HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-05_COUNCIL PACKETAGENDA
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER .5. 1992
7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL
ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA - Adoption of the Consent Agenda is made by the Commissioners
as to HRA items and by the Council Members as to Council items. All agenda items marked
with an asterisk ( *) and in bold print are Consent Agenda items and are considered to be
routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such
items unless a Commissioner or Council Member or citizen so requests, in which case the
item will be- removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on
the Agenda.
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT. AUTHORITY
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of,HBA Meeting of September 21, 1992
II. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
III. ADJOURNMENT
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Regular Meetings of September 8 and 21. 1992
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Analysis
of Assessment by Manager or Engineer. Public comment heard. Action of Council by
Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council required to
pass.
A. Sidewalk Improvement No. S -53 - Cornelia Drive
B. Curb and Gutter Improvement No. B -91 - West 54th Street - Abbott Place to
Zenith Avenue
C. Curb and Gutter Improvement No. B -92 - Birchcrest Drive from West 60th
Street to Porter Lane
D. Sidewalk Improvement No. S -56 - Thielen Avenue
E. Maintenance Improvement No. M -92 - 50th Street and France Avenue Business
District
F. Streetscape Improvement No. HRA 90 -10 - 50th Street and France Avenue
Business District
G. Aquatic Weeds Improvement No. AO -92 - Mill Pond and Indianhead Lake
H. Tree Removal Improvement No. TR -92 - Various Locations in City
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by Planner. Public comment heard. .Motion to close hearing. Zoning
Ordinance: First and Second Reading requires 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all
members of Council to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: 4/5 favorable rollcall vote
of all members of Council required to pass. Final Development Plan Approval of
Property Zoned Planned District: 3/5 favorable rollcall vote required to pass.
Conditional Use Permit: 3/5 favorable rollcall vote required to pass.
A. Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Mark Dalquist Addition
B. Preliminary Plat Approval - Mark Dalquist Addition - Lot 11, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 325
Agenda - Edina City Council
October 4, 1992
Page 2
IV. ORDINANCES First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only. Second Reading:
Favorable rollcall vote of majority of all members of Council required to pass.
Waiver of Second Reading: 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council
required to pass.
A. Draft Code Section 1046
V. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
VI. AWARD OF BIDS
A. G:O. Recreational Facility Bonds, Series 1992A
G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1992B
G.O. Recreational Facility Refunding Bonds, Series 1992C
G.O. Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1992D
G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds, "Series 1992E
* B. New Nine Hole Golf Course - Braemar (Contd' from 09/21/92)
* C. Reconstruction of Normandale Golf Course
* D. Normandale Golf Course Driveway (Continue to 10/19%92)
* E. Creek Valley Soccer Fields
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Election of Community Health Board Member to Regional Coordinating Board
B. Appointment/Reappointments to The Edina Foundation
* C. Set Fee - Copy of Edina City Code
VIII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
A. Metro 2015
B. 1993 MLC Legislative Program
C. AMM, Position Papers
D. Joint Council /School Board Meeting - 10/26/92 - 5:00 P.M.
IX. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL
X. MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
A. Cornwell Letter - Browndale Avenue Bridge
B. Edina Chemical Awareness
XI. FINANCE
* A. Payment of Claims as per pre -list dated 10/05/92: Total $787,110.50
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS
Mon Oct 19 Regular Council Meeting
Mon Nov 2 Regular Council Meeting
Tues Nov 3 GENERAL /CITY ELECTION
Mon Nov 16 Regular Council Meeting
Thurs Nov 26 THANKSGIVING DAY - CITY HALL CLO'
Fri Nov 27 DAY AFTER THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY -
Mon Nov 30 .Truth in Taxation Hearing - 1993
7:00
7:00
Polls Opei
7:00
SED
CITY HALL CLOSED
Budget 7:00
P.M. Council Chambers
P.M. Council Chambers
n 8:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M.
P.M., Council Chambers
P.M. Council Chambers
Poor Quality Document
Disclaimer
The original or copy of a document or page of a document
presented at the time of digital scanning contained within this
digital file may be of substandard quality for viewing, printing or
faxing needs.
MINUTES
OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER 21, 1992
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Paulus, Rice, Smith and Kelly.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Motion was made by Commissioner Smith and was
seconded by Commissioner Rice to approve the HRA Consent Agenda items as
presented.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
*MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8. 1992, APPROVED Motion was made by
Commissioner Smith and was seconded by Commissioner Rice to approve BRA
Minutes of September 8, 1992.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Commissioner Smith and was seconded by
Commissioner Rice to approve payment of the following HRA claims as shown in
detail on the Check Register dated September 18, 1992, and consisting of one
page totalling $37,201.53.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
There being no further business on the HRA Agenda, Chairman Kelly declared the
meeting adjourned.
Executive Director
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, OCT 1, 1992, 9:54 PM
COUNCIL DATE
OCTOBER 5,
1992
page 1
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR.
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. # .
•.••-•w• ••.•-
12316 10/05/92
w.w------------------------ .ww w- ..- .w•.•w
$13,034.50 ARTEKA CORP
.• . w...w.......... .w•.........w
wRESIDENTIAL IMPROVEME 21035 -1
.......
CENTENNIAL
*a.................... �w�w....
LAK RESID IMPROVE
0>
$13,834.50*
12317
10/05/92
$7,830.00
BJORKS COUNTRY STONE
RESIDENTIAL
IMPROVEME
HRA 459
CENTENNIAL
LAK
RESID
IMPROVE
459
< *>
$7,830.00*
12318
10/05/92
$7,356.74
BRW INC.
PROF FEES ARCH AND EN
66479
50TH STREET
PRO FEE ARCH/
< *>
47,356.74*
12319
10/05/92
$25.49-
CELLULAR ONE
MISCELLANEOUS
092392/H
GRANDVIEW
MISC
< *>
$25.49*
12320
10/05/92
$708.88
HEDBERG AGGREGATES
RESIDENTIAL
IMPROVEME
44931 50
CENTENNIAL
LAK
RESID
IMPROVE.
< *>
$708.88*
12321
10/05/92
$523.98
HORIZON LANDSCAPING
PARKS
1028
CENTENNIAL
LAK
PARKS
471
< *>
$523.98*
12322
10/05/92
$2,342.00
.INGRAM EXCAVATING IN
RESIDENTIAL
IMPROVEME
072892
CENTENNIAL
LAK
RESID
IMPROVE
10/05/92
$3,200.00
INGRAM EXCAVATING IN
RESIDENTIAL
IMPROVEME
081092
CENTENNIAL
LAK
RESID
IMPROVE
10/05/92
$1,500.00
INGRAM EXCAVATING IN
RESIDENTIAL
IMPROVEME
082592
CENTENNIAL
LAK
RESID
IMPROVE
1Q/05/92
$2,500.00
INGRAM EXCAVATING IN
RESIDENTIAL
IMPROVEME
082692
CENTENNIAL
LAK
RESID
IMPROVE
1 /05/92
55,808.00
INGRAM EXCAVATING IN
RESIDENTIAL
IMPROVEME
082692
CENTENNIAL
LAK
RESID
IMPROVE
< *>
$15,350.00*
12323
10/05/92
$4,000.00
MASTER ASPHALT COMPA
RESIDENTIAL
IMPROVEME
6457
CENTENNIAL
LAK
RESID
IMPROVE
< *>
$4,000.00*
12324
10/05/92
$3,832.50
MINNESOTA STATE CURB
RESIDENTIAL
IMPROVEME
09424
CENTENNIAL
LAK
RESID
IMPROVE
473
< *>
$3,832.50*
12325
10/05/92
$14,166.67
PARTNERS FOR SENIOR
LOAN TO OTHER FUNDS
OCTOBER
EDINBOROUGH
LOAN TO OTH F
< *>
$14,166.67*
$67,428.76*
COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY THU, OCT 1, 1992, 9:55 PM
page 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUND 4 01 $67,428.76
.$67,428.76"
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF.THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
SEPTEMBER 8. 1992
ROL CALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, and Mayor
Richards. Member. Smith entered the meeting at 7:03 P.M. after adoption of the
consent agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by
Member Paulus to approve and adopt the Consent Agenda items as presented.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards`
Motion carried.
CONSTITUTION REEK /CITIZENSHIP DAY PROCLAIMED Motion was made by Member Paulus
and.was_ seconded by Member Kelly for adoption of the following proclamation:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS: We the People did ordain and establish a Constitution for the United
States.of America to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our
posterity;
WHEREAS: It is important that all citizens fully understand the provisions,
principles and meaning of the Constitution so they can support, preserve and
defend it against encroachment; and .
WHEREAS: The President and the Congress of the United States have designated
September 17 as CITIZENSHIP DAY and the week of September 17 -23 as
CONSTITUTION WEEK; and
WHEREAS:. The people of the City of Edina do enjoy the blessings of liberty, the
guarantees of the Bill of Rights, equal protection of the law under the
Constitution, and the freedoms derived from it;
NOW, THEREFORE, I. Frederick S. Richards, as Mayor of the City of Edina, do
hereby proclaim September 17, as
CITIZENSHIP DAY
and the week of September 17 -23 as
CONSTITUTION WEEK
and invite every citizen and institution to join in the national commemoration.
Proclaimed this 8th day of September, 1992.
The proclamation was accepted by Florence Norback on behalf of the Daughters of
the American Revolution.
*MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 17. 1992, APPROVED Motion was made by
Member Kelly and was .seconded by Member Paulus to approve the minutes of the
regular meeting of August 17, 1992.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED - CROSS VIEW LUTHERAN CHURCH PARKING LOT EXPANSION
Presentation by Planner
Planner Larsen recalled that Cross View Lutheran Church, located south of
McCauley Trail and west of Timber Trail, has applied for a.Conditional Use Permit
for expansion of their existing parking lot. The proposed request was first
heard by the Council on July 20, 1992, and was continued to allow the church time
to meet with affected neighbors on Timber Trail. The church's initial proposal
called for extending parking into a.grassy area south of the existing parking lot
to create a total of 198 spaces, with an additional curb cut on Timber Trail.
The church has met with affected neighbors, most recently on September 1, 1992.
As a result of.those meetings the church has modified the proposed parking plan,
the major element being elimination of the proposed southerly curb cut on Timber
Trail. Some grading work is also proposed to improve the sight lines for the
northerly ingress /egress on Timber Trail. A plan for irrigation and improved
landscaping along the buffer to the east and south side.of.the parking lot has
been submitted.
In response to Member Smith, Planner Larsen said the proposed landscaping plan
meets or slightly exceeds the City's ordinance requirement. In response to
Member Rice, he said the proposed berm area would be irrigated and be maintained
as grass.
Presentation by Proponent
Charles Sedgwick, member of Cross View Lutheran Church, explained that two .
meetings had been held with the neighbors. The neighbors' biggest concern with
the initial plan was the south exit which has been eliminated in the modified
plan. The proposed berming meets code requirements for screening and would be
regraded to a 3:1 slope for easier maintenance and be irrigated. Mr. Sedgwick
advised that Roger Lillemoe, Dundee Nursery, has-drafted the landscaping plan for
the.church. Mr. Lillemoe attended the meetings with the neighborhood and has
tried to respond to their concerns by strategically placing large trees in their
sight lines to provide screening.
Public Comment
Catherine Hapka.and Dreip Sapayah, 6323 Timber Trail, pointed out that after the
two meetings with the neighbors two issues remained: l) traffic, which has been
addressed by elimination of the southerly curb cut, and 2) landscaping plans.
Concerns about the landscaping were berm height, possible installation of islands
in the lot, and scheduling of another meeting by the church to review the plans.
They also pointed out that the affected neighbors has not been advised that the
issue would be on the agenda at this meeting and asked that the Council postpone
their decision to allow them to review the landscaping plan.
In response,'Roger Lillemoe, Dundee Nursery, said that he had met with one of the
neighbors, Noah Hurley. Together they surveyed the area from the Hurley's deck
and concluded the location of one tree would help screen the lot from the home.
Mr. Lillemoe stated that he was willing to work with each neighbor individually
regarding placement of the trees. To insure the greatest amount of screening he
suggested that the trees be planted below the crest of the berm so that the
fullest part of the tree would do the screening. Further, Mr. Lillemoe said the
slope of the berm, not.the height, would be changed for ease in mowing. In
addition, the sight lines for the northerly ingress /egress would be improved.
Council Comment /Action
Mayor Richards asked if the August 26, 1992, letter from Cross View Lutheran
Church, which mentioned the City Council meeting for Tuesday, September 8, was
mailed to all Timber Trail residents; Mr. Sedgwich confirmed that it was. Mayor
Richards then inquired about the church's future plans and the schedule for the.
project if approved. Mr. Sedgwick said the church's five -year growth plan
projects over 1200 members and the City's ordinance requires the church to
provide off street parking. If approved, the first thing would be elimination of
the weeds. Then the berm would be graded and re- shaped. That would be followed
by laying down asphalt, installing the.irrigation and planting of trees. Work
could begin within ten days after approval and portions of the project could go
on simultaneously.
Mayor Richards commented that he felt the church has done a diligent job of
communicating with the neighbors. Member Paulus noted that if the affected
neighbors had read the church's August 26th letter they should have been aware of
this meeting.
Member Smith then moved adoption of the following resolution:
RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the procedural requirements of Code Section 850 (the Zoning Ordinance)
have been met; and
WHEB.F.AS, it has been determined that the Findings as required by Code Section 850
have been satisfied;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby grants a
Conditional Use Permit to Cross View Lutheran Church, 6645 McCauley Trail, for
parking lot expansion.
Motion was seconded by Member Paulus.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CONTINUED TO 10/05/92 FOR DARK DAHLOUIST ADDITION
Presentation by Planner
Planner Larsen reminded Council that the property proposed for subdivision is
located south of Interlachen Boulevard and west of Schaefer Road with a gross
area of approximately 10.5 acres. Currently, there is a new single family.home
under construction in the southwesterly portion of the property. The applicant
has submitted a subdivision request that would create four additional buildable
lots to be accessed by the extension of Harold Woods' Lane. The fifth lot is
served by a driveway off of Schaefer Road.
The proposal was heard by the Council on July 20, 1992, and was referred back to
the Planning Commission. The Commission reconsidered the proposed subdivision
based on the changed facts,of setbacks for the conservation easement adjacent to
the ponds and also the City Attorney's opinion relative to the definition of lot
width. The Commission again recommended denial of the proposal on a 8 to 2 vote.
Planner Larsen informed Council that about 2:45 P:M. this date staff became aware
through a transmittal from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) that a.
petition had been submitted to them with the required 25 or more signatures
requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared to consider
environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision. The required process is as
follows: 1) Petition.submitted to_EQB, 2) EQB designates responsible governmental
unit (RGU), 3) RGU has 30 business days to make determination on need for EAW,
4) City Council may decide to order EAW or reject petition based on written
findings of fact. In either case, the decision of the Council is final and the
only recourse would be district court.
Planner Larsen advised the Council that hearings on this proposed subdivision
have extended nearly to the 120 day limit set by statute. If a decision is not
made within that period, which would expire before the next Council meeting on
September 21, 1992, the application would be.deemed approved. He recommended
continuing the public hearing to either September 21 or October 5 for decision by
the Council on the need for the EAW based on the findings. However, in order for
this to happen, acquiescence from the developer would be necessary to allow
continuation beyond the 120.days.
Mayor Richards asked Ron Clark, on behalf of the developers, if he would
acquiesce for a continuation and noted that he would not be present on September
21. Mr. Clark responded that they would agree to a continuation.
Member Rice said he was irritated by the fact that a considerable amount of time
already has been spent on this proposal and further, that because the petition
was received so late today, it was unreasonable to expect that findings could be
prepared for this meeting. Mayor Richards said he was frustrated because some
residents do not seem to have confidence in local government that all the facts
have been presented in this case as evidenced by the petition for an EAW. He
said he felt the Council has been sensitive to all the questions that.have been
raised regarding the proposed subdivision and asked for public comment.
Public Comment
Betsy Robinson, 5021 Ridge Road, informed the Council that the petition was filed
because the neighbors felt they were not receiving adequate information on
drainage and grading which is a major consideration for that low land and how
much fill may be required for building pads that would conform to the City code.
The information provided has been for building pads that require variances which
would have an affect on the wetlands. Also, a wildlife study has not been done
for the proposed subdivision. Ms.. Robinson said she had filed the petition with
the state on Friday, September 4, 1992, as she had just learned that this option
existed. Further, she felt staff had been uncooperative in her endeavor to
attain information about the proposed subdivision. The neighborhood is very
concerned about the proposed subdivision and felt it is being forced upon them.
Ted Pier, 5021 Ridge Road, stated he sensed Council's anger at the community for
taking a legal avenue to protect their interests and to further assess the impact
this proposal would have on the community. He said he did not understand why the
Schall home under construction would be grandfathered in and questioned why the
access road is not subject to setback requirements when it is a part of the.same
subdivision. As a concerned citizen, Mr. Pier said he would support an
evaluation of the impact this construction project would have on the community.
Ann Putnam, 5208 Larada Lane, informed Council they had bought their home during
the drought. They were not from Minnesota and did not understand wetlands.
Their back yard has been very wet and their lot is the lowest in their
subdivision. She voiced concern that the proposed subdivision could change the
watertable and result in more water on their lot.
Louis Starita, 604 Blake Road, noted that he had appeared before Council to
request a 75 foot setback for a division on his property. At that time the
Council voted that the 25 foot variance request was not appropriate even though
the Planning Commission had recommended approval. Because he felt that the
Dahlquist preliminary plat will be approved, he said it might be perceived that
larger developers get a different kind of consideration over smaller homeowners.
If it were approved, he would be prepared to come back and again ask that his
property be given the same courtesy.
Ed Glickman, 5217 Schaefer Road, felt the full Council should vote on whether the
preliminary plat should be approved.
Ingrid Mantyh, 6413 Interlachen Boulevard, said they were denied a 10 foot
setback variance last year and asked why the rules are not followed.
Council Comment /Action
Member Smith made a motion to continue the hearing on preliminary plat approval
for the Mark Dahlquist Addition to September 21, 1992. Motion failed for lack of
second.
Member Rice made a motion to continue the hearing on preliminary plat approval
for the Mark Dahlquist Addition to October 5 1992, so that findings of fact can
be drafted regarding the need for an environmental assessment worksheet. Motion
was seconded by Member Kelly.
Member Rice asked who would.-prepare the findings and pay the cost. Manager
Rosland explained that staff would prepare the findings of fact. Normally the
costs would be the responsibility of the developer, however, since this is a
request made by the.opponents the City would have to absorb the cost.
Ms. Robinson asked for an opinion of whether a stop work order should be issued
on Lot 1. Mayor Richards said his understanding was that a valid building permit
was issued for that home to be constructed. Attorney Gilligan opined that the
building permit was issued at a time when no petition was pending so the permit
is valid. Mayor Richards then called for vote on the motion.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOTS 17, 18.:19. AND PART OF LOT 20 BLOCK 10
NORMANDALE 2ND ADDITION Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by
Member Paulus for adoption of the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land:
Lot 17, Lot 18, Lot 19, and the South 1/2 of Lot 20, Block 10,
NORMANDALE 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the owner has requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows:
Lot 17 and the South 35 feet of Lot 18,'Block 10, NORMANDALE.2ND.ADDITION
and
The northerly 15 feet of Lot.18,. all of Lot 19, and the South.25 feet
of Lot 20, Block 10, NORMANDALE 2ND ADDITION.
WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning
regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said
Parcels as separate tracts of land do not-interfere with the purposes of the
Subdivision and Zoning regulations as contained in the City of Edina Code.
Sections 810 and 850;
NOV, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is
hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Code Sections 810 and 850
are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof as separate
tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other
provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further
subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the.pertinent
code sections of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as
may be provided for by those sections.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*HEARING DATE OF 09/21/92 SET FOR PLANNING ?BATTER. Motion was made by Member
Kelly and was seconded by Member Paulus setting September 21, 1992, as hearing
date for the following Planning matter:
1) Preliminary Rezoning - Planned Residence District,PRD -2 to Double Dwelling
Unit District R -2 and Preliminary Plat Approval - Vernon Hill Addition
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
BROWNDALE BRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS GIVEN Engineer Hoffman
explained that the Browndale traffic review is part of a larger issue. Staff
initially started.reviewing the.Browndale /Country Club area as part of a
rehabilitation /modification of the Browndale Bridge. The bridge is currently the
only restricted structure in the City based on weight limits.
Staff had started collecting traffic data in the neighborhood this summer to
establish base line conditions. Residents had noticed this process and began
questioning speed and volumes in the Country Club District. Additionally, a
petition was received from Browndale residents regarding speed and volume.
Engineer Hoffman observed that action taken to.date involved the Traffic Safety
Committee recommendation and Council approval of that recommendation as follows:
1) Conduct -speed surveys with an unmarked police vehicle during morning,
evening and noon rush hour periods,
2) Conduct same during the period of 4:00 -6:00 P.M. on Sundays,
3) Incorporate this data with the current study being undertaken, but
specifically cite the rush hour figures,
4) Contact.Edina Public School District and relay concerns of children
crossing Browndale Avenue to get to the bus stop, and
5) Conduct a sight line survey on Edgebrook Drive to ascertain if parking
should be prohibited on the west side of Browndale Avenue.
Staff would continue to collect traffic volume and license survey information in
the Country Club District to identify existing conditions. Additional issues to
be addressed would be:
A. Evaluate structural and functional adequacy of the bridge,
.B. Develop and evaluate alternative solutions with input from the State
Historical Society, Minnehaha Creek Watershed, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, etc.,
C. Depending upon the input from the agencies above, conduct a traffic
analysis for each possible solution.
D. Develop a feasibility'report for Council review in mid-1993.
The above items would need the assistance of structural and traffic engineers.
Consultant costs could -range from $5,000 to $15,000 depending upon the level of
alternative solutions. Funds for the 'consulting engineer would be from the
capital plan as'depicted in the'199.2 budget for Browndale Bridge. It is
anticipated that any improvements to the bridge would be done in 1994 -1995.
Staff would complete the above and return with this information to the Traffic
Safety Committee in November. The Council would have a report and recommendation .
to consider'in November, 1992. Initial evaluation costs would be approximately
$3,000.
Member Rice made a motion approving the schedule of activities for the Browndale
Bridge feasibility study with a report back to the Council on November 16, 1992.
Motion was seconded by Member Paulus.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
VACANCY NOTED ON THE EDINA FOUNDATION BOARD Mayor Richards informed Council that
there is a vacancy on.The Edina Foundation Board and asked that names of anyone
interest'ed,in serving be submitted to him.
APPOINTMENT MADE TO COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES BOARD Mayor Richards advised
the Council that he intended to appoint Jeannine M. Nayes to the Community
Education Services Board. Member Smith made a motion for consent of the Mayor's
appointment of Jeannine M. Nayes to the Community Education Services Board as a
member -at- large, for a term ending June 30, 1993. Motion was seconded by Member
Rice.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*SEARING DATE OF 10/19/91 SET FOR WINE'AND BEER LICENSE FEES Motion was made by
Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Paulus setting October 19, 1992, as
hearing date for a proposed increase in'wine and beer license fees.
Motion carried on rollcall vote = four ayes.
1993 RECYCLING CONTRACT APPROVED Manager Rosland submitted a report prepared by
Recycling, Coordinator Chandler on the 1993 Recycling Contract which included a
cost comparison chart. The Recycling Commission would recommend acceptance of
the Woodlake proposal to provide city -wide recycling service with the following
terms: 1) three year contract, 2) add mixed mail to the collection in May, 1993,
3) include pickup of household batteries, 4) special drop -off in spring for
telephone books, 5) curbside placement of recyclables, 6) proviso for profit
sharing if the value of materials rises above the current level, and 7) year -end
program review and option to change pickup point. Coordinator Chandler
introduced Kevin Tritz and Craig Seim from Woodlake and Lev Wood, member of the
Recycling Commission. Mr. Tritz commented that over the.years there has been a.
tremendous increase in the recycling efforts in Edina.- from 1600 tons in,1989 to
a projected 4000+ tons in 1992 and that the program speaks for itself.
The Woodlake proposal of August 24, 1992, includes the following options:
#1 Continue the existing program
Single family $2.60 /unit /month
Multi -unit. $2.00 /unit /month
#2 Continue existing program and add mixed mail in May, 1993
Single family $2.72 /unit /month
Multi -unit $2.10 /unit /month
#3 Curbside program and add mixed mail in May, 1993
Single family $2.35 /unit /month
Multi -unit $2.10 /unit /month
Discussion by the Council Members centered on the issue of curbside pickup versus
garage side pickup of recyclables and the $60,000 cost for garage side pickup. It
was suggested that the Recycling Commission be given the charge to educate both
the residents and the haulers where the containers are to be placed before and
after pickup.
Member Smith made a motion to approve the Woodlake proposal of August 24, 1992,
to provide city -wide recycling service to include Option #2 - Continue existing
program of garage side pickup and add mixed mail in May of 1993, and with the
additional proviso that the City could opt to change the collection point at the
end of any year. Member Rice seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REGIONAL BREAKFAST MEETINGS FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS NOTED
Manager Rosland advised that an invitation had been received from Mary E.
Anderson, Metropolitan Council Chair, inviting local officials to a breakfast
meeting on either September 23 or 29, 1992. The meetings provide an opportunity
to talk about regional issues the Metropolitan Council is dealing with and
provides local officials.a chance. to talk about the impact. Manager Rosland
encouraged Council Members to attend one of the meetings.
Member Rice raised the issue of response to the Metropolitan Council's "Metro
2015" document. Mayor Richards suggested that this be discussed by the Council
on September 21.
1993 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET LEVY ADOPTED Mayor Richards recalled that on
September 1, 1992, the Council concluded their review of the 1993 Proposed City
Budget line by line with no formal action taken. He asked for public comment on
the proposed budget; no comments were heard.
Member Paulus said she had a philosophical issue in that the Council had sent a
directive that this budget would not include new, creative programming. At the
September 1, 1992, meeting the Human Relations Commission asked for $2,000 as a
reserve fund to be used for programs that might come up so that they would not
have to come before Council again.to acquire funding. Member Paulus said she
objected to including the request in the budget because it was for no specific
program.
Member Rice voiced concern about the affect on the community with not replacing
the one narcotics officer. Chief Swanson responded that the Police Department is
operating without the narcotics officer now and therefore it is difficult to
assess whether there is any increase in drug activity. However, Edina does.not
have the indigenous narcotics trafficking environment (e.g. bars, etc.) but
things occur in some of the housing projects and in the commercial areas. He
said he would like a narcotics officer but not at the expense of something else.
The Edina Public Schools do have the D.A.R.E. program and are attempting to put
something like that in every grade level.
With no further comments, Mayor Richards called for a motion on the 1993 Proposed
Budget.
Member Paulus introduced the following resolution and moved approval:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET
FOR THE CITY OF EDINA FOR THE.YEAR 1993, AND
ESTABLISHING PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 1993
PAYABLE IN 1993
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Budget for the City of Edina for the calendar year 1993 is hereby
proposed as follows:
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $14,471,815
Section.2. Estimated receipts other than General Tax Levy are hereby proposed as
follows:
TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS $.3,146,700
Section 3. That there is proposed to be levied upon all taxable real and .
personal property in the City of Edina a tax rate sufficient to produce the
amount as follows:
FOR GENERAL FUND $11,325,115
Adopted this 8th day of September, 1992.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly.
It was the consensus of the Council that the contingency budget be increased from
$60,000 to $62,000 and that the Human Relations Commission budget be decreased by
$2,000 accordingly.
On the budget item of $28,000 for AMM and LMC membership dues, it was the
consensus of the Council that those organizations be put on notice that the City
may not renew the memberships, and that a final decision be made upon final
adoption of the 1993 Budget in December. Mayor Richards then called for vote on
the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards.
Resolution adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS: RESOLUTION ADOPTED
CALLING FOR SALE Pursuant to due notice given, a public hearing was conducted on
the proposed issuance by the City of Edina of.Ceneral Obligation Recreational
Facility Bonds and various refunding bonds.
Finance Director Wallin explained that the recreational facility bonds are to
finance the purchase and construction of Normandale Golf Course, the construction
of the new-nine holes at Braemar and the recent pool renovation. The bond issues
proposed to be refunded are:
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1988 $ 9,425,000
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1989 7,800,000
G.O. Golf Course Bonds, Series 1985 .550,000
G.O. Recreational Facility Bonds, Series 1988 2,295;000
G.O. Recreational Facility Bonds, Series.1989 1,560,000
G.O. Utility Revenue'Bonds, Series 1988 1,865,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 1989 1,045,000
Under Federal tax law, the City may only refund these bonds one time.. In these
advance refundings the City would redeem all of the bonds maturing on or after
their call dates. This redemption provision was clearly stated on the Bonds, the
Notice of Bond Sale and the Official Statement prepared by the City for
distribution to potential purchasers of the Bonds. this redemption provision was
taken into account by the purchaser in determining what to bid for the Bonds.
Director Wallin observed that when this matter was first brought to the Council
several weeks ago interest rates were a little better. At that time the bond
buyer's index was at 6.06% to 6.058. The packet information for this meeting was
based on a bond buyer's index of 6.318. This week the rates have gone down to
about 6.248. Staff would recommend adopting a resolution calling for the sale of
the General Obligation Recreational Facility Bonds and the various refunding
bonds. Director Wallin noted that Fifield, Springsted, Inc., financial advisor
and bond consultant for the City, was present to answer any questions as well as
Attorney Gilligan.
James Phelps, 4611 Townes Circle, and member of the Alternate Revenue Source
Committee, commented that refunding is a popular thing to do for the same sort of
reason that homeowners are.refinancing mortgages. He noted that Springsted is a
well- respected firm, capable of giving good advice. It is a judgement call
whether rates would go even lower.
In response to Member Rice as to estimated cost savings and refunding costs,
Director Wallin confirmed that, based upon the index of 6.318, net savings are
estimated at $1,239,058, with present value savings estimated $808,418. Costs
related to the proposed refunding would include bond consultant fees, bond
counsel fees, Moody's and Standard & Poor's bond rating fees,_and underwriter's
discount. Mr. Fifield interjected that estimated total costs would be
approximately $100,000 - $110,000, excluding the underwriter's discount.
