Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19770516_regular154 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL MAY 161% 1977 7 :00 P.M. Answering rollcall were members Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw and Mayor Van Valkenburg MINUTES of April 18 and May 2, 1977, were approved as submitted by motion of Councilwoman Schmidt, seconded by Councilman Shaw. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. + AtiiUNDSON AVE. /DELANEY BLVD. STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUED TO AUGUST 1, 1977. Mr. Hyde recalled that hearings for the street improvements for Amundson Ave. and Delaney Blvd. had been continued from April 18, 1977, so that the Council and staff would have an opportunity to study the matter further and public hearings were resumed on the following improvements: A. GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. P--C -124 IN THE FOLLOWING: Amundson Ave. from Cahill Road to Dewey Hill Road B. PERMANENT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENT NO. P4A- 226 IN THE FOLLOWING: Amundson Ave. from Cahill Road to Dewey Hill Road C. GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. P -C -126 IN THE FOLLOWING: Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill Road to W. 78th St. D. PERMANENT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA- 227 IN THE FOLLOWING: Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill Road to W. 78th St. Mr. Hoffman recalled that the improvements have been proposed in an attempt to isolate the industrial park from the residential area and reviewed merits and dis- advantages of alternate proposals which had been given consideration. He said that the existing road patterns are all xight for the present time, but that the proposed streets would be necessary if the area is developed according to long range plans. Mayor Van Valkenburg referred to numerous letters received since the last hearing from residents of the Braemar Oaks Apartments, opposing the improvements, as well as to letters from Yumes. R. M. Rickenbach, 7216 Lanham Lane, and Alice O'Connor, 7101 Lanham Lane, Messrs. Marshall Everson, 6710 Cahill Road, Kermit Wilson, 7001 Antrim Road, L. P. Youngblood, 6205 Lanham Lane and Mr. and Mrs. Larry Johnson, 7105 Lanham Lane. A petition in opposition to the closing of Cahill Road South of W. 70th Street and further construction of Amundson Road, containing the names of some forty property owners, was also noted. Mayor Van Valkenburg expressed his concern about the effect of a road going through the park, about the cost of the proposed improvements and about existing traffic counts and recommended the follow- ing solution: 1) that the "lower ring" be constructed with some sort-.of barricade so that'traffic from the industrial park would be forced to go South and not con- tinue directly on to Dewey Hill Road; 2) that the "upper ring" not be constructed at this time, but that land be retained so that the option to construct such a road . would remain open; 3) that access should be provided so that co7uriercial traffic around the Northern States Power building could go to the South instead of on to 14:70th Street ; and 4) provide access to apartments in the area from Cahill Road. 11r. Dunn expressed his concern about the difficulty of emergency vehicles reach- ing the Windwood Apartments and the Edina Industrial Interchange, and also sug- gested that this proposal would make Delaney Blvd. a truck route. Mr. Dunn further expressed his concern about what to tell people who call to inquire about plans for the area and recalled that an access to Interstate 494 at W. Bush Lake Road has been considered an important issue.- Mr. Darrell Boyd, 7204 Shannon Dr., recalled that task force which had studied the 3iestern Edina Plan had believed that it was important to prevent traf f ic from the industrial area from going West, passing three schools. He said that he believes that it would be a waste of money if there is.to be no control of traffic on Cahill Road. Mr. Boyd suggested getting access so that the plan can be developed at a later time after traffic volumes have increased to a point where they are objectionable. Mr. Hyde emphasized that the Matson property had never been included in the open space plan and had not been acquired as the result of the Open Space Election. Mr. Kermit Wilson said that there should be full access to the industrial park and expressed concern about the Mayor's compromise. The resident at 5812 Dewey Hill Road said that he agreed with Mr. Boyd's comments and urged that the Cahill Road cul -de -sac only be built. Mr. Gordon Schuster, 5809 i)e,a,:y Hill Road, said that Council shoul4 consider the long term needs and study, the matter further. Dr. Fred Cary, 6824 Gleason Road, concurred with remarks made by Mr. Clement 1). Springer, 6828 Gleason Road, who recalled that glans are being considered for the County Road 18 /Interstate 494 IJ I a CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Application of JOHN J. McCAULEY for a FINDINGS, Subdivision of Land entitled DECISION, McCauley Heights 7th Addition AND (S -77 -3) REASONS The above entitled matter was heard before the City Council, City.of Edina, on April 18, 1977, May 2, 1977, and May 16 , 1977. Mr. and Mrs. John J. McCauley [ "Pro- ponents"] were present. The City Council, having heard and reviewed all of the facts and arguments presented by the Pro- ponents and City staff, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponents and the City staff, and being fully advised, after due consideration, hereby makes the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Proponents, on February 11, 1977, submitted an application for a subdivision entitled McCauley Heights 7th Addition. The subdivision is of land presently described as Lot 2, Block 1, McCauley Heights 4th Addition. The proposed subdivision is generally located east of McCauley Trail,-north of McCauley Lane, south of McCauley Circle, and is bounded on the east by Arrowhead Lake. 2. The subject property is presently zoned R -1 Single Family Dwelling District and is served with public sanitary sewer. The proposed land use-for the proposed subdivision is R -1 Single Family Dwelling District.. 3. The proposed subdivision (Exhibit A) delineates two single family dwelling lots in a northwesterly to south- easterly alignment. Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is 27,625 square feet in area, of which approximately 9,800 square feet lie below the normal water elevation of Arrowhead Lake. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is 28,614 square feet in area, of which approximately 9,500 square feet lie below the normal water elevation of Arrowhead Lake. -4. Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has access from McCauley Circle. An existing single family dwelling is located on Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision. This dwelling maintains a 35 -foot setback from McCauley Circle, a 15 -foot setback from the northwesterly line of the proposed subdivision,, a 13.5 -foot setback from the southwesterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision, and a setback of 190 feet from Arrowhead Lake. 5. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has access from McCauley Lane. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is presently vacant. -2- l � a 6. Edina Ordinance No. 801 (the "Platting Ordinance ") requires that every plat, replat, and subdivision comply with all applicable provisions of state law and "the Zoning Ordinance (No. 811) of the Village." Ordinance •No . 811 defines "depth • of lot" as "the mean horizontal distance between the mean front street and the mean rear lot line." Ordinance No. 811 further defines "width of lot" as "its own mean width measured at right angles to its mean depth." 7. Ordinance No. 811 requires that the minimum lot depth for a single family dwelling lot served with public sanitary sewer shall be 120 feet. Ordinance 811 further requires that the minimum lot width for a single family-dwelling lot - served with public sanitary sewer shall be 75 feet. 8. Ordinance No. 811 further requires setbacks for a single family dwelling as follows: Front street setback - 30 feet Interior side yard setback - 10 feet Rear yard setback 25 feet. 9. Ordinance No. 811 does not define "front street line." However, in this case, both lots each have access by only one street. Therefore, to meet the terms,of the definition, the lot depth must be measured from the only street line that exists on the lot. Also, the house now on the proposed Lot 1 is oriented to McCauley Circle as its front street line since it maintains a 35 -foot setback from that line. To determine a different front street line for the proposed Lot 2 would be to -3- l apply different criteria and standards for similarly situated properties. Also, future development to the northwest of the proposed Lot 2 will probably result in houses fronting on McCauley Lane with setbacks of 30 feet. Therefore, to determine a front line for the proposed Lot 2 other than McCauley Lane would result in different setbacks for dwellings along that street. Therefore, the northeast lot line (abutting.McCauley Circle) of Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision serves as the front street line of Lot 1, Block 1, and the southwest lot line (abut- ting McCauley Lane) of Lot-2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision serves as the "front street line of Lot 2, Block 1. 10. As measured from its front street line (McCauley Circle), Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has a lot depth of 120.7 feet. However, the existing house on the proposed Lot 1 will have a rear yard setback of only 13.5 feet from the proposed Lot 2 instead of'the required 25 feet. 11. As measured from its front street line (McCauley Lane), Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has a lot depth of 85 feet, or 35 feet.less than the required lot depth. 