HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-04_COUNCIL PACKETEDII1A HOUSING AHD REDEVELOPHFd4'r AU7BORI3Y
EDIlQA CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 4. 1993
7:00 P.H.
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 REDEVELOPHERT AUTHORITY
* I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of BRA Meeting of December 21, 1992
* II. PATMEPT OF CIA 30
III. ADJOURNMENT
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
OATH OF OFFICE - Frederick S. Richards (Mayor)
Peggy Kelly (Council Member)
Jane Paulus (Council Member)
APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR PRO -TEM
I. 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. Preliminary Plat Approval - Garnaas Addition, Lot 15, Skyline (5129 Skyline
Drive) (Contd from 12/21/92)
* B. Preliminary Plat Ayroya -. - Granger Addition - 5533 Vernon Avenue
(Continue to 1- 20 -93)
* C. Set Hearing Date (01/20/93)
1. Conditional Use Permit - Building Addition. Cross View Lutheran Church
II. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF EASEMENT Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by Engineer. Public comment heard. Motion to close hearing. If
Council wishes to proceed, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote
required to pass.
A. Drainage and Utility Easement - Lot 10 and Part of Lot 11, Block 1, Indian
Hills 3rd Addition (6315 Timber Trail)
9 III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
Agenda
Edina City Council
January 4, 1993
Page 2
IV. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
* A. Appointment of HRA Commissioners
B. Hennepin County Ground Water Plan
C. Discussion - Park and Recreational Information Calendar Advertising
V. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
* A. Petition for Alley Lighting - Xerxes Av Between 5828 and 5832 and York Av
Between 5833 and 5829
VI. RESOLUTIONS Favorable rollcall vote by majority of quorum to pass.
* A. Designation of Director /Alternate Director of Suburban Bate Authority
* B. Designation of Director /Alternate Director of LOGIS
* C. Designation of Official Newspaper
* D. Official Depositories Designation
* E. Signatory Resolution
* F. Facsimile Signatures Resolution
VII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
A. Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council
VIII. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL
IX. MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
X. FINANCE
* A. Payment of Claims as per pre -list dated 01/04/93: Total $433,802.94.
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS
Mon Jan 18 MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY - CITY HALL CLOSED
Wed Jan 20 Regular Council Meeting
Mon Feb 1 Regular Council Meeting
Mon Feb 15 PRESIDENT'S DAY - CITY HALL CLOSED
Tues Feb 16 Regular Council Meeting
Sat Feb 27 LWV - Meet City Officials
7:00 P.M. Council Chambers
7:00 P.M. Council Chambers
7:00 P.M. Council Chambers
2 -4 P.M. Council Chambers
COTES
OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DECEMBER 21, 1992
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and
Richards.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Motion was made by Commissioner Kelly and was
seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the BRA Consent Agenda items as
presented.
Rollcall:_ •
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7. 1992, APPROVED Motion was made by
Commissioner Kelly and was seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve BRA
Minutes of December 7, 1992.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
*CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Commissioner Kelly and was seconded by
Commissioner Rice to approve payment of HBA claims as shown in detail on the
Check Register dated December 11, 1992, and consisting of one page totalling,
$5,037.09.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
There being no further business on the HRA Agenda, Chairman Richards declared
the meeting adjourned.
Executive Director
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, DEC 30, 1992, 10:57 PM
page 1
CHECK# DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12375 01/04/93 514,166.67 PARTNERS FOR SENIOR LOAN TO OTHER FUNDS JANUARY EDINBOROUGH LOAN TO 0TH F
<�>
$14,166.67"
$14,166.67•
COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY WED, DEC 30, 1992, 11:01 PM page '1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
FUND 0 01 $14,166.67
514,166.67"
GARNAAS ADDITION
PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARK BOARD HEARINGS
* SEPTEMBER 30, 1992, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
Action: Referred to Park Board for comments on proposed land
trade
OCTOBER 13, 1992, PARK BOARD HEARING
Action: Continued to November hearing
* NOVEMBER 10, 19922 PARK BOARD HEARING
Action: Recommended land trade with conditions that:
1. Proponents pay all costs
2. City maintain a park. use easement over traded
ProPeny.
* DECEMBER 2, 1992, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
Action: Motion to approve Preliminary Plat granting lot width
variances, with path area as park dedication failed on 8-3
vote.
No other action taken.
e} `v
�
A ; �O
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To:
KENNETH ROSLAND
Agenda Item #
I.
A.
From:
CRAIG LARSEN
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Date:
JANUARY 4, 1993
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
S-92-3, PRELIMINARY
To Council
PLAT APPROVAL
GARNAAS ADDITION,
Action
0
Motion
5128 SKYLINE DRIVE
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends that the request for
Preliminary Plat Approval be denied.
Info /Background:
See attached materials, including -
1. Preliminary Plat
2. Staff reports of September 30, and December 2,1992
3. Planning Commission minutes from September 30, and December
2, 1992
4. Park Board minutes from October 13, and November 10, 1992,
meetings
5. Materials submitted by proponents
6. Letters from City Attorney relative to proposed land trade
7. Correspondence received from neighborhood, and letter from
DNR
•INAlm'd Is] ; m►TAI "\'
III-l111
■
10 111 I " [ •
1V1:M:»_\N1,1161,[
■
i
QO
PROPOSED:
GARNAAS ADDITION
WNER.' C.'fy ef Ed,*n.
4.00
SET se 7*3f'oo
13
FOUND I
MON-
l-Io
7
PROPOSED',
DR41NAGE AND U7 Itiry
IS "--i //1 j 1 1
X
Z
��Oi fbj m
-Z
SHED
I � in o l / I i �/ / BUILDING
UILD
6 "0. %s
28.00
.00
a
I.-T0.184 cl FOU" b
0 , V. .bl. -
1"ON OUND w
T
I 'PROFOSED 1 .ckt-1 D DRAINACE � N l-----
UTILITY EASEMENT jFNT 6 c. 1. W,ter "in
r
P Sanitiry 640^° FI
SCALE IN FEET: 5
' SEP- 24 -'92 THU 10:23 ID:EGAN FIELD 546 -6839 4910 P02
Z.
��2 T
�
x 3
4
5
pt';t+ +� �plFp 28
21
/ 5 �Y1 ��r oEV� • 21��t° �y �f
ey brp�pU 5 fd Zss 00
/ V
R* i4A�
PRt c 11S
27
Qo
26
4
0
4 46
:5 24 23
10"o CO(ft
� ,aev. ra aO d
��,k./ oet
Q• ,V 1 2f 22
scatE i• +100'+ ��i � iesr��l2 +R•o0v 1 �J�b
i _ •cell
14� r� 13d
�,.... .. f9 icE age
f6 17 DAMI e 1 Dow
A+i�nv • ics
YOfMa /BO
AAEt = 'l�p�` Ot�lfr a Aa
fA O •8
e EtVo E g
• 111,8A e.-'
4 6
aa......... .
23 look 3 .7n 4Y
��� • Off' t� °.� .�eu r � etry r ar C
Q
24
c�
a 24
0
TOTAL• 30 TATS MEH,eu
OEVTN • 205 fl.
VAOTH • 125 ft.
AREA • 22,900 sa.fl.
PREPARED By
EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK
CI 10\ /CVnr,�
SEP- 09 -'92 WED 09:29 ID:EGAN FIELD 546 -6039 #1074 P02
LOT MEDIANS: PROPOSED GARNAAS ADDITION
INTERLACHEN BLUFF
Lot 4, Block 1, Depth = 205 Width = 115 Area = 27,600
Lot 5, Block 1, Depth = 200 Width = 115 Area = 28,600
Lot 6, Block 1, Depth = 160 Width = 130 Area = 21,350
SKYLINE ADDITION DALQUIST REPLAT
Lot 1, Block 1, Depth = 125 Width = 122 Area = 20,700
Lot 2, Block 1, Depth = 212 Width = 112 Area = 23,800
SKYLINE
Lot 8,
Lot 9,
Lot 10,
Lot 11,
Lot 12,
Lot 13,
Lot 14,
Lot 16,
Lot 17,
Lot 18,
Lot 19,
Lot 20,
Lot 25,
Depth
= 230
Depth
= 222
Depth
= 220
Depth
='210
Depth
= 230
Depth =
240
Depth =
220
Depth =
105
Depth =
125
Depth =
150
Depth =
375
Depth =
192
Depth =
155
Width
= 147
Width
= 108
Width
= 115
Width
= 105
Width =
127
Width =
125
Width =
114
Width =
162
Width =
115
Width =
130
Width =
197
Width =
107
Width =
90
Area
= 50,000
Area
= 23,900
Area
= 25,600
Area
= 20,800
Area
= 22,900
Area
= 22,600
Area
= 25,300
Area
= 17,800
Area
= 15,400
Area
= 22,600
Area
= 101,700
Area
= 30,600
Area
= 21,500
SEP- 09 -'92 WED 09:29 ID:EGAN FIELD 546 -6839 #874 P03
ROSENDALH'S 2ND ADDITION TO EDINA HIGHLANDS
Lot 1, Block 1, Depth = 320 Width = 180 Area = 38,000
EDINA HIGHLANDS
Lot 1, Block 1,
Depth
= 375
Lot 2, Block 1;
Depth
= 340
Lot 3, Block 1,
Depth
= 218
Lot 4, Block 1,
Depth
= 168
Lot 5, Block 1,
Depth-
= 118
Lot 6, Block 1,
Depth
= 205
Lot 7, Block 1,
Depth =
192
Lot 7, Block 2,
Depth =
170
Lot 8, Block 2,
Depth =
180
Lot 9, Block 2,
Depth =
170
Lot 10, Block 2,
Depth =
160
Width
= 145
Width
= 125
Width
= 140
Width
= 134
Width
= 133
Width =
220
Width =
170
Width =
100
Width =
160
Width =
163
Width =
87
Area
= 44.,300
Area
= 39,800
Area
= 38,900
Area
= 26,800
Area
= 19,700
Area
= 34,400
Area =
36,500
Area =
17,400
Area =
20,600
Area =
21,200
Area =
14,100
Total 30 Lots Median Median Median
Depth = 205 Width = 125 Area = 22,900
PLANNING COMISSION
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
8 -92 -3 Preliminary Plat Approval
Garnaas Addition
Lot 150 Skyline
Property
Address:
5128 Skyline Drive
The subject property is a developed single dwelling unit lot
with an area of 49,450 square feet. The existing home is located
in the southeasterly corner of the property. A request to
subdivide the property and create one new lot has been submitted.
The dimensions and
subdivision are:
Lot Width
Lot 1 92 feet
Lot 2 101 feet
area of the lots in the proposed
Lot Depth Lot Area
206 feet 26,404 sq. ft.
244 feet 23,045 sq. ft.
The 500 foot "Neighborhood" surrounding the subject property
comprises 30 developed single family lots. The median values for
this neighborhood are:
Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Area
125 feet 205 feet 22,900 sq. ft.
Based upon the foregoing median values, both lots in the
proposed subdivision require lot width variances. Lot 1 is 33 feet
below the median lot width, and Lot 2 is 19 feet short on width.
Both lots comply with the median values for lot depth and lot area.
The subject property is bounded on three sides by City park
land. Access to the park area is provided at the end of the cul-
de -sac. The proposed preliminary plat illustrates where portions
of a trail area encroach on the proponents property. Although this
path is not maintained by the Park Department, it is utilized by
the public visiting the park. The proponents have expressed a
willingness to consider conveying the encroachment area to the
city, possibly in exchange for additional property along their
southerly border. This would reduce the size of the requested lot
width variances. The Park Board will consider the proposal at
their October 13, 1992, meeting.
Recommendation:
The proposed lots meet or exceed Subdivision standards for lot
area and lot depth. At approximately one -half acre they are
relatively large. However, the shape of the property cramps lot
width. The requested lot width variances are relatively large. If
there were not mitigating factors 'staff would expect such a
subdivision to result in a crowded condition. The property is,
however, bounded on three sides by City owned parks /open space.
Consequently, additional crowding would not be a problem.
Past City Council policy has been to not sell park land. I
expect that policy to continue. However, the additional property
would not significantly alter the resulting development.
If the Commission recommends preliminary approval the
following conditions should apply:
1. Final Plat Approval
2. Action by the Park Board and City Council relative to the
path encroachment
3. Subdivision Dedication
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 2, 1992
STAFF REPORT
5 -92 -3 Preliminary Plat Approval
Garnaas Addition
Nancy Garnaas and Kevin McTigue,
Lot 15, Skyline
The proposed subdivision was first considered by the
Commission at the October 1, 1992, meeting. At that meeting the
Commission continued the hearing in order to allow the Park Board
to consider a proposed land trade. The trade involves trading a
portion of Highlands Park, south of the subject property, for an
approximately equal area on the westerly portion of the proponents
property. That area contains a path used by people walking in the
park.
The Park Board considered the trade at two meetings. The Park
Board did recommend the city accept the proposed trade at their
November 10, 1992, meeting. Meeting minutes are attached to this
report. The Board recommends the city retain an easement for Park
use over the property traded to.the proponents of 25 feet. As a
result, the property would provide additional lot width, but
structures would not be placed on the easement area.
The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed trade and has
determined that the trade could take place. However, procedurally
it may be more practical to consider the grant of lot width
variance and acquisition of the path by way of subdivision
dedication. Since the City would retain an easement over the
traded property the net result would be the same.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends preliminary plat approval granting the
request lot width variances with the following conditions:
1. Final Plat Approval
2. Subdivision Dedication, including, but not limited to an
access for park purposes over the path area shown on the
preliminary plat
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
7: 0 P.M. EDINA_2;TY_ HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, G. J , R. Hale, L.
Johnson, H. M nd, D. Runyan, D.
Bryan, v. ,� G. Workinger, C.
IngwalsonR� ust
MEMBERS ABSENT: John ,PjidW and David Byron
STAFF PRESENT: Of arsen
is Hoogenakker
I.
Comm'` oner Hale moved approval of the September 2, 1992
meeting utes. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion with the hp mimukA
addit' that on page 3 of t
wit
II. NEW BUSINESS:
S -92 -3 Preliminary Plat Approval
Garnaas Addition
Lot 15, Skyline
Property
Address: 5128 Skyline Drive
Mr. Larsen presented his staff report noting the Commission
the subject property is a developed single dwelling unit lot with
an area of 49,450 square feet. The existing home is located in the
southeasterly corner of the property. A request to subdivide the
property and create one new lot has been submitted.
Mr. Larsen noted the proposed lots meet or exceed Subdivision
standards for lot area and lot depth. Mr. Larsen said at
approximately one -half acre they are relatively large. Mr. Larsen
pointed out the shape of the property cramps lot width, and the
requested lot width variances are relatively large. If there were
1
not mitigating factors staff would expect such a subdivision to
result in a crowded condition, but the property is bounded on three
sides by City owned parks /open space. Consequently, additional
crowding would not be a problem.
Mr. Larsen reported past City Council policy has been to not
sell park land, -and I expect that policy to continue. However, the
additional property would not significantly alter the resulting
development.
Mr. Larsen concluded if the Commission recommends preliminary
approval the following conditions should apply:
1. Final Plat Approval
2. Action by the Park Board and City Council relative to the
path encroachment
3. Subdivision Dedication
The proponents, Ms. Garnaas and Mr. McTique, and interested
neighbors were present.
Commissioner Faust asked if land would be traded between the
City and Garnaas how many feet would the Garnaas proposal receive.
Mr. Larsen responded he believes the proposal could receive up to
20 feet of width, but added he doesn't think the additional footage
would eliminate the need for a lot width variance entirely, only
reduce it.
Commissioner Ingwalson asked if the Park Board has expressed
a willingness to trade land. Mr. Larsen said realistically the
park board has taken the stance of not selling city property,
trading property is another issue. Mr. Larsen said he is unsure of
their position about the trading of land and noted if traded the
may just can be acknowledged as "space" and an easement between the
City and Garnaas could be drafted.
Commissioner Shaw stated when she served on the Edina Park
Board the Park Board never purchased adjacent land. They do decide
on whether they want the private property adjacent to the park as
the parkland dedication or they decide on money with comparable
value.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if in his, opinion a
hardship exists to support a variance request, and also if he
considered the steep slopes on the site when he analyzed this
proposal. Mr. Larsen said the question of hardship in his opinion
is the shape of the property. He pointed out the size of the lot
exceeds neighborhood standards, and due to the cul -de -sac, and the
irregular shape of the lot, lot width is not met. Continuing, Mr.
Larsen noted the steep slopes are located relatively close to the
front property line and the development of a house on this lot
should be along the first grade break.
Nancy Garnaas presented for view by planning commission
members a video of her property. Ms. Garnaas pointed out her
property, park property, park steps, and the rear of her property
showing the trail used by residents.
Ms. Garnaas began her verbal presentation by informing the
commission she desires the commission to first approve their
request for a variance from the subdivision ordinance on lot width
resulting in approval of their request for subdivision, and second
have the city consider a subdivision dedication of land. Ms.
Garnaas told the commission approval of the subdivision will allow
them to build a new home for their growing family. Ms. Garnaas
said in her opinion it would be in the best interest of the City to
either trade land so the proposed new lot would receive additional
width, or accept the back strip of their property as their
subdivision dedication. Ms. Garnaas pointed out their property
adjoins a 13 acre state protected wetland where to gain access
children and adults use the rear portion of their property as a
path. Ms. Garnaas said she believes the irregular shape of their
lot is a hardship and pointed out the lot area of the newly created
lot meets and exceeds the lot areas within the 500 foot
neighborhood. Continuing, Ms. Garnaas noted the size and shapes of
the lots on Skyline Drive vary greatly. Ms. Garnaas said while
investigating their property and the surrounding 500 foot
neighborhood she found that the 500 foot neighborhood appeared to
encompass three different neighborhoods. These findings
demonstrated to her that the immediate Skyline neighborhood
contains very different lot sizes and shapes, and that there are
only two lots within the "Skyline neighborhood" that would meet the
standards as stipulated by our subdivision ordinance today. Ms.
Garnaas pointed out that three boundaries abutting their property
are owned by the City, and only one neighbor abuts the subject
site. Ms. Garnaas concluded that she believes this proposal would
not alter the character and symmetry of the neighborhood, noting
the new house would not be seen by more than two neighbors. Ms.
Garnaas said she believes an improved plat would be achieved by the
granting of a lot width variance.
Mr. McTique with graphics pointed out the lot in question and
the configuration of the lots of the immediate surrounding
properties. Mr. McTique addressed the petition for denial from the
neighbors, and stated he hopes from their presentation they will
have a clear understanding of the size of the new lot, and the
adjusted lot lines. Continuing, Mr. McTique said he believes the
topography of the site and the layout of the road, and resulting
half moon cul -de -sac suggest a hardship for this property. Mr.
McTique said he feels many of the neighbors were mislead when they
signed the petition. The petition refers to a court case between
a resident and a suburban Minnesota city. Mr. Mctique pointed out
the two cases are very different. In the referenced court case the
resident petitioned to have his property accessed by a road which
would be located on city property, and that proposal requested
01
three variances. Mr. Mctique remarked the proposals are completely
different. We are offering private property to the city instead of
a parkland dedication of money. Another question raised in the
petition was building design, and building pad location. Mr.
Mctique said it was his understanding that for final plat approval
building plans are required. Mr. McTique said the house they are
proposing to construct is relatively modest in size, and will fit
in with the topography of the lot and vegetation.
Commissioner Runyan noted there is a difference in topography
on the proposed lot, and he questioned Mr. McTique if their plans
have two floors below grade, and one story above grade. Mr.
Mctique said that is correct. The house from street level will be
one story. Mr. Mctique said the house they desire to build is
located at #16 Cooper in Edina.
Mr. McTique referred back to the neighborhood petition noting
the petition also stated that the proposed new house would
interfere with the neighbors view. Mr. McTique pointed out since
property is bordered on three sides by city park, and the profile
of the proposed home from the street is one story, in his opinion
the proposed house would not adversely impact neighboring views.
Mr. McTique noted in the spring and summer the leaves on the trees
would screen the house, and in the winter only the roof top should
be visible. Mr. McTique concluded his presentation by asking the
commission to support the proposal as presented. He stated he
believes there are mitigating circumstances that support their
request for subdivision. They include the topography of the lot,
curve of the street, parkland located on three sides of the lot,
and the path at the rear of the property that is used for park
access. Mr. McTique stated he understands this is a hard time for
neighbors, and also for us.
Commissioner Johnson asked the proponents why they drew the
property line in an irregular manner toward the northeast.
Commissioner Johnson said normally lot lines are drawn
perpendicular to the street. Ms. Garnaas responded the reason the
lot line was drawn that way is because it follows the tree line.
Commissioner Johnson questioned if the intent was to allow the new
lot open space to the northeast. Ms. Garnaas said that is correct,
also, the old lot would not change visually.
Chairman Johnson asked Ms. Garnaas to clarify again why the
lot line was not drawn in a straight line. Ms. Garnaas explained
the surveyor gave them three options for lot line configuration and
they chose the one that needed the smallest variance. Commissioner
Johnson asked if they considered deeding everything north of the
900 contour line to the city. He said past that contour line the
property drops dramatically, and any reasonable use would be
difficult without fill. Ms. Garnaas said with fill that portion
could be used. Commissioner Johnson pointed out the house you
indicated you want constructed on the new lot has three full
4
exposed stories, which may make it necessary to install a pumping
system to handle sewage. Ms. Garnaas said they did not get that
far with their plans, she stated she thought that would have to be
completed by final plat approval. Concluding, Commissioner Johnson
stated how he views granting variances on this project, or any
project, is how development of the site deals with the topography.
Commissioner Runyan presumed it would be possible for both
houses to maintain the required sideyard setbacks. Ms. Garnaas
said he believes there will be no problem with the sideyard
setbacks.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if our new ordinance
regulates how far back a house can be placed. Mr. Larsen said
frontyard setback requirements must be maintained for the new
house. Mr. Larsen explained there is nothing in our ordinance that
prevents a house from being located father back from the street as
long as the rearyard setback of 25 feet is maintained.
Commissioner McClelland said if she remembers correctly there
have been a few instances where the city has traded land with
private property owners. She stated she cannot remember a time
where the city has purchased land from a private party.
Commissioner Shaw interjected that that is probably true, the park
board and /or the council decide on land trades.
Commissioner McClelland referred to the lot width question and
pointed out if the park board and council decide to "trade land"
you still may have to pay the parkland dedication. If you donate
the rear strip of your land that may eliminate the need to pay
money for the parkland dedication but trading land to obtain more
land for lot width and reduce the variance may not eliminate the
parkland dedication fee.
Commissioner Workinger noted regardless if land is traded or
donated the visible perception of the new house will not change.
Commissioner McClelland said there are two things to consider
at this time, one the variance, and easement issue concerning the
path, the other the subdivision itself. Continuing, Commissioner
McClelland acknowledged if the park board trades land the request
for variance may be decreased, making it a completely different
proposal. She said while she agrees with Commissioner Workinger
that the visible perception of the new house will not change if a
land trade occurs, the facts change. Commissioner McClelland said
in her opinion it is hard to make a decision at this time when we
do not know what the park board will recommend.
Mr. Van Leer, 5125 Skyline told commission members he is
opposed to the proposal. Mr. Van Leer asked Mr. Larsen if the park
board has reviewed the request for a land trade. Mr. Larsen
0
responded that the park board has not reviewed this proposal. Mr.
Van Leer said that maybe we are "putting the cart before the
horse ", and agrees with Commissioner McClelland's comments that it
may be hard to make a decision when the park board has not acted on
the proponents request. Mr. Van Leer questioned the staff's reason
for recommending approval of this project when it requires a
variance. Mr. Larsen responded- that staff recommended certain
conditions if the commission were to recommend approval.
Continuing, Mr. Larsen said in his opinion the shape of the lot,
and cul -de -sac limits the proponents from achieving lot width. The
fact that city park is located on three sides is a mitigating
factor. Mr. Van Leer read a letter from a resident located at 5121
Skyline Drive who indicated he opposes the proposal as submitted.
Continuing, Mr. Van Leer told the commission he has a concern
regarding the type of house that will be constructed, and its
price. Mr. Van Leer suggested that the proponents add on to their
house if they want more room instead of building a house. Mr. Van
Leer said he would really like to see the building plans for the
proposed house so the neighborhood can assess the proposal. They
do have a concern that it is possible that a "tract house" could be
constructed on the new lot. Mr. Van Leer said it is incumbent that
the proponent prove a hardship. Mr. Van Leer pointed out a
hardship has been created as a result of the application to
subdivide, and when Garnaas and McTique purchased their home a
hardship did not exist on the property. Concluding Mr. Van leer
said this is a unique area and should be protected. Any house that
is visible or any roof top that is visible will change the
character and symmetry of the neighborhood.
Mr. Jim Swenson, attorney representing residents in the
neighborhood, told the commission it is their responsibility to
protect the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. Mr.
Swenson referred to the staff report noting character and symmetry
was not addressed. Mr. Swenson pointed out almost everyone on
Skyline Drive has lived in this neighborhood for 30 plus years and
do not support the proposal as submitted. These neighbors believe
the character and symmetry of their neighborhood will suffer a
negative impact. Mr. Swenson said regarding the variance it .us our
belief that it is the result of the request to subdivide.
Continuing, Mr. Swenson explained that the requested variance is
unbelievably large and the "trading of land" may diminish the
variance, but will not greatly alter the proposal nor its impact.
Mr. Swenson said another issue that should be considered is
elevation. He noted it is my opinion when this lot was platted it
was platted in this shape and size due to the topography. Mr.
Swenson took issue with how the City of Edina measures lot width,
measuring lot width 50 feet back does not seem correct. Mr.
Swenson concluded the key point of this proposal is the variance
which has been created because the proponents wish to subdivide,
and the newly created lot cannot meet city ordinance the lot width
standards. Mr. Swenson said he searched for a hardship and did not
find one. The hardships is this instance are economic. It
6
r
appears the proponents cannot afford to remodel their existing
house, and will come out better economically if they sell their
present house and build a construct a new one. The destruction of
the character and symmetry of the neighborhood should not be taken
lightly.
Chairman Johnson requested that Mr. Larsen explain to Mr.
Swenson how the city measures lot width. Mr. Larsen clarified that
the City of Edina has determined, and will continue to determine,
lot width "as the horizontal distance between side lot lines
measured at right angles to the line establishing the lot depth at
a point of 50 feet from the front lot line ". Mr. Larsen said the
city has the authority to create our own standards and it has been
our policy to measure lot width in this manner.
Ms. Garnaas said it is her understanding that they do not have
to prove hardship. She pointed out there are only two homes on
Skyline Drive that would meet the present subdivision requirements.
The subdivision ordinance as I understand allows for flexibility in
subdividing lots and the granting of variances by the council.
Mr. Jim Mitchell, stated he is not a neighbor but grew up on
Skyline Drive and at present is considering purchasing his mothers
present house. Mr. Mitchell asked the commission to consider what
effect will this house have on the park. The park is an asset for
all neighbors, and the city, and we do not want the park to be
detrimentally affected by this proposal.
Commissioner McClelland said she has been listening to talk
regarding the character and symmetry of the Skyline neighborhood,
and if a hardship is present. Commissioner McClelland said change
in a stable neighborhood is difficult, but cautioned the neighbors
that individual property owners can exercise the right to develop
their property. She pointed out only two lots within the Skyline
neighborhood meet the present standards as set forth by city
ordinance #804. An issue of control appears to be present, and an
issue of no change. There have been a number of questions
regarding house style, house size, and comments recommending that
the proponents add on to their house instead of subdividing their
property and building a new house. These are not reasons to deny
a person the right to go through the process and possibly
subdivide. Commissioner McClelland pointed out if this proposal
would have come before us in 1986, before the new subdivision
ordinance was adopted the criteria to subdivide would have been
met. Commissioner McClelland said she would like to see some
control placed on future house placement and lot development.
Commissioner McClelland concluded that since all issues are not
resolved she would like to see this item held over until the park
board hears the proposal. She added the park board may have plans
to make a trail way system through this park area and park board
input is important in making an educated decision.
7
Commissioner Ingwalson said in his opinion any new development
appears to be forced. The topography in this situation actually
works against its development. Commissioner Ingwalson pointed out
the variance request is very large, but if the park board were to
approve the trading of land the proposal would be more favorable.
Commissioner Runyan said in his opinion the topography is such
that there needs'to be creative development on this site, but it
can 'be accomplished.. If a new house is constructed that is
sensitive to the topography it could be a plus for the
neighborhood. Commissioner Runyan said lots in Edina are very
expensive, and he believes the neighbors fears that a tract house
could be constructed are unfounded. The market is such that a
"good" house can be build on this site.
Commissioner Faust said she
could, be set if we grant such a
concluded she has a hard time
variance of this magnitude.
has a concern that a precedent
large lot width variance. She
approving a subdivision with a
Commissioner Hale noted when he visited the site the lot is
very beautiful. He pointed out with our controls, (development
agreement, conservation easements' etc). if the subdivision is
approved, the new house would be constructed to better "fit the
site ". Commissioner Hale noted there is the possibility that in.
the future someone may desire to acquire this property, tear down
the existing house, and construct an overly large house which could
negatively impact the neighborhood.
Mrs. Hetland, 5120 .Skyline Drive questioned who would be
responsible for the charge of the pump system if the proposal was
approved and. they found it was necessary to have a pumping system
installed. Commissioner McClelland explained it is the
responsibility of the property owner to pay for the pump lift
station on their property.
Commissioner Johnson said he is hesitant to vote on this
proposal until the park board has acted. Commissioner Johnson
noted. be believes a house can be constructed on this site, but
would like to review the house plans and see its placement on the
site before making a decision. He said he understands it is not a
requirement of the ordinance that we review house plans, but in
this situation he would be more comfortable if he reviewed the
plans. Continuing, Commissioner Johnson said in reality the land
trade, except for reducing the size of the requested variance will
not make a visual difference because the property is still
surrounded on three sides by park land. Commissioner Johnson
concluded that what is important to him is creative placement of a
house that is sensitive to the topography, and environment. He
noted it is important in our decision making process to know what
the park board decides.
L
.Ms. Garnaas said she is confused on why the commission wants
input from the park board. She said she thought the variance
request and parkland dedication issue were two different matters.
Commissioner Johnson explained that that is correct, but at this
time we do not know if the park board will "trade land ". If the
land trade is approved, it will reduce your lot width variance, and
you will probably have to pay the parkland dedication fee. If they
accept your proposal to "donate" the rear strip of your land as the
parkland dedication fee your requested variance would not change.
Commissioner McClelland moved to hold this item over until the
park board takes action on their proposal. Commissioner Shaw
seconded the motion. Ayes; Faust, Hale, Johnson, McClelland,
Workinger, Shaw, Ingwalson, Johnson. Nays; Runyan. Motion
carried. This item will be re -heard after the park board has heard
the proposal.
01
B-92-3 Preliminary Plat Approval
Garnaas Addition
Nancy Garnaas and Kevin McTigue,
Lot 15, Skyline'
C
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proposed subdivision
was first considered by the Commission at the September 30, 1992,
meeting. At that meeting the Commission continued the hearing in
order to allow the Park Board to consider a proposed land trade.
The trade involves trading a portion of Highlands Park, south of
the subject property, for an approximately equal area on the
westerly portion of the proponents property. That area contains a
path used by people walking in the park.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the Park Board considered the trade at
two meetings. The Park Board did recommend the city accept the
proposed trade at their November 10, 1992, meeting. The Board
recommends the city retain an easement for Park use over the
property traded to the proponents. As a result, the property would
provide additional lot width, but structures could not be placed on
the easement area.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends preliminary plat
approval granting the request lot width variances with the
following conditions:
1. Final Plat Approval
2. Subdivision Dedication, including, but not limited to an
access for park purposes over the path area shown on the
preliminary plat
Ms. Garnaas and Mr. McTigue, proponents were present. Their
architect Mr. Skagerberg was present. Interested neighbors were
present.
Commissioner Ingwalson questioned the south 25 feet and
inquired if the 25 feet includes the 10 foot utility easement.
Commissioner Ingwalson referred to Mr. Gilligan's letter addressing
the proposal. Mr. Larsen responded when you plat a lot easements
are required for utilities. He explained the proponents will have
only a limited use of the transferred land. Mr. Larsen pointed out
the proponents will not be able to construct anything on the 25
foot "traded" strip of land, but will be able to build up to the
that area. Mr. Larsen noted there were title complications
because of the initial ownership of the land, adding that has now
been resolved. Mr. Larsen clarified the city attorney in his
E
letter indicated that a "land transfer" is possible, but is a more
expensive, time consuming process to.go through, and granting lot
width variances is simpler.and cleaner.
Mrs. Faust said as she understands the opinion from Mr.
Gilligan he indicates "don't trade the land", granting of the
variances is a simpler way to accomplish this subdivision. Mr.
Larsen clarified what he believes the city attorney meant is not
that the transfer of land cannot be accomplished, it 'is a more
difficult, complicated, and expensive procedure than if the
commission and council were to grant a lot width variance. Mr.
Larsen pointed out regardless, if the land is traded, or if the
commission decides to grant a variance, visually the development
will remain the same.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out the interior lot line could
be moved farther east which would allow the new home to be
constructed off the slopes. Mr. Larsen said he believes the
ordinance has driven where the lot lines are.
Commissioner McClelland questioned what would the actual lot
width'be for lot requiring a variance. Mr. Larsen said 92 feet.
Commissioner Runyan pointed out, in his opinion, that visually
with or without the land trade the site, because park land is
located on three sides remains the same.
Commissioner Faust said in all good faith how we can include
the trade of park land when our city attorney recommends we- do not.
Mr. Larsen explained because of potential complications in the
transfer of property it may be simpler to grant, as mentioned
before, a lot width variance.
Commissioner McClelland commented that she would rather see
more balanced lots, smaller variances on two lots, instead of one
large variance.
Commissioner Ingwalson asked Mr. Larsen what the median lot
area is in the neighborhood, and questioned how these lots stack up
to the median sizes within the neighborhood. Mr. Larsen said the
proposed lots contain more square footage than the lots within the
500 foot neighborhood, but are short on lot width. Commissioner
McClelland pointed out that is why there is a request for a lot
width variance.
. Mr. Larsen pointed out the park board has indicated it is
important to the city to acquire the park path at the rear of the
Garnaas property. Mr. Larsen contended, in his opinion, this
property has natural hardships, one being the shape of the lot, and
reiterated lot area for this proposal meets and exceeds the 11500
foot neighborhood" standard, but falls short of the lot width
standard.
10
Mr. Garnaas recapped what has occurred thus far with the
proposal. She explained that on October 13, and on November 10,
they met with the park board to discuss the trade of land. Ms.
Garnaas submitted to the planning commission a signed petition
supporting their proposal. Ms. Garnaas stated it is very important
to them, and to their neighbors to maintain the character and
symmetry of the neighborhood, and park. Ms. Garnaas referred to
Mr. Gilligan's (city attorney) letter, stating that she believes
Mr. Gilligan indicated, that while it may be cumbersome to trade
land, if certain steps are followed the procedure would be legal.
