Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19870914_regular2 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner and Mayor Courtney. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED. Member Turner to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented. Motion was made by Member Kelly and seconded by Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 3. 1987 APPROVED. Member Kelly and seconded by Member Turner to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 13, 1987. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. Motion was made by PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED ON NUMEROUS ASSESSMENTS. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. given, public hearings were conducted and action taken as hereinafter recorded on the following proposed assessments: Due notice having been . 1. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. A-177 Location: West 59th St from Wooddale Avenue to Oaklawn Avenue Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment for Street Improvement No. A-177 showing total construction cost of $11,116.80 proposed to be assessed against 8 assessable lots at $1,390.85 per lot, against estimated assessment of $1,576.17 per lot. No objections were heard and no written objections to the proposed assessment were received prior hereto. Assessment approved by motion of Member Turner, seconded by Member Smith and carried unanimously. Assessments are to be spread over 10 years. (Assessment levied by resolution later in Minutes.) 2. BLACKTOP7 CURB & GUTTER STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-261 Location: Westridge Court from Valley View Road to cul-de-sac Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment for Blacktop, Curb & Gutter Street Improvement No. BA-261 showing total construction cost of $11,800.85, proposed to be assessed against 5 assessable lots at $2,306.17, against estimated assessment of $1,854.93 per lot. No objections were heard and no written objections to the proposed assessment were received hereto. Member Smith and carried unanimously. Minutes. ) Assessments are to be spread over 10 years. Assessment approved by motion of Member Turner, seconded by 4 (Assessment levied by resolution later in 3. BLACKTOP, CURB & GUTTER STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-263 Location: Arthur Street in Mendelssohn 2nd Addition Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment for Blacktop, Curb & Gutter Street Improvement No. BA-263 showing total construction cost of $20,777.68, proposed to be assessed against 4 assessable lots at $5,194.42 per lot, against estimated assessment of $2,685.73 per lot. years. assessment were received hereto. seconded by Member Turner and carried unanimously. resolution later in Minutes.) Assessments are to be spread over 10 Assessment approved by motion of Member Smith, No objections were heard and no written objections to the proposed (Assessment levied by 4. BLACKTOP, -CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-269 Location: York Avenue from West 76th Street to 1-494 Bridge Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment for Blacktop, Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk Street Improvement No. BA-269 showing balance of construction cost of $83,554.96, after applying State Aid funds of $272,276.16 to the project. The cost is proposed to be assessed against 1,610.48 assessable feet commercial properties at $40.00 per foot and against 637.86 assessable feet multi-residence properties at $30.00 per foot, against estimated assessment of $40.00 per foot for commercial and $30.00 per foot for multi-residence. over 10 years. No objections were heard and no written objections to the proposed assessment were received hereto. seconded by Member Kelly and carried unanimously. resolution later in Minutes.) Assessments are to be spread Assessment approved by motion of Member Smith, (Assessment levied by I 5. BLACKTOP, CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-270 Location: West 76th Street from Xerxes Avenue to Edinborough Way Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment for Blacktop, Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk Street Improvement No. BA-270 showing balance of construction cost of $54,279.76, after applying State Aid funds of $69,546.63 to the project. The cost is proposed to be assessed against 76.5 assessable feet of single family property at $20.00 per foot, 560.56 assessable feet of multi-family property at $30.00 per. foot, 956.93 assessable feet of multi-family property previously assessed at $20.00 per foot, and 419.61 assessable feet of commercial property at $40.00 per foot, against estimated assessment at the same rates. Assessments are to be spread over 10 years. No objections were heard and no written objections to the proposed assessment were received hereto. Smith, seconded by Member Turner and carried unanimously. (Assessment levied by resolution later in Minutes.) Assessment approved by motion of Member 6. BLACKTOP, CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-271 Location: Edinborough Way 9/14/87 3 Lo I: m a Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment for Blacktop, Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Street Improvement No. BA-271 showing total construction cost of $280,909.42, proposed to be assessed against 1,028,976 assessable square feet at $0.272999 per square foot against estimated assessment of $0.282 per square foot. Assessment to be spread over 10 years. objections to the proposed assessment were received prior hereto. approyed by motion of Member Smith, seconded by Member Turner and carried unanimously. (Assessment levied by resolution later in Minutes.) No objections were heard and no written Assessment 7. STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. L-27 Location: Intersection of Chowen Avenue and Chowen Curve Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment for Street Lighting Improvement No. L-27 showing total construction cost of $818.30, proposed to be assessed against 7 assessable lots at $116.90 per lot, against estimated assessment of $114.22 per lot. No objections were heard and no written'objections to the proposed assessment were received prior hereto. Assessment approved by motion of Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner and carried unanimously. One year assessment to be paid in 1988. (Assessment levied by resolution later in Minutes.) 8. STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. L-28 Location: Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment for Street Lighting Improvement No. L-28 showing total construction cost of $409.40, proposed to be assessed against 4 assessable lots at $102.35 per lot, against estimated assessment of $194.48 per lot. No object.ions were heard and no written objections to the proposed assessment were received prior hereto. Assessment approved by motion of Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner and carried unanimously. Between 4817 and 4821 West Sunnyslope Road One year assessment to be paid in 1988. (Assessment levied by resolution later in Minutes.) 9. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT NO. TS;87 Location: Intersection of West 70th Street and Cornelia Drive Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment for Traffic Control Signal Improvement No. TS-87 showing balance of construction cost of $45,870.60 after applying State Aid funds to the project. The cost to be assessed as follows: City of Edina $16,037.80, Scfiool District No. 273 $15,290.00, and against 818 assessable lots at $17.80 per assessable lot, against estimated assessment of $14.00 per lot. One year assessment to be paid in 1988. been received from Michael J. Patera, 7120 Glouchester Avenue and Betty Weingartner, 7137 Glouchester Avenue. Engineer Hoffman advised that the School Board has requested that this be continued to the meeting of September 21, 1987 to allow the Board to discuss the proposed assessment at their meeting of September 14, 1987. unanimously to continue the public hearing on the Traffic Control Signal Improvement No. TS-87 to the Council meeting of September 21, 1987. Letters of objection had Motion of Member Richards was seconded by Member Turner and carried IO. SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S-35 Location: West 44th Street, Park Place and Woodcrest Drive Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment for Sidewalk Improvement No. S-35 showing total cost of construction of $27,728.81 proposed to be assessed against 53 assessable' lots, 7084.7 (4") square feet at $3.30 per square foot and 1426.0 (6") square feet at $3.05 per square foot, against estimated assessment of $250.00 per assessable lot. Assessment to be spread over 10 years. had been received from Danya Sheffert, 5600 Woodcrest Drive, Martha and Bill McLaughlin, 4200 West 44th Street and Mathilda J. Dennison, 4315 Eton Place. Engineer Hoffman explained that this project was the result of calls from various residents on the named streets who reported that the sidewalk was in need of repair. The project followed the procedure the City has used- in the Country Club District over the years whereby City staff inspected the sidewalk and identified the slabs that need to be replaced. Staff worked with the affected'residents and gave them the option of having the work done themselves or having the City do the sidewalk replacement and assessing the cost back to the property owners. reference to the letter of objection received from the property owner at 5600 Woodcrest Drive, Mr. Hoffman said that this would be checked as some of the replacement work included in the assessment may have actually been done by the property owner. He pointed out that some of the property owners requested that additional sidewalk slabs be replaced in addition to those that staff had identified for replacement. Also, that the decision for replacement of various slabs was a judgement made in the field by the City staff person assigned to this task. Mathilda Dennison, 4315 Eton Place, said that boulevard trees had caused buckling of the sidewalk in two places and that she did not feel sidewalk replacement was her responsibility. opportunity to review her situation. Hember Rrrner and carried Urianimously to continue the public hearing on Sidewalk Improvement No. S-35 to the Council meeting of September 21, 1987 to allow staff to recheck the proposed assessments for the properties in question. Letters of objection With , Mr. Hoffman said he had not had the . Motion of Member Smith was seconded by 11. AQUATIC WEED HARVESTING 1MPROVEMENT.NO. AQ-87 Location: Indianhead Lake-and Edina Mill Pond Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment for Aquatic Weed Harvesting Improvement No. AQ-87 showing total cost for Indianhead Lake at $10,733.00 proposed to be assessed against 33 homes at $325.24 each and for Edina Mill Pond at $7,268.00 proposed to be assessed against 63 homes at $115.37 each. One year assessment to be paid in 1988. received prior hereto. Assessment approved by motion of Member Turner, seconded No objections were heard and none had been 9/14/87 4 by Member Smith and carried unanimously. in Minutes.) (Assessment levied by Resolution later 12. MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT NO. M-87 50th Street and France Avenue Business District Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment showing total construction cost of $42,366.31 proposed to be assessed against 295,030 assessable square feet at $0.1436 per square foot. No objections were heard and none had been received prior hereto. of Member Smith, seconded by Member Turner and carried unanimously. (Assessment levied by Resolution later in Minutes.) One year assessment to be paid in 1988. Assessment approved by motion 13. TREE REMOVAL IMPROVEMENT NO. TR-87 I Location: Various Locations of Diseased Trees within the City of Edina Manager Rosland presented analysis of assessment showing total cost of $9,367.50 proposed to be assessed against 21 assessable lots and allocated individually per size of tree removed. Assessments to be spread over one, five and ten years depending on amount of assessment. received prior hereto. by Member Smith and carried unanimousiy. in Minutes.) Following the presentation of analysis of assessments, Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: No objections were heard and none had been - Assessment approved by motion of Member Turner, seconded (Assessment levied by Resolution later SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ed-, Minnesota, as follows: 1. assessment rolls for the improvements hereinafter referred to, and at such hearings held on September 14, 1987, has considered all oral and written objections presented against the levy of such assessments. 2. Each of the assessments as set forth in the assessment rolls on file in the office of the City Clerk for the following bprovements: The City has given notice of hearings as required by law on the proposed Street Improvement No. A-177 Blacktop, Curb & Gutter Improvement Nos. BA-261, BA-263 Blacktop, Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk Improvement Nos. BA-269, BA-270, BA-271 Street Lighting Improvement Nos. L-27, L-28 Aquatic Weed Harvesting Improvement No. AQ-87 Maintenance Improvement No. M-87 Tree Removal Improvement No. TR-87 B does not exceed the local benefits conferred by said improvements upon the lot, tract or parcel of land so assessed, and all of said assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments on account of said respective improvements to be spread against the benefitted lots, parcels and tracts of land described therein. 3. said installments, together with interest at a rate of 8.9% per annum on the entire assessment from the date hereof to December 31, 1988, to be payable with . the general taxes for the year 1988. added interest at the above rate for one year on all then unpaid installments. The ntfmber of such annual installments shall be as follows: STREET IMPROVEkEXC NO. A-177 10 years BLACKTOP, CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-261 10 years BIACKTOP, CURB & GUTtEJX IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-263 10 years BUCKTOP, CURB, GUTTER & SIDFXAIX IMPROVEMEN!C NO. BA-269 10 years BLACKTOP, CURB, GUTTER & SIDEXALK IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-270 10 years BIACKTOP, CURB, GUTTER. & SIDFXALK IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-271 10 years STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. L-27 1 year STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. L-28 1 year AQUATIC WEED HBRVESTING IMPROVEMENT NO. AQ-87 1 year -CE IMPROVEMENT NO. H-87 1 year TREE REMOVAL IMPROVEMENT NO. TR-87 (LEVY NO. 10659) 1 year The assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments, the first of To each subsequent installment shall be Name of Improvement Nimber of Installments (T-LEW NO. 10664) 5 years (LEVY NO. 10667) 10 years 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith prepare and transmit to the Comity Auditor a copy of this resolution and a certified duplicate of said assessments with each then unpaid installment and interest set forth separately, to be extended on the tax lists of the County in accordance with this resolution. 5. The City Clerk shall also mail notice of any special assessment which may be payable by a county, by a political subdivision, or by the ovner of any right-of-way as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subdivision 4, - and if any such assessment is not paid in a single installment, the City Treasurer shall arrange for collection thereof in installments, as set forth in said Section. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. 9/14/87 5 The Edina Housing and public hearing on the Odeon Corporation and Redevelopment Authority re-convened with the Council for the Final Development Plan for Building Expansion - Cineplex action was taken individually as recorded. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR CINEPLEX ODEON CORPORATION (EDINA THEATRE): PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET (.11/2/87) FOR RAMP EXPANSION PROJECT. Gordon Hughes, HRA Director, recalled that on.July 6, 1987 the City Council and the HRA conducted a public hearing concerning the request of Cineplex Odeon to expand the Edina Theatre. In connection with the theatre expansion, Cineplex requested that the City/HRA proceed with a 100+ space expansion to the 51st Street parking ramp. Cineplex suggested that it would accept a special assessment equaling 20% of the ramp expansion costs with the balance proposed to be financed through tax increment from the existing tax increment financing district. continued the hearing and asked staff to: 1) review parking demand in the area, 2) review parking expan'sion alternatives, especially the concept of providing parking at 49 1/2 Street in addition to or in place of the proposed expansion to the 51st Street ramp, and 3) notify a larger area surrounding 50th and France. A hearing . notice has been mailed to all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the theatre. Mr. Hughes advised that staff has completed parking counts in the 50th and France area and has also reviewed the files of parking counts that have been done over the years since November, 1978. percent of parking space occupied in the 49 1/2 Street lot (50 spaces), the north ramp (275 spaces) and the south ramp (302 spaces of which 80 are designated for contract parking only). In looking at the counts, staff concluded that it was difficult to see a progression of parking occupancy at 50th and France over the years; the highest overall counts were on 11/10/78. As years have gone by a parking distribution problem can be seen whereby more and more parking at 50th and France seems to be located to the 49 1/2 Street parking lot as well as the north parking ramp. study prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates. As a follow-up, Barton-Aschman Associates has considered additional parking demand in the 50th and France area that would come from additional development, specifically the Arby's site as well as the property that is owned by Lunds which is directly north of the south parking ramp. approximately 100 spaces in the 50th and France area would not only provide enough parking for present demand but also expansion of the theatre and future expansion of under-utilized sites as well. Mr. Hughes said that Walker Parking Consultants were asked to study three parking sites in the 50th and France area for potential expansion: Site 1: 49 1/2 Street, Site 2: Clancy's parking lot and Site 3: expansion of the south parking ramp. Net gain for Site 1 would be 81 spaces; for Site 2 would be 36 spaces and for Site 3 would be 111 spaces. From a cost standpoint, Site 1 cost per added spaces would be $8,700; Site 2 cost per added spaces would be $6,100; and Site 3 cost per added spaces would be $6,150. has concluded that they agree with the Barton-Aschman analysis that an additional 100 parking spaces at 50th and France should accommodate the needs of the theatre expansion as'well as other uses. Staff concurs with the request of the 50th and France Business & Professional Association that, if the theatre expansion is approved and if parking is added, that counts should be done following completion of the additional parking during the Thanksgiving/Christmas season of next year and then place the matter on the HRA/Council agenda in January of 1989 to assess whether any additional parking should be considered at 50th and France. Continuing, Mr. Hughes said that, after reviewing the alternatives of Walker Parking Consultants, staff would recommend that the 51st Street ramp be expanded as opposed to constructing parking elsewhere for these reasons: 1) This expansion is the most cost effective, 2) The expanded ramp will accommodate peak theatre demand during the evening hours, 3) Access to the south ramp is easier and less congested than access to the parking area served by 49 1/2 Street, 4) Expansion of the south ramp will be better located to 'accommodate future in-fill development, 5) Ramp construction at 49 1/2 Street will be adjacent to low density residential development. In order to address the parking distribution problem, staff would suggest that some or all employee parking be moved to the south parking ramp. For example, if 50 employee parkers were relocated to the south ramp, it is estimated . that each ramp would be approximately 75% occupied during present peak demand. Mr. Hughes recalled that at the July 6, 1987 meeting, several alternatives were pointed out to be considered for financing the ramp expansion. proposal is to pay 20% of the ramp costs by way of special assessment which is consistent with how the initial ramps were developed and paid for at 50th and France. Other alternatives are: 1) assess 100% of the ramp costs to Cineplex, 2) finance ramp costs solely through tax increment financing, 3) .accept Cineplex's proposal to pay 20% of ramp costs and assess other businesses which have expanded since 1975 a certain percentage of ramp costs, 4) assess the entire commercial district, including Cineplex, on an equal basis for 20% of ramp costs, or 5) consider different cost sharing percentages. From an action standpoint, Mr. Hughes said the issues are: 1) approval by the Council of the Final Development Plan for the theatre expansion and 2) approval by the HRA of the addition to parking; both approvals should be subject to the approval of an improvement hearing for a project to add another level to the south ramp, with notice given to property owners who could be assessed. Member Smith commented that several residents of The Lanterns condominiums have asked if they will be included in the The Council/HRA A graphic was presented showing the At the July 6, 1987 hearing the Council/HRA reviewed a parking Their conclusion in that analysis was that an addition of Staff Cineplex Odeon's 9/14/87 6 proposed assessment. to non-residential property. when the ramp was originally constructed and if the proposed 20% of the ramp addition costs which Cineplex has offered to pay equates to the original formula used for assessing the original costs. property paid an assessment on a floor area basis of approximately $2.15 per square foot. hearing following construction of the project. Attorney Erickson commented that in this case Cineplex has offered to pay 20% of the costs and if the Council accepts that offer a developer's agreement would be required in which they could be asked to waive all appeals of the assessment. Manager Rosland asked if there are tax increments available for the ramp. Mr. Hughes said that tax increments exceed the annual bond and interest payments by approximately $150,000 and will increase in the future and those excess increments would be available to finance this project. Member RTchards commented that a case has not been made as to need in support of the ramp expansion and that he did not feel tax increment financing should be used for this project. He added that if the theatre wants the addition to the ramp they should pay for it. Member Turner commented that at the July 6 hearing one of the concerns was that this was a chance to take a look at the overall district as to parking needs and what potential future development remains for that area. Mr. Hughes said that staff would recommend assessment only Member Smith asked if the theatre had been assessed Mr. Hughes replied that all commercial He explained that the actual assessment is set at the assessment I In response staff has come back with the aid of a consultant and I identified both a parking distribution problem and a future parking space need. The proposal to add 100 spaces to the 51st Street ramp and to move some of the employee parking to the south ramp meets the immediate and longer term needs of the district as a whole. Member Turner said that she supported the addition to the south ramp. As to the theatre proposal, she said it will add to the health the commercial district. Further. she said that the conditions recommended by staff at the July 6 meeting were important, especially that the theatre portion the property should