<br />$12,289.87, IMP Bond Redemption #2 $287.80, Total $889,300.42 and for confir-
<br />mation of the following claims dated 12/31/85: General Fund $89,890.78, Art
<br />Center $268.05, Swimming Pool Fund $24.40, Golf Course Fund $24,002.68,
<br />Recreation Center Fund $800,56, Gun Range Fund $40.46, Utility Fund $11,348.12,
<br />Liquor Dispensary Fund $367,078.11, Total $493,453.16.
<br />Ayes: Kelly, Turner, Courtney
<br />Motion carried.
<br />Member Kelly asked that staff prepare a comparision of usage and rates charged
<br />by ?innegasco for last year versus this year in order to determine if their
<br />rates have really dropped as Minnegasco contends.
<br />There being no further business on the agenda, Mayor Courtney declared the
<br />meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
<br />City Clerk
<br />OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF T€E
<br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
<br />JANUARY 25, 1986 V
<br />The Edina City Counci1,held a special meeting to discuss the proposed megamall
<br />with legislators and to review the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan - 1980.
<br />Present were Members Kelly, Richards, Turner and Courtney.
<br />Representative Mary Forsythe (District 42B) and the following staff: Kenneth Rosland,
<br />Gordon Hughes, Ceil Smith, Craig Larsen, Robert Kojetin, John Wallin, Susan Moore
<br />and Marcella Daehn.
<br />BLOOMfNGTON' S PROPOSED MEGAMALL DISCUSSED.
<br />proposed megamall to be constructed in Bloomington and conveyed to Representative
<br />Forsythe their concerns for the project's impact on Edina and in particular the
<br />increased traffic it would generate on 1-494.
<br />exempt from fiscal disparities was also considered. No formal action was taken
<br />by the Council..
<br />Also attending were
<br />1 The Council Nembers discussed the
<br />- The issue of the project being
<br />COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 1980 GIVEN INITIAZ, REVIEW. Planner Craig Larsen stated that
<br />the Comprehensive Plan - 1980 remains a current and useful document and that most
<br />of the goals, objectives and policies contain in the Plan reflect current
<br />actions and policies of the City.
<br />minor changes or no changes at all. General recommendations of the staff were:
<br />1) Incorporate the most up-to-date data available into the Plan, 2) Improve
<br />the,quality of the printing, paper and graphics, 3) Extend the life of the Plan
<br />following anticipated revisions, and 4) Consider Social (Human) Services Element.
<br />Mr. Larsen then reviewed with the Council the following elements of the Plan:
<br />1) Land Use, 2) Housing, 3) Environmental Protection, 4) Transportation,
<br />5) Community Facilities and 6) Implementation. Policy changes, additions and
<br />deletions were discussed.
<br />by the Council: definition of senior citizen housing, transportation analysis
<br />zones (TAZ) forcasts, policy decisions involing other controlling agencies and
<br />the solar access issue.
<br />agreed to proceed with the process of updating the Plan, i.e. review and
<br />recommendations by the Community Development and Planning Commission, work
<br />session by the Council for debate of issues and policies, followed by a public
<br />hearing on the updated Plan.
<br />The Plan could survive the Plan period with
<br />The following were identified for further aebate
<br />I Following the initial review of the Plan, it was
<br />No formal action was taken by the Council.
<br />No other business was discussed by the Council.
<br />Mayor Courtney .at 11:OO a.m.
<br />The meeting was adjourned by
<br />City Clerk