He added that two subjective criteria are used to recommend refunding: 1) Minimum
savings of 68 present value of refunded interest expense (the proposed bonds to
be refunded are over 108), and 2) savings factor as a ratio of cost of issuance.
Mayor Richards asked what would happen if interest rates change so-that the
estimated savings are not there. Director Wallin said any and all bids can be
rejected if the market indicates an unacceptable level. Member Rice asked if the
City's general fund low reserves would affect our bond rating. Mr. Fiefield
answered that the key in the rating strategy is the general fund reserve.
Moody's looks hard at that given the whimsy of the state's fiscal policy.
Typically, Moody's has not treated cities with as heavy a hand as they have
school districts, but they will look at what philosophically the Council has set
as policy for maintaining what they would determine to be reasonable operating
reserves. Attorney Gilligan interjected that if interest rates spiked up, the
intent would be to proceed with the new money issue and cutoff the refunding
issues.
Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved adoption:
RESOLUTION CALLING. FOR THE SALE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION RECREATIONAL FACILITY BONDS, SERIES 1992A,
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1992B,
GENERAL OBLIGATION RECREATIONAL FACILITY REFUNDING BONDS,
SERIES 1992C, GENERAL OBLIGATION UTILITY REVENUE REFUNDING
BONDS, SERIES 1992D, AND GENERAL OBLIGATION
IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1992E
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Edina, Minnesota (the City), as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. It is hereby determined to be in the best interests
of the City to issue the following series of bonds of the City (collectively, the
Bonds) for the following purposes:
A. General Obligation Recreational Facility Bonds, Series 1992A, pursuant
to Minnesota Lava 1961, Chapter 655 and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, to
finance the acquisition and betterment of municipal recreational facilities of
the City.
B. General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1992B,
pursuant to.Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, to refund the General Obligation Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 1988 of the City, initially dated as of October 1, 1988,
maturing in the years 1997 through 2009, and the General Obligation Tax Increment
Bonds, Series 1989 of the City, initially dated as of April 1, 1989, maturing in
the years 1999. through 2009.
.C. General Obligation Recreational.Facility Refunding Bonds, Series 1992C,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, to refund the General Obligation Tax
Golf Course Bonds, Series 1985 of the City, initially dated as of September 1,
1985, maturing in the years 1997 through 2000, the General Obligation
Recreational Facility Bonds, Series 1988 of the City, initially dated as of
October 1, 1988, maturing in the years 1999 through 2009, and the General
Obligation Recreational Facility Bonds, Series 1989 of the City, initially dated
as of April 1. 1989, maturing in the years 1999 through 2009.
D. General Obligation Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1992D.
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, to refund the General Obligation
Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 1988 of the City, initially dated as of October 1,
1988, maturing in the years 1995 through 1999.
E. General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1992E, pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, to refund the General Obligation Improvement
Bonds, Series 1989 of the City, initially dated as of April 1. 1989, maturing in
the years 1996 through 2001.
Section 2. Terms of Proposal. Springsted Incorporated, financial
consultant to the City, has presented to this Council forms of Terms of Proposal
for each series of Bonds, which are attached hereto and hereby approved and shall
be placed on file with the City Clerk. Each and all of the provisions of the
Terms of Proposal are hereby adopted as the terms and conditions of the Bonds and
of the sale thereof. Springsted Incorporated, as independent financial advisers,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2, paragraph (9) is
hereby authorized to solicit bids for each series of Bonds on behalf of the City
on a negotiated basis.
Section 3. Sale Meeting. This Council shall meet at the City Hall on
Monday, October 5. 1992, at 7:00 P.M. for the purpose of considering sealed bids
for the purchase of the Bonds, and of. taking such action thereon as may be in the
best interests of the City.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Motion for - adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Paulus.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
DATES SET FOR TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARINGS Manager Rosland reminded Council that
the City is required to inform Hennepin County of its Truth in Taxation hearing
date(s) by September 15, 1992. Truth in Taxation hearings for all governmental
bodies must be held in the period beginning November 30 and ending on December
21. Continued hearings must be held at least five business days. but no more than
14 business days after the first public hearing.
Following a brief discussion, Member Paulus made a.motion setting Monday,
November 30, 1992, at 7:00 P.M. for the Truth in Taxation hearing and December 9,
1992, at 7:00 P.M. as the continued hearing date.
Motion was seconded by Member Smith.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Paulus
to approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check
Register dated September 3, 1992, and consisting of'32 pages: General Fund
$471,074.06; Cabe $6,417.82; Working Capital Fund $12,293.87; Art Center
$8,909.47; Pool $5,307.75; Golf Course $37,759.18; Arena $18,422.58; Gun Range
$340.04; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes $22,892.45; Utilities $310,599.60; Storm
Sewer $5,518.87; Liquor Dispensary $65,192.76; Construction fund $1,081.67; TOTAL
$965,810.12; and for confirmation of payment of the following claims as shorn in
detail on the Check Register dated August 14, 1992, and consisting of 15 pages:
General Fund $170,416.68; Pool $58,339.50; Golf Course $7,000.00; Utilities
$281.67; Liquor Dispensary $272,309.26; TOTAL $508,347.11.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared
the meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M.
City Clerk
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
SEPTEMBER 21, 1992
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith. Mayor
Pro -Tem Kelly chaired the meeting in the absence of Mayor Richards.
DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT AND AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAIMED Mayor Pro -Tem Kelly
presented the following proclamation which was unanimously adopted:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, there are more than 600,000 people with disabilities in Minnesota,
making them the largest minority group in the State; and
WHEREAS, many _people with disabilities are living independently_ in Minnesota and
are participating -'in education, social, religious, recreational and c ity
activities; and
WHEREAS, residents of our community need to become more aware of the talents and
capabilities of people with disabilities through their inclusion in the total
community environment; and
WHEREAS, the continuing existence of unfair discrimination and prejudice denies
people with disabilities the chance to compete on an equal basis and to pursue
those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous; and
WHEREAS, a significant effort is being made statewide -to eliminate barriers to
employment, housing, transportation, education and public accommodations for
persons with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has recognized employment as a major
issue for persons with disabilities and has designated the month of October as
National Disability Awareness Month; and
WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act
require employers to make reasonable accommodation to the known disability of a
qualified applicant or employee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Peggy Kelly, Mayor Pro -Tem of Edina, do
hereby proclaim the month of October, 1992, to be:
DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT AND AWARENESS MONTH
In the City of Edina, Minnesota.
ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 1992.
Accepting the proclamation were John, Nancy and Mark Phillips and Laura Hinton,
Adaptive Recreation Director, on behalf of the individuals with disabilities
living in Edina.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded
by Member Rice to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda items as
presented.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
PRELIMINARY REZONING TO R -2 DISTRICT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR VERNON
HILL ADDITION Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed
on file.
Presentation by Planner
Planner Larsen informed Council that the subject property is at the foot of Krahl
Hill, south of Vernon Avenue and north of Vernon Court and measures slightly over
four acres in size and is vacant. The development tract contains two parcels and
includes all of the remaining vacant property fronting on Vernon Court. A
petition to rezone the property to R -2, Double Dwelling "Unit District and to plat
it into eight double bungalow lots has been presented.
The R -2, Double Dwelling Unit District requires a minimum lot width of 90 feet
and a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. The eight proposed lots all exceed
90 feet in width and range in area from 20,100 to 22,350.square feet in area.
All lots meet or exceed Zoning Ordinance requirements for R -2 lots. Graphics
illustrating the layout of the lots were presented.
Planner Larsen pointed out the R -2 District requires a minimum front street
setback of 30 feet. The conceptual site plan'submitted by the developer
illustrates front street setbacks ranging from 20 feet to 35 feet with most units
providing a 25 foot setback. Thus, five and'10 foot front setback variances
would be necessary. The reduced front setback is-suggested to minimize the
impact on steep slopes and reduce the height of required retaining walls.
Planner Larsen explained that the proposed setback variances must be considered
by the Zoning Board of Appeals in a separate action and is scheduled for the
Board's October 1, 1992, meeting. The site plans and unit plans were submitted
to.show the developer's intentions and are not requirements of the requested
zoning.
The subject property is designated as suitable to low density attached
residential development by the Comprehensive Plan. Double bungalow development
is consistent with this designation. Since 1986, three.separate proposals have
come before Council and have been approved for the westerly 3.2 acres of this
tract. In 1986, a rezoning to PRD -3 was approved for a 15 unit townhouse
development. In 1987, a five lot, 10 unit double bungalow development was
approved. In 1990 a 12 unit, PRD -2 development was approved. All three were
consistent with the six unit per acre density allowed by the classification of
the property. The proposal now before the Council is the first that includes the
additional parcel at the easterly cul -de -sac measuring about 3/4 acres.
The proponent has submitted floor plans and prospective elevations for the
development.' The plans are similar to developments now underway in Bloomington
and Eden Prairie by the developer.-
Previous proposals on this property were complicated by pending tax forfeiture
actions. The current developer, David Carlson Company, has purchased the
property at the state tax forfeit auction and the uncertainty of where the City's
pending special assessments would be coming from has been settled through the
purchase agreement with the state.
Staff will be supporting the proposed variances for these reasons: 1) the
hardship imposed by Krahl Hill, 2) the proposed subdivision would minimize the
impact on the hill, and 3) the proposed development does not impact any other
neighborhood. Staff would recommend preliminary rezoning and preliminary plat
approval, subject to: 1) final rezoning, 2) final plat approval, and 3) pending
the action of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the variances.
Member Paulus noted that the question of a conservation easement on the property
beyond the retaining wall was raised by .the Planning Commission when they
considered the proposal on September 2, 1992, and asked for response by the
developer. David Carlson, developer, stated that he agreed that the conservation
easement would be a good idea.
Member Smith asked mentioned the topography and asked about surface drainage and
backyard area. Mr. Carlson said the drainage plan for the proposed development
has been designed by the engineering firm of Schoell & Madson. The first lot
and, potentially, the second lot will be 'look -out' units, e.g. half would be
below grade. The remaining homes would be constructed at grade without a
basement or with a full basement. Backyards would range from 15 to 17 feet.
Prices of the proposed units would be between $194,900 and $240,000.
Member Rice questioned the spacing between the unit on the easterly lot and the
home on Gleason Court to the east. Planner Larsen said the requirement for an
interior sideyard setback would be 10 feet; the home on Gleason Court has a
rearyard setback of 35 feet which would provide 45 feet between the two homes.
Member Rice said he also was concerned about the drainage and the retaining wall.
Planner Larsen explained that as part of the building permit process for each lot
engineering will be required to ensure positive drainage. Mr. Carlson pointed
out on a graphic how surface water would be channeled. He said the retaining
wall would be an engineered type. Member Rice then asked how the City would
receive payment of the pending special assessments for public improvements.
Planner Larsen said the auction price for the tax forfeit property was greater
than was owed to the City and that the City has first claim. Mr. Carlson
interjected that the state will be paid off by the end of 1993 and the City
should have its money by then.
Public Comment
Duane Jensen, 6104 Arctic Way, mentioned that he and other neighbors have been
concerned about the type of developments that have been proposed in 'the past. He
said that the proposal seems beneficial to the neighborhood, will have quality
and provide good aesthetics. He added that he knew of other neighbors who were
unable to attend who are also in favor of the development.
Doug and Pat Borth, 6521 Gleason Court, stated that their home is just to the
east of the proposed development. They voiced concern about the nearness of the
development and noted that their house is only 12 feet from the property line.
They also asked about plans to preserve the existing trees and how water drainage
would affect their property. Planner Larsen said normal rear yard setback would
be 35 feet, yet in an end /corner lot another side could be chosen for the
required 35 foot setback. In this case it would not have an impact on the
proposed development being considered. Mr. Carlson responded that they would
save trees if possible, but trees in the construction area would be removed.
Trees would be added after completion of the development. Regarding drainage,
Mr. Carlson said an engineered retaining wall would prevent new drainage onto
their property.
Jerry Clifford, 6516 Gleason Court, noted that there is an existing retaining
wall to the east of the subject property and asked how the walls would relate to
each other. Mr. Carlson said he prefers not to use wood retaining walls and
therefore would not tie into the existing wood wall. His plan calls for an
engineered concrete wall.
Responding to Sandy Spahr, 6212 Vernon Court, Planner Larsen said the deer herd
in the area of Krahl Hill should not be affected because the development will
only impact a few hundred feet along Vernon Court.
Council Action
Member Smith reiterated his concern about the surface water drainage. Planner
Larsen said that as the lots are developed they would be individually reviewed
for stormwater drainage. As a condition to the building permit, staff will
require that a civil engineer certify the drainage for each building. Engineer
Hoffman mentioned that now in the Indian Hills area each lot must be engineered
individually because of water problems and control is handled through the
building permit process. Member Smith said he was also concerned because the
plans indicate approximately 20 feet of driveway on which to park a vehicle and
that the vehicle would encroach into the right of way which is prohibited by
ordinance. Planner Larsen responded that, in staff's judgement, because of the
massive height of the retaining walls and encroachment into the hill for this
isolated case the lack of driveway parking would be a worthwhile trade -off. He
clarified that the ordinance is enforced upon a complaint only basis.
Member Rice asked about the height of the double units. Mr. Carlson answered
that the height will be approximately 25 feet. Planner Larsen interjected that
30 feet is allowed from the front of the dwelling. Member Rice asked who would
be responsible if there were water problems in the future. Engineer Hoffman said
if the development is graded according to an approved grading plan there should
be no problem with drainage. He added that, as a condition for preliminary
approval, more detailed drainage and retaining wall plans must be submitted prior
to final approval. Attorney Gilligan opined that a development agreement could
cover areas of concern.
Member Smith made a motion to grant preliminary rezoning to R -2 Double Dwelling
Unit District and preliminary plat approval for Vernon Hill Addition, subject to
a development agreement that would provide: 1) a conservation easement, 2)
resolution of driveway parking, 3) adequate drainage control, and 4) resolution
of converging of the retaining walls, and then moved adoption of the following:
ORDINANCE NO. 850 -A1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 850)
BY ADDING TO THE DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT (R -2)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Subsection 850.06 of Section 850 of the Edina City Code is
amended by adding the following thereto:
"The extent of the Double Dwelling Unit District (R -2) is enlarged by the
addition of the following property:
That part of lot 23 lying W of a line running N from A pt in S line of
lot 23 dis 676 3/10 ft E from SW cor thof and par with W line thof and
lying N of hwy also subject to Vernon Court Auditor's Subdivision No. 169
Hennepin County, Minn. City of Edina. PID# 06- 116- 21 -21- 0005(24). The
easterly 150.00 feet of the westerly 825.74 feet of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 6, Township 116, Range 21 as measured at right angles
to the west line of the Northeast Quarter and lying northerly of the
northerly right of way line of County Road No. 62.
PIN# 06- 116 -21 -21 -0006.
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage
and publication.
RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
FOR VERNON HILL ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that
certain plat entitled "VERNON HILL ADDITION ", platted by David Carlson Company,
Inc. and presented at the regular meting of the City Council of October 5, 1992,
be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval.
Motion was seconded by Member Paulus.
Member Paulus emphasized that the Council minutes reflect that the conservation
easement on this plat state that there would be no building or erecting of
anything on the easement and that it be left as a wilderness area. Mr. Carlson
offered that the purchase agreement for the lots could specify that the area in
conservation easement be held as a wilderness area. Mayor Pro -Tem then called
for vote on the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Ordinance granted First Reading.
Resolution adopted.
AWARD OF BID FOR NEV NINE HOLE GOLF COURSE AT BRAEMAR CONTINUED TO 10105/92
Notion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to continue the
award of bid for the new nine hole golf course at Braemar to October 5, 1992.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS - 50TH AND FRANCE Notion was made by Member
Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for 50th & France
pedestrian lights to sole bidder, Carnes, at $23,486.70.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*COUNCIL MINUTES OF 7/6/92 AMENDED REGARDING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NORMANDALE GOLF
Notion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to amend the
Council Minutes of July 6, 1992, by including the following resolution:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR NORMANDALE- GOLF
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that
certain plat entitled "NORMANDALE GOLF" platted by Normandale Golf, Inc. and
presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of July 6, 1992, be and is
hereby granted preliminary plat approval.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*RESOLUTION ADOPTED AUTHORIZING NORMANDALE GOLF COURSE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT Notion was made by
Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for adoption of the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND
,RELATED AGREEMENTS FOR NORMANDALE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY,
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DECLARING INTENTION
TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FROM PROCEEDS OF BONDS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota (herein called
the "City "), as follows:
1. RECITALS. Normandale Golf, Inc. (herein called the "Owner ") is the
owner of property lying.north of West 77th Street and east of Highway 100 in the
corporate limits of the City, described as Tract R. Registered Land Survey No.
1050, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (herein called
"Tract R "). Tract R is now and has been used as and for a commercial private
nine -hole golf course known as Normandale Golf Course, which has been operated by
the Owner. It has been proposed that the City purchase Tract R from the Owner on
the terms and conditions contained in a Purchase Agreement between the Owner and
the City (herein called the "Purchase Agreement "), a copy of which has been
presented to this Council. The Purchase Agreement provides that the City and the
Owner will enter into an Option and Development Contract (herein called the
"Development Contract "), a copy of which has been presented to this Council,
pursuant to which the City grants to the Owner the option to repurchase from the
City a portion of Tract R constituting approximately 6.2 acres and fronting on
West 77th Street (herein called the "Development Property "). The City proposes to
reconstruct Normandale Golf Course for use as a public nine -hole golf course.
For access to the east end of the reconstructed golf course the City proposes to
acquire a driveway easement (herein called the "Driveway Easement ") from Pentagon
Park Limited Partnership (herein called "Pentagon Park ") on the terms and
conditions contained in a Purchase Agreement (for Easement Agreement), between
the City and Pentagon Park (herein called the ( "Easement Agreement "), a'copy of
which has been presented to this Council. The Development Contract provides that
if the Owner exercises its option to purchase the Development Property, the Owner
acquires such property subject to certain restrictions and limitations set forth
in the Development Contract which are imposed for the benefit of the City. By
resolution adopted July 6, 1992, this Council has amended the Comprehensive Plan
1980 to show the Development Property as a potential office development site and
to show the balance of Tract R as "public" area, and on July 6, 1992, gave first
reading to an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City to transfer the
Development Property to the Planned Office District, Subdistrict POD -1 and
preliminary approval to a subdivision of the Development Property from the
balance of Tract R.
2. AUTHORIZATIONS AND APPROVALS. The City hereby authorizes the purchase
by the City of Tract R upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase
Agreement, and the granting by the City to the Owner of the option to repurchase
the Development Property upon the terms and conditions set forth in the
Development Contract and the acquisition by the City of the Driveway Easement
upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Easement Agreement. The forms of
the Purchase Agreement, Development Contract and Easement Agreement are approved
subject to such modifications as are deemed appropriate and approved by the mayor
and City manager, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by execution of
the Purchase Agreement, Development Contract and Easement Agreement by the mayor
and City manager. The mayor and City manager are directed to execute such other
instruments as may be required to give effect to the transactions herein
contemplated.
3. FINDINGS. It is hereby found, determined and declared that:
A. The City acknowledges that during the period the Development Contract
is in effect it will not place any further restrictions, encumbrances or other
impediments to the development of the Development Property other than as may be
contained in the Ordinances of the City, including, but limited to, the City's
Zoning Ordinance, as in effect from time to time, and no amendment by the City to
the Comprehensive Plan or official control shall apply to affect the use,
development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required or
permitted by the approval application unless approved in writing by the Owner.
B. The City acknowledges that Section 8.3 of the Development Contract
provides that upon exercise by the Owner of its option to purchase the
Development Property under the Development Contract, the Owner and City intend to
apply for rezoning of the Development Property to Planned Office District,
Subdistrict POD -1, so that Owner can construct on the Development Property a
building or buildings (a) with a total maximum aggregate of 110,000 square feet
of gross floor area (as gross floor area is defined in the City's Zoning
Ordinance) for all buildings on the Development Property, (b) of a height not in
excess of an elevation of 861.0 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929,
plus the height of any roof -top mechanical equipment or devices serving /any such
building and (c) subject to the setback lines shown on Exhibit C to the
Development Contract.
C. The City believes that the development of the,Development Property in
the manner and subject to the restrictions set forth in B above is reasonable and
appropriate.
D. The Development Property fronts on West 77th Street, which is a heavily
traveled commercial street and has office developments to its east, west and
south and will be separated from single family dwellings located north of Tract R
by Normandale Golf Course.
E. It is consistent with past planning and zoning practice of the City to
permit the Development Property to be developed in the manner and subject to the
restrictions set forth in B above particularly in light of and recognizing that
adjacent parcels have office developments located thereon.
F. To the extent the development of the Development Property is subject to
the restrictions set forth in Section 8.3 of the Development Contract, the City
will assert no claim of right and waives all claims in respect of the development
of the Development Property except as set forth in this Resolution, and will
assert no benefit of any restriction on its use other than as provided in the
Development Contract, Minnesota or federal laws and in the Ordinances of the
City, including, but not limited to, the City's Zoning Ordinance, as in effect
from time to time.
G. The City has given first reading to an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance of the City to transfer the Development Property to the Planned Office
District, Subdistrict POD -1, has amended the Comprehensive Plan 1980 to show the
Development Property as a potential office development site and to show the
balance of Tract R as "public" area, and has given preliminary approval to a
subdivision of the Development Property from the balance of Tract R.
H. The City acknowledges that the setback, size, height and berming
requirements contained in the Development Contract are specific restrictions to
which the Development Property is subject if it is purchased upon the exercise of.
the option granted by the Development Contract, and further acknowledges that
such restrictions are subject to termination upon the conditions set forth in
Section 9.1 of the Development Contract.
4. REIMBURSEMENT. The City reasonably expects to reimburse up to $800,000
of the expenditures to be made by the City for the purchase of Tract R out of the
proceeds of the general obligation bonds to be issued by the City pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 and Minnesota Laws 1961, Chapter 655 (herein
called the "Bonds "). All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital expenditures
as defined in Section 1.150 -1(h) of the United States Treasury Regulations
(herein called the "Regulations "). This declaration is a declaration of official
intent adopted pursuant to Section 1.103 -18 of the Regulations. As of the date
hereof, there are no City funds reserved, allocated on a long term basis or
otherwise set aside (or reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long
term basis or otherwise set aside) to provide permanent financing for
expenditures related to the purchase of Tract R, other than pursuant to the
issuance of the Bonds.
Each allocation shall be evidenced by an entry on the official books and
records of the City maintained for the Bonds, shall specifically identify the
actual prior expenditure being reimbursed or, in the case of reimbursement of a
fund or account in accordance with Section 1.103 -18 of the Regulations, the fund
or account in accordance with Section 1.103 -18 of the Regulations, the fund or
account from which the expenditure was paid, and shall be effective to relieve
the proceeds of the Bonds from any restriction under the bond resolution or other
relevant legal documents for the Bonds, and under any applicable state statue,
which would apply to unspent proceeds of the Bonds.
This resolution, therefore, is determined to be consistent with the City's
budgetary and financial circumstances as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable
on the date hereof, all within the meaning and content of Section 1.103 -18 of the
Regulations. The City Finance Director shall be responsible for making the
"reimbursement allocations" described in Section 1.103 -18 of the Regulations,
being generally the transfer of the appropriate amount of proceeds of th6 Bonds
to reimburse the source of temporary financing used by the City to make payment
of the purchase price of Tract R.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF 9/15/92 APPROVED Engineer Hoffman reviewed
the recommended action in Section A of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of
September 15, 1992, and Council action was taken as follows:
(1) Request to upgrade the intersection of West 56th Street and St. John's
Avenue to a four -way "STOP ". The Committee recommended that the current "STOP"
signs on St. John's be rotated to West 56th Street and that the "dip" on West
56th Street be corrected. Council discussed the perceived speeding of school
busses and teenage drivers and questioned if "STOP" signs would provide safety
for children in the area. Engineer Hoffman told the Council that he had talked
with the supervisor of the bus drivers about the speeding.
Carlos Parrague'., 4529 West 56th Street, spoke in support of the request for the
STOP signs and commented that actions of children cannot be predicted. He asked
for the Council's help to make West 56th Street a safer street.
Member Paulus made a motion to approve the Committee's recommendation as follows:
1) That the current "STOP" signs on St. John's Avenue be rotated to Vest 56th
Street, and 2) that the "dip" situation on Vest 56th Street be corrected by
changing the drainage pattern. Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
(2) Discuss traffic safety concerns in the Parkwood Knolls area. The Committee
recommended: a) improve visibility at the NE quadrant of Schaefer Rd/Knoll Dr,
b) install 25 MPH advisory signs along Knoll Drive, c) consider the area for the
Traffic Enforcement Unit, and d) defer further action on additional signage
until November meeting.
Kathy Colwell, 5517 Knoll Drive, expressed concern with through traffic from Opus
and off of Highway 169 cutting through the Parkwood Knolls neighborhood at fast
speeds. She spoke in support of the request for "CAUTION - CHILDREN AT PLAY"
signs at triangle formed by South Knoll, Knoll and Schaefer, the crosswalks and
additional "STOP" signs on Schaefer.
Member Smith made a motion to approve the Committee's recommendation as follows:
1) To improve visibility at the northeast quadrant of Schaefer Road and Knoll
Drive, 2) To install 25 MPH advisory signs along the median area on Knoll Drive,
3) Police Department to consider this area for the Traffic Enforcement Unit, and
4) Defer further action on additional signage until the November meeting of the
Traffic Safety Committee, after completion of the Blake Road construction
project. Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
(3) Discuss traffic safety concerns at Malibu Drive and Lincoln Drive. The
Committee recommended installation of a 4 -way "STOP" sign at the intersection.
Member Rice made a motion to approve the Committee's recommendation as follows:
1) To-install a 4 -way "STOP" sign at the intersection of Lincoln Drive and Malibu
Drive. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
(4) Discuss traffic safety concerns regarding highway ramp metering. The
Committee recommended to refer this item to the police and fire chiefs for
evaluation so they may consider what supporting role the Traffic Safety Committee
could play in addressing metering concerns. Engineer Hoffman said emergency
vehicles have a difficult time manuvering around the traffic that backs up at
rush hour on the metered ramps. The City talked to MNDOT about a year ago when
metering was being designed regarding a selective process for key access ramps.
MNDOT's response was to contact them when these situations occur. A secondary
problem is the backup of traffic on the freeways themselves. Member Smith
commented that the time for MNDOT to have addressed the problem was when the
metered ramps were being planned. He suggested that the Council consider a
resolution to MNDOT-in support of the concerns expressed by the Fire and Police
Departments. Chief Paulfranz said MNDOT engineers had assured him that they
could either adjust the timing on the metering lights if traffic was backing up
or they could construct a bypass for emergency vehicles. However, because of
potential traffic backup on the highways the Fire Department uses City streets.
Member Paulus made a motion to approve the Committee's recommendation as follows:
1) To refer the issue of highway ramp metering as it affects emergency vehicles
to the police and fire chiefs for evaluation as to what supporting role the
Traffic Safety Committee could play in addressing metering concerns and to
acknowledge Sections B and C of the Minutes. Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
GARAGE ACCESS TO THIELEN AVENQE/VOOD LANE DISCUSSED Engineer Hoffman explained
that property owners at 5621 Wood Lane are seeking a variance from the City of
St. Louis Park to construct a new garage on their property. Edina is involved
because the new garage access would be from Thielen Avenue in Edina, not Wood
Lane in St. Louis Park as is currently the case. If the variance is granted by
the City of St. Louis Park, the owners at 5621 Wood Lane would be applying for a
curb cut permit from Edina..
Staff has reviewed the issue and would authorize the curb cut subject to the
following conditions: 1) Property. irons be located to.asceitain that property
abuts public right -of -way, 2) The curb cut be on the east portion of the north
end of Thielen so that snow storage can continue on the west side of Thielen in
winter and parking in the summer, 3) ,Landscaping be maintained or improved to
continue neighborhood. aesthetics. Engineer Hoffman observed that the Council may
have no particular action to take other than review of the issue unless - Council
directs staff not to approve a curb cut or has comments to pass on to the City of
St. Louis Park.
Mayor Pro -Tem Kelly asked what would happen if St. Louis Park grants the variance
but the Edina City Council does not approve the curb cut on Thielen. Attorney
Gilligan answered that, if the property owners do have access rights to Thielen
which will be determined by locating the property irons, and the City of Edina
denies the curb cut permit we would in effect be denying their access right which
may be an inverse "taking ". There are standards in the City's ordinance for a
curb cut, and if those standards are met the permit would have to be issued.
Member Smith asked what the proposed setback for the .garage would be and what
Edina's setback standards are. Engineer Hoffman said the garage is proposed to
be setback 15 feet from the property line. Edina would require a 35 foot
setback. Member Smith suggested that the property owners may consider
maintaining a 35 foot setback to meet Edina's standards.
Residents speaking in opposition to allowing access on Thielen were Thomas Egan,
4369 Thielen Avenue; Peter Worthington, 4381 Thielen Avenue; Bob and Julie Haben,
4367 Thielen Avenue; Tim Pearson, 4370 Thielen Avenue; and Lynn Dolan, 4372
Thielen Avenue. Major issues of concern included the following: 1) traffic
safety, 2) aesthetics of the proposed structure,, 3) undue hardship not
demonstrated, and 4) the 15 foot setback.
Member Paulus asked if Edina could tell the City of St. Louis Park what to do.
Attorney Gilligan said Council could only recommend or state a preference of our
wishes. Member Smith said he felt the Edina Council should advise the City of
St. Louis Park that our preference would be that the proposed garage access on
Wood Lane so that Edina not have. the burden of the rearyard access on Thielen.
Robin Pink, 5621 Wood Lane, stated that their hardships are based on the
following: 1) their property has two front yards, and 2) because the existing
garage is grandfathered in they cannot rebuild it as it is approximately 14
inches from the property line. They intend to keep the existing driveway off
Wood Lane for guest parking but if the access to the proposed garage were from
Wood Lane they would have to asphalt most of their yard. Also, they would lose
daylight and most of the backyard if the 35 foot setback were made a requirement.
Ms. Pink concluded that they would like to improve their property by constructing
the new garage and adding landscaping.
