HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-09-16_COUNCIL MEETINGR6VI.Sed)
kGEN 1.
SIsF'�� 1.6, 1,974
To RE-111MIT.,
A. Z ?acy tjeo SWeE-w1s.� 4 rom Vextion k, zue 'r.C;• F- 4,113?ide Road
5 1I o R`' _ At .{z' -'. %a'•�? E: { r .-iroL y�\ p co 45 .ya? 9 Li'11'' a W� a r*° .3 a. ��oo
�y a S <��1 a��.n� GSC �Jc��.�&�Aa...�Te'"n
hs a ird. 415 ft?vi'.7zablGy_ i:'d=l17rj,'. 11 wene to pass s t:i..'.� ;3.0 a•- -a I n o
1'o Metram Pipes ; :es w W'dinanc;e M.) , 811-n b, - 5105 W. 70i h Street - PI-
Residvat.Y R his° .c°c F�3 a 2.mned �e is3eu f�1 R�%s�: ic8 g f,a7e�)
(PirsF padin _q g- t°ed 5/20`74)
Wl� o f #�UKC-S UN Zf-g m �' I1�?A� �� � Pam d:2
FogIcts by Clerk. Rmse-atnUe —cm hy�Plonn=2 a; Depa rt vv--n r, ems 1- mard,•
A. a� r/c� of Ofumlc� l by 1*13- :.� lutir'�. 3/5 gcvo r�sr_e F,ra call vote.
TLV. AWARD 0117 WDS zba lc-t >cms end by City Manager. Aes-.1ma ak CC DmmcH@
by mnObn.
A. Gsemdvieu Uqu-z,)Z� 5 0
Do pia F uipm at
V. ML GRUI RATIONS A"I'D MOK'",S
Paznn Gr-MmIrSIL' S1
1. Final Plat AapwT,raI -
Sep"; F?e ving Date'
ao Da�,el A. Kxanv R� elcVpuiranfi Corp. - kiii.12,ng pe2,7mic:
Buml Ea_ can—se "[CL -mJnu d i-wcaa 91947/0)
Co Building D eparz mi; Cmd Siding <Cz -2— Unued
Do Appoinlzmezt of Youth G 'abe �o Z.Q X� :Ls?m 919/74)
go. ea bcmc Safety r 9a'10. =7 i n
F, F;nfgek. for 1975
G. iI.TX. Pxopf,-- -zd !ULa SaEvi ec. - GaMn,j ?.er, 9�;i =e, mgkluwa A- ve.. U. 76r� . a
ao Becyeli ng Center - k ;z °eg t Ikz Ogfk-nia Ss'n :v:s
1, Bicentennial Co issian - Presentation og Flag Feign
9e Public fety Inci.a"enS - Sunday IIlgYat
Vj o f,Sw. V- rf.-t 0NS
Pl �'az !.5 iv�IiP D1rSrr35'�gF? _��3 X1;
A. Gzava1 go:e StL-ceb
for prz nb of ;'r z eAJ?uG�7�.�y 6 �t�6t?s ns Pee ��ac -�,� CAP o �'.�'k?� �'� Y 3 d,�,�.,�
$39,091,£39 Cimst zmeic Ea�€� 2 ®1 .���5o0 ry r:IVa
$5 � 164.03; SS =av� F `� , 52,067.77,,- Liquor F -u d 9
WALTER E. KRAFFT, M.D. ROBERT A. DORNBACH, M.D. MICHAEL C. MAGNUSON, M.D.
200 SOUTHDALE MEDICAL BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435
TELEPHONE: 920 -8060
September 12, 1974
Robert C. Dunn, P:E.
Director of Public Works and City Engineer
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Mr. Dunn:
will not be able to attend the informal public hearing to be held
at 7 p.m. September 16, 1974. The purpose of this letter is to in-
form you that l am completely in agreement with the proposal to con -
struct a sidewalk along the East side of Tracy Avenue. I am the
owner of Lot 3, Block 6, in the Countryside Addition, which .would
have the sidewalk run across it according to this plan. I repeat,
am in agreement and hope it will be acted upon favorably.
Sincerely,
WALTER E. KRAFFT, M.D.
WEK:d
r
Page I of ESTIMATE OF COST Sep.-eriiber 9, 1974
S Pages CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
ORNAMENTAL STREET LIG11TING
PROJECT i?- -L-9
LOCATION: West 70th Street from I3ighway 100 to France Avenue
FEARING DA'M'E: Se tentber 9e 1971
ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $,192.00
(includes Engineering, Clerical & In�er.'rs "c)
PROPOSED MIETf.-10D OF ASSESSMENT:
N- tR4BER
OF
ASSESSABLE
FEET:_
9,066.74
NUMBER
OF
ASSESSABLE
LOTS:
0$
ESTIMATED
COST
PER
ASSESSABLE
FOOT:
$0.462
ESTIMATED
COST
PER
ASSESSABLE
LOT:
$x47.64
TOTAL ESTIMATM) PROJECT COST: $8,192000
STATE AID PO RTTON - (ESTI�'+IA ED) e $4, 000.00
ASSESSABLE PORTION: $4:192.00
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT:
SMILEY'S ADDITION
3 BLOCK FOOTAGE
3 1 105
4 1 75
5 1 75
6 1 75
SECTION 30, `.L'ONNSHTP 24
PARCEL FOOTAGE
54.00 147
Page 2 of 8 Pages
Estimate of Cost
City of Edina, Minnesota
Ornamental Street Lighting - Project P -L -9
DREHER °S 1ST ADDITION
RIOT BLOCK FOOTAGE
1 2 110
DREHER ° S 1ST ADDITION REPLAT
LOT BLOCS FOOTAGE
1 1 90
2 1 168°62
WOODHILL ADDITION
LOT
BLOCK
FOOTAGE
15
6
104.16
16
6
90
17
6
90
18
6
90
19
6
90
20
6
90
21
6
75
4
5
130
5
5
130
CRESTON
HILLS ADDITION
LOT
BLOCK
FOOTAGE
Residue
Lot 5
145.65
September 9, 1974
Page 3 of 8 Pages
Estimate of Cost
City of Edina, Minnesota
Ornamental Street Lighting - Project P -L -9
CRESTODL HILLS ADDITION
LOT BLOCK FOOTAGE
4 4 100.42
5 4 102
6 4 105
CRESTOYV HILLS BACH REPLAT
LOT BLOCK FOOTAGE
3 1 105.65
4 Z 100
SOUTHDALE 3RD ADDITION
LOO`►°
BLOCK
FOOTAGE
8
5
96
9
5
96
10
5
96.05
11
5
96
12
5
96
13
5
96
14
5
96
SOUTHDALE
IST ADDITION,
LOT
BLOCK
FOOTAGE
30
4
s0
31
4 1
80
September 9, 1974
Page 4 of 8 Pages
Estimate of Cost
City of Edina, Minnesota
ornamental Street Lighting - PrOjGct P-L-9
SOUTHDAWK —1ST—AmITION
LOT
BLOCK
200TAGE
32
4
80
33
4
80
34
4
so
35
4
125
2
a
84
."I'LONTERED LAW SURVEY 1365
TRACT FOOZAGE
B 172
C 225
REPLAT OF LOT 2 SOUTHDALE OFFICE PARK LST ADDITION
LOT BLOCK FOOTAGE
3 1 92.7
PARCI
FOOTAGE.
