Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1978-01-10 Park Board Packet
Sw EDINA PARK BOARD MEETING Tuesday, January 10, 1978 7:30 p.m. EDINA CITY HALL AGENDA I. Approval of Minutes of December 13,- 1977. II. Golf Course l•1en's Club Dedication III. Arena Committee Report IV. Planning Request: S-78-1 Planning Request: S-78-2 Planning Request: S-78-3 Planning Request: Z-78-1 V. 1978 Capital Improvement Program VI. Recreation Report VII. Other Reports OPEN DI S_CUS SIO_N (minutes Dili! not be taken during this time period) 10 i MEMBER ADDENDUM A Q�1ER C(Ge V. A. "BABE" LeVOiR 1120 Builders Exchange Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 HAM OF FAME January 10, 1.978 !MO TO: The City of .Edina Park Board FROM: The Braemar Golf Course Men's Club SUBJECT: The contritution of a check for $L20,OO made out to the City of Edina.. Braemar Men's Club Memorial Fund. I The purpose of this contribution is to add the extras to the already beautiful Braemar Golf Course, This money, along with a previous amount of 1580.00 contributed in December, 1977, a total of ;1,000, is in memory of the following members and relatives and friends of members, 1 who passed away in the years of 1976 and 1977: Dick Morphew Jack Hayhoe Herb Schechter Emil Erlandson Noel Stone S. 0. Gustafson Sy Woodruff Hilda Gustafson "Babe" L -Voir, Chairman Braemar ;den's Club Memorial Fund MILLION DOLLAR ROUND TABLE QUALIFYING MEMBER 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS APPROVED TO HAVE ON EDINA PARK BOARD Current number of members. N umbhK Nine members. OF YEARS TERM ENDS Jack Rice 3 1978 Al Fischer 3 1980 Joan Lonsbury 3 1979 Bill Lund 3 1980 Mary McDonald 3 1978 Don Pavek 3 1981 Virginia Shaw 3 1980 ® Les Wanninger 1 1978 George Warner 3 1978 as of 12-1977 Iv EDINA- PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1978 - CAPITAL II17PROVF1*1RUTS PROGRAtf ARDEN Asphalt Path $2,500 BRAEMAR Permanent Team Benches for Football , Upgrade Irrigation $2,000 Light Reflectors _ $3,000 BROAINDALE $2,000 Concrete Slam and Gas CREEK VALLEY SCHOOL PARK Permanent Team Benches at the Soccer Field $1,500 CORNELIA Art Center Parking Lot $1,000 Complete Kiln Room $3,000 CORNELIA SCHOOL Upgrade Shelter, add gas $1,000 Regrading and Sodding $3,000 Asphalt Path $1,000 COUNTRYSIDE Color Coat Hard Surface $1,500 DIVISION Sur. Shelter, add Gas $5,000 Color Coat Hard Surface $2,000 NORMANDALE Color Coat Hard Surface Area $2,000 44th STREET PROPERTY Plans $1,500 LAKE EDINA Regrade and Irrigation $2,000 Permanent Benches $2,000 Drinking Fountain $500 GARDEN Sun Shelter, Add Gas $6,000 • Permanent Team Benches $1,500 Soccer Goals $1,500 Finish Grading $1,000 Upgrade Backstop $1,000 Color Coat Hard Surface $2,000 HEIGHTS Sun Shelter, Add Gas $5,000 HISTORICAL PARK Upgrade Cahill School (Matching Fund) $5,000 Build Office and Finish Ceiling in Dasement $2,000 WALNUT RIDGE Sun Shelter, Add Gas $5,000 WEBER - Refinish Tennis Courts $2,500 ARNESONS PARK Water and Lights in Greenhouse $2,000 MELODY PARK Cement Slab and Gas $2,000 • LEWIS PARK Plans $3,500 GRANDVIEW CEMETERY PARK Plans $3,500 TOTAL - $80,000 * NOTE - Sun Shelters (similar to the one at Choti,?,en Park) , that are proposed at the different parks, replace the temporary permanent buildings that have been in opperation for 15 years. Also, the adding of the gas would replace the Propane Gas at these locations. a�"� /-s-/9%9 C**)rI"IArT7ON 7 I I «►w...• t,k fig. r f I i-•—� f it: t - :� "�...••.. •-.._,h, is v�7_�,r.;' .. `.: .' •r:':Q:A`r:N •" i po --_ f 1! ---- ; � .-._.i(}� �� - i r-1 __ •=—•fin -s- _ . �._._._ ., CI Ig IL- .su � e • e "Ar I11 REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-1 LOCATION:S• of Interlachen Blvd., N. of Parkw--od Rd., 14. of Schaefer, ]REQUEST: Lincoln. Approximately 50 R-1 lots. NORTH 0 250 5 K) 750 w 0 nr r nnrt ri.•..n� n �'lil}'at ttj rtltn' PLANNING CO,1MISSION 0 STAFF REPORT January 4, 1978 S-78-1 Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. Refer to: attached graphic, exerpts from Western Edina Circulation Plan, Council minutes. The subject preperty is a 102 acre tract of land located in the northwestern part of the city. This property is the last remaining tract of vacant land remaining in this section of the city. The proponents have submitted a proposed development plan for the entire 102 acre parcel. However, only the southeastern 23 acres are proposed for immediate development. For procedural purposes, staff recommends that the development plans for the entire 102 acre tract be considered as a prelimi- nary plat. If this preliminary plat is approved, then the proponents would return with a final plat for only the 23 acre tract which would be called Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. The entire preliminary plat proposed 176 single family lots. These lots are generally in the 16,000-21,000 square foot range. These lots are generally similar in size to other Parkwood Knolls lots to the south and west of the subject property but considerably smaller than lots located to the east. ,Existing ponds and low areas on the subject property are proposed to be used as storm water holding ponds. Of the 176 total lots, 47 lots are proposed for inclusion in Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. The preliminary plat proposed to extend several roads to serve the subject property. Among these are Willow Wood Road, Larada Road, Larada Lane, Ridge Road, Malibu Drive, and Interlachen Boulevard. In regard to Interlachen Boulevard, the plat does not propose to extend this road on a straight align- ment directly to Countv Road 18. Rather, a circuitous arrangement is proposed to discourage excessive through traffic. Traffic Considerations Traffic circulation is of primary concern in the northwestern section of the city. In 1974, a citizens' committee, the Western Edina Task Force, together with a traffic consultin, firm, prepared the "47estern Edina Circulation Plan." This committee analyzed existing traffic patterns and perceived traffic excesses in the western Edina area and the recommended various alter- natives to alleviate present and future traffic problems. The committee identified four "issue areas" in the western Edina area which required roadway Improvements. The subject property is located in "issue area 4" of the com- mittee's plan. Planning Commission Staff Report Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition Page 2 January 4, 1978 Attached are exerpts from the Western Edina Circulation Plan which deal with issue area 4. As shown, three general roadway alternatives were analyzed for issue