<br />. lfINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETIKG OF THE
<br />EDIKA CITY COUNCIL IIELD AT CITY HALL OX
<br />MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1974
<br />Answering rollcall were members Courtney, Johnson, Schmidt, Shaw and Mayor Van
<br />Valkenburg .
<br />STOH4 SEWER IIPROVEXENT NO. P-ST.S.-143 CONTINUED TO NOVENBER 18, 1974. Recall-
<br />ing that the public hearing for Storm Sewer Improvement No. P-ST.S.-143 which was
<br />proposed to solve a drainage problem in the back yards at 4620 and 4622 Bruce
<br />Avenue had been continued from October 21, Mr. Dunn showed snapshots of the pro-
<br />perty in question which he had talcen to determine the possibility of lov?ering
<br />the grade of the driveways between the two houses, rather than installation of
<br />the storm sewer.
<br />Avenue would necessitate the addition of another step down to the driveway and
<br />estimated the cost to be approximately $1,700.
<br />assessment for this solution would be less expensive for property owners than
<br />construction of the stom sewer which had been estimated*at $3,044.69.
<br />Dunn added that he had visited the site when there was a pond of water in the
<br />back yards ahd that the water had to be six inches deep before it can flow out.
<br />* Nrs. Jack Mertes, 4620 Bruce Ave. , said that they have water in their basement
<br />and that water comes up to her back door. She said that she has sand bagged her
<br />house and that she is tired of living with this problem,
<br />they would have put in a new driveway some years ago if it had not been fx this
<br />drainage problem.
<br />requested that the improvement be continued to spring so that neighbors could
<br />study a complete set of engineering drawings.
<br />Councilman Courtney's motion was seconded by Councilman Johnson and carpied,
<br />continuing the hearing to November 18, 1974, so that Cbuncil could make a field
<br />trip to the site and so that the Engineer can make further study of the problem.
<br />Hr. Dunn said that regrading of the driveway at 4622 Bruce.
<br />He explained that the area-wide
<br />*: Ers. Mertes said that
<br />Mr. Robert Colbert, 4625 Casco Avenue, said that he had not
<br />' been aware of any problem. He, along with'Mr. John Benz, 4623 Casco Avenue,
<br />Following considerable discussion,
<br />ORDINAhCE NO. 811-A59 GPSiNTED FIRST READING.
<br />by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Luce presented
<br />Ordinance No. 811-A59 for First Reading as recommended by the Planning Commission.
<br />No discussion was heard.
<br />811-A59 for First Reading as follows:
<br />Affidavits of Notice were presented
<br />Councilman Johnson thereupon offered Ordinance No.
<br />ORDINANCE NO. 8ll-AS9
<br />AN ORDINPJCE &*BlJDING THE ZONIHG ORDINAXCE (NO. 811)
<br />TO DEFINZ AND REGULATE NONCONFORHING
<br />BUILDINGS AND SIGNS
<br />THZ CITY COUNCIL OF THE -CITY OF EDINA, IDCNE;I@SOTA, ORDAINS:
<br />"1. .Prospective Operation of Zoning Ordinance.
<br />Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 12 of Ordinance No. 811 are hereby
<br />amended to read 2s follows:
<br />any nonconforming use may continue, subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of
<br />this Section 12. For purposes hereof, the term 'nonconforming building' shall
<br />mean any building lavfully existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance
<br />which building does not comply with all the restrictions imposed by this Ordin-
<br />ance, or any amndment hereto, governing size, height, setback, floor area ratio,
<br />lbt area, , yards and parking in .the zoning district in which such building is
<br />located. For purposes hereof, the term 'nonconforming use' shall mean any use
<br />of land or buildings lawfully existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance
<br />which use does not comply with all the restrictions imposed by this Ordinance,
<br />or any amendment hereto, governing the zoning district in which such use is
<br />Any nonconforming building and
<br />2, Nonconforming Buildings and Uses.
<br />(a) Alterations, Additions 'and Enlargements. A nonconforniing building shall
<br />not be added to, altered or enlarged in any manner unless such-nonconforming -build-
<br />ing, hcluding such additions, alterations and enlargements thereto, shall conform
<br />to all of the restrrctions of the district in which it is located. The foregoing
<br />shall not be deened to prohibit repairs to nonconforming buildings.
<br />(b) Relocation of Buildinas. No building shall be moved, in whole or in part,
<br />into or within the City, unless every portion of such building which is moved,
<br />and the use thereof, is made to conform to all of the restrictions of the district
<br />in which it is to be located.
<br />(c) Restoration of Damaged Building. A nonconforming building, or a building
<br />all.or substantially all of which is designed or intended for a nonconforming
<br />use, which is destroyed or damaged by fire, wind, earthquake, explosion or other
<br />casualty to the extent that the cost of restoration shall exceed one-half of the
<br />market value OE the entire building at the time of the casualty shall not be
<br />restored unless said building, and the use thereof, shall conform to all of the
<br />restrictions of the district: in which it is located. In the event that cost of
<br />restoration is less than one-half of .the market value of the entire building