6 -1.
s <ja,-
�� 4
June 29, 1976
Mr. James Van Valkenburg, Mayor
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mr. Van Valkenburg:
8700 west 36th street west 201
St. louis park, minnesota 55426
telephone 9332445
The following is our report of public health nursing services in
Edina during May, 1976 Additional copies are
enclosed for members of the Council.
Sincerely,
(Miss) Hilda W. Boyle, R.N.
cc: Warren Hyde, City Manager Director
Kenneth Esse, Sanitarian
Curtiss V. Rockwell, M.D., Health Officer
Mary Bang, R.N., Nursing Committee
H1 -TB/ sh
supported by tax funds From municipalities of suburban hennepin county & the united way
Q
this
year
last yr,
month
to date
to date
1st of the month case load
52
---
---
admitted to service
11
34
36
closed to service
6
36
29
End of month case load
57
- --
---
Accumulative case load
- --
93
99
Home visits
Nursing care
49
240
254
Teaching - counseling
32
133
151
Home health aide care
35
157
115
TOTAL
116
530
520
Not home /not found
3
13
8
No, immunizations given
2
31
40
Sincerely,
(Miss) Hilda W. Boyle, R.N.
cc: Warren Hyde, City Manager Director
Kenneth Esse, Sanitarian
Curtiss V. Rockwell, M.D., Health Officer
Mary Bang, R.N., Nursing Committee
H1 -TB/ sh
supported by tax funds From municipalities of suburban hennepin county & the united way
Q
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Lot 19, Block 1, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition is at present
a single tract of land; and
WHEREAS, the owner has requested the subdivision of said tract into sep-
arate parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows:
The Easterly 45 feet of Lot 19, Block 1, South Harriet Park 2nd
Addition; and
That part of Lot 19, Block 1, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition
except the Easterly 45 feet thereof; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and
Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hard-
ship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with
the purposes of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the
City of Edina Ordinance Nos. 801 and 811;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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 811 are hereby waived to allow said division
and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for
any other purpose or as to any other provision thereof, and subject, how-
ever to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels
unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of
Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by
those ordinances.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of August, 1976.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA )
CERTIFICATION 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
2, 1976, and as recorded in the minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 10th day of August, 1976.
City Clerk
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Lot 20, Block 1, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition is at present
a single tract of land; and
WHEREAS, the owner has requested the.gubdivision of said tract into sep-
arate parcels (herein.called "Parcels) described as follows:
The Easterly 45 feet of Lot.20, Block•1, South Harriet Park.
2nd 'Addition;. and
That part of Lot 20- -Block 1, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition;
except the Easterly..45 feet thereof; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and
Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hard-
ship and said Parcels:ias_}separateetracts 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.pro.visions 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, how=
ever to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels
unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of
Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by
those ordinances.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of August, 1976.
STATE, OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ). SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATION 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
2, 1976,aand as recorded in the minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 10th day of August, 1976.
City Cle
I
T0: City of Edina Council
RE: Connection Charge - Watermain #127 - $798.00
6209 Tracy Avenue
Lot 16; Valley View Heights Addition
I would like to request that the above connection charge be assessed
against property referred to above. Starting 1977 thru 1982.
Earl C. ipp, C.D. owner
by: Thomas R. Tripp (son)
July 29, 1976
� r -