3235 150
]REGISTERED LAND SUZVM.-' 6-17
!R!E J. FOOT2jGE
A 200
September 9, 197•
Page 5 of S Pages
Estimate of Cost
City of Edina, Minnesota
Ornamental Street Lighting - Project P -L -9
September 9, 1974
REARRANGMNT OF' LOT 1 BLOCK 2 STOTq' S EDGEMOOR ADDITION
LOT BLOCK FOOTAGE
1 1 190
ST094S EDGEROOR ADDITION
LOT
BLOCK
F'OOT'AGE
2
2
131.3
1
3
128.76
10
3
128.0
1
4
125
9
4
125
STOWS DELANEY ADDITION LVICCOY REPLAT
LOT BLOCK FOOTAGE
4 1 75
ST'OW'S_ _DELANEY ADDITION DELANEY REPLAT
LOT
_BLOCK
FOOTAGE
1
1
75
2
1
75
3
1
77.43
A
83
Page 6 of 8 Pages September 9, 1974
Estimate of Cost
City of Edina, Minnesota
Ornamental Street Lighting, - Project P -L -9
SECTION 31„ TOWNSHIP 28, RAKGE 24
PARCEL FOOTAGE
4010 100
3620 557.51 (6 Lots)
COU rLLA_M ADDICTION
LOT BLOCK r OOTAGE
1 1 105
2 1 105
SOUTH GARDEN ESTATES 2ND ADDITION
LOT
BLOCK
FOOTAGE
1
1
86
2
1
90.7
3
1
130.47
1
2
92.74
DELANEY ADDITION
LOT BLOCK FOOTAGE
1 1 110
2 1 90
SOUTH GARDEN ESTATES .ADDITION
LOT BLOCK FOOTAGE
1 1 91.57
2 1 80
Page 7 of 8 Pages
Estib;ate of Cost
City of Edina, Hinnesota
Ornamental Street Lighting - Project P -L -9
S0UTH GARDEN ESTATES ADDITION
LOT BLOCK FOOTAGE
3 1 80
1 2 85
2 2 85
3 2 85
4 2 93.56
September 9, 1974
SECTION.31, TO°UNSHIP 28, ..RANGE 24
PARCEL FOOTAGE
4201 661.4 ( 7 Lots)
Fat LTHR0P WS ADDITION
LOT
BLOCK
FOOTAGE
1
100
2
1
100
3
i
100
4
1
100.05
GANI 'S
FIRST ADDIdAVIV
LOT
BLOCK
FOOTAGE
5
1
100
6
1
100
Page 8 of 8 Pages
Estimate of Cost
City of Edina, Minnesota
Ornamental Street Lighting - Project P -L -9
September 9, 3974
ESTIMATED UNIT
QUANTITIES MATERIAL PRICE TOTAL
16. Each, 250 Mercury Vapor Fast Arm
Units (N.S.P. Figure)
$ 6,900.00
SUB- TOTAL: $ 61900.00
ADD 10% ENGINEERING AND 2% CLERICAL: $ 828.00
$ 7,728.00
ADD 6% CAPITALIZED INTEREEST: S 464.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $ 8,192.00
PRE-PARED BY:
CHECKED KED BY °
APP ROVED BY:
Robert C. Dunn, P.E.
Director of Public works
and City Engineer
Revised 9/30/74 RCD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Edina City Council
FROM: Harold Sand, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT Case No. B -74 -27 H. Blake Holman for Tom Lynch, 5801 Bernard
Place (Lot 24, Block 1, Codes Highview Park) Appeal of the
August 15, 1974, Decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
Denying a Request for a 15 Foot Pear Yard Setback .Variance.
REFER TO: Attached correspondence and August 159 1974, staff report, and
enclosed August 15, 1974, Board of Appeals minutes.
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments considered the adjacent property owners'
opinion a crucial element in their decision.. The adjacent neighbor to the
east had expressed objection to the staff on three occasions and was not
present at the meeting and did not send a letter changing their opinion.
The appropriate letters in favor of the variance are enclosed.
HS :ln
9/13/74
5801 Bernard Place
Edina' Minnesota 55436
September 17, 1974
City of Edina
Village Hall
Edinap Minnesota 55424
ATTNs Planning Department „
Gentlemens
In connection with our September 16 hearing before the village
Council regarding our variance request, we herewith submit
the following documents for your study and considerations
1 e Letter from neighbors' Mr. and Mrs. Lowell McCalla
2 — Letter from neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Granson
3 - Letter signed by several of our other neighbors.
v truly y r ,
� c'/ M%. and Mrs. Thomas h y
5801 Berrjwd Place
Edina, Minnesota, 55436
September 4, 1974
City of Edina
Village Hall
Edina, Minnesota
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We want to voice our support of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Lynch's
variance petition to build a screened patio at 5801 Bernard
Place. We also want to clear up a misunderstanding that has
accompanied this matter.
When construction began we made what we sincerely felt was a
simple telephone inquiry to the Village- offices regarding the
project. Before we knew what happened the Village had cancelled
the permit. From that point on our inquiry was treated as a com-
plaint and we have been embarrassingly referred to by the Village
as "the neighbors who filed a complaint." This was not our in-
tention at all. Indeed we went to the Village Hall right away to
see what could be done for construction to resume, as the Lynch's
were out of the state and could not act in their own behalf. We
were informed that nothing could be done at that time. In addition,
Mr. McCalla had planned to attend the August 16 hearing to indicate
our support for Lynch's request, but was unfortunately unable to do
so, because he bad to work overtime that evening.