Ms. Garnaas pointed out park board members indicated the path is
critical to the Edina park system, and the city does not want to
become involved in litigation to obtain this path. Continuing, Ms.
Garnaas said the park board demonstrated they felt it is in the
best interest of the city to obtain the pathway that runs behind
their home. Ms. Garnaas told the commission she spoke with a
representative from the DNR inquiring if it would be possible to
move the path off their property onto park property. She reported
the representative indicated it would be preferable to "trade" the
walking path at the rear of their property with the adjoining city
property instead of disturbing the wildlife by moving the path off
private property, unto park property. Ms. Garnaas noted she has
obtained a title insurance binder on this new lot, and if this
trade is granted Lot 2 would not require a. variance. Ms. Garnaas
emphasized all we are requesting is to subdivide what we already
own. She pointed out the proposed lots exceed all neighborhood
standards except for lot width. Ms. Garnaas explained her studies
have found that due to the shapes, and variability of the lot sizes
in the immediate Skyline neighborhood very few lots would meet our
ordinance requirements today.
Ms. Garnaas requested to read to the commission section 810.05
of the subdivision ordinance regarding the granting of variances by
council. She specifically pointed out 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, not the applicant; 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. Ms.
Garnaas said she believes they meet all six hardship criteria. She
added the shape of their property is the hardship. In ordinance 804
section 14 it states; the commission in reviewing proposed plats
and subdivision, and in determining its recommendation to the
council, and the council in determining whether to approve or
disapprove of any plat or subdivision, may consider, among other
matters, the following; 1) the impact of the proposed plat or
subdivision, and proposed development thereof, on the character and
symmetry of the neighborhood as evidenced and indicated by, but not
limited to the following matters: the suitability of the size and
shape of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision relative to
the size and shape of lots in the neighborhood; and the
compatibility of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the
lots in the proposed plat or subdivision with the proposed density
and intended use of the site and the density and use of lots in the
neighborhood. Ms. Garnaas reminded the commission at the last
commission meeting they (Garnaas, McTigue) illustrated the Skyline
Drive neighborhood, and pointed out only two lots within this
neighborhood meet the guidelines today. Ms. Garnaas reiterated the
shape of their property is the hardship. She pointed out if they
would have subdivided their property in 1986 they would have met
all city standards. Ms. Garnaas asserted they respect their
neighbors concerns, and also desire to maintain the character and
symmetry of the neighborhood. Ms. Garnaas pointed out that the
proposed location of the new house is at the end of the cul -de -sac,
park on three sides, and should not crowd any near property owner
or negatively impact anyone.
Ms. Garnaas informed the commission that they have retained an
architect, Mr. James Skagerberg who is present this evening to
respond your questions and concerns.
Mr. Skagerberg presented to the commission a model of the
proposed home. Mr. Skagerberg pointed out that the proposed house
from the street will have a low profile. The proposed house has
been designed to fit into the neighborhood, and it has been a
priority to ensure that a majority of trees are saved. Mr.
Skagerberg pointed out this lot slopes away from the street which
provides the one story profile from street side, and three stories
from the rear. Mr. Skagerberg concluded that he believes a one
story profile home from the street blends in with the neighborhood,
and any impact would be minimal.
Chairman Johnson questioned the spacing between the proposed
house and the existing house, and if the interior lot line could be
moved without impacting either the new or existing house. Mr.
Skagerberg said the lot line could be moved, but it would not be
critical to the house placement of the proposed house. Mr.
Skagerberg said the spacing between the houses will conform to
ordinance standards. Mr. Skagerberg said he understands that the
interior line between these lots may be moved a bit to better
conform to city ordinance standards noting this should not impact
the site for the new house.
Commissioner Johnson questioned Mr. Skagerberg if the corner
of the garage for the new house would require a retaining wall.
Mr. Skagerberg responded that that is correct. A retaining wall
would be needed at that corner of the garage. Commissioner Johnson
asked Mr. Skagerberg how the sewer system would work for this home.
Mr. Skagerberg explained that the sewer system will be located on
the middle level of the home which will hook into the present
12
' .fi
system. There will be no plumbing below this level.
Mr. Mctigue addressed the commission pointing out that this
proposal has many advantages to the city. They are; preservation
of the park path system, the new house will generate additional
revenue in taxes, impact will be minimal, and the subdivision will
allow the DNR designated wetland to remain unaltered. Mr. McTigue
pointed out, in his opinion, that the park board has chosen a
unique action by recommending the trading of land because they
believe the path on the rear of our property is essential to the
Highland Preserve. Mr. McTigue asked the commission to recognize
that many neighbors support the proposal, and the trading of land.
Mr. McTigue read into the record letters of support.
Commissioner Faust pointed out that many signatures on the
proposal for support do not show their addresses. Ms. Garnaas said
all persons who have signed the petition for support live within
the 500 foot neighborhood.
Mr. McTigue reiterated that their lot is unusual, and it's
shape constitutes a hardship. He pointed out that crowding is
impossible because the proposed house will be located at the end of
the cul -de -sac with park on three sides. Mr. Mctigue referred to
the letter from Mr. Swenson responding to a concern over the
original figures regarding this subdivision. The original figures
were incorrect because of the interpretation of how to measure lot
width. The original application was incorrect. Mr. McTigue stated
that all figures the planning commission have viewed are correct.
Mr. McTigue noted that Mr. Swenson referred to maintaining
character and symmetry in his letter, and Mr. McTigue pointed out
the character and symmetry of this Skyline Drive neighborhood is a
neighborhood of varied lot sizes, and shapes, and our proposal does
comply with these shapes and sizes. In conclusion Mr. McTigue said
Mr. Swenson referred to the private covenants of this subdivision
and pointed out that the private covenants have expired.
Commissioner McClelland questioned Mr. McTigue on when they
purchased the property. Mr. McTigue said they purchased their
property in 1988. Commissioner McClelland pointed out Mr.
Swenson's letter assumed you purchased this property after the
subdivision ordinance was in place, when in actuality your purchase
pre -dates the new subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Swenson responded that character and symmetry are
important issues to address, and this lot is part of a subdivision
that has been in existence for quite some time. Mr. Swenson
pointed out that even though the private covenants have expired
they are what formed the character and symmetry of the Skyline
Drive neighborhood. Mr. Swenson said he believes the developer
took into consideration the unique topography of these lots and
tried to ensure that every lot within this subdivision, would be
developed to its finest potential, which is why the shapes, and
13
sizes of the lots are so varied, and that is why before anything
was constructed the residents had input on what would be
constructed so no views would be obstructed. Mr. Swenson concluded
that the variance required for this subdivision is quite large and
there is no hardship to support approval of the variance.
Mr. Mike Bolin, 5207 Doncaster Way, told the Commission in his
opinion this subdivision takes a "flatlanders" approach to
subdivision of land. Mr. Bolin pointed out that this site contains
steep slopes, and varied elevations,- which should cause careful
consideration. Mr. Bolin said in his opinion the trading of park
land is nonsense, and can cause legal complications as indicated by
the city attorney, and fee title for park purposes to an easement
for park purposes is difficult. Mr. Bolin indicated, in his
opinion, that the city would have a difficult "row to hoe" if they
agreed to this "trading" of land, and approved this subdivision.
Continuing, Mr. Bolin said the only reason the proponents want this
park land is to reduce the size of the variance. Mr. Bolin pointed
out that every owner of property within this "park area" will have
a view of the new house. He explained when he purchased his home
he did so because of the view, the remoteness of the area, and the
natural preserve. He asserted that he does not want to see a home
"placed in the park ". A home in the park does not meet the
character and symmetry of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Bolin
pointed out when you walk on the park level you cannot see any
homes, and it is a very natural park like setting. Continuing, Mr.
Bolin contended Edina has so many bits and pieces of park that this
large area should be protected, and remain unaltered. He remarked
you actually. feel, when you are in this park, that you are on a
remote trail, away from the city, and this feeling 'should be
preserved and maintained for all Edina residents now and in the
future. Mr. Bolin contended if the Garnaas /McTigue property was
abstract land, not Torrens, the fact that city residents have been
using that trail for over 20 years, and if the city has maintained
any part of that land, that land can be dedicated adverse
possession after 15 years. Mr. Bolin concluded by questioning if
it is cheaper to move the path onto park property or condemn the
path and have the city take possession of it. He said he observed
that there are at least six property owners within this
neighborhood that could also subdivide their property, and he would
not like to see that happen.
Mr. Keith VanLiere, 5125 Skyline Drive told the commission
the only thing the park board recommended is that the land could be
"swapped ", the park board did not indicate they support the
proposal to subdivide, that is the mission of the planning
commission. Mr. VanLiere pointed out that this area of the park is
the most remote, and wild, and he, and everyone else will be able
to view the proposed home from the park. Mr. VanLiere said one
more house on Skyline dramatically changes the character of this
neighborhood, and visually alters the area. All houses presently
are located on the top of the Skyline ridge, and the proposed house
14
will be constructed off this ridge. Mr. VanLiere indicated that he
believes there is no hardship to support the variance request, and
asked the commission to reject their petition to subdivide their
lot. Mr. VanLiere stressed there is no hardship, and pointed out
the proposed lot does not meet the median widths of the 500 foot
neighborhood.
Mr. John Gould, 5600 Interlachen Circle, said he has lived in
Edina for almost 40 years and emphasized that the only hardship he
has heard this evening is the fact that the proponents need the
variance because the lot is too small to meet city requirements.
Mr. Gould concluded that in his opinion this proposal will have an
adverse impact on the park property and should be denied.
Mr. McTigue said there appears to be some confusion and he
wants it recorded for the record that the home they propose to
construct will be constructed on their property not park property,
He took issue that the proposed house will be extremely visible.
Mr. McTigue pointed out the lay of the land if anyone has walked
the park will provide adequate screening from the proposed house.
Ms. Garnaas referred to the letter from the city attorney, and
pointed out the city attorneys letter is quite clear, the land
trade can be legally accomplished, but the granting of variances is
also something that should be considered. The city attorney left
it up to the commission and council to decide what they think is
best, and since we have obtained title insurance and have a "clean"
deed there should be no question that the path is on our property
and the trading of it can be legally accomplished.
Ms. Miriam Mitchell, who resides on Lot 14 Skyline, told the
commission she is very much against this proposal as submitted.
Ms. Betty Hetland, 5120 Skyline Drive explained that she
opposes the proposal as submitted and questioned why the path just
can't be moved. She stated Skyline Drive is a wonderful
neighborhood, and she concluded that she does not want the city to
give away any park property.
Mr. Gary Brunkow, 5101 Skyline Drive believes if this proposal
is approved a precedent could be set, and stated he wants the
commission to take a careful look at the possibility of other large
lots requesting to be divided.
Commissioner McClelland said in actuality only two lots on
Skyline Drive meet the current code, and one is the very large Lot
19.
Mr. Bolin questioned how large would a variance have to be
before this body would consider it too large. He pointed out the
commission denied a proposal by a Mr. Utne because it did not meet
the neighborhood standards.
15 "�
Commissioner Palmer said that is one question that cannot be
answered in advance. Commissioner Palmer pointed out that
variances are exceptions to rules, and are very individual in
nature, therefore there are no "rules" to define them in advance.
Commissioner Runyan said, in his opinion, what makes this
proposal different from the Utne proposal is that the lot created
by Utne would have been and "in fill" lot. Continuing,
Commissioner Runyan remarked that this particular piece of property
is located at the end of a cul- de -saa that is surrounded on three
sides by park land. Commissioner Runyan pointed out any impact
would be minimal, and according to the plans submitted by Mr.
Skagerberg the street level symmetry, which is very important to
consider, would not be adversely impacted due to the low profile
design of the house. Commissioner Runyan concluded that what he
desires is to view houses that relate well to each other as you
view them from the street. Commissioner Runyan said if this house
would have been designed as a two story house from the street that
height would impact the neighborhood.
Mr. Bolin said his concern also includes potential problems
with snow removal, the grade of the street, and the location of the
fire hydrant. Mr. Bolin took issue with what he believes the
commission considers the "neighborhood" and limiting it to just
Skyline Drive. Mr. Bolin said he believes the whole 11500 foot
neighborhood" should be included because homes across the park will
be able to view the proposed house. In this instance, (which is
different from the previous issue) the entire 11500 foot
neighborhood" is important.
Commissioner Workinger observed that while he is sympathetic
to the plight of the proponents, and believes the home they have
chosen to be constructed on this site fits the character and
symmetry of the neighborhood, he cannot support this subdivision
due to the size of the requested variance.
Commissioner Ingwalson indicated that he has a problem
approving a variance of this size. A 30 foot variance is very
large, and the homeowners within this neighborhood have a right to
depend on the zoning laws of the city to protect the integrity of
their neighborhood.
Commissioner Palmer reiterated that with or without the
variance the appearance of the lot, and proposed lot will remain
the same. Obtaining the extra width does reduce the variance, but
as indicated before the lot will be viewed the same. The variance
is just on paper, and is a legal technically. Commissioner Palmer
concluded that nothing will be constructed on the adjoining
property so granting a variance for this situation is not as
significant and granted such a large variance in the middle of an
established street.
16
Commissioner Workinger reiterated that the size of the
variance is his concern, and he cannot support a variance of this
size, regardless.
Commissioner Palmer said that while he agrees that a 30 foot
variance is large, in his opinion variances are about "getting
away" from arbitrary numbers, and looking at what is really
happening with each individual proposal. Commissioner Palmer said
that while he supports the statement that 30 is a large number, in
this instance that is not as significant because of the uniqueness
of the site and the location of this site.
Chairman Johnson questioned if the interior lot line between
the existing house and proposed house is moved will the required
variances on each lot diminish.
Mr. Larsen said the total variance number would stay the same
but would be divided between the lots. Two smaller variances,
instead of one large 30 foot variance.
Commissioner Ingwalson said he recalled that if the interior
lot line was moved there could be a problem with lot area.
Ms. Garnaas clarified that the variance requested is 25 feet,
not 30 feet.
Mr. McTigue said if it really matters they could approach the
park board and request obtaining more park property, the size of
the variance would be reduced, but nothing would change. Mr.
McTigue pointed out that the park board voted unanimously to
support their request. Mr. McTigue contended that the hardship
for this property is the unusual configuration of the lot, unusual
configuration of the road, topography etc.
Ms. Garnaas said the lot area is in excess after subdivision
of 4,000 square feet. The shape of the lot cannot be cut to meet
the lot width ordinance stipulation.
Ms. Ann Smith, 5117 Skyline Drive said it is her understanding
that variance could only be granted due to hardship, and in her
opinion there is no hardship. The hardship appeared when
Garnaas /McTigue wanted to divide their lot. They lived there for
years without observing any hardship.
Chairman Johnson responding to Mr. McTigue's comments on going
back to the park board stated that would not be a good idea.
Chairman Johnson pointed out a variance would probably still be
required, so nothing would be accomplished.
Commissioner Johnson said he is not in favor of giving up city
park land, in any form. Having the proponents "transfer" the land
as parkland dedication if approved makes more sense. Commissioner
17
,
Johnson stated his main concern is the structure on the property
and its impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson said, in
his opinion, the proposed house fits into the character and
symmetry of the neighborhood, and it is his position that the house
be constructed as depicted in the first proposal.
Mr. Bolin asked for clarification on the actual size of the
lot width variance. The total for the two lots measuring 50 feet
back is 33 feet for the southerly lot and 19 feet on the existing
house lot. Mr. Bolin questioned if the lot width variance is still
52 feet. Commissioner McClelland clarified that the requested
variance is 25 feet. Commissioner McClelland said if the park land
is added to the adjoining lot that lot is brought into compliance
with out lot width requirements. The other lot would still require
a lot width variance because it remains 92 feet in width.
Commissioner McClelland pointed out the park board wants the trail,
but the question is how that would be accomplished. Commissioner
McClelland said she would like to see what the city attorney lays
out. Commissioner McClelland pointed out that the interior line
could be moved.
Commissioner Shaw said in her opinion the attorney has
recommended that we grant the lot width variance. Granting of the
variance is a cleaner, easier way to accomplish this subdivision.
Commissioner McClelland pointed out in actuality what we are
talking about is lines on paper. As mentioned before with or
without obtaining the park land the property would be viewed the
same.
Mr. Larsen said if we as a body decide not to accept the trade
of land we are back to the original proposal, which contained
larger lot width variances. If the larger lot width variances were
to be granted, staff would suggest as a condition of approval that
the commission require as part of subdivision dedication the rear
"path" portion of the Garnaas property. Commissioner McClelland
said if approval is granted she wants it clear that this is a
unique property, adjoining park land so any precedent setting would
be minimized. She pointed out there are very few properties in
Edina such as this.
Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend preliminary plat
approval, and the granting of requested variances, subject to staff
conditions.
Commissioner Johnson questioned if Commissioner Palmer was
recommending approval of the original plan or the plan before them
this evening. He added we should clarify which proposal we are
recommending approval for.
Mr. Larsen interjected that as he reads his staff report there
could be some confusion. Mr. Larsen said if it is Mr. Palmer's
intention to recommend approval of the plat that requires variance
18
approval, and also depicts the plat without the "land trade" and
recommending parkland dedication, that proposal is the original
proposal. The proposal before us this evening depicts the land
trade witch results in different variances.
Commissioner Palmer said he amends his original motion for
approval to read that subdivision approval is recommended on the
original proposal, not the proposal as submitted this evening,
subject to staff conditions of final plat approval, and subdivision
dedication, including, but not limited to an access for park
purposes over the path area shown on the preliminary plat.
Commissioner Runyan seconded the motion.
Commissioner Faust pointed out that during the discussion this
evening It was not mentioned that 900 of the houses on Skyline
Drive contain at least 115 feet of street frontage /lot width.
Commissioner Faust stated both lots are short on lot width, and
approving a 52 foot lot width variance is absurd, there is not
enough land to support two lots. Commissioner Faust said her
concern centers on precedent setting. Commissioner Workinger
pointed out that if approval is granted on this proposal meeting
sideyard setbacks could also create a problem.
Chairman Johnson clarified that what we are voting on is the
original proposal.
Commissioner Johnson said his main concern is how the house
fits on the lot, adding before he votes on this proposal he would
like some guarantee that the house constructed on the new lot is
the house presented this evening by Mr. Skagerberg. Commissioner
Palmer said, in his opinion, legally we may have a problem
stipulating exactly what style of house is placed on this lot.
Commissioner Palmer said he does not believe this body can put
design limitations or choose the style of house constructed.
Continuing, Commissioner Palmer said in good faith be believes if
this proposal is approved the proponents will construct the house
represented this evening by Mr. Skagerberg, but he reiterated in
his opinion recommending to the council that any approval be also
contingent on the style of house constructed is out of our
jurisdiction. The Council may stipulate that condition but we
cannot.
Commissioner Byron said he cannot support a proposal when the
hardship to support a variance is a hardship for the city, (the
city's desire to acquire a walking path) and not for the property
owners. Commissioner Byron remarked that using the subdivision
process to achieve the park path helps only the city, and I cannot
support it. Commissioner Byron stated from what he could tell when
reviewing the sales literature for this house, is that the property
owners came into this situation with their eyes wide open. The
sales literature did not state this property can be subdivided.
Commissioner Byron pointed out there are properties all over Edina
19
where the house is not centrally located on the lot and in the
abstract all we are doing is trying to address the economic
interest of the land owners. Commissioner Byron concluded that he
cannot support the request because of the size of the variance
required.
Ayes; McClelland, Runyan, Palmer. Nays; Hale, Byron, Faust,
L. Johnson, Shaw, Ingwalson, Workinger, G. Johnson. Motion for
approval failed 8 -3.
III. NEW BUSINESS:
S -92 -4 Preliminary Plat Approval
Granger Addition
Winston Granger
5533 Vernon Avenue
Mr. Larsen informed the commission the subject property is a
devel ed single family lot containing a lot area of 20,800 square
feet request has been submitted to sub de the property
creatin e, new buildable lot.
Mr. L n pointed out the propose reliminary plat would
require lot h, lot depth, and lot a variances for both new
lots. z
Mr. Larsen conb
kuded the propoge'd subdivision fails to meet
the basic size ands ension stant�iards of the city subdivision
ordinance. Based on tie a standa s the lots are too small for the
neighborhood. Notwiths ding ese deficiencies the plat would
offer some positives. 1. w d remove curb cuts from Vernon
Avenue. It would replace aye. lete home with two new homes. The
smaller lots may also yield homes more in keeping with the size
and value of existing home area.
The proponent/esnot and Mrs.•:langer were present. Mr. Ron
King, developer was nt. Interesded neighbors were present.
Commissioner M and questioned. the location map pointing
out it does not mawith what is �icted. Mr. Larsen said
the location map d reflect lots t� he east.
Commissioner Runyan questioned the pressed driveway on the
east. Mr. Larsqn said that driveway serves a -igme and an agreement
has been reac ed between the affected propertv . owners, and to.
relocate the = riveway. _
Mr. Granger informed commission members tha+„ to date there
appears to be no neighborhood opposition to their proposal to
sports such as figure skating and swi
anybody join. However *mss--
Mr. Christianson noted that from his perspective the Park Bo can either
do nothing, which means that the existing policy stays in a ct, or the
policy can be changed. No Motion was made.
C. Increase In Field Maintenance User Fee
Mr. Kojetin noted that the city also has tight fund ike athletic
associations. He informed everyone that the $5.0 intenance usage fee
first started in 1987. Mr. Kojetin stated that s issue needed to be
brought up again because the city is cutting o areas in the park and
recreation budget. The reason that this fee initiated in the first
place was the City Council had cut $30,000 of the field maintenance
budget which directly goes to the prepara of baseball and softball
diamonds, fertilizers, and whatever evel s to be done in the park
fields. The City Council indicated f the athletic associations could
raise $30,000 then that money could into a portion of the budget
that would continue to give the sam of maintenance. As prices are
always going up, the City needs t his field maintenance fee by
$1.00. It is figured this woul approximately $4,000 and would
bring the budget up to approxi ly $36,000 or $37,000.
Mr. Basgen asked if the fi aintenance user fee includes the ice rinks?
Mr. Kojetin indicated th does not, it only affects the outdoor
activities.
Mr. Lettmann indica hat baseball has approximately 1,000 participants
so it would be a y good increase. He asked if this increase would
maintain the pre level of maintenance or would there be an
improvement. elt that if the same level of maintenance is done with a
20% increase at is not an improvement. Mr. Christianson noted that he
felt holdi our own would be an improvement.
Bill L OVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THERE BE AN INCREASE
IN T ELD MAINTENANCE USER FEE TO $6.00 AS OPPOSED TO THE PREVIOUS
$5. Pat Vagnoni SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
sociations for
\! III. HIGHLAND PARK PROPERTY
Mr. Christianson gave a brief issue on the background of the Highland Park
Property. He noted that it basically boils down to whether or not the Park
Board, as a matter of policy, will make a recommendation to deviate from a
long standing policy of not conveying park property.
Nancy Garnaas, owner of the property at issue, read the ordinance which
specifically addresses land dedication or past contributions. Ms. Garnaas
indicated that what is critical is where it states that the city, as a
general rule, to acquire the dedication of land in the following
instances. If the property to be dedicated is adjacent to an existing
public park or playground and the additional property will beneficially
expand the park or playground.
Ms. Garnaas then pointed out her piece of property on a map and explained
what piece of property they wish to trade and donate to the City.
7
2
Ms. Garnaas noted that there are several benefits to the Park Department
.:Ond to the City through this trade. She stated it will enable the Park
De artment to secure the necessary land to complete the acquisition of all
trils within the park. It would also be beneficial to the-Park Department
for future development. Ms. Garnaas also pointed out that when the Park
Department wishes to access the meadow, they need to use a particular part
of the trail and this trail cannot be relocated off of the property as it
would necessitate the removal of many trees and would also require fill to
be put into the wetlands, which is against current state and federal law.
Lastly, she indicated that the city will benefit as it would allow Ms.
Garnaas to construct a single family dwelling on their property which would
generate new tax revenues.
Ms. Garnaas stated that the Planning Commission recommends action by the
Park Board and City Council relative to the trade and dedication of
property as well as the path encroachment.
A person in the audience asked Ms. Garnaas why they need a variance. Ms.
Garnaas replied that they need it for width of the property.
Ms. Garnaas indicated that she was informed by a member of the Planning
Commission that this has been done before on three separate occasions.
Ms. Garnaas indicated that she discussed this proposed trade with the
homeowners on the perimeter of the park and has 23 signatures and 2 letters
in support of the dedication and the trade and /or sale of land.
Ms. Garnaas noted that they reside in the neighborhood surrounding Highland
Park that utilize a path connecting Skyline Drive, Lochloy Drive,
Interlachen Bluff, Interlachen Circle, Highland Ice rink, Soccer field and
Elementary School. She indicated that the signatures she has support the
Park Board to: 1) accept the dedication of the park path, and 2) to trade
or sell the park land to improve their plat. Ms. Garnaas also pointed out
that the property they wish to acquire is virtually useless to anyone
except them because of the cliff.
Ms. Garnaas stressed that it is important that due process -be followed for
many reasons. Without each step in the process there is chaos and no
clarity. There are many issues to be raised by a subdivision and each of
those issues is planned and dealt with separately in the city's procedure.
Ms. Garnaas stated they want to go in process with each set of answers for
each set-of questions .
Ms. Garnaas then presented the Park Board with a video of the property.
Mr. Christianson asked who maintains the path, because it looks as though
someone goes through and keeps the brush down. Mr. Kojetin noted that the
City does not maintain the path, it's maintain by the people who use it.
Mr. Fee indicated that there is also a petition signed by people who are
against doing this and it looks like the majority of them are from Skyline
Drive. Ms. Garnaas noted that the petition Mr. Fee is referring to has to
do with subdivisions and not with the trade or dedication.
Mr. Herring indicated that he wanted to make a clarification that without a
recommendation for the exchange of land, the Planning Commission would not
recommend the subdivision? Ms. Garnaas indicated that she does not think
that is necessarily true, they did not say if the Park Board says no they
will not get a subdivision. Ms. Garnaas indicated that even with the
exchange they still need a width variance.
11
If
Ms. Garnaas noted that there are several benefits to the Park Department
,',�nd to the City through this trade. She stated it will enable the Park
De artment to secure the necessary land to complete the acquisition of all
tr)ils within the park. It would also be beneficial-to the-Park Department
for future development. Ms. Garnaas also pointed out that when the Park
Department wishes to access the meadow, they need to use a particular part
of the trail and this trail cannot be relocated off of the property as it
would necessitate the removal of many trees and would also require fill to
be.put into the wetlands, which is against current state and federal law.
Lastly, she indicated that the city will benefit as it would allow Ms.
Garnaas to construct a single family dwelling on their property which would
generate new tax revenues.
Ms. Garnaas stated that the Planning Commission recommends action by the
Park Board and City Council relative to the trade and dedication of
property as well as the path encroachment.
A person in the audience asked Ms. Garnaas why they need a variance. Ms.
Garnaas replied that they need it for width of the property.
Ms. Garnaas indicated that she was informed by a member of the Planning
Commission that this has been done before on three separate occasions.
Ms. Garnaas indicated that she discussed this proposed trade with the
homeowners on the perimeter of the park and has 23 signatures and 2 letters
in support of the dedication and the trade and /or sale of land.
Ms. Garnaas noted that they reside in the` neighborhood surrounding Highland
Park that utilize a path connecting Skyline Drive, Lochloy Drive,
Interlachen Bluff; Interlachen Circle, Highland Ice rink, Soccer field and
Elementary School. She indicated that the signatures she has support the
Park Board to: 1) accept the dedication of the park path, and 2) to trade
or sell the park land to improve their plat. Ms. Garnaas also pointed out
that the property they wish to acquire is virtually useless to anyone
except them because of the cliff.
Ms. Garnaas stressed that it is important that due process,.be followed for
many reasons. Without each step in the process there is chaos and no
clarity. There are many issues to be raised by a subdivision and each of
those issues is planned and dealt with separately in the city's procedure.
Ms. Garnaas stated they want to go in process with each set of airswers for
each set of questions. ;. >,; e- csr:uv'?,
Ms. Garnaas then presented the Park Board with a video of the property.
Mr. Christianson asked who maintains the path, because it looks as though
someone goes through and keeps the brush down. Mr. Kojetin noted that the
City does not maintain the path, it's maintain by the people who use it.
Mr. Fee indicated that there is also a petition signed by people who are
against doing this and it looks like the majority of them are from Skyline
Drive. Ms. Garnaas noted that the petition Mr. Fee is referring to has to
do with subdivisions and not with the trade or dedication.
Mr. Herring indicated that he wanted to make a clarification that without a
recommendation for the exchange of land, the Planning Commission would not
recommend the subdivision? Ms. Garnaas indicated that she does not think
that is necessarily true, they did not say if the Park Board says no they
will not get a subdivision. Ms. Garnaas indicated that even with the
exchange they still need a width variance.
0
Mr. Kojetin indicated on the map exactly what Ms. Garnaas in asking for in
regards to the land and explained how the variance would work.
Mr. Montgomery asked if the Park Board does not trade the land what
jeopardy does that put the path in as far as what legal action could Ms.
Garnaas have .against the City for having the path on their property.
Michael Bolen, 5207 Doncaster Way, indicated that he lives directly west
and slightly south of this premises. He indicated that he just received
notice of this issue and has not had a lot of time to prepare. Mr. Bolen
stated that when he bought his lot the thing that impressed him was the
park area. It was complete solitude and he felt as though he was walking
through the woods in north central Minnesota. There were no structures and
there were no improvements, you could walk around the path and see
pheasants and different animals. There was a complete feeling of
tranquility. Mr. Bolen also explained that when he called the park
commission a number of years ago on the improvement of the baseball fields,
etc., he asked about the wild area and was assured that the park would be
kept in its wild state. Mr. Bolen also stated that one of the signatures
on the petition that Ms. Garnaas had, changed her mind and is now opposed.
Mr. Bolen stated that he sees many people come to the park and spend time
in the wooded area, they find it very restful. He pointed out that it is
not just the people in this neighborhood who are using the wildlife area.
He feels that it is very unique. Mr. Bolen asked the Park Board to really
think before they trade this land for something.
Keith Van Liere, 5125 Skyline Drive, indicated that he is in the opponent
category. He indicated that has heard the comments from the staff and Park
Board members and it appears to him that for a trade to happen it needs to
be beneficial to the city. He asked that if there was not a path that
crossed the area this would be a non - issue, because there would be no
benefit to the park. Mr. Van Liere indicated that he is trying to figure
out what the benefit is. Mr. Van Liere stated that the staff said that the
path could be moved if it became an issue. Mr. Christianson asked Mr. Van
Liere what the detriment is to the people who are opposing this.
Mr. Christianson noted that he walked the property and he noted that the
reason they are objecting to the property is because of the result of
another house being built there. A woman noted that is correct, it will
change the character of their neighborhood and this woman noted that she
has lived there for 40 years and has owned the property longer than that.
This woman stated that she doesn't want any park land given up for anyone.
This woman also stated to the Park Board that if they have not seen the
property she does not-want them to vote for or against giving up the
property. Mr. Christianson asked the woman if Ms. Garnaas was proposing to
trade the land without requesting to build another house would she oppose
that? She indicated that she would not.
Mr. Montgomery noted that Ms. Garnaas indicated that she heard this has
been done three times in the past. Has the Park Board ever traded property
or would this be the first time that the Park Board would be in a position
of having a trade? Mr. Kojetin indicated that he is not aware of any
previous trades.
Miriam Mitchell, 5124 Skyline Drive, read a letter that her son wrote to
the Park Board. Ms. Mitchell noted that she has lived there for 43 years.
Her son indicated that the possibility of finding solitude and privacy in
the park would be forever lost if this were to happen.
9
Mr. Herring shared some thoughts and questions. He asked Mr. Kojetin if
the path were moved off the property would it be a big and /or expensive
task? Mr. Kojetin noted that it could be moved. However, sometimes in the
spring there may be some water on the path. Mr. Herring noted that he
would also like to have some information as to what rights the city may
have to the path, whether there was an easement or there wasn't an easement
and whether the City had adverse possession rights. He does not know and
he would like to have more information because this is being proposed as a
quid quo pro for the grant of this. Mr. Herring indicated that it sounds
like Ms.'Garnaas has kept the lot in a wooded condition but if this
property were sold to a third party there is nothing to prevent that third
party from cutting down trees and building a fence to eliminate what is an
existing buffer between the wooded steps and the existing lot line. Mr.
Herring agreed with Mr. Montgomery in that he would like to know what
precedent there is for an exchange or any grant of park property to an
individual. Mr. Herring also pointed out that although the Park Board is
not being asked to talk about the merit of buildir.; this home, clearly the
building of the home and what the Park Board does will affect the
likelihood of whether this home is built and if that impacts the natural
beauty of the park that's an issue with respect to the grant of that piece
of property to them.
Mr. O'Connor indicated that he doesn't see the issue quite so broadly. He
really doesn't care if there has been precedence before or not. Mr.
O'Connor feels the question is very narrow, whether or not in the minds of
the Park Board this is a good exchange. From his perspective it seems to
him that Ms. Garnaas has kept this natural walkway for the community to use
and it seems like a fair exchange. The bigger issue about whether or not a
house should be built is not a decision for the Park Board to deal with.
Ms. Vagnoni had a question about the stairway. She noted that if the
property is extended and a home is built people might be a little more
hesitant about using that stairway into the park and maybe that would alter
the entry to the park. Mr. Christianson noted that Mrs. Remele told him
that the stairway is not used by a lot of kids because it hard to get their
bikes up and down.
Mr. Christianson noted that he appreciated everyones input from both the
opponents and proponents. Mr. Christianson then went on to say that Mr..
Herring has raised some good concerns and he also agrees with Mr. O'Connor
to a certain degree. Mr. Christianson stated that the Park Board could
vote on this issue now, but he would prefer to have some investigation made
as to whether or not similar circumstances have occurred in the past in
terms of exchanges of property, or if the City can sell this property since
it was donated to the City.
Mr. Christianson urged everyone to walk on the property and check
everything out. He also stated that he is inclined to hold the decision
until the next Park Board meeting when more information is received.
Andy Herring'MOVED TO TABLE THIS MOTION,UNTIL THE NEXT PARK BOARD MEETING.
Andy Montgomery SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION APPROVED TO TABLE UNTIL NEXT
MEETING.
IV. BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE
A. Braemar Clubhouse Feasibility Study
Mr. Kojetin brought the Park Board up to date in regards to the feasibility
study that was conducted for the Braemar Clubhouse. He indicated that the
feasibility study was approved a year ago and it shows the different phases
of improvements that could be done to the clubhouse in future years.
10
Mr. Kojetin indicated on the map exactly what Ms. Garnaas in asking for in
regards to the land and explained how the variance would work.