12. The dimensions of the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 at the point where each lot intersects Arrowhead Lake are each less than 40 feet. 13. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has adopted "Statewide Standards and Criteria for the Management of Municipal Shoreland Areas of Minnesota." The City of Edina has not as yet adopted these standards in ordinance form. The City of Edina will be required, however, to adopt a shoreland ordinance -4- at a future date that must comply with these standards. These standards state that "lots served by public sewer and which abut a public water.shall be at least 20,000 square feet in area and at least 75 feet in width at the building line and at the ordi- nary high water mark." 14. The Edina Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision at its March 2, 1977, meeting. The Planning Commis- Sion recommended denial of the proposed subdivision in that: 1. The lakeshore frontage is minimal and would cause overuse and possible pollution of the lake. 2. Faulty, piecemeal planning and arrangement have caused inadequate frontage on roads. 3. If approved, the subdivision would result in elongated lots not capable of supporting development consistent with other development on Arrowhead Lake. Approval of this request would therefore disturb the present symmetry of development around the lake. The Planning Commission also noted that if McCauley Lane is established as the street and front yard, then the pro- posed new lot would not meet the minimum 120 -foot lot depth requirement and would not be deep enough to allow construction of a home that would maintain the required front and rear yard setbacks. 15. The Proponents have submitted two plans (Exhibits B and C) to the City Planning Department showing possible orien- tations of a single family dwelling on Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision. Both plans indicate a dwelling setback from the front street line (McCauley Lane)'of Lot 2, Block 1, -5- of the proposed subdivision of less than 15 feet, and a rear yard setback of less than 25 feet. The second plan (Exhibit C) does indicate a structure located such that a 30 -foot setback is maintained from McCauley Lane; however, such a setback is. not maintained along the total - length of the front street line. Therefore, based-on the foregoing Findings, the City Council does hereby make the following DECISION:. The Application for a proposed subdivision entitled McCauley Heights 7th Addition is hereby denied. The above decision is made for the following REASONS: A. The depth of Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed sub - *division is 35 feet less than the minimum allowable single family lot depth as specified in Edina Ordinance No. 811. B. If the plat were approved, the house now on Lot 1 of the proposed plat would be made nonconforming in that it would not have the required rear yard setback of 25 feet. C. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is not of sufficient depth to allow construction of a dwelling that would maintain the required front street setback and re4r yard setback as specified in Edina Ordinance No. 811. D. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision do not meet minimum lot width requirements for lots abutting public waters as specified in the "Statewide Standard and Criteria for the Management of Municipal Shoreland Areas of Minnesota" as adopted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. U 5/16/77 155 interchange and also.that Hennepin County desires to construct a bridge across the Minnesota River at County Road 18. Mr. Joseph Schueneman, 7313 Gleason Road, urged that Council proceed with the Western Edina Plan as adopted in 1971. Mr. Hyde recalled that the Valley View Road /County Road 18 task force recommended that Council "close Cahill Road South of Amundson when Trunk Highway 100 upgrad-. ing is completed and the new Western Frontage Road is opened to provide an alternative exit ", adding that the schedule for T.H. 100 from Valley View Road to W. 72nd Street calls for bids to be taken this month, with completion scheduled for 1979 or 1980. Mr. Dunn advised Mr. Erickson that Storm Sewer Improvement No. ST.S -140 could not be completed as designed until the Delaney Blvd. improvements are authorized. Councilwoman: Schmidt's motion that P -C -124, P -BA -226, P -C -126 and P -BA -227 be continued to August 1, 1977, so that Mr. Hoffman could study alternatives for the design of the roads as well as their effect on the Valley View Road /County Road 18 interchange, was.seconded by Councilman Courtney. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. MC CAULEY HEIGHTS 7TH ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT DENIED. Mr. Hughes recalled that preliminary plat for McCauley Heights 7th Addition had been continued from May 22 1977, so that the staff could prepare Findings and Facts for Coundil's con- sideration, Mr. Hughes explained to Councilwoman Schmidt that the existing house would be non - conforming if the plat should be approved because the rear lot would then be sub - standard. Mr. and Mrs: John McCauley, developers of the plat, referred to other lots'in the general area which they claimed were similar to the proposed new lot, mentioning specifically property in McCauley Heights 1st Addition. Mr. McCauley said that he could change the plans for the house to satisfy ordinance requirements. In response to a question'of Councilman Shaw, Mr. Hughes said that he could see no way that the property could be platted to meet ordinance requirements. Councilman Shaw's motion that the plat be denied, based on the Findings, Decision and Reasons which are attached and made a part of these Minutes, was seconded by Councilman Courtney who suggested that the McCauleys bring in a new plan if they wish. Rollcall: Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. MC CAULEY HEIGHTS 8TH ADDITION GRANTED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL; ORDINANCE NO. 811 -A98 GRANTED FIRST READING. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hughes presented McCauley Heights 8th Addition for preliminary approval, noting that this plat is located South of McCauley Lane, North of Margaret's Lane and East of County Road 18 and that the proponent has requested the rezoning of four of the lots which front on McCauley Trail from R -1 to R -2 Multiple Residential District. Mr. Hughes advised that Planning Commission had recommended approval of the proposed rezoning for Lots 1, 2 and 4 only, and approval of the subdivision contingent upon receipt by the City of $2,500 in lieu of parkland and the dedication of five feet adjacent to McCauley Trail for sidewalk, bikeway and snow storage purposes. No objections being heard, Councilman Courtney offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR MC CAULEY HEIGHTS 8TH ADDITION. BE IT RESOLVED that that certain plat entitled "McCauley Heights 8th Addition ", platted by Mrs. Betty Jane McCauley, a widow, and*`presented at the Edina City Council meeting of May 16, 1977, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval, contingent upon the receipt by the City of $2,500 in lieu of parkland and upon the dedication of five feet,adjacent to McCauley Trail for sidewalk, bikeway and snow storage purposes. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt.. Rollcall: Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Resolution adopted. Councilman Courtney then offered Ordinance 811 -A98 for First Reading as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 811 -A98, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 811) BY REZONING PROPERTY FROM . -1 RESIDE,NTIX DISTRICT TO R -2 MULTIPLE RESTDENTIAL DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Paragraph 1 of Section 4 of Ordinance No. 811 of the City is hereby amended by adding the .following thereto: 5/16/77 156 ''The extent of the R -2 Multiple Residential District is-enlarged by the,addi- tion of the following property: Tots :1, 2 and 4, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition, which is in Sub - District R -2 ". Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. INTERLACHEN HILLS 3RD ADDITION GRANTED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND FLOOD PLAIN PERMIT; ORDINANCE NO. 811 -A97 ADOPTED. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hughes reviewed the history of Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition which is located in part East of Lincoln Drive and West of Malibu Drive extended, and further advised that the Planning Commission had met and- concurred with the following staff recom- mendations: 1) that the flood plain encroachment remain at 20 %; 2) that the eight additional R -2 lots will allow the proponent to utilize Lincoln Drive to the fullest possible extent and will relieve the City of financial participation in the construction of Lincoln Drive and should be so re- zoned; and 3) that the proposed roadway alignment is in conformance with the Western Edina Circula- tion Plan. Mr. Hughes advised that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning, plat and permit, contingent upon 1) the removal of fill from the two R -4 multiple lots so that the flood plain encroachment does not exceed 20 %; 2) that Lots 1 thru 13 be identified as reidentif ied.0utlot B, inasmuch as access is not available; and 3)-..that the °remaining portion of Outlots A and B be reidentified as Outlot A and dedicated to the City of Edina. Planning Commis- - sion also recommended that Council consider the advisability of eliminating the cul -de -sacs at the South terminus of Lincoln Drive and the North terminus of Lincoln Drive in order to create a through street, but that the plat as presented was also acceptable to the Planning Commission. Mr.