Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19990803_regularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL AUGUST 3,1999 - 200 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Faust, Hovland, and Mayor pro tem Kelly. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Hovland and seconded by Member Faust approving the Council Consent Agenda as presented with the exception of Agenda Item I., Approval of Minutes for July 20,1999, and Agenda Item 1II.C. Police Department Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) Project Computer Hardware and Software. Rollcall: Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Kelly Motion carried. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TUNE 20,1999, APPROVED Member Hovland said he removed the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 20,1999, from the Consent Agenda for a correction. Motion made by Member Hovland and seconded by Member Faust approving the Minutes of the July 20,1999, Regular Council Meeting as corrected. Motion carried on rollcall vote - three ayes. VARIANCE DENIAL UPHELD - WILLIAM ROHLF (5115 WOODDALE GLEN) Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation By Planner Assistant Planner Aaker explained that the subject property is a corner lot with the home facing south and fronting Wooddale Glen; and with the side street of the property along Wooddale Avenue. The property address is 5115 Wooddale Glen. She noted the homeowners purchased the home in July of this year. After purchasing the home they applied for a variance that would allow them to erect a solid wall six-foot fence along a portion of the south property line, the entire west property line (Wooddale Avenue) and to connect to an existing six-foot fence on the north property line. The fence would be constructed inside an existing eight-foot high buckthorn hedge. Ms. Aaker stated that Edina’s Code does not allow side street fences to exceed four feet if an adjacent home fronts said side street. In this case there are homes fronting Wooddale Avenue. Ms. Aaker reported that on July 15, 1999, the Zoning Board of Appeals heard and unanimously denied the homeowners requested fence height variance. The Board expressed concern regarding allowing a solid wall fence in a front yard area. The Board felt that there was no unique, identifiable hardship relative to the property and that a four-foot fence could meet the homeowner’s need to contain his dogs and children. Ms. Aaker stated the City Clerk received a letter from the Rohlf’s appealing the Board’s decision July 21,1999. Proponent Coment William Rohlf, 5115 Wooddale Glen, informed the Council he felt he had not adequately prepared when he went before the Zoning Board. Mr. Rohlf explained that he needs a fence higher than four feet to contain his two Brittany Spaniel dogs. He added that a solid wall fence should help keep his dogs from becoming overly excited by the foot and vehicle traffic on Wooddale Avenue. Mr. Rohlf explained that his back yard is covered to a large degree with a paved patio, therefore his dogs and children need to use the side yard as a play area. Mr. Rohlf showed the Council photographs of the Page 1 Minutes/Edina CiW CounciVAugust 3,1999 existing hedge that he believes will screen the fence. He also submitted letters from JF Ladky, 4429 West 52.a Street, George A. May, 5131 Wooddale Glen, Lois G. Young, 5113 Wooddale Avenue, and Gregg D. Shoquist, 5129 Wooddale Glen, all supporting the installation of a six-foot fence. Member Faust asked Mi. ROW how far his home is from the rear lot line. She noted that while the. back yard may be covered with concrete it was stiU a back yard and could function as such. Further she added that the subject lot is raised up from Wooddale and in her opinion the fence would be quite visible. Member Faust said she did not see any undue hardship with the request that would warrant granting a variance. Mr. Rohlf said his home is about 28 feet from the rear lot line. He added that he intended to leave the fence a natural cedar on both sides so it would blend in with the existing hedge. Mr. Rohlf did not believe any more that two feet of the fence would be visible. I Member Hovland voiced concern that the existing hedge is deciduous so in the winter there will be a endless line of fence exposed after the hedge looses its leaves. He added that he has difficulty with the mass of the proposed fence and also questioned how the proposed fence will be closed to contain the dogs and children. Mr. Rohlf said that he wants the solid wall fence because it would help keep his dogs from getting excited from traffic on Wooddale Avenue. He intends to build the fence of cedar that will be left to gray naturally so it will blend in with the existing hedge. Mr. Rohlf added that he would close the fence with an open "wrought iron" type fence in the front yard area. Public Comment Arthur Cobb, 5117 Wooddale Avenue, stated he did not like fences and did not particularly like dogs, however, he supported Mr. Rohlf's request for a variance. Mr. Cobb said the existing hedge