Mr. Montgomery asked if the Park Board does not trade the land what
jeopardy does that put the path in as far as what legal action could Ms.
Garnaas have.against the City for having the path on their property.
Michael Bolen, 5207 Doncaster Way, indicated that he lives directly west
and slightly south of this premises. He.indicated that he just received
notice of this issue and has not had a lot of time to prepare. Mr. Bolen
stated that when.he bought his lot the thing that impressed him was the
park area. It was complete solitude and he felt as though he was walking
through the woods in north central Minnesota. There were no structures and
there were no improvements, you could walk around the path and see
pheasants and'different animals. There was a complete feeling of
tranquility. Mr. Bolen also explained that when he called the park
commission a number of years ago on the improvement of the baseball.fields,
etc., he asked about the wild area and was assured that the park would be
kept in its wild state. Mr. Bolen also stated that one of the signatures
on the petition that Ms. Garnaas had, changed her mind and is now opposed.
Mr. Bolen stated that he sees many people come to the park and spend time
in the wooded area, they find it very restful. He pointed out that it is
not just the people in this neighborhood who are using the wildlife area.
He feels that it is very unique. Mr.. Bolen asked the Park Board to really
think before they trade this land for something.
Keith Van Liere, 5125 Skyline Drive, indicated .that he is in the opponent
category. He indicated that has heard the comments from the staff and Park
Board members and it appears to him that for a trade to happen it needs to
be beneficial to -the city. He asked that if there was not a path that
crossed the area this would be a non - issue, because there would be no
benefit to the park. Mr. Van Liere indicated that he is trying to figure
out what the benefit is. Mr. Van Liere stated that the staff said that the
path could be moved if it became an issue. Mr. Christianson asked Mr. Van
Liere what the detriment is to the people who are opposing this.
Mr. Christianson noted that'he walked the - property and he noted that the
reason they are objecting to the property is because of the result of
another house being built there. -A woman noted that is correct, it will
change the character of their neighborhood and this woman noted that she
has lived there for 40 years and has owned the property longer than that.
This woman stated that she.doesn't. want any park land given up for anyone.
This woman also stated to the Park Board that if they have not seen the
property she does not want them to vote for or against giving up the '
property. Mr. Christianson asked the woman if Ms.- Garnaas was proposing to
trade the land without requesting to build another house would she oppose
that? She indicated that she would not.
Mr. Montgomery noted that Ms. Garnaas indicated that she heard this has
been done three times in the past. Has the Park Board ever traded property
or would this be the first time that the Park Board would be in a position
of having a trade? Mr. Kojetin indicated that he is not aware of any
previous trades.
Miriam Mitchell, 5124 Skyline Drive, read a letter that her son wrote to
the Park Board. Ms. Mitchell noted that she has lived there for 43 years.
Her son indicated that the possibility of finding solitude and privacy in
the park would be forever lost if this were to happen.
9
Overall Mr. Kojetin felt the feasibility study has good merit in how to
improve the facility as well as increase the square footage in some areas
of the building.
Mr. Kojetin stated that the improvement to the new nine holes at Braemar
and the feasibility of increasing the size of the pro shop was part of the
bonds that were sold. There was $350,000 allocated for the expansion of
the pro shop and office facility at the clubhouse. Mr. Kojetin noted that
they opened the bids and awarded the expansion for the clubhouse at the
last City Council meeting. The expansion construction costs came in at
$323,000 and the architect fees were $33,000 so it was within budget. A
time table was not given for the expansion of the other areas of the
facility but the grill area will probably be the next consideration.
B. Braemar New Nine Holes and Normandale Golf Course
Mr. Kojetin indicated that they started grading on Monday at both golf
courses. Construction of both golf courses will be completed August of
1993. Both golf courses will be ready for play sometime in the summer of
1994. The irrigation bid for Braemar will be opened on October 28th.
V. CORNELIA SOFTBALL FIELD
Mr. Kojetin explained that since the softball fields were lost at Lake
Edina they have been building a field at Cornelia School Park where there
used to be a baseball field. A 300 ft. fence is being put up and they are
regrading. The money for this ball field is being taken from the
Normandale Golf budget and it will cost approximately $10,000.
VI. CREEK VALLEY SOCCER FIELDS
There are three soccer fields being put in at Creek Valley to replace the
soccer field that was lost at Braemar. The soccer fields will be side by
side and are 60 yards wide by 100 yds long. The softball field that was
there is being taken down. The money for these soccer fields is being
taken from the Braemar Golf budget and will cost approximately $15,000.
VI. OTHER
A. Edina Baseball Association Alcohol Policy
Mr. Montgomery noted that he read the Edina Baseball Associations's Board
policy on alcohol and he has a problem with it. It seemed to him that if
he is a non - official, and reports an incident it has to go through the
ethics committee. However, if he is a coach, chaperone or umpire he can
immediately notify the participant of the behavior and suspend the
participant as well as notify the local law enforcement for any illegal
activity. The intent is everything should go through the ethics
committee. He doesn't think that a coach has the right to go up and tell
somebody that they are suspended and then you go through this other
process. He will call Lee Lippert from the Baseball Association on the
matter.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mac Thayer MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:20 P.M. Bill Jenkins
SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED.
11
transportation ey have to get their kids to swimming lessons. Mr.
Kojetin indicated at a few of these parent l be writing letters to
the City Council hop that we do not cut
Mr. Kojetin informed the k Board t right now $9,000 is in the budget
to have bus transportation n year Mr. Kojetin wanted the Park Board to
be aware of this because it is m ing that they will be hearing from the
residents on whether there is or not a bus next year.
Ms. Vagnoni asked if there i charge o ride the bus. It was noted that
there is no charge. The mo y for the b comes out of the swim
instruction fee or genera tax dollars.
Mr. Christianson aske r. Kojetin what his re endation is and he
replied that the Cit should discontinue the bus ervice but he does not
want a motion on t issue at this point.
Mr. Herring indifrated that perhaps there are some sugg Lions that would
limit the amount of the expense without terminating the ervice. It would
be helpful if there are alternatives.
V. HIGHLAND PARK PROJECT
Mr. Christianson noted that everyone has been provided with a copy of the
City Attorney's letter to Mr. Rosland discussing the issue of whether the
• �� City can legally engage in this transaction. Mr. Christianson also stated
that another issue raised at last months meeting was, from a historical
standpoint, have there ever been exchanges of a similar nature. Mr.
Christianson indicated that these were the primary questions that were
unanswered last month.
Mr. Kojetin indicated that the only exchange of that land that he is
familiar with, that really is not similar, is that exchange of the 44th
Street Property and the old library site by the bank building. An exchange
was made because the bank held the mortgage on the 44th Street property and
they wanted to buy the library property for a parking lot, so an exchange
was made and we assumed the property at 44th Street.
Mr. Christianson noted that as he read Mr. Gilligan's opinion it appeared
to him that it is legal for the City to proceed with such a transaction
provided it follows certain procedures that are set forth in the Minnesota
Statutes. He also indicated that he sees it from a precedential standpoint
that a similar proposal has been engaged in by the City. The City Attorney
says that under certain circumstances the City can proceed with this
proposal legally.
Mr. Christianson said that the question then becomes is it desirable from
the standpoint of the Park Board and park system to engage in this
transaction. He also indicated that the ultimate decider will be the City
Council but that they would appreciate the Park Board's input on that
question.
Ms. Hall asked Mr. Christianson to explain the transfer of park property
that is on page three of the City Attorney's letter. Mr. Christianson
explained that.it can be done if the city applies to the court for
approval. The City would have to apply but it is Mr. Christianson's
understanding that if the City were to engage in this that one of the
conditions would be that the proponents of the transaction would undertake
the expense.
7
Ms. Vagnoni asked if the exchange is done, will there be any strings
attached such as it must always remain a park. Mx`. Christianson indicated
he thinks Mr. Gilligan's opinion addresses the issue in that it's a deed
which does not contain any conditions and does not have a right of
reversion. It says that the convenience is made for the use and purpose
that the premises herein conveyed shall be used for park purposes but there
is no right of reversion and that's why he thinks Mr. Gilligan says that
it's held in public trust by the City of Edina and that's the reason that
the petition has to be made under Section 501.B of the Minnesota Statutes
for court approval. So in essence the city is acting as trustee on behalf
of its citizens owning this property.
Mr. Montgomery stated that it seems the path is critical to the situation,
he just does not want to be involved in litigation to secure the path. Mr.
Montgomery is not 100% convinced that the path can be rerouted and still be
as attractive as, it presently is.
Mr. O'Connor noted that from a policy perspective,.` irrespective of this
issue,,whe ever it's in the best interest of the City and in the judgment
of the City Council it's a good public policy. His opinion is that in this
particular incident it's in the better interest of the City to have that
pathway and to exchange the property as requested.
Mr. Christianson pointed out that the Park Board has to remember their
place and not if there is going to be a building there. That is up to the'`°+
Planning Commission and City Council. The Park Board's charge is to 114 41.
protect and preserve or enhance the park system.
Mr. Montgomery asked if there could be covenants on the one stripe that
goes down the staircase that it cannot be built upon. Mr. Christianson
noted that he has given that some thought and it seems to him that there
are ways of doing this so that in essence, it would preserve the character
of the property as it is now.
John Gould, a member of the audience, indicated that he was not at the last
Park Board meeting. He then asked the Park Board if they received a legal
opinion as to whether or not there is an actual easement now to use the
path in its present condition. Mr. Gould's then indicated to the Park
Board that they should consider the building site that could possibly be
put on the property because that would have an affect on the park property
and he felt that should be a factor to consider.
Mr. Christianson in addressing the first question stated he didn't know
whether the City had obtained such an opinion, but presumably and
ultimately that may be required. However, he indicated that his own
reaction is, in his limited research, that the City does not have any right
to that parcel at this time. It is private property and to enforce the
City's rights would be an expensive proposition without any guarantee of
success. Mr. Gould indicated that he doesn't know how long it takes to get
an easement but he has been walking that path since 1965.
Ms. Garnaas responded to the easement question in saying there was an
easement that did expire in December of 1991 and she does have the legal
documents.
Mr. Christianson noted that the Park Board is not going to do anything
adverse to the park property because nothing is going to happen to the park
property. Under the proposal as he understands it is that the park
property that is presently park property will remain park property. There
0
will be no encroachment, there will be no trees cut down, there will be
nothing done with the stairway and there will be nothing done with that
property.
Mike Bolen, 5207 Doncaster Way, indicated that an issue that has not been
addressed is how is the snow plow going to service this area. It's on a
downgrade and the actual paved portion of that is extremely narrow.
Roxy Molzahn, the original owner of property, indicated that she used to go
out early in the morning when 'the plows came through to try and have the
village leave the stairway open for the kids to go down. The normal thing
they did was to push the snow and since they could not block the fire
hydrant or the drainage area, the only other place they put it was in front
where the children would go down the ramp.
Jim Mitchell, who grew up on Skyline Drive, stated that he used the park
extensively as he grew up. He is currently an Edina resident and he and
his wife have recently drawn up architectural plans to renovate his mother
house which is next door to the proposed subdivision. He addressed the
affect that the subdivision would have on the park. He stated that he has
been hearing conflicting things. The Park Board has indicated that they
are not concerned about what goes on the property itself, but they are
concerned about the park and maintaining its character and integrity. Mr.
Mitchell indicated that he feels those two issues cannot be separated. The
terrain of the property is such that there is about a 30 ft. rise up out of
the park where all of the houses are. Thus, when you are down in the park
you are in a very unusual urban wilderness, you don't see any houses
there. You can be down there in the summer and you don't see anything.
Therefore to build on the second lot, that would be created out of the
subdivision, would be to build down that 30 ft. slope into the park. You
would be taking what is now wilderness and converting it into a residential
backyard type park. It would be a very different feel and very different
character of the park. He thinks that is relevant even though it would
technically be on private property it would drastically change the
character of the park.
Mr. Christianson asked Mr. Mitchell what is to prevent the present owners
from doing exactly what he has just suggested would happen. Mr. Mitchell
replied that there is nothing that guarantees that the present owners
wouldn't do what he just suggested. All he can say is that if you allow
for this subdivision you are taking a hypothetical question and
guaranteeing that it's going to take place. Mr. Christianson noted that
the Park Board is not allowing the subdivision that's up to the Planning
Commission and City Council. Mr. Christianson noted that he is trying to
focus on whether or not this is a good deal for the citizens of Edina in
terms of acquisition of additional park property without any detriment.
Mr. Bolen noted that he talked to a hydrologist from the DNR and she sent
him a copy of the regulations which indicate it would not be difficult to
get a permit to build a path in that area. The hydrologist stated that
they have not established where the ordinary high water mark is for the
Highland Park area. Mr. Bolen then indicated that after talking to Bob
Obermeyer, Design Supervisor, about the ordinary high water mark for the
area it would appear that over the major portions of the path is a
sufficient area in which to fill a foot or two would solve the path
problem.
Mr. Bolen then stated that if the Park Board does not feel they can
actively oppose this they should at least follow the City Attorney's advice
where he says that without a court order one has to wonder why the City has
OJ
engaged in this transaction when the same result could be achieved by
granting the request or variance with the conditions of the property on
which the trail is located is transferred to the City: Mr. Bolen asked why
not put it back to the Planning Commission. He feels this is not land
which they can build on, this is an attempt to get land so they can claim
they have a sufficient lot width to be within striking distance of a
variance. Why should the Park Board get into the position with very little
gain.
Mr. Christianson indicated to Mr. Bolen that it's his experience that the
City Council usually does what it wants. to do irrespective of the Park
Board's advice.
Mr. Herring indicated that the minutes from last month reflected that the
path can be moved and it would not be a major undertaking. Mr. Herring
then asked Mr. Kojetin if it is still his analysis that by moving the path
it would be under water part of the year. Mr. Kojetin indicated that is
correct but it is hard to say how long or how much it would be under
water. It depends on how much rain fall there is each year. It is a water
collecting area.
Ms. Garnaas then noted that she talked with the DNR and they indicated to
her that if the water comes up to the path and the path has to be moved,
the City will have to go to the state and federal government to ask.if they
can do that. -She indicated that the DNR told her any change in the course,
current or cross - section of the wetland is subject to DNR regulation.
Filling below the OHW (i.e., within the wetland) is generally prohibited,
however, the rule's. do provide an exemption for federal, state and local
units of government to fill for roadways when the following criteria are
met: 1) the public need rules out the no -build alternative, and 2) there
is no other feasible and practical alternative to the project that would
have less environmental impact.
Mr. Bolen stated that he has consulted with Ceil Strauss, who is the area
hydrologist, and after he explained the situation to her, she indicated
that she did not think getting a permit would constitute a problem. Mr.
Christianson stated that from his experience there are significant
problems.
Mr. O'Connor MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE SAID
PROPERTY BE EXCHANGED UNDER THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED, NAMELY THAT THE
REQUESTOR PAY ANY OF THE COSTS IN SO DOING IT AND SECONDLY THAT THE
PROPERTY ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE FOR USE AS PART OF THE PARK.
There was no 'second.
Mr. Christianson noted that the motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Montgomery then SECONDED THE MOTION
Six in favor and two opposed.
Bob Christianson
Bill Jenkins
Beth Hall
Jean Rydell
Paul O'Connor
Andrew Montgomery
- In
Favor
- In
Favor
- In
Favor
- In
Favor
- In
Favor
- In
Favor
10
Andrew Herring -
Pat Vagnoni -
Opposed
Opposed
VI.
Mr. Gould stated to Mr. Christianson that he is curious as to how this
motion could initially fail for a lack of a second and then pass 6 to 2.
Mr. Christianson indicated it was renewed and seconded. Mr. Gould wanted
this to be reflected in the minutes.
Mr. McTigue thanked the Park Board for their time, understanding and
consideration. He knows it has been difficult.
Kojetin brought the Park Board up to date on what the City Council's
I
e Sion was in regards to the charitable gambling fundraising issue. He
note that after quite a lengthy discussion, a recommendation was a that
an at etic association can take money any way they feel that the would
like to ccept it as long as it was a legal type of money. The otion was
seconded nd voted on. It was turned down 3 to 2. That's the ay it was
left.
Mr. Kojetin s ted that he would interpret that to mean i goes back to the
original motio that was made year ago.
VII. RESIDENT/NON -RESI
Mr.. Kojetin stated th&k at the last Soccer Associa n meeting they voted
on whether or not they ould accept non - residents nto their club system,
which would end up being pproximately half. T have requested to come
to the December Park Boar eeting to discuss a resident /non- resident
issue. Mr. Kojetin indicat that he wanted be sure the Park Board was
aware of the issue.
VIII.OTHER
A. Olympic Jr. Volleyball - Mr. M omery indicated that he is the
treasurer of the Edina Olympic Jr. V eyball team. He wants to know if he
is the treasurer of an illegal org za on who want to utilize school
property for volleyball practices ames. He noted that one of the problems
that the organization is having getting ym space. Mr. Montgomery
stated that he doesn't know if ey should b recognized as an
association. Mr. Kojetin ind' aced that the rk and Recreation Department
has had an agreement with th School District a number of years. The
school facilities are first vailable for school tivities, second they
are available for the PTA, hird they are used for he City's activities,
and fourth they are used or the YMCA, Churches, and o on.
Mr. Montgomery noted t t this is a program that is exp ding and is a
feeder system for Gir Volleyball. There are three tea Under 14,
Under 16 and Under with 12 girls on each team. Mr. Ke ios explained
that this is basic ly a girls traveling volleyball team. was Mr.
Keprios' recommen tion at the time it surfaced to bring it \agoing
EGAA
since they gover the girls house league volleyball. He thould
be appropriate or the EGAA to decide if this is an organizathey
should sponso and make a decision as to how much gym time t
to want to ee up to make this program successful in Edina. lined
this offer
Mr. Mon ornery indicated that it is like the Girls Traveling Basketball
Mr. Ke ios corrected Mr. Montgomery in saying that both Edina Girls
Trave ng Basketball and Edina Girls Fastpitch broke off because it was too
muc or one association to handle. Both sports are recognized by the EGAA
11
i
and EYSA and they come to agreements on how much gym space and how much
field space will be divided. Mr. Keprios stated that the City is caught in
the middle, who is the deciding factor on who gets how much gym space.
Mr. Christianson asked why should EGAA have the authority to say we don't
want to be involved with these people. If they run a legitimate program
and they are residents of Edina why should they be precluded from
participating as an association. If the EGAA doesn't want them why don't
they come to the Park Board directly as the Edina Model Yacht Club did.
Mr. Keprios noted that if we recognize every sport group that comes^cross
the table, there needs to be a policy and process as to how gym t' a can be
disseminated.
r i
Mr. Keprios noted that he would prefer that they.be under EGAA and let them
decide how much gym time to give in order to make the program successful.
it
It was noted that last year the Edina Jr. Olympic Volleyball team did have
gym space because there was some available. This year,. however, there are
more traveling teams and thus more pressure on the gyms. In addition,
because of construction, there is less gym space available.
Mr. Keprios noted that he has been working with the group and has secured
gym space at both Southview and the High School.for Saturdays throughout
their season. Mr. MacHolda indicated that it is tough to get gym space and
in order for volleyball to get space maybe we will lose the adult
basketball time. Mr. MacHolda asked does adult athletics go? Mr. Jenkins
felt that the adult programs should go before the kids are cut.
Mr. Montgomery asked what steps should.he be taking? Mr. Christianson
indicated that he should apply to become an association, just like the
Edina Model Yacht Club: Mr. Montgomery asked what is that going to get
them. It was noted that it will get them status so they can rank the same
priority as other associations in accessing the school gyms. Mr.
Christianson suggested that they go before EGAA again and they should
rethink their decision and then they should come before the Park Board.
Mr. Christianson does not think that a group like the EGAA should be able
to be exclusionary of someone else who meets all of the requirements. He
does not think that'is proper or right.
B. Braemar Golf Course
Ms. Vagnoni asked how much more of Suicide Hill_is going to be torn down.
Mr. Kojetin indicated that only what is cleared now. Fill will be added
halfway up the hill for the new fairway.
C. Cleaning Pathways
Ms. Vagnoni wanted to compliment the people that clean the pathways. They
did an excellent job on cleaning Lewis, Bredesen, and Cornelia. It was
nice to be able to see the walk. Thank you.
Andy Herring MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:00 P.M. Andy Montgomery
SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED.
12
•
a,
. 0
Application for:
[Y] LOT DIVISION
[ ] REZONING
[ ] VARIANCE
[ ) PLAT
roposed Name
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Case Number ^(�c
Date
Fee Paid �+�•t Q�
4801 'NEST FIFTIETH STREET . EDINA, MINNESOTA 25424
(61 2) 92 7 -8861
[ ] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
[ l FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
[ ] PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICANT: Name Mnnr , aArnaac and Kevin Mcligue
Address 5128 Skyline Drive, Edina, MN 55436
PROPERTY
OWNER:
(If Different
from Above)
Name Same
Address
Phone ( 612 ) 925 -0054
Phone ( )
Legal Description of Property Lot 15, Skyline Addition
Property Address 5128 Skyline Drive
Present Zoning P.I.D.T
Explanation of Request:i, ,' /
` � fs-1 ? �� OY �� G / /,i1
5 , -- c U T
(Use reverse side or additional pages if neces r
ARCHITECT: Name
Phone (
SURVEYOR: Name Eagan, Field & Nowak Phone ( ) 546 -6837
LV. r'f-
'f
Property O% ner's Signature Applicant gnature
Date Date
1/85.
k
We want to apply to the Planning Commission, City Council of Edina, for one of
two outcomes: The first is a variance on the subdivision of our property at
5128 Skyline Drive; the second is for the City to consider a trade and donation
of our excess 3,700 square feet for the subdivision dedication. We own 49,500
square feet, which is 26,500 square feet more than we need to meet the median
lot area of the 500 foot radius rule within our neighborhood. If our lot were
divided in half, which is our objective we STILL have an excess.of 3,700 square
feet more than we need. That is why we are making this proposition, either
asking for a variance or for a trade of land and subdivision dedication. Since
our preliminary plat survey was done, we can now see that 150 feet of what we
thought was the City's park path and approximately 1,000 square feet, actually
belong to us, as does the property the fire hydrant is on. We think the City
may find it in their own best interest to trade property so that the park and
its pathways can retain their routes.
We believe that what we are asking for is to subdivide or trade /donate what we
already own in that the lot has an excess of 3,700 square feet for median area.
The request is due to the fact that the lot is not shaped like the median of the
32 lots within a 500 foot radius of our home. Let me also mention that the size
and shape of the lots vary around us very tremendously. The size of Lot 17 is
15,400 square feet and the size of Lot 19 is 101,700 square feet, and their
shapes are as tremendously different. Less than two houses apart, the median
lot area varies 86,300 square feet. It is because of the large variability and
size and shape of the other lots within the 500 foot radius that we need to ask
for the variance or for the proposed trade /dedication of land. Again, we have
3,700 square feet of excess for median area and I'm more than willing to trade
that with the City of Edina for the 14' x 11' we need to meet the subdivision
ordinance. Though some of the lots on Skyline Drive are very large, the houses
are all at the front of the lots because the rear of the lots slope downward,
thus making possible a "skyline drive."
Our house borders on an extraordinary site in that we only have one neighbor who
borders us; the three other boundaries of our house are all owned by the City.
Our house is the last at the end of a cul de sac which sits next to Highland
Lake Preserve. As you can see from the plat drawing, this would not in any way
impose on anyone else's property or affect any family or home or lot personally
and will not alter the essential character of the land within the subdivision or
in the neighborhood of the land. The lot to be subdivided, our lot, does not
touch on anyone else's personal property but one. The house put on our lot
would only be visible to two houses on Skyline Drive. It is actually possible
due to the number of trees on the lot (which are in excess of 100) that a new
home would be invisible to every house but ours (5128 Skyline Drive). This
would be distinctly possible, as the surveyor's preliminary plat drawings and
City topography reports prove. I cannot think of a less intrusive probability
anywhere or, put more positively, a more ideal spot for our new home. I.am
trying to speak to my neighbors' concerns and will later speak to the neighbors,
the City and my family's benefits from the subdivision /trade dedication. It
became clear to me as I spoke with each of my neighbors that they did not know
how large our lot is, yet many of them supported us anyway. This is
understandable, as probably most of them have not seen a plat drawing. Since
our lot is covered with trees and borders on a nature preserve, it is virtually
invisible except on a plat drawing. Some of this property was invisible to us
until the surveyor's stakes showed 1,000 square feet of the park or 150 feet of
the park path to be our property. Our land is as primitive as the preserve and
blends in. We believe it is from this invisibility that.any dissenting opinion
could come.
a
We believe there are many positive outcomes not just to our family but to the
neighbors and the City from this proposed subdivision of 5128 Skyline Drive or
to the trade of property. Again, there exists 3,700 square feet of excess
property that we do not need to meet even for median area after subdivision.
These extra square feet tack on nicely, in fact, are distinctly part of the
City's preserve, which we are fully prepared to donate to the park system and to
our neighborhood. We would like to donate all excess 3,700 square feet of this
property in exchange for the 6% to 8% tax levied by the City for their
dedication tax. If we build a modest home, which is,our desire, on a lot valued
as high as this one, it will easily be the most expensive home on the block. I
spoke with Ed Peterson from the City of Edina assessor's office to see what the
increase in home values might be to the owners on Skyline Drive. He said the
increase was difficult to predict because it is based on many other factors
besides the value of one new lot and one new home but that values would
certainly not be negatively affected. The value of homes on Skyline Drive has
gone up every year without any improvements being made. Mr. Peterson considers
this new home to be a positive improvement. In short, we believe there are many
concrete and tangible positive outcomes to each of the other owners on Skyline
Drive.
I feel it important to discuss the positive outcomes to my family from this
subdivision and to say why we are asking for the subdivision now. I will be
having a third baby on August 27th. The house we are in is no longer adequate
in that there is much less space in the home and more people to put in it. The
bedrooms are not located all on the same floor and are not built to suit our
needs. If we were allowed to build a house, it would be designed to suit our
family's needs. Secondly, mortgage rates are at a 20 —year low, thus enabling us
to build a nice, more beautiful and more spacious home than the one we are
currently in and at a lower cost to us. Since we already own the lot, it would
be very easy to put a beautiful home on this piece of property, which is our
primary desire. This is distinctly possible both because of the 20 —year low in
mortgage rates and the fact we already own the proposed subdivided lot. This
would enable us to achieve one of our personal lifetime goals, which is to have
one of us stay home full time with our three preschool children. The third
reason that we are proposing this subdivision now is that the easement we signed
in our title policy (granting the City use of the rear 5 feet of our property)
expired December 31st, 1991.
Change is difficult for us all to except, even when it is in every concrete and
tangible way positive. When I talked with the two neighbors who oppose the
subdivision, one of them especially wanted no change on the street since she had
been there from the beginning; the other stated she had had the opportunity to
buy our property four years ago but that she and her husband felt the task of
renovation to be more than they wanted. All of the neighbors had the
opportunity to buy this home and lot four years ago just as we did. The open
house provided plat drawings which indicated the double size of the lot and
stated "possibly subdividable." (See attached Realty Center
advertisement.) If it is in fact true that the neighbors didn't want this
property "ever" subdivided, why didn't they insure against it four years ago?
The property met then and meets now the subdivision standard for median area by
an excess of 3,700 square feet. Certainly steps could have been taken then to
insure against a house being built or the property being subdivided.
—2—
In
We want to subdivide this lot or trade the land with the City to build a
beautiful home and have a 30% to 40% lower mortgage than we currently have for
the distinct purpose of staying home with our three preschool children. Change
that has taken place in one generation in this country is that mothers used to
be able to stay home with their small children and now they cannot. Times have
changed now so dramatically even in our family, which had been a two —wage earner
family with two master's degrees and a length of employment for my husband and
myself in excess of 20 years, it is still not possible for one of us to stay
home with the children. It is a difficult change for us to deal with since both
of our master's degrees are in social work serving children and since we would
like one of us to stay home. We have been extremely lucky in that Nancy only
has to work half —time. Still, we would rather that one of us be able to stay
home when the children are infants, toddlers, and preschoolers.
We are not asking for permission to take down the trees on our property or in
any way to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. We are asking here to
build a home for our family on the lot we already own for the direct purpose of
bettering the lives of the five people in our family and, to a small percent,
the neighbors on Skyline Drive and the City of Edina. We have been treating
several of the fruit trees the past couple of years because they stopped
flowering. Experts inform us that the lot needs to be thinned of several trees
or many of them will die anyway. There is a distinct possibility that very few
trees will have to come down, in fact, if we obtain an easement from the City tc
put a driveway on their property, almost no trees at all will have to come down.
Hopefully this will all be more visible in the final plat drawing and the
topography report done by the surveyor.
—3—
1,
1
! FE 1L1 1 7600 Parklawn Avenue
! Edina, Minnesota 55435
CENTER (612) 835-7600
CREATE YOUR OWN CASTLE
USE YOUR IMAGINATION AND
PLAN YOUR DREAM HOME. THE
HOME BUILT IN 1951 BY
ORIGINAL OWNER NEEDS
INTERIOR UPDATING. IT HAS
A NEW ROOF, NEW FURNACE,
150 AMP ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT
BREAKERS. REDECORATE,
REMODEL, OR REMOVE THE
HOME AND BUILD YOUR DREAM
ESTATE.
MAGNIFICENT LOT
THE BEAUTY AND VALUE OF
THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE
PRIVATE CUL -DE -SAC
LOCATION AND BREATH TAKING
OANORAMIC VIEWS OF DENSE
GODS AND ROLLING TERRAIN.
TRULY A NORTHWOODS SETTING
IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT.
THE HOME SITS ON 1.13
ACRES AND ADJOINS A LARGE
SECTION OF EDINA PARK
LAND.
PICTURES DON'T DO IT
JUSTICE. VISUALIZE YOUR
OWN MINI PRIVATE ESTATE
CONVENIENT TO SHOPPING
FREEWAYS, INTERLACHEN
COUNTRY CLUB, DOWNTOWN
AND THE AIRPORT. WHAT
MORE COULD ANYONE WANT?
PLAT DRAWING
NOTE THE LOT DIMENSIONS
AND POSITIONING ON THE
CUL -DE -SAC AND THE OPEN
ADJOINING EDINA PARK LAND.
THE DRAWING DOES NOT GIVE
YOU THE PICTURE OF THE
DENSE WOODS, THEATER OF
SEASONS, BRIGHTLY COLORED
PHEASANTS, BIRDS A14D DEER
THAT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE
' iOME .
u
9
OT
Hill,
or r
ti
Ial
Its
l
fAST
7ml -- *
PLAT DRAWING
24CICA Zoo.
N 0.
�4
23 =�
w~•
22
So
EAS
OR
4
PLAT DRAWING
24CICA Zoo.
N 0.
�4
23 =�
w~•
22
So
330 PARE AVENUE
NEW TOR[. NEW YORE 10088
(2121415-9200
1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
(202)657 -0700
3 ORACECHURCH STREET
LONDON ECOV OAT, ENGLAND
44- 71-929 -3334
36, RUE TRONCHST
75009 PARIS, FRANCE
33- 1- 42- 66 -59 -49
35 SQUARE DE MEEVS
B -1040 BRUSSELS, BBLOIUM
32 -2- 504 -46 -U
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
City Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
DORSEY & WHITNEY
A P�=@s lamvna.o Pwcrm � C� g
220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498
612) 340-2600
TELEX 29 -0605
PAX (612)340 -2566
JEROME P. GILUGAN
(612) 340.2962
November 20, 1992
Re: Garnaas Addition - 5128 Skyline Drive
Dear Mr. Rosland:
201 FIRST AVENUE, S. W., SUITE 360
ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA 63908
(507)288 -3156
1200 FIRST INTERSTATE CENTER
BILLINGS, MONTANA 69WO
(406)238 -3500
507 DAVIDSON BUILDING -
OREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401
(606)787-3632
127 EAST FRONT STREET
MISSOULA. MONTANA 59809
(406)721 -6025
601 GRAND, SUITS 3900
DES MOINES, IOWA 50509
(515) 263 -1000
My letter to you of November 5th addressed a proposal that the City
exchange certain park property for property owned by Nancy Garnaas and Kevin
McTique on which a trail being used to access the park is located. The exchange has
been proposed in connection with a proposed subdivision of the property owned by
Nancy Garnaas and Kevin McTigue. I understand that at its meeting on
November 10th, the Park Board determined that it is in the City's best interests to
acquire the property on which the trail is located and recommended that the City
proceed with the property exchange. The recommendation included a condition
that the park property conveyed by the City be restricted in such a fashion so that it
will continue to be used for park purposes.
If the City Council determines that it is in the City's best interests to
obtain the property on which the trail is located and that it would approve the
requested subdivision if the proposed property exchange occured, I would
recommend that rather than proceeding with the property exchange, the City
Council approve the subdivision request with the requested variances and a
condition that the property on which the trail is located be dedicated as park
property or otherwise transferred to the City for park purposes. As set forth in my
letter of November 5th, a transfer by the City of the park property raises complicated
legal questions and if the property is to be transferred is to remain as park property it
would be prudent to avoid these complications and achieve the same result through
the variance procedure.
DORSEY & WHITNEY
Page -2-
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
November 20, 1992
Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please
give me a call:
Yours truly,
/ ero e P. Gilligl
JPG:cmn
350 PARE AVENUE
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10029
(212)415-9200
1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE. N. W.
WABHDPOTON, D. C. 20036
(202)857 -0700
3 GRACECHURCH STREET
LONDON SC3V OAT, BNOLAND
44-71-929-3334
36. BUR TRONCBET
78009 PARIS, FRANCS
33- 1- 42- 66-59-49
35 SQUABS DE MEEVS
B -1040 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
32- 2- 504 -46-U
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
City Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
DORSEY & WHITNEY
A P-2-1 1 —L-1.. ft.M881.- Coalo —...
220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 53402-1498
612) 340 -2600
TELEX 29-0605
FAX(612)340 -2868
JEROME P. G11"GAN
(614 340-29M
November 5, 1992
Re: Garnaas Addition - 5128 Skyline Drive
Dear Mr. Rosland:
201 FIRST AVENUE. S. W. SUITE 340
ROCHESTER, MDINESOTA 55909
(507)288 -3156
1200 FIRST INTERSTATE CENTER
BILLINGS, MONTANA 39103
(406)252 -3800
507 DAVIDSON BUILDING
GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401
(406)727 -3632
127 EAST FRONT STREET
MISSOULA, MONTANA 59802
(406)721-6025
801 GRAND, SUITE 3900
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
(515) 283 -1000
The City has received a request from Nancy Garnaas and Kevin
McTigue to subdivide property located at 5128 Skyline Drive. The subdivision will
create one new lot. The proposed subdivision requires lot width variances for each
lot. The property borders Highland Park on three sides. To reduce the size of the
required variance, it has been proposed by the Applicant that the City exchange
property located in Highland Park for property owned by the Applicant. The
property proposed to be conveyed to the City by the Applicant is adjacent to
Highland Park and has a trail located on it that is being used to access Highland Park.