Following further discussion, Member Smith made a motion directing staff to write
a letter to the St. Louis Park staff advising tha
in favor of a curb cut on Thielen Avenue to access
Wood Lane for these reasons: 1) concern for safet y
setback of 15 feet does not meet Edina's standard
impact the neighborhood, and 3) other alternatives
Lane should be considered. Motion was seconded by
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
tithe Edina City Council is not
the proposed garage at 5621
of traffic, 2) proposed
of 25 feet and would adversely
for egress /ingress from Wood
Member Rice.
METRO 2015 VISION AND GOALS DRAFT DISCUSSED AND COMMENTS REQUESTED Manager
Rosland referred to a letter written by Vern Peterson; on behalf of the AMM's
Metropolitan Agencies Committee and the Housing and Economic Development
Committee with comments to the Metropolitan Council on its Metro 2015 Vision and
Goals Draft. He mentioned that the Metropolitan Council is also seeking comments
from municipalities.
After considerable discussion, the consensus was for Council Members to attend
the Metropolitan Council Regional Breakfast Meetings scheduled for September 23
and 29, to listen and to ask questions. The matter would be back on the Council
Agenda for October 5, 1992, for comment by the Council.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED APPOINTED ELECTION JUDGES FOR GENERAL ELECTION Motion was
made by Member Smith and was seconded'by Member Rice for adoption of the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the following election judges be
appointed for the General Election November 3, 1992;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized to make
any substitutions or additions as may be deemed necessary: Precinct lA Genie
Williams, Chair, Lois Hallquist, Dorothy Capetz, Virginia Vonhof, Arlene Friday,
Shirley DeLeo,. Janet Remington, Shirley Graziano, Virginia Anthony, Cathee Hare;
Precinct 1B Ardis Dorsey, Chair, Jean Liudahl, Co- Chair, Sue Corson, Catherine
Murphy, Marianne Schoenecker, Donna White, Nancy Hopf, Jean Altman, Diane Safley,
Brenda Brink; Precinct 2 Marjorie Ruedy, Chair, Joan Flumerfelt, Sue Hirsch,
Carol Bucklin, Lorraine Purdy, Naomi Johnson, Kay Tierney, Mary Ann Haemig,
Florence Tretten, Elizabeth Anfinson; Precinct 3 Patricia Dill, Chair, Deidre
Hedrick, Margaret Hagerty, Patricia Schwartz, Mara Ingwalson, Mary Webber,
Barbara Bergan, Cindy Farmer, Sherrill Estenson, Kathleen Stiehm; Precinct 4
Rachel Schoening, Chair, Marian Cracraft, Lois Loomis, Shirley Renslow, Jean
Hubers, Betty Goughner, Lisa Bjerken, Mandics Krisztina, Theresa Carufel;
Precinct 5 Rosemary McGlynn, Chair, Barbara Martin, Roe Aim Forbes, Anne
Francis, Marie Goblirsch, Sally Olson, Mary E. Ryan, Janet Nelson, Ann Swanson,
Carolyn Setterberg; Precinct 6 Jane Bains, Chair, Catherine Swanson, Mary
Cleaveland, Barbara Berbers, Jean Flaaten, Audrey Clay, Alice Lehrke, Beverly
Koch, Marilyn Breitenbucker, Mae Warner; Precinct 7 Kathleen Engquist, Chair,
Helen Peterson, Ellen Nein, Janet Kanofsky, Mary Ellen Pratt, Lois Strupp,
Gerturde Snoeyenbos, Eunice Overby, Florence Mase, Mary Rogers, Shirley Rickard;
Precinct 8 Jane Moran, Chair, Myra Hykes, Jeanne Sedoff, Ordell O'Neill,
Catherine Tobin, Mona Reding, Shirley Sorenson, Shirley Sallen, Bernairdine
Scofield, Nancy Wyatt; Precinct 9 Colleen Crew, Chair, Florence Boughton, Marie
Robinson, Mary Strother, Colleen Cavell, Betty Comstock, Nancy Grimsby, Patricia
Monson, Jacqueline Lindskoog, Martha Albrecht; Precinct 10 Barbara Erlandson,
Chair, Carol Ladner, Connie Nelson, Milly Karr, Lee Strang, Mary Sjoquist, Sharon
Bed, Marguerite Ratelle, Ruth Haggerty, Gladys Lidstone; Precinct 11 Betty
Pollitt, Chair, Karen Vickman, Rita Acker, Carol Melichar, Doris Blake, Mary A.
Ryan, Muza Habeck, Mary Ann Rubin, Bernadine Chapman, Mary Kirsch; Precinct 12
Shirley Bjerken, Chair, Ardis Wexler, Marlys Hittner, Sue Kracum, Mary Scholz,
Doris Barry, Marge Erstad, JoAnne Chayer, Marilyn Larson, Doris Marchuk;
Precinct 13 Doris Peterson, Chair, Annadell Quantrell, Rebecca Larson, Kathleen
Hansing, Audrey Sherman, D'Arcy Secord, Arms Matula, Patricia Robbins, Della
Possis, Margaret Ryan; Precinct 14 Mary Jane Platt, Chair, Joyce Hanson, Esther
Olson, Patricia Bartlett, Louise Carlson, Donna Brastad, Lavayne Finberg, Marcia
Willett, Jean Reichow, Barbara Butler; Precinct 15 Rays Luikens, Chair, Jean
Hare, Sharon Soderlund, Joann Buie, Carol Hanson, Nancy Meyer, Maxine Steinberg,
Carolyn Klus, Virginia Sweeney, Maxine Wallin; Precinct 16 Mary McDonald,
Chair, Donna Montgomery, Patricia Halvorsen, Mary Am Hans, Marlys Chase,
Katherine Saunders, Phyllis Woodley, Yvonne Ford, Nathalie Person, Madeleine
Dobblemann; Precinct 17 Lorna Livingston, Chair, Jean NcDermid, Louise Jackson,
Betty Lou Petersen, Shirley Breitman, Theresa Brown, Vernette Wessman, Lorraine
Welch, Joanna Bigler, Lois Awes; Precinct 18 Jean Erdall, Chair, Selma Shelton,
Mary Zotalis, Virginia Stemm, Jo Anne Streed, Nancy Lichy, Joy Perunovich, Vera
Krause, Ruth Downey, Gertrude Rocheford; Precinct 19 Patricia Olander, Chair,
Anita Delegard, Lynne Westphal, Harriet Koch, Rosemary Booth, Joan Ochs, Diane
Ebert, Marie Nelson, Alice Olson, Ardis Stevenson.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*PETITION FOR STREET LIGHTING (BETWEEN VALLEY VIEW AND MOCCASIN VALLEY ROADS)
REFERRED TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Motion was made by Member Smith and was
seconded by Member Rice to refer the petition for street lighting at the Valley
View Road and Moccasin Valley View Road intersection to the Engineering
Department for processing.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*MEMORANDUM REGARDING TRAFFIC SPEED (FROM TRILLIUM AND LANTANA LANES) REFERRED TO
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT UNIT Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by
Member Rice to acknowledge the memorandum regarding traffic speed received from
residents on Trillium and Lantana Lanes and to refer the matter to the Traffic
Enforcement Unit for traffic monitoring and to request that Public Works install
speed limit signs for north and southbound traffic on the frontage road.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
SCOTT HARR LETTER REGARDING AIRPORT NOISE DISCUSSED Manager Rosland reported
that a letter had been received from Scott Harr, 5209 Danens Drive, asking the
City of Edina to take a position concerning the increased aircraft noise over the
City. Mr. Harr had stated that noise levels have increased noticeably this
summer, and that Northwest Airlines has admitted that it does not intend to abide
by voluntary noise limits.
After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Council was to start a file with
concerns expressed orally by residents and written correspondence in order to
monitor public opinion on the noise generated by the airport and that Mr. Harr be
informed of this process.
HENNEPIN COUNTY MILFOIL CONTROL PROGRAM DISCUSSED Manager Rosland indicated that
a letter has been received from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District advising
that the Hennepin Conservation District is currently making funds available to
combat infestation of Eurasian Water Milfoil. These funds will be used to
provide financial assistance to local governments and community groups. The
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was given the opportunity to apply for these
funds.
The District will be submitting their application this fall and if approved, will
be chemically treating several locations throughout the metro area. Areas
currently infested with milfoil are Minnehaha Creek, Meadowbrook Lake in St.
Louis Park, Mill Pond in Edina and possible Lake Hiawatha and Nokomis.
The District is contacting affected municipalities to determine the level of
support cities are willing to donate towards this project by becoming a
contributing sponsor.
Manager Rosland observed that Edina as well as other cities already contribute to
the District and that watershed funding should be used for the milfoil project.
Assistant Manager Hughes commented that a chemical permit to treat Edina water
could possibly be acquired from the Watershed District which would be desirable.
No formal action was taken.
*CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to
approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register "
dated September 16, 1992, and consisting of 22 pages; General Fund $706,012.96;•
CDBG $3,025.00; Cable $2,949.79; Working Capital $3,932.60; Art Center $4,778.40;
Pool $1,932.70; Golf Course $53,579.80; Arena $3,846.06; Gum Range $136.33;
Edinborough /Centennial Ickes $11,675.95; Utilities $45,268.29; Storm Sewer
$3,113.87; Liquor Dispensary Fund $108,789.12; Construction Find $214,191.24; IMP
Bond Redemption #2 $535.80; TOTAL $1,163,767.91; and for confirmation of payment
of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated September
17, 1992, and consisting of 13 pages; General Fund $162,472.95; Golf Course
$108.63; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes $630.00; Liquor $227,241.55; TOTAL
$390,453.13.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared
the meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M.
City Clerk
w -,
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED ON ACCOUNT
OF VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City has given notice of hearings as required by law on the proposed
assessment rolls for the improvements hereinafter referred to, and at such
hearings held on October 5, 1992, has considered all oral and written objections
presented against the levy of such assessments.
2. Each of the assessments as set forth in the assessment rolls on file in the
office of the City Clerk for the following improvements:
Sidewalk Improvement No. S -53
Curb and Gutter Improvement No. B -91
Curb and Gutter Improvement No. B -92
Sidewalk Improvement No. S -56
Maintenance Improvement No. M -92
Aquatic Weeds Improvement No. AQ -92
Tree Removal Improvement No. TR -92
does not exceed the local benefits conferred by said improvements upon the lot,
tract or parcel of land so assessed, and all of said assessments are hereby
adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments on account of said respective
improvements to be spread against the benefitted lots, parcels and tracts of land
described therein.
3. The assessment shall be payable in equal installments, the first of said
installments, together with interest at a rate of 8.5% per annum, on the entire
assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1993, to be payable with the
general taxes for the year 1993. To each subsequent installment shall be added
interest at the above rate for one year on all then unpaid installments. The
number of such annual installments shall be as follows:
Name of Improvement
No. of Installments
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -53 (Levy No. 12591)
10 years
CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENT NO. B -91 (Levy No. 12593)
10 years
CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENT NO. B -92 (Levy No. 12594)
10 years
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -56 (Levy No. 12592)
10 years
MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT NO. M -92 (Levy No. 12581)
1 year
AQUATIC WEEDS IMPROVEMENT NO. AQ -92 (Levy No. 12584)
1 year
TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. TR -92: (Levy No. 12585)
1 year
(Levy No. 12586)
3 years
(Levy No. 12587)
5 years
(Levy No. 12588)
6 years
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith prepare and transmit to
the County Auditor a
copy of this resolution and a certified duplicate of said assessments with each
then unpaid installment and interest set forth separately,
to be extended on the
tax lists of the County in accordance with this resolution.
5. The City Clerk shall also mail notice of any special assessment
which may be
payable by a county, by a political subdivision, or by the
owner of any right -of-
way as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subdivision 4, and if any
such assessment is not paid in a single installment, the City Treasurer shall
arrange for collection thereof in installments, as set forth in said section.
AP
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina
do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted
by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of October 5, 1992, and as
recorded in the Minutes of the Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this October 6, 1992.
City Clerk
CITY OF EDINA
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
II.A.
LEVY NO. 12591
COUNTY NO. S -53
FOR: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. 5 -53.
LOCATION: Cornelia Drive.
CONTRACTOR: Victor Carlson & Sons, Inc. $17,387.40
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL: 15% 2,608.11
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES: 250.00
$20,245.51
CAPITALIZED INTEREST
From: September 23, 1991
To: October 5, 1992
378 days at $4.05 per day 1,531.05
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $21,776.56
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 136 Assessable Lots
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT: $7,316.90
$7.316.90
$ 107.60
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT: $5,444.20
$5,444.20
$ 80.06
School
City
Per Residential Lot
School
City
Per Residential Lot
ASSESSABLE COST: $21,776.56
COUNTY CHARGE: 138 parcels at $0.50 per parcel = 69.00
$21,845.56
TO BE ALLOCATED TO TAXES DUE AND PAYABLE IN 1993 THROUGH 2002.
FIRST YEAR INTEREST FIGURED AT 8.5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPLE x 1.25
YEARS.
S
II. B.
CITY OF EDINA
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
LEVY NO. 12593
COUNTY NO. B -91
FOR; CURB AND GUTTER NO. B -91.
LOCATION: West 54th Street - Abbott Place to Zenith Avenue.
CONTRACTOR: Hardrives, Inc. $6,612.90
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL: 15% 991.94
PUBLISHING.AND SUPPLIES: 250.00
$7,854.84
CAPITALIZED INTEREST
From: November 18, 1991
To: October 5, 1992
322 days at $1.54 per day 495.20
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $8,350.04
LESS: GENERAL FUND REIMBURSEMENT 1.179.96
TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST: $7,170.96
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 209.8 Assessable Feet
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT: $32.40 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT: $34.18 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT
ASSESSABLE COST: $7,170.96
COUNTY CHARGE: 3 parcels at $0.50 per parcel = 1.50
$7,172.46
TO BE ALLOCATED TO TAXES DUE AND PAYABLE IN 1993 THROUGH 2002.
FIRST YEAR INTEREST FIGURED AT 8.5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPLE x 1.25
YEARS.
CITY OF EDINA
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
Ii. C.
LEVY NO. 12594
COUNTY NO. B -92
FOR: CURB AND GUTTER NO. B -92.
LOCATION: Birchcrest Drive from W. 60th Street
to Porter Lane.
CONTRACTOR: Hardrives, Inc. $12,070.50
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL: 150 1,810.58
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES: 2.50
$14,131.08
CAPITALIZED INTEREST:
From: November 18, 1991
To: October 5, 1992
322 days at 2.82 per day 908.82
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $15,039.90
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 765 ASSESSABLE FEET
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT: $25.15 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT.
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT: $19.66 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT.
ASSESSABLE COST: $15,039.90
COUNTY CHARGE: 10 parcels at $0.50 = 5.00
$15,044.90
J
TO BE ALLOCATED TO TAXES DUE AND PAYABLE IN 1993 THROUGH 2002.
FIRST YEAR INTEREST FIGURED AT 8.5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPLE x 1.25
YEARS.
II.D.
CITY OF EDINA
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
FOR: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -56.
LOCATION: Thielen Avenue.
CONTRACTOR: Gunderson Bros. Cement
Contractors Company, Inc. $ 8,829.20
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL: 15% 1,324.38
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES: 250.00
$10,403.50
CAPITALIZED INTEREST
From: August 17, 1992
To: October 5, 1992
49 days at $2.31 per day 120.54
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $10,524.12
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 1,603.2 Assessable Square Feet.
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT: $4.89 PER ASSESSABLE SQ. FOOT
$243.00 PER LOT FOR A TREE
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT: $6.29 PER ASSESSABLE SQ. FOOT
$440.00 PER LOT FOR A TREE
ASSESSABLE COST: $10,524.12
COUNTY CHARGE: 14 parcels at 10 yrs = $0.50 per parcel 7.00
$10,531.12
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH TAXES DUE IN 1993.
FIRST YEAR INTEREST FIGURED AT 8.5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPLE x 1.46
City Engineer
City of Edina
City Hall
4801 W. 50th St.
Edina, Mn 55424 -1394
Dear Sir:
II.D.
Sept. 15, 1992
Re Sidewalk improvement
No. S - 56
Thielen Av. (28- 117 -21 -
21 -0130)
I live on the West side at the dead end of
Thielen Ave. I have called the problem con-
cerning the sidewalk in the front of my house
to your attention in the past and it should
be a matter of record.
Since the sidewalk is not used and leads no-
where and there is no other place for the City
snow plows to pile snow, they use this area
to deposit the accumulated snow at the dead
end of the block. The combination of salt
and the weight of the trucks driving on the
sidewalk was the cause of the distruction of
said sidewalk.
The City of Edina now wants me to pay for the
replacement of this sidewalk. I feel this is
unfair and unjust. It is especially so as
the City chose to ignore my complaints at the
time the trucks were in the process of distroy-
ing the sidewalk.
Please see that my complaint is called to the
attention of the City Council. I am 87 year
old and have trouble with public speaking. if
it were not for this, I would take this matter
before the City Council at the Oct. 5, 1992
meeting.
Sincerely,
Evelyn M. Bros
4366 Thielen Ave.
cc City Clerk, City Council
II. E.
CITY OF EDINA
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
LEVY NO. 12581
COUNTY NO. M -92
FOR: MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT NO. M -92.
LOCATION: 50th and France Business District.
• CONTRACTOR: City of Edina
Payroll - Lancello $35,215.90
Employer's Share of PERA 1,577.67
Employer's Share Hospitalization 2,580.00
Public Works Crew & Temp Help 6,294.32
Contracted Repairs . 695.95
General Supplies 4,802.44
Repair Parts 1,845.12
Parking Ramp Maintenance (375) 10.000.00
$63,011.40
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES: 250.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . $63,261.40
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 322,269 Assessable Feet.
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT: $0.1963 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT.
ASSESSABLE COST:
COUNTY CHARGE: 27 parcels at $0.05 per parcel
$63,261.40
1.35
$63,262.75
TO BE ALLOCATED TO TAXES DUE AND PAYABLE IN 1993.
FIRST YEAR INTEREST FIGURED AT 8.5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPLE x 1.25
YEARS.
50TH AND FRANCE
STREETSCAPE ASSESSMENT -1992
SEPTEMBER 9,1992
CONSTRUCTION COSTS - STREETSCAPE
3M COMPANY
ACME AWNINGS
ADCON
APPLETON LAMPLIGHTER
ARTEKA
BANNER CREATIONS
BJORK COUNTRY STORE
CITYWIDE CARPET
CONCRETE DESIGN
C.S. MCCROSSAN
EARL F. ANDERSON
ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANY
ESS EROS. &SONS
KREMER DAVIS
SMITH HAWKEN
THOMAS AND SONS
WARNING LITES /MN
SUBT
SOFT COSTS - STREETSCAPE
BRAUNINTERTEC
BRW
MN.SUB.NEWS
EGAN FIELD NOWAK
JACKSON SCOTT
WALKER PARKING
SOUND ADVISE
SUBT
CONST.COSTS /SOFT COST - SKYLIGHT
C.F.HAGLIN
BRW SURVEY
BRW DESIGN /INSP
LIGHTS
PRIVATE COSTS
PERMIT 484.00
4,762.50
150.00
785,307.03
13,348.00
70,856.59
16,253.98
1,080.00
70.00
1,850.00
19,325.00
153.85
642,361.95
285.00
985.00
1,144.65
104,000.00
6,920.22
6,287.94
244,287.91
391.54
2,430.00
450.00
3,336.87
50.00
117,700.00
922.92
46,175.00
27,585.00
II.F.
LEVY NO. 12595
COUNTY NO. HRS 90 -10
1,668,853.77
257,234.26
MISC.HD
LABOR
CONC. /M
DEMO.
LUMBER
P.&OH.
CONTIN.
CONTINGIENCY
II.F.
52.00
5,280.00
21,679.00
5,250.00
1,200.00
2,195.00
5,000.00
41,140.00
5,000.00
TOTAL SKYLIGHT 238,522.92
SPECIAL BENEFIT 119,261.46
PROJECT COST 119,261.46
CITY INSPECTION /CLERICAL 60,000.00
SUBTOTAL 2,105,349.49
CAPITALIZED INTEREST 178,954.71
365 DAYS @ 490.21 PER DAY -
TOTAL 2,284,304.20
LESS 80 %TAX INCREMENT REIMBURSEMENT (1,827,443.36)
ASSESSABLE COST 456,860.84
ASSESSABLE UNITS 376529 SOFT.
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT PER ASSESSABLE UNIT 1.214-
SPECIAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS
GROSS SPECIAL BENEFIT COST
LESS PRIVATE COST CREDIT
NET SPECIAL BENEFIT COST(NSBC)
SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT(SBA)
P.I.D. NUMBER
18- 28 -24 -14 -0019
18- 28 -24 -14 -0020
18 -28 -24-14 -0021
18- 28 -24 -14 -0022
NSBC PERCENT
78,121.46 19.10%
78,121.46 16.99%
78,121.46 16.99%
78,121.46 46.920/o
II.F.
119,261.46
(41,140.00)
78,121.46
SBA
3445 w-5oTMSf A w-
14,921.20 Po6rso./ A1�.CL —J)
13,272.84 -"
f—& pu '°r-
4 j sc) e.or sol -VAm ee.
13,272.8 Hw cor som /F'ftrc&
36,654.59 6—J)
78,121.46
II. G.
CITY OF EDINA
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
LEVY NO. 12584
COUNTY NO. AQ -92
FOR: AQUATIC WEEDS IMPROVEMENT NO. AQ -92.
LOCATION: Indianhead Lake
CONTRACTORS: Midwest Aqua Care $6,008.35
State of Minnesota Permit 200.00
Instrumental Research 564.22
Clean Flo Laboratories 530.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $7,302.57
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 33 Homes
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT: $221.29 PER HOME
LOCATION: Mill Pond
CONTRACTORS: Midwest Aqua Care $6,079.76
State of Minnesota - Permit 52.00
$6,131.76
Less: City Share 1,500.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $4,631.76
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 63 Homes
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT: $73.52 PER HOME
TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST: $11,934.33
COUNTY CHARGE: 96 parcels at $0.05 per parcel 4.80
$11,939.13
TO BE ALLOCATED TO TAXES DUE AND PAYABLE IN 1993.
FIRST YEAR INTEREST FIGURED AT 8.5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPLE x 1.25
YEARS.
II.H.
CITY OF EDINA
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
COUNTY NO. TR -92
LEVY NO. 12585 (1 YR.)
12586 (3 yr.)
12587 (5 yr.)
12588 (6 yr.)
FOR: TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. TR -92.
LOCATION: See below.
TOTAL COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,866.02
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 18 ASSESSABLE LOTS.
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT:
3908
W. 54th Street
$ 634.18 ,(5
yrs)
5220
W. 56th Street
1,597.50
(6
yrs)
4119
W. 62nd Street
125.00
(1
yr)
4301
W. 70th Street
900.00
(6
yrs)
4231
Alden Avenue
724.20
(3
yrs)
4601
Cascade Lane
284.88
(3
yrs)
4605
Cascade Lane
427.32
(3
yrs)
6820
Cheyenne Trail
404.70
(3
yrs)
6017
Chowen Avenue
575.10
(3
yrs)
' 4814
Golf Terrace
1,278.00
(6
yrs)
6216
Maloney Avenue
330.15
(3
yrs)
5817
Northwood Drive
431.33
(3
yrs)
4231
Oakdale Avenue
265.38
(1
yr)
3905
Sunnyside Road
745.50
(3
yrs)
4007
Sunnyside Road
745.50
(3
yrs)
6308
Waterman Avenue
728.46
(6
yrs)
Unplatted
Property
(32-
117 -21 -22 -0048)
668.82
(3
yrs)
ASSESSABLE COST:
$10,866.02
COUNTY CHARGE:
2 parcels at 1 yrs
= $0.05 per parcel
10
parcels at 3 yrs =
0.15 per parcel
1 parcel at 5 yr =
0.25 per parcel
4 parcels at 6 yrs =
0.30 per parcel 3.05
alu,tsc�y.ui
II.D.
CITY OF EDINA
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
FOR: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -56.
LOCATION: Thielen Avenue.
CONTRACTOR: Gunderson Bros. Cement
Contractors Company, Inc. $ 8,829.20
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL: 15% 1,324.38
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES: 250.00
$10,403.50
CAPITALIZED INTEREST
From: August 17, 1992
To: October 5, 1992
49 days at $2.31 per day
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST:
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 1,603.2 Assessable Square Feet.
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT: $4.89 PER ASSESSABLE SQ. FOOT
$243.00 PER LOT FOR A TREE
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT: $6.29 PER ASSESSABLE SQ. FOOT
$440.00 PER LOT FOR A TREE
120.54
$10-r&�.
\rp
ASSESSABLE COST: $10,524.12
COUNTY CHARGE: 14 parcels at 10 yrs = $0.50 per parcel 7.00
$10,531.12
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH TAXES DUE IN 1993.
FIRST YEAR INTEREST FIGURED AT 8.5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPLE x 1.46
CINE.PI.r -( OLA
C0WV,)An1 K xi
5 October 1
City of Edina
City Hall
4801 West Uth Street
EDINA, Minn sots
55424 -1394
ATTENTION: MARCELLA M. DAEHN - CITY CLERK
RE: -
Further to yc
matter, pleas
assessment 1
Discre
Additionally,
property.
Yours very I
CINEPLEX i
Per:
VIA FACSIMILE (612) 927 -7645
letter dated September 11, 1992 in connection with the above -noted
be advised that the owner of the property is protesting the proposed
the following reason:
incy of square footage measurement. Gross floor area of the building
as 14,731 square feet, and not 27,835.
e owner objects to the increased tax burdens assessed against the
.,I
)EO
CORPORATION
Zb :9i Z6iS0i0T
�91r1A.
o e
0
• 'NbHeoMT
RESOLUTION DENYING THE PETITION FOR City of Edina
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)
FOR DALQUIST ADDITION SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, a Petition was duly filed on September 4, 1992, with the Environmental
Quality Board of the State of.Minnesota (EQB) by the required number of
petitioners requesting an EAW be prepared for the Dalquist Addition Subdivision,
proposed by CDS Partners; and
WHEREAS,.,pursuant to Minnesota Rules regarding the preparation of EAW's, the EQB
has appointed the City.of Edina as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) to
determine the need for an EAW; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina, pursuant to Minnesota Rules and
the direction of the EQB, has as the duly appointed RGU, examined the evidence
set forth in the Petitioner's Petition; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers,
City staff, consultants to the City, and other interested parties, together with
testimony presented at regularly scheduled City Council meetings of September 8,
1992, and October 5, 1992, the City Council has.determined that the.evidence
.presented does not demonstrate that the Dalquist Addition Subdivision may have
the potential to cause significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivision regulations of the City of Edina, together with the
required review and permit processes,of other - agencies, including, but no limited
to the Nine Mile Creek.Watershed District, provide the,necessary review
regulation and protection measures to evaluate the appropriateness of the
requested subdivision;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Edina,
Minnesota, acting as the appointed RGU, hereby dismisses the Petition for an EAW
for the Dalquist Addition Subdivision.
Motion was seconded by Member Kelly.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS'
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I; the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do
hereby certify that the attached and foregoing - Resolution was duly adopted by the
Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of October 5, 1992, and as recorded in
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this October 6, 1992.
City Clerk
City Hall (612).927 -8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461
N= O
I
ll�
v M � •
n.'N.fN1A'
REFORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
Kenneth Rosland
Agenda Item-III.
A.
From:
Craig Larsen
Consent
Information Only
❑'
Date:
October 5, 1992
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
Petition for
0
To Council
Environmental
Assessment Worksheet
Action
❑
Motion
Mark Dalquist.
- ❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
i
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Attached to this cover is a resolution dismissing the Petition for
an EAW.
Info /Backgrounck
Also attached are Findings of Fact, Conclusion, and Decision on the
Petition. If the Council adopts the Resolution, the Findings of
Fact should be adopted as part of the record.
Dismissal of . the Petition does not in any way affect the City's
review process. Dismissal of the Petition does allow the Council
to consider and act on the request for Preliminary Plat Approval.
If the Council determines an EAW should be prepared for this
development, action on the plat must be delayed until the EAW is
completed and acted on by the Council.
10/02/92 14:51 FAX 612 340 2644 DORSEY WHITNEY . 10003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager
FROM: Jerry Gilligan
DATE: October 2,1992
RE: Petition for Environmental Worksheet for
Mark Dalquist Addition
On September 4, 1992, a petition was filed with the Environmental
Quality Board of the State of Minnesota ( "EQB ") r: equesting that an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet ("EAW ") be prepared for the Mark Dalquist Addition. Set
forth below is a summary of the action required to be taken with respect to such
petition.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 116D.04, :subdivision 2(a)(c) provides that
an EAW shall be prepared for a proposed action whenever material evidence
accompanying a petition by not less than 25 individuals, submitted before final
approval by the appropriate governmental units, demonstrates that, because of the
nature or location of a proposed action, there may be potential for significant
environmental effects. Upon the filing of such a petition, a decision on the need for
an EAW is to be made by the responsible governmental unit ("RGU ") determined
by the Chairperson of the EQB. The City of Edina has been appointed as the RGU for
the Dalquist Addition petition, and the petition was forwarded by EQB to the City on
September 14th.
Within 30 days after the receipt by the City of the petition, the City
Council is required to take one the following actions:
I. Order the preparation of an EAW if the
evidence presented by the petitioners,
proposers and other persons or otherwise
known to the City, demonstrates that
because of the nature or location of the
proposed project, the project may have the
potential for significant environmental
effects; or
2. Deny the petition if the evidence presented
fails to demonstrate the project may have
DORSEY 8C wiIITNEY
A PAIrfNrIodlty ln.a.a"rwu V1(rJY 1.RONA1.Col.wkw4iOTY - - - - - - - - - -
10/02/92 13:25 FAA 612 340 2644 DORSEY WHITNEY 10003
potential for significant environmental
effects.
The decision of the City Council as to whether an EAW is to be
Prepared or the petition denied, should contain specific thin 5
fuianongs of fact. Wi
days of its decision the City is to give written notification of its decision c the EQB
staff, the proposer of the project and the petitioner's representatives.