area 4. The committee and its consultant recommended a plan whereby Malibu Drive was extended northerly to the County Road 18 interchange, Ridge Road was extended to serve the subject property as were Willow Wood Road and Larada Lane. The committee and the consultant also recommended the cul- de-sacing of Interlachen Boulevard. Following completion of the Western Edina Circulation Plan, the Council held numerous hearings regarding the plan's adoption. On July 1, 1974, the Council tabled consideration of circulation patterns for issue area 4 until a develop- ment proposal was submitted for the northwest Edina area. It was also stated that when such a plan was submitted, it should include some access to the north at the 'Maloney Avenue -County Road 18 interchange. Parkland Dedication As part of previous Parkwood Knolls subdivisions, the proponents and the City have entered into agreements whereby parkland dedication was deferred until the City determined the location of a park in northwestern Edina. Recently, the City acquired a large tract of land for parks north of the subject property. Therefore, the proponents are suggesting that the accrued parkland dedication ® from previous Parkwood Knolls subdivisions together with the parkland dedica- tion from the subject property be located adjacent to the recently acquired City property. Staff has computed that the accrued parkland dedication plus a 5 percent dedication for the subject property would total 6.8 acres. The proponents are proposing a 5.65 acre uedication. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat in that: 1. The proposal conforms with the Western Edina Land Use Plan. 2. The proposal conforms with the Western Edina Circulation Plan with the exception of the extension of Interlachen Boulevard. 3. Lot sizes are generally compatible with surrounding properties. 4. The proposed extensions of streets to serve the subject property are war- ranted and provide for the maximum dispersal of traffic generated from the subject property as well as existing developments. 5. Low areas are appropriately used as storm water holding areas. 6. Adequate access has been provided to Outlot B of Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. Planning Commission Staff Report Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition Page 3 January 4, 1977 7. Dedication of parkland adjacent to existing City property is desirable. In regard to Interlachen Boulevard, it again must be stated that the Western Edina Circulation Plan did not recommend extension of this street. However, it should be noted that the Western Edina Task Force considered only one possible alignment of Interlachen Boulevard extended; that alignment being the straight westerly extension of Interlachen Boulevard. The task force was thus concerned that such an extension would turn Interlachen Boulevard into a higher traffic volume collection street. Staff believes, however, that the circuitous alignment proposed by the preliminary plat would discourage excessive through traffic and would improve the dispersal of traffic generated from the subject property. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions and modifications: 1. Malibu Drive must be extended to the County Road 18 interchange immediately as part of final approval for Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. 2. The proposed parkland dedication for the entire preliminary plat must be made immediately. The Park Board should be advised that the proponents are indicating a dedication of 1.15 acres less than required. Thus, either an additional 1.15 acres should be dedicated or cash in lieu of such an acreage should be required. 3. The name of Larada Lane should be changed to avoid confusion with Larada Road. 4. The property lines of lots located west of Malibu Drive extended should be re -aligned slightly to correspond with the existing R-2 zoning of the southernmost lot. 5. In conjunction with the extension of Malibu Drive, a grading plan for the entire property should be prepared. .6. An executed developer's agreement which includes public improvements to Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition as well as Malibu Drive. GLH:nr 12-30-77 9 is T0: Subdivision No. SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department _Vi 0 C� SUBDIVISION NA.1E: LAND SIZE: LAND VALUE: (By: Date: ) The developer of this subdivision has been required to A. grant an easement over part of the land B. dedicate % of the land C. donate $ as a fee in lieu of land As a result of applying the following policy: ® A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) j� 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. II 2. If property is 6 --crus or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. 11 3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 7—j4. If property is necessary for storm water hoping or will be dredged Uor -otherwise improved -for storm water holding areas or ponds. 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his- toric value. 6. B. Cash Required 0 1. In all other instances than above. �2. L A IL PAlf � r'.i = - - "►: =-fix- .. �. �! _ , ' - s+r•'ew T»c •�es.+�,'- �!�•%-�:•t;� 'r ° - - ♦ .r. :...•... �4:4 i:- 7 .`�••"_�'L. F�,�'�"'•,i !NTERIACHEN COUNTZY IS mr • ( __ i - {[ '�;' , ^ M �•'i, -� LAKE 7 r�n R I 13 fw AD Itiii � %- !. \ E �—, r—•- � �' {_`� = J/'� �.--, _ AA; %Lr �• ._�_ � /•i ,� - �1�- -. Its~} ar ... • �. ....� ,,�:moi.. :u�� c]SI(: •� •r•,�,-.l'_'__'__"'. LE ,E� i I' � r~ � .__ \ �%f�� "1---� any �1 rel _. � r...ip-'tea• ��_r V17 K: L, � • ��."1 . \--1•Sr— ` F 11 �'+ _-. • � � Tom[ �� yy� ���� �•.�.... i . __- .may ti `� .-_. r'-�-_I •) ♦7-_ � .CYr h•..AI f•�`'^��. �. i' KEG+li.�i •,+. � 1� .. I ��/` •� ..+ : " "00" t All r _ _� — `u_�• _ _ _ ._lam, -_L,• -�� � •+/I oL,��• �N /r'/• Ir-WN1Rr- �. �_ U lic 1 �,---,7�•;►�S•�-. =`ti...:9yt l •. . /,:7 rJ `` SIS �' .. , - _!. ....• •�._ `�"'� J :.der. ��� � •'�,1 �1.. . \_ -'_ -� y _. ...,.... �`�� �.