is a danger. With the installation of the fence the hedge could be trimmed to a safe level. The fence will give reasonable privacy to the ROWS property and will add to the neighbor's privacy as well. Mr. Cobb noted the letters of other neighbors supporting the fence and urged the Council to grant the I variance. Council Discussion/ Action Mayor pro tem Kelly asked if the City had any authority to make sure the existing hedge is not a hazard. Manager Hughes explained that Edina's Code has a "clear view" requirement which specifies dimension at intersections of public rights-of-way. Assistant Planner Aaker demonstrated with a graphic the area at corners that by Ordinance must be kept clear. Manager Hughes added that staff will check the hedge to ensure it complies with Edina's Ordinance. Member Faust stated that while she could sympathize with the proponent, there does not appear to be an undue hardship. She would not vote to grant a variance because someone's dogs can go over a four-foot fence. Member Hovland said he could be persuaded to postpone a decision for two weeks to study the issue. However, he is bothered by the massing issue of the proposed fence. In his opinion the requested variance does not meet the definition of undue hardship. The homeowners only purchased the property in July. They should have checked with the City before the purchase if they planned to install a fence. Member Hovland said he believed this case appears to be a self-imposed hardship and he could not support granting the variance. Members Kelly and Faust both stated they would not support any continuance. Mr. Rohlf asked the Council if they would consider granting a variance allowing him to install a five- foot fence. Mayor pro tem Kelly informed Mr. ROW that the public hearing was closed and if he felt Page 2 MinutesEdha City CounciVAumst 3,1999 he had an alternative design that still required a variance he should go back and review it with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mayor pro tem Kelly stated that he could not support the requested variance because the house was purchased knowing the lot's limitations; the hedge could be removed leaving a six-foot solid wall fence exposed; and he was not persuaded that all other options to contain the dogs have been explored fully. Mayor pro tem Kelly asked staff to make sure the hedge complies with the City's Clear View Ordinance requirements. Member Hovland introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals on the 15th of July did review and unanimously deny the request for a variance to allow installation of a six-foot solid wall fence; and WHEREAS, the property owner William Rohlf did appeal the aforementioned variance denial within the prescribed time to the Edina City Council; and WHEREAS, the Edina City Council held a public hearing where the appellant was allowed to state his request and public testimony was taken. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council upholds the Zoning Board of Appeals' denial of the requested variance to allow the installation of a six-foot solid wall cedar fence as depicted on the proponent's plan at 5115 Wooddale Glen. Adopted this 3rd day of August, 1999. Member Faust seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Kelly Resolution adopted. "APPEAL OF VARIANCE APPEAL FOR ST. STEPHEN'S CHURCH (4439 WEST 50TH STREET) CONTINUED TO AUGUST 17,1999 Motion made by Member Hovland and seconded by Member Faust to continue the Appeal of Variance for St. Stephen's church, 4439 West 50th Street to August 17,1999. Motion carried on rollcall vote - three ayes. "HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 17,1999, SET FOR PLANNING MATTERS Motion made by Member Hovland and seconded by Member Faust setting August 17, 1999, as hearing date for planning matters: 1. Final Plat, Waterman Addition, Waterman Partners, 6525 Waterman Avenue 2. Final Plat and Final Development Plan, South Edina Development 4th Addition, United Properties, Centennial Lakes Limited Partnership 3. Conditional Use Permit, Calvin Christian School of Minneapolis, 4015 Inglewood Avenue Motion carried on rollcall vote - three ayes. "LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR 6204 FOX MEADOW LANE AND 5204 BLAKE ROAD SOUTH (PAUL MCCORMICK) Motion made by Hovland and seconded by Member Faust introducing the following resolution and moving its approval: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described properties are at present single tracts of land PARCEL 1: Lot 5, Block 1 OAK PONDS OF INTERLACHEN, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL 2: Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1404, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota Page 3 MinutesEdina Citv CounciVAuwst 3,1999 WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tracts into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels") described as follows: PARCEL 1: Lot 5, Block 1 OAK PONDS OF INTERLACHEN, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and that part of Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1404 