City or i If an EAW is ordered to be prepared; the EAW must be prepared by the
ts agents within 25 working days of the date of the decision, unless an
extension of time is agreed upon by the proposer of the project and the City. The
EAW is then made available for review and comment, and following such review
and comment period a decision is required to be m: ade by the City as to the need for
an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed project.
Once the petition for the preparation:of an EAW is filed, a project may
not be started and a final governmental decision may not be made to grant a permit,
approve a project or begin a project until:
A. A petition for an EAW is dismissed;
B. A negative declaration on the need for an
Environmental Impact Statement is issued;
C An Environmental Impact Statement is
deemed adequate;
D. EQB grants a variance for construction to
begin on a project or the action is an
emergency.
The key determination to be made by the City Council on the proposed
Dalquist Addition is whether the evidence presented demonstrates that the
proposed development "may have potential for significant environmental effects ".
If the Council believes this is demonstrated by the evidence an EAW is to be
ordered, if not, the petition is to be denied. If the petition is denied, the City Council
may at that time consider preliminary plat approval for the Daiquist Addition.
JPG:cmn
-2-
DOKSEY 8t WHITNEY
A PwNr ,"Mwu. U.CNIIUwO PleO.rr w1cm u. Caw4r..fepM.
RESOLUTION DENYING THE PETITION FOR PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)
FOR DALQUIST ADDITION SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, a Petition was duly filed on September 4, 1992, with
the Environmental Quality Board of the State of Minnesota (EQB) by
the required number of petitioners requesting an EAW be prepared
for the Dalquist Addition Subdivision, proposed by CDS Partners;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Rules regarding the preparation
of EAW's, the EQB has appointed the City of Edina as the
Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) to determine the need for an
EAW; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina, pursuant to
Minnesota Rules and the direction of the EQB, has as the duly
appointed RGU, examined the evidence set forth in the Petitioner's
Petition; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence presented by the
petitioners, proposers, city staff, consultants to the city, and
other interested parties, together with testimony presented at
regularly scheduled City Council meetings of September 8, 1992, and
October 5, 1992, the City Council has determined that the evidence
presented does not demonstrate that the Dalquist Addition
Subdivision may have the potential to cause significant
environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivision regulations of the City of Edina,
together with the required review and permit processes of other
agencies, including, but not limited to the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District, provide the necessary review regulation and
protection measures to evaluate the appropriateness of the.
requested subdivision.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Edina, Minnesota, acting as the appointed RGU, hereby dismisses
the Petition for an EAW for the Dalquist Addition Subdivision.
In the matter of the Determination FINDINGS OF FACT,
of Need for an Environmental Assessment CONCLUSIONS
Worksheet (EAW) for the Dalquist Addition AND
Subdivision, Edina, MN DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) reviewed a
petition requesting preparation of an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Dalquist Addition Subdivision
(the Project) generally located west of Schaefer Road and
south of Interlachen Boulevard. The petition was duly filed
and was found to be in conformance with Minnesota Rules
paragraph 4410.1100.
2. The EQB determined the City of Edina to be the Responsible
Governmental Unit (RGU) for the petition. According to EQB
Environmental Review Program Rules, the petition was
transmitted to the City of Edina for a determination of the
need for an EAW (MN Rules paragraph 4410.1100, subparagraph
5) .
3. The City of Edina received the petition on September 14, 1992.
4. CDS Partners, 5115 Edina Industrial Boulevard is the proposer
of the project.
5. Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Review Program require
that if a petition for an EAW is filed under paragraph
4410.1100, a project may not be started, or given final
governmental decision to grant a permit, approve a project or
begin a project, until:
a. a petition for an EAW has been dismissed;
b. a negative declaration on the need for an EIS is issued;
C. an EIS is determined adequate; or
d. a variance is granted under subparagraphs 3 to 7 or the
action is an emergency under subparagraph 8.
6. The Petition for EAW suggests potential for significant
environmental effects by the proposed development, including
interference with waterfowl nesting areas, the loss of
wildlife habitat, the potential that basements may be flooded,
and that existing drainage patterns would be changed and would
adversely impact neighboring properties.
7. A soil scientist working for the proposers of the project has
inspected the site to identify wetland areas. In addition to
the wetland areas identified in the petition, the consultant
has identified a small area on Lot 5 (approximately 30 feet by
50 feet) which may be altered by the development as presently
proposed. With this possible exception the consultant has
concluded that the proposed development will not alter
existing wetlands on the site.
8. Barr Engineering Company, acting as a consultant to the City,
has reviewed the proposed development plans and finds that the
preliminary grading plans do not appear to alter existing
wetlands, except for the area on Lot 5.
9. The Proposer of the Project, through its consultant McCombs
Frank Roos Associates, Inc., submitted a storm water analysis
for the development, and a letter identifying wetlands and
wildlife habitat on the property proposed for development.
The Proposer of the Project has submitted a predevelopment and
post development storm water analysis for a 100 year rainfall
event, for two consecutive 100 year events and for a 500 year
event. In all cases the analysis concludes that no dwellings
in the development would be flooded and that no dwellings on
adjacent properties would be flooded. This analysis has been
reviewed by the City Engineer.
10. The proposed Dalquist Addition Subdivision requires
Subdivision Approval, including action on requested variances,
by the City, also permits by Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District and other possible permits.
11. The present owners of the property, Mark Dalquist and Dee
Dalquist, have submitted a letter responding to the Petition
which was sent to signers of the EAW petition.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The EAW petition contains no analysis to substantiate the
claim of potential storm damage to this development or
adjacent properties. The analysis prepared by Proposer's
consultants concludes insignificant effects.
3. The proposed preliminary grading plan, submitted with the
request for preliminary plat approval, would not alter wetland
areas identified in the EAW petition.
4. The Project does not include any modification or disturbance
to the shoreline or to the water area of the two ponds located
partially or wholly on the subject property.
5. The EAW Petition does not identify and city staff is unaware
of any state listed endangered, threatened, or special concern
f
species; rare plant communities; colonial water bird nesting
colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other
sensitive ecological resources on or near the site which may
be adversely effected by this development.
6. The subject property is currently vacant. The proposed use of
the property is single dwelling unit homesites. The City
Comprehensive Plan designates the site for single dwelling
unit development.
DECISION
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
The City Council of the City of Edina determines that the
Petition fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential
for significant environmental effects, and for that reason, finds
that the petition for an EAW for the proposed project be dismissed.
_sue
September 10, 1992
Craig Larson, Director of Planning
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55425
RE: Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
for Dalqu"ist Addition Subdivision
Dear Mr. Larson:
The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition
requesting that an EAW be prepared on the project described in
the petition, and has determined that City of Edina is the
appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW.
The requirements for environmental review, including the
preparation of EAWs, can be found in the Minnesota Rules, parts
4410.0200 to 4410.7800. Please contact me if you do not have
access to these rules.
The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set
forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include:
1. No final government approvals may be given to the project
named in the petition, nor may construction on the project
be started until the need for an EAW has been determined.
Project construction includes any activities which directly
affect the environment, including preparation of land. If
the decision is to prepare an EAW, approval must be
withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see
part 4410.3100).
2. A first step in making the decision regarding the need for
an EAW would be to compare the project to the mandatory
EAW, EIS and Exemption categories listed in parts
4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively. If the
project should fall under any of these categories,
environmental review is automatically required or
prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed
accordingly.
3. If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted,
City of Edina has the option to prepare an EAW. The
standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is
given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires
that a record of decision including specific findings of
fact be maintained.
0 JNV IBOIIII III I ORAIIIY BOA RIO - 858 CIO AB SIR[H, SUPAOI,- M1-55155 812 298 -2005 111812 2904098 SIAII- PBOYIO10 BY ® PIA NNIIG
September 10, 1992
Page Two
4. You are allowed 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and
holidays do not count) for your decision if it will be made
by a council, board, or other body which meets only
periodically, or 15 working days if it will be made by a
single individual. You may request an extra 15 days from
EQB if the decision will be made by an individual.
5. You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners'
representative and the EQB of your decision within five
working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of
your record of decision on the petition along with
notification of your decision for our records. This is not
required, however.
6. If for any reason you are unable to act
this time (e.g., no application has yet
application has been withdrawn), the pe-
in effect for a period of one year, and
prior to any final decisions concerning
identified in the petition.
on the petition at
been filed or the
tition will remain
must be acted upon
the project
Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of
government will be published in the EQB Monitor on September 14,
1992.
If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not
hesitate to call. The phone number is (612) 296 -8253 or you may
call on our toll -free line by dialing 1- 800 - 652 -9747 and asking
for the Environmental Quality Board, Environmental Review
Program.
Sincerely,
Gregg Downing
Environmental Review Coordinator
cc: Betsy Robinson, Ted Pier
t
Qv�
o� REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEEET
This is a request to have an Environmental Assessment Worksheet completed by the state of
Minnesota on the property under consideration for subdivision by the city of Edina. The
property description is the Mark Dalquist Addition Subdivision of Harold Woods Lane and
Schaefer Road, Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision #325, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The proposers of this project are : Mark Dalquist, former owner of the property, Ronald
E. Clark, developer and David Schall acting as a partnership, CDS Partners, 5115 Edina
Industrial Boulevard, Edina, Minnesota, 55435.
This subdivision involves splitting the 10.46 acres into four lots that have access from
Harold Woods Lane and a fifth lot with frontage and access off of Schaefer Road. The
smallest lot is 1.19 gross acres and the largest lot is proposed at 4.54 acres. Two ponds are
included in this subdivision, the south pond is under DNR jurisdiction (wetland 27 -792w) and
the north pond is not. Over 4 acres of the 10.46 acres is water. Edina ordinance requires a
100 foot conservation easement on all water bodies. Variances of 75 feet are being sought on
the south pond lots as well as one of the lots on the north pond and a 30 foot variance is being
sought on lot #3. Lot #1 also has a road which is in need of a variance on setback. Much of
the buildable land is located in a Zone B flood plane map. The elevations of the land are very
low, the water table is very high. This can be seen on the accompanying topographical map.
The environmental effects of developing this land in the manner proposed are of great
concern to us. This could lead to potential interference with water fowl nesting areas which
support many wood ducks, geese, black crowned night heron, snowy egrets, mallards and
other duck varieties. This area also supports a multitude of other wild life forms; turtles,
pheasnats, fox, deer, wood chuck, piliated woodpeckers, great horned owls, turtles, raccoon,
etc.. Construction will destroy these areas. It has been established that the lay of the land will
require much fill to build these 6500 square foot homes (min.). The city of Edina requires all
homes to be built over basements. The building sites on several lots would require anywhere
from 5 to 10 feet of fill to meet this code.
With addition of fill to this land, the drainage is going to change. Already this area is
subject to inadequate drainage. The north pond has no outflow. Any change in the
topography of the land is bound to alter the shore line, especially when you take into
consideration the massive amounts of hard surfaces that will be added to the land; roadway,
driveways, decks, terraces, pools (one is being constructed now). All this takes away from the
(presently poor) drainage capacity of the area. What will be the results of these changes? What
will happen to the other properties on the ponds if we get a rainfall exceeding a normal
year's percipitation, 5 years above normal rainfall? What will happen to the wildlife habitat
and the nesting areas along the established shoreline?
I have enclosed copies of the proposed subdivision and the topographical map of this area.
An aerial Hurd photograph is also included for you to refer to the ponds and wetlands that are
involved. If the preliminary plat is approved one can easily see that construction will impose
great hardship on the wildlife habitat and the drainage of the area.
We are asking you to please review this subdivision proposal as soon as possible. The city
council is meeting on this issue on Tues. September 8th, 1992. If the proposal is passed
without these important issues being taken into consideration and studied carefully, we will be
subjected to an ill - conceived subdivision that will destroy our ponds and fill our low lying
areas with standing water.
If you have any questions about our concerns, please contact Betsy Robinson, 5021 Ridge
Road, Edina, Minnesota, 55436. My telephone number is 612- 935 -8084.
Thank you,
Betsy Robinson and Ted Pier
5021 Ridge Road
Edina, Mn. 55436
Enclosures and Petition
4
SEP
100,
Ic
QUgLITy BOAR'
PETITION REQUESTING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
We the undersigned citizens of Edina request that a Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet be
compiled and completed on the proposed subdivision of Harold Woods Lane and Schaefer Road, Lot 11,
Auditor's Subdivision #325, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Attached you will find a description of the
proposal and those concerns that might have a substantially adverse impact on the environment and
wildlife habitat.
NAME MAILING ADDRESS PH. #
sozi
2.
3. /
4.
5.
6.
7.
S.
9.
10. ff iei - Siiz I
12. l !7
935 = 0%..,
93S, -7
4f All
733 -06s�
% 3
9,3s -o7��
y�3�1 rte/
`13y -7 7 01
PETITION REQUESTING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
We the undersigned citizens of Edina request that a Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet be
compiled and completed on the proposed subdivision of Harold Woods Lane and Schaefer Road, Lot 11,
Auditor's Subdivision #325, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Attached you will find a description of the
proposal and those concerns that might have a substantially adverse impact on the environment and
wildlife habitat.
NAME MAILING ADDRESS PH #
13.
14.
15.
17.
18. 1 "
X17 A
-35 -Ar-)
70.)-
L
20.
21 ,�1-r� /Zdl q� 3.— 3� o
23. � G 50 7—
25.
PETITION REQUESTING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
We the undersigned citizens of Edina request that a Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet be
compiled and completed on the proposed subdivision of Harold Woods Lane and Schaefer Road, Lot 11,
Auditor's Subdivision 11325, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Attached you will find a description of the
proposal and those concerns that might have a substantially adverse impact on the environment and
wildlife habitat.
NAME MAILING ADDRESS PH. #
g'a p / q 3s a-)��
26.
27.x_
28. � � - 0
svI 6 �- X33 'CfzS
29.
30.),,01
31.7
32. AW-
33. ��1, i�J• ��J
35
.37
40.
U
gds -c �z
eo
powt)
"Oli b
,I
l J�
��.N� afiS,Jti �,,
PRELIMINARY &IZAbIW&li DIZ
MARK DAWLQUI67 I
V)
Ar-.-4-1. L
SLI- IAEFER ROAD
31971 SOUTU
I
4
0 00 I .7
w
0 S000 I
f s. ivooroo r
_-"2,bs 5,IWA
69, POND
::./ - .tTnO LO 5
LO
.• � \ \ \ 2A0 N \I
L13
pomc)
LOT I
0,
LOT 3 I L OT
94, b4 57, w
QE VELOpN ENT SUMH >w f„ nv Boni. .a
LO? Tn�.ILAI,ON
R ? IV%
19q
hou- esd ,V,4, oilf
TY'C*M
,-(-
MARK PA[2TFJFW!,
DAWLQUIST ADbl 71014 e- DS
KEY TO MAP
ear Flood Boundary
ear Flood Boundary
Designations* With
A Identification
2/2/74
'ear Flood Boundary
ear Flood Boundary --
-food Elevation Line
513^
Elevation In Feet **
=food Elevation in Feet
(EL 987)
Uniform Within Zone **
lion Reference Mark
RM7X
Mile
• M1.5
ferenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
XPLA NATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
EXPLANATION
Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors not determined.
Areas of 100 -year shallow flooding where depths
are between one (1) and three (3) feet; average depths
of inundation are shown, but no flood hazard factors
are determined.
Areas of 100 -year shallow flooding where depths
are between one (1) and three (3) Feet; base flood
elevations are shown, but no flood hazard 'factors
are determined.
10 Areas of 100 -year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors determined.
Areas of 100 -year flood to be protected by flood
protection system under construction; base flood
elevations and flood hazard factors not determined.
Areas between limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 -
year flood; or certain areas subject to 100 -year flood-
ing with average depths less than one ( I ) foot or where
the contributing drainage area Is less than one square
mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood.
(Medium shading)
Areas of minimal flooding. (No shading)
Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazards.
Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); Katie Ilood elevations mid Ilnod 11.1-41 1- 1-s
not determined.
t0 Areas of 100 -year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base tool elevations and flood ha /aid factors
determined.
NOTES TO USER
n areas not in the special flood hazard areas (zones A and V)
r—1 1,%, (I nr�rl �-nn, nrl ,.rnp'tnir•c,
�I
A I
lt
a
ilb
IV
Cllr. vex
� �
Oil,
r�;
I
•
13
C
C
\\ L
bd 1
PoNp
I
O
O
J
' O
C
Q
iZ j3„�f..l•� �
Its y,
Lo 4-\ /
i
`} ease rrr.� �p `F�a :ePc�n�•.e�S1 a.ap
r tcJo
'Flood. etevjs, - i'io.-
(�.�.,,....�..a�,,.�.•�.
PO NO
olcf
s'A'i�•
L oT 2
"f3wJdLble lob- arw. �c..
D.NR pco��c�ea�
Cine 9S'I.5
,y� r
yl �`
id
TL
A lot;
wl-
ftr
i ate
�- ••�• - {{� � _ �' �_i ��^ C � .u7'~ Pik"' �r ^
a r- ��; r {- aN..t . yn��'V� .: 1164.`. P�•-
RIFIJA; R
�., I „!- MN Nom- 1�.+ -•� i+y r -
�� �'� is [ � - •`�!1 ��' - t ' •� •� �+ i.
l
JL...6•.. %ill.. � _ly..r. _ `` •�a�44► +.� .�s .� _'•. �+ � -u --� .l•:: �<
S
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymoutn, Minnesota 55447
October 1, 1992
Mr. Craig Larsen. Director of Planning
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55425
SUBJECT: CDS Partners
Preliminary Plat - EAW Petition Response
MFRA #6 -09893
Dear Mr. Larsen:
Teiephone Engineers
612/476 -6010 Planners
612/476 -8532 FAX Survevors
Pursuant to your request, we are providing a response to the petition for
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, involving the Mark Dalquist Addition.
Under separate cover, our office provided copies of Stormwater Calculations
to the City Planning and Engineering Departments and Barr Engineering. These
engineering calculations are the basis for determining the preliminary site
grades and proposed building floor elevations relative to the storage of
rainfall as a result of 100 -year events. The conclusion drawn from this data
is that the pond elevation, resulting from stormwater after development, would
be approximately 0.10 feet higher than predevelopment natural conditions. In
addition, the engineering calculations reveal no flooding of neighboring homes
as a result of the proposed site development.
The EAW petition references Zone B as contained in the Flood Hazard
Insurance Map Series. Zone B is defined as "areas between limits of the
100 -year flood and 500 -year flood; or certain areas subject to 100 -year
flooding with average depths less than one foot or where the contributing
drainage area is less than one square mile... ". It is our understanding the
zones identified in the Flood Insurance Documents are intended to assist in
determining the need for flood insurance. As a point of interest, an
engineering calculation has been made to determine the theoretical storm water
elevation of a 500 -year storm; that elevation is 939.8 feet, an elevation below
all proposed homesite levels. We have also overlaid the Zone B Flood Hazard
delineation on the subject property contour map and find the Zone Boundary
corresponds generally with ground elevations of 940 to 942 feet.
The proposed development areas of the site are generally at ground
elevation 940 and higher. The proposed building pads are located in areas
typically above contour 942 and the proposed lowest floor elevation is 940.
Engineering calculations have been provided for a 100 -year storm event and
also a scenario of back -to -back 100 -year events for both pre and post -
development conditions. Once again, this data reveals a nominal increase in
the elevations as a result of the proposed site development. We do not believe
this water level fluctuation, the result of two 100 -year events, will
significantly adversely affect the pond or shoreline habitat.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
I <
Mr. Craig Larsen
October 1, 1992
Page Two
The issue of stormwater design has been previously discussed with City and
Watershed Engineers within the context of the preliminary plat review; we fully
recognize both preliminary and final engineering design will be further
scrutinized by City and Watershed agencies.
The calculated pond elevation differential in the "before" and "after" site
development conditions is approximately 0.1 foot for the 100 -year storm event.
The elevated water level is minor and would not likely interfere with waterfowl
nesting areas, any more than natural occurring events. There will be no
alteration to the pond shoreline and, in fact, conservation easements will be
granted to protect and preserve the current existing natural conditions.
On September 30, 1992, Mr. Kelly Bopray of McCombs Frank Roos Associates,
Inc., a Certified Professional Soil Scientist, toured the property of purposes
of identifying wetland areas above the pond elevations of approximately
937.50. With regard to the northerly pond, wetland vegetation above the pond
water level is dominated by Reed Canary Grass. This wetland generally extends
45 feet beyond the ordinary high water in the area adjacent to proposed Lot 4.
This would place the edge of wetland approximately 28 feet inside, toward the
pond, the proposed 75 foot setback. It is observed the natural vegetation
strip that would be preserved within the 75 foot conservation easement
generally exceeds the natural areas which surround the north shore of the
northern pond.
That area of the north pond where the pond protrudes southerly, was
specifically reviewed. The development plan contemplates no development within
30 feet of the pond's southerly extension. The development will not encroach
on the wetland boundary. The tree species within the 30 -foot setback consists
of aspen, ash and a few red oak. Upland from the proposed 30 -foot setback are
generally mowed areas and upland overstory tree species.
The south pond is a DNR protected resource. The proposed southwesterly
most building pad site (Lot 2), overlooking the south pond, will be no closer
than 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The 75 -foot conservation
easement area has been maintained mostly as a mowed grass area; the overstory
vegetation is ash, maple and red oak. Wetland beyond the south pond and within
the conservation easement consists of a strip of shoreline, approximately 10 to
12 feet upland from the waters edge. This wetland is dominated by reed canary
with abundant duck weed at the pond's edge.
In the extreme southeasterly portion of proposed Lot 5, generally below
contour 940, is a finger -like drainageway projection from the pond extending
north, with pockets of surface water. This drainageway extends from the south
pond north a distance of approximately 120 feet into the eastern extremity of
the proposed Lot 5 building pad area. Vegetation within the finger -like
drainage area consists of willow, boxelder, ash and dogwood. If, in the final
design of the home for proposed Lot 5, alteration of this drainageway is
required as illustrated in the preliminary development plan (an area of
Mr. Craig Larsen
October 1, 1992
Page Three
approximately 50 feet by 30 feet) permits will be required from the Army Corps
of Engineers and the watershed district. It is conceivable, however, that
final design for this site can be accomplished without altering this
drainageway.
Beyond the west property line and south of the sanitary sewer easement off
the subject property is a wetland. This wetland does not extend onto the
subject property.
With regard to waterfowl and wildlife habitats, the nesting, feeding and
cover areas would be protected by conservation easements. The lawn areas that
connect these areas of wildlife habitat will exist after development with the
addition of four homes. The undeniable fact remains that this property is
zoned and guided for single - family residential use and the proposed subdivision
is consistent with City zoning requirements, with the exception of the request
for a variance from the 100 -foot easement strip adjacent to the two ponds,
simply to maintain home design flexibility at no detriment to the natural
environment.
The four northern proposed homesites will require minimal fill, based on
the proposed hypothetical building footprints as illustrated in the preliminary
development plans. Lot 2, 3 and 4 building pads are situated to take advantage
of the knolls which have high point elevations of 945 to 948 feet. Lot 5
building pad will be constructed in an area where the natural ground elevation
is approximately 942. This building site will require more fill, based upon
the ultimate design and location of the proposed home. The minimum lowest
floor elevation of the proposed homes will be established relative to the final
flood storage capacity design elevation for the two ponds and tributary
watershed. Preliminary calculations have established the lowest floor
elevation to be 942 feet.
In summary, the proposed northern four homesites envision development on
areas of the site least disruptive to tree stands, while maximizing the use of
natural topography. The homes are located generally within areas of the site
previously mowed and maintained as a manicured lawn; and extension of the
Dalquist yard. Development will be contained in areas outside of wetlands and
ponding areas and conservation easements will be provided to protect the
natural resources in the fringe areas of the ponds. The proposal is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and exceeds the minimum lot area
requirement established by City Zoning Ordinance No. 804. If the development
constructed is to the extent illustrated in the Preliminary Plans, there will
be no significant adverse environmental affects on the general ecology and
storm drainage capacity of the area nor will the proposed constitute an
inappropriate or inconsistent utilization of the property.
The development of this property will not result in the significant loss of
habitat, for the simple reason that a substantial portion of the development
area is being contained within the mowed /manicured areas. Although wildlife
may occasionally use this area, its habitat value is significantly lower than
the proposed conservation easement area and the woods on the adjacent property.
Mr. Craig Larsen
October 1, 1992
Page Four
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
US.
Kindest regards,
Mc OMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES. INC.
` ichael J. i
MG:jmk
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Worksheet
By: Y2Y= J Client: C b S P�QT ►�! -5
Date: n — 25 —`12 Project:
Checked By: Project No.:
File:
- - - - _ Rev: 03/89 -
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Worksheet
By: Client: CD S 7& eTNEF—S
Date: g ' Z S -`1Z Project: l-rZ
Checked By: Project No.:
File:
.. ... . Q:. ......i ......... T...
n
p� o
v
3
w
a-
"- v.03/89
m
1
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Worksheet
By: Client:
Date: Project:
Checked By: Project No.:
File:
v Nc€� ��OvU M P
Pg= Vl.e P yn�f
.... ... _._ ..... _ _.. .....__.___.__......__._—
. . .. _ .. _ 7 3....... -
- ......_ . _... __... --
O n = 33 X0.9 tN — 04-1
_. ........ ..._.... - -- -- -
- ....... _ ...... - - - -- - -- - -- - _ -- - —
.:..13 . -ar v xr'S "rv.._.._.��a_ -7 .........._
uLU = : 3
3._3 �`l a c- _.. 4"S 1 -a..G .r = S 4 y8 cF
.. .. ...
.... -- - ..... .......... - - - - -
... __....... t
tG .. _. _. - -- - -
xev. W/m
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc-
Worksheet
By: Client:
Date: Project:
Checked By: Project No.:
File:
Rev. 03/89
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Worksheet
By: Client:
Date: Project:
Checked By: Project No.:
File:
Rev. 03/89
i
Rev. 03/89
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Worksheet
By: I S-u Client:
Date. Project.
Checked By: Project No.:
File:.
Rev. 03/89 --
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Worksheet
By: 'SV #-tJ "mow Client:
Date: Project:
Checked By: Project No.:
File:
Rev. 03/89
N
s �
R. 22 HENNBqN (Joins shoot 54)
0-, Oc�l
Ic
IF Cu
PAVEL
cctwxR
Pa
He
IB
00 b7
LO
pm
RGV
HIC. co
Pa
Pm
Du
HbC
HIT
bD
� —
O i
NJ
o i
J
I ,
I �
ui ^ � '• t � i \ '• \ _ fff °°v � 1 1.
LLV 717
ce
131 00
-1�'r tf �,'...1 /•. �. (. ! � �__ .. R .' � 1��:� NTH. -;` k'';_-'."'Ta';1 r, ; j rl' t. / �.r _ -- _ ,� � t�
!* • •
/rIagwo U e�.
-�W W �W
3244 RALEIGH AVENUE • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 -2299
16121927-7996
FAX (61219 27- 6215
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: Craig Larson
2 FROM: Dee Dalquist (5012 Schaefer Rd.)
a
DATE: 9/28/92
N
O '
M1
° NUMBER OF PAGES: 6
W
(induding cover sheet)
W
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Following
is the letter we
plan to send to
signers of
the petition for
the Environmental
ti Assessment
m
of our property
which we are
hoping to
subdivide.
N
O
co
N
� Please review
the letter and
djibut
s r e CQFji pg
to mQmb rS
of the Edina City
Council. as we
attempt to
clarify several
inaccurate statements
made in the cover letter of
this request. Thank
you.
eP'.* o x.
<L
09•,28••92 11:07 = 612 927 6215 MnID 02
5012 Schaefer Road
Edina, MN 55436
September 28, 1992
Mr. & Mrs. L. D. Lxxxxx
5xOx xxxxxxxxxd
Edina, MN 55436
Doar Mr. and MrF . T.xxxx,
As you know, we arc attempting to subdivide our 10.46 acres
adjacent to n1ir homestead at 5012 Schaefer Road. A number of
neighbors )lave expressed great concern about the effect this
will have on the environment. This concern apparently is so
great that a petition was circulated and submitted to the
EnvironmenLdl QualiLy Board of the State of Minnesota.
Sinc-P you are among the signers of this petition, we are
sending this le UeL• Lu you in order to bring to your attention
s number of inaccuracies in the cover letter to tho retiticn.
we quote, from that letter by paragraphs, each of which is
followed by our cu mnenLs. Quoted portions are outlined.
"Tile propuseLS of this project are: Mark Dalqui�t, formor
owner of the property, Ronald E. Clark, developpr and David
Sc-hall acting as a partnership, CVS Partners, 5115 EdIiia
IndusLrldl BUUleVal'd, Edina, Minnesota, 55435."
we Still are owners and very much involved, !laving taken
Ron C1aLk in as a partner to aid us in developing the homesites.
�Ur David and Patty Schall bought into the partnership so they could
hui lei their home and so that we could obtain sullle necessary
° � cash Lo pay Lhe unbelievable taxes on the property, which is
not part of our homesite. Having innrPased 64% in only one
year, the taxes for 1991 were almusL $19,000: (when we purchaocd
Lhe property in 1978, the taxed were $2,700.)
cbMA>6�
u.
"'!'his subdivision involves sp11LLing the 10.46 acres into
four lots that have access from Harold Woods Lane and a fifth
lot with frontage and access off of Scrhaeter !toad. The smallest
lot is 1.19 gross acres and the laryesL luL is proposed at 4.54
acres. Two ponds are included in this subdivision, the south
pond is under DNR jurisdictinn (wetland 27 -762w) and the north
pond is not. Uver 4 acres of the 10.46 nuLes is water. Edina
ordinance requires a 100 foot conservation easement on all water
(bodies. varianr_es of 75 fast are being sought on the south
pond lots as well as one of the luLb un Lhe north pond and a
130 foot variance is being nought on lot k3. Lot N1 also hag
a road which is in need of a variance on setback. Much of the
buildable land is located in a Zone B flood plane map. The
09.,28.,92 11 =08 2 612 927 6215 MnID
I elevaLiunN of the land are very low, the water table is very I
Ihigh. This can be seen on the accompanying topographical map."
Edina ordinance recommends a 100 -fuuL setback from bodies
of water, with the stipulation that variances can be granted
where appropriate. we are not. Reeking variances of 'l5 teet,
as stated. That would put homes only 25 feet from the water!
