HomeMy WebLinkAbout19630325_regular3/25/63
!*lINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL, HELD MONDAY ,
MARCH 25, 1963, AT 7:OO P.M., AT THE
EDINA VILLAGE HALL
Members answering Rollcall were MacMillan, Rixe, Tupa and VanValkenburg. Mayor
Pro Tem VanValkenburg presided,
HINUTES of the Regular Meeting of March 11, 1963, were approved as submitted, by
Motion MacMillan , seconded by Tupa and carried,
JPUFLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED XERXES AVENUE IblPROVEMENT POSTPONED TO APRIL 8, Mayor
Pro Tem Van Valkenburg announced that the public hearins, tentatively scheduled
for this evening, will be postponed to A@ril 8.
following Resolution and moved its adoption:
Mactlillan then offered the
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, CONCRETE
SIDEWALK, SANITARY SEVER SERVICE CONNECTIONS
AND APPURTENANCES, WATERMAIN SERVICE CONNECTIONS
AND APPURTENANCES, ST0IU.I SENER AND APPURTENANCES
AND DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, CONCRETE STEPS, RETAINING
VALLS - WEST SIDE OF XERXES AVENUE BETWEEN Ne54TH
STREET AND W,62ND STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Village of Edina:
1, The Village Engineer, having submitted to the Council a preliminary
report as to the feasibility of the proposed Improvements described in the Form
of Notice of Hearing set forth below, and as to the estimated cost of such
improvement, said report is hereby approved and directed to be placed on file
in the office o€ the Village Clerk.
Edina Village Hall, to consider in public hearing the views of all persons
interested in said proposed improvement,
place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper once
a week for two successive weeks, the second of which publications is to be not
less than three days from date of said meeting, which notice shall be in
substantially the following form:
2. This Council shall meet on Monday, April 8, 1963, at 7:OO P.M., in the
3. The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
SANITARY SEVER AND WATERMAIN SERVICE CONNECTIONS,
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, SIDEWALK, AND STORM SEW~R
EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL will meet at the Edina Village Hall on Monday, April 8,
1963, at 7:OO P.N., to consider the following proposed improvements to be
constructed under the authority granted by Minnesota Laws of 1953, Chapter 398.
The approximate cost of said improvements is estimated by the Village as set
forth below: SIDEVALK AND ESTIMATED COST
A, CONSTRUCTION OF CONCFETE/CURB AND GUTTER IN 11,213.33 (CEG)
B. CONSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
Vest side of Xepxes Ave., from k1*56th St, to W,62nd 'St. $14,885 .OO (Sidewalk)
CONNECTIONS AND APPURTENANCES IN
West side of Xerxes Ave. from W.54th St. to k7,62nd St. $23,401.47
C . CONSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE VATERMAIN SERVICE
CONNECTIONS AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING :
Vest side of Xerxes Ave. from W.54th St. to N.62nd St. $ 6,631.55
D, CONSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE STORM SEWER AND APPURTENANCES
IN i7est side of Xerxes Avenue from W.54th St. to P1.62nd St.$12,262,26
E. CONSTRUCTION OF DRIVEWAY APPROACHES , ANY NECESSARY
CONCRETE STEPS , RETAINING WALLS AND APPURTENANCES
IN West side of Xerxes Avenue from W.54th St. to
Vest 62nd St, $13,450.05
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed Curb and Gutter
and Sidewalk under A above includes all lots and tracts of land abutting on the
Nest side of the street proposed to be improved3
Service Connections under B above includes Lots 1,2,3,5, and 6, Block 1, Harriet
Lawn Addn.; Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Brookline Addn.; Lots 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,
Slock 2, Brookline Addn.; S.30' of Lot 5 and N. 30' of Lot 6, Block 1, Harriet
Manor 2nd Addn.; S.20' of Lot 6 and Lot 7, Harriet Manor 2nd Addn.; Lots 8, 11
and 12, Block 1, Harriet Manor 2nd Addn,; Lots 1,2,4,5,6,8 and 9, Block 8, Harriet
Manor 2nd Addn.; Lot 2, Block 1, Town Realty's Edina Terrace; Lot 1, Block 1,
Town Realty's Edina Terrace 2nd Addn, ; Parcels #4205 ,a4265 ,#5610 ,a5620 ,#5630 all
in Sec.20,T.28,R.24,
Connections under C above includes Lots 4,5 E 6, 7 E 8, 9, 10,11,12,15, Block 1,
Seely's First Addn. to Hawthorne Park; Lots 1,2,7,8,13,14 and 15, Block 4, Seely's
First Addn. to Hawthorne Park; Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Harriet Manor 2nd Addn,;
Lots 1,2,4,6 and 9, Block 8, Harriet Manor 2nd Addn,
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed Sanitary Sewer
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed Watermain Service
53 3/25/63
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed Storm Sewer
under D above include all lots and tracts of land within the following described .''I
district:
"Commencing at a point on the north line of Lot 1, Block 1, Seely's 1st Addn. to
Hawthorne Park 35' west of the NE Cor. thereof; thence South parallel to and 35'
west of the east line of said Addn. to the center line of W.56th St.; thence West
along the center line of W.56th St. to the west line of Lot 1, Block 2, Harriet
Lawn Addn, extended north; thence south.along the west line of Lots 1 thru 6,
Block 2, Harriet Lawn Addn. and Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Brookline Addn. extended to
the center line of F1.57th St,; thence W, along the center line of W.57th St, to the
mid point of Lot 22, Block 3, Brookline Addn, extended north; thence south along
middle of Lots 22, thru 12, Block 3, Brookline Addn, to the center line of W158th
St.; thence east along the center line of W.58th St. to a point 94' W, of the
center line of York Ave,; thence S. to a point on the N. line of Lot 9, Block 2,
Harriet Manor 2nd Addn,, said point being 64' W, of the NE Cor. thereof; thence
W. along the N. line of said Lot 9 a distance of 71' to the center line of alley;
thence Sc along center line of alley a distance of 100'; thence W, along the N,line
of Lot 14, Block 2, Harriet Manor 2nd Addn, to the center line of Zenith Ave.;
thence S, along the center line of Zenith Ave. to the center line of M,59th St.;
thence W, along the center line of W.59th St, to the center line of alley, Block 6,
Harriet Manor 2nd Addn, extended north; thence south along the center line of said
alley extended to a point 400' south of the center line of W.6Oth St,; thence E. 400'
S, of and parallel to the center line of W.6Oth St, to the W, line of B1, 2, Loken's
3rd Addn.; thence SEly to a point on the E. line of said B1. 2 a distance of 450'3.
of the center line of W.6Oth St.; thence E, to a point on the \I, line of B1, 1,
Loken's 3rd Addn,, said point being 450' S. of the center Line of W.6Oth St.;
thence SEly to a point on the S, line of Lot 1, Block 1, Loken's 3rd Addn., said
point being 70' W, of the SE corner thereof; thence S, parallel to and 100' W, of
the center line of Xerxes Ave, to the north line of County Highway #62; thence E.
to the center line of Xerxes Ave,; thence north along the center line of Xerxes
Ave. to the S, line of W.54th St, extended; thence W. to point of beginning,"
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed driveway
approaches, concrete steps, and retaining walls under E above includes a11 lots
and tracts of land abutting on the West side of the street praposed to be improved,
GRETCHEN S, ALDEN
Village Clerk
Motion for adoption of the Resolution was seconded by Rixe, and on Rollcall there
were four ayes and no nays, as follows: MacMillan, aye; Rixe, aye; Tupa, aye;
SUBURBS' STAND ON GENERAL HOSPITAL CLHIFIED.
preszt the stand of the Suburbs relative to Minneapolis General Hospital,
that there are many people who feel that General Hospital must continue in operation,
Mr, Hyde told audience that, at no time have the suburbs said it should be closed-
that this was started by the City of Minneapolis, which states it can no Longer afford
to support the facility.
Minneapolis' proposal to tie direct relief costs into the General Hospital county
plan,
costs, not much mention has been made about the 19 mills paid to the county for
welfare purposes (some $633,000); that if the Minneapolis-proposed plan is adopted
by the Legislature, there will be a LO mill increase for welfare--which will mean
that Edina is being taxed more for welfare than for a11 village government. Outlining
the recommendation of the League of Hennepin County Municipalities' recommendation
for a bill which - 1. Does not tie direct relief costs to the General Hospital Plan;
2.
and 3. Provides for suburbs to pay for county hospital on a basis. He asked
that interested Edina citizens write to their Legislators in support of the League
recommendation
Manager Hyde explained to those
Saying
He explained that Edina, and other suburbs, are protesting
Mr. Hyde added that while much has been said about Edina's low direct relief
Does not give the county authority to build a new hospital without a referendum;
WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS (TRUNK AND LATERALS) AUTHORIZED FOR NORTHWEST SECTION, AFTER
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Hearings on Trunk and Lateral Watermains", published in Edina-Morningside Courier
March 14 and 21, 1963, and Affidavit of Mailing of Notice of Hearing. Affidavits
were approved as to form and ordered placed on file; and, Pursuant to said Notice,
Public Hearings were conducted on said proposed Trunk and Lateral Watermain
Improvements.
on the Council's own motion as the result of requests for connection to the City of
Hopkins' watermain along the Hopkins-Edina border, last year, and an informal poll
taken by this office relative to interest in water service for the area--which showed
177 interested in service, and 71 not interested. He added that since the poll was
taken, Edina watermains into Parkwood Knolls have been authorized and are now under
construction , bringing Edina water closer to the Northwest Section; and that Banister
Engineering Company, water consultants, was employed,~l to survey the various means of
providing water service to this area ; that they explored four different methods of
Clerk presented Affidavit of Publication of "Notice of Public
Manager Hyde explained that these Public Hearings have been initiated
3/25/63
providing service: 1. extending the present Edina water system; 2. establishment
of a separate water district; 3. a single connection to Hopkins; 4, multiple
connection to Hopkins .