described as follows: Beginning at the southeast comer of said Tract B; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 51 minutes 52 seconds East along the south line of said Tract B, a distance of 25.00 feet; thence north 04 degrees 01 minutes 17 seconds east, a distance of 88.00 feet to the north line of said Tract B; thence north 89 degrees 51 minutes 52 seconds west, a distance of 25.00 feet to the northwest corner of said Tract B; thence south 04 degrees 01 minutes 17 seconds west, a distance of 88.00 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 2 That part of Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY No. 1404 described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Tract B; thence on an assumed bearing of south 89 degrees 51 minutes 52 seconds east along the south line of said Tract B, a distance of 25.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence north 04 degrees 01 minutes 17 seconds east, a distance of 88.00 feet to the north line of said Tract B; thence south 89 degrees 51 minutes 52 seconds east, a distance of 165.00 feet to the northeast corner of said Tract B; thence South 04 degrees 01 minutes 17 second west, a distance of 88.00 feet to southeast corner of said Tract B; thence north 89 degrees 51 minutes 52 seconds west, a distance of 165.00 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Code Section 810 and 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 purpose of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Code Sections 810 and 850; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of the second above described Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Code Sections 850 and 810 are hereby waived to alIow said division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but only to the extent permitted under Code Sections 810 and 850 subject to the limitations set out in Code Section 850 and said Ordinances are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provisions thereof, and further 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 wi€h the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those Ordinances. Adopted this 3rd day of August, 1999. Motion carried on rollcall vote - three ayes. *LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR 5040 AND 5044 TUANITA AVENUE (DAN BIERSDORF) Motion made by Hovland and seconded by Member Faust introducing the following resolution and moving its approval: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described properties are at present single tracts of land PARCEL 1: All that part of Lot 3, lying westerly of a line drawn parallel with and 32 feet easterly of the westerly line of Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 5, GLENVIEW ADDITION to Edina according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota PARCEL 2 Lot 5, Block 5, GLENVIEW ADDITION to Edina according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota Page 4 MinutesEdina Citv CounciVAugust 3,1999 WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tracts into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels") described as follows: PARCEL 1: All that part of Lot 3 lying westerly of a line drawn parallel with and 32 feet easterly of the westerly line of Lot 4, Block 5, GLENVIEW ADDTION to Edina according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota and that part of Lots 4 and 5 said Block 5, GLENVIEW ADDITION TO EDINA, which lies northerly of a line and parallel with and 88 feet north of the south line of said Lot 5. PARCEL 2: That part of Lots 4 and 5, Block 5, GLENVIEW ADDITION TO EDINA, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies southerly of a line and parallel with and 88 feet north of the south line of said Lot 5. WHEREAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Code Section 810 and 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 purpose of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Code Sections 810 and 850; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of the second above described Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of code Sections 850 and 810 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but only to the extent permitted under Code Sections 810 and 850 subject to the limitations set out in Code Section 850 and said Ordinances are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provisions thereof, and further 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. Adopted this 3rd day of August, 1999. Motion carried on rollcall vote - three ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR PLOW AND WING FOR ARTICULATED LOADER (STREET DEPARTMENT) Motion made by Member Hovland and seconded by Member Faust for award of bid for plow and wing for articulated loader for the street department to sole bidder, St. Joseph Equipment under State Contract #422446, at $20,357.48. Motion carried on rollcall vote - three ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR TWO DUMP TRUCKS - ONE SINGLE AXLE AND ONE TANDEM AXLE Motion made by Member Hovland for award of bid for two dump trucks, one single axle and one tandem axle to sole bidder, Boyer Trucks, Inc., through State Contract #423545, Spec. #330-1298, at $115,625.