-_ - -- � , .iii` J �. ... /. •ly►`� / •� \ 1 ............. • .. .S-�;\ �w. ___ � •_ .. _ ?A tu, > 4- L4 L 0 DRANO V.E I Apt IK I CCMETERT ------- TL R TRAIL "A Ilk Jr. Jill UtT K 'A o ivvv f R -W AN v E C3 L HAROLD WOODS o Issue Area 4 The traffic issue within Area 4 is how should Interlachen Blvd. and Ridge Road relate the street system that vrill service the Issue Area and relate,to the proposed interchange at County Road 18. The alternative street plans to resolve the issue include (Figure 12): Alternative 1: extend Interlachen Blvd. to County Road 18 a od to d^vel op the street system with connections to Interlachen, Malibu, Ridge Road, Larada Lane and Willow Wood. Alternative 2: cul-de-sac Interlachen Blvd. and develop the street system with connections to the same streets as in Alternative 1. Alternative 3: cul-de-sac Interlachen Blvd. and Ridge mad and developthe street system with connection to the same stroets as in Alternative 1-Ixc,12PL. i\iu n0ad. is The full development of the single family residential land in the Issue Area is expected to generate an additional 3900 trips per day. The street system developed for the Issue Area will have to support thes-e trips. If Interlachen were open to County Road 18, it is estimated that 40' of the additional trips or 1560 vehicles per day would travel to the east. 0 • 23 FT, 1 eAO fl A I - MAL 0%, y A. E CUL-DE cr 41 crn. FIGURE 12 ISSUE AREA 4 AL�TERNATIVE--A �JJERIFJATIVE 2/ 0 v C ISSUE AREA 4 Alternative 1 Strengths Alternative 1 I!eaE:nesses maximum residential accessibility. best emergency vehicle access. transforming a local street, Interlachen, in- to a collector. negative traffic volume and land use impact on homes along Interlachen. Alternative 2 Strengths Alternative 2 Weaknesses ' increases residential accessibility. . increases emergency vehicle access. good local/collector street relationship. n�1 -y= Strengths �., nitcrnatlyeai:i;25�e5- 111Le i,u�IyE J JLfCfIG�IIS -- ' minimum increase in resi- dential accessibility to the east. negative traffic volume impact to the south and east. The evaluation of 'the above alternatives led to the selection of Alternative 2 as best meeting the evaluation criteria. 33 Fl -1 TT -11 I in -M W2 cl—1 I T CUL -DE -SA w; L.; - Rt-�:)LJWLD ro. Mirror L 0*6 CUL-DE-SAC .i Q+ Ij .Cl 't.. . . � -. r-.. , . .!.-. -,,, FIGURE 14 RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION PLAN OF TASK FCRCE MAJORITY I I I I I I i I I I i ! i I T- Ei C� =CUL-DE-SA'4C' FoT Pt A 4tj114G M 14"T,fS A*,') roT ! ': SCALF0 Y/ -it i- .ACLL,,.fes ie-ZASUA':W"'NfS ARE kL(JUlkEDlKr r rq A ry, I "o, J L u c cr 0 COL-DE—SAC . ............. LD Mirror \ L Ok& 3 �� � ®�--*fy `� Imo C, } FIGURE 15 RECOMMENDED ,IRCULAI i !OPLAN N OF CONISULTANT OF TASK FORCE ` MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE• EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY IL�LL ON MONDAY JULY 1, 1974 Answering rollcall were Council members Courtney, Johnson, Schmidt, Shaw and Aft Mayor Van Valkenburg. MINUTES of June 3, 1974, were approved as presented by motion of Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried. ISSUE AREA 2 CONTINUED• ISSUE AREA 4 OF WESTERN EDINA TRAFFIC TASK FORCE TABLED UNTIL FLi rL—'R PL ITiD. I I Issue Area 4 - Mr. Dunn recalled that at the meeting of June 3, 1974, Issue Area 1 + 4 had been continued to this meeting tq give residents an opportunity to study the matter further. Mr. Jack Liebenberg, 5112 Ridge Road, said that he repre- -� sented twenty-four property owners on Ridge Road and Interlachen Blvd., and that his group does not feel that decisions made on any of the other Issue Areas in Western Edina have any impact or effect.on Issue Area 4. He said that he had talked with Messrs. Carl and Harvey Hansen, the major property owners of the undeveloped property in the area, and that they had no definite plans or plats to submit for final development at the present time and that it might be several years before they are ready to do so. As requested by Mr. Liebenberg, Johnson's motion was then seconded by Councilman Courtney to table. t.. .Councilman consideration of the traffic circulation pattern for Issue Area 4, with the Q understanding that when and if Mr. Hansen comes in with overall development CO plans for the property that he owns, that.the plat should include some access to the North at the Maloney Avenue interchange. On rollcall there were five w ayes and no nays and the motion was carried. that at the meeting of June 3, 1974, the City Issue Area 2 - Mr. Dunn recalled Attorney had been directed to render an opinion as to whether the City could legally construct a road connecting Walnut Drive and Londonderry Road as pro- posed in Alternative 1 and as to whether the City could legally build a road across existing park land to connect Londonderry Drive with Gleason Road as proposed in Alternative 5. Mr. Erickson had also been requested to determine whether or not a road has already been established from Walnut Drive to London- derry Road over and across Nine Mile Creek. Mr. Erickson sur:larized his opinion �? on the road between Walnut Drive and Londonderry Road by stating that if the Council believes that it is now in the best interest of the City to open the • road, it should not do so without first obtaining a deelatory judgment that the road exists or that the property across Nine Mile Creek was conveyed to.- the City free of any implied restriction that it be used for park purposes. He said that if the Council 'believes the road should not now be opened, it is recommended that no action now be taken either to vacate or abandon the road and that the City can best retain its future options relative to this connect- ion by taking no such action at this time. Mr. Erickson summarized his opinion as to whether or not the City could build a road across existing.park land to connect Londonderry Drive with Gleason Road by saying that it would appear that the City cannot legally construct that portion of the road which would run through the park unless approval would be granted by the Secretary of HUD and unless the deed from the Minnesota Conference of the United Church • of Christ, whereby a part of the road area was conveyed to Edina, could be changed to allow such use. In reply to questions of Mr. Lloyd Cherne, 5704 View Lane, Mr. Erickson listed the following three conditions under which the conversion of HUD lands could be used for public roads: • 1. The conversion is essential to the orderly development and growth of the area involved; 2. The conversion is in accord with the comprehensively planned development of the urban area; and 3. The open -space land is being or will be replaced without cost to the Federal Government by other open space land or at least equal fair market value at the time of conversion and of nearly as feasible equivalent usefulness and ' location. Mr. Erickson clarified that a more serious problem was that the land between _ Londonderry Road and the HUD parcels had been dedicated for park purposes by the Minnesota Conference of the United Church of Christ, which property the City has no authority under the law to divert. Mr. Cherne suggested that the property could be deeded back to the