be limited to theatre use as a condition of the parking variance. Thomas Kroth, The Lanterns condominiums, presented a parking survey of the 50th and France area taken during the months of July and August. conclusions were: 1) there is ample parking capacity both day and night in the south side ramp but parking is tight during business hours in the north parking ramp, and 2) the north parking ramp during evenings is mostly empty. He suggested the following recommendations: 1) south ramp - install electronic sign at contract parking entrance to open this area for general parking in the evenings, 2) install new lighting system in north ramp, 3) allow 3 hour parking on west side of France Avenue and on the lower level of both north and south ramps after 6 p.m., and 4) add more parking capacity on north side by building a ramp on the Clancy parking lot. Peter Kofman, professional engineer representing Cineplex Odeon Corporation, responded to several issues that had been raised. Ramp funding - the 20% contribution from Cineplex Odeon for the ramp addition was taken as a given in terms of the formula used in this method of financing. would have to defer to Cineplex Odeon. cost for the ramp addition. This is proposed funding in addition to the 2.5 million complex'cineplex is proposing to build and includes retention of the facade and accommodating the existing retail uses as requested by the Heritage Preservation Board and the 50th and France Business & Professional Asqociation. Theatre industrv - there is fierce competition between the theatre. groups, the distributors are not supporting the local film houses as they used to, so in order to secure film which will make a profit it is necessary to have a first class facility in order to attract both the film and the changing needs of the patrons. If Cineplex cannot come to some resolution in terms of the overall development it will not be economical to run the theatre. the 50th and France Business and Professional Association, said he agreed that the parking stress is on the north side. for eventual development of the Arby's site and the Lund's property site and that the south ramp was built for that additional: 36,000 square feet of office or retail development. At first the Association had some real reservations about the proposed theatre expansion but after many weekly meetings they have concluded that the area does need a first class theatre. theatre expansion but parking will also be needed to accommodate the future additional 36,000 square feet of office or retail. serious consideration to the ramp addition and Cineplex's offer to fund 20% of the cost so that future development would not be precluded because parking was already to capacity. David Koski, Barton-Aschman Associates, confirmed their calculations that construction of 111 new parking spaces in the south ramp would accommodate the peak parking demand for the expanded theatre as well as peak parking for future development of the Arbyls and Lund's sites. He added thac the fact that the primary theatre parking occurs between the hours of 5 and 9:30 p.m. basically means that the bulk of the 111 new parking spaces would be available full time during the week days to accommodate the future retail and office development. Dean Lundgren, manager of Arby's at 5020 France Avenue, asked if the ramp would be closed during the proposed construction. limit the amount of use on the lower level for one construction season. Perry Anderson, member of the 50th and France Business & Professional Association, commented that he wanted to thank the Council for keeping traffic open one way during construction on West 50th Street this summer as it definitely helped the His . I I' Additional funding - he The 20% was based on an estimated $650,000 . Hosmer Brown, speaking in behalf of He said the original 1975 HRA plan called Additional parking is needed for the He urged the Council to give - Engineer Hoffman replied that it would .businesses economically. Member Richards reiterated his position that if ! of of I 9 I14 I87 7 additional parking is needed for the proposed theatre expansion they should pay for it and if additional parking is needed when and if future development occurs that issue should be addressed at that time. Member Kelly commented that she believes the theatre improvement will enhance that area, that was the intent when the City established the 50th and France Tax Increment District, and that the purpose of a tax increment district is to help improve an area of the City. following resolutions were adopted by the Council. Member Kelly moved approval of the Final Development Plan for Cineplex Odeon Corporation and adoption of the following resolution, conditioned on approval by the City Council of an improvement hearing of a project to add another level to the 51st Street ramp, and subject to the following requirements: 1) that Cineplex Odeon Corporation be assessed not less than 20% of the cost of the 51st Street parking ramp expansion; 2) that the theatre portion of the property be limited to theatre use only as a condition of the parking variance; 3) the removal of paint by a method approved by staff; 4) that granting of a permit to occupy air rights above the City's sidewalk easement be subject to the condition that the building be limited to theatre use only; 5) provision for trash storage within the building acceptable to the City staff; 6) execution of an agreement by the developer for payment of an assessment for the cost of the ramp addition to be determined at the public hearing for the ramp expansion project, and waiver of objections to and appeals from such assessment; and 7) that the BRA agree to construct the additional level to the 51st Street ramp, which agreement is expected to be made on or after the public improvement hearing for the ramp addition: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL DEVELOPMEN!C PLAN FOR CINEPLEX ODEON CORPORATION The BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that the Final Development Plan for Cineplex Odeon Corporation, 3911 West 50th Street, presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of September 14, 1987, be and is hereby approved, subject to the conditions and requirements above set out. Motion for approval of the Final Development Plan and adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Turner, Courtney Nays : Richards Motion carried; resolution adopted. Member Kelly then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON 51ST STREET PARKING RAMP IMPRO~NT 1. The City Engineer, having submitted to the Council a preliminary report as to the feasibility of the proposed Parking Ramp Improvement described in the form of Notice of Hearing set forth below, and as to the estimated cost of such improvements, said report isshereby approved and directed to be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Council shall meet on Monday, November 2, 1987, at 7:OO p.m. in the Edina City Hall, to consider in public hearing the views of all persons interested in said improvement. 3. place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper once a week for two successive weeks, the second of which publication is to be not less than three days from the date of said meeting, and to mail notice to all affected properties in substantially the following form: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION) CITY OF EDINA 4801W. 