We have seen the plans, we find them attractive and in good taste,
and we support approval of the Lynch's request.
Very truly yours,
,o z -zx e, /4 a C44,
/mx &&A-0
Mr. and Mrs. Lowell McCalla
5213 Grove Street
Edina, Minnesota
(1st house east of Lynch's)
September 5, 1 .974
City of Edina
Village Hall
Edina, Minn.
Gentlemen$
We wish to express our enthusiasm and support for the screened
patio addition Mr. and Mrs. Thomas V. Lynch have planned for
their home at 5801 Bernard Palo*. We feel that the addition
will enhance both their property and ours, as it will provide
us with a degree of screening and privacy from Grove Streetp
which we do not presently have.
We hope you will act favorably on their variance request.
Very truly yeure,
Crt D. raneoa
Nancy R. ranson
5805 Bernard Place
ti
City of Edina
Village Hall
Edina, Minn.
TO WHONi IT DIAY CONCERN:
September 5, 1974
We have had an opportunity to study in detail the plans and
specifications of the proposed addition at the home of lair. and Mrs.
Thomas -I. Lynch, 5801 Bernard Place.
We consider their planned screened patio an attractive addition
to their home and to our neighborhood, and are not opposed to it
in any way.
' 7 2- ��
L0CA-,,T-10N MAP
■
1
MIN
ON Law • � s
mill
■ �■■w�� ■■ I �■ ■
NEI
NE
I' ■■pia m1111� ■■_ • ■■
Ell
■11■1■� IIr� � - .
variance
REQUEST NUMBER: B -74 -27
LOCATION: 5801 Bernard Place
REQUEST: 15 foot rear yard setback
variance
�- i��.•�s�e r�annjl� ...cie��.�?i�L1L_. -.. - -- � - -- - - -_ __._�..._ - - - -- -- ......_ -- ..�'illaze of e�1in3
EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
August 15, 1974
B -74 -27 H. Blake Holman for Tom Lynch. 5301 Bernard Place. Lot 24, Block 1,
Codes Highview Park.
Refer to: Attached petition, site plan, and elevation.
Request: 15 foot rear yard setback variance.
This block of Codes Highview Park was originally platted with extremely large
lots, 106 feet by 307 feet, and subsequently many lots have been subdivided,
including'many divisions facing side streets. Apparently there had been plans
to divide all of the lots in this block and to construct an extension.of Code
Avenue between Grove Street and Benton Avenue.
Lot 24 was divided in 1964 into the proponent's 192 X 96 foot lot and a 115 X 96
foot lot, the latter receiving a variance from the 120 foot required lot depth.
This lot division and variance were based on the fact that all zoning ordinance
requirements, including setbacks, could be met except the lot depth. Due to the
large established setback, the proponent's house was placed on the rear of the
lot with a 30.2 foot rear yard. Due to the possible future street and required
side street setback, the neighbors house was placed with a 13 foot side yard
abutting the neighbor's small rear yard for a total of 43 feet between dwellings.
The proponent is requesting permission to construct an attached screen porch in
the rear yard that will project 19 feet east of the house. The proposed porch
woal.d reduce the rear yard to ten feet, requiring a 15 foot rear yard setback
` variance. The adjacent house has two windows on the second floor and one window
on the ground floor facing the proposed addition. The owner of this house
continues to object to the variance request.
The proponent was issued a building permit for this project, however, work was
stopped after the sod was stripped away from the yard but prior to any actual
construction of the porch..
Recommendation: The proposed 23 foot spacing between dwellings is normal and
adequate spacing for interior side yards, however, the resulting rear yard is
unworkable for the present and future owners. The staff feels that the rear
yard setback requirement was established for valid reasons and the proponent has
not presented a case justifying a variance. Therefore, denial is recommended
because the criteria for a variance as listed on the application are not satisfied
and:
1. Any hardship was created by the division of the property by a previous owner;
2. The proponent has a smaller rear yard than other properties in the vicinity
and shouted not be allowed to further reduce the.yard.
3. The reduction in rear yard should have an adverse e=fect on adjacent property
and a complaint has been received.
f{S:ln
8/9/74
piX
PETT_TIOit PO? ITARIA-N-UrE , I`
Case ,umber -7 7 7
Date %- - ?
-ee raid % - _7
Applicant I 'b1,Ml Phone qZ® 3S
Address bI 'lip
Status of Applicant (owner, buyer, anent, etc.): i d
Legal Description: Le7r -BLOCK. 1 OOZE S 5.
;1
Street Address:
Pei;uest:
Minnesota statutes and Edina ordinances require . that the followir_p conditions must-be
satisfied affirmatively.
The proposed variance twill: (If yes, please ekplai_n. use additional sheets
necessary.)
a)
Yes
Pelieve an undue hardship which x: =as not self- irnosed or
a :were inconvenience.
I%W� T7� ►s (`mt� Lci F4 t1� fib 7'o t'rF�1F 1� ` 5 Z' pptc�� f:;?ZM W- sr
v,,Z .a,ve= A-r- 7ui< M�? _ Vmrt4r --% vin Tei -r� BAST 1S ONLy
b) Correct extraordinary circumstances arpl4c to this
property, but not applicable to the other property in
the vicinity or zoning district.
-rte rtnr ►� -� fin,, -1� n ► ^q:P.MsrrV CF
ON `rte %MSC �s G ?��'tuc►�11�S7�Ne� ?'t{�r'
on 7hE ISN-sr MINC IN -ra -T+�E Smc irNVIRP 05 TqE NAPA; yr
��Or�.�'r'. `ice �y
} 5`YA PJ
3�kN o "} tfl a G M I 7Q1
81;s yn •!) sY kr•1590k
n
c) Preserve a sul. stantial property right possessed b,. ot'�er �-�"�' !r 1S %� 5lII�
i CL�YttO N.
property in the vicinity and zoning district.
.'ot he r^ateria? l detrimental to t:�e -,u�;? is Tae1=a_re or
in urious to other property ir, the vici ^-ty or zon.i.r_q
district.
= iE =;cWr �R At,O °rb CAs'r
1.1�N3l.� AA) o a2A - ?+ CMVF- `r=
."Z4
r
i 'n the o_ AP p.11 r_2n
- -_ — .._ .. - - - - - _ : Jam•
l) -
i tit i •
r
X .. 353 - X— 19' - - 10:25�
*dt4�35 N N ( _XlS°iJitia N���tS 1
cli
x
PXF05ED 0;
AMMON
BACX YARD
1.5 5.a 14.0
2p. Q
4
0
..........