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - three ayes. BID AWARDED FOR 38 IBM THINKPAD 600 LAPTOPS, 16 PORT REPLICATORS, 16 SOUAD MOUNTS AND MODEMS. FOUR SIERRA AIR CARDS AND 39 MICROSOFl: OFFICE LICENSES Member Hovland stated he had removed this bid award from the consent agenda because he wanted to know how the costs compared to those quoted when the MDT project was approved. Manager Hughes explained the purchase was .being made from the State Cooperative Purchasing Contract and the costs were favorable. Member Hovland made a motion for award of bid for 38 IBM Thinlcpad 600 laptop computers, 16 Port Replicators, 16 squad mounts and . Page 5 Minutes/Edina Citv Council/August - 3,1999 modems, 4 Sierra Air Cards and 39 Microsoft Office Licenses to sole bidder, GE Capital IT Sales, through State Contract #400,120 at $176,766.84. Motion carried on rollcall vote - three ayes. RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDING CONSERVATION RESTRICTION, LOT 5, MIRROR OAKS (TAMES FREy2 Planner Larsen explained that in October, 1995, the Comcil granted permission for the Freys to relocate the Boos cabin within a conservation restriction on Lot 5 of the Mirror Oaks subdivision. The Council allowed electrical service for the cabin, but did not allow connection to either sewer or water. Jim Frey, the property owner has a home under construction on both Lots 4 and 5 that is near completion. Mr. Larsen reported that Mr. Frey has requested permission to connect sewer and water to the cabin. He stated that Mr. Frey has indicated in writing the cabin will only be used for recreational purposes and will not ever become a dwelling. Planner Larsen stated that staff supports the request to allow sewer and water service to the cabin. He added that before it was moved the cabin did have these services. In his opinion, the conservation restriction effectively prevents use of the cabin as a dwelling unit. Installation of the water and sewer service would allow the practicable use of the cabin. Jim Frey, 6032 Schaefer Road, explained the reason he was back asking for the water and sewer service is because it was his intention to use the cabin for recreation with his family and water and sewer service allows more convenience. Mr. Frey stated that under no circumstances would he consider turning the cabin into a dwelling. The Council complimented Mr. Frey for preserving the historical cabin. A brief discussion was held regarding the conservation restriction’s limitations and the protection it offers to the City. Consensus was that allowing water and sewer would be appropriate at this time. I Member Faust introduced and moved adoption of the following resolution approving an amendment to the Conservation Restriction allowing the installation of water and sewer service for the log cabin: RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and Manager to execute an amendment to Declaration of Restrictions along installation of water and sewer service for the cabin located on the following described property owned by the City: That certain real property situated in Hennepin county, Minnesota, legally described as follows: That part of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, MIRROR OAKS, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying southerly of a line drawn parallel to and one hundred (100) feet northerly of the northerly line, as show on said plat, of the pond which extends onto said Lot 5. Motion seconded by Member Hovland. Rollcall: Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Kelly I - Resolution adopted. ONE YEAR EXTENSION APPROVED TO RECYCLING CONTACT Manager Hughes explained staff was proposing Council grant a one year extension to the existing recycling contract to study the issue of privatizing recycling. He said the reason the City was the contract holder originally was to Page 6 MinutesEdina Citv CounciVAugust 3,1999 receive SCOR Funds. Mr. Hughes introduced Solvei Wilmot, Recycling Coordinator to review the issue. I Solvei Wilmot, Recycling Coordinator, noted that two issues need to be decided. First whether or not to extend the current contract one year and secondly, whether or not collection should be at curb side or at the garage. Ms. Wilmot stated that in 1997, bids for collection of recyclables were accepted and BFI was awarded a two year contract. The one year extension will provide time to study the option of privatizing the city contract for recycling. This would allow each resident to contract for recycling services through open hauling, as they currently contract for refuse collection. Ms. Wilmot noted that the 1999 contract rate was $2.50 per month for single family homes and $2.13 per month per multi-unit dwelling. BFI has proposed a single family rate of $2.70 per month and a multi-unit rate of $2.30 per month to extend the contract for 2000. This reflects an 8% increase over the 1999 rate. The quoted rates would cover garage pick up of recycling. BFI also quoted the following curbside collection rates: Single Family & Duplex $2.05 per unit and multi-unit at $1.88 per unit. The Council questioned whether the 8% increase was appropriate, and expressed concern that privatizing service could possibly reduce the amount of recycling. Consensus was to continue garage side service and extend the contract one year allowing the needed study. Member Hovland made a motion to authorizing the extension of the recycling contract with BFI of Minnesota for one year at the quoted rates. Recycling service is to continue with garage side pick-up of recyclable materials. Member Faust seconded the motion. Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Kelly I Motion carried. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND AUTHORIZING ADDITION OF CURB AND GUTTER TO EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD IMPROVEMENT NO. A-187 Engineer Hoffman informed the Council that a group of residents within the Eden Prairie Road Street Reconstruction area had approached the City and requested that curb and gutter be installed when the road is reconstructed. He explained that nine of the eleven affected residents had signed the petition and were aware the installation would increase the amount of their special a’ssessment. Mr. Hoffman stated he had also warned the residents that if either of the neighbors who did not sign the petition appealed their special assessment, it was possible that when the special assessments were levied the requesting parties would bear the cost for the entire installation of curb and gutter. Mr. Hoffman noted receipt of a fax letter from Mr. Don Gilboe, 6116 Eden Prairie Road, protesting the installation and urging that it not be added at this time. He concluded that in his opinion the addition of the curb and gutter is feasible and the additional costs would be within statutory guidelines allowing the Council to proceed without re-hearing the project. The Council discussed the original hearing when some residents requested curb and gutter. They questioned whether staff preferred curb and gutter and if drainage would be reviewed when the project would be constructed. Engineer Hoffman said curb and gutter is the best design. He added that a review of drainage issues is always done when reconstructing a street. The Council expressed the belief that all residents had an opportunity to express their opinions at the public hearing held before the improvement was ordered. Citizens will again have the same opportunity to speak when the Council holds the special assessment public hearing. Consensus was that the curb and gutter should be added to the project. Member Hovland introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: I Page 7 Minutes/Edina Citv Council/Aup;ust 3,1999 RESOLUTION RECEIVING PEITION AND ADDING CURB & GUTTER TO A PORTION OF EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD RESURFACING WHEREAS, a petition requesting the installation of curb and gutter to the north side of Eden Prairie Road between Blake Road and Kaymar Drive was duly presented to the Council on €he 3rd day of August, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined the project to be feasible as an addition to the Eden Prairie Road Resurfacing Improvement Project No. A-187. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL 1. The council finds and determines that said petition was signed by at least 35% of all owners of real property abutting upon the aforementioned street named as the location of the improvement. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed. 3. Francis Hoffman is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted this 3rd day of August, 1999. Member Faust seconded the motion. PROJECT IMPORVEMENT NO. A-187 Rollcalk Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Kelly Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR SOUTHWEST METRO POLICE AND FIRE TRAINING FACILITY APPROVED Chief Scheerer stated that the South Metro Police and Fire Training Facility was a project developed over the past few years by a consortium of cities and agencies including: Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Richfield, MAC Police Department and Edina. The facility would be used for Police and Fire Department training for the member cities and also leased to other users generating revenue. The facility would be located south of Braemar Arena on land improved and prepared for the training facility. The cost would be approximately seven *on dollars. The Sate of Minnesota will be asked to appropriate approximately 3.1 million dollars in the year 2000 Governor’s bonding bill for construction of the facility. The remainder of the cost would be borne by the five-member consortium. Chief Scheerer explained that in 1997, the Council approved support of the project including allowances of general obligation bonding up to one million dollars. The other cities and agencies involved in the project also approved support and bonding and again are being asked for their support. The