Our opinion has been requested as to whether the City has the legal right to convey
park property in exchange for other property to be used for park purposes.
As a preliminary matter, any transfer of property by the City must be
for fair and adequate consideration and serve a public purpose. Here presumably
the'public purpose served is for the City to acquire more usable park property.
In order to determine whether the City may convey the park property
the nature of the conveyance of the park property to the City must be determined.
The park property proposed to be conveyed is a portion of Lot A in the recorded plat
of Skyline. Hennepin County real estate records show that Lot A was conveyed to
the Village of Edina by a quit claim deed dated November 25, 1947 from Hutchinson
Advertising Company. A copy of the deed and the plat of Skyline is attached. The
deed contains the following language:
DORSEY & WHITNEY
Page -2-
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
November 4, 1992
"This conveyance is made for the use and purpose that
premises herein conveyed shall be used for park
purposes."
Since the deed provides for nominal consideration ($1.00) and contains the above
quoted language I am assuming that the conveyance of Lot A by Hutchinson
Advertising Company was a gift to the City.
The ability of a city to convey park property is a complicated question.
As a general rule, a city either holds park property in a charitable trust, has an
easement over the property for park purposes or has determinable fee interest in the
property because it acquired title to the property by a conditional gift with title
reverting to the grantor if the property is no longer used for park purposes. Since
the City acquired Lot A by a deed, the City either holds the property in a charitable
trust or acquired it by a conditional gift. If it was acquired by a conditional gift the
City has a determinable fee interest in the property. Whether the property is held by
the City in a charitable trust or the City has a determinable fee interest in the
property is determined by the intent of the grantor.
In Schaeffer v. Newberry, 50 N.W. 2d 477 (1950), the Minnesota
Supreme Court held that property given to the Village of Elbow Lake by a will that
provides that the land devised by the will is "to be used for a public park" with no
provision for a reverter or forfeiture of title if the land was not used for such
purposes, created a charitable trust for the benefit of the public. In In Re Mareck, 100
N.W. 2d 758 (1960), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that property conveyed to
the Village of Edina by a deed providing that the property conveyed was for use as a
public park and that if the property ceased to be used as a public park the title reverts
to the grantor, did not create a charitable trust but was a conditional gift of a
determinable fee interest in the property.
The language in the deed conveying Lot A to the City provides that the
premises shall be used for park purposes and the deed does not contain any express
language providing for a reverter or forfeiture of title to the property if not used for
this purpose. Because of the absence of any language providing for a reverter or
forfeiture if Lot A is not used for park purposes, the likely result under the case law
in Minnesota is that the City holds the property in a charitable trust for the benefit of
the public.
DoRSEY & WHITNEY
Page -3-
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
November 4, 1992
If a charitable trust has been created the trust is governed by the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 501B, and since the deed (which is the
instrument creating the trust) does not authorize the conveyance of such property, a
court order would be necessary for the City to convey such property. The Minnesota
Attorney General is authorized under Minnesota law to protect the rights of the
public in such trust and could contest such conveyance by the City.
If the City wishes to proceed with a conveyance of the property it would
be my recommendation that the City follow the procedures of Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 501B governing disposition of assets by charitable trust and petition a
district court for a court order authorizing such conveyance. Without a court order
questions will exist as to whether the City was authorized to convey such property
and whether the City has conveyed clear and marketable title to such property.
If the City desires to transfer such property without a court order a
possibility the City may wish to consider is to transfer such property with a deed
restriction which provides that the transferred property is always to remain as a
public park and if not used for such purpose reverts to the City. With such a
restriction the City could argue that since the park property transferred by the City
will remain as a public park and additional public park property has been obtained
by the City, no transfer of property has occurred for purposes of the charitable trust
created by the original deed of Lot A to the City. Since no transfer has occurred no
court order is necessary. However, any transfer of park property without a court
order could result in a situation where in order to clear title to the lot of which such
conveyed property is a. part, the park property needs to be returned to the City. This
result would defeat the purpose of the transaction. Consequently, any transfer
without a court order should be conditioned on the Applicant obtaining an owner's
title insurance policy insuring marketable title to the lot.
If it is possible to obtain such title insurance and the City Council were
to determine to transfer the property to the Applicant without a court order and
with the requirement that it remain as park property, one has to wonder why the
City has engaged in this transaction when the same result could be achieved by
granting the requested variance with a condition that the property on which the
trail is located be transferred to the City.
DORSEY & WHITNEY
Page -4-
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
November 4, 1992
I trust that the above answers your inquiry. If you have further
questions or comments on the matter discussed, please give me a call.
Yours truly,
ro e . Gillig
i
JPG:cmn
Enclosures
. A $0 .
�O �Yi A 11IL�.t'
c v v -•:a
M1:.f14_ F a'•...•,.:• .. _- S KY L I N E
HENNE.PIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CC ,-
I P rf •'.. "--r! — �5cn&E. f 100' HOWAV.
Enofte s 4 5.evarrrs
BOOK /O
PAGE 35
b..en Jy Aku/.e.cys AV.ve.✓ /.Jatri.w.�.s.+a...v /A�r r..��..a,... ;... ,.vL....�r.�a..1
rymto.' Mr/ Au.✓wy.vo,w/..�.y>el.��.w:%Irfi «•..rc y�'v v., w..i ,tir
Pte /f A. A'C6 /dr Y6 e-r-1 LtT arA.j Jx Ai t /..* kV w. •f� •Ay.•s Ay- .y i•.4r
/wsr w/ /.,rwunl .r Jir frAL.ea/ Lam,. 4e, r Ali 0', %L- JLS iwas rd.:+ 2r;
V.fGrd► /nr fwai✓A7if .tCi,Jdi/waae .fuf.J, c�•.L A•e,,.:J.i. ✓.� of J.' fe .�...�•1oc.aJ
rr.ae' land Aad; A.~ At-*
, wly f ,S!+ lrad se
itd A,Ar /�Cr /- .dl --1J^aL-
wfao• Al. .Ve•K.�/� A; .,X' .rs.•l4
-As dtr fwd /i ge 1K.•Gd A. A%c j..dri�✓; .k; Aiie:+.r.✓.�• JJ. r
/Rd H w/a:,/w,. -/rd Iyw,/+Wvi/ 4.ew. .t J.;'cd .r.+M peAtia ..1.A► irJ.w xs. rst' dJ,.•.,./ As-
nCy//sr fapd.res.f xr"J r.,ws.k l-MP. Meare Aar-OM' A-W
T �d
.!!6 fdr SCf J o4i/ f rm/erf A. w, j.�c•..rJ/ A-V. A .: A, A-.* A:. f Ar, -V+-
~/- . y A r& - Aa d Aar A. e& - 4wwerh- .n.0 .1M.lf -A Aar fA a -wf + ; .+Car . ✓rs••
wwd AbM //r 0" /ed A, J pi. /i Aeaar SvA&Awj.,e/ -Ab Jf•3
1 a'u/Jnr f .L /ce/ .L w, j�ci� /ra ,~A; Ai-M srr iari y SwA wrsiwdNriatr/ /iC i o:u -'�.xr
e"f "/irf A. J 1,W, w/ /� •►A i A� w Al.a/ .�? --, /a , ••sn✓ . -Wle y wi•dwc s/ . ri
ar Ae Orm Oar fs.d Nei vetw 44r.rad Je%V -7 oW-,/ -Maz *r*fl.+ -•�..•�J
Ayr --fj /A x -f-.1A w[a�r.c:✓AW A- 7" r{txf A. A4r, � / e A.V4.n+a,; .cr..a�..a.. -:..ue
^W Ae--f M /-4- and f rora r/ - Al- fy! -, #r Air .Pey ib grOeedi - Jn!•6 -..f
e-*. h44"', A,., eiie r:rnf 1w1 OrAW A... "es pe..,,- ! /a••Y• Jef -i.:M .,:.+Y a-W i r
/ersd w Ab e'cr f Ar A'p ill- frA-W. fr Neu arp%. Cw.nH .s/:,nr•. /r ..'.G,.A 10e1
,,Jre "I. env Ar fwf/ bfA•/ f Ae S Ai 71-4a/- '.4 /.rad.af.9 f.' Ar Jf 7..&e /- SS e..arA•i
A7 .Pagr r/: A'J•r rased AAr sane h JW wrsieycd ad /wNed wA• SKY[avf, J..d aG hie[y
da.J* J.d ded rJk Ar Ate /r.A/ar u *- /. , Mr d.+.r Js A. .n A?e auav r ..J
P40, /A- ;he" -Ae Vor-C A~ Ae rNpL se /wsP Aaasi "ad.reJb Vii! � d..y.7F_• -0,0 1.141
J/w /e ;,,AI eso%rt I J
Cwr,y fNeane,*n i O Ai i1� dry nC ,' AO. vJi bs 6z A.s, e . ✓a v . L6 /,e....A3.: d l
/6^JJd Grary lad .r /wfc. Pema+J/� PpeJiad Memo A'ukA:/san J.+fAo asr /.VJe .y!cA�areN,
A.: nom, A, Aae f a wn h Lr /Ae per - desci dM rs snd.vA- eircv/ed AM,raeo r..:aJirr+rn/ rnd
,Ary Jr/Mr /toyed
A./ Na y ciecu/d J,r-u~ w. Mri sw•n fire .scl.,.e Ce
A
A ✓ary /..MS. AG--, rr.A- ..Y.+Afa ✓i
J /Jk f.V."seti /i 1
Cw.ry JNoaatyn l t'� /de Amt, eof Mwf /Awi swveyed rte! o /shed N✓proarif✓ o'rxr.Ard
w
AA; ^&/ JJ �S.rv[ /iVC j Mif Mai p /w/ /i J .rwray; Mti•
J/ dai/ixe. ae ersrd j. fAarn a Ae p/W/ fed wad der:.nw[r 4rJ/Sr /; AJ Al Air mw�awva/i
/trywdixe 9riGoFir .MAA1f) /J AJrr Aern c.✓rx//yp/JZd� .Yar ynara! Js JAMe.r .sLeNi /; .N.•
AM wr/aatr awdiry Air: ra c. rerH✓ rUCyiaried .v. Air P /if; AAr/ Me Ale /i.,d
ai s dhrl •JArwa wv Ar A✓a; rar Mwf Alnr J✓r/b ..d /r di rAuW/ A.yA.✓Jrf
•n iwirA✓a• wJb'Afrr nr Jh rn Awr-2. Cam- % /n. • `
` .SwveyJV'
d'Ae.r eo-41,ea4r .v A" "Ae! JAd a- A, Avi- A.r Ma /) u dv f +..-- .l.Q /yJ/
n
e.ea •� -ham .. i
AWry fLNAe, Ncmp. C,�...;i:
i, ,V.r J .
Af. C A. air eairrs a L 7
Mr p/J/ N r JyrweV adfnry'7lr/ Jy A6r li7hgr C--f/ 4r '-a AAvixA.fJ w/ J /Yjardi�
Jrer/iy AAor f AAOW Abp_• o5l' pf ' - A
v" V /LL A6f CAWCM [Y ED /NA. AlloveSO7A
v
/xU JUL 2.- 19 -1 aoide�
R
Vu;. Claim D.ed �— M.tle• D.... Ca.. Mmn..;...i..
Individual to Individual Form No. 2 7•M Minnoot° Uniform Con.eyanan. Monica OYJO
Rbenture, ..1lnde this day e1 . rr1 : -- �'L 1097
between. r.: _.....
of the County of ac �.e' ._'...- ....... aje of ... . ..
part.'. of the first part and .........- _.._.. `• )r ,•� -�
.......................... I . ..... . ..... .................. ........ .. _ ........................ ............................... .. .
•'ter: •'1
j of the County of and State of ,
part.!.. of the second part,
One•,Dollar..,t00).nThat :rhe Vnlu1F C.iiin LCcra !�0 e purl, in tvrns(rleruHon of the
DOLL.IRQ
................ .. ..... _..........
............. .......... ..._.................. in hand paid by the said party .... of the serand part, the rrevlpt rohmo f is hereby
acknowledged, do.e0...... hereby Orant, Bargain, Quitclaim, and Conavy Unto the said parr . of the
legend part, :......... ..........................heirs a: ' assigns, Forever, all the !roots or parr►!° of land lytnd and
being In the County of ............ und 81410 of ilorresnice. desrrihrd as fblinuas. to•fralN
Lot A, in the re:orded plat 1" J%Wline, Honae {tin Cn-im ,
v
„•_ 2•finnoe�•ta, o: record In :`e u:f1c• of tY:n 1te;1o!cs• •+f
Died,, In and Sir caid Honno;lin „TIat7•
This conveyaneo is mado for the use and purpose 0.1-4t
'•j •.fir >' premisce herein ccinveyod shell be used for yark ;+urv+rer.
`i
1
1 -
1
III
i
I '
i
1
I
I I
I i
I �
Za jjabe anb to j}olb the tbamr• 7',,grfher te•i /f. rill (he herr.lrl.rr«e. 1. .,w./ olf"Ools�e'� t
Il unto belonging or in anywise appertaining, ter tio, ,role! l•u1;' of the «...w.l r °n 1, ;1,,, :,_4601 •
anti assigns, Forever. of
. '!t •...:.pit. .
Jn Mcstintonp Mbereot. The cried parr of the fires luirt h.r hrrs,rwfu me, I-s �'j;
hand the Jay and year lir.rt nbonr u•r•iffen.
HUTCHINSON ADVQtTIeISO COGPAMY
/ra . t -. I'rc.rr.nr• B i .-f..° e. w
r n .
�. .
I Y Ito PrOoldeat
Its 'freaeuxer
w............................ .
"i
�t
.e
No. 1001%— CertMleete d Acknowledgment—Mt Corporal" Md1er-I)aeu Ce.. Mmnexpnhe. Nlon.
Optatt of.Yinneeo.ta ............
Count1l of .Hennepin ur, this 25th dell of November 19 47,
be/ore me a Notary Public within and rrnr saiid Counly trr•nnnnlly apprarett
Verrill Hutchinson ant A. M. Hutchihson
_ ..... ... ....
fn rim personally knarnn, who, hei.ng eaeh Lit rile dull/ !morn each did Arty that /halt art, rvgretin -ly
141 /'re irlent and the Treasurer ar/
Hutchinson Advertising Ltompany the rnrtror•alian named in the
forsgning inotirrrurent, anti that the ,tart nJj1.,•ed to staid instrument is the onrporatrl .val o/ said eortrrratlon,
,and Mal said instrurrlent nvas signed and sealed in behalf o/ snid mrpnration by nutharily a/ its Borer
n Directirm and snid Verrill Hutchin.son and
A. V. 'iutehineon neknomledged said in.0rurnen.t• to he the area fret anti deed a/ maid
atrlwrrntion• Lt.c.�
//)/ . �t,,t,lA -ii (Ardis Me Crandall)
_ ......................, ...... . ... ..
vo"/Publio ,,,Hennepin County, Minnesota
.Kit nommitsion expires ...... May. 6 ID 5;�
lim.: The hlank liner marked "See N,.re:;_ are for uMLhen the in.,rumenl i. executed he an attorney in leer.
0
CO
M
I
M
L i \ g 17pyI .H
\
Ci
Q Y
FOR GARNAAS.'AD'DITION
L lt��S�TATE OF
gl � �0 U'c
DEPARTMENT
METRO WATERS - 1200
PHONE NO. 772 -7910
November 10, 1992
Nancy Garnaas
5128 Skyline Drive
Edina MN 55436
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
FILE
RE: HIGHLANDS LAKE, DNR WETLAND #27-668P, CITY OF EDINA, HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Dear Ms. Garnaas:
As we've discussed in recent tel onen of conversations,
then t wetlands under wetland
in Edina's Highlands Park is of the wetland is
jurisdiction of the DNR. The official boundary
h is defined as the
the ordinary high water (OHW) level,
evidence anon the landscape.a sufficient
maintained for
highest water level which h The OHW is
period of time to leave avid P
commonly that point where lterre trial. changes The OHWfhas
predominantly aquatic to predominantly s Lake, however, from your
not been determined for Hig hland
description it sounds like the boundary between wetland and upland
if fairly evident.
I understand there are some questions regarding the status of a
trail that goes through the wetland. Any change in the course,
je it subj c wetland) DNR
current or cross - section of the wetland et
regulations. Filling below the the rules�do provide an exemption
generally prohibited, however, for
for federal, state. and local units of government to 1
L) public need
roadways when the following criteria are met:
rules out the no -build ternativevto the project thatswould have
feasible and practical al
less environmental impatroadways Public trails have been treated in a
similar manner as public
Please contact me at 772 -7910 should you have further questions on
this matter.
Sincerely,
Ceil Strauss
Area Hydrologist
cc: Kris Aaker, City of Edina Planning
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I el 11
AiA
Tl
,g :e -is M -:';Ck� L-StllAJL:_.'V he
L v 1.
r1.. !... .. !...Ild l 1L1. r!.
. . r,
mt..v�/ LC--t
----------_-------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
----------------------
-----------------
- ----------------
-- ---------------
I j'gr,
ft A Lc-
Gq_ atim--ft—im
W� a NAOL.A to-.%.
Cl
.D
r
a 106NIC9 L. THORSON
$NAM[ M. ANDERSON
.INSTON E. MUNSON
GLEN"* COURT
CLAY R [/0061
fTEVEM 6. SCHMIDT
CON"I i gem"
ROSIEST F. STRAYS$
LOP. O. SNTNESTAO
104061. J. OHLR0006
SIONET KA ►W
ROSIEST 4. LEE
.I OOOSVRY N AMONEM.
JAM[4 i. $WEMSON
GEORGE R.A. JOHN
[RIC 0. MAOSON
J. MICHAEL COLLOTOM
JOHN C. VTLEY
'RANK A. OVORAC
ANLIN S. MAELTI
MARTIN C. IN.SAR
Sir /HEM F. GRINNELL
LESLIE N. NOWAK
1TE /HEM /. a, LLEY
TIMOTHY O I.ONATISA
MICHAEL J. OWYEN
OENIS,. anAN04
TIMOTHY M. SARNE TT
MARTIN V. AT04ECOTT
KARL K. HEINiERLIMO
MACKALL, CROUNSE do MOORE
LAW OFFICES
1000 TCF TOWER
121 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 95402
TELEPHONE 10121 777.1741
FACSIMILE 14121 777 -4177
November 25, 1992
Planning Commission
City of Edina
4801 West Fiftieth Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Re: Case No. 8 -92 -3
Applicants: aarnaas and KcTique
Address: 5128 Skyline Drive
Dear Sirs:
DAVID J. DYOOLESTON
TIMOTHY J. CRANOE
THOMAS J. LALIIER
THOMAS E MARSHALL
JOHN a. an
aUSAN M. I's is;
f H1ILA [MOELM[1[R
DUANE O. JOHNSON
MICHAEL C. CLOVES
JEFFREY L. SHLOSSENO
ANTHONY C. 6NANCN
WILLIAM J. O'BRIEN
ANY J. JOHNSON
44ENTL 0. MOaNISON
0. CLAY TATLON
SRADLET J. HALBERSTADT
JIBS, A. SUNG
MASTNA A. HOLTON
THOMAS P. O'DONSMLL
OAVIO S. COLLIN'
TREVOR V. aUNDER$ON
STEVEN J. HOLLAND
DAWNS J. TUNS
HENR NY C. MACRAL► 119/4./6791
NOSERT M. CROV81 It9p•IS7:1
PERRY R. MOORE 11/4.19461
'AJnYN1.S M Illinois Only
Hand Delivered
When the Garnaas- McTigue application was first addressed by
the Planning Commission last September, I appeared on behalf of a
number of Skyline Drive homeowners who oppose the application. I
understand that the matter will be heard again on December 2nd.
A number of issues were raised during the September hearing that
require a reply by the homeowners before you make your final
decision. It is not the intent of this letter to repeat what you
have already heard. Instead, most of my remarks concern key
factors that have not yet been addressed.
During the first hearing, one Planning Commission member
suggested that if you decline the Garnaas- McTigue application you
could precipitate a law suit against the City of Edina, and then
the member embellished the threat with observations regarding the
rights of property owners to develop their property. Before the
threat of a law suit impacts your decision, a few key legal
principals warrant discussion. If there is to be a law suit, it
should not be the result of any misunderstanding of the
controlling law.
When the City of Edina and its agencies such as the Planning
Commission promulgate and then administer zoning ordinances, it
carries out two distinct functions. When zoning laws are passed
or amended the municipality fulfills a legislative function, and
when it makes decisions regarding how those ordinances should be
applied on a case by case basis, the city acts in a judicial
capacity. The threat of a law suit from an unhappy resident must
r
MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE
Planning Commission
City of Edina
November 25, 1992
Page 2
be evaluated differently depending on whether the city is acting
in its legislative or judicial function.
Let me address the legislative
McTigue do not like the current, moi
regarding minimum lot widths etc. ]
sympathy for this approach, because
Commission member suggested that it
McTigue to more restrictive provisi<
the opposing neighbors built their i
the time to oppose the more restrict
expired. The fairness of the new cc
the propriety of the amendments was
City of Edina finished hearing all <
and decided that it was in the best
to change the code, the Skyline Dri,
right to insist that the new code bi
neighborhood. People who buy propel
;.,*n a f f act _ such as Garnaas- McTicruo
function first. Garnaas-
e restrictive ordinances
sense that there was some
at least one Planning
was unfair to hold Garnaas-
ns than those in place when
omes. With all due respect,
ive ordinances has long since
de was a relevant topic when
debated years ago. Once the
if the arguments pro and con
interests of Edina residents
,e neighborhood acquired a
implemented in their
,ty after the new code goes
have no right to challenge
the merits of the revised code and any lawsuit by sucn
disenchanted.residents should be summarily dismissed. On the
other hand, neighbors who fight to insure the integrity of the
revised code, will have access to the courts. The concept is
called "standing to sue ", and in Minnesota it is quite clear that
property owners who purchase land after the adoption of a zoning
ordinance which restricts use, have no standing to complain that
the restrictions unlawfully diminish the value of their property.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that people like Garnaas-
McTigue are "presumed to have purchased with full knowledge" of
the restrictions. These principals are articulated in the case
of State ex rel Howard v. Village of Roseville, 70 N.W.2d 404
(Minn. 1955). The bottom line is that the threat of a law suit
against the City of Edina challenging the merits of the revised
code is an empty threat. The possibility of an action by those
who seek to uphold the code is another matter.
Unlike questions regarding the merits of the code itself
which involve the city's legislative function, requests for
variances from the application of specific code provisions and /or
approval of a proposed subdivision bring into play the city's
judicial function. Although the Planning Commission has the
MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE
Planning Commission
City of Edina
November 25, 1992
Page 3
authority to recommend a variance or plat approval, it must
adjudicate the application in a manner consistent with the code
provisions. The key to the grant of any variance is hardship,
and the hardship must not be self- created. The large percentage
of Skyline Drive residents who oppose the Garnaas- McTigue
application are most concerned because the hardships espoused by
Garnaas- McTigue are entirely self- created hardships. As
explained in the case of Castle Design & Development Co. Inc. v.
City of Lake Elmo, 396 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 1986):
If an applicant for a variance purchased the property
with actual or constructive notice of the zoning
ordinance's restrictions, then its hardship is self -
created, and does not constitute "undue hardship" as
defined by Minn. Stat. S 462.357 Subd. 6(2).
(emphasis added). See also Hedlund v. City of Maplewood, 366
N.W.2d 624 (Minn. App. 1985). As already pointed out in the case
of State ex rel Howard v. Village of Roseville above, Garnaas- -
McTigue are "presumed to have purchased with full knowledge" of
the revised code. In Minnesota that amounts to constructive
notice. City of Bloomington v. Munson, 221 N.W.2d 787 (Minn.
1974) and Judd v City of St. Cloud, 272 N.W. 577 (Minn. 1937).
People like Garnaas- McTigue cannot buy property that has been
used for one single family dwelling for over thirty years, be
charged with constructive notice that the property is not wide
enough for subdivision under the existing zoning code, and then
claim hardship if they are not allowed to subdivide. That is a
pure, self- created hardship and cannot be used as an excuse for a
variance. Adjacent property owners on the other hand have every
right to expect that zoning ordinances will be upheld in the face
of a self- created hardship.
There are a number of other very important points that must
be emphasized before the Planning Commission makes its decision.
Park and Rec has approved a land swap which will add width to the
Garnaas- McTigue property. However, the land swap has not added
any where near enough land to eliminate the need for a
substantial variance. Your staff's October 1, 1992 report
suggests that the proposed lots were 33 feet (lot 1) and 19 feet
(lot 2) too narrow, thus requiring 52 feet of additional land
MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE
Planning Commission
City of Edina
November 25, 1992
Page 4
before they complied with the minimum lot width ordinance. As
explained before, we believe the new lots were even more
deficient in width because staff measured the width at the wrong
point. However, we will use staff's initial measurements as a
point of reference for discussion purposes. The revised proposed
plat dated October 7th illustrates a land swap, with the Garnaas-
McTigue property acquiring 27.14 feet from the city. That leaves
the combined lots still 24.85 feet short (52 - 27.14 = 24.86).
This degree of variance is not only unwarranted, but
unprecedented. As one Planning Commission member pointed out at
the first hearing, the Planning Commission has in the past denied
width variances one - eighth the size of the requested variance.
The opposing Skyline Drive residents are convinced that no court
would uphold a variance of that magnitude, especially when it is
self- created.
The October 7th revised plat also contains significantly
erroneous data. For example, it errantly suggests that new lot 2
has an average width of 125 feet. The lot is 238 feet deep along
its eastern boundary. For all but 38 feet of that depth, the lot
is less than 125 feet wide. Even a simple calculation
illustrates that the average width is substantially less than 125
feet, closer to 100 feet. Accordingly, if one uses the average
width, lot 2 is still 25 feet too narrow after the lot swap. If
you do not use the average width, it only makes common sense to
determine the width at the building location because the minimum
lot width ordinance addresses building density. The lot width at
the front of the existing house, even after the proposed land
swap, is less than 115 feet, and it is still less than 125 feet
at the rear. No matter how you look at it, lot 2 still needs a
variance despite the acquisition of 27.14 feet from the city.
The situation with respect to proposed new lot 1 is even
more egregious. Measured form the front of the building pad the
lot is only 75 feet wide. Measured at the middle of the building
pad the lot is either 95 or 100 feet wide, depending on whether
one measures the width on a line parallel to the front lot line
or parallel to the front of the building pad. The lot is not
even 125 feet wide at the rear of the building line despite the
skewed boundary line. If you use the average width and calculate
.I i`I
MACKALL, CROUNSE do MOORE
Planning Commission
City of Edina
November 25, 1992
Page 5
it carefully you will find that the average width of lot 1 is far
less than 100 feet. It is more in the neighborhood of 80 feet.
At the last hearing staff suggested that it is proper to
gauge width at a point 50 feet from the front lot line. If you
base your analysis upon that arbitrary 50 foot mark, the width of
lot 2 is 120 feet and lot 1 is 88 feet. This means that Garnaas-
McTigue would still need 37 feet of variances after the lot
split. The bottom line is that no matter how you calculate the
lot width, the land swap with the city has not eliminated the
need for width variances on both lots, with the variance on lot 1
taking on extraordinary proportions. This can not be tolerated,
especially in the case of a self- created hardship.
Last, at the September hearing the opposing neighbors were
chastised by one Planning Commission member who disagreed with
the overall tenor of their opposition, suggesting that they were
trying to hold Garnaas- McTique to a standard that they could not
meet themselves. The opposing neighbors wish to make two points
in reply. First, they were not the ones who decided that these
restrictions were in the best interests of the City of Edina and
all of its residents. That was a decision made by the Council
when it passed the revised code. Second, the code requires the
Planning Commission and the council "to protect the character and
symmetry of the neighborhood" when considering a subdivision
approval. Staff's report to the Planning Commission never even
considered this guiding principal. The opposing neighbors want
the Planning Commission to understand that the "character and
symmetry" of Skyline Drive was established by the developers and
enforced for thirty years with the following restrictive covenant
that was placed in each of their deeds:
That no building shall be erected, altered, placed or
permitted to remain on any building lot in "Skyline"
until the external design and location thereof shall
have been approved in writing by the sponsor (vendor)
or by the neighborhood committee ... It being the desire
of the sponsor and /or committee to so locate each
building as to take full advantage of the views
afforded by such location and also to adapt the
building to the varying topography of the lots in
MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE
Planning Commission
City of Edina
November 25, 1992
Page 6
"Skyline ", due consideration vill be given in each
instance to protection of the vievs and convenience of
the houses previously, as veil as of those to be
subsequently constructed in "skyline "...
(emphasis added). Accordingly, the "character and symmetry" of
Skyline was not something that happened by default. The number
of buildable lots and the exact location of each house was
designed with all other neighbors in mind. If you approve the
Garnaas- McTigue variances in order to facilitate the subdivision,
you will not only not be protecting the character and symmetry of
the neighborhood, rather you will be approving a subdivision
which contravenes a deliberately planned and protected character.
The opposing neighbors hope that you understand that there is not
only merit to there opposition, but history as well.•
Very truly yours,
MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE
By
J T. Swenson
JTS /tjs
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Keith Van Liere
Mrs. Lewis A. Remele
Mrs. Norman Mitchell
C^
I'
J
IL
O o
e" Lit
LIJ V\
1
S�zo �GN�NJ w`l
OA
u� 12- i 2 + c a4c
.,y
4,L/
G � G1 .
k-11
6UL-
a-/3 U-)
on, LLB &A--L
-tar
(L4 4b
v
�)7AR D1-TA PARK BOARD MEMBmS:
reside in the neiehborhood surroun('i- ^� riehl and Park a+°.' iti1 i ze trm path ernnect-
_'i 1kyli^q , rive, Lochloy Driver IntPrla.c�len Bluffq interlachen Oircl�, TTieh?ani
_ce rinks soccer field and Elementary �choo7 . Our sienature below indicates our
sunoort for the Park Devartment to 1)accp-nt the aerlication of ^ark apt.h and 2)
�o trade or sell the Garnaas/McTieues the width needed to im-orove their plat.
are sigmine th-i�- as we cannot att7 the Park Board meeting on October 13th.
9�
�3 LL
�� I%--
/2.j 5�333
TA
�
1� �• 5 c� � � �, I C I J 1
f
r�
i
�; 7.
MICHAEL J. BOLEN
ATTORNEY -AT -LAW
8207 DONCASTER WAY
EDINA. MINNESOTA 88436
(612) 927 -7371 December 17, 1992
Honorable Members of City Council
of the City of Edina; and Mr. Kenneth Rosland,
City Manager
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Re: Subdivision Application No. S -92 -3 by Garnaas and McTigue of
Lot 15, Skyline Addition- 5128 Skyline Drive.
Dear Members of the City Council and Mr. Rosland:
Enclosed is a copy of the "Declaration of Opposition" prepared
by me in connection with the Park Board Hearing and signed by all
the owners of lots which would have a view of the rear of the propos-
ed building on the applied for new subdivided lot, together with some
other lot owners in the area. Note that six owners who signed this
declaration, had previously signed a Petition presented to them by
the applicants, but by this declaration withdrew their signatures
from said Petition based upon misrepresentations or misunderstand-
ings on their part when they signed said Petition.
As said Declaration was missing from the City files at time of
hearing before the Planning Commission, I submitted copies of it at
said hearing of December 2nd. I am submitting this declaration to
you at the suggestion of a member of the Planning Commission who
stated that she and other members of the Commissison found it most
helpful in its deliberations. I apologize at submitting it in its
rough draft form, but note that I am appearing as a neighborhood
resident and not as a paid attorney in this matter.
To supplement Mr. James T. Swenson's letter to the Planning
Commission of November 25, 1992, as to threat of possible law suit
if the application to subdivide be denied, I make reference and re-
mind you of the then City's Attorney, Thomas S. Erickson, Esq.,
opinion letter to you of November 27, 1989, on the subject of the
then "Proposed Ordinace No. 804" and written in response to a letter
from Mr. Peter K. Beck as attorney for Mr. Stephen Utne, whose appli-
cation to subdivide Lot 6, Edina Highlands, was tabled by the mora-
torium adopted by you on December 14, 1988, and whose application was
subsequently denied as not meeting the requirements of the new ordin-
ance. In his eight page opinion letter, Mr. Erickson finds no merit
in the five grounds raised by Mr. Beck, some of which grounds were
raised by a Planning Commission member.
The Skyline Applicants' position is considerably weaker then that
of Mr. Utne. Inter alia,. at the time the Skyline lot was purchased
in 1988, it was subject to restrictive covaiarts running with the land
until December 1, 1991, which covenants prohibited the subdivision
of the platted lot by the applicants.
Above Enclosure
Very truly ours,
Michael J Bolen
To: The Edina City Council, Planning Commission, and Park Board
From: Lot Owners in Interlachen Circle, Skyline Addn, and Edina Highlan
Re: S -92 -3, Petition to Subdivide Lot 15 "Skyline Addition"
[5128 Skyline Drive] by by Nancy Garnaas and Kevin McTigue.
Re: Proposal of Petitioners to trade or otherwise acquire Park
Property [Part of Lot A, "Skyline Addition "] on cul -de -sac [SW End]
of Skylind Drive for part of north -south park trail on West
side of said Lot 15 and adjacent portions of said Lot 15.
Re: t•7aiver and request for variances on new subdivided, Lot Width
Median Values for Neighborhood of 125 feet per Ordinance; viz,
New S,ubd, Lot No. 1, at front line of 47.33 feet, a variance
shortage of 77.67 feet and at 50 feet back a width of 92 feet,
a variance shortage request of 33 feet; and
::ew Subd. Lot 2, at front line 102.31 feet, a variance shortage
of 22.69 feet and at 50 feet back a width of 106 feet, a varian-
ce shortage of 19 feet, Total for two lots= 100.36 feet front
and 52 feet shortage at 50 feet back from front line. Said
shortages to be reduced by footages conveyed by Park Board of
Parliand fronting on Skyline Dr. or measured at 50 foot back,
if any conveyed.
DECLARATION OF OPPOSITION BY ABOVE OWNERS: We, the undersigned Lot
Owners, hereby declare that they are strongly opposed to the three
matters captioned as "Re" above.
First: We and our predessors in title purchased R -1 zoned
(Single family residences) per platted lot and many of these plats
had "protective covenants" which prevented lot owners from subdivid-
their 'lots and gave us a private right to enforce such a covenant.
By law these covenants cannot last snore than 30 years and our hot.1es
in almost all instances were built more than 30 years ago in accord-
ance with these covenants, conditions, restrictions and in accord-
ance with our plats. Due to extremes in topography and elevations,
average and inedians are relatively useless in comparing the various
lots. The sytnetry of the area and neighborhood is that large lots
are platted for topography which includes steep slopes and /or low
areas which hold water all or part of the year and smaller lots in
the comparatively flatter high ground sections. Thus, as a general
principle, we are strongly opposed to the subdiztision of a built on
improved lot so as to permit the building of another home thereon.
