Laserfiche WebLink
1/27/86 <br />80 <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 />, <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 />MINUTES <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 />- <br />City Clerk