over a connection to Hopkins principally because Hopkins' water rates are
the present system-is the one under'consideration tonight; that it is favored
considerably higher than Edina's and Hopkins is unable to provide a wholesale
rate to Edina,
the areas proposed to be assessed therefore: and Estimates of Cost were given
as follows:
Northwest to County Road #18, North on County Road #18 to Maloney Avenue, East on
Maloney Avenue to Jackson Ave., North on Jackson Avenue to Belmore Lane; and
East on Maloney Avenue from Jackson Avenue to Arthur Street-all as described in
published Notice) :
54
He added that thekr recommendation-f or the extension of
'
A Vu-Graph Slide was shotm of the proposed route of the improvements, and
FOR THE PROPOSED TRUNK MAIN (beginning at Parkwood Road, then West, North,
I TOTAL COST - $159,803.31 -.Proposed to be Assessed as:-
Platted Property - $153,92 per Connection
Unplatted Property-$384.80 per Acre
follows; against all properties in Trunk Watermain District -
Plus Charges f or Lateral \?atermain Service for those properties
abutting the Trunk Nain which will not require a lateral installation
to receive water service:
Platted Property - $601.50 perLebnnection
Unplatted Property-$601.50 for every 150' of frontage on trunk.
FOR THE PROPOSED LATERAL MAINS : (Washington , Adams , Jefferson, Madison, .... Monroe Aves., Third St,, Belmore Lane, Tyler Ave., Arthur Street, Dearborn St.,
Griffit St., Blake Road, Maloney Ave,
Grove Place, Alley betw. Bls, 7 and 8, Mendelssohn Addn.,--all as described in
published Notice) :
John St. , Kresse Circle, Spruce Road,
TOTAL COST - $247,378.88 - Proposed to be assessed as
Platted Property - $601,50 per Connection
Unplatted Property-$601.50 per 150' of frontage or per
Connection
He added that if the project is authorized, now, it
follows, against all lots andbtracts of land abutting the streets
proposed to be improved:
Mr, Hyde explained that the assessment term will be 20'years for the Trunk Main;
10 years for the Laterals.
is possible that it will be assessed by October, with the first year payable
being 1964, but that it is more likely that assessment will not be made until
1964, first year payable 1965.
so far out of the way, rather than straight North from Parktjood Road,
advised that this is largely for two reasons:
Parkwood Road is as yet unplatted, and firm plans for development have not yet
been made, thus it is difficult to know where the roads will be; and, the area
abutting Maloney Avenue is cemetary property, and it is doubtful that easements
could be acquired,
the Trunk Main will ultimately connect with a well or wells in the park area.
proposed; was informed that the Platted Property will be assessed on a "Der
connection" basis, whether lot is 46I, 100' or 150r wide.
more for the proposed apartment buildings than for single dwellings. Fir. Hyde
answered that this has not been worked out, because it is not yet knorm how
many apantments are planned; that there will be additional laterals needed €or
the proposed apartments, for which that area will be assessed when laterals are
constructed.
Mr, J. Brenny, 414- VanBuren Avenue, protested the cost, saying it is about
double the assessment made in other neighboring communities,
many communities finance their water improvements out of either general fund OF
waterrevenue fund moneys; that Edina has maintained the policy of making full
assessment for these improvements and cannot change now.
the per-acre trunk charge of $384,80, saying he feels this is low because about
six lots can be platted from an acre.
accepted at about 2-1/2 lots per acre, and this formula is being used for this
reas on ,
main in Dearborn Street from Belmore Lane to North Village Limits, stating there
is a hill 20 feet high at the north end of the block, which would preclude this
construction, It was explained that these are preliminary plans, only; that if
it is not topographically feasible to construct, the lateral will be cut short.
Br. Rieke told Council his house lis on two lots and will need only one connection.
He was advised that if he will sign a declaration to this effect, he will be
assessed for only one connection,
I Mr. VanValkenburg inquirBd why the route of the Trunk Main seems to go
He was
the area directly North of
Engineer Wegner added that the Jackson Avenue portion of
Mr. T.W. Listiak, 409 Adams Avenue, inquired as to method of assessment
Mrs. V.K. Stevens, 401 Jefferson Avenue, asked if it is intended to assess '
He was advised that
Mr. Brenny asked about
He was told that new plats are being
Dr. H.B. Rieke, 6520 Belmore Lane, inquired about plans to put a lateral
55 3/25/63
Mr, A,J, Eichberger, 406 VanBuren Avenue, protested that trunk main I construction will "ruin the two best streets in the area". He asked why the
main can't be moved over a block and be constructed on Belmore Lane, Answer
was that the proposal is to construct the main outside the blacktop on the North
edge of the street, insofar as is possible; that the engineering reason for
construction on Maloney Avenue is that the trunk main should be as close as
possible to the center of the project.
run North on Jackson Avenue from Maloney, and Mr. Hyde replied that it will
eventually connect with a well and storage supply.
lot, objected to the proposed "per-connection" basis of assessment. He added
that the entire valuation of his property is $8,000 and he will never be able
to get his money out of his house if a $750 assessment is levied for water
service.
Mr. Robert Killian, 409 Jefferson Avenue, inquired concerning apartment
buildings proposed for County Road #18, He was informed that such buildings
as can receive service from the Trunk Main will pay a Lateral Charge.
Killian also asked if a Trunk Main from the termination of the present trunk
main at Interlachen Blvd. and Mirror Lakes Drive would not have been cheaper
because of the additional developed area which could be assessed.
answered that the distance to be covered is about the same as that of the
presently proposed Trunk Main, but that there is more dead footage along the
Interlachen Country Club than along the cemetary property,
protection and adequate pressure if water does go in.
at the time approximately 200 service connections have been made, the Village
will be obligated to construct a well in this area, but that until that time
the system can provide sufficient pressure for the area without additional
facilities. . Mr. Listiak then asked if existing wells will be condemned at
the time the new system.is put into use.. Answer was no; that residents are
not required to tie into the village main until they wish to do so; but that
when a tie is made there'must be a physical separation between village water
connection and private well.
@,66 per running foot for water; Golden Valley, $6.00; that at the proposed
price for Edina water he would be paying $l3,00 per foot for his 56-foot lot,
He added that the larger lots have lapger houses and can stand a larger assess-
ment than the smaller lots, Mrr Hyde explained that this is not an assessment
hearing; that there are many ways of assessing, none of which pleases everyone;
that this area is probably more varied insofar as lot front-footages and areas
are concerned, than any other part of Edina; that, prior to three or four years
ago, utilities assessments were made on a per front foot basis but that because
of the more recent plattings, with curved streets and varied lot footages, it
has been considered more equitable to use the "per-connection" basis during the
past few years,
stated he is in favor of the improvements at a reasonable cost.
that he pleaded the case against a "per front foot" basis of assessment when the
sewer was constructed, but was assessed on this basis anyway; that he feels the
"per connection" basis is just,
any construction on County Road 18, and asked how the Council can possibly
consider putting in a watermain in this location,
officials had had a meeting, very recently,with Messrs. Pederson, Spielman and
McKay of the County Highway Department; that installation has been approved.
east of Blake Road at this time. He was advised dt is not necessary; that if a
majority of persons in any one area object to laterals they can be deleted from
project .
Answer was that this Hearing tonight is for purpose of either approving 05
abandoning project,
he has had to have his well dug Up; that he is decidedly in favor of the water
improvement, but is not in favor of the assessment method proposed.
it would not be cheaper to come up through Blake Road rather than County Road
#18, inasmuch as one side of County Road #18 cannot be assessed. Mr, I?egner
replied that the County Road #18 trunk must eventually be put in anyway, and
blr. Hyde added this is the most feasible way of getting the trunk line in..
Tyler, advocated a "usage" basis, szying large families get more benefit from
improvement than do small families; one owner in the 400 block on Jefferson
said the cost of the building on the property should have something to do with
the assessment ; Mrs Wilhoit , Belmore Lane, recommended a "property valuation"
basis, although she said the present basis is agreeable to her,
'3,
Mr, Eichberger asked why trunk should
Mr, Robert Ekstrand, 318 VanBuren, who stated his house is on a 46-foot
Mr.
Mr. Hyde
Mr. Listiak'asked whether the Village Engineer trill guarantee fire
Mr. Wegner replied that
Mr. Norman A. Setter, 303 Monroe Avenue, told Council Bloomington charges
Mr, J. W. Tholen, 603 Washington Avenue, who said he has a lot 150mx648'
Mr. Frank Sanders, 6221 Maloney Avenue, explained he has a 200-foot frontage;
Mrs, Stevens reported Hennepin County Highway Department does not recommend
Mr, Hyde stated that Village
Mr, Hutchinson, 6313 Maloney asked if it is necessary to construct laterals
Owner at 6212 Maloney asked that a new poll be taken before construction,
Mr, Bruce BPannan, 411 Harrison, said this is the second time in five years
He asked if
Two or three others advocated other methods of assessment: Mr, Johnson ,405
rfi
3/25/63
One property owner advocated waiting until the Lateral Sewer Assessment, which B 9b
still has two years to run, has been paid off .
is generally dropping; that all the argument is no good kf a well goes dry and has
to be extended.
area is in favor of the improvement; that the argiument is about the method of
assessment,
A poll of hands was taken; and it was in favor of the improvement.