.........
............
.6`4
7
H"i
} \mot 1�I �I! � -`a�' } '��''
_ ; � ro 1. � � � �I �
MD
NE 'A
x
Afl ., 34Y2 3-81 3.814
4 -o
%�x
10
To: Warren Hyde
City Manager
M E M 0 R A N D Uri
Building Department
ci it Y ®f
�Edzzia
4801 WEST FIFTIETH STREET • EDINA. MINNESOTA 88424
927 -8861
Date: September 4, 1974
From: Cal Moser
Building Official
Subject: Licensing Roofing and Siding Contractors
Most of the metropolitan cities license most minor contractors and
sub - contractors such as concrete, plastering and dry wall contractors,
roofers, siding contractors and remodelers. I do not know if labor. =!
sub- contractors are licensed, or how we would proceed without licen-
sing all general contractors.
If licensing of roofers and siding people is pursued, some additional
ordinances would have to be developed. Inspections would have to be
precise, and several inspections would be required beyond the ordinary
inspection routine. In roofing, the following conditions exist:
1. If the roofing ordinance permits a second roof covering over the,
original roof or single layer roof, then an inspection must be made
to see if a second layer of roofing would be permissible.
2. An inspection should be made to determine if the roof sheathing
(boards or plywood) is in good enough condition to receive the nail=
ing of the second layer of roofing. This inspection would have to be
made from the attic side to determine whether rot or delamination .
was present, and if the roof framing would stand the extra load of a
second ply of roofing.
3. The roof would have to be inspected to determine if it might not
already have a second roof covering on it.
4. The work of the roofer must be inspected during application of materi-
als to see that they are properly applied. This must be done at a
precise time, as most roofing jobs are started and completed in a sin-
gle day.
5. Inspections must be made when roof valleys and ridges are being installed
to see that proper materials of adequate dimensions are applied.
In summary, roofing and re- roofing can be one of the largest skin games in
the industry, and it would almost require a specialist as an inspector.
This would apply to commercial as well as domestic or residential buildings.
Mr. Warren Hyde
September 4, 1974
Page Two
Siding is a comparitively simple procedure. This would require a
prior, intermediate and final inspection. Materials are of a more
stable nature, and are not subject to the application discrepan-
cies of roofing.
To speak further of licensing contractors, let me state that we
have more ,problems with masonry, concrete, remodeling and with
swimming pool contractors than, perhaps, siding and roofing con-
tractors.
Contractors installing driveways (both concrete and bituminous),
are without any regulation whatsoever, and we receive many com-
plaints.
Contractors installing masonry, basements, etc., are not following
the Code because of age -old, local practices. We do not have an
ordinance requiring the inspection of masonry basements, and we do
not have an ordinance requiring the installation of drain tile for
the damp- proofing of basements.
We do have an ordinance which requires a permit to be issued in the
City of Edina for the repair of swimming pools. Yet, to the best of
my knowledge, there has never been a swimming pool repair.permit
issued. There is no way of policing this operation, unless we re-
quire licensing.
House and building remodelers generally take out permits, because
they are caught up by the requirements that plumbing and electrical
permits follow, which are required by licensed contractors. We have
caught many a remodeling job because the plumber or electrician has
taken out a permit, and it has been reported to us. Remodelers should
be licensed, however, because many dupe the public with excessive
charges, delayed completion of work and inferior work. These contractors
are getting away with these practices because they collect for their
work before the customer is aware that their workmanship and materials
are inferior.
If licensing is desired, I would also recommend that furnace cleaners
and service personnel be required to examine the furnace heat ex-
changer for leaks. We have had one casualty in Edina because of a
rusted out heat exchanger. I cleaned out my own furnace last week, after
finding rust scale present and found two areas where the metal was
rusted through. I am installing a new, rather than patching the old, ex-
changer because it is still under warranty.
Hopefully, you have followed my rambling dissertation on licensing. I
have tried to be brief and yet cover most of our problem areas. Let me
now explain what licensing involves.
1. Licensing is good because it give us control of the contractor;Control
from the standpoint that a permit may be denied if lie has been the
subject of complaints concerning inferior work on a previous project.
If licensing is not required, we cannot deny a permit for additional
jobs or projects.
Mr. Warren Hyde Page Three,
September 4, 1974
2. Most contractors take pride in obtaining a license and do most
anything to protect their license from revocation.
3. Licensing is bad, in my opinion, because it penalizes. about 75
to 90% of the contractors who are conscientious and serve the
public as they wish, and should be, served.
4. Licensing contractors would add to the work load of the department
and at least one additional inspector would be required, as well
as additional clerical help.
5. Licensing adds to the cost of doing business for the contractor. As
his overhead goes up, so does the price of the work he performs,
and naturally, this is passed onto the consumer. Perhaps the consumer
would be happier with the protection afforded by licensing.
6. This may startle you, but I do not favor licensing by the City of
Edina or any other city in the metropolitan area. Licensing fees
impose a hardship on all contractors, which is passed on to the
consumers. What criteria is established by each community which
would have any semblance of uniformity throughout the entire metro-
politan area? Would fees for licensing bean over- riding benefit to the
community and the consumer?
7. I believe that licensing should be metropolitan wide, served by a board
which could establish criteria for a licensing examination, uniformity,.
without being a great burden on the consumer.
8. If the Council wishes to proceed on behalf of the City of Edina, I will
set up the necessary procedures, but if we license, we should license
all building activities.
9. I think the City of Edina could put another feather in its already
well feathered hat, by pushing for a Metropolitan Licensing Bureau,
without losing any of our local rule atonomy.
7i 7
/
CITY OF EDINA
August 16, 1974
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Warren C. Hyde
SUBJECT: HOUSING INSPECTION PRACTICES
Attached is a memo summarizing the results of inquiries to Blooming-
ton, St. Louis Park, Richfield, and Minneapolis. Only St. Louis Park has the
ordinance requiring that homes offered for sale be inspected by city personnel.