church and then use condemnation through eminent domain for the road. Mr. Erickson told Mr. Cherne that specific legislative authority would be necessary for such action. Mr.. Cherne then suggested that if the land could be given back to the church, the road built and assessed against the church, that the church would be probably "more than glad" to give the pro- perty back to the City for road purposes. Ile also suggested that the City could do an environmental study to satisfy NEPA and that the Council could declare a moratorium on any additional building in the area. Mr. Cherne added that this SLol 711114 road wool" be needed for a collector road if Carl Hansen is to continue to develop his property. Mr. William D. Stickel, 5900 Tamarac Lane, said that his property abuts the park and reminded Council that on June 3, 1974, 877. of the home owners had indicated that they would not want the road through the park. Councilman Johnson then moved, based on the attorney's opinion, that Alternative 1, the construction of a road connecting Walnut Drive and Londonderry Road, be tabled. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt and on rollcall there were five ayes and no nays and the motion carried. Mr. Hyde then recalled that the Park Board and the Envir- onmental Quality Commission had both recommended against Alternative 5 under which the City would build a road across existing park land to connect Londonderry Drive with Gleason Road. Councilman Courtney's motion was then seconded by Councilman Johnson that Alternative 5 of Issue Area 2 be tabled for further study. On roll - call there were five ayes and no nays and the motion carried. Council's attention was then called to a letter signed by the owners of seven properties requesting placement of STOP signs at the intersection of Continental Drive and Stauder Circle and at the blind corner across from 6508 Stauder Circle. Dr. Lloyd Pear- son, 5700 View Lane, requested specific action for Issue Area 2. He said that it would soon be three years since neighbors presented their petition for traffic relief and that before lung there would be 4,500 trips per day at the intersection of View Lane and Schaefer Road. He objected that the trial blockade at Schaefer Road and South Knoll Drive which were supposed to permit right turns only going South on Schaefer Road had been improperly placed so that drivers could go around the blockade. He also contended that the blockades were not left up long enough to obtain sufficient information on traffic patterns. With the aid of the view - graph, Dr. Pearson made the following suggestions: 1. Installation of the blockade at Londonderry Road and Stauder Circle should be on the East side of the intersection to permit access to the park but prevent access to the East. 2. Installation of the blockade at Schaefer Road and South Knoll Drive should be moved to the middle of the block of Schaefer Road between South Knoll Drive and Stauder Circle. 3. Reinstall the blockade at South Knoll Drive and View Lane. Following considerable discussion, Councilman Courtney amended his motion to the effect that the suggestions of Dr. Pearson also be referred to the Traffic Safety Committee and that Mr. Wolsfeld work with the Committee. The motion also called for continuing the matter to July 15, 1974. Councilman Courtney's amended motion was seconded by Councilman Johnson and on rollcali there were five ayes and no nays and the motion carried. Mr. Wolsfeld suggested that the blockades be set up one at a time to obtain the effect of each individual blockade. Mr. Erickson said that he would have an opinion before the next Traffic Safety Committee Meet- ing as to the legality of closing the streets. STORM SEWER lMPROVT",SNT ST.S-139 :APPROVED. 2•:r. Dunn recalled that at the meeting of June 3, 1974, Storm Sewer improvement ST.S-139 proposed to be constructed in Gleason Road from Dewey Hill Road to approximately 900 feet South of the South line of Hyde Park Drive had been continued to work out details with the developers of Hyde Park 2nd Addition. He said that the details had not been completely final- ized as yet but recommended approval in view of the fact that no objections were he8rd at this meeting. Councilman Johnson thereupon offered the following resolu- tion and moved its adoption: RESOLM ON 0"j)SRING STORM SEWER IMPROVEME`T ST.S-139 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City or Edina, Minncsota, that this Council heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement: 1. CONSTRUCTION OF CITY STOMM SM,4ER IDIPROVEMEh'P NO. ST.S-139 IN THE FOLL(Ui� ;G: Gleason Road from Dewey Hill Road to approximately 900 feet South of the South line of Hyde Park Drive and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being full - advised of the pertinent facts does hereby determine to proceed with the construc- tion of said improvement as described in Notice of Public Hearing and including all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for construction and maintenance of such improve- ment; that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as STORM SE,.'ER IMPROVEMENT NO. ST.S-139; and the area to be specially assessed therefor shall include all lots and tracts of land within the following described boundaries: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Outlot "D" Hyde Park Addition; thence Sly and SEly along the West line of Gleason Road to the most Nly corner of Outlot "C" Hyde Park Addition; thence SWly .V-. WY GLOTTER .i' ASSCCIATE-S NCOf�PORA7ED Ars W—rO POrners 1021 LaSalle Oaenue M_,a)d,s M_sota 55403 (612) 332 1401 ! December 29, 1977 Mr. Gordon Hughes Director of Planning City of Edina 4601 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition Dear Mr. Hughes: ' I understand there will be a hearing concerning the above referenced anuary 4, 1978. Unfortunately, I will be out proposed addition on J of town and unable to attend; so I am writing you expressiro my t - Opposition to a portion of the proposed addition and asking that my opposition be recorded in the minutes of that meeting. ® ' Specifically I am opposed to the extension of Ridge Road into the new addition. The plat submitted by Mr. Hansen does not indicate ! Ridge Road extended and I understand from your planner, iir.rarold Sand that your department- has initiated this modification to fir. Hansen's submittal. Mr. Sand enumerated many planning principles why the extension of Ridge Road should be made and in my mind pushed aside reasons that ! it should not be made. If Ridge Road were opened it would increase traffic considerably on a