A variance of 25 feet, which would mean building no closer
than 75 fppt. from thn pond, would enable architects to design
more interesting Moines. The 30 -fuuL variance referred to for
lot #3 is the distance requested from the man -made indentation
which was dredged by the Schaaters, in about 1947. This would
��'r be 100 feet from the natural shureline, and the indentation
o? -^` not only involves just a small portion of the shoreline, but
gradually is filling in naturally because It is very shallow
and ve9wLd UU11 is Laking over. Lot #1 (which is the David Schall
home presently under construction) was developed within the
requirements of the City of Edina, and with full approval.
The driveway (nuL a rued) 5eLV111g this home is much farther
from the pond than Schaefer Road.itself is! Incidentally, RvPlyn
Young's home, adjacent to the south pond, is about 75 feet from
Lhe water. A11i1 ab to having the buildable land in a flood plain,
much of three of the four sites is about as high as the nearby
homes on Schaefer Road, all elevations of the proposed homes
being 942 and abuve,.with the first floor levels being 952 and
above, while five homes on Schaefer Road are 9S2 or lower.
P�tr..r
"The environmental effects of developing this land in the
manner proposed are of great concern to us. This could 1Pad
to potential interterence with water fowl nesting areas which
buppoLL any wood ducks, geese, black crowned -night heron,.3nowy
egrets, mallards and other duck varieties. This area also
supports a multitude of other wild life forms; turtles,
pheasants, fox, deer, wood chuck, piliated woodpeckers, great
horned owls, turtles, raccoon, etc. Construction will dpctroy
these areas. It has been established that the lay of Lhe 1a11C1
will require much fill to build these 6500 square foot homes
(min.). The city of Edina requires all homes to be built over
basements. The bulldinq sites on several luLs wuuld iequire
anywhere from 5 to 10 feet of fill to meet this coda."
Since none or the area immediately aLljulnlng the ponds
will be disturbed by the location of the homes, we do not agree
that it will interfere with the wi.ldlite any more than when
all the other homes were bui1L...pruLably much less, because
we are much more environmentally aware than builders were in
`r..r•.�'^TS the past. Raccoons and even deer thrive in an urban atmosphere
and we have found ducks nesting by uui back door and front door.
The deer-and geese come right up to our house and don't seem
perturbed in t.hp least. All homes would, of course, have
basements, and the howeb!Lezi will require only minimal fill
(such as for contouring). The exception is the lot next to
Evelyn Young, which will need fill in some parts of the site,
not for the basement fluter level, but to make the contour more
03
'L
09.,29.,92 11 =09 S 612 927 62is mnID 04
in keeping with adjaueciL sites, and Lu provide grade level access
to the main floor. Theac arc not our assumptions. We have
had engineers working with tie;. We have had soil test borings
and NO water was found at the Lilue Lhe LuLings were made, even
going down 14 feet from about the lowest part of the entire
site. When the cpwPr line was dug in 1972 to a depth of 10
feet (down to elevaLiun 932), nu waLer showed in the trench.
"With addition of fill to this land, the drainage is going
to change. Already Lhis ated is subject to inadequate drainage.
The north pond has no outflow. Any change in the topography
of the land is hound to alter the shore line, especially when
YOU take iaLu cUII25l3eL -dLion the massive amounts of hard surfaces
that will be added to the land; roadway, driveways, dPnks,
tprranps, pools (one is being constructed now.) All t1lis Ldke::i
away from Lhe (pLesently poor) drainage capacity of the area.
What will be the results of these changes? What will happen
to the other properties on the ponds if we qet a rainfall
exceeding a nuimal year's precipitation, 5 yearo above normal
rainfall? What will happen to the wilAllfe habitat and the
nesting areas along the established shoreline ?"
We see no way in which the slight changac in topography
due to home construction and landscapinq would a1Ler Lhe
S1iuLeline in any way. Engineers have very carefully figured
the drainage. It is far better to have the ponds high than
nave them low and putrefying. There were some years wlteli,
uncouraged by Hans skalle, formerly of Ridge Road, we all added
water to the north pond with our garden hoses. We have lived
here for over 31 years and only twice has the north puieel Liserl
to cover a portion of low -lying lawns on the Eart end. The
first time the water soon receded; the spcnnd time (after the
'IUU -year storm) our neighbor across the pond requested Lhe
City of Edina to pump because part of her lawn was under water.
The water was on grass only, not near the home. This pumping
was ill- advised, as after the pumpiny was dl5cuitLlnued, the
water receded naturally and went down 3o far that for the rest
of the year the pond was below normal. At no time did it flood
the building areas in question. W1Lli Lhe SuuLh pond, which
has a much larger surface area, there was no problem. we plan
no major change in the topography of the land, planning to locate
the homes on the natural kuoll1s a5 much as possible. The writer
speaks of the poor drainage. We've been well acquainted with
this area since 195Fi and at no time has there been any serious
problem with drainage. The Lwu aforementioned rain storms were
not seriou3 au there was still a lot of capacity available to
absorh mnrP water. Heavy rainfalls would be absorbed to a yreaL
extent by Lhe large expanses of grassy areas and natural growth
surrounding the ponds, as they are now. The wildlife habitat
would not hp different from what it is now because the homes
would occupy only do average of G.7% of each site, in locations
which arc already cleared, and well away from nesting areas.
Neighhnrhond average of site coverage is 13.05 %, compared with
our proposed 6.7% uuverage. Heavy rainfalls could affect
nn�
09/28/92 11:09 g 612 927 6215 MAID
water -edge nesting areas whether or not additional homes were
built. Since most of the existing trees would be retained,
tree nests would not be appreciably affected. In reference
to hard surfaces ... all we would do is extend Harold Woods Lane
(our present driveway), ending in a cul -de -sac, and bringing
it to standard road width as required. Private driveways would
not need to be appreciably different from those already being
used in the neighborhood. At this time the ponds already are
receiving water drainage from Schaefer Road.
I have enclosed copies of the proposed subdivision and the
topographical map of this area. An aerial Hurd photograph is
also included for you to refer to the ponds and wetlands that
are involved. If the preliminary plat is approved one can easily
see that construction will impose great hardship on the wildlife
habitat and the drainage of the area."
We also have an aerial photo from the City of Edina, not
only of the subdivision site, but which includes the surrounding
area. On this photo we have carefully outlined all the lots
and the homes. Many of the homes are uncomfortably close
together. Many of the lots are small, some homes are built
much closer to the ponds than 100 feet! Most of these were
built recently. Our proposed homes would be custom built,
architect - designed and would be more than comparable to most
of the homes immediately surrounding them with two obvious
�+ exceptions. The lots would be of a comparable size, larger
,,,,,,,e_7rr5 than the median within the 500 -foot radius of the property,
and the homes would have a considerably greater distance between
them than most of those in the neighborhood, which average 72
feet. Preliminary estimates for the proposed homesites would
average 122 feet between houses. The value of this area for
a natural wildlife habitat was lost when all the homes
surrounding it were initially built. The greatest danger to
the ponds is the fertilizing of lawns which drain into the ponds
and contribute to weed growth. We propose that everyone cease
this fertilizing, as we did several years ago.
We cannot understand why certain neighbors find it necessary
to oppose the development of our property. We and our..
associates have placed retention of the beauty of the area above
all else, not once asking for the six sites which were planned
by the Edina City Engineers when the sewer was laid for the
benefit of the residents of Ridge Road. The integrity of the
area is of prime concern to us. Although we do live in the
city we have the unique advantage of semi - country living and
intend to maintain that atmosphere, in keeping with the
inevitable development of buildable land.
�Sdn we are asking you to please review this subdivision proposal
as soon as possible. The city council is meeting on this issue
on Tues. September 8th, 1992. If the proposal is passed without
_ these important issues being taken into consideration and studied
carefully, we will be subjected to an ill- conceived subdivision
05
The subdivision proposal could not be considered on
September 8 because this REQUEST effectively caused another
postponement. we have no answer to this last paragraph because
we cannot see how the ponds can be destroyed and the low -lying
I areas filled with standing water. The low -lying areas ARE the
ponds and we all WANT them to have water! They would not be
destroyed but possibly enhanced.
As owners of this property for many years, we have groomed
the meadow, planted trees and encouraged wildlife habitation.
we have taken our custodial responsibilities seriously and
understand the natural features of this property, having observed
each section of it under all conditions. 'Our mowing has been
done not only to maintain the beauty of the landscape but to
control weed growth, which formerly had been maintained by the
horses which grazed here; essentially, mowing has been confined
to these grazing areas.
Thank you for reading this.
Sincerely,
Mark and Dee Dalquist
OCT 02 '92 14:18 ROBINSON
STATE of
DEPARTMENT
500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL_. MINNESOTA • 551')5.40_.__...
4068443316 TO: 927 7645 P02
Agenda Item III. A.
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DNR INFORMATION
(612) 796.6157
October 2, 1992
Mr, Frederick S. Richards, Mayor
City of Edina
4801 West 50Lh Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Re. Mark Dahlquist Addition Residential Development
pear Mr, Richards:
no Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Mark Dahlquist
Addition in response to a citizens' petition for an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW).
DNR staff also conducted a site inspection on Wednesday, September 30. We offer the
following continents for your consideration.
The property In question is in an environmentally sensitive area, surrounded by wetlands on
three shies and involves significant wetland and f10 1 Hain encroachment issues. From the
Grading and Drainage Plan Map, it appears that the lots will not have much area available for
yard formation once houses, driveways, and other accessory structures are built, which can load
to encroachment ressure on the adjacent wetlands. It is likely that wethuid fringe and buffer
areas will be diasnished as future property owners attempt to "get triore yard."
Because of the relatively high percentages of impervious surfaces on the lots and their proximity
to wetlands, we are concerned about the water quality of storinwater runoff entering the
wetlands.
The DNR is also concerned about the amount of grading and filling that will be needed to ''fit"
the houses into the landscape and meet the city's tloodplain ordinance.
The DNR has born informed that the city is considering granting a blanket variance for strucium.
setbacks from die wctla,ids, reducing the required distance from 100 feet to 75 feet. Although a
local matter, we note varia a;;e approval revolves around the demonstration of hardship, which
appears to be. self - created because of the project's current proposed unit/lot density. We note that
typically new plats must comply with zoning standards and that all lots should be buildable
without variances.
While this project does (lot require a mandator}, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW),
there are questions and concerns raised in this lcacr and in the EAVr' petition that need to be
tulswered. A discretionary EAW or special study focusing on wetland and flood p1 *11 issues
would provide the infonnation needed for the City of Edina to ma1:c an infonii decision on the
impacts associated with this project before it proceeds to permitting and construction, The FAW
AN- EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER-
OCT 02 '92 14:19 ROBINSON 4068443316 TO: 927 7645 P03
or study would provide for fac i s . and `°tR would be pleased to plaruc the in such ,a proctss.
interested governmental agenctcs. The UN
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact me at 296 =4 ?96 if you have any
questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Natural Resources Planning and Revitw Section
Office of Planning
c. Crai Larson
Ceil Itrauss
W�yne Barstad
William Turkula
Bob Obermeyer
2jRCjjjjjj.jD dr'T
October 2, 1992
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
RE: Proposed Mark Dalquist Addition Subdivision and Request for Environment
Assessment Worksheet
Our File No.: 1457 -3
Dear Mayor Richards and Members of the City Council:
This law firm represents a group of Edina citizens who have previously petitioned the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
for the proposed Mark Dalquist Addition. The Addition is identified as Lot 11, Auditor's
Subdivision Number 325. The EQB forwarded the petition for the EAW to the City by way of a
letter date September 10, 1992. Review of that request by the City Council is scheduled for
Monday, October 5, 1992.
The EAW petitioners are deeply concerned that the current plans for this subdivision
development are directly at odds with the purpose and intent of subdivision requirements. More
importantly, the overall impact of this proposed subdivision has not been adequately addressed.
Representatives of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have visited the site
and confirmed that the petitioners concerns are legitimate, although the impact on the
wetlands in the area do not appear to be such that the development requires a mandatory
EAW. Nevertheless, the DNR indicated further assessment of the site was certainly advisable.
We believe a letter to that effect will be sent to the City shortly by the DNR.
In a letter to the petitioners dated September 28, 1992, Mark and Dee Dalquist, proponents of
the subdivision, stated that they are seeking variances for setbacks from the wetlands involved
of only 25 and 30 feet in order to make these lots buildable. It is the petitioners' position that
AGENDA ITEM III.A.
12"131TEDOCT 21992
MESSERLI & KRAMER
WILLIAM F. MESSERLI
WILLIAM D. TURKULA
ROSS E. KRAMER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW FRANK S. FARRELL,JR.
TOM TOGAS
ANN M. SETNES
DAVID R. KRACUM
1500 NORTHLAND PLAZA BUILDING JOHN F. APITZ
MARK S. LARSON
ANNE L. JOHNSON
3800 WEST 80TH STREET
TIMOTHY J. BAUER
LEANNE O. LITFIN
ROBERT G. RENNER,JR.
MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 5S431-4409 PETER D. MAGNUSON
SANDRA L.NEREN
FLORENCE HUMPHR BATCH ELOR
RANDOLPH W. MORRIS
(612) 893-6650 MICHAEL L.WEAV ER R
CHRISTOPHER B. HUNT
JAMES C.WICKA
FACSIMILE (612) 893 -6755
PAUL A. SORTLAND •
JOSEPH B. NIERENBERG
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
WILLIAM C. HICKS ••
• ALSO ADMITTED IN NORTH DAKOTA
DAVID D. BEAUDOIN •••
• ALSO AO wITTCD IN SOUTH DAKOTA
WILLIAM M. HABICHT
ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN
PAUL W. ANDERSON
893 -6702 -ALSO ADMITTED IN MONTANA
October 2, 1992
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
RE: Proposed Mark Dalquist Addition Subdivision and Request for Environment
Assessment Worksheet
Our File No.: 1457 -3
Dear Mayor Richards and Members of the City Council:
This law firm represents a group of Edina citizens who have previously petitioned the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
for the proposed Mark Dalquist Addition. The Addition is identified as Lot 11, Auditor's
Subdivision Number 325. The EQB forwarded the petition for the EAW to the City by way of a
letter date September 10, 1992. Review of that request by the City Council is scheduled for
Monday, October 5, 1992.
The EAW petitioners are deeply concerned that the current plans for this subdivision
development are directly at odds with the purpose and intent of subdivision requirements. More
importantly, the overall impact of this proposed subdivision has not been adequately addressed.
Representatives of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have visited the site
and confirmed that the petitioners concerns are legitimate, although the impact on the
wetlands in the area do not appear to be such that the development requires a mandatory
EAW. Nevertheless, the DNR indicated further assessment of the site was certainly advisable.
We believe a letter to that effect will be sent to the City shortly by the DNR.
In a letter to the petitioners dated September 28, 1992, Mark and Dee Dalquist, proponents of
the subdivision, stated that they are seeking variances for setbacks from the wetlands involved
of only 25 and 30 feet in order to make these lots buildable. It is the petitioners' position that
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
October 2, 1992
Page 2
these are significant deviations from the established setback requirements and are not a valid
basis for a variance based on hardship. Minnesota law recognizes that it is the person seeking
the variance who has a heavy burden to prove the variance is justified. The courts also have
recognized that when a landowner acquires property for building, and knows the site is not
buildable without a variance, that does not constitute grounds to justify a variance.
In addition, the Dalquists represent that only minimal fill would be needed on this site. When
the lot, plan, is overlaid on the elevation map, ho :never, the fill requirements are obviously quite
significant. What effect this will have on drainage and the wetlands is, at best, unclear.
The petitioners believe this site can be developed responsibly. They do not believe the current
proposal meets either the spirit or intent of land use and development requirements as
currently established. In that regard, current development plans are not responsible as
proposed.
An EAW provides an effective mechanism to assess the concerns which have been raised by the
petitioners. Likewise, existing regulations, when applied to the site, adequately restrict the
development within reasonable bounds. In this case, the developers have not met their
required burden of proving variances for construction are justifiable.
My clients are not anxious to resort to the courts to resolve their concerns. They are hopeful
the City, by using its existing development authority, will compel modifications, or at least
reassessment, of the subdivision to conform with existing requirements and reasonable and
responsible development. Failing that, however, the rules applicable to an EAW petition make
the only appeal alternative a petition to the District Court for judicial intervention.
The petitioners hope they will not be compelled to spend their own funds in order to require
reassessment and modification of this subdivision plan. They are prepared, however, to take
whatever steps are necessary to do what they believe is necessary to protect the present
character of this neighborhood.
Very truly yours,
MESSERLI & ERAMER
William D. Turkula
WDT:mae:28001 1
(i
I�
October 3, 1992
Dear Council Members,
Enclosed you will find two letters that were faxed to the City Planning
Dept. yesterday to be included in the EAW packet. I feel that they are
Of utmost importance to your considerations on this matter. I can not
possibly understand how they could be eliminated from the information you
were given. Therefore I want to hand deliver them to insure you will take
this information into consideration before you act on any recommendation
that the City Planning Dept. has offered.
Thank you for your consideration.
. /� Z-vo--
Betsy Robinson
The Honorable Mayor and
)!.Members of the City Council
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, INfinnesota 55424
RE: Proposed Mark Dalquist Addition Subdivision and Request for Environment
Assessment Worksheet
Our File No.: 1457 -3
Dear :Mayor Richards and Members of the City Council:
This lain firm represents a group of Edina citizens who have previously petitioned. the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for an Environw.ental Assessment Worksheet
for the proposed ?Mark Dalquist Addition. The Addition is identified as Lot 11, Auditor's
S'abdivision Number 325. The EQB forwarded the petition for the LAW to the City by way of a
letter date September 10, 1992. Review of that request by the City Council is scheduled for
Monday, October 5, 1992.
The EAU` petitioners are deeply concerned that the current plans for this. subdivision
development are directly at odds with the purpose and intent of subdivision requirements. More
Unprrtantly, the overall impact of this proposed subdivision has not been adequately addressed.
Representatives of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have visited the site
and coniu-med that the petitioners concerns are legitimate, although the impact on the
Wetlands in the area do not appear to be such that the development requires a mandatory
EAW. Nevertheless, the DNR indicated further assessment of the site was certainly advisable.
We believe a letter to that effect %rill be sent to the City shortly by the DNR.
In a letter to the petitioners dated September 28, 1992, Mark and Dee Dalquist, proponents of
the subdivision, stated that they are seeking variances for setbacks from the wetlands involved
of only 25 and 30 feet in order to make these lots buildable. It is the petitioners' position thai
MES•SERLI & KRAMER
w'ILLIAM P. N,e:gyepLl
AOSS E-KRAmr -*
ATTORNY6 AT LAW
E
WILLIAM G•TURKI.;LA•
T`JM TOGAS
/F'ANK g. rAR RCLL,JR.
LIA—C' R. KRACUId
1500 NORTHLAND PLAZA SUILGING
ANN M. 6CTNES
MARK S. LAR60N
JOIN F. APIr[
TIMOTHY J. 6AUCR
3604 WeST ZorH 5TREET
ANNC L.UO+IN.60N
NOCKFiT G. WCNNeii,JR.
LC—i NG G. LIYFIN
5A,091A L.N6RSN
MINNEAPOLIS, M1NNE50TA 55431--4409
PEreR a, µAGN 4i1JN
RAN�IOLPH W. M0RR16
--A?ixT0Pnrr4 G. HUNT
(612) 893-6650
FLOr7!NGC ►UMDr�ACY �ATC�CL�F'.
JAMCS C. W7CKA
MICHA�a. L.weAVew
"-4L A. OORTLAMP
FACSIMILC (612) 893-6755
096CpM w. NIERGNmCRG
W'LLiAM C. clicks••
WRITt:A'3 DIAGCT b1AL NUMOCF.
:,wiG Cv. CrAUGOIN
—Li4 •o.., rT LS �N ^OpY.. 7 ^corn -
WILLIAM M. HABICHT
^�D ♦ow�rY tD �N aov "• 4 ^•O *..
PAUL W. AN OCR8 ON
893 d2
•• ILaG .G.ni TICD ,N v.�]GGrgi^
-6 /
y b
October 2, 1992
The Honorable Mayor and
)!.Members of the City Council
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, INfinnesota 55424
RE: Proposed Mark Dalquist Addition Subdivision and Request for Environment
Assessment Worksheet
Our File No.: 1457 -3
Dear :Mayor Richards and Members of the City Council:
This lain firm represents a group of Edina citizens who have previously petitioned. the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for an Environw.ental Assessment Worksheet
for the proposed ?Mark Dalquist Addition. The Addition is identified as Lot 11, Auditor's
S'abdivision Number 325. The EQB forwarded the petition for the LAW to the City by way of a
letter date September 10, 1992. Review of that request by the City Council is scheduled for
Monday, October 5, 1992.
The EAU` petitioners are deeply concerned that the current plans for this. subdivision
development are directly at odds with the purpose and intent of subdivision requirements. More
Unprrtantly, the overall impact of this proposed subdivision has not been adequately addressed.
Representatives of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have visited the site
and coniu-med that the petitioners concerns are legitimate, although the impact on the
Wetlands in the area do not appear to be such that the development requires a mandatory
EAW. Nevertheless, the DNR indicated further assessment of the site was certainly advisable.
We believe a letter to that effect %rill be sent to the City shortly by the DNR.
In a letter to the petitioners dated September 28, 1992, Mark and Dee Dalquist, proponents of
the subdivision, stated that they are seeking variances for setbacks from the wetlands involved
of only 25 and 30 feet in order to make these lots buildable. It is the petitioners' position thai
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
October 2, 1992
Page 2
these are significant deviations from the established setback requirements and are not a valid
basis for a variance based on hardship. Minnesota law recognizes that it is the person seeking
the variance who has a heavy burden to prove the variance is justified. The courts also have
recognized that when a landowner acquires property for building,- and knows the site is not
buildable without a variance, that does not constitute grounds to justify a variance.
In addition, the Dalquists represent that only minimal fill would be needed on this site. When
the lot plan is overlaid on the elevation map, however, the fill requirements are obviously quite
significant: Arhat effect this will have. on drainage and the wetlands is, at best, unclear.
The petitioners believe this site can be developed responsibly. They do not believe the current
Proposal meets either the spirit or intent of land use and development requirements as
currently established. In that regard, I current development plans are not responsible as
proposed.
An EAW provides a1~ effective mechanism to assess the concerns which have been raised by the
Petitioners.. Lkewise, existing regulations, when applied to the site, adequately restrict the
development within reasonable booms. In this case, the developers have not met their
required burden of proving variances for construction are justifiable.
My clients are not anxious to resort to',the courts to resolve their concerns. They are hopeful
the Cit., by using its existing development authority, v611 compel moclifications, or at least
reassessment, of the subdivision to conform with existing requirements and reasonable and
responsible development. Failing that, however, the rules applicable to an EAW petition make
the only appeal alternative a petition to the District Court for judicial intervention.
The petitioners hope they will not be compelled to spend their own funds in order to require
reassessment and modification of this subdivision plan. They are prepared, however, to al~e
whatever steps are necessary to do whs.t they believe is necessary to protect the present
character of this neighborhood.
Very truly yours,
MESSERLI & KRAIVIER
William D. Turkula
WDT :mae:28U01_�1
rryynnSTATE OF
U �.I H IE z (D
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
500 LAFAYETTE ROAD s ST, PAUL, MINNESOTA i 55155.40
DNR INFORMATION
(612) 296 -6157
October 2, 1992
Mr, Frederick S. Richards, Mayor
City of Edina
4841 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Re. Mark Dahlquist Addition Residential Development
Dear Mr. Richards:
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the .Mark Dahlquist
Addition in response to a citizens' petition for an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW).
DNR staff also conducted a site inspection on Wednesday, September 30, We offer the
followuig continents for your consideration.
The property in question is in an environmentally sensitive area, surrounded by wetlands on
three sues and involves significant wethumd and floodplain encroachment issues. From the
Grading and Drainage Plan Map, it appears that the lots will not have much area available for
yard formation once houses, driveways, and other accessory structures are built, which can lead
to encroachment pressure on the adjacent wetlands. It is likely that wetland fringe and buffer
areas will be diminished as future property owners attempt to "get more yard."
Because of the relatively high percentages of impervious surfaces on the lots and their proximity
to wetlands, we are concerned about the water quality of stonnwater runoff entering the
wetlands.
The DNR is also concerned about the amount of grading and filling that will be needed to "fit" .
the houses into the landscape and meet the city's floodplain ordinance.
The DNR has been informed that die city is considering granting a blanket variance for structure
setbacks from the wetlands, reducing the required distance from 100 feet to 75 feet. Although a
local matter, we note variance approval revolves around the demonstration of hardship, which
appears to be self- created because of the project's current proposed uni0ot density. We note that
typically new plats must comply with zoning standards and that all lots should be buildable
without variances.
While this project does not require a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW),
there are questions and concerns raised in this letter and in the EAW petition that need to be
answered. A discretionary EAW or special study focusing on wetland and floodplain issues
would provide the information needed for the City of Edina to make an informed decision on the
impacts associated with this project before it proceeds to permitting and construction. The EAW
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
or study would provide for focused and constructive review and input by the public and
interested governmental agencies. The DNR would be pleased to participate, in such a process.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact me at 296 -4796 if you have any
questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Natural Resources Planning and Review Section
Office of Planning
e: Craig Larsen
Ceil Strauss
Wayne Barstad
William TurkuIa
Bob Obermeyer
t
Y
>1,� N =�I o
J �;o
\`NNa.r111P•
REraRT /REO OMMENDATION
To: Mayor and Council
From: Craig Larsen
Date: October 5, 1992
Subject: S-92-1, Preliminary
Plat Approval, Mark
Dalquist Addition.
Recommendation:
Info /Background:
Agenda Item— U1, T _
B
Consent
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
I -
Resoiution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Attached to this cover is the packet which was included for the
September 8, 1992, public hearing.
The public hearing was at that time continued to the October 5,
1992, meeting.
If the Council has voted to dismiss the EAW Petition, they may take
action on the preliminary plat. If the Council continues the
hearing to a future meeting, the Council should reconfirm the
proponent's willingness to extend the permitted time to act on the
preliminary plat.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE --
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1992, 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, R. Hale, N. Faust, L.
Johnson, H. McClelland, D. Runyan, J. Palmer,
G. Workinger, C. Ingwalson, D. Byron
MEMBERS ABSENT: V. Shaw
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, Jackie Hcogenakker
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner Runyan moved approval of the July 1, 1992,
meeting minutes. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye;
motion carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
S -92 -1 Preliminary Plat Approval
Mark Dahlquist Addition
Lot 11, Auditors Subdivision
No. 325 CDs Partners
Mr. Larsen reported to commission members at the July 20,
1992, council meeting the city council and the mayor voted
unanimously to refer the request for preliminary plat approval for
the Mark Dahlquist Addition back to the Planning Commission based
on new facts presented. Mr:. Larsen noted the following
* Discussion regarding lot depth at the planning commission
meeting resulted in a request of the city attorney for
ordinance interpretation of the definition of lot depth.
A letter dated July 15, 1992, from the City Attorney
opined that ponds /water areas on a lot should not be
excluded in determining lot depth. If it is accepted
that lot depth includes ponding areas then no lot depth
1
variance. would be required for any of the lots in the
proposed subdivision.
* The developers have revised the plat reducing the
openspace conservation easement variance requested. Lots
2,4, and 5 would provide a 75 foot setback from the
ponding areas instead of the required 100 feet, therefore
a 25 foot variance is requested for those lots. Lot 3
would provide a 100 foot easement from the "historical"
waters edge of the north pond and a 30 foot setback from
the existing north pond water boundary.
* The Developers have provided the location of the driveway
and building foot print on Lot 1.
The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Dahlquist, Mr. and Mrs. Schall,
Mr. Ron Clark, and their architect, Mr. Mike Gair were present to
respond to questions /concerns from residents and commission
members.
Mr. Gair with graphics pointed out the changes in the proposal
that have developed since the last time the commission reviewed
this item. He pointed out on the revised plat lots 2,4, and 5
provide a 75 foot conservation easement from the ponding areas
instead of the original request for 50 feet. Lot 3 provides an 100
foot easement from the "historical" waters edge. Mr. Gair also
refreshed the commission on the history of the site pointing out
the property is already supplied with city sewer for 6 building
sites. Mr. Gair focused his comments on the issue of hardship
concerning the request for variances from the conservation
easement. Continuing, Mr. Gair read for commission members
ordinances (804, 825) definition of hardship. Mr. Gair pointed out
when considering this site the developers viewed the. site as 1)
residential, and any development within this site would be
residential; 2) the request was viewed as a reasonable use of the
land; 3 ) the plight of the petitioner requesting variances from the
conservation easement is not self imposed; and 4) the belief that
the granting of variances from the conservation easement will not
alter the character and-symmetry of the neighborhood. Mr. Gair
noted during his presentation that the location of the proposed
building pads correlate with the grassy areas of the site where
there are few trees. Mr. Gair explained that it is the intent of
the developers to preserve a majority of the vegetation thereby
affording each building site the ability to place and construct a
more customized home that reflects the market values of the
neighborhood. Mr. Gair concluded that it is his opinion the
approval of variances will improve the plat.
Commissioner McClelland noted the letter
attorney, and his conclusion that water should
calculating lot depth. She stated she does not
interpretation. Commissioner McClelland added
FA
from the city
be included when
agree with that
she agrees with
staff's interpretation of the ordinance that water is not included
in calculations for, lot depth. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland
said in her opinion the letter reflecting the DNR's position on
setbacks from the ponds on the subject site suggesting maintaining
a minimum 30 -35 feet for development is too small. She
acknowledged that the DNR only claims jurisdiction on the south
pond, not the north pond, and there is no state standard on the
ponds on the subject site, but added our subdivision ordinance
requires an 100 foot conservation_ easement. She pointed out a city
can be more restrictive not less restrictive, and Edina has chosen
for whatever reason, to require a higher setback standard.
Commissioner McClelland suggested if our 100 foot conservation
easement appears unrealistic, and at this time we are in the
process of recodification it may be wise to look at this setback
number and either retain it, come up with a different number or
defer the setback restriction to the DNR and Watershed Districts
standards. Concluding, Commissioner McClelland said regarding
hardship, Mr. Dahlquist stated he purchased the property about 18
years ago. . According to city. records the 100 foot conservation
easement has been in place since 1971, so in her opinion, no
hardship exists. Mr. Dahlquist purchased the property with the
ordinance in place, and he should have been aware the 100 foot rule
existed, regardless of the plan that depicts city sewer service for
6 building sites on this property.