Minneapolis has a "code compliance inspection" under the provisions of Chapter 43
of the Code of Ordinances. This provides that the owner of any building may
obtain a Certificate of Code Compliance. If a certificate is issued, it clearly
indicates it is not a guarantee. Minneapolis charges $20 for a one- or two-
family dwelling. The preamble to the enacting ordinance is interesting. It
follows:
"43.010. Certificate of Code Compliance; Purpose. Believing
that community fear of present code enforcement programs is
based in part on the unreasoned fear that people will be
forced to meet standards beyond those required for health
and safety; and
Believing that the citizens of the City of Minneapolis have
displayed an earnest desire to preserve the livability of
their community and deserve the opportunity to voluntarily
meet basic minimum standards for health and safety, there
is hereby created a voluntary code,compliance program."
Based on the number of changes in water meter billings, I would
estimate some 1200 homes are sold each year in Edina. This would take at-
least one full -time inspector plus additional clerical help. According to
St. Louis Park's review of its program after one year of operation,. "the most
common problems occur in electrical categories. Other frequent problems are
water heater malfunctions and no anti - siphon ballcocks in flush tanks. The
number of major or extremely serious problems have not been too numerous to
date and, in most cases, are usually found in older structures ".
Because Edina has not had a city electrical code and not having
required 100 amp. service, as was discussed several years ago, we would probably
encounter primarily electrical problems also. St. Louis Park's tract houses
of the immediate post -war II period were fortunately not duplicated here and the
relatively higher percentage of custom -built homes in Edina would probably
decrease the number of violations or corrections required.
HOUSING INSPECTION PRACTICES
Page Two
I am not convinced that there is a real need for this type of
governmental intervention here in what has been a civil buyer - seller relation-
ship. If a program is mandated, the fee would be'$25 per inspection, and an
additional inspector's position authorized.
The question on licensing roofers, siding applicators and private
driveway contractors was included because of an inquiry from Mrs. Schmidt.
WCH /hd
Warren C. Hyde
City Manager
In a letter dated June 17, 1974 Mr. and I•irs. Caroutte inquired as to the
possibility of an Inspection Ordinance similar to that of St. Louis Park.
They indicated that they had had several problems with their house that could
have been avoided if such a program were in operation in = ,ding.
Information was requested from St. Louis Park- as well as from Richfield,
Bloomington, and Minneapolis on the Ordinances and Housing Inspection Programs
now in force. The following is a brief summary as to what was involved in the
St. Louis Park Program and what the cities of Richfield, Bloomington and
Minneapolis have also done in this area.
1) ?:Why was the St. Louis Park Ordinance ;; =� i 92 passed?
In conversations with I-ir. Sewell, St. Louis Park Housing Inspector, I w_ss
informed that their City had a. housing ordinance passed in the early 1960's
but that it was very inadequate. his a result the City St_ ff initiated action
to adopt a new, stronZer' Housing Inspection Ordinance. -1.1r. Sewell indicated
that at the outset the public eras very much opposed to this ordinance, the
result being that the Mayor appointed a fourteen_ member committee made up
entirely of, opposition people, to study the matter. This committee then met with .
City staff to study and discuss the issue and to become better informed. The
committee eventually, with a majority opinion of twelve, reversed itself and
2
recommended that a stronger Housing Inspection Ordinance should definit�y be
passed. 14'ith this recommendation the City Council was able to pass the Ordin-
:nce with most of the unfavorable public opinion bypassed.
The Ordinance, number 1192, was then passed on July 17, 1972• I' -Ir. Seiell
did indicate that the ordinance could be even stronger but that' some conces-
sions were made as to items that ;Mould be grandf,. thered in. 'i:.ese would be
items not allowed in new construction, but because they are no:,i part of the
euilain; __n ou c cz.use undue :.rcs ni? without, � n-reaL de _ of benefit, t:.ey ,•rotzld
bc :alored to stc:y.
The City of Richfield does not at this time have such an ordinance, hoa-
ever, they are currently preparing an ordinance similar to St. Louis Park!.s
and expect to present it to the Council this year.
The City of Bloomington has discussed the above ordinance but have decided
not to pursue a policy of Occupancy Certificates upon occupancy or ownership
changes.
The City of Minneapolis has a Voluntary Code Compliance Ordinance, but
nothing that could be compared to the mandatory St. Louis Park Ordinance.
2) Inspections per month in St. Louis Park.
Figures for the first eight months, October 1972 through May 1973, shots
that 601 initial inspections and 521 follow —up inspections were performed.
This was an average of 140 plus inspection5per month, The figure as of June
197., is between 190 and 200 inspections per month, an average of close to
10 per work day. It should be noted that -the City feels that if this trend
of increasing inspections keeps up more persom6lwould have to be added.
The City of Richfield with no program in operation does not have any
inspections. Not applicable.
The City of Bloomington also without a program. Not applicable.
The City of Minneapolis frith its voluntary compliance is running 30
to 35 inspections per month.
3) Problems found in the City of St. Louis Park.
There have not been any major problems detected so far in the adm- nistra-
tion of the program. Then first proposed there was some public opposition but
this has no:i developed into support.
City of Richfield with no progr::r:i, not _applicable.
City of Bloomington, not applicable.
City of blinr_ea,.polis ;,rith onl.r a Voluntary Pro -ram has no problems.
11
0
4) Do fees cover costs?
The City of St. Louis Park 11::s a >10.00 per unit inspection fee, this
does not cover the costs. That would run ;20.00 to >25.00 per inspection.
City of Richfield, not applicable.
City of Bloomington, hot applicable.
City of Minneapolis, cost :.is not covered,Ja new fee schedule is being.con-
sidered.
5) Any litigation?
The City of St. Louis Park has not been involved in any litigation.
City of Richfield, not applicable.
City of Bloomington, not applicable. .
City of Piinneapolis, oViner may appeal to Doa_rd of Appeals, other rise no
litigation.
o) Hov., many people make inspections?
In St. Louis Park only one man is responsible, with back up help and
e:.per_tiz e through the electrical, plumbing, heating and building inspectors.
City of Richfield, not applicable.
City of Bloomington, not applicable.
City of N"inneapolis, si: inspectors presently all in the Building inspection
dept.
7) Are roofers, siders, drivev;ay rep.__ir people licensed?
St. Louis Plark does not _�t the present time license these people, ho, ..ever,
i t does re <<uire permits to roof or side building . They also have; the most
non- permit viol ,.tions in that _.re-:.