- Hughes pointed out that the developer, Mr. Wallace Kenneth, has agreed that Outlot A on the revised plat should be dedicated to the city, and that, due to access problems, Lots 1 through 13 should either be identified as Outlot B or omitted entirely from the plat. Mr. Hughes reviewed portions of the Findings of Fact prepared by the staff, a copy of which is attached and made a part of these minutes, and advised that, pursuant to instructions from the Council, he had received an executed deed to Outlot A to the City of Edina, an executed Developer's Agreement and a letter, signed by the developer which sets forth various understandings between the proponent and the City. Mr. Hughes specifically mentioned Sections V, VA and VB of the Findings in which it was agreed that the City will contribute $62,381.85 toward the unpaid taxes and special assessments levied against the subject property, due and payable in 1977 and prior years, including penalities and interest, representing the amount attributable to the area to be dedicated to the City.. Mr. Rick Davies, 5412 Malibu Drive, said that he spoke on behalf of the Edina Coalition and asked that the record show the Coalition's appreciation to Mr. Luce for the manner in which he had dealt with the problems connected with this property. Mr. Davies objected that the area would be denuded of 75% of the trees now existing on the property. He also expressed his concern about the noise levels, stating that the Hennepin County Highway Department has indicated that there is no way that a sound barrier can be installed along County Road 18 at that point. He contended that sound levels would be at 75 decibles by 1985 and that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations stipulate that property that is subject to over 65 decibles of sound cannot be intended for outdoor usage in a residential area. Attorney Robert Hoffman, representing Mr. Kenneth, advised that,'if these factors are true, they will be taken into account and urged that the Council proceed as recommended by the staff and the Planning Commission. Mayor Van Valkenburg* said that he did not believe that Mr. Davies' comments were germain to the actual platting. Council- man Richards thereupon offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby adopt the Findings, Decisions and Reasons submitted to the Council as attached to and made a part of these minutes, along with the inclusions of Sections VA and VB as verbally stated by Mr. Hughes at this meeting, which Findings, Decisions and Reasons are hereby incorporated and made a part of this resolution, and that the City retain the option to extend Malibu Drive to provide an eventual Northwest exit as the area develops. Motion for adoption of-the resolution was seconded by Councilman Courtney. Rollcall: Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Resolution adopted. In response to a request by Mr. Erickson, Mr. Hoffman responded for the record that Mr. Kenneth agrees to Sections VA and VB of the Findings relative to the allocation of the existing tax and special assessments. Councilman Richards then Fill, J w i ii Q. 1 CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Application of WALLACE B. KENNETH for a Subdivision of Land Entitled Interlachen Hills FINDINGS, 3rd Addition (S- 77 -2); a Petition of DECISIONS, WALLACE B. KENNETH for Rezoning of AND Portions of Said Addition (Z- 77 -4); REASONS- and an Application of WALLACE B. KENNETH for a Special Flood Plain Permit for Filling Portions of Said ,Addition. The above entitled matters were-heard before the City Council, City of Edina, on March 21, 1977, April 4, 1977, and May 16 , 1977. Wallace B. Kenneth [ "Proponent "] was present, and also was represented by Robert Hoffman, of the firm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. The City Council, having heard and re- viewed all of the facts and arguments presented by the Proponent, his representative, and by the City.staff, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponent,.his - representative, and the City staff, and being fully advised, after due consideration, hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Proponent, on January 19, 1977, submitted an application for subdivision and a petition for rezoning for a 33.02 acre tract of land located in northwest Edina. The appli- cation and petition were -the result of many meetings between the Proponent and the City Planning Staff over the development of the subject property. The first proposed subdivision [hereinafter sometimes called the "January 19 Proposal" to distinguish it from the modified subdivision and rezoning proposal now applied for by the Proponent] delineated 22 R -2 single- family dwelling lots, 18 R -2 two - family dwelling lots, 2 R -4 multiple - family dwelling lots, and 2 outlots, being Outlot A and Outlot B. ,+ ,r i 2 . The Edina Environmental Quality Commission [ "EQC'•' ]. reviewed the'January 19 Proposal at its February 28, 1977 meeting. The EQC recommended to the City Council that the proposed subdivision and rezonings be approved with the same modifica -= tions and requirements as those of the Edina Planning Commission as set out in paragraph 3 hereof (except those at 3(iii) ), and the added suggestion. that the developer be granted develop- ment rights up to 350 units, which could be transferred to other multiple development zoned property on. this site. 3. The Edina Planning Commission reviewed the appli- cation for subdivision and petition for rezoning for the subject property at its March 2, 1977 meeting. The City Planning Com -, mission Staff Report then given to the Edina Planning Commission states, in'part, that the dedication of Outlots A.and B to the • City is "a reasonable amount considering the flood plain eleva- tion, the amount of fill to the remaining flood plain, and the necessity to protect flood plain areas to the maximum possible degree." The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the proposed subdivision and rezonings be approved, with the modification that Lots 1 through 13 be excepted from the final plat until access can be provided from the east, and that when the final platting of Lots 1 through 13 is accomplished, a 20 -foot easement must be dedicated between Lots 7 and 8 for utility pur- poses, and that Lots 3 through 9 must have access to the future northeasterly road and cul -de -sac from the Hanson property rather than to Lincoln Drive; and also with the following requirements: -2- (i) That the developer be required to dedicate Outlot A and Outlot B pursuant to the Subdivision Dedication Report. ` (ii) That a grading permit from the District and a flood plain permit from the City of Edina be obtained before any work 'is done in the flood plain. (iii) That the Lincoln Drive /Malibu Drive road plan be reviewed to determine whether that plan is the optimal road plan for the area or whether Lincoln Drive should be a continuous road. 4. The Edina Park Board reviewed the application for subdivision and petition for rezoning at its March 8, 1977 meeting. 'The Park Board recommended to the City Council that the proposed subdivision and rezonings be approved contingent. on the dedica- tion to the City of Edina of Outlot A and Outlot B. 5. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District [the "District "] Board of Managers reviewed the proposed subdivision at its March 16, 1977 meeting. The Board of Managers noted that the proposed subdivision was in conformance with the Overall Plan and agreed with the Edina Planning Commission's recommendation that Outlot A and Outlot B of the proposed sub- division be dedicated to the City of Edina. The Board of Managers also indicated that the maximum allowable flood plain encroach- ment of 20 percent would be based on the total acreage of flood plain on the site; thus, in order to develop Lots 35 -42 and -3- Lincoln Drive, no further flood plain encroachment would be allowed on Outlot A or Outlot B regardless of their public or private ownership status. 6. At the public hearing conducted by the Edina City Council on March 21, 1977, regarding the January 19 Proposal, the Proponent's representative stated that the Proponent agrees to and intends to'dedicate Outlot A and Outlot B to the City of Edina.- Prior to this statement of intent by the Proponent's representative,.the Edina City Council indicated an intent to refer the Proponent's application for subdivision and petition for rezoning back to the City staff and to various City advisory commissions and boards for further review and study and to obtain additional facts desired by the City Council. However, in reliance on Proponent's agreement to dedicate Outlot A and Outlot B to the City of Edina, made at the public hearing on March 21, 1977, the Edina City Council agreed to waive further review and study, and to waive further fact research. Therefore, in reliance on Proponent's agreement, the Edina City Council adopted a motion recommending approval of the plat, granting the rezoning, and authorizing issuance of the flood plain permit (with the under- standing that no plat, rezoning, or permit approval was then given or granted),and directing the City staff, in cooperation with the Proponent's representative, to prepare the necessary findings and reasons based on the matters set out in the report from the Planning Commission, the Environmental Quality Commission, and -4- the Planning staff, and on the information brought before the Council at its March 21 meeting, and such other information as may be appropriate; and directing that such findings and-reasons be presented to the Council for further review and possible approval on April 4, 1977, and if approved by the Council, and if the Proponent has then fulfilled the ordinance requirements for final plat approval, including the execution of the required subdivision agreement and the dedication of Outlots A and B to the City, that the Council then grant the rezoning and plat approval, and authorize issuance of the flood plain permit. 