Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-06_COUNCIL MEETINGMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL APRIL 22, 2014 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 11. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. 111. MEETING AGENDA APPROVED AS AMENDED Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. IV. CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, approving the consent agenda as revised to remove Items IV.C., Request for Purchase — 2014 Commodities Purchase; IV.E., Pamela Park Bid Authorization; IV.F. Waive Building Permit Fees, Braemar Arena, Sports Dome, Outdoor Rink and Pamela Park Projects; IV.I., Traffic Safety Committee Reports of February 5 and March 11, 2014; and, IV.L., Temporary Construction Easement Agreement for 71 France, Building Unit A, as follows: IV.A. Approve regular and work session meeting minutes of April 1, 2014 IV.B. Receive payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated April 3, 2014, and consisting of 32 pages; General Fund $380,254.34; Police Special Revenue $2,770.00; Working Capital Fund $2,495.72; Equipment Replacement Fund $4,858.72; Art Center Fund $2,622.99; Golf Dome Fund $11,128.69; Aquatic Center Fund $1,526.42 -; Golf Course Fund $31,215.18; Ice Arena Fund $31,366.77; Edinborough Park Fund $18,766.71; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $13,320.30; Liquor Fund $156,956.48; Utility Fund $29,364.85; Storm Sewer Fund $39.95; PSTF Agency Fund $6,153.67; Centennial TIF District $595.00; Grandview TIF District $2,131.50; Payroll Fund $17,027.78; TOTAL $709.542.23 and for receipt of payment of claims dated April 10, 2014, and consisting of 31 pages; General Fund $219,856.80; Police Special Revenue $792.00; Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety $18,270.00; Working Capital Fund $23,031.14; Equipment Replacement Fund $90,697.23; Art Center Fund $2,334.46; Golf Dome Fund $2,528.02; Aquatic Center Fund $633.52; Golf Course Fund $10,582.82; Ice Arena Fund $65,989.69; Edinborough Park Fund $7,053.30; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $2,534.10; Liquor Fund $188,266.43; Utility Fund $427,236.89; Storm Sewer Fund $1,270.80; Recycling Fund $35,190.09; PSTF Agency Fund $17,101.71; TOTAL $11. 1 13.369.00; and for receipt of payment of claims dated April 17, 2014, and consisting of 27 pages; General Fund $141,888.40; Police Special Revenue $298.86; Working Capital Fund $39,671.08; Art Center Fund $3,548.41; Golf Dome Fund $259.63; Aquatic Center Fund $54.00; Golf Course Fund $36,718.29; Ice Arena Fund $397.08; Edinborough Park Fund $18,039.80; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $739.74; Liquor Fund 180,962.17; Utility Fund $40,303.06; Storm Sewer Fund $11,208.74; PSTF Agency Fund $1,735.60; TOTAL $475,824.86 IV.G. Request fer Purchase 2014 Commodities Purcha IV.D. Request for Purchase — Type One Ambulance, Fire Department, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Premier Specialty Vehicles at $188,838.00 1Vr .Eo Pm"rt therezation IV.F. W i..e Bu*ld*ng-Permit Fees, sae.;,ar Arenai Sports Dome, Outdoor oink and P,,.,,,...1 , IV.G. Award of Bid — Contract ENG 13 -22 Hazelton Road Improvements, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Midwest Civil Constructors, LLC at $699,574.75 Page 1 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 22, 2014 ,♦ IV.H. Adopt Resolution No. 2014 -36 — No Parking Restriction on Hazelton Road W.I. , IV.J. Authorize to Submit Draft Amendment to the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan for Agency Review IV.K. Adopt Resolution No. 2014 -37 Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund Grant and Approve Professional Services For Promenade Phase 4 W.L. Temporary Construction Easement Agreement For 71 France, Building Unit A IV.M. Adopt Resolution No. 2014 -38 Setting Public Improvement Hearing to be held on May 20, 2014 for the Alley Improvements, Improvement Nos. A -257 & A -258 IV.N. Adopt Resolution No. 2014 -39 Joint Powers Agreement with City of St. Louis Park for the Todd Park F Neighborhood Improvement Project IV.O. Adopt Resolution No. 2014 -41 Final Plat, 6304 and 6312 Warren Avenue for Homestead Partners, LLC. IV.P. Approve Final Design Engineering Services, Kimley Horn, 50th & France Parking Ramp and Wayfinding Improvements IV.Q. Approve 2014 -2015 Contracts IUOE Local 49, Public Works And Park Maintenance Workers Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IV.C. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE — 2014 COMMODITIES PURCHASE —AWARDED Manager Neal explained that after clarifying quantities and prices for Items 10, 11, and 12, staff recommended awarding those bids to Hawkins rather than DPC. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, awarding Request for Purchase — 2014 Commodities Purchase, Sand, Rock Bituminous Materials, Concrete and Water Treatment Chemicals, Casting and Covers to the recommended low bidders as follows: coarse washed sand to AVR (delivered) at $9.21 per ton; Metro Seal Spec to AVR (delivered) at $11.71 per ton; Cl. 2 limestone (delivered) NO BID; FA -2 seal coat chips to Dresser Trap (delivered) at $44.00 per ton, (picked up) at $30.00 per ton; emulsified asphalt CRS -2P (picked up) NO BID; Emulsified Asphalt CRS -2P (delivered) NO BID; *SPNWB330B MnDOT Non -Wear Spec 2360 to Bituminous Roadways (delivered) at $51.10 per ton and (picked up) at $43.10 per ton; *SPWEA340B MnDOT Wear Spec 2360 to Bituminous Roadways (delivered) at $57.45 per ton and (picked up) at $49.45 per ton; *SPWEB340B MnDOT Wear Spec No. 2360 to Bituminous Roadways (delivered $51.10 per ton and (picked up) at $43.10 per ton; delivered concrete 200 cu yd to AVR, Inc. at $121.00 per cubic yard; delivered concrete 400 cu yd to AVR, Inc. at $110.00 per cubic yard; emulsified tack oil NO BID; crack joint sealer #3725 NO BID; hvdrofluosilicic acid to Hawkins, Inc. (delivered) at $29.10 per CWT; liquid chlorine to Hawkins, Inc. (delivered) at $31.98 per CWT; water treatment chemical (50/50 blend) to Hawkins, Inc. at $5.01 per gallon; Tonkazorb 3% to Hawkins, Inc. (delivered) at $12.03 per gallon; caustic soda to DPC (delivered) at $28.00 per CWT; red ball diamond aggregate (delivered) NO BID; lannon stone wall repair to Blackstone Contractors at $26.50 SF of face (labor); sanitary sewer R1733 complete casting and lid to ESS Bros. at $269.00 each; sanitary sewer R1733 casting only to ESS Bros. at $150.00 each; sanitary sewer R1733 lid only to ESS Bros. at $119.00 each; storm sewer rnd. R2548 complete casting and lid to ESS Bros. at $429.00 each; storm sewer rnd. R2548 casting only to ESS Bros. at $150.00 each; storm sewer rnd. R2548 lid only to ESS Bros. at $279.00 each; storm sewer rect. 3067V (no lettering) complete casting and lid to ESS Bros. at $364.00 each.; storm sewer rest. 3067V (no lettering) casting only to ESS Bros. at $117.00 each; storm sewer rect. 3067V (no lettering) lid only to ESS Bros. at $135.00 each; Cost of curb box complete casting and lid to ESS Bros. at $112.00 each. (*These items were awarded on basis of total cost per ton including trucking and labor, and past year's performance.) Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Page 2 rA - Minutes /Edina City Council /April 22, 2014 IV.E. PAMELA PARK BID — ADVERTISEMENT AUTHORIZED The Council raised concern relating to the building's internal -and. external efficiency in addition to its canopy, architecture, potential safety hazard with the fireplace, and, bathroom adequacy. Paul Kolias; RJM Construction, 701 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, described work planned for the area adjacent to the building and advised that while the building construction could be deferred, the playing fields would need to move forward to be completed prior to the fall season. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, authorizing advertisement of Pamela Park bids including a placeholder for the building's design as well as interior and exterior efficiencies. Parks and Recreation Director Kattreh stated the proposed building architecture was similar to the Countryside Park building. She explained there was only one building orientation given the site was tightly constrained due to the location of the wellhead, batting cages, skating rink, and ball diamond. Ms. Kattreh described adjustments made to the building's features based ron the recommendation of the Park Board and all Athletic Associations... Mr. Kolias stated the fireplace would have a heating element but the glass surrounding the fireplace would be cool to the touch. Ms. Kattreh answered questions of the Council. Ayes: Bennett,- Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried: IV.F. BUILDING PERMIT FEES, BRAEMAR ARENA, SPORTS DOME, OUTDOOR RINK AND PAMELA PARK PROJECTS — WAIVED The Council discussed its policy to waive building permit fees, intent to assure the City's costs were,-covered, and potential .budget impact. Mr. Neal indicated the City had waived building permit fees for most public projects and the policy change was to require Council action to assure transparency. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, waiving the building permit fees for Braemar Arena, sports dome, outdoor rink, and Pamela Park 'projects.' Ayes: Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Nays: Bennett Motion carried. IV.I. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT OF FEBRUARY 5 — ACCEPTED AS REVISED, TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT OF MARCH 11, 2014 — ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED The Council referenced the updated February 5, 2014, Traffic Safety Committee'Report and!questioned.the recommendation in Section B:1, of denial of a request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Sunnyside Road and Grimes Avenue. Engineer Millner stated that decision was deferred pending additional analysis of vehicle and traffic counts. The Council requested additional information prior to taking action including volume and speed data, street width, abiligo te— quantify -- distanees— within the ir: =rte, widths of crossing points within the intersection and location of nearest controlled intersection. The Council requested additional information prior to taking action on Section B.2. r ='�� ^0 -- •he tiFne ..P.r:..a -- o -- - - - - r P. - r ~'-^ ~-•^ ~eeer-ded auto ^~"^"^^ recommendation of denial of a request for a stop sign on Lynmar Lane at Hazelton Road. The Council requested the time period of the two recorded auto crashesf—With regard to Section B.3., additional signage directing people to Ohms Boulevard at Metro Boulevard and 72nd Street, Mr. Millner stated the appropriate Department would send a communication to the building owner advising it was a building signage question rather than a public signage issue. In addition, that would be made part of the record. The Council asked staff to re- examine the traffic control at the Sunnyside Road and Grimes Avenue intersection to assure 'it was consistent with the City's transportation goals. ,On Item No. B. 2., Lynmar Lane and Hazelton Road it was noted this' Traffic Safety Report had already been considered and recommended for approval by the Traffic Safety Review Committee and Edina Transportation Commission. Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, accepting the Traffic Safety Committee Report of February 5 as revised to remove Section B.2. pending additional information on recorded Page 3 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 22, 2014 t vehicle crashes; and, accepting the Traffic Safety Committee Report of March 11, 2014, as presented. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson Nays: Hovland Motion carried. W.L. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR 71 FRANCE, BUILDING UNIT A -APPROVED Mr. Neal stated that it previously had been discussed that the developer would have access to this City land during construction of its project. MR Neal stated the land i , as giyen te the City as paitc ef this pFejeet and it had been diseussed that the deyelepe"Aofe-uldd h-;lFP- te that land dUFing cen5tFUctien ef theiF pFejeet. Mr. Millner advised there would be no payment for the disturbance but the developer would conduct preliminary grading for the Promenade Phase 4 project, resulting in a cost saving to the City. He stated that area would not be restored because the infiltration system and new walkways still need to be installed. The eastern trail would remain open as a multi -use path until the Promenade Phase 4 project was completed (July /August of 2015). Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, approving Temporary Construction Easement Agreement for 71 France, Building Unit A. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS V.A. OFFICER OF THE YEAR — AWARDED TO DETECTIVE MIKE LUTZ Police Chief Nelson described the many accomplishments of Detective Mike Lutz during his 40 years of service in Edina and presented Detective Lutz with the 2013 Mike Siitari Officer of the Year Award that was sponsored by the Edina Crime Fund. Detective Lutz thanked the Edina Crime Fund Board for this overwhelming recognition and those who had supported him over the past 40 years. He commented on the importance of teamwork, stated the Edina Police Department was very successful, and that while people come and go, the culture of excellence remained the same. The Council and audience responded with a standing ovation. The Council added their thanks to Detective Lutz for his contribution to Edina. V.B. RESOLUTION NO. 201440 ADOPTED — BRAEMAR CITY OF LAKES FIGURE SKATING CLUB — CONGRATULATED Mayor Hovland read in full a resolution formally congratulating Team Braemar, Head Coach Taylor Walker, and Assistant Coach Jessica Chaffee, on their successful season. Member Bennett introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2014 -40, Braemar City of Lakes Figure Skating Club Team Braemar. Member Brindle seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Brian Hedberg, Braemar City of Lakes Figure Skating Club President, introduced their Head Coach, Assistant Coach, Co- Captains, and General Manager, and stated their appreciation to the Council for supporting Team Braemar by ensuring this team had the ability to utilize Braemar facilities. One of the Co- captains reported on the accomplishments of Team Braemar, including international accomplishments and the Team's legacy. V.C. NATIONAL KIDS TO PARKS DAY PROCLAIMED — MAY 17, 2014 Mayor Hovland read in full a proclamation declaring May 17, 2014, to be National Kids to Parks Day in the City of Edina. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, approving proclamation declaring May 17, 2014, to be National Kids to Parks Day in the City of Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Page 4 Minu #es /Edina City Council /April 22, 2014 Recreation Supervisor Aarsvold and Recreation Supervisor Boettcher announced scheduled events for May 17, 2014, and encouraged all to participate. V.D. ARBOR DAY PROCLAIMED —APRIL 2S, 2014 Mayor Hovland read in. full a proclamation declaring April 25, 2014, Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member declaring April 25, 2014, to be Arbor Day in the City of Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. to be Arbor Day in the City of Edina. Brindle, approving proclamation V.E. BUILDING SAFETY MONTH PROCLAIMED —MAY 2014 Mayor Hovland read in full a proclamation declaring May 2014 to be Building Safety Month in the City of Edina. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, approving, proclamation declaring May 2014 to be Building Safety Month in the City of Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Mr. Neal introduced Fire Chief Schmitz and Chief Building Official Fisher. Mr. Fisher described his professional background and stated he looked forward to serving Edina. V F. MUNICIPAL CLERKS' WEEK PROCLAIMED - MAY 4 -10, 2014 Mayor Hovland read in full a proclamation declaring May 4 to` May 10, 2014, to "be Municipal Clerks' Week in the City of Edina. Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, approving proclamation declaring May 4 to May 10, 2014 to be Municipal Clerks' Week in the City of Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Mayor Hovland referenced comments by the Secretary of State relating to the professionalism of�Cl Mangen and high regard for her. Ms. Mangen thanked the Administration and Council for the ability to serve and educational opportunities during her tenure. V.G. MARCH SPEAK UP EDINA REPORT PRESENTED — TOPIC. ORGANIZED. GARBAGE COLLECTION Communications Coordinator ,Gilgenbach presented "a summary" of March opinions, both pros and cons, collected through Speak Up, Edina relating to organized garbage collection. The Council discussed the survey results and acknowledged the complexity of organized garbage collection. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD — Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. VI.A. NEW ON -SALE INTOXICATING & SUNDAY SALES LIQUOR LICENSES — BUFFALO WILD WINGS, 2685 SOUTHDALE CENTER — APPROVED City Clerk Mangen presented the request of Blazin Wings, Inc. dba Buffalo Wild Wings for a new On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Sunday On -Sale Liquor License. Staff found the application to be in order. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Public Testimony No one appeared to comment. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by' Member Brindle, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, approving the request of Blazin Wings, Inc. dba Buffalo Wild Wings for a new On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Page 5 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 22, 2014 N Sunday On -Sale Liquor License for the period beginning April 23, 2014 and ending March 31, 201 S. Member Sprague seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Martin Mongoven, Buffalo Wild Wings General Manager, described menu offerings and stated they plan to open June 9, 2014. VI.B. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 111 OF THE CITY CODE, REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION — CONTINUED TO MAY 6, 2014 Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, continuing Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 10, Article III of the City Code, Regarding Tree Preservation, to May 6, 2014. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VII. COMMUNITY COMMENT Colleen Hart of 5637 Beard Avenue and Chad Bell of 5620 Beard Avenue expressed concern related to safety of pedestrians because the stop sign at Beard Avenue and 57th Avenue near Chowen Park was not honored. Mr. Millner stated this issue was in the Traffic Safety Committee Report accepted tonight and approved to install advanced reflective signs and additional police enforcement. Ms. Hart stated why they do not feel reflective signs would resolve their concerns. Mr. Millner indicated staff would look at the area to assure there was a clear view not obstructed by shrubbery. Vlll. REPORTS / RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.A. APPEAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OF HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD DENIED, NEW DETACHED GARAGE & CHANGE TO STREET FACING FACE OF HOME, 4SOS ARDEN AVENUE , RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -43 — ADOPTED UPHOLDING CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Senior Planner Presentation Senior Planner Repya presented the chronology of the Heritage Preservation Board's (HPB) consideration of 4505 Arden Avenue and its March 11, 2014, decision to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new detached garage and changes to the street facing fagade of the home at 4505 Arden Avenue based on the finding it was a rehabilitation to maintain the original 1926 home, not a demolition. Appellant Presentation Joyce Mellom, 4506 Arden Avenue, presented oral argument that 4505 Arden Avenue was a heritage preservation resource by virtue of its location in the Country Club district and construction between 1924 and 1944, being an early original Samuel S. Thorpe house. She stated her position that the Plan of Treatment that defined the Certificate of Appropriateness moved away from the specific goal of preservation of the existing historic house fagade and streetscapes. She requested an order of the Council to review and amend the Plan of Treatment to clarify the language and better protect the historic house fagade and streetscapes. Ms. Mellom commented on other extensive remodels within the Country Club district that had maintained historic house facade and streetscape, such as 4511 Bruce Avenue. She urged the Council to carry on its tradition of preserving the City's history by ordering the HPB to review and amend its Certificate of Appropriateness guidelines, specifically relating to historic house fagades and streetscapes. Ms. Mellom also asked the Council to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness as it was not in compliance with the Country Club Plan of Treatment and the materials submitted indicate the entire house would be demolished. Respondent Presentation Scott Busyn, Great Neighborhood Homes, presented the request of Tim and Michelle Pronley of 4505 Arden Avenue and advised of neighbor support for the Pronley request. He described elements of the proposed upgrades to the front fagade that would create a safer entrance and rear exterior addition that would be welcomed by the neighbors as it would blend seamlessly with the new architecture of the home. He stated this project would result in a beautiful rehabilitation similar to that of 4620 Mooreland. Mr. Busyn presented Page 6 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 22, 2014 before and after pictures of 4620 Mooreland and stated 100% of its exterior materials were replaced; 80% of the structure was replaced, 50% of the foundation, and 100% of internal materials.. He stated 4505 Arden Avenue would follow a similar process and abide by today's Building Code to assure structural integrity. Mr. Busyn asked the Council. to deny the appeal of the Certificate of Appropriateness for Pronleys� project. The Council noted that the information provided in the original application, did not reach the level of proof the HPB was looking for so it was continued. Then it came back as a remodel application rather than a whole house rehabilitation application. -The Council asked if this was a rehabilitation as approved by the HPB akin to 4620 Mooreland or a tear down. Mr. Busyn stated that deteriorated and unsafe materials would be replaced and the home remodeled per the plan presented but that he could not quantify at present how much of the home's original materials would need to be removed and replaced The Council asked questions of Ms. Repya relating to National Register Designation for the Country Club district of 550 homes through the National Park Service. °She indicated there was -no other residential district within Edina that ��was given review of 'remodeling, demolition, or rebuilding. Ms. Repya! affirmed the Council's conclusion that approximately 12,500 homes in the city could be demolished and rebuil without design review. The Council referenced Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel's comments on the finding of staff and the majority of the HPB,that the 4505 Arden Avenue project does not constitute demolition as less than 50% of.the aggregate exterior surface area of the historic core of the house was proposed to be removed. Mrs. Repya clarified that the historic core of the house related to the 1926 original structure, differentiating from the attached garage and flat roofed additions added at a later period. The Council discussed the decision of the HPB and appeal. It was suggested that the additions were also historic as, were all 550 homes within this district. With that collective identity, .the issue was what changed the collective; enough .,to eventually disqualify this district. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 201 4 -43, Upholding the ,Heritage Preservation Board's Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Changes to the Street'Facing Facade and anew Detached Garage at 4505 Arden Avenue, based upon the record submitted to the HPB, and-all testimony and submittals before the City'Council. Member Brindle seconded the motion. The Council acknowledged that the HPB's Certificate of Appropriateness for the Country Club district -did not hold -to the Secretary of the Interior's standard as regulatory as the ,Plan of Treatment does not specify what (i.e. windows /doors) you could or could not move. The Council found the memorandum from'Mr. Vogel to be the most persuasive and acknowledged that rehabilitation projects such as 4620 Mooreland were a great enhancement to the district. It was pointed out that allowing;4505 Arden Avenue to, exist in its current condition would adversely impact adjoining and other properties. In addition, Mr. Vogel had indicated the issue was, not the exact positioning of building elements but the combination of the elements that contributed to the district. In this case, all of the elements were present for a Tudor Revival. The Council agreed with .the suggestion of Attorney Mattick that the motion refer to the record submitted, testimony received, and all submittals. Ayes: Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Nays: Bennett Motion carried. VIII.B. ORDINANCE NO. 20144 ADOPTED — ESTABLISHING A LOCAL LODGING TAX FUNDING FOR A CONVENTION / VISITOR'S BUREAU Mr. Neal reviewed the Council's past consideration to establish a local lodging tax to fund a Convention/Visitor's Bureau. Lori Syverson, Edina Chamber of Commerce President, advised of the Chamber's careful research and, finding that Explore Edina could be used. She indicated that both domains would be purchased. Member Swenson made. a motion to grant Second Reading adopting Ordinance No. 2014 -4 Amending. Chapter 20 of the Edina City Code Concerning a Local Lodging Tax. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Rollcall: Page 7 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 22, 2014 Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII. C. EXPLORE EDINA, LLC AGREEMENT — APPROVED Mr. Neal presented terms of the agreement that would form and operate a Convention and Visitor's Bureau. He stated the City would. retain 5% of the funds to address the funding gap of Edinborough Park caused by the lodging tax- triggered conversion of the current Public Facility Charge paid by Hawthorn Suites to a lower !r unit monthly charge. I :.Member Swenson made•, a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, recting i and -authorizing.-the . Mayor. and City Manager to execute an- Agreement by and atween the City of Edina and Explore Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson;, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.D. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -42 ADOPTED — ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained that in order -to comply with' State Statutes; all donations toy the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved by., four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Bennett introduced and moved adoption of Resolution. No. 2014 -42 accepting various donations. Member Brindle seconded the. motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson; Hovland: Motion carried. VIII.E. SPORTS DOME, ARENA, OUTDOOR RINK BIDsPACKAGE ONE — AWARDED, BID PACKAGE TWO - AUTHORIZED Ms. Kattreh reviewed presented details of Bid Package One for the sports dome, arena, and outdoor rink project: She indicated the project budget for Bid Package One was $12,445,41b. and the bids for, Bid Package One. and the 95% estimate totaled $121223,639, reflecting a potential savings of $221,777. Ms. Kattreh reviewed the current project estimate and ,requested the Council award Bid Package One and authorize' Bid Package Two for the remainder of tfie project: dome foundation, site electrical, landscaping, accessory building, storage building, and East Arena renovations. Mr. Neal stated at the time the Council authorized this project to move forward, he had indicated the estimated impact of the total tax level under either financing option was an increase of 5% to 7% of the annual debt service for this project. The estimated tax impact on a median home, based on the 2014 tax levy, was an increase of $60 to $75 per year. Mr. Neal stated last week staff worked with Ehlers to get information that was more precise on the proposed bond . sale, current ' interest rates, and taxable values for 2015. It was discovered that the impact of a $1'6 million . bond sale on a median valued home would be $52 per year. Concern was expressed relating to the intent'to borrow funds as an HRA, resulting in no public referendum requirement. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, awarding Bid Package One. Ayes:.Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Nays: Bennett Motion carried. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague,, authorizing staff to advertise for Bid Package Two. Ayes: Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Nays: Bennett Motion carried. VIII.F. FRED RICHARDS PARK DESIGN PROCESS — CONSULTING SERVICES PROPOSAL, SCHOENBAUER CONSULTING -LLC — AUTHORIZED Ms. Kattreh ,presented staffs recommendation for a Reuse Study and visioning fo" a Master Plan for Fred Richards Golf Course that would be open and inclusive to all residents of Edina. Staff recommended approval of a professional consulting services contract with Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC. Page 8 IN i Minutes /Edina City Council /Apri1.22, 2014 The Council noted that the City does not single out operating park budgets and that should not be done'for Fred Richards Park. Ms. Kattreh advised the contract had been reviewed by Attorney Knutson and the intent of Scope of Services, A.2.c, was to include Pentagon Park in the conversation. Mr. Neal recommended gaining input from the Three Rivers Park District and Watershed District, which might also be funding sources. The Council supported a Citywide invitation to residents and near -by businesses as this would be a larger -sized park. Mr. Neal agreed this was important in recognition of the strong neighborhood turnout to assure all were welcomed to. participate. The 'Council asked that an invitation be mailed to residents' from both the Parklawn and Greater Cornelia neighborhoods, within the geographic area from 77th Street to Highway 62 and France Avenue to Highway 100, It was also suggested that staff reach out to leadership at Cornelia Elementary School. The Council acknowledged this consultant had-good experience in public engagement related to parks as well as park planning. Mr. Neal= stated he had worked with this. local consultant on a prior project and found the consultant did a wonderful job interacting with residents and created a project that residents supported. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member, Bennett, authorizing the consulting services proposal of Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC for a Reuse Study and visioning for a Master Plan for Fred Richards Golf Course. Concern was expressed that this action was premature as a Master Plan of Braemar should occur first to determine whether or not Fred Richards was needed. It was also questioned whether an open house process and a single site walk would offer adequate public- engagement ;Council requested multiple site walks at multiple times of day and in different weeks, multiple reporting meetings, and. coordination with other regulating agencies. Mr. Mattick noted the `agreement contained an hourly rate that would be charged for services beyond the proposal. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson Nay: Hovland Motion carried. VIILG. BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS — APPROVED Ms. Kattreh presented staffs recommendation to hire consultants to prepare a Braemar Golf Course Master Plan and Storm Water Master Plan. It was anticipated the Braemar Golf Course Master Plan would take four to six months to complete and cost $30,000 to $75,000 depending on the consultant selected. It was intended that the Engineering. Department would ..assist with the selection of the Storm Water Master Plan consultant. That Plan was estimated to. cost $50,000 to $60,000. Ms. Kattreh noted there was $50,000 in the 2014 Engineering CIP to pay for part of the Storm Water Master Plan. She stated staff recommended Option 2, creation of a Task Force. The Council discussed creating a hybrid option, agreed with the importance of Braemar meeting the needs of those who golf Fred Richards, and supported the Task Force option including a member of the golf community, whether or not an executive golfer. Mr. Neal recommended a Task Force comprised of five members as being the optimal group size to assure effectiveness. The Council discussed options for interviewing and selecting a Task Force and asked staff to design a public notice to place an open call for applications and to recommend a slate for interview. Ms. Kattreh was asked to provide a recommendation of groups for inclusion. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, approving a Braemar Golf Course Master Plan and Storm Water Master Plan process, utilizing staff suggested process 2., Task Force Selects Master Plan Consultant and Directs Process, subset a. to h., per selection of the Task Force as discussed. Ayes:, Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion. carried. VIII.H. AWARD OF BID — CONTRACT ENG 14-4 BIRCHCREST B NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS — AWARDED Page 9 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 22, 2014 1 Mr. Millner presented project details and alternative bids for the roadways of Birchcrest Drive, Clover Ridge, Normandale Road, Porter Lane, Roberts Place; Rolf. Avenue, Tingdale Avenue, Valley View Road, Wilryan Avenue; West 60th Street, and West 62nd Street. He recommended award of Schedules A and B as it cost $20,000 less, resulting in an 8% reduction in the estimated assessment. Mr. Millner advised of public comment and answered the Council's questions relating to public utilities that would be spot repaired as part of the project. The Council acknowledged that some residents support a concrete,street; however, it would increase the, assessment by $1,000 -per property. In addition, wheel travel noise 'on asphalt streets was much lower than.. experienced with concrete- streets. Mr. Millner advised that the failure rate between concrete streets and asphalt streets was similar if properly maintained. He described the appearance of concrete streets, once patched, compared to the aesthetic of a new asphalt street. Mr. Millner pointed. out the :location of storm sewer improvements that would address drainage concerns.: The Council noted resident concern relating to a more narrow street width. Me. Millner indicated the City.. had used a 2846ot,face -to -face section for years. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, awarding the bid to the recommended low. bidder, Palda and Sons, Inc. at $2;859,37 "1.73 .(Schedules A and B, bituminous option). Ayes: Bennett-Brindle, -Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. . IX CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS IX.A. CORRESPONDENCE _ Mayor Hovland acknowledged the Council's receipt of various correspondence. IX.& MINUTES: 1. PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 26 AND MARCH 12, 2014 2. ARTS &. CULTURE COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 27, 2014 3. PARK"BOARD, MARCH 11, 2014 4. VETERAN'S MEMORIAL COMMITTEE, JANUARY 17, 2014 S. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION, MARCH 13, 2014 6. HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD, MACH 11, 2014 Informational; no action required. X. AVIATION NOISE UPDATE - Received XI. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS - Received X11. MANAGER'S COMMENTS - Received X111. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 1.1:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Mi.nutes,approved by Edina City Council, May 6, 2014. James B. Hovland, Mayor Video Copy of the April 22, 2014, meeting available. Page 10 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD, AT CITY HALL APRIL 22, 2014 5:37 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Brindle and Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Member Bennett arrived at 5:41 p.m. Member Sprague arrived at 5: 7 p.m. Staff attending the meeting included: Ross.Bintner, Environmental Engineer; Annie Coyle, City Manager Fellow; Ann Kattreh, Parks & Recreation Director; Karen Kurt, Assistant City.Manager; Debra Mangen, City Clerk; Chad Millner, Engineering Director;'`Scott Neal, City Manager; Brian Olson, Public Works Director; Eric Roggeman, Assistant Finance Director; John Wallin, Finance Director and Pat Wrase, Assistant City Engineer. Mayor Hovland said the meeting would focus on two topics: the Council's quarterly business meeting and a joint session with the Arts and Culture Commission who would join the Council at 6:00 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING - Manager Neal reminded the Council that the quarterly business meetings were an opportunity to review the status of current budget as progress on the 2014 work plan. Assistant Finance Director Roggeman reviewed a summary of the 2013 preliminary year -end financials, the 2013 General fund reserves and the process to be followed to develop the 2015 -2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Assistant Manager Kurt presented a written status update the Council on the 2014 strategic priorities and the results from a board and commission member exit survey. ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION Arts & Culture Commissioners attending were: Hafed Bouassida, Kandace Ellis, Dana Lappin, Barbara LaValleur, Ray Meifert, Anne Miller, Kitty O'Dea, Paul Peterson, Thomas Raeuchle, and Jack Ready. Also in attendance was Michael Frey, Art Center Director. Members of the Arts & Culture Commission briefed the Council on the Commission's 2014 Work Plan status. The success of the Author's Studio was noted, the Music in the Park series was discussed, noting that this would hopefully be continued with a Winter Music Series. Members reported on the funding initiatives with three members reporting on various cities that use percentage for arts funding. Strategies for implementing such an initiative in Edina were discussed. There being no further business, Mayor Hovland adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by Edina City Council, May 6, 2014 Debra Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor R55CKR2 LOGIS101 Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR CITY OF EDINA COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR Council Check Register by GL COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 340252 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5400.1740 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 4/24/2014 - 4/2412014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No B 4/24/2014 101366 BELLBOY CORPORATION CREDIT 340352 321.30 1553.6530 340276 42561200 5842.5512 420.25 CABLES 00006118 340425 42657500 5862.5512 949499 -00 419.32 REPAIR PARTS 340424 42657700 5822.5512 72,358.12 28.12 340423 90048800 5822.5515 1,188.99 11 4124/2014 9 4/24/2014 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 9.51 DESK PAD 340370 OE- 353027 -1 1120.6406 340417 36.97 FIRSTAID KIT 340370 OE- 353027 -1 1550.6406 92.72 OFFICE SUPPLIES 340193 WO- 925798 -1 1550.6406 39219013 62.63 NAME BADGE LABELS 340369 WO- 927279 -1 1120.6406 38.20 201.83 340420 39247107 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Page- 1 Subledger Account Description Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING GENERALSUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES 10 4/24/2014 100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC. 47,447.82 GROUNDSMASTER MOWERS 00006284 340252 947210 -00 5400.1740 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 25,073.18 TORO GROUNDSMASTER MOWER 00006285 340592 947227 -00 5400.1740 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 599.98- CREDIT 340352 949055 -00 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 437.10 CABLES 00006118 340566 949499 -00 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS 72,358.12 11 4124/2014 120627 VISTAR CORPORATION 24.96 CONCESSION PRODUCT 340417 38985097 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 537.39 CONCESSION PRODUCT 340418 39219013 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 38.20 CONCESSION PRODUCT 340420 39247107 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 79.44 CONCESSION PRODUCT 340419 39247929 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 679.99 382008 4/24/2014 118261 2ND WIND EXERCISE INC. 365.34 FITNESS EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 340534 021043170 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 365.34 382009 4/2412014 100609 60TH & FRANCE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 1,000.00 EDINA LIQUOR AD 340225 1140 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 1,000.00 382010 4/24/2014 101304 ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY 1,012.51 CONTINUOUS SCREW, WELDMENT00005142 340226 0139524 IN 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 12429 HINGE, REEL 00005141 340506 0139537 -IN 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1,136.80 ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL ADMINISTRATION GOLF BALANCE SHEET GOLF BALANCE SHEET EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL BOTH ST SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN R55CKR2 LOGIS101 . 38,507.93 COUNTRYSIDE PK IMPROVEMENTS 340535 FIVE CITY OF EDINA EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COUNTRYSIDE PK PLAYGROUND &PATt , 38,507.93 Council Check Register by GL 382017 4/2412014 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 — 4/24/2014 REPAIRS TO DISPATCH EQUIPT 340536 Check # Date Amount Supplier! Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 382011 412412014 124613 ABM JANITORIAL- NORTH CENTRAL INC. Continued... 382018 4/24/2014 2,753.75 APR 2014 SERVICE 340190 6489167 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,753.75 19,249.70 PAMELA PK CONSTRUCTION DOCS 340268 131090314 47090.6710 382012 412412014 PAMELA PK SHELTER & TURF 129458 ACME TOOLS 19,249.70 899.10 GENERATOR 00005208 340228 2538562 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES 251.10 DRILL 00005207 340227 2538565 1553.6556 TOOLS CENT LAKES ROOM REFUND 340564 1,150.20 5751.4555 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK CENTENNIAL LAKES REVENUE 382013 4/24/2014 133140 ACROSS THE STREET PRODUCTIONS INC. 385.00 BLUE CARD TRAINING 00003776 340191 12 -1917 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 385.00 810.95 CONCESSION PRODUCT 340192 2099594 382014 4/24/2014 COST OF GOODS SOLD 131688 ADLER, LAURA 810.95 91.84 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 340582 041814 1263.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 91.84 382016 4/2412014 101166 'AHEAD INC 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Page- 2 Business Unit CITY HALL GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN FIRE DEPT. GENERAL ENVIRONMENT 644.44 MERCHANDISE 340583 INV0197894 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 644.44 382016 4/24/2014 132360 AMERICAN LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION INC. 38,507.93 COUNTRYSIDE PK IMPROVEMENTS 340535 FIVE 47078.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COUNTRYSIDE PK PLAYGROUND &PATt , 38,507.93 382017 4/2412014 102109 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER 1,166.40 REPAIRS TO DISPATCH EQUIPT 340536 42861 2310.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT E911 1,166.40 382018 4/24/2014 102171 ANDERSON -JOHNSON ASSOCIATES INC. - 19,249.70 PAMELA PK CONSTRUCTION DOCS 340268 131090314 47090.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PAMELA PK SHELTER & TURF 19,249.70 382019 4/24/2014 133906 ANDERSON, HANNA & PHILLIP GREEN 100.00 CENT LAKES ROOM REFUND 340564 PARTIAL REFUND 5751.4555 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK CENTENNIAL LAKES REVENUE 100.00 382020 4/24/2014 - 102172 APPERrS FOODSERVICE 810.95 CONCESSION PRODUCT 340192 2099594 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 810.95 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/2212014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page - 3 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/2412014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382021 4/24/2014 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS Continued... 102.72 COFFEE 340537 429867 7411.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 102.72 382022 412412014 132031 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 973.00 340277 48058 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 764.00 340276 48059 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 820.00 340422 48060 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 70.00 340421 48061 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,627.00 382023 4/2412014 101196 AUTO ELECTRIC OF BLOOMINGTON INC. 159.95 ALTERNATOR 00005120 340507 155353 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 159.95 ALTERNATOR 00005191 340230 155482 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 189.95 ALTERNATOR 00005120 340508 M14614, 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 509.85 382024 4/24/2014 100642 BANNERS TO GO 638.00 ATHLETIC FIELD NUMBERS 00001836 340334 37595. 1642.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIELD MAINTENANCE 118.00 PARK SIGNS 340231 37613 1646.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 348.00 COURTNEY PARK SIGNS 340232 37634 1646.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,104.00 382025 4/24/2014 129624 BARNA GUZY & STEFFEN LTD 592.00 GENERAL LABOR CONSULTING 340368 129761 1170.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES 592.00 382026 4/24/2014 131191 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC. 72.00 PIZZA 340397 D281N1982 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 72.00 382027 4/24/2014 125139 BERNICK'S 103.30 CONCESSION PRODUCT 340398 125614 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 165.55 340427 127573 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 245.55 340426 127576 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS-SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 514.40 382028 4/24/2014 126847 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 333.00 COFFEE 340399 1164958 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 333.00 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 ,Council Check Register by GL Page - 4 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382029 4/2412014 126268 BLUE COMPACTOR SERVICES Continued... 386.00 COMPACTOR RENTAL 340371 2014 -04 -01 409.5.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50T_ H STREET RUBBISH 386.00 382030 412412014 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS 35.31 PENS, TAPE 00001437 340194 96203 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 267.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00003782 340269 96445 1470.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 303.05 382031 4/2412014 132444 BOLTON & MENK INC. 2,048.61 UTLEY PARK DESIGN 340195 0165091 47083.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT UTLEY PK BATHROOM RENOVATION 7,614.80 UTLEY PARK DESIGN . 340196 0165092 47083.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT UTLEY PK BATHROOM RENOVATION 9,663.41 382032 4/24/2014 101010 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1,091.59 STARTER 00001885 340335 907168269 5921.6530 REPAIR'PARTS SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 1,091.59 382033 4/24/2014 106367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 2,414.32 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003770 340270 81385998 1470.6510 FIRSTAID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 3,226.76 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003777 340198 81392863 1470.6510 FIRSTAID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 28.00 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003777 340197 81392864 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 45.00 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003701 340538 81403027 1470.6510 FIRSTAID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 5,714.08 382034 4/24/2014 119361 - BOURGET IMPORTS 268.50 340307 119186 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 129.50 340308 119187 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 398.00 382035 4/24/2014 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 237.84 TENSIONER, IDLER 00005188 340233 842014 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 412.08 PUMP, LAMP ASSEMBLY 00005193 340509 842962 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 10.19 DRAIN ASSEMBLY 06005194 340511 843215 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2.53 GASKET 00005194 340510 843266 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 308.33 SLACKADJUSTER, CHAMBER 00005237 340512 843672 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 970.97 382036 4/24/2014 122318 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 127.13 APRIL 16TH MEETING 340400 2344 1490.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC HEALTH 127.13 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 10, 335.64 CITY OF EDINA 382040 4124/2014 103110 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 340513 041714 05502.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 382036 4/24/2014 122318 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE Continued... 382037 4/2412014 111548 BRAEMAR ICE SHOW 309704 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 85.00 AD IN ICE SHOW PROGRAM 340372 1437 5510.6575 PRINTING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 85.00 104.30 340280 314214 382038 4/24/2014 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 100664 BRAUN INTERTEC 6,694.70 168.00 AIR TESTING 340539 1401175 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,444.00 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 340585 383762 5550.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS NAME BADGES 4,065.75 TEST PIT OBSERVATIONS 340586 383763 5550.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 31.89 6,677.75 340401 V212827 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 382039 4/24/2014 42.49 102149 CALLAWAY GOLF 340401 V212827 1140.6406 4/2212014-11:03:05 Page- 5 Business Unit ARENA ADMINISTRATION PSTF OCCUPANCY SPORTS DOME BALANCE SHEET SPORTS DOME BALANCE SHEET p 9,975.00 RANGE BALLS 340336 925129151 5424.6590 RANGE BALLS RANGE 360.64 MERCHANDISE 340587 925140233 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES WM -502 RAW WATER WELL15 TO WTP BOTH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION CONTINGENCIES PLANNING GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION 10, 335.64 382040 4124/2014 103110 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY 1,056.00 WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT 14 -10 340513 041714 05502.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 1,056.00 382041 4/24/2014 119466 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 705.00 340428 309704 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 5,885.40 340279 .309705 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 104.30 340280 314214 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 6,694.70 382042 4/2412014 129923 CAWLEY 10.63 NAME BADGES 340401 V212827 1504.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 31.89 NAME BADGES 340401 V212827 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 42.49 NAME BADGES 340401 V212827 1140.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.01 382043 4124/2014 102372 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. 1,239.64 BGC EXEC NETWORK 340402 KP31519 5410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 472.36 BGC EXEC NETWORK 340403 KP93856 5410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,576.36 BGC EXEC NETWORK 340404 KR18696 5410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 339.00 BGC EXEC NETWORK 340405 KR26229 5410.6103 _ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 922.12 BGC EXEC NETWORK 340406 KZ14004 5410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,549.48 WM -502 RAW WATER WELL15 TO WTP BOTH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION CONTINGENCIES PLANNING GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page- 6 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382044 412412014- 123898 CENTURYLINK Continued... 59.63 952944-6522 340373 6522 -4/14 5511.6188 TELEPHONE ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 59.63 2,247.00 382046 4124/2014 100683 CHEMSEARCH 4/24/2014 100692 COCA -COLA REFRESHMENTS 717.79 WATER TREATMENT PROGRAM 340407 1464429 5510.6103 ' .. 717.79 340429 0188329819 382046 4/24/2014 102691 CHRISTOFFER, KELLI 382049 250.00 LIFEGUARD CERTIFICATION 340199 REIMBURSE 1629.6406 250.00 6.77 8772 10 614 0023973 340337 382047 4/24/2014 122084 CITY OF EDINA - UTILITIES 170.14 8772 10 614 0496856 932.93 00082050 - 0200650009 340200 200650009 -4/14 1551.6189 -47.35 00082050- 0200650018 340201 200650018 -4/14 1551.6189 76.78 00102561- 0200862003 340235 200862003 -4/14 5821.6189 197.59 00102561 -0203163003 340234 203163003 -4/14 5861.6189 962.94 00101025- 0203600013 340374 203600013 -4/14 1628.6189 29,41 00101025- 0203610011 340375 203610011 -4/14 1628.6189 5842.5515 1551.6103 5210.6188 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TELEPHONE" 5210.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 1629.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5550.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 5550.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS ARENA ADMINISTRATION ADAPTIVE RECREATION CITY HALL GENERAL CITY HALL GENERAL 50TH ST OCCUPANCY VERNON OCCUPANCY SENIOR CITIZENS SENIOR CITIZENS YORK SELLING CITY HALL GENERAL GOLF DOME PROGRAM GOLF DOME PROGRAM ADAPTIVE RECREATION SPORTS DOME BALANCE SHEET SPORTS DOM7 - ' IANCE SHEET 2,247.00 382048 4/24/2014 100692 COCA -COLA REFRESHMENTS 221.80 340429 0188329819 221.80 382049 4/24/2014 120433 COMCAST 6.77 8772 10 614 0023973 340337 23973 -4/14 170.14 8772 10 614 0496856 340540 496856 -4/14 176.91 382060 4/24/2014 120826 COMCAST SPOTLIGHT 1,350.00 BRAEMAR GOLF DOME ADS 340202 NW560581 1,350.00 382061 4/24%2014 101704 COOK, BARBARA 117.04 ADAPTIVE PROGRAM COORDINATOR 340203 14 -1630 117.04 382062 4/24/2014 129660 CUNINGHAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE 118,923.00 SPORTS DOME CONSTRUCTION 340236 40728 ` 440.31 REIMBURSEABLE EXPENSES 340237 40729 5842.5515 1551.6103 5210.6188 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TELEPHONE" 5210.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 1629.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5550.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 5550.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS ARENA ADMINISTRATION ADAPTIVE RECREATION CITY HALL GENERAL CITY HALL GENERAL 50TH ST OCCUPANCY VERNON OCCUPANCY SENIOR CITIZENS SENIOR CITIZENS YORK SELLING CITY HALL GENERAL GOLF DOME PROGRAM GOLF DOME PROGRAM ADAPTIVE RECREATION SPORTS DOME BALANCE SHEET SPORTS DOM7 - ' IANCE SHEET R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page - 7 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382052 4/24/2014 129660 CUNINGHAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE Continued... 119,363.31 382053 4/24/2014 101951 CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC 69.60 PERMIT REFUND 340338 ED128866 ` 1495.4115 MECHANICAL PERMITS INSPECTIONS 69.60 382054 4/24/2014 100706 D.C. ANNIS SEWER INC. 440.00 PUMP SUMP 340541 100915 1470.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 775.00 CLEAN DRAIN LINES 340542 100926 1470.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,215.00 382055 4/24/2014 100130 DAKOTA COUNTY 700.00 OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT 340543 041814 1000.2055 DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET 700.00 382056 4/24/2014 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 4.00- 340285 746642C 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 2,269.20 340430 747654 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 70.70 340284 747655 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 603.95 340283 747656 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 24.60 340282 747657 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 1,854.30 340281 747658 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 4,818.75 382057 4124/2014 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. 685.56 OIL DRAIN 00005133 340339 891069 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 87.94 EXTRACTOR 00005186 340240 891241 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 184.02 FLARE TOOL KITS, PLIERS 00005187 340239 891633 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1.06 FLARE TOOL KIT 00005187 34023B 891780 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT, OPERATION GEN 78.36 PLIER SET 00005145 -340514 893322 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,036.94 382058 4/2412014 100720 DENNYS 5TH AVE. BAKERY 107.13 BAKERY 340204 500956 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 107.13 382069 4/24/2014 129718 DREW'S CONCESSIONS LLC 720.00 CARAMEL CORN 340408 1717 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 720.00 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4124/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 382060 4/2412014 133662 ECCO MIDWEST INC. Continued... ' 500.61 ASBESTOS ABATEMENT 00001794 340205 14025 -001 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,041.89 ASTESTOS ABATEMENT 00001794 340206 14027 -001 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,542.50 382061 4/24/2014 132810 ECM PUBLISHERS INC. 49.00 HOCKEYARENAAD 340376 85563 5510.6575 PRINTING 65.44 ASSESSMENT NOTICE 340377 90846 1185.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL 114.44 382062 4/24/2014 124503 EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC CO. 27.96 WALLPLATES 00001859 340516 10807000 1551.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES 35.85 WIRE NUTS, SPLICING TAPE 00001873 340515 10811900 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.76 GROUND CLAMPS 00001893 340517 10818800 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 108.57 382063 4/2412014 106906 EGAN COMPANY 3,727.11 INSTALL DETECTION CAMERAS 00001471 340207 JC10097730 1330.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 3,727.11 `382064 4/24/2014 100049 EHLERS 250.00 SOUTHDALE TIF LEGISLATION 340544 347830 9238.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER 410.00 - CENT LAKES TIF CASHFLOW 340545 348075 9232.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER 3,382.50 SOUTHDALE TIF LEGISLATION 340546 348077 9238.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER 4,042.50 382065 4/24/2014 100549 ELECTRIC PUMP INC. 6,465.27 PUMP REPAIR PARTS 00001798 340340 0052451 -IN 5921.6530 REPAIR PARTS '- 6,465.27 382066 4/2412014 133906 ELMUFDI, FIRAS 127.42 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 340588 5103 LINCOLN DR 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND 127.42 362067 4/24/2014 104733 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC. 79.20 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003700 340208 1636845 1470.6510 FIRSTAID SUPPLIES 79.20 362068 4/24/2014 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 254.97 FOX WWSD55S 340520 1 -4423852 1553.6584 LUBRICANTS 68.51 BATTERY 340518 1- 200642 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 4/2212014 11:03:05 Page - 8 Business Unit DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION ARENA ADMINISTRATION LICENSING, PERMITS & RECORDS CITY HALL GENERAL STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE TRAFFIC SIGNALS SOUTHDALE 2 TIF DISTRICT CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT SOUTHDALE 2 TIF DISTRICT SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT UTILITY BALANCE SHEET FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT C- - 7ATION GEN R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page- 9 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382068 4/2412014 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY Continued... 120.32 ARM PIT, OIL SEAL 340519 69- 134107 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 443.80 382069 4/24/2014 106035 FASTENAL COMPANY 64.08 RAMSET PARTS 00001827 340341 MNTC2123317 1646.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 64.08 382070 4/24/2014 126004 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 750.00 METAL LOCATOR 00001793 340521 0069151 5913.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 4,825.49 COMMERCIAL METER INSTALLS 00001797 340241. 0073776 5917.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS METER REPAIR 5,575.49 382071 4/24/2014 100768 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG INC - 1,702.00 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 340378 14646 5510.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARENA ADMINISTRATION 1,702.00 382072 4/24/2014 106221 GILBERTSON, SARA 200.00 CANCELLATION REFUND 340547 GOLF SESSIONS 5401.4602 LESSONS GOLF REVENUES 200.00 382073 4124/2014 101103 GRAINGER 115.72 SHOVELS 00001858 340342 9408452184 1646.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 47.08 V -BELTS 00001857 340344 9408616937 5420.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES CLUB HOUSE 12.11 REPLACEMENT TIRE 00001862 340343 9408616945 5840.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 88.96 START CAPACITORS, RELAYS 00001872 340345 9409962892 5915.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 451.96 CABLE TIES; TAPE MEASURERS 00001879 340346 9410246624 1642.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE 25.00 GLOVES 00005097 340242 9411390827 1301.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 25.00 GLOVES 00005097 340242 9411390827 1553.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 396.55 PAPER PLATES, UTENSILS 00005097 340242 9411390827 1552.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 16.00 SAFETY GLASSES 00005097 340242 9411390827 5913.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION 1,178.38 382074 4/2412014 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 753.00 340431 165582 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,215.75 340309 '.165656 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 224.50 340432 165657 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 2,193.25 382075 4124/2014 102125 GREG LESSMAN SALES 214.10 GOLF TEES 340.589 51439 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page- 10 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 — 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier /Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382076 4/24/2014 102126 GREG, LESSMANSALES Continued... 214.10 382076 4/24/2014 100787 .GRUBER'S. POWER EQUIPMENT - 364.29 MOWER, PARTS 00001903 340243 18198 1642.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE 364.29 382077 4/24/2014 100788 HBL MESABI 1,223.07 POLY BLADES ' 00001807 340347 90720 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,223.07 382078 4/24/2014 102060 HALLOCK COMPANY INC 13.70 FUSES 00001882 340348 124357 -1 1330.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES TRAFFIC SIGNALS 13.70 382079 4124/2014 101209 HEIMARK FOODS 177.12 BEEF PATTIES 340209 BRAEMAR 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL GOLF -4/14 177.12 382080 4/2412014 106436 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER - 1,272.00 RADIO ADMIN FEES 340548 1000043710 147D.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,796.70 RADIO FEES 340244 •1000043711 1400.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 3;068.70 382081 4124/2014 103838 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE 140.00 DATA PRACTICES CLASS 340549 00311919 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 140.00 382082 4124/2014 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 1,283.50 340433 697415 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,170.75 340434 697416 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING - 1,889.00 340310 697761 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 4,343.25 c 382083 4/24/2014 126176 HORIZON AGENCY INC. 22,641.00 BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE 340379 174135 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 144,923.00 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 340380 174136 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 4,011.00 INLAND MARINE 340381 174137 -- 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL - 53,637.00, GENERAL LIABILITY 340382 174138 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 225,212.00 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 382083 4/2412014 126176 HORIZON AGENCY INC. 382084 4/24/2014 131644, " INDEED BREWING COMPANY 316.00 340435 18710 5822.551.4 316.00 382085 4/24/2014 132105 JAY JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION 12,750.00 ASPHALT /CONCRETE CRUSHING 340349 032614 1647.6103 16,000.00 ASPHALT /CONCRETE CRUSHING 340349 032614 1301.6151 20,000.00 ASPHALT /CONCRETE CRUSHING 340349 032614 5913.6103 48,750.00 382086 4/24/2014 129635 JESSE JAMES CREATIVE INC. 900.00 WEBSITE MANAGEMENT 340590 JJ5450 1130.6124 900.00 '382087 4/24/2014 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 2,010.60 340439 2196555 5822.5514 5,641.52 340440 2196558 5862.5514 7,733.46 340436 2196572 5842.5514 39.05 340437 2196573 5842.5515 82.95 340438 2196576 5842.5514 158.00 340550 2212800 5421.5514 15,665.58 382089 4/24/2014 100836 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 49.50 340460 1618178 5842.5513 73.50 340286 1819162 5842.5512 771.19 340450 1828834 5822.5512 7,192.03 340449 1828835 5862.5513 7,155.28 340454 1828836 5842.5513 547.57 340451 1828838 5822.5512 2,344.54 340446 1828839 5862.5513 834.80 340448 1826842 5862.5513 1.12 340443 1828843 5862.5512 2.05 340452 1828844 5842.5512 83.87 340455 1828845 5842.5513 1,682.991 340459 1628846 5842.5512 2,360.24 340457 1828847 5842.5513 3,822.50 340456 1828846 5842.5513 8,343.26 340453 1828849 5842.5512 Subledger Account Description Continued... 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Page - 11 Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PATHS & HARD SURFACE EQUIPMENT RENTAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF. GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING GRILL YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 382089 4/24/2014 100835 JOHNSON' BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 401.67 340458 1828850 5842.5512 164.85 340444 1828851 5862.5515 675.65 340441 1828852 5862.5512 1,717.11 340447 1828853 5862.5513 27706 340445 1828854 5862.5512 2,135.46 340442 1828855 5862:5512 1.12- 340461 610337 5842.5513 9.33- 340462 611957 5842.5513 6.54- 340466 615198 5842.5512 9.00- 340465 615199 5842.5513 .19.67- 340467 615202 5842.5513 55.12- 340464 615203 5862.5513 54:42- 340463 615204 5862.5513 382090 4/24/2014 113212 KENDELL DOORS & HARDWARE INC. 130.20 KEYS BACK STAMPED 00001887 340350 S1008966 130.20 382,091 412412014 124002 KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC. 8,841.71 50TH FRANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY 340551 5630609 45,790.58 PARKING RAMP DESIGN 340210 5637761 1,147.49 PARKING RAMP FEASIBILITY STUDY 340552 5698704 55,779.78 382092 4/24/2014 21.00 21.00 382093 4/2412014 32.48 439.21 40.45 51214 100285 KLAPPERICK, TERRY PARKING EXPENSE 340591 042114 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. LED LAMP 00005169 340245 9302359528 HANDLES, NUTS, RIVETS 00005183 340247 9302366509 ADAPTERS 00005183 340246 9302366510 382094 4/24/2014 130014 LIGHTING HOUSE USA INC. 46,656.00 FINAL PAYMENT 00001342 340271 20171 8,147.50 RETROFIT ADDITIONAL WORK 00001342 340272 20172 54,803.50 1646.6103 44012.6710 44012.6710 44012.6710 1240.6107 1553.6530 1553.6530 1553.6530 5700.1720 5700.1720 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Page - 12 Subledger Account Description Business Unit Continued... COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING' . COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING- COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT P23 50TH &FR PARKING &WAYFINDING EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT P23 50TH &FR PARKING &WAYFINDING EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT P23 50TH &FR PARKING &WAYFINDING MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN BUILDINGS EDINBOROUGH BALANCE, SHEET. BUILDINGS EDINBOROUGH BALANCE'SHEET R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page- 13 Council Check Register by Invoice 8 Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382095 4/24/2014 100857 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC. Continued... 241.68 FROG 00005178 340248 00053898 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION-GEN 241.68 382096 4/24/2014 100858 LOGIS 50.00 ADMIN FEE 340409 38225 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 1,526.05 SERVER HDS 340409 38225 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 2,390.42 ENTRUST SUPPORT 340409 38225 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 5,562.21 UCB SERVER 340409 38225 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 6,800.00 VALUE NOTICE 340409 38225 1190.6160 DATA PROCESSING ASSESSING 505.00 340410 38269. 1554.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 1,342.00 340410 38269 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 2,500.00 340410 38269 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 2,829.00 340410 38269 1120.6160 DATA PROCESSING ADMINISTRATION 3,492.00 340410 38269 1495.6160 DATA PROCESSING INSPECTIONS 5,829.00 340410 38269 1190.6160 DATA PROCESSING ASSESSING 6,689.00 340410 38269 1160.6160 DATA PROCESSING FINANCE 5,707.00 340410 38269 5902.6160 DATA PROCESSING UTILITY BILLING = FINANCE 379.15 COME HOME 2 EDINA DOMAIN 340553 38329 1554.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENT SERV GEN - MIS 379.15 GOLF / GOLF DOME DOMAIN 340553 38329 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION 189.57 ADVENTURE PEAK DOMAIN 340553 38329 5710.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 99.00 FAT POT NETWORK 340412 38348 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 2,202.75 IT SUPPORT 340412 38348 1554.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENT SERV GEN - MIS 222.75 WIFI - ROSLAND 340412 38348 4413.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY WIFI PROJECT 1,068.75 INSIGHT LICENSE 340411 38372 1160:6160 DATA PROCESSING FINANCE 49,762.80 382097 4/24/2014 122188 MACMAGIC 220.00 WEB HOSTING 340555 5245 .7410._6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF ADMINISTRATION 220.00 382098 4/24/2014 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. 96.99 LUG NUTS, STUDS 00005206 340249 2142944 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 96.99 382099 4/2412014 100669 MARTIN - MCALLISTER 1,800.00 PERSONNEL EVALUATIONS 340383 9030 1556.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE SHARED SERVICES 1,800.00 382100 4/24/2014 122554 MATHESON TRI -GAS INC. 75.34 VALVE 00003778 340556 08997692 1470.6510 FIRSTAID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKR2 LOGIS101 11,546.64 CITY OF EDINA 382106 4124/2014 4/22/2014 11:03:05 102174 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Council Check Register by GL 35.78 Page- 14 171095426 7413.6545 CHEMICALS Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary ' 382106 4124/2014 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account•No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382100 4/24/2014 122654 MATHESON TRI -GAS INC 382107 4/24/2014 Continued... 101638 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 75.34 - 150.00 WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT ENG14 -10 340523 041714 05502.1705.20 382101 4/24/2014 133904 MEDIAWORKS 382108 4/2412014 255.00 COUPON CUB RECEIPT 340557 76991 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 150349 255.00 COUPON CUB RECEIPT 340557 76991 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER 510.00 COUPON CUB RECEIPT 340557 76991 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 90.00 1,020.00 382102 4/24/2014 113023 MEGGITT TRAINING SYSTEMS INC. 65.62 TROLLEY WIRE 340558 INV- 0062249 7412.6530 REPAIR PARTS PSTF RANGE 65.62 382103 4/2412014 101483 .MENARDS 119.23 SHOVELS, VISEGRIP, TOOL SET 00008065 340384 49931 5511.6406 GENERAL'SUPPLIES' ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 399.80 LIGHT FIXTURES 00001854 340522 53134 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 17.04 CABLE TV SPUTTER OOOD1865 340351 53494 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 536.07 382104 4124/2014 100886 METRO SALES INC 133.50 ART CENTER USAGE 340414 596470 1554.6230 _ SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT. CENT SERV GEN - MIS 11,413.14 RICOH QUARTERLY MAINT 340413 ACCT 015007 1554.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS PSTF FIRE TOWER 50TH ST OCCUPANCY WM -502 RAW WATER WELL1570 WTP 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 11,546.64 382106 4124/2014 102174 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 35.78 METHAIR / CO2 340559 171095426 7413.6545 CHEMICALS 35.78 382106 4124/2014 127062 MINNEHAHA BLDG. MAINT. INC. 5.34 WINDOW WASHING 340250 928022550 5821.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 5.34 382107 4/24/2014 101638 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH - 150.00 WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT ENG14 -10 340523 041714 05502.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 150.00 382108 4/2412014 118144 MINNESOTA PREMIER PUBLICATIONS 30.00 COUPON INSERT 340251 150349 5822.6122 - - ADVERTISING OTHER 30.00 COUPON INSERT 340251 150349 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 30.00 COUPON INSERT 340251 150349 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 90.00 PSTF FIRE TOWER 50TH ST OCCUPANCY WM -502 RAW WATER WELL1570 WTP 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING R55CKR2 L06IS101 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - - 4/24/2014 " Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 382108 4/2412014 118144 MINNESOTA PREMIER PUBLICATIONS Continued... 382109 4/24/2014 128914 MINUTEMAN PRESS 83.00 50TH /FRANCE TRAFFIC FLYERS 340560 15204 44012.6710. EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 49.00 NEIGHBORHOOD POSTERS 340562 15214 1120.6575 PRINTING 117.00 IQS CARDS 340561 15222 1550.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 249.00 382110 4/24/2014 122036 M -K GRAPHICS 1,309.14 ACCTS PAYABLE / PAYROLL CHECKS 340554 6091 1160.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,309.14 382111 4/24/2014 130960 MNCAR EXCHANGE, THE 225.00 MEMBERSHIP FEE 340563 523224 9232.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 225.00 382112 4/24/2014 131886 MORRIS LEATHERMAN COMPANY, THE 6,500.00 GRANDVIEW RESIDENT SURVEY 340564 041014.1 9234.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,500.00 382113 4/2412014 102308 MSANI 150.00 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 340565 ADAM L'HEUREUX 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 150.00 382114 4124/2014 101675 MUNICIPALS 65.00 SPRING WORKSHOP (1) 340385 041714 1550.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 65.00 382115 4/24/2014 122449 NEW LIFE ENTERPRISES INC. 10.80 FIREARMS TRAINING BOOKS 340567 6143 7414.6218 EDUCATION PROGRAMS 10.80 382116 4/24/2014 104232 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC 150.97 LENS KITS 00005070 340253 35747 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 150.97 382117 4/24/2014 102712 OFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY 24.69 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 1646.6188 TELEPHONE 24.69 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 1554.6188 TELEPHONE 49.38 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14036650 1646.6188 TELEPHONE 74.07 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 1554.6188 TELEPHONE 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Page - 15 Business Unit P23 50TH &FR PARKING &WAYFINDING ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL FINANCE, CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT GRANDVIEW TIF DISTRICT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL PUBLIC PROGRAMS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CENT SERV GEN - MIS BUILDING MAINTENANCE CENT SERV GEN - MIS R55CKR2 LOGIS101 129486 PAPCO INC. 85.50 TOWELS 80.70 CITY OF EDINA 382122 4/2412014 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 1,171.92 Council Check Register by GL 8444797 -IN 1.414.93 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 382117 412412014 102712. OFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY 74.07. MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 1481.6188 172.83 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 1646.6188 222.21 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 1622.6188 49.38 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 5111.6188 24.69 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 5311.6188 98.76 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 5410.6188 119.76 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 5710.6188 119.76 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 5760.6188 49.38 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 5821.6188 74.07 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 5841.6188 74.07 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 5861.6188 49.38 MAR 2014 SERVICES 340386 W14030650 5913.6186 266.47 MAR -2014 SERVICES 340387 W14030655 5420.6188 1,567.66 382118 4/24/2014 133280 O'GARA, LAURIE 378.00 AD SALES COMMISSION 340353 0005 1628.6103 378.00 382119 4124/2014 100936 OLSEN COMPANIES 51.74' RATCHET BINDER 00001880 340354 535783 1646.6556 51.74 382120 4/24/2014 101659 ORKIN COMMERCIAL SERVICES 138.08 PEST CONTROL 340211 92174047 138.08 382121 4/24/2014 1 129486 PAPCO INC. 85.50 TOWELS 80.70 CLEANING SUPPLIES 166.20 382122 4/2412014 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 1,171.92 515.28 8444797 -IN 1.414.93 3,138.38 382123 4/241., 100945 'PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 340569 84841 340568 84934 1551.6103 7411.6511 7411.6511 340311 8444767 -IN 5842.5513 340468 8444776 -IN 5822.5513 340287 8444778 -IN 5862.5513 340288 8444797 -IN 5862.5515 Subledger Account Description Continued... TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Page - 16 Business Unit YORK FIRE STATION BUILDING MAINTENANCE SKATING & HOCKEY ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT POOL OPERATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY YORK OCCUPANCY VERNON OCCUPANCY DISTRIBUTION CLUB HOUSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SENIOR CITIZENS i TOOLS BUILDING MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL CLEANING SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX PSTF OCCUPANCY PSTF OCCUPANCY YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page- 17 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4124/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382123 4/2412014 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY Continued... 423.07 340570 19321411 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 423.07 382124 4/24/2014 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 41.12 340469 2583231 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 82.62 340289 2587306 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 931.05 340473 2589448 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 852.30 340472 2589449 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 331.66 340474 2590091 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING. 526.72 340470 2590093 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2.478.07 340471 2590094 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 890.23 340475 2590095 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 474.12 340477 2590096 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,335.18 340476 2590097 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 7,943.07 382125 4/24/2014 100119 PING 69.37 PUTTER 340593 12170995 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 79.49 PUTTER 340594 12173488 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 129.41 PUTTERS 340595 12176263 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 278.27 382126 4/24/2014 116619 PIPELINE SUPPLY INC. 25.23 MAP GAS, PLUG 00001787 340524 S3194067.001 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 25.23 382127 4/24/2014 120988 PLYMOUTH FRAMERY 200.00 CERTIFICATE FRAMING 340254 107095 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 200.00 382126 4/2412014 101110 POLLY NORMAN PHOTOGRAPHY 190.00 BRAEMAR STAFF PHOTOS 340355 041414 1130.6408 PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 190.00 382129 4/24/2014 100966 PRINTERS SERVICE INC 252.00 BLADE SHARPENING 340388 269387 5521.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ARENA ICE MAINT 252.00 382130 4/2412014 100974 RAYMOND E. HAEG PLUMBING 2,582.05 PLUMBING REPAIRS @ COURTNEY 340356 16515 ``` 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page- 18 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382130,. 4124/2014 100974 RAYMOND E. HAEG PLUMBING Continued... 2,582.05 382131 4/24/2014 100976 RED WING SHOE STORE 123.24 SAFETY BOOTS 340255 2680000000871 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE 150.00 SAFETY BOOTS 340255 2680000000871 5730.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 273.24 382132 4/24/2014 102408 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED 61.97 BRAKE CONTROL 00005212 340525 1927517456 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 61.97 382133 4/24/2014 129662 RISCHMILLER, KEITH 9.00 PARKING RAMP FEE 340596 041814 1240.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL 9.00 382134 4/2412014 101000 RJM PRINTING INC. 182.92 ENVELOPES 340212 80729 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 734.34 SPECIAL EVENT ENVELOPES 340571 80911 1400.6575 PRINTING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 917.26 382136 4/2412014 100980 ROBERT B. HILL CO. 221.80 SOFTENER SALT 340213 00297195 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 200.82 SOFTENER SALT 340214 00297595 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 422.62 382136 4/24/2014 133766 RONNING, ERIK 322.00 INSTRUCTION 340572 041814 5110.6103 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 322.00 382137 4/24/2014 100988 SAFETY KLEEN 439.59 PARTS WASHER SERVICE 340573 63294025 5422.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 439.59 382138 4/24/2014 131676 SAINTS COMMERCIAL FOOD SERVICE 234.24 COOKIES 340215 0081319 -IN 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 234.24 382139 4/24/2014 117807 SAM'S CLUB 36.04 CANDY 340574 040114 7411.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 40.00 CANDY 340574 040114 7410.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD PSTF ADMINISTRATION R55CKR2 LOGIS101 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation 382139 4/24/2014 117807 SAM'S CLUB 76.04 382140 4/24/2014 118168 SANSIO 50.00 EMS FAXING 753.00 EMS SUBSCRIPTION 803.00 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/2412014 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 340575 INV- 15816 -2014 1470.6160 340576 INV -15987 -2014 1470.6160 382141 4/24/2014 133883 SERVPRO OF EAGA_N /APPLE VALLEY 1,853.82 WATER DAMAGE REPAIR 00001795 340257 3498216 4,859.03 WATER DAMAGE REPAIR 00001795 340256 3498234 6,712:85 382143 4/2412014 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 225.82 340.50 .50 1,560.50 1,004.75 1,838.16 3,629.82 3,619.70 225.50 1,779.00 2,653.20 1,223.44 464.58 241.50 452.50 44.00- 840.00- 108.00- 688.00- 524.00- 475.00- 635.00- 1,155.00- 14,790.47 382144 4124/2014 106193 SPAIN, MARK 4,800.00 REMOVE LARGE ELM TREE 5916.6180 5916.6180 340317 1150273 5842.5512 VERNON SELLING 340318 1150276 5862.5513 50TH ST SELLING 340316 1150768 5842.5512 YORK SELLING 340479 1151315 5822.5513 YORK SELLING 340480 1151316 5822.5512 VERNON SELLING 340315 1151317 5842.5513 VERNON SELLING 340314 1151318 5842.5512 VERNON SELLING 340312 1151319 5842.5513 50TH ST SELLING - 340481 1151320 5862.5512 50TH ST SELLING 340291 1151321 5862.5513 VERNON SELLING 340290 1151322 5862.5513 YORK SELLING 340313 1151323 5862.5512 340482 1151324 5862.5512 340292 1151325 5862.5513 340478 1152591 5842.5513 340483 8937 5822.5513 340293 9031464 5842.5513 340485 9032089 5822.5513 340294 9032090 5842.5513 340320 9032091 5862.5513 340484 9032092 5822.5513 340295 9032093 5842.5513 340319 9032094 5862.5513 340597 040914 1644.6180 Subledger Account Description Continued... DATA PROCESSING DATA PROCESSING 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Page 19 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS METER READING CONTRACTED REPAIRS METER READING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON.SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING CONTRACTED REPAIRS TREES 8 MAINTENANCE R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 382161 4/24/2014 104932 TAYLOR MADE Council Check Register by GL CREDIT 340606 21733899 4,106.00 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 340599 22029578 472.02 MERCHANDISE 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 22041808 425.57 MERCHANDISE 340600 l 546.50 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 382144 4/2412014 22041812 106193 SPAIN, MARK MERCHANDISE Continued... 22048570 4,800.00 GOLF CLUBS 340603 22048571 382146 4124/2014 GOLF BALLS 132077 SPECKTACULAR COMPAINES 22048572 136.86 MERCHANDISE 1,095.62 HYDRANT USAGE RENTAL REFUND 340357 041514 5901.4626 SALE OF WATER 1,095.62 382146 412412014 101004 SPS COMPANIES 223.40 PLUMBING REPAIR 00001861 % 340356 82887656.001 1646.6530 REPAIR,PARTS 223.40 382147" 4/24/2014 129360 STANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY SOLUTIONS 647.81 ALARM SERVICE 340526 11226206 5761.6250 ALARM SERVICE 647.81 382148 4/24/2014 133893- STEWARD, NEAL 7.50 FIREARM SAFETY TRAINING REFUND 340359 DEREK STEWARD 1600.4390.21 7.50 382149 4/24/2014 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 7.90 RINGS 00005143 340527 1547080 521.70 VEHICLE REPAIR 340258 647677 529.60 382160 4124/2014 130867 SUSSMAN, PETER 1553.6530 1553.6180 35.00 HISTORY MUSEUM 340415 MEMBERSHIP 1140.6105 35.00 382161 4/24/2014 104932 TAYLOR MADE 1,752.95- CREDIT 340606 21733899 4,106.00 GOLF CLUBS 340599 22029578 472.02 MERCHANDISE 340598 22041808 425.57 MERCHANDISE 340600 22041809 546.50 GOLF CLUBS 340601 22041811 711.28 GOLF CLUBS 340602 22041812 121.03 MERCHANDISE 340604 22048570 513.91 GOLF CLUBS 340603 22048571 382.67 GOLF BALLS 340610 22048572 136.86 MERCHANDISE 340605 22053735 5,662.89 5440.5511 5440.5511 5440.5511 5440.5511 5440.5511 . 5440.5511 5440.5511 5440.5511 5440.5511 5440.5511 FIREARM SAFETY TRAINING REPAIR PARTS CONTRACTED REPAIRS 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Page - 20 Business Unit / UTILITY REVENUES BUILDING MAINTENANCE CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING PARK ADMIN. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS PLANNING COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES R55CKR2 LOGIS101 ' CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page- 21 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382152 4/24/2014 120602 TEAGUE, CARY Continued... 93.52 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 340360 041614 1140.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PLANNING 93.52 382153 4/24/2014 104069 THELEN, JOHN 79.95 BUSINESS CARDS 340577 501 1400.6575 PRINTING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 79.95 382154 4/24/2014 119085 THOMAS, JAMES 672.17 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 340361 5200 SCHAEFER , 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RD 672.17 382155 4/24/2014 102798 THOMSON REUTERS -WEST 803.95 MAR 2014 SERVICE 340578 829328034 1400.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 803.95 382156 4/24/2014 101036 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 50.20 340297 816382 5421.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE GRILL 266.45 340296 816383 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 1,952.85 340486 817045 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,269.50 382157 4/24/2014 101826 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP. 482.78 ELEVATOR MAINT 340389 3000979881 5510.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARENA ADMINISTRATION 482.78 382158 4124/2014 123129 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL INC. 241.00 411/14 COUNCIL MEETING 340390 M20454 1185.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LICENSING, PERMITS & RECORDS 241.00 382159 4/2412014. 101474 TITLEIST 112.78 GOLF BALLS 340608 2567344 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 234.62 GOLF BAGS 340607 2580549 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 347.40 382160 4/2412014 128347 TKO WINES INC. 340321 406854 5862.5513 340322 908733 5862.5513 1,191.60 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page - 22 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 — 4/24/2014 - 'Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger � . Account Description Business Unit 182161 4/2412014 101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY Continued... 366.60 TORCH TIPS 00005997 340259 10018321 1553.6580 WELDING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN " 366.60 382162 4124/2014 124763 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES ' 287.94 COPIER USAGE 340579 250964657 7410.6575 PRINTING PSTF ADMINISTRATION " 287.94 382,163 4/24/2014 101374 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE 1,775.00 FENCE REPAIRS 340362 3041032 1647.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PATHS & HARD SURFACE - 1,775.00 382164 4/24/2014 116636 TRAVELERS 3,990.00 340393 000458905 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 4,235.00 DEDUCTIBLE 340391 000458906 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 606.00 340394 000459292 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 1,557.50 340392 000459293 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 10,388.50 382166 4/24/2014 103048 U.S. BANK 975.00 ADMINISTRATION FEES 340395 3640212 3201.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL DS REVENUES 975.00 382166 4/24/2014 101063 UNITED ELECTRIC COMPANY 99.63 FUSES FOR HOIST 00001843 340528 858595 1646.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE -- 99.63 382167 4/24/2014 131957 UNIVERSAL ATHLETIC SERVICE INC. 2,583.32 SOFTBALLS 340260 150- 0007090 -01 1621.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES 25.96 NETS. 00001894 340261 1501 -001776 1642.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE 419.98 BASES 00001901: 340262 1501 - 001804 1642.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE 3,029.26 382168 4/24/2014 100668 URS CORPORATION 15,834.69 PROMENADE PHASE 4 340264 5840614 01251.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN A -251 PROMENADE IV H2O FEATURE 15,834.69 382169 4/24/2014 101908 US FOODS 64.39 340216 43805514 -3/14 5421.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES GRILL " 102.02 340216 43805514 -3/14 5421.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL 770.90 340216 43805514 -3/14 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL R55CKR2 LOGIS101 340492 0096825 -IN 5842.5513 CITY OF EDINA YORK SELLING 86.58 340491 0096826 -IN 5842.5512 Council Check Register by GL YORK SELLING 175.96 340490 0096827 -IN Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 50TH ST SELLING 23.45 340489 0096828 -IN 5822.5515 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 382169 4/24/2014 101908 US FOODS Continued... 937.31 382170 4/24/2014 100410 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC. 117.72 PAGERS 340263 X0319246D 1400.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 117.72 382171 4124/2014 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 395.89 LIQUOR BAGS 00007512 340363 307486 -00 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 58.94 LIQUOR BAGS 340273 307487 -00 5822.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 143.20 LINERS, SOAP, PLATES, UTENSILS 340364 307488 -00 5862.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 515.68 LIQUOR BAGS 340364 307488 -00 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 46.47 LIQUOR BAGS 00007513 340365 307488 -01 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 346.32 CAN LINERS 00001886 340366 307588 -00 1645.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,506.50 382172 4/24/2014 133470 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA 1,980.00 APR 2014 SERVICES 340396 29172 5510.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,980.00 382173 4/2412014 102734 VEIT COMPANIES 12,458.02 FINAL PAYMENT 340529 042514, 01252.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 12,458.b2 382174 4/24/2014 102970 VERIZON WIRELESS 184.87 340580 9723226753 2310.6188 TELEPHONE 184.87 382176 4/24/2014 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 289.42 WASHERS, BATTERIES, CONNECTCROD1876 340367 8184696 1330.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 289.42 382176 4/2412014 101067 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 54.38 SAFETY GLASSES 00005095 340265 3013280 5913.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 54.38 382177 4/24/2014 119454 VINOCOPIA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Page - 23 Business Unit POLICE DEPT. GENERAL YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING LITTER REMOVAL ARENA ADMINISTRATION A -252 EDINA REALTY BLDG DEMO E911 TRAFFIC SIGNALS DISTRIBUTION 700.00 340492 0096825 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 86.58 340491 0096826 -IN 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 175.96 340490 0096827 -IN 5622.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 23.45 340489 0096828 -IN 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page- 24 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4/24/2014 - 4124/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382177 4/24/2014 119464 VINOCOPIA Continued... 609.00 340488 009683D -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 215.21 340487 .0096832 -IN 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,810.20 382178 4/24/2014 102218 VINTAGE ONE WINES INC. 564.25 340323 16450 269.25 340493 16453 382179 4/24/2014 106699 WALSER CHRYSLER JEEP 143.20 PANEL 00005234 340531 624043 132.80 MAT KIT 00005234 340530 624063 276.00 382180 4124/2014 103088 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 36.30 340217 4912 52.60 340217 4912 67.34 340217 4912 - 199.96 340217 4912 245.14 340217 4912 294.32 340217 4912 406.70 340217 4912 406.70 340217 4912 • 47.34 340217 4912 55.34 340217 4912 128.21 340217 4912 127.31 340217 4912 161.50 340217 4912 335.01 340217 4912 945.81 340217 4912 55.34 340217 4912 217.42 340217 4912 3,782.34 382181 4/24/2014 103219 WENDEL SGN ARCHITECTURE INC. 18,700.00 PAMELA PK CONSTRUCTION DOCS 340274 339352 18,700.00 382182 4/24/2014 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 5842.5513 5822.5513 1553.6530 1553.6530 1481.6182 1645.6182 1470.6182 1551.6182 1628.6182 1646.6182 1301.6182 1552.6182 5111.6182 5210.6182 5311.6182 5422.6182 5420.6182 5511.6182 5720.6182 5861.6182 5841.6182 IM11- 1Irx.-YAlf, COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN YORK FIRE STATION LITTER REMOVAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CITY HALL GENERAL SENIOR CITIZENS BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT GOLF DOME PROGRAM POOL OPERATION MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS CLUB HOUSE ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS VERNON OCCUPANCY YORK OCCUPANCY PAMELA PK SHELTER & TURF 853.20 340494 358720 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLI" R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/22/2014 11:03:05 Council Check Register by GL Page- 25 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 4124/2014 - 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation Po ft Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382182 4/24/2014 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE, Continued... 508.25 340324 358722 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,221.45 340325 358726 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,582.90 382183 4/2412014 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 109.75 340326 498529 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 144.00 340497 498786 5842.5513 `COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 218.24 340496 499045 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 242.24 340498 499438 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,708.76 340499 499439-' 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 3,446.52 340495 499440 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 6,869.51 382184 4/24/2014 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 49.15 340298' 1080166137 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,353.83 340332 1080166865 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,216.29 340301 1080166666 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 818.56 340327 1080166867 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 3,710.47 340331 1080167604 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,138.65 340299 1080167605 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 220.76 340300 1080167606 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 586.08 340502 1080167607. 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 1,168.65 340501 1080167608 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 133.35 340500 1080167609 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 4,142.84 340329 1080167610 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 3,479.84 340328 1080167611 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 129.64 340330 1080167612 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 35.66- 340503 2080035572 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 18.75- 340333 2080035573 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 19,093.70 382185 4/24/2014 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER INC 242.00 340303 1090208391 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 390.00 340302 1090208392 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 2,037.60 340505 1090209249 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 174.60 340504 1090209250 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 7,893.30 340306 1090210101 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 558.30 340305 1090210102 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 43.00 340304 1090210103 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 11,338.80 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice &Summary 4/24/2014 — 4/24/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 382185 4/2412014 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER INC Continued... 382186 4/24/2014 101082 WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY 613.44 RANGE BALL TRAYS 340609 310815 5210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 813.44 382187 4/24/2014 118340 WPS / TRICARE 93.03 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT REFUND 340581 MARILYN 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES SKAROLID 93.03 382188 4/24/2014 101726 XCEL ENERGY 634.87 51- 5619094 -8 340221 407742547 1552.6185 LIGHT & POWER - 6,053.37 51- 5868961 -7 340222 407747928 1375.6185 LIGHT & POWER 4,103.43 51- 6121102 -5 340224 407754892 1646.6185 LIGHT &POWER 1,516.96 51- 6840050 -6 340223 407766399 5921.6185 -LIGHT &POWER 634.79 51- 4197645 -8 340219 407911519 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER 1,719.81 51- 6229265 -9 340218 407942257 1470.6185 LIGHT &POWER 2,489.33 51- 6227619 -3 340220 408308249. 5761.6185 _ LIGHT & POWER 13,763.81 51- 5605640 -1 340275 408477005 5911.6185 LIGHT & POWER 30, 916.37 382189 4/24/2014 101091 ZIEGLER INC - 2,074.78 TURBO GP, GASKETS, O -RINGS 00005189 340266 PC001554012 15516530 REPAIR PARTS 7.66 CONNECTOR 340532 PCO01555545 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 291.51 HOSES, COUPLINGS 00005236 340533 PCO01555546 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1,715.12- CREDIT 340267 PR000135592 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS ' 656.83 1,092,573.79 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Checks 1,016,144.86 A/P ACH Payment 74,428.93 Total Payments 1,092,573.79 4/2212014 11:03:05 Page - 26 Business Unit GOLF DOME PROGRAM FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING PARKING RAMP BUILDING MAINTENANCE SANITARY LIFT, STATION MAINT STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING WELL PUMPS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN R55CKS2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Summary 4/24/2014 - 4/24/2014 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 390,607.97 02300 POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE 1,351.27 03200 CITY HALL DEBT SERVICE 975.00 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 170,885.28 05100 ART CENTER FUND 418.72 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 2,388.92 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 152.90 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 100,083.58 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 8,113.80 05550 SPORTS DOME FUND 125,873.06 05700 EDINBOROUGH PARK FUND 56,208.64 05750 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK FUND 3,756.70 05800 LIQUOR FUND 154,146.72 05900 UTILITY FUND 65,710.63 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 1,133.10 09232 CENTENNIAL TIF DISTRICT 635.00 09234 GRANDVIEWTIF DISTRICT 6,500.00 09238 SOUTHDALE 2 DISTRICT 3,632.50 Report Totals 1,092,573.79 We confirm to the best of our knowledge and belief, that these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of. the City of Edina purchasing poll ies nd procedure t C 4/22/2014 :11:0115 Page - 1 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page - 1 Council Check Register;by'lnvoice & Summary.. . 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No' Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 12 5/1/2014 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 2,244.95 340612" 426574DO 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 326.65 340964 42761100 - 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 233.55 340967 42761200 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 1.55 340965 42761300 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 143.50 340970 42761400 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 175.65 340969 42761500 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 126.73 340615 6418500 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 126.73 340966 6420400 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 107.58 340613 90048700 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 95.73 340614 90048900 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 88.78 340968 90083600 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 1 78.71 340971 90083700 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS-SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 3,753.11 13 5/1/2014 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS _ 67.18- CREDIT 00003046 340824 CP -WO- 928004 -1 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 220.61 PAPER, LABELS, NAME BADGES 340714 OE- 351597 -1 1628.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES SENIOR CITIZENS 18.35 WRITING PADS 340823 OE- 352320 -1 1140.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PLANNING 44.49 DVDS, SLEEVES 340651 OE- 353143 -1 1262.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ' TRANSPORTATION 83.23- PRICEADJUSTMENT 340715 PA -OE- 351597 -1 1628.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES SENIOR CITIZENS 149.98 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00003046 340652 WO- 928004 -1 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 12.50 LABELS 00003047 346653 WO- 928006 -1 1490.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC HEALTH 55.26 PENS, TAPE CARTRIDGES 00003048 340716 WO- 928147 -1 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 350.78 14 5/1/2014 104020 DALCO 625.75 TISSUE, TOWELS, FLOOR PADS 00001867 340656 2732497 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 44.00 GLASS CLEANER 00001454 340657 2733564 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 151.60 DISINFECTANT CLEANER 00001902 340658 2734745. 1646.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 821.35 15 5/1/2014 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 427.59 CUPS, LIDS 00002134 340941 6786 5730.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 753.68 WIPES, LINERS, BOWL CLEANER 00008070 340944 6900 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 409.11 TISSUE, TOWELS, CAN LINERS 00002133 340942 6908 5720.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 395.72 TISSUE, LINERS, TOWELS 00002136 340943 6912 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 1,986.10 382190 5/1/2014 100612 A.M. LEONARD 80.98 SAW BLADE 00002012 340887 C114035465 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 2 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 — 5/1/2014 Check # -. Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382190 6/112014 100612 A.M. LEONARD Continued... 80.98 382191 6/1/2014 100613 AAA - 22.00 VEHICLE TAB RENEWAL 340820 041514 1553.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 22.00 382192 5/1/2014 133522 AARP DRIVER SAFETY PROGRAM 255.00 DRIVING CLASSES. 340888 042414 1626.4392.09 SENIOR SPECIAL EVENTS SENIOR CITIZENS 255.00 382193 6/1/2014 112786 ABBOTT BROTHERS TREE CARE 1,700.00 TREE REMOVAL 340712 3909 W 58TH ST 1644.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREES & MAINTENANCE 1,700.00 382194 511/2014 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 58.80 340750 1779806 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 83.60 340611 1779807 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 142.40 382195 5/1/2014 100614 ACE SUPPLY CO. INC. 35.50 340960 1781414 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 46.80 340959 1781415 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 82.30 382196 611/2014 129468 ACME TOOLS 199.00 HAMMER DRILL 00005148 340648 2550284 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 199.00.. -_ 382197 6/112014 102109 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER 78.75 RADIO REPAIRS 340649 44625 2310.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT E911 78.75 - 382198 5/1/2014 100696 ANOKA COUNTY ..100.00 OUT'OF COUNTY WARRANT 340889 042514 1000.2055 DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET 100.00 - 382199 6/1/2014 132067 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION 3,600.00 SOFTWARE LICENSE RENEWAL 340821 EDINA -03 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 3,600.00 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 3 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 — 511/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382200 5/1/2014 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS Continued... 101.21 COFFEE 340822 429905 5430.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 101.21 382201 6/1/2014 132031 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 22.68- 340963 12001 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING_ 566.50 340751 48804 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 558.45 340961 48805 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 692.50 340962 48806 5662.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,794.77 382202 6/1/2014 133931 BALE, RICHARD 89.00 CANCELLATION REFUND 340890 JR LEAGUE 5401.4593 GREEN FEES EXEC COURSE GOLF REVENUES 89.00 362203 6/112014 102195 BATTERIES PLUS 28.71 BATTERIES 00003049 340650 018 - 335304 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 28.71 382204 5/1/2014 121602 BEAUPRE AERIAL EQUIPMENT 278.00 LIFT RENTAL 00008045 340894 147545 5500.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET 1,220.00 SCISSOR LIFTS 00008045 340891 150964 5500.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET 1,220.00 SCISSOR LIFTS 00008045 340892 152485 5500.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET 1,220.00 SCISSOR LIFTS 00008045 340893 154034 5500.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET 3,938.00 382205 5/1/2014 129208 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN PLUMBING 3,700.00 INSTALL SEWER LINER 00002588 340713 A122872 03480.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN HAWKES NHOOD RECON 3,700.00 382206 5/1/2014 101296 BERTRAND, MIKE 82.33 BINDERS, CALENDARS, TAPE 340825 042214 5430.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 82.33 382207 6/1/2014 133926 BIX PRODUCE CO. 269.82 FOOD 340827 02857297 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 78.51 FOOD 340826 02858256 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 348.33 382208 5/112014 102646 BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MN 22,163.50 MAY 2014 PREMIUM 340895 11006- MAY2014 1556.6043 COBRA INSURANCE EMPLOYEE SHARED SERVICES R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 382213 5/112014 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES Council Check Register by GL 5,764.35 340753 134020 5842.5514 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 340833 311432 5430.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 1,240.97 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 340972 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 382208 5/1/2014 34.30 102645 BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MN 340973 Continued... 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 188,412.50 MAY 2014 PREMIUM 340895 11006- MAY2014 1556.6040 HOSPITALIZATION 382214 5/1/2014 210,576.00 382209 51112014 340834 119351 BOURGET IMPORTS 1553.6238 CAR WASH 528.36 578.50 340752 118815 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 812.50 340616 119044 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1350513 47078.6710 1,391.00 382210 5/1/2014 104470 BRIDGESTONE GOLF INC. 336.67 GOLF BALLS 340829 1002223354 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 111.10 GOLF BALLS 340828 1002223355 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 289.80 GOLF BALLS 340830 1002223356 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 737.57 382211 5/1/2014 122074 BUIE, BARB 10.32 PETTY CASH 340896 042414 5761.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 25.66 PETTY CASH 340896 042414 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.96 PETTY CASH 340896 042414 5760.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 138.77 PETTY CASH 340896 042414 5761.6530 REPAIR PARTS 203.71 382212 5/1/2014 102149 CALLAWAY GOLF 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Page- 4 Business Unit EMPLOYEE SHARED SERVICES YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 666.40 GOLF CLUB 340831 925158837 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 141.61 GOLF CLUB 340832 925161672 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 808.01 382213 5/112014 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 5,764.35 340753 134020 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 166.60 340833 311432 5430.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 1,240.97 340972 314269 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 477.40 340617 315189 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 34.30 340973 318581 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 7,683.62 382214 5/1/2014 133924 CAR WASH PARTNERS 528.36 CAR WASHES 00003045 340834 4487 1553.6238 CAR WASH 528.36 382216 6/1/2014 101516 GEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO. 188.93 TROWEL, GLOVES, LINE HOLDER 00001895 340654 1350513 47078.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT YORK SELLING RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN COUNTRYSIDE PK PLAYGROUNDBPATF R55CKR2 LOGIS101 10089900 -3/14 1646.6186 338681 CITY OF EDINA 1470.6186 338561 5563827 -3/14 5210.6186 Council Check Register by GL 5584304 -3/14 7411.6186 338903 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 7413.6186 338902 5590919 -3/14 .7413.6582 5/1/2014 - 511/2014 Check # 'Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 382216 5/1/2014 8034001 -3/14 101616 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO. 338750 9546705 -3/14 5911.6186 188.93 9724639 -3/14 5511.6186 382216 5/112014 100897 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 792.18 340717 8060014561 -4/14 1481.6186 1,364.03 340717 8000014561 -4/14 1552.6186 2,363.99 340717. 8000014561 -4/14 1628.6186 4,459.81 340717 8000014561 -4/14 1646.6186 1,590.22 340717 80000145614/14 5111.6186 182.09 340717 8000014561 -4/14 5430,6186 663.72 340717 B000014561 -4/14 5422.6186 2,381.62 340717 6000014561-1/14 5420.6186 14,701.05 340717 8000014561 -4/14 5511.6186 2,262.75 340717 8000014561 -4/14 5761.6186 376.53 340717 8000014561 -4/14 5821.6186 539.95 340717 800001456b4/14 5861.6186 - 649.05 340717 8000014561 -4/14 5841.6186 1,296.25 340717 8000014561 -4/14 5921.6186 1,346.78 340717 8000014561 -4/14 5913.6186 3,889.19 340717 8000014561 -4/14 5911.6186 38,859.22 382217 5/1/2014 251.29 - 4,036.57 10,589.14 2,619.39 64.67 15.49 8,510.27 263.03 4,466.62 117.80 2,941.82 33,876.09 382218 6/1/2014 112661 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 10089900-4 5546504 -1 5563827 -4 5584304 -9 5584310 -6 5590919 -6 5591458 -4 5596524 -8 8D34001 -1 9546705 -6 9724639 -1 132406 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 156.12 PERMIT REFUND 156.12 338682 10089900 -3/14 1646.6186 338681 5546504 -3/14 1470.6186 338561 5563827 -3/14 5210.6186 338901 5584304 -3/14 7411.6186 338903 5584310 -3/14 7413.6186 338902 5590919 -3/14 .7413.6582 338680 5591458 -3/14 1551.6186 338900 5596524 -3/14 5430.6186 338563 8034001 -3/14 1552.6186 338750 9546705 -3/14 5911.6186 338562 9724639 -3/14 5511.6186 340718 ED129897 1495.4115 382219" 6/1/2014 103711 CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES INC. Subledger . Account Description Continued... 4/30/2014 8:57:06' Page- 5 Business Unit HEAT YORK FIRE STATION HEAT CENT SVC PW BUILDING HEAT SENIOR CITIZENS HEAT BUILDING MAINTENANCE HEAT. ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT HEAT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE HEAT MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS HEAT CLUB HOUSE HEAT ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS HEAT CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING HEAT 50TH ST OCCUPANCY HEAT VERNON OCCUPANCY HEAT YORK OCCUPANCY HEAT SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT HEAT DISTRIBUTION HEAT WELL PUMPS HEAT BUILDING MAINTENANCE HEAT FIRE DEPT. GENERAL HEAT GOLF DOME PROGRAM HEAT PSTF OCCUPANCY HEAT PSTF FIRE TOWER FUEL OIL PSTF FIRE TOWER HEAT CITY HALL GENERAL HEAT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE HEAT CENT SVC PW BUILDING HEAT WELL PUMPS HEAT ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS MECHANICAL PERMITS INSPECTIONS R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 — 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 382219 5/1/2014 103711 CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES INC. Continued... 10,515.23 340835 2815102 5720.6186 HEAT 90.95 340836 2815442 5311.6186 HEAT 382220 6/1/2014 PUBLIC HEALTH 100684 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON YORK OCCUPANCY 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 47,304.25 LPH CONTRACT 340688 58899 CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 47,304.25 PRINTING SENIOR CITIZENS 47078.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT ' 382221 6/1/2014 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 129820 COLLIERS INTERNATIO IAL COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 825.99 MAY 2014 MAINTENANCE 340955 MAY2014 825.99 382222 5/112014 120433 COMCAST 6.77 8772 10 614 0373022 340897 373022 -4/14 6.77 382223 6/1/2014 121267 CREATIVE RESOURCES 987.08 UNIFORM SWEATSHIRTS 340898 25822 987.08 382224 5/1/2014 133672 CROIX OIL COMPANY 144.00 MARCH CAR WASHES 340837 407140 144.00 - 382226 6/1/2014 130169 CUSTOM BUSINESS FORMS ':. 892.00" APR 2014 NEWSLETTER 340655 297284 892.00 382226 5/1/2014 122096 DAKOTA COUNTY LUMBER CO. 3,593.33 LUMBER 00001731 340899 171546 3,593:33 382227 5/112014 102478_ DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 2,519.80 340975 748763 - 402.35 340974 748764 49.20 340618 748765 3,069.40 340619 748766 6,040.75 382228 6/1/2014 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. I' 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Page- 6 Business Unit EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS POOL OPERATION 1490.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH 5841.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YORK OCCUPANCY 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 5720.6201 LAUNDRY EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 1553.6238 CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1628.6575 PRINTING SENIOR CITIZENS 47078.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COUNTRYSIDE PK PLAYGROUND &PATE ' 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL ., Council Check Register by Invoice &,Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 382228 5/1/2014 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. Continued... 13.11 BATTERY 000013D2 340719. 894452 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS-. 129.82 RATCHET SET, MINI TORCH 00001302 340720 894827 f 1553.6556 TOOLS 142.93 382229 5/1/2014 100720 DENNYS 5TH AVE. BAKERY 67.12 BAKERY 340659 501604 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 118.57 BAKERY f 340838 502058 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 51.53 BAKERY 340839 502059 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 237.22 382230 511/2014 100899 ,DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 6,458.04 MARCH 2014 SURCHARGE 340840 19681053060 1495.4380 SURCHARGE 6,458.04 382231 5/1/2014 101349 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 293.00 LICENSE FEE 340721 UWAT010082 01416.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 293.00 382232 5/1/2014 102831 DEX MEDIA EAST INC. - 80.10 650243624 340900 650243624 -4/14 5760.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 23.40 650487671 340901 650487671.4/14 5510.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 103.50 382233 511/2014 101617 DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR 352.61 TRAFFIC CITATIONS 340841 220 1400.6575 PRINTING 352.61 382234 511/2014 129718 DREW'S CONCESSIONS LLC 576.00 CARAMEL CORN 340902 1701 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 576.00 382236 5/1/2014 132810 ECM PUBLISHERS INC. 320.00 BRAEMAR SKATE AD 340903 90041. 5510.6575 PRINTING 320.00 FRANCE AVE AD 340722 92087 01404.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION 640.00 382236 5/1/2014 104004 ESSIG, CRAIG 156.18 FDIC CONFERENCE EXPENSES 340842 042314 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 156.18 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Page' - 7 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GRILL GRILL GRILL INSPECTIONS 54TH ST BRIDGE &STREET REPAIR CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE ARENA ADMINISTRATION POLICE DEPT. GENERAL ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA ADMINISTRATION FRANCEAVE PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL . Pager 8 - Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 Check #- Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382237 5/1/2014 104195 EXTREME. BEVERAGE LLC. Continued... 33.50 340976 259 -985 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 33.50 \• 382238 5/1/2014 102485 FAHRENKRUG, ROGER 200.00 LESSONS PAID W /GIFT CERT - 340843 042214 5201.4543 -GOLF DOME RECEIPTS GOLF DOME REVENUES 200.00 382239 5/1/2014 126004 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 31,958.27 PARTIAL PAYMENT N6.21 340904 050214 05536.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS WATER METER REPLACEMENT. 31,958.27 382240 5/112014 101476 FOOTJOY 63.80 MERCHANDISE 340844 5529476 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 63.80 382241 5/1/2014 102727 FORCE AMERICA 46.54 BEARING KIT, KEY 00005216 340723 01424999 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS. EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 46.54 382242 5/1/2014 123080 GARDENVIEW GREENHOUSE 76.00 PANSIES, POTTING SOIL 340845 590175 5422.6275 COURSE BEAUTIFICATION MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 76.00 382243 5/112014 100768 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG INC 5,837.00 VALVE INSPECTION, OVERHAUL 340905 44105 5521.6160 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA ICE MAINT 5,837.00 382244 511/2014 102540 GOERGEN, DAVID . 14.56 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 340846 042214 5913.6106 MEETING EXPENSE DISTRIBUTION 14.56 382245 5/1/2014 101103 GRAINGER - 24.28 HAMMER DRILL BIT SET 00002143 340907 9410134903 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 64.26 DOOR BOTTOM SWEEPS 00002143 340906 9410470851 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 96.43 OUTLET YELLOW BOX - 00001900 340660 9413286585 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 63.98 HOSE 00005144 340661 9414498726 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 53.00 SAFETY VEST 00005147 340662 9417503472 1553.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 903.50 LOCK CONTROL DOOR CLOSER 00001906 340847 9418625597 A 5860.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL '` 1,205.45 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 \J CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 382246 5/1/2014 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC Continued... 288.00 340755 165814 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 146.25 340754 165823 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 122.25 340756 165948 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 556.50 382247 6/1/2014 100787 GRUBER'S POWER EQUIPMENT 130.22 MOWER PARTS 00605135 340663 129122 1641.6530 REPAIR PARTS 130.22 382248 6/1/2014 133936 HALF PINT HORSE FOUNDATION 100.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 5/8/14 340956 042914 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER 100.00 362249 5/1/2014 106431 HALL, MARY 150.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 5/22/14 340886 042314 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER 150.00 382260 5/1/2014 101209 HEIMARK FOODS 177.12 BEEF PATTIES 340848 025109 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 177.12 382251 6/1/2014 106371 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER 325.00 EMT REFRESHER 340724 34484 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS. 325.00 382262 6/1/2014 100801 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 832.47 CITYASSESSMENTS 340908 042514 1000.1303 DUE FROM HRA 11,823.75 CITY ASSESSMENTS 340908 042514 1503.6915 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 57.08 CITYASSESSMENTS 340908 042514 5860.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,905.31 CITYASSESSMENTS 340908 042514 5820.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,618.61 382263 5/1/2014 106436 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 763.20 RADIO ADMIN FEE 340909 1000043613 1553.6237 RADIO SERVICE 763.20 382264 6/112014 116680 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY 255.75 MOBILE PRINTER 00064314 340849 54188215 1490.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES 168.00 NEW MONITOR 00004314 340850 54188434 1160.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES 840.00 NEW MONITORS 00004314 340850 54188434 1170.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Page- 1 9 Business Unit YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING MOWING EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION GRILL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 50TH STREET GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN PUBLIC HEALTH FINANCE HUMAN RESOURCES R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 10 . Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 511/2014 - 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Des_ cription Business Unit 382264 511/2014 116680 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY Continued... 336.00 NEW MONITORS 00004314 340850 54188434 5710.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 1,599.75 - 382255 5/1/2014 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 1,165.00 340978 698549 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING - 874.00 340977 698620 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,046.76 340757 698872 - 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 3,087.76 - 382266 6/1/2014 126816 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 28.48 BITS, SCREWDRIVERS 340910 MAR PURCHASES 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 181.40 MAILBOX POSTS 340910 MAR PURCHASES 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 209.88 382257 61112014 100808 HORWATH, THOMAS 290.08 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 340911 042414 1644.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE TREES & MAINTENANCE 290.08 382266 5/1/2014 103869 HOTSY EQUIPMENT OF.MINNESOTA 143.07- HOSE 00005146 340664 45578 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 143.07 382269. 611/2014 129608 IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS _ 2,178.84 MAIL WATER BILLS - 340665 88917 5902.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UTILITY BILLING - FINANCE 2,17B.84 382260 5/1/2014 101146 IMPACT - TELECOM /608231926 329.13 340666 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 434.43 340667 608242620 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 763.56 382261 5/1/2014 131644 INDEED BREWING COMPANY 160.00 340620 18763 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 590.00 340758 18911 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 470.00 340979 18986 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,220.00 382262 SI1I2014 100416 INDEPENDENT EMERGENCY SERVICES LLC d 284.16 E911 SERVICE 340912 080683 2310.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT E911 284.16 R55CKR2 - LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page - 11 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 .. Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO.# Doc No " - Inv No: Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit - 382262 6/1/2014 100416 INDEPENDENT EMERGENCY SERVICES LLC Continued... 382263 6/1/2014 119808 INTEGRA 27.74 MONTHLY SERVICE 340913 11924440 7410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF ADMINISTRATION - 27.74 382264 6/1/2014 104696 INT'L SECURITY PRODUCTS 69.91 FENCING HARDWARE 00001896 340668 3042213 1646.6530 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 69.91 382265 6/1/2014 102136 JERRY'S TRANSMISSION SERVICE 160.54 BUELLTRUMPET 00005074 340914 0022848 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 160.54 382266 6/7/2014 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 123.00 340651 2187224 5430.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER RICH RDS GOLF COURSE 2,041.55 340984 2196592 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 86.80 340985 2196593 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 3,339.45 340981 2196595 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 33.55 340980 2196596 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 57.44- 340986 2209201 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 7,790.30 340982 2209202 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 117.60 340983 2209203 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 128.00 340852 2212884 5420.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER CLUB HOUSE 13,602.81 382268 5/1/2014 100836 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 636.64 340624 1828837 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,727.18 340623 1828840 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,507.51 340622 1828841 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 486.72 340621 1830079 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 176.00 340760 1830500 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 528.00 340759 1631760 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 201.12 340997 1833922 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING ' 208.70 340993 1833923 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING " 2,406.24 340998 1833924 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 2,016.47 340992 1633925 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 666.91 340792 1833926 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 932.28 341002 1833927 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 403.46 340999 1833928 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 74.62 341001 1833929 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 12 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382268 6/1/2014 100836 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. Continued... .568.51 341000 1833930 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 110.21 341003 1833931 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING - 1.12 - 340987 1833932 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 572.19 340995 1633935 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,393.28 340994 1833936 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING - 506.41 340969 1833937 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING " 5,224.59 340988 1833938 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1;898.52 340996 1833939 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,151.37 340991 1833940 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 94.11 340990 1833941 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 7,310.81 340791 1833943 5662.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 121.12 340787 1833944 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,887.97 340790 1833945 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 550.26 340786 1833946 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,014.61 340789 1833947 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 437.45 340785 1833948 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 31.37 340784 1833949 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,889.97 340788 1833950 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 36,735.72 382269 .61112014 113212 KENDELL DOORS & HARDWARE INC. 298.88 INSTALL NEW OFFICE DOOR LOCKS 340669 S1009030 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 298.88 382270 6/1/2014 133911 KIRCHNER, BRADY D 50.00 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT REFUND 340725 042114 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 50.00 382271 511/2014 .124611 LARSCO INC. 279.65 "FOOT VALVES 00001784 340670 3206 5913.6530 REPAIR PARTS DISTRIBUTION 279.65 382272 61112014 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. '471699 DRILL BITS, FITTINGS 00005190 340671 9302379551 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 63.87 CABLE TIES 00005183 340672 9302382824 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQU IPM ENT, OPERATION GEN- ' 535.86 382273 6/112014 116576 LIFE LINE INC. 3,776.00 CPR /AED TRAINING 340726 LL -5483 1281.6104 CONFERENCES &'SCHOOLS TRAINING 3,776.00 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 13 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary' 5/1/2014 - 5/112014 Check #. Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382273 6/1/2014 116575 LIFE LINE INC. Continued... 382274 5/1/2014- 112677 M.AMUNDSON LLP 1,072.02 340625 172447 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 1,072.02 382275 6/1/2014 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. 563.38 BRAKE PAD KITS 00005210 340727 2142985 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 264.96 O- RINGS, SEAL REPAIR KIT 00005213 340673 2143071 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2,006.65 DISC BRAKES 00005210 340728 2143125 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 110.63 BRAKE PAD KIT 340674 2143200 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2,945.62 382276 5/1/2014 114594 MARTIN, ANTHONY 75.00 EXPLORER TRAINING 340,729 042114 1419.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS RESERVE PROGRAM 75.00 382277 5/1/2014 102660 MAXIMUM SOLUTIONS INC. , 3,500.00 POS HARDWARE 340931 15417 7414.6218 EDUCATION PROGRAMS PUBLIC PROGRAMS 1,170.23 MEMBERSHIP CARDS 340932 15419 5710.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 4,670.23 382278 5/112014 101483 MENARDS 81.93 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS -00001747 340915 52123 47083.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT UTLEY PK BATHROOM RENOVATION 95.89 LUMBER FOR MAILBOXES 00001751 340916 52344 1318.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES SNOW& ICE REMOVAL 110.88 CERAMIC TILE 00001753 340917 52367 47083.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT UTLEY PK BATHROOM RENOVATION 261.60 LUMBER 00001807 340.920 52501 1344.6577 LUMBER RETAINING WALL MAINTENANCE 16.88 PRIMER PAINT 00001807 340919- 52502 1344.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RETAINING WALL MAINTENANCE 91.41 CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL 00001817 340918 52530 47083.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT UTLEY PK BATHROOM RENOVATION 234.51 MAILBOX MATERIALS 00001829 340921 52886 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 30.27 PAINTING MATERIALS 00001835 340922 52919 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 18.69 MAILBOX MATERIALS 00001839 340923 52978 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 168.21 MAILBOX MATERIAL 00001849 340924 53124 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 122.76 MAILBOX POSTS 00001863 340925 53452 _ 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 17.65 LAG SCREWS; WASHERS 00001866 340926 53499. 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 49.00 PLAQUE DISPLAY 00001878 340927 53531 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 20.39 BIKE HOOKS, STUDS 00001890 340928 53685-- 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 118.14 LUMBER 00001898 -- 340929 53762 47078.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COUNTRYSIDE PK PLAYGROUND &PATF 143.72 HOSE, HOSE HANGERS 00001912 340675 54156 1643.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL TURF CARE 161.64 ANCHORS, DRILL BITS, LUMBER 00001936 340676 54352 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,743.57 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 14 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 — 511/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv. No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382278 "5/1/2014 101483, MENARDS Continued... -382279 6/1/2014 101987 MENARDS 237.90 TOASTER OVEN, HEATER, GLUE 00002287 340930 33261 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS ' 237.90 382280 5/1/2014 100886 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 2,460.15 MARCH 2014 SAC 340853 041614 1495.4307 SAC CHARGES INSPECTIONS 2,460.15 382281 6/1/2014 102729 METROPOLITAN FORD OF EDEN PRAIRIE 75.60 LOCKASSEMBLY ,, 00005217 340730 488773 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 75.60 382282 6/1/2014 _918464 MIDWEST-TESTING ` 55.00 TEST WATER METER 00001962 340677 3137 5917.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS METER REPAIR 382283 5/1/2014 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & WATER 1,192.50 REPLACE STAND PIPE 00001965 340731 34682 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 1,192.50 382284 6/1/2014 106193 MINNESOTA HIGHWAY SAFETY AND C. 396.00 DRIVING CLASSES 340855 629430 -3752 2340.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS DWI FORFEITURE 3,168.00 DRIVING CLASSES 340854 629430 -3761 2340.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS DWI FORFEITURE 3,564.00 382286 6/1/2014 100231 MINNESOTA POST BOARD 90.00 LICENSE - ALEXANDRA WILSON 340856 042314 1400.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 90.00 382286 5/1/2014 101996 MINNESOTA TROPHIES & GIFTS 23.35 BRASS PLATES 340933 24768 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 23.35 382287 5/1/2014 128914 MINUTEMAN PRESS 591.01 EARLYBIRD POSTCARDS 340934 15194 5310.6575 PRINTING POOL ADMINISTRATION 605.50 FRANCE AVE POSTCARDS 340678 15205 01404.1705.31 MATERIALS /SUPPLIES FRANCE AVE PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR 1,196.51 382288 5/1/2014 133932 MORGAN, JUDY .- R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL 'Page- 15 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 — 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier./ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382288 5/112014 133932 MORGAN, JUDY Continued... 20.00 DEFENSIVE DRIVING REFUND 340935 REFUND - .1628.4392.09 SENIOR SPECIAL EVENTS SENIOR CITIZENS 20.00 382289 5/1/2014 108668 MORRIS,.GRAYLYN _ 200.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 5/1/14 340882 042314 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 200.00 382290 5/1/2014 .101696 MSP COMMUNICATIONS, 2,403.00 GOLF MAGAZINE AD 340857 2014 -31148 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION 2,403.00 382291 511/2014 133926 MV SPORT 751.34 BLANKETS 340858 50396782 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 751.34 382292 6/1/2014 133933 NELSON, JULIE 178.00 CANCELLATION REFUND- 340936 GOLF LESSONS. 5401.4593 GREEN FEES EXEC COURSE GOLF REVENUES. 178.00 382293 5/1/2014 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 279.00. 341004 89872 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 583.50 340761 89874 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS'SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 862.50 382294 511/2014 100922 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS 504.00 3M SHEETING 00001828 340939 TI- 0272355 1325.6531 SIGNS & POSTS STREET NAME SIGNS 1,579.40 SIGN BLADES 00001847 340938 TI- 0272389 1325.6531 SIGNS & POSTS STREET NAME SIGNS 4,181.90 SIGN BLADES 00001809 340937 TI= 0272406 1325.6531 SIGNS & POSTS STREET NAME SIGNS 6,265.30 382296 .5/1/2014 101620 NORTH SECOND STREET STEEL SUPPLY - 918.08 STEELANGLES, PLATES 00001899 340732' 285749. 47078.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COUNTRYSIDE PK P_ LAYGROUND &PATE 918.08 382296 5/1/2014 102138 NORTHERN WINDS CONCERT BAND - 75.00 1 EP ENTERTAINMENT 5/11/14 340884 042314 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 75.00 - 382297 5/1/2014 133927 OKESPORTS INC. 1,467.96 GOLF TOWELS 340859 OKE14026 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014, 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page - 16 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 362297 5/1/2014 133927 OKESPORTS INC. Continued.:. 1,467.96 382298 5/112014 133909- OLSON, MARGUERITE .49 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT REFUND 340733 042214 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL .49 382299 6/1/2014 102265 OLSON, TIM 36.47 UNIFORM PURCHASE 340860 042314 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL - 36.47 382300 6/712014 131698 PARLEY LAKE WINERY 316.00 341006 14046 58625513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 43.50 341005 14047 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE '" 50TH ST SELLING 361.50 382301 5/112014„ 100347 PAUSTIS WINE COMPANY 1,976.38 340763 8445671 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 290.57 341007 8445678 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING - 930.63 340762 6445681 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,197.58 382302 6/1/2014 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 326.50 340626 00532059 5862.5515, COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 763.68 340863. 19506574 5430.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD RICHARDS GOLF.000RSE . .. 37.54 340862 79506593 5430.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD . RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 706.25 340861 19506628 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 1,833.97 382303 611/2014 700743 PHILLIPS-WINE &'SPIRITS ' 291.36 340629 2589292 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 275.60 340631 2590090 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE' 50TH. ST SELLING 1,044.44 340630 2590092 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 36.12 - 340628 2591009 5842.5513 COST OF GOOD &SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 87.92 340627 2591010 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR% VERNON SELLING 482.38 341009 2593456 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 109.12 341012 2593457 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,053.44 340794 2593458 5862.5513 •. COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE I VERNON SELLING 976.07 341008 2593459 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR' 50TH ST SELLING 98.24 341010 2593460 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS 'SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,913.60 341011 2593462 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING=. R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 17 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 = 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382303 511/2014 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS Continued... 2,714.18 341014 2593463 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,934.13 341013 2593464 5842.5513 - COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,569.75 340796 2593465 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE _ VERNON SELLING 179.36 340793 2593466 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 595.59 340797 2593467 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 998.44 340795 2593468 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 36.12- , _ 341015 3525369 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 129.94- 340798 3525370 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 14,193.68 382304 5/1/2014 124176 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING 4 307.20 340632 .20612 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 268.80 340633 20891 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 576.00 382306- 5/1/2014 130174 PIONEER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 2,400.00 FIELD PAINT 00001920 340940 INV512845 1642.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE 2,400.00 382306 511/2014 104235. PLATENBERG, KATHY 125.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 5/15/14 340885 042314 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 125.00 382307 511/2014 131064 PRECISION PRINTING INC. 1,537.25 PATRON CARDS 340865 1071 5410.6575 PRINTING GOLF ADMINISTRATION U37.25 382308 5/1/2014 133928 PREMIERE LAWN & SNOW LLC 405.00 CLEANUP - 6037 KELLOGG AVE 340864 1833 1144.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REDEVELOPMENT REGULATION 405.00 382309 5/1/2014 133091 RANGE SERVANT AMERICA INC. 9,860.00 MATS 340866 65343 5. 424.6590 RANGE BALLS RANGE 9,860.00 - 382310 5/1/2014 101000 RJM PRINTING INC. 60.00 BUSINESS CARD UPDATES 340867 80903 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 60.00 382311 5/1/2014 100981 ROCHESTER MIDLAND CORP. R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 18 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 . Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit - 382311 6/1/2014 106981 ROCHESTER MIDLAND CORP. Continued... 453.46 RESTROOM SANITATION 340868 1095292 5430.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 453.46 382312 5/1/2014 104823 ROSS, MIKE AND KIM 82.41 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 340945. 6610 PARKWOOD 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND, UTILITY BALANCE SHEET 82.41 382313 5/1/2014 133929 SCHUBERT & HOEY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING INC. 100.00 VINYLS FOR PLAYGROUNDS 340869 8028 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PLAYGROUND & THEATER 100.00 . 382314 5/1/2014 133910 SCHULTZ, GARY 40.25 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 340734 5604 YORK AVE 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET ' 40.25 382316. 611/2014 133916 •. SECURA COIN LOCKER 250.01 LOCKER KEYS, LOCK CYLINDERS 340735 13961 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING- 250.01 382316 - 6/112014 100996 SEH 866.83 NORMANDALE RECONSTR. 340679 280012 01394.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION NORMANDALE 65,601.26 54TH ST BID DOCS & CPS 340736 280013 01416.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 54TH ST BRIDGE &STREET REPAIR 334.55 ENGINEERING SERVICES 340737 280047 08060.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN INDUSTRIAL PARK LIGHTING 390.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES 340737 280047 01407.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN HAWKES NHOOD RECON 510.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES 340737 280047' 01409.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN WALNUT RIDGE NHOOD RECON 570.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES 340737 280047 01411.1705,21 CONSULTING INSPECTION EDINA TERRACE NHOOD RECON 4,191.84 ENGINEERING SERVICES 340737 280047 01406.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN MORNINGSIDE NHOOD RECON 8,337.36 ENGINEERING SERVICES 340737 280047 01410.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN CLOVER LAKE NHOOD RECON 223.14, ENGINEERING SERVICES 340737 280047 5924.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEER SERVICES - WATER 2,280.03- ANTENA PROJECTS 340738 280388 1001.4722 RENTAL OF PROPERTY GENERAL FUND REVENUES 83,305.01 - 362317 61112014 101380 SHAUGHNESSY, SANDRA 141.06 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 340946 042514 5110.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 141.06 382318. 6/1/2014 120784 SIGN PRO 127.00 PET WASTE SIGNS 340947 7669 1645.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES LITTER REMOVAL 82.00 FRANCE AVE DISPLAYS 340680 7696 01404.1705.31 MATERIALS /SUPPLIES FRANCE AVE PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR 209.00 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page - 19 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014, - 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382318 5/112014 120764 SIGN PRO Continued... 382319 6/1/2014 100999 SIGNAL SYSTEMS INC. 155.65 TIME CLOCK RENTAL 340948 13064433 5310.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS . POOL ADMINISTRATION 155.65 382320 6/1/2014 133912 SOFFA, JANEL 21.00 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT REFUND 340739 042114 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 21.00 i 382321 5/1/2014 122368 SOUTH METRO PUBLIC SAFETY 1,296.25 SUPPLIES FOR K9 TRIALS _ 340740 9061 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,296:25 382322 5/1/2014 117819 SOUTH OF THE RIVER COMMUNITY BAND 50.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 514/14 340883 042314 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 50.00 382323 6/1/2014 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 128.50 341021 11325 32 1 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE- 50TH ST SELLING 340.50 340636 1150272 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 711.50 340635 1152590 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR _ YORK SELLING 869.00 340634 1152592 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1.50 341019 1153047 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,416.00 341017 1153621 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 630.32 341016 1153622 51322.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 5,818.70 340764 1153623 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,69123 340765 1153624 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,644.55 340766 1153625 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE. VERNON SELLING 2,575.13 340767 1153626 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 128.50 341018 1154229 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 352.00 341020 1154900 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 17,309.43 382324 5/1/2014 122455 SPRING LAKE ENGINEERING - 400.00 PROGRAMMING SERVICES 00001843 340870 1383 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 400.00" - 382326 5/1/2014 104672 SPRINT 2.08 3408151,.873184124-137 1495.6188 TELEPHONE INSPECTIONS 16.51 340815 873184124 -137 1190.6188 TELEPHONE ASSESSING R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8`.57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 20 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/112014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382325 6/1/2014 104672 SPRINT Continued... - 21.97 340815 873184124 -137 1553.6188 TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 42.99 340815 873184124 -137 1260.6188 TELEPHONE' " ENGINEERING GENERAL 49.01 340815 873184124 -137 1240.6188 TELEPHONE - .PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL 62:58 340815 873184124 -137 1552.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SVC PW BUILDING 68.12 340815 873184124 -137 1240.6188 TELEPHONE.- PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL 225.99 340815 873184124 -137 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT: GENERAL 291.65 340815 873184124 -137 1301.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL MAINTENANCE 319.92 340815 873184124 -137 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 373.31 340815 873184124 -137 1322.6188 TELEPHONE STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 467.31 340815 873184124 -137 1640.6188 TELEPHONE - PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 762.47 340815- 873184124 -137 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 31.33 340815 873184124 -137 4090.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE ' 16.51 340815 873184124 7137 5511.618B TELEPHONE ARENABLDG /GROUNDS 474.18, 340815 873184124 =137 5910.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL (BILLING) 31.72 340815 873184124 -137 7411.6188 TELEPHONE PSTF OCCUPANCY 3,257.65 382326 6/1/2014 102251 ST. ANDREWS' PRODUCTS CO 289.36 BAGS FOR GC PURCHASES 340871 0000725898 5440.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES " 289.36 382327 5/1/2014 133907 ST. VINCENT VOGL,-KATE 42.60 LOST & FOUND COPIES 340741 042114 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 42.60 382328 .5/1/2014 102371 STANDARD SPRING 609.08 SPRING, PINS, U -BOLTS 00005235 - 340742 349166 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 609.08 382329 6/1/2014 133068 STEEL TOE BREWING LLC . 163.75 340799 3000 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 84.00 341022 3001 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 247.75 382330 6/1/2014 105362 STEPHENSON, TED 100.00 UNIFORM PURCHASE 340949 042514 5761.6201 LAUNDRY CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 100.00 382331 6/112014 104349 STRUCTURED NETWORK SOLUTIONS, 285.00 PHONE LINE SERVICE 340950 17558 5510.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARENAADMI� _ ?ATION R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA i 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 21 ' Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382331 6/1/2014 104349 STRUCTURED NETWORK SOLUTIONS Continued... 285.00 382332 6/1/2014 105874 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC. 254.00 TIRES 00005215 340743 10124854 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 254.00 382333 6/1/2014 100593 SULLIVAN, JOSEPH F 349.09 ABOUTTOWN COLUMN 340951 325 -14, 1130.6123 MAGAZINE /NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS 349.09 382334 6/1/2014 130357 TASC 254.00 MARCH FEE 340952 IN298198 1556.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE SHARED SERVICES 254.00 382336 5/1/2014 104932 TAYLOR MADE 545.57 MERCHANDISE 340872 22059510. 