<br />OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
<br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
<br />AUGUST 20, 1984
<br />Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner and Mayor Courtney.
<br />MINUTES of the Regular Council Meeting of July 16, 1984, and the Special Meeting of
<br />July 23, 1984, were approved as submitted by motion of Member Turner, seconded by
<br />Member Schmidt.
<br />Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
<br />Motion carried.
<br />PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF CASCADE LANE BERMING CONTINUED, Affidavits of Notice were
<br />presented by Clerk's representative, approved as to form and ordered placed on file.
<br />Mr. Hoffman presented the visual description of the property affected by the
<br />proposed berm, specifically Lots 3, 4 and 5, Cascade Falls. He cited that the
<br />estimated cost of this improvement is $1,975.84; this improvement would be assessed
<br />on a per lot basis at an estimated cost of $300.00 per assessable lot with the
<br />balance of the cost placed as special benefit against Lot 3 Cascade Falls. The
<br />project would be a small berm of six inches across the properties, and.construction
<br />would be accomplished in 1984. Assessments would be levied in 1984 with the initial
<br />installment due in 1985. The improvement is proposed to be assessed over a one-year
<br />determine the annual rate of interest that will be charged on the unpaid balance, but
<br />it will not exceed the maximum allowed by law,
<br />result of a petition by property owners to reduce flooding. Concerned residents
<br />were there to represent others residing on Cascade Lane: Mr. & Mrs. Frank Bures,
<br />relatives of Mrs. Anfinson at 4613 Cascade Lane; and Mrs. Betty Anfinson of 4613
<br />Cascade Lane. Anumber of issues were addressed by these people, based on the
<br />fact that the flooding is getting worse and that the berm, by itself, will not cure
<br />the problem. The weight of the water is making the yards settle, leaving visible
<br />holes and exposing tree roots.
<br />most of the backyards. If the dredging and the removal of rip-rap from the Highway
<br />100 bridge reduces the risk of flooding, then the berm is not necessary. .Questions
<br />concerning the berm: how constructed, will heavy equipment be used, the dimensions
<br />of the berm and whether it will be seeded or sodded, whose responsibility is the
<br />maintenance of the berm. It was indicated that the residents of Cascade Lane would
<br />have the responsibility of the berm's maintenance. If the berm does in fact become
<br />necessary, it was promised to-the residents of the Cascade Lane area that the special
<br />assessments used to pay for its construction along Minnehaha Creek will not be placed
<br />upon the property until after the dredging and removal of rip-rap from the Highway
<br />100 bridge is complete. Member Turner's motion was seconded by Member Bredesen to
<br />continue the proposed improvement for six months or until the spring of 1985 after
<br />the Watershed Project is completed, so that it can then be evaluated as to the
<br />necessity of the berm and what the neighbors choose to. do.
<br />Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
<br />Motion carried. .
<br />The present condition of the Municipal Bond Market makes it difficult to
<br />This project is being proposed as a
<br />During the entire summer of 1984, water covered
<br />. _.
<br />PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL'OF KIDD'ADDITION'CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 1984.
<br />of Notice were presented by Clerkrs representative, approved as to form and ordered
<br />placed on file.
<br />Valley View Road.
<br />square feet in area and is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The property
<br />fronts on West 62nd Street to the north and also enjoys access to Valley View Road
<br />to the south.-This latter access is possibly due to an unusual jog in the right of
<br />way for Valley View Road.
<br />two lots which would each measure about 14,000 square feet in area. Lot 1 would be
<br />retained for the existing dwelling and Lot 2 would be a new building site.
<br />southerly portion of the subject property was shown'for low density attaahed resi-
<br />dential uses by the Comprehensive Plan. All properties fronting on Valley View Road
<br />in this area are used for low density attached uses.
<br />southeast is a four-unit building and adjoining the property to the west is a three-
<br />unit building, both of which front on Valley View Road.
<br />property are two R-1 lots which are developed with modest dwellings fronting on
<br />West 62nd Street.
<br />poor state of repair.)
<br />by 338 feet in depth and the easterly lot measures 126 feet by 338 feet.
<br />these lots, however, enjoys aceess to Valley View Road.
<br />proponent has pursued the possibility of the joint development with the two lots to
<br />the east.
<br />proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as to lot
<br />size, frontage, and access, Staff is concerned with the unusual relationship of the
<br />new lot to surrounding properties. This unusual relationship is principally caused
<br />by the lot's frontage on the jog in the Valley View Road right-of-way. If this jog
<br />The site is generally located south of 62nd Street and east of
<br />Mr. Hughes reported that the subject property measures 28,252
<br />The proponent requests a subdivision of the property into
<br />Adjoining the property to the
<br />Easterly OX the subject
<br />(The dwelling immediately east of the subject property is in a
<br />The westerly of the two lots measures about 95 feet in width
<br />Neither of
<br />At Staff's urging, the
<br />Apparently, these efforts have not been successful. Although the