CI t,,� of i�ich ield Goes not i i l u , -le
f s.2 Gi ty Of i_1o0111n�''ton : 15G does note li Cense the above but is interested.
u
of 1'_�!Jne� :. Zs re e , t
I'OL- N a !1t_jT irli l:i.^ an Ui'C1 t�? Ce To 14 n i:'
LCe_.Se :;Omc
1_!':TO_'O;r�G;�17t!` CUntT_:CiOI' 1 1` 5;'!OUIL. i en co-ve? t: C5e
4 00 1 West 50th Street
Edina, Mnnesata 55424
927-8361
MR. APPOINTIMN"r TO THE EDII U%
U7,NIORNMENTAL LA
PLT COMISSION
C
n%wm-3 L6 u Alt-S
1401
'T
J. tvvt
)(,u A
MfIdd
ADUME3.5
-Pf
S SS y3
3t a a 41
City
Zip
DATE OF
BIRTH _ ll /�! ,S�
SPOUSE
NO 0?
Full .1affig
Occupation
yazrs Graduated', Ma j a r
PR7,5M, L= A TM- N' 017
SCIM)IL
Atten6ed D,�? Mi nor?
Hl".311 School -"-,011vf4 -
—C--- -
FA
ITradol, Bnsineaa School
Curraspandence School
Special Trai
Uut 'our Babbles and
LeitiruTe Tima Activities
/9 7 �
Miat Cum-minit'j', Frr-tarnalq., Civic
or Emviormmantalq. Organizations do
YOU 331cng to'? - Of. -fides held?
2.
-6
F
�JA
VILLAGE 01Y EDINA
42-01 'event 50tb StrBet
3ciina, YUnresot--i, 55424
927-8351
APPLICATION POIRAPPOMTHLTE TO THE EDINA MrVIORNNENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION
M*C Au LAJ
First Middla
A E A
SCre t. L
&
City Zip
PROM 1.1Z. (0 LATE OF BIRTH
SPOUSE
CHMMEN
Full Na mti Bitthdate Occupation
oasen Graduatei7 .Major2
EDUCAT'1014 EUM MCAMA, OF SeMM, Attended D29:rca? N-ftar?
. Hish
Special Training-_
,'Li-qt -Your Hobbies --nil
'Lelvura Tina ActivAties
CAMS
3
I-That C--M--unity, Fratarnal, CivLc
or -EmAo.nment n
-al Organizations do
You 'Balong to Offxlcam held?
i. ALL --nma
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor James Van Valkenburg
FROM: Gordon Hughes, Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: Appointment to Edina EQC
Attached is an application for appointment to the EQC submitted by Mr.
Richard Schibur. Mr. Schibur has been highly recommended by members of
the Edina Recycling Council. The position he is applying for has
traditionally been held by a student.
GL :ln
9/3/74
j
I
MTC31
WILLARD LITTLE
Director of Routes, Schedules and Planning
September 11, 1974
TRANSIT OPERATING DIVISION
18 NICOLLET AVE.- MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55408 - 612.827.4071
Mr. Warren C. Hyde, City Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Mr. Hyde:
The Transit Operating Division is proposing express bus service from the Park-
lawn Avenue and Gallagher Drive area in Edina to the Minneapolis central busi-
ness district (CBD). The desired routing is shown on the attached map. Prior
to submitting this proposal to the Committees of the Metropolitan Transit Com-
mission for consideration, it is necessary to obtain concurrence from the City
of Edina to operate on the following streets:
1. Gallagher Drive Between Parklawn and France Avenue
2., Parklawn Avenue Between 76th Street and Gallagher Drive
3. 76th Street Between France and York-Avenues
The proposed service would provide two (2) morning and two (2) afternoon peak
period trips_. The morning trips would arrive in the Minneapolis central busi
ness district at approximately 7:40 A.M. and 8:15 -A.M. and the afternoon trips
would depart the Minneapolis central business district at approximately 4:40 P.M
and 5:10 P.M.
The Transit Operating Division would appreciate this matter being placed on the
agenda for consideration by the City Council at their next regularly- scheduled
meeting. I trust the above information is sufficient. However, should there
be any way I can be of further service, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Willard Little, Director
Routes, Schedules and Planning
WL /dmk
Attachment
ccs: H. W. Springer
L. B. Olsen
Lc)
M
Hwy. 62
Q
Ln
O M
>' 66th Gt.
7� 15 �O� > 17
G3 &14 16
ip
70 L11
�AT�i i vU
9 -74
0
COMMERCIAL AREA - INCIDENT RECORDS
August 1, 1974 - August 31, 1974
DATE TIRE ICR NO. LOCATIUN INCIDENT DISPO.
8/1/74
0537
7230
7151 York Avenu
Firecrabker Compl.
INA
8/1/74
1639
7245
Southdale Raquet Club
Burglary
RPT
8/1/74
2005
7258
Southdale Car Wash
Damage to Property
RPT
8/2/74
1356
7278A
Target
Shoplifting
CBA
8/2/74
1356
7278B
Target
Shopliting
CBA
8/2/74
1629
7287
Daytons
Lost Persons
A &.A
8/2;74
1733
7289
70th and York
Theft
RPT
8/2/74
1917
7297
Byerly's
H &R PD
RPT
8/2/74
2115
7300
Audio King
Alarm
A &A
8/3/74
0300
7309
Audio King
Alarm
A &A
8/3/74
0309
7310
St.Paul Book & Stat.