Soneone inquired as to when water service could be expected, and was informed
that it may possibly be in by September; that one of the big problems is the unplatted
area through which part of the trunk must go.
Elr. Walthour inquired as to whether it would not be practical to include
Nendelssohn Lake, Arthur St, south of Maloney, and Waterman Avenue in the improve-
ment, and was told that a tying trunk must eventually come up Blake Road, and this
area will be included at that time,
Mr. Raymond Bruer, 408 Jackson Avenue, inquired about replacement of the
bituminous surface on Jackson.
in the cost of the project.
the cost of the proposed improvement and the:way in which it is to be paid fop--
but that he does want water, for safety and fire protection; that he feels the
improvement should be approved,
None were forthcoming, and t4acMillan offered the following Resolution and moved its
adoption :
blr. David Walthour, 300 Grove Place, said it is well known that the water table
He advocated the improvementr
Another owner told Council he believes the greater majority of owners in the
He was informed this replacement cost is included.
Mr, Richard Alstad, 306 Jefferson Avenue, stated he, too, is concerned about
Mayor Pro Tem VanValkenburg asked for any suggestions not heretofore heard.
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
WATERMAIN IMPROVE14ENT NO e 171
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council, of the Village of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council
heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published on the following proposed
improvement:
COMSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE TRUNK \lATEREIAIN
APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOtIING:
LATERAL CONNECTIONS THERETO, AND
"Commencing at a point on the West line of Parkwood Rd. , said point
being 251.11 feet, more or less, North of the South line of Sec. 30,
T. 117, R.21; thence SWly at an interior angle measured to the right
of 66000' from the West line of Parkwood Road; thence along said line
a distance of 117.3' feet to the beginning of a curve, said curve
having a delta of 22O and a radius of 303.82' a distance of 116.66';
thence Westerly along tangent of last described curve a distance of
616'; thence Northerly at right angles a distance of 1030'; thence
NWly at a deflection angle of 44O15' a distance of 924'; thence
Northerly 30' East and parallel to the West line of Sec, 30, T.117,
R.21 a distance of 2126' to a point 10' N. of the center line of
County Road #18; thence East along Maloney Aver to Arthur Street;
Jackson Avenue from Maloney Ave. to Belmore Lane; Belmore Lane from
Jackson Ave. to 100' West and there terminating."
and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice the Council
has duly considered the views of a11 persons interested, and being fully advised of
the pertinent facts does hereby determine to proceed with the construction of said
inprovement; that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred to in
all subsequent proceedings as WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. 171; and the area to be
specially assessed therefor shall include all lots and tracts of land within the
following described boundaries:
limits to the NE corner of Sec,30,T,117,R,21; th, Sly along The E. line of said Sec.
to the center line of Maloney Ave.; th. Wly along the center line of Maloney Avet to
the E. line of Mendelssohn Rearrangement of Block 23 extended; th. Sly to the SE
corner of Lot 1, Rearrangement of Block 23, Mendelssohn; th. Wly to the SW corner of
Block 1, Mendelssohn Sorensen Replat; th. Wly to the NW corner of Lot 1, Block 1,
Mendelssohn Sorensen Replat; th, Sly to the NE corner of Replat of part of Block 22,
Mendelssohn; th. Wly to the NW corner of Replat of part of Block 22, Mendelssohn; th.
Sly 70 feet along the kI, line of Replat of part of Block 22, Nendelssohn; th. VLy to
the NE corner of Lot 6, Block 1, Victorsen's Interlachen; th. Vlly to the NU corner of
Lot 5, Block 1, Victorsen's Interlachen;.th. Nly to the NE corner of Lot 1, Block 1,
Victorsen's Interlachen; th, Ely to the SE corner part of Block 21, Nendelssohn; th.
Nly to the SE corner of Lot 3, Block 1, Mendelssohn Addn. Gross Replat; th, Illy along
the W. line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Mendelssohn Addn. Gross Replat to the center
line of Haloney Ave. ; th. Nly along the center line of Maloney Ave. to the 11.
line of Griffis Sub. of Block 18 extended; th. Sly along the W. line of Griffis
"Commencing at the NW corner of Sec.30,T.117,R.21; th. Ely along the North Village
Sub. of Block 18
ssohn; th. Wly along the S. line of Lot 7, lrIillards Sub. of Block 17, Nendelssohn,
and lJly along the S. line of Lot 4¶ Block 1, Blanche Addn. to the SN corner of
Lot 4, Block 1, Blanche Addn,; th, Sly to the NE corner of Lot 5, Block I, Hanson's
3rd Addn,; th. Vly to the NFI corner of Lot 7, Block 1, Hanson's 3rd Addn.; th.
Sly along the VI. line of Hanson's 3rd Addn. to the center line of Waterman Ave.
extended; th. at a bearing of S. 24O 13' 40" F7, a distance of 219.31'; th. Sly
and parallel to Waterman Ave. extended a distance of 330' to the center line of
to the SE corner of Lot 7, Willards Sub. of Block 17, Mendel-
63
rl
b 3
p3 m
57
I
3 /25 163
VanBuren Ave, extended; th. S. 460' to the S, line of the NW1/4 of SecS30,T.117,'fa-
R.21; th, Ely along the S, line of said NM1/4 to center of Sec.30,T.117,R.21; th. 'b
Sly along the E.line of the SV1/4 of Sec,30,T,117,R.21 to 215' N. of the SE corner
of SW1/4 of Sec.30,T.L17,R.21; th. Wklly, Wly and Slplly parallel to and 215' N., W.,
and Wly of the center line of Parkwood Rd. to the NW corner of the NE1/4 of the
NGJ1/4 of Sec.3L,T.l17,R,21; th. Wly along the Ti. line of Sec.31,T.l17,R.21 to the
NW corner of Sec.31, T.117,Rs21; th. N. along center line of County Road No. 18 to
point of beginning"
to the Trunk Watermain includes Lots 1 thru 13 incl,, Block 13, and Lots 14 thrv 28
incl. , Block 14, all in West Minneapolis Heights Addition; Block 16 , Mendelssohn
Addn,; Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 1, Hanson's 2nd Addn,; Lot 1, Willard's Sub. of
Block 17* Mendelssohn; Lot 2, Block 2, Davies 1st Addn.; Parcel #0375 and Parcel
#0520 in the S1/2 of Sec.30, T.117, R.21; Tracts A and B, R.L.S.#246; N1/2 Sec.30,
T. 117 ,R. 21.
)
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed Lateral Connections
Motion for adoption of the Resolution was seconded by Tupa, and on Rollcall there
were four ayes and no nays, as follows: MacMillan, aye; Rixe, aye; Tupa, aye; and
And MacMilLan offered the follow&ii Resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. 172
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Village of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council
heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published on the following proposed
improvement :
CONSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE LATERAL WATERMAIN AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING:
Washington Ave, from Maloney Ave. to Morth Village Limits
Adams Ave. from Maloney Ave. to North Village Limits
Jefferson Ave, from Maloney Ave. to North Village Limits
Madison Ave. from Maloney Ave, to North Village Limits
Monroe Ave. from Maloney Ave, to North Village Limits
Third St. from Washington Ave, to Monroe Ave,
Third St. from VanBuren Ave, to Harrison Aver
Belmore Lane from Monroe Ave. to 220 feet East
Belmore Lane from Jackson Aver to VanBuren Ave.
VanBuren Ave, from Maloney Ave. to North Village Limits
Harrison Aver from Maloney Aver to North Village Limits
Tyler Ave. from Maloney Ave, to Belmore Lane
Arthur Street from Maloney Ave, North to cul-de-sac
Belmore Lane from Harrison Ave. to Griffit Street
Dearborn Street from Belmore Lane to 400' North
Arthur St, from Belmore Lane to 400' North
Griffit St, from Maloney Ave. to North Village Limits
Blake Rd. from Maloney Ave. to North Village Limits
Maloney Ave, from Arthur St, to West line of Block 9,
John wtreet from Maloney Ave. to 40' North
Kresse Circle from Maloney Ave, to cul-de-sac
Spruce Road from Griffit St. to alley between Blocks 7
John Street from Belmore Lane to Spruce Road
Grove Place from Belmore Lane to Spruce Road
Alley between Blocks 7 and 8, Mendelssohn Addn. from
Belmore Lane from John Street to East line of Sec. 30,
Mende lss ohn Addn
and 8, Mendelssohn Addn,
Belmore Lane to Spruce Road
T. 117, R, 21
and at the hearin9 held at the time and place specified in said notice the Council
has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised
of the pertinent facts does hereby determine to proceed with the construction of
said improvement; that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred
to in a11 subsequent proceedings as WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. 172, and the area
to be specially assessed therefor shall include all'lots and tracts of land
abutting the streets and alley proposed to be improved.
Motion for adoption of Resolution was seconded by Tupa, and on RolLcalJ, there were
four ayes and no nays, as follows: fkcMillan, aye; Rixe, aye; Tupa, aye; and
alkenburg, aye; and the Resolution
PI 3/25/63
3 'comcn ADOPTS A~.END~ENT To 1:UtTIpLE mSIDENCE SECTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE i Mr.
VanValkenburg called to Public Hearing the matter of the proposed Amendment to the
Multiple Residence Section of the Village Zoning Ordinance, which Hearing had been
to the Council the formal Ordinance, as drafted by the Village Attorney pursuant
to Planning Commission recommendations of February 27 and March 6.
Council, Messrsc Hite and Hasselquist reviewed in detail the terminology of the
formal Ordinance with that of the Planning Commission recommendations.