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 301.64 MERCHANDISE 340873 22072420 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS- PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES _ 154.55 MERCHANDISE 340874 22077296 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 272.78 DRIVER 340875 22081909 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 77.27 GOLF CLUB - 340876 22084087 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 545.57 DRIVERS 340877 22094401 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,897.38 382336 6/1/2014 133934 TEAM REEBOK 5,600.00 ICE TIME HOURS REFUND 340957 REFUND 5501.4556 ICE RENTAL ICE ARENA REVENUES 5,600.00 382337 6/1/2014 133913 THANG, MARK 23.00 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT. REFUND 340744 042114 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 23.00 382338 6/1/2014 102471 THOLEN, BRIAN 204.48 UNIFORM PURCHASE 340878 .- 042114 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 204.48 382339 6/1/2014 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 123.00 341023 817044 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,097.35 341024 618432 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,220.35 • R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 22 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier./ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382340 51112014 104347 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC. Continued... 262.00 SERVICE CALL 340681 665465 1552.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 262.00 382341 5/112014 123129 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL INC. 176.00 PARK BOARD MEETING MINUTES 340682 M20474 1600.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PARKADMIN. GENERAL 176.00 382342 511/2014 133908 TINCHER, JAMES 1,250.00 6/5/14 HEART OF THE CUSTOMER 340745 WORKSHOP 1550.6104 CONFERENCES &SCHOOLS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 1,250.00 382343 .5/1/2014 101474 TITLEIST 115.72 GOLF BALLS 340879 2615659 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 115.72 382344 5/112014 128347 TKO WINES INC. 127.20 341025 814765 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 127.20 38233,45 5/1/2014 103982 TRAFFIC CONTROL CORPORATION 600.00 TRAFFIC SIGNAL FIELD WORK 00001935 340746 0000064518 1330.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS TRAFFIC SIGNALS 600.00 382346 5/1/2014 102175 TRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO 253.72 TOOLS - 00003784 340880 0267320 1470.6556 TOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 253.72 382347 511/2014 133914 TWIN CITY CONCRETE PUMPING 741.50 POUR CONCRETE AT COUNTRYSIDE0001869 340747 66270 47078.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COUNTRYSIDE PK PLAYGROUND &PATE 741.50 382348 5/1/2014 102150 TWIN CITY SEED CO. 282.00 GRASS SEED 00001910 340684 31842 1643.6547 SEED GENERAL TURF CARE 63.00 FERTILIZER 00001713 340683 31854 1643.6547 SEED GENERAL TURF CARE 345.00 382349 5/112014 119464 VINOCOPIA 89.50 340638 0096829 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 118.75 340637 0096831 -1N 5862.5515' COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 208.25 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 23 Council Check Register by Invoice &Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 362349 61112014 119464 VINOCOPIA Continued... 382360 6/1/2014 133629 VON HANSONS MEATS 54.59 BRATS 340953 79453 - 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 54.59 382361. 6/1/2014 101069 VOSS LIGHTING 44.10 BULBS 00001626 340685 15244468 -00 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 44.10 382362 6/1/2014 131887 WHITE DESIGN GROUP INC. 3,657.00 LOBBY AREA PROJECT 340954 80228 5510.6136 PROFESSIONALSVC - OTHER ARENAADMINISTRATION 3,657.00 I 382353 6/112014 101973 WILMOT, SOLVE[ _ 82.88 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 340748 JAN -FEB -MAR 1490.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PUBLIC HEALTH 11.76 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 340748 JAN -FEB -MAR 5952.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE RECYCLING 94.64 382364 6/1/2014 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 72.00- 340770 358721 -00. 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE � +c 50TH ST SELLING 80.00- 341027 359275 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,014.85 341026: 359305 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,021.45 340768 359306 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,198.15 340769 359477 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,082.45 382366 6/1/2014 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 322.24 340641 499437 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 120.00 340639 499527 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 216.00 340640 499528 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE, VERNON SELLING 190.24 341029 500347 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 24.12 341028 500348 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 89.12 341031 500349 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 459.36 340800 500350 - 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,887.06 341030 500352 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,205.70 340801 500353 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 203.15- 340803 64958 5862.5513 - COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 10.00- 340802 64959 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 4,300.69 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page- 24 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 Check # Date .' Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382367 5/1/2014 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA Continued... 584.05 340642 1080168636 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5,807.77 340804 1080169889 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 6,935.57 340775 1080169890 5862.5513 _ COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 122.30 340774 1080169893 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX \ VERNON SELLING 3,797.14 340772 1080169996 ` 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,815.85 340771 1080169997 5842.5513. COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 158.22 340773 1080170001 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 46.00 CREDIT TAKEN TWICE 340643 .2080030218CORR 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 114.30- 341038 2080032751 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 105.15- 341039 2080034666 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 18.25- 340805 2080035829 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 80.00- 340781 ..2080037158 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING - 48.00- 341035 2080037168 5842:5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING'- 6.00- 340780 2080037172 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 40.00- 341034 2080037175 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING . 46.00- 340779 2080037182 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 12.00- 341036 2080037187 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 60.00- 340776 2080037201 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE _ VERNON SELLING 60.00- 341037 2080037209 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 128:00- 341032 2080037216 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING ' 106.00- 340778 2080037251 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 20.00- 341033 2080037260 5842.5513 COST.OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 25.00- 340777 2080037269 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING . 331.47- 340812 2080037286 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR' VERNON SELLING 194.83- 340814 2080037531 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD.LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 53.12- 340810 2080037553 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 17.08- 340807 2080037573 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR ' VERNON SELLING 94.00- 340808 2080037580 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING . 117.00- 340809 2080037593 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 493.50- 340813 2080037613 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 40.65- 340811 2080037627 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR- VERNON SELLING 40.45- 340806 2080039060 5862.5512 COST OF GOOD&SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 17,018.10 382368 5/1/2014 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER INC 368.60 340881 '1090207980 5430.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 7,076.85 340646 1090211226 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 309.00 340647 _ 1090211227 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON 'SELLING 1,942.40. 340644 1090211228 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST- SELLING 21.50 340645. 1090211229 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH. ST SELI,' i R55CKR2 , LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 4/30/2014 8:57:06 Council Check Register by GL Page - 25 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 5/1/2014 — 5/1/2014 — Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 382358 5/1/2014 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER INC Continued... 3,289.40 341044 1090212103 ' 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 1,956.70 VERNON SELLING 340782 1090212826 5842.5514. COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 346.50 340783 1090212827 5842.5514 COST OF,GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 3,333.80 341042 1090215114 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 64.50 341043 1090215115 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,564.10 341041 1090215116 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING - 123.00 341040 1090215117 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 20,396.35 382359 5/1/2014 101726 XCEL ENERGY 47.76 51- 5276505 -8 340749 408821540 1330.6185 LIGHT & POWER TRAFFIC SIGNALS 169.58 51- 0010025256 -3 340687 408888342 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 1,211.74 51- 5605640 -1 340686 409087221 5911.6185 LIGHT & POWER WELL PUMPS 7,858.27 51- 6644819 -9 340958 410054247 5720.6185 LIGHT & POWER EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 9,287.35 769,784.06 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Checks 762,87P.72 A/PACH Payment 6,911.34 Total Payments 769,784.06 R55CKS2 LOGIS160 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 349,386.06 02300 POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE 3,926.91 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 87,977.87 05100 ART CENTER FUND 1,773.88 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 10,789.14 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 837.61 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 27,458.19 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 38,704.05 05700 EDINBOROUGH PARK FUND 23,125,67 05750 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK FUND 2,977.55 05800 LIQUOR FUND 168,095.80 05900 UTILITY FUND 48,460.56 05950 :RECYCLING FUND 11.76 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 6,259.01 Report Totals 769,784.06 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Summary 5/1/2014 - 5/1/2014 We confirm to zthe best of our knowledge and belief, that these claims comply in ali material respects With the requirements of the,City of Edina purchasing policies and procedures dat n, Di Di ct it anage 7 4/30/2014 8:57:15 Page- 1 GAPurchasing cards \2014 purchasing card electronic files \2014 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx State Account MN 1120.6106 1120.6106 1120.6106 1120.6104 1120.6106 1120.6106 1100.6104 11 20.6104 1120.6104 1120:6104 1120.6104 1120:6104 1100.6104 1100.6104 1120.6104 1120.6104 1100.6104 1120.6106 1120.6188 1120.6106 1120.6104 1100.6106 1120.6405 1100.6106 1100.6104 1120.6106 1100.6106 1100.6106 1120.6106 1120.6106 1140.6104 1140.6106 1140.6106 1160.6105 1160.6105 MN MN CA MN VA CA DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC. DC MN KS MN MN MN WA MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN 4/18/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 2/26/14- 03/25/14 Account Name Date Amount - Description Merchant City * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/02/25 $10.00 Parking IMPARK 00200149 SAINT PAUL * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/02/26 $30.14 Food' EDINA GRILL EDINA * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/03 $62.71 Food RICE PAPER ASIAN FUSIC EDINA * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/04 $364.00 Airfare -Neal DELTA-AIR 00623533514; DELTA.COM * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/04 $32.21 Food EDEN AVENUE-GRILL EDINA * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/08 $28.00 OTHER TRAVEL WASH METRORAIL ARLINGTON * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/07 $1,528.00 Airfare - Hovland DELTA AIR 00623534146: DELTA.COM * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/09 $209.40 Food' FOUNDINGFARMERS DC WASHINGTON * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/10 $258.60 Food SAKANA JAPANESE REST WASHINGTON * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/11 $260.69. Food CLYDE'S OF GEORGETO� WASHINGTON * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/13 $1,199.96 Hotel - Neal MARRIOTT 337WO WARDI WASHINGTON * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/13 $1,199.96 Hotel - Coyle MARRIOTT 337WO WARDI WASHINGTON * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/13 $1,199.96 Hotel - Bennett MARRIOTT 337WO WARDI WASHINGTON * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/13 $899.97 Hotel - Brindle MARRIOTT 337WO WARDI WAS * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/13 $8.60 Personal - repaid MARRIOTT 337WO WARDIWASHINGTON * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/13 $141.54 Food MA, RRIOTT 337WO WARDI WASHINGTON * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/13 $1,199.96 Hotel - Sprague MARRIOTT 337WO;WARDI WASHINGTON * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/13 $27.26 Food EDINA GRILL EDINA * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/17 $94.48 Cell phone SPRINT *WIRELESS 800 - 639 -6111 * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/03/20 $30:21 Food EDEN AVENUE GRILL EDINA * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGIN 2014/02/27 $30.00 Training ST PAUL AREA CHAMBER 800- 554 -3363 * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGIN 2014/03/04 $189.98 Meeting PINSTRIPES EDINA * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGIN 2014 /03/04 $15.98 Book AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTAMZN.COM /BILL * *2129 HEATHER; BRANIGIN 2014/03/06 $21.86 Food TARGET 00 02 3135' EDINA * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGIN 2014/03/06 $2,495.00 Training MINNEAPOLIS CHAMBER 612- 370 -9141 * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGIN 2014/03/07 $60.08 Food PINSTRIPES EDINA * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGIN2014/03/14 $1,000.00 Food BYERLY'S' ST LOUIS PARK * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGIN 2014/03/18 $174.86 Food PINSTRIPES EDINA * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGIN 2014/03/18 $1.9.99 Food JERRY'S FOODS OF ED EDINA * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGIN 2014/03/18 $136.01 Food D. BRIANS DELI - ECOMME`612- 9617550 * *9159 CARY TEAGUE 2014/03/13 $48.00 Training SENSIBLE LAND USE CO/612-7207667 * *9159 CARY TEAGUE 2014/03/17. $36.70 Food EDEN AVENUE GRILL EDINA * *9159 CARY TEAGUE 2014/03/22 $24.41 Food STARBUCKS #02592 EDIN EDINA * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/02/26 $259.00 MNCPA dues MNSOCIETYOFCPAS 952 - 831 -2707 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/02/26 $60.00 GFOA dues MINNESOTA GOVERNMEI651- 7927036 GAPurchasing cards \2014 purchasing card electronic files \2014 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx State Account MN 1120.6106 1120.6106 1120.6106 1120.6104 1120.6106 1120.6106 1100.6104 11 20.6104 1120.6104 1120:6104 1120.6104 1120:6104 1100.6104 1100.6104 1120.6104 1120.6104 1100.6104 1120.6106 1120.6188 1120.6106 1120.6104 1100.6106 1120.6405 1100.6106 1100.6104 1120.6106 1100.6106 1100.6106 1120.6106 1120.6106 1140.6104 1140.6106 1140.6106 1160.6105 1160.6105 MN MN CA MN VA CA DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC DC. DC MN KS MN MN MN WA MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN 4/18/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY-COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 2/26/14- 03/25/14 ' Account Name Date Amount Description Merchant City State,. Account * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/02/26 $60.00 GFOA dues MINNESOTA GOVERNME1651- 7927036 MN 1.1606105 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/03/03 $19.95 Website fees PAYFLOW /PAYPAL : 888- 883 -9770 TX 1160.6155 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014103/03 $59.95 Transaction fees - UB `PAYFLOW /PAYPAL 888- 883 -9770 TX 5902.6155 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/03/03 $19.95 Transaction fees - UB PAYFLOW /PAYPAL 888 - 883 -9770 TX 5902.6155 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/03/03 $18.25 Website fees PAYFLOW /PAYPAL 888- 883 -9770 TX 1160.6155 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/03/14 $2,398.15 Food BYERLY'S ST LOUIS PARK MN 1100.6106 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/03/20- $81.20 Financial indicators GOVERNMENT FINANCE 1312= 977-9700 IL 11.60.6406 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2014/02/26 $525.00 Conference GTS EDUCATIONAL 651- 222 -7409 MN 1185.6105 * *0143 DEB MANGEN- 2014/03/08 $8.54 Supplies PARTY CITY'1017V `° CHANHASSEN MN 1100.6106 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/02/26 $80.00 Membership MINNESOTA ASSOC OF A 763 -569 -3357 MN 1190.6105 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/03/05 $15.60 Food SQ *PARK CAFE GC INC MINNEAPOLIS MN 1190.6106 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/03/06 $15.60. Food SQ *PARK CAFE GC INC MINNEAPOLIS MN 1190.6106 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/03/05 $10.50 Parking GOVT MPLSPARKING MINNEAPOLIS - MN 1190.6106 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/03/07 $1 "5.25-. Food SQ *PARK CAFE GC INC MINNEAPOLIS; MN 11,90.6106 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/03/06 $10.50- Parking GOVT MPLSPARKING MINNEAPOLIS- MN . 1190.6106 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/03/07. $7:00 Parking GOVT MPLSPARKING MINNEAPOLIS MN 1190.6106 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/03/17 $12.00 Parking CITY CENTER RAMP MINNEAPOLIS MN 1190.6107 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/03/19 $500.00 Subscription PRICE WATERHOUSE CO 314- 9971102 MO I.190:6105 * *2522 BRIAN OLSON 2014102/27 $119.00 Timecards PMT *SIMPLEXSTORE 800- 6266206 CT 1552.6406 *.2522 BRIAN OLSON 2014/03/24 $235.00 Conference U OFM CCE NONCREDIT 6127-625 -4259 MN 1281.6104 * *9180 MILLNER CHAD 2014/02/25 $558.00 AIRLINE DELTA AIR 00623527213`DELTA.COM-; CA 1263.6104, * *9180 " MILLNER CHAD 2014/02127 $16.07 Apps for iPad APL *APPLE ITUNES STOF 866- 712 -7753 CA 1262.6406 * *9180 MILLNER CHAD 2014/03/10 $265.00 BUSINESS EXPENS HENNEPIN CTY- PUBLIC V1612- 5960236 MN 01406.1705.20 * *6981 JOHN SCHEERER 2014/02/28 $67.88-, Phone cases AMAZON MKTPLACE'PMTAMZN.COM /BILL WA 1301.6406 * *6981 JOHN SCHEERER 2014/03/07 $39.95 Seminar WARNING LITES 612. 277 -4702 MN 1280.6104 * *6999 DAN MCMAHON 2014/03/10 $148.66 Fire station #1 parts MIDWEST PARTS DISTRIE630- 7529594 IL- 1470.6406 * *6999 DAN MCMAHON 2014/03/24 $250.00 Training NORTH CENTRAL ELECT1952- 8544405 MN 1281.6104 * *7005 DAVE GOERGEN 2014/02/25 $675.00 Conference MINNESOTA RURAL WATI866- 9177368 MN 5919.6104 * *7005 DAVE GOERGEN 2014/02/28 $215.00 Permits HENNEPIN CTY PUBLIC V1612- 5960236 MN 5913.6260. * *7005 DAVE GOERGEN 2014/03/20 $285.10 Hotels RAMADA PLAZA SUITES 701 - 2779000 ND 1281.6104 * *7013 GARY WELLS 2014/02/24 $79.02 HOTELS RESIDENCE INNS EDINA EDINA MN' 5913.6406 * *7013 GARY WELLS 2014/02/24 $158.04 HOTELS RESIDENCE INNS EDINA EDINA MN 5913.6406 * *7013 GARY WELLS 2014/02/24 $158.04 HOTELS RESIDENCE INNS EDINA EDINA MN 5913.6406 * *7013 GARY WELLS 2014/03/05 ($616.44) HOTELS RESIDENCE INNS EDINA EDINA MN 5913.6406 * *7013 GARY WELLS 2014/03/07 $79.02 HOTELS RESIDENCE INNS EDINA EDINA MN 5913.6406 GAPur sing cards\2014 purchasing card electronic files\2014 USES7 ­chasing Card Register.xlsx ' "4/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 2/26/14- 03/25/14 Account Name Date Amount Description Merchant City State Account * *7013 r GARY WELLS 2014/03/07 $1,023.75 Supplies WW GRAINGER 877- 2022594 PA 5913.6556 * *7013 GARY WELLS 2014/03/14 $577.24 Supplies WW GRAINGER 877- 2022594 PA 5913.661.0 * *2929 DAVID NELSON 2014/03/03 $78.96 Garmin GPS AMAZON.COM AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1400.6160 * *2929 DAVID NELSON 2014/03/03 $78.97 Garmin GPS AMAZON.COM AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1400.6160 * *4334 RYAN SCHULTZ 2014/02/28 $125.48 Fingerprint sensor FULCRUM BIOMETRICS L 210 - 3483687 TX 1400.6406 * *4334 RYAN SCHULTZ 2014/03/01 $49.26 Training supplies LEGO *SHOP @HOME 800- 835 -4386 CT 1400.6104 * *4334 RYAN SCHULTZ 2014/03/04 $623.80 Helmet SUPER SEER CORPORAT 303- 6746663 CO 1400.6104 * *4334 RYAN SCHULTZ 2014/03/04 $40.95 OFFICE SERVICES CKW *CHECKWORKS 800 -971 -4223 CA 1400.6406 * *4334. RYAN SCHULTZ 2014/03/04 $46.00 Computer mount NATIONAL PRODUCTS IN, 206-763-8361 WA 1400.6406 * *4334 RYAN SCHULTZ 2014/03/11 $26.42 Supplies ROCKYOURGLOCK.COM 303 - 346 -8417 CO 1400.661.0 * *4334 RYAN SCHULTZ 2014/03/17 $68.20 Supplies L A POLICE GEAR INC LAPOLIC.EGEAR. CA, 1400.6203 * *4334 RYAN SCHULTZ 2014/03/21 $63.18 Thumb drives MICRO CENTER #045 RE1 STLOUIS PARK MN 1400.6104 * *8499 CRAIG ESSIG 2014/03/11 $58.92 Books AMAZON :COM AMZN.COM /BILL L WA. 1470.6104 * *0927 DARRELL TODD 2014/02/25 $20.00 Data plan VZWRLSS *PREPAID PYM1888- 294 -6804 CA 1470:6188 * *0927 DARRELL TODD 2014/02/27 $22.30 Data plan VZWRLSS *PREPAID PYM1888- 294 -6804 CA 1470.6188 * *0927 DARRELL TODD 2014/02/27 $22.30 Data plan VZWRLSS *PREPAID PYM1888- 294 -6804 CA 1470.6188 * *0927 DARRELL TODD 2014/02/27 $40.00 Data plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOP 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1470:6188 * *0927 DARRELL TODD 2014/03/07 $394.04 Smoke alarms ,ELECTRICBARGAINSTOR 310- 822 -6500 CA 1470.6406= * *0927 DARRELL TODD 2014/03/12 $56.29 Station supplies TARGET `00023135 EDINA MN 1470.6406 * *0927 DARRELL TODD 2014/03/12 $895.00 AED AEDS TODAY ', 800- 554 -3363 CO 1470.6406 * *0927 DARRELL TODD 2014/03/13 $44.50 Converter SOUTHEASTERN EMERG..800- 334 -6656 NC 1470.6406 * *0927 DARRELL TODD 2014103/20 $20.00 bata,plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY - AUTO P 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1470.6188 * *0927 DARRELL TODD 2014/03/24 $20.00 Data plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOP 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1470.6188 * *8102 JEFF BROWN 2014/02/25 $90.00 Conference ACT *SWANA ED SEM 877 =551 -5560 CA 5952.6104 * *81.02 JEFF BROWN 2014/03/01 $1,710.00 Bottle fill station BUILD- CHARGE.COM 800- 375 -3403 CA 5952.6406 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/02/24 $34$.14 Quick connects OIL AIR PRODUCS LLC 763- 4788744 MN 1553.6530 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/03%11 $436.02 Tire spreader MILE -X EQUIP INC. 800 - 837 -3818 OH 1553.6585 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/03/11 $68.30 Supplies ONLINE METALS.COM 800- 704 -2157 WA 1553.6530 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/03/14 $111.39 Supplies ONLINE METALS.COM 800 - 704 -2157 WA 1553.6580 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/03/17 $144.85 Chamber tool PAYPAL *BRAKECHAMBE 402 -935 -7733 CA 1553.6556 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/03/21 $112.22 Supplies INTERSTATE PRODUCTS 800 -474 -7294 FL 1553.6530 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/02/27 $73.90 Mouse AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTAMZN.COM /BILL WA 1160.6406 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/02/27 $54.99 Keyboard. AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTAMZN.COM /BILL . WA 1160.6406 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/03/01 $299.70 iPhone chargers AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTAMZN.COM /BILL WA 1400.6160 * *8753 RYAN _BROWNING 2014/03/06 $20.00 iPad data Gilgenbach VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOP 888- 294.6804 CA 1130.6160 GAPurchasing cards \2014 purchasing card electronic files \2014 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx 4/18/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 2/26/14- 03/25/14 Account Name Date Amount Description Merchant City State Account * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/03/06 $151.99 Toner AMAZON.COM AMZNCOM /BILL WA 1400.6160 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/03/07 $334:90 Printer AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTAM2N:4COM /BILL WA 1400.6160 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/03/12= $159.64 Squad antenna TESSCO INCORPORATEC 800 -472 -7373 MD 1400.6160 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/03/18 $250:29 PC video card PYRAMID IMAGING INC 813 - 984 -0125 FL 1400.6160 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/03/20 $29.75 GPS adapter AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTAMZN.COM /BILL . WA 1400.6160 '* *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/03/21 `$69:00 iPad keyboard Medzis AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTAMZN.COM /BILL WA 1400.6160 * *5587 DAWN_BEITEL 201'4/03[07 $30.63 Supplies TARGET 00023135 EDINA MN 5720.6406 * *5587 DAWN BEITEL 2014/03/08 $8.57'. Supplies MARSHALLS #0538e,% ,EDINA MN 5720.6406 * *6841 ANN KATTREH 2014/03/22 $20:00 Data plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOP 888- 294 -6804 CA 1600:6188 * *8843 ERIC BOETTCHER 2014/02/28 $332.80 Bowling fees BRUNSWICK ZONE-EDEN.EDEN PRAIRIE MN 1629.6406 * *8843 ERIC BOETTCHER 2014/02/28 $144.00 Trampoline rent AIRMAXX TRAMPOLINE EDEN PRAIRIE MN 1624.6406 * *8843 ERIC BOETTCHER 2014/03/10 $1,380.00 Program registration EDINA COMMUNITY EDUC952- 8483947 MN 1624.6406 * *8843 ERIC BOETTCHER 2014/03/10 $864.00 Program registration ,, EDINA COMMUNITY EDUC 952 - 8483947 MN 1621.6406 * *8843 ERIC BOETTCHER 2014/03/11. $225.00 Program deposit CTY OF EAGAN- FIN /PKS /F 651' =675 -5017 MN 1624.6406 * *8843 ERIC-BOETTCHER 2014/03%13 $106.81 Food DAVANNI'S #15 EDINA MN 1622.6406 * *8843 ERIC BOETTCHER 2014/03/13 $7.58 Water TARGET 00002600 ST. LOUIS PAR MN 1622.6406 * *7279 DONNA TILSNER 2014/02/27 $115.00 Popcorn.popper IGH PARKS AND RECREA INVER GROVE MN 1628.6406 *''0756 BOB PRESTRUD 2014/03/07 $39.95 Seminar WARNING LITES 612- 277 -4702. MN`. 1646.6104 * *0756 BOB PRESTRUD 2014/03/10 $410.51 Supplies THE HOME DEPOT 2812 . EDEN PRAIRIE MN 1646.6406 * *0756 BOB PRESTRUD 2014/03/14 $220.24 Supplies FERGUSON ENT #1657 763 =797 -7000 MN. 1646.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014 /03/03 $10.72 Software ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. 800- 833 -6687 WA 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER" BENNERC 2014/03/05 $130.00 Facebook ads FACEBK *7THVK52632 VWWV.FB.ME/CC CA 1130.6122 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/05 $20.00 Data plan - Gilgenbacl VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOP 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1130.6160 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/05 $64.36 Hard drive for SWTV MICRO CENTER #045 REl ST LOUIS PARK MN ,1132.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC2014 /03/05 $53.63 Software ADOBE SYSTEMSJNC. 800- 833 - 6687. WA - 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/06 $20.00 Data plan - Martin VZWRLSS *PREPAID PYMI 888- 294 -6804 CA -1130.6160 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014 /03/06 $53.63 Software ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. 800 - 833 -6687 WA 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/11 $20.00 BUSINESS EXPENS ". VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOP 888 =294 -6804 , CA 1130.6160 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC2014 /03/11 $15.71 Frames for posters MICHAELS STORES 3739 BLOOMINGTON MN 5861.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC2014 /03/11 $15.71 frames for'posters MICHAELS STORES 3739 BLOOMINGTON' MN 5821.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/11 $15.72 Frames for posters MICHAELS STORES 3739 BLOOMINGTON MN 5841.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014 /03/11 $11.96 Subscription THE STAR TRIBUNE CIRC612- 6734343 MN 1130.6105 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC2014 /03/12 $32.17 Software. ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC WA 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014 /03/13 $20.00 Data plan - Bennett VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOP 888- 294 -6804 CA: 1100.6160 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/14 $32.17 Software ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. 800 - 833 -6687 ` WA 1130.6406 G: \Pure' -sing cards\2014 purchasing card electronic files \2014 USB,r'',.-rchasing Card Register.xlsx d R/2014 Account Name Date * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/14 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/14 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/13 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC2014 /03/17 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/18 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC 2014 /03/20 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC2014 /03/21 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNERC2014 /03/21 * *2293. JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/21 * *2293 . JENNIFER BENNERC 2014/03/22 * *8318 TOM SWENSON 2014/03/18 * *6428 TODD ANDERSON 2014/03/14 * *6428 TODD ANDERSON 2014/03/14 * *8806 MARY WOOLDRIDGE 2014/03/01 * *8806 MARY WOOLDRIDGE 2014/03/09 * *8806 MARY WOOLDRIDGE 2014/03/16 * *8806 MARY WOOLDRIDGE 2014/03/15 * *7820 SUSIE MILLER 2014/02/26 * *7820 SUSIE MILLER 2014/02/26 * *7820 SUSIE MILLER 2014/03/10 * *7820 SUSIE MILLER 2014/03/13 * *3792 MICHAEL FREY 2014/03/10 * *5$21 AMY SMITH 2014/02/28 * *5821 AMY SMITH 2014/02/28 * *5821 AMY SMITH 2014/03/12 * *5821 AMY SMITH 2014/03/12 * *9665 SUSAN FAUS 2014/03/02 * *1282 PATRICIA MCGRATH 2014/03/04 * *1282 PATRICIA MCGRATH 2014/03/05 * *1282 PATRICIA MCGRATH 2014 /03/10 * *1282 PATRICIA MCGRATH 2014 /03/13 * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/02/26 * *0116. TOM SHIRLEY 2014/02/26 * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/02/28 * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/03 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 2/26/14- 03/25/14 Amount Description Merchant City $75.00 ' BUSINESS EXPENS MAGC 651- 6754434 $165.00 BUSINESS EXPENS - MAGC -651- 6754434 $23.57 Frames for posters MICHAELS.STORES 3702 RICHFIELD $29.95 Online invoicing 2NDSITE FIR ESHBOOKS ._ `416. -481 -6946 $5.00 Spam blocker AKSMT.COM 877 = 273 -3049 $405.72 Voice training PAYPAL *SARAHJONESL- 402 - 935 -7733 $149.00 Training PAYPAL *SPICEWORKSI 402- 935 -7733 $149.00 Training PAYPAL *SPICEWORKSI 402- 935 -7733 $149.00 Training PAYPAL *SPICEWORKSI 402 - 935 -7733 $20.00 Data plan - Swenson VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOP 888 - 294.6804 $61.53 Stump grinder AD ACQUISITION LLC 320 - 7591551 $54.87 Supplies OFFICE DEPOT #415 EDEN PRAIRIE $345.05 Disputed transaction 4616771000869600 877 - 475 -4656 $20.00 Data plan VZWRLSS *PREPAID PYM1888- 294 -6804 $44.92 -Supplies OFFICE DEPOT #415 EDEN PRAIRIE $24.63 Supplies TARGET 00002600 ST. LOUIS PAR $18.27 Supplies OFFICE DEPOT #415 EDEN PRAIRIE $13.63 Paint supplies PITTSBURGH PAINTS 985 EDINA $163.97 Cart ULINE *SHIP SUPPLIES 800 - 295 -5510 $68.50 Learn to Skate US FIGURE SKATING 719- 635 -5200 $61.11 Business cards OFFICE DEPOT #0295 MINNETONKA $126.54 Supplies IKEA BLOOMINGTON BLOOMINGTON $60.00 Retail inventory EDINA LIQUOR YORK EDINA $109.00 Retail inventory EDINA LIQUOR YORK EDINA $47.00 Retail inventory EDINA LIQUOR YORK EDINA $27.00 Retail inventory EDINA LIQUOR YORK EDINA $30.00 Data plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOP 888 - 294 -6804 $41.73 Postage PITNEY BOWES* 800- 228 -1071 $342.21 WHOLESALE TRADE A 1 FOAM AND UPHOLSTI BLOOMINGTON $45.06 Test transaction EDINA STORE 952- 927 -8861 $100.00 Postage POSTAGE REFILL 800 -468 -8454 $15.37 License DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 651- 2016433 $149.99 Mat ON DECK SPORTS 617- 580 -6171 $114.00 Membership MN STATE HORTICULTUF ROSEVILLE $130.35 Supplies MENARDS 3297. RICHFIELD State Account MN 1130.6104 MN 1130.6104. MN 5511.6406 ON 1130.6124 CA 1130.6124 CA 1130.6104 TX 1554.6104 TX 1554.6104 TX 1554.6104 CA 1100.6160 MN 5422.6530 MN 5410.6513 GA 5410.6513 CA 5440.6406 MN 5410.6513 MN 5210.6406 MN 5210.6513 MN 5510.6406 IL 5511.6406 CO 5510.6406 MN 5510.6406 MN 5120.6406 MN 5420.5513 MN 5420.5514 MN -:5420.5514 MN 5420.5513 CA 1600:6188 CT 5710.6235 MN 5720.6530 MN 5301.4532 CT 5710.6103 MN 5760.6105 MA 5761.6406 MN 5760.6105 MN 5761.6406 GAP.urchasing cards \2014 purchasing card electronic files \2014 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx 4/18/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 2/26/14- 03/25/14 Account Name Date Amount Description Merchant City State * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/04 $218.05 Supplies MENARDS 3297 RICHFIELD MN * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/04 $16.80 Cleaner WW GRAINGER 877- 2022594 PA * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/04 $5.60 Cleaner WW GRAINGER 877- 2022594 PA * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/05 $29.10 Supplies MENARDS 3297 RICHFIELD MN * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/05 $25.36 Supplies MENARDS 3297 RICHFIELD MN * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/11 $209:00 Waste bags POOPBAGSUS 954 - 251 -0643 FL * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/11 $215.60 Wndow film JADE ENTERPRISES 800 - 597 -0172 FL * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/17 $340.69 Supplies MENARDS 3297 RICHFIELD -MN * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/18 $24.76 Supplies BACHMAN'S INC #1 MINNEAPOLIS MN * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/18 $46.06 Sprayers MENARDS 3297 RICHFIELD MN * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/18 $279.00 Lawn mower POWER EQUIPMENT DIRE 800 - 7107499 IL * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/19 $19.60 Supplies THE TILE SHOP 002 BLOOMINGTON MN * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/20 $89.10 Supplies MENARDS 3297 RICHFIELD MN * *0116 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/03/21 $137.57 Supplies OFFICE MAX EDINA MN * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/02/25 $24.25 Supplies OFFICE MAX EDINA MN * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/02/25 $25.65 Supplies THE HOME DEPOT 2805 BLOOMINGTON MN * *0093- STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/02/28 $11.54 Cups TARGET 00023135 EDINA;. MN * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/03/03 $106.60 Retail inventory MORAN. USA LLC 800 -486 -6726 CT * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/03/04 $11.27 Retail inventory MORAN USA LLC 800 -486 -6726 CT. * *0093 . STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/03/04 $30.00 Gift ceftificate EDINA LIQUOR YORK EDINA MN * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/03/04 $30.00 Gift certificate EDINA LIQUOR YORK EDINA MN * *0093. STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/03/04 $30.00. Gift certificate EDINA LIQUOR YORK EDINA MN * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/03/18 $6.38 Supplies JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAIR EDINA MN * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/03/24 $10.79 Duster JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAIR EDINA MN * *9956 DEB FIELDS 2014/02/24 $136.64 Gate remotes GATE HOUSE SUPPLIES_ 805- 520 -2714 CA * *9956 DEB FIELDS 2014/02/27 $172.43 Earmuffs EXCELL ENTERPRISES 800 -643 -7540 WI * *9956 DEB FIELDS 2014/02128 $21.43 Baskets MICHAELS,STORES 3702,,RICHFIELD. MN * *9956 DEB FIELDS 2014/03/01 $109.32 Email service EMA *EMMA.EMAIL MARKS 800= 5954401 TN * *9956 DEB FIELDS 2014/03/06 $30.42 Advertising GOOGLE *ADWS5107668f,CC�dd' C)G,LE.CO CA * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/02/25 $49.30 Supplies ROCKLER WOOD* "MINNETONKA MN - * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/02/25 $85.81 Cart NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP MINNETONKA MN * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/02/26 $171.60 Cart NOR *NORTHERN TOOL 800- 222 -5381 MN * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/02/26- $97.12 Supplies THE HOME DEPOT 2812 EDEN PRAIRIE MN * *7039 GERALD, KOPLOS 2014/02/28 $69.52 Supplies MENARDS 3268 EDEN PRAIRIE MN * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/01 $9.61 Supplies CABELA'S'RETAIL OWATC 800 - 2374444 MN G: \Pur," 7sing cards \2014 purchasing card electronic files\2014.USB;1- 7chasing Card Register.xlsx Account 5761.6406 5761.6511 5761.6406 5761.6406 5761.6406 5765.6406 - 5761.6406 5761.6406 5761.6406 5761.6406 5761.6406 5761.6406 5761.6406 5760.6406 5840.6513 5821.6406 5842.6406 5842.5515 5842.5515 5822.6406 5842.6406 5862.6406 5862.6406 5861.6406 7411.6406 7412.6406 7414.6406 7410.6122 7410.6122 7412.6406 7412.6406 7412.6406 7412.6406 7411.6406 7411.6406 a'" 4/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 2/26/14- 03/25/14 Account Name Date Amount Description Merchant City State Account * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/01 $9.61 Supplies CABELA'S' RETAIL OWATC800- 2374444 MN 7411.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/03 $13.37 Beverages BERGAN'S SUPER MINNEAPOLIS MN 7410.6218 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/04 $13.78 Food CUB FOODS -EDEN PRAI EDEN PRAIRIE MN 7410.6218 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/04 $365.76 WHOLESALE TRADE BEARING DIST* 216- 642 -9100 OH 7411.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/03 $54.50 Supplies .. MILLS FLEET FARM #3,201 CARVER -MN 7412.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/05 $29.03 Food CUB FOODS #3128 EDINA MN 7410.6218 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/10 $2.59 Scribe DELEGARD TOOL COMPP BLOOMINGTON MN - 7411.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/10 $19.30 Supplies NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP MINNETONKA MN 7411.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/12 $81.22 Supplies _ THE HOME DEPOT 2812 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 7412.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/21 $2.19 Postage USPS'26632704333409905 MINNEAPOLIS MN 7411.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/03/20 $102.92 Doorstop THE HOME DEPOT 2812 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 7411.6406 * *7039 GERALD KO.PLOS 2014/03/24 $15.00 Food MAINSTREET BAKERY 952 - 9438008 MN 7414.6406 * *2223 GREG BRETSON 2014/02/25• $28.99 Supplies JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAIR EDINA MN 7411.6406 * *2223 GREG BRETSON 2014/03/05 $64.34 Supplies SEARS ROEBUCK 1142 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 7411.6406 * *2223 GREG BRETSON 2014/03/11 $19.72 Supplies MENARDS 3268 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 7411.6406 * *2223. GREG BRETSON 2014/03/15 $9.64 Hammer drill bit JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAIR EDINA MN 7411.6406 * *2223 GREG BRETSON 2014/03/20 $39.94 Supplies MENARDS 3021 BURNSVILLE MN 7411.6406 * *2223 GREG BRETSON 2014/03/21 $10.80 Postage USPS 26632704333409905 MINNEAPOLIS MN 7410.6513 $40,393.45 We confirm to thel best of our knowledge and belief, that -these claims comply in all- material respects with the requirements of the -City of Edina purchasing policies 4tnd City Oft'anager, GAPurchasing cards \2014 purchasing card electronic files\2014 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx 4/18/2014 1 \ 8886 A�/ To: Mayor & City Council Agenda Item #: IV.0 From: Joyce Repya, Senior Planner Action 0 Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject• Hennepin County Affordable Housing Incentive Funds from Fiscal Years 2014 & 2015 . By West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust For Homes Within Reach Program Resolution No. 2014 -44 Action Requested: Adopt Resolution No. 2014 -44 approving the use of Hennepin County Affordable Housing Incentive Funds (AHIF) from fiscal years 2014 and 2015 by West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) for Homes Within Reach Program. Information /Background: Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA) in Resolution No. 12 -HCHRA -0015 has approved the use of a $100,000 AHIF grant, $20,000 of which will be used toward the purchase of a land trust home in the City of Edina, by WHAHLT, contingent upon the City of Edina's consent to the HCHRA's participation in the project. The purchase of this home will increase /preserve the supply of affordable housing in the City of Edina by providing /preserving affordable homeownership in Edina using the Community Land Trust model. Furthermore, Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA) in Resolution No. 13- HCHRA -0016 has approved the use of a $120,000 AHIF grant, a portion of which will be used by WHAHLT toward an Edina project to be determined, contingent upon the City of Edina's consent to the HCHRA's participation in the project. The City of Edina's approval of the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority's participation in West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust's Homes Within Reach program is required for the grant funds to be transferred to WHAHLT. Attachment: Resolution No. 2014 -44 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 NO. 2014 -44 APPROVING USE OF HENNEPIN COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE FUNDS FROM FISCAL YEARS 2014 AND 2015 BY WEST HENNEPIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND TRUST FOR HOMES WITHIN REACH PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority ( HCHRA) in Resolution No. 12- HCHRA -0015 has approved the use of a $100,000 Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF) grant, $20,000 of which will be used toward the purchase of a land trust home in the City of Edina, contingent upon the City of Edina's consent to the HCHRA's participation in the project; and WHEREAS, the purchase of the project will increase /preserve the supply of affordable housing in the City of Edina by providing /preserving affordable homeownership in Edina using the Community Land Trust model; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority ( HCHRA) in Resolution No. 13- HCHRA -0016 has approved the use of a $120,000 Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF) grant, a portion of which will be used toward an Edina project to be determined, contingent upon the City of Edina's consent to the HCHRA's participation in the project; and WHEREAS, the project to be determined will increase /preserve the supply of affordable housing in the City of Edina by providing /preserving affordable homeownership in Edina using the Community Land Trust model; and WHEREAS, the grants from the HCHRA will complete the financing required for West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust's Homes Within Reach program. BE IT RESOLVED, that the participation of the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority in the West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust's Homes Within Reach program is approved. Dated: May 6, 2014 Attest Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 May 6, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 120- CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street . Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952 - 927 -8861 • Fax 952 - 826 -0389 /k/ O Action Requested: Adopt Resolution. Information / Background: While making reservations for polling locations for the 2014 elections, staff became aware that the Edina Public Schools. would have two locations, Highlands Elementary School and Creek Valley Elementary School out of service during August due to construction. We have searched for alternate locations to use as polling places. Good Samaritan Methodist Church and St. Albans Episcopal Church agreed to allow us to use their facilities for the Edina Precinct 5 and Edina Precinct 10. Staff has toured the facilities and found them to be accessible and to have adequate space, parking and availability for our use in August. We must adopt -this resolution and_ send it to Hennepin County and the Secretary of :State by May 12, 2014 to comply with statute. Following adoption :of the resolution, all precinct finders and maps will be updated. Notices will be sent to all affected registered voters before the Primary and again before the. General Election informing them of the change of location. Attachments: Resolution No. 2014 -45 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 •:i. • ^�RI'ORi`T6 10 ItltlB To: MAYOR & COUNCIL Agenda Item #: IV. D. From: Debra Mangen Action City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: May b, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Resolution No. 2014- 45 Moving Precinct 5 and Precinct 10 Polling Locations For August Primary Election Only Action Requested: Adopt Resolution. Information / Background: While making reservations for polling locations for the 2014 elections, staff became aware that the Edina Public Schools. would have two locations, Highlands Elementary School and Creek Valley Elementary School out of service during August due to construction. We have searched for alternate locations to use as polling places. Good Samaritan Methodist Church and St. Albans Episcopal Church agreed to allow us to use their facilities for the Edina Precinct 5 and Edina Precinct 10. Staff has toured the facilities and found them to be accessible and to have adequate space, parking and availability for our use in August. We must adopt -this resolution and_ send it to Hennepin County and the Secretary of :State by May 12, 2014 to comply with statute. Following adoption :of the resolution, all precinct finders and maps will be updated. Notices will be sent to all affected registered voters before the Primary and again before the. General Election informing them of the change of location. Attachments: Resolution No. 2014 -45 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -45 CHANGING LOCATIONS FOR EDINA PRECINCT 5 AND PRECINCT 10 Whereas Minnesota Statute 2046.'16 Subdivision I, authorized the governing body of each municipality to designate a polling place for each election precinct; and ,Whereas s polling places must be designated not less than 90 days before an election; and Whereas, the normal polling locations for Edina Precinct 5 and Edina Precinct 10 will be under construction ddlr.ing the August 12, 2014 Primary. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the temporary polling location for Edina Precinct 5 shall be Good Samaritan Church located at 5730 Grove Street, Edina, Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the temporary polling location for Edina Precinct 10 shall be St. Albans Church located at 6716 Gleason Road,.Edina, Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council of the City of Edina hereby establishes the following polling locations: Precinct IA Shepherd.,of Hills Church 500 Blake Road Precinct I B Chapel Hills Church 6512 Vernon Avenue Precinct 2 Edina Senior Center 5280 Grandview Square Precinct 3 Covenant Church of Edina 4201 West 50th Street Precinct 4 Weber Park Building 4115 Grimes Avenue Precinct 5 Good Samaritan Church 5730 Grove Street Precinct 6 Countryside Elementary School 5701 Benton Avenue . Precinct 7 Normandale Lutheran Church 6100 Normandale Road Precinct 8 South View Middle School 4725 South View Lane Precinct 9 Concord Elementary School 5900 Concord Avenue Precinct 10 St. Albans Church 6716 Gleason Road Precinct I I New Covenant Church 6400 Tracy Avenue Precinct 12 Arneson Acres Park 471 West 70th Street Precinct 13 Centennial Lake`Park Centrum 7499 France Avenue Precinct 1.4 Edina Community Lutheran 4113 West 54th Street Precinct 15 Valley View Middle, School 6750 Valley View Road Precinct. 16 Cornelia Elementary: School 7000 Cornelia Drive Precinct 17 Southdale Hennepin Library 7001 York Avenue South Precinct 18 Edinborough Park Great Hall 7700 York Avenue South Precinct 19 Calvary Lutheran Church 6817 Antrim Road Dated: May 6, 2014: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL iA O �l Agenda Item #: IV. E. From: John Wallin, Finance Director Action Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: .Resolution No. 20.14 -47 Approving-Execution & Delivery of First.Amendment To Amended, & Restated. Declaration Of Restrictive Covenants For The City Of Edina Variable DgDemand Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Edina Park Plaza Action Requist�d:eries 1999 Pass Resolution No. 2014 -47 Approving Execution and Delivery of First Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration`of Restrictive Covenants for the City of Edina Variable Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding. Bonds (Edina Park Plaza Project) Series 1999. Information / Background: In 1999 the City of Edina issued the conduit bonds referred to above (the "Bonds ") to refund the conduit bonds originally issued by the City in 1985 to finance the acquisition and construction of Edina Park Plaza, the senior housing development at Edinborough'. In connection with the issuance of the Bonds, the City, the Bond Trustee and the owner of the Edina Park Plaza entered into an Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "Original' Restricted. Covenants "), which provided for the certain income and other rental restrictions for Edina Park.Plaza required. to meet the requirements under federal law for the tax exemption of interest on the Bonds. Because;this. is a conduit issue the City of Edina ;has no liability related to the issue. The owner .is proposing to make certain modifications to the facilities as detailed in the attached letter from Dorsey .& Whitney which would require amending the original covenants to allow microwave ovens in certain units instead of cooking ranges as required by the original covenants. The owner of Edina Park Plaza is requesting that the .City execute and deliver a First Amendment to Amended and Restricted Covenants to amend Section 2(b) of the Original Restricted Covenants, to provide that an assisted living unit or memory care unit may contain a full size microwave oven rather than a cooking range. The City's bond counsel, Dorsey & Whitney has drafted the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the First Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. Attachments: Dorsey & Whitney letter describing the details of the Bonds and the requested amendment. Resolution No. 2014 -47 Approving Execution and Delivery of First Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. First Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. Dorsey & Whitney Opinion Letter. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 ED0RSEY"" DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP. JEROME P. GILLIGAN (612)340 -2962 FAX (612) 340 -2643 gilligan.jerome @dorsey:com April 28, 2014 Mr. John Wallin Finance Director City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Edina Park Plaza Project _ Freddie Mac Credit Enhanced) Series 1999 City of Edina, Minnesota Dear John: In 1999 the City, of Edina issued the Bonds referredto�above (the "Bonds ") to refund the bonds originally issued by the City in 1985 to finance the acquisition and ,construction of Edina Park•Plaza,'the senior-housing development at Edinborough.. In connection with the issuance of the Bonds the City, the' Bond Trustee and "the owner of the Edina Park Plaza entered into an Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "Original Restricted Coydhants "), which provided for the certain income. and' other rental restrictions for Edina Park Plaza: required to meet the requirements under federal law for the tax exemption, of ,,interest on the Bonds.: The owner of Edina Park Plaza is proposing to make certain modifications to the facilities and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ( "Freddie Mac "), the credit enhancer for the, Bonds, requested that Dorsey & Whitney, as bond counsel for the Bonds, give an opinion as to whether the proposed modifications adversely affects the tax exemption of the interest on the Bonds. Following completion of the modifications, the facility will have 11 full floors of independent living units and 1. floor that is one -half independent living units and one- half common area, 3 floors of assisted living units, 2 floors of memory care units and 1 floor that is all commons area. Section 2(b) of the Original Restrictive Covenants required that each unit in Edina Park Plaza contain cooking facilities equipped with a cooking range. The proposed modifications will provide for assisted living units and memory care units which will not contain conventional cooking ranges but will contain full sized microwave ovens. Because of the modifications to Section 2(b) of the Original Restrictive Covenants needs to be amended to provide that assisted living units and memory care units may contain a full sized microwave oven rather than a cooking range. The Original Restrictive Covenants provides that the bond trustee shall not DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP • WWW.DORSEY.COM • T 612.340.2600 • F 612.340.2868 SUITE 1500 • 50 SOUTH SIXTH STREET • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -1498 USA CANADA EUROPE ASIA - PACIFIC C 0ORSEY ", Mr.. John Wallin April 28, 2014 'Page,.2 consent to an amendment unless it,is provided with an opinion of bond counsel that such amendment will not cause the interest proposed on the bonds to be includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The owner of Edina Park Plaza is requesting that the City execute and deliver a First Amendment to Amended and Restricted Covenants to amend Section 2(b) of the .Original Restricted Covenants, to provide that an assisted living unit or memory care unit may contain a full size microwave oven rather than a cooking range. We have advised the parties that we are of the opinion that the proposed modifications. to Edina Park Plaza and the amendments to the Original Restrictive Covenants by the First Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants will not cause the interest on the Bonds to.be includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes., Enclosed are the following items: 1. Resolution of Edina City Council approving execution and delivery of the First Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for. consideration at the City Council's meeting on May 6t'; 2. A copy of the Original Restrictive Covenants and of the draft of the First Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants; and 3. Form of opinion of Dorsey & Whitney as bon6bounsel that the modifications to Edina Park Plaza and the,amendment of the Original Restrictive Covenants by the First Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration'of Restrictive Covenants will not cause interest on the Bonds to be includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes, which opinion will be delivered to the City, Bond Trustee and Freddie Mac-upon execution of1he First Amendment. Should you, have any questions or require any further information please let me know. Y r tr JPG /pmh ou s u y, 1 r� i' /' Jero a P. Gilligan ' DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP A, rL� O �y RESOLUTION NO. 201.4-47 RESOLUTION APPROVING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City has issued its Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Revenue Bonds (Edina Park,Plaza Project — Freddie Mac Credit Enhanced), Series 1999 (the "Bonds "), to refund bonds previously issued by the City to finance the acquisition and construction of Edina Park Plaza, ..a senior housing facility located in the City. In connection with the issuance of the Bonds the City, U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for the Bonds (the 'Bond Trustee "), and Brookdale Living Communities of Minnesota, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and successor by merger.to,Brookdale Living Communities of Minnesota, Inc. (the "Owner"'), entered into that certain Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "Original Restrictive Covenants"). The Owner has requested.that the City execute and deliver an amendment to the Original Restrictive Covenants entitled First Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "First Amendment "), by and among the City, the Bond Trustee and the Owner, a draft of which is on file with the City. 2. The amendment of the Original Restrictive Covenants by the First Amendment is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City to execute and deliver the First Amendment. Passed and adopted by the Edina City Council this 6n' day of May, 2014. Attest Debra Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF BENNEPIN )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 May 6, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20 City Clerk CITY. OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.Edina MN.gov • 952- 927 -8861 • Fax 952 -826 -0390 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (this "First Amendment ") is made and entered into as of May 6, 2014, by and among the CITY OF EDINA, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota duly organized and existing under 'the laws thereof (the "Issuer "), U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee, a, national banking association authorized to accept and execute trusts with its principal corporate trust office in St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Trustee ") and BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES;OF MINNESOTA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and successor by merger-to Brookdale Living Communities of Minnesota, Inc. (the "Owner"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties executed and entered into that certain Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated as of December 1, 1999, recorded as Document Number 32299.18 in the Records of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Original Covenants ") with respect to the Project located on the real property more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto . (all defined terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Original Covenants); and WHEREAS, the parties hereto- desire to modify and amend the Original Covenants in certain respects. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the' foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Issuer, the Trustee and the Owner hereby agree as follows: 1. Amendment of Original Covenants. Section 2(b) of the Original Covenants is hereby modified and amended by deleting such section in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following: "(b) All of the dwelling units in the Project were and are similarly constructed, and each dwelling unit in the.Project does and will contain facilities for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation for a single person or a family which are complete, separate and distinct from other dwelling units 'in the Project and do and will include a sleeping area, bathing and sanitation facilities and cooking facilities equipped with a cooking range (or, in the case of an assisted living or memory care unit, a full -size microwave oven), refrigerator and sink." 2. Ratification. The parties hereto hereby ratify and reaffirm the Original Covenants, as amended hereby, in all respects. [Signature pages follows] 961688.v2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Issuer, the Trustee and: the Owner have executed this First Amendment by duly authorized representatives, all as of the date -first above written. CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, a municipal corporation-of the State of Minnesota, By: Its: By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing 'instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2014, by and , the - and - of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on behalf of said municipality. Notary Public 848964 961688.v2 U S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as STATE OF ) COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2014, by , a of U.S. Bank National Association, .a national banking association on behalf of said association. Notary Public 848964 961688.v2 BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES OF MINNESOTA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: PSLT -BLC Properties Holdings, LLC; a Delaware limited liability company; its .sole member By: PSLT OP, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, its sole member By: PSLT GP, LLC, a Delaware,limited liability company, its general partner By: VentasProvident, LLC, a Delaware limited liability, company, its sole member By Naive: Title: STATE OF ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2014, by the of Ventas Provident, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the sole member of PSLT GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the sole general partner of PSLT OP, L.P., Delaware limited partnership, `-the sole member of PSLT -BLC Properties Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the sole member'of Brookdale Living Communities of Minnesota, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of said limited liability company.. Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: 848964 961688.v2 EXHIBIT A Legal Description ofProiect Site The land referred to is situated in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, and is described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Edinborough Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles,7 in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. 848964 961688.v2 v i 848964 961688.v2 EXECUTION COPY AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS between CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA and U.S: BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee and BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES OF MINNESOTA, INC. Dated as of December 1, 1999 Relating to $15,040,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Edina Park Plaza Project - Freddie Mac Credit Enhanced), Series 1999 City of Edina, Minnesota i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1. Definitions and Interpretation.............-.......; ....... 2 Section 2. Residential Rental Property ...:.. ........ ............................... 5 Section 3. Lower - Income Tenants .................. ............................... 5. Section 4. Quarterly Reports ............ .. ................. ...................... 6 Section 5. Agreement To Record ................... ..................... 7 Section 6. Consideration ...... ... .......... ............................... 7. Section 7. Covenants Run With the Land ............... I ............................ 7 Section 8..' Burden and Benefit. .............:........ ............................- 7 Section 9. Reliance ...... ................. . ............................... 8 Section 10. Term . ..... ..................:. .... ,......... ................ 8 Section 11. Default; Enforcement ........ ............................... 8. Section 12. ............ Estoppel Certificate ............. ..... ............................... 9 Section 13. Amendments ... .................. .............................. 9 Section 14. Notices . ...... ........................ ........................... 9 Section 15. Severability ....................... :. ........ .................... 10 Section 16. Multiple Counterparts ...... ... ... ............................... 10 Section 17. Limited Liability ....... ...... ..... ............:........ ... 10 Section 18. The Trustee ...... ... ............................... ..... ..... 10 Section 19., Indemnification ....................... ............................... 10 Section 20. Governing Law ... ..... .I ............................. ........ 11 Section 21. Restated Declaration as Replacement ...................................... 11 EXHIBIT A - Legal Description of Project Site EXHIBIT B - Form of Certification of Tenant Eligibility EXHIBIT C - Form of Certificate of Continuing Program Compliance AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (the "Restated Declaration ") is made and entered into as of December 1, 1999, between the CITY OF EDINA, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota duly organized and existing under the laws thereof (the "Issuer "), U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee, a national banking association authorized to accept and execute trusts of the type contemplated by `the Indenture (as herein defined), with its principal corporate .trust office in Saint Paul, Minnesota (the "Trustee "), and . BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES OF MINNESOTA, INC., a Delaware corporation (the «Owner" ). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes; Chapters 462A and 462C, as amended (the "Act "), the Issuer has heretofore issued. its Housing Development Revenue Bonds (FHA Insured Mortgage Loan—Edina Park.Plaza Project), Series 1985 (the "1985 Bonds "), for the purpose, among others, of making .funds available to, make a FHA - insured mortgage loan to finance the acquisition and construction of a 208 -unit elderly multifamily rental housing facility development known as "Edina Park Plaza " - located on the Prcje6VSite (as hereinafter defined) at 3330 Edinborough Way in the ^City of Edina, Minnesota (the "Project" ), intended,for occupancy primarily by- elderly. persons or designed to be affordable by low and moderate income persons within the meaning of the Act and in part by persons and families of" Now and moderate income" within the meaning of the Code (as hereinafter'defined); and WHEREAS, simultaneously with the issuance of the 1985 Bonds, the Housing and" j Redevelopment Authority of.the City of Edina (the "Authority ") by a.Deed and Covenants Running with the Land, dated as of October 1;,1985 and filed on October 24, 1985 in'the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document No. 1680500 (the "Original Deed "), conveyed to Edina Park Plaza. Associates;Limited Partnership, an Illinois limited partnership (the "Original:Owner" ), the Project Site; and WHEREAS, the Original Deed contained certain covenants, and restrictions running with the land and binding upon the Original Owner, its successors and assigns (the "Covenants "); and' WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and a Trust Indenture, dated as of November 15, 1989, between the Issuer and First Trust National Association (now known as U.S; Bank Trust National Association), as trustee, the Issuer issued $17,415,000 in aggregate principal amount of its Housing Development Refunding Revenue Bonds-(FHA Insured Mortgage Loan - Edina`Park Plaza. Project), Series 1989 -A and Series 1989 -B (collectively, the "Prior Bonds "), for the purpose of refunding and redeeming the Issuer's then outstanding 1985 Bonds; and WHEREAS, simultaneously with the issuance of the Prior Bonds, the Authority, the Original Owner and First Bank National Association, as trustee for the 1985 Bonds, entered into a First Amendment to Deed and Covenants Running With the Land, dated as of November. 15, 1989, and filed on December 19, 1989 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document No. 2061489 (the "First Amendment to Deed! ), to amend certain of the Covenants; and WHEREAS, the Original Owner conveyed the Project to the Owner pursuant to a Quit Claim Deed, filed on June 5, 1997, in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document No. 2815856; and J WHEREAS, the Issuer, acting pursuant to the Act, has entered into a Trust Indenture, dated as of December 1, 1999 (the "Indenture "), with the Trustee; and WHEREAS, the Act and the Indenture authorize the Issuer to issue refunding bonds to refund the outstanding Prior Bonds issued to refinance the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and the Indenture, the Issuer proposes to issue $15,040,000 aggregate principal amount of its revenue bonds designated "City of Edina, Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Edina Park Plaza Project - Freddie Mac Credit Enhanced), Series 1999" (the `Bonds "), the proceeds of which will be used to make a mortgage loan to the Owner to refund the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Owner will rent or lease or will hold available for rent or occupancy at least 20% of the completed dwelling units in the Project to individuals or families of lower income, as herein defined, all for the public purpose of assisting such individuals and families to afford the costs of decent, safe and sanitary housing, and WHEREAS, the Code and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "1986 Code "), and the regulations and rulings promulgated with respect thereto prescribe that the use and operation of the Project be restricted in certain aspects, and, in order to ensure that the Project will be used and operated in compliance with the foregoing, the Issuer, the Trustee and the Owner have determined to enter into this Restated Declaration to amend and replace the Covenants as amended by the First Amendment to Deed; and WHEREAS, the Issuer, the Owner and the Trustee have agreed to amend and restate the Covenants contained in the Deed as amended and supplemented by the. First Amendment to Deed and impose restrictive covenants on the Project Site in conjunction with the issuance of the Bonds to assure continuing compliance with the Code, the 1986 Code and Treasury Regulations and thereby ensure that interest on the Bonds will not be includable in gross income for purposes of federal income taxation. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of th e mutual covenants and undertakings set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which hereby are acknowledged, the Issuer, the Trustee and the Owner hereby.agree as follows. Section 1. Definitions and Intemretation. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the following meanings or, if not defined in this Section 1, the meanings assigned such terms in the Indenture or the Financing Agreement unless the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise. "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 462A and 462C, as amended. "Bond Counsel" means any attorney or firm of attorneys of national recognized standing with respect to the issuance by states and their political subdivisions of obligations the interest on which is exempt from federal income taxes, as selected by the Issuer. "Bondholder" or "Holder" or "Owner of the Bonds" means the registered owner of any Bond as shown on the registration books maintained by the Trustee pursuant to the Indenture. -2- `.`Bonds" means:the Issuer's Multifamily:Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Edina Park Plaza . Project - Freddie Mac Cfedif Enhanced), Series 1999, issued in the original aggregate principal amount of $15,040,000. "Certification of Tenant Eligibility" means a certificate in the form of Exhibit B attached hereto. - "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as.amended. "Financing Agreement" means the Financing Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1999, between the Issuer, the Owner,.the Trustee, and,Glaser Financial Group, Inc.,..as servicer. "Indenture "'means the Indenture of Trust, dated as of December 1, 1999, between the Issuer and the Trustee, pursuant to which the Bonds have been issued, as originally executed or as it may, from time to time he supplemented, modified or amended by one or more supplemental indentures. "Lower-Income Tenants" means individuals or families, on the basis of the "Certification of Tenant Eligibility" attached hereto as Exhibit B (which is hereby incorporated herein by reference and made "a part hereof) as certified by such individual or family., who have an adjusted gross income. (anticipated,total annual income) which does not,exceed 80% of the median gross income for the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area, determined in a manner consistent with the determination of median'income made under the leased housing program established under Section 8 of the United. States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (or if such program is terminated, under such program as is'in effect immediately before such termination). In no event, however, will ithe occupants of a unit be considered to be of low or moderate income if all the occupants are students, no one of which is entitled to file "a joint return. "Lower- Income Units" means.the.dwelling units in the Project occupied or held for occupancy by Lower- Income Tenants pursuant to Section 3 hereof. "Maturity Date" means December 1, 2029, the date of final maturity of the Bonds. "Mortgage means that Multifamily Mortgage, Assignment of Rents and Security Agreement and Fixture. Financing Statement, dated as of December 1, 1999,; together with all riders and addenda thereto, from the Owner to the Issuer, as as to the Credit Facility Provider, securing payment of the Mortgage Loan, as such Mortgage may from time to time. be amended, modified or supplemented. "Owner" means Brookdale Living Communities of Minnesota, Inc., a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, and any surviving, resulting or transferee entity; and any successor or assign which is the owner of the Project from time to time. "Prior Bonds" means the Issuer's outstanding Housing Development Refunding Revenue Bonds (FHA Insured Mortgage Loan - ,Edina Park Plaza Project), Series 1989 -A and Series 1989 =B, originally dated as of November 15, 1989, and issued on December 19, 1989. "Project" means the Project Facilities and the Project Site. " -3- "Project Facilities" means the 208 -unit multifamily rental housing facility, with parking and other functionally related and subordinate facilities as contemplated by Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Code, and all related equipment, fixtures and other property, owned by the Owner and located on the Project Site. "Project Site" means the parcel of real property described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto, and hereby incorporated by reference herein and made a part hereof, and all rights and appurtenances thereunto appertaining. "Qualified Project Period" means the period beginning on the first day on which ten percent (10 %) of the units in the Project were first occupied (established as May 7, 1987, by a Certificate and Declaration executed by the Original Owner), and ending on the latest of (i) the date which is ten (10) years after the date on which at least fifty percent (50 %) of the units in the Project were first occupied (established as November 1, 1987, by a Certificate and Declaration executed by the Original Owner), (ii) the date which is a "qualified number of days" after the date on which any of the units in the Project was first occupied (established as March 13, 1987 by a Certificate and Declaration executed by the Original Owner, or (iii) the date on which any assistance provided with respect to the Project under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 terminates. "Qualified number of days" means fifty percent (50 %) of the total number of days which comprise the period commencing on October 22, 1985 and ending on the last day of the term of the Bonds with the longest maturity (December 1, 2029). "Related Person" shall have the meaning given in Section 103(b)(6)(C) of the Code. "Required Rental Period" means the longer of the Qualified Project Period or the remaining term of the Bonds. "Restated Declaration" means this Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, dated as of December 1, 1999, between the Issuer, the Trustee and the Owner. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Trustee" means the trustee serving as such under the Indenture. Such capitalized terms as are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Indenture. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, words of the masculine, feminine or neuter gender shall he construed to include each other gender when appropriate and words of the singular number shall be construed to include the plural number and vice versa, when appropriate. "Or" is not intended to be exclusive, but to contemplate or encompass one, more or all of the alternatives conjoined. All the terms and provisions hereof shall be construed to effectuate the purposes set forth in this Restated Declaration and to sustain the validity hereof. The titles and headings of the sections of this Restated Declaration have been inserted for convenience of reference only, are not to be considered a part hereof and shall not in any way modify or restrict any of the terms or provisions hereof or be considered or given any effect in construing this document or any provision hereof or in ascertaining intent, if any question of intent shall arise. -4- Section 2. Residential Rental Property. The Owner hereby represents, warrants and covenants as follows: follows: (a) The Project will be owned and operated for the purpose of providing multifamily residential rental property in accordance with Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Code and related Treasury Regulations, comprised of a building or structure or several interrelated buildings or structures, and facilities functionally related and subordinate thereto, and no other facilities. As used herein, facilities functionally related and subordinate to the Project shall include facilities for use by the tenants, including, for example, swimming pools, other recreational facilities, parking areas and other facilities which are reasonably required for the Project, for example, heating and cooling equipment, trash disposal equipment or units for resident managers or maintenance personnel. (b) All of the dwelling units in the Project were and are similarly constructed, and each dwelling unit in the Project does and will contain facilities for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation for a single person or a family which are complete, separate and distinct from other dwelling units in the Project and do and will include a sleeping area, bathing and sanitation facilities and cooking facilities equipped with a cooking range, refrigerator and sink. (c) The Owner will not knowingly permit any of the dwelling units in the Project to be used on a transient basis and will not rent any of the units for a period of less than 30 consecutive days and none of the dwelling units in the Project will at any time be leased or rented for use as a hotel, motel, dormitory, fraternity house, sorority house, rooming house, hospital, nursing home, sanitarium rest home or trailer court or park. (d) Each dwelling unit in the Project will be rented or available for rental on a continuous basis to members of the general public (subject to the income restrictions contained herein) for the Required Rental Period. (e) At no time will either the Owner or a Related Person occupy a dwelling unit in the Project; provided that the Owner or a Related Person may occupy a unit or units for resident managers and maintenance personnel. M The Owner shall not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, ancestry., religion, marital status, age, disability or receipt of public assistance or housing assistance in connection with the rental of units in the Project or in connection with the employment or application for employment of persons for operation and management of the Project, and all contracts, applications and leases entered into for such purposes shall contain nondiscriminatory clauses to such effect. (g) The requirements of this Section 2 shall apply for the Required Rental Period. Section 3. Lower - Income Tenants. The Owner hereby represents, warrants and covenants as (a) During the Qualified Project Period, at least 20% of the completed dwelling units in the Project are and will be occupied, or available for occupancy, by Lower- Income Tenants on a continuous basis. For purposes of this paragraph, a dwelling unit occupied by an . -5- individual or family who at the commencement of the occupancy was a Lower - Income Tenant is treated as occupied by a Lower - Income Tenant during their occupancy of such dwelling unit, even though they subsequently cease to be qualified as a Lower - Income Tenant. Moreover, a unit occupied by a Lower - Income Tenant shall be deemed, upon the termination of such Lower - Income Tenant's occupancy, to be continuously occupied by a Lower - Income Tenant until reoccupied, other than for a temporary period, at which time the character of the unit shall be redetermined. In no event shall such temporary period exceed 31 days. The Owner will not give preference to any particular class or group in renting the dwelling units in the Project except to the extent that dwelling units are required to be occupied or held available for occupancy by Lower - Income Tenants and elderly tenants. Tenants in the Lower- Income Units will have equal access to and enjoyment of all common facilities of the Project. Lower - Income Units shall be intermingled with all other dwelling units and shall be of comparable quality and offer a range of sizes and number of bedrooms comparable to units in the Project which are not Lower- Income Units. (b) The Owner will obtain and maintain on file Certifications of Tenant Eligibility from each Lower - Income Tenant substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, being in the form required by Treasury Regulations, Section 1.167(k) -3(b), as it shall presently be in effect, or in such other form and manner shall be required by applicable rules, rulings, regulations or policies now or hereafter promulgated by the Department of the Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service with respect to obligations issued under Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Code. The Owner shall make a good -faith effort to verify that the income provided by an applicant in an income certification is accurate by taking any of the following steps as a part of the verification process or other steps it deems more accurate and suitable in the circumstances: (1) obtain a pay stub for the most recent pay period, (2) obtain an income tax return for the most recent tax year, (3) obtain an income verification form from the applicant's current employer, (4) obtain an income verification form from the Social Security Administration and/or the Minnesota Department of Social Services if the applicant receives assistance from either of such agencies, or (5) if the applicant is unemployed and has no such tax return, obtain another form of independent verification. (c) The Owner will maintain complete and accurate records pertaining to the Lower - Income Units, and will permit any duly authorized representative of the Issuer or the Trustee to inspect the books and records of the Owner pertaining to the incomes of Lower - Income Tenants residing in the Project. (d) The Owner will accept as tenants, on the same basis as all other prospective tenants, Lower - Income Tenants who are recipients of federal certificates or vouchers for rent subsidies pursuant to the existing program under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 or its successor, and shall not apply selection criteria to Section 8 certificate holders that are more burdensome than the criteria applied to all other prospective tenants. (e) The requirements of this Section 3 shall apply for the Qualified Project Period. Section 4. Reports. The Owner will prepare and submit to the Issuer, the Trustee and the Servicer annually, on or before the first day of each February, commencing February 2000, a "Certificate of Continuing Program Compliance" substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C (which is -6- hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof). Such certificates shall be provided as to Lower Income Tenants during the Qualified Project Period. Section 5. -Agreement To Record. The Owner hereby represents, warrants and covenants that it will cause this Restated Declaration to be reoorded in the real property records of Hennepin County, Minnesota, and in such other places as the Trustee may reasonably request. The Owner shall pay all fees and charges incurred in connection with any such recording. Section 6. Consideration. The Issuer has issued the Bonds to obtain funds to provide refinancing for the Project. In consideration of the issuance of the Bonds by the Issuer, the Owner has entered into this Restated Declaration and has agreed to restrict the uses to which the Project can be put for the term hereof. Section 7. Covenants Run With the Land. The Owner. hereby declares its express intent that the covenants; restrictions, charges and easements set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the Land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner's successors in title including any purchaser, grantee, owner or lessee of any portion of the Project and any other person or entity having any right, title or interest therein and upon the; respective heirs, executors, administrators, devisees, successors and assigns of any purchaser, grantee, owner or lessee of any portion of the Project and any . other person or entity having any right, title or interest therein. Each and every contract,.deed or other instrument hereafter executed covering or conveying the Project or any portion thereof or interest therein shall contain an express provision making such conveyance subject to the covenants; restrictions, charges and easements contained herein; provided, however, that any such contract, deed or other instrument shall conclusively be to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to such' covenants, regardless of whether or not 'such covenants are set. forth or, incorporated by reference in such contract, deed or other, instrument, and an y grantee, successor, assignee, transferee or other person or entity acquiring any. interest in the property or Project or any portion thereof shall conclusively be held to have acquired sucli interest in the property or the Project or any portion thereof subject to the obligations of such covenants, regardless of whether or not such covenants and restrictions are set forth or referred to, or specifically agreed to be per fo -rimed .by any such transferee, in any such contract, - lease, conveyance, agreement or other such instrument. Section 8. Burden and Benefit. The Issuer and the Owner hereby declare their understanding and intent that the burden of the covenants set forth herein touch and concern the Project Site in that the Owner's legal interest in the Project may be rendered less valuable thereby. The Issuer and the Owner further declare their understandingiand- intent, however, that the covenants, reservations and restrictions set forth herein directly benefit the Project Site (i) by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and use of the Project by certain Lower - Income Tenants, (ii) by making possible the obtaining of advantageous refinancing for the Project and (iii) by furthering the public purposes for which the Bonds were issued. Section 9. Reliance. The Issuer, the Trustee and the Owner hereby recognize and agree that the representations and covenants set forth herein may be relied upon by the Trustee, the Issuer, the Owner, the Bondholders and the owners of the Prior Bonds. In performing its duties and obligations hereunder, the Trustee may rely upon statements and certificates of the Owner and Lower - Income Tenants. In performing its duties hereunder, the Owner may rely on the Certificates of Tenant Eligibility unless the Owner has actual knowledge that such Certificates are inaccurate. In addition, the Issuer, the Trustee and the Owner may consult with Bond Counsel, and the opinion of such counsel shall be full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken or suffered by the Issuer, the Trustee -7- or the Owner hereunder in good faitit and in conformity with,such opinion.' In determining whether any default or lack of compliance by the Owner exists under.this Restated Declaration, the Trustee shall not be required to conduct any investigation into or view of the records of the Owner and may rely solely upon the certificates delivered to the Trustee by the Owner pursuant to the provisions hereof. Section 10. Term. This Restated Declaration shall-become effective upon its execution and delivery. This Restated Declaration shall remain in full force and effect•for a term.and period as . specified in: Sections 2, 3 and 41. The terms of this Restated Declaration to the contrary notwithstanding, this Restated Declaration. and all and several of the terms hereof shall terminateand be of no further force and effect in the event of(i)(a) upon foreclosure of the Mortgage or transfer of title to the Project by deed in lieu of foreclosure and payment in full of the loan secured by the Mortgage; or (b) involuntary noncompliance with the provisions of this Restated Declaration caused by fire, seizure or requisition, or change in a federal law or an action of a federal agency after the date, hereof which prevents the Issuer and the Trustee from enforcing the provisions hereof,. or condemnation or similar event and (ii) the retirement of the.-Bonds within a reasonable period thereafter; provided, however, that the preceding provisions of this sentence contained in clause (i)(b) shall cease to apply and the restrictions contained herein shall be reinstated if, at anytime subsequent to the termination of such provisions as the result of the events described in clause (i)(b), the Owner or any Related Person obtains an ownership interest in the Project for federal income tax purposes; and provided, further, however, that in no event shall such restrictions be reinstated following the foreclosure of the loan secured bythe' Mortgage or transfer of title to the Project by deed in lieu of foreclosure and payment in full of the loan secured by the Mortgage. Upon the termination of all and several of the terms of this Restated Declaration, the parties hereto agree to execute, deliver and record appropriate instruments of release and discharge of the terms hereof provided, however, that the execution and delivery of such instruments shall not be necessary or a prerequisite to the termination of this Restated Declaration in accordance:with its terms. Section 11. Default: Enforcement. If the Owner defaults in the performance or observance of any covenant, agreement or obligation of the Owner set forth in this Restated Declaration and such . default remains uncured for a period of 30 days after notice thereof is given by the Issuer or the Trustee to the Owner, then the Trustee, acting on -its own behalf, as Trustee 'under the Indenture, or on behalf of the Issuer, or the Issuer on its own behalf, may institute an action for and seek specific performance by the Owner to remedy such default. The Issuer and the Trustee agree that, except for those covenants and. agreements in Section 19 hereof, money damages are not available as a remedy for a default by the Owner under this Restated Declaration. The Owner agrees that an action to recover money damages for default will not be an adequate remedy at law, and the Trustee and the Issuer shall have the right to institute an action for and seek specific performance by the Owner to remedy such default. The provisions hereof are imposed upon and made applicable to the Project. Site and shall run with the Project Site and, subject to Section 10 hereof, shall'be enforceable against the Owner, each purchaser, grantee, owner or lessee'of the Project, and the respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of the Owner and each such purchaser, grantee, owner or lessee. No delay in enforcing the provisions hereof as to any breach or violation shall impair, damage, or waive the right of any party entitled to enforce the same or to obtain relief against or recover for the continuation or repetition of such breach or violation or any similar breach or violation thereof at any later time or time. -8- For so long as the Bonds are outstanding, the rights of the Issuer inthis Restated Declaration will be assigned as security to the Trustee and shall be enforceable by the Trustee in accordance with its terms and the terms of the Indenture. Section 12. Estoppel Certificate: The Issuer and the Trustee agree, upon the request of the Owner or its successor in interest; to promptly execute and deliver to the Owner or its successor in interest or to any potential or actual `purchaser, mortgagor or encumbrancer of the Project, a written certificate stating, if the same be true,-that the Issuer and the Trustee have no knowledge of any violation or default of the Owner of any of its covenants'hereunder, or if there are such violations or defaults; the nature of the same. Section 13. Amendments. This Restated Declaration shall be amended only by a written instrument executed by the parties hereto, and duly recorded in the real property records of Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Trustee shall not consent to, any amendment to this Restated Declaration unless it has been providedwith an opinion of Bond Counsel that such amendment shall not cause the interest payable on the Bonds to become includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes. Section 14. Notices. Any notice required to be given hereunder, shall be given by certified in postage prepaid; return receipt requested, or shall be sufficiently given and shall be deeme&given (unless another form of notice shall be specifically set forth herein) on the Business Day following the date on which such'notice or other communication shall have been delivered to a national overnight delivery service (receipt of which to be evidenced by a signed receipt from such overnight delivery service) addressed to the appropriate party at the addresses specified below, or at such other addresses as may be, specified in writing by the parties hereto: If to the Issuer: City of Edina City Hall 4801 West 50 Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Attn: City Manager If to the Trustee: a U:S, Bank Trust National Association 180 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Attn: Corporate Trust Department If to the Owner: Brookdale Living Communities of Minnesota, Inc. c/o Brookdale Living Communities, Inc. 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4400 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Attention: Chief Financial Officer Telephone: (312) 977 -3700 Telecopy: (312) 977 -3701 =9- with`a copy to: Brookdale Living Communities, Inc: j 77- WestWacker Drive, Suite 4400 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Attention: Robert J. Rudnik Telephone: (3,12) 977 -3760 Telecopy: (312) 977 -3769 and with a copy to: Winston &;Strawn 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Attention: Wayne D.13oberg Telephone: (312):558 -5882 Telecopy:,(312) 558 -5700 (which copy or copies shall not constitute notice to.the Owner) Section 15. Severability. If any provision of this Restated Declaration shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity,16gality and enforceability of the remaining portions hereof shall not in any be affected or, impaired thereby. Section 16. Multiple Counterparts. This Restated Declaration may be simultaneously executed in multiple counterparts,; all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument, and each of which shall be deemed to be an original. Section 17. Limited Liability. All obligations of the Issuer incurred hereunder shall be special, limited obligations of the Issuer, payable solely and' only from Bond proceeds and other amounts pledged by the Issuer to the payment of the Bonds under the Indenture.. Section 18. The Trustee. The Trustee shall act as specifically provided herein and in the Indenture and may exercise such additional powers as are reasonably incidental hereto and thereto. The Trustee shall act as the agent of and on behalf of the Issuer when requested in writing to do' so, and any act required to be performed by the Issuer as herein provided shall be deemed taken:if such act is performed by the Trustee. The Trustee is entering into this Restated Declaration solely in its capacity as Trustee under the Indenture and the duties, powers and liabilities of the Trustee in acting hereunder shall be subject to the provisions of the Indenture, including, without limitation, the provisions of Article VIII thereof. After the date on which no Bonds remain outstanding as provided in the Indenture, the Trustee shall no longer have any duties or responsibilities under this Restated Declaration, and all references to the Trustee in this-Restated Declaration shall,be deemed references to the Issuer. Section 19. Indemnification. The Owner hereby indemnifies, and agrees to defend and hold harmless,.the Issuer and the Trustee from and against all liabilities, losses, damages, costs, expenses (including attorneys' fees and expenses), causes, of action, suits, allegations, claims, demands and judgments of any nature arising from the consequences of a legal or administrative proceeding or action brought against it on account of any failure by the Owner to comply with the terms of this Restated Declaration, or on account of any representation or warranty of the Owner contained herein or in any other written information furnished,by the Owner being untrue. -10- Section 20..Goveriiing Law. This Restated Declaration, shall be governed by the laws of ;the State of Minnesota arid, where, applicable, the laws . of the United States of America. Section 21. Restated Declaration as Replacement. The Issuer, the Trustee and the Owner acknowledge and -agree that, as to the Project Site, the provisions,of this Restated Declaration are a complete restatement of and'replace in full the Covenants contained in the Deed,and.Covenants Running with the Land; dated as of October 1, 1985 and filed on October 24, 1985 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document,No. 1680500, as amended and supplemented. by the First Amendment to Deed and - Covenants Running With the Land, dated as of November 15, 1989, and filed on December 19, 1989 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document No. 2061489. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Issuer, the Trustee and the Owner have executed this Restated Declaration by duly authorized. representatives, all as of the date lust above written. CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor (SEAL) By 2411 Ys ty Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) .)Ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this:;'?q day of November, 1999, by a-rinis P. AAC-Tw4b and&Wjy/i/ /ur60Cs, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on behalf of said municipality. N2 C-; §��/ / �� 'ubliOARLENE R. WALLIN NOTARY PUBLIC. MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY Ay Commission Expires Jan. $1, 2000 Signature Page for Restated.Declaration of Restrictive Covenants -12- U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee By Its A T VIC PRESIDENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF IENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .W day of November, 1999, by Assi id ant Vice Joel Geist , an Present of U.S. Bank Trust National Association, a national banking association on behalf of said association. DIANE E. PIECHOCKI 140TARV PUBUO- MINNESOTA My Co nmisslon EX0189 An St, 2090 x Notary Public Signature Page for Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants -13- BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES OF MINNESOTA, INC. By: Its .�I,Tnn r¢s� rl.o✓n1- STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF 0ZGK ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this d, day of November, 1999, by . %y\ jQ Q nu v) a the U t ck Pres i d Q & of Brookdale Living Communities of I I- Minnesota, Inc., a Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation. This instrument was drafted by: Dorsey & Whitney LLP (JCG) 220 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Signature Page for Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants -14- EMMIT A Legal Description of Project Site The land referred to is situated in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, and is described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Edinborough Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXHOIT B Certification of Tenant Eligibility Edina Park Plaza's 7800 Park Avenue South Edina, Minnesota UNIT NUMBER: I/We; the undersigned, being first duly sworn, state that Uwe have read and answered fully and truthfully each of the following questions for all persons who are to occupy the unit in the, Edina Park Plaza Apartments development for which application is made, all of whom are listed below: 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. Name of Members Relationship Social of the to Head of Security Place of Household Household Age Number Emnloyment Head Spouse Income Computation. 6. Anticipated Annual Income. The anticipated total annual income from all sources of each person listed in item 1 above for the twelve month period beginning on the date of this certificate, including income described in (a) below, but excluding all income described in (b) below, is $ (a) The amount set forth above includes all of the following income (unless such income is described in (b) below- (i) all wages and salaries, overtime pay, commissions, fees, tips and bonuses before payroll deductions; (ii) net income from the operation of a business or profession or from the rental of real or personal property (without deducting expenditures for business expansion or amortization of capital indebtedness or any allowance for depreciation of capital assets); B -1 (iii) interest and dividends (including income from assets as set forth in item 7(b) below); (iv) the full amount of periodic payments received from social security, annuities, insurance policies, retirement funds, pensions, disability or death benefits and other similar types of periodic receipts; (v) payments in lieu of earnings, such as unemployment and disability compensation, workmen's compensation and severance pay; (vi) the maximum amount of public assistance available to the above persons; (vii) periodic and determinable allowances, such as alimony and child support payments and regular contributions and gifts received from persons not residing in the dwelling; (viii) all regular pay, special pay and allowances of a member of the Armed Forces (whether or not living in the dwelling) who is the head of the household or spouse; and (ix) any earned income tax credit to the extent it exceeds income tax liability. (b) The following income is excluded from the amount set forth above: (i) casual, sporadic or irregular gifts; (ii) amounts that are specifically for or in reimbursement of medical expenses; (iii) lump sum additions to family assets, such as inheritances, insurance payments (including payments under health and accident insurance and workmen's compensation), capital gains and settlement for personal or property losses; (iv) amounts of educational scholarships paid directly to student or educational ' institution, and amounts paid by the government to a veteran for use in meeting the costs of tuition, fees, books and equipment, but in either case only to the extent used for such purposes; (v) hazardous duty pay to a member of the household in the armed forces who is away from home and exposed to hostile fire; (vi) relocation payments under Title II of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970; (vii) income from employment of children (including foster children) under the age of 18 years; (viii) foster child care payments; S -2 (ix) the value of coupon allotments under the Food Stamp Act of 1977; (x) payments to volunteers under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973; (xi) payments received under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; (xii) income derived from certain submarginal land of the United States that is held in trust for certain Indian tribes; (xiii) payments on allowances made under the Department of Health and Human Services' Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program; (xiv) payments received from the Job Partnership Training Act; (xv) income derived from the disposition of funds of the Grand River Bank of Ottawa Indians; and (xiv) the first $2,000 of per capita shares received from judgments awarded by the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Claims or from funds held in trust for an Indian tribe by the Secretary of Interior. 7. Net Family Assets. If any of the persons described in item 1 above (or any person whose income or contributions were included in item 6 above) has any savings, stocks, bonds, equity in real property or other form of capital investment (excluding interests in Indian trust lands), provide: (a) the total value of all such assets owned by all such persons: $ ; (b) the amount of income expected to be derived from such assets in the 12 -month period commencing on the date hereof: $ ; and (c) the amount of such income included in item 6: 8. Students (a) Will all of the persons listed in item 1 above be or have they been full -time students during five calendar months of this calendar year at an educational institution (other than a correspondence school) with regular faculty and students? Yes - No B -3 (b) (Complete only if the answer to item 8(a) is "Yes'.) Is any such person (other than nonresident aliens) married and eligible to file a joint federal income tax return? Yes No The above information is full, true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I have no objections to inquiries being made for the purpose of verifying the statements made herein. The undersigned acknowledge that the lease executed by the undersigned may be canceled upon notice as provided therein if the undersigned have misrepresented any of the information set forth above. I acknowledge that all of the above information is relevant to the status under federal income tax law of the interest on bonds issued with respect to the Edina Park Plaza apartments for which application is being made. I consent to the disclosure of such information to.the City of Edina, Minnesota, as issuer of such bonds, to U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee for the owners of such bonds, to any credit enhancer of such bonds, and any authorized agent of the Treasury Department or Internal Revenue Service. Date: Signature STATE OF MINNESOTA ). ) ss. COUNTY OF ) Subscribed and sworn-to before me this day of , (SEAL) Notary Public B -4 FOR COMPLETION BY PROJECT OWNER OR MANAGER ONLY: A. Calculation of eligible income: (1) Enter amount entered for entire household in item 6 above: (2) If the amount entered. in item 7(a) above is greater than $5,000, enter the greater of (i) the amount entered in 7(b) less the amount entered in 7(c) or (ii) 10% of the amount entered in 7(a): (3) TOTAL ELIGIBLE INCOME (Line A(1) plus line A(2): B.. The amount entered in A(3) (Total Eligible Income) is: Less than $ , which is an amount equal to 80% of median income for the Minneapolis -St. Paul SMSA, which is the maximum income at which a household may be determined to be a Lower - Income Tenant as that term is defined in the Restated Declaration. More than the above - mentioned amount. C'. Number of apartment unit assigned: D. This apartment unit was was not last occupied for a period of at least 31 consecutive days by a person or persons whose aggregate anticipated annual income, as certified in the above manner, was less than or equal to the amount at which a person would have qualified as a Lower - Income Tenant under the terms of the Restated Declaration. E. Applicant: Qualifies as a Lower - Income Tenant. Does not qualify as a Lower Income Tenant. Owner or Manager B -5 J, E3HIBrr C Certificate of Continuing Program Compliance The undersigned of Brookdale Living Communities of Minnesota, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Owner"), being the present owner of the real property described in the Restated Declaration identified below, hereby certifies as follows: 1. The undersigned has read and is familiar with the provisions of the Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, dated as of December 1, 1999`(the "Restated Declaration "), entered into by the Owner,.the City of Edina, Minnesota and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee, and duly recorded in- the appropriate public real estate records in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota on November , 1999 as Document No. 2., (a) _ completed residential units in the Project, which constitute: % of all residential units.in the Project, were occupied by persons or families who qualify as Lower- Income Tenants* were held vacant and reserved for occupancy by Lower- Income Tenants. (b) Attached as Schedule I is a list, by unit numbers and tenant names_ (if the unit is occupied) of all units enumerated in paragraph (a) above. 3. The Owner has obtained a "Certification of Tenant Eligibility," in the form provided as Exhibit B to the Restated Declaration or, for tenants who executed leases before the Bonds were issued, in 'a similar form as then required, from each Lower- Income Tenant named in 2 above, and each such Certification is being maintained by the Owner in its records with respect tot Project. Attached hereto is the most recent. "Certification of Tenant Eligibility" for each Tenant named in 2 above who 'signed such a Certification since , _, the date on which the last Certificate of Continuing Program Compliance was filed with the Trustee by the Owner. 4. In renting the residential units in the Project, the Owner has not given preference to any particular group or class of persons (except for persons who qualify as Lower- Income Tenants or elderly persons), and none of the units listed in 2 above have been rented for occupancy entirely by students, no one of which is entitled to file a joint return for, federal, income tax purposes.. All of the residential units in the Project have been rented pursuant to a written lease, and the term of each lease is at least months . 5. The information provided in this "Certificate of Continuing Program Compliance" is accurate and complete, and no matters have come to the attention of the Owner which would indicate that any of the information provided herein, or in any Certification of Tenant Eligibility obtained from the Tenants named herein, is inaccurate or incomplete in any respect. 6. The Owner is not in default under any of its obligations under the Restated Declaration except as set forth-on Schedule 11, if any, attached hereto. C-1 7. Words and phrases used in this certification shall have the same meanings herein as in the Restated Declaration. Dated this _ day of BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNIMS OF MINNESOTA, INC. By Its l CONSENT OF HOUSING'AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF EDINA THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY. OF EDINA (the "Authority") hereby consents to the execution and delivery of the foregoing Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants which the Author ity'acknowledges replace s,and restates the Deed and Covenants Running with the Land, dated as of October 1,1985 and filed on October 24;1985 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document No. 1680500, as amended . and supplemented by the First Amendment to Deed and Covenants Running With the Land, dated as of November 15, 1989, and filed on" December 19,`1989 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document No. 2061489. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has caused this Consent to be executed as of this 1st, day of December, 1999: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA l By . Its �jcC�uTrv6 idG, STATE, OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me;thisC2% day of November, 1999, by r00ea01,) J- , &61fiF5 , theCxec. 120 rZ' 2.of the Housing and. Redevelopment, Authority of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on behalf of said body politic. ` � r X' DARLENE A. WALLIN NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2000 CONSENT OF PRIOR BONDS TRUSTEE U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (formerly known as First Trust National Association) (the "Prior Bonds Trustee "), as trustee under that certain Trust Indenture, dated as of November 15, 1989, with the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City"), hereby consents to the execution and delivery of the foregoing Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants which the . Authority acknowledges replaces and restates the Deed and Covenants, Running with the Land, dated as of October 1, 1985 and filed on October 24, 1985 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document No. 1680500, as amended and supplemented by the First Amendment to Deed and Covenants Running With the Land, dated as of November 15, 1989, and filed on December 19, 1989 in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as Document No. 2061489. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Prior Bonds Trustee has caused this Consent to be executed as of this 1 st day of December, 1999. U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee By Its Adft VICE PRESIDENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30 day of November, 1999, by Assistant Vice. Joel Geist President of U.S. Bank Trust National Association, a national banking association on behalf of said association. s DIANE E. PIECHOW . NOTARY PUBLIO•MINNE80TA Iy commtn6on E1�Iret,taa. S1. pDOo Notary Public OORSEY DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP City of Edina, Minnesota Edina, Minnesota U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee Minneapolis, Minnesota Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Washington, D.C. Re: $15,040,000 City of Edina, Minnesota Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Edina Park Plaza Project — Freddie Mac Credit Enhanced) Series 1999 Ladies and Gentlemen: We have acted as bond counsel to the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City") with respect to the Bonds named above (the "Bonds "). In that capacity, we have been asked to give this opinion with respect to certain tax consequences of certain proposed modifications to the rental housing facilities that were refinanced with proceeds of the Bonds and as are described in the Tenant Tax. Certificate executed by BLC- Edina Park Plaza, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company on the date hereof (the "Tenant Certificate")_ This opinion may be relied on by the City and by U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, for purposes of giving their consents under Section 13 of the Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants between the City, the Trustee, and Brookdale Living Communities Of Minnesota,. LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as successor by merger to Brookdale Living Communities of Minnesota, Inc. (separately and together, the "Owner "), dated as of December 1, 1.999 relating to the Bonds (the "Declaration ") to the First Amendment to Amended and Restated Declaration of .Restrictive Covenants between the City, the Trustee, and the Owner dated the date hereof (the "Amendment "). This opinion may be relied on by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation for purposes of giving its consent to the Modifications. For the purposes of giving this opinion, we have examined: (1) the Declaration, (2) the Amendment, (3) the Owner Tax Certificate with respect to the Bonds executed by the Owner on December 1, 1999 (the "Owner Certificate "), (4) the Tenant Certificate, (5) Owner's Acknowledgement and Consent appended to the Tenant Certificate, and (6) such other documents that we considered necessary in order to give this opinion. As to questions of fact material to our opinion, we have assumed the authenticity of and relied upon the documents described above and other representations of the Tenant and Owner given -to us, without undertaking to verify the same by independent investigation. With your permission, we have assumed, without undertaking to verify the same, that Owner is and has been in compliance with its representations and covenants made in the Owner Certificate, the Declaration, and the Financing Agreement, and will remain in compliance therewith, subject only to the express modifications identified in paragraph 4 of the Tenant Certificate (as qualified by the statements in paragraphs 5 and 6 of such Tenant Certificate) and in the Amendment (the "Modifications "). -DORSEY & WHITNEY L..L.P - WWW,DORSE..Y,COM • T 612.940.2600 � F 612.340.2868 SUITE 1500 • 50 SOUTH SIXTH STREET - MINNEAPOLIS: MINNESOTA 55402 -1498 USA CANADA EUROPE ASIA a OORSEY City of Edina, Minnesota U.S. Bank National Association Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Page 2 From such examination, based on such reliance, and on the basis of laws, regulations, rulings and decisions in effect on the date hereof, it is our opinion that neither the Modifications nor the Amendment, in and of themselves, shall cause interest on the Bonds to become includable in, gross. income for federal income tax purposes, if such interest otherwise is excludable from federal gross income. Dated this _ day of May, 2014 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP � 11111111111111111' To: City Council O �+ v� (J) Agenda Item #: IV. F. From: Karen M. Kurt Action Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Establish Bike Edina as a Working Group of the Transportation Commission Action Requested: Approve proposed amendments to the Transportation Commission bylaws and approve bylaws for the Bike Edina Working Group. Appoint current Bike Edina members and chair to continue service as members of the Bike Edina Working Group. Information / Background: During the City Council work session on March 18, Council members expressed support for incorporating Bike Edina into Transportation Commission as a working group. The attached sets of bylaws have been reviewed and approved by the Transportation Commission, as well as City staff. The members of Bike Edina who would continue service as members of the Bike Edina working group are: • Sally Dunn • Nick Essma • Don Eyberg • JenniferJanovy, chair • Peter Kelley • Larry Olson • Lori Richman • Tim Sudeith After establishment, future membership and bylaw changes for the Bike Edina working group will be approved by the Transportation Commission. Attachments: • Proposed Edina Transportation Commission Bylaws • Proposed Bike Edina Bylaws City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Transportation Commission Bylaws Section 1: Introduction wq���1, o e �PO1Nt The bylaws outlined below are approved procedures for the Edina Transportation Commission. Members should review and understand City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1 and Chapter 2, Article III, Division 9 included in the appendix of these bylaws. In the event of a conflict between the City Code and the Edina Transportation Commission bylaws, the City Code will prevail. Some components of these bylaws are common across all City boards and c,gr missions. The City Staff Liaison should be consulted prior to considering bylaw amendments. Proposed bylaw amenjd'fients should be announced one meeting prior to voting on the proposed change. Bylaw amendments require; the approval of a majority of the voting Edina Transportation Commission members and approval by the City CoUnc�l In addition to the City Code and these bylaws, the Edina Transportation Commission will be guided by those policies and procedural documents applicable to the Edina TransportatioWCommission or City advisory boards in general. Copies of these documents will be made available to members at the beginning of their service withthe Edina Transportation Commission. f Refer to City Code Chapter 2, for the Edina Transportation located at: Edina Engineering also contact the Edina Transn Refer to City Code Terms of of Membership Refer to City Code Chapter , Article III, Division 9, Section 2 -313 Transportation Commission is a, 55439. Members of the public can e Chapter 2, Article III, Division 9, Section 2 -314. Contact Information Edina Transportation Commission members are required to provide a mailing address and phone number or email address to the City Clerk. This contact information is available to City staff and members of the public. Responsibilities Edina Transportation Commission members are expected to be present and adequately prepared for all meetings and to actively participate in meeting discussions. Members who are unable to complete assigned tasks should notify the Chairperson as soon as possible. 11 Page w91IA.� o e t4 0 Transportation Commission Bylaws a e Attendance Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -86. If a member cannot attend a regular meeting, he or she should notify the Staff Liaison as soon as possible and ideally no later than two hours prior to the start of the meeting. Cancelled meetings will be counted as meetings held and attended for purpose of calculating attendance percentages. Resignation or Removal Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -81. The Edina Council to review a member's appointment based on the member's failur( above. Section 4: Meetings Commission may ask the City rform the responsibilities outlined Meeting Notice '! Refer to City Code Chapter 2 Article III Division 1 Section 2'`S& All board and commissic public. To comply with legal requirements and ensure accessibiljty o the4p Colic, the City Edina Transportation Commission meetings on,tfie4rxlty's website' aA, at:Gity Hall. Regular Meetings 7K;.' Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Sec Commission are held at Edina City.Hall, =,4$01 West 50` location on the third Thursday of the montlA regula Commission at a prior Annual Meeting In April, the Edina Transportation Co6i'misslan;'vinllhold an annua meeting to: • Elect offiC &ViRifielzubcomine vear • Review grid "update bylaws:' • Affirm the f gular meeting Special Meetings Y� Special meetings of the Edina Tans or by the directive of a majorityof t the special meeting by written or'et comply with the open meeting law` special meetings. A quorum is not r unless a quorum is present. le for tlte::upcoming year. etings are open to the 'gives official notice of all of the Edina Transportation 5424 or another officially noticed ed by the Edina Transportation Cation Commission may be called by the Chairperson, City Council, City Manager Edih'd Transportation Commission voting members. Members will be notified of I,,communication at least three calendar days in advance of the meeting. To ..'6' ii tq nsure accessibility to the public, the City Clerk posts official notice of all fired for special meetings; however, members cannot take action on a motion Canceling Meetings Meetings of the Edina Transportation Commission can be cancelled by the Chairperson, City Council, City Manager or by the directive of a majority of the Edina Transportation Commission voting members. Meetings may be cancelled for insufficient business, lack of quorum, conflict with a holiday, inclement weather, or in the event of a community emergency. ........ .. ..................._.._.....__- .._......_......... ........... ............. .............. _ ... _.. ...... ..... . ......... ._ _-.-._. ................ ..._._................... _. ....... _... ........... . .... ......... .... _... ........ .. .............. ..--._ ............. --._. ........... _ .... ................ .. .... _.._._ .............. _ . ............ ... .. ................ - ........- _._. -. 21 Page 4 r Transportation Commission Bylaws Quorum Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -84. owe i CO �v � �o Meeting Agendas Meeting agendas will be prepared by the Chairperson in consultation with the City Staff liaison. Members may request that items be added to the agenda; however, the addition of such items is subject to approval by a majority of the voting members. The meeting agenda and related materials will be sent electronically and /or mailed the Thursday prior to the scheduled regular meeting. Meeting Proceedings During regular meetings, business will be conducted in the with the support of a majority of the voting members. • Call to order • Roll call • Approval of agenda • Approval of minutes from preceding meeting • Public hearings ,, • Community comment • Reports and recommendations • Correspondence • Commission comments • Staff comments a • Adjournment "_v> Meetings will be conducted,accord During " Community, le- Comment," the Cha something not on the, agenda that Is rrE presentations to three 'minutes. The Clia� to limit comments relate&to matters pi respond to the comments: fn order to ma such as the use of signs, clapping;; cheerip order of business may be changed Rules of order. ill ask to hear'. m those in attendance who would like to speak about nt to the Edina Transportation Commission. Individuals must limit their s the right to limit the number of speakers making similar statements and usly discussed. The Edina Transportation Commission is not required to n a respectful environment for all those in attendance, disruptive behavior booing is not allowed. Motions and Voting A simple majority of voting members present and voting will decide all motions before the Edina Transportation Commission. At the request of a member, a roll call vote will be taken when there is a divided vote on any item. A tie vote on any motion will result in a failure to pass. Student members are not eligible to vote. 31 Page A o e Transportation Commission Bylaws Meeting Minutes Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -85. City staff will prepare minutes for Edina Transportation Commission meetings. The minutes will include which members were present and absent, a summary of each item discussed and any motions proposed, and the votes on those motions. If a member of City staff is not present to record minutes, the Edina Transportation Commission will appoint a secretary to prepare the minutes. The secretary will prepare draft minutes within two weeks of the meeting date and forward the draft to the Chair and City Staff Liaison. Approved minutes will be posted on the City's website and forwarded to the City Clerk for distribution to the City Council by the City Staff Liaison. Section S: Officers . _ .... ...... ......... Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -83, The Edina Transportation Commission will hold elections for the officer positions of Chairperson and Vice Chairperso6'.at the annual meeting in April. The Chairperson may make and second motions and vote on all motions. The duties of,the Chairperson include buta.re not limited to: • Prepare the agenda in consultation with the City Staff Lia. • Lead the meeting in accordance with the agenda and faq • Invoke a reasonable time limit for speakers during public • Ensure that the bylaws are followed and actiijns are prop • Maintain meeting decorum...;. ,T • Extend meetings or schedule special meetings as necessa • Cancel meetings, in consultation with the City Staff Liais? • Facilitate the development o the enn,�al work plan. �� { • Develop annual calendar of antic! patk&age nda Items for" • Consult with members regarding attend 'Once issues,�V �,. • Encourage ac #ve:,participation'by Edir?a Tra'hsportatiorp G tk, on on each mission members and members of the public. The Vice Chairperson performsthu duties of the Chairperson In his /her absence. If both the Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson are absent, an acting chaiperson:niay be assigned in advance by either officer or at the meeting by a majority vote of the embers. z �' Section 6: City Staff Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III;; Div sion 1, Section 2 -79. The Edina Transportation Commission has a City Staff Liaison appointed by the City Manager: The City Staff Liaison Is expected to work cooperatively with Edina Transportation Commission members. Members may not direct City staff but can request assistance through the City Staff Liaison to carry out the Edina Transportation Commission mission. The duties of the City Staff Liaison include but are not limited to: • Work with Chairperson to prepare and distribute meeting agendas. • Reserve meeting rooms and other needed meeting equipment. • Record and prepare meeting minutes (or delegate the responsibility to another City staff member). • Provide technical expertise and access to City resources. 4 1 P a g e ow e Transportation Commission Bylaws • -�• • Work with Chairperson to ensure bylaws are followed and annual work plans are submitted. • Relay information or directives from City Council meetings or work sessions relevant to the Edina Transportation Commission. • Respond to Edina Transportation Commission inquiries in a timely manner. • Forward information to and between Edina Transportation Commission members. • Record meeting attendance, include the current attendance record with each packet, and consult with the Chairperson and City Clerk regarding attendance issues. • Provide orientation materials to new members and chairperson. • Handle funds allocated to the Edina Transportation Commission irraccordance with its directives, City policies and legal requirements. • Serve as the custodian of Edina Transportation Comm issionrecoi`ds > °.� • Work with City Clerk to serve all notices required by law or these bylaws::, Concerns with the performance of the City Staff Liaison Section 7: Committees and Working Groups Introduction' Committees or Working Groups may be established Y a h1 issues in greater depth and report findings. Committees or Transportation Commission for discussiori:and recommend authority to make final recommencationsonall mattersar The Edina Transportation Commission defines the scope ar In no case may the Committee orVVorking Group exceed tl directed to the Assistant City Manager. vote of':�he,:Edina Transportation Commission to study ag,proups`piesgnt their analysis to the Edina TF a Edina Transportation Commission has the sole `a'Committ" or Working Group has given guidance. luration offhe Committee or Working Group's mission. ority granted by the Edina Transportation Commission. Committee and Working Group;participahts may not:`include enough voting Edina Transportation Commission members to constitute a quorpm for the'Edina'Transpprtation Commission. "Committees or Working Groups may be designated as standing (ongoing) or m nittre Definitions. 4 Committees and Working GG ps may be comprised of two or more people, one of whom is the Chair appointed by the Edina Transportation Co Committee is comprised of current Edina Transportation Commission members only. A Working Group is led by an Edina Transportation Commission member, but will also include members of the public. Working Group Announcement Public notice will be given of the formation of any Working Group, including a press release from the City to local media outlets. Individuals will have a minimum of 14 days afterthe public notice to express interest in joining before members are selected. Public Access 51Page o e Transportation Commission Bylaws • �• Based on the potential public interest in the topic, some Committee and Working Group meetings may be designated as public meetings by the Edina Transportation Commission or the City Council. If a Committee or Working Group's meetings are designated as public meetings, official meeting notices, written agendas and written minutes are required. Refer to Section 4 of these bylaws for additional information on meeting notices. . Appointments and Chair Assignments Committees: The Edina Transportation Commission Chairperson will ask for Committee volunteers from the Edina Transportation Commission membership. A majority vote may approve the Committee appointments once sufficient volunteers are established. A temporary Committee Chair will be appointed b. Vthe Transportation Commission at the time of Committee formation. The Committee will elect its own Chair and,;notify the Edina Transportation Commission Chairperson. F ' Working Groups: The Edina Transportation Commission Chai Transportation Commission to serve as the Working Group--,C, the Edina Transportation Commission members. The Wor lh members. By definition, those members will include individu Chair may also nominate a co -chair who is not an Edina Tran appointments will be made by a majority vote,ofEdina Trans The duties of the Committee or Working Group Chairs) include • Set the meeting schedule and, if required, niitify the`Ci1 • Prepare and distribute a wnttep%meeting agegrl , if req • Lead the meeting in accordance with he agend4`and fa • Ensure that this section`ofthe bylaws; altd Edina T ransp • Maintain meeting decorukN1 z ,. • Recommend members and notify Edma Transportatiori only). • Report on t - e'Committ0 "r W r ing;.Group's`activ ties Dn will ask f6e,'Olunteers from the Edina The Working Group� hair is approved by a majority of up Chair will recommend other Working Group itside of the Edina Trarispo,rtation Commission. The it icon 9, ")) j ission member�Working Group tioh Cominlssion members but are notlimited to: y Staff Liali#r qr public notification. n agenda items. n directives are followed. mission of changes in membership (Working Group regular Edina Transportation Commission • Communlcate to the Committei , 6,br Working Group any directives, questions or input from the Edina Transportationommission Resignation or Removal ' A Committee or Working Grou p member may voluntarily resign by submitting his or her written resignation to the Chair of the Committee or Working Grd p ;,Committee or Working Group member may be removed by a majority vote of the Edina Transportation Commissioh;; ;�,% Disbanding A Committee or Working Group may be disbanded at any regular meeting of the Edina Transportation Commission by a majority vote of the members. Committees or Working Groups will automatically be disbanded if no member of the Edina Transportation Commission is available to serve or appropriate volunteer membership cannot be established. 6 1 P a g e Transportation Commission Bylaws pO+� e �t=f N � .J � .by Bike Edina The City Council has established Bike Edina as a standing work group of the Edina Transportation Commission. The purpose of Bike Edina is to support the mission of the Edina Transportation Commission and advise the City on bicycling - related issues. The mission of Bike Edina is to advance cycling in Edina by: • Advocating for a cmmnlete hicvcle transnnrtatinn netwnrk that serves_cvrlists of all apes and ahilities_ safely comfortably and conveniently: bicycling- related issues; • worKine coiianorativeiv with other organ 1 of each year for review and approval. Section 8: Applicability This section applies to all types of media and communication methods including face -to -face, telephone, email and social media. Edina Transportation Commission related communication between members when a quorum of voting members is present constitutes a violation of Open'Meeting laws if it takes place outside of publicly- noticed meetings. Members are prohibited from discussing Edina Transportation Commission business in such a situation. Since email communication is common outside of meetings, the following email protocol is adopted: • Any email communication intended for a majority of Edina Transportation Commission members should go through the City Staff Liaison so that an appropriate record can be established. • Members should not respond "reply all' to group messages. • Members should not blind copy (bcc) other members. 7 1 P a g e �9Sp1A. o e 0 0 Transportation Commission Bylaws Members must not engage in a serial discussion of Edina Transportation Commission business. A serial discussion occurs when members discuss official business with a majority of voting members through successive communications. Serial communication can occur through a combination of communication methods such as face -to -face, email, telephone or on a social media site. Communication with the Public Outside of Meetings Edina Transportation Commission members are encouraged to share their guidelines noted in the paragraph below. „ When communicating Edina Transportation Commission business wi..th thy; convey the following: • The deliberations and decisions of the Edina Trans omm contained in the public record presented to all EdinaiTransportatio deliberation or action. The member's comments do not represent the Transportation Commission as a whole. Members should exercise care not to communicatb how they inte ,. appearance any matter has been pre- decided. The City's Communications anc� Tec'nology Services Department will; announcements, press releases or'other medikpontact desired by the Section 9: All financial expenditures by the Edina; mission and be covered under the Edh advance by a majority of the voting me expenditures or reimbursements meet meet the criteria above will-;',,h f be rein execute contracts or to other"wise,finar Commission business will be manaied Section 10: Ethical and Respectful Conduct with members of the public within the members should understand and be based solely on information On members participating in the of other commissioners or the Edina on any pending matter or give the and '-coordinate any public 'ansportation Commission. must relate to the Edina Transportation Commission sportation Commission budget. All expenditures must be approved in The City;Staff Liaison is responsible for ensuring that all approved teria above as well as other City financial policies. Expenditures that do not . The Edina Transportation Commission does not have the authority to )bligate the City of Edina. Any contract related to Edina Transportation City Staff Liaison and may be subject to City Council approval. Conflict of Interest Members may not use their position on the Edina Transportation Commission for personal benefit. The interests of the Edina Transportation Commission must be the first priority in all decisions and actions. Any member who has a financial interest in, or who may receive a financial benefit as a result of, any Edina Transportation Commission action or decision 8 1 P a g e ok e A a Transportation Commission Bylaws °• �ro must disclose this fact as a conflict of interest. A member who has disclosed a conflict of interest should abstain from discussion and voting on the matter. Gifts Edina Transportation Commission members may not receive personal gifts from any "interested person" in conjunction with their board and commission duties. An "interested person" is a person, or representative of a person or an association, who has a direct financial Interest in a recommendation under the Edina Transportation Commission's purview. This section does not apply to lawful campaign contributions. The;E.dina Transportation Commission may recommend acceptance of general gifts or donations through the City's donation policy. Respectful Behavior The City of Edina is committed to providing a work environmentifree from violence,for all elected and appointed officials, employees and visitors. The City does not tolerate aid form of violence it the workplace including threats or intimidating actions by or against any of the groups cited above. Violence and threats;may include, but are not limited to:� . s. • Any act which is a physical assault • Any threat, behavior or action which endanger the safety of others, or res The Chairperson and City Staff Liaison have the commits an act of violence on Citv.property. Respectful behavior also includesiow Ed members of the public. Memberssh,ere a group. wti During Edina Transportation .OM rn4ission in • Treat people with courtesy, poIiteni • Encourage others to express their,-o • Listen to what others have to say y • Use the ideas ofothers to improve • Recognize cultural differences ca by a aggi e person to carry thepotential to harm or destroy or damage City property. of anyone who threatens or mmission members relate to each other, City staff and modeling, monitoring and addressing behavior within the ns, members'shbuld strive to: kindness - And ideas s- d outcomes Members should avoid: • Speaking over or cutting off another individual's comments • Insulting, disparaging or putting down people or their ideas • Bullying other members by displaying a pattern of belittling, demeaning, judging or patronizing comments. How to Report Members can report cases of unethical conduct to the City Staff Liaison, Assistant City Manager, City Manager or City Attorney. 9 1 P a g e BIKEEDINA Bylaws Section 1: Introduction' The bylaws outlined below are the approved procedures of the Bike Edina working group. Proposed bylaw amendments should be announced one meeting prior to voting on the proposed change. Bylaw amendments require the approval of a majority of voting Bike Edina working group members.'Approved bylaws amendments shall be forwarded to the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) for review and approval: Amendments take effect upon approval by the ETC. 1 The ETC bylaws shall govern questions of procedure in any matter not addressed in these bylaws, as applicable. Section 2: Establishment The City Council has established the Bike Edina working group as a standing working group of the ETC. The purpose of the Bike Edina working group is to support the mission of the ETC and advise the City on bicycling - related issues. Section 3: Mission The mission of the Bike Edina working group is to advance bicycling in Edina by: • Advocating for a complete bicycle transportation network that serves cyclists of all ages and abilities, safely, comfortably, and conveniently; • Serving as a voice and resource for city staff and elected /appointed officials, school district, and community on bicycling- related issues; • Furthering public awareness and, acceptance of bicycling as a fun, safe, convenient, healthy, and sustainable, mode of transportation and form of recreation, year around; and • Working collaboratively with other organizations'to advance our vision for a, progressive bicycle - friendly community where everyone can integrate cycling into their daily lives. Section 4: Membership Membership Composition The Bike Edina working group shall be comprised of regular (voting) and student (nonvoting) members. Bike Edina Bylaws 1 Regular Members: The Bike Edina working group shall be comprised of no fewer than five and no more than 15 regular members. Regular members shall be 18 years of age or older and reside or work in the City of Edina. Regular members are voting members. Student Members: Student members shall be 15 years of age or older and reside or attend school in Edina. Student members are nonvoting members. New Members Prospective members should complete a Bike Edina working group membership application and attend two regular Bike Edina working group meetings before being recommended for appointment. A recommendation requires a majority vote of Bike Edina working group members. Contact Information Bike Edina working group members are required to provide a mailing address and phone number or email address to the Chairperson. The Chairperson or designee will keep a roster of current members and provide a copy of that roster to each member and to the ETC Chairperson or designee. It is the responsibility of members to ensure the contact information as it appears on the roster is up to date. Attendance Attendance is expected at all regularly scheduled Bike Edina working group meetings and subcommittee meetings. If a member cannot attend a meeting, he or she should notify the Chairperson as soon as possible. The Chairperson shall keep of record of each members' attendance. Any member who misses three consecutive regularly scheduled Bike Edina working group meetings or who fails to attend at least half of the regularly scheduled meetings in a calendar year shall be deemed to have resigned. The Chairperson shall notify members in writing of their resignation by attendance failure. Members who have resigned due to attendance failure may request reappointment. Section 5: Meetings Meeting Notice The Chairperson shall send a notice of each regular meeting via email to each member at the address shown on the membership roster. It is the responsibility of members to verify the meeting schedule. Regular Meetings Regular meetings of the Bike Edina working group shall be held the second Thursday of the month, at 7:30 p.m., in City Hall unless otherwise announced. A regular meeting may be canceled by the Chairperson or majority vote of members when there is insufficient business, lack of quorum, lack of meeting space, conflict with a holiday, inclement weather, or in the event of a community emergency. Notice of the cancellation will be emailed, if possible and timely, to all members. Annual Meeting In October of each year, or, if the October meeting is canceled, the first regularly scheduled meeting thereafter, the Bike Edina working group will hold an annual meeting to: • Elect officers for the coming year, • Review and update bylaws as necessary, • Affirm the regular meeting schedule for the upcoming year, and Bike Edina Bylaws • Approve an annual work plan Quorum A simple majority of voting members constitutes a quorum for any meeting. If at any meeting a quorum is not achieved or maintained, no votes may be taken on Bike Edina working group business. The Chairperson may adjourn a meeting if a quorum is not achieved within 15 minutes of the meeting start time, or if a quorum is not maintained. Meeting Agendas Meeting agendas will be prepared by the Chairperson. Members may request that items be added to the agenda; however, the addition of such items is at the discretion of the Chairperson or subject to approval by a majority of voting members. The meeting agenda and related materials will be emailed to each member no less than three working days before the meeting. Meeting Proceedings During regular meetings, business will be conducted in the order listed below. The order of business may be changed with the support of a majority of the voting members. • Call to order • Approval of agenda • Action items • Discussion items • Next steps • Adjournment Motions and Voting A simple majority of voting members present and voting will decide all motions before the Bike Edina working group. At the request of a member, a roll call vote will be taken when there is a divided vote on any item. A tie vote on any motion will result in a failure of that motion to pass. Meeting Minutes Minutes shall be recorded at each meeting. Minutes shall be reviewed by the Chairperson and distributed to Bike Edina working group members and the ETC staff liaison prior to the next scheduled meeting. Public Participation Members of the public may attend regular meetings of the Bike Edina working group held at City Hall or other public location. Members of the public may participate in discussion on agenda topics; however, the Chairperson may limit participation by members of the public in the interest of time. Section 6: Officers Chairperson The ETC shall appoint a member of the Commission to serve as Chairperson of the Bike Edina working group. Co- Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and Secretary Bike Edina Bylaws The Bike Edina working group may elect a Co- Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and /or Secretary at the Annual'Meeting or at any other time to fill a vacancy. The Co- Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Secretary shall serve one -year terms and are eligible for re- election. Section 7: Subcommittees The Bike Edina working group may establish subcommittees to address specific areas of interest. Before establishing a subcommittee, the Bike Edina working group shall define the.purpose of the committee and the general scope of work. Subcommittees shall include two or more regular members and may include student and community members. Subcommittee members shall be approved by the Bike Edina working group. The chairperson shall be a regular member of the Bike Edina working group. Subcommittees should meet between Bike Edina working group meetings to advance their work. Bike Edina working group members are expected to participate on subcommittees and to attend all subcommittee meetings. For the purposes of this section, a meeting may be conducted by email. ' The subcommittee chair shall forward action or discussion items to the Bike Edina working group chair no less'than one week before each regular Bike Edina working group meeting. A subcommittee may be disbanded at any regular Bike Edina working group meeting by a majority vote of regular members. Section 8: Nondiscrimination / Equal Opportunity Statement In conducting Bike Edina working group business, no member shall discriminate against any individual on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, age, national origin, gender, gender identification, sexual orientation, sexual identity, marital status, reproductive status, disability, or status with regard to public assistance. Bike Edina Bylaws 4 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering Date: May 6, 2014 /k O iii es / Agenda Item #: IV. G. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Subject: Resolution No. 2014 -48 Supplemental Assessment Agreement, 4316 Eton Avenue. Action Requested: Approve Resolution No. 2014 -48 Supplemental Assessment Agreement for 4316 Eton Place. Information / Background: Please recall at the March 18, 2014 City Council Meeting, the Mayor and City Manager executed a Supplemental Assessment Agreement and Waiving of Public Hearing for 4316 Eton Place. A copy of the executed documents is' attached. The City assessing department later learned that Hennepin County requires a resolution with a payout schedule to make a correction to an assessment. By approving the attached resolution, staff can continue to work with Hennepin County to correct the levied assessment. Any fees required by Hennepin County to make the correction will be covered by the City of Edina. The following table shows the correction to Levy # 18286 to PID 07- 028 -24 -44 -0101 after 2 years of payments. Installment # Payable Year Principal Interest Total Total Principal Balance Beginning Balance 670.54 1 2013 109.29 36.48 172.77 561.25 2 2014 112.68 60.09 172.77 448.57 3 2015 28.54 13.91 42.45 420.03 4 2016 29.43 13.02 42.45 390.60 5 2017 30.34 12.00 42.45 360.26 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 6 2018 31.28 11.17 42.45 328.98 7 2019 32.25 10.20 42.45 296.73 8 2020. 33.25 9.20 42.45 263.48 9 2021 34.28 8.17 42.45 229.20 10 2022 35.34 7.11 42.45 193.86 1 2023 36.44 6.01 42.45 157.42 12 2024 37.57 4.88 42.45 119.85 13 2025 38.73 3.72 42.45 81.12 14 2026 39.94 2.51 42.45 41.18 5 2027 41.17 1.28 42.45 0.01 Totals 670.53 199.75 897.39 Attachment: I. Resolution No. 2014 -48 2. Copy of the executed Supplemental Assessment Agreement and Waiving of Public Hearing G: \PW \CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV\PR0JECTS \C0NTRACTS \2014 \ENG 14 -1 Morningslde B \ADMIN \LEGAL \Eton PI \Item IV. G. Res 2014 -48 Eaton Ave.docx RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -48 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Edina levied a special assessment on 4316 Eton Place on October 2, 2012 for roadway reconstruction in the amount of $2,031.94; WHEREAS, the City of Edina, during the Public Improvement Hearing for the Morningside B Roadway Improvement Project on December 10, 2013, found an error in the assessment levied against 4316 Eton Place; WHEREAS, Hennepin County requires a resolution from the City of Edina to complete the correction to the assessment and list the correction to Levy #18286 to PID 07- 028 -24 -44 -010 after 2 years of payments as shown; WHEREAS, The City and the Property Owner have entered into a supplemental Assessment Agreement agreeing to a corrected special assessment and waiving the public hearing for a supplemental assessment; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council: The following Supplemental Assessment for the Subject Property for Levy #18286 to PID 07 -028- 24 -44 -010 is adopted: Installment # Payable Year Principal Interest Total Total Principal Balance Beginning Balance 670.54 1 2013 109.29 36.48 172.77 561.25 2 2014 112.68 60.09 172.77 448.57 3 2015 28.54 13.91 42.45 420.03 4 2016 29.43 13.02 42.45 390.60 5 2017 30.34 12.00 42.45 360.26 6 2018 31.28 11.17 42.45 328.98 7 2019 32.25 10.20 42.45 296.73 8 2020 33.25 9.20 42.45 263.48 9 2021 34.28 8.17 42.45 229.20 10 2022 .3534 7.11 42.45 193.86 11 2023 36.44 6.01 42.45 157.42 12 2024 -37.57 ' 4.88 42.45 119.85 13 2025 38.73 3.72 42.45 81.12 14 2026 39.94 2.51 42.45 41.18 15 2027 41.17 1.28 42.45 0.01 Totals 670.53 199.75 897.39 1. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952- 826 -0371 • Fax 952 - 826 -0392 e Dated: May 6, 2014 y Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James, B. Hovland, .Mayor 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 May 6, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular. Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20 City Clerk K1 alp 'Fe o F ch • ,VC0RVORA��9 IeRB To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: IV. E. From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering Action M Discussion ❑ Date: March 18, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Approve Supplemental Assessment Agreement and Waiving of Public Hearing, 4316 Eton Place Action Requested: Authorize Mayor and City Manager to approve attached Supplemental Assessment Agreement and Waiving of Public Hearing for 4316 Eton Place. Information / Background: During the Public Improvement Hearing for the 2014 Morningside B Neighborhood Street Reconstruction project it was discovered that we incorrectly assessed 4316 Eton Place with the W. 44th Street project completed in 2011. 4316 Eton Place was assessed one (1) Residential Equivalent Unit (REU) or $2,031.94. As a corner property, the assessment should have been one -third (1 /3) REU or $670.54. We met with the property owners to discuss the situation. They are in agreement that with the solution to correct the assessment and have signed the attached agreement Eton Place is scheduled for reconstruction with the 2014 Morningside B Neighborhood Street Reconstruction project. As part of that project, 4316 Eton Place will be assessed a two- thirds (2/3) REU or an estimated assessment of $5,025.00. The supplement assessment agreement allows us to make the necessary correction. Attachment: 1. Supplemental Assessment Agreement and Waiving of Public Hearing \ \ED- NT8 \EngPubWks \PW \CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV\PR0JECTS \C0NTRACTS \2014 \ENG 14 -1 Morningside B \ADMINVEGANtem xx. x. Supplemt Assess Agree.docx City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AND WAIVING OF PUBLIC HEARING 4316 ETON PLACE, EDINA, MINNESOTA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -383 WEST 44T H STREET RECONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT made this . �J b '-., day of _J:__. _ _ , 2014 by and between the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("C' ") and Jeffrey R. LeMunyon and Ingrid M. J. LeMunyon, husband and wife ( "Property Owners "). Recitals A. Property Owners are the owners of the following described property, having a street address of 4316 Eton Place, Edina, Minnesota 55424: That part of Lot 87 lying South of the North 148 feet thereof and East of the West 20 feet thereof, "Morningside ". That pail of the adjoining Northerly 8 feet of County Road as designated on the plat of "Morningside ", vacated, now West 44`h Street, lying between the extensions across it of the above premises. PIN: 07-028-24-44-0101 ( "Subject Property ") B, Property Owners were incorrectly assosse .I I Rcsldcntial Equivalent Unit or $2,031.94 on October 2, 2012 for City Project No. F,NG H -7, Improvement No. BA -383. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties agree as follows: 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. The correct assessed Residential Equivalent Unit is one -third (1/3) or Six Hundred Seventy and 54/100 Dollars ($670.54) ( "Project Cost "). Doc. # 174156v. I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RNK: 1/212014 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov a 952- 826 -0371 a Fax 952 - 826 -0392 2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. The City will assess the Project Cost in the amount of Six Hundred Seventy and 54/100 Dollars ($670.54) against the Subject Property. The Project Cost will be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 11 -7. The Property Owners waive any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessment and to the Public Improvement and to City Project No. ENG 11 -7, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the Subject Property. The Property Owners waive any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Property Owners and their heirs, successors and assigns. This Agreement may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. . , PROPERTY OWNERS: r ey )AeMp yon IngrHi M. J. LeMbnya STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) �� s +-da of �✓ `'`ire The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this y 2014 by Jeffrey R. LeMunyon and Ingrid M. J. LeMunyon, husband and wife' l Notary Public RYAN GOLDEN a NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNESOTA t i�a MY COMMISSION WIRES 0//31116 �aVcrh!" m�aJw4- "�.'.�o-�V^cii�i°u"lrRr�@S+�^•Y 1 Doc. #174156v.1 2 RNK: 1/2/2014 ANl?—_ J` i Scott H. Neal, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of 2014 by James B. Hovland and Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public 99 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (651) 452 -5000 RNK Doc. 4174156v. I RNK: 1/2/2014 SHAFION M. ALLISON "OTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA PAY Commission Expires Jan. 91, 2015 I w91�,�� Ow e To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL - Agenda Item #: IV. H From: Patrick Wrase, PE, Assistant City Engineer Action Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Resolution No. 2014 -49 Receiving Feasibility Study For 2014 Alley Improvements Action Requested: Approve Resolution No. 2014 -49 receiving the feasibility study for: 1. Alley Improvement No. A -257 Xerxes Ave/York Ave, West 55th St/West 56th St and; 2. Alley Improvement No. A -258 Xerxes Ave/York Ave, West 54th St/West 55th St Information / Background: The City Council has set the public hearing for May 20, 2014. The alleys are located between Xerxes and York Avenues and W. 54th and W. 56th Streets. Residents adjacent to the alley between W. 55th and W. 56th Streets submitted a petition for alley improvement to City Council. During inspection of this alley, staff noted that the alley to the north (W. 55th to W. 54th Streets) was in similar condition and should also be considered for improvement. Staff is recommending paving the alleys with bituminous pavement and the estimated construction cost for both of the alleys is $95,000. Funding for the alley costs will be from a special assessment of approximately $1,800 per residential equivalent unit (REU). The Feasibility Study is included with this report. Staff analyzed the project and deems the project feasible from an engineering standpoint. Attachments: Resolution No. 2014 -49 Feasibility Study G- .~CENTRAL SVCS\ENG DIAMOJECTSIIMPR NOSWS7 Xerxes Alley_SSth to 56th1DESIGMFEASIBILITYIPUBLIC HEARINGS \Item N. H. Res No. 2014.49 Rc'ng Feasibility Study.dooc City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 n RESOLUTION NO.2014 -49 RECEIVING FEASIBILITY STUDYfOR 7014 ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS XERXES AVE /YORK AVE, WEST 55TH ST /WEST 56TH ST, IMPROVEMENT NO. A -257 XERXES AVE /YORK AVE, WEST 54TH ST /WEST 55TH ST, IMPROVEMENT NO. A -258 WHEREAS, at the request of Edina City Engineer, a study has been prepared by staff with reference to the proposed Improvement. Nos. A -257 and A -258, the improvement of the alleys at Xerxes Ave /York Ave, West 55th `St /West 56th St and Xerxes Ave /York Ave, West 54th St /West 55th St and the study is hereby received by the Council on May 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the study provides information regarding whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible; whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvements as recommended; and..a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA: 1. The council will consider the improvement of such alleys in accordance with said study and the possible assessment of abutting property for all of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of ":the improvement of $95,000(A -257 and A- 258). 2. .A public hearing shall be- held on such proposed improvement on the 20th day of May, 2014, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required bylaw. ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 2014. Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 May 6, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20_ City Clerk ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 wwwEdinaMN.gov • 952- 826 -0371 • Fax 952 - 826 -0392 � 91N�11.�`� o e . .�y FEASIBILITY STUDY 99 �N S® � O 2014 ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS Alleys between Xerxes and York Avenue and between West 54th Street and West 56th Street IMPROVEMENT NO. A -257 & A -258 MAY 6, 2014 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA I hereby certify that this feasibility study was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional E ineer under the laws of the State off Minnesota. 25093 Patrick Wrase Reg. No. Date I W 9S�11 � o e �, FEASIBILITY STUDY — A -257 & A -258 �y ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT •,fie �. CITY OF EDINA 2014 ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS APRIL 29, 2014 SUMMARY: The alley project involves removing the existing bituminous pavement and replacing with bituminous pavement. The estimated total project cost is $95,000 and will be fund by special assessment. The estimated assessment per Residential Equivalent Unit (per single family home) is $1,800. LOCATION: The proposed project area includes the alleys between Xerxes and York Avenue and between West 54th Street and West 56th Street. The drawing below is a detailed project location map of the 2014 Alley Improvements (Figure 1 & 2). 5510 :4NW11 W 5524 Y 5528 5536 5540 5544 5548 3200 5600 W 55TH ST 5501 5 5505 5504 5509 5515 5512 5519 5516 55_20 r 5525 5524 5533 5528 5532 5536 5537 5545 5540 5544 5 5549 5552 5553 L 3100 W 58TH ST 3121 11 5600 1 PROJECT LIMITS W 'a W Project Area N /�� 55th St - 58th St w '�Ji ®J Between Xerxes and York Ave � "" . Allev Imorovement No: A -257 Figure 1 Proiect Area Map Figure 2 Proiect Area Map Pagel of 6 ,;. rte:: w :;� •,a Feasibility Study 2014 Alley Improvements No. A -257 & A258 May 29, 2014 INITIATION & ISSUES: The alley between West 55th Street and West :56th Street was initiated by a resident petition (see attached petition), Orr November 4, 2013, the City Council received and referred-the, petition to the Engineering. Department for further consideration. The.alley between West 54th Street and Wests55th. Street was not petitioned, but was looked at by staff;due to proximity and similar conditions. Staff Issues The following is a: list,of issues, some generated by resident comments, addressed in this report: • Storm water drainage • Poor condition of existing pavement • Existing landscaping, retaining .walls, and driveways. • Right -of -Ways • Access to alley Resident Input City staff held an informational meeting on Monday, April 7 and. at that meeting there were 16 residents representing 15 properties. Most of the residents that attended the meeting were in support of the project along both blocks. Materials from this meeting can be found in Appendix B: Staff did receive one phone call after the informational meeting against the improvements for the alley between West 54th Street and West 55th Street. EXISTING CONDITIONS: ` Streets The alleys were constructed in the late 1950's,and early 196,0's. The-existing Alley widths vary from 12 -14 feet wide. The pavement condition varies throughout the neighborhood and is in poor condition (Photos 1 & 2). Page 2 of 6 Feasibility Study 2014 Alley Improvements No. A -257 & A258 May 29, 2014 Photo 1. Existing Pavement Condition Photo 2. Existing Pavement Condition Page 3 of 6 Feasibility Study 2014 Alley Improvements No. A -257 & A258 May 29, 2014 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: The project involves removing the existing bituminous pavement and replacing with bituminous pavement. Minor drainage improvements will be completed by grade adjustments of the bituminous pavement. The project will construct a concrete apron at 54th Street to prevent deterioration of the bituminous pavement along the downslope of the alley. RIGHT -OF -WAY & EASEMENTS: The right -of -way is approximately 14.5 -ft wide. All proposed improvements stay within the right -of -way and no additional easement requirements are anticipated. PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $95,000 and will be funded by special assessment. The total cost includes direct costs for engineering, clerical and construction finance costs from the start of the project to the final assessment hearing. ASSESSMENTS: The assessments are based on the City's Special assessment policy. Based on the policy there are 51 residential equivalent units (REU). The assessments will be levied against the benefiting adjacent properties, see attached preliminary assessment role in the Appendix C. The assessment policy states that assessable costs shall be" 100% of the costs incurred for the reconstruction of A Non -State Aid Residential Street ", With the lack of specific language and past precedence concerning alley reconstruction, staff interprets that the benefiting adjacent properties contained within this project could be additionally assessed up to a 1 REU for any future non -state aid residential street reconstruction project. Based on this policy, the estimated assessment per REU is $1,800 (Figure 3 &'4) Page 4 of 6 Feasibility Study 2014 Alley Improvements No. A -257 & A258 May 29, 2014 Preliminary Assessments `J100 - - 1 REU 5400 W 55TH ST - -- 5406 406 5408 405 1519 05 09 504 508 PROJ ECT LIMITS 5510 416 15 512 11 20 W 5412 5 16 520 _ a 5520 LU 25 c 524 Ui 5524 0 154 3 528 532 536 � X 5528 5536 ': 4 540 544 E 548 552 -- - 5540 5544 5548 ■FT.1111 W 56TH ST 3121 5600 Project Area 55th St- 56th St Between Xerxes and York Ave Alley Improvement No: A -257 Figure 3. Preliminary Assessment Map W� i Preliminary Assessments IIIIIIII# 1 REU _ -- - W 54TH ST 5400 3113 40 5406 406 5408 405 412 5410 416 11 20 W 5412 125 13 424 y 0 17 428 5420 21 5432 W 436_ 440 33 444 437 448 41 54 0 W 55TH ST 5501 5500 Project Area 54th St - 55th St Between Xerxes and York Ave Alley Improvement No: A -258 PROJECT LIMITS w�E Vs Figure 4. Preliminary Assessment Map Page 5 of 6 Feasibility Study 2014 Alley Improvements No. A -257 & A258 May 29, 2014 PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule is feasible from an Engineering standpoint: Petition Received by Council November 4, 2013 Information Meeting April 2014 April 7, 2014 Order Public Hearing April 22, 2014 Receive Feasibility Report May 6, 2014 Public Hearing May 20, 2014 Bid Opening- Summer 2014 Award Contract Summer 2014 Begin Construction Summer 2014 Complete Construction Fall 2014 Final Assessment Hearing Fall 2015 FEASIBILITY: Staff believes this project meets the needs brought to the council by the petition and is cost effective and feasible to improve the public infrastructure. APPENDIX: A. Received Petition B. 2014 Alley Improvement Informational Meeting C. Preliminary Assessment Role Page 6 of 6 wgv�'ir City of Edina, Minnesota o e CITY COUNCIL ti /v 4801 West 50�h Street • Edina; Minnesota 55424 «�M+ (952) 927 -8861 • (952) 927 -7645 FAX 4 (612) 927 -5461 TDD PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ❑ SIDEWALK ALLEY PAVING ❑ Vf ❑ STORM SEWER ❑ SANITARY SEWER ❑ STREET LIGHTING ❑ CURB AND GUTTER ONLY ❑PERMANENT STREET ❑ OTHER:_ .. , . . SURFACING WITH CURB AND GUTTER pl� ova C � -f-`' To the Mayor and City Council: S The persons who have signed IS petition ask the City Council to consider the improvements listed above to the locations listed below. 01 LOCATION OF 01PROVEIIENT BY STREET NAA� /`l)rlK _��Ch 7v _�E Z OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME and ADDRESS between and ADDRESS ADDRESS between and LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS between and LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME ADDRESS 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 OWNER'S NAME SIGN/�ArrTU'R/E�! / (PRINTED) / e SSV `fob (�-V4 JcftfewlCZ- PROPERTY ADDRESS (PRINTED) rx� V, . This petition was circClated by: NAME ADDRESS PHONE There is space for more signatures on the back. APRIL 2008 OWNER'S NAME PRINTED) ysw vj /1 ,tjvk� -� 7� I/.z. ! y m rL r &e \IA16/4. PROPERTY ADDRESS (PRINTED) km 55 36 �xCc, /IiII ..S 55 -P Xe'nnXe_"- 4'� e,5 - This petition was circulated by: NAME ADDRESS PHONE The Mbntesota Data Practices Act requires that ►ve inform you ofyour rights about the private data ive are requesting on this form. Under the law, your telephone number is private data. This petition when submitted will become public information. There is no consequence for ref using to supply this infot niation. You may attach extra pages with signatures. APRIL 2008 aq e - J.- ; ----------- 7--7� ii Id A V�O 7 • • 2014 Alley Improvements Informational Meeting April 7, 2014 N �e ; IE�HC��r 7-petitioned, is Alley? �= == etween W. 55th Street and W. 56th Street was petitioned. etween W. 54th Street and W. 55th Street was not but was looked at by staff due to proximity and existing conditions. • Alley projects can be grouped together to maximize the economics of scale for construction. 4/29/2014 Agenda • Introductions • Why • Timeline • Project Components • Funding • What You Can Expect • Communication • How to Prepare • Q &A 1 (e )y1 Process - Evatux.c > Informational Feosiblity Pu{;Gc Countll infrastructure meeting study he mg d cisicn Proj.1 > Planning > Bids const,uttim 2 Final > ordered 6 bidding a:varJad beg 11-s assessment 1 7Existing Alley Details IE�4.1 _= =:Y alleys were constructed and paved in the late 1950's early 2014 Alley I.5o45_ L31 00 -° Improvement pavement, concrete pavement, and some gravel surfacing. A -257 (petitioned) 5501^ _ 6565 5504 Improvement 5510 5508 5506 3515 1 5512 A -258 j • 26 properties 5520 5519 5516 5 5520 L. • Remove old pavement -� --- < 5525 5524 • 27 properties • Grade and shape alley .5524 5533 5529 - -1- • Remove old pavement surface 5526 _ '- 5532 5536 5537 5536 • Grade and shape alley • Place new bituminous -- -' 5540 - _ _ 15540 5545 surface ! pavement • Site restoration - 15544 t —� 5549 5548 - 5548 - -'� 5552 1 • Adjust or replace Hydro- seeding 3200. 5553 1 3100 _ sanitary manhole 5440 5433 5444 - 5600. J121 ,5600 castings 5437 5446.. I_ • Place new bituminous 544'1 3454 pavement 7Existing Alley Details IE�4.1 _= =:Y alleys were constructed and paved in the late 1950's early s. • Width of the alleys range between 12' -14' wide. • Private driveway entrances off the alley are made of bituminous pavement, concrete pavement, and some gravel surfacing. �. ILA. Improvement A -258 j 4/29/2014 7• • i}e is Existing Alley Details teriorated pavement _.4 2'r 2014 Alley • - ;! -- Improvement A -258 j ,� , 5400 3113. '�02F4 ; 5406 5406 .• • 27 properties 5408 1 5405 5412 - 5410 j 5416 i • Remove old pavement _ , g 54111 5420 - • Grade and shape alley 5412 j 5413 5424 5417 surface ! _5428 642 5421- 6432 • Adjust or replace _i 5425 5436 i sanitary manhole 5440 5433 5444 - castings 5437 5446.. I_ • Place new bituminous 544'1 3454 pavement -- • Site restoration - r50�p' 550_ Hydro - seeding 7• • i}e is Existing Alley Details teriorated pavement _.4 2'r CITY OF • 3` a �\ N Do Taxes Cover Street or Alley Projects? • Roughly 20 percent of your property taxes go to the City for expenses such as Police, Fire, Parks and Public Works (snowplowing, pothole repairs, sealcoating, and other street maintenance). • Your taxes do not pay for street or alley reconstruction. iE x� Preliminary Assessment • Preliminary assessments are estimated at $1,800 per REU • REU — Residential Equivalent Unit, l single family home 4/29/2014 ; �$) Funding • Project is funded by special assessments. pletion • Special assessments are assigned to adjacent properties that stand to benefit from construction improvements. • Special assessments to residents cover 100 percent of alley reconstruction costs. 1. Pay entire amount upon receiving bill to avoid finance charges ; �$) 7.Assessments ent Options will be billed for the assessment one year after project pletion are payable over 5 years • Payment options: 1. Pay entire amount upon receiving bill to avoid finance charges 2. Pay 25 percent; balance rolls to property taxes 3. Roll entire amount to property taxes 4. Defer payment if 65 years old or older What You Can Expect — • , We will keep you informed of the project and its progress. • You will have opportunities to provide input. • We will'do our best to minimize inconveniences, but construction does not come without pain points. • Dust, noise, vibrations, muddy conditions after a rain event. • Roadways to your home may be periodically inaccessible. • ' The contractor will accommodate special access needs. • Irrigation and pet containment systems mostly likely will be damaged if they run near the alley pavement • Restoration of disturbed areas using hydro- seeding. 1�0 1 �'�I] }t�'•y r 0 City Extra "City Extra" entails are the best way to receive regular updates once construction begins. These are free weekly email updates about your project • Sign upon City, of Edina website, www.EdinaMN.gov. — Check the box next to your project name. • If you cannot receive email, we will mail you City Extra updates upon request. • It's the best way to stay informed. Communication Tools == Become a neighborhood captain to help facilitate project communication. — Let us know of someone in your neighborhood who might fit this role. • You will be notified of all meetings, hearings, schedules and questionnaires via regular mail. • Public hearing notices are also published in Edina Sun - Current. • Door hangers are hung when there time- sensitive information. • Final assessment notices are mailed one year after construction. How to Prepare • Sign up for City Extra • Begin financial planning • Coordinate home and yard improvement projects around the alley construction timeline • Ask questions; stay informed va EbuYNm K"MESIAMIN Contact Us Email: mailgedinamn.gQ Call: 952-826-0371 Visit: Engineering Department 7450 Metro Blvd. CITY OFEDINA WIN 4/29/2014 5. Thanks for your time! Questions? CITY OF EDINIA IN 0 rd SO` Typical Timeline April -May -`_, Feasibility report and estimates provided May Public hearing June' Plan preparation and bidding July /August Construction begins September, Construction concludes Fall 2015 Final assessment hearing 4/29/2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1C 11 12 13 14 15 1E U 1E 15 2C 21 22 22 24 25 2E PID Owner House No. Street Assessable REU Assessment Amount 2002824210072 Patrick K Finnegan 3100 56th St. W. 1 2002824210058 Thomas A Albrecht 5500 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210059 Mary A Schopper 5504 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210060 Rose M Kubis 5508 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210061 Margaret S Ingalls 5512 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210062 Stephen Manser 5516 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210063 Doyle Wolfe & Karen Wolfe 5520 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210064 Jay R Eggers 5524 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210065 Susan M Whitman 5528 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210066 Leah Beth Oslund 5532 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210067 Orhan & Emine S Arpinar 5536 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210068 Maynard E Reynolds 5540 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210069 Lawrence D Simmons 5544 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210070 Gerald Kojetin 5548 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210071 Nathaniel Bolin 5552 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210083 Matthew Prokopanko 5501 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210082 Jill L Kielas 5505 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210081 Georges Duarte 5509 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210080 K Kotsonas & L Lundquist 5515 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210079 Philomena M Hesse 5519 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210078 Robert & Julie Rutkiewicz 5525 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210077 Daniel & Amy Farsht 5533 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210076 Anthony &Joanna Curry 5537 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210075 Eric F Hand 5545 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210074 J & D Apartments, LLC 5549 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210073 lJodie & Jared 1 Bernarde 1 5553 IYork Ave. So. 1 1 Preliminary Assessable Cost Total Assessment REU 26 Average Cost Per REU 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A -258 PID Owner House No. Street Assessable REU Assessment. Amount 2002824210028 Zachary K & Shannon M Steven 3113 154th St. W. 1 2002824210027 Zachary K & Shannon M Steven *No address /double lot 0 2002824210016 Donald G & Joan G Pederson 3100 55th St. W. 1 2002824210004 Carole G Cera 5400 Xerxes Ave: So. 0 2002824210005 Keith Reitman & Carole Cera 5402 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210006 Nicholas Mccarthy _ . , 5406 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210007 Adam N- Kuzlak- Swanson 5412 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210145 Bartley E &L Katherine I Archer __ 5416 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210146 Jill &.Mark L Murray. III 5420 Xerxes Ave: So. 1 2002824210143 Adam N Kuzlak- Swanson 5424 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210144 Sarah A & Philip M Johnson- 5428 Xerxes Ave..So. 1 2002824210010 Nancy Stockert Trustee 5432 Xerxes-Ave. So. 1 2002824210011 Hope Buchanan 5436 Xerxes Ave.So." 1 2002824210012 Maryann T Galic 5440 Xerxes °Ave. So. 1 2002824210013 Scott M Vogel 5444 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210014 John M Vlahos 5448 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210015 J P Zeilinger 5454 Xerxes Ave. So. 1 2002824210026 Thomas A Spicola & Suzanne M Remington 5405 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210025 Kurt F & Patricia L Ruppel 5411 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210024 Angela Brunelle 5413 York Ave. So. 2002824210023 Paul T Engstrom 5417 York Ave: So. 1 2002824210022 Betty Curtis 5421 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210021 David J & Janet Ulvin 5425 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210020 Emily R- Shaughnessy .5433 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210019 Jolinda M Simes 5437 York Ave. So. 1 2002824210018 Thomas S Peterson.& Michelle A Bochert 5441 York Aver So 1 2002824210017 K K & D L Edmond 5445 York Ave. So. 1 Preliminary Assessable Cost Total Assessment REU 25 Average Cost Per REU *Applying same principle as BA -370 Carson's Hill, 2012 (Assessing Dept. does not consider this separate lots). To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL w9,. A,)!' I ` V 1 oe O •�M• � JOBS Agenda Item #: IV. I. From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering Action Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Resolution No. 2014 -50 Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreements Action Requested: Approve Resolution No. 2014 -50 authorizing Mayor and City Manager to approve attached Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreements for sanitary sewer and water services for the 2014 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction areas. Information / Background: For the 2014 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction areas, residents were encouraged to upgrade their sanitary sewer service line from the mainline to the right -of -way line, as well as their water service line. To date, nine property owners have upgraded their service lines and requested that the extra cost be added to their special assessment. The attached signed agreements and resolution allow us to add the cost immediately as pending assessments. The final total special assessments will not be known until late 2015. In the past, when agreements were approved, the amounts were not immediately added as pending assessments. Instead, the amounts were added as a lien against each property. We've found this process to be time consuming and inefficient for city and county staff. After discussion with the City Attorney, we've concluded that it is more efficient to approve the special assessment agreements by resolution because it allows us to add the amounts immediately as pending assessments. At a later date, we will request City Council's approval to release all existing liens from previously approved special assessment agreements. Attachments: Resolution No. 2014 -50 Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreements: • Four — Morningside B Neighborhood • One — Bredesen Park D Neighborhood • One — Countryside F Neighborhood • One — Birchcrest B Neighborhood • One — Strachauer Park B Neighborhood • One — Todd Park F Neighborhood G:\PW\CENTRAL SVCS\ENG 131WROJECTS\CONTRACTS\2014\ENG 14 -1 Morningside MADMIMLEGAL\Sewer Repairs \Item IV.f. Res. No. 2014 -50 special Assessment Agreements.docx City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 3 ow /lei( fVLA RESOIa�lL014 -50 APPROVING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS AND PENDING ASSESSEMENTS WHEREAS, at the request of Edina City Engineer, property owners-in the 2014 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction project areas were encouraged to upgrade their sanitary sewer service line from the mainline to the right -of -way line, as well as their water service line; and WHEREAS, property owners have upgraded their service lines and requested that.the extra cost'be added to their special assessment; and . WHEREAS, property owners signed a Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreement allowing the City to add the cost to their special assessment;, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA: 1. The Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreements are approved`for the following properties: 1. PID 07- 028 -24 -41 -0027, 4233 Scott Terrace, $10,645.00 2. PID 07- 028 -24 -41 -0026, 4235 Scott Terrace, $8,595.00 3. PID 07- 028 -24 -41 -0081, 4203 Alden Drive, $3,150.00_ 4. PID 07-028-24-41-0095,4224 Alden Drive, $7,750.00 5. PID 32- 117 -21 -13 -0022, 5704 Hawkes Drive, $6,800.00 6. PID 31-117-21-31-0025,5936 Walnut Drive, $3;700.00 7. PID 04- 116 -21 =22 -00271 5126 Roberts Place, $6,790.00 8.. PID 20- 028 -24 -34 -0064, 6105 York Avenue So,.$6,650.00 9. PID 18- 028 -24 -22 -0026, 4380 Coolidge Avenue, $3,750:00 2. The Assessments are deemed pending as of the date this Resolution is approved by the City Council. ADOPTED this 6`h day of May, 2014. Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 May 6, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this' ' 'day of : 20 City Clerk ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard - Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gov 9,952- 826 =0371: Fax 952- 826 -0392 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SPECIALASSESSMENTAGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this Z day of , 20%7, by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City') and John Peckham and Carol Neuwirth, hustfand and wife, (the "Property Owner'). RECITALS A. Property Owner is the owner of Lot 16, Black , Subdivision Momingaide-- having a street address of 4233 Scott Terrace, Edina, Minnesota (the "Subject Property'). B. The City has requested that Property Owner replace the existing sewer service line(s) from the trunk sanitary sewer pipe to the right -of -way line on the Subject Property ("Public Improvement) and also consider replacing water service line from the stop box in conjunction with City Project No. ENG 144. C. Property Owner has replaced their sanitaryy, sewer and water service Imes and has requested that the City assess the cost of the Public Improvement against the Subject Property. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. - PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. The Owner, received a quote from Highview Plumbing- Inc. -4301 Hiahview, Place. Minnetonka, MN 55345- (the "Contractor") to construct the Public, Improvement Property Owner entered into a contract with the Contractor to construct the Public Improvement and Purchase-Orde' No -259a was issued to the Contractor. The work is completed and the Contractor has submitted an invoice to the City referring to Purchase Order Nm 2596 fortheamount of S10-645.00. The City is in receiptof a lien waiver for the work performed and will pay the Contractor. 2. SPECIALASSES$MENT., he'CitywillassesstheProjectCostintheamountof=JAMagainsttheSubject Prope rty.TheProjectCostwill be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 14 -1. The Property Owner waives any and aQ procedural and substantive objections to the, special assessments and to the.Public Improvement and to City Project No. ENG 141, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the Subject Property. The Property Owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreementshall be binding upon the Property Ownerand the Property Owner's successors and assigns. This Agreement maybe recorded against the title to the Subject Property. PROPERTY OWNER: J h cloarn Carol Neuwirth STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COU NTY OF T ed regoirg in�sl� menu IcnowJgS ed Jr `n�Jtiis Z day of 20 by NOTARY PUBLIC BY: AND TATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OFHENNEPIN )' CITY OF EDINA James B. Hovland, Mayor Scott H. Neal, City Manager [:BRANT BENJAMIN JOHNSON NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA MYCOMMISSIM €>�Imoi /31116 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 120 , by James B. Hovland and by Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Managerof the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalfofthe corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC ORPFIEDBY: CAMPBELL KNUISON P10FessbnafAsswhbm 317 EapndabOffm Cate 1390Cvpae<e OotaCiave Egan, Mmesda 55121 Teleptnie: (617�45�6000 RMQem 0 RECITALS A. Property Owner is the owner of Lot 17, Block Subdivision Morningside, having a street address of 4235 Scott Terrace, Edina, Minnesota (the "Subject Property "). B. The City has:�requested that Property Owner replace the existing sewer service line(s) from the trunk sanitary sewer pipe to the right -of -way line on the Subject Property ( "Public Improvement') and also consider replacing water service line from the stop box in conjunction with City Project No. ENG 14 -1. C. Property. Owner has replaced their. sanitary sewer and water service lines and has requested that the City assess the cost of the Public Improvemient'agAin8t the Subject Property. . NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: :x . 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT.; �.. The.Owner: received a quote from Highview Plumbing, Inc., 4301 Highview Place, Minnetonka, MN 553 5, ''(th& "Contractor ") to construct the Public Improvement. Property Owner entered into a contract with the Contractor to construct the Public Improvement and Purchase Order No.2597 was issued to the Contractor. The work is completed and the Contractor has submitted an invoice to the City referring to Purchase Order No. 2597 for the amount of $8,595.00 . The City is in receipt of a lien waiver for the work performed and will pay the Contractor. 2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. The City will assess the Project Cost in the amount of $8,595.00 against the Subject Property. The Project Cost will be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 14 -1. The Property Owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments and to the Public Improvement and to City Project No. ENG 14 -1, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to . the Subject Property. The Property Owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Property Owner and the Property Owner's successors and assigns. This Agreement may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF Rcnrte(y'jn ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of �► ► , 20±L by Blake P. Malberg, property owner. eaa>praas� - ERIK R. EWNGSON NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA ;;p W 0cmmWlw E>� W Jan. 31.2015 CITY OF EDINA AND STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) James B. Hovland, Mayor Scott H. Neal, City Manager The foregoing-instrument was acknowledged before me this day of .20 , by James B. Hovland and by Scot(H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. DRAFrED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (612) 452 -5000 RNKsrn NOTARY PUBLIC 2 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this % 2 ' day of 20 % % by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City' and James and Pamela Olson husband and wife, (the "Property Owner"). RECITALS A. Property Owner is the owner of Lot -51, Block Subdivision Morningside. having a street address of 4203 Alden Drive, Edina, Minnesota (the "Subject Property "). B. The City has requested that Property Owner replace the existing sewer service line(s) from the trunk "sanitary sewer pipe to the right -of -way line on the "Subject Property , ( "Public Improvement ") and also consider replacing water service line from the stop box in conjunction with City Project No. ENG 14 -1. C. Property Owner has replaced their sanitary sewer service line and has requested that the City, assess the cost of the Public Improvement against the Subject Property. .NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. The Owner received a quote from Minneapolis & Suburban Sewer & Water, 1 3233 45th Avenue So, Minneapolis, MN 55406 (the "Contractor') ~to construct the Public, Improvement. Property Owner entered into a contract with the Contractor to construct the Public Improvement and Purchase Order No.2593 was issued to the Contractor. The work is completed and the Contractor has submitted an invoice to the City referring to Purchase Order No. 2593 for the amount of 3150.00. The City is in receipt of a lien waiver for the work performed and will pay the Contractor. 2. ' SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. The City will assess the Project Cost in the amount of 3150.00 against the Subject Property. The Project Cost will be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 14 -1. The Property Owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments and to the Public Improvement and to City Project No.. ENG 14 -1, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the Subject Property. The Property Owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Property Owner and the Properly Owner's successors and assigns. This Agreement may be recorded against he title to the Subject Property. r PROPERTY OWNER: "A Ja es Olson Pamela Olson STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (SS. COUNTY OF M kpnE) pj n fh The foregoing instrument was a knowled_ ed before we this y of ��.s� KEVIN A VANDVERBEKE NOTARY PUBUC- MINNESOTA N ARY P BLI MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 01131118 CITY OF EDINA AND STATE OF MINNESOTA James B. Hovland, Mayor Scott H. Neal, City Manager ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20-__, by James B. Hovland, and by Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City, Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the. authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (612) 452 -5000 RNK:sm 2 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT 1 17 AGREEMENT made this 2-1— day of SRI , 20 to by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City ") and Douglas A. and Cheryl A. Fuerst, husband and wife, (the "Property Owner "). RECITALS A. Property Owner is the owner of Lot , Block , Subdivision Morningside, having a street address:of 4224 Alden Drive, Edina, Minnesota (the "Subject Property "). B. The City has requested that Property Owner replace the existing sewer service line(s) from the . trunk sanitary sewer pipe to the right -of -way line on the Subject Property ( "Public Improvement ") and also consider replacing water service line from the stop box in conjunction with City Project No. ENG 14 -1. C. Property Owner has replaced their sanitary sewer service line and has requested that the City assess the cost of the Public Improvement against the Subject Property. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL. COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. The Owner received a quote from Minneapolis & Suburban Sewer & Water, 3233 45th Avenue So, Minneapolis, MN 55406 (the "Contractor") to construct the Public Improvement. Property Owner entered into a contract with the Contractor to construct the Public. Improvement and Purchase Order No.2594 was issued to the Contractor. The work is completed and the Contractor has submitted an invoice to the City referring to Purchase Order No. 2594 for the amount of $7,750.00 . The City is in receipt of a lien waiver for the -work performed and will pay the Contractor. 2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. The City will, assess the Project Cost in the amount of $7,750.00 against the Subject Property. The Project Cost will be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 14 -1. The Property Owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments and to the Public Improvement and to City Project No. ENG 14 -1, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the Subject Property. The Property Owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Property Owner and the Property Owner's successors and assigns. This Agreement may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (Ss. COUNTY OF HMAWI The foregoing instrument was d ,201,by Z) fireNISE G. DENI SON � 111 ` ti ?r.RY PUSUC - MINNESOTA s, fin; Commission Expires Jai. 31, 2015 PROPERTY OWNER: Douglas A., Fuerst Cheryl uerst iowl dged.before me this Z IST day of �. t f NOTARY PUBLIC CITY. OF EDINA F--1Z James B. Hovland, Mayor AND Scott H. Neal, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN .) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20_3 by James B. Hovland and by Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, a. Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Processional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (612) 452 -5000 RNKsm NOTARY PUBLIC 2 0 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this 11N day of I /iPcii , 2014_, by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City') and Ross and Kirsten Baker, husband and wife, (the "Property Owners'). RECITALS A. Property Owner is the owner of Lot 5, Block 1. Subdivision Hawke's Lake Addition, having a street address of 5704 Hawkes Drive, Edina, Minnesota (the "Subject Property "). B.: The City has requested that Property Owner replace the existing sewer service 'line(s) from the trunk sanitary sewer pipe to the right -of -way line on the Subject Property ( "Public Improvement") and also consider replacing water service line from the stop box in conjunction with City Project No. ENG 14 -3. C. Property Owner has replaced their sanitaDL sewer and water service lines and has requested that the City assess the cost of the Public Improvement against the Subject Property. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. The Owner received a quote from Minneapolis &.Suburban Sewer & Water, 3233 45th Avenue So., Minneapolis, MN 55406 (the "Contractor ") to construct the Public Improvement. Property Owner entered into a contract with the Contractor to construct the Public Improvement and Purchase Order No.2592 was issued to the Contractor. The work is completed and the Contractor has submitted an invoice. to the City referring to Purchase Order No. _2592 for the amount of 6800.00. The ' City is in receipt of a lien waiver for the work performed and will pay the Contractor. 2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.. The City will assess the. ' Project Cost - in. the amount of 6 800.00 against the Subject Property. The Project Cost will be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 14 -3. The Property Owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments and to the Public Improvement and to City Project No. ENG 14-3, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the, benefit to the Subject Property.: The Property Owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Property Owner and the,Property Owner's successors and. assigns. This Agreement may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. PROPERTY OWNER: Ross Baker r • �. 0 Amy_. lCrsten Baker STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF 9,L-.v+4- ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 17 day of v i 20 Imo, by NOTARY PUBLIC VINODH L RATNAYAKE NOTARY PUBLIC = MINNESOTA F4 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 01/31/16 CITY OF EDINA STATE OF MINNESOTA BY: . James B. Hovland, Mayor AND Scott H. Neal, City Manager (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by James B. Hovland and by Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation; on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Assoclatlon 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 2 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this I day of - , 20 , by and between the CITY OF EDINA, la Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City ") and R. Jason Wiley and Jean Bay - Wiley, husband and wife, (the "Property Owner "). RECITALS A. Property Owner is the owner of Lot 010, Block 003, Subdivision Walnut Ridge First Addition, having a street address of 5936 Walnut Drive, Edina, Minnesota (the "Subject Property "). B:: The City has requested.that Property Owner replace the existing sewer service line(s) from the trunk sanitary sewer pipe to the right -of -way line on the Subject Property ( "Public Improvement ") and also consider replacing water service line from the stop box in conjunction with City Project No. ENG 14- 3. C. Property Owner has replaced their sanitary sewer service line and has requested that the City assess the cost of the Public Improvement against the Subject Property. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION'OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. The -Owner received a quote from Benjamin Franklin, 1424 3rd St No.,. Minneapolis, MN 55411 (the "Contractor") to construct the Public Improvement. Property Owner entered into a contract with the Contractor to construct the Public Improvement and .Purchase Order No.2588 was issued to the Contractor. The work is completed and the Contractor has submitted an invoice to the City,referring to Purchase Order No. 2588 for the amount of $3,700.00. The City is in receipt -of a lien waiver for the work performed and will pay the _Contractor. 2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. -:The City' will assess the Project Cost in the amount of 3 700.00'against the Subject Property. The Project Cost will .be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 14 -3. The Property Owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments and to the Public Improvement and to City Project No. ENG 14 -3, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the Subject Property. The Property Owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Property Owner and the Property Owner's successors and assigns. This Agreement may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 wwwEdinaMN.gov, 952 -8.26 -0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 STATE OF MINNESOTA ( ss. COUNTY OF ) fo going instru ent was ark❑nvJe cl before _ e his I day s 20 �, by lam. °�:� --Gl �S1. -�eec J r NOTARY FQJBLIC F P A PIMA---- MARJORIE J BERGMM NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA `My Commis*n Expires Jan. 31; 2017 STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF EDINA, James B. Hovland, Mayor AND Scott H. Neal, City Manager ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 , by James B. Hovland and by Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 65121 Telephone: (612) 452 -5000 RNK:srn NOTARY PUBLIC 2 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT , AGREEMENT made this day of , 20L ' by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City ") and Simon N. hitehead and Lynne M. Whitehead, husband and wife, (the "Property Owner "). RECITALS A. Property Owner is the. owner of Lot 9, Block 3, Subdivision James A. Rober6— Estate, having a street address of 5126 Roberts Place, Edina, Minnesota (the "Subject Property "). . B. The City has requested that Property Owner replace the existing sewer service line(s) from the trunk sanitary sewer pipe to the right -of -way line on the Subject Property ( "Public Improvement ") and also consider replacing water service line from the stop box in conjunction with City Project No. ENG 14-4. C. Property Owner has replaced their sanitary sewer and water service lines and has requested that the City assess the cost of the Public Improvement against the Subject Property.. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS.; 1. PUBLIC_ IMPROVEMENT.. The Owner received a quote from Highview Plumbing, Inc., 4301 Highview: Place, Minnetonka, MN 55345 (the "Contractor") to construct the Public Improvement. Property Owner entered into a contract with the'Contractor to construct the Public Improvement and Purchase Order. No.2591 was issued to the Contractor. The work is completed and the Contractor has submitted an invoice to the City referring to Purchase Order No. 2591 for the amount of $6.790.00. The City is in receipt of .a lien waiver for the work performed and will pay the Contractor. 2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. They City will assess. the Project Cost in the amount of 6.790.00 against the Subject Property. The Project. Cost will be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 14-4. The Property Owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments and to the Public Improvement and to City Project No. ENG 14-4, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the Subject Property. The Property Owner waives any .appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Property Owner and the Property Owner's successors and assigns. This Agreement may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. A OWA EDINA PUBLIC WORKS & PARK MAINTENANCE FACILITY ~ 7450 Metro Boulevard o Edina, Minnesota 55439 ,\F!!G !c!D�E A. wwmEdinaMN.gov a 952 - 826 -0376 • Fax 952- 826 -0392 �� FA STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument % F ..20j, by DONNA LOU TILSNER 141 _ NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNESOTA .. My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2015 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) PERTY Simon N. Whitehead e M. Whitehead DONNA LOU,TILSNER NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2015 -aCknnwhndl 'e b foie me this do day, f . / a,====: 4MAWPOBO-c CITY OF EDINA AND James B. Hovland, Mayor Scott H. Neal, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by James B. Hovland and by Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and .City Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (612) 452000 RNK:srn NOTARY PUBLIC 2 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this 03 day of �` , 20 IV. by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("C ty") and Charles F. Thompson, (the "Property Owner "). RECITALS A. Property Owner is the owner of Lot 5, Block 1, Subdivision Town Realtv's Edina Terrace, having a street address of 6105 York Avenue South, Edina, Minnesota (the "Subject Property ") B. 'The City, has requested that Property Owner replace the existing .sewer service line(s) from the trunk sanitary sewer pipe to the right -of -way line on the Subject Property ( "Public Improvement ") and also consider replacing water service line from the stop box in conjunction with City Project No. ENG 14 -5. C. Property Owner has replaced their sanitary sewer service line and has requested that the City assess the cost of the.Public Improvement against the Subject Property. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. The Owner received a quote from Benjamin Franklin, 1424 3rd St. No., Minneapolis, MN 55411, (the "Contractor") to construct the Public Improvement. Property Owner entered into a contract with the Contractor to construct the Public Improvement and Purchase Order No.2598 was issued to the Contractor. The work is completed and the Contractor has submitted an invoice to the City referring to Purchase Order No. 2598 for the amount of $6,650.001. The City is in receipt of a lien waiver for the work performed and will pay the Contractor. 2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. The City will assess the Project Cost in the amount of $6,650.00 against the Subject Property. The Project Cost will be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 14 -5 The Property Owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments and to the Public Improvement and to City Project No. ENG 14 -5, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim_ that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the Subject. Property. The Property Owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Property Owner and the Property Owner's successors and assigns. This Agreement may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. STATE OF MIN, NESOTA ) II%(SS. COUNTY OF4 h ) The foregoing instrument was �^owl dged bef me this aJ day of U`c l , 20_LLL, by �� /a�'� -8A NOTARY PUBLIC - CONNIE L. MEAD CITY OF EDINA BY: James B. Hovland, Mayor AND SCottL H. Neal, City. Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 , by James B. Hovland and by Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal co_ rporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (612) 452 -5000 RNK:srn NOTARY PUBLIC 2 Y STATE OF MIN, NESOTA ) II%(SS. COUNTY OF4 h ) The foregoing instrument was �^owl dged bef me this aJ day of U`c l , 20_LLL, by �� /a�'� -8A NOTARY PUBLIC - CONNIE L. MEAD CITY OF EDINA BY: James B. Hovland, Mayor AND SCottL H. Neal, City. Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20 , by James B. Hovland and by Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal co_ rporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (612) 452 -5000 RNK:srn NOTARY PUBLIC 2 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this i day of , 20 , by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City ") and Robert and Joann Hannon, husband and wife, (the "Property Owner "). RECITALS A. Property Owner is the owner of Lot.008. Block 009, Subdivision Browndale Park, having a street address ,of 4380 Coolidge Avenue, Edina, Minnesota (the "Subject Property "). B. The City has requested that Property Owner replace the existing sewer service line(s) from the trunk sanitary sewer pipe to the right -of -way line on the Subject Property ( "Public Improvement ") and also consider replacing water service line from the stop box in conjunction with City Project No.. ENG 14- 7. C. Property Owner has replaced their sanitary. sewer service line and has requested that the City assess the cost of the Public Improvement against.the Subject Property. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. The Owner received a quote from Benjamin Franklin, 1424 3rd St No., Minneapolis, MN 55411 (the "Contractor ") to construct the Public Improvement. Property Owner entered into a contract with the Contractor to construct the Public Improvement and Purchase Order No.2587 was issued to the Contractor. The work is completed and the .Contractor has submitted an invoice to the City referring to Purchase Order No. 2587 for the amount of $3,750.00. The City is in receipt of a lien waiver for the work performed and will pay the Contractor. 2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. The City will assess the Project Cost in the amount of $3,750.00 against the Subject Property. The Project Cost will be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 14 -7. The Property Owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments and to the Public Improvement and to City Project No. ENG 14 -7, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the Subject Property. The Property Owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available -pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Property Owner and the Property Owner's successors and assigns. This Agreement may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdiiiaMN.gov • 952- 826 -0371 • Fax 952 - 826 -0392 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument w a kll 20-11', by _ DAVID ESTEBAN CARDENAS NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 0113112019 STATE OF MINNESOTA PROP TY OWNER: Robert Hannon Joa annon before me this fl, dpy of A-? Q--, 1J PUBGI07-- CITY OF EDINA BY: James B. Hovland, Mayor AND Scott H. Neal, City Manager ( ss: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 , by James B. Hovland and by Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (612) 452-5000 RNK:srn 2 J' To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL oe • ��'�baroxwT/ ,see Agenda Item #: IV. J. From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering Action Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Settlement Agreement with AECOM for the Water Treatment Plant No. 6 Action Requested: Authorize Mayor and City Manager to sign attached settlement agreement with AECOM for Water Treatment Plant No. 6, City Project No. PW I I -1. Information / Background: This settlement agreement is for a water balance issue related to the operation of the air strippers. The air strippers remove chemicals from the raw water. Piping and valves were installed to balance water flow to the air strippers. The repairs were completed in November 2013. Public works staff has reported that this repair has addressed the water balance issue between the air strippers and that the plant is operating as intended. Staff recommends approving the settlement agreement with AECOM in regards to the water balance issue. 0 Attachments: Settlement Agreement QU WICENTRAL SVGS\ENG DIVIPROJECTSICONTRACTSU01 I\PW 11.1 New WT Plant No. MADMIN1LegahItem IV. J. Settlement Agreementdooc City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is entered into as of April 22, 2014, by and between AECOM Technical Services, Inc. ( "AECOM "), and the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City "). A: Pursuant to a June 23, 2011 contract between the parties, and amendments related thereto, AECOM provided construction related services to the City in connection with the City's Water Treatment Plant No. 6 (the "Project "); B. The Parties wish to amicably resolve any and all claims and disputes raised, or which could have been raised between the Parties related to the Project ( "Claims ") and avoid the uncertainty of further dispute resolution. Accordingly, in consideration of their mutual promises and other good and valuable consideration hereby acknowledged between the Parties, they agree as follows: SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS: a. AECOM agrees to pay to the City, the'amount of Four Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Dollars ($4,370.00) (the "Settlement Amount ")'in full and final satisfaction of the Claims, including, without limitation, claims for interest, costs and attorneys fees. c. AECOM shall pay to the City the Settlement Amount, by check, within thirty days of execution of this Agreement. d. To the extent necessary to facilitate payment, the City shall provide any necessary tax information. 2. MUTUAL RELEASES: In further consideration of this Agreement, each Party on behalf of itself and its respective officers, directors, shareholders, governors, trustees, employees, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, affiliates and other related entities, does mutually release each other Party and that Party's officers, directors, shareholders, governors, trustees, employees, agents, representatives, subsidiaries, affiliates and other related entities from any and all asserted and unasserted claims or other causes of action that the releasing Party may have against the Party being released that arise out of, are related to, or could have been raised related to the Project. 3. COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which taken together shall form the whole Agreement. 4. APPLICABLE LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota, excluding any laws on that would apply the law of another jurisdiction. 5. NO ADMISSION: This Agreement is meant as a compromise settlement of disputed claims. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall constitute an admission of liability or be construed against the interest of any Party. 6. REPRESENTATIONS: The Parties represent that they: (1) have all necessary approvals to enter into this Agreement without the consent of any other person or entity, (2) have not assigned or transferred the claims being released, and (3) that_ the persons executing on their behalf have the authority to do so and bind that Party. 7. ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATION: This is the full integration of the entire settlement agreement between the Parties. There are no other agreements, representations, or Page 1 of 2 understandings of any kind, verbal, written or otherwise. This Agreement shall not be modified, altered or amended except by a writing executed by the Party to be bound. 8. EXECUTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS: The Parties agree to execute any and all additional documents necessary to effectuate the intent and. purposes of this Agreement. AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. By: Its: Printed Name & Title Dated: CITY OF EDINA By: Its: James Hovland - Mayor Printed Name &Title. Dated: CITY OF EDINA By: Its: Scott Neal — City Manager Printed Name & Title Dated: Page 2 of 2 To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering Date: May 6, 2014 of Vu �o \�R1�OIt1`K�O • rase Agenda Item #: IV. K. The Recommended Bid is ® Within Budget ❑ NotWithin Budget Subject: Request for Purchase — Traffic Signal Cabinets for France Avenue Improvement Project Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: N/A Company: Traffic Control Corporation Recommended Quote or Bid: Traffic Control Corporation Bid or Expiration Date: N/A Amount of Quote or Bid: $66,000.00 $66,000.00 General Information: The cooperative agreement with Hennepin County accepted by the City Council at the April 1, 2014 City Council meeting requires the City to provide three traffic signal cabinets. Since these cabinets were in the agreement, they were not part of the original bid. The cabinets will be located at 66th, 70th, and 76th Streets along France Avenue and installed by Thomas & Sons as part of the project. Traffic Control Corporation supplies all the traffic signal cabinets to Hennepin County. The cabinets will be purchased with TIF Funds associated with the France Avenue Intersection Improvement Project. Staff recommends authorizing the purchase of the cabinets from Traffic Control Corporation. G:U WICENTRAL SVCS\ENG DIVIPROJECTMONTRACTSU01MENG 13-5 France Ave IntersectionsWDMIMMISC11tem IV. K.RFP -Taff Signal Cabinets.docx City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 To: Mayor and Council From: Brian E. Olson, Director of Public Works B1150 Date: 5/06/2014 Subject: Purchase of 2015 Ford F250 4WD Vehicle, Public Works - Parks Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: 04/28/2014 Company: Midway Ford Commercial Recommended Quote or Bid: Midway Commercial Ford. State contract # 74463 r-k Oi Agenda Item #: IV. L The Recommended Bid is ® Within Budget ❑ Not Within Budget Bid or Expiration Date: 5/28/14 Amount of Quote or Bid: $ 26,076.00 General Information: This is for a replacement vehicle for the Parks Department. Vehicle No. 47 -208, is a 2000 GMC with approximately 135,000 miles. It has significant rust and has outlived its useful life and needs replacement. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 To: Mayor and Council From: Brian E. Olson, Director of Public Works 8150 Date: 5/06/2014 o /Le Agenda Item #b IV. M The Recommended Bid is © Within Budget ❑ Not Within Budget Subject: Purchase of 16' TORO Groundsmaster Mower, Public Works - Parks Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Expiration Date: 04/28/2014 5/28/14 Company: Amount of Quote or Bid: MTI Distributing $ 87,558.91 Recommended Quote or Bid: MTI Distributing, National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance (IPA) pricing General Information: This is for a replacement vehicle for the Parks Department. Vehicle No. 47 -452, is a 2000 HR9016 Jacobsen mower with approximately 5400 hours. It is unreliable and has had over $23,000 in repairs over the past 5 years. It has outlived its useful life and needs replacement. We looked at the State Contract pricing and the National IPA pricing for the same piece of equipment was $2,108.29 less expensive. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 To: Mayor and City Council From: Susie Miller Braemar Arena General Manager Date: May 6, 2014 0 e t4 1898 Agenda Item #: IV.N. The Recommended Bid is ❑ Within Budget ® NotWithin Budget Subject: Request For Purchase — Braemar Field Outdoor Lighting System, Braemar Sports Dome Musco Sports Lighting Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: April 28, 2014 Company: Graybar Recommended Quote or Bid: Graybar General Information: Bid or Expiration Date: May 28, 2014 Amount of Quote or Bid: $133,213.45 Staff recommends utilizing US Communities Cooperative Purchase pricing for the purchase of the Braemar field lighting system. This system that is being proposed will light the field to 40 footcandles, using the Musco Light - Structure Green. The field would be lit with four 80' Light - Structures. The Light - Structures consist of a pre- stressed concrete base, galvanized steel pole, remote electrical components (ballasts, capacitors, fusing and disconnect) located at a 10' height on the pole, the pole top luminaire assembly with 1500 watt metal halide lighting. The lighting also includes Control -Link wireless controls system, 25 year warranty (parts, labor, and lamps), and one group re -lamp at the 5,000 hour rated lamp life. In addition, Musco is providing an LED fixture on each of the west poles for security purposes. The cost for electricity to this system is only $5 -6 /hour. By utilizing the US Communities pricing we save over $43,000 in pricing discounts, contractor mark -up and sales tax. The proposal includes purchase and delivery of the Musco Light—Structure Green. Installation of the lighting system and necessary electrical work will be bid as a part of Sports Dome, Arena, Outdoor Rink - Bid Package Two. This item is budgeted through the Sports Dome, Arena, Outdoor Rink project. If approved by council, the company will deliver the product when we are ready for installation. Attachments: Graybar Quote City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 To: City of Edina 7450 Metro Boulevard EDINA MN 55439 -3037 Attn: Susie Miller Phone: 952 - 927 -8861 Fax: Email: scott.moseman @graybar.com GrM&aR. DISTRICT MAIN HOUSE 2300 EAST 25TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS MN 55406 -1221 Phone: 612 -728 -3512 Fax: 612 - 728 -2500 Date: Proj Name: GB Quote #: Valid From: Valid To: Contact: Email: 04/28/2014 BRAEMAR ARENA 220099886 04/28/2014 05/28/2014 SCOTT MOSEMAN scott.moseman @graybar.com Proposal We Appreciate Your Request and Take Pleasure in Responding As Follows Item Quantity Supplier Catalog Nbr Description Price Unit Ext. Price Notes: US COMMUNITIES ELECTRICAL CONTRACT NUMBER MA -IS- 1340234 100 1 EA MUSCO SPORTS MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING THE LIGHTING $133,213.45 1 $133,213.45 SYSTEM WILL CONSIST OF: (4) 80' Light - Structures consisting of a pre - stressed concrete base, galvanized steel pole, remote electrical component enclosure, and pole top luminaire assembly with 1500 watt metal halide lighting. The system also includes Control -Link wireless control system, contactor cabinet, (2) LED security lights, 25 year warranty (parts, labor, and lamps), and one group re -lamp at the 5,000 hour rated lamp life. This equipment and associated installation charges may be financed for a low monthly payment through Graybar Financial Services (subject to credit approval). For more information call 1-800 -241 -7408 to speak with a leasing specialist. To learn more about Graybar, visit our website at www.graybar.com 24 -Hour Emergency Phone#: 1- 800 - GRAYBAR Subject to the standard terms and conditions set forth In this document. Unless otherwise noted,frelght terms are F.O.B. shipping point prepaid and bill. Unless noted the estimated ship date will be determined at the time of order placement Page 1 of 2 To: City of Edina Date: 04/28/2014 7450 Metro Boulevard Proj Name: BRAEMAR ARENA EDINA MN 55439 -3037 GB Quote #: 220099886 Attn: Susie Miller Proposal We Appreciate Your Request and Take Pleasure in Responding As Follows Total in USD (Tax not included): $133,213.45 TERMS AAND COONNDII4IONS COMPANY INC C. 1. ACCEPTANCE OF ORDER�TERMINATION - Aeceptnnce of any order is subject to cre dit approve end 4ccn t:nce of onler by Gmybar Elgctlig Companl . Inc. ( "Gtaybar") sod, when applicable, Gmybae s suppliers. If credit o[the buyer of the goo ( "Buyef') becomes unsatisfactory to Gmybar, Greybar re servm tthhe ng�t m terminate upon notice to Buyer enAd vn out liabi ity m mybar. 2. PRICES AND SHIPMENTS - Unless otherwise quoted, prices shall be those in effect at time of shipment, which shall be made F.O.B. shipping point, prepaid and bill. 3. RETURN OF GOODS - Credit may be allowed for goods returned with prior approval. A deduction may be made from credits issued to cover cost of handling. 4. TAXES - Prices shovfn do not include sales or other taxes imposed o %the sale of goods. Taxes now or hereafter imposed upon sales or shipments will be added to the purchase price. Buyer agrees m reimburse Gmybi r for any such tail or provide Gmybar with acceptable tax exemption certi cate. 5. DEII.AY IN DEI-IVERY - G�gybar not m be eceouotit for dlglays in delivery ocpasioned b acts of God, faiJp�e offits suppliers to ship or delivgr on time, o other cimumstancelsa bgyon¢ Gmybar's reasonable contra . Factory shipment or a very tes are the best estimates o our supp iers, end m no case hall Gray be ra le or any consequential or special damages arising from any de y in shipment or delivery. 7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY - Buyyer's rebm�eijie; under this agreement are subject many limitations containd m manufecturce s and conditions m Gm bar a co of which will be famished uaon written re uest Furthgrmme mybar's�iebildv shell T limited m et hq repair 4r,reeletementt of 4he goods o[ refund of Ny pureh@se price, el "and 8 ption, and �yt Nb CppSYE S GRpYBAI; BE IdABLE FOR RMENTAi., �PE��L, OR ONSSE' UEN L1L DAMA�ES. 1¢ ad¢t¢ori, c aims for shortages, other moo ass m transit, must be made t¢ writing not more than five (5) days e r receipt of sbtpmrnt. 8. WAIVER -The fail o f( �,mybaz to insist upon the per�ormenya of any of the terms ar conditions of this agreement o to exercise my right hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such temss, conditions, o rights in the future, nor shall it be deemed m be a waiver of any omer term, condition, m right under this agreement 9. MQpffICA7'�ON OF T S AND CONDMOppS - Thge terns and conditions Supersede all other co unieaths, negpdations, and prior =1 m ttgn statgments regarding the object matter of these terms and conditions. No change modification, rescission, discharge, abandonment, or waiver of" these terms and contlrtrons shall be bindingup on Giliybar unless made m wrung end signed on its behalf by a duly auth sized repprreessentative of Gmy{rar. No conditions, usage of trade, coupe of dealing or performance understranth o e eemrnt piaportin¢ to moth ,very explain, o supplement these terms and condi ons shall beobmding amass hereafter made in wntin and signed by the party m be bound. Any pr9posed modifications o a ition terms are 3Decifically rejected and deemed a matenel attention hereof. If this document shall be deemed an acceptance of a prim offer by buyer, such acceptance u expressly condition Buyer' a assent to any additional or different terms set forth herein. 10. REELS - When Gmybar ships returnable reels, a reel deposit may be included in the invoice. The Buyer should contact the nearest Gmybar service location to return reels I I. CERTIFICATION - Gmjfbar hereby certifies dthat these goods Were roduced in gompliance with all applicable requirements of Sections 6, 1, and 12 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amend 4__ and of regulations and orders ofthc United States It mporeme t ssistan relAeie of 9714, as extent ssmenldregdly O. 134 d, 29 FA Part 47I Appentlix A to Subpart CA and tha corresponding regulations, ttoo the Rehabilitation Act amended. - 60- -741 Se, d 60-250.5 eI ,are 12. FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT - Buyer shall comply with applicable laws and regulatigul relating m anti- corruption, including without limitation, (i) the United States Foreiig Corrupt Practices A0 ((FCPA) (15 U.$ C. gggg7¢dd -1 et seq.) irrespective of the place or performance and (n) laws ands regp ations w ementin the Organization fior Economic Coopem on apd Developmem's nvention on Combatin g Briery of Forei Fublre Ot�icials in'Intemehonal Business Transactions, the N. Convention Against Conupl "on. and tine Inter - American Convention Against Corruption in Buyer's country o any country where P omtance of �iis agreement or delivery of goods will occur. 13. ASSIGNMENT - Buyer shall not assign its rights or delegate its duties hereunder or any interest herein without the prior written consent of Gmybar, and any such assignment, without such m¢sent, shall be void. 14. GENERAL PROVISIONS - All tv�ogmphiml ar clerical arms made yy Greybar vi, any quotation, aclmowledgmem or publication ere subject to cortgcpoa This a mrnt shell be ovemed by the laws of the State of Missoun applicable to contracts m ¢e "formed and Cully perfortged within the State of Iv;iuoun without giving et %ct to the choice o gwfliets of law pmvrsrons thereof All suits erismg from m conmming this agreement shall be 81ed in the Cbcuit Coum of St. Louis Couvry Missoun, or the United States District G'ourt for the Eastern District of Mrssoun, end no other place unless oWenvise deteimi¢ed m Gmyber's sole drscretioa Brryer hereby imvoeably consents to the jurisdiction of such Court or courts and agrees ro appear m any such action upon written notice thereof 15. PAYMENT TERMS - Payment terms shall be as stated on Gmybae a invoice or as otherwise mutually agreed. A; a condition of th sales agreement a monthly service charge of the lesser of 1 -1/2 % o the maximum Pertained by law may be added m all accounts not paid by net due date Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Discover credit cards are accepted at point of purchase only. 16. EXPORTING -Buyer aclmowledges that this order end die performance thereof ere subject to compliance with any end ell ep 2limbic UniteQ States laws, regulations, or orders. Buyer agrees m con 1 with all such laws, regulations end orders, including, if epphmble, ell requireN��ts ofthe U etionel "1lmffic in Arms Regulatio and/or thepExptat Administration Act,as may be amended Buyer fiuther agrees tba if the export laws ere epphmbie, it Lvill not diulose qr re -gxport eny,techniml date. received undm this order m eay eQLntries fm watch the united Sntesoyernment rr;girrrgs an gcpor license or other supporimg documentation at the time of export or trans er, unless Buyer has obtained poor written au orvation from the United tares ce of Expos Contra or other au Dory responsible for such matters. Signed: This equipment and associated installation charges may be financed for a low monthly payment through Greybar Financial Services (subject to credit approval). For more information call 1- 800 -241 -7408 to speak with a leasing specialist. To learn more about Graybar, visit our website at www.graybar.com 24 -Hour Emergency Phone#: 1- 800 - GRAYBAR Subject to the standard terms and conditions set forth In this document- Unless otherwise noted,freight terns are F.O.B. shipping point prepaid and bill. Unless noted the estimated ship date will be determined at the time of order placement Page 2 of 2 U To: Mayor and City Council From: Susie Miller Braemar Arena General Manager Date: May 6, 2014 ZriA, atte /4y �coReaB Agenda Item #: IV. O. The Recommended Bid is 0 Within Budget ® NotWithin Budget Subject: Request For Purchase — Braemar Outdoor Rink Dasher Boards & Glass, Becker Arena Products Rink System Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: March 25, 2014 Company: Becker Arena Products, Inc. Recommended Quote or Bid: Becker Arena Products, Inc. Bid or Expiration Date: Amount of Quote or Bid: $140,144.80 General Information: Staff recommends utilizing National Joint Powers Alliance Cooperative purchasing program to purchase the Signature Series galvanized steel dasher board system from Becker Arena Products, Inc. The Signature Series includes galvanized steel dasher framing, fiberglass facing, polyethylene cap rail, and kick plate. It also includes gates, player, penalty and timekeepers area, tempered glass shielding to surround the rink, puck control netting and installation. Becker Arena Products, Inc. is the only dasher board system company that utilizes galvanized steel. The West Arena was built in 2010 with aluminum dasher framing. In 2012, we hired Becker Arena Products, Inc. to reinforce the corners to avoid the ice blowouts we were experiencing. The proposal includes delivery and installation. This item is budgeted through the Sports Dome, Arena, Outdoor Rink project. The pricing reflects a 5% discount for utilizing NJPA cooperative purchasing and eliminates sales tax. If approved by council, the company will deliver and install the product when the project is ready. Attachments: Becker Arena Products, Inc. Quote City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 I Quotation # 032514 - EDI Revision # Date: March 25, 2014 Prepared for: Ms. Susie Miller Braemar Arena / Outdoor Rink Edina, Minnesota Our understanding of your current situation: You are currently pricing a new dasher system for your project in Edina, Minnesota Our approach to meet your needs: We have prepared a dasher board quotation for an outdoor dasher system. Thank you for considering Becker Arena Products, Inc. as a product supplier and partner in your current project. We have been serving the Sports and Recreation Industry since 1988. We welcome the opportunity to earn your trust with this project by demonstrating our ability to perform to your satisfaction through our staff of professionals, with our versatility, experience, on -time deliveries and commitment to quality. With Becker Arena Products you will receive a Worry Free project — Guaranteed. This system is available through the NJPA Cooperative Purchasing Program at discounted pricing. BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS, INC — !VENDOR CONTRACT #022113 — BAP The National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) is a municipal contracting government agency that serves education and government agencies nationally through competitively bid and awarded contract purchasing solutions. Over 47,000 Member agencies enjoy the value and commitment of the world - class NJPA awarded Vendors. Take advantage of the cooperative purchasing discounts shown here in this quotation mentioning our contract #022113 -13AP when ordering. You must be a member and contracting authority. Ask your sales person for a copy of the NJPA Contract Purchasing information booklet or go to www.nipacog2.or4 for more information. Confidential: This document contains proprietary and confidential information that is owned and is of significant value to Becker Arena Products, Inc. No unauthorized use, disclosure or reproduction of any of this information is permitted without the prior written consent of Becker Arena Products, Inc. Per your inquiry, below please find the pricing for the following dasher board system. BAP6.0 SIGNATURE SERIES HOCKEY DASHER BOARD SYSTEM Becker Arena Products, Inc. shall furnish (Drawing DB101) and install one BAP6.0 Signature Series galvanized steel dasher board system along with related options. The pricing is based on the information furnished and will include the following items and features. DASHER FRAMING, FIBERGLASS FACING, POLYETHYLENE CAP RAIL & KICK PLATE Rink Size: 200' x 85' x 28' radius - 629 lineal feet of 42" high BAP6.0 Signature Series galvanized steel frame dasher boards (Ring with box divider panels and back wall to boxes) 1/4" white high - impact fiberglass dasher facing 1/2" x 8" high yellow high- density polyethylene kick plate 3/4" white, red or blue U.V. stabilized high - density polyethylene cap rail All panels pre - assembled All panel steel framing hot dip galvanized after fabrication 5/8" drilled in epoxy anchors for box divider panels and back walls 3/4" cast in place anchors for the perimeter of the dasher system GATES One 10' -0" straight double leaf equipment gate complete with heavy duty adjustable hinges, slide bar, cane bolts and heavy duty casters Four 2' -6" player box gates with heavy duty hinges and lift latches Two 2' -6" penalty box gates with heavy duty hinges and ice side push button latches Two 3' -0" access gates with heavy duty hinges and ice side push button latches One 6' -0" double leaf access gate with heavy duty hinges and ice side push button latches 1" thick high—density polyethylene thresholds on player, penalty and access gates PLAYER. PENALTY AND TIMEKEEPERS AREA Player boxes — Two each 5-0" deep x 30' long with side divider panels and back walls — one 3' wide access opening in each back wall Penalty boxes — Two each 5' -0" deep x 8' long with side divider panels and back walls Timekeeper box — One each 5' -0" deep x 8' long with two 2' -6" divider panels and one 3' -0" wide access opening in the back wall 420 square feet of protective matting (3/8" solid black Stamina mats) for boxes 290 square feet of protective matting (3/8" solid black Stamina mats) for ramp Pricing does not include the ramp or railing 68 lineal feet of 9 -1/2" wide recycled plastic benches with steel frames and supports in the player and penalty boxes (27' in each player box & 7' in each penalty box) with removal sections in player areas. One 1" thick x 18" wide x 96" long solid natural polyethylene timekeeper table 84 lineal feet of 114" thick white fiberglass backer sheet in the player, penalty and timekeeper boxes complete with built -in shelving in the player boxes Closure strip at ramp TEMPERED GLASS SHIELDING 242 lineal feet of 15mm (5/8 ") thick x 6' high tempered glass shielding for the ends and radius corners of the dasher system complete with transition pieces from 6' to 4' high and two -piece anodized aluminum shield supports 322 lineal feet of 12mm (1/2 ") thick x 4' high tempered glass shielding for the sides of the dasher system, box divider panels and back walls to the boxes complete with two -piece anodized aluminum shield supports Shield termination padding PUCK CONTROL NETTING Black nylon permanent vertical netting to an overall height of 15' above the shielding on the ends and radius corners of the dasher system: Two nets 12' high x 121' long with all supports posts all cable, nylon zip ties and all hardware required for a complete installation No special supports for outdoor application are included INSTALLATION Becker Arena Products, Inc. will furnish a crew for the installation of the cast in place anchors and the dasher system described above. Price includes installation all labor (Non -union labor / at prevailing wage rate - Carpenter Classification of Hennepin County. Minnesota) with equipment as required TOTAL PRICE DELIVERED & INSTALLED $ 147,520.84 NJPA — NATIONAL JOINT POWERS ALLIANCE PURCHASING PROGRAM DISCOUNTS BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS, INC — VENDOR CONTRACT #022113 — BAP NJPA BASE PRICE DISCOUNT - 5% [$ 7,376.04] BASE PRICE WITH 5% NJPA DISCOUNT $ 140,144.80 ALTERNATE 1: SLED HOCKEY Becker Arena Products to furnish and install the following: 56 lineal feet (28 lineal feet on each end of each player box) x 5' deep to include: Top half of dasher panel (Above center structural angle) .500 thick clear polycarbonate facing, lower half of dasher panel — standard 1/2" thick white high density polyethylene Two (2) each (1 in each sled hockey area) 3' -0" player gates with push button lift latches and low thresholds High — density polyethylene thresholds on player access gates 56 lineal feet of 1/2" thick white high - density polyethylene backer sheet in the player boxes complete with built -in shelving - 28 lineal feet in each player box 56 lineal feet of back walls to the sled hockey area complete with 1/2" (12mm) thick x 4' -0" high tempered glass shielding with anodized aluminum two piece shield supports 1/2" thick x 42" x 96" white high density polyethylene flooring sheets for the sled hockey area — two areas 5' -0" deep x 28' long All features are of similar construction to the dasher boards describe above Complete installation with the dasher system described above TOTAL PRICE DELIVERED & INSTALLED $ 11,467.60 NJPA — NATIONAL JOINT POWERS ALLIANCE PURCHASING PROGRAM DISCOUNTS BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS, INC — VENDOR CONTRACT #022113 — BAP NJPA BASE PRICE DISCOUNT — 5% BASE PRICE WITH 5% NJPA DISCOUNT ICE PAINTING Becker Arena Products to furnish and install the following 9 bags premium ice paint 1 Ultimate Vinyl line kit All labor to paint ice and install lines [$ 573.38] $ 10,894.22 TOTAL PRICE DELIVERED & INSTALLED . $ 3,254.00 NJPA — NATIONAL JOINT POWERS ALLIANCE PURCHASING PROGRAM DISCOUNTS BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS, INC — VENDOR CONTRACT #022113 — BAP NJPA BASE PRICE DISCOUNT — 5% BASE PRICE WITH 5% NJPA DISCOUNT 4 [$ 162.70] .$3,091.30 Please Note: Plus applicable taxes. Prices do not include local, state or federal taxes. We are looking forward to the opportunity of working with you. on your project and if we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call. Best Regards, James Becker Becker Arena Products, Inc. Becker Arena Products, Inc. is, an Affirmative Action /Equal Employment Opportunity Employer 5� @Mg MDobV 2@ (tvip @995@ o t To: Mayor and City Council From: Susie Miller Braemar Arena General Manager Date: May 6, 2014 Cn v � �y •'�roRPOPAKF'9 • gees Agenda Item #: IV. P. The Recommended Bid is ❑ Within Budget ® NotWithin Budget Subject: Request For Purchase — Field Turf Including Markings & Turf Maintenance Equipment, Braemar Sports Dome, FieldTurf Synthetic Turf Sports Fields Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: April 21, 2014 Company: FieldTurf Recommended Quote or Bid: FieldTurf Bid or Expiration Date: July 20, 2014 Amount of Quote or Bid: $458,710.14 General Information: Staff recommends utilizing Minnesota Services Cooperative Purchase pricing for the purchase of the FieldTurf Elite Series Revolution 2.5" for Braemar Sports Dome Field. The system that is being proposed is FieldTurf Revolution system. FieldTurf Revolution has a soft, strong monofilament fiber that provides extraordinary durability and longevity. The shape of the FieldTurf Revolution fiber has numerous ridges that run from top to bottom alongside each face of the fiber. This was created to eliminate breaking points in each artificial grass blade. The benefits of the FieldTurf Elite Series Revolution System Include: • Unique fiber shape and extrusion process eliminates breaking points • Fiber resists splitting and includes a strong ultraviolet inhibitor technology • FieldTurf Revolution system features patented heavy three -layer infill with proven long -term safety characteristics • Patented SureLock coating system leaves the backing 40% porous for unmatched drainage The proposal includes purchase, delivery and installation of the FieldTurf. The concrete curbing surrounding the turf will be bid as a part of Sports Dome, Arena, Outdoor Rink - Bid Package Two. This item is budgeted through the Sports Dome, Arena, Outdoor Rink project. Savings for this product using the Minnesota Services Cooperative program is $32,500 and eliminates contractor mark -up and sales tax. This discount reflects the donation of five inlays on the field. If approved by council, the company will deliver and install the product when the project is ready. Attachments: FieldTurf Quote City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 1 Goo @�d lJ' l :1LJ SURFACE EXPERIENCE L` ATarkatt5ports Company Date: 04/21/2014 In care of:. Ann Kattreh, Parks and Recreation Director City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55.424 Phone: 952 = 826 -0430 Email; akattreh@EdinaMN.g-ov From: Brian Kramer Phone: 816- 550 =3037 Fax: 319- 265 -2448 Email:' Brian.Kramer@fieldturfcom Subject: Braemar Sports Dome & Pamela Park Field The following prices are based.off of the preferential pricing offered through the Association of Educational Purchasing Agencies (AEPA) per IFB #012. The local AEPA member in Minnesota is the Minnesota Services Cooperative.(MSC).. All pricing has already been bid out so there is no'need to duplicate the bidding process. Braemar Sports Dome - TOTAL . FieldTurf Elite Series Revolution 2.5" Monofilament — 99,992 S Ft $441;920.44 Tufted Football Grid DONATED r, r 1 Goo @�d lJ' l :1LJ SURFACE EXPERIENCE L` ATarkatt5ports Company Date: 04/21/2014 In care of:. Ann Kattreh, Parks and Recreation Director City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55.424 Phone: 952 = 826 -0430 Email; akattreh@EdinaMN.g-ov From: Brian Kramer Phone: 816- 550 =3037 Fax: 319- 265 -2448 Email:' Brian.Kramer@fieldturfcom Subject: Braemar Sports Dome & Pamela Park Field The following prices are based.off of the preferential pricing offered through the Association of Educational Purchasing Agencies (AEPA) per IFB #012. The local AEPA member in Minnesota is the Minnesota Services Cooperative.(MSC).. All pricing has already been bid out so there is no'need to duplicate the bidding process. Braemar Sports Dome - TOTAL . FieldTurf Elite Series Revolution 2.5" Monofilament — 99,992 S Ft $441;920.44 Tufted Football Grid DONATED Inlaid SoccerMarkin s DONATED InlaidU =i2 Soccer Markings 2 Sets DONATED Inlaid Men's Lacrosse Markings DONATED Inlaid Women's Lacrosse Markings '. DONATED Grooming Equipment. GroomRi lit & Swee Ri ht Pro $9,996.00 6-Max Testin , 1 Test at Time of Completion $1,530.00 Performance/Payment Bonds $5,263.70 Total _ $458,710.14 Pamela Park Field TOTAL FieldTurf XM6 -57 2.25" Monofilament — 101 169 S Ft ; $373,655.48 Tufted Football Grid DONATED Inlaid Soccer Markings DONATED Inlaid U -12 Soccer-Markings 2 Sets DONATED Inlaid Men's Lacrosse Markings DONATED Inlaid Women's Lacrosse Markings DONATED G -Max Testing, 1 Test at Time of Completion $1,530.00 Performance/Payment Bonds $4,355.23 Total $379,540.71. 7445 Cote- de- Liesse.Road. Suite -200— Montreal Quebec H4T 1G2— Tel 1- 800 - 724 - 2969 — Fax (514) 340 -9374 www.FieldTurf.com Braemar Sports Dome & Pamela Park Field April 21, 2014 Page 2 of 2 EXCLUSIONS: a) The base upon which the FieldTurf field will be placed. FieldTurf shall not be responsible for the planarity, the stability, the porosity, nor the approval of the base upon which the FieldTurf surface will be installed, the drainage'system, not any construction or modification of existing installations around the fields. b) The supply or installation of the field edging c) Any costs associated with necessary charges relating to the delineation of the field. d) Unless otherwise specified, does not include any G -max testing. e) The supply of manholes or clean-outs or grates, or supply of the manhole covers. f) Any alteration or deviation from specifications involving extra costs, which alteration or deviation will be _ provided only upon executed change orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the offered price. g) Site security (I.E. Patrols) h) Small vehicle to tow FieldTurf maintenance equipment - i) All applicable taxes, union labor or other labor law levies. Installers will be paid prevailing wage. j) Owner to provide a tax exempt certificate. NOTES: I Notwithstanding any other document or agreement entered into by FieldTurf in connection with the supply and installation only of its product pursuant to the present bid proposal, the following shall apply: a) This bid proposal and its acceptance is subject to strikes, accidents, delays beyond our control and force majeure; b) Final payment shall be upon the substantial completion of FieldTurf s obligations; c) Accounts overdue beyond 30 days of invoice date will be charged at an interest rate of 1.5% per month (19.56% per annum); d) FieldTurf requires a minimum of 21 days after receiving final approvals on shop drawings to manufacture, coordinate delivery and schedule arrival of installation crew. Under typical field size and scenario, FieldTurf further requires 28 days to, install the Product subject to weather and force'majeure. e) FieldTurf requires a suitable staging area. Staging area must be square footage of field x 0.12, have a minimum access of 15 feet wide by 15 feet high, and,. no more than I 00 from the site. A 25 foot wide by 25 foot long hard,or paved clean surface area located within 50 feet of the playing surface shall be provided for purposes of.proper mixing of infill material. Access to any field will include suitable bridging over curbs from the staging area to permit.suitable access to the field by low clearance vehicles. _ f) This proposal is based on a single mobilization. If the site is not ready and additional mobilizations are necessary, additional charges will apply. g) FieldTurf shall be accountable for its negligence but shall not be bound by any penalty clauses. . h) FieldTurf shall be entitled to recover all:costs and expenses, including attorney fees, associated with collection procedures in the event that FieldTurf pursues collection of payment of any past due invoice. 9 i) All colors are to be chosen from FieldTurf s standard colors. j) The FieldTurf products above carry an 8 yr., 3rd party insured warranty The price is valid for a period of 90 days. The price. is subject to increase if affected by an increase in raw materials, freight, or other manufacturing costs, a tax increase, new taxes, levies or any new legally binding imposition affecting the transaction. Please contact Eric Fisher at FieldTurf USA, Inc. 888 - 209 -0065 ext 246 if you have any questions• or require additional information or via e-mail at eric.fishey@_fieldturf.com Be sure to visit our website at www.fieldturf.com To: MAYOR & COUNCIL -T A O Le • ��C KEV • pRl'ORA / lane Agenda Item #: IV. Q. From: Debra Mangen Action City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Ordinance No. 2014 -05 Amending Chapter 22 of the Edina City Code Concerning Discharge of Firearms. Action Requested: Adopt Ordinance including waiver of second reading. Information / Background: I� Cn 0 Edina Administration and Police staff recently received a request from a resident requesting a permit application that would allow them to discharge a firearm per Chapter 22 of the Edina City Code. After reviewing the code, it was determined this section of code should have been amended upon codification, but was overlooked. The resident was informed that no process existed for applying to the Council for a firearms permit and that staff would recommend an ordinance amendment to prohibit the discharge of firearms. The necessary amendment has been prepared and is attached for review and consideration. Attachments: Ordinance No. 2014 -5 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 -05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS THE ,CITY OF EDINA,.ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 22 -78 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 22 -78. Discharge of firearms prohibited witheua permit No,person'shall fire, discharge or explode any rifle ;;gun; pistol, air rifle, BB gun;, pellet gun, paint pellet gun or other weapon in`any`part of the City e + City's zoning ordinance or as part of a City sponsored event. No person shall` possess out of doors or transport any of the weapons listed in this section unless the same is unloaded and cased;, i dusere*' e4vj Nothing shall be construed to prohibit any firing of a rifle, gun, pistol or. other weapon when done in the lawful defense of person or property or in the necessary defense or enforcement of the laws. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon. its passage and publication. Section 2. This ordinance is effective upon passage and publication. First Reading: May 6, 2014 Second Reading: Waived Published: May 15, 2014 Attest Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Agenda ItemN. A. City of Edina Proclamation WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an integral part of our citizens' everyday lives; and WHEREAS,, support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of public works systems and-programs such as water, sewers, and streets; and WHEREAS, the health, safety and comfort of this community greatly, depends on these facilities and services; and WHEREAS, the_ quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning, design, and construction, is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of public works officials; and WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated ;personnel who staff public works departments is,materially influenced by the people's attitude and "unde'rstanding of the importance of the work they perform, NOW, THEREFORE, 1, James Hovland, Mayor of the City of Edina, do hereby- proclaim the week of May 18 -24, 2014 as "National Public Works Week" in The City of Edina, and I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing our public works and to recognize the contributions which public works officials make every day to our health, safety, comfort, and quality of life. Dated: May 6, 2014 James B. Hovland, Mayor 4 E To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: Bill Neuendorf Economic Development Manager Date: May 6, 2014 Subject: Grandview Resident Survey, Final Report Action Requested: Accept final report for future consideration. A, 0 ep 0 Agenda Item #: V. B. Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Information / Background: The 2012 GrandView Development Framework established direction for the redevelopment of several parcels in the GrandView District. This Framework envisions a multi -use project located on the 3.3 acre site of the former Public Works facility. The example depicted in the Framework includes a public parking ramp, outdoor plaza and green space, community building and privately - owned multi - family housing. The Framework did not provide complete details of this project and did not identify specific uses of the envisioned community building. In June 2013, the City Council convened the Grandview Community Advisory Team (CAT) to provide assistance in implementing this Framework. To clarify questions of the CAT in September 2013, the City Council directed that a Community Facility Inventory be prepared and that a Resident Survey be implemented to better understand the needs of Edina residents and the possible uses of the envisioned community building. The Community Facility Inventory was completed in February 2014. The Resident Survey Final Report is attached. Bill Morris and Peter Leatherman of the Morris Leatherman Company will present these findings for the consideration of the City Council. Attachments: Final Report packet dated 5 -6 -2014 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 This page intentionally left blank. Grandview Resident Survey Final Report May,6, 2014 In November 2013, the City of Edina engaged the Morris Leatherman Company to poll a sample of Edina households to gauge their general interest and preferences regarding redevelopment of the former Public Works site in the Grandview District. The survey questions were prepared by the consultants based on the general direction: of members of the, Grandview Community Advisory Team, Edina Community Education, Edina Parks and Recreation and other City staff. The survey included three categories of questions: "value- oriented" questions, general questions regarding community facilities and specific questions intended to identify the level of resident support for potential improvements' at the site. The telephone poll was conducted in January and February 2014. Households were randomly selected in each of the four quadrants of Edina. Traditional land - lines and cellular phones were included. This packet contains the consultant's final report, summary charts originally presented to the Grandview CAT in February 2014, as well as the raw data results for each survey question. F This page intentionally left blank. The MORRIS LEATHERMAN Company City of Edina 2014'Residential Survey: Publicly Owned -Land and Community Development Residential Demographics: The typical resident lived in the City of Edina for 17.1 years. Thirty -two percent living'there for less than ten years, 26% resided there for 10 -to -20 years, and 42% for over 30 years. Thirty -four percent of the city's households contain senior citizens; twenty -six percent are composed entirely of seniors. Thirty percent of the community's households contain school -aged children or pre - schoolers. Fifty -nine percent reside in single family homes, while 24% reside in a townhouse or condominium, and 17% live in apartments. Seventy -five percent own their current residences; twenty -five percent rent. Women outnumber men by two percent. The typical adult resident is 54.3 years old. Twenty -nine percent report ages under 45, 22% are 45 -54 year olds, 2.2 are 55 -64 year olds, and 27% are 65 years old or older. The typical Edina resident is also college graduate. Eleven percent are high school graduates or less, 22% have some post- secondary experience short of college graduation, and 67% are college graduates. Twenty -nine percent of the households in the community are "fiscally stressed" —that is, either their monthly expenses are exceeding their income or just meeting their expenses with no room for savings. Perspectives on Publicly -Owned Land and Community Development: Respondents were asked if they agree or disagreed with each of a series of nine land use statements. The table below.arrays each statement with the percentage of residents who "strongly agree" with it and the percentage who "strongly disagree" with it: Statement Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree A strong sense of community is important to me. 60% 1% ..The City should not sell:publicly- owned.iand; 30% 7% The City should create more cultural and arts opportunities for people of all ages and incomes. 29% 9% Publicly -owned land should be retained and used for public purposes only. 29% 5% The City should create more recreational opportunities for people of all ages and incomes. 28% 12% The City should look for ways to generate revenue from the sale and development of vacant publicly -owned land. 28% 13% The city has enough park space and does not need to add any more. 28% 13% Statement Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree The value of publicly -owned land is greater than the revenue that can 21% 6% be generated from it. The City should create more community gathering spaces. 19% 14% Clearly, a strong sense of community is key to most residents, evidenced not only in this survey but in all past city surveys. Different uses of publicly -owned land have approximately identical levels of "strong supporters:" cultural and arts opportunities, general public purposes, recreational opportunities, or revenue generation. Only conversion into additional park space has much weaker receptivity. But, there is a little more resistance to the creation of more recreational opportunities and revenue generation opportunities. Making Edina Preeminent. Residents were initially reminded the City of Edina's Vision Statement is making the community "the preeminent place for living, learning, raising families and doing business." They were then asked: "What existing public facilities in Edina, if any should the City seek to improve ?" Fifty percent have no suggestions. Several facilities, however, are candidates for improvement: parks, at 11 %; bicycle lanes, at nine percent; as well as Braemar Golf Course, Arts Center, Senior Center, and trails, each at six percent. Only parks and bicycle lanes reach the threshold of being modestly supported improvements. A majority of residents could offer no suggestions about specific public facilities which the City should seek to expand or add. Only one modestly supported additions and /or improvements is mentioned: a "community center," at 11 %. "Open spaces," "parks," "trails," and "bicycle lanes" are listed by between four and seven percent each. In both categories — improvements or additions /expansions — no consensus emerges. The Grandview District: Eighty -six percent are either "very familiar" or "somewhat familiar" with the Grandview District in Edina; in fact, 46% are "very familiar." The typical resident visits the Grandview District "weekly." Thirty -six percent visits multiple times per week; 31% visit at least multiple times per month; and, 33% visit the District "monthly" or less. The principal reason for visiting the District is "shopping," mentioned by 68 %, followed by "restaurants," at nine percent, and the "library," at eight percent. Forty -six percent never heard of the "Grandview Redevelopment Framework." Thirty -five percent are at least "somewhat familiar" with the Framework, while 18% have a passing knowledge of the report. In terms of general development of this site, 37% favor including only public amenities, nine percent opt for selling for private uses, and 46% want a combination of both public and private uses. The typical Edina resident supporting a combination approach would like to see a 50 % -50% split between private and public purposes. In discussing types of public uses for the site, 30% would prefer them to be indoor facilities, six percent want only outdoor facilities, and 57% favor a combination of both. Potential Uses for the Grandview District Land: Respondents were read a list of twelve potential land uses in the Grandview District. The table below shows the proposed use, its overall support, and its overall opposition. Potential Use Support Opposition_ An outdoor plaza or park 66% 34% Sit -down restaurants 65% 35% Retail shops 65% 35% A performing arts space 64% 35% Multi- purpose community rooms for meetings, events and classes 59% 41% A community art center with a gallery 57% 41% An exercise and fitness center 55% 44% An indoor pool and water play area 53% 47% Indoor athletic courts 53 %. 46% Office space 51% 47% Town homes and condominiums 44% 54% Apartments 35% 64% Of the twelve potential uses, only two register a majority in opposition: "town homes and condominiums and "apartments." Four uses have very strong support: "an outdoor plaza or park," "sit -down restaurants; "retail shops," and "a performing arts space." Three potential uses have conditional support between 55 % -60% with opposition in the 40% -range — "multi- purpose community rooms for meetings, events and classes," "a community art center with a gallery," and "an exercise and fitness center." The three uses in the range of 51 % -53 %support are more controversial in terms of splitting the sample almost in half. Next, from this list of potential uses of the Grandview District Land, respondents were asked to indicate their first and second priorities. The table below shows the proposed use, first priority, second priority, and total (first and second) priorities combined. Potential Use First Priority Second Priority Total Priority An outdoor plaza or park 14% 11% 25% An exercise and fitness center 13% 9% 22% A performing arts space 12% 9% 21% A community art center with a gallery 10% 11% 21% Sit -down restaurants 7% 13% 20% An indoor pool and water play area 10% 7% 17% Town homes and condominiums 9% 6% 15% Multi- purpose community rooms for meetings, events and classes 8% 6% 14% 3 Potential Use First Priority second Priority Total Priority Retail shops 4% 9% 13% Indoor athletic courts 5% 7% 12% Apartments 3% 4% 7% Office space 2% 1 4% 6% Five land uses were viewed as top priorities by at least 20% of the sample: "an outdoor plaza or park, an exercise and fitness center," "a performing arts space," "a community art center with a gallery," and "sit -down restaurants." Five other land uses receive middling prioritization: "an indoor pool and water park area," "town homes and condominiums," "multi- purpose community rooms for meetings, events' and classes," "retail shops," and "indoor athletic courts." Finally, two land uses are considered priorities by less than ten percent each: "apartments" and "office space." When asked which, if any, of the potential land uses they would oppose, 26% oppose apartments, while 11% oppose "office space," and ten percent oppose "town homes or condominiums." New Community Center. When informed about discussions concerning construction of a new Community Center at the former . Grandview Public Works site, 53% support the concept, while 40% oppose it, and eight percent are unsure. Intense opposition and intense support are relatively equal, at 12% and nine percent, respectively. Supporters were next queried about the types of amenities they would most like to see at a new Community Center. A "fitness center" led the list with 30 %. Ranked next, a "performing arts space," at 20 %, "indoor pool," at 16 %, and "meeting rooms," at 14 %, followed. "Gymnasiums" and "indoor athletic courts," at seven percent each, rounded out the suggestions. Fifty -eight percent of the sampled households report members would be either "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to use the facility. Using standard market projection techniques, an initial clientele of 18% of Edina households would be expected to use a Community Center at the former Grandview Public Works site. The typical Edina resident would be willing to pay an additional $2.70 per month in property taxes to fund the Community Center construction. While 27% would support a property tax increase of $6.00 per month for this project, a decisive 38% would oppose any tax increase for this purpose. Respondents were informed about the possibility the current Edina Community Center on Normandale Road could be converted back into classrooms for students as the population continues to grow. Twenty -one percent report under these circumstances they would be "much more likely" to support a new Community Center project at the former Grandview Public Works site; an additional 34% would be "somewhat more likely" to do so. Only seven percent report they would be "less likely" to support this project,.while 38% felt the possibility makes no difference to their support or opposition. 4 r Mixed -Use Project on. the Grandview Public Works Site: By a 65 % -29% margin, residents support a development project at the Grandview site that includes both public and private uses. Supporters would most like to see "restaurants or a "community center," each at 21 %, ".boutique shops," at 13 %, "condominiums," at 12 %, and "big -box retail stores," at 11 %. When informed a mixed -use project with privately -owned components on a portion of the site could reduce the potential tax impact of constructing and operating a Community Center on the same site, 18% are "much more likely" to support a mixed -use project. Thirty -five percent report they are "somewhat more likely" to'do so. Twelve percent are "less likely" to support`a mixed use development there, while 34% report it makes "no difference to them. Summary and Conclusions: Residents tend to be very supportive of projects which foster a stronger sense of community, but also think there are different approaches to achieving this. While a solid majority believes publicly -owned land should be retained and used only for public purposes, a majority also believes the City of Edina has enough park space and does not need to add any more. Further, majorities also believe the City should look for ways to generate revenue from other types of publicly -owned land. They also think the City should create more,, recreational opportunities, as well as cultural and arts opportunities, for people of all ages and incomes. As a result of these simultaneously held beliefs about public land, it is no surprise that a mixed -use development oroiect on the former Grandview Public Works site is supported by a 65 % -29% majority. Support for'seven uses for the Grandview. Public Works site land exceeds opposition by at least 10 %; in fact, for the initial four uses itemized, support is almost twice as high as opposition. Residents express clear backing for "an outdoor plaza or park," "sit -down restaurants," "retail shops," "a performing arts space," "multi- purpose community rooms for meeting, events and classes," "a community arts center with a gallery," and "an exercise and fitness center." Intense opposition is registered for only one potential purpose: "apartments." At.this time. a Communitv Center does not post sufficient support to carry a referendum effort. While 53% supports the construction of a new Community Center by the City on the Grandview Public Works site in concept, 40% oppose it; In addition, the typical Edina resident would be willing to pay only an additional $2.70 per month in property taxes to fund the Community Center construction. While 27% would support a property tax increase of $6.00 per month for this project, a decisive 38% would oppose any tax increase for this purpose. One contingency does, however, significantly change the referendum picture: the conversion of the current Edina Community Center on Normandale Road back into classrooms for students in the future. If population growth necessitates this facilities change, support in concept increases by a net 15% to a 68% majority. 5 Should a new Community Center be designed, several facilities are essential for.inclusion to insure acceptance by the public: a fitness center, performing arts center, indoor pool, meeting rooms, as well as indoor athletic courts and gymnasiums. Of course, the balance will need to be struck between tax cost and facilities offerings: Since, a 53% majority indicates they would be "more likely" to support a mixed use project on the Grandview Public Works site if it could reduce the potential tax impact of constructing and operating a; Community Center on the current site. Methodology. This study contains the results of a sample of 400 randomly selected adult residents residing in the City of Edina. Professional interviewers conducted the survey by telephone between January 16th and February 4th, 2014. The typical respondent took eighteen minutes to complete the questionnaire. The results of the study are projectable to all adult Edina residents within ± 5.0 % in 95 out of 100 cases. N City of Edina 2014 Residential Survey The Morris Leatherman Company Value Statements 1 2014 City of Edina 80 ------------------------------------------------ 66 70 bt-- - - - - -- -------- 6t- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- rig 60 - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 50 - - -- - - - -- - - - -- 40 -- - 39 -- 35 - 30 20 10 0 Not Sell Public Land Look to Generate Revenue Enough Park Space Value Greater than Revenue Public Purposes Only Agree Disagree The Morris Leatherman Company 2/24/2014 1 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Sense of Comm Important More Rec Opps More Community Spaces Agree M Disagree The Morris Leatherman Company Value Statements II 2014 City of Edina More Culturel/Art Opps Facilities to Improve 2014 City of Edina Parks 11 I I I I I 1 Bicycle Lanes 9 Trails s I I I I Senior Center s I I I Arts Center s I I I I Braemer Golf Course 6 Braemer Ice Arena 3 Parking Lots 2 I I I I Scattered 2 I I I I I I I I Unsure s I I I I Nothing 42 0 20 40 60 80 100 The Morris Leatherman Company 2/24/2014 FA Facilities to Expand or Add .2014 City of Edina Community Center 11 Bicycle Lanes Trails s Open Spaces s Parks 4 Public Art Space 3 Scattered 6 Unsure 9 No so 0 20 40 60 80 100 The Morris Leatherman Company Familiarity with Grandview District 2014 City of Edina Somewhat Familiar 40% The Morris Leatherman Company miliar 46% Insure 1% at all Familiar 5% Not too Familiar 9% 2/24/2014 3 Visit Grandview District 2014 City of Edina 2523 20 -------------------------------------- 17 16 15 . 15 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - 13 8 8 5 - - - O Almost Dally Weekly ;^ • Monthly Never 1. 1 to 3 times/week 2 to 3 times /month Less than once a month The Morris Leatherman Company Grandview. Redevelopment Framework 2014 City of Edina YesNery Familiar No 9% 46% Yes /Somewhat Familiar 27% Yes /Not At All Yes /Not-.too, Fa- miliar 2% 16% The Morris Leatherman Company 2/24/2014 4 Development Preference 2014 City of Edina Public/Strongly 10 Public Amenities 27 Private /Strongly 3 Private Uses 6 Combination/Strongly 16 Combination 30 Unsure 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 The Morris Leatherman Company Public Amenities Indoor vs. Outdoor 2014 City of Edina Outdoor Indoor 6% Comt 57% The Morris Leatherman Company Unsure 7% 2/24/2014 5 Potential Uses for Land 2014 City of Edina Outdoor Plaza/Park 134, Vol Sitdown Restaurants 35 ss Retail Shops 35 i. 65 Performing Arts'Space 3s ' Multi-Purpose Rooms._ . . 159 ai Art Center w /Gallery I st Exercise /Fitness Center s5' as �. Indoor Pool /Play Area a 53 Indoor Athletic Courts 53 ae Office Space 4 .151 Townhomes /Condos Apartments 35 . �; I ea 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 The Morris Leatherman Company Priority of Potential Uses 2014 City of Edina Outdoor Plaza/Park Exercise /Fitness Center s Performing Arts Space s Art Centerw /Gallery Indoor Pool /Play Area Townhomes /Condos s Multi- Purpose Rooms,, e Sitdown Restaurants 13 Indoor Athletic Courts 7 Retail Shops 9 Apartments a Office Space a All Multiple, None a Unsure' 0 5 10 15, 20 ®First EDSecond The Morris Leatherman Company 5 30 2/24/2014 i Most Opposed Potential Use 2014 City of Edina Apartments' 26 Outdoor Plaza/Park 12 Office Space 11 Townhomes /Condos . 10 Indoor Pool /Play Area 9 Exercise /Fitness Center. �7 Art Center w /Gallery; s Sitdown Restaurants 4 Retail Shops 4 Performing Arts Space 3 Multi Purpose Rooms s Indoor Athletic Courts' 2 ' All . 1 Multiple 1 None 2 Unsure 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 The Morris Leatherman Company -,New Coax unity Center 2014 City of Edina Amenities to Include: Support (Supporters): Fitness Center 30% 44% PAC 20% Indoor Pool 16% Meeting Rooms 14% Strongly' Support 9% oppose 28% The Morris Leatherman Company Unsure 8% y Oppose 12% 2/24/2014 7 Likely .Use of Community Center 2014 City of Edina Somewhat Likely Not too Like 21% The Morris Leatherman Company Very :Likely 18% insure' 1% . Not at all Likely 24% Property Tax Increase for.Community Center 2014 City of Edina 50 40 '-9&--------------------------=------------------- Property Tax Increase: $3.28 per month 30' ---------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- --------19'---------------------------------- 20 13: 12 10 R------------------- - - -6. -- 8 4 3 0 Nothing "$4.00" "$8.00" More than $10.00 "$2.00" "$6.00" "$10.00" Unaire The Morris Leatherman Company 2/24/2014 8 Amenities to Include (Supporters): - Restaurants 21% Community Center 21% Boutique Shops 13% Condos 12% - Big Box Retail 11 % Mixed Use Project 2014 City of Edina Support 55% Oppose 21% The Morris Leatherman Company Strongly Support 10% Sure _ - )ppose 8% Arguments 2014 City of Edina 60 55 329/6 of Opponents 53 20% of Opponents 50 _ _ were More Likely to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ were fte -l-tly -to- _ _ Support Support 40 - - --3 - - - - -- 34 30 - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - 20 - - - - -- - - -- -------- - 12 10 - - - -T -- - -- - 0 Li Convert Current Community Center Reduce Tax Impact 0More Likely oLess Likely ONO Difference The Morris Leatherman Company 2/2.4/2014 9 This page intentionally left blank. C THE MORRIS LEATHERMAN COMPANY 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 EDINA RESIDENTIAL SURVEY FINAL JANUARY 2014 Hello, I'm of the Morris Leatherman Company, a polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Edina to speak with a random sample of residents about an opportunity for publicly owned land in the city. The survey is being taken because your city representatives and staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1.- Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEAR ..... 5% you lived in the City of Edina? 2.1 TO FIVE YEARS ...... 9% 5.1 TO TEN YEARS ...... 18% 10.1 TO 20 YEARS ...... 26% 20.1 TO 30 YEARS ...... 18% OVER THIRTY YEARS ..... 24% DON'T KNOW %REFUSED..... 0% I would like to start out by reading you a list of statements about publicly -owned land and community development in the City of Edina. Fot'ea.ch one, please tell me if you strongly agree with it, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with it. (ROTATE) STA SMA SMD STD DKR 2. The city should not sell publicly -owned land. 30% 31% 24% 7% 9% 3. The value of publicly -owned land is greater than the revenue that can be generated from it. 210 37% 24% 6% 12% 4. The city should look for ways to generate revenue from the sale and development of vacant publicly -owned land. 28% 33% 22% 13% 5% 5. Publicly -owned land should be. retained and used for publi6 purposes only. 29% 37% 26% 5% 2% 6. The city has enough park space and does not need to add anymore. 28% 25% 31% 13% 4% 7. A strong sense of community is important to me. 600 33% 5% 1% 1% 8. The city should create more community gathering spaces. 19% 36% 28% 14% 4% 9. The city should create more recreational opportunities for people of all ages and incomes. 28% 40% 19% 12% 2% STA SMA SMD STD DKR 10. The city should create more cultural and arts opportunities for people of all ages and incomes,. 29% 43% 16 9% 3% Continuing.... The City of.Edina's Vision Statement is making Edina the preeminent place for living, learning, raising families and doing business. Keeping this vision in mind.... 11. First, what existing public facilities in Edina, if any, should the City seek to improve? UNSURE, 8 %; NO, 42 %; BRAEMAR ICE ARENA, 3 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE, 6 %; ARTS CENTER, 6 %; SENIOR CENTER, 60; PARKS, 11 %; TRAILS, 6 %; BICYCLE LANES, 9 %; PARKING LOTS, 2 %; SCATTERED, 2 %., 12. Second, what specific public facilities, if any, should the City should seek to expand or add? UNSURE, 9 %; NO, 50 %; COMMUNITY CENTER, 11 %; OPEN SPACES, 5 %; PARKS, 4 TRAILS, 6 %; BICYCLE LANES, 7 %; PUBLIC ART SPACE, 3 %; SCATTERED, 6 %. Moving on.... As you may know, the Grandview District is located near Highway 100 and Vernon Road. There are a number of businesses, including Jerry's Foods, Edina Family Physicians, Eden Avenue Grill, Starbucks and Davannis. The Edina Senior Center and.public library are also located here. There are several apartment and condominium buildings in the District. 13. How familiar are you with the Grand- VERY FAMILIAR ......... 46% view district in Edina -.are you SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR..... 40% very familiar, somewhat familiar, NOT TOO FAMILIAR .......9% not too familiar or not at all NOT AT ALL'FAMILIAR .... 5% familiar? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% 14. How often do you visit the Grand - view,- district - almost daily, one to three times a week,'weekly, two to three times a month, monthly, less, than once a month, or never? y .. ALMOST DAILY ..... ..... 13% ONE /THREE TIMES WEEK..23% WEEKLY ................15% TWO /THREE TIMES MONTH.16% MONTHLY ................8% LESS THAN ONCE MONTH..17% NEVER ..................8% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% IF RESPONDENTS VISITS DISTRICT, ASK: (N =369) 15. What is your primary purpose when you visit the Grand- view District? SHOPPING, 68 %; LIVE IN AREA, 4 RESTAURANTS, 9 %;, LIBRARY, 8 %; SERVICE BUSINESSES, 4 %; MEDICAL OFFICES, 2 %; SENIOR CENTER, 2 %; SCATTERED, 2 %. From 2010 to 2012, a large group of residents prepared a potential vision for future changes that may occur in the Grandview District. The effort culminated in the formal adoption of a "Redevelopment Framework" for Grandview District. 16. Have you heard.of the Grandview Re -- NO ....................46% development Framework? (IF "YES," YES /VERY FAMILIAR...... 9% ASK:) How familiar are you with the YES /SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR.27% City's vision of the Grandview Re- YES /NOT TOO FAMILIAR..16% development Framework - are you-very YES /NOT AT ALL FAMI .... 2% familiar, somewhat familiar, not too DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% familiar or not at all familiar? As you may know, the city's public works repair facility used to be located in the Grandview District. These operations were relocated to a modern facility in 2010. The former public works site is currently vacant and the city is considering potential uses for this three acre parcel of land. 17. Do you think the development of PUBLIC/STRONGLY ....... 10% this site should include only public PUBLIC ................27% amenities, should it be sold for PRIVATE/STRONGLY ....... 3% private use or should there be some PRIVATE ................6% combination of public amenities and COMBINATION /STRONGLY..16% private use? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) COMBINATION ........... 30% Do you feel strongly that way ?.. DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 9% IF "COMBINATION /STRONGLY" OR "COMBINATION," ASK: (N =184) 18. Approximately what percent'of 25% OR LESS ........... 15% the available land should be 26% TO 49 %............23% developed for public use? 500. . .................34% 51% OR HIGHER ......... 23% UNSURE .................5% 19. If public uses were developed on the INDOOR ................30% site, would you prefer them to be OUTDOOR. 6% indoor facilities, outdoor facili- COMBINATION ........... 57% ties or a combination of both? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 7% I would like to read you a list of potential uses for,the land. For each one, please tell me if you strongly support it, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose it. (ROTATE) STS SMS SMO STO DKR 20. An outdoor plaza or park. 22% 44% 23% 11% 1% 21. Multi- purpose community rooms for meetings, events and classes. 170 42% 25% 16% 1% 22. An exercise and fitness center. 23% 32% 27% 17% 2% 23. An indoor pool and water play area. 20% 33% 26% 210 1% 24. Indoor athletic courts. 21% 32% 260 20% 2% 25. A performing arts space. 26% 380 220 13% 2% 26. A community art center with a gallery. 23% 34% 23% 18% 3% 27. Sit -.down restaurants. 22% 43% 15% 20% 0% 28. Retail shops. 20% 45% 20% 15% 1% 29. Town homes and condominiums. 13% 31% 24% 30% 3% 30. Apartments. 9% 26% 24% 40% 2% 31. Office space. 11% 40% 21% 26% 3% 32. Please tell me which one, if any, of those potential uses you would place as the top priority? 33. Of the remaining potential uses, which one would you rank as the second priority? 34. Is there any one potential you are most opposed to? (IF "YES," ASK:) Which one? TOP SEC OPP AN OUTDOOR PLAZA OR PARK:., :............ 14 %...11 %...12% MULTI- PURPOSE COMMUNITY ROOMS FOR MEETINGS, EVENTS CLASSES .......... 8 % .... 60 .... 3% AN EXERCISE OR FITNESS CENTER .........13 % .... 9 % .... 7 AN INDOOR POOL AND WATER PLAY AREA .... 10 % .... 7 % .... 9% INDOOR ATHLETIC COURTS .................5 %....7 %....2 • PERFORMING ARTS SPACE.... .. .....12 %....9 %....3% • COMMUNITY ART CENTER WITH A GALLERY........ .............10 %...11 %....5% SIT -DOWN RESTAURANTS .. .................7 %...13 %....4% RETAIL SHOPS ......... ..................4 %....9 %....4 TOWN HOMES OR CONDOMINIUMS .............9 %....6 %...10% APARTMENTS............. .. ...............3 %.....4 %...26% OFFICE SPACE ........................... 2 % .... 46 — 11% ALL ( VOL.) ............ ...... ...........0 %....0 %....1% MULTIPLE ( VOL.) .. ......................1 %....0 %. .1% NONE ( VOL.) ...... ......................1 %....3 %. .2% DON'T KNOW / REFUSED .... .................0 %....1 %....1% Continuing.... Some people.have been discussing the possibility of a new Community Center in Edina. The former Grandview public works site has been mentioned as one possible location. 35. Do you support or oppose the con- STRONGLY SUPPORT....... 9% struction of a new Community Center SUPPORT ...............44% by the City of Edina on the former OPPOSE............ ..28% Grandview public works site? (WAIT STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 12 %. FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.-'....8% that way? IF "STRONGLY SUPPORT" OR "SUPPORT," ASK: (N =212) 36. What types of amenities would you most like to see in a new Community Center on the former Grandview public works site? UNSURE, 4 %; FITNESS CENTER, 30 %; GYMNASIUMS, 7 %; MEETING ROOMS, 14 %; INDOOR POOL, 16 %; PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, 20 %; INDOOR ATHLETIC'COURTS, 7 %; SCATTERED, 3 %. 37. If a new Community Center were built VERY LIKELY ..... ....... 18% at this location, how likely would SOMEWHAT LIKELY....... 360 you or members of your household be.,..NOT TOO LIKELY........ 21% to use the facility -- very likely, NOT AT ALL LIKELY ..... 24% somewhat likely, not too likely, or DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% not at all likely? The construction and operation of a new Community Center might possibly require additional property taxes. Suppose the City of Edina proposed a new Community Center development which you considered to be a reasonable approach. 38. How much would you be willing to see your property taxes increase to fund this construction? Let's say, would you be willing to see your monthly property taxes in- crease by $ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON RESPONSE) How about $ per month? NOTHING ...............386 $2.00 .................13% $4.00 .................19% $6.00 .................12% $8.00....... ..........6% $10.00 .................6% MORE THAN $10.00.......3% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 4% With the population of Edina continuing to grow, there is a strong possibility the current Edina Community Center on Normandale Road may be converted back into classrooms for students in the future. 39. Knowing this, would you be much more MUCH MORE LIKELY...... 21% likely to support a new Community SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY..34% Center project at the former Grand- SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY ... 3% view .public works site, somewhat MUCH LESS LIKELY....... 4% more likely, somewhat less likely NO DIFFERENCE (VOL.)..38% or much less likely to support a DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% new Community Center project? Moving on.... Another type of development which could be located on the Grandview public works site is a mixed -use project. A mixed -use project can include a mix of all private uses, a mix of all public uses or a.mix of private and public uses. There are a few examples of mixed use projects in Edina that you might already be familiar with: Centennial Lakes, which includes a public park, retail; offices and townhomes; and Edinborough, which includes indoor public recreation space, senior apartments, offices and a hotel. 40. Would,you support or oppose a de- STRONGLY SUPPORT...... 10% velopment project that includes both SUPPORT ...............55% public and private uses on the OPPOSE ................21% former Grandview public works site? STRONGLY OPPOSE........ 8% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 6 %. strongly that way? IF "STRONGLY SUPPORT" OR "SUPPORT," ASK: (N =261) 41. What types .of services, businesses you most like to see in a mixed -use former Grandview public works site? UNSURE, 90; RESTAURANTS, 21 BIG APARTMENTS, 5 %; CONDOMINIUMS, 12 %; 13 %; COMMUNITY CENTER, 21 PARK,. Dr amenities would project on the -BOX RETAIL, 11 %; BOUTIQUE SHOPS, 5 %: SCATTERED, 3 %. A mixed -use project with privately -owned components like resi- dential units or office space on a portion of this site could reduce the potential tax impact of constructing and operating a Community Center on the same site. 42. Knowing this, would you be much more MUCH MORE LIKELY...... 18% likely to support a mixed -use pro- SOMEWHAT MORE'LIKELY..35% ject on the former Grandview public SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY ... 6% works site, somewhat more likely, MUCH LESS LIKELY....... 6% somewhat less likely or much less NO DIFFERENCE (VOL ".)..34% likely.,to support a mixed -used DON'T KNOW /REFUSED.'.'...2% project? Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes..... .Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to young- est, and be sure to include yourself.... 43. First, persons 65 or over? NONE ..................66% ONE ...................20% TWO OR MORE ........... 14% 44. Adults under 65? 45. School -aged children or pre - schoolers? NONE., ................26% ONE ...................20% TWO ...................50% THREE OR MORE.......... 5% NONE ..................70% ONE ...................12% TWO ...................12% THREE OR MORE.......... 6% 46. What is your age, please? 18- 24 ................... 3% 25- 34 ........:........10% 35- 44 .................16% 45- 54 .................22% 55- 64 .................22% 65 AND OVER ........... 27% REFUSED ................0% 47. What is the last grade of formal LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL..2% .education you completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE ... 9% VO- TECH /TECH COLLEGE ... 6% SOME COLLEGE .......... 16% COLLEGE GRADUATE...... 49% POST -GP AD.uATE......... 18% REFUSED ................1% 48. Do you reside in an apartment, APARTMENT .............17% townhouse or condominium, or a TOWNHOUSE /CONDO....... 24% detached single family home? SINGLE- FAMILY HOME .... 59% SOMETHING ELSE _(VOL) ... 1% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% 49. Do you own or rent your present. OWN......... ........75% residence? RENT ..................25% REFUSED ................1% And now, for one final question, keeping in mind that your answers are held strictly confidential.... 50. Thinking about your household fin- STATEMENT A............2% ances, how would you describe your STATEMENT B...........27% financial situation, would you say STATEMENT C...........51% that -- STATEMENT D...........19% A) Your monthly expenses are ex- DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2% ceeding your income; B) You are meeting your monthly expenses but are putting aside little or no savings; C) You are managing comfortably while putting some money aside; D) Managing very well? 51. Gender. MALE ..................49% FEMALE ................51% 52. Region of City. NE ............. .....25% NW ....................25% SE .................... 25% SW ....................25% To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL ' A o e w (i) H �o laaa Agenda Item #: VI.A. From: _ Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Public Hearing — Ordinance No 2014 -6; An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 10, Article III of the City Code, regarding tree preservation. Action Requested: Grant first reading of the attached Ordinance No. 2014 -6. Information / Background: Over the past several months, the Planning Commission has been considering an Ordinance Amendment regarding tree preservation and replacement for demolition permits, building additions, and building accessory structures. Planning Commissioner Michael Platteter, who along with Commission Claudia Carr led the Planning Commission Working Group through the process, will present the Ordinance and project background to the City Council on May 6th. The following is a summary of the proposed Ordinance: ➢ This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. ➢ All such permits are required to include a certified tree inventory plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, health, caliper, and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show if any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and size of all replacement tree(s). ➢ Trees to be protected under this Ordinance include: birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden, locust, maple (except silver maple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. ➢ Any healthy protected tree that is removed within a building pad, or a 10 -foot radius of the building pad or within a driveway or parking area must be replaced I to 1. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION ➢ Any- healthy protected tree that is removed as part of a demolition permit; building permit application for a structural addition; or building permits for accessory structure that is outside of the building pad,, within 10 feet of the building pad or within the driveway or parking area must be replaced -2 to: 1. ➢ Protected Trees to remain must be protected during construction. ➢ Staff is required to monitor all construction projects with Protected Trees and /or replacement trees to ensure that all trees are properly established for three years. The proposed Ordinance would add an expense to a building permit for inclusion of the certified tree inventory. This would be. done by the surveyor either on the main survey submitted with the building permit, or on a separate survey. In either case, the surveyor would be responsible for siting trees on the property and developing a plan for relocation and placement of new trees, and showing them on the survey. Ordinance Enforcement Enforcement of the Ordinance would likely require additional staffing. The city forester is currently a part time position (34 hours per week on average). The forester has reviewed the proposed Ordinance, and believes that an additional staff person (possibly part time) would be required to adequately enforce the Ordinance, and still maintain the level of service that they currently provide. The primary focus of the forester is on the city's 600 -800 acres of public land; although he does occasionally work with residents regarding tree issues on private property. The new ordinance would require the following additional staff review: • Review of the "tree plan" as part of the building permit. This is the review of the survey showing existing trees, those that would be removed, and those proposed to be planted. Given the last couple years of permit activity, this could be between 150 -200 permits per year; this would include new home construction after a tear down and additions to existing homes. • Inspection of each of these construction sites. To ensure compliance with the proposed plans and protection of existing trees on site. • On -going monitoring. The code requires staff monitoring for three years. Potentially, that could mean that up to 600 sites would be actively monitored. This would ultimately be a decision of the City Council in regard to staffing. ATTACHMENTS: • Draft Ordinance • Planning Commission presentation • Planning Commission Minutes: Jan. 8 & 22, Feb. 12 & 26, and March 12, 2014. • Staff Memo dated March 12, summarizing the Draft Ordinance & identifying issues • Correspondence Page 2 • ORDINANCE NO. 2014-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 10, Article III of the Edina City Code is amended to add Division 3 as follows: DIVISION III. TREE PROTECTIONI Sec. 10 -82. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a.structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. (1) Purpose: Edina is fortunate to have a robust inventory of mature trees that form an integral part of the unique character and history of the city, and that contribute to the long -term aesthetic, environmental, and economic well-being the city. The purpose of the ordinance is to: Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees throughout the city. b. Protect and enhance property values by conserving and adding to the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's tree population. C. Protect and enhance the distinctive character of Edina's neighborhoods Improve the quality of life for all stakeholders, including residents, visitors and wildlife. e. Protect the environment by the filtering of air and soil pollutants, increasing_ oxygen levels and reducing CO2; managing erosion and stormwater by stabilizing soils; reducing heat convection. decreasing wind speeds; reducing_ noise pollution and decreasing the urban heat island effect. Protect and maintain healthy trees in the development and building permit processes as set forth herein; and prevent tree loss by eliminating_ or reducing compacted fill and excavation near tree roots. (2) Definitions: a. Protected Tree: Any tree of the birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden, locust, maple (except silver maple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. (Measured at 6" and over at Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —X Added text —XXXX b. Removable Tree. Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, or as defined_ as an invasive species by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: ;(3) Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventory plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, health and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show if any Protected Trees are proposed to be rem_ oved and the location, specie_ s and size of all replacement tree(s) (4) If a Protected Tree is removed, except as allowed for in paragraph (7), it must be :replaced with two (2) trees, subject to the following conditions Replacement trees must be varied by species and are limited to the species listed above in (2) Definitions. b. Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or infestations. Disease or infestation resistant species and cultivars are allowed. c. Replacement trees must be at least two and one -half inches (2.5 ") in caliper for deciduous trees and a minimum of seven feet (7') tall for coniferous trees. d. Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester before implementation. e. If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must be placed in a public area, subject to approval by the City Forester. (5) Protected Trees may be removed, in the following areas: Including, and within a ten -foot (10') radius of, the building pad of a new or, remodeled building. b. Within driveways and parking areas" Protected Trees removed in subparagraphs a. and b. above must be replaced with one (1) tree, subject to the species listed above in (2) Definitions and the conditions listed in subparagraphs a. through e. of paragraph 4 above. (6) Removable Trees five inches (5 ") or less in caliper may be removed for any development or building permit, without replacement. If a Removable Tree greater Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text — X XX X Added text —XXXX LE than five inches (5 ") is removed, it must be replaced with one tree, and subject to the conditions is paragraph 4 above. If a Protected Tree is dead, diseased or (hazardous it must be approved by the City Forester before removal. (7) During the demolition and building permit processes, the permit holder shall not 'leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent injury to the Protected Tree, in connection with such construction. The survey must indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during construction, subject to staff review and approval. City staff monitoring is required for all projects with affected Protected Trees and /or replacement trees to ensure that all such trees are properly established and maintained for three (3) years. Tree protection during construction is subject to the city's Construction Management Plan (CMP). (8) If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date the development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted, these !Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy set forth in paragraph (4) above. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 3 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX 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 Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2014. City Clerk Existing text — XXXX 4 Stricken text —X Added text —XXXX e alD Claudia Carr & Michael Platteter CityofEdina.com (=' Q7.3 o A brief refresher /hist®ryo VIanning Commission Residential WorkingGroup — work to date • Reviewed and assessed residential rebuild situation (Oct 2012 -Mar 2013). • Meld public input forums: two public meetings and Speak Up Edina topic (Jan - Feb 2013). • Provided Planning Commission /City Council recommendations (Mar -July 2013). Planning Commission Residential working Group - results ® Updated Construction Management plan & enforcement (Mar 2013). 0 rel Residential Redevelopment Coordinator position created (April 2013). City code updated to address residential heights, setbacks, stormwater and grading issues (July /Aug 2013). " It I I` 1 CityofEdi na. com Tree Canopy: Issues Identified in Public Forums • Tree protection during construction • Concern on loss of tree canopy, quality of life issues • Environmental concerns for tree loss, including carbon sink- loss, energy conservation shading effects, urban heat islands and erosion/stormwater control Tree Canopy: Approaches for Ordinance • Provide tree protection guidelines during construction • Provide tree ordinance for new construction/lot subdivisions • Address discretionary tree removal • Require tree inventory and preservation plan • Require equivalency planting plan for trees removed CityofEdina.com Mature Tree Benefits In Edina Provides social /health benefits to community and wildlife. Stormwater: For 5% loss in tree cover, stormwater increases 2 %. A tree can absorb 100 gal /water per day, filters and reduces site erosion: Energy: Reduced "urban heat island" effect. Can reduce cooling by 30% and save 20 -50% in heating costs. Carbon sequestration: Absorbs 48lbs CO2 /year, one ton for a 40 year old tree. Lifespan is 100 -150 years. o Air quality: Absorbs 10 lbs. of air pollutants /year 0 Oxygen: Produces oxygen for two people /year. .0 Property values: increased values between 4 -15 %. (information source: americanforests. org) CityofEdina.com o CE What this means t® Edina - Tree ,Loss 2008 -2013 `�`'• O A robust tree canopy is a defining element of our neighborhoods; loss of tree canopy means loss of neighborhood character. There have been 3 5 0 +/- residential Teardowns in Edina plus numerous major remodeling projects. At an estimated loss of two mature trees per Teardown: Over 700 mature trees removed from Edina in the past six years Stormwater increase of 70,000 gallons /day. For a 5% loss in tree cover stormwater increases 2% ® Carbon increase of 33,600 lbs. CO2 /year Added air pollution of 7,000 lbs. /year in lost absorption rates ® Reduced oxygen. production for 1,400 people (information source: americanforests. org) J CityofEdina.com Tree removal, residential lot CityofEdina.com Tree removal, residential lot i CityofEdina. com 2008 Tree Canopy, Morningside & Grimes Vol r i� • w• no, g i f • i r r .ail e' I"�. t r.� K ! >' M... OP CityofEdina.com /% !1 -4 A T !14 T 7 i• lM T s • -W n !-d e CityofEdina.com Examples of trees remaining after nevi Ak--' can be accommodated T• CityofEdina.com OWBOW., A summary Tree loss in Edina is a detriment to the community, and a large loss of trees has already occurred in our residential neighborhoods. The City Council is asked to implement the Tree Ordinance as proposed. Thanks for your consideration '4 CityofEdina.com Draft 4.22 -2014 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 10, Article III of the Edina City Code is amended to add Division 3 as follows: DIVISION III. TREE PROTECTION i Sec. 10.82. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures Including a garage, deck or a pool. (1) Purpose: Edina is fortunate to have a robust inventory of mature trees that form an integral part of the unique character and history of the city, and that contribute to the long -term aesthetic, environmental, and economic well -being of the city. The purpose of the ordinance is to: a. Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees throughout the city. b. Protect and enhance property values by conserving and adding to the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's tree population. c. Protect and enhance the distinctive character of Edina's neighborhoods d. Improve the _quality of life for all stakeholders, Including city residents, visitors and wildlife. e. Protect the environment by the filtering of air and soil pollutants, Increasing oxygen levels and reducing CO2; managing erosion and stormwater by stabilizing soils; reducing heat convection; decreasing wind speeds;_ reducing noise pollution and decreasing the urban heat Island effect- Protect and maintain healthy trees In the development and building permit processes as set forth herein; and prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducing_ compacted fill and excavation near tree roots. (2) Definitions: B. Protected Tree: Any tree of the birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, Ironwood, linden, locust. maple (except silver maple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. (Measured at 6" and over at Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), Existing text —XXXX Stricken text -70004 Added text — XXXX Proposed Tree Ordinance o e vi C� 77 i O V .by "�nmw T4' rnu b. Removable Tree. Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, or as defined as an Invasive species by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (3) Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventory plan Indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, health and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show If any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and size of all replacement tree(s). (4) If a Protected Tree is removed, except as allowed for in paragraph (7), it must be replaced with two (2) trees, subject to the following conditions: a. Replacement trees must be varied by species and are limited to the species listed above In (2) Definitions. b. Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or infestations. Disease or infestation resistant species and cultivars are allowed. C. Replacement trees must be at least two and one -half inches (2.5 ") in caliper for deciduous trees and a minimum of seven feet (7') tall for coniferous trees. d. Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester before Implementation. e. If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must be placed in a public area, subject to approval by the City Forester. . (5) Protected Trees may be removed, in the following areas: P. Including, and within a ten -foot (SO') radius of, the building pad of a new or remodeled building. b. Within driveways and parking areas. Protected Trees removed in subparagraphs a. and b. above must be replaced with one (1) tree, subject to the species listed above In (2) Definitions and the conditions listed in subparagraphs a. through e. of paragraph 4 above. Existing text — X)= Stricken text - 7884)4 Added text —XXXX 2 CityofEdina.rom (6) Removable Trees five inches iS ") or less in cal'per maybe removed for any. development orbuild'ng perm "t, without replacement If a Removable 7, greater than five inches (S "j i removed, 't must be rep: aced viah one tree, and subject to the conditions is paragraph 4 above. if a Protected Tree is dead, d'seased or hazardous tt must be approved by the City Forester before remmal. (7) Curing the demolition and bui:ding perm t processes, the perm't holdershal! not leave any Protected Tree without surfeertt guards or protections to prevent injury to the Protected Tree, in connection ivd h such construction. The survey must Indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during construction, subject to staff review and approval. City staff monitorng is required for a!I projects with affected Protected Trees and /or replacement trees to ensure that all such trees are properly estati fished and maintained for three (3) years. Tree protection during construction is subject to the crr%es Construction Management Plan (CMP). F.13) If Protected Trees were removed within one(*-) year prior to the date the deve'opment, demo!hion and boding pennit_appl "cations were submitted, these Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement po'icy set forth in paragraph C4) above. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Readirtg: Second Reading: Published: ATFEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sum Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edna City Clerk Ustingtent -1000( Stricken text -41M Added text —)DM James B. Hoviand, Mayor Proposed Tree Ordinance CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duty appointed and acting City Clerk for the Cfty of Edna do hereby certify titat the attached and foregoing Ordnance was duly adopted by the Edna City Council at its Regular Meeting of 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of _ 2014. 3 EAWrtgtettt -10001 Stricken text —X)= Added teta —XXXX City Cork A. Y /n M1 1 CC ^� 4 CityofEdina.com NOTES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT FORUM SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 2013 10PM -12PM t ?INA.SENIOR CEN1E%t RED TEXT DENOTES TREE COMMENTS FactTrtatms` ftlrlke Platteter. Ken Polls and Arlene Forrest• — Residential Redevelopment "mg group" Staff, in Attendance: Cary Teague. Kris Aailw. Jackie HoogenaMw Others in Attendance: Council Member Swenson Mary Dick Lon & Nanvy Oberpn7Eer 6lolly Schomburg Ryan Weber Jen Colhtert Chris and Barb Hayhoe John Peterson Bill Rodgers Jeff and Jannie Johnson Kevin Staunton Ellen Berms Edward GBckman Cokncll Member Bennett Bob Thampson Su san Wahman Liz Genorese Scott Smith Andrew Ramirez Nora Davis Bob Wesifund Janey Westin @Darlene Schlelm r Pat Neyes Gene Persha L'nz Genorese Wke Plalteter oinked everyone for attending the forum and introduced Ken Pogs and Arlene Fischer members of tike Residential Redevelopmert l►dok G=p. Ptatteter opened the la, um whi% a pazwpoint presentation high%trting the goals of the 'Working Fe . Platteter said during this slrrdyof residential development and redevefopmertt then group found that the issue' seemed to fall viff ffi ttao areas; eonstructian management and zoning (setbacks, m3sskg9 Plattefer Mmyted evoyone to keep in nind the following dates January 31— 7-9 PM additional residentsiI redevelopment pk;5c fomrn at the Senior Center— same agenda as todays. Ptiploi7 Workshop Notes January 31'x— Felxumv 12"— Summarize feedback period February le— present iirdi gstothe P1am►erg Commission hilairch 5"— PC and City Cokmal val meet to discuss nerd steps with the next steps based upon Council comments. Pllatmrer Teague addressed the group and briefly eapla"vned zoning code issues. Attendee Comments durina Presentation The tollo ng canvnerds occurred during the presentation by Platteter and Teague: • Concern was expressed on incised segregation behveen the havelhave nors that appears to be occurring as the result of large houses being built in place of smaller houses. • More hklormation from AGnnetonka on their setback and other standards needs to be added (on handout). • Horified by the lack of respect bidders shmv to neighbors. • Design regulations? Design review in a more fomwraed peons. A hEnretonka resit suggested that a study be done on hoes the "new home vnl "M W — maybe side setbacks need to be readdressed. A Fulton (N meapolis) m4kierd informed the group thtek' neViborhood association' established construction guidefnes hormirer. these guidelines are net enfaaeable. • Construction management issues; monitor better. • Impervie us sumfaces — reconsider? Respect neighborhood d►arauter. • Suggest considering a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) per average in area: bloc Piatteter explained the Bert Agenda' indicating the attendees vmuld break into snag groups to discuss defining issues and regroap to discuss proposed solutons. Each small group wadd then report Their issues and solutions to the entire group. Gnouo One Issue: Challenge binders to come up with creative solutions — bigger not always better. Solution: We need more refined regWations enforced to preserve the neighborhood character and our mixed income oommunity. Issue. Respect neig hood — new oostrudion should conga to character of the Issue: Restrict retaining tvmft in side yard setback. Pz:p2cf7 QtyofEdina.com Solution_ H & IN Stwedards - Difkexentzoniig requirmentsffor drifetesit neighborhoods: to pesew setback. height mature Moses ete. be consist mLrtN tle - mrage.in.iheheighbmh Solution. Different zoningee*quirerneris for dMarent neighborwods to preserve se-4—%wk. height, mature 'rnes. ehc. - - - - -- issue Require that drainage and runoff be retained on the tot being remodeled Sohrtiorc Zoning regulations for ingwaviors surfaces— collect fines if violates Issue: Garages can't be maze *m % of the 5oadface of the new stnxture. Solution_ Offerentaaungirequirenxw& fcrcLTuent neighborhoods to sedmdL height. mature tees. etc. etc. _ Issue: Roll back building height to a more reasonable level so it is consistent wh the neVmbartrij structures- on L' :re rent zcmingreq<n nt neighbodmods t0 ptE5erV2 se&;ack, height mature trees. etc. Issue: Regulate where'storage or'oulbuldngs can be placed an a lot so they aren't so dose (.T) to the neighboring structures so as to block views. Issue: Nem restrictions for height and setback on garages. Group Two Issue: General zoning. Solution: Design review that evaluates proposed new construction design and thatfit into the existing neighborhood. EGmiwe use of asphalt if posss'bFe, Issue Affordable housing. Solution_ Preserve mined income neighborhoods. Neighborhood spiLdse s'ae restrictions based on average sizes othomes adjacent to new construction. For mmrnpte not to exceed 2696 of ems" average square footage Issues Base new construction size (square footage) on average lrar>e st`e en same block (above ground square footage). Sohuticim Sores to change over tine. VM keep some neighbortnaads vft small hones in h no chance of star ng ksces` Design review process to evaluate aesthet5l size and stories based on a4meent homes4mighborhoed. . Solution: Something like fAirtneapofa site plan review Ptzesaf7 Workshop Notes Issues: Better and shirgent a fteerrserrt of violations to code and zoning. SohuEor: Better convnuniicate prooesshequirement to neighbors Issues: ZonkV based on neighborhood versa one set of rules for the vuhole City. Sol itcar: Redo zoning districts Issues: Ram loaded garage our 511-foot Iot Solution: Love to see them barred. but at least prohibit from occupying more than 5D% of front face. Issue: Side Setbauh. Is increasing setback as height increases vrouking? Solutiom l isn't Issue: No driveway to bade takes away side setback. Solution: Great Idea Mass of hamimnotemmip Solution: Require that FAR be consistent wA& average of neighborhood Issue: PLacemerrt of accessory structure (sheds) Solution: Require Larger setback and require neighborhood approval of sit rig storage or accessary structure. Issue. Hetht Solution: Ref back by 5-feet at least Issue: Trees . Sblutionz:Re uire thaHmW.lrees bepreserved- can- sWentwithcharacter: -afthe neighborhood Issue: Where does (drainage) go va& mare lot coverage? Sotutiorc Require that drainage not be duetted to neighboring Iots. Issue: neighbors not apprised of building pfam Solution: Require notification of neighbors Issue: loss of privacy in badkyads, sight Poses into homes. Solution: Presence better, setbacks era Issue: Retaining vxiBstegress windows boo close to lot Pore Solution: Through setbacks preserve access to the hack yarn$. Pap dof7 CityofEdinamm Groiro five Issue: Damaging neighborhood trees. Solution: Tree onk anoe — require permits to remoae trees larger than 10 inches diameter Issue: l oshg afFordabte stmter homes. Sahrtim? tssw. Cmmsld not get explanation fontitry City required comes to plarm Sotufiorr When complaint requires vmttrm response or CRY. tssue. Nfft structure shading ne'mgt b badk yard — kiling gardens. Sohrtion: Neighbors should be shown plans for new cizim mtion at least or* month priwto work starting Issue: Side yard setbacks not suFmiert— too small for small lots. Sohrtiote Require minimum 113 total (Both sodm combined) or require minir nmh 54bot setback on one side. 8'4' on c9w Issue: Not enough rown to access the back yard. Solution: require access on one side of house to backyard (mirk. 3 ) Issue: DiMmerd in size of nevi home when cwgmred to original home. Sohrtiom Add desgpn gumdefnes around haw new home Us vrift exisfaag homes — See Palk Ridge. 11 desgn guidefines. Issue: Drainage — does the City require drairoge plans? How efftmed. Solution: Must drain to pulft drainage (daectly) or mairta'm on side. Committee members thanked Everyone for their input and reiterated the dates of the upwming Residential Redevelopment Forum (J3nuwy 31 d) indicating that meeting be sirrOlarly 4Vn ten ftntWidual Comments: See below and attached to notes. Zoning Workshop Notes Regulate here staeage or oudxffmgs can be located so they amt too d neighboring property lines and block vievrs • Smart mn'rhg laws are neighborhood specific • Base adjacent new construa6on on 'average s'me of existing homes in the neighborhood • Have mddpte zoning districts based on neighborhoods • Consider imptemerAing a design review process • Reconsider hard surface • Reconsider egress windows— setback • Driveway widths • Strktetlimils on building hop Restrict the size orgarages and their location On Woot lots have 5 foot setback on one side and an the other side 8 or g feet ? - is increasing the setback by he htgh realty working Construction Managcsmerht • RegWm that the budder should be requaed to bring new phur&q from the home to the street and not stop at the setback. • Contractors should faw fines if they do not property monitor their subs and vendors. i.e. blocking streets • Tones for consiructien needs to be revaluated T AM is too early • City shmfd monitor construct= sites so nrsidenfs don't have to keep calling ft City of Edina with complaints • Street constar►tty blocked by trucks and other vehicles • Better enforcement of vklafi s Drainage. Fartdrteerirm • Better storm titter man2gement an the site • Restrict height and where ret it ft wills in are placed in the side yard setback Ermine that drainage and runoff be retained on the lot being de«foped or redeveloped Aesthetics • Include FAR • Respect andtiitecu►e another homes • Pfeserve • swMes Light ew ay I♦Ymdth • Take topography ft aocount Prtvacy . D6fetent mtue restrictive requirements for 5D?400t properties. . D height limits on narrow lots ' Establish i m Pfd new construcfion and renhodefmg New construction should fit Into existing footprint Establish protective covehants • FAR has to be consistent by the average of the ne*bodmd • Rog back building hefghts to be more comistent vidh the neighboring properties PaP5of7 Pge6of7 CityofEdina.com ° ch w1 Workshop Notes e (z-,- ,r • Garages rani be more theme X of the bwA face of the new struchNe • Hurd hkadicrg gmdUft un vo-fwl wime arts - irdtTurawd umet take up nsue 4mn 50% andlor garage must start behind the habitable am of the house Rem aVached garage to be in back iF lot less Om 75 -feet in %ndth • No 9M garages • Concerned about "investors ding in and buykv a prWerly— tearing down ft house and building a hruge'hmme $tat does not5t k to the neighboThood and the price point is 2 to 3 fines that of the neighbahcod • Style of house should fit wiffi Bee horses on the street — Momingside'has big time issues • Could preen be a period cf time that a house wn be an 0* mrarket Mom an irreesW wn buy up the property • 1 have no fm% be the City Mat they vvill do any0 ft ti 1h bee resdentsfeedback Forum eras adjoumeed at 12 N=L Submitted by Polls. Platteter and Forrest are members of the Edina Planning Corr+rrnssion pa°e 7 cf 7 CityofEdina.com NOTES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT FORUM THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2013 7PM -9PM N RED TEXT DENOTES TREE COMMENTS FaaTibators: hrike Platteter, Ken Potts and Arlene ForresP— ResiderrBal Redevelopment working tmuP" Staff in Attendance-, Cary Teague. Kris Aaker. Jackie HoDgenatdw Others in Attendance: Council Member Swenson Mary Dick Lon and Nancy O+berprider Uz C3enorese Janet Ingram Ami Sharp Tun Crain AnTi Ofttess Scott Smith Dori and Jim Grata Kevin Staunton Carol Engstmrn Council Member Bennett Bob Thompson Susan Wabman Janet Ingram Peter Ki filea Peggy Lawrence Pdike!Pearson Angela Deen John Peterson Fdt Medweather Helen Burke htr Platteter veitxlmed everyone and hfaedueed Ken Putts and Arlene Forrest rnsnlbers ofthe Edo® Plaruft Ccrranissiunand Residential Redevetopment%wkirg gip. PlarmerTeague briefly explained to the 9wp the hifty of'm3ssin;r and chaagesto the Code that were implemented in the last few years to address it. NIr. Potts and Us. Forrest directed the group in an exercise of idenfTying issues and schibons to those issues The g'eup brake downer intro sm3 l groups to oomplete the exercise. Each group presented their liindings. Results w e as faMaws: Gramm One- tsstne: Pedestrian Access Solution: Enfareement of point 7 on handout. Workshop Notes 7. The contractorshall keep the site, all streets. all sidewalks. boulevard areas and adjacent properties dean from vraste. materials or retire resutbng from his operations an sfte. Equipment not usable on the vmrk site shall be promptly reneved and the site shall be m a tained in a neat and orderly condi im at as tans. AL empty cans paper. plastic" eto. that is not needed for construction shall be removed and cleaned tram the site every evening prior to kwvmg the construcfion site. Where work an a project Res wdm areas of pedestrian access tcdtic andlor vehmulmr traffic the project area will be deaned and swept and all materials related to the project will be stockpiled in appropriate areas No materials maybe deposited or stockpiled on the pu ble streets. b rdev3rds orsidewalks. At the end of each wonting day, the Contractor Shan remove arty soil that vrashed or was deposited on any public sidewalk or street and shall remove arty trash or debris that bushed or dgxmted on any public property. No dumpstes. portable toflets, buhfdamg materials. crequonent maybe stored on a public street, sidetv6lk or boulevard area. Issue: Damage to existing property ehciudi g. trees, wads. streets- Solution: 1. Pte- construction soil testing and excavation plan pre_appn wed by City. 2. Set up es=z account equal to °% of total remodel costs. Issue.: Bevation of house. &Mon: Apply retaflw to neighborhood average. just as is done currently for front yard setbacks. lssuhe• Drainage: Sokrton: Landscapearchitadsubrm lsdrainagepreuentknptanpriorto n Plan can indudefaddress faults due to topography. Issue: Amount of lot cwAeage fa 50 -toot lots. No solution expressed. Issue: EgiesstivintlDm should not be allovwd at lot fine. Solution: Addressed by seftidt requirements in Cede. % egress widow afavved at tot tae Group Taro Issue: NeWborhoods ovemImAmed by construction in day to day rues. Afton: Enfowe and improve Construction Maintenance Ptah. tssue Folders (faores) shoddnl be guzft oar duckens Solution: Require herders to stay wither City Codes Issue: Front balling garages are too big forthe neighhoaheod (Momirgside). Sohrtion: Give a percentage limiting garage *craft. Estatfish side yard settmecls of fi- feet and 8-t eet CityofEdina.com Issue: Who is valuing our meighberhood context. No solution expressed. Issue: Loss of trees on: Create reasonabletree preservation ordinance. Be responsible to neighbor's that are located near the property Hire. AN trees within 3- 5-feet of lane property fire itiould hmre measures imptemented to protect them. Issue: Access Solution: Shtgger setbacks - one, side needs to be large for access; 5-feet on non - egress side and 8-feet on egress s7de. Issue. Streets to match the existing grid No solution expressed. OmuD Three: Issue: SetlQ4M an writ iota Solution: Stagger setbacks 10feet on one side 5feet on the other side. M access must occur vrithin setback. Issue: Starm water nm•o!f Solution: All storm water runoff mist be dealt w3h an site or detected to the street issue: I ree a ^won: Give incentives for saving, trees -tax break farnumber years. Require tree permitfee Estahish certain size tree cimunderence in be saved or replaces Pray amemtion to trees and their drip fire and requite location of trees on surveys. Ensure root safety so they aren't crashed. Cky enforce your rules. Group Four_ issue: Shadowng — Light arg space oansiNrations zind loss o, trees SoMon: The scale of new construction needs to be maimed to the scale of the existing neighbodioad. Zoning requirements should be tailored to each neighborhood. Issue: Drake issues — changes in toprogra ft and roof size and rtm•aff No solution expressed. Issue: Vibrations during ciorstrrrctiorr causing struchrral damage to neig9iming home. Solution: Construction Management Plat effort — inspect homes adlaoent to near construction for mechanicalls. cosneft before demolition and caustruction and during alnstructkm and after constra effair . Have builder estabfish escrow amount or txard to saver damfages if damages occur. Workshop Notes Group Fire Group five concurred with all issues and solutions. Please note the firgatft written and verbal comments by category. Zoning Ordinance Changes: • Suggestion to change the ardinance for tats less than 59 -feet in vV tfi. Leave the rest alone. • Can the ardmance do same" about yards being shadowed by these overly large homes (setbadi increase). (this could be buldmg too if as part arthe peffmt application a shadow study is required) • Access to the rear yard needs to be provided an each Iot Ordinance requirement(?) • Recans?der buiidng tWqft 1 how would sate measure a Bat roue • Are there requirements regarding outbuildings (sheds) in tears of setback. sme. height? • Side setbacks are too small for small lots. Not enough roan. • Address egress window with setbacks. • Change ordinance for lots less than 9.000 square feet or lot width under 80 —feet • Need setbacks for sheds — 2 -story sheds too dose to neighbor blocks sunlight. p � t • increase se less on fyi mot sus e 1611s. • Setbacks —homes should fine up. Home amass the street was allowed to be builtfurther back on the lot Street looks better when homes line up as in the Country Club; not all aver the place . • C • men virtu s - t ding "ptachces�Err`forcP ex "s es. • Are comer tats treated differently than lots in the middle or the block Are comer fat setbacks different • Consider a frmit on height offences installed on top of retaining wails. • Setbacks for egress windows for tats Wfeet of less — the window well cannat impede neighbors access to their own backyard (2) • Need setback requirements to address light and space impact on adjacent harnes. • Suggestthat a' FAR' be set at no more than 2 -12mes the existing house Yootprint' exdudmg garage alloyed an the tot A FAR Eke this would limit the height of 'Monster sized houses. • 50400t rots need d'FAmit3 specs than later lads. • City should fallrnv ndes in place. Identify and define neighborhood ctiameterfor each neigftbonccod. CityofEdina.com Bwff*effng: • Instead arcramgirg the ortfmance c onsider the -problem of aredy large houses that impact everyone in the Qty; not only Momingside (Le. water runoff require that vrater rtntoff be directed to the street). • Require sal testing (ft could also belong in Btu building penrxi area or construction management) • Asphalt breaMM up as the result of construction vehicles using road (rhis viould also fag under ft construction management plan). . Water runoff from all sites must go to the street —this must be enforced. • Stmm vrdtu drainage and enforcement by exsting ordinance. Ra mrater comes off the neighbor's roof and Bows into my yard. Enforce %voter nmwff requirements— ifs currently not enforced. • A real concern for drabs problems — especially in South Ha riet Park udwe lots are 50 -feet %bide. Make sure %vaterftam new horse dralrs into hire street. ConstrtrcEon Management Plan: • Vibrations from constr uermn machinery — is the builder responsible for issues or damp to neighboring homes. • No response from Ste City after complaint is registered. • Can hours of construction be re- reviswd • Should there be standards regardrhg vibration during cors1ruc6em. • Geothermal install. • Have builders take soy samples to bmi possible impact on neighboring homes (tats could Gag under building permit %ngboeering review) • Create definitive consequences for code viclaldomsfor builders • We paid for cur nffi streets about 4 -years ago. Now the neiv construction vehicles are destroying Stern. Is there any recohmse? Redirect the exhaustfi om construction equipment. • damage done to home next door due to new construction orfrom demoriBon. can t7te City require that the builnllerplam- monies in escrow for repair to neighbor's property- REgtme proof of inspection (by the City) prior to construction. after derroEtion and xlerco stn,>ctiam: • Currently no consequences vihen de�mlopers v5o8ate codes. • Require pre, during aid post oon3 rueffon anspectsxs • Hue snore staff —too marry tewdovrrs far c Trent stLTto keep up Wilk • There should be a pad ft plats for each new house bust. I art eorstantly asking people to moue their rM icles. so I can get out of my drittetvay. If a horn miner inquires about construction issues— can City respond in %va3irig to deem, and not just sad vm'tien no5ae to catty ctonlrertmdeler. and owner. Workshop Notes • Require a damage deposit from developers • Require sal testing for new construction. Aesthetics: • Frantloaded garage WC that are greater than 3095 of the front fagade are too much for our neighborhood. • No value to the context of the neighborhood when building new homes. • Loss of trees — seems replacement plantings are often just shrubs and omame tal trees. • Tree loss :rom construction occurs and on bop of the latch elm and tree loss due to old age —the majority of trees have fife expectancy of 50 + years and marry mere planted 50 f years ago. . - Builder promised to build up all around nd all she bzes on the tot and he ended up cutting down al four trees on the lot. He proceeded to build a house that completely shades the south side of my house. • Damage to neighbors trees: Seen abuse of trees that are left siano'irg during construction; ordy to die a slow death. • Can Edina create a tree, ortfrnance. In South Hartiet Park between W-- 5r Kellogg and Oaklawn trees have been last because of teaniowms. Viscellarreous: WM impact does major change in a r*ighborhood have on incentives for existbg homeowners to maintain their'teardt;W house? • Novi do we manage the dramatic scale drlferences between nevi and ehastatg homesto preserve the character of the neighborhood? Our interests aren't being protected. Cd4e test wish the City - City seems to favor builders Re- mvietiv the construction noise fmhits. • Get professionals %who work on the current home owner's behaB not the thrillers (7) • Need people who are skilled in conft nesoltfiorhtfaalrlatom • Urban planning designers. • Snew sides off the mof of the new horse onto my steps of my side door on my tY- Are speculators buying up properties before prospective buyers have a chance to bury into an affordable ne0borftoed Could not get explanation for why City required changes to plarm Issue of ditlerence in size of mew home vdmn compared to original home. • Losing affordable starter hones to binders CityofEdina.com Workshop Notes • Vfhat is the historic squanalbotage and lot size in Mrnfngsde? • Ndrther side ofthe hocme is passable In the side yard with a lavmrmu er • New house next dear that exceeds lot area ratio new applied for a variance. Cument home owees interest its not it pwbrft to the Gay. They seem to coddle builders and ftY have fmadles, tarn W carninced thatbuilding inks hold bidders to the Code_ Asking builders to hey frx the problem is Re asking the fox to guard the hen house. Can building mateftlis far reta fmV %falls be regulated to puewmtt plernature bow* or disreF ii Need teeth for code vidlations. Edtrcationdocumed— rnaMtam'diaracbe= rwrekme**ue Pass,':bly in&oerroe nsveonstruction viM econornics. Does Edina support existing homemwmsv th loft cast remodel @curls life St Louis Park does to upgrade eadsl" g homes. Not grant lenders Come Hcme to Edina Program for first drne boaneomers.( ?) Plater. Pots and Earrest t' ed everjone frartheirWdpatrm The meeting eras 3*xffned at X00 PM! Submitted by CityofEdinamm (Previous) PC Residential Working Group Timeline Blog on "Speak Up Edina" for �! r- -- -- - - -� Blog Discussion Jan -Feb Resident Feedback -- Planning Commission - WG Jan 9th i Initial Presentation Public Input Forum - Senior Center 10 -Noon �- - Jan 26th Public Input Forum - Senior Jan 31st 11 Center 7 -9 - Summarize Feedback for _ � 5t _ � Jan 31 Feb 12th Preliminary Recommendations i -- - - -J - -- - -- - Planning Commission - 1Alorking � -� Feb 13th Group Report Out Planning Commission Discussion March -April with City Council I� Council Hearings July -Aug -J CityofEdina.com (Previous) PC topics for City Council Work Session Specific recommendations • Enhance Construction Management flan • More city staff enforcement on j obsites • Penalties for construction violations • Implement Tree Ordinance • Regulate soil import/export for projects • Improve storm water management standards — Surface & sub - surface water control — Infrastructure impact • No egress windows in side yard setback • Rear yard access required via side yard • Eliminate requirement for two car garage General recommendations • Review single Residential Zoning district • For lots under- city minimums, explore buildable area definition revisions — Increase side yard setback dimension(s) — Decrease maximum building height and modify means of determining height — Make lot coverage limits more consistent within city code • Establish front- loaded garage standards (position relative to front -of- house) CityofEdina.com �V�,) B. Tree Ordinance Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that Commissioners Claudia Carr and Michael Platteter drafted an Ordinance regarding tree preservation. Teague said the draft was circulated to staff with staff raising the following concerns /questions: • Enforcement. General enforcement of the ordinance, including monitoring newly planted trees in the first three years of their life may require additional staffing. The city forester is a part time position. • Two for one replacement. This may be restrictive? • Requirement of native trees. The forester is concerned that a limitation to native species would take away options for property owners to make individual decisions. • Violation Penalties. The city attorney recommends that number (13) be eliminated. Violations are covered in another section of the code. Additionally, the city attorney does not believe that the city has statutory authority to impose this type of penalty. In practice, the city would not issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the violations have been corrected. Preservation Easement. The city attorney recommends number (8) is eliminated as it is only a recommendation. Added cost for residents. With additional information required on a survey, there will be an added cost. Commissioner Presentation Commissioner Platteter addressed the Commission and explained that he along with Commissioner Carr wanted to craft an Ordinance that "got our foot in the door" with regard to tree preservation. Platteter said they chose to limit the scope of the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance to tear downs /re- builds. Platteter explained that teardown and rebuilds appeared to be a good place to start because they have created holes in the City's tree canopy. Concluding, Platteter stated; again, this is only a start. Comments /Questions Commissioner Scherer asked Commissioner Platteter under (2) Definitions: Removable Tree how they arrived at the list of removable trees. Commissioner Platteter responded that they researched the subject and for the most part chose trees that are typically thought of as nuisance. Platteter said he also believes any tree Page 5 of 11 not listed or not found under Significant Mature Tree would be removable trees. Platteter commented that the wording "Significant Mature" could -be changed to "Protected ". Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to comment on his findings. Planner Teague explained that staffing enforcement would be a concern, adding it's possible that the Redevelopment Coordinator could fold some of these "duties" into her work load, cautioning much would depend on Ordinance wording. Teague also observed if the City through Ordinance were to require trees to be depicted on the surveys that would be an additional cost to the homeowner. Chair Staunton said he understands the Commissioners approach with regard to teardown /rebuilds; however, he noted large additions could have the same impact on the tree canopy. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Fischer said at least in his experience there is a lot of peer pressure in the community to retain and maintain the City's forest. Residents don't typically cut down a tree unless necessary. Commissioner Grabiel questioned how /who would enforce the two -for one, or one for one replacement suggestion; and if violating that caveat of the Ordinance would be considered criminal. Grabiel said he wouldn't want to see the Ordinance go in that direction. Commissioners discussed the issue of enforcement and wondered if tree replacement could be tied to the escrow funds. Commissioner Forrest commented that in her opinion this is a good start. Commissioner Scherer stated that she didn't recall finding a definition of preservation easement, adding number 8 as mentioned by staff is only a recommendation. Commissioner Grabiel commented that it may be easier to just require replacement of all trees removed. The discussion ensued with Commissioners agreeing that enforcement of tree replacement could become problematic; however, liked the idea of enforcement linked to the escrow. Commissioner Scherer commented that she understands the "nuisance" concern for buckthorn and other types of trees; however, thinks that more consideration should be placed on the size of the tree removed and not so much the variety. Scherer stated in her opinion it is good to have different species of trees especially because of the potential for disease. Also removing a large tree that is considered undesirable does have impact. Page 6 of 11 Commissioner Schroeder said he was pleased at this start pointing out maintaining the urban forest is part of the Comprehensive Plan. Continuing, Schroeder said he agrees with the observation shared by Commissioner Scherer on tree size. He pointed out Cottonwoods are large trees with a very large canopy and if they are permitted to be removed the impact is tremendous. Schroeder stated in his opinion trees that provide canopy need to• be replaced and replacement at I - I may not be adequate. Schroeder also noted the preservation of the canopy isn't limited to a site; canopy is enjoyed by many. Concluding, Schroeder said in certain instances he doesn't believe a two for one replacement is onerous. Commissioner Forrest commented that she agrees with Schroeder and Scherer on their observations; however, smaller lots may not be able to support the two for one replacement suggested by Schroeder. Schroeder responded that the two for one doesn't necessarily need to be accomplished on the site. A tree could be planted in the City parks adding to the urban forest and canopy. Chair Staunton thanked Commissioners Platteter and Carr, adding the proposed draft was a great start and the Commission looks forward to more work on this topic. A discussion ensued on the timing of proceeding with discussions on the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance with Commissioners agreeing that another draft is needed so the discussion could proceed. It was agreed that the Commission would address another draft at a future meeting. C. Subdivision Ordinance Planner Teague introdu ed1to the Commissi n draft revision of Subdivision Ordinance a d'Asked for Commi si ,ners for their coi Comments Commissioner Forrest s id !at first glance s; as m rested in considering the plat vs. shrinking the neighbo hdod option we"r, Without a "clear" definition of plat that would be difficult. Pan' er agreed that defining plat would be difficult. Commissioner Fischer`com ented that in his pi ion the perceived problems with the Subdivision rdi r� cures in phases; qu stoning if amending the Subdivision Ordinance fin'tionn f "n ighborhood" from 5 0�feet to 250 -feet really solves the issue. Fisehersaid it may a best if the Commi sign used the common sense approach nd worked with in the Ordinance as i is� Commissioner Grabie{ -said - maybe -it-would belearer to define "neighborhood" Page 7 of 11 Commissioner Carr stated she agrees the rezoning makes sense; it's a good land use choice; however, she said she continues to be co cerned with the two driveways. Carr said it's not only a safety issue for her but an aestheti� is�ue. She suggested revisiting- this - concept.. Comaiissioner_S r a ne`r Plan. Olannerfieague responded the Co residential. Schroeder commented that it compliance with the Comprehensive PI n. rezoning; pointing out this parcel is also Schroeder also added he is concerned If it may need to be revisited. Mr. Mortens n the street or in the driveways. He also c apartment building has a guest lot. Commissioner Carr complemented Mr building. Commissioner Forrest stated she flexibility this design provides for; Commissioner Kilberg said- aipplauds t enhanced street view. Kil prg said in his to give it a more residential feel. A lands Lague how this area is guid d i the Cod �hensive Plan guides this area as IoW ensity�aFeed appears the rezoning moves t is p�re=ore into Continuing, Schroeder said h c support the acent to an apartment bi�ildi g and other multiples. guest parking and tl� corn on areas, adding that aid in this area g s�-parki g is accommodated on ;ed the near is "ram parking and the adjacent �� non his inter, st i developing a sustainable i I � the concept of the shared front door and the t "age in place ". I project; however �ould like to see a more )i�ion character ne'ds to be added to the structure pi g should also beAeVeloped. Chair Staunton edTmented that the propbseo new home(s) si s on a hill and asked Mortenson if he knows how the height of the old andlne buildings comp res. Mr. Mortenson responded that he belieyes,the new structure would a igher than what!exi�ts today; possibly by six -feet. Chair Staunto0aid in summary he believes the request to reion6 the subject site and build a double dwell" wellirunit makes sense; however, there are concerns with drainage, building design, profile, garage acce�ssaar ch- building-- height/that -needxo- be_furtl er addressedan&clarified. Planner Teague informed Mr. Mortenson that the Sketch Plah will be forwarded to the City Council for their feedback before formal application is made. Chair Staunton suggested to Mr. Mortenson that he provide the City Council with a narrative explaining their intent and final goal. C. Tree Preservation Ordinance Planner Presentation Planner Teague reminded the Commission that this was discussed at their previous meeting on January 8'. Teague thanked Commissioners Platter and Carr for their work on the Tree Page 4 of 6 Ordinance and reported that at this time the City's attorney is reviewing the language, adding at first look the Attorney is considering placing this Ordinance in 41 1 /Residential Reconstruction Comments /Discussion Chair Staunton observed that it may make sense to place it there; however, 411 only addresses tear down rebuilds. Commissioner Platteter said the revisions to the proposed Tree Ordinance were to capture canopy width, protected tree removal one for one, trees not identified as a protected species removable and capture a more inclusive "tree family" protected list. Commissioner Carr said their research found that in general language referred to "family of trees" and questioned if omitting the "species" list adding "family of trees" would serve the Ordinance better. Chair Staunton said in reference to species or family of trees it has always been difficult to know if too inclusive or less is best in any Ordinance language. Commissioner Schroeder commented that in his opinion in this instance the City may want the advice of the City Forester in determining tree preservation. He said defining "family of trees" can be very complicated. Schroeder referred to the Ordinance part 2 6. B. disease resistant as another instance where Forester input would be valuable. He pointed out in #5 it indicates "if a protected tree is less than 5" in caliper, it must be moved to another location on the property, if impacted by areas in paragraph (7) below ". Schroeder said not all trees of that size are worth moving, and in his opinion the City should have the forester review the tree before it's moved. Concluding, Schroeder said his focus and sensitivity is to the impact provided by the existing canopy of all trees and if that canopy is lost regardless of the tree, protected or not, that canopy is sorely missed and the Tree Ordinance should address this loss. Platteter said he agrees with Commissioner Schroeder about the importance of the tree canopy; however found it difficult to write an ordinance that would reflect that. Commissioner Scherer stated that in her opinion the Ordinance should be clearer; she noted "demo permits" and "building permits" are also required for internal modifications, adding a tree inventory should not be required for internal modifications. Commissioners agreed. Scherer also noted she recently had a bathroom updated, adding that required multiple building permits; however, in no way impacted trees. Concluding, Scherer said the intent of the proposed Ordinance needs to be clearer, adding originally she thought that this Ordinance applied to only tear down rebuilt properties. Commissioner Platteter said the intent of the tree ordinance is to require a tree inventory for teardown rebuilds and any house modification that requires a building permit or demolition permit. Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Forrest said she likes the way the Ordinance is written; pointing out a permit is required for a new roof, adding roofers should be made aware of the trees on the site and keep their protection in mind during the roofing process. Commissioner Scherer reiterated in her opinion further clarification is needed; especially with #12. Chair Staunton commented that when considering the suggestion from the City Attorney to place the Tree Ordinance in 411 in his opinion that location may not work. He pointed out as previously mentioned 411 is drafted solely for teardowns and rebuilds. Commissioner Platteter acknowledged that point, reiterating the intent of this Ordinance applies to anything that modifies a house size plus tear downs rebuilds. Staunton agreed adding the Commission isn't interested in inserting ourselves unless there is structural modification going on. Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Potts questioned if the trees would be required to be depicted on a survey or some type of tree inventory document. Commissioners Platteter and Carr commented their intent at this time was to require a tree inventory; however there are options, the tree inventory can be depicted on the survey, but if not, a separate document would be required. The discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement to move forward with the Tree Ordinance; however, tweak it as discussed for final draft review at the next Commission meeting on February 26`h. The final draft would be forwarded to the City Council for their comments and review. VII. CORRESPONDENC ND- PETITIONS Chair Staunton acknov0e5lged back of pa�kkgt may e�ials, Council Connection and Attendance. VIII. CHAIR AND C3;C,MMISSION>MP MBER COMMENTS None. IX. STAFF CC None. X. ADJOURP Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. k 15 \PM. Commissioner Scherer Respectfully submitted Page 6 of 6 i , Co� ssiorer Sc>�ederltol the Commission he likes the I catlio of th drive =tough and the way tmass of the building addr ses the street/highhwway. chroede ugg�d that the applicant find a way to work with MNDOT to he mutual bene t 6f both a provi a etter fencing and landscaping to help create a signature look for hi buildi Sch oe ed r pointed o t t is building is very visible and a gateway into Edina off the freeway, IDo olis r onded he would be ha py to work with MNDOT'and asked if the City could help facilitate th connection � 1 Chair Pla ere elmis ion comments and said he fully) su ports working with the Temple on the cr sem' ent arrangeren . Platteter also suggested thathe ubject site; adjacent property to the ¢st, a wit h eac ot>t other to create -- the west redeye opmen lots as- possible, Platteter tha tae applicant forhis-presentation (— - - -- — -_ D. Tree Preservation Ordinance Planner Presentation Planner Teague reminded the Commission they have been discussing the proposed tree ordinance for the past couple meetings adding changes were made to the previous draft that need to be discussed. Teague said included in the revisions was the following: Sec. 10 -82. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for . accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. Sec. 10 -82 (4) added subject to review of the city forester. The caliper of Protected Trees shall be measured at four and one half feet (45) above the ground. b. Protected Trees removed in subparagraphs a. and b. above must be replaced with one (1) tree, subject to the species listed above in (2) Definitions and the conditions listed in subparagraphs 1. Through e. of paragraph 5 above; and finally; (8) The survey must indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during construction subject to staff review and approval. Teague also noted that the public hearing on the Tree Preservation Ordinance has been set for February 26, 2014. Discussion Commissioner Grabiel said he has one concern which has to do with the City Forester. He said in his opinion the Forester needs a standard rationale statement and /or policy as he reviews trees. Page 13 of 14 Commissioner Schroeder stated he still is concerned about removing trees that aren't protected; noting they provide significant canopy and ecological aesthetics. Schroeder said he would prefer to see a I - I replacement requirement also for removable trees. Platteter said he agrees with that comment, adding this could be addressed and discussed at the public hearing level. Commissioners agreed the public hearing would be the place to get final feedback. Commissioners indicated the revisions are acceptable and indicated they look forward to the public hearing on March 4th. JI1. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Platteter ac nowled�ed�ack et materials. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MENTS Commissioner Carr reported that �tly thin Living Streets coon ittee has b n meeting and making progress. Carr said that the committee rece discussed waters bed , issue Chair Platteter stated that he believ slat the Commissidns �xt meeting (26th) they will be saying goodbye to Commissioners Grabiel n Fischer. X. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague reported that��t t �quncil heard the s et h plan review on the double proposed for West 49� Street. Teagd the duncil; like the Co m lion, supported the use; however believed the plan needed revisions. Th applicant indicated a would be back with another plan. XI. nis Jeer AD URNMENT / 1 i9rier Scherer moved mee�tirig adjournment the motion. All voted ay�; motion to adjou 110:05 PM. Commissioner Fischer tarried. Respectfully submitted. Page 14 of 14 noted that there is the option to vote their desire for housing and acknowle will be entering into a long term relatic suggest that a statement be added indi( was acknowledged that statement may the applicant needs to be aware that tF missed opportunities to ensure that th Commissioner Grabiel moved to Development District to PUD, PI, Plan subject to staff findings and s seconded a motion. / inst the proposal as st I that in the end becai hip and partnership w ng where appropriate too general. Com .ity expects thineX to has measureable m prelimi to staff cond liminary rezoning was further itted. Co sioners reiterated of the Ppe of this project the City ;he pplicant. Commissioners did ,0 would be included; however it ners did state with a PUD rezoning �rn. Approval should not create s during the process. ning from MDD -6, Mixed an Overall Development nmissioner Fischer A discussion ensued on how tl}� ty can e�isure that the condition f�r approval are met. Of concern were the recommendatio/ns,6�creating a e reational system that pro otes walking, health and wellness and the incorporation o'P blic art. It wa oted that these measuros ould be completed through alignment with the a moved TIF. Further�di cussion also noted that th City continues to reserve the right to "drill dovy jplans at final approval t� achieve the goals outlir eTin the findings and conditions. Commissjep' Schroeder offered an ri endment recommending that a recreational systenytha't promotes walking, healt and wellness be impl�m nted in alignment with the TIF P� n through a development agr ement between the C hand the Developer. Chair Grabiel_and_Commissioner_Eisc-ber-accep Chair Staunton called for the vote; Ayes, Scherer, Schroeder, Fischer, Potts, Carr, Forrest, Grabiel, Staunton. Abstain, Platteter. Motion to approve carried. C. Tree Preservation Ordinance Presentation Planner Teague reminded the Commission they tabled this issue at their last meeting requesting minor revisions to the Ordinance. Teague stated the revisions were made. He also noted that at the last meeting the Commission requested that additional information on staffing be supplied for the enforcement of the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Scherer asked Planner Teague if he knows the cost of a certified tree inventory and who the enforcement officer would be. Planner Teague said at this time he doesn't know what the cost would be for a certified tree inventory and discussions continue on who would enforce the ordinance. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Page 11 of 13 Public Testimon John Crabtree, 5408 Oaklawn Avenue said that while he understands the proposed ordinance he wonders if the City is requiring more trees than can be sustained on one lot. Crabtree also questioned how far the City is willing to go if someone doesn't comply with the new ordinance. Concluding, Crabtree said one must always be careful of unintended consequences. Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none Commissioner Scherer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Discussion A discussion ensued with Commissioners noting that the proposed ordinance could create difficulties in areas where trees need to be removed without penalty (i.e. utilities). Commissioner Platteter said the Commission could ask the City to work with the utility companies on tree removal or preservation in utility easement areas. Commissioner Platteter explained that the proposed ordinance was to save trees, adding in his neighborhood specifically all trees were taken down on a tear down rebuild lot. Platteter said for a developer it may be easier to just cut the trees down and not save them. Concluding, Platteter said the way new houses are popping into certain areas of the City the tree canopy can be lost completely. Commissioner Schroeder said as he has mentioned many times that the tree canopy is important regardless of the tree species. The trees and their canopy both contribute to the character of the City. Schroeder suggested with non - protected trees that a variance process could be implemented to address non protected tree removal, adding buckthorn is undesirable; however, does provide cover. Continuing, Schroeder said in his opinion the City Forester should make the final judgment on all trees. Commissioner Forrest inquired who will do the monitoring of the trees and who will pick where the replacement trees go. She noted Buckthorn is an evasive species that can be removed without issue. Continuing, Forrest commented what happens if a resident wants to cut down trees to create garden area. She noted the issue is complex. Commissioner Grabiel said on this issue he has leaned one way than another. Grabiel said there are many valid points about when a tree can be removed without issue and when it requires replacement. Grabiel said in his opinion if any tree is taken down a permit should be required and possible replacement regardless of species. Chair Staunton said in his opinion putting tree replacement in construction context is a good start. Staunton further agreed there is a question with enforcement and how that will be calibrated. Commissioner Platteter said that the ordinance as proposed is a start; he noted that in some City's they even require permits to trim trees and other vegetation. Platteter said this ordinance hasn't gone that far but in the future that could be a possibility. The discussion continued with the Commission directing staff to look into the enforcement issues and cost and bring back those findings at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Page 12 of 13 Planner Teague said in response to comments that there would be additional fees for a resident to provide a certified tree survey, adding much would depend on who does the inventory. Teague said in his opinion a surveyor would probably do the inventory because the City is requiring a certified inventory. Teague said enforcement would be another issue and pointed out currently the forester is a part time position that focuses on the City's public land. Teague concluded that the Council would ultimately decide on the staffing issues. Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to bring the Tree Preservation Ordinance back to the Commission at their next meeting providing some background on enforcement issues and make minor changes to the ordinance. VI1. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Staunton acknowle ge ackzo�t materials. VIII. CHAIR AND Chari Staunton reminded the Conimi. Attorney Roger Knutson will present ideas to send those questionshdeas�'tc Chair Staunton said it is now time to fill out Commissioner Carpenter's t'r Commissioner Fisher for stepping in I honor serving the City and working , Commissioner Staunton said it is also service on the Planning Commissio . Staunton concluded that he woyrl deg Chair Staunton for his words/and said the quality of people tha Qrved on tl is blessed with talentp residents and IX. N COMME ;ion that on March 2 ^d at the Seniorr� enter from 9-11 am City � workshop. Staunlrto said if any mmissioner has questions or Planner Teague so he can fo d them to Knutson. in to y another goodbye to -commissioner Fischer who stepped when he retir h it Staunton and the Commission thanked fill out Car ers r . Commissioner Fischer said in was an t the C rssion a d tall for all these years. �-to' say goodbye to��C mmissioner Grabiel for his 9 -years of rnton said Commrssr n Veto iel would be sorely missed. miss Commission Commissioner Grabiel thanked ras his honor and pri 'lerve th4 City and to work with lanning Commission a City' tall. Grabiel said the City ed it was a pleasure serve 1 Commissidner F�swedimeeting adjournment at 11:35 PM. commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion. Ail.vcited =aye; motion to adjourn. carried. )aCl�,�e 1- I"DDa12V�Gilel�Zt'.Y Respectfully submitted Page 13 of 13 Foj r_rest; P er, CLee,-P tts,-0Ison�1 nil -- Commissioner Lee commented in beih g new t overall volume of the subject structur . nc reduces the mass by off erin the-f6e- in��th 64 A straight up e�x pansim withoutacTcnovJied ing that reducearolume m#`�i -T - e wise.- -Wolume 5chreeder. Motion - I- Nis aces that-she has a concern with the �d�Ulcture e subject house has a hipped roof which �t is moving away from the setback line. he rchitectural features of the existing home ould also be considered VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. City Code Amendment - Tree Preservation � Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to give a brief overview on the Commissions progress on the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. Planner Presentation Planner Teague reminded the Commission the Tree Preservation Ordinance adoption was continued to allow for suggested revisions to the Ordinance. Teague summarized the following revisions and requirements: • The ordinance applies to all demolition permits including those for accessory structures including a garage, deck or pool. • All permits are required to include a certified tree inventory plan • Protected trees include birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden locust, maple (except silver maple) Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. • Healthy protected trees that are removed within a building pad, or a 10 -foot radius of the building pad or within a driveway or parking area must be replaced I to 1. • Any protected healthy tree that is removed within 10 -feet of the building pad or within the driveway or parking area must be replaced 2 to 1. • Protected trees much be protected during construction; and • Staff is required to monitor all construction projects with protected trees and /or replacement trees to ensure that all trees are properly established for three years. Concluding, Teague also noted there would be staffing concerns; however, this would be a decision of the City Council in regard to staffing. Discussion Chair Staunton commented that the Ordinance only applies to tree removal one year prior to construction not after. He noted that trees could be removed after the final CO was issued. Commissioners agreed with that statement. A discussion ensued with Commissioners supporting the revisions as referenced. Page 4 of 7 Commissioners did express hesitation on #4 of the proposed Ordinance and compatibility between numbers 5 and 7. It was further discussed that a variance process should be considered if for any reason a property owner cannot comply with the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. Further discussion focused on cost issues for the City (staffing) and property owners. It was further pointed out that "relocating" a tree may be more expensive than replacing a tree; and if a property owner could have an option. Motion Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend approval of the Tree Preservation Ordinance with the following revisions: • Delete paragraph #4 • #7 — Remove underlined text and replace it with like text found in #5. • Add a paragraph that establishes a variance process. Commissioner Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commissioner Platteter stated he is also waiting for comment from the Energy and Environment Commission on the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. Platteter said he hopes to have their response by the time the City Council hears the Ordinance. Platteter stated he anticipates that the City Council will review the proposed Tree Ordinance at their April 22, 2014, meeting. Chair Staunton thanked everyone for their effort during this process adding Tree Preservation can now be removed from the Commission's Work Plan. B. Wooddale andlValtb,, View R7,!��siorners all Area Plan Chair Staunton told the Co\i sio Co Platteter and Forrest are working with Ch � City Staff on implementing a small rea relis for the Wooddale and Valley View area. Staunton noted that the small area plan for t a included in the Commission's 2014 Work Plan. Platteter reported that Karen Kurt/, �ssista t �i Manager is also a member of the City staff he and Forrest will be working with �n this plan�orl�missioner Platteter delivered a power point presentation outlining for t�C,6mmission a bro d �yerview of the process. Platteter and Forrest stood for questio / Commissioner Carr su usted considering adding an .a iti nal staff resource from either the Transportation Comriis 'ion or Living Streets Committee orld itional input; especially as it relates to transpor�t� and streets. Commissioner orrest also noted that this neighborhood is a "true" neighborhood node that has the potential to be heavily utilized by neighbors. Page 5 of 7 City Hall • Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: March 12, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: City Code Amendment Consideration — Tree Preservation MEMO 49SN�1r� oeA =� N✓J `P �y The Planning Commission tabled this item at the February 26, 2014 meeting, and requested that some revisions be made to the proposed Ordinance. Additionally, the Commission requested additional information on staffing required for enforcement of the Ordinance. Revisions have been made to the Ordinance as recommended by the Commission; those changes are underlined on the attached Draft Ordinance. Information in regard to staffing concerns, are highlighted on page 2 of this memo. The following is a summary of the proposed Ordinance: ➢ This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. ➢ All such permits are required to include a certified tree inventory plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, and approximate height and, canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show if any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and size of all replacement tree(s). ➢ Trees to be protected under this Ordinance include: birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden, locust, maple (except silver maple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. ➢ Any healthy protected tree that is removed within a building.pad, or a 10. -foot radius of the building pad or within a driveway or parking area must be, replaced. -,F to, I:, City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO o e V � .ay ➢ Any healthy protected tree that is removed as part of a demolition permit; building permit application for a structural addition; or building permits for accessory structure that is outside of the building pad, within 10 feet of the building pad or within the driveway or parking area must be replaced 2 to 1. ➢ Protected Trees to remain must be protected during construction. ➢ Staff is required to monitor all construction projects with Protected Trees and /or replacement trees to ensure that all trees are properly established for three years. The proposed Ordinance would add an expense to a building permit for inclusion of the certified tree inventory. This would be done by the surveyor either on the main survey submitted with the building permit, or on a separate survey. In either case, the surveyor would be responsible for siting trees on the property and developing a plan for relocation and placement of new trees, and showing them on the survey. Ordinance Enforcement Enforcement of the Ordinance would likely require additional staffing. The city forester is currently a part time position (34 hours per week on average). The forester has reviewed the proposed Ordinance, and believes that an additional staff person (possibly part time) would be required to adequately enforce the Ordinance, and still maintain the level of service that they currently provide. The primary focus of the forester is on the city's 600= 800 acres of public land; although he does occasionally work with residents regarding tree issues on private property. The new ordinance would require the following additional staff review: • Review of the "tree plan" as part of the building permit. This is the review of the survey showing existing trees, those that would be removed, and those proposed to be planted. Given the last couple years of permit activity, this could be between 150 -200 permits per year; this would include new home construction after a tear down and additions to existing homes. • Inspection of each of these construction sites. To ensure compliance with the proposed plans and protection of existing.trees on site. • On -going monitoring. The code requires staff monitoring for three years. Potentially, that could mean that up to 600 sites would be actively monitored. This would ultimately be a decision of the City Council in regard to staffing. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Draft 3 -12 -2014 ORDINANCE NO. 2014-_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Chapter 10, Article -III of the Edina City Code is amended to add Division 3 as follows: DIVISION III. TREE PROTECTION Sec. 10 -82. Preservation, protection and replacement of Protected Trees: This ordinance applies to all demolition permits; building permit applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool. (1) Purpose: Edina is fortunate to have a robust inventory of mature trees that form an integral part of the unique character and history of the city, and that contribute to the long -term aesthetic, environmental, and economic well -being of the city. The purpose of the ordinance is to: Preserve and grow Edina's tree canopy cover by protecting mature trees throughout the city.' b. Protect and enhance property values by conserving and adding to the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of Edina's tree population. c. Protect and enhance the distinctive character of Edina's neighborhoods d. Improve the quality of life for all stakeholders, including city residents, visitors and wildlife. e. Protect the environment by the filtering of air and soil pollutants, increasing oxygen levels and reducing CO2; managing erosion and stormwater by stabilizing soils; reducing heat convection; decreasing wind speeds; reducing noise pollution and decreasing the urban heat island effect. ;f. Protect and maintain healthy trees in the development and building permit processes as set forth herein; and prevent tree loss by eliminating or reducing compacted fill and excavation near tree roots., Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — ink (2) Definitions: Protected Tree: Any tree of the birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemlock, hickory, ironwood, linden, locust, maple (except silver maple), Norway pine, oak, spruce and white pine varieties. Removable Tree. Any tree not defined as a Protected Tree, or as defined as an invasive species as defined by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (3) Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventory plan indicating where Protected Trees are located and, their species, caliper, and approximate height and canopy width. The plan must show how Protected Trees are preserved and protected during construction. The plan must also show if any Protected Trees are proposed to be removed and the location, species and size of all replacement tree(s). (4) If a Protected Tree is less than five inches (5 ") in caliper it must be moved to another location on the property, if impacted by areas in paragraph (7) below,, subject to review of the city forester. The caliper of Protected Trees shall be measured at four and one -half feet (4.5') above the ground. (5) If a Protected Tree is removed, except as allowed for in paragraph (7), it must be replaced with two (2) trees, subject to.the following conditions:; a. Replacement trees must be varied by species and are limited to the species listed above in (2) Definitions. b. Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or infestations. Disease or infestation resistant species and cultivars are allowed.. C. Replacement trees must be at least two and one -half inches (2.5 ") in caliper for deciduous trees and a minimum of seven feet (7') tall for coniferous trees. Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester before implementation. e. If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must be placed in a public area, subject to approval by the City Forester. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —X Added text —XXXX (6) Protected Trees may be removed, in the following areas: a. Including, and within a ten -foot (10') radius of, the building pad of a new or, remodeled building. b. Within driveways and parking areas. Protected Trees removed in subparagraphs a. and b. above must be replaced with. one (1) tree, subject to the species listed above in (2) Definitions and the conditions listed in subparagraphs a. through e. of paragraph 5 above., (7) Removable trees five inches (5 ") or less in caliper may be removed for any development or building permit, without replacement. Removable trees greater than five inches (51 must be replaced at a 1 to 1 ratio. If a Protected Tree is dead, diseased or hazardous it must be approved by the City Forester before removal. (8) During the demolition and building permit processes, the permit holder shall not leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent injury, to the Protected Tree, in connection with such construction. The survey must indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected_ during construction, subject to staff review and approval. City staff monitoring is required for all projects with affected Protected Trees and /or replacement trees to ensure that all such trees are properly established and maintained for three (3) years. Tree protection during construction is subject to the city's Construction Management Plan (CMP). (9) If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date the development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted, these Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy set forth in paragraph (4) above. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk 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 Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — XXXX day of , 2014. City Clerk 4 To: Cary Teague From: Scott Busyn - Great Neighborhood Homes Subject Proposed Tree Protection Ordinance Date: February 19, 2014 Hi Cary, I wanted to pass on my feedback on the proposed tree protection ordinance from the perspective as a 25 year resident as well as a builder who has built over 40 infill homes in Edina over the past 7 years. Before I begin, I have to disclose that I like trees and as a builder dislike the large expense of removing them! In other words, I will do whatever I can to keep as many trees as I can when building a new home. 1. The tree ordinance seems to single out property owners who pull demo or building permits. If we are really concerned about tree protection, why are we only tasking this subgroup with tree protection? Seems discriminatory against those that are already investing in adding value to the community. Why not have it apply to all property owners? Based on the feedback for the Residential Development Coordinator, concerns about tree removal recorded a paltry 2% of all complaints. Is the Planning Commission once again trying to come up with a solution without a problem? In doing an informal drive around last week, it seems that most teardown /rebuilds keep most of the existing trees on the site. Trees are expensive to remove, and most builders try to work around the existing tree inventory on the site. 2. It seems odd that the Planning Commission is putting all this energy into protecting trees on construction sites when nothing is being done to date regarding the larger city wide tree preservation issues in Edina. Dutch Elm and Emerald Ash Borer are a looming threat to our tree canopy, much greater of a threat than residential construction. Many stretches of France Avenue, 50th Street, Valley View, etc have huge stretches where there are no boulevard trees in the city easements. Other cities around us seem smarter about focusing their energy on the strategies that will have more impact than just the construction sites. Builders are easy targets since they need to pull a permit, but is this where we should be focusing our energies? 3. The proposed tree ordinance is just one more layer of regulation Edina is adding onto the many layers of regulation on building and remodeling in Edina. In the past few years, we have added over $10,000 to the cost of a home for the increased cost of demo permits, surveys, stormwater management plans, soil tests, residential development coordinators, etc. In addition, these added layers of bureaucracy have increased the time it takes to get a permit approved as well as the amount of communication between builder and the new building bureaucracy in Edina. This has distracted good builders from being on the site and working with neighbors /clients on executing the project. Now you want to add another layer of regulation, fees, costs, etc for tree preservation and it sounds like you want to hire more regulators to make it more expensive and cumbersome. The net affect of all this regulation to good builders like us is zero changes to how we run our business except the distraction and workload of paperwork which keeps us away from doing the best we can on jobsites. With upcoming changes to building code including mandatory sprinklers I don't know how these out of control costs will affect the demand for new housing in Edina. 4. The ordinance as written is overly complex and hard to execute. If you must have an ordinance it should be simplified and not require all the steps, documentation, and expense. For example, we already provide tree inventories on existing conditions surveys for demo permits. We don't need the added expense of a certified tree inventory plan. The added layers of inspection (up to three years out!) seem impractical. S. Tree protection during construction: This needs to be defined. I am sure an arborist will want fencing at the dripline. As the dripline on many sites may cover the entire site, this is not feasible. Not only do we need access to the site, but worker safety needs to trump tree protection if we are not giving workers adequate room to work. Contractor should have final call on this as he is responsible for building the home and the safety of the workers. 6. Tree inventory plan: It is unrealistic that we will know what species replacement trees will be when we apply for a demo permit. You are asking us to alter our design process with clients. We don't typically do landscape plans until later in the project and the house is framed up. 7. Moving Trees: This is a very bad idea. Moving trees rips out 80% of the absorbing root system. Plus most small caliper trees are usually volunteer trees that were poorly planned allowed to grow in a random location. Plus moving a bad tree on a construction site that will have a lot of activity will further threaten its survival. Finally, to force a homeowner to keep a tree they may not like is just too much government control. 8. I don't like the added layers of inspections. You are requiring the City Forestor to approve replacement tree plans. This just adds more time and workload for the builder /homeowner, as well as requiring the obvious need to hire more city staff. 9. Other areas you need to allow protected trees to be removed: patios, utilities (gas, sewer, water, electrical). 10. Staff monitoring of trees for three years: Again, very cumbersome and requiring adding forestry staff. Not necessary. If a homeowner pays someone to install a new tree on their site, they expect that the tree survives. Plus, the installer typically provides a warranty on the tree. These are the market forces that will promote the health of our trees. We don't need a nanny state to watch over our trees. Again, this seems like a very complex ordinance, requiring a lot of staff and expense /workload for homeowners /builders. After driving around looking at jobsites this doesn't seem to be a problem needing a solution. I recommending scrapping this ordinance and shifting the Planning Commission's focus on more comprehensive tree programs for the city. This ordinance is extreme, punitive against property owners, and not in the interests of our citizens. Thanks, Scott Busyn 4615 Wooddale Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Cary Teague From: Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 201410:37 AM To: Cary Teague Subject: RE: Tree Ordinance Ca ry, Thanks for your email. I zipped through the proposed ordinance quickly ... but here are my initial thoughts: 1. The extensive "purpose" cited indeed seems to be well intentioned. Therefore, if this is such a high priority of the City then why is it not for all property in the City (existing homes, new homes, remodels, golf courses, commercial properties, etc...)? I know one of the local golf courses took down 90 trees this winter. I suggest if the City wants to "preserve the canopy" then let's take it seriously and include all trees, City wide. 2. Wouldn't this ordinance, as drafted, essentially create covenants that would be required to travel with properties as they are sold based on paragraph 8? What will this do to property values for this singled out homes that now have "covenants "? 3. How many properties a year would this affect? How much strain does it put on the City Forrester? How much does the City Forrester staff need to grow? How does this get paid for? 4. How much cost will this add to the permitting homeowner to do a required certified tree inventory? 5. Per paragraph #4, what if a homeowner "moves" a tree and it doesn't survive? Who is going to police this? How will enforcement be paid for? 6. If I want to add a play -set in my backyard for my kids to improve the quality of their life and take a tree down can I? What about a shed? What about removing a tree for a vegetable garden? Or to allow sunlight to reach a vegetable garden? My quick two cents. Feel free to contact me if you need to. Thanks again for reaching out to me. Andy Porter REFINED Cell: 612.991.9301 Fax: 952.303.3170 Email: aporter @RefinedLLC.com www.RefinedLLC.com Cary Teague rom: aporter @refinedIlc.com Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 9:24 AM To: Cary Teague; Cary Teague Subject: Planning Commissioner correction Ca ry, I viewed the most recent Planning Commission meeting related to the possible tree preservation ordinance. I would like to point out one correction that needs to be made. Commissioner Paatteter spoke about the newly constructed home next to his personal home. He mentioned that he thought the home was a "spec" home and that the builder had clear cut the yard of many mature trees (3:51:55 on the video). The home, in fact, was not a "spec" home. Our company built the home specifically for a homeowner. Our Client decided they wanted to have the largest open backyard possible for their kids to play and thev decided to have the trees removed..... not unlike a homeowner of an existing home anywhere in Edina. We also built the home next to that one specifically for a homeowner. On that project we spent a lot of money to re- nourish and protect the mature chestnut tree in the front yard per our Clients direction. The Planning Commission should understand that the majority of the new homes we, and others, build are at the direction of our Homeowners. Same goes for the protection, trimming, or removal of their trees. Please make sure to ask the planning commission to make a correction to the Commissioner's statement. Thank you, Andy Porter REFINED Cell: 612.991.9301 Fax: 952.303.3170 Email: aporter(a)RefinedLLC.com www.RefinedLLC.com Cary Teague From: Ross Bintner Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 7:39 AM To: Cary Teague; Tom Horwath Subject: FW: EEC Postition on the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force's Proposed Tree Protection Ordinance See below from EEC member Latham. Ross Bintner, PE, Environmental Engineer j� `9 �' 952 - 903 -5713 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0392 RBintnerCcDEdinaMN.aov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Dianne Latham [mailto:Dianne @LathamPark.net] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 4:15 PM To: Ross Bintner Cc: Bill Sierks; John Heer; Keith Kostuch; Rebecca Foster Subject: EEC Postition on the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force's Proposed Tree Protection Ordinance 3 -14 -14 Ross, Please forward the following to the members of the Planning Commission, the members of the EEC, to Carry Teague and to Tom Horwath. At the 3 -13 -14 EEC meeting I was directed to draft EEC's response to the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force's proposed ordinance on Tree Preservation. The EEC response was to take the form of the findings of EEC's Urban Forest Task Force (UFTF) report. The UFTF report was approved by the EEC, then was approved by Council at the June 18, 2013 EEC /Council Work Session to move forward to the Park Board. The following can be incorporated into the EEC minutes for the 3 -13 -14 discussion on the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force's proposed Tree Preservation ordinance: The EEC's Urban Forest Task Force had substantially different findings than did the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force with respect to the need and scope of a tree preservation ordinance, as well as with respect to the best use of the City Forester's time. The UFTF found as follows: "The UFTF found that generally, there was little wonton removal of trees on public or private property within Edina other than in isolated instances. It is very costly to remove a mature tree and consequently trees are generally only removed in cases of disease or of relandscaping; such tree removals are not in need of regulation. When trees are removed in such circumstances they are generally replaced with new trees within a few years... Although teardowns occur throughout Edina, most complaints stem from those teardowns on lots less than 75 feet wide. As such the UFTF believed that it would not be prudent to design an ordinance applying to the entire city to address the localized problem of small lot teardowns. Problems unique to small lot teardowns should be addressed by the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force (RTF) and any enforcement accomplished by the proposed city teardown overseer. To more effectively control noxious weeds and address other environmental issues in the park system, the UFTF recommends hiring a full -time Natural Resource Manager, as opposed to a part-time Forester. More knowledge of ecology is required today given the arrival of many invasive plant, insect and aquatic species. A passive forestry program with a philosophy of 'Natural Forest Succession' and one primarily focused on tree diseases such as oak wilt and Dutch Elm Disease, is no longer adequate... With a full -time Natural Resource Manager the following can be accomplished: more grants can be applied for, more parks can be certified as Audubon Cooperative Sanctuaries, more trees can be planted, more buckthorn and other noxious weeds can be controlled, more habitat can be restored, and more educational programs can be offered to residents. In addition, full -time positions attract candidates with more extensive applicable natural resource education and more applicable experience as opposed to part-time positions." Dianne Plunkett Latham Commissioner, Edina Energy & Environment Commission Chair, EEC Urban Forest Task Force 7013 Comanche Ct. Edina MN 55439 -1004 952 - 941 -3542 Dianne @LathamPark.net Cary Teague From: Dianne Latham <Dianne @LathamPark.net> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 201411:10 AM To: Ann Swenson; James B. Hovland; Joni Bennett; Josh Sprague; Mary Brindle (Comcast) Cc: Scott Neal; Brian Olson; Tom Horwath; Edina Mail; Cary Teague Subject: Please Oppose the Proposed Tree Ordinance 5 -1 -14 Honorable Mayor Hovland and City Council Members, I am writing in opposition to the proposed Tree Ordinance because the proposed ordinance: 1. Far exceeds the scope of the perceived problem 2. Prevents residents from achieving alternative environmental objectives 3. Over reaches private property rights 4. Requires large amounts of nonexistent staff time 5. Unreasonably restricts work space in construction projects 6. Unreasonably restricts relandscaping options 7. Is impractical from a horticultural view point 8. Is vague in many places 9. Is easily circumvented, thus saving few trees 10. By forcing a landowner to donate trees to city parks when they cannot comply with the proposed ordinance, constitutes a tax on those seeking to renew and upgrade their property The proposed tree ordinance far exceeds the scope of the perceived problem The Energy and Environment Commission's (EEC) Urban Forest Task Force (UFTF) had substantially different findings than did the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force with respect to the need and scope of a tree preservation ordinance. The EEC's UFTF report states "The UFTF found that generally, there was little wonton removal of trees on public or private property within Edina other than in isolated instances. It is very costly to remove a mature tree and consequently trees are generally only removed in cases of disease or of relandscaping; such tree removals are not in need of regulation. When trees are removed in such circumstances they are generally replaced with new trees within a few years... Although teardowns occur throughout Edina, most complaints stem from those teardowns on lots less than 75 feet wide. As such the UFTF believed that it would not be prudent to design an ordinance applying to the entire city to address the localized problem of small lot teardowns. Problems unique to small lot teardowns should be addressed by the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force (RTF) and any enforcement accomplished by the proposed city teardown overseer." Michael Platteter of the Planning Commission indicated that at the Planning Commission's hearings on tear downs, 80% of those testifying did not mention tree removal as being a problem. Thus, the proposed tree ordinance far oversteps any possible need in instances of small lot tear downs, by applying not only to all tear downs, but also by applying to "all demolition permits; building permits applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool." Prevents residents from achieving alternative environmental objectives The ordinance requires: 1) Two for one replacement if any of 16 varieties of over story and large conifer Protected Trees of any size are removed more than 10 ft from the building pad and outside of the driveway or parking area. 2) One for one replacement of any Removable of over 5 inches in diameter including invasive species. 3) One to one replacement of a Protected Tree of any size, or Removable tree over 5 inches in diameter including invasive species within 10 ft of the building pad of a new or remodeled building or within driveways and parking areas. The replacement trees must be of one of the 16 specified varieties, all of which are very large at maturity. On small lots, one or two of these large trees in the front and back yard is about all that a lot could accommodate. On even a large lot (1/2 acre or more) doubling the number of Protected Trees through the two for one requirement of over story trees would completely shade the lot, if the lot could even accommodate the number of required trees and still allow them to be healthy. Although the specified over story and large conifer replacement trees constitute a worthwhile environmental objective, residents should not be compelled to landscape their lots for the resulting shade. Many worthy environmental objectives require sunny lots. This includes vegetable gardens, pollinator gardens and wildlife ponds. By restricting choices to just 16 varieties of trees, lots will begin to look quite similar. Small stature trees (15ft — 30ft) are eliminated because they are not on the list of specified replacement trees and there won't be room for them. Many of these small stature native trees have beautiful spring flowers, fall color and berries for birds. This includes Pagoda Dogwood, Service Berry or Nanny Berry. Many beautiful small stature ornamental trees such as Magnolia or Japanese Tree Lilac are similarly eliminated by being squeezed out a proposed landscape plan by the required over story and large conifer replacement trees. Oftentimes a small stature tree serves a small lot far better than larger trees, which can be out of scale with the small lot and overlap their neighbor's yards. It is important to encourage residents to invest in solar panels. The best time to design a home for solar panels is when a home is rebuilt or remodeled. Large designated replacement over story trees can prevent a homeowner or their neighbor from using solar panels, whereas smaller stature trees are compatible with them. The proposed tree ordinance prevents residents from achieving alternative environmental objectives for which they should .have the choice, and thus the ordinance far over reaches private property rights. Requires large amounts of nonexistent staff time The city forester is a part time 4/5 position whose time is presently fully engaged. Even if converted to a full time staff person the following requirements of the proposed ordinance could not be accomplished: 10.82 (6) Approve the removal of any Protected Tree if the owner proposes that it is "diseased or hazardous ". What constitutes diseased or hazardous? How diseased or hazardous does a tree need to be before it can be removed? The ordinance is vague. It is often extremely difficult to know if a tree is diseased to the extent that it must be removed. Homeowners could be left with trees that are not thriving. Conversely, a tree capable of recovery, with some horticultural assistance, could be taken down. These decisions should be left to homeowners. If the tree looks bad to the homeowner and they have the resources to remove it, they should have that option. To do otherwise oversteps private property rights. 10.82. (4) (d) "Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester before implementation" — Over 100 tear down permits have been issued for each of the past two or more years. If all the "demolition permits; building permits applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool" are added, the number would be much larger. And what is it that the City Forester is supposed to do with all these plans? No policy of guidelines state when he should approve or disapprove them. The ordinance is vague. 10.82 (4) (e)" If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must be placed in a public area, subject to approval by the City Forester." The ordinance is vague — what is a public area? Is it a city park? Boulevard? A large number of trees could be donated, which could over run the city's ability to find suitable locations, plant, mulch and water them. The EEC donated 16 small trees to Braemar Park and it was with some difficulty that enough places were found to plant them. The result was that the two large stature conifer seedlings were improperly planted in what was intended to be a prairie, which was supposed to be kept sunny. In addition, two deciduous over story trees were planted in an open area with peat under laying it, causing the trees to die. 10.82 (7) "The survey must indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during the construction, subject to staff review and approval." And what is it that the City Forester is supposed to do with the survey? No policy or guidelines state when he should approve or disapprove them. The ordinance is vague. 10.82 (7) "City staff monitoring is required for all projects with affected Protected Trees and/or replacement trees to ensure that all such trees are properly established and maintained for three (3) years." Multiply the number of annual demolition permits (tear down, remodeling, decks, garages, pools) times 3 and the City Forester will have a staggering number of trees to review annually. No one can guarantee that a newly planted tree will last for three years despite their best efforts. This is due to acts of God such as drought, insects, storms, etc. And what happens if the City Forester finds that a tree died? If it was not the homeowner's fault, should they have to replace it? How do you decide whose fault it is? The ordinance is vague. In 2002, both the Planning Commission and the City Council expressed concerns about the proposed 2002 tree ordinance proposal because the City Forester did not have enough time to comply with all the demands of the proposed ordinance. If anything, the demands of the proposed 2014 tree ordinance are greater than those of the 2002 proposed ordinance and most assuredly more impractical. To the extent that the City Forester has any surplus time, or to the extent that the City Forester position would be converted to a full time position, the EEC's Urban Forest Task Force had substantially different findings than did the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force with respect to the best use of the City Forester's time. The UFTF found as follows: "To more effectively control noxious weeds and address other environmental issues in the park system, the UFTF recommends hiring a full -time Natural Resource Manager, as opposed to a part-time Forester. More knowledge of ecology is required today given the arrival of many invasive plant, insect and aquatic species. A passive forestry program with a philosophy of `Natural Forest Succession' and one primarily focused on tree diseases such as oak wilt and Dutch Elm Disease, is no longer adequate... With a full -time Natural Resource Manager the following can be accomplished: more grants can be applied for, more parks can be certified as Audubon Cooperative Sanctuaries, more trees can be planted, more buckthorn and other noxious weeds can be controlled, more habitat can be,restored, and more educational programs can be offered to residents." Unreasonably restricts work space in construction projects The City of Minnetonka Tree Protection ordinance at City Code 300.28, Subd. 19 states that: "R=l: For the construction of a principal structure on a vacant R -1 lot or for redevelopment of an existing R -1 lot, protected trees may be removed with no mitigation only within the "basic removal area". The "basic removal area" is defined as: a. Within the areas improved for reasonably -sized driveways, parking areas and structures without frost footings and within ten feet around those improvements; b. Within the footprints of, and 20 feet around buildings with frost footings; and c. In areas where trees are being removed for ecological restoration in accordance with a city- approved restoration plan. Edina's proposed ordinance at 10.82 (5) only allows removal of trees within "a ten -foot (10') radius of the building pad of a new or remodeled building" (as opposed to Lake Minnetonka's 20 ft) and "within driveways and parking areas" (whereas Minnetonka gives these a 10 ft radius). Removed protected trees in Minnetonka's above ordinance need not be replaced, while Edina's must be replaced one for one. Contractors need room to work and the Lake Minnetonka Tree Ordinance provides that. Edina's proposed ordinance does not. Neighbors do not appreciate it when contractors leave construction materials on sidewalks, in streets or on their property as a result of having insufficient room in which to work. It would be very difficult to protect a tree, especially one in the front yard on a small lot less than 75 ft wide, which is filled with construction vehicles, equipment, tools and building materials. It would be more successful to remove the trees and relandscape, which probably needs to be redone anyway due to new sight lines and aging or overgrown trees. But here is the catch 22. The only complaints about tree removal seem to be coming from the neighbors of tear downs on small lots less than 75 ft wide, which tend to exist predominately in Morningside. With 750 residences, Morningside onstitutes 5% of the city's approximately 14,000 residences. Demolition permits elsewhere in the city do not result in tree removal complaints and have no need of regulation. If you give contractors the room they need to work as under the Lake Minnetonka Tree Ordinance, virtually no trees will be preserved in either the front yard or the side yard of tear downs on small lots less than 75 ft wide. Trees in the back yard would be protected, especially on deep lots, but few of those are being impacted in any event. I do not recommend even trying to preserve trees in the front or side yards on small lots less than 75 feet wide as it is grossly impractical given all the construction vehicles, equipment, tools and construction materials that must be amassed there. Furthermore, it is not good governance to design an ordinance that meets the needs of only 5% of the city. A city wide ordinance needs to be suitable for the vast majority of residents, and the proposed ordinance clearly is not. Unreasonably restricts relandscaping options When housing is renewed by virtue of a remodeling or a tear down project, so too must the landscaping be renewed. It is not possible for the city to micromanage this relandscaping process as too many personal choices must be made. With housing renewal, the sight lines change. If perfectly healthy mature tree what once made sense in its location, no longer does so, it must be removed. When we enlarged our deck and put in a pond and gazebo we found that that we had to remove two mature locust trees and one standard apple tree so that we could see the new landscape features from the new deck. We also found that the 5 mature pines along the back of the lot that screened us from the neighbor looked pretty threadbare after over 40 years of the utility company's repeated pruning to keep them off the power lines. We replaced them instead with four native Pagoda Dogwoods that would grow but 15 ft high and would not need any pruning by the utility company. They would furthermore provide flowers in the spring, fall color and berries for the birds. The service berry, planted near the pond does as well, plus being a small stature tree, it will never reach over to the pond and drop unwanted leaves into the pond. We also added an espalier of five honey crisp apples, one magnolia, one over story gingko tree seedling, two white pine seedlings, two 3 ft tall Techny Arborvitae and one 6 ft tall black hills spruce. In our remodeling and relandscaping project we removed a total of 7 mature trees, 6 of which would have been considered Protected Trees. We replaced them with 15 trees, only one of which would have been allowed from the list of required replacement trees and of the required size. Under the proposed ordinance we could not have landscaped our yard as we did. Our yard has been on many garden tours, won awards and been featured in magazines and newspapers. The proposed ordinance would have instead required us to plant 13 over story or large conifer trees from the approved list of 16 trees. With the 13 required (2 for 1 of the 6 protected trees and one for one of the one non protected tree) over story or large conifer trees, a shady yard would have resulted and we would not have been able to have a vegetable garden, pollinator garden, wildlife pond, or the small stature pagoda dogwood trees fitting in under the power lines and providing berries for birds. It took us a year to plan our relandscaping project using a professional landscape architect. There were multiple revisions of the plan. Surely the City Forester cannot be expected to become involved in such projects. The proposed ordinance far oversteps private property rights. If residents are forced to plant more over story and large conifers then they can use — where will they plant them so as to preserve their sunny yard? Most likely they will plant them on the property line where they will unreasonably shade their neighbor's yard and force their neighbor to rake their tree's leaves or trim those portions of the tree that overhang the neighbor's property. This will increase neighbor disputes. Vague Many instances where the ordinance is vague have been cited above. In addition, note the following: 10.82 (2) The list of Protected Trees needs to provide the scientific names, not common names. Birch can include paper birch, which is not suitable for zone 4. Maples can include Norway and Amur maple, which are on the DNR Do Not Plant list. Furthermore, the list is arbitrary and capricious and seeks to micromanage a resident's choice of trees. 10.82 (2) (b) Missing citation/URL for DNR list of invasive trees. Is it the intent to include trees from the DNR Do Not Plant list as well? If so, another citation/URL is needed. 4 10.82 (3) "Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventory." Certified by whom? 10.82 (4) (a) "Replacement trees must be varied" By how much? Does each have to be different? What percent can be alike? 10.82 (4) (b) "Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or infestations ". What is "known "? Is there a list of diseases or infestations? Known by whom? If a homeowner is not aware of it, is that sufficient? 10.82 (7) states "The permit holder shall not leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent injury to the Protected Tree in connection with such construction." What constitutes "sufficient "? What constitutes "injury"? During our garage enlargement project new footings extended 45" deep and the trench extended 3 feet from the trunk of a mature honey locust tree, which constitutes a Protected Tree under the proposed ordinance. Three inch diameter roots were severed and hung over the trench. Does that constitute an injury? What, if anything, would be required to protect such a tree? We did nothing. Would we have been in violation of the ordinance? If so, what is the penalty? Does the City Forester actually have to look into each construction trench and render an opinion? Tom Horwath, the City of Edina Forester, estimates that about 75% of trees in such situations survive. In fact, our trench tree is still thriving 9 years later behind the garage. Trying to regulate something that you really can't do much about is folly. Impractical from a horticultural view point Many instances where the ordinance is impractical have been cited above. Furthermore, the ordinance is impractical from many horticultural perspectives. This is undoubtedly because the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force, which drafted the proposed tree ordinance, neglected to invite the City of Edina Forester to a single meeting. The Energy and Environment Commission's Urban Forest Task Force had the Forester participate at every meeting. Sidewalks and Driveways - The proposed ordinance does not allow tree removal when a tree is immediately adjacent to a sidewalk or driveway, though Lake Minnetonka does. In these situations tree roots will cause the pavement to heave and become a tripping hazard. And who wants to have a tree right next to a drive way when you are backing out at night, or are backing out on a slippery surface. Trees next to driveways are well positioned for accidents. Trees within 10 feet of sidewalks and driveways need to be removed as provided in the Lake Minnetonka tree ordinance. Swimming Pools - Having to replace Protected Trees two for one when a swimming pool is being added is utterly impractical. Pools cannot have trees in proximity or they become dirty with leaves and other tree debris. Wildlife Pond — We added a wildlife pond in our relandscaping project. For these you cannot use chemicals to kill the mosquito larvae or you will poison the wildlife that comes to the pond. To control mosquito larvae you must add fish to the pond, which will eat the mosquito larvae. When you have fish you must have cover or the small pond becomes too hot during the summer and the fish die due to lack of oxygen in the water. The best way to do this is to add water plants such as water lilies, lotus, etc., as we did. These aquatic plants need sun, thus you can't have the over story trees as required by the ordinance in proximity to a wildlife pond. Such trees also cause the water to become dirty with tree debris, which negatively impacts the fish. Saplings — 10.82 (4) states "If a Protected Tree is removed... it must be replaced with two (2) trees" Tree seedlings in the list of 16 protected trees often come unbidden, carried in the air, by water, or by squirrels and other animals via their feces or through their food storage habits. No size is specified for a protected tree. Does this mean that every unbidden sapling/seedling must be replaced or allowed to grow? Conifers - 10.82 (4) (c) Requires replacement conifers to be at least 7 feet tall. Transplanting a large conifer over 6 feet tall is extremely expensive and difficult. The success rate of transplanting medium or large conifers is very poor. Our neighbor purchased a 6 ft pine and had it professionally planted. It died in less than a year and the landscaper would not honor the warranty as each pointed the finger at the other. As part of our relandscaping project we had a 6 ft black hills spruce professionally planted for $600. It lived but did not thrive. After ten years we had it removed. As part of the relandscaping project we also had two 3 ft tall Techny Arborvitae professionally planted. One died in less than a year and the landscaper replaced it. The two white pine seedlings that we planted as part of the relandscaping thrived and grew rapidly. Nine years later the seedlings are 6 ft tall. The smaller the tree the easier it is to transplant not only from a labor perspective but also from a success rate perspective. Requiring 7 ft conifers is expensive and more likely to fail. )vergrown Conifers — Turning overgrown conifers into Protected Trees discourages residents from removing them. Having overgrown conifers from in front of home doors and windows poses a security risk. Robbers often target homes with overgrown conifers obscuring entry ways. A former neighbor of mine was twice broken into by robbers who kicked in her front door. With overgrown conifers obscuring her front door the robbers could work with needed cover. Residents should not be penalized for removing overgrown conifers, which often are out of scale with the home as well as being positioned so as to become a security risk. Buckthorn and other weed trees - 10.82 (2) (b) includes buckthorn as a removable tree because it is defined by the MN DNR as an invasive species. 10.82 (6) states "If a removable Tree greater than five inches (5 ") is removed, it must be replaced with one tree." Drive through Indian Hills or any areas where there are large lots. There you will see many buckthorn trees greater than 5" in diameter. Requiring residents to replace these on a one for one basis would only discourage a homeowner from removing their buckthorn. Buckthorn is a shade tolerant understory tree, which grows closely together. Replacing them from among the sun loving trees on the required list of 16 trees would necessitate replacement trees being planted so closely together that the replacement trees could not thrive. This is highly impractical. And do you really want to compel residents to replace other Removable Trees such as weedy trees like silver maple, box elder, Siberian elm, etc? The resident likely did not plant them. They were volunteers that arrived unbidden and no one got around to weeding them out. The ordinance is easily circumvented, thus saving few trees 10.82 (8) states "If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date that the development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted, these Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy set forth in paragraph (4) above." 7t takes considerable time to plan a remodeling project. All a homeowner needs to do is to remove any Protected Tree one year and a day prior to applying for the permit, then spend the year planning their remodeling project before applying for a demolition permit. In the alternative, the resident could wait until the remodeling is finished, then begin the tree removal and relandscaping. A savvy developer will tell their prospective seller to do the tree removals prior to closing and then add the removal cost to the selling price of the home. The seller who removed the trees won't be applying for the permit, and by the time the developer /purchaser closes on the home and applies for the permit, the lot's Protected Tree survey will show a bare lot. In the alternative, a builder can simply donate trees to the city and raise the cost of an already high priced home. The bottom line is that if a property owner does not want a tree, it will be removed sooner or later and there is little that a city can do about it other than to educate residents about the value of trees, or perhaps provide discount trees for residents like the City of Plymouth does. With all the loop holes, the ordinance isn't really about protecting trees. It's about hurling roadblocks in front of developers in a misguided effort to discourage tear downs. Constitutes a tax on those seeking to renew and upgrade their property Forcing a landowner to donate trees to city parks when they cannot comply with the proposed ordinance constitutes a tax on those seeking to renew and upgrade their property. This has been done primarily to discourage tear downs on small lots less than 75 feet wide and has overzealously been extended to remodels, additions and pools on lots of all sizes. Solutions I believe that tree removals are not really the problem here. Trees are a renewable resource. No one builds a $500,000 - $1,000,000 home and then fails to relandscape with trees. Although they may not relandscape immediately, due to time and financial limitations, they will eventually relandscape. Developers are required to submit a landscape plan. That should be part of the meeting with the neighborhood. If the neighborhood meeting finds the landscape plan insufficient they should talk to the developer about it and work it out with the City tear down supervisor. If the tear down supervisor has some landscaping guidelines, the proposed ordinance is unnecessary. Residents can hardly complain about large trees being replaced with young trees because all their lots once had young trees when their homes were new. You need to constantly renew the urban forest before trees age out. You don't want to wait until a tree falls on your home or on another structure. Some residents have complained to me about tear downs. But when they sold their own homes, they sold them to developers who they knew planned to tear them down. They did so because the developers paid them more money. Residents cannot have it both ways. Let's face it, tree removal complaints are a smoke screen for the real complaint — tear downs. Council needs to solve the right problem, and it is NOT tree removals. Unless Council is willing to make Momingside or other affected small lot tear down areas a historic preservation district much like Country Club, or at least designate some homes in these areas for historic preservation, tear downs will continue. And frankly, some of the homes have been poorly maintained and do warrant being torn down and replaced with homes that are energy efficient and better meet the needs of modem families. But for the vast majority, it is a loss of affordable starter homes. If that loss is not of concern to Council, the accompanying tree loss should not be of concern to council. Whereas the trees can and undoubtedly will be replaced, the starter homes cannot be replaced. Everyone needs to understand that as long as it is legal to renew a home by remodeling it or tearing it down, so too must it be legal to renew the landscape to fit the renewed homes' needs. Micromanaging residents landscaping is nothing but a sink hole for city staff time and does little to preserve trees in the long run. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Dianne Plunkett Latham 7013 Comanche Ct Edina MN 55439 -1004 952- 941 -3542 Cary Teague rom: Dianne Latham <Dianne @ Latham Park.net> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 201411:31 AM To: Ann Swenson; James B. Hovland; Joni Bennett; Josh Sprague; Mary Brindle (Comcast) Cc: Tom Horwath; Brian Olson; Cary Teague; Edina Mail; Scott Neal Subject: Please Oppose Proposed Edina Tree Ordinance 5 -1 -14 Please include the following in the 5 -6 -14 City Council packet. Thank you. Dianne Plunkett Latham Edina Garden Council Chair, Conservation Committee 7013 Comanche Ct Edina MN 55439 -1004 952 - 941 -3542 From: Twinoaks500)aol.com [mailto:twinoaks50 @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:28 AM To: dianne @lathampark.net Subject: Cutting down Trees ii Dianne, Minnesota garden writer Don Engebretson (The Renegade Gardener) has some strong and humorous views on the right to cut down trees without replacing them. In light of the proposed tree ordinance, you may enjoy these columns. Elizabeth The 10 Tenets of Renegade Gardening Full version is required reading- hqp://www.renegadegardener.com/content/ttenets.htm 1. Gardening should be challenging, relaxing, and fun. 2. Renegade Gardeners are cautious and wise when perusing the plethora of products and plants sold by the commercial gardening industry. 3. Gardening involves commitment. 4. Renegade Gardeners learn the Latin names of the plants they grow. 5. Gardening is not always easy. 6. Renegade Gardeners come to realize that lawns are essentially a dumb idea. 7. Gardening and rock music do not mix. 8. Renegade Gardeners buy first from local growers. 9. There is nothing wrong with cutting down a tree on your property. 10. Irreverence is essential. "9. There is nothing wrong with cutting down a tree on your property. It's your tree, and just like any perennial, shrub, or concrete statue of a little boy with a fishing pole, for that matter, if it's fallen into disfavor, it's perfectly all right for you to make it go away. People have extrapolated news of the deforestation of the Brazilian rainforest into a belief that trees should no longer be cut down. Trees should no longer be cut down in the Brazilian rainforest because the loggers there are clear- cutting, lack any reforestation program, and ample substitutes are available for the hard woods being harvested. This has nothing to do with that damn spruce planted by a previous owner seven feet off the corner of your house that has had the audacity to attempt to grow twenty feet wide, or the white pine planted by the owner before that, that now sits half -dead under the sixty foot canopy of a red oak that, when planted, was the same height as the pine. If you want to plant a tree every time you cut one down, great, but if you remove a tree from your property because it's planted in a dumb spot, has been improperly pruned, succumbed to disease or storm damage, or simply impacts your ability to create the landscape you envision and you don't plant a tree afterwards, that's fine too. Never take any grief about it from the twelve year -old kids on your block, or their socialist parents, either. " On Cutting Down a Tree, or Three htta:// www. renegadegardener.com /content/81 cutdowntree.htm My neighbor Dave wandered into my yard the other day and we lied to each other about what we were planning to accomplish in our gardens by season's end. I mentioned one event definitely taking place on my humble half -acre during the winter: The removal of three excruciatingly mature trees (an oak, an elm, and, to be fair, a maple) from my front yard. Dave withered, slumped, his face grew white and his eyes started rolling back in their sockets. He recovered, gave a low whistle, looked at his shoes, shook his head. I knew what was coming. Since we were standing beside the maple, he started his cross - examination there. "You're going to take down this maple? This beautiful tree ?" he asked. The maple in question is forty-five feet tall will a crown width of around twenty -five feet. It's a Norway, Acer platanoides, referred to by many in these parts as a "black" maple. I pointed out to David that the tree in question had been pruned, badly, as a youngster, so that the trunk now splits into two large trunks at a point about seven feet above the ground. The dual trunks immediately curve in parallel to the southwest, and exhibit all manner of lesions, cracks, and wounds. The crown is jagged, lop- sided, and gives the impression the tree is off balance. It has never provided any noteworthy fall color display. Despite my pruning and the professional trimming I paid for a decade ago, it remains the ugliest maple in 7eephaven, and that's saying something. The final strike against it is that whereas it sits in a good spot for a tree, it's the wrong tree for the spot. It's too close to my house for a large tree, it's out of scale, it looms over and clutters my driveway, and it shades an area in front of my house for five hours in the afternoon. Plus, as I've already stated, it's ugly. A proper gardening solution? Remove it. The best advice I can give new gardeners, particularly those who have just purchased a home and yard, is FIX YOUR TREE SITUATION FIRST. Had I taken the maple out fifteen years ago, and planted in its spot the tree that Deephaven maples I'll be planting next spring (an Eastern Redbud), the redbud would be sixteen feet tall by now, nearing its max, and looking gorgeous. I'm always floored by people's reactions to the thought of having trees removed from their yards. Where I live, many of the trees in literally a thousand yards were not planned, were not planted as an element of landscape design. They just grew, maples especially. I refer to maples in ridiculous locations in a yard as a "Deephaven Maple," and every spring I remove over a hundred of them from my front, back and side yards. These trees are an inch or two tall and are sprouting up from the previous year's seed drop. Every spring, everyone in my neighborhood does the same. Fail to do it and ten years from now, one would have a thousand, twelve -foot maples growing on a half -acre lot. But that never bothers anyone, removing over a thousand maples from their yards in a decade, because they are young. But let a few grow until they cause problems, then cut one down, and you get anonymous letters in the mail. How many big trees were removed when my house was built in 1946? Ten? Twenty? Fourteen very large trees remained when I bought the house, so I imagine at least ten were given the ultimate prune by the builder when he put in the foundation and driveway. No one ever thinks about that. People who live in their $550,000 wood homes and decry the loss of six trees when a builder finally wrestles away ownership of an undeveloped lot across the street from them don't ever think about the fifteen trees that were cut down when their house was built. Or the forty that were cut down to supply the lumber for it. Two of my original fourteen trees — classic Deephaven Maples — were in my back yard, too close together, right off my patio, blocking the view from my kitchen and dining room windows. They existed for no reason except they hadn't been pulled by a previous owner when they were a few inches high. I neglected them, and one died, gratefully, following the drought of the early 1980s. When I took it out I took the other one out. Everyone hears about the deforestation of the various rain forests on the globe, particularly in South America, and many people curse logging (sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly), but these 3 situations don't equate to tree removal in residential landscapes. In fact, it's fair to say that the number of trees being planted (and new trees slowly working their way to one hundred - year -old status) in residential America are up from previous decades. Proof? Development of the southern, western, and northern, second -ring suburbs of Minneapolis — and probably your nearest city. These were farmlands, some as close as two miles from my current home. They were clear -cut by farmers one hundred and fifty years ago, and farmed for generations. Guess what? The U.S. doesn't need as much farmland as it once did; yield per acre is much higher than it was in the 1800s, or the 1950s, for that matter. All across Minnesota, treeless farmland is being turned into residential home developments, with, granted, ghastly street names. But my point is that trees are being planted, by the thousands across the Twin Cities, and by the millions across America. Builders are getting better at not dooming so many trees when they do build homes, and have learned not to change the soil level around trees they. want to save. New, disease resistant strains of trees, from crabapples to elms, are being developed and marketed, and nurseries can't keep up with demand from builders, landscapers and homeowners. Getting back to my trees, the maple, as discussed, is history. The elm is coming down (I explained to Dave) because it's very old, parts of it have been lost in numerous storms, and if I leave it up it will certainly go down in a storm, possibly on my house, within the next five years. It's also in a really dumb spot, smack in front of my house, up way too close. Deephaven maple after new home construction: Would you plant a tree there? The red oak, which sits eight feet from the elm, is a nice - looking tree but is also in a dumb spot, even closer to my house (twelve feet) than the elm. This oak is fifty feet tall and could well be one hundred years old. I've debated the oak, but decided finally to take it out because in my new front yard plan, I'd never put any type of tree where it stands. I'm having it removed in eight, ten and twelve -foot lengths, then calling up a friend of mine with a portable sawmill he tows behind his pickup. Come spring he'll saw it into 8" x 8 "s and 10" x 10 "s for use in an elaborate arbor structure I'm going to build off my home's new addition. I like that. I'm sure one reason the elm and the oak were left (they most certainly existed before the house was built, and were not planted as a part of any landscape plan) was to shade and cool the house. They sit directly south. Air conditioning was not available to the original owner in the 1940s, so these two trees provided shade to the roof and front of the house in summer, then lost their leaves and allowed the sun to shine on the house in the winter. Well, I put in central air conditioning four years ago. This opens up my options. So I'm taking three trees out. Big ones. Before you phone the Sierra Club and report me, may I also point out that I am planting three trees in my yard. I mentioned this to Dave and he was E immediately back to liking me, so I didn't mention that my planting three trees was shear coincidence. You don't need to plant a tree every time you take one down (see Tenet 11). Some people find that hard to believe. I was doing a yard consultation last week with a young couple down the road, nice house and lot, many beautiful trees, and as we walked around a corner of their house we came upon the second ugliest maple in Deephaven. Twenty years old, perhaps. A previous owner had hit the tree, repeatedly, with the mower blade, so that the trunk actually grew in a brazen "s" as it struggled for sunlight under a full canopy of far more mature trees. It was too close to the house, all alone, fixing to die in one of the few areas on the entire one -acre lot in which I would never plant a tree. The couple asked me what I thought about "the little maple." It goes, I said. "That's what the neighbors all say, but we wanted an expert opinion." I know when to bite my tongue. Then the wife asked, "So what type of tree should we plant there after it's gone ?" A3�a\�em V \ - A - Jackie Hoomnakker From: Janey Westin <janeywestin @usa.net> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 3:53 PM To: Joni Bennett; Mary Brindle (Comcast); James Hovland; Scott Neal; Josh Sprague; Ann Swenson Cc: Bradley Benn; Pam & Phil Berling; Carol Carmichael; Emily B. & Jon Cramer, Cheryl & Dan Dulas; David Frenkel; Lou Holdridge; Jackie Hoogenakker; Trudy & Bill Landgren; Joe Lawver, Tom & Suzanne Moher; Ray & Ann Moonen; Stephanie Nelson; Dianne Plunkett Latham; Joyce Repya; Mickie Turk, Dan Uhrhammer; Lynn Wallin; Ellen Westin; James Westin; Jackie Whitbeck; Whitbecks Subject: Proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance Hello Mr. Mayor, City Council Members and City Manager Neal. I have read through the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance that is up for discussion at the May 6 Council meeting and want to propose some additions /changes for a clearer ordinance: Be more specific in listing of tree species that are acceptable. 'Elm, locust and maple' are too broad. In reviewing one of the MN DNR's online sites of invasive trees, there are some varieties of elm, locust and maple that are listed as invasive species. These are: black locust, Siberian elm (I know this as Chinese elm), and Amur maple. Norway maple is also non- native and discouraged. I believe this list was only partial, and did not find it easy to find a complete list of DNR stated invasive trees. Not all spruce species are native, with some being more prone to disease because they are not in their ative mountain environment. Mulberry should also be on the invasive list, being almost as quick to spread as ,uckthorn, yet much more difficult to be rid of due to their extremely fast and deep growing root that will persistently re- sprout for at least 7 years. Some species that ARE native but not listed, are larch and butternut. I believe catalpa may also be on this list ?? In Sec. 10 -82, (7), it is very important to specify that a tree's canopy, trunk AND ROOTS be protected, as well as HOW. For instance -- orange fencing being staked in a circle of an appropriated diameter (according to tree size) around a protected tree. This prevents equipment from driving over and digging into the roots, or trenching of gas, sewer or electric lines that slice off crucial roots. This root slicing, which can be quickly covered from an inspector's view, will cause certain and slow death to a tree that may take longer than 3 years to die. This fencing should be required for trees on neighboring property that would have roots extending into a construction site property. What will the consequences for violation of this ordinance be? Something with very large teeth must be in place, such as being banned from receiving any future building permits for 5 years. This would get the message across very well. Teeth must also be ENFORCED. Lack of enforcement condones the problem. After this new ordinance is passed, please send a copy of this to every builder and property owner that has pulled a permit in the last 2 years in a flourescent green envelope that cannot be ignored. I can think of a few (which I will not name here) that will predictably try to proceed as usual and beg forgiveness later with a plea of ignorance. Require that before any new permit is granted, that a builder has to read this ordinance, and sign a statement of understanding and agreement to comply with it. am 100% in favor of hiring a full time tree inspector. It is good to see that a tree preservation ordinance of some form is finally coming to fruition for the city. - -Janey Westin 6136 Brookview Ave., Edina t ackie Hooaenakker `. From: Mickie Turk <mickieturk @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 4:25 PM To: Janey Westin Cc: Joni Bennett; Mary Brindle (Comcast); James Hovland; Scott Neal; Josh Sprague; Ann Swenson; Bradley Benn;'Pam & Phil Berling; Carol Carmichael; Emily B. & Jon Cramer, Cheryl & Dan DUlas;`David Frenkel; Lou Holdridge; Jackie Hoogenakker; Trudy & Bill Landgren; Joe Lawver, Tom & Suzanne Moher; Ray & Ann Moonen; Stephanie Nelson; Dianne Plunkett:' Latham; Joyce Repya; Dan Uhrhammer; Lynn Wallin;, Ellen Westin; James Westin; Jackie Whitbeck; Whitbecks Subject: Re: Proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance This is awesome Janey, very throrough and compelling letter the mayor-and city council. On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Janey Westin <jane, w�estin@usa.net> wrote: Hello Mr. Mayor, City Council Members and City Manager Neal. I have read through the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance that is up for - discussion at the May 6 Council meeting and want to propose some additions /changes for a clearer ordinance: 3e more specific in listing of tree .species that are acceptable. 'Elm, locust and maple' are too broad. In reviewing one of the MN DNR's online sites' of "invasive trees, there are some varieties of elm, locust and maple that are listed as invasive species. These are: black locust, Siberian elm (I. know this as Chinese elm), and Amur maple. Norway maple is also non- native and. discouraged. I believe this list was. only;partial, and did not find it easy to find a complete list of DNR stated invasive trees: Not all spruce species are native, with some being more prone to disease because they are not in their native: mountain environment. Mulberry should also be on the invasive list, being almost as quick to spread as buckthorn, yet much more difficult to be rid of due to their extremely fast and.deep growing root that will persistently re- sprout for at least 7 years. Some species that ARE native but not listed, are larch -and butternut. I believe catalpa may also. be on this list ?? In Sec. 10 -82, (7), it is very important to specify that a tree's canopy, trunk AND ROOTS be protected, as well as HOW. For instance -- orange fencing being staked in a circle of an appropriated diameter.(according to tree size) around a protected tree. This prevents equipment from driving over and digging into the roots, or trenching of gas, sewer or electric lines -that slice off crucial roots. This root slicing, which can be quickly covered from`ari , inspector's view, will cause certain and. slow death to a tree that maytake longer than 3 years to die. This fencing should,be required for trees on neighboring property that would have roots extending into a construction site property. ; "1 REPORT / RECOMMENJ)ATbC T' '" �" • To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VI.B From Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action Discussion Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: PUBLIC HEARING — Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, Preliminary PUD Rezoning, Preliminary Development Plan, Lennar Corporation, 6725 York Avenue, and 6712, 6708, 6704, .6700 and 6628 Xerxes Avenue., Res. No. 2014 -51 and Res. No. 2014 -52. Action Requested: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adopt Resolution No. 2014 -51, approving the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the following: ➢ Building Height —from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 70 feet. ➢ Floor Area Ratio —from 1.0 to 1.27. ➢ Re- guiding the Land Use Plan for the five single - family homes from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District & Preliminary Development Plan Adopt Resolution No. 2014 -52, approving the Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development, and approving the Preliminary Development Pram. Planning Commission Recommendation: On April 9, 2014 the Planning Commission recommended the following: 1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Vote: 4 Ayes, 2 Nays, 1 abstention. 2. Denial of the Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan; Vote: 5 Ayes, 1 Nay and 1 abstention. Denial was based on the layout of the project. (See attached Planning Commission minutes.) To address concerns raised by the Planning Commission, the applicant has revised the plans by reducing the size of the retail space, expanding the width of the boulevard along York, shifting the entire building 10 feet to the west, and created additional setbacks (8') on the top floor corners of the building on Xerxes. (See attached revised plans dated May 6, 2014. The applicant will present these changes to the Council at the May 6th meeting.) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan per the findings and conditions outlined in the attached Resolutions. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 Information /Background: (Deadline for a City Council Decision —July I, 2014) Lennar Corporation is proposing to tear down the existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and single family homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 and 6628 Xerxes Avenue. (See property location on pages A1—A4a in the Planning Commission staff report.) The applicant would then build a six -story, 242 unit upscale apartment building with 12,500 square feet of retail on the first level. A parking lot is proposed in front of the retail store on York Avenue, with underground parking for residents provided under the apartments. Surface spaces would be available along the north and south lot lines for resident guests. (See narrative and plans on pages A5 —A27, and larger scale plans in the attached development book.) To accommodate the. request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are requested: ➢ Building Height —from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 70 feet. ➢ Floor Area Ratio —from 1.0 to 1.27. ➢ Re- guiding the Land Use Plan for the five single - family homes from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. In addition, the following land use applications are requested: ➢ Preliminary Rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and ➢ Preliminary Development Plan. This "preliminary" review is the first step of a two -step process of City review. Should these "preliminary" requests be approved by the City Council; the second step would be Final Rezoning to PUD and Final Site Plan review which -would again require review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has gone through the Sketch Plan process before the Planning Commission and City Council. (See the sketch plans on pages A45 —A49; and the minutes from those meetings on pages A50 —A54.) The applicant has developed the proposed plans by attempting to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission and City Council at Sketch Plan. Some of the most significant changes include: ➢ Reduction in the number of units from 273 to 242. (52 units per acre from 59.) ➢ Reducing floor area ratio from 1.55 to 1.27. ➢ Eliminating the loading dock and driveway entrance to Xerxes which would have brought traffic through Richfield. ➢ Creating podium height along Xerxes to lessen the impact of a tall building facing properties in Richfield. ➢ Moving the building 12 feet to the west.to reduce the impact on Xerxes Avenue. ➢ Creating better pedestrian connections in, through and around the site. There are five pedestrian walkways planned from York Avenue into the site, including two that flow east -west through the site into Richfield. ➢ Providing sustainable and "green" features. As mentioned above, the applicant has made further revisions to the plans as attached. An Ordinance Amendment will be considered by the City Council on May 20th regarding allowing R -1 property to be considered for PUD, when the R -1 property constitutes a minority of the property being rezoned. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution No. 2014 -51 & 2014 -52 • Response to Planning Commission concerns date stamped May I, 2014 • Planning Commission minutes, April 9, 2014 • Planning Commission staff report dated April 9, 2014 Page 3 RESOLD IM NO. 2014-51 RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LAND USE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Lennar Corporation is proposing to tear down the existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and single family homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 and 6628 Xerxes Avenue, and build a six - story, 242 unit upscale apartment building with 11,000 square feet of retail on the first level. 1.02 To accommodate the request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are requested: 1. Building Height - from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 70 feet. 2. Floor Area Ratio - from 1.0 to 1.27. 3. Re- guiding the Land Use Plan for the five single- family homes on Xerxes from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center 1.03 On April 9, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Vote: 4 Ayes and 2 Nays. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The City of Richfield has guided the single family homes on the east side of Xerxes as medium density residential; therefore, the long term vision of both Edina and Richfield in this area is for higher densities. 2. Podium height is proposed on both Xerxes and York as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The six story portion of the building is stepped back into the site to minimize impact on adjacent property. 3. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. The City allows a floor area ratio of up to 1.5 in other parts of the City, such as 50th France; therefore, the floor area ratio of the proposed use at 1.27, which is predominantly residential, is appropriate for the area. 4. The traffic and parking study done by WSB concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952 - 927 -8861 . Fax 952 - 826 -0389 RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -51 Page Two Figure 4.613 is amended as follows: Lowd _ Future Land Use Plan with Building Heights e ` � City of Edina Southeast Quadrant 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Quadrant Data Source: URS e 0 0.5 Mites AG *Height may be increased to six stories & 70 feet if podium height is utilized on York and Xerxes subject to review and approval of the City Council. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-51 Page Two Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved that the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Comprehensive Plan amendment as follows, subject to Met Council approval: The following is adopted into Table 4.3 in the Comprehensive Plan: Nonresidential and Mixed Use Categories Description, Land Uses Development Guidelines Density Guidelines CAC The most intense district Form -based design Floor to Area Ratio -Per Community Activity in terms of uses, height standards for building current Zoning Code: Center and coverage. placement, massing and maximum of 0.5 to 1.0* Example: Greater Prima uses: Retail Primary � street -level treatment. Floor to Area Ratio may y Southdale area (not office, lodging, Buildings should be placed exceed 1.0 on a case by case including large multi- entertainment and in appropriate proximity to basis, subject to proximity to family residential residential uses, streets to create pedestrian utilities capacity, level of neighborhoods such combined or in separate scale. Buildings "step transit service available, and as Centennial Lakes) buildings. down" at boundaries with impact on adjacent roads. Secondary uses: lower- density districts and Other desired items to allow Institutional, recreational upper stories "step back" greater density would uses. from street. include: Below grade Mixed use should be More stringent design parking, provision of park or encouraged, and may be standards for buildings > 5 open space, affordable required on larger sites. stories. housing, sustainable design Emphasize pedestrian principles, provision of public circulation; re- introduce art, pedestrian circulation, finer - grained circulation and podium height. patterns where feasible. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-51 Page Two ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 May 6, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2014. City Clerk APPROVING PRELIMINARY REZONING FROM PCD -3, PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND R -1, SINGLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTAND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 6725 YORK AVENUE AND 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 AND 6628 XERXES AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Lennar Corporation is proposing to tear down the existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and single family homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 and 6628 Xerxes Avenue, and build a six- story, 242 unit apartment building with 11,000 square feet of retail on the first level. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: See attached Exhibit A 1.03 To accommodate the request, the following land use applications are requested: 1. Preliminary Rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and 2. Preliminary Development Plan. 1.04 On April 9, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan. Vote: 5 Ayes and 1 Nays. Denial was based on the layout of the project. 1.05 On April 30, 2014, Lennar submitted revised plans. to address some of the project layout concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is based on the following findings: The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Community Activity Center - CAC," which encourages a mixing of uses, including retail and multifamily residential. The proposed uses are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The project would create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive pedestrian paths planned for the site. Sidewalks would provide pedestrian connections for residents in the City of Richfield to Southdale. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952 - 927 -8861 • Fax 952 - 826 -0389 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-52 Page Two 3. Podium Height would be used on both York and Xerxes. 4. Sustainable design principles would be utilized. The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass building. "Edina" limestone. is proposed at the street level. 5. The PUD would ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 6. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the CAC, Community Activity Center which encourages mixing land uses, including retail and multiple family residential, on one site. 7. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads subject to conditions. 8. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. • A Pedestrian- Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. g. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long -term operation of new and existing development. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-52 Page Two h. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down' at boundaries with lower - density districts and upper stories "step back" from street. Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Development Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated March 3 & 25, 2014 and the revised plans submitted to the City Council on May 6, 2014. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a complete sign plan for the site as part of the Final Development Plan application. Signage should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. 5. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated April 2, 2014. 6. At the time of building permit application, compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the chief building official's memo dated March 27, 2014. 7. Work with staff and Hennepin County to secure a left turn in lane from south bound York Avenue. 8. Ten percent (10 %) of the housing units shall be designated for affordable housing. Specific detail would be determined at the time of Final approval. 9. Sustainable design principles must be used. Greater detail shall be provided with the Final Rezoning submittal. 10. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. 11. Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding consideration of R -1 property within a PUD, prior to final rezoning. 12. Final Rezoning is contingent on adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Met Council approval of the Amendment. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-52 Page Two Adopted by the city council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on May 6, 2014. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF EDINA )SS James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 May 6, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 2014. City Clerk DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED (Per Certificate of Title No. 1159936) All that part of vacated West 67th Street dedicated in the plat of "York Terrace" lying West of a line drawn from the Southeast corner of Tract 0, Registered Land Survey No. 432 to the Northeast corner of Tract P of said Registered Land Survey and lying East of a line drawn from the Southwest corner of said Tract Qto the Northwest corner of Tract P; and All that part of vacated York Avenue South, dedicated in the plat of "York Terrace ", and all that part of Tract P, Registered Land Survey No. 432, and all that part of Tract F, Registered Land Survey No. 629, lying North of the following described line: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 2, "York Terrace ", thence running Westerly parallel with the South line of vacated West 68th Street dedicated in the plat of "York Terrace ", and its Westerly extensions to a point in the Westerly line of said Tract F, and there terminating, and all that part of said Tract F, all that part of Tract Q, Registered Land Survey No. 432, and all that part of vacated York Avenue South dedicated in the plat of "York Terrace ", lying South of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the East line of said Tract Q, said point being 1.81 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Tract Q as measured along the East line thereof, thence running Westerly parallel with said South line of vacated West 68th Street and its Westerly extension to a point in the Westerly line of said Tract F, and there terminating. AND Lot 1, Block 2, "York Terrace" (Certificate of Title No. 193410) AND Lot 2, Block 2, "York Terrace" (Certificate of Title No. 1328257) AND Lot 3, Block 2, "York Terrace" (Certificate of Title No. 1100460) _Ok Lot 4, Block 2, "York Terrace" (Certificate of Title No. 1145680) AND `\```aw\�� ,10 '�pc Lot 5, Block 1, "York Terrace" Qv O� (Certificate of Title No. 1380227) And part of vacated West 67h Street per City Resolution Doc. No. 4734665 Property is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. iI fl 1 W^ i RX C L (o I N , A R 1 Y Cu""UNCIL `, ; -- `! ` 6 2014 architects LENNA o v lt 1888 5: - i -14+ -, D PART 1: COMPILATION OF DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS FROM EDI NA PLANNING COMMISSION, :CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY STAFF PART 20 COMPILATION OF DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS AND CONCERNS FROM THE CITY OF RICHFIELD. PART 3: FURTHER ACTION RESPONSES AND DESIGN STRATEGY FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION LENNAR MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PART 1: COMPILATION OF DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS FROM EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION, m architects CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY STAFF MAY 6; 2014 Oe� 3 • rAttoRPO�F9 • less LENNAR REQUEST: Create a walkable community with sidewalks connecting Xerxes to York E Enclosed Residential f'arong �' NN - F O I BEFORE ACTION: Meandering sidewalks and ample landscape now interconnect the site. Residents can make a full Y3 mile path around the site ­3 i- �-��"� + I IMMUNE= —1 � �� 111 IIIi111T11 �� ,�pplv;•� �aea�eea�e�e�eee� eel � °. ®v AFTER LENNAIZ architects 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — Er' "IA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: Create more congregation and gathering areas • architects BEFORE �M l ��' `. :�,a.�s.:. .tea.. -- � �e o � .• Zo !11 11 IISI 11!11! '� �Illilll�l�ll�lllllli �� �; • �I =1 11.111 11111 drdyx• °a• e� <�'�Lo� � t� L` i d tom.. -�� AFTER 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR ht a.t Sm i Aritl °n LlbbY I �1 �j _ I4h q 17 _ I t Fnacuc Pn C°nWi PU4c7 - - E r - _ Rtloll [I! tfi is I architects BEFORE �M l ��' `. :�,a.�s.:. .tea.. -- � �e o � .• Zo !11 11 IISI 11!11! '� �Illilll�l�ll�lllllli �� �; • �I =1 11.111 11111 drdyx• °a• e� <�'�Lo� � t� L` i d tom.. -�� AFTER 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR REQUEST: 3a Create more green space .. Aeslaense Stivet �— I! y � 3 t 13 t.7F LWO:tO 7<�C<nI�1 V.W3 ri �. - r I r j twl i _ I _ [ i Retail [v Is Is —)S Is s 14 • 1 22.219ft IF r� 1F g ACTION: A significant amount of plantings throughout the site have been added. An entire residential site will be designated as "open green space" �I u' a ; Y. I Ct v w 1 E � n _ i I ALLaa a.n, ar it,,SaS Sr ,snwa�:r L . AFTER 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — Ert^IA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR' REQUEST: 3bCreate more green space ArTInN- An additional "zen garden" courtyard has been added AFTER LENNAF2 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: Increase building setbacks along Xerxes ArTION- The building moved back 12' -7" from its original planned location with additional 8' -0" setback to levels above Proposed building setback Original building setback architects 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — Er' ^iA, MN AFTER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR' REQUEST: Eliminate flat fagade and create a 1 -2 story podium along Xerxes E ArTInki. A 2 -story podium, along with bay window popouts, breaks in the building massing, and additional facade setbacks were added to the Xerxes facade to alleviate the appearance of a tall building EE I F7ER LENNAF1 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: Create walk -out units along Xerxes, add wood component, soften it and `�. make it appear home -like B E F'' nf"rir%ni. We created a variety of walk out units - walk -up porches, hanging balconies, walk out roof terraces, to create life and activity at each level and mimic the residential neighborhoods across the street AFTER architects 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - Er " "A, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR i 13 7-)REQUEST: Remove drive -thru from York to Xerxes architects •' HEADLIGHT POLLUTION I" AUTO CIRCULATION ACTION: The drive -thru was eliminated. We went one step further and created "wings" to the building to eliminate any possible headlight pollution to Xerxes AFTER 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR REQUEST: Evaluate whether another grocer is needed in this area architects r E -- -- Fr- taence lohW Ntklnq — Retail Kn 22,299 SF E _ 9 L-': 13 !3. 9 9 ! !• 0• 1 ACTION: Per suggestions of the city council, we abandoned seeking a grocer tenant for this space and will now have more local, high -end, boutique type retail tenants. This reduced the retail size from 22,000sf to 13,000sf '�1'� F 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — E'" ^iA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR m .c, a„ i a r., 8.117 Sc ! q ! 1 S� •. c7 l i I -�� �i ai o' iii r4' .. M1,a ! � a — S " 1 I '�1'� F 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — E'" ^iA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR REQUEST: 9) Remove or reduce the loading dock and need for full size trucks 1 -- , Id :architects FATIWSIFLIZ Eliminating the grocer allowed for the elimination of a full -size loading dock and /or full size trucks tti "42Y 6 LL9•.�HC — e ;."'o _I I 1 i 1 � I f.LLali I I 4.1:1 Sr I I I iC'91L 1 9.11- :c 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 7f Ti11. M y J HMO 1 e `9 40 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SYi __ I — _ MA 1 1�11�1. ¢ Rrkence S « I ¢<siCen<e Lobby End—d Nnidenual Parking CL — 29911 I.j7 s s u r, 12,299 Sr 1 -- , Id :architects FATIWSIFLIZ Eliminating the grocer allowed for the elimination of a full -size loading dock and /or full size trucks tti "42Y 6 LL9•.�HC — e ;."'o _I I 1 i 1 � I f.LLali I I 4.1:1 Sr I I I iC'91L 1 9.11- :c 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 7f Ti11. M y J HMO 1 e `9 40 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SYi __ I — _ MA 1 1�11�1. LENNAR REQUEST: Create a safer parking entrance ramp condition Dr. rumr. AUTO CIRCULATION ACTION: We went one step further and created an exterior ramp that allows for increased parking efficiency, safer travel, and separation of traffic to limit congestion AFTER LENNAI2 architects 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — Er"NIA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: Create larger unit sizes and mix (2 bedrooms with dens and 3 bedrooms) = c il!.p L" L.LL _LL i_LLUL E I-M li BE F 0 RE ACTION: AFTER 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH -EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR' BEFORE AFTER AVERAGE UNIT SIZE 879 967 # OF 2 BEDS + DENS 0 7 1# OF 3 BEDS 0 9 AFTER 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH -EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR' REQUEST: Reduce the Development Density AP`T1r%hN. The development density decreased from 59 to 52 units per acre and from an FAR of 1.55 to 1.27. BEFORE ,AFTER LENNAR architects 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — Er"A, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PART 2: COMPILATION OF DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS AND CONCERNS FROM THE CITY OF RICHFIELD MAY 61 2014 =Oda Leirvir*4Ai2 0 .architects CONCERN: 1 Height in excess of four to five stories RESPONSE /ACTION: Given the cost of the land, this site will never be redeveloped at a density or height less than what is currently being proposed. This is why we have appropriately applied for a PUD and a Comp Plan Amendment to make redevelopment of this area possible. It is at or below neighboring developments. NPinhhnrhnnd HPinht C'mmnariznn Ut ahbuh J Plan 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - Er""A, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR CONCERN: Excessive Shadow Impacts RESPONSE/ACTION: We did an extensive shadow study covering the entire calendar year including the most impactful, which is December 20th. The study proves that the shadows have an extremely minimal impact on the Richfield residents and changing the height and /or location of the building would have an insignificant and incalculable change. SHADOW STUDY i I�- 0 ®l 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPIVI ENT SHADOW STUDY - DECEMBER DAY I ' LENNAR �C3 architects CONCERN: Dog Park on Xerxes RESPONSE /ACTION: We originally did not have the space dedicated to the development. We then planned for a dog park, but in response to the concerns from Richfield, we have instead made this an open green space for all to use. OPEN GREEN s O w0 �,� O'•i n %��,tOjs lO � 10 O@ - - ..��rea1J.0 L •. +_.pia 11111111 .11111 � _�11 11BID 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - Er" "'4, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAF -I' Ell architects CONCERN: Home Devaluation RESPONSE /ACTION: Home values would likely increase. Two of the Five homes were foreclosed and one has tax liens which have a dramatic negative impact on the value neighboring homes; while new development typically has a positive impact on the valuation of neighboring homes. . �q,..,Y4 _ 41 FORECLOSED (VACANT) FORECLOSED (VACANT) TAX LIENS 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR" architects CONCERN: Vehicle Headlight Pollution on Xerxes RESPONSE /ACTION: The drive -thru was eliminated and we went one step further and created "wings" to the building to eliminate any possible headlight pollution to Xerxes 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - Er "'A, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR architects CONCERN: A Building Setback of less than 132 feet from existing single - family lot lines RESPONSE/ACTION: The building moved back 12' -7" from its original planned location with additional 8' -0" setback to levels above STUDY SECTION THROUGH XERXES BUILDING SETBACK SECTION THROUGH XERXES AVENUE A.1 V16,. 1'0' 672S YORK AVE. a.�s.+. 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR LENNAR MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PART 3: FURTHER ACTION RESPONSES AND DESIGN STRATEGY FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION architects MAY 612014 ' r, & / NW) (f I ne fffl- '.-It N \'moo cn 0 \c01zPOIiA��° , 1888 LE N NAR (2 %LZ ACTION: Decreased retail fagade /SF (12') LEVEL. / LEvEL. 