Second: Ode are not only strongly opposed to selling or the
trading of Park Land except where there is clear and lasting bene-
fit to the Ci.ty and its parks, but in the present proposal we view
it as causing substantial detrimental effect on the appearance and
use of the present park with little or minimal offsetting benefit.
The only benefit would be an easement or legal title to the path
which part of encroaches on the northwest side of the petitioner's
lot. Apart from the issues as to whether or not their are public
and private easements rights by virtue of 15 years of adverse use
or public user under the six year statute, Minn. Stats. §160.05, to
said path, with comparative little expense, the path could be moved
onto Par 4and or condemnation resorted to.
Among the many detriments, the major one is that as a practi-
cal matter, it will permit and encourage the intrusion of human
improvements below the Skyline Drive level and into the buffer
,Page 2- Lot Owners Opposition to 5 -92 -3, etc.
zone between the park proper (said Lot A) and Skyland Drive. A fur-
ther major detriment will be the city's additional and expensive
burden of snow removal for another driveway, curbside mailbox, etc.
in a cul -de -s al pad verburdened by existing two driveways, two
mailboxes, /a Hree wa err'grate, and the access stairway to and from
the improved and unimproved park and Skylan& Drive over said Lot A.
It should be noted that there is a steep grade downward to the cul-
de -sac; that the cul -de -sac's paved portion has a very narrow radius;
and in the 1987 10 inch rainstorm, the water poured over the end of
the cul -de -sac with sufficient volume ang forcR to de�strqy a substan-
tial portion of the bank and wash out t3- then,,°s'firway: This past
water force and erosion is further evidenced by a deep gully and a
rip -rap of steel barrels implanted in the bank of said creek course.
Third: It would be a breach of the fiduciary duty of the City
of Edina as Trustee of deeded Lot A, "Skyline Addition "" "made for
the purpose that the premises herein conveyed shall be used for park
purposes" should it trade or sell part of said premises to the petit-
ioners for private residential building purposes.
Expanding on the opinion letter of Jerotne P. Gilligan, Esq., of
the City's attorney, the Dorsey & Whitney law firm, dated November
5, 1992, in which he concludes that the City holds the premises as a
charitable trust and recommends that should the City wish to proceed
with the conveyance'of the property, it should follow the procedures
of Minn. Stats., Chap. 501, he .did not outline the problems and poss-
ible expenses the City might encounter. The procedures to which he
apparently refers are the statutory Cy -Pres which is a rule for con -
truction of instruments in equity, by which the intention of the par-
ty, the grantor of the deed, is carried out as near as may be, when
it would be impossible or illegal to give it literal effect. Here
the language of the grant and trust is clear and unambiguous and
neither impossible nor illegal. It would appear to be most difficult
for the City to sustain its burden of proof that Hutchinson Advertis-
ing Co. and its principal officer, Merrill Hutchinson, would have
intended such a conveyance to the petitioners when it unposed the
covenants and restrictions prohibiting the subdivision of Lot 15 dur-
the satle period of time that he deeded-said Lot A to the City as for
park purposes. According to an attorney in the Attorney General's
Charitable Trust Department, not only could the A.G. defend or prose-
cute the case and recover attorney fees and investi9XVU, d suit
costs, but t t other lot owners in said plat (and adjacent
plats)/ Pal s a ding to sue or defend. Thus the alternative he suggest
-
ed,of the petitioners obtaining title insurance without court order
are probably not feasible. Z9,I`(
Fourth: The City's conveyance of[203feet or less of Park prop-
erty (which in all probability is not buildable in fact as it will be
subject to the restriction of use for park purposes) a-t contains the
galvanized storm drain pipe from the cul -de -sac, and it adjoins the
side 5 feet of said Lot 15, which will continue of record to subject
to the utility easement contained in Deed Doc. No. 329705. Yet this
is all for the purpose of creating the illusion of a buildable lot
for which substantial variances are still required.
Fifth: In light of the above facts and points, the Edina Park
Board should take an active position in opposing this Subdivision.
Sixth: In light of the above facts and points, together a re-
quest for a greater variance in lot width than has ever been hereto-
fore granted,. the City Planning Commission and the City Council
should recommend against and not grant these. variances, respecthrely.
Page 3- Lot Owners Opposition to S -92 -3, etc.
Seventh: Some of the unde
presented by the Petitimers. Th
upon misrepresentations or upon
nature of their proposals. By o
draw our su t qA consent.*
AGE A�
, n
�&177 !jyym444.&*
f
�Q. Yxe
rsigned have signed a Petition
ose of us who signed did so based
misunderstanding of the true
ur signatures below, we hereby with-
G
1fAXYfGoate a, S(# 06 JV[ Ec "Lfl-CAP
C.1 kn9k 1 0 t C rr.PA4 4- ry ¢ r,,E
u.q Pif b/z£ W /f* 2 S'KI /o.0 t.
3t- RC ja��-
�J o o p •.S'(,Ool�vr�R���ffFN
Vaiou,04 tit 014 JJJ JJld A.LLISUL% N1LL1id1J +y+ CIPI OF EDItik
FSTABLTSi34� 1919
ALLISON WIL.LIAMS COMPANY
2700 LINMr N C NTRg — 33, SOUTH 7M STREET
MWNEAPOM MINNESOTA 554M-2426
612 - 333 -3475
From the desk of
ROBERT G IENGDIN
Minn Wam I-= 752.4240
Ora Sure Waes I s00 32&4=
r
GEC �
A 002
GEORGE R. OLOASTEO
FROM 5117 BLOSSOM COURT
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55436
Dear !.'r. Larson:
DATE
TO fir. �raig Larson
Flannina Director
.ty -r Edina
V V ..� 1
Edina. .-iN
12 -1 -'92
Nay family has been a resident of the Blossom Court -
Skyline Drive area for 38 years.
This memo is to advise that we would have no objection
to the subdivision of the lot designated 4128 Skyline Drive.
Yours,
�(a.Vu-\ c;1 Su �C�, �� Si'cY1 v -�
a►lt l �v-Uvl,
1't j zV \ C r C aC ) Off. - `- C V \Ck vl. C r �A 4c)
U-Y\'Cku--'��OL'n C� 4ku-i- ck
u vy\-� S f c�c� �'� Q,`G GL.`� cam►\ cv&C k ,14-C � 4,�) kq-�-p
1'Y1CU r� L ►� S �vh m �Tv' of —i",o- ✓LSLc C 6l h oo Ul .
J
c, ct'�-S: 1 V\ 5V-1,2Pc \ f .�.�I-.. ICLrw e
g�
S� �l Cam..
aA
3o, I 9
GII
• 1�
0
J.yli A"IJUIN "i"14%AJ • ++ �.11l Ut GLIIN:.
FSrABLTSHED ins
• , ALLISON W LI IAMS COU?ANY
2700 IIIKCOLN CM'Trn — 30--, SOT.TM 7M STAFF
MRVFAPOLTS MDOMM 554M-2426
612 - ;3;3x75
From the deskOE
ROBERT C.'TENGDIN
Ml= w8u 14M 7s2-4240
Out Sere Wars 1 S00 3234020
0�
oA-
IL
4.4-
G9C .�
Q Uu?
kp.i k,;4
e Q
1 1. ( ,
6LAI&
114 IV 0 J 4,
I . r
iu?ust 7` 2
5116 _r:yli re Drive
Edina. "N = 5 X36
�C _.;II�TA PLANNING
E: '1A.rtI`iAyi P - 0 P CS_ i P CPERTY - D7T�Tv,:..T
5129 KYLI IE DRIVE :,CT i5
nln r. ^.o 1Ces of my net :_hto 's. :''1 ^. _ ve on
Skyline Drive. in prornundly obJecting .o the
proposed new home to be built at the end of our street.
Vy husband and T moved to this address partly because of
the quiet, serenity of the neighborhood.
,,oming f -om the cement and smog of Los Angeles. we
have over the years delighted in the visits of the wild
creatures in this area, including an occasional deer.
-ind foxes. rte would like to see the tranquil, scenic,
wooded area below our house continue -o offer refuge to
these animals.
'he encroachment of new home is 'a 'loss for all of us --
animals and people whose address is %yline Drive*
Please do not rive this variance�as requested by Nancy
Cirnaas and 'Kevin McTigue,for a proposed new home on
our street Skyline Drive.
Sincerely,
Joy Persons
09 -30 -1992 10;39 P.01
SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
1
MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION MEMBERS, CITY STAFF, AND CITIZENS IN ATTENDENCE.
MY NAME IS CHRIS NEU AND I RESIDE AT 5121 SKYLINE DRIVE, EDINA.
MY HOME IS BUILT ON LOT 18, SKYLINE ADDITION AND IS AFFECTED BY THE
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. AS I CANNOT APPEAR AT THIS PLANNING
COMMISSION N.EETING TONIGHT, I REQUEST THAT THIS LETTER BE READ INTO
THE RECORD.
I AM ONE OF THE SIGNERS OF THE LETTER OF OPPOSITION WHICH IS A PART
OF THE PACKET OF INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED SBUDIVISION S-93-3
5128 SKYLINE DRIVE. AFTER SIGNING THAT LETTER MR. KEVIN MCTIGUE
PROVIDED ME WITH THE STAFF REPORT AND ORDINANCE 804 WHICH I HAVE NOW
READ AND WISH TO GIVE ADDITIONAL COMMENT.
MY FAMILY HAS LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE .JUNE, 1989. LIKE
MOST PERSONS, WHEN SUCH CHANGES ARE PROPOSED IN WHAT WE BELIEVED
TO HAVE BEEN A "COMPLETED'' SUBDIVISION, I REACTED COOLY TO THE
"CREATION" OF AN ADDITIONAL LOT. I ENJOY THE PRESENT CHARACTER
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE IT CHANGED. I D0,
HOWEVER, FEEL THAT THE GARNAAS-MCTIGUE PROPOSAL DESERVES A HEARING
OF THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE PROVISIONS
AND LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN ORDINANCE 804.
THE GARNAAS- MCTIGUE PROPOSAL WILL REQUIRE BOTH LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION
TO BE GIVEN VARIANCES OF LOT WIDTH. I BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL AFFECT
THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DOSES NOT IMPROVE THE PLAT.
THE LOT(S) IN QUESTION IS LARGE ENOUGH TO MEET THE SUBDIVISION MEDIAN
SIZE. DUE TO THIS LOT BEING THE LAST ON THE CUL-DE-SAC THE WIDTH
ISSUE BECOMES CRUTIAL. ASKING FOR A 19 FOOT VARRIANCE ON ONE LOT
AND 33 FEET ON THE OTHER IS TOO EXCESSIVE. POSSIBLY MORE STUDY MIGHT
LEAD TO ANOTHER LOT CONFIGURATION WHICH WOULD NOT REQUIRE BOTH
PARCELS RECEIVING A VARRIANCE.
MOST OF THE DISCUSSION FROM PARTIES ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS PROPOSAL
HAVE BEEN OF AN EMOTIONAL NATURE. I HAVE URGED GARNAAS-MCIIGUE TO
PRESENT DRAWINGS AND PROPOSALS WHICH WILL DEPICT THE PLACEMENT OF
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE ON THIS PROPERTY. TO CLEARLY DEFINE ALL LOT
LINES, VISUAL CHANGES AND ENHANCEMENTS. WITHOUT AN ARTIST'S OR
ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS IT IS DIFFICULT AT BEST TO VISUALIZE THE
CHANGES. THE BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY RESTS ENTIRELY WITH GARNAAS-
MCTIGUE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND ARGUEMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORS AS TO
HOW THEIR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL "PROTECT AND FURTHER. AND NOT
FRUSTRATE LEGITIMATE INVESTMENT BACKED EXPECTATIONS OF PROPERTY
OWNERS."
09 -30 -1992 10:40
P. 02
THE "MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES" WHICH THE STAFF REPORT REFERS To
MUST BE THE SURROUNDING PARK LANDS. THIS LAND, ALTHOUGH PARK
PROPERTY, SHOULD ALSO NOT BE ALTERED IN CHARACTER BY THE PLACEMENT
OF ANY NEW PRIVATE STRUCTURE. AGAIN, THE RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS
To GARNAAS- MCTIGUE TO SHOW HOW THEIR NEW HOME WOULD NOT INJURE THE
CHARACTER AND USE OF THIS PARK LAND.
THE UNIQUE LOT SHAPES AND SIZES IN THE SKYLINE ADDITION IS THE
DIRECT RESULT OF THE TOPOGRAPHY. EVEN THOUGH THE MEDIAN LOT SIZE
CAN BE MET THEIR ARE CONDITIONS WHICH CAN NOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT
CHANGE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND
IT MUST GIVE ITS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE
VARIANCES WHERE "(1) COMPLIANCE WILL INV
OR (II) AN IMPROVED PLAT CAN BE ACHIEVED
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDIANCE. "Z
I BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL DOES
HARDSHIP AND DOES NOT IMPROVE THE PLAT.
APPROVAL OF THIS SUBDIVISION
COUNCIL TO GRANT TWO
OLVE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ...
BY VARIANCES FROM THE .
NOT PROVE AN UNNECESSARY
I, THEREFORE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE CITY STAFF' REPORT AND
WITH THE CONCERN FOR GARNAAS-MCTIGUE ARGUE FOR NO APPROVAL OF THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION 5-93-3
SINCERELY,
CHRIS W. NEU
2 IBID, SEC. 5 VARIANCES
L , ! ,
I)1.1zs. -,'Vou an -f. z fitaL11
5124 =SkyLine 1�uve
�cLina, ;z,T'jinnesota 55436
RE L LLL
to ,iWLL i. i. �.
LLLXL
�-�
LLLL
LL
Ll a-�LL- 3— w
v
w �
1 �
Anomey In Fact
N. L. Mitchell
1, , 11 1
cb\&o U)4- rA--
C� -�--T 4, r-+
tg�
r
r�
r I
a
Is - oSSS2—
119 -1 - , �l e-� !-t�,L) (- � ,
C UAAX a c
a� &&7A
-4- 1. CJ41 c<
rn N
Uy /UU /V? 1c:iU k.0 012 333 391.1 ALUSON ULLI.A.US CITY OF EDiNA
ESIABUsEl D 1919
•, + ALLISON- WMLLWS COMPANY
• 2700 LINCOLN CENTRE — 33o SOLTIH 7rH S pEEr
MINNEAPOLIS. mrNNESOTA S540? ?426
612 - 333 =33475
From the desk oh
ROBERT G TxNGDIN
r
C
I
c4c r
oGi � r
Mina Wass 1-500 752-4240
Ous State Wats 1500 3254020
47,76-,F2
r
er,�
Lpi 002
September 18, 1992
Planning Commission
City of Edina
4801 West Fiftieth Street
Edina, MN 55424
Re: Case No. S -92 -3
Applicants: Nancy Garnaas and Kevin McTigue
Address: 5128 Skyline Drive
Dear Sirs:
We write to the Planning Commission as concerned
neighbors of the applicants, Nancy Garnaas and Kevin McTigue. We
reside across the street, next door, and down the block from the
applicants. Skyline Drive has been home to some of us for over a
generation. After careful consideration of the Garnaas - McTigue
application, we conclude that approval of the requested variances
and subdivision will seriously damage the character of the whole
neighborhood, as well as our individual homes. Accordingly, we
must advise the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the
Mayor that we strongly oppose the Garnaas - McTigue application.
Appended to the Garnaas - McTigue August 20, 1992 one -
page application was a long, three page explanation of the
Garnaas - McTigue request for special treatment. We have read the
explanation time and time again to discern the applicants,
intentions. However, the written explanation is not at all clear
regarding key details of the proposal. For example, it does not
describe or depict the lot lines of the proposed two new lots.
Despite the absence of necessary detail, it remains abundantly
clear to us that Garnaas - McTigue seek variances from certain lot
area and configuration requirements of the R -1 district in which
we all reside.
We understand that those who apply for variances bear a
"heavy burden" to demonstrate an entitlement to special
treatment.' By statute, the applicants must demonstrate that
compliance with the Edina ordinances will cause undue hardship.
"Undue hardship" is, in turn, defined by statute to mean that,
"the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if
used under conditions allowed by the official controls... "2 It
appears beyond dispute that Garnaas - McTigue cannot meet this
threshold test. Their property, Lot 15, has not been vacant or
incapable of reasonable use because of restrictive ordinances.
Rather, Lot 15 has been put to excellent use since the initial
` VanLandschoot y. City of Mendota Heights, 336 M.W.2d 503, 509
(Minn. App. 1983).
Minn. Stat. § 462.357 Subd. 6(2)
subdivision. Our long -time neighbors, the Molzahns, were content
to build the existing house and raise their family without any
need for variances or a subdivision. The fact that Lot 15 can be
put to a reasonable use without a variance is so compelling that
the applicants' three -page explanation does not even attempt to
argue this point. Your inquiry should end at this juncture and
the application must be denied on this basis alone.
Should the Planning Commission choose to analyze the
reasons advanced by Garnaas - McTigue, despite the fact that they
cannot pass the threshold test, it must do so knowing that
"economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue
hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance. j3 When the Garnaas - McTigue application
is scrutinized, it becomes clear that each of the expressed
reasons, regardless of the label, boils down to economic
concerns:
Reason
1. It is alleged that the
Garnaas - McTigue house is not
large enough to accommodate a
third child, with all of the
necessary bedrooms on one
floor.
Our Rebuttal
It goes without saying that
Garnaas - McTigue could remodel
or add to their existing house
and accommodate their bedroom
needs in that manner. The
Edina ordinances do not
prevent this. They would
rather not do so because, with
current low mortgage rates and
the profit they can generate
from selling the existing
house, they can build a new
house at a lower cost to them.
This is a pure, economically
driven proposal. This is not
a hardship as defined by the
statute.
2. Garnaas - McTigue want to Our rebuttal is the same.
achieve a 30% to 40% lower This is a pure, economically
mortgage rate. driven proposal. Also,
Garnaas - McTigue can achieve a
lower mortgage rate by
refinancing their existing
loan. If they cannot achieve
their intended debt reduction
by refinancing, can we really
believe their contention that
the "modest" house they intend
to build "will easily be the
3 Id.
3. Garnaas - McTigue want to
"better the lives of five
people in our family ".
most expensive house on the
block "?
There is no showing that
Garnaas- McTigue could not
better the lives of their
family (from a living space
perspective) by remodeling or
moving. Eleven of the twenty
homes that abut Skyline Drive
have been legally expanded by
those of us who did not wish
to leave the unique ambiance
of Skyline Drive. Significant
improvements have been made by
the remaining nine homes.
Again, it boils down to
bettering their lives by
saving money. Variances
cannot be based on this
rationale.
A scenario almost identical to that advanced by
Garnaas - McTigue was addressed in the case of VanLandschoot v.
City of Mendota Heights, (infra f.n. 1) The only difference
between the two cases is that the Mendota Heights lot was vacant.
The developer therein wanted variances to subdivide and build two
new houses, rather than subdivide and build one new house while
retaining an existing house for resale, like Garnaas- McTigue.
The Village of Mendota Heights and the Minnesota Court of Appeals
recognized the obvious fact that the desire for variances was
economically driven and rightfully rejected the application.
Since the Garnaas - McTigue application does not articulate any
hardship particular to the property in question and is driven by
economic considerations only, it must be rejected.
So far we have limited our comments to rebuttal of the
reasons advanced in support of the application because Garnaas -
McTigue bear the "heavy burden" of proving that they are entitled
to special treatment. We do not, however, want the Planning
Commission, the City Council, or the Mayor, to feel that we do
not have strong reasons of our own for opposing the application:
1. Lot 15.is a "pie shaped" lot with the property
narrowing as it fronts on Skyline. That pie
configuration would be much worse if Lot 15 is
subdivided, because the newly created west lot would
front entirely on the cul -de -sac. Of necessity two
houses on lot 15 would be compressed together in a
manner inconsistent with the open space character of
Skyline Drive. Visitors to the western lot would of
necessity have to park on the cul -de -sac in front of
the house on the eastern lot or in front of the Remele
home (Lot 16). There is a fire hydrant on the western
edge of the Garnaas- McTigue property creating a no-
parking zone for fifteen feet to either side.
2. Skyline Drive is a quiet, peaceful neighborhood, with
only one entrance and egress, and we do not see any
benefit to be gained by increasing the traffic.
3. Many of us bought our homes because of the spacious
nature of the neighborhood and the views, and have
retained them for the same purpose. A new house on the
western portion of Lot 15 would block, or at the very
least detract from, the views of Lots 16, 17, 12, 11,
10, 9, etc.
4. We believe that the construction of two homes on Lot 15
will detract from our property values.
5. If another house is built, the present house will be
squeezed into a small lot, not in keeping with the
neighborhood, with the driveway of the new house
crammed into the side lot of the present house, right
in front of the existing picture windows. This
arrangement certainly would detract from the value of
the existing house, thereby affecting neighborhood
values as well.
6. We pointed out above that the application does not
illustrate the lot lines of the proposed two new lots.
Nevertheless, it appears to us that if the existing
house remains in its current location and maintains the
required side yard space, the front yard of the
proposed new house will of necessity have much less
than the required 75' width.
For the foregoing reasons, we, residents of Skyline
Drive and neighbors of the applicants Garnaas- McTigue, strongly
oppose the subdivision and variance request. We do not do so
lightly. We are aware that our position may cause harsh feelings
and the perception of us as less than neighborly. However, there
comes a time when one must speak out for the best interests of
the neighborhood and this is certainly such a ca e.
s
'To C S L 1 r Al e— / f�
/ le y
C
-
V s
O '�17 Tj \ ( . -r Ov I /
f ,►-�L �, K
1
<
786741
12
zx
v
bu-
el
rl 4LL/l,
CA
I
�> �� ��v ",Ilea �� .
_L2&--7
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Craig Larsen
SUBJECT: Agenda Item I.H., Granger Addition
DATE: January 4, 1993
The proponent called today and asked that the subdivision
hearing be continued for two weeks. Apparently, part of the
development team will not be available tonight.
The continuation has been placed on the consent agenda.
L z-
°z�,,
N Its,
/3
--\
— 25,700
ngt ti
ADDITION
REpLAT
8f
■
/�N A-
rh
�� aT
pill It I,
Aj (b of
�a o
2�0 r
O• c1 c''
m
J ` r
1 I*
o e
O/
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
KENNETH ROSLAND
Agenda Item #
I •
B
From:
CRAIG LARSEN
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Date:
JANUARY 4, 1993
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
S -92-4, PRELIMINARY
To Council
PLAT APPROVAL,
GRANGER ADDITION
Action
0
Motion
.
5533 VERNON AVENUE
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends Preliminary Plat Approval
subject to:
1. Final Plat Approval
2. Subdivision Dedication
Info/Background-
See attached Planning Commission minutes, staff report, materials
submitted by proponent,and correspondence.
LOCATION MAP
ELEM
_tea
s �� ��� j `'fir♦
�� �,•
Room
;1111
1110 _ oil
7
- BE11T0
,,VtODUNTRY
ja
SUBDIVISION
NUMBER 5- -92 - -4
LOCATION 5533 Vernon Avenue
REQUEST Create one new lot
in
E.DINA PLANNING DE-PARTMENT
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DECEMBER 2, 1992
5 -92 -4 Preliminary Plat Approval
Granger Addition
Winston Granger
5533 Vernon Avenue
The subject property is a developed single family lot
containing a lot area of 20,800 square feet. A request has been
submitted to subdivide the property creating one, new buildable
lot.
The proposed lots would have the following dimensions and
areas:
Lot
Width
Lot
Depth
Lot Area
Lot 1 83
feet
125
feet
10,500 square feet
Lot 2 75
feet
138
feet
10,300 square feet
Lots within the 500 foot "Neighborhood ", as set forth is
Section 810 of the City Code, have the following median dimensions
and area.
Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Area
90 feet 148 feet 14,500 square feet
The proposed preliminary plat would require lot width, lot
depth, and lot area variances for both new lots.
Recommendation:
The proposed subdivision fails to meet the basic size and
dimension standards of the city subdivision ordinance. Based on
these standards the lots are too small for the neighborhood.
Notwithstanding these deficiencies the plat would offer some
positives. It would remove curb cuts from Vernon Avenue. It would
replace an obsolete home with two new homes. The smaller lots may
also yield new homes more in keeping with the size and value of
existing homes in the area.
November 21, 1992
Dear Neighbor:
This is to advise you that there will be a Planning Commission meeting
on Wednesday, December 2nd, at 7:30 P.M. in the Edina City Hall Council
chambers at which time the proposed subdivision of our property at
5533 Vernon Ave. will be discussed. This is a oversized piece of land
on the corner of Johnson Drive and Vernon Ave. where we have lived for
46 years. We feel that dividing this land into two building lots will
represent the highest and best use of this property. The enclosed
drawing will give you an idea of the proposed lot division.
Enclosure
Very truly yours,
Winston and Carol Granger
/
-
-
,�
BERN � i $ 90
co
i
MH
' PPr
t
oQ Ci' i m
h MM 1
30 m3cl
m
9 _
. 6
C.
i = _J
00 'n oi
o
_ Ckc lv r
EXIST
-XIS- :-OUSE 11 1 &AAA(
o ow
lvaa
LJ 70,
tn
yi 5 V�G�S.;— (91:6)• j � � � 1 ' ` \
=• 1
Z t 40
Q '! o nor � i � c•:
_ :aka'•'•" — . \ �' � , ..
26.29
'30 i 3C� ENIST G,IR I`
S 89 054' 42" 'N' 143.89 1
PRELIMINARY PLAT'
`� GRADING / UT U Y PLAN
where house is not central located on the lot and in the
abstract a we are doing trying to address the economic
interest of the d owners. ommissioner Byron concluded that he
cannot support the es because of the size of the variance
required.
Ayes; McClellan gw Runyan, P
L. Johnson, Shaw, alson, Wo
approval failed 8
III. NEW BUSINESS:
OR-92 -4
. Nays; Hale, Byron, Faust,
%va.-G. Johnson. Motion for
Preliminary Plat Approval
Granger Addition
Winston Granger
5533 Vernon Avenue
Mr. Larsen informed the commission the subject property is a
developed single family lot containing a lot area of 20,800 square
feet. A request has been submitted to subdivide the property
creating one, new buildable lot.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the proposed preliminary plat would
require lot width, lot depth, and lot area variances for both new
lots.
Mr. Larsen concluded the proposed subdivision fails to meet
the basic size and dimension standards of the city subdivision
ordinance. Based on these standards the lots are too small for the
neighborhood. Notwithstanding these deficiencies the plat would
offer some positives. It would remove curb cuts from Vernon
Avenue. It would replace an obsolete home with two new homes. The
smaller lots may also yield new homes more in keeping with the size
and value of existing homes in the area.
The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Granger were present. Mr. Ron
King, developer was present. Interested neighbors were present.
Commissioner McClelland questioned the location map pointing
out it does not match up with what is depicted. Mr. Larsen said
the location map does not reflect lots to the east.
Commissioner Runyan questioned the proposed driveway on the
east. Mr. Larsen said that driveway serves a home and an agreement
has been reached between the affected property owners, and to
relocate the driveway.
Mr. Granger informed commission members that to date there
appears to be no neighborhood opposition to their proposal to
411
subdivide their property. Mr. Granger addressed the commission
explaining to them the history of the subject site. He stated he
purchased the subject property is June of 1946, and at that time it
was part of what had been a 22 acre plat. Mr. Granger reported
Vernon Avenue used to be Highways 169 and Highway 212. The
original property owner than split off the 22 acres into different
size lots, and the property was again sold and re- split. Mr.
Granger pointed out when they purchased the site a number of years
ago they were led to believe their property could easily support
two lots. Mr. Granger said he is very aware this proposal falls
short of neighborhood standards, but explained the reason is
because another street was supposed to be constructed between
Johnson Drive and Tracy Avenue running parallel to those streets.
This was never accomplished which is the why the lots west of
Johnson Drive and east of Tracy Avenue are very large and-deep.
Mr. Granger pointed out this change from the original roadway plans
skews the median. Continuing, Mr. Granger noted another point to
consider is that the 500 foot neighborhood also includes properties
on Doncaster Way, and in his opinion Doncaster Way is part of Edina
Highlands, and relates in no way to the houses on the south.side of
Vernon Avenue. Mr. Granger said he believes their proposal.is very
close is size to the houses in the immediate area, Goya Lane, Ridge
Park Road, Warden Avenue, and the majority of lots on these streets
do not meet the median standards. Mr. Granger reported at the time
they constructed Johnson Drive they "took" 30 feet off the entire
west side of our property. Nothing in our deed indicated that 30
feet of our property would be taken to construct a road. In
contacting the city and researching the 30 feet it was found that
the original property owner had deeded this 30 feet to the city but
the city had never recorded it, so when they purchased the property
it was not recorded on the deed, and they thought they had 30
additional feet along their boundary. Mr. Granger emphasized If we
had that 30 feet we would meet the neighborhood standards, and
would not require any variances. Mr. Granger asked the commission
to note that he personally contacted many of the neighbors in the
immediate area, and everyone supports the proposal as submitted.
Mr. Granger concluded that property owners most directly impacted
are here this evening in support.
Mr. Ron King addressed the commission informing them that the
houses they are planning to construct will probably be three to
four bedrooms with 2+ garages, depending on the style of house.
Mr. King asserted that construction of the houses would be
sensitive to the large oak grove on this site, and every effort
would be made to preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. King
pointed out that it is very possible to construct very fine homes
on lots of this size, and referred to houses that were constructed
off Pinewood Trail.
Commissioner Johnson referred to the sketches on the
preliminary plat and questioned the setback off Johnson Drive. Mr.
King said both lots will have curb cuts off of Johnson Drive not
21
Vernon Avenue, and will be setback off of Johnson Drive at least 40
+ feet.
commissioner Johnson questioned if front yard setback
variances would need to be granted because they will be setting
back the proposed homes farther from Johnson Drive than the
neighborhood average. Mr. Larsen responded there is no rule on how
far back a house can be placed. Any new house would have to meet
the rear yard setback of 25 feet, and if that is met can be setback
farther back than the blocks average.-
Mr. Pearson informed the commission he resides in the house
adjoining the subject site along the south boundary and supports
the Grangers proposal to subdivide.
Ms. Eleanor Verdick, 5529 Vernon Avenue told the commission
she wholeheartedly supports the proposal as presented, and pointed
out, with all respect, that she spoke with a realtor regarding this
proposal, and the realtor indicated the existing Granger house
devalues her property, any new houses would add more value to her
property, and to the neighborhood on the whole.
Commissioner Hale said he has a problem with this proposal
because the lots are significantly smaller than the lots within the
500 foot neighborhood. Commissioner Hale also pointed out that he
believes this area is an area of mostly ramblers and two story
homes (as Mr. King indicated he may construct) may not be
appropriate for these lots.
Commissioner Johnson agreed that large two story houses do not
suit the site.
Mr. Granger pointed out if you compare this proposal to the
lots within the immediate neighborhood these lots stack up
favorably, and are larger than some. Mr. Granger reiterated that
he feels the lots on Doncaster Way skew the numbers, and stated the
land lost to the city would have made their numbers meet or exceed
the neighborhood standards.
Commissioner Shaw said that she feels we as a body cannot
comment on house style, but can comment on lot size. Commissioner
Shaw said she understands the concern over massing, if the proposed
house are large two stories, but if they meet our setbacks they are
legal, and we cannot prevent that.
Commissioner Palmer pointed out that regardless of the size of
a lot it seems people who purchase homes in Edina want to fill the
"envelope" to the max. Continuing, Commissioner Palmer pointed
out, in his opinion, that this area is unique because it is very
difficult to define "neighborhood ". He pointed out as you drive
Vernon Avenue you view a hodgepodge of different housing styles,
apartments; doubles; four - plexes; townhouses; left over gas
22
stations; and single family homes. Commissioner Palmer said this
is a difficult corner, and feels this proposal is better than what
is existing.
Mr. Granger said he did approach the city and discussed a
double bungalow situation, and was told the property remaining R -1
would be better.
Commissioner Palmer agreed that single family homes better
suit the site, and said he is reacting favorably to the
overwhelming support of the immediate neighbors.
Mr. Granger stresses that this situation is different from the
previous proposal before you this evening because when the previous
property owners purchased their property they were aware of the
conditions of the lot, and the size of the lot. He pointed out we
purchased our property with the full understanding that we had
enough land to support two lots, and later found out that 30 feet
of our property would be lost to the city in a change of plans to
construct Johnson Drive. Mr. Granger concluded that this loss of
land is a hardship for them and not of their making.
Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend approval subject to
staff conditions. Commissioner Runyan seconded the motion.
Ayes; Byron, Runyan, Palmer, Shaw, Ingwalson, Workinger, G.
Johnson, Nays; Hale, Faust, Johnson, McClelland. Motion to
approve passed 7 -4
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Jackie Hoogenakker
23
HISTORY OF GRANGER ADDITION(5533 VERNON)
We purchased this property in June, 1946. It was part of what had been a 22
acre tract owned by a Wn. Kopp. Mr.Kopp loved to travel to South and Central
America and bring back exotic birds and animals. He wished to use them as a
attraction for a Root Beer stand he planned to put on this property. The City
(then village) of Edina rejected his idea so he split the land into two segments,
one of 15 acres and one of 7 acres which he sold to a Mr. Tan Bondhus. Mr. Bondhus
soon sold us our house and garage and land which occupied about 2/3 acre and had
150 ft. of frontage on the road now- known as Vernon Ave.(formerly Highways 169
& 212). He retained the other 6 1/3 acre which included a quonset -type build-
ing on the rear portion of the property now.,. known as 5529 Vernon Ave. He tore
down the superstructure and constructed a new building on the old foundation,
which was a long, narrow shape. Mr. Bondhus kept the building and a unorthodox-
- shaped lot and sold the remaining land to some builder. In those days, little
attention was paid to uniform lot dimensions so that the property at 5529 Vernon
is large in square - footage(almost 25,000) but very irregular in shape.
About the time of the Crosstown construction there were plans to change the two
U.S. Highways(now Vernon Ave.) into a 4 -lane "superhighway ". It even reached
the stage where we had surveyor's stakes in our backyard for one entire summer.
Even though Edina Highlands had been built up soon after the war, nobody wanted
to build on the South side of Vernon until the highway situation was resolved.
When a new State Highway Commissioner took office, he vetoed the entire plan
and construction on the South side immediately began to boon.
Mr. Bondhus continued to live in building on the back of the lot until he was
put on a "Peace- bond" by a Edina judge. He then sold the property and moved
out of town. There were several other relatively short -term owners and renters
in that building until the present owner(Mrs. Burdick) and her husband at the
time purchased the property about 1971. They lived in that rear -of -the -lot
building for a short time and then razed it and built the present home, a two-
-story energy- efficient building which is about 160 ft. back from Vernon Ave.