Hasselquist told Council that the significant changes in the wording are the
application of objective tests, in Dlace of the subjective tests for the various
requirements.
conclusion of which Mr, VanValkenburg told Council he feels this Ordinance has
been very well done by 14r* Hite and the Planning Commission. Mr. Hite suggested
that, inasmuch as the preamble to the Commissionfs ordinance recanmendations has
been omitted fran the formal ordinance, it be written into the permanent record
relative to Council action on the matter; and it is herewith included, as follows:
-continued from the Regular Meeting of March 11, Planning Director Hfte presented
Vith the
Mr.
.
Some considerable detailed review and discussion was had, at the
l'THE PURPOSE, INTENT E OBJECTIVE OF THE MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, AS
RECOMtIIENDED TO THE- EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL BY THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION (MARCH 6,
1963 1'' - I "The purpose, intent and objective of this section in establishing the
Multiple Residence Districts R2, R3, R4, R5 and R6, is to provlide regulations,
controls and standards for the orderly development and maintenance of muLtiple
residence or group housing uses within the Village of Edina, and to insure that
these uses are not only complementary to and compatible with the high standards
of development exhibited by other residential, commercial or industrial uses within
the Village, but that they also provide for their occupants a healthy environment,
safety from physical hazards, and those qualities of comfort and convenience and
aesthetic satisfaction essential for emotional and social well-being,
need within this community for the development of housing types free from the
maintenance responsibilities of the detached dwelling and yet accessible to the
many amenities created and enjoyed by the residents of Edina.
"Because the general classification of multiple residence housing includes
a large variety of housing types, ranging from the double bungalow or duplex to the
multi-story elevator apartment, and because each of these many types ?assesses some
characteristics which are uncommon to all, the Multiple Residence classification of
this Ordinance establishes five multiple residence zoning districts, R2, R3, R4, R5
and R6, each of which is intended to recognize the individual characteristics of one
specific type of multiple residence housing and provide rules, reg@ations, controls
and standards appropriate for that typer
Ordinance that only the most appropriate of the five multiple residence districts
shall be established at any one location and that in determining appropriateness,
that district whose rules, regulations, controls and standards are most capable of
creating and/or maintainin5 established community and neighborhood amenities shall
govern,
on each of the five multiple residence districts are herein set forth.
residence buildings containing not more than two dwelling units on sites in
locations where the predorninate land use is the single family detached dwelling,
but where adjoining land uses such as apartments, public €acilities or high traffic
volume streets exert sufficient influence upon an R2 District site to impair its
desirability as a site for a single family detached dwelling,
ten dwelling unit multiple residence buildings of relatively low dwelling unit
density in locations where the predminate environmental influence upon a site is
either a non-residential land use, a rnaior arterial, thorouqhfare or highway, or
a $%gljer densf-try rpfil-tipfe residence fisc, and weere We gejqitted R3 use would in
itself exert an equally strong influence on other adjoining properties which are
used for single or two family residences. This is not to preclude the establish-
ment of such district on sites not affected by the above-mentioned predominate
environmental influences, if these same sites are of such area and dimension that
a planned grouping of R3 multiple residence buildings will provide adequately for
the needs of those residing in the buildings while at the same time being both
complementary to and compatible with other nearby land uses, whether they be
residential or non-residential in character, It is intended that any R3 use
and adjacent single or two-family residential uses be comparzble in such matters
as lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height and architectural. design.
residence in those locations where it can be demonstrated that there exists a
need for multiple residences of quantity not now available nor possible under
the R2 or R3 District provisions and where convenient and ready access to centers
of employment or commerce is possible due to either their near proximity or the
availability of public transit or freeway systems. The R4 District like the R3
District need not be established only on sites which are adversely influenced by
nearby commercial, industrial or highway uses, although the greater dwellinp,
density and building bulk permitted in the R4 District are due in part to the
usual presence of these factors.
established only in a manner and in locations where it will not adversely affect
the amenities of any single or ~MO family residential district.
"The Hultiple Residence Districts are established in recognition of a '*
It is, furthermore, the"htent of this
To assist in this determination, the following general palicy statements
"The R2 District is intended to permit the establishment of multiple
"The R3 District is intended to permit the establishment o€ three throqh
"The R4 District is intended to permit the establishment of multiple
It is intended that the R4 District should be
Especially
. ._
..
1 3/25/63 59
intended is the necessity to insure that the vehicle traffic generated by an
R4 permitted use not be permitted to travel in any great number on any street
functionally designed to accommodate the residents of single or two family
residential districts.
family use from any use permitted in the R4 District should be adequate to
provide a substanrial degree of privacy to both uses and to retain or create the
normal level of light, air, space and view enjoyed and expected by the residents
of this community,
"The R5 District is intended to permit the establishment of multiple
residence dwellings of more than two stories in height and with dwellins unit
densities in excess of those permitted in R2, R3 and R4.
permits both greater building height and dwelling unit density than does the R4
District, it is intended that in a11 other respects the requirements for the
establishment and development of the R5 District shall be the same as those set
forth for the R4 District. It is the intent of this ordinance that the more liberal
height and dwelling unit density permitted in the R5 District should serve not only
to permit a more economical use of land, but should, in addition, serve to justify
the more restrictive develonment standards for such design elements as setback,
buried parking, lot coverage, minimum site area, et.
the R5 District shall be established only in those few locations in the Village
where the prominance of a multi-story building can be easily assimilated by the
surrounding land uses and building types, The dwelling units created under the
standards of the R5 District are especially adapted to the needs and requirements
of adults, and they are not considered as adequate for the housing of children.
In addition, the distance separating any single or two
Although the R5 District
It is also intended that
"The R6 District is intended to permit the establishment of multiple \ residence dwelling with dwelling unit densities and floor area ratios in excess \
of those permitted in any other multiple residence district, in Locations which
Are either within or adjoin the confined of an established community commercial
center characterized by high lot coverages, little or no setback from property
lines, lack of landscaping and unassociated architectural design.
furthermore intended.that the R6 District be established only where public transit
is immediately available,
adult oc~upancy.~'
No objections to adoption of Ordinance were made at Public Hearing.
Tupa then moved that the following Ordinance, being the Ordinance recommended
by the Planning Commission March 6, as revised by Village Attorney and reviewed
at this Meeting, be adopted , with CounciL waiving second reading thereof:
It is
Like the R5 District, the R6 District is designed for
e.= ORDINANCE NO+ 261-72
'* AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 261
(ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA,
REVISING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE USES IN AND
THE REGULATIONS UPON CONSTRUCTION IN THE
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT,
THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
No. 261 of revised ordinances of the Village of Edina, as amended, is hereby
repealed.
reading as follows:
Section 1,. Section 4, Multiple Residence District , of Ordinance
Sect 2. There is hereby enacted a new Section 4 of said ordinance,
"Section 4.
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT
1, Multiple Residence District Boundaries, The multiple residence
district is hereby established and shall further be divided into subdistricts
designated as District R-2, District R-3, District R-4, District R-5, and
District R-6. The following areas are included within each of said subdistricts:
District R-2 :
District R-3 :
District R-4:
District R-5 :
2, Specific Uses Permitted in Districts, The following uses are per-
mitted, if and when a building permit shall have been issued by the Building
InsDector, and no person shall erect, alter, enlarge, mope, demolish, use, occupy
or maintain any building, structure, improvement or premises without first having
obtained such permit:
(a) Principal Uses,
District R-2:
(1) Residences containing two dwelling units.
District R-3 :
(1)
LO dwelling units.
Residences containing not less than three nor more than
3/25/63
District R-4:
(1)
Districts R-5 and R-6:
(1)
(2)
Residences containing 5 or more dwelling,units.
Residences containing 5 or more dwelling units.
Convalescent, nursing, rest homes and boarding care hmes
'- i 60
(b) Accessory Uses, In addition to those subordinate uses which are clearly
and customarily incident to the principal uses, such as driveways, parking areas,
and garages, the following additional accessory uses will be permitted on the lot
occupied by the principal use:
Districts R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6:
( 1) Private recreationa.1 facilities including swimming pools and
tennis courts, intended solely for the use and enjoyment of the residents
of the principal use and their guests.
Districts R-5 and R-6:
(1) Shops, restaurants, offices and club or lodge rooms solely
for use by non-profit organizations.
within multiple residence buildings provided they are accessible only
from the interior of the building and have no advertising or display
relative there to which is visible from the outside of the building.
Not more than LO per cent of the gross floor area of a building may be
devoted to these accessory uses.
3.
Accessory uses shall be permitted
Restrictions on Lot Area, Building Bulk and Setbacks.
the applicable restriction, the most restrictive of the following.standards shall
govern :
shall be not less than the sum of the minimum lot area for each dwelling unit thereon,
adjusted by the al2owances permitted or imposed hereunder, and in no event less than
the minimum total lot area:
In determining
(a) Requi-red- Lot Area. I. The required number of square feet of total Lot area
Basi-c Requirement
14in-hum Lot Area Per
District
R-2
R-3
R- 4
R-5
R- 6
Dwelling Unit
6,000 square feet
4,400 I1
2,500 I1
2,500 l1 11
2,000 11
nt of Allowance Permitted
District
R-2
Maximum Allowance
None
Minimum Total Lot
Area
12,000 square feet
12,000 I1
24,000 It It
16,000 It
11 2 acres
R-3 * 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit
R-4 1,500 11 . .I1 11 I1
R- 5 2,000 'I 11 11 11 11 =
R-6 1,500 l1 TI 11 I1 I1
Schedule of Allowances
District
R-2 No Allowances
R-3
Basis and Amount of Allowance
1. For each parking stall in or under the multiple
residence or otherwise cmpletely underground: sub-
tract 500 sq, ft.