7. On April 4,.1977, the City Council continued the application for subdivision, petition for rezoning, and appli- cation for flood plain permit to the April 18, 1977 Council meeting. This continuance was granted because Proponent had not completed the documentation necessary for final approvals. 8. On April 5, 1977, the Proponent submitted a modified subdivision and rezoning request to the City Planning Department :[hereinafter sometimes called the "April 5 Proposal "]. The modified subdivision and rezoning proposed the addition of nine R -2 two- family dwelling lots on the west side of Lincoln Drive. The modified subdivision.also proposed relocating the south line of Lot 41, 50 feet southerly; The proposed modifications to the subdivision would result in an added flood plain encroach- ment. However, the Proponent also presented plans showing removal of an equal amount of flood plain encroachment from -5- t Lots 41 and 42 of the proposed subdivision. City staff deter- mined that net flood plain encroachment would remain at 20 percent. Staff also requested that adequate access to Outlots " A and B be provided from Lincoln Drive. Proponent agreed to eliminate one R -2 lot from the west side of Lincoln Drive and to dedicate to the City a 60 -foot wide access point from Lincoln Drive to Outlots A and B. 9. On April 5, 1977, Proponent requested that the City of Edina contribute that portion of the presently due general taxes, special assessments, penalties, and interest on the area to be subdivided that is attributable to the area to be dedicated to the City for public parks, open space, and storm water holding and ponding areas. Staff determined that that portion of the proposed subdivision, modified as noted above, to be dedicated to the City for parks, open.space, and storm water holding and ponding areas under the April 5 Proposal comprises approximately 36 percent of the total gross area of the proposed subdivision, and that the amount requested of the City, therefore, is approxi- mately $53,000. 10. On April 13, 1977, Staff advised.Proponent that due to the modification of the petition for rezoning, the matter would again have to be reviewed by the City Planning Commission, and further advised Proponent to show that portion of the area to be dedicated to the City as Outlot A (formerly shown as Outlots A and B), and that Lots 1 through 13 of the proposed -6- subdivision should be shown as Outlot B for future platting when access is available. 11. On April 18, 1977, the City Council zeferred the modified application for subdivision, petition for rezoning, and application for flood plain permit to the Planning Commission. 12. On April 19, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed the modified application for subdivision, petition for rezoning, and application for flood plain permit for the subject property. The Planning Commission continued the request until the June 1, 1977 meeting to review the location of the eight additional, R -2 lots west of Lincoln Drive,and to' further review the location of Lincoln Drive and advisability of eliminating the cul -de -sacs at the south terminus of Lincoln Drive and the north terminus of Malibu Drive such that a through street wduld be created. 13. On April 20, 1977, Proponent requested that the City Council schedule a hearing date on the April 5 Proposal as soon as possible, notwithstanding the action of the Planning Commission. 14. On April 25, 1977, the EQC reviewed the modified application for subdivision,. petition for rezoning, and appli- cation for flood plain permit for the subject property and recommended approval. 15. On May 2, 1977, the City Council received the report and action of the Planning Commission meeting of April 19, 1977, and also received the Proponent's request to schedule a t hearing date as early as possible. The City Council thereupon scheduled a hearing for May 16, 1977, for the purpose of con- ,. sidering the Proponent's request for final plat, rezoning, and flood plain permit approval. The City Council further advised the Planning Commission that its recommendation must be submit- ted to the City Council by its May 16, 1977 meeting. 16. On May 11, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed the modified application for subdivision and petition for re- zoning for the subject property. The Planning Commission recom- mended approval of the modified subdivision and rezoning. The Planning Commission further.advised the City Council to review the proposed cul -de -sacs at the south terminus of Lincoln Drive and the north terminus of Malibu Drive in order to determine whether such cul -de -sacs should be eliminated to.create a through street. The Planning Commission noted, however, that from its perspective, either the proposed-roadway plan with cul -de -sacs or a modified plan without cul -de -sacs would be acceptable. 17. The subject property was rezoned in 1964 to a combination of R -1 single - family dwelling district, R -2 two- family dwelling district, and R -4 multiple - family dwelling district. Proponent's petition for rezoning is to realign the boundaries of the previously granted rezoning with the boundaries of the land uses delineated in the April 5 Proposal. 18. The April 5 Proposal for subdivision and rezoning is in conformance with the Western Edina Land Use Plan adopted by the Edina City Council in January 1970. .f r .,T 19. Proponent acquired the subject property in 1961. Outlot A of the April 5 Proposal, when acquired by Proponent, was in.the same physical condition as it is now. 20. The District adopted its first Overall Plan in March 1961, which established flood plain elevations for the .entire reach of Nine Mile Creek.' At that time the District adopted a policy of restricting encroachment onto the flood plain to 20 percent of the distance between the flood plain elevation contoar and the creek channel. In 1973 the Overall Plan was revised and the 20 percent encroachment policy readopted to restrict net encroachment to 20 percent or less of the flood plain area of the parcel.being considered for development. This revision was only to set out the actual practice of the District under the 1961 Overall Plan. The District includes lands from Lake Minnetonka to the Minnesota River, including Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina, Eden Prairie, and Bloomington. �. 21. The City has been advised by the District that the District has n -ever granted a variance from the 20 percent encroachment regulation. The District continues to enforce the 20 percent encroachment regulation. The District has not advised the City of Edina of any forthcoming revisions of the 20 percent encroachment regulation. 22. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 104, the City of Edina adopted a Flood Plain Management Ordinance (No. 815) in 1973. This ordinance was approved by the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to said statute. This ordinance requires that a special permit be obtained prior to a change of land use or the placement of any obstruction in the flood plain. This ordinance also states that no special permit shall be issued unless the proposed use or obstruction has received approval of the applicable watershed district. 23. According to the official Flood Zone Profile of the City of Edina, established by Ordinance No. 815, as well as that of the District, established by its Overall Plan, the flood plain elevation of Nine Mile Creek at the subject property is 876, based upon Mean Sea Level [ ".M.S.L. "]; the flood plain ele- vations in the area of the subject property were established after detailed hydraulic studies:o- Nine Mile Creek and are based upon the regional flood, as authorizdd by said Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 104; a regional flood is one that can be ex- pected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 -year recurrence interval. 24. Based on a flood plain elevation of M.S.L. 876, approximately one- half'of Lot 1, Block 2, a small portion of Lincoln Drive, and nearly all of Lots 22 through 35, Block 1, Lot 2, Block 2, and Outlot A, as shown on Proponent's April 5 Proposal, are located below the elevation shown for the subject property in the City's official Flood Zone Profile, i.e., M.S.L. 876, and are within the flood plain of Nine Mile Creek as established by the City of Edina and by the District. 27. City staff have determined that the filling re- quired to develop Lots 22 through 35, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, and Lincoln Drive, as shown on the Proponent's April 5 Proposal, with the removal of a portion of the existing fill from Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, will result in a net flood plain encroachment of approximately 20- :percent. 28. The City of Edina is presently eligible for the -National Flood Insurance Program.- A community eligible for such insurance that fails to adequately enforce its flood plain management regulations shall be subject to suspension of its flood insurance program eligibility. Such a suspension will have an adverse effect on the ability of residents to finance the purchase, sale, and remodeling of homes. 29. Since 1961, numerous private property owners, as well as the City of Edina, have constructed improvements, public utilities, and parklands in reliance on the accuracy'and constancy. of the flood plain elevations of Nine Mile Creek. Private resi- dences and businesses have been constructed at locations above flood plain elevations to preclude normal flood damage on the assurance that such flood plain elevations would not increase -11- • 25. The portions of the subject property below M.S.L. elevation 876 are subject to flooding by a regional flood. 26. The portions of the subject property below M.S.L. elevation 876 are subject to the provisions of Ordinance No. 815 and to the regulations of the District.. 