road that �s too narrcw for dny increased traffic load. Traffic speeds would naturally increase and this concerns me greatly as a father. The next obv mus solution in the eyes of your planners would insensitive, to ast'r.etically destroy the be to widen the road-r-ew ' charm and charac er of a country road and enviornmentally harm the i area by taking out the beautiful trees and scrubs that now line the road. I ask you to reconsider this recommendation by your department in light of safety, asthetics, enviornment, cost and the wishes of the residences of Ride Road. There are other segments of the project I wish to comment on but brevity prevents me from doing so in this letter. I hope to have a jchance to co ;.:aent in future meetings on this subject. Sincerely, • 1 w47- -A) i W.R. Nordgren, AI Residence: 5016 Ridge Road WRN/bw Subdivision No. ® SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME:�'l�41 LAND SIZE: �, 5 o�c�� LAND VALUE: (By: Cid Date: The devdloper of this subdivision. has been required to ElA. grant an easement over part of the land B. dedicate % of the land C. donate $ "� T as a fee in lieu of land As a result of applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 50 of • land dedicated) j—"'j 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition 1j beneficially expands the park. El2. If property is 6 acres -or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. 3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 4. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his- toric value. 6. B. Cash Required 1. In all other instances than above. �2. ' T t�� Al: subulvislon REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-2 LOCATION: S. of W. 66th & W. of 11W 100 REQUEST: Ttao R-1 lot -q. O 15u aAK► day, ,vv" `• t .. t. .t u t n 'L" t l r i� l r t_LL it i - _;�i----- _._ PLANNING COMLffSSION STAFF REPORT January 4, 1978 S-78-2 Loegering Property. Refer to: Attached graphics The proponent is requesting a two lot subdivision of a 60,000 square foot parcel of property located on 66th Street west of Highway 100. An existing house is located on Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. Lot 2, which measures 40,200 square feet, would gain access to 66th Street by way of a 30 foot wide neck lot. The subject property is surrounded by several other large parcels which range in size from 60,000 square feet to 130,500 square feet. Nearly all of these parcels are developed with one single family dwelling. Due to the configuration of these lots, staff believes that it would be undesirable to further develop each lot independently. Thus, in past years, staff has encouraged property owners in this area to develop their property in a ® unified manner. Several conceptual plans are attached which were used in past years to illustrate some developmental alternatives to property owners. Recommendation: Staff is very concerned with the undesirable precedent which would be established by allowing a neck lot as proposed by the subject subdivision. Staff believes that if such a division were allowed, it is very possible that the remaining properties in this area would also propose similar subdivisions of the rear portions of their lots which would gain access via neck lots. We have also received numerous requests from other areas of the City (e.g. Grove Street - Benton Street area) for similar neck lot subdivisions. Staff has several concerns regarding neck lots. First, such lots can create a public safety problem due to the potential inability of emergency vehicles to 'Teach structures located on such lots. Unusually long driveways which may ' bG`underdesigned and/or poorly maintained cause such problems. Also, a home security problem can arise in that _tr;:ctures on such lots are often not visible from public roads. Secondly, neck lot subdivisions result in a rather piecemeal approach to the overall planning and development of an area. The creation of such lots can also prohibit the orderly and logical development of surrounding properties. Planning Commission Staff Report Loegering Property Page 2 y January 4, 1978 Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested subdivision in that: 1) approval of the subdivision would establish an undesirable precedent regarding neck lots. 2) the proposed subdivision is unsuitable from the standpoint of community planning based upon the above stated reasons. 3) access to Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision is inadequate. GLH:ks • 12/28/77 Subdivision No.� ! SUBDIVISION DEDTCATIC".1 RrPOPT 00: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NA,,%E: LAND SIZE: �O S`%: 1��ttG Z�CT� LAND VALUE: (By: �(C �� ` Date: ) The developer of this subdivision has been required to A. grant an easement over part of the land E B. dedicate / cc of the land C. donate $ � �� cc as a fee in lieu of land As a result of applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 50 of ® land dedicated) 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. 2. If property is 6 acr" s or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. E3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 04. If property is necessary for storm water holing or will be dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. D 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his- toric value. El 6. B. Cash Required 10 1. In all other instances than above. El2. 0 ...JO`Ih Loe9e,-ir•�9 Ou>r�er•' - De�GloPer� Ec�ii7c� �"�ir�rJeSa fcc. .5��3� l�hov�e 9-V-/- /977 LEGAL 1DE�c�1PT1C1 / That `,art of Government Lot 3 in Section 1, Township 116, Range 21, described as fcllo:•rs : ,- Becinning at a point 30 feet South of the ::ort': line and ?1 A:' _yet :'le. t of the La_ t line of said Govern.mer_t Lot- 3; thence .'cyst parallel 'with the North line of said Governr..ent Lot 3 a distance of 150 ,f_eet; thence South r_aral_ with the Sast line of said Lot 3 a d:.stcnce of X00 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of Government Lot 3 a distance of 150 feet; thence ,TOrt-h parallel with the Zast line of said Lct 40 a distance of 400 feet to the point of beginning. a �s • a � —o � � �' {11 V) t• Ln�` o 1_. S. N0. 