When we purchased our hone with the 150 ft. of frontage we were advised that there
was sufficient frontage for two building lots. When Johnson Drive was built in
1961, the City confiscated 30 ft. off the West side of our property. This was
completely unexpected because the City of Edina, upon receiving this dedicated
strip from a prior owner, had never recorded it and it did not show up on our
deed. Due to a technicality and a poor attorney, we received only a pittance
for the loss of this land and a potential extra lot.
DEGREE OF NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT
The eleven homes on both sides of Johnson Drive going South from Vernon
Ave. have given unqualified support to our subdivision proposal.
5600 (West)
Zehlke
Letter of support
5604
Wray
Letter of support
5608
Friedell
Will testify in person
5612
Hagen
Letter of support
5616
Ratkay
Signed support petition
5620
Uppgaard
Letter of support
5624
Engelbert
Signed support petition
5609 (East)
Pearson
Will testify in person
5613
Cascarano
Signed support petition
5617
Smith
Letter of support
5621
Wahl
Letter of support
The eight hones on both sides of Ridge Park Road were also contacted and
gave it their complete support. Ridge Park Road is the closest cross - street
to our lots.
5513 Kopp Letter of support
5509 Auguston A elderly couple in poor health,
no objections
5505 Sufficool Signed support petition
5516 Absentee owner, home just sold
5512 Gilfix Letter of support
5508 Chambers Signed support petition
5504 Lupo Signed support petition
5500 Warner Sent FAX in support
Individual hones who offered their support:
5529 Vernon Burdick Willing to testify if asked- petition
5532 Vernon Damon Signed support petition
5601 Gate Park Rd. Johnson 90 yr. old man - no objection
LOT SIZE COMPARISONS
100% of Median Average 14,500 sq. ft.
90% of it 13,050 "
83% of 12,000 " "
69% "' " If 10,000 " "
The three streets that are the closest to the Granger Addition are Goya
Lane, Ridge Park Road, and Warden Ave.
* Goya Lane
All'7 lots are below the Median figure
6 of the 7 lots are below the 83% figure
1 lot is below the 90% figure
* Ridge Park Road
All 8 lots are below the Median figure
6 of the 8 lots are below the 83% figure
2 of the lots are below the 90o figure
* Warden Ave.
All 9 lots are below the median figure
3 of the 9 lots are below the 69% figure
8 of the 9 lots are below the 83% figure
1 lot is below the 90% figure
Gate Park Road
5 out of 9 lots are below the median figure
1 is below the 90% figure
I believe that Doncaster Way should not be included in these computations.
It is part of Edina Highlands and, as .such, bears little resemblance to
the hones on the South side of Vernon Ave. Also, the street that was never
built between Tracy Ave. and Johnson Drive has resulted in huge lots on the
West side of Johnson Drive and the East side of Tracy. These lots run from
120% to 170% of the median figure and result in a aberration figure that has
little resemblance to the rest of the surrounding streets.
-2-
LOT SIZE COMPARISONS
The-two "thrown- together lots at 5529 Vernon(24,680) and 5532 Vernon(14,600)
further distort the equation.
Of the 57 properties listed in the "neighborhood ", 51% are below the median.
40% are below the 90% figure.
33% are below the 83% figure.
If you compare our proposed lots with the 24 lots on Goya Lane, Warden Ave.,
and Ridge Park Rd.-I think we are definitely in the same range. If you take the
2400 sq..ft.per lot that we are missing because of the loss of our confiscated
land, we look even better.
SUMMARY
Even though the median square foot figure shown on your papers bears
little resemblance to the actual character of our neighborhood (as
pointed out in the papers in your packet), it was conveyed to me that
neighborhood support was critical to receiving approval from the Planning
Commission. With this in mind, I personally visited 22 property owners
between Nov. 28th and 30th. My owner contacts were concentrated on the
properties closest to the proposed subdivision (Johnson Drive, Vernon
Ave., and Ridge Park Road. The overall level of support was unprecedented
in this type of situation. Not one single objection was raised by the
22 owners. I showed each of them our proposed plans and pictures of the
proposed new homes.
Even more to the point was the fact that the property owners most affected
(Mrs. Burdick adjoining us on the East, Mr. Pearson adjoining us on the
South, the three owners facing the proposed lots, Mr. Zehlke, Mrs. Wray,
and Mr. Friedell) were all willing to go to the effort of testifying or
taking the time to write supportive letters.
Because of increasing age and reduced stamina we are finding it increasingly
difficult to maintain our property at the level desirable for our own
or neighborhood standards. We therefore seek your approval for this
proposed subdivision.
WE --5vppotT. MR. GRANGERS �QEQvEST___.T._._._
SUS Pivibz: -14is /QROEI -- _!N_T0.2 ,8V %LAING Lv_TS, - - -- .
As S*o wA( am 7-,Wr-- PLA 7- PILAM /vf*iI.ZP To
L)
al"ZIv,li- adja
/� _ ��'"`�,-�^,, --P_ _.�' 'off - `� J�`'�q� 9�y�137
1-a L
b__w�r�__. 5 S 2- `1l 2. -7703
November 28, 1992
To: The Edina Planning Commission
My name is Allen Zehlke and I have lived at 5600 Johnson Drive for
several years. Our home is on the Southwest corner of Johnson Drive
and Vernon Ave. and is directly across the street from the proposed
Granger subdivision. I have seen the lot sizes of the proposed lots
and pictures of the homes that would be placed on them. I feel that
they would be a good addition to our neighborhood.
The huge depth of all the lots along the West side of Johnson Drive
and the East side of Tracy Ave. are a result of a missing street
between Johnson Drive and Tracy Ave. that was never constructed. The
hugg square footage of these lots gives a artifically large median
number.
My work will take me out of town on Dec. 2nd but I do strongly support
Mr. Granger's efforts to divide his oversize property and hope you
will approve his request.
Allen Zehlke
^
`
/' -7
led
November 29, 1992
Dear planning commission members,
I have been approached personally by Mr. Winston Granger
in regard to the proposed subdivision of his property at Vernon
Ave. and Johnson Dr. in Edina. I am a neighbor living almost
directly across the street on Johnson Dr. Mr. Granger showed me
a drawing of the layout, and told me that after the subdivision
each lot would be about a acre. He also showed me pictures of
similar models of homes that would be built on the properties.
After meeting with Mr. Granger and reviewing the information,
I feel that the subdivision and subsequent development would be
an asset to our neighborhood, and I will give it my full support.
Sincerely,
Gary Hagen
November 21, 1992
Dear Neighbor:
This is to advise you that there will be a Planning Conmi.ssion meeting
on Wednesday, December 2nd, at 7:30 P.M. in the Edina City Hall Council
chambers at which time the proposed subdivision of our property at
5533 Vernon Ave. will be discussed. This is a oversized piece of land
on the corner of Johnson Drive and Vernon Ave. where we have lived for
46 years. We feel that dividing this land into two building lots will
represent the highest and best use of this property. The enclosed
drawing will give you an idea of the proposed lot division.
Enclosure
Very truly yours,
Winston and Carol Granger
S;'-- -j
C -
-.6
November 29, 1992
City Of Edina
Planning Dept.
Dear Sirs,
Today I became aware of a proposal to subdivide and build
2 new homes on my street, Johnson Drive. I would approve
of this proposal. There is an older home at this sight and
I think two new homes on this large corner lot would improve
and enhance Johnson Drive.
Sincerely,
Kathleen M. Smith
20 Year Resident
November 21, 1992
Dear Neighbor:
This is to advise you that there will be a Planning Commission meeting
on Wednesday, December 2nd, at 7:30 P.M. in the Edina City Hall Council
chambers at which time the proposed subdivision of our property at
5533 Vernon Ave. will be discussed. This is a oversized piece of land
on the corner of Johnson Drive and Vernon Ave. where we have lived for
46 years. we feel that dividing this land into two building lots will
represent the highest and best use of this property. The enclosed
drawing will give you an idea of the proposed lot division.
Very truly yours,
Winston and Carol Granger
Enclosure
4-D: E-,l -
1�..� •
p(&pc-5eA zee. Gtictvtoes
0414 S (4 rZVe, .
V3, Kv�'P
-d VtA
04- VQ-4(- ON vylv 6tv f ,
4p 4e' s 46 P rePv c4A
Y-t
a 4-iA�
b� fie, �Icr,v►��� G�mnn�s� � JQ-6jSe.
-�-�,
pf-OPO'
sy, l a � �e.�,,! � �. � r — � �ou�
C�4
1
u)�.x 050- be*\L� -- ,
reat issu.f--, 46 owke, is
+moo va's sdr aK Iris
. �o qe-ArS , is d►A au".C-A +-D do w (•a�s� In,e�
pLects.es LOL+-m Ljs. pro 0
i4 urtw-
i\�OAqm� ptt4B?--,ffwwe-pt
NI ove-
We p co p o
4ks
4a ,-;OjcJ be- ar)
Sincerely
L.
e '1
�rJ•�Jl� �y /i
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
Francis Hoffman ,IJ
From: City Engineer
Date: 4 January, 1993
Subject: Public Hearing
•Vacation of Drainage
& Utility Easement
Lots 10 & 11, Block 1,
Indian Hills 3rd Addn.
Agenda item #
L'-
--A-Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
0
To Cou
Action
0
Motion
❑
Resolut
❑
Ordinan
Recommendation
Vacate utility and drainage easement as described in legal
description on attached Drawing No. 1.
Info /Background:
ncil
ion
ce
The application is to vacate a portion of two sideyard ease-
ments. Lots 10 and 11 underwent a lot split in 1988 but did
not vacate existing sideyard easements. The owner of expanded
Lot 10 seeks to vacate easements to allow expansion of home
(second drawing). City staff, NSP, Minnegasco and U S West
have no objection to vacating the easement portion requested.
• em w.N.o. ao.e �
Ed«,Fish M
IsmaWma e_
CERTIFICATE
OF
SURVEY
DRAWING NO. 1
! Wvoy for _ 9 f R Cv014 S 7" RUC 7-16A1 ! Job No. 9984' 1 elk.
(7642)
J
Q
0
W
n
_'v I
N'
lks 1
of .
' t'k
!
n r
N4 �
r
oU)
0
3�; r
ly(I h, /
202 24 38 w
�i��h orb
a
L
"/V6
y4`��
Y
I"
a
a
0
/0i
�bg °g ! `33 �✓
77
1
/D
QO
7lic N. 6. cor
o-� Gof // -�'
FQR 0ROP06®1069 TION OF DRAINAM AND LLULnN Ee-MBVT
i = 30
That part of the drainage and utility easement over the southerly 5 feet of Lot 10, and the northerly
5 feet of ls:t 11, as dedicated In the plat of INDIAN HILLS 3RD ADDITION, which lies west of the east
5 feet of Lots 10 and 11, and easterly of a line drawn at right angles from a point on the south line
of said Lot 10, distant 50.25 feet nordwasterly of the southwest comer of said Lot 10, as measured
along said line, ALL In Block 1, INDIAN HILLS 3RD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF THE BOUNDARIES F (SCC 4LhIOdCi
SURVEYED BY ME THIS _ Z6 DAY OF E~1164 4M _
MINNESOTA.
RONALD L. KRUEGIM
fl7A7f HQWM&TMW W% -./174 -
CER - iF1CATE
ad„1 p 161°e0M„�, Post -V brand fax transmittal memo 7671
" !) AQy '""'
�• R R Ca►v ST
&w w to ate• °''�"'
ftx
ftxo
f
>ro
f
� I
IS.
e
N2o• �'o j 38 . h/
2. 24
t t % �-
t c
• t .
q'Ly}Nf�1� f Ri b s r 'tm .4!••i 1=
�IIM�I�OIR�4i1� 'ii'iilir }:it;r: =�: •- ,
DRAWING NO: 2
NN, 4f
I •L w. .e
"T
a
N �
N
�
o
J?
t
Q:
I
O c% C, O v J
�Il
avt
•
1
I�
f
>ro
f
� I
IS.
e
N2o• �'o j 38 . h/
2. 24
t t % �-
t c
• t .
q'Ly}Nf�1� f Ri b s r 'tm .4!••i 1=
�IIM�I�OIR�4i1� 'ii'iilir }:it;r: =�: •- ,
DRAWING NO: 2
NN, 4f
I •L w. .e
o �
•
• u� M�I
a /D H
3 w of Lof 11
•
L to /a- tp�i�or�:
� p f /O, atnd f>�af �cwrf o� Gof // /yinq Nor�l�cr /y o f u /i�c c�i�a wh
cu3f�r/y of 4 p�o/n f ors f�tl�eSt /iilE' O� Ss�lq/ Lof /�f, A�i6fA � E
t ner o f Wid Lof' // fv - f�
3Z � � Sufi o� � M.W. nr. w. •
Cornerol s4id Lof //� All in B/ac k /, zNDlAlV l4/�.t5 3 ADD ? /on►
HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS Id A TRNE AND COFOMT ReMWUNTATION OF THE BOUNDAR_IE`S �F
F4 �CIrl/'/2 ;MINNESOTA.
/ /Ji• - - _ . � ,... � r iii A/r� ... �r_ �` � ./�F�. /T V •
a
Lp
U1
O c% C, O v J
o �
•
• u� M�I
a /D H
3 w of Lof 11
•
L to /a- tp�i�or�:
� p f /O, atnd f>�af �cwrf o� Gof // /yinq Nor�l�cr /y o f u /i�c c�i�a wh
cu3f�r/y of 4 p�o/n f ors f�tl�eSt /iilE' O� Ss�lq/ Lof /�f, A�i6fA � E
t ner o f Wid Lof' // fv - f�
3Z � � Sufi o� � M.W. nr. w. •
Cornerol s4id Lof //� All in B/ac k /, zNDlAlV l4/�.t5 3 ADD ? /on►
HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS Id A TRNE AND COFOMT ReMWUNTATION OF THE BOUNDAR_IE`S �F
F4 �CIrl/'/2 ;MINNESOTA.
/ /Ji• - - _ . � ,... � r iii A/r� ... �r_ �` � ./�F�. /T V •
(Official Publication)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT
IN THE CITY OF EDINA
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street on
January 4, 1992 at 7:00 P.M., for the purpose of holding a public hearing on
the proposed vacation of the following easement for utility purposes:
That part of the drainage and utility easement over the southerly 5 feet
of Lot 10, and the northerly 5 feet of Lot 11, as dedicated in the plat
of INDIAN HILLS 3RD ADDITION, which lies west of the east 5 feet of Lots
10 and 11, and easterly of a line drawn at right angles from a point on
the south line of said Lot 10, distant 50.25 feet northeasterly of the
southwest corner of said Lot 10, as measured along said line, all in
Block 1, INDIAN HILLS 3RD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
All persons who desire to be heard with respect to the question of whether or
not the above proposed easement vacation is in the public interest and should
be made shall be heard at said time and place. The Council shall consider the
extent to which such proposed easement vacation affects existing easements
within the area of the proposed vacation and the extent to which the vacation
affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or
controlling electric, telephone or cable television poles and lines, gas and
sewer lines, or water pipes, mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the
proposed vacation, to continue maintaining the same or to enter upon such
easement area or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove,
or otherwise attend thereto, for the purpose of specifying, in any such
vacation resolution, the extent to which any or all of any such easement, and
such authority to maintain, and to enter upon the area of the proposed
vacation, shall continue.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
Publish in the Edina Sun - Current on December 23 and 30, 1992.
Send two affidavits of publication.
a
0
ogle
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To. MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item ##
IV. A.
From: CORDON L. HUGHES
Consent
a
Information Only
❑
Date: JANUARY 4, 1993
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject: APPOINTMENT OF HRA
To Council
COMMISSIONERS
Action
0
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Info /Background
According-to the HRA bylaws, the members of the City Council are also the
Commissioners of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The bylaws
provide that the term of office for each Commissioner coincides with his
or her term of office as a Council Member. Therefore, Mr. Richards,
Mrs. Kelly and Mrs. Paulus should now be formally appointed as Commissioners
of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for terms to January 1, 1997.
o e ' 1N
l o;
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
Francis Hoffman
From: City Engineer
Date: 4 January, 1993
Subject: Hennepin County
Ground Water Plan
Recommendation:
Agenda Item # IV -B-
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends
Action
❑
To HRA
To Council
❑
Motion
FT
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
Authorize a resolution that requests Hennepin County and
Hennepin County Conservation District to suspend further
ground water protection planning until Minnesota Department of
Health has completed promulgation of its rules.
Info /Background
Hennepin County Conservation District has undertaken the task
of preparing a ground water protection plan. The Hennepin
County Conservation District (HCD) has issued a Draft Hennepin
County Ground Water Plan (Plan) for review and comment by
municipalities and Watershed Management organizations. The
Plan presents information regarding geography, geology, ground
water resources, types of pollutant sources and existing
programs for ground water protection. The Plan also
identifies existing threats to ground water, establishes goals
and objectives and proposes programs to achieve goals and
objectives. The goals of the Plan are proposed to be achieved
primarily through the exercise of local planning, zoning,
licensing and permitting authorities. The Plan provides for
the establishment of a joint powers organization of all
cities, Hennepin County, and Hennepin Conservation District to
coordinate the plans and programs for interjurisdictional
protection of ground water resources.
Report /Recommendation
Agenda Item IV.B.
Page Two
The Plan's key mechanism for ground water resource protection
is management (primarily zoning) of land uses which have the
potential for contaminating ground water. Two management
options are presented: establishment of Wellhead Protection
Areas (WHPAs) and Aquifer Protection within the entire limits
of a municipality. The Wellhead Protection option is mandated
by the 1986 Amendments to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
and by the Minnesota Groundwater Protection Act of.1989.
Wellhead Protection provides for management of contamination
sources and land uses within recharge areas of municipal
wells. Aquifer Protection provides for management of
contamination sources and land uses for all portions of a
municipality and is provided as an option in the Plan for
fully developed communities which cannot make significant
changes in land use.
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is the lead agency
for (1) developing the state's Wellhead Protection program,
(2) preparing and submitting the state's Wellhead Protection
program to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
approval, and (3) promulgating state Wellhead Protection
program rules. The MDH established two work groups (the Ad
Hoc WHP Policy Workgroup and the Ad Hoc WHP Technical
Workgroup) to provide the department with guidance on policy
and technical issues related to the development of the state
WHP program. Reports from these two workgroups were submitted
to the commissioner of health. The MDH is currently beginning
the process of rule making for the state's WHP program with
plans to implement the state's program in 1993.
An important issue centers on consistency in WHP requirements
between the Hennepin County Ground Water Plan and the MDH
requirements that will be set forth in state statute. The MDH
workgroups recommend establishing zones of protection based on
ground water time -of= travel to a well. The MDH policy
workgroup recommended that a 10 -year ground water time -of-
travel be used in delineating the outermost Wellhead
Protection Area for a well or well field. The Hennepin County
Ground Water Plan includes more stringent requirements: a
more protective zone bounded by the 1 -year ground water time -
of- travel and an outer zone bounded by the 25 -year ground
water time -of- travel. Various land -use restrictions and
inventories of commercial and industrial activities are
mandated within these zones. It is our recommendation that
s =/
Report /Recommendation
Agenda Item IV.B.
Page Three
the adoption Wellhead Protection requirements for
municipalities within Hennepin County wait until the state has
issued their Wellhead Protection program requirements.
See the attached Draft Resolution, Executive Summary and
correspondence to Mr. Rosland from the Conservation District.
RESOLUTION
SUSPENDING COUNTY GROUND WATER PLAN ACTIVITIES
SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION.
WHEREAS, Minnesota statute provides permissive authority to counties to develop and
adopt ground water protection plans;
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has determined it to be appropriate to prepare and
adopt a ground water protection plan in accordance with this authority;
WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed Ground Water Plan by the Hennepin County
Board requires watershed management organizations to prepare and adopt a ground
water protection component to their plans;
WHEREAS, adoption by water management organizations of ground water protection
components to their plans requires municipalities to prepare and adopt ordinances and
regulations implementing and enforcing the requirements of the Hennepin County
Ground Water Plan;
WHEREAS, the major cost of implementing and enforcing the requirements of the
Hennepin County Ground Water Plan are to be borne by the municipalities;
WHEREAS, no revenue source is defined to cover the costs of the required actions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Edina as
follows:
It is recommended that the schedule be interrupted and the process discontinued until
such time as the Minnesota Department of Health has completed the promulgation of its
rules in this regard so that the provisions of the Plan can be made consistent therewith,
or discontinued if redundant to state requirements.
EXECUTIVE GUIDE
to the
HENNEPIN COUNTY GROUND WATER PLAN
Introduction
Ground water is one of the most
important natural resources of Hennepin
County. People and industries in forty of the
forty-six cities in the county rely exclusively
on ground water for domestic and municipal
water supplies. There is no alternate source of
water that can replace this demand. The
proportion of water supplied by ground -water
resources is likely to increase in the future
because most population growth will occur in
cities that already rely exclusively on ground
water.
Conservation is the wise use of a
resource. As with any natural resource,
ground water must be conserved if it is to
continue to provide the water needed by the
citizens of Hennepin County. Wise use of
ground water means that we should not use
any more of it than is actually necessary.
Contamination of ground water is an unwise
use because the water is no longer available
for a useful purpose.
Preventing contamination is much
cheaper for taxpayers than cleaning a polluted
resource that is necessary for growth and
commerce. Aside from the ' risks to human
health and the psychological strain it causes,
ground-water contamination is expensive. A
survey by the Freshwater Foundation (1989)
shows that ground -water contamination has
cost 17 Minnesota cities and 18 Minnesota
companies over $67 million. In most cases,
individual cities were faced with additional
costs in excess of $100,000; in two cases the
costs were in the range of $10 million to $20
million. These costs accrue as a result of real
estate devaluation, purchase of new
equipment, remedial programs, consulting
services, legal expenses, and additional staff
time.
Local governments possess two
important tools that can be used to protect
ground water. First, cities have traditionally
had the exclusive authority to zone and to
issue permits and licenses. Zoning ordinances
are the most effective way to control the
geographic distribution of various activities or
land uses. Permitting and licensing
ordinances are an effective way for cities to
control the nature of activities within their
jurisdiction. Second, cities have the greatest
knowledge about the activities that actually
take place within their jurisdiction.
Knowledge and authority are two
prerequisites to effective ground water
protection.
To date, federal and state efforts for
protecting ground water has consisted of
promulgating rules and requirements that
address specific facilities or activities. These
agencies are too far removed from the many
day - today activities throughout the state. to be
informed or responsive to every violation or
oversight. Hence, existing efforts for ground
water protection must be expanded to include
the knowledge and authorities possessed by
cities.
DRAFT - Hennepin County Ground Water Plan - DRAFT
Goal of the Plan
The goal of the Hennepin County ground
water plan is to protect and maintain the
quality of ground water resources. A basic
premise of the plan is that decision - makers
need better information about ground water
resources as land use decisions become more
complex and as activities present greater
threats to ground water quality. A second
premise is that local ground water protection
should build on the licensing, permitting, and
zoning authority that is already inherent in the
powers of city government.
This plan is actually a process or guide to
help cities use their authorities and knowledge
to protect ground water from contamination.
It is not a prescriptive plan. The statute under
which counties may produce ground water
plans granted no new authorities to cities,
counties, or any other local government.
Rather, county ground water plans are
designed to build upon the existing authorities
of local governments. This plan does not
require or envision the creation of new city
programs or departments. Instead, cities are
encouraged to incorporate plan requirements
into their existing structure. Ground water
issues are not the only concern of local
governments; cities are involved in a variety of
issues. Ground water issues must be
addressed in the context of other issues, such
as zoning, licensing requirements, or site
inspections, and not as an issue separate and
distinct from all other issues.
Local governments have the greatest interest in avoiding ground -water
contamination because it is "their" water.
Plan Outline
This Executive Guide is a companion
document that summarizes the 136 -page
Hennepin County Ground Water Plan. The
guide explains how the plan's strategy and
recommendations will help local governments
protect ground water.
The plan is a two -part document.
Chapters 1 through 6 describe the steps that
cities, Hennepin County, and the Hennepin
Conservation District (HCD) should undertake
for ground water protection. Chapter 1 is an
introduction. Chapter 2 presents a statement
of the need for a plan. Chapter 3 lists the
plan's goals and the strategy of the plan.
Chapter 4 examines the options for a county-
wide management structure to coordinate and
oversee the plan's implementation, and
describes in detail tasks and management
options. The plan directs cities to sources of
technical support that are available. Options
for financing are also outlined in Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 suggests specific ways that state
agencies could facilitate ground water
protection. Chapter 6 is a punch list of the
responsibilities for each of the plan's
Participants, and outlines the timetable for plan
review and adoption.
The second part of the plan, chapters 7
through 9, provides a background for
understanding the plan. This necessarily
involves a basic understanding of
hydrogeology in Hennepin County. Chapter
7 is a natural resource inventory of the county
and discusses aquifers, sensitive geologic
Executive Guide - 2127192 - Page 2
DRAFT - Hennepin County Ground Water Plan - DRAFT
areas, and delineation of wellhead protection
areas. Chapter 8 describes the types of point
sources that threaten the aquifers and
recommends' management tools that can
mitigate the potential for contamination.
Chapter 9 examines the existing framework of
federal, state, and county regulations that
presently affect ground water. Appendices 1
and 2 provide background information about
wellhead protection and sensitive geologic
areas. Appendices 3 through 21 are examples
of ordinances, procedures and documents
used in other parts of the nation to protect
ground water. Plates 1 through 9 are geologic
and hydrogeologic resource maps, and Plate
10 is a listing of management techniques
appropriate for different activities that pose
threats to ground water quality.
The Ground Water System
The ground water system in Hennepin
County is complex, but understandable and
predictable. There are five major aquifers in
the county, lying one on top of the other like
so many layers in a cake. In general, only the
two deepest aquifers are found beneath the
entire county. The others are restricted to
smaller portions of the county.
Ground water does not come from some
distant, unpopulated wilderness. Most of the
ground water used by county residents begins
as precipitation falling within the county. This
precipitation recharges the aquifers and
replenishes ground water supplies. Ground
water in the aquifers that is not removed by
pumps then flows toward the county
boundaries where it discharges into the
Mississippi, Minnesota, and Crow rivers.
Protecting ground water on a county basis
makes sense because the Hennepin County
jurisdictional boundaries are also the ground
water flow system boundaries.
The ability to prevent ground water
contamination in Hennepin County rests
solely with the people and-industry of the
county. Ground water becomes contaminated
when a contaminant moves downward from
the land surface to an aquifer. Almost all
sources of ground water contamination result
from local activities within Hennepin County.
Contamination does not come from some
distant place. Ground water pollution
problems do not migrate in from adjacent
counties. However, a plume of contaminated
ground water originating within the county
can and will migrate from one city to other
cities.
In ground water systems where there are
no pumping wells, the period of time for
water to go through the hydrologic cycle of
precipitation, recharge, ground water flow,
discharge to surface water, evaporation, and
precipitation varies on a time scale from days
to tens of thousands of years. The deeper
aquifers have the longer circulation periods.
Pumping on the scale of that which occurs in
Hennepin County can greatly shorten the
ground water circulation period in an aquifer.
The result of the relatively short circulation
periods is that ground water contamination
problems are problems of the present. The
consequences of contamination will not be
delayed to a later civilization or to our
grandchildren. They will affect us in the
coming days and years. The majority of the
present population will live to see, and
perhaps drink, ground water that becomes
contaminated today.
Some contamination problems must be considered permanent because they cannot
be corrected within a human or societal time frame.
Executive Guide - 2/27/92 - Page 3
DRAFT - Hennepin County Ground Water Plan - DRAFT
Contamination Problems
Many activities or facilities in the county
already pose a serious contamination threat to
the underground aquifers. Hazardous
materials are more common that most people
realize. Any material that is flammable,
corrosive, reactive, or toxic is considered
hazardous by law. A simple search of the
typical garage, basement, kitchen, and
bathroom will reveal a surprising quantity and
variety of hazardous materials. Presently,
more than 8,200 sites in Hennepin County are
permitted to store fuels or handle hazardous
materials. This is an average of 11 sites per
square mile. There are nine sites in the county
where the contamination events have already
occurred and are so serious that the federal
government is taking control of the
remediation efforts. Failure to effectively
manage activities that daily have the potential
to contaminate sensitive aquifers would be
irresponsible public policy.
Guide to City Planning Efforts
The few, simple guidelines of the plan are
listed below.' They can make the planning
efforts of a city more efficient and effective in
protecting ground water.
Gather readily available
information and make simple analyses
to form a basis for planning
decisions. Cities can reduce time and
expense by first surveying their existing
resources and understanding some of the
geographic and technical factors relevant to
ground water protection. Cities should
incorporate elements of this plan into their
existing structure and not feel compelled to
develop a separate, isolated program for
protecting ground water.
Understand the significance of
sensitive geologic areas when making
land use decisions. All areas are
geologically sensitive to some degree, but in
areas of high sensitivity contaminants can
reach ground water much faster than in areas
rated low.. There are different management
tools that can be applied when decision
makers understand the sensitivity of a
particular area. The Hennepin Conservation
District (HCD) will be preparing maps that
portray geologic sensitivity at a scale of
1:24,000. These maps will be provided to
cities at no charge. A knowledge and
understanding of geologic sensitivity and a
124,000 scale planning map of sensitive areas
can be incorporated into a zoning ordinance to
serve as a guide for planning and management
decisions.
Elect the Wellhead. Protection' or
Aquifer Protection management option
for ground water. protection. The plan
recognizes that some cities are already fully
developed and have little room to change
current land use patterns, whereas other cities
are still predominantly rural with large, tracts
of open. land. Inmost cases, municipal well
fields are already in place. Two options for
city management of ground water are
described in the plan: Wellhead Protection
and Aquifer Protection. The principal
distinction between the two options is
geographic. Wellhead protection is a
prescriptive option that requires the exclusion
of potential sources of contamination from
wellhead protection areas (WHPA); relatively
minimal management is required outside
WHPAs. Aquifer protection is a more flexible
Executive Guide - 287/92 - Page 4
DRAFT - Hennepin County Ground Water Plan - DRAFT
The Aquifer Protection option is designed
for those cities where full development has
been achieved. It is likely that the developed
cities will have more sites to inventory, and
preliminary WHPAs will be used to phase the
inventory tasks and the implementation of
management. The approach for Aquifer
Protection will not require making final
WHPA delineations as overlay zoning
districts; rather, all potential point sources will
be managed throughout a city rather than just
within the WHPAs. Sites within preliminary
WHPAs should receive particular attention.
The location of preliminary WHPAs is
information that a city should use when
making future land use decisions, granting
permits, or amending zoning ordinances.
Plan future growth away from
sensitive geologic areas and wellhead
protection areas. The consequences of
accidents can be minimized if potential sources
of contamination are allowed only in areas
where spills can be corrected before ground
water is affected. This principal should be
considered as one factor among many in
planning the development and future growth
of a city. Even by those cities whose land use
patterns have been set for decades should keep
this principle in mind.
Make an inventory of all potential
sources of contamination within their
jurisdiction, and especially within
WHPAs. It is important for a city to know
where all potential sources of contamination
are located before making management
decisions. Presently, there is no
comprehensive listing of all known sites, and
the listings that are available frequently have
incomplete or erroneous locational
information. The location of sites should be
referred to by both street address and by
property identification number (PID).
Indexing by PM number will make it easier to
make computer maps and compare
information in different data bases. A map is
more useful than a computer listing of sites,
because a map visually shows the geographic
relationships of potential sources, WHPAs,
well fields, sensitive geologic areas, wetlands,
and other features.
Most cities can complete the inventory
tasks by reviewing permit and licensing files,
and by checking with lists compiled for the
fire department and for emergency response
plans. HOD will also supply inventories
generated from appropriate state and county
databases. All sources of information will
eventually be combined to generate a single
listing for each city of all the known sites to
accompany the computer maps.
Guide to City Management Efforts
The few, simple guidelines listed below
can make the management efforts of a city
more efficient and effective in protecting
ground water.
Manage according to geographic
location and hazard potential. Where
resources are limited, cities must set priorities
so that those resources are used where they
are most needed and where they can be most
effective. The threat that any particular
potential source of contamination presents to
ground water supplies and public health is
directly related to its geographic location
relative to wellhead protection areas and
sensitive geologic areas, and to the intensity
with which it uses hazardous materials or
wastes.
Delineate wellhead protection
areas around all public supply wells.
The Minnesota Department of Health will
publish rules in 1992 that require all cities to
establish wellhead protection areas (WHPAs)
Executive Guide - 2/27/92 - Page 6
DRAFT - Hennepin County Ground Water Plan - DRAFT
option for protecting ground water. Aquifer
protection requires management of all potential
sources within a city. Both options require
use of a hazard ranking system, modification
of permit and licensing requirements, and an
inventory of point sources identified by
property identification number to be included
in the county geographical information
system.
The Wellhead Protection option, tailored
for the more rural cities which have not yet
achieved full development, requires a final
delineation of the WHPA based on specific
hydrogeologic data. Figure 1 illustrates a
wellhead protection area for a well.
Delineation of WHPAs must result in legally
defensible boundaries. WHPAs will become
overlay zoning districts, and intensive
management will focus primarily on those
sites located within WHPAs or located in the
WHPAs of future wells. Cities electing this
option will name a WHPA citizen advisory
committee to guide the development and
implementation of wellhead protection. This
task can be assigned to an existing committee.
F-z0C -..I
ZOI I I /GROUNOWATeR
PUMPING 1 DIVIDE
I weLL_
I I
LANOSURPACL I I i I A
I I I CONE OF I PREPUMPINO
DEPRESSION I WATER LEVEL
I I I I
I I I I EEOROCK
I I 1
I I I I I
(All VERTICAL PROFILE l
I I I I I
I I
I
I I
I I 3
I I :a ;
1 s�-* Ig
A
..� =: • A'
eo•+o••s - -
PUmft40 WILL l�
(0) PLAN VIEW
LEGEND:
� waartaeN
— �oiaalrwm Rlo� Died•"
• Pk••a•E well
Sa Zoe of Infkarm
Me Zone of Connlsuoon
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 1. Cross section and plan view of a wellhead protection area. The ground water surface
around a pumping well is pulled down as water is drawn into the well, creating a cone of depression (COD) around
the well. 77te extent of the cone can vary from only a few feet to many miles from the pumping well, depending on
hydrogeologieal factors 77ie recharge area may consist of all or part of the cone of depression as well as the area
from which the replacing water comes.
Executive Guide - 2/27/92 - Page 5
DRAFT - Hennepin County Ground Water Plan - DRAFT
around their public supply wells. A WHPA is
a boundary at the land surface around the area
from which a well pulls its water. Potential
sources of contamination located within
WHPAs should be intensively managed,
because contaminants that enter the soil within
the WHPA boundary will eventually reach the
well if those sources contaminate the aquifer.