Mr. Schall responded to Commissioner McClelland's comments on
the position taken by the city attorney adding he agrees with the
conclusion from the city attorney. that water should rbe included
when calculating lot depth.
Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if he agrees with the
conclusion from the city attorney that water should be included
when calculating lot depth. Mr. Larsen stated he concurs with Mr.
Gilligan's interpretation of our ordinance. Expanding, Mr. Larsen
stated what our ordinance is trying to achieve is adequate spacing
.between homes.
Commissioner Runyan stated he agrees with Mr. Gilligan's
conclusion. He pointed out separation between houses is what is
desired by the ordinance. Water provides that separation, and may
actually prevent overbuilding on a lot.
Mr. Dahlquist told commission members when he purchased the
property he did so for his enjoyment, and the potential for
subdivision in the future, if he so chooses. He said he believes
he should have the right to develop this site in a reasonable way,
stating without variances the reasonable use of his land would be
taken away.
Mr. .Ingwalson questioned Mr. Dahlquist on the date the
"finger" of the north pond was created. Mr. Dahlquist said he
believes the finger was created around 1946 -1947. Mr. Dahlquist
3
presented to commission members an aerial photo of the property
dated in the early 19401s.
Mr. Schall addressed the commission and informed them in his
discussions with Robert Obermeyer Jr., Nine Mile Watershed
District, under the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Ordinance this
finger could be filled in.
Commissioner McClelland noted regardless of what the Watershed
District indicated the city has the authority and can regulate it's
water bodies.
Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Larsen if it is possible to dredge
that "finger" portion of the north pond. Mr. Larsen said the
subdivision process triggers the setback requirement of 100 'feet
from water bodies and if a conservation. easement is placed around
the pond that "finger" cannot be touched.
Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Larsen to explain what a
conservation easement entails. Mr. Larsen explained the city has
two types of conservation easements. The first is a natural
condition easement. Meaning no structures of any kind can be
placed within that easement and within that easement the condition
of the land must remain in it's natural state. The second type of
easement is open space. An open space easement prohibits any,
building within that area but one can mow the grass, etc.
Mr. Workinger questioned if the ordinance directs us on the
type of easement we should recommend. Mr. Larsen said the type of
easement recommended is up to the commission and council after
their study of the proposal.
Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Gair how water runoff would be
handled. Mr. Gair explained that street runoff would be piped into
the pond and the rest would be sheet draining.
Commissioner Runyan referred to a letter from Mr. Glickman and
questioned Mr. Glickman if his concerns have been addressed,
especially his concern regarding the size of the lots and value of
the proposed houses.
Mr. Glickman, 5217 Schaefer Road submitted to the commission
a new set of calculations on lot area, width, depth. He apologized
for the initial set of calculations explaining that he
misunderstood the ordinance and submitted calculations reflecting
the average not the median lot sizes. Continuing, Mr. Glickman
stated that he believes the 500 foot radius encompasses too many
homes resulting in the size of the lots being skewed downward. Mr.
Glickman said he feels the lot sizes should be determined on the
lots fronting Schaefer Road, and in his opinion it is unfair to put
four lots 'in where at the most there should only be two or three.
In reference to house, value Mr. Glickman said he does not want to
J
1
see fancy tract housing on this property. He stated he finds no
hardship to support any request for variances. Mr. Glickman stated
that he is not saying this site cannot be developed, he is saying
four lots are too many. Mr. Glickman concluded that during his
research on the subject site he believes Mr. Dahlquist purchased
the property in 1978 well after the 100 foot conservation easement
was placed on water bodies.
Commissioner Palmer said his concern is with hardship. He
added if it is possible to construct homes on this site that meet
the setback requirements it should be developed with homes meeting
setback requirements. Concluding, Mr. Palmer added if the reason
for the requested setback variances is to provide more area to
construct larger more expensive homes that is not a hardship.
Mr. Gair reiterated that it is his belief when the topography
and vegetation were considered the depicted footprints are located
in the most suitable location where less disruption occurs to the
terrain and vegetation.
Commissioner McClelland stated in her opinion everything is
too much.
Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Clark exactly how big the
proposed houses will be. Mr. Clark responded when the homes are
completed they will be in the 5,000 square foot range. They will
not be as large as the two new homes within the immediate
neighborhood. Mr. Clark expanded on the questions concerning house
placement adding what they desire is to create lots that will allow
the proposed homes to be constructed with variations and
architectural character which is the reason they are requesting the
variances.
Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Clark if someone wanted to
purchase a lot and build an 11,000 square foot home would Mr. Clark
let them. Mr. Clark said any construction would have to maintain
whatever conservation easement is granted on the lot. Construction
would also have to comply with city zoning ordinance setbacks. A
house the size of the Golub house would probably not be possible
with these constraints.
Commissioner Byron noted at the last hearing he felt the
developer understood that the planning commission did not approve
of the proposal as submitted and stIggested developing the site
without variances or reducing the number of lots to accomplish
this. Continuing, Mr. Byron said it is his understanding that the
developer selected to go forward to the city council with the same
proposal, though slightly altered. Mr. Byron commented that he
believes the planning commission members will always be faced with
the question of variances on most subdivisions, but in this
instance, in his opinion, no hardship has been identified. He
stated the inclusion of the letter from Mr. Gilligan does not alter
G
his feelings. He said he was not confused nor did he believe the
commission was confused regarding the lot depth question. He
concluded that based on everything heard this evening the facts
have not changed overly much, and what we have viewed this evening
is similar to what was previously proposed. Nothing has changed.
Mr. Larsen clarified the reason the council wanted the
commission to re -hear the issue is because of the clarification on
the interpretation of lot depth made by our attorney, and that the
request for conservation variances have been reduced from the
previously proposed 50 feet to 25 feet.
Commissioner Johnson told the commission he was not at the
last council meeting but has spent some time studying this
proposal. Commissioner Johnson said he visited the site and drew
a number of sketches finding what is proposed is reasonable and
fits the site. He added he does have concern that overly large
houses could be developed, and to prevent that he would be in favor
of increasing the s ideyard setback from 10 feet to 25 feet. He
explained his concern is with massing, and he wants assurances that
the property will not be "overdeveloped ". Continuing, Commissioner
Johnson said he has concern regarding water elevation but he must
put faith in- Barr Engineering who have studied this site and
believe it can be developed. Commissioner Johnson pointed out Lot
2 could easily meet the conservation easement of 100 feet.
Development of Lots 4 and 5 requiring them to maintain an 75 foot
easement appears reasonable. Lot 3 if not given the variance from
the historical "finger" would severely restrict it's development
and this area would then be just three lots.. Commissioner Johnson
concluded he believes if developed .with. sensitivity this project
will not negatively impact the area.
Commissioner Faust stated she believes this proposal is
completely economic and the planning commission should not be in
the business of helping people develop their property for that
reason.
Commissioner Palmer said he has no problem with four lots in
an area of this size, but wants the.houses constructed maintaining
the conservation easement, and not requiring variances.
Mr. Manthy, 6413 Interlachen Boulevard told the commission he-
purchased his property to enjoy the ponds. . He added he believes
the reason for the 100 foot conservation easement is to maintain
our wetlands in as natural state as possible. He stated he
believes the request for variances are based on economics. He
concluded he wants the character and symmetry of the neighborhood
kept in tact, and asked the commission to deny this subdivision
request.
Commissioner McClelland said in her.-opinion this whole issue
is difficult to consider because of the required variances. She.
6
pointed out there is no hardship and 'the city should not treat
developer A differently from developer B. She pointed out the
commission and council gave the developer of the Farrell property
strict conditions to meet and one condition met was compliance with
the conservation easement from the pond.
Mr. Dahlqu-ist addressed the commission and told them he would
verify the date he purchased this parcel of land. He reported in
the flood of 1987 the water in the south pond only came up into the
grassy area, and in all the years he has owned this property they
have had no problems handling the water. Continuing, Mr. Dahlquist
referred to the plan that indicates the sewer line and stated the
present proposal was designed to comply with the existing sewer
service hookups. He pointed out a three lot subdivision would
place building pads on top of the sewer lines. Concluding Mr.
Dahlquist said he believes the proposal as submitted is reasonable,
and this site is a site that needs development flexibility.
Commissioner Hale stated he agreed with Commissioner L.
Johnson's observations on four lots but stated he feels there is no
hardship to support the requested variances.
Commissioner Ingwalson agreed, commenting he has a problem
granting approval with variances. Commissioner Ingwalson stated
each time we grant a variance a precedent is set.
Commissioner McClelland stated.in her opinion, no attempt has
been made to cooperate with the planning commission.
Chairman Johnson said as a body we have a number of options;
we can approve or deny the proposal, approve a four lot subdivision
with no variances, reduce the number of lots, etc.
Commissioner Palmer said in hearing from different members of
the commission as they shared their thoughts and concerns he feels
a majority of commission members would vote to deny this request as
presented.
Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend denial of the proposal
as submitted. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. Ayes; Hale,
Faust, McClelland, Palmer, Byron, Workinger, Ingwalson, G. Johnson.
Nays; L. Johnson, Runyan. Motion for denial carried.
III. OTHER BIIBINE88:
Commissioner McClelland explained to commission members that
before them is a copy of her comments that she presented to the
council at their last meeting. She stated the reason she presented
her comments to the council is because they are in the process of
recodification. Commissioner McClelland stated she has had some
h
concern at the commission level that our "votes" have recently been
very close. She pointed out since our adoption of ordinance 804
there have been a number of split votes from the commission.
Commissioner Palmer said in his opinion close or split votes are
not a problem.
III. AWOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Jackie Hoogenakker
8
SEP 03 '92 09:45 LAMBERT & BOEDER
LAMBERT & BOEDER
Jun" W. L Q42=r
LPG R Brmowm
Bit= A. BOOM
BaxsnoA ZJFnLPS ADILR r
CAIITU DaLAMM
KFlrrr R Lam
TO: Edina City Council
AT70a um AT LAw
1000 SuPeRM BOULFWAD
WAYZATA. MMMOrA 55391
(612) 475.3435
TUSOMM: (612) 475 -0301
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Lambert & Boeder, Attorneys for CDS Partnership
RE: Application for Subdivision Approval and Setback Variance
DATE: September 2, 1992
FACTS
P.2
or COMM
CORMS D. LVWM
DIOMU A. JUaD
JAMes M. VDMnL►
WAS+ V. B=Av, Js
Clark, Dalquist,. ScWl (CDS) has applied for subdivision of 10.67 acres of residential
property located within the City of Edina. The proposed subdivision would result in five separate
building sites; one site would be about 4.5 acres and the other four sites would be approximately
1.4 acres each. Slight variances are being sought by the developer from the existing 100 foot
setback requirement around the two ponds.
In the 1940's, apparently prior to the existence of any contrary regulations, the shoreline
of one of the ponds was artificially altered by the previous owner who dredged a part of the
north pond, thereby enlarging its boundaries into a triangular bay of water which intruded on the
land The previous owner then. pumped water from the North pond into the South pond
Because- of the existing location of mature trees and the topography of the area, a variance for
a 75 foot setback from the ponds is being sought except for the bay of water where a 35 foot
setback has been applied for.
Evelyn Young, a neighbor on the south pond, has a building setback of approximately 75
feet from the pond: Schaefer Road runs immediately adjacent to the east end of the south pond .
with virtually no setback at all.
Z)cr bJ .c O� ; 4D Lr41bLR 1 6- GIJLULR
r-. zi
Previous sewer stub installation by the City of Edina provided for subdivision of the
Property into six lots instead of the four lots now proposed.
ARGUMENT
The City's decision on the Variance Application should consider
1. THE EXISTING SHORELINE PRIOR TO ALTERATION BY A PREVIOUS
LANDOWNER.
Generally, the natural shoreline should be taken into account, instead of the existing
shoreline, especially where, as in this case, the shoreline has been altered. Also, the request for
a 35 foot variance for the artificially created bay would be unnecessary if the shoreline of the
pond had not been altered by a predecessor.
The Courts have authority to order restoration of altered waters if a determination is made
that public waters have been altered without permit. See M.S. 105.462 and In re David Koldahl,
419 N.W. 2d 532 (1988). The 1973 amendment to the Minnesota Water Management Law
defined public waters as any waters of the state which serve a beneficial public purpose. (See
4 Minn. 105.38). This broad definition could include any waters, even these ponds.
We could find no reported Appellate Court cases, however, with fact situations
substantially similar to this situation now before the Council. In Van Landschoot v. City of
Mendota Heights, 336 N.W. 2d 503 (1983), a predecessor had illegally filled in a wetland area.
The Court said this unlawful alteration could not necessarily be relied upon as having created a
unique aspect to the property which constituted a hardship in its development In that instance,
however, the prior alteration had clearly been illegal and the current owner was aware of the
circumstance at the time he bought the property. At the time the present owners bought this
property, they relied upon the City's plans for sewer installation, which provided for subdivision
2
SEP 03 '92 09 46 LAMBERT & BOEDER P.4
Into six lots. The present owners had no reason to expect the shoreline setback would present
a problem for development of the property according to its highest and best use.
In the area of altered shoreline, as well as in other zoning matters, the standard is that if
an application for subdivision and requested variances are to be denied, the City must find a .'
rational basis for doing .so.
2. GRANTING OF- THE VARIANCES WOULD ALLOW THE HI-
GHEST AND
BEST USE OF THIS LAND.
Because of the existing topography and the presence of a forest of mature trees and
vegetation, the natural beauty of the land would best be preserved by allowing the requested
variances for building sites no closer than 75 feet of the pond high water line. Generally, zoning
ordinances are regarded as being aimed primarily at conserving property values and encouraging
the most appropriate use of the land Minnesota Real Estate Law Digest, p. 283; Kiges v. City
of St. Paul, 62 N.W. 2d 363 (1953). , There is no evidence the granting of the variances would
have any adverse effect on the ponds or wild life living there.
There is no more feasible or prudent alternative to granting of these variances, in
considering the best development of this property. See Application 'of White Bear Lake. 247
N.W. 2d 903 (1976). Refusal to grant these variances will cause an undue hardship whereby the
property cannot be put to reasonable use because of circumstances unique to the property which
were not created by the landowner. M.S. 462.357.
3. ZONING ORDINANCES AND DECISIONS MUST NOT BE ARBITRARY,
DISCR YIINATORY OR UNREASONABLE IN APPLICATION OF
RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS.
In Amcon Coro. and O) Sporting Goods v City of Eagan. 348 N.W. 2d 66 (1984). If
this subdivision is not granted, it would be because more restrictive provisions are being applied
to the development of this property than to other property very recently approved for subdivision
in the Wooddale/Crosstown area of Edina. A similar setback of approximately 75 feet already
3
=Er= 03 ' y2 by: 46 LHMSERT & 60EDr- f
exists on a neighbor's property on the south pond. There exists no rational basis to apply more
restrictive standards or conditions to this property. A regulation which does not operate
uniformly on all persons similarly situated in a district will not be upheld. Connor v. Chanhassen
*
Two., 81 N.W. 2d 789 (1957) and M.S. 366.10
Where any doubt exists as to the interest of the enacting body, a construction of the
ordinance rinrst favor the owner and disfavor any implied extension of a restriction on the
property. Olson v. City of Hoskins 149 N.W. 2d 394 (1967 ).
4. THfi LANDOWNER HAS A RIGHT TO RELY UPON PREVIOUS
INDICATIONS FROM THE CITY OF APPROVAL FOR PLANS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
Where property has been purchased for use in conformance with existing zoning
ordinances, the purchaser ordinarily has a right to so use it. Alexander v. City of Minneapolis
125 N.W. 2d 583 (1963). The prior installation of sewer stub facilities for subdivision of this
property into six lots indicates the City's prior intentions with regard to development of this
property.. No changes have occurred in the general comprehensive plan for the area which would
indicate that division of the property into at least four lots would be disallowed. To allow
development of less than. the four lots requested would severely depress the market value of the
property and cause substantial financial loss to the owner which would amount to a taking by the
City. without reasonable compensation. Sanderson v. City of Willmar, 162 N.W. 2d 494 (1968).
SUMMARY
The Council's approval is sought for the proposed subdivision -and variances requested.
Dated: September 2, 1992 LAMBERT & BOEDER
By
Corrine D. Lynch (#6553f)
1000 Superior Blvd., #300
Wayzata, MN 55391
(612) 475 -3435
Attorney for CDS Partnership
4
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 291 1992
STAFF REPORT
5 -92 -1 Preliminary Plat Approval
Mark Dahlquist Addition
Lot 11, Auditors Subdivision
No. 325 CDS Partners
At their July 20, 1992, meeting the city council and the mayor
voted unanimously to refer the request for preliminary plat
approval for the Mark Dahlquist Addition back to the Planning
Commission based on new facts presented. The following highlights
new information presented to the council:
* Discussion regarding lot depth at the planning commission
meeting resulted in a request of the city attorney for
ordinance interpretation of the definition of lot depth.
A letter dated July 15, 1992, from the City Attorney
opined that ponds /water areas on a lot should not be
excluded in determining lot depth. If it is accepted
that lot depth includes ponding areas then no lot depth
variance would be required for any of the lots in the
proposed subdivision.
* The developers have revised the plat reducing the
openspace conservation easement variance requested. Lots
2,4, and 5 would provide a 75 foot setback from the
ponding areas instead of the required 100 feet, therefore
a 25 foot variance is requested for those lots. Lot 3
would provide a 100 foot easement from the "historical"
waters edge of the north pond and a 30 foot setback from
the existing north pond water boundary.
* The Developers have provided the location of the driveway
and building foot print on Lot 1.
Enclosed are the draft minutes of the July 20, 1992, city
council meeting and revised preliminary plat, letter dated July 15,
1992, from the city attorney and letter from a neighboring property
owner.
RTES
OF THS REGQIAR MEETING OF THS
® EDIU CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
JULY 20, 1992
ROTTreit_ Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, and Mayor
Richards.
BEQUEST FOR PRELffiAARY FIAT APPROVAL FOR MARY DAHLOUIST ADDITION [LOT 11.
AUDITOR'S SIISDIVISION PO. 3251 RE
PEBM SACK TO PLANNING COWIISSION Affidavits
of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file.
Presentation by Planner
Associate Planner Kris Aaker informed Council that the property proposed for
subdivision is located south of Interlachen Boulevard, west of Schaefer Road and
west of Ridge Road. The parcel is approximately 10.5 acres in area, of which
about four acres consist of two ponding areas. Currently, there is a new single
family home under construction in the southwesterly corner of the property. The
applicant has submitted a subdivision request that would create four additional
buildable lots to be accessed by the extension and improvement of the right -of-
way for Harold Woods Lane. The fifth lot (Lot 1) is served by a driveway off of
Schaefer Road.
An analysis of the 500 foot neighborhood as required by the subdivision ordinance
yields 60 lots. All lots within the proposed subdivision exceed the median lot
area of the neighborhood of 33,325 square feet, both on a net and gross basis,
and meet or exceed the median neighborhood lot width of 150 feet. Lots 1 and 2
meet or exceed lot depths requirements; however, Lots 3, 4, and 5 do not meet the
lot depth requirement when pond area is excluded. Discussion regarding lot depth
at the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1992, resulted in a request by the
applicant for ordinance interpretation by the City Attorney. A letter dated
July 15, 2992, from the City Attorney opined that ponds or water areas on a lot
should not be excluded in determining lot depth. If 'it is accepted by the
Council that lot depth includes ponding areas, no lot depth variances would be
required.
The subdivision ordinance requires the implementation of a 100 foot conservation
easement around all wetlands. The proponents believe that the combination of the
required 100 foot easement, right -of -way width and front street setback creates
unreasonable restraints and undue hardship. In regard to proposed house
placement, the proponents are requesting a variance to reduce the conservation
easement to 50 feet.
Information provided by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) indicated that
the south pond is under DNR jurisdiction; however, the north pond is not. Staff
telephone conversation with Ceil Strauss, Edina area hydrologist with the DNR,
revealed that the DNR would suggest no less than a 50 foot setback from the south
pond and minimum 30 -35 foot setback from the north pond. However, Ms. Strauss
acknowledged.that the local government authority can be more restrictive than the
state standards. Ms. Strauss also indicated that the flood elevations of the
ponds are 940.7 feet. The applicant has indicated that all basement elevations
of the proposed homes will be at an elevation of 942 feet. Regarding the north
pond, there are two shorelines illustrated on the site plan. The developer
contends that the north pond shoreline was altered sometime after 1940 as the
result of a pumping system installed by the Schaefers. The proposed subdivision
has been designed using the original shoreline of the north pond. The applicant
asks that the developer acknowledge the original north pond shoreline for setback
purposes. Staff has found no evidence in City files that would confirm or
dispute the configuration of the south shoreline of the north pond.
Upon review and consideration of the five lot subdivision request, the Planning
Commission voted 7 to 1 for denial. Comments made by the Commissioners indicated
that the proponents' request for variance was greater than would be acceptable to
the Commission.
Presentation by Proponent
Hark Dahlquist, 5012 Schaefer Road, said he and his wife have lived in the area
for 32 years and purchased the subject 10.5 acres 18 years ago. Because of their
personal interest in the land, he has formed a partnership for its development,
e.g. Mr. and Mrs. Dahlquist, Ron Clark Construction, Inc., and David and Patty
Schall who are building the house on the southwest corner of the property.
Shortly before the Dahlquists acquired the property, a sanitary sewer line was
constructed to serve the homes on the east side of Ridge Road. Because the sewer
line bisects the property, it imposes constraints on the layout of lots in the
proposed subdivision.
-Hr. Dahlquist noted that some of the neighbors and Planning Commission members
were concerned because the Schall house is being constructed before subdivision.
approval. This was done for several reasons: 1) There is no connection between
the Schall's lot (Lot 1) and the proposed four lots to the north; Lot 1 has its
own driveway off of Schaefer Road and its own utilities except for sanitary
sewer. 2) The Schalls wished to move in prior to Christmas. 3) There was a need
for moneys to pay real estate taxes. 4) The new house met ordinance requirements
because it is on a legal buildable lot.
:tike Gair stated he was a land planner representing the development partnership.
He presented graphics illustrating the proposed subdivision and pointed out that
the proposed lots most and exceed ordinance requirements as to lot area, lot
width and lot depth. Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be served by a cul -de -sac off
Harold Woods Lane. There is an existing sanitary sewer line running east -west
through the property and City watermain was also installed to accommodate future
home sites. The distance between the two ponds is approximately 360 feet.
Hr. Gair pointed out the historic south shoreline of the north pond, noting that
presently there is a finger of wetland that extends down into the property along
that alignment. When the proposed subdivision was considered by the Planning .
Commission, the staff background report indicated that lot depth variances would
be required for Lots 3, 4 and 5. Following receipt of the opinion of the City
Attorney, lot depth does not appear to be an, issue, nor was it in the developers
thinking when the lots were laid out.
Hr. Gair stated that there still remains the request for a 50 foot variance from
the 100 foot conservation easement requirement. The purpose behind that request
is that, although the properties are large in size,, the consideration of the 50
foot right -of -way and the 30 foot front street setback in tandem with the 100
foot conservation easement for both ponds leaves areas available for building
pads of depths less than what would appear appropriate to the neighborhood_
character and symmetry, market, and homeowners' desires. However, since
reviewing the proposal with the Planning Commission they have taken a second look
and have an alternate to propose to the Council. The house depth would probably
be 55 feet. with 15 feet for a deck or patio, giving a building depth of 75 feet.
Considering the required front street setback of. 30 feet and a potential building
depth of 75 feet, the most southern Lots 2 and 5 would require only a 25 foot
conservation easement variance. Accordingly, the setback would be 75 feet from
the ordinary high water elevation. On the northeasterly Lot 4 the same 25 foot
variance is requested. However, in the northwest corner it becomes more
complicated for Lot 3 because of the alteration through time of the historic
shoreline. The request would be that no structure would be closer than 30 feet
from the more recent developed finger of wetland or, in effect, no closer than
100 feet from the historic shoreline.
Mr. Gair concluded by noting that the 100 year flood elevation is at 940 feet and
that they are proposing no buildings or grading that would encroach on the 100
year floodplain. As proposed, the homes would be constructed so that the lowest
opening would be at an elevation of 942 feet to protect the properties from any
damage as a result of surface water that would collect in the ponds.
Pubic Comment
Margie Sampsell, speaking for her mother Evelyn Young at 5016 Schaefer Road,
noted that water is piped down Schaefer Road into the south pond. As a result
the water level in the pond is very high so that approximately 10 -15 feet of her
mother's-yard is flooded.
Ted Pier, 5021 Ridge Road, said the neighborhood does have concerns about the
proposed subdivision: 1) 100 foot setback from the conservation easement - no
hardship has been demonstrated for a variance from this requirement, 2) The
creation of the "historical" south shoreline of the north pond - an aerial photo
taken during the drought year of 1979 shows the wetland finger which has existed
for a long time. If aerial photos for the past 50 years were reviewed the
conclusion would be that there is a small number of properties that could be
developed. As proposed, the houses would cover 1008 of the available land above
the ponds. On behalf of the neighborhood,'he asked the Council to deny the
subdivision for the reason that it fails to comply with the ordinances of the
City which should be enforced.
Leonard Lindborg, 5101 Ridge Road, commented that lot sizes have not been
presented fairly as they are less when you exclude the pond areas. He reiterated
the concern of the neighbors about the variances and the actual buildable portion
of the lots.
In response to comments about the shoreline of the north pond, Mr. Dahlquist
explained that when the Schaefers owned the property they were mainly concerned
about keeping water in the south pond which was adjacent to their home. They did
install an elaborate pumping system to the north pond and dredged out the
"finger" to accommodate the system. Mr. Dahlquist said that they were justified
in measuring the conservation easement from the natural shoreline. Mr. Gair
clarified that the only variance being sought is from the 100 foot conservation
easement affecting the four northern lots, e.g. 25 foot variance for Lots 2, 4
and 5 and a 30 foot variance for Lot 3 which would place the building no closer
than 100 feet to the historic boundary floodplain. Proposed lot sizes remain the
same as were presented to the Planning Commission and the net lot area of all the
lots exceeds the neighborhood median of 33,325 square feet.
Mike Dunn, 5117 Schaefer Road, noted that he is living in the Schaefer home, and
commented that the driveway to the Schall home under construction comes very
close to the edge of the south pond.
Patrick Manthy, 6413 Interlachen Boulevard, said that about a year ago he applied
for a 10 foot variance from the required front street setback which was denied by
the Planning Commission for the reason that no hardship was demonstrated. No
hardship has been identified for the proposed subdivision and following some two
and a half hours of testimony before the Planning Commission the request was
denied by a 7 -1 vote. Unless new evidence is presented, Mr. Manthy said the same
finding should be made by the Council.
Dee Dahlquist, 5012 Schaefer Road, interjected that there has been some
misunderstanding about the requested variance. They are asking for a
conservation easement of 75 feet from the pond instead of 100 feet for three lots
and 100 feet from the natural boundary of the north pond. The "finger" has been
filling in gradually with silt and eventually will be filled in by nature. She
then read a letter dated July 15, 1992, from Howard Weiner, 5224 Schaefer Road,
in support of the proposed subdivision.
David Schall offered the following comments: 1) The issue of the wetland finger.
should be based on what was created by nature versus what was created by man.
2) The proposed houses would be built above the DNR flood elevation of 940.7.
3) The proposed lots meet the neighborhood median and the houses proposed to be
built would cover less than 88 of the available land, excluding the ponds.. -
4) Two exceptionally large houses in the neighborhood probably do not relate to
the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. 5) The City recently granted a
50 foot conservation easement variance for the Wooddale Lakes subdivision.
6) The DNR has said that a 35 foot setback from the north pond and a 50 foot
setback from the south pond would not harm the ecology, damage the land or risk
flood damage. 7) The hardship for the property is financial - one lot versus
five lots that are buildable.
Member Paulus interjected that her understanding was that a variance could not be
granted based on financial hardship. Attorney Gilligan answered that was
correct.
Peggy Carlisle, 5013 Ridge Road, commented that there is a great amount of runoff
that drains into the ponds. During the 100 year rainstorm in 1987 water had to
be 'pumped from the ponds. Because. there have been subsequent heavy rainfalls
this should be taken into consideration.
Edward Glickman, 5217 Schaefer Road, told the Council that the small pond in his
backyard gets runoff from Fox Meadow Lane and has flooded his yard three times
this year. Further, he believed a variance was granted for that subdivision.
Had he attended that hearing he would have objected to granting a variance.
Every dumpster of dirt brought in to a building site represents water in someone
else's backyard which should be taken into account.
Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction, Inc., addressed the hardship issue as not
being financial but rather a site planning and land, development hardship. He
explained that the existing sewer, line dictates the road placement. When you
calculate the 50 foot road width and the 30 foot front setback, even though you
meet all the ordinance requirements, you simply do not have a building pad that
is appropriate for the homes that most people would want. Although large in
area, it is difficult piece of land because it is restricted on the north -south
dimensions. Decreasing the number of lots does not help the front to back
tightness because the road has to stay in the same location. Mr. Clark concluded
by noting that the Planning Commission based their decision on a different set of
circumstances, e.g. they were being asked to approve two variances which has now
been modified by eliminating the lot depth variance and reducing the conservation
easement variance to 25 feet.
Council Comment /Action
Member Paulus asked if the 100 foot conservation easement was to protect the
homes or to also protect the waters. Planner Aaker responded that the
conservation easement is required to protect both the homes and the waters.
Member Paulus also asked if the existing sewer line could be considered a
hardship that would be sustained by the courts. Attorney Gilligan replied that
under the ordinance that would be a circumstance unique to the particular site.
Whether that would stand up in a court of law is difficult to say. Mayor
Richards asked who was assessed for the sewer line when it was put in.
Mr. Dahlquist said he believed that the property owners on Ridge Road.paid for
that sewer line.
Member Rice said he did not intend to take any action on the proposed subdivision
at -this meeting for the following reasons:
1) Because he takes the recommendations of the Planning Commission seriously he
would like to have them deal with the same set of facts that the Council deals
with. There has been a substantial change in the-set of facts that were
presented to the Planning Commission from what has been presented to the Council.