2 LEvEL Pl /AIL �.F. LJGT/oN - N A 'z Ev1sso 04_/1Lt of-Af-'�'o /g- 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR (northbound) ar"TInN- Increased York sidewalk /blvd. (2') 5.5' i(sidewalk) YORK AVENUE -existing (grass) 7.5' 7.0' (landscape) j (sidewalk) YORK AVENUE - previous proposal architects T-6" T -0„ 2, -0„ (landscape) (sidewalk) (grass) i YORK AVENUE - new proposal 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — El""A, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAM architects amr)N- Movement of entire building toward York (10') BEFORE 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH - EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR ACTION: 3 Movement of entire building toward York (10') architects (AFTER I - —• _��� �. .. -rev r...r ry (, iT^'v � � � /�Vr VJ ��(� �� y 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH -- Er"'A, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR architects ACTION: Push of the 6th floor fagade at the corners along Xerxes to soften the height of the building 13� ( 14 151 I I I 45 "D I I I I I o I I a „^Enr 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — EDINA, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR architects ACTION: Reduction of retail space better aligns with parking requirements. PARKING SPACES Retail Fast Casual Medium Full Service 7,500 SF 37.5 75 112.5 Service 5spaces per 10 spaces 15 spaces 20 spaces 1,000 SF per 1,000 SF per 1,000 SF per 1,000 SF 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 CURRENT DESIGN 5,000 SF 25 501 75 100 9,000 SF 45 90 135 180 14,000 SF 70 140 2101 280 255�LIKELY REQUEST UPDATED DESIGN 3,500 SF 17.51 35 52.5 70 7,500 SF 37.5 75 112.5 150 11,000 SF 551 110 165 220 185 LIKELY REQUEST 134 PROVIDED 24 Visitor 1107otal Retail 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH — EF""A, MN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LENNAR IAI, -"MmimoN I _-Zion W T-7 lop! Ell 1, womw i 0 '777 -7 RE 'RE. ........... -- 0 R TOO il w. a I 11 PIN g M IN VFW, MM. PF IV 4 v of AFTER'l AIM I 11 PIN g M IN VFW, MM. PF IV 4 v of AFTER'l 0 It M1 p•� �L11 i .. 3p `vim-"'. �� arw.c.•s 7;.,..: .- 1°a'l_.r. ..,vs 1F+• ...p,.PCw.v..:.... -...z . :.:... ...... •�+I.+- ':t �.'.i - � is '(,r'� T` O a mom I � .... . _...... wr+ aFt�:t:6bay..T.TN1t,i'!�T'.;�•� z^ .c ..� hr' rt. op • MAN . 105 "'AIR NMI p1m ILI III 01 1v Ilim I in I IN ATM II!, IpIIIUf Or 106,119 1 6725 YORK AVENUE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT - EDINA, MN 05.06.14 .0 Project Purpose and Vision The purpose and vision for this multifamily development in Edina is to create a high -end luxury rental community with complimentary retail. This complimentary retail tenants) (such as a high end restaurant, food service, health club, or other community based retail tenant(s)) will flourish with the other shopping opportunities along York Avenue while also adding an incredible lifestyle value to the residents of the building. This development will give Edina residents a wonderful living option as they downsize, retire, move, etc. while still staying in the community they love. The project will also establish a better utilization for the wickes furniture site and eliminate the existing dated structure. We strongly believe that this project will become a cata lyst for f utu re redevelopment opportunities for other properties going North along York Avenue. The strong pedestrian connection and community terraces will dramatically enhance the walkability of this area with connection Into and throughout the site. Special attention has been paid toward the building materials and massing to properly fit within this community; creating a place that is "Pure Edina" by incorporating elements from the surrounding areas such as the limestone that is on City Hall and other Edina structures. iffArchitectural Description The architectural design and massing of this project is based on guidance from urban design and architectural design principles developed in the City of Edina's land use plans and timeless city building strategies. The design and massing creates a new fabric and a better street definition along York and Xerxes Avenues. A large opening in the building mass breaks up the south facade and allows for both increased solar penetration and a view enriching vegetative courtyard. The architectural expression and materials of this project will incorporate contemporary materials and facade composition. The building materials will feature a transparent glass storefront, masonry, and "Edina" limestone at the street level, above which will float a traditionally inspired composition of masonry, architectural metal, and large amounts of glass. Special attention has been paid toward proper setbacks, material usage, landscaping, and privacy along Xerxes Avenue where our development is adjacent to the single family residential community. Building design details include a dark, grounding two -story podium, segmented to reflect the scale of the homes across the street, an active street level with walk -up units, expressed with a front porch entry design, the creation of three -story bays to create plane changes and additional stepping in the facade, and color and material changes reducing the appearance of height. � Streetscape and Public Realm The design of this development features streetscape improvements including new pavement, street trees, and lighting. The groundscape will feature green landscape elements, high quality pavement, pedestrian gathering and sitting areas, and decorative lighting. The sidewalks will wrap the entire site allowing neighboring properties a through -way access from York Avenue to Xerxes. This pedestrian connection will also create a one -third mile walking path around the site as a safe walking path for residences and the community. Distinct nodes will be linked to these sidewalks as community terraces. These nodes will both highlight the residential entrance and commercial tenant on each side of the facade facing York Avenue. Safety of pedestrians walking along York will be improved with a landscaped buffer and increased sidewalk width. AGreen and Sustainable Features The key sustainability strategy for this project is to create an urban mixed -use, pedestrian friendly community that allows residents to live, work, and play without dependence on daily automobile usage. The mixed use development will include a complimentary retail tenant to the residential tenants. The development team is committed to the sustainable design principles reflected in the City's comprehensive plan. Our sustainable design mission is to promote livable communities through the use of energy efficient systems, green building practices, reduced dependency on automobiles, creative density, high quality pedestrian and bicycle public realm, and the preservation of natural resources. The project will feature a series of green elements Including green construction practices, materials specification, thermal high - efficiency windows and exterior envelope, and numerous permeable planted green spaces both on the site as well as on the amenity level roof. VICINITY E D, 5000• SITE 040 Fv--fb-- -14- A 11. EXISTING CONDITION VIEW FROM YORK AVE S Neighborhood Plan 0 Neighborhood Height Comparison o•io• a• m pro• eorna iowers soirmoale talwim Innvent rtnancial Thnvent united Properties Site So uthdale Mail 1 7 Stories - 210' 9 Stories - 100' 7 Stories - 80' financlal 4 Stories - 48' 6 Stories - 67' 2 Stories - 40' • 3 Stories - 40' i II . _.__— .— .— ._._.— .— ._._.— .— ._._.J 7 Stories - 80' Edina Galleria 4 Stories - 18 Stories - 236' Building Height Comparison DIE� °--_ Vy F • 30 Street Level Plan Scale: 1 "= 50' -0" III-NJ DIE� °--_ Vy F • 30 Street Level Plan Scale: 1 "= 50' -0" - - - -- D I I I -- - - - -- -- -- -- - - -� 373• -6• - k I I I BR -0 1341 3 BR 1189 I 2 BR 1 OR — 2 OR 1 BR 2 OR 1198 770 1155 770 1155 1BR•p 1BR 1BR I6R 1OR 925 770 778 770 770 21 BR DF )i3 ID 1 ( FITNESS CLUBROOM 5 1,630 SF T� T 1 ( 2.760 SF T MEL 2BR 1 BR 21BR 9TOMGE IBR 1 ( 1155 770 55 870 1 ( SS S° 0 0 0 ALCOVE A 745 4s -' ( oo�o0 0 0 0 715 - � L] 7as I DR °1e b 11 Jr Donna M1EM7Y TERRACE i OR IBR ®- 770 770 N OPENRE10 TAIL 1BR j- 20R 037 tVy S/' IJi] 3T -B- (1 ® FOOL m 28R OR p p 1155 1155 ( a !9 IBR IBR m ( © ® e]1 078 (( 11 AAAAA.... _........... `• 1BR 2BR , URttAA - 1780 1PR 1155 878 i ( 1 TIO r:; • . O O O O ALCCVE ( 1 .12 �� 2 O 1 1373 2BR 3BR 1163 1550 f �-BF, 50] 2BR t6R IBR ! SN01O 770 770 _ !f507 f 38R 1460 J LJ 2BR -0 1321 37T -G' Level 2 Plan — Scale: V'= IF -f!� Level 3 -5 Plan Scale: 1 "= 50' -0" r- NUMAME-ETWE 2 ER•D 13% loll 1 is ins M ireoR L ON gjIm � L5CL5Y MIU(�lf I I Level 6 Plan Stale: 1 "= 50' -0" 1849 1 M no 0 2 8 9R 1155 a18 RR 1198 3BR 1196 � L5CL5Y MIU(�lf I I Level 6 Plan Stale: 1 "= 50' -0" b E( I� L a j RpIAP UP L"T ST GE zr - T N STN RPEENL MG 7H HTH a PARKING P...S.- 69,756 SF i �111 X1111111111 X11 =111' eeeleee�eee�eoe�ee,eee�eee� Fil H i I MESH CROW[E.- U .30%1 -11� Level P1 Plan Scale: 1 "= 50' -0" UNIT MIX & SQUARE FOOTAGES Building Area Summary Rentable Residential Surface Level Use Total G5F Parking GSF Retail GSF Apt GSF Lobby /Amenity Apt RSF' Units Storage Parking" Parking" Efficienci Level P3 Parking 92,010 92,010 0 4 0 4 1,784 245 Level ---- Pard /Rrs /Ret /Amen •- - --- '----_. 91.503 57,992 13,924 - -' ` -' _. 15.618 3,909 12,967 11 13 139 134 8356 Level* Residential -- - - -------- _ 54.320 49,542 4,678 41,923 43 440 -_- -. -_ - -852 Level3 Res /Amenity 52.230 52,7313 Level 4- 64,861 47 440 87%. Level Residential 52,230 52.23D 67 44,861 47 440 -__ 87% Leve15 Residential 52,230 52.230 - 47 04,861 47 _ _ 440 57% LevclG Residential 52A9G --- -- 52.09G -.... _ _ 44,593 '-- -- - 47 - ----- 440 -- - --- - - --- -- --�--- - -- - --- ---- 8`v76 rotal 446,•619 150,002 274,046 8,587 234,066 242 384 134 86% Tandem 38 Surface parking Includes 29 residential visitor parking stalls Total 422 "Residential tenant parleine is covered. Ratio CO 324 Stalls = 1.595tallslunit, 1.09 stalls/bed Patin of total residential parking Q 423 stalls =1.75 stalls /unit Unit Distribution Summary Level 5tudio Alcove 1 DR 1 DR DEN 2 BR 2 6R DEN 3 GR Total Reds Level .0 0 4 0 4 1_ 2 11 20 Level 2 3 19 1 13 2 3 43 64 Level3 0 3 22 3 17 1 1 47 67 Level 4- 0 3 22 3 -. 17 1 1 47 67 Level 5 0 3 - 22 3 17 1 1 - 47 - 67 LevelG 0 3 22 3 17 1 1 47 67 Total 2 15 111 13 % 0.8'16 G% 46% 5% Avg Size 507 701 793 895 Range SF 507 612 -745 738.878 849 -925 R5 7 9 242 352 3576 2.9:6 3.7% 1178 1.312 1514 967 1122.1373 1221.135D 1460.1558 Metrics [ECIEOW U BUILDING MASSING SECTION WEST /EAST Section Scale: 1 "= 30' -0" r x RENDERING FROM YORK I UGC . �L �D RENDERING FROM YORK 5.5' (northbound) P (grass} YORK AVENUE - existing map- 7. 5' 1 7.0' (landscape) I (sidewalk) YORK AVENUE-proposed YORK (NORTHBOUND) �,NGSIDEWALrCONDITION T;�L6Nd i� Sidewalk Section 0 � m RENDERING FROM XERXE8 } K RENDERING FROM XERXES �Tl �O,D M L�� 1 WEST ELEVATION (FACING YORK A E&ll, EXTERIOR KEYNOTES 1A BRICK #1 -YELLOW 1B BRCK#2 -TAN 1C BRICK #3 - REDDISH BROWN 3A ARCHITECTURAL CAST STONE - CREAM 313 PRECAST -BLACK 4A ROCKFACE CMU -TAN 5A METAL PANEL #1 - DARK BRONZE 6A FIBER CEMENT BOARD #1 -GRAY 6B FIBER CEMENT BOARD #2 - DARK BRONZE 7A STUCCO #1 -CREAM 7B STUCCO #2 - TAN 7C STUCCO #3 - DARK BRONZE 7D STUCCO #4 - GRAY 9A BREAK METAL #1 -GRAY SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION (FACING XERXES AVE.) EXTERIOR KEYNOTES 1A BRICK #1 - YELLOW 1B BRCK #2 -TAN 1C BRICK #3 - REDDISH BROWN 3A ARCHITECTURAL CAST STONE - CREAM 313 PRECAST -BLACK 4A ROCKFACE CMU - TAN 5A METAL PANEL #1 - DARK BRONZE 6A FIBER CEMENT BOARD #1 - GRAY 6B FIBER CEMENT BOARD #2 - DARK BRONZE 7A STUCCO #1 -CREAM 713 STUCCO #2 - TAN 7C STUCCO #3 - DARK BRONZE 70 STUCCO #4 - GRAY 9A BREAK METAL #1 -GRAY NORTH ELEVATION molmlm—==� �i C I r mll® KRIM '- ,IIIIIII - - -� I __ `1` --�- milllll mIIIIII _ � I T-Til molmlm—==� �i C I r mll® KRIM '- ,IIIIIII LOW IIIIII�� �. �IIIIII milllll mIIIIII I'II11 �•� �em fiBllll. I IOIINII � I. X11 � I, •• • flllllllllllllf . muafu[ ®111111 - - ,,• � ®I �i C I r 1 �I KRIM '- ,IIIIIII PARTIAL PLAN - LEVEL P1 PARTIAL PLAN - LEVEL 1 PARTIAL PLAN - LEVEL 2 oJecoy EAST FACADE - SETBACK STUDY �U PARTIAL PLAN - LEVEL 3 -5 PARTIAL PLAN - LEVEL 6 1 �I �U PARTIAL PLAN - LEVEL 3 -5 PARTIAL PLAN - LEVEL 6 0 Cap STUDY SECTION THROUGH XERXES BUILDING SETBACK SECTION THROUGH XERXES AVENUE A.1 1/16" = 1' -0" 6725 YORK AVE. M Edina, MN 03/25/14 MARCH/SEPTEMBER MORNING SAM MARCH/SEPTEMBER NOON MARCH/SEPTEMBER EVENING 3PM I L I U e-; L MARCH/SEPTEMBER NOON MARCH/SEPTEMBER EVENING 3PM JUNE MORNING SAM v L L u L r^ r , V, R - n iL r @ r JUNE NOON SHADOW STUDY DECEMBER MORNING SAM DECEMBER NOON JUNE EVENING 3PM DECEMBER EVENING 3PM esc EDIF O R IREFERENCE SSF ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I U e-; L JUNE MORNING SAM v L L u L r^ r , V, R - n iL r @ r JUNE NOON SHADOW STUDY DECEMBER MORNING SAM DECEMBER NOON JUNE EVENING 3PM DECEMBER EVENING 3PM esc EDIF O R IREFERENCE SSF ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHADOW STUDY - DECEMBER DAY Li C;L c 1 9 Ll U U L ............ ... L S - J�--t 0 'r L n ri U ri c 0 n ❑ J& I ❑ 2, ❑ 1 XEU ❑ c r B 0 1 - - k7l C F ... . ........ DECEMBER MORNING 8AM DECEMBER MORNING 9AM DECEMBER MORNING 10AM (DEC 21 SUNRISE: 7:51 AM) ISSUED FOR Li 0 Ar 0 a L REFERENCE C— ONLY ❑ F— 1 ❑ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 'o O ri n r Li 0 0 Ll i 0 & 0 N� LL . ............... 1-1 A Es C 111ADWI 1111Y DECEMBER AFTERNOON 1 IAM DECEMBER AFTERNOON 12PM DECEMBER AFTERNOON 1 P 03/25 120 14 �j c Lj lj 0 0 a o 0 Li L, L L I c, n rl m Q 0 0 0 0 ry 0 n 0 c p 0 C3 n I cl C6 C cl DECEMBER EVENING 2PIA DECEMBER EVENING 3PM DECEMBER EVENING 4PM (DEC 21 SUNSET: 4:41 PM) I.lI Li C;L c 1 9 Ll U U L ............ ... L S - J�--t 0 'r L n ri U ri c 0 n ❑ J& I ❑ 2, ❑ 1 XEU ❑ c r B 0 1 - - k7l C F ... . ........ DECEMBER MORNING 8AM DECEMBER MORNING 9AM DECEMBER MORNING 10AM (DEC 21 SUNRISE: 7:51 AM) ISSUED FOR Li 0 Ar 0 a L REFERENCE C— ONLY ❑ F— 1 ❑ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 'o O ri n r Li 0 0 Ll i 0 & 0 N� LL . ............... 1-1 A Es C 111ADWI 1111Y DECEMBER AFTERNOON 1 IAM DECEMBER AFTERNOON 12PM DECEMBER AFTERNOON 1 P 03/25 120 14 �j c Lj lj 0 0 a o 0 Li L, L L I c, n rl m Q 0 0 0 0 ry 0 n 0 c p 0 C3 n I cl C6 C cl DECEMBER EVENING 2PIA DECEMBER EVENING 3PM DECEMBER EVENING 4PM (DEC 21 SUNSET: 4:41 PM) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 9, 2014 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Answering the roll call were: Potts, Olsen, Kilberg, Halva, Lee, Carr, Platteter, Staunton Members absent from roll: Scherer and Forrest 111. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Carr moved approval of the meeting agenda as amended to honor the request of the proponent to continue Item VI.C. Preliminary Rezoning & Variances, Mathias Mortenson, 3923 West 49th Street, Edina, MN. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission March 12, 2014 Commissioner Carr moved approval of the Consent Agenda and January 22, 2014, meeting minutes. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT Chair Staunton asked if anyone would like to speak; being none, Commissioner Platteter moved to close community comment. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; public comment closed. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Preliminary Rezoning, and Preliminary Development Plan. Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC. 6725 York Avenue, 6628, 6700, 6704, 6708, & 6712 Xerxes Avenue, Edina, MN Commissioner Potts recused himself from consideration of this agenda item because his company works with this applicant on a different project in a different city. He left the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. Page 1 of 14 Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission that Lennar Corporation is proposing to tear down the existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and five single - family homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700, and 6628 Xerxes Avenue. The applicant would then build a six -story, 242 -unit upscale apartment building with 12,500 square feet of retail on the first level. A parking lot is proposed in front of the retail store on York Avenue, with underground parking for residents provided under the apartments. Surface spaces would be available along the north and south lot lines for resident guests. Planner Teague delivered a power point presentation highlight the project including the green space and swimming pool above the parking deck. He recalled the changes the applicant has made since the original sketch plat review, including the elimination of the loading dock, decreasing total number of units, creation of podium height along Xerxes, creating better pedestrian connections, and new green features. He noted that the road system can support the development and the parking is adequate. Planner Teague concluded his presentation by indicating that staff recommends the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows: ➢ Building Height — from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 70 feet. ➢ Floor Area Ratio — from 1.0 to 1.27. ➢ Re- guiding the Land Use Plan for the six single - family homes from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. Approval is subject to the following findings: I . The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The City of Richfield has guided the single - family homes on the east side of Xerxes as medium density residential; therefore, the long -term vision of both Edina and Richfield in this area is for higher densities. 2. Podium height is proposed on both Xerxes and York as. recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The six -story portion of the building is stepped back into the site to minimize impact on adjacent property. 3. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. The City allows a floor area ratio of up to 1.5 in other parts of the City, such as 50th France; therefore, the floor area ratio of the proposed use at 1.27, which is predominantly residential, is appropriate for the area. 4. The traffic and parking study done by WSB concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided. Planner Teague indicated that staff also recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and Preliminary Development Plan to tear down the existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and single family homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 and 6628 Xerxes Avenue and build a six -story, 242 unit upscale apartment building with 12,500 square feet of retail on the first level. Approval is subject to the following findings: I. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Community Activity Center — Page 2 of 14 CAC," which encourages a mixing of uses, including retail and multifamily residential. The proposed uses are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The project would create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive pedestrian paths planned for the site. Sidewalks would provide pedestrian connections for residents in the City of Richfield to Southdale. 3. Podium Height would be used on both York and Xerxes. 4. Sustainable design principles would be utilized. The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass building. "Edina" limestone is proposed at the street level. 5. The PUD would ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 6. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the CAC, Community Activity Center which encourages mixing land uses, including retail and multiple family residential, on one site. 7. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads subject to conditions. 8. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. • A Pedestrian - Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. f. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. g. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long -term operation of new and existing development. h. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower- density districts and upper stories "step - back" from street. Approval is subject to the following conditions: I . The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated March 3 & 25, 2014. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. 'The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a complete sign plan for the site as part of the Final Development Plan application. Signage should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. Page 3 of 14 S. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated April 2, 2014. 6. At the time of building permit application, compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the chief building official's memo dated March 27, 2014. 7. Work with staff and Hennepin County to secure a left turn in lane from south bound York Avenue. 8. Ten percent (10 %) of the housing units shall be designated for affordable housing. Specific detail would be determined at the time of Final approval. 9. Sustainable design principles must be used. Greater detail shall be provided with the Final Rezoning submittal. 10. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Commissioner Platteter asked about the sidewalks in the sketch. Planner Teague pointed out the sketch shows sidewalks' extending beyond what the developer is proposing; adding they will likely be added when adjacent properties develop in the future. Commissioner Platteter asked about the setback from the building to the nearby residential home (Richfield). Planner Teague estimated an approximate 30 -foot setback from the Xerxes right -of -way to the house; plus the setback for the proposed apartment building. Commissioner Carr asked about the seventh story that is displayed on the west side of the building. Planner Teague responded that will be a good question for the applicant. Commissioner Olsen asked about how the loading dock will work with the retail. Planner Teague pointed out the traffic pattern for delivery trucks. Commissioner Olsen asked Chuck Richart, WSB & Associates, how vehicles would get to the south. Mr. Richart stated they would either do a U -turn on 66th Street or turn onto France, adding this type of movement was assumed as part of the study. Chair Staunton observed if the rezoning request was to PCD -3 three setback variances would be required, along with the building height, and the floor area ratio. Planner Teague concurred. Commissioner Olsen noted Hennepin County Public Works recommended widening the boulevard on Xerxes. Planner Teague indicated that will be part of future discussions, along with the landscaping requirements. Appearing for the Applicant Peter Chmielewski, Development Manager, Lennar Multi- Family Communities Aaron Russet, ESG Architects Applicant Presentation Mr. Chmielewski stated Lennar Multi - Family Communities specializes in doing condo high -rise style in first -tier cities. Lennar is very interested in making this the right project with the right materials and integrating it with the community. He thanked the Planning Commission and the Council for pushing for a redesign in certain areas. Lennar has worked to keep the integrity and language of the building the same, while bringing back some sensitivities. Lennar has hired a broker to handle options agreements Page 4 of 14 with the homes on Xerxes; a representative with Lennar has met with each of the homeowners to discuss their needs and wants. Mr. Russet commented this is an incredible area to act as a bridge between very dense commercial areas between single - family homes in the Richfield neighborhood. He pointed out several of the changes that have been made since the last design presented. Accesses were eliminated through the site onto Xerxes. The only physical connections to Xerxes are the front porches and sidewalks all the way to the road. Eventually, hopefully, the sidewalks will connect north /south. The retail space has decreased from 22,000 square foot to 12,500. The original grocer did not work out, so now the idea is to have the retailers fit well into the residences of this site. He discussed the changes in underground parking, trash pick -up, as well as the area designated for resident moving. Mr. Russet noted that the seventh story is just an architectural feature in order to acknowledge the front door. One of the options considered will be two -story windows. There are now two courtyards rather than one, which has helped increase the undulations of the building facade. He noted the increased square footages of the residential units, which will be more appropriate for those selling- houses in Edina but wanting to stay in Edina. The composition materials will be two colors of brick, stucco, some metal panel and some fiber cement panel. Discussion Commissioner Carr complimented the architect on the new design. Chair Staunton asked about the podium stepbacks on Xerxes. Mr. Russet presented the front porch elevations and pointed out the 5 -foot and 3 -foot stepbacks. From the previous design, the building moved back 12 feet, plus 5 feet and also 3 feet. Mr. Chmielewski noted the architect wanted to create multiple setbacks, multiple uses, patios above the walk -outs, then bays, and then balconies, with a flat facade along the top. He pointed out there is a lot happening on the Xerxes faigade that helps it appear it is further back than it actually is. Chmielewski added the goal was to push the building back as far as possible while still making it a viable, adding this is one of the highest - priced pieces of land that has ever been purchased in Edina. Concluding, Chmielewski reported other developers have tried to make something work and could not from a metric - standpoint, adding Lennar has worked on this the past year to try to make it feasible. Chair Staunton noted the building is set back quite a ways from York Avenue. He asked if any thought had been given to pushing the retail space closer to York Avenue so the apartment building could be pushed back from Xerxes without losing any net space. Mr. Chmielewski responded the goal was to have a boulevard protect the sidewalk. including a minimum parking depth, minimum drive lane, and then brought the building forward as much as possible. Chmielewski stated in his opinion retailers want adequate parking and height, the building has to be set back beyond it, otherwise the ability to have the residential -is lost. He concluded Lennar pulled the building towards York as near as possible. Chair Staunton asked about the parking spaces being flush with York. Mr. Chmielewski responded it is basically flush. He noted there was discussion about sinking the parking, but general contractors gave a lot of pushback regarding excavation. Page 5 of 14 Commissioner Olsen noted additional setback from Xerxes would have been nice. She asked if there was a way to reduce the building height in order to consider some of Richfield's comments about four stories. Mr. Russet responded that he worked on Oxford Hills on Grand Ave, adding this is the same type of setback principle used. A challenge of setbacks is the contractors do not like transitions, and plumbing cores need to go all the way through. This makes much larger units along the first and second floors. Russet also pointed out as the building goes up, the kitchen and bathroom plumbing lines are stacked. Concluding, Russet said because of the retail, it is easier to push things back on the York side. The stacking element of the design really drove the discussions. Mr. Chmielewski concurred the Xerxes has been pushed back as far as it can go. Commissioner Lee asked about the newly created green space on the upper northeast. Mr. Russet responded he believes the green space may be approximately a third of an acre. Commissioner Lee asked about proposed retail tenants. Mr. Chmielewski responded a local broker is working on the tenant mix at this time. He added they believe the larger space would be a high -end restaurant, and the other could be a daytime breakfast/coffee or a yoga studio, something that does not compete with the high -end restaurant. Mr. Russet summarized it is not specific to the demographic, but it certainly has to be complimentary. Chair Staunton asked about a proposed green space in the north corner. Mr. Chmielewski responded the goal for that area is to maintain it as more of a grass /open field. This area could be used by all the residents of the area, rather than just the residents of the building. Commissioner Olsen asked about consideration of sustainable guidelines. Mr. Russet responded ESG inherently has green base specifications, from sealants to carpets to paints. One of the major sustainable features of this site is the location. On weekends, this site has an amazing opportunity for residents to use features without a car. Additionally, it is a walkable area. In both courtyards, there is a substantial amount of green roof. Mr. Chmielewski added that being a long -term holder and operator means efficient electricals and minimizing water use in this building and also helps Lennar's bottom line. Also under exploration is a possible shared garden space in the courtyard. Commissioner Carr asked about bicycle racks. Mr. Russet responded there will be ample bike storage to meet the needs of residents. As the plan evolves, they will be located throughout the underground parking. Typically there is one bike stall per bedroom provided as well. Commissioner Carr asked that bike racks be added for non - residents visiting the restaurants as well. Commissioner Carr asked about public art at the front of the building. Mr. Chmielewski responded that is not designated yet, but that can be considered. Commissioner Platteter asked about breaking up the face on the east side and possibly changing the courtyard 90 degrees. Mr. Chmielewski responded that corners for buildings are the most inefficient uses of a building. He discussed why the courtyard was placed as it was in order to achieve the needed density. Mr. Russet added that the current configuration allows for as much sun exposure as possible in as many units as possible. Page 6 of 14 Commissioner Platteter asked if pets will be allowed and whether dog - walking areas will be allowed. Mr. Chmielewski responded pets will be allowed; a dog spa will be just off the elevator. You can circle the entire site without crossing any main traffic areas. Commissioner Schroeder asked about parking ratios related to retail. Mr. Chmielewski responded the broker is providing the uses and the ratios, and those requirements have been met since the retail has been shrunk. Commissioner Schroeder noted the sidewalk is right up against the parking lot on York. He said in his opinion ten spaces per thousand is excessive for retail. He suggested eliminating 24 spaces. Continuing, Schroeder stated something that is 60 feet across should be more than just a setback. Concluding Schroder said a reduction in parking, could provide more space on Xerxes. Mr. Chmielewski responded this is something Lennar will look into, especially creating more interest along Xerxes. Retail experts have indicated 100 parking spaces are required for a viable restaurant. With incoming tenants, visitors, and employees, it is down to about 100 spaces. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Public Testimony Debbie Goettel, City of Richfield Mayor, thanked the Commission for consideration of their Richfield neighbors. Goettel stated Richfield has no intention of the Richfield side of Xerxes being medium - density; adding the mid - density reference in the Comprehensive Plan is a Met Council planning tool only. She said this is a residential area, and would like this area to be considered as if it were Edina. Considering, she noted the proposed apartment building will face one - and -a -half story Cape Cod houses and one -story ramblers, and those houses will face decreased sunlight as a result of the building shadows. Goettel concluded that an improvement would be increased setbacks from Xerxes and a reduction to a four -story building. She noted this is a soft border and both Cities need to think about each other as neighbors: Todor Braianova, 6616 Xerxes Avenue S., expressed concerns about traffic increases that will result from the limitations for left turns on York. He asked about the remaining houses left on the Edina side. Dennis Fink, 6713 Xerxes Avenue S., expressed concern about the height of the building, and reduced sunshine as a result of building shadows. He believes this building looks like South Minneapolis. He does not believe the building is aesthetically pleasing for an area such as this. He also expressed concern about increased traffic. Linda Schnitzen, 6717 Xerxes Avenue S., commented this building does not fit with the character of a residential neighborhood. She expressed concern about the value of her home. She asked the Commission to consider how this would be handled if this were Edina property on the other side of the street. Nancy Bahr, 6620 Xerxes Avenue S., commented there will only be four houses on the west side of Xerxes once the project is completed. She asked about the division with the house next to the building. Todor Braianova, 6616 Xerxes Avenue S., asked how the sidewalks will fit with the street on the west side of Xerxes. He asked about the access to Southdale and the possible addition of a traffic light to help pedestrian traffic. Page 7 of 14 Nancy Bahr, 6620 Xerxes Avenue S., asked about the remaining four houses and any future plans for them. Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close public hearing carried. Continued Discussion Chair Staunton asked Mr. Richart to address traffic issues brought up by residents. Mr. Richart explained the various thought processes regarding the turning possibilities around the building. He noted most people will go north than south. To south, most vehicles will go to Penn or other major streets. He discussed the traffic volumes in the intersection are too low to warrant a traffic light. He noted a couple other options for pedestrian crossing, with the new apartments at Southdale and at Cub Foods. Commissioner Olsen noted there will be a desire to cross the street there rather than walk down to the light; noting this is a larger discussion Edina has to have. Chair Staunton asked Mr. Chmielewski and Mr. Russet to discuss what was learned on the shadow studies commissioned. Mr. Chmielewski thanked the Commission and Council for pushing Lennar because Lennar desires to be part of both of these communities. The goal is to do the best job possible because this redevelopment opportunity has a lot benefit to both Richfield and Edina, while balancing the issues at hand. However, there is a limit to how far the developer can go before a project is no longer viable. He presented slides on the shadow study which illustrated the impacts on the building and the homes across the street in March, September, and December. There is very minimal difference between the shadows cast from the nearby Cub Foods, which is approximately 2 stories high, and the proposed building. He then discussed neighboring homes, two of whom are in foreclosure and one had a tax lien, which have a far greater negative impact than anything else on neighbors. New residential construction tends to increase neighboring home values. Mr. Chmielewski also discussed the vegetative screening to be done as a barrier between the north pocket park and neighbors. Commissioner Olsen stated she is still struggling with the height of the six -story building and setback from Xerxes Avenue. Commissioner Lee discussed the value of being deliberate in planning towards future possible development specifically in relation to the park plan on the Xerxes corridor as well as the ability to cross York. Planner Teague noted that there was focus on getting sidewalks on both sides of this development, so as the parcels develop, it can ultimately connect people across the street to Southdale. Chair Staunton clarified the two motions before the Council. The Commissioners discussed the proper procedure of rezoning a district as well as approving a PUD. Page 8 of 14 Commissioner Carr expressed support for the development. Commissioner Olsen noted the project has vastly improved since the initial sketch, but she is still concerned about the height and look on the Xerxes side. Commissioner Lee noted this area is a transition from residential to commercial. She believes a little tweaking will make the project doable. Overall, the density and height are probably where they need to be. Commissioner Schroeder noted the transition in use between commercial and resident between York and Xerxes is really good. He did express concern about the height of the building along Xerxes. Chair Staunton expressed support for the changes made on the Xerxes side, but he suggested the entire building could be pushed further back away from Xerxes to reduce the parking. Planner Teague suggested the residential pieces be rezoned to PCD -3, if the Commission is inclined, so when the applicant comes back for final rezoning, the PUD could be considered at that time. The City Attorney could weigh in on the R -I not being eligible for a PUD rezoning. Commissioner Platteter stated he thinks something further can be done on the Xerxes side. He really likes the rest of the project. Motion Commissioner Carr moved to recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendments, for the subject property, subject to staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. Chair Staunton noted he would be in favor of the six -story building, though he thinks it can be pushed back farther from Xerxes. Ayes; Lee, Carr, Platteter, Staunton. Nays; Schroeder, Olsen. Abstain; Potts. Motion carried. 4 -2 Motion Commissioner Carr moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Rezoning, and Preliminary Development Plans for the subject property, subject to staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. Commissioner Platteter offered a friendly amendment recommending the inclusion of affordable housing. Commissioners Carr and Platteter accepted that amendment. Commissioner Olsen offered a friendly amendment to include recommendations regarding turn lane as received in an email from Carl Stueve, Hennepin County Commissioners Carr and Platteter accepted that amendment. Page 9 of 14 Chair Staunton called for the vote; amended motion. Ayes; Lee, Carr. Nays; Schroeder, Olsen, Platteter, Staunton. Abstain Potts. Motion failed 2 -4. Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend that the City Council deny the Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plans for the subject property. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. Chair Staunton asked Commissions Platteter and Olsen if they had further comments on their rationale for denial. Commissioner PIatteter stated he supported the request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment; however, his vote to deny the Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Develop Plan was based on the layout of the project. Chair Staunton called for the vote; Ayes; Schroeder, Olsen, Platteter, Lee, Staunton. Nay; Carr. Abstain; Potts. Motion to deny carried 5 -1. Commissioner Potts returned to the Council Chambers at 9:45 p.m. B. Site Plan and Variances. Border Foods (Taco Bell). 3210 Southdale Circle, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission that Border Foods Inc. is proposing to tear down the existing Taco Bell restaurant and rebuild a new slightly smaller Taco Bell at 3210 Southdale Circle. The building would be 1,850 square feet in size. To accommodate the proposal to redevelop the site, the applicant is requesting a Site Plan review and the following Variances: ➢ Parking Setback Variances from 10 to 4 feet from the north and south lot line. (Existing condition is a 3 -foot setback.) ➢ Front Yard Building Setback Variance from 35 to 22 feet. ➢ Variance for side menu board facing a residential area. (Existing menu board directly faces residential area.) In 1985, a parking stall setback variance was granted to add parking stalls for what was then a Zantigo Mexican Restaurant. The variance was to match the existing non - conforming setback of three feet. As noted above, a four -foot setback for parking is now proposed. Planner Teague delivered a power point presentation to highlight the project. Planner Teague concluded his presentation by indicating that staff recommends the City Council approve the Site Plan with Variances for the construction of a new Taco Bell restaurant at 3210 Southdale Circle. Approval is based on the following findings: . The proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for a Site Plan with the exception of the setback variances. 2. The proposed variances are reasonable. The proposed building is smaller than the existing building on the site; the green space setback for the parking stalls would be increased by one - foot from existing conditions; and the menu board would be moved to the south side of the building and pointed away from the residential area to the east. Page 10 of 14 o e PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague April 9, 2014 VI.A. Community Development Director INFORMATION /BACKGROUND Project Description Lennar Corporation is proposing to tear down the existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and single family homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 and 6628 Xerxes Avenue. (See property location on pages A1—A4a.) The applicant would then build a six -story, 242 unit upscale apartment building with 12,500 square feet of retail on the first level. A parking lot is proposed in front of the retail store on York Avenue, with underground parking for residents provided under the apartments. Surface spaces would be available along the north and south lot lines for resident guests. (See narrative and plans on pages A5 —A27, and larger scale plans in the attached development book.) To accommodate the request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are requested: ➢ Building Height — from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 70 feet. ➢ Floor Area Ratio — from 1.0 to 1.27. ➢ Re- guiding the Land Use Plan for the five single - family homes from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. In addition, the following land use applications are requested: ➢ Preliminary Rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and R- 1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and ➢ Preliminary Development Plan. This "preliminary" review is the first step of a two -step process of City review. Should these "preliminary" requests be approved by the City Council; the second step would be Final Rezoning to PUD and Final Site Plan review which would again require review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has gone through the Sketch Plan process before the Planning Commission and City Council. (See the sketch plans on pages A45 —A49; and the minutes from those meetings on pages A50 —A54.) The applicant has developed the proposed plans by attempting to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission and City Council at Sketch Plan. Some of the most significant changes include: ➢ Reduction in the number of units from 273 to 242. (52 units per acre from 59.) ➢ Reducing floor area ratio from 1.55 to 1.27. ➢ Eliminating the loading dock and driveway entrance to Xerxes which would have brought traffic through Richfield. ➢ Creating podium height along Xerxes to lessen the impact of a tall building facing properties in Richfield. ➢ Moving the building 12 feet to the west to reduce the impact on Xerxes Avenue. ➢ Creating better pedestrian connections in, through and around the site. There are five pedestrian walkways planned from York Avenue into the site, including two that flow east -west through the site into Richfield. ➢ Providing sustainable and "green" features. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Automotive Repair& McDonalds; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Community Activity Center. Easterly: Single- Family Homes in the City of Richfield; these homes are zoned Single- Family Residential, but the Richfield Comprehensive Plan guides them for medium density, 7 -12 units per acre. (See pages A55 —A56.) Southerly: Shopping center including the Edina Liquor Store and Cub Foods; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Community Activity Center. Westerly: Southdale; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Community Activity Center. Existing Site Features The subject property is 4.61 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains a retail building with surrounding surface parking and five single family homes on the east side. (See pages Al —A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: CAC — Community Activity Center and LDR, Low Density Residential. (See page A4.) K Zoning: PCD -3, Planned Commercial District & R -1, Single- Dwelling Unit District (See page A4a.) Site Circulation Access to the site would be from York Avenue only. The curb cut to Xerxes has been eliminated. Both access points would be right -in and right -out only. (See page A15.) WSB and Associates conducted a traffic study and recommends a left turn in to the site off York Avenue. (See page A40 and A44a of the traffic study.) The city would have to work with Hennepin Country for approval of this access. Access into the two -level underground parking garage for the residential units would be from the north and south side of the building. The north entrance /exit would be to /from the lower level of the garage; and the entrance /exit on the south side would be to the main level. (See pages A15 and A18.) Extensive pedestrian paths are planned for the site. A new north /south sidewalk, separated from the street, would be created along York Avenue; and a new north /south sidewalk, separated from the street would be built along Xerxes. (See page A15.) There would be five sidewalk connections into the site from the York Sidewalk; three into the retail space and proposed new building, and two that would extend all the way through the site to connect to the Xerxes sidewalk. This would provide Richfield residents a pedestrian connection to the Southdale area. Traffic & Parking Study WSB and Associates conducted a parking and traffic study. (See the attached study on pages A28— A44e.) The Study concludes that the proposed development could be supported by the existing adjacent roadways and there would be adequate parking provided. (See pages A39 A40 of the study.) As mentioned above, the traffic study recommends a left turn in to the site off York. (See page A40 and A44a of the traffic study.) Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 48 over story trees and a full complement of under story shrubs. The applicant is proposing 66 over story trees, including existing and proposed. The trees would include a mixture of Maple, Lindens, Spruce, Elm, Birch Honey Locust and Spruce. (See pages A25 —A25a, and the development plan book.) A full complement of understory landscaping is proposed around the buildings. Final Landscaping would be more closely reviewed with the Final Site Plan. 3 Concern has been raised by Hennepin County in regard to boulevard trees. (See pages A59 —A67.) Staff and the applicant would have to work with Hennepin County to revise plantings within the right -of -way.) Loading Dock/Trash Enclosures Loading for the retail space would take place in the front of the building or at the south side. Trash would be collected within the building and the garbage truck would pick up on the south side. (See page Al 8.) The move in /trash and recycling area for the apartments would take place at the south side of the building as well. (See page A18.) Grading /Drainage /Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be generally acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached page A58. Highlighted items include: a requirement for a developer's agreement for the placement of the public water main and sanitary sewer and for any other public improvements; connecting the water main to the Edina water distribution system, rather than both Edina and Richfield distribution systems; providing details on the infiltration system; and SAC and WAC fees will be required. Any approvals should be conditioned on the conditions outline in the director of engineering's memo dated April 2, 2014. Building /Building Material The building would be constructed of high quality brick, architectural cast stone, stucco, fiber cement board and metal panels. "Edina" limestone is proposed at the street level. (See rendering on pages A8 —A14.) A materials board would be presented at the Final Site Plan phase. Signage The underlying zoning of the property would be PCD -3, therefore, would be subject to signage requirements of that zoning district. Staff would recommend a full signage plan be submitted as part of the Final Development Plan. Plans should specifically include location and size of pylon signs and way finding signage. Specific signage regulations would be incorporated into the PUD Zoning District including way finding signage. Setback from Single Family Homes Within the underlying PCD -3 zoning district, the Edina City Code requires that buildings six stories tall be required to be setback twice the height of the building from the property line of single family homes. If the homes on the east side of Xerxes were in the City of Edina a 140 -foot setback would be 0 required from the six -story portion of the building. The six -story portion of the building would be setback 122 feet. The Richfield Comprehensive Plan guides those homes for medium density development at 7 -12 units per acre, so the long term plan for that area is to be more densely developed, and not single - family homes. (See Richfield Comprehensive Plan on pages A55— A56.) Shadow Study The applicant completed a shadow study to determine impacts the height of the building might have on the surrounding area. (See pages A26 —A27.) As demonstrated, the biggest impact would only be for a few hours roughly from 3 -5pm in the winter months when shadows would be cast over the residential homes in Richfield. Comprehensive Guide Plan /Density To accommodate the request, three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are requested: ➢ Floor Area Ratio — from 1.0 to 1.27. ➢ Building Height — from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 75 feet. ➢ Re- guiding the Land Use Plan for the five single - family homes from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. Floor Area Ratio. The proposed density of 52 units per acre would be on the high end of the end of the density range for the City's high density residential development as indicated in the table below. The site is however, located in the CAC, Community Activity Center, which does not have an established density range; rather the density maximum is based on floor area ratio. Development Address Units Units Per Acre Yorktown Continental 7151 York 264 45 The Durham 7201 York 264 46 6500 France (Senior Housing) 6500 France 179 76 York Plaza Condos 7200 -20 York 260 34 York Plaza Apartments 7240 -60 York 260 29 Edina Place Apartments 7300 -50 York 139 15 Walker Elder Suites 7400 York 72 40 7500 York Cooperative 7500 York 416 36 5 Edinborough Condos 76xx York 392 36 South Haven 3400 Parklawn 100 42 69th & York Apartments 312169" Street 114 30 The applicant has attempted to address the density concern that was raised at the Sketch Plan review by reducing the number of units from 273 to 242; and reducing the floor area ratio from 1.55 to 1.27. As requested by the City Council, during the review of the 6500 France Avenue Senior housing, the following is a list of suburban examples of high density regulation and development in cities adjacent to Edina: St. Louis Park. St. Louis Park allows densities within a PUD to be up to 75 units per acre in high density and mixed -use districts. Additionally, for PUD's in an office district, if there is a housing component as part of a mixed -use PUD, the City may remove the upper limit on residential density on a case -by -case basis. This happened recently within The West End Redevelopment project. "The Flats at the West End" has a density of 111 units per acre. It is 119 units on a 1.07 acre site. Minnetonka. Minnetonka does not have a density cap within their Comprehensive Plan. They define high density residential as anything over 12 units per acre. Developments are then considered on a case by case basis. Factors that go in to the consideration include: environmental impacts /conditions such as wetlands, floodplain, steep slopes and trees; type of housing; provision of affordable housing; traffic impact; site plan; and surrounding area. Minnetonka does not have an example project similar to the one proposed here. Minnetonka is primarily made up of large lots, with mature trees wetlands and open space. However, their Comprehensive Plan does allow consideration of dense development. Bloomington. The City of Bloomington allows up to 50 units per acre in general; however, in areas that are designated as "High Intensity Mixed Use with Residential" (HX -R District) an FAR minimum 1.5 with a max of 2.0) is required. The density may be increased if the following is provided: Below grade parking; provision of a plaza or park; affordable housing; sustainable design principles; provision of public art. With the exception of the park /plaza; the applicant is proposing all of the other items. Bloomington has had three recent projects that have exceeded a 2.0 FAR: The Reflections condominiums along 34th Ave (95 units per acre); Summer House senior apartments at 98th and Lyndale (59 units per acre); and Genesee apartments at Penn and American Boulevard. (73 units per acre) 2 Given these examples of high density residential development in our surrounding cities, the proposed density would seem reasonable for this site, given its location in 'a commercial area, with convenient access to Metro Transit bus service. Based on the above information, the following is the suggested Comprehensive Plan Amendment language, as recommended by staff. The text highlighted in red would be added to the existing text. Staff is further suggesting flexibility in regard to density for housing in the CAC District. Nonresidential and Mixed Use Categories Description, Land Uses Development Guidelines Density Guidelines CAC The most intense district Form -based design Floor to Area Ratio -Per Community Activity in terms of uses, height standards for building current Zoning Code: Center and coverage. placement, massing and maximum of 0.5 to 1.0* Example: Greater Primary uses: Retail, street -level treatment. Floor to Area Ratio may Southdale area (not office, lodging, Buildings should be placed exceed 1.0 on a case by case including large multi- entertainment and in appropriate proximity to basis, subject to proximity to family residential residential uses, streets to create pedestrian utilities capacity, level of neighborhoods such combined or in separate scale. Buildings "step transit service available, and as Centennial Lakes) buildings. down" at boundaries with impact on adjacent roads. Secondary uses: lower- density districts and Other desired items to allow Institutional, recreational upper stories "step back" greater density would uses. from street. include: Below grade Mixed use should be More stringent design parking, provision of park or encouraged, and may be standards for buildings > 5 open space, affordable required on larger sites. stories. housing, sustainable design Emphasize pedestrian principles, provision of public circulation; re- introduce art, pedestrian circulation, finer- grained circulation and podium height. patterns where feasible. Using the above amended text as a basis for review of the subject project, a case could be made to support the proposed high density through the PUD Zoning process. As noted above in the "Description, Land Uses," the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the'CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. The City allows a floor area ratio of up to 1.5 in other parts of the City, such as 50th France; therefore, the floor area ratio of 1.27 of the proposed use, which is predominantly residential, seems appropriate for the area. Land Use. Within the City of Edina, the existing single family homes on this site are surrounded by commercial area that is guided as Community Activity Center. (See page A_.) The only reason these are now guided for low density residential is because of the existing use. They are not uses compatible within the surrounding area within the City of Edina. The uses along Xerxes in the City of Edina typically do not have roadway access onto Xerxes. The proposed 7 development is consistent with that, as the driveways to the existing single family homes would all be eliminated, and no new access would be created. The proposed land use is consistent with the uses allowed in the CAC. Within the City of Richfield, the existing single - family homes are guided in the Richfield Comprehensive Plan for medium density at 7 -12 units per acre. Therefore, Richfield's long term vision for this area also includes high_ er densities. (See pages A55 —A56.) Staff therefore, would recommend that these homes be amended to be guided as CAC, Community Activity Center similar to,the surrounding property. The map on page 9 of this staff report shows how the Comprehensive Plan would be amended. Height. At Sketch Plan review, the Planning Commission and City Council expressed some concern in regard to six stories on the site, especially on the Richfield and Xerxes Avenue side of the site. Podium height was recommended to minimize the height. The applicant has both included a two -story podium on Xerxes, and has moved the building 12 feet back from the road. The setback proposed at Sketch Plan was 25 feet; the proposed setback is now 37 feet. The 3 -6 story set back is proposed at 52 feet. Podium height is also being proposed on the York Avenue side, by bringing the retail portion of the building closer to the street and stepping back the height into the site. Given podium height is proposed on both sides of the building staff would support the Comprehensive Plan amendment in for height in this situation. The map on the following page shows how the Comprehensive Plan would be amended. Future Land Use Plan with City of Edina Building Heights � 5 ' 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update southeast quadrant . Rgure4.6B Data Source: URS ® 0 0.5 Miles * Height may be increased to six stories if podium height is utilized on York and Xerxes subject to review and approval of the City Council. a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Section 36 -253 of the Edina City Code provides the following regulations for a PUD: 9. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; 10 h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and i. ensure= the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the .Comprehensive Plan as "Community Activity Center — CAC," which is described as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. Primary uses include retail and residential. Mixed uses are encouraged. The proposal would be a mixture of use within the building with residential and retail. The site would be very pedestrian friendly with extensive pedestrian paths are planned for the site. A new north /south sidewalk, separated from the street, would be created along York Avenue; and a new north /south sidewalk, separated from the street would be built along Xerxes. (See page A15.) There would be five sidewalk connections into the site from the York Sidewalk; three into the retail space and proposed new building, and two that would extend all the way through the site to connect to the Xerxes sidewalk. These sidewalks would provide pedestrian connections into the Southdale area for residents of Richfield. As recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, and by the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the Sketch Plan review, podium height would be utilized on Xerxes Avenue to lessen impact to the single - family homes in Richfield. There would be two -story apartments close to Xerxes, with four additional stories stepped back into the site. (See pages Al 1 —Al 2.) The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their project narrative. (See page A7.) The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass building. "Edina" limestone is proposed at the street level. (See pages A10 —Al2.) 2. Applicability /Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R-1, R -2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. 11 The proposed uses, retail and multiple - family residential housing are uses allowed in the Community Activity Center, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, and within the underlying PCD -3 Zoning District. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: L where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Community Activity Center — CAC," which encourages the mixing of retail and multi - family residential uses. The proposed plans are therefore, consistent with the land uses in Comprehensive Plan. ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; Again, the proposal is for a mixture of land uses. iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and As indicated in table earlier within this report, and the fact that the site is located in a commercial area on York Avenue, near - Southdale, Metro Transit and an arterial roadway, the proposed density and FAR of 1.27 is appropriate for this site. iv, the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the underlying PCD -3 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Should the City decide to rezone this site to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and 12 number of parking stalls would become the standards for the lots. Please note that a few City Standards are not met under conventional zoning. However, by relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described in #1 above would be met. The site layout encourages pedestrian movement; would utilize podium height on both Xerxes and York, bringing two stories up to the street on Xerxes, and stepping back the mass of the building on York. The project would provide mixed use on one site. The design of the building is of a high quality. Proposed materials include high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass. "Edina" limestone is also proposed at the street level The development would incorporate improved landscaping and green space within the development. The applicant is not specifically proposing to provide affordable housing at this time. However, based on discussions at recent work sessions with the City Council and the Edina Housing Foundation, regarding the importance of affordable housing and meeting the City's goal to add more units of affordable housing (See pages A68 —A69); staff would recommend 10% of the units be designated for. affordable housing. The detail of how that might work would be greater defined at the time of any final rezoning of the property. Affordable housing is also a stated goal, as mentioned above in the PUD criteria. 13 Compliance Table * Variance would be required under PCD -3 Zoning PRIMARY ISSUES /STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Are the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments regarding Land Use, Height, and Density reasonable to allow the proposed development? Yes. Staff believes the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is reasonable for the site for the following reasons: The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. Within the City of Edina, the single family homes are surrounded by area that is guided as Community Activity Center. (See page A4.) The only reason these are now guided for low density residential is because of the existing use. They are not uses compatible within the surrounding area within the City of Edina. The uses along Xerxes in the City of Edina typically do not have roadway access onto Xerxes. The proposed development is consistent with that, as the driveways to the existing single 14 City Standard (PCD -3) Proposed Building Setbacks Front - York Avenue 70 feet 122 feet Front — Xerxes Avenue (Stories 1 & 2) 35 feet 36 feet (Stories 3 — 6) 70 feet 52 feet* Side — North 70 feet 36 feet* Rear — South 70 feet 37 feet* Building Height Four stories and Six Stories & 48 feet 70 feet* Maximum Floor Area 1.0% 1.27 %* Ratio (FAR) Parking Stalls 77 — retail 134 spaces exterior (retail & guest parking) 242 enclosed 245 regular stalls (residential) 38 tandem stalls Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet * Variance would be required under PCD -3 Zoning PRIMARY ISSUES /STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Are the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments regarding Land Use, Height, and Density reasonable to allow the proposed development? Yes. Staff believes the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is reasonable for the site for the following reasons: The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. Within the City of Edina, the single family homes are surrounded by area that is guided as Community Activity Center. (See page A4.) The only reason these are now guided for low density residential is because of the existing use. They are not uses compatible within the surrounding area within the City of Edina. The uses along Xerxes in the City of Edina typically do not have roadway access onto Xerxes. The proposed development is consistent with that, as the driveways to the existing single 14 family homes would all be eliminated, and no new access would be created. The proposed land use is consistent with the uses allowed in the CAC. The City of Richfield has guided the single family homes on the east side of Xerxes as medium density residential; therefore, the long term vision of both Edina and Richfield in this area is for higher densities. 2. Given the podium height proposed on both Xerxes and York, the proposed height is reasonable. At Sketch Plan review, the Planning Commission and City Council expressed some concern in regard to six stories on the site, especially on the Richfield and Xerxes Avenue side of the site. Podium height was recommended to minimize the height. The applicant has both included a two -story podium on Xerxes, and has moved the building 12 feet back from the road. The setback proposed at Sketch Plan was 25 feet; the proposed setback is now 37 feet. The 3 -6 story portion of the building has a proposed setback of 52 feet. Podium height is also being proposed on the York Avenue side, by bringing the retail portion of the building closer to the street and stepping back the height into the site. 3. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. The City allows a floor area ratio of up to 1.5 in other parts of the City, such as 50th France; therefore, the floor area ratio of the proposed use, which is predominantly residential, seems appropriate for the area. The applicant has attempted to address the density concern that was raised at the Sketch Plan review by reducing the number of units from 273 to 242; and reducing the floor area ratio from 1.55 to 1.27. 4. The traffic and parking study done by WSB concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided. • Is the PUD Zoning District. appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PUD is appropriate for the site for the following reasons: As highlighted above on pages 10 -13, the proposal meets the City's criteria for PUD zoning. In summary the PUD zoning would: a. Provide a mixture of use within the building with residential and retail. b. Create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive pedestrian paths planned for the site. A new north /south sidewalk, separated from the street, would be created along York Avenue; and a new north /south sidewalk, separated from the street would be built along Xerxes. (See page A15.) There would be five sidewalk connections into the site from 15 the York Sidewalk; three into the retail space and proposed new building, and two that would extend all the way through the site to connect to the Xerxes sidewalk. These sidewalks would provide pedestrian connections into the Southdale area for residents of Richfield. c. Podium Height would be used on both York and Xerxes. d. The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their project narrative. (See page A7.) The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass building. "Edina" limestone is proposed at the street level. (See pages A10 —Al2.) e. Ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 2. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the CAC, Community Activity Center which encourages mixing land uses, including retail and multiple family residential, on one site. 3. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads subject to conditions. (See traffic study on pages A28— A44e.) 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. A Pedestrian - Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. 16 Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. g. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long -term operation of new and existing development. h. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower - density districts and upper stories "step back" from street. Staff Recommendation Comprehensive Plan Amendments Recommend that the City Council approve the requests for Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows: ➢ Building Height — from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 70 feet. ➢ Floor Area Ratio — from 1.0 to 1.27. ➢ Re- guiding the Land Use Plan for the six single - family homes from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in this area. The City of Richfield has guided the single family homes on the east side of Xerxes as medium density residential; therefore, the long term vision of both Edina and Richfield in this area is for higher densities. 2. Podium height is proposed on both Xerxes and York as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The six story portion of the building is stepped back into the site to minimize impact on adjacent property. 3. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Southdale area and the CAC as the most intense district in terms of uses, height and coverage. The City allows a floor area ratio of up to 1.5 in other parts of the City, such as 50th France; therefore, the floor area ratio of the proposed use at 1.27, which is predominantly residential, is appropriate for the area. 17 4. The traffic and parking study done by WSB concludes that the existing roadways can support the proposed project, and there would be adequate parking provided. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD & Preliminary Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from PCD- 3, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and Preliminary Development Plan to tear down the existing retail building at 6725 York Avenue, and single family homes at 6712, 6708, 6704, 6700 and 6628 Xerxes Avenue and build a six -story, 242 unit upscale apartment building with 12,500 square feet of retail on the first level. Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Community Activity Center — CAC," which encourages a mixing of uses, including retail and multifamily residential. The proposed uses are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The project would create a pedestrian friendly development with extensive pedestrian paths planned for the site. Sidewalks would provide pedestrian connections for residents in the City of Richfield to Southdale. 3. Podium Height would be used on both York and Xerxes. 4. Sustainable design principles would be utilized. The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and glass building. "Edina" limestone is proposed at the street level. 5. The PUD would ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless a,n amendment to the PUD is approved by. City Council. 6. The proposed uses would fit in to the neighborhood. As mentioned, this site is guided in the CAC, Community Activity Center which encourages mixing land uses, including retail and multiple family residential, on one site. 7. The existing roadways would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads subject to conditions. 18 8. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Movement Patterns. Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. A Pedestrian - Friendly Environment. c. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. e. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. f. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. g. Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of design, construction, renovation and long -term operation of new and existing development. h. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower - density districts and upper stories "step back" from street. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated March 3 & 25, 2014. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 19 4. Submittal of a complete sign plan for the site as part of the Final Development Plan application. Signage should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. 5. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated April 2, 2014. 6. At the time of building permit application, compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the chief building official's memo dated March 27, 2014. 7. Work with staff and Hennepin County to secure a left turn in lane from south bound York Avenue. 8. Ten percent (10 %) of the housing units shall be designated for affordable housing. Specific detail would be determined at the time of Final approval. 9. Sustainable design principles must be used. Greater detail shall be provided with the Final Rezoning submittal. 10. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Deadline for a city decision: July 1, 2014 20 J w =z } ;31 SOUTHGAIE CIR Parcel 29- 028 -24 -31 -0003 ID: Owner Nha Birmingham Llc Et Al Name: I Parcel 6725 York Ave S Address: I Edina, MN 55435 Property Commercial- Preferred Type: I Home- Non - Homestead stead: Parcel 3.33 acres Area: 145,096 sq ft 41 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2013 Interactive - Maps Welcome Results PI®: 29028243°10003 6725 York Ave S Edina, MN 55435 OwnedTaxpayer 16725 York Avenue, Edina Find a PID or an address on the map � 1 Nha Birmingham Llc Owner: Et AI Taxpayer: School Dist: 280 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: 1 Parcel 3.33 acres Parcel Area: 145,096 sq ft Legend Measure Ad�, Neighborhoods Street ".. t(1(�u[7 Y I City M " j I County 'r — v s'_ r: 4. •f `R . 1 r + •— •� 4 � • •�y •' 1 r � +`.yin � � , �.• N JI 4 �s 0 201!' G ;�lUft M —i Ad�, ...for living,.learning, raising families & doing business,\ ay 200$. Comprehensive Plan m� ,•',aN•,_ Figure 4.3 City of Edina : s Future Land Use Plan v c,: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Data Source: URS -� — - -� 0 0s hides Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 Chapter 4: Land Use and Community Design 4 -25 tk WILSON RD & EDEN AVE DETAI 1 a GRANDVIEW DETAIL y 3 B Zoning Map r- 44TH8FRANCE DETAIL City of Edina Hennepin County, Minnesota lr I a ��7 o � c � I SEE SEE DETAIL D — DETAIL sY EFT UlZ UPPER L LEFT ®� CENTER \ �. +. SEE DETAIL LOWER 9 SDTH & FRANCE DETAIL Legend DK�, 56TH d FRANCE DETAIL D.ro.FU...o...,...�•o. *• N W E VALLEY VIEW d WOODDALE DETAIL 0 TOTH 8 FRANCE DETAIL SJ t A b LENNAR MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES 1 1300 E. WOODFIELD RD, SUITE 304 1 SCHAUMBURG, IL 60173 1 847.592.3350 LENNA114C® 1"UMI`°AMMY COMMUNITIES PROJECT NARRATIVE 6725 YORK AVENUE SOUTH, EDINA, MN 55435 Monday, March 3`d, 2014 Team DEVELOPER: LENNAR MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES, LLC '(LMC) Lennar Corporation (NYSE: LEN) is a Miami -based homebuilder founded in 1954, with a market capitalization of over $8.6 billion. It has offices in 33 markets and 16 states, and employs approximately 5,750 associates nationwide. In mid -2011, Lennar created Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC (LMC), a company that specializes in the development, management, construction, and ownership of Class A multifamily communities across the nation. LMC's core vision is to work in top tier cities with top tier architects to create luxury condominium quality rental communities. Since its founding, LMC has attracted an outstanding team of seasoned professionals, has purchased 12 sites and contracted for 16 more. Eleven projects are under construction and the company has plans to start 20 more projects in 2014. LMC's pipeline includes over 16,000 units and $3.9 billion in total development cost. Beyond the numbers, LMC is led by professionals that are passionate about creating vibrant communities that positively impact not only the residents, but also the surrounding communities that we become an integral part of. ARCHITECT: ELNESS SWENSON GRAHAM ARCHITECTS (ESG) Since our founding in 1970, Elness Swenson Graham (ESG) Architects has helped our clients create environments for business, community and leisure. In doing so, we have gained the experience and ability to deliver high quality designs for many building types. But this alone is not enough to achieve our mission. The essence of ESG is more than just architecture and buildings. Throughout our entire time, our commitment to enriching our built environment has remained steadfast. It's a commitment that drives us to go beyond the expected to deliver the superior, the timeless, the memorable and the unique; to create environments that capture the human spirit and uplift our lives. This is what we do best. We strive to combine our clients' needs and stewardship for the environment with our knowledge of buildings, markets and culture to deliver uplifting and forward - looking design solutions. The experience derived from our work allows us to offer each client a great breadth of informed and integrated services. We bring holistic solutions to complex problems. We create truly unique environments that enhance our communities and help our clients successfully pursue their goals in the' development and construction industries. ESG is committed to creating communities that are both memorable and practical. We breathe life and vitality into our new urban environments. For generations outside our core cities, our society has created single purpose neighborhoods that isolate us from one another and separate us from our workplaces and shopping marts. In so doing, we have placed incredible strains on our infrastructure and resources. Today we want more. We want to build real communities and promote stewardship for our land. We want to live close to our workplaces and close to others. We want to eat out more, to walk to shops, to sit outside in a pleasant, vibrant, safe environment made up of diverse buildings, diverse people, and great public places. 2014.03.03 EDINA PROJECT NARRATIVE PAGE 1 /' J LENNAR MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES 1 1300 E. WOODFIELD RD, SUITE 304 1 SCHAUMBURG, IL 60173 1 847.592.3350 Staying ahead of the market - Residential Communities and Community Planning Whether it is on a single site or a large parcel, multi - family residential development has long been a large part of our built environment. Housing is a forceful driver of new development and will remain so as long as our population continues to grow. But our lifestyles evolve and our sensibilities toward land development change. This creates new demands for new residential paradigms. Many people are moving back to the city in large numbers. They wish to live in walkable communities. They now seek vital; 24. hour neighborhoods where they can find the amenities and conveniences of a more urban lifestyle. By advocating for New Urban principles, our Residential Studio has propelled ESG to regional and national prominence. Our portfolio of completed work illustrates these principles and highlights the value that high quality design brings to reshaping our neighborhoods and cities. Project Purpose and Vision The purpose and vision for this multifamily development in Edina is to create a high -end luxury rental community with complimentary retail. This complimentary high -end retail tenant(s) (such as a high end restaurant, food service, health club, or other community based retail tenant(s)) will flourish with the other shopping opportunities along York Avenue while also adding an incredible lifestyle value to the residents of the building. This development will give Edina residents a wonderful living option as they downsize, retire, move, etc. while still staying in the community they love. The project will also establish a better utilization for the wickes furniture site and eliminate the existing dated structure. We strongly believe that this project will become a catalyst for future redevelopment opportunities for other properties going North along York Avenue. The strong pedestrian connection and community terraces will dramatically enhance the walkability of this area with connection into and throughout the site. Special attention has been paid toward the building materials and massing to properly fit within this community; creating a place that is " Pure Edina" by incorporating elements from the surrounding areas such as the limestone that is on City Hall and other Edina structures. Architectural Description The architectural design and massing of this project is based on guidance from urban design and architectural design principles developed in the City of Edina's land use plans and timeless city building strategies. The design and massing creates a new fabric and a better street definition along York and Xerxes Avenues. A large opening in the building mass breaks up the south facade and allows for both increased solar penetration and a view enriching vegetative courtyard. The architectural expression and materials of this project will incorporate contemporary materials and facade composition. The building materials will feature a transparent glass storefront, masonry, and "Edina" limestone at the street level, above which will float a traditionally inspired composition of masonry, architectural metal, and large amounts of glass. Special attention has been paid toward proper setbacks, material usage, landscaping, and privacy along Xerxes Avenue where our development is adjacent to the single family residential community. Building design details include a dark, grounding two -story podium, segmented to reflect the scale of the homes across the street, an active street level with walk -up units, expressed with a front porch entry design, the creation of three -story bays to create plane changes and additional stepping in the facade, and color and material changes reducing the appearance of height. 2014.03.03 EDINA PROJECT NARRATIVE PAGE 2 �c LENNAR MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES 1 1300 E. WOODFIELD RD, SUITE 304 1 SCHAUMBURG, IL 60173 1 847.592.3350 Streetscape and Public Realm The design of this development features streetscape improvements including new pavement, street trees, and lighting. The groundscape will feature green landscape elements, high quality pavement, pedestrian gathering and sitting areas, and decorative lighting. The sidewalks will wrap the entire site allowing neighboring properties a through -way access from York Avenue to Xerxes. This pedestrian connection will also create a one -third mile walking path around the site as a safe walking path for residences and the community. Distinct nodes will be linked to these sidewalks as community terraces. These nodes will both highlight the residential entrance and commercial tenant on each side of the facade facing York Avenue. Safety of pedestrians walking along York will be improved with a landscaped buffer and l increased sidewalk width. Green and Sustainable Features The key sustainability strategy for this project is to create an urban mixed -use, pedestrian friendly community that allows residents to live, work, and play without dependence on daily automobile usage. The mixed use development will include a complimentary retail tenant to the residential tenants. The development team is committed to the sustainable design principles reflected in the City's comprehensive plan. Our sustainable design mission is to promote livable communities through the use of energy efficient systems, green building practices, reduced dependency on automobiles, creative density, high quality pedestrian and bicycle public realm, and the preservation of natural resources. The project will feature a series of green elements including green construction practices, materials specification, thermal high- efficiency windows and exterior envelope, and numerous permeable planted green spaces both on the site as well as on the amenity level roof. 2014.03.03 EDINA PROJECT NARRATIVE PAGE 3 a H: 6725 YORK AVENUE PROJECT ADDRESS: 6725 York Ave S Edina, MN UNIT MIX & SQUARE FOOTAGES PROJECT TEAM SYMBOLSLEGEND ®a- �W. A.Uaa �• �ocrA ~ rm e.e..rta v. p SHEETINDEX 6725 YORK AVE. esc ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA POP 6 REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 Esc TITLE SHEET T1.1 �W. IMF oo� » 6725 YORK AVE. esc ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA POP 6 REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 Esc TITLE SHEET T1.1 Ilk r " 6725 YORK AVE. I ...... ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NE COINEI 01 WE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION --o .. f- y-, CITY OF EDINA PDP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 --l- .11-1- 6725 TGRK AVE. SITE PIOT GRIPIS AO.2 m m * o ' | ' m � * 0 e o � rc_ 0 ",o YORK AVE. ... .. ...... ............... --'--- ~ ~---- ---'----- -------- ISSUED FOR nspsnswoc ONLY worpon oomornuormw CITY OF EDINA SUBMITTAL 672% YORK I- ' AID. 3 No 6725 YORK AVE. 11-- esG ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA PDP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 6725 YOAA AVE. IE-E-VE VIE- AO.4 -1- - All- I-.- - - -AES 6725 YORK AVE. la ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA POP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 fsc 672S VORI All, 'EKS'ECTIlE VIEWS AO. 5 !11,!! ,lm! ■! is :!! „ !!, M! ■! !i n1 No !I Ilu !! n1 !■ ee' !!■ _{!I !jra i +!mPI1!I 1II!l► ■! !I !!1 �I 1I q �■ !! !I I! !1 !■ I! I! !!I q ■! ee ee, - u- ee e� ee iri�i m! 11 !'.1 : ee !I .!,e��!1 !1 ! ■� Se !!■ IN !I I! IN !1 !■ 1! I! !!I 11 ■! M! !1 nl �I�eh!I _'ee !I�� -I� SQ n■ ��, !I i! ��! !! .■ ■ ■ ■! !I !!1 ; ,I�., 1 ,1!11I!1m1 om 11 _■ 1M I_ 11 ! III! !N I! I! !I !■ !■ �n�u1� ■! IlIIA�I ■11 !p rul�n' ■! in „nn ■! 1! ,111. !11 !■ ,1!. !L, ■! ■! !! I! I! �� ■! I! !■ I! !1 ■! !I in N !!■ 1! 11 ■! !!I !■ !! !I !1 R1 in ■! I! I! I! II! 11! I!! !11 1! !!1 ■! !I !■ III 01 1! !!I a! !!I !11 !I !I !1 !!I !■ s ■! I! !I 1111 !11 In 41114 11�11� In�iui,1!�!I�r rr szrmYn e 6725 YORK AVE. w ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA PDP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 . .......... A4.1 6725 YORK AVE. N I ......•........ ��� �lr. ��lr. .0.6•1L_ via r1 Ili ern■ ° � —� 1oe o Pilo n■ - / / / /%i ,,�� -- , • 111111111111111 —� � . - 111:111.111.111:111 � / E_�e ViN�ull lip °� °�� iii � 111111111111111 —IE �° - ": �,����'" s`;nla•��� -� _� :;:: �IhIII�111�111�1 I�n� — �3e �� ^1 ,�`•►'IO'°' �fOP 004 OYee �; e0 OA 000, O.O,O] eT0 r'O�y�„. 9 pd Oap 000 F e'10010 �. >- �,® ���ti ..�.�:�� ®'�_��,�a:.-�ti�ai..:�� -eel ®e p ,.eo . e• ' o m f- 0 co z W U) ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA PDP 6 REZONING SUBMITTAL ^G03 103 /201 4 f)3f YOAk ♦vE. •CHAO jYE.,.. 8 ..tlaa ekli e, •� •, $ II 31 I - n - I .I %M,'.7 .. I =CT O I iW I el, uulxous k,trm �usl aerxii°mEl l _ e r 4 4u u s T Ca C eP �a I .., _ • -, ,�, (MCI 4 NS iJ1 -fl 9 I ) 1 I I I I I I I ' I � I R.L.S. Aa 520 I y I I I I j I I , I ki I / -SyMr 4l]Ctl/6Y eC.R.LWP $725 r A«LYAF SU I ' I I � I x ' I ' a f v _ ^ J .'J f7 v I BENCH MARKS fRMI N O V ❑ 29 . Y "" «u» �� l l w as r Iq , co a wNt >a..iMp I", °a 1.) L e! t .1 and Ir h a a. Dme1a 1.^ .`In M a«. «a. LIST OF POSSIR F N ROA HM NTC °i 661n 56 • r°rv. A,.. ° mwwn,nl ENwu°n w oro :.) a nI°Oi°�l ei1! r s0. •O•l wmw �, °� a• v.. « «d «,a,.. ,,.1 6. ---d «...mW.wl, a ca.. . eel. 1 IM °i'•° ,a p....., aaa,^., r.. 0 w 60 a BEE l — .....p «.n. la SG4E IN T LEMNAR MU 77FAMILYINVESTORS, LLC SWIA MINNESOTA SUNDE ,111i"v1• LAMSURMMO C N RA NO S rI�J w ^•S/ 'aC�`.,y I Surw oad' to and bearing hair' xmnvpN CpuntY Cead4wty $y,t Ml NxOBJ (1986)° `rA ,•a,•la d; k Al wIa a `.,,a ° of w�tobeit ` bul I4 «v —y b. d No a• Nat lx °Kahl. pn , t yb a w..n° d • r} R•Wblli,'� a ��1 sL � • eP " I UTILITY (NOTES 8 / , •I =e 3 I S ,•••a`. I�C a �.��Jl +y Y SER M��A vs "{ ,w1. . "• "' I I.) UIJitY nl.1 -.11 kpm Wmv m0 ...1 . xqs cwnbinvd —. abawvad „wtl.ncv of ulpibva to dvMOp ° «.. 01 .a undw4•uund; [ii0ea shun w.a�. .« 1pd4nq .a.gwuon, u ou I «aeon i andw ft. b tdyl�opl.lNy land r«ivbt'cd «clad. Wnr. , a I Y.'� °°� mow) n,y..n _ z8`=- r +.-°r.?�- - — ; I— -r,� .� — — — �, . 91 ^od.°odtlbndc�naol • :n my6 < «r�u y° t` 1n ,unrwaN Won p a: l .° m a .nxn . « « °.wc or. •t v r 0..;r L ;I9v 5]lu g ly t f M Y . a l coe« sw . ca 0 m wo 1 )), t4O3 24, UJ�2. 140340 1. IQ40086 ano 53.86 0 _ ' -�^ w'. > -•i' °� ' I I 1 STATE ONE CAIl °l 651-45. (a -]53 -1166) I., «Iw on 0.4 1 «nbpn nl utCilue t -0003 mY .ac°vo �. i�"`�"°�•; r;' ;, °` = y, E/J W pnR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED lg$ `�'• "' ; `;�, 6"I \ � � • -,I f. C.— P.LS. . lic xo. MGYO . ...° . „t 6yln 51,..4 aqt qr •r«w T., «: lyny a «x « a ... wu. gym°.d° g. S•".'- ! � _, jsL7�; �1'S I .i'.0 w.°. «n. o — s x : : « °I t Pl «l a to • . Iz r.o» o�« �. ,, dx” n, :cm . � ; . Y I «� r « A —a . d 0.1 0. I Ill wT 11. . a i6:\ 1..., ,re=n:t ^i a _w .'. _'' ac yix t, -`° ',• ` a I «. x.«° .,w .° .4 n s" n. t a. . . � U a`° o u. u a vIXw« m. u°an4 «.,un . l;.c 1 m° �� t «y,4`a:°I ul o I u i� w r «tso wn ° Y ^•.l.1 1° ° l l v. pno m «. Iwmx°I v ea°yl fr Y>r` /04 v .d. `� 01 I i . a.d. zur. x ^wula)w.«° n gaT rcs� 2 $ �•^+ col 1. e,«w x. •raw ^ ^ � . _/gCi..W'G• � v. 1 Ta"� I: 3 I ICdv� s6bcw f T i «a I I—) D«lif„ 11W. x> 11..) I .fir I ; •rww r. r14. Na 1]egTZ„ �6 �vsu ' • ' �� I. I .r And pal ql •ewlN M.,1 6TN S0..1 r CRY R.—t. D «. M...]J°665 wu Y»YT • •^+ , ��_ ��,"l' ` YY a� �� •6aku I pr.pwl i. 1«ol.d F N« In Caunlr.pu «n.aot.. TIT(Fr ('OMMITMEN Tn9 f v _ ^ J .'J f7 v I BENCH MARKS fRMI N O V ❑ 29 . Y "" «u» �� l l w as r Iq , co a wNt >a..iMp I", °a 1.) L e! t .1 and Ir h a a. Dme1a 1.^ .`In M a«. «a. LIST OF POSSIR F N ROA HM NTC °i 661n 56 • r°rv. A,.. ° mwwn,nl ENwu°n w oro :.) a nI°Oi°�l ei1! r s0. •O•l wmw �, °� a• v.. « «d «,a,.. ,,.1 6. ---d «...mW.wl, a ca.. . eel. 1 IM °i'•° ,a p....., aaa,^., r.. 0 w 60 a BEE l — .....p «.n. la SG4E IN T LEMNAR MU 77FAMILYINVESTORS, LLC SWIA MINNESOTA SUNDE ,111i"v1• LAMSURMMO .1,. - o.�vf. - j a I Y.'� °°� mow) n,y..n _ z8`=- r +.-°r.?�- - — ; I— -r,� .� — — — �, . 91 - I6': • Y a . ,� :n my6 < «r�u y° t` 1n ,unrwaN Won p a: l .° m a 0..;r L ;I9v 5]lu g ly t f M Y 53.86 0 _ ' -�^ w'. > -•i' °� �a� I I 1 d .py of a 0. ° sunoE Ur+a swvE w,.. 489 53 ° f. C.— P.LS. . lic xo. MGYO f v _ ^ J .'J f7 v I BENCH MARKS fRMI N O V ❑ 29 . Y "" «u» �� l l w as r Iq , co a wNt >a..iMp I", °a 1.) L e! t .1 and Ir h a a. Dme1a 1.^ .`In M a«. «a. LIST OF POSSIR F N ROA HM NTC °i 661n 56 • r°rv. A,.. ° mwwn,nl ENwu°n w oro :.) a nI°Oi°�l ei1! r s0. •O•l wmw �, °� a• v.. « «d «,a,.. ,,.1 6. ---d «...mW.wl, a ca.. . eel. 1 IM °i'•° ,a p....., aaa,^., r.. 0 w 60 a BEE l — .....p «.n. la SG4E IN T LEMNAR MU 77FAMILYINVESTORS, LLC SWIA MINNESOTA SUNDE ,111i"v1• LAMSURMMO "72^."=°a -------- u �-------------- | | � CA | | C. | | | | | | | | | . | | | | | �} | | � � | ' ISSUED FOR --I— -I TTH f ��Ior�t- o[ J-11-1-t-1- J -1 Ti- -t-1 . ONLY . NOnFOm | commnvcnow '--7--'--'— | U. I mi IT1,11- I c]-[ Tt-1111-1-[TH t�n - - ...... rt-t-] _ rt-171T] 41TiT ITT t I'T n I 1j I -- -- - - -- -------- ----- -- � � | ' ISSUED FOR --~-- -- — nsreREwcs . ONLY . NOnFOm | commnvcnow '--7--'--'— | SO PRICING SET | '--'�-'-_ | '--~--'--- | '---_-'--' | | _ | � ' ' | . ' Al.O 'If — ok 6725 YORK AVE. T T— - T — -- — -- m ------------ ISSUED F O PREFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR _,CONSTRUCTION (�D PRICING SET F)o 3/03/2014 i1 s30! tsC QQQ 4 4 4 4 4 to 0— 0 ot 6725 YORK AVE. T T— - T — -- — -- m ------------ ISSUED F O PREFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR _,CONSTRUCTION (�D PRICING SET F)o 3/03/2014 i1 s30! tsC F- --- - - - - -- i i i i i i i I I I I I I I I I I I C I I I I l 6125 YORK AVE. I I AS, D ISSUED FOR - - - - - REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR ,JONSTRUCTION SD PRICING SET - - -- c 310312014 — — — H __ Al .2 mlpllQ'I 6725 YORK AVE. _ _ I - I - -1 -- 1 —a -- I - -I — — a - - - - -L -- 1- - - -�— - -a -- —I — IL— I ........... ...... ...r... r---------------------- — — -y -- - - -I - - -- -- I ............... I � I fi •i � E � I I I - —�- - a -h— —I- - — ISSUED FOR - - -- {REFERENCE - — - d ONLY i E nw NOT FOR I u -- i- CONSTRUCTION - - --�) I I I I I I I I tu I 1 J SO PRICING SET i I —_ —_ F 3/03(2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I It ~ I -- I I I I I I I I I -- -- - g M M31 ---------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ - - i - - 3 w.onnl�r 6725 YORK AVE. 0- 0— o I l f i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i l i �� o CC�C�VC . i' I I 1 i i •� . �X�U 1 - - - -a r----------------- _ 1 "A - �� - =- II I I I I I I I I I i ., i I �-- � " - - - -�� _ - -- i - -T— R - - - -- -0 � i 1 - —I - -t— -r x '- ..,. �. - - - -- - - -- - - -'. - -I - -- - — - - r -- - ISSUED FOR -- --CREfRENCE i ONLY R .. NOTFOR I CONS RUCTION E PRICING SET I 3/03/2014 i - =J — 1-- 1 - - - I I I -L — I 1- - I - -1 -- I _— ---- -I - - -- _. I I - - — I - i 1 s I i 1 I .L.1 na - - -- A1.6 T� f- .1 DR W .— q�rD —). SEE is 1M .1- -.2 • *E— EN-N 5- PAW ENT. SLfF CONCRETE. .D CUR. AND UCER A-DON MO REMOVE Ex ­G UNDERGROUND -1-DY FSEE LANDSCAPE P��FOR I TREE PROTECTION DE'PUL5 kE SILT nWCE 14STALLATON .......... jy SEE SHEETS C1.3 AND ClA FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND DETAILS I II Myl 6725 YORK AVE. _.. N .......... ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA PDP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 213506 MK 6725 YORK AVE. DEMOLff*N AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN cl .0 ems. amen mry �r ! a ! •ead,m RDNFOR[m CONCRETE IRR)ERGRODM) SIOR/LE SYSTDI W N SEE SHEETS C1.3 AND Cl r4 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND DETAILS jm a� m.� Bien mmlrunW�oa 1 ma„ Iw ry waa+uea. mow b . "iWn m'Iaol�wl Nlisa n�weoa onbv wnr eenewuan. INeN tlpn/'omn dewiw � aarlmram n wn..e enure I nr awl- lmp�nOUwnelw maau' pn m W 'nlawuen al1< h obe� 1e .M�'m:lwlur mea wee le wage rmeep. o .uonlne'ege q °nrro� N rol teyn rw nnm wntl awl I wW NdlnLLn Ma nreleerW 1m Caen moe s.�� �1 s.. croNa corponon •uo re t Ew.awna, cry co�vna. •ne we:pe eaemmeua m.wn. I I I I I � I I , 6725 YORK AVE. rant NN em aunrelw waw. eerN I fil1.319.f 1fi1 Vlfi fi- ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA POP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 LVUE: wmn+ DeecrlRtlen Dan ]13506 NM MK 6725 YORK AVE. CRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C 1 e 1 E I, or�: r- rI I_�IS'I 1 I� W N SEE SHEETS C1.3 AND Cl r4 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND DETAILS jm a� m.� Bien mmlrunW�oa 1 ma„ Iw ry waa+uea. mow b . "iWn m'Iaol�wl Nlisa n�weoa onbv wnr eenewuan. INeN tlpn/'omn dewiw � aarlmram n wn..e enure I nr awl- lmp�nOUwnelw maau' pn m W 'nlawuen al1< h obe� 1e .M�'m:lwlur mea wee le wage rmeep. o .uonlne'ege q °nrro� N rol teyn rw nnm wntl awl I wW NdlnLLn Ma nreleerW 1m Caen moe s.�� �1 s.. croNa corponon •uo re t Ew.awna, cry co�vna. •ne we:pe eaemmeua m.wn. I I I I I � I I , 6725 YORK AVE. rant NN em aunrelw waw. eerN I fil1.319.f 1fi1 Vlfi fi- ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA POP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 LVUE: wmn+ DeecrlRtlen Dan ]13506 NM MK 6725 YORK AVE. CRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C 1 e 1 E t.P G�a9 tC��._.._ .ter E'.=. 0Lbw I. mn aW ladwm �inr��am. anup, i�ww oem�u. N 5[A,L u, rRl SEE SHEETS C1.3 AND C1.4 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND DETAILS 6725 YORK AVE. e mnmywmuNUa tr,rw ,mn1H,5 ].139.f19E VA .. ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA PDP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 --.u. .1- Msn 1 ><,rovo� ilne 113506 NM MK 6 72 5 YORK AVE. SEWERAND WATER UTILITIES Cl E•2 RI FRDNTRR EW (EU) NAPPY RmElURNS rAaAY � _ Y It 0 } SOD q NAPPY RETUIDD DAYLLLY O STEW D9R0 DAYULLY Ir(b)SIONDE ANSIipN SLUEGMAN - MIFIREDANDE OOGWO00 / ! —RI RED SUN6ET AMP+f (,D) S,ADN HILLS SPRUCE + i + + ;E + E%19TUA TREES ronnuw(MPt, ��•j�J�' DEOI u+nc FwE ooDw000 ; (N)SLONDE AMSRpN DWE OPMN CI3USNED STONE �T� + OP. GREEN SPACE — DD RED SUNSET AMPLE SEATING NDDE 4 6725 YORK AVE. DW .w r f - b CM�;E G Ip I ¢ I f 5 i wen�mp+b�eanm, II G ,\ ..—. wuNgwn mw. w.N MnrapM. MNP.eu S 0,] 2� 9iTi� iom 4 rGTI--EP—ER — OAIUntE wuc HYORANDEA •°••w�••••° y � IO W 6 X ISSUED FOR F REFERENCE W ONLY X NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION s —N6D1 rApA soERSTJ =,R REED QAAD] i'� � CITY OF EDINA PDP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 o.cwu 6sDE ww... Akv6p+s onvp�lw Dau 213566 JS JS 6125 YORK AVE LANDSCAPE PLA LAE.O a 97 - '' GENERALNOTES I. mNRILIDRSHULe6vEC i MESrIEANp BFDO1E iAxLWIMIXFASTaCmImRmE RELATNGro MEwi1.rEAlmsmvEwnow� z mxsAnoR SfauvmFY RAxursnAxo mFLroTIEniEIRmxOFMEwmsYPEALLSewn oamEPAwssvne�l WrmwmLaE ME omcxanxlExranEUTmr. a LOxi RKIwI6HMlASSIREmwlrfcFnmuwwumot3AmlanaArl QammDSnrlw YNIXAMO WIFAMISEUPRFD. a coxtlbclmsxutvmiin mmnaa\ os .nxeacuriw.mAEa,rmES, urnaumartE E1ExEx19waN4WblwR:lmNOPDaiD18 oAwvf rosNa:mauaFRFVUEOArw AOORDxumsrroMEOmm S mxIRIL10R5NYLVD6YI lrApL£NSAIDIOUiwfIOFIaJERf�I)D Am AaOYEGN0E0MF5 AwxmvweMElaxfssur Rroi¢ imflfoRSYIEaPPOlEmlaiwcnsleFta6 pFSUx IF (aFAPA1rA. n mxmAnwsHAUmomxYTE if enlnsasamanunoxunNAxlwLaruuroxmm onm mxmrclxw rnORlmo a sit i, uxoERraauxo unnFSVwLDEesruLmmnurra5r +utsmrmartrlwaFalRmr warm a- ExwiND rsEES ro nELFaL L emTenmxrow6, mina, vEDETATgNCwawnERAxoonaRDUZxnAa eusEDwox wroRWtpxswx ®ro rfr< urmswEAR61FI5stevotxmamxrwnogswuvERFr ORYDEPNIC ®xDORmCONi}RUCmNA1O mrF1'WNSWEMCINECIOiW& L HOR ®NfALA1L1lSRRil4FwiffMOF RNPO.SEa W1LLtS, iRA680R ROtIXIAYfiNF AWIFLT TD FlFin AmD SRffMRmUNmi0mW01NromGL�DTONWPMfi PAIDmOt8A1ID roI6N¢� rRE6 nr3wuAwmAmxD awlDESwxxaawxruaaunSSxmREASPRwmnTlr< IAEDSIPEARUFrtnPRem roewuEESRArisL la mrlau: loRSwulwlavrlwmSwRDEFeaISFSwalE mfawDlax +eolrr+n foa;Am¢r AfFER P W Ii Eftlal@ W HT. SURw.LL OR NVNNIIY. IRID6MYE NIF mAwImIS SxV L 0E xCOOMro MEAlTEN1O10F ME W®'APEAR6xfmfPw0RT0afrlalL OF fANL 1 mxtPKiw16 R6mfEw1Eid10NDW:WNfFwIrI OF NEP&Y e8m1ID w1FALlb WISIeE 1. oF6vanumumSFUroNfwPAxaACissvAlmumlmwwcEwlmlWTaafvlmLro SlwsrAxWl. DsFlEimx F1NLL SE TIE RE401>.�aIIY a ME IAIA9DAIE mrmunnL IL DOne011®wlSFieiC xr6Fmx W�4RfUlm pxmE6xVL0EPR01ECIE04D GYm IINE58NDIE010ERElOY ®mAIEIOGim N.W AxFAroRE WiDm. 011FSrpB1EVP10PO FA61em PVMwTEwALSHOL�amLd}ro MEAnpRmxgllE WmsWENma1H,'IPRmi roRElwa n DasTenlRiarowFD6wua oeEtlmxawmscwEUmnar . sRULazPER1e®Axo Paean ro IEIOVE Duo Yiom. wwcm Alm RIIBBta' eRAwEV. k mNTMnWSMALL RE➢xw NOLRIFrAWwIIm REn161 mRME618YTANTW mWlE1DN xsu�mxoFlAfmSfAnAw WIEa0a0VE1EfnS Pimp roSliwiie4ie6uurRESEfir. IS WNTIUD100.51NLLPREPARE AN) SL& er RERmaRHE /661ALTDMWWG570F I.YAmSbiPE Pmruurax ,SUlnnwxAmwlExTSUloxosFSEroxof mrsmucmx wnAWttx1AND PwDRroauLYwnwmwlaiwL 11. SYIwOLa 0NPW1 D0.4WRG iAfiE PRFIInFNE OVm 6DFDLLF6F 06fxIFPANE9 xO0ANfRF9 D09i. 6PmaG1mA6 AN0 OnAlb TALE PREDEDFPLE OVER NO1FS PLANTING NOTES GRADING NOTES 1. GIIMFLLNfSAREDESDIDKMEJIl tiI600PPRdY IgD WaDEwOfIR6RLOMDEwFia NOrEDO11ERW6E z r xvaaoLUrsAxowrsawwusavaoxxAxAREnarAPwoufArEUmWr�ADFmm x FE10BY WDYAPEARORmi. ml ¢grtmEarfFsElurswueEmleArlAlmwPF mxaYnawFFPDaElaamsDaessn nuxnswFARwimroROVnaaxxTalun 1 ruanASIUESSwrrownvDE .nFwa�ca,DEAWArmouxnarswmwusna DO1a�wzTmft 6. wxrAxAUraofwuoEeEml fzt mxmaowAl ¢w5ro6EmADmlwrssfmmoilmwL� 1 ELaATexa.FSnowAREraesmESt ATmrEl awrFSEVArmr6 rAlsrRECmmaS :ovEx rmxtDLrta S mN11aDIwi61WLLmN5ARPIwILI11RIIEa mRmLYDIw OFIS�mlap rYRmEf0AxF6. CDmIRS. PIPp. WWLLRV6LVm OROrNm [Li ®STW6:DIRF6 m1TNE 0mm4IA1MCAPE. mNRUC10R SxV L PFPAN OR RENAfE l lE ASOVE F DNMGF➢ DwPA fiwSiRLC11DN Ai m AosmvamnroMEa6Rax i. fARRK1011swLLPROVDEPI10Pm Em5UNLONTROl uFA5xF5 AS REOUREn i0 e81mEDNT FROSDrI 6 REPr ro AN AasaulE xenon -sEE an sPErsrwTrm6. a PROVmFTmvoRARr DOVmea;roR DStulwsws Almwxx0lES URLHwsxmoRVx106 m6F1EiE - sEE cwa svfLDrATlw6. PLANTING NOTES L mPLAMia WaLBE NSTAllmllRliPIALwUORm MwCWSnU C11LPlWV DEDYmWIEIm NiM ar]RATEA1Fw 2 PmmSm PUxrw1FAW 51WLLCOxPLY N1M11�OxRDRmRCNOFTIENF ]IGN6rMW1U iiml Nw6DrY 610CL AHn DA L 1 6TWETANp eOIAEYARp OwmmWLBEEJ1wWplpfplpMEpixµ FAPOVEPAYfD9aFK'E l PROPOSm RANI wlERF1 FHULaElOGlm Alm 6LUEDA95HRa0NRAN W9ff.IPE AW a1EZTx16rAVRWE��StofwAlnwtmwPRmRrooFxaa S HORAYI WTFANL 6Y1911MOMWLLEIIII .FFflmWE9APPRW.LL6GIWRFO6YME VHDSrNE ARDFImI ro ME mNONCIOR PPmq ro TIE 511 K r. S ADaATLFJRa NIDUImNOr PROfOSFD PIANf W1FRWa WY6E NFIOm NFlEILLLYN3CAPE Anmalmr NYwreErnlFEOPRmaro Aaa6nExroivuxn Ruiwm&vsroeE earAIEmPERRANIem Onus. a rRavmYPPxo wrDnu sxNL6EivmwulEOUSlcsx ¢TrsAwlaOmrrmex auEro irT6RA1LH YYRAPmwO1H&WtmOF(LDVSDwFS PLANfEDNME iNl PRdI roommwEn l Mm REYDVE WIUPPNDAFTFA WY 1. TURF NOTES mDARZa6o6iummolYEroonAOexiuARPSS xorEOOrxmxsE 2 W1ERE6m AfiUw PAVm6DRFACFS FF6HFDaLSnEOi 5006 ®61NLL fiEHEL11.6F1Ox511RNJf ELEVATION OT it W L yAe, mfi1 E1G 1 9oD 51NLL BE 1.1m PNUUEL ro ME mxrouns Am !MALL wV E StAGG1Am.wINR. ON SloPm r �AwwrEFlwx Sr.SwrrsumarSRrE PD 1aFDFRDOTLVL � -�T: WxH SPADEwwwro smmuReinxwDNLLs: - _ 4= eemmmlREVUmsa WPWlwm PRA'ro 6' FAS9mlPmDAw AOOTxlLBASE OFFPmTwilRmTaAU -u:l. mxrwnxfoDTPRESwFm RAa ROmeoLOx sm6nmem 41 iwrRmT NU mES mrs�r oxcowAOms&a �AU�uns���fw�ES�S fmLProE ysP•m' /� OMVELCWFAN'/iLLIFA fKIBC. / TREE PLANTING DETAIL dram Tw+1Oe masaWCE swuES.mo sxuLe6nAisosESx¢Y. PnPARE mzwR � ME ENwEBm SFE6 �1Dx sF61DY - wA1TnroFRTERORRAVIem ruzsE mmrnuxuaw NmxlKrvOw SNaBSfEu IxL sg xEmeARlsxrAxrc mcE m1alw vuFn. sEE RAf l mcP1�sEERAx � / �. / _- mxlAR91GWYNw1ERNt5xY1 � wvEnomsxAUOIODSD® I %:� G\��. - rUUrNOm6 wRmmfes wraamrwNAmTaNE .� _ - � 1� �' I�fGRFY 5Y1E3 N1DmT0110F 1_ � FRIIRExO WDNSPAOE 6r HNm �� roexDxmrlAxlrs� T_ a SHRUBPLANTING DETAIL 1. wr >.ra ��.�........,..p.ew mom, rsFrnmsmxcuDa wEE SP¢FUf[xs7 InumlF6nnA5zNR (i�' ru61m G0.1DFArmm6E �I .� ' -� •.�•� � .. C01mRAYVARR]- 6EEPLW i L - wRmwmsl. -I I � I l� x STEELEDGER 1. .... m•�a wi_.nP.. eon /.�.. REVNEmaroR EN6E® �iW 6FnW x1.5rrom EF5ElmRwneD r REFFA rxauLmrorrucF UUmI ro PU!! Nfd1IKT YAMPVHi61Ex F00EmMDONVARFISFEPWI " m "-6EERAx U � w�m�OnlWS�im wianiuiD� I; I. - RAxnmsoaraAPFRExwua SCARFYSOESArm mDR50i � � L = mOxFm0YmH6PA0FNHUm BPm NRNRNOPw 60a D1m611a6FDSDF6MOE 44 PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL 1 6 72 5 YORK AVE. Fw.P xx cx mA,w .a.. exN + �T ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA POP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 oek.bJee Oaie 213506 6725 YORK AVE LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE & DETAILS LA 1 x 1 xDTe coxunOR sHwE uunAx rmEa w A PLSwPmrowlrxmErowrwu&um rmwuTmoRws ro PEAmO. VIRAPilEE1PUN6 D1aY IFON SRAITI eERACmw Mre �mT1EEluxumuvox YY ��� APrarrYEmwmscwEAmwwxr. roEE6�Pm.5EfmNPHA1E0 1961]1 i00ElEVa W1 PUCFNAfHNmlrrKi vAMIRE1wxF AmifW¢YQLLFAT rov OFRmi WL FRDDTiWiE6miV6xE REYOIE maNAIEVEL WAHIFRR FlmIR00i — LNRNmrWa10RDFA RmiDrOf1 uADmI EUFRGFSfgONMEIRV. EDGEmIDDmY VPRFASEEPVx rnvACrRxnwsoLrom P°anF °°Pwcw^I"Fre^l AvAxmecrourxor l wx ORDm ROOT 1' M W ER M.W AOE sea mummvFR roP mOieN1WIM605. rvFS�i�ro YmxiosFn rR xartTOreawv �cRADEwcESaoWSeED1 Put waxwn r �AwwrEFlwx Sr.SwrrsumarSRrE PD 1aFDFRDOTLVL � -�T: WxH SPADEwwwro smmuReinxwDNLLs: - _ 4= eemmmlREVUmsa WPWlwm PRA'ro 6' FAS9mlPmDAw AOOTxlLBASE OFFPmTwilRmTaAU -u:l. mxrwnxfoDTPRESwFm RAa ROmeoLOx sm6nmem 41 iwrRmT NU mES mrs�r oxcowAOms&a �AU�uns���fw�ES�S fmLProE ysP•m' /� OMVELCWFAN'/iLLIFA fKIBC. / TREE PLANTING DETAIL dram Tw+1Oe masaWCE swuES.mo sxuLe6nAisosESx¢Y. PnPARE mzwR � ME ENwEBm SFE6 �1Dx sF61DY - wA1TnroFRTERORRAVIem ruzsE mmrnuxuaw NmxlKrvOw SNaBSfEu IxL sg xEmeARlsxrAxrc mcE m1alw vuFn. sEE RAf l mcP1�sEERAx � / �. / _- mxlAR91GWYNw1ERNt5xY1 � wvEnomsxAUOIODSD® I %:� G\��. - rUUrNOm6 wRmmfes wraamrwNAmTaNE .� _ - � 1� �' I�fGRFY 5Y1E3 N1DmT0110F 1_ � FRIIRExO WDNSPAOE 6r HNm �� roexDxmrlAxlrs� T_ a SHRUBPLANTING DETAIL 1. wr >.ra ��.�........,..p.ew mom, rsFrnmsmxcuDa wEE SP¢FUf[xs7 InumlF6nnA5zNR (i�' ru61m G0.1DFArmm6E �I .� ' -� •.�•� � .. C01mRAYVARR]- 6EEPLW i L - wRmwmsl. -I I � I l� x STEELEDGER 1. .... m•�a wi_.nP.. eon /.�.. REVNEmaroR EN6E® �iW 6FnW x1.5rrom EF5ElmRwneD r REFFA rxauLmrorrucF UUmI ro PU!! Nfd1IKT YAMPVHi61Ex F00EmMDONVARFISFEPWI " m "-6EERAx U � w�m�OnlWS�im wianiuiD� I; I. - RAxnmsoaraAPFRExwua SCARFYSOESArm mDR50i � � L = mOxFm0YmH6PA0FNHUm BPm NRNRNOPw 60a D1m611a6FDSDF6MOE 44 PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL 1 6 72 5 YORK AVE. Fw.P xx cx mA,w .a.. exN + �T ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA POP & REZONING SUBMITTAL 03/03/2014 oek.bJee Oaie 213506 6725 YORK AVE LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE & DETAILS LA 1 x 1 G ;n Lj di 0 0 ❑ 12, ej 1: -D ❑ p, 111 1 13 Or n c c I , c m n n I '0 R. c MARCH/SEPTEMBER MORNING 9AM MARCH/SEPTEMBER NOON F E 13 D Li u a L c ❑ di 11 1:1 0 CD n 0 MARCH/SEPTEMBER EVENING 3PM C a ❑ L U D F 1 li 0 :3 D n 0 ej . D . 0 u. .0 cs S. 13, t3 r 0 ❑ G n D D r ❑ r V r I'LL n n 121Z r V I MARCH/SEPTEMBER NOON F E 13 D Li u a L c ❑ di 11 1:1 0 CD n 0 MARCH/SEPTEMBER EVENING 3PM JUNE MORNING 9AM u 0 U ❑ L U D F 1 li n n c U u n n 0 ej . D . 0 u. .0 D S. u ❑ n r 0 ❑ G 13 12 po r V r I'LL n n .1 a ❑ n n ❑ 0 n n F ❑ JUNE MORNING 9AM JUNE NOON u 0 u c ❑ L U D F 1 li 0 D 0 0 ej . D . 0 u. .0 D S. u ❑ n r 0 ❑ G n lb 12 po r V r I'LL n n JUNE NOON JUNE EVENING 3PM 0 U 13 0 ej ❑ p� u ei e3 ej Li 0 0 a 0 ej . D . 0 u. .0 D u ❑ n r 0 ❑ G n lb 0 ❑ po r I'LL n JUNE EVENING 3PM DECEMBER MORNING 9AM "-- M P -[ R .1 A u u IJ C. ❑ I. 'n I ej Li 0 u . D . 0 u. .0 r u ❑ -�!j . u 1� M;3 G FL r 0 ❑ po r I'LL n n DECEMBER MORNING 9AM DECEMBER NOON u rj Q ji t! L a ej Li 0 av--- n u. .0 r ej G FL r 0 ❑ ❑ I'LL n DECEMBER NOON DECEMBER EVENING 3PM 6725 YORK AVE. esc ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHADOW STUDY 03/2512014 u rj Q ji t! L a ej Li 0 av--- n M r r 0 X�, FL r 0 ❑ ❑ DECEMBER EVENING 3PM 6725 YORK AVE. esc ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHADOW STUDY 03/2512014 H• ld*'lt 0 0 u L a 0 ° \��•, 6 o a a � O 0 o ❑ 0 O 0 13 ❑ 0 0 0 o e p o b o �Z v °o \\ ❑ 0 o 3 0 D ° D 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 DECEMBER MORNING BAM (DEC 21 SUNRISE: 7:51 AM) e � 0 p ❑ o a D O u p ❑ o a ❑ o O 0 o ❑ 0 O 0 13 ❑ 0 DECEMBER AFTERNOON IIAM o ❑ P o 0 0 o Q ° 0 0 co boo D \ ❑ 0 o p o_. -... ° P 0 0 o e p o b CQ �Z 0 0 DECEMBER EVENING 2PM a ❑ C3 1 a D 0 6 13 ❑ a O 0 Lrl' N 13 Er o �I ❑ co e p 0 0 0 �Z P 0 0 C D \\ ❑ 0 D 3 0 lb o ,°D 0 � 0 0 0 0 DECEMBER MORNING 9AM o ❑ 0 0 0 $ 1 a n o ° C131 O 0 a N ❑ 0 0 13 �I ❑ O D 0 0 p b 0 0 4 ❑ DECEMBER AFTERNOON 12PM ❑ P u a N o o 0 p a 0 �o o c D �I 13 a p ❑. 0 4 ❑ P n 0 p� ' 1J `0 P 3 0 O ,°D 0 � o DECEMBER EVENING 3PM HIMIC ITIP fiz� °0011 0 23 a 0 ° , 0 ❑ r a II ❑ c D �I 13 a ❑. 0 0 0 0 0 p� ' 1J `0 P 3 0 ❑ 0 ` 0 0 0 a IN 0 0 DECEMBER MORNING IOAM o ° 0 0 23 a 0 O ° 6 0 O D ❑ P 0 ❑ C3 0 0 O p y'- ---��1 Q 0 0 0 DECEMBER AFTERNOON IPM ❑ 0 D Ll D° U o a 0 ° ❑ ❑ O D p�- 0 0 0 O .0 0 6 o 0 0 0 0 DECEMBER EVENING 4PM (DEC 21 SUNSET: 4:41 PM) 6725 YORK AVE. esc ISSUED FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHADOW STUDY 03/25/2014 6725 Y011 11E. /& /� SB Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning ■ Construction -i & Associates, Inc. Memorandum DATE. April 2, 2014 To: Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director Mr. Chad Milner, Director of Engineering City of Edina FROM. Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE RE. 6725York Avenue Redevelopment Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -51 Background 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541 -4800 Fax: 763 5414700 The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic and parking impacts the proposed redevelopment of the Wickes Furniture site at 6725 York Avenue. The site is located on the west side of York Avenue between 66th Street and 69th Street across from Southdale Shopping Center. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site redevelopment includes 242 multifamily residential units and 13,980 sf of retail uses. Access to the site will be from the two existing driveways on York Avenue. Currently both driveways provide right - in/right -out access. It is being proposed with the development plan that additional left turn access be allowed at the northern driveway. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. The traffic impacts of the existing and proposed. development were evaluated at the following locations. • York Avenue and 66th Street • York Avenue and Southdale site entrance and exit intersections • York Avenue and Site Entrances • York Avenue and 69th Street The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the proposed redevelopment. k a� 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 2 of 14 Existing Traffic Characteristics S The existing lane configuration and traffic control include: York Avenue (CSAH 31) is north/south a 4 -lane divided `B" Minor Arterial Hennepin County roadway. Primary access to York Avenue is by local streets and development driveways. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 30 mph. The current Average Daily Traffic on York Avenue is 20,200 vehicles per day. The lane configurations at each of the study area intersection are as follows: York Avenue at 66th Street - Traffic Signal control SB York Ave approaching 66th St — one free right, two through, one left NB York Ave approaching 66th St — one free right, two through, two left EB 66th St approaching York Ave — one free right, two through, two left WB 66th St approaching York Ave — one free right, two through, two left York Avenue at Southdale Site Entrance — Sidestreet Stop Sign control SB York Ave approaching Site Entrance — one right, two through NB York Ave approaching Site Entrance — one continuous right, two through, one left WB Development Driveway approaching York Ave — one right out only York Avenue at Southdale Site Exit — Traffic Signal control SB York Ave approaching Site Entrance — two through, one left - NB York Ave approaching Site Entrance — one right, two through EB Site Entrance approaching York Ave — one right /through, two left WB Development Driveway approaching York Ave — one right, two left York Avenue at 691h Street — Traffic Signal control SB York Ave approaching 691h St — one through/right, three through, one left NB York Ave approaching 69th St — one right, three through, one left EB 69th St approaching York Ave — one through /right, one left WB 691h St approaching York Ave — one right, one through, one left PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour turning movement counts and daily hourly approach counts were conducted during the weeks on July 8th — 21 St, 2012. The AM peak hour counts were found to be 20% to 25% lower than the PM peak or Saturday peak counts. Therefore, only the PM and Saturday peak hours were analyzed with this study. These counts were used as the existing baseline conditions for the area. The City recently approved the addition of 232 apartment units with associated parking in the existing Southdale Shopping Center parking lot. The site is located in the northwest quadrant of 691h Street and York Avenue. This project is currently under construction and will have a direct impact on the existing York Avenue traffic. Therefore, it was assumed that the traffic from the Southdale Residential development would be included in the existing (2014) traffic conditions. A Traffic Study was completed for this development which documented the anticipated traffic levels. Ao� "1 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 3 of 14 Figure 3 shows the existing intersections and driveways along each corridor that were analyzed as part of this traffic study with the 2014 PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes. Background (Non Development) Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped in the past few years. However, in order to account for some background growth in traffic the Hennepin County State Aid traffic growth projection factor of 1.1 over a 20 year period was used to project traffic from the 2012 counts to the 2014, 2016 and 2030 analysis years. In addition to the regional background traffic growth, other specific none development related traffic near the site was determined and included with the overall background traffic. These projects included: Byerly's Redevelopment - The City has been working with Lund Food Holdings for the reconstruction of the existing Byerly's grocery store site, located in the southeast quadrant of France Avenue and Hazelton Road to include: a new 47,119 square foot Byerly's store; a six/seven -story 109 -unit apartment building; a six/seven- story, 77 -unit apartment building with a first floor 10,711 square foot retail area, and; a six - story, 48 -unit apartment building with 11,162 square feet of retail space on the first level. This project is currently under construction and will be partially completed in 2014 and assumed to be fully completed for the 2016 analysis. Think Bank Development - The City recently approved the proposed redevelopment of the Szechuan Star site at 3655 Hazelton Road adjacent to the Byerly's site to include an 8,441 sf bank building with a four lane drive thru. The project is planned for construction in 2014 and assumed fully completed for the 2016 and 2030 analysis years. Fairview Southdale Hospital Expansion — The proposed plan includes the expansion of the emergency center, urgent care, behavioral health and observation area. The proposed expansion consists of a 77,500 sf (gross area), two -story building located on the north side of the existing hospital building. This project has been approved by the City Council. It is assumed that it will be completed in 2014 and included in the background traffic for the 2016 and 2030 analysis. Edina Medical Plaza (6500 France Avenue) ) — The�_City recently approved the redevelopment of the properties in the southwest quadrant of France Avenue and 65t Street. The proposed site included redevelopment of both the 6500 France Avenue site and the 4005 65th Avenue site with a five story 96,500 sf medical office building. However, recently the City was presented a revised site plan changing the use on the site to a 209 unit senior housing and skilled care facility. It is assumed that it will be completed in 2014 and included in the background traffic for the 2016 and 2030 analysis. A3� 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 4 of 14 Additional Southdale Mall Development - Based on the information received from Southdale Center about the current vacancy rates and plans for renovations, it was determined that following the renovations, the mall would have an additional 143,880 sf of leasable space available. This figure includes leasable retail and food court space. The analysis assumes that all leasable space will be occupied and included in the background traffic for the 2016 and 2030 analysis. Future Restaurant Development = A future restaurant is anticipated in the northeast quadrant of France Avenue and 691h Street in the Southdale Center Parking lot. The restaurant was assumed to be 8,000 sf in size with approximately 300 seats. The analysis assumes the restaurant will not be developed by 2016 but, will be open and included and included as part of the 2030 background traffic. The estimated trip generation for the additional background traffic is shown below in Table 1. The trip generation rates used to estimate the additional development traffic is based on extensive surveys of the trip- generation rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition. The table shows the Saturday peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed uses. Table I - Estimated Additional Background Trip Generation Use Size PM Peak Hour Satu ay Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Byerly's Redevelopment 73,450 sf and 234 units 411 231 180 556 282 274 Think Bank Development 8.441sf 206 103 103 182 91 91 Hospital Expansion 77,500 sf 24 10 14 3.0 12 18 Senior Housing 209 units 40 18 22 48 22 26 Southdale Apartments 232 units 144 94 50 118 59 59 Shopping Center 143,880 sf 533 256 277 693 333 360 Restaurant 8000 sf 79 47 32 112 67 45 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Development Site Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed 6725 York Avenue project is shown below in Table 2. The trip generation used to estimate the proposed site traffic is also based on rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition. The table shows the PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour trip generation for the proposed development. M► 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 5 of 14 In addition, it was assumed that all the traffic from the site would be new and that no adjustments were made for dual purpose or pass -by /diverted trips. This also will provide for a worst case traffic condition. Table 2 -Estimated Development Site Trip Generation Use Size PM Peak Hour Satu day Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Apartments 242 units 150 98 53 126 63 63 Retail 13,980 sf 70 31 39 96 53 43 Total Site 220 129 92 221 116 106 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Trip Distribution Site - generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on several factors including the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and the travel sheds for the major routes that serve it. In general the Trip Distribution was assumed, 30% to the north, 40% to the south, 15% to the east and 15% to the west. The generated trips for the proposed 6725 York Avenue development were assumed to arrive or exit using driveways on York Avenue, and were assigned based on the ratio of existing AADT volumes on each respective roadway. Future Year Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2016 which is the year after the proposed site would be fully developed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. Four improvement alternatives were evaluated. 1. No Build — Assuming existing lane configurations and traffic control 2. Access Alternative 1 — Existing condition, right -in /right -out at the north driveway. 3. Access Alternative 2 — Left in from York Avenue at the north driveway. Figure 4 shows these proposed improvements. The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and the projected non - development traffic growth to the existing 2012 traffic counts to determine the "No- Build" traffic conditions. The anticipated 6725 York Avenue development traffic was then added to the no -build to determine the "Build" traffic conditions. Figures S — 9 shows the projected 2016 and 2030 No -Build and Build PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes. A3a 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 6 of 14 Traffic Operations Existing and /or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the intersections and access driveways on York Avenue. The analysis was conducted for the following scenarios. 1. Existing 2014 Conditions 2. Projected 2016 Alternative 1 3. Projected 2016 Alternative 2 4. Projected 2030 Alternative 1 5. Projected 2030 Alternative 2 This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations for each scenario. Analvsis Methodolo The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to "F" to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign - controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and /or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through- street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un- signalized intersections are shown in Table 3. The threshold LOS values for un- signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. h33 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 7 of 14 Table 3 - Intersection Level of Service Ranges Source: HCM LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches ") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low- volume legs by converting a two -way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low- volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro /SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning- movement volumes, lane geometrics, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. • SimTraffic is a micro- simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. �39- Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un- Signalized A :510 < 10 B 10 -20 10 -15 C 20 -35 15 -25 D 35-55 25-35 E 55-80 35-50 F >80 >50 Source: HCM LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches ") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low- volume legs by converting a two -way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low- volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro /SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning- movement volumes, lane geometrics, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. • SimTraffic is a micro- simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. �39- 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 8of14 Existing Level of Service Summary Table 4, below, summarizes the existing LOS at the primary intersections in the study area based on the current lane geometry, traffic control and 2014 traffic volumes assuming the Southdale Residential project is open. The table shows that all intersection are /would be operating at an overall LOS D or better during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours with all movements operating at LOS E or better. Table 4 — Existing 2014 Level qf Service C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc Forecast Traffic Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the study area intersections for 2016 which is the year after the proposed 6725 York Avenue site would be fully developed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. The results of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables 5 - 7. Table S — Forecasted No Build, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2016 and 2030 during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. However, with the increase in traffic, some additional movements will be operating at LOS E. Overall delays will also increase slightly from the existing conditions to the 2030 conditions, especially at the major intersections at 66th Street and York Avenue and York Avenue and 69th Street. ffi�- PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec /veh) (sec /veh) York Ave at 66th St C (E) 34 C (E) 29 York Ave at North Site A (B) 4 A (B) 3 Access /Southdale Entrance York Ave at South Site Access A (A) 3 A (A) 2 York Ave at Southdale Exit C (E) 26 C (E) 23 York Ave at 69th St C (E) 29 C (E) 27 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc Forecast Traffic Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the study area intersections for 2016 which is the year after the proposed 6725 York Avenue site would be fully developed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. The results of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables 5 - 7. Table S — Forecasted No Build, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2016 and 2030 during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. However, with the increase in traffic, some additional movements will be operating at LOS E. Overall delays will also increase slightly from the existing conditions to the 2030 conditions, especially at the major intersections at 66th Street and York Avenue and York Avenue and 69th Street. ffi�- 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 9 of 14 Table S — Forecasted No Build - Level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Table 6 — Forecasted Build Access Alternative 1, shows that, assuming right - in/right -out access, all intersection would continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2016 and 2030 during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. All movement will be operating at LOS E or better in 2014 and 2630. Overall LOS and delays do not show any other significant changes from the No- build condition. Table 6 — Forecasted Build Access Alternative 1- Level of Service 2016 2030 Intersection PM Peak Hour Saturda Peak PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hur LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec /veh) York Ave at 66th St D (E) 36 C (E) 29 . - D (E) 46 C (E) 30 York Ave at North Site Access /Southdale A (B) 4 A (B) 3 A (B) 5 A (B) 4 Entrance York Ave at South A (A) 3 A (A) 2 A (A) 3 A (A) 3 Site Access York Ave E Southdale E xit C (E) 26 C (E) 25 C (E) 27 C (E) 25 York Ave at 691h St C (E) 29 C (E) 28 D (E) 34 C (E) 28 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Table 6 — Forecasted Build Access Alternative 1, shows that, assuming right - in/right -out access, all intersection would continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2016 and 2030 during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. All movement will be operating at LOS E or better in 2014 and 2630. Overall LOS and delays do not show any other significant changes from the No- build condition. Table 6 — Forecasted Build Access Alternative 1- Level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. 434 2016 2030 Intersection PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak PM Peak Hour Saturda Peak Hur LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (sec /veh) (sec /veh) (sec/veh) York Ave at 66th St D (E) 36 C (E) 29 D (E) 46 C (E) 31 York Ave at North Site Access /Southdale A (B) 4 A (B) 4 A (B) 5 A (B) 4 Entrance York Ave at South A (B) 3 A (B) 3 A (B) 3 A (B) 3 Site Access York Ave at Southdale Exit C (E) 26 C (E) 25 C (E) 27 C (E) 25 York Ave at 691h St C (E) r 31 C (E) T 29 D (E) 37 C (E) 29 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. 434 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 10 of 14 Table 7— Forecasted Build Access Alternative 2, assuming a left turn in at the northern site access, has similar results as Access Alternative 1 showing that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2016 and 2030 during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. Specificlly the proposed left turn in movement from York Avenue to the North Site Access would be operating at an LOS C in both 2016 and 2030. All other movement will be operating at LOS E or better in 2016 and 2030. Overall LOS and delays do not show any other significant changes from the No- build or Build Alternative 1 condition. Table 7— Forecasted Build Access Alternative 2 - Level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Vehicle Oueuinz Analysis A queuing analysis for the existing and future 2016 and 2030 conditions was prepared evaluating the anticipated vehicle queues with the proposed Site Access Alternatives. The analysis was conducted using the SimTraffic simulation software. Table 8 shows the results of the queuing analysis for the 2030 full build of the area conditions. The results found that during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours, with both access alternatives for 2016 and 2030 conditions, the maximum and average queues do not exceed any of the available or proposed turn lane storage on York Avenue. However, at both site access driveways the maximum queue will block parking spaces. The maximum queue represents the longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period. In addition, observations at the other none site access intersections showed that, in some cases the maximum queues were exceeded. The observations were identified just one time during the peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 2 seconds. In all cases the queues exceed the storage in the left turn lanes by 25 feet (1 vehicle) or less and would clear without blocking the adjacent driveways or intersection and not impacting through traffic. AV 2016 2030 Intersection PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak PM Peak Hour Saturday Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec /veh) (sec /veh) (sec /veh) (sec /veh) York Ave at 66`h St D (E) 36 C (E) 29 D (E) 46 C (E) 31 York Ave at North Site Access /Southdale A (C) 5 A (C) 6 A (C) 6 A (C) 7 Entrance York Ave at South A (B) 3 A (C) 4 A (C) 3 A (C) 4 Site Access York Ave Southdale E xit E C (E) 31 C (E) 25 C (E) 28 C (E) 25 York Ave at 691h St C (E) 31 C (E) 29 D (E) 37 C (E) 29 C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Vehicle Oueuinz Analysis A queuing analysis for the existing and future 2016 and 2030 conditions was prepared evaluating the anticipated vehicle queues with the proposed Site Access Alternatives. The analysis was conducted using the SimTraffic simulation software. Table 8 shows the results of the queuing analysis for the 2030 full build of the area conditions. The results found that during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours, with both access alternatives for 2016 and 2030 conditions, the maximum and average queues do not exceed any of the available or proposed turn lane storage on York Avenue. However, at both site access driveways the maximum queue will block parking spaces. The maximum queue represents the longest length of queue that was observed during the analysis period. In addition, observations at the other none site access intersections showed that, in some cases the maximum queues were exceeded. The observations were identified just one time during the peak periods with an extremely short duration of less than 2 seconds. In all cases the queues exceed the storage in the left turn lanes by 25 feet (1 vehicle) or less and would clear without blocking the adjacent driveways or intersection and not impacting through traffic. AV 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 11 of 14 Table B. Site Access Maximum Vehicle Queues Parking Demand The parking demand for the proposed site development was analyzed based on the anticipated use for the site and the PCD -3 zoning. Based on the current City Code the proposed development would require a total of parking spaces. The current site plan includes 6400 spaces. Table 9 shows a breakdown of the parking required per City Code. Table 9 — Parking Required per City Code Use Size Rate Available Site Access Alternative (feet) Location Direction . Approaching Vehicle Queuing Alt 1— Right -in Multi- Residential 242 units 1 /unit 242 Storage / Right -out Alt 2 — Left in York Ave Southbound Left Site Access 110 NA- 97 at North (Retail / Restaurant) (9,655 sf / 120 (Restaurant = 1 /3seats (112) Site Access Eastbound Right York Ave 50 72 101 York Ave 328 (354) 514 at South Eastbound Right York Ave 50 85 86 Site Access Parking Demand The parking demand for the proposed site development was analyzed based on the anticipated use for the site and the PCD -3 zoning. Based on the current City Code the proposed development would require a total of parking spaces. The current site plan includes 6400 spaces. Table 9 shows a breakdown of the parking required per City Code. Table 9 — Parking Required per City Code Use Size Rate Parking Parking Required Provided Multi- Residential 242 units 1 /unit 242 419 Retail 13,980 sf 8 /1st 1000sf+ 86 95 6 /additional l 000sf (Retail / Restaurant) (9,655 sf / 120 (Restaurant = 1 /3seats (112) seats /12 employees) + 1/employee on shift) Total Parking 328 (354) 514 Source: City of Edina — PCD Zoning District The parking demand was also analyzed based on industry standards. The parking generation rates used to estimate the parking demand was based on surveys of the parking generation for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4rh Edition. Table 10 below shows the estimated parking generation rate and the anticipated peak parking demand on a typical weekday. This would represent the worst case conditions for the parking assuming the proposed full development of the site. AN 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 12 of 14 Table 10 — Site Parking Demand per ITE Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition Based on the results of the parking analysis, it can be concluded that the parking proposed with the site plan would be adequate for the proposed development plan. Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed 6725 York redevelopment project includes the addition of 242 apartment units and 13,980 sf of associated retail space. The site is anticipated to generate 220 trips in the weekday PM peak hour and 221 trips in the Saturday peak hour. • Existing (2014) traffic operations, assuming the Southdale Residential project is completed, all the intersections and driveways on York Avenue are operating at overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour.. • Intersection traffic operations for the No -Build conditions in 2016 and 2030 will continue to operate at an overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. • Two build site access alternatives were analyzed. Access Alternative 1 included a right - in /right -out at the northern access to the site. Access Alternative 2 included a left in access from York Avenue to the northern site access. ® Intersection traffic operations for both access alternatives in 2016 and 2030 will continue to operate at an overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. • The queuing analysis indicates that no significant impact on intersections or access locations will occur as a result of the proposed full build conditions in 2016 or 2030. X431 Weekday Use Size Rate Parking Required Multi- Family 242 units 1.20 /unit 291 Residential Retail 13,980 sf 4.1 /1000sf 58 (Retail / Restaurant) (9,655 sf / 4325 sf) (4.1 /1OOOsf / (98) 13.3/1000s Total Parking 349 (389) Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition Based on the results of the parking analysis, it can be concluded that the parking proposed with the site plan would be adequate for the proposed development plan. Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed 6725 York redevelopment project includes the addition of 242 apartment units and 13,980 sf of associated retail space. The site is anticipated to generate 220 trips in the weekday PM peak hour and 221 trips in the Saturday peak hour. • Existing (2014) traffic operations, assuming the Southdale Residential project is completed, all the intersections and driveways on York Avenue are operating at overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour.. • Intersection traffic operations for the No -Build conditions in 2016 and 2030 will continue to operate at an overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. • Two build site access alternatives were analyzed. Access Alternative 1 included a right - in /right -out at the northern access to the site. Access Alternative 2 included a left in access from York Avenue to the northern site access. ® Intersection traffic operations for both access alternatives in 2016 and 2030 will continue to operate at an overall LOS D or better for the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. • The queuing analysis indicates that no significant impact on intersections or access locations will occur as a result of the proposed full build conditions in 2016 or 2030. X431 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 13 of 14 • The proposed addition of the left turn in (Access Alternative 2) would not create operational or vehicle queuing issues in the 2016 or future 2030 build conditions. • The existing or proposed available parking would meet the City's Code and are below those identified by ITE. No parking space variances would be required. Based on these conclusions the following is recommended. 1. Construct the access and pedestrian accommodations as shown in the site plan (Figure 2). 2. Provide the proposed roadway improvements as shown for Access Alternative 2 (Figure 4), providing a left turn in from York Avenue at the North Site Access. This will require Hennepin County approval. . No additional roadway improvements or additional parking would be required to accommodate the proposed 6725 York Avenue development. M 6725 York Ave Redevelopment City of Edina April 2, 2014 Page 14 of 14 APPENDIX X41 a a 4 o� o. V) ,P P Z wR C /V� A a I EW a U CH OWEN r a (q ❑ yr R a CU RVE Qa n 57. 4 W. � 62 nd ST. w x ° w a (q 1 a a z GpRRI SON w o �� w w d 35. r (q > U Q a G m 0 700 ft 1400 ft 36. " a x w w 35. > � w w ° > > > _ J U m 64 th ST. a a ST. w 64 th ST, a tMINNBWA W z o W. 64th UJ a J a ,� a a > > W O o� 3 0 a a W. z o 65 th ST. a C O th ST, w ad 2 Z J •"' U d O c7 3 a w wLake a Cr w ¢ h v= z W. 66th ° ST. a e a o0 0000 0 J 1 r Cornelia SOUTH ALE r o a Project � °R. D tUNNESOTA � � LPGU�p 68 Th a Location l D ROYCA P-� A ST. D m BALFANZ C1 w Q I APP �E I TON UPPER RD. ��� �P a O > �P Wt( TER- o J1 in ON �Z4 0 69th SURD AY w �� 4 L z ��� ��_ W. 69th ST [ ST. - a s 3 w � Q Q � 3 0000 0 O D(�N n w ° ( ° Q a = oQ �O Qq 38 eERRY o ° q.a ��G o a w y), 3 70th o > w ST. .� ao� a � w Qo�o Q LAR i G ANDOVER RD. a' MAVELL E 2 J a ua a w AS Pq So Q C( BEL VIDERE LA o w or m J DR. RO x L Sfq r qR£y J 1r _ o HAZELTON Cr l> ORE C C w ° z = Y w a TRIG 4 ASPASIA Iq (qRf " ° a a x LCa �fG CIR. DUNygM DUN MDRE W. 72 nd ST. } til (9 N yq RD L'i R, o a Creed HIBISCUS 3 DQ E((SWDRTH OA OR. w AVE. Q a o tv FD - w OC1 J oo NDELL DR. J c~iI w OR• a Y J o M w a PNLOX i s z w = UJ w r J GILFORD DR. � o C3 z Ld L m LA. J w° o= a of 0 w 4th HIBISCUS > Y > a `` CT' o ST. Lake a a c ° PARKLAWN o AVE. LU ST. AVE. ° Edina a S�pUM coy P�� W, 75th a O QOPPY SORE Lp• a QP� PLAZA r r LA. Y w L DR. a a a W. 76th ST. 3 W U Q U BLVD. , W. J C x Y W Q O x 77th ST. a D o w w 1 [DR. MINNESOTA � � o 5 � �r o NA y Traffic and Parking Study Figure 1 e 6725 York Avenue Redevelopment �y...= City of Edina, Minnesota Project Location Map Oale:Prf —d.- J /]l /]OH kq-� r W...• .:,be•: �' � ° II�IIIIIAITIII�III�11 is �c _ M� v mm mm �ASA11111A1 -- �m MEN ►r - � I„ �� �. 111111 IIIIIIIIAI �_� . ► • - • ' • . � �� � LAAAIAAIIAAA�AAAIAIAI �� �� _;, ��` ::^ • ``� �'� . �! _Ililll�lllflllillli ����'' 11 1 ..GS MURMUR kq-� 'IrT d' rpr Z 5(10) Ot 0" Awl ti o(o) t 0(0) 0(0) V AMR= -0, '4r 1T yy 0(0) 175(165) 111(1-) 15 (2% 135(160) U a Oto % .. I . - .$ _ I' 40 (70) 140(V 45(55) 19 RO I Traffic and Parking Study Figure 3 o I :, o -._ , 5 6725 York Avenue Redevelopment Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2014 Existing Conditions '&V� 0 so ft 100 ft 4. J 71 AUJL- LU Traffic and Parking Study Figure 4 6725 York Avenue Redevelopment City of Edina, Minnesota Access Alternative 2 � . 46` '• 1 1 rverc +Ir4Tl'INrn� - (' r� "' , '�f NN•M �i iirP 11 Hlr I N• ` V F 5 ` ♦ ( r r`.. .. n! 0 1 Lf K OR f rn1 - /vJ 765(530) y 2301170 7 R 55(65) s 0(0) ti ► �i1n. �` 1 On t At LP 135 (150), t- „�• F. 15(20) / ' -•v - t '� ■ ••"• $ _ Ir 135 (160) - {. fie♦ ,f� of I '. . 175(165) o °_ .�^_ t • � t6s(1s51 � '' r � � r ' rr•r r.. 0 (0) 4 i ! I • t� t,a �`\ i+ 's;'�. `N ,•'. ' 'fit _. 225(265) J >7 . - yam,. * +.� ".: mss. ° ..Z N fw Turning Movement Direction; v1r;w..1�r Traffic and Parking Study Figure 5 > 0 6725 York Avenue Redevelopment Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2016 Access Alternative 1 A 46 ! h( i•,mi exf I rF��n'r" nrl� w'' j m're r owl ' N n "4114erM 1.1M.11rw� y�Inni:i ,f n afio(34s) r 400 (340) G 0(0) 0(0) ;b 1 t r *.. .t 1. •S..S ir�t.. +'� - - 200010) 765(330) ► m rti i 4 f r (1 ( 460(195) _ w id 1 _t a; On J 1 i�. f F' ~ 0(0) r ±• �'y r� ,r' r ol% '� j1 1 t r OR At ����'•' t 135(150) $ _ r 135(16% G 140 (150) 6 175(165) R `� 1 1 ' 165(195) 1 r' r , JynT•�4.•.4 ' ,.N � r•rf^ - ;•r., � l k � C; 01% _ _ `; O �y�_y�nii•; 'r `•.tsarrawr.... r sr ..- 0( 0 J '1 t fr 210(245) 165 (9u7 '+ $ 150(165) N + LtUtNU nIntersection of Interest 50 (75) AM (SAT) Counts N 1l'1t? Turning Movement Direction I y �- �� o eA',, Traffic and Parking Study Figure 6 r p�' 6725 York Avenue Redevelopment Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2016 Access Alternative 2 A *c S— 'e - r •f11r11 11r= Ir !M9 q+ i �19 M9�11, fr T� I 95(30) - i1 • YM �1w,1i„H� ; rWn I1 MIA r�1 N Mi� [` � 935 35 i ^1 +'r RH�a 911E M 1,91rIM.. i Mr t �M nn •' .� �r ( 5) •t.. J R $ e r 400(340) Op 7'7 o(0) A ti t r 1 •--x ♦ :O 7: v - V _ _ 215(115) _-' 915(350) "► R '"�` Iiy 1 •� „� yr �': -r , I 245(180) N C %- 55(65) I. It �s o(0) '� it 1 t r = • . - o(m old r'? r o 1. •1, i o e a ` 0(0) 135(150) 9 r r 1` . s • . {: e or 135(160) _ , - « it j L U 4 r 0 4 t 75(190) (0) 175(165) .0 - 1 e - 145(145) `'•;a r 1r 4s (55) { 20 (20) -� It , d 11 • 165(195) 1r tl�* ,��`,����yyy... ..- t ✓'flf r --� Y A 9(0, •1 1 t r P", , ;, , =:1 %y97� _� ` •. _^ i 225 (265) -0 "t r - 16 (9 1 WCOUNTY A Traffic and Parking Study Figure 7 6725 York Avenue Redevelopment Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2030 Access Alternative 1 Aid J rNNf W. Irr s• �yt■� i'�F( xterrt� n6 , ` J L 95(50) . 111 ~.. M9 i1. Mr an6 F- r ~ i�^\ H petnf r M ..w,n1. i nvn lr ■4I Hrrp (�R. 955(555) . r F 420(360) I� t - ' _ _t/ _ __• 215(115) .y— — ,-+ 615 (550 •`�. r:,•.r- ,)..r+r:e." Y4. a 5565 �. I- G � ( 1 .. �t , � ■ t TIM..... Irl On pia' r • \ �� 6 — ° 0 (0 e t I v JLIr ra i; 155(150). ,Jt' 0(0) f 1 t ^ '+tsl�te._r__..t -_ 50(60 - - _ _ - «' 145(145) 175(165) 6 "dry -� ___ -_ _ °• Ir 45(55) �,• •� l b r► 0(01 j 165(195) .'• , ..w r'-f#A rl.•. 0 On r t �• r ... is 4' +� : - C. y6^ -_ r:J f _� 210 (z45) •/ — e '% ,. � 9�•N � at4�e�TIf V' F} 'F fir `� "�— $ � i ,' + )) -,j,�6,� �'� A �. r._`r ..y✓'.�✓-�,� -amKa r' M. G'.Fn 165(95) -i d 1'P� n LEGEND '� �+ . --� � �;� ��� _ � Intersection of Interest x 50 (75) AM (SAT) Counts _N 411& Turning Movement Direction o °eA,r'` Traffic and Parking Study Figure 8 v, 6725 York Avenue Redevelopment Peak Hour Turning Movements City of Edina, Minnesota 2030 Access Alternative 2 4 4�t eSG L 1= p� 4 ,#lk i MULTI- FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 6725 York Avenue South Edina, MN 08.28.13 !'4: c[s LENNAR MULTIFAMILY INVESTORS 9 5kt c � P�V) Rendering Looking NE ,6s eSG LENWAIT 'architects LENNAR MULTIFAMILY INVESTORS lay lit 7, 1 Aw lit i a �:� El, /�x� s !�f oi 01 l 97 V A -a A % W [k j 7K MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 6725 York Avenue South Edina, MN 08.28.13 7 MIN I PP r ,6s eSG LENWAIT 'architects LENNAR MULTIFAMILY INVESTORS lay lit 7, 1 Aw lit i a �:� El, /�x� s !�f oi 01 l 97 V A -a A % W [k j 7K MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 6725 York Avenue South Edina, MN 08.28.13 7 ske c P14 V, Rendering Looking SE ��JIM mm 11 tl NOR HIM - I1 OVA mwMR gi li. Allm i MEMO IVA SSG NOUN MULTI- FAMILY DEVELOPME 6725 York Avenue South Edina, MN 08.28.13 • w 30 :� �,• �Mi . NJ I! Al It NOUN MULTI- FAMILY DEVELOPME 6725 York Avenue South Edina, MN 08.28.13 Commissioner Potts recused hirom the discussion. Planner Comments Planner Teague told the Commission staff received a Sketch Plan Review for 6725 York Avenue (the former Wick's). Teague explained the applicant is in negotiation with the owners of Wick's and the five (5) residential homes fronting Xerxes Avenue. Teague stated the subject site is currently zoned PCD -3. Continuing, Teague said the applicant is proposing to tear down the existing commercial and the five single family homes and build a six - story, 273 unit upscale apartment building with 22,289 square feet of retail space on the first level. A parking lot is proposed in front of the retail component on York with underground parking for residents provided under the apartments. Teague reported to accommodate the request four (4) amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would be required as follows: • Building Height — from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 66 feet • Housing Density —from 30 units per acre to 82 • Floor Area Ratio —from 1.0 to 3.1 • Re- guiding the land use for the six single - family homes from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. Teague concluded the applicant is considering a rezoning of the properties to PUD, Planned Unit Development. Appearing for the Applicant Peter Chmielewski, Lennar Multifamily Investors, LLC Applicant Presentation Mr. Chmielewski gave a brief history on Lennar and explained that originally they only considered the Wick's site; however felt only utilizing that site pushed the envelope so they decided to approach residential property owners on Xerxes to obtain those houses and add them to the site. Continuing, Chmielewski said they propose to build a high -end luxury multifamily rental community with complimentary retail. Chmielewski introduced Aaron Russet to further speak to the proposal. Mr. Russet told the Commission they are very happy to be in Edina. Russet referred to the density and explained that the calculations presented in the redevelopment materials did not include the five single family homes they are hoping to acquire. Continuing, Russet explained they are proposing to build a 273 -unit upscale multifamily complex that is six (6) stories with retail below. Russet said the attraction to this site is the walkability factor, adding from this Page 9 of 14 h SO location the residents of the building have access to all venues, shopping, City Park, library, Government Center, etc. Russet further explained that their intent is to create an urban mixed -use, pedestrian friendly sustainable community. As previously mentioned by Mr. Chmielewski the area offers abundance to amenities and this creates an environment without dependence on daily automobile trips. Continuing, Russet said they are committed to sustainable design principles reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He added their intent will feature green elements including green construction, practices, material specification, thermal high- efficiency windows and numerous planted green spaces both on the site as well as on the roof. Russet said they are also working with the White Group on sustainability. With graphics Mr. Russet concluded highlighting the following aspects of the project: • Open terraces on both ends of the project (pocket parks) • Walking paths of high quality pavement • Decorative lighting • Front doors • All parking is proposed to be contained within • Building is designed open to the south • Exterior building materials include transparent glass storefront, masonry and "Edina" limestone at street level. Above includes composition of masonry, architectural metal and large amounts of glass • Unit breakdown 7% studio. 40% one bedroom, 11% one bedroom plus den and 32% two bedrooms. Chair Staunton thanked the development team for their presentation and explained the Sketch Plan Review process is informal and nonbinding. Commissioner Grabiel stated he was encouraged that someone was considering purchasing the site and redeveloping the property. Grabiel acknowledged he was somewhat concerned when he first reviewed the materials; however, if the five residential homes are acquired that's a different story. Grabiel asked if three bedrooms or two bedrooms plus den were ever considered. Mr. Russet responded that this development would be a "rent by choice" and they have found that many people that rent by choice are either downsizing or desire smaller living space. Russet explained that at this time they are waiting for an update of the market study; however, it appears the market may be for smaller spaces. Continuing, Grabiel acknowledged this is an area of heightened activity, questioning if the market is sound for this type of project in such a dense area. Russet responded that population metrics indicated a drop in home ownership and for every percent home ownership drops a million families need a home. Walkability is also a very important factor in home choice and this area is highly walkable. Page 10 of 14 x511 Commissioner Carpenter asked if the owners of the homes have been contacted. Mr. Chmielewski said that process is continuing through a real estate broker adding two of the homes are in foreclosure and it takes a little more time when working with banks. Commissioner. Carr stated she really loves the look of the building but does have a concern with the proposed density; which is clearly on the high side. Carr said she agreed with the comments from Grabiel especially on unit size, adding the two bedroom with den in her opinion would be an attractive choice. Carr said in her opinion the project is intriguing and if special care is taken in buffering the residential properties in Richfield this may be a good project. Concluding Carr noted that with regard to the retail space depicted on the plans the applicant should be aware for future retail tenants that the abutting property is a large grocery store. Mr. Chmielewski said with regard to unit numbers, spacing and size it's important to find the right density to ensure that the project will be successful. Chmielewski said the property owners reside in New York City and their price for the subject property reflects the New York City market. Chmielewski said the development team would take under advisement all comments from the Commission and would make every effort to buffer Xerxes Avenue. He added at this time their intent through design is to make the units feel and look like townhomes /brownstones vs. the traditional apartment building look. Commissioner Schroeder said he finds the project and site plan interesting, adding he likes the connectivity and other elements of the project; however has a few concerns about the .Xerxes Avenue side. Schroeder said the Xerxes Avenue component of the project is the most difficult to address. He pointed out as presented the proposed fagade facing Xerxes Avenue is imposing. He suggested that they reconsider the large facade and relocate a portion of the building by placing it on top of the building nearest.France Avenue. This change; in his opinion, would better suit the site, adding height in this area is generally found along York Avenue; not Xerxes (Westin, new Southdale apartments etc.). Continuing Schroeder pointed out when considering the projects impact on Xerxes Avenue, vehicle traffic, especially truck traffic, needs to be further reviewed. Schroeder stated if left as is all truck traffic would only occur on Xerxes Avenue. Concluding Schroeder asked the applicants to consider "marrying" the subject sites loading dock area with the Cub Foods loading dock. This action would reduce and mitigate all delivery traffic. Commissioner Scherer complemented the look of the building but shared concerns over the amount of concrete on the site and its impact on Richfield. Commissioner Platteter stated that overall he's not opposed to the density of the project or building height; however, has a concern with the ramp accessing the underground parking. Platteter suggested that this access point be relocated more to the middle to avoid confusion. With regard to connectivity Platteter said he likes the incorporation this project includes to enhance pedestrian spaces. Concluding, Platteter said he also supports the requirement for affordable housing. Page 11 of 14 { 5 a Commissioner Grabiel asked Planner Teague if he knows the zoning classification the City of Richfield has on their side of Xerxes (east). Teague responded he's not sure of that zoning. He added he knows that Richfield either has or is going through a rezoning process for this area to allow for more density. Grabiel said during the review process the City needs to keep in mind what's best for Edina while being respectful to the City of Richfield. The development team acknowledged that much of their focus is in "the devils in the details ", adding they really appreciate the comments from the Commission. Mr. Russet acknowledged this site is a challenge; however believes it's worth it. Commissioner Forrest said that while the project has good points she is concerned with how portions of the project violate the Comprehensive plan. Forrest added as previously mentioned the homes across the street from this project will be impacted. She concluded she likes the look but has concerns. The discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement that the project has merit; however, wants the development team to take a further look at reducing the buildings impact on Xerxes Avenue, increase greenspace where possible, consider the City Comprehensive Plan during the design process, reconsider the fagade of the building as it relates to Xerxes Avenue, carefully consider the retail tenant mix, better design the building's access point and continue to work on the loading dock area and the underground parking access, etc. Also it is very important to work with the residents of Richfield to reduce and or minimize the buildings impact on them. Chair Staunton thanked the applicant for sharing their sketch plan with them. Staunton stated he hopes their venture is successful adding that so far no one has found something that could work for this site. Staunton reiterated his thanks and stressed to the applicant the importance of communicating with the City of Richfield. The applicants ensured Chair Staunton they would engage the City of Richfield and Xerxes Avenue residents. B. 2014 Chair Staunton told the C \Sept ry fall the nning Commission Work Plan is discussed and prioritized. Stauntois tim a would like Commissioners to start thinking about the 2014 Work Plad topic suggestions should be forwarded to Teague or him prior to the Comm Staunton concluded that his goal for finalizing the Work Plan is for some tir or October. Commissioner Scherer note may be Commission meeting. C missioners a U /III d idea to discuss the Work Plan prior to a Page 12 of 14 As3 FON on Series 2013B was at a 3% intere Resolution 2013 -80, Awarding Sale o Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Spragu enson, Hov Motion carried. Member Sprague introduced and moved adoption of s Series 20138. Member Swenson seconded the motion. VIII.B. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW — 6725 YORK AVENUE (WICK'S SITE) AND FIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON XERXES AVENUE TO THE EAST OF 6725 YORK — REVIEWED Community Development Director Presentation Mr. Teague presented the request of Lennar Multifamily Investors, LLC for sketch plan review of its proposal to redevelop the property at 6725 York Avenue. The proposed project would also include five single - family houses on Xerxes Avenue. The proponent was in negotiations with these property owners to purchase and incorporate the houses into the development. Mr. Teague stated the property at 6725 York (the former Wick's building site) was currently zoned PCD -3,, Planned Commercial District -3, and guided CAC, Community Activity Center. The five - single family houses were zoned and guided for low- density residential use. The proponent was requesting consideration of a proposal to tear down the existing commercial building and the five single - family houses and build a six -story, 273 unit, and upscale apartment building with 22,289 square feet of retail on the first level. A parking lot was proposed in front of the retail store on York Avenue and underground parking for residents. Surface spaces would be available along the north and south lot lines for resident's guests. The loading area for the market would be at the rear of the retail building and south side of the apartment building. Mr. Teague advised that to accommodate the request, four amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would be required: Building Height from 4 stories and 48 feet to 6 stories and 66 feet; Housing Density from 30 units per acre to 59 units per acre; Floor Area Ratio from 1.0 to 1.55; Re- guiding the land use for the six single - family houses from Low Density Residential to Community Activity Center. In addition to the amendments, a rezoning of all the properties would then be required to Planned Unit Development,(PUD). Mr. Teague stated the'Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan and provided comments relating to reducing the buildings impact on Xerxes Avenue, increasing greenspace where possible, consideration of the City Comprehensive Plan during the design process, reconsidering the facade of the building as it relates to Xerxes Avenue, need for continued work on the loading dock area and the underground parking access, and incorporation of affordable housing. Proponent Presentation Peter Chmielewski, Lennar Multifamily Investors, LLC, introduced the concept of the sketch plan for the property located at 6725 York Avenue with five single - family houses on Xerxes Avenue to the east of 6725 York Avenue. Mr. Chmielewski discussed the intent to build a high -end luxury multifamily rental community with complimentary retail. Aaron Russet, ESG Architects, provided a presentation on the subject sketch plan, the setback on Xerxes Avenue, landscaping, walking path /sidewalk network, gathering spots, outdoor seating area, retail element, landscape buffer, and parking. The Council discussion included concern relating to the six story height across from single - family houses, the importance to include affordable units, incorporating a green roof over the market, option of utilizing podium height along Xerxes Avenue, improving the articulation /facade of the market area, reduction in density, including some smaller units in unit mix, greenspace, additional work needed on the appearance of the townhouses, concern with the loading dock area and underground parking access, and concern with the concept of routing truck traffic onto Xerxes Avenue. VIII.C. SECOND READING GRANTED — Z G ANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE R -1 & R -2 ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS; O ANCE NO. 2013-09 —ADOPTED Community Development Director Presen on Page 4 A S t Land Use and C; A 0 I020 C I , A H 131 14 � Community Facilities figure ULUII= H ')C GH -4 40bit . "..- -. V — kd 7� MM M. M " IFNI M M M H� E 2.�. 1�e� 1� _ `,,ri, i i i r 71h 681h Eg- �INI ®rl M113— LT 7:1 MMMMMMMMIMMMME 71.t IMF MMIMFT L OEM- M SIM 711 7111 MMM�jj 71h MMM�,.M h M M M M M MIN- —A I I I M I M M M M N M 771h T.h 'Qj WE ff�m E 9 M I z 1. WZ 1 6 H! H IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN Regional Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Medium-High Density Res Park updated 812012 ® Regional Commercial /Office O Office Medium Density Res Institutional Comm commercial High Density Res Low Density Res Open Water Comm Commercial/Office High Density Res/Office Mixed Use Richfield Comprehensive Plan 4-15 Land Use and ! -- Community Facilities 4 — '— --I jiv� 91— jam 4 -18 Richfield Comprehensive Plan (Medium Density Residential (MDR) The Medium Density Residential land use category was derived from the Single - family Residential - High Density category (R -SFH) that was included in the City's 1999 Comprehensive Plan. The medium density residential category replaces the R -SFH category. Naming this category medium density better clarifies the intent of the residential uses within this category. Medium density residential accommodates attached housing, predominantly townhomes or condominiums ranging from 7 to 12 units per acre. Medium density residential also includes manufactured housing. Medium - High Density Residential (MHD) Medium - High Density Residential includes multi- unit and multi - building developments. The intent is to allow for higher density housing, such as townhome developments. The allowed densitywould rangefrom 12 to 24 units per acre and no greater than 4 stories tall. .my nau - rnone 7Jc -a» -7Jw x 952 - 826 -0390 - www.CityofEdina.com Date: March 27, 2014 To: Cary Teague, Community Development Director cc: Tom Schmitz, Fire Chief From: David Fisher, Chief Building Official Re: 6725 York Ave - Former Wicks Furniture Re- Development Draft Plans Dated March 3, 2014 MEMO O e to 4 0 The Building Department has reviewed the above proposed project with following comments: - Provide a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. - All exiting must go to a public way. - Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings. - The building setbacks must comply with the 2006 IBC for exterior wall protection. - Retaining walls over 4 feet require engineering and a building permit. - Provide fire sprinklers to NFPA 13. - Verify fire sprinkler requirements under balconies. - Verify the accessible parking is in compliance with the state building code. - There has been a 30% review with the building & fire department staff for this project. I would recommend that this project continues with the pre- construction meetings with the design processionals, contractor, the project manager and the city building and fire department staff. A57 City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 CITY OF MEMO Engineering Department • Phone 952 - 826 -0371 Zr1A, Fax 952 - 826 -0392 • www.CityofEdina.com w9�1r'I� ti En 0 Date: April 2, 2014 To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Chad Millner — Director of Engineering Re: 6725 York Ave — Former Wicks Furniture Re- Development Draft Plans Dated March 3, 2014 Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plan and offer the following comments: • A Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with potential other agency permits such as Hennepin County Public Works, MNDH, MPCA, and MCES. • A developer's agreement will be required for the placement of the public water main and sanitary sewer and for any other public improvements. The developer agreement should indicate that the watermain and sanitary sewer mainline are public. The agreement should also state that the City is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the watermain and sanitary sewer and in the event that the City needs to excavate for a repair of the system that the City is not responsible for restoring the surface, such as pavements and or landscaping. • A set of as -built plans will be required with the final C.O. • Staff recommends connecting the watermain to the Edina water distribution system. Watermain cannot be connected to both Edina and Richfield distribution systems. • Details are needed on the infiltration system such as expected infiltration rates. This would be part of the watershed permitting process. • Indicate on plans what utilities are private versus public by noting that on the pipes. • Engineering will indicate where to place the watermain gate - valves. • Construct utilities per City of Edina Standard Details. • Watertight sanitary sewer castings are required on all sanitary sewer manholes. • SAC and WAC fees will be required. Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans if this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review. G:\PW\ADMIN\COMM \EXTERNAL \GENERAL CORR BY STREETS \Y Streets \6725 York - Former Wicks Site\201403xx CM -Edina Review 6725 York.doc Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 Jackie Hoogenakker . rom: Carla J Stueve <Carla.Stueve @hennepin.us> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:44 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: Steven J Groen; Robert H. Byers Subject: 6725 York Avenue Attachments: Carla Stueve P E PTOE.vcf, streetscape guide - approved 1995.pdf Hi Jackie, We reviewed the preliminary site plan for 6725 York Avenue this morning at our plat review committee meeting. Based on our streetscape guidelines, 6 feet of operational clear zone is required back from the face of the curb for a roadway with a posted speed of 35 mph or less. Based on our review of the 6725 York Avenue Landscape Plan, the proposed trees along York Avenue do not meet these guidelines. I have attached a copy for your use. Ideally, we would encourage the developer to widen the boulevard and move the trees behind the 6 -foot required clear zone, with the sidewalk on the outside of that space. We understand that there are utilities that may be affected by this proposed modification that may need to be considered. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please let me know. Otherwise, when this development reaches the preliminary plat stage, please forward that to us for further review. hanks! ,:aria Ltarla S,tueve : P.E., PTDE Hen:nepin County Public Works Trans po:Ftatia n-' Planning :1goq Ptair e.13rive pdedina, N- 114:55340. 16121.5 96-.03 561+ h r k Caria.Stueve@HL- nepfn.:us . . Disclaimer: Information in this message or an attachment may be government data and thereby subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may be subject to attorney- client or work product privilege, may be confidential, privileged, proprietary, or otherwise protected, and the unauthorized review, copying, retransmission, or other use or disclosure of the information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly delete this message from your computer system. HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION DIVISION RECOMMENDED URBAN LANDSCAPE/ STREETSCAPE GUIDELINES L3:5L'-" a. >6��- - ansportati n Division Engineer Revision No. 0 Date 04/03/95 APRIL, 1995 Q t April 3, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE CRITERIA ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 • Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 1 • Crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2 • Curb . . . . . . . • Irrigation . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 • Landscaping /Streetscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 • Medians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 • Operational Clear Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 3 • Right of Way . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 • Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 • Signals, Signing and Other Traffic Control Devices . . .. . . . . . . 4 • Snow Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 • Street Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 • Trees.. ................... .. ... .. 5 • Utilities .. . . . . . . . . . .', _ .. 5 PERMITS ................... 5 FIGURE . ...... .. ........................ 6 April 3, 1995 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION DIVISION RECOMMENDED URBAN LANDSCAPElSTREETSCAPE GUIDELINES APRIL, 1995 INTRODUCTION Hennepin County Department of Public Works' Transportation Division (Division) has as a delegated function and responsibility to maintain a system of roadways that provide transportation for residents of the County In a safe, efficient manner. Year around safety requires adequate sight distances and a minimum operational clear zone that can also accommodate snow storage. The Division has prepared this Recommended Urban Landscape /Streets -cape Guidelines (Guidelines) to more consistently and thoroughly respond to questions about urban landscape /streetscape design practices. All landscape / streets cape plans must be prepared and_signed in accordance with the Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Interior Design.. The City Engineer shall also approve and sign the title or cover sheet for those landscape /streetscape plans. The City Engineer must, also evaluate sight distances along the project and assure the Division,. in a ,report, that.sight distances are adequate: The placement- of,-obstacles or fixed objects, such as structures, trees, etc., _ .within Hennepin County's right of way shall be cause for the Municipality to assume 7_ega] liabiliV and addition,a.1 maintenance responsibility through a Cooperative Agreement'. - RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE CRITERIA The following is an alphabetical listing of the.Di,vision's r..ecommended guidelines for l and scape /streetscape design. The criteria listed is not all inclusive or necessarily complete. Requests for more clarification should be addressed to the - Division Engineer or his /her designee. Figure 1 at-the end of this document contains a. summarization of the recommended operational clear zone guidelines. • Boulevard The Division prefers a low maintenance boulevard. Snow and ice control methods may prevent. the survival of some desired vegetation. The Municipality has the responsibility for mowing and the maintenance of facilities behind the curb. -1- AA April 3, 1995 • Crosswalks Crosswalks shall conform to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). The County's standard crosswalk is a block type pattern, painted white, on top of bituminous or concrete pavement. Municipalities have the responsi- bility to maintain pavement crosswalk markings. after the initial painting. -Non- standard crosswalk surfaces (such as decorative brick,-colored aggregate, etc.) shall require prior approval by the Division. Municipalities shall have the responsibility to install and maintain any crosswalk surface, as well as the abutting material, if the crosswalk surface is not consistent with the road surface. The municipality shall also indemnify the County for the use of a nonstandard crosswalk surface. • Curb Curb design must conform to Hennepin County's Standard Design and the State Aid manual. Curb and pedestrian ramps must comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Irrigation Water from irrigation systems shall not flow or spray onto the traveled roadway or onto any County owned structures such as traffic signal components and signage. Concrete gutters shall collect excess water from irrigation systems and not allow water to flow across roadways (gutter in). Effects of subgrade saturation shall be addressed when irrigation systems are proposed.. Provisions, such as perforated pipe, shall be included for the pickup and disposal of irrigation water. The Division will not allow an open cut for installation or maintenance of irrigation piping within three years of construction, so consideration should be given to installing irrigation piping within a sleeve for 'roadway crossings. Maintenance and repair of the irrigation system is the responsibility of the owner. • LandscaaingiStreetscaoing Roadway gebmetrics and driver sight distances shall be considered when installing landscape items. A report indicating adequate sight distances have been maintained is required for all access points along the project. The report should consider all elements obstructing a driver's vision such as trees, shrubs, plantings /planters, structures, etc. Any loose landscaping material, such as bark, must have an adequate means of containment that will prevent the material from spilling onto the roadway or sidewalk. The Municipality shall 'be responsible for maintaining such material, if installed, and for removing the material from the roadway or sidewalk if the material spills onto those surfaces. Loose landscape rock is not permitted within Hennepin County's right of way because of problems caused during mowing, etc. - 2 - A6) April 3, 1995 The Municipality or owner has the responsibility to trim all plantings and to maintain visibility. Hennepin County's responsibility for landscape /streetscape restoration, after any County activity, shall be limited to top soil, sod or seed. Restoration of specialty l ands cape/ streetscape items, sidewalks and plantings shall be the responsibility of others. The Division prefers traffic control signage to be located behind the sidewalk. Landscape /streetscape should not obstruct the view of signage. Landscape/ streets cape should make allowances for placement or future expansion of utilities.within the right of way. Traffic control during maintenance of landscaping shall comply with MMUTCD for.1raffic control. Y Medians The Division can supply typical design standards for raised and depressed medians. Median drainage is a concern of the Division and should be discussed with the Division's Design Section. The Division's guideline does not allow planting trees within the median unless there is the minimum operational clear zone for the posted speed limit (see Operational Clear Zone) . Plantings, including raised planting beds, in medians shall not be higher than 3 feet from the bottom of the curb gutter-line, however, sight lines must still be checked. Plantings should be kept as far back from the face of curb- as possible to minimize disturbance due to snow plowing (see also Irrigation). If the Municipality proceeds with placing plantings within Hennepin County right of way, then the Municipality has the responsibility to trim plantings to maintain sight lines. ® operational Clear Zone To facilitate the safe operation and maintenance of a roadway facility, an operational clear zone is required. Encroachment into the operational clear zone causes safety and maintenance concerns. The Division standard provides an operational clear zone..of 6 feet from the face-of curb- where posted speeds are 35 miles per hour (MPH) or less. For speeds greater than 35 MPH to 45 MPH, the Division standard provides a 10 foot operational clear zone. The required operational clear zone for speeds over 45 MPH shall be analyzed an an individual basis by the Division ,(,see Figure 1) . 19 'Right -of Wav Streetscape /l and scape items within the County's right of way are reserved for the public and owned by the Municipality. Hennepin County does not allow private enhancements within the County's right of way. — 3 — A4 April 3, 1995 Sidewalks. The Division recommends a sidewalk with a minimum 5 foot width and prefers the sidewalk be placed 6 feet from the face of curb to accommodate snow storage. • Signals, Signing and Other Traffic Control Devices All traffic control devices must comply with MMUTCD. For urban cross sections, the Division recommends traffic signs be placed at least 6 feet from the face of curb to the edge of sign. Sign placement is preferred behind the sidewalk. The location of utilities should be considered with regard to future sign placement. In areas where there is no sidewalk, clearance to the signage should be at least 6 feet from the curb or edge of shoulder to allow for snow storage and /or future - sidewalk(see Snow Storage). Landscape / streets cape should not obstruct the view of signage.. Traffic signals shall have the Division's standard type and color. Any other color scheme requires prior review and approval by the Division and require the Municipality to maintain the paint system at no cost to the Division. Lead based paint shall not be used. Paint must comply with current Mn /DOT specifications. • Snow Storage The Division requires minimum operational clear zones for snow-storage along the-side of the road based on the posted speed limit. The requirement of an operational clear zone for snow storage,allows the Division to efficiently clear roads of snow and help maintain the road's traffic carrying capacity. Inadequate snow storage will reduce lane widths., adversely affect traffic handling capacity of the road and prevent trucks from using the partially blocked traffic lane: Roads that are not cleared of snow along the curb to the storm drain can also cause drainage problems when the snow melts. The Division may require that the Municipality obtain an easement if there is inadequate snow storage available within the right of way as a: result of landscape /streetscape structure placement. In areas where landscape %streetscape structures cause inadequate room to store snow off the road, the Municipality will be required to either move or haul away the snow (see Introduction for legal liability and maintenance requirements). • Street Lighting Street lighting must be functional and meet appropriate standards for illumination. Special consideration should b�: given to eliminating glare and shadows. questions on lighting should b-: re•92rred to the Division's Design Section. �S April 3, 1995 • Trees Trees, in general, can obstruct the view of signs and signals. Prior to the placement of any tree, sight lines should be evaluated that includes consideration for fully mature trees and their canopies. The Division standard does not sanction the planting of trees on County right of way within the operational clear zone (see Operational Clear Zone). Planting coniferous trees is discouraged within Hennepin County's right of way. Tree grates in sidewalks or paved areas, unless properly installed and maintained, can be a hazard to pedestrians, people with disabilities, and snow removal operations, etc. -The Municipality assumes all liability for the placement of any tree grates or other obstacles within the County's right of way. Irrigation, if deemed necessary, should be limited to a trickle type system (see.Irrigation). The Division does not contribute to the replacement of any streets cape /l ands cape alteration as a result of any highway maintenance, modification or utility work.. • Utilities Underground utilities that do not extend above the surface may be placed within the County's operational clear zone. Above ground utilities, however, shauld be placed outside the County's operational clear zone. PERMITS The Division's Permit Office shall be informed of all construction or maintenance work within the County's'-road right of way. Traffic Control and time of work must be approved by the Division prior to beginning any work. (Example: Parking in a traffic lane during rush hour is not allowed.) ` xc c FIGURE 1 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION DIVISION RECOMMENDED LANDSCAPE / STREETSCAPE GUIDELINES URBAN TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTION * PLACEMENT OF TREES, TRAFFIC LANE MINIMUM UTILITIES FIXED OBJECTS ETC. 2' GUTTER OPERATIONAL CLEAR ZONE ua AND SNOW STORAGE x,- RECOMMENDED PLACEMENT OF SIGNS BOULEVARD FACE OF CURB POSTED SPEED LIMIT MINIMUM OPERATIONAL CLEAR ZONE 35 M.P. H. OR LESS 6 FOOT ( FROM THE FACE OF CURB) GREATER THAN 35 M.P. H. TO 45 M.P.H. 10 FOOT ( FROM„ THE FACE OF CURB) GREATER THAN 45. M. P. H. ANALYZED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS BY THE DIVISION. APRIL 1995 6 Al ...for living, learning, raising families & doing business � /� 2008 Comprehensive Plan City Affordability Goals Since 1996, Edina has participated in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act program. The Livable Communities Act (LCA) is a Metropolitan Council grant -based program to encourage communities to achieve goals in affordable and life-cycle- housing production and quality of life improvements. At the program's inception, the Metropolitan Council estimated the amount of the City's existing housing stock that was affordable and the City and the Metropolitan Council jointly established goals for the criteria of affordability, life -cycle housing (housing types that are not single - family detached units) and housing density. See Table 5.2 on next page. Tahlp 5 7 1 ivnhlp Communities Act Benchmarks and Goals for Edina Table 5.2 shows the Metropolitan Council's 1995 estimates and City of Edina goals: IP Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 — 5 -5 Chapter 5: Housing City Index Benchmark Goal Affordability Ownership 31% 64 -77% 31% Rental 14% 32 -45% 43% Life -cycle housing Type (non -SF detached) 43% 38-41% 43% Owner /renter mix 71/29% (64 -71)/ (30 -36)% 71/29% Density Single- family detached 2.3 /acre 2.3 -2.9 /acre 2.3 /acre Multi- family 16 /acre 11 -15 /acre 16 /acre Table 5.2 shows the Metropolitan Council's 1995 estimates and City of Edina goals: IP Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 — 5 -5 Chapter 5: Housing ...for living, learning, raising families & doing business �(= /� 2008 Comprehensive Plan ■ The City Index column refers to a snapshot of the Edina's affordable housing, life -cycle housing, and housing density taken from the data available in 1995. The Benchmark column is a range that represents the City Index average for communities within similar Metropolitan Council planning sectors. The Goal column indicates the affordable and life - cycle housing share, and the densities negotiated between Edina and the Metropolitan Council. Affordability refers to the estimate of the share of Edina's affordable housing stock that was considered affordable at the start of the LCA program. Life -cycle Housing includes housing types that are not single - family detached units; the figures are percentages based on Edina's total housing stock. ■ Density means the number of housing units per acre for both single - family detached units, and multi - family units. The Metropolitan Council has identified new affordable housing needs for all cities and townships within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area for the period from 2011 -2020. The housing plan element of local comprehensive plans is required to reflect the allocated portion of the forecasted demand for affordable housing. The City's share of this allocation is 212 affordable housing units.by 2020. Current City Housing Programs Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) was established in 1974 for the purpose of undertaking urban redevelopment projects and assisting with the development of affordable housing. The HRA has facilitated the development of a number of low- and moderate - income housing developments, including Yorkdale Townhomes, Oak Glen, Summit Point and South Haven. Edina Comp Plan Update 2008 — to 5 -6 Chapter 5: Housing April 9, 2014 Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director City of Edina 4801 W. 50'' Street Edina, MN 55424 MAYOR DEBBIE GOETTEL Dear Mr. Teague, City Managees office CTY COUNCIL I am writing in regards to the Public Hearing being held before the Edina Planning I TOM ELLIOTT Commission on April 9, 2014 for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Rezonings related EDWINA GARCIA to the proposed development at 6725 York Ave. S. SUZANNE M. SANDAHL I would like this letter to be entered into the public record as it relates to this Public Hearing CITY MANAGER and, if possible, have the following read aloud at the Public Hearing. STEVEN L. DEVICH On April 8, 2014 a joint Work Session of the Richfield City Council and Richfield Planning Commission was held. to discuss the proposed development at 6725 York Avenue South in . Edina. I am writing this letter to reflect the discussion that occurred at that meeting. In addition to Richfield's Council Members and Planning Commissioners, Edina City Manager Scott Neal and Metropolitan Council Representative Steve Elkins were present at that meeting. Although Richfield public officials have no formal legal authority to play a role in the consideration of land use applications in the City of Edina, we feel that it is good public policy and good practice as a neighboring community to allow meaningful impact by an adjoining jurisdiction, especially in a case such as this which is located on a "soft border" between two communities. Richfield policy makers and staff do have a number of concerns as they relate to this proposed development. They are as follows: A height In excess of four to five stories. The existing commercial site is guided for Community Activity Center in Edina's Comprehensive Plan. The maximum height in this area is four stories or 48 feet. The maximum height allowed in the Single Dwelling Unit District is two and a half stories. The proposed six -story building exceeds these allowances and exceeds what the Richfield Comprehensive Plan anticipated for the site. This additional height would adversely affect Richfield homes. A building setbeck of less than 132 feet from existing single - family lot lines. The proposed setback is significantly less than what Edina requires for PCD -3 District and/or Planned Resident District (PRD) projects when adjacent to R -1 (Single Dwelling Unit District) properties. The PCD -3 District north of 70th Street requires a minimum setback from an R -1 property line that is equal to twice the height of the proposed building. In this case that is equal to 132 feet; however, the proposal is for a setback of approximately 104 feet. The PRD District requires a minimum setback from an R -1 property line in accordance with the following calculation: 10(height of building -40) + 80. The total height of The Urban Hometown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.8700 FAX: 612.861.9748 wwwciyolrlohfeld.org AN EQUAL OPPORMIM EMPLOYER .. April 9, 2014 Page 2 the proposed building is approximately 75 feet; however, the maximum height of the portion facing Xerxes Avenue is approximately 65 feet. The required setback would be between 330 - 423 feet, depending on the number applied. If the building were only 4 stories or 44 feet, the requirement would be for a minimum setback of120 feet. Excessive shadow impacts result from both the building height and its minimal setback. As a response from a request by Richfield staff members, Lennar conducted a shadow analysis. This analysis shows that in December, the buildings would begin to cast shade on six to eight Richfield homes sometime between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. This impact would be lessened, and possibly eliminated, by reducing the building's height to four stories and/or increasing the building's setback from Xerxes Avenue. The project seems to have excess retail parking that would allow for the building(s) to be shifted farther to the west. Architectural Context. The project will face a block of one -and -a -half story cape cods and single -story ramblers. The proposed design is not context- sensitive to the period or style of housing in the adjacent neighborhood. Dog Park. The neighborhood has expressed concerns about noise related to a dog park and would prefer passive open space. firmly believe that these are all concerns that Edina residents would have if they were in the same position as those Richfield residents adjacent to the property and, in short, we are asking that you treat Richfield residents concerns with as much validity as if they were your own residents. Sincerely, Debbie Goettel Mayor Copy: Richfield City Council City Manager Community Development Director May 2, 2014 Ao6er& \hem V \ b. City Council On April 8, 2014 a joint Work Session of the Richfield City Council and Richfield Planning Commission was held, to discuss the proposed development: In addition to Richfield's Council Members and Planning Commissioners, Edina City Manager Scott Neal and Metropolitan Council Representative Steve Elkins were present at that meeting. On April 9, the Edina Planning .Commission recommended denial of Lennar's site plan; in part because of the negative impacts of the proposed development on Richfield residents. Since that time, the developer has made some very minoradjustments to their plan, that do, not fully meet the concerns of community leaders and residents in Richfield. Of primary concern are the following: A height in excess of four to five stories. The existing commercial site is guided for Community Activity Center in Edina's Comprehensive Plan.. The maximum height in this area is four stories or 48 feet. The maximum height allowed ,in the Single Dwelling Unit District is two and a half stories. The proposed six -story building exceeds these . allowances and exceeds what the Richfield Comprehensive Plan anticipated for the site. This additional height would adversely affect Richfield homes. A. building setback of less. than 140:feet from existing single - family lot lines. The proposed setback less than what Edina requires forPCD -3 District projects when adjacent to R -1 (Single Dwelling Unit District) properties. According to the Edina Planning Commission Report dated April 9; 2014, the PCD -3 District north.of. 70th Street requires a minimum setback from an R -1 property line that is equal to twice the height of the proposed building. The staff report states that in this case that is equal to 140 feet. While Lennar's most recent revision increases the setback by 10 feet, at 132 feet it remains short of the City's requirement. 7h L r ban 1-fi ntetrawn 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA 55423 612.881.9700 FAX: 812,881.9749 wme.eityofrichCwld.uq AN EWAL OPPOHi11NM EMPLOYER Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director City of Edina MAYOR 480.1 W. 50`h Street DEBBIE GOMEL Edina, MN 55424 crr.y COUNCIL Dear Mr. Teague, PAT ELLIOTT TOM FIT7HFNRY EDWINAGARC.!A I would like this letter to be entered into the public record as it,relates:ao this Public Hearing SUZANNE M. SANDAHL and, if possible; have the following read aloud at the Public Hearing. CRY MANAGER I am writing in regards to the Public Hearing being held before the Edina City Council:.on.May STEVEN L. DEVICH 6; 2014 for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Rezonings related to the proposed development at 6725 York Ave. S. Richfield city officials feel that it is good public policy and good practice as a neighboring community to allow meaningful impact by an adjoining jurisdiction, especially in a case such as this which is located. on a "soft border" between two communities. On April 8, 2014 a joint Work Session of the Richfield City Council and Richfield Planning Commission was held, to discuss the proposed development: In addition to Richfield's Council Members and Planning Commissioners, Edina City Manager Scott Neal and Metropolitan Council Representative Steve Elkins were present at that meeting. On April 9, the Edina Planning .Commission recommended denial of Lennar's site plan; in part because of the negative impacts of the proposed development on Richfield residents. Since that time, the developer has made some very minoradjustments to their plan, that do, not fully meet the concerns of community leaders and residents in Richfield. Of primary concern are the following: A height in excess of four to five stories. The existing commercial site is guided for Community Activity Center in Edina's Comprehensive Plan.. The maximum height in this area is four stories or 48 feet. The maximum height allowed ,in the Single Dwelling Unit District is two and a half stories. The proposed six -story building exceeds these . allowances and exceeds what the Richfield Comprehensive Plan anticipated for the site. This additional height would adversely affect Richfield homes. A. building setback of less. than 140:feet from existing single - family lot lines. The proposed setback less than what Edina requires forPCD -3 District projects when adjacent to R -1 (Single Dwelling Unit District) properties. According to the Edina Planning Commission Report dated April 9; 2014, the PCD -3 District north.of. 70th Street requires a minimum setback from an R -1 property line that is equal to twice the height of the proposed building. The staff report states that in this case that is equal to 140 feet. While Lennar's most recent revision increases the setback by 10 feet, at 132 feet it remains short of the City's requirement. 7h L r ban 1-fi ntetrawn 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA 55423 612.881.9700 FAX: 812,881.9749 wme.eityofrichCwld.uq AN EWAL OPPOHi11NM EMPLOYER May 2, 20144 Page 2 Excessive shadow impacts result from both the building height and its. reduced setback. As a response from a request by. Richfield staff members, Lennar conducted. a shadow. analysis. This analysis..shows that in December, the buildings would begin to cast shade on six to eight Richfield, homes sometime between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. While,I appreciate that the developer has increased the Xerxes- Avenue setback; this impact would be eliminated by orienting the 'site's larger building mass toward York. Avenue, the major commercial artery. Architectural Context. The project will face a block of one - anal -a -half story cape cods and single -story ramblers. The proposed design is not context - sensitive to the period orstyle of housing in the adjacent neighborhood. I firmly believe that these are all concerns that Edina residents would have if they were in the same position as those Richfield residents adjacent to the property and,. in short, we are asking that you treat Richfield residents' concerns with as much validity as if they were your own residents. Sincerely, V,tsl WA_� Debbie Goettel Mayor Copy: Richfield City Council City Manager Community Development Director Le H�v P-'S' y nro °o To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VI.0 From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action EK Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: PUBLIC HEARING — Site Plan with multiple Variances for Boarder Foods Inc. at 3210 Southdale Circle Res. No. 2014 -53. Action Requested: Adopt the attached Resolution. Information / Background: Border Foods Inc. is proposing to tear down the existing Taco Bell restaurant and rebuild a new slightly smaller Taco Bell at 3210 Southdale Circle. The building would be 1,850 square feet in size. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A4—A26 of the Planning Commission staff report.) To accommodate the proposal to redevelop the site, the applicant is requesting a Site Plan review and the following Variances: ➢ Parking Setback Variances from 10 to 4 feet from the north and south lot line. (Existing condition is a 3 -foot setback.) ➢ Front Yard Building Setback Variance from 35 to 22 feet. ➢ Variance for side menu board facing a residential area. (Existing menu board directly faces residential area.) In 1985, a parking stall setback variance was granted to add parking stalls for what was then a Zantigo Mexican Restaurant. The variance was to match the existing non - conforming setback of three feet. As noted above, a four -foot setback for parking is now proposed. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Site Plan and Variances, subject to the findings and conditions in the staff memo dated April 9, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution No. 2014 -53 • Planning Commission minutes, April 9, 2014 Planning Commission staff report dated April 9, 2014 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-53 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCES AT 3210 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE TO TEAR DOWN AND BUILD A NEW TACO BELL FOR BORDER FOODS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Border Foods Inc. is proposing to tear down the existing Taco Bell restaurant and rebuild a new slightly smaller Taco Bell at 3210 Southdale Circle. 1.02 To accommodate the proposed addition, the following is requested: 1. Parking Setback Variances from 10 to 4 feet from the north and south lot line. (Existing condition is a 3 -foot setback.) 2. Front Yard Building Setback Variance from 35 to 22 feet. 3. Variance for side menu board facing a residential area. (Existing menu board directly faces residential area.) The property is legally described as follows: Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 1357, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 1.02 With the exception of the requested Variances, the proposed plans meet all minimum Zoning Ordinance Requirements. 1.03 On April 9, 2014, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed Site Plan and Variances subject to findings and conditions in the Planning Commission staff report dated April 9, 2014. Section 2. FINDINGS Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for a Site Plan with the exception of the setback variances. 2. The proposed variances are reasonable. The proposed building is smaller than the existing building on the site; the green space setback for the parking stalls would be increased by one -foot from existing conditions; and the menu board would be moved to the south side of the building and pointed away from the residential area to the east. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952 - 927 -8861 • Fax 952 - 826 -0390 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-53 Page Two 3. Moving the building closer to Southdale Circle also reduces the impact on the residential property to the east. 4. The practical difficulty is the existing size of the site, which makes it difficult to develop the site the meet the existing setbacks. 5. Variances have been granted in the past for the parking lot. Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approval of the Site Plan and Variances at 3210 Southdale Circle for Border Foods. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: 1. Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Grading plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Landscaping plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Building elevations date stamped March 7, 2014. • Lighting plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. Prior the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan must be submitted, subject to staff approval. Landscape plan must meet all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Additionally, a performance bond, letter -of- credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one -half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures. 3. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 4. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 5. Compliance with the conditions required by the city engineer in his memo dated April 2, 2014. 6. Building plans are subject to review and approval of the fire marshal at the time of building permit. 7. Bike racks must be provided to meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-53 Page Two 8. All crosswalks shall be marked with duratherm stamping to clearly identify the pedestrian crossing. 9. Trash enclosures must be constructed to meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. 10. Compliance with the chief building official's requests in his review memo dated March 27, 2014, at the time of building permit review. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on May 6, 2014. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 May 6, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2014 City Clerk Chair Staunton called fo a vote; Olsen, Platteter, Staunton. tai Motion. Ayes; Lee, Carr. Nays; Schroeder, Motion failed 2 -4. Commissioner Platteter mov o den proval of the Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Developme ans for the su ct property, subject to staff findings and subject to staff con ons. Commissioner OI n seconded the motion. Chair St ton called for the vote; Ayes; Schroe r, Olsen, Platteter, Lee, Staunton. Nay; arr. Abstain; Potts. Motion to deny carried 5- Commissioner Potts returned to the Council Chambers at 9:45 p.m. B. Site Plan and Variances. Border Foods (Taco Bell). 3210 Southdale Circle, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission that Border Foods Inc. is proposing to tear down the existing Taco Bell restaurant and rebuild a new slightly smaller Taco Bell at 3210 Southdale Circle. The building would be 1,850 square feet in size. To accommodate the proposal to redevelop the site, the applicant is requesting a Site Plan review and the following Variances: ➢ - Parking Setback Variances from 10 to 4 feet from the north and south lot line. (Existing condition is a 3 -foot setback.) ➢ Front Yard Building Setback Variance from 35 to 22 feet. ➢ Variance for side menu board facing a residential area. (Existing menu board directly faces residential area.) In 1985, a parking stall setback variance was granted to add parking stalls for what was then a Zantigo Mexican Restaurant. The variance was to match the existing non - conforming setback of three feet. As noted above, a four -foot setback for parking is now proposed. Planner Teague delivered a power point presentation to highlight the project. Planner Teague concluded his presentation by indicating that staff recommends the City Council approve the Site Plan with Variances for the construction of a new Taco Bell restaurant at 3210 Southdale Circle. Approval is based on the following findings: . The proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for a Site Plan with the exception of the setback variances. 2. The proposed variances are reasonable. The proposed building is smaller than the existing building on the site; the green space setback for the parking stalls would be increased by one - foot from existing conditions; and the menu board would be moved to the south side of the building and pointed away from the residential area to the east. 3. Moving the building closer to Southdale Circle also reduces the impact on the residential property to the east. 4. The practical difficulty is the existing size of the site, which makes it difficult to develop the site the meet the existing setbacks. 5. Variances have been granted in the past for the parking lot. Page 10 of 14 Approval of the Site Plan and Variances are subject to the following conditions: I . Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Grading plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Landscaping plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Building elevations date stamped March 7, 2014. • Lighting plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. Prior the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan must be submitted, subject to staff approval. Landscape plan must meet all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Additionally, a performance bond, letter -of- credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one -half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures. 3. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 4. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 5. Compliance with the conditions required by the city engineer in his memo dated April 2, 2014. 6. Building plans are subject to review and approval of the fire marshal at the time of building permit. 7. Bike racks must be provided to meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. 8. All crosswalks shall be marked with duraprint stamping to clearly identify the pedestrian crossing. 9. Trash enclosures must be constructed to meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. 10. Compliance with the chief building official's requests in his review memo dated March 27, 2014, at the time of building permit review. Appearing for the Applicant Barbara Schneider, Border Foods Discussion Commissioner Carr asked about the taller pylon sign that is separate from the building. Planner Teague responded that the signage package has not been reviewed, but the applicant has not asked for a change in signage. Chair Staunton asked about the sign being on the side near residential property. Planner Teague pointed out the sign is not facing residential, as it is now facing directly south. Commissioner Kilberg asked about the mechanicals. Planner Teague indicated screening of mechanicals will be required. Applicant Presentation Ms. Schneider pointed out in the stormwater design; there is excess capacity in the project so that capacity will be stored with the 9 -mile Creek Watershed District. Sidewalks, outside seating, and a bike rack have been incorporated. Page 11 of 14 Discussion Commissioner Platteter asked about increasing the pervious area on the site. Ms. Schneider responded that will be reviewed. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Public Testimony Todor Braianova, 6616 Xerxes Avenue S., stated he is the neighbor to the property on the east. He expressed concern about the garbage. Braianova explained after living there 15 years, he has noticed the squirrels are in the garbage, and wrappers are coming into his backyard as they sit on the fence and eat their findings. He also commented on the amount of noise created by the trash pickup in the early morning's hours. Concluding, Braianova also asked if anything can be done about the venting. Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close the public hearing approved. Continuing Discussion Ms. Schneider responded that the garbage is emptied five days a week. She also noted she will talk to the trash company about the hours of pickup. Chair Staunton asked about the dumpster. Ms. Schneider indicated she will look into having a lid put on the dumpster to prevent squirrel access. Ms. Schneider in response to comments about an aroma; said those comments are unusual, adding the aroma may be coming from McDonald's. Schneider stated she will ensure the venting system is correct and can look into stepping up the cleaning of the hood. Chair Staunton asked whether there is a mechanism for fielding complaints from neighbors. Ms. Schneider noted the owner /operator reads every customer comment that comes in through the 1 -800 number. Motion Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend approval of the Sketch Plan and Variances for the subject property, subject to staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Olsen seconded a motion. Commissioner Schroeder offered a friendly amendment requesting duraprint be changed to duratherm on condition 8. Commissioners Platteter and Olsen accepted that amendment. Chair Staunton asked Ms. Schneider for any feedback on the process from her perspective. Page 12 of 14 Ms. Schneider indicated City staff has been very helpful. She indicated the more information that can be provided up- front, the better the process for the applicant. All voted aye; amended motion carried. C. Preliminary Rezoning & Edina, MN At the request of the proponent, this ances. Mathias Mortenson. 3923 Wkst 49th Street, was removed from the agenda upo, f adoption. VII. ANNUAL MEETING — ELE TION OF OFFICERS & DOPTION OF BYLAWS Chair Staunton called for nominations for the �ffice of Secretary. Commissioner Schroeder nominated Co missioner Potts r Planning Commission Secretary 2014. Commissioner I latteter econded them tion. All voted aye; motion to approve Commissioner Potts for secrets carried. Chair Staunton called for nominations for the offic Vton Commissioner Schroeder nominated Chair r Planning Commission Chair 2014. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motiate Chair Staunton for office of C hair. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Staunton called for nominations for the officir. Commissioner Schroder nominated Commis* nr Platteter for Vice -Chair 2014. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. I vo ed aye; motion carried. Chair Staunton asked for a discussion on modifyi4 the bylAws regarding ex pane communications. Commissioner Carr stated on quasi -legal matte s, she does of think ex parte communications are appropriate, adding she doesn't believe that w uld be in the est interests of decision - making. Carr recommended keeping the bylaw the way it i Commissioner Platteter agreed, though it c n be a slippery slo a when talking with neighbors and other random conversations. Things can inevita y come up along th way. Commissioner Olsen suggested having Chair Staunton added there may need sometime in the future. / Chair Staunton called for a provision in the byla, � is a good idea. be more discussion on adopt the Bylaws. Commissioner Platteter moJed to adopt the Planning Com Potts seconded a motion. #11 voted aye to keep the Bylaws Page 13 of 14 is quasi - judicial and ex parte ision Bylaws. Commissioner written carried. w'95�11� o e PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague April 9, 2014 VI.B. Community Development Director INFORMATION /BACKGROUND Project Description Border Foods Inc. is proposing to tear down the existing Taco Bell restaurant and rebuild a new slightly smaller Taco Bell at 3210 Southdale Circle. (See property location on pages Al A3.) The building would be 1,850 square feet in size. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A4 —A26.) To accommodate the proposal to redevelop the site, the applicant is requesting a Site Plan review and the following Variances: ➢ Parking Setback Variances from 10 to 4 feet from the north and south lot line. (Existing condition is a 3 -foot setback.) ➢ Front Yard Building Setback Variance from 35 to 22 feet. ➢ Variance for side menu board facing a residential area. (Existing menu board directly faces residential area.) In 1985, a parking stall setback variance was granted to add parking stalls for what was then a Zantigo Mexican Restaurant. The variance was to match the existing non - conforming setback of three feet. As noted above, a four -foot setback for parking is now proposed. Surrounding Land Uses. Northerly: Vacant Best Buy; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Community Activity Center. Easterly: Single- family homes; zoned and guided low density residential. Southerly: McDonald's; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Community Activity Center. Westerly: Furniture store; zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District and guided Community Activity Center. Existing Site Features The subject property is 18,700 square feet in size, is relatively flat and contains a Taco Bell restaurant and drive - through. (See pages Al A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: CAC — Community Activity Center. Zoning: PCD -3, Planned Commercial District Grading /Drainage /Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed utilities and grading and drainage plans and found them to be generally acceptable. (See the City Engineer's comments on page A27.) A condition of approval should include meeting all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo. A permit would also be required from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Parking Based on the square footage and seating in the building, 17 parking stalls are required. The site plan demonstrates 17 built parking stalls. (See page A7.) Site Access & Traffic There would be no change to the existing site access or on -site circulation. The proposed restaurant would be smaller than the existing restaurant; therefore, no traffic study was required. Sidewalk Connections /Bike Racks Currently there are no sidewalks on the subject property. The applicant proposes to add a boulevard style sidewalk along Southdale Circle. (See page A18.) A connecting sidewalk to the restaurant would also be added. A condition of approval should include sidewalk markings shall be required across drive lanes. Bike racks would be located at the southwest side of the building. Minimum City Code requirement for bike racks is 5% of the total number of parking stalls; therefore one bike rack is required. (See page Al2.) Building Design The building would be made of Direct Exterior Finish System (DEFS), with prefinished metal and masonry veneer accents. (See building renderings and colors on pages A8 A15.) The chief building official 2 has reviewed the proposed plans and provided comment on page A27a. These items shall be addressed at the time of building permit review. Garbage Area Garbage would be collected with the building at the northeast corner of the site. The containers would be screened by a wall constructed of a Direct Exterior Finish System or DEFS to match the existing building. (See page A11.) Drive Through Fast food restaurants with a drive - through facility are a permitted use in the PCD -3 zoning district. Each vehicle bay is required three stacking space in addition to the vehicle being served. The site plan shows three stacking spaces for each bay. There would be four total bays. (See page A18.) Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site 13, overstory trees would be required and a full complement of understory plants and shrubs. The applicant has provided a landscape plan that meets the city code requirement, including 16 overstory trees. (See page A22.) The applicant is proposing a 15 -foot landscape area along the east lot line, and angled the menu board more to the south, to minimize impact on the single - family homes to the east. Outdoor Seating As recommended at Sketch Plan review, the applicant is proposing an outdoor eating area with a couple tables surrounded by a landscape area. (See page Al2.) Outdoor seating does not generate the need for additional on -site parking. Lighting The applicant has submitted a lighting plan that conforms to the City's minimum standards. (See page A23.) The foot candle power at the residential lot line would be 0.1. Compliance Table * Variance required Variances — Building Setback, Drive Aisle Setback & Menu Board Per the Zoning Ordinance, variances should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with City Standard PCD -3 Proposed Building Setbacks North 35 feet 50 feet South 35 feet 55 feet East 35 feet 55 feet West 35 feet 22 feet* Parking Lot/Drive Aisle Setbacks North 10 feet 4 feet* South 10 feet 4 feet* East 20 feet 20 feet West 10 feet 10 feet Building Height 4 stories or 48 feet whichever is less 1 story — 21 feet Maximum Floor Area Ratio FAR 75% 9% Parking Stalls 17 17 Parking Stall Size 8.5 x 18 9 x 18 Drive Aisle Width one Way 14 feet 14 feet Landscaping 13 Overstory Trees 16 Overstory Trees Stacking Spaces 4 4 Menu Board & Audio May not be located on Located on the Systems the side of a building side that faces that faces residential residential property property* * Variance required Variances — Building Setback, Drive Aisle Setback & Menu Board Per the Zoning Ordinance, variances should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variances are reasonable. The proposed building is smaller than the existing building on the site; the green space setback for the parking stalls would be increased by one -foot from existing conditions; and the menu board would be moved to the south side of the building and pointed away from the residential area to the east. (See page A7.) Moving the building closer to Southdale Circle also reduces the impact on the residential property to the east. The practical difficulty is the existing size of the site, which makes it difficult to develop the site the meet the existing setbacks. As mentioned, variances have been granted in the past for the parking lot. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The small size of the site, and its location next to another fast food restaurant to the south, is unique in the PCD -3 zoning district. The City also encourages buildings to be brought up to the street, rather than having large parking lots in front of the building, and expanding green space. The proposed site plan would be an improvement over the exiting site plan. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed building would not alter the character of the neighborhood. Again, the proposed new Taco Bell and site plan would be an improvement over the existing building, landscaping, menu board location and green space. PRIMARY ISSUES /STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the proposed new Taco Bell Restaurant and associated Variances required reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the PCD -3, Planned Commercial District. 5 2. The proposed new Taco Bell building, menu board location and site plan would be an improvement over the existing conditions on the site. 3. The variances are reasonable. As mentioned, one foot of green space would be added along the north and south lot line, and the menu board would be moved further away from the single - family homes than the existing menu board. 4. Moving the building closer to the street also moves it further away from the residential area to the east. 5. The practical difficulty is caused by the existing size of the site, which prevents a reasonable site plan configuration without the need for a variance. 6. Pedestrian connections and sidewalks are proposed on the site plan to help encourage pedestrian movement in the area. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Site Plan with Variances for the construction of a new Taco Bell restaurant at 3210 Southdale Circle. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for a Site Plan with the exception of the setback variances. 2. The proposed variances are reasonable. The proposed building is smaller than the existing building on the site; the green space setback for the parking stalls would be increased by one -foot from existing conditions; and the menu board would be moved to the south side of the building and pointed away from the residential area to the east. 3. Moving the building closer to Southdale Circle also reduces the impact on the residential property to the east. 4. The practical difficulty is the existing size of the site, which makes it difficult to develop the site the meet the existing setbacks. 5. Variances have been granted in the past for the parking lot. Approval of the Site Plan and Variances are subject to the following conditions: 2 Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Grading plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Landscaping plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Building elevations date stamped March 7, 2014. • Lighting plan date stamped March 7, 2014. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. Prior the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan must be submitted, subject to staff approval. Landscape plan must meet all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. Additionally, a performance bond, letter -of- credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one - half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures. 3. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 4. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 5. Compliance with the conditions required by the city engineer in his memo dated April 2, 2014. 6. Building plans are subject to review and approval of the fire marshal at the time of building permit. 7. Bike racks must be provided to meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. II � /'+► T"�Cr Vh 8. All crosswalks shall be marked with d-u +nt stamping to clearly identify the pedestrian crossing. 9. Trash enclosures must be constructed to meet minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements. 10. Compliance with the chief building official's requests in his review memo dated March 27, 2014, at the time of building permit review. Deadline for a city decision: July 1, 2014 7 V___ . - I - - - C - ul 01 11;7 11 ST 111.1 VI w. Sheridan Park W Cs 112 ST 1.%e IF t; 6771 1 51 ve C, G LOLA _C, z 70TH ST VV Parcel Map Scale: 1 800 ft. N A-T-B: Torrens ID: Print Date: 1/212014 _(k Owner Market W Name: Total: Parcel 3210 Southdale Cir Tax Address: Edina, MN 55435 Total: Property Commercial-Preferred Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or stead: Date: implied, including fitness of any particular Purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.43 acres Sale Area: 18,810 sq ft Code: COPYRIGHT @ HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 TER I`'s lIL„ _.- !a_ —M IQ5 CIF: i f •� t r . �� � P rh - } tit °' -��� —'�• y ar_ f �n L ''��• - .+�i!` tii , f� 7. F-- wn l..a. mill gi r 1 A -T -S: Market Total: Tax Total: I Sale Price: Sale Date: Sale Cade: h (i. _ t 107 ..—IMIN Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. N Print Date: 1/2/2014 )V This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 G] illl!i �� isrJ�n� Parcel 29- 028 -24 -31 -0008 ID: Owner Name: Parcel Address: Property Type: Home- stead: Parcel 0.43 acres Area: 18,810 sq ft F-- wn l..a. mill gi r 1 A -T -S: Market Total: Tax Total: I Sale Price: Sale Date: Sale Cade: h (i. _ t 107 ..—IMIN Map Scale: 1" = 200 ft. N Print Date: 1/2/2014 )V This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 G] illl!i �� isrJ�n� Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map LLI ,��f J r � \1 �1•� � lr + k a1 co i I Ln Parcel 29.028 -24 -31 -0008 j A -T -B: I Map Scale: 1" = 50 ft ID: f Print Date: 1/2/2014 Owner Name: Parcel 3210 Southdale Cir Address: Edina, MN 55435 Property Commercial- Preferred Type: Home- Non- Homestead stead: Parcel 0.43 acres Area: 18,810 sq ft Market Total: Tax Total: Sale Price: Sale 10/2012 Date: Sale Code: A3 Page 1 of 1 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 ., Thirit.Green! border FOODS Current Address: 965 Decatur Ave. North Golden Valley, MN 55427 New address Effective 4/4/2014 5425 Boone Ave. North New Hope, MN 55428 Border Foods Application Narrative for City of Edina Staff, Planning Commission and City Council Border Foods is a franchisee of Taco Bell Corp. and has been operating the Taco Bell Restaurant at 3210 Southdale Circle since 1996. Our principals are Lee and Jeff Engler who have been operating restaurants in Minnesota since 1980 beginning with Los Primos Restaurant in Southdale. Border Foods is proposing to scrape and rebuild the existing Taco Bell to a more current brand image. Since 2009, our company has completed scrape and rebuild projects at Rice Street in St. Paul, Columbia Heights, Rochester, Eagan and Brooklyn Center in addition to twelve remodel projects throughout the metro and in greater Minnesota. The proposed use is a continuation of a restaurant use with a drive thru window that has been operating at this location since 1985. The site plan proposes a building that is 1,850 sq. ft., rectangular and utilizes one way circulation flow for efficiency and safety. To provide as much distance from the residential property line to the east, the building is placed as far to the west as possible, which is an 18' foot front setback. This provides 45' from the face of the drive thru curb to the rear of the residential property line. The parking setbacks to the North and South property line, adjacent to commercial properties, are at 4' feet. The menu and audio board have been repositioned to face the south property line of McDonald's. To create a better pedestrian experience, Border Foods has incorporated sidewalks, a bicycle rack and outdoor seating into the design. Our landscape architect completed a two part analysis of our project compared to the Starbucks location on France Ave (attachments included). The analysis revealed that the Starbucks has 23.9% of open space and the Taco Bell has 20.7% of open space. With the 3.2% variance in open space between the two parcels, the analysis next reviewed the quality of the vegetation. When comparing the plant materials within the Starbuck's parcel boundary area, the vegetation is comprised of shrubs, ornamentals and grasses. Any over story trees, which Starbucks included in their calculations on their landscape plan, were leveraged from the plantings of the overall Centennial Lakes landscaping requirements. By contrast, the quality of the proposed Taco Bell landscape plan is higher because of the inclusion of 10 over story trees and 6 ornamental trees. Within the boundaries of their identified parcel, Starbucks did not include any over story or ornamental trees. Not only does the Border Foods proposal exceed the City's standard for over story trees by 23% this also translates into a greater cost per square foot dedicated to landscaping as part of the overall budget for the project. Our project's storm water management plan includes volume banking. The water quality volume required for the project is 2,003 cubic feet per Nine Mile Creek Watershed requirements. The civil plans propose upsizing the pipes to 24" to provide 2,559 cubic feet of water quality volume. This upsizing provides an excess volume of 553 cf which is 26.6% above the required cubic feet for a 2.5" rainfall event. Aq Four variances are requested due to practical difficulties encountered during site design. Neither the applicant nor the fee owners created these practical difficulties. The variance requests are: 1) Variance of parking setback on the North side of the property from 10 feet to 4 feet; 2) Variance of parking setback on the South side of the property from 10 feet to 4 feet; 3) Variance for front building setback from 35 feet to 18 feet; 4) Variance for aside of the menu board & audio system to face a residential property. The parking setback variance requests were initially granted back in 1985 to the previous restaurant user. Border Foods is asking for a continuation of this previously approved variance. The setback requirement of 35' on all sides of the building encompass 4,321 sq. ft. or 23.1% of the parcel. Moving the building forward allows the following adjustments to the site plan for safety and aesthetics: 1) An increase of the distance from the face of the drive thru curb to the rear of the residential property line to 45'; 2) Allows inside seating for pedestrian customers who want to visit the restaurant; 3) Allows for a more comfortable turning radius in the one -way circulation pattern; 4) Allows the 15' parking setback to be used for spruces which is a denser plant material screening buffer; 5) Allows better placement of the audio system and menu board with an only non - audible side to be facing the residential property in contrast to the existing placement which is directly facing the residential property; 6) Allows reasonable access and safe servicing of the trash enclosure. The menu board and audio system placement have been relocated from the current location on site facing directly to the residential property at the rear to the south facing McDonald's. However, a narrow side of the menu board and audio system still face the residential property. Thank you for consideration of our project and respectfully ask for your approval. w. Aq IL g" t !k • 't _ tit r.l •� �n VI•ICIINITY MAP �e :1 t RETAIL. . �• P CIRCLE A E• nr�� oNAL e. ; f � NORTH W WCL lmI BELL 7210 SOUTNDALE CIRCLE EDINA, MN 55406 paS VICINITY MAP Al TACO BELL 7210 8OUTHDALE CIRCLE EDINA. MN IN35 �pN ,wax 5"T PLAN TACO BELL EOINA, MN MODEL VIEW 11 "ALE ArcA4eclwe INeflars TACO BELL 3210 SDUTHDALE CIRCLE EDINA, MN 55435 Py Gpt� MODEL VIEW PTAC. EDINA, MN �t EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE OIR ECT EXTERIOR M 11-1 EXTERIOR FINISH SYSTEM IDEFSI FINISH SYSTEM IOEFSI FINISHTSYSTEMNIDEFS) VALAFNNCENAND SLAT WALL PA METAL FINISH FLASHING WCL TACO BELL 1210 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE EDINA, MN 55035 �y SIMULATED MASONRY PREFINI$ "EDT METAL VENEER STOREFRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS r A8 .EO a T c i1 FRONT ELEVATION i1 REAR ELEVATION 1 Z DIRECT EXTERIOR 111 -I EXTERIOR FINISH SYSTEM OEF$1 FINIS. 4YSTEM IDEi4I 4 FINEST FINISH SYSTEM YSTEM (D (OFFS) WCL TACO BELL 3110 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE EDINA, MN $5015 Py Gpt� -FINISHED METAL IR"I'll"El WALL PARA PET CAP AFLA SNING VENE pTED MASON0.Y M ST00.EF1HEI TAL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS �R .., A9 Eq ❑8 8❑ &FRONT ELEVATION DSIDE ELEVATION ❑6 6❑ �LREAR ELEVATION 71 DIRECT E %TERIOR DIRECT E %TEPIOR DIRECT E %TERN]R FINISH SVSTEMIDEFS) FINISH SYSTEM IDEFSi FlNISH SVSTEM DEFS) SENWO SLAT WALL IDNAGE �1 SIDE ELEVATION PPEFINISHED METAL Pq FFINISHED METAL VALANCE AND SLAT WALL ARA PET CAP FLASHING SIMULATED MM1SONRY -ER 1 ❑] PREFINISHEO METAL STOREFRONT wc� TACO BELL 3210 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE EDINA, MN 55435 P-y T1 S�FLv �pN ALA', TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS 1 TACO BELL EDINA, MN Z MODEL VIEW WCL TACO BELL 3170 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE EDINA, MN 56473 y QFL�c�O`Q Gt�O� GG�S r9 MODEL VIEW TACD BELL EDINA, MN MODEL VIEW WCL TACO BELL 32105OUTHDALE CIRCLE EDINA, MN 55435 P•y N st�J GpC� MODEL VIEW TACO " /1 MODEL VIEW WCL TACO BELL 3210 SOVTNDALE CIRCLE EDINA, MN 55435 Py Pf`E�'O\FpG �pC� GpC� ME MODEL VIEW TACD BELL EDINA. MN MODEL VIEW WCL TACO BELL 3210 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE EDINA. MN 55435 MODEL VIEW A6 KEY NOTES DEMOLITION NOTES RFNP'f FM6(om @Mxy /STFlRTURE Axa/an SRF rrr.TINE lM1 ref bpin a•morl:n wt2 gXm•Y• ••almml c°nb°M1 en N pb[•. O 2 prwW air aw6b mnUVl m•rno of b rpunl al u• C�wm or Gb R•pn.mldlrae. ToY• ' e1 I /1 1 RdtM Dp51n1a fLYMIE tllRB f CIlr1[n . ro•umy m•mun• u m ° ranMUm. Proah mpNp d ua¢mt pu•x9 m ngaa, VV IV L nmarN M an cb CrNinm. M1 O RDIWt Di64r[ 9rUluTAni •rID LPICRDF MV[mlr. J. Uq pprena wN pntrcl'un pl ro rclM• dorm emr 1Mh Rdm m ade� A .... Inc. Oi RNOpF etq t61nS a tNSmC I/•aRCVC rrATY14 P1n1IInR uIq Ted ` awmd• M nlur uM°m• prol ywanY•6 C1 N 1• °46b ai>muslien mtl ra�mN FY6TeE wo4C lm IGT. 6 RO�mwv" w n nl nYWp .Irwa"'"lum °new e�°R.r"i'pi°wbY.n'�"roud NYnwe(.�pn Us pro�ea meurs6on O �� Seat Cunbrcla Y ablan 3..rc mq wdm 5•n5c• Dbcomot IM1rrrU1 V , p ­1 a bmp41p­ W IM Iron Rr Cab. Smimp .mr @1q.2 DNIOC SaE rTATI.WF Nm ra39M1LD cal6gepnS ••r•k• plm ol•r eenk• m,dl a abconn•cl•a Xa b •bNnp buaalq aero6Ben Verlly Owoepebrz ertx urzm �s rewmw ran Imrc Tux. pamxxFLmYL ronpwnY e.p mpa:n a .e1.. roa •mulpn xnra•. sr• a nblNp .a. �nq N .vq1 : e• I)o, bM r...l .pY. pe0/W RDCIIM1 u xLT:lsrm. :om1»• :.Inn:i'� a .�r'.'iW i nanan�¢ gee.( �� lb®°ue�n"�°r1O'�.n1:�ma �6liorr .•6MC•�°. •Nbxw1 Io Op6LY4rER uID eDlwF pRRxa Nelp1 sCIN S FVr Clrt RFPMFl2N19. LauTnx sWXN progrlr oro on bmN m Rb r•[ora pbn Inlormo4on. M Io[otbn d .wN[p Irom Drogrty W b rpx Denxc Rp1rn sDMCF a .pp.pFa.1e. CaxTNROB RtsaxsNlF ro ntlp Ierarz •xp baan b vnew.n wnwelpr t. a•lemuro aRe ..w Iomx.n of uldcn .w nqn r m pRNFT A9 MC6S.IRY. a e aW EnVUmu Cup luw yl po•M rnnnrc4oq qr utT.b pbr and Dlge b Wn n�NV OpacarmFCr Nm RDlp+e mmxc sewruN sLwm ssRea um pRpnoF rzlmdbm up. InuTTwl a "mp. R.nm.. n W N m b,f,, amecwn Ya nbxn m w Lam•. r.n[ •aR OUSTxa SeMru.Y SMDI wa wnTrll ¢w+[F 6 MRRpvauTL 6 C.nxrcmr m [ooh 4 YN [•nTN Dbmbm for •Cp mi.e aM •weoBm a rcMUa 6• VCp Ra$1ON°pwrvwc To rmp laurz um pwusr u xalssam. s¢ oE000npx wTO T wmT um s. r I • pnp®a m .1. Iron mw Y �a DRaTCrr Ce61pL 11� w OIACE. .••• q-1Y mrl' man N W •ML iWags Ip r��s rwiq•a MN I. pr, pM am•r m Wtmniro p Nalbrol rwronol /npex�nwN rota lq purl'mn Irum p1A<t. fpAeOOarz wax 0e1m1 N. NbleC tm/ rron I. prepay fro. a (0 A A nrnAt O6W1p�:1 uN0 .�ET1m�'rt )i6�'f9em rW RE -1W. Raror• a m.6Uen ere•2• leurL erobrep• a rcxp•0 mo1nW b rot pamal•e m uL. IO) pwaRir t]ttilOY iDA'C m gACE 1a. R.MI •ui'vq ulu°nlnxvn m. nl,ein In Bev OuX,q aiWixllpn Bpeo mpNip 0enep•a WAgnc SrJI.0 M lLEI wiu ro. groUlclpr. O pMA1n /JA ®IP9: OiElela BIIIOOYM gV(wplT M IYL 2X w1pp1 iPW W Di[ D< 11. pugmml •nee M a NI a N+OY a rnraua unem roW euawlw. Rnoa nq rccv a �l �C� W� � vLK� �L s � � �L cM �xd°w Nuclmn juN bpana runt °t ro cwt to W °.mr. tS. Do rot Nm•N ni•luq UvNic cpaaeaen Y ea]ec•nl Yd w eMb. ORCxuT R91.N pD[l4Y d® urr oral MVU1[ fM RE- mxSTMiax mx L91m1[TF 1). Sam bn! lepgl elnll b e1aRDiM m oFOU for us naminenl of 4• of mpwt I> al[WN.a mw• b M CYATOt puiwrt MAM pW SaF PINT. T.AMaplrz SLIM[ N mrm.2F �ImKT p n�nplbl•a. SIpER. LnLm D61Dra GdB Ira) BINwm15 NM PFA [fR RWa•m9. if I pn•YU[ bon aM poet- pn•Irucl'an pMNq •ban b• on -ells. A! ro am. •roR gM1ip, beGq, ar O PRarzR [F61NC DmB p10/aR @NYRmIA nVdwr a PVaE CDNRYCIaR R60aXSiWE raR painp a anew•a en poem eVgY. l _ nO 'T MR6C ro MWmQa iNNil41U! wvrYDn. CaxmKlax ROpaMm[[ raR M1uG[ 16. IJi°rrulunl [mVUlameu•un.pmml N I aprclea N' 1Na C:61PX> unl'ba•mpO q m pMU1e aneL yeea • mq 9TE PUx BMFa a SMMT Mpe•nlpx �L rzo s ��re. m+�• worom er �r Taco corrcrere acre 67..65 BENCHMARK Bell - - - - K: 13 - - - - - �7 7b 077' - - -6'�A Top " of Ibamd Nm va bn Sao 'b art a 3210 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE \ 1 62 1•d •evinq•! a gan.rc! pnp" earor. EDINq MN 53039 _ S 89 °47'36" E 129.3 �n.ri - ...L�!:1u,Ir.XF g:Lcc_(�rlih of lr�= ar �onc \ no Pad .a 860 - - - - - y_ gg0 �� -1c' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: c n cur c � - � . - � . � c, •pbM1m. srnn x. Im, REMOVE EXISTING srgy \ I ~ �T I I w"'a" Laay. DN�.oele STORM SEWER - b 3 cParkrng etalls �r� h w �: �a'r. STRUCTURE. J 6 2 �I - PROTECT EXISTING ' "`'''�''p`� ,27 1a 12- RCP STORM 'l� m b r t u m r n o y e• Bbl s u r f e 4 4 SEWER AND x880 I PREPARE FOR NEW << ` � / .51 2 / ��6/.02 W/ 14 1 I S GOBS STORM SE STRUCTUREEPER / p,V` 2 q� �--/ x a II SURVEY LEGEND: ,(UTILITIES PLAN CS.O. '9'3 / rc ee / /N _ c ( 860.64 yr u 661.80 63.3 I• k 9.q 42.4 V dwrslll I$ c� ® ® Catch basins Oawbpa by: js 57^ _' l cLx BB 1.25; ' wnod xal 661.9 2 I s / a I! y� Border Foods 97 -.0.. 'p ' - '• Y I I .y' Hydrant e65 Deuw AV. N.M �e .�:1:LTn concrete. - 1 Bp9n 3 2 I I Y o k O II o Li g ht standard OW- V.1"NIN55W . 15 ar.57 5.7 rdgP., tk NmAddmsaearApm 4 e "'1 s l -Story Stucco e B I I N SCl3 Boon• Aw N. "Taco Bell" o paoaro w - n -o -q_ Gas main p•,MN5UM 1 y I -p N•w Npwr raeq 1 �AOA 4rn 31 (­­f3 9lroxm to stucco �dm� I � Rr°®a°°� \ \ Par 9 9n 5.7\ dw „/I 7 3 I V Sanitary sewer Cm. SNOMEERINO 32.1 881.8 ��1 2I1 m "M151EMOR 16 1 6 3 /" 3 1 1 1 0 - 00-00- Storm sewer • `: a2.a -, B61s7 I I III Watermain \ .65 '�•: l .;,e 631:50 q O 1 �w.rmre �ri� g1 .76 1I u \ 2 660.53 / / 6 .90 \ 3 461.17 II Overhead wires /� DISCONNECT i IS 1 I `9 J L I 1 II 3� " " - - - -- Underground electric - EXISTING WATER QI70 u r- -\ . L b r t u m ; o u s c u r lace 1 1 SERVICE AND a _ SANITARY SEWER _ lq o T- 6W. 'W1.52 •640.96 961.52 d � II SERVICE AT V CD 6 5 j��+ "��p aP PROPERTY LINE l Z .7B /Ld `''� 10 / ` -�� 3 PER CITY _,,r� REOUIREMENTS / `30- B5176 _ k2I �GI C INDEX OF CIVIL SITFDRAWINGS: LID AND COMPLY ICI I tc I� �h Laa1 �12oncrete II I ? WITH ALL PERMIT IC' ( C7.0 SITE PLAN CONDITIONS. N 679.9 In �J n i %� \ 1 1 + New addhg PREPARE FOR 11��� 4 / P a king eta ! e 2 1 C2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PUN f, "D.T T L block I I NF2B.2B SaeN: 1A•T SF EXTENSIONS TO L�� --I-� rc 13 rc 13 I I I c�.D DEMOLITION PUN DEMOLITION NEW BUILDING. LDR� G. crcte rb Sher% .,1 i G�vCP ,o n "rbn9 861.60 ` I C4.0 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN PLAN _ _ tc 682.05'_. -._ C6.0 UTILITIES FUN I N \ 80. °1Gn'o0[7 /2nCe lres '..rt1r 011rne 1er'� - er-�- -� L6.0 STORK WATER AND EROSION CONTROL PIA!! 6 11 4 S 89 °41'42" W 145 _ Y � .I. - \ cT.D SGNMRD DETAILS �s Cj3.0 'c roncrcr orb ' Ge�' 6� BG Y I 1 TACO BELL EDINq MN WCL � 91 � concrete curb 875.85 e/ec bar \_ y _ - .�- 117 69 -7- 6 E 129_ 3 - 878 ' ...,. 676 B7 110- _ as paoD a cu �Bi aeo Bh t u m I n o P--aw ur fa cc I T$ .880.51 /A2 881.14 I III I.da. I. ��fOM"S.vlp i0. mom] acG'® Br LL r LL /�� tc Taco 79.9 tc /L 79.4 810.64 C rb BB �\\ / \ J,�[ j m = nu8n7h9a..l2e 3 i I `,� r •oL ff Bv/ 7 l '� -, i f .9 � \ w` /t. s/ g n _ .o __a : . . . .� . 0'. door S 1.40 63.3 ° / 1$ EBENCHMARK. ...1 . ., ,. wr. Bell 42.4', B 1.25 Pd 0210 SOUTHDAE CIR CLE 811.9 a ..,n w C. EDINA. MN 5U35 =8720 c r e t e a '-P&\ 69 8.9 I II LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 11/.57 5.7 1 e/c ba 1B l.9 l - StorySucco '? ' „° bra a Taco Bell, V I s I W m`Pg 1 ` ADA (meaeur .t! Shown to S'WCO dmgf I 5.7 \ door ff m r4 I ,II - m Fly �Ot F JGS \O W , 32.1 181.8 BH2IrY '(� \ � I II c pods t` az.a s - Q. III SURVEY LEGEND: 879.7 I ee•' a BB 1.57 I II - .65 91 .76 : - �.�„�, 1 e., ✓e -� 887.50 _ i 1BO S3 i 9 el ® ® Catch basins D.r.I.P.a by: 111.17 I P r Border Food jC s 411 Hydrant MN-A.... M srn glL 0' ` b i t u m r rl o u s s u r face I 179.4 0 1/1.84 'J` .edp.96 x /.52 I q F Light standard N..o>,m."I ... IAaa ° // F �o� / I I - - - - - -- s�5 M.A. of rccf° / I IS Gas main N..H °P.ANSS02e 0 N tic M1.76 Sanitary se sewer M: - . :.LNA"a ..°"' .� IN- O seDMIGN -c rete r`�o 17992 u) Storm sewer block Watermain I c nete 60 I to 12. 05 Overhead wires 80. O _ h °I B ppd fertm lies south of Ime - =-} \ I B8z 5 89 °41'42" W 145.D0 1Bz. et - - - - - -- Underground electric eeo -61 4 F INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CI.O SITE PUN C2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN N.,v BNBBYp N42B. 28 Saab: M7 SF C3.o OEMOLITON PLAN EXISTING CONDMONS C4.0 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PUN PLAN C5.0 UTILMES PUN C6.0 STORM WATER AND EROSION CONTROL PUN "+�^ GT.O STANDARD DETAILS a C2.0 c.a TACO BELL EDINA. MN O *." m O.N w SCALE M FEET N Pls'LtnO°'�Mw°X WIFE- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Mn <. B.R'wrN tPN Sul.w Na I]P. ITi...wpn m•nb. w.wwrR. W v\ V W i Q1 O v 1 BORDER FOODS,INC. CONTACT: BARB SCHNEIDER 965 DECATUR AVENUE NORTH GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 PH (763) 489 -2970 FX (763) 489 -2971 SITE DATA: ]Mmd rEo-, .tAmAa mmR,�N � , rRwosm use RERNMAM •nx M9AE -nMwOx DR® Im AmA +nmo sa rt. w o.0 .w¢ TmAL�BULD.O roomlmn N+w I<Fq +,e.1 50. rt. P[MYM BNIDM< OWEM<C B.PIi R00°A Yp W..O 0.W0 PpN9M PIILRSSD ea9nO16 YR A..i . IRO / Mtml PRwJSm I..Y6ftPF ARG ]A6] 50. rt. PCPCMr LAIOYAPC AROI ]0.65 ARCHITECT: WCL ASSOCIATES, INC. CONTACT: DEAN MADISON 4931 W. 35TH ST, STE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 PH (952) 541 -9969 FX (952) 541 -9554 PARKING DATA: SITE PLAN NOTES: vmmaa t. ALL OUENSDtS SxOWx ARE TO FALE OF CIRI& EDGE OF SOEWALR OR D1ER- . tm S S.s n 's r te• (AW a eluplc um� OnrtANaE WTEn RDET. M AR<IRECNPAL aRARITLS FOR BLO- O9¢x51ox5 AND SPECIFeF.TONS TOR LOIXTON OF Exec. RAMPS, WrcRErE Artmxs AW srWrn R.wM M1nRI] SmLC 2 TACK SxN1 BE USED ON BRUYwOUS FTIDE PROP 10 PATL19Na WlO1 C[61WO t/J W mn pna t p mm. WI ]' F�.NFAIWLSIDEWALIR AD.NCENT 1p WMI1O SHHL BE SEpARMED BTTN A (- & CONCRETE D 4. OD 1-1 SHILL V 1 ALL CONDUIT MILB1 L4NR FOR LONDW. PU OATON. _ WWWW xAA.W orMUw OW bKm Y�.e ] VN4m. PE WARD, WWWNGIIOx D O NER ESTAL I MM OROR TO PAVbO. YEW PM & WNTRAMB" SHALL MERRY UIGTON OF THE MENU WARD AND COIWYNFI.TON PEDESTN Wex ORNFA PRIOR M - EYEIR. e. AttISSMIS ROL"C sINIA BE PFOWGW FWY -- STALLS ro BumMO ENTRANCE (SEE ADMO REOWiEMOVS). POLE MOUNT APPROWEO SONS CEMDID) ON STALLS. - P]mIwTONAL STYWL DF AOCLSSmAnv DN S - ]. WtbTRU<T ACC[5.9BLE PEDE511- - PER ADAAO AND YNDOT MANOVOS SETBACK +mMR1u RE9mocln OOW CDNMASTMO DETECTABLE WARNHC SIRP. A. CONTR a RLSPONSNLF FOR DEORDPN106 YIIIH FIRE NARSNAL FOR rOSTND Lf7fd1GG BID®Ti T2BRB'i L" OF iME IS CURB ISIRErF R O SCNRLE F NFEMD. 9. WNIR.1CI 6 RFSPON9BIE FOR OEWLROr1 AND REYWAL OF ALL E<6NF FROrt_ y p. ' Es ES TINT RDDOERF MRX MW WDIM AS SIO.TN. T0.ALL ARTFS ARE TD BE PIIIGT. WE ]5 IO NEW LITLA 1. ALL NEW IFSMM MUST S UWED WIT, . ]. SOfi- S..ALL BE CONSTRUCTED CROSS SLOPE OF R[AP A IV tAx WIM AMU -DR GYM 0.5x. DOFWAIIts EEL 5 INSPECTED AFTER S" fx1rSTRUDOOH LO LN EIOE[DMC ].w CROSS SLOPE WILL NEED 10 BE CIVIL ENGINEER: CIVIL ENGINEERING SITE DESIGN, LLC CONTACT: SCOTT DAHLKE 118 EAST BROADWAY ST., PO SOX 566 MONTICELLO. MN 55362 PH (753) 314 -0929 www.c;vilesd.com SITE LEGEND: MAW 911w 9RnmgV9 xwmR COrAEtE wArAn Arxw �� Be+] CRAB AXp OrtTW STAA9.R0 �� Bel] CNM AND COrt01 N -OVT EtDmrs cIMB Ax9 clma ® . PAMMS Cotwr r r rRArrc Iomlw AvAOn INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: C1.0 SITE PLAN C2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C3.0 C4.0 DEMOLITION PLAN GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C5.0 UTILITIES PLAN CB.o C7.0 STORM WATER AND EROSION CONTROL PUN STANDARD DETAILS GENERAL NOTES: t. 2 5. e. KEY NOTES ertulMlals PA r As O ("I-N4 LOT -11 IOM uxll LB4vn vs (a 57 � � ]JeD Doml°v.1ONa: F°m'yw eDNEOI�e,� +DDS Dr rM YAnsLUL O061] (°•1 COILROF NRB a NTTW. WBN xAet 10 5n]A s1IDFG01 RACEIOR OB WOOT ]]�/e n]]. xusw PIFiEwN. O] B°'s DNRY Mm wW �°MOTO2IMIt�o JaTA W Pu'. 2- m a LA O Lvcmc OGa7•uF. tILnN woes .• momE taux . /esr -natn •.•J. (mm. NACOO71f 011 WWT ]b� W TJL WNYL WIItQ)R. � e T6Pl'J.IOIB 9RVfmC ABDRE 1689 SFixfG+OI6 I O °•sRCp1EU`a"ERASCeAU mc9r 3/Bi6YrNf'Jr°/>1A M.r9151 rlAaamn arwsD( LPa �aAn e xAr9l.t P4<[YOR. 50.5 SR.OTAID16 SW[RSO]E AemE L6RD SPFS O u�ND9, 6mllo.R�.7 ] -]9r ""I' OaAnmES ACT (Af1O BmlMatmns. RETNDI<E O .OWIMOOYA eYYeM w A1zmAmlm -wmO +ATd rN1e. O ACC[SAYIL MR1. SQI (.IDOL Al M -M AIO Rf -6O. cEM+01 Sx p PAmfm OALL IOrwrox PER flNWAL [OxMAOw, xGRD w r Wrc•D[ RWAW. SQ DENi ART. Ov wFM Y6 $ Wd�JK r1.Vl Om eOOOx LWP. 95NME9 B <en1 W10MM. WMWY •On AR<wIEC11NL PWII tRA161WMmI RID W <D®L ODOPM.M oMOA1 IV DMITr aw.M ��•�� O f FIR SOTO SIWrE - xME Ou PAM relrri ARIID•9 - .T.IE O VANE ].• xIDx M11O6 - 1R91L OO PAM 2.' ROE !QO SMPE - tIIPIL War 6@ '0] DarPIC mml rME NRnI nrnTm sOx IJBPlET T9 arum IN nALc OUGllr P0.L RODR ` LOxMID AxD PNOIOxOOO PUN FOR LWIr LOCRI®t9 Axo !1{Cp{/.ron IOMbrox4 RF OPIW4 Wu+RACIOt ypOrt i01MGlOx SOE WIM OIMDO .9RRIRr. O OIARD P09t OoYAR0. SQ 9DAi SMLI. Om COICRDF DRN[Ba1' AO®II POI ON $IA.00FB 16[ r mlortrL OB6DAL 1mG IexMtm w r LaAaO[ BmIAm Sde A B[ PtA® eK[ N B.a w 3AYL eOUR0. 99ID14 COxWLIw N WOOxAR IAG1xM eElw' Spl I W Nw wmr Sot O TR.ASx [NOAP12 64 ARO91D'f PING rw DCO.S Q E CE GIAREPYCMM M1pdDRNOP r. APRw. w �TMFAW a IY ®Nwgl6�ld[M.UP rANOIb1 arA,o6 AIID CAW] EIaoL ODL.- ] RTr •OE BW++ CORMOE VCtu ( ALsw rW.1.O Ar <DRO1 a Sg1MT. TALLwtt LOIIOnTE Sit1IDX 10 B[ f.11 CRCRF OMB uID amw. Oa CRQIeID rOC[ N R[Ylw Y rUwF. ® aE Rrn. s¢ vAO¢r v01'ArIDtB. O •uu'� OEimu�'m"`BB'.°I+x Bn"`n® °�".m'�6� -rw1 sRr D.a a�1ow REUwB 0 wOr +]• •OE tm armWNi DTRPWC - .Isle O v°�Rw. @ �mR Baum .6MUm� so,�� �L� 9Bx er mmME mmBCtwr. 9.xw NmPta . LaTAes O I� At e9M9. asrAUSD Br sex mwAM. IgR6YTON er ODE9IL wllrla<IDIt vaMY a i+fN O9IQN MORIf1T. 5[F AR<mRSr ruNe Vox OETARS WCL A...clAlu. Inc. I� Taco Bell 5210 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE EDINA. MN 55955 D.+Wmp9 br. Border Foods 965 DwmD A. N.M GPIO.n Vahy MN 55927 Nm Men.. e.9TAPM 9.2019 5425 Bun. A. N. N.w Hom)AN 55/28 C7VIL ENGTNEEMNO �.�� �DLSIUN �N .mre .eW m.irma �a.~sean�ra � OMm. ri.TYlH Nm BUNBYp N.2& 20 Sub: 1A47 SF SITE PLAN _ �mC1.0 ro TACO BELL EDINA. MN WCL SITE LEGEND: ...... —677 7-" RIP-W. S 89-47-36- E 129.3 — a to ED 30 3— IN el SIP e-!�o rLrr 880 --1..50 t1I .66 k 1 5 -- 1. .5 -C,, Or, for aD ;fit BENCHMARK. 0.5 M.0 f 7' Z, Taco LEGAL DESCRIPTION: za. Bell 6000 Q1, MID SOUTHDALE CIRCLE -576.23 . 'ell I EDINA, MN W35 -) _j EIBI SW.ft... I� P, Nrg" —I NP� �I—W ­pk by 0- L" �2 L" TACC FFE=881.. Lu sly I'- S.. 0- Cw a nmm Ixbr I. 6ro BELL -36 SEATS 1847 GSO o I I mm l SERVICE I I ! 60 `60 3- C—I =w —L -por-ft. w — Lnn I A. :4. lop e b "u` t -pw . . . . . . D—Iwd W. mra 0 1. C- 0 0 Border Foods e t 11.5 D—r M. N.M 0 mo 0- 0 0 e1 GIft, Vky MN 55427 0 679.44 21 14 A. 0 m 5.— 147. :67. b' N—Md..,..&Apd 0 5.—. R. 0." —L,, m 4, 2014 A. N. 0 D—It,. IV � n .1 "d— N—MN 55428 I wear. -0 o.m. I—I .p w Ad • CM c ENGINEERENG —P 4 dp ;Z Z "IF D.�11% W CRY B-, -- ------- — ------------- L 54%d T. N T B81 881 660. IC Is W. .1 1— w-4 1— he s-,h IBIN U, It' 9 --Bw 1881.0 1 INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: C1.0 SIIT PLAN C2.0 EXISTING CONDMONS PLAN 1,1I28. 25 Ira— I AC SF C3.0 DDADLRION PLAN C4.0 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN GRADING AND DUTY HEAVY DRAINAGE PLAN C5.0 VnUnES PLAN X 21. C6.0 STORM WATER AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C7.0 STANDARD DETAILS C4.0 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT cON;;;7SD;7A7 TACO BELL MINA, MN 4'M0 DD BE to m or 14 R rL LL' A76 / =9 J S 89 °47'36" E 12973 ,�OJO REBlB00 INC R- 3651 -A I N75.65 677 1, lm a lest arty, of /ice ,� � - E7B - = •-rc to / M 2.00 nL-wA• / TFiA511 �I I tea. 0 D / 0D' -24' PER 1E POP DwTC(TLE NDPC PIPE N11,i dt CCDTIXI6E SOLN O O.Ox aw D n CDNNEEi TD [NESTING 6• vCP SANIIARYSEBEit SEAM[ AT 00101 Arz ELLVATION 6]300 WIM wA1ER -TIDHr WNNECDON. CN6IIN0 PRE 1NPOI9MIN)N 6 APPR . POPE CE.I TrOR . AN RLD VEINY To ... PRE . IM_. I AND ELNATDN 1RNIR ro WORN. COMTRU PROPoSm O s AT .NC' EAN BE M EED. CONTIE -I 9NOF CONTACT ENGINEER ONFJCTTLLV If ELEVATION It IX6TING SCRWCE TO TO WIM tITTI D WJC E CONTRACTOR TO COMPL> WRN ALL CM PFAMD REWIRENCNIS. _ ENS E YGTDI I °3 1. TrOpV ME Bi 9.J STOP KE 1 C' 6, t, , 10 �O I- aw., G r� \ I tRDla tj dI DbI-c E___ o 1. HDOINC 9WL 9[ XAOVE SAS W1DML9 IRE1N0 9CIECi pWlAAR BNNOw YtNpT SPEC ]149.8 Z mRACT ro oss srANpMN vaDCi9R ] I -E @L PI(Y.) AF SNAA BE rRR ED IN D RIg15 (E . AND 9D EX. PLA® IN B• l LODSC TATS. COIRACIFD ro 9sx srAwAN vRttroR. BEDDING DETAIL II �I TACO' BELL I I 21 SEATS 1847 USd a I ' MMRNA ®rANDUR e`Y DCPME F 11r) 1 AST AIXM ,¢g 111111 /A R[LUR „••) B N ® 7.V Mx �. . " 4e' 00. PRECAST NECNAX CASING R -266tH K•8795O N(N))•B)4A0 (24. OUT) n IC•en.00 SOUP MI" \_24' PCREK P I I WALL nPE PRE Mix Ronne sT]:N o D.ax I FE =881. - IVSERVMES J n�a . 4 _ m M IRNGTDN .- I I IJ _ __ / DD BE FSTALLED AT I T D" 0r tee ENDS _ __ _ -; __ -°j /wmI N RE9M fP+'D) Ptnvl I R 6' -56' SCM 40 ]IY -24' PERNRAICD 1 II II PVC BCNIS AHO OVAL -HALL INPE RPE Null I D.STALL SANTAAY -- �•r'4TDTDD6L SIXM O 0Ax I YlroN �PNO 101V -6•PVC SCR I I O PIPE o 1.Ox CB-4: A6• Ml R-1 I 4 EENNT CASINO R -]Oe1 1 II fl[•0ra.00 �IC(.7 f2A' OIIN I `U IC• 1.00 2.OD S P II bb I I I I I► I \7c- WCL STRUCTURE A INFILTRATION ZONE STRUCTURE AND INFILTRATION ZONE SECTION MEW SECTION NEW CB -1 AND CB -2 CB -] AND CB -4 Ir 1 1 II C1.0 CB -]: 54' DIA PREP H ASTINO 1-1117 { de)Im (].' 2. W j 1 I I wuP riu_w.m III d ...aa �„ ® e� BENCHMARK: UTILITIES PUN II �e -I mwr.m cwra Em.rmn . e63aD r.., o �wrelpPa.Pa N :inn LEGAL DESCRIPTION: STANDARD DETAILS C5.0 BQII . Wna TACO BELL EDINA. MN O1 •mN3qu II I w AN Y[LHREPWD EMU. CENDOMt. IIRIRV NOBS: I II ED 23.3 II SI yL, J ` IIyVPO � 1 O I I I1 f/2 .bw0en (warm ....r, mNlay ..n, .a.n .oboe. qPA bpuln..1rcbk..IC.). vvn° mN rcCly [pion of a1y mUrca P s. m. c.nllPCm..l,ae Pla.cl w .P++D1 NTCn o. I.sun Pr..r lanclbn'elp e.nq me an.. a.nab,.lal. Airy r.dlw .wPaOlg emcl.re .me n ewD.w by Pw C uxb m M D belw m IN ccnlracl. . 4 _ m M IRNGTDN .- I I IJ _ __ / DD BE FSTALLED AT I T D" 0r tee ENDS _ __ _ -; __ -°j /wmI N RE9M fP+'D) Ptnvl I R 6' -56' SCM 40 ]IY -24' PERNRAICD 1 II II PVC BCNIS AHO OVAL -HALL INPE RPE Null I D.STALL SANTAAY -- �•r'4TDTDD6L SIXM O 0Ax I YlroN �PNO 101V -6•PVC SCR I I O PIPE o 1.Ox CB-4: A6• Ml R-1 I 4 EENNT CASINO R -]Oe1 1 II fl[•0ra.00 �IC(.7 f2A' OIIN I `U IC• 1.00 2.OD S P II bb I I I I I► I \7c- WCL STRUCTURE A INFILTRATION ZONE STRUCTURE AND INFILTRATION ZONE SECTION MEW SECTION NEW CB -1 AND CB -2 CB -] AND CB -4 Ir 1 1 INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: C1.0 A.eocl.t. .Inc. SITE LEGEND: r D ID rq aD NDw 96Ilop NF29.nu :'A4>w • IIIJI aem W. Davos riu_w.m veue: w 6WAPNR: -LE, 1N rE r P ...aa • IIIJI rlveosv m eea PtArI BASLD s wflm a,mwrox lO�r DwmZR6t91DVP��'a0. N� PR0.mm T ® e� BENCHMARK: UTILITIES PUN •IRV.� •'_'_ eaol rpP ro.1 a Nyeralt Ircow .swum. cPd. a ez Int .an•rcl a �e -I mwr.m cwra Em.rmn . e63aD r.., Taco �wrelpPa.Pa N :inn LEGAL DESCRIPTION: STANDARD DETAILS C5.0 BQII . Wna TACO BELL EDINA. MN 7110 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE EDINA. NN 554]S CENDOMt. IIRIRV NOBS: 1. SPrc..W... .116 lar Du Pn)rcb Cumin apraPM eprclfaPlbrW Iw Ile 00 PI C>f1a YN oltl to D. 1N Pr NMI. aw YPfJ. rrcuimmmm vwpt .M On_N OF me. c.baY ercurnl.. z. DATA r t.c.,.nm loan , P., IPr all .ert . Inm C.nlmcbr .ball nPDIY •iOP1Wr Smm On. P. M Ilalln pNPr 11 Prry ..cwatian (611- 4la_DOD2 a ITew -2]2 -1186 oa atom.) .. • CanPacbr .me .milt dl baatb. Pw .I.Mbm al uw b nuM aPU..Itb WTI .m nb , la w p' .bw0en (warm ....r, mNlay ..n, .a.n .oboe. qPA bpuln..1rcbk..IC.). vvn° mN rcCly [pion of a1y mUrca P s. m. c.nllPCm..l,ae Pla.cl w .P++D1 NTCn o. I.sun Pr..r lanclbn'elp e.nq me an.. a.nab,.lal. Airy r.dlw .wPaOlg emcl.re .me n ewD.w by Pw C uxb m M D belw m IN ccnlracl. �, O p fLF' '(F �C� 6 TN �nilrcm am :mnawa solar u. a aro ®,rt d e.m..n nllr w alacrc. m�e u. ww..e inn m. ugDwn .a wm6inl..Re°in: u6my canlam m al.mm. rw a Q <JO�yJG a1 amlmn w Ira lalcomn g >. amwliom .inn m ®la � mannw.. Yon b..P .Imo a m­�p �w r<I,bacmr am um aw P npalee .Fop: =a M Pr b rc.wtbn qb.. tine.. br. E mm aw.191 ®umw la ban MIN C.VVCIn. ary r.4.�n.cnrcry°viM'�Inb. p.nvnm Gp CP 1..Crc by R. can �mr a III e. C I Rol 1 :Wam�l r can n a fm.. 9. T. C.InclPr a�nan .Its De bca lvlwclan m .I.. P._. aw -1 Iv wln .aWCw N1 m.acbtw c.m .11011 d 111e.nbl b IN C -1-1 IrcNremq tope.. of 1.1, -1 bl. Cy'. Lary .n.r Mmin Tlr D.bvcla .Iwe 1, oPM. vow wNn o. Il annm . uw Cy1 .an e.PPN MI.m. 10. lq Canbecbr Oawbpw by. a 1 y IN C:b Elq'uwr e. Iti P=I Eplvn lB Ier OIM b emrlup wre v . rrculrw w w m`°' )Ia.NCFr . n .e)rct Border Foods 11. TIe C.brcmr Nw I- eap. rooe. cYa PI N v amv e.b1m, artl Pe _ aPy eln.l CIFI . M a1w by W PoE9mpmNt .. nRUUw yy [.y. Pwun molrep., cwemew am .Imul meN one .r1s prnNi. m. NPOF5 965 DI A» NP,N rewfM P l etlm P pellvme6 W.1 pnMliln NPB P uvbPee .RNA 48 Il1m. amr Nel cpmmcWlt eprcTA . Ne pore . n P D'° Mm . W B'Y Fain, ally P.- tPare110. 61vee. GeMen Veky MN 55127 Nln lobrc..b..cnealr m arcanPFWI, mb .bin d P.ITnnlee P ..mina m nw c.,IPCL E2 TIW C.bacla Noe preen. ar,e lrrcl Ole 11r1e.. aM 11v.lwnm .1 1. Ia ema:mm of Be IeM New A6N1 aApN ]. TM C.VVCbr amt rc1e01A. 11e .Pm .pinv m 1¢P.mm PrlJleabn a m wMrP11.e fW. m e mmN IP.Ntaa D.nib m.m r.t IN 1 1: 4..2020 14 A N. 5425 B Ave N. A Oe11ry In. -0 .. m... dl ,mcM a bcP,ble m en.minw y w E,1­ w Ne npnewblNw New HPP,MN 55429 B. WINb IN uop.r 7 PI .b..4 PN d- pvxYlPx , CPMm1mr .nPe uW aPPlev.a tot, INa an am,n lx PtirlPln m amn .Nee, n e.9nw y IP SlmmeWV i r T.n-ASr1! 0-690 PBI, i 6mnaom P,,n Cvell6u11 D"'y P,d 11 a rr,VOq P: p¢ n by mpn .bon 1; 8.Ne VI. wPr Y. c .tOn eMe m.l 25. CnG1 r ••° for e mmmWrc aWe . 0.". 16 TtW D.r:.I ..6 P./ In m 1.111 a .N .am 0a Aq mm -h lei b Irl tle Nor..blme• .RW M wrlrclw el,e n -mine by W O.rw'e IeeWq opN a uw Goal .pelt. CIVR ENOTNEERTNO S.1 �Dy'IG= 16. ale wlvic. aW bo I- :eN . minimun a ,! IM of cam. TES Conb¢IV aIPR P,PIYa. �ry wlh c1n,M BI aalnPi.r eDN IDI/00T 7.mPmy Tlalk Camel 2m Lvy.ub _ IieW MaPar aa.e zD1 T Ia eon.bwlbl, aa)rc.nt to Ira .oy6 1 >. Cvrtracls aIPR a n.pvlva. Ia WiliaeD. PI N. a.m a .bWq .NAe Ibl.e . vu p. P4a m w an.nlq ��' .qupr.pmnmAP• Dpin..r mm w D.m elan m r r.Pan.o'1. I. .r elrcnP.cb rww w rY^a1''�mllOis ' 16 C:bRlll'bnePftl. 1. Ia .nlmb ..n .e rMC. eemrcua o 19. C.t_. I..mpy nwlPtery PQ. Prwl cl�l'a1 IPr P1De byres by P.n.r one br pemim obldma OF pm.n1 e. tnxi r..Ir I.s Pen zo. NI n q n .ale ra...w la. c..bwu. a •wlw mw, ..loin m Itw Dry al Rlcnreb s.-. sprc�l¢abeP' mare wlaa .r.r• S..TaM. 21. C.Vec1. my ul SOR J! P . e4PNaeN rM.rial I..alNtmy ..n .eau u Val ar9ryn61q wePnM61 o Pbnn'i DIP.. R.�la b Mci'�D mW N•.m .ln an b m.lu Ome m�ie PpNP1m0. INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: C1.0 SRE PLAN C2.0 EXISTING CONDTTIONS PLAN NDw 96Ilop NF29.nu :'A4>w G.0 DEMOLITION PLAN UTILRIES PLAN C4.0 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PUN C5.0 UTILITIES PUN C8.0 STORM WATER AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN a C7.0 STANDARD DETAILS C5.0 TACO BELL EDINA. MN I b mwtl .•:m, as mdw. lLr. m�l..b. d � mb m m�I �`mm.`LwnM� �emna CiU Yd m L f mW ml .Imivabn .M b cambM� 1mRpwmmyw bn`a�l.nnnmq �IOm`e14oYar u 4 mm..rr In mm..me. Yun YMDi L � u�mlmmnam• nwm ma mW e. mmmnmb .meNm. dc- aclm.p mm ! mhn a .m .. vbn".mnp Oq. m m p•pw• m Oq appm.. bn..c.P. Pb Im TP`M M m 4 hU`a �m Ills m.l M OmrbM .M a Pn]4 Mlw. Pr.ee9 mtinn a ��^In.�`.M r c�smm�m �: wml cw1+v w ....pi•Y a ]. xnmmu. w.brbla L Pe.np., In4 eb nnl' wn.tlubb.. mu. e. P M .bnepbsetl'� .m �r ce =.Z. b_ 4 Iw�bt.•� w .I w.sv�mn Sl�avrm w 6.Lmtl �nl w mmp4me. .en bG. npm.IUm. aM .M'.. M bud. m mw m.N.Vm .WCb. b ml tlbro m x. wyn...P.mlm b mmm n aYa w mm•u .wmb m t \I i <<' L Spei c �I¢ml. la Nu pn¢ct Cumnl .IVMeN .�.cltMbnlmm Tmmmrl�eYm SP�nr ®un• �nl Nl�tob Co oYUClbrc nb atl NPp6 nminm.nb .mpl .Nn meQd�tl Y. lElu rryinnmr •1fm. 4 n IN• 5. TM Cnnbacb..A.II "toy ScPbr SbbnOm CPY .5 Awn *P'�' �. cy�.a tit (1- 500 - 252- tt55.) nq cmlwl .mI my .. bneum. mo e vnPnlgwmD vuuu.'.'nnielni: gmueemDin.In vrYN t lmly nmlPnl.. 5 Y 1`7 PIe1�Nm 5o.mn Im .egimvnu .reDbl dmmYw. fi. .mbpn mnl.V �Rwb necnmry b pnUCl mlm.nl Dropulin .� m m mIm Un tlM 1 •nwv4en .. pneMp 2. onbn cenlrtl melnl.Imrm aw 4 mmm�.a lq IM Dlamn] C.nbmW. am mw•b m Y. fbnY¢I OmummU m m � m M� ww. lmn.:a q m mc.mrY .•tlm•u'm n & ll�s (Yad p mnbaebr flmfi ProrA. pe.l?n Ominop• m IM uL r.aA l"IGmEInpC` b�brmcm Im IM nrm.m.�ol! IM fIU .Ala P. 0.25'. o. l �I:n: N cmb¢Im W Aro P".. — Pm.bR In1 .m .nalrucLen cmlmm.`�MDD P.apeNelm np•clelty n N aM PI rocn Oq's mrk I u.! PurY M6 m tlae.m• mm 4 mbYnm .• brd ob mmm s •.wm m mer 4 oq. m m t.n9vv) Ymr�n. c.ra m�`IeLLVi`��a mb IY Nm 4 mpr tl tmm� /m Yn �T/m�l o M m`�mb'.m`�i •b4YLlmv /m mm Pc i.unr .nmwwroi nro 1 To-io-m tlb mm.. m mD A./: I.P�Y tl mY tlSpsllk�mltlwae b YmOi ]53 mlm wpm nm .-I— PUm,1 an "w.. ei k. pmlm ben Y' -N mpm M� am. uM m mt bmni..Nmmw ..A r.p.l.bn .bn 4 m D.Illlmbl'. —t 6 La W. Cbnbl W 4 4mmem In wf am. .M C,m.W v1m• WP. amsrw..rlwmlrpmr 1-�i w � S �mm.7 m .a• up1`•ia i ar•""�vl m flaw � y °•nca.mrme lw } Ibn Ca.braPm f>um �I4 bdba o O•m.nmm•m�a •`btl In.rr <f • Y b •Ib.tl r.ir'Tap STeb• m •Rmd rewfet:, Id by VINCO Impapprw.tl .mbU .ntl M <•Iletl p•r wl.ctvr'. crcb.`u..b.�` N Nsu . w Pnm mm a by .I. cnnc..cN�Im�mgv..Y mme .r�ln. •rr... <N cartr�ctm y —< '7-':— —,977 DN19PNtbnnm. fumrtN SMOUIL Dmbn mvtl n.mm.. U —, r 4 W c 24 r.pmmmm. YY.O N Ir. m r mmI r tae aYnb ]. Iw•� ®m9 MUf ..m1 Y•Pm mm /Y mY W Y mmml.6 npWmnnbmm! m Iea� d !w.• - 1/! 4yM .I Ina. m ummp.C. n..m.mr m ANn N Im..: M robes. - rtlnm m mrymm b mWt Wtl melmmn b.wb - r.m.. L Y brnenc••e�ml b—Q, .mn I mevmom.. m L M sAlwl mmtlMq M PLa. .Im d`1.� b m d mm b wi. mwI`bi w•. wlm�i ml� w m" a 'Yw.. nm 4. rm emu., um m.•`0'�•'mm ebP�9mm <m`n�ubnrmr�"mmm�'�0"ib, Iml Wvm.Dm Im 5. mp.nYW Parq b aWm mtlm t PAL CONDUfTOR m f2 Df.TDIYWm ==V 4 �.S .....� ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAIL 0 10 A m rx rc scar of rcrr Wi[D slEYtgllp, M1i PRP'0D1 R 1pl SYIM.K IbIPPln, eL BENCHMARK Top o d Itlm,t lvt m s.Innaaq CYSb tl 10 5 . So m . 1 Pr.P•N mrlm. D.wibn I16L ,1D Iml LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SITE LEGEND: • uul � f•m bp.lo. • /IIJI ro ®w beams /J r51, SILT FENCE DETAIL INLET PROTECTION DETAIL INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: C1.0 SITE PLAN C2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C3.0 DEMOLITION PLAN C4.0 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C5.0 UTILITIES PLAN C8.0 STORM WATER AND EROSION CONTROL PUN CT.O STANDARD DETAILS WCL f. Inc. Q TUIm tea. Taco Bell 5210 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE EDINA MN 55,155 aS��J G� DenbpY lry. Border Foods 585 De Ay. NoM C .Very MN SS,127 N.vYAEOUfeof mApd 4.2014 U25 Soon. An N. New Ncp..MN 55,125 tttttttttt m 0m® CND. ENGINEERING Sv �D`.IOs New .1211.25 BupElI. Soeb:1ER SF STORM WATER AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN _ C6.0 tm TACO BELL EDINA, MN { 1, ,,,,,y.. z �� • `� err 1� lend f snort_ lime - - o. _ _ _ _ - x - -- iC i \ ].x]`i9 TR45H 'tK /' - -� �t:law•GU s.w - ] IDD ,],�RDnI JJJ��� .a'', i b, I 0 �' 4x48 ASm. __. —_ ' - -_ - R _. -___ - "_ ^ _ Q• ., � n�T, � I" Dory ±a; col TACO FEE= 8g1.4.� ; �, ; B.� px4 CNI Op�'Y �1�.. a BEI L 28 SEATSr847&F y i �ul!o- _ - aD 1( l SrE1Rr3VICE tc 8.'9.76 5 _. lI� �- '-}ENTP `� r DR I O �\o'Y i •�� -- _ - -1 -._ _ �. • •� �I. :•I 1 C,.m�''° �^°]x.Ba.�x,.,w. .I ,MBDDLD�3m,.:.� � 879.4 20 i r' ® — __. i, - i t.Nepxy BIZ., �_yl• ^ Z 1 I ® ®�18� I.RM6P Gl1' V t.]sL0aG4 ,- SxmOSG4 —. "'o JS� IjCq II' � ..\,�. . - \,, p.� /�,> �/� .� °�; "'m.'r \ j•�. �' �• •''{ � {i OAP ` - ,(��•./ � -,� � �I� "�.✓ }�` -vcP. s, I ✓•! � f•-]�-_.. � - �. ,ill BBD. lO �� :" �'kw) IT� nT' _ - • 1 - -r- -.� . q�+, n,12- _d l e IK+ []+ c! Lne r a 10" I I r _ Bi3• 145.00 eB ' T` 88/2= •E1:0.6� LANDSCAPE PLAN nma 1 �rt pe X gk� G d E EVERGREEN TREE ••+••••'•x x0'mlmaF].mxlfa mKN R®m W L ee R. ®.],ar ro OE uOnm �iRVtf fomRm ]ppVLOmlkl Rt•EwxRa R•nw Owl,Rxe OLeVwm]tFDt]an�T � ]SRN.Y RRPIf RFF•WOIrNwixM. —Rt3Rrc _ - •YIULaFmmemw ro _ II _ pm xapuNRGNEatutor _ J �,� mtmrSmnawromBY. DECIDUOUS TREE ,� SHRUB x10 x10 LEGEND V V C L PLANT SCHEDULE _ ENTIRE SITE A•ROBIeIa R. Ine. INN OIWR. L049xON NM]E BOTANIGLNAIIE 61ZE HOOr CONNENTB D�NEwwBmrn RRwmERm wnE xs eRrio ]YAoE Duram o.ix.xm aa..Rd.o• B,vD ] Nvurowwre GR 1s ANLL:Qm Bf RRmbm. BK BM 61RRPa]I]FAMA.RLLLWN, BW . BNRMI]BSAME Ros ]R•eRmeerR' IK 61RNmn]FARiIRiLLNe, • mNmrtAA„Aa BRRnR�3nR+x]].• .Y,•d B® r •xB�...x B�eexevaepta.3RR•f n ®n Dm t0 0.YMiRORE]]IIRAC 6xh•R•palTiEx' R ]gin. .sae_ umw]amrlur xm.x>vY.m,w n mn. azs >, NxREYFDNKW R,•e,exRbe3rax.w Dart. TACO BELL MINA, MN Rro Y RRatUFA01FAYM9 GM•Pmx.•viR.S.Brmtb' R 0n. LANDBEAPE NOTES Taco mmtNIBBBNmRR. K, �], B, n�n,] RDmB ..���RroNBN]G„a.R�r�lro�r.�,�., �� z numus3¢ Dux] mox] mw]namwxuos¢erocaman+rNwurmsGten wxmroRwRwre ]aRBwauuwm]rosmuuma Bell w1FRWBIX4lm]s1]ml NTxnIERiBRIOwwttot NmuNNA3] m] B. YBruwnoB. wp NwLLNnwRm6rau,riFFmW �IO(DUUpFUm 321080 W.CW ,mKCwmxctmmRESwxSdENm ]xxrrR•wartlAwYef Ovnxxlwim¢K xmDWmm KCFP]N�RFHm. i ] ro+ mcmemor. a�muxxenxx ]ru3,<axxm.or.uunsxarmov„e soawzum, xewxmnerowor.]er].w3,xwxoxuaomu MINA. MN 55C35 a �pm �rtRram�w,m�wx wnm�Ne.m]m...oR]w+mr�in]�'s �°°nms^Eiercrwua on�mnNn.u]n,G]Ewmeunvuno.,le z xw. umnxmEDmtaGmcln] RCmmomxursnNO�urmmwunsmus�wz ssonm]�wmavtleauxrs 3. �1RlE]03xYN OiYfCEp3O ]MM,RIXR9gIROUOOYOeExBUNrtq UWIM] BRWE B,pODIOMDMpp.R m11RR01g9xy 0]yENM Ratmwxlu3umarl. o-aRwowmrmRBU,Ewun.vmwuml]eurzm r¢um.]slwoRrosarw.im B . uuxwmRUSaxuffwxmm�NnwanumumRC ¢vw]¢ z asNlRixommmamenuiGwceRCaamomoauxau cemxm.nm]B.e,Nnas +a w0] ruo] wxrulwwemNSa;.: gvmBBaommBaermu ,snnmxurDaerrBaxmRCroRBRCmaras. y p� RERRaRi. omnro3x] arraxwrwllwarsn ,u3u]emma]wmuvecmmw]c]lo.uturtas \�`�FpP �p� ,: Niuumuewiva¢ p��, p mrtxa:u�muv]aorol�c]nwmmwcE�.] mew. aeaD¢ oo] rsa]eni3eie°issN'�i3sRU¢sumwrone nacRCxrarxrrot ]em]xnr.mur�e]n6aau ae�'C�J� +z wmuc] mmxusmeD:] mmvuamvDaoBmuroxamaBnukrloeNCra ]]en.rlmRmRmiuumx. GO LANDSCAPE 8EOl8NE1fEN15 IRNry• 1-3 uxmClve Gl<uunaxs N-bpd W Border Foods R[MG.— v Gu Of ]oiltl M 0—. A- N.M G•M•AV.MYMNSSW ]X/ tl. 3361 u1 NM A44r•aa ea o] Ap8 R[mUPm RONIDIDm C, 2010 MOOIRMn goo BM]EE37nw ]e' ]3pRR5 roxGilm 1218 —An N. 0•U61 MWNRQGNN LS m41D0.1F0. ¢mBGRL1TDl ®1] aM 9 ACG13! 3SO0.WGlm mn.11LA III.] aSOR0II.R1G New Xop,NN 53128 ]OA —REQUIRED ••+••••'•x x0'mlmaF].mxlfa mKN R®m W L ee R. ®.],ar ro OE uOnm �iRVtf fomRm ]ppVLOmlkl Rt•EwxRa R•nw Owl,Rxe OLeVwm]tFDt]an�T � ]SRN.Y RRPIf RFF•WOIrNwixM. —Rt3Rrc _ - •YIULaFmmemw ro _ II _ pm xapuNRGNEatutor _ J �,� mtmrSmnawromBY. DECIDUOUS TREE ,� SHRUB x10 x10 LEGEND N42B, 28 8F =­117 LANDSCAPE PLAN P0.DPOSDI 11dE R0.R04D 1HRIIBS -ffi YA1M1Y� 54XLDIRr L -1 ©- xDmR Nr BGRDmz lr_3D Da m TACO BELL MINA, MN ............................................. ....................... ..... ^^^^^^^^^~~^~~~~ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^~~~^^~~ ^^^^^ ........... ..... .......... ..... ^^~~~~~~ ~~~^~ ^^~~ ~^^^^ .... ..... .... ..... ^^^~ ^~^^^ ^^^^^ ~^`^~ ..... BELL,, ..... ^~^~^ ^~~~^~ ^~^~~~ TB ^~^~~ ~~^~~~ ~~~~~^ ...... ^^^~~ 11 u I I ...... ^^~^~~ ..... ...... ..... ...... ..... ...... ..... ...... ^^^^^ ^^^^^~ ..... ..�... ^^^~^~ ^^^^^^~~^~ ^.^...^~......^^.^^.^..^^^^^^^^.^^^^...~^^^^^ ~^^^~^ ~~~~~^^^^~ TAOD BELL PREPARED BY: JOFN BUJARE 502-961-0357 FAX MCH 4, 2014 VVCL Taco Bell "~°pdbr. 13order Foods W50- A- PMI.O �LAN���]A] ~�~ TnO BELL EDMA. MN Jd ; ii g O — e pw 7d6bou�d �LL a� g�6� 3E. s, S. I ae �`9 Q a Bc j Y a m 1= i i f ° °� jib �1#$ia $i aBad€ € g s o a � � F° � SIP g fl a° 1°1 a it. -IV;!-! i is 24 �f rp 3•ga °1�E �® . ag;�os 8g8a 88 "JOyyH$��m � $" s Y � e�g9 m "�1 5 E- f, -- - =gI�� g9.1 H11!1!1 's° °�w_P E ga g g a@ EE $Ba s ga s q ®� alma „ °° ape m 5 i,v TSa 8C 5° m EE59�E €gi F §frE$agy-°`� E mm �_asE asq �p5 g.E $a 35y l jj`yP:E6 @��¢ gg i33gg 2� �g H, ��6�� "8���� � E a: z 0 wiz o� NnC ZO< s yQ gp�� R gg� 4nI�A�gg�� EY 00000 000 ooOQOOVo q�a2g 3ESEy $ H 9 Hill w 7+d� l D�T10.M+ m4ro3�A° Sa-[ YUSUSA' atllSwiOrNNWC3 .9m.�,A.t�i.Da9- �,[w��am3.a YId6Em.IN/[,KYm�1 I / v�Dmox� ❑5 mwmoe uN RE eo,rou o3yNx� uu.esaucw.0 OD _raN Emirs MmE� __ ______._._.__6-MV N.NB�M1waw°N 9'� D.E.F.S. THICKNESS COLOR TRANSITION nr.s. vNaawr �rE�a„NE� raWw Wlr <'11nASncWYE9{�s.Po3ruwiroNlnaEwu eoor�rtie•rM,Dea- lwanow..m we.waoomr3E..sE�ar a re>_ wcrECaviu .pn�eErvrtweenascvommm,s. ® /• �uPESS.�uDSOrt� erg sLmr.xoaBrNUronoE.wrane. n DEwnar3w�e.EEs Qz om+E - sEESrcEr ouu41.1. Q roorea.. rnnuneEroro. O 5ro9D,ar, ,r3Gn pro��wN�Iow,oNI- INOTE: SEE FULLERTON ADD ONAL INFORMATION. WCL Aatoclelee. Ine, Q Am �L Taco Bell 3210 9oN9ulaM U- EDINA, MN 55135 y J SOUTH ELEVATION (MAIN ENTRY( Irc a A � �C�S o o 07v o ELED Border Foods irrnµwrer r 965 N-1 AV. N.M D Iftm WAey MN 55127 o o SIGN SCHEDULE C 5125 9ooiro Ave N. "--.,"11141521 roamuuroNar3wm�nEeA. zelwrte uASOranvBEm .� e...a. gym• wa xnamE n�u w,wMenxSw.a a.....: _raN Emirs MmE� __ ______._._.__6-MV N.NB�M1waw°N 9'� D.E.F.S. THICKNESS COLOR TRANSITION nr.s. vNaawr �rE�a„NE� raWw Wlr <'11nASncWYE9{�s.Po3ruwiroNlnaEwu eoor�rtie•rM,Dea- lwanow..m we.waoomr3E..sE�ar a re>_ wcrECaviu .pn�eErvrtweenascvommm,s. ® /• �uPESS.�uDSOrt� erg sLmr.xoaBrNUronoE.wrane. n DEwnar3w�e.EEs Qz om+E - sEESrcEr ouu41.1. Q roorea.. rnnuneEroro. O 5ro9D,ar, ,r3Gn pro��wN�Iow,oNI- INOTE: SEE FULLERTON ADD ONAL INFORMATION. WCL Aatoclelee. Ine, Q Am �L Taco Bell 3210 9oN9ulaM U- EDINA, MN 55135 Naw B11MN9 NI-M. 29 9—:1.847 SF m A4.0 TACO BELL EDINA. MN y J SOUTH ELEVATION (MAIN ENTRY( Irc a A � �C�S e O ersEUeoaaa- r,lolnEEs I — E,woac5s.rn.oc5Er5 © en3EM41Ee3.r1NIXnEEs D.E.F.S. THICKNESS N 0 Dawme.a W 07v 1TEer DE9CRIFnON ELED Border Foods irrnµwrer 965 N-1 AV. N.M D Iftm WAey MN 55127 New Harass 20,4 WApal 4. 4 SIGN SCHEDULE C 5125 9ooiro Ave N. "--.,"11141521 roamuuroNar3wm�nEeA. zelwrte uASOranvBEm .� e...a. gym• wa xnamE n�u w,wMenxSw.a a.....: ® �.BaNDEreErn �E N row. - NN.E,�eEMaa,N1Ea5E�NL�,E,e,��: Naw B11MN9 NI-M. 29 9—:1.847 SF m A4.0 TACO BELL EDINA. MN uN BUILDING SYSTEMS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. NOTE:SEE FULLERTON BUILDING SYSTEMS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. WCL Aeeeel —, I— Taco Bell 0210 SoWMeb O EMNA, MN SSOS GG 0—.b d W. Border Foods 9650— Aw N.N GoMm Ve0ay MN 5542] New Mdme ee o1 ApII 4.2014 5425 eo Ave N. Now No".MN 55426 �v PITON — dS FOR New Mft )RMATION. N425, 26 Seeb: 1.847 SF m811ION 6NATIOM A4.1 CITY OF MEMO Engineering Department • Phone 952 - 826 -0371 tT1A, Fax 952 - 826 -0392 • www.CityofEdina.com o e 0 Date: April 2, 2014 H'o ay To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Chad Millner — Director of Engineering Re: 3210 Southdale Circle — Taco Bell Re- Development Plans Dated March 7, 2014 Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plan and offer the following comments: • A Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit will be required; along with potential other agency permits such as MNDH, MPCA, and MCES. • The City will consider the water and sanitary sewer pipes private utilities and the responsibility of the property owner for future maintenance and repair. The private water service begins at the gate value and the private sanitary sewer service begins at the sanitary sewer trunk pipe, both located in Southdale Circle. • A set of as -built plans will be required with the final C.O. • Details are needed on the infiltration system such as expected infiltration rates. This would be part of the watershed permitting process. • Indicate on plans what utilities are private versus public by noting that on the pipes. • Construct utilities per City of Edina Standard Details. • Watertight sanitary sewer castings are required on all sanitary sewer manholes / cleanouts. Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans if this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review. AA-1 G: \PW\ADMIN \COMM \EXTERNAL \GENERAL CORR BY STREETS \S Streets \3210 Southdale Circle -Taco Bell\201403xx CM -Edina Review 3210 Southdale Cir.doc Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 CITY OF MEMO 1N A City Hall • Phone 952 - 833 -9520 ax 952 - 826 -0390 • www.CityofEdina.com W �f:fltt :1lt��N•/ Date: March 27, 2014 To: Cary Teague, Community Development Director cc: Tom Schmitz, Fire Chief From: David Fisher — Chief Building Official Re: 3210 Southdale Circle — Taco Bell — Demo & rebuild Draft Plans Dated March 7, 2014 The Building Department has reviewed the above proposed project with following comments: - Provide a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. - Verify the number of occupants is less than 49 or the State Building Code requires the building to have a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. - Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings. - Verify there is a grease trap that meets the MN State Plumbing Code. - Retaining walls over 4 feet require engineering and a building permit. - Recommend this project has a pre - construction meeting with the design processionals, contractor, the project manager and the city building and fire department staff. A)71 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 A. Sketch Plan —Taco Bell 3210 Southdale Circle Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission they are being asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to tear down the existing Taco Bell building and rebuild a new slightly smaller building at 3210 Southdale Circle. Teague reported that the applicant would proceed with Si to redevelop the site. Appearing for the Applicant Barbara Schneider, for Border Foods Comments /Questions Commissioner Grabiel asked if the'lh;puses..directly to L•. Edina. Planner Teague responded in tl "e.;affir.,(,n ive. review and variance approval of the subject property are in Commissioner Forrest noted .a discrepa6O in parking spaces referegced and depicted on the plans and asked the applicant, b'ft clear oilthat fgure;wih', they` "Fing their application forward. Forrest aske where setback is establish-d" Teague responded setback is established from the property lines:;... Commission6i. S& ierer corr merjted tl ats}ig_.wondEred if the audio box/menu board could be located:.on_:tiie "new fuilding in aI:Qcation s'imlarto j'1cDonald's audio box/menu board south side. PW6 er Teague respo.ridecl'thO_jt appears'tl a proposed plans depict a five vehicle stacking queue, adding the applicant vW Id rieetl to answer that question. Ms. Schneider addressed the Corrjinission and explained Border Foods is proposing to tear down and rebuild the existang;Taco Bell restaurant. Taco Bell has been operating at the Edina location since 1986, adding tle'proposed rebuilt is 27 GSF smaller than the existing building; however, it is 23'5" longer. Schneider explained the circulation on the site in one way and the same is proposed with the new structure. Schneider acknowledged that the request requires variance; however, she believes the increase in landscaping and turning radius in the one -way circulation pattern provides a better more efficient and safe site. Schneider also noted this layout allows for better placement of the audio box/menu board. A ),% Comments /Questions Chair Staunton asked Ms. Schneider if Border is concerned about their long range plans. Staunton pointed out the property adjacent to the north is available and wondered if any interest was given to speak with those property owners. Ms. Schneider responded they approached the property owners to the north (best Buy) and inquired if they had any desire to purchase the Taco Bell site and incorporate it into their site; however, to date there has been no movement from the owners of the Best Buy site one way or another Commissioner Grabiel asked if building design was controjled;by the corporate office. ,:• Schneider responded in the affirmative. She said Tacoell 0e'§: are managed very carefully Continuing, Grabiel said he finds the Southdale Circle`j PI rope es to be a bit unusual, noting it's unusual in Edina to have R- I residential propertiesabutting commercial. Planner Teague agreed, adding he would do some research on'tW development. Commissioner Schroeder commented that he L however, wonders if it would be a good idea to redeveloped that opens up to the sUreet providi pedestrian experience. Planner Teague ri3sponc Commission continually discusses the Or':'dinane, a stacking formula of 5 vehicles from the'caclgio I building is allowed to=beypijlled" -doser to th' e:,str spaces to relocate tl a audio W' ienu boarcl::::1 that suggestion; howeveh;.;one itemfbey need`t transformer. ?.. ,..::..._ r d6tstands Ordinance stacking requirements; allow:'s. gm'e:leniency when a "po)ect is ng a more :pedestrian feel and creating a better led that c'o ld. be looked into pointing out the ' ',::;Ms. Schni'&r interjected that Taco Bell has id— monu board .:, chroeder noted if the eet,:iG'ir ay ?provide'-tl a right number of stacking Js?Schneider ?:responded that they will look into beep in mind 'is the location of the Chair S%i 'fi`=aslied iif tie site;;ls;buffere8'-oi'.;:the ea's't. Ms. Schneider responded that presently there 'is'a.fence to the' eastSchneider said with tFb buildings rearrangement they hope to be able to �0'04ruce trees; wfj ch is l er opinion would provide better screening for the residential`l3rQperties. Schneider also 1,adcled that deciduous trees are planted on the neighbors' side of the fence : , Commissioner Forrest ?said she''h'5's a concern with the potential for cars idling as they wait for pickup, adding she warifseverj%tfiing done to minimize wait time creating a better environment for the residential iwOD `EY oviiners to the east. Commissioner Platteter questioned if this would be a good area to construct sidewalks (if there aren't any), pointing out there is a big push for sidewalks in the area especially if redevelopment occurs on both the Best Buy and Wickes site. Continuing, Platteter asked if any patio seating is planned. Ms. Schneider responded that the site is very tight and no outdoor seating is anticipated. ha-611 Commissioner Halva questioned if there could be two boards one on the north and one on the south. Ms. Schneider responded the south location could be difficult because.a certain radius needs to be provided so the building isn't hit by vehicles. Chair Staunton said anything that can be done to minimize impact from the audio box/menu board would be appreciated. The discussion ensued on the following points; possible tweaking of the audio board /menu board and parking. It was again noted the discrepancy in parking stalls; however, the Commission acknowledged if doable they would rather see landscaping and screening instead of concrete. Continuing, the Commission stressed the importance :`of "being a good neighbor" and reiterated the importance of doing everything possibleto reduce the impact of this establishment from the residential properties to the east::? <`'' ?:'`::., It was further discussed and acknowledged that.in; many instances`irke,Ordinance tends to over park sites; however, in this instance they wan-x assurances parking wbi.j,Kbe adequate. Commissioners questioned if the majority of'fh- 6traffic at this location 'j�s.Ohjye- through traffic. Ms. Schneider responded in the affirmative. The'< a5rnmissiori gsked Ms. ScFit eider when formal p :..* application is submitted to prove that,parking will l e';adeq �k Planner Teague reported that he in reviewing:- Google ea' found there are sidewalks along the east side of York Avenue and the sidewalk `ohtnues on tlje..Richfield side of Xerxes :•:S''4: l:1 Avenue. ._ -:.... ,_:� >. •�;4:.:::•:. ...:: >. Commissioner Fisc of this nature. Ms. 90 -days barring uni Chair Sta"'fa importance of A 5c-h; eider respcjti.ded that' )res6en::obstae1 es�,.... ke:` &Ms. Rh'fieider for pre ding'streenirigfo.r the resi rdinance `,,., A 3b "doViij iiime" is on a tear down /rebuild n and rebuild can be accomplished within 'the sketch plan, reiterating the properties to the east. made a motion, conded by Member Sprague ccepting the Edina Rotary Foundation donation of an heirloo clock for Centennial L es Park. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Spra e, Swenson, Hovl Motion carried. VIII.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A PTED — ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained that i order to c ply with State Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and proved by four orable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Swenson in oduced and moved a tion of Resolution No. 2014-11 accepting various donations. ember Bennett seconded the mo ' n. Rollcall: Ayes: Benne , Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion ried. VIII.D. SKETCH PLAN REVIEWED — 3210 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE (TACO BELL) Community Development Director Presentation Community :Development Director Teague presented the sketch plan for , a new Taco Bell at 3210 Southdale_Circle that would require several variances including a four -foot parking variance. He described proposed and requested setbacks, building elements, and exterior materials. Mr. Teague advised that the size of the restaurant had been reduced so the parking stall requirement would be met. He then presented comments of the Planning Commission, noting the menu board would be reoriented to lessen impact to the residential area. Proponent Presentation Barbara Schneider, Border Foods, 965 Decatur Avenue N., Golden Valley, described the site plan changes made in response to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. She answered questions raised by the Council and agreed this site was not ideal as it was somewhat undersized when compared to newer sites. Ms. Schneider reviewed the variances that would be requested for building setback, parking lot drive aisles, and menu board location. Following review and discussion of the Taco Bell sketch plan, the Council offered the following direction: inclusion of a bicycle rack and outdoor seating (if feasible); additional vegetation within green spaces (comparable to Centennial Lakes Starbucks); permeable surfaces to accommodate stormwater; menu board orientation toward Southdale Circle; incorporation of design relief, and, review of parking counts to determine whether it would be an option to provide proof -of- parking to allow space for enhanced landscaping. / VIII.E. SOUTHDALE MEDICAL'bqiLDING, 6S2S FRANCE AVENU — AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BUILD T PROOF-OF-PARKING P N — REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA This item was removed from the agenreques t of the pr onent. IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIO IX.A. CORRESPONDENCE Mayor Hovland acknowledged the Council's receipt various correspondence. IX.B. MINUTES: I. ENERGY & ENVIRONMEN COMMISS N, DECEMBER 12, 2013 2. HERITAGE PRESERVATI N BOARD, DE DECEMBER 9, 2013 3. PARK BOARD, NOVErIBER 12, 2013 4. PLANNING COMMI ION, DECEMBER 11>21� S. A RTS & CULTURE OMMISSION, OCTOB24, 013 6. HUMAN RIGHTS RELATIONS COMMISSION, OC BER 22, 2013 Informational; no action require - Page 4 i 31 ,w91A,1 Y o e t �aaH To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VIII.A From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Approve Minor Amendment to Site Plan — 71 France Housing Action Requested: Approve the revised building material. Information / Background: The City Council is asked to consider an amendment of the primary exterior building materials proposed at 71 France. (See attached applicant project description and plan revisions.) The approved material for the project was stucco. The applicant is proposing to change the stucco to Nichiha panels. The applicant will present a materials board and explain the proposed change at the City,Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: • Applicant narrative and revised plans City of Edina • 4801 W. 50'' St. • Edina, MN 55424 a It ■ ■Schafer Richardson April 11, 2014 James Hovland City of Edina 4801 W. 50'' Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: Request for Change of Exterior Material for 71 France Housing Dear Mayor Hovland, PQ� The development team for 71 France, including IRET, Lunds Food Holdings, and Schafer Richardson is requesting a change of the primary exterior material at the 71 France housing development, to be built to the east of the new Byerly's store on France and Hazleton. We are requesting a change from stucco to Nichiha panels (specifically, the Illumination series) as originally proposed and approved. In reviewing the use of stucco and the proposed construction details, Pope Architects explained that the State of Minnesota is about to adopt a new energy code which would preclude installing stucco using more traditional and typical methods. Pope believes that more insulation will have to be installed outside the structural wall plane to meet the new energy code, thus changing some of the "tried and true" installation details for stucco. During our general contractor bidding process, some concerns and questions about the new code and the proposed construction details for the stucco installation were also raised by a number of bidding companies. Our discussion, therefore, led our team to re- consider Nichiha panels. Our original Concept Plan for 71 France included Nichiha and was approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council in March 2013. There are several advantages to using Nichiha in lieu of stucco, most notably its warranty and durability when exposed to elements such as water, cracking, fire, and insects. Nichiha panels are installed with clip fasteners hidden from view and are interlocked to provide a clean joint. The clip system also creates a pocket of air between the panels and substrate, thus reducing the potential for moisture build -up. Other fiber cement paneling, such as Hardie, is about half as thick and is nailed directly through the wall sheathing and into the studs. There is a space between panels, revealing clip fasteners and exposing them to water. Although the nail holes in Hardie are covered with putty at the time of install, they can be a long term maintenance issue for a building, particularly considering there would be thousands of these holes on the building. Conversely, Nichiha is essentially a partial rain screen, allowing water which may get behind the panels to drain down and out from behind the panels. N Rea! E:I1tt UtVEl0pwtill � d`raittYUeYita NJ Lta`_.og : lra ias!nlct:t Bassett Creek Business Center 901 North Third Street, Ste 218 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone 612.371.3000 Fax 612.359.5858 WINW.sr- rc.com P* ■ ■Schafer ■ � Richardson Nichiha fiber cement paneling is comprised of 20 percent post - consumer recycled content including wood pulp and fly ash. Each panel is 18" wide, approximately six feet in length, and is 5/8" thick. Nichiha provides customized color options to match the specific design of the building and help to provide interest and a depth of color. While the Illumination series is often used to provide modern and bold detailing to a building, it can also offer a more subdued look using monochromatic panels. The attached renderings show Nichiha paneling on Buildings A, B, and C. We are also including the renderings submitted with final development plan approval for reference and comparison with the appearance of stucco. Our intent is to continue to maintain the same color palette used on the stucco to differentiate each building to match the Nichiha panels using custom coloring. However, the Nichiha paneling will have a slight variation of each color tone within each building field that provides subtle visual interest. We have recently completed the largest installation of Nichiha in the State of Minnesota on the "Third North" Apartments building in the North Loop neighborhood of Minneapolis and we are very pleased with the results. If you have any other questions regarding the Nichiha paneling or -7J' France, please feel free to contact me at 612- 359 -5842 or mmichalski[a),sr- re.com. Sincerely, _ 1 Maureen Michalski Senior Project Manager M RciE!ta;cL:rc1e -patnt a C "'Moiut7rM5 E Iri•:camcnt a I ra'_ng & 1y!.eiA8nncui Bassett Creek Business Center 901 North Third Street, Ste 218 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone 612.371.3000 Fax 612.359.5858 www.sr- re.com o e A �y lase To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VIII.A From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Approve Minor Amendment to Site Plan — 71 France Housing Action Requested: Approve the revised building material. Information / Background: The City Council is asked to consider an amendment of the primary exterior building materials proposed at 71 France. (See attached applicant project description and plan revisions.) The approved material for the project was stucco. The applicant is proposing to change the stucco to Nichiha panels. The applicant will present a materials board and explain the proposed change at the City Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: • Applicant narrative and revised plans City of Edina • 4801 W. 501 St. • Edina, MN 55424 ■ � Schafer Richardson April 11, 2014 James Hovland City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: Request for Change of Exterior Material for 71 France Housing Dear Mayor Hovland, P The development team for 71 France, including IRET, Lunds Food Holdings, and Schafer Richardson is requesting a change of the primary exterior material at the 71 France housing development, to be built to the east of the new Byerly's store on France and Hazleton. We are requesting a change from stucco to Nichiha panels (specifically, the Illumination series) as originally proposed and approved. In reviewing the use of stucco and the proposed construction details, Pope Architects explained that the State of Minnesota is about to adopt a new energy code which would preclude installing stucco using more traditional and typical methods. Pope believes that more insulation will have to be installed outside the structural wall plane to meet the new energy code, thus changing some of the "tried and true" installation details for stucco. During our general contractor bidding process, some concerns and questions about the new code and the proposed construction details for the stucco installation were also raised by a number of bidding companies. Our discussion, therefore, led our team to re- consider Nichiha panels. Our original Concept Plan for 71 France included Nichiha and was approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council in March 2013. There are several advantages to using Nichiha in lieu of stucco, most notably its warranty and durability when exposed to elements such as water, cracking, fire, and insects. Nichiha panels are installed with clip fasteners hidden from view and are interlocked to provide a clean joint. The clip system also creates a pocket of air between the panels and substrate, thus reducing the potential for moisture build -up. Other fiber cement paneling, such as Hardie, is about half as thick and is nailed directly through the wall sheathing and into the studs. There is a space between panels, revealing clip fasteners and exposing them to water. Although the nail holes in Hardie are covered with putty at the time of install, they can be a long term maintenance issue for a building, particularly considering there would be thousands of these holes on the building. Conversely, Nichiha is essentially a partial rain screen, allowing water which may get behind the panels to drain down and out from behind the panels. N F.cYE,,taieDcve1c-,Prarnr i Inve llutnt r Lta_.ng ISasiaoczna.i Bassett Creek Business Center 901 North Third Street, Ste 218 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone 612.371.3000 Fax 612.359.5858 mm.sr- rc.com 1 4' ■ ■Schafer ■ � Richardson Nichiha fiber cement paneling is comprised of 20 percent post - consumer recycled content including wood pulp and fly ash. Each panel is 18" wide, approximately six feet in length, and is 5/8" thick. Nichiha provides customized color options to match the specific design of the building and help to provide interest and a depth of color. While the Illumination series is often used to provide modern and bold detailing to a building, it can also offer a more subdued look using monochromatic panels. The attached renderings show Nichiha paneling on Buildings A, B, and C. We are also including the renderings submitted with final development plan approval for reference and comparison with the appearance of stucco. Our intent is to continue to maintain the same color palette used on the stucco to differentiate each building to match the Nichiha panels using custom coloring. However, the Nichiha paneling will have a slight variation of each color tone within each building field that provides subtle visual interest. We have recently completed the largest installation of Nichiha in the State of Minnesota on the "Third North" Apartments building in the North Loop neighborhood of Minneapolis and we are very pleased with the results. If you have any other questions regarding the Nichiha paneling or' ji France, please feel free to contact me at 612- 359 -5842 or mmichalskina,sr- re.com. Sincerely, Maureen Michalski ' Senior Project Manager a C- kvtruttlon a Inastmcrt i Zta:mr,&Me1egancnl Bassett Creek Business Center 901 North Third Street, Ste 218 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone 612.371.3000 Fax 612.359.5858 www.sr- re.com I w z w Q w U z NQ�/ LL U- L HAZELTON ROAD PYLON SIGN FT I Iillllllll � III IIIIIIIIIilllllllllllllllllllll I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r. I I_I__I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I_I_I_I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I_I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1_I_1_I 1 1 1 1 1 n II III IIIIIIIIIII _IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �■ Schafer Richardson KRAUS- ANDERSON® ® CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SIGN BENCH SEATING BIKE Q CONNECTION PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE SITE PLAN 0 15 30' 60' NORTH BENCH SEATING Exterior Material Revision Byerly's 71 France Re- Development EDINA, MN 4 -22 -14 1 15226 -11051 INITIAL VIEW FROM PROMENADE, LOOKING NORTHWEST PROPOSED Exterior Material Revision Byerly's - 71 France Re- Development EDINA, MN 04/22/14 15226 - 11051 VIEW FROM PROMENADE, LOOKING NORTHWEST ■l■ Schafer 019 Richardson VIEW FROM PARKING, LOOKING EAST Q� VIEW FROM PARKING, LOOKING'EAST me Metal coping, gunmetal gray Aluminum sunscreen,. gunmetal gray _ r _ L Punched opening----_ Sliding patio door- �■ ■ ■■ ■1 1■ ■ ■■ 1■ ■ ■■ 1■ _ ■■ 1■ ■ ■■ Vertical metal picket guardrail ■■ f ■11■ ■� �■ ■11■ ■■ I ■il ■f �■ li■ �■ I ■li�l ii ■i i■ ii at balcony, Y-6" high Metal clad, gunmetal gray- 1■ ■1 1■ 1■ 1■ 1 DOE a I ■11 ■I ■■ . •._ Fiber cement board, color A- HF-1 ■ ®� ■1 ■ ■■1 Brick B-. 1■ ■■ ■1 1■ ■� ■" " ■ ■�■ " ■ 11­29 96 Brick A-, 1- 11,111 � ■ i Im 1" insulated clear vision glass I 1■ � � ■1 RIO R-7j, � � 2DE 9�m in aluminum frame system7'. •• ■�■ ■�■ •• • �. ■Cf •• I ■11 ■i •• 0 8. 16' Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" HVAC grill (paint to match adjacent material) Brick B• Brick A- 0' 8' 11. Scale: 1" = 8'- 0" w N W Average FFE above grade: _w- _• !� 4 4 SOUTH ELEVATION "s LSO Average FFE above grade: �. J' NTV 4'- 4' s WEST ELEVATION a ry 00 POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BAN DANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108 -2735 (651)642 -92001 FAX 16511642 -1101 www.popea h- BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■i Schafer ■gym Richardson eKRAUS - ANDERSON CONSTAIICTION COMP.VdT EXTERIOR MATERIAL REVISION 4/22/14 Proposed Final 04/25/13 Development Plan Supplemental o5/D7/13 Information Exterior 04/22/14 Material Revision BUILDING A ELEVATIONS i. iu;r, 6, 1522x,11051 h:..1_ --. _....._ - --- RH DMM SHEET A3.3 - -_- I E ED / Average FFE above grade: 4'- 4" Q=om o• a• 16' Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" 1" Insulated glass in aluminum storefront system Vertical metal picket guardrail at terrace , T -6" high oil■o 90 91:1 ■1 ARM ■� I�� I ®i ®I I■fl�l ■� ■� !Ij ■■■ lolls", ■� IlIll1�1101� � IIIBQ ® I I- - — — -, IN ■j■11�1 i�ll�l In NO ■■ in ME IN r -M_ panel - silver metallic allfiber cement board, color A 1- 1" Insulated glass in aluminum —" storefront system -� - - -- bignage (by owner) - - •BrickA •Brick B ■■■ , I 7 NORTH ELEVATION Average FFE above grade: 4'- 4" n' e' ls• Scale: 1" = 8'- 0" EAST ELEVATION POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108 -2735 16511 64 29200 1 FAX (651)642 -1101 www.popearch.com BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■ ■_Schafer Richardson AKRAUS- ANDERSON- CONSTRUCTION COMPMY EXTERIOR MATERIAL REVISION 4/22/14 hoposed e t Final 04/25/13 Development Plan SuPp" ntal 05/07113 �IformpEOn _ Tel r 04/22/14 .;Material Revision c�On", BUILDING A ELEVATIONS L. 1572611051 — RH SI IFFT A3.4 IN ii ■i / 1■ ■1 ■1 >. M■e ■E Average FFE above grade: 4'- 4" Q=om o• a• 16' Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" 1" Insulated glass in aluminum storefront system Vertical metal picket guardrail at terrace , T -6" high oil■o 90 91:1 ■1 ARM ■� I�� I ®i ®I I■fl�l ■� ■� !Ij ■■■ lolls", ■� IlIll1�1101� � IIIBQ ® I I- - — — -, IN ■j■11�1 i�ll�l In NO ■■ in ME IN r -M_ panel - silver metallic allfiber cement board, color A 1- 1" Insulated glass in aluminum —" storefront system -� - - -- bignage (by owner) - - •BrickA •Brick B ■■■ , I 7 NORTH ELEVATION Average FFE above grade: 4'- 4" n' e' ls• Scale: 1" = 8'- 0" EAST ELEVATION POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108 -2735 16511 64 29200 1 FAX (651)642 -1101 www.popearch.com BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■ ■_Schafer Richardson AKRAUS- ANDERSON- CONSTRUCTION COMPMY EXTERIOR MATERIAL REVISION 4/22/14 hoposed e t Final 04/25/13 Development Plan SuPp" ntal 05/07113 �IformpEOn _ Tel r 04/22/14 .;Material Revision c�On", BUILDING A ELEVATIONS L. 1572611051 — RH SI IFFT A3.4 V 0 A b ILI Q to 00 Average FFE above grade: 2' - 6" Scale: 1" = 8'- 0" Retail signage (by owner)- Stucco sign band- I" Insulated glass in C aluminum storefront system o• B' 16' Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" b Rooftop equipment 2 - - -- - _ �(to be determined) IF] - -- _. - - -- •Metal coping, gunmetal gray _,Aluminum sunscreeen, gunmetal gray ----Punched opening - - _ Y ertical metal picket guardrail balcony, high ----Metal gunmetal clad, gunmetal gray -Metal panel - silver metallic _— -�— -- - -- -- - •Fiber cement board, color B ® 1 ® ® ® 1" Insulated glass in aluminumn •storefront system Vertical metal picket guardrail at •terrace, 3' -6" high M1Ilimii,, ••• SOUTH ELEVATION Average FFE above grade: 2' - 6" WEST ELEVATION •Brick B -Brick A e POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55106 -2735 1651164292001 FAX (651) 642.1101 www.popearch.c BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■l■ Schafer •�� Richardson KRAUS- ANDERSON CONSTRICTION COMPANY EXTERIOR MATERIAL REVISION 4/22/14 Proposed Final 04/25_/13 Development Plan Supplemental 05/07/13 Informalion, Exterior 04/22/14 Material Revision BUILDING B ELEVATIONS l fwh•M, �. 15226 -11051 0 _..__.___.. RH orid tt SHFr.T A3.5 I ® Metal panel, • ❑ silver metallic Fiber cement board, • ❑ color B Sliding patio door- Punched opening• (® Retail signage (by owner)- Stucco sign band- I" Insulated glass in C aluminum storefront system o• B' 16' Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" b Rooftop equipment 2 - - -- - _ �(to be determined) IF] - -- _. - - -- •Metal coping, gunmetal gray _,Aluminum sunscreeen, gunmetal gray ----Punched opening - - _ Y ertical metal picket guardrail balcony, high ----Metal gunmetal clad, gunmetal gray -Metal panel - silver metallic _— -�— -- - -- -- - •Fiber cement board, color B ® 1 ® ® ® 1" Insulated glass in aluminumn •storefront system Vertical metal picket guardrail at •terrace, 3' -6" high M1Ilimii,, ••• SOUTH ELEVATION Average FFE above grade: 2' - 6" WEST ELEVATION •Brick B -Brick A e POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55106 -2735 1651164292001 FAX (651) 642.1101 www.popearch.c BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■l■ Schafer •�� Richardson KRAUS- ANDERSON CONSTRICTION COMPANY EXTERIOR MATERIAL REVISION 4/22/14 Proposed Final 04/25_/13 Development Plan Supplemental 05/07/13 Informalion, Exterior 04/22/14 Material Revision BUILDING B ELEVATIONS l fwh•M, �. 15226 -11051 0 _..__.___.. RH orid tt SHFr.T A3.5 ED Fes - ®®® ®y Metal panel, silver metallic -, Fiber cement board, color B•,, Brick A \ \ Brick 10\ Average FFE above grade: 2'- 6" — o' s' 16' Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" 4, o m Q io CO Stucco sign band Retail signage (by owner) 1" Insulated glass in aluminum storefront system NORTH ELEVATION I11 ■I �� �� �� J ■11 ■I �� !I ■II ■' �� I ■II ■I �� Milli No IN ■ Imilli I' ■ ■ i■ ■i ■i oil ii � � � ■ ii � � � � ■ ■i 11 ■1 i■ ■ � � I ■i ill ■I I ■11 ■I I ■11 ■I I ■11 ■I I ■11 ■I I ■11 ■I I�■ ii ii ii �■ ii ��� ■ ■� ■ii ��� ■ ■i i■ ■ ��I ii 1■ I i ■I II I ■II II I ■11 ■I ■■ 1■ ■1 ■1 ■ ■■ ■1 I ■■ ■■■` ■ oil in ■ I ■II■ ■ �� �� 111 ■I ■■ 1■ ■1 ■1 ■ ■■ _- ■1 ■ ■■ _ ■1 1101105 ■■ ■� i° ■■■ M■■ •Aluminurn storefront entry door Imo 01 s. 16' Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" �v EAST ELEVATION Q POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55109 -2735 (6511642 -92001 FAX(651)642 -1101 _.PoPearch.com BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■lm Schafer Richardson KRAUS - ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY EXTERIOR MATERIAL REVISION 4/22/14 Proposed Final 04125/13 Development Plan Supplemental _ 05/07/13 Information _ _ _ Exterior 04/22/14 Matenal Reviaon BUILDING B ELEVATIONS 15226 -11051 -- -.RH SHEET A3.6 Average FFE above grade: == a' s. 16. Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" a c e a C 'o t Metal panel, silver metallic,\ Fiber cement board, color 0..,` [P. F P HVAC grill, (paint to match adjacent color) -'_,_ I❑ - _P1_ Sliding patio door -, ® r0 - ® ~► Vertical metal picket guardrail at terrace, T -6" high Stucco sign band•, Retail signage (by owner)--, Metal clad, gunmetal grays, ID 1" Insulated glass in aluminum storefront system LU _ I _ _a•. l� 1, , o R' 16' Scale: 1" = 8'- 0" FXA ,Rooftop equipment (to be determined) Metal coping, gunmetal gray Aluminum sunscreen, — gunmetal gray -Metal panel, silver metallic ® ® ® fiber cement board, color C Vertical metal picket guardrail at balcony, T -6" high ® ® -Metal clad, gunmetal gray ® ® ® Punched opening F[L -1d I -Signage (by owner) -Aluminum storefront entry door 1" Insulated glass in aluminum storefront system SOUTH ELEVATION �■ Iloilol ■� ■� I�ii�l ■� �■ iinl��l ■� ■ �■ loll ■1 ■� ■� ■ I ■li�l ■� �■ ®11 ®I ■1 ■ �■ i ®II■ ■ ■� ■� ■11 ■I ■� �� ■ I ®11 ■� ■1 ii I ■ ii i� ■ ii ii ■ ii I■ 1 I Il.i oil Average FFE above grade: 1' - 0" o s_. a a 0 n WEST ELEVATION POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108 -2735 (651)642.92001 FAX (651)642 -1101 www.popearch.com BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■x Schafer Richardson AKRAUS- ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY EXTERIOR MATERIAL REVISION 4/22/14 Proposed Final 04/25/13 Development Plan _ Supplemental _0510_7/13 Information Exterior - 04/22/14 Malenal Revision BUILDING C ELEVATIONS ;,w r. 15226 4 1051 RH SHEET A3.7 o• s• 1E Scale: 1" = 8'- 0" Average FFE abo% NORTH ELEVATION o e 16' Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" EAST ELEVATION rtallic olor C ?nt color) POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108 -2735 J651) 642 92 Do I FAX 16511642 -1101 w 'POpear& — BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■6 Schafer 0I0 Richardson AKRAUS - ANDERSON CONSTRUCiIoN COMPANY EXTERIOR MATERIAL REVISION 4/22/14 Proposed Final 04/25/13 Development Plan Supplemental OS/07/13 Information Exterior 04/22/14 Matenal Revision BUILDING C ELEVATIONS 15226 -21051 RH min A3.8 101 110 11 gray- ENO 7ket guardrail silver metalli panel, color i Brick B�, rr vision glass fram e system \ Ram rt III WHO will �■l SHE FIR NOW s11.o ■1 1■ I III in ■■ I I I I 1■ ■ V III III ANSI ■■ ■ 1 1 ■ N1■ ■ ■ �11 ■I! .16 ■1 . 1■ ■ �1�1 �� i ■■ .■ i iii■ -���1, I-T 0 No 11 ■■ . oil IN . 011111111 ■ ONE 1 MEN LOS ■ ■■ LE. ■ I ■fl ®I ■■ ■ I® MEE, IS INEENNINal IN MEN No M RON�i:' ■� POPE A HC Hi T E C T S �s B Y E R LY'S 1,11MMI =I 1011 Lim ■ cresa 1011� i iii NINE rl III WHO will �■l SHE FIR NOW s11.o ■1 1■ I III in ■■ I I I I 1■ ■ V III III ANSI ■■ ■ 1 1 ■ N1■ ■ ■ �11 ■I! .16 ■1 . 1■ ■ �1�1 �� i ■■ .■ i iii■ -���1, I-T 0 No 11 ■■ . oil IN . 011111111 ■ ONE 1 MEN LOS ■ ■■ LE. ■ I ■fl ®I ■■ ■ I® MEE, IS INEENNINal IN MEN No M RON�i:' ■� POPE A HC Hi T E C T S �s B Y E R LY'S 1,11MMI =I 1011 Lim ■ cresa 1-0 ■1 �11 ■1 1 I■■ I■�� ■1 ■ 11■_ ■1 1111■I IN ■■ _ ■ ■■ i ■iiii i■il■I '■ ■i■H '■ iiii:i,� RINI ■1 ■ ■1 �� ■ ■ ON ii ■ i� ■:o■ ■ XNil 01 MINIM 1" Insulated glass in a' HE ■■ MINE! ■ I!Mjlliea'!�i ■li ■! ! ■II ■! ■ ■� ■� ■ i111 ■!'i�!'�� ■11 ■I■ 1■ ■1 ■1 ■1 ■1 ■1 ■ ■ ■ 1 1 ■ ■1 1■ ■� ■ ■i ■ ■ ■ .� .. ■ .. ..I' . ---,--------Signage (by owner) 1■ it ii i1 ■ ii ��� JOE 111. ■ i i� ��1 G` 1 ll l — ■ �� ■Iii ■�sr��■ ' - - - - -■ —iii .�.. ■■ �' �',� i� ®�t� ®�7 ■■ i !��11■ �i ._.iii ®i ... ° °�. ■ Lim — � 1�■ ,, 11.1 1,� ,■ is 1 IN IN ■ 111 ■ 1go J ■ III 1■ 1■ 1■� I 1■ 111 11■ 1■ 11 ■ 1■ 1■ 1111 ■ ■ I ■�1ii .■ ■■ ��. f■ T■ �� ■9 ■ ■�1 ■� ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ii11 ■� ■■■ ■I ■�I■ ■� t ®te ■i ■NI ■ ■- ■ 11■_ 1■ 1■ 1■ ■ 1111 1■.1■�1111'1■'� IN moll �iili,� ■ ia��n� ■• ■o�!lltltl�11 �! ■It■1���•■ ■ i■lt■:.■N ��=- Will1i ME MIN ■ ■ oil11 1■ 1■ 111 IN 11 1 ■,1■ 1■ ■ 11 IN IN oil INI MEIN IN In so IN MIN lolls 0911111, MENEM - 111 :1■ ■ ■ ■ ' 1■ ' 1■ . �,1 ■�� . 1■ . '11 �. ■Ir Noll 1111101111 POPE ARCHITECTS B Y E R LY'S ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ cresa 2UL In ZZ II!III FA §� !Ilfil 1,■ IN �1111 No MEN Mi r ■■■ ■■■ ; on ■�� ■1 L-1, :1 1 moons HOW ■� ■� ■ ■ ■� 01111110 ■1 ■I ■ ■ ■I ■1 I ■■ 1001011 11111 ■11■ �, �, I ■11 ®I I ■11 ■� �� R* i ■11 ■i I ■11 ■I �� i�ilti Milli 11 E ■■ ■1 ■ ■■ 1■ 1■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■1 1■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■1 ■ ■■ 1■ ■1 ■■■ �� �� �� I ■11 ■I ■11 ■I �� �� I ■11 ■I ■11 ■I No I ■11 ■��� I ■II■ 11 11 ■ I I ■ ■ �■_ i ■ii■I �I� �_■ifi LOON" I■ il■ i ■11 ■I_��iillo _� I ■II ■, �■•11 ■1■ � ■1 ■�� ■ ■ ■■ � ®� ®gip ■ ■1��.1 ■■ � ■ ■■r1a ■�1 ■ ■� ®1_ ■� ■11 ■�■ ®®■■® i® �i��i■ �I■ �����di��■1��� ®I�I��nG�ie�l�1_�r�� ■�■ ��Y�� ■1■ __ ■ ■� ®,f���l�� ■��I Im I I I =Bills= ' e''J' PCH:)'E A R C H I T E C 1 S A* B Y E R LY'S i ■ cresa C' 8' 16' Signage (by owns Metal copi gunmetal g V Insulated glass in alumina storefront cyst Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" L - U sign band >ignage (by owner) elated glass in aluminum ont system NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION o' s' 16' Scale: 1" =8' -0" a 4a a 0 POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55106 -2735 (651)642-92001 FAX (651)W-1101 www.popearch.com BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■ ■ Schafer ■ Richardson ANDERSON COMPANIES FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4 -25 -13 Initial Stucco Submittal - For Reference only h:tet PI ini:i ;a:: Final 04125/13 Developmea Plan supplemmdal 05)07/13 kftmahan BUILDING B �O ELEVATIONS N .' W.4 L 15226-11051 WA M SHEET A3.6 Rooftop equipment �(to be determined) -- -Metal coping, gunmetal gray 0' s' 16' Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" II■ ■1 ■1 ■ ; 1■ ■1 ■1 N ■1 1■ Ia ■ ■■ ■■ i ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ IN ■il l �li�i (Nils liil�l Nils 1■ ■ M■■� ■1 ■1 ■■lI 1■I■ 1■ I■■■ 1111111 11 1 I NI MIN mm �� ®I! ■ I o � i■ ■ ■ ■ 1■ l■1.� ■ 11 1■ ■ iI mom III IBmI_®mMs. C�� iM■■_ I�� "�■�■m���l� ■ - JOR11 - - - - - - 0. s' 16' Scale: l" = 8' - 0" f SOUTH ELEVATION Average FFE above gra WEST ECEVATICI POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55109 -2735 (6511642-92001 FAX [65 11 64 2 -1101 .— .popeardl.com BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■ Schafer • ■ Richardson ANDERSON COMPANIES FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4 -25 -13 Initial Stucco Submittal - For Reference only Fnal 04/25/13 Development Plan Supplemental 05 /07/13 Information BUILDING C ELEVATIONS :n >,nlo 15226.11051 o, RH SIIL'I A3.7 u i i� ■ u NO ■ ■ ■ ii ■ i ii NO ■ i ii i ii ■ �■ mill 1�■ ■ ■■1 � � N ■e N ! ■1i ■ ■l IIII ■�9� 9l■I 1� ■ ■ 0. s' 16' Scale: l" = 8' - 0" f SOUTH ELEVATION Average FFE above gra WEST ECEVATICI POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55109 -2735 (6511642-92001 FAX [65 11 64 2 -1101 .— .popeardl.com BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■ Schafer • ■ Richardson ANDERSON COMPANIES FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4 -25 -13 Initial Stucco Submittal - For Reference only Fnal 04/25/13 Development Plan Supplemental 05 /07/13 Information BUILDING C ELEVATIONS :n >,nlo 15226.11051 o, RH SIIL'I A3.7 Average FFE abov 1' -0" S. Scale: I" = 8'- 0" NORTH ELEVATION Gee 6, Scale: 1" = 8' - 0" EAST ELEVATION er metallic Ldjacent color) 1 POPE ARCHITECTS 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108 -2735 (651)642-92001 FAX (651) 642 -1101 .".popearch.com BYERLY'S FRANCE AVENUE RE- DEVELOPMENT ■ ■ Schafer Richardson ANDERSON COMPANIES FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4 -25 -13 Initial Stucco Submittal - For Reference only Lra, .fish:,.: Foal 04 /25/13 D.bpmed Plan Supplemental 05107113 Information BUILDING C ELEVATIONS trrissia k., 15226 -11051 d RH SHEET A3.8 To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: May 6, 2014 Subject: Resolution No. 2014 -46 Accepting Various Donations Action Requested: Adopt Resolution. Information / Background: ��RardoB �� Agenda Item #: VIII. B. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ In order to comply with State Statutes, all donations to the City must be adopted by a resolution approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donation. I have prepared the attached resolution detailing the various donors, their gifts and the departments receiving donations for your consideration. Attachments: Resolution No. 2014 -46 City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION' NO.2014 -46. ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants and donations of real or personal property for the benefit of its citizens; WHEREAS, said donations must be accepted via a resolution of the Council adopted by a two thirds majority of its members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE.IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council accepts with sincere appreciation the following listed donations on behalf of its citizens. Edina Police. Department: Douglas Polish $2,000.00 Dated: May 6, 2014 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 May 6, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk To: ,MAYOR & COUNCIL Agenda Item M IX. A. From: Debra Mangen Action City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: May / 2014 Information El Subject: Correspondence Action Requested: No action is necessary. Attachment: Attached is correspondence received since the last Council meeting. _Heather, Branigin From: XWithers @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:24 PM To: Edina Mail; info @savethefred.org Subject: Profitability of the 3 Privatized Golf Courses in Des Moines Dear Council Members & Save The Fred: Des Moines has privatized three municipal golf courses --all three seem to be 18 -hole courses. The three courses'are Grandview, Waveland and,A.H. Blank. Per the contracts, which have been forwarded to me, the City of`Des Moines receives 15% of gross receipts from the concessionaire for Waveland and.8.5% to 10% of gross receipts for Grandview and A.H. Blank (indexing method in the contract determines tt e'percek of gross for each of the two). The term.of the contracts: 1/15/2010 to 1/15/2019, renewable every four years. The contracts are 36 to 54 pages in length, respectively. In an earlier Des Moines Register article, the City spokesman, Ben Page, Director of.Park & Rec, indicated that the City has been receiving an annual check approximating:$600,000. The City pays nothing for maintenance and development on the three courses -- the responsibility of such is in, the contractual relationship with the concessionaire. In aggregate, the three courses-do about 90,000 rounds annually, per my conversation with the DM; Park & Rec Manager responsible,for golf operations, Matt Salvatore. Thus each might do 30,000 rounds averaged. This compares to 18,123 (average of last three years) for Fred Richards and 16,542 for the Braemar Executive Course. (Fred rounds averaged +9.6% more than Braemar Exec during'the last three years.) Why pay for a Park when,. the City can establish a profit- center,(operating privately and.profitably with management independent of the Braemar operation)? Hard to figure.... Dennis D. Withers 4504 Sedum Lane Edina 1 Heather Branigin From: Sara Kaufman <sara.kaufman08 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014,12:30 PM To: Chad Millner, Joe Fenancek; Mark K. Nolan; James Hovland ,Cc .: superintendent @edinaschools:org . Subject: Please Help Make the Concord Elementary "Walking Zone "...Walkable Dear Chad, Joseph, Mark, and Jim, On behalf of many Concord' Elementary and Concord Neighborhood families, I'm writing to you because of a pedestrian safety problem that desperately needs resolution. The vast majority of kids who live in the.Concord Neighborhood - attend Concord Efementary School, andbecause.of their proximity'to school, are considered "Walkers ". The idea of walkingto and from school is great, and one that- many kids and families absolutely love, however, the Concord "Walking Zone" is simply too unsafe for our kids to walk as it is today. We need % your help to Make the Concord Walking Zone Walkable. What We Are Asking! For- Sidewalks - We know that a vote was placed before the residents of Concord in the relatively resent past, and sidewalks were voted down. We are asking you to not put such an important public safety and infrastructure decision up to vote - it simply should not be an option to not have sidewalks in a public school walking zone. Those residents who voted against, sidewalks are not generally against sidewalks, they were against paying for, and maintaining them. The fact is, many of the voters were elderly, on fixed budgets and unable to take on more shoveling, or empty - nesters with no school 'age children, or first time home owners, again, with no school age children. Because of these demographics,' it is predictable that they voted against paying for and caring for, sidewalks. However, we simply do not feel that a "no" vote should leave those with children in the walking zone with literally no safe way to school other than in their parents car, adding to the already problematic traffic jams on Concord Ave. at drop off and pick up times. Further, the demographics of this neighborhood are changing. With new construction, come young; school aged families. Kids in both new and older homes in Concord want to play and get to school safely in this fantastic neighborhood. They want to get to parks and walk their dogs. The need for safe sidewalks in the "walking zone" will only`grow ... and grow, and grow. At a minimum, we are asking for sidewalks on 59th and 60th streets, running east to west, just like 58th street. The 58th St: sidewalk is'a great model. The 58th Street sidewalk provides safe transportation for both cars and walkers on the main road artery, to and from Normandale School, the Community Center, and the Middle School. It just makes sense. Likewise, 59th. and 60th Streets see heavy vehicle school traffic leading directly to Concord Elementary, but neither offers a sidewalk for families in the Walking Zone. Concord School is gravely under- served by sidewalk access for walkers. 