If the multiple residence site adjoins a street
having an average traffic volume per day in excessrof
4000 vehicles: subtract 500 sq. ft, per dwelling unit,
If property adjoining a side or the front of the
multiple residence site is zoned for any business
use (except office building): subtract 500 sq. ft.
per dwelling unit.
If the multiple residence is a part of a planned
multiple residence project involving no less than 3
acres of useable land and no allowance is available'
under items 2 or 3 above: subtract 500 sq, ft, per
dwelling unit.
For each bedroom in excess of two in any one
dwelling unit: add 500 sq, ft.
2,
I 3,
4,
5,
- R-4, p-5
and R-6
m 4 tL 3 c4 m
3/25/63
1. For each parking stall in or under the multiple
residence or otherwise completely underground:
subtract 500 sq. ft.
If the multiple residence site adjoins a street
having an average traffic uolume per day in excess of
10,000 vehicles: subtract 500 sq, ft, per dwelling
unit.
If property adjoining the multiple residence site
is zoned for any business use (except office
building): subtract 250 sq, ft, per dwelling
unit except that if the adjoining use is a gasoline
station or a drive-in restaurant, subtract 500
rather than 250 sq6 ft.
If the multiple residence is more than two stories
in height: subtract LOO sq. ft. per dwelling unit
per story up to and including a maximum of 1000
If the total lot coverage is less than ten per cent:
subtract 250 sq. ft. per dwelling unit,
For each bedroom in excess of two in any one dwell-
ing unit: add 500 sq, ft.
If the property adjoining the multiple residence
site is zoned for either single or d0ubl.e family
use:
2,
3.
4.
sq, ft,
5,
6.
7,
add 500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit,
(b) Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
District .
R-2
R-3 *
R-4
R- 5
R-6
Maximum Lot Coverage
20%
2 0%
30%
25%
75%
Maximum FAR
The floor area ratio is the gross floor area of alL buildings on a lot
divided by the lot area, ''
. (c) Building Height,
Minimum No. of Stories Maximum No, of Stories - 2
District
R-2 and R-3
R-4 .
R-5
R-6
2-1/2 -
4
(d) Useable Lot Area.
must 'be provided on the lot occupied by the multiple residence building, This
space must be easily accessible for daily use by the residents of the multiple
residence building, Driveways, parking areas, purely ornamental areas, areas
having a width of less than 20 feet and required side or front yard shall not
be considered as Useable Lot Area,
Outdoor living space in the amount specified below
,.
District
R- 2
Square Feet Per Dwelling Unit f:
600'
R-3 and R-4 400
R-5
R- 5
R-5 100 - over 6 stories
R-6 10 0
9s Increase all figures by 100 sq, ft, if dwelling unit has in
excess of 2 bedrooms.
300 - 3 story building
200 - 4 through 6-story building
(e> Lot. Area Computation,
not be used in calculating lot areasw
Lot depths in excess of 150% of lot widths shall
(f) Setbacks and Yards Interior
Di s t r? ct Rear - Front Side Street Side
R-2 30 15 lo 40 -
R- 3 35
R-4 35
30
30
20
25
40
40
R-5 The minimum building setback from any property line shall be
not less than 35 feet or the average,height of the building,
whichever is greater,
exceeds twice its average height shall have an average
building setback from any public street centerline or R-1 or
R-2 District boundary line of not less than a distance equal
A building whose length is equal to or
to two and one-half times its average height.
3/25/63
I.l Interior
Front Side Street District
The setback established
on the adjoining property
or 15 feet, whichever is
greater.
Rear - Side
6 2. - None required unless the
adjoining property is zoned
R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 or R-5, in
which event the setback shall
be equal to the average height
o f the R-6 building or 25
feet , whichever is greater
i R-6
4, Building Design and Construction.
(a) Design ResponsibilCtv. A building permit for a multiple residence building
containing more than 4 daelling units shall not be issued unless the applicant's
building plans, including the site plan, are certified by an architect registered
in the State of Minnesota, stating that the design of the building and site has
been prepared under his direct supervision.
construction, as provided in the Uniform Building Code incorporated by reference
by Ordinance No, 51A, shall have its electrlcal, mechanical and structural
systems designed by regis2ered engineers.
in no way prohibit the preparation of the site plan by a professional site
planner*
I Any building of Type I or Type I1
Provisions of this paragraph shall
(b) Type of Construction,
height shall be of Type I or Type I1 construction as provided in said Uniform
Building Code,
Any building more than two and one-hal€ stories in
(c)
be not less than to0 net square feet, that of a one bedroom dwelling unit shall
be not less than 700 net square feet, and that of a two bedroom dwelling unit
shall be not less than 900 net square feet.
bedrooms shall have an additional150 net square €eet of floor area for each
bedrocan in excess of two bedrooms,
For purposes of measurement, the net floor area of a dwelling unit shall
mean that area within a building used as a single dwelling unit, and shall be
measured from the inside of outside walls to the center of partitions bounding
the dwelling unit being measured, but shall not include public stairways, public
entries, public foyers, public balconies, or unenclosed public porches, separate
utility rooms, furnace areas or rooms, storage areas not within the apartment,
or garages,
(d) Efficiency Dwelling Units.
one building shall be efficiency dwelling units.
Floor Areas,. The minimum floor area of an efficiency dwelling unit shall
Units containing three or more
No mope than 10% of the dwelling units in any
(e)
Distrht
Belptj Grade Dwelling Units .
R-2, R-5
+d R-6 No dwelling unit whose floor elevation is below the
grade level of the "adjoining site" shall be permitted,
R-3 and R-4 No dwelling unit whose floor elevation is more than
36 inches below the grade level of the "adjoining site"
shall be permitted,
any below grade dwelling unit shall be the same as those
provided for the above grade dwelling units in the same
building, No public sidewalks, public or private drive-
ways, or intensive activity areas such as swimminq oools,
barbecue pits, etcl, shall be located within the "adj6in-
ing site" of a below grade dwelling unit,
Window areas and sill heights in
The "adjoining site" is defined as any portion of the area within
20 feet of any dwelling Unit window.
(f) Clqsets and Bulk Storage,
bulk storage shall be provided for each dwelling unit:
The following minimum amounts of closet+ and
(a) One-Bedroom Unit.
(b) Two-edroom Unit.
(c)
19 lineal feet of closet space and 80 cu. ft,
24 lineal feet of closet space and LOO cu, ft.
of bulk storage.
of bulk storage .
For each bedroom in excess of two in any one
dwelling unit, an additional 10 lineal feet of closet space and 50 CU.
ft. of bulk storage volume shall be required.
Three or More Bedrooms.
%Only closet space having a minimum clear finish to finish
depth of 2'0" shall be considered in determining the lineal
feet of closet provided.
63 3/25/63
(g) a type rated by a laboratory regularly engaged in sound testing as capable of
accomplishing an average sound transmission loss (using a 9 frequency test) $*
not less than 50 decibels, Door systems betwesn corridors and dwelling units
shall be of solid core construction and include gaskets and closure plates,
Room relationships, hallway designs, door and window placements and plumbing
and ventilating installations shall be such that they assist in the control
of sound transmission from unit to unit,
Sound. Party and corridor partitions and floor systems shall be of
i
(h) Projecting Air Conditioning and Heating Units, Air conditioning or
heating units projecting through exterior walls or windows shall be so located
and designed that they neither unnecessarily generate or transmit sound nor
disrupt the architectural amenities of the building. Units projecting more
than 4 inches beyond the exterior finish of a building wall shall be permitted
only with the written consent of the building inspector, which shall be given
when building structural systems prevent compliance.
(i)
residence sites of four or less units, no exterior trash or garbage disposal
or storage shall be permitted,
with four or less units, there shall be no exterior incineration, and any
storage shall be completely enclosed by walls and roof.
Trash Incinerators E Garbage, Except with row houses and multiple
In the case of row houses and multiple residences
.*.i ( j ) Elevators. Any multiple residence building of three storQesr or .mope
shall be equipped with at least one public elevator.
5, Distance Between Buildings, No building shall be located closer
any other building than a distance equal to the sum of their respective heights
or 25 feet, whichever is greater,
to
6. Accessory Buildings.
(a) Accessory buildings shall observe the same setback requirements established
for the multiple residence building except that accessory buildings located
within the rear yard of the multiple residence building may be located to within
5 feet of the rear or interior side property line, The Village Council may
require common walls for accessory buildings where common walls will eliminate
unsightly and hazardous areas.
(b)
as the main structure.
Exteriors of accessory buildings shall have the same exterior finish
7. Parking, There shall be provided on the site occupied by the multiple
residence dwelling at Least one completely enclosed parking space and one-half
enclosed or exposed parking space for each dwelling unit in the multiple residence
dwelling.
must be in or under the multiple residence building or else completely undergpound.
Exposed parking areas shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free
surfacing material and shall be properly drained and landscaped, and shall be main-
tained in a sightly and well-kept condition,
required setback, nor shall it be located closer than five feet to a side or rear
lot line, nor closer than ten feet to any building.
a minimum width of 8-1/2 feet and a minimum depth of 19 feet exclusive of aisles and
maneuvering space.
--either a public street or residentially zoned property shall have a solid wall or
fence of not less than three feet nor more than four and one half feet in height
along such adjoining Line.
are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the lot.
planting approved by the Village Council may be substituted for the required wall
or fence,
entry of the multiple residence dwelling,
Enclosed parking space in the R-5 and R-6 Multiple Residence District
No parking area shall occupy any
Each parking space shall have
All parking areas containing more than six spaces which adjoin
Such fences or walls shall be so desisned that they
A screen
Guest parking stalls shall be easily accessible to or from the main.