Technical support for delineation of WHPAs
is available to all cities from HCD.
Apply existing zoning authority to
protect ground water. There are a
multitude of activities that can contaminate
ground water. For each there exists one or
more management tools that can mitigate the
problem. The plan calls for cities to use their
existing licensing, permitting, and zoning
authority to protect ground water. Local
codes such as conditional use permits,
registration, site design requirements, storm
water practices, municipal ordinances for
underground tanks, recycling programs, and
conservation easements are just a sampling of
the controls cities can use. In Plate 10, the
plan indicates particular tools that cities can
use for each type of activity or land use.
Cities should amend their zoning controls as
necessary after all relevant information is
available to them about the location of
WHPAs and sensitive geologic areas in
relation to abandoned wells, potential sources,
and other hazardous activities.
Hazardous land use activities
should be ranked and managed
according to the risk they present. A
modern urban and industrially developed area
has thousands of permits issued for sites that
are deemed to be an environmental threat. To
more efficiently use limited management
resources, cities should identify, locate , and
manage those activities which pose the highest
risk. A hazard ranking system will be devised
by technical staff at Hennepin County and
HCD with review by cities. After review and
adoption, this hazard ranking system will be
used by cities to set priorities for those
activities or facilities that should be managed
first and most intensively. It is up to each city
to decide which management tools should be
applied, and this will depend upon where sites
of different hazard ranking are located in
relation to WHPAs and sensitive geologic
areas. Cities gain assurance from a common
hazard ranking system that the most serious
threats are also known and managed by its
neighbor according to a common definition.
Use a GIS system to manage
information that will assist cities with
ground water protection. Information
management is an important asset to a city that
will be making land use decisions. The
ground water plan demonstrates that there is a
lot of information to be compiled from many
different sources. Cities will share
information from their potential source
inventories with HCD for entry into the
county geographic information system (GIS)
so that computer maps of these inventories can
be generated. HCD will make the process of
data exchange among state and local databases
smoother and more efficient. Some cities will
wish to maintain data concerning ground
water on their own systems; these cities will
need the information in a format compatible
with their existing systems.
The amount of data to be managed will
increase as cities continue to grow. A GIS
system is unique in its ability to manipulate
large amounts of data from various sources
and produce maps displaying the data in a way
that is meaningful for decision makers (Figure
2.
Require compliance with all state
permitting regulations before issuing
local permits. It is anticipated that during
the inventory task, the city will uncover
activities and facilities that are not currently in
compliance with state law. Underground
storage tanks, above ground tanks, septic
systems, water wells and feedlots are just a
few examples where state registration
requirements are commonly ignored. A city
Fan easily incorporate proof of compliance
into its own licensing and permitting
requirements. Cities are encouraged to adopt
a local ordinance for registering all
underground tanks or for sealing older,
unused underground tanks.
Executive Guide - 2/27192 - Page 7
DRAFT - Hennepin County Ground Water Plan - DRAFT
00
0
o o°� 0
o
0
0
0
00 0
®0 0
0
0'M
0°
9
0
00
000
0
Figure 2. A map generated by a GIS system showing locations of wells, underground tanks,
WHPAs and sensitive geologic areas. All items shown are indexed by the PID number for easy data access
by the GIS.
Demand leak detection, spill
containment, and good housekeeping
practices to mitigate location and
hazard ranking. These practices will help
insure that hazardous materials or wastes
released to the environment are promptly and
properly captured before they can contaminate
ground water. Cleaning a site designed to
contain a material is much more effective than
Hying to clean a contaminated aquifer.
Locate and seal abandoned wells.
There are an estimated 121,000 to 147,000
abandoned wells in the county. Such wells
are direct conduits for contaminants to reach
aquifers, or move from one aquifer to another.
Currently, HCD is conducting an inventory of
parcels where an abandoned or improperly
constructed well is likely to be present. This
information will be shared with cities, which
may then work with the Hennepin County
Department of Environmental Health and the
Minnesota Department of Health to get the
wells sealed. Getting high priority wells
sealed is a good step toward protecting ground
water.
Adopt contingency plans for
ground water. Contingency plans for
municipal ground water supplies will soon be
required by the federal government with
enforcement by the Minnesota Department of
Health. The Hennepin County Ground Water
Plan calls for additional elements in the
contingency plan, such as conservation
measures for drought conditions, well field
planning to reduce well interference, and
investigating the feasibility of supply line
cross - connections with other cities.
Contingency plans, if put into practice by all
cities, will address everyone's interests in the
event of a major drought, contaminant spill, or
disruption in the supply of ground water.
Cooperation among cities in planning future
Executive Guide - 2/27192 - Page 8
DRAFT - Hennepin County Ground Water Plan - DRAFT
municipal wells will insure more efficient
production, reduce stress on the aquifers, and
avoid water allocation conflicts among cities.
Implement conservation practices
for water use. Discouraging wasteful
consumption makes sense for ground water
management even without a drought
emergency. City water departments should
meter water consumption and investigate the
effects of a progressive water pricing
structure. Summer lawn irrigation, swimming
pools, and using ground water for air
conditioning are activities that can be more
tightly managed. Leak detection in supply
systems can also conserve ground water.
Plan Requirements for other Governmental Units
The County and HCD also have tasks and
responsibilities that support cities. Some of
these tasks have already been completed. It is
unfortunate that the process of ground water
plan review and adoption can take as long as
The plan reviewed several alternatives for
coordinating and overseeing local ground
water protection; the plan recommends that a
joint powers organization be formed to fill this
role. The County will draft the initial
agreement for the joint powers organization
(JPO) and provide administrative support to
the organization. The County Board will
formulate rules for hearing disputes that arise
between cities. The County will amend its
ordinances for solid and hazardous wastes,
and require formal hydrologic investigations
for certain licenses. The Hennepin County
Department of Environmental Management
(HC -DEM) will work with HCD to prepare
the hazard ranking system for review and
adoption by the JPO. HC -DEM will apply
funds from state grants that are appropriated
for sealing wells. Abandoned wells reported
Hennepin Conservation District has the
responsibility to provide technical services to
cities. HCD technical staff can delineate
preliminary and final WHPAs, assist with
4.9 years. Cities interested in protecting their
ground water supply are encouraged to start
working without waiting for amendment and
review of watershed plans under the current
review schedule.
to HC -DEM will be prioritized for sealing.
The Minnesota Department of Health will
work with HC -DEM to contact land owners of
abandoned wells and enforce the state
regulations for sealing wells.
The plan calls for the County to adopt an
ordinance for hydrogeologic studies that sets
standards for all studies prepared for or
required by the County. Appendix 4 is a
sample ordinance for hydrogeologic studies.
Adoption of this ordinance will provide a
measure of quality assurance for all studies
that involve hydrogeologic modeling.
The County will prepare a biennial report
for the Minnesota Legislature. The biennial
report will describe the status and success of
local planning and of ground water protection.
inventories of potential sources of
contamination and abandoned wells, provide
GIS services, and transform computer data
files into formats to meet city requirements.
Executive Guide - 227/92 - Page 9
DRAFT - Hennepin County Ground Water Plan - DRAFT
HCD will map geologic sensitivity at a scale
of 1:24,000. HCD can assist in well field
planning and provide third party review of
hydrogeologic studies. GIS services related
to ground water resources will be available to
all cities. HCD will generate maps that show
the locations of all potential sources of
contamination in relation to WHPAs, sensitive
geologic areas, waterways, abandoned wells,
and neighboring well fields. HCD will also
assist in the organizational meetings and initial
administration of the joint powers
organization, and conduct educational
workshops on wellhead and ground water
protection.
The Joint Powers Organization
The present lack of a local institutional
framework to protect ground water is a real
threat to aquifers. A fragmented approach,
where each city takes its own course without
knowing what its neighbor is doing, will not
be as effective as a coordinated effort.
Coordination among cities requires a
framework for oversight, to review and adopt
standards that should be applied throughout
the county, and to work with adjoining cities
where WHPAs overlap city boundaries.
The plan calls for a county-wide joint
powers organization. The JPO membership is
open to all cities, the County and HCD; the
organization will become formally active at the
time that the County, HCD, and at least two
adjacent cities join. The organization is
intended to provide a formal mechanism for
coordinating activities that address ground
water issues. It will be a forum for each city
to represent its interests in the way the plan is
interpreted and applied to protect ground
water.
The only obligation that a city assumes
when it joins the JPO is to designate a
representative who will work with other city
representatives to define the scope and create
the internal structure of the organization and
who will represent the city's interest in the
JPO. Membership in the JPO represents a
public commitment by a city to society, to
other cities, and to itself to address ground
water issues in a cooperative and coordinated
manner.
The JPO will have about fifty active
members when all cities have joined. Any
organization of this size can become mired in
procedural and administrative issues. In terms
of ground water protection, every city has a
direct interest the activities of cities adjacent to
it, but a city on one side of the county may not
be particularly interested in what is going on
in a city on the opposite side of the county.
Because of these concerns, cities are
encouraged to cluster themselves into smaller,
more workable groups within the JPO. These
groups should be of contiguous cities and can
be based on similarity of ground water
resources, city infrastructure, land use, and on
their previous cooperative efforts.
The joint powers organization will not
require a large budget or mandatory fees to
support its existence. Administrative support
for the JPO will be provided by the County;
technical support will be provided by HCD,
and legal advice will be provided either by the
Hennepin County Attorney or outside
counsel.
A function of the NO should be to
address issues such as the methods, criteria,
and thresholds used for wellhead delineation,
the hazard ranking system, and the minimum
requirements for hydrogeologic studies. The
NO can review, recommend, and distribute
model ordinances for wellhead protection,
underground tanks, contingency plans, and
inventory techniques. The JPO should
consider adopting a means for funding quick
responses to ground water emergencies,
hydrogeologic investigations, and cost
recovery from responsible parties. The JPO
can be a forum to settle interjurisdictional
differences that may arise among cities
Executive Guide - 2t27/92 - Page 10
DRAFT - Hennepin County Ground Water Plan - DRAFT
'Some Concluding Thoughts
The success of the county ground wafer
plan is directly related to the commitment the
cities will make to protecting ground water.
The Minnesota Legislature and the Hennepin
County Board have expressed their views that
local ground water planning is now a timely
and necessary step by passage of the
Metropolitan Water Management Act and
Hennepin County Board Resolution No. 88-
3 -131.
Citizens are demanding that ground water
be protected. They realize that prevention is
far more effective than remediation. The
Legislature is listening to them. Cities will be
involved in ground water protection, an issue
that many of them have not explicitly
addressed in the past. The Hennepin County
ground water plan represents a flexible and
practical approach for coordinated protection.
Should it fail, the Legislature is likely to
require a process that is less palatable and
more expensive to cities.
Today, the environment is deteriorating
from the effects of human activities and man-
made chemicals. Aquifers are particularly
susceptible to contamination from land uses
and they can be extremely difficult to clean if
lost to contamination. Protecting ground
water resources in Hennepin County is a good
investment in the environmental and economic
integrity of Hennepin County for the
generations of today and the future.
Executive Guide - 2/27/'92 - Page 11
Hennepin Conservation District
December 22, 1992
Mr. Kenneth Rosland, Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Re: City tasks under the plan
Dear Mr. Rosland,
This is a short summary of tasks required of cities under the Hennepin County Ground Water
Plan. I hope this summary will assist your review. If you have any questions, please contact
Leigh Harrod or me at our office.
Understand the location and significance of sensitive egcological areas
1. Sensitive geologic areas are areas where contaminants can rapidly move from the land surface
to the water table.
2. HCD will provide detailed maps of geologic sensitivity to all cities at no cost.
3. Incorporate geologic sensitivity as an overlay to zoning ordinances. Exclusionary zoning is an
option, but is not mandatory if appropriate management techniques are substituted
Understand the location and significance of wellhead protection areas
1. Wellhead protection areas are areas where contaminants can move from the land surface,
through an aquifer, and reach public supply wells.
2. The Minnesota Department of Health will require wellhead protection for all public supply
wells. Ground water plan requirements for wellhead protection will not conflict with state
requirements, although they may be more stringent in some cases.
3. HCD will provide preliminary delineations of wellhead protection areas to cities at no cost.
4. Incorporate wellhead protection areas as overlays to zoning ordinances. Exclusionary zoning
is an option, but is not mandatory if appropriate management techniques are substituted
Inventory potential sources of ground water contamination
1. Identify all potential sources of ground water contamination.
2. HCD will provide to cities a preliminary inventory based on information from state agencies.
3. Expand and refine the preliminary inventory with information from emergency response plans,
fii-e departments, other existing local sources, and local knowledge.
4. Phase efforts to complete the inventory according to geographic location, type of source, and
available resources.
5. Automate information gathered by the inventory in both data bases and geographical
information systems.
6. HCD will provide computer assistance to those cities without computer facilities.
205 Ridge Plaza Bldg. 12450 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Telephone (612) 544 -8572
CO FMMW m roiMW PW.
December 22, 1992
Page 2
Rank potential sources according to the risk they present to ground water
1. Risk will vary with the quantities and types of toxic or hazardous materials on site, location
relative to sensitive geologic areas or wellhead protection areas, and other factors.
2. Participate with Hennepin County and HCD in developing a method of assessing risk to
ground water resouces. Use of a single method will allow equitable management throughout
the county.
3. Rank inventoried sites using the county risk assessment method
Develop and aRply management practices to potential sources according to risk
1. Concentrate management resources, such as plan review, inspections, or reporting, on those
sources that present the greatest risk.
2. Require sites to demonstrate how they will mitigate the risks associated with the substances
they will use and proximity of sensitive geologic areas or wellhead protection areas.
3. Take advantage of training courses provided by state agencies and HCD.
4. Plate 10 of the plan provides a matrix of management tools and activities; the list is neither
exclusionary nor mandatory.
Manage potential sources in cooperation with adjacent cities
1. Name a representative and alternate to the county-wide joint powers organization
2. Work within the joint powers organization to develop a form of self- governance that provides
for formal and cooperative management of potential sources of ground water contamtination.
3. Develop standard computer formats for data to enhance data transfer.
4. Use Parcel Identification Numbers for data tracking.
5. HCD will provide geographic information system and other assistance to cities without
computer facilities.
A.1ices
1. Appendices 1 and 2 provide background information about sensitive geologic areas and
wellhead protection.
2. Appendix 4 presents a model ordinance for hydrogeologic study standards.
3. Appendices 3 and 5 through 18, and 20 and 21 are examples of ordinances or rating
procedures developed by other local governments. They are intended as guides or examples
and need not be used verbatim.
4. Appendix 19 presents soil suitability for septic systems of the soils found in Hennepin County
and must be used as presented
Sincerely,
James Piegat
Hydrogeologist
AGENDA NO. IV.C.
o� e
co
City of Edina
Department of Administration
Memorandum
THURSDAY 31 DECEMBER 1992
To: Ken Rosland
From: Ralph Campbell
Subj: Park & Recreation Department Calendar Advertising
Question: To what extent could placing advertisements in the Park & Recreation
Department annual activities calendar reduce the cost of the calendar's
production and distribution?
Conclusion: The calendar can be expected to support a maximum advertising rate of
about $1,000 per page. Four pages of advertising sold at this rate yields
approximately $1,000 in net revenues.
Analysis: The 1993 calendar has 28 pages and is bound in a way that accommodates
growth in four -page increments. The cost to produce and distribute a 32-
page 1994 calendar is estimated to be $560.50 per page, based upon the
following:
Printing .. $12,000
Labor ..... $4,000
Mailing ... $2,000
Total .... $18,000
$18,000 total cost /32 pages = $560.50 total cost /page
Assuming all four ad pages sold, rates would have to be $673 per page
(including sales commissions) to recover the costs of the additional four
pages. To recover all costs of calendar production and distribution through
advertising would require an approximately $6,000 per page rate, again
assuming four pages are sold. The effects of varying per page rates upon
calendar production and distribution costs are displayed on the back.
b
C
cC
O
F-
Advertising Price Analysis
Edina Park &Recreation Calendar
Ad Price per Page
'3
o e �
0
V
• ,NR7R See
POPNS�v •
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
KEN ROSLAND, MANAGER
Agenda Item #
V . A .
From:
MARCELLA DAEHN, CLERK
Consent
Information Only
❑
Date:
JANUARY 4, 1993
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
PETITION FOR ALLEY LIGHTING
a
To Council
XERXES AV BTWN 5828 &, 5832
YORK AV BTWN 5829 & 5833
Action
Fx7
Motion
i
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Refer the petition for alley lighting on Xerxes Avenue between 5828 and 5832
and on York Avenue between 5829 and 5833 to the Engineering Department for
processing.
Info /Background:
The attached petition for alley lighting dated July 10, 1992, and delivered
On 12/21/92, was received from property owners on Xerxes Avenue and York Avenue.
The normal procedure is to refer the petition to the Engineering Department
for processing as to feasibility.
wg1NA.l�
o e City of Edina, Minnesota
H ),rn CITY COUNCIL
'o 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 • (612) 927 -8861
❑ SIDEWALK
' 7
DATE:
�7-16 -�, a
❑ ALLEY PAVING ❑ WATERMAIN
❑ STORM SEWER ❑ SANI'T'ARY SEWER ❑ STREET LIGHTING
❑ CURB AND GUTTER ONLY ❑ PERMANENT STREET L2 OTHER:
SURFACING WITH
CURB AND GUTTER
To the Mayor and City Council:
The persons who have signed this petition ask the City Council to consider the improvements listed above
to the locations listed below.
r V r- S )9 v- S'- between
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
Y A r /,-:f -19ci Se • between
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
between
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
between
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
5— 8 D. 8 and S 8 3-.4-
ADDRESS ADDRESS
_5 83 -3 and sS�i
ADDRESS ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
and
ADDRESS
and
ADDRESS
IMPORTANT NOTE: THE PERSONS WHO HAVE SIGNED THIS PETITION UNDERSTAND THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL MAY ASSESS THE COSTS OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE
PROPERTIES BENEFITING FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE
COUNCIL AS AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 429, MINNESOTA STATUTES.
PROPERTY OWNER'S
SIGNATURE
NOMWIM
...
✓_� '�� /�
OWNER'S NAME
(PRINTED)
.�i✓� Sal; �IL.�2
AWC
J
This petition was circulated by:
PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER'S
PHONE
"133 'fog& It s.
i
qz Z-
N ADDRESS PHONE
There is space for more signatures on the back or you may attach extra pages.
r
0 of- 71
M
o
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
.Agenda Item ##
VI . A. , B . , C .
From: MARCELLA DAEHN,
Consent
F 7x
CLERK
Information Only
❑
Date: JANUARY 4, 1993
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
0
To Council
RESOLUTIONS DESIGNATING
Action
Motion
DIRECTOR/ALTERNATE OF
SRA AND LOGIS AND OFFICIA
0
Resolution
NEWSPAPER
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Adoption of Resolutions designating director /alternate of
Suburban Rate Authority and LOGIS, and the official
newspaper for 1993.
Info/Background-
Attached are copies of resolutions which the Council
should approve at this time of year for 1993. There
have been no changes from the previous year.
P�v
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND
ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina,
Minnesota, as follows: John C. Wallin is hereby designated to
serve as a Director of the Suburban Rate Authority, and Eric R.
Anderson is hereby designated to serve as Alternate Director of
the Suburban Rate Authority for the year 1993 and until their
successors are appointed.
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 is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly
adopted by the Edina City Council a't its Regular Meeting of
January 4, 1993, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular
Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR
AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO LOGIS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina,
Minnesota as follows: John C. Wallin is hereby designated as a
Director of LOGIS and Kenneth E. Rosland is hereby designated as
Alternate Director of LOGIS for the year 1993 and until their
successors are appointed.
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 is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly
adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of
January 4, 1993, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular
Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk
•
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER
BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the Edina Sun -
Current be and is hereby designated as the Official Newspaper for
the City of Edina for the year 1993.
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 is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly
adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of
January 4, 1993, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular
Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk
•
r�
r
o e�
O
• ,H�AdrOM��'9 •
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item #
VI . F .
From: MARCELLA DAEHN , CLERK
-Consent
a
Information Only
❑
Date: JANUARY 4, 1993
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
0
To Council
FACSIMILE SIGNATURES
Action
❑
Motion
0
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Adoption of Resolution authorizing use of
Facsimile signatures by Public Officials.
Info/Background-
At the first regular Council Meeting of the
year, the Council should authorize the use of
facsimile signatures by the Mayor, Manager, and
Treasurer on checks, drafts, warrants, vouchers,
etc., or other orders of public funds deposited
with the City's banks.
A copy of the"recommended Resolution is attached.
T
RESOLUTION ADOPTED AUTHORIZING USE OF
FACSIMILE SIGNATURES BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS
RESOLVED that the use of facsimile signatures by the following
named persons:
FREDERICK S. RICHARDS - Mayor r
KENNETH E. ROSLAND - City Manager
JOHN WALLIN - Treasurer I✓,��/�
on checks, drafts, warrants, warrant - checks, vouchers or then �vf�
orders of public funds deposited in First Bank Nation
Association, Americana State Bank of Edina, Fidelit Bank,
Marquette Bank Minneapolis, Norwest Bank and National
City Bank /Southdale Office, be and hereby is approved, and that
each of said persons may authorize said depository banks to honor
any such instrument bearing his facsimile signature in such form
as he may designate and to charge the same to the account in said
depository bank upon which drawn as fully as though it bore his
manually written signature and that instruments so honored shall
be wholly operative and binding in favor of said depository bank
although such facsimile signature shall have been affixed without
his authority.
ADOPTED this 4th day of January, 1993.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, Marcella M. Daehn, duly appointed City Clerk for the City of
Edina, Hennepin County, do hereby certify that I have compared
the foregoing copy of "Resolution Authorizing Use of Facsimile
Signatures by Public Officials" with the original thereof as
recorded in the Minutes of the Edina City Council held on January
6, 1992, and that the same is a true and correct copy of said
original record, and that said Resolution was adopted by said
City Council at said meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk
AUTHORIZATION OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES
BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS:
We, Frederick S. Richards, Kenneth E. Rosland, and John Wallin,
being the Mayor, City Manager and City Treasurer, respectively,
and being duly authorized to sign checks,,drafts, warrants,
warrant - checks, vouchers and other orders on public funds thereof
deposited in the above named DEPOSITORY BANKS, do hereby certify
that.the facsimile impressed.or appended on this page is a
facsimile of our signatures in the form which may be used on any
such instrument in place of our signatures in the form which may
be.used on any such instrument in place of our manually written
signatures, and we hereby authorize said depository banks to
honor any such instrument bearing the facsimile of-our signatures
in said form and honor any such instrument bearing the facsimile
of our signatures in said form and to charge the same to the
account of said public body in said depository bank upon which
drawn as fully as though it bore our manually written signatures.
Instruments so honored shall be wholly operative and binding in
favor of said depository bank although such facsimile signature
shall have been affixed without authority.
WITNESS:
Mayor
City Manager
City Treasurer
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
From: MARCELLA DAEHN, CL
Date: JANUARY 4, 1993
Subject:
DEPOSITORIES FOR
CITY FUNDS
Recommendation:
Agenda Item #
yI . D .
Consent
0
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
0
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
Q
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑.
Discussion
Adoption of a Resolution designating depositories
for public funds of the City of Edina.
a
Info/Background-
At the first regular Council Meeting of the year,
the Council should select official depositories for
public funds of the City.
A copy of the recommended Resolution is attached.
-"p ri A
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES
BE IT RESOLVED that the First Bank National Association,
Minneapolis, MN, Americana State Bank of Edina, MN, Fidelity
Bank, Edina, MN, Marque rte Bank Minneapolis, Minneapolis, MN,
Norwest Bank Edina, MN and National City
Bank /Southdale Office, Edina, MN, authorized to do banking
business in Minnesota, be and hereby are designated as Official
Depositories for the Public Funds of the City of Edina, County of
Hennepin, Minnesota, until January 1, 1994.
ADOPTED this 4th day of January, 1993.
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 January 4, 1993, and as recorded in the
Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk
e
O
N N`-!
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item #
VI . E .
From: b1ARCELLA DAEHN , CLERIK
Consent
Information Only
❑
Date:. JANUARY 4, 1993
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
S_ ubject:
r7x
To Council
SIGNATORY RESOLUTION
Action
❑Motion
0
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Adoption of a Signatory Resolution authorizing
the Mayor, Manager, and Treasurer of the City
to act in the transaction of banking business.
Info/Background-
At the first regular Council Meeting of the year,
the Council should adopt a Signatory Resolution
which authorizes the persons holding office as
Mayor, Manager and Treasurer of the City to act
for the City in the transaction of any banking
business with the named banks.
A copy of the recommended Resolution is attached.
SIGNATORY RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the persons holding office as Mayor, Manager
and Treasurer of the City of Edina, be, and they hereby are,
authorized to act fo this municipality in the transaction of any
banking business with First Bank National Association, Americana
State Bank of Edina, idelity Bank, Marquette Bank, Minneapolis,
Norwest Bank and National City Bank /Southdale Office
(hereinafter referred to as the "Bank ") from time to time and
until written notice to any Bank to the contrary, to sign checks
against said accounts, which checks will be signed by the Mayor,
Manager and City Treasurer. Each Bank is hereby authorized and
directed to honor and pay any checks against such account if
signed as above described, whether or not said check is payable
to the order of, or deposited to the credit of, any officer or
officers of the City, including the signer or signers of the
check.
ADOPTED this 4th day of January, 1993.
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 January 4, 1993, and as recorded in the
Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this-5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk
City Of
bioomington, minnosota
Municipal 9u11Cing • 2215 West Old Shakopoo Road • Sloomint
ccunciknembw
Jim Andrews
Coral S. Houle
Carol C. Johnson
Mork P. Mahon
Charles S. Schuler
Tom Spies
Hugh Schilling, Chair .
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Dear Mr. Schilling:
AGENDA NO. VILA.
November 23, 1992
The Bloomington City Council has reviewed MAC's projections for the airlines non- compliance with the
ADNE Noise Reduction Guidelines. We make the following observations and recommendations for your
consideration at the hearing on November 30, 1992.
The Council recommends that MAC renegotiate the voluntary noise agreements with the airlines
Incorporating the following principles:
1) Start reductions from the level 0 24.9 ADNE) projected for November 1992;
2) Step down to the noise level projected for an 'all stage III fleet' in the year 2000;
3) Attempt to shorten the projected 18 -month non- compliance with ADNE goals;
4) Include specific, measurable objectives or results in each airline's agreement;
5) Include Incentives for compliance and /or sanctions for violation of the agreements.
The City observes that MAC has had good success to date with voluntary agreements. and expresses
confidence in the Commission's ability to renegotiate the agreements to minimize noise, obtain voluntary
airline compliance and avoid litigation.
In conjunction with these efforts to reduce noise at the source, Bloomington encourages MAC to
continue work with the CiV to•reduce noise impacts through land use compatibility programs.
cc: John Himle, MAC Commissioner
Sondra Simonson, Motropolitan Council
Senator William V. Belanger, Jr.
Senator Phil Riveness
Representative Kathleen Blatz
Representative Alice Seagren
Representative Ken Wolf
AN AFFIRMATIVE AC71pN /EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES EMPLOYER
TOO: (612)887.9677
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, DEC 30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page 1
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. •
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
132913
01/04/93
$30.10
AARESTED, DRU
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$30.10*
132914
01/04/93
$106.50
ADVANCED STATE SECUR
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
9943
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
01/04/93
$200.12
ADVANCED STATE SECUR
ALARM SERVICE
9957
YORK OCCUPANCY
ALARM SERVICE
< *>
$306.62*
132915
01/04/93
$25.00
ALSTAD, MARIAN
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
010793
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$25.00*
132916
01/04/93
$38.34
ALTERNATOR REBUILD
GENERAL SUPPLIES
8790
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPL
5122
01/04/93
$104.92
ALTERNATOR REBUILD
GENERAL SUPPLIES
8802
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPL
5132
< *>
$143.26*
132917
01/04/93
$8,161.00
ASSOCIATION OF METRO
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
122892
ADMINISTRATION
DUES & SUBSCR
< *>
$8,161.00*
132918
01/04/93
$17.38
ASTLEFORD INTL
ACCESSORIES
A -92602
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
5118
01/04/93
$52.14
ASTLEFORD INTL
ACCESSORIES
A -92663
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
5141
< *>
$69.52*
132919
01/04/93
$70.32
AT &T
TELEPHONE
121292
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
< *>
$70.32*
132920
01/04/93
$65.00
ATOM
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
002671
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOL
< *>
$65.00*
132921
01/04/93
$10.98
AXT -LYLE
COST OF GOODS SOLD FO
122992
GUN RANGE
CST OF GD F00
< *>
$10.98*
132922
01/04/93
$375.00
BAGLEY, DOUG
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$375.00*
132923
01/04/93
$295.50
BARR ENG
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
15508 -18
GENERAL STORM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$295.50*
132924
01/04/93
- $19.69
BATTERY WAREHOUSE
ACCESSORIES
227937
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
01/04/93
$28.33
BATTERY WAREHOUSE
ACCESSORIES
228541
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
5154
01/04/93
$133.67
BATTERY WAREHOUSE
ACCESSORIES
229286
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
5001
< *>
$142.31*
132925
01/04/93
$1,016.94
BAY WEST
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
00120212
FIRE DEPT. GEN
HAZARD. MATER
< *>
$1,016.94*
132926
01/04/93
$85.00
BELL, BRUCE MENIER
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
010793
ED' ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$85.00*
132927
01/04/93
$40.00
BENNETT, CAROL
REGISTRATION FEES
121692
ART CNTR PROG
REGISTRATION
< *>
$40.00*
132928
01/04/93
$11.92
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
849960
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPL
01/04/93
$19.00
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
851230
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPL
01/04/93
$23.79
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
852954
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$54.71*
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
WED, DEC 30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page 2
CHECK#
DATE CHECK
AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
132929
01/04/93
$40.42
BEST LOCK OF MPLS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
033856
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPL
5087
< ■>
$40.42*
132930
01/04/93
$42.70
BLAZ, LIZ
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$42.70*
132931
01/04/93
$187.50
BOWLER, WILLIAM
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
132932
01/04/93
$145.00
BOYER TRUCKS
ACCESSORIES
185626
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
5155
01/04/93
$54.18
BOYER TRUCKS
REPAIR PARTS
185481
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
5126
01/04/93
$386.20
BOYER TRUCKS
ACCESSORIES
184206X1
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
5223
< *>
$585.38*
132933
01/04/93
$49.70
BRADLEY BENN
ART WORL SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
01/04/93
$31.94
BRADLEY BENN
GENERAL SUPPLIES /ART
122392
ART CENTER BLD
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$81.64*
132934
01/04/93
$167.71
BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OT
122292
GOLF ADMINISTR
PRO SVC OTHER
01/04/93
$52.04
BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
122292
GOLF ADMINISTR
OFFICE SUPPLI
01/04/93
$29.00
BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
122292
GOLF ADMINISTR
POSTAGE
01/04/93
$116.55
BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
122292
GOLF ADMINISTR
GENERAL SUPPL
<*>
$365.30*
132935
01/04/93
$49.00
BRIGHT, CAROL
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$49.00*
132936
01/04/93
$14.12
BRISSMAN- KENNEDY INC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
264624
CITY HALL GENE
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$14.12*
132937
01/04/93
$21.85
BROCK WHITE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
59547301
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPL
5151
< *>
$21.85*
132938
01/04/93
$131.60
BROCKWAY, MAUREEN
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$131.60*
132939
01/04/93
$50.00
BROWN, MARIA
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
012193
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$50.00*
132940
01/04/93
$33.60
BRUMFIELD ADRIANE
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$33.60*
132941
01/04/93
$184.10
BRUMITT, DANA
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$184.10*
132942
01/04/93
$112.00
BRYANT, BETSY
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$112.00*
132943
01/04/93
$71.40
BUIE. SUSIE
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$71.40*
132944
01/04/93
$42.00
BUSSE, BRENNA
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$42.00*
132945
01/04/93
$84.65
CELLULAR ONE
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
122392
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP RENTAL
ri
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, DEC 30, 1992, 9:51 PM -
page 3
CHECK*
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
132945
01/04/93
$80.90
CELLULAR ONE
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
122392
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP RENTAL
01/04/93
$10.60
CELLULAR ONE
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
122392/P
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP RENTAL
01/04/93
$115.44
CELLULAR ONE
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
122392/P
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP RENTAL
01/04/93
$11.05
CELLULAR ONE
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
122392/P
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP RENTAL
01/04/93
$34.97
CELLULAR ONE
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
122392/P
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP RENTAL
01/04/93
$10.60
CELLULAR ONE
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
122392/P
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP RENTAL
01/04/93
$196.76
CELLULAR ONE
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
122392/P
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP RENTAL
01/04/93
$1,059.85
CELLULAR ONE
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
122392/P
DARE
EQUIP RENTAL
01/04/93
$24.26
CELLULAR ONE
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
122392/K
ADMINISTRATION
DUES & SUBSCR
< *>
$1,629.08*
132946
01/04/93
$177.26
CERAMIC ARTS & SUPPL
CRAFT SUPPLIES
15602
ART CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIE
4671
< *>
$177.26*
132947
01/04/93
$51.05
CLARK BOARDMAN CALLA
BOOKS & PHAMPHLETS
2582658
POLICE DEPT. G
BOOKS & PHAMP
< *>
$51.05*
132948
01/04/93
$107.39
CMI REFRIGERATION
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
23193
GRILL
CONTR REPAIRS
5207
< *>
$107.39*
132949
01/04/93
COFFEE INN
COST OF GOODS SOLD FO
17710
ARENA CONCESSI
CST OF GD FOO
5361
$13.50*
132950
01/04/93
$509.50
COMMISSIONER OF TRAM
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
121792
STREET IMPROV.