1.713 3 00 5 PCND \ 12 i11 L A N D 6440 Flying Claud Drive. Eden Prairie c?W1 .z'1iSSOCIAT=S, INC. S U R Y E Y 0 R S Minnesota, 55343 Phone 612.941.3030 Scale Revisions I Drawn By Dace Date Job r�o. — — Book Pace ...JO`Ih Loe9e,-ir•�9 Ou>r�er•' - De�GloPer� Ec�ii7c� �"�ir�rJeSa fcc. .5��3� l�hov�e 9-V-/- /977 LEGAL 1DE�c�1PT1C1 / That `,art of Government Lot 3 in Section 1, Township 116, Range 21, described as fcllo:•rs : ,- Becinning at a point 30 feet South of the ::ort': line and ?1 A:' _yet :'le. t of the La_ t line of said Govern.mer_t Lot- 3; thence .'cyst parallel 'with the North line of said Governr..ent Lot 3 a distance of 150 ,f_eet; thence South r_aral_ with the Sast line of said Lot 3 a d:.stcnce of X00 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of Government Lot 3 a distance of 150 feet; thence ,TOrt-h parallel with the Zast line of said Lct 40 a distance of 400 feet to the point of beginning. a �s • a � —o � � �' {11 V) t• Ln�` o 1_. S. N0. 1.713 3 00 5 PCND \ 12 i11 0 WE- ;)TEET X50 r30 I I � I ` lig 9, P�Gt� SQ. FT N 9 NJ . 1 NDl'TH • :BRE SEN.' PARK.' B•/KE •" iRA l L subdivisli,-�n REQUEST NUMBER: S-78-3 LOCATION: N. of Xtown & W. of Gleason REQUEST: _ Ttao R-1 lots. vill£•=,r plumvirg. r epfirtnirrIt�� irt�t .ij r.lir" PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 4, 1978 S-78-3 Killarney Shores 2nd Addition. Refer to: Attached graphics The proponent is requesting a two -lot subdivision of Outlot B of Kil- larney Shores. Each of the two newly created lots would measure over 19,000 square feet and would gain access to Gleason Road. Killarney Shores was platted in 1968. The preliminary plat which was submitted at that time showed three single family lots located on the subject property. However, these three lots were ® deleted and designated as "Outlot ;" at the time of final plat ap- proval. Staff has been unable to ascertain the reason, if any, for the designation of this area as an outlot at the time of final approval in 1968. Due to the very steep grades of the subject property together with the configuration and traffic volumes of Gleason Road (which is a county road), staff is concerned with potential traffic hazards associ- ated with dwellings in this location. Recommendation: In that Hennepin County controls all curb cuts and access from Gleason Road, staff recommends that the proposed subdivision be continued for one month to allow the County to review the plans and determine if the driveway curb cuts to serve these lots will be allowed. GLH:nr 12-29-77 1_06AT10N MAP ' '• ` 1 .-,:::.:• 19 +.molal.• •.t } f KEN +fir � G=i �.r>�:�: .. w�l_ '},. .�• �.. ., • :r •. . - it • .'• Q '.i ....t.0 � \ _ ... �.. I � r.' � I : � Vat/ /• (at• � "J ` • . t;' It IJ/ is c C:1 14I a!••at iz .J � r.lc• ''' - �- '1 VIK NGS NIL S •> 2 •� ' ' 00 A DITI ON = : �• .. Z,°� - gym. t OUTLOT A 9.0 ,• �/r/'��• � B t �w ;eJ ^.�bls. .cit• - :. •� •,:' 1 ila�! 33!•59:81 �r5 ti :yes M,HCo, S.c- - - T116.R 21 W P► Cor. .. - 0 �Y \i \ F \ 19 i N i. FT. I 1 I; s Subdivision No. S'_ y SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department ©�Ic SUBDIVISION NAME: 1' 1 � LAND SIZE: 21A LAND VALUE: (By: Date: / 30 7 ) The developer of this subdivision has been required to ElA. grant an easement over part of the land ElB. dedicaterr�� % of the land C. donate $ �1 J,Co as a fee in lieu of land As a result of applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) F] 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. El 2. If property is 6 ~crus or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. E3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 04. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. D 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his- toric value. 6. B. Cash Required 1. In all other instances than above. 2. REQUEST NUMBER: Z-78-1 N. of Dewey hill Rd. & W. W. LOCATION: Lewis Park, & W. of Cahill Rd. REQUEST: R-1 to PRT) -I and a 120 - unit apartment proposal. U 23'O 5W) 75() 1000 PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPQRT January 4, 1978 Z-78-1 Madsen Property (Cahill Road Condominiums) R-1 Single Family Residence to PRD -3 Planned Residential District Refer to: Attached graphics and Council minutes The subject property isan 11.7° acre parcel located north of William Wardwell Lewis Park and south of Braemar Oaks Apartments. The proponents are requesting a rezoning to PRD -3 to facilitate the construc- tion of two 60 -unit condominium buildings. Each building is proposed to be three stories in height. The subject property presently does not have frontage on any public street. However, according to the Southwest Edina Plan (see attached graphic), Amundson Avenue is proposed to traverse the western portion of the property. The City has retained right-of-way across the property for this roadway. Pending the construction of Amundson Avenue (which may or may not occur), access to the subject property is provided ® to Cahill Road by way of a 60 -foot wide temporary roadway easement. The Southwest Edina Plan also indicates that the section of the subject property lying west of Amundson Avenue should be dedicated for park purposes. This dedication would complete a "buffer strip" extending from Cahill School to Dewey Hill Road. Approximately two years ago, the City Council adopted a density reduction formula for multi -family dwellings in the "plan" areas of the city. According to the Southwest Edina Plan, the subject property is allowed a maximum of 12 units per acre. However, using the density reduction for- mula, staff has preliminarily determined that the subject property is allowed slightly over 6 units per acre, or about 60 units total. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the preliminary development plans in that: 1. The proposal does not conform to the Southwest Edina Plan in regard to Amundson Avenue and parklands lying west of Amundson Avenue. 2. The proposal does not conform to the report of the Open Space Commit- tee. 3. The proposal does not conform to the density reduction plan dated August 4, 1977. 4. The proposal indicates development on roadway easements for Amundson Avenue presently held by the City of Edina. 