No street parking shall be permitted,
Sec, 3. Section 13 of said Ordinance No. 261, as amended, is hereby
further amended b) adding the following definitions thereto:
"Building Height" -L-- A distance to be measured from the mean curb level
along the front lot line or from the mean ground level for all of that portion of
the structure having frontage on a public right-of-way, whichever is higher, to the
top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point
on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point
on a round or other arch-type roof, or to the mean distance of the highest gable
on a pitched or hip roof,
"Building Length" --- The length of a building as related to any property
line is the length of that portion of the property line from which when viewed
directly from above, lines drawn perpendicular to said line will intersect any
wall of the building.
-
3 /25 /63
"Efficiency Apartment" or "Efficiency Dwelling Unit" --- A dwelling 64 I
unit consisting of one room exclusive of bathroom , kitchen; hallway, closets
or dining alcove directly off the principal roanr
' "Row Houses" -0- A multiple residence building having not less than
three or more than 10 one-family dwelling units erected in a row as a single
building, each unit being separated from the adjoining unit or units by a
masonry party wall or walls extending from the basement or cellar floor to
the roof.
"Story" --- That portion of a building included between the surface of
any floor and the surface of the floor aext above; or if theFe is no floor above,
the space between the floor and the ceiling next above.
counted as a story and a cellar shall not be counted as a story.
A basement shall be
Sec. 4,
after its passage
Motion for waiver
seconded by Rixe,
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
and oublication according to law,
of second reading/Ordinance
and on Rollcall there were four ayes and no nays, as follows:
of
and adoption as submitted was
?4acMillan, aye ; Rixe , aye ; Tupa , aye ; and VanValkenburg,
Public Hearing was
zoning of a large portion
Clerk presented Affidavits Limits and between Highway No. 100 and Cahill Road,
of Publication and Posting of Notices of Hearing, which were approved as to
form and ordered placed on file.
of Tracts B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J and K;
of Tracts L and 1.1;
as fOlLOt7S:
Hearing was on petition for the following:
1.
2,
3 .
Rezoning frm Open Development District to PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
Rezoning from Open Development District to OFFICE BUILDING DISTRICT
Rezoning from Open Development District to MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT
Tract N - To R-k District
Tract NN- To R-4 District
all as set forth in the "Nelson Farm Preliminary Land Use Plan" prepared by Mr.
A. C. Godward dated December 1, 1962 as approved by the Planning Commission on
December 5, 1962.
length on January 28--at which time the proposal to rezone Tract A had been
included.
and Council subject to plans for relocating Cahill Road to the West, At the
January 28th I-leeting, the proposed to rezone Tract I,' was not considered, because
the petitioners still wished at that time to rezone tract to Cmmunity Store
District for the pur?ose of constructing a filling station thereon; and it was
noted that the Planning Commission has recommended 0ffibe:Buildirig Dis€S.ct' t
rather than Community Store District for this tract, believing this is not a
proper site for a filling station,
The Land Use Plan was once again reviewed by Mr, Hite, with the help of
visual aids for Council and audience; with snecial emphasis on the proposed
traffic pattern, the topography, and the fact that the northern portion of the
200-acre development will remain "Open Development11 zoning, containing some 229
residential lots,
for the "Lake Edina" group, 20 strong, asked that this group have a voice in what
is what is going to happen to the property they look out over, from their expensive
homes.
station at 7601 Normandale Road; that this Dresently proposed plan does not seem
too bad--but that the Lake Edina group would hate to go on record as approvingthe
plan and subsequently have the Council a?prove construction of a gas station at
7601 Normandale Road, Mr. Hite explained that Tract L was Detitioned for Community
Store Zoning, for purpose of constructing a gasoline station, but that the proposal
has been changed, at the recmmendation of the Planning Cornmission, to Office
Building District, which does not permit a gasoline service station under any
circumstances,
Planned Industrial District; was informed that it is difficult to do this--but
Mr. Hyde reviewed the requirements of the Planned Industrial District section of
the Zoning Ordinance, which review seemed to reassure the group.
LaBuena Vista residents have objected to any rezoning of the area between Normandale
and Cahill Roads; that he presently objects and knows the LaBuena Vista Home Owners
Association objects. Elanager Hyde reported he had attended a meeting of the LaBuena
This plan and rezoning proposal had been reviewed by the Council at some
The rezoning of this tract has been tabled by the Planning Commission
Fir. Carl Struck, 4745 HibiscusAvenue, who reported that he is the spokesman
He said he had understood there was a proposal for a gasoline service
Mr, Struck asked that the group be notified of plans for the
I4r. Norman Hendrickson, 6913 Limerick Lane, told Council that every year the
65 3/25/63
group, some time ago, at whihh the entire plan had been presented;.and Mr, Hite
added that not everybody-is either for or against the project; that presentation'
of this particular plan has been made to several different neighborhood groups
and the majority have felt the plan to be in order, although some s.til1 object,
Some discussion was had concerning the property lying between that portion
of the Nelson Farm proposed for rezoning to "Planned Industrial District" and
the Northern States Power property on W,70th Street; and Mr. Hite told audience
it is the belief of the Planning Commission that this will be developed for
industrial use.
Attorney Josiah Brill, representing petitioner, told Council and audience
that it is not proposed to rezone for a gasoline service station at this time, but
that if the time comes when this proaerty (Tract L) should be used for a gasoline
service station a petition will be presented for such zoning.
rezoning proposal, being heard in public hearing tonight, be approved.
A lady who announced she had just moved into the LaBuena Vista area from
South Harriet Park told Council the area does need a gasoline service station
and she is all in favor of it.
Relative to Mr* Struck's concern about the view across Highway #loo, Mr,
Tupa inquired whether the screen plantings proposed for Outlot 1, Lake Edina 2nd
Addition, (located along Highway #lo0 and deeded to the Village for park purposes
at the time Lake Edina 2nd Addition was platted) had been completed,
informed that the State Highway Department must designate the property it wants
before this can be accomplished,
been received by the Clerk prior theretoc
proposal as heard in public hearing tonight be approved, was seconded by Tupa
Meeting 1,
He asked that the
He was
There were no further objections to the proposed rezoning, and none had
MacMillan's motion, that rezoning
and unanimously carried. (See Rezoning Ordinance, No. 261-73, of later in I
COUNCLL APPROVES- REZONING TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT, R-5, TRACT SOUTH OF
BILTMORE MOTOR HOTEL, AT 53RD ST. AND HIGHWAY #169* Clerk presented Affidavits
of Publication and Posting of "Notice of Hearing" on the Petition of Lyman Phelps
for the Rezoning from Open Development District to R-5 Multiple Residence District
of the following described property:
Government Lot Seven (7) lying Northwesterly of U,S, Highway No, 169 and South
of the North 708 Feet thereof," said property lying south of the Biltmore $lotor
Hotel, at West 53rd Street and Highway #169.
the area, showing uses of surrounding property, Mr. Hite reported that MP. PheLps
had applied for the F;&fening in order that the property might be used for
construction of a 60 apartment building, four stories high.
sketch showing design of building, reporting that all requirements of the new
R-5 District have been met; that units proposed are one and two.bedroom, sizes
meet requirements, and there are no variances required. Proposal was reviewed
in some detail, including provisions for parking under the building for residents,
and guest parking in three separate areas on the grounds; the pool area to the
rear of the building, and the wall proposed along the front building line,
Manager Hyde read a letter filed today by Mr, George W. Frey, ovmer of a double
bungalow at 5222 Grandview Lane, objecting to construction of a four-story
building, asking that proposed service entrance on 53rd Street be eliminared,
assenting to garages in basement but protesting any change in this plan, asking
that W,53rd Street be paved, and that the valuation of his property be decreased
and taxes reduced accordingly,
not favored the 53rd Street service entrance, and that this had been eliminated;
also, that applicant will make dedication of sufficient Land to make t.F,53rd St,
a full-width street, There were no other objections registered at the Hearing,
and no written objections had been received by the Clerk prior to the Hearing.
Mr. George Jt Assad, 6901 Hillcrest Lane, owner of ten acres adjoinf'fks tract,
expressed himself as being in favor.
to R-5 Multiple Residence District was seconded by Rixe and unanimously carried,
(See Rezoning Ordinance, No, 261-78, of later in Meeting),
had recommended approval subject only to their review of site and building plans
at the time of application for building permit.
"That part of the East 845 Feet of
Presenting a Vu-Graph Slide of
He presented a
It was noted that the Planning Commission had
Tupa's motion granting petition for Rezoning
Planning Commission
SOUTHTflEST CORNER, We49TH ST, AND. FRANCE AVENUE, REZONED TO R-6 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, AND LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUIREMENT GRANTED,
ofcation and Posting of "Notice of Hearing" on the petition of the Stow
Co, for the Rezoning of this corner from Open Development District to R-6 Multiple
Residence District; and, pursuant to this Notice, Public Hearing was conducted on
both the Rezoning proposal and request for the granting of a variance of 1,400
square feet in the minimum required lot area, as also contained in the Notibe,
Showing a Vu-Graph Slide of the site plan and land useage of the surrounding
property, Planning Director Hite told Council that frontage of property on France
Avenue is 122-L/2 feet, and along W.49th Street, 191 feet; the total area o€ the
property being about 25,500 square feet, The request for rezoning and variance
is to allow construction of a four story 32-unit apartment building; that there
will be no setback adjacent to filling station property, 15-foot setback from
France Avenue, and a 30-foot setback from the property line to the building on
W.49th Street. Mr. Hite reported that resident parking is provided under the
building, guest parking to the west of the building.