27. City staff have determined that the filling re- quired to develop Lots 22 through 35, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, and Lincoln Drive, as shown on the Proponent's April 5 Proposal, with the removal of a portion of the existing fill from Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, will result in a net flood plain encroachment of approximately 20- :percent. 28. The City of Edina is presently eligible for the -National Flood Insurance Program.- A community eligible for such insurance that fails to adequately enforce its flood plain management regulations shall be subject to suspension of its flood insurance program eligibility. Such a suspension will have an adverse effect on the ability of residents to finance the purchase, sale, and remodeling of homes. 29. Since 1961, numerous private property owners, as well as the City of Edina, have constructed improvements, public utilities, and parklands in reliance on the accuracy'and constancy. of the flood plain elevations of Nine Mile Creek. Private resi- dences and businesses have been constructed at locations above flood plain elevations to preclude normal flood damage on the assurance that such flood plain elevations would not increase -11- • and thus cause heretofore unknown and unexpected flood damages. In addition, the City of Edina has planned and constructed park- lands and storm drainage systems in reliance on the flood plain elevations. _30. The City of Edina Ordinance No. 815 provides that "development within [the] flood plains must be regulated on the basis of and with full consideration of the impact on the total creek along its full length. . . ." The District has determined, after detailed study of the watershed area and all subwatgrsheds therein, that to allow filling of the flood plain in excess of 20 percent along the full length of the creek would result in flooding of l • properties not presently subject to flooding. Flood plain lands such as.Outlot A of the April 5 Proposal, in their natural state, are a valuable land resource whose preservation is necessary and desirable to (1) minimize the possibility of periodic flood- ing, resulting in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of government services, and extraordinary public expenditures for projects to contain, store, and control runoff, (2) minimize the rapid runoff of surface waters, and (3) improve the quality of surface water discharged into Nine Mile Creek. 31. Barr Engineering Company, the consultant hydraulic engineers for the District, has advised the City that the flood plain elevation on the subject property has not.been altered due to the improvements to County Road 18, which borders the west side of the subject property. Improvements to County Road 18 r have not altered this flood-plain elevation because (a) the cul- vert under the old roadway that drained Nine Mile Creek was not altered at the-time of the County Road 18 improvement, and (b) at the time of the improvement, County Road 18 was elevated on pilings in order to allow unaltered flowage of flood waters. Barr Engineering Company has also advised the City that the flood plain elevation for the subject property will not change as a result of any water improvement projects now in the District's' Overall Plan or now being contemplated by the District. 32. An hydraulic study of the Mud Lake area of Edina (Bredesen Park),conducted by Barr Engineering Company at the re- quest of the City of Edina and the District, concluded that if the Mud Lake area is developed (as it is proposed) as an interpretive and recreational area, it is essential that no further flood plain encroachment (not even the 20 percent allowed by the District regulations) be permitted on any of the land owned by public agencies upstream of the Mud Lake area. The study further stated that development of the Mud Lake area as proposed will not require any change in the 20 percent encroachment allowed on privately owned lands pursuant to the revised Overall Plan. 33. In its natural state, Outlot A of the April 5 Proposal naturally serves as a basin for the temporary storage of storm water runoff from the residential development proposed for the subject property as well as residential developments -13- located northerly and easterly of the subject property. The use of said Outlot A for storm water storage purposes would tend to produce a beneficial filtering and cleansing effect as well as a reduction of peak flows of surface water runoff discharged to Nine Mile Creek from residential developments. In the event of development of said Outlot A, these beneficial filtering and peak flow reduction effects would be substantially eliminated. 34. Said Outlot A of the April 5 Proposal adjoins a linear corridor of public open space abutting Nine Mile Creek that extends 3.5 miles southeasterly through the City of Edina, and the addition of Outlot A will beneficially expand that .open space area. 35. The City of Edina Open Space Committee, in its January 20, 1975 report to the City Council, recommended that the flood plain portion of the subject property (except the 20 percent allowed for development) should be acquired for public open space purposes. 36, Edina Ordinance No. 801 states that "[ijn every plat, replat, or subdivision of land to be developed for residen- tial. . .uses. . .a reasonable portion of such land shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner or owners to the general public as open space for parks, playgrounds, public open space, or storm water holding areas or ponds." -14- 37. Lots 1 through 13 on the proposed plat presently have no public road access; that access to them from the east and north has been delayed pending development of the property to the north and northeast, which, in turn, has.been delayed due to litigation involving the Grand View Park Cemetery. 38. The Lincoln Drive /Malibu Drive road plan as shown on Proponent's proposed subdivision conforms with pre- viously directed traffic flow policies for Northwestern Edina. Therefore, based on the foregoing Findings, the City Council does hereby make the following DECISIONS: I. That under all facts and circumstances, Outlot A of the April'5 Proposal is a reasonable portion of the subject property to be dedicated to the general public as public park, public open space, and storm water holding and ponding areas, and that such dedication be made at the time of approving the final plat of the subject property. II. That the City Council grant approval of the proposed subdivision (Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition), with the modifi- cations that Lots 1 through 13 be identified as Outlot B, and with the requirement that Outlot A be dedicated to the City of Edina for public park, public open space, and storm water holding and ponding purposes. r7 III. That the City Council approve the Proponent's petition for rezoning. IV. That the City Council authorize the issuance of a special flood plain permit for the purpose of constructing and developing Lots 22 through 35,-Block 1, Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition; Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition; and Lincoln Drive of Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. Issuance of the special flood plain permit is and shall be conditioned on (a) net flood plain encroachment must not exceed 20 percent, and (b) a grading permit must be obtained from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District.- V. That the City of Edina contribute $53,000 toward the unpaid general taxes and installments of special assessments, including penalties and interest, that are currently due against the subject property, representing the amount thereof attributable to the area (Outlot A) to-be dedicatbd to the City; that the whole of such unpaid taxes and assessments must be paid in full to Hennepin County- by-the use of the City's contribution and the funds of Proponent at the time of the recording of the final plat entitled "Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition." V.A. 'That the City of Edina contribute $9,381,85 of the general taxes and installments of special assessments against the subject property which are due and payable in 1977. V.S. That the installments of special assessments presently levied and due against the subject property will be -16- allocated such that 36 percent of such installments of special. _PF assessments will be payable by the City of Edina. Special ass.ess- ments presently pending and future special assessments will be levied against the are- to the extent benefitted. VI. That the City of Edina assure the Proponent that public road access to Lots 1 through 13 of the preliminary plat of the subject property ( Outlot B of the final plat) will be provided as shown on the'Proponent's preliminary plat at a future date, and that the City make-such access a condition of any platting of that tract of land lying easterly of said Outlot B. The above Decisions are made for the following REASONS: A, By Ordinance No. 801, a reasonable portion of land to be•platted may be required to be dedicated, at time of plat approval, for public park, public open space, and storm water holding and ponding areas. B. The flood plain elevation of Nine Mile Creek at the subject property is M.S.L. 876. That portion of the subject property lying below elevation 876 is below the elevation shown on the Official Flood Zone Profile established by Ordinance No. 815, and within the flood plain established by the District, and is subject to flooding by a regional flood, and is, there- fore, subject to the regulations of Ordinance No. 815 and to the regulation8 of the District. Based on these regulations, and their enforcement, no further fill will be allowed on Outlot A,and development of Outlot A is severely limited. -17- C.' By Ordinance No. 815, flood plain lands such as Outlot'A must be managed on the basis of, and with full consider- ation of the impact on, the total creek along its full