State Legislature did not approve funding for the project in 1997, but did approve $300,000 for a study to determine the best potential best locations and how many police and fire department training facilities should be built. That study should be released shortly. The consortium hopes the Edina facility will be recommended. If approved, it is anticipated that approximately $3.1 million in funding from the State of Minnesota would be appropriated to cover a portion of construction costs. Construction could begin in the summer of 2000 and completed later that year. Chief Scheerer stated he believed the facility would be a great benefit to the City improving effectiveness and safety. I Page 8 MinutesEdha City Council/August 3,1999 Member Faust explained that she would not be voting on this issue because her husband's business may be involved in the training facility if and when it is built. Member Hovland introduced the following resolution and moved its approval: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL LEGISLATION WHEREAS, the Cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission have provided for local, private, and user financing for the project to the maximum extent possible; and WHEREAS, the project helps fulfill an important state mission; and WHEREAS, the project is of regional or statewide significance; and WHEREAS, the project will not require new or any additional state operating subsidies; and WHEREAS, the project will not expand the state's role in a new policy area; and WHEREAS, state funding for the project will not create significance inequities among local jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the project will not compete with other facilities in such a manner that they lose a significant number of users to the new project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Edina supports the Police and Fire Training Facility. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, this 3rd day of August 1999. Mayor pro tem Kelly seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Hovland, Kelly Abstain: Faust Motion carried. *RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT AND SETTING A HEARING DATE SET OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999, FOR RAMP ADDITION IMPROVEMENT Member Hovland introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by Member Faust: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND SETTING HEARING DATE WEST 49% STREET RAMP ADDIITON WHEREAS, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer with reference to an addition to the West 49% Street Parking Ramp, and this report was received by the Council on August 3,1999. NOW, THRE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA, MINNESOTA 1. The Council will consider the improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $2,998,000. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 7th day of September, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 200 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvements as required by law. Motion carried on rollcall vote - three ayes. REQUEST FOR AUTOMATIC WALK SIGNALS AND "NO TURN ON RED" SIGNS TO BE INSTALLED AT EDINA INTERSECTIONS REFERRED TO TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE David Cowen, 4627 Drexel Avenue, addressed the Council with his concerns about installing automatic walk lights and "No Turn On Red" signs at the intersection of Wooddale and 50th. Mr. Cowen informed the Council his son was struck by a car and ended up with a wound requiring 30 stitches while attempting to cross 50th. The driver of the car was making a right hand turn on a red Page 9 MinutesEdha City CounciVAumst 3,1999 light and did not see Mr. Cowan's son enter the intersection. Mr. Cowan stated that he would like to see automatic walk lights at all intersections. He pointed out that Children make mistakes and in his opinion, government should attempt to keep them safe. Mr. Cowan also stated that he felt not allowing right turns on red lights would avoid future accidents. The Council thanked Mr. Cowan for bringing his concern to them. Following a brief discussion Staff was directed to discuss this issue at the Traffic Safety Committee and report back to the Council at their August 17,1999, meeting. I CLAIMS PAID Member Faust made a motion approving payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated July 29,1999, and consisting of 35 pages: General fund $354,037.05; Communications $2,752.26; Working Capital $9,776.04; Art Center $13,306.61; Golf Dome Fund $242.69; Swimming Pool Fund $15,290.38; Golf Course Fund $49,610.83; Ice Arena Fund $5,479.70; Edhborough/Centennial Lakes $14,185.40; Utility Fund $296,415.47; Storm Sewer Utility Fund $38,211.54; Liquor Dispensary Fund $182,574.19; Construction Fund $2,167.23; Park Bond fund $320.00; TOTAL $984,369.39. Member Hovland seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Kelly Motion carried. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor pro tern Kelly adjourned the Council Meeting at 8:30 P.M. u Cityclerk Page 10