59th Street, in particular'; is a speedway of rushed parents and school buses using 59th St. as a straight speedway between Wooddale Ave. and Concord. It is an accident in the making. Horns are honking, drivers are shouting at walkers to "get out of the road - we can't see you with the sun rising in the east and bottlenecks compound it: all as on= street parking on 59th Street, at Concord, put salt in the wound. We are desperately seeking sidewalks -on at least 59th Street between Wooddale Ave. and Concord Ave.; It seems appropriate, also to extend the sidewalk further east to connect to Pamela Park, as Concord kids frequently travel between Concord School and Pamela Park. It feels as if sidewalks are being put in in many places, which is great for our community, but just not in the places that connect our school to our student -rich neighborhoods -- where they are desperately needed. What We Are Asking for In Addition to, and/or More Immediately than, Sidewalks Absolutely NO PARKING OR IDLING on 59th Street between Concord Ave. and Ashcroft Ave. between 8 -9 and 3-4 on school days. Current on -street parking at this intersection is simply unacceptable, turns a two lane road into a single lane road, forcing high car, bus, and walker volumes through one on -road bottleneck. On foot traffic, primarily our kids in a public school Walking Zone, simply should not be forced to walk down the middle of a bottle - necked road, navigating sparse road space along with cars and buses. It should be noted that the Concord Ave. crosswalk literally dumps kids into the back ofparked cars on 59th Street. Speed bumps or sound strips on 59th Street, especially between Concord Ave. and Ashcroft Ave. Cars, including school buses, simply drive too fast down 59th, rushing kids to and from school. Walkers should not be walking on the road with speeding traffic. Walking/Biking Green Lane The painted green bike lanes on Valley View should be used on any street in the "Walking Zone" that does not yet have a sidewalk. Parents of young walkers /riders constantly yell after their children to "stay on the side of the road!" The truth is, young children need visual clues for where they can and can't go, if sidewalks don't exist, green paths provide a great alternative. The truth is, drivers could also benefit from a visual reminder that pedestrians share the road in this area. Digital "your current speed is" displays along 59th and 60th Streets as well as ramped -up police presence during school drop -off and pick -up hours. Additional school Walking Zone and speed limit signs throughout the Concord Neighborhood. Thank you, in advance, for paying attention to this concern. We can appreciate that sidewalks take time to implement, but we beg you to give heavy consideration to our request. We also sincerely hope that some of our ideas for more immediate steps in the right direction offer solutions that are extremely budget friendly and easy to implement asap. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Sara Kaufman, a Concord Mom 612 - 454 -9494 Heather Braniain From: ALANKOEHLER @comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 20141:40 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Input on Grandview Development To the Members of the Edina City Council, I am writing to you in reference to an upcoming decision to be made by the Edina City Council regarding the Grandview District development. I strongly encourage the City Council to vote in favor of proceeding with the Request for Interest which calls for engaging a consultant to further refine the type of potential projects to consider for the former Public Works site located at 5146 Eden Avenue. Based on the results of the resident survey conducted by Morris Leatherman in January 2014, the "Community Facility Inventory for the Grandview District Project" completed in February 2014, and the majority opinion of the Grandview District Community Advisory Team, there is much more work that needs to done to define the best public amenities for this city -owned site before proceeding with a private sector development partner. There are clearly a wide range of possible uses for this valuable site. I personally find the concept of a city -owned and operated community center to be the most appealing. The specific amenities that should be included in a civic community center will undoubtedly be a topic of lively discussion but it is a discussion that must be framed and undertaken before determining how much of the site would be required for such a facility. Therefore, it is premature to engage with a private developer before the needs of the site have been more fully defined by the community. Some have argued that the city does not need "another" community center. While there is no doubt that the City of Edina owns and operates a number of facilities scattered around the city, it is inaccurate to state that the City already has a civic community center. The former Edina East High School building located at 5701 Normandale Boulevard has been branded the "Edina Community Center" by Edina Public Schools but this facility is owned and operated by the school district with the exception of one city -owned gymnasium in the building. Thus, it is more accurate to state that Edina Public Schools has a facility that they call a community center, but the City of Edina has never owned and operated a municipal community center that is intended to serve all citizens living within the city, including the 27% of households who do not live within the Edina school district boundaries. I find it very noteworthy that the web page of the City of Edina there contains no link or reference to the school district -owned community center in either the "For Residents" menu or the "Parks & Places" menu. In fact, typing "Edina Community Center" into the search function on the City's web site generates no relevant results. Finally, as we look further ahead, it is apparent that fulfilling the long -term vision of the Grandview District development will require the relocation of the school bus garage owned and operated by Edina Public Schools. There seems to be a working assumption that this will only be achieved if the relocation occurs at no cost to the school district, even if the new facility is an improvement over the existing. For this outcome to be realized, the costs would need to borne by the taxpayers of the City of Edina, a private developer, or a combination of the two. It would be entirely unreasonable for Edina Public Schools to seek or accept any financial assistance from the municipal taxpayers of the City of Edina for a relocation without first modifying their policies to provide enhanced access for all residents of the City of Edina to the school district's facilities. Sincerely, Alan Koehler 5304 Evanswood Lane z Heather Branic3in From: Sarah Wohlrabe <sarahwohlrabe @gmail:com> Sent:.. Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:47 PM To: Edina Mail; Mary Brindle; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Birchcrest B project Hi City Frlends -? feel like I know a number of you personally, so it is fun to write about something "official." lam truly grateful for all you do to make Edina the wonderful place it is. My husband and] have both grown up here and now are raising our'three kids here.. We live on Tingdale Avenue and 60th street. 1, have not written yet, because I thought for sure with all the communication our neighborhood has sent things would for sure have changed. I am one of the survey entrants that wrote our streets need to be replaced. Well, I feel like my response was not exactly what I believe is the case. I think I should have checked not replaced, but repaired or replaced by rectangle is what I am more thinking... as is every single neighbor in our area. After learning more about this project and what is involved, I must say that I am disappointed. I know our entire neighborhood is actually really upset about getting streets re -done. One '.would think it is for the inconvenience of it, but that isn't even the. talk around here. It is the final product we are all worried about. There is not one person excited about the "improved" plan. I am a a green girl and so grateful for the health and maintenance of our concrete streets. They are healthier for the environment and have lasted for over 60 years. I actually wanted to buy on this street because it is a concrete road--1 know that sounds crazy, but it is true! Other streets in the neighborhood that have been "replaced" look so worn and full 'of , potholes. The kids of the neighborhood are voting for concrete as it creates less "road- rash" on their biking endeavors!` :) You all have made wonderful, decisions fixing the rectangle sections that have needed replacing. I know Judd Reitkerk has sent in a very detailed proposal as to what he believes would accomplish your goals and the desires of its residence. It isn't the money either, but the final product. I am as a mom and hopefully life -long resident, asking you to considerthe information below and my request. I know I am but one small .voice, but represent a lot ofthe. chatter around here since everyone has been back outside visiting. We would all be grateful if you either delayed this project to give it more time to really evaluate, or listen to what the neighbors are saying about the longevity, width, safety, etc. of our streets. have copied a letter below that you have probably received multiple times, but sums it up quite well. Again, I am so. grateful to all you do in the community to make our world a better place. Thanks for the time commitment and see you around the city, hopefully again at Margo's, Ann! Take care, Sarah Wohlrabe 1 6000 Tingdale Avenue Edina, MN 55436 952.381.7770 Dear Mayor Hovland and Members of the City Council, We are writing in response to the notification, received on Saturday, April,19, 2014, of the presentation of recommendations for the street project in our neighborhood to the City Council on Tuesday, April[ 22, 2014. We urge you to consider the safety concerns outlined below, and to weigh these concerns in contrast to the desires to have an aesthetically pleasing look to the neighborhoods and increased infiltration of stormwater, before making your final decision, Situation: Absence of sidewalks There are no sidewalks in our neighborhoods • Children walk, skateboard, ride their bikes and wait for school buses in the streets • ' : Many residents walk for exercise in the "streets Safety concerns with narrower streets • Parking is allowed on both sides of.the streets o On- street parking is increased on Sundays, Wednesday evenings and days of special activities at Norman dale Church o Narrower streets, will greatly decrease the "safety zone" for children, walkers and bike riders • Winter months and: snow plowing o Roads are rarely plowed curb to curb in our neighborhood o Narrower streets will greatly, decrease the "safety zone" for children to wait for their school bus especially when there isn't an option to move to boulevards covered:with snow o Narrowers.streets will increase the hazards of backing out of our driveways We have lived in this neighborhood for 30, + years without concern for vehicle noise due to the concrete surface._ Very little street maintenance has been needed during these years. The cost of repairing the existing street is comparable to replacing it with a narrower street of lesser quality materials. We urge you to select Schedule A and Schedule C as the best path forward for those_ who live on and use these streets on a daily basis. Respectfully and sincerely, 2 Heather Braniain From: Laura Hotmail Account <laura196511 @hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4.42 PM To: Scott Neal; Edina Mail Subject: RE: Response regarding Park Planning Consulting for.4/22/14 meeting Please forward to the full message to the City Council and the mayor. City Council, 'I think it is outrageous that a project of this size was not put out to bid. Cities have a duty to get bids for projects like this one for Park Planning. With a proper bidding process, qualifications an&price can be properly reviewed. r _ Please deny staffs recommendations for this consultant and ask staff to put this, project through a proper bidding process. Thank you.. Laura Schleck From: sneal@EdinaMN.gov To: laura196511 @hotmail.com Subject: Response Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:45:27 +0000 Ms. Schleck — The selection-of a park planning consultant starts the process of creating a new future for Fred Richards GC. don't know what that;future should be. I have worked with Jeff Schoenbauer on a`park /trail planning project while I was city manager in Eden Prairie. I was impressed with his ability really listen to opinions and to translate, those collective opinions.into drawings,and concepts. While I do not count Mr. Schoenbauer as a "friend"," at least in the manner you used that word' in your email, I fund him to be a humble and talented consultant. 1 think he is the right person.to take on this assignment because l think he will earn the confidence of the residents involved, and that's because I've seen him do that before. Regards, Scott ' Scott Neal, City Manager d 652:826-04011 Fax 952 - 828 -0390 snea1OEd1naMN.00v I www.EdlnaMN.aov '• � ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business 1 Heather Branigin From: Laura Hotmail Account <laura196511 @hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 5:00 PM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: RE: Fred Richards Park Design It is outrageous that a project of this size is not put of for a proper bidding process. Qualifications and price could be compared. This project is not unique enough to avoid the requirement for public bidding. This consultant has a prior relationship with Scott Neal, that does not mean the consultant will understand neighborhood concerns. Please deny staffs request for this consultant. Thank you Laura Schleck From: Ibiunno @EdinaMN.eov To: laura196511 @hotmail.com Subject: Fred Richards Park Design Date: Tue, 22 Apr 201418:35:09 +0000 Laura, I made the motion to start the process to design a new park. As part of that request I asked Scott Neal and Ann Kattreh to come back with in 30 days with a process for re planning the Fred space. As part of that we asked that is be a process that was inclusive of the neighbors from the very beginning and have a time line that was transparent from the start. I am glad that our city manager Scott and Ann have found a consulting company that understands neighborhood concerns. We do not normally go to RFP for this kind of work. What I have heard from the Fred neighborhood is a concern over not knowing what would be in the Fred space other than the Three Rivers Park bike path. A number of emails have been sent from the neighborhood wanting to be part of this re planning process. Sincerely, Ann Swenson Heather Branigin From: Metropolitan Council < M ETC@ public.govdelivery.com > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 5:29 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: SWLRT municipal consent hearing moved to May 29 Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. Metropolitan Council /Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority hearing on municipal consent.moved to May 29 (St. Louis Park, MN) — Today, the Metropolitan Council announced that the joint public hearing with the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority will occur May 29 at the Hennepin County Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis at 6113M. An open house will be held on the Public Service Level of the Hennepin County Government Center beginning at 513M. The previously announced May 12th hearing will not take place. The hearing was rescheduled to May 29 due to the need to correct information in the Minneapolis portion of municipal consent plans. Municipal consent plans, which are available on the Council's website at www.swirt.org and at numerous city halls and libraries along the corridor, were updated by Council staff on April 22 to ensure every set contains corrected information. What is municipal consent? In the municipal consent process, the Metropolitan Council will be seeking approval from the county and the line's five host cities on preliminary design plans to build the LRT line in their jurisdictions. The preliminary design plans show the footprint of the LRT line and its physical design components. Further engineering in 2014 and 2015 will provide greater details, such as station elements and landscaping features. The preliminary design plans will show the Southwest LRT line with adjustments as approved by the Met Council. Details include: • Location of the 15.8 -mile line and the 16 stations, down from the original 17 stations with the elimination of the 21st Street Station in Minneapolis. The plans will retain Mitchell Road Station as the line's westernmost station. • Location of LRT tracks primarily at ground level with several bridges and tunnels Including Minneapolis. • General dimensions, elevations and alignment of the LRT route and crossings. • Location of the operations and maintenance facility in Hopkins. More information about the municipal consent process is available at www.swirt.org. About the Project: The Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project (Green Line Extension) will operate from downtown Minneapolis through the communities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie, passing in close proximity to the city of Edina. The proposed alignment is primarily at -grade and includes 16 new stations and about 15.8 -miles of double track. The line will connect major activity centers in the region including downtown Minneapolis, the Opus /Golden Triangle employment area in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie, Methodist Hospital in St. Louis Park, the Eden Prairie Center Mall, and the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes. Ridership in 2030 is projected at 29,660 weekday passengers. The project will interline with the METRO Green Line (Central Corridor LRT), which will provide a one -seat ride to destinations such as the University of Minnesota, state Capitol and downtown St. Paul. It will be part of an integrated system of transitways, including connections to the METRO Blue Line, the Northstar Commuter Rail line, a variety of major bus routes along the alignment, and proposed future transitway and rail lines. The Metropolitan Council will be the grantee of federal funds. The regional government agency is charged with building the line in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Southwest Corridor Management Committee, which includes commissioners from Hennepin County and the mayors of Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie, provides advice and oversight. Funding is provided by the Federal Transit Administration, Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB), state of Minnesota and Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA). The Southwest LRT Project website is www.swlrtorg. C a'. .N. 4. t .L STAY CONNECTED: A, 11W For general questions or comments: Contact Us SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Subscriptions I Unsubscribe All I Subscriber Help This email was sent to edinamailQo ci.edina.mmus using GovDelivery, on behalf of. Metropolitan Council • 390 Robert St. North • W—e) fZ1iViE'RYIP Saint Paul, MN 55101 -1805 • 651 -602 -1000 gm: riwword aut. Heather Branigin From: Patty < pastang @comcast. net> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 SA1 PM To: Edina Mail Subject Fred Richards property Hello Council Members, I have to write to let you know my concerns about tonight's agenda item concerning the repurposing of the Fred Richards Golf Course property. I feel like we are back to square one with City staff hiring a consultant for the job without bidding out the job and getting plans from at least 3 consultants so plans can be carefully gone through with costs and needs being taken into account. This is reminiscent of staffs proposal to close The Fred with out showing any alternative ideas or even including The Fred in the master plan for golf enterprises. We were told Scott Neal has worked with this consulting firm before and just wanted to give the business to them so the project apparently doesn't have to go through a bidding process. As a homeowner on the course, I already feel defeated and the process supposedly hasn't even begun yet. It' so disappointing that I couldn't even bring myself to write this email for the last couple of days. You probably won't see many concerned citizens at tonight's meeting (please don't misread that as we are not concerned or don't want to be a part of the process Councilwoman Bennett)- there is no time for public input and the item comes at the end of the agenda so another late night for regular citizens. Please consider moving public items to the top of the agenda at least some of the time. I know we had several senior citizens who desperately wanted to be heard and take part in the process to Save The Fred and they said it was really hard for them to sit so long and be out so late. Sincerely, Patty Stang T pedl Aw woj} luaS pelsaoyl Alaaqun> .•pafoid 5143 uo alo^ mop( Aq mou4 111m 1 •popunjja^o AlInlaom leyi aie nog( pue'Buojm we 1 aqAeW •laafoad slyl ueyl pun; of spaau Sulssaid avow aney lou saop eu1p3 1e43 a^a11aq of pJe4 3! pu41 •haf A slyl jol paou aql JapisuoaaJ'aseald uoilljad ino ul ao a:)uaplsai Aq paslej sluawwo:) aoud ssaappe ua^a l;uplp luas.Jallal a4l puy •isaluoc) A1111gen11 uegm awos uo slulod awos aaoas of Sultil isnf sl auoawos alll aw of spunoS 'Iswa:)uo:) Alales ino 4?lannlno pinoys pue papaau aye s><uawano�dwi 31la43sae Ja4184M laaJis ayl uo a^ll oqm aldoad ayl ueyl jallaq nnou�l'�(a4l 4u!4l siauueld 8say3 op �tyM •luaLUaAojdwi ue lou 'Aemea�lel a �lluo sl pue suollllw Suilso� sl hafo d s!41 zluaula ^o�dwi ayl sl aJagM OS •sJaluanajd mog 4heq 43!M saannas pa ^oJdwl jo'sly>4 �o inos�l�ennapls Sullias l,uaje am s�alin� pue qjn:) a4l We se helul sl 9:)e4ans alaJ:)uou ayl •papaau sneda.i jo uSis Aue uaas lou 8^e4 18a4s ayl pannal^aa aney 04M aldoad palaldwo :le43 yl1M •.paynIed Allua:)aj seM aIlepoull pue Janol:) 10 uolhasaalul ayl •paSuey:) pue dn`ujol slaajis ino aney ol,palnpa4�s aye am Kynn uosea� ayl puels�apun l,uop 1 'a�epRuil,uo Su! ^!I `Ilea.a ^O slaajls pamojeu 411m alglssodwl aq 111m agleil'pa4jed s,e:) aney of pud `sawil le slaaJ;s a4l jo saP1s yloq uo sin:):)o Suglied 'sawes 11eglool Sulanp wnlpels ayl pue Aq jeau y:)any:) alepuewaoN ayl 4loq yl!m puy zle4i u! alsol a43�sl , aja4M jAeme ua4el s auel 94lq ino laS am lnq sauel a4 lq paluled uaaJS lag eulp3 ;o seaae aa410 •uol3do ue se s!4l Aeme salel slaaJis a4l 2UIMOJJeu gas 1 •laaJis a4l ul sl uni pue apli of a�eld �lluo ayl's�llemaRs ou 411M •Ja11OJIs a ul ysnd 1 pue sa4!q' app o4m uajp114� 411M Ja4low a pue, jauunj e'we 1_'saeaA OT jano aol jaumoawoy alepSull a uaaq a^eq 1 •ilia }es pue swaouoz) sluaplsaJ Ja ^o ino uim uo!heij flews a Aq saoe:pns- snol^jadwl Suonpai pue s:)llaylsae se q:)ns suolleaaplsuo:) le4l pasljdjns we l° •luawa^ed,snoulwn ;1q yl1M alaa3uo3 ayl.a:)elda,i pue laajis ino moueu of uo1lepuawwo*aj }gels ayi inoge pau.ia:)uo:) we 1 loafoid slgl Su1PieSaj 8t I!jdv palep pa^la:)Iaj 1 jaual a4l.ol asuodsa.i w Sulllim we 1 `l!:)unoa Al!:) ayl jo sjagwaW pue puel^oH joAeW jeaa uocpnjisuo:)ad Aempeo�d pootpogy6l8N g lsaj:)4:)ne :439Jgng I1eW eU1p3 :ol Wd ,T0 9 tbTOZ 'ZZ ludy 1Aepsanl :gyps <lau•ise3woo.N7pelsjog4wij> pelsao4l w1)l :wolj3 uidiueje ja%eaH Heather Branigin From: Ann Swenson <swensonannl @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:21 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Re: Fred Richards property Patty, the consultant we hired last night for the Fred does not bring a plan for the park. They use a process of public meetings with residents to determine wants and needs. It is a collaborative process designed for public involvement. In our other park designs that we have done recently, Pamela, Countryside, etc we do not use an RFP process. We chose this particular consultant because of their inclusive approach. Ann Swenson, council Sent from my iPad > On Apr 23, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Edina Mail <mail EdinaMN.eov> wrote: > Good morning, > This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members, Scott Neal, Ann Kattreh and Janet Canton. > Lynette Biunno, Receptionist > 952-927-88611 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 > Ibiunno @EdinaMN.eov I www.EdinaMN.eov > ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business > - - -- Original Message-- - > From: Patty [mailto:pastans@comcast.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 5:41 PM > To: Edina Mail > Subject: Fred Richards property > Hello Council Members, > I have to write to let you know my concerns about tonight's agenda item concerning the repurposing of the Fred Richards Golf Course property. I feel like we are back to square one with City staff hiring a consultant for the job without bidding out the job and getting plans from at least 3 consultants so plans can be carefully gone through with costs and needs being taken Into account. This is reminiscent of staff's proposal to close The Fred with out showing any alternative ideas or even including The Fred in the master plan for golf enterprises. We were told Scott Neal has worked with this consulting firm before and just wanted to give the business to them so the project apparently doesn't have to go through a bidding process. As a homeowner on the course, I already feel defeated and the process supposedly hasn't even begun yet. It' so disappointing that I couldn't even bring myself to write this email for the last couple of days. > You probably won't see many concerned citizens at tonight's meeting (please don't misread that as we are not concerned or don't want to be a part of the process Councilwoman Bennett)- there is no time for public input and the item comes at the end of the agenda so another late night for regular citizens. Please consider moving public items to the top of the agenda at least some of the time. I know we had several senior citizens who desperately wanted to be heard and take part in the process to Save The Fred and they said it was really hard for them to sit so long and be out so late. > Sincerely, > Patty Stang Heather Branigin From: Curt Rahman <curtrahman @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 201410:55 AM To: Curt Rahman Subject: Old Photo of the Kenilworth Train Yard Attachments: Kenilworth Train Yards jpg I thought you might appreciate the attached photo of the train traffic in Kenilworth as it used to be. This photo is taken looking west, note the Lowry Hill water tower in the bottom left of the photo. Curt Rahman Heather Branigin From: Chris Bremer <bremer101 @yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 10 :58 AM To: Ann Swenson; Sprague Josh; Joni; Mary Brindle (Comcast); Edina Mail Cc: Cindy Larson; M1 Lamon Subject: Re: Concerns about new construction in Strachauer neighborhood Attachments: Nasar & Stamps 2009 Infill McMansions_Style and the psychophysics of size.pdf Dear Edina City Council members, To follow up on my email from yesterday I looked for some research on infill homes and what makes them objectionable to those looking at them in a neighborhood context. I found the following article: " Are What Turn Off Neighbors EIGHT, STYLE. OF "Mc':vIA SIGNS" ARE FHA, TUIt. OFF NEIGH BORS Preview ;w Qn rc e rchnews.o§imou by Yahoo: did some further digging and found the study upon which the article was based (attached). It is much more technical, but will give you a better understanding of how the researchers' conclusions were reached. I think a research -based approach to building codes would be of great benefit to neighborhoods in Edina, particularly those like mine (Strachauer) in which the existing homes are completely different from those being built on spec by developers. Perhaps this research, and related research, could help the city move beyond an essentially one - size - fits -all code in a rational way, tailoring an evidence -based approach that would keep our neighborhoods and community attractive -- and be more considerate of current residents' perceptions and needs. have a research background and would be happy to support the Council in identifying other related research that could support future decision - making about building codes and polices related to infill construction. Best regards, Chris P.S. I apologize if you received two emails from me yesterday; my email account was indicating that my first message had not been sent. From: Ann Swenson <swensonann1 @gmail.com> To: Chris Bremer <bremer101 @yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:41 AM Subject: Re: Concerns about new construction in Strachauer neighborhood Chris, thanks for your detailed email on tear down concerns in your part of Edina. We put in new ordinances that took place January first of this year. We have studied this issue twice over the nine years I have served on council and made changes each time. We will continue to take input. Ann Swenson, council Sent from my Pad On Apr 22, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Chris Bremer <bremer101(aD_yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Members of the Edina City Council, First, thank you for all you do on behalf of residents like myself who rarely have to think very much about how our city runs. Your efforts are much appreciated. I am writing to express my concerns about how the city's building guidelines /policies are likely to affect my neighborhood, the Strachauer Park area. We have lived there since 1984, and raised our three children there. Ours is a friendly low -rise community of midcentury- modern homes, and until very recently we seemed immune from the developer's backhoe. We are more diverse than most Edina neighborhoods, and have many young families who appreciate our relatively affordable homes in a wonderful school district Those in the 50 -plus age group appreciate the more accessible one -level living spaces available in our neighborhood. We are now seeing homes being purchased for tear -down and new construction. In the past, most of those building or remodeling were the ones who would be living in the new spaces, and they had some concern for the look and feel of our neighborhood, but now it seems that almost all of this construction in Strachauer and Chowen is being done "on spec" and therefore those choosing the design of a new home do not care if they upset the neighbors by completely overshadowing someone's house, blocking their natural light and diminishing the value of their home. A Strachauer neighbor recently commented to me that she even hesitates to update her kitchen, as she fears her house will only be valued as a tear -down. A new neighbor, whose house was nicely remodeled before she bought it expressed similar concerns. The primary reason for this sad state of affairs is that many of the new homes being built are over twice as tall as the ones they stand next to. It is not so much of a problem, perhaps, to have 30 -foot tall homes next to two -story colonials, but in a neighborhood of ramblers it is jarringly unattractive. Walking around our neighborhood in the evening, we find people pointing, shaking their heads, and expressing grief, sadness, and a sense of helplessness. I am sure this is not what you intended when you developed the current building guidelines. Josh Sprague was kind enough to send me a chart showing the current standards (height, setbacks, etc.), which I greatly appreciated. He also said he thought these were unlikely to be revisited "until the changes have had time to sink in to the market." I have to say that I found that phrase very discouraging and even chilling (though I am sure Josh did not mean to come across that way), because it seems that if we wait even another year or two, our Strachauer neighborhood will be irrevocably changed for the worse. I think it was a wise decision on your part to establish front setback requirements based on those of neighboring houses. I would like to suggest that you now consider a similar approach to limiting the height of new residences. While I would not presume to know exactly how this should be specified, one approach might be to limit the height of new homes to a percentage above the average height of homes in an area as of a certain date (e.g. 2014). Or an absolute height limit could be set, but on a neighborhood basis, with a lower maximum height for neighborhoods like ours. I invite you to walk around the Chowen neighborhood, just north of Strachauer, and experience how it feels to live in this part of town. Huge structures tower arrogantly over their neighbors, like schoolyard bullies. Vegetable and flower gardens lack sun, and people no longer have a pleasant view from their decks. We desperately want to avoid this fate in the Strachauer neighborhood. Not all of our homes are worth saving or remodeling, and thoughtful new construction could certainly enhance our area. However, the city's current policies do not include the kinds of limitations needed to ensure that Strachauer continues to be a great place to live for those in existing homes. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. I hope the construction policies can be revisited by the City Council very soon — well before the current ones have "had time to sink into the market." Again, many thanks for your dedication to the City of Edina and its residents. Sincerely, Chris Bremer 6001 Ewing Ave S Edina 55410 952 - 926 -8542 (home) 612 - 226 -9476 (cell) 612 - 625 -6176 (work) journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009)110 -123 9 r _ s . Contents fists available at SciencaDirect }Journal of Environmental Psychology e ELSEVI:ER journal llomepage www.tilsevier.com /locate /jep Infill McMansions: Style and the psychophysics of size Jack L. Nasar a'', Arthur E. Stamps, III b 'Department of City and Regional Planning, Me Ohio State University, 231 Knowlton Hal4 275 West Woodni¢'Ave, Columbus, OR 43210, USA binstitute ojErrvironmentol Quality, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article history. • The number and size of infill oversized houses, or McMansions, has increased in the U.& and the world Available online 8 October 2008 To maintain desirable neighborhood appearances, communities should know what constitutes "too big." This paper reports six studies that used color simulations of blocks of houses to examine compatibility Keywords: and visual appeal in relation to attributes of the infill house and its context Following psychophysical Preference findings, the relative size of the infill house should have larger effects on response than its actual size. Environmental preference The studies confirmed that the infill ratio had more weight than size for perceived compatibility. Compatibility Weber— Fechner law Compatibility did not always translate into visual appeal. For visual appeal, infill style had larger effects Psychophysia than did size or size ratio, height had larger effects than width, and, for larger sizes and ratios, infill ratio McMansion had larger effects than actual size. To maintain visual quality in relation to infill houses, communities Design review should first seek an architecturally compatible style, and then try to control its relative size (the infill fa4ade area). Tests of responses to real infill, houses can show how well these findings generalize. ® 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, 1. Introduction McMansions, also referred to as too-big houses, monster houses, starter castles, tract mansions, mega homes, garage Mahals, or what Huxtable (1997, p. 68) calls "grotesquely grandiose" houses, are becoming larger and more prevalent (Fig. 1), This paper examines the perceived compatibility and visual appeal of infill McMansions to learn what characteristics of the design matter. In the United States, new houses have increased in size from an average of 1900 square feet in 1987 to an average of 2300 square feet in 2001 (National Association of Home Builders, NAHB, 2002). The percentage of new houses larger than 3000 square feet has increased from 11% in 1988 to 20% in 2003 (US Census Bureau, 2003). In 2005,20% of occupied homes had four or more bedrooms, compared to 17.7% in 2000 (US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007). McMansions are not unique to the United States, Observers have noted their presence from the United Kingdom to China, which even has a development named Orange County (Glick 2006; O'Brien, 2004). McMansions have two forms, Greenfield and infill, with different effects, Greenfield McMansions are plats of oversized houses on larger parcels of vacant land. Contributing to sprawl, they run counter to Smart Growth goals (Burchell & Mukheri, 20031 Infill McMansions occur in built up areas in the form of either new houses on vacant lots, tear downs replaced with a new house, or Corresponding author. Tel.: +1614 292 1457; fax: +1614 292 7106. E -mail address: nasacl ®osu.edu (I.L Nasar). 0272 4944/$ - see front matter ® 2008 Elsevier ud All rights reserved do i:10.1016/j j envp2008.09.003 additions to existing houses. They are always much larger than the houses around them. Unlike Greenfield McMansions, infill McMansions advance Smart Growth goals. They use existing infrastructure, replace obsolete housing, reduce sprawl, and revitalize and promote rein- vestment in older suburbs (Burchell, Listokin, & Gallwey, 2000; Lang & Danielsen, 2002), but they create a different problem. Neighbors may see the house as "too big for the lot on which it sits." "out of scale with the rest of the community" or incompatible (Kending, 2004, p. 47) and lobby their local government to adopt regulations to prevent or minimize the undesirable impacts.' This paper presents six studies on evaluative responses to infill McMansions, aimed at developing visual quality guidelines for design review and controls. Research on visual quality guidelines for design review is needed because those guidelines are already widely implemented. U.S. federal and state law gives local communities the right to regulate esthetics (cf. Mandelker, 1993; Meck & Pearlman, 2004; Smardon & Karp, 1993). According to Hinshaw (2002, p. 271 "inflicting massively oversized structures on neighborhoods that have an established pattern of small houses on small lots is the epitome of public rudeness ... Communities should not be catering to this kind of nouveau riche excess." He called for carefully crafted standards that benefit everyone, "not just the newcomers," stan- dards that without discouraging infill development encourage I Infill McMansions may also Increase property values, making their communi- ties less affordable. J.4 Nasar, A.E Stamps, 111/ Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 Fig. 1. Infill McMansion approximately four times the size of its neighboring houses. compatible development. Two studies indicate the extent of implementation of design guidelines for McMansions in American (Nasar & Evans - Cowley, 2007; Szold, 2005). They found that many American cities have infill McMansions, and in response to them have adopted controls, such as design review, and controls for house height, floor area ratio or bulk to achieve contextually compatible solutions. 11 Contextual design Contextual design assumes that fitting in will make a group of buildings look better. This presupposes that a group of buildings on a block or in a group of blocks (seen as a neighborhood) have a distinctive character into which a new building should fit. One study suggests that they do. Stamps (1999a) had respondents judge if the overall character of a block (all gable roof, all flat roof, or mixture of gable and flat roofs) appeared to be flat roof, gable roof, or mixed. More than 80% of the houses had to share the roof feature before respondents judged the block as having that character. This suggests that blocks can have character, and that changes in more than 20% of the houses on a block might disrupt it. The size of the impact may vary with the infill house style and size. For policy, communities need to know if improved compatibility makes a block look more pleasing to the eye. The degree to which contextual design increases perceived order (coherence), it should increase preference. Studies consistently find increases in preference associated with order or coherence (cf. Nasar, 1987, 1994, 1998). For example, one study found that preference increased as the compatibility of a building to its context increased (Wohlwill,1982). For houses, research has found that people prefer blocks of homogeneous styles even if, in isolation, they dislike the style of the block (Stamps, 1994). The first incompatible house on a block may have the largest impact. Stamps (1999a) found that for 2 -3 storey infill building heights, one infill larger building on a block yielded the lowest preferences, but as the number of such buildings increased, the negative effect weakened. However, factors other than massing may influence visual appeal or compatibility. For style, research indicates that the public has consistent preferences in relation to house styles (Nasar, 1989; Nasar & Devlin, 1989). Popular and high -style houses have different characteristics, people notice the differences between them, and prefer the popular styles. Certain styles may go together, while others do not. People might view a high -style house in a popular - style context or visa versa as incompatible. For size, the Weber — Fechner law in psychophysics suggests that the relative size of an infill house to the houses around it is more important than its absolute size (Dehaene, 2003). Specifically, the IN law indicates that a just noticeable change in a stimulus is a constant ratio of the original stimulus (cf., Mitina & Abraham, 2003; Takahashi, Oono, & Radford, 2008). Others have found slightly different non - linear functions (Gregson, 1991; Krueger, 1991; laming, 1991; Norwich, 1987; Stevens, 1936; Wasserman, 1991). Still, the approaches would agree that in a block of small houses, it should take only a small increase in size for the infill house to stand out as incompatible; while in a block of larger houses, it would take a larger increase in size to stand out. If so, communities should control infill size in proportion to its context rather than its absolute size. This has not yet been adequately tested in relation to infill houses, but one study of building heights offers support. Stamps (1999a) found that a taller infill building evoked a larger negative response in relation to a block with houses of uniform height than to a block with houses of mixed heights. For design controls, communities also need to better understand the relative impacts of changes in infill style and Size on perceived compatibility and visual appeal. 1.2. Outline of the six studies This paper reports six studies that tested effects of infill house style and one non - linear function (logarithmic) of infill house size on response. Although design guidelines and design review often center on compatibility, presumably communities seek compati- bility to enhance the visual quality. We tested both kinds of response. All six studies used color images of blocks having an infill house. Research confirms that responses to color images relate to responses obtained on site to the same places (Stamps, 1993). As research indicates smaller effects from the respondent than from the environment (Stamps, 1999b), the analyses in each study centered on tests of the environmental conditions. The results of earlier studies led to hypotheses tested in the subsequent studies. 2. Study 1: style, infill house size, ratio, and distance from observer Study 1 examined two main questions. 1. Non - linear psychophysical effects: do impressions of visual appeal and compatibility depend more on the ratio of the size of the infill house to its context than on its absolute size? 2. How important is size ratio compared to architectural style? The study also examined two subsidiary questions. a) Does the distance of the infill house from the observer affect response? For methods and application, it makes a difference if the effect of an infill house that differs from its context varies with the distance from the house. As a person approaches a contextually unfitting infill building, it should become more visually prominent, and this might increase its impact. If so, controls for such houses serve primarily to protect against negative reactions among immediate neighbors and passersby, rather than broader community-wide effects. However, viewers of the unfitting house may notice it at a distance, imagine its impact on neighbors, and respond to it similarly to viewers closer to it. In that case, contextual controls would apply to a broader community than the immediate neighbors. b) Does compatibility entail visual appeal? Research suggests a connection, but it has not specifically examined the context of infill houses. Perhaps communities want to maintain compat- ibility, whether or not it affects visual appeal. If, however, they control compatibility to achieve visual appeal, they need to know if visual appeal increases with compatibility. 112 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Stimuli and experimental design JL Nasar, AE Stamps, Ill JJoumal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 Each stimulus shows a color image of a suburban block with five houses (all of the same architectural style) on each side of the block The lot sizes were set at 2.26 times the size of the houses. Each block and 2.00). This means that each level of infill size and each level of infill ratio were approximately 1.15 times larger than the level below it. Rather than test various non -linear functions, we tested the Weber - Fechner logarithmic function (Dehaene, 2003). Size and ratio numbers in all of the studies were constructed on a log basis. has one infill house inserted into it. The study used a 5 x 5 Graeco- 212 Respondents Latin square design. It superimposed one 5 x 5 Latin square (house size and ratio), on another 5 x 5 Latin square (style and distance). With the treatments designated by Greek letters and the two designs superimposed on one another, the Greek letter appears once and only once for every Latin letter, such that the two Latin squares are orthogonal (Montgomery, 1997). As a result; the design has four (instead of three) factors -size, ratio, style and distance -each with five levels. To mitigate potential order effects, we varied the order of presentation of the scenes. The stimulus set varied in the size of the context houses (8.62 m, 9.90 m, 11.37 m, 13.06 m, or 15 ml its associated lot size (1700 m, 19.53 m., 22.43 m, 25.77 m., or 29.6 m), distance to the infill house by its slot (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5), and style (labeled Cubes, I Beam, Ranch, Sea Ranch, or Sea Side), size of the infill house (discussed below), and ratio of infill house to context houses (discussed below). Fig. 2 shows the 25 stimuli. For each block, all houses had the same style, so style was always compatible. Infill size and infill ratio, however, did vary within each scene, so the experimental design was infill size (widths of 15.00 m, 17.22 m, 19.79 m, 22.74 m, 26.13 m) x infill ratio (1.15,1.32,1.52,1.74, t. 1 90 people took part in the study. 60 of them rated each block for visual appeal (dislikellike), and 30 of them rated each block for compatibility. We obtained independent ratings on the two scales to avoid the potential bias of responses to one scale influencing responses to the other. Most participants in each sample were male (53.3% 51.7 %). Caucasian (66.7% 73.3 %1 with a college degree or more (96.7 %, 82.4 %). Most of them were also single, divorced, or widowed (76.7%, 52.6%) and had no children living at home (70.0%, 678 %). The visual appeal group was younger (28.9, SD 7.2 years), had a lower median family income ($20,000 - $40,000) than the compatibility group (34.7, SD 12.5 years; $40,000460,000). It also had more renters (63.3 %) than owners, while the compatibility group had more homeowners (60.0 %) than renters. Interviewers obtained respondents from various public gath- ering places (such as parks, plazas, and coffee shops) in different areas of central Ohio, conducting five or fewer interviews in each place. The interviewer approached the respondent, asked him or her to participate in a study that would take less than 5 min. The interviewer explained that we wanted to learn how people e _ t-� .r -- #- O 4. P vs k°l� 3 iy i W N 2.00 n�. Fig. 2. Study 1 stimuli: infill house varies in size, ratio, style and distance from observer. 4. f r ST r MIR __ vs k°l� 3 iy i W N 2.00 n�. Fig. 2. Study 1 stimuli: infill house varies in size, ratio, style and distance from observer. J1. Nasar, A.E. Stamps, 81 / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 respond to different streetscapes, that they would see a picture of each street and be asked to rate the street depicted, and after- wards to answer some background questions. The interviewer assured them of confidentiality, anonymity, and the ability to withdraw at any time without penalty or repercussion. The instructions asked them to image they were on the street shown when responding. 2.1,3. Task Respondents received a book of the 25 computer generated color images arranged in one of four orders, selected at randon-L We varied the order of stimuli across respondents to mitigate order effects. For visual appeal, the questionnaire asked them to check the answer that that best represented their evaluation of each block (Dislike it a lot, Dislike it Dislike it a little, Neither like nor Dislike it, Like it a little, Like it, lake it a lot). The compatibility form asked them to check the answer that best represented their evaluation of the streets compatibility (Very Incompatible, Incompatible, Fairly Incompatible, Neither Incompatible nor Compatible, Fairly Compatible, Compatible, Very Compatible). Each form also asked them to report their gender, race /ethnicity, education, marital status, number of children living at home, whether they rented or owned, family income, and age. 22. Results Let's start with the subsidiary questions. First, as distance from the observer increased the perceived compatibility of the infill house increased. Tables 1 and 2 show the contrasts for compati- bility and visual appeal respectively. Because distance is a contin- uous variable, we examined its correlation. It correlated at statistically insignificant levels with visual appeal (r =0.11, p> 0.05) and with compatibility (r =0.25, p> 0.05). These corre- lations converted to d values of 0.22 for visual appeal and 0.53 for compatibility. We can compare the d values with other design choices. For example, a d of 035 is the increase in visual amenity caused by the addition of street trees (Stamps, 2000). Thus, for compatibility, the effect of distance is greater than the effect of adding street trees. The pragmatic implication is that compatibility goes up substantially with increasing distance. Distance makes the infill house less disruptive. Second, compatibility did not translate into visual appeal. Recall, we obtained ratings of compatibility from one group of respon- dents and ratings of visual appeal from another. We calculated the mean score on each scale for each of the 25 blocks. Those two sets of scores across the 25 blocks had a weak correlation (r=- 0.063, p> 0.05). Now consider the two main questions. How important is infill ratio compared to infill size and style? For compatibility, as predicted by the Weber - Fechner law, infill ratio had a larger effect than infill size. The within subjects variance component of the general linear model showed that as the infill ratio increased, compatibility decreased (F (1, 748) = 650.54, p < 0.001). Infill ratio had the largest effect of the variables considered (explain- ing 45.8% of the variance). The other effects were one or two orders of magnitude smaller. Infill style, which had the next largest effect, explained only t9% of the variance (F (4, 748) = 6.86, p < 0.001). The contrasts (Table 1) show the pattern of decrease in compatibility associated with increases in the infill ratio. The effect size of infill ratio (infill /exiting) increased for 1.32/1.15 to 1.52/1.32, and 1.74/1.52, but then decreased for 2/ 1.74. For visual appeal (Table 2), style had the largest effect (explaining 21.9% of the variance; F (4,1475) = 143.55, p < 0.001). The findings for infill ratio did not translate Into visual appeal. Infill distance, infill size, and infill ratio had effects two orders of Table 1 Study 1 standardized mean contrasts for compatibility MSE = 2.24. Fac F (1, 713) a 113 132, 47 070 033 36,14 3e-11' 152 ' 4,34 152 934 102 '045 7896 7e -23 174 257 1.74 ' , ' 2 57 023 0.11. 4A2 ' 0,05 2.00 220 1,15 6,10 : ':2 72 -0.81 553A8 '. Se -90 2A0 .2,20 lnfill.size 1590 3.86 -022 -0.11. 363 0.06;... 1723 ":`4.35 ' 23. 435 0.02 0.01 0.025 0.86. „79.79. ­4 11 19.79 431 0 09 - 0 05 0.64 D.42 '2 .2 74 4.11 . 22 74 ' 411 Q02 a01 0.03 a88.: 2612 '4.07 15.00 3$6 7010 -005 - 070 .0.40.. 26,12 4.07 Note. The MSE (Mean Square Error), which estimates the total error expected for a sample, is the sum of the standard error squared and the bias squared. The notation in the tables is slightly different from the notation in the text In the text, results are reported in terms of the "p level" paradigm, in which the strength of a result is indicated by the number of asterisks In the computer print out one asterisk means "p<0.05 ", two means "p <0.01" and three means "p <0.001." The tables, on the other hand, report findings using the effect size paradigm Effect sizes are reported directly in terms of standardized mean contrasts, correlations, or similar measures. For reasons why the effect size paradigm is superior to the p level paradigm, see Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991). For guidance on how to use the effect size paradigm to facilitate research In environmental psychology, see Summa Contra Pisces at http:llhome.aMnetl -leq. in all tables, it means an average of responses for the level of each factor indicated, d means the contrast between two levels (obtained by simple subtraction), that is divided by the square root of the MSE for the experiment. Examples of how to do these simple calculations are shown in Winer et al. (1991)• The correlation is calculated from d according to the equation r = d /v,(377T). Also, "p" is changed to "a ", because, statistically, there are two probability levels to consider when doing research: the a level and the 6level. What social scientists are apt to label "p" is the a level, or the probability of reporting a false positive (e.g.. confusing random noise with an actual effect} Focusing only on the a level and ignoring the 5 level (the probability of missing something) leads to disastrous, systemic mistakes in planning reporting and synthesizing scientific findings (American Psychological Association, 20111, Section 130; Cohen, 1988; Hedges & olkin,1985). Accordingly, the tables report the findings in terms oft" measures of effect sizes (d and r), for the convenience of readers, and report a levels as "a" rather than "p ", so as not conftrse a and 9 probabilities. Table 2 Study 1 standardized mean contrasts for visual appeal, MSE =1.75. Factor:.: Levels .i: is d r F.(1,1410):.. a Infill ratio 1.15 3.41, ...`'002 ' . ` 001 . `:C'006 0.81 132 3.38 132 338 =095 -a03 =; :044 0.51 :152 :347 ;1.52 3.47OA2 -091 077 078 1,11.74 3 51 ;0.01 - :: OAO 007 0.93 2.00 ' ;3.50 ." 115 3,41 -005 -0.03 036% b.55 2,00 3,50 Infill size 1590 3.61 • 0.09 OAS ` : 1.11. 0.29 1723 3x45. 17.23 345 -0.01 OAO 0A2 0.96 19.79 396 19 79 3 46 OA0 , ..; ` .000 0.00 ::: 0.98 22.74 3 46 22.74. ., .346 009 0.05 139 0.24 26.12 330 15Ap 361 017 009 44 5 0.03 2612 3 30 114 JL Nasar, AA Stamps, 10 / Joumal of ftArt nmental Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 magnitude smaller. The contrasts show small effect sizes for infill style and distance controlled, would infill ratio have a larger effect size and infill ratio. on visual appeal (Study 2)7 2.3. Discussion The effect of distance on compatibility suggests that as the more distance to an infill house increased, its compatibility increased. Thus, immediate neighbors might care more about an infill house than residents living further away. As for infill size and ratio, the results varied with the rating scale. For compatibility, the larger effect size for infill ratio agrees with the Weber — Fechner law. In further agreement, contrasts between adjacent levels of infill ratio generally had medium to large effects. Contrasts for adjacent level of size had small effects. Visual appeal had a low correlation with compatibility. People's ratings of visual appeal depended more on the overall style of the block than infill ratio, which did not have a substantially different effect size from infill size. These findings agree with research on facade coherence and differences in preference across styles (Nasar,1989; Nasar & Devlin, 1989; Stamps, 1994). The dominance of style in relation to visual appeal and the effects related to distance suggests two follow -up questions. With 132 r ^i 3. Study 2: infill size, and infill ratio, with style and distance controlled Study 1 showed the expected effects for compatibility but not for visual appeal. Study 2 sought to find 1L with style and distance controlled, visual appeal depended more on the ratio of the size of the infill house to its context than on its absolute size. Following the Weber— Fechner law, we expected a larger effect for infill ratio. 3.1. Method 11.1 Stimuli and experimental design This experiment used the 18 images shown in Fig. 3. Each one shows a color one -point perspective of one side of a suburban block with one infill house inserted in the middle. Each street had houses of one of two styles used in Study 1 (Sea Ranch and Ranch). Distance from observer was controlled by using one -point perspectives from equal distances to the infill house on each simulated block The infill house on each block had one of three Ratio of facade areas 1:52 iTjy«R .2.00 �a u I �:;• a _ 00 a: On .... W Fig. 3. Study 2 stimuli: infill house varies in size and Infill ratio. J.L Nasar, A.E Stamps, III /Journal of Environmental psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 infill sizes (widths of 7.5 m, 11.4 m,15 m) crossed with one of three infill ratios ( facade areas of 132,1.52, 2.00). To mitigate potential order effects, the study varied the order of presentation of the scenes. 3.1.2. Respondents 38 people (21 Females, 16 males,1 none report, mean age 37.5 years, 11.2 SD) took part in this study. The sample had more homeowners (68.4%) than renters (28.9%), more Caucasians (84.2%) than other races (13.1 %), more singles (50.0 than married (39.5 %) or separated, widowed or divorced (7.9%), and more people with no children at home (55.3 %1 Most had college educations (44.7 or more (26.4 %), but some of them had some college (23.7 or a highs school degree (2.6%), and a median reported income of $80,000- $100,000. 3.13. Tasks Participants received the same instructions and forms as in Study 1, except that they viewed and rated the 18 scenes for Study 2 for visual appeal. 32. Results As expected, the results showed trivial effects related to style (chosen because of the similar visual ratings in Study 1). The results of the within subjects variance component of the general linear model also echoed the findings from Study 1. For visual appeal, infill size and infill ratio did not matter; nor did style. None of the vari- ables achieved statistical significance or explained more than 0.02% of the variance. Table 3 shows the contrasts for style, infill size and infill ratio. It shows a small difference between the two styles. Effect sizes for infill ratio and infill size are similar. Effects were so small that only one finding achieved a conventional "p < 0,05" level even with 643 degrees of freedom for error. 3.3. Discussion For visual appeal. Study 2 had similar results to Study 1. Changes in infill ratio or infill size did not have much effect, even with style and distance controlled. Both studies tested changes in infill size and infill ratio up to 2.00 (Le. both the sizes and ratios tested doubled). While these sizes and ratios evoked expected responses for compatibility, they did not for visual appeal. The practical implication is that design guidelines drawing on the criteria used to create the blocks in Fig. 2 would not be efficacious. Perhaps larger infill sizes and ratios are needed to see If infill sizes and ratios Table 3 Study 2 standardized mean contrasts for visual appeal, MSE =1.71. .Factor':.: ' '' level,. µ d r F.(1.643) . a InLll faRO '.; 1�3L :'- 30.7 :•' 11.11 - -; U W :: 1 W :: V.L /: 152 346 ;152 3 ..Q.031 Q01 QOS 0.78 - 132 363 Q13 007 194 0.16: 2; _ 3 42 InRll;size 7.5 351 -` 012 006 )76 019: 91.4 332 :.._ 114 3.32 =a2A Q12" . "586 0,02 75 : 368 '. 7.5 3 51 -011 QO6 ' ; 120 0.27; Style Sea. Ranch 357 0 OS 004 Ranch 3.44 115 conform to the predictions of the Weber - Fechner law. Study 3 tests larger sizes. 4. Study 3: supersized For supersized infill houses, Study 3 sought to find if compati- bility translated into visual appeal, and if compatibility and visual appeal depended more on the ratio of the size of the infill house to its context than on its absolute size. Following the Weber- Fechner law, we expected the ratio to have a larger effect than the absolute size on both compatibility and visual appeal. 4.1. Method 4.1.1. Stimuli and experimental design Study 3 used three infill sizes (widths of 30.00 m, 39.58 m, and 52.23 m) and three infill ratios (1/2.29,1/3.03, and 1/4.00) repre- senting the ratio of the infill facade area over the existing facade area (Fig. 4). This doubled the size tested in Study 1 and quadrupled the sizes from Study 2. The ratios increase from 1.7 times larger to twice as large as the ratios tested in Studies 1 and 2. Interviews used the same procedures as in Study 1 to obtain ratings of the visual appeal of each scene from some respondents and ratings of compatibility from other respondents, but they responded to the 18 supersized stimuli. 4.1.2. Respondents Fifty people took part in Study 3. Twenty-five (13 females, and 12 males) rated visual appeal. Most said they were homeowners (52.0%), with no children living at home (56.0%). The sample varied in race/ethnicity (68.0% Caucasian, 28.0% African American: 4.0% Hispanic, Asian or other), education (32% with some college or associate degree, 32% college graduates, 16% masters degree, and 4% post graduate degree), and marital status (40.0% married, 48% single, 12% separated, divorced widowed or other). They reported median family income of $40,000- $60,000 (with a range from less than $20,000/year to $100,000 - $120,000/year), and a mean age of 28.9 (8.4 SD) years. Twenty -five (10 females, 15 males) rated compatibility. Most said they were renters (60.0%), with no children living at home (72.0 %). The sample varied in race ethnicity (56% Caucasian, 28% African American, and 16% Latino), education (52.0% with some college or an associates degree, 44% with a bachelor's degree, and 4% with a masters degree), and marital status (36.0% married 44.0% single, and 20% separated, divorced, widowed or otherl The reported family income had a median of $40,000460,000 (ranging from less than $20,000/year to $80,000- $100,000/year), and mean age was 27.0 (5.8 SD) years. For each sample, the interviewer approached up to five persons in any public gathering place on and off campus. 4.1.3. Task Participants received the same instructions and visual appeal or compatibility form used in Study 1, but used it for each of the 18 blocks with supersized infill houses (Fig. 4). As in the previous studies, the order of stimuli was varied across respondents. 4.2. Results For the supersized stimuli, compatibility translated well into visual appeal. The mean scores for compatibility and visual appeal for each block had a high correlation (r= 0.98, p < 0.000). As predicted by the Weber - Fechner law, infill ratio had a larger effect on both visual appeal (r= -0.79, p < 0.05) and compatibility ( -0.76, p < 0.05) than did infill size (r < 0.04, p > 0.05; r= 0.05, p > 0.05 respectively), and the effect of infill ratio decreased as the 116 ;L. Nasar, A.E. Stamps, M1Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 O en M -r U .NI 5: b= a: N 111fiU Mutiple 1/3.03 XE; b J x ! ry 1/4.00 T i�h" I „,„BPS tiu -p-p n N h Fig. 4 Study 3 stimuli: supersized context size increased. For each scale, the results for infill ratio achieved statistical significance (compatibility: F(1, 448)= 238.18, p < 0.000; visual appeal: F (1, 448) = 309.48, p < 0.0001 Infill ratio explained 34.04% of the variance in compatibility and 40.0% of the variance in visual appeal, two orders of magnitude larger than those found for infill size or style. Tables 4 and 5 show the contrasts for compatibility and visual appeal respectively. For each scale, these reveal medium to large effects for infill ratio and small effects for infill size. In addition, the effect of ratios on visual appeal was four magnitudes larger than that obtained for the smaller ratios tested in Study 2. 4,3. Discussion For the supersize houses, visual appeal related to compatibility; and the results agreed with the predictions of the Weber— Fechner law. For both compatibility and visual appeal, infill ratio had larger effects than infill size. The findings suggest a substantially larger negative impact on block appearance from the addition of one such supersized house. The first three studies suggest that the effects of size ratio become noticeable for larger sizes, at which point the effects conform to psychophysics findings. The ratios of size to the context have larger effects than the absolute size of the infill house. IL Nasar, A.E Stamp; 111 / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 Table 4 Study 3 ( supersize) standardized mean contrasts for compatibility. MSE= 0.88. Factor„ . '::`.:.Level levels;.; µ 1. d I,r F(1'44 8). ti . hdU1 nano . ; 329 3.67 176 ;. 0 66 .' : 235.21 6e-43, 2e -45 3.03 144 . 1.64. 103 144 0.56 0.81: 038 ,,'` 52.827 ::, ';1e -12. 400 113 1.1Z 229 367 " 2 - 243 326.00 3e.„ S5. le 68 4A0 113 1.12 -` In611 size 30. c 206 O 11 - %;.0.05. ago 0.37 055 39.58 191 : .2 .28 39.58 181 -023 -012 407 `` .005 068.: 52.23 2Z7 236; 30 2A6 . =013 -0A6 123 0.27 52,23 2.27 '. `i:`236 Ranch 197 X014 =0A8 222 ;;; P.M.; 723 Sea. Ranch '..219 Sea Ranch -:.248 S. Study 4: width and visual appeal The next two studies examined the effects of infill width and infill height on evaluative responses. Height was chosen because a survey of design review guidelines in 270 American cities indi- cated that 71 % of the cities had guidelines for height (Stamps, 2000, p.10). Width was chosen because another survey, this time of 73 British cities, indicated that 62% and 74% of the cities regulated extensions to houses (Stamps, 2000, p. 5). Furthermore, research suggests that the vertical dimension might have more importance (Hayward & Franklin, 1974; Stamps, 2003; Thiel, Harrison, & Alden, 19861 Study 4 centered on visual appeal in relation to width. It sought to discover if visual appeal depended more on the relative width of the infill house to its context than its absolute size, for increases of 33%, 60%, and 100% Following the Weber - Fechner law, we expec- ted the width ratio to have a larger effect than width absolute size. 51. Method 5.1.1. Stimuli and experimental design Study 4 used similar protocols to the earlier studies. It had three infill widths (15 m, 24 m, and 30 m.) and three infill width ratios (61 8, 5/8, and 418); and the widths for the existing houses that varied from 7.5 to 22.5 to fit the desired context for each width and width ratio. The widths are twice as large as the width in Study 2 as a basis for varying overall size; and the ratios represent increases of 33 %, 60% or 100% over the existing widths, are similar to those (32%, 52% and 100 %) in Study 2. A factorial design crossed three levels of infill width x three levels of infill width ratio, with two styles (Ranch and Table 5 Study 3 (supersize) standardized mean contrasts for visual appeal, MSE= 0.94. Ratio of existing fa4ade area over infill fagade area. 117 Sea Ranch) in each cell. Fig. 5 shows black and white photos of the color stimuli. 5.12, Respondents Twenty-six undergraduate students (80.8% male, 11.5% female, 7.7% not reporting their gender) in engineering voluntarily took part in the study. They reported their age on average as 20.9 years (SD = 3.6). 5.1.3. Task Stimuli were presented in a class. The experiment was not an ahead of time, so possible self - selection was controlled. Respondents saw the stimuli in a PowerPoint Show. It had two warm -up images to help respondents calibrate their responses, followed by the eighteen test stimuli. Stimuli were shown until all respondents finished their responses. Average presentation time was about 20 s. Presentation order was randomized with respect to the independent variables. Respondents rated each stimulus on a scale that ranged from 1 (Dislike) to 8 (Like). 5.2. Results For width, all of the variables -infill width, infill width ratio and style -had statistically significant effects (width: F(1, 466) = 12.34, p < 0.000; width ratio: F (1, 466) = 10.23, p < 0.05; style: F (1, 466)= 56.43, p <0.000). Table 6 shows the contrasts. Effect sizes were largest for the two styles. 5.3. Discussion The effects of infill width were small for ratio's ranging from 0.625 to 0.75 (d =023), but increased substantially with higher ratios (d = 0.38 for the difference between 0.5 and 0.751 The same effect was found for infill width, with the smaller changes in width having small effects (d = 0.12 for the contrast between 24 and 30 m, and d = 0.55 for the contrast between 15 and 30 m). These results suggest that, to be effective, controls on width should be applied only to very large differences between existing widths and width of infill construction. 6. Study 5: height and visual appeal Study 5 examined visual appeal in relation to infill height. Would height ratios have larger effects than did width ratios, or would one need larger ratios (similar those in Study 3) to yield meaningful effects of ratios on visual appeal? We expected to find larger effects associated with the height than width changes; and following the Weber - Fechner law, we expected infill height ratio to have a larger effect than infill size. 6.1. Method 6.1.1. Stimuli and experimental design Study 5 used similar protocols to earlier studies but for height It had three infill heights (4, 6, and 8 stories) and three infill height ratios (0.75, 0.50, and 0.25} The infill heights have similar changes to those in the infill widths in Study 4. The infill heights Increase 1.5 (small to medium), 1.33 (medium to large) and 2.0 (small to large); and the infill widths increase 1.6, 1.25 and 2.00 respectively. The infill height ratios represent increases of 33%,100% and 400% over the existing heights. This study replaced a mid level increase in size (60 %) from the width study with a higher one (400 %) for height. The study had a factorial design: infill height (3) x infill height ratio (3), and 2 styles (as before Ranch and Sea Ranch) in each cell. The heights of the existing houses varied from 1 storey to 6 stories to fit levels;.; µ <:_ d r F(1,448)- ti . 1nfill ratio' 229 -' 405: ' 184 i; % 0.68 : ".' 252 .29 2e -45 303 .' 1.64. 3.03 1,64 0.81: 038 ,,'` 52.827 ::, ';1e -12. 400:. 1.1Z 2,29 405' : - 243 .: 0.77 ._- ' 44058 - _ le 68 4.00 1.12 -` Infill size (width) 30.00 m 2.17' OA7. - 0.03 0.37 . ,. 055 39.58 m : .2 .28 ": 39S8.m 2Z8: AS,:: 0A2 : :`: 017 .. 068.: 52.21 rn 236; 011' r L41,05 .: ; 0 94 5223 m. `i:`236 Style. Ranch'; 2A6; 0.25...:: '-0.13 723 a007; -' Sea Ranch -:.248 Ratio of existing fa4ade area over infill fagade area. 117 Sea Ranch) in each cell. Fig. 5 shows black and white photos of the color stimuli. 5.12, Respondents Twenty-six undergraduate students (80.8% male, 11.5% female, 7.7% not reporting their gender) in engineering voluntarily took part in the study. They reported their age on average as 20.9 years (SD = 3.6). 5.1.3. Task Stimuli were presented in a class. The experiment was not an ahead of time, so possible self - selection was controlled. Respondents saw the stimuli in a PowerPoint Show. It had two warm -up images to help respondents calibrate their responses, followed by the eighteen test stimuli. Stimuli were shown until all respondents finished their responses. Average presentation time was about 20 s. Presentation order was randomized with respect to the independent variables. Respondents rated each stimulus on a scale that ranged from 1 (Dislike) to 8 (Like). 5.2. Results For width, all of the variables -infill width, infill width ratio and style -had statistically significant effects (width: F(1, 466) = 12.34, p < 0.000; width ratio: F (1, 466) = 10.23, p < 0.05; style: F (1, 466)= 56.43, p <0.000). Table 6 shows the contrasts. Effect sizes were largest for the two styles. 5.3. Discussion The effects of infill width were small for ratio's ranging from 0.625 to 0.75 (d =023), but increased substantially with higher ratios (d = 0.38 for the difference between 0.5 and 0.751 The same effect was found for infill width, with the smaller changes in width having small effects (d = 0.12 for the contrast between 24 and 30 m, and d = 0.55 for the contrast between 15 and 30 m). These results suggest that, to be effective, controls on width should be applied only to very large differences between existing widths and width of infill construction. 6. Study 5: height and visual appeal Study 5 examined visual appeal in relation to infill height. Would height ratios have larger effects than did width ratios, or would one need larger ratios (similar those in Study 3) to yield meaningful effects of ratios on visual appeal? We expected to find larger effects associated with the height than width changes; and following the Weber - Fechner law, we expected infill height ratio to have a larger effect than infill size. 6.1. Method 6.1.1. Stimuli and experimental design Study 5 used similar protocols to earlier studies but for height It had three infill heights (4, 6, and 8 stories) and three infill height ratios (0.75, 0.50, and 0.25} The infill heights have similar changes to those in the infill widths in Study 4. The infill heights Increase 1.5 (small to medium), 1.33 (medium to large) and 2.0 (small to large); and the infill widths increase 1.6, 1.25 and 2.00 respectively. The infill height ratios represent increases of 33%,100% and 400% over the existing heights. This study replaced a mid level increase in size (60 %) from the width study with a higher one (400 %) for height. The study had a factorial design: infill height (3) x infill height ratio (3), and 2 styles (as before Ranch and Sea Ranch) in each cell. The heights of the existing houses varied from 1 storey to 6 stories to fit 118 e N J.L Nasar, AE Stamps, 111 l Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 618 N fi x w+r � i...:F _. _ Width. ratio :518 _.__ r }- �OW rs 'L 418 i 104 i r� artW LL 4'�iV'i•%.+ =�'�'4x. L Y c $ Fig. S. Study 4 stimuli: 1n611 house varies in width and width ratio. the desired context for each height and height ratio. Fig. 6 shows Table 6 black and white photos of the color stimull. Study 4 (width) standardized mean contrasts on visual appeal. MSE= M. 6.1.2. Respondents hell width ratio r o 750 _: 442 ' 'r 0.76 0,011b. ::. 4 23 0.04 . 22 undergraduate students (72.7% male. 13.6% female, 9.1% not 0,72,7 410 reporting their gender) in engineering voluntarily took part in the 0625 470 010 005 iss 079 study. They reported an average age of 21.6 (SD = 2.0) years. 0,750 ..:0.750. 3 90 a.az ' ` o�7 '-073 '.: sas . ' aoz 6.1.3. Task InBU width 30 444 .. OAS 0.04 0.042.... 0.63 - Stimuli were presented in a class. The experiment was not 2 aze announced ahead of time, so possible self - selection was controlled. z4 4.26 ' . ` 030 015 1433: '. x0001. Stimuli were shown in a PowerPoint Show. Two warm -up images were shown to help respondents calibrate their responses; then 3o aaa :. 037 07e " 1032 0.001 ; each stimulus was shown. Stimuli were shown until all respon- dents finished their responses. Average presentation time was Style sea lunch ; 365 0 o Q24 567 le 73 about 20 s. Presentation order was randomized with respect to the Ranch 452 .' JL Nasar, A.E Stamps, Ill /Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 .75 r I � 00` Height ratio :50 .25 f r LN �L ;o 4 Gil 's ri a s - ML� +C x Fig. 6. Study 5 stimuli: Infill house varies in height and height ratio. N. k ! 119 independent variables. Respondents rated each stimulus on a scale study and width in the previous study yielded the expected results. that ranged from 1 (Dislike) to 8 (Like). The effect size for infill height ratio was larger (d = 0.25 for the 6.2. Results The results of the within subjects variance component of the general linear model agree with the Weber — Fechner law. The overall effect size for infill height ratio was larger than that for infill height. Height ratio explained 4.5% of the variance (F (1, 394) = 30.43, p < 0.001), and infill height explained less than 0.1% of it (F (1, 394) = 15.35, p < 0.001). Table 7 shows the contrasts. Even though the height study included a much larger size than did the width study, infill height did not have a meaningful effect (ds ranged from 0.00 to — (101). Finally, the comparison of effect sizes of the height ratios in this contrast between ratio's of 0.25 and 0.75), and it explained more of the variance (4.5 %) than did width ratio (1.0 %). 6.3. Discussion In agreement with theory and findings for the vertical dimen- sion (Hayward & Franklin, 1974; Stamps, 2003; Thiel et al., 1986). height emerged as more important than width for infill houses. Infill height ratios had larger effects on visual appeal than did infill width ratio. The findings also agreed with the Weber — Fechner law. Height ratio had a larger effect than absolute height Similar to width, and even considering the larger height, abso- lute infill height had trivial effects on visual appeal. If the findings ;A "' � z u ,n Q. T. I IN In � 1�1 LN �L ;o 4 Gil 's ri a s - ML� +C x Fig. 6. Study 5 stimuli: Infill house varies in height and height ratio. N. k ! 119 independent variables. Respondents rated each stimulus on a scale study and width in the previous study yielded the expected results. that ranged from 1 (Dislike) to 8 (Like). The effect size for infill height ratio was larger (d = 0.25 for the 6.2. Results The results of the within subjects variance component of the general linear model agree with the Weber — Fechner law. The overall effect size for infill height ratio was larger than that for infill height. Height ratio explained 4.5% of the variance (F (1, 394) = 30.43, p < 0.001), and infill height explained less than 0.1% of it (F (1, 394) = 15.35, p < 0.001). Table 7 shows the contrasts. Even though the height study included a much larger size than did the width study, infill height did not have a meaningful effect (ds ranged from 0.00 to — (101). Finally, the comparison of effect sizes of the height ratios in this contrast between ratio's of 0.25 and 0.75), and it explained more of the variance (4.5 %) than did width ratio (1.0 %). 6.3. Discussion In agreement with theory and findings for the vertical dimen- sion (Hayward & Franklin, 1974; Stamps, 2003; Thiel et al., 1986). height emerged as more important than width for infill houses. Infill height ratios had larger effects on visual appeal than did infill width ratio. The findings also agreed with the Weber — Fechner law. Height ratio had a larger effect than absolute height Similar to width, and even considering the larger height, abso- lute infill height had trivial effects on visual appeal. If the findings 120 J.L Nasar, A.E Stamps, 111l Journal ojEmdronmental Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 'table 7 Study 5 (height) standardized mean contrasts for visual appeal, MSE =1.84 Factor .:.: - aevel P :` `'`d r. F(1; 357) lnfill height ratio 0.75 4.33 ": 0.06 V!031'0,17 0.88; `.,0,5 ::,0.5 1 426 . ; 652 A25 .29.30 3e 0 '0.25 ' 3,39 0.75 433 OSS 026 :27A4 7e =40 InSil height 4 stories ; ; 401. .'; ; 0.02 0. 01 0,05 0,817 6. 3 97 6. 397 -0,02 -00 0.03 0855 :18 4.00, 4 4 04 0 01 -'0 00 0.002 0969. .8. 400 Style Sea Ranch .` 426 "- 031 0.15 15,74 8e -05 Ranch `: '' 372 .:. for width and height apply to real -world conditions, they suggest that controls of the absolute width or height of lnfill houses (up to the sizes tested) will not maintain or enhance visual appeal. Earlier studies suggest that the fit of the style to its context is more important for both compatibility and visual appeal. However, controls for the relative size of the infill house to its context, particularly for the condition when an infill house is twice as tall or taller than the existing houses, would be efficacious. 7. Study 6: flittingness of infill style and infill ratio In the five previous studies, all houses on a block had the same style. In this study, the style of the infill house was either the same or different from the style of the existing houses. As many communities use design review, and in particular for historic districts, we assume that part of that review tries to control the fit of the infill style with its context. How important is the fit of the style to its context? Is it more important to control style than size ratio? In addition to investigating differences in style, this study also varied the infill ratios. As in Studies 2 through 5, it kept distance controlled. The study design allowed a test of the relative importance of infill style and infill ratio (for the smaller ratios), and whether in these conditions compatibility translates into visual appeal. Our previous findings led us to expect that style would have a larger effect than ratio and that compatibility (for these small ratios) would not translate into visual appeal. 7.1. Method 7.1.1. Stimuli and experimental design Study 6 used similar protocols to Study 2. The stimulus set had the same three infill ratios (1.15, 1.52 and 2.00) used in Study 2, but changed the styles from two compatible styles (Sea Ranch and Ranch) to mixes of popular or nostalgic styles (Sea lunch, Sea Side), and a "high" or modern style (I Beam). Blocks were constructed using one size of existing house (the smallest size, 7.5 m wide),Infill houses were then inserted into the middle of the block to mix or match style or to have a ratio of existing to new construction. The experimental design had existing style (3) x lnfill style (3) x infill size (3), for a factorial design with 27 stimuli. Because the experi- mental design was completely balanced, it was possible to estimate how strongly a contrast in style (infill style matches or does not match existing style) by simply looking at the stimuli, deciding which images showed infill styles that matched or did not match the existing style, and subtracting the average responses to images with matching styles from images with different styles. This number then becomes the contrast of same vs, different style. Fig 7 shows black and white versions of the stimuli. 7.12. Respondents Fifty people participated in Study 5. 25 people (542% male, 45.8% female) rated compatibility, and 25 people (56.0% male, 40.0% female, 4% no answer) rated the visual quality. For the compatibility and visual quality respectively, the samples had more Caucasians (80%, 68 %) than other raciallethnic groups (20%, 22 %), no children living at home (68.0 %, 70.8 %), a median family income of $20,000 440,000, and a larger percentage of people with some college (compatibility: 44% some college; 20% college graduate; 12% higher degree; and 24% high school graduate; visual appeal: 66% some college; 20% college graduate; 8% higher degree; 12% high school graduate). The compatibility group had more (583 %) renters and a somewhat younger sample, mean age 36.6 (13.0 yearsl while the visual appeal group had more homeowners (66.0 %) and a somewhat older group, 42.9 (SD 15.5) years old. Sampling took place in public gathering places, with five or fewer interviews per location. 7.2. Results Compatibility did translate into visual appeal. Across the 27 stimuli we found a high correlation between the mean values for rated compatibility and rated visual quality (r= 0.85, p < 0.000). In addition, the results showed that fitting in made a difference in both compatibility and visual appeal. For compatibility, the fit of the infill style carried the most weight: The within subjects vari- ance component of the general linear model showed that people rated the infill styles that replicated their context as more compatible than those that differed from it (F (1, 673) = 253.09, p <0.000). The fit of infill style had the largest effect (explaining 23.7% of the variances four times larger than the effect of infill ratio (48 %). Table 8 shows the contrasts for compatibility. For infill style, Same had a higher compatibility score than did Different, repre- senting a medium to large effect size; even though the compati- bility of each style did not differ and had trivial effects. For infill ratio, as the ratios increased compatibility scores decreased, rep- resenting a small to medium size effect Visual appeal showed a similar pattern of response but with smaller effects. The fit of infill style mattered more than infill ratio: the within subjects variance componentof the general linear model showed that people judged the infill styles that replicated their context as more appealing than those that differed from it (F (1, 673) = 71.53, p <0.000). Style had the larger effect (explaining 8.2% of the variance), while infill ratio explained 0.75% of the variance. Table 9 shows the contrasts. The Different style had a lower visual appeal score than did the Same style. Style had a small to medium - sized effect, while infill ratio had small effects. 7.3. Discussion Respondents responded primarily to stylistic differences. The fit of the style had large effects on compatibility and medium effects on visual appeal Relative sizes had medium -sized effects on compatibility but this did not translate into visual appeal, where relative size had small effects. However, as shown in Study 3, larger infill ratios might have larger effects. Still, the results suggest that communities should try to control the fit of the style of the infill building to its context & Summary Study 1 sought to discover if compatibility translated into visual appeal. it also examined the effect of the ratio of the infill house size to its context, its absolute size, its style, and the distance to it on compatibility and visual appeal It found that that style dominated (particulady for visual appeal) and that distance made the infill J.L Nasar, AA Stamps, Ill / Journal of Em4ronmental Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 Linear Ratio with.;respect to 7.5m (e) Style (n) Style 1.15 1..52 2.00 Sea Ranch. Sea. Ranch Fig. 7. Study 6 stimuli: infill house varies in size ratio and fit between styles. 121 B Sea Side H 1 Beam -A Sea Side:. Sea: Ranch Sea Side .. .... F I Beam Beam Sea. R, anch _ C I Beam G Fig. 7. Study 6 stimuli: infill house varies in size ratio and fit between styles. 121 122 Jl Nasar, AE Stamps, ill /journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 Table 8 Study 6 (style fit) standardized mean contrasts for compatibility, MSE = 221. Factor '.' .' _.'L.evels.. - p - d r F: -:: : R(1, 648) _ `:a Infill ratio., ;115 '. `3,95 . - ...'0,10 0.05 ;1.69 '0.19 1.52 <_ 3.76 Sea Side .3.76 035 077 `.23.24 1e.6- 2.00 3.09 115 .3.95 Q43 021 37.47 1e -9•: 2.00::;_ 3.09. Infill style Same. 3 .41 0 03 0.48 366.65 1e =64 Different 2.88 Infill ratio, Sea side. 3.43 -0.26 -0,13 0.18 0.89 „ Sea Ranch ; .3.95 Sea Ranch 395 027. 0.13 Q12 073 - 1 Beam 3.43 Sea Side ...'3.42 ° -0.01 -0.00 0.00 9!95 1 Beam 3.43 b. Table 9 Study 6 (style fit) standardized mean contrasts for visual appeal, MSE = 2.15. Factor : : levels ` µ d r F: -:: : R(1, 648) _ `:a Infill style.. Same r 4.04 059 028 87.68 - 1e -19 Different 3.04 Sea Side 3.41 , -0.03 0.02 ]436 2e 4: Sea Ranch 3.47 Sea Ranch ?3.47 < 0,02 0.008 0.026 0.87. I Beam 336 Sea Side 3 .41 0 03 0.01 ]5,60 1e -4 ; 1 -Beam. , 336 Infill ratio, 7.15 3.45 -0.08 -0.04 0.86 0.77. 152 _? 3.58 1.52- -' 358 022 , OL11 7.63 Q006., z.00.``: .120 115 ;:? 3,45 0.14 007 335 OA7 200.:;: 320 b. houses less disruptive. Study 2 controlled for style and distance and focused on visual appeal to examine the relative importance for visual appeal of the ratio of the size of the infill house to its context and its absolute size. Both Studies 1 and 2 found small effect sizes for the size variables. Study 3 used larger sizes and ratios to test the effect of ratio and absolute size on compatibility and visual appeal, and to see if, at this larger scale, compatibility translated into visual appeal. The results fit expectations. Compatibility did translate into visual appeal, and size ratios had larger size effects than did absolute sizes. Next, we tested the effects of width (Study 4) and height (Study 5) sizes and ratios. Ratios again had the larger effects. Study 6 compared compatibility and visual appeal of house style and house size ratio, and confirmed the relative importance of style. 9. Conclusion The six studies suggest that style and the fit of infill style to its context affects compatibility and visual appeal. People judge infill styles that fit their context as more compatible and appealing than styles that differ from their context. As for the Weber - Fechner law, ratings of compatibility agreed with its prediction. Infill ratios had larger effects than did infill sizes on compatibility. This effect generalized to visual appeal in two conditions: (1) controls of height ratio; and (2) ratios larger than 2.28. For a more precise understanding of the ratios that matter, research could compare logarithmic ratios with other non - linear functions suggested by psychophysical researchers (laming, 1991; Stevens, 1936). For application the findings of the six studies suggest that controls for the contextual fit of the style would have favorable effects on compatibility and visual appeal. Controls for the relative size of the infill house would have favorable effects on compatibility, and, for ratios larger than 2.28 they would also have favorable effects on visual appeal. Controls of absolute size, whether through size, width, or height, may not be worth the effort. They did not produce any meaningful effect on compatibility or visual appeal. In five of the studies all existing houses on each test block had the same architectural style and same size. While homogeneous, the simulations are similar to much housing development in the U.S. Due to codes, developer and consumer preferences, many blocks have houses of similar size, with minor variations in style. Nevertheless, infill houses on blocks with more variation in style, setback, vegetation and size of houses may have different effects from those found here. Recall that Stamps (1999a) found that people responded more negatively to a taller building relative to buildings of uniform height than to buildings of mixed heights. Because the effects of style or size ratio relate to the context, we would expect that more variation among the existing houses would reduce the negative effect of infill styles or size ratios, However, neighbors immediately affected on a daily basis by an infill house may react more intensely than the less involved observers tested in these studies. To untangle such real -world issues, one would need to gauge neighbors' reactions to various sizes and styles of infill houses in relation to their real -world context. In certain historic districts, no tear-down infill house would be desirable. Given the tax benefits of infill houses, and the need of certain cities and inner ring suburbs for additional income, communities may want to find a way to accommodate infill houses without sacrificing appearance. If the findings hold, they suggest that communities should try to maintain stylistic consistency, and limit the size of infill houses to less than roughly twice the size of the neighboring houses. Alternatively, they could simulate the infill house in its context and test responses to see how it affects compatibility and visual quality. A well - designed house may both fit in and contribute to the overall appearance of the block. Subsequent tests of the character of the infill that results from such policies can fine -tune the policy for the particular neighborhood context This can build a better knowledge base on the perceived evaluative quality of infill houses to maintain or improve the visual appeal of the area to residents and visitors. References American Psychological Assodation. (2001 } Publication manual of theAmerican Psycho- logical Association (5th ed.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Burchell, R. W, Listokin, D, & Gallwey, C C. (20001 More than a ghost of urban policy past, less than a bold new horizon. Housing Policy Debate, 11, 821 -878. Burchell, R. W., & Mukherl, S. (2003). Conventional development versus managed growth: the costs of sprawl. American Journal of FubUc Health, 93,15341540. Cohen, J. (19881 Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dehaene, S. (20031 The neural basis of the weber - Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7,145 -146. Glick, M. (2006). McManslon Envy #019. http: /Pa.curbecLcom/arcWves /2006105/ mcmansion- emy- 16.php. Accessed 03.06.06. Gregson, R. A. M. (1991). Dead men tell odd simple talesl. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14,187 -188. Hayward, S. C, & Franklin, S. S. (1974). Perceived openness - endosure of architec- tural space. Environment and Behavior, 6, 37 -52. Hedges, L V., & Olkin, 1. (19851 Statistical methods for meta - analysis. Orlando. FL: Academic Press, Hinshaw, M. L (2002). Monster Houses? Nol. Planning 68, 25 -27. Huxtable, A L (1997). The linrealAmeriw: Architecture and Illusion. New York: New Press. Kending, L (20041 Too big boring or ugly: Planning and design tools to combat monotony, the too -big house and tear - downs. Planning advisory service report number 528. Chicago, JL• American Planning Association. Krueger, L E. (1991). Psychophysical law: toward taming the cognitive and chaotic aspects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14,193 -199. Laming D. (1991) Reconciling Fedrner and Stevens Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14,188 -191. ling, R. E., & Danielsen, K A. (2002). Monster houses? Yesl. Planning 68,24-26. Mandelker, D. ( 1993). Land use law, Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Co. Meck, S, & Pearlman, K (2004). Ohio planning and zoning law. SC Paul, MN: Thompson West A Nasar, AA Stamps, 111/journal of Enviroamenhrl Psychology 29 (2009) 110 -123 Midna, O. V, & Abraham, E D. (2003). The use of fractals for the study of the psychology of perception: psychophysics and personality factors, a brief report International Journal of Madem Physics C. 14,1047 -1060. Montgomery, D. C. (1997). Design and analysis of experiments. NY: Wiley. Nasar, J. L (1987). Effects ofsignscape complexity and coherence an the perceived visual quality of retail scenes.Joumal of the American Planning Association, 53, 499 -509. Nazar, J. L (1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21, 235 -257. Nasar, J. L (1994). Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26, 377 -401. Nasar, J. L (1998). The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nasar, J. L, & Devlin, K. (1989). Beauty and the beast: some preliminary comparisons of "popular" vs. "high" architecture and public vs. architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 333 -344. Nasar, J. L, & Evans - Cowley, J. (2007). McMansions: the extent and regulation of super -sized houses. Journal of Urban Design, 12,339-358. National Association of Home Builders. (2002). Characteristics of new shigle fmnily homes (1987-2001). http:// www. nahborg /generir-aspx7genericContendD =374 8aectionlD= 130&print =true. Accessed 25.06.04. Norwich, K H. (1987). On the theory of Weber fractions. Perception and Psycho - physics, 42, 286 -298. O'Brien, K (2004). Australia's relationship with UK, US scrutinized. http: / /www.abc. netau /7.30 /conteM/2004/sl222544.htm. Accessed 03.06.06. Rosenthal. R, & Rosnow, R. L (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw -Hill. Smardon, R. C, & Karp, J. P. (1993). The legal landscape: Guidelines for regulating environmental and aesthetic quality. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, Stamps, A. E (1993). Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 38,115 -132. Stamps, A. E (1994). A study in scale and character: contextual effects on envi- ronmental preferences Journal of Environmental Management 42, 223 -245. i"I Stamps, A. E. (1999a). Defining blodt character. Environment and Planning B, 26, 685 -710. Stamps, A. E (19996). Demographic effects in environmental preferences: a meta - analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14,155 -175. Stamps, A. E. (2000). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Stamps. A. E (2003). Permeability and spatial enclosure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96,1305-1310. Stevens, S. S. (1936). A scale for the measurement of psychological magnitude: loudness. Psychological Review, 43,405-416. Szold, T. S. (2005} Mansionizadon and Its discontents: planners and the challenge of regulating monster homes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71, 189 -231. Takahashi, T Oono, H., & Radford, M. H. B (2008). Psychophysics of time perception and intertemporal choice models. Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 387(8 -9), 2056 -2074. Thiel, P., Harrison, E. D. & Alden, S. R. (19861 The perception of spatial enclosure as a function of the position ofarchitecutral surfaces. Ehvironmentand Behavior, 18, 227 -245. US Census Bureau. (2003).Squarefootage offloorarea in new one- fmnflyhouses completed. http: / /www. census gov /const/C25Ami/dtowsgft.pdf. Accessed 25.06.04. US Census Bureau, American Community Survey. (2007). More houses have more bedrooms, mobile homes more prevalent in the south, townhomes in the mid Ationtic. http: //www.census.gav/ Press- Releasetwww /releases /archives/ american- community -survey -acs /010107.html. Accessed 09.07.07. Wasserman, G. S. (1991). Neural and behavioral assessments of sensory quality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14,192 -193. Winer B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw -Hill. Wohlwill, J. F. (1982). The visual Impact of development in coastal zone areas Coastal Zone ManagementJournal, 9, 225 -248. Heather Branigin From: J4classic @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 201412;05 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Birchcrest Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Dear Mayor Hovland Jim, I am witting to express my thanks for you understanding and support for the repair of the concrete streets in the Birchcrest Neighborhood. I think that you did your best and acted with the best intentions for the residents and the City. I do not feel like I lost the battle. I feel more that the City has lost the battle. After all, I will get a new street. totally understand the bias the engineers have for asphalt streets. They can almost always say it is cheaper and easier to install and maintain. But the point was lost in last nights discussion that asphalt has many maintenance steps that are needed to extend its useful life to that of concrete. For example, staff indicated that about every five years, the asphalt street would need to be seal coated. After 15 years it will need a mill and overlay which starts the seal coat process over again. After thirty years the street will need to be replaced. So what about concrete? In that same thirty year period, concrete streets may need some minor crack and after thirty years some of the concrete may need to be areas replaced which would then extend the life if the street for another thirty years. Fifty to sixty year of service from a concrete street is very typical. I do agree that there are situations where concrete fails badly such as on Tracy but there is more to that story that should be evaluated to determine why it failed. Putting asphalt back over the street may fail just as fast or faster than the concrete. Enough, sorry to rattle on but I truly feel that the City will be loosing an asset in exchange for future pot holes and maintenance. Thanks again for your support. Judd Rietkerk 6109 Tingdale Heather Branigin From: Paul Manley < pmanley @northiandcapitalmarkets.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 23,2014 12:53 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Grandview Property To the Members of the Edina City Council, As longtime resident of Edina, I am quite concerned about the Grandview District possible development. I encourage the City Council to vote for proceeding with the Request for Interest which calls for engaging a consultant to look at ideas for the former Public Works site located at Eden Avenue. I strongly oppose the idea of working with a developer as the developer will not take into consideration what our residents want. He will only do what will put the most money into his firms pockets. I believe our great city of Edina has fallen behind other communities when it comes to a "City Community Center ". We need to have a new facility built as our current "Community Center" does not meet standards we should have in Edina. There is also a need for more meeting/class rooms, gyms, and work out facilities. Sincerely, Paul Manley 6654 Parkwood Road Paul M. Manley Vice President- Institutional Sales Northland Capital Markets Direct- 612.851.5948 Cell- 612.834.1804 Trading- 800.851.4595 AOL IM: pmanleyns pmanleyO- northla ndcapitalmarkets. com ORTULAD CAPITAL, MARKETS 45 South 7th Street Suite 2000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Northland Securities does not accept buy, sell, or cancel orders by email, or any Instructions by email that would require your signature. Please use the links below for Important disclosures regarding electronic communications with Northland Securities and Its related companies. Heather Braniain From: MICHELE VANDERSALL <vmtj @me.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 20141:59 PM Toc Edina Mail Subject Grandview,Square I urge the City to further exploration and refine potential projects and amenities for the former Public Works site before proceeding with a development partner; Perhaps we could build a school to which-ALL EDINA, TAXPAYERS' children would have access! Michele Vandersall PARKWOOD KNOLLS vmtv(aMacxom Do good. Heather Branigin From: Charles Flinn <charlesflinn3rd @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 2:04 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Grand View Input Dear City Council, I am asking the Council to delay partnering with a private developer until the potential community uses for the GrandView site are thoroughly analyzed. I believe that the site should be redeveloped with full input from the Edina community. I personally am frustrated. with the lack of restaurant options -in the Edina area west of highway .100. I also believe at least part of the redevelopment of the Grandview area should include casual restaurants, that cater to families. As a father of two teens I also a strong supporter of including space where teens could gather. Thank you, Charles Flinn i Heather Braniain From: Jasmine Hoedeman <jhoedeman @comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April-23,2014 2:51 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Opinion on Grandview Square I understand that there is some potential decisions being made on a partner to help develop this unused city property. I wanted to express my thoughts, ideas & concerns: 1. 1 do not-think the city should, elect a "partner" until there is SPECIFIC direction and agreement from the city taxpayers on the space use (ie, community center, etc) 2. 1 am concerned about the school bus depot being moved & the cost this would cause taxpayers — I live in the Hopkins school district & 1- cannot understand why Edina schools will not allow our area to annex but wants EVERYONE to cover the costs of moving the public school bus depot. And, is this really necessary? 3. 1 look at other communities around ours & see so many new facilities popping.up that.not only serve the community directly, but also through revenue - generating options (ie, pool passes, space rental, etc). Thank you for your time. Jasmine Hoedeman (5017 Kelsey Terrace, Edina) 1 r. Heather Braniain From: Jasmine Hoedeman <jhoedeman @comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April-23,2014 2:51 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Opinion on Grandview Square I understand that there is some potential decisions being made on a partner to help develop this unused city property. I wanted to express my thoughts, ideas & concerns: 1. 1 do not-think the city should, elect a "partner" until there is SPECIFIC direction and agreement from the city taxpayers on the space use (ie, community center, etc) 2. 1 am concerned about the school bus depot being moved & the cost this would cause taxpayers — I live in the Hopkins school district & 1- cannot understand why Edina schools will not allow our area to annex but wants EVERYONE to cover the costs of moving the public school bus depot. And, is this really necessary? 3. 1 look at other communities around ours & see so many new facilities popping.up that.not only serve the community directly, but also through revenue - generating options (ie, pool passes, space rental, etc). Thank you for your time. Jasmine Hoedeman (5017 Kelsey Terrace, Edina) 1 Heather Braniain From: Rosalie.Goldberg <riw1121 @earthlink.net> Sent Wednesday, April 23, 2014 5:11 PM To: , Edina Mail Subject: Re: Birchcrest B Neighborhood Roadway,Reconstruction Thank you for -your assistance in this matter. -- Rosalie and Fred Goldberg- - P.S. Sorry,you hit my spniblocker!! On Apr 21, 2014; at 9:05 AM, Edina Mail wrote: Dear Rosalie and Fred, Thank you for your interest in the City of Edina. 1-have forwarded your message to'Mayor Hovland. If I can be of additional assistance to you please contact me. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist <� e001. 952-927-86611 Fax 952- 828 -0389 IbiunnoCalEdinaMN.00v I www.EdlnaMN.aov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Rosalie Goldberg rrnai Ito: riw1121(alearthlink. net ] Sent:. Sunday, April 20, 2014 10:45 PM To: Edina Mail; Mary Brindle; jonibennett120comcast.net; ioshsprague4edinarealtv.com; swensonanniftmail.com Cc: Mike and Linda Dammon; md6rin-m6ri alhotmall.com; Fred Goldberg; Bonnie LeRoy, Shelly Kanwar Subject: Blrchcrest B Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Dear Mayor Hovland and Members of the City Council, am writing in response to the notification, received on Saturday, April 19; 2014, of the presentation of recommendations for the street - project in our neighborhood to the City Council on Tuesday, Aprill 22, 2014. I was in attendance at the council meeting back in December that discussed the various road projects that are occurring this summer where we were allowed to offer our. opinions. Unfortunately, I had to leave before I could offer comments as it was a work night for me and the meeting ran very late. Although we have only lived in the neighborhood for the past 7 years, my husband and I are very displeased with the idea of replacing our concrete roads with bituminous. We are also upset that we will be assessed approximately $12,000 for a project that does not seem to be a wise choice for our neighborhood. 1 4 g Our preference is the option to repair the concrete roads instead and are in complete agreement with the email.that was sent to you by Linda and Mike Damman. Repair of the concrete seems to be a much better 4. option as well as a much better long -term solution for our neighborhood. - We urge you to select Schedule A and Schedule C as the best path forward for those who live on and use these streets on a daily basis. Respectfully and sincerely, Rosalie and Fred Goldberg 6104 Tingdale.Ave. i i a 2 Heather:Braniain From: Vickman, Scott J. (US - Minneapolis) <svickman @deloitte.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 20145:2.2 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Grandview District Development . To the Members of the Edina City Council, 1 I'am writing to you with respect to an upcoming decision to be made by the Edina City Council regarding the Grandview District development. I would like to ask the City Council to vote in favor: of proceeding with the Request for Interest which calls for engaging a consultant to further refine the type of potential projects to consider for the former Public Works site located at 5146 Eden Avenue. I understand, based on the results of the resident survey. conducted by Morris Leatherman in January 2014, the " "Community. Facility Inventory for the Grandview District Project" completed in February 2014, and the majority- opinion of the Grandview "District Community Advisory Team, there is much more work that needs to done to define the best public amenities for this city -owned site before proceeding with a private sector development partner. There are clearly a wide range of possible uses for this valuable site. I personally find the concept of a city - owned fitness center /workout facility or children's indoor play and recreation area to be the most intriguing. Therefore, it is premature to engage with a private developer before the needs of the site have been more fully defined by the community. I hope you take this into consideration and take the time to make the right decision for all of the citizens of Edina and their interests. Sincerely, Scott Vickman 5029 Green Farms Road * * ** *Any tax advice included In this written or electronic communication was not. intended or written to, be used, and it cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that "may be imposed on the taxpayer by any governmental taxing authority or agency**.**.* .: This message (Including any attachments) contains confidential information Intended for a specific.indlvidual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you,should delete this message and any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, by you is strictly prohibited. v.T.1 1 r, Heather Branigin From: Bruce Jacobson <bjacobson @cuningham.com> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 9:18 AM To: 4 Edina Mail; Scott Neal Cc: 'Bob Close' Subject: FW: Highway air rights project, Attachments: Commissioner Zelle Letter, Fisher.pdf Mayor Hovland and Mr. Neal; Good morning— the key messages] hope to convey.via this email include: 1— through participation with the Minneapolis Downtown Council 2025 Plan / Development Committee, we have had an opportunity.to study an aggressive, but feasible strategy to capture and /or create unused land adjacent to and over the "top of the major freeway connections throughout the metro area 2 — this pilot project /study, brings focus to a potential land bridge /connection between the U of M and downtown Minnapolis (also connecting Cedar Riverside) 3—on . e of the Architecture /U.rban Design Studios at the U (led by Mic Johnson — interim Director of the Metropolitan Design Center),modeled,this downtown-district and provided a much more detailed baseline for further analysis. 47- at the same;time, Bob Close and I were asked to participate with Mic and Tom Fisher as Research Fellows at the Metropolitan Design Center 5 —all of this led to a series of meetings with key stakeholders including Commissioner Zelle, President Kayler, CPED Leadership and others — hosted by Tom Fisher and the Metropolitan Design Center Team ... please read the attached letter from Tom: Fisher;to.Commissioner Zelle to get a sense of where this is heading 6- a preliminary financial'feasibility study has been prepared by Jones Lang Lasalle; presenting some very compelling numbers that not only support this project, but also illustrate how this strategy might be applied to other locations around the Metro 7 —the Grandview >District Development Framework included recommendations for a pedestrian bridge connection over Highway 100 and also,(through meetings with MnDot as part of the planning process) talked about closing /reconfiguring r some,of the.highway ramps based on safety, access, land value /revenue generation and other considerations 8 -the Metropolftan,Design Center (including Bob and myself) is prepared to offer assistance to further explore possibilities for bridging the freeway, capturing underutilized land, perhaps also integrating transit/parking and other infrastructure needs for the district and the surrounding neighborhoods Bob and .I would like to meet with you (no more than an hour of your time) to show you the East Downtown Minneapolis 'Pilot Project', the financial report, and then talk about how this might support /enhance objectives for redevelopment of the Grandview District.. Are you interested and can we set up a time to meet? Thanks for your kind attention to this emaili Regards, Bruce From: Tom Fisher. fmailto:tfisherCalumn.edul Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 5:37 PM To: charlie.zelle0state.mmus Cc: Mic Johnson Subject: Highway air rights project 1 Dear Charlie, Please see the attached letter as a follow -up to our conversation about leveraging the air rights above our urban highways. Let us know if this is something that you would be interested'in further exploring. Best, Tom Thomas Fisher, Professor and Dean College of Design University of Minnesota 101 Rapson Hall. 89 Church' Street'S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455 612- 626 -9068 telephone 612 -625 -7525 - fax tfish mn.edu - email www:design.umn.edu - web ®MnDesignDean - Twitter 7 2 UNIVERSITY 01 MIN.NESOTAA Twin CNles Campus College ofDexlgn April 23, 20.14 Charles Zelle'Commission. Minnesota- Department of Transportation Transportation Building 395.John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 -1899 Dear Charlie: 101 Ralph Rapson Nall 39 Chin•rh Strecu Soinheast Minneapolis, ARV 55455 Qljlee: 611- 616 -9063 fat: 612- 6154523 m6c.d.esign.0 nn.edu Thank you, again; for your interest in the highway air= rights project over I -35W between Downtown East and the West Bank: We'really appreciate you and your staff taking the time to visit the Metropolitan Design Center to give us your input on the project and your supportive remarks: at the event in the IDS Crystal Court. We would like to explore with you how the University might help MnDQT realize the full potential of the highway right -of -ways and air rights under your control. We believe that this work could solve many challenges simultaneously, including raising revenues for road and infrastructure repair and improvement without - having to raise taxes, improving the value of the'land and the health of the people living.and working next to our urban highways, increasing the amount of open space and population densities in our cities without interfering with existing neighborhoods, and stitching back together the.communities'divided.by our highways 50years ago. If you think this is worth exploring, we would welcome a chance to discuss how we might move this work forward with. your help and do a study with your staff that would be of'greatest value to you, We can leverage the diversity of disciplines at the University needed to do such a study, including applied economics, architecture, civil engineering, landscape architecture, public policy,, transportation planning, and urban design. And we can build on the relationships we have already created with public - and private- sector partners, ranging from city staff to companies like Jones. Lang Lasalle and Ericksen Roed & Associates Thank you, again, for your interest in this work and.we look forward to hearingyour thoughts about this idea. Sincerely, T omas Fisher Professor and Dean Cc: Mic Johnson Driven to Discover- April.25, 2014 Mayor Jim*Hovland: Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50TH ST:' EDINA, MN 55424 RE: Olinger Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation. Dear. Mayor Hovland, The purpose of this correspondence is to:strongly object to the proposal to add bike lanes -to Olinger: Boulevard as•a part of the rehabilitation-of the pavement As:outlined in the attached letter:from-the Director of Engineering,! the installation :of bike lanes :would eliminate parking on-Olinger Boulevard. This proposal makesilittle sense from a safety perspective or a transportation perspective -and Js a majoninconvenience to:those of us who live on this-street. From-a transportation perspective; there-is already a bike path In Bredesen. and: Count ryside Parks that run almost-the full length, of the street in question. Does it really make sense to:add a bike lane when- there is a path less than ome- hundred:feet away? From-a safety perspective, do we really,want to: encourage more people to bike °on whatialready:is a:busy street, with cars that often.exceed •the,speed.limit, as opposed:to having folks bike:on a safe paved bike: path -in the parks, mentiomed above? Finally, as you know parking is:already restricted to one side of Olinger Bbulevard. While this is: Inconvenient,: those of us who live along:this street understand it is price wepay for Iiving:across the street from Bredesen Park. The-complete elimination of parking on Olinger would be troublesome at best: -It isialready difficult for residents: and guests to find parking nrr Olingen. In addition,i regular home maintenance :efforts -.such as snow removal, garage cleaning, yard work etc:.will•now become more difficult if not impossible. It would seem to me, that we have learned very little! if anyth,IGng from the attempt to put bike lanes ;on � another busy.street'(Wooddale). In the:case:of Olinger Boulevard the problem would only be exacerbated: by the fact,that traffic-is already,fast paced, there-is a biking alternative, and:parking: is already limited. Thank you for your attention to:this matter. Sincerely, Kevin Kajer 6012 !Olinger Blvd Edina,: MN:55436 CaMark Nolan Chad Miller -�; :r• - :�z,'+�.,,,S�r�" `�:..; ..Si,sY�r; ^i��.i��tLa k �- �`-'>'^. �s >'tT.....,.��,;:;�ii��riF'�`k. ice' //b��b ' ��.i� F � �• Olinger Bou1eva „r4�'; April 21, 2014',1, Dear Resident: l This summer, the pavement along Olinger Boulevard from Vernon Ave to Tracy Ave will be rehabilitated. We will be using a technique called mill and overlay which means we mill off the top few inches of pavement and place a new layer in its place. In the City's Comprehensive Plan, Olinger Boulevard is a primary bike route. As part of this work, staff is considering adding bike lanes. In order to accomplish installation of bike lanes, parking on Olinger Boulevard would be eliminated. Please plan'to attend a meeting to provide feedback on bike lane installation and parking: Thursday, May I, 5 -6:30 p.m. Public Works and Park Maintenance Facility 7450 Metro Blvd If you're not able to attend the meeting but would like to provide feedback, please contact Mark Nolan at mnolantcDEdinaMN.gov or 952.826.0322 or me at cm111ner(&-EdinaMN.gov or 952 - 826 -0318. Sincerely, .yy� A Chad A. Millner, PE Director of Engineering ENGINESRING DEPARTMENT 7460 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota •55439 wwwBdinaMN.govr 952- 8264971 • Pax952- 826 -0392 s Heather Braniain From: Werbalowsky, Jeffrey <JWerbalowsky @HL.com> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:15 PM To: Edina Mail Cc 'K B Montgomery'; mary werbalowsky; Lou Ann Subject: Grandview Project Edina City Council Members: I appreciate your efforts on the Grandview development. I commend you for soliciting community involvement and creating an "inclusive" process that has played out over the last several years. However we have not made a lot of progress notwithstanding these efforts to arrive at a galvanizing community or governmental vision on an immediate action plan, while the property that we all hope will advance the. quality of life in Edina remains empty. That's a frustrating and unacceptable place to be after all of this time, and I am - personally sympathetic to those who say "let's let a private developer give us their plans for the space to move u%from this status quo." We need a PLAN; and a private developer will certainly provide one which we can modify, debate, or accept:' However (and you knew, there would be an. however), that appears to me and many others I have discussed this with a substantially inferior approach to determining the optimal public utilization of the space, and then requesting development partners who could work within those parameters. Some might say that we have: tried that route, per the above paragraph, and failed. I would agree. However that process has hopefully set the stage for a. community inspired plan to be rapidly set forth by a consultant to be .hired by the city who would synthesize the various-opinions extant and come back with a'definitive plan for Grandview. I have debated this with my friend Kim Montgomery who I salute for her substantial zeal and efforts, and have told her I would not support another consultant who could come in and give some ideas and input to provide some more perspectives for debate and public discussion. ENOUGH. As in any complex project, NO ONE will be satisfied, and NO ONE will agree on everything if enough constituencies are 'involved and solicited for their input. Someone needs to take all the ideas, the good and the bad,,the best perception of public needs and wants, talk to you and the other key decision makers and dedicated input providers,L put a sharp eye on the financial issues and the public's revulsion for tax increases, and come up with. a plan.' One plan. It is possible that some will complain and pillory the consultant and you whatever it says (I know this is not a surprise) -but it's better than an empty lot which is what we will have after a developer comes in: and suggests their value maximizing approach -even if sensitive to community issues -and hordes, rise up in horror. That approach, however well- intentioned and executed (and I question how much real work a developer will put into something this contested, ephemeral and contingent), has a substantially lesser chance of creating a galvanizing plan than a consultant based approach with the right consultant. It's not impossible, but it is much less likely in my opinion. I challenged Kim on this issue (and many others beyond the scope of this letter) and opined that consults consult rather than show leadership in creating a plan like this in my experience, but she represented that within SIX months the consultant used by Vancouver when faced with a similar challenge: "using an open community process, created the following: market analysis, concept design, programming, site evaluation, expense (capital and operating) and revenue projections as well as a funding plan for a community center". That is exactly what we need. Six months to a comprehensive plan, presentation to you, community comments, maybe some tweaking, and then we have a PLAN that you can adopt, take out to private developers and ask for their ideas, refinements, bids, etc. Break ground in a year from today (my timing aspirations are unsupportable I assume, but unless you set the bar high no one jumps). All disappointments will be hopefully washed away by a lot of happy citizens. The sin is not the failure to have the perfect Grandview project, it's the failure to have any Grandview project. The social costs of inaction are more substantial than any "mistake" we could make following the process above. I don't know what such a consultancy would cost, but maybe we could go to the Edina Community Foundation where we are contributors to defray some expense if they are daunting. That appears to me both the success maximizing and time minimizing approach, and I wish you all luck in getting to a great result here for Edina. Jeffrey Werbalowsky Co- Chairman HOULIHAN LOKEY 612.215.2240 Direct 612.338.2910 Main JWerbalowskv(ob-HL. corn Please consider the environment before printing. This e-mail message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not an intended recipient, or an intended recipient's authorized agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message or any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this e-mail message and any attachments from your computer system. April 25, 2014 Mayor Jim-Hovland. Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50TH ST: ED:INA, MN 55424 RE: Olinger Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation. Dear. Mayor Hovland, The purpose of this correspondence is to:strongly object to the proposal to add bike lanes -to Olinger: Boulevard as -a part of the rehabilitation -of the pavement. As :outlined in the attached letter:from-the Director of Engineering; the installation :of bike lanes would eliminate parking on Olinger Boulevard. This proposal makes:little sense from a safety perspective or a transportation perspective -and:is a majoninconvenience to: those of us who live on this street. From a transportation perspective; there-is already a bike path in Bredesen-and: Countryside Parks that run almost the full length of the street yin question. Does it really make sense to:add a bike lane when- there is a path less than one- hundred:feet away? From a safety perspective, do we really, want to: encourage more people to bike:on whatialready:is a:busy street, with cars that often .exceed -the: speed : limit, as opposed: to having folks bike: on a safe paved bike path-in the parks: mentioned above? Finally, as you know parking is: already restricted to one side of Olinger Boulevard. While this is: inconvenient,: those of us who live along:this street understand it is price we pay for living - across the street from- Bredesen Park. The complete elimination of parking on Olinger would be troublesome at best: It is:already difficult for residents :and guests to find parking 'on Olinger.. In addition,i regular home maintenance:efforts:such as snow removal, garage:cleaning, yard work etc. -will- now become more difficult if not impossible. It would -seem to me-that we have -learned very little]f anything from the attempt to put bike lanesmon, another busy. street-(Wooddale). In the.case: of Olinger Boulevard the problem would only be exacerbated: by the fact,that traffic is already,fast paced, there is a biking, alternative, and :parking: is already limited. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Kevin Kajer 6012 Olinger Blvd Edina,: MN:55436 Cc:Mark Nolan Chad Miller April 21, 2014 - Dear Resident: This summer, the pavement along Olinger Boulevard from Vernon Ave to Tracy Ave will be rehabilitated. We will be using a technique called mill and overlay which means we mill off the top few inches of pavement and place a new layer in its place. In the City's Comprehensive Plan, Olinger Boulevard is a primary bike route. As part of this work, staff is considering adding bike lanes. In order to accomplish installation of bike lanes, parking on Olinger Boulevard would be eliminated. Please plan to attend a meeting to provide feedback on bike lane installation and parking: Thursday, May I, 5 -6:30 p.m. Public Works and Park Maintenance Facility 7450 Metro Blvd If you're not able to attend the meeting but would like to provide feedback, please contact Mark Nolan at mnolanCq�EdinaMN.gov or 952.826.0322 or me at cmillnera.EdinaMN.gov or 952 - 826 -0318. Sincerely, Chad A. Millner, PE Director of Engineering ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 wwwEdinaNM.gov • 952- 826 -0371 • Fax 952 - 826.0392 Heather Braniain From: liza Schwab <lcschwab @comcast.net> Sent: Saturday; April 26, 2014 2:56. PM To: ` Edina Mail Subject: Proposed 6 story apartment building. . Follow Up Flag: follow up Flag Status. Good Afternoon, 1 really hope you all don't read emails on weekends! I was just on the website trying to find some more information and plans about the proposed redevelopment on the border of Edina /Richfield where the current Borofka's Furniture is located.. I live less than a block away and am planning on attending the city hall meeting on May,6th,lbut I would like to be as,fully informed as possible about what is being proposed and to help my neighbors separate rumors from facts so we are informed. we are all deeply concerned about this as'Xenres is already extremely busy and it has become increasingly difficult for families with children to send them, safely, across the,street to Cub_,to get things and our seniors have had difficulties crossing because of traffic and the amount of cars that now park on Xerxes and many have just'stopped walking to Cub and started driving instead to be safer. It has been a few years nowthat we have been able to see what.the other redevelopment has done on the corner of 69th and Xerxes /York and it has increased traffic significantly into Richfield, CVS even has their people pour out of their driveway into Richfield. 691h used to be a'sleepy' street that is now even difficult to cross in a vehicle during rush hour times and such, especially when you have France and Crosstown torn up. As you can tell, I have a lot of concerns and few answers, so if you could either,forward me the information /plans on what has been proposed, I would appreciate it, so I can be most prepared for speaking at the city hall meeting on the 6th of May.. Enjoy your weekend! Liza Schwab The Outspoken Mom Wife, Mother, and Blogger Extraordinaire lcschwab@comcast.net www.outspokenm6mblog.com i r.: I i i Heather Branigin From:. Ken Potts <ICPotts @mcgough.com> j Sent Saturday, April 26, 2014 5:OO PM I To: Edina Mail Cc: michael.platteter @target com; claudiaj.carr @yahoo.com Subject Tree Ordinance Dear City Council, I i I am writing with enthusiastic support for the tree ordinance developed by Planning Commissioners Carr and Platteter. This is a well thought out ordinance that supports the goals of the City to protect our natural resources. i Once.a mature tree is lost, it cannot be replaced. A great deal of the character of Edina is due to our stock of mature trees both on private and public land. They need protection and this ordinance is one important step in the right direction. Please vote "yes." Thank you, Ken Potts w 1 Heather Braniain From: Iyer, Surya <IyerS @polarsemi.com> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:31 AM; To: Edina Mail; 'Joni Bennett'; 'swensonannl @gmail.com'; 'joshsprague @edinarealty:com'; Mary Brindle Cc: 'Michael.Platteter Subject: RE: Planning Commission Tree Ordinance I apologize for the duplicate email — I realized I had some very old email addresses,and wanted to be sure that this gets to your current emails. Thanks Surya, From:, Iyer, Surya Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:24 AM To: 'James.Hoviand'; ']on! Bennett; 'Ann Swenson'; 'Mary Brindle'; 'Sprague, Joshua S' Cc: 'Mlchael.Plattetee Subject: Planning Commission Tree Ordinance Honorable Mayor/ Council Members: am writing to you in supportof the Tree Ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission —as-proposed by Commissioners Platteter and' Carr. I wish I could have testified in- person on May 6th but I am in Vermont on business on that day. As a former chair /member of the,EEC, I strongly believe that the ordinance is a step in the right direction to control and protect the tree cover in Edina — an essential component of environmental protection. My understanding is that the residential working group. of the PC put in a tremendous amount of effort that included substantial community input to come up with this ordinance. This ordinance does a few things that. (to me) are very crucial — (1) highlight tree protection as a priority for City hall and I esidents, (2) allow for data collection that is crucial towards making intelligent decisions going forward to further improve our tree cover, (3) suggests practical categorization and replacement options. I give kudos to the PC team for coming up with an ordinance that will be effective, enforceable, and practical. Please consider this ordinance favorably and approve it when it comes before you. Respectfully, Surya Iyer Su.rya Iyer, PhD 6621 Southcrest Drive,, Edina, MN 55435 612 - 309 -2392 This e-mail-and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return. e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any 1 Heather Branigin From: Ed Schwartzbauer <ejsbauer @peoplepc.com> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 10:37 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Performing Arts Dear Jim (Mayor Hovland) An article iin the Sun newspaper about two weeks ago discussed the ongoing question of what to do with the former public works site on Eden Avenue. The article mentioned your interest in a performing arts center. I am writing (belatedly) to second that idea. I have often thought Edina should have more facilities for the arts, to complement its many facilities for sports. Bloomington has its main stage Schneider Theater where several groups perform, i.e., The Bloomington Civic Theater and many other groups, such as the Medalist Concert Band, the Angelica Cantati Youth choir, the Bloomington Chorale, etc., and it has its Black Box Theater for small serious productions. I assume most of these pay rent. There are also many small theater groups in the Twin Cities that would rent an Edina arts center for their productions, for example the Frank Theater which seems to play in a different theater building for every play. In April, they produced the Three - Penny Opera at the Southern Theater at Seven Corners. A few years ago, Frank had to rent space in the old Sears building on Lake Street. So an Edina Center could be the source of revenue producing events that do not necessarily connect with Edina. A performing arts center could be combined with a new art center, as Bloomington has done. And Edina should have a community theater. Several years ago, an Edina teacher produced the play "The Sound of Music" and called the production one by the Edina Community Theater, which, of course, didn't really exist. I was already too old to play Captain von Trapp, though I would have loved to play it-- instead I got the non - singing role of Franz, the butler. Several young Edina wives were thrilled to have the chance to be on stage (they played both nuns and aristocrats). This year, the Edina Chorale had only one concert in Edina (at the Colonial Church) and must go to Hopkins for its May production. This would seem to be a situation which calls for a survey of art - centered organizations to see whether they want more space and would use a performing arts center if one were built. But in the meantime, nothing should be done that would preclude the use of the land for this purpose. I would hate to see the last piece of public land sold off for another apartment. If a new performing arts hall were to be built, perhaps it should be a joint public /private venture, and solicitations be made throughout the community for pledges. I hope there is support within the council for such a venture. Edward J. Schwartzbauer 6085 Lincoln Drive Edina, MN 55436 952/935 -4205 Heather Branigin From: AKKajer <akkajer @earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, April 28,2014 10:46 AM To: Edina Mail; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinareality.com; swensonannl @gmail.com Cc: Mark K. Nolan; Chad Millner Subject: NO BIKE LANE on OLINGER Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council members, My name is Andrea Hart Kajer and I live at 6012 Olinger Blvd. I am writing to oppose adding bike lanes to Olinger Blvd. My family built this house in 1968 at a time when Olinger was a gravel dead end road with the hopes of lake Killarney across the street. Now, raising my family in the same house, I have watched it grow into a very busy street. I have also worked in municipal government for 20 years so I truly understand the tough choices a city needs to make and I am an avid biker myself. Currently there is a bike lane in Bredesen park that runs nearly the full length of the proposed bike lane. I believe that would serve the goals you are trying to meet. For me as a life long resident of Edina, I believe a side walk on the park land across the street would better serve people wanting to walk along the park. Cars go by so fast, there is not a safe way to even walk your dog except walking in the street. A few well marked crosswalks would assist people trying to get into the park. Changing the speed limit to 25 would also help those of us in the neighborhood. Parking is already restricted to one side of Olinger. Completely eliminating all parking is just out of the question and an unworkable solution. I will not be able to attend the hearing on May 2 but please know I am totally against this proposal. Thank you, Andrea Hart Kajer Heather Braniain From: Virginia Kearney <vmkearney @msn.com> Sent Monday, April 28, 2014 6:49 PM To: Edina Mail Subject For the City Council To the City Council, I a n writing to request that the city council issue an RFI for a consultant -lead, community-based process under the guidance of the current CAT to first define the public uses for the former public works site in GrandView and to stop. the process to select a developer partner. I see the need =in this community for a true Community Center. The former site of the Public Works offers a huge opportunity to house a community center in a publicly owned, centrally located space. Please do not let "this valuable piece of land; fall out of public hands: . Virginia Kearney 4226 Grimes Ave. S. Edina,MN 55416 1 i Heather Branigin From: Megan Uland <megan.ulland @gmail.com> ,Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:16 PM To: Edina, Mail; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net, Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Olinger Blvd Resurfacing Project from Vernon to Tracy Ave Hello, As a newer resident of Edina, I think it',s important thatfcontact the city council regarding the resurfacing project that is set for Olinger Blvd. I am very disappointedto hear that the parking is going to be taken away from Olinger Blvd.. I strongly feel it will negatively'affect the property values of the houses in the area around Bredesen. Park as well as negatively affects the quality of -life of the.neighborhood residents: Below is the email I sent to Chad Millner. i want to strongly urge you to stop this project from negatively affecting our.neighborhood. Please do *`not* take. away parking. on Olinger Blvd. It is also critical that we /start putting in sidewalks around the neighborhood to keep our children safe as they walk to school and each other's houses. Thank you, Megan Dear Mr. Nolan and Mr. Millner, We received the letter from.the city of.Edina regarding the Olinger Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation project yesterday and though I can't attend the meeting in May, I wanted to write with my concerns regarding the project. First, let me say that I am fully in support of city action to make bikers and pedestrians safer in our neighborhoods, on our streets and sidewalks and throughout our city. That said, installing bike lanes on Olinger is a terrible idea for traffic patterns and the safety of the kids who live in our neighborhood. For starters, there is a bike trail along Bredesen that can and should be used for bikers going northbound around Olinger. But, more importantly, if you eliminate the parking on Olinger Blvd, the natural outcome will force traffic trying to access Bredesen park as well as traffic coming to the houses on Olinger onto the residential streets that abut Olinger. We live on Jeff Place. One of the reasons we bought the house was that there was limited traffic on the block and few, if any, cars parked on our street. That means safer streets for our kids. This Is critical for me and my family because our young kids walk to and from school every day and there are no sidewalks between our house and Countryside Elementary school. So, for our children to get to school, they *must* walk in the street. By eliminated parking along an already designated busier. through street, you would inevitably force cars onto the streets like 61st and Jeff Place. That causes more harm that good. 'The bikes and cars share the road now and I continue to believe they can share the road without a designated lane. I am very respectful of bikes as I drive but, probably more importantly, I am respectful of the rozi&signs and rules /laws when I bike as well. That cannot be said for all bikers (as well as those runners who feel it is easier for them to run in the street, which in itself causes safety problems around Olinger and Tracy where there actually *are* sidewalks). I think that by adding `a bike lane, you create a dynamic in which the bikes no longer actually pay attention to cars as much that would cause more problems. _ Please do not take away the parking on Olinger Boulevard when you repave the road. IF you are going to do any improvements of the road other than repave, I would rather see the money and time spent putting in sidewalks on the east side of Olinger making it safer for kids to walk to each other's houses as well as to and from school. It's time to keep our,kids safe and encourage them to be walking instead of driving everywhere. As one more note, in the year we've lived here, I have only ever seen a handful of bikes on Olinger, which, to me, means the numbers do not merit a bike lane replacing the parking. Thank you, Megan Heather Braniain From: Ken Potts <KPotts @mcgough.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 5:21 PM To: Scott Neal; Edina Mail Cc: David Fisher; Cary Teague; RKnutson @ck- law.com; Chad Millner „Heather, Beal (constellationcreate @comcast.net) Subject:.. Follow up to your response dated 4/17/14 Attachments: 4 2914 Scott Neal.pdf; Complaint response from City 041714.pdf Scott, Attached are followup questions which you invited in your response to us, thank you. I have cc'd the same individuals and ask that this message and attachments be distributed to Council. Attached is a signed version of our letter (text follows) and a copy of the letter to :which it respondes for reference purposes. Ken Potts Dear Scott, The City's response to our written complaint leaves us with mixed feelings. On one hand we are happy to hear the City has changed its process for plan review to conform to State Code. On the other hand, the response to many of the other items only emphasizes the.poor information you have been receiving internally. Following is a summary of erroneous items in your response followed by facts, that are supported by documents available at City Hall (either part of City Code or in the project file). Item 4 states that City Code Section 830.06F has not been enforced "because it has not been practical to do so.” When does inconvenience become an excuse to not enforce a code section? Item 5 states that the "contractor has repaired and reinstalled the diversions each time they have failed and also cleaned those ares." In reality, REFINED's actions to correct damage to our property has been poor. Over the past days and weeks, water has continued to spill off the 4238 Crocker Ave property and dump silt against our foundation. Repair and cleaning has not taken place "each time they have failed." Item 7 states that the "permit expires six months after the last act of work completed at the site." This is not supported by Section 830.07 Issuance of Permit Subd 2 which states that the permit "shall be nontransferable and shall expire six months from date of issuance.". Item 8 implies that REFINED has been proactive` in conferring with City staff when there are changes to the site plan. If you refer to correspondence you will see that the City had to request a revised site plan once the City realized that construction was out of conformance with the approved plans. The City then allowed REFINED to take nearly two months to submit a revised site plan (and then accepted one that did not meet the City's own site plan requirements). Item 9 states that the drainage review was overseen by a licensed professional at the City. There is no evidence of this. Such a review is to be indicated with a stamp and signature. 1 Item 10 states that code compliance is demonstrated "per the plans submitted as part of the building permit." Different documents in the original submission contain conflicting information and this was never caught by either REFINED or the City. The only way the plans submitted comply is if the City ignores the grades shown on the grading plan. And it is the "proposed final grade" that is the measure of conformance. Item 11 states that the "Building Official has discretion to approve the variances." "The Building Official reviewed the proposed retaining walls and approved construction..." Note that the Building Official reviewed AND APPROVED for construction a set of plans (June 3, 2013) that did not indicate ANY retaining wall along the shared property line in question. If a variance is granted, either by discretion or public process, there should be a record of such variance (especially to an IRC provision). There is no such record in the file. We continue to maintain that the process is severely compromised and needs to be corrected in short order so that quality of life, not to mention public safety, can be protected in the City of Edina. Ken Potts (and Heather Beal) Heather Beal'and Ken Potts 4236 Crocker Ave. Edina,MN 55416., April 29, 2014 Scott Neal City Manager, City.of Edina 4801 W. 50 Street Edina, MN 55424 = Dear Scott, The City's response to our written.complaint leaves us with mixed feelings.: on one hand we are happy to ' hear the City has changed its processfor plan review to conform to State Code. On the other hand, the response to many of the other items, only emphasizes the poor information you have been_receiving. Following is a summary of erroneous items in your response followed by facts that are supported by documents available at City Hall (either part of City Code or in the project file). Item 4 states that City Code Section 830.06F has not been enforced "because. it has not been practical to do so." When does inconvenience become an excuse to not enforce anode section? Item 5 states that the "contractor has repaired and reinstalled the diversions each time they have failed and also cleaned those ares." In reality, REFINED's actions to correct damage to our property has been poor. Over the past days and weeks, water has continued to spill off the 423 8 Crocker Ave. property and dump silt against our foundation. Repair and cleaning has not taken place "each time,they have failed." Item 7 states that the "permit expires six months after: the last act of work completed at the site." This is not supported by Section 830.07 Issuance of Permit Subd 2 which states that the permit "shall be nontransferable and shall expire six months fidom date of issuance." Item 8 implies that REFINED has been proactive in conferring:with `City staff when there are changes to the site plan. If you refer to correspondence you will see that the City , hadto request a revised site plan once the City realized that construction was out of conformance with the approved plans..The.City then allowed REFINED to take nearly two months, to submit a revised site plan (aid.then accepted one that did not meet the City's own site plan requirements): Item 9 states that the drainage review was overseen by a, licensed professional at the City. There is no evidence of this. Such a review is to be indicated with a stamp: and signature. Item 10 states that code compliance is demonstrated "per the plans submitted as part of the building permit." Different documents in the original submission contain conflicting information and this was never caught by either REFINED or the City. The only way the plans submitted comply is if the City ignores the grades shown on the grading plan. And it is the "proposed final grade" that is the measure of conformance. Item 11 states that the "Building Official has discretion to approve the variances." "The Building Official reviewed the proposed retaining walls and approved construction..." Note that the Building Official reviewed AND APPROVED for construction a set of plans (June 3, 2013) that did not indicate ANY retaining wall along the shared property line in question. If a variance is granted, either by discretion or public process, there should he a record of such variance (especially to an IRC provision). There is no such record in the file. We continue to maintain that the process is severely compromised and needs to be corrected in short order so that quality of life, not to mention public safety, can be protected in the City of Edina. Sincerely, Ken Potts (and Heather Beal) 4236 Crocker Ave residents since 1993 Property ID: 07- 028 -24 -42 -0055 Cc: Mayor and City Council Members Roger Knutson, City Attomey David Fisher, Building Official Cary Teague, Community Development Director Chad Millner, City Engineer April 17, 2014 Heather Beal and Ken Potts 4236 Crocker Avenue Edina ; -MN 55416 RE:' March 26, 2014,Formal Complaint Dear Heather and Ken; The City received a formal written complaint from you on March 26, 2014 regarding the City's regulatory oversight'of the ongoing construction project at 4238 Crocker Avenue. This letter is the City's response to your complaint. I will repeat and concisely respond to each observation, allegation or claim from your complaint. 1. The construction documents on file at City Hall for the project at 4238 Crocker do not have a stamp with the appropriate date and written statement pursuant to MN Code 1300.0130(6). City Response: City staff have remedied this-situation with a new manner of documenting the transmission�and credential information. The rem4dYwds implernent6d-,Gh- A-pri1 1 ;'201Q. - 2. The City has'not enforced the provisions of City Code secti drY 830A6(A)'by-allbWing-additionalifill materials to ,be imported to the site. City Response: This element of this project is regulated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. (MCWD). City staff has verified that the project has a valid permit from the (MCWD). 3. The City, has not enforced the .provisions of City Code section 830.06(E) by allowing the building contractor to disturb too much of the existing grading of the site. City Response: The standard In City Code is that the building contractor may disturb no more than the_ smallest amount_of the site as practicable at any one time. In our judgment, the building contractor complied with the intent of this Code section. 4. The City has not enforced the provisions of City Code section 830.06(F) by allowingthe building contractor to have'the site ungraded for a period of time in excess of sixty,days. CityResponse: The City acknowledges; that the building contractor had exposed grading on the site for a time'period in excess of 60,days. It has not been the operating practice of the City, however, to enforce this provislon-of City Code for single family lots because it has not b•:.en practicable to do so. Because the City had not previously enforced this Code provlsidn on single tamilt' home re LSVeeIaprhent'sites, the City's legal counsel advised us not to enforce it on this site.. Legal counsel has prepared an amendment to City Codeforthe City Council to corisiderthat-would-address this-iSsiie lnore'dirdaly! It will be considered by the City Council at their May -29 Council meeting. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Stet • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952 - 927 -8861. Fag 952 - 826 -0390 5. The City has not enforced City Code section 830.06(i).by: not requiring the placement of storm water erosion control diversions at the site. City - Response: Storm water diversions have been installed on the construction site at 4238 Crocker. The diversions meet generally accepted standards. The City acknowledges that the diversions have failed on more than one occasion causing silt trespass on your property. The-building contractor has repaired and reinstalled the diversions each time they have failed and also cleaned those areas. 