2) The opinion of the City Attorney regarding the determination of lot depth was
contrary to what the Planning Commission apparently considered for lot depth.
Member Rice raised the following questions in regard to the proposed subdivision,
noting that he did not expect answers at this time:
1) What do the regulatory agencies use to determine the outline of a water
body - what is a reasonable number of years to consider?
2) Would the Schall house under construction have needed any variances if it
were included?
3) Do the two exceptionally large homes fit character and symmetry of the
neighborhood?
4) What is the stated hardship to support a variance ?;
5) Can the existing sewer line be changed, and if so, what would be the cost?
Member Rice suggested that the Council refer the request for subdivision back to
the Planning Commission for their recommendation based on the new facts that have
been presented.
Member. Kelly said she concurred that the Planning Commission did not have the
same set of facts in making their recommendation.
Hember Bice then made a motion to refer the request for preliminary plat approval
for the Mark Dahlquist Addition (Lot 11. Auditor's Subdivision Bo. 325) back. to
the Flit—inn Commission for reconsideration based on the new facts presented.
Motion was seconded by Member Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards.
Iid�"RLAC.I -IENI Pi DOE I I
- T
is
r l ...
�II�iic'. • ,t•.C,
�W_
1
1
W
N
6
2
POND
J
r
r
I
I
I
� 1 I
I
r � \
3
/ I
U Oo �I
a so
�1
-,.-I -Ocroo- Q 1 I
o
+a ;
I 1
POND
.
LO S
1 � f
1 \e
11 1 71;
LOT 4 a _I /I
�� `` ➢ . ^`� � � � /LOT I
�. oe• GX16lrNG RF Sr0 F..1LE _
1 � 0
I / LOT 3 \I LOT 2
I
9TS , r ... ... •'.._ ___... 500
174 ^A 711, F SI Y,
I�.; r. ,yin: I .- .1.... '�.. _ .. I .. ...... ....... .. ...... I
pPPLILAN -�O WNER• +^ . ,••1•
LO - T
ULA1�Ou
' •dl •
a.o •e d•e �s, oer
n d •... •vun •.c. .. - i:.. r. r.�T
h5MR =
'z"',LO 1•G"r TU &L KAS&"E71T
SITE
LOCAT10W IYd.e
• .rr.l.r` r Ird. r ^le
NORTLI
T T - -- - �r
O Ts b no I00 F T
I w • -• •„ tta[eme. s.. ;i ao.d•.t«I.,.., I,rc. PRELIMINARY PLAT
^. � MARK DAI-IL UIST ADDITION PC.DS4ED ro4 IRA
'�•,��� a Q � GDS PARTNERS
'� /xa ___- d, "red^'" •"'�^ "' F_DrNA� MrNNE SOTp t).f
DRYELppmllqT
e•♦ S J(�I M4R Oa ,oar. •c.
e ow oco,L..rou -
e e••w.... +r
- w •••T
-- SM21 bOUTLI —
� 1 I
I
r � \
3
/ I
U Oo �I
a so
�1
-,.-I -Ocroo- Q 1 I
o
+a ;
I 1
POND
.
LO S
1 � f
1 \e
11 1 71;
LOT 4 a _I /I
�� `` ➢ . ^`� � � � /LOT I
�. oe• GX16lrNG RF Sr0 F..1LE _
1 � 0
I / LOT 3 \I LOT 2
I
9TS , r ... ... •'.._ ___... 500
174 ^A 711, F SI Y,
I�.; r. ,yin: I .- .1.... '�.. _ .. I .. ...... ....... .. ...... I
pPPLILAN -�O WNER• +^ . ,••1•
LO - T
ULA1�Ou
' •dl •
a.o •e d•e �s, oer
n d •... •vun •.c. .. - i:.. r. r.�T
h5MR =
'z"',LO 1•G"r TU &L KAS&"E71T
SITE
LOCAT10W IYd.e
• .rr.l.r` r Ird. r ^le
NORTLI
T T - -- - �r
O Ts b no I00 F T
I w • -• •„ tta[eme. s.. ;i ao.d•.t«I.,.., I,rc. PRELIMINARY PLAT
^. � MARK DAI-IL UIST ADDITION PC.DS4ED ro4 IRA
'�•,��� a Q � GDS PARTNERS
'� /xa ___- d, "red^'" •"'�^ "' F_DrNA� MrNNE SOTp t).f
.;4\R riC 1 RU MC-011Jl14 p
-' STATE OF
c��� °inn
, rg�
DEPARTMENT
METRO WATERS - 1200
PHONE N0772 -7910
July 29, 1992
Ms. Kris Aaker
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina', MN 55424
Jul Ly yL 1J ;4( NO.UUb r.U1
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
FILE NO.
RE: DEVELOPMENT OFF SCHAEFFER ROAD, WETLAND 27 -782W, CITY OF EDINA
Dear Ms. Aaker:
I have received numerous inquiries regarding setback issues for. the
proposed development off Schaeffer Road. The intent of this letter is
to summarize and expand on the information I have relayed to various
interested parties.
There are two wetlands in question on this property. The "south pond"
(wetland 27 -782W) is under DNR jurisdiction. The "north pond" is not.
There is no state standard for a minimum structure setback on smaller
wetlands /ponds such as the two in question here. However, the city has
the authority to require a setback, and the DNR- Division of Waters has
strongly encouraged cities to do so in the past. The appropriate
setback is a local decision. The DNR has not established
recommendations for minimum setbacks for the basins that are not subject
to the state shoreland management regulations. However, I offer the
following points to consider in the determination of appropriate
setbacks.
The state shoreland management standards apply to lakes, 10 acres or
larger in incorporated areas (25 acres or larger in unincorporated
areas). In severed regions, the minimum state standards for structure
setbacks are: 50 feet for general development lakes, 75 feet for
recreational development lakes, and 150 feet for natural environment
lakes. (The general development, recreational development and natural
environment classifications can be a little misleading. For example,
the public often fears we are encouraging water skiing and other active
recreational activities when they hear a lake is classified as
recreational development. I prefer to think of the different classes
either as high, medium and low density development classifications or as
"more developed," "somewhat developed," and "minimally developed"
classifications.)
The state does not have minimum structure setbacks for those basins that
were not large enough to be classified in the 1970'x. When asked about
suggested minimum setbacks, for smaller basins, I usually recommend that
cities consider a setback of at least 30 to 35 feet, mainly to allow
some level of flood protection and prevent filling in the wetland as a
result of grading for the structure. construction. I have seen many
examples of serious problems where these minimal setbacks are not meta
AN. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY _EMPLOYER
Ms. iris Aaker
July 29, 1992
Page 2
In determining an appropriate setback, the city should also take the
preservation of the basin's ecological values into consideration. In
order to maintain the integrity of- the basin's ecosystem, an undisturbed
buffer is required. A structure can meet a 35 foot setback, but if a
manicured lawn goes down to the edge of the basin there is little
protection of the basin's ecological and water quality values.
The state choreland management standards require that the 'shore impact
zone,, is maintained in a more natural, undisturbed state' ' The shore
impact zone is half the structure setback distance, or 25, 37 -1 /2, and
75 feet for basins classified, respective)
recreational development and natural environment general . Therefore,7ethemsize
of the preferred active yard area needs to be taken into consideration.
Even if the .wetland is not filled or destroyed when the structure is
constructed, the wetland /basin is often severely impacted by landowners
who feel they need a larger yard and extend the area of disturbance to,
or into, the basin.
One last important .consideration is consistency within the city. As we
-have discussed in the past, the DNR supports the city's efforts to
require structure setbacks in
of structure setbacks the new developments. However, the lack
for the
or redevelo
developed areas continues to be a concern. pment in previously
appropriate setbacks. for new developments,Atheacity should onsideroa
commitment to a timeline for addressing setbacks in the developed areas.
I have also received questions regarding to how to measure the setback,
based on historical or existing conditions. The state standards specify
that the setback is measured from the ordinary
elevation. We measure from the existing pHW, high water (tio
about Whether the setback should be measured there
from was difffeerent,�
historical shoreline, I would take two dates into consideration: the
date the city adopted the original structure setbacks and the date the
DNR wetland inventory was finalized in Hennepin Count
While a unique history for the shoreline would not have eM n 22
ffect4on
where we would measure the setback distance from, it would certainly be
a valid consideration for a variance request.
Please contact me at 772 -7910 should you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Ceil Strauss
Area Hydrologist
cc: Wetland 27 -782W Tile
Edward W. Glickman
5217 Schaefer Road
Edina. MN 55436
612 - 935 - 0625
July 23, 1992
The Community Development
& Planning Commission
c/o Craig Larsen
Edina City Offices
4801 50th Street West
Edina, MN 55424
Re: Dahlquist Subdivision
Dear Planning Commission:
I write this letter as a resident of Edina concerned about preserving the value of
my home and the quality of our wetlands who is opposed to granting a variance to
allow the Proposed Dahquist Addition. While I have had the benefit of sitting in on both
the Planning Commission, the City Council hearings and the patient, capable help of
your Planning Commission staff, you may be aware of certain information which has
not come to my attention. Therefore, if I reiterate anything which you already know it is
only out of ignorance and not arrogance.
I am opposed to granting a variance of the city's water conservation easement
requirements on the proposed Dahlquist subdivision for the following reasons.
The developers have not shown the requisite need for the variance which they
seek.
Edina has an ordinance (Section 810.05 subd.. 1) which explains the
necessary conditions under which a variance may be granted. It tells us that variances
will only be granted " upon a finding that an unusual hardship exists as to the land.....
and specifically that:
A. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience;
B. The hardship is due to the particular physical ... condition of the land:
C. The condition ... upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to
the property ... and not generally applicable to other property;
D. The hardship is caused by this Section and not the applicants:
E. The variance will result in an improved plat ..: and
F. The variance will not alter the essential character of the land within the plat ...
or in the neighborhood of the land." You will note that the section goes on to confirm
that each of these requirements is in the conjunctive and not the disjunctive. I believe
on the basis of the law and facts stated below that the proposal fails on each and every
subsection. However: if you find that it fails on even one subsection you must deny the
request for a variance.
Minnesota State Law (Minn. Stat. Annot. Section 394.27 Subd.. 7) which is the
enabling legislation for all municipal zoning ordinances not only concurs; but: in my
opinion, is even more restrictive when it states " ... Variances shall only be permitted
when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control
in cases when there are practical difficulties or particular hardship ... and when the
terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Subdivision 7
goes on to specifically define "hardship ". Hardship according to this law occurs when
the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the
conditions allowed: the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner; and the variance. if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the locality. Again. it is important to note that these sections are
in the conjunctive and not the disjunctive sense. Perhaps, most importantly this section
specifically states that "Economic considerations alone will not constitute a hardship if
a reasonable use for the property exists ... "
Legal authorities (Law of Real Property- Zoning, Section 872.2) concur and
affirm this high standard for granting variances. The author of this treatise states "An
essential element of the "unnecessary hardship" concept requires that the hardship be
"unneccesary ", i.e.. that the preservation of the spirit and intent of the zoning
ordinance does not require the denial of the variance request. Furthermore, the
"hardship sufficient to require the grant of a variance must be substantial and serious.
This degree is reached when the application of the ordinance to a parcel of land
reduces its value to the level of a confiscation."
Minnesota case law ( Hedlund v City of J&pkWOOd 366 N.W..2d 624 ( Minn.
App.. 1985)) also agrees basically restating everything mentioned above and adding
two interesting points worthy of mention. First. because a variance allows property to
be used in a manner forbidden by zoning ordinances, an applicant for a variance has
a heavy burden to show that grant is appropriate. linger v Q& o1 &=P711&_ 295
N.W..2d 609. 612 (Minn. 1980). Also particularly important from your point of view, this
case clearly states that a municipal decision - making body has broad discretionary
power to deny an application for a variance. VanlLandschoot . 336 N.W..2d at 57.
The appropriateness of the developers basis for requesting a variance is
challenging. This is difficult because they have been less than specific in their
statements and in my opinion, no where near fulfilling their heavy burden burden of
proof. At the City Council meeting on July 20.1992. Mr. Schall stated the variance was
needed for "financial " reasons. Later, in that same meeting, Mr. Dahlquist stated that
he had a problem with the position of the sanitary sewer on the subject property. At
the Planning Commission meeting on May 27. 1992, according to the minutes
(Recorded Minutes, pg. 7), Mr. Clark said of working within the existing conservation
easements "You could construct four houses but they would be forced on the site and
would not in his opinion be as ,appealing as the houses positioned on site as
proposed.' We have seen from the material cited above that maximization of the
economic benefit to developers does not constitute hardship. In addition, I doubt a
developers aesthetic judgment qualifies as a hardship which is serious and
substantial. Mr. Dahlquist alluded to a sewer problem. What he did not say was that
the sewer could be, moved, houses can be put near sewers. and even some house sit
on top of sewers. Allow me to point out a bit of irony, Mr. Dahlquist is apparently
planning to use the sewer requested and paid for by the residents of Ridge Road for
the free benefit of his own development over the strong objection to this development
by the very same people who bought and paid for "his" sewer.
The developers are experienced and familiar with the risks of zoning
regulations. Mr. Clark is a sophisticated real estate developer and skilled home builder
with a history of operating within the city of Edina. Mr. Dahlquist is also a sophisticated
and very sucessfull businessman and a 35+ year resident of the city of Edina. I have
little knowledge of Mr. Schall. however, I do know that he is a partner in the
development and an owner of the "fifth" lot ("gran dfath ered" in to allow five lots None
of these people, can complain that they are "surprised" by .the applicable ordinances.
All of them knew very well of their existence before they formed their partnership and
sought the variance to allow the development. In fact, I would submit that they planned
their actions (the Schall home) to maximize their leverage on the city. As such, they
have brought the "hardship" upon themselves. it does not flow from the ordinance or a
peculiarity with the land and thereby fails the conditions for granting a variance. These
facts are strikingly similar to the Hedlund case.
Allowing the proposed development will harm the essential character of the
neighborhood.
The question was raised of how the lot size of Schaefer Road alone would
compare to the Dahlquist Addition lot size,at meetings of the Planning Commission
on May 27.1992, by Commissioner McClelland and the City Council on July 20, 1992
by Mayor xxx . I have made these computations. They are 84,213 S.F.. for Schaefer
Road compared to 39.694 S.F.. for the Dahlquist addition (with the Schall " fifth " lot
excluded). In other words, the average lot on Schaefer Road is almost 2 114 times
larger than the proposed lots in the Dahlquist addition. There are-similar unfavorable
comparisons for Interlachen where the average lot is 121% larger and Ridge Road.
where the average lot is 115% larger. I did not, have access to city records providing
square footage of houses on Schaefer Road to compare them to the Dahquist addition
of 4.500 S.F..- but. I would venture a guess that one could come up with a similar
unfavorable comparison in the realm of over double.. -This data could be easily found.
Allowing the proposed development will violate the written objectives and
policies of the City of Edina for land use.
Under the Minnesota law (Section 394, cited above), a Comprehensive Plan is
required ( Minnesota Statutes Annot. Section 394.22). Edina has such a plan which is
incorporated by reference into the Land Use & Planning ordinances of Edina (Section
810.02). The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edina specifically states as a matter
public policy objective, "The protection and management of lakes, ponds and wet
lands for storm water retention areas, wildlife areas, and amenity areas ... " Amongst
the specific stated policies to attain this objective we find a requirement for the "...
dedication of or the grant of a scenic easement over Type 3, 4, and 5 wetlands in
conjunction with the subdivision or dedication of property." Abridging the conservation
easement by definition violates spirit, purpose and intent of the cities own public
policy. As such, no variance can be allowed.
I have great respect for property rights. There are several homes on the block
which I feel are impractical; but. those owners did not come to the city to ask for relief
from the rules and regulations which govern us all. As such they are able to build
whatever they want . However, when developers ask to change the rules they give me
and my neighbors not only standing to complain but a forum within which to do it. I see
the proposal under question as an ill conceived scheme which they admit exists only
to maximize their economic benefit. They have attempted to bootstrap themselves via
the Schall home into five lots where there should be at most three. This plan shows a
callous disregard for the character of this unique neighborhood by proposing to build
too many homes with grossly inconsistent lot' and building size. In addition, their
request makes a sham out of the cities written public policy to protect our important
water rights and environment.
Very truly yours.
Edward W. Glickman
Schaefer Rd
Street #
Lot Width
Lot Depth
Lot Area
5004
165.4
187
30,929.8
5008
150
220
33,000
5012
220
150
33,000
5016
225
230
51,750
5011
261
75
19,575
5017
261
100
26,100
5021
260
105
27,300
5013
290
199
57,710
5013
199
545
108,455
5117
200.4
542
108,616.8
5125
668
163
108,884
5201
163
660
107,580
5209
163
320
52,160
5217
425
164
69,700
5200
668
200
133,600
5224
665
570
379,050
1 .347.41 0.6
84,213.1625
City of Edina
Land Use & Platting
be published as to lot divisions made pursuant to this Subd. 2 (but shall be
published for subdivision made pursuant to Subd. 1 of this Subsection), (ii) no sign
need be erected, and (iii) only a survey prepared and signed by a Minnesota
registered land surveyor showing the proposed lot division need be filed with the
Planner together with the required fee and such additional information that, in the
opinion of the Planner, is necessary for evaluation of the lot division and
determination that it is consistent with the requirements of this Section.
810.OS Variances.
Subd. 1 Grant by Council. In connection with the preliminary or final approval
of a plat or subdivision the Council may grant variances from the provisions ,of this
Section. The Council shall grant variances only upon finding that an unusual
hardship exists as to the land within the plat or subdivision, and specifically that:
A. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience;
B. The hardship is due to the particular physical surroundings, shape or
topographical condition of the land;
C. The condition or conditions upon which the request for a variance is
based are unique to the property being platted or subdivided and not
generally applicable to other property;
D. The hardship is caused by this Section and not by the applicants;
E. The variance will result in an improved plat or subdivision; and
F. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the land
within the plat or subdivision or in the neighborhood of the land.
A grant of a variance by the Council shall be deemed to include a favorable fording
on each of the variance grounds set out above even if not specifically set out in the
approval resolution or the minutes of the Council meeting.
Subd. 2 Conditions. In granting a variance the Council may impose conditions
to ensure compliance with the purposes and objectives of this Section and other
applicable provisions of this.Code and to protect adjacent properties. The conditions
may be made a part of any Development Contract required by Subsection 810.12.
810.06 Denial of Permits. A building permit or other permit for the development or
improvement of any parcel, tract, or lot may be denied for any of the reasons set out below
in this Subsection:
Subd. 1 Violations of M.S. 462. If the parcel, tract or lot is conveyed in
810-4
§ 394.27 PLANNING
of adjustment shall take into consideration the town board's recommendation when the
board of adjustment's decision directly affects land within the town.
Subd. 6. An appeal from any order, requirement, decision, or determination of any
administrative official shall be taken in such time as shall be prescribed by the ordinance
creating the board of adjustment by filing with the board of adjustment a notice of appeal
specifying the grounds thereof. The board of adjustment shall fix a reasonable time for
the hearing of the appeal and give due notice thereof to the appellant and the officer from
whom the appeal is taken and to the public and decide the same within a reasonable time
which shall be defined in the ordinance establishing the board of adjustment. An appeal
stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the board of
adjustment to whom the appeal is taken certifies that by reason of the facts stated in the
1 certificate a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property. The board of adjustment
may reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement. decision,
or determination appealed from and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer
from whom the appeal was taken and may direct the issuance of a permit. The reasons
a for the board's decision shall be stated in writing.
Subd. 7. The board of adjustment shall have the exclusive power to order the issuance
of variances from the terms of any official control including restrictions placed on
nonconformities. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmonv with the
general purposes and intent of the official control in cases when there are practical
difficulties or particular hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of any
official control, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive
' plan. "Hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the
property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions
allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not
constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the
ordinance. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in
section 116J.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the official controls. No variance
may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which
the subject property is located. The board of adjustment may impose conditions in the
granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties and the
public interest. The board of adjustment may consider the inability to use solar energy
systems a "hardship" in the granting of variances.
Subd. 8. A certified copy of any order issued by the board of adjustment acting upon
an appeal from an order, requirement, decision or determination by an administrative
official, or a request for a variance, shall be filed with the county recorder or registrar of
titles for record. The order issued by the board of adjustment shall include the legal
description of the property involved. The board by ordinance shall designate the county
official or employee responsible for meeting the requirements of this subdivision.
Subd. 9. All decisions by the board of adjustment in granting variances or in hearing
appeals from any administrative order, requirement, decision or determination shall be
final except that any aggrieved person or persons, or any department, board or commis-
sion of the jurisdiction or of the state shall have the right to appeal within 30 days, after
receipt of notice of the decision, to the district court in the county in which the land is
located on questions of law and fact.
Amended by Laws 1974, c. 571, §§ 23 to 29: Laws 1976, c. 181. § 2; Laws 1978, c. 786. § 13, eff.
April 6, 1978; Laws 1979, Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 40; Laws 1981, c. 356, § 248; Laws 1984, c. 392, § 1;
_ Laws 1986, c. 444.
1974 Amendment. Substituted "by ordi- 1978 Amendment. Added the last sentence to
nance" for the proviso at the end of subd. 1: subd. 7.
rewrote subds. 2, 5 and 6: and added subds. 7, 8 1979 Amendment Added the fifth sentenca
and 9. For former text see main volume. to subd. 7.
1976 Amendment Changed the title of reg- specific Laws 1979, ve dates but did include app contain a
ister of deeds to county recorder.
100
79C -511 ZONING ¶ 872.2[1]
clear that the proposed variance would not be contrary to the
public interest '
An essential _element of the "unnecessary hardship" concept
requires that the hardship be "unnecessary ", i.e., that preserva-
tion of the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance does not re-
quire the denial of the variance request.36 Furthermore_. the
"hardship" sufficient to require the grant of a variance must
be substantial and serious. This degree is reached where the ap-
plication of the ordinance to a parcel of land reduces its value
to the level of a confiscation.'D7
The applicant for a variance must accordingly show that the
affected property cannot yield a reasonable return if used for
a permitted purpose. Failure to obtain a reasonable return may
be evidenced by proof that the owner has been deprived of all
beneficial use of his property. that the ordinance restricts land
to nonproductive uses. or that the uses for which the land was
originally zoned are no longer feasible because of the enormous
Is Lipari v. Zoning Board of Easton.
516 A2d 110 (Pa Cmwlth Ct 1986).
J6 See:
Alabama: W. Johivon v. Board of
Adjustment of Huntsville. 496 Sold
86 ( Ala App 1986): Ez parte Moore v.
Board of Adjustment of Mobile. 495
So2d 1112 (1986): Mareno v. Board
of .adjustment of Mobile. 495 Sold
1109 (Ala App 1985).
.Massachusetts: Benjamin v. Bd. of
App.. 154 NE2d 913 (Mass 1959).
.11innesotta: Hedlund v. City of Ma-
plewood. :366 \TP2d 624 ( Minn App
1985).
-Vero York: Victory Blvd. Asso-
ciates v. City of New York. 58 NY2d
900. 460 NYS2d 501. 447 NE2d 49
(198:3).
C(.: Packer v. Hornsby, 221 Va 117.
267 SE2d 140 (1980) (pursuant to
state enabling_ act. variance should be
granted for unnecessary hardship
solely if the application of zoning re-
strictions would appear to be consti-
tutionally impermissible).
See also Plumb v. Bd. of Zonine
App.. 141 Conn 595. 108 Aid 899
(1954).
37 See:
Federal: Application' of Deveux
Foundation. Inc.. 351 Pa 478.41.1 ^_d
44. app dism'd 326 US 686 (1945).
Connecticut: Culinary Institute of
America v. Bd. of Zoning App.. 143
Conn 257. 121 A2d 6:37 (1956).
Pennsylvania: Appeal of deBolton.
81 Pa Cmwlth 513. 474 A2d 706
(1984).
1Re1.47 -11/88 Pub-550)
II 872.2[1] Lw OF REAL PROPERTY 79C-512
expense associated with development for such purposes.-18 A
variance is not warranted. however. merely because an owner
seek. to use his land in a more profitable manner. 39
38 See:
Colorado: Kinder Care Learning
Centers v. Board of Adjustment. 7 21
P^_d 162 (Colo App 1986) (preschool's
operation at a modest profit insuffi-
cient to constitute exceptional and ex-
traordinary circumstance to warrant
a variance).
Connecticut: Goldrever v. Bd. of
Zoning App.. 144 Conn 641. 136 A2d
789 (1957)(expenses associated with
development make permitted uses
prohibitive).
.Maine: Driscoli v. Gheewalla. 441
A2d 1023 (1982).
New Jersey. Schiff v. Twp. of Maple
Shade. 149 NJ Super 448.374 A2d 43
(1977)(a variance may be granted
where the --ubject property is all but
unsuitable for permanent buildings
of any kind. no other use of the land
is economically feasible and the pro-
posed use is the one for which the land
is peculiarly fitted).
,Vew York. Matter of Doug_laston
Civic Assn. Inc. v. Klein. 51 NY2d
963. 435 NYS2d 705. 416 V E2d 1041
(1980) (variance for construction of
tennis courts on swampy land. located
in a residential district. upheld on ev-
idence that the land could not yield a
reasonable return as zoned). Otto V.
Steinhilber. 282 NY 71. 24 NE2d 851
(1939) (property unable to yield a
reasonable return): Foster v. Savior.
85 AD2d 876. 447 NYS2d 75 (4th
Dep't 1981).
Oregon: Rutherford v. _lrmstrone.
572 P^d 13:11 (Ore App 1977)(a vari-
ance may be granted for land zoned
for agricultural purposes only where
it is generally unsuitable for the pro-
duction of farm crops or livestock
considering the location. size. terrain.
soil conditions. drainage. flooding
and vegetation. It is irrelevant that
the property cannot be farmed as an
economically self -- sufficient unit if
it is otherwise able to produce farm
crops and livestock).
Pennsylvania: foster Advertising
Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adj.. 408 Pa 248.
182 A2d 521 (1962)(permitted uses
were nonproductive); Moses v. Zon-
ing Hearing Bd.. 87 Pa Cmwith 443.
487 A2d 818 (1985); Malakoff v. Bd.
of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh.
72 Pa Cmwith 1109. 456 A2d 1110
(1983); Lnmordino v. Zoning Hear-
ing Bd.. Etc.. 441 A2d 818 (Pa Cm-
with 1982).
Rhode Island: Patalano v. Zonine
Bd. of Rev.. 112 RI 533. 312 A2d 580
(1973)(owner deprived of all benefi-
cial use of property).
Added advantage and monetary
benefit are not sufficient grounds.
standing alone. to warrant the grant-
ing of a variance. Banks v. City of
Bethany. 541 P2d 178 (Okla 1975).
z9 See Kelly v. Zoning Hearing Bd.
of Moreland. 87 Pa Cmwlth 534. 487
A2d 1043 (1985): Levin v. Zoning
Hearing Bd.. 11 Pa Cmwith 452. 314
A2d 579 (1974).
See also:
Delaware: Board of Adj. of New
Castle County v. Henderson Union
Assn. 374 A2d :3 ( Del 1977).
(Re1.47 -11 /S8 Pub.550)
s
r
79C -515
ZONING
1 872.2[1]
neighborhood. and the cumulative effect of the deteriorating
area and confiscatory nature of the zoning restrictions is to ex-
acerbate the owner's hardship;" (3) where the property is un-
able to produce any income because its structures are obsolete
or in a dilapidated condition:49 and (4) where the property is lo-
cated near significantly conflicting uses 50
An applicant for a variance must also show that fulfillment
of his request will not impair use of adjacent property,. adverse-
Iv affect the character of the neighborhood or endanger the na-
ture and purposes of the local zoning _plan: ' Some of the ways
in which a variant use might threaten the welfare of a communi-
ty are: disruption of the residential character of a neighborhood
But see Di Santo v. Zoning Bd. of
Adj.. 410 Pa :331. 189 A2d 135
(1963)(if variances are granted to
borderline residential properties ad-
joining commercial uses. it will even-
tually lead to the encroachment upon
and complete destruction of the resi-
dential character of other properties
in the area).
4" See:
Indiana: Nelson v. Bd. of Zonin¢
App.. 240 Ind 212. 162 NE2d 449
(1959).
Rhode Island. School Comm. of
Pawtucket v. Zoning Bd. of Rev.. 86
RI 131. 133 A2d 734 (1957)(ninety
three percent of property in residen-
tial zone was used for commercial
purposes).
But see Fasani v. Rappaport. :30
AD2d 588.290 NYS2d 279 (3d DepI
1968).
49 See Messinger v. Zoning Bd. of
Rev.. 81 RI 159. 99 A2d 865
(1953)(ov.-ner of tract containing an-
tiquated house unable to use or sell
land for residential purposes due to
size and condition of structure.
SO See Filanow-ki v. Zoning Bd. of
Adj.. 439 Pa :360.266 A2d 670 (1970).
But see Appeal of Lally. 404 Pa
174. 171 A2d 161 (1961)( unique cir-
cumstances not found where residen-
tial property situated near a number
of commercial uses).
51 See:
Federal. Sixth Camden Corp. v.
Evesham. 420 F Supp• 709 (D NJ
1976).
Alabama: W. Johnson v. Board of
Adjustment of the City of Huntsville.
496 So2d 36 (Ala App 1986).
Iowa: Greenawalt v. Board of Ad-
justment. :345 NW2d 5:37 (Iowa
1984).
Yew Jersey. Fobe Assoc. v. Mayor
and Council. Etc.. 74 NJ 519.379 A2d
:31 (1977).
iRel.47 -11/88 Pub.SM
624 Minn. 366 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 2d- SERIES
bag. The inmate's clothing is then r e
washed in the bag. The procedure pre- n
vents the confusion involved in labeling s
each inmates clothing and avoids theft.
9. The prison has experimented with
different ways of fastening the laundry
bags but each method provides its, own
dangers and risks. For example, prison
officials experimented with wire as a fas-
-tener for the bags. Inmates discovered
that the wire could be used to jam door
locks. This presented a serious risk to
the security of the entire prison.
Since the decision regarding the laundry
pins was discretionary, summary judgment
on this issue was proper.