length. D. Flood plain lands such as Outlot A, in their natural state are a valuable land resource whose preservation is necessary and desirable to (1) minimize the possibility of periodic flooding, resulting in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of government services, and extraordinary public expenditures for projects to contain, store, and control runoff, (2) minimize the rapid runoff of surface waters, and (3) improve the quality of surface water discharged into water courses. E. The development of flood plain lands such as* Outlot A in excess of 20 percent along the length•of the creek would adversely affect the flood plain elevations on which private property owners and the City bf Edina have relied, and cause unknown and unexpected flood damages. F. Failure of the City to enforce its flood plain management regulations may result in suspension of its flood insurance program eligibility, with a resulting adverse effect .on the ability of residents to finance the purchase, sale, and remodeling of homes. Ah G. The land use resulting from the proposed sub- division and rezonings, with Outlot A dedicated to the City for public park, public open space, and storm water holding MM and ponding purposes, is a proper land use and consistent with the previously established planning objectives of the City of Edina. H. Outlot A is adjacent to an existing linear cor- ridor of public open space adjoining Nine Mile Creek, and in its natural state is a significant natural and scenic area adjoining Nine Mile Creek, and will be a beneficial addition to that open space. Z. Retention of Outlot A in its natural statd will promote and implement the planning and flood plain management objectives of the City of Edina and the District by the ? creation of significant public open space for storm water holding and ponding areas along Nine Mile Creek. J. The Proponent agreed, at the public hearing before the City Council on March 21, 1977, to dedicate Outlot A (previously Outlots A and B) to the City, and the City Council has relied on.that agreement. -K. The issuance of.the flood plain permit for the purpose of constructing and developing Lots 22 through 35, Block 1, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, of Znterlachen Hills 3rd Addition,. and Lincoln Drive, with removal of some of the existing fil-1 from said Lots 1 and 2, will result in a flood plain en- croachment that is not at variance with the Edina Flood Plain Ordinance or the District's regulations. -19- Y + T J � Y R L. Outlot B (Lots .1 through 13) of the proposed subdivision has no public road access at present, and develop- , meet of that outlot must be delayed pending obtaining of such , public road access. • M. The Lincoln Drive /Malibu Drive road plan as shown on the Proponent's proposed subdivision conforms with the Western Edina Circulation Plan as adopted by the City Council.. N. The contribution by the City of Edina of $53,000 toward the unpaid general taxes, installments of special assessments, penalties, and interest is reasonable, based upon the large portion of the subject property to be dedicated to the City .and the nature 'and amount of general taxes and special assess- . ments levied against the subject property. O. The contribution by the City of Edina of $9,381.85, or 36 percent of the general taxes and installments of special assessments due and payable in 1977, is reasonable based upon the large portion of the subject property to be dedicated to the City and the nature and amount of general taxes and special assessments levied against the subject property. -20- 5/16/77 157 offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR INTERLACHEN HILLS 3RD ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED that that certain plat entitled Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition, platted by Wallace,B. Kenneth and Jean M.' Kenneth, and presented at the Edina City Council Meeting of May 16, 1977, be and is hereby granted preliminary and final plat approval. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Courtney. Rollcall: Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Resolution adopted. Councilman Richards then•offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION GRANTING FLOOD PLAIN PERMIT BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby approve the application and directs the issuance of the Flood Plain Permit for Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Courtney. Rollcall: Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None 0) Resolution adopted. co Councilman Richards then offered Ordinance No. 811 -A97 for First Reading, with waiver of Second Reading and moved its adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 811 -A97 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 811) BY REZONING PROPERTY FROM R -2 TO R -43, FROM R -2 TO R -1 AND FROM R -1 TO R -2 DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, - ORDAINS: Section 1. Paragraph 1 of Section 4,of Ordinance No. 811 of the City is amended by adding the following thereto: "The extent of the R - -4 Multiple Residential District is enlarged by the addition of the following property which is removed from the R -2 Residential District: That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Town- ship 117, Range 21, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the South line of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 30, distant 625.1 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence North parallel with the East line of the West Half of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 1200 feet;'therce Northwesterly deflecting to the left at an angle of 44 degrees 15 minutes a distance of 95 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Northwesterly along last described course a distance of 320 feet; thence at a right angle Northeasterly a distance of 170 feet; thence Southeasterly to the actual point of beginning, which is in Sub - District R -4." Sec. 2. Paragraph 1 of Section 4 of Ordinance No. 811 of the City is amended by adding the following thereto: "The extent of the R -2 Multiple Residence District is reduced by removing the following property and returning to the R -1 Residential District: That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 117, Range 21, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the South line of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 30, distant 625.1 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence North parallel with the East line of the West Half of said Southwest.Quarter a distance of 1200 feet; thence Northwesterly deflecting to the left at an angle of 44 degrees 15 minutes a distance of 95 feet, to a point hereinafter referred to as point A; thence continuing Northwesterly along last described course a distance of 320 feet; thence at a right angle Northeasterly a distance of 170 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence Southeasterly deflecting to the right 88 degrees 30 minutes a distance of 435 feet; thence Southwesterly to said point A; thence Northwesterly to the actual point of beginning, which is in Sub- District.R -1; and That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, and that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 117, Range 21, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Malibu Heights, thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes 48 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the North line of Edina Green a distance of 329.99 feet; thence North 4 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 145 feet; thence North 20 degrees 53 minutes 54 seconds East, a distance of 390.49 feet; thence North 14 degrees 40 minutes 47 seconds West, a distance of 130 feet; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 47 seconds West a distance of roc i f 03, ,ailcdl E; m a) cn ride :uirnim t itr, 611: f eCt t tEhenZ!(1 ISOUth 31 31 djegxe.e s. Ob m1mum; 19E sctaoiIGIEI EEaE;t, i1&i1szaLvic E B dc, c I P YE.1*:%T 1412 6.11:. (fact I Z-0 a[ ?LdIn t I irl [Lbi.6 Nast, :liraEi b: - Do t L M 31 oic d I i5th1LdAtLiJqa, I&Dszatrt 8,' ifeet, (NDi-th b.. : I th a; 1rI0L1TtMe_t3I:,1CJ0rPLErt id_eewmeif J' '37" scu It hc rl 7 1 L3ma I :'ter B I V iets I in i c fE s z. i dl 3.c t' 1 ( I ac di. _cvancz b - I de It c c t&axirE IS t: 0 X11MO I k'21 0 i(eb ltdi?m c eE S a, ultac 1- 1 y3 ali op, t(h a ) It �eis I in, a 1 c f� MLI HF;j[g'ftt:EI tO : tth B) 1 01i' 11: .0 f: bg:gim dng ruhiml . & 3, i d Such] -Disc txict7 Rl-'.. 11 SE c . I , 1. 1 yrapgralp W , '. 0 f , S E-citbur, 4) 6B 01cinaric et '--Tc o. 13[L1. b E: t,h e: C# 7 L jx nmFxx&_:-gL -by3 ke:driag ltmi'1olUcwing 'Ule]VECD 'Ibe: c:y.itmat: oE: tbeE R-,•2 'Ault-1#146 Re.,Jdm_ntd:aL)1d1Sc1AIct1 is( aulair-ILd O:r t adicittion b E: th eE fc.111imulgi g) prp?cna:ty: I TLa t" pe"T t: elfi th(" Gasf ilh-11 b E: t,b e: 5;C1jjtkVrejs t 2 C)uatrtE rc 61 `.(Smactdu i I :O, I Tc f011ows: ( C;GnmancjpnE.0 aip:oiut. d:i:tiha)'Slc I Lime: 61- Itho'Ne-3f Shif x)E: the: Scult'.%ierEist�qlLialctes( bil' isiaii:[ 6actdD-11_0,Ic[:L 6;5.1' fete: lViets:.112ft ThId :3(DtthaaLEt( zcoxine:.-:tihe2:e:c,f;:tihEae:EI -_4oi't[ipzxh1L1.E ula t T-hel gmt: i3x;ec bf rtxr.- alLd213ILE(ne1:0c I Ze:e,t:;Abene:E] Novtihwe-.zek)_y (ilb-0ettirgi =o luaiia.Iefl:.at3xv aa�je:61, 4'+Ic lie ': Lai 1c, -i.E I J�lj mdxvm3tz( jdi�;tianec :ofi4151 Ycet;:b --ICE,' ti &b t3 mr,'SEL Rotrthem:. feE,t;tth.en-z(- iSL,)1t:beac;t,e.ryLr.,dJeIE'aF:citi4EI 3(I -mni- - tht n iaimlutw- a: dj-SLtarLCEK 6J' :433'fetai: : tot d.,a actmla,Lip:oint. bE)I;egi �ag, ft �r 1cocirsp oz( ftE;tkmeEt bEl- ( mcovu I fe:Et;: tbe-ZleEl CS:)tLtiheL-Y.y dMIettingt tc� lt'm xgLght, _ °4.i I dpgreies� 4 59 inimutas &J.stamce b:' �15 Of icet ; : tiheme:d S(DxAhaas,tjek-i_34 d&f1et--tim gt Xc Ir-'no 11 f---t: 51" ftpraes, G ) a mirkit:E st =o ltdii a 11Wet3-:. Idni c ft Thel SSLE t! 401C. F ieipe _-) C ft MhLel '98'_.' E H;A fl of Ghic . (S3Ut1bWBSti1 ltwux e� bfcrlt' I L E(lnag Mast, ahidl Ege.,A' lir Llistamcz 6::.13.5 i 5 8J f e-,E t;' therne6 Masce± L, r .,t of tLeE actaihl � point( bl: 1 1P.4;ir 'LLilc �i i -1 c v 4.cs: ii 11 SU-3-)�Lilsctj t3 R--.'2." . 