Clerk presented Affidavits
'
He added that the
3/25/63
original recommendation to the Council had been for a three-story building, but
that this was on the basis of omership of only Lot 20; that with acquisition of
the additional lot to the Mest, a four story building is now permissible, with
complete off street parking facilities--except that lot area is about 1400 square
feet short of requirement. He added that the Planning Commission has recmmended
the new proposal for a four story building, subjept only to their review of site
and building plans when building permit is requested,
lot.
is for ten feet; that ordinance also requires a fence to screen parking lot from
adjacent property.
Mrs. Peter Hawkes, 4854 France Avenue , asked if there will be protection
against parking on W.49th Street. Mr, E. C. Stow, petitioner, reported he will
be glad to petition for "no parking" restrictions, and Messrs. Hite and Hyde
told her this could be accomplished in the vicinity of the apartment building.
Mrs. Hawkes asked to go on record as %ot being thrillingly happy" about this
proposal, although feeling it will not damage her property as much as that of
her neighbors because her house is on a high lot.
objections had been received by the Clerk
to R-6 Multiple Residence District, and for granting of variance from lot area
requirement, Notion seconded by Tupa and unanimously carried, (See Rezoning
Ordinance 261-73, following). Mr. Josiah Brill, Attorney for Petitioner,
complimented Planning Commission, and Messrs. Hyde and Hite for their conscientious
Maclilillan then offered the following Ordinance, moving that Council waive second
reading thereof and adopt as submitted:
66
One lady inquired as to regulation for setback from adjacent residential
Mr, Hite advised that the ordinance requires five feet, but that proposal
There were no other objections made at the Public Hearing, and no written
r'or thereto.
MacI4illan moved that petition/!?8rgff%o&ng €a from Open Development District
(efforzq
(to pratect
ORDINANCE NO. 261-73 ( residentiz
(property
(obmersi
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 261 (ZONING
ORDINANCE) OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA , ESTABLISHING
ADDITIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AND PLANNED INDUSTRIAL
R-4, R-5 AND R-6 MULTIPLE =SIDEPICE DISTRICTS AND
DISTRICTS
THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1, :' .Paragraph 1, Multiple Residence District Boundaries ,
of Section 4, Multiple Residence District, of; Ordinance No. 261 of revised
ordinances of the Village of Edina, is hereby amended by adding the following
sub-paragraphs:
District R-4:
"(1)
"(2) The East 300 Feet of the North 200 Feet of the South 1223 Feet of
The North 200 Feet of the South 1223 Feet of Government Lot 4,
Section 9, Township 116, Range 21, except the East 200 feet thereof;
the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4 of SE 1/41
of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21;
which two tracts comprise Tracts W and NN as set forth in the "Nelson
Farm Preliminary Land Use Plan" prepared by A.C. Godward dated
December 1, 1962 as approved by the Edina Planning Commission on
December 5, 1962."
District R-5 :
"(1) That part of the East 845 Feet of Government Lot Seven (71,
Section 28, Township 117, Range 21, lying Northwesterly of U.S.
Highway No. 169 and South of the North 708 Feet thereof.11
District R-6 :
"(1) The North 122.5 Feet of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172,
and that part of Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 172, lying
North of the South 177.5 Feet thereof.
Section 2, Paragraph 1, Boundaries of Office Building District, of
Section 10 (Office Building District) of Ordinance No. 261 of revised ordinances
of the Village of Edina, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding after
sub-paragraph (c) thereof the following sub-paragraphs:
"(d)
"(e)
The North 233 Feet of the South 1023 Feet of Government Lot 4,
The East 300 Feet of the North 233 Feet of the South 1023 Feet of
Section 9, Township 116, Range 21, except the.East 400 Feet thereof;
the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4 of SE 1/41 of
Section 8, Township 116, Range 21;
which two tracts comprise Tracts L and M as set forth in the "Nelson
Farm Preliminary Land Use Plan" prepared by A.C. Godward dated
December I, 1962 as approved by the Edina Planning Commission
December 5, 1962.
3/25 /63 6 7' Section 3. Paragraph 2, Boundaries of Planned Industrial District '":
of Section ll (Planned Industrial District) of Ordinance No. 261 of revised
ordinances of the Village of Edina, as amended, is hereby further amended by
adding after sub-paragraph rc(~O" of said Paragraph 2, the following sub-paragraphs:
"(d)
I'(e)
The South 790 Feet of Government Lot 4, Section 9, Township 116,
All of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4 of
Range 21;
SE 1/41 of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21, except the East
300 Feet lying North of the South 790 Feet thereof;
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
(NE 1/4 of SE 1/41, Section 8, Township 116, Range 21 described
as follows: 'Beginning at the point of intersection of the center
line of the right-of-way of the Minneapolis, Northfield and
Southern railroad with the North line of said Northeast Quarter
of Southeast Quarter (NE 1/4 of SE 1/41 of Section 8, thence
Southerly along the center line of said railroad to the South
line of said Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter (NE l/4 of
SE 1/41 of Section 8, thence East along said South line a
distance of 600 Feet, thence Northerly to a point in the North
line of said Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter (NE 1/4 of
SE 1/41 of Section 8, distance 420 Feet East of point of
beginning , thence West to the point of beginning
which tracts comprise Tracts B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J and K, as
set forth in the "Nelson Farm Preliminary Land Use Plan" prepared by
A, C. Godward dated December 1, 1962 as approved by the Edina Planning
Commission December 5 1962.
"(f)
Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage and publication according to law.
Motion for waiver of second reading, and adoption of Ordinance as submitted, was
seconded by Tupa, and on Rollcall. there were four ayes and no nays, as follows:
MacMillan, aye; Rixe, aye; Tupa, aye; and VanValkenburg, aye; and the Ordinance
was adopted,
4 COUNCIL APPROVES PLANS FOR DAIRY~UEEN DRIVE-IN, DAIRY QUEEN INTERNATIONAL OFFICE
BUILDING;.SETS PUBLIC HEARING ON PETITION FOR PERMIT FOR CAR FIASH, PROPERTY LOCATED
BETWEEN NEW KROGER STORE AND STANDARD OIL COMPANY STATION ON HIGHWAY NO, 169.
-Director Hite reviewed for the Council the aDplication of Mr; Richard
Enroth for permission to locate a Dairy Queen Drive-In, a Dairy Queen Inter-
national Office Building, and a Car Wash in the tract between the new Kroger
Store and the Standard Oil Company Station on Highway #169.
revised site plan, and reviewed the useage of the surrounding lands, The matter of the proposed Service Road, along Highway #169, was discussed, Mr, Hite saying
original plan had been for development of frontage goad from Service Station to
Jerry's Lucky Dollar Store j that Commission recammends extending road/%r@8g@&-s Dr?' ty
He told Council Drive-In and Office Building would use same parking lot-but that
office will be closed in the evening, when drive-in would have most traffic,
Some discussion was had concerning the car wash, and Mr, Enroth told Council he
feels the design of this building will provide a facility uniqu6 to the arear
Mr. Hite told Council that 40 stalls will pe provided in stacking area, and that
egress from car wash will be onto frontage rather than onto Highway #169, He
added that Drive-In and Office Building can be constructed without further Council
action, but that a Special Permit is needed for the Car Wash; that Mr, Enroth is
asking that a Public Hearing be scheduled on matter of special pemit, inasmuch
as Planning Commission has now recommended favorably on his application. Tupa's
motion, for acceptance of Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the
Dairy Queen Drive-In and Office Building, and scheduling Public Hearing on
petition for special permit for Car Wash, was seconded by MacMillan and carried,
Hearing scheduled for A?ril 8,
--
He presented the
CONTRACT AWARDED TO SUBURBAN CHEVROLET COMPANY FOR TWO POLICE CARS,
Esented Tabulation of Bids taken today, for two police cars, with trade-ins on
two old vehicles.
being low bidder at a Net Bid of $1,185,92 on a Ford 300 less trade-in on a 1962
Chevrolet; with Suburban Chevrolet Co. bidding Net $l,215,35 on a Chevrolet Biscayne
less trade-in,
$2,010.92 , as compared with Suburban Chevrolet ' s Bid of $2 046.35,
was for award to high bidder, Suburban Chevrolet Company, at cost of $3,261.70,
plus $57.00 per vehicle for bucket seats,
gas mileage has been better on Chevrolets than Fords, frequency of breakdown with
Ford is higher.
with recommendation was seconded by MacMillan and carried,
Manager Hyde
Tabulation showed receipt of two bids, Bob Knowles Ford CO.
On Trade-In on 1955 Chevrolet, Bob Knowles Ford bid Net Bid of
Recommendation
Reason for recommendation is that
Tupa's motion for award of contract for two vehicles in accord
68
i
.. 3/25 163
PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING REPORT FOR FEBRUARY, 1963, was submitted, reviewed and
ordered placed on file.
OILING PETITION ACCEPTED,
Avenue to Cul-de-sac, was accepted and referred to Ensheering Department for
programming, by motion MacMillan , seconded by Tupa and carried.
I
Petition for Oiling of 3bhn St., South from Maloney
THIN CITY LINES-EVERETT GARRISON-VILLAGE NEGOTIATIONS FOR OLD STFEETCAR RIGHT-
mAY TO BE SETTLED.
the matter of proposgd purehase of a part of the old streetcar right-of-way along
Planning Director Hite reviewed briefly for the Council
the north Village limits from Pionroe Avenue to Harrison Avenue, for continuation
of border road, which involves an exchange of properties with tlr. Everett
Garrison, and the resultant platting of some lots by Mr, Garrison,
told Council Twin City Lines has now accepted an offer of $2,500 for this
property.