CIP
< *>
$509.50*
132951
01/04/93
$25.00
CONNOLLY, BOB
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
011693
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>•
$25.00*
132952
01/04/93
$160.00
CONTINENTAL CLAY CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD FO
008335
ART SUPPLY GIF
CST OF GD FOO
4660
< *>
$160.00*
132953
01/04/93
$58.10
CROCKER, KIM
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$58.10*
132954
01/04/93
$75.00
DARRELL, BETTE
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
021393
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$75.00*
132955
01/04/93
$388.60
DAVIES WATER EQUIP
REPAIR PARTS
34624
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
5051
< *>
$388.60*
132956
01/04/93
$52.50
DAVIS, IDA
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$52.50*
132957
01/04/93
$2,997.45
DELTA DENTAL
HOSPITALIZATION
122892
CENT SVC GENER
HOSPITALIZATI
< *>
$2,997.45*
132958
01/04/93
$109.90*
DICKER, TOBIE
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART,CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
132959
01/04/93
$164.41
DISPATCH COMM /MN
GENERAL SUPPLIES
103061
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPL
4843
< *>
$164.41*
132960
01/04/93
$11,670.37
DORSEY & WHITNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERV - L
302629
LEGAL SERVICES
PRO SVC - LEG
< *>
$11,670.37*
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
WED, DEC
30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page 4
CHECK#
DATE CHECK
AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
------------------------
INVOICE
PROGRAM
- - - - --
OBJECT
---------------
P.O. #
- --
-----------------------------
132961
01/04/93
-----
$19.76
- - - -,l
EAGLE.WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
644719
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
01/04/93
$126.97
EAGLE WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
645378
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$146.73*
132962
01/04/93
$71.55
EDINA HISTORICAL SOC
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$71.55*
132963
01/04/93
$59.64
EGGHEAD DISCOUNT SOF
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQU
55720590
CENT SVC GENER
SVC CONTR EQU
5218
< *>
$59.64*
132964
01/04/93
$196.69
ELVIN SAFETY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
92322 -17
BUILDINGS
GENERAL SUPPL
4822
< *>
$196.69*
132965
01/04/93
$29.74
EMER MED. PRODUCTS
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
120894
FIRE DEPT. GEN
FIRST AID SUP
5173
< *>
$29.74*
132966
01/04/93
$50.00
EMOND, NANCY
SERVICES /PARK & REC
122992
PARK ADMIN.
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$50.00*
132967
01/04/93
$300.00
EMPLOYEES CLUB
GENERAL SUPPLIES
JANUARY
CONTINGENCIES
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$300.00*
132968
01/04/93
$40.95
FARBER, DIANNE S
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$40.95*
132969
01/04/93
$187.50
FASULO, WALTER
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
132970
01/04/93
$388.00
FETN
TRAINING AIDS
105528
FIRE DEPT. GEN
TRAINING AIDS'3739
< *>
$388.00*
132971
01/04/93
$29.40
FLANDERS, PAT
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$29.40*
132972
01/04/93
$233.86
FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL C
GENERAL SUPPLIES
1333
VEHICLE OPERAT
GENERAL SUPPL
4992
< *>
$233.86*
132973
01/04/93
$105.00
FMAM
DUES/ FIRE
122992
FIRE DEPT. GEN
DUES & SUBSCR.
< *>
$105.00*
.132974
01/04/93
$66.00
GADEN, MELANIE
OFFICE ADM /ART CENTER
122992
ART CENTER ADM
SALARIES TEMP
< *>
$66.00*
132975
01/04/93
$129.93
GENERAL BINDING
OFFICE SUPPLIES
12502153
GOLF ADMINISTR
OFFICE SUPPLI
5206
< *>
$129.93*
132976
01/04/93
$67.97
GOLBERG, CAROLYN
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$67.97*
132977
01/04/93
$46.20
GOODMAN, NANCY
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$46.20*
132978
01/04/93
$22.50
GREATAPES CORPORATIO
GENERAL SUPPLIES
000340
CITY COUNCIL
GENERAL SUPPL
<*>
$22.50*
-
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, DEC 30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page 5
CHECK*
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
132979
01/04/93
$10,000.00
GREUPNER, JOE
PERSONAL SERVICES
122992
GOLF ADMINISTR
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$10,000.00*
132980
01/04/93
$55.12
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
641693
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD LIQ
< *>
$55.12*
132981
01/04/93
$314.57
GRIMSBY, NAN
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
<*>
$314.57*
132982
01/04/93
$67.20
GRINDELAND, KEN
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$67.20*
132983
01/04/93
$111.30
HAEFELE, JEAN
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$111.30*
132984
01/04/93
$175.00
HAMILTON, JIM
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
011993
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$175.00*
132985
01/04/93
$156.97
HANLON, NORMA
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$156.97*
132986
01/04/93
$97.11
HANNA, JUNE
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROD
SALES OTHER
< *>
$97.11*
132987
01/04/93
$375.00
HANSEN, WILLIAM
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$375.00*
132988
01/04/93
$75.00
HAPPY FACES
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
012193
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$75.00*
132989
01/04/93
$68.25
HAWKINS, ANNE
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$68.25*
132990
01/04/93
$46.20
HEALEY, BONALYN
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$46.20*
132991
01/04/93
$36.40
HEDGES, DIANA
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$36.40*
132992
01/04/93
$67.05
HEIMARK FOODS
COST OF GOODS SOLD FO
121692
GRILL
CST OF GD F00
< *>
$67.05*
132993
01/04/93
$187.50
HELMER, RICHARD
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
132994
01/04/93
$200.00
HENNEPIN TECHNICAL C
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
003958
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONF & SCHOOL 5177
< *>
$200.00*
132995
01/04/93
$25.00
HERSMAN, ANN
SERVICES /PARK & REC
122992
PARK ADMIN.
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$25.00*
132996
01/04/93
$50.96
HINTON, LAURA
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
122992
PARK ADMIN.
MILEAGE
<*>
$50.96*
132997
01/04/93
$75.00
HODAPP, TED
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
010993
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER WED, DEC
30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page 6
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT --
- - - - --
- - - - -- VENDOR------------
- - - - -- DESCRIPTION
------------------------------
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT P.O. #
------------------
--------------------------
< *>
$75.00*
132998
01/04/93
$112.00
HONN, ALAN
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$112.00*
132999
01/04/93
$384.00
HORWATH, TOM
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122492
TREES & MAINTE
PROF SERVICES
01/04/93
$672.00
HORWATH, IOM
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122492
TREE TRIMMING
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$1,056.00*
133000
01/04/93
$4,137.53
HYDRO SUPPLY CO
INVENTORY WATER METER
0005350
UTILITY PROG
INVENTORY WAT
< *>
$4,137.53*
133001
01/04/93
$60.00
I S F S I
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
82023
FIRE DEPT. GEN
DUES & SUBSCR
< *>
$60.00*
133002
01/04/93
$40.00
I.A.A.I.
DUES /FIRE
122992
FIRE DEPT. GEN
DUES & SUBSCR
< *>
$40.00*
133003
01/04/93
$105.00
IAAO
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
751864
ASSESSING
DUES & SUBSCR
01/04/93
$105.00
IAAO
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
754517
ASSESSING
DUES & SUBSCR
< *>
$210.00 *,
133004
01/04/93
$4,990.31
INTER -CITY PAPER CO
MAGAZINE /NEWSLETTER E
418907 -0
COMMUNICATIONS
MAG /NEWSLET E 4207
< *>
$4.990.31*
133005
01/04/93
$40.00
JANET CANTON
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
122992
FINANCE
MILEAGE
< *>
$40.00*
133006
01/04/93
$81.33
JERRYS PRINTING
PRINTING
C14130
POLICE DEPT. G
PRINTING
01/04/93
$17.91
JERRYS PRINTING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
C14162
50TH ST SELLIN
GENERAL SUPPL
01/04/93
$17.91
JERRYS PRINTING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
C14162
VERNON SELLING
GENERAL SUPPL
01/04/93
$61.95
JERRYS PRINTING
PRINTING
C14196
GUN RANGE ADMI
PRINTING
01/04/93
$25.00
JERRYS PRINTING
PRINTING
12859
ART CENTER ADM
PRINTING 5162
< *>
$204.10*
133007
01/04/93
$72.00
JOHNSON, DENISE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
121692
CIVIL DEFENSE
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$72.00*
133008
01/04/93
$100.00
JOHNSON, LAURIE
SERVICES /PARK & REC
122992
PARK ADMIN.
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
133009
01/04/93
$78.40
JOHNSON, NAOMI
SALES OTHER
122992
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
01/04/93
$23.19
JOHNSON, NAOMI
GENERAL SUPPLIES
122992.
ART CENTER ADM
GENERAL SUPPL
01/04/93
$60.19
JOHNSON, NAOMI
CRAFT SUPPLIES
122992
ART CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIE
< *>
$161.78*
133010
01/04/93
$75.00
JOHNSON, ROBIN
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
011493
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$75.00*
133011
01/04/93
$100.00
JULIK, EDIE
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
013193
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
133012
01/04/93
$187.50
JULKOWSKI, JAMES
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
WED, DEC 30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page 7
CHECK#
DATE CHECK
AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
133013
01/04/93
$325.00
KEHOE,TERRENCE
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$325.00*
133014
01/04/93
$175.00
KINNEY, PAM SNOW
SERVICES /PARK & REC
122992
PARK ADMIN.
PROF SERVICES
<*>
$175.00*
133015
01/04/93
$3.93
KNOX COMM CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
039767
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPL 4916
01/04/93
$105.91
KNOX COMM CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
040082
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPL 5010
< *>
$109.84*
133016
01/04/93
$34.60
LANCE,LOIS
REGISTRATION FEES
121692
ART CNTR PROG
REGISTRATION
< *>
$34.60*
133017
01/04/93
$187.50
LANDRY, STEPHEN
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
<*>
$187.50*
133018
01/04/93
$50.00
LAURANCE, STEPHANIE
SERVICES /PARK & REC
122992
PARK ADMIN.
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$50.00*
133019
01/04/93
$187.50
LAWSON, ROBERT
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133020
01/04/93
$187.50
LISK, LEROY
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133021
01/04/93
$187.50
LUTTS, WILLIAM
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133022
01/04/93
$234.52
M AMUNDSON
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
17110
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
01/04/93
$195.02
M AMUNDSON
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
17236
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
01/04/93
$312.90
M AMUNDSON
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
17230
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
01/04/93
$219.51
M AMUNDSON
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
17239
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
<*>
$961.95*
133023
01/04/93
$330.00
MAAO
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
122892
ASSESSING
DUES & SUBSCR
< *>
$330.00*
133024
01/04/93
$100.00
MALMSERG, DAVID
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
010593
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
133025
01/04/93
$187.50
MALONEY, JOHN
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133026
01/04/93
$70.00
MARGL, LINDA J
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
122292
FINANCE
MILEAGE
< *>
$70.00*
133027
01/04/93
$50.00
MARIE, ROBIN
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
011093
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$50.00*
133028
01/04/93
$128.95
MARSHALL & SWIFT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MV2583
ASSESSING
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$128.95*
133029
01/04/93
$75.00
MCGIBBON,TERRY
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
011093
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$75.00*
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER WED, DEC
30, 1992, 9:51 PM
FIRE DEPT. GEN
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
page 8
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
133030
01/04/93
$75.04.
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
REPAIR PARTS
120192
CENTENNIAL LAK
REPAIR PARTS
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
01/04/93
$908.07
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
120192
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPL
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
01/04/93
$79.45
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
TOOLS
120192•
DISTRIBUTION
TOOLS
GOLF DOME
HEAT
01/04/93
$101.49
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
TOOLS
120192
EQUIPMENT OPER
TOOLS
010493
PUMP & LIFT ST
01/04/93
$2,337.29
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
ACCESSORIES
120192
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
HEAT
010493
01/04/93
$799.54
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
REPAIR .PARTS
120192
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
MINNEGASCO
< *>
010493
$4,300.88*
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
CENTENNIAL LAK
HEAT
133031
01/04/93
$29,858.12
MEDICA CHOICE
HOSPITALIZATION
19235510
CENT SVC GENER
HOSPITALIZATI
< *>
-.$29,858.12*
133032
01/04/93
$187.50
MEDZIS, ANDREW
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133033 -
01/04/93
$225,940.00
METRO WASTE CONTROL
SEWER SERVICE METRO
50500193
SEWER TREATMEN
SEWER SVC MET
< *>
$225,940.00*
133034
01/04/93
$111.20
METZ BAKING CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD FO
121992
ARENA BLDG /GRO
CST OF GD FOO
< *>
$111.20*
133035
01/04/93
$80.54
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
2438
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPL
01/04/93
$1,011.23
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
2438
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$1,091.77*
133036
01/04/93
$490.54
MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUP
PAPER SUPPLIES
7492
CITY HALL GENE
PAPER SUPPLIE
5217
< *>
$490.54*
133037
01/04/93
$27.71
MIDWEST SPORTS MKTG
GENERAL SUPPLIES
108287
ARENA BLDG /GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
5360
< *>
$27.71*
133038
01/04/93
$441.97
MILLERBERND
REPAIR PARTS
57,865
ST LIGHTING OR
REPAIR PARTS
4492
< *>
$441.97*
133039
01/04/93
$20.55
MILWAUKEE TOOL CO.
TOOLS
25 -74 -94
GENERAL MAINT
TOOLS
5224
< *>
$20.55*
133041 01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
01/04/93
$1,091.01
$1,133.16
$7,752.41
$2,303.95
$441.44
$3.28
$1,146.18
$205.56
$9,381.79
$2,046.84
3975.06
$4,701.55
5134.28
$169.14
$260.77
$572.95
$32,319.37*
133042 01/04/93 $140.00
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
FIRE DEPT. GEN
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
CITY HALL GENE
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
PW BUILDING
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
BUILDING MAINT
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
ART CENTER BLD
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
POOL OPERATION
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
CLUB HOUSE
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
MAINT OF COURS
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
GOLF DOME
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
ARENA BLDG /GRO
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
PUMP & LIFT ST
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
DISTRIBUTION
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
50TH ST OCCUPA
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
YORK OCCUPANCY
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
VERNON OCCUPAN
HEAT
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
010493
CENTENNIAL LAK
HEAT
MN STATE FIRE CHIEFS
DUES /FIRE.
122992
FIRE DEPT. GEN
DUES & SUBSCR
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, DEC 30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page 9
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< *>
$140.00*
133043
01/04/93
$112.56
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
7359
SPECIAL ASSESS
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$112.56*
133044
01/04/93
$54.57
MN. BEARING CO.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
105389
CITY HALL GENE
GENERAL SUPPL
5121
<*>
$54.57*
133045
01/04/93
$45.00
MONITOR
GENERAL SUPPLIES
20847
ASSESSING
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$45.00*
133046
01/04/93
$104.90
MPLS AREA ASSOC OF R
GENERAL SUPPLIES
122892
ASSESSING
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
5104.90*
133047
01/04/93
$14,332.96
MPLS FINANCE DEPARTM
WATER PURCHASED
122392
DISTRIBUTION
WATER PURCHAS
< *>
$14,332.96*
133048
01/04/93
$680.00
MPLS SEWER & WATER
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
030445
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
5239
< *>
$680.00*
133049
01/04/93
$47.80
MUZAK
ADVERTISING OTHER
119301M
VERNON SELLING
ADVERT OTHER
< *>
$47.80*
133050
01/04/93
$187.50
MYRE, RICHARD
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133051
01/04/93
$100.00
NAGLER, RICK
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
011293
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
133052
01/04/93
$146.72
NATL GUARDIAN SYS.
ALARM SERVICE
559538
ART CENTER BLD
ALARM SERVICE
< *>
$146.72*
133053
01/04/93
- $34.53
NEBCO /L.L. DISTRIBUT
COST OF GOODS SOLD FO
707254
ARENA CONCESSI
CST OF GD F00
01/04/93
$60.64
NEBCO /L.L. DISTRIBUT
COST OF GOODS SOLD FO
133716
ARENA CONCESSI
CST OF GD FOO
01/04/93
S3.96
NEBCO /L.L. DISTRIBUT
COST OF GOODS SOLD FO
133715
ARENA CONCESSI
CST OF GO F00
< *>
$30.07*
133054
01/04/93
$36.75
NELSON, SUZANNE
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$36.75*
133055
01/04/93
$75.00
NFPA
DUES /FIRE
122992
FIRE DEPT. GEN
DUES & SUBSCR
< *>
$75.00*
133056
01/04/93
$345.09
NO STAR TURF
SEED
502890
FIELD MAINTENA
SEED
4049
< *>
$345.09*
133057
01/04/93
$85.00
NORTH STAR CHAPTER
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
122892
INSPECTIONS
CONF & SCHOOL
< *>
$85.00*
133058
01/04/93
$21,003.80
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
ST LIGHTING RE
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$3,034.93
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
ST LIGHTING OR
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$2,383.38
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$14.06
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
PONDS & LAKES
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$3,420.03
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
PARKING RAMP
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$15.06
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
CIVIL DEFENSE
LIGHT & POWER
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER WED, DEC
30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page 10
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
133058
01/04/93
$1,434.91
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
CITY HALL GENE
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$361.29
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
BUILDING MAINT
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$542.33
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
CLUB HOUSE
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$73.99
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
POOL OPERATION
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$1,331.88
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
PUMP & LIFT ST
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$8,897.47
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
DISTRIBUTION
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$936.87
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
50TH ST OCCUPA
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$883.56
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
YORK OCCUPANCY
LIGHT & POWER
01/04/93
$761.38
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
010493
CENTENNIAL LAK
LIGHT & POWER
< *>
$45,094.94*
133059
01/04/93
$235.90
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
COST OF GOODS SOLD
FO
202347
ART SUPPLY GIF
CST OF GD FOO
5161
< *>
$235.90*
133060
01/04/93
$175.00
PANCAKE, CHAR
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$175.00*
133061
01/04/93
$180.00
PARSONS, DUDLEY
MAGAZINE /NEWSLETTER
E
122992
COMMUNICATIONS
MAG /NEWSLET E
< *>
$180.00*
133062
01/04/93
$903.23
PAUL KENNEDY ADVERTI
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
33375
RESERVE PROGRA
EQUIP REPLACE
5198
< *>
$903.23*
133063
01/04/93
$43.00
PAUSTIS & SONS
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
28536
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BE
01/04/93
$107.50
PAUSTIS & SONS
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
28538
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BE
< *>
$150.50*
133064
01/04/93
$27.30
PEDDIE, DON
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$27.30*
133065
01/04/93
$49.57
PETERSON, BARBARA
OFFICE SUPPLIES
122392
ED ADMINISTRAT
OFFICE SUPPLI
01/04/93
$24.18
PETERSON, BARBARA
GENERAL SUPPLIES
122392
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPL
01/04/93
$37.48
PETERSON, BARBARA
GENERAL SUPPLIES
122392
ED ADMINISTRAT
GENERAL SUPPL
01/04/93
$45.17
PETERSON, BARBARA
COST OF GOODS SOLD
FO
122392
CENTENNIAL LAK
CST OF GD F00
01/04/93
$16.99
PETERSON, BARBARA
CLEANING SUPPLIES
122392
ED ADMINISTRAT
CLEANING SUPP
01/04/93
$27.67
PETERSON, BARBARA
COST OF GOODS SOLD
FO
122792
CENTENNIAL LAK
CST OF OD F00
< *>
$201.06*
133066
01/04/93
$20.00
PETERSON, DAVID
SERVICE /EDINBOROUGH
010193
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$20.00*
133067
01/04/93
$426.15
PLANT EQUIPMENT
REPAIR PARTS
14687
WATER TREATMEN
REPAIR PARTS
5238
< *>
$426.15*
133068
01/04/93
$860.00
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE /ART CENTER
122992
CENT SVC GENER
POSTAGE
< *>
$860.00*
133069
01/04/93
$207.09
POWER INVESTIGATIONS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
002174
LIQUOR YORK GE
PROF SERVICES
5280
< *>
$207.09*
133070
01/04/93
$98.01
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
645387
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
01/04/93
$94.89
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
645383
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
01/04/93
$25.24
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
646888
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$218.14*
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
WED, DEC 30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page it
CHECK#
DATE CHECK
AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
133071
01/04/93
$84.89
QUALITY WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
049769
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$84.89*
133072
01/04/93
$375.00
RADJENOVICH, JOEL
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
*
*
133073
01/04/93
$100.00
RAMSEY FOUNDATION /CM
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
010193
PUBLIC HEALTH
CONF & SCHOOL
< *>
$100.00*
13 074
01/04/93
$2
RASMUSEN, JANAAN
ART WORKS SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
6.60*
133075
01/04/93
$54.95
RECORDING INDUSTRY S
GENERAL SUPPLIES
102234
ASSESSING
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$54.95*
133076
01/04/93
$107.76
REM SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
01904
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPL
5020
01/04/93
$400.44
REM SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
01917
ED BUILDING &
GENERAL SUPPL
5342
< *>
$508.20*
133077
01/04%93
$159.63
RITEWAY
ACCESSORIES
142998
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
<*>
$159.63*
133078
01/04/93
$50.00
ROBBINSDALE CITY BAN
SERVICES /EDINBOROUGH
011793
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
<*>
$50.00*
133079
01/04/93
$325.00
ROBINSON, JAMES E
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$325.00*
133080
01/04/93
$139.10
ROFIDAL, SUE
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$139.10*
133081
01/04/93
$187.50
ROTHE, ALLEN
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133082
01/04/93
$25.20
RUDQUIST, MONICA
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$25.20*
133083
01/04/93
$187.50
RUNNING, PATRICK
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133084
01/04/93
$57.15
SAF- T- LADDERS INC
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
10094
SUPERV. & OVRH
CONF & SCHOOL
5225
< *>
$57.15*
133085
01/04/93
$187.50
SAMUELSON, RONALD
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133086
01/04/93„
$90.00
SAWYER, CHERYL
SERVIES /EDINBOROUGH
011493
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
<*>
$90.00*
133087
01/04/93
$187.50
SCHEERER, MARTIN
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
<*>
$187.50*
133088
01/04/93
$101.31
SHIRLEY, TOM
GENERAL SUPPLIES
122992
ED BUILDING &
GENERAL SUPPL
01/04/93
$134.04
SHIRLEY, TOM
REPAIR PARTS
122992
ED BUILDING &
REPAIR PARTS
< *>
$235.35*
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
WED, DEC
30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page 12
CHECK#
DATE CHECK
AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
133089
01/04/93
$7.67 -
SIGN -TIFIC
SIGNS & POSTS
20949.
STREET NAME SI
SIGNS & POSTS
< *>
$7.67*
133090
01/04/93
SINGLETON, JAMES
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
*
$187.50 *
133091
01/04/93
$187.50
SMEGAL, GREGORY
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133092
01/04/93
$27.82
SMEGAL, GREGORY
MEETING EXPENSE
122892
FIRE DEPT. GEN
MEETING EXPEN
< *>
$27.82*
133093
01/04/93
$56.44
SNAP -ON -TOOLS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
53 -34878
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPL
5190
< *>
$56.44*
133094
01/04/93
$45.50
SOMERS, FRED
ART WORKS SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$45.50*
133095
01/04/93
$196.45
SPECIAL EFFECTS
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$196.45*
133096
01/04/93
$20.00
SPELL, NICHOLE
REGISTRATION FEES
121692
ART CNTR PROG
REGISTRATION
< *>
$20.00*
133097
01/04/93
$23.23
SPS
TOOLS
1976205
DISTRIBUTION
TOOLS
5144
< *>
$23.23*
133098
01/04/93
$9.11
ST. PAUL BOOK
GENERAL SUPPLIES
165535
ANIMAL CONTROL
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$9.11*
133099
01/04/93
$187.50
STRUZYK, JOSEPH
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133100
01/04/93
$0.54
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
178026
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
01/04/93
$4.08
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
ACCESSORIES
177974
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
01/04/93
$57.52
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
177983
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
01/04/93
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
178091
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
< *>
$112$49..093 7
■
133101
01/04/93
$339.52
SUBURBAN PROPANE
GASOLINE
121792
ARENA ICE MAIN
GASOLINE
< *>
$339.52*
133102
01/04/93
$87.85
TERMINAL SUPPLY CO
REPAIR PARTS
0025219
SKATING RINK M
REPAIR PARTS
5075
< *>
$87.85*
133103
01/04/93
$427.80
THE BOOKMEN INC
RETAIL SALES
121629
ART CNTR PROG
RETAIL SALES
5164
< *>
$427.80*
133104
01/04/93
$33.60
THOMAS, MARY EVE
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< - *>
$33.60*
133105
01/04/93
$84.00
THOMPSON. BETTY
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$84.00*
133106
01/04/93
$187.50
TODD, DARRELL
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, DEC 30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page 13
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< *>
$187.50*
133107
01/04/93
$55.75
TOLL COMPANY
WELDING SUPPLIES
202108
EQUIPMENT OPER
WELDING SUPPL
< *>
$55.75*
133108
01/04/93
$66.50
TURNBLADH, CY
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$66.50*
133109
01/04/93
$52.55
UNIFORM UNLIMITED
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
388341
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
4551
< *>
$52.55*
133110
01/04/93
$129.24
UNITED ELECTRIC CORP
REPAIR PARTS
21277950
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
5041
< *>
5129.24*
133111
01/04/93
$130.00
UNIVERSITY OF MN
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
122392
PWKS ADMIN GEN
CONF & SCHOOL
<*>
$130.00*
133112
01/04/93
$35.00
UNIVERSITY OF MN
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
122892
ED ADMINISTRAT
CONF & SCHOOL
< *>
$35.00*
133113
01/04/93
$60.00
UPPER MIDWEST HOSPIT
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
122992
PARK ADMIN.
DUES & SUBSCR
<*>
$60.00*
133114
01/04/93
$51.67
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
FIRE DEPT. GEN
TELEPHONE
01/04/93
$419.87
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
01/04/93
$210.55
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
SKATING & HOCK
TELEPHONE
01/04/93
$115.79
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
SENIOR CITIZEN
TELEPHONE
01/04/93
$107.15
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
01/04/93
$55.38
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
CLUB HOUSE
TELEPHONE
01/04/93
$167.78
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
GOLF DOME
TELEPHONE
01/04/93
$602.15
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
ED BUILDING &
TELEPHONE
01/04/93
$652.80
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
POOL TRACK GRE
TELEPHONE
01/04/93
$221.16
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
CENTENNIAL LAK
TELEPHONE
01/04/93
$156.24
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
50TH ST OCCUPA
TELEPHONE
01/04/93
$174.09
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
010493
YORK OCCUPANCY
TELEPHONE
< *>
$2,934.63*
133115
01/04/93
$15.49
US WEST PAGING
TELEPHONE
01008282
PARK MAINTENAN
TELEPHONE
5304
< *>
$15.49*
133116
01/04/93
$187.50
VERNON, RICHARD
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121792
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$187.50*
133117
01/04/93
$63.00
VOILES, ANNA
ART WORK SOLD
'122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$63.00*
133118
01/04/93
$95.57
W W GRAINGER
REPAIR PARTS
683946 -4
DISTRIBUTION •
REPAIR PARTS
5063
< *>
$95.57*
133119
01/04/93
$1,500.00
WALKER PARKING CONSU
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
66993
ENGINEERING GE
PROF SERVICES
01/04/93
$900.00
WALKER PARKING CONSU
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
66994
ENGINEERING GE
PROF SERVICES
-
<*>
$2,400.00*
133120
01/04/93
$163.52
WEIGLE, SUE
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
122992
PARK ADMIN.
MILEAGE
< *>
$163.52*
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER WED, DEC
30, 1992, 9:51 PM
page 14'
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT P.O. #
133121
01/04/93'
$40.00
WELKIE, DAVID
REGISTRATION FEES
122892
ICE.ARENA PROG
REGISTRATION
< *>
$40.00*
133122
01/04/93:
$42.00
WENDORF, HAROLD
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$42.00"
133123
01/04/93
$1,520.00
WENDY ANDERSON ENTER
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
122092
ADMINISTRATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$1,520.00"
133124
01/04/93
$34.91
WIDERSTROM, ANN
ART WORK SOLD
122392
ART CNTR PROG
SALES OTHER
< *>
$34.91*
133125
01/04/93
$219.98.
WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY
RANGE BALLS
70232
RANGE
RANGE BALLS 4409
< *>
$219.98*
$433,802.94*
COUNCIL
CHECK SUMMARY
WED, DEC 30, 1992, 10 :27 PM page 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUND #
10
$123,085.73
FUND #
12
$5,170.31
FUND #
23
$5,197.12
FUND #
26
$77.27
FUND #
27
$22,445.11
FUND #
28
$2,608.84
FUND #
29
$72.93
FUND #
30
$5,002.33
FUND #
40
$263,722.63
FUND #
41
$309.56
FUND #
50
$4,929.61
FUND #
60
$1,181.50
$433,802.94"
d �
oe
�
>.
itltlB
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
From: MARCELLA DAEHN, CLE
Date: JANUARY 4, 1993
Subject:
DEPOSITORIES FOR
CITY FUNDS
Recommendation:
Agenda Item #
vI . D
Consent
0
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
0
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Adoption.of a Resolution designating depositories
for public funds of the City of Edina.
Info/Background-
At the first regular Council Meeting of the year,
the Council should select official depositories for
public funds of the City.
A copy of the recommended Resolution is attached.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES
BE IT RESOLVED that the First Bank National Association,
Minneapolis, MN, Americana State Bank of Edina, MN, Fidelity
Bank, Edina, MN, Marquette Bank Minneapolis, Minneapolis, MN,
Norwest Bank MetroWest, Edina, MN and National City
Bank /Southdale Office, Edina, MN, authorized to do banking
business in Minnesota, be and hereby are designated as Official
Depositories for the Public Funds of the City of Edina, County of
Hennepin, Minnesota, until January 1, 1994.
ADOPTED this 4th day of January, 1993.
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 January 4, 1993, and as recorded in the
Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk
�A 1l \
o e
N
• ��Rrp11A•�O�
ldn6
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item #
VI -I .
From: MARCELLA DAEHN, CLERE
Consent
a
Information Only
❑
Date: JANUARY 4, 1993
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject: -
0
To Council
SIGNATORY RESOLUTION
Action
❑Motion
0
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Adoption of a Signatory Resolution authorizing
the Mayor, Manager, and Treasurer of the City
to actin the transaction of banking business.
Info/Background-
At the first regular Council Meeting of the year,
the Council should adopt a Signatory Resolution
which authorizes the persons holding office as
Mayor, Manager and Treasurer of the City to act
for the City in the transaction of any banking
business with the named banks.
A copy of the recommended Resolution is attached.
SIGNATORY RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the persons holding office as Mayor, Manager
and Treasurer of the City of Edina, be, and they hereby are,
authorized to act for this municipality in the transaction of any
banking business with First Bank National Association, Americana
State Bank of Edina, Fidelity Bank, Marquette Bank, Minneapolis,
Norwest Bank MetroWest and National City Bank /Southdale Office
(hereinafter referred to as the "Bank ") from time to time and
until written notice to any Bank to the contrary, to sign checks
against said accounts, which checks will be signed by the Mayor,
Manager and City Treasurer. Each Bank is hereby authorized and
directed to honor and pay any checks against such account if
signed as above described, whether or not said check is payable
to the order of, or deposited to the credit of, any officer or
officers of the City, including the signer or signers of the
check.
ADOPTED this 4th day of January, 1993.
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 January 4, 1993, and as recorded in the
Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk
4 ytt-tN
%h g!)-90/ ._
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item #
vI . F '
From: MARCELLA DAEHN, CLERK
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Date: JANUARY 4, 1993
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
[:1
To Council
FACSIMILE SIGNATURES
Action
El
Motion
0
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Adoption of Resolution authorizing use of
Facsimile signatures by Public Officials.
Info /Background:
At the first regular Council Meeting of the
year, the Council should authorize the use of
facsimile signatures by the Mayor, Manager, and
Treasurer on checks, drafts, warrants, vouchers,
etc., or other orders of public funds deposited
with the City's banks.
A copy of the recommended Resolution is attached.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED AUTHORIZING USE OF
FACSIMILE SIGNATURES BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS
RESOLVED that the use of facsimile signatures by the following
named persons:
FREDERICK S. RICHARDS - Mayor
KENNETH E. ROSLAND - City Manager
JOHN WALLIN - Treasurer
on checks, drafts, warrants, warrant - checks, vouchers or other
orders of public funds deposited in First Bank National
Association, Americana State Bank of Edina, Fidelity Bank,
Marquette Bank Minneapolis, Norwest Bank MetroWest and National
City Bank /Southdale Office, be and hereby is approved, and that
each of said persons may authorize said depository banks to honor
any such instrument bearing his facsimile signature in such form
as he may designate and to charge the same to the account in said
depository bank upon which drawn as fully as though it bore his
manually written signature and that instruments so honored shall
be wholly operative and binding in favor of said depository bank
although such facsimile signature shall have been affixed without
his authority.
ADOPTED this 4th day of January, 1993.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA 1
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, Marcella M. Daehn, duly appointed City Clerk for the City of
Edina, Hennepin County, do hereby certify that I have compared
the foregoing copy of "Resolution Authorizing Use of Facsimile
Signatures by Public Officials" with the original thereof as
recorded in the Minutes of the Edina City Council held on January
6, 1992, and that the same is a true and correct copy of said
original record, and that said Resolution was adopted by said
City Council at said meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk
AUTHORIZATION OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES
BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS:
We, Frederick S. Richards, Kenneth E. Rosland, and John Wallin,
being the Mayor, City Manager and City Treasurer, respectively,
and being duly authorized to sign checks, drafts, warrants,
warrant - checks, vouchers and other orders on.public funds thereof
deposited in the above named DEPOSITORY BANKS, do hereby certify
that the facsimile impressed or appended on this page is a
facsimile of our signatures in the form which may be used on any
such instrument in place of our signatures in the form which may
be used on any such instrument in place of our manually written
signatures, and we hereby authorize said depository banks to
honor any such instrument bearing the facsimile of our signatures
in said form and honor any such instrument bearing the facsimile
of our signatures in said form and to charge the same to the
account of said public body in said depository bank upon which
drawn as fully as though it bore our manually written signatures.
Instruments so honored shall be wholly operative and binding in
favor of said depository bank although such facsimile signature
shall have been affixed without authority.
WITNESS:
Mayor
City Manager
City Treasurer
o e . Cl)
0
• �N�bProM•���
lase
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item #
VI . A. , B . , C .
From: MARCELLA DAEHN,
Consent
0
CLERK
Information Only
❑
Date: JANUARY 4, 1993
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
Eil
To Council
RESOLUTIONS DESIGNATING
Action
Motion
DIRECTOR /ALTERNATE OF
SRA AND LOGIS AND OFFICIA
x
Resolution
NEWSPAPER
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Adoption of Resolutions designating director /alternate of
Suburban Rate Authority and LOGIS, and the official
newspaper for 1993.
Into/Background-
Attached are copies of resolutions which the Council
should approve at this time of year for 1993. There
have been no changes from the previous year.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND
ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
BE IT RESOLVED'by the City Council of the City of Edina,
Minnesota, as follows: John C. Wallin is hereby designated to
serve as a Director of the Suburban Rate Authority, and Eric R.
Anderson is hereby designated to serve as Alternate Director of
the Suburban Rate Authority for the year 1993 and until their
successors are appointed.
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 is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly
adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of
January 4, 1993, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular
Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR
AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO LOGIS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina,
Minnesota as follows: John C. Wallin is hereby designated as a
Director of LOGIS and Kenneth E. Rosland is hereby designated as
Alternate Director of LOGIS for the year 1993 and until their
successors are appointed.
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 is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly
adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of
January 4, 1993, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular
Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk
•, r
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER
BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the Edina Sun -
Current be and is hereby designated as the Official Newspaper for
the City of Edina for the year 1993.
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 is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly
adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of
January 4, 1993, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular
Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of January,
1993.
City Clerk