23cc .1 4. 1 EPa•agraph L) e 9 Sact:101 L 4c 61 [ iUcdina-aetE] No .81 L i c ft tl..e( C-11 yj it b7izAdi-OE-, ifb11c.w3_-@Lg; IffacrecLo stx&t�l -. d 9? cnln-,��e cl. by the VYL,a e=tieti : i c ft xLel -ZA-.z ChItl4ic -. iPmbidencc jA (addj.td_oit,.of: t1d iolih:Ahmg: d6,sic_k:)1,ed: pippertyv vldlcaL im -_reB'-0Lv&c1 ifrffill I MItl#ic. (R_- i3idietit-ia 1: Disitk_ix t ltdi, a f Veti,: I BAL 1 c f t thd SwilUmets- t, atn-m( b Sieti:icri` X 1 T biz,tj :.),= tx bJ 1I - 1 Rapge; 211 c eh s-ckit,ed-- ac, db_'law:3, i ConmentAmg- at- En(� SDa•bwasct, co b:: :'tiha;S olitkvtets-:!(,uia-zt.er- bJ'-(Sact,jD:jt_':O,[ Tawnship] L17,.; kapgi.'2l, AbPm, I_qoi',th.P 8Si dagpea,- F461 iainuteEi East (as sumh(L ibaavip)�', .,a(IDi;E- ltk(: (South 31- (pb- i b:-- ; smid "Stotithwazi : iQuart-e n z. Aistamt(! io E. 1'04 M R. 1 ifact� cn: tih e3 axitudl: i b.: + bp_1gir..rdmj,, ,o f: thet =rvc t) ed: iai.d =() ,b e3 etE,sr_i:jbe;i; 'tdranc et Jlcalta? , cda,, F+ 5 Iminut.e s2 2�) szotcaff- f Vets-,:, ai distatic e( bJ ` 99.51 C Of :6e t; - t1liez' ME] .-V01"t E I dag, -Ehean veei,. Ili W-niL=6,E RI);ser-OUS�WS WS' t, I El Azistiane(�. -0 E 7 1'39�_ K� EEact ;t B11 I djeigre:e s� 38 taixum 3; hab,,:, a� dj._ctauc,e( b: " 15 5' fief✓;.: k:_1MVC e' SCUM I I Q I L iminut,e sl M, (samond 3;Eats-,:., ac lb.cstanc�a bJ' 81121: Ef!aEt ;t them-n, iaJor gE +L : tmagcrmidl curN et ::o Ithi a. Ieffl:, &LaVip gg , L xadku s: 61 IV'. A� : fete;_ jdistiacir_(: :o E 7 -1 D. a! I lt; � ,,Lr(c a33 5lcidtlacxl 7 1 edming . ai rE%-MrSEt carN e, i Lzv-L. 2U!. !83"iela-,, ac 111E�taat'.Ei b:-.1033E,01 feEt;.tlienec (S.31[ftihiat'r h. ac rUM're;E1 CaYN e, i 1.acv-L4& ar radd m i :o E 11.7 11 iz . if BE't E i I I 6it3ta.m a) it E 17'..16 3 3 51cititl I I G dpg;Tea.,; bintuzi;tE T) ; _cie=a)r.,d sE 1, z�st tiapgam tt b.c. Eas;ti d hm(CB3 can; e , 3 . L :dELztan-_i a i c E 33 Q f e_1E It ;' thene-1c t SouthekY_y laiwrq g i I MotitanigmAdh. c-in•aEv a: t of MbLE] EEM.Stl '--la aV i93 L c: w1dim s: ed 1 [51) fetal: .1an I L Z( Ebica d- b cEcriggi b 8; e1E;-.gEraaE1 D') iminrit.esl U isamc,rid 3 11;;ela,:, ac di-stancz bi: 1103.20f Y'ce.t; tihma- 2 11 6,eigre_1E S( D,". mimt:Lve s 13.8: st cond., -, 'lWa:31, :,i a] c Alstar.:c e- m ltdi (SL:)Utb 7+'i 1C1pg'1'E!es358 kduxtBs .13- seicro3ii;[El alddlatatnc,aicfl U14.53 fife. Itai , . atLazAl ?uin t: 6:11 Ebegimilig.g wl.16 i'. j si iI L I&I'll-4-Idt3ndic F-2'. iSmc. 5. This :owflj_naucic(: Isnal.11 z)i:.Anf itllE forr-ii Laei33 UcEactl pp)cn- IV' cam ptblicztimr.. 'Cioumcidm-av Carmtney. Jj.`.0tiQ)r: f03' (EL:Jo)ptdD1L Of: kl.ec ofddnarxea va.s., sacond&C ;):7. L Rb-11chU.: Pr.,E :6:cUtrTm:.ey, Zidic:--iai:ds,;c":cdifidct,)E�bow, 1VaLi7l.'a1k(uribur[; t"143FE S Win a D5:dj`_1e!E E io[cptdtc. 4 WT715 N 1DMN'7N TF 01' BLOCK] I�J b2blEELSS]CH' ACT3F-J, AND 8C ghl' I. ISUBDIVISICN: (12 S�enr_dkl. 13.7"Olerl: J.±fja1evtL--_:; co f 3 b1ctxLzc rvmrE, 'Prm Eapprosrk, sa 3: It of form aLA ofe.:e ki 3 pliannilc io i: fi(la, I M. - fflgghLE SE Pit asaut:edt ILI q ?Cutditi(I'D b'�: [Fir - t IPY'lf f OP-110. rLE: tl ec &.-vibicrx b:'oLbrs 7, ,-Ai L6 3, ',C-rfL_"1is- Subidil-d sdan :o f 3 idoock 1.8 11�.iia ielf 1s:3mIn �52 1 9Avtihu-.-;St. 7 11 . i sl Jc, cta:� & fa -7-3-!'2 9 MxE dl fox' �ta,. ipurplclse;-, -xia-3-sl zuk('. ibb_-1 tt T-hieli c I 11c ILE dt 'a)e!E nc mdm J.c d 3 Tvi:Utl i L a n: AL&eiquat a saLbcacL. it z) 3 LJ(J:-:)i 1 7 fio r i E. isno:cm di bicaiiai;it e: ad Lot: 7. [1 ipbirLte 1) mutt xha LT DIC S t 6f' It'-i(: (lt)ts i ioa: t,b el lz s t ;iqd a) edl =hc tsr- 7Ele tide( Uj,.Ndjsiwv: i; ; - x(eqews(t`-,(1), nn 15 0 E Yclo L I : r-ctp', , biu L - t1ita :: th eL 3.ct 3) c nt Thiel NRI-1 :6f Itni! sit re,.c tE are; gmy..a-rh'_j.y ijuit e3 Z L :btL : mizim -. .-' HE, (allelE dt 7chLa tt It-a- t; U:a�f f I I[,- t rcaomeicxxd�_d ]appircmItlicR t1j.Lx H7.vi.sion r_-oyAdp-a,vtt to Ifm(, iding-xiaticrx b.' V-00 ­0 - , d" Mitl' I lieu: 61- q)ar1(daJiL(1,1 bat, Itaiat, s:sj(Dr. diiii re ninn&c.c . e1C.1 t Tj..C: i0t.9 :q(DUld1DLCV me:Ett xha inivilmun squa-rd foicitp%( (r3qLd(rp_Ricntjum(dn:.- ltiha - c 2 xondp;; ic(rhir.awa:o. ( D1jeLL:L.jjgt jc jt,,jjj.jk), .1, 'jtoketr . ;_Uoapic 5/16/77 159 6501 Waterma Ave., and Peter Brown, 6617 Waterman Ave. Mr. Arlow P. Lee, 524 Arthur St., also objected to the division, stating that.he had been told by either Mr. Tlompkins or his representative that the existing house would be enlarged at some future time,.indicating that there would be no new building on the lot f�low under consideration. Mr. John Keefe, representing Mr. Tompkins, said that at, the time Mr. Tompkins purchased the six 50:-.foot lots in 1975, he had received verbal assurance from City personnel that the lots had been approved for single family development on each and every lot. Mr. Keefe said that, contrary to the staff report, Lots 7 and 8 had been combined in 1976 by the City Assessor wi hout the knowledge or approval of Mr. Tompkins. Mr. Erickson said that there is a recent Minnesota Supreme Court case which states that property which was platted prior to an effective ordinance increasing required lot widths " could allow a municipality to deny a permit to one who wanted to build on one of the earlier lots that was less than the new ordinance would require and who would create thatiinability to conform with the ordinance by the sale of a lot that adjoined the one on which he was trying to build. He recommended that the matter be continued for further review of the law and of the facts concerning the conbination of the two lots.. Councilman Shaw then moved that findings be pre- pared upon hich the Council may act on June 6, 1977. The motion was seconded by Councilman Courtney. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg ' Nays: Node (� Motion ca�ried. NEW BIDS TO BE TAKEN FOR WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS NOS, WM -314, IM-316 AND WM -319B. Mr. "Dunn re alled that bids for Watermain Improvements Nos. WM -314, WM -316 and WM -319B had in been continued from. the meeting of May 2, 1977, so that residents would have opportunity to express their opinions as to whether to continue with constr ction of their watermains. He reported that questionnaires re" ceived from residents relative to Watermain Improvement No..WM -319B had indi -?-.- cared that hat 15 residents had requested that the improvement be abandoned, 9 had wanted to proceed with the improvement and four had not voted. Mr. Dunn said that t e costs for Watermain Improvements Nos. WM -314 and WM -316 had been so excess! ve.t at he had not sent out questionnaires and recommended that all three bids be rejected and that the improvements be.redesigned and new bids taken at a later .I ate . He assured Mr:: Neil Gregory, 4821 Vandervork Ave.; that he would consi'er the possibility of redesigning WM -319B so that it would be available t some of the properties. Mrs. Wm. Dornback, 5220 Hollywood Road, and Mrs. Fr d Kopp, 5216 Hollywood Road, requested that the improvement be abandoned. Mrs. Kopp said that they are trying to sell their house and that they will suffer a considerable financial loss unless the improvement is abandoned. Mrs. William und, 4816 Vandervork Ave., suggested that the majority .of the­_ . people who opposed the improvement already have water or would be able to hook up with anothe watermain and urged that WM -319B be installed. An unidentified resident on Vandervork Ave. suggested constructing the improvement on Vander - vork Ave. add deleting the Hollywood Road portion of the improvement. Discus- sion ensued as to whether the wording on the questionnaire sent out to residents had indicated that the project would be abandoned if the vote to construct the improvement was not favorable. Mayor Van Valkenburg explained that the improve- ment has been ordered by the Council and that the Council is now attempting to find an eco omical and reasonable way for its construction. Following lengthy discussion, Councilwoman Schmidt's motion that the project be abandoned was seconded by Councilman Shaw. Rollcall: Ayes: Sc midt, Shaw Nays: Courtney, Richards, Van Valkenburg Motion defeated Councilman !Courtney's motion that the bids be rejected was seconded by Council- man Ric hardis. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: Nolne Motion carried. Mr. Dunn advised Mayor Van Valkenburg that he should have new bids by July 18, 1977, and ssured Council that notices.would be -sent out to owners of affected propertiesaladvising them of developments prior to the meeting at which the bids would be considered by the Council. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MAY 10, 1977, APPROVED. Councilman Courtney moved that i Sections B and C of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of May 10, 1977 be accepted and that the following action be approved: 1. That the City staff contact the management of the Interlachen Country Club to reluest that patrons and employees of the club reduce their speed on Waterman Ave. between Blake Road and the club. 5/16/77 160 2. That 4 -hour parking be allowed on the South side of W. 51st Street from Halifax Ave. to The Lanterns driveway during construction of the ramp. Motion was seconded by Councilman Shaw. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried.- . - . FIRE DEPARTMENT LABOR NEGOTIATIONS DISCUSSED. Mr. Hyde advised that negotiations for the next Fire Department contract are still in process. No action wa-s taken. PORTIONS OF LOT 20, BLOCK 15, CLEVELAND'S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS 2,-3, 4, 13, 14 and 15, EMMA ABBOTT PARK TO BE RECONVEYED TO STATE OF MINNESOTA. Mr. Hyde called Council's attention to a letter from Mr. Thomas H. Supplee requesting-an eight foot easement over park property so that the driveway for his new house at 4416 Vandervork Ave. would be usable. Council was advised that the park on the side and rear of Mr. Supplee''s property is wild unkempt land which will suffer no environmental damage if the easement is granted as recommended by the Park Board. Mr. Supplee was present to urge that the easement be granted. City.'