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARRJG The Edina City Council and Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Edina will meet at the Edina City Hall on Monday, November 2, 1987 at 7:OO P.M., to consider the following proposed improvement to be constructed under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The approximate cost of said improvement is estimated by the City as set forth below: PARKING RAMP - P-PIB ESTIMATED COST PARKING RAMP ADDITION (W. 51st Street) $760,000.00 The area proposed to be assessed for a portion of the cost of the proposed improvement includes the 50th and France Avenue Business District. Marcella M. Daehn, City Clerk Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Turner, Courtney Nays : Richards Resolution adopted. Motion for adjournment of the HRA meeting was made by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Turner and carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ROLLING GREEN PARKWAY ADDITION CONCLUDED: FINDINGS, DECISION AND REASONS FOR APPROVAL ORDERED. Planner Craig Larsen said 9/14/87 that the Rolling Green Park Addition plat is generally located west of Rolling Green Parkway and south of Annaway Drive. to subdivide the property to create one additional buildable lot; the existing building would be removed. square feet in area and both lots would have in excess of 280 feet of street frontage. He recalled that the public hearing on this plat conducted August 17, 1987 was continued to this meeting to allow the proponent time to respond to the staff recommendation relative to larger than normal setbacks for the subject property. setbacks from the southeasterly property line of each new lot. the proponent had submitted additional information for the Council's consideration and that additional information had also been submitted by neighbors in support of their position. .Charles Luther, proponent, and William Killion, his attorney were present. Mr. Luther commented that at the August 17, 1987 meeting he had asked that the hearing be continued so that he could discuss the proposed sideyard setbacks with his architect. Mr. Luther stated that, after consulting with his architect, they could stay within the recommended sideyard setbacks and had submitted a proposal illustrating the lots and the type of homes that could be built within those setbacks that would be beautiful and in keeping with the neighborhood. which he grew up, that he would like to bring up his family here, that he has respect for the neighborhood and does not feel his proposal would be a detriment to the neighborhood. He said he has tried to do everything that the City has requested, i.e. changing the lots lines of the property, staying within the recommended larger than normal sideyard setbacks and that his intent was to fit in harmoniously with the neighborhood. proponent's proposed plat and made the following observations. applicable law cases and the City ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. He had also visited the Rolling Green neighborhood and had concluded that the character could be typified by substantial single-family residences located on relatively large lots, mature trees, extensive landscaping and curving streets. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan provides that subdivisions of developed single family lots should be allowed only if neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved. He argued that the type of homes Mr. Luther is proposing are substantial, that the lots are large and comply with the standard. observations and conclusions of the City staff and the Planning Commission who overwhelmingly recommended approval of the plat. an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. I. P. Knelman, 4812 Rolling Green Parkway, and other concerned neighbors. Killion.as follows: 1) Lot sizes - There are inaccuracies as to average lot sizes in the Rolling Green neighborhood. the Rolling Green development. smaller lots that back up to Interlachen Golf Course and lots immediately across the street having large outlots which add to these lot sizes. Rolling Green - It has developed without any significant subdivision since the early 1950's and thereby has established the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. 3) Planning Commission - Commission did not make a specific finding that character and symmetry would be preserved. setbacks should be provided than are required by ordinance and leftz the setback to be determined by staff who he felt relied on erroneous data. Plan - Sets forth the requirement that subdivisions shall not be allowed unless character and symmetry are preserved. Neighborhood - Provide strong evidence that the character and symmetry of the neighborhood should be preserved. question for the Council is that if this test of character and symmetry, which the Comprehensive Plan speaks of as a keystone and fundamental concept for planning in Edina, is to be abandoned where are residents to look for stability and guidelines as to what is to be done in an area of large'homes when everyone is a potential subdivision with the removal of an existing house. Northwest Associated Consultants, referred to information he had mailed to the Council Members, noting that the data on the yellow pages was a summary he had presented at the August 17 meeting in terms of the applicability of the Comprehensive Plan to the proposed subdivision. graphics the first of which showed neighborhood characteristics as to lot size and setbacks. and below the average that applies to the area and does not meet the test of preserving the character of the area. front yard setback which on the survey on file with the City is shown as approximately 90 feet. Mr. Licht said that, based on property stakes, he had come up with a front setback on the Knelman property of 111 feet and of 79 feet for the property adjacent to the west. approximately 96 feet. buildable area for the proposed lots and that also at issue in terms of character and symmetry of the area is the type of house that can be put on the building pads created; there is a less buildable area than what had been proposed. Continuing, Mr. Licht said that another item of concern is the average sideyard setback. an area is to maintain its character, the setback, the building mass and the open space has to be maintained throughout the area in a general fashion. block in question the average building separation is 115 feet. The proponent has submitted a request The new lots would be 47,497 square feet and 50,456 Planner Larsen presented a graphic showing the recommended 50 foot He advised that He said that his only desire is to move back to the neighborhood in , Mr. Killion spoke in support of the He had reviewed He added that the Council should consider the Connor Schmid stated that he was He responded to the position paper prepared by Mr. Five lots were included which were not part of I Externalities were not considered such as.the 2) History of They recommended that larger 4) Comprehensive 5) Petitions/Letters of Objection from the ' . In conclusion, Mr. Schmid said that the David Licht,. planner with I. He then presented several He said that in each and every case the proposed lots are substandard The second graphic showed the existing That means that the average setback increases to He said that this is important because it affects the If For the He said this is of 9/14/87 9 concern because there is a lack of consistency as to sideyard setback for the proposed lots. In essence, the property as it exists today conforms to the character of the area; further subdivision will not. sideyard setbacks, which is characteristic of development patterns, will make a substantial difference in what can be placed upon the subject property. conclusion is that there is not one house in the immediate area that would fit on the proposed building pads. In conclusion, Mr. Licht said that as a professional planner the one issue he wished to point out is the precedent that would be set. The area would lose quality by further subdivision. today has a reasonable use; the proponent has every right to use it as such but that the neighborhood did not want to see the character of the area destroyed by subdividing of the property. Ellen Gallagher, 4912 Merilane; Bradford Johnson, 4721 Annaway Drive; Suzanne Knelman, 4812 Rolling Green Parkway; Bob Stein, 4729 Annaway Drive; Chris Possis, 4801 Rolling Green Parkway; Ilze Olson, 12 Merilane and Berry Berg, 15 Paddock Road. James Meger, 4600 Merilane, commented that the Council room is approximately 52 feet long and that the setback proposed does not look like the length of the Council room. Rick Tice, 4800 Rolling Green Parkway, commented that the lots sizes, condition and character of the houses in Rolling