6. The City has not enforced City Code section 830.06(K) by requiring,the building contractor to install property constructed retaining walls. City Response: The City's Building Official reviewed and approved the proposed retaining'walls on the site, pursuant to City:Code. 7, The City has not enforced the provisions of City Code section 830.07 by allowing work to continue at the site with an expired building permit, City:Response;. The building permit was issued on June 3, 2013: A building permit expires six months after the last act of work completed at the site. The building contractor has been working regularly at the site both before and after December 3, 2013, which keeps the building permit active and lawful. B. The City has not enforced the provisions of City Code section 830.08 by allowing work to be completed at the site that does not to conform to the approved site and building plans. City Response: The building contractor has proposed several changes to the site and building plans during the construction of the project. This is not unusual for a project of this nature. The building contractor has conferred with City staff at appropriate junctures during the project to seek ou'r review and approval of proposed changes. As of the date of this letter, the projected remains incomplete. The building and site plans will be amended at the com'pietion of the project to reflect the "as built" conditions. The project will comply with all.applicable building codes when it Is complete. 9. The City has not enforced the provisions of City Code section 850.07 by failing to have a licensed professional engineer review and approve the drainage plans for the site. City Response: The majority of the review activltles of the drainage elements of this project were completed by one of the City's staff engineering technicians. The City's engineering technicians work under the general supervision of the City's licensed professional engineers. The engineering technician who reviewed the drainage plans for this project included the City's licensed professional engineering staff members at appropriate stages In the review of the plans. 10. The'City has not enforced the provisions.of City Code section 850(11) by failing to enforce the Interior side yard setback requirements. City Response :' The City will enforce this provision of City Code by requiring the building contractor to modify the grading of the north side yard to enable the height of the building to meet the City's R -1 building height limits, per the plans submitted as part of the building permit, which do demonstrate code compliance. This site change will be implemented before the project is completed. . i 11. The City has not enforced the provisions of the 2006 International Residential Code (IRC) by allowing the placement of the building too close to slopes steeper than 1 unit vertical In '3 units horizontal. City Response: The Bull ding,Official has discretion to approve the variances -to this provision ofthe 2006 IRC. In the case of 4238 Crocker, the Building Official reviewed the proposed'retaining walls and approved the construction of the current building.. You have requested the.City to require the building "contractorto post,a $75;000 bond to assure that the project will comply with all applicable codes upon completion. Because the City has neither a history norjustification for demanding a bond of this nature from -a building contractor, I must decline this request. ('understand that you believe your property 'has been damaged during, the'construction process at 4238 Crocker. Your remedy to be compensated for that damage is'to pursue the responsible party through a civil court action. If you have other questions, please advise; Sincerely, Scott H. Neal, City Manager Cc. Mayor and City Council Members Roger Knutson, City Attorney David Fisher, Building Official Cary Teague, Community Development Director Chad Millner, City Engineer Heather Branigin From: K B Montgomery < kmschool mail @aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 201411:07 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: To the City Council -- Citizens for a Better Grandview Community Center Proposal Attachments: Grandview Council CC_pref- l.doc; CBG Community_Center Proposal.pdf Hi Lynette, Could you kindly forward this to the City Council? Many thanks, Kim Dear Mayor Hovland and Edina City Council Members: Over the past few months, Citizens For A Better Grandview has been gathering community input, meeting with professionals in the areas of urban planning, architecture, community recreation, culture and education, attending public meetings, and reviewing public documents. The result of these efforts is a draft proposal for a new Edina Community Center located on the former public works site at 5146 Eden Avenue: https: // drive. google. com / file/ d/ OB7gbXzwNg6owOl9fandzcDVaREE /editNW -- sharing This document is also accessible at Citizens for a Better GrandView's website at h=: / /abetterumdview.weebly.com/ The proposal is intended for information purposes and as a starting point for discussion. It is not intended as a final plan, but is offered to present ideas, provide a vision, give a realistic, fact -based overview of costs, and start a community-wide conversation about the best possible uses for the land. As part of our research, CBG visited Firstenburg Community Center in Vancouver, WA—an intergenerational, vibrant, life - filled, publicly owned and run community center (see cover photo). Vancouver's political leaders recognized the value of publicly owned and run community spaces. From that determination, they hired a consultantlarchitect specializing in community -based, public buildings. In six months using an open community process, the consultant team created the following: market analysis, concept design, programming, site evaluation, revenue and expense (capital and operating) projections as well as a funding plan for a community center. In order to move the Grandview process forward, CBG requests that the Council follow the process outlined below: 1. Citizen's Steering Committee Repurpose the current Community Advisory Team (CAT) to assess public needs, create a community-based process and design a community -based facility (# 4, pg. 49- Framework) with the guidance of a consultant who specializes in public facilities. Also use the CAT to guide implementation of the remaining unaddressed points on page 49 of the Framework ( #'s 2,3, 5 -10). 2. Planning Documents Use soon -to-be updated planning tools (Vision 20/20 update and Parks and Recreation Master Plan) as a starting point in defining community needs. 3. Data Gathering Have consultant specializing in public facilities gather cost and market data on national standards and local practices. 4. Hold Public Meetings Present all relevant planning, cost and market data in well publicized public meetings in order for the public to make informed decisions. 5. Create a Community Center Master Plan The scope of this plan should include a market analysis, cost data, programming, site analysis, a preferred concept design and phasing options. This planning process should take no more than six months. Thank you, as always, for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kim Montgomery, Chair— Citizens for a Better GrandView GrandView Community Center Proposal Draft Prepared April 2014 by Citizens for a Better GrandView www.abettergrandview.weebly.com Vision for a community resource to include activity, aquatic, community, and cultural spaces NOTE: This document is intended as a starting point for discussion and information purposes. It is not intended as a final plan; it is offered to present ideas, provide vision, give a realistic, fact -based overview of costs and garner community -wide conversation about the best possible public uses for the former public works site. Citizens for a Better Grandview • April 2014 www.abettergrandview.weebly.com Page 1 of 12 EDINA COMMUNITY CENTER AT GRANDVIEW DRAFT PROPOSAL The mission of Citizens for a Better GrandView (CBG) is to raise awareness, invite conversation, and join together as a community to preserve the public land at 5146Eden Avenue (former public works site) for a public use. We are asking the City of Edina to immediately stop the process to pursue a private redevelopment partner and begin an open and inclusive process to study and plan for community uses fur the site. BACKGROUND On May 20, Edina City Council is slated to discuss issuing a Request for Interest (RFI) for the last centrally located, public land in Edina (5146 Eden Avenue). Two RFI proposals are before the Council as follows: 1. A proposal, put forth by Edina's Economic Development Manager Bill Neuendorf, for the City to select a development parmer. This scenario will not favor public retention and use of the land. 2. A second proposal, endorsed by a majority of the Community Advisory Team, calls for a consultant to help the community fully explore public uses for the site before entertaining private development. Citizens for a Better GrandView (CBG) has assembled the following information as part of a draft proposal to create a new Edina Community Center at 5146 Eden Avenue. In four years of process, the City has not devoted efforts to defining potential community needs for this site. CBG has stepped into that vacuum with this proposal. It is Intended as a starting point for discussion and information purposes. OUR VIEWPOINT What is now called Edinds "Community Center" is a 1948 school building that is owned and operated by Edina Public Schools, and is not openly available for the community's use . Our city lacks a true community center that is a central place to gather, exchange ideas and information, to learn, to play and to connect. The public land at 5146 Eden Avenue presents an opportunity for that place. (Please sec'Me Case for a Community Center "on page 10). OUR PROCESS CBG interviewed fourteen professionals in the areas of Urban Planning, Architecture, Community Recreation, Culture and Education. In addition, we reviewed public testimony by six individuals and did a comprehensive study of ten public documents regarding civic buildings and planning. (Please see the attached "Research Resources" page on page 11). CALL FOR ACTION Citizens for a Better Grandview is asking the City of Edina to delay partnering with a private developer until the potential community uses for the GrandView site are fully explored. Additionally, CBG is asking the City of Edina to use the following best practices to define the public needs and community spaces on the site: Create Planning Documents, Gather Data, Seek Citizen Input, Hold Public Meetings, and Create a Community Center Master Plan. (Please see "Best Practices" on page 12 of this document for full outline of common best practices.) Citizens for a Better Grandview • April 2014 www.abettergrandview.weebly.com Page 2 of 12 Grandview Community Center Concept Citizens for a Better Grandview - April 2014 www.abettergrandview.weebly.com Building Area (Interior) Approximately 105,000 square feet 350 -500 Parking stalls Estimated Cost (Building Only) $26,000,000 Activity Spaces Recreational pool Lap Pool 3 Gymnasiums Elevated walk/jog track 2 Group exercise studios Cardio /weight room Fitness assessment/wellness center Child Care Center Community Spaces Intergenerational lounge Shared game room Community Room(s) Kitchen Special Events Room Shared Work Space Arts and Culture Spaces Community Performance Room 2 Rehearsal Rooms Gallery/Arts Classroom Administrative Spaces Entry Lobby with Reception Facility Manager Offices Coordinator Offices Staff offices Storage Page 3 of 12 A. OPERATIONS- BUILDING SUPPORT Images courtesy: Opsis Architecture Program Estimate Program sq ft $ /SF Cost Entry Lobby 1200 230.00 "' = 276,000 Reception/access control 300 205 00�;, 61,500 Storage 80 1 80.001m, 14,400 y Vending alcove 15 `.255.00 38,250 Locker Room- Women's Qk 255.0 Q 433,500 Locker Room -Men's Family Locker Ro 3 " 25 0 382,500 69 000 General Bpild� toe 0 16 67,200 x a ' ::, gs.�'y' Kaintenance/ReceivingV,, ces y �e= X 168:00 84,000 Facility Manager,, y ' 189.00 22,680 Asst Facility Manager r - 189.00 22,680 2 Coordinator Offices 240 189.00 45,360 3 Staff offices '_ 240 194.00 46,560 TOTAL OPERATIONS /SUPPORT 6850 $1,563,630 Citizens for a Better Grandview - April 2014 www.abettergrandview.weebly.com Page 4 of 12 B. ACTIVITY SPACES Images courtesy: Opsis Architecture Program Estimate Program sq ft $!SF A Cost Y Yh 3 Multi- purpose gyms (each at 50'x 74') 18,000 195Av3,SJp,Q00 Gym storage (300 sf per gym) 900 1501 98, E,. ,:E 0 Elevated walking/jogging track 8,00Q 225 00 1,800,000 Multi- purpose group exercise 504,000 Multi- purpose group exercise r,z 210 00 420,000 l �- - Group exercise storage 165.0 57,750 Fitness Studio 1,000 215,000 Fitness Studio tor" �� � W 0 5.0- 24,750 Cardio/N.610- oaril �6' 22 00 1,350,000 Cardin/ gtit�i ola ,.r)- `is5.00 24,750 Fitness Ass8lmCitVellness Center _� 000 225.00 675,000 a ': <. Climbing Structure �. 1600 210.00 336000 Child Watch Room 1,000 200.00 200,000 Child Watch Storage 100 165.00 16,500 TOTAL ACTIVITY SPACES 43,050 $9,272,350 Citizens for a Better Grandview • April 2014 www.abettergrandvlew.weebly.com Page 5 of 12 C. AQUATICS Images courtesy: Opsis Architecture Program Estimate Natatorium' Pool construction Water play equip Spa First Aid Office Pool Mechanicals Aquatics Storage Pool Sanitation St Program sq ft $ /SF °; b Cost 13,500 34 4,657,500 N/A 1;260,000 NIA' N /Aw� 885,000 250 x(10 125,000 21400 17,120 �1,5 1,100 \x 1800£ 207,900 � p. o� �_; 500 18 %. 94,500 .. 140 145.00�� 20,300 recreational $7,237,320 Citizens for a Better Grandview • April 2014 www.abettergrandview.weebly.com Page 6 of 12 D. COMMUNITY SPACES Images courtesy: opsis Architecture Program Estimate Program sq ft Casual Intergenerational/Lounge Game room Community Room (Divisible into 3) Community /Caterer Kitchen CR Restroom (2 Unisex) Flexible classroom Classroom storage ' Special E Total- Community Spaces 1,2.00 1,000 3,000 $ /SF Cost k. y 2Q X146,000 Nib 15.00' -��NS h� 215,000 � ,00 690,000 "I"35Y.00 284 D00 ' 305.00 :} 183,000 '21] 230,000 165 . 16,500 25 .00 178,500 :00 13,200 205.00 123,000 204.00 71,400 $2,250,600 Citizens for a Better Grandview • April 2014 www.abettergrandview.weebly.com Page 7 of 12 E. ARTS AND CULTURE SPACES Images courtesy: Opsis Architecture and New Museum Program Estimate Community Performance Room 2 Dressing Room (ea. at 300 sq ft) Community Performance Storage Program sq ft 3,500 600 Community PerformanceActtvttt ;, Otaa 00 " 2 Rehearsal Rooms 9 (ea..aC1� s 2. 400 165 Cost 875,000 120,000 82,500 49,500 504,000 230,000 33,000 $1,894,000 Citizens for a Better Grandview • April 2014 www.abettergrandview.weebly.com Page 8 of 12 F. CIRCULATION/MECHANICAVETC. Example Diagram Only - Image courtesy of Opsis Architecture Program Estimate Natatorium Circulation (Mechanical, Walls, etc.) Building Circulation (Mechanical, Walls, etc.) TOTAL G. TOT. ACTIVITES AQUATICS COMMUNITY SPACES ARTS /CULTURAL CIRCULATIONIMECHANICAL TOTAL BUILDING 6,850 44,650 15,570 9,430 8,500 20,508 105,508 1,563,630 9,272,350 7,237,320 2,250,600 1,894,000 3,855,320 $26,073,220' *This amount is based upon information provided by Opsis Architecture of Portland, Oregon, and does not include landscaping or parking construction. Citizens for a Better Grandview • April 2014 www.abettergrandview.weebly.com Page 9 of 12 THE CASE FOR A COMMUNITY CENTER Background When discussing the possibility of a new Community Center in Edina, one may hear: "Why do we need a community center -- we have a perfectly good one across the street ?" This is usually said in reference to the building known as the `Edina Community Center" on Normandale Boulevard. While called a community center, this building is a school district building, housing district offices, an elementary school, early childhood education, and numerous community-based organizations. Also, District Community Education programming uses the building, making it the apparent community center. However, this building does not serve as a true community center for many reasons: • Most of the space is neither intended nor available for community use • The building is cumbersome, confusing, and very outdated • Parking is limited and can be unavailable if there is a function at the middle school • There are little to no "oped' times in the building, • The building is closed on Sundays What is called the Edina Community Center is not a community - focused building, but rather a school district entity neither operated by the city nor fully available to city residents. What We Have and What We Lack Edina has many public facilities, to be sure. However, not one of them exists solely for the use and benefit of the community at large and on a year -round basis. • The Aquatic Center has a narrowly prescribed use and season • The Edina Art Center has limited focus and extremely limited space. • Edinborough Park has limited space that is shared with residential and commercial entities • Braemar Golf Course is another example of a single focus, seasonal amenity • The Senior Center /Library space is also narrowly prescribed in use or has limited hours • Arneson Acres is limited in space, focus and times of use as well. What Edina lacks is a ficility that serves the entire community in both structured and unstructured ways, that is accessible seven days a week year round. A facility that is centrally located and designed for this new millennium. What we have are disparate facilities that each serve a segment of the community with a special interest. What we lack is a central place to gather, to exchange ideas and information, to learn, to play and to connect. The Opportunity With the public land we already own, with vision and commitment from our leaders and citizeses, we could have have a facility designed to be the community's center, a focal point of civic pride and a resource for every Edina resident. We have an opportunity right now to designate this site as the crowning jewel far our town. Citizens for a Better Grandview • April 2014 www.abettergrandview.weebly.com Page 10 of 12 RESEARCH RESOURCES As part of our research, CBG met with the following individuals. The views expressed in this proposal are those of Citizens for a Better Grandview and not necessarily the views of any individual listed below. We thank these individuals for the time they took to meet and the professional insight they provided. • Jim Kalvelage Opsis Architecture, Portland, OR • Angela Brosius, Manager- Firstenburg Community Center, Vancouver, WA • Kelly O'Dea, Manager, Williston Fitness Center, Minnetonka, MN • Melissa Falb, MacPhail Center for the Arts, Director of Group Instruction • Megen Balda, Executive Director, Greater Twin Cities Youth Symphonies • Lucy Thompson, City of St. Paul Planning Department • Kyle Coolbroth, Founder -CoCo (shared work space-1 of 7 Google Test Sites) • Mic O'Brien -Edina Basketball Association • Kerry Middleton -Edina Basketball Association • Carrie Klein, Social Worker -South View Middle School • Paul Andress - Counselor -South View Middle School • Hope Melton -Urban Planner • Colleen Carey, The Cornerstone Group • Bryan Paulsen, Paulsen Architects The result of public testimony by: • Ann Kattreh to Community Advisory Team, December, 9, 2013 • Michael Frey to Community Advisory Team December 9, 2013 • Gil Penalosa, 8-80 Cities Presentation -Urban Land Institute - Minneapolis, MN 9/28/12 • Dan Burden- Livable and Walkable Communities presentation, South Maui-12/12 • Bill Morris /Peter Leatherman to Community Advisory Team, February 24, 2014 • Valerie Burke, Director -Edina Community Education In addition, CBG relied upon the public documents from: • City of Edina Comprehensive Plan • Indoor Recreation Facilities Master Plan: Hillsboro Parks and Recreation Department • Minnetonka Center for the Arts, Burnsville Center for the Arts, • Hopkins Center for the Arts, Bloomington Center for the Arts • City of Maple Grove - Community Center • Chaska Community Center • City of Chanhassen Recreation Center • Civic Campus Master Plan for East Vancouver • West Linn Recreation Center. Concept Design and Operational Plan • National Recreation and Park Association database Finally, CBG visited several websites for insight into community centers in and outside Minnesota, including. http://www.cityofvancouver.us/firstenburg http-//www.planetizerLcom/t,oppublicspaces http: / /beta.eminnetonka.com/ activities /williston- fitness - center http://www.maplegrovemn.gov/community-center http://www.edenprairie.org/index.aspx?page=216 Citizens for a Better Grandview — April 2014 Page 11 of 12 www.abeftergrandview.weebly.com BEST PRACTICES Citizens for "A Better Grandview is asking the City of Edina to use the following" 'best practices to define community spaces fnr the former public works site: _. 1. Planning Documents Use Visioning statements, Parks and Recreation Master Plans and Comprehensive Plans as a starting foundation. 2. Data gathering Hire experts to gather cost and market data on national standards and local practices. 3. Creating a Citizen's Steering Committee Repurpose the current Community Advisory Team to assess public needs, create community- based process and design a community- centered facility. 4. Hold Public Meetings Present all relevant planning, cost and market data In public meetings in order for the public to make informed-decisions. 5. Create a Community Center Master Plan The scope of this plan should include a market analysis, programming, site analysis, a preferred concept design and phasing options. This planning process should take no more than six months. CBG requests that the City of Edina follow the above structure in defining the public needs and community spaces on-the former public works site. The enclosed document is intended as a fact based guide to be used as a starting point in discussions. Citizens for a Better Grandview • April 2014 www.abettergrandview.weebly.com Page 12 of 12 Heather. Branigin From: Lisa Nelson <lisanelsonSOQmac:com> Sent: Wednesday,'April 30,2014 11:36 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: ORDINANCE NO. 2014- AN DRDINA, NCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION I am writing to express my objections to this ordinance.. First, this ordinance is not narrowly tailored to the issue of a speculator clearing a property of all trees to make it easier to build on, and, in any case, it doesn't appear that is even occurring in Edina. It limits property owners who are building their own home, and encompasses much more minor remodels and accessory structures by existing homeowners, who may have changing needs and ,preferences. Second, the city should not be telling residents how wooded or sunny their lot should be. Many homeowners want open space for kids to play, for flower, herb and vegetable gardens, for solar panels, or because they have SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder), grew up in a sunny location, just plain old prefer the sun or for many other reasons. ,wFurthermor'e, they ought to be able to change their preferences whenever they wish, regardless of whether'their neighbors like shade better. This ordinance is even more over - reaching in that it is ordering owners to increase shade on their lot in the long run. To then mandate what kind of trees are acceptable further reduces a homeowners right to landscape their property. Third, the requirement. to plant one tree on public property if there isn't room for two trees on the lot is just a hidden tax to fund re- foresting'of public land. It may be that the City is lagging in replacing trees through out the city; it may be that residents agree that more shade in the City is desirable; it may even be that residents are willing to approve a tax to fund that; but none of that justifies requiring home owners to replace or add trees to their lots, as opposed to imposing an additional fee on construction permits to fund a re- foresting fund. Last, but certainly not least, is the cost of enforcement of this ordinance and the cost of dealing with the disputes that will inevitably result from it especially the three -year monitoring requirement. To have this bind new owners for three years may inhibit home sales and encourage disputes with new neighbors. I do not believe that any aspect of this ordinance should be approved. In addition, without making sure that information about this gets to the public through the Sun Current, I doubt that you can truly have a sense for how the community feels about this. Heather Braniain From: Edina 499 <499 @bwld.onmicrosoft.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 30,- 201412:08 PM To: Edina'Mail . Subject: Buffalo Wild Wings Edina VIP dinner Hello Mayor and Edina City Council Members, ' I would like.to cordially invite each or you and a guest to attend our first and only complimentary food and, beverage VIP dinner at our newest Buffalo Wild Wings in Edina! We'll have full bar /alcohol service available, cash'only, all proceeds donated to the Minneapolis Boys and Girls.Club. We start seating at 6:0013m, with seatings every 20 minutes,'the last session at 7:40pm. We like to keep these to parties of 2 -4, if you have a larger group, or anyfurther requests, please let me know: Thank you for your support and I look forward to placing all of your on our seating list. Sincerely, Marty Mongoven General Manager Buffalo Wild Wings. Edina, MN 1 Heather. Branigin" From: Tim Gill <par72dis6golf6gmail.com> Sent: " Wednesday, Aprit 30, 2014 12:24 PM Edina Mail Subject: Fred prospect Hello council members. My name is Tim Gill. Owner /operator of Par 72 Disc Golf and resident of Edina. Disc Golf course design is our specialty. With The Fred closing and the land becoming park land, I feel we could add value with the addition of a Disc Golf course. I was the lead consultant with the course at Rosland Park when the high school kids put the course in as part of their May term project in 2002. I worked;. closely with John Keprios and the`kids to build a fun for all course. As you probably already know, the Rosland course is a very popular course and crowded at times. A basic course could be built or we could install a high end course which could be a " pay to.: play" course. I have been the lead consultant for all' of the the Three Rivers Parks courses which are pay to play and very successful. Three Rivers charges $5/ round or $35 for a season pass for all 3 of their courses. Thank you for your time, please let me know if this could be a possibility and what steps I can take to make it happen. Tim Gill President www.par72discgolf.6om 612- 281 -3192 1 0 E Heather Branigin, From: Bruce Kieffer <bruce @kieffer.us> Sent: Wednesday, April30, 2014 2:S0 PM:: To: Edina Mail Subject: The Grandview Site Please issue an RFI for aconsultant -lead, community-based process under the guidance of the current CAT to first def ne the public uses for the former public works site in GrandView and to stop the process to select a.. . developer partner: Bruce `Kieffer - Bruce lkieffer.us httpJ/kieffer us i Heather. Branigin From: Gregg guider <gregg.guider @gmaiLcom> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:36 PM To: Edina Mail I Subject: Chickens in Edina! j 1 Hello Edina City.Councii: We kept chickens when w. a lived in SW Minneapolis, and are hoping to keep them in the future now that we've moved to the Morningside neighborhood of Edina. Minneapolis has a very sensible approach for people wishing to keep to keep chickens, and I think Edina could do well by 1. copying there approach and regulations. Those rules can be found here. http` / /www ci Minneapolis mn us /www /groups/ public/@ citVcooedinat6r/dbcumehts /webcontent /wcroslp- 122042.Odf Please-let'me know what I can do to help bring this in.front of the city council. j Thank you, Gregg 1' Heather Braniain From: Twinoaks50 @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 5:15 PM To: Edina Mail Cc: bascacat @aol.com Subject: Proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance for Redevelopment Projects Dear City Council Members, Kelodale Garden Club (est. 1957, Edina) respectfully requests that the Edina City. Council oppose the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance for Redevelopment Projects in`Edina. Kelodale members are concerned that.the proposed ordinance. calls for the planting of two trees from an approved list if one tree is removed i.h. a redevelopment` project. This was thought by Kelodale members to be too restrictive; and to limit the beneficial ways residents can use their yards.. Kelodale members expressed concern that shade from large trees.can interfere with solar panels, ponds, and the ability to plant small stature trees. This would have the effect of limiting, trees that provide berries for wildlife and birds. Increasing the amount of large.trees on a lot can also shade out vegetable and flower garden space, which also has an effect on pollinators. For these reasons, Kelodale Garden Club respectfully asks that City Council Members carefully consider the impact the proposed tree preservation ordinance will have on limiting the ways residents can enjoy their yards. Thank you for your consideration, Elizabeth Franklin and Mary Yee Co- Presidents Kelodale Garden Club 1 Heather Braniain From: Lori Grotz <lori @lorigrotz.com> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 20147:24 AM To: Edina Mail; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl@gmail:com Subject: Tree Ordinance May 1, 2014 Mayor Hovland Council Members: Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle, Ann Swenson, Josh Sprague I am in support of the proposed tree preservation ordinance put forward by the Planning Commission. Trees not only add to the beauty of our neighborhoods, but also clean the air, deaden noise, save energy, provide a windbreak, provide privacy, and absorb water. j Trees are an overlooked integral part of drainage and storm water management plans. With the large homes being built, there is considerably. less permeable area left to absorb water. Trees can absorb 100 gallons per day and also help to control erosion. Many properties have already been damaged from contractors not containing storm water but instead directing it to adjacent properties. Trees are valuable resources that need to be protected; The Builders may not like -the tree ordinance but this proposed ordinance is for the benefit of the City and residents and not for the Builders. I thank Michael Platteter and Claudia Carr for their time and effort in writing this proposed tree ordinance. Lori Grotz 5513 Park Place 1 Heather Branigin . From: Don Henrich <uechenrich @yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 9:34 AM To: Edina Mail, Follow Up Flag: Follow up - Flag Status: Completed Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council, support.the proposed tree ordinance relating to residential construction. It is too late for many neighborhoods, but it if will save some trees or replace them, it will certainly help other neighborhoods) Please pass itl Sincerely, Don Henrich M Heather Braniain From.: Jim Lehman, < jlehman @medalistmanagement.com> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 9:44 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Braemar GC Follow Up Flag: Follow:up Flag Status: Completed Mr. Hovland am the manager /agent for Tom Lehman and get involved in most of his business activities. I'd like to meet with you to discuss the Braemar golf course project and Tom's possible involvement. As you, know, he did the Edina CC renovation which was a success,..and he is very, interested in the Braemar project as well. Please let me know if you have a few minutes to meet and discuss. Jim James M. Lehman Medalist,Management, Inc. 601 Carlson Parkway, Suite 1290 Minnetonka, MN 5b305 Office: 952 -476 -2100 Cell: 612- 865 -8311 i Heather Braniain From: Susan Furlow <susanfurlow @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, May 01,2014 10:24 AM To: Edina Mail Cc: jonibennett12 @comcast.net; 'James Hovland'; Scott Neal Subject: Development of Grandview Site (Old Public Works Site) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear City Council Members, My husband and I are in full support of stoaoing the process to select a commercial-development partner for the former Edina Public Works-Site ( Grandview) Instead, we urge,you to create`an RFI for a consultant -lead, community- based process under the`guldance of the current CAT to first define4he public uses:for".thesite. ?. Edina has always prided itself on the excellence of its community based services and programs. We have always felt that Edina lacked a cohesive pubic Multi- purpose facility such as the community centers we see in other communities in our area and beyond. Our existing community activity facilities are largely single purpose (golf, ice arena, community ed classes housed in a shared building). Our current "community center" is housed within a shared:use building and does not provide the type of open, easily accessible community gathering and activity space we.need in this community. As a converted. school building which is operated by the school district its layout is confusing and outdated, it has very limited hours and most of the space is neither intended nor available for community use. Further, if there is an event at the Southview Middle School there is little or, no parking available there for any community center user. We are in favor of creating a multi- purpose community center for the former Edina Public Works site -- one that would combine auditorium /performance space, community: meeting spaces, an indoor aquatic center, other sports and fitness facilities, art facilities (since.our current art center has very limited space), and other shared event space. Our families, our youth, our seniors, and all other Edina citizens would benefit from this type of community gathering place. We look forward to your support in this endeavor, and ask that you create the RFl needed to generate the proposals for the development of a new public use space such as a community center. Thank you for all do for our cityl Susan Furlow and, Lary McCann 6537 Cherokee Trail Edina, MN 55439 952 - 944 -5212 1 a Heather Branigin From: Dianne Latham <Dianne@ Latham Park.net > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:10 AM To: Ann Swenson; James B. Hovland; Joni Bennett; Josh Sprague; Mary Brindle (Comcast) Cc: Scott Neal; Brian Olson; Tom Horwath; Edina Mail; Cary Teague Subject: Please Oppose the Proposed Tree Ordinance Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 5 -1 -14 Honorable Mayor Hovland and City Council Members, I am writing in opposition to the proposed Tree Ordinance because the proposed ordinance: 1. Far exceeds the scope of the perceived problem 2. Prevents residents from achieving alternative environmental objectives 3. Over reaches private property rights 4. Requires large amounts of nonexistent staff time 5. Unreasonably restricts work space in construction projects 6. Unreasonably restricts relandscaping options 7. Is impractical from a horticultural view point 8. Is vague in many places 9. Is easily circumvented, thus saving few trees 10. By forcing a landowner to donate trees to city parks when they cannot comply with the proposed ordinance, constitutes a tax on those seeking to renew and upgrade their property The proposed tree ordinance far exceeds the scope of the perceived problem The Energy and Environment Commission's (EEC) Urban Forest Task Force (UFTF) had substantially different findings than did the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force with respect to the need and scope of a tree preservation ordinance. The EEC's UFTF report states "The UFTF found that generally, there was little wonton removal of trees on public or private property within Edina other than in isolated instances. It is very costly to remove a mature tree and consequently trees are generally only removed in cases of disease or of relandscaping; such tree removals are not in need of regulation. When trees are removed in such circumstances they are generally replaced with new trees within a few years... Although teardowns occur throughout Edina, most complaints stem from those teardowns on lots less than 75 feet wide. As such the UFTF believed that it would not be prudent to design an ordinance applying to the entire city to address the localized problem of small lot teardowns. Problems unique to small lot teardowns should be addressed by the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force (RTF) and any enforcement accomplished by the proposed city teardown overseer." Michael Platteter of the Planning Commission indicated that at the Planning Commission's hearings on tear downs, 80% of those testifying did not mention tree removal as being a problem. Thus, the proposed tree ordinance far oversteps any possible need in instances of small lot tear downs, by applying not only to all tear downs, but also by applying to "all demolition permits; building permits applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool." Prevents residents from achieving alternative environmental objectives The ordinance requires: 1) Two for one replacement if any of 16 varieties of over story and large conifer Protected Trees of any size are removed more than 10 ft from the building pad and outside of the driveway or parking area. 2) One for one replacement of any Removable of over 5 inches in diameter including invasive species. 3) One to one replacement of a Protected Tree of any size, or Removable tree over 5 inches in diameter including invasive species within 10 ft of the building pad of a new or remodeled building or within driveways and parking areas. The replacement trees must be of one of the 16 specified varieties, all of which are very large at maturity. On small lots, one or two of these large trees in the front and back yard is about all that a lot could accommodate. On even a large lot (1/2 acre or more) doubling the number of Protected Trees through the two for one requirement of over story trees would completely shade the lot, if the lot could even accommodate the number of required trees and still allow them to be healthy. Although the specified over story and large conifer replacement trees constitute a worthwhile environmental objective, residents should not be compelled to landscape their lots for the resulting shade. Many worthy environmental objectives require sunny lots. This includes vegetable gardens, pollinator gardens and wildlife ponds. By restricting choices to just 16 varieties of trees, lots will begin to look quite similar. Small stature trees (15ft— 30ft) are eliminated because they are not on the list of specified replacement trees and there won't be room for them. Many of these small stature native trees have beautiful spring flowers, fall color and berries for birds. This includes Pagoda Dogwood, Service Berry or Nanny Berry. Many beautiful small stature ornamental trees such as Magnolia or Japanese Tree Lilac are similarly eliminated by being squeezed out a proposed landscape plan by the required over story and large conifer replacement trees. Oftentimes a small stature tree serves a small lot far better than larger trees, which can be out of scale with the small lot and overlap their neighbor's yards. It is important to encourage residents to invest in solar panels. The best time to design a home for solar panels is when a home is rebuilt or remodeled. Large designated replacement over story trees can prevent a homeowner or their neighbor from using solar panels, whereas smaller stature trees are compatible with them. The proposed tree ordinance prevents residents from achieving alternative environmental objectives for which they should have the choice, and thus the ordinance far over reaches private property rights. Requires large amounts of nonexistent staff time The city forester is a part time 4/5 position whose time is presently fully engaged. Even if converted to a full time staff person the following requirements of the proposed ordinance could not be accomplished: 10.82 (6) Approve the removal of any Protected Tree if the owner proposes that it is "diseased or hazardous ". What constitutes diseased or hazardous? How diseased or hazardous does a tree need to be before it can be removed? The ordinance is vague. It is often extremely difficult to know if a tree is diseased to the extent that it must be removed. Homeowners could be left with trees that are not thriving. Conversely, a tree capable of recovery, with some horticultural assistance, could be taken down. These decisions should be left to homeowners. If the tree looks bad to the homeowner and they have the resources to remove it, they should have that option. To do otherwise oversteps private property rights. 10.82. (4) (d) "Replacement tree plans are subject to approval by the City Forester before implementation!'— Over 100 tear down permits have been issued for each of the past two or more years. If all the "demolition permits; building permits applications for a structural addition; and building permits for accessory structures including a garage, deck or a pool" are added, the number would be much larger. And what is it that the City Forester is supposed to do with all these plans? No policy of guidelines state when he should approve or disapprove them. The ordinance is vague. 10.82 (4) (e)" If a replacement tree location cannot be found on the property, it must be placed in a public area, subject to approval by the City Forester." The ordinance is vague— what is a public area? Is it a city park? Boulevard? A large number of trees could be donated, which could over run the city's ability to find suitable locations, plant, mulch and water them. The EEC donated 16 small trees to Braemar Park and it was with some difficulty that enough places were found to plant them. The result was that the two large stature conifer seedlings were improperly planted in what was intended to be a prairie, which was supposed to be kept sunny. In addition, two deciduous over story trees were planted in an open area with peat under laying it, causing the trees to die. 10.82 (7) "The survey must indicate how the Protected Tree would be protected during the construction, subject to staff review and approval." And what is it that the City Forester is supposed to do with the survey? No policy or guidelines state when he should approve or disapprove them. The ordinance is vague.. 10.82 (7) "City staff monitoring is required for all projects with affected Protected Trees and/or replacement trees to ensure that all such trees are properly established and maintained for three (3) years." Multiply the number of annual demolition permits (tear down, remodeling, decks, garages, pools) times 3 and the City Forester will have a staggering number of trees to review annually. No one can guarantee that a newly planted tree will last for three years despite their best efforts. This is due to acts of God such as drought, insects, storms, etc. And what happens if the City Forester finds that a tree died? If it was not the homeowner's fault, should they have to replace it? How do you decide whose fault it is? The ordinance is vague. In 2002, both the Planning Commission and the City Council expressed concerns about the proposed 2002 tree ordinance proposal because the City Forester did not have enough time to comply with all the demands of the proposed ordinance. If anything, the demands of the proposed 2014 tree ordinance are greater than those of the 2002 proposed ordinance and most assuredly more impractical. To the extent that the City Forester has any surplus time, or to the extent that the City Forester position would be converted to a full time position, the EEC's Urban Forest Task Force had substantially different findings than did the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force with respect to the best use of the City Forester's time. The UFTF found as follows: "To more effectively control noxious weeds and address other environmental issues in the park system, the UFTF recommends hiring a full -time Natural Resource Manager, as opposed to a part-time Forester. More knowledge of ecology is required today given the arrival of many invasive plant, insect and aquatic species. A passive forestry program with a philosophy of `Natural Forest Succession' and one primarily focused on tree diseases such as oak wilt and Dutch Elm Disease, is no longer adequate... With a full -time Natural Resource Manager the following can be accomplished: more grants can be applied for, more parks can be certified as Audubon Cooperative Sanctuaries, more trees can be planted, more buckthorn and other noxious weeds can be controlled, more habitat can be restored, and more educational programs can be offered to residents." Unreasonably restricts work space in construction projects The City of Minnetonka Tree Protection ordinance at City Code 300.28, Subd. 19 states that: "R -1: For the construction of a principal structure on a vacant R 1 lot or for redevelopment of an existing R -1 lot, protected trees may be removed with no mitigation only within the "basic removal area". The "basic removal area" is defined as: a. Within the areas improved for reasonably -sized driveways, parking areas and structures without frost footings and within ten feet around those improvements; b. Within the footprints of, and 20 feet around buildings with frost footings; and c. In areas where trees are being removed for ecological restoration in accordance with a city- approved restoration plan. Edina's proposed ordinance at 10.82 (5) only allows removal of trees within "a ten -foot (10') radius of the building pad of a new or remodeled building" (as opposed to Lake Minnetonka's 20 ft) and "within driveways and parking areas" (whereas Minnetonka gives these a 10 ft radius). Removed protected trees in Minnetonka's above ordinance need not be replaced, while Edina's must be replaced one for one. Contractors need room to work and the Lake Minnetonka Tree Ordinance .provides that. Edina's proposed ordinance does not. Neighbors do not appreciate it when contractors leave construction materials on; sidewalks, in streets or on their property as a result of having insufficient room in which to, work. It would be very difficult to protect a tree, especially one` in the front yard on a. small lot less-than 75 ft wide, whichis filled with construction vehicles, equipment, tools and building materials. It would be more successful to remove the trees and relandscape, which probably needs to be redone anyway due to new sight lines and aging or overgrown. trees. But -here is the catch 22. The only complaints. about tree removal seem to be coming from the neighbors of tear downs on small lots - less4han 75 -ft wide, which tend;to exist predominately_ inMorningside. With;750,residences, Morningside constitutes '5% of the city's approximately 14,000 residences. Demolition permits, elsewhere in the city do . not result in tree removal complaints and have no need of regulation. If you give contractors the room they need to work as under the Lake Minnetonka Tree Ordinance, virtually no trees will be preserved in either the front yard or the side yard of tear, downs on small lots less than 75 ft wide. Trees in the liack yard would be protected, especially on deep lots; but few of ; those are being impacted in any event. I do not recommend even trying to preserve trees in the front or side yards on small lots less than 75 feet wide as it is grossly impractical given all the construction vehicles, equipment, tools and construction materials that must be amassed, there. Furthermore, it is not good governance to design an ordinance that meets the needs.of only.5% of the city. A city wide ordinance needs to be suitable for the vast majority of residents, and the proposed ordinance clearly is not. Unreasonably restricts relandscaping options When housing is renewed by_virtue.of a remodeling or a tear down project, so too must the landscaping be renewed. It is not possible for the city to micromanage this relandscaping process as too many personal choices.must be made. With housing renewal, the sight lines change. If perfectly healthy mature tree what once made sense in its location, no longer does so, it must.be: removed. When we enlarged our deck and put in a pond and gazebo we found that that we had to remove two maturilocust trees and one standard apple tree so that we could see the new landscape features from.the new deck. We also found that the 5 mature pines along the back of the lot1hat screened us from the neighbor looked pretty threadbare after over 40 years of the utility company's repeated pruning to keep them off the power lines. We replaced them instead with four native Pagoda Dogwoods that would grow but 15 ft high and would not need any pruning by the utility company. They would furthermore provide flowers -in the spring, fall color and berries for the birds. The service berry, plarited:near the pond does as well, plus being a small stature tree, it will never reach over to the pond .and .drop unwanted leaves into the pond. We also added an espalier of five honey crisp apples, one magnolia, one over story.gingko tree seedling, two white pine seedlings, two 3 ft tall Techny Arborvitae and one 6 ft tall black hills spruce. In our remodeling and relandscaping project we removed a total of 7 mature trees, 6 of which would have been considered Protected Trees. We replaced them with 15 trees, only one of which would have been allowed from the, list of required replacement trees and of the required size..Under the proposed ordinance we could not have landscaped our yard as we did. Our yard has been on many garden tours, won awards and been featured in magazines. and newspapers. The proposed ordinance would have instead required us t.o plant 13 over story or large conifer trees from the approved list of 16 trees. With the 13,required (2.for 1 of the 6 protected trees and one for one of the one non pro tected.tree);over story.or large conifer trees, a shady yard would have resulted and we would not have been able to have a vegetable garden, pollinator garden, wildlife pond, or the small stature pagoda dogwood trees fitting in under the power lines and providing berries for birds. It took us a year to plan our relandscaping project using a professional landscape architect. There were multiple revisions of the plan. Surely the City Forester cannot be expected'to become involved in .such projects. The proposed ordinance far oversteps private property rights. If residents are forced-to plant more over story and large conifers then they can use — where will they plant them so as to. preserve their sunny yard? Most likely they will plant them on the property line where they will unreasonably shade their neighbor's yard and force their neighbor to rake their tree's leaves or trim those portions of the tree that overhang the neighbor's property. This will increase neighbor disputes. Vague Many instances where the ordinance is vague have been .cited above. In addition, note the following: 10.82 (2) The list of Protected Trees needs to provide the scientific names, not common names. Birch can include paper birch, which is not suitable for zone 4. Maples can include Norway and Amur maple, which are on the DNR Do Not Plant list. Furthermore, the list is arbitrary and capricious and seeks to micromanage a resident's choice of trees. 10.82 (2) (b) Missing citation/URL for DNR list of invasive trees. Is it the intent to include trees from the DNR Do Not Plant list as well? If so, another citation/URL is needed. 10.82 (3) "Demolition and building permit applications must include a certified tree inventory." Certified by whom? 10.82 (4) (a) "Replacement trees must be varied" By how much? Does each have to be different? What percent can be alike? 10.82 (4) (b) "Replacement trees must not be subject to known epidemic diseases or infestations ". What is "known "? Is there a list of diseases or infestations? Known by whom? If a homeowner is not aware of it, is that sufficient? 10.82 (7) states "The permit holder shall not leave any Protected Tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent injury to the Protected Tree in connection with such construction." What constitutes "sufficient"? What constitutes "injury"? During our garage enlargement project new footings extended 45" deep and the trench extended 3 feet from the trunk of a mature honey locust tree, which constitutes a Protected Tree under the proposed ordinance. Three inch diameter roots were severed and hung over the trench. Does that constitute an injury? What, if anything, would be required to protect such a tree? We did nothing. Would we have been in violation of the ordinance? If so, what is the penalty? Does the City Forester actually have to look into each construction trench and render an opinion? Tom Hor wath, the City of Edina Forester, estimates that about 75% of trees in such situations survive. In fact, our trench tree is still thriving 9 years later behind the garage. Trying to regulate something that you really can't do much about is folly. Impractical from a horticultural view point Many instances where the ordinance is impractical have been cited above. Furthermore, the ordinance is impractical from many horticultural perspectives. This is undoubtedly because the Planning Commission's Residential Task Force, which drafted the proposed tree ordinance, neglected to invite the City of Edina Forester to a single meeting. The Energy and Environment Commission's Urban Forest Task Force had the Forester participate at every meeting. Sidewalks and Driveways - The proposed ordinance does not allow tree removal when a tree is immediately adjacent to a sidewalk or driveway, though Lake Minnetonka does. In these situations tree roots will cause the pavement to heave and become a tripping hazard. And who wants to have a tree right next to a drive way when you are backing out at night, or are backing out on a slippery surface. Trees next to driveways are well positioned for accidents. Trees within 10 feet of sidewalks and driveways need to be removed as provided in the Lake Minnetonka tree ordinance. Swimming Pools - Having to replace Protected Trees two for one when a swimming pool is being added is utterly impractical. Pools cannot have trees in proximity or they become dirty with leaves and other tree debris. Wildlife Pond — We added a wildlife pond in our relandscaping project. For these you cannot use chemicals to kill the mosquito larvae or you will poison the wildlife that comes to the pond. To control mosquito larvae you must add fish to the pond, which will eat the mosquito larvae. When you have fish you must have cover or the small pond becomes too hot during the summer and the fish die due to lack of oxygen in the water. The best way to do this is to add water plants such as water lilies, lotus, etc., as we did. These aquatic plants need sun, thus you can't have the over story trees as required by the ordinance in proximity to a wildlife pond. Such trees also cause the water to become dirty with tree debris, which negatively impacts the fish. Saplings — 10.82 (4) states "If a Protected Tree is removed... it must be replaced with two (2) trees" Tree seedlings in the list of 16 protected trees often come unbidden, carried in the air, by water, or by squirrels and other animals via their feces or through their food storage habits. No size is specified for a protected tree. Does this mean that every unbidden sapling/seedling must be replaced or allowed to grow? Conifers - 10.82 (4) (c) Requires replacement conifers to be at least 7 feet tall. Transplanting a large conifer over 6 feet tall is extremely expensive and difficult. The success rate of transplanting medium or large conifers is very poor. Our neighbor purchased a 6 ft pine and had it professionally planted. It died in less than a year and the landscaper would not honor the warranty as each pointed the finger at the other. As part of our relandscaping project we had a 6 ft black hills spruce professionally planted for $600. It lived but did not thrive. After ten years we had it removed. As part of the relandscaping project we also had two 3 ft tall Techny Arborvitae professionally planted. One died in less than a year and the landscaper replaced it. The two white pine seedlings that we planted as part of the relandscaping thrived and grew rapidly. Nine years later the seedlings are 6 ft tall. The smaller the tree the easier it is to transplant not only from a labor perspective but also from a success rate perspective. Requiring 7 ft conifers is expensive and more likely to fail. Overgrown Conifers — Turning overgrown conifers into Protected Trees discourages residents from removing them. Having overgrown conifers from in front of home doors and windows poses a security risk. Robbers often target homes with overgrown conifers obscuring entry ways. A former neighbor of mine was twice broken into by robbers who kicked in her front door. With overgrown conifers obscuring her front door the robbers could work with needed cover. Residents should not be penalized for removing overgrown conifers, which often are out of scale with the home as well as being positioned so as to become a security risk. Buckthorn and other weed trees - 10.82 (2) (b) includes buckthorn as a removable tree because it is defined by the MN DNR as an invasive species. 10.82 (6) states "If a removable Tree greater than five inches (5 ") is removed, it must be replaced with one tree." Drive through Indian Hills or any areas where there are large lots. There you will see many buckthorn trees greater than 5" in diameter. Requiring residents to replace these on a one for one basis would only discourage a homeowner from removing their buckthorn. Buckthorn is a shade tolerant understory tree, which grows closely together. Replacing them from among the sun loving trees on the required list of 16 trees would necessitate replacement trees being planted so closely together that the replacement trees could not thrive. This is highly impractical. And do you really want to compel residents to replace other Removable Trees such as weedy trees like silver maple, box elder, Siberian elm, etc? The resident likely did not plant them. They were volunteers that arrived unbidden and no one got around to weeding them out. The ordinance is easily circumvented, thus saving few trees 10.82 (8) states "If Protected Trees were removed within one (1) year prior to the date that the development, demolition and building permit applications were submitted, these Protected Trees are also subject to the replacement policy set forth in paragraph (4) above." It takes considerable time to plan a remodeling project. All a homeowner needs to do is to remove any Protected Tree one year and a day prior to applying for the permit, then spend the year planning their remodeling project before applying for a demolition permit. In the alternative, the resident could wait until the remodeling is finished, then begin the tree removal and relandscaping. A savvy developer will tell their prospective seller to do the tree removals prior to closing and then add the removal cost to the selling price of the home. The seller who removed the trees won't be applying for the permit, and by the time the developer /purchaser closes on the home and applies for the permit, the lot's Protected Tree survey will show a bare lot. In the alternative, a builder can simply donate trees to the city and raise the cost of an already high priced home. The bottom line is that if a property owner does not want a tree, it will be removed sooner or later and there is little that a city can do about it other than to educate residents about the value of trees, or perhaps provide discount trees for residents like the City of Plymouth does. With all the loop holes, the ordinance isn't really about protecting trees. It's about hurling roadblocks in front of developers in a misguided effort to discourage tear downs. Constitutes a tax on those seeldng to renew and upgrade their property Forcing a landowner to donate trees to city parks when they cannot comply with the proposed ordinance constitutes a tax on those seeking to renew and upgrade their property. This has been done primarily to discourage tear downs on small lots less than 75 feet wide and has overzealously been extended to remodels, additions and pools on lots of all sizes. Solutions I believe that tree removals are not really the problem here. Trees are a renewable resource. No one builds a $500,000 - $1,000,000 home and then fails to relandscape with trees. Although they may not relandscape immediately, due to time and financial limitations, they will eventually relandscape. Developers are required to submit a landscape plan. That should be part of the meeting with the neighborhood. If the neighborhood meeting finds the landscape plan insufficient they should`talk to'the developer about it and "work it out with the City tear down supervisor. If the tear down supervisor has some landscaping guidelines, the proposed ordinance is .unnecessary. Residents can hardly complain about large ,trees being replaced with young trees because all their lots once had young trees when their homes were new. You need to constantly renew the urban forest before trees age out. You don't want to wait'until-a tree falls on your home or on another structure. Some residents have complained to me about tear downs. But when they sold their own homes, they sold them to developers who they knew planned to tear them down. They did so because the developers paid them more money. Residents cannot have it both ways. Let's face it, tree removal complaints are a smoke screen for the real complaint — tear downs. Council needs to solve the right problem, and it, is NOT tree removals. Unless, Council is willing to make Morningside or other affected small lot tear down areas a historic_ preservation district much like Country Club, or at least designate;some homes in these areas`for historic preservation, tear downs will continue-And frankly; some.of the homes have been poorly maintained and do warrant being tom down and replaced with homes that are energy efficient and better meet the needs of modem families. But for the vast majority, it is a loss of affordable starter homes: If that loss is not of concern to Council, the accompanying tree loss should not be of concern to council. Whereas the trees can and undoubtedly will be replaced, the starter homes cannot be replaced. Everyone needs to understand that as long as it is legal to renew a home by remodeling it or tearing it down, so too.must it be legal to renew ,the landscape to fit the ienewed homes' needs. Micromanaging residents landscaping is nothing but a sink hole for city staff time and does little to preserve trees in the long run. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Dianne Plunkett Latham 7013 Comanche Ct Edina MN 55439 -1004 952- 941 -3542 7 Heather Braniain From: Dianne Latham <Dianne @LathamPa'rk.net> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 201411:31 AM To: Ann Swenson; James B. Hovland; Joni Bennett; Josh Sprague; Mary Brindle (Comcast) Cc: Tom Horwath; Brian Olson; Cary Teague; Edina Mail; Scott Neal. Subject: Please Oppose Proposed Edina Tree Ordinance Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 5 -1 -14 Please include the following.in the 5 -6 -14 City Council packet. - Thank. you. Dianne Plunkett Latham Edina Garden Council Chair, Conservation Committee 7013 Comanche Ct Edina MN 55439 -1004 952 -941 -3542 From:, Twinoaks50C a�aol. com.fmallto:twinoaks50 @aol.com] Sent:, Wednesday, March 19, 201410:28 AM To: dianne @lathampark.net Subject: Cutting down Trees Hi Dianne, Minnesota garden writer Don Engebretson (The Renegade Gardener) has some strong and humorous views on the right to cut down trees without replacing them. In light of the proposed tree ordinance, you may enjoy these columns. . Elizabeth The 10 Tenets of Renegade Gardening Full version is required reading, hlW: / /www.rene agadegazdener.com/conteni tenets.htm 1. Gardening should be challenging, relaxing, and fun. 2. Renegade Gardeners are. cautious and wise when perusing the plethora of products and plants sold by the commercial gardening industry,. 3. Gardening involves commitment. 4. Renegade Gardeners learn the Latin names of the plants they grow. 5. Gardening is not always easy. 6. Renegade Gardeners come to realize that lawns are essentially a dumb idea. 7. Gardening and rock music do riot, mix. 8. Renegade Gardeners buy first from local growers. 1 9. 'Where is nothing wrong with cutting down a tree on your property. 10. Irreverence is essential. "9. There is nothing wrong with cutting down a tree on your property. It's your tree, and just like any perennial, shrub, or concrete statue of a little boy with a fishing pole, for that matter, if it's fallen into, disfavor, it's perfectly all right for you to make it go away. People have extrapolated news of the deforestation of the Brazilian rainforest into a belief that trees should no longer be cut down. Trees should no longer be cut down in the Brazilian rain forest because the loggers there are clear- cutting, lack any reforestation program, and ample substitutes are available for the hard woods being harvested This has nothing to do with that damn spruce planted by a previous owner seven feet off the corner of your house that has had the audacity to attempt to grow twenty feet wide, or the white pine planted by the owner before that, that now sits half -dead under the sixty foot canopy of a red oak that, when planted, was the same height as the pine. If you want to plant a tree every time you cut one down, great, but if you remove a tree from your property because it's planted in a dumb spot, has been improperly pruned, succumbed to disease or storm damage, or simply impacts your ability to create the landscape you envision and you don't plant a tree afterwards, that's fine too. Never take any grief about it from the twelve year -old kids on your block, or their socialist parents, either. " On Cutting Down a Tree, or Three hftD://www.renonadenardener.com/contenV81cutdowntree.htFn My neighbor Dave wandered into my yard the other day and we lied to each other about what we were planning to accomplish in our gardens by season's end. I mentioned one event definitely taking place on my humble half -acre during the winter: The removal of three excruciatingly mature trees (an oak, an elm, and, to be fair, a maple) from my front yard. Dave withered, slumped, his face grew white and his eyes started rolling back in their sockets. He recovered, gave a low whistle, looked at his shoes, shook his head. I knew what was coming. Since we were standing beside the maple, he started his cross - examination there. "You're going to take down this maple? This beautiful tree ?" he asked. The maple in question is forty -five feet tall will a crown width of around twenty -five feet. It's a Norway, Acer platanoides, referred to by many in these parts as a "black" maple. I pointed out to David that the tree in question had been pruned, badly, as a youngster, so that the trunk now splits into two large trunks at a point about seven feet above the ground. The dual trunks immediately curve in parallel to the southwest, and exhibit all manner of lesions, cracks, and wounds. The crown is jagged, lop - sided, and gives the impression the tree is off balance. It has never provided any noteworthy fall color display. Despite my pruning and the professional trimming I paid for a decade ago, it remains the ugliest maple in Deephaven, and that's saying something. The final strike against it is that whereas it sits in a good spot for a tree, it's the wrong tree for the spot. It's too close to my house for a large tree, it's out of scale, it looms over and clutters my driveway, and it shades an area in front of my house for five hours in the afternoon. Plus, as I've already stated, it's ugly. A proper gardening solution? Remove it. The best advice I can give new gardeners, particularly those who have just purchased a home and yard, is FIX YOUR TREE SITUATION FIRST. Had I taken the maple out fifteen years ago, and planted in its spot the tree that I'll be planting next spring (an Eastem Redbud), the Deephaven maples redbud would be sixteen feet tall by now, nearing its max, and looking gorgeous. I'm always floored by people's reactions to the thought of having trees removed from their yards. Where I live, many of the trees in literally a thousand yards were not planned, were not planted as an element of landscape design. They just grew, maples especially. I refer to maples in ridiculous locations in a yard as a "Deephaven Maple," and every spring I remove over a hundred of them from my front, back and side yards. These trees are an inch or two tall and are sprouting up from the previous year's seed drop. Every spring, everyone in my neighborhood does the same. Fail to do it and ten years from now, one would have a thousand, twelve -foot maples growing on a half -acre lot. But that never bothers anyone, removing over a thousand maples from their yards in a decade, because they are young. But let a few grow until they cause problems, then cut one down, and you get anonymous letters in the mail. How many big trees were removed when my house was built in 1946? Ten? Twenty? Fourteen very large trees remained when I bought the house, so I imagine at least ten were given the ultimate prune by the builder when he put in the foundation and driveway. No one ever thinks about that. People who live in their $550,000 wood homes and decry the loss of six trees when a builder finally wrestles away ownership of an undeveloped lot across the street from them don't ever think about the fifteen trees that were cut down when their house was built. Or the forty that were cut down to supply the lumber for it. Two of my original fourteen trees — classic Deephaven Maples — were in my back yard, too close together, right off my patio, blocking the view from my kitchen and dining room windows. They existed for no reason except they hadn't been pulled by a previous owner when they were a few inches high. I neglected them, and one died, gratefully, following the drought of the early 1980s. When I took it out I took the other one out. Everyone hears about the deforestation of the various rain forests on the globe, particularly in South America, and many people curse logging (sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly), but these situations don't equate to tree removal in residential landscapes. In fact, it's fair to say that the number of trees being planted (and new trees slowly working their way to one hundred - year -old status) in residential America are up from previous decades. Proof? Development of the southern, western, and northern, second -ring suburbs of Minneapolis — and probably your nearest city. These were farmlands, some as close as two miles from my current home. They were clear -cut by farmers one hundred and fifty years ago, and farmed for generations. Guess what? The U.S. doesn't need as much farmland as it once did; yield per acre is much higher than it was in the 1800s, or the 1950s, for that matter. All across Minnesota, treeless farmland is being turned into residential home developments, with, granted, ghastly street names. But my point is that trees are being planted, by the thousands across the Twin Cities, and by the millions across America.. Builders are getting better at not dooming so many trees when they do build homes, and have learned not to change the soil level around trees they want to save. New, disease resistant strains of trees, from crabapples to elms, are being developed and marketed, and nurseries can't keep up with demand from builders, landscapers and homeowners. Getting back to my trees, the maple, as discussed, is history. The elm is coming down (I explained to Dave) because it's very old, parts of it have been lost in numerous storms, and if I leave it up it will certainly go down in a storm, possibly on my house, within the next five years. It's also in a really dumb spot, smack in front of my house, up way too close. The red oak, which sits eight feet from the elm, is a nice- Would you plant a tree there? looking tree but is also in a dumb spot, even closer to my house (twelve feet) than the elm. This oak is fifty feet tall and could well be one hundred years old. I've debated the oak, but decided finally to take it out because in my new front yard plan, I'd never put any type of tree where it stands. I'm having it removed in eight, ten and twelve -foot lengths, then calling up a friend of mine with a portable sawmill he tows behind his pickup. Come spring he'll saw it into 8" x 8 "s and 10" x 10 "s for use in an elaborate arbor structure I'm going to build off my home's new addition. I like that. I'm sure one reason the elm and the oak were left (they most certainly existed before the house was built, and were not planted as a part of any landscape plan) was to shade and cool the house. They sit directly south. Air conditioning was not available to the original owner in the 1940s, so these two trees provided shade to the roof and front of the house in. summer, then lost their leaves and allowed the sun to shine on the house in the winter. Well, I put in central air conditioning four years ago. This opens up my options. So I'm taking three trees out. Big ones. Before you phone the Sierra Club and report me, may I also point out that I am planting three trees in my yard. I mentioned this to Dave and he was immediately back to liking me, so I didn't mention that my planting three trees was shear coincidence. You don't need to plant a tree every time you take one down (see Tenet 11). Some people find that hard to believe. I was doing a yard consultation last week with a young couple down the road, nice house and lot, many beautiful trees, and as we walked around a comer of their house we came upon the second ugliest maple in Deephaven. Twenty years old, perhaps. A previous owner had hit the tree, repeatedly, with the mower blade, so that the trunk actually grew in a brazen "s" as it struggled for sunlight under a full canopy of far more mature trees. It was too close to the house, all alone, fixing to die in one of the few areas on the entire one -acre lot in which I would never plant a tree. The couple asked me what I thought about "the little maple." It goes, I said. "That's what the neighbors all say, but we wanted an expert opinion." I know when to bite my tongue. Then the wife asked, "So what type of tree should we plant there after its gone ?" a HeatherAranigin From: Frank Petrovic on behalf of Edina Mail Sent Thursday, May 01, 2014 6:14 PM To: 'Stephanie Platteter' Subject: RE: Edina Tree Ordinance Hi Stephanie, I will pass this along to Administration._ Thank you, Frank Frank Petrovic, Customer Service Representative 952 -828 -0347 I Fax 952 - 828 -0389 FPetrovlcMEdlnaMN.00v I www.EdinaMN.aov s. ..For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Stephanie Platteter rmailto:platt013C&umn:edul Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:56 PM To: Edina Mail Subject:, Edina Tree Ordinance I am writing today to voice my overwhelming support for the Tree Ordinance that the Edina. City Council will 'i consider at their'May`6 meeting. The trees are so important to the character of our neighborhoods and to the value of our homes because they differentiate us from other suburban neighborhoodsAt has been heartbreaking to see so many mature trees come down in my Morningside neighborhood.The proposed Tree Ordinance is a . fair and effective way for Edina to ensure that trees continue to add character and environmental benefits to our neighborhoods. Thank you, Stephanie Platteter 4304. Branson Street Stephanie Platteter I Executive Director of Marketing and College -wide Enrollment Management) University of Minnesota College of Continuing Education I p: 612- 624 -3203 f: 612 - 624 -3016 340 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108 p1att013@,unm.edu www.cce.umn.edu www. linkedin .com/in/stephanieplatteter 1 Heather'Branigin From: Frank Petrovic on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 6:36 PM To: Heather Branigin Subject: FW: I support the tree ordinance Marian supports'the tree ordinance. Frank Petrovic, Customer Service Representative @ 952-828-0347 1r Fax 952 -828 -0389 FPetmvic(ZDEdlnaMN.aov I www.EdinaWaov • < , �'r ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business' ,. From: Marian Cracraft [mailto:marcray33sal_yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May'01, 20i4 4:56 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: I support the tree ordinance Marian i E -LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS EDINA May 2, 2014 Dear Members of the Edina City Council: For over 30 years, LW Edina has, supported creating and maintaining a community center in Edina that responds to the.diverse and changing needs of all age groups. While Edina has a variety of public facilities, none alone or together meets all the needs of our growing and changing community: A new community center that offers a range of activities, from arts and culture to recreation, for residents of all ages and in a central location, would meet these needs.and encourage more connections among all our residents. The, former public works site is a rare parcel of rcentrally- located available public land. The current process to seek ideas for redevelopment of this property provides an opportunity to explore thepossibility of a new community center. The January. 2014 residential survey shows support for devoting the site to community amenities such as a fitness center, performing arts space; art center, outdoor plaza, multi- purpose rooms, indoor pool, and athletic courts. A new community center at this location would also be accessible.by transit. The current process.to consider potential uses for the land is housed in Economic. Development. A process to determine the best uses for public land should not be driven primarily by economic concerns. LWV Edina believes that the public's interests and needs, balanced with fiscal responsibility once those interests and needs are known, should drive the redevelopment of public land: To this end, LW Edina recommends that the City Council: End the current Economic Developmentprocess; • Solicit the involvement of the Parks and Recreation Department going forward; and • Begin a process to explore current and future public needs that may be met by this public land, including the possibility of a community center. ThLLa //nk you for your consideration, Debby McNeil President, LW Edina The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to -increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. www.LWVEdina.org I To: MAYOR & COUNCIL Agenda Item #: IX. A. From: Debra Mangen Action City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Correspondence Action Requested: No action is necessary. Attachment: Attached is correspondence received since the last packet was delivered to Council Members. City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Heather Braniain From: margaret.stein @state.mn.us Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 4:04 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Contact Us form submission Name: Margaret Stein Organization: Website: Address 1: 6304 Barrie Rd Address 2: City: Edina'. State: MN Zip_Code: 55435 Email: margaret.stein@state.mn.us Phone: 612 - 929 -5838 Referrer: other Message: To Mayor Hovland and City Council Members: I am in favor of the Homeless Teen Apartment Project in the TCF building on 66th Street. I think it is a worthy resource. However, I hope that the article in the Start Tribune was correct when it said that the teens served will be primarily from the local suburbs (like Edina, Richfield, Eden Prairie,:etc.) Also, that.this facility will be helping homeless teens who are homeless due to aging out of the Foster Care system, family issues, and not be used primarily as a half -way house for teens /older persons getting out of the Correctional System or Treatment Programs. Also that it will have appropriate security, andmiles in place- -both for the good of the program residents and the many local Edina homeowners. Thank you, Margaret Stein Edina MN i May 2, 2014 / I V f City Council On April 8, 2014 a joint Work Session of the Richfield City Council and Richfield Planning Commission was held to discuss the proposed development. In addition to Richfield's Council Members and Planning Commissioners, Edina City Manager Scott Neal and Metropolitan Council Representative Steve Elkins were present at that meeting. On April 9, the Edina Planning Commission recommended denial of Lennars site plan; in part because of the negative impacts of the proposed development on Richfield residents. Since that time, the developer has made some very minor adjustments to their plan that do not fully meet the concerns of community leaders and residents in Richfield. Of primary concern are the following: A height in excess of four to five stories. The existing commercial site is guided for Community Activity Center in Edina's Comprehensive Plan. The maximum height in this area is four stories or 48 feet. The maximum height allowed in the Single Dwelling Unit District is two and a half stories. The proposed six -story building exceeds these allowances and exceeds what the Richfield Comprehensive Plan anticipated for the site. This additional height would adversely affect Richfield homes. A building setback of less than 140 feet from existing single - family lot lines. The proposed setback less than what Edina requires for PCD -3 District projects when adjacent to R -1 (Single Dwelling Unit District) properties. According to the Edina Planning Commission Report dated April 9, 2014, the PCD -3 District north of 70th Street requires a minimum setback from an R -1 property line that is equal to twice the height of the proposed building. The staff report states that in this case that is equal to 140 feet. While Lennar's most recent revision increases the setback by 10 feet, at 132 feet it remains short of the City's requirement. The Urban Homelown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749 mvw.dtyoMehTk aW AN RWAL OPPORTUMTY EHIPLOYER Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director City of Edina MAYOR 4801 W. 501h Street DEBBIE GOETTEL Edina, MN 55424 CI YCOUNCIL Dear Mr. Teague, PAT ELLIOTT TOM Frr7HFNRY EDWINA GARCIA I would like this letter to be entered into the public record as it relates to this Public Hearing SUZANNE M. SANDAI1 and, if possible, have the following read aloud at the Public Hearing. cmr MANAGER I am writing in regards to the Public Hearing being held before the Edina City Council on May STEVEN L. DEVICH 6, 2014 for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Rezonings related to the proposed development at 6725 York Ave. S. Richfield city officials feel that it is good public policy and good practice as a neighboring community to allow meaningful impact by an adjoining jurisdiction, especially in a case such as this which is located on a "soft border„ between two communities. On April 8, 2014 a joint Work Session of the Richfield City Council and Richfield Planning Commission was held to discuss the proposed development. In addition to Richfield's Council Members and Planning Commissioners, Edina City Manager Scott Neal and Metropolitan Council Representative Steve Elkins were present at that meeting. On April 9, the Edina Planning Commission recommended denial of Lennars site plan; in part because of the negative impacts of the proposed development on Richfield residents. Since that time, the developer has made some very minor adjustments to their plan that do not fully meet the concerns of community leaders and residents in Richfield. Of primary concern are the following: A height in excess of four to five stories. The existing commercial site is guided for Community Activity Center in Edina's Comprehensive Plan. The maximum height in this area is four stories or 48 feet. The maximum height allowed in the Single Dwelling Unit District is two and a half stories. The proposed six -story building exceeds these allowances and exceeds what the Richfield Comprehensive Plan anticipated for the site. This additional height would adversely affect Richfield homes. A building setback of less than 140 feet from existing single - family lot lines. The proposed setback less than what Edina requires for PCD -3 District projects when adjacent to R -1 (Single Dwelling Unit District) properties. According to the Edina Planning Commission Report dated April 9, 2014, the PCD -3 District north of 70th Street requires a minimum setback from an R -1 property line that is equal to twice the height of the proposed building. The staff report states that in this case that is equal to 140 feet. While Lennar's most recent revision increases the setback by 10 feet, at 132 feet it remains short of the City's requirement. The Urban Homelown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749 mvw.dtyoMehTk aW AN RWAL OPPORTUMTY EHIPLOYER , , May 2; 2014 Page 2 Excessive shadow impacts result from both the building height and its reduced setback. As a response from a request by Richfield staff members, Lennar conducted a shadow analysis. This analysis shows that in December, the buildings would begin to cast shade on six to eight Richfield homes sometime between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00'p.m. While I appreciate that the developer has increased the Xerxes Avenue setback, this impact would be eliminated by orienting the site's larger building mass toward York"Avenue, the major commercial artery. Architectural Context. The project will face a block of one - and -a -half story cape cods and single -story ramblers. The proposed design is not context - sensitive to the period or style of housing in the adjacent neighborhood. I firmly believe that these are all concerns that Edina residents would have if they were in the same position as those Richfield residents adjacent to the property and, in short, we are asking that you treat Richfield residents' concerns with as much validity as if they were your own residents. Sincerely, OX459� Debbie Goettel Mayor Copy: Richfield City Council City Manager Community Development Director Heather Braniain From: Katie Oberle <kinderwoman @katieoberle.com> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 9:21 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Grandview I want the city to have a record of my support for public use of the Grandview area development. There are a number of cities throughout the US and Canada (Vancouver) that could be used as models.. _ Katie Oberle 15 year resident 26 year public service (Edina Public Schools) i I • I 1 Heather Braniain From: Dario Anselmo <dariop40 @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014" 1126 AM To: Edina 'Mail Subject: City of Edina cleanup - Campaign for House Jim, I am sorry I missed you this Saturday am. I wasn't able to make it to the clean up zone until 9am. I ran into Kevin Stanton who I had a nice talk about some City issues with, one of them the Grandview site that I have been tracking. I was able to clean up a small section by the onramp to Hwy 100 by the Wasburn McReavy home: . I would love to connect with you sometime to talk about the City as well as my run for the MN State House seat 49A. Happy to connect at a place and time of your convince. Thanks for your efforts to help our community! Thank you, Dario Anselmo Candidate for State House Rep. 49A (Edina) Mobile: 612 - 325 -0130 1 Email: Anselmo4House0—gmail.com Web: Darioanseltnoxom FB: Facebook.com /Anselmo4House 1 / ♦ I Heather Braniain From: Palmstrom <linneapalmstrom @gmail.com> Sent:. Sunday, May 04, 2014 5 :08 PM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrictorg; Edina Mail Subject:. The Edina.section of the Nine Mile Creek bike trail Attachments: Nine Mile Creek Species Checklist - Palmstrom 5- 2- 14.pdf Dear Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director and Three Rivers.Park District Commissioners: I know there is a lot of discussion about where to put the bike path by Nine Mile Creek in Edina. For many years, I have, walked:by Nine Mile Creek by Edina High School and Creek Valley Elementary School and observed the wildlife. I used these observations to make a species checklist of this area as part,of my Girl.Scout Gold Award project. I recently completed.this list and I am attaching it to this email,in case it is useful In, deciding where to put the bike path. I have found that a lot of people have opinions about the bike path, but most people are unaware about the wildlife and plants that actually live in this area. Y. am conscious about how my presence affects the wildlife, and I believe that many of the birds would leave the.area,if b the bike path were built close to the creek. Sincerely, I_innea Palmstrom 6613 Nordic Dr. Edin.a;.MN 55439 1 Nine Mile Creek Species Checklist for the Area by Edina High School and Creek Valley Elementary School, Edina, N IN by Linnea Palmstrom This species checklist is based on personal observations I have made on frequent trips around Nine Mile Creek by Creek Valley Elementary School and Edina High School in Edina (Hennepin County), Minnesota from about May 2012 to May 2014. As part of my Girl Scout Gold Award project, I organized these observations into this list. This list is meant to be an aid for community members to recognize and learn more about the plants and animals that live in this area and appreciate the diversity of animal and plant life that is found along this small section, about 2/3 of a mile, of Nine Mile Creek. This list also includes the plants and animals found in the prairies that are planted at both Creek Valley Elementary School and Edina High School and in the woodland areas of these schools. I have photographed almost all of the species I have seen. I used these photographs to identify many of the species. I identified the mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and the dragonflies and damselflies. Ruth Hamilton identified the herbs, shrubs, trees and the other insects and invertebrates. This list is a starting point for a more comprehensive list. I was unable to identify or did not have very complete lists for fungi, fish, insects and other invertebrates, and grasses. Some plants that were found in this project were not listed on the 2013 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) list for naturalized plant species occurring in Hennepin County. Some of these plant species may have been planted on the school grounds and do not represent naturalized populations, but others probably have not been officially recorded in the Bell Museum herbarium as occurring in this area yet. One endangered species on the DNR's list was found, the Butternut tree Juglans cinerea. There are a large number of birds that use the creek. This area is home to many nesting birds which include great horned owls, ospreys, red - tailed hawks, wild turkeys, mallards and wood ducks. Many bird species are migratory and stop to feed in this area of the creek during the spring and fall. The Great Blue Heron and the Great Egret are common visitors throughout the summer. Three birds from the Nine Mile Creek area in Edina are listed in the "2010 Partners in Flight" report of 42 common birds in steep population decline. These are the Belted Kingfisher whose population decreased by 53% since the mid- 1960s, the Northern Flicker whose population declined by 52 %, and the Horned Lark whose population decreased by 56 %. In the "2009 U.S. State of the Birds" report, four birds found at Nine Mile Creek are on their list for wetland birds showing long -term declines in population numbers. These are the Green Heron, Spotted Sandpiper, Lesser Yellowlegs and Franklin's Gull. The Northern Flicker, Bald Eagle, and Pied - billed Grebe are listed as species of conservation concern for our area by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "Birds of Conservation Concern, 2008" report. These natural areas around Nine Mile Creek also provide an important habitat for milkweed. In 1996, the overwintering population of Monarch butterflies in Mexico was estimated to be 1 billion. Most recently, for 2014, the Monarch population has declined to 33 million. The major cause for this is now believed to be the reduction of milkweed host plants and wildflower nectar sources growing in the United States and Canada due to the use of potent glyphosate herbicides that can now be used on herbicide resistant genetically modified corn and soybean crops.' Adding to this is the increase in grasslands in the Midwest being converted to agricultural fields to grow corn for biofuel. Also, there is an increase in the use of herbicides to manage vegetation along roadways that has reduced the occurrence of milkweed. It is estimated that milkweed has been eliminated from 24 million acres of land in the last decade. In addition, these herbicides kill other wildflowers that are important nectar sources for migrating Monarch butterflies. It is important to keep stands of milkweed in natural areas such as those that border Nine Mile Creek if we want to enjoy the beauty of the Monarch butterfly in the future. This area is important for absorbing water runoff from residential areas and streets. During snowmelt and heavy rains, the creek level can rise over 4 %2 feet spilling onto the playing fields by Creek Valley Elementary school and the lower athletic fields of Edina High School. These same fields are chemically treated multiple times a year. Since these athletic fields are directly connected to Nine Mile Creek, the effects on the creek should be considered when these fields are maintained. In this small section of Nine Mile Creek, there is a lot happening! Nine Mile Creek is an important natural resource for so many plants, animals and people for our community and state. The creek is an important waterway for migrating birds and provides a natural corridor for wildlife and wetland/prairie vegetation which helps preserve the native fauna and flora of our state. 'An article by Tim Johnson "Monarchs butterflies' migration is in peril because of rampant herbicide use" KansasCity.com, March 31, 2014, describes the situation of the Monarch butterfly. Aerial view of the 2/3 mile section of Nine Mile Creek and the Creek Valley Elementary School and Edina High School campuses where species were recorded. (Adapted from Google Maps.) . . �Ni�inber Qf'�`Apecies � -,k 1 :r hmTaxonQ�ics Group t n�fi, , 17 Mammals 85 Birds 7 Amphibians & Reptiles 9 Fish 105 Arthropods 7 Annelids and Molluscs 175 Herbs /wildflowers 56 Trees and shrubs The table above summarizes the number of species observed in 2012 -2014 in the Nine Mile Creek area by Edina High School and Creek Valley Elementary School in Edina, Minnesota. The Butternut tree (left), Juglans cinerea, is on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources endangered species list. This tree is growing near Nine Mile Creek bordering the athletic fields by Creek Valley Elementary School. Its immature fruit is shown on the right. Cil'CCII heron i � f Northern Fticker � F i� Spotted Sandpiper":,­- KJA AW .. Horned Lark = .r r, r a ���! sat � . � • *" " � ' ...F .7 it •! d^w^ Ngti . ^:� .. . aid+ -•'t . � �,4 q e{s7 -wAr Flop _._ VIZ r ...F .7 it •! d^w^ Ngti . ^:� .. . aid+ -•'t . � �,4 q e{s7 -wAr Flop _._ VIZ In July 2013, the water level of Nine Mile Creek rose by over 4 % feet by the Edina High School dock. Water covered much of the lower athletic fields (upper photo). The lower photo shows a similar view of these athletic fields in April 2014. Nine Mile Creek Species Checklist for the Area by Edina High School and Creek Valley Elementary School, Edina, MN by Linnea Palmstrom Animals Phylum Chordate (Animals with Notochords) Subphylum Vertebrata (Vertebrates — Animals with Backbones) Class Mammalia (Mammals) Order Artiodactyla (Even -toed Ungulates) Cervidae (Deer and Their Kin) White - tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus Order Carnivore (Carnivorans) Canidae (Wolves, Foxes and the Coyote) Coyote Canis latrans Gray Fox Vrocyon cinereoargenteus Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Mustelidae (Weasels, Skunks and Their Kin) American Mink Mustela vison Procyonidae (Raccoons and Their Kin) Common Raccoon Procyon lotor Order Chiroptera (Bats) Vespertilionidae (Evening Bats) Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus Order Lagomorpha (Lagomorphs) Leporidae (Rabbits and Hares) Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Order Rodentia (Rodents) Cricetidae (Cricetid Rodents) Southern Red - backed Vole Clethrionomys gapperi Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Common Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Sciuridae (Squirrels) Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus American Red Squirrel Tamiasciww hudsonicus Order Soricomorpha ( "Shrew- form ") Soricidae (Shrews) Northern Short- tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda Talpidae (Moles) Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus Class Aves (Birds) Order Anseriformes (Swans; Geese and Ducks) Family Anatidae 'Wood Duck Aix sponsa American . Wigeon Anas americana Blue- winged Teal Anas discors Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Mallard X American Pekin hybrid Anas platyrhynchos X Anas platyrhynchos domestics Canada Goose Branta canadensis Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Order Apodiformes (Swifts and Hummingbirds) Family Troehilidae (Hummingbirds) Ruby- throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris Order Charadriiformes (Shorebirds) Family Charadriidae (Plovers) ;Killdeer Charadrius vociferous Family' Laridae (Jaegers, Gulls,and Terns) Herring Gull Larus argentatus Ringed- billed Gull Larus delawarensis Franklin's Gull Leucophaeus pipixcan Family Scolopacidae (Sandpipers) Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicala Lesser Yellowlegs Tringaflavipes Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Order Ciconiiformes (Herons, Ibis and New World Vultures) Family Ardeidae (Herons) Great Egret Ardea alba Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Green Heron Butorides virescens Family Cathartidae (New World Vultures) Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Order Coraciiformes (Kingfishers) Family Alcedinidae Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Order Columbiformes (Doves) Family Columbidae Rock Dove/Domestic Pigeon Columba livia Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Order Falconiformes (Eagles, Kites, Falcons and Hawks)., Family Accipitridae (Eagles, Kites and Hawks) Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii. Red - tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Broad- winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Family Pandiouidae Osprey Pandion haliaetus Family Falconidae (Falcons) Merlin Falco columbarius American Kestrel Falco sparverius Order, Galliformes (Grouse, Turkey and Quail) Family Phasianidae Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Order Gruiformes (Rails, Limpkin and Cranes) Family Rallidae (Rails) American Coot Fulica americana Order Passeriformes (Perching Birds) Family Alaudidae (Larks) Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Family Bombycillidae (Waxwings) Cedar Waxwing Bombysilla cedrorum Family Cardinalidne (Grosbeaks, Buntings and Cardinals) Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Rose - breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus lodovicianus Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Family Certhildae (Treecreepers) Brown Creeper Certhia americana Family Corvidae (Jays and Crows) American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos . Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Family Emberizidae (Towhees and Sparrows) Dark -eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Fox Sparrow Passerella diaca Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina White- throated. Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Family Fringillidae (Finches) American Goldfinch Spinus tristis House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus Family Hirundinidae (Swallows) Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Family Icteridae (Blackbirds and Orioles). Red -wing Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Brown - headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Family Lanudae (Shrikes) Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor Family Mimidae,(Mockingbirds�and Thrashers) Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum . Family Paridae (Chickadees and Titmice) Black- capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Family Passeridae (Old World Sparrows) House Sparrow Passer domesticus` Family Parulidae (Warblers) Common Yellowthroat Geothylypis trichas Nashville Warbler Oreothylypis ruf:capilla Yellow- romped Warbler Setophaga coronata Palm_ Warbler Setophaga palmarum Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Family li 9 1P lidae (Kinglets) Ruby- crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Golden- crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Family Sittidae (Nuthatches) White- breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Family SturnidaelSta'rlings) European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Family Troglodytidae (Wrens) House Wren Troglodytes aedon Family Turdidae (Thrushes) Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis American Robin Turdus migratorius Family Tyrannidae (Flycatchers) Great Crested flycatcher Mylarchus crinitus Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrwmus Order Piciformes (Woodpeckers) Family Picidae Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Red - bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Downy.Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Order Podicipediformes (Grebes) Family Podicipedidae Pied - billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Order Strigiformes (Owls) Family Strigidae Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 3 Class Amphibia (Amphibians) Order Anura (Frogs and Toads) Bufonidae (True Toads) American Toad Bufo americans Ranidae (True Frogs) Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens Class Reptilia ,(Reptiles) Order Squamata (Scaled Reptiles) Colubridae (Colubrid Snakes) Redbelly Snake Storeria oddipitomaculata Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Order Testudines (= Chelonii) (Turtles) Chelydridae (Snapping Turtles) Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina Emydidae'(Pond and River Turtles) Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta Class Actinopterygii (Ray- finned Fishes) Order Cypriniformes Cyprinidae (Minnow Family) Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Shiner spp. Notropis spp. Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Order Esociformes Umbridae (Mudminnow Family) Central Mudminnow Umbra limi Order Gasterosteiformes Gasterosteidae (Stickleback Family) Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Order Perciformes Centrarchidae (Sunfish Family) Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Family Percidae (Perch Family) Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Crustacea Class Malacostraca (Malacostracans) Order Decapoda ( "Ten- footed ") Cambaridae (Crayfish) Virile or Northern Crayfish, Orconectes virilis Order Isopoda.(Pemcarid Crustaceans) Porcellionidae (Woodlice that cannot roll into a ball). Common Rough Woodlouse Porcellio scaber . Class Maxillopoda (Barnacles, Copepods and Relatives) Order.Cyclopoida Lernaeidae Anchor' °Worm Lernaea sp. Subphylum Chelicerata (Chelicerates) ; Class Arachnida (Arachnids) Order Araneae (Spiders) Araneidae'(Orb-weaver Spiders) Black and Yellow Garden Spider Argiope aurantia Order. Parasitiformes (Ticks and some Mites) Ixodidae (Hard Ticks) American Dog Tick Dermacentor variabilis Order.Opiliones (Harvestmen) Phalangiidae (Phalangids) Eastern Daddy- long -legs Phalangium opilio Order Trombidiformes ( "Sucking" Mites) Eriophyidae (Gall Mites) Chokecherry Finger Gall Mite Eriophyes sp. Subphylum Hexapoda ( "Six- footed") Class Insecta (Insects) Order Coleoptera (Beetles) Cantharidae (Soldier Beetles) Goldenrod Soldier Beetle Chauliognathus pennsylvanicus Carabidae (Ground Beetles and Tiger Beetles) Six- spotted Tiger Beetle Cicindela sexguttata Cerambycidae (Longhorn Beetles) Red Milkweed Beetle Tetraopes tetrophthalmus Chrysomelidae (Leaf Beetles) Red- headed flea beetle System frontalis a leaf beetle sp. Trirhabda virgata Coccinellidae (Ladybird Beetles) Spotless Ladybird Beetle Cycloneda munda Convergent Ladybird Beetle Hippodamia convergens Dytiscidae (Predaceous Diving Beetles) a predaceous diving beetle sp. Dytiscus sp. Meloidae (Blister Beetles) Black Blister Beetle Epicauta pennsylvanica Scarabaeidae (Scarab Beetles) Japanese Beetle Popillia japonica Order Dermaptera Forficulidae (Earwigs) Common or European Earwig Forfrcula auricularia Order Diptera Asilidae (Robber Fly Family) a robber fly sp. Laphria flavicollis a robber fly sp. Machimus notatu's Bombyliidae,(Bee Fly Family) a bee fly sp. Systoechus sp. Calliphoridae (Blow Flies) Green Bottle Fly Lucilia sp. �Cecidomyiidae (Gall Midges) Goldenrod Bunch Gall Midge Rhopalomyia solidaginis Culicidae (Mosquitoes) Mosquito sp Aedes vezans Muscidae (Muscid Flies) .- House Fly Musca domestica Syrphidae (Flower Fly Family) ,a flower fly sp. Eristalis dimidiata "a flower fly sp. Helophilus sp. a flower fly sp. Sphaerophoria sp. a flower fly sp. Spilomyia longicornis a flower fly sp. Spilomyia sayi a flower fly sp. Syrphus torvus a flower fly sp. ToIxomerus sp. Tachinidae (Parasitic Flies) A parasitic fly sp. Arch ytas sp. Tephritidae (Fruit Fly Family) Goldenrod Gall Fly Eurosta solidaginis a fruit fly sp. Trypeta jlaveola7 Tipulidae (Crane Flies Family) Tiger Crane Fly Nephrotoma ferruginea Ulidiidae (Picture- winged Flies) a picture-wing sp. Delphinia picta Order Hemiptera (True Bugs) Aphididae (Aphid Family) Milkweed Aphid Aphis nerii an aphid sp. Uroleucon sp. Belostomatidae (Giant Water Bugs) Giant Water Bug Lethocerus americanus Cercopidae (Spittlebugs or Froghoppers) Meadow Spittlebug Philaenus spumarius Cicadidae (Cicadas) Dogday Cicada Tfbicen canicularis Corixidae (Water Boatmen) Water boatman sp. Sigara sp. Flatidae (Planthoppers) a planthopper sp. Metcalfa pruinosa Gerridae (Water Striders) Common Water Strider Aquarius remigis Nepidae (Water Scorpions) Brown Wate. Scorpion Ranatra fusca Notonectidae (Backswimmers) Backswimmer Notonecta sp. Rhopalidae (Scentless Plant Bugs) Eastern Boxelder Bug Leptocoris trivittatus Order Hymenoptera Andrenidae (Mining Bees) Mining Bee spp. Andrena spp. Apidae (Honey Bees and Bumble Bees) a long -horned bee sp. a digger bee sp. Anthophora sp. Honey Bee Apis melifera Common Eastern Bumble Bee Bombus impatiens a bumble bee sp. Bombus sp. Long = horned. Bee Melissodes bimaculata a cuckoo bee sp. Trtepeolus sp. Crabronidae (Digger Wasps) Sand Wasp Bicyries quadrifasciatus Beewolf Ph,danthus gibbosus Cynipidae, (Gall Wasps) Larger. Empty Oak Apple Wasp Amphibolips quercusinanis Formicidae (Ants) ; a carpenter ant sp. Camponotus sp. Halictidae (Sweat -Bees) Green Sweat Bee Agapostemon sp. a sweat bee sp. Augochlora sp. or Augochlorella sp. Ichneumonidae (Ichneumon Wasps) an ichneumonid species Siricidae (Horntails) a horntail wasp sp. Urocerus sp. Sphecidae (Thread- waisted Wasps) Great Black Wasp Sphex pensylvanicus Great Golden Digger Wasp Sphex 1chneumoneus Vespidae (Yellowjackets, Hornets, Paper, Mason and Potter Wasps) Potter Wasp Ancistrocerus adiabatus Potter Wasp Eumenes fraternus a paper wasp sp. Polistes sp. Northern Paper Wasp Polistes fuscatus Eastern Yellowjacket Yespula macul ions Common Yellowjacket Yespula vulgaris Order. Lepidoptera (Butterflies and Moths) Hesperiidae (Skipper_Family) Least Skipper Ancyloxpha numitor Lycaenidae (Coppers, Hairstreaks and Blues) Eastern Tailed Blue Cupido compdas Nymphalidae (Brush- footed Butterflies) Monarch,Danaus plexippus Papilionidae (Swallowtail Family) Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs Family) Clouded Sulphur Colias philodice Cabbage White Pieris rapae Order Odonata (Dragonflies and Damselflies) Aeshnidae (Darner Family) Green Darner Anax Junius Lance- tipped Darner Aeshna constricta, Calopterygidae (Broad- winged Damselfly Family) Ebony Jew elwing Calopteryz maculata Coenagrionidae (Narrow- winged Damselfly Family) Familiar Bluet Enallagma civile Stream Bluet Enallagma exsulans Eastern Forktail Ischnura verticalis Sedge Sprite Nehalennia Irene Gomphidae (Clubtail Family) Midland Clubtail Gomphus fraternus Lestidae ( Spreadwing Damselfly Family) Spotted Spreadwing Lestes congener Northern Spreadwing Lestes disjunctus Slender Spreadwing Lestes rectangularis Ubellulidae (Skimmer Family) Halloween Pennant Celithemis eponina Dot - tailed Whiteface Leucorrhinia intacta Widow Skimmer Libellula luctuosa Twelve- spotted Skimmer Libellula pulchella Four- spotted Skimmer Libellula qua&lmaculata Common Whitetail Plathemis lydia White- faced Meadowhawk Sympetrum obtrusum Band- winged Meadowhawk Synipetrum semicinctum Autumn Meadowhawk Sympetrum vicinum Order Orthoptera Acrididae. (Shorthorned Grasshoppers) Marsh Meadow Grasshopper Chorthippus curtipennis Carolina Locust Dissosteira Carolina Differential Grasshopper Melanoplus differentialis Red- legged Grasshopper Melanoplus femurrubrum Gryllidae (Crickets) Field Cricket Gryllus pennsylvanicus Tettigoniidae (Katydids) Gladiator Meadow Katydid Orchelimum gladiator Order Siphonaptera (Fleas) Pulicidae (Fleas) Cat Flea Ctenocephalides fells Phylum Annelida (Ringed Worms) Class Clitellata (Annelid Worms with Clitellum) Order Haplotazida (Haplotaxids) Lumbricidae (Earthworm Family) Common European Earthworm Lumbricus terrestris Order- Arhynchobdellida (Proboscisless Leeches) Hirudmidae North American Leech Macrobdella decors Phylum Mollusca (Molluscs) Class Bivalvia (Mussels and Clams) Order Unionoida (Freshwater Mussels) Unionidae (Unionid Mussels) Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis Class Gastropoda (Snails and Slugs) Lymnaeidae (Pond Snail Family) a pond snail sp. Stagnicola sp. Physidae (Bladder Snail Family) Acute Bladder Snail Physella acuta Planorbidae (Ram's Horn Snail Family) planorbid sp. Planorbella sp. Plants— Herbaceous * =not on 2013 MN Department of Natural Resources' Hennepin Co. species list ^= invasive species Alismataceae (Arrowhead Family) Common Water Plantain Alisma triviale Broad - leaved Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia Amaranthaceae (Amaranth Family) ^ *Smooth Pigweed Amaranthus hybridus ^Redroot Amaranth Amaranthus retroflexus ^White Lamb's Quarters Chenopodium album Maple- leaved Goosefoot Chenopodium simplex Woodland Goosefoot Chenopodium standleyanum Amaryllidaceae (Amaryllis Family) Prairie Wild Onion A11han stellatum Apiaceae (Carrot or Parsley Family) ^Queen Anne's Lace Daucus carota *Rattlesnake Master Eryngium Accifolium Golden Alexanders Zizia aurea Apocynaceae (Dogbane Family) American Hemp Apocynum,cannabinum Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca Whorled Milkweed Asclepias verticillata Araceae (Arum or Calla Family) *Lesser Duckweed Lemna minor Columbian Watermeal Wo la columbiana Asparagaceae (Asparagus Family) Common False Solomon's Seal Mafanthemum racemosum Asteraceae (Aster Family) Common Yarrow Achillea millefolium White Snakeroot Ageratina altissima Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia Great Ragweed Ambrosia trifida ^Common Burdock Arctium minus White Sage Artemisia ludoviciana Saw -tooth Wormwood Artemisia serrata ^ *Common Wormwood Artemisia vulgaris *Nodding Bur, Marigold Bidens cernua Leafy Beggarticks Bidens frondosa False Aster Boltonia asteroides ^Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense Field „Thistle Cirsium discolor ^Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare Horseweed Conyza canadensis Bird's Foot Coreopsis Coreopsis palmata Annual Fleabane Erigeron annuus Philadelphia Fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus Daisy Fleabane Erigeron sirigosus Common Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum Grass - leaved Goldenrod Euthamia graminifolia Spotted Joe Pye Weed Eutrochium maculatum Autumn Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale Hairy Sunflower Helianthus hirsutus Jerusalem Artichoke Helianthus tuberosus Ox -eye Heliopsis helianthoides Rough Hawkweed Hieracium umbellatum ^Prickly Lettuce Lactuca serriola Rough Blazing Star Liatris aspera Great Blazing Star Liatris pycnostachya ^ *Pineapple -weed 1lMatricaria.discoidea Black -eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta Tall Coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata *Three- leaved Coneflower Rudbeckia triloba *Compass Plant Silphium laciniatum Cup Plant Silphium perfoliatum Late Goldenrod Solidago altissima Giant Goldenrod Solidago gigantea Gray Goldenrod Solidago nemoralis Stiff Goldenrod Solidago rigida ^Field Sow Thistle Sonchus arvensis ^Spiny Sow Thistle Sonchus asper Heath Aster Symphyotrichum ericoides Panic led Aster Symphyotrichum lanceolatum Smooth Blue Aster Symphyotrichum laeve New England Aster Symphyotrichum novae- angliae Tail- leaved Aster Symphyotrichum urophyllum ^Common Dandelion Taraxacum officinale ^Yellow Goat's Beard Tragopogon dubius Bunched Ironweed Vernonia fasciculata Balsaminaceae (Touch - me-not Family) Spotted Touch -me -not Impatiens capensis Pale Touch -me -not Impatiens pallida Boraginaceae (Borage Family). Nodding Stickseed Hackelia deflexa Virginia Stickseed Hackelia virginiana Virginia Wate leaf Hydrophyllum- virginianum Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) ^Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolate ^Hoary Alyssum�Berteroa incana ^ *Black Mustard Brassica nigra ^Shepherd's -purse Capsellafbursa pastoris Green - flowered PeppergrassLepidium densiorum Virgina Peppergrass:Lepidium virginicum ^ *Tall Hedge Mustard Sisymbrium loesehi APennycress Thlaspi arvense Campanulaceae (Bluebell Family) "European Bellflower Campanula rapunculoides Great Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica Caryophyllaceae (Pink Family) ^Mouse -ear Chickweed Cerastium fontanum ^Giant Chickweed Myosoton aquaticum ^Bouncing Bet Saponaria qfficinalis ^White Campion Silene latifolia Convolvulaceae (Morning -glory Family) Hedge Bindweed Calystegia sepium Swamp Dodder Cuscuta gronovii . Cucurbitaceae (Gourd Family) Wild Cucumber Echinocystis lobata Cyperaceae (Sedge Family) Awl- fruited Sedge Carex stipata Straw - colored Umbrella Sedge Cyperus strigosus Spikerush Eleocharis sp. Soft Stem Bulrush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Dark Green Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens Euphorbiaceae (Spurge Family) ^Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula Fabaceae (Pea or Bean Family) Canada Milk -vetch Astragalus canadensis White Wild Indigo Baptisia lactea ^Crownvetch Coronilla varia Purple Prairie Clover Dalea purpurea Canada Tick Trefoil Desmodium canadense Pointed - leaved Tick Trefoil Desmodium glutinosum Marsh Vetchling Lathyrus palustris ^ *Bird's -foot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus ^Black Medick Medicago lupulina ^ *White Sweet. Clover Melilotu s albs ^Yellow Sweet Clover Melilotus officinalis ^Red Clover Trifolium pratense ^White Clover Trifolium repens ^Hairy Vetch Vicia villosa Lamiaceae (Mint Family) Blue Giant Hyssop Agastache foeniculum ^Common Motherwort Leonurus cardiaca Cut- 1'eaved Bugleweed Lycopus americanus .Common Mint Mentha arvensis Wild Bergamot Monarda ftstulosa ^Catnip Nepeta. cataria ^Heal -all Prunella vulgaris Virginia Mountain Mint Pycnanthemwn virginianum Mad Dog Skullcap Scutellaria later j2ora Smooth Hedge Nettle Stachys hispidg Woundwort Stachys palustris Linderniaceae (False Pimpernel Family) Yellow - seeded False. Pimpernel Lindernia dubia Lythraceae ( Loosestrife Family) ^Purple Loosestrife Lythrum,salicaria Malvaceae (Mallow Family)' ^Velvet LeafAbutilon theophrasti ^Flower -of -an-Hour Hibiscus trionum Onagraceae (Evening Primrose Family) Common, Enchanter's Nightshade Circaea lutetiana American Willow Herb Epilobium ciliatwn Marsh Willow Herb Epilobium palustre Oxalidaceae (Wood Sorrel Family) Yellow Wood Sorrel Oxalis stricta Phrymaceae (Lopseed Family) Blue Monkey Flower Mimulus ringens Plantaginaceae (Plantain Family) ^Butter -and -eggs Linaria vulgaris Foxglove Beard Tongue Penstemon digitalis Rugel's Plantain Plantago rugelii Purslane Speedwell Veronica peregrina Thyme- leaved Speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia Culver's Root Yeronicastrum virginicum Poaceae (Grass Family) Big Bluestein Andropogon gerardii ^Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea Polygonaceae ( Knotweed or Buckwheat Family) ^Black - bindweed Fallopia'eonvolvulus False Buckwheat Fallopia scandens Water Smartweed Persicaria amphibia Nodding Smartweed Persicaria lapathifolia . ^Lady's Thumb Persicaria maculosa ^ *Small Water - pepper Persicaria minor ^Prince's Feather Persicaria orientalis Pennsylvania Smartweed Persicaria pensylvanica Dotted Smartweed Persicaria punctata Arrow - leaved Tearthumb Persicaria sagitatta ^Prostrate Knotweed Polygonum aviculare Great Water Dock Rumex britannica ^Curly Dock Rumex crispus Portulacaceae (Portulaca Family) ^Purslane Portulaca oleracea Ranunculaceae (Buttercup Family) Canada Anemone Anemone canadensis Columbine Aquilegia canadensis Tall Meadow -rue Thalictrum dasycarpum Rosaceae (Rose Family) Yellow Avens Geum 'aleppicum White Avens Geum canadense Tall Cinquefoil Potentilla arguta Rough Cinquefoil Potentilla norvegica Rubiaceae (Madder Family) Rough Bedstraw Galium asprellum Northern Bedstraw Galium boreale Three -cleft Bedstraw Galium utfldum Scrophulariaceae (Figwort Family) ^Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus Solanaceae (Nightshade Family) Virginia Ground Cherry Physalis virginiana ^Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara (Also listed in trees /shrubs/vines.) Black Nightshade Solanum nigrum Typhaceae (Cattail Family) ^Narrow - leaved Cattail Typha angustifolia Broad- leaved Cattail Typha latifolia Urticaceae (Nettle Family) Black - fruited Clearweed Pilea fontana Dwarf Clearweed Pilea pumila ^Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica Verbenaceae (Vervain Family) ^Large - bracted Vervain Verbena bracteata Blue Vervain Verbena hastata Hoary Vervain .Verbena stricta White Vervain Verbena urticifolia Plants —Trees and Shrubs, * =not on 200 MN Department of Natural Resources' Hennepin Co. species list = invasive species Adoxaceae (Moschatel Family) Common Elder Sambucus nigra Nannyberry Viburnum lentago Highbush Cranberry Viburnum trilobum Anacardiaceae (Cashew or Sumac Family) Smooth Sumac Rhus glabra Staghorn Sumac Rhus hikes Western Poison Ivy Toxicodendron rydbergii Betulaceae (Birch Family) Paper Birch Betula papyrifera Blue Beech Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Ostrya virginiana Caprifoliaceae (Honeysuckle Family) Bush Honeysuckle Diervilla lonicera ^Pretty Honeysuckle Lonicera X bella Cornaceae (Dogwood Family) Red -osier Dogwood Cornus sericea Cupressaceae (Cypress Family) Eastern Red Cedar Aniperus virginiana Elaeagnaceae (Oleaster Family) ^ *Russian Olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Fabaceae (Pea or Bean Family) Leadplant Amorpha canescens *Honey - locust Gleditsia triacanthos Fagaceae (Beech Family) White Oak Quercus alba Northern Pin Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra Grossulariaceae (Gooseberry Family) Wild Black Currant Ribes americanum Prickly Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati Swamp Gooseberry Ribes hirtellum Missouri Gooseberry Ribes missouriense Juglandaceae (Walnut Family) Butternut Juglans cinerea (This species is listed as endangered by the MN DNR) Malvaceae (Mallow Family) Basswood Tilia americana Moraceae (Mulberry Family) ^ White Mulberry Morus Alba Oleaceae (Olive Family) Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Green Ash Froxinus pennsylvanica Pinaceae (Pine Family) *Red Pine Pinus resinosa *Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Rhamnaceae (Buckthorn Family) ^ *Glossy Buckthorn Frangula alnus ACommon'Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartics Rosaceae (Rose Family) Fir, eberry Hawthorn Crataegus chrysocarpa Wild Plum Prunus americana Black Cherry Prunus serotina Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Smooth-Wild Rose Rosa blanda Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis White Meadowsweet Spiraea alba Rutaceae (Rue Family) Prickly Ash Zanthoxylum americanum Salicaceae (Willow Family) ^ *White Poplar Populus alba Cottonwood Populus deltoides Big - toothed Aspen Populus grandidentata Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides Heart- leaved Willow Salix eriocephala Black Willow Salix nigra Willow Salix spp. Sapindaceae (Soapberry Family) ^ * Amur Maple Acer ginnala Box Elder Acer negundo *Black Maple Acer nigrum,- Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Sugar Maple Acer sacchamm Solanaceae (Nightshade Family) ^Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara (also listed in herbaceous plants) Ulmaceae (Elm Family) American Elm Ulmus americana Vitaceae (Grape Family) Woodbine Parthenoclssus vitacea Wild Grape Vitis riparaa Last updated 5/2/2014 Heather. Braniain From: Ted Dryden <ted.s,dryden @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014`1052 PM To: Edina'Mail Subject Planning Commission Residential Working Group: Proposed Tree Ordinance - May 6 Meeting To the City Council, I .am writing to express my support for the Tree Ordinance that will be presented at the May 6 City Council meeting. As the economy has recovered, the pace of residential teardowns has significantly increased. Often, the new homes have a bigger footprint and do not allow for existing trees. As trees are removed from neighborhoods, the scenic beauty and quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood is diminished. I urge the Council to pass a tree ordinance that is designed to allow for reasonable growth and development, while protecting the mature landscape that all members of the community expect and enjoy. Unfettered destruction of mature trees by landowners and developers is not a sound policy. I grew up in beautiful area in New York- that had many trees taken down due to disease. The neighborhood just does not feel the same when I return there to visit Don't let the disease ,of over - development diminish the beauty of our Edina neighborhoods. Please act now! Sincerely, Ted Dryden 5269 Lochloy Drive Edina, MN 55436 i Heather Braniain From: Bill.Price57 <bill.price57 @comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 05, 20141:08 PM To: Mark K. Nolan; jon.wegjesC@minneapolismn.gov. Cc: Edina Mail; joshsprague @gmail.com; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); swensonannl @gmail.com . Subject: Bumpout -out and Improvements to Xerxes Ave. S. Attachments: Bumpouts and Improvements to Xerxes.docx Mr. Nolan: Attached is a letter of my concerns regarding proposed bump -outs and improvemet to Xerxes Ave. S. Thanks, for your consideration. Dr. Willie B. Price, Jr. CC: Council Members James Hovland, Josh Sprague, Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle and Ann Swenson 1 May 3, 2014 Dear Mr. Mark K. Nolan: I live at 5700 Xerxes S. This is in response to the April 28, 2014 meeting and the May 1, 2014 letter from Mr. James N. Grube about proposed bump -outs and improvement to Xerxes Ave. S. First I want to thank the City of Edina and Hennepin County, for recognizing the. need for improve and.hopefully curtail the massive flow of traffic on Xerxes Ave. S., especially during morning and evening rush hour. I.have to access Xerxes from:my front drive which makes it next to impossible during peak . hours. I agree something needs.to be done about the volume and flow,of traffic along Xerxes Ave. S. However, I am not convinced that bump -outs are the panacea. And if they are the same as those white things between 60th and Hwy. 62,1 wouldprefer they not be installed from 54th — 60th. It would have been an act of best practice if the Hennepin County presenter would have had model bump -outs for us to see, or referred us to where we could see a prototype of what's being considered for installation on Xerxes Ave. S. I. still would like to know where I can go and look at'a model of what will be put on Xerxes Ave. S. Please advise me where I can go and look at a model bump -out. I do understand and support the goal to make the Twin Cities greener and user friendly for pedestrians, bicyclist,and motorists; however from observation 'I am not so sure this would be a good fit for Xerxes Ave: S. given the amount and level of congestion and lack of lane space.. Personally, I would prefer the same approach be taken to improve Xerxes Ave. S. as was done to France and Penn Ave. S. I believe we were told, at the meeting that it would be our responsibility to shovel snow away from the bump -outs after the snow plow go by. I have a life threatening health condition that will not allow me to shovel snow and I will not be able to pay the snow, removal contractor to remove the snow from the bump -outs should it be place in front of or near my property. Finally, I ask the City of Edina, Hennepin County, and the State of Minnesota to install sidewalks as initially proposed on the West side of Xerxes Ave. S. and do'a quality fix to the drain system in front of my house when they resurface the street. Sincerely, Dr. Willie B. Price, Jr. CC: Council Member Linea Palmisano and Jon Wertjes, Minneapolis Gov. May 1s'. 2014 Mayor Jim Hovland and Members of Edina City Council 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, Mn 55424 Dear Mayor Hovland and Members of City Council, I am writing in order to express my support for the development of 3300 West 66th Street. This development will provide affordable housing and support for homeless youth and young adults in the southwest suburbs. As a resident and pastor in the city of Edina, I believe that this housing development will be a blessing, not only to the people that it serves but also to the wider, community. Homeless youth are the fastest growing subset of homeless people in the state of MN and yet it is an invisible population. Most. of us. don't see homeless minors because they find different ways of finding shelter. In rcent months, because of the work of Edina Community Lutheran Church and Beacon Interfaith-'Housing Collaborative, I have learned more about the problems facing homeless youth and I realized that I had personally encountered this growing problem in my, own home as a youth I'grew up'in Plymouth, MN and attended Wayzata High school, a community not too different from Edina. My sister's boyfriend after many years of tension with his stepmother and father moved out of his own home and stayed in my parents' guest room for over a year while I was in Junior High School. He lived with our family beyond high school into his first year as an adult-while working for my father. I give thanks we were able to provide a home within our home. But I know this is not the case for many homeless youth. They are on their own to find a job and a safe place to live. I believe that Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative and this housing development is an important solution to a big problem. The work of Beacon is already making a difference in the lives of young people. It is skilled at developing supportive housing that will be an asset to people it serves and the community. As a pastor, I believe one of the critical teachings of Jesus has been for us to serve the "least of these who are members of God's family" (Matthew 25:40). I want to live in a city that doesn't look past people who are struggling but asks the question how can we help in order to make your life and our community stronger. I believe that this development will do just that in providing a safe place for young people to live and giving them the support they need to thrive. P4stor of Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church ,Heather Branigin From: Christine Nelson <christine @ingenuitymarketing.com> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 2:59 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: nomination for Messerli & Kramer government relations group Hello Mayor Hovland: Tom Poul suggested I contact you. I am hoping to reach you to get a few comments to support a nomination of Messerli & Kramer's Government Relations Group for Lobbyist of the Year through the Leaders In Public Policy Awards for their work with the Municipal Legislative Commission on tax relief this past year. Can you give me a call at 612- - 718 -9733? 1 will also leave you a message if I don't reach you by phone...our deadline is.in a couple weeks. I can submit the nomination for you once you review ,and "approve it. Thank youl CHRISTINE NELSON Media / Clarity / Positioning INGENUITY MARKETING GROUP LLC 36o North Robert Street, Suite 711, St. Paul, MN 55ioi 1651.69o.3358 www.ingenuilymarketing.com InGenius Review Blog: www.ingeniusreviewblog.com LinkedIn www .linkedin.comlin/virtualprgrrl "Find the good and praise it." 1 Heather Braniain From: Ellen Jones 2 < ellen Jones @mac.com> Sent: Monday, May 05, 201411:19 PM To: James Hovland; Joni Bennett; Mary Brindle (Comcast); Josh Sprague; Ann Swenson; Edina Mail ;•Scott Neal Cc: Ann Kattreh;.Dan Gieseke Subject: Park Board, I.nvolvement in Grandview Public Works Site Parks Implementation Attachments: Parks In Grandview.docx Dear City Administrator: Please forward the attached letter to the City Council, City Manager and Parks Director Thank You, Ellen Jones 1 May 5, 2014 Dear City Council and City Manager: It has come to my attention that City Manager, Mr. Neal intends to ask the Council to endorse his position that Parks Director Kattreh not put the Grandview Redevelopment matter on the Agenda for the next Park Board meeting. Given the explicit direction to participate -in the creation of indoor and outdoor public park facilities at the Public Works site that we have received from Council, Mr. Neal's intention confuses me. I believe that the Park Board has received both direct and indirect authorization to participate in the Grandview implementation strategy, as follows: The April 17, 2012 Council minutes include the Park Board in its prescription for the next steps in implementing the Grandview Framework.' The 2013 Park Board Work Plan, approved by Council, directs the Board to address the Grandview Area Plan as part of its Comprehensive Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan.2 While this work has not yet been completed due to an overloaded 2013 agenda, the strategic plan remains a top priority of the Board, and the public facilities in the Grandview area are an important component of that plan. There had been no discussion, by either the Park Board or City Council to take Grandview out of the Strategic Planning process and off the Park Board 2014 Work Plan. Who decided to do this? Advising City Council on community building(s) and parks at Grandview3 is consistent with the missions of the Park Board and of the Parks and Recreation Department, as noted in their guiding documents a The Community Advisory Team, tasked with ongoing implementation of the Framework includes a seat for a Park Board member, to serve as liaison between the CAT and the Park Board. Several sections-of the Parks Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan specifically state policy with respect to keeping and acquiring more public land. There is one policy that is repeatedly stated nine times throughout the Plan. This is singular and significant in that no other policy receives such emphasis in the entire Comprehensive Plan. This policy states: "Do not sell any park and/or open, space property currently owned by the'Cityof Edina. An exception to this policy might include a property exchange for land of equal or greater value that is determined to be in the best interest of the community." Additional Comprehensive Plan Parks Policies state: "As population density increases (commercial and/or residential), secure additional property as needed for park land and/or open space to serve that population. " "Actively seek a location and funding source to provide more indoor exercise facilities within the next five to ten years:" Rather than put a gag order on the Park Board to prevent us from, discussing Grandview, I would hope that Council and staff would welcome our participation in the process. The public works site is a public resource, and the Park Board is uniquely suited to provide analysis and advice regarding the City's unmet-needs for public facilities in this area. Just last month a group of residents told the Park Board that they thought that the City's planning processes for public recreational facilities were less than transparent. I seek to make sure that we do not have to listen to those same accusations again. Respectfully submitted, Ellen Jones Vice Chair, Edina Park Board ' April 17, 2012 Edina City Council Meeting Minutes: "The Council addressed the issues raised during public testimony, noting the intent was not to remove parking or force redevelopment of private land. Council consensus was reached on the following: Planning Commission to address zoning use changes; Park Board to address community needs, use of public spaces and civic building programming, which would drive building design; and, Transportation Commission to address signalization at Interlachen and Vernon Avenue, bicycle and pedestrian options, need for a better pedestrian crossing of Vernon Avenue from west to east, and potential of a park and ride facility to address challenges for those using the bus. The Council acknowledged work remained on these areas including the need to address impacts to the Comprehensive Plan and Guide Plan and to conduct a survey on how well this process had worked. Member Bennett expressed concern that although some Steering Committee members favored allowing taller buildings to be built in the.District, the public had not been invited to comment on taller building heights during..the.public comment period and that all.of the images presented to the public during the comment period had depicted building heights of six stories or less, consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan. The Council extended its appreciation to Steering Committee members for their contribution." . 2Park Board 2013 Annual Work Plan: "Strategic Planning with a comprehensive needs assessment, Target Completion Date: Ongoing. Park Board Duties: Serve on work groups and committees with consultant, staff and residents to assess needs and appropriately align policies, facilities, programming and financial and personnel resources with our mission and vision. This study could also encompass the City Council's actions on the Grandview Area Plan." 3GrdView District Development Framework approved by Edina City Council April 17, 2012: "Create a place with a unique identity announced by signature elements like: A central commons on the Public Works site with indoor and outdoor public space that connects the: civic cornerstones of the District and serves the neighborhood and community needs" "For GrandView, the public works site provides,A- unique and singular opportunity to. create a major new public realm amenity that will add interest to the area for all stakeholders, value to real estate, and provide a signature gathering place in the heart of the District." "GrandView Commons: GrandView Commons includes .. GrandView Crossing, GrandView Green, and a new community /civic building" "What/Who Populates,the Commons? Social interaction, Exercise and Fitness, Classroom, Teen Activity, Banquet and Reception, Food Prep /Community Oven, Retail /Incubator History/Interpretive, Performing and Visual Arts, Meetings." 4Park Board Mission: "We create parks, facilities and programs to foster a healthy, inclusive community. We accomplish this through creative leadership, collaborations, environmentally sustainable . practices, and the responsible use of available resources." t Heather Braniain From: NICK JAYNE.KLATT <klatt0264@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 6:43 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: tree ordinance My name is Nick Klatt and I live at 4402 Branson St. I am in FULL SUPPORT of the planning commission tree, ordinance proposal. Make it happen. The builders won't they are lay. Nick 1 i Heather Braniain From: Diana Middleton <diana.middleton @comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 9:20 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Braemar Not a- resident but live near in West Bloomington by Bush Lake .... and a golfer. Late in the process but astonished. And league play began yesterday with nothing but FURIOUS fellow players. I play In two leagues at Braemar and expect more negativity tomorrow as my other league begins. I learned that the staff has been cut. Nice guys like Todd Anderson. And the mood in the club ... OMG ... downer! And people do not take kindly to letting go long time employees... just not MN nice and especially well liked staff. So I joined Dwan in Bloomington ... given this latest fiasco. I guess I don't care what.happens but I am a "money person" in my career, and was a Director at a public agency so understand... get the consultant to give you the outcome that you already knew you wanted. B I see a league with 50 members ... diminishing ... and maybe 15 people golfing yesterday. Somebody needed to ask the baseline: money- stream (aka leagues) what they think is missing at Braemar. FEW would say a fancy golf club. Many of us left private clubs to come to public b/c the fancy club concept is a dying breed. It appears that people making decisions should NOT be making decisions about what is normally private sector ... a golf course. And maybe.:look to Bloomington's Dwan ... love the course and process. And if you were firing some people at Braemar and were looking for names ... you missed a few who are less than congenial ... imo. But in golf ...there are options and my money will be redirected to Dwan. Does not sound like this was an "open process" and my fellow golfers say that there will be many people voted out next election. Diana Middleton PS ... what is with the stupid bike lanes messing up France? Same team make that decision too? J .q .r Heather Branigin From: Andrea Lahouze <ALahouze @mspmag.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 201412:17 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Edina interview for Mpls.St.Paul Magazine Dear Mayor Hovland, My name is Andrea and I am an associate editor at Mpls.StPaul Magazine, writing profiles on several metro area cities our annual Newcomers' Guide to give people new to the area and to Minnesota a feel for our different communities. This year, I'm happy to tell you that one of the cities we've chosen to profile is Edina. Would you or one of your council members be willing to answer a few questions via email for me as I am writing about the city? If so, please take a look at the questions below. I would like to receive responses by next Wednesday, May 14, if possible. 1. What brings people to Edina to live? Housing market? Schools? Jobs? Location? 2. What makes people stay? 3. As a resident and public servant, what in your mind makes Edina unique? 4. How have you seen Edina evolve over the years? What has it been known for in the past, and what is it known for today? S. In your mind, what are 3 -4 landmarks, events, and /or icons that help to define Edina as a city? 6. What does the future look like for Edina? What challenges and opportunities are on the horizon? 7. Is there anything else about the city that you would like to add? When you receive this email, please let me know if you or one of your council members are willing to participate. Please don't hesitate to call or email me should you have questions. Many thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Andrea Andrea Lahouze Associate Editor Mpls.StPaul Magazine 612 - 373 -9599 Heather Branigin From: David Young' <dypackers @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 06,.20141:01 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Attn: city council engineering. (Alley Project) I am writing because I am the owner of 55,49 York Ave s. I have received the letter about the repair of the ,alley and the cost to me of $1,800. I am totally against this and would like to voice this to whomever it may concern. We plan to tear down and build at that sight in the next yeaf or, two. At that time, we plan to,fence off the alley like it doesn't exist. For this reason, we really dori'f care about the condition of the alley. It is an alley! Thanks for taking the time to.hear my argument. Sincerely, Dave Young J and D Apartments v A MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS & RELATIONS COMMISSION February 25, 2014`- 7.00 P M I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bigbee called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM. . IL ROLL CALL - Answering roll call were'Commissioners Arsenault, Bigbee; Cashmore, Davis, Haeg, Lagerstrom, Seidman, Winnick. Staff present: MJ Lamon; Staff Liaison and Annie Johnson;'City Management Fellow. Commissioner Davis arrived to the meeting at 7:06pm. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA ..Motion was made by Commissioner Seidman to move agenda item Xll to VII following the Special Guest and to approve the meeting agenda of the February 25,:2014. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Arsenault: Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Cashmore to revise the meeting'agenda of the February 25, 2014 meeting to remove the Conflict Free Materials item, add Cashmore to the Days of Remembrance item, and remove Cashmore from.the Bias /Hate Crime item. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winnick. Motion carried. IV. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES ._Corrections were made,to the sPelling of .'Statute' and 'Gene Sylvestre', and to the title of the 'District Equity Advisory Council'. Motion.was-made by Commissioner Winnick to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 26, 2013; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Seidman. Motion carried. Commissioners Kingston and Stanton abstained. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT None. VI. SPECIAL GUEST: Kristin Aarsvold, Parks and Rec Department Kristin. Aarsvold presented information about the Edina Parks Department and current programming. Edina Parks and Recreation Department is committed to ensuring access to all recreation programs and.services. , Aarsvold reviewed the grant -in -aid program that is funded by the Edina Community Foundation and a report of financial support for families and individuals. Aarsvoldshared information on theEdina Challenge whose mission is to make access to youth programs easier for families. Commissioner Stanton arrived to the meeting at 7:12pm. r VII. THANK YOU TO DEPARTING MEMBERS Thank you to Commissioner Stanton, Commissioner Kingston, and Commissioner Lagerstrom for their service to the HRRC. Commissioner Kingston left the meeting. VIII. REPOM /RECOMMENDATIONS A. Anti - bullying Event and Education — Edina Reads Commissioner Lagerstrom provided a one page summary;of Edina Reads Anti Bullying event-that was.held on February 8`h: at the Edina Senior•Center. ;Lagerstrom will make a list of local schools to donate the:left.over Henry the Bull y. books and send to staff. B. Bias Offense Response Plan Commissioner Winnick provided a recap of Bias Offense;Response.Plan meetings and an update on the proposed changes to the Bias Offense Response Plan in partnership with the Police Department. C. Tom Oye Awa rd.— VOTE Five individuals were nominated for the 2014 Tom Oye Award. The 2014 nominations included: • Andrea Knoll • Gail Shore • Kristin Aarsvold & Tom McKenzie • Mamie Segall • Jessi Kingston Commissioners completed a straw poll and Kristin Aarsvold and Tom McKenzie held the majority of votes. Commissioner Winnick moved that Kristin Aarsvold,and Tom McKenzie be awarded the 2014 Tom Oye Award. The motion was second by Commissioner Lagerstrom. Motion carried. D. General Workplan Updates i. Monitoring Domestic Partner Legislation and City Ordinance Commissioner Arseneault will request that this'item be added to future agendas only when there is new information to report. ii. Community Outreach Working Group Chair Bigbee reported that they will be holding a listening session in March. Invitations to attend and potential dates will be sent via doodle calendar. iii. Days of Remembrance 2014 Commissioner Seidman reported that the press release on.the three Days of Remembrance events was completed by the Communications Department. iv. Consider Black'History Month Chair Bigbee reminded the commission that February is Black History Month. E. HRRC Resource File Chair Bigbee shared that there is a resource file at City Hall for the HRRC. Documents are available for check out. A list of new materials was included in ' the packet. IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Included in the packet. X. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS i. Chair Bigbee was invited by the Superintendent to participate in trainings and workshops hosted by the School. District. He was invited to serve on the School District Equity Advisory Council as the Chair of the HRRC. ii. Chair Bigbee reported that new appointments to the HRRC will be made at the next City Council Meeting. He participated in candidate interviews with City Council members iii. .Commissioner Cashmore asked for clarification on the HRRC google group. Staff Liaison Lamon shared that google, groups is an information sharing forum and that keeps a record /history of the shared posts. City Staff agreed to do a demonstration at the March meeting. XI. STAFF COMMENTS i. The HRRC April meeting will be held in conjunction with April 29th Volunteer Recognition Event at Braemar. ii. The HRRC has the opportunity to participate in a shared Board and Commission blog with all of Edina's advisory Board and Commissions. XII. ELECT 2014 CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Commissioner Winnick moved to elect Commissioner Jan Seidman as 2014 HRRC Chairperson and Commissioner Pat Arseneault as the Vice Chairperson; seconded by Commissioner Davis. Motion carried. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bigbee declared the meeting adjourned at 8:59 PM. Respectfully submitted, MJ Lamon, HRRC Staff Liaison Minutes approved by HRRC March 25, 2014 Jan Seidman, HRRC Chair MINUTES. OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE VETERANS MEMORIAL COMMITTEE HELD AT CITY HALL March 21, 2014 7:30 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Olson called 'the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. II. ROLLCALL Answering roll call were Members Benson, Cardarelle, Christiaansen, Currie, Elliott, Kojetin, Olson, Reed, and Schwartz. Staff in attendance: Kristin Aarsvold, Edina Park and Recreation Department Supervisor, and Dick Crockett, Edina Community Foundation Others in attendance: None. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Approva[of,the January 17; 2014 Veterans Memorial Committee Meeting Minutes. Motion by Member Kojetin and seconded by Member Benson to approve the meeting minutes from the January 17, 2014 meeting as presented. Ayes: Christiaansen, Currie, Elliott, Kojetin, Olson,,Reed, and Schwartz. Motion carried. V. DISCUSSION ON MEMORIAL SCULPTURE Member Benson and Member Reed reported on changes made to sculpture design to avoid copy write issues with the previous design. Assisting in designing concepts was Member Currie. Two design concepts were presented by Member Benson, one depicting an eagle presenting the flag on top of the granite base and one depicting an eagle on top of a patriotic banner. Member Schwartzmade a motion to approve the design concept of the eagle presenting the flag; motion was seconded by Member Benson. Ayes: Christiaansen, Currie, Elliott, Kojetin, Olson, Reed, and Schwartz. Motion carried. Vt. DESIGN UPDATES Member Elliot reported the permit has been submitted to the Minnehaha Watershed District, he is waiting for a formal response but feedback has been good. Member Elliot made the following reports: • Bachman's completed the landscape design; he will be in further contact with the Edina Garden Council on plant donations and in -kind labor for planting. • Verbal in kinds commitments have been Made-on several project t items such as handrails, excavation, pavers, walkways, asphalt. • Member Olson showed a spreadsheet of the Project Overview and will send to all members. Member Christiaansen suggested LED lighting for long term savings. Aarsvold said the Crime Prevention Fund may have some funds available for lighting. Member Olson will follow up with Kraus - Anderson on any possible in -kind services or donation. Member Reed asked that the committee be involved in final decisions related to handrails, railings, flag poles and benches. Member Elliot agreed that final decision will be made by the group when the time comes. Member Elliot asked that'all committee members who have contacts with possible in- kind donors, those in the trades contact him to ensure we are coordinating efforts. .Member Elliot suggested an in -kind contract be developed to have written agreements versus, verbal agreements. Aarsvold stated she can look into any contracts the city may use. V11. FUNDRAISING Member Olson reported that 43 donors-have given $105,657. Dick Crockett reported_ the Edina Community Foundation submitted a grant to the Outdoor,Legacy Fund for $20,000. Member Olson asked that all committee members attend the hearing on the bonding bill.on March, 25'at 8 a.m.- in room 200. Representative Ernhardt and Senator Franzen requested funds for the memorial. Member Elliot suggested using a thermometer graphic to show the in -kind and the monetary donations side by side with what is left to raise. B. MARKETING Member Olson reported that he will be meeting with Jennifer Bennerotte Communications Director with the City of Edina to work on a letter to the veterans on the mailing list for the 4th of July Parade. Member Olson stated he would work on an article to the Sun Current on the progress of the memorial. X. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 a.m. :MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND - REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT CITY HALL APRIL 22, 2014 11:03 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hovland called the HRA meeting to order, at 11:03 p.m. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Chair Hovland. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Motion made by Commissioner Swenson, seconded by Commissioner Brindle approving the Meeting Agenda. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 18, 2014 APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Sw sen on _meet_, seconded by Commissioner Brindle Sv_ eA approving the Minutes of the Meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority for March 18, 2014. , 2014 needed on page-er,6. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES, KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES, SOTH & FRANCE PARKING LOT AND WAYFINDING IMPROVEMENTS tanager Neal noted that the City Council had previously approved Kimley -Horn & Associates Final >esign Engineering Services for the 50`h & France Parking Lot and Wayfinding Improvements. He dded that since HRA funds would be used for the project, the HRA must also take action uthorizing their services. Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Swenson approving a proposal for Final Design Engineering Services for the 50th & France Parking Ramp and Wayfinding Improvements to Kimley -Horn Associates. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Chair Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 11:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott Neal, Executive Director oe: -�, (J) O •'M�RPORA�O • 1888 To: Members of the Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority Agenda Item #: HRA V From: Chad A. Millner P.E., Director of Engineering Action M Discussion ❑ Date: May 6, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Request for Purchase — Traffic Signal Cabinets for France Avenue Improvement Project Action Requested: Authorize Executive Director to approve the purchase of traffic signal cabinets for France Avenue Improvements. Information / Background: The cooperative agreement with Hennepin County accepted by the City Council at the April I, 2014 City Council meeting requires the City to provide three traffic signal cabinets. Since these cabinets were in the agreement, they were not part of the original bid. The cabinets will be located at 66th, 70th, and 76th Streets along France Avenue and installed by Thomas & Sons as part of the project. Traffic Control Corporation supplies all traffic signal cabinets to Hennepin County. The cabinets will be purchased with TIF Funds associated with the France Avenue Intersection Improvement Project. Total cost is $66,000.00. Staff recommends authorizing the purchase of the cabinets from Traffic Control Corporation. I G:TMCENTRAL SVCSkENG 0IAPROJECTSICONTRACTSU013U:NG 13 -5 Rance Ave Incenecdons\ADMINIMISCUcem HRA. V AR -Traff Signal Cabinea.do City of Edina • 4801 W. 50' Sc • Edina, MN 55424