. Attorney Erickson expressed his concern about the legality of granting the easement, the wand was tax forfeited and deeded.to the City of Edina for Park purposes. He recommended instead that the property be reconveyed to the State of Minnesota. Councilman Richards -thereupon offered the following resolu- tion and moved its adoption: . RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby determines that there is no longer a need for the following described property which was acquired by the City through tax forfeiture for park land and that said property be reconveyed to the State of Minnesota: The South eight feet (8') of Lot 20, Block 15, Cleveland's Subdivision of Blocks 2, 3, 4, 13; 14 and 15, Emma Abbott Park Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Shaw. Rollcall: Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None* - Motion carried. PUBLIC WORKS STAFFING APPROVED. Councilman Courtney offered the following reso- lution and moved its adoption as recommended by Mr. Hyde. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby establish the following maximum salaries and positions for.':the Department of Public Works: Superintendent of Public Works $22;880 New Position - Assistant Superintendent 201,000 Foreman (Street, Sewer Water, Park, Mechanic) 17,420 Motion for adoption of the resoluti -on was seconded by:-Coun-cilwoman Schmidt and on rollcall there were five ayes and no.nays and the resolution was adopted. LOT 15, BLOCK 1, LAKE EDINA 3RD ADDITION EASEMENT VACATION HEARING DATE SET. Councilman Courtney offered the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF EASEMENT FOR UTILITY PURPOSES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minne- sota,.as follows: 1. It is hereby found and determined after receipt of the petition of the owner of land affected thereby that the following described easement for utility pur- poses should be considered for vacation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 412.851 and 169.29; The East -West Drainage and Utility Easement on Lot 15, Block*l, Lake Edina 3rd Addition, the center line of said 10 foot easement is des- cribed as follows: Commencing on the East line of said Lot 15 a distance of 130 feet North of the Southeast corner of said lot and running Southwesterly to a point on the West line of Lot 14, Block 1, Lake Edina 3rd Addition, said point being 140' Northerly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 14, except for the Easterly 10 feet of Lot 15. 2. This Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the form of notice included in paragraph 3 hereof for the purpose of holding a public hearing on whether such vacation shall be made in the interest of the public. 3. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, place and purpose of said hearing to be published once a week for two weeks, in the Edina Sun, being the official newspaper of the City, the first publication at least 14 d'ays'prior to the date of'such hearing and to post such notice, at least 14 days prior to the date of such hearing, in at least three (3) public and con- spicuous places within the City as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 412.851. Such notice shall be in substantially the following form: I 5%16/77 I (Official Publication) CITY OF EDINA . 4801 W. 50TH STREET EDINA,.MINNESOTA 55424 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 W. 50th Street on June 20, 1977, at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of hold- irig a public hearing on the proposed vacation of the following easement for drainage and utility purposes: The East- West'Drainage and Utility Easement on Lot 15, Block 1, Lake Edina 3rd Addition, the center line of said l0 foot easement is described as follows: Commencing on the East line of said Lot 15 a distance of 130 feet North of the Southeast corner of said lot and running Southwesterly to a point on the West line of Lot 14, Block 1, Lake Edina 3rd Addition, said point being 140' Northerly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 14, except for the Easterly 10 feet of Lot 15. All persons who desire to'be heard with respect to the question of whether or not the above proposed easement is in the public interest and should be made shall be heard at said time and place. The Council'shall consider the extent to which such proposed easement vacation affects existing easements within the area of the proposed vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any person,corporati.on or municipality owning or controlling electric or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes, mains and hydrants on or under-the area of the proposed vacation, to continue maintaining the same or to enter upon such easement area or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace., remove, or otherwise attend thereto, for the purpose of specifying, in any such vacation resolution the extent to which any or all of any such easements, and such authority to maintain and to enter upon the area of the proposed vacation shall continue. BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL Florence B. Hallberg City Clerk EDINA MILLS ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION AUTHORIZED; DWIGHT WILLIAMS PARK'TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT TO CITY REQUESTED. Mr. Hyde called Council's attention to a memorandum from Mr. Sand advising that the Edina Heritage Preservation Board is requesting permission to hire an archeologist to begin excavation of the Edina Mills gristmill site,. the first phase of the project having been allocated $4,845 under the 1976 Community Development grant program. It is proposed to hire Mr..Richard Bush, an Edina East Upper Division- teacher with appropriate archeological experience for a fee of $10 per hour, with a total cost not to exceed $3,000, with the remainder of the available funds being utilized for sur- veying, relandscaping and grade level delineation of the foundation location. Council was advised that School District authorities have indicated their willing- ness to transfer all land West of the chain link fence that encloses the Wood - dale School playground to the City. Councilman Richards thereupon offered the following resolution and moved.its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF DWIGHT WILLIAMS PARK FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 273 TO THE CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, the City of Edina has used and maintained a.certain parcel of land South of Browndale Avenue and North of W. 50th Street for public park purposes for a number of years; and WHEREAS, said park parcel has commonly been referred to as Dwight Williams Park; and WHEREAS, the Edina Heritage Preservation Board has identified the park property as a historic site of local significance, and the site has been nominated to. the National Register of Historic Places because it is the original location of the Edina Mills grist mill,- and WHEREAS, the Edina Heritage Preservation Board proposed to conduct an archeolo- gical excavation of the site to locate the foundation and recover historic artifacts; and WHEREAS, the Edina Heritage Preservation Board desires to have City ownership of the park prior to undertaking the archeological exploration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the City request transfer of „title of the parkland East of Minnehaha Creek and West of the Wood - dale School fence, presently recorded as owned by the Edina Public Schools, to the City to enable the archeological exploration to begin. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt.. •Rollcall: Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Resolution adopted. 5/16/77 162 POLICE CHIEF BERT MERFELD RETIREMENT PARTY NOTED. Mr. Hyde reminded Council that a retirement party has been planned for Chief Bert Merfeld which will be held at Braemar Pavillion on Thursday, May 19, 1977, at 6:30 p.m. No action was taken. ORDINANCE NO. 101 -Al CONTINUED TO JUNE 6, 1977. As recommended by the Mayor, it was generally agreed to continue First Reading of Ordinance No. 101"- Al.relating to the order of business for Council Meetings to June 6, 1977. RICHARD KREMER ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE ON BOTH PLANNING COMMISSION AND HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD QUESTIONED. Councilman Richards questioned whether or not Mr. Richard Kremer is legally eligible to serve on both the Edina Planning Commis- sion and the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners. No formal action was taken. STOREFRONT FINANCING DISCUSSED. Councilman Richards raised the question of the manner in which Storefront is financed. The Clerk will ask Miss Jane Budd to have this information available before the 1978 Budget is discussed. No formal action was taken. CLAIMS PAID. Motion of Councilman Courtney was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt for payment of the following claims as per Pre -List: General Fund, $88,825.80; Park Fund, $13,637.55; Park Construction, $2,300.00; Swimming Pool, $1,321.36; Golf Course, $17,962.54; Arena, $6,249.09; Gun Range, $244.12; Water Fund, $12,228.88; Sewer Fund, $71,792.98; Liquor Fund, $154,850.79; Construction Fund, $239,903.34; I.B.R. Fund, $46,077.97; Total, $655,394.39. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw, Van Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. Council's agenda having been covered, Councilman Courtney's motion for adjourn- ment was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt and carried. Adjournment at 10:20 p.m. City Clerk F]