Alarm
A &A
8/3/74
0306
7312
Leisure Lane
Curfew & Drug
CBA
8/3/74
0758
7314
Schimdt Music
Alarm
A &A
8/3/74
0925
7315
Robinson's Mensware
Fraud
RPT
8/3/74
1240
7325
Camel Lot
Car Blocking
A &A
8/3/74
1416
7326
Daytons
Shoplifting
CBA
8/3/74
1449
7329
Penney's
Solicitor
A &A
8/3/74
1656
7333
Penney's Auto Care
Solicitors
A &A
8/3/74
1850
7337
Southdale Liquor
Solicitors
CBA
8/3/74
2021
7338
Key Cadillac
Open Door
A &A
8/3/74
2056
7340
Leisure Lane
Susp. Auto
A &A
8/4/74
0035
7348
Audio King
Alarm
A &A
8/4/74
0120
7349
Zapata
Fight
A &A
8/4/74
1746
7364
Dayton's
Shoplifter
CBA
8/5/74
0913
7383
Leisure Lane
Rec. Stolen Auto
A &A
8/5/74
1134
7385
Target
Shoplifter
CBA
8/5/74
1402
7388
Richfield Lane
Bicycle Theft
RPT
8/5/74
1402
7388
Southdale Bowl
Bike Recovery
A &A
8/5/74
1510
7391
Zapata
Theft by Trick
RPT
8/5/74
1551
7393
Sound of Music
Theft
RPT
8/5/74
2101
7399
Penney's Turtle Lot
Assist 11MANS"
A &A
8/5/74
2331
7401
Southdale Bowl
Poss. of Marijuana
CBA
8/6/74
0636
7407
Sound of Music
Alarm
A &A
8/6/74
0914
7410
Gabberts
Fire Alarm
A &A
8/6/74
1314
7416A
Penney's
Shoplifters
CBA
8/6/74
1314
7416B
Penney's
Shoplifters
CBA
8/6/74
1653
7428 '
Goose Lot
Exposer
A &A
8/6/74
1653
7429,
Key Cadillac
Damage to Property
RPT
8/6/74
2114
7439
YorktoWn Mall
Recovered Bike
RPT
8/6/74
2258
7441
Yorktown Theatre
False Bomb Threat
A &A
8/7/74
1149
7459
Target
H &R PD
A &A
8/7/74
1359
7471
Mr. G's
Theft
RPT
8/7/74
1619
7475
YMCA
Alarm
A &A
8/7/74
1340
7476
John W. Hellers
Theft
RPT
8/7/74
2341
7486
Southdale Bowl
Auto Theft
RPT
8/8/74
1530
7504
Yorktown Theatre
Bicycle Theft
RPT
8/8/74
2142
7514
Penney's
Shoplifter
CBA
8/8/74
2158
7515
Penney's Overflow
Auto Theft
RPT
8/8/74
2340
7520
Yorktown Theatre
Theft frorn, Auto
RPT
Commercial Area - Incident Records
.August 1, 1974 - August 31, 1974
JniL TIME
8/9/74 1040
8/9/74 1500
8/9/74 2011
8/9/74 2204
8/10/74 0111
3 /10/74 1020
8/10/74 1217
8/10/74 1731
8/10/74 2035
8/11/74 0059
8/11/74 0626
8/1.1/74 1643
8/12/74 1521
8/12/74 1646
8/12/74 2152
8/13/74 0245
8/13/74
1316
3/13/74
1650
8/13/74
1936
8/13/74
1951
8/13/74
2050
8/13/74
2124
3/14/74
0826
8/14/74
0900
ICP, 110.
7535
7544
7555
7559
7568
7583
7585
7597
7604
7614
7620
7631
7659
7663
7670
7685
7694
7699
7702
7703
7705
7708
7715
7716
8/14/74
1223
7721
8/14/74
1528
7724
8/14/74
1605
7726
b/14/74
1617
7727
8/14/74
1843
7729
8/14/74
2051
7730
8/15/74
1536
7755
8/15/74
1600
7757
8/15/74
1926
7764
8/15/74
2352
7771
8/16/74
0727
7778,
8/16/74
0755
7779
8/1'0/74
1100
7784
8/16/74
.1130
7787
8/16/74
1450
7793
8/16/74
1545
7797
8/16/74
1542
7798
8/16/74
1951
7803
8/16/74
2007
7804
8/17/74
0303
7822
3/17/74
01144
7826
c/17/74
0635
7827
Page 2
LOCATION INCIDENT DISPO.
Southdale Concourse Lev.Medical Emergency A &A
Richfield Lane
Purse Snatch
RPT
Marvin Oreck
Theft
RPT
Tiger Lot
Lock Out
A &A
Audio King
Alarm
A &A
Yorktown Theatre
Theft from Auto
RPT
Sound of Music
Alarm
A &A
Donaldson's
..Fraud
A &A
Southdale Liquor
Poss. of Marijuana
CBA
P &C
Audio King
Alarm
A &A .
Wheel Goods
Alarm
A &A
Dayton's
Domestic/
A &A
Customer Trouble
Key Cadillac
Theft from Auto
RPT
Southdale
Theft
UNF
Southdale Bowl
Theft from Auto
CBA
Key Cadillac
Keys left with
A &A
Vehicle
Walgreen's
Lost Property
A &A
Byerly's
Shoplifting
CBA
Rooster Lot
UR PD
RPT
73rd ana York
Theft
UNF
Dayton's
Shoplifter
CBA
Spencer's
Shoplifter
GBA
Dayton's Overflow
Car Fire
A &A
Key Cadillac
Stolen and
RPT
Recovered Vehicle
Gopher Lot.
PD
A &A
Donaldson's Lane
bicycle Theft
RPT
Alligator Lot
PD
RPT
Penney' s
Shoplifter
CBA
7200 York Avenue
Alarm
A &A
PenneV's
Shoplifter
CBA
T -Mart
Theft (Shoplifting)RPT
7200 York Avenue
Alarm
A &A
Target
Shoplifter
CBA
Audio King
Alarm
A &A
7200 York Avenue
Alarm
A &A
Audio King
Alarm
A &A
Richfield Lane
Susp. Persons
A &A
Target
Shoplifters &
CBA
Fraud
Penney's
Shoplifter
CBA
Penney's
Shoplifter
CBA
Jackson Graves
Shoplifter
CBA
Turtle Lot
Auto Theft
INA
7200 York Avenue
Alarm
A &A
Target
Alarm
A &A
Byerly's
busp. Person
A &A
Henn. County Library
Alarm
A&A
Commercial Area - Incident Records
August 1, 1974 - August 31, 1974
DATE TIf- -' ICR 140. LOCATION
Page 3
I.;CIDET:T- DISPO.
8/18/74
1320
7866
Southdale Bowl
Poss. of Narcotics.CBA
8/18/74
1351
7868
Fox Lot
Rec. Stolen Auto
RPT
8/18/74
1429
7869
Penney's
Shoplifter
CBA
8/18/74
1545
7872
Donaldsons'
Sex Offense
A &A
8/18/74
1607
7873
7151 York Avenue
Lock Out
A &A
8/18/74
1801
7877
Rooster Lot
PD
RPT
8/19/74
0234
7892
Scandival Imports
Alarm
A &A
8/19/74
0354
7893
71st and York
Susp. Persons
A &A.
8/19/74
0915
7898
Southdale
Lost Property
RPT
8/19/74
1555
7902
69th and York
Welfare Check
A &A
8/19/74
1805
7906
Camel Lot
Bicycle Theft
RPT
8/19/74
1850
7909
Marvin Oreck
Shoplifter.