Appellant's argument that equal protec-
tion prohibits governmental immunity for
unreasonable acts or omissions was con-
sidered and rejected in Bjorkquist tip. City
of Robbinsdale. 352 N.W.2d 817 (Minn.Ct.
App-1984).
[ 51 2. Appellant also argues that the
prison officials were negligent in supervis-
ing the recreation area.. Appellant alleges
in his affidavit that no prison personnel
were present in the lower recreation area
at the time of the fight. If this were true,
it could establish negligent supervision.
[ 61 The state says that the appellant's
affidavit fails to establish a genuine issue
of material fact that the downstairs gym
.area was not supervised according to plans.
It would be quite difficult for the appellant
to find witnesses to verify that there were
no guards in the downstairs gym. He and
the assailant were the only two downstairs
during the fight. There is no document
from any prison official indicating which
guard was assigned downstairs and where.
he was at the time of the fight. Given the
impossibility of obtaining other witnesses,
appellant's signed affidavit is more than a
" conclusory' statement: it establishes a
genuine issue of material fact. Therefore,
it was error to grant summary judgment
on that issue.
verse summary judgment on the issue of
eghgent supervision, and remand that is-
ue for trial.
0-,
p
DECISION
We affirm summary judgment regarding
the decision to use the laundry pins. We
Gordon HEDLUND. Appellant.
v.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD. et.al..
Respondents.
No. CO-84 -1917.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
April 23. 1985.
On appeal from the County Court.
Ramsey County, Harold W. Schultz. J., af-
firming city's denial of variances to permit
construction of single - family residence, the
Court of Appeals. Huspeni. J., held that
denial was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or
capricious.
Affirmed.
1. Zoning and Planning 0-605
When reviewing decision of local gov-
erning body in zoning matter, Court of
Appeals considers that decision indepen-
dent of findings and conclusions of district
court.
2. Zoning and Planning 4536
Since variance allows property to be
used in manner forbidd
qp_by zonin nrcii•
nances, variance appiicant has heavy —h=
den to to show that grant is appropriate.
3. Zoning and Planning x503
Denial of variances to permit construc-
tion of single- family residence on 40 -foot
wide by 120 -foot deep lot in community
which required minimum lot width of 60
feet and total area of 10,000 square feet
was not improper, where applicant was ex-
ssue of
-.hat is-
IF
Court.
J., af-
permit
ce, the
A that
.ble, or
al gov-
>urt of
idepen-
district
to be
lg ordi-
y bur -
•opriate.
nstruc-
40 -foot
imunity
iof60
:re feet
was ex-
I
!I
I
i
I
i
i
• 't
bpi
sa
s
3i.
ss
�i
i
HEDLUND v. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Cite as 366 N.W.M 624 (minn.App. 1985)
perienced buyer who was familiar with risk
of zoning restrictions, development would
be inconsistent with intent of zoning code
and would result in dwelling out of charac-
ter with existing neighborhood develop-
ment. and strict enforcement would not
cause undue hardship unique to individual
lot. M.S.A. § 467.357, subd. 6(2).
4. Zoning and Planning a5
Minnesota legislature has delegated to
municipalities power to plan for use of land
within their boundaries by establishing zon-
ing and planning ordinances.
.5. Zoning and Planning x493
Municipalities may grant variances to
their zoning and planning ordinances if
strict enforcement would cause undue
hardship. M.S.A. §§ 462.351. 462.357.
subd. 6(2).
6. Zoning and Planning e-488
Municipal decision- making body has
broad discretionary power to deny applica-
tion for zoning variance.
7. Eminent Domain c=2{ 1.2)
City's refusal to grant variances to
permit construction of single - family resi-
dence on lot which did not meet minimum
size requirements was not governmental
taking of land, where owner, who was ex-
perienced real estate developer, did not
properly research applicable zoning ordi-
nances before purchase. U.S.C.A. Const.
?,mend. 5.
Syllabus by the Court
The City of Maplewood had legally suf-
ficient reasons and a factual basis for deny-
ing appellant's request for variances.
Seldon H. Caswell. North St. Paul. for
appellant.
Patrick J. Kelly, St. Paul, for respon-
dents.
Considered and decided by POPOVICH.
C.J., and LANSING and HUSPENI. JJ..
with oral argument waived.
OPINION
HUSPENI. Judge.
L.C' ifry'•�i1'�._�
Minn. 625
Gordon Hedlund appeals from a trial
court judgment declaring that the City of
Maplewood's denial of an application for
zoning variances was not arbitrary or un-
reasonable, a deprivation of equal protec•
tion, or a deprivation of the use and enjoy-
ment of a lot without compensation. Hed-
lund contends that Maplewood's denial of
the variances constitutes an undue hard-
ship because a residence cannot be con-
structed on the lot without the variances.
He also contends the denial of the varianc-
es constitutes an unconstitutional govern-
ment taking of the land. We affirm.
FACTS
Gordon Hedlund, an experienced real es-
tate developer, acquired a 40' x 125' lot in
Maplewood from the state at an auction of
tax forfeited lands. The property was for-
feited to the state in 1969. Maplewood
authorized its sale in August of 1971.
Hedlund perfected his interest by a certifi-
cate of sale of forfeited lands in 1982 and
then discovered that he could not build a
dwelling on the land without three varianc-
es.
The 5,000 square foot lot is undeveloped.
It is located in an area which was originally
platted in 1887. The current zoning re-
quirements have been in effect since the
early 1960's. It is zoned R -1, single- fainily
residence, and is designated for low density
use by the comprehensive plan which was
adopted in 1973.
Hedlund inspected the lot and observed
the surrounding land uses before bidding.
There is a single dwelling located on a 125'
wide parcel north of Hedlund's lot. South
of his lot is a single dwelling on an 80' wide
lot. To the west, there are single dwellings
on 80' wide lots, and to the east there are
single dwellings on 100' -120' wide lots.
Hedlund has bought many parcels of tax
forfeited land. He does not always check
the zoning and comprehensive use plan be-
fore buying. He has "bought betting —
thinking I can sell it to a neighbor, I can
Minn. 625
Gordon Hedlund appeals from a trial
court judgment declaring that the City of
Maplewood's denial of an application for
zoning variances was not arbitrary or un-
reasonable, a deprivation of equal protec•
tion, or a deprivation of the use and enjoy-
ment of a lot without compensation. Hed-
lund contends that Maplewood's denial of
the variances constitutes an undue hard-
ship because a residence cannot be con-
structed on the lot without the variances.
He also contends the denial of the varianc-
es constitutes an unconstitutional govern-
ment taking of the land. We affirm.
FACTS
Gordon Hedlund, an experienced real es-
tate developer, acquired a 40' x 125' lot in
Maplewood from the state at an auction of
tax forfeited lands. The property was for-
feited to the state in 1969. Maplewood
authorized its sale in August of 1971.
Hedlund perfected his interest by a certifi-
cate of sale of forfeited lands in 1982 and
then discovered that he could not build a
dwelling on the land without three varianc-
es.
The 5,000 square foot lot is undeveloped.
It is located in an area which was originally
platted in 1887. The current zoning re-
quirements have been in effect since the
early 1960's. It is zoned R -1, single- fainily
residence, and is designated for low density
use by the comprehensive plan which was
adopted in 1973.
Hedlund inspected the lot and observed
the surrounding land uses before bidding.
There is a single dwelling located on a 125'
wide parcel north of Hedlund's lot. South
of his lot is a single dwelling on an 80' wide
lot. To the west, there are single dwellings
on 80' wide lots, and to the east there are
single dwellings on 100' -120' wide lots.
Hedlund has bought many parcels of tax
forfeited land. He does not always check
the zoning and comprehensive use plan be-
fore buying. He has "bought betting —
thinking I can sell it to a neighbor, I can
626 Minn. 366 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES
get the council to change their mind." He
generally has encountered little difficulty,
but has had to obtain variances for minor
problems. Several years prior to his pur-
chase of the Maplewood lot, he checked
with various cities about building on 40'
lots because he had , run into trouble with a
40' wide tax forfeited lot which he pur-
chased in Fridley. At that time, he talked
to someone in Maplewood, whose name he
cannot recall, and was informed 40' lots
were buildable.
After Hedlund purchased the 40 -foot lot,
his brother -in -law applied to the City of
Maplewood for the three variances which
would be needed to construct a single -fami-
lv residence on the lot. Sections 36-69 and
30 -8(f)1 of the city code require a lot to be
not less than 10.000 square feet in order to
build such a dwelling. Hedlund's lot is
5 *000 square feet. Sections 36-59 and 30-
8(0) require a lot to be 15' wide at the
building setback line. Hedlund's lot is 40'
wide at the setback line. Section 30 -8(F)1
requires a lot to have at least 60' of front-
age. Hedlund's lot has 40' of frontage.
:Maplewood denied similar area and width
variance requests made by others in 1973
and 1982. Since the adoption of the com-
prehensive plan in 1973, it has never grant-
ed multiple variances which would permit
the construction of a single - family resi-
dence on a 5,000 square foot lot.
The planning commission recommended
that the variances be denied because: (1)
development of the lot "would be inconsist-
ent with the intent of the zoning code re-
sulting in a dwelling out of character with
the existing neighborhood development ":
(2) an approval would be inconsistent with
the denial of similar requests: (3) neighbor-
hood density would further exceed the al-
lowable maximums; (4) strict enforcement
would not cause an undue hardship unique
to the individual lot in question; and (5)
any hardships would be self - imposed since
the code requirements have been in effect
since the 1960's. The city council accepted
this recommendation and denied the vari-
ances citing the same reasons given by the
planning commission.
Hedlund petitioned for a writ of manda-
mus to compel the city to issue the varianc-
es. The trial court found that the council's
reasons for denying variances were sup-
ported by the facts and dismissed Hed•
lund's petition.
ISSUE
Did the City of Maplewood act arbitrari-
ly, unreasonably, capriciously, or beyond
its legal powers in refusing to grant the
three variances requested by Hedlund?
ANALYSIS
[ 1-31 When reviewing a decision of a
local governing body in a zoning matter,
this court considers that decision indepen-
dent of the findings and conclusions of the
district court. `'orthwestern College v.
City of Arden Hills. 281 N.W.2d 865, 868
(Minn.1979). Inasmuch as a variance al-
lows a property to be used in a manner
forbidden by zoning ordinances...the appli-
cant for a variance has a heavy burden to__.__
show that the grant is appropriate -Lugex
r. City of Burnsville. __295 N.W.2d 609, 612_
(Minn.1980). Based upon an independent
determination of the record, this court con-
cludes that Hedlund has not met this bur-
den and that the City of Maplewood's deni-
al of the requested variances was reason-
able.
[4-61 The Minnesota legislature has
delegated to municipalities the power to
plan for. the use of the land within their
boundaries by establishing zoning and plan-
ning ordinances. VanLandschoot v. City
of Mendota Heights. 336 N.W.2d 503. 507
(Minn.1983); Minn.Stat. § 462.351 (1982).
Municipalities may grant variances to their
zoning and planning ordinances if strict
enforcement would cause undue hardship.
Id. at 507; Minn.Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2)
(1982). A municipal decision - making body-,
however. Fa-s-broad discretionary power to
ey an application for a variance. Van -
Landschoot, 336 N.W.2d at 57.
Hedlund claims that Maplewood is ob-
ligated to grant the three variances that he
requested because without them he cannot
s
a
8
m
3.
s:
t
'j-
•e
A
HEDLUND v. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
C1te as 366 N.W2d 624 1MInn.ADp• 19851
zoning regulations or examination of the
Minn. 627
build a single - family residence on the lot.
Essentially his argument is the variances
should be granted because of undue hard - 3
ship. S
Undue hardship means:
the property in question cannot be put to 0
aasonable use if used undet_condixions-- � i
Wowed by official controls, the plight.of t
the landowner is due to circumstances I
unique to his property not created by the
landowner, and the variance, if granted_ a
wt alter the essential charactgr- of t
the locality. Economic considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hard-
ship if reasonable use for the property
exists under the terms of the or
Ntinn.'tat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2) (1982).
Maplewood does not contest the fact that
without the variances the lot cannot be put
to a reasonable use. Rather, the Maple-
wood City Council found that Hedlund did
not meet the remainder of the criteria for
undue hardship as set forth in Minn.Stat.
§ 462.357 and denied the variances on that
basis. Three of the five reasons given by
the council for the denial are based on the
remaining criteria of Minn.Stat. § 462.357.
As such, the reasons are legally sufficient.
In this case, each of the reasons is sup-
ported by the facts.
One of the reasons given by Maplewood
for the denial is that any hardships would
be self - imposed since the code require-
ments have been in effect since the 1960'x.
Under the statute, the plight of the land-
owner must not be "created by the land-
owner." Minn.Stat. § 467.357, subd. 6(2).
A person who purchases land with
knowledge, actual or constructive, of the
zoning restrictions which are in effect at
the time of such purchase, is said to have
created for himself whatever hardship
such restrictions entail.
3 R. Anderson. American Law of Zoning,
Section 18.42 (1977). This self- created
hardship rule applies:
whether the applicant purchased the land
with actual or constructive knowledge
that the desired use was prohibited. and
whether the knowledge was available to
the applicant through a reading of the
premises.
R. Anderson. American Law of Zoning.
ection 18.43 (1977).
Hedlund visited the lot in question and
bserved that the single - family residences
mmediately surrounding the lot in ques-
ion were all built on lots which were at
east twice as wide as the lot he was consid-
ering purchasing. He did not read the
ill nopplicable ordinances even though he knew
hat certain cities such as Fridley and
vVhite Bear Lake do not permit building on
a 40' wide lot. Further, the mailing which
advised him of the auction stated that the
land to be auctioned was governed by local
zoning codes. Finally. Hedlund is an expe-
rienced buyer of tax forfeited land. He
acknowledges that if he does not check the
zoning ordinances and land use plan, he is
"betting." Under these circumstances, we
are compelled to conclude that Hedlund did.
in fact. create his own hardship.
Maplewood also denied the variances be-
cause development of the lot would be in-
consistent with the intent of the zoning
code and would result in a dwelling out of
character with existing neighborhood devel-
opment. Minn.Stat. § 467.357, subd. 6(2).
provides that the essential character of the
locality must not be altered if the variance
is granted. There is unrebutted testimony
that the intent of the low density limita-
tions and the large lot size requirement is
to preserve the open space character of this
particular area. Hedlund's lot is only half
the size of the lot required by the code for
the area. The variance he requested is not
minimal. Thus, the essential character of
open space would be altered if the variance
was allowed.
:Maplewood further denied the variances
because strict enforcement would not cause
an undue hardship unique to the individual
lot in question. Minn.Stat. § 467.357, subd.
6(2), requires that the undue hardship be
caused by circumstances unique to the
property. In this case. there are three
nearby 40' lots in addition to Hedlund's.
Maplewood denied similar area and width
it
l
628 Minn. 366 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. ':d SERIES
requests in 1973 and 1982. Thus Hed-
lund's circumstances are not unique to his
property.
In sum, three of the reasons given by
Maplewood for denying the variances are
legally sufficient and each is supported by
the facts. We need not consider the re-
maining two reasons to conclude that Ma-
plewood's action in denying the variances
was reasonable.
Hedlund claims this case is identical to
Currie v. Young, 285 Minn. 387, 173
N.W.2d 410 (1969), a case in which 'the
supreme court affirmed a writ of manda-
mus compelling Minneapolis to grant a set-
back variance which would allow the build-
ing of a dwelling on an undersized lot.
Currie is clearly distinguishable. The Min-
neapolis zoning ordinance in Currie specifi-
cally stated that a single - family dwelling
could be built. regardless of the size of the
lot, on a lot within the definition of a "lot
of record" pursuant to the ordinance, as
long as the other requirements of the ordi-
nance were met. The supreme court held
that "the ordinance itself, when the condi-
tions it described are complied with, re-
quires that the variances be granted."
There is no similar language in the Maple-
wood ordinance at issue compelling the
granting of a variance.
(7] Hedlund also claims that there has
been an unconstitutional taking of the land
parcel at issue because a residence cannot
be constructed on the land. This argument
is without merit.
For there to be an unconstitutional tak-
ing a landowner must demonstrate that
he has been deprived, through govern-
mental action or inaction, of all reason-
able uses of his land.
Czech v. City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535, 253
N.W.2d 272, 274 (1977) (citations omitted).
Hedlund is an experienced real estate
developer. He did not properly research
the applicable zoning ordinances before he
bought the land. His predicament is self -
imposed. This court cannot conclude that
such circumstances constitute a govern-
mental taking of the land.
DECISION
Maplewood had legally sufficient reasons
and a factual basis for denving Hedlund's
request for variances. The city's action
was not unreasonable. capricious. or be-
yond its legal powers.
Affirmed.
w
0 5 ttr NUMM SYSTEM
T
Juli -Ann THOMPSON. as Trustee for
the Heirs of Dennis Ray Thompson.
Deceased. Respondent.
V.
Douglas G. HILL, appellant.
No. C3-84 -1430.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
April 23, 1985.
The spouse of automobile passenger.
who drowned when vehicle fell through ice
while driving on frozen river brought
wrongful death action. The District Court,
Winona County, Lawrence T. Collins, J.,
entered judgment in favor of wife, finding
driver 60% negligent and deceased husband
40% negligent and entered judgment on
jury verdict, deducting full amount of no-
fault benefits received by surviving spouse,
and driver appealed. The Court of Ap-
peals, Nierengarten. J., held that: (1) doc-
trine of primary assumption of risk did not
apply; (2) evidence was sufficient to sup-
port finding of negligence on part of driv-
er, (3) driver was not entitled to jury in-
struction on secondary assumption of risk;
and (4) reduction of judgment by full
amount of economic loss benefits paid by
no -fault insurer was correct.
Affirmed.
•
Ridec Road
Street #
Lot Depth
Lot Width
Lot Area
5120
310
136.8
42,408
5116
310
130.1
40,331
5112
310
144
44.640
5108
310
120
37.200
5100
310
240
74.400
5016
310
136.7
42,377
5012
310
120
37,200
5008
130.5
183
23,881.5
550?
176.3
145
25.563.5
5117
310
360
111,600
5109
325
130
42.250
5101
325.2
194
63,088.8
5025
327
150
49,050
5021
312.3
104
32,479.2
5013
313
104
32.552
5009
313
104
32,552
731.573
45.723.3125
• Ave. Lot size
Ridge road 45,723
Interlachcen 47,965
Schaefer Road 84,213
Dahlquist 33,500
90 ^ ^^
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Ave. Lot size
Ridge road I nterlachcen Schaefer Road Dahlaulst
Objective: Protect and manage lakes, ponds and wetlands for storm water
retention areas, wildlife areas, and amenity areas, and lessen impacts from nutrient
and sediment input.
Policies: Utilize waterbodies and manmade ponding areas for the retention
and detention of storm water to reduce flooding potentials and stabilize lake and
pond levels.
Restrict encroachments below the ordinary high water marks of Type
3, 4, and 5 wetlands.
Require the dedication of or the grant of a scenic and open space
easement over all land adjacent to and 100 feet upland of naturally occurring lakes
and ponds in conjunction with the subdivision or development of property.
Require the dedication of or the grant of a scenic easement over
Type 3, 4, and 5 wetlands in conjunction with the subdivision or dedication of
property.
Provide for periodic maintenance dredging of storm sewer outfalls
into lakes and ponds.
Continue the monitoring of physical, chemical, and biological parameters
of major lakes and ponds at appropriate intervals.
Prepare or acquire public information materials regarding the
reduction of nutrient loadings of waterbodies and watercourses.
Continue to perform and monitor experiments with aeration as a
means of reducing algal blooms and mitigating effects of nutrient loading.
Conduct experiments with the harvesting of aquatic vegetation as
an alternative to treatment with aquatic herbicides.
Encourage owners of property riparian to lakes and ponds to maintain
emergent aquatic vegetation and shoreline vegetation for filtering and wildlife
benefits.
Consider limited excavations in appropriate wetlands to provide
open water for increased diversity of wildlife habitats.
Objective: Protect and manage remnants of major plant communities.
Policies: Preserve remnants of tall prairie grass, floodplain forest, oak
savanna and upland woodlands within the park and open space system.
COUNTY WELFARE BOARD
burry References
Social Security and Public Welfare X11.
C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare § 17
EVELOPMENT. ZONING
-ction
4.312. Relation to other county authority.
4.361. Official map.
-4.362. Variances: adverse effect on environ-
ment.
c. 399, art. 1. § 29: 1986. c. 416, § 11
lie chair of the board of county commissioners.
:ie auditor of the county, ana the treasurer of
ie county. The chair of the board of county
)mmissioners shall be president of the commis -
county auditor shall be secretary of the
ion, and the county treasurer shall be
.surer of the commission. The secretary
hair keep all of the records and accounts of the
-ommission, and the treasurer shall keep a cor-
-ect account of -its receipts and expenditures."
571, § 51
Prior to repeal § 394.16 was amended by Laws
971, c. 23. § 3.1 and Laws ir,3, c. 35. § 68.
)PMENT, ZONING
ling and zoning activities
�)r text of Subd. IJ
51.
Subjectivity, expression. and privacy: Prob-
lems of aesthetic regulation. Stephen F.
Williams. 1977, 62 Minn. Law Review I.
Notes of Decisions
1. In general .
Where district court in granting motion to
vacate default judgment against county was con'
vinced that a meritonous defense on the merits
PLANNING
existed, the county's failure to set forth with
particularity the nature of the defense was de-
terminative, and hence supreme court would re-
mand entire matter to district court to allow its
consideration of the defense in relation to the
merits of the petition for writ of mandamus: in
addition, the district court must evaluate peti-
tioner's assertion that the particular tract of
land had been classified inconsistently as resi-
dential for purposes of assessment and as agri-
cultural for zoning purposes. Thompson v.
Spring Lake Tp., 1977, 257 N.W.2d 388.
For there to be an unconstitutional taking a
landowner must demonstrate that he has been
deprived, through governmental action or inac-
tion, of all the reasonable uses of his land.
Czech v. City of Blaine, 1977, 312 Minn. 535, 253
N.W.2d 272.
Denial of application of owner of mobile home
park for rezoning was an unconstitutional taking
of property where the general characteristics of
the property virtually rendered it useless for any
394.22. Definitions
v"
§ 394.22
other use than a site for a mobile home park.
id.
When city council acts on a rezoning applies -
tion, it exercises a legislative power and judicial
review is narrow. Id.
In order to successfully challenge a city coun-
cil decision when it acts within its legislative
capacity, proof must be submitted to affirmative.
ly establish either an unconstitutional taking or
an action in excess of the powers delegated to
the legislative body. Id.
A city, county and town could not delegate
planning and zoning power to a joint committee
established by agreement pursuant to SL1976,
§ 471.59. Op.Atty.Gen., 1007, July 8, 1977.
2. Ordinances
County board is required to enforce town zon-
ing ordinances only where the town has contract-
ed with the county board for planning and en-
forcement. Scinocca v. St. Louis County Bd. of
Com'rs, 1979, 281 N.W.2d 659.
[See main volume for text of subds. 1 to 3]
Subd. 4. "Municipality" means a city however organized.
Subd. 5. Repealed by Laws 1974, c. 571, § 51.
Subd. 6. "Official control" means legislatively defined and enacted policies, standards,
precise detailed maps, and other criteria, all of which control the physical development of
a municipality or a county or any part thereof or any detail thereof, and are the means of
translating into ordinances all or any part of the general objectives of the comprehensive
plan. Such official controls may include but are not limited to ordinances establishing
zoning, subdivision controls, site plan rules, sanitary codes, building codes, housing codes,
and official maps.
Subd. 7. "Conditional use" means a land use or development as defined by ordinance
that would not be appropriate generally but may be allowed with appropriate restrictions
as provided by official controls upon a finding that (1) certain conditions as detailed in the
zoning ordinance exist. and (2) the use or development conforms to the comprehensive
land use plan of the county and (3) is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Subd. 8. "Nonconformity" means any legal use, structure or parcel of land already in
existence, recorded, or authorized before the adoption of official controls or amendments
thereto that would not have been permitted to become established under the terms of the
official controls as now written, if the official controls had been in effect prior to the date
it was established, recorded or authorized.
;Subd. 9. "Comprehensive plan" means the policies, statements, goals, and interrelated
(plans for private and public land and water use, transportation, and community facilities
including recommendations for plan execution. documented in texts, ordinances and maps
which'constitute the guide for the future development of the county or any portion of the
county.
Subd. 10. "Variance" means any modification or variation of official controls where it
is determined that, by reason of exceptional circumstances, the strict enforcement of the
official controls would cause unnecessary hardship.
Subd. 11. "Town" means any town, including those with the powers of a statutory
city pursuant to law.
Subd. 12. "Official map" means a map adopted in accordance with section 394.361
Which may show existing county roads and county state aid highways, proposed future
county roads and highways, the area needed for widening existing county roads and
93
.,
O'CONNOR & HANNAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3800 IDS CENTER
WASNINWON. D.C. OFFICE
80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA
D.C.20006.3483
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -2254
12021 687 -1400
TELEX 89 -7420
FAX 12021 466 -2198
(612) 341 -3800
MADRID OFFICE
LA RINCONADA. 6. 3°
FAX 1612) 343 -1256
26023 MADRID. SPAIN
10111 341 5750944 S. 357 -2251
FAX 10111 341 57? -0759
PAUL B. ZISLA
(612) 343-1258 INCLUDING THE FORMER FIRM MACINTOSH &COMMERS
August 25, 1992
Mayor and City Council
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Re: Subdivision Application Case No. S -92 -1
Our Client - Harvey Golub
Our File No. 52200 -1
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Our client owns the property at 5200 Schaefer Road (the
"Golub Parcel"). We understand that CDS Partners submitted a
subdivision application for the adjacent property to the north
(the "Dalquist Parcel "). On behalf of our client, we ask you to
consider two recommendations for the subdivision.
First, development should not impair the natural features of
the site. It should preserve the hydraulic efficiency, natural
character, and beauty of the ponds on the parcel. Therefore, the
city should enforce the easement requirements of Ordinance No.
801 -A4. If the city determines it has to relax the easement
standards to encourage sensible development of the Dalquist
Parcel, the city should grant only a minimal variance to the
standards.
Second, the developer should remedy the damage that resulted
from installing a driveway less than 100 feet from the south
pond. The driveway runs from Schaefer to the house under
construction on the Dalquist Parcel. To the detriment of the
Golub Parcel, the driveway eliminated vegetation and disrupted
the natural character of -the pond area near the property line
between the Golub and Dalquist Parcels. If the developer had
subdivided the Dalquist Parcel before constructing the house,
Ordinance 801 would have preserved the natural area. Although
the developer may not have violated any zoning laws, the pond
area should have been protected. Accordingly, the developer
should add trees, shrubs or other plantings along the driveway.
O'CON NOR & HAN NAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mayor and City Council
August 25, 1992
Page 2 0
The suggestions made in this letter,support the city's
efforts to assure compatibility between the built and natural
environments. Future residents, neighbors and the city will -all
benefit. Thank you for the opportunity to address the council
about the CDS application.
Very truly yours,
O'CONNOR & HANNAN
Paul B. Zisla
PBZ /j s
A '
N NO. I DATE I BY
�1
_tL
<'1
�J
A
REMARKS
REVISIONS
O
0
ulI
r
11
POND
sou-ru
f
1
j
,1
LOT
EXISTING IZE
0
300
X 15T 1 tJ (� -7.9i� U T I L t T Y
MAMvftm 19AHLRU1e=T' At:
(54w 1#4M45>
�- I" CAI H 4STicri r ?-
4+ NEW "VAMP
ammi .."" .. s
DESIGNED
DRAWN
DATE
i
CKED
APPROVED
COMM.
0L r r".1 .
sue` -Torte-
NcT�..:&
�N 5otL_ lw.-OwN<•s -rte PWOrF{
o� t4--` pmt Lcw NLt.6w. . 4AL's.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR
UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AMA DULY REGISTER-
ED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
DATE
REG. NO.
M.L. • °j 5L _ _
SIt711— e0*41 6,1j „
4U6-- -- -
t�
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Ave. N. Engineers
Plymouth, MN 55447 Planners
612/476 -6010 Surveyors
I
�x1sTi N6:0
J
WA917ALt! LAW4,,wS AkAP
ME!O[Arj L5r ' �IrT_H
N E! P A N wr PerrFi
Mr_71rKH gar r�'p
E�940-CALe,-VL^TMP 1C-CYV-,.WA171FX-LtVrL
9 S7 - NAM+ L WATrMfe- LM\ M�
SCALE
i� t1 pA W64;0_11 1 „_,
BOOK PAGE
MAC U 1�T ��i FILE NO.
4x.•1 --�- I�'�� `
SHEE
5G1- IAE.���Z
ROAD
w
p_ ...
Q
:21
O
W
/
i
'On
50.00
0
ulI
r
11
POND
sou-ru
f
1
j
,1
LOT
EXISTING IZE
0
300
X 15T 1 tJ (� -7.9i� U T I L t T Y
MAMvftm 19AHLRU1e=T' At:
(54w 1#4M45>
�- I" CAI H 4STicri r ?-
4+ NEW "VAMP
ammi .."" .. s
DESIGNED
DRAWN
DATE
i
CKED
APPROVED
COMM.
0L r r".1 .
sue` -Torte-
NcT�..:&
�N 5otL_ lw.-OwN<•s -rte PWOrF{
o� t4--` pmt Lcw NLt.6w. . 4AL's.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR
UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AMA DULY REGISTER-
ED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
DATE
REG. NO.
M.L. • °j 5L _ _
SIt711— e0*41 6,1j „
4U6-- -- -
t�
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Ave. N. Engineers
Plymouth, MN 55447 Planners
612/476 -6010 Surveyors
I
�x1sTi N6:0
J
WA917ALt! LAW4,,wS AkAP
ME!O[Arj L5r ' �IrT_H
N E! P A N wr PerrFi
Mr_71rKH gar r�'p
E�940-CALe,-VL^TMP 1C-CYV-,.WA171FX-LtVrL
9 S7 - NAM+ L WATrMfe- LM\ M�
SCALE
i� t1 pA W64;0_11 1 „_,
BOOK PAGE
MAC U 1�T ��i FILE NO.
4x.•1 --�- I�'�� `
SHEE