Green are all over the place. preliminary plat for Rolling Green Parkway Addition. The motion failed for lack of a second. Member Turner then moved to direct staff to prepare findings for approval of the preliminary plat for Rolling Green Parkway Addition to be brought back on October 5, 1987. Member Turner stated these reasons in support of the motion: 1) the character and symmetry of the neighborhood will be preserved, 2) the lot sizes as proposed are approximately at the median of the neighborhood, and 3) the setbacks as proposed are close to what exists in the whole area now. also stated that the offer of the proponent to impose larger than normal sideyard setbacks should be part of the proposal that comes back. Member Kelly who commented that the precedent issue was difficult but that she could see only two other lots in the area with any potential to subdivide; that she felt the character and symmetry of the neighborhood would be preserved; that she felt the subject property could create single family lots for two beautiful homes to maintain balance in the City; and that the Planning Commission had overwhelmingly recommended approval of the subdivision. that he supported the motion and that he felt one of the issues was what is to be built and suggested the proponent and concerned neighbors should look at that issue together to see if maybe other requirements could be imposed on the property prior to final action by the Council. vote on the motion. He argued that 50 foot The The property as it exists Also speaking against the proposed subdivision were No further comment being heard, Member Smith moved denial of the She Motion was seconded by Member Richards commented Mayor Courtney then called for a rollcall Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Nays: Smith Resolution adopted. *LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOT 1. BLOCK 1. ARROWHEAD RIDGE AND PART OF LOT 2. BLOCK 2. INDIANHEAD CREST. Turner for adoption of the following resolution: FJHEREBS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: Motion was made by Member Kelly and seconded by Member RESOLUTION Lot 1, Block 1, ARROWHEAD RIDGE, and That part of Lot 2, Block 2, INDIANHEAD CREST, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies Northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the most easterly corner of said Lot 2, Block 2; thence in a northwesterly direction, along the northeasterly lot line of said Lot 2, Block 2 a distance of 95.44 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northwesterly, deflecting to the left 27 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for a distance of 80 feet; thence northwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees 29 minutes 30 seconds for a distance of 180.00 feet, more or less, to the northwesterly lot line of said Lot 2, Block 2 and there terminating. WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels") described as follows: That part of Lot 2, Block 2, INDIANHEAD CREST, according to the recorded plat thereof, and Lot 1, Block 1, ARROWHEAD RIDGE, according to the recorded plat thereof; lying Northerly and Easterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the most Easterly corner of said Lot 2, also being the most Southerly corner of Lot I, Block 2, ARROWHEAD RIDGE, thence on an assumed bearing of North 35 degrees 05 minutes 00 seconds West, along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 95.44 feet to an angle point in the Northeasterly line of said Lot 2, thence North 12 degrees llminutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 75.03 feet; thence South 81 degrees 20 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 41.42 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line said Lot 1, said point being the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 81 degrees 20 minutes 34 seconds West, along the last described line, a distance of 122.69 feet; thence North 34 degrees 21minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 157.81 feet, more or less, to the Northwesterly line of said Lot 2, and there IO 9/14/87 terminating; and That part of Lot 2, Block 2, INDIANEEAD CREST, according to the recorded plat thereof, and Lot 1, Block 1, ARROWHEAD RIDGE, according to the recorded plat thereof; lying Southerly and Westerly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the most Easterly corner of said Lot 2, also being the most Southerly comer of Lot 1, Block 2, ARROWJZEAD RIDGE, thence on an assumed bearing of North 35 degrees 05 minutes 00 seconds West, along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 95.44 feet to an angle point in the Northeasterly line of said Lot 2, thence North 12 degrees llminutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 75.03 feet; thence South 81 degrees 20 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 41.42 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 1, said point being the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 81 degrees 20 minutes 34 seconds West, along the last described line, a distance of 122.69 feet; thence North 34 degrees 21minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 157.81 feet, more or less, to the Northwesterly line of said Lot 2, and there terminating; WJBREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinances Nos. 801 and 825; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said dixrision and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. Resolution adopted on rollcall vote, five ayes. *LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOT 4. BLOCK 1. INDIAN HILLS 3RD ADDITION (6533-35 MC CAULN TRAIL WEST. for the adoption of the following resolution: UEEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: Lot 4, Blockl, INDIAN HILTS 3RD ADDITION; and WHEREAS, the owner has requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels") described as follows: - That part of Lot 4, Block 1, INDIAN HILW 3RD ADDITION, lying Southeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 4, distant 56.47 feet Southeasterly of the Northwest corner thereof as measured along said Northeasterly line to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Lot 4, distant 56.04 feet Southeasterly of the Southwest corner thereof and there tezminating ; and That p& of Lot 4, Block 1, INDIAN HILTS 3RD ADDITION, lying Northwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 4, distant 56.47 feet Southeasterly of the Northwest comer thereof as measured along said Northeasterly line to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Lot 4, distant 56.04 feet Southeasterly of the Southwest corner thereof and there WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinances Nos. 801 and 825; HOU, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 801 and Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any ofier provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. Motion was made by Member Kelly and seconded by Member Turner 8 RESOLUTION ! terminating. ! Resolution adopted on rollcall vote, five ayes. APPEAL FROM BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION (MICHAEL HALLEY HOMES/INTERLACHEN COUNTRY CLUB) CONTINUED TO 9/21/87. Halley had requested that his appeal of the Board of Appeals decision regarding variances for Interlachen Country Club be continued to the meeting of September 21, 1987. matter of the appeal of the Board of Appeals decision regarding variances for Interlachen Country Club to September 21, 1987. Planner Craig Larsen advised the Council that Michael li Motion of Member Richards was seconded by Member Turner to continue the Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney 9 / 14/87 11 Motion carried. *HEARING DATES SET FOR VARIOUS PLANNING MATTERS. Motion was made by Member Kelly and seconded by Member mer setting September 21, 1987 as hearing date for the following Planning matters: 1) 2) Preliminary Plat Approval - Pondwood Estates - Generally located east of County Road 18 and north of West Trail Final Development Plan - Szechuan Star Restaurant - Building Expansion - Generally located east of France Avenue and south of Hazelton Road. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR TRACTOR AND 5 GANG MOWER. Member.Turner.for award of bid for one diesel tractor and 5 gang mower to recommended low bidder, R.L. Gould & Company, at $22,851.00. Motion of Member Kelly was seconded by Motion carried on kollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS S-37, S-38 AND R-9 (CONTRACT #87-10). Motion of Member Kelly was seconded by Member Turner for award of bids to recommended low bidders as follows: Progressive Contractors, Inc. at $42,561.50 for Sidewalk Improvement No. S-37 (Vernon Av from Interlachen Blvd to Villa Way) and $24,335.00 for Sidewalk Improvement No. S-38 (Olinger Blvd from Tracy Av to Bredesen Park); Bury and Carlson, Inc. at $21,569.07 for Improvement R-9 (Normandale Park Parking Lot). Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR REPAIR OF TIMBER RETAINING WALL. seconded by Member Turner for award of bid for repair of timber retaining wall on Timber Ridge Road to recommended low bidder, Richard Knutson, Inc., at $24,748.00. Motion of Member Kelly was Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR'WALL REPAIR. Turner for award of bid for wall repair at Gleason Road and Schey Drive to recommended low bidder, Bjork Country Stone, Inc., at $5,859.00. Motion of Member Kelly was seconded by Member Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR REPAIR OF WOOD RETAINING WALL. seconded by Member Turner for award of bid for repair of wood retaining wall at Braemar Arena to recommended low bidder, Bjork Country Stone, Inc., at $9,000.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. Motion of Member Kelly was *BID AWARDED FOR REPAIR OF STONE RETAINING WALL. seconded by Member Turner for award of bid for repair of stone retaining wall at West 78th Street and Cahill Road to recommended low bidder, Bjork Country Stone, Inc. at $8,770.00. Motion of Member Kelly was Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR REPAIR OF STONE WALL. Member Turner for award of bid for repair of stone wall at Waterman Av and Arthur St to sole bidder, Bjork Country, Stone, Inc. at $13,664.00. . Motion of Member Kelly was seconded by Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR REPAIR OF WOOD WALL. Member Turner for award of bid for repair of wood wall on Timber Trail to recommended low bidder, Bjork Country Stone, Inc., at $5,194.00. Motion of Member Kelly was seconded by ' Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes, *BID AWARDED FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES. Motion of Member Kelly was seconded by Member for award of bid for removal of diseased trees at various locations in the City to recommended low bidder, Tim's Tree Service, at $lO.OO/diameter inch. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES PLAN FOR 1988-89 APPROVED. every two years Edina submits a Community Health Services Plan to the Minnesota Department of Health describing community health activities which will be delivered within the community. community delivered health services. for 1988 and 1989. September 2, 1987 meeting and recommended approval. following resolution and moved adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAN FOR PROVISION OF COMMiJ"ITp HEBLTH SERVICES IN THE CITY OF EDINA AND THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ACT SUBSIDY Manager Rosland advised that The Minnesota Department of Health subsidizes the Edina will receive $89,412 in annual subsidy The Edina CHS Advisory Committee reviewed the Plan at their Member Kelly introduced the WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina is the official governing body of the City of Edina and functions as the official Board of Health in the City of Edina; and WHEREX3, the City Council is committed to promote, support and maintain the health of the entire community at the highest level; and WHEREAS, the Community Health Services Act provides for subsidies in support of public health services on the local level throughout the State of Minnesota; and 9/14/87 ._ 12 m, a special needs study has been made and a special public meeting held relative to the needs and priorities of the community for Community Health Services; and WHEREAS, the Community Health Services Advisory Committee of the City of Edina has reviewed the plan for the provision of public health services in the City of Edina and recommends its approval to the City Council; and WEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this self-same plan and finds it consistent with the needs and priorities of the community as determined by the Community Health Services Advisory Committee and as expressed by the citizens of Edina; NOU, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina that the Community Health Services Plan for the City of Edina is approved and authorization is hereby given to submit an application for the Community Health Services Act subsidy for the years 1988-89. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. , i l Rollcall : J Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. Member Kelly commented that the Community Health Services Advisory Committee did a comprehensive review of the documeqt and that they should be commended for their efforts'in recommending approval. members of the committee a letter thanking them for their efforts. It was suggested that the Mayor send the ORDINANCE NO. 731-A8 (FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PLAN REVIEW FEE) ADOPTED: SECOND READING I WAIVED. would create a new fee which will be collected by the City whenever food establishment plans are submitted for approval. The plan review process is time consuming and this fee will recover the Health Department's costs. communities have adopted similar food establishment plan review fees. Velde, Sanitarian, explained the proposed fee schedule which would be based on the Manager Rosland said that the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 731 Other I David existing food establishment license fee depending on the ultimate food establishment category. determining the plan review fee. 731-A8, with waiver of Second Reading, subject to review one year after the fee goes into effect,*as follows: A discussion followed as to alternative methods of Member Kelly moved adoption of Ordinance No. ORDINANCE NO. 7131-A8 AN ORDINBNCE BHENDING ORDINANCE NO. 731 TO ADD A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PLAN REVIEW FEE I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITP OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAJXS: Section 43 of Ordinance No. 731 is hereby amended by adding the Section 1. "(e) Food Establishment Plan Review Fee. A food establishment that submits plans for new construction or for addition to, remodeling, . repair or renovation of its premises shall be charged a food establishment plan review fee in the following amount: following: 1. New construction - 100% of the food establishment license fee based 2. upon atimate food establishment license category. Addition to, remodeling, repair or renovation of an existing food facility - 50% of the food establishment license fee based upon the In no case shall the food establishment plan review fee be less than $25.00." ultkate food establishment license category. .. 3. Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its *. -~ 1 i I ATTEST : , 1 passage and publication. %&%. u - City Clerk Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Ordinance adopted. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS DISCUSSED REGARDING FLOOD DAMAGE AND STORM/SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS. Manager Rosland referred to the numerous comrhunications and petitions regarding the flood damage due to the storm of July 23, 1987 and backup of the City's storm/sanitary sewer systems for these properties:- A. Ronald Cheney, 6701Apache Rd; Marion S. and Frank A. Leone, 6329 St. Johns Av; Residents of Southdale Rd; Oren N. and Jeanine N. Westling, 6620 Pawnee Rd; Leonard A. and Grace P. Nelson, 5525 Woodcrest Dr; David L. and Linda J. Mona, 6328 Valley View Rd; Thomas R. Bowler, 5708 Dale Av; Dr. and Mrs. Harold Katkov, 5641 Woodcrest Dr; Mr. and Mrs. John Crumrine, 5637 Woodcrest Dr; Dr. and Mrs. Dale Correa, 5633 Woodcrest Dr; Charles P. Sattler, 7101 Lynmar Ln; Robert B. Laurent, 4000 Hazelton Rd; Paul T. Lowry, 5512 South Blake Rd; LeRoy A. Swanson, 6321 Ashcroft Ln; and Oscar Roberts Company, 7200 France Av So. been sent to the City's insurance company and to the Engineering Department for study and reaction. Manager Rosland said that copies have David Mona, 6328 Valley View Rd, complimented the Engineering 9/14/87 13 Department for their cooperation and assistance through the difficult period following the storm. John Crumrine, 5637 Woodcrest Dry commented that he and several neighbors had submitted a petition in which they had pointed out two areas which they felt needed action: a) an open drainage ditch which runs behind all three petitioners' properties, and b) a long term solution to the problem. He said overflow from the ditch during the July 23rd storm caused considerable loss to their properties when their homes were flooded and that they felt there was an immediate need of dredging. He added that dredging was done last week and seems to be satisfactory. As to a long term solution, Mr. Crumrine suggested that the services of a consultant should be obtained to make recommendations as to what might be a sensible solution. as the ditch fills back in again. Dr. Katkov, 5641 Woodcrest Dry stated that he lives adjacent to the Crumrine property and that from a health standpoint the drainage ditch has an effluent that he thought was unhealthy and that it also was a hazard to children. this water comes from so that the residents could understand their future there. Engineer Hoffman responded that all these cases are being gone over by the City's surveyors and most will be referred to consultants for review with the staff. No formal action was taken. He said the problem could re-occur in a year or two He said he thought it was appropriate to determine where LETTER TO BE SENT TO DR. KRIS HAGEN. Member Kelly commented that Dr. Kris Hagen had ceased writing health articles for the Edina Sun-Current due to personal health reasons; that he gave a lot of time to benefit the City through his service on the CHS Advisory Committee and that a letter of appreciation should be sent to him. Mayor Courtney said he would do this. 1988 BUDGET ITEMS FOR FLOOD PREVENTATIVE MEASURES QUESTIONED. that she would look for items in the budget proposed for 1988 relating to flooding and preventative measures that might be necessary as a follow-up to the July 23rd storm. Member Kelly said AMM GOLF SOCIAL TO BE HELD AT BRAEMAR. Member Turner called the Council's attention to the first annual AMM Golf Social to be held on Thursday, October 1, 1987 at Braemar Golf Course and urged the Council Members to participate. EDINA PUBLIC HEARING ON 1-494 CORRIDOR STUDY REPORT SCHEDULED FOR 10/5/87. Member Turner advised that the Council is scheduled to have a public hearing on the 1-494 Corridor Study report on October 5, 1987 and that the consultant will make the presentation. She said that the Council Members would have the report well in advance of the meeting so that they could review it prior to the hearing. MODEL RECYCLING ORDINANCE REFERRED TO EDINA RECYCLING COMMISSION. Member Turner noted that Hennepin County had sent a model recycling ordinance to be used as a guide in preparing an ordinance to comply with the Hennepin County Ordinance 13 which will lead to achieving the goal of 16% source-seperation by 1990. if the model recycling ordinance would be referred to the Edina Recycling Commission. Member Smith said he assumed that the commission had received it. He said he had given it to some of his office neighbors for them to consider. RECOMMENDATION ON COMMISSION/BOARD APPOINTMENTS DISCUSSED. Member Turner asked when the Council committee (Smith and Richards) would have a recommendation as to procedure for appointment of commission/board members so that the vacancy on the Community Development and Planning Commission could be filled. Member Smith said he is working on a draft and that they should be able to bring that to the Council within the next few weeks. She asked FINANCIAL REPORTS ON ENTERPRISE FUNDS APPRECIATED. Member Turner said that she thought the financial reports on the City's enterprise funds were excellent and would be of aid during the upcoming 1988 Budget hearings. HENNEPIN COUNTY LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT COMMITTEE TO BE FORMED. that he had received a letter from Hennepin County regarding his serving on an Intergovernmental Advisory Committee for. light rail transit and that he would attend the September 15 meeting. It was noted that other Council members had received the same letter. position that, personally, he did not favor light rail transit but that some of the Council members may favor light rail and some may not and that he would attend the meeting to "listen and learn". with that position. Manager Rosland commented that the present proposal for light rail does not come through Edina, that there are several other corridors to the west and the east that are proposed, and that the county had also asked for a staff member to serve on a Technical Advisory Committee for light rail transit but that there was no one available and therefore he had submitted no staff name. No formal action was taken. BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE REVENUES NOTED. Manager Rosland informed the Council that Braemar Golf Course gross revenues this year are up $160,000 over last year and that the Executive Course revenues since its opening approximately six weeks ago total $53,000. Mayor Courtney said Mayor Courtney said that he intended to take the The Council agreed that they were confortable 9/14/87 FEMA PROGRAM UPDATE GIVEN. Management Agency (FEMA) representatives will meet with staff on September 15th to give final review and approval for flood damage to public facilities. With regard to the Mona's property, 6328 Valley View Rd, FEMA's Program 1362 provides relocation assistance and the City would have to work with the property owner for that assistance. Also, the Minnesota DNR has some legislation regarding flood proofing, relocation, etc., which he will follow. Engineer Hoffman advised that Federal Emergency HOMICIDE ON DUNDEE ROAD NOTED. the Police Department had a very tough weekend in connection with the Thompson family homicide which occurred on Dundee Road. copies of a press release concerning the incident. Manager Rosland briefly updated the Council on the case and commended the Police Department for the professional manner in which they handled this difficult situation. SECOND 1988 BUDGET HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 9/15/87. Council of the second 1988 Budget hearing scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 15. Manager Rosland noted that Chief Craig Swanson 2nd The Council was provided with s I Manager Rosland reminded the *CLAIMS PAID. Motion was made by Member Kelly and seconded by Member Turner to approve payment of the following claims as per pre-list dated 9/14/87: General Fund $552,002.59, Uorking Capital Fund $419.94, Art Center $334.85, Swimming Pool Fund $2,983.02, Golf Course Fund $27,306.59, Recreation Center Fund $11,210.92, Gun Range Fund $1,085.85, Edinborough Park $13,989.13, Utility Fund $250,718.59, Liquor Dispensary Fund $105,743.80, Construction Fund $8,697.10, Total $974,492.38; and for confirmation of payment of claims dated 8/31/87: General Fund $740,186.13, Art Center $403.15, Swimming Pool Fund $5,432.38, Golf Course Fund $23,318.86, Recreation Center Fund $361.65, Gun Range Fund $132.78, Edinborough Park $709.04, Utility Fund $3,054.06, Liquor Dispensary Fund $253,082.09, Construction Fund $9,120.31, Total $1,035,800.45. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. There no further business on the Council Agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 p.m. by motion of Member Smith, seconded by Member Kelly and carried Manimously. , &=A- D City Clerk