Village Attorney to enter into an agreement with Mr, Garrison concerning the
sharing of costs and relative to his platting. Engineer Heener asked concerning
the water problem at 301 VanBuren, saying this problem is related to an over-all
storm sewer for the area6
from this particular lot.
and dipecting Village Attorney to draft recommended agreement with Mr. Garrison,
was seconded by MacYillan and carried .
Mr. Hite
I He asked that Council approve acceptance of offer and authorize
He suggested the bum be cut down to remove water
Tupa's motion for appm$akof acceptance of offer,
BEER AND LIQUOR LICENSES RENEWED FOR YEAR APRIL 1, 1963 TO APRIL 1, 1964. Clerk
presented the applications for renewal of two Club Liquor Licenses, ten On-sale
Beer and 16 Off-sale Beer Licenses. There were no new applications submitted.
Applicants had received Police Department approval, and Rixe moved for issuance
of licenses to all applicants, for year April I, 1963 to April 1, 1964, as per
list dated March 25.
HEETI~{G, RECOI.INENDED RELATIVE TO PARKING ON H. 50TH STEET MID FRANCE AVENUE;
Manager Hyde reported he has had an almost complete lack of response to his
latter to France Avenue merchants concerning parking,
meeting be arranged with the merchants on both W. 50th St. and France Avenue,
to see what can be done,
He suggested that a
This was agreeable with the Council,
RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON-EDEN PRAIRIE-EDINA BORDER PROBLEMS DISCUSSED.
VanValkenburg inquired as to development problems on Edina's south-border.
Mr .
Mr, Hite replied that Bloomington has now received an application for a filling
station and restaurant in the Northwest quadrant at Highways #494 and #18, and
that Edina has asked that this permit not be issued at this time; that he will
meetzwfth Bloomington on March 27
and Edina Planning Commissions will meet in April to talk over conmon problems.
Inasmuch as the property immediately under discussion for development is directly
across from the Edina Municipal Golf Course, suggestion was made that this
property be purchased by Edina, rather than face possibility of undesirable
land use.
and that Richf ield, Bloomington , Eden Prairie
PEARCE TRIANGLE MEETING NOT TO TAKE PLACE. Manager Hyde reported that upon
being informed by Plr, Schwartzbauer of the Dorsey, Owen office that the Edina
Planning Commission looks with disfavor on a filling station for the Pearce
Trlangle, Attorney Brill, representing the Pearce sisters, has stated there
is no need for a meeting; that this matter will be discussed further at the
April Planning Commission Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
to Council relative to certain improvements, asking that Public Hearings be
scheduled thereon for Monday, April 8,
and moved its adoption:
Engineer Wegner reported
Tupa offered the following Resolution
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER AND HATERlrlAIN
IMPROVEMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Village of Edina:
report as to the feasibility of the proposed Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Improve-
ments described in the Form of Notice of Hearing set forth below, and as to the
estimated cost of such improvements, said report is hereby approved and directed
to be placed on file in the office of the Village Clerk.
Edina Village Hall, to consider in public hearings the views of a11 persons
interested in said proposed improvements.
place.and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper once
a week for two successive weeks, the second of which publications is to be not
less than three days from date of said meeting, which notice shall be in sub-
stantially the f ollotring f om :
1, The Village Engineer, having submitted to the Council a'preliminary
2. This Council shall meet on Monday, April 8, 1963, at 7:OO P.M., in the
3. The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN
IMPROVEMENTS
3/25/63 69 EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL will meet at the Edina Village Hall on Monday, April 8,
1963, at 7:OO P.M., to consider the fdlowing proposed immovements to be
constructed under the authority granted by Minnesota Laws of 1953, Chapter 398,
The approximate cost of said improvements is estimated by the Village as set
forth below:
1. CONSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE SANITARY SE\dER AND
i
ESTIMATED COST
APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING:
A. Barrie Road from West 65th St. extended
B, East Road from Skyline Drive to 250' East
C. Blake Road from Interlachen Blvd. to 566'
to 460 feet South. $ 5,426.65
$ 8,159.58
North of Pine Grove Road
Scriver Rd, from Blake Rd. to cul-de-sac
Lake Ridge Rd. from Blake Rd, to cul-de-sac $91 , 417.09
2. CONSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE WATERMAIN AND
APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING:
A, East Road from Skyline Drive to 265' East, $ 2,297.06
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed Sanitary Sewer
under 1-A above includes Lot 2, Block 3, Southdale Acres; Lot 5, Block 4, Southdale
Acres; the E, 294.26' of the S, 383' of Lot 4, Cassin's Outlets; and M, 98' of S.
333' of Lot 4, Cassin's Outlots.
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed Sanitary Sewer
under 1-B above includes Lots 26 and 27, and Park Property north of East Road,
all in Skyline Addition.
under 1-C above includes Lots 1 thru 5 incl., Block 1, and Lots 1, 2, and 3,
Block 2, all in Hyland Acres; Lots 1 thru 8 incl,, Block I, Mirror Lake Ridge;
Lots 29, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 all in Aud, Subd, #325; Parcels #2200,
#4000 and #5400 all in Sec, 29, T. 117, R. 21.
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed \latemain
under 2 above includes Lots 26 and 27, and Park Property north of East Road, all
in Skyline Addition,
The area proposed to be assessed for the cost of the proposed Sanitary Sewer
GRETCHEN S. ALDEN
Village Clerk
Motion for adoption of Resolution was seconded by MacMillan, and on Rollcall there
were four ayes and no nays, as follows:
VanValkenburg, aye j and the Resolution was
MacMillan, aye; Rixe, aye; Tupa, aye;
CLAIMS PAID,,
zted March 25, 1963, was seconded by Rixe and carried:
Tupals motion for paymefof the following Claims, as per Pre-List
General Fund, $22,627,77; Construction Fund, 535,872.02; Park, Park
Const, and Swim Pool, $l,510,79; Water Fund, $1,872.99; Liquol? Fund,
$25,643.18; Sewer Rental Fund, $372.35; Poor and P,I.R.Funds, $79,119-
TOTAL, $87,978.59.
PARK BOARD*S PLANS FOR 1963 WELL DONE.
on its report relative to improvement plans for 1963, saying he feels this was
very well done
Mr. VanValkenburg complimented Park Board
COUNCIL COMPLIMENTS FINANCE DIRECTOR DALEN ON RESULTS OF BOND SALE, Reviewing Kr. Dalen's report. on the March 12th Bond Sale, which netted a premium of
$32,637.49, $7,002.50 alLocable to Park Sinking Fund and balance of $25,634.99
to-Improvement Bond Redemption Fund, Mr. VanValkenburg praised Mr. Dalen for
his foresight and business acumen in selecting such a favorable time for the
sale.
'
HENNEPIN COUNTY LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIESSTUDYING PROPOSAL FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY
TO SHARE COST OF ONE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR ENTIRE COUNTY, Nr, VanValkenburg
reported the Hennepin County League has before it the proposal of the Citizens
League Committee which would consolidate all Municipal Courts in Hennepin County
into one so-called County Court; that the League Committee has recommended
neither this oroposal nor the Suburban Hennepin County Court Bill prepared by
the Suburban Judges, but has recommended that the League support a bill now
proposed by Minneapolis which would require the County to share in some of
the cost of Minneapolis Municipal Court,
municipalities will.be asked to take a stand on proposed Court legislation,
and that he will report further on this at the next meeting.
He told Council he feels the various
LIQUOR FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR YEAR 1962, being Balance Sheet as at
December 3L, 1962 (showing Assets of $566,31L,87, Liabilities of $27,549.84,
and Surplus of $538,762,031 and Statements of Income and Expense for Year 1962,
were submitted, reviewed and ordered placed on file.
70 3/25 /63
EDINA COUNCIL PRAISES MAYOR OF ST.LOUIS PARK FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON BEHALF OF
HENNEPIN COUNTY. Saying he feels St.Louis Park Mayor, Kenneth Wolfe, has been
un$&lv subjected to verbal attack by his OpDonents, for his stand in defense \
of-suburbia
by resolution.
Nr. VanValkenburg asked- that the Edina -Council ccnnmend Nr. Wolfe
Tupa offered the following Resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Kenneth Wolf e, Mayor of St, Louis Park, has worked tirelessly
and at personal sacrifice in time and money for many years for all of Hennepin
County; and
VHEREAS, Kenneth Wolfe has actively and energetically studied and
worked to solve problems of water, sewage, Minneapolis General Hospital and
other matters; and
adversaries and opponents with unkind and uncalled for epithets; -. WHEREAS, Kenneth lJolfe has been cricicized and attacked by his
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina Village Council:
1.
2.
3.
That Kenneth Molfe be commended and complimented for his continuous
That, Kenneth Wolfe's integrity and sincerity are above reproach;
That Kenneth Volfe is entitled to the thanks of all residents of
efforts to make Hennepin County a better and safer place in which to Live;
Hennepin County for his unselfish efforts in attempting to solve the
multitude of problems facing all of the County in a fair and equitable
manner.
Notion for adoption of the Resolution was seconded by MacMillan, and on
Rollcall there were four ayes and no nays, as follows: tfacMiJ.lan, aye;
aye ; Tupa , aye j and VanValkenburg,
There being no further business to cdbefore this meeting, Rix; moved for
adjournment , Motion seconded by Nacb$fl ournment at 10:45 P.M.