250 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEIPING OF THE EDINA CITY CnUNCIL 1117LD AT CITY HALL SEPTDIBER 12, 1977 Answering rollcall were members Richards, Schmidt, Shaw and Courtney who served as Mayor Pro Tem in the absence of Mayor Van Valkenburg. MINUTES of August 15, 1977, were approved as submitted by motion of Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Motion carried. EDINA WOMEN'S SOFTBALL TEAM CONGRATULATED. Councilman Shaw offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION OF CONm-%TUI,,tTIONS WHEREAS, during the 1977 Edina Adult Slo-Pitch Softball Season, sixteen young ladies of an Edina Women's Softball Team, sponsored by Country Club Markets, under the able direction of Coach Larry Kallin, have continued to exemplify the highest goals of good sportsmanship and outstanding proficiency; and WHEREAS, the team efforts have been rewarded by winning the Edina Women's play- offs championship and by being the first Edina Women's Softball Team to win the AA Women's Recreational State Tournament; and WHEREAS, during this past softball season, these young ladies have represented Edina in the highest manner; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council that the outstanding accomplishments of the Country Club Markets Softball Team deserve the sincere gratitude of the citizenry of Edina for the exemplary manner in which the team has conducted itself and for the great credit the team has brought to the commun- ity; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that appropriate copies of this resolution be presented to Jennifer Aanestad, Marcy Amble, Patty Bergren, Gail Berkley, Sue Berstein, Jackie Burger, Leigh Ann Ciemmer, Kitty Cress, Kris Duryea, Sue Griebenow, Sue Huff, Christi Hulse, Finny Johnston, Karen Oelschlaeger, Susan Pudvan, Cassie Spokes, and to Coach Larry Kallin. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt and unanimously carried. 1978 CITY BUDGET PRESENTED. Mr. Hyde presented the 1978 Budget, reflecting a mil rate increase from 3.4 to 10.0. He advised that this mil rate is low in compari- son with other municipalities and listed the causes for the increase as a continued growth in population, additional miles of streets and sidewalks to be maintained, new public facilities requiring servicing and ever increasing costs for services and supplies. Councilman Richards' motion setting a special budget meeting for September 15, 1977, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room was seconded by Councilman Shaw. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Motion carried. IMPROVEMENTS NOS. P -C-124, P -BA. -226 P -BA -227 AB6L�DONED; LAND ACQUISITION ONLY AUTHORIZED FOR P -C-126. Mr. Hyde recalled that public hearings on the following improvements had been continued from August 1, 1977, so that the City Attorney could determine if Grading and Graveling Improvement No. P -C-126 can be reduced to land acquisition for possible future road right-of-way and whether the cost of the land acquisition can then be included in a future improvement project for the con- struction of the road. Public hearings were then conducted on the following improvements and action taken as hereinafter recorded. A. GRADING AND GRAVELING I`71 ROVE-! NO. P -C-124 IN THE FOLLOWING: Amundson Avenue from Cahill Road to Dewey Hill Road B. STREET I"1PROVE.11fENT NO. P -BA -226 IN THE FOLLOWING: Amundson Avenue from Cahill Road to Dewey Hill Road C. GRADING AND GRAVELING I:IPROVENENT NO. P -C-126 IN THE FOLLOWING: Delaney Blvd. from Dewey dill Road to W. 78th Street D. PCR?tANENT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE CURB AND CUTTER IMPROVEMENT P -BA -227 City Attorney Erickson advised that the City has statutory authority to acquire such land as is reasonably needed, or may be reasonably needed for future road ® right-of-way for Improvement Y -C-126 and that the cost of the land acquisition may be assessed as a part of tl:e cost of the later road improvement. if the road is actually constructed at a future date, a further public hearing; will be required for the later road improvement. Mr. Erickson clarified that, should the City acquire the land and decide subsequently that the road is not to be built, the property may be disposed of if no longer needed for any public purpose. t 4_ • 251 Mr. Erickson also opined that "should the Council authorize the land acquisition portion of the project, and thereafter, in the process of acquiring the property - b eminent domain, should that method become necessary, should the Council decide Y ._ so riot to to abandon the project, 1C may do so, unilaterally, provided it does p the expiration of the time for appeal from the award of the commissioners, and provided it has not theretofore taken possession of the property, and provided further that the City itself has not filed an appeal from any commissioners' award. Should it dismiss subsequent to the initiation of the condemnation pro - eeedings, the City will, in any event, be liable for reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the landowner." Council's Hughes which concluded attention was also called to a memorandum from Mr. Gordon that 1) The concepts and design for Amundson/Delanev Road as contained in the Southwest Edina Plan and the County Road 18/Valley View Road Report continue to be valid; 2) Projected traffic volumes for Gleason Road without improvements to the roadway system will be excessive and unacceptable; 3) Construction of the proposed Amundson/Delaney system will alleviate anticipated excessive traffic _ volumes on Gleason Road; 4) Major residential development West of Cahill Road apparently will precede full development of the industrial area; tYaffic circu- lation patterns for such residential development will rely to a great extent on th- Amundson/Delaney Road; 5) The Cahill Road cul-de-sac is an essential element of proposed roadway system; however, construction of the cul-de-sac may not be �n essential for several years. Mr. Hughes recommended that 1) The Southwest Edina w Q Plan should not be amended and should retain the proposed roadway system; 2) M Amundson/Delaney Road should be constructed as development pressures warrant and should be constructed in conjunction with residential development west of Cahill -,• ". U Road; 3) The Cahill Road cul-de-sac should remain as part of the roadway system, but need not be implemented until warranted. Mr. Dunn said that he concurred with Q Mr. Hughes recommendations but clarified that the improvements could not be con- structed until construction of T.H. l00 is complete. He expressed concern that people inquiring about the area be told that the proposed road is a "plan" only and that the road may actually never be built. Mr. Hyde suggested that Improve- ments hos. P-C-124, P-BA-226 and P-BA-227 be abandoned at this time and that only the land acquisition be authorized for improvement No. C-126 at this time. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Burns of Dewey Hill Road both spoke in support of the South- west Edina Plan and the road patterns proposed, contending that residents had Dur- ! chased property in reliance on the Plan. tars. Burns recalled that the Plan had been stressed in the court case brought against the City for its denial for R-S . ® zoning proposed for the corner of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road. She suggested that residents on Lanham Lane and Fleetwood Drive opposed the construction of the proposed road only because it would spoil their view. An unideatifiad gentle- man who lives on Dewey Hili Road said that Council should not only consider future property owners, but should also consider present property owners who bought their property in reliance on the Plan. Councilman Richards denied that he.had ever advocated changing the Southwest Edina Plan. He spoke of his feeling that it is important to put people on notice that the road may never be built inasmuch as conditions are different now than in 1971 when the Plan was adopted. lie said that he could not justify spending money on building a road which may only alleviate a small percentage of thru traffic. Councilman Shaw then moved that Improvements Nos. P-C-124, P-BA-226 and P-DA-227 be abandoned at this time. The motion was • seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None • Motion carried. Councilman Shaw offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRADING AND GRAVELING I"T ROVFRENT NO. C-126 AS TO A.cOUISITION OF L:L:D CNLY BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City or Edina, Minnesota, tt;ac this Council heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement: CONSTRUCTION OF GRADING &ND GRAVELING IMPROVE*SENT NO. P-126 IN THE FOLLOWING: {. Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill Road to W. 78th Street notice, the and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said interested, and being fully Council has duly considered the views of all persons to withthe acquisi- advised of the pertinent facts does hereby determine proceed City pry tion of road right-of-way only at this time and that the reasonable effort to procure the property described as follows: Outlot 1, ileatli Glen by negotiation and through purchase, if possible, and under the City's tof . tile City staff and Attorney be innsstrruu cted eminent domain, if necessary, and thath by and directed to use every reasonable effort to procure the above property negotiation and direct purerase, hut, if not successful, to file the nece9;iJry petition in eminent domain to acquire such property and prosecute such action to 9/12/77 • I - 252 _ a successful conclusion until abandoned. dismissed, or terminated by the City or ' the Court; Chat Che City staff and Atto navy and the Mayor, ttillager and Clerk do all things necessary to be dune In the aequisi.Lion of said property by negotiation • and purchase and, if necessary, by eminent domain: that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as GRADING AND GR:\VELING IPti'ROVEMENT NO. C-126 and the area proposed to be specially assessed therefor shall include areas sub- sequently determined by the City Council to be benefited by the construction of a road over and across the land to be acquired for such road pursuant to the fore- going resolution, which assessment may include the cost of the land acquisition and the cost of constructing the road. Mwas seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Motion for adoption of the resolution Rollcall: Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None - Resolution adopted. Councilman Richards then moved that there be no amendment to the Southwest Edina Plan at this time, but that the staff be instructed to advise all interested property owners, prospective property owners and the general public that the South- west Edina Plan continues to include Amundson/Delaney Road, but that this road may or may not be constructed at a later date, and, further, that the Cahill Road cul-de-sac may not become a reality. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Resolution adopted. SPECIAL ASSESS-1-ENTS LEVIED FOR VARIOUS I!TpROVEIjE',+iS. Mr. Hyde recalled that Special Assessment hearings -for Street improvements Nos. BA -202, BA -206, BA -203, BA -212, BA -215, BA -216 and Watermain Improvement No. WM-270 had been continued from August 15, 1977, because legal notices had not been published in time to give the thirty day notice now required by law. Hearings were then conducted as fol- lows. A. STREET I,,TROVEKENT NO. BA -202 IN THE FOLLOWING: Dovre Drive from Parkwood Lane to Lincoln Drive Mr. Hyde presented Pnaivsis of Assessment showing total construction cost of $100,987.65, proposed to be assessed against 617.61 assessable feet at $21.00 • per foot (for Nine ,tile North tad Addition only) and against 408 assessable build- ing sites at $215.73 per site, against estimated assessment of $25.00 per assess- able foot for Nine Mile North 2nd Addition and $260.00 per assessable building ne had been received prior thereto. (See site. No objections were heard and no Resolution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes.) B. STREET IMPROVEHENT NO. EA -206 IN THE FOLLOWING: Parkwood Lane from Londonderry Road to North line of Parkwood Knolls 19 Ch Addition Dovre Drive from East Sine of Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition to West line or Parkwood Knolls Addition Field Way from East line of Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition to Parkwood Lane Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost of $39,945.24, proposed to be assessed against 36 assessable lots at $1,109.59 per lot, against estimated assessment of $1,517.12 per assessable lot. No objections were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes-) C. STREET IMPROVE:f-:NT ;:0. BA -208 IN THE FOLLOWING: Lanham Lane from South line of M.P. Johnson's Prospect Hills 3rd Addition to Fleetwood Drive Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at $22,668.39, proposed to be assessed against 18 1/3 assessable lots at $1,236.48 per lot, against estimated assessment of $1,407.95 per lot. No objections were beard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Ordering Assess- ment later in Minutes.) D. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -212 IN THE FOLLOWING: Dale Avenue from W. 56th Street to W. 57th Street Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at $9.779.06, proposed to be assessed against 1,058.34 assessable feet at $`3.24 per foot against estimated assessment of $21.48 per assessable loot. \o object- ions were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Order - Ing Assessment later in Minutes.) E. STREET IMPROVEMLNT NU- BA -215 IN THE FOLLOWING: McCauley Terrace from McCauley Trail 1:ast to cul-de-sac Mr. Hyde presented Analysts of Assessment showing total construction cost at $8,430.58, proposed to be assessed against 574.29 assessable feet at $14.68 per foot against estimated assessment of $19.43 per asses::able foot. No objections