CBA
8/20/74
1424
7942
YMCA
Rec. Stolen Veh.
A &A
8/20/74.
1432
7943
Bear Lot
PD
A &A
8/20/74
1723
7948
Fox Lot
Poss. of Narcotics
CBA
8/20/74
1755
7949
Fox Lot
PD
A &A-
8/20/74
1920
7951
Turtle Lot
Stolen Bicycle
RPT
8/20/714
2040
7956
Hurrah
Shoplifter
CBA
8/20/74
2125
-7959
Now and Then
Shoplifter
CBA
8/21/74
0958
7977
6725 York Avenue
Customer Trouble
A &A
8/21/74
1134
7980
Bachmans Southdale
Lost Property
RPT
8/21/74
2018
7989A
Daytons
Shoplifter
CBA
8/21/74
2018
7989B
Dayytons
Shoplifter
CBA
8/22/74
0300
7998
Donaldsons.Car Care
Alarm
A &A
8/22/74
0908
8003
Audio King
Alarm
A &A
8/22/74
1147
8007
Southdale
Fraud
RPT
8/22/74
1545
8013
Giraffe Lot
PD
RPT
8/22/74
1605
8014
Penney's
Shoplifter
CbA
8/22/74
2036
8018
Byerly's
Att. Forgery
RPT
8/22/74
2227
8025
St.Paul Book & 5tat.
Alarm
A &A
8/23/74
0754
8036
Audio King
Alarm
A &A
8/23/74
1247
8043
Nelson's Lot
H &R PD
RPT
8/23/74
1454
8048
Bear Lot
Lock Out
A &A
8/23/74
1507
8049
lst Southdale bank
False Bomb Threat
8/23/74
1825
8055
Camel Lot
Fraud
..RPT
RPT
8/23/74
1905
8058
Galleria Lot
Malicious Prank
TriA
8/24/74
1430
.8086
lst Southdale Bank
Forgery
INA
8/24/74
1518
8047
Penney's.
Exposer
GOA
8/24/74
1756
8092'
brothers Restaurant
Found Child
A &A
8/24/74
2331
8100
McDonalds
P &C
C13A
8/25/74
0151
8lo6,,,
Southdale bowl
Theft from Auto
RPT
8/25/74
0800
b112
Racoon Lot
Bicycle Theft
RPT
8/25/74
1553
8119
Donaldson's
Forgery
CBA
8/25/74
1735
8121
Southdale
'Theft
CbA
8/26/74
0947
8139
7101 York Avenue
Burglary
RPT
8/26/74
1107
8143
7101 France Avenue
Burglary
RPT;;
19/26/74
1117
8144
Yorktown Henn. ?ed.
Alarm
A &A
Savings & Loan
8/26/74
1230
8147
Penney's
Shoplifter
GbA
8/26/74
1600
8152
Tiger Lot
..boliciting
Ct3A
. o
Commercial Area
- Incident Records
Page 4
August 1, 1974
- August
31, 1974
DATE
TIP,!E
ICR NO.
LUCATIU11
!NCIDENT
DIJPU.
8/27/74
0154
8164
lst aouthdale Bank
Alarm
A &A
8/27/74
0552
8170
Target
Alarm
A &A
8/27/74
0816
8172
Jackson Graves
Alarm
A &A
8/27/74
1020
8177
Rooster Lot
Theft from
Auto
RPT
8/27/74
1448
8186
Southdale
Susp. Persons
A &A
8/27/74
1639
8192
Target
Shoplifter
CBA
8/27/74
2037
8201
Target
Driving Comp.
A &A
8/27/74
2350
8207
Audio King
Alarm
A &A
8/27/74
2356
8208
Freemans
Alarm
A &A
8/28/74
1058
8222
lst Southdale Bank
Alarm
A &A
8/28/74
1347
8226
Fox Lot
Theft from
Auto
RPT
8/28/74
1630
8231
Sound of Music
Theft
RPT
8/28/74
•1641
8232
Byerly's
Shoplifter
CBA
8/28/74
2015
8243
Rooster Lot
Motorcycle
Theft
RPT
8/28/74
2023
8244
Donaldson's
Disorderly.Conduct
CBA
8/29/74
1255
8265
Rooster Lot
Theft from
Auto
CBA
8/29/74
1732
8273
Penney's Overflow
P &(;
UBA
8/29/74
1953
8277
Southdale Court
Theft
RPT
8/30/74
1139
8293
Target
Theft from
Auto
RPT
8/30/74
1427
8300
Llama Lime
Theft
RPT
8/30/74
1937
8305
lst Southdale Bank
Damage to
Property
RPT
8/30/74
2138
8309
Key Cadillac
Upen Door
A &A
8/30/74
2226
8311
Target
Domestic
A &A
8/31/74
0206
8318
Penney's Auto Center
Alarm
A &A
8/31/74
0601
8320
Audio King
Alarm
A &A
8/31/74
1135
8327
Llama Lime
Theft
RPT
8/31/74
1614
6336
Southdale Liquor
Alarm
A &A
September 8, 1974
Edina, Minn.
James Van Valkenburg
Mayor, City of Edina
Dear Mr. Van Valkenburg,
I've seen them directing busy traffic at 50th and France on
200 -below Christmas holidays; I've seen them quietly over-
seeing things at intersections near our schools when our kids
are getting out; I suspect we too infrequently recognize the
everyday, thankless ways in which they're important to our
community. So I hope the Sun prints my letter, and I thought
it appropriate that you and the Council see a copy as well.
Sincerely,
�/ G. Carpen'!er
September 8, 1974
~Edina,, +:inn.
sun Newspapers
6601 W, 78th' st..,. `
Edina, rir-n. 9 55435
To the editor:
I write regardin a tuatter of considerable importance to our
Edina co mmunitye
I had in-past ~earn a number of stories about the extraordinary
response of our Edina police and emergency service; this morn-
ing I had occasion to witness it first- hard.
My elderly neighbor, who lives alone, suffered a fall and
couldn't eet up- A call to our Edina police resulted in the
arrival in what seemed to be mere seconds, of officer
Grurdstrom, followed by f`r. Vernon and fir. SreEal in a rescue
squad a�abulance. I;ot only were they quick -to a-rrire; they
were efficient and competent in handling the a�hole situation.
"A routine call; that's their job ", some might. say; .Z say
these men Are to be commended - they de:�onstrAte why we should